CHAPTER XXI

_ROMAN POTTERY: TECHNICAL PROCESSES, SHAPES, AND USES_

Introductory—Geographical and historical limits—Clay and glaze—Technical processes—Stamps and moulds—_Barbotine_ and other methods—Kilns found in Britain, Gaul, and Germany—Use of earthenware among the Romans—Echea—Dolia and Amphorae—Inscriptions on amphorae—Cadus, Ampulla, and Lagena—Drinking-cups—Dishes—Sacrificial vases—Identification of names.

1. INTRODUCTORY

Roman vases are far inferior in nearly all respects to Greek; the shapes are less artistic, and the decoration, though not without merits of its own, bears the same relation to that of Greek vases that all Roman art does to Greek art. Strictly speaking, a comparison of the two is not possible, as in the one case we are dealing with painted vases, in the other with ornamentation in relief. But from the point of view of style they may still be regarded as commensurable. Roman vases, in a word, require only the skill of the potter for their completion, and the processes employed are largely mechanical, whereas Greek vases called in the aid of a higher branch of industry, and one which gave scope for great artistic achievements—namely, that of painting.

It may perhaps be advisable to attempt some definition of the subject, and lay down as far as possible historical and geographical limits within which Roman pottery as a distinct phase of ancient art may be said to be comprised. The line which distinguishes it from Greek pottery is, however, one of artistic evolution rather than of chronology, one of political circumstances rather than of geographical demarcation. In other words, it will be found that during a certain period the ceramic art had reached the same stage of evolution throughout all the Mediterranean countries; in Greece and Asia Minor, in the Crimea and in North Africa, in Southern Italy and in Etruria, a point of development had been reached at which the same kind of pottery, of very similar artistic merit, was being made in all parts alike. In Greece and other regions which had up to the end of the fourth century, or even later, been famous for their painted pottery, this art had lost its popularity and was dying or dead; in other parts, as in Etruria, it had never obtained a very firm foothold, and the local traditions of relief-ware imitating metal were revived. Not the least remarkable feature of the art of the Hellenistic Age is the great impetus given to working in metal, as has already been indicated in a previous chapter (Vol. I. p. 498). The toreutic products of Alexandria and of the famous chasers of Asia Minor, whose names Pliny records,[3080] became renowned throughout the Greek world, and the old passion for painted pottery was entirely ousted by the new passion for chased vases of metal.

But in spite of increased habits of luxury, it is obvious that the replacing of earthenware by metal could never have become universal. For ordinary household purposes pottery was still essential, and besides that, there were many to whom services of plate and gold or silver vessels for use or ornament were a luxury unattainable. Hence it was natural that there should follow a general tendency to imitate in the humbler material what was beyond reach in the more precious, and the practice arose, not only of adorning vessels of clay with reliefs in imitation of the chased vases, but even of covering them with some preparation to give them the appearance of metal. Instances of these tendencies have been given in Chapter XI., and no better example could be adduced than that of the silver phialae of Èze and their terracotta replicas in the British Museum (Vol. I. p. 502).

In the same chapter we saw that Southern Italy, in particular, was the home of the relief and moulded wares in the Hellenistic period. This was a time when there were close artistic relations between that region and Etruria, and we have already seen that this method of decoration had long been familiar in the latter district (see p. 292 ff.). Hence it is not surprising that we find springing up in the Etruscan region of Italy an important centre of pottery manufacture which proved itself to be the heir of more than one line of artistic traditions. The era of Roman pottery is generally assumed to begin with the establishment at Arretium, within the area of Roman domination, of a great manufactory in the hands of Roman masters and workmen. Evidence points to the second century B.C. as the time when Arretium sprang into importance as a pottery-centre; and thenceforward for many years its fabrics filled the markets and set the fashion to the rest of the Roman world.

The lower limit of the subject is, from lack of evidence, not much easier to define; but after the second century of the Empire, pottery, like other branches of working in clay, sank very much into the background, and the spread of Christianity after the time of Diocletian practically gave the death-blow to all Pagan art. M. Déchelette, in his account of the important potteries at Lezoux in Gaul, brings forward evidence to show that they practically came to an end about the time of Gallienus (A.D. 260-268)[3081]; but it is probable that the manufacture of degenerate _sigillata_ wares went on for about a century longer in Germany at any rate, if not in Gaul. Much of the pottery found in Germany and Britain is of an exceedingly debased and barbaric character.

In discussing the geographical distribution of Roman pottery we are met first with the difficulty, which has already been hinted at, of defining where Greek ends and Roman begins. But we must have regard to the fact that in most if not all Greek lands pottery, painted or moulded, was in a moribund condition, whereas in Italy the latter branch was rejuvenescent. It seems, therefore, more satisfactory on the whole to exclude the Eastern Mediterranean entirely from the present survey, and to consider that with the concluding words of Chapter XI. the history of pottery in that part of the ancient world came to an end. That is to say, that all later fabrics found in Greece or Asia Minor, even though they are sometimes of Roman date, belong to the lingering traces of a purely Hellenic development, and have no bearing on our present investigation.

The latter must therefore be limited to the countries of Western Europe, embracing—besides Italy—France, Germany, Britain, and Spain. The pottery found in these regions during the period of the Roman Empire is homogeneous in character, though greatly varying in merit, and so far as it can be traced to the victorious occupiers of those countries rather than to purely native workmanship, represents what we may call Roman pottery, as opposed to Greek or Graeco-Roman on the one hand and Celtic or Gaulish on the other.

2. TECHNICAL PROCESSES

Roman pottery, regarded from its purely technical aspect, is in some ways better known to us than Greek, chiefly owing to the extensive discoveries of kilns, furnaces, and potters’ apparatus, such as moulds and tools, in various parts of Western Europe. On the other hand, its classification is a much more difficult matter, although it has for so long been the subject of study, for reasons which will subsequently appear. This is perhaps partly due to the overwhelming interest which the discoveries of recent years have evoked in the study of Greek vases; and partly, of course, to the artistic superiority and more varied interest of the latter; but the mass of material now collected in the Museums of Italy and Central Europe is gradually impelling Continental scholars to bring to bear on Roman pottery the scientific methods now universally pursued in other directions. Of their work we shall speak more in detail in another chapter; for the present we must confine ourselves to the technical aspect of the subject.

The Romans, who used metal vases to a far greater extent than the Greeks—at least under the late Republic and Empire—did not hold the art of pottery in very high estimation, and their vases, like their tiles and lamps, were produced by slaves and freedmen, whereas at Athens the potter usually held at least the position of a resident alien. These were content to produce useful, but not as a rule fine or beautiful, vases, for the most part only adapted to the necessities of life. There was, so far as we know, no manufacture of vases set apart for religious purposes, either for funerary use or as votive offerings, and for the adornment of the house metal had the preference. It is not, therefore, surprising that we should find them making use of a less fine and compact paste for the greater proportion of their vases. With the exception of the fine red wares with reliefs, which are now generally known to archaeologists as _terra sigillata_,[3082] and which answered in public estimation to our porcelain, they made only common earthenware, and this was generally left unglazed.

All kinds of clays are used, varying with the different regions in which the pottery was made, and ranging in hue from black to grey, drab, yellow, brown, and red. In quality, too, the clay varies to a considerable extent, some being of a coarse, pebbly character. The red clay of the Allier district in France, where most of the Gaulish pottery was manufactured, is of a ferruginous nature; its natural colour is modified by baking, though it never becomes white.[3083] The pottery of St. Rémy-en-Rollat in that neighbourhood is made of the same white clay as the terracotta figures (p. 382).[3084] In Italy, as a rule, careful attention seems to have been paid to the preparing and mixing of the clay, and in the glazed red wares it is uniformly good. In fact, the remarkable similarity in technique and appearance of this ware throughout the Roman Empire has led to the view that there can only have been one centre from which it was exported. Against this, however, must be urged the undeniably provincial and almost barbarous character of the decoration on much of the pottery found in Central and Northern Europe; and therefore, without denying that exportation went on, as it undoubtedly did, we should prefer to suppose that this red glaze was produced in some special artificial manner, such as by using red ochre or iron oxide (see below), the knowledge of which became common property. As Semper said forty years ago[3085]: “Not only did barbarians, Gauls, Britons, and Germans, learn to know and use Roman technique, but also Egypt, Asia, and the Greeks, already immortalised by their own pottery, dropped their local processes, and voluntarily adopted Roman forms and technique.” Clay and glaze, form and technical method, are in all parts the same; it is only the decoration that varies and reflects the spirit and taste of the locality.

Formerly it was thought that the red glaze was obtained in the baking, after careful polishing of the surface, and that special means were adopted to this end. In the kilns of Castor (see below) Artis thought that he detected contrivances for this purpose; but it is now generally agreed that the glaze is artificial, not natural. In ordinary wares and in the lamps a red glaze is produced by a mere polishing of the surface, and this varies in tone and lustre with the proportion of oxide of iron in the paste, and the degree of heat employed in the baking. But in the _terra sigillata_ the red glaze reaches a high and uniform state of perfection. This seems to have been produced by a kind of varnish, the elements of which are not absolutely certain; but it would appear that the substance added to produce the effect was of an essentially alkaloid nature. This has been deduced by Dragendorff[3086] from a series of analyses made from fragments of different wares, both without and with the glaze; in the latter case the alkaloid constituents show a marked increase in quantity, whereas the proportion of the iron oxide and other elements remain constant. These investigations were made by Dr. Lilienthal, of Dorpat, on five fragments: (1) from a vase of the Republican period found at Corneto; (2) from a bowl of fine _terra sigillata_ of the first century after Christ; (3) from a deep cup of the same style; (4) from late provincial ware of the second or third century; (5) from a degenerate fabric with rough clay and inferior glaze, the results being as follows:—

1. Without glaze[3087]:

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) Silica 55·08 52·87 52·054 54·75 66·70 Clay earth 23·10 23·95 — 18·82 21·01 Iron oxide 14·13 4·78 13·966 14·48 5·89 Carbonate of lime 5·22 13·80 — 5·30 3·20 Magnesia 0·75 2·35 1·850 3·38 1·26 Potash 0·79 0·89 1·852 1·55 1·02 Carbonate of sodium 0·28 0·45 0·523 0·53 0·57

2. With glaze[3088]:

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) Silica 54·18 — 51·924 53·70 — Clay 21·31 — — 16·93 — Iron 15·00 — 12·168 14·70 — Carbonate of lime 6·01 — — 5·82 — Magnesia 1·94 3·12 2·201 5·72 2·05 Potash 0·95 1·06 2·210 1·82 1·27 Carbonate of sodium 0·37 0·49 0·921 0·62 0·69

It must be borne in mind that, although the final effect is due to the alkaloids, the red colour of the vases is produced by the iron oxide which was inherent in the composition of the clay, none being added with the varnish, as the quantities show. All the fragments also showed traces of manganese and sulphuric acid. Previously analyses had been given by Brongniart and Blümner,[3089] with results approximately similar, but not so definite. Fabroni had thought that the iron oxide was combined with a vitreous paste,[3090] and Keller, by practical experiments, essayed to show that borax was employed to provide the required appearance,[3091] and further maintained that the furnace at Castor already alluded to was used for dissolving that substance. He was not far from the truth, but the results obtained by Dragendorff seem to militate against his conclusions.

