Dark Age Economics A New Audit

87 Pages·2012·69.929 MB·English

by  Richard Hodges

Dark Age Economics

A NEW AUDIT

Richard Hodges
Bristol Classical Press
First published in 2012 by

Bristol Classical Press

Contents
an imprint of

Bloomsbury Academic

Bloomsbury Publishing Plc

50 Bedford Square
Preface VIl
London WC1B 3DP, UK

List ofillustrations XIll
Copyright © 2012 by Richard Hodges
All\rights reserved. No part of this publication

1. The debate 1
may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or

transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic,
2. 'Forget the Trobriand Islands, the Kula Ring'? Models for 19
mechanical, photocopying, recording or othE;lrwise,

early medieval economics
without the prior permission of the publisher.

3. A golden age ofthe peasantry:the 'original affluent society'? 41
CIP records for this book are available from the

4. Shrine franchises: monastic cities and the transformation of 67
British Library and the Library of Congress

the European economy
ISBN 9780715636794
5. Debating the history of 'mushroom cities' 91
Typeset by Ray Davies
6. Audit: the 'hypostatic union of idea and material' 116
Printed and bound in Great Britain by

MPG Books Group Ltd

Bibliography 139
Index 157
www.bloomsburyacademic.com

v
For Kiinberly
Preface
... it seems commonly to be overlooked that the excavators of Tarsus have
found no Cloth Hall, that all ancient cities lacked the Guildhalls and Bourses
which, next to the cathedrals, are to this day the architectural glories of the
great niedieval cities of Italy, France, Flanders, the Hansa towns, or Eng­
land. Contrast the Athenian Agora with the Grande Place in Brussels. Itis
no oversight on the part ofPausanias when heomitted that class ofbuilding
from his sneer about the little town in Phocis (Moses I. Finley, The Ancient
Economy (1999): 137-8).
My original Dark Age Economics: the origins of towns and trade (1982;
hereafter DAE) focussed upon the rise of towns and trade rather than
economics as such. In particular, it concentrated upon the emerging role
of markets in the post-Roman world, defining components of medieval
European society. What it did not do was chart the early medieval journey
from the consumption cities ofantiquity to the centres ofproduction in the
Middle Ages. Nor did it explain, to any great extent, how this happened.
Any 'imaginary' world involving, for example, the ritual economy was well
beyond its purview (see the critique of DAE in Theuws 2004). Now, with a
wealth of new archaeological evidence available, such questions, posed
forty years ago by Moses Finley in bald and unequivocal terms, are closer
to our grasp as the emphasis has swung towards understaJlding agency
and the human engagement with materiality.­
As any scholar would now acknowledge, using the pejorative periodisa­
tion~term~'Dark Age' to separate off a period from the civilised eras before
and after is today anachronistic (see Moreland 2010: 7). The 1970s,
however, when DAE was written, were a different time when post-war
'progress' was undermined by economic challenge and the menace of
nuclear war. 'Dark Age' had a powerful contemporary resonance. Yet in
choosing this title, with its implicit homage to Marshall Sahlins' Stone Age
Economics (1972), I was actually attempting to reach beyond the Renais­
sance perception that this was a primitive and barbarous era. "
It is thirty years since fJAE was published in Colin Renfrew's Duck­
worth series, New Studies in Archaeology. Looking back now, the book
seems like an ethnographic odyssey from another era, conceived when the
archaeology of the Middle Ages was in its infancy, essentially practised to
illustrate the margins of the written texts. DAE attempted to challenge
the rhetoric of these texts, employing the then uneven archaeological
evidence from north-west Europe. Nevertheless, it still belonged to a
vi
vu
Dark Age Economics
Preface
paradigm, beginning with the dorlrinant nineteenth-century Austro-German
model,of historical evolution, that by way of gradual stages, including analysing the economic base' (Hann and Hart 2011: 73-4). By c~ntrast,
feudalIsm, charted the triumph of European modernism (see Shaw 2008: traditional archaeological thought in the 1970s p~aced emphaSIS ,upon
!12; also Devr~ey 2006: 520-1). Today the archaeology of this era is excavating trading sites and interpreting these USIng the few, a~aIlable
historical sources. Issues of dating the settlements and a fetIshIsm for
Im~e~surably rIcher, the debates about its meaning have accordingly lost
origins as well as continuity with a Roman past concerned most a:chae­
theIr Innocence, and the positivist treatment of the material and written
~ources has, been repla?ed by an increasingly fascinating debate about the ologists (cf. Biddle 1976). Explaining the re-emergence of towns lI~, the
