Among the most significant material evidence for manufacturing and production activities in Roman towns are the remains of workshops dedicated to fulling. The layout of these so-called fullonicae is often relatively well preserved and provides detailed information about the daily activities in these workshops. Together with the remains of bakeries and a few other identifiable urban workshops, fullonicae allow us to discuss important aspects of the social and economic contexts of production in Roman cities. However, despite the potential of the evidence and the significance of the subject, there has been little discussion of Roman fulling, and the contribution of M. Bradley in JRA 15 (2002) 21-44 is only the second to discuss Roman fullonicae in general. Bradley focuses on the cultural and economic context of fullones (fullers) and fullonicae in Roman society. Although his narrative will prove to be a useful contribution to the debate on Roman fulling, there are good reasons to question some of his conclusions. A major objection concerns the uniformity of his approach. His highly conceptualised profile of the context of Roman fulling underestimates possible regional and chronological variations as well as the multiform nature of human society. Furthermore, he relies too heavily on literary sources and uses epigraphy and material remains merely to illustrate his suggestions. This leads to an over-simplification of the complex relations between various types of data. As I will argue below, these methodological problems seriously undermine his statements about the economic nature of the Roman fullonica, the spatial context of fullonicae, and the social status of fullones.
No abstract
and KeywordsThis article assesses the impact of innovation on Roman society. It starts from a critical engagement with past debate about technological progress, which over the past decades has been too strongly focused on economic growth, and a re-appreciation of the literary evidence for innovation, which points to a culture in which technological knowledge and invention were thought to matter. Then, it highlights two areas where the uptake of technology had a direct impact on everyday life: material culture, where the emergence of glass-blowing, a proliferation of metal-working, and innovation in pottery-production changed the nature and amount of artefacts by which people surrounded themselves, and construction, where building techniques using opus caementicium, arches and standardized building materials revolutionized urban and rural landscapes. A concluding discussion highlights the role of integration of the Mediterranean under Roman rule in making innovation possible, and the role of consumer demand in bringing it about.
This article investigates how consumer demand shaped markets for high-quality domestic decoration in the Roman world and highlights how this affected the economic strategies of people involved in the production and trade of high-quality wall decoration, mosaics, and sculpture. The argument analyzes the consumption of high-quality domestic decoration at Pompeii and models the structure of demand for decorative skills in the Roman world at large. The Pompeian case study focuses on three categories of high-quality decoration: Late Hellenistic opus vermiculatum mosaics, first-century C.E. fourth-style panel pictures, and domestic sculpture. Analyzing the spread of these mosaics, paintings, and statues over a database of Pompeian houses makes it possible to reconstruct a demand profile for each category of decoration and to discuss the nature of its supply economy. It is argued that the market for high-quality decoration at Pompeii provided few incentives for professionals to acquire specialist skills and that this has broader implications: as market conditions in Pompeii and the Bay of Naples region were significantly above average, the strategic possibilities for painters, mosaicists, and sculptors in many parts of the Roman world were even more restricted and, consequently, their motivation to invest in skills and repertoire remained limited. 1
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2025 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.