BMCR 2009.06.51: Kiiskinen on Bang, The Roman Bazaar: A Comparative Study of Trade and Markets in a Tributary Empire. Cambridge Classical Studies

Peter Fibiger Bang, The Roman Bazaar: A Comparative Study of Trade and
Markets in a Tributary Empire. Cambridge Classical Studies.
Cambridge/New York:  Cambridge University Press, 2008.  Pp. xv, 358.
ISBN 9780521855327.  $110.00.

Reviewed by Harri Kiiskinen, University of Turku
([email protected])
Word count:  2005 words
-------------------------------
To read a print-formatted version of this review, see
http://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2009/2009-06-51.html
To comment on this review, see
http://www.bmcreview.org/2009/06/20090651.html
-------------------------------

Table of Contents
(http://catdir.loc.gov/catdir/enhancements/fy0906/2008031924-t.html)

In this book, Peter Fibiger Bang has taken on the challenge of
formulating a completely new model for Roman economy. Using comparative
material from the Mughal Empire and concepts developed in anthropology
he postulates new principles by which the economy of the Ancient Roman
Empire should be understood. Bang advocates a step further beyond the
positions adopted by the primitivist and the modernist traditions, and
aims to sidestep the whole dualism of Roman economy studies by adopting
a completely new set of organizing principles and analytical concepts.
He succeeds in this remarkably well. The book is not really aimed for a
layman, but readers already somewhat versed in the ongoing discussions
on the Roman economy will find Bang's work a seminal contribution to
the field.

In the short prolegomena, serving as an introduction to the study, Bang
presents the reasons for his chosen approach, and emphasizes the
importance of conceptualizations in historical studies, especially
concerning times and subjects where sources are scarce and
interpretative difficulties abound. He rightly emphasizes the
importance of interpretation in the historian's job, but the criticism
on page 3 ,"the discipline has neglected the development of
interpretative tools", is hardly relevant for a large part of the
history profession today and is only partly relevant concerning
classical studies in general, but may be more to the point within
economic history. Bang then describes the particular problems of
studying premodern tributary empires, among which he includes Rome.
They are seen as our own forefathers, so in the beginning they were
studied through similarities. A slightly more modern approach has been
the borrowing of concepts and models from anthropology, which, however,
tend to work well for relatively isolated communities. Economics, as a
third choice (even so-called development economics) has little to
offer, as today's third world is hardly comparative to the ancient
civilizations; today's third world people know perfectly well that they
are the poor and undeveloped ones, whereas the Romans were in every way
at the top of their world. All this has motivated Bang's search for
better concepts and models, which he then has discovered mainly in the
works of Clifford Geertz on the bazaar economy and generally the
research on the Indian Mughal empire.

After the introduction, the book is divided in two parts, the first of
which Bang explains new approaches and why and how to think
differently. In the second part Bang then applies this new thinking to
the actual 'matter at hand', economic institutions in the Roman world.

Bang begins the first chapter by showing, where the economic history of
the Roman world went astray, or perhaps better put, where it failed to
take off and get rid of the first impressions and reactions -- the
primitivist-modernist dispute. He starts with an analytical history of
the field, all the way from Buecher and Meyer. Refreshingly though,
Bang contextualizes these early practitioners in their own time, so the
reader has a better understanding of the origins and the motivations of
their bitter arguments. Bang follows closely two lines of development
in the discussions, first the slow rise of the primitivist views,
culminating in the work of M. I. Finley, and then the modernizing
reactions to these views. Although Bang does not deny the effect new
archaeological and epigraphical data has had on the primitivist views,
he still heavily criticizes modernizing approaches.  Especially
important is his analysis of the reasons why the early modern Europe
actually does not provide good comparative material for Roman economy.
Bang allies himself with the primitivists in concluding, that the Roman
economy was qualitatively different from later European-based economic
systems; the differences are to be found in the position of the
merchants in the society and the strength of the state.  In order to
escape from this trap, where neither of the old approaches is feasible,
Bang looks for comparative material in other tributary empires similar
to Rome, like China, the Ottoman Empire or the Mughal Empire. In
addition to the succinct description of the history of Roman economy
studies, the analysis of the non-compatibility of early modern Europe
is very illuminating, and demonstrates, how easily uncritical
assumption of apparently innocent concepts predefines the research by
limiting what can be studied and how.

In the second chapter, Bang investigates the position of trade in the
Roman (and Mughal) world. He begins by questioning our use of the
concept of trade as a marker for modernity in itself. We should see,
that trade can operate also in different conditions. Roman
interregional trade, for example, had relatively little to do with
regional specialization of production, which is behind most modern
international trade. On the contrary, confronted with the imports,
local production started to imitate them, and this is a habit behind
which Bang sees what he calls "a peasant mentality in production",
where first comes subsistence, then self-sufficiency and in the end,
some surplus, if needed.  Behind trade, in general, Bang does not see
the profit-oriented actions of the merchants, but the revenue
processing needs of the state. Because of this, economy is not the
cause but the effect of tribute extraction by the state. By developing
a model for the GDP -- a sine qua non for the economic historian of
classical times, it seems -- and estimating the composition of the
population, and combining this with an analysis of the governing
practices of the bureaucratically weak state that had to rely on the
elites for cooperation, Bang shows that the state actually had a major
share in the movement of resources. However, the close cooperation
between the state and the local and imperial elites led to a
concentration of resources and the exclusion of merchants' interests.
In this conclusion, Bang furthers his argument from the previous
chapter, that we should not automatically assume anything about the
social position of merchants: that they are important today, and were
important in 17th century, does not mean, that they were important in
Rome.

