estratto - off print

Pragmateiai 27

ESTRATTO - OFF PRINT

Bari 2014

© 2014 Edipuglia srl

L’autore ha il diritto di stampare o diffondere copie di questo PDF esclusivamente per uso scientifico o didattico. Edipuglia si riserva di mettere in vendita il PDF, oltre alla versione cartacea. L’autore ha diritto di pubblicare in internet il PDF originale allo scadere di 24 mesi.

The author has the right to print or distribute copies of this PDF exclusively for scientific or educational purposes. Edipuglia reserves the right to sell the PDF, in addition to the paper version. The author has the right to publish the original PDF on the internet at the end of 24 months.

FRANÇOIS DE CALLATAŸ FOREWORD

That ancient Mediterranean history focusing on the Greco-Roman world is lacking anything which could resemble hard quantified data over the long term was still taken as undeniable a couple of decades ago, at an age described now as dominated by Finleyan orthodoxy. Time has elapsed. Cliometrics have invaded even these far remote societies due to the formidable increase of factual evidence brought to light by archaeology and the considerable improvement of lab-techniques to take advantage of it. Encouraged by Marcel Détienne and his essay Comparer l’incomparable (Paris, 2000), it became tempting to challenge distinguished colleagues to quantify what is supposed not to be quantifiable. Hence an invitation to participate in a conference whose title – Long-term quantification in ancient Mediterranean history (Brussels, Oct. 2009) – was loosely defined both geographically and historically and not at all thematically as an encouragement for some methodological bravado. Unsurprisingly, but not especially intended, the vast majority of papers deal with economics, leaving aside literacy, democracy or violence, to take just a few examples which could have been explored. This conference thus very much appears as another conference on ancient economy, prolonging the ‘flurry’ which originated in the mid 1990s. 1 Some agendas are explicit, as in Stanford in 1998 when the aim of the organizers was ‘to increase the diversity of approaches in an1 Here is a list of sixteen conferences on Greco-Roman economics hold in between 1995 and 2009: 1995 St Andrews (see Parkins & Smith 1998); 1995-1997 Nottingham-Leicester (see Mattingly & Salmon 2001); 1997 Capri (see Lo Cascio 2000); 2000? Cambridge (see Cartledge, Cohen & Foxhall 2002); 1998 Liverpool (see Archibald, Davies & Gabrielsen 2000); 1998 Stanford (see Manning & Morris 2005); 1999 Saint-Bertrand-de-Comminges (see Andreau, Briant & Descat 2000); 2000 Capri (see Lo Cascio 2003); 2001 Nottingham (see De Blois & Rich 2002); 2002 Cambridge (see Bang, Ikeguchi & Ziche 2006); 2002 Liverpool (see Archibald, Davies & Gabrielsen 2005); 2003 Capri (see Lo Cascio 2006); 2004 Saint-Bertrand-de-Comminges (see Descat 2006); 2006 Copenhagen (see Archibald, Davies & Gabrielsen 2011); 2006 Oxford (see Bowman & Wilson 2009); 2009 Rome (Harris & Iara 2011).

QUANTIFYING The Greco-romAN ecoNomY ANd beYoNd - ISbN 978-88-7228-744-6 © 2014 · e d i p u g l i a s . r. l . - w w w. e d i p u g l i a . i t

6

QUANTIFYING THE GRECO-ROMAN ECONOMY AND BEYOND

cient history by drawing more inspiration from the social sciences, and in particular from two schools of thought: the ‘new economic sociology’ that has built on Weber’s foundations, and the ‘new institutional economics’, that has wedded key neoclassical principles to a concern for institutions, ideology and demography’. 2 Others were less specific, choosing to concentrate on a period or a topic. It is probably not coincidence, although again not intentional, that one of the most significant conferences of that kind held in Oxford in 2006 has a very similar topic to ours: “Quantifying the Roman Economy. Methods and Problems”. 3 In some respects, the Brussels conference develops the debates evoked in Oxford, all the more as several participants are identical. 4 On the one hand, this similarity of titles may be perceived as a sign that ‘quantification is back’. On another, the original aim of this conference is more about ‘quantification’ than about the ‘Roman economy’. The Roman economy is not the only subject which will be set in a larger context, with the expected benefits of promoting transfers of knowledge and behaviour between specialists of related disciplines, but each participant has been encouraged to develop some reflective thinking on his use of numbers in ancient history.

