History of Money, Banking, and Trade
A historical look at the development and evolution of money, banking, and trade. From the ancient civilizations to the present.
History of Money, Banking, and Trade
Episode 17. Ancient Commerce under the Pharaohs - From Greek Influence to Cleopatra's Reign
Embark with us on a historical odyssey that brings to light the economic transformation of ancient Egypt, a narrative woven through the actions of legendary figures and the dynamic shifts in trade and currency. Our exploration opens with the arrival of Greek influence, spearheaded by Alexander the Great, whose vision and respect for Egyptian culture ushered in an era of prosperity and strategic trade via the bustling city of Alexandria. The city's rise as a cultural and economic powerhouse, including the storied construction of its great Lighthouse, sets the stage for a society in flux—a society where the cultures and economies of Greece and Egypt began an intricate dance that would define the Mediterranean world.
Venture deeper as we navigate the complex tapestry of Ptolemaic banking, property law, and innovative taxation systems that became the economic pillars of this ancient civilization. Through the tales of Egyptian bankers like Python and the meticulous tax strategies employed by the state, we uncover how these financial mechanisms cemented Egypt's prosperity. We'll also examine the societal implications of these practices, from the integration of Greek banking traditions to shifts in agricultural responsibility and legal fairness, providing a vivid contrast to modern economic systems.
Our journey culminates with a retrospective on Cleopatra's reign, the societal tremors that prefaced the fall of the Ptolemaic dynasty, and a reflective comparison of Egypt's economic systems to those of Mesopotamia. The introduction of intricate monetary systems by the Ptolemies marked a significant turning point in Egypt's role within ancient world trade networks. This episode isn't just a history lesson; it's a revelation of how the past connects with our present, offering a profound appreciation for the economic milestones that have left an indelible mark on the tapestry of human civilization.
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. I truly hope you find these episodes to be informative and entertaining. Now, I'm not a historian like Dan Conlon, but I am a fan of history.
Speaker 1:When we last left off, egypt was finally becoming monetized, as coinage had entered the kingdom through the Greek traders, along with the Lydians through the Persians. The economy was evolving, but Egyptians had lost control of the empire to the Persians. However, this didn't last too long, as Alexander had defeated the Persians and now was looking towards Egypt as his next great conquest. Now, without getting into too much detail with regards to the Macedonians, they were led by a young general named Alexander the Great, who was looking to further his father's military conquest after his father was murdered by his possible lover. Now, that is going to be for another episode. I'm not going to get into too much detail here because that is going to be more focused on the Greeks when we get into that portion of the podcast. That is going to be more focused on the Greeks when we get into that portion of the podcast. Alexander's single focus was to overthrow the Persian Empire and become the new dominant empire of the known world at the time.
Speaker 1:At some point during the battle, alexander was able to capture the Persian king's mother and wife, along with his two daughters, in the king's private tent. Now, what's interesting is, alexander never had any intent to harm the women. I think he wanted to use them as a basically a trading chip to basically have the king lay down his arms in return for his mother and wife and kids. Now, apparently, the king's mother was deeply upset by her son's cowardice at this point and she was supposedly said to have pledged her allegiance to Alexander as a result. In fact, alexander would refer to the Persian king's mother as his own mother.
Speaker 1:Alexander had a lot of weird quirky things going on, so that doesn't really necessarily surprise me. Alexandria had a lot of weird, quirky things going on, so that doesn't really necessarily surprise me. So after Alexandria's conquest of Babylonia, he had marched off to the Levant and then down to Egypt. But before he got to Egypt, he had to take some time to capture the Phoenician city-state of Tyre and then Gaza. Once Gaza was captured. It was basically like a door that opened right up into Egypt. Now, I'm not sure if the Egyptians saw the writing on a wall or if they just wanted to be done with the Persian interference, but the Egyptians basically gave up without a fight At Memphis.
Speaker 1:Rumors swirled that Alexander was the son of Egypt's last native, pharaoh, and as a result, alexander was crowned with the double crown, which symbolized his power over upper and lower Egypt. Now, like a lot of other conquerors in Egypt, alexander appeared to have a really respected view of the Egyptian culture and their customs, and especially their religion. In a way, alexander ruled, just like the Kushites, but, more importantly, alexander thoroughly understood all the riches that Egypt would bring. In fact, alexander probably understood that the resources from Egypt would ultimately help him in his quest to track down King Darius III, because he still hasn't necessarily conquered him, even though he had taken his mother and wife and two daughters. But before he left Egypt, alexander decided to create a new city at the end of Egypt, which would be perfect for a location to control trade between Egypt and the Mediterranean.
Speaker 1:So now what you could kind of see is you kind of see a shift where the Nile had been the main focus of trade for literally 3,000 years, actually longer than that before Dynasty Zero. So what Alexander was saying is okay, let's move the trade primarily from the Nile, let's move it to the edge of the Nile, and now we can expand trade more efficiently out into the Mediterranean. And this was probably a lot to do with the fact that they relied upon the Phoenicians and the other Greeks that were great seamen at the time. That would have facilitated this trade. So it made a lot of sense because it would have been a lot easier for the Greeks and the Phoenicians to conduct the trade when it was at the edge of the Nile, at the upper edge of Egypt, versus, say, memphis, where you had to go down the Nile. So in other words, it would be the perfect location to control trade between Egypt and the Mediterranean. Now the city would be known as Alexandria and I'm pretty sure most, if not all, of you have heard of it before. It's one of the great international cities and it still stands there to this day.
Speaker 1:Now I get the impression that it was kind of portrayed that Alexander just kind of came in and said, oh, this would be a perfect location and kind of really started from scratch, but it does appear that there is growing evidence that there was actually kind of a small little city harbor already set in place. So it's probably more likely that Alexander came in, saw this little settlement with a good natural harbor and said, hey, let's build from here. He didn't necessarily start it from scratch, which I think that kind of was the thought process for the longest period of time, but now I think that's kind of slowly changing, that Alexander didn't really build it from scratch. He kind of built on top of something that was already started in its place. But either way, whether he created it from scratch or just expanded on a pre-existing harbor, it still turned out to be one of the great global cities. So it's kind of a moot point. Anyway, it doesn't really matter at this point. Now, unfortunately, alexander never saw the completion of the city, but the city would turn into a center of Hellenistic culture.
Speaker 1:No one is quite sure how long Alexander stayed in Egypt, but it sounds like he was there for only six months. But the thing is, is his legacy. Even though it was a relatively short period of time there it lived on forever. While outside of Egypt Alexander was finally able to confront Darius III, but unfortunately he was assassinated by his own troops before Alexander could meet him in battle. Now, this meant that Alexander was now the king of Persia as well as Egypt.
