History of Money, Banking, and Trade
Episode 8. Journey Through Mesopotamia: The Neo-Babylonians, Silver Economies, and the Maturation of Ancient Trade Systems
What if you could travel back in time to witness the political turmoil and economic evolution of ancient Mesopotamia? We're pulling back the curtain on the fascinating history of the Chaldeans, whose strategic mastery over the Euphrates River trade routes catapulted them to power, only to be toppled by Babylonian kings and the formidable Assyrian empire. We're unraveling the complex tapestry of alliances and power struggles that characterized this intriguing era.
Ever wondered how silver became the de facto medium of exchange? Let's journey together through the rise of the Neo-Babylonian period. We'll challenge conventional wisdom by questioning the controversial barter system in ancient societies, and track the shift to silver payments as a cornerstone of economies. Be prepared to challenge your understanding of how hired labor, payment in silver, and the monetization of goods and services shaped not just Mesopotamian economies, but influenced global economic systems. So, buckle up for a deep dive into the riveting world of ancient trade and money systems!
To support the podcast through Patreon https://www.patreon.com/HistoryOfMoneyBankingTrade
Visit us at https://moneybankingtrade.com/
What if you could travel back in time to witness the political turmoil and economic evolution of ancient Mesopotamia? We're pulling back the curtain on the fascinating history of the Chaldeans, whose strategic mastery over the Euphrates River trade routes catapulted them to power, only to be toppled by Babylonian kings and the formidable Assyrian empire. We're unraveling the complex tapestry of alliances and power struggles that characterized this intriguing era.
Ever wondered how silver became the de facto medium of exchange? Let's journey together through the rise of the Neo-Babylonian period. We'll challenge conventional wisdom by questioning the controversial barter system in ancient societies, and track the shift to silver payments as a cornerstone of economies. Be prepared to challenge your understanding of how hired labor, payment in silver, and the monetization of goods and services shaped not just Mesopotamian economies, but influenced global economic systems. So, buckle up for a deep dive into the riveting world of ancient trade and money systems!
To support the podcast through Patreon https://www.patreon.com/HistoryOfMoneyBankingTrade
Visit us at https://moneybankingtrade.com/
Welcome Podcast Listener. I am Mike D and this is the History of Money, banking and Trade Podcast. My goal is to expand your knowledge of the history and evolution of trade, along with money, banking and credit, from ancient civilizations all the way to the present. Now, in the previous episodes, we discussed the early days of ancient Mesopotamia and the rise of Sumer and Akkad. From there we talked about the early Babylonians and then went through the rise and fall of the Syrians. During these previous periods, you can see how early proto-monetary and credit systems really helped fuel the expansion of trade throughout the region and even faraway places like Dilman in Eastern Arabia and the Indus Valley, and even Nubia in Africa. With each dynasty and empire, the subsequent societies were able to build upon the previous monetary and trade innovations. Not unlike pretty much any innovation, you develop something and you just keep on building on the development and then, years later, you have a system in place that hopefully everybody can enjoy and that's useful. I feel that this kind of happened with the ancient Mesopotamian societies. This is a big reason why I think it's important to start from the beginning of written history in order to see how trade and money evolved from simple credit systems that allowed individuals to settle up at a later date, and then eventually they started using silvermore as a means of exchange. And now I just want to take that and carry it forward into the Neo-Babylonian period.
Speaker 1:As you've already probably noticed, nomadic people from the Levant had been moving into Mesopotamia for centuries. One of the first groups of people that moved into the region that ultimately had a major influence on Mesopotamia were the Amorites. They started to arrive around the 21st century BCE, and this continued migration happened right through the 17th century BCE. Now a millennia or so later, sometimes around 940 BCE, the nomadic Chaldeans migrated from the Levant and settled in far southeastern portions of Babylonia, chiefly on the left bank of the Aphrodites. The reason the Chaldeans were able to move in and settle the lands was probably due to the fact that this was a period of weakness in Babylonia and therefore its kings and governors were unable to prevent the flow of the semi-nomadic foreign peoples from invading if you want to use a strong term like that, or just resettling, the land. The Chaldeans ended up controlling much of southern Babylonia and therefore they ended up controlling the southern Babylonian trade routes, and the reason why they were able to control the trade routes was due to the fact that they kind of picked the right location on the Euphrates, which would have put them within a relatively short distance from the Persian Gulf. Now, it may not have been intentional, but in the long run they pretty much picked the right spot.
