See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/287935693 Fullones and Roman Society: a reconsideration ARTICLE in JOURNAL OF ROMAN ARCHAEOLOGY · JANUARY 2003 DOI: 10.1017/S104775940001326X CITATION 1 1 AUTHOR: Miko Flohr Leiden University 45 PUBLICATIONS 7 CITATIONS SEE PROFILE Available from: Miko Flohr Retrieved on: 16 January 2016 RESPONSE Fullones and Roman society: a reconsideration Miko Flohr Among the most significant material evidence for manufacturing and production activities in Roman towns are the remains of workshops dedicated to fulling. The layout of these so-called fullonicae is often relatively well preserved and provides detailed information about the daily activities in these workshops. Together with the remains of bakeries and a few other identifiable urban workshops, fullonicae allow us to discuss important aspects of the social and economic contexts of production in Roman cities. However, despite the potential of the evidence and the significance of the subject, there has been little discussion of Roman fulling, and the contribution of M. Bradley in JRA 15 (2002) 21-44 is only the second to discuss Romanfullonicae in general. 1 Bradley focuses on the cultural and economic context of fullones (fullers) and fullonicae in Roman society. Although his narrative will prove to be a useful contribution to the debate on Roman fulling, there are good reasons to question some of his conclusions. A major objection concerns the uniformity of his approach. His highly conceptualised profile of the context of Roman fulling underestimates possible regional and chronological variations as well as the multiform nature of human society. Furthermore, he relies too heavily on literary sources and uses epigraphy and material remains merely to illustrate his suggestions. This leads to an over-simplification of the complex relations between various types of data. As I will argue below, these methodological problems seriously undermine his statements about the economic nature of the Roman fullonica, the spatial context of fullonicae, and the social status of fullones. The economic nature Bradley proposes (21-22) for the Romanfullonica is simple: the Romanfullonica was a commercial laundry and fullers usually cleaned dirty clothes, though occasionally they also polished new garments. For several reasons this seems to be a highly debatable claim. In the first place, if we consider the ancient sources on Roman fulling, it seems that fullers could treat new as well as used clothes. Literary texts may predominantly refer to fullones as launderers 2 but we cannot neglect the legal texts and inscriptions referring to clothes being brought to a fullo to be finished or cleaned or the Edictum Diocletiani which only links fullones to the finishing of new clothes. 3 It was probably as normal for fullers to finish clothes as to wash them. 4 Further, it might be tempting to think of the Roman fullonica as a socio-economic concept, but the label 'fullonica' has only limited authority: it merely claims that we have sufficient evidence for assuming that we have found a place where fulling took place. The only way to identify fullonicae is through 'diagnostic features', and these are necessarily related to the process of fulling clothes. 5 A fullonica is simply a 'workshop designed for fulling'. Likewise, thefullones we meet in literature and epigraphy are just 'people involved in fulling'. As 'fulling' is a process, it is defined by the series of actions of which the process consists, and not by a certain social or economic context, for fullonicae and fullones may appear in various contexts. This is clearly visible in the archaeological record. Though it is not easy to determine whether a particular fullonica was washing used clothes or finishing new ones, it is possible to interpret the economic background of a workshop. The smallest fullonicae were modest shops, like fullonica I 4, 7 or V 1, 2 at Pompeii and fullonica I, xiii, 3 at Ostia. The identification of these workshops is often difficult and in some cases debatable, but there is enough evidence to assume that there were Jullonicae of this size, though we do not know their number. 6 These small workshops had wide openings on the street and, while having a relatively small For an earlier discussion see: A. Uscatescu, 'Fullonicae' y 'tinctoriae' en e/ mondo romano (Barcelona 1994). 2 3 4 s 6 E.g., Titin., Fr. 28: terra istaec est, non aqua, ubi tu solitu's argutarier I pedibus, cretam dum compescis, vestimenta qui laves; Macrob., Sat. 2.2.9; cf. Bradley 37. CIL 2.5181: vestimenta rudia vel recurata; Gai., Inst. 3.162, 3.205: polienda curandave; Diocletian's Edict 22. It should also be emphasized that the cleansing process of fullers did not draw attention to dirt (contra Bradley 30). In the first place, the clothes had been fulled with the same substances before they began to be used (id. 22). Moreover, the results of recent excavations in Barcelona suggest that fullones used lavender and possibly other perfumes during the rinsing process. Cf. J. Juan-Tresseras, "El uso de plant as para el lavado y tenido de tejidos en epoca romana. Analisis de residuos de la fullonica y la tinctoria de Barcino," Complutum 11 (2000) 245-52. Cf. Bradley 26-27. The identification of the three establishments mentioned seems beyond doubt. Pompeii I 4, 7 had fulling Permission to copy may be obtained only from JRA Qra@JoumalofRomanArch.com) 448 Miko Flohr capacity, they were situated in commercially profitablde sp ots ｡