In any case the glaze is very perfect, of so bright a red as to resemble coral, and serving, as Blümner says, to enhance the ground colour where a modern glaze would only conceal its imperfect tone. It is so fine and so carefully laid on that it does not interfere with any outlines or details, in this again evincing its superiority to modern glaze. It seems to have been applied not with the brush, but by dipping the vase into the liquid.[3092] Black glaze, such as occurs on the earlier Italian fabrics (p. 481), was produced from an alkaline silicate.[3093]

The ordinary unglazed wares were classified by Brongniart under four heads[3094]: (1) pale yellow; (2) red (dark red to red-brown; first century of Empire); (3) grey or ash-coloured (down to the end of the Western Empire); (4) black (mainly provincial). This distribution was in its general lines adopted by subsequent writers, such as Buckman[3095] and Birch, but was felt to be inadequate, and some slight modifications were adopted. For practical purposes, however, it will be found to work fairly well as a convenient method of grouping the commoner wares. None of them as a rule have any decoration. They will be considered in fuller detail in a subsequent chapter.

* * * * *

In the manufacture of vases the Romans used the same processes as the Greeks. They were made on the wheel (_rota figularis_ or _orbis_),[3096] to which allusion is not infrequently made by the Latin poets, as in the well-known line of Horace[3097]:—

Amphora cepit Institui; currente rota cur urceus exit?

And, again, in the phrase _totus, teres, atque rotundus_[3098] he is doubtless referring to a vase just turned off the wheel. Tibullus speaks of “slippery clay fashioned on the wheel of Cumae”[3099]; and there are also allusions in Plautus and other writers.[3100] The simile has also been drawn upon by English poets.[3101] Specimens of potters’ wheels have been found at Arezzo and at Nancy; these are made of terracotta, pierced in the centre for the axis of the pivot, and furnished at the circumference with small cylinders of lead, to give purchase for the hand and steadiness to the whirling wheel.[3102] Another from Lezoux, now in the Museum at Roanne, is figured by M. Déchelette.[3103] Most of the common wares were made by this process, except the _dolia_, or large casks, which were built up on a frame like the Greek pithos (Vol. I. p. 152).

But for the ornamented vases with reliefs an additional process was necessary in order to produce the raised ornament, and they were in nearly all cases produced from moulds, like the lamps or terracotta figures and reliefs.[3104] The vases were still fashioned on the wheel, but this was done in the mould from which the reliefs were obtained. Occasionally the reliefs were modelled by hand or with the aid of tools, or even produced with a brush full of thick slip (_en barbotine_), but moulding was the general rule. This method entailed three distinct stages, of which the first alone required artistic capacity; the other two were purely mechanical, requiring only a certain technical dexterity. The first was that of making the stamps from which the designs were impressed; the second, the making of the moulds; the third, impressing the clay in the mould.

The stamps were made of clay, gypsum, wood, or metal, and had a handle at the back for holding while pressing them into the mould; they were used not only for figures and ornamental designs, but also for the potter’s signature (see below). Only clay examples, however, have been preserved, but some of these are admirable specimens. Frequently the subjects on the Arretine vases were taken, like those on lamps and mural reliefs, from existing works of art, especially from the “new Attic” reliefs to which allusion has already been made (p. 368), and the stamps are directly copied from these sources. An instance of this is a stamp from Arezzo in the British Museum, with a beautiful figure of Spring (Plate LXVI. fig. 2), which finds its counterpart on a complete vase from Capua (Fig. 219), and also on a mural relief (B.M. D 583). Another good example in the same collection represents a slave bending over a vessel on a fire, and shielding his face from the heat with one hand. From the same site are two others representing respectively a boar and a lion. A fourth stamp found at Arezzo, with a tragic mask, is given in Fig. 211.[3105] The stamps must have been articles of commerce, and handed down from one potter to another, as the subjects are found repeated in different places; the majority were probably made at Arezzo and other important places in Italy.

Among examples from the provinces may be mentioned one in the British Museum (Romano-British collection), with the figure of a youth, inscribed OFFI(_cina_) LIBERTI; it is of fine terracotta, and was found at Mainz. A stamp with the figure of Paris or Atys is in the museum of the Philosophical Society at York.[3106] Other stamps in the form of a hare and a lion in the Sèvres Museum are inscribed with the name of Cerialis, a well-known German potter, whose name also occurs on a mould for a large bowl with a frieze of combatants in the British Museum, and in the former museum are six others, including one of a wolf, with the name of a Gaulish potter, Cobnertus.[3107] Von Hefner mentions one found at Rheinzabern with a figure of a gladiator at each end, inscribed P · ATTI · CLINI · O(_fficina_), and others from Westerndorf with a lion and a horse.[3108] Dies for stamping the potters’ names have been found at Lezoux in Auvergne, and in Luxemburg, with the names of Auster (AVSTRI · OF) and Cobnertus, and Roach-Smith possessed one with the latter name[3109]; in the Sèvres Museum is also a stamp for making rows of pattern (see below),[3110] and at Rheinzabern one for an egg-and-tongue moulding was found.[3111] Specimens of these stamps are given in Fig. 211.

The moulds were made of a somewhat lighter clay than that of the vases, but it was essential that the material should be sufficiently porous to absorb the moisture of the pressed-in clay of the vase; sometimes holes for the water to escape through are visible. They were made on the wheel, and had a ridge on the exterior for convenience in handling; they were made whole, not in halves, but sometimes the vase was first made plain, and the figures were then attached from separate moulds, or rather made separately, as in the case of the “Megarian” bowls (Vol. I. p. 499).[3112] Vases have been found in the Rhone valley ornamented with large _appliqué_ medallions, and the separate moulds for these also exist; they seem to have been made at Vienne.[3113] The figures and ornaments were impressed into the moulds from the stamps while the paste was still soft, leaving hollow impressions to receive the clay of the vases. Similarly, continuous patterns, such as rows of beads or dots, were traced in the mould with a roller or wheel-like instrument on which the pattern was cut in relief.[3114] Any defects or careless arrangement in the completed vase would of course be due to a careless insertion of the stamps in the mould.

There are large numbers of moulds for Roman and provincial vases in existence,[3115] and the British Museum has a fine though fragmentary series from Arezzo, intended for some of the finest specimens of the local ware; of these more will be said in the following chapter. Many of these moulds have been found on sites of potteries in Gaul, especially in the Auvergne and Bourbonnais districts, and are collected in the Moulins, Roanne, St. Germain, and other museums. Lezoux was an important centre in this respect, and here also were found moulds for patterns and ornaments.[3116] In the British Museum (Romano-British collection) there is part of a mould for a shallow bowl, found at Rheinzabern, with stamped designs of a lion, boar, and hare pursuing one another; it is similar to the mould with Cerialis’ name already described. These _matrices_ are usually of fine bright red clay, unglazed; they are very porous, rapidly absorbing moisture, and easily allowing the potter to withdraw the vessel from the mould. The importance of the discovery of moulds can hardly be overrated for the evidence they afford as to the site of potteries and centres of fabrics[3117]; it is obvious that where they are found, and only in such places, the vases must have been made; and that the discovery of a potter’s name on any mould establishes his workshop at the place where it was found. Various tools for working the moulds, or touching up details or damaged parts of bronze and ivory, have been found on the sites of ancient potteries,[3118] as at Arezzo, but their use cannot be accurately determined.

The method of decoration known as _en barbotine_, which is a sort of cross between painting and relief, was achieved by the laying on of a semi-liquid clay slip with a brush, a spatula, or a small tube. The pattern was probably first lightly indicated, and the viscous paste was then laid on in thick lines or masses, producing a sort of low relief. The process was, as a rule, only employed for simple ornamentation, such as leaves, sprays, and garlands; but on the provincial black wares it finds a freer scope. On vases found in Britain and the adjoining parts of the Continent (p. 544) figures of animals are rendered in this manner, and on another class peculiar to Germany (p. 537) inscriptions are painted in a thick white slip. The colour of the slip did not necessarily correspond to the clay of the vase, and was, in fact, usually white. These vases are, however, technically poor, and the reliefs heavy and irregular. The process has been aptly compared to the sugar ornamentation on cakes.[3119]

Painted decoration is almost unknown in Roman pottery, and is, in fact, confined to the POCOLOM series described in Chapter XI. It occurs in a rough and primitive form on some of the provincial fabrics, such as the Castor and Rhenish vases (see pp. 537, 544), but its place is really taken by the _barbotine_ method.

Engraved or incised decoration is exceedingly rare, and practically confined to provincial wares, which sometimes have incisions or undulations made over the surface with the fingernail in the moist clay.[3120] In the north of England, as at York, pottery is commonly found with wreaths and fan-patterns cut in _intaglio_ in the clay while moist. Others have patterns of four leaves 20[19]four-leaf cut in the soft clay, or continuous ornaments round the vase made with the toothed roller-like instrument of which we have already spoken. Some of this ornamentation may be in imitation of contemporary glass vases. M. Déchelette has traced this fabric to Lezoux,[3121] and the specimens found in Britain are doubtless imported. A Gaulish example from the Morel Collection in the British Museum is given on Plate LXIX. fig. 4.

The feet and rims of the vases were made separately, and attached after their removal from the wheel, as were also the handles when required; but the rarity of handles in Roman pottery is remarkable. It is perhaps due to the difficulty of packing them safely for export. The next process was the preparation of the glaze, for those vases to which it was applied, followed by the baking.