Speaker 1:The Chaldeans were also known for their astronomy and science advancements. Other than that, not a lot is known about the early Chaldeans, except a Chaldean named Marduk Abla-Ussar, who usurped the throne from the native Babylonian king, marduk Balzari, in 790. Now, he happened to be a vassal to the Assyrians at the time, because the Assyrians were the major powerhouse of the region. The Assyrian king Shelmeneser of 4th was ruling Assyria around 783 BCE and lasted to about 773 BCE. Now he was too busy trying to quell a civil war in Assyria at the time and as a result, the Chaldeans were able to wait until Assyria was essentially weak or at least distracted from civil unrest or war in distant lands. Then, in alliance with other powers stronger than themselves, usually would have an Elam. They would make a bid to take over control of Babylonia. Then Assyria would attack, retake the power from Babylonia and then maybe leave the Chaldeans on the throne, but as a vassal to the empire.
Speaker 1:The Chaldean rule didn't last long. A native Babylonian king named Nabunassar overthrew the Chaldean usurpers in 748 BCE. Thus would have restored the indigenous rule to the region. The Chaldeans sort of disappeared for a while from the historical record. By then, the Assyrian side completely dominated Mesbateime and beyond. So while that was happening, the Assyrian king, tiglath Pulaser III, had essentially introduced, or at least coerced the population into using Aramaic as the language of the empire.
Speaker 1:During Sargon II, which was from 722-705 BCE, he was forced to launch a major campaign into media and subsequently Persia, to defend his territories there. He defeated and drove out the Schittians who had attacked Assyria's vassal colonies in the Iranian region. At the same time, egypt was acting up in the Levant, which meant Assyria would have to send troops there. So pull troops out from the east to the west, and basically it was just a major mess that he was dealing with. But that's what happens when you are trying to run a major empire People are going to revolt in different regions and you basically just have to go and put them all down.
Speaker 1:Now these events allowed the Chaldeans to assert themselves again. While the Assyrian king was otherwise occupied in Iran and the Levant, a new king named Marduk Abadina II allied himself with the Illamy Kingdom and the native Babylonians, and he was able to briefly seize control of Babylon between 721 and 710. The Khamunov Sarkon II, was free from all the ordeals in the Iranian Plateau and the Levant, and he was able to deal with the Chaldeans, babylonians and the Illamites. He attacked and deposed Marduk Abadina II in 710 BCE, while also defeating his Illamite allies in the process. A native Babylonian king named Bela Abani was placed on the throne as a puppet for Assyria. Then, once again, the Chaldeans and the native Babylonians allied with themselves and with their Illamite neighbors to overthrow Assyrian rule.
Speaker 1:The cycle just keeps on repeating itself. This time, the Assyrian king, sennacherib, was really mad and decided to end this once and for all. So he basically invaded and subjugated the Illamites and the Chaldeans, and then he sacked and destroyed Babylon. Now, this was a problem because Babylon was considered a sacred city by all of them, as the Batamians, including the Assyrians, and this act eventually resulted in Sennacherib being murdered by his sons. Well, that was the excuse they gave, but, needless to say, he was still assassinated.
Speaker 1:Now, remember, the Babylonians and Assyrians were essentially sister cultures, even despite the Chaldean influence. A lot of the cultural norms from the Assyrians were also applied to the Babylonians. Well, actually it s more like the cultural norms of the Babylonians were applied to the Assyrians, more likely. But the one thing that the Assyrians really did in the region was they were the ones that really set up the long-term trend in the ancient world for private business and finance to expand. Archaeologists have been able to, under numerous documents that show contracts for shipments of commodities such as barley dates and other bulk items. And, if you recall from the prior episodes, we discussed the family enterprise systems that were set up that grew like crazy and made certain families very wealthy.
