The empire's urban culture is a focal point in the debate about the Roman economy, since many scholars see the development of cities as proxy evidence for economic growth. This volume adds significantly to this debate by focusing on Pompeii, which, because of the circumstances of its destruction in 79 ce, provides an opportunity to use abundant archaeological and epigraphical evidence to reconstruct a multifaceted picture of economic life in an individual Roman city. As F. and W. point out in their introduction, there are limits as to what the peculiar nature of the evidence from Pompeii can tell us; for example, it is not possible to trace developments over the course of the early empire and compare the experience of Pompeii with that of other cities. Still, the thirteen essays use innovative methodologies to analyse such important issues as the relationship of Pompeii to its rural territory and the role of production and consumption in the city's economy. Any analysis of Pompeii's economy must build on and react to the pioneering work of W. Jongman in his 1988 book, The Economy and Society of Pompeii. The essays in the present volume offer a picture of a much more diverse and robust economy than Jongman had presented in his early work; Jongman has since revised his views on the Roman economy, and in his epilogue to the book he endorses the much more favourable picture of Pompeii's economy presented in the volume.
The first two essays explore the role of Pompeii's hinterland in feeding the city and in generating wealth that supported the city's economy. These issues are crucial for understanding the nature of Pompeii's economy and its capacity to support an urban population with considerable spending power. However, uncertainties about both the urban but especially the rural population make it difficult to draw conclusions. A complication is estimating the productivity of agriculture; the first two essays both posit a grain yield of about 1,000 kg of wheat per hectare, at the high end of estimates of ancient agricultural productivity. In ‘The Agricultural Economy of Pompeii: Surplus and Dependence’, G.F. De Simone, following conventional parameters for urban and rural population densities, estimates that the population of Pompeii ranged between 9,600 and 16,000, with the rural population falling between about 6,000 and 18,000. Urbanisation rates thus fall between 35% and 73%, but the higher range of such estimates seems inherently unlikely. The rural economy, in De Simone's view, was largely organised around producing wine as a cash crop on modest properties, with the largest being about 60 iugera (15 ha), and most much smaller. One major question is whether Pompeii's hinterland produced all its food, or whether landowners specialised more in the production of wine and imported food from elsewhere. In F.’s view, in ‘Quantifying Pompeii: Population, Inequality, and the Urban Economy’, the former possibility seems more likely, since in his estimate the rural hinterland of Pompeii could support a population of 45,000. F. calculates the likely urban population of Pompeii by examining its various types of dwellings, including houses, tabernae and upper-floor apartments, and making inferences about the likely numbers of people inhabiting them; this method yields a population that ranged between 7,500 and 13,500. F.’s analysis of Pompeii's housing suggests that only a small minority of the population is likely to have lived in the humblest dwellings. Thus wealth was not extremely stratified within the city, with the majority of Pompeii's urban population able to purchase goods and services. This conclusion would suggest that the poorest people lived outside the city, in the countryside. The purchasing power of the rural population was also a major factor in the city's economy.
To turn to the consumption of goods and services within the city, N. Ray, in ‘Consumer Behaviour in Pompeii: Theory and Evidence’, explores discretionary consumer spending and its significance for a city's economy. Ray examines the archaeological evidence for ceramics, glass and bronze in Pompeii's houses, and his multivariate analysis of these three commodities suggests that some houses were more oriented towards utilitarian discretionary expenditures, while others were to a larger degree characterised by extravagance. Ray, moreover, offers an interesting theoretical discussion of how societies define necessities and luxuries. The impression that a broad range of people enjoyed some purchasing power is supported by the evidence for food consumption, as discussed by E. Rowan, in ‘Sewers, Archaeobotany, and Diet at Pompeii and Herculaneum’. In Rowan's analysis, people at Herculaneum and Pompeii consumed a wide variety of foods, with more fruit than would be suggested by De Simone's paper, as well as nuts, fish and meat. The proximity to the major port at Puteoli could have led to a greater variety of foods, including some luxury foods that were likely to have been consumed by the lower classes. The hypothesis of a relatively rich and varied diet helps to explain the apparent health of people who fell victim to the eruption, as analysed by E. Lazer, in ‘Skeletal Remains and the Health of the Population at Pompeii’. The skeletal remains from Pompeii and Herculaneum document mostly chronic conditions associated with aging, and not widespread disease or disability, although many diseases would not leave behind evidence traceable in bones. Some people were healing from trauma at the time of the eruption, including post-menopausal women, so that it is likely that people had robust immune systems, ones that were supported by an adequate diet.
