The Roman Indian Trade Network
What can social network analysis teach us about the Roman-Indian Trade Network?
What is the Roman Indian trade network?
The Roman Indian trade network is a name often used to describe the trade relations that existed between ancient India and the Classical World of the Romans and Greek. The trade was not limited to Roman Egypt and the Indian continent but involved all regions in between Egypt and India. The Arab merchants in particular boosted major trade ports, like the city of Kane. But Artifacts (recovered remains of things like coins and pottery) have been recovered in Ethiopia and the also the horn of Africa. As you can see in the picture above you there are two main trading routes the Romans followed. The main trade route, as seen above ran from the Roman ports of Berenice, Hyos Hormos in Egypt to the mainly the southern tip of India and the Island of Sri Lanka. A second trade route would also emerge for Egypt but would head north along the Arabian peninsula after that it would cross the Indian Ocean to Northern India. Furthermore there were also overland trade routes like the famous silk route, but the contents of this paper will be limited to the over seas trade route.
A great deal of research has been done concerning this subject. For a long time the opinion of academics was that the Roman traders and goods dominate the trade network. Recent archeological discovery's have presenting evidence that Roman dominants wasn't as great as we once though. One of the Primary examples is research done at the Indian city of Arikamedu. This City was, thanks to the large amount of Roman and Classical artifacts(archeological remains like coins and pottery) long though to have been a Roman Emporea.The new evidence indicate that Romans traders clearly life in Arikamedu but where a small minority and the city was definably not founded by Roman Settlers. This in turn calls in to question the perceived Roman dominants of the Roman India trade. It is therefore that this paper asks itself the question: How big was the Romans part in the Roman India trade network?
Sources:
In order to answer this question a network analysis will be made of the port city connected to the trade network. I order to find these city the following primair sources will be used. The book of the picture above called the Periplus of the Erythraean Sea or PME for short. The Naturalis Historia of Plinius the elder and Strabo's geografie are also important sources. Furthermore i will use the ample amount of archeological findings and there conclusions to give a complete image of the trade network.
Short Summary of conclusions:
The first thing we see coming out of network analysis is that this trade network was very loosely connected. There are maybe 4 to 5 ports in every region that has a clear connection to other regions. It is therefore likely that each port functioned as a center of trade for that region form widths the good where further distributed. The interconnection is relative thus relative low.
The Second thing we see is that the remains of Roman goods are found nearly everywhere. Roman pottery or coins are found nearly everywhere. This supports the idea that Romans did in fact dominate the trade network. However wen looking at the PME we see that the Romans had a very limited understanding of some areas, like Mesopotamia, present day Irak and Persia of with the Romans knew relatively little. It is therefore unlikely that these regions saw much Roman merchants. There goods where most likely shipped there by the Arabian merchants of present day Yemen and Oman. Who did know about the existence of Not only that, Arab ports like Kane where far better equipped to deal with large amounts of bigger ship coming to there ports then the Roman ports where. Therefore it is the conclusion of this paper that the Arab played a very important part in keeping the trade network together. While the Romans where the ones supply the question and demand it was in part thanks to the Arab ports and shipping not purely Roman shipping that this question and demand could be met. The Roman part is still present but given the more connected nature of the Arab ports and there geographic privileged position we much come to accept that the Arab play a bigger part in the trade network than they have often been given credit for.
List of refererences
Begley, Vimala, and Richard Daniel Puma. Rome and India: the ancient sea trade. Madison, Wis.: University of Wisconsin Press, 1991
Cappers, René T. J.. Roman foodprints at Berenike: archaeobotanical evidence of subsistence and trade in the Eastern Desert of Egypt. Los Angeles: Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, University of California, 2006.
Huntingford, George Wynn Brereton. The Periplus of the Erythraean Sea. London: Hakluyt Society, 1980.
Tomber, R., and Antony Simpson. Indo-Roman trade: from pots to pepper. London: Duckworth, 2008
Young, Gary. Romes eastern trade. S.l.: Routledge, 2011.
