Africa romana114-Tirado(2)

8/8/2019 Africa romana114-Tirado(2)

1/12

Centro Fotocomposizione I BOZZA QuoinAFRICA-ROM-XVIII-2008-I..AFRICA-ROM-XVIII-2008-I.1 .. Page819 100% All 7-10-1956 15:00:49

Jess Bermejo Tirado

Domus and household production.Towards a new model for the study

of Roman economy: the case of the House

of Baco and Ariadna(Thuburbo Maius, Tunisia) 1

Traditionally the study of economics in Antiquity has been approa-ched by historians resistant to the widespread use of archaeologicalevidence, or by those who use it without being aware of the meth-odological difficulties involved in the interpretation of the archaeo-logical record. The first of these paradigms is represented by the

figure of M. I. Finley, who explained his reticence on several occa-sions, arguing an obsession with statistics 2. The other perspective,that of the historian who is superficially close to the archaeologicaldata, is best represented by the works of M. Rostovtzeff, who in hismagnificent essays on the economic and social history of the ancient

world 3, made use of archaeological data arbitrarily, selecting itemsavailable from the fragmentary archaeological record rather than be-ing critical with the appropriateness of interpretations of data.

In spite of such interpretations, a more archaeological approach

has developed, which is more aware of the methodological implica-tions, whose roots go back to American processual archaeology ofthe late sixties and seventies as well as to the historiographical tra-dition stemming from the Annales school 4. This type of study has

1. This work is included in the tasks developed by the research project

HUM2007-61878 Economa y sociedad en los mosaicos hispano-romanos II. We

want to thank G. Lpez Monteagudo (IH-CSIC), P. M. Allison (Leicester University),

D. Mattingly (Leicester University), L. Foxhall (Leicester University), I. Maas (UCM),

M. P. San Nicols (UNED), M. L. Neira (U. Carlos III), A. Quevedo (U. Murcia) and J. R. Marcaida (IH-CCHS) for their comments, revisions of the text and help. Finally I

want to thank M. Milanese (U. Sassari) for his support.

2. FINLEY (1975), p. 101; FINLEY (1981): We are often victims of the great

curse of archaeology, the indestructibility of pots, p. 190; FINLEY (1999), p. 25.

3. ROSTOVTZEFF (1926).

4. BURKE (1996); BINTLIFF (1995). In the specific field of Roman archaeology, it

has been applied since the eighties. DUNCAN-JONES (1982); GREENE (1986).

LAfrica romana XVIII, Olbia 2008, Roma 2010, pp. 00-00.


2/12


led to the development of a range of research areas which in re-cent years have been paying particular attention to such approa-ches. However, as we will argue, this archaeological renewal hasnot paid sufficient attention to the ideological implication of apply-ing different methodological models.

In the Roman world, and in the pre-industrial societies in gen-eral, the main area of production and consumption was located inthe household. A combination of non-mercantile and mercantileactivities took place there, which must also be integrated into thestudies of ancient economy. Nevertheless, the development ofmodern economic theory has tended to ignore any economic as-pect besides the market economy model, because from its concep-tion, capitalist-based, domestic life was completely separated fromthe fields of production 5.

This prejudice, elevated to the rank of theoretical framework

5. An example of the application of this perspective in BURNETT (1986), pp.

34-59.

Fig. 1: Aerial view of Thuburbo Maius.

Jess Bermejo Tirado820


3/12


Fig. 2: Plan of Bacchus and Ariannes House with indication about theproduction areas. (Carucci, 2008, fig. 40).

Domus and household production 821


4/12


thanks to the work of Max Weber and other authors 6, has beenharshly criticized in the field of feminist theory 7, for having as-sumed an essentialist approach to the issue of gendered space,identifying it with the domestic, the feminine and consumption onthe one hand, and with the masculine and the production of eco-nomic performance on the other 8. In recent years, in the field ofgender studies, an agenda has been developing that seeks to over-come this division outright, suggesting an economic analysis of pri-vate production and reproduction for which the term home eco-nomics has been used 9. These studies have generally appreciatedthe work within the domestic spheres, demonstrating the possibil-ity of its quantification as an economic index. Studies that havetried to calculate the monetary remuneration attributable to ahousewife through the computation of hours spent on householdchores are an example of this type of approach. But the currentconcept of home economy is not applicable to Antiquity. Apartfrom the fact that many studies of Antiquity still gravitate aroundcommercial aspects 10, the current home is not the same as theancient household, where the production and consumption ofgoods occurred under the same roof, while in Western industrialsocieties production, consumption and social reproduction takeplace in distinct places 11.

