Trade in Classical Antiquity

Citation

Morley, N. (2009), "Trade in Classical Antiquity", Society and Business Review, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 86-88. https://doi.org/10.1108/17465680910932531

Neville Morley is a reader in Ancient Economy History and Historical Theory at University of Bristol (UK). He is also the Undergraduate Dean of the Arts Faculty. His research fields are threefold: the “material history” of classical antiquity; the critiques of modernity developed by Marx and Nietzsche; and theoretical and philosophical approaches to historiography. His previous book was: Theories, Models and Concepts in Ancient History (2004).

Trade in Classical Antiquity is a new issue of the Key Themes in Ancient History collection (Cambridge University Press) which aim is to provide readable, validly documented and original studies of topics related to classical civilizations not only for specialist but also for a wider public. They presuppose little knowledge of the topics and provide an overview of the state of the knowledge. In the context of this collection Trade in Classical Antiquity explores the nature and importance of antique trade, considering its ecological and cultural significance as well as its economic and political aspects.

In the introductory chapter, Morley begins by presenting the debate that has shacked the Antiquity scholar's community for years: was the trade in classical antiquity the life‐blood of a complex, Mediterranean‐wide economic system, or a thin veneer on the surface of an underdeveloped agrarian society? The “primitivists”, the leading school until now, lead by Finley (Ancient Economy: 1973) are prone to minimize the role of trade in antiquity. On the opposite the “modernists” esteems that is was on of the major institutions of the classical antiquity and even a factor that can explain the difference between the Rome and the Athens destinies. Morley clearly belongs to the second group. The New Institutional Economics is his conceptual framework since he analyses the trade within the social institutions and cultural trends that constrain and condition human behaviour. This conceptual framework pushes Morley to stress the importance of trade in classical antiquity and to explore its ecological and cultural implications. Therefore, Morley analyses the antique economy at the light of contemporary economic theories and questions. The consequence is that the Chapters 2‐5 discuss the most common “primitivist” assumptions renewing the traditional approach of the classical antiquity trade.

The second chapter challenges the classical assumption that the ancient Mediterranean economy lacked any regional specialisation and was mainly directed towards self‐sufficiency. By the way, notice that the diversity of the Ancient Mediterranean economy was already defended by Braudel who not limited his study of Mediterranean to the Modern Period (La Méditerranée 1977 and 1978).

The third chapter is dedicated to the Antique consumption. Because of his institutionalism conceptual framework, Morley esteems that the Antique consumption, like the one of today, is deeply determined by social and cultural practices (such as fashion) and manifestly by quality, quantity and prices. Morley contests the common idea of the divided ancient society: on one side an elite that consumed luxury good acquired by the (international) market on the other side the servum pecus that consumed what they produced barely surviving. Morley defends the thesis according which the trading activities (vs auto‐subsistence) were more important than the “primitivists” think it was because the classical antiquity was characterised by urbanization that encouraged trade at a local and Mediterranean levels.

The fourth chapter proposes also an original approach of the classical antiquity state. It is usually admitted that its economic activities were reduced to taxes collection, military expenses and prestigious (and mainly religious) buildings. For Morley, the antique state economic action was what, we can called, a mix of “mercantilism” and “Keynesian” approaches that, in fact, contributed to develop the trade and made it an important institution of the antique cities. Trade underpinned the growth of Athenian and Roman power, helping to supply armies and cities and therefore contributed to imperialism.

The fifth chapter deals with the elite attitudes to trade and merchants (in accordance to the canonical institutionalism approach). The antique trade furnished the goods the elites expected. antique landowning elites were involved in different forms of trade (like the XVIII elites). Trade was one of the means by which ancient elites maintained their dominance. Yet, they generally regarded trade and traders as a threat to social order. The importance of trade for the elites can be also supported by the fact that trade, like the patterns of consumption that determined its development, was implicated in wider debates about politics, morality and the state of society.

Throughout a discussion about the Roman Empire, the sixth turns around the following question: was the antique economy homogeneous or heterogeneous? Standardised or diversified? For Morley, if it is true that the roman imperialism imposed a “Romanization” of the antique societies, and favoured the expansion of an “international” trade, it also allowed the capacities of local cities to satisfy with local products. Thus, the local economies became more isolated and idiosyncratic. The “university” of the Roman State did not correspond to a “universe” economy especially after the collapse of Rome (413). Notice that the length of the period taken into account by Morley makes quite difficult to bring a homogenous answer to the hypothetic possibility of an “universal” (or “global”) imperial economy.

This book is pleasant to read. It is also an original book that could make date because it renews profoundly the traditional conception of the antique economy. For a business reader, the book is also a refreshing one for three reasons. Firstly, it recalls to the business reader than “trade” was the main door by which the contemporary enterprises where created. About 20 centuries of trade were needed to invent the “firm”. Secondly, until the eighteenth century, the society and business question was the trade and society question. Montesquieu and other asked themselves: is trade source of prosperity? Of peace? Of religious tolerance? And, may be more, is trade a good mean to de‐alienate individuals from institution like churches, family or state? At last, the turn by the antiquity is a way to renew our look on the contemporary globalization.