It may sound surprising that archaeology would need new theoretical and methodological approaches that emphasise the importance of studying the material remains, focusing on their materiality and functionality in the world. As any student of the history of classical archaeology can tell, however, this particular field has never had the self-confidence comparable to prehistorical archaeology that always has dealt only in material remains.
V.O.’s monograph, based on her Ph.D. thesis at the University of Cambridge, argues that this is not how things should be. Her aim is to demonstrate by example what potential there is in a material assemblage for writing history. Her tool in this process is the strand of technology studies based on the works of B. Latour and others working under the umbrella term Actor-Network Theory (ANT). Her focus is on the production, distribution and consumption of Gaulish terra sigillata, especially the items produced at Lezoux; comparative and interpretative use is made of evidence from La Graufesenque, and the local production tradition of the so-called ‘Rhenish’ pottery.
As V.O. describes in the introduction, ‘On Avoiding Retrospection’, using metaphors from ANT allows the writing of histories not known in advance. ANT has a ‘flat ontology’, which states that the roles of various agents in the study are not given in advance. This allows for the use of pottery as ‘history-maker’ – a potential actor and agent – in addition to its traditional role of ‘history-teller’. Writing non-retrospective histories, writes V.O., is made possible by exactly this theoretical choice because, when roles for people and items are not assigned in advance, the roles themselves become the points of enquiry, and space for a completely new kind of history opens up.
The second chapter, ‘Bright Red Shiny Pots: Is There More to Terra Sigillata?’, argues that the meaning of terra sigillata has not been stable, and that the definitions of this type of pottery have always reflected current research interests. V.O. deconstructs skilfully the various meanings and functions attributed to terra sigillata in different research contexts – contexts that are definable chronologically and reflect the development of Roman pottery studies and Roman archaeology in general. Although V.O. describes this chapter as necessary reading only for those unfamiliar with terra sigillata, it is also worth reading for those interested in the development of research trends within the field.
The purpose in the third chapter, ‘Practice before Type: Sigillata Production at Lezoux (1st–2nd Centuries ad)’, is to show how the type of production we call terra sigillata, composed of a set of technological material characteristics, was created: there was no pre-conceived idea of a pottery type, but the type was created through a process of innovation and development. It was the creation of this set of technological features – a ‘package of traits’ – that enabled the formulation of terra sigillata as a definite pottery type. Once created, this package remained stable, allowing others – contemporaries but also later researchers – to recognise the products as a ‘type’ of pottery. The chapter has inherited a great deal from discussions in technology studies and is a fascinating read.
The fourth chapter, ‘Points of Redefinition: Distribution, Firing Lists, and Kiln Loads (1st Century ad)’, analyses the renegotiations of terra sigillata that took place along its route through different institutional practices of production and distribution. V.O. claims that at each stage of the production–distribution path the nature of terra sigillata was redefined, and that each redefinition reflects the different function the pottery was given in the context. At each stage, a different set of traits was important for the renegotiation of terra sigillata as a type. Importantly, V.O. is able to present cases where terra sigillata was obviously not treated as a specific group; it was just pottery or just merchandise, same as everything else. The evidence discussed varies from firing lists in the La Graufesenque kilns to pottery assemblages discovered at various excavations. The argument of this chapter may be the most convincing in the book, and, for example, the kiln load model for terra sigillata pottery should become at least one of the standard models used to describe the process of distribution.
In a way, the fifth chapter, ‘The Question of Stability: Sigillata and “Rhenish” Wares between Lezoux and Trier (2nd–3rd Centuries ad)’, continues the discussion of the third chapter. Whereas the third chapter endeavoured to show the construction of the category terra sigillata, the fifth chapter discusses the relation of terra sigillata to its ‘followers’, in this case labelled ‘Rhenish wares’. V.O. argues that the relations between pottery types in the Gallic and Germanic regions was not a question of quality of craftsmanship but a result of different consumption and production traditions and, consequently, a different package of traits required from the pottery. Terra sigillata was a standardised category, distributed and recognised all over the region, whereas the black Rhenish wares were more local in their nature – a fact also reflected in their custom decoration that could be understood only in a local context.
The sixth chapter, ‘Before Meaning: Reproduction and Consumption of Sigillata and “Rhenish” Wares in Essex (2nd–3rd Centuries ad)’, takes on the local perspective of consumption. The purpose is to show the usability of the earlier analysis in interpreting the local find assemblages. Both terra sigillata and the ‘Rhenish ware’ are seen as active categories promoting certain types of consumptive practices. Through this discussion, V.O. strives to connect her argument to the wider questions of the nature of the Empire and Romanisation.
The seventh chapter, ‘Things in History/Things as History’, serves as a conclusion, where V.O. – wisely – emphasises how the chosen approach does not imply that items in any way are capable of intention even if they can, and indeed should be seen, as active. The whole monograph is a demonstration of how this kind of study could be done. However, V.O. stresses how terra sigillata as a type of pottery was especially suitable for her chosen approach exactly because it formed a specific category already in antiquity.
The value of any new theoretical approach is in the conceptual reformulations of practical research approaches in a way that results in either completely new knowledge or at least in such reconfigurations of the current state of understanding that either better corresponds with the evidence or changes the research approaches to better answer contemporary conceptions of what is interesting to understand in the past. The new interpretations offered by V.O. are not without merit, and there is no doubt of the value of this work. It demonstrates well how much more can be said about pottery assemblages if the main role in the analysis is given to the items themselves, as if they themselves were the agents.
It may be the theoretical background from which V.O.’s arguments rise that make her style of writing occasionally convoluted and in some cases hard to follow. V.O. has succumbed to the irritating trend of including several references in a single footnote without further discussion of the individual works; this common habit often leads to vague, even useless citations. And, in fact, the reviewer was unable to find the publishing year on this otherwise important and insightful addition to the library of anyone studying ancient pottery.
