Content uploaded by Miko Flohr
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Miko Flohr on Dec 22, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
Comp. by: Vasanthi Stage : Revises2 ChapterID: 0002791097 Date:2/11/16 Time:13:03:10
Filepath:d:/womat-filecopy/0002791097.3D
Dictionary : OUP_UKdictionary 1
OXFORD STUDIES ON THE ROMAN ECONOMY
General Editors
Alan Bowman Andrew Wilson
OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF –REVISES, 2/11/2016, SPi
Comp. by: Vasanthi Stage : Revises2 ChapterID: 0002791097 Date:2/11/16 Time:13:03:10
Filepath:d:/womat-filecopy/0002791097.3D
Dictionary : OUP_UKdictionary 2
OXFORD STUDIES ON THE ROMAN ECONOMY
This innovative monograph series reflects a vigorous revival of interest in
the ancient economy, focusing on the Mediterranean world under Roman rule
(c.100 BC to AD 350). Carefully quantified archaeological and documentary
data will be integrated to help ancient historians, economic historians, and
archaeologists think about economic behaviour collectively rather than from
separate perspectives. The volumes will include a substantial comparative
element and thus be of interest to historians of other periods and places.
OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF –REVISES, 2/11/2016, SPi
Comp. by: Vasanthi Stage : Revises2 ChapterID: 0002791097 Date:2/11/16 Time:13:03:10
Filepath:d:/womat-filecopy/0002791097.3D
Dictionary : OUP_UKdictionary 3
The Economy
of Pompeii
Edited by
MIKO FLOHR
and
ANDREW WILSON
1
OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF –REVISES, 2/11/2016, SPi
Comp. by: Vasanthi Stage : Revises2 ChapterID: 0002791097 Date:2/11/16 Time:13:03:10
Filepath:d:/womat-filecopy/0002791097.3D
Dictionary : OUP_UKdictionary 4
3
Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, OX2 6DP,
United Kingdom
Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford.
It furthers the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship,
and education by publishing worldwide. Oxford is a registered trade mark of
Oxford University Press in the UK and in certain other countries
© Oxford University Press 2017
The moral rights of the authors have been asserted
First Edition published in 2017
Impression: 1
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in
a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the
prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted
by law, by licence or under terms agreed with the appropriate reprographics
rights organization. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the
above should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the
address above
You must not circulate this work in any other form
and you must impose this same condition on any acquirer
Published in the United States of America by Oxford University Press
198 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016, United States of America
British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data
Data available
Library of Congress Control Number: 2016939406
ISBN 978–0–19–878657–3
Printed in Great Britain by
Clays Ltd, St Ives plc
Links to third party websites are provided by Oxford in good faith and
for information only. Oxford disclaims any responsibility for the materials
contained in any third party website referenced in this work.
OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF –REVISES, 2/11/2016, SPi
Comp. by: Vasanthi Stage : Revises2 ChapterID: 0002791097 Date:2/11/16 Time:13:03:11
Filepath:d:/womat-filecopy/0002791097.3D
Dictionary : OUP_UKdictionary 5
Preface
Pompeii is perhaps the most studied archaeological site of the Roman world,
and it features prominently (perhaps, sometimes, too prominently) in hand-
books on Roman art, archaeology, and urbanism. Indeed, there are few
aspects of Roman urban history that do not, at some point, lead scholars
and students to the ruined city on the Bay of Naples: Pompeii is our default
Roman city, and the place one may find evidence for almost any debate in
Roman history in quantities and of a quality unmatched elsewhere. Yet
while there is no lack of scholarly discourse on the archaeology and history
of Pompeii, there has been relatively little debate specifically on Pompeii’s
economic history, and the recent upsurge of interest in the study of the
Roman economy has largely bypassed the city. The present volume aims to
contribute to changing this: rather than offering a definitive account of the
Pompeian economy, it aims to connect ongoing developments in Pompeian
studies to ongoing debates about Roman economic history, and reignite
debate on what the thorough study of individual cities can add to our
understanding of the Roman economy.
This volume stems from a conference organized by the Oxford Roman
Economy Project, which took place at All Souls College and the Ioannou
Centre for Classical and Byzantine Studies in Oxford on 29 and 30 June 2012.
This brought together specialists in Pompeian studies and specialists in
Roman economic history from all over the world to discuss how recent
developments in Pompeian archaeology and in the debate about the Roman
economy had changed our insight into Pompeii’s economic history compared
to the late 1980s, when Wim Jongman wrote his monograph on The Economy
and Society of Pompeii. With one exception, all chapters stem from papers
given at that conference. We are very happy that we were able to add
Domenico Esposito’s contribution on the economy of wall painting, which
had been presented at an earlier occasion, to this volume. We regret that a
busy schedule kept Philippe Borgard from contributing to the present volume,
as his work on Pompeii’s textile workshops has been fundamental to debates
about Pompeii’s manufacturing economy.
The editors wish to thank Baron Lorne Thyssen for his continuing support
of the Oxford Roman Economy Project, without which this conference would
have been impossible. A major contribution to the costs of the conference
was provided by the scientific research network Structural Determinants
of Economic Performance in the Roman World, funded by the Research
Foundation Flanders, and we thank Koenraad Verboven for making this
OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF –REVISES, 2/11/2016, SPi
Comp. by: Vasanthi Stage : Revises2 ChapterID: 0002791097 Date:2/11/16 Time:13:03:11
Filepath:d:/womat-filecopy/0002791097.3D
Dictionary : OUP_UKdictionary 6
possible. We are grateful to All Souls College and the Faculty of Classics for
hosting the conference, and to All Souls College and Brasenose College for
providing accommodation for the speakers.
Journal abbreviations in this volume follow the style of L’Année philologique.
Miko Flohr and
Andrew Wilson
January 2016
OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF –REVISES, 2/11/2016, SPi
vi Preface
Comp. by: Vasanthi Stage : Revises2 ChapterID: 0002791097 Date:2/11/16 Time:13:03:11
Filepath:d:/womat-filecopy/0002791097.3D
Dictionary : OUP_UKdictionary 7
Contents
List of Figures ix
List of Tables xiii
List of Contributors xv
Introduction: Investigating an Urban Economy 1
Miko Flohr and Andrew Wilson
I. CITY AND HINTERLAND
1. The Agricultural Economy of Pompeii: Surplus and
Dependence 23
Girolamo Ferdinando De Simone
2. Quantifying Pompeii: Population, Inequality, and
the Urban Economy 53
Miko Flohr
II. QUALITY OF LIFE
3. Consumer Behaviour in Pompeii: Theory and Evidence 87
Nick M. Ray
4. Sewers, Archaeobotany, and Diet at Pompeii and Herculaneum 111
Erica Rowan
5. Skeletal Remains and the Health of the Population at Pompeii 135
Estelle Lazer
III. ECONOMIC LIFE AND ITS CONTEXTS
6. Measuring the Movement Economy: A Network Analysis
of Pompeii 163
Eric Poehler
7. Urban Production and the Pompeian Economy 209
Nicolas Monteix
8. Wealthy Entrepreneurs and the Urban Economy: Insula
VI 1 in its Wider Economic Contexts 243
Damian Robinson
OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF –REVISES, 2/11/2016, SPi
Comp. by: Vasanthi Stage : Revises2 ChapterID: 0002791097 Date:2/11/16 Time:13:03:11
Filepath:d:/womat-filecopy/0002791097.3D
Dictionary : OUP_UKdictionary 8
9. The Economics of Pompeian Painting 263
Domenico Esposito
IV. MONEY AND TRADE
10. Re-evaluating Pompeii’s Coin Finds: Monetary Transactions
and Urban Waste in the Retail Economy of an Ancient City 293
Steven J. R. Ellis
11. Bes, Butting Bulls, and Bars: The Life of Coinage at Pompeii 339
Richard Hobbs
12. Currency and Credit in the Bay of Naples in the First
Century AD 363
Koenraad Verboven
13. Conflicts, Contract Enforcement, and Business Communities
in the Archive of the Sulpicii 387
Wim Broekaert
V. DISCUSSION
14. Pompeii Revisited 417
Willem Jongman
Index 429
OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF –REVISES, 2/11/2016, SPi
viii Contents
Comp. by: Vasanthi Stage : Revises2 ChapterID: 0002791097 Date:2/11/16 Time:13:03:11
Filepath:d:/womat-filecopy/0002791097.3D
Dictionary : OUP_UKdictionary 9
List of Figures
1.1 Hypothetical reconstructions of the Somma-Vesuvius complex
before the AD 79 eruption 25
1.2 Reconstruction of the Pompeian countryside 26
1.3 Archaeological map of the environs of Vesuvius 28
1.4 Archaeological map of the northern slopes of Mount Vesuvius
with 100 iugera circles around each site 29
2.1 Plan of houses VII 1, 25 and VII 1, 46 59
2.2 Plan of the Casa del Fauno 66
2.3 Plan of the Casa del Poeta Tragico 67
2.4 Thiessen polygon indicating Pompeii’s natural economic hinterland 70
2.5 Rank-size graph of Pompeii’s inhabitable units 73
2.6 Lorenz curves of Pompeii’s inhabitable units based on surface
and room number 76
2.7 Spread of atria over Pompeii’s inhabitable units 76
2.8 Spread of the peristyle over Pompeii’s inhabitable units 77
2.9 Spread of one- or two-sided colonnades over Pompeii’s inhabitable units 78
2.10 Casa del Poeta Tragico, oecus 15: picture of Theseus abandoning
Ariadne 79
2.11 Spread of panel-pictures over Pompeii’s inhabitable units 80
3.1 Variation in ceramic vessel types relating to house size 95
3.2 Occurrence of OV by material in relation to CV 96
3.3 Other vessel occurrence in assemblages by material 97
3.4 Jugs by material 98
3.5 Correspondence analysis biplot of vessel form for ‘occupied houses’100
3.6 Discretionary products matrix 102
3.7 Assembled household items by discretionary expenditure 103
4.1 Plan of the Cardo V sewer 113
4.2 Excavation quadrants within the Cardo V sewer 120