The first two papers function as a general introduction, complementing each other. In ‘Long-term quantification: a historical perspective’ (p. 13-26), I try to frame the debate historically, dealing with intellectual movements or trends since WWII in the humanities and social sciences and in particular with the return of quantification observed for the last decade aside and on a very limited level compared with dominant cultural history. In ‘Orders of magnitude, margins of error’ (p. 27-37), Neville Morley is more philosophical. Why, he asks, are the great works of Richard Duncan-Jones so poorly used in actual debates? Are they too ‘primitivist’ for actual practitioners of quantification? Are they not conceptually sophisticated enough for cultural historians? There is no neutral knowledge and his paper is much about epistemological strategies, defining a tentative morphology of quantified models along five key attributes: empirical basis, purpose, disposition (is it conceived to measure minima or maxima?), ideology and rhetorical strategies. Practical results of quantified studies may not be as interesting and as surely uncontroversial as to push us to refine our assumptions and models. In ‘The ancient world: a climatic challenge’ (p. 39-55), Alain Bresson argues Manning & Morris 2005, 34. See also, the same year (November 24th, 2006), the conference Histoire économique et quantification, hold at the École Normale Supérieure (Paris). 4 The number of recent conferences in the field is certainly impressive, especially when compared with their absence in the past. Still, as a numismatist, I cannot refrain from thinking that the ancient economy is studied by an astonishingly limited number of colleagues, not in proportion with the arguable importance of the topic for our knowledge of the past. 2 3


FOREWORD

7

for a multi-faceted model. Quoting Gibbon about the fall of the Roman Empire, he first asks us not to dismiss too easily rare climatic quotations by ancient historians before engaging with modern investigations, providing a general overview of four synthetic studies whose results converge for the last 800 years, but less so for the centuries before (Moberg et al. 2005 – about temperature over the last two millennia; Zhang et al. 2008 – about monsoons from Wanxiang cave stalagmite; Büntgen et al. 2011 – dendrochronology in Central Europe; Kobashi et al. 2011 – snow surface temperatures in Greenland for the past four millennia). Many of the regional differences between Southern and Northen Europe may be explained by the North Atlantic Oscillation which also explains on the whole why Mediterranean areas were cooler than today in Greco-Roman times. With these data in mind, he observes that if the general rising of ca. 1.4 meter in two millennia of the Mediterranean sea-levels must be explained first by isostatic subsistence, climate change brings also a non negligible contribution. Colder weather may be substantially responsible (especially during Greek Classical and Late Roman Imperial times) in a climatic model where substantial rains in Mediterranean areas were balanced by a dryer climate in Northern Europe. Although applied to the Seleucid empire, the contribution of Gerassimos G. Aperghis is definitely methodological: ‘Creating a long-model for an ancient economy’ (see p. 57-72). It is a top-down matrix pressing the need to qualify every statement better than by vague qualitative terminology (a large city or a wealthy king). Refining the parameters he already developed elsewhere (as PopulationConsumption-Production-Coin Circulation) and extrapolating when requested, he developed an interactive model processed by a computer system (ABACUS). Every output parameter (like the size of the population) can be transferred as input to several modules, clearly encouraging general consistency and – possibly even more desirably – pointing to major inconsistencies whose parameters need to be revised. A test-case is provided for the reign of Antiochos III (223-187 BCE), with no less than 60,000 data items, whether input or generated as a result of calculation. The next contribution, by Robartus van der Spek and Bas van Leeuwen, is about: ‘Quantifying the integration of the Babylonian economy in the Mediterranean world using a new corpus of price data, 400-50 BCE’ (see p. 73-91). How integrated was the Babylonian market in Seleucid and Parthian times? Using the exceptionally rich but sometimes tricky data found in the Astronomical Diaries of the city, they focus on the volatility of prices as an indicator of the feeble integration of the market and conclude that integration was much less developed (higher volatility) in Babylon than around the Mediterranean Sea. Some commodities like barley were more affected by this volatility than others (like dates) in a society QUANTIFYING The Greco-romAN ecoNomY ANd beYoNd - ISbN 978-88-7228-744-6 © 2014 · e d i p u g l i a s . r. l . - w w w. e d i p u g l i a . i t