ｾｯｮｬｧ＠ ｾ｡ｨｪｯｲ＠ ｴｾｯｲｵｧｨｦ｡･ｳＬ＠ surArounp ded ｾｹ ｭ｡ｮｹ＠ 1 ma1_ y w1t pnvate customers. _t ompen, arger other shops. Presumably these commercialfullonicae eat f ullonicae were located in the back part of domus . The fullonzca e of Stephanus and Vesomus Pnmus were connected w ith shops at front of the house and so have, at least partially, a commercial character. The fullonica of Veranius Hypsaeus, however, may have dealt with another kind of customer: there is no evidence of a direct connection with a shop; the fullonica only has a small entrance from the narrow Via dell a Fullonica and is situated in an area with less commercial activity? It seems that the owner of this Jullonica traded with a professional clientele. The three large fu/lonicae at Ostia have a similar profile. They have a large number of fulling stalls placed around three sides of a rinsing complex consisting of 3 or 4 large basins.8 Here craftsmen handled huge amounts of clothes at once, but none of these workshops seems to have had a shop or a space to deal with customers. They are removed from the major thoroughfares and located in less commercial areas. This combination of a large capacity with an apparent lack of regard for commercial issues suggests that these fullonicae dealt with professional traders or companies rather than with private individuals. Probably they concentrated on finishing new clothes. We may conclude, therefore, that a significant multiformity is discernible within the archaeological record. When investigating the economic background of the material remains, we should not try to define 'the Roman fullonica', but compare 'Roman fullonicae' . Ｑ A second problem concerns the spatial context of fullonicae. Bradley states (37) that, though fullonicae stank and one would expect them to be situated outside a city, they could be established in the centre of towns because the activity of fulling could "sanitise the smells it produced". It is indeed clear that the location of fullonicae was not dictated by the odours of sulphur and urine, but that is not because they were "sanitised". If we look carefully at the remains of fullonicae in Ostia and Pompeii, it becomes clear that these workshops did not cause much nuisance to their urban environment. In the large Pompeianfullonicae, the malodorous fulling stalls, where the clothes were treated with urine and other chemicals, were hidden in the back part of the house, at a considerable distance from the street. Apparently these workshops did not cause unsurmountable private inconvenience either. The domus where they were situated continued to be used for habitation after the insertion of the Jullonica: excavation reports of the fullonicae of Veranius Hypsaeus (VI 8, 20.21.2), Vesonius Prim us (VI 14, 21.22) and Stephanus (I 6, 7) enumerate large numbers of domestic objects including decorated pottery, sculpture and some remains of wooden furniture. 9 All three houses had a kitchen and residential rooms that were richly decorated in the Fourth Style. 10 The three large Ostian fullonicae were surrounded by thick walls and had only one door through which odours could escape. Though smaller fullonicae in shops directly on the street may have spread some nasty smells, it is questionable whether these reached very far, all the more because the equipment was usually located in the back part of the shops. 11 Thus there is archaeological evidence to question the alleged amount of nuisance caused by fulling. The situation was presumably better than the literary evidence suggests- which is not really surprising. The 7 s 9 1o 11 stalls along the N wall and graffiti mentioning a fullo on the fa<;ade (NSc 1912, 104; CIL IV .998) . Fullonica V 1, 2 can be recognized by the remains of two fulling stalls along theW wall. For Ostia I, xiii, 3, see A. Pietrogrande, Scavi di Ostia VIII . Le fulloniche (Roma 1978) 9-13. It cannot be excluded that the Jullonica had a shop at the Via di Mercuric, but this entrance (VI 8, 20) is more likely to have been a front door to the house. It is too narrow and lacks the groove common to thresholds of shops. Notable is the absence of graffiti referring to fullones that are prominent around the shops of other Jullonicae: e.g., VI 14, 21.22 (CIL IV 3476, IV 3478) and I 6, 7 (CIL IV 7164). There are other domestic workshops at Pompeii without a connection to a shop: e.g., the bakeries in VI 3, 3.27 and VII 2, 3. Ostia, fullonica II, xi, 1 (Pietrogrande [supra n.6] 27-49); fullonica Ill, ii, 2 (see C. de Ruyt, "Les foulons, artisans des textiles et blanchisseurs," in J.