4.3 Ubiquity of the mineralized material from the Cardo V sewer 122
5.1 Skeletons in the Terme del Sarno (VII, ii, 17) collection 138
5.2 Bones stored in the Terme del Sarno (VII, ii, 17) were sorted into
piles of left and right bones for each skeletal element 140
5.3 Frequency histogram of maximum femur length of the Pompeian
sample 144
OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF –REVISES, 2/11/2016, SPi
Comp. by: Vasanthi Stage : Revises2 ChapterID: 0002791097 Date:2/11/16 Time:13:03:12
Filepath:d:/womat-filecopy/0002791097.3D
Dictionary : OUP_UKdictionary 10
5.4 Healed fracture of a right femur with associated osteomyelitic
lesions in the form of sinuses on the bone surface 145
5.5 Healed depressed fracture of a skull, which involved the left
parietal bone 145
5.6 An apparent case of DISH observed on adjacent thoracic vertebrae 149
5.7 View through the foramen magnum of a skull displaying
extensive HFI 151
6.1 Pompeian street names 164
6.2 Occurrences of doorways at Pompeii 169
6.3 Occurrences of doorways at Pompeii 172
6.4 Occurrences of doorways at Pompeii, detail 174
6.5 Depth from gates at Pompeii 176
6.6 Doorway occurrences with Depth 2 from gates 179
6.7 Street network of Pompeii 181
6.8 Doorway densities, excavated areas 183
6.9 Doorway densities, excavated and extrapolated areas 184
6.10 Network of excavated and extrapolated doorways and streets
at Pompeii 187
6.11 Intensity of movement through the network; all paths to
the Temple of Apollo 188
6.12 Total intensity of movement through the network; aggregation of all
paths to all locations 189
6.13 Street segments with the greatest movement intensity 194
6.14 Street segments with the least movement intensity 195
7.1 Chronology of the excavations in Pompeii 214
7.2 Distribution of productive spaces ‘in AD 79’/known productive spaces
after the exhumation of Pompeii 218
7.3 Variations in counting so-called officinae lanifricariae 221
7.4 Pompeii, 1973. Sheep grazing at Porta Vesuvio 225
7.5 House I 8, 14, with the two find locations of tool sets 227
7.6 Tool sets found in I 8, 14 229
7.7 Visualization of part of the système technique in which a Pompeian
bakery was involved 234
8.1 The frontage of the Casa del Fauno and the economic properties
integrated into the Nocera tuff frontage 246
8.2 Insula VI 1 at the time of the eruption in AD 79 248
8.3 The villa at San Rocco in Francolise c.AD 50 251
8.4 The outdoor triclinium of the inn 256
OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF –REVISES, 2/11/2016, SPi
xList of Figures
Comp. by: Vasanthi Stage : Revises2 ChapterID: 0002791097 Date:2/11/16 Time:13:03:12
Filepath:d:/womat-filecopy/0002791097.3D
Dictionary : OUP_UKdictionary 11
8.5 The bar at VI 1, 5, with its counter orientated to attract customers
on the Via Consolare travelling towards the Porta Ercolano 257
8.6 The remains of workshops underlying the Shrine to the Lares Augusti 258
9.1 Kerch sarcophagus: depiction of a painter at work 265
9.2 Pictura ligneis formis inclusa (Herculaneum, apartment V, 18) 267
9.3 Villa dei Papiri. Room I on the first lower level of the basis villae:
carbonized remains of scaffolding 269
9.4 Villa dei Papiri. Room I on the first lower level of the basis villae:
unfinished decoration 269
9.5 Pompeii, Casa dei Pittori al Lavoro, room 12, east wall, sinopia
of architectural frames 270
9.6 Pompeii, Casa dei Pittori al Lavoro, room 12, north wall:
unfinished panel picture 270
9.7 Pompeii, Casa dei Pittori al Lavoro, room 12, north wall:
unfinished decoration 271
9.8 Pompeii, Casa dei Pittori al Lavoro, room 12 276
9.9 Pompeii, Casa dei Vettii, atrium. Same motif executed by two
different painters 278
9.10 Pompeii, Casa dei Vettii: two mythological panels realized by
the two principal decorators of the Vettii workshop 279
9.11 Top: Temple of Isis, porticus 1: detail of the frieze with garlands of
acanthus. Bottom: Casa di P. Vedius Siricus, exedra 10: detail of the
frieze with garlands of acanthus 284
10.1 Insulae VIII 7 (left) and I 1 under excavation by the University of
Cincinnati 295
10.2 The location of trenches at VIII 7 and I 1 301
10.3 The total number of coins recovered from each trench 304
10.4 The distribution of AD 79 coin finds across VIII 7 and I 1 310
10.5 The distribution of stratified coin finds from ‘use’contexts 314
10.6 A diagrammatic sketch for how urban waste can be sorted and
deposited outside of a fort’s walls 317
10.7 The percentage of coins recovered from pre-Augustan, Augustan,
and post-Augustan phases 322
10.8 The number of coins recovered from stratified, phased contexts,
normalized to thirty-year ranges for each period 322
11.1 Origins of coins in the AAPP assemblage 348
11.2 Bronze coin imported from Ebusus, with figure of Bes on both
sides (left); Campanian Ebusus type, with simplified ‘rudimentary’
figure of Bes (right) 349
OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF –REVISES, 2/11/2016, SPi
List of Figures xi
Comp. by: Vasanthi Stage : Revises2 ChapterID: 0002791097 Date:2/11/16 Time:13:03:12
Filepath:d:/womat-filecopy/0002791097.3D
Dictionary : OUP_UKdictionary 12
11.3 Bronze coin imported from Massalia, with head of Apollo on one side
and butting bull with mint name on the reverse (left); local Campanian
imitation of the type, with garbled legend above the bull (right) 350
11.4 Local Campanian types, only found at Pompeii 350
11.5 Roman coins from the AAPP excavations 352
11.6 A stone ball excavated in regio VI, insula 1 355
11.7 Density of coins found during excavations in Regio VI, Insula 1 359
14.1 Population and per capita consumption in the Nettuno survey area 422
OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF –REVISES, 2/11/2016, SPi
xii List of Figures
Comp. by: Vasanthi Stage : Revises2 ChapterID: 0002791097 Date:2/11/16 Time:13:03:12
Filepath:d:/womat-filecopy/0002791097.3D
Dictionary : OUP_UKdictionary 13
List of Tables
1.1 Calculation of estate sizes 30
1.2 Estimate of the number of inhabitants for most of the Campanian cities 31
1.3 Estimates of citizens and countrymen of Neapolis, Nola, and Pompeii 32
1.4 Average productivity and estate size according to literary sources and
contemporary scholars 36
1.5 Quantification of the maximum production of wine and size
of the vineyards 38
1.6 Calculation of the estate sizes and maximum extent of vineyards 38
1.7 Estimate of the annual production of grain and the people potentially
fed with it 41
1.8 List of all vegetal remains found in the Vesuvian cities 44
2.1 Entrances along the eastern part of the Via dell’Abbondanza 61
2.2 Reconstructing the missing insulae of Pompeii 62
2.3 Constructing the population estimate 64
2.4 Percentage of the population per building type 72
3.1 Houses in the data population 92
6.1 Association of property type with movement intensity 193
6.2 Extrapolations of visitors to Pompeii by gate and time 199
7.1 Comparison of a selection of productive spaces between ‘AD 79’
Pompeii and first-century AD Switzerland 226
7.2 Overview of tools found in the atrium and room 9 of house I 8, 14 228
11.1 Summary of coin types represented in the AAPP assemblage 347
11.2 Contextual association of coins from the Massalia and Ebusus-type
coins and Republican-cut fractions 354
12.1 Reconstruction of the amount of coins in circulation at Pompeii 368
OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF –REVISES, 2/11/2016, SPi
Comp. by: Vasanthi Stage : Revises2 ChapterID: 0002791097 Date:2/11/16 Time:13:03:12
Filepath:d:/womat-filecopy/0002791097.3D
Dictionary : OUP_UKdictionary 14
OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF –REVISES, 2/11/2016, SPi
Comp. by: Vasanthi Stage : Revises2 ChapterID: 0002791097 Date:2/11/16 Time:13:03:12
Filepath:d:/womat-filecopy/0002791097.3D
Dictionary : OUP_UKdictionary 15
List of Contributors
Wim Broekaert is a Postdoctoral Researcher in Ancient History at Ghent
University. He has published widely on many aspects of Roman trade. His first
monograph, Navicularii et Negotiantes: A Prosopographical Study of Roman
Merchants and Shippers, was published in 2013, and he has since worked on a
variety of aspects of Roman trade, particularly focusing on networks of traders
and tituli picti.
Girolamo Ferdinando De Simone holds a DPhil from the University of
Oxford, where he wrote a dissertation on ‘The Dark Side of Vesuvius:
Landscape Change and the Roman Economy’, discussing agriculture and
landscape in the Vesuvian region. He is Director of the Apolline Project,
and leads the excavations at the Roman villa and baths at Pollena Trocchia
on the north slope of Vesuvius.
Steven J. R. Ellis is a Roman archaeologist whose research interests cover
the social and structural formation of ancient cities. His publications have
explored Roman retail spaces; urban waste management; superstition; Roman
coins; site formation processes; urban and sacred infrastructure; movement;
social structures and their hierarchies, especially of the urban sub-elites;
archaeological fieldwork methodologies; and the Roman fish-salting
industry. Steven has directed and published archaeological projects in Italy
and Greece, including the Pompeii Archaeological Research Project: Porta
Stabia, a project of the University of Cincinnati, where he is Associate
Professor of Classics, and the American Academy in Rome.
Domenico Esposito is Postdoctoral Researcher at the Institute for Classical
Archaeology at the Free University, Berlin. He is a renowned specialist on wall
painting from the Bay of Naples area and has worked for many years at Pompeii.
His first monograph, Le Officine pittoriche di IV stile a Pompei (2009) discussed
the workshops involved in the production of fourth-style wall painting at
Pompeii. His second monograph, La pittura di Ercolano (2013), provides a
complete overview of the wall paintings discovered at Herculaneum.
Miko Flohr is Postdoctoral Researcher and Lecturer at the Institute for
History, Leiden University, and was formerly Assistant Director of the
Oxford Roman Economy Project. His main research focus lies with urban
history in the Roman world, with a particular emphasis on economic life in
Roman Italy and on textile economies. His first monograph, The World of the
Fullo, was published by OUP in 2013; with Andrew Wilson, he co-edited a
volume on Urban Craftsmen and Traders in the Roman World (OUP, 2016).
OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF –REVISES, 2/11/2016, SPi
Comp. by: Vasanthi Stage : Revises2 ChapterID: 0002791097 Date:2/11/16 Time:13:03:13
Filepath:d:/womat-filecopy/0002791097.3D
Dictionary : OUP_UKdictionary 16
With Eric Poehler and Kevin Cole, he co-edited Pompeii. Art, Industry,
Infrastructure (2011). He is currently preparing a monograph on commercial
investment in Roman Italy.
Richard Hobbs is Curator of the Romano-British collections at the British
Museum. His research interests include the early coinage of southern Italy and
the Iron Age in Britain. He has also published extensively on Roman silver
plate, Roman dining, and the deposition of precious metals in the late Roman
Empire. He is a Visiting Research Fellow at the University of Reading and a
Fellow of the Society of Antiquaries.
Willem Jongman is Reader in Economic History at the University of
Groningen. Areas of research include Roman urbanism and the
measurement of Roman economic performance. Publications include The
Economy and Society of Pompeii (1988) and ‘The Early Roman Empire:
Consumption’in The Cambridge Economic History of the Greco-Roman
World (2007).
Estelle Lazer is an Honorary Research Associate in Ancient History at the
University of Sydney, and has taught at the University of Sydney, University
of NSW, and the University of Technology, Sydney. Her research interests
include forensic archaeology, Antarctic archaeology, and cultural heritage
management. She has spent numerous field seasons working on the human
skeletal remains from Pompeii. Her current research project involves the use
of CT scans and X-ray analysis to interpret the human skeletons preserved
within the casts of the Pompeian victims.
Nicolas Monteix holds a position as Associate Professor in Roman History and
Archaeology at the University of Rouen. He wrote a dissertation on shops and
workshops in Herculaneum (published in 2010) and was then awarded a
postdoctoral fellowship at the École française de Rome (2007–10). He led the
Pistrina Project, which studied thirty-nine bakeries in Pompeii (2008–14); his
current research interest lies with the archaeology of technology in the long term.
Eric Poehler is Assistant Professor at the University of Massachusetts
Amherst. He is a specialist on urban infrastructure and traffic, and co-
directs the Pompeii Quadriporticus Project, an archaeological investigation
of one of the largest monumental structures at Pompeii. He has published
widely on Pompeian traffic (2006) and on the city’s water infrastructure
(2012), and co-edited Pompeii: Art, Industry and Infrastructure (2011; with
Miko Flohr and Kevin Cole). He is the Founder and Managing Editor of
Pompeiana.org, an online resource for Pompeian scholarship.
Nick M. Ray is Assistant Director of the Oxford Roman Economy Project,
University of Oxford. His research interests include consumption practices in
the Roman world, particularly relating to durable commodities, as well as the
various methods used to investigate consumer behaviour in different historical
OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF –REVISES, 2/11/2016, SPi
xvi List of Contributors
Comp. by: Vasanthi Stage : Revises2 ChapterID: 0002791097 Date:2/11/16 Time:13:03:13
Filepath:d:/womat-filecopy/0002791097.3D
Dictionary : OUP_UKdictionary 17
periods. He is also interested in the concept of moral economies. Nick is
co-editor of Trans-Saharans, vol. I: Burials, Migrations and Identity (in press),
and De Africa Romaque: Merging Cultures across North Africa (2016), and has
contributed to the Encyclopedia of Ancient History on the subject of the
Roman economy.
Damian Robinson is Director of the Oxford Centre for Maritime Archaeology
at the School of Archaeology, University of Oxford, and former William
Golding Fellow at Brasenose College. He is a classical archaeologist with
research interests both on land and underwater and an authority on the
archaeology of the Bay of Naples, where he did his doctoral research on
the social and economic topography of Pompeii. He co-directed the Anglo-
American Pompeii Project in Insula VI 1 and co-edited Alexandria and the
North-Western Delta (with Andrew Wilson, 2010) and Maritime Archaeology
and Ancient Trade in the Mediterranean (with Andrew Wilson, 2011).
Erica Rowan is Leventis Associate Research Fellow at the Department of
Classics and Ancient History in the University of Exeter. She specializes in
archaeobotany and holds a doctoral degree from the University of Oxford,
where she wrote a dissertation on Roman nutrition and food consumption
practices in the area around Mount Vesuvius, based on bioarchaeological
remains, especially from the sewer underneath Cardo V at Herculaneum. She
published an article on olive-pressing waste as a fuel source in the American
Journal of Archaeology in 2015, and is currently preparing a book on the impact
of Greek food culture on Roman diet and consumption practices.
Koenraad Verboven has been Professor of Ancient History at the University
of Ghent since 2007. He is Director of the international research network,
Structural Determinants of Economic Performance in the Roman World, and
Co-director, with Paul Erdkamp, of the Roman Society Research Centre
(Ghent/Brussels). He is the author of The Economy of Friends: Economic
Aspects of Amicitia and Patronage in the Late Republic (2002), and co-editor
of several books, including Pistoi dia tèn technèn: Bankers, Loans and Archives
in the Ancient World (2008) and Ownership and Exploitation of Land and
Natural Resources in the Roman World (OUP, 2015).
Andrew Wilson is Professor of the Archaeology of the Roman Empire at the
University of Oxford. His research interests include the economy of the
Roman Empire, ancient technology, ancient water supply and usage, Roman
North Africa, and archaeological field surveys. Recent publications include:
Settlement, Urbanization and Population (ed. with Alan Bowman, 2011),
Maritime Archaeology and Ancient Trade in the Mediterranean (ed. with
Damian Robinson, 2011), The Roman Agricultural Economy (ed. with Alan
Bowman, 2013), Urban Craftsmen and Traders in the Roman World (ed. with
Miko Flohr, 2016), and articles on Saharan trade (Azania 2012) and Capitolia
(JRS 2013, with Jo Quinn).
OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF –REVISES, 2/11/2016, SPi
List of Contributors xvii
Comp. by: Vasanthi Stage : Revises2 ChapterID: 0002791097 Date:2/11/16 Time:13:03:13
Filepath:d:/womat-filecopy/0002791097.3D
Dictionary : OUP_UKdictionary 18
OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF –REVISES, 2/11/2016, SPi
Comp. by: Vasanthi Stage : Revises2 ChapterID: 0002791098 Date:2/11/16 Time:13:07:05
Filepath:d:/womat-filecopy/0002791098.3D
Dictionary : OUP_UKdictionary 1
Introduction
Investigating an Urban Economy
Miko Flohr and Andrew Wilson
Moses Finley once famously claimed that, because of the quality of the data,
attempting to write the history of individual ancient towns was a ‘cul-de-sac’.
1
Instead, he championed the idea that the ancient city needed to be approached
on a conceptual level, so that the role of the city as a ‘pivotal institution’in the
Greco-Roman world could be understood. Several decades of fierce debate about
what precisely this role might have been followed Finley’s discussion of the
nature of the ancient city. Essentially, however, the most important conclusion
emerging from this debate has been that, ultimately, Greco-Roman urbanism
was too varied for a conceptual approach to yield historically meaningful results:
it was not so much Finley’s theory that ancient cities were Weberian ‘consumer
cities’that was misguided, but rather the idea that a single ideal type was the best
approach to understanding Roman urbanism, and particularly Roman urban
economies.
2
In other words, trying to write the history of an individual town,
however complicated it is, is not a cul-de-sac, but an essential part of debating the
history of Roman urbanism, and of urban economies in the Roman world.
Indeed, over the past decades, several scholars have examined the economic
histories of specific towns in the Roman world, sometimes with significant
impact on the debate. In the 1980s and early 1990s, there was the work of
Leveau on Caesarea, Jongman’s book on the economy and society of Pompeii,
and the monograph of Engels on Roman Corinth.
3
Around the turn of the
millennium, Mattingly and others investigated the economy of Leptiminus,
and Wilson those of Sabratha and Timgad.
4
More recently, there has been
1
Finley (1977: 325).
2
See esp. Mattingly et al. (2000: 81–4); Wilson (2002: 265–6).
3
Leveau (1984); Jongman (1988); Engels (1990).
4
Mattingly et al. (2000); Wilson (2002).
OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF –REVISES, 2/11/2016, SPi
Comp. by: Vasanthi Stage : Revises2 ChapterID: 0002791098 Date:2/11/16 Time:13:07:05
Filepath:d:/womat-filecopy/0002791098.3D
Dictionary : OUP_UKdictionary 2
further work on Leptiminus,
5
and the study by Jaschke of the social and
economic history of Puteoli.
6
While these studies have all enriched the
debate, it may be observed that most of them were, by choice or necessity,
mono-disciplinary in the sense that they approached their case through one
dataset, or from one specific theoretical or methodological angle. Often
there were also strong echoes of the research agenda set by Finley’s provoca-
tive model of the consumer city. There have been no efforts to look at one
specific city from a variety of perspectives and through several different
datasets, even though such an exercise could be of great value, both on a
methodological and a historical level: a multidisciplinary effort can highlight
how the different aspects of economic history work together in one specific
place, and may result in a detailed understanding that cannot easily be
achieved through other means. At the same time, such an effort may foster
historical, theoretical, and methodological debate that may inform approaches
of scholars focusing on urban economies elsewhere in the Roman world.
Pompeii is perhaps the best possible place to do this. There can be little
doubt that the remains of Pompeii and, to a lesser extent, Herculaneum,
present a uniquely rich body of evidence for studying key aspects of Roman
urbanism, including anything related to urban economic history. There is no
other place in the Roman world whose economic history can be approached
from such a variety of angles, including, amongst other things, the everyday
urban processes of production, retail, and consumption, their historical
development over time, the use of money and the sophistication of the local
financial system, the functioning of a city and its regional environment within
the wider Mediterranean trade system, and the effects of a city’s economic
performance on the prosperity of the urban population.
The present volume aims to bring together a variety of approaches to the
economic history of Pompeii. This is, strangely enough, no superfluous exer-
cise: despite the quality of the evidence discovered in Pompeii and the region
destroyed by the AD 79 eruption of Mount Vesuvius, it may be argued that the
city—and especially its archaeological remains—has so far contributed only to
a very limited extent to debates about Roman economic history. Even in the
vibrant ‘consumer-city debate’of the 1980s and 1990s, the city played a much
more modest role than perhaps could have been expected: Jongman’s radically
primitivist reading of the city’s economy failed to provoke any serious
response from archaeologists who were familiar with the Pompeian evidence—
there was little debate about economic history among Pompeian scholars at
the time, and scholars working on urban economic history in the Roman
world generally worked with evidence from outside Italy.
