Reference has already been made to a pap_History of Ancient Pottery: Greek, Etruscan, and Roman. Volume 2 (of 2)

gives a list of the sites in Gaul on which pottery appears to have been

made (see p. 443). But in the majority of these cases plain wares must

have been the only output. Moulded wares, as Déchelette points out,

required skill and resource to produce.[3537] In any case, very few

types are found on moulded wares which cannot be also associated with

Graufesenque or Lezoux, and any made on other sites must have followed

the same methods of decoration.[3538] The places given in Blanchet’s

list cover practically the whole extent of France, though the principal

centres of activity were always the Aveyron and Allier districts and

the Rhone valley. In the neighbourhood of Lezoux, for instance, vases

were made at Clermont-Ferrand, Lubié, St.-Bonnet, and Thiers. At

Nouâtre, Indre-et-Loire, was an important pottery, not yet fully

investigated; and others were at Rozier (Lozère), Auch (Gers),

Montauban, Luxueil (Haute-Saône), St.-Nicholas near Nancy, and Aoste

(Isère), where vases of characteristic originality were made.[3539] But

it is not likely that any future investigations will displace

Graufesenque and Lezoux as the chief centres for Gaulish _terra

sigillata_.

3. THE FABRICS OF GERMANY

In Germany the oldest and one of the most important sites for pottery

is Andernach,[3540] between Bonn and Coblenz, where however, it must be

borne in mind, there was no local manufacture; its importance is mainly

as a site yielding valuable chronological evidence. The finds extend

from the beginning of the first century down to about A.D. 250, the

earlier objects finding parallels in cemeteries at Trier and Regensburg

which can be similarly dated. Generally speaking, it has been observed

that Roman remains begin on the left bank of the Rhine a century

earlier than those in the border forts on the Limes, which cover the

period from A.D. 100 to 250.

_Terra sigillata_ with reliefs is comparatively rare, though, as we

have seen, it was at an early period exported from Gaul, and the

pottery consists chiefly of ordinary wares, red, grey, and black,

usually of good and careful execution, with thin walls. Much of this

common pottery may be assumed to be of local manufacture. The

characteristic types of the first century are simple jugs of plain ware

without slip for funerary or domestic use; vases with white slip (also

found at Regensburg); black ware bowls and dishes, sometimes with

potters’ stamps; black and grey cinerary urns. These forms include

small urns and the usual cups and bowls with straight or sloping sides,

replaced after A.D. 100 by spherical-bodied jars with narrow necks. The

decoration comprises all the varieties we have included in the

foregoing survey: barbotine, incised linear patterns, impressed

patterns made with the thumb, and raised ornaments such as plain knobs

or leaves worked with the hand. In the third century painted decoration

is introduced, as in the black ware drinking-vessels with inscriptions

described below (p. 537).

At Xanten (Castra Vetera), lower down the Rhine, large quantities of

_terra sigillata_ have been found, which can be dated by means of

coin-finds from the beginning of the first century down to the third.

During this period a steady degeneration in the pottery may be

observed, although glass fabrics correspondingly improve; in the time

of the Antonines the clay is coarse and often artificially coloured

with red lead or other ingredients, producing what was formerly known

as “false Samian” ware.[3541]

An exceptionally interesting centre, and in some respects the most

important in Germany, is that at =Westerndorf= on the Inn, between

Augsburg and Salzburg, where the coins range from about A.D. 160 to

330. It was first explored in 1807 and as long ago as 1862 the results

were carefully investigated and summarised by Von Hefner in a still

valuable treatise.[3542] The pottery includes _terra sigillata_ of the

later types, and plain red, yellow, and grey wares, sometimes covered

with a non-lustrous grey or reddish slip, or with black varnish, the

latter have very thin walls and are baked very hard. The decoration of

the _terra sigillata_ comprises all the usual types,[3543] the forms

being also those prevalent elsewhere, with the addition of a covered

jar or _pyxis_, but the figures are confined to the cylindrical or

hemispherical bowls (Nos. 30 and 37).[3544] The plain wares include

cinerary urns, deep bowls or jars, with simple ornament, open bowls

with impressed patterns, and _mortaria_.

Of some peculiarities of the potters’ stamps we have already spoken (p.

510); they are found in the form of oblongs or human feet, and more

rarely in circles, half-moons, or spirals, the letters being both in

relief and incised. Trade marks were sometimes used, the potter Sentis,

for instance, using a thorn-twig by way of a play on his name. Names

are both in the nominative and genitive, with some abbreviated form in

the one case of FECIT, in the other of MANVS or OFFICINA.[3545] Local

names are clearly to be seen in those of Belatullus, Iassus, and

Vologesus.

Another important centre of fabric in Germany is =Rheinzabern=

(Tabernae Rhenanae) near Speier, which probably shared with Westerndorf

a monopoly of the moulded wares.[3546] The pottery found here is mostly

in the Speier Museum; it is almost all of form 37, with its typical

decoration, and the fabric does not seem to have been established

before the second century. The chief potters’ names are Belsus,

Cerialis, Cobnertus, Comitialis, Julius, Juvenis, Mammillianus,

Primitivus, and Reginus. The British Museum possesses moulds for large

bowls with free friezes of animals, one with the stamp of

Cerialis[3547]; there was little export to Gaul, but a considerable

amount to Britain. M. Déchelette notes the similarity of the types to

those of Lezoux, and suggests that Rheinzabern is an offshoot from the

latter pottery. This site has also produced barbotine wares,[3548]

which bear a remarkable superficial resemblance to that of Castor (see

below, p. 544), and have been wrongly identified therewith[3549]; but

they are not found at Castor, and in point of fact differ widely in

artistic merit, being far superior to the British fabric, as has been

pointed out by Mr. Haverfield.[3550] The ornamentation is a formal and

conventional imitation of classical models, whereas the Castor ware is

only classical in its elements, and is otherwise barbaric yet

unconventional.