-P. Descoeudres (ed.), Ostia. Port et parte de la Rome antique (Geneva 2001) 186-91; cf. C. de Ruyt, "Ricerche archeologiche nel tempio dei fabri navales a Ostia," ArchLaz 12 [1995] 401-6); andfullonica V, vii, 3 (Pietrogrande ibid. 55-75). For VI 14, 21.22, see A. Sogliano, Giornale dei scavi di Pompei Ill (1875) 167-71. For the fullonica of Stephanus, see NSc 1912, 246-50, 283-87, 331-33, 353, 402-3 and 445; ibid. 1913, 62, 83-84 and 141-42. In the latter, the excavators report the discovery of two wooden chests and a bed (cf. NSc 1912, 283 and 286-87). I refer to rooms 11-13 at the E side of the peristyle in VI 8, 20.21.2, to the large room p in VI 14, 21.22, and to oectts g in the fullonica of Stephanus. See also G. Pugliese Carratelli (ed.), Pompei: pitture e mosaici (Roma 1990-99) 4.604-12 (for VI 8, 20.21.2), 5.308-32 (for VI 14, 21.22) and 1.332-51 (for the fullonica of Stephanus). As at, e.g., Pompeii VI 15, 3 (cf. NSc 1898, 8-10) or Ostia I, xiii, 3 (cf. Pietrogrande [supra n.6]9-13). Fullones and Roman society: a reconsideration 449 frequent allusions in literature to the stench of fulling are not plain factual observations. Most of them are jokes in literary contexts, appearing in the comedies of Plautus or epigrams of Martial.l 2 Their authors overemphasize the proverbial smells caused by fullers. Cassius Dio has Fufius Calenus exaggerate the unseemly character of fullones to underline his denigration of Cicero, whose father was a fuller. 13 Emphasizing the less pleasant aspects of urban labour is a commonplace in Roman literature, reflecting the negative attitude of the elite towards work: 14 it does not imply that the nuisance caused by fulling or other smelly activities made cities uninhabitable. If the location of fullonicae was not dictated by the smells they produced, their distribution must be understood differently. According to Bradley, the mutual proximity of fullonicae, public latrines and public baths in many cities is significant. He suggests (30) that fullonicae could use waste-water from public baths to satisfy their needs. This is highly unlikely. Provisions to make this possible have not been found in the archaeological record: waste-water from public baths flowed directly into the urban system of discharge. Besides, fullers needed clean water to rinse the chemical agents from the clothes.l 5 The suggestion (30) that fullers collected urine from public latrines is contradicted by the archaeological material. In most latrinae, the urine and faeces of the users landed in a trough filled with flowing water that took the excrements away to the urban sewage-system. 16 Moreover, at both Ostia and Pompeii fullonicae are neither situated directly next to a bath complex or latrine, nor connected to them. Since the location of production in cities seems to have been predominantly a private matter, the distribution of fullonicae in Pompeii and Ostia may be coincidental.17 Small fullonicae do not seem to require more than a location with water and clients. They could be established in almost any available shop. The larger Pompeian fullonicae built in the back parts of houses were presumably developed when the home-owner decided to start a fullonica or when someone who wanted to start a fullonica bought a house that happened to be available. For example, the fullonica of Vesonius Primus in the peristyle of house VI 14, 21.22 was built during reconstruction of the house, which had been severely damaged by an earthquake and subsequently abandoned because uninhabitable.l 8 At Ostia, the large fullonicae were built at locations that happened to be available. The major fullonica north of the Via della Fullonica (II, xi, 1) was built between the remains of an older building and a caseggiato that had been laid out in the SW part of the insula.1 9 In his final section, Bradley turns to the social status of fullones. He argues that the social position of fullers was ambiguous. On the one hand, fullones were seldom respectable people. Their activity was a "paradigm of crudity and vulgarity". On the other hand, they occupied prominent urban locations and seem to have been wealthy and prestigious citizens. "If one looks not too hard at what they did, it is not difficult to see in fulling a set of rich and sought-after master-chemists who could harness the laws of nature to keep Rome looking whiter than white" (Bradley 40). 