Jane Webster, in her article ‘Less beloved. Roman archaeology, slavery and the failure to compare’, brings into the limelight the necessity for archaeologists who study slavery to engage with the use of comparative methods. A brief historiographical analysis shows that, so far, only a handful of archaeologists are interested in performing a study of comparative slavery and probably even fewer are aware of the methodological complexities of such a task. Webster's article could not have been more timely. Historians are increasingly interested in studying connections and in making comparisons between people, sectors, countries and chronological periods. The emphasis on the study of comparative slavery in the UK is, for instance, demonstrated by the recent foundation of the Institute for the Study of Slavery (ISOS) at the University of Nottingham and its teaching in several other universities (Leicester, Newcastle, Edinburgh and King's College London among them). The development of comparative methodology, though, is still in its infancy. This may be one of the reasons why researchers are discouraged from undertaking such a task. Similarly, as Webster rightly notes, scholars tend to complain that the material is scanty and inadequate for the comparative reconstruction of past civilizations. Prominent among these is Walter Scheidel, who altogether, despite his comparative studies on slavery, remains unconvinced about the usefulness of comparisons in archaeology (Scheidel 2003, 581).