The most characteristic form of this period is the carinated bowl, Dragendorff Form 29, which ceased to be produced ca. Central Gaulish terra sigillata reached the height of its production during the second century CE, taking over as the dominant production center. Two major sites in the manufacture of terra sigillata include Lezoux and Les Martres de Veyre. The fabric is hard and dense with an orange-pink color covered in a lustrous orange slip which turns duller over the course of time.
Dragendorff Form 37, the hemispherical decorated bowl, continued to be a popular form though it was much heavier and thicker than previous versions. East Gaul took over the exportation of terra sigillata and became quite popular from the early second century CE onwards.
There are a great number of production sites in this region which makes it difficult to speak of a specific fabric, slip, and decorative style. The most popular sites include Trier and Rheinzabern. During this period, most of the standard forms tended not to be made quite the same as before. Additionally, the application of relief molds in the production of terra sigillata phased out, but the use of barbotine and incision continued to be implemented widely. The production of terra sigillata eventually came to an end, although a glossy red pottery similar to Samian Ware continued to be produced in the Mediterranean region in the 4th and 5th centuries, though it does not seem to have been on the same scale or as highly organized as before.
Plain ware terra sigillata was produced on pottery wheels much like other wares of the time. It is the relief-molding, however, that is the most characteristic decoration of Roman terra sigillata. The process of using relief molds to manufacture vessels first requires a series of stamps or punches that were used to impressing decorative motifs into the bowl-shaped molds which could include floral, faunal, figural, and abstract motifs.
The molds were fired and later would have soft clay pressed into it to form the actual terra sigillata vessel. These new bowls would be trimmed, receive a foot ring, dipped into a prepared slip, dried, and fired.
As mentioned above, terra sigillata was produced in mass quantities. Excavations of kilns at La Graufesenque, a major production site in South Gaul, have produced tallies of single kiln loads reflecting numbers between , vessels at a time.
Such endeavors demonstrate that the production of this ware demanded both an intense commitment on the side of the potter and workshop, but also those engaging in firing, transporting, selling, and buying.
Stamps often included the owner of the workshop, no doubt a free Roman citizen or freedman, but also could include the name of the slave. Calidius Strigo from Arezzo. Combinations such as this one were quite common on terra sigillata and provide insight into the personnel of these various workshops. The purpose of these stamps is not entirely clear. Scholars have suggested various reasons including the desire to quantity the output of individual potters in a workshop, to suggest a higher quality lacking in other unstamped and therefore unidentifiable products, and even to identify items made for a specific contract.
Clearly these are mixing bowls, but not the gritted form for grinding, since that type was not made at La Graufesenque e. The essential quality here is the pouring-lip, which is associated with Ritt. It is interesting that this shape disappears from the repertoire by c. Athenaeus VI, b , quoting Diphilus, describes a sauce served in silver mortari , which was presumably poured on the relevant dainties.
Two post-cocturam graffiti associate the panna with communal drinking Marichal , They are inscribed on Drag. This dating is generally accepted for a pre-Flavian group from Cirencester, which does not have Drag. It contrasts with the group found in House VIII 5, 9, in Pompeii Atkinson , which has recently been reassessed Dzwiza , with an assembly date before 79 CE, and with the load from the Cala Culip shipwreck Nieto and Puig where these two forms are found together. The absence of any stamped form Drag.
If this equivalence is correct, the series of Drag. These particular vessels have moulded inscriptions of conviviality, often associated with images of vine-scrolls, and in one case a dedication to beer Hoffmann , plates Whether the panna was actually handed round for communal drinking, or is the equivalent of a small mixing vessel is not clear Bird , Some South Gaulish Drag.
These can hardly have been mixing bowls, and are more likely to have been drinking vessels. Opinion is not settled on this form, but if it is not a lagoena jug or flagon the complete omission of that type from the graffiti must be coincidental. Certainly there are small jugs shown in the drinking set from the tomb of Priscus see above. The sigillata ones are sometimes signed, but not stamped, so they do not show up consistently in NoTS or the RGZM database for quantification and they seem to have been made by a restricted number of potters, principally Masclus i and Sabinus iii.
Their purpose on the Roman table is not clear, the origin apparently being in personal wine jugs brought by guests Athenaeus, VI. The largest are known to have a height of c. However, in sigillata terms this cannot be correct. The material does not respond well to point-of-flame contact, although it might well stand dispersed indirect heat. The root puls would suggest identification as a small bowl, like the post-medieval handle-less porringer.
There is also a reference to drinking vessels from Petronius Hilgers , The assertion that the scribes used the terms interchangeably must surely be right Marichal , There is no problem with identifying them as dishes there are virtually no examples of sigillata vessels without a wall, which could in modern English terminology be called a 'plate'. Moreover, we have a hint that the largest were used as servers, rather than side dishes, in the recipe for ' catilliornatus ' Dalby , ; Hilgers , , which would almost certainly have been served in bulk to the table for diners to pick up as they wished.
The case of the catilibol- is relevant here Marichal , Far from being a dish on which to serve mushrooms as he suggests, it is associated in literature with a wide range of foods, and the term is more likely to have referred to its own shape than to the contents that were destined for it Grocock and Grainger , There are also references to it being used to serve fish and cabbage Hilgers , It is interesting that this vessel occurs on graffiti stamped by Calvus i, Germanus i and Logirnus, all potters whose careers went into the Flavian period Table 2 , but does not occur on any of the graffiti stamped by Castus i, or the other pre-Flavian potters Marichal , This might be a coincidence, but raises the possibility that the catilibol- belong to the Drag.
This is a very problematic name, which occurs only on those graffiti that are described as being written in 'Gaulish' Marichal , The statistics do not unequivocally support the assertion that it represents Drag.
The paropsis has numerous textual references that are summarised as a side dish for sauces, vegetables and small food Hilgers , Whether the origins of its name lay in the food it contained, or the vessel itself was the subject of debate in classical times Athenaeus IX, bd. There are references to it being used for dipping food in brine-sauce Atheneus VII, and e , and for ham with mustard sauce served as a side-dish Athenaeus IX. There is a late reference quoting Eucherius, Bishop of Lyons from his Instructiones II - ' paropsis: acitabulum maius: aliqui et catinum ita appellari putant ' trans.
It is clear that these vessels had multiple functions as small containers, and were substituted by others. The Colloquia of the Hermeneumata Pseudodositheana have very relevant instructions for giving a dinner party Dickey , A schoolboy is told among a list of actions how to mix wine, to mix sauces, to put sauce in an acetabulum , and dip into a pre-prepared pepper sauce.
Elsewhere, there are the instructions relating to acetabulato 'put out fish sauce with vinegar' oxygarum in one of its spellings, Grocock and Grainger , , and also fish paste allec.
There is a recipe for pullum oxizonum Grocock and Grainger , where a large acetabulum of oil, a small acetabulum of liquamen fish sauce , and a very small acetabulum of vinegar are used. In a further reference to service at the table there is an instruction to 'bring honey in an acetabulum ' Dickey , , with the footnote 18d at , where it suggested that the honey is brought and added to vinegar acetabulum on the table. These references confirm the vessel as connected with vinegar and sauces, and indeed as a measure both of vinegar and oil in the kitchen, much as the use of the word 'cup' as a measure in modern American recipes.
Cup sizes have been estimated and analysed Dannell , 23; Polak , , and these show that they were made in standardised groups of sizes - which might be described as 'small', 'medium' and 'large'. There is absolutely no problem here with the identification of this named type as an inkwell, so this is not a dining table item.
The forms in the modern type series developed by scholars, as noted above do not reconcile with the names of those vessels described on the graffiti. There are simply too many forms distinguished in the modern series, and to that extent, where two or more are contemporaneous, it can only be concluded that the vessel types on the graffiti are 'portmanteau' descriptions Polak , 73 and see Table 1.
The La Graufesenque graffiti were inscribed on stamped dishes and it is clear that those recovered cover a date range from c. During that time vessel shapes evolved, so that a description apposite to the earliest phase may not hold for the latest, which is not reflected in Marichal's numbers , Thus, in trying to analyse both quantitatively and qualitatively which vessel types may have appeared on the Roman table, there are major problems of both nomenclature and chronology.
The evidence presented here also suggests that customers chose what was available at point-of-sale, rather than pre-ordering, since the Latin or Gaulish names in use could have applied to more than one form. Perhaps this is a fact to 'weigh in the balance' when considering whether the army was involved in 'contracting' for sigillata supplies, where an exact supply to match orders might be expected.
One matter that can be illuminated is that of the calyx. It is the only drinking vessel regularly referred to in classical texts Hilgers , ; Dickey , Calyx should refer to a cup with a stem, and Privatus records having made of them calices , Quartio some , but that is very odd, because such vessels are almost absent from excavated sites from the Flavian period.
The only explanation that suggests itself is that the reference is to the Flavian Drag. Whether it was actually a drinking vessel is interesting given its connections to the Drag. However, we have some clues from the texts above, from the morphology of sigillata and from graves.
Observations Cool a , on the grouping of the Grave 2 vessels at Grange Road, Winchester Biddle , , fig. Perhaps an 'R' form was not available. Complete associations are impossible to unravel. The two flagons, together with their three accompanying Drag. Winchester also offers another insight into dining practice, where the assemblage of Flavian sigillata , from a supposed burial s?
It would seem that the functionality of Drag. The form Ritt. There are only two stamped examples recorded from Britain. There is apparently no successor for the shape in the repertoire until the Antonine period, when forms Walters 79 and 80 appear, suggesting that flat-bottomed dishes had a menu-related function.
There is then the case of Drag. This is the most common dish of the first century, but as can be seen Table 1 , it changes its shape throughout that period, and then develops further, the central 'boss' getting higher and the wall deepening as Drag. The result would be to throw food towards the edge of the dish, and this suggests a preference for more liquid recipes like soups, and loose stews as time went on, making it easier to use a spoon, or indeed bread to lift the gravy, but difficult to use a knife.
That this feature of the development of Drag. Whether the later sigillata gritted mortaria were actually carried to the table is a moot point. The graffiti , when complete, account for c. One problem with the series published by Marichal , is that it is dominated by complete graffiti stamped by Castus i, which form c. This poses a problem of whether the repertoire of vessels on them is representative over time, taking into account the dates of all of the stamps known from all of the graffiti Table 2.
To test the consistency over time, a comparison has been made of the data from all of the graffiti recorded by Marichal to those of the most complete as recorded in Datasheet 1 - XLSX. While they do not correspond exactly, the orders of magnitude are sufficient to show that the total series is fairly consonant Table 3 and Figure 2. However, in the later Roman Empire it became common. There are four main production centres, providing Egypt with this kind of table ware:.
The Megarian bowls were the Greek precursors of the later Roman terra sigillata. The vessels are rare and only a few have been found in Egypt. In the early years of the reign of Augustus, large scale production of Samian ware was started in Arretium Arezzo. The products of these workshops are of the highest quality, maybe from moulds created by master artists.
0コメント