7
This has not really
5
Mattingly et al. (2011).
6
Jaschke (2010).
7
Jongman (1988). Significantly, most scholars reviewing the book were generalists; none of
them was an archaeologist, or seems to have had specialist knowledge of Pompeii’s material
OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF –REVISES, 2/11/2016, SPi
2Miko Flohr and Andrew Wilson
Comp. by: Vasanthi Stage : Revises2 ChapterID: 0002791098 Date:2/11/16 Time:13:07:05
Filepath:d:/womat-filecopy/0002791098.3D
Dictionary : OUP_UKdictionary 3
changed over the last ten years. Of course, the city is frequently mentioned in
scholarly literature on the Roman economy, but often only briefly, in passing,
mostly when some individual piece of evidence from the site is brought
forward in support of some particular argument.
8
For instance, the discovery
of many agricultural tools in the city has recently been used to support the idea
that many urban residents in the Roman world were directly engaged in
agriculture.
9
Similarly, archaeobotanical finds from Pompeii have been used
to argue in favour of a substantial Roman spice trade.
10
However, these brief
references appear decontextualized: generalists using Pompeian evidence do
not tend to show much consideration for the particular historical background
within which the Pompeian evidence was originally produced. Indeed, in
many cases, Pompeii still seems to be used as an exceptionally well-preserved,
but ultimately more-or-less average Roman city—an ideal source for vivid
anecdotes of how things worked in ‘the Roman economy’.
Things, of course, were not so simple. Like any city, Pompeii was a very
specific place, shaped by the unique geographic, historical, and ecological
peculiarities of its regional environment, and it is only through a critical
understanding of the way in which these circumstances shaped the Pompeian
evidence that it becomes possible to understand the economic history of the
city, and to assess the relevance of the Pompeian evidence for wider debates
about Roman economic history. As will be emphasized throughout this
volume, this interpretative process is not at all straightforward, and the
Pompeian record is much more complex than it perhaps may seem to be at
first sight. Indeed, even with regard to Pompeii, there are significant limits to
our knowledge, and these will be exposed in virtually all of the chapters
following this Introduction. Still, Pompeii’s unique material and textual record
makes it possible to discuss its economic history in a unique level of detail,
both regarding the AD 79 situation, and the historical development of the
urban economy in the preceding centuries.
The following pages will further introduce the theme of this volume. They
will provide an overview of what has been written so far about Pompeii’s
economy and economic history, and introduce the various contributions to
this volume, before assessing some of the trends emerging, and put them into
the context of recent debates about Roman urban economies. First, however, a
evidence. Cf. Banaji (1989); Purcell (1990); Franklin Jr (1990); Frier (1991); Scheidel (1992). On
the geographical emphasis of the consumer-city debate see Flohr and Wilson (2016: 35–40).
8
In the recent Cambridge Companion to the Roman Economy, evidence from Pompeii is
mentioned (in passing) only in three chapters: Wilson (2012: 140, 150); Kron (2012: 161, 169);
Erdkamp (2012: 246). In the Cambridge Economic History of the Greco-Roman World, Pompeii is
briefly referred to by Sallares (2007: 31); Schneider (2007: 154, 158, 161, 169); Harris (2007: 532,
539); Kehoe (2007: 565); Morley (2007: 588); Jongman (2007: 616); Leveau (2007: 662); and
Cherry (2007: 731).
9
Erdkamp (2012: 246).
10
Kron (2012: 161).
OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF –REVISES, 2/11/2016, SPi
Introduction: Investigating an Urban Economy 3
Comp. by: Vasanthi Stage : Revises2 ChapterID: 0002791098 Date:2/11/16 Time:13:07:05
Filepath:d:/womat-filecopy/0002791098.3D
Dictionary : OUP_UKdictionary 4
few things may need to be said about Pompeii itself, its regional context, and
the nature of its evidence.
INTRODUCING POMPEII
Pompeii was situated close to the sea on a low hill of volcanic origin, over-
looking the Sarno estuary. The city has a long history: its oldest visible remains
go back to as early as the seventh century BC, but recent excavations have led to
the discovery of even older evidence.
11
Relatively little, however, is known
about the town before the third century BC, and Pompeii’s history before the
mid-second century BC is the subject of fierce academic debate.
12
The town of
AD 79 was decisively shaped by a series of developments, including several
phases of intense building activity. The first major building boom of Pompeii
is commonly dated in the second half of the second century BC, a period that
has been described as Pompeii’s‘golden century’, and which saw the arrival
or emergence of a wealthy urban elite building large urban palaces in the
Hellenistic fashion.
13
The foundation of a Roman colony, in 80 BC, was another
major event, and though its immediate effect on the urban economy is not
immediately clear, it had major implications for the socio-economic ties
between the city and the Roman elite, and, practically, for the legal framework
within which economic activity took place.
14
A second period that appears to
have brought significant changes to the urban economic landscape is the
Augustan period, which not only saw developments around the forum, but
also great building activity along the city’s through-roads.
15
Finally, the two
decades preceding the AD 79 eruption of Mount Vesuvius were characterized by
increased seismic activity, including at least two major earthquakes, which have
left clearly visible traces in the material remains of Pompeii; the effects of these
disasters on the city’s economy have been fiercely debated in the past, as will be
discussed in the next section (‘The Pompeian Economy: A Century of Scholarly
Debate’), and in several of the contributions to this volume.
16
Pompeii was surrounded on three sides by fertile and heavily cultivated
agricultural land, as is attested by the large number of villas discovered
11
On the early history of Pompeii see the chapters in Ellis (2011), esp. Guzzo (2011);
Robinson (2011); Coarelli and Pesando (2011).
12
See, for instance, the debate about the date of early atrium houses like the Casa del
Chirurgo (V 1, 10), the Casa degli Scienziati (VI 14, 43), and the Casa del Naviglio (VI 10,
11). Cf. Peterse and de Waele (2005); De Haan et al. (2005); Coarelli and Pesando (2011: 51).
13
For the term see Pesando (2006).
14
On the Sullan colony see esp. Zevi (1996).
15
On the Augustan period see also Chapter 10 (this volume).
16
See esp. Chapter 7 (this volume).
OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF –REVISES, 2/11/2016, SPi
4Miko Flohr and Andrew Wilson
Comp. by: Vasanthi Stage : Revises2 ChapterID: 0002791098 Date:2/11/16 Time:13:07:05
Filepath:d:/womat-filecopy/0002791098.3D
Dictionary : OUP_UKdictionary 5
between Pompeii and the southern slopes of Mount Vesuvius. Many of the
villas show evidence of mixed farming, with an emphasis on viticulture.
17
However, more important than this rich agricultural hinterland is the fact that
Pompeii was extremely well connected. With the shore, already in antiquity, a
kilometre or so away from the Porta Marina, Pompeii was not really a coastal
town in the most literal sense of the word, but there was a port associated with
the city—though its precise location is disputed.
18
Overland, Pompeii was
connected by a road along the coast to Naples and Herculaneum, and there
were direct roads leading to Nola and Nuceria.
19
The latter two roads also
connected with the Via Popilia, which ran from Capua through Nola and
Nuceria to Salerno and further to the south until Rhegium.
20
This all meant
that the harbour of Pompeii could develop a regional function—as is indeed
suggested by Strabo, who claimed that the port of Pompeii served Nuceria,
Nola, and Acherrae.
21
Moreover, the presence of a maritime connection also
meant that Pompeii could easily maintain close ties with the entire Bay of
Naples region, which included cities like Cumae, Misenum, Naples, Surrentum,
and, particularly, of course, Puteoli.
22
This is the regional context in which
Pompeii’s economy needs to be understood, as is perfectly illustrated by the
Sulpicii archive, which records business practice in Puteoli in the AD 30s,
but was found in the immediate vicinity of Pompeii.
23
It is a context which,
from the second century BC onwards, increasingly began to be dominated by
the Roman elite, who started to build large villas around the Bay of Naples
shoreline, and to spend large parts of the year in the region.
24
Finally, something needs to be said about the nature of the Pompeian
evidence. Pompeii can barely be understood without understanding its com-
plex excavation history, which has a decisive influence on the degree to which
evidence actually can be used. Besides the problem, discussed at some length
by Monteix in Chapter 7, that the site was buried at a very particular moment
in its history, there are three main issues.
25
First of all, the variation in
preservation strategies employed after excavation means that there are major
differences within the site in the state of the standing remains and the degree
to which they reveal information about the history and use of buildings—
certain types of evidence have survived in some parts of the town, but not in
17
Oettel (1996); Moormann (2007).
18
The archaeological evidence discovered between Pompeii and the sea is discussed in Stefani
and Di Maio (2003). On the location of the harbour of Pompeii see also, unconvincingly, Curti
(2008).
19
On the road between Pompeii and Nuceria see De’Spagnolis Conticello (1994).
20
Cf. CIL 1.6950.
21
Strabo, Geogr. 5.4.8.
22
On Puteoli see Tuck (2012); Jaschke (2010).
23
It is unclear how the archive actually ended up at Murecine. See, on the context of its
discovery, Camodeca (1992: 5–6).
24
D’Arms (1970).
25
Chapter 7 (this volume).
OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF –REVISES, 2/11/2016, SPi
Introduction: Investigating an Urban Economy 5
Comp. by: Vasanthi Stage : Revises2 ChapterID: 0002791098 Date:2/11/16 Time:13:07:05
Filepath:d:/womat-filecopy/0002791098.3D
Dictionary : OUP_UKdictionary 6
others. Secondly, abysmal recording of movable objects and loose finds for
most of Pompeii’s excavation history enormously complicates our view on
many everyday social and economic processes, as is clear from the work of
Penelope Allison on Pompeii’s domestic assemblages.
26
Thirdly, there is the
problem that only a very limited part of the city has been stratigraphically
excavated below the AD 79 floor and ground levels, while there is debate about
the reliability of evidence like construction materials and techniques for dating
buildings, particularly before the second century BC.
27
Even though the situ-
ation has improved considerably over the last two decades, this means that the
large majority of what is visible at Pompeii is particularly revealing about the
last decades of the town’s existence, and tells us much less about what
happened earlier.
28
Nevertheless, Jongman was unduly pessimistic when he
considered Pompeii ‘unsuitable for dynamic analysis’and described it as ‘a
necessarily static cross-section at more or less one moment in time’: many
things can be said about Pompeii’s economic history, but one necessarily has
to extrapolate from a limited, and not necessarily representative, amount of
observations.
