1. American Historical Association, 127th Annual Meeting,
Jan 3-6, 2013, New Orleans, LA
Session 201: Space, Place and Time: GIS Technology in Ancient and Medieval European History
Confiscation or Commerce? Spatial Analysis and Economic Relations on the Roman Frontier
Eli Weaverdyck
The Graduate Group in Ancient History and Mediterranean Archaeology
University of California, Berkeley

2. Roman Forts
The Roman empire was the first state in history to have a standing army. It stationed hundreds of thousands of soldiers in forts spread along the edge of its empire. It is clear that all of these troops needed to be fed, but far less clear is how they were fed and, relatedly, what impact they might have had on the areas in which they were stationed. The state provided basic rations, but we don’t know how it acquired them. In addition, we know that soldiers supplemented their official rations with food and goods they acquired individually.

3. Evidence for economic impact
Vindolanda writing tablet (Britain)

4. Vici and canabae
From Kandler 2004 “Oestliche und Suedliche canabae legionis, Grabungsbefunde und Luftbildauswertungen.”

5. Spatial Analysis Focuses on spatial relationships between sites
Locational data are easily comparable
Landscape physically constrains and enables human activity

6. The Danube Bend, Pannonia Inferior

7. The Danube Bend

8. The Danube Bend, 1st – 2nd centuries
Budapest
Road
City
Fort

9. The Danube Bend, 2nd - 3rd centuries
Road
City
Fort

10. Rural sites in Pest, 1st – 2nd c.
Villa
Settlement

11. Rural sites in Pest, 2nd – 3rd c.
Villa
Settlement

12. Rural sites in Pest, 3rd – 4th c.
Villa
Settlement

13. Model parameters Environmental variables Distribution variables
Elevation
Slope
Aspect
Soil Type
Distribution variables
Access to roads
Access to Danube
Tobler’s Hiking Function
Off-road = 6e-3.5(Slope+0.05)
Road = 3/5(6e-3.5(Slope+0.05))

14. Data sources Cities, Forts and Roads Rural sites
Talbert (2000) Barrington Atlas of the Greek and Roman World, Princeton University Press.
Rural sites
Visy (1994) “Die ländliche Besiedlung und Landwirtschaft in Niederpannonien” in Bender and Wolff (eds.) Ländliche Besiedlung und Landwirtschaft in der Rhein – Donau – Provinzen des Römischen Reiches, Passauer Universitätsschriften zur Archäologie.
Elevation, Slope and Aspect
NASA Land Processes Distributed Active Archive Center (LP DAAC). ASTERGTM (version 1). USGS/Earth Resources Observation and Science (EROS) Center, Sioux Falls, South Dakota
Soil
The European Soil Database distribution version 2.0, European Commission and the European Soil Bureau Network, CD-ROM, EUR EN, 2004

15. What role did Forts play in the economic landscape near the Roman Frontier?
Commercial markets?
Forced extraction points?
Points of abuse?
No role?
Chester

16. Forts as markets
Urban Potential = Sizecity(1) / Accesscity(1) Sizecity(n) / Accesscity(n) + Sizefort(1) / Accessfort(1) Sizefort(n) / Accessfort(n)

17. Forced Extraction?

18. Abuse?
Urban Potential = Sizecity(1) / Accesscity(1) Sizecity(n) / Accesscity(n) – Sizefort(1) / Accessfort(1) – ... – Sizefort(n) / Accessfort(n)

19. No role?
Urban Potential = Sizecity(1) / Accesscity(1) Sizecity(n) / Accesscity(n)

20. Environment and Distribution
In both the 1st and 2nd centuries and in the 3rd and 4th centuries, adding distribution variables improves the model considerably. Access to traffic arteries was clearly attractive in these periods.
The most striking aspect of these graphs, however, is the poor performance of the models in the 2nd-3rd century.
Access to communications routes was an important consideration in choosing locations for rural investment in the 1st – 2nd centuries and in the 3rd – 4th centuries
The model performs poorly in the 2nd – 3rd centuries

