An Imperial Possession, page 62
As this quote indicates, the most important elements of the British economy from a Roman perspective derived from the discrete activities of farming and mineral extraction. Farming was the mainstay of the ancient economy overall, given that the majority of people lived in the countryside. Metals were fundamental to the empire’s coin supply, armaments and equipment, and had myriad uses in daily life. Studies of the Greenland icecap have revealed that the Roman period marks the largest pre-industrial peak in hemispheric copper and lead pollution, testimony to the scale of Roman smelting activity. Textile-making and clothing production will have been another important economic area, but is the least tangible archaeologically. In fact, none of our main economic elements yields the sort of archaeological evidence that allows easy quantification. In discussing productivity, imports and exports, we are obliged by the poor survival of the bulk of the material evidence to focus on a few more durable products such as pottery and coins. Here we must guard against making false assumptions about economic vitality based on abundance of finds. Although the presence of small change is a significant indicator of monetization, the periods of highest coin numbers, whether as site finds or hoards, are notoriously influenced by other factors, such as the extremely low value of many late third-century coins, or the political reasons for heightened levels of non-recovery of hoarded wealth.
One of the problems with evaluating Appian’s comment is that what is commonly identified as the ‘economy’ of Roman Britain is in fact a composite of several different spheres of economic activity that overlapped with one another, but which were in important respects distinct one from the other. Even in Roman times, when much fuller records were available, it must have been difficult to disentangle all the strands to determine total receipts and total costs of the province. In what follows, three different scenarios are proposed: the imperial economy, the provincial economy and the extra-provincial economy.
The imperial economy
A large amount of economic activity in Britain under Roman rule took place in the context of the empire’s arrangements for extracting resources and for paying and provisioning her forces and officials. This can be broken down into a number of areas of activity.
The major costs of the imperial economy in Britain concerned the army (pay, bonuses, discharge bounties, materials, equipment and supplies), the provincial government infrastructure and transport costs, capital investment and running costs involving public lands and imperial properties, diplomatic subsidies to client tribes and kings. These are impossible to quantify with any degree of accuracy, but were undoubtedly significant sums. The total salary and discharge bounty costs of the imperial army are estimated to have been in the order of 150 million denarii annually in the second century and if Britain nominally was responsible for 15 per cent of that, the bill was in excess of 22.5 million denarii. To that we need to add the considerable salaries of the key senatorial and equestrian officials. A consular governor of Roman Britain may have been paid as much as 200,000 denarii per annum (based on a reference to a governor of Africa in the early third century receiving 250,000 denarii). What we can say is that in all probability the cost of the British territories amounted to some tens of millions of denarii each year in the early empire; it is by no means certain that the British province could yield that sort of revenue initially. This represents a huge sum to exact from a region that at the time of the conquest had no cities and, outside south-east England, relatively underdeveloped trading economies. The cul-de-sac status of the British province was an additional complication, since trade did not naturally flow through the territory towards other Roman provinces.
The Roman state and imperial household had a variety of means by which they could endeavour to recoup the investment in the province. The exploitation of people was done primarily through taxation and tribute demands, labour requirements and liturgies, enslavement, military recruitment. Private possessions, notably in the form of portable wealth, were a prime target of the army of conquest, but individual fortunes were periodically confiscated or received by the emperor in the form of legacies. Landed property was mobilized by state appropriation and redistribution, gains from legacies, disposals and land sales and rentals, imperial estates and state lands. Rural production more generally was tapped through rents, dues, requisitioning, price-fixing, measures for the provision of transport animals, and of course taxation (including in-kind levies). The exploitation of natural resources was another major area of state control and Tacitus explicitly referred to them as the ‘spoils of victory’. Although primarily directed at mines and precious metals, monopolies were also extended to salt and decorative stone. There is some evidence to suggest that investment in and maintenance of the exploitation of natural resources was less intensive in the late Roman empire, as in the Spanish mining districts, with state revenues increasingly dependent on higher rates of taxation.
The state was also in a position to profit from the existence of markets, harbours and trade, through customs at provincial boundaries (portoria), market surcharges, and so on. Finally, the system of military supply had a profound effect on the evolution of trade more generally because of the way it operated (through contracts) and the nature and extent of transport (long-distance and under state subsidy). Some of these economic effects of empire were short-term, such as the initial plundering of conquered territories, but others evolved over much longer time-spans.