Issues and InterpretatIOns of the material itself rather than about differ­ post-Roman era was treated, as Matthew Johns~n has ~rgued, In, a
ent strains of historical practice, particularistic manner and in many w~yst~at-yvere riddled :v:th menta~Ist
arguments (with references to innate rekindling of the spIrIt of trade or
, I had studie~ trade as culture process with Renfrew and was hugely
'the trading spirit of the Frisian peoples') (Johnson 1999: 70!. .
Influenced by his ground-breaking Emergence of Civilisation (1972) _ 'one
DAE took the North Sea area as a region within which SOCIal complexIty
of the most important books in archaeology from the second half of the
and the rise of towns and trade were connected by systemic feedback loops.
~wentieth century' (Ch~rry 2010: xxvi). DAE incorporated many of his
Ideas that I had used In my doctoral th~sis on Southampton's traded D nderpinning this was the gradual evolution of ~ chiefdom ~ociety with a
variable control of the production and circulatIOn of prestIge goods (cf.
pottery of the seventh to ninth centuries (subsequently published as
Hodges 1981)-In his ~nvi~ation to write,for ~is series, Renfrew encouraged Earle 2011). The more successful a chief was at c.ontr~lling the ,flow of
goods, the more he could reward his followers With gIfts that In turn ,:
me ,to make It ~ccesslble to archaeologIsts In Tucson', As we were experi­
e~cI~gthe ze~thofthe,so-~alled New Archaeology in the UK at that time, generated reciprocal obligations. The rise of a smal~ number o~ mono­
polistic urban centres (emporia) in the seventh to mnth centurIes was
WInnIng AmerIcan admIratIOn was a seal ofapproval. Without doubt, DAE
interpreted as an attempt to control production and distribution. The
O\~ed a great deal to Renfrew's brilliant teaching and inspiring scholar­
S~I~. It also ?wed much to Klavs Randsborg, whose ground-breaking The planning of these emporia, I contended, reflected central control and
VLkLng Age Ln Denmark also appeared in Renfrew's Duckworth series ~ therefore royal patronage of dendritic central-place systems. DAE ~lso
attempted to set the processes of urbanisation in north-west Europe In a
(Ra~dsb?rg 1980). ~ookingback, I was also influenced by my debates with
larger anthropological context. These models, needless to say, based
hCohurrIss WoIfC fkrI~eanmd,ly w Id~Ishc uwshsI~OmnsI, cIo lblaeblioervaetde dh oisn fhiiesltdo prircoajle cmtso idneTlst awlye. rFer otomo largely upon the work of the anthropologist and geograp~er, Ca~ol ~. ; . '
mech~nistic - too ?ooki~h. Total history, as it used to be called, involved ' Smith (1976), merited carefultreatment in terms ~fthe partIcular historI­
cal circumstances. Yet the processes, I believed, mIght be tested by further
gras~Ing the r~latIOnshIp ?etween all the different sources. Today, Wick­
archaeological excavations. , .
ham s ~ram~ng the MLddleAges (2005), encyclopaedic in scale,
summarIses hIS views cogently; .w ith friencl.ly·admiration;"ollce again, I Since the publication<?f DAE in 1982, the debate about ur~aI?- OrIgIns
hasmostlybeeIl a.evelopedby those focussing upon the economIC Issues, of
~hall .c hallenge some of them here. One final, but no less important
the epoch as opposed to the creation of particular market-places. At ItS
Influence -yvas Bronislav Malinowski's Argonauts of the Western Pacific
heartthishasbecomea debate about urbanism and whether, as Hordern
(1922). This great romantic economic history established a benchmark for
the arguably comparable spirit of the. North Sea Frisian merchants and and Purcell provocatively put it: 'towns are settings in which ec?logi~al 'I
their will to trade in the seventh and eighth centuries. processes may be intense, and in which the a~thropogene e~f~ct IS at ItS
most pronounced. But they are not or not SImply by definItIon - more
DAE set out to develop a systemic interpretation for the evolution of
than that. And they should not be presented as conceptually detachable
~owns, trade and social complexity in post-Roman northwest Europe. At
from the remainder of the spectrum of settlement types' (Hordern and
ItS core ,was Karl, Polanyi's thesis of a substantivist as opposed to a
(modernIst) form~lIst e,cono~y, and the contention that it was inappropri. "Purcell 2000: 100-1). This 'ruralising' of urban history has met",a sh~rp
ate to use ~conomlCratIOnalIty as the operating mode for the tribal polities response from ancient historians, many of whom. wou~d e~p~tliI~e WIth
William Harris in arguintthat this approach shrInks Into InSIgnificance
of the perIOd (as Moses FinIey had argued was the case for classical
the whole category of the town or city (2005: 29; see Hirth 2008 on the
~~tiquity) (Polanyi 1957; cf. SaIler 2005; Devroey 2006: 588-91). Context
same debate regarding Mayan urbanism).
IS Important. T~e 1970s ~arked the high-water mark ofthe 'golden age' of
