7/30/2019 Organizing the Workshop: Water Management in Roman fullonicae

1/7

Organizing the WorkshopWater Management in Roman fullonicae

During the last two decades water historians havebecome increasingly interested in the ways inwhich water was distributed and used in Romaneities.1 This foeus on the more tangible aspects ofwater management has brought about interestingdiseussions about the various types of micro-scalewater systems, such as public and private baths,fountains, latrines and houses, and has invitedscholars to think more deeply about the socialquestions related to the urban uses of water. Inthis respect, it is remarkable that the uses of waterin urban workshops have remained an almost completely neglected area: almost ail kinds of workshops needed water to some degree and severalkinds of workshops needed water in extremelylarge quantities. Moreover, their uses of water areespeeially relevant to issues of hygiene and sarutation.Probably the largest consumers of water in theeconomic sector were the fullones, who washed andfinished woollen clothes. Their demand for wateremerges in various documents from all over theRoman world. Frontinus mentions that the waterlowing over from public fountains was to be usedonly by fullers or bath complexes, not by privatepersons.2 Two inscriptions from Antioch commemorate the construction of a long fullers' channel during the reign of Vespasianus.3 In Hellenistic EI Fayoum, half of the total capacity of theaqueduct was reserved for fuIling. 4 When onerealises that fuilers needed such amounts of waterthat it was a reason for governmental policy, itecomes interesting for a water historian to see

hat they did with it: for what purposes did theyeed it? How did they get it? What did they actually do with it? How did they get rid of it?HE FULLING PROCESS

For a discussion of the water management in Roman fullonicae, abasie understanding of how theomans fulled clothes is indispensable. Here, howver, we encounter a problem. In the 19 th and 20 thenturies, several scholars have tried to recontruct the Roman fulling process.5 They did so inway that was the most common practice in their

Mika Flohrdays: emphasis was laid on the references to fullingin ancient literature. Scholars took care to fit everypiece of written evidence into one aIl-encompassing account of the 'standard' Roman fullingprocess; consequently, they vaguely presented thefulling process as a nearly endless succession ofphases including all kinds of activities aceidentally ascribed to fullers by Roman authors.6 Thepreeise order of these activities varied from scholarto scholar. By our standards, these 'traditional'approaches seem methodologically ill-balanced:archaeological and iconographical data were usedto illustrate the conclusions but their interpretation played only a lirnited role in building up thepieture. Hence, there is a wide gap between thesetext-based reconstructions and the material remainsof fullonicae at Pompeii or Ostia. Moreover, littleis known about the spatial organisation of thefulling process. For our present purpose, it istherefore necessary to re-assess the fulling processfrom an archaeological perspective.

Our most logical starting point is the materialevidence from Ostia and Pompeii. The fullonicae inthese eities have sirnilar provisions and thus canbe related to the same production process. Moreover, there is a direct link between these work-shops and the writ ten evidence, since on the wallsof some of the Pompeian establishments electionnotices mentioningfulloneshave been found .7 Thefullonicae at Pompeii and Ostia have been relatively weil preserved compared to others, but itmust be emphasized that even in these workshops not much remains of portable instrumentsor wooden furniture. This means that part of theproduct ion process can not really be traced in thearchaeological record. Parts, however, can.

In all Ostian and most Pompeian fullonicae, twotypes of installations can be found. Typical are thenarrow niches surrounded by low walls oftenreferred to as 'fulling stalls'. On the bottom of theruche, a tub was placed or built in (fig. 1).8 As isdepicted on a painting from fullonica VI 8, 20 atPompeii, the ruches were used by workers treating cloths by trampling and scrubbing them andwringing them out (fig. 2). Sometimes, the innerside of preserved fulling tubs is covered with a

193

7/30/2019 Organizing the Workshop: Water Management in Roman fullonicae

2/7

Fig. 1. Ostia, fullonica I, xiii, 3, fulling stalls.

Fig . 3. Ostia, fullonica II, iv, 13: rinsing basin.

Fig . 5. Pompeii, fullonica I 6, 7: working beneh.

194

Fig. 2. Pompeii, fullonica VI 8, 20: painting offullers working in fu lling stalls.

Fig. 4. Ostia, fullonica II, xi, 1: rinsing complex.