Our proposal advocates a review of the ways in which domes-

tic material culture is interpreted, arguing for the inclusion of theproduction in domestic spaces as a benchmark for ancient eco-nomic studies. Given this approach, we adopt the concept ofhousehold production as opposed to self-sufficiency 12 as a modelfor the integration of commercial and no-commercial aspects ofRoman ancient economy. Some recent works, focusing primarily onthe analysis of households from Greek classical and hellenistic per-iods 13, have been facing similar problems and have applied similarmethodologies to specific examples.

6. NAFISSI (2005), pp. 20 ss.

7. ENGUITA (1989), pp. 111-5; MIRN PEREZ (2004).

8. DOMNGUEZ ORTIZ (2001), pp. 182-98; TRINGHAM (1991).

9. ENGUITA (1989).

10. I.e. POMEROY (1994), pp. 41-67.

11. MIRN PEREZ (2004).

12. FOXHALL (2007), pp. 23 ss.

13. AULT (1999), (2005); CAHILL (2005).



5/12


The aim of this paper is to offer a reinterpretation of the mate-rial culture from a domus located in the Romano-African city ofThuburbo Maius 14 (Tunisia), in the former province of Africa Pro-consularis. In this city there are a number of houses in which thestrength of few elites is reflected in a series of decorative elements,that show us many aspects of economic activity as a source of its

wealth 15. Despite that, far from the topical dichotomy between theurban lifestyle (mainly consumer) and the rural (producer), we findmore complex examples of economic units than it is reflected bythis topic. Among the mansions documented in Thuburbo Maius,

we find the so-called House of Bacchus and Ariadne16, named af-ter the figured mosaic used to decorate a large room oriented tothe peristyle.

The excavations carried out in the courtyard of the house 17

have served to document a large amount of plant remains, com-mon to other domestic complexes in the Roman period, whichcame to reveal an economic use of that space. This study docu-mented the existence of a number of species that takes us apartfrom the pattern of the Hellenistic and idyllic viridarium to revealthe daily needs of a family unit within an economy of a pre-industrial community.

Remains of several olive trees, apricot, walnut and fig trees, allof them surely destined to the production of food yields, were re-

corded. Up to fifteen possible copies, most of them olive trees, were found in the courtyard of the Tunisian domus. These crops were obviously intended for the production of food, but pose usthe following question: to what extent did these crops affect thedaily diet of the family unit? 18

The point we would like to stress here, once the archaeologicalrecord is reviewed, is that we can identify this courtyard as a place

with a concentration of certain elements of production, in this caseyields of food 19, linked with the economic activity of the house-

hold production.

14. ALEXANDER et al. (1980); LANTIER, POINSSOT (1926).

15. LPEZ MONTEAGUDO (2002); CARUCCI (2008), pp. 170-8.

16. LANTIER, POINSSOT (1926), pp. CCIV-VI; BALDINI LIPPOLIS (2001), pp. 307-13;

CARUCCI (2008), pp. 174-5, figg. 39-40.

17. JASHEMSKI et al. (1995).

18. VAN DER VEEN (2003); LIVARDA, VAN DER VEEN (2008).

19. This question makes us put a study on access to certain kinds of food with-



6/12


The productive capacity of this domestic unit, however, was notlimited to a self-sufficiency economy, and among its facilities there

was a mill. In this regard, to know about their production levels we refer to a series of studies, published in the nineties by D.Mattingly and B. Hitchner 20, on possible estimates of the produc-tive capacity of the presses and oil mills in the context of the Ro-man sites in North Africa. Based on some of the production-ration coefficients published by both authors, focusing on theareas of Tripolitania and in the region of Kasserine, near ThuburboMaius, we propose a specific application to the particular case ofthe mill from the House of Bacchus and Ariadne.