Speaker 1:Now I'm kind of really speeding through details when it comes to Alexander, because this is not an episode dedicated to him. This will be at a much later date. But essentially what happened was Alexander now was in control of the Near East, and what he did is he said he wanted to move east and now he moved on to India, but that's kind of when his campaign had kind of stalled out. As his troops were finally done, they didn't want to go any further and they all basically collectively decided that hey, it's time to go home.
Speaker 1:So around 323 BCE, alexander the Great died at the age of 32. And some said he died of malaria. Some said he was poisoned, but no one really knows for sure. And according to Dan Carlin, alexander the Great could have been just a raging alcoholic, and all that alcohol may have just completely caught up to him. Who knows? But either way, now there's a serious power vacuum that was essentially created throughout the whole known world with his death.
Speaker 1:The question was is who will be Alexander's successor? Will they rule all those conquered lands, including Egypt? I mean, really, what is the next step? I don't think there was really a succession plan set in place. I don't think there was really a succession plan set in place. So, like most deaths that happen quickly and unexpectedly, there's usually some kind of conflict that is going to be the result of it, especially when there isn't a known lineage successor that is put in place.
Speaker 1:So, basically, what happened was his generals all began to fight amongst each other to basically see who could control his vast empire. And now what we have is we end up having that all this conquered land that was unified is all going to be split up amongst the different generals, and they're going to fight and they're going to try to control, and it's just a basic giant mess that is created by the unexpected death of Alexander, now, alexander the Great, while he left no successors to inherit his vast empire, which included Alexander, when he died, his actual body became the focus of the major power struggle because some thought that, since he was Greek, he should be buried in Greece. However, ptolemy, one of Alexander's generals well, he thought Alexander should be buried in Egypt as the pharaoh, as one of the ancient traditions would indicate that anyone who possessed the king's mummified body would also claim the right to the Egyptian throne. So it wasn't like he was saying, hey, he should be buried in Egypt because he's fully Egyptian. Now no, there was definitely a conflict of interest in this idea, because he figured, if he's buried in Egypt and he has the body, that means I have the right to claim the throne of Egypt. So that's why he wanted him there.
Speaker 1:Now, ptolemy had a major connection to Egypt because when he and Alexander went to Egypt, ptolemy was absolutely blown away by the vast resources and riches of Egypt. In fact, he was actually named the governor of Egypt before Alexander died. So Ptolemy basically stole the body and he buried it in Egypt. But even to this day no one is really quite sure where Alexander's tomb is. So he buried it, but no one knows. Is it really there? And if it is there, where is it? Now? One of Alexander's other generals? Well, he decided he was going to go attack Egypt and claim the territory for himself. But that didn't go too well, because he was killed in 305 BCE and then Ptolemy claimed himself as the pharaoh of Egypt and a year later he was once again having to defend Egypt from an attack by one of Alexander's other generals named Demetrius I. In addition, the Egyptian capital was now officially moved to Alexandria and, like I said prior, due to its location, a major trade route was established through the city, and this hugely benefited Egypt's economy. Now Alexander would quickly become the world's most cosmopolitan city and probably the most profitable commercial hub in the world as well profitable commercial hub in the world as well.
Speaker 1:One of the driving forces behind Alexandria's success was the fact that Talmi inherited Phoenician shipbuilding technologies which would have been used to build the trade coming in and out of Alexandria. This trade would be important because the Egyptians would use the Red Sea as a highway into the Indian Ocean, of which trade would have occurred directly with the people of the Indian subcontinent. Now, talmi wasn't interested in spices, but instead they were looking to purchase elephants, which were most likely to be used in war, more so than, say, raw muscle power than say raw muscle power. Also, ptolemy supposedly attempted to, with little success, open up the ancient Suez Canal or it was probably more known as Darius's old canal by now which had silted up so it couldn't be revived. It was just, it was a lost cause and, like I said in the previous episode, this also would have caused a lot of other problems as well. But they did try it sounds like they did try to reopen it up, to help open up trade more, but it just didn't. It didn't work, see a large migration of Greeks to Alexandria and in fact, greek became the official language of the government and trade. Even though Ptolemy never learned Egyptian, he still did not abandon the traditions and customs of the Egyptians. Priests were allowed to resume their religious activities and any temple that was demolished by the Persians was to be rebuilt.
Speaker 1:The thing that really separated Alexandria from the other Egyptian cities was the fact that Alexandria was very much an international city. In a way, it was probably the first place that really opened up Egypt to the rest of the world on a more consistent basis, because Egypt had always been self-reliant and probably didn't feel the need to be an international player in the community. International community, like other societies, did Not like the Babylonians and the Sumerians before them, where they absolutely depended upon trade because they didn't have a lot of natural resources. Egypt has always had a lot of natural resources. They did not have certain resources that they needed, but it wasn't as severe as in Mesopotamia, where they constantly needed to bring raw materials in because nothing was really there. Egypt was lucky enough to have enough grain and other materials that they can basically live more self-sufficiently than other particular regions. So, ultimately, what I'm getting at is Alexandria was really the first true international trading port coming in and out of Egypt, national trading port coming in and out of Egypt.
Speaker 1:And on a different and kind of grim note, slavery was widely practiced throughout the ancient Greek city-states, but it was relatively limited in Egypt. But it was during the Ptolemaic dynasties, which lasted from 323 BCE to 30 AD, that much of the slavery that was non-existent prior started seeping its way into the Egyptian culture. In fact, I mean, if you want to get an idea how widely practiced slavery was in the Greek city-states, in a place like Athens the Greek city-states in a place like Athens, about 35% of the people were actually slaves. So what we're really starting to see now is this institution of slavery really starting to take off, but I mean it won't be as widespread as it was in Greece or Rome. Now.
Speaker 1:One of the most prominent structures that was built during the Ptolemaic era was the lighthouse of Alexandria, which was built near the very beginning of this new era, so when Alexandria was founded by the Greeks, it was one of the more early structures that was built because the lighthouse had been needed for trade. Of the more early structures that was built because the lighthouse would have been needed for trade. Now it should be noted that the Egyptian's coast was extremely dangerous. It wasn't uncommon for ships to wreck right off the coast. Thus a lighthouse was needed to basically warn the sailors of the shallow waters or even the dangerous rocks that they were kind of sailing into. Now it stood on a small island for at least 1600 years. Sometime in the 14th century CE the lighthouse was no longer mentioned in the local writings, so it was presumed that the 1330s CE. So in the end, I mean this lighthouse would have been vital for Alexandria to take off as a true international trade center, and it's interesting if you look at it from a historic perspective.
