Integrating Late Roman Cities, Countryside and Trade
Hartmut G. Ziche
Ancient economies, modern methodologies: Archaeology, comparative history, models and institutions, eds. Bang, P. F., Ikeguchi, M. and Ziche, H. G. (Bari, 2007)
This paper is ostensibly about the economic integration of city and countryside under the later Roman empire, and the forms of trade which are plausible for a system based on this type of integrated rural/urban economy. The paper thus falls into two main parts, the first one explaining why a separation of rural and urban economy – something which could be termed a feudal transformation – is unlikely to occur in the fourth and fifth century CE. The second part takes the argument on plausible economic developments onestep further, trying to explain how the same socio-economic contexts whichmake the separation of rural and urban economy unlikely, can also be used to explain why trade and market exchange should not diminish over the same period. However, in keeping with the question of methodology in economic history which is the theme of this volume, there is an important subtext to these arguments. Neither of the two parts of the economic modelling which are proposed here contribute any substantially new elements to the debateabout the nature of the late Roman economy. What they are meant to show, however, is the interdependence of the various arguments.
The model chosen to describe the integrated economy of the late empire conditions a quite precise corresponding model of late Roman trade; and vice-versa, of course. The methodological point which I attempt to make throughthis concrete example is the proposition that discussions about various aspectsof the ancient economy cannot be conducted in isolation. In the presentexample it would seem difficult to discuss trade without thinking about howconsumption and production are located. And vice-versa it would not makesense to postulate that consumption and production have differentgeographical and social centres without proposing a model for the distributionof goods and revenue.
Integrating Late Roman Cities, Countryside and Trade
Hartmut G. Ziche
Ancient economies, modern methodologies: Archaeology, comparative
history, models and institutions, eds. Bang, P. F., Ikeguchi, M. and Ziche, H. G. (Bari, 2007)
This paper is ostensibly about the economic integration of city and countryside under the later Roman empire, and the forms of trade which are plausible for a system based on this type of integrated rural/urban economy. The paper thus falls into two main parts, the first one explaining why a separation of rural and urban economy – something which could be termed a feudal transformation – is unlikely to occur in the fourth and fifth century CE. The second part takes the argument on plausible economic developments onestep further, trying to explain how the same socio-economic contexts whichmake the separation of rural and urban economy unlikely, can also be used to explain why trade and market exchange should not diminish over the same period. However, in keeping with the question of methodology in economic history which is the theme of this volume, there is an important subtext to these arguments. Neither of the two parts of the economic modelling which are proposed here contribute any substantially new elements to the debateabout the nature of the late Roman economy. What they are meant to show, however, is the interdependence of the various arguments.
The model chosen to describe the integrated economy of the late empire conditions a quite precise corresponding model of late Roman trade; and vice-versa, of course. The methodological point which I attempt to make throughthis concrete example is the proposition that discussions about various aspectsof the ancient economy cannot be conducted in isolation. In the presentexample it would seem difficult to discuss trade without thinking about howconsumption and production are located. And vice-versa it would not makesense to postulate that consumption and production have differentgeographical and social centres without proposing a model for the distributionof goods and revenue.
Click here to read this article from Ancient economies, modern methodologies
Sponsored Content