Several papers address more directly the conditions surrounding production and consumption. E. Poehler, in ‘Measuring the Movement Economy: a Network Analysis of Pompeii’, examines doorway clusters on streets and the likely routes that people followed between major points to determine the locations in the city with the highest degree of economic activity. As N. Monteix, in ‘Urban Production and the Pompeiian Economy’, argues, it appears impossible to assess urban workshop production in Pompeii quantitatively; for example, metalworking shops are anomalously under-represented in the archaeological record. Monteix focuses quite usefully instead on the types of investment that various enterprises would entail, and thus the various ties that a workshop might have to other enterprises at Pompeii. D. Robinson, in ‘Wealthy Entrepreneurs and the Urban Economy: Insula VI 1 in its Wider Economic Contexts’, addresses economic mentalities, focusing on the conversion of a particular insula from residential to commercial use. Robinson argues that the wealthy elite of Pompeii did not simply value the ownership of property for the prestige that it offered, but that they were ready to take advantage of opportunities for profit. Luxury goods such as wall paintings point to the wealth available to many residents of Pompeii, as is argued by D. Esposito, in ‘The Economics of Pompeiian Painting’. In Esposito's view, in the period following the earthquakes of 62–63 ce, workshops in Pompeii employed specialists in wall painting of various types, since some of the houses excavated show evidence of artistic work being done at different stages, such as the Casa dei Pittori al Lavoro. Some jobs might involve a general contractor, or redemptor, who would secure the service of various specialists to take care of individual tasks. This model of workshop production is consistent with the decentralised one outlined by C. Hawkins in his studies of workshop production (Roman Artisans and the Urban Economy [2016]).
Two papers explore the interpretation of coins in archaeological contexts. In ‘Re-evaluating Pompeii's Coin Finds: Monetary Transactions and Urban Waste in the Retail Economy of an Ancient City’, S. Ellis evaluates the 1,039 coins that have been discovered in the University of Cincinnati's excavations at the Porta Stabia, most of which come from places identified as workshops. These coins, generally in small denominations, tell us little about economic activity. They could not have been lost during transactions over the years; rather, they simply found their way into fill dirt for construction. Coins in such contexts provide evidence for the dating of construction phases, in the case of the Porta Stabia excavations, during the Augustan period. In ‘Bes, Butting Bulls, and Bars: the Life of Coinage at Pompeii’, R. Hobbs examines the early history of coins at Pompeii, analysing coins found in Republican levels; these included coins in large numbers from Ebusus (Ibiza) in the Balearics and Massilia, as well as their local imitations. Hobbs suggests that such coins were not necessarily spent by people from these places coming to Pompeii to engage in trade, but in fact were imported as commodities, in exchange for bullion or other products (like the wine sold to Massilia).
The final two papers examine some of the conditions surrounding commerce in Pompeii. K. Verboven, in ‘Currency and Credit in the Bay of Naples in the First Century ad’, focuses on money as a social institution. He makes estimates about the numbers of coins in circulation at Pompeii, their velocity of circulation and their use in financial transactions, such as those documented in the archives of the auctioneer Iucundus and the Sulpicii. In addition, Verboven offers many important observations on the ways in which complex financial transactions could be arranged. From another perspective, W. Broekaert, in ‘Conflicts, Contract Enforcement, and Business Communities in the Archive of the Sulpicii’, examines how contractual disputes were resolved in the wider commercial world of Puteoli. Broekart argues that suing in a court in the Roman world was an expensive proposition with an uncertain result, and instead argues that traders at Puteoli generally turned to informal means of enforcement that involved sanctions against a businessman who violated accepted norms. His analysis, although differing in many details, shares the scepticism of T. Terpstra (Trading Communities in the Roman World [2013]) about the efficacy of Roman law to resolve disputes. Such conclusions about Roman law are debatable; even in a well-functioning legal system we should expect most disputes to be resolved out of court. However, Broekaert provides a valuable discussion of the informal means that trading partners used to enforce obligations.
In the final chapter, ‘Pompeii Revisited’, Jongman offers a new perspective on Pompeii's economy in light of developments in scholarship since his 1988 book. As he argues, the city had the ingredients for a sophisticated economy, with a great deal of monetisation, specialised agriculture to achieve incomes and institutions, legal and social, that reduced transaction costs. The essays in this volume point to an urban economy that was diversified and met the needs of a population with considerable spending power. This is a very valuable collection that makes an important contribution to the debate on the nature of the Roman economy.
