Abstracts (in Alphabetical order)
The origins of Roman maritime trade (6th-4th century BC): technology and institutions
Gabriele Cifani
Early Roman engagement in maritime trade is often denied in the literary tradition, probably in order to avoid any connection between the idealised image of austere Roman ancestors (imagined as shepherds, farmers, soldiers and honest citizens) and maritime trade or piracy. Such a reconstruction now seems implausible however. Livy, for instance, emphasised that the Roman Navy was reorganised only in 311 BC, by means of the institution of the duumviri navales classes ornandae reficiendaeque causa, but he also had to admit that the Romans had asked for food supplies from the south of Latium and from Cuma and Sicily at the beginning of the fifth century, which were obviously carried by ship (Livy II. 9-14; Dion. Hal. V. 21-7, 32, 65). There is also the same author’s statement that Aristodemus, tyrant of Cuma, had seized Roman ships (Liv. II.34.3; Dion. Hal. VII. 1-2, 12-15), not to mention the direct reference to maritime trade included in the treaty between Rome and Carthago, dated by Polybius to the first year of the Republic, which forbade or strictly controlled any Roman and Latin maritime activity in the Punic area of Sicily and northern Africa.
By the fourth century BC at the latest, Theophrastus considered Rome as a city able to colonise Corsica, and Latium as a region with remarkable forest resources for ship building. (Hist. Pl. V. 8.2-3). This picture of Rome as a maritime city is also confirmed by the Periplus of Pseudo-Scylax, which refers to it as the only harbour along the coastal sea route between Etruria and Campania, and by the rules provided for by the treaty of 348 BC with Carthago (Polyb. III, 24, 3-13). These denied the Romans colonisation rights not only in Libya, but also in Sardinia and southern Spain, a prohibition which is quite revealing in terms of the potential expansion of Rome by the middle of the fourth century BC. However, the maritime relevance of Rome in the fourth century can hardly be appraised without considering the previous background, which should be framed in the long term history of archaic Mediterranean maritime trade. Furthermore, the archaeological findings of the last two decades also offer direct evidence of Rome as an active Mediterranean emporium and site of cultural and trade interaction from the eighth century BC onwards, while recent epigraphic discoveries, such as those of the Grand Ribaud F shipwreck, suggest that people of Latin origin were involved in Etruscan maritime trade from the 6th century BC onwards, at the latest.
The aim of this paper is to critically discuss the potential value of archaeological evidence such as historical sources in reconsidering the origin of Roman maritime trading activity between the sixth and fourth centuries BC. More specifically, it will focus on the technology of transportation in the archaic period and on the legal institutions involved with maritime trading activity in archaic Rome, particularly the food supply during the early Republic.
Maritime Security in the Roman World: Ideals and Realities
Philip de Souza (Università degli Studi di Roma Tor Vergata)
In his posthumous manifesto for Roman imperial rule, the emperor Augustus declared: “I made the sea peaceful and free of pirates” (Mare pacavi a praedonibus; Res gestae 25.1). The benefits of this maritime security were celebrated by contemporary writers such as Strabo, who recognised how greatly trade between regions such as Spain and Italy prospered because of increased maritime security, going as far as to declare that the entire Mediterranean coastline was under Roman control, barring a few undesirable zones inhabited by bandits and pirates (Geography 3.2.5; 17.3.24-25). Modern scholars, too, have long recognised the fundamental importance of the safer environment for seafarers, which promoted excellent conditions for both local and inter-regional trade across the Mare Nostrum, and which was a key feature of the celebrated Pax Romana.
This paper will explore the military and political foundations of the development of Roman control of maritime space in the Republican and Early Imperial periods, assessing how and why the Romans came to dominate the coastlines of the Mediterranean and adjacent seas, paying particular attention to both ancient and modern debates about the relative importance of trade, trading networks, commercial infrastructures and imperial revenues. It will explore the ideological underpinnings of maritime security, as revealed by contemporary legal documents, political treatises, historical narratives and a wide variety of literary works.
The paper will also evaluate the practical measures that Roman authorities undertook to enforce maritime security, assessing the challenges faced by Roman military forces in establishing and maintaining their control, including those based in some of the more remote parts of the Empire, and it will consider examples of the consequences they had to face when those challenges proved too great.