Speaker 1:Between the trade between Assyria and Anatolia, now that was very successful. But then the problem was that the region became destabilized when the Mitanni and the Hittites started jockeying for position and the Assyrians basically went through kind of almost like a mini-dark age, I guess you could say. And then there was the late Bronze Age collapse, which the Sea Peoples came in and then completely destabilized everything for sure. So that whole episode that would have lasted for a few hundred years. So the original Assyrian trade between Anatolia would have been around 1700 BCE, and then they were obviously very successful in their trades and Assyria rose to power and then around 1200 BCE is when the Bronze Age collapse happened. Now, like I said, everything completely changed at that point and as a result, someone had to step in and fill the void and that happened to be the Assyrians.
Speaker 1:The Neo-Assyrian kings and their families were able to regrow trade enterprise to its former glory of the old Assyrian Empire At a palace. Much of the successful business enterprises were financed by elites and small investment funds. So the Babylonians would have kind of carried that forward and they would have allowed private enterprise to thrive. But there was also a sort of state-controlled component of this. So in the Neo-Babylonian Empire there were individuals known as Tamkuru who were royal merchants. So they would have kind of allied themselves with the palace and would have also done bidding for the palace itself. So there's essentially like almost like government contractors, I guess you could say, but at the same time they did allow for private enterprise to thrive. So there was a mixed economy kind of feel to it. So you can have private enterprise, making, you know, handover fist and profits, but then at the same time the royal merchants would have been concocting certain investment schemes or business on behalf of the palace, and it's not really that much different than what you see in a lot of places nowadays anyway. So now the Tamkuru's would often step in, essentially when private enterprise could not execute certain long distance trade. Like I said, it's not unlike today's economy, where the government might step in and fund certain projects that were too expensive and too risky for private businesses to undertake. Now this typically included luxury items such as gold and incense and other dyes that would have come in from the Phoenician states.
Speaker 1:But it's also important to know that, just because the Tampkiru were affiliated with the royal palace, they didn't actually have a title from the palace. They were essentially independence, but they would have worked on behalf of the palace. Now this also meant that they would have had certain kind of skill sets and connections with people near and abroad and therefore they would have also been employed by the temple to go out and trade for them as well. So they were kind of a mixed bag they would have worked on behalf of the temple, they would have worked on behalf of the palace and also they would have worked on behalf of themselves. So they were kind of really they kind of had their hands in the economy in all different sorts, in all different manners.
Speaker 1:But despite all this, despite this large mix of trade that was happening, it is also pretty safe to say that the Tampkiru did not have a monopoly by any stretch of the imagination. In fact, there were extremely successful families, such as the Egobies, whose wealth and business were passed on for generations who were not considered Tampkiru. These wealthy families and businesses played a fundamental role in the local commerce, where they would have been bringing in and exporting goods to and from urban centers to royal communities, but they were not royal merchants. So, in the grand scheme of things, the title of Tampkiru can probably be viewed as a certain level of status or political affiliation, but in the end they were not technically given title by the palace. There was more of a status of being elite in the society and this pretty much was a carry-through from the previous Neo-Issyrian Empire because, as I mentioned several times now, the Assyrians and the Babylonians could be viewed as sister cultures. You know they weren't quite the same, but they did share a lot of influence on each other.
Speaker 1:But don't get confused in the fact that the Tampkirus were not necessarily completely dependent upon the palace or the temple because, as I mentioned, they would have done business, not just for them but also for themselves. So technically, a lot of these Tampkirus could have been extremely successful without necessarily needing to work on behalf of the palace or even the temple. They had enough private business where they not necessarily needed. But obviously, when you can further enhance your income through different revenue streams, you're obviously going to take care of that. And also, let's face it, anytime you are working on behalf of any kind of royal palace or very influential temple or church or anything like that, you are going to be able to have connections, and having these connections will ultimately allow you to make money and make even more money without it. So just because you didn't necessarily need the temple or the palace, the fact remains is by having those affiliations with them, that probably would have opened up a lot of trade revenues or trade resources that may not have been available without that.