Speaker 1:It's kind of worth noting that for hundreds, or actually for thousands of years, the priestly class hated the Mediterranean Sea and in fact they were very much against moving their capital to Alexandria because they always wanted to avoid interacting with foreigners and their foreign ideas. In all reality, it wasn't until Egypt was being controlled by outside forces that their views began to change, because really, since Dynasty Zero, they basically displayed virtually no curiosity about the outside world. That's the reason why whenever Egypt wanted to import or export goods, they would have relied upon merchants and their foreign sea power, and not native Egyptians. This is why Egypt never really generated an indigenous seafaring or commercial class of people, and instead relied upon the Phoenicians or the Greeks to do their job for them. To give you an idea of how much things have changed in Egypt, the way it worked for centuries, if not millennia, most of the production was consumed by the producers themselves.
Speaker 1:Since Egypt was always a very self-sufficient society, that really shouldn't come as a surprise. I mean, in reality, I've kind of alluded to that several times during this series. I've kind of become a little bit repetitive, in fact, but the way it kind of worked by this time period was that there would have been local landlords and other tax collectors that would have taken their cut of the local production, and then this cut would have been local landlords and other tax collectors that would have taken their cut of the local production, and then this cut would have been sold on the free market, either directly or indirectly, to consumers or other professional traders who would have purchased the products at wholesale prices, and then they would have found an end buyer on the retail level. The issue is, we really don't know anything about these merchants. It was generally assumed that these merchants had some kind of connections to the crown or the great estates that were owned privately or even by the temples. Often what would happen is the excess wheat or grains that were produced would be stored in the state warehouses, which were similar to that of Sumer In the Sumer episode I talked about that quite extensively and also, like in Sumer, much of the wheat that was collected would have been used as tax that was sent to the crown, because Egypt was still a redistributive economy for much of its existence. However, much of the withdrawal orders by the owners of these grain estates were often used as basically proto-currencies for thousands of years, just like they did in Mesopotamia prior to them converting over to more of a monetized society, where they initially used silver as a means of payment before coinage had basically come into being by the Lydians.
Speaker 1:Now, under the Ptolemies, a central bank at Alexandria was responsible for recording all the transactions of the granaries that were located throughout Egypt. So they had quite a large task at hand to make sure that they could track all the comings and goings of the grains as it moved in and out of Egypt. And because of this detailed tracking, people were able to transfer payments from one account to another, which really is a modern banking practice. In addition, during the Ptolemaic era, you really start to see that the credit market was finally developing in Egypt. So basically, what you had happen was the ancient accountants would record the various credit transactions on a ledger system that was named in the names of the owners and the transactions that were happening, so that the accountants could track entries through their versions of debits and credits. In addition, by this time, you start to see gold and silver and even copper being used as payments for the local Egyptians as well as in the international trade. The main issue is, it appears that the Egyptians' interest rates may have been quite high and because of it, that may have stymied the production and trade within Egypt. So, in other words, if credit was easier, it's quite possible that Egypt would have been able to increase its production of goods through investment, as well as increase its trade and overall economic output, and it's also during this time that you could kind of look and see the fact that the interest rates that foreign merchants were paying were much lower than the interest rates than the local Egyptians were paying.
Speaker 1:Now, the one thing I've kind of alluded to already is the fact that one of the things that the Greeks brought with them when they came to Egypt was their coinage. So therefore there are indications that Greek coins began circulating around Egypt around the time of the Talmys, and in fact it appears that the Talmys had implemented a massive production of coins and circulated these coins throughout Egypt. One question that seems obvious is why Egypt was a bit late to the party with coinage, and it appears that it might be because Egypt believed gold was literally the flesh of the gods and silver was their bones. So therefore you can kind of see how any coinage based on gold or silver might be a problem for Egypt, especially if coinage was in the hands of every citizen, including the poorest Egyptians. Let's not forget that Egypt had used as vast abundance of cereals as its money supply, and for them it made sense because this meant that they could always have an abundance of money even though wheat and grains decayed and there were high storage costs Because silver and gold were basically scarce materials. This meant that there would have been a possibility of a shortage of money and this will be a serious problem in many societies and this will be a serious problem in many societies I mean all the way up into Europe in the late Middle Ages. It'll be a serious problem. But either way, the movement towards metal monies really modernized and transformed the local Egyptian economy as it began to resemble a more modern, monetized society, which also included banks, although it wasn't fully monetized because payment in kind still remained a common practice. So in a way it reminds me a lot of the early days of silver, before it was minted as coins in Mesopotamia.
Speaker 1:Prior to the minting of coins, the bankers were basically the intermediaries that received and distributed state funds, which were often commodities used in everyday life. So basically what they did was they collect taxes and made payments on the order of the royal scribes and other local officials order of the royal scribes and other local officials. The banks in this period were basically set up as royal banks and they also had their local branches. So the way it was set up was the royal bank would be located in each provincial capital, and then there might be some smaller branches in the local villages within the provinces. Each of these branches would be set up to collect taxes on behalf of the royal treasury, and these banks did not evolve to hold individual deposits and maintain their accounts. These banks were also used to make loans and payments to individuals, but these individuals weren't regular civilians. Instead, they were often state officials, along with their clients or other tax farmers and their employees. They did not tolerate private banks, but they also had concessionary banks that were granted a monopoly on money changing and that they were most notable for the fact that the government wanted taxes to be paid in silver. So what ended up happening was the money changers would exchange copper and silver from the individuals that owed taxes. So, in other words, an individual has copper but needs to conduct a exchange deal to pay taxes in silver, so this person would reach out to the concessory bank in order to do the exchange. Now it should be noted that these banks really didn't last long, as they were completely wiped out by the year 210 BCE, as the silver standard was abandoned by the Egyptians. The end result was there was essentially a major shakeup. That would have happened, as private bankers would have essentially drove them out of business because the private bankers were accepting deposits and withdrawals as well as making transfers from one account to another, along with issuing credit or other kind of loans.
Speaker 1:Now, just a second ago, I brought up the tax farmers, and I just kind of want to circle back to that real quickly, because the tax farmers in Egypt had a very similar setup as how they had it set up in Mesopotamia, in that they would underwrite the local tax base and by underwriting the taxes, the banks could pay the salaries in advance, prior to the collection of the taxes. The one thing the Egyptian government did mandate is that the tax farmers had to employ scribes in order to issue receipts. Often, these tax payments would be used locally as it would pay for the local police or other local garrison soldiers to protect the citizens. In the Ptolemaic period, the salaries of the state officials were ultimately paid in money, now that this was a dramatic change from how it was in other periods, because the state officials would have been paid in kind. So this is once again more proof that Egypt had moved into a more monetized society, where silver or gold or even copper would be paid versus wheat, for example.