It is possible that Trier, and in fact all places mentioned in a

preceding chapter (p. 453) as sites of kilns may be regarded as centres

of manufacture, though in only a few cases was anything made beyond the

ordinary plain wares. Of the latter a useful summary has been made by

Koenen,[3551] chiefly from the technical point of view, which it may be

worth while to recapitulate. He divides the pottery of the Rhine

district (which may be taken as typical) into three main classes: the

first transitional from the La Tène period[3552] to Roman times; the

second, native half-baked cinerary urns; the third, Roman pottery,

ousting the other two. The first two classes cover the local hand-made

wares of grey, brown, or black clay, which are clearly of native make,

and like the similar wares of Britain and Gaul hardly come under the

heading of Roman pottery, though subsequently they felt its influence.

The Roman pottery proper (which can be well studied in the museums of

Bonn, Trier, and elsewhere on the Rhine) is divided by Koenen into

three periods: Early, Middle, and Late Empire. Roman wares first appear

with coins of Augustus, and at this period exercise much influence on

the La Tène types, producing a sort of mixed style, usually of greyish

or black clay with impressed or incised ornament, subsequently replaced

by barbotine. The _terra sigillata_ is either of the superior deep red

variety with sharp outlines and details, which we have seen to emanate

from Gaul, or else plain ware of a light red hue (“false Samian”),

without ornament.[3553] But as Hölder has pointed out,[3554] the

settlement of the chronology of German pottery (apart from the

_sigillata_) is particularly difficult, because we are dealing with a

purely utilitarian fabric, which consequently preserved its forms

unaltered through a considerable period; moreover, there must have been

many local fabrics and little exportation, which makes comparison

difficult.

[Illustration: FIG. 229. GERMAN JAR WITH CONVIVIAL INSCRIPTION (BRITISH

MUSEUM).]

To the German fabrics belong a group of vases with painted inscriptions

found on the Lower Rhine, and less frequently in North and East

France.[3555] They occur in the second century at the Saalburg, and

last down to the fourth; large numbers have also been found at Trier,

and other examples at Mesnil and Étaples (Gessoriacum) in France.[3556]

The usual form is that of a round-bellied cup or jar (Fig. 229), with a

more or less high stem and plain moulded mouth. Their ornamentation is

confined to berries, vine-tendrils, and scrolls, at first naturalistic,

afterwards becoming conventionalised; but their chief interest lies in

the inscriptions, which, like those of the Banassac type described

above (p. 524), are of a convivial character. They are painted in bold

well-formed capitals, in the same white pigment which is used for the

ornamentation; the following examples will serve as specimens:

AMAS ME, AMO, AMO TE CONDITE.[3557]

AVE, AVE COPO, AVETE.[3558]

BELLVS SVA(_deo?_).[3559]

BIBE, BIBATIS, BIBAMVS PIE, BIBE VIVAS, BIBE VIVAS

MVLTIS ANNIS.[3560]

DA BIBERE, DA MERVM, DA MI, DA VINVM.[3561]

DE ET DO, DOS (= δός).[3562]

EME.[3563]

FAVENTIBVS.[3564]

FELIX.[3565]

FE(r)O VINVM TIBI DVLCIS.[3566]

GAVDIO.[3567]

IMPLE.[3568]

LVDE.[3569]

MISCE, MISCE MI, MISCE VIVAS.[3570]

MITTE MERVM.[3571]

PETE.[3572]

REPLE, REPLE ME COPO MERI.[3573]

SESES = ZESES = ζήσαις.[3574]

SITIO, SITIS.[3575]

VALE, VALIAMVS.[3576]

VINVM, VINVM TIBI DVLCIS.[3577]

VITA.[3578]

VIVE, VIVAS, VIVAMVS, VIVAS FELIX, VIVE BIBE MVLTIS.[3579]

To this list must be added a remarkable vase of the same class found at

Mainz in 1888,[3580] with the inscription ACCIPE M(_esi_)TIE(_n_)S ET

TRADE SODALI, “Take me when you are thirsty and pass me on to your

comrade.” Above the inscription are seven busts of deities, Sol, Luna,

Mars, Mercury, Jupiter, Venus, and Saturn, representing the seven days

of the week; both the design and the inscription, however, are incised,

not painted.

4. ROMAN POTTERY IN THE NETHERLANDS, SPAIN, AND BRITAIN

In =Holland and Belgium= finds of _terra sigillata_ and potters’ stamps

are recorded from various sites, such as Arentsburg, Rossem, Rousse,

near Oudenarde, Voorburg, between Utrecht and Leyden, and

Wyk-by-Durstede, and also at Utrecht.[3581] At Vechten near Utrecht,

the ancient Fictio on the road from Lugdunum (Leiden) to Noviomagus

(Nimeguen) finds were made in 1868 which confirm the activity of the

Rutenian potters in the first century.[3582] These discoveries included

coins extending from the Republican period down to Trajan, and _terra

sigillata_ of the Graufesenque type, with many names of potters

belonging to that region.