“Mare Clausum”: Sailing during wintertime
Stamatia Galata (University of Liverpool)
Romans, from 30 BC to 117 AD, controlled most of the coasts of the Mediterranean and the Black Sea. Thus, they called the sea, “mare nostrum” (“our sea”). Their economic development is strongly connected with the ability of commercial vessels to transfer large quantities of commodities across the Black Sea and Mediterranean. The importance of maritime trade cannot be neglected, while links economically and politically heterogeneous societies, directly. Therefore, between November and March, a period full of risks and hazards, they have forbidden the maritime trade and they “closed” the sea, “mare clausum”. Despite the fact that Casson admitted that there is the possibility that ancient seamen, occasionally, were forced to undertake voyages during wintertime, it is inevitable to not accept that the maritime trade suffered from seasonal dislocation.
Thus, any seasonal dislocation could have a major impact on the wider economy of the Roman world and therefore, a crucial change in the commercial patterns. In addition, the same idea is endorsed by Beresford; even if seasonal parameters have been set during the Graeco-Roman period, in cases of military, political or economic necessity, these parameters are ignored. Despite the fact that the ancient sources implicate an engagement of sea merchantmen in commercial activity during wintertime as an aberration to the marine seasonal rule. In the ancient Roman world, the marine activity was conducted in similar seasons but also, they were exceptions. The literature pinpoints regional diversity; there were seasonal limitations, while many mariners preferred the cessation of the seaborne trade during wintertime. Generally, the maritime calendar by Hesiod around 700 BC, remained constant from the Archaic period until the final years of Roman period; the sailing season was running from early or middle of spring until middle or late autumn. It is crucial to examine the trade routes of the vessels in order to understand the economic and cultural relationships between the people in those areas. The way of navigation in certain regions and periods lingers on imagination. So, the object of this study is to offer a comprehensive review of scattered textual and archaeological evidence about the maritime season. This presentation will stress the importance of commercial maritime trade in Roman times even if there is the regulation of “mare clausum” and consequently, demonstrate the voyages taking place during wintertime, when they considered as “infrequent exceptions” in the general Graeco-Roman seasonal regulation.
Legal remedies for shipping by sea: materia medica and nutriments as a case in point
Ido Israelowich (Tel Aviv University)
Large-scale trade and long-distance shipping encouraged Roman jurist to produce legal remedies for facilitating such transactions efficiently and effectively. Of the wide array of produces to be commercially shipped, two categories enjoyed particular attention of jurists: materia medica, and basic nutriments. The first category incorporated pharmaceutics and surgical instruments. The second, included what was considered to be basic nutriments. From a legal point of view, the trade in materia medica required clarifications pertaining taxation; recognising medical authority; identification of necessary medical supply; and some legal aspects of quality control. The will of Roman authorities to encourage shipment of basic nutriments, such as wine, oil, and grain brought about stimulants, in the form of legislation for members of the various groups of professionals to have done so (e.g. ship builders, bankers, producers etc.). Historians of medicine have for-long associated between the rise of state-control over medical practice with the formation of an imperial army, which required a medical corps. The shift from an a army of citizens into a professional one called for more rigorous attention the the soldiers’ health, both on and off the battle-field. In turn, the Roman state was forced to identify those most suitable to offer healthcare within the army and facilitate their practice therein. Others explained the incentive to bestow privileges upon those who provided nutriments in terms of governance. Imperial ideology marked the ruler as personally responsible for the well-being of the citizens. Likewise, more sinister commentators were quick to identify the unease brought about by food shortage in the big cities. However, an overall review of the legal remedies which met these demands is still lacking. In my paper I will look into the relevant remedies with these questions in mind:
- Who were the persona who authored these remedies?
- What were the considerations that guided them?
- How were political demands translated into a legal language?
- How conscious were the jurists of the financial implications of their work?
- Could a comparison between the legal remedies pertaining food commerce and material medica reveal something of the modus operandi of the emperor qua legislator?
Golden Era, Golden Opportunities. Roman maritime Trade from India to Egypt during the Reign of Augustus
Joachim Karmaat (University of Bonn)
”At any rate, when Gallus was prefect of Egypt, I accompanied him and ascended the Nile as far as Syene and the frontiers of Ethiopia, and I learned that as many as one hundred and twenty vessels were sailing from Myos Hormos to India, whereas formerly, under the Ptolemais, only a very few ventured to undertake the voyage and to carry on traffic in Indian merchandise.” (Strabo II.5.12 – by Loeb Classical edition).