3. ROMAN POTTERY-FURNACES

The remains of pottery-kilns and furnaces discovered in various parts of Europe have furnished a considerable amount of valuable information on the system employed in baking the vases. On this particular point, indeed, we know far more in regard to Roman pottery than to Greek, although, as we have seen in Chapter V., the painted vases themselves sometimes yield information on the appearance and arrangement of the furnaces. But remains of actual furnaces have been found in many places in Western Europe, notably in Germany, France, and Britain, in a more or less complete state, as also in Italy, at Pompeii, Modena, and Marzabotto.[3122] A complete list of those known in 1863 has been given by Von Hefner,[3123] supplemented by Blanchet’s lists of furnaces found in France (1898 and 1902).[3124] In Gaul the best examples are at Lezoux, near Clermont, at Châtelet in Haute-Marne,[3125] and at Belle-Vue, near Agen, in the Department of Lot-et-Garonne.[3126] The latter was circular in form, below the level of the soil. In Germany important remains have been found at Heiligenberg in Baden, Heddernheim near Frankfort, Rheinzabern near Karlsruhe, and Westerndorf.[3127] All these in general arrangement differ little from those in use at the present day; the Heddernheim furnace (Fig. 212) was found in the most perfect preservation, but was subsequently destroyed, not, however, before satisfactory plans and drawings had been made.[3128] In Britain by far the most important discoveries have been made at Castor, Chesterton, and Wansford in Northants, where the remains extend for some distance along the Nene valley.[3129] They were first explored by Artis in 1821-27, who published a magnificent series of plates in illustration, entitled _Durobrivae_; these he supplemented by a full description in the _Journal_ of the British Archaeological Association.[3130] Castor and Chesterton (the latter in Hunts) are both on the site of Roman towns, and were the centres of a special local ware, described in a succeeding chapter. The potteries, being so numerous, are probably not all of the same age.

In 1677 four Roman kilns were discovered in digging under St. Paul’s Cathedral for the foundation of Sir C. Wren’s building, at a depth of 26 feet. They were made of loam, which had been converted into brick by the action of the fires, and were full of coarse pots and dishes; they measured 5 feet each way. A drawing made at the time is preserved among the Sloane MSS. in the British Museum.[3131] In the kilns was found pottery of the kind typical of London and the neighbourhood. In 1898 two kilns, one of large size, with pottery bearing the name CASTVS FECIT, were found near Radlett in Herts,[3132] and another was excavated in 1895 by Mr. C. H. Read at Shoeburyness.[3133] In Norfolk a kiln of somewhat curious form was found in the Roman settlement of Caistor by Norwich; the shape is that of a shallow concave depression with partitions, and it contained vases placed ready for baking.[3134] Another found between Buxton and Brampton was recorded by Sir Thomas Browne,[3135] and a third at Weybourne.[3136] In the South of England kilns have been found in the New Forest, where there was a manufacture of local pottery[3137]; in Alice Holt Forest near Petersfield, Hants; at Shepton Mallet in Somerset; and a potter’s workshop at Milton Abbas, Dorset.[3138] The British Museum contains a model of a kiln unearthed at Worcester about forty years ago, on the site of the modern porcelain works. Finally, discoveries of kilns and pottery were made in 1819 at Colchester, and again in 1878, when five kilns, all of different forms, with local pottery, came to light.[3139]

To describe all these different types of furnaces in detail would of course be impossible, but much may be learnt from the very full, though now somewhat antiquated, descriptions of the Castor kilns given by Artis.[3140] It will be found more satisfactory to describe the generally-prevailing arrangements, noting the more important variations where they occur. It may further be laid down that the system was practically the same for terracotta figures and tiles as for pottery, and that in many cases both were made in the same furnace. But this was not invariably the case, and at Rheinzabern, for instance, the kilns for tiles were quadrangular, those for pottery circular.

The kilns were constructed partly of burnt, partly of unburnt brick, the interior, floor, and outside of the roofs being covered with a strong layer of cement. They consisted of two main portions, the fire-chamber with its adjuncts, and the vaulted chamber above, in which the objects to be baked are placed. The fire-chamber was usually circular, with a projection in front, the _praefurnium_[3141] which had either a vaulted roof, as at Castor and Heiligenberg, or a gabled roof formed of pairs of tiles, as at Rheinzabern. Through this the fuel was introduced, consisting chiefly, as charcoal remains show, of pine-wood. The fire-chamber was either divided up, as at Castor, by walls radiating from a central pillar which supported the roof, or by rows of pillars in a line with the entrance, as at Rheinzabern and Heiligenberg. Holes were bored in the roof to allow the heat to penetrate through, but the arrangement varies; at Heiligenberg each division of the furnace was vaulted, making grooves along which the holes were bored. The oven where the pots were placed has been destroyed in most cases, but we know that it consisted of a floor, a wall with entrances, and a vaulted dome. The pots were ranged partly on the floor, partly on terracotta stands over the holes, as at Rheinzabern and Heiligenberg[3142]; at Lezoux there are remains of holes in the walls for iron bars to support them. Special arrangements seem to have been made for baking the finer wares, in order to ensure the proper spread of heat, and to guard against their being blackened or otherwise injured. In the Romano-British Room of the British Museum is a lump of bowls of red ware from Lezoux, fused together in the baking and cast aside.[3143]

One of the kilns at Castor (Fig. 213) is described by Artis as a circular hole 3 to 4 feet deep and 4 feet in diameter, walled round to a height of 2 feet; the _praefurnium_ was about a foot in length. In the centre of the circular hole was an oval pedestal (with one end pointing to the furnace-mouth), on which and on the side wall the floor was supported, being formed of perforated angular bricks meeting in the centre. The vaulted dome was composed of bricks moulded for the purpose,[3144] and the sides of the kiln of curved bricks set edgeways in a thick slip of the same material. Brongniart[3145] compares the Castor kiln with that at Heiligenberg, near Strasburg, and others in the Rhine valley in which “Samian” ware was made.

Another kiln found in 1844 Artis describes as having been “used for firing the common blue or slate-coloured pottery, and had been built on part of the site of one of the same kind, and within a yard and a half of one that had been constructed for firing pottery of a different description. The older exhausted kiln ... presented the appearance of very early work; the bricks had evidently been modelled with the hand, and not moulded, and the workmanship was altogether inferior to that of the others, which were also in a very mutilated state; but the character of the work, the bricks, the mouths of the furnaces, and the oval pedestals which supported the floors of the kilns, were still apparent.”

Artis was also of opinion that “the blue and slate-coloured vessels found here in such abundance were coloured by suffocating the fire of the kiln, at a time when its contents had acquired a degree of heat sufficient to ensure uniformity of colour.” Hence he denominated kilns in which this ware was baked, “smother kilns.” He further notes that the bricks of this kiln “were made of clay mixed with rye in the chaff, which being consumed by the fire [_i.e._ in the baking of the bricks] left cavities in the room of the grains, which might have been intended to modify expansion and contraction, as well as to assist the gradual distribution of the colouring vapour. The mouth of the furnace and top of the kiln were no doubt stopped; thus every part of the kiln was penetrated with the colouring exhalation.” From experiments made on the local clays he proved to his own satisfaction that the colour could not have been produced by any metallic oxide, inherent or applied from without; and this view was supported by the appearance of the clay wrappers of the dome of the kiln. But in view of recent researches, such as those of Blümner, it is doubtful whether Artis’ theories can now be upheld. As Mr. Haverfield has pointed out,[3146] the dark colour may be due to the chemical action of the carbonaceous vapour of the smothered kiln rather than to any “colouring exhalation.”

The process of packing the kiln in order to secure uniform heat in firing is thus described by the same writer: “The kilns were first carefully loose-packed with the articles to be fired, up to the height of the side walls. The circumference of the bulk was then gradually diminished, and finished in the shape of a dome. As this arrangement progressed, an attendant seems to have followed the packer, and thinly covered a layer of pots with coarse hay or grass. He then took some thin clay, the size of his hand, and laid it flat on the grass upon the vessels; he then placed more grass on the edge of the clay just laid on, and then more clay, and so on until he had completed the circle. By this time the packer would have raised another tier of pots, the plasterer following as before, hanging the grass over the top edge of the last layer of plaster, until he had reached the top, in which a small aperture was left, and the clay nipt round the edge; another coating would be laid on as before described. Gravel or loam was then thrown up against the side wall where the clay wrappers were commenced, probably to secure the bricks and the clay coating. In consequence of the care taken to place grass between the edges of the wrappers, they could be unpacked in the same-sized pieces as when laid on in a plastic state, and thus the danger in breaking the coat to obtain the contents of the kiln could be obviated.”

In the course of his excavations Artis discovered a singular furnace,[3147] “of which I have never before or since met with an example. Over it had been placed two circular earthen fire vessels (or cauldrons); that next above the furnace was a third less than the other, which would hold about eight gallons. The fire passed partly under both of them, the smoke escaping by a smoothly-plastered flue, from seven to eight inches wide. The vessels were suspended by the rims fitting into a circular groove or rabbet, formed for the purpose.” He was strongly of opinion that this furnace was used for producing glazed wares by means of iron oxide. Whether this is so or not, it is interesting to note that in the British Museum and Museum of Geology there are cakes of vitreous matter from Castor, probably used as a glaze, and consisting of silicates of soda and lime.[3148]

The kiln found at Caistor, in Norfolk, was apparently used for baking the grey Roman ware, and differed in form from those described, which were for the black, being only calculated for a slight degree of baking. It was a regular oval, measuring 6 feet 4 inches in breadth. The furnace holes were filled in below with burnt earth of a red colour, and in the upper part with peat; the exterior was formed of strong blue clay of 6 inches in thickness, and the interior lined with peat; the kiln was intersected by partitions of blue clay. Some of the vases were inverted and filled with a core of white sand.[3149]

The furnaces at Heiligenberg and Rheinzabern present the following further peculiarities.[3150] The former, which were evidently used for the baking of red wares, had a flue in the form of a long channel with arched vault, the mouth being over 8 feet from the space where the flames and heat were concentrated under the oven (Fig. 214). Numerous pipes of terracotta, of varying diameter, diverged from the upper part or floor of the oven, to distribute the heat; in the outer wall of the oven was a series of smaller ones, and twelve or fifteen of larger size opened under the floor of the oven to distribute the heat and flame round the pots (Fig. 215). The mouths of the pipes were sometimes stopped with baked clay stoppers to moderate the heat. The upper part or dome of the kiln is never found entire, having been generally destroyed here, as elsewhere, by the superincumbent earth. Walls of strong masonry separated and protected the space between the mouth of the flue and the walls of the oven, and the floor of the latter was made of terracotta tiles.

At Rheinzabern, where excavations were made in 1858, fifteen furnaces were found, some round and others square, but all constructed on the same plan. The floor of the oven was over 3 feet below the top of the walls, and was covered with tiling, the walls being formed of rough slabs of clay, about 28 by 16 inches in size. The floors of the ovens were in some cases supported by bricks covered with a coating of clay. Stands of baked clay in the shape of flattened cylinders supported the pots in the oven, and these rested on pads of a peculiar form, roughly modelled in clay.[3151] In all, seventy-seven pottery-kilns and thirty-six tile-kilns were discovered on this site.[3152]

The following list, though by no means claiming to be exhaustive, gives the names of the chief potteries where actual furnaces have been discovered.