Fig. 6. Pompeii, fullonica VI 8, 20: rinsing complex

7/30/2019 Organizing the Workshop: Water Management in Roman fullonicae

3/7

thin layer of a whitish substance. Chemical analysis of this res idue in a recently excavated fullonicaat Barcelona has revealed traces of ash, calciumcarbonate and urine, detergents also related tofullers by Plinius Major.9 As it seems, fulling stallswere used to soap the clothes with a mixture ofchemicals (and, probably, some water). In somejullonicae, small terracotta storage jars sometimeswere set into the walls between the niches. lO

Other installations commonly found in Pom-peian and Ostian fullonicae are basins - one or twoin small workshops (fig. 3), three or four in thelarger ones (fig. 4).11 The main function of thesebasins was to rinse the soaped clothes in freshwater. In most fullonicae, the basins are on a lowerlevel than the surrounding working space in orderto be accessible. Together with the appearance ofworking benches in some basins (fig. 5), thisimplies that this 'rinsing' was more than justsoaking and maybe also included dirt-removingoperations like e.g. brushing. This is confirmed bythe sediment-analysis in Barcelona, where, alongwith traces of lavender, needles of thistles werefound in the drain of the fullonica.1 2 In large workshops, the basins of one complex differ from eachother: at Pompeii, one basin often has a higherwater level than the others have and is not accessible (fig. 6); some basins have benches, othersnot. This presupposes a differentiation within therinsing complex. I will return to that below.

We can assurne that the clothes passed throughthe fulling stalls before entering the rinsing complex: there is no sense in soaping clothes after youhave rinsed them. In most fullonicae the fullingstalls are located directly next to or around therinsing complex. This suggests that the rinsingimmediately followed the soaping. After the rinsing, the clothes were clean, but they had to bemade ready for the customer to take them horne.This third part of the process can be referred to as'finishing'. It is hard to say what this 'finishing'actually consisted of. Various treatments werenecessary. Of course, the clothes ha d to be dried.Various authors mention further activities that canbe related to this part of the fulling process, bu tas there is virtually no archaeological evidence andthe literary references are often not very explicit,it is hard to make sense of it. Iconographic evidence suggests that brushing was common andthere is considerable evidence for cloth-presses,both iconographic and archaeological. 13 Of theother activities (like, e.g., sulphuring), it is hardto say how common they were and when theywere performed.

WATER SUPPLYNow that we have an idea about the Roman wayof fulling, we can turn to our main subject: thewater management in fullonicae. Fresh water was aconditio sine qua non for a fulling workshop. Mostworkshops were directly connected to the urbanwater network, though smaller workshops sometimes used alternative ways to fulfil their waterneeds: the small fullery V I, 2 at Pompeii shared astreet fountain with the two tinctoriae (dyehouses)next door (V I, 4 and V I, 5); jullonica VI 16, 6 gotits water from a cistern.Water usually was supplied through lead pipesleading directly to the rinsing complex. In somefulleries at Ostia, the water first passed througha small basin on the border of the rinsing complex.14 Without exception, the entire complex wasfed from one single point. In many jullonicae,traces of the mouthing of the water pipe are stillvisible on the borders of the rinsing complex. Inthe large jullonica in the Via degli Augustali inOstia (\1, vii, 3), a small block of travertine in thesouth wall of the rinsing complex reveals agroove for the lead pipe (fig. 7). A broadening inthe groove may indicate the presence of a ta pwith which the supply of water could be regulated.15 In most other fullonicae, the mouth of thewater supply was built into the wall; in thesecases, the presence of a tap is unlikely. The largejullonica in the Via della Fullonica at Ostia wasprobably served by an underground channel,which mouthed in the east wall of the northernbasin (fig. 8).16WATER USEThis brings us to the way water was used in therinsing complexes. All complexes were fed fromone single point and most complexes had only oneoutlet at the opposite side,17 Theoretically, a rinsing complex can have had a stagnant water system, in which the water stood still and had to berefreshed all in once, or a flowing water system, inwhich there was a continuous flow of fresh waterthrough the complex. The archaeological differencebetween these two water systems is in itself notentirely straightforward, since a flowing systemcan easily be turned into a stagnant system byblocking the drain with a piece of stone or metaland closing the tap. However, the presence of overflows and the probable absence of taps in manyjullonicae suggest that most rinsing complexeswere meant to function as flowing water systems.

