Historians disagree as to the level of sophistication of the ancient economy. Some historians have seen broad analogies between the workings of the ancient economy and "subsistence economies" of areas of the developing world. Other historians suggest that the ancient economy was complex and had more in common with modern economies. This debate has at times been vitriolic and part of the reason for this difference of opinion lies in the nature of the source material.
Our major ancient literary sources make virtually no mention of macro-economic issues (issues affecting the whole economy). They do not discuss the economic fortunes of regions or the productivity of the Roman Empire, levels or distribution of employment, demographics, or any of the other issues that have become central to modern political and economic debate. If the emperors had anything approaching an economic policy, this is not discussed by our sources. There are a number of figures in our sources which historians have treated as statistically valid, such as population figures for certain communities, prices for certain goods and certain rates of pay. Some of these figures are trustworthy, though some are invented. These statistics, both trustworthy and untrustworthy, are so few and often so difficult to interpret that everyone agrees we have nothing approaching an adequate statistical base from which to write economic history.
Two approaches are open to the historian. The first is to patch together the inadequate material available to attempt to reconstruct the ancient economy from literary attestations, archaeological excavations and documentary studies. The second is to develop theoretical models to explain how the economy might have worked and then examine whether the evidence we have fits those models. Both approaches have serious methodological weaknesses. The first approach may mean that too much weight is placed on anomalous evidence and that the general picture of the economy cannot be perceived because of the many and various pieces of evidence: no clear picture of the wood emerges because of a concentration on individual trees. The second approach runs the risk of over-simplifying the economy and, perhaps more seriously, of distorting the evidence to fit the model. The success of the second approach has been that it has allowed historians to think about the economy generally and has generated much modern debate that has led to a better understanding of this issue. It has also allowed historians to make use of evidence which previously had not seemed to be of much relevance to economic history. Used sensitively, this second approach can offer valuable insights into the ancient economy.
All such theoretical models should be treated with caution. They are "ideal types", designed to provide a simple theoretical explanation for the workings of the economy rather than describing any real situation. This can be best illustrated by considering the "ideal type" of a family. One could draw up a list of characteristics of the average family, as various market research organizations do. It is understood that families may differ radically from that "ideal type" and even that the "average family" probably does not exist in reality. The non-existence of the "average family" does not mean that the concept of the "average family" is not useful since, although all families differ, many will differ only insignificantly from the ideal type. It is to theoretical models we turn first.

Free term papers are not written to satisfy your specific instructions. You can use our professional writing services to buy a custom written research paper, term paper, or essay on History at affordable price. CustomTermPapers is the best solution for those who seek help in writing term papers, essays, and research papers related to History and other relevant topics.