The Economic History of Byzantium From

7. Inscription from Anazarbos (after G. Dagron, in G. Dagron and D. Feissel, Inscriptions de Cilicie [Paris, 1987], no. 108, pp. 170–85, pl. 45)

202 MORRISSON AND SODINI

activities ranged from quarrying to sculpture), brickmakers,185 masons, specialists in stone facing and opus sectile, and mosaicists (whose signatures often appear in the Near East in paving inscriptions),186 specialists in surfacing (plasterers), and, at the head of all these trades, entrepreneurs and architects.187 The famous agreement of 459 ratified at Sardis between the guild of masons and their employers demonstrates the ability of the guild to negotiate with its employers (in particular through recourse to strikes) and to represent the profession as a whole, as well as the existence of a strained labor market in which specialized personnel were sought after.188

Pottery held an exceptional place in the economy of the sixth century;189 it has been recovered in large quantity by archaeologists, and it functioned, in the case of amphoras, as packaging. The typology of Byzantine pottery has long been established, and the determination of its various places of origin has made great progress, as has its dating, permitting us to evaluate the level of commercial exchanges.190 The quantities recovered represent but a small proportion of the quantities produced. Significant production areas were North Africa, Attica and Corinth, Moesia, the western coast of Asia Minor (the areas around Pergamon, Phokaia, the peninsula of Cnidus), Sagalassos, the Cilician coasts, the regions of Antioch and Cyprus, Galilee and the northern part of Samaria, the regions of Gaza and of Ascalon, and Egypt.191 The production of tableware, like that of amphoras, took place on a regional scale and was rarely concentrated in a specific site. The presence of kilns maintained this production outside cities, as did, undoubtedly, the need for easy access to combustible materials. The manufacture of amphoras, for reasons of profitability, must have occurred near locations at which foodstuffs were produced (principally wine, oil, and garum).192 In North Africa, it seems to have been associated with large landholdings and allied to the production of table-

185The bibliography in Sodini, “Artisanat urbain,” 73–75, should be supplemented with that of J. Bardill, “A Catalogue of Stamped Bricks,” Anatolian Archaeology 1 (1995): 28–29.

186P. Asemakopoulou-Atzaka, To` ejpa´ ggelma tou' yhfoqe´th kata` th`n o“yimh ajrcaio´thta (3o"–7o" aijw´ na"

(Athens, 1993); see also F. Alpi, “Les inscriptions de l’e´glise d’ ‘Ain Fattir,” RevBibl 99 (1992): 435–39 (the mosaicists Klaudianos and Immanouel), and D. Feissel, “Bulletin ´epigraphique,” REG 105 (1992): no. 644 (the mosaicist Thomas).

187K. Kretikekou, “Mnei´e" oikodomikw´ n epaggelma´ twn sti" epigrafe´" th" rwmai¨kh´"-palaio- cristianikh´" Palaisti´nh" kai Arabi´a",” Meleth´mata 10 Poiki´la (Athens, 1990): 373–94.

188Foss, Sardis, 19–20, inscription 14 (lines 110–13); P. Garnsey, “Les travailleurs du baˆtiment de Sardes et l’e´conomie urbaine du Bas-Empire,” in L’origine des richesses de´pense´es dans la ville antique, ed. P. Leveau (Aix-en-Provence, 1988), 147–60.

189J. W. Hayes, Excavations at Sarac¸hane in Istanbul, vol. 2 (Princeton, N.J.–Washington, D.C., 1992), 3–212, is the basic text; for supplementary bibliography, see Sodini, “Artisanat urbain,” 80–85; idem, “La contribution de l’arche´ologie,” 173–79.

190See V. Franc¸ois and J.-M. Spieser, “Pottery and Glass in Byzantium,” EHB 586–97.

191C. Panella, “Merci e scambi nel Mediterraneo tardoantico,” in Carandini, Cracco Ruggini, and Giardina, Storia di Roma (as above, note 10) 3.2:613–97; for North Africa, see S. Tortorella, “La ceramica africana: Un bilancio dell’ultimo decennio di richerche,” in Productions et exportations africaines: Actualite´s arche´ologiques, ed. P. Trousset (Paris, 1995), 79–102.

192On the importance of garum in the economy of North Africa during late antiquity, see N. Ben Lazreg et al., “Production et commercialisation des salsamenta de l’Afrique Ancienne,” in Trousset,

Productions et exportations africaines (as above, note 191), 103–42.

