I
think, in reading through Mattingly and Woolf, we see that they fit together
rather well. Both put forward the idea of a Roman economy with multiple levels
of sophistication and governmental involvement. Mattingly outlines a Roman
economy in which he outlines a compromise between the primitive, minimalistic
ideals of Moses Finley and the modernist views of Michael Rostovtzeff. His
proposed economy had primitive components mixed with progressive elements to
create something that was new and wholly Roman.[1]
This idea of a central economic system evident by coinage and taxation
supported by smaller, local economies where the economy was more barter and
subsistence based is a, and I do not like to use the phrase, primitive model of
our own current economy of city, county, and state supporting a wider federal
economy.
This
all fits well with Woolf’s idea of a political economy creating a link between
local economies as a unifying force.[2]
His ideas of a series of regional economies loosely tied to a central economy
administrated by the imperial government mirrors Mattingly’s compromise
government, a bit primitive on the imperial level and much more progressive on
the regional level, where those controlling the economy knew best what was
needed for their particular area within the empire.
The
difficulty in all of this is the unknown nature of the real Roman economy, we
know through tax records and coinage that there was something of a central
economy, but because there are so few written records outlining the real nuts
and bolts of what made up the Roman economy we are forced to work in theory.
Mattingly and Woolf are simply presenting summarization of arguments put forth
decades ago in regards to the nature of the economy of Rome. While they are
hoping to being new life into the argument, neither one goes on to form any new
ideas. They seem instead content to summarize and rehash what has already been
said by those such as Finley, Rostovteff, Fentress, and countless others.
[1] D.J. Mattingly. "Chapter Five: Ruling Regions,
Exploiting Resources." In Imperialism, Power,
and Identity Experiencing the Roman Empire, 125-138. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press,
2011. 126.
[2]
Greg Woolf,. "Imperialism, Empire and the integration of the Roman
economy." World Archaeology23,
no. 3 (1992): 283-293. 283.
https://edge.apus.edu/access/content/group/242772/Greg%20Woolf%20Imperialism%20Empire%20and%20the%20Integration%20of%20the%20Roman%20Economy.pdf
No comments:
Post a Comment