great debates In economIC anthropology. Later, taking a 'cultural turn' This 'spectrum' approach has become the corner~tone of ~on~emporary
studies. of Anglo-Saxon England, explicitly 90ntestmg the sIgmficance of
(Hann and Hart 2011: 84), French Marxist anthropology began to win over
those who had been 'tilting at windmills in the superstructure instead ~f the emporia as political non-places advocated in DAE (cf. N~ylor 2004:
12-14; Brookes 2007: 23-6; Saunders 1991; 2001). Ben Palmer (In 2003: 50)
viii
ix
Dark Age Economics
Preface
put ~hi~point of view bluntly: ~The "Hodgean" model of development has
2010: 56-9) . The same is true of the past. Our challenge is to shape this
:~~~~eh as}ong as it has partly because of the prevalence of the "kings
multi-vocal past into a history that has coherence and logic for our age,
b ' IS, ops school of Anglo-Saxon history, ... and partly because it was
Let me define this a little more closely. No one now emphasises urban
Se heved t~at the. ar~ha~ologi?al evidence for rural sites of the Middle
continuity from the Roman era into the Middle Ages, as was the norm
, axon penod was Inslgnifica~t (but see Wickham 2005: 593-4). To be fair
thirty years ago. The decline of the Roman town as a central-place and the
In 1982 w~en DAE was publIshed, the archaeology of rural household .'
eventual revival of regional urbanism by the eleventh century (if a little
early ,medIeval Europe was limited (cf. Naylor 2004' 10-14) T d s 1n
sha.l ld I llust' rate in Chapter 3 , the eVI'dence t ranSiLO" rms any re,a0di ay, f atsh l ealairkleie. rT ihne s momane nreegr iionn ws)h airceh nthoiws a'rcecbeiprtthe'd hbayp aprecnheade,o olof gcoisutrss aen, adn hdis tthoer iraonles
perlO . ThIS same argument informs Chris W' kh' k nt? 0 . e
in Framing the Middle Ag ( IC am s wor culmInatIng of (interlocking) regional markets embracing peasant households, remain
s
Journal ofAgrarian Chang: 9 ~~O:b;;e alsolihe co~lection of articles in a subject of debate.
as the different approaches taken b ,a,s we ,as WlCkham 2009) as well The contemporary paradigm owes much to Henning (2007), McCormick
Devroey (2006) .Joh M I d y cntlcal thInkers such as Jean-Pierre, (2001), Skre (2008), and Wickham (2005) with the many associated critical
00
(2004; 2007; '2008; ~rt;::~~ )(21 ;; 2000b; 2~10~ and Frans Theuws essays that provide a rich and detailed basis for appraising the economic
g
history, the debate is m h h · s or those still Interested in urban and urban histories of post-Roman Europe (e.g. Theuws 2004; Radtke
evidence from numerous :ce~t arper, t~anks to the extraordinarily rich 2009; Scull 2009; Willemsen and Kik 2010). There are also excellent
proceedings on this theme edi~~~a~atI3ns,~~ t~e two-:volume conference overviews ofthe economic history such as Devroey (2003; 2006) Verhulst
Towns, Trade and Settlement' E y oac Im He~nlng. Post-Roman (2002) and Laiou and Morrisson (2007). This book, therefore, confines
ingly demonstrates. In urope and Byzantlum (2007) convinc- itself to defining the debate once more, reviewing the particular - and
An audit - a conventi ft' , indeed, salient - archaeological features of the evolving economy of early
though, the place to tota~:0 t~ur I:es IS t~erefore timely. This is not, medieval western Europe. With evidence that was not available in the
the context for listing the ,Jess~s~ tO~ or:gall?-st,th~ argument. Nor is it 1970s, this means grasping the scale of agrarian household production and
the Roman econom' ImlS s an optImIsts as far as the end of its socio-political management, as well as its part in the transition from
Instead, DAE now ;e:~ concerned, ~s Bryan Ward-Perkins did (1997). consumption to production cities, as identified by Max Weber and elabo­
land-owner and peasantS :~ ~:IIe~:l~trated from the, perspe~tive of the rated by Moses Finley (Finley 1999: 192; Saner 2005).
largely controlled the cosmologies of th e Ch)urch (which domln,ated and, Given such a concise but abstract argument, it is tempting to broaden
the urban craftsmen and trade Th' e~rak as opposed to the Impact of the purview of the debate to include Byzantium, the Islamic world in the
perspective, challenmng my earl~s. IS 00 his.et~ out the scope for this Near East, North Africa and Spain (as Wickham has done with magisterial
The cardI, nal lessob~n of th Nt wleAr ers say on t s s~u b~' ect. success~_(2005).For Byzantium, a new review of this era reveals .h ow
and 1970s) was that we d e d chaeology (as practised in the 1960s
reduce-d· the-economic capacity of the empire was (Brubaker and Haldon
anthropology (as Dobres ~n~oR~~~ (~~~~)t~e intell~ctual poo~ cousin of
2011). For Arabic regions such as Syria, urban history, in particular, has
contrast, historians of the' ave wrItten) or hIstory. By
evolved-markedly over the past thirty years with many new excavations