The Sixth-Century Economy

203

ware and lamps. Such was the case in any event, according to Michael Mackensen, at El-Mahrine and Henchir el Biar: the workshops were probably owned by a possessor fundi, while the potters were the conductores of their workshops.193 There is evidence for such an arrangement in third-century Egypt, where contracts between large landowners and amphora manufacturers have been preserved,194 and where large factories dating from the second to the fourth centuries have been found, together with associated presses and kilns near Lake Maryut.195 Nonetheless, the production of tableware could be a separate activity. In the region of Gaza and Ascalon, workshops located around villages and hamlets produced amphoras exclusively.196 The most impressive kilns are those that have been found in the agricultural complex located to the north of Ascalon: the relation in this case between large estate and amphora production was very close.197 At Sagalassos, the potters’ quarter was located northeast of the city; its production was diversified (cups, bowls, plates, but also open and covered vessels).198 Secondary centers appeared around the sixth century, producing a painted tableware (in Gerasa, possibly Nea Anchialos, Gortyna, and Egypt).

Greek molded lamps have a curious history. Corinth launched a spectacular production in the second century, with potters who signed their pieces. It was quickly imitated by Athens, which dominated the market in the fourth century. By the middle of the fifth century, the rivalry between the two centers came into resurgence; neither was a producer strictly speaking, but rather thrived in creating counterfeits and systematic adaptations of cast pieces, in particular lamps from North Africa. These phenomena multiplied in secondary centers.199 In the course of the sixth century, pottery workshops with small facilities proliferated within the centers of abandoned cities (Delphi, Utina), but we are not able to fathom the reasons for this phenomenon. The same holds true at Gerasa and at Aqaba under Umayyad domination.

The work of potters from this period, except for certain Attic lamps (from the workshops of Chione and Sotiria until the beginning of the 6th century) and lamps from the Near East (6th and 7th centuries), is anonymous or marked by a few plain stamps. Amphoras tend to bear indications of the contents, the quantity of products trans-

193M. Mackensen, Die Spa¨tantiken Sigillataund Lampento¨pfereien von el Mahrine (Nordtunesien) (Munich, 1993).

194H. Cockle, “Pottery Manufacture in Roman Egypt,” JRS 71 (1981): 87–97.

´

195 J.-Y. Empereur, “La production viticole en Egypte,” in Amouretti and Brun, La production du vin et de l’huile (as above, note 142), 39–47.

196 Y. Israel, “Survey of Pottery Workshops, Nahal Lakhish-Nahal Besor,” Excavations and Surveys in Israel 13 (1993 [1995]): 106–7. Somewhat more to the north of Ascalon, an early Byzantine kiln has also been found, although its specific products have not been determined: Y. Levy, “Tel Yavne (South), Kiln,” Excavations and Surveys in Israel 12 (1993 [1994]) (references provided by Y. Hirschfeld).

197 Y. Israel, “Ashqelon,” Excavations and Surveys in Israel 13 (1993 [1995]): 100–105.

198 Waelkens, Sagalassos I (as above, note 115), 113–69; Waelkens and Poblome, Sagalassos II, 149– 227; idem, Sagalassos III, 177–270; J. Poblome, Sagalassos Red Slip Ware (Turnhout, 1998).

199 B. Lindros Wohl, “Lamps from the Excavations at Isthmia by UCLA,” in The Corinthia in the Roman Period, ed. T. E. Gregory, (Ann Arbor, Mich., 1993), 130–38; A. Karivieri, The Athenian Lamp Industry in Late Antiquity (Helsinki, 1996).

204 MORRISSON AND SODINI

ported, and the name of their owner. Only one signature is known, on a jar; it seems to be humoristic, the potter being designated by the surname Pulofa´ go" (clay-eater).200 Glassmaking grew rapidly as the result of the dissemination of the technique of glassblowing during the early Byzantine period.201 It played a role in fenestration, which developed in churches in particular, in lighting (the hanging lamps or bowls of the polykandela and standing lamps), and in dishes, where it inspired certain types of ceramics. The major regions in which glass has been found, and undoubtedly was produced, are Egypt,202 the provinces of Palestine (where two glass factories have been found),203 Transjordan and the Hauran,204 undoubtedly Phoenicia (Tyre in particular), the Syrian coast (?), Cilicia,205 the region of Sardis,206 Constantinople,207 and the Crimea.208 Glassworking developed in parallel between Mediterranean Europe and the