Speaker 1:But it should also be noted that the Talmins also inherited their tax system from the Persians, in that the taxes consisted of basically two buckets the sales taxes and the burial taxes, of which they were often collected by the temples, and other custom duties that were collected by the state. The Talmins expanded on the tax system by implementing state taxes and money, unlike the prior periods, where it's collected in commodities. So their system was set up where they would have implemented this local network through local offices, tax offices to collect the taxes of which. These local tax offices were often integrated into a much larger network of royal banks. So the taxes were collected and then they were deposited into separate treasury accounts and their treasury accounts were used to pay the government workers.
Speaker 1:And, like I said, since the Greek coinage was becoming more standardized for the Egyptians, we also start to see historical accounts of certain bankers. So, for example, we have records of an Egyptian banker named Python, who had operated out of a city known as Crocodilopus from 255 to 237 BCE. What a great name. By all accounts, it appears that he may have worked directly for the government of Egypt, as he would have been responsible for collecting and transferring government revenues to the state, but he also would have worked in the private sector by providing financial services to local Egyptians, such as taking bank deposits and issuing checks and payment services for clients, along with issuing credit. In addition, he would have performed tax farming services, just like they had done in ancient Mesopotamia. Furthermore, the bankers could have used their tax farming contracts as collateral in any kind of lending operations tax farming contracts as collateral in any kind of lending operations. Now, since the Ptolemies brought with them many of their Greek traditions, including banking services, one of the other things that they had brought with them was the idea of investing in annuities, which were prevalent in the Greek world by this time. The biggest thing was annuities were typically formed as an essential part of a marriage contract.
Speaker 1:In Ptolemaic Egypt, unlike in Mesopotamia, the government was heavily involved in the actual production and sale of commodities. The way it worked was certain commodities would be purchased from the farmers at fixed prices, and these commodities would then be resold to the public at fixed prices. If the commodity was to be processed into another form, the processors would be paid a fixed rate and the end production of the process, the commodity, would be sold at other fixed prices. So all the prices were controlled at each step of production. The provincial government worker would pay fixed wages to the processors depending on the quantity produced, and then the provincial official would source the dealers and retailers that would sell that product. And then each month an auditor would balance all the payments that were made in each step of the process, including the packaging and transporting the products, against all the revenues that would have received, and the contractors would receive a cut of the profits. All these payments would be made through the monopoly that controls the process from an account at the Royal Bank. Now it seems kind of complicated, but they seem to have it down to a science where they're kind of controlling each particular step. I mean it kind of sounds very, but they seem to have it down to a science where they're kind of controlling each particular step. I mean it kind of sounds very modern if you think about it.
Speaker 1:Now I brought up the transportation of the products. It should be noted that state officials were heavily involved in the distribution of the commodities commodities. So, for example, a letter was recovered from around 230 BCE from oil dealers to provincial managers confirming the receipt of quantities of oils to sell From the sales they would have paid the Royal Bank within five days of the actual request that was taking place. Now, when I say oil, I'm not talking about oil dollars taken from the ground, and you know, in the modern oil industry what I'm referring to is farmers would grow certain seeds and then they would take the seeds and they would press down and they would extract the oil from the seeds and the accumulation of the oil would then be used to sell to oil distributors or oil dealers, of which oftentimes that oil would have been used in the making of papyrus. And of course, this was all monopoly and in fact the cloth monopoly was very similar to the oil monopoly and that the state was heavily involved in cloth production and the distribution of cloth. A state official would pay a fixed rate to a weaver, of which they were required to meet certain quotas, and then those and other products would be sold at certain fixed prices.
Speaker 1:Just like in the past, the riverbanks continued to serve as the marketplaces during the ptolemaic period. It was during this time that people were able to recover documents indicating that numerous ships owned by royal houses and temples, along with even private individuals, would transport grains to the marketplaces. Most of the goods would have been those that were owned by a state monopoly of processed commodities, but also there would have been private goods carried into the marketplace especially outside of the tax harvest season. The Egyptologists that were studying this noted that there were certain receipts from foreign freight charges or transportation fees at these various marketplaces. So this is a strong indication that these goods were transported not for the redistribution but instead for normal trade. Also, exchanges didn't necessarily have to happen at a formalized marketplace. It wasn't uncommon for states to use auctions and sell confiscated properties or even tax farming contracts, but also private exchanges could have happened just about anywhere, at any time. When exchanges happened, whether they were the sale of an item or a rental of an item, it would occur with a witness present. As part of the transfer, the seller or the renter would have been giving an oath stating that there was no claim against the product. This oath would end up becoming a standardized part of contracts.
Speaker 1:Now Herodotus had claimed that the Near Eastern monarchs treated their kingdoms as their own personal property. Whereas the Greek citizens were essentially free to own private property, the early Ptolemies most likely fell into the camp of the kings that owned everything. So Egypt is its own private property. Essentially, however, when the Ptolemies weakened, a private property market had emerged. So that's when we would have seen a change towards the tail end of the Greek dominance of Egypt. This new private property market would have ultimately led to a quasi middle class that would have operated in free markets and free market forces that were more prevalent in Greece. So this is I'm kind of getting ahead of myself, but this is towards the end of the Ptolemies, and what I'm getting at is, prior to this period, there really wasn't a private property market. It wouldn't be until the tail end of the Ptolemies.
Speaker 1:However, it appears that this was the original thought process, but this was kind of changing now. So, for example, in Upper Egypt, a lot of land was owned by temples, but this land could have been inherited and then bought and sold by private individuals. Thus you have a real estate market that would have been developing. Some have argued that the temples actually owned more land than the palace. It had also been argued that the royal land was actively managed by local villages rather than centrally run by the state. So what I'm getting at is it appears that there was a definite transformation in the private real estate market in Egypt, but it is kind of unclear who owned what and how land was exchanged, but it does appear that it had evolved and by the end of the Ptolemies there was a lot more market forces in play when it comes to real estate. But it's still not clear, because it could have been the case that there was actually a case where the king didn't really actually own all the land which was initially hypothesized by Herodotus and, like I said, when you're reading Herodotus you have to take a lot of the stuff he says with a grain of salt. So it could be true or it could not be true.
