This volume of short articles is based on speeches delivered at a two-day conference at Columbia University in March 2011. The conference, ‘A Tale of Two Worlds: Comparative Perspectives on Indo-Mediterranean Commerce’, was organised by Columbia University's Center for the Ancient Mediterranean. The result is a quality hardback publication with clear, well-produced text and detailed coloured maps.
The book is divided into two parts: ‘The Cradle of the Ancient India Trade: the Red Sea’ and ‘Comparative Perspectives on the India Trade’. Some articles reference studies published after the initial 2011 conference, indicating the author was prepared to offer updates and revisions before publication.
The editors' introduction claims that, ‘single-authored books spanning multiple epochs or civilisations are rare today’ and explains that until recently, Indo-Mediterranean trade was considered, ‘a marginal intellectual detour’. They list the issues being re-accessed in the work, including commercial demand, taxation, the role of the State, outflows of precious metals, credit, naval technology and economic information. The editors anticipate that the volume will generate a reappraisal of the subject from an ‘evidentiary basis’ and stimulate further debates on ‘this central issue of world history’ (pp. 7–8).
In the opening paper, ‘Red Sea Trade and the State’, A. Wilson, the current head of the Oxford Roman Economy Project (OXREP), reviews evidence for water supplies and state-managed facilities along caravan routes in Egypt's Eastern Desert. This subject has already been addressed in greater detail by S. Sidebotham (Berenike and the Ancient Maritime Spice Route [2011]). Sidebotham, also a speaker at the conference, is referenced by Wilson in note 41. Wilson maintains, ‘the customs revenues from the imports from India alone would amount to some HS 230 million, or one-third of Duncan-Jones' estimate for the total annual cost of the Roman army in the second century’ (643–704 million sesterces; R. Duncan-Jones, Money and Government in the Roman Empire [1994]). From this he asserts that, ‘the size of State revenues from customs taxation also suggests that the fiscal importance of trade in the Roman economy has been rather overlooked’ (p. 23). However, these issues have already been addressed in McLaughlin, Roman Trade with India and the Distant East (Ph.D. Belfast, 2006) and Rome and the Distant East (2010) (and since then, McLaughlin, The Roman Empire and the Indian Ocean [2014]). Wilson does not reference these studies.
Other papers challenge the significance of well-known evidence or ascribe further motives to the Roman government. J.-J. Aubert argues that due to unreliable source testimony, environmental conditions and a lack of expected archaeological finds, Trajan's Canal (Nile–Suez) was not in service for any significant period of time. In ‘Roman Policy on the Red Sea in the Second Century ce’, D. Nappo, previously a research assistant with OXREP, theorises that the Emperor Trajan had a ‘larger master plan’ for Roman trade and was ‘motivated by the potential of economic gain’ (p. 69).
Other essays indicate the scope and potential of this subject as an area of further academic research. In ‘Pearls, Power, and Profit’, K. Schörle, another former researcher with OXREP, investigates the Roman pearl trade by considering inscriptional evidence from Egypt and Italy which reveals State interests and the involvement of Italian commercial families. In ‘Roman Trade with the Far East’, T. Terpstra considers the evidence for Nabataean Arab ‘middlemen’ in Puteoli and speculates about their possible role. Terpstra asserts that Nabateans ‘mostly dealt with desert caravans' and ‘it is surprising to see them involved in what looks like maritime shipping, west of the harbour of Gaza, far outside their native land’ (pp. 84–5). This indicates that Palmyrene trade ought to be included in future inquiries seeking to elucidate Near Eastern commercial motivations (R. McLaughlin, The Roman Empire and the Silk Routes II: the Ancient World Economy and the Realms of Egypt, Petra and Palmyra [forthcoming]).
The papers grouped under the heading ‘Comparative Perspectives' begin with H. Falk's ‘Indian Gold Crossing the Indian Ocean Through the Millennia’. Falk reconsiders evidence that the first-century Kushan king Kujula, who ruled in Afghanistan and the Indus region, modelled his gold coins on Roman aurei. He argues that Kujula adopted a Roman weight standard ‘not to facilitate commerce, but emulate empire’ and Kushan kings took the title devaputra (son of god) to imitate Augustus, who appears as divi filius on his coins (p. 107). This view is viable, but Falk fails to recognise that the Kushan also had well-attested connections with the Han Empire, whose dynastic ruler was proclaimed the ‘Son of Heaven’ (R. McLaughlin, The Roman Empire and the Silk Routes: the Ancient World Economy and the Empires of Parthia, Central Asia and Han China [2016]).
In ‘Regions that Look Seaward’, J. Banaji reviews evidence for the development of Asian ports from antiquity to the medieval period. Banaji considers the ‘gap’ between source testimony and current archaeological knowledge, suggesting that there was a ‘reshuffling of ports' over time with certain sites achieving ‘stellar moments' (pp. 222–3). M. Howell's ‘Into the East’ takes this review beyond the fifteenth century to describe the development of the VOC (Dutch East India Company). Howell admits that this is ‘well-known history’, but offers her opinion that, unlike the Romans, later Europeans entered the Indian Ocean trade routes ‘not simply as participants but as predators' (p. 152).
In the most significant study in the book, ‘Comparative Perspectives on the Pepper Trade’, D.R. uses sixteenth-century source evidence for pepper production in southern India to suggest the scale of Roman trade and the size of ancient merchant vessels. Fragmentary tally amounts recorded in the Muziris Papyrus suggest that pepper was valued at either 24 (Morelli) or 6 Egyptian drachma per mina (D.R.). (F. Morelli, ‘Rosso ad Alessandria: il verso (ma anche il recto) del “papiro di Muziris” (SB XVIII 13167)’, Tyche 26 [2011], 199–234; D.R., ‘Playing Sudoku on the Verso of the “Muziris Papyrus”’, Journal of Ancient Indian History 27 [2012], 75–101.) D.R. prefers the lower figure, so the price stated in the cargo manifesto could represent 554 tons of pepper. D.R. therefore suggests that Roman ships specialising in the pepper trade were as large as their later Portuguese counterparts. If export levels were comparable, then less than a dozen ancient vessels were engaged in the large-scale conveyance of this particular spice. His reconstruction is feasible, but raises further issues. The Greek author of the first-century Periplus of the Erythraean Sea reports that ‘most vessels continue on to the Strand’ in southern India (P.M.E. 54). Was this to acquire cotton rather than pepper? (P.M.E. 59) Did the Roman government impose custom valuations based on prices in Rome or in Alexandria? Perhaps it is significant that Pliny (N.H. 12.14) records a first-century pepper price of 4 denarii per Roman pound (329 grams) which is similar to a value of 24 Egyptian drachma per mina, the price favoured by Morelli. Furthermore, as Dutch ships sailed around the African Continent on their voyages to India, perhaps their large size was related to the specific demands and dangers of these longer voyages. Once again further research has been suggested.
The volume deserves to achieve its aim and encourage further academic interest in Rome's commercial prosperity and the Empire's trade connections beyond its frontiers. If so, it will be a valuable addition to this area of study.