material culture in s ace per~od cannot overlook the central issues of
and overviews depicting urban expansion coupled with powerful industri­
like those ofthe Victo~ian ~~; ~Ime ?ecaudse their written sources, rather
alisation linked to palace economies (see, for example,Walmsley 2007).
(cf. Thomas 1996) t SlOnanes an travellers in the Pacific Ocean
But for the most part Arabic history is part of a larger issue that belongs
this point about th,ea irmep o0r0t asnp aref andh r he1to rI' ca1. WI'C kham made exactly to the debate about the making of the modern world economy beyond the
documentary sources for defc" e 0 ar,c. ta eo og,y. i n the a b sence 0 f suf f"lClent
scope ofthis (or the original) book (cf. Pomeranz 2000: 5; Banaji 2007: 57).
(Wickham 2005' 595) N thlnIlng Cl yness In the early Middle Ages
As the archaeology of Tang China and its Indian Ocean and Spk Road
. . ever e e'slsi cocooned l'k bl ' ,
present, there is still as in all d' ,le oggers, In a VIrtual connections to the Caliph~te become better known, European history
quarters as to what ~onstitutesI~~~o;es, ~co~servative appr?ach!n some (including Byzantium) se~ins less central. But was it? At present it IS
many forms and, discomfiting as it ' Ytan w at,does, not. Hlstones take wisest to conclude with Morris and Manning, that 'Sinocentricism is as
much by the lives of their auth IS 0 many hIstorIans, are shaped as speculative as Weber's Eurocentrism and involves just as many untestable
b
education today, it is not surpri~f~ a:h!t the so~ces. Of c~~rse, given our counterfactuals' (2005: 24). ~,
words, yet other texts of course e~st inSt~m~c eihasls ~s placed ?-pon In writing this book I should like to acknowledge the kind invitation
culture that are no less compell' 'fi e ~rm 0 materIal and VIsual extended by Andrew Reynolds to lecture to the Society for Medieval
lng manI estatlOns of our times (cf. Olsen Archaeology in October 2006. Two further occasions permitted me to
x
Xl
s
Dark Age Economics
fashion my ideas more clearly. First, I was privileged to develop these'
ideas in four Dalrymple Lectures, delivered at Glasgow University in
February 2009. Special thanks to Stephen Driscoll and Ewan Campbell for
making this such a stimulating opportunity. Then, a month later, in
March 2009, I co-organised withSauro Gelichi a conference on the empo­
riumat Comacchio entitled· from 'From One Sea to Another' where List of Illustrations
students of early medieval economics from all the seas around Europe
exchanged ideas and presented an extraordinary amount ofnew evidence.
I am happy to remember other debts too. The late Gerald Dunning gave
me my first orientation about the long-distance trade in ceramics which'
started my pursuit of Henri Pirenne's celebrated thesis on the origins of 1. Map ofprincipal places mentione~·hi~ the dte~t. 2
2. Simplified version of Carol A. Smlt. s ,mo e s. 4
medieval towns. The late John Hurst was exceptionally generous in
helping me ~o visit all the places associated with the ceramics and trade. 3. L.D. Minc's revision of Carol A. SIDlth s model. 1 £ r the 24
Colin Renfrew, as I described above, Was both an inspiration and a 4. Alternative types ofrank-size curve and the formu a 0 25
memorably kind'mentor as I experimented with this complex subject. At log-normal. k AD
that time, too, Wim van Es, the fabled excav?tor of Dorestad and the 5. The changing social structures of eastern Denmar ,c. 27
examiner ofmy doctoral thesis, encouraged me wholeheartedly. (Continu­ 800-1200. , f t B It'
ing thisspirit ofDutch generosity, Wilfried Hessingkindly organised a day S0ren M. Sindbmk's synoptic comparIson 0 wes ern a IC 28
trip and round table briefing for me at Dorestad in October 2011, updating 6. sites: excavation and selected imports from Hedeby. .
me on the important discoveries at the 'Veilingterrein' site.) Much of this 7. Stephen Gudeman's spatial model ofa great estate WIth 38
book has been written at the University ofPennsylvania Museum, where
manses. t t t ith
I have benefited from the patience of my colleagues and the excellent 8. Stephen Gudeman's spatial model of a grea es a e w 38
library. I also owe a great debt to my publishers, Duckworth, now trans- '
peasants. , d t t
ferred to Bloomsbury, especially the late, idiosyncratic but patient, Colin 9. Stephen Gudeman's spatial modhel of IttnIdepent ep:t!:~s~~;V' 39
Haycraft, who painstakingly re-drafted the original text of DAE, and the~ o The pagus Texandrie. Modelof tese. e~en . 45
generous-spirited Deborah Blake. Thanks, too, to Sarah Leppard for pre­
1 . single sand plateau after initial colonIsation (c. 550-625).
I
paring the illustrations, to Soren Sindbmk for making Figure 6 available
1 The pagus Texandrie. Model of the settlement pattern on a 45
to me, and to Flemming Bau for kindlyper:tnitting~me.to use.his.exquisite sa.n4~pla~~a.ll a.
1 . single fter the creation of a nucleated