21. Environment and Distribution
In both the 1st and 2nd centuries and in the 3rd and 4th centuries, adding distribution variables improves the model considerably. Access to traffic arteries was clearly attractive in these periods.
The most striking aspect of these graphs, however, is the poor performance of the models in the 2nd-3rd century.
New sites in the 2nd – 3rd centuries were located according to different environmental priorities than sites in the 1st – 2nd centuries

22. New sites, 2nd – 3rd centuries: Environmental Comparisons
When comparing the environmental attributes of rural sites in the 1st and 2nd centuries to new sites in the 2nd and 3rd centuries, the soil and slope distributions look fairly similar. New sites appear on fertile soils and on moderate slopes. Differences are apparent in elevation and aspect. Whereas the earlier sites are grouped in the m range, later sites are spread all the way up to the m range. Earlier sites slightly prefer NE, E, SE, and S facing locations, while later sites strongly prefer to face SE or, failing that, SW. No new sites are found in North facing locations. Clearly, priorities had changed since the 1st and 2nd centuries
In the 2nd – 3rd centuries, new rural investment was more sensitive to aspect, but less sensitive to elevation than in the 1st – 2nd centuries

23. New sites, 2nd – 3rd centuries: Environmental Comparisons
When comparing the environmental attributes of rural sites in the 1st and 2nd centuries to new sites in the 2nd and 3rd centuries, the soil and slope distributions look fairly similar. New sites appear on fertile soils and on moderate slopes. Differences are apparent in elevation and aspect. Whereas the earlier sites are grouped in the m range, later sites are spread all the way up to the m range. Earlier sites slightly prefer NE, E, SE, and S facing locations, while later sites strongly prefer to face SE or, failing that, SW. No new sites are found in North facing locations. Clearly, priorities had changed since the 1st and 2nd centuries
In the 2nd – 3rd centuries, new rural investment was more sensitive to aspect, but less sensitive to elevation than in the 1st – 2nd centuries

24. Extraction models
Access to civilian consumers was critical to site survival in the 3rd – 4th centuries
1st – 2nd century sites were oriented toward communications routes more than consumer locations
New sites in the 2nd – 3rd centuries were located to take advantage of both civilian and military consumers

25. New sites near forts, 2nd – 3rd centuries

26. Extraction models
Access to civilian consumers was critical to site survival in the 3rd – 4th centuries
1st – 2nd century sites were oriented toward communications routes more than consumer locations
New sites in the 2nd – 3rd centuries were located to take advantage of both civilian and military consumers

27. Settlements vs. Villas: Environment and Distribution
In every time period, adding distribution variables improves the model more for settlements than villas, suggesting that settlements are more sensitive to distribution concerns than villas.
Settlements in the 1st – 2nd and 2nd – 3rd centuries are more distribution oriented than villas in the same periods

28. Settlements vs. Villas: Extraction
Extraction models
Improvement over Environment + Distribution model
Villas avoid forts in the 1st – 2nd centuries, but cater to them in the 2nd – 3rd centuries
New settlements in the 2nd – 3rd centuries take no account of markets
3rd – 4th century settlements look to traffic routes, while villas look to markets

29. Conclusions Experiences of landscape differed
Villa owners were less constrained by transportation costs than settlement inhabitants
Definitions of land quality changed in the 2nd century

30. Conclusions The role of forts changed over time
Little impact in 1st -2nd centuries
Markets for some villa owners in 2nd -3rd centuries
Loss of impact in 3rd – 4th centuries
No evidence for the influence of confiscation was detected in the distribution of rural investment
Evidence for the influence of commerce was detected

31. Conclusions
Spatial analysis is a useful complement to other types of evidence
Data are freely available
Locational data less susceptible to investigation bias
Focuses on physical setting for interactions rather than archaeologically visible proxies