195

7/30/2019 Organizing the Workshop: Water Management in Roman fullonicae

4/7

A good example is the large jullonica of the Viadella Fullonica at Ostia (fig. 4). Here, the freshwater entered the complex in the northern basin(fig. 8). The water went through all three basinsand left the complex at the south side of the thirdbasin. There are no signs of taps or other meansof regulation and there are overflows between allbasins and above the drain (fig. 9) . I t must also bementioned that the large capacity of the complexmakes it improbable that the whole complex wasrenewed at once: this simply would have cost toomuch time.18The fact that most fullonicae had flowing watersystems has an important implication if the rins-ing complex consisted of more than one basin:when you throw the soaped clothes into the basinsto be rinsed, the water will absorb the dirt and thesoap: the cleaning of the clothes pollutes the water.The water of the first basin is polluted by theclothes rinsed there, then flows to the second andabsorbs more pollution of the clothes rinsed there,and then to the third where it absorbs even moredirt. Thus, the water quality decreases from basinto basin and if every basin had the same function,clothes rinsed in the third basin would end updirtier than clothes rinsed in the first basin. In thatcase, it would have been more efficient to have onelarge basin instead of several smaller ones. Thus,as suggested above, the basins of the rinsing com-plex must have had slightly different functions. Itmay be suggested that the clothes gradually movedfrom 'dirty' to 'clean' water: after the soaping, theclothes were first rinsed in the third basin, thenin the second and finally in the first.Besides the water management, there are sev-eral indications supporting this interpretation. Atthe three largest fullonicae at Ostia, the rinsing com-plex is surrounded by fulling stalls on three sides.The fourth side was occupied with other provi-sions. In all cases, this is the side directly behindthe outlet of the water supply (i.e. where the rinsedclothes left the water). Further, the working benchesthat sometimes can be found in the basins onlyappear in the last basin or in the last but one an dnever in the first basin with the cleanest water. Thehigher, inaccessible basin found in some Pompeianfullonicae always is the first basin. This also impliesthat the intensity of the additional treatments de -creases with the proceeding of the rinsing process:the clothes probably were brushed or scrubbed inthe first stages of the rinsing process, whereas thelast stage mainly consisted of soaking.The differentiation within the rinsing procedurehad one major advantage: it made it possible torinse three or four times more clothes than when

196

there would have been one large rinsing basin.19It may be suggested tha t the organisation of therinsing complexes in large Roman fullonicae pointsto the economically rational wish to maximize theefficiency of the fulling process.WASTEWATERUsing water produces wastewater. In addition tothe water from the rinsing complex, fullers alsohadto get rid of the mixture of chemieals and waterfrom the fulling stalls. In large jullonicae, theseseem to have been collected in small gutters im-mediately before the stalls and then were trans-ported to the drain where they were mixed wi ththe water from the rinsing complex (fig. 10, 11).20At Ostia, the gutters sometimes emptied them-selves into the last basin, emphasizing that thewater quality in this basin ha d less priority thanthat in the other ones.The collected wastewater of a jullonica left theworkshop through a drain leading into the normalurban system of discharge. This me ans that at Ostiathe water was transported through sewers belowthe street surface. At Pompeii however, the dis-charge system of the large fullonicae mouthed onto the streets (fig. 12): the dirty mix of water andchemieals ran through the streets and was visibleand smellable for all citizens walking through thetown. Apparently, this was no big problem, sinceotherwise, Pompeian fullers would have beenforced to get rid of their wastewater in some otherway. This raises a fundamental question, sinceRoman archaeologists often present fulling as afilthy, stinky business: how dirty was fulling? Al:,it seems, fulling was less 'dirty' than usually isassumed. 21 It could even take place in priva tehouses: at Pompeii, the three large fullonicae werepart of complexes combining residential and in-dustrial functions.22 Equally, the discharge of waste-water from fulleries through the streets of a citywas not really causing any trouble: indeed, fullen;used urine, but its nasty smells must have disap-peared in the large amounts of water used to washit away; moreover, they used lavender during therinsing procedure to give their products a nicesmell.23CONCLUSION

The jullonicae at Ostia and Pompeii are the resultof a long process of rationalizing the fulling pro-cess, which must have begun many centuries be-fore the oldest recognisablefullonica was built. It ishard to reconstruct or even trace the steps in this

7/30/2019 Organizing the Workshop: Water Management in Roman fullonicae

5/7

Fig. 7. Ostia, fullonica 11; viii, 3, outlet of the watersuppZy.