reconstructioh Painting ofKaupang (Fig. 22).
settlement (c. 625-725).

As to the ideas expounded in this audit, my thanks as ever to Andrea
12 The pagus TeX(1ndriif. Model of the ~ettlement pattern on a ) 46
Augenti, Giovanna Bianchi, Will Bowden;· Sauro Gelichi;John Haldon,
. sirl' le sand plateau after the mid-eIghth century (c. 750-~~0 .
Michelle Hobart, Mike McCormick, John Mitchell, John Moreland, Tim
13. Th;pagus Texandrie. Model of a composite estate comprIsIng 47
Pestell, Klavs Randsborg, S0ren Sindbmk, Dagfinn Skre, Frans Theuws
and Marco Valenti. Special thanks to Chris Wickham and, above all, my several local grOUPs' (E 1
14. Mortality profiles for West Stow, Kilham, and Brandon ar y 55
wife, Kim Bowes, and the late and much missed Riccardo Francovich.
to Middle Saxon), sheep.
15. Reconstruction of the water-mill atfrAugstbhur~~luwe region of 60
16. Spatial modelfor the trade in iron om e 64
the Netherlands. 'h 1 'th
17. The topography of San Vincenzo al Volturno In t e ear y nln 72
century. V I . th 780s
18. A hypothetical plan of San Vincenzo al ,0 turno In e , 75
phase 3c. AD 808
19. The topography of San Vincenzo all VVolltturno c. AD 830' 40 77
20. The topography of San Vincenzo a 0 urno c. -. 78
XlI
xiii
Dark Age Economics
21.
The topograp~y ofSan Vincenzo al Volturno c. AD 840~50.
22. 80
A reconstructIOn ofthe emporium at Kaupang N
23. Th' h ' orway. 100
. e Ivory ead of a tonsured monk with blue glass eyes found
135
1
near the workshops at San Vincenzo al Volturno, c. AD '830-40.
The debate
A new age does not ... rewrite the world and inscribe new meanings upon it
which archaeologists should hope to recover; rather, each age confronts the
debris of its history, material and traditional, as a way of finding a home for
itself. Archaeology must now be interested in considering how that may have
been achieved and the various political and social consequences that arose
from or were maintained by those practices (Barrett 2001: 67).
The historian of science, Thomas Kuhn, believed that each scientific
tradition possesses its own paradigms, and therefore its own notions of
truth; it is a view that resonates well with the culturalist axiom that
scientific truth does not transcend cultural truth. As a result, paradigms
have, in Kuhn's view, a discontinuous relationship to one another. The
shifts betweenparadigms are effected by agents with 'competing positions'
due to their investment, political and otherwise, in existing or new para­
digms. So, in the applied and natural sciences, paradigm shifts drive the
discipline: 'there is no room for the older-fashioned in science' (Morris
1999: xxiii). But in the humanities and social sciences almost the reverse
is true. The influence of older models invariably extends across decades
and even generations.
This is particularly the case for the subject ofDark Age economics. The
~~~~competition··between paradigms has taken shape since the 1930s, acceler­
ated perhapsfirsfby the adv€mt of scientific archaeology in the 1970s (cf.
Gerrard 2003: 172-80), and then by increasing collaboration between
alsClplines and between scholars from different countries since the 1980s
(e.g. Ransen and Wickham2000; Renning 2007). This isnot the place
to review the history of this subject (see, for example, Gilchrist and
Reynolds 2009). Rather, it is the context to summarise the three differ­
ent paradigms that set out to explain the rise of the medieval economy
in the half millennium following the demise of the Western Roman
Empire (Fig. 1).
Thirty years ago there ~~re twoprevailing historical models: the trade
model that Renri Pirenne ([1937] 2001) had championed before the Second
World War was ceding ground to the agrarian model championed in the
post-war years by Georges Duby (1968; 1974). Opinion was divided about
i.
these models, although the extant archaeology lent support to the trade
modeL In the face ofthis Duby urged archaeologists to focus upon under­
standing the medieval countryside, and heeding this encouragement, in
contrast to the archaeology of the ancient world, there is a remarkable new
xiv
1
Dark Age Economics
1. The debate
craftsmen as economic agents in the management ofGommerce and urban
development in the Baltic Sea region.
Drawing upon new archaeological evidence, however, a fourth model
can be proposed that articulates elements ofthe other three by subsuming
these to the changing purposes of a ritual economy.
Let us look at each of these models in turn
The trade model
I The model advanced in DAE was not new. Since the 1920s Henri Pirenne
had contended that medieval urbanism was revived in post-Roman north­
west Europe thanks to the causative role oflong-distance trade. The trade