Speaker 1:In the Ptolemaic period, private property disputes that were between two individuals and did not involve the royal palace in any sort of way were usually handled by the court system that would have applied traditional Egyptian and Greek property laws. As such, there were two court systems essentially set up in Egypt. The first system would have been the provincial houses of judgment, which link to the Egyptian temples, and these would have heard cases involving ordinary native Egyptians and thus were essentially the primary court systems. So essentially, the Egyptian court is made up of priests from the temple. There were also the court of Greek judges that would have heard cases related to Greek immigrants. The main problem with this system is what happens when there's a transaction between a Greek immigrant and a native Egyptian that needs some kind of adjudication. So, in other words, if there's not a standard way of handling this that both sides can agree to, this can become a serious problem. And what they came up with was they said okay, if there is a contract that is made in Greek by the Greeks, then the Greek judges would hear the case. But just the opposite would happen. If the contract was written up by an Egyptian and he did business with a Greek, then the case would be heard by an Egyptian judge or judges. So in the end, the Egyptian courts judge property disputes arising from Egyptian documents.
Speaker 1:According to Egyptian property law, the law codes are written to adjudicate on hypothetical disputes. So, in effect, the law codes are basically set up to answer a if-then statement. And this would make sense because the Egyptians would typically express problems in the if-then kind of statement anyway. So, for example, they would have approached mathematical and medical and even philosophical questions based on an if-and statement. The largest and best preserved and best studied fragment of the Egyptian law code is called the so-called legal code of Hermapolis from the 3rd century BCE. Now, these specific codes would have addressed the rules for leasing of a field and rules for obtaining and clearing titles of ownership, and along with even rules for annuity contracts, reconstruction regulations and even rules for estate inheritance. So it it covered a broad range of legal codes.
Speaker 1:Now, one thing that happened was, around 196 BCE, ptolemy V issued a clean slate decree that was discovered on his delay. That basically said that anyone, along with their debt prisoners, would seek and receive amnesty, seek and receive amnesty. So we're going back to the old clean slate program where people were so far indebted that there was probably a fear that the masses of people would rise up, and in order to stop this from happening, they would have instituted a clean slate program that was first discovered. That well, the first one I recognized is the one on Lagash, around 2200 BCE, in ancient Sumer. And I'm bringing this up now because interest-bearing loans you know they had been around for essentially forever by this time, especially in ancient Mesopotamia. However, interest-bearing loans did not really appear in Egypt until the Hellenistic Greeks had taken over. So when they came into power, the idea of someone having to experience debt bondage was probably a very foreign idea that had been around for literally thousands of years in Mesopotamia.
Speaker 1:By this point Now, I had brought up taxes briefly prior, and I just kind of want to circle back to that as well, because I'm really just trying to really give you a good idea of how the ancient Egyptian economy and society functioned as a whole. Now, the way the Ptolemaic taxation process worked is it took two forms they would have done a survey of fields and they would have also done a census of the people and their animals. The field surveys were used to calculate, you know, harvest taxes, as this was a carryover from how they had done it for years, and the surveys were done essentially two times a year. The first survey was done when the fields were sown with seeds and in a place like Upper Egypt and in Lower Egypt, the Nile inundation would have obviously factored in to what they would have thought the potential harvest would have been that year and then the second survey would have been done sometime in February, which would have been a few months before the harvest. It was the second survey that was ultimately used for determining the taxes that were paid on the farmable land which were collected during the harvest, which would have occurred sometime in April or May. The amount of taxes was related to the amounts of land that was cultivated at the time of the survey, rather than the actual amount of the harvest itself. This was designed to protect the state from the risks of a potential bad harvest and even any potential harvest fraud. In other words, the state probably assumed that there was going to be some sort of bad actors who would ultimately lie about how much the field was actually cultivated. The land would be measured in each village, even if it was not cultivated, so essentially, what the surveys did is they would record each landowner and the use of the land, whether it's for farming or some other purpose.
Speaker 1:The biggest change that happened during the period was the state took responsibility for surveying and collecting taxes, whereas in prior generations it was the temples that were responsible for this. Prior generations, it was the temples that were responsible for this. In addition, the state also picked up the mantle of surveying grain-bearing lands that were owned by the temples, and they also collected taxes from the temple lands, which had changed. Prior to this, the temple would have been responsible for collecting taxes on their own land, so it could be a little bit of a conflict of interest if you're leading someone in charge to collect the taxes on their own land. So it's quite possible that they implemented this system to kind of really segregate the temple from the collecting of taxes so maybe get rid of that conflict of interest. Not really sure, but that would kind of really make a lot of sense. However, the state did give the temple some allowances in response to this change. So it sounds to me like they were essentially giving them some sort of tax breaks.
Speaker 1:In addition, the state started confiscating certain lands that were owned by private individuals who were granted the lands by the temples who did not pay their fair share of taxes. Imagine that crazy concept making rich people pay their fair share of taxes. I don't know, I'm an American so I don't really fully comprehend that thought process. So maybe some of you in other countries can explain that to me, because as Americans we don't understand the fact that rich people paying their fair share of taxes. It just doesn't happen here. It happened in ancient Egypt, but it does not happen in this country, that's for sure. But that's a conversation for another day and probably even a different podcast. Anyway, the confiscated lands would have ultimately been sold at auction.
Speaker 1:Ultimately, egypt would have had relied upon a census to get a good understanding of how many people lived in their empire and what the tax base could potentially be. The Ptolemaic census of people took two forms the census according to the household and the census according to the occupation of the head of household. There was also a census for the animals that were also kept separate from the people. The village scribes would have been responsible for compiling and memorializing the census for the village. The one thing that the Talamese continued from the previous generations was the fact that they used the census to collect compulsory labor requirements for the state. So what they would do is they would have to fulfill a certain quota and from that quarter they would get a receipt indicating that they had fulfilled their obligations to the state. So this is a carryover from something Egypt had been doing for literally thousands of years. Those who did not fulfill this labor obligation would have to pay the state a tax, for which they would also receive a receipt. So they can come to the state and say hey, I didn't fulfill my labor obligation, but I did pay you the money, and here's my proof of it.
Speaker 1:In addition, a yoke tax was added, whereas the men would be required to pay an annual fee, which would have been divided into 12 installments if needed. Eventually, this yoke tax would be replaced by salt tax, which would have been levied on both men and women. Whereas the men would pay twice the rate the women would pay, and it would be paid on a semi-annual basis, so two payments a year. Essentially, the interesting thing was the salt tax was actually lowered three separate times and then it would eventually go away. The fact is, even though the salt tax went away, other taxes would appear throughout the talamang empire. So it wasn't like they were getting rid of their revenue from the population. It was just that there was different types of taxes that would have been collected and allowed upon the population and, in all honesty, there's numerous taxes that was collected and different kinds of tax receipts and different kinds of revenue requirements set upon the government, because ultimately, you had to have tax receipts in order to run a functioning society. Now, I don't want to go into each individual one, but I will highlight a few. There were the essential sales taxes that would have put a 10% sales tax on any transfer of property from one entity or individual to another, and this would have also included the sale of slaves. Like I said, slavery wasn't a major component of the Egyptian society for thousands of years, but once the Talmud come into play and you start getting more Greek ideas, the idea of slavery does appear to be more commonplace than it would have been a hundred or 1,000 years prior to this point.