1. ITALY

Arezzo See p. 479 ff. Marzabotto _Mon. Antichi_, i. p. 282. Modena _Bull. dell’ Inst._ 1875, p. 192. Oria _Ibid._ 1834, p. 56. Pompeii Mau-Kelsey, _Pompeii_, p. 386. Pozzuoli _Bonner Jahrb._ xcvi. p. 54.

2. FRANCE

Dept. Ain St.-Martin-du- Blanchet, _Melanges_, p. 107. of Mont

Allier Champ-Lary Blanchet, p. 89.

Lubié ” p. 95.

St.-Bonnet ” p. 96.

St.-Didier-en- ” p. 96. Rollat

St.-Rémy-en- ” p. 96; Déchelette, i. Rollat p. 41 ff.

Vichy Blanchet, p. 95.

Aube Nogent-sur- ” p. 106. Seine

Aveyron Graufesenque ” p. 97; Déchelette, i. p. 64 ff.

Dept. Bouches-du- Arles Roach-Smith, _Collect. Antiq._ of Rhône vii. p. 13.

Auriol Blanchet, p. 98.

Marseilles ” p. 98.

Charente Jarnac ” p. 101.

Chez Ferroux ” p. 102.

Eure-et-Loire Chartres ” p. 104.

Gard Uzès ” p. 99.

Haute-Garonne Vieille- ” p. 101. Toulouse

Haute-Marne Châtelet Brongniart, _Traité_, i. p. 439.

Haute-Saône Luxueil Blanchet, p. 107.

Ille-et-Vilaine Redon ” p. 102.

Indre-et-Loire Nouâtre ” p. 104.

Loire Montverdun ” p. 96.

Loire- Herbignac ” p. 102. Inférieure

Loire-et-Cher Thoré ” p. 104.

Lot Cahors ” p. 100.

Mélines ” p. 101.

Lot-et-Garonne Agen ” p. 101; _Rev. Arch._ xviii. (1868), pl. 23.

Lozère Banassac Blanchet, p. 97; Déchelette, i. p. 117.

Nièvre Chantenay Blanchet, p. 96.

Gravier ” p. 96.

Oise Bois-Ibert ” p. 105.

Compiègne ” p. 104. (Forest of)

Mont-de-Hermes, ” p. 105. Beauvais

Sampigny ” p. 105.

Orne Chandai ” p. 103.

Pas-de-Calais Avesnes-le- ” p. 106. Comte

Puy-de-Dôme Clermont- ” p. 95. Ferrand

Lezoux ” p. 93; Déchelette, i. p. 141 ff.

Thiers Blanchet, p. 94.

Rhône Lyons ” p. 100.

Sarthe Grand-Lucé ” p. 103.

Seine Paris ” p. 104.

Seine- Incheville ” p. 103. Inférieure

Somme Amiens Blanchet, p. 106.

Tarn Montans ” p. 97.

Tarn-et-Garonne Castelnau-de- ” p. 97. Montratier

Muret ” p. 97.

Vendée Trizay ” p. 102.

Yonne Sens ” p. 106.

[See also Blanchet, p. 90 ff. for sites of furnaces for terracotta figures.]

3. GERMANY

Alttrier, Luxemburg Von Hefner, p. 60.

Bergheim Blanchet, _Mélanges Gallo-rom._ ii. p. 108.

Bonn _Bonner Jahrb._ lxxiv. p. 152; lxxxiv. p. 118.

Cannstadt Von Hefner, p. 61.

Cologne _Bonner Jahrb._ lxxix. p. 178.

Commern _Ibid._ iv. p. 203.

Dalheim, Luxemburg Von Hefner, p. 61.

Dieburg ” p. 61.

Güglingen _Bonner Jahrb._ i. p. 74.

Heddernheim _Ann. dell’ Inst._ 1882, p. 183.

Heidelberg _Bonner Jahrb._ lxii. p. 7.

Heiligenberg Brongniart, _Traité_, i. p. 427; Blanchet, _Mélanges Gallo-rom._ ii. p. 108.

Heldenbergen _Westd. Zeitschr. für Gesch. u. Kunst_, xviii. (1899), pl. 4, p. 227.

Herbishofen Von Hefner, p. 61.

Nassenfels ” p. 61.

Petzel, Luxemburg ” p. 61.

Rheinzabern ” p. 61; Brongniart, i. p. 429.

Riegel Von Hefner, p. 61.

Rottenburg _Bonner Jahrb._ iv. p. 141.

Schönbuch, Würtemberg Blanchet, p. 108.

Trier ” p. 108.

Waiblingen Von Hefner, p. 61.

Westheim ” p. 62.

Westerndorf ” p. 62.

4. ENGLAND

Dorset, Milton Abbas Roach-Smith, _Collect. Antiq._ vi. p. 191.

Essex, Ashdon _Arch. Journ._ x. p. 21.

” Colchester Roach-Smith, _Collect. Antiq._ ii. p. 38, vii. pls. 1-3, p. 1 ff.; _Journ. Brit. Arch. Assoc._ xxxiii. p. 267.

” Shoeburyness _Proc. Soc. Antiqs._ 2nd Ser. xvi. p. 40.

Hampshire, Alice Holt Forest _Vict. County Hist._ i. p. 306.

” New Forest _Ibid._ p. 326.

Hertfordshire, Radlett _Proc. Soc. Antiqs._ 2nd Ser. xvii. p. 261.

Huntingdon, Sibson and Water Newton _Vict. County Hist. Northants_, i. p. 175.

Kent, Upchurch Roach-Smith, _Collect. Antiq._ vi. p. 178; _Archaeologia_, li. p. 467.

Lancashire, Warrington _Reliquary_, 1900, p. 263.

Middlesex, London (St. Paul’s) Roach-Smith, _Ill. Rom. Lond._ p. 79.

Norfolk, Brampton _Vict. County Hist._ i. p. 314.

” Caistor-by-Norwich _Ibid._ p. 291; _Archaeologia_, xxxvi. p. 413.

” Caistor-by-Yarmouth _Journ. Brit. Arch. Assoc._, xxxvi. p. 206.

” Weybourne _Vict. County Hist._ i. p. 322.

Northants, Castor, Wansford, Bedford _Vict. County Hist._ i. p. 166 ff., Purlieus 206 ff.

Oxfordshire, Headington _Journ. Brit. Arch. Assoc._ vi. p. 60.

” Littlemore _Ibid._ liv. p. 349.

Somerset, Shepton Mallet _Gentleman’s Mag._ 1864, ii. p. 770.

Suffolk, West Stow Heath _Journ. Brit. Arch. Assoc._ xxxvii. p. 152.

Worcester _Vict. County Hist._ i. p. 207 (a model in Brit. Mus.).

[On the subject generally reference may be made to Brongniart, _Traité_, i. p. 426; De Caumont, _Cours d’ant. Monum._ ii. (for Heiligenberg); Von Hefner, _Römische Topferei_, in _Oberbayr. Archiv für vaterl. Gesch._ xxii. (1863), p. 60 (where a complete list of furnaces up to date is given); _Bonner Jahrbücher_, lxii. 1878, p. 7 ff.; Wolff in _Westdeutsche Zeitschrift für Gesch. u. Kunst_, xviii. (1899), p. 211 ff.; Blümner, _Technologie_, ii. p. 23 ff.; Smith, _Dict. of Antiqs._ i. p. 845 (_art._ FICTILE); and for Gaulish sites, Blanchet, _Mélanges Gallo-romaines_, ii. p. 93 ff.]

4. POTTERY IN LATIN LITERATURE; SHAPES AND USES

Vessels of earthenware were extensively used by the Roman people in the earlier days of the Republic for all purposes of domestic life,[3153] and later writers often contrast their use with that of the costly vases of precious metal then customary. “Gold,” says Persius, “has driven away the vases of Numa and the brass vessels of Saturn, the urns of the Vestals and Etruscan earthenware”[3154]; and Juvenal speaks of those who laughed at “Numa’s black dish and bowl, and fragile saucers from the Vatican hill.”[3155] Even under the Empire fictile vases continued to be used by the poorer classes, and the use of the finer red glazed wares must have been even more general. But Juvenal, satirising the luxury of Domitian’s time, says that it is considered a reproach to dine off earthenware.[3156] In Republican times it was the proud boast of a Curius to prefer his earthenware service to Samnite gold,[3157] and in 167 B.C. the consul Q. Aclius Tubero was found by the Aetolian ambassador dining off earthenware[3158]; Seneca also tells how he, at his entertainment given in the temple of Jupiter, placed fictile vessels before his guests.[3159] But when Masinissa entertained the Romans in 148 B.C. the first course was served on silver, the second in golden baskets, which Ptolemy Euergetes describes respectively as the Roman and Italian fashions.[3160] Athenaeus says that up to Macedonian times dinners were served in fictile vessels, but that subsequently the Romans became more luxurious, and Cleopatra spent five minae a day on gold and silver wares.[3161] Subsequently earthenware was replaced by glass as well as metal, especially for unguent-bottles and drinking-cups, of which large numbers are found in Roman tombs, where they virtually take the place of pottery. Vases of immense size were sometimes made under the Empire, and stories are told of the absurdities perpetrated by some of the Emperors in this respect. Juvenal, in describing the turbot prepared for Domitian,[3162] says no dish could be found of sufficient size to cook it in, and Vitellius had a dish made which from its huge dimensions acquired the name of “the shield of Minerva.”[3163] Elsewhere it is scoffed at as a “swamp of dishes” (_patinarum paludes_).[3164] Pliny speaks of terracotta vases which sold for even more than precious crystal or myrrhine ware,[3165] and were therefore presumably of great size.