Fig. 9. Ostia, fullonica n xi, 1, entrance to drainand overflow.

Fig. 11. Pompeii, fullonica VI 14, 21.22: Zowerfulling stalls, drainage system.

Fig. 8. Ostia, fullonica n xi, t outlet of the watersuppZy.

Fig . 10. Pompeii, fullonica VI 14,21.22: higherfulling stalls, drainage system.

Fig. 12. Pompeii, fullonica VI 14,21.22: mouth ofthe drain on the Via deZ Vesuvio.

197

7/30/2019 Organizing the Workshop: Water Management in Roman fullonicae

6/7

process of rationalization, bu t the process succeeded in producing well-organized workshops of ascale we do not know from the medieval period.At first sight, there might seem to be considerabledifferences between the fullonicae at Ostia and theones at Pompeii. The workshops at Ostia are muchlarger and have a regular layout, the workshopsat Pompeii are modest in size and less regular inlayout - they also look very different from eachother, whereas the Ostian fulleries seem more orless similar. However, it must be stressed that, inthe end, all these fullonicae functioned in a similarway. In the organization of these workshops, thewater management was of paramount interest.Especially in the rinsing complexes, water wasused in a relatively advanced manner. This succeeded in improving the efficiency of the workshop. If the Romans would not have built differentiated rinsing complexes, they would not havebeen able to build jullonicae on the scale of thelarge Ostian workshops. The high degree of rationalization permitted an enormous increase inscale; we may imagine that these workshopsfunctioned in almost industrial manner.NOTES1 I thank Gemma Jansen and Gilbert Wiplinger for inviting me to the congress. The Royal Dutch Institute atRome awarded me two research grants, without whichthis contribution would have been impossible. The

Radboud University at Nijmegen financially supportedmy trip to the congress.Frontinus, de Aqu. 94.Feissel1985, 77-103.4 P. Oxy. Griffith 55.5 E.g. Marquardt 1886, 527-530; Blmner 1912, 170-190;Jakob 1921, 1349 ff; Pernier, 317; Wipszycka 1965, 129-145 ; Moeller 1978, 18-24.6 E.g. washing, drying, rinsing, beating, shaving, sulphuring, carding and pressing.7 E.g. on the walls of fullonicae I 4, 7 (CIL Iv , 998), I 6, 7(CIL Iv , 7164), VI 14, 21.22 (CIL Iv , 3478) and VI 15, 3(CIL Iv , 3529). This epigraphic link is even more explicitthan the paintings from fullonica VI 8, 20 at Pompe. Cf.Wilson 2003, 443.8 In Ostia, fullones used built-in terracotta tubs. At

Pompe, most fulling stalls lack a bottom, which indicates the use of portable tubs of lead or wood. In onefullery (VI 16, 6) traces of wood have been found in thefilling of a hole in the bottom of one of the niches. Cf.Seiler 1992, 72.9 Beltran de Heredia BercerolJordi y Tresserras 2000, 242 ,tab. 1. Plinius Major, NH XXXV; 195-198. Infullonica VI16, 6 at Pompe, traces of calcium carbonate have beenfound; cf. Seiler 1992, 72.10 E.g. in fullonica VI 8, 20 an d V 1, 2 at Pompe and infullonica Iv , 5-7 in Herculaneum. Cf. Maiuri 1958, 422,n.218.