model (or distribution model, as Chris Wickham has called it: 2008: 19) is
11
at the heart of Pirenne's celebrated unfinished manuscript, Mohammed
11 and Charlemagne (2001 [1937]). Here he included archaeological discov­
11 eries pertinent to his thesis: the emporium at Dorestad at the junction of
-I ,
'I the rivers Lek and Rhine in Holland, and the then new excavations at
I,
Haithabu (or Hedeby) in north Germany, near Schleswig (pirenne 2001:
237-9). His trade model was soon adopted. Holger Arbman used the
11 imported Frankish material from the excavations at Birka in Lake
Miilaren to show the impact of trade upon the Viking world (Arbman
11
iI 1937). Six years later Herbert Jankuhn deployed the excavated evidence
ii from Hedeby to advance the supremacy of the Carolingians in the Baltic
1! 1i region (1943). Published with overt Nazi support, the far-reaching influ­
11
ence ofJankuhn's work cannot be understated (cf. Hodges 1982: 10; 1998;
11

11 Hi1l2001a: 3; Hilberg 2009: 86). New editions ofJankuhn's monograph on
1 i
; i his excavations at Hedeby appeared at regular intervals over the next fifty
11 i; ': ' " yearS.NCit:,sUi'pfis:liIglY,__his trade model, given the poverty of archaeologi~
!;
11 I o 0~ cal evidence, found followers in contiguous regions.
I1I ' '. ,In the 1950s _a._uew .generation of archaeologists were drawn to the
Mediterranean Sea
argument. So, for example, G.C. Dunning published a seminal essay that
1/ / ;
assembled imported pots found in Anglo-Saxon contexts, including London
!i !;,
I ' . and Southampton, and sketched an innovative outline for the birth of
j!
I North Sea commerce (Dunning 1956). Dunning's studies constituted a
iII'';
platform for the Gottingen conference in 1972 on 'Vor- undFriihformen
i ..
I 1 .' der europiiischen Stadt im Mittelalter' where the trade model was devel­
i, 500 km 'oped by many young archaeologists and historians and subs~quently
l. Map ofprincipal places mentioned in the text. J published in the conference:proceedings (Jankuhn, Schlesinger and Steuer
1 1973). It would be misleading, therefore, to assert that DAE launched a
body.ofdata pertaining to medieval r . 1
new paradigm. It did not.
less .Important have been the man lIral socIety excavated since 1980. No
The new twist to the trade model in DAE was anthropological archae­
medIeval science and craftsm~ attempts to re-define the origins of
ology, following the American New Archaeology school. In particular, it
Middle Ages. This led recentl anshIp that underpinned the rise of the
Callmer (2007) which has ity ~o the ~roposal.ofa third model by Johann melded together the distinctly different ideas about trade and exchange of
s ases In the dIaspora role of traders and the prehistorian Colin Renfrew and the anthropological geographer Carol
A. Smith. Renfrew's systemic perspective assumed that social change
j
2
3
Dark Age Economics
1. The debate
Maximisation of benefits seemed and still seems an unacceptable model
for examining urban evolution in early medieval Europe, although, as we"
shall see, it is at the heart ofthe interpretation ofthe history ofmonetisa­
I
tion in the early Middle Ages. Instead, the highly fragmented political
polities of the era mediated against any straightforward maximisation of
B
benefits, with a few obvious exceptions. In DAE this was the motive for
deploying the tri-partite substantivist model advanced by Karl Polanyi
(1957). Polanyi advanced a simple model for socially embedded economies
where first reciprocity existed, and then. redistribution, before market
exchange. With the simplicity of his argument, Polanyi, it is now widely
2. Simplified version ofCarol AS' ,
central-place system' BSI . mlth s models: A. Dendritic acknowledged, leapt too schematica lly to explain the existence of the
hierarchically arranged' ce~~:f_e~tral-pla~e system; C. Classic disembedded market (cf. Lie 1991; 1992). This evolutionary or progressive
p ~ce market system. scheme fails to fully capture how economics b~came disembedded (though
cannot be explained without ..
see Skre 2008 for a so-called post-substantivist approach (and Chapter 2».
culture. competItIOn operating at all levels f
The . 0 a This is why I appropriated the work of Smith as the centrepiece of the
pnmacy placed on com t'tl' on ! thesis presented in DAE.. Smith maintained that economic stratification
argument was developed h pe I b ~as a cornerstone of DAE' Th.
exch d ' owever Y USIng S .th' . e isa defining characteristic of agrarian societies. In her view, economic
ange mo els for peasant societies . mI, s typology of regional classes are defined in terms of access to or control over the means of
