Reviewed by:

• Recycling and Reuse in the Roman Economy ed. by Chloë N. Duckworth and Andrew Wilson
• Allison L. C. Emmerson (bio)

Recycling and Reuse in the Roman Economy Edited by Chloë N. Duckworth and Andrew Wilson. Oxford Studies on the Roman Economy. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2020. Pp. xxviii + 478.

Archaeologists spend careers finding meaning in what has been thrown away, forgotten, or left behind. Yet the field of discard studies is relatively new to Roman archaeology. This volume, the result of a conference conducted as part of the prolific Oxford Roman Economy Project, joins a small but growing collection of scholarship on the subject, focusing on the effects of recycling and reuse on the Roman economy. It will likely become an essential treatment of the topic, serving as both an overview of current scholarship and a spur for future research.

The book's key contributions can be grouped into three categories. First are the comprehensive summaries of evidence for recycling and reuse (the former term indicating the reduction of objects into raw materials, the latter encompassing other types of transformation). Ted Peña's opening chapter stands out for examining current understandings of how these processes were carried out over a wide range of materials. It further explores who was responsible and how they might have been organized. The chapter makes essential reading, whether standing on its own or placed alongside the contributions that follow. Shorter pieces on textiles and papyrus by John Peter Wild and Erja Salmenkivi, respectively, likewise provide fascinating looks at the afterlives of materials typically missing from the archaeological record.

The volume also puts to rest—one hopes definitely—the idea that recycling [End Page 606] and reuse were responses to crisis and particularly indicative of the late Roman period. Most chapters deal with earlier evidence, showing clearly that such practices were ordinary even when the empire was at its height. The authors who focus on Late Antiquity, furthermore, make convincing arguments for the complexity of waste management even in that period. Beth Munro's chapter on the systematic dismantling of Italian villas is especially valuable for demonstrating the organization and skill required for demolitions very likely carried out under the auspices of landowners.

Other strong chapters prioritize the individuals who populated waste management systems. Among these, the contribution by Chloë Duckworth (also one of the volume's editors) is noteworthy. Roman glass originated from a few production sites in the eastern Mediterranean, suggesting that recycling was a common part of manufacturing cycles. Literary and archaeological evidence alike support this idea. Nevertheless, chemical analyses seeking mixed production-site provenances as evidence for recycling find suspiciously low numbers of recycled vessels: for example, 25 percent in Patrick Degryse's study featured in this volume, or 50 percent in Duckworth's own, larger sample. As Duckworth points out, such analyses overlook instances in which ancient craftsmen recycled "like with like," sorting glass recyclate to make higher-quality products that did not combine provenance types. This process might have been widespread but remains invisible to current methodologies, providing a good reminder that even archaeological science cannot ignore the human actors who created the archaeological record.

Shortcomings are minor. Some of the subsections, most notably that on chemical analysis, read as slightly disjointed, although the editors do a better job than many in converting a conference into a unified publication. A few chapters are longer than their contents justify. Additionally, the book at times remains grounded in a distinctly modern perspective. The final chapter, which draws together those preceding by introducing potential future questions, is especially concerned with why Romans recycled: to the authors, such "thriftiness" appears at odds with the conspicuous consumption evident in the imperial economy. Their contrast between recycling and consumption, however, is inherently modern, based on the realities of the post-industrial world. While the authors are correct to call for contextualization and cultural specificity, we can be sure that recycling and reuse have been standard human behaviors until the very recent past. Rather than...

审核人：

• 罗马经济中的回收和再利用编辑。作者：Chloë N. Duckworth 和 Andrew Wilson
• 艾莉森 LC 艾默生（生物）

罗马经济中的回收和再利用由 Chloë N. Duckworth 和 Andrew Wilson 编辑。牛津罗马经济研究。牛津：牛津大学出版社，2020 年。Pp。二十八 + 478。

Archaeologists spend careers finding meaning in what has been thrown away, forgotten, or left behind. Yet the field of discard studies is relatively new to Roman archaeology. This volume, the result of a conference conducted as part of the prolific Oxford Roman Economy Project, joins a small but growing collection of scholarship on the subject, focusing on the effects of recycling and reuse on the Roman economy. It will likely become an essential treatment of the topic, serving as both an overview of current scholarship and a spur for future research.

本书的主要贡献可分为三类。首先是回收和再利用证据的综合摘要（前一个术语表示将物体还原为原材料，后者包含其他类型的转化）。Ted Peña 的开篇一章突出地检验了当前对如何在各种材料上执行这些过程的理解。它进一步探讨了谁负责以及他们可能是如何组织的。无论是独立的还是与随后的贡献并列，本章都是必不可少的阅读材料。分别由 John Peter Wild 和 Erja Salmenkivi 创作的纺织品和纸莎草纸上较短的作品同样为考古记录中通常缺失的材料的来世提供了迷人的视角。

该卷还搁置了——肯定是希望——回收[End Page 606]和再利用是对危机的反应，尤其是罗马晚期的标志。大多数章节都涉及较早的证据，清楚地表明即使在帝国处于鼎盛时期，这种做法也很平常。此外，专注于古代晚期的作者为即使在那个时期废物管理的复杂性也提出了令人信服的论点。Beth Munro 关于系统拆除意大利别墅的章节对于展示很可能在土地所有者的支持下进行的拆除所需的组织和技能特别有价值。

其他强有力的章节优先考虑居住在废物管理系统中的个人。其中，Chloë Duckworth（也是该卷的编辑之一）的贡献值得注意。罗马玻璃起源于地中海东部的几个生产基地，这表明回收是制造周期的一个常见部分。文学和考古证据都支持这一观点。尽管如此，寻求混合生产现场出处作为回收证据的化学分析发现回收容器的数量少得令人怀疑：例如，在本卷中，Patrick Degryse 的研究中有 25%，或者 Duckworth 自己的更大样本中的 50%。正如达克沃斯所指出的那样，这种分析忽略了古代工匠“一以贯之”回收的例子，对玻璃回收物进行分类，以制造不结合原产地类型的更高质量的产品。这个过程可能已经很普遍，但对于当前的方法论来说仍然是不可见的，这很好地提醒我们，即使是考古科学也不能忽视创造考古记录的人类行为者。

缺点是次要的。一些小节，尤其是关于化学分析的小节，读起来有点脱节，尽管在将会议转化为统一出版物方面，编辑比许多人做得更好。有几章比它们的内容要长。此外，这本书有时仍以明显的现代视角为基础。最后一章通过介绍潜在的未来问题将前面的内容汇集在一起​​，特别关注为什么罗马人回收：对作者来说，这种“节俭”似乎与帝国经济中明显的炫耀性消费不一致。然而，基于后工业世界的现实，他们在回收和消费之间的对比本质上是现代的。虽然作者呼吁情境化和文化特异性是正确的，但我们可以肯定，直到最近，回收和再利用一直是标准的人类行为。而不是...