8


suffering from frequent famines. The duration of high prices is another indicator of weak integration which is thoroughly explored by the authors. The Greek Archaic and Classical world has been investigated by Josiah Ober in a paper which illustrates both the potential benefits and the methodological difficulties of articulating quality and quantity. In ‘Greek economic performance, 800300 BCE. A comparison case’ (see p. 93-110), Ober starts with a strong and provocative statement: “the Greek economy of ca. 800-300 BCE appears to have outperformed the much larger Roman economy of ca. 100 BCE-200CE”. For the author, such a broad assertion is nurtured by different sets of data. The Greek Classical world would have been the place for: 1) high aggregate and per capita growth, 2) dense, urbanized population and 3) equitable distribution, each of them at a level superior to what could be observed for the Roman Empire. Focusing on housing and the level of wealth distribution, Geoffrey Kron compares the performance of the Greco-Roman world with 19th and 20th c. counterparts: ‘Comparative evidence and the reconstruction of the ancient economy: Greco-Roman housing and the level and distribution of wealth and income’ (see p. 111-131). Relying on anthropometrics (life expectancy, stature) and epigraphic evidence (distribution of wealth in Athens) as well as on archaeological data (change in the size and distribution of housing), Kron argues that the Greco-Roman world was superior to England during the mid 19th c. in terms of both average well-being and equity. The agenda of those who focus on the Roman economy is very much about sustainable growth and GDP, with an arguably more mature debate where arguments and counter-arguments have already been presented and commented on. It is now accepted that the Roman world experienced some economic growth but, as expressed by Andrew Wilson, was it simply population growth without per capita growth or not? In other words, was it “a one-off, unrepeatable effect of the integration of the Mediterranean under Rome, or a process sustained over perhaps two centuries until terminated by exogenous shocks such as the Antonine Plague?” (Wilson, infra, p. 133). To answer these questions, we are all forced to work with proxies whose validity is questioned by Andrew Wilson: ‘Quantifying Roman economic performance by means of proxies: pitfalls and potential’ (see p. 133-152). In a refreshing paper, he seriously tests the robustness of what we believe we know about already developed proxies (shipwrecks, stature, lead and copper pollution, animal bone consumption), as well as others in development (fish-salting capacity, water-mills, building inscriptions). While warning against naïve use of quantification, he also argues not too pessimistically for the great potential of such a way to proceed. Going back to Moses Finley, Willem Jongman does his best to contradict the past orthodoxy and to demonstrate that the Roman economy did experience some QUANTIFYING The Greco-romAN ecoNomY ANd beYoNd - ISbN 978-88-7228-744-6 © 2014 · e d i p u g l i a s . r. l . - w w w. e d i p u g l i a . i t

FOREWORD

9

sustainable growth (as taken for granted now by most experts in the field). With the ambitious title: ‘The new economic history of the Roman Empire’ (see p. 153-168), he gathers important sets of data whose general trend looks similar: population (in Tuscany), wood consumption (in Western Germany), animal bones or fineware and amphora sherds (in Tuscany). Why growth? Jongman pleads for an increase in production, in which favourable climate conditions may have played a not minor role. Why decline? Demography is likely to have played a major role and the Antonine Plague is here considered as a pivotal phenomenon. But lack of equity (oppression) is also at stake. Peter Temin’s paper is about ‘Price behavior in the Roman Empire’ (see p. 169184). With the Babylonian prices in mind, it states that prices were mostly market prices (along with some administrated prices) and that in general differences are more the effects of location rather than inflation. Focusing on inflation in the 2nd and 3rd c., Temin wonders what is the better proxy for the real movement of prices between Egyptian prices and army pay, both subject to tricky movements. Even in Egypt, hyperinflation (50% inflation per month) was unknown, but high inflation of 15% a year occurred. Instead of correlating prices with monetary debasement, Temin proposes an index of political instability to compare with the index of inflation. Speculating about the role of exogenous shocks like the Antonine Pleague, he advocates for the use of good economic theory to maintain consistency in our speculations. Trying to define if Roman rule sustained intensive economic growth and delivered higher incomes for workers, Walter Scheidel keeps away from GDP calculation (notoriously difficult to estimate) to concentrate on real value of Roman wages (‘Roman real wages in context’, see p. 185-192). Working with wheat equivalents, he attempts to frame Roman evidence (i.e. mostly from Egypt and the East) in a much broader picture, going back to the third millennium BCE. Doing this, he sees no sign of elevated real wages that were necessarily driven during the Roman period by economic development rather than other factors like population loss (the Antonine Plague again). He favours the idea that the Roman economy did not differ greatly from that of most other pre-modern economies and remained blocked by the Malthusian trap in which population and returns on input move in opposite directions). Bagnall’s paper is about the ‘ignominious truth’ once denounced by A.H.M. Jones: there are no ancient statistics, because evidence is lost and because GrecoRoman administration was not statistics-oriented (see Late Roman data collection, p. 193-200). Looking closely at the papyri reporting the monthly declarations that each guild had to submit to the logistes of Oxyrhynchos (4th-5th c. CE), he is less pessimistic. Numbers were gathered and centralized. Professional late antique administration is characterized by a less passive behaviour than is often attributed to QUANTIFYING The Greco-romAN ecoNomY ANd beYoNd - ISbN 978-88-7228-744-6 © 2014 · e d i p u g l i a s . r. l . - w w w. e d i p u g l i a . i t