198

11 The smallest Pompeian fullonicae do not reveal anytraces of basins. Probably, they used portable installations.12 Beltran de Heredia Bercero / Jordi y Tresserras 2000, 242.13 Brushing is e.g. shown on paintings from fullonica VI 8,

20 and the House of the Vett (VI 15, 1) at Pompeii andon arelief from Sens (see Esperandieu 1912, 11-12).Remains of presses have been found at Pompeii lfullonica 16, 7 and VI 14, 21 .22) and Herculaneum (Ill, 10);a detailed depiction of a cloth press is found on thepaintings from fullonica VI 8, 20.14 These basins have been found at the large fullonica ofthe Via della Fullonica (11, xi, 1), in the one recentlyexcavated behind the temple of the Fabri Navales (III,ii; Cf. de Ruyt, 1996,5-16.) and in the small establishmentalong the Cardo (I xiii, 3). The idea behind these basinsis not entirely clear. They seem too small to perform arole in the rinsing procedure. Presumably, they wereintended as an accessible source for fresh, clean water.15 At the same point, several small holes have been carvedou t in the sides of the groove, probably to fix the tap.16 The same opening was interpreted by the excavator asan overflow. This is strange, since the opening is on ahigher level than the overflow in the south wall of thebasin and thus above water level. The irregularity in thefloor below the opening probably must be seen as anancient repair of erosion damage caused by the continuous pressure of water flowing from the channel to thebasin. Cf. Pietrogrande 1976, 3l .17 The only exception is fullonica VI 14, 21.22 at Pompewhere all th ree basins have their own outlet.18 It cannot be excluded that the water was refreshed oncea day, during the night, bu t this would have had theobvious disadvantage that the quality of the productdecreased in the course of the day.19 Depending on the number of basins.20 In smaller fullonicae, the fulling stalls were situated in

the middle of a small platform surrounded by ridgetiles preventing the wastewater from polluting the entireworkshop; examples are fullonicae I 10, 6 and VI 16, 6 atPompeii. Cf. Seiler 1992, fig. 511; Elia 1934, 277, fig. 7.21 Such assumptions about tne dirtirless of fulling arewidespread among scholars. See e.g. Richardson 1988,20-21 and, more recently, Bradley 2002, 21-44.22 Flohr 2003, 448.23 Beltran de Heredia Bercero /Juan y Tresserras 2000, 242 .BIBLIOGRAPHYBeltran de Heredia Bercero, J./J. Jordi y Tresserras 2000,Nuevas aportaciones para el estudio de las fullonicae ytinctoriae en el munda romano. Resultados de lasinvestigaciones arqueol6gicas y arqueometricas en lasinstalaciones de la colonia de Barcino (Barcelona,Espafta), in D. Cardon/M. Feugere (eds), Archeologie destextiles des origins au Ve siede. Actes du colloque de Lattes ,Montagnac, 241 -246.Blmner, H. 1912, Technologie und Terminologie der Gewerbeund Knste bei Griechen und Rmern I, Leipzig.Bradley, M. 2002, "It all comes ou t in the wash" Lookingharder in the Roman fullonica, JRA 15, 21-44.De Ruyt, C. 1996, RBAH 65,1996,5-16.Elia, O. 1934, NSc 58, 277 ff.Esperandieu, E. 1912, Recueil general des bas-reliefs de laGaule romaine III, Paris.

7/30/2019 Organizing the Workshop: Water Management in Roman fullonicae

7/7

Feissel, D. 1985, Deux listes de quartiers d 'Antiocheastreints au creusement d'un canal (73-74 apres J.-c.),Syria 62,77-103.Flohr, M. 2003, Fullones and Roman society. A reconsideration, IRA 16, 447-450.Jakob, A 1921, Daremberg-Saglio II 1921, 1349-1352, s.v.Fullonica.Maiuri, A 1958, Ercolano. I nuovi scavi, Rome.Marquardt, J. 1886, Das Privatleben der Rmer II, Leipzig.Moeller, W. 1978, The Wool Trade of Ancient Pompeii, Leiden.

P. Oxy, B.P. Grenfeld/AS. Hunt (eds.), The OxyrhyncusPapyri, London 1898 ff.

Pernier 1922, DEAR I (1922) 317 s.v. Fullones.Pietrogrande, AL. 1976, Le fulloniche, Scavi di Ostia 8,Rome.Richardson Jr., L. 1988, Pompeii. An Architectural History,Baltimore.Seiler, F. 1992, Huser in Pompeji 5. Casa degli Amorini Dorati(VI 16, 7.38), Munieh.Wilson, A 2003, The archaeology of the Roman fullonica,IRA 16, 442-446.Wipszycka, E. 1965, L'indus trie textile dans l'Egypte romaine,Wroclaw.

199