Speaker 1:The Neo-Babylonian Empire just carried on the Neo-Issyrian Empire's economy. It was just a different ruler, it was in charge. Now they were still doing very much similar means of trade, similar culture, similar everything. The only difference is the ownership had changed. Now what is interesting is that a relatively high percentage of the merchants that participated in long distance trade were in fact foreign born, so they would have been born outside of Babylonia. We know this because many of the merchants mentioned in the neo-Babylonian texts did not have Babylonian names. In fact, many tended to be West Semitic in nature, so that would indicate that they probably came from the Levant or some place nearby. And we know all this because there have been contracts that have been on earth that show certain trade contracts where the names were obviously not native Babylonian names and these contracts would have been written so that a barley of harvest, for example, would be repaid a month later. And we've also seen contracts where it was commonplace for merchants to purchase dates for a particular temple with barley used as collateral in the promissory notes. And it was quite common that when they read these promissory notes they were not Babylonian names or West Semitic names. So that would lead me, or lead people, to believe that there was a strong international trade that was taking place and this international trade was obviously important because certain regions could not grow or have access to certain materials or resources. So they were forced to really do these international trade deals because you wouldn't have access to certain commodities that you needed.
Speaker 1:Now, of course, I've already discussed that aspect and really that goes back to the rise of Sumer. But what we start to see in the Neo-Babylonian time is, you see, this other aspect of the economy that feels very modern, in that what we see is certain instances where houses were being rented out. That would be paid back in gold and silver, but payment would also be made in kind with items such as dates or barley or whatever kind of commodity that you wanted to use as a form of payment. Now, of course, if you are taking payment with something that is a non-metal, you would obviously need a way to measure its value, and that's where silver was still the preferred metal, because that was the easiest way to measure wealth against certain items. So if you were to be paid in kind with, say, dates or barley or something like that, you would need the equivalent of the going market rate in silver. But ultimately silver still would have been the preferred payment source. But, like I said, it could have just been another form of payment as well.
Speaker 1:But going back to silver, if you recall, silver as a means of money had been solely evolving over the millennia. So by the time we get to this point, silver is really entrenched into the preferred means of exchange. So therefore it would have been the preferred means of conducting daily business, for example. And, more importantly, you would have had to have a standardized weights and measures when it comes to silver in order to conduct business. And what they did back then is they would have had the shekel, which would have weighed 8.3 grams of silver and the neo-Babylonian period fractions of shekels were commonly used as well, so they could be divided as low as 1.24. Even if something was paid in kind or with another metal, nearly all the prices would have been recorded in silver. And, like I said in my previous episodes, this was occurring in HMS Batemia for literally a thousand years prior to this point and, more importantly, measuring prices in silver would occur in other places as well. So you would have seen this in China at the same time. So silver was kind of really becoming a global means of money and this would have really kind of continued on right in through modern Europe. So you can see how ancient Mesopotamia and ancient China and places like that would have really had a direct effect on how societies will run really up until very recent times, so prior to the various countries going off to certain gold or silver standards.
Speaker 1:Silver played a very vital role in conducting international and local trade. Now the one thing I find really interesting is the controversy when it comes to barter Forever in certain classes. If you took any kind of economics classes in college, or even high school for that matter, they would have always said that barter was the ancient form of business. So people would have barter for goods. You would have the double coincidence of wands and you have a sack of potatoes and you trade it for a pair of shoes, for example. Right, but unfortunately there really isn't any kind of written records to show that actually happened. Barter might actually be a myth. It might not have ever really happened.