Speaker 1:In addition, there was a burial tax that was implemented during this time period, and this really kind of makes 100% sense to me, because a significant portion of their economy had been based essentially on the death of an individual, and this would often incur a heavy cost to the population when a king died or someone in his royal court died. But it also went much deeper than that, because anyone that was part of a wealthy family or even a high priest or priestess, elaborate burials would have taken place as a result of the death of the person, and these burials often would have been quite expensive because these were extremely wealthy people that were being buried. So essentially, the way the Egyptians looked at it was this could also help the population as a whole. So someone dies, has money. Let's find a way to make this a useful death. I guess it's just the best way to put it bluntly. This burial tax, or the tax of the overseer of the necropolis, is attested from numerous receipts from thieves.
Speaker 1:And lastly, when it comes to taxes, egypt, like all other societies, was charging custom duties on goods that were imported into Egypt from beyond. The Talmudic duties were calculated as a percentage of the declared value of the goods and were paid in money, not commodities. This was a huge change from the previous Persian regime that collected some duties in kind as a percentage of the cargo. Now, besides Alexandria being a major cosmopolitan trade center, it was also transformed into the intellectual capital of the Hellenistic world and even potentially the entire world, for that matter. World, and even potentially the entire world, for that matter. A new museum and famous library of Alexandria was built, and it was on the list of the seven wonders of the ancient world.
Speaker 1:Now, it's worth noting that Alexander was a student of Aristotle, so it's not really a surprise to learn that education and knowledge was very important to Alexander. So when Alexander was setting up Alexandria, he had envisioned that it would also become an academic capital as well as a trade capital. The library was located in the royal district of the city and it would have incorporated both Greek and Egyptian cultures in the way it was designed. So therefore it initially only contained Greek and Egyptian scrolls, but as it grew bigger and more international, other academic works in different languages would have been brought in and housed in the library. In fact, they had created scholarships for attracting academics from across the world to study a wide range of subjects, including astronomy, biology, mathematics and even history, just to name a few. It even contained the histories of our old friend Herodotus Now Herodotus. The thing about him was he was shocked when he got to Egypt because he couldn't believe the equality of the men and women. Women would go to the markets and trade and travel with men by boat for trade expeditions. They would pretty much do a lot of things that men were doing at the time.
Speaker 1:The ultimate goal of the library was to own every single book in the known world at the time. Now, in reality, this wasn't a new concept because, if you recall from my Assyrian episodes, ashurbanipal, the ferocious Assyrian king, was one of the very few educated kings during his time period and therefore he valued education in the same way that Alexander did. In fact, he systematically collected and organized a similar library in Nineveh, whereas he instructed his people to go out, locate, make copies of every known scroll in the world. At the time, however, the Library of Alexandria had a big advantage, and that advantage was its port on the Mediterranean, which made it a lot easier to facilitate the transport of books for copying. Now the interesting thing was the original copies were housed in the library and they would return the copied books to the original source, which is kind of crazy. It's kind of funny when you think about it, but either way it worked. But the people would be paid back as book hunters would essentially scour the world and travel around looking for new books and new writings and new ideas. It is believed that hundreds of thousands of scrolls and manuscripts were ultimately stored in the Library of Alexandria. Now, for some crazy reason, when I think of the Library of Alexandria in my head I really think back to Game of Thrones, when Tully becomes a Meister. I mean, I'm a huge fan of Game of Thrones and some of you probably are as well, but when I think of the library that Tully was in when he was training to be the Meister, that thought kind of really runs in my head, with what the Library of Alexandria possibly looked like Now.
Speaker 1:Egyptians were renowned for their mastery of the medical sciences. In fact, many Egyptian medical texts have been recovered, each describing various medical information and surgery policies and procedures in detail. They were also responsible for the invention of toothpaste. Back in ancient Egypt, along with the rest of the ancient world, dental issues were common and severe. So the Egyptians, being scientifically minded, experimented and developed several recipes for a substance to clean their teeth. One of the tests that survived tells us that ancient Egyptians made toothpaste using rock salt, mint, dried iris petals and pepper. Sadly, the library was destroyed in 48 BCE. However, it was restored and continued to be the hub of knowledge for many years afterward. We don't really know when the library finally crumbled to the ground, but many claim that it actually went into steep decline during the Roman Empire, so it's possible that it declined sometime thereafter or during.
Speaker 1:So really, in reality, with the coming of the Ptolemies and all these changes that were made, whether it's through the monetization of the society, the way taxes were collected, and even before the Ptolemies got there, the Persians offered a lot to the Egyptians. I mean, they were the ones that brought new irrigation techniques, but it was their thirst for international knowledge by the Greeks that brought them even newer and better irrigation techniques, resulting in more and more irrigation to the lands, which meant that their production capabilities would have increased dramatically, and the assumption was, for the longest time, that 130 persons could live from the production of one square kilometer in the early periods of Egypt, and 180 people could live off of one square kilometer of production during the later Ptolemaic periods. Their food would basically include wheat and barley, some vegetables and dates and fish. The elites of the society would have had access to meat and fruits. This increase in agrarian production per square kilometer in the Greco-Roman period can be explained by the improvements in agricultural technology, which included irrigation devices and new crops, and perhaps even much better agrarian management and administration. I bring this all up because because, as a result, egypt was able to plant new cash crops, such as cotton. They were able to grow better grapes for wine production. Now, with their international port city, they were able to trade their cotton and grains in their international market and, due to the increased wealth, the Egyptians were able to import spices and silk. So what I'm getting at is you increase your irrigation techniques, you increase your overall production of crops, you can substitute certain crops and you can have cash crops, and then you basically increased international trade.
Speaker 1:Now what's interesting is, since Egypt was a very literate society, the court systems were relied heavily upon written documentations when they were going to adjudicate any kind of matters. In fact, the state was notorious for documenting just about everything, whether it was to the harvest taxes for individual fields or even documenting harvest taxes on temple endowments. But it got even more granular as they would document the labor obligations for individual people. Local temple notaries would document land transfers along with its associated taxes. Then you would factor in the fact that Egypt had changed and coinage was now a driving force in economic transactions. The end result would be that the Greek culture would have transformed Egypt into a new golden era and, more importantly, egypt became even wealthier, as the Hellenistic Egyptians were able to increase trade dramatically to places like Southern Europe, along with Mesopotamia and the Levant, and even Nubia. Food and craft production rose quite a bit and, as a result, egyptians saw an increase in the quality of life, as food insecurity would have been diminished, rose quite a bit and, as a result, egyptians saw an increase in the quality of life, as food insecurity would have been diminished and the Egyptians would have had access to foreign goods at a much lower cost as compared to the previous generations.