20 It is often claimed that fullones were prosperous and influential because they performed a fundamental role in the cities. That fulling clothes was an important activity, however, does not mean that fu/lones were wealthy and prestigious. If fullers were rich compared to other 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 E.g., Plaut., Asin. 907; Mart. 6.93; cf. Bradley 35-36. Dio Cass. 46.4-5. Cf. S. Joshel, Work, identity and legal status at Rome (London 1992) 63-69. Cf. Frontin., Aq. 91.5: Marciam ipsam frigore et splendore gratissimam ... fullonibus. Cf. J. P. Adam, Roman building. Materials and techniques (London 1994) pl. 592. There is no evidence for local authorities making demands on the location of workshops. The atrium and the N part of the house had entirely collapsed during the earthquake, which was presumably the one of A. D. 62, as all decoration on the surviving walls is in the Fourth Style. The walls were rebuilt in opus vittatum mixtum. Between the old walls and the new, a clear crack is visible. The conduit providing water to the rinsing complex in the peristyle runs through theN part of the house and crosses the new walls. I will discuss the design, history and use of this donws elsewhere. Pietrogrande (supra n.6, 30) observes that the fullonica was no part of the original plan of the caseggiato. The emphasis on whiteness as the main aim of the fulling process is contradicted by the pictorial evidence from Pompeii: the clothes treated by the amorini fulloni on the E wall of Oeclts Q from the Houise of the Vettii (VI 15, 1) have various colours, but none of them is white. Neither do the clothes depicted on the paintings fromfullonica VI 8, 20.21.2 seem to be white (cf. S. De Caro, The National Archaeological Museum of Naples [Napoli 1996] 258-59). We may therefore assume that fullones dealt with coloured clothes on a regular basis. Furthermore, we should not overestimate the amount of white clothes in Roman society. Literary evidence suggests that the Roman elite used them to distinguish itself (cf., e.g., Pers. 5.176: cretata ambitio) so they may have been less common than Bradley assumes. Miko Flohr 450 craftsmen, this should be traceable in our data. In this respect, the way fullones were commemorated may be significant. Epitaphs commemorating deceased full ones have been found throughout the empire. Most are very modest, sometimes consisting just of a name and the title 'fullo'. 21 Generally, epitaphs mentioning sutores (shoemakers), for example, are of equal length, while those referring to pistores (bakers) could be much longer, even mentioning slaves and other members of the familia of the deceased. 22 Of course, this does not exclude the possibility that there were rich fullers who did not wish to be remembered as a fullo. It is, however, an indication that a significant number of those who called themselves fullones had only a modest social position. This is confirmed by other evidence. It seems that fullones also worked for large households. The HA records the presence of fullones among slaves at the court of Alexander Severus.23 An inscription from Gigthis (Tunisia) commemorating a patrontts was dedicated by the fullers 'of his house'. 24 The Tomb of the Statilii, which contained the epitaphs of selected slaves of the rich Statilii Tauri, commemorated 4fullones: 25 the Statilii Tauri, who are thought to have been involved in textile business, apparently had their own fullery, and the fullones commemorated in their tomb probably were the slaves who supervised work in the fullonica. 26 In fact, fullones were not so special. Some were slaves working within a familia; others had their own jitllonica. Most were working with both new and used clothes. There seem to have been both fullonicae that focused on private customers and fttllonicae with a professional clientele, just as there were both local retail and industrial bakeries. Fullers could participate in a professional organisation, as did bakers, shoemakers and carpenters. Roman authors despised them, but the elite despised everyone who was involved in urban labour. Fu/lones did not differ much from other craftsmen, and this is what makes them important for us. The significance of craftsmen for our understanding of ancient urban societies cannot be overestimated. In a debate characterized by an over-emphasis on the exceptional,jitllones may add a little commonness. Nevertheless, we can only arrive at a defensible interpretation of fulling if we emphasize the multiforrnity of its socioeconomic contexts and compare critically the literary sources with the epigraphic record and the material remains. University of Nijmegen, Department of Classical Archaeology Acknowledgements This contribution stems from research on my Ph.D. dissertation on the archaeological and historical contexts of Roman fulling. I would like to thank the Istituto Olandese at Rome for giving me the possibility of studying at Rome for 3 months, the Soprintendenze of Ostia and Pompeii for permission to conduct observations in the field, and S. T. A. M. Mols and E. M. Moormann for their continuous and meticulous support. I also thank the late J. A. K. E. de Waele for his inspiration. 21 22 23 24 25 26 CIL V 2539, VI 6287-6290, VI 7209, XI 5867. For pistores cf. CIL V 1036, IX 3190; for sutores cf. CIL VI 27036, IX 3702. SHA, Sev. Alex. 18.41-42. AE 1915 no. 44: jitllones domus eius. CIL VI 6287-6290. Cf. S. Dixon, "How do you count them if they're not there? New perspectives on Roman cloth production," OpuscRom 25-26 [2001]12; Joshel (supra n.14) 39.