The principal use of earthenware was for the transport and storage of wine, oil, corn, figs, honey, and other commodities, answering to the casks of the present day. Martial speaks of a jar (_testa_) reddened with the blood of tunnies exported from Antipolis (Antibes).[3166] Of the shapes used for this purpose and their names we shall speak presently in detail. Vases were also used in religious rites, but metal was probably more general; Plautus describes a miser who sacrificed to the Lares in earthenware (_vasis Samiis_) because he was afraid that they might steal silver vessels.[3167] They were also used for various operations in agriculture, medicine, and household economy; but above all for the domestic purposes of the table. Some of the peculiar uses have already been referred to (p. 387), and another that may be mentioned is the use of jars as bell-glasses for rearing vine-sprouts.[3168]

Although the custom of burying vases with the dead was not so general among the Romans as among the Greeks, they were yet frequently used in graves in the form of cinerary urns, in the shape of a covered jar (_olla_ or _obrendarium_[3169]) of coarse ware and globular in form (p. 550). Vases containing ashes have often been found in England, as at Bartlow and Litlington in Cambridgeshire.[3170] At the latter place a tomb contained a sort of colander perforated with holes which formed the letters INDVLCIVS.[3171] Similar finds are recorded from Arnaise in France. Pliny states that many persons expressed their desire to be buried in coffins of terracotta.[3172] Roman sarcophagi of terracotta have been found at Saguntum in Spain, but for these stone and lead were the ordinary materials. The cinerary urns were often formed from large dolia or amphorae, the neck being broken off so as to produce a globular vessel. Examples have been found in England at Chesterford, Essex,[3173] at Southfleet in Kent,[3174] and in the Bedford Purlieus near Kingscliffe, Northants (now at Woburn Abbey); another is in the Cathedral Library at Lincoln.[3175] Roach-Smith also mentions specimens found in Lothbury, London, and in Kent, the latter being now in the Maidstone Museum.[3176]

Vitruvius, in his chapter on _Echea_, or vases distributed around the ancient theatres for acoustic purposes, mentions that they were often made of earthenware for economical reasons[3177]; but they were usually of bronze. Seneca, too, alludes to this practice when he speaks of the voice of a singer falling upon a jar (_dolium_).[3178] It is certain that the Greeks and Romans often made use of earthenware jars in architecture, but it is probable that this was more often done with the object of diminishing weight than for acoustic reasons, or, as some have thought, for want of better material. The _dolium_, _amphora_, and _olla_ seem to have been the forms most usually employed. There are various examples in walls and substructures of the Augustan period, and they are also found in vaults, where their purpose is undoubtedly to lighten the weight.[3179] In the circus of Maxentius a number of large amphorae were found embedded in the vaulting and upper part of the walls, arranged neck downwards and with their axis inclined obliquely to the wall.[3180] All are now broken, but they illustrate the ingenious method in which the upper parts of the arches supporting the rows of seats were lightened. In the dome of the tomb of St. Helena, outside the Porta Labicana, rings of pots are embedded for the same purpose, whence the building is usually known as Torre Pignattara (from _pignatte_, pots).[3181] An oven found at Pompeii had a vaulted top formed of _ollae_ fitted into one another, each about a foot in height, of ordinary red ware; the span of the arch was 5 feet 6 inches, and the object here was to ensure extreme dryness as well as lightness.[3182] A similar arrangement occurs in the Stabian Thermae at Pompeii, and also in the church of San Stefano alla Rotonda at Rome, and the dome of San Vitale at Ravenna, built by Justinian in the sixth century, is similarly constructed, with an elaborate system of tubes and jars.[3183] The practice seems to have been continued during the Middle Ages, and an example occurs in England, at Fountains Abbey, where the purpose was acoustic.[3184]

* * * * *

We now proceed to describe in detail the principal shapes of Roman vases, so far as they can be identified from literary or epigraphical evidence or from other sources, on the same lines as in our previous chapter on the shapes of Greek pottery. Some of these shapes, it will be seen, they had in common with the Greeks, such as the amphora, the krater, and the phiale or patera, and in several instances (such as the cyathus and the scyphus) the Greek name is preserved.

Beginning with vases used for storage, whether for liquids, as for wine and oil, or for solids, as for corn or fruit, which were chiefly kept in cellars, we take first the _dolium_, a gigantic cask corresponding to the Greek πίθος (Vol. I. p. 152), which from its general usage gave rise to the generic term _opus doliare_, for common work in clay. It was large enough to contain a man, as we know from the story of Diogenes illustrated on the Roman lamp already given (Plate LXIV. fig. 6); the vessel thereon depicted may serve to give an idea of its appearance. Columella[3185] speaks of _dolia sesquiculearia_, _i.e._ holding one-and-a-half _culei_ or thirty amphorae. They were buried in the earth of the cellars, and have been found thus in Italy at Anzi, in France at Apt, Vaucluse, and near Clermont, and at Tunis.[3186] They were used for wine, oil, corn, and salted meat, and Juvenal tells us that _dolia_ were used for new wine, being lined with wax, pitch, or gypsum.[3187] In 1858 a large number were found at Sarno in Campania, some being stamped with the makers’ names, as ONESIMVS FECIT, VITALIS F, L · TITI · T · F · PAP, and M · LVCCEI · QVARTIONIS.[3188] On one was incised L · XXXIV, or thirty-four _lagenae_ (see p. 446). One of the prodigies which was supposed to predict the future fortune of the Emperor Antoninus Pius was the discovery above ground of some _dolia_ which had been sunk in the earth in Etruria.[3189] An old name for the _dolium_ was _calpar_,[3190] and another smaller variety was the _seria_,[3191] containing only seven amphorae. A diminutive form of the latter, _seriola_, is described as a wine-vessel invented in Syria.[3192]

_Dolia_ were made in separate pieces, the base and other parts being secured by leaden cramps, and they were also hooped with lead, as we learn from Cato.[3193] Pliny speaks of repairing casks by fitting on handles, scraping the hoops, and stopping up cracks.[3194] They are made both of white and red clay, baked in a slow furnace, great care being required to moderate the heat aright. Their makers were known as _doliarii_. Part of a large _dolium_ bound with leaden hoops was found near Modena, at Palzano; also at Spilamberto, one with the name of T. Gavelius and the numerals XXX, XIII, another of the capacity of 36 amphorae.[3195] On the mouth of one found in the Villa Peretta at Rome was the name of L. Calpurnius Eros,[3196] on another the name of T. Cocceius Fortunatus.[3197] Two good examples of _dolia_ were at one time preserved in the gardens of the Villa Albani, about 4 feet in diameter and as many in height, and of a coarse gritty pale red clay. This kind of vase was often used for sepulchral purposes, bodies having being found actually buried in them (see above, p. 457).

Next in size and importance to the _dolium_ is the _amphora_, resembling in form the Greek wine-jar[3198]; it usually has a long cylindrical body with pointed base, a long narrow neck, and two straight handles. Hölder[3199] notes several varieties: the Canopic, the wide-bellied, the cylindrical, the globular, and the spheroidal, the former of which is a typical early form in the provinces.[3200] It was often without neck or handle, and was seldom ornamented, not being used for artistic purposes like its Greek prototype, but only for strictly utilitarian ends, that is, for the storage and transport of wine. It is usually of coarse red earthenware, made on the wheel, with a clay stopper to close the mouth, and the name of the maker in a rectangular label on the handle, like the _diota_ or wine-amphora of the Greeks. It was in fact often known as a diota, as in a familiar line of Horace[3201]:

Deprome quadrimum Sabina, O Thaliarche, merum diota.

The amphora was pitched internally to preserve the wine[3202]; the pointed base was of course adapted for fixing it in the ground in the cellar, but when brought up it was placed in a tripod-stand of metal or wood (_incitega_).[3203] In Cicero’s time the regulation size was equivalent to a quadrantal or two _urnae_.[3204] The use of this vase was very varied and extensive among the Romans; it was employed not only in cellars and granaries, but also at the table and for many other purposes of ordinary life, even where nowadays vessels of wood or iron would be preferred.

D’Agincourt[3205] mentions the discovery at Rome, near the Porta del Popolo, of a row of amphorae in a cellar in 1789, and at Pompeii a hundred were found in the house of Arrius Diomedes, a hundred and fifty in that of the Faun; a hundred and twenty were found in a cellar near the baths of Titus, and many more at Milan in 1809, and at Turin. Numbers have been found in London, varying in capacity from four to twelve gallons, and others at Colchester and Mount Bures in Essex.[3206] But they are so universal all over the Roman Empire that to enlarge the list would be tedious. Many, however, evoke a special interest by reason of their stamps and inscriptions, and a few typical examples may profitably be given.[3207]

The inscriptions vary in form and character; some amphorae give the name of the maker in the genitive, _officina_ being understood; others the consuls for the year in which they were filled; others, again, the name of the wine or other phrases descriptive of their contents; and others complimentary inscriptions to their owners. Among names of makers both single, double, and triple names are found, and among the former are many of a Gaulish or barbarian character, such as Bellucus, Dicetus, and Vacasatus, son of Brariatus; the last-named from Nimeguen, the first-named from London.[3208] Among the triple names, showing that the potters were Roman citizens or freedmen, are M. Aemilius Rusticus from Caerleon, and C. Antonius Quintus, also found in Britain.[3209] Sometimes the name is in the nominative with F for _fecit_, or with the genitive OF for _officina_ occurs. The stamps are in the form of oblong rectangular labels on the handle or neck, the letters in relief. One of the most curious stamps was on an amphora found in the Pontine marshes near Rome, a square one with a caduceus and other symbols arranged in twelve compartments; the inscription runs M · PETRON · VETERAN · LEO · SER · FECIT, “Leo, the slave of M. Petronius Veteranus, made it.”[3210]

The names of Vespasian and Titus as consuls are found on an amphora from Pompeii: VESPASIANO III ET FILIO CS, the year being A.D. 74[3211]; that of M. Aurelius (but not necessarily as consul) occurs on an amphora found at Newington in Kent[3212]; and on one in the British Museum from Leptis in Africa is L · CASSIO · C · MARIO · COS, the date being A.D. 107.[3213] On the neck of a fourth amphora, found at Pompeii, was FVNDAN · CN · LENTVL · M · ASINIO · COSS, “wine of Fundi in the consulship of Cn. Lentulus and M. Asinius (Agrippa),” of the year A.D. 26.[3214]

The character or origin of the wine or other commodity stored in the amphorae is given by such inscriptions as BARCAE, KOR · OPT (“best Corcyrean”),[3215] RVBR · VET · [=V] · P CII (“old red wine, 102 lbs. weight”), all from Pompeii, painted in red and black.[3216] MES · AM · XVIII, also on an amphora from Pompeii, appears to mean “eighteen amphorae [not measures] of Mesogitan wine” (from Mesogis in Lydia[3217]); or, again, we find at Pompeii SVRR · XXI, “twenty-one amphorae of wine of Surrentum”[3218]; TOSCOLA(_n_)ON (_ex_) OFFICINA SCAV(_ri_), “Tusculan wine from the manufactory of Scaurus.”[3219] On the other hand, LIQVAMEN OPTIMVM (“best pickle”), or such expressions as SCOMBRI (“mackerel”), GARVS (“brine”), etc., imply that the vessel has been used for conveying pickled fish.[3220]

