How far did the Romans actually trade and explore?

[Primitivus]

What's more surprising is that no one in this thread has brought up the whole "Roman Amphorae in Brazil" controversy. There is a nice summary here. It seems there may actually be something to it, although of course the characters involved are not above reproach, etc etc. A bit more here

Thanks for the links, Rich. I suspect the reason the ship wasn't mentioned here is that most of us agree with the evaluation of the rogueclassicist that:

[size=75:1bux1ls1]In other words, I am not sure why these amphorae are definitely identified as Roman. The fact that Elizabeth Lyding Will seems to only comment on the shape in somewhat vague terms suggests we do not have any markings on the amphora to definitely identify them as Roman. I can only think that the identification of Roman has come from the 'marbles' and/or 'fibula' which was supposedly also found there. I can also only think that Marx' insistence on a Second Century B.C. date must somehow be connected to the 'marbles' and/or 'fibula' as opposed to the amphorae. Finally, I can't help but recall that he was accused of seeding the site. Put it together for yourself ... I don't buy it.[/size]

[rkmvca1]

It should be pretty straightforward, if these amphora fragments really exist, to do a chemical analysis to see if the clay compositions are consistent with portuguese or spanish origin, or a more ancient compound. For that matter, since they were presumably fired, thermoluminescence studies could be done to obtain a rough age. Although TL may be problematic for ceramics buried under the ocean (what's the background radiation).

Since they were not ... still, it's intriguing.

rich k

[tlclark]

It should be pretty straightforward, if these amphora fragments really exist, to do a chemical analysis to see if the clay compositions are consistent with portuguese or spanish origin, or a more ancient compound. For that matter, since they were presumably fired, thermoluminescence studies could be done to obtain a rough age. Although TL may be problematic for ceramics buried under the ocean (what's the background radiation).

Since they were not ... still, it's intriguing.

rich k

It's easy peezy. Do a cross section under a microscope. Anyone practiced scholar with Roman Amphorae and their fabric (the technical term for the ceramic components) would be able to tell instantly if the clay was of Italic, or even mediterranean origin. Clays have natural inclusions and percentages of silicates. They are very specific. This is how they identified the pottery of Ekron as native manufacture and not imports from the Mycenaeans. It was a major plank in determining that the Philistines are indeed the Sea Peoples and originate in the Aegean. Philistine pottery is indistinguishable stylistically from Mycenaean IIIb pottery, but the presence of a native clay from the Levant indicates that rather than an import item it was manufactured locally.

The fact that this has never been done for these amphorae suggests something also.

Travis

[rkmvca1]

I'm not sure it's never been done. Referenced in the RogueClassicist article is an essay by Elizabeth Lyding Will , who appears to be a true expert on Amphorae. It is most interesting and well-written, and is linked here.

Lifting out the relevant bits at the end (also quoted in the RogeuClassicist article),

Twice a year London's Sunday Times phones me to ask if I know anything more about the Rio Wreck. The highly publicized amphoras Robert Marx found in the ship are in fact similar in shape to jars produced in kilns at Kouass, on the west coast of Morocco. The Rio jars look to be late versions of those jars, perhaps datable to the third century A.D. I have a large piece of one of the Rio jars, but no labs I have consulted have any clay similar in composition. So the edges of the earth for Rome, beyond India and Scotland and eastern Europe, remain shrouded in mystery.

Italics are mine. So, two things, first, form-wise they appear to resemble amphorae made in Western Morocco during the Roman period. Second, composition-wise they appear to resemble nothing known -- presumably including the Kouass amphorae?? RogueClassicist seems to think that she is only classifying the amphorae on stylistic grounds while it appears to me that she had chemical and compositional analyses done, with inconclusive results.

This is interesting enough that I may email Professor Will. Here's hoping she still checks her office mail!

rkmvca/rich klein

[Ebusitanus]

I recall reading, if this is the saemcase, that those finds in Rio were of some local who had sunk those pieces into the Bay for a few years in order to make them look older for his own colection and never thought someone would find his stash.

[ambrosius]

Contacts with India are extensive but we have to distinguish between actual contacts between peoples and groups and the movement of trade goods.

Red fine ware in Indian contexts appears to be Terra Sigillata in both manufacture and fabric. So much so that it collapsed the local ceramic industry. I guess that Romans were the Walmart of their time! :wink:

Travis

There's an article in this month's Current World Acrhaeology magazine,
which identifies the Indian port know to the Romans as Muziris. The port,
mentioned by several writers, including Pliny the Elder, is on the South West coast in the state of Kerala. No other site in the region has yielded Roman archaeological evidence alongside numerous Indian finds from
the same period. Muziris reportedly became a thriving and cosmopolitan port because of the Roman desire for the local pepper, as well as aromatics and gems from the interior.

The British Museum have found a Roman coin hoard and Italian
amphorae that date between the 1st c. BC and 1st c. AD. But although
Roman trade with India has always been assumed to fall away by the
4th c., evidence is increasingly being found from elsewhere in India
that trade continued into the early 7th c. I guess Byzantine trade could
easily have continued this late.

Ambrosius/Mike

[rkmvca1]

Apparently more news on Romans in India, just published here.
It seems that the trade was strong into late Roman times, ie, the 5th and 6th centuries. I'm guessing that it was the Muslim takeover of the Arabian peninsula that finally cut it off.

Rich K.