Reconstructing the beginnings of Roman concrete

The character of Roman concrete and its role in Roman construction technology have been topics of keen debate, speculation, and research since the time of Vitruvius, who, for practical or theoretical reasons, expressed some suspicions of concrete architecture (Vitr. De arch. 2.8.1, 2.8.8–9, 16–20). Physical examination only began to make a real contribution to the discussion in the last 60 years or so, but advanced analytical techniques have now described the components of both the mortar and the aggregate that make up ancient Roman concrete. Such analysis, however, does not in most cases by itself solve the questions of the chronology of the monuments from which samples have been taken, a particularly crucial problem for the earliest period of the technology in Republican Rome. Progress has been made in C analysis of Roman mortars with hydraulic lime binders, but the accuracy may never be sufficient for the fine chronological distinctions needed by architectural historians. This problem of chronology is the starting point of Mogetta’s (M.) analysis of the early history of Roman concrete construction on land. He earlier published two substantial articles that form the basis for several chapters. In this book, which originated as a University of Michigan dissertation (2013), he “aims to elucidate the pattern of implementation of that discovery across the constellation of higherorder settlements in the Italian peninsula” (3). This approach relies on careful analysis of the archaeological basis for dating early concrete structures in Rome and elsewhere on the Italian peninsula. M. concludes that concrete construction did not appear as the result of a centralized process in the city of Rome during the 3rd c. BCE, but rather it evolved at several centers in the Italian peninsula during the first half of the 2nd c. BCE. The topics are densely argued and deeply documented, both challenging and rewarding the careful