Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-p2v8j Total loading time: 0.001 Render date: 2024-06-01T13:36:58.729Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Waste Nothing: The Impact of Glass and Metal Recycling in Imperial Roman Towns

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 August 2023

Guido Furlan Open the ORCID record for Guido Furlan [Opens in a new window]  and
Chiara Andreatta Open the ORCID record for Chiara Andreatta [Opens in a new window]
Guido Furlan
Affiliation:
School of Culture and Society, Aarhus University, Denmark
Chiara Andreatta
Affiliation:
Dipartimento dei Beni Culturali, Università degli Studi di Padova, Italy
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In this article, the authors investigate the effectiveness of glass and metal recycling in Roman towns. The comparison of sealed primary deposits (reflecting what was in use in Roman towns) with dumping sites shows a marked drop in glass and metal finds in the dumps. Although different replacement ratios and fragmentation indices affect the composition of the assemblages recovered in dumps, recycling appears to have played a fundamental role, very effectively reintroducing into the productive chain most glass and metal items before their final discard. After presenting a case study from Pompeii, the authors examine contexts from other sites that suggest that recycling practices were not occasional. In sum, recycling should be considered as an effective and systematic activity that shaped the economy of Roman towns.

Dans cet article sur l'efficacité du recyclage du verre et des métaux dans les villes romaines, les auteurs comparent les gisements primaires (contextes fermés reflétant ce qui était utilisé dans ces villes) aux dépotoirs. Ces derniers ne contenaient que peu de verre et de métal. Bien que les taux de remplacement et les indices de fragmentation aient influencé la composition des ensembles provenant des dépotoirs, le recyclage semble avoir joué un rôle fondamental, réintroduisant efficacement dans la chaîne de production la majorité du verre et du métal avant qu'on s'en débarrassât définitivement. Les études de cas présentées (Pompéi, autres sites) indiquent que le recyclage était courant et que c’était une pratique efficace et systématique faisant partie intrinsèque de l’économie des villes romaines. Translation by Madeleine Hummler

Die Verfasser dieses Artikels untersuchen die Effektivität der Wiederverwertung von Glas und Metall in römischen Städten. Der Vergleich von geschlossenen Befunden (welche, was in diesen Städten gebraucht wurde, widerspiegeln) mit Abfalldeponien zeigt, dass die Letzteren sehr wenig Glas und Metall enthielten. Obschon unterschiedliche Wiederverwertungs- und Fragmentierungsverhältnisse auf die Zusammensetzung der Befunde in den Abfalldeponien einwirkten, scheint es, dass die Wiederverwertung eine grundsätzliche Rolle gespielt hat und dass die meisten Glas- und Metallteilen sehr effektiv in die produktive Kette wiedereingegliedert wurden, bevor sie schließlich weggeworfen wurden. Fallstudien aus Pompeji und anderen Fundstätten lassen darauf schließen, dass die Wiederverwertung gängig war. Sie soll also als eine effektive und systematische Praxis angesehen werden, welche die Wirtschaft der römischen Städten prägte. Translation by Madeleine Hummler

Keywords

Roman archaeologyurban archaeologyRoman economyrecyclingglassmetalarchéologie romainearchéologie urbaineéconomie romainerecyclageverremétalrömische ArchäologieStadtarchäologierömische WirtschaftWiederverwertungGlasMetall
Type
Article
Information
European Journal of Archaeology , Volume 26 , Issue 4 , November 2023 , pp. 467 - 485
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the European Association of Archaeologists