29
THE POMPEIAN ECONOMY: A CENTURY
OF SCHOLARLY DEBATE
The nature of the Pompeian economy has been debated since the early
twentieth century. Highly influential—initially—was Tenney Frank’s discus-
sion of Pompeii’s economic life, which first appeared in 1918 in Classical
Philology, and was later reprinted almost verbatim in his 1927 Economic
History of Rome.
30
Frank sketched a vivid picture of manufacturing and retail
in Pompeii, examining food and textile industries, and agriculture. He argued
that, although the Pompeian economy was dominated by entrepreneurs
operating on a small scale, industries ‘appear in all stages of development
toward capitalistic production’, pointing in particular to the presence of
bakeries, fulleries, and a tannery operating on a large scale, and to Pompeii’s
garum industry. A more systematic and detailed account of the Pompeian
economy was produced by Helmut Sievers, who, in his dissertation, discusses
26
Esp. Allison (2004).
27
On the excavated area see Coarelli and Pesando (2011: 37). On the use of walls for dating
see Ellis (2008) on Peterse (2007).
28
For a more elaborate discussion of this issue see Chapter 7 (this volume).
29
Jongman (1988: 56). In Jongman’s defence, though, it has to be noted that our knowledge
of Pompeii’s past, and our awareness of the site’s chronological complexity, have increased
dramatically since the mid-1980s, when he wrote his book.
30
Frank (1918; 1927: 245–70).
OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF –REVISES, 2/11/2016, SPi
6Miko Flohr and Andrew Wilson
Comp. by: Vasanthi Stage : Revises2 ChapterID: 0002791098 Date:2/11/16 Time:13:07:05
Filepath:d:/womat-filecopy/0002791098.3D
Dictionary : OUP_UKdictionary 7
the evidence for agriculture, manufacturing, and trade.
31
Though the emphasis
of his work is very much on the evidence, and though the book lacks interpret-
ation and a clear conclusion, Sievers mostly followed Frank’s emphasis on the
scale of some manufacturing establishments, and on the significance of the
Pompeian textile industry.
32
After the Second World War, the work of Frank
would be the starting point for scholars belonging to the group of Wilhelmina
Jashemski, who studied specific branches of the Pompeian manufacturing
economy in greater detail: Walter Moeller investigated the evidence for textile
production at Pompeii, Robert Curtis focused on the garum industry, while
Betty Jo Mayeske analysed Pompeii’s bakeries.
33
Generally, these works tended
to echo the modernist views outlined by Frank, but they were never joined up
into a wider picture of the Pompeian economy.
A second important line of thinking about Pompeii’s economy started with
Amedeo Maiuri, who believed that Pompeii underwent significant socio-
economic changes in the years following the AD 62/3 earthquake, leading to
the emergence of a class of entrepreneurs and the retirement of the traditional
urban elite. While his dramatic picture of the last years of Pompeii is now almost
universally rejected, it should not be forgotten that a key contribution of Maiuri,
who was one of the very few before the 1990s to excavate underneath the AD 79
floor levels, was his emphasis on the notion of chronological change, something
that had been almost completely absent from earlier scholarship.
34
Moreover,
his idea that the archaeological record of Pompeii does to some extent reflect a
city in upheaval rather than a ‘normal’situation has—rightly—remained very
central to Pompeian scholarship since, albeit on a methodological level.
35
The late 1980s and early 1990s arguably marked a watershed in the debate
about Pompeii’s economy. There was, of course, the pivotal monograph on the
city’s economy and society by Jongman, which, even though its central argu-
ment suffered, at points, from primitivist dogmatism, played a major role in
highlighting some of the methodological shortcomings of earlier Pompeian
scholarship, and helped to introduce the approaches and models of economic
historians to the study of Pompeii. Jongman’s work received a mixed reception,
and it may be argued that it did not help that he did not really provide a
powerful model for making sense of the visible archaeological remains of
the city: his analysis mostly focused on Pompeii’s epigraphic record.
36
More
important in their impact on subsequent approaches to Pompeii’s economy
were the works of Wallace-Hadrill and Laurence, in which these archaeological
31
Sievers (1938).
32
See e.g. on bakeries Sievers (1938: 22) and on the textile industry Sievers (1938: 72).
33
Moeller (1962; 1976); Curtis (1973); Mayeske (1972).
34
Maiuri (1942). See, for a rebuttal, esp. Wallace-Hadrill (1994: 122–31), and Monteix (2010:
3–36).
35
See e.g. Allison (2004). Chapter 7 (this volume).
36
Jongman (1988). See also Chapter 2 (this volume), and Wilson (2002: 234–6).
OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF –REVISES, 2/11/2016, SPi
Introduction: Investigating an Urban Economy 7
Comp. by: Vasanthi Stage : Revises2 ChapterID: 0002791098 Date:2/11/16 Time:13:07:06
Filepath:d:/womat-filecopy/0002791098.3D
Dictionary : OUP_UKdictionary 8
remains play a much more central role. Wallace-Hadrill offered, in his depiction
of Pompeii as a society organized around houses, a powerful vantage point from
which to look at the structure of Pompeii’s urban economy: the atrium house
was not only the focal point of Pompeii’s society, but also the pivot around
which much of Pompeii’s economic life was organized.
37
Laurence, while
interested more in urban space than in Pompeii’s economy, outlined, in a
much more refined way than had been done before, the city’s economic
topography, and gave a rough sketch of Pompeii’s commercial landscape.
38
It makes sense to group these three monographs together, as they marked a
significant departure from ‘traditional’approaches to Pompeii, and paved
the way for many subsequent approaches to the city’s economic life. At
the same time, these books also have in common the fact that they antedate the
revolution in Pompeian archaeology that started to take place from the late
1990s onwards, when, due to changed policies under the directorship of Pietro
Giovanni Guzzo, a large number of research projects started to explore
Pompeii in a more or less systematic manner underneath the AD 79 floor
levels.
39
While not all projects have published their final results, and while
few of them were specifically interested in questions about the Pompeian
economy, this development has completely changed our view of Pompeii’s
history and, as a consequence, has also affected our understanding of Pom-
peii’s economic history. Moreover, there have been several projects that have
specifically investigated aspects of Pompeii’s artisanal economy, and have
dramatically improved our knowledge of Pompeii’s shops and workshops.
40
These developments mean that a reassessment of Pompeii’s economy and of
the significance of its evidence for the Roman economy in general, is timely,
and have had a clear impact on the chapters of the present volume.
ABOUT THE PRESENT VOLUME
This volume approaches the Pompeian economy from a variety of perspec-
tives. Whereas traditional emphasis in the study of Pompeii’s economy has
lain mostly with everyday economic processes like manufacturing, trade, and
retail in the city itself, the focus here is predominantly on four other themes.
37
Wallace-Hadrill (1994: 134–42).
38
Laurence (1994); for an earlier approach see Raper (1977).
39
For results of these developments see e.g. Guzzo and Guidobaldi (2005); Coarelli and
Pesando (2006); Amoroso (2007); Guidobaldi and Guzzo (2008); Verzar-Bass and Oriolo (2010);
Ellis (2011).
40
In particular, the project of the Centre Jean Bérard (see esp. Borgard et al. [2003; 2005]), the
Cleaning the Laundries Project (Flohr [2007; 2008; 2011]), and the work of Nicolas Monteix and
his team on Pompeii’s bakeries (Monteix et al. [2012; 2013; 2014]).
OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF –REVISES, 2/11/2016, SPi
8Miko Flohr and Andrew Wilson
Comp. by: Vasanthi Stage : Revises2 ChapterID: 0002791098 Date:2/11/16 Time:13:07:06
Filepath:d:/womat-filecopy/0002791098.3D
Dictionary : OUP_UKdictionary 9
Chapters 1 and 2 discuss the position of Pompeii in its regional context, and
the economic basis of the patterns of consumption visible in Pompeii’s
archaeological record. This is followed by three chapters focusing mostly on
the outcome side of the economy, and on the way in which Pompeii’s economic
performance shaped the lives of its population. Part III of the volume looks
more at the contexts in which economic life took place—focusing less on the
everyday processes, and more on the built environment within which retail and
manufacturing occurred. In Part IV, Chapters 10–13 focus on money, trade, and
the way in which evidence from Pompeii enables us to understand economic
processes in the wider region of the Bay of Naples and beyond. The volume
concludes with Chapter14, by Willem Jongman, on the way in which the
arguments presented in this volume alter the picture of the state of Pompeii’s
economy, and affect ongoing debates about the Roman economy.
City and Hinterland
The first chapter serves to set the scene by giving a broad overview of the
agricultural landscape of the Vesuvian region in the first century AD. Discuss-
ing the evidence for wine production, cereals, oleiculture, horticulture, and
woodland farming in the territories of Naples, Pompeii, and Nola, Ferdinando
De Simone sketches, for the entire Vesuvian region, a highly integrated and
specialized agricultural economy, in which cities, for certain agricultural
products, were dependent on the territory of neighbouring cities and on the
outside world; other products, however, particularly wine, were exported on a
substantial scale.
Chapter 2, by Miko Flohr, homes in on the city itself and discusses some of
the basic parameters that underlay Pompeii’s economy, particularly focusing on
the relationships between population, hinterland, and consumption. Starting
from a critical analysis of Pompeii’s excavated housing stock, the chapter argues
that the city’s size and the degree to which sub-elite groups had structural access
to elements of the elite lifestyle can only be understood from Pompeii’stieswith
the outside world, whether through trade or through capital flows.
Quality of Life
The subsequent chapter, by Nick Ray, explores the possibilities of applying
consumer theory to the Pompeian record. Ray uses a set of statistical tools to
analyse assemblages of everyday domestic artefacts found in a selection of
Pompeian houses, particularly focusing on metal, glass, and pottery vessels.
The analysis highlights not only the fact that a wide range of artefacts was
available to many people at Pompeii, but also that different households of
OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF –REVISES, 2/11/2016, SPi
Introduction: Investigating an Urban Economy 9
Comp. by: Vasanthi Stage : Revises2 ChapterID: 0002791098 Date:2/11/16 Time:13:07:06
Filepath:d:/womat-filecopy/0002791098.3D
Dictionary : OUP_UKdictionary 10
comparable socio-economic status followed differing consumption strategies,
suggesting that a modern concept such as ‘consumerism’may be of consider-
able use in understanding Pompeii’s consumer economy.