Writers such as Strabo, Ptolemy and Pliny the Elder acknowledged the increasing importance of the Southern trade route under the rule of Augustus, in comparison to the Ptolemaic dynasty. This is backed up by archaeological research, which indicates a significant increase with regard to the importance of the Southern trade route for trade with India. Although this route had always been used for shipping goods, the undertaking of this voyage was associated with high risk and hazards for sailors and merchants at all times. Nevertheless, the Roman rule improved these conditions. Once established, the Roman administration in Egypt started a massive build up program at the coast of the Red Sea. Initially, this program should have supported the military campaigns in Arabia. Later, the infrastructure was maintained for economic purposes, though. The route linked the Empire permanently to one of the largest trade networks in antiquity, which spanned the entire Indian Ocean and beyond.
Although this is widely accepted by current research as a fact, the question of Roman contribution to this trade network still remains largely unclear. Did the Romans contribute significantly to the aforementioned network or were they mere users of the existing structures? My paper will elaborate on these questions while it also outlines the social and legal structures of Indian trade, beginning with identifying the groups who were contributing to Indian trade. Obviously, specific characteristics of Egypt must be taken into account, as this area was of tremendous importance for the Roman Emperor. Furthermore, the organization of the contact to India is of significance as well – considering the possibility of a direct interaction between Roman representatives and Indian locals and vice versa. Finally, I will describe the practices of Roman-Indian trade. While there only is a limited number of literary sources, archaeological evidence provides helpful information and insight here; the 2 excavations in Arikamedu, India, as well as those in Berenice, Egypt, have to be mentioned here. These recent findings provide us with a lot of new and relevant information. Moreover, there are many examples of Roman trade beyond their influential sphere, which could be used as template for Indian maritime trade. It is my intention to incorporate the three abovementioned elements in order to provide a more detailed picture of Indian-Roman trade relations during the reign of Augustus.
14.2.9: Volusius Maecianus on the Lex Rhodia de iactu
Valerio Massimo Minale (Universita Bocconi, Milan)
14.2.9, the penultimate place of the section in the Digesta concerning the Lex Rhodia de iactu, preserves a fragment ascribed by the editors to Volusius Maecianus, a jurist who together with Salvius Iulianus and Ulpius Marcellus held a position in the consilium of Antoninus Pius and of the Divi Fratres, Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus; the text, which is in Greek, has been considered not original by the doctrine (and expecially by Francesco De Martino, who was uncertain about the reference to Augustus and his assumed acceptance of the Hellenistic sea law in the Roman legal system as a kind of custom): anyway, it offers us a relevant viewpoint in order to understand an ideology according which the emperor would be able to organize only the mainland, but not the free kingdom of the waters; moreover, it appears also in the Byzantine tradition of the prooimion of the Nomos Rhodion Nautikos.
Maritime and Land Import – Notes on the Caunus Customs Regulation
Lyuba Radulova (University of Sofia)
The paper intends to examine the customs procedures regarding the import and export of cargoes by sea and by land as attested in the famous inscription from Caunus (SEG XIV 639). Leaving aside the central problem of the document – the taxability or immunity of certain categories of goods, the study will focus on individuating eventual differences in the customs procedures that depend on the mode of transport.
The starting point of the analysis will be the paragraph dedicated to the obligation to declare the imported cargoes and the customs treatment of the goods in transit (rr. B10-C1). Taking into consideration the differences in the declaration procedures for the goods imported by sea and those imported by land, the paper will find a homogenous treatment of all cargoes imported by land, and the presence of specific clauses regarding the goods imported by sea. In order to interpret this asymmetrical structure, a parallel will be made both with other sources dealing with the problem of the customs treatment of goods imported by sea, and with paragraph C8-D5 of the same document. Stepping on these parallels, the paper will point out the difference between the physical entrance of the cargo in the Caunus harbor and its importation which seems to take place only after the berthing of the goods. Keeping this difference in mind, an integration of the lacuna at l. B13 will be proposed.