Speaker 1:On a grand scheme, I'm pretty sure on the very local level you might have certain kind of bartering happening. But in reality the fact remains is, until silver was universally accepted, most places would have had some kind of credit system set in place where people would really track who owes what to who and then, at a certain time period, people would just settle up. And they could have settled up with anything right Prior to silver being the preferred means of payments. Maybe you settle up with paying barley to person A, or you pay wheat to person B or whatever. It is right, because in the local economy everybody's gonna kind of owe something to somebody else, and then you just kind of net it all off and then at the end, when you settle up, you might have to pay one particular person or you receive a commodity in the end of the process, even though you might actually owe others. But when everybody gets together and we settle up, we might see in the end that, okay, I was supposed to owe person A and B, but in the end I'm actually supposed to receive more, and instead of me paying out A and B, in the end I'll just get something like a payment from person C. And in reality that's how a lot of trade was done prior to silver being the preferred payment means, and unfortunately that's really not commonly known. I haven't been in school in a while, but I'm assuming that in econ classes to this day they're probably still teaching barter. But unfortunately I don't think barter was much of a thing. But anyway, I totally got off topic just now and so let me just get back on track here.
Speaker 1:What we really see in this time period too is we see an ever-increasing dependency upon higher labor, especially during crop yields and farming. Salaries were still being paid in kind, but, like I said, silver was kind of replacing that as a means of paying salaries. During the time of the old Babylonian period, being paid in kind would have been much more prevalent, but now that we are in the new neo-Babilonian period, the use of silver was replacing being paid in kind. And when I say being paid in kind, it could have been anything. You could have been being paid beer, you could have been paid barley or wheat or anything in particular. But, like I said, by the time we get to the neo-Babilonian period, we are starting to see that transition from being paid in kind to silver. Actually, it was happening prior to the neo-Babilonian period. You start to see that more in the neo-Assian period.
Speaker 1:But, either way, that old mindset of being paid in kind is really kind of phasing out by this time period and really what they would say is they would say that the region is starting to become monetized. You start to see the monetization of the payments of goods and services and that process of payment was slowly creeping into other societies and other regions throughout the world. In fact, there was a conference that was held at the University of Amsterdam in December 2014. And in this conference, they had concluded that the economy from the neo-Babilonian Empire was deeply monetized. In other words, it was deeply moving away from payment in kind to using silver and, to a lesser extent, gold as a medium of exchange. Now we can also see this in the temple transactions, as they were ever increasingly paying for goods and services in silver. So it wasn't just the local transactions, it was also happening in the temple.
Speaker 1:But we would still say that, even though the neo-Babilonians were becoming deeply monetized, that doesn't necessarily mean that silver was an all-purpose money. It still wasn't universally accepted by everyone. It was accepted by a lot of people and, in some instances, accepted by most people, but the fact remains is that there was still kind of a holdover to the old being paid in kind kind of mindset, where people may have been reluctant to get rid of a time-honored tradition of payments and since the amount of precious metals and grains were growing, in order to protect these assets, they had to be stored in banks, just as the Samaritans did before them. This was a few thousand years prior to this period and, as a result, a new banker class would have grown out of this society and this new class would have essentially developed basically from the fact that the Neo-Babylonians were basically continuing the Mesopotamian tradition of using the weight of silver to measure a commodity's value. And what is interesting is they discovered a tablet from around this time period that essentially shows an exchange happening where a person is selling gold for silver, and in this particular case, it was actually the temple that was facilitating this trade.
Speaker 1:Now, gold in itself was very rare metal that was typically used for luxurious purchases. So if someone was going to buy a luxury item, they might use gold to conduct a transaction. But if a person was going to buy everyday goods, such as barley or beer, the transaction most likely would have happened in the way to silver. And, if you recall, amina was a measurement of weight. So in the case of, say, a house rental that was just brought up just a few minutes ago, it's quite possible that it was considered more of a luxury and therefore the house may have been rented in gold to conduct a transaction. In addition, we also see the growth of lending activities. So, for example, in a serial just, they were able to unearth a promissory note of one half of Amina silver that was owed by a royal merchant, who was actually most likely a foreign born person because of the international trade that we discussed earlier. Now the other side of the contract was a person who was most likely a tide farmer. So he basically was contracted by the temple for the collection, or at least had a range for the collection, of monies to be paid to that particular temple and by all accounts it sounds like being a tide farmer was a pretty lucrative business to be in because, just like the prior Mesopotamians in the ancient Samaritans, they had established that the temple would have to receive tides from the local population and, just like a modern American preacher, this could be a very lucrative business to be in for some. So in the end the religious side was doing quite well. By time the Assyrians were in control and this was passed on to the Babylonians.
