Imagine being in the third-century Roman world. At this point in time, at Oxyrhynchus in Egypt, a Homeric papyrus became waste as it had been found in the trash mounds at the edge of the town, then it was subjected to definitive discard and eventually became refuse (P. Oxy. 67, 4633 = A.M. Luijendijk, Vigiliae Christianae 64 [2010]). Before being definitively discarded, into the refuse or waste stream, the papyrus had been reused as ‘toilet paper’ albeit we are not aware if it had been earlier provisionally discarded somewhere else. Before being recycled, it had been reprocessed by being torn apart. Depending on how you perceive the outcome, it became downcycled or upcycled once reused as ‘toilet paper’. At Porolissum in Dacia an inscribed statue base honouring Marcia Otacilia Severa was blocking the porta decumana of the Roman fortress, being initially removed presumably from the public space where it stood for no more than a decade or so (AE 1944, 54 = ILD 671). In this case, since it was not needed any more but was presumably in its original place, it became de facto discarded before being recycled-reused in the porta decumana. At Carthago Nova, in Hispania, the local Iseum was slowly crumbling away because religious activities ceased to be performed there (J.M. Noguera Celdran et al., Isis and Sarapis [2019]). Since the edifice was simply abandoned, it eventually became a de facto refuse. Then, in the fourth century ce, it was recycled-reused. Early on in the book a theoretical framework is provided (pp. 9–13) which is an integral part of J.T. Peña's ‘Recycling in the Roman World: Concepts, Questions, Materials, and Organization’ (Chapter 2). In advance, the reader's attention is drawn to the introductory note from the editors that goes hand in hand with this part (p. 4), entitled ‘Introduction: Recycling and Reuse in the Roman Economy’ (Chapter 1), pp. 1–8. The vocabulary of recycling and reuse appears throughout the volume and is employed uniformly by the authors, which makes their contributions all the more valuable. The point I want to make by putting forward these examples here is that, as seen above, this methodological approach can be applied in various instances.
The main body of the book comprises the papers presented by the participants at a conference that took place on 22 and 23 September 2017 at All Souls College, Oxford. It is divided into four parts, and all of them relate to questions as to what degree these different situations impact the economic, technological, cultural and social aspects of recycling (in particular) and reuse.
The first part, ‘Reusing Commodities, Transforming Meaning’, deals with the categories of materials that were often subjected to recycling and reuse and comprises four chapters: J.P. Wild, ‘The Reuse of Textiles in the Roman World’ (Chapter 3); E. Salmenkivi, ‘Reuse and Recycling of Papyrus’ (Chapter 4); S.J. Barker, ‘Reuse of Statuary and the Recycling Habit of Late Antiquity: an Economic Perspective’ (Chapter 5); and T. Brughmans and A. Pecci, ‘An Inconvenient Truth: Evaluating the Impact of Amphora Reuse through Computational Simulation Modelling’ (Chapter 6). Barker's contribution provides detailed and valuable insights into the various contexts in which spoliation of statues (or statue bases) took place in late antiquity, emphasising, among other aspects, the economic importance and careful planning under the direct care of local elite and government officials of such actions and the ‘chain of command’ that was involved in this process.