An estimation about the volume capacity of the mill, on thebasis of its size, indicates a maximum press capacity of around300-400 kg of olives. Taking as reference the average productionratio of North African oil mills of similar size 80-250 kg of oil/400-1.000 kg olives, according to these authors we estimate thecapacity of the press in this mill to be between 80-120 kg of oilper press. If we take into account, through various ethnographicparallels collected in contemporary presses in North Africa, that apress in full capacity requires continued work for an oscillating pe-

riod of 16 to 24 hours 21, we obtain a maximum oil production ca-pacity of 80-120 kg per working day.

in the household and the social and cultural implications that such access may have

or not, an issue on which we are not going to extend in this, only remark that a very

fruitful line of work raises in the field of archaeobotany during the Roman period.

Cf. PEA-CHOCARRO, ZAPATA PEA (1997); VAN DER VEEN (2007).

20. MATTINGLY (1988a), (1993); MATTINGLY, HITCHNER (1993).

21. MATTINGLY (1993).

Table 1: Identification of different spices documented in the House of Bacoand Ariadna courtyard (from JASHEMKI,1995).

Spices documented in the House of Baco and Ariadna Number of minimum copies

Olea Europea (domestic) 8

Prunus Armeniaca 1

Juglans Regia 1

Ficus Carica 2



7/12


These amounts, applied in periods of 30, 60 and 90 days activity, where a mill can be easily working without interruption during a sea-son23, result in generic estimates about the levels of production. Ourinterest in these figures is not to approach the exact volume of pro-duction, but its scale. If we consider a number of variables, whosedetailed discussion must take into account the type of press, the cli-matic conditions, the kind of olive cultivation, the periodicity of theharvest 24, etc., we must conclude that research about the exact pro-duction volume in Antiquity is only possible in relative terms.

Cross-checking this estimates on the maximum production levels with the possible average annual consumption of oil in a domus of

22. One single press needs a minimum of 16/24 work hours.

23. Based on ethnographical studies: FORBES, FOXHALL (1995).

24. Usually biannual but subject to natural disasters and pests.

Table 2: The approximate figures of production scale coefficients of the Bacoand Ariadna House mill press.

Baco and Ariadna mill capacity/press 22:

300-400 kg olivesRatio media production of North African mills (after

Hitchner, Mattingly, 1988):80-250 kg oil/400-1.000 kg olives

Maximum production capacity of Baco and Ariadna millpress/workday:

60-80 kg oil

Table 3: Approximation to the scale production volume stimed for the millspress from the House of Baco and Ariadna.

Workdays Production volume

30 1.800-2.400 kg oil

60 3.600-4.800 kg oil

90 5.400-7.200 kg oil



8/12


Antiquity, based on figures provided by Lin Foxhall for the Greekcase 25 an approximate consumption of between 200 and 330 kgof oil per year, figures well-argued by the author and that in anycase are very similar to those made for the Roman context 26,namely a per capita consumption close to 20-25 litres of oil peryear we concluded that the production levels of this mill signifi-cantly exceeded the consumption levels of this household.

In other words, these data exceed by far the self-sufficiencyneeds of the members of this family unit and frame the activity ofthis household in a more complex economic context, with produc-tion rates aimed at the market, at intraregional levels. Indeed thedistribution of most of the North African amphoric epigraphy inthe nearby region of Kasserine area or the Libyan pre-desert ana-lysed by D. Mattingly 27 matches this production model.

The example of this house tells us how the range of elementsassociated with productive economic activity of a Roman house-hold is very diverse and offers different scales. That prospect risesa number of questions for which we must build proposals basedon the study of material culture in the contexts documented in ar-chaeological excavations: Which elements, apart from the domus space, are part of thehousehold unit? What is the role of the different members of the household

(women, slaves, children, domine, etc.) within the production proc-ess? What access had the members of the household had to the in-come obtained from production?

Whatever our proposal for these three issues, it must be inves-tigated and hypothesized case by case, subject to a thorough ar-chaeological context. The detailed and comprehensive study ofproduction processes that take place within the residential com-plexes can be, as we have argued, used as a reference economic

index to study the Roman world. The matching set of several spe-cific cases, at the level of the site, will allow us to get a glimpse ofthe broader Roman economy, and especially to contextualize it

within its main frame of reference: the domestic unit, in the caseof Roman imperial world, the legal concept of domus.

25. FOXHALL (2007), p. 86.

26. DUNCAN-JONES (1982), p. 223; MATTINGLY (1988a).

27. MATTINGLY (1988b).



9/12


Focusing our analysis on the study of household production 28

allows us, at the same time, to consider more carefully the compli-cations inherent in the inference of archaeological contexts, and tointegrate in the landmark discourse social sectors which are usuallydevalued in the study of media production in ancient times, wherethe narrative focuses on figures from a macroeconomic perspec-tive.