argued that the interaction of di (1976, s~: FIg. 2), Put simply, Smith
production. Stratification, she contended, results 'from differential access
through the growth ofan elite rou fferent p~h~Iesgenerates inequalities
to or control over the means of exchange; variations in stratification
goods. The establishment ofa ~ierI ~on~ohslngthe exch~ngeofprestige
systems are related to types of exchange between producers and non-pro­
f?r the need to sustain a non-produ~~ y t en fu~ls economIC development
ducers as they affect and are affected by the spatial distribution ofthe elite
~on and specialisation. This in tur:1scl~ss stl1~ulates rural intensifica~ and the level of commercialisation in the region and beyond' (Smith 1976:
arket d~velopment, it might be said d t e basIs for economic take-off. 310).
s
gro:ut wIth an economic interest id bepe~~ed Upon elites effectively This model lays emphasis not upon control of production but upon
SOCla y embedded economy So . 1 h rea Ing the political hold on a
control of distribution, an index which archaeologists are normally well­
product of exogenous stimuii, s~~~ ~s ange, , therefore, is not solely the
placed to measure, and embodies an accessible typology:
. cul~ural system. Rather,itis the stru't . pr~~tlge.~goods,.enteringa closed
aC~Ivate the system leading to indi~i~relofth~ ~xchange relations which
1. Uncommercialised exchange (nonmarket exchange) where transactions
ot, er..T~e~e conditions, Smith . . ua pohtIes competing with each
are direct.
comme~clahsed market econo contended, paved~the way'for a 'fully
2. Partially commercialised, noncompetitive exchange (controlled market
Aswillb my.
d h e apparent, most critics ofDAE .
exchange) where transactions are administered (by the elite).
az: c allenged the historical part' ul }gnored Smith's theoretical model

3. Fully commercialised exchange (competitive market exchange).
wIthstanding the increasing intere~t i:s.o my argument. Even today, not­

excha,nge, ,the spatial models that exist ~:xch~nge and ranked spheres of

Ofcourse, the model, being more detailed than Polanyi's, still resembles a
az:!histonans are essentially Walter Chri : ~~I(ds ofmany archaeolOgists fixed map. The early medieval era was not so static. Moreover, as a model
WI 't:f:phasis upon maximising benefits s T~tr.s ~966)central-place theory devised for peasant market systems in modern Guatemala with its capi­
capI st model dependent Upon two pn.n'c.lp aI Sa IsSs, uimll pottihoenrs w: ords, a modern talist and global circumsta~ces, it is bound to have signal anthropological
limitations. So since the publication of DAE,' rather than abandoning
1. The population and thus the .
Smith's ideas, I have modified her model, introducing a broader range of
un~ff~ren~iated and unbourfcr~~c~a;:ng power are distributed Over an interactionalforms, as follows:
2. MaXlmlsatIOn ofprofits and m' . . ~ce.
~re ~egulated in some way th:~~~~satI~nofcosts (supply and demand)
1. Smith places undue emphasis upon imbalanced exchange. This has
lng In this spaCe. . a s ructured market system exist­
implications for the strategies adopted in monopolistic dendritic cen­
tres such as the urban centres known as emporia. No such evident
o
4
5
J
Dark Age Economics
1. The debate
imbalance existed in these places, even though traders engaged on
E,u rope and south-ern S cand I' naVI' a by the later tenth and eleventh centu-
both sides doubtless attempted to win or maximise advantages over
one another (see Skre 2008). The dominance theory implicit in the
world systems approach, which informed Smith's model involving rieTs.h e origins and evolutI.O n 0 f t h e t ra d;' ng P lacesk -' empftohriea Maniddd wlei cAs g-esi.t
dendritic systems, is too simplistic. Equally, the output of workshops d' DAE ere critical steps In t he ma Ing 0
was argue In , w posed involving first periodic fairs
in solar central-places - administrative centres such as Carolingian A simple model of three stages was pro ermanent urban centres
monasteries and palaces appears unbalanced (as I shall illustrate in l~m)ina~'p~a~:~ i~y~:nt~dt!:P~titive
at designated markets. Stage by
Chapter 4), but this takes no account of the 'invisible' reciprocity (and (Type B emporIa , w IC t' DAE proceeded empowered local
its.cultural importance) made by those in receipt of high status work­ stage, these pla?es, so the. ~7gu~~n In political st~tus through the
shop products. g with
chiefdoms or kIngs, p1ro~ In th em thority to manage trade. With en­
2. There are variants of the highly centralised dendritic system with, for t~aded 00 ~;:sta~:Su
ownership of. of particular rulers grew and with
