THE ECONOMIC FRINGE: THE REACH OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE IN ROUGH CILICIA By HUGHW.ELTON Many discussions of the Roman economy are rather vague about what they mean by 'Roman'. Phrases such as 'Roman Europe' or 'the Roman Empire' often blur two different concepts, that of the cultures of Iron Age Europe and the political institution of the Roman Empire. Cultures in Iron Age Europe varied widely. The Welsh uplands or the Atlas mountains, for example, had an aceramic culture with few public buildings, though were mIed directly by Rome for several centuries. Other regions, not under Roman control, like the regions across the middle Danube, showed higher concentrations of Mediterranean consumer goods and coins than some of these aceramic areas. 1 In Mesopotamia, many societies were urban and literate, not differing in this respect from those in Italy or Greece. Thus, determining what was imperial Roman territory by archaeological criteria alone is very difficult? But these archaeological criteria are important for two reasons. First, they allow us to analyse the cultural and economic changes that occurred in Iron Age Europe between 100 B.C. and A.D. 250. Second, they allow for the possibility of change within Europe that was not caused by the Roman state? Unlike cultures within Iron Age Europe, the Roman Empire was a political structure, imposed by force and dedicated to extracting benefits for the mling elite of the city of Rome.4 As the empire developed and matured, its form changed, but it was never about the mIed, only the rulers. If we accept that the Empire was a political, not an archaeological, structure, it follows that an examination of 'Impact of Empire: Transformation of Economic Life', has to mean an examination of the impact of the Roman imperial state. This paper has a regional focus, so does not deal with larger I L. Pitts, 'Roman Style Buildings in Barbaricum (Moravia and SW Siovakia)" Oxlord Journal 01 Archaeology 6 (1987), 219-236; cf. H.W. Elton, 'Defining Romans, Barbarians and the Roman Frontier', in R.W. Mathisen & H.S. Sivan, eds., Shifting Frontiers in Late Antiquity (Aldershot 1996), 126-135. See the article ofDJ. Mattingly in this volume. 2 DJ. Mattingly, ed., Dialogues in Roman lmperia/ism (Portsmouth, RI 1997); F. Miliar, 'Introduction', in S. Macready & F.H. Thompson, eds., Roman Architecture in the Greek Wor/d (London 1987), ix-xv at xi. 3 R. Hingley, 'Resistance and Domination: social change in Roman Britain', in DJ. Mattingly, ed., Dialogues in Roman lmperia/ism (Portsmouth, RI 1997), 81-100 at 85 n.18. 4 G. Woolf, 'Imperialism, Empire and the Integration ofthe Roman Economy', Wor/d Archaeology 23 (1992),283 -293. 172 HUGH W. ELTON - 9789004401624 Downloaded from Brill.com09/28/2021 02:06:03AM via free access elements of the Roman impact. Being in the Roman Empire did have an impact on regional economies. Roman control of the Mediterranean created a common market that allowed large-scale import and export of goods, especially low-cost commodities such as pottery, within a predictable framework of language, lawand currency. But this common market was an unintended byproduct, and had more to do with being in an empire than being in the Roman Empire.5 The cultural and political impact of Rome can be measured by comparing apre-Roman region to the region under Roman rule. Most scholarly literature, which discusses the changes between pre-Roman and Roman periods (a process of usually known as Romanization), has focused on the west, especially Gaul and Britain.6 Since this approach relies heavily on archaeological (including epigraphic) evidence, it tends to be more informative about Roman cultural than political impact. Many of these conclusions are valid only where Rome was the first empire in a region. This is often true in the west, but far less so in the east, where many other areas already had widespread exchange systems.7 Work on Romanization in the east is mostly recent. Much of this work is based on literary texts, especially those of the Second Sophistic, so tends to be cultural rather than political. 8 In both east and west, some recent work has minimised the Roman impact on a region, but does so without discussing the political changes brought about by Rome.9 This paper applies a politically focussed analysis of the economic changes brought about by Roman imperial rule to one region of Asia Minor, Rough Cilicia. 10 This region, approximately bounded by the river Melas in the west and the Lamus in the east, runs from the Mediterranean in the south to Lake Trogitis in the north. It was a region dominated by the Taurus mountains, with few aristocrats taking part in the imperial system and no major garrison. S P.W.M. Freeman, 'Romanisation and Roman material culture', Journal oi Roman Archaeology 6 (1993),438-444. 