A study recently published in the Journal of Archaeological Science has analyzed the relative costs of transporting goods by different means in late Roman Britain, challenging some long-held notions about the economy of the Roman Empire.
The research team, led by Rob Wiseman from the University of Cambridge, has developed a novel method for calculating transportation costs using archaeological evidence, rather than relying solely on the limited historical records available.
The study focuses on the analysis of the distribution of pottery in Roman Britain between the years 250 and 400 AD. The researchers used an extensive database containing information on more than two million pottery fragments from 775 excavations at 652 different sites, encompassing 49 identifiable pottery industries in Roman Britain.
Traditionally, calculations of transportation costs in the Roman world have been based primarily on textual sources, such as the Edict on Maximum Prices issued by Diocletian in the year 301 AD. However, these historical records are largely limited to Egypt, Italy, and the Greek-speaking East, focusing primarily on the Mediterranean basin. This geographical limitation has made it difficult to extrapolate the results to other regions of the Roman Empire, especially to places like Britain, which presents very different geographical and climatic conditions from the Mediterranean.
The method developed by Wiseman and Ortman is based on the analysis of the distribution of transported objects, specifically pottery, to infer the relative costs of transport. By using geographic information systems (GIS) to calculate the distances traveled from production centers to excavation sites through a reconstructed transportation network, the researchers were able to determine cost ratios among road, river, and sea transport.
The study’s results suggest that, in late Roman Britain, road transport was approximately three times more expensive than river transport and four times more expensive than sea transport. Specifically, the researchers found an optimal cost ratio of 1:3:4 for road, river, and sea transport, respectively. It is important to note that these findings differ significantly from previous estimates based on historical sources, which often suggested that land transport was much more costly compared to aquatic options.
The study also highlights the importance of considering the total shipping costs, which include not only the direct transportation expenses but also other factors such as port fees, storage costs, and customs duties. The authors argue that previous approaches, based solely on historical records or GIS analysis, may have substantially underestimated the overall costs related to transportation by not accounting for these additional factors.
One of the key strengths of the study is its extensive archaeological database, which allows for a more comprehensive and representative analysis of pottery distribution patterns throughout Roman Britain. However, the authors acknowledge some limitations in their data, such as the relative scarcity of information from Cornwall, Wales, and northwest England, as well as a limited representation of urban settlements and military sites.
The innovative approach used in this study not only provides new insights into the economy of Roman Britain but also offers a method that could be applied to other regions and historical periods. By relying on tangible archaeological evidence rather than solely on limited written sources, this method has the potential to revolutionize our understanding of ancient transportation and trade networks, while also providing insights into how goods and ideas may have circulated throughout the empire, influencing patterns of specialization, risk management, and innovation.
Additionally, the study highlights the importance of considering the specific geographical and climatic conditions of different regions when analyzing ancient transportation costs. The case of Britain, with its strong tides, Atlantic storms, and humid climate, demonstrates how local conditions could have significantly affected the costs and viability of different modes of transportation.
Our analysis showed that little Roman pottery was transported along the coast, and most of that which was transported came from the southeastern Dorset industry at Poole harbor, the researchers state. They add that our analysis shows that transportation costs were the most important factor influencing the distribution patterns of some of the most productive pottery industries in Roman Britain. Cost appears to be more important than social embeddedness in determining which pottery was used in different locations in late Roman Britain.
Pottery was not the only product, nor even the most common one, that was distributed by road, river, or sea. However, all other industries would have used the same roads, vehicles, and vessels and thus would have incurred comparable expenses, they conclude.
SOURCES
Rob Wiseman, Scott G. Ortman, Olivia Bulik, The costs of transporting goods by different modes: A case study of pottery movement in late Roman Britain. Journal of Archaeological Science, Volume 170, October 2024, 106059. doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2024.106059
Discover more from LBV Magazine English Edition
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.