In =Spain= finds have been made on various sites, and there are

numerous examples in the museum at Tarragona[3583]; at Murviedro, the

site of the ancient Saguntum, which, as we have seen, is mentioned by

Pliny and Martial as an important centre, various kinds of Roman ware

have come to light, some with potters’ stamps, but no evidence remains

of potteries or of any local manufacture.

* * * * *

In =Britain=—at least in England—finds of Roman pottery have been so

plentiful and so universal that it is difficult to select typical

centres for discussion. It must also be borne in mind that, with the

exception of the plain wares and a few other fabrics, such as the

Castor ware, we have not to deal with local manufactures. A certain

quantity of _terra sigillata_ may have been imported from Germany

(_e.g._ from Westerndorf),[3584] but by far the greater proportion is

from Gaul, as is shown by the potters’ names.

We propose in the first place to review briefly the types of _terra

sigillata_ which occur in Britain.[3585] The bowls of forms 29 and 30,

which are found in Germany in the first century, do not occur on the

Roman Wall, and we have already seen that they are not later than

Hadrian’s time; but they are common in the South of Britain, as at

London and Colchester. Roach-Smith[3586] and other earlier writers have

published specimens of these older forms decorated with figures which

have been found in London, Bath, York, Caerleon,[3587] and elsewhere.

The earliest dateable examples of form 37 have been found with coins of

Nerva at Churchover in Warwickshire[3588]; this type is indeed common

all over Britain, and is one of the few varieties of _terra sigillata_

occurring in the North. It is found at South Shields, along the Roman

Wall, and in Scotland at Birrens in Dumfriesshire.[3589] Pottery of the

second century is represented by a variety of the same form, with a

moulded ridge breaking the outline in the middle[3590]; this would seem

to be a type which also occurs in Germany during the second and third

centuries. Mr. Haverfield states that this form is found at South

Shields and in Yorkshire, and is imitated at Silchester. Of the

principal subjects on these we have already given some description (p.

508). Finally, there is the wide shallow type, approximating to the

mortar or _pelvis_, the upper part of which forms externally a flat,

vertical band, projecting beyond and forming a tangent with the general

curve of the bowl; this is usually ornamented with lions’ heads in

relief. This variety is not earlier than the second century, and is

also found in the third; we have already seen that it was made at

Lezoux.[3591]

It is important to note that all the places mentioned as yielding bowls

of forms 29 and 30 were occupied at least as early as A.D. 85, perhaps

as early as A.D. 50. But the style of these bowls may have lasted

longer; at all events, the varieties are so numerous as to show a

development for which some time is required. There is also a distinct

development in the plain band round the upper edge of the bowl, which,

at first a mere beading, becomes broader and more vertical by degrees.

It may, however, be assumed that, as none are found north of York, it

disappeared from Britain, as from Gaul and Germany, before A.D. 100.

The ware formerly known as “false Samian” (Dragendorff’s

_hellroth_)[3592] appears in several varieties. The light red or orange

colour is produced by a kind of slip of pounded pottery laid over the

surface. Vases of this type, glazed within and without with a thin

reddish-brown and somewhat lustrous glaze, occur in London, and a good

specimen was found many years ago at Oundle in Northants, but has since

disappeared.[3593] It was a fine vase, of light-red clay with red-brown

glaze, resembling the Gaulish _terra sigillata_, and had some claim to

artistic merit. The subject was Pan holding up a mask, and three draped

figures, and it bore the stamp of the Gaulish potter Libertus (OF ·

LIBERTI), who, as we have seen, worked at Lezoux.[3594] This ware is

often coarse, and ornamented externally with rude white scrolls painted

in opaque colour,[3595] and there is a variety found at Castor, of red

glazed ware with a metalloid lustre, the clay itself varying from white

to yellowish-brown or orange.[3596] Both shapes and ornaments resemble

those of the Castor black ware (see below), and it seems likely that

this is actually a local fabric, the difference in colouring being due

to the degree of heat employed in the firing.

The number of potters’ names found on these wares in Britain is very

large, those in the seventh volume of the Latin _Corpus_ amounting to

about 1,500.[3597] This list, published in 1873, of course superseded

all those previously drawn up by the Hon. R. C. Neville, by

Roach-Smith, and by Thomas Wright.[3598] Roach-Smith, however,

performed a useful service in tabulating the list of names found in

London along with those from Douai and other sites in France,[3599]

which went far to prove the Gaulish origin of the British _terra

sigillata_. It is not, therefore, necessary to discuss the potters’

names found in Britain in further detail.[3600] Besides the potters’

stamps, incised inscriptions sometimes occur on the pottery, giving the

owner’s name or other items of information (see above, p. 512).

To give a detailed account of all the sites in Britain on which Roman

pottery has been found would be a task entailing more labour and

occupying more space than the results would justify. Not only do the

sites cover almost the whole of the country from the Roman Wall to the

Isle of Wight, and from Exeter to Norfolk, but the disinterring of the

material from miscellaneous and often unscientific records, or from

scattered and uncatalogued collections, would be a truly gigantic

achievement. It should, however, be achieved; but this will only be by

co-operation, each county performing its share of the work, as has been

done in a few cases. The Society of Antiquaries has issued

archaeological surveys of certain counties,[3601] which without

entering into details tabulate the sites of Roman remains; and it is to

be hoped that forthcoming volumes of the _Victoria County History_ will

do for other counties what those already published have done for

Hampshire, Norfolk, Northants, etc. The most representative collections

are those of the British Museum and the Guildhall in London, and of the

provincial museums at Colchester, Reading, York, and elsewhere.

