the mediterranean and the indian ocean 467
sandalwood from Southeast Asia; and silks, cinnamon, and ginger from China
(Miller, 1969: 148–152, and Warmington, 1974 [1928]: 226–228). Traders would
know exactly what to import and what was available for export at any given anchor-
age. For example, the first-century Periplus reports that just at Barygaza in north-
west India, western merchants would bring Italian wine, metals (copper, tin, and
lead), coral, and gold and silver coinage [as well as, for the king, girls and higher-
quality wine]; and from Barygaza those merchants might take on-board spikenard,
ivory, onyx, lykion, linen, and long pepper (Periplus Maris Erythraei, 49, trans. in
Casson, 1989: 81). The hunger for acquiring and controlling trade in these Indian
Ocean commodities found expression in Roman, and later Abbasid, attempts at a
sort of symbolic control via colonial botany. For example, botanical gardens with
foreign plants cultivated Kew Garden-style in Vespasian’s Temple of Peace (c. 70
ce), as well as the Horrea Piperataria (Pepper Warehouse) at the center of Rome,
demonstrate both ideological and practical control of spice trade at the center of
this Mediterranean empire (Pollard, 2009).
This commodities exchange was heavily influenced by the costs of moving the
goods between the Mediterranean and Indian Ocean, as well as the individuals (inves-
tors, merchants, and sailors) who facilitated it. Factors influencing the cost of con-
nectivity included the taxes collected as goods moved through various ports (especially
when those ports were under the control of an imperial power, such as the Romans,
Abbasids, or Ottomans), the costs associated with ship maintenance, and the com-
parative cost of shipping versus land travel. A few examples from the Roman period
offer a representative illustration of both the costs and people involved. P.Vindob. G
40822, a second-century ce shipping contract on papyrus, describes a cargo of
Gangetic nard, ivory and textiles, worth nearly seven million drachma, brought from
India to a Red Sea port (likely Myos Hormos or Berenike) and transmitted to a sec-
ond party for land-transit to Alexandria, and on to the Mediterranean (see Casson,
1986, for Greek text, translation, and commentary on this papyrus). The financial
exchanges mentioned in the document include a loan at Indian Muziris (presumably
among Roman businessmen living there) for the purchase of the cargo, the exchange
of the cargo at the Red Sea port for its journey to Alexandria and the cost of cameleers
and security for that journey, and a “one-fourth” (that is 25%) tax that would be paid
on the goods in Alexandria (Casson, 1986: 73–79 and Sidebotham, 2011: 216–219).
Such a venture would require ship captains willing to undertake the voyage, which
could wreak considerable damage to their ships, as well as temples (perhaps such as
the Templum Augusti at Muziris) or shipping companies to front the necessary capi-
tal. Lest one assume this was only a man’s business, in their dedication at Leto’s tem-
ple in Medamoud (in Egypt) two matronai stolatai (distinguished women), Aelia
Isidora and Aelia Olympias (c. 200 ce), take the titles naukleroi (ship owners) and
emporoi (merchants), demonstrating that some women, too, participated in this
highly risky, yet lucrative, business (Sidebotham, 2011: 219). And it was not just
Romans who shipped and traded; evidence suggests an international contingent was
involved, including Palmyrene shipowners, a merchant from Aden, and many Indians
conducting business at Red Sea ports and in Alexandria (Casson, 1989; 31–34). As
for cost of land versus sea travel, Steven Sidebotham usefully reminds us that while in
general water transport could be cheaper and faster than overland, the savings in cost