A mercantilist perception of the Roman economy has oversha-dowed other elements, of varying scale, as much or even more im-portant in order to obtain a deep understanding. We believe thatthe principal reasons for this neglect are basically three. Firstly, theimplementation of implicit conceptual tools from the capitalisteconomy tradition, which in its various versions has meant that animportant part of historians and archaeologists focused on thestudy of production networks and distribution of income, separate-ly to the consumer, carrying on a questionable model of economicanalysis of an industrial society to the Roman world. The secondreason is the androcentric mentality in which archaeology has beendeveloped since the Nineteenth century, ignoring the activities ofthe domestic sphere and focusing exclusively on the public; creat-ing thus a fracture and essentialist dichotomy with regard to thedifferentiation of the sexes and the separation of activities. Finallythe lack of a true introspection concerning the analysis of archaeo-logical data, at the level of methodological implications, has led toa superficial analysis, which naturally has focused on either de-scriptive or typological issues.

The implementation of a critical archaeological perspective inthe study of households is, from our point of view, one of themost interesting ways that economic and social history of the Ro-man world has to overcome these models of thinking, so it canmove towards a more complex, deep and holistic view of Romaneconomy. We should articulate new methodological approaches toconnect the inherent complexity of different domestic activities(and their materiality) with a kind of ancient economy studies

where different scale analysis can be integrated.

28. HENDON (1996), (2004).



10/12


Bibliography

ALEXANDER M. A. et al. (1980), Thuburbo Maius, CMDT, 2 vols., Tunis.ALLISON P. M. (2001), Using the Material and Written Sources: Turn of the

Millennium Approaches to Roman Domestic Space, AJA, 105, 2, pp.

181-201.AULT A. B. (1999), Koprones and oil presses at Heleis: Interactions of Town

and Country and the integration of domestic and regional economies ,Hesperia, 68, 4, pp. 549-73.

AULT B. A. (2007), Oikos and oikonomia: greek houses, households and thedomestic economy, in R. WESTGATE et al. (eds.), Building Communities:house, settlement and society in the Aegean and beyond, Proceedings of aConference held at Cardiff University, 17-21 April 2001, (British Schoolat Athens, Studies 15), Athens???.

BALDINI LIPPOLIS I. (2001), La domus tardoantica: forme e rappresentazionidello spazio domestico nelle citt del Mediterraneo, Bologna.

BINFORD L. (1965), Archaeological Systematics and the Study of CultureProcess, American Antiquity, 31, 2, 1, pp. 203-10.

BINTLIFF J. (ed.) (1995), The Annals School and Archaeology, London-NewYork.

BURKE P. (1996), La revolucin historiogrfica francesa: La escuela de losAnnales, 1929-1989, Barcelona.

BURNETT J. (1986),A social history of Housing: 1815-1985, London.CAHILL N. (2005), Household industry in Greece and Anatolia, in L. NE-

VETT, AULT B. (eds.), Ancient Greek houses and households: chronologi-cal, regional and social diversity, Philadelphia, pp. 54-66.

CARUCCI M. (2008), The Romano-African domus: studies in space, decora-tion, and function, (BAR Int. Ser., 1731), Oxford.

DOMNGUEZ ORTIZ R. (2001), Por qu la economa es una ciencia tan mis- gina?: una relectura de los clsicos desde la economa feminista, Polticay sociedad, 37, pp. 181-202.

DUNCAN-JONES J. (1982), The Economy of the Roman Empire: quantitativestudies, Cambridge.

ENGUITA M. F. (1989), La degradacin del trabajo domestico, in AU-

TORI???, Economa del trabajo femenino. Sector mercantil y no-mercantil, Madrid, pp. 111-5.FINLEY M. I. (1975), The use and abuse of the History, London.FINLEY M. I. (1981), Economy and society in Ancient Greece, London.FINLEY M. I. (1999), The Ancient Economy, Berkeley.FORBES H. A., FOXHALL L. (1995), Ethnoarchaeology and storage in the an-

cient Mediterranean: beyond risk and survival, in AUTORI???, Food inAntiquity, Exeter, pp. 69-86.