We now turn to the consideration of the local products of

Romano-British potters. Exclusive of the plain unornamented wares which

were made in many places, as the numerous remains of kilns show (cf. p.

454), there are only three distinct fabrics to be mentioned. In all of

these the ware is black, with or without a glaze, but the style of

ornamentation varies.

By far the most important centre, not only for the quantity of pottery

it has yielded and the extent of its furnaces, but also for the

artistic merit of its products, is that of =Castor=, in

Northamptonshire. Of the numerous traces of furnaces and workshops

discovered here, in the neighbouring villages of Wansford, Sibson,

Chesterton, and in the Bedford Purlieus, we have already spoken in a

previous chapter (p. 444 ff.); it now only remains to discuss the

technical and artistic aspects of the pottery.

Artis has recorded that the pieces of pottery found in or near the

kilns show great variety of form and style, including the red

imitations of _terra sigillata_, pieces ornamented with

“machine-turned” patterns,[3602] and dark-coloured ware with reliefs or

ornament in white paint. But the characteristic and commonest Castor

ware has a white paste coloured by means of a slip with a dark

slate-coloured surface; the usual form is that of a small jar on a stem

with plain cylindrical mouth. Some are merely marked with indentations

made by the potter’s thumb,[3603] or with rude patterns laid on the

intervening ridges; but others have designs laid on _en barbotine_ in a

slip of the same colour as the vase, and others of rarer occurrence are

decorated in white paint with conventional foliated patterns,[3604]

somewhat resembling the Rhenish wares described on p. 537. Haverfield

reproduces a fragment of a vase on which are painted in white and

yellow a man’s head in peaked cap, and an arm holding an axe.[3605] The

barbotine variety is the most typical, and is by no means confined to

this site. It is often found in Central and Eastern England, and even

in the Netherlands. One of the finest specimens was found at Colchester

in 1853,[3606] containing calcined bones, and ornamented with figures

over which inscriptions are incised. The subjects, arranged in friezes,

include two stags, a hare, and a dog, interspersed with foliations; two

men training a dancing-bear, one of whom holds a whip and is protected

by armour; and a combat of two gladiators (_murmillo_ and _Thrax_) of a

type familiar to us from Roman lamps (see p. 416). Over the heads of

the men with the bear is inscribed, SECVNDVS MARIO; over the

gladiators, MEMN(_o_)N SAC · VIIII and VALENTINV · LEGIONIS · XXX,

respectively. The meaning of the inscriptions is not quite clear, but

the last one certainly seems to allude to games taking place at the

post of the thirtieth legion—_i.e._ the Lower Rhine. For this and other

reasons Mr. Haverfield is of opinion that the vase may have been made

in that district and not at Castor, and it is not, of course,

impossible that such ware was not confined to Britain.[3607] This

would, at any rate, explain its presence in the Netherlands. Mr. Arthur

Evans has noted the presence of an unfinished piece of Castor ware in a

kiln at Littlemore, near Oxford.[3608]

------------------------------------------------------

PLATE LXIX

[Illustration:

TYPES OF ROMANO-BRITISH POTTERY: CASTOR WARE, ETC.

THE VASE WITH INCISED PATTERNS IS FROM GAUL (BRITISH MUSEUM).

]

------------------------------------------------------

Hunting-scenes are also very popular, especially a huntsman spearing a

boar, or a hare or deer chased by stags, as on a fine vase found at

Water Newton, Hunts, in 1827.[3609] A specimen in the British Museum

with a race of four-horse chariots is illustrated on Plate LXIX.

Roach-Smith gives a remarkable specimen with a mythological subject,

that of Herakles and Hesione[3610]; the subject is curiously treated,

Hesione being chained down with heavy weights. Another interesting but

fragmentary vase from Chesterford in Essex has figures of Jupiter,

Mars, Mercury, and Venus, and it may be assumed that the complete

subject was that of the seven deities represented by the days of the

week.[3611] Otherwise the potter is content with animals, such as

dolphins or fishes, or mere foliations, ivy-wreaths, engrailed lines,

and other ornamental patterns.[3612]

In regard to the technique of these wares, Artis notes that the

indented patterns were made while the vase was “as pliable as it could

be taken from the lathe”; for the barbotine the thumb or a rounded

instrument was employed. Figures of animals were executed with a kind

of skewer on which the slip was placed, a thicker variety being used

for certain parts to heighten the relief, and a more delicate

instrument for features and other details. No subsequent retouching was

possible. The vases were glazed subsequently to the application of the

barbotine; on the other hand, the decoration in white paint was made

after glazing. The glaze was, as we have seen in Chapter XXI., p. 448,

produced by a deposit of carbon, by the process known as “smothering”;

it varies in quality, being either dark without any metallic lustre, or

with a metalloid polish resembling that produced with black-lead.

