AMA - Classical Archaeology

[u/Tiako]

Classical antiquity is period of roughly a thousand years between the rise of the Greek polis and the collapse of the Roman Mediterranean system, and includes at different times the entire Mediterranean basin and beyond. There are a variety of ways to examine this period, and today this panel will discuss the archaeology, or the material remains, a category that includes the massive monumental temple at Baalbek and the carbonized seeds from an Italian farmhouse. Our panelists introduce themselves:

/u/pqvarus: I've specialized in Ancient Greek Archaeology, my geographic field of interest is Asia Minor (from the Archaic Period onwards) and as a result of my PhD project I'm focussing on the archaeology of ancient greek religion (especially cult practice) and material culture studies.

/u/Astrogator: I've just finished my MA at the department of Ancient History and Epigraphics (my BA was in History, Philosophy and Political Science), and my main interests are in provincial epigraphic cultures, especially the Danube region, and the display of dress on sepulchral monuments (and how both are tied to questions of Romanization and Identity).

/u/Tiako: I am an MA student studying the economy of the Early Imperial Period of the Roman Empire. My focus is on commerce, particularly Rome's maritime trade with India.

However, there is more to classical civilization than marble temples an the Aeneid, and there is more to the period than Greece and Rome. To provide a perspective from outside what is usually considered “classical” civilization, we have included three panelists from separate but closely intertwined fields of study. They are:

/u/Aerandir: I am archaeologist studying Iron Age communities. Currently I am working on a PhD on the fortifications of the first millennium AD in Denmark. Danish and Dutch material is what I am most familiar with.

/u/missingpuzzle: I have studied Hellenistic period Eastern Arabia, particularly specializing in settlement patterns and trade. I have also studied the Persian Gulf and Indian Ocean trade from the Hellenistic and Early Roman periods.

/u/Daeres: Hi I'm Daeres, and I have an MA in Ancient History. My archaeological focus is on the Ancient Near East in the First Millenium BC, Bactria, and the Aegean, though I am primarily a historian rather than an archaeologist. I have an inordinate fondness for numismatics, and also epigraphy. But I especially concentrate on the archaeological evidence for Hellenistic era Bactria.

And so with knots cut and die cast, we await your questions.

[u/MysteryThrill]

Since this is about trade, I have the following questions. You mentioned something about maritime trade:

particularly Rome's maritime trade with India.

• How did the maritime route pan out? Did it pass around Africa? If it did, then what made Roman ships before the common era suitable for such distant voyage?

• What was Rome's primary imports? What were they exchanged for?

[u/Daeres → u/MysteryThrill]

Though I know Tiako goes crazy for this subject, and this is not me shouldering him out of the way, oooo meee mee mee!

How did the maritime route pan out? Did it pass around Africa? If it did, then what made Roman ships before the common era suitable for such distant voyage?

The Maritime route to India began on Egypt's Red Sea coast. Ships left there, sailed around the Gulf of Aden (the Arabian polities in that area and Aksum on the African side of the Red Sea both profited enormously from this traffic), and then followed the Arabian coast. The voyages were timed so that they would be able to take monsoon winds directly across the Indian Ocean to the coast. They would then trade with Indian polities, and eventually come back when the monsoon winds changed direction again.

These voyages were not attempted before the common era, because if you think about it this requires direct Roman control over Egypt, which only happened after 32 BCE/BC. All analyses of the trade I have read suggested it only began in earnest after Augustus, in the mid-late 1st century CE/AD. A number of literary sources of that era discuss it, including Pliny the Elder. The Periplus of the Erythraean Sea, a document of unknown author, is generally believed to have been written in this era as well, and purports to describe in some detail the Roman trade routes by sea that involved what we'd call East Africa, Arabia, and India.

As for the ships, I was curious about this as well. But a paper I recently read on the subject indicated that they were generally not much different from normal Roman trading vessels of the era- Indian depictions of what seem to be Roman ships feature square masts, rather than the triangular ones associated with Indian and Arabian ships of the era. However, I have also seen it suggested that the trade initially involved Arabian middle-men, and the Roman ships initially stopped at Arabia. Pliny's reference to the trade indicates that the trading fleets could perhaps number over a hundred vessels in an annual expedition.

[u/Tiako → u/Daeres]

All analyses of the trade I have read suggested it only began in earnest after Augustus, in the mid-late 1st century CE/AD.

You know what is really frustrating about this? What evidence we have points to the trade being basically a first century phenomenon--it goes through the Flavians and not really into the Antoninines. But this doesn't make sense! Trajan built a canal linking the Nile and the Red Sea, and the second century is generally seen as the peak of the Roman economy. It might be a problem with out evidence (eg, wine containers switched from amphora to barrels after Vesuvius), or it might not be (maybe Trajan's invasion of Persia?). Quite frustrating.

As for ships, the archaeologist Julian Whitewright demonstrated that triangular sails actually do not offer superior windward performance, and the narrative that they do is largely based on an assumption that technology is progressive (lateen rigging does, however, require fewer people). The best rigging for windward sailing is actually the spritsail/suttee, which was around since the Hellenistic but never fully caught on. And while the Romans may have used square sails, the assumption is based off of basically a single graffito, and while the Arabs and Indians may have used triangular sails, the evidence is based on projection from more modern practices. Unfortunately, until someone decides to do a nautical excavation it will remain a bit opaque.

[u/Daeres → u/Tiako]

Aye, I remember a similar conversation about this before. It pretty much is a single graffito, along with a couple of other depictions suggested but not proven to be showing Roman vessels. So you're right, it is plausible and possible that the Romans used square sails, but as I said elsewhere in the AMA beware of the plausible when it isn't actually proven.

The moral of this story, readers, is always insist on following up on claims to check on how proven they are, especially when it comes to archaeological evidence!