Fundamentally, though, the high costs of garrisoning Britain imposed an obligation on the provincial government to maximize as far as possible the benefits and to minimize the additional costs to the state. What that meant in practice was a concerted attempt to mobilize the economic potential of Britain in the interests of Rome, rather than an enlightened policy aimed at its broader economic development. The stark contrast between the lands of western and northern Britain when compared with the south-east strongly suggests that landholding arrangements and means of extracting surplus were different in the two areas, with the former being squeezed more heavily (in proportion to available surpluses) in order to reduce the costs of military supply. Similarly, it appears probable that major mineral deposits and other natural resources were exploited either directly by the state, or indirectly through contractors or by native Britons under some sort of licence or production agreements in which the state took a substantial share. There is no evidence that individual civitates reaped substantial benefits from the exploitation of natural resources in their commonly assumed territories, and districts containing such resources could have been separately designated as imperial or state land. There is strong evidence for initial direct exploitation of such resources under military supervision, and, by the second century, increasingly through the agency of contractors, probably answerable to procuratorial staff attached to mining districts. Although explicit evidence from Britain is limited, such transfers of the mechanisms of state wealth acquisition to private hands were typical of the Roman empire.
The taking of censuses and the collation of detailed records of land and property holdings were common to all parts of the empire. Despite the paucity of surviving documentation for what must have been an astonishing undertaking, we know that it formed the basis of provincial taxation, land allocation and both military and civil government. We can speculate on the existence of a Roman equivalent of the Norman Domesday Book. Certainly, Roman decisions about taxation, and ultimately the profitability of the province, were based on the cumulative records of successive phases of survey and information gathering as territory was incorporated. Epigraphic testimony of a census of the people of Annandale in southern Scotland carried out by the army at the end of the first century provides a glimpse of a process that we can assume took place in stages right across Britain.
Taxation in the early Roman empire was based on land and capitation (tributum soli and tributum capitis), though there was also a range of adventitious taxes on, for instance, slave sales, the emancipation of slaves and (for Roman citizens) inheritance. Practice and collection arrangements varied both inter-and intra-provincially and exemptions and immunities were much sought after by individuals and communities. Although often levied in cash terms, it is clear that payment of tax was sometimes made in kind – a situation that may have been common in Britain, at least in the early years. Tax collection at various times involved tax-farmers, who gathered in the revenues under state contracts, local urban authorities and imperial fiscal officials – procurators, quaestors and imperial freedmen and slaves. We do not know how successful the state was at making tax collection in Britain the responsibility of the provincial urban elite; at all times one suspects there may have been a need for bolstering arrangements with tax-farmers and petty officials, especially with regard to the military regions and natural resources. In any imperial system, the efficiency of the tax system is counterbalanced by the relative success of subject peoples in evading assessment and full compliance. By the standards of pre-industrial societies, the Roman empire was relatively efficient at levying tax and in the areas of Britain that appear most resistant to Roman authority, the presence of the garrison gave strong support to the efforts of the tax collector. In areas of heavy assessment relative to productive capacity, a potential side-effect of the ongoing contest between tax collectors and tax evaders was the discouragement of displays of wealth and conspicuous consumption in native society. This is particularly clear in much of Cornwall, Wales, north-west England and Lowland Scotland.
The imperial economy thus represented fundamental changes in the mobilization of resources in Britain, directed by the state, but also involving numerous private individuals motivated by the financial opportunities created by Roman colonialism. Following the ‘regime change’ of 43, the consolidation of the Roman province engendered resistance and financial speculation in equal measure.
The provincial economy
The parallel evolution of the provincial economy, based around markets, free trade and patterns of consumption, is hard to disassociate entirely from the operation of the imperial economy. It also profoundly affected pre-existing economic structures. The traditional economy of much of Britain pre-conquest was relatively underdeveloped, largely based on subsistence production and embedded in social relations, linked to extended family groupings or incipient elites. The market was comparatively poorly evolved outside the south-east, where trade with the near Continent influenced it. Markets were a creation of the imperial economy, but their functioning across society made them key components of the provincial economy. Over time, the use of coinage to pay for commodities will have increased, though barter probably remained an important ingredient of many markets, especially in rural areas. It is arguable that the provincial economy grew significantly over time and answered not only to the top-down needs of the state, but also to the bottom-up desires of consumers and the ideas and innovations of manufacturers and traders. If measured in simple terms across the period 50–350, there is plenty of evidence for the evolution of urban markets and the integration of rural territories with them, of an increase in coin use, of expanded manufacturing activity and increased consumption of a wide range of goods across a broad spectrum of sites (military, urban and rural). On the other hand, it is also true that most of this vanished within a very short period after 400. Whatever else may have survived of ‘Roman’ life in Britain in the fifth century, the provincial economy can be said to have collapsed abruptly along with the imperial economy. This suggests that the provincial economy remained to a large extent dependent on its Siamese twin, the imperial one.
The supply and use of coinage was initially much more a part of the imperial economy, being needed to pay and service the troops and officials. Documents from Vindolanda show that military supply transactions commonly depended on cash, even if some were paper transfers. Within the rest of the province, the emergence of a cash economy was less rapid. The supply of money, especially small change that would facilitate everyday cash purchases, remained inadequate and erratic until the second century. In the mid-first century copies of official issues constituted a large proportion of the small denomination coinage in circulation in Britain, probably being produced specially for the military community. During the crisis years of the third century, supplies of official coinage were evidently disrupted and large numbers of low-value forgeries were put into circulation. This demonstrates the limited ability and interest of the state in providing abundant low-value specie to monetize the provincial economy at large.