Near East, although the precise relations between the two regions remain unclear. Textile work was one of the most important commercial activities of antiquity.209 It

was carried out in both imperial and private workshops. With respect to the first, notable factories included the linen mills (liniphia) of Scythopolis, wool mills ( gynaecea) in Herakleia of Thrace, Kyzikos, and Caesarea in Cappadocia, and dyeworks in Cyprus and Phoenicia (at Tyre one-fifth of the trade names relate to purple dye). The English excavation team at Carthage has recently proposed an identification of the imperial gynaeceum of Carthage known to us through the Notitia Dignitatum and the Theodosian Code with buildings discovered in the circular harbor;210 the concentration of artisanal workshops is, in any event, testimony to the importance of textile work in this region.

200Plotinopolis (Didymoticho): M. Se`ve, “Bulletin ´epigraphique,” REG 107 (1994): 502 (no. 166) (Pulofa´ go" kuqropla´ sth" e“grasen [sic]).

201Sodini, “Artisanat urbain,” 92–94; idem, “La contribution de l’arche´ologie,” 179–80.

202Bagnall, Egypt, 85; E. L. Higashi, “Conical Glass Vessels from Karanis: Function and Meaning in a Pagan/Christian Context in Rural Egypt” (Ph.D. diss., University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, 1990). Regarding glass in Alexandria, C. Haas, Alexandria in Late Antiquity: Topography and Social Conflict (Baltimore, Md., 1997), 33–34, 193, 198.

203Jalame: G. Davidson Weinberg, Excavations at Jalame, Site of a Glass Factory in Late Roman Palestine

(Columbia, Mo., 1988); Hadera (near the coast, to the south of Dor): Y. Gorin-Roser, “Hadera, Bet Eli‘ezer,” Excavations and Surveys in Israel 13 (1993 [1995]): 42–43. Others have been previously identified in Sodini, “Artisanat urbain,” 167 n. 205.

204O. Dussart, “Les verres de Jordanie et de Syrie du Sud du IVe au VIIe sie`cle,” in Le verre de l’Antiquite´ tardive et du Haut Moyen Age: Typologie chronologie, diffusion, ed. D. Foy (Guiry-en-Vexin, 1995), 343–59.

205E. M. P. Stern, “The Production of Glass Vessels in Roman Cilicia,” Ko¨lner Jahrbuch zu Vorund Fru¨hgeschichte 22 (1989): 121–28, mistakenly confounds itrarius (pastrycook) with vetrarius. For glassmakers’ kilns at Anamur, Sodini, “Artisanat urbain,” 167 n. 204.

206Crawford, Shops, E12–E13 (the inventory yields 10% window glass; 90% glass vessels); A. von Saldern, Ancient and Byzantine Glass from Sardis (Cambridge, Mass., 1980).

207Hayes, Sarac¸hane, 399–402.

208Y. Ivachenko, “Le verre proto-byzantin, recherches en Russie (1980–1990),” in Foy, Le verre de l’Antiquite´ tardive (as above, note 204), 319–30, and A. Sazanov, “Verres `a de´cor de pastilles bleues provenant des fouilles de la Mer Noire: Typologie et chronologie,” ibid., 331–41.

209Sodini, “Artisanat urbain,” 90–92 and 103; A. Avrame´a, “Artisanat et commerce du textile dans le Bas-Empire oriental (IVe–VIIe sie`cles),” in Cultural and Commercial Exchanges between the Orient and the Greek World (Athens, 1991), 23–29.

210Hurst, Excavations at Carthage, 64–98.