The third chapter, beginning the second part of the book, sees the
argument move to the institutions of trade. Bang investigates the
integration of trade in the Empire -- and the lack of it. The natural
place to start is the costliness of transport, but Bang does not let
this detain him from moving further. He presents evidence documenting
the volatility of the markets and analyzes Egyptian market price series
in search of support for integrated markets, and finds very little. He
then proposes that there was a very low level of institutional
integration over the Empire, and sees two main reasons for this:
integration was not an interest for the local elites, who were more
interested in maintaining their own local dominance; and the state had
no economic policy that would have tried to integrate the institutions.
In the end, Bang notes, how well these features fit together with
Geertz's definition of the bazaar as a market type. The analysis is
convincing, and Bang's low-integration model seems very credible. One
can always question the importance of the whole concept, as it is an
application of modern theory to past times, but Bang at least tries to
make a model that fits the past instead of trying to fit the past into
a model.

The fourth chapter concentrates more on the "predatory" practices of
the state and the elites towards trade. Customs taxes and other sorts
of costs of protection were ubiquitous, and Bang sees these as
expressions of the state attitude to trade as something to be
(fiscally) profited from. The protective policies of the state were
mostly limited to curbing the excesses of the predatory policies of
officials so as not to let the disincentives to trade grow too strong.
Bang's analysis of the customs laws and the Egyptian practices is
illuminating, and has implications also outside purely economic
significances. Bang's model of the Roman state, especially as presented
in this chapter, is an important reformulation of the state's relation
to its "subjects", and the positions of different social strata in the
society, with a special emphasis on the strong position of the towns in
the reciprocity of taxes and protection.

After this harsh exposition of the general loneliness of the traders,
Bang in the fifth chapter turns to strategies of survival, which in
general were based on communities of different kind. The professional
traders' associations provided the members with the social networking
necessary for operation in volatile economic environments, where trust
was important for building up a business relationship. In addition to
networking, these associations formed the basis for social life for the
members, and also the primary places of arbitration in cases of
conflict between members. Bang's view of the Roman courts as powerful,
inventive and highly risky sources of justice supports the strong
importance of these associations, and the practices Bang connects to
these groups explain well for example the famous Piazzale delle
Corporazioni in Ostia. In addition to the associations, which provided
the professional environment for operations, the household was
important as a source of resources. Whereas the associations provided
the contacts -- and the competitors --, the household was the source of
capital and the family the source of cooperation. Both these
institutions are important in Bang's model and strongly contribute to
what he calls the "compartmentalized networks of trade", where "the
markets" were formed by parallel and overlapping but completely
separate networks. The emphasis Bang gives to the social communities of
the merchants is commendable, and is a very natural explanation fitting
well with what has already been said about the nature of Roman
associations and family relations, although rarely in the context of
economic actors.

In the Epilegomena at the end of the book, Bang does more than just
summarize the chapters of the book. Here, at the end of the book, he
finally introduces the concept of consumption to the reader. It is
perhaps no surprise to the reader, that also here, a different
mentality is found behind consumer practices. Bang claims -- as the
shortness of the chapter does not allow for a further analysis -- that
consumption was inherently luxury oriented, and aimed toward the
individual and special, a certain "Art of Consumption", where elites
could show their social standing through consumption. In the end, Bang
concludes with an overarching long dure/e from the Roman times to the
Mughal Empire, which he sees as the last manifestation of the same
model that first appeared in Imperial Rome.

After reading the Epilegomena, the reader might easily be disappointed.
After all this writing, no real conclusion? On the one hand, one might
say that the book concluded itself in the beginning. Bang's point is
clear from the start, and he manages to write a convincing argument in
its support, so the reader -- providing he accepts Bang's
interpretations -- should agree already. On the other hand, Bang's
quest is long and winding, and his aim never was to answer questions
like "Is there?" or "Is there not?", but to understand a complex
phenomenon -- the reader either gets it or he doesn't, but anything
Bang could have said in the end probably could not change it.

Bang's style is clear and although some of the original analyses and
model constructions are slightly difficult to follow, the argumentative
line of the book is clear.  The book is a very well written
contribution to our understanding of the ancient Roman economic
history. Bang is very knowledgeable, and demonstrates in many cases a
good analytic ability by dissecting the earlier interpretations for
their weaknesses and presenting his own instead. I'm sure, this book
will be hotly debated, and many will object to at least some of Bang's
arguments. I cannot call the book as a must-to-read in the sense, that
you would know new facts you didn't before, but this is definitively a
book that should be read, because it just might change the way you
think about what you knew. For better or worse, that is for the coming
generations to judge.