The evolution of markets, notably at urban centres but also potentially at rural locations, was another key area where the state retained the prerogative to regulate arrangements – as is true of most major states. Markets had to be officially sanctioned and the privileges were generally granted sparingly, with due regard to geographical spread and periodicity (many ancient markets were fixed on periodic cycles within a region or tied to particular religious festivals that brought additional consumers to a town or rural sanctuary). Detailed documentary evidence for the organization of markets in Britain is lacking, but it is clear that all the major towns will have had designated market functions. Indeed three towns were called Venta (of the Belgae, Iceni and Silures) and two more are compounded with - magus after British words for ‘market’. Many of the larger small towns must also have had recognized market functions and some sites may have specifically evolved in consequence of the creation of a periodic market. The site of Bannaventa (Whilton Lodge) is an obvious example.
In the absence of inscriptions attesting the location of official markets, one clue to the potential pattern of markets is provided by the distribution of finds of oculists’ (collyrium) stamps. These comprise multi-sided stone dies for impressing into medicinal preparations for the treatment of eye ailments. The inscriptions convey information on the name of the preparation and of the man responsible for preparing the medication. There are thirty known collyrium stamps from Britain and they show a broad distribution up and down the main road network, with about half the major towns having produced an example and most of the rest coming from potential market centres among the small towns (Bath, Cambridge, Kenchester, Staines). Given the even distribution of these across Britain and the association of the stamps with the preparation of the salves as much as with their marketing, it is a reasonable supposition that the bulk of these finds represent the settlement of pharmacist doctors at convenient regional market centres.
The production of manufactured or processed goods was closely linked to the evolution of markets. Whereas in pre-Roman times the elite in society might have largely controlled the distribution of prestige goods, a clear development of the Roman period was the expansion of manufacturing activity tied to markets. Again, we encounter the problem of how to differentiate army-related production from other manufacturing and in some cases they appear to be inseparable. The annual needs of clothing for the army, for instance, have been estimated as a set of tunic, cloak and blanket every two years, or 27,500 sets per year at peak requirements, necessitating something in the order of 550,000 days’ labour and the wool from over 200,000 sheep. Servicing military needs of key commodities absorbed significant amounts of time and resources for specialist producers and household weaving operations alike.
The growth of rural production in southern Britain is also indicative of a market-based economy. Studies of Iron Age farming technology and crop regimes have shown that agriculture and husbandry were both well advanced pre-conquest, with a series of major revolutions having occurred by the late first century BC. The key innovations of the Roman period were in terms of scale and specialization. Larger storage buildings, mechanical mills, corn-drying ovens all reflect market-oriented production, in part linked to villa-estate economies. There is evidence of improved ploughs for use on heavier soils, of advances in animal husbandry leading to overall improvement in the size of livestock, and some new introductions such as the grape vine, vegetables and orchard crops. The corn-drying ovens appear to have been at least dual purpose, but a major function appears to have been the malting of barley for the brewing of beer. The previous absence of such features on rural sites and their more common occurrence at upper-echelon Roman-period settlements suggest that they were not necessary for purely domestic production of beer. The construction of corn-dryers on many rural sites could thus be taken as proxy evidence for the manufacture of beer for wider markets. The late Roman peak in villas and other evidence for increased rural wealth are highly suggestive of a measure of growth in the provincial farming economy.
Some parts of the provinces of Britain appear to have always remained marginal to the provincial economy. The economic development of large parts of northern Britain was mostly arrested (garrison settlements like Catterick and the civitas of the Carvetii in the Eden Valley notwithstanding). The extraction of raw materials or the manufacture of goods for the northern frontier seems to link many secondary centres to the army, rather than to civil markets.
The extra-provincial economy
Inter-provincial trade was a feature of all Roman provinces, and set tariffs and customs dues on goods traded across provincial borders governed this. Certain classes of goods, for instance those carried under army supply contracts, were specifically excluded from the standard dues (portoria) payable near the provincial boundaries. Trade with the Continent can be readily documented, both by distributions of artefacts but also by inscriptions. Sanctuaries near the mouth of the Rhine have yielded a dossier of inscriptions of merchants (negotiatores), with specific reference to traders in pottery and garments. It remains difficult to estimate the overall significance of cross-Channel trade because of the archaeological invisibility of commodities such as agricultural produce, textiles, garments, slaves and metals. Although metals ought to survive better than organic materials, it is rare to find ingots of pure metal and many metal artefacts were recycled in the past rather than thrown away with other household refuse.
