This chapter considers the evidence for the reuse of the functional categories of Roman pottery other than amphorae, including dolia, cookwares, utilitarian wares, and tablewares. Because these functional categories were not manufactured with the idea that they would serve their prime-use applications for a limited number of episodes, the category of Type A Reuse is not relevant to the consideration of their reuse. All of the reuse applications for which they were employed can thus be classified as Type B or Type C applications, that is, reuse involving an application different from the vessel's prime-use application without any physical modification, and reuse involving an application different from the vessel's prime-use application involving physical modification, respectively.

The evidence for the reuse of vessels belonging to these functional categories is far less abundant than that for the reuse of amphorae, and it is clear that they played a substantially less significant role in the reuse of Roman pottery than did amphorae. The reasons for this are fairly clear. First, with the exception of dolia, the vessels belonging to these functional categories were substantially smaller than even the smallest amphorae, and for this reason could not be employed for many of the reuse applications for which amphorae were regularly utilized. Second, many of the vessels belonging to these functional categories remained in use for their prime-use applications for several years and were generally retired from prime use in small quantities and at irregular intervals.

This chapter considers the behavioral practice of recycling. As was the case with maintenance, because recycling played an important role in governing the formation of the Roman pottery record, it is here subject to comprehensive and detailed treatment. As defined in Chapter 1, recycling involves the use of a vessel or a vessel part as a raw material in a manufacturing process. Roman pottery was employed for various recycling applications at the termination of manufacture, distribution, prime use, and reuse. In addition, pottery could be reclaimed either from abandonment deposition or from an archaeological deposit for use in a recycling application. As noted in Chapter 1, a vessel or vessel part utilized in a recycling application loses its identity as a discrete artifact, and in this sense is removed from the systemic context.

The recycling of Roman pottery involved the use of sherds, crushed pottery, or pulverized pottery as a fill, fill/reagent, or tempering agent in the manufacture of a compound artifact. Among the various recycling applications attested are the use of sherds as fill in geotechnical and hydrogeological features, kilns, and concrete construction, as chinking in rubblework walls, and as a facing element in concrete construction and pavements; the use of crushed pottery as a fill/reagent in impermeable linings, wall/vault surfacings, and concrete pavements; and the use of pulverized pottery as a filler in mortar and wall plaster, as a tempering material in pottery, and as a flavoring agent or salve.

This chapter draws together the observations made in the preceding chapters regarding the eight behavioral practices that governed the life cycle of Roman pottery and the formation of the Roman pottery record. It consists of seven sections. The first of these presents some general observations regarding behavioral practices documented in connection with pottery that may be of broader significance for efforts to understand the dynamics of the use of material culture in the Roman world. The second section offers a set of models that represent in schematic fashion the passage of vessels belonging to various functional categories of Roman pottery through their life cycle, whereas the third presents a set of similar models for selected classes and class groupings of amphorae. The fourth section presents a general typology of pottery deposits. The fifth discusses specific effects that the eight sets of behavioral practices had on the nature of the Roman pottery record that are significant from the point of view of pottery research, whereas the sixth considers research that might be carried out in order to improve our understanding of the eight sets of behavioral practices and their effects on the pottery record. The seventh and final section offers some brief concluding remarks.

Pottery as material culture

Several of the behavioral practices that can be documented in connection with the life cycle of Roman pottery may be of broader relevance to efforts to understand the dynamics of the use of material culture in the Roman world.

This chapter considers the evidence for the Type B and Type C reuse of amphorae, that is, the reuse of unmodified and modified amphorae, respectively, for applications other than that of packaging container. These two types of reuse are here treated together, as in many cases both unmodified and modified amphorae were employed in similar ways for similar purposes.

Used amphorae must have been available in many parts of the Roman world in what were effectively inexhaustible numbers, and often must have represented something of a nuisance, as in many cases they could not be reused for the packaging of foodstuffs or other substances, in some cases they gave off noxious odors, and they could be disposed of only with the investment of a certain amount of effort. Often they must have been offered either free of charge or at some token cost to any and all who wished to have them. Given these circumstances, it is to be expected that people came to employ used amphorae and amphora parts for a variety of purposes aside from that of packaging container. Amphorae were manufactured in a wide array of shapes and sizes, some with capacities of as much as 150 l, and some more than a meter in height; they were rigid, resilient, and, in most cases, reasonably light; and they could hold liquids, unconsolidated solids, and solid objects of modest dimensions.

This study makes reference to ca. sixty-five different amphora classes or class groupings, and recalling the basic information regarding each of these no doubt represents a challenge for readers not specialized in amphora studies. In the interest of facilitating the use of this book, this Appendix presents two tables that summarize some of this information in convenient form. The first indicates the provenience, date range, and principal content as these are generally understood for each of the classes mentioned in the text. It also provides the page numbers for the entry for each of these classes in D. Peacock and D. Williams' Amphorae and the Roman Economy (Peacock and Williams 1986), the most widely used English-language guide to Roman amphorae or, in cases where this work does not contain an entry for the class in question, the reference for a description of that class appearing either in another of the general guides to Roman amphorae or elsewhere in the literature. Readers should note that the names employed for many of the classes vary among specialists, as do views regarding the date range, principal content, and provenience of certain classes. The second table is a concordance between the various forms in the Schöne–Mau classificatory scheme for amphorae from the Vesuvian sites that are mentioned in the text and the more generally accepted names of the classes to which these can be equated.

The persons who produced, distributed, and used Roman pottery engaged in various actions that determined how, when, where, why, and in what condition and quantity pottery came to be incorporated into the archaeological record. It seems a reasonable assumption that, from the time of its manufacture through to the time of its incorporation into the archaeological record, a substantial portion of Roman pottery was subjected to these actions in a more or less regularly recurring order that may be thought of as constituting a sequence akin in certain regards to the life cycle of an organism. In consideration of this observation, this study employs as its organizing basis a general model of the life cycle of Roman pottery. This construct is of value in that it not only helps identify the various actions that governed the formation of the pottery record, here termed behavioral practices, but also elucidates the ways in which these worked individually and in concert with one another to do so. This chapter presents this model, discussing its conceptual basis, describing its general organization, defining its individual components, and considering its limitations.

To construct a model of the life cycle of Roman pottery, this study takes the general model of the artifact life cycle – a conceptual scheme formulated by Schiffer in the early 1970s (Schiffer 1972: 157–60) that went on to gain wide acceptance in Americanist archaeology – and modifies this to take into account the specific set of circumstances relevant to Roman pottery.

Before advancing to a consideration of the eight behavioral practices incorporated into the model described in the preceding chapter it is necessary to consider three topics that represent essential background information: the forms of evidence available for the examination of these practices, the different functional categories of Roman pottery, and the economic value of Roman pottery.

Forms of Evidence

Four different forms of evidence provide information regarding the behavioral practices here under consideration: textual, representational, material cultural, and comparative.

Textual evidence

The textual evidence pertaining to the practices under consideration can be assigned to three distinct categories: documentary, epigraphic, and literary. Documentary evidence consists of texts that were produced for record keeping and similar purposes. In the case at hand, these comprise almost exclusively papyri from Roman Egypt, for the most part of imperial date and written in Greek. Epigraphic evidence, in turn, consists of texts inscribed in stone or some other durable material for purposes of public display. Literary evidence consists of texts composed for circulation to a broad readership.

Some of the literary texts that are of particular importance for this study warrant specific mention. De re coquinaria, a compilation of recipes probably drawn up during the fourth century and attributed to the first-century cook Apicius, provides a wealth of information regarding the ways in which pottery was used in connection with food preparation activities.