The Sixth-Century Economy

205

Wool and linen were the main textiles, but hemp was also used extensively. The uses of textiles (in clothing, hangings, rugs, upholstery, nautical ropes, sails) and the techniques associated with textile manufacture (carding, weaving, dyeing) required the use of highly specialized artisans. The workshops of Sardis were by and large dyeworks. Egypt occupied a distinguished place among the producer regions on the evidence of the important samples that have come down to us.211 Silk posed a particular problem, insofar as it was not manufactured within the empire until the Justinianic period and was thus the object of a highly regulated trade with the Sasanians, supervised by imperial functionaries.212

There is ample evidence of woodworking (carpentry, shipbuilding, joinery, and basketmaking), crafts associated with hides (leatherwork, the preparation of fur, shoemaking, clothing manufacture, and the manufacture of parchment), as well as work in bone, ivory, and wax.213 The most important manufacturing sector, however, was metalwork, which comprised two highly differentiated sectors: work in base metals on the one hand, and, on the other, work in precious metals. The first included artisans who worked iron, copper alloys, lead, and tin, and it brought into play a vast production that included a variety of objects: nails, clamps, keys, tools of every sort, utensils, and weapons, which might be manufactured in the imperial fabricae (Sardis, Concordia, Antioch, Caesarea), as well as by private entities,214 and made use of precious metals and leather. Weaponry, like military dress, made a strong impression on the “barbarian” populations and was widely imitated. These trades were carried out by simple artisans, such as the Cilician blacksmith mentioned in the Miracles of St. Artemios.215 Work in precious metals—silver and gold—brought wealthy and influential guilds into the manufacturing process, and, given the primary materials involved, they handled substantial amounts of capital. Here again, church treasuries emphasize the wealth of the sixth century, both in the East and in Constantinople itself. Court ceremony favored the production of a very high level of goldsmithing that combined gold, precious stones, pearls, and enamels.216 The system of hallmarks underlined the state’s interest in controlling the flow of silver. Gold, the preeminent monetary substance, must have been regulated even more closely. The wealth of goldsmiths (chrysochooi) could trans-

211Bagnall, Egypt, 82–84 (in which most of the sources cited date to the 4th or 5th century). On groups of Coptic textiles, many of which date to the 6th and 7th centuries, see the summary bibliography in Sodini, “La contribution de l’arche´ologie,” 180–81.

212N. Oikonomides, “Silk Trade and Production in Byzantium from the Sixth to the Ninth Century: The Seals of Kommerkiarioi,” DOP 40 (1986): 33–53, and idem, “The Role of the Byzantine State in the Economy,” EHB 962. On the silk textiles themselves, see A. Muthesius, “Essential Processes, Looms, and Technical Aspects of the Production of Silk,” EHB 146ff.

213Sodini, “La contribution de l’arche´ologie,” 165–72; Bagnall, Egypt, 84.

214Such as the one managed by Thalassius, the friend of Libanios: G. Dagron, Naissance d’une capitale: Constantinople et ses institutions de 330 `a 451 (Paris, 1974), 132.

215Sodini, “Artisanat urbain,” 85–86, 101–2; J. C. Waldbaum, Metalwork from Sardis: The Finds through 1974 (Cambridge, Mass., 1983). Aphrodisias yields a new term to designate the workshop of a blacksmith (mudrostasi´a): Roueche´, Aphrodisias, no. 208.

216Sodini, “Artisanat urbain,” 85–86, and “La contribution de l’arche´ologie,” 170–171; and more recently, Boyd and Mango, Ecclesiastical Silver Plate; for a summary of the latter, see Morrisson, “Tre´- sors d’argenterie,” 539–48.

206 MORRISSON AND SODINI

form them into money changers (collectarii, trapezitai) and subsequently bankers (aurarii, argyropratai), following a hierarchy suggested by Charlotte Roueche´.217 They might then figure in the collection of taxes and have access to public funds over which they could exercise control. There is abundant testimony to the rise in the power of these guilds during the reign of Justinian. We cannot rule out the possibility that the banker Julianus had been a Byzantine agent. At Bostra, three inscriptions show chrysochooi supervising the utilization of public funds (demotika). At Scythopolis, a goldsmith became a palatinus, and Peter Barsymes, a money changer, became praetorian prefect under Justinian.

Trade: Textual and Archaeological Evidence

Trade in the abovementioned agricultural and Byzantine artisanal products, whose density within the metrokomiai we have glimpsed on a local level, remained active during a large part of the sixth century, albeit on a more modest scale than during the preceding centuries. Until the 1970s and even the 1980s, our knowledge of these exchanges for the most part relied on the testimony of texts; it has since benefited from the contributions of archaeology and, in particular, from the study of pottery finds.218 The interpretation and comparative analysis of this evidence is, to be a sure, a delicate task; and ensuring consistency in materials classification, the stratigraphy of the physical context, and statistical methodology are not unproblematic.219 While we must guard against imbuing them with absolute value, such data nonetheless yield invaluable quantitative information regarding the geographic directions of commercial exchange and their evolution relative to one another. This documentation nonetheless remains incomplete for two reasons: on the one hand, it is limited to products that were transported as commodities in and of themselves (tableware or cooking ware) or products whose transport required the use of ceramic containers (amphoras or jars): liquids (oil, wine), semiliquids (salted foods, condiments such as garum),220 and, occasionally, dried fruit or pulses. A foodstuff as essential as wheat, by contrast, would leave no direct traces (or nearly none); wine as well, possibly as early as the sixth century,