FOXHALL L. (2008), Olive Cultivation in Ancient Greece: Seeking the An-cient Economy, Oxford.



11/12


FUNARI P. P., ZARANKIN A. (2001), Algunas consideraciones arqueolgicas so-bre la vivienda domstica en Pompeya, Gerion, 19, pp. 493-511.

GREENE K. (1986), The Archaeology of Roman Economy, Bastford.GREENE K. (2000), Technological innovation and economic progress in the

ancient world: M. I. Finley re-considered, Economa history Review,

n.s., 53, 1, pp. 29-59.HENDON J. (1996), Archaeological approaches to the organization of domestic

labor: Household practice and domestic relations, Annual Review of An-thropology, 25, pp. 45-61.

HENDON J. (2004), Living and Working at Home: The Social Archaeology ofHousehold Production and Social Relations, in L. MESKELL, W. PREUCEL(eds.), A Companion to Social Archaeology, Oxford, pp. 273-86.

JASHEMSKI W. F. et al. (1995), Roman Gardens in Tunisia: Preliminary Ex-cavations in the House of Bacchus and Ariadne and in the East Temple atThuburbo Maius, AJA, 99, 4, pp. 559-76.

LANTIER R., POINSSOT L. (1926), Mosaques de Thuburbo Maius, BCTH,pp. CCIV-VI.

LIVARDA A., VAN DER VEEN M. (2008), Social access and dispersal of condi-ments in North-West Europe from the Roman to the medieval period,Veget Hist Archaeobot., 17, 6, S/P.

LPEZ MONTEAGUDO G. (2002), Mosaicos romanos y elites locales en el N.de +frica y en Hispania, AespA, 75, pp. 251-68.

MATTINGLY D. (1988a), Megalithic Madness and Measurement or how manyOlives could an Olive Press press?, OJA, 7, 2, pp. 177-95.

MATTINGLY D. (1988b), Oil for export? A comparison of Lybian, Spanish

and Tunisian olive oil production in the Roman Empire, JRA, 1, pp.33-56.

MATTINGLY D. (1993), Maximum figures and maximizing strategies of oil production? Further thoughts on the processing capacity of Roman olivepresses, in M. C. AMOURETTI, J. P. BRUN (ds.), La production du vin etde lhuile en Mditerrane / Oil and wine production in the Mediterra-nean area: Actes du symposium international, Ecole Franaise dAthnes,luogo di pubblicazione?, pp. 483-98.

MATTINGLY D., HITCHNER B. (1993), Technical specifications for some North African olive presses of Roman date, in M. C. AMOURETTI, J. P. BRUN

(ds.), La production du vin et de lhuile en Mditerrane / Oil and wine production in the Mediterranean area: Actes du symposium international,Ecole Franaise dAthnes, pp. 439-62.

MIRN PEREZ M. D. (2004), Oikos y oikonomia: el analisis de las unidadesdomesticas de produccin y reproduccin en el estudio de la Economia an-tigua, Gerion, 22, 1, pp. 61-79.

NAFISSI M. (2005), Ancient Athens and modern ideology: value, theory andevidence in historical sciences. Max Weber, Karl Polanyi and Moses Fin-ley, London.

PEA-CHOCARRO L., ZAPATA PEA L. (1997), Higos, ciruelas y nueces: apor-



12/12


tacin de la arqueobotnica al estudio del mundo romano, Isturitz, 9,pp. 679-90.

POMEROY S. (1994): XENOPHON OECONOMICUS: A Social and Histori-cal Commentary, Oxford.

ROSTOVTZEFF M. (1926), Social and Economic History of the Roman Empire,

London.TRINGHAM R. (1991), Household with faces: The challenge of gender in pre-

historic architectural remains, in J. M. GERO, M. W. CONKEY (eds.), En-gendering Archaeology, Oxford, pp. 93-131.

VAN DER VEEN M. (2003), When Is Food a Luxury?, World Archaeology,34, 3, pp. 405-27.

VAN DER VEEN M. (2007), Food as an Instrument of Social Change: Feastingin Iron Age and Early Roman Southern Britain, in K. C. TWISS (ed.),The Archaeology of Food and Identity, Center for Archaeological Investi-gations, Southern Illinois University, Occasional Paper no. 34, Carbon-

dale, pp. 112-29.


Africa romana114-Tirado(2)

Documents