Speaker 1:But of course, not all good things last forever. Sooner or later, greed and ambition takes over and because of this, by the end of the 3rd century BCE, egypt was in a civil war, as there was a big gap between the rich and the poor. The priests loved the Ptolemies because they brought wealth to them. However, keeping the peace was too expensive. Egypt was once again divided and to the north, rome was expanding and they would ultimately bring an end to ancient Egypt.
Speaker 1:In 30 BCE, ptolemy XII had did something that kings and poorly run governments would do for the coming centuries and even millennia by devaluing the currencies, by issuing degraded coins, by minting them with less and less silver or gold in the coins. So now we would have more coins. But why would he do that? And the reason is is because he had to pay numerous bribes to regain the throne, so essentially he ended up causing a massive inflation in the process. At first the masses were probably happy because they ended up with more coin, but probably didn't realize right away that the prices would be reflected to show the amount of actual precious metal in the coins. So now it meant that the product or service would cost three coins, not two coins, for example. All this would probably help kind of really bring upon the rise of Cleopatra.
Speaker 1:There have been numerous films and television shows made depicting her, for example, elizabeth Taylor as Cleopatra being one of the more famous ones. But Cleopatra you got to understand, she was a very educated person who languages, and she may have been the only Ptolemaic pharaoh who could speak Egyptian. Now, she was groomed for the job because she had helped her father, ptolemy XII, when he was on the throne. But, like I said, he had issues himself, especially when it came to the currency. When her father died, she and her husband, who was her brother, ptolemy XIII, officially took the throne. The issue was, ptolemy XIII was merely a child when he was on the throne, so therefore he really didn't have any kind of leadership role. It was clearly Cleopatra who was leading the people. She even had her face minted on the currency.
Speaker 1:When Ptolemy XIII got older, he began to suspect that she was nothing more than a power-hungry ruler who wanted Egypt to herself. As such, he was able to raise a coalition of support and was able to drive his sister and wife out of Egypt, so she ended up taking refuge in Syria and plotted for her revenge to take back the throne. Around the same time, a Roman civil war had broken out between two of the top generals, julius Caesar and Pompey, of which Ptolemy XIII had ordered that Pompey be assassinated. However, julius Caesar didn't really know this because he had come to Egypt to confront Pompey directly, but he was horrified to find out that he had been killed. Caesar decided to stay in Egypt for some time to use the Roman Civil War to his advantage. Cleopatra figured she could use Julius Caesar's support in order to reclaim the crown of Egypt.
Speaker 1:Now, the story goes that the 21-year-old Cleopatra had hidden a sack or a rug and sailed to Alexandria, and once they had docked, she was carried in the sack or the rug, or whatever it was, to Julius Caesar's room where he had stayed, and she was able to get out of the sack or rug and to reveal herself, and Julius Caesar was apparently very impressed and in fact, she basically was able to win his heart. In the end, her and Julius Caesar ended up having a baby together, and this would have been one of Cleopatra's tricks up her sleeve that she could use for later legitimacy to basically grow her power even further. Now, upon hearing of Cleopatra's tactic, the young Ptolemy XIII was to have stomped his feet in anger, sort of like a little kid in his own chamber. However, ptolemy XIII wouldn't be around for much longer, as he would end up dying when he launched a war against Caesar. Then Cleopatra married another brother who went by the name of Ptolemy XIV, but apparently this was a prearranged condition where they both were of the understanding that she would be the true ruler of Egypt and not her brother. Cleopatra quickly won the hearts and minds of the people when a drought and famine hit the Nile Valley and she basically ended up feeding the people from her royal granary. And she basically ended up feeding the people from her royal granary.
Speaker 1:Cleopatra's reign was known to be a very peaceful reign because it was very rare for rebellions to break out. Well, the reason that didn't happen was she was very ruthless in that she would have any family member killed who she suspected might even consider some sort of rebelling against her. So the fact that it was a peaceful reign and people would say well, you know, she kept the people happy and people didn't rebel. But it might have been just due to the fact that she was kind of always on guard to see if some kind of family member would rise up and try to take the throne from her. Because, let's face it, this was the ordinary course of business for ancient societies back in those days. I mean, you would have a strong ruler, but a brother or an uncle or somebody else would challenge them and a civil war would break out. But if she kills them before they can do that, then there's no civil wars that are going to break out. So that was probably her being preemptive more than anything are going to break out. So that's, it was probably her being preemptive more than anything.
Speaker 1:And around the same time, it was the 15th of March in 44 BCE that Julius Caesar was assassinated. You know the Ides of March. Now, just a few moments ago I had mentioned that her and Caesar had a baby together. So as far as Cleopatra was concerned, she probably figured she had an ace up her sleeve because she would have assumed that her son would have the natural right to the throne of Rome. So essentially, she wanted to rule as a joint Egyptian-Roman empire, but unfortunately for her it just wasn't working out that way. The Romans appeared to have rejected that notion. So I think what happened was Cleopatra kind of said okay, well, what's the next opportunity that I can take advantage of? So the 25-year-old Cleopatra at the time came close to one of Caesar's closest allies and general Mark Antony, who was given the eastern provinces of the Roman Empire after Caesar's murder. Also, caesar's will made no mention of Cleopatra's son, so that ace up the sleeve that she thought she had was never really there and therefore, since it wasn't in his will, the people of Rome were not going to stand behind her. Now, if Cleopatra's son was written in the will to be Caesar's heir and parent, well, things could have been very much different. I mean, history would have been completely rewritten going forward, but, as it were, it wasn't the case. Now what's interesting is, by all accounts, it sounds like Antony was becoming more Egyptian than Roman, which probably would have upset the emperor Octavian, who would later be known as Augustus. So in the end, the Romans appeared to be pretty sore, in that Antony was kind of abandoning his Roman ways and becoming more and more Egyptian, and because of that, the Romans basically blamed Cleopatra for this, basically saying that she's the one that corrupted Antony and it wasn't his fault. He was becoming more Egyptian and soon enough the Romans had declared war on Egypt.
Speaker 1:In the Battle of Actium, cleopatra and Antony faced off with the Roman forces in the Ionian Sea. This naval battle, which took place around 31 BCE, resulted in the defeat of Cleopatra and Mark Antony. So while they lost the battle, they didn't die. So what they did is they decided that they would flee back to Alexandria, but they were quickly followed behind by Octavian's forces, where they defeated the remaining troops defending Cleopatra. Cleopatra famously saw no way out of it and she decided to commit suicide. Mark Antony had already committed suicide because he had heard the rumor that Cleopatra had committed suicide suicide because he had heard the rumor that Cleopatra had committed suicide. Cleopatra's suicide basically meant the end of the Egyptian pharaohs. As a result, egypt was annexed into the Roman Empire which was formed by Augustus, and this basically meant that Egypt would be part of Rome for the next six centuries. Egypt's grain production was so great by this period that it would eventually become the bread basket of the Roman Empire.
Speaker 1:And in reality, this is kind of where I want to leave it with the Egyptian history. But the one thing I want to note is that Egyptian history is a lot different from what I always imagined it was. I was always under the impression that Egypt was united around 3000 BCE and they built obelisks and pyramids and basically lived in peace until the Romans had conquered the lands and made them part of the Roman Empire. However, this is very much different from reality because in reality, egyptian history is one of peaks and valleys. Different from reality because in reality, egyptian history is one of peaks and valleys. Egypt would be on a high for centuries and then a dark age would hit or there'd be some kind of political instability and Egypt would be reborn, rebuilt, have centuries of prosperity, and then some sort of political instability or be conquered by a foreign king. They would shake off the yoke of the conquerors and they'd be reborn again. They would thrive for centuries and then you know kind of going through these cycles of being conquered, shaking them off, being conquered, shaking them off. It was kind of a never-ending cycle with Egypt. But the thing is it wasn't a straight line, it was ups and downs is what I'm getting at. And you know that happened over and over again from 3000 BCE through the fall of the Roman Empire.
Speaker 1:And when I set out to do this podcast, I initially wanted to just talk about banking capital markets in the United States. However, I thought it'd be a good idea to get into ancient practices to help us understand how we got here in the first place. Discussing banking in the ancient Sumerian days is a little easier because they had the first written language known to man and, more importantly, they had advanced trading and accounting networks that were established as a direct result of their written language. Because they basically set out to devise a written language because they wanted to facilitate business transactions. It made it a lot easier.
Speaker 1:It was essentially an early accounting ledger system, but Egypt really didn't follow this path because, like I've mentioned numerous times, egypt was a lot more self-sufficient. They didn't rely on international trade the way the people of Sumer and Babylon and Assyria would have. I mean Assyria initially sprung out of the fact that they were great traders and they would eventually become a strong military, but they didn't start out that way. They started out in foreign trade and that's how they built their wealth and ended up building their armies from that. And in addition, I mean Egypt's location also makes a big difference as well, because they are located on the northeast end of Africa, so they have the Great Sahara Desert, buffering them from one side. Then they have the Mediterranean Sea to the north of them and the Red Sea to the east, and so it's a little different. Everything is going to be established differently, and, on top of that, the Nile was phenomenal for providing what they need as far as food sources.
Speaker 1:And because of all this, there wasn't really a big need to develop and maintain a larger commercial credit system that was developed in Mesopotamia, because most of the loans that had occurred in Egypt would have been between two people that basically knew each other and just wanted to provide mutual aid. So, in other words, the credit market really wasn't a need to exist, as it had been replaced by neighbors who were more or less looking out for each other, and because of that, there weren't really many documented cases of individuals losing their land or assets because it was used as collateral in certain kinds of loans, as this was in stark contrast to what was happening in Mesopotamia. There was, however, instances where someone could become that of like a bond servant or a debt slave, but that was relatively unusual, unlike there was in Mesopotamia, and well, even when we get into Greece and Rome, you'll see much more. Now, one thing that could have happened is someone could be taken to court for value to repay back the loan and it could be adjudicated. And if the person was found guilty of value to pay back the loan, that could result in being lashed up to 100 times and be forced to pay up to twice the amount of the original loan. Now, because the way the Egyptians kind of looked at it was if you fail to repay back a loan, you could be tried as either a perjurer or a thief. And the reason why they say a perjurer is because the Egyptians looked at it as paying back a loan as an oath, so you were going against your own oath if you were in default.
Speaker 1:But it's also interesting to look back at it and kind of really see that the Egyptians and the Mesopotamians did have some stuff in common and in fact they were both very wealthy societies in comparison to other societies around the same time. I mean, for example, europe was practically just getting out of the Stone Age when Memphis was thriving. Also, egypt was a lot more centralized than what you saw in Mesopotamia. But in the end I really felt a need to speak about Egypt because it was one of the great empires of world history and obviously was a major player in the ancient world and many of their developments in engineering forged a path for modern humans. So in a way, talking about Egypt would mean I'd stray a bit from the scope of the podcast, but I thought it needed to be done because it helped you and I understand how ancient societies interacted and traded with each other, but it also shows how each society contributed to other societies around them and sometimes you'll see how certain technology developed independently of each other.
Speaker 1:But ultimately, the economy of ancient Egypt was challenging to study, as they didn't preserve documents as well as they did, say, in Mesopotamia, for example, because, for one thing, mesopotamia used clay tablets and they actually lasted a lot longer, where, if you're putting things on a pyre, it would decay a lot easier and basically it would be lost to history. But more importantly, the difference between Mesopotamia and Egypt and I've mentioned this several times is the people of Mesopotamia needed to trade because they just did not have the natural resources, so they would have to rely on people from outside the region for their survival, whereas the Egyptians, they mostly just relied on the Nile, watching its inundation from year to year and just doing their measurements and kind of really getting an idea of how much they should expect the Nile to produce from that year and they would use that to obviously devise taxes and other things. But they obviously relied on trade from their neighbors to the south and to the north. But in addition to the trade they also relied on military conquest, so it was kind of a mixture of both. So they would go into places like the Levant and places like Nubia because those places were rich in gold, along with other natural resources such as timber.
Speaker 1:So with regards to Egypt, I thought it was important to discuss how self-sufficient they were, but they still needed to depend on trade.
Speaker 1:In the end, the Egyptians never really developed an advanced monetary system and obviously with that they didn't really develop an advanced banking system. It wasn't until the Ptolemies from Macedonia came into the picture that they were able to import that kind of idea of the economy and trade and how the monetization of the society would make trade a lot more efficient. Either way, since Egypt was a central figure in an ancient world and other kingdoms absolutely relied upon Egypt for trade, I felt it necessary to go over their complete history and I truly hope you found this to be very informative and I really hope you were entertained by this. I know I learned a lot and I hope you did too. 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 the show a ton by leaving a five-star review or telling a friend or two. Thank you very much. Talk to you soon.