217C. Roueche´, “Aurarii in the Auditoria,” ZPapEpig 105 (1995): 37–50. The examples that follow are drawn from this study. J. Gascou (Antiquite´ tardive 5 [1997]: 376) has, however, challenged the meaning of aurarii mentioned in the circuses and theaters; rather than bankers, could they be favisores (clappers)? A preferable recent hypothesis considers them to be financial managers of circus games. The term is not attested in any other context. See C. Zuckerman, “Le cirque, l’argent et le peuple. A propos d’une inscription du Bas-Empire,” REB 58 (2000): 69–96, esp. 73–78. See also G. Dagron, “The Urban Economy, Seventh–Twelfth Centuries,” EHB 427–30.

218Panella, “Merci e scambi.”

219C. Panella, “Le merci: Produzione, itinerati e destini,” in Societa` romana e impero tardoantico, ed. A. Giardina (Rome, 1986), 3:21–23, 431–59; for a state of the art, see J. Keay and C. Abadie-Reynal, “A propos des Actes du Colloque de Sienne, 1986: Amphores romaines et histoire ´economique, Rome 1989,”

JRA 5 (1992): 353–66; M. Bonifay and D. Pie´ri, “Amphores du Ve au VIIe s. `a Marseille: Nouvelles donne´es sur la typologie et le contenu,” JRA 8 (1995): 94–120.

220The importance of North Africa in this sector has recently been emphasized: Ben Lazreg et al., “Production et commercialisation.”

The Sixth-Century Economy

207

began to be transported in barrels. On the other hand, the documentation available to us for the most part concerns maritime exchange.

Maritime trade had the advantage of a much lower cost than land exchange, a fact that has often been emphasized with respect to cereal products (Jones reckons it from seventeen to twenty-two times lower). It would nonetheless be erroneous to minimize the role of land transport: the differential was less significant for high-value products of a weight or volume analogous to wheat that could travel over short distances in containers lighter than amphoras (among others)221 and thus justified not only the shipment of silk or spices by land, but other products as well. Antioch thus tapped products from a hinterland that was not limited solely to the Orontes valley, but extended as far as Melitene, Chalcis, and Edessa; the city maintained reciprocal relations with the rural areas of Cilicia and northern Syria, providing textiles, tools, and other manufactured products—African Sigillata ware, for example—in exchange for foodstuffs or timber.222 A portion of this merchandise was reshipped by way of Antioch’s large-scale trade; the remainder constituted local commerce.

This trade may be glimpsed through the evidence of a few inscriptions, regrettably mutilated, such as the municipal tariffs of Anazarbos and Cagliari223 (Fig. 7). The first, which dates from the mid-fifth to the mid-sixth century, taxes the following products: saffron, garum, ropes, gourds (? khouzia), fenugreek (karphion, a pulse), garlic, fried foods (fish), wine, salt, grafted plants, raw silk, tin, lead, slaves, cattle, caroubes (pulses in general?). The second, dating to the reign of Maurice, mentions palms (sparta), sheep (for butchering, taxed in pounds of meat), vegetables (olera), “summer produce” (extibalia), wine, wheat, and “birds” (abis). Without attempting to draw conclusions as to chronology from the comparison of these two fragmentary pieces of evidence, one may distinguish Anazarbos—clearly more important and active, stocking not only foodstuffs, but also luxury products (silk) and raw materials for artisan work and even reexport—from Cagliari, which took in food solely for the town itself, as well as palms to weave baskets, sandals, and roofing materials. To a certain degree, one may also distinguish the reference in the Nessana papyri of a total indicative of a sizable transaction (270.5 solidi repaid to some merchants by one Father Martyrius) from other, more local transactions, none of which exceeds 10 solidi (the purchases of camels and donkeys valued at 21⁄3 to 8 solidi, and the purchase of a slave for 3 solidi).