Perhaps one more illustrative example should be highlighted in this regard. At Tomis, the capital of the province of Scythia Minor, a cache of 24 buried sculptures rendering different deities was discovered, carefully deposited, which dates to the fourth century ce (see M. Alexandrescu-Vianu, Dacia 53 [2009]; C.P. Jones, Between Pagan and Christian [2014], pp. 58–9; C.G. Alexandrescu, The Fate of Sculpture [2016], pp. 249–52; the last author gives the correct record of the number of finds: two statues, six statuettes, fourteen reliefs, one bust and a small altar without readable letters). The bibliography highlights numerous scenarios and theories for the reasons behind this deposit, out of which two stand out: it was proposed that these sculptures were buried in order to protect them against barbarian plunder, or this was the result of the pagan/Christian presumed conflicts of the era. The peculiarity of this discovery consists of the fact that it is unique for the fourth century ce, at least in the region. First, if it had been the result of barbarian invasions, other such finds of this magnitude should have been revealed in other towns as well in a much higher number, pointing to a general trend (for the statues found at Mediana see most recently L. Stirling, Shifting Use of a Genre [2016], p. 283; the La Adam cave finds, most recently discussed by C.G. Alexandrescu, The Fate of Sculpture [2016], pp. 251–2, should be contextualised earlier than the fourth century CE, as will be argued on another occasion). Second, it will be argued on a different occasion that pagan/Christian conflicts can hardly be pointed out in this part of the late Roman world as these were almost inexistent during the fourth century ce, and, in general, when these happened, they were the exceptions, not the rule. Third, although imperial edicts abound in prohibitions (e.g. J. Hahn, Public Rituals and Depaganization in Late Antiquity [2015], pp. 119–20), archaeologically excavated sanctuaries in Scythia Minor reveal that throughout the fourth century ce these were not affected by these edicts (cf. I. Lazarenko, The Temple of the Pontic Mother of Gods [2013]; O. Alexandrov and D. Dana, Les inscriptions du sanctuaire [2020]). Thus, the answers should be sought in other areas. Returning to the cache, it is generally accepted that this is a clear-cut example of what in the book is defined as a provisional discard of the religious sculptural monuments, intended to be recycled at one point. These pieces of evidence of religious materiality mentioned above clearly came from one or more public sanctuaries, which implied – as Barker demonstrates – that this happened with the ‘blessing’ and legal care of the local elite (i.e. from Tomis), involving certain financial efforts, middle-men and professional supervision. But what stands out is that, by being carefully buried away in a pit, these were intended to be hidden away temporarily. In this regard, Barker puts emphasis on illegal spoliation and the existence of ‘black markets’ revolving around it. Perhaps, one way through which we should interpret the discoveries from Tomis is in this respect. If so, this would serve as the sole fourth-century archaeologically attested example for such practices.
The second part, ‘Chemical Data and Material Flows’, provides a multifaceted approach to recycling and reuse consisting of four papers: P. Bray, ‘Modelling Roman Concepts of Copper-Alloy Recycling and Mutability: the Chemical Characterization Hypothesis and Roman Britain’ (Chapter 7); M.J. Ponting, ‘Recycling and Roman Silver Coinage’ (Chapter 8); P. Degryse, ‘Elements, Isotopes, and Glass Recycling’ (Chapter 9); and Duckworth, ‘Seeking the Invisible: New Approaches to Roman Glass Recycling’ (Chapter 10).
The third part, ‘Site Formation, Visibility, and Temporality of Recycling’, comprises four papers: A. Sebastiani and T.J. Derrick, ‘A Regional Economy of Recycling over Four Centuries at Spolverino (Tuscany) and Environs’ (Chapter 11); B. Munro, ‘The Organized Recycling of Roman Villa Sites’ (Chapter 12); R. Fleming, ‘Old Buildings, Building Material, and the Death of Recycling in Post-Roman Britain’ (Chapter 13); and E. Swift, ‘Reuse of Roman Artefacts in Late Antiquity and the Early Medieval West: a Case Study from Britain of Bracelets and Belt Fittings’ (Chapter 14). These explore the archaeological situation of recycled and reused materials in different dimensions, both geographical and historical.
The last part is named ‘Where Next?’ and represents the final chapter of the book, entitled ‘When the Statue is both Marble and Lime’, which is a collective effort by Duckworth, Wilson, A. Van Oyen, C. Alexander, J. Evans, C. Green and D.J. Mattingly. The chapter outlines the conclusion of the conference and provides some further ‘lines of combat’ when tackling recycling and reuse, stretching, for instance, from what questions we should ask ourselves when dealing with this topic while performing scientific analyses of different types on different artefacts as regards the impact recycling had and who these processes benefited, who profited financially in the course of recycling, how recycling was perceived and, most importantly, to bear in mind that these phenomena did not take place solely in late antiquity, as the examples above stress. What transpires throughout the book is that there are almost unlimited ways through which recycling and reuse can be approached.
The book sets the tone for a new approach on recycling and reuse in the ancient world, which I think will not be surpassed in the near future. Moreover, this would easily serve as a methodological framework and deeply impact further studies on the topic applied to various types of artefacts, different settlements, historical contexts and regions.