example, occasions where several competing centres may indicate a hanced gIft-giVIng cyc es: ... f rian strategies.
weaker central authority and competing forces attempting to partici­ time they invested in an In~enslflCatIO~:'~:::'~sation in this model, which
pate in controlled commerce (cf. Scull 2002; Minc 2006: 86; Skre 2008); To sum up, trade ~ovZt e rr~~~~~g regional distributed markets in
3. There are evidently variants of solar central-places dominated by then served as a ba~Is or es a ISost-tribal states.

administrative purposes, ranging from elite central-places in Anglo­ which taxed produc~IOn ~e~urced PI aedic and elegant study, Origins of

Saxon England and early Viking southern Scandinavia (cf. Skre 2008), Michael McCormlck, In IS encyc op the trade model in a remarkable
for example, to, conceivably, the idiosyncratic confederation of elites the European E~on?"!y (2001), dev:~oP~heses of Henri Pirenne and the
under papal hegemony in eighth- and ninth-century Rome (Delogu way, building sIgmflCantl~ upon . e McCormick 2007: 59) by providing
2007).
Swedish scholar, Sture Bohn (1953, cf. £ nces to travellers as well as a
an annotated corpus of docU1:~enta~y r~o~r;:d in western contexts. McCor­
DAE concluded that the origins of the medieval market-town in north­ corpus of Islamic and Byzantine cOIns. hich 'Europe's small worlds
west Europe belonged to the moment when a socially embedded economy mick argues for a culturally open agle, In;'e Muslim economies' (2001:
became disembedded. The argument focussed upon systems ofredistribu­ t b l'nked to the greater wor d 0f , f t
came 0 el, h t d d 'would fire the first rIse 0 wes ern
tion and reciprocity through gift exchange before the ninth century. Com­ 797). These connectIOns, ehcon en e 'd tect in the movements of diplo-
E . whose rhyt ms we can e E
modities, the argument continued, were not produced until the ninth or
urope, a TIse, d I think slaves as a new urope
tenth century (at earliest) as competitively ranked and structured market­ mats, pilgrims, war~lO~, merchant~, an huma~wealth in exchange for
places were created. Long-distance tradeinthe Baltic SeR and NorthSea, and its satellite SOCIeties exp.orted ItS own f Islam' (2001: 798).
identified by earlier archaeologists such as Arbman, Jinkuhn and Dun­
-the-wea1tli-?fgoods and speCIes ofthe ~;~S:r;ative: 'emphatic images of
ning, among others, was, for the most part, a trade of prestige goods or
McCormlCk has cons~ruc~ed a '~;haw 2008: 90). But if McCormick
primitive valuables. These were regulated at monopolistic centres -empo­
---~~__v:iscosity ... pervade tJ:ris .~st~ry er ence of a peculiar north-west
ria or wics -located on the limits of political territories. Social evolution
stresses the major contInUl~Ies InlJhet~:bi; pipelines, including human
occurred as peer-polity interaction (a term devised later by Renfrew (1986;
European econo~~ was It re~cYdevelo ment (Shaw 2008: 90)? Were
cf. Bauer and Agbe-Davies 2010: 39», mediated through the exchange of
cargoes, that. fac~ht~ted?econo~~ Henni:g (2008) is certainly convinced,
prestige goods, promoted political and often economic growth. By stages
there rea~y bI~ plpelin?s. Jo~cf~ (2005' 696 n. 8). Subsequently, McCor­
up until the late eighth or early ninth century, this interaction generated
while ChrlS WlCkham IS dou ~ d lt' " It is worth emphasising that the
increasingly more complex economic development. But with Charle­ mick has offered a caveat to s ~o e rice ofagrarian developrrtent, nor
magne's bid to replace plunder and gift-giving with regularised tributes new scenario does not lessen the ImJor a /t h sole and prime mover of the
and taxation (cf. Reuter 1985; Verhulst 2002: 73-83), conditions were does it mean that long-.distance tr~: w~s ; the first European economy
shaped, specifically by decrees agreed at the Council ofFrankfurt in 793/4, Carolingian economy: It was not. . e rise 0 r ran e trade appears in the
for the introduction of a competitive market system and with it the seeds started with successful food productIOnci.Longe.~n d!velopment in several
of a socially disembedded economy. Market towns, therefore, as the hall­ context of growing local exch~n1e ~nll af:\he boom in construction in
mark of a non-kin-based political strategy, were adopted in the Frankish privileged regions' (2002: 53). s sas 0 ~t expansion of Carolingian
territories and England, for example, by the late ninth century and in the early C",:olingian era, and th~~o:~=~lledmanual labour. But ~as
regions under Frankish influence such as central Italy, west-central estates, certaInly created a dem~n 0 t S dinavian ports exchanging
it met by Dorestad merchants In wes can
6
7