The date of the Castor ware is difficult to ascertain, but it must

begin fairly early in the Roman period, on account of its affinities

with late Celtic pottery. Déchelette (ii. p. 310) would date the ware

towards the end of the third century. As has already been pointed out

(p. 536), it is only the elements of the decoration that are classical;

they are treated in a rude, debased manner, with the free

unconventional handling characteristic of barbaric art. “They are not

an imitation, but a recasting” according to the traditions of late

Celtic or Gaulish art,[3613] such as is displayed, for instance, in the

ancient British and Gallic coinage. The fantastic animals, the

treatment of the scrolls, and the dividing ornaments of beading, etc.,

between the subjects are essentially unclassical. Potters’ stamps on

this ware are exceedingly rare, an almost isolated instance being

CAMARO · F on a vase found at Lincoln.[3614]

Two other local varieties of black ware peculiar to Britain are those

known respectively as Upchurch and New Forest ware. Although no remains

of kilns have been found in the former district, the pottery is

obviously local, and its manufacture appears to have extended along the

banks of the Medway from Rainham to Iwade, over what are now marshes,

but was then firm ground. The remains consist of a thin finely-moulded

bluish-black fabric, with graceful and varied forms, ornamented with

groups of small knobs in bands, squares, circles, wavy, intersecting,

or zigzag lines, or a characteristic pattern of concentric semi-circles

resting on bands of parallel vertical lines (Plate LXIX. fig. 6). This

ware has also been found on the Continent, and may either have been

exported or else made in other places besides Upchurch; it is probably

of quite late date.[3615]

The clay is soft and easily scratched, and is covered with a polish or

lustre produced by friction; the composition is fine, and the walls

thin and well turned. It varies in tone from greyish, like that of

London clay, to a dull black. The vases are mostly small (cups,

bottles, jugs, small jars, and occasional _mortaria_), and some have

ribbed sides; the ornamentation is always either in the form of

impressed lines or raised patterns made by applying pieces of clay

before the vase was baked. No potters’ stamps have come to light, nor

is this ware found with coins or other Roman remains. Rough earthenware

was also made in the Medway district, of a red, yellow, or stone colour.

The New Forest ware is found in the north-west part of the Forest,

between Fordingbridge and Bramshaw.[3616] It is sometimes spoken of as

“Crockhill ware,” from the local name of the site of the furnaces, of

which traces were found in 1852. The pottery consists of two varieties,

one of thin, hard, slate-coloured ware, with patterns of leaves or

grass painted in white (Plate LXIX. fig. 5); these are small jars,

averaging six inches in height, sometimes moulded by the potter’s thumb

into an undulating circumference. There are points of resemblance with

the Castor ware. The other variety consists of a thicker ware, with a

dull white-yellowish ground and coarse foliated patterns painted in red

or brown, usually platters or dishes. It is a rude and inartistic

fabric, of obviously native origin and resembling Celtic rather than

any Roman or Italian pottery. It is found on other sites in Hampshire,

such as Bitterne (Clausentum), and even as far north as Oxford.[3617]

The date is probably the third century of our era. With the kilns there

were found heaps of potsherds which had been spoiled in the baking and

rejected; they were vitrified so as to resemble stoneware, and when

again submitted to the action of fire, cracked and split. The glaze

with which the local blue clay had been covered was of a dark-red

colour and alkaline nature, but had probably been affected by imperfect

firing.

5. PLAIN ROMAN WARES

The plain unornamented and unglazed Roman pottery which answered to the

modern earthenware has usually been considered by writers on the

subject in a different category from the glazed and ornamented wares.

Although from the very simplicity of its character it defies scientific

classification, yet it must be remembered that this common ware was not

likely to have been exported very far from the place of its origin, and

therefore where any differences can be observed in the nature or

appearance of the clay, in peculiarities of form or of technique, it is

not impossible to establish the existence of a local fabric. But up to

the present little has been done except in isolated instances. Certain

local wares have been recognised in Britain, as will be noted below,

besides the Castor, Upchurch, and New Forest wares, some of which

almost come under this heading; and others, again, in Gaul. Similarly

in Germany, attempts have been made by Koenen and other writers to

classify the plain pottery whether according to form or on other

principles (see above, p. 536).

Many years ago a rough but in some respects convenient classification

was made by Brongniart[3618] on the basis of the colour of the clay

employed, which he distinguished under four heads: (1) pale yellow or

white wares; (2) red wares, varying to reddish-brown; (3) grey or

ash-coloured wares; (4) black wares. In the first division he included

the large, often coarse, vases, such as the _dolia_ and _amphorae_;

under the second head Roman ware of the first century, and under the

third that of subsequent date; while the fourth class comprised

Gallo-Roman and other provincial wares. A somewhat similar system, in

some respects even less chronological, was attempted by Buckman,[3619]

who distinguished brown ware as a separate fabric. The obvious defect

of these systems is that they are neither chronological nor according

to fabrics, and that their basis is in many respects a purely

accidental one; but at the same time they have proved convenient for

discussing plain ware which does not admit of much consideration apart

from its forms and the general appearance of its composition. And at

all events they enable us to discuss examples of certain shapes under

one head, inasmuch as the _amphorae_ and _dolia_ are nearly all of the

first class, the _mortaria_ or _pelves_ of the third, cups, dishes, and

flasks of the second and fourth, and so on.

The yellow ware[3620] is distinguished by its coarse clay, of a

greyish-white or yellow colour, varying to dirty white, grey, or red.

It is to this division that all the larger vases belong, such as those

used for storing wine and other commodities or for funerary purposes,

and the innumerable fragments of _dolia_ and _amphorae_ which compose

the Monte Testaccio at Rome.[3621] Some of these vases were made on the

wheel, but others were modelled by hand and turned from within. Those

used in burial were usually of a globular form, or even _dolia_ with

the necks and handles broken off, and contained cinerary urns and glass

vessels. We also find _lagenae_, _trullae_ (saucepans), and _mortaria_

made in this ware. Another remarkable variety may be described as a

kind of _olla_; its peculiarity is that it is modelled in the form of a

human head, much in the same style as the primitive vases of Troy (Vol.