Chapter 4, by Erica Rowan, focuses on food consumption. While the chap-
ter’s primary focus lies with the food remains found in the sewer underneath
Cardo V at Herculaneum, the resulting picture is also relevant to an under-
standing of Pompeii’s food economy. Importantly, Rowan shows how varied
and cosmopolitan the diet in both Pompeii and Herculaneum had become,
and how that appears to have been a development of the last centuries BC—
earlier, the diet appears to have been much more locally oriented.
In Chapter 5, Estelle Lazer discusses the health of Pompeii’s population based
on the skeletal remains found on site. While this is a massively complicated
dataset due to the way in which the evidence has been recorded and preserved, it
is still possible to extract some basic health indicators. These do seem to allow
for a more optimistic view of the health of the Pompeian population than some
scholars have suggested in the past. In particular, the evidence suggests that a
significant number of Pompeians was living well into old age.
Contextualizing Economic Life
The subsequent four chapters touch upon the theme of urban economic life.
One key issue in understanding Pompeii’s economy, and particularly invest-
ment, is the theme of location: not all locations in the city were commercially
attractive in the same way, or to the same degree, and understanding Pom-
peii’s commercial landscape and the strategic choices made by investors at
certain locations requires a detailed knowledge, particularly of the way people
moved through the city. Substantially refining earlier work by Laurence and
Kaiser, Chapter 6 by Eric Poehler discusses a new model of movement through
the city, one that gives a much more detailed insight into the economic
potential of certain places—not only the expected major thoroughfares of
the Via degli Augustali–Via Stabiana–Via dell’Abbondanza axis, but also
streets such as the Via Consolare, the Vicolo di Modesto, and the Via delle
Terme, which emerge as busier than had been appreciated.
41
Chapter 7, by Nicolas Monteix, gives a thorough reassessment of the evi-
dence for manufacturing and retail in Pompeii, and analyses the ways in which
it can and cannot be used to understand Pompeii’s economic history. Monteix’s
cautious approach to the evidence leads him to reject approaches based on
quantification; instead, he proposes approaches based on understanding
41
Laurence (1994); Kaiser (2011).
OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF –REVISES, 2/11/2016, SPi
10 Miko Flohr and Andrew Wilson
Comp. by: Vasanthi Stage : Revises2 ChapterID: 0002791098 Date:2/11/16 Time:13:07:06
Filepath:d:/womat-filecopy/0002791098.3D
Dictionary : OUP_UKdictionary 11
investment strategies, and on analysing the système technique,asdefined by
Bertrand Gille.
42
Chapter 8, by Damian Robinson, examines a specific area of the city,
discussing the commercial development of insula VI 1, in the north of the
city, and particularly the Casa delle Vestali, which is the largest property in the
block. Robinson starts from the data gathered by the Anglo-American Project,
and connects these to literary evidence to sketch a picture of the development
of commercial investment over time, arguing that Pompeii’s upper class,
exemplified by the consecutive owners of the Casa delle Vestali, saw economic
investment as a key priority—from the second century BC right up to the last
years of the city’s existence.
Chapter 9, by Domenico Esposito, highlights a form of production of which
the results are highly visible in Pompeii but which has rarely been discussed in
economic terms: painting. Esposito provides a detailed discussion of the
organization of two identifiable painters’workshops, showing how they oper-
ated on a relatively large scale and worked on several locations in the city at the
same time. Interestingly, the two workshops appear to have served different
segments of the market, with one working mostly for the elite, and the other
one mostly decorating middle-class houses, shops, and restaurants. The chap-
ter evokes a detailed and vivid picture of a branch of the economy that,
especially in Pompeii’s last years, must have been flourishing.
Money and Trade
Part IV groups together four chapters which explore questions of coinage,
money, and commercial transactions, starting with a methodological contribu-
tion from excavations at Pompeii and moving to a broader picture of trade in
the Bay of Naples region. In Chapter 10, Steven J. R. Ellis explores the analytical
possibilities of the coin evidence gathered in his excavation of the two house
blocks surrounding the lowest stretch of the Via Stabiana. Ellis notes that his
coins, even though many come from shops, were mostly found in construction
layers, not in deposits suggestingcoin loss; he introduces the concept of ‘afterlife
coinage’as a tool for discussing the whereabouts of coins between the moment
that they stopped circulating as coins, and the moment of their final deposition
in construction layers. At Pompeii, Ellis argues that coin finds often should be
seen as indicating building activity rather than as a proxy for retail activities; in
the Porta Stabia area they serve to highlight a commercial ‘boom’in the
Augustan period, whilst at the same time suggesting a massive increase in
monetary exchange in the preceding period in Pompeii in general.
42
Gille (1979).
OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF –REVISES, 2/11/2016, SPi
Introduction: Investigating an Urban Economy 11
Comp. by: Vasanthi Stage : Revises2 ChapterID: 0002791098 Date:2/11/16 Time:13:07:06
Filepath:d:/womat-filecopy/0002791098.3D
Dictionary : OUP_UKdictionary 12
The next three chapters relate the evidence of Pompeii to the wider historical
context in which the city operated. Chapter 11, by Richard Hobbs, discusses the
Republican coins found in the excavation of insula VI 6, highlighting both the
circulation of large quantitiesof coins from cities in the Western Mediterranean,
particularly Ebusus and Massalia, alongside local (or regional) imitations of
these coins, which sheds new light on the commercial ties of Pompeii and the
Bay of Naples region in the second and early first centuries BC.
The subsequent chapter by Koenraad Verboven discusses currency and
credit in the entire Bay of Naples area. Focusing on the first century AD,
Verboven sketches the structural elements of the monetary economy of the
region within which Pompeii functioned. Connecting evidence from within
the city and the archive of the Sulpicii, found just outside Pompeii but
referring principally to transactions at Puteoli, with literary and juridical
texts, he argues that, while coins were a dominant element in the regional
money system, credit and accounting instruments played a crucial role in the
economy, reducing transaction costs perhaps to an extent rare in many other
places in the Roman world.
The archive of the Sulpicii also plays a central role in Chapter 13, by Wim
Broekaert, who focuses on the social institutions and juridical frameworks
surrounding long-distance trade in the port of Puteoli, and particularly on how
traders dealt with fraudulent business partners. Broekaert shows how the close-
knit business community at Puteoli used the flexibility inherent in the Roman
juridical system, as well as reputation mechanisms, to prevent their business
partners from fraudulent behaviour. While this chapter does not directly deal
with Pompeii itself, it highlights a central element in the economic world in
which Pompeii functioned: the everyday processes of business and trade.
The volume concludes with a response by Wim Jongman, whose 1988
monograph on the economy and society of Pompeii has played a pivotal
role in approaches to Pompeii’s economy over the past twenty-five years. In
Chapter 14, Jongman assesses how research over the intervening period has
altered the picture, and suggests further avenues for fresh enquiry, in particu-
lar, on understanding the economic realities of agriculture in the Vesuvian
region. As he rightly observes, the chapters of this volume together provide a
more positive assessment of Pompeii’s economic performance than some past
accounts—including Jongman’s own.
DISCUSSION
Our view of Pompeii’s economic history is far from complete yet, and as
several of the contributions to this volume have suggested, there are still many
roads that can and need to be explored further, particularly when it comes to
OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF –REVISES, 2/11/2016, SPi
12 Miko Flohr and Andrew Wilson
Comp. by: Vasanthi Stage : Revises2 ChapterID: 0002791098 Date:2/11/16 Time:13:07:06
Filepath:d:/womat-filecopy/0002791098.3D
Dictionary : OUP_UKdictionary 13
our understanding of the city’s consumer economy, the economic strategies
that shaped the built environment, and the ties of Pompeii with its regional
surroundings, and its immediate hinterland and agricultural production. The
chronological dimension of our understanding of Pompeii’s economy can also
be strengthened considerably, as undoubtedly will happen following the final
publication of all projects that, in recent years, have explored the historical
development of Pompeii’sinsulae. Yet, in this volume, Chapters 4, 8, 10, and
11 already highlight how Pompeii’s economy changed between the second
century BC and the first century AD. While Pompeii will never provide us with
the possibility to discuss the historical development of an urban economy
from the beginnings of urbanization to late antiquity, it does provide us with
the possibility to study the development of an urban economy from the middle
Republican period until the late first century AD, when urbanism in Roman
Italy was at its peak, or close to it. Moreover, it increasingly does so in a way
that is unparalleled elsewhere: any scepticism about the possibility of studying
historical change in the urban economy of Pompeii implies scepticism about
the general possibility to do this in any urban economy in the Roman world.
Thus it seems worthwhile to delineate the broad characteristics, as they
currently appear, of Pompeii’s economy on the eve of the city’s destruction.
We should not lose sight of the fact that Pompeii was a port city on the Bay of
Naples, and even though its harbour has not been identified with certainty, we
may presume it served at least three functions: the export of some of the
agricultural production (especially wine, as discussed by De Simone) of the
city’s territory, and that of Nuceria and Nola too; the import of a range of
consumption goods from overseas; and, probably, a role as a fishing harbour
providing at least the city and immediately neighbouring villas with fresh fish
and shellfish, and no doubt also serving the fish-salting industry, of which
there is evidence.
The city’s connectivity, and its particular location on the Bay of Naples, with
a high concentration of elite (including senatorial and equestrian) villas in the
vicinity, perhaps gave it access to an unusually wealthy market. Estimates of
the population (see Chapter 2) at between 7,500 and 13,000 (including the
immediate suburbs) put Pompeii squarely in the range of middling cities, well
above the hundreds of towns with populations of up to c.5,000, but well behind
the larger cities (many of them ports) around the Mediterranean whose
populations ranged from 25,000 to in excess of 100,000.
43
The city’s role as
a local and perhaps regional market is emphasized by 800 shops lining
the main streets, their location strongly influenced by the intensity of traffic
along particular thoroughfares. These fixed installations for the sale of par-
ticular goods, in addition to the commercial public spaces of the forum and
43
Cf. Wilson (2011).
OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF –REVISES, 2/11/2016, SPi
Introduction: Investigating an Urban Economy 13
Comp. by: Vasanthi Stage : Revises2 ChapterID: 0002791098 Date:2/11/16 Time:13:07:06
Filepath:d:/womat-filecopy/0002791098.3D
Dictionary : OUP_UKdictionary 14
macellum, are perhaps a characteristic feature of Roman urbanism in the
Western provinces; they show a thriving retail economy, with a high degree
of specialized trades, serving both local residents and the inhabitants of the
surrounding villas. Especially interesting is a group of fourteen tabernae built
as a single complex outside the Herculaneum gate, clearly an investment in
commercial property. Striking too is the high number—158—of bars and
establishments selling hot food, although it is unclear whether Pompeii was
unusual in this respect, or that we simply do not have evidence of equivalent
quality from elsewhere.
44
The thirty-nine bakeries suggest that, by the mid- to
late first century AD, most of the urban population consumed shop-bought
bread, again an indication of specialization of labour; the finds of large
numbers of commercial mills at, for example, Timgad, Djemila, and Volubilis,
suggests that this was not unusual in the Roman Empire, at least from the
second century AD.
45
This commercial landscape was animated by a high
degree of monetization, with the use of small change facilitating quotidian
purchases, and credit arrangements available for larger, mercantile, transac-
tions and investments.
The numerous tabernae included a number of relatively small-scale work-
shops, as well as retail shops, but the urban landscape of production was also
characterized by a number of larger-scale workshops, some inserted into large
atrium houses, and thus implying sufficient wealth to own such a property.
46
Those which can be identified from their archaeologically durable built
infrastructure include dyeworks, fullonicae, tanneries, perfume workshops,
and pottery workshops. The evidence demonstrates capital investment in
specialized plant for a variety of manufacturing processes, and incidentally
gives the lie to the notion that smelly and polluting activities were banished
outside the city limits.
47
Moreover, a series of workshops (the so-called
officinae lanifricariae) whose function is disputed—some see them as for
washing fleeces—also represent specialized investment in some kind of pro-
duction; whatever these were for, there are between thirteen and twenty-four
of them.
48
Together with the epigraphic evidence for the production of fish
sauce and related products at Pompeii, by A. Umbricius Scaurus and others, it
seems that the city’s production activities encompassed a range of products,
each produced on a scale requiring multiple specialized workshops—and, in
the case of textiles, specialized workshops for different stages of production.
Some properties in the east of the city also specialized in market gardening
and viticulture.
44
Chapter 7 (this volume: 218).
45
Volubilis: Luquet (1966). Timgad and Djemila: A. Wilson, personal observation in 2013.
For the Pompeian bakeries see Chapter 7 (this volume: 218).
46
Cf. Flohr (2007).
47
See on this, also Flohr (2013: 229–34); Monteix (2013).
48
Chapter 7 (this volume: Figure 7.3).
OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF –REVISES, 2/11/2016, SPi
14 Miko Flohr and Andrew Wilson
Comp. by: Vasanthi Stage : Revises2 ChapterID: 0002791098 Date:2/11/16 Time:13:07:06
Filepath:d:/womat-filecopy/0002791098.3D
Dictionary : OUP_UKdictionary 15
These shops and workshops, and larger production units, often formed part
of elite property portfolios (as Chapter 8 emphasizes), which also included
rental properties. We cannot always be sure whether shops incorporated into
the street façades of elite houses were directly owned, and run through slaves,
or through freedman agents, or were rented out; but the key point is that
income from them formed an integral part of the income streams of Pompeii’s
elites. Certainly A. Umbricius Scaurus, with a floor mosaic in his atrium
representing the urcei in which his fish sauce was traded (complete with tituli
picti), was not shy about advertising his involvement in trade to visitors.
49
In
Pompeii, profit was not something of which to be ashamed.
To sum up, Pompeians consumed a rather varied diet, lived reasonably long
and healthy lives, and had relatively easy access to consumer goods and art.
The city’s economy was highly monetized from at least the late first century BC
onwards, and maintained active ties with the Bay of Naples region and
beyond. Continuous investment in commercial facilities like shops and work-
shops testifies the vibrant and stable character of the Pompeian economy.
Indeed, for a pre-industrial city, first-century AD Pompeii was performing
rather well, and it increasingly seems that it had been doing so for at least
the two preceding centuries as well. We can only conjecture what its devel-
opmental trajectory might have been like had its growth not been suddenly
arrested in AD 79; how would it have compared, in the mid-second century,
with other cities on the Bay of Naples and ports around the Mediterranean?
As far as the Roman economy is concerned, this book does not offer a lot of
support for the more pessimistic readings of Roman economic performance.
Two general points may be mentioned. In the first place, many chapters
highlight the interconnectedness of Pompeii’s economy. As Chapter 11
emphasizes, this began long before the grain fleet started to arrive in Puteoli
on a yearly basis: from at least the second century BC onwards, Pompeii and its
surrounding countryside were connected, directly or indirectly, to the Medi-
terranean trade system, and these connections, which also facilitated the trade
in Vesuvian wine, were of vital importance in shaping the Pompeian economy,
and its society. Without these networks, Pompeii would have been a different,
and probably a smaller and less wealthy city. Secondly, Pompeii, and—as
Chapter 4 clearly suggests—Herculaneum as well, were able not only to
support the consumption of luxuries by a small group of elite households,
but also by large parts of the rest of the population. Even if the Bay of Naples
region is not representative of Roman Italy or the Roman world in general, this
means that, under the right circumstances, Roman urban economies were able
to provide opportunities for non-poor, non-elite households to accumulate
wealth, and—thus—enable them to use the urban economy as a tool for social
49
On these mosaics see Curtis (1984).
OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF –REVISES, 2/11/2016, SPi
Introduction: Investigating an Urban Economy 15
Comp. by: Vasanthi Stage : Revises2 ChapterID: 0002791098 Date:2/11/16 Time:13:07:06
Filepath:d:/womat-filecopy/0002791098.3D
Dictionary : OUP_UKdictionary 16
advancement. Whether we want to call these households ‘middling groups’,
‘middle class’, or something else does not matter: their existence adds a
flexibility to Roman socio-economic landscapes that should not be underesti-
mated. The question should thus no longer be whether these non-poor, non-
elite households existed, but how common they were and under which
circumstances they could flourish: their presence or absence is a useful tool
for understanding the success or failure of specific urban economies.
In any case, looking at mid-first-century AD Pompeii—before the earth-
quakes began—one sees a flourishing urban economy that essentially was
neither primitive nor modern, but that profited massively from the unique
political and economic circumstances created by its position in the heart of the
Roman Empire. Studying this very specific urban economy is not a cul-de-sac,
but serves to illuminate also the larger historical processes at work, and what
they could bring to local economies. In this respect, it is only to be hoped that
future work on the economic history of specific cities will enable the scholarly
community to compare the local ‘outcomes’of these large historical processes
in a more informed way.
REFERENCES
Allison, P. M. (2004). Pompeian Households: An Analysis of the Material Culture. Los
Angeles.
Amoroso, A. (2007). L’Insula VII, 10 di Pompei. Analisi stratigrafica e proposte di
ricostruzione (Studi della Soprintendenza archeologica di Pompei 22). Rome.
Banaji, J. (1989). Review of W. Jongman, “The Economy and Society of Pompeii ”,
JRS 79: 229–31.
Borgard, Ph., Brun, J.-P., Leguilloux, M., and Tuffreau-Libre, M. (2003). ‘Le produ-
zioni artigianali a Pompei. Richerche condotte dal Centre Jean Bérard’,Rivista di
Studi Pompeiani 14: 9–29.
Borgard, Ph., Brun, J.-P., Leguilloux, M., Monteix, N., Collin-Mingaud, M., and Libre,
M. T. (2005). ‘Recherches sur les productions artisanales à Pompéi et Herculaneum’,
in Guzzo and Guidobaldi (2005), 295–317.
Camodeca, G. (1992). L’Archivio Puteolano dei Sulpicii. Naples.
Cherry, D. (2007). ‘The frontier zones’, in Scheidel, Morris, and Saller (2007), 720–43.
Coarelli, F. and Pesando, F. (2006). Rileggere Pompei I. L’insula 10 della Regio VI (Studi
della Soprintendenza archeologica di Pompei 12). Rome.
Coarelli, F. and Pesando, F. (2011). ‘The urban development of NW Pompeii: the
Archaic period to the 3rd c. B.C.’, in Ellis (2011), 37–58.
Curti, E. (2008). ‘Il tempio di Venere Fisica e il porto di Pompei’, in Guidobaldi and
Guzzo (2008), 47–60.
Curtis, R. I. (1973). The Garum Industry of Pompeii. College Park, MD.
Curtis, R. I. (1984). ‘A personalized floor mosaic from Pompeii’,AJA 88.4, 557–66.
OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF –REVISES, 2/11/2016, SPi
16 Miko Flohr and Andrew Wilson
Comp. by: Vasanthi Stage : Revises2 ChapterID: 0002791098 Date:2/11/16 Time:13:07:07
Filepath:d:/womat-filecopy/0002791098.3D
Dictionary : OUP_UKdictionary 17
D’Arms, J. (1970). Romans on the Bay of Naples: A Social and Cultural Study of the
Villas and their Owners from 150 B.C. to A.D. 400. Cambridge.
De Haan, N., Peterse, C., Piras, S., and Schipper, F. (2005). ‘The Casa degli Scienziati
(VI 14, 43): elite architecture in fourth-century B.C. Pompeii’, in Guzzo and
Guidobaldi (2005), 257–69.
De’Spagnolis Conticello, M. (1994). Il Pons Sarni di Scafati e la Via Nuceria: Pompeios.
Rome.
Dobbins, J. J. and Foss, P. (2007) (eds). The World of Pompeii. London and New York.
Ellis, S. (2008). ‘A new Pompeian textbook. Review of J. Dobbins and P. Foss (eds),
“The World of Pompeii”’.JRA 21.2: 450–7.
Ellis, S. (2011) (ed.). The Making of Pompeii: Studies in the History and Urban
Development of an Ancient Town (JRA Suppl. 85). Portsmouth, RI.
Engels, D. (1990). Roman Corinth: An Alternative Model for the Classical City.
Chicago.
Erdkamp, P. P. M. (2012). ‘Urbanism’, in Scheidel (2012), 241–65.
Finley, M. I. (1977). ‘The ancient city: from Fustel de Coulanges to Max Weber and
beyond’,CSSH 19: 305–27.
Flohr, M. (2007). ‘Cleaning the laundries: report of the 2006 season’,Rivista di Studi
Pompeiani 18: 131–6.
