The “temple-state theory” of Mesopotamian economy was first propounded by A. Deimel. Unfortunately, he unjustifiably considered his reconstruction to be normative for the whole area and the entire history of Mesopotamia. Subsequent research by Gelb and Diakonoff has shown that temple holdings and economy were but one form of economic life during the third millennium. It would appear that in the course of the third millennium a large part of the “Gross National Product” was in fact produced by the holdings of private owners, the community lands owned by clans, extended families or, to use Diakonoff's term, obschinas. Little attention has, however, been paid to the fact that only a minor share of these products could have been accumulated, re-invested or utilized through long-distance trade by private entrepreneurs. Temple economy most probably participated in the accumulation, redistribution and mobilization of goods to a much larger degree than its own production.

The problem of why, how and when economic goods, and later still, land itself came into the ownership of the temple, an originally non-economic organization, is still open to debate. According to Gelb, land was owned by the tribe, the clan or the community during the early—not defined more precisely—periods of Mesopotamian history, in the time of the primitive communities. He went on to propose that land came under temple ownership when with the fully established centralized state organization and more advanced agricultural economy, the village land controlled by tribes and clans gave way to public land controlled by the crown, temple and nobility. Diakonoff suggested that temple estates gradually absorbed public or community holdings during the Uruk IV–III period at the latest, but perhaps at an even earlier date. Both opinions give a terminus ante quem rather than a chronologically exact date.