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Allison, P.M. 2006. The Insula of the Menander in Pompeii Volume 3: The Finds, a Contextual Study. Oxford: Oxford University Press,CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allison, P.M. 2021. Dataset accompanying Allison, 2006 [online] [accessed 7 June 2023]. Available at: <https://leicester.figshare.com/articles/dataset/Insula_of_the_Menander_at_Pompeii/14494557>>Google Scholar
Artioli, G., Ghedini, E.F., Modena, C., Bonetto, J. & Busana, M.S. 2019. Foreword: The MACH Project and the Case Study of the Sarno Baths in Pompeii. Journal of Cultural Heritage, 40: 228. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.culher.2019.08.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ballet, P., Cordier, P. & Dieudonné-Glad, N. eds. 2003. La ville et ses déchets dans le monde romain: rebuts et recyclages. Actes du Colloque de Poitiers (19–21 septembre 2002). Montagnac: Monique Mergoil.Google Scholar
Bar-Oz, G., Bouchnik, R., Weiss, E., Weissbrod, L., Bar-Yosef Mayer, D.E. & Reich, R. 2007. ‘Holy Garbage’: A Quantitative Study of the City-Dump of Early Roman Jerusalem. Levant, 39: 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1179/lev.2007.39.1.1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bavuso, I., Furlan, G., Intagliata, E. & Steding, J. forthcoming. Economic Circularity in the Roman and Early Medieval Worlds. Oxford: Oxbow.Google Scholar
Beck, M.E. 2006. Midden Ceramic Assemblage Formation: A Case Study from Kalinga, Philippines. American Antiquity, 71: 27–51. https://doi.org/10.2307/40035320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berg, R. 2019. Distribution Patterns. In: Berg, R. & Kuivalainen, I., eds. Domus Pompeiana M. Lucretii IX 3, 5.24: The Inscriptions, Works of Art and Finds from the Old and New Excavations. Vantaa: Societas Scientiarum Fennica, pp. 54–67.Google Scholar
Berg, R. & Kuivalainen, I. eds. 2019. Domus Pompeiana M. Lucretii IX 3, 5.24: The Inscriptions, Works of Art and Finds from the Old and New Excavations. Vantaa: Societa Scientiarum Fennica.Google Scholar
Bernal Casasola, D., Arévalo González, A., Muñoz Vicente, A., García Jiménez, I., Bustamante Álvarez, M. & Sáez Romero, A.M. 2011. Baelo Claudia. In: Remolà Vallverdú, J.A. & Acero Pérez, J., eds. La gestión de los residuos urbanos en Hispania: Xavier Dupré Raventós (1956–2006), In Memoriam. Mérida: Instituto de Arqueología de Mérida, pp. 65–92.Google Scholar
Berry, J. 1997. Household Artefacts: Re-Interpreting Roman Domestic Space. In: Laurence, R. & Wallace-Hadrill, A., eds. Domestic Space in the Roman World: Pompeii and Beyond (Journal of Roman Archaeology Supplementary Series 22). Portsmouth (RI): Journal of Roman Archaeology, pp. 183–95.Google Scholar
Bonetto, J., Furlan, G. & Ghiotto, A.R. 2017. Problematiche e potenzialità informative dei materiali residui in contesti archeologici urbani. I depositi pluristratificati dell'area del foro di Nora. In: Cupitò, M., Vidale, M. & Angelini, A., eds. Beyond Limits: Studi in onore di Giovanni Leonardi. Padova: Padova University Press, pp. 61–87.Google Scholar
Bonetto, J., Furlan, G., Ghiotto, A.R. & Missaglia, I. 2020. Il canale Anfora e il centro urbano di Aquileia: osservazioni cronologiche alla luce di nuovi dati. Journal of Ancient Topography, 30: 175–202.Google Scholar
Bray, P. 2020. Modelling Roman Concepts of Copper-Alloy Recycling and Mutability: The Chemical Characterization Hypothesis and Roman Britain. In: Duckworth, C.N. & Wilson, A., eds. Recycling and Reuse in the Roman Economy. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 237–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brill, R. 2012. Chemical Analyses of Some Glasses from Pompeii. In: Scatozza Höricht, L.A., ed. L'instrumentum vitreum di Pompei. Roma: Aracne, pp. 373–401.Google Scholar
Castiglione Morelli, V. 1996. La ceramica comune nell'instrumentum domesticum della casa di C. Giulio Polibio a Pompei. In: Bats, M., ed. Les céramiques communes de Campanie et de Narbonnaise. La vaisselle de cuisine et de table, Actes des journées d‟étude organisées par le Centre Jean Bérard et la Soprintendenza Archeologica per le province di Napoli e Caserta, Naples 27–28 Mai 1994. Naples: Centre Jean Bérard, pp. 105–12.Google Scholar
