![\"\"](\"https:\/\/images.newscientist.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/07\/05103416\/SEI_211531297.jpg\")
<\/div>A hoard of Roman gold coins found below the floor of a Roman house in Corbridge, UK<\/p>\n
World History Archive\/Alamy<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<\/p>\n
After the Romans conquered Britain in AD 43<\/a>, the technologies and laws they introduced<\/a> led to centuries of economic growth<\/a> of a kind once thought to be limited to modern industrial societies. That is the conclusion of an analysis of thousands of archaeological finds from this time.<\/p>\n \u201cOver that period of about 350 years, you\u2019re looking at roughly a two and a half [fold] increase in productivity per capita,\u201d says Rob Wiseman<\/a> at the University of Cambridge.<\/p>\n It has long been believed that economic growth in the ancient world depended on having more people and more resources, says Wiseman: to increase food production, say, required more land and more farm workers. This kind of growth is known as extensive growth.<\/p>\n By contrast, economic growth today is driven mainly by increased productivity, or intensive growth. Thanks to mechanisation and better breeds of plants and animals, for instance, more food can be produced from the same area of land with fewer workers.<\/p>\n Some recent studies have challenged the idea that intensive growth occurred only after the industrial age began, inspiring Wiseman and his colleagues to look at growth in Roman Britain from AD 43 to 400.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n The team\u2019s research was made possible by UK laws requiring archaeological investigations to be done when a site is developed<\/a>, says Wiseman. \u201cThe result is there\u2019s been tens of thousands of archaeological excavations done in this country. And, moreover, that data is publicly accessible.\u201d<\/p>\n By looking at how the number of buildings<\/a> changed over time, the researchers were able to get an idea of how the population of Roman Britain grew. There is a strong relation between the number of buildings and population size, says Wiseman.<\/p>\n To get an idea of economic growth, the team looked at three measures. One was the size of buildings, rather than the number of them. As people grow richer, they build bigger houses, says Wiseman.<\/p>\n Another measure was the number of lost coins found in digs. \u201cThese are things that have fallen through the floorboards, or they\u2019ve been lost in the baths, or something like that,\u201d he says.<\/p>\n The idea is that the more coins are in circulation, the more are likely to be lost. The team didn\u2019t count hidden hoards of coins, as these reflect instability rather than growth.<\/p>\n The third measure was the proportion of crude pottery, such as cooking pots and storage pots, to more ornate pottery like decorated plates. Economic growth requires people to interact more and socialise more, which means \u201cshowing off\u201d<\/a> when guests are present, says Wiseman.<\/p>\n Based on these measures, the team found that economic growth exceeded that expected from population growth alone. They estimate that per capita growth was around 0.5 per cent between AD 150 and 250, slowing to around 0.3 per cent between AD 250 and 400.<\/p>\n \u201cWhat we\u2019re able to show is yes, after the Romans arrived, there was definitely intensive growth,\u201d says Wiseman. The pace of growth rather than the kind of growth is what probably distinguishes the modern world from the ancient one, he says.<\/p>\n The researchers think that this growth was driven by factors such as the roads and ports built by the Romans, the laws they introduced making trading safer, and their technologies, such as more advanced grain mills and better breeds of animals for ploughing.<\/p>\n The higher growth between AD 150 and 250 may be a result of Britain catching up with the rest of the Roman world, says Wiseman. \u201cYou\u2019re moving from a small tribal society where there\u2019s not a lot of interaction going on to a world-spanning economy.\u201d<\/p>\n What isn\u2019t clear is whether this economic development made people happier<\/a> or healthier. \u201cJust because the productivity is going up doesn\u2019t automatically mean that the welfare of Britons who were invaded and colonised was better under Rome,\u201d says Wiseman. \u201cThat\u2019s an open question.\u201d<\/p>\n To investigate this, the researchers now plan to look at human remains to work out things such as how long people lived<\/a>.<\/p>\n \u201cI am convinced that they are right and that, indeed, intensive growth took place in Roman Britain,\u201d says Alain Bresson<\/a> at the University of Chicago, Illinois.<\/p>\n \u201cA lot of archaeologists have noted compelling evidence for economic growth in Roman Britain, but this paper adds a welcome formal theoretical dimension to the discussion,\u201d says Ian Morris<\/a> at Stanford University, California.<\/p>\n However, Morris suspects that the lower average growth rate from AD 250 to 400 actually reflects high growth followed by rapid decline as the Roman empire began to break up. Further studies will resolve this, he says.<\/p>\n Topics:<\/p>\n<\/section><\/div>\n