I. p. 258). A vase of this type found at Bootham, near Lincoln, had

painted on the foot D(_e_)O MIIRCVRIO, “To the god Mercury,“ in brown

letters.[3622] The clay is light yellow, with a slip of the same colour.

A finer variety of this clay, often of a rosy tint, or white and

micaceous, was used for making the smaller vases, which are thin and

light, and all turned on the wheel.[3623] They are sometimes ornamented

with bands, lines, hatching, or leaves, slightly indicated in dull

ochre, laid on and fired with the vase. Some specimens are covered with

a flat white slip, of a more uniform character than that employed on

the Athenian vases. In others the clay is largely mixed with grains of

quartz. In Britain little jars of a very white clay have sometimes been

found, as well as small bottles and dishes, painted inside with

patterns in a dull red or brown. They seem to have formed a kind of

finer ware for ornamental purposes, as well as for the table.

The second class, that of the red wares, forms by far the largest

division of Roman plain pottery, and comprises most of the kinds used

for domestic purposes; it is found in all forms and sizes, all over

Europe, often covered with a coating or slip, white, black, or red.

This class may be considered to include all varieties of red and

reddish-brown ware, but as a rule the clay varies in colour from pale

rose to deep coral, and in quality from a coarse gritty composition to

a fine compact and homogeneous paste. It is usually without a glaze,

and sometimes the clay is largely micaceous. To enumerate all the

shapes which illustrate this ware is unnecessary, but the

Romano-British and Morel Collections in the British Museum—and in fact

any representative collection of Roman pottery—exhibit all the

principal varieties, from the cinerary urn to the so-called

“tear-bottle” or unguent vase. The principal shapes are also

illustrated in the treatises of Hölder and Koenen.

Among sepulchral vases of this ware were the _ollae_ in which the ashes

of slaves were placed in the _columbaria_ at Rome, tall jars with

moulded rims and flat saucer-shaped covers.[3624] In Roman tombs in

Gaul and Britain these _ollae_ are usually placed inside large _dolia_

or amphorae, to protect them from the weight of the superincumbent

earth.[3625] In Britain they have been found at Lincoln, on the sites

of Roman settlements along the Dover Road, at Colchester, and in other

places, and as many as twenty thousand are recorded as having been

found at Bordeaux.[3626] After the introduction of Christianity this

practice seems to have been abandoned, but vases of smaller size

continued to be placed round the bones of the dead.

The grey wares were usually made of fine clay, of which there were two

varieties: a sandy loam like that of which bricks are made on the

borders of the chalk formations in England, and a heavy stone-coloured

paste, sonorous when struck, which has been compared to the clay of

modern Staffordshire ware. The colour of the first-named is light and

its texture brittle, and it was chiefly used for _mortaria_, or for

cooking-vessels which were exposed to the heat of the fire. The

_mortaria_ resemble modern milk-pans, being flat, with overlapping

edges and a grooved spout opening in front. They appear to have been

used both for cooking, many bearing traces of the action of fire, and

for grinding food or other commodities, the latter purpose probably

explaining the presence, in the interior of many examples, of small

pebbles, or a hard coating of pounded tile, to counteract the effects

of trituration. They are usually of a hard coarse texture, but compact

and heavy, and their colour varies from pale red to bright yellow or

creamy white.

[Illustration: FIG. 230. ROMAN MORTARIUM FROM RIBCHESTER (BRITISH

MUSEUM).]

They are frequently stamped with the name of the potter, placed in a

square or rectangular panel on the rim and often arranged in two lines.

The names are either single, denoting the work of slaves, as Albinus,

Brixsa, Catulus, Sollus, and Marinus, or double and occasionally even

triple, for the work of freedmen, as Q. Valerius, Sex. Valerius, Q.

Averus Veranius, and so on.[3627] The example given in Fig. 230 is from

Ribchester in Lancashire, and bears the stamp BORIED(_us_) F(_ecit_). A

_mortarium_ recently dug up in Bow Lane, London, now in the Guildhall

Museum, has the name of Averus Veranius with O · GARR · FAC in smaller

type between the words, apparently referring to the place of

manufacture.[3628] One of the commonest names is that of Ripanus

Tiberinus, who gives the name of the place where he worked: RIPANVS ·

TIBER · F · | LVGVDV FACT, _Ripanus Tiber(inus) f(ecit); Lugudu(ni)

fact(um)_.[3629] The potters’ names are usually accompanied by the

letters OF or F. The mortaria vary from seven to twenty-three inches in

diameter, and are found in England, France, Germany, and Switzerland.

Of the second or heavier variety a curious vase in the form of a human

head was found at Castor[3630]; much of the New Forest ware also comes

under the same heading,[3631] including the small cups with pinched-in

sides, some being covered with a slip of micaceous consistency.

Of black ware many varieties have been found in Gaul and Britain,

besides the special local wares which have already been described. Some

were employed as funerary urns, but the majority are of small size, and

in quality they vary from the extremest coarseness to a fine polished

clay, producing an effect almost equal to the Greek or Etruscan black

wares. The finest specimens of plain black ware are to be seen in the

vases with a highly polished surface, presenting a metallic appearance

and an olive hue which almost approximates to that of bronze. Examples

of this ware are found in Gaul at Lezoux, in Britain at Castor, and

elsewhere.[3632]

In the first century after Christ a superior kind of black ware seems

to have been made in Northern Gaul and Germany, described by

Dragendorff as “Belgic black ware.”[3633] The clay is bluish-grey, with

black polished surface produced like that of the bucchero ware by

smoke, not like the black glaze of later Roman ware. A similar variety

of grey ware exists, but without glaze or polish. The forms of the

vases vary very much from the Roman, including a typical high, slim urn

and other more squat forms, closely imitating metal; they bear some

relation to those of the La Tène period, and are Celtic or Gaulish

rather than German.[3634] Such ornamentation as they bear is

exclusively linear, and never in relief. There is, however, a Roman

form of plate which often occurs, and, generally speaking, the fabric

may be described as a continuation of pre-Roman pottery influenced by

Italy. It is well represented at Xanten and Andernach, but is not found

on the Limes, and is rare in Britain; it does not seem to have been

made after the beginning of the Flavian epoch, when it was largely

superseded by the ordinary Roman black glazed wares.