Castiglione Morelli, V. & Vitale, R. 1989. L'insula 8 della Regio I: un campione d'indagine socio-economica. Rivista di Studi Pompeiani, 3: 185–221. https://doi.org/10.1400/262619Google Scholar
Cerulli Irelli, G. 1974. La Casa “del colonnato tuscanico” ad Ercolano. Napoli: Gaetano Macchiaroli.Google Scholar
Chameroy, J. & Guihard, P-M. eds. 2016. Produktion und Recyceln von Münzen in der Spätantike / Produire et recycler la monnaie au Bas-Empire. Internationales Numismatikertreffen / Rencontres internationales de numismatique (15–16 mai 2014, Mainz). Mainz: Römisch-Germanisches Zentralmuseum.Google Scholar
Coralini, A. ed. 2018. Pompei, Insula IX 8: Vecchi e nuovi scavi (1879–). Bologna: Ante Quem.Google Scholar
Costello IV, B. 2014. Architecture and Material Culture from the Earthquake House at Kourion, Cyprus (British Archaeological Reports International Series 2635). Oxford: Archaeopress. https://doi.org/10.30861/9781407312729Google Scholar
Davison, S. 2003. Conservation and Restoration of Glass. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.Google Scholar
De Caro, S. 1994. La villa rustica in località Villa Regina a Boscoreale. Roma: G. Bretschneider.Google Scholar
de Kind, R.E.L.B. 1998. Houses in Herculaneum: A New View on the Town Planning and the Building of Insulae III and IV. Amsterdam: J.C. Gieben.Google Scholar
Dicus, K. 2014. Resurrecting Refuse at Pompeii: The Use-Value of Urban Refuse and its Implications for Interpreting Archaeological Assemblages. In: Platts, H., Pearce, J., Barron, C., Lundock, J. & Yoo, J., eds. TRAC 2013: Proceedings of the Twenty-Third Annual Theoretical Roman Archaeology Conference. Oxford: Oxbow, pp. 56–69.Google Scholar
Downs, M. & Medina, M. 2000. A Short History of Scavenging. Comparative Civilizations Review, 42: 23–45.Google Scholar
Dubant, D. 2003. Une décharge publique gallo-romaine (fin Ier-début IIe s. ap. J.-C.) à Tours (Indre-et-Loire, France). In: Ballet, P., Cordier, P. & Dieudonné-Glad, N., eds. La ville et ses déchets dans le monde romain : rebuts et recyclages. Actes du Colloque de Poitiers (19–21 septembre 2002). Montagnac: Monique Mergoil, pp. 165–80.Google Scholar
Duckworth, C.N. 2020. Seeking the New Approaches to Roman Glass Recycling. In: Duckworth, C.N. & Wilson, A., eds. Recycling and Reuse in the Roman Economy. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 301–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duckworth, C.N. & Wilson, A. eds. 2020. Recycling and Reuse in the Roman Economy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Filippi, D. ed. 2008. Horti et sordes – Uno scavo alle falde del Gianicolo. Roma: Quasar.Google Scholar
Freestone, I.C. 2015. The Recycling and Reuse of Roman Glass: Analytical Approaches. Journal of Glass Studies, 57: 29–40.Google Scholar
Furlan, G. 2017. When Absence Means Things Are Going Well: Waste Disposal in Roman Towns and its Impact on the Record as Observed in Aquileia. European Journal of Archaeology, 20: 317–45. https://doi.org/10.1017/eaa.2016.7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Furlan, G. 2023. Aspects of Circular Economy on an Urban and Inter-urban Scale in the Roman Age: Towards a More Holistic Model. Thiasos, 12: 341-66.Google Scholar
Furlan, G., Bonetto, J. & Nicosia, C. 2019. The Excavation of the Sequence Preserved in Front of the Façade of the Sarno Baths, Pompeii. Journal of Cultural Heritage, 40: 324–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.culher.2019.04.019CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grose, D.F. 2017. The Hellenistic, Roman and Medieval Glass from Cosa. Ann Arbor (MI): University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hayden, B. & Cannon, A. 1983. Where the Garbage Goes: Refuse Disposal in the Maya Highlands. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology, 2: 117–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/0278-4165(83)90010-7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holleran, C. 2012. Shopping in Ancient Rome: The Retail Trade in the Late Republic and the Principate. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackson, C. & Paynter, C. 2022. Baubles, Bangles and Beads: Recycling Coloured Glasses in the British Iron Age and Roman Periods. Archaeometry, 64: 150–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keller, D. 2005. Social and Economic Aspects of Glass Recycling. In: Bruhn, J., Croxford, B. & Grigoropoulos, D., eds. TRAC 2004: Proceedings of the Fourteenth Annual Theoretical Roman Archaeology Conference, Durham 2004. Oxford: Oxbow, pp. 65–78.Google Scholar
