With this excellent book, S. makes an important contribution to theoretical Roman artefact studies. S.’s focus is on functional artefacts and analysing their functional rather than their symbolic use. S. adopts a perspective from design theory to enlarge our understanding of both artefacts and how they worked in Roman society. While design theory has been mainly developed in the context of modern object studies, S. argues (pp. 4–5) that the concepts and insights from this field are no less applicable in the study of the Roman past. In particular, the concept of affordances plays a central role in S.’s approach. Affordances are those features of an artefact that incline users towards particular uses for the artefact. The concept of affordance is akin to the old maxim ‘form follows function’, but it is more flexible, since it allows for multiple uses that stem from particular forms (p. 7). S.’s specific focus is on ‘investigating the following areas’:

1. (1) The relationship between the form of objects and their actual use/s.

2. (2) How the material properties of objects relate to social experience, behaviour, and cultural traditions.

3. (3) Assumptions about intended users evident through object design.

4. (4) How aspects of production affect human relationships with objects. (p. 1)

These areas form the subjects of the four chapters which, flanked by an introduction and concluding chapter, constitute the main body of the book.

After the introduction, Chapter 2 looks into function by comparing affordances with use-wear, product and context. Comparing affordances of objects with use-wear on them allows S. to tease apart ‘proper function’ – the reason a particular tool was made – and ‘system function’ – the use(s) to which the artefact was put in its cultural system. S. suggests that with general use items (i.e. not specifically designed for a tightly circumscribed craft function) we need to be careful in deciding whether certain affordances were made use of, since optimal performance may not have been the (main) goal. She notes that for specialised craft tools, however, it is important to ‘think beyond a simple relationship between an affordance and a particular action (whether it makes that action possible or not), and to consider what impact there may be on how that action may be carried out’ (p. 55). Furthermore, certain affordances may afford actions beyond those for which they had originally been intended. In an interplay between ‘proper’ and ‘system’ functions, these actions may become important in their own right, perhaps even more so than the original motive for its design. This provides an insight into how change in artefact design over time comes about.

In Chapter 3 S. explores the relation between affordances of artefacts and behaviour and experience. She demonstrates that looking at the functionality of objects can yield more information about past behaviour than commonly extracted. For example, in a study of keys and locking mechanisms S. shows that, since certain locks will not yield the key unless locked, these will have resulted in a different experience from those locks where the key can be withdrawn when it is unlocked. These locks will have been used in different kinds of situations, which means that careful attention to the functionality of artefacts can yield more information about past behaviour.

Chapter 4 focuses on design and users. It looks at ways in which design influences behaviour or experience because it is geared towards a certain type of user. Through case studies S. argues that certain cultural behaviour is structured according to gender and age and that through the production of standard designs these types of behaviour were reinforced. Using other case studies, she argues that assumptions in the design process put people who were left-handed or lacked certain cultural knowledge at a disadvantage, which (could have) had the effect of reinforcing cultural prejudice against such groups.

Chapter 5 continues on the topic of effects of design and production process on the user of the product. Here, S. focuses mainly on the effects of standardisation on experience, using the examples of dice and glass-production. Standardisation across the empire has a homogenising effect on the experience of the user, which S. argues contributed ‘to the successful exertion of Roman dominance and power’ (p. 211). Standardisation was far from perfect though, which means that in some cases it may have been the impression of homogeneity that was important, though evidence for checks on weights and measurements do suggest that this was not always the case (p. 228).

The book is strongest when S. studies the material in fine detail to eke out specifics of functionality that have been previously overlooked and discussing the implications hereof. Rather than sticking to published reports, S. has accessed the artefacts themselves in museum collections and supplemented this hands-on analysis with modern recreations and information from modern craft workers. Chapters 2–4 are evidence of this. It is in these chapters that S.’s approach really shines.

Less convincing is Chapter 5. While analysing the ‘flatness’ of bone dice – the fact that they are shorter along one axis –, S. attributes this to the process of trying to get as large as possible a die out of the available shape of the bone. This seems very odd. If one can saw bone at right angles, there is nothing stopping you from sawing the bone in such a way that you get a, smaller, cube rather than a rectangle. It seems unlikely that a skilled craftsperson slavishly attempted to maximise volume to the detriment of regularity of shape. An explanation in terms of the effect on the games or expectations of the players (which S. explores in Chapter 3) seems much more likely.

S. convincingly maintains a middle ground between older archaeological approaches to function, which tended to assume single straightforward function and did not problematise these assumptions sufficiently, and current approaches, which emphasise meaning through appearance and the non-functional aspects of artefacts to the detriment of studying their practical features (p. 2). There are times, though, when the language suddenly seems to veer towards uncritical acceptance of ‘new’ orthodoxies. Taking standardisation of dice as an exertion of Roman dominance or right-handed designs disadvantaging left-handed people as evidence of explicit prejudice against left-handers is a bit too quick, especially given the subtle language and thought in the rest of the book. Yes, these factors are clearly related, but is that evidence for premeditated intent?

A similar case can be made for ideas of agency of objects or materials. These ideas from current theoretical thinking about objects sometimes crop up in the text, but are not critiqued. We are not told what the added value of these ideas is over old concepts such as ‘material constraints’ or ‘the effect objects have influencing human behaviour’. In most cases S. uses them as synonyms, begging the question why they were introduced.

The book does suffer from some editorial oddities. The formatting of the footnotes is inconsistent, making it sometimes difficult to find a footnote at first glance. Moreover, the monochrome graphs are very poorly legible, making it impossible to distinguish between categories. Two of these graphs are also reproduced as colour plates (why were they, as well as certain images of objects, also produced in greyscale?), but in the case of Figure 5.3 (p. 208) it is impossible to judge whether S.’s argument is faulty or whether the problems are due to a choice of graph formatting.

S. has written an engaging, well-argued book, which demonstrates that the study of artefacts’ functional properties, when done well, still holds a wealth of information about the Roman past and the role of artefacts therein.