METHODOLOGY

Significant similarities noted during the period under examination have singled out the Han and Roman Empires and their capitals as ideal cases for an intensive comparative analysis characterized by a high level of contextualization. In addition, the Han and Roman Empires displayed sufficient diversity in their cultural and sociopolitical contexts to allow for a more vibrant investigation of the connections between their specific circumstances and the material structures of the selected cities.

The scale of comparison considered in this study comprises three levels: two empires represent the broad units of the analysis, two cities constitute the medium-scale elements, and several specific urban features make up its small-scale components. At the broadest scale, the study is carried out in a more general and abstract manner in the context of the ideological, sociopolitical, and cultural specifics of

The two empires, whereas at the smallest scale of investigation, the individual structures of the capitals are analyzed in a detailed and concrete manner. At the medium level of the capitals of Rome and Chang'an, the analysis is supported by a combination of less-abstract theories tailored to the study of urbanism that Smith calls "empirical urban theories" (2011), which will principally make use of a combination oF theoretical approaches consisting of urban morphology (or morphogenesis), normative urban theory, and architectural communication. On one hand, the combination of urban morphology and normative urban theory provides a structure for investigating the general characteristics of a city as seen in its entirety, in relation to the form of its ground plan and its historical transformations, its internal layout, as well as its visual aspects and functions. On the other hand, architectural communication theories help to understand how certain features of the individual urban elements chosen for the comparison - namely, their scale, design, and location in relation to the existing urban environment - can be read as a projection of ideological and propagandistic messages (Favro 1993). The materialization of ideologies in the urban environment can be achieved through different mechanisms, such as topographical associations triggered through physical proximity to other structures, or through the more-or-less explicit symbolic character of design elements, which depend on the cultural traditions and context of the societies to which they pertain (Rapoport 1990). Through these different but complementary levels of analysis, the present comparative research will not only uncover similarities and differences in the economic structures of the Roman and Han capital cities, but it will also reveal unique aspects of the relationship between imperialism and urban form that wouLd be difficult to detect when considering each context in isolation.

COMPARING EAST AND WEST

On the basis oF the methodological framework thus presented, this chapter explores some retail and production structures in Rome and Chang'an, basing the analysis on the assumption that the economies of both empires showed high levels of commercialization, with abundant circulation of coin (Scheidel 2009), competitive markets, and precocious means of mass production (Barbieri-Low 2007). Trading in the capitals was undertaken at varying scales of activity and in different types of structures: private and state controlled or owned. Manufacturing was also carried out as private and state-controlled production. The extent to which each of these levels of activity was represented inside the confines of a city, and in what ways the location and morphology of their structures could be seen

As a reflection of the social, political, and economic organization of their empires, is not yet clear. In view of this, data relating to the permanent architecture of marketplaces and to establishments connecteD to brickwork and metal production, which constituted important and proitable sectors oF the speciically urban aspects of the economies of Rome and Han China, have been selected for analysis. Textual and archaeological data are discussed in relation to the morphology and scale of the buildings and their location in the urban environment in order to determine how different levels of state and private involvement are reflected in the architectural features and in the spatial relationship the markets and workshops had wIth the urban fabric. The selected elements and their dimensions of analysis will help bring into focus different levels of urban production in the ancient world, particularly private and state managed, as well as the degree of state control exercised not just over the city structures dedicated to manufacturing and retailing, but also over the distribution oF inished products.