Larson, K.A. 2019. Cheap, Fast, Good: The Roman Glassblowing Revolution Reconsidered. Journal of Roman Archaeology, 32: 7–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leon, H.J. 1941. Sulphur for Broken Glass (Martial 1.41.3–5). Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association, 72: 233–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lichtenberger, A., Raja, R., Eger, C., Kalaitzoglou, G. & Højen Sørensen, A. 2016. A Newly Excavated Private House in Jerash: Reconsidering Aspects of Continuity and Change in Material Culture from Late Antiquity to the Early Islamic Period. Antiquité Tardive, 24: 317–59. https://doi.org/10.1484/J.AT.5.112632CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maggi, P., Maselli Scotti, F., Pesavento Mattioli, S. & Zulini, E. eds. 2018. Materiali per Aquileia – Lo scavo di Canale Anfora (2004–2005). Trieste: Editreg.Google Scholar
Mian, G. & Tiussi, C. 2009. Indagini stratigrafiche 2005. In: Verzár-Bass, M. & Oriolo, F., eds. Rileggere Pompei. II. L'insula 13 della Regio VI. Roma: L'Erma di Bretschneider, pp. 439–53.Google Scholar
Morel, J.P. 1984. La ceramica e il vetro. In: Zevi, F., ed. Pompei 79. Raccolta di studi per il decimonono centenario dell'eruzione vesuviana. Napoli: Macciaroli, pp. 241–64.Google Scholar
Needham, S. & Spence, T. 1997. Refuse and the Formation of Middens. Antiquity, 71: 77–90. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003598X00084568CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nicosia, C., Bonetto, J., Furlan, G. & Musazzi, S. 2019. The Pre-79 ce Alluvial Environment South of Pompeii's City Walls. Geoarchaeology, 34: 727–44. https://doi.org/10.1002/gea.21737CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peña, J.T. 2007. Roman Pottery in the Archaeological Record. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pollard, A.M., Bray, P., Gosden, C., Wilson, A. & Hamerow, H. 2015. Characterising Copper-Based Metals in Britain in the First Millennium ad: A Preliminary Quantification of Metal Flow and Recycling. Antiquity, 89: 697–713. https://doi.org/10.15184/aqy.2015.20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raventós, X.D. & Remolà, J.A. eds. 2000. Sordes Urbis: la eliminación de residuos en la ciudad romana. Roma: L'Erma di Bretschneider.Google Scholar
Rodríguez Nóvoa, A.A., Valle Abad, P. & Fernández Fernández, A. 2019. Contextos cerámicos de la segunda mitad del s. I e inicios del s. II de la “cibdá” galaico-romana de Armena (Ourense). In: Coll Conesa, J., ed. Opera fictiles: estudios transversales sobre cerámicas antiguas de la península ibérica. IV Congreso Internacional de la SECAH-Ex Officina Hispana, Valencia, del 26 al 28 de abril de 2017. Vol. 1. Valencia: La Ergástula, pp. 183-202.Google Scholar
Höricht, Scatozza, L.A. 1986. I vetri romani di Ercolano. Roma: L'Erma di Bretschneider.Google Scholar
Schiffer, M.B. 1972. Archaeological Context and Systemic Context. American Antiquity, 37: 156–65. https://doi.org/10.2307/278203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schiffer, M.B. 1996. Formation Processes of the Archaeological Record. Salt Lake City (UT): University of Utah Press.Google Scholar
Siddall, R. 2011. From Kitchen to Bathhouse: The Use of Waste Ceramics as Pozzolanic Additives in Roman Mortars. In: Ringbom, Å. & Hohlfelder, R.L., eds. Building Roma Aeterna: Current Research on Roman Mortar and Concrete. Helsinki: Societas Scientiarum Fennica, pp. 152–68.Google Scholar
Sigges, B. 2001. Vita cognita. Die Ausstattung pompejanischer Wohnhäuser mit Gefäßen und Geräten untersucht an ausgewählten Beispielen (unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Cologne). Available at: <https://kups.ub.uni-koeln.de/637/1/11w1380.pdf>>Google Scholar
Stern, E.M. 1999. Roman Glassblowing in a Cultural Context. American Journal of Archaeology, 103: 441–84. https://doi.org/10.2307/506970CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tran, V. Tam Tinh, . 1988. La Casa dei Cervi a Herculaneum (Archaeologica 74). Roma: G. Bretschneider.Google Scholar
Whitehouse, D. 1999. Glass in the Epigrams of Martial. Journal of Glass Studies, 41, 73-81.Google Scholar