Mediumand long-distance maritime trade benefited from a port infrastructure,

221 A. H. M. Jones, The Later Roman Empire (284–602) (Oxford, 1964), 841–42. D. J. Mattingly, “Oil for Export? A Comparison of Libyan, Spanish and Tunisian Olive Oil Production in the Roman Empire,” JRA 1 (1988): 33–57, at 52, citing K. Greene, Archaeology of the Roman Economy (Berkeley, 1986), 35–43.

´

222 Liebeschuetz, Antioch, 61–100; J.-P. Sodini, “Villes et campagnes en Syrie du Nord: Echanges et diffusion des produits d’apre`s les te´moignages arche´ologiques,” in Models of Regional Economies in Antiquity and the Middle Ages to the 11th Century, ed. E. Aerts, J. Andreau, and P. Ørsted (Louvain, 1990), 72–83.

223 Anazarbos: G. Dagron, in G. Dagron and D. Feissel, Inscriptions de Cilicie (Paris, 1987), no. 108, pp. 170–85; J. Durliat, “Taxes sur l’entre´e des marchandises dans la cite´ de Carales-Cagliari `a l’e´poque byzantine,” DOP 36 (1982): 1–14.

208 MORRISSON AND SODINI

the maintenance or restoration of which in the course of the sixth century reflects its endurance and vitality, albeit unequally distributed, given that the eastern Mediterranean was clearly the better endowed in this regard. With the construction on the Propontis of the harbor of Julian and subsequently the harbor of Theodosios and its associated granaries, Constantinople witnessed a remarkable growth during the fourth and fifth centuries in the capacity of its harbors, previously limited to the two natural ones on the Golden Horn. In total, the city had some 4 km of quays that could accommodate the simultaneous docking of five hundred midsized ships.224 Recent excavations at Caesarea have similarly demonstrated the vast size of early Byzantine granaries (Fig. 8). Nor should we minimize the role of docking facilities within the eastern Mediterranean, for example, the ports of Cyprus (Paphos), Crete, and Rhodes, where the governor of the province of the islands had his seat. Each had its own docks or harbors, in some cases specialized ones, such as the harbor at Thasos, which was fitted with cranes to load marble onto ships.225 Antioch was accessible through a navigable channel that was maintained along the Orontes River. To the north of the channel, the port of Seleucia Pieria, according to an inscription, accommodated ships coming not only from Phoenicia, Cyprus, and Cilicia, but also from Palestine and Egypt.226 Laodicaea in Syria, Tyre, Dor, and Gaza, and especially Caesarea, restored, according to Prokopios, by Anastasios I (491–518), were still active export centers. Alexandria—the annonary port for Constantinople and the outlet for the eastern spice trade—seems to have maintained two large docks dating from Hellenistic times. The fate of Carthage’s port was altogether different; recent excavations have confirmed the abandonment of the circular harbor during the Vandal period, as well as Prokopios’ description of buildings, already mentioned above (stoai, linked perhaps with the annona or the imperial gynaeceum), reconstructed on the Island of the Admiralty under Justinian (De aedificiis 6.5.10). The harbor was subsequently put back into service, although on a reduced scale, and new, smaller quays were probably constructed on either side. The quay of the hexagonal port was raised during the fifth and sixth centuries because of the rising sea level; it had ceased to function by the end of the sixth century.227 Of Rome’s two ports, Ostia declined to the benefit of Portus, which was subsequently fortified, but much diminished relative to what it had been during the second century. According to Prokopios, merchandise was transported to Rome from Portus, either by road or along

224Mango, De´veloppement urbain, 38.

225J.-P. Sodini, A. Lambraki, and T. Kozelj, Les carrie`res de marbre `a l’e´poque pale´ochre´tienne (Paris, 1980), 119–22.

226G. Dagron, “Un tarif de sportules `a payer aux curiosi du port de Se´leucie de Pie´rie (VIe sie`cle),” TM 9 (1985): 437–38.