A special kind of black ware seems to have been made in the valley of

the Rhone, consisting of pots of a coarse, gritty paste with micaceous

particles, breaking with a coarse fracture of a dark red colour. They

have been mostly found at Vienne, where they seem to have been made.

The bottom of the vase is usually impressed with a circular stamp with

the potter’s name in late letters, as L · CASSI · O, F(_ir_)MINVS · F,

SEVVO · F, SIMILIS · F (from Aix).[3635] The well-known name of Fortis

has also been found on black ware from Aix.

In Britain black ware is, as elsewhere, exceedingly common, and a

typical group of the smaller varieties is afforded by a series of five

found in a sarcophagus at Binsted in Hampshire, now in the British

Museum,[3636] consisting of two _calices_, a jar (_olla_), an

_acetabulum_, and a kind of candlestick. The Upchurch ware largely

belongs to this category, and much of the same kind has been found at

Weymouth.

Brown ware of a very coarse style is often found with other Roman

remains, consisting of amphorae and other vessels for domestic use.

Examples of amphorae and jugs with female heads modelled on the necks

have been found at Richborough and elsewhere.[3637]

At Wroxeter the excavations yielded two new classes of pottery, one

consisting of narrow-necked jugs and _mortaria_,[3638] very beautifully

made from a white local clay, which has been identified with that found

at Broseley in the neighbourhood, nowadays supplying material for the

manufacture of tobacco-pipes. The surface is decorated with red and

yellow stripes. The other kind is a variety of red ware which has been

styled “Romano-Salopian,” made from clay obtained in the Severn valley,

and differing from the common Roman ware.[3639] It is, however,

exceedingly doubtful whether these types should be classed under the

heading Roman.

In conclusion, it may be noted that although all provincial museums

contain more or less complete collections of the ordinary plain

fabrics, they are for the most part of strictly local origin, and not

in themselves sufficient for general study. But since the acquisition

of the Morel Collection by the British Museum the student has ample

facilities for investigating there not only the fabrics of Britain, but

also those of Gaul, of which an exhaustive series is now incorporated

in our national collection.

* * * * *

With this review of the ceramic industries of the Roman Empire, we

conclude our survey of the pottery of the classical world. We have

followed its rise from the rough, almost shapeless products of the

Neolithic and earliest Bronze Age, when the potter’s wheel was as yet

unknown (on classical soil), and decoration was not attempted, or was

confined to the rudest kinds of incised patterns. We have traced the

development of painted decoration from monochrome to polychrome, from

simple patterns to elaborate pictorial compositions, and so to its

gradual decay and disappearance under the luxurious and artificial

tendencies of the Hellenistic Age, when men were ever seeking for new

artistic departures, and a new system of technique arose which finally

substituted various forms of decoration in relief for painting. And

lastly, we have seen how this new system established itself firmly in

the domain of Roman art, until with the gradual decay of artistic taste

and under the encroachments of barbarism, it sank into neglect and

oblivion. We observe, too, with a melancholy interest, that while other

arts, such as architecture, painting, and metal-work, have left some

sort of heritage to the later European civilisations, and like the

runners in the Greek torch-race

vitai lampada tradunt,

this is not so in the case of pottery. This art had, it would seem,

completely worn itself out, and had, in fact, returned to the level of

its earliest beginnings. The decorative element disappears, and pottery

becomes, as in its earliest days, a mere utilitarian industry, the

secrets of its former technical achievements irrevocably lost, its

ornamentation reduced to the simplest and roughest kinds of decoration,

and its status among the products of human industry once more limited

to the mere supplying of one of the humblest of men’s needs.

But this was inevitable, and we must perforce be content; for have we

not seen, in the course of its rise and fall, a reflection of the whole

history of Greek art, from the humble beginnings in which Pausanias

descried the touch of something divine which presaged its future

greatness? It is unnecessary to recapitulate the manner in which the

successive stages of Greek art are mirrored in the pottery, from the

first efforts of the Athenian potter down to the eclecticism of the

Arretine ware. Let it suffice to say that the object of this work has

been twofold: firstly, to show the many-sided interests of the

historical study of ancient pottery; secondly, to point out its value

to the student of ancient art and mythology: and that it is the modest

hope of the writer that this object has been in some measure fulfilled.

-----

Footnote 3421:

See a correspondence in the _Gentleman’s Magazine_, 1844-45,

reprinted in the _Gentleman’s Magazine Library, Romano-British

Remains_, ii. p. 547 ff.

Footnote 3422:

_Bonner Jahrbücher_, xcvi. p. 82.

Footnote 3423:

_Ergebnisse von Olympia_, iv. p. 206: cf. _ibid._ v. p. 783.

Footnote 3424:

_Cyprus Mus. Cat._ p. 93, and index, _s.v._ Samian.