6 E.g. M. Millett, The Romanization oi Britain (Cambridge 1990); G. Woolf, Becoming Roman: the origins oiprovincial civilisation in Gaul (Cambridge 1998). 7 Z.H. Archibald, ed., Hellenistic Economies (London, 2000). 8 G. Woolf, 'Becoming Roman, staying Greek: culture, identity and the civilising process in the Roman East', Proceedings oi the Cambridge Philological Society 40 (1994), 116-143; S. Swain, Hellenism and Empire (Oxford 1996); S. Alcock, ed., The Early Roman Empire in the East (Oxford 1997); N. Pollard, Soldiers, Citizens and Civilians in Roman Syria (Ann Arbor 2000). 9 W. Ball, Rome in the East (London 2000); J. Webster, 'Creolising the Roman provinces', American JournaloiArchaeology 105 (2001), 209-225. 10 T.B. Mitford, 'Roman Rough Cilicia', ANRWII 7.2 (Berlin 1980), 1230-1261. 173 HUGH W. ELTON - 9789004401624 Downloaded from Brill.com09/28/2021 02:06:03AM via free access Rough Cilicia in the Early Roman Empire LAKE TIiOGITIS 9 .1... ," Vetu Anemur1um Imperial power in the eastem Taurus mountains was nothing new when Rome arrived. During the first millennium B.C., the region had been controlled by Assyrians and Achaemenid Persians, then the Greeks arrived, in several varieties - Alexander, the Seleucids and the Ptolemies, as weH as a brief Armenian interlude. The imposition of Roman imperial authority by Pompey in 63 B.C. was simply the replacement of one imperial layer with another. lI This Roman imperial layer, however, was not simple. 12 Although Pompey created a single province of Cilicia in 63 B.C., this was split into two parts in the mid-40s B.C. Lowland Cilicia was incorporated into the province of Syria, a situation which lasted until A.D. 72, while Rough Cilicia was left in the hands of allied kings. Strabo explained it as 'the Romans thought it was better for the region to be under kings rather than subject to 11 P.W.M. Freeman, 'The Province ofCilicia and its Origins', in P.W.M. Freeman & D.L. Kennedy, The Defence ofthe Roman and Byzantine &st (Oxford 1986),253-275. 12 For primary references for the politica1 changes in the region, D. Magie, Roman Rufe in Asia Minor (Princeton 1950) and Mitford 1980, op. eit. (n.10). 174 HUGH W. ELTON - 9789004401624 Downloaded from Brill.com09/28/2021 02:06:03AM via free access Roman governors who were sent out to administer justice, who were not going to be everywhere at once, nor with an armed force.' 13 There was no single ruler in the early days. In 39 B.C., Antony gave an inland Cilician kingdom (which included Iconium) to Polemo, and the coastal regions (including Coracesium and Hamaxia) to Cleopatra. In 37/6 Polemo was removed from his principality which was then added to the Galatian kingdom of Amyntas. The temple-state at Olba (whose territory included Elaeussa and Corycus) remained under native rulers. Seleucia on Calycadnus was probably a free city.14 After the battle of Actium (31 B.C.), Cleopatra's possessions along the coast were handed over to king Amyntas of Galatia who then mIed all of the region except Olba and Seleucia. On Amyntas' death in 25 B.C., his Rough Cilician territories were divided into two parts. The western parts, from the Melas to Syedra, were included in the new province of Galatia, as was the Augustan colony of Ninica on the Calycadnus. 15 The eastern parts were given to Archelaus I, king of Cappadocia (25 B.C. - A.D. 17).16 In 20 B.C. Augustus also gave Archelaus the cities of Elaeussa and Corycus (which had been either independent or part ofthe Olban principality). When Archelaus died in A.D. 17, his Cappadocian kingdom was annexed by Rome, but his son Archelaus 11 succeeded him in Rough Cilicia (17-38). On Archelaus lI's death in 38, his kingdom was given to Antiochus IV of Commagene (38-72). In 41 Olba was given to Polemo 11. 17 Antiochus' kingdom of Commagene was taken over by the Romans in 72. A new province of Cilicia with its own governor was created. It combined lowland Cilicia, now detached from Syria, and the parts of Rough Cilicia that had been controlled by Antiochus. At this point, Polemo's Olba was perhaps transferred by Vespasian to Alexander, Antiochus' son-in-Iaw. 18 Although the detailed history is confusing, it shows that phrases such as 'the arrival of the Romans', 'the annexation of a province' or 'the imposition I3 Strabo 14.5.6. 14 Mitford 1980, op. eit. (n.\O), 1241 + n.45. 15 Seleueia, in Galatia?, S. Mitchell, Anatolia I (Oxford 1993), 152. 16 H.W. Elton, 'Geography, Romans, Labels and Cilieia', in H.W. Elton & G. Reger, eds., Regionalism in Hellenistic anti Roman Asia Minor (Ann Arbor, forthcoming).