10


the Roman government, but not to the point of a general regulation of the markets as is sometimes suspected but hard to reconcile with the prices themselves. Finally, Elio Lo Cascio and Paolo Malanima tackle the highly disputed question of GDP with a simple question: “Were the ancient Greeks and Romans richer or poorer than medieval and early modern European inhabitants?” (‘Ancient and premodern economies GDP in Roman Empire and early modern Europe’, see p. 201219). Commenting on the several attempts made so far to estimate the GDP of the Roman Empire, they note the divergence of results but the similarity of method (the average wheat consumption per capita coupled to the assumption of 3 sesterces per modius). The results of this demand-side approach do not seem too contradictory when checking them from a supply-side angle (salaries, monetary stock, annual budget). However, the authors denounce the way comparisons with pre-modern economies are built, especially since the price of certain basic items relative to the consumer price index was higher than it is today. Taking into account better original estimates for cereals, they conclude that GDP per capita during Roman times approximates those of the late Middle Ages and Early Modern epoch (ca. $800-1,300 [in 1990 international dollars], and not the ca. $450 largely assumed so far). This affects the general model of a long-term economic development before the industrial revolution: a long slow rise or stability with cycles as supported by the authors.

As diverse as all these papers are, adopting different tones – from pessimistic to optimistic – about quantification, they do more than to illustrate actual debates about ancient economy. It is all too clear that their long-term approach is crucial for a better understanding of the past. The general degree of courage is also remarkable with truly heroic efforts to frame in some cases 4 millennia of human realities. For a large audience, scientific research is certainly not associated with ancient history. However people do not realize how fast is the increase in our current knowledge. Huge progress has been made. Literature in ancient demography or economics no longer benefits from a much longer service life than in medical sciences. Most topics discussed in this book would have been considered as truly amazing or simply impossible two decades ago. As the editor of this book whose publication has been long delayed for reasons for which I feel responsible, I address my most grateful thanks to the authors for their bravery and their patience. They are among the main protagonists of this astonishing intellectual expansion. These papers were originally delivered to the conference ‘Long-term quantification in ancient Mediterranean history’ held in Brussels on October 15th-16th, 2009. This conference was entirely funded by the Francqui Foundation to which goes my deepest gratitude. Other thanks are for the Royal Library of Belgium QUANTIFYING The Greco-romAN ecoNomY ANd beYoNd - ISbN 978-88-7228-744-6 © 2014 · e d i p u g l i a s . r. l . - w w w. e d i p u g l i a . i t

FOREWORD

11

which hosted this event, and especially to Patrick Lefèvre, its General Director, as well as to Cécile Arnould who, again, was so instrumental in the success of the conference. Last but not least, I address my best thanks to Elio Lo Cascio, who consented to take these proceedings in his series Pragmateiai, as he already did for the other Francqui conference: ‘Quantifying monetary supplies in Greco-Roman times’, (Pragmateiai 19, Bari, 2011) and to Edipuglia.


TABLE OF CONTENTS Foreword by François de Callataÿ

François de Callataÿ Long-term quantification in ancient history: a historical perspective

Neville Morley Orders of magnitude, margins of errors

Alain Bresson The Ancient World: a climatic challenge

Gerassimos G. Aperghis Creating a long-term model for an ancient economy

Robartus J. van der Spek and Bas van Leeuwen Quantifying the integration of the Babylonian economy in the Mediterranean world using a new corpus of price data, 400-50 BCE Josiah Ober Greek economic performance, 800-300 BCE. A comparison case

Geoffrey Kron Comparative evidence and the reconstruction of the ancient economy: Greco-Roman housing and the level and distribution of wealth and income

Andrew Wilson Quantifying Roman economic performance by means of proxies: pitfalls and potential Willem Jongman The new economic history of the Roman Empire Peter Temin Price behaviour in the Roman Empire

Walter Scheidel Roman real wages in context

Roger S. Bagnall Late Roman data collection

Elio Lo Cascio and Paolo Malanima Ancient and pre-modern economies GDP in Roman Empire and early modern Europe

Edipuglia srl, via Dalmazia 22/b - 70127 Bari-S. Spirito tel. 0805333056-5333057 (fax) - http://www.edipuglia.it - e-mail: info@edipuglia.it