¹ Polanyi, K., Arensberg, C. M. and Pearson, H. W., eds., Trade and Market in the Early Empires (Glencoe, Ill.: Free Press & Falcon's Wing Press, 1957)Google Scholar, cited hereafter as T. & M.—See chs. II-IV, VII-IX.

² A. Leeds, “The Port of Trade in Pre-European India and as an Ecological and Evolutionary Type.” Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Ethnological Society (mimeographed, n.d.).

⁸ P. Koschaker, “Zur staatlichen Wirtschaftsverwaltung in altbabylonischer Zeit, insbesondere nach Urkunden in Larsa,” Zeitsckrift fur Assyriologie N. F. Bd. 13 (Bd. 47) (1942), 179-80.

⁴ Ibid., p. 142.

⁵ Ibid., p. 158.

⁶ Ennen, E., Frühgeschichte der europäischen Stadt (Bonn: Röhrscheid Verlag, 1953)Google Scholar.

⁷ Lehmann-Hartleben, K., Die antigen Hafenanlagen des Mittelmeeres (Leipzig: Klio, Beih. 14, 1923), pp. 4 ffGoogle Scholar.

⁸ Chapman, A. M., “Port of Trade Enclaves in Aztec and Maya Civilizations,” in T. & M., pp. 114–53Google Scholar.

⁹ Arnold, R., “A Port of Trade: Whydah on the Guinea Coast,” in T. & M., pp. 154–76Google Scholar; “Separation of Trade and Market: Great Market of Whydah,” in T. & M., pp. 177—87.

¹⁰ K. Polanyi, in collaboration with A. Rotstein, Dahomey and the Slave Trade (in preparation).

¹¹ A. Leeds, “The Port of Trade,” p. 4 ff.

¹² A. L. Oppenheim, “A Bird's-Eye View of Mesopotamian Economic History,” in T. & M., pp. 30-31.

¹³ R. B. Revere, “'No Man's Coast': Ports of Trade in the Eastern Mediterranean,” in T. & M., pp. 38-63.

¹⁴ Polanyi, K., “Comparative Treatment of Economic Institutions in Antiquity, with Illustrations from Athens, Mycenae and Alalakh,” in City Invincible (Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1960), pp. 347–48Google Scholar.

¹⁵ R. B. Revere, “Ports of Trade in the Eastern Mediterranean,” pp. 40-43.

¹⁶ Ibid., p. 53. Cf. also Cl. Schaeffer, Ugaritica, III (Paris, 1956).

¹⁷ Ibid., pp. 53—54. Cf. also Sir Woolley, Leonard, A Forgotten Kingdom (London: Harmonds-worth, 1953)Google Scholar.

¹⁸ Ibid., pp. 58-59.

¹⁹ Ibid., pp. 58-59. Cf. Ezekiel 27.

²⁰ Herod., IV. 196.

²¹ The use of the word emporium as denoting a large center of commerce is of later origin.

²² Ennen, E., Frühgeschichte, p. 124.Google Scholar Cf. also Vogel, W., WihjOrte und Wikinger, Hans. Geschichtsbll., 60 (1935).Google ScholarRörig, F., Lübeck., Hans. Geschichtsbll., 67–68 (1942-1943)Google Scholar; Magdeburgs Entstehung und die ältere Handelsgeschichte, Misc. Akad. Berol. II, i (1950), 103–32.Google ScholarPlanitz, H., Frühgeschichte der deutschen Stadt, Zschr. Savigny Stiftg., Rechtsgesch., Germ. Abt., 67 (1950)Google Scholar.

²³ Ennen, E., Frühgeschichte, p. 56Google Scholar.

²⁴ Ibid., p. 59. Cf. also Jankuhn, Haithabugrabungen, 1930-1939.

²⁵ Ibid., p. 59.

²⁶ F. Rörig, Lübeck.. Th. Frings, Wik. Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur, begr. v. Braune—Paul—Sievers. Herausgegeben v. Th. Frings, 65 (1941—1942), 221-26.

²⁷ Rörig, F., Magdeburgs Entstehung, p. 128.Google ScholarPlanitz, H., Die deutsche Stadt im Mittelalter (1954), p. 54 ffGoogle Scholar.

²⁸ Ennen, E., Frühgeschichte, p. 130Google Scholar, “Die Autorität von Frings steht hinter der Herleitung von ‘vicus’,” also n. 202, same page.

²⁹ K. Polanyi, review of Ennen, E., Frühgeschichte, in The Journal of Economic History XVII, No. 2 (June 1957), 312Google Scholar.