Among expressions of a complimentary nature are: FABRILES MARCELLAE N · AD FELICITATEM, “the workmen of our Marcella to wish her joy”[3221]; (_pr_)OMO(_s_) FAMELIAI DONO(_m_) V(_otum dedit_), or DONO V(_rnam dat_), “Promus gave (an urn) as a gift and vow to his family” (from Ardea in Latium).[3222] The list may be concluded with the inscription on an amphora found in the garden of the Villa Farnese, among the ruins of the Aurea Domus of Nero, which held eight _congii_; on its neck was traced in ill-formed letters: L(_iquaminis_) FL(_os_) EXCEL(_lens_) L · PVRELLI GEMELLI M(...), “Finest brand of liquor, belonging to L. Purellus Gemellus.”[3223] An amphora was found at Pompeii with the name of Septimius or Stertinius Menodotus in Greek letters.[3224] There are occasional references in the classics to the practice of placing such stamps on vases, as when Plautus makes the slave say, with reference to the drinking that went on in his master’s house, “There you may see epistles written with letters in clay, sealed with pitch; the names are there in letters a foot and a half long.”[3225] Or, again, another slave, fearing to be caught with a jar in his possession, reflects, “This jar is lettered; it proclaims its ownership.”[3226] Juvenal speaks of wine whose country and brand had been obliterated by old age through long hanging in the smoke.[3227]

Another vase used much in the same way as the amphora, and particularly for keeping wine, was the _cadus_, the shape of which is not exactly known. It held about twelve _congii_, or seventy-two _sextarii_ (pints), and is frequently mentioned by Horace and Martial.[3228] The former in the _Odes_ refers to his jar of Alban wine nine years old, and in another passage to one stored in Sulpicius’ cellars[3229]; the latter speaks of _cadi Vaticani_, which may mean made of clay from the Vatican hill or containing Vatican wines[3230]; elsewhere he speaks of taking yellow honey from the ruddy jar (implying an earthenware vessel), and of the red jar which pours out home-made wine.[3231] We also learn from him that the _cadus_ was hung in the chimney to give the wine a mellow flavour.[3232] From other passages we learn that the _cadus_ was used for oil,[3233] fruit,[3234] and money,[3235] and also as a measure equivalent to one-and-a-half amphorae or three urnae.[3236] The _orca_ is described by Isidorus as a kind of amphora, of which the _urceus_ (see below) was a diminutive.[3237]

The Romans were presumably, like the Greeks, in the habit of mixing their wine with water, but we only find the _crater_ mentioned rarely, and that in a poetical manner.[3238] Moreover it was probably made in metal as a rule, and the rare instances of the _crater_ which occur in the Arretine ware are obvious imitations of metal prototypes; there is a fine example in the British Museum from Capua (see Fig. 219). Ovid, however, speaks of the _rubens crater_,[3239] implying terracotta, as in the case of the _rubens cadus_ of Martial mentioned above. The _vinarium_,[3240] the _acratophorum_ (for holding unmixed wine),[3241] and the _oenophorum_ were probably of the same character, but the latter was portable, as we know from Horace’s jeer at the man who took his cooking-stove and wine-jar (_oenophorum_) with him everywhere.[3242]

The _urna_, the equivalent of the Greek _hydria_, was similarly used for carrying water, and also for casting lots, or as a voting-urn[3243]; in the latter sense Cicero actually uses the word _hydria_.[3244] Its size was half that of the amphora. Both the _urna_ and the hydria are found in connection with funerary usages, and appear to have held the ashes of the dead.[3245] The _situla_, or bucket, with its diminutive _sitella_, was also used for water and for lots,[3246] but was principally of metal. Isidorus says it is the Greek κάδος (Vol. I. p. 165).[3247] The _cupa_ and the _cumera_ seem to have been of wood rather than earthenware[3248]; the former was a kind of tub, the latter was used for keeping grain, and also by brides for conveying their effects to their new home.[3249] Another large vessel for holding liquids was the _sinus_, or _sinum_, used both for water and milk.[3250] The _nasiterna_, so called from its long spout or _nasus_, had three handles, and was used as a watering-pot.[3251] The _fidelia_ appears to have been a kind of large pail or bucket; Cicero in one of his letters[3252] cites the proverb, _de eadem fidelia duos parietes dealbare_, which answers to our “killing two birds with one stone.” It implies that it would be used for holding paint or whitewash.

Of smaller vases for holding liquids, such as jugs, bottles, and flasks, the principal were the _urceus_ (with its diminutive _urceolus_), the _ampulla_, and the _lagena_ or _lagona_. The _hirnea_ is also mentioned as a jug which was filled from the jar or cadus.[3253] The _urceus_ seems to be a small jug, the equivalent of the Greek οἰνοχόη, having one handle; it was also used as a measure.[3254] The _ampulla_ was used both as a wine-flask and an oil-flask, corresponding thus to the Greek λήκυθος, as is seen in its metaphorical use.[3255] It was used for bringing the wine to table, like a decanter,[3256] and is described by Apuleius[3257] as lenticular in form, being therefore like a flat round-bodied flask with two handles.

An interesting example of an _ampulla_ of this kind, of red ware with a coarse reddish-brown glaze was found some years ago near the Hôtel Dieu, Paris.[3258] It bore two inscriptions round the body, one on either side, with letters in relief; on one side was OSPITA REPLE LAGONA CERVESA, “Mine host, fill the flask with beer”; on the other, COPO CNODI TV ABES EST REPLETA, “Innkeeper, (?), be off, it is full.” Similar vases have been found in Hainault and at Trier, and are said to be still made in Spain. Another of the same kind, but with only one handle, recently acquired by the British Museum from the Morel collection, has on it the word AMPULLA painted in white (Fig. 216). The _lagena_ (Greek, λάγυνος) was a jug or bottle with narrow neck, wide mouth, and handle, and was used as a sign by wine-sellers.[3259] It was sealed up until required for use,[3260] and being proverbially brittle, was protected, like a modern Italian wine-flask, by wicker-work.[3261] It was also used as a travelling-flask, and carried by hunters and fishermen[3262]; the younger Pliny exhorts Tacitus, when he goes hunting, to take not only a “sandwich-box and brandy-flask” (_panarium ac lagunculam_), but also a notebook to jot down ideas.[3263] The Roman barmaid carried a _lagena_ at her side when serving in the tavern,[3264] and it was used as a wine-jug at the table.[3265] A jar found at Saintes in France has engraved on it MARTIALI SOL(_i_)DAM LAGONAM, “A whole flask to Martialis,”[3266] and gives a clue to the form associated with this word (see Fig. 217).

The words in use for a ladle are _cyathus_, corresponding to the Greek κύαθος (Vol. I. p. 179),[3267] in measure equivalent to one-twelfth of the sextarius or pint, and _simpulum_ or _simpuvium_. The latter were chiefly associated with sacrifices, and will be dealt with later (p. 471); the _cyathus_ was regularly used at the table for measuring out the wine into the drinking-cups. We learn from Martial that in drinking a toast it was customary to use the number of cyathi that corresponded to the letters in the name of the recipient, as in the epigram

Laevia sex cyathis, septem Justina bibatur, Quinque Lycas, Lyde quattuor, Ida tribus.[3268]

Of drinking-cups the Romans had almost as large a variety as the Greeks, the majority of the ornamented vases preserved to this day being apparently for this purpose; the number of names recorded in literature is, however, much less, as many of those given in the long list on pp. 181-183 of Vol. I. are mere nick-names for ordinary forms. The generic name for a drinking-cup was _poculum_,[3269] the Greek ποτήριον, just as _vas_ was the generic name for a larger vessel; it occurs constantly in the poets, who, indeed, use it somewhat loosely, and has already been met with in the series of small bowls with Latin inscriptions described in Chapter XI. (p. 490). Many forms of drinking-cups used by the Romans were only made in metal, such as the _cantharus_,[3270] _carchesium_,[3271] and _scyphus_[3272] (see Vol. I. pp. 184, 187). All these were forms borrowed from the Greeks, as were the _calix_ (_kylix_), the _cotula_ (chiefly used as a measure = half-a-pint), and the _scaphium_[3273] and _cymbium_,[3274] which were boat-shaped vessels. The _ciborium_ (a rare word, but used by Horace[3275]) was supposed to be made in the form of the leaves or pods of the _colocasia_, or Egyptian bean.[3276] Its later ecclesiastical use is well known. Other names of which we hear are the _batioca_,[3277] the _gaulus_,[3278] the _scutella_ (see below),[3279] and the _amystis_, or cup drained at one draught (see Vol. I. p. 181).[3280] Like the Greek _kylix_, the _calix_ appears to have been of all these the one most commonly in use, and is constantly referred to by poets and prose writers. Those of terracotta could often be purchased at a very low price, and formed, it is evident, the ordinary drinking-cups of the Roman citizen; they were also frequently of glass. Juvenal speaks of “plebeian cups purchased for a few _asses_”[3281]; and Martial describes a man buying two _calices_ for an _as_ and taking them home with him.[3282] We have no exact information as to its form, but it must have been something like the Greek _kylix_, only probably without handles; it was also used for solid food such as herbs.[3283] Seneca speaks of _calices Tiburtinae_, which seem from the context to have been of earthenware.[3284] Varieties of the _calix_ are probably represented by the typical Gaulish forms illustrated in Chapter XXIII., Figs. 221-223.

Of dishes and other utensils employed for food at the table, the largest were the _lanx_ and the _patina_. The former is described by Horace and Juvenal as large enough to hold a whole boar,[3285] and was probably of metal; the _patina_ is described as a dish for holding fish, crabs, or lobsters,[3286] but that it was not necessarily limited in size is shown by the stories already alluded to of Domitian and Vitellius (p. 456). The latter, when dragged to his death, was insulted by the epithet of _patinarius_, or dish-maker.[3287] The patina was flat, and made of clay, and is also described as a wide and shallow vessel for cooking.[3288] It is contrasted with the _lagena_ in the well-known fable of the fox and the stork.[3289] Smaller dishes for sweetmeats and other dainties were the _catinum_ and _catillum_, and the _patella_.[3290] The _discus_ and _paropsis_[3291] appear to have been, like the _lanx_, principally of metal; the former was like a shield (whence _scutula_ and _scutella_); the latter is mentioned by Isidorus, who describes it as quadrangular, and by Martial, together with some obscurely-named dishes[3292]:

Sic implet gabatas paropsidesque Et leves scutulas cavasque lances.

Martial speaks of the _patella_ as a dish for a turbot, and also as a vessel of black ware which was used to hold vegetables[3293]; the _catinus_ (a fictile dish) was large enough to hold a good-sized fish, such as a tunny,[3294] and the _catillus_ appears to have been a sort of porringer. Sauces were placed in small dishes or cups, known as _acetabula_ (the Greek ὀξύβαφον), which were evidently of earthenware[3295]; the _catellus_ held pepper,[3296] and the _concha_ or shell was used for a salt-cellar, also for unguents.[3297] The latter was probably a real shell, not of earthenware. Another kind of dish which is only once mentioned, in Horace’s account of Nasidienus’ banquet, was the _mazonomum_, probably a kind of _lanx_, in metal, which held on that occasion a sort of _ragoût_ of game.[3298] His own table, however, he boasts, was adorned only by a _cyathus_ and two cups, an _echinus_ or rinsing-bowl, a _guttus_, and a _patera_ or libation bowl.[3299] The _guttus_ seems to have corresponded to the Greek _lekythos_ or _askos_, and is the general name for an oil-flask or cruet.[3300] It was either a small, long-necked bottle or a squat flask with a narrow spout, which allowed the oil to pour slowly. Roach-Smith published a relief dedicated by Egnatius, a physician, to the Deae Matres, on which small vases of the first-named form appear, indicating that he consecrated his medicine bottles to these divinities.[3301]

Of vessels for cooking, washing, and other common domestic purposes, the _olla_ was that in most general use[3302]; the word is, in fact, a generic name for a jar or pot (Gk. χύτρα), as in the play of Plautus, the _Aulularia_, the name of which embodies an archaic form of the word, _aula_, _aulula_. Here it was used for hiding a hoard of gold. It was also, as has been noted, used as a funerary urn, and some inscribed examples of marble _ollae_ have been found in tombs. The _pelvis_ was more particularly a washing basin, but Juvenal speaks of it as scented with Falernian wine.[3303] It is usually identified with the _mortarium_, a large, shallow, open bowl with a spout, frequently found in Britain and Central Europe (see below, p. 550); it is of coarse light-red clay, and often has the potter’s name stamped upon it. That it was used for pounding substances is shown by the fact that it often has small pebbles embedded in the surface of the interior. The _scutra_ is mentioned by Cato and Plautus,[3304] and appears to have been used only in Republican times; its Imperial successor was the _cacabus_.[3305] The _trua_ or _trulla_[3306] was a saucepan with a flat handle; numerous examples in bronze, silver, and earthenware have been preserved, and some have elaborate designs in relief on the handle.[3307]

A number of obscure and archaic names of vases are recorded by the etymologists and other writers, especially in regard to those used for sacrificial purposes and libations. The _capis_ or _capedo_ was probably a kind of jug (from _capere_, to contain)[3308]; Cicero refers to the _capedunculae_ which were a legacy from Numa.[3309] The _praefericulum_[3310] was not, as usually supposed in popular archaeology, a jug, but a shallow basin of bronze without handles, like a _patera_. The _lepasta_ or _lepesta_ (cf. Greek λεπάστη) is recorded as used in Sabine temples,[3311] and the _futile_ was used in the cult of Vesta for holding water[3473]; the _cuturnium_[3313] is also mentioned. The _simpulum_[3314] and _simpuvium_[3315] represent similar utensils, though the words are distinct; they were small-sized ladles used almost exclusively in religious rites, and sometimes regarded as old-fashioned. With reference to the size, _fluctus in simpulo excitare_[3316] became a proverbial expression for “a storm in a teacup.” They seem to have been usually of metal, but Pliny speaks of fictile _simpula_[3317]; the _simpuvium_ is represented on coins and sacrificial reliefs. The _lanx_ appears to have been used for offerings to Bacchus,[3318] and the _guttus_, _cymbium_, and other forms also appear in a sacrificial connection[3319]; conversely the _patera_, which is for the most part exclusively a libation bowl, was sometimes used for secular purposes[3320]; there is evidence that its use as a drinking vessel is older than its use for libations. The last-named corresponds to the Greek φιάλη (Vol. I. p. 191),[3321] and is constantly referred to or represented; its essential feature was the hollow knob or _omphalos_ in the centre, and it was either made of metal or earthenware. The _patella_ was also used for libations or for offering first-fruits to the household gods.[3322]

Other obscure words referring to vases of secular use are the _pollubrum_ (Greek, ποδανιπτήρ)[3323] and _malluvium_ (Greek, χέρνιψ),[3324] meaning respectively basins for washing the feet and hands; the _aquiminarium_ for washing vessels[3325]; the _galeola_, a variety of the _sinus_[3326]; the _pultarius_, a vessel used for warm drinks, for must, for preserving grapes, for coals, for fumigating, and as a cupping-glass[3327]; and the _obba_, which Persius describes as _sessilis_, _i.e._ squat and flat-bottomed.[3328] The _culeus_, _congius_, _hemina_, and _sextarius_ appear to have been measures only, not vases in general use; the _congius_ was one-eighth of an amphora, or six _sextarii_, about six English pints.[3329]

In the case of the majority of the names discussed in the foregoing pages, any attempt at identification with existing forms is hopeless; we have very few clues in the literature to the shapes of the vases described, and little evidence from themselves, as is often the case with Greek shapes; nor is any Roman writer except Isidorus, whose date is too late to be trustworthy, so explicit as Athenaeus. At present little has been done in the way of collecting the different forms of existing vases, but a valuable treatise on the subject was recently issued by the late O. Hölder, a Würtemberg professor, who collected all the forms found in Germany and Italy,[3330] and although he did not attempt to identify them by Latin names, he has done much service in grouping them together, classified as urns, jars, jugs, and so on, in a series of twenty-three plates of outline drawings.

There is, in fact, in Roman pottery no clear line of distinction to be drawn between the various forms of drinking-cups or of jugs or dishes, as is the case with Greek vases; different forms again are found in different fabrics, and those typical of ornamented wares are not found in plain pottery, and so on. Nor must it be forgotten that in Roman pottery the ornamented wares are the exception rather than the rule. Where the Greeks used painted vases, the Romans used metal; and apart from the plain pottery, the forms are almost limited to a few varieties of cups, bowls, and dishes. Comparisons with the Greek equivalents illustrated in Chapter IV. may give a probable idea of what the Roman meant when he spoke of an _urceus_ or an _olla_, but for the rest the modern investigator can do little beyond attempting to point out what types of vases were peculiar to different periods or fabrics, and in most cases any attempt to give specific names can only be regarded as arbitrary.

Footnote 3080:

_H.N._ xxxiii. 154 ff.: see below, p. 489.

Footnote 3081:

_Vases ornés de la Gaule Romaine_, i. p. 190 ff.

Footnote 3082:

The term is applied to clay suited to receive stamps (_sigilla_) or impressions.

Footnote 3083:

Déchelette, _Vases ornés de la Gaule Romaine_, ii. p. 335.

Footnote 3084:

_Ibid._ i. p. 41 ff.

Footnote 3085:

_Der Stil_, ii. p. 148.

Footnote 3086:

_Bonner Jahrbücher_, xcvi. p. 20.

Footnote 3087:

In the case of fragment No. 3 the clay and lime could not be differentiated.

Footnote 3088:

In the case of fragments 2 and 5 no definite general result was obtained.

Footnote 3089:

Brongniart, _Traité_, i. p. 421; Blümner, _Technologie_, ii. p. 91. See also _Handbook to Collection of Pottery in the Museum of Practical Geology_, 1893, p. 65, for an analysis made on a fragment of glazed red ware by Dr. Percy:

Silica 54·45 Alumina 22·08 Peroxide of iron 7·31 Lime 9·76 Magnesia 1·67 Potash 3·22 Soda 1·76 ——— 100·25 ======

Footnote 3090:

_Storia degli ant. vast aretini_, p. 65.

Footnote 3091:

_Ueber die rothe Topferwaare_, p. 16.

Footnote 3092:

Brongniart, _Traité_, i. p. 423; Déchelette, ii. p. 339.

Footnote 3093:

Blümner, _Technol._ ii. p. 91.

Footnote 3094:

_Op. cit._ i. p. 381: cf. Blümner, ii. p. 64.

Footnote 3095:

_Roman Art in Cirencester_, p. 77.

Footnote 3096:

Plaut. _Epid._ iii. 2, 35; Pliny, _H.N._ vii. 198.

Footnote 3097:

_Art. Poet._ 21.

Footnote 3098:

_Sat._ ii. 7, 86.

Footnote 3099:

ii. 3, 48.

Footnote 3100:

_Capt._ ii. 3, 9; Persius, iii. 23; Avianus, _Fab._ 41, 9.

Footnote 3101:

Shakespeare, 1 _Henry VI._, Act 1, scene 5, line 19.

Footnote 3102:

Smith, _Dict. of Antiqs._[3312] i. p. 844: see below, p. 480; also Vol. I. p. 207.

Footnote 3103:

_Vases ornés_, ii. p. 338.

Footnote 3104:

See Brongniart, _Traité_, i. p. 423 ff.; Blümner, _Technol._ ii. p. 106; Von Hefner, in _Oberbayr. Archiv für vaterl. Gesch._ xxii. (1863), pp. 23, 35; and _Röm. Mitth._ 1897, p. 286.

Footnote 3105:

See Fabroni, _Storia degli vasi aretini_, pl. 5, fig. 4.

Footnote 3106:

_Handbook to Mus._ (1891), p. 111.

Footnote 3107:

Brongniart and Riocreux, _Mus. de Sèvres_, pp. 16, 128. For Cerialis see p. 536 and _C.I.L._ xiii. 10010, 544; for Cobnertus, _ibid._ 592, and Déchelette, i. p. 179.

Footnote 3108:

_Oberbayr. Archiv für vaterl. Gesch._ xxii. (1863), pp. 23, 24.

Footnote 3109:

Blümner, _Technologie_, ii. p. 104, fig. 21; _Brit. Arch. Assoc. Journ._ iv. p. 19. Déchelette states that about fifty in all are known (_op. cit._ i. p. 337).

Footnote 3110:

Brongniart, _Traité_, i. p. 424, pl. 30; _Mus. de Sèvres_, p. 128, and pl. 9, fig. 8.

Footnote 3111:

_Oberbayr. Archiv_, 1863, p. 24.

Footnote 3112:

Examples of this technique often occur in Gaul and Britain: see Déchelette, ii. p. 169 ff., and cf. Roach-Smith, _Ill. Rom. Lond._ p. 91, and a fine vase from Felixstowe in the British Museum. See also Plate LXIX. fig. 2, and p. 529.

Footnote 3113:

See below, p. 530, and Déchelette, ii. p. 235 ff.

