Slavery had a crucial economic function in the ancient world. Although wealth creation functioned on several levels production depended on slavery. In medieval times, it is possible that Anglo-Saxon England grew wealthier through the selling of slaves, besides itself enslaving others. The USA built up its wealth on African slaves, but also indenture of British subjects.
The point of this question is to re-look at ancient, early modern and present day economics through paradigms of slavery.
Yes, the wealth in Roman Empire was constructed on slavery and by robbery as well. Through their expansion, the Romans could influence the trade in the Mediterranean area. But the better connection and diplomacy with India and the SIlk road, where silks and spices came from, play important roles for the wealth and prosperity in the ancient world.
I came across an article about the Anglo-Saxon world in which it suggested that the Anglo-Saxons had acquired wealth through the selling of slaves to the Muslim world (c850 AD). This made me wonder, especially as I know the Classical Greek/Athenian economy was subsidised by slavery, who did all the work.
By the Ancient World how generic do you wish to be? Some societies had slaves but their economic importance may have been limited, eg Egypt where, despite ideas based on the OT, the majority of labour was provided by the corvee system. Wrt the Anglo-Saxon world its again questionable how important this was, not many economic documents indicate a large slave body, in particular Aelfric's Colloquy on the Occupations suggests that necessary menial labour was performed by the free poor, Domesday has a limited number of slaves and the provisions of the Trinoda Necessitas also suggest free labour predominated. So that's two societies at least where slavery was relatively unimportant. Ken Harl also the suggests that the same applied in Classical Athens and that even in the Roman world its only really the large estates and mines where it was important economically.
Timothy, I'll search out the paper on the Anglo-Saxons and let you know author, etc. But they claim: 1) New perspectives on Wessex and the development of English history, 2) the variety of languages spoken during 9th century, and if I remember rightly 3) many Anglo-Saxons accompanied Rollo (?) in his conquest of the later Normandy in France.
As said here, I think Marx may have had a point about development of slavery in Mesopotamia based on patriarchy as before they had indenture (debts, etc), but not Egypt surely. And yes you are, of course, right about slavery in Egypt-like in the Joseph story foreign slaves were given skilled or service-industry (household) positions, not hard labour.
Timothy, a review by Tom Shippey in London Review of Books, of Alfred's Britain: War and Peace in the Viking Age-by Max Adams.