³⁰ Ennen, E., Frühgeschichte, p. 69Google Scholar, “Die Wikingischen Emporien lassen sich allenfalls mit den Emporien vergleichen, die von Lehmann-Hardeben bei vielen antiken Seestadten nachgewiesen wurden.”

³¹ “a place through which merchandise was carried.”

³² A. M. Chapman, “Port of Trade Enclaves.”

³³ Ibid., pp. 117, 138.

³⁴ ibid.

³⁵ Ibid., pp. 120 ff.

³⁶ Ibid., p. 132.

³⁷ Ibid., pp. 139—40.

³⁸ Ibid., pp. 142-45.

³⁹ Ibid., p. 116.

⁴⁰ Ibid., p. 134.

⁴¹ Ibid., p. 119.

⁴² R. Arnold, “A Port of Trade.”

⁴³ The Rehla of Ibn Battuta (tr. Husain, Mahdi, Gaekwad's Oriental Series, CXXII, 1953), map facing p. 176Google Scholar.

⁴⁴ K. Polanyi, “Marketless Trading in Hammurabi's Time,” in T. & M., p. 26.

⁴⁵ Koschaker, P., “Zur staatlichen Wirtschaftsverwaltung,” p. 179Google Scholar: “Meine Ausführungen schliessen mit Zweifeln und Dissonanzen.”

⁴⁶ Polanyi, K., “Marketless Trading,” pp. 12—26Google Scholar, and Oppenheim, A. L., “A Bird's-Eye View,” pp. 27–37Google Scholar.

⁴⁷ Columbia University, Interdisciplinary Project on the Economic Aspects of Institutional Growth, Selected Memoranda, 4 vols., 637 pp., 1953—1958 (available at Columbia University, Butler Library, reserved). Arensberg, C. M., “Anthropology as History,” in T. & M., pp. 97—113.Google ScholarBohannan, Paul, “The Impact of Money on an African Subsistence Economy,” in The Journal of Economic History, XIX, No. 4 (Dec. 1959), 491–503.CrossRefGoogle ScholarBohannan, Paul, Tiv Trade and Markets (in preparation).Google ScholarHopkins, T. K., “Sociology and the Substantive View of the Economy,” in T. & M., pp. 271–306.Google ScholarNeale, W. C., “Reciprocity and Redistribution in the Indian Village: Sequel to some Notable Discussions,” in T. & M., pp. 218–36.Google ScholarPearson, H. W., “The Economy has no Surplus: Critique of a Theory of Development,” in T. & M., pp. 320–41Google Scholar.

⁴⁸ Polanyi, K., “The Economy as Instituted Process,” in T. & M., pp. 241—70.Google Scholar Cf. also Polanyi, K., The Great Transformation (New York: Rinehart & Co., College edition, 1957) ch. IV, “Societies and Economic Systems,” pp. 43–55Google Scholar.

⁴⁹ Oppenheim, A. L., “A Bird's-Eye View,” pp. 28–29Google Scholar.

⁵⁰ Ibid., pp. 30-31.

⁵¹ Herod., I. 153 (tr. Rawlinson).

⁵² Barrois, A.-G., Manual d'archéologie biblique (Paris: Picard, 1939), I, 291–92Google Scholar.

⁵³ Polanyi, K., “Marketless Trading in Hammurabi's Time,” in T. & M., pp. 12–26Google Scholar.

⁵⁴ Landsberger, B., Materialien zum Summcrischen hexikon, I. Die Serie ana ittišu (1937), p. 115Google Scholar.

⁵⁵ Koschaker, P., “Zur staatlichen Wirtschaftsverwaltung,” p. 164Google Scholar.

⁶⁶ Ibid., pp. 158-59.

⁵⁷ Leemans, F. W., The Old-Babylonian Merchant. Studia et Documenta, III (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1950), ch. IVGoogle Scholar, “Conclusions,” pp. 36 ff.

⁵⁸ Leemans, F. W., Foreign Trade in the Old Babylonian Period. Studia et Documenta, IV (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1960), p. 1, n. 1Google Scholar.

⁵⁹ Ibid., preface, p. vii.

⁶⁰ Oriental Institute, Chicago.

⁶¹ G.-C. Gardin and P. Garelli, “Études des e'tablissements Assyrians en Cappadoce par ordinateur,” Annales, 16^e année, No. 5 (Sept.-Oct. 1961).

⁶² Leemans, F. W., Foreign Trade in the Old Babylonian Period, p. 1, n. 1Google Scholar.

⁶³ Ibid., pp. 1-2, n. 1.

⁶⁴ F. W. Leemans, “Economische gegevens in Summerische en Akkadische texten, en hun problemen,” Jaarbericht No. 15, Ex Oriente Lux (1957—1958), pp. 203-4.