Flohr, M. (2008). ‘Cleaning the laundries III: report of the 2007 campaign’,FOLD&R 111
<http://www.fastionline.org/docs/FOLDER-it-2008-111.pdf> (accessed 8 June 2016).
Flohr, M. (2011). ‘Cleaning the laundries III: report of the 2008 campaign’,FOLD&R 214
<http://www.fastionline.org/docs/FOLDER-it-2011-214.pdf> (accessed 8 June 2016).
Flohr, M. (2013). The World of the Fullo: Work, Economy and Society in Roman Italy
(Oxford Studies on the Roman Economy). Oxford.
Flohr, M. and Wilson, A. I. (2016). ‘Roman craftsmen and traders: towards an
intellectual history’, in A. I. Wilson and M. Flohr (eds), Urban craftsmen and traders
in the Roman World (Oxford Studies on the Roman Economy). Oxford, 23–54.
Frank, T. (1918). ‘The economic life of an ancient city’,Classical Philology 13.3: 225–40.
Frank, T. (1927). An Economic History of Rome. New York.
FranklinJr,J.(1990).ReviewofW.Jongman,“The Economy and Society of
Pompeii”,American History Review 95.2: 469–70.
Frier, B. W. (1991). ‘Pompeii’s economy and society. Review of W. Jongman, “The
Economy and Society of Pompeii”’,JRA 4: 243–7.
Gille, B. (1979). ‘La notion de système technique (essai d’épistémologie technique)’,
Techniques & Culture 1: 8–18.
Guidobaldi, M.-P. and Guzzo, P.-G. (2008) (eds). Nuove Ricerche Archeologiche
nell’Area Vesuviana (scavi 2003–2006) (Studi della Soprintendenza archeologica di
Pompei 25). Rome.
Guzzo, P.-G. (2011). ‘The origins and development of Pompeii: the state of our
understanding and some working hypotheses’, in Ellis (2011), 11–18.
Guzzo, P.-G. and Guidobaldi, M.-P. (2005) (eds). Nuove ricerche archeologiche a Pompei
ed Ercolano (Studi della Soprintendenza archeologica di Pompei 10). Naples.
Harris, W. (2007). ‘The late republic’, in Scheidel, Morris, and Saller (2007), 511–39.
Jaschke, K. (2010). Die Wirtschafts- und Sozialgeschichte des antiken Puteoli (Pharos.
Studien zur griechisch-römischen Antike 26). Rahden.
OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF –REVISES, 2/11/2016, SPi
Introduction: Investigating an Urban Economy 17
Comp. by: Vasanthi Stage : Revises2 ChapterID: 0002791098 Date:2/11/16 Time:13:07:07
Filepath:d:/womat-filecopy/0002791098.3D
Dictionary : OUP_UKdictionary 18
Jongman, W. (1988). The Economy and Society of Pompeii. Amsterdam.
Jongman, W. (2007). ‘The early Roman Empire: consumption’, in Scheidel, Morris,
and Saller (2007), 592–618.
Kaiser, A. (2011). Roman Urban Street Networks. New York.
Kehoe, D. (2007). ‘The early Roman Empire: production’, in Scheidel, Morris, and
Saller (2007), 543–69.
Kron, G. (2012). ‘Food production’, in Scheidel (2012), 156–74.
Laurence, R. (1994). Roman Pompeii: Space and Society. London.
Leveau, P. (1984). Caesarea de Maurétanie: une ville romaine et ses campagnes
(Collection de l’École française de Rome 70). Rome.
Leveau, P. (2007). ‘The western provinces’, in Scheidel, Morris, and Saller (2007), 651–70.
Luquet, A. (1966). ‘Blé et Meunerie à Volubilis’,BAMaroc 6: 301–16.
Maiuri, A. (1942). L’ultima fase edilizia di Pompei. Rome.
Mattingly, D., Stone, D., Stirling, L., and Ben Lazreg, N. (2000). ‘Leptiminus (Tunisia):
a“producer”city?’, in D. Mattingly and J. Salmon(eds), Economies beyond agricul-
ture in the classical world. London, 66–89.
Mattingly, D. J., Stone, D. L., Stirling, L. M., Moore, J. P., Wilson, A. I., Dore, J. N., and
Ben Lazreg, N. (2011). ‘Economy’, in D. L. Stone, D. J. Mattingly, and N. Ben Lazreg
(eds), Leptiminus (Lamta), Report No. 3: The Field Survey (JRA Suppl.). Portsmouth,
RI, 205–71.
Mayeske, B.-J. (1972). Bakeries, Bakers and Bread at Pompeii: A Study in Social and
Economic History. Ann Arbor, MI.
Moeller, W. O. (1962). The Woolen Industry at Pompeii. College Park, MD.
Moeller, W. O. (1976). The Wool Trade of Ancient Pompeii. Leiden.
Monteix, N. (2010). Les lieux de métier: boutiques et ateliers d’Herculanum (Collection
du centre Jean Bérard 34). Rome.
Monteix, N. (2013). ‘The apple of discord: fleece-washing in Pompeii’s textile econ-
omy’,JRA 26: 79–88.
Monteix, N., Aho, S., Garnier, L., Hartz, C., Letelier, É., and Zanella, S. (2012). ‘Pompéi,
Pistrina: Recherches sur les boulangeries de l’Italie romaine’,CEFR. <http://cefr.
revues.org/328> (accessed 8 June 2016).
Monteix, N., Aho, S., Coutelas, A., and Zanella, S. (2014). ‘Pompéi, Pistrina: Recherches
sur les boulangeries de l’Italie romaine: Rapport général’,CEFR. <http://cefr.revues.
org/1242> (accessed 8 June 2016).
Monteix, N., Zanella, S., Aho, S., Macario, R., and Proudfoot, E. (2013). ‘Pompéi,
Pistrina: Recherches sur les boulangeries de l’Italie romaine’,CEFR. <http://cefr.
revues.org/954> (accessed 8 June 2016).
Moormann, E. (2007). ‘Villas surrounding Pompeii and Herculaneum’, in Dobbins
and Foss (2007), 435–54.
Morley, N. (2007). ‘The early Roman Empire: distribution’, in Scheidel, Morris, and
Saller (2007), 570–91.
Oettel, A. (1996). Fundkontexte römischer Vesuvvillen im Gebiet um Pompeji. Mainz.
Pesando, F. (2006). ‘Il “Secolo d’Oro”di Pompei. Aspetti dell’architettura pubblica e
privata nel II secolo a.c.’, in M. Osanna and M. Torelli (eds), Sicilia ellenistica,
consuetudo italica. Alle origini dell’architettura ellenistica d’Occidente. Rome and
Pisa, 227–41.
OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF –REVISES, 2/11/2016, SPi
18 Miko Flohr and Andrew Wilson
Comp. by: Vasanthi Stage : Revises2 ChapterID: 0002791098 Date:2/11/16 Time:13:07:07
Filepath:d:/womat-filecopy/0002791098.3D
Dictionary : OUP_UKdictionary 19
Peterse, C. (2007). ‘Select residences in regions V and IX: early anonymous domestic
architecture’, in Dobbins and Foss (2007), 373–88.
Peterse, C. and De Waele, J. (2005). ‘The standardized design of the Casa degli
Scienziati’, in S. Mols and E. Moormann (eds), Omni pede stare. Saggi Architettonici
e circumvesuviani in memoriam Jos de Waele. Naples, 197–219.
Purcell, N. (1990). ‘The economy of an ancient town. Review of W. Jongman “The
Economy and Society of Pompeii”’,CR 40.1: 111–16.
Raper, R. (1977). ‘The analysis of the urban structure of Pompeii: a sociological
examination of land use (semi-micro)’, in D. Clarke (ed.) Spatial Archaeology.
London, 189–221.
Robinson, M. (2011). ‘The prehistoric and protohistoric archaeology of Pompeii and
the Sarno valley’, in Ellis (2011), 19–36.
Sallares, R. (2007). ‘Ecology’, in Scheidel, Morris, and Saller (2007), 15–37.
Scheidel, W. (1992). ‘Neuen Wein in leere Schläuche: Jongman’s Pompeii, Modelle
und die kampanische Landwirtschaft. Review of W. Jongman, “The Economy and
Society of Pompeii”’,Athenaeum 80: 207–13.
Scheidel, W. (2012) (ed.). The Cambridge Companion to the Roman Economy.
Cambridge.
Scheidel, W., Morris, I., and Saller, R. P. (2007) (eds). The Cambridge Economic
History of the Greco-Roman World. Cambridge.
Schneider, H. (2007). ‘Technology’, in Scheidel, Morris, and Saller (2007), 144–71.
Sievers, H. (1938). Beiträge zur Wirtschaftsgeschichte Pompejis. Hamburg.
Stefani, G. and Di Maio, G. (2003). ‘Considerazioni sulla linea di costa del 79 d.C. e sul
porto dell’antica Pompei’,Rivista di Studi Pompeiani 14: 141–95.
Tuck, S. L. (2012). ‘Puteoli’, in R. Bagnall, K. Brodersen, C. Champlin, A. Erskine, and
S. Huebner(eds), Blackwell’s Encyclopedia of Ancient History, vol. X. Oxford,
5675–6.
Verzar-Bass, M. and Oriolo, F. (2010). Rileggere Pompei II. L’Insula 13 della Regio VI
(Studi della Soprintendenza archeologica di Pompei 30). Rome.
Wallace-Hadrill, A. (1994). Houses and Society in Pompeii and Herculaneum.
Princeton, NJ.
Wilson, A. (2002). ‘Urban production in the Roman world: the view from North
Africa’,PBSR 70: 231–74.
Wilson, A. (2012). ‘Raw materials and energy’, in Scheidel (2012), 133–55.
Wilson, A. I. (2011). ‘City sizes and urbanization in the Roman Empire’,in
A. K. Bowman and A. I. Wilson (eds), Settlement, urbanization, and population
(Oxford Studies on the Roman Economy). Oxford, 160–95.
Zevi, F. (1996). ‘Pompei dalla città sannitica alla colonia sillana: per un’interpretazione
dei dati archeologici’, in M. Cébeillac-Gervasoni (ed.), Les Élites Municipales de
l’Italie Péninsulaire des Gracques à Néron. Actes de la table ronde de Clermont-
Ferrand (28–30 novembre 1991). Rome, 125–38.
OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF –REVISES, 2/11/2016, SPi
Introduction: Investigating an Urban Economy 19