The Roman Indian trade network is a name often used to describe the trade relations that existed between ancient India and the Classical World of the Romans and Greek. The trade was not limited to Roman Egypt and the Indian continent but involved all regions in between Egypt and India. The Arab merchants in particular boosted major trade ports, like the city of Kane. But Artifacts (recovered remains of things like coins and pottery) have been recovered in Ethiopia and the also the horn of Africa. As you can see in the picture above you there are two main trading routes the Romans followed. The main trade route, as seen above ran from the Roman ports of Berenice, Hyos Hormos in Egypt to the mainly the southern tip of India and the Island of Sri Lanka. A second trade route would also emerge for Egypt but would head north along the Arabian peninsula after that it would cross the Indian Ocean to Northern India. Furthermore there were also overland trade routes like the famous silk route, but the contents of this paper will be limited to the over seas trade route.
A great deal of research has been done concerning this subject. For a long time the opinion of academics was that the Roman traders and goods dominate the trade network. Recent archeological discovery's have presenting evidence that Roman dominants wasn't as great as we once though. One of the Primary examples is research done at the Indian city of Arikamedu. This City was, thanks to the large amount of Roman and Classical artifacts(archeological remains like coins and pottery) long though to have been a Roman Emporea.The new evidence indicate that Romans traders clearly life in Arikamedu but where a small minority and the city was definably not founded by Roman Settlers. This in turn calls in to question the perceived Roman dominants of the Roman India trade. It is therefore that this paper asks itself the question: How big was the Romans part in the Roman India trade network?
Sources:
In order to answer this question a network analysis will be made of the port city connected to the trade network. I order to find these city the following primair sources will be used. The book of the picture above called the Periplus of the Erythraean Sea or PME for short. The Naturalis Historia of Plinius the elder and Strabo's geografie are also important sources. Furthermore i will use the ample amount of archeological findings and there conclusions to give a complete image of the trade network.
Short Summary of conclusions:
The first thing we see coming out of network analysis is that this trade network was very loosely connected. There are maybe 4 to 5 ports in every region that has a clear connection to other regions. It is therefore likely that each port functioned as a center of trade for that region form widths the good where further distributed. The interconnection is relative thus relative low.
The Second thing we see is that the remains of Roman goods are found nearly everywhere. Roman pottery or coins are found nearly everywhere. This supports the idea that Romans did in fact dominate the trade network. However wen looking at the PME we see that the Romans had a very limited understanding of some areas, like Mesopotamia, present day Irak and Persia of with the Romans knew relatively little. It is therefore unlikely that these regions saw much Roman merchants. There goods where most likely shipped there by the Arabian merchants of present day Yemen and Oman. Who did know about the existence of Not only that, Arab ports like Kane where far better equipped to deal with large amounts of bigger ship coming to there ports then the Roman ports where. Therefore it is the conclusion of this paper that the Arab played a very important part in keeping the trade network together. While the Romans where the ones supply the question and demand it was in part thanks to the Arab ports and shipping not purely Roman shipping that this question and demand could be met. The Roman part is still present but given the more connected nature of the Arab ports and there geographic privileged position we much come to accept that the Arab play a bigger part in the trade network than they have often been given credit for.
List of refererences
Begley, Vimala, and Richard Daniel Puma. Rome and India: the ancient sea trade. Madison, Wis.: University of Wisconsin Press, 1991
Cappers, René T. J.. Roman foodprints at Berenike: archaeobotanical evidence of subsistence and trade in the Eastern Desert of Egypt. Los Angeles: Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, University of California, 2006.
Huntingford, George Wynn Brereton. The Periplus of the Erythraean Sea. London: Hakluyt Society, 1980.
Tomber, R., and Antony Simpson. Indo-Roman trade: from pots to pepper. London: Duckworth, 2008
Young, Gary. Romes eastern trade. S.l.: Routledge, 2011.