⁶⁵ Ibn Battuta, The Rehla, p. 184.

⁶⁶ Ibid., p. 184, n. 6.

⁶⁷ Ibid., p. 201.

⁶⁸ Ibid., p. 200, n. 5.

⁶⁹ Croix, G. E. M. de Ste., review of T. & M. in The Economic History Review, 2nd Series, XII, No. 3 (April 1960), 510CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁷⁰ This compels me to try and unravel the interlocking criticisms which F. M. Heichelheim has leveled against my several contributions to Trade and Market in the Early Empires, 1957 (in his review of that work in Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient, III, Pt. I [April i960], 108—10). Unfortunately, the conceptual system developed in that work had, as he avowed, no interest for him.

Heichelheim's impatience with my voicing of any doubts concerning the dominance of a market system in the ancient Orient antedated Leemans' partial concurrence (1961) with my views on the matter. Heichelheim asked, had I “in fact, never heard of the 'market'-prices at the quays?” It was precisely the suitability of such all-too-often-used terms, that the new conceptual tool box was designed to probe. As a result, trade and market were not only sharply distinguished, but up to a point contrasted in the archaic empires. Heichelheim, having ignored theory, employed “trade” and “market” interchangeably. Since the actual links between market and trade institutions were in question, his insistence on employing the term “market trade” in disregard of the significance attaching to this technical term in the work was anydiing but helpful. Still another instance of Heichelheim's practice of “no theory” should perhaps be adduced. The methodological device of transcending time-bound institutions through the introducing of generalized terms was applied by me throughout the work. In order to avoid the marketing connotation of “price” where inappropriate, a new term—"equivalency"—was introduced by me as well as by Oppenheim, which would apply irrespective of the pattern of integration under which the figures denoting the rate occurred. “Thus price systems,” I argued, “may have an institutional history of their own in terms of the types of equivalencies that entered into their making.” For an historical illustration of die principle, I quoted Max Weber's remark that “for lack of a costing basis Western capitalism would not have been possible but for the Medieval network of statuated and regulated prices, customary rents, etc., a legacy of guild and manor.” Heichelheim, in his disregard of the theoretical argument, mistook the long-run history of different types of equivalencies to which I was referring for the history of the actual prices themselves. The legendary thirty pieces of silver received by Judas as the “price of a man,” which typologically appear in the New Testament as a “close variant” of the “equivalency” of a slave as set out in Hammurabi's Code eighteen hundred years earlier, were badly misconstrued by Heichelheim. He assumed I was arguing the derivation of an actual slave price of the first century A.D. in Jerusalem from Hammurabi's Code, which would have been indeed, as he put it, “a howler.” As it was, his risky practice of “no theory” boomeranged.

Twice Heichelheim in his review appealed expressly to his authority “as an Ancient Historian and Classical scholar.”

First, my reference to Herodotus I. 153—no market places in the city of Babylon—drew from him this answer: “We do not have here probably a Herodotean statement before us, but an interpolation by some post-Classical copyist who was under the influence of Stoic anthropological theory. Cp. here Powell, J. E., Herodotus Translated I, (1949), p. IV, 78.”Google Scholar Actually, J. E. Powell's preface to his translation contains no reference that bears out Heichelheim's statement about a post-Classical interpolation or Stoic influences. On the contrary, Powell's italics in the Herodotean passage on p. 78 signify both the interest he feels should be attached to Herodotus' comment, and his belief in its authenticity. Cf. Powell's statement of intent (p. iv), which leaves no doubt as to his typographical practice. Nor does the critical text of Karl Hude contain any expression of doubt. The same is true of any of the translators, including Rawlinson, who remarked on Herodotus' statement on no market places in Persia. Heichelheim's treatment of Herodotus I. 153 is, to put it mildly, unclear.

Second, Heichelheim's reference to “primary evidence” in the three volumes of Hesperia (1953, 1956, 1958) containing the monographs by W. K. Pritchett, A. Pippin, and A. Amyx on “The Attic Stelai” is misleading. They contain exclusively the famous lists of auction prices of the grafitti pottery. No reference to “primary evidence” about market prices is to be found there. Heichelheim has neglected the warnings of the authors not to draw conclusions in regard to “a scheme of prices for actually extant vases,” referring to the “many pitfalls” (Vol. XXVII [19581, 278).

Heichelheim's dismissal of Trade and Market in the Early Empires as a “most regrettable book” adds nothing to the issue of the port of trade in general, discussed there in several chapters, nor to the subject of the Babylonian kar, raised in this paper as an issue of the port of trade.

⁷¹ The Journal of Economic History, XXII, No. 1 (March 1962), 116–17Google Scholar.