Footnote 3425:

M. Déchelette’s epoch-making work on Roman pottery in Gaul only

appeared after this chapter was in type. To make proper use of it

would have necessitated practically re-writing the chapter; but I

have remodelled it where absolutely essential, and given frequent

references to his work in foot-notes, which it is hoped may suffice

in some measure. Moreover for some of the fabrics I have had the

advantage of his articles previously published in the _Revue

Archéol._ xxxviii. (1901) and the _Revue des Études Anciens_, v.

(1903), which he has since incorporated in his book.

Footnote 3426:

_Terra Sigillata_, in _Bonner Jahrbücher_, xcvi. (1895), p. 18 ff.

Footnote 3427:

See _Bonner Jahrb._ lxxxvi. p. 152 ff.; Koenen, _Gefässkunde_, p. 88.

Footnote 3428:

_C.I.L._ x. 8055, 4-9; 8056, 5, 46-52, 280 ff.; _ibid._ v. 8115, 97.

Footnote 3429:

See Déchelette, i. p. 16; _Bonner Jahrb._ ci. p. 22.

Footnote 3430:

Cf. Dragendorff’s Nos. 15-17 (plates 1-2) with Nos. 1-3 (plate 1).

Footnote 3431:

For examples from Andernach, see _Bonner Jahrb._ lxxxvi. pl. 6, 16,

pl. 7, 18.

Footnote 3432:

See Déchelette, i. p. 66, and below, p. 520.

Footnote 3433:

_Bonner Jahrb._ xcvi. p. 86.

Footnote 3434:

It was deserted about 5 B.C. See Déchelette, i. p. 93.

Footnote 3435:

_Bonner Jahrb._ xcvi. p. 87 ff.

Footnote 3436:

_Festschr. für Joh. Overbeck_, p. 168; cf. _Bonner Jahrb._ lxxxvi. p.

155.

Footnote 3437:

_Bonner Jahrb._ lxxxvi. pl. 5, 21, pl. 6, 4, 9-10: cf. Dragendorff’s

Nos. 19-20.

Footnote 3438:

_Op. cit._ xcvi. p. 87.

Footnote 3439:

For other typical stamps see Dragendorff in _Bonner Jahrb._ xcvi. p.

95; _ibid._ lxxxvi. p. 164 ff., lxxxix. p. 51 ff.

Footnote 3440:

_C.I.L._ vii. 1336, 790 is an isolated example of the black ware

found in London.

Footnote 3441:

_Bonner Jahrb._ xcvi. p. 103 ff.; Déchelette, i. p. 64 ff.

Footnote 3442:

_Ill. Rom. Lond._ p. 98.

Footnote 3443:

_Collect. Antiq._ vi. p. 70; _Ill. Rom. Lond._ _loc. cit._

Footnote 3444:

See _Bonner Jahrb._ xcvi. p. 105.

Footnote 3445:

See _ibid._ p. 110, pls. 2-3, figs. 31-55, for later provincial forms.

Footnote 3446:

See his vol. i. p. 29, with plates 2-5.

Footnote 3447:

_Ibid._ ii. pls. 1, 2.

Footnote 3448:

See _Bonner Jahrb._ xcvi. p. 126 ff.

Footnote 3449:

Cf. the vases given in Plate LXVII. figs. 1, 2, and Déchelette, i.

pp. 70, 180, pl. 6.

Footnote 3450:

See below, p. 520

Footnote 3451:

See generally Déchelette, i. p. 219.

Footnote 3452:

_Ibid._ ii. p. 91 ff.

Footnote 3453:

An exhaustive list of types, figures, and ornaments of all kinds, as

found in the Graufesenque and Lezoux fabrics, is given by Déchelette

in his second volume, p. 5 ff.

Footnote 3454:

See Roach-Smith, _Ill. Rom. Lond._ p. 95.

Footnote 3455:

See also the useful list given by Von Hefner in _Oberbayr. Archiv_,

xxii. (1863), p. 28 ff., giving the chief types on German wares from

Westerndorf and elsewhere.

Footnote 3456:

See _Cat. of London Antiqs._ Nos. 158 ff. pl. 8; _Ill. Rom. Lond._ p.

89 ff.; _Collect. Antiq._ _passim_; also Plate LXVIII.

Footnote 3457:

_Collect. Antiq._ ii. p. 13.

Footnote 3458:

Cf. _C.I.L._ xiii. 10010, 1682.

Footnote 3459:

Hence Roach-Smith was inclined to date the vase as late as the fifth

century; but recent researches show that this is impossible. Even in

the first century vases of this debased style are found. There were

two potters of the name of Sabinus in the first century in Gaul

(Déchelette, i. p. 297).

Footnote 3460:

_Bonner Jahrb._ xcvi. p. 139: cf. Roach-Smith, _Collect. Antiq._ ii.

p. 15.

Footnote 3461:

See _C.I.L._ xiii. part 3, p. 121.

Footnote 3462:

_Ibid._ p. 120. An example from Britain is L. Cosconius Virilis

(_C.I.L._ vii. 1336, 346: cf. Roach-Smith, _Collect. Antiq._ i. p.

155).

Footnote 3463:

_C.I.L._ xiii. 10006, 95, on a _mortarium_.

Footnote 3464:

_C.I.L._ xiii. 10010, 1670.

Footnote 3465:

_C.I.L._ vii. 1314: cf. _Rev. Arch._ xxiv. (1894), p. 57.

Footnote 3466:

Déchelette, i. p. 86, pl. 13; _Rev. Arch._ iii. