Priority and Continuity of the Redistributive Pattern

Abstract

It has already been stressed in the Introduction that Polanyi’s patterns of reciprocity and redistribution are rather interpretive than descriptive of reality. They do not point out two separate sets of facts, but can be used alternatively with reference to the same facts — of course with different, even opposed, communicative aims and results. A phenomenon as complex and multifaceted as the inter-state circulation of goods contains features that fit particularly well into either pattern. Today, different perspectives are commonly used in order to provide as thorough an analysis as possible of a complex historical situation. But this approach was already evident in the ancient documents, where state interaction is viewed with aims and perspectives that vary from case to case — though it is not surprising that we never find here any unbiased, well-balanced analysis for the sake of ‘history’. The written documentation on international trade in the Late Bronze period does not consist of collections of ‘data’ but of interpretations provided by the actors.