This research aims to study the trade networks of the Roman period in three different Italian regions: the Pontine region, the Potenza valley and the Metapontine region. A database was created...Show moreThis research aims to study the trade networks of the Roman period in three different Italian regions: the Pontine region, the Potenza valley and the Metapontine region. A database was created previously, consisting of the compiled data on ceramics sherds encountered during three surveys in each respective region. Assessing where these ceramics were produced, and how the different provenances are distributed throughout the landscape, gives insight into how the regions connected to trade routes, and how ceramics imported along these routes were distributed throughout the landscape. To this end, the proportions of ceramic provenances were visualised for each region and subsequently broken down for the Archaic, Republican, Imperial and Late Antique periods. The patterns observed in provenance proportions and sherd distributions across regions suggest that different regions were affected differently by the changes associated with the increased integration of the Roman economy in the Imperial Period. These changes appear to be reflected in the increased consumption of imported African ceramics. This is in contrast to more locally produced Italian sherds, which maintain a more consistent presence. These trends can be observed to a certain degree in all regions, although the changes are particularly pronounced in the Pontine region. These results lead to the following tentative theory: the Pontine region, as a more centrally located destination, was better connected to more distant trade routes, and thus affected more readily by the large-scale societal and political shifts of the Imperial period. Another notable observation is the increased variance in sherds provenances in the Potenza valley as compared to the Pontine region. This could be potentially explained by the theory that the Potenza valley, as a more isolated and decentral region, relied more on more “off the cuff” trade, while the Pontine region relied more on centrally organised, “streamlined” trade networks. Finally, ceramics imported from outside the Italian peninsula tended to be found at or near the coast in all regions, indicating that ceramics traded along more distant routes were exchanged less in intraregional networks extending further inland. Despite multiple weaknesses, which were mainly related to the necessary standardisation of the database and the resulting loss of detail, this research has granted new insight into the discussion around the degree of integration in the Roman economy and paints a more nuanced image that differs from region to region.Show less
This thesis concerns the importance of replication studies in agent-based modelling, specifically in the field of archaeology. As a case study, the MERCURY model by Brughmans and Poblome is...Show moreThis thesis concerns the importance of replication studies in agent-based modelling, specifically in the field of archaeology. As a case study, the MERCURY model by Brughmans and Poblome is replicated. In the first chapter, a background is given to ABM in general, as well as to replication and its importance and scarcity. Replication allows us to confirm the findings of existing ABM models, or reject them. The second chapter gives an abstract of Brughmans and Poblome’s research. It includes the archaeological background to their research, a precise description of the MERCURY model and a summary of Brughmans and Poblome’s conclusions. In chapter three, the process of replicating MERCURY is explained. Each version of the replication is described in great detail. This final version is statistically compared to the original model. The replication was found to be, for the most part, statistically equivalent to the original. The source of the despondencies between the various versions of the replication and the original model were due to inaccuracies in the description of the model as well as due to my own coding mistakes. Chapter four includes a brief discussion of existing criticism of the MERCURY model, as well as my own critiques. These critiques are mostly concern the details of the model and the way the authors interpreted their data. Additional experiments are performed to complement the experiments in the original study. I conclude that some of the issues I identify could weaken the original authors’ conclusions. The relation of my replication of MERCURY to other replication studies is discussed in chapter five. The final chapter my research questions are answered. I also shortly discuss how my experiences with replication could help future researches who want to publish agent-based models or replication studies.Show less
