Among the most significant material evidence for manufacturing and production activities in Roman towns are the remains of workshops dedicated to fulling. The layout of these so-called fullonicae is often relatively well preserved and provides detailed information about the daily activities in these workshops. Together with the remains of bakeries and a few other identifiable urban workshops, fullonicae allow us to discuss important aspects of the social and economic contexts of production in Roman cities. However, despite the potential of the evidence and the significance of the subject, there has been little discussion of Roman fulling, and the contribution of M. Bradley in JRA 15 (2002) 21-44 is only the second to discuss Roman fullonicae in general. Bradley focuses on the cultural and economic context of fullones (fullers) and fullonicae in Roman society. Although his narrative will prove to be a useful contribution to the debate on Roman fulling, there are good reasons to question some of his conclusions. A major objection concerns the uniformity of his approach. His highly conceptualised profile of the context of Roman fulling underestimates possible regional and chronological variations as well as the multiform nature of human society. Furthermore, he relies too heavily on literary sources and uses epigraphy and material remains merely to illustrate his suggestions. This leads to an over-simplification of the complex relations between various types of data. As I will argue below, these methodological problems seriously undermine his statements about the economic nature of the Roman fullonica, the spatial context of fullonicae, and the social status of fullones.