Next, the attention will be directed to the goods which are brought into Caunus and are later on taken away. The comparison of the paragraphs B10-C1, C8-D5 e E2-E15 will reveal differences in the declaration procedure and the regime of the portorium exemption. The differences concern the treatment of the goods brought by sea which will remain in the Caunus harbor for less than 24 hours without leaving the ship; the goods which will be transported through the city’s territory without being offered for sale, and the goods which will be exported to a different destination after being offered unsuccessfully for sale. Based on this, the paper will identify three distinct types of goods: cabotage goods, transit goods and re-exported goods.
The three types of goods will be considered separately from a linguistic, procedural and economic point of view. Firstly, the paper will analyze the terminology for the different types of goods in Greek and Latin. Then, an attempt will be made to reconstruct the procedures of professio, aestimatio and portorium payment or exemption. Finally, the study will examine the economic reason behind the provisions contained in the Caunus customs regulation.
Imperial interventions on overseas supply and the role of the patrimonium
Caesaris : a sectorial dirigisme?
Nicolas Solonakis (Universite Bordeaux-Montaigne)
The Roman Empire was a powerful machine of economic integration: beyond the well-known ‘taxes-and-trade’ model, recent scholarship has increasingly emphasized the various channels through which the imperial administration intervened – albeit indirectly – on the economy, both on basic staple food and luxury items. On the one hand, the cities’ grain supply was obviously a crucial concern for imperial authorities, inter alia to avoid social unrest – in particular for large megalopoleis like Rome, Athens or Ephesus –, even more so in a Context of strong ecological fragmentation, volatile food markets, and high urbanization rates. On the other hand, luxury items – most often brought from the eastern margins of the Empire –, while representing a much smaller niche, might provide an important source of revenue for the imperial treasury. While considerable scholarship has been developing on large scale schemes such as the annona, or the spice trade, for instance, the precise logistics and Institutional settings which shaped such maritime grain supply, as well as their potentially unintended consequences, has yet to be fully illuminated.
In fact, recent scholarship has emphasized the prominent role played by imperial authorities in organizing the supply of grain or luxury items. In the meantime the renewed interest for the management and administration of the patrimonium Caesaris has accompanied its increasingly frequent perception as a potential instrument of economic policy instead of a
mere bulk of resources of (imperial) private property. The focus of this paper is thus twofold :
(1) to bridge the question of imperial interventions on overseas supply and that of the management of the patrimonium; in other words: did the patrimonium Caesaris play a specific role in the supply of staple food and/or luxury items? (2) to investigate whether there was a difference in such imperial involvement between staple food and luxury commodities.
These elements will be looked into on the basis of two case studies : maritime trade routes of the annona on the one hand, and the circulation of derivative products of the balsamum judaicum – which is known to have been subject to an imperial monopoly – on the other. Through this impressionistic perspective, we hope to shed a new light on the involvement of imperial institutions in the management and maritime supply channels of strategic resources.
Insuring the risky business of Roman maritime trade
Nikol Žiha (University of Osijek, Croatia)
Along with potential financial losses, the ancient maritime ventures were exposed to numerous marine navigation risks, in legal sources reffered to as sea storm (marina tempestas), shipwreck (naufragium), ship’s demise (si navis periset), pirates (vis, insidiae piratorum) etc. A distinct legal contract that simultaneously financed overseas trade, but also provided a certain security against those hazards was the Greco-Roman institute of maritime loan (fenus nauticum, pecunia traiectitia). This loan of money constituted a capital that was made available to the merchant for a maritime venture and repayable with very high interest rates on condition that the vessel reached its destination safely.
Since the interest rate (praemium periculi) in terms of its value and risk adjustment can be compared to premium, and especially because the risk of commercial journey was transferred to the party not directly participating in the maritime venture, maritime loan is attributed a function similar to modern-day marine insurance. Nevertheless, it remains highly disputed in studies whether such risk-transfer mechanism was sufficiently developed at that time and could be regarded as, originally defined by Jhering, “the insurance business of the antiquity” (Assekuranzgeschäft des Altertums).
By focusing on the contract of maritime loan, which was adapted as a commercial custom into the existing architecture of Roman legal system and altered to meet the new developments of commerce, this contribution aims to analyse its insurance function. Using the modern insurance concept as a benchmark, the objective of this paper is to examine the coherence between elements of modern insurance (contractual parties, insurable event, premium, risk, covered time period, compensation etc.) and its historical precursor and thus provide a modest contribution to the study of the Roman risk distribution concepts.