This book is the first monograph-length discussion of the economic world of Roman urban artisans. It offers a model based on the challenges faced by these people and discusses the strategies that they embraced to secure themselves a stable income. After a brief introductory chapter, the book consists of four main chapters and a brief epilogue. The first chapter sketches the dynamics of consumer demand in an ancient city, particularly highlighting its seasonal and fluctuating character; the second highlights the role of professional associations in artisanal life. This is followed by a third chapter on the role of manumission in urban labour markets; the final chapter focuses on the artisan household, particularly on the roles of sons and wives. Hawkins sketches a world full of uncertainty and unpredictability, one that discouraged artisans from developing big firms and from investments on a larger scale, and encouraged them to ‘subcontract’ parts of their production-process to others, and to protect themselves against business risks through professional associations. By surrounding themselves with networks of freedmen that they could rely on when they needed labour, and by making sure that their sons worked outside the household, artisans could further mitigate the impact of their vulnerable economic position.

This is an important book with a highly innovative argument that has a clear potential to change the parameters of scholarly discourse on Roman urban economic life. Some, however, may feel that H. is a bit pessimistic in the assessment of urban markets that underlies most of his argument. It is undeniable that there were structural seasonal fluctuations in demand for artisanal products, and this may indeed have led to highly unstable flows of income for those depending on this demand for their living. Arguably, the dependence on bespoke production in catering for upper-class markets, and the high impact of food-price volatility on sub-elite demand added more layers of uncertainty to the overall picture. Yet it remains unclear what that actually meant on the shop floor. After all, seasonal fluctuations are predictable and may simply foster artisans to do different things in different parts of the year. While there may have been good years and bad years for artisans, uncertainty and unpredictability were not unlimited: under normal circumstances, it may be argued that experienced artisans could have a reasonably reliable idea of the dimensions of demand that they could expect in the near future, and could plan accordingly.

H.’s argument is mostly theoretical: it presents a model, and projects this onto a selection of evidence from the Roman world. This inevitably means that some issues remain open for discussion. First, while textual sources are well-served, there is a relative lack of engagement with the archaeological material. This is an omission: any assessment of the urban markets for artisanal products in the Roman world needs to start from the historically unprecedented levels of investment in urban commercial facilities suggested by the archaeological record of at least Roman Italy, where urban streetscapes became dominated by almost uninterrupted rows of tabernae. The sheer quantity of these facilities, and their involvement in locally oriented retail and manufacturing, directly suggest substantial levels of reasonably predictable local consumer demand in many Roman cities: if urban markets were unpredictable, why was everyone building shops and workshops?

Second, the argument does not really diversify between various types of urban economies, nor does it otherwise incorporate a notion of urban variety. Yet as recent approaches to Roman urbanism have emphasised, Roman cities (and thus urban markets) varied significantly in size, and the Roman metropolis was an urban category on its own. These differences were fundamental in shaping the everyday circumstances under which artisans operated, and — as is clear from the archaeological material — could lead to quite different outcomes in different places. This, in turn, not only makes it hard to analyse the economic history of Roman artisans within one historical model, but also affects the way in which textual or material evidence from various places should be read; H., at points, seems less sensitive to these complexities, particularly in assessing the interpretative weight of (epigraphic) evidence from the Roman metropolis.

Third, H. does not discuss the technological aspects of craft production. While it is true that this is partially due to the nature of his argument, which looks at artisans in general rather than at specific crafts, it should be pointed out that such technological aspects are crucial in assessing the need for (or feasibility of) skills and subcontracting: some production processes can hardly be split up into meaningful parts (including glass-blowing, potting, bone-working, and many branches of metal-working). Moreover, both technologies and products are strategic and can often be adapted to diminish the risks posed by fluctuating demand — the common practice of weaving clothes to piece may be a key example, as may be true for the scarcity of composite consumer products compared to early modern Europe. H. also sometimes seems to overestimate the amount of training and skills needed to perform certain crafts — some crafts may have been complex, but many were, at least in their basic essence, relatively easy. Indeed, skills also must be seen as strategic and flexible: under the right circumstances, artisans can opt to invest more to be able to deliver higher quality output.

None of this, however, diminishes H.’s achievement, and it should be pointed out that the key contribution of this book lies in its comparative approach, and in the cohesive model for manufacturing in the Roman world that it presents. Within the space of one monograph, one can hardly ask for more — especially given the current state of this emerging scholarly field. Indeed, in taking up a very clear position, and building up a broad, but very consistent picture from that basis, he gives his colleagues something to chew upon, and to shoot at. Arguably, that is something that the study of Roman artisans was in dire need of.