227Caesarea: A. Raban, “The Inner Harbour Basin of Caesarea: Archeological Evidence for Its Gradual Demise,” in Caesarea Maritima: A Retrospective after Two Millennia, ed. A. Raban and K. Holum (Leiden–New York, 1996), 628–66; Prokopios of Gaza, Panegyricus in Imperatorem Anastasium, PG 87.3:2817; Dor: S. A. Kingsley and K. Raveh, “Stone Anchors from Byzantine Contexts in Dor Harbour, Israe¨l,” International Journal of Nautical Archaeology 233.1 (1994): 1–12; Carthage: Hurst, Excavations at Carthage, and idem in Pour sauver Carthage: Exploration et conservation de la cite´ punique, romaine et byzantine, ed. A. Ennabli (Paris, 1992), 76–78, 88–89.

The Sixth-Century Economy

209

the Tiber on barges towed by oxen (Bell. Goth. 1.26).228 The harbor of Naples was also fortified through its inclusion in the surrounding walls of the enlarged city around the year 440 and again around 556, a fact that does not allow us necessarily to conclude that the city’s population grew. At Ravenna,229 the silting and shifting of the mouth of the lagoon led to the construction of the novus portus of Classe, from which Belisarios sent ships loaded with grain and other foodstuffs (Bell. Goth. 2.29.311).230

With the exception of Constantinople, Byzantine harbors were universally of smaller capacity than harbors of the early Roman Empire, even of those of the fourth century; ships as well were built on a more modest scale. The decline was substantial. In the course of the fifth century, ships of increasingly small tonnage were requisitioned: 2,000 modioi (approximately 12 tons burden) in 439 in a novel repeated in the Justinianic Code and even 1,000 modioi (8 metric tons or 6 tons burden) in a novel of Valentinian III, as opposed to 50,000 modioi in the second century. The limit undoubtedly sought also to stem the flight from fiscal duties and was precisely equivalent to that assigned to the curiosi of Seleucia for the payment of sportulae. This capacity is a fifth of that of the Yassı Ada shipwreck (40 tons). Although a few large-capacity vessels continued to sail in the eastern portion of the empire (the shipwreck of Marzamemi transporting 200–400 tons of Proconnesian marble and the Alexandrian vessels with a capacity of 70,000 and 20,000 modioi [560 and 160 tons]), ships of small or medium tonnage were the rule in the West, such as the ships of 2,800-modioi capacity sent by Theodoric in search of wheat and vectigal in Spain.231

Constantinople was clearly the crux of most of the empire’s trade relations, and the sixth century marked the endpoint of an evolution that was set into motion by the creation of a new capital, to the detriment of Rome. The provisioning of an abundant population,232 on the order of a half million inhabitants, depended not only on a nearby hinterland for fish or fresh vegetables, or a somewhat more distant one for meat, but also on sources that were at a far greater remove for other basic foodstuffs. The 8 million artabas of wheat that came from Egypt met the city’s basic grain requirements and were supplemented by supplies from Thrace and, after 533 or even earlier, wheat from Africa, as demonstrated by the famine that arose in Constantinople as a result of the blockage of “African ships” during Herakleios’ revolt in 608. Sicily also played a role in provisioning, as suggested by the episode of the ships diverted toward Thessalonike by the miraculous intervention of St. Demetrios and by the fact that the

228See the very recent contributions of Paroli et al., La storia economica di Roma nell’alto medioevo.

229P. Arthur, “Naples: Note on the Economy of a Dark Age City,” in Papers in Italian Archaeology IV: The Cambridge Conference, ed. C. Malone and S. Stoddart (Oxford, 1985), 4:247–59.

230M. G. Maioli in Ravenna e il porto di Classe: Venti anni di ricerche archeologiche tra Ravenna e Classe, ed. G. Bermond Montanari (Bologna, 1983), 65–78.

231Cassiodorus, Variae, 5.36 cited by J. Rouge´, “Quelques aspects de la navigation en Me´diterrane´e au Ve s. et dans la premie`re moitie´ du VIe s.,” CahHist 6 (1961): 129–54, at 144–46.

232On provisioning, see herein Dagron, “Urban Economy,” 437ff, and the bibliography cited. See also Sirks, Food for Rome; idem, “The Size of the Grain Distribution in Imperial Rome and Constantinople,” Athaeneum 79 (1991): 215–37.

8. Map of storage facilities uncovered south of the Crusader wall and reconstruction of a granary in Caesarea (after J. Patrich, “Warehouse and Granaries in Caesarea Maritima,” in Caesarea Maritima: A Retrospective after Two Millennia, ed. A. Raban and K. Holum [Leiden–New York, 1996], p. 147, fig. 1, and p. 167, fig. 21)