Footnote 3114:

Blümner, _Technol._ ii. p. 112.

Footnote 3115:

_E.g._ Blümner, _Technol._ ii. pp. 106, 107, figs. 22, 23.

Footnote 3116:

_Gaz. Arch._ 1881-82, p. 17; Brongniart, _Traité_, pl. 30, figs. 2-4: see also Déchelette, i. p. 141 ff., and below, p. 525 ff.

Footnote 3117:

Cf. Déchelette in _Revue des Études Anciens_, v. (1903), p. 42.

Footnote 3118:

Blümner, ii. p. 110, fig. 25: cf. Von Hefner in _Oberbayr. Archiv_, 1863, p. 56; Fabroni, _Storia degli antichi vasi aretini_, pls. 3, 5, p. 63.

Footnote 3119:

Blümner, ii. p. 111; Daremberg and Saglio, ii. _art._ Figlinum, p. 1130.

Footnote 3120:

Cf. von Hefner in _Oberbayr. Archiv für vaterl. Gesch._ xxii. (1863), p. 55.

Footnote 3121:

_Vases ornés_, ii. p. 312.

Footnote 3122:

Mau-Kelsey, _Pompeii_, p. 386; _Bull. dell’ Inst._ 1875. p. 192; _Mon. Antichi_, i. pl. 8, 7, p. 282.

Footnote 3123:

_Oberbayr. Archiv für vaterl. Gesch._ xxii. (1863), p. 56 ff.: see also Blümner, ii. p. 23 ff., and Daremberg and Saglio, ii. _art._ Figlinum.

Footnote 3124:

_Bullet. Arch._ 1898, p. 18 ff., and _Mélanges Gallo-romaines_, ii. (1902), p. 93 ff.

Footnote 3125:

Brongniart, i. p. 439.

Footnote 3126:

_Rev. Arch._ xviii. (1868), pl. 23, p. 297.

Footnote 3127:

See for a full account of the last-named Von Hefner in _op. cit._ p. 8 ff., p. 56, pl. 4.

Footnote 3128:

See _Ann. dell’ Inst._ 1882, pl. U, to which the letters in the cut refer. Other kilns found at Heddernheim are described in _Westdeutsche Zeitschrift_, xviii. (1899), p. 215 ff.

Footnote 3129:

See Haverfield in _Victoria County Hist. of Northants_, i. pp. 167, 207 ff.

Footnote 3130:

_Journ. Brit. Arch. Assoc._ i. p. 1 ff., ii. p. 164: see also Wright, _Celt, Roman, and Saxon_^1, p. 264 ff.; Roach-Smith, _Coll. Antiq._ iv. p. 81, vi. p. 181 ff.

Footnote 3131:

No. 958, fol. 105; reproduced by Roach-Smith, _Collect. Antiq._ vi. pl. 37, fig. 4, and _Ill. Rom. Lond._ p. 79; _Proc. Soc. Antiqs._ 2nd Ser. xvi. p. 42.

Footnote 3132:

_Proc. Soc. Antiqs._ xvii. 1898, p. 262.

Footnote 3133:

_Ibid._ xvi. (1895), p. 40.

Footnote 3134:

_Vict. County Hist. of Norfolk_, i. p. 291, fig. 7: see below, p. 449.

Footnote 3135:

_Op. cit._ i. p. 314.

Footnote 3136:

_Ibid._ p. 322.

Footnote 3137:

_Archaeologia_, xxxv. p. 91; _Vict. County Hist. of Hants_, i. p. 326.

Footnote 3138:

Roach-Smith, _Collect. Antiq._ vi. p. 191 ff.; _Vict. County Hist. of Hants_, i. p. 306.

Footnote 3139:

Roach-Smith, _op. cit._ ii. p. 38; vii. p. 1 ff., pls. 1-3.

Footnote 3140:

Wright, _Celt, Roman, and Saxon_^1, p. 264 ff., and Haverfield in _Vict. County Hist. of Northants_, give the most satisfactory epitomes of Artis’ descriptions.

Footnote 3141:

Cato, _Agricult._ 38.

Footnote 3142:

Cf. Von Hefner, _op. cit._ pl. 4, 28-31: see also _Arch. Journ._ vii. p. 176, and an example from Switzerland in the British Museum (Romano-British Collection).

Footnote 3143:

See also Déchelette, ii. p. 341.

Footnote 3144:

See Haverfield in _Vict. County Hist. of Northants_, i. p. 207.

Footnote 3145:

_Traité_, i. p. 426.

Footnote 3146:

_Vict. County Hist. of Northants_, i. p. 209.

Footnote 3147:

See Haverfield, _op. cit._ p. 210, fig. 31.

Footnote 3148:

Haverfield, _ibid._; _Handbook of Pottery in Mus. of Pract. Geol._ 1893, p. 71.

Footnote 3149:

_Archaeologia_, xxii. pl. 36, p. 413; _Vict. County Hist._ i. p. 291.

Footnote 3150:

See Brongniart, _Traité_, i. p. 428, pl. 1; Artis, _Durobrivae_, pl. 27, figs. 3 and 6; Daremberg and Saglio _s.v._ Fornax, figs. 3201-02.

Footnote 3151:

Brongniart, i. p. 429.

Footnote 3152:

Von Hefner in _Oberbayr. Archiv_ (1863), p. 58.

Footnote 3153:

Cf. Tibull. i. 1, 38:

“Nec e puris spernere fictilibus. Fictilia antiquus primum sibi fecit agrestis Pocula de facili composuitque luto.”

Footnote 3154:

_Sat._ ii. 60.

Footnote 3155:

_Sat._ vi. 342.

Footnote 3156:

_Sat._ iii. 168.

Footnote 3157:

Florus, i. 18, 22.

Footnote 3158:

Pliny, _H.N._ xxxiii. 142.

Footnote 3159:

_Ep._ 95, 72.

Footnote 3160:

_Apud_ Athen. vi. 229 D. He uses the curious expression, κέραμος ἀργυροῦς, which, as in the use of the word κέραμος for marble tiles (Vol. I. p. 100), implies the antiquity of the use of fictile ware. See the next note.

Footnote 3161:

vi. 229 C, where the use of κέραμος or dinner-service is discussed.

Footnote 3162:

iv. 72, 131: cf. Mart. xiii. 81.

Footnote 3163:

Suet. _Vit. Vitell._ 13 (_clypeum Minervae_, αἰγίδα πολιούχου).

Footnote 3164:

Pliny, _H.N._ xxxv. 164.

Footnote 3165:

_Ibid._ 163.

Footnote 3166:

iv. 88.

Footnote 3167:

_Capt._ ii. 2, 41.

Footnote 3168:

Virg. _Georg._ ii. 351.

Footnote 3169:

Orelli, _Inser._ 4544; Gruter 607, 1; and see _C.I.L._ i. p 209.

Footnote 3170:

See above, p. 351; and cf. _Archaeologia_, xxv. p. 1 ff.

Footnote 3171:

_C.I.L._ vii. 1335, 1. The vase is now at Clare College, Cambridge.

Footnote 3172:

_H.N._ xxxv. 160 (_fictilibus soliis_).

Footnote 3173:

_Arch. Journ._ x. (1853), p. 230.

Footnote 3174:

_Archaeologia_, xiv. pl. 6, p. 37 (in B.M.).

Footnote 3175:

_Arch. Journ._, _loc. cit._

Footnote 3176:

_Ill. Rom. Lond._ p. 88, and see p. 550.

Footnote 3177:

v. 5, 8.

Footnote 3178:

_Quaest. Nat._ vi. 19: cf. Arist. _Probl._ xi. 8, and Pliny, _H.N._ xi. 270, _doliis inanibus_.

Footnote 3179:

Krause, _Angeiologie_, pp. 126, 463.

Footnote 3180:

See Middleton, _Remains of Ancient Rome_, ii. p. 56.

Footnote 3181:

Middleton, _loc. cit._

Footnote 3182:

Nissen, _Pompeian. Studien_, p. 64.

Footnote 3183:

Nissen, _ibid._

Footnote 3184:

See _Yorks. Arch. Journ._ iii. p. 1 ff., xv. p. 303; _Trans. Roy. Inst. of Brit. Architects_, 1881-2, p. 65 ff.; _Journ. Brit. Arch. Assoc._ xxxv. p. 95, xxxviii. p. 218.

Footnote 3185:

xii. 18.

Footnote 3186:

Brongniart, _Traité_, i. p. 407 ff.

Footnote 3187:

ix. 58.

Footnote 3188:

_Bull. Arch. Nap._ N.S. vii. 1859, p. 84; _C.I.L._ x. 8047, 10, 18.

Footnote 3189:

Capitolinus, _Vit. Anton. Pii_, 3.

Footnote 3190:

Varro _ap._ Non. p. 26; Paul, _ex_ Fest. p. 46 (Müller).

Footnote 3191:

Columella, xii. 28, 1; Plaut. _Capt._ iv. 4, 9 (“preserve-jar”).

Footnote 3192:

Isid. _Etym._ xx. 6.

Footnote 3193:

_Agricult._ 39.

Footnote 3194:

_H.N._ xviii. 236.

Footnote 3195:

_Bull. dell’ Inst._ 1846, p. 34.

Footnote 3196:

Marini, _Inscr. Ant. Doliari_, p. 406, No. 2.

Footnote 3197:

Marini, No. 4.

Footnote 3198:

See Fig. 22, Vol. I. p. 154.

Footnote 3199:

_Formen der röm. Thongef._ p. 16, pls. 1-8.

Footnote 3200:

Cf. Koenen, _Gefässkunde_, pls. 10-12.

Footnote 3201:

_Od._ i. 9, 7.

Footnote 3202:

Pliny, _H.N._ xiv. 135.

Footnote 3203:

Cf. Jahn, _Wandgem. d. Villa Pamph._ pl. 5, p. 42.

Footnote 3204:

See Hultsch, _Metrologie_, p. 113.

Footnote 3205:

_Recueil_, p. 46.

Footnote 3206:

Roach-Smith, _Ill. Rom. Lond._ p. 87; _Collect. Antiq._ ii. p. 26.

Footnote 3207:

General reference may be made to the various volumes of the Latin _Corpus_, under the headings _Instrumentum Domesticum_, sub-heading _Vascula_, e.g. vii. 1331 for those found in Britain; for examples from Spain see _Arch. Journ._ lvi. p. 299.

Footnote 3208:

_C.I.L._ vii. 1331, 22, xiii. 10005, 25; Steiner, _Cod. Inscr. Rom. Danubii et Rheni_, ii. pp. 271, 287; and see generally _C.I.L._ xiii.