Speaker 1:But I also found it kind of tied to the religion aspect would be how marriages worked during this time period. It's really interesting to me In particular it's the dowries that were given by the bride's family. That is most fascinating to me. These dowries could range by quite a bit, from very expensive dowries to little to none. In particular, a document was discovered that showed a dowry was given to a bride's family and that included items such as jewelry and a caddy in bed, chairs and a table and even a platter server. This particular dowry did not mention or include silver, or even real estate or slaves.
Speaker 1:And I bring that up because for certain wealthy individuals those dowries could have been included in certain marriage contracts. In this particular case I brought up, the dowry was quite small, but that doesn't necessarily mean they were poor. It could also have meant that the husband didn't need anything and came from some sort of wealth as well. Also in this marriage contract there was a stipulation about divorce and adultery prior to the wedding. So in this particular case, if a divorce would happen, the groom's family would have to pay six minutes of silver and let the wife move back in with her family. However, if the female was found with another man, she was to be put to death with an iron dagger. So you can see it was very severe and obviously the women didn't have the rights of the men have. This is pretty obvious. Typically, the iron dagger stipulation would have been included if there was a minimal dowry by the wife's family. On the flip side, if the bride's family could afford to give a large dowry. The economic consequences of losing the dowry could be quite high for the groom, so therefore no stipulations about compensatory payment was necessary.
Speaker 1:The adultery of the wife was most likely punished in these marriages as well, even though this was not made explicit in agreements made by the wealthy brides. So, in other words, if you were poor, the groom would have to pay back some dowry or some other compensation would be required, and the bride would still be murdered. So she committed adultery. But this was most likely not going to happen to wealthy brides, because wealthy people don't face the same consequences as normal working class people, obviously, and this has always been the case and will continue to be the case. So if a bride's family was well known, the dagger clause would not be included Because, let's face it, well known families will always be protected from embarrassment if at all possible, and killing an accused unfaithful wife just wasn't a good luck for that family.
Speaker 1:The fact is, marriages were often alliances based on prestige and social networks and in a way that's no different than as it is today. Now what is interesting is a wealthy and prestigious family, the Agabay family. They put up a very small dowry for their daughters when they got married because they were wealthy family and they had a prestigious name and therefore a large dowry was not needed or expected, because the Daughter's husband would ultimately most likely had come from a prestigious family as well. And in the case of a prestigious family's daughters marrying into a lesser family, the new husband was married into a prestigious family and that was more than enough. So, in other words, you didn't need the money, you got the name and that name is going to come with connections and therefore life will be good afterward. So, for example, if a marriage was To take place with a daughter being part of a royal merchant family, the husband's family may not necessarily require a large dowry if it is more important to marry into that royal merchant family because ultimately a daughter of a royal merchants Was kind of looked at as an inroad for the husband's family Into wealth in the future. So in other words, it was an investment You're You're getting married to someone who has money or has a prestigious name to have connections. We don't require anything upfront because we know this is a long-term investment that hopefully the family can capitalize upon.
Speaker 1:Now that I've given an overview of the financial systems in place, I'd like to walk through a relatively short history of the neo-babeloni period, starting with the review of the neo-Assian Empire and the Babylonian place in it, but we'll get into that in the next episode. If you like what you hear and want to donate to the show, you can visit us at patreoncom slash history of money banking trade or you can visit our website at moneybankingtradecom. Also, you can help out to show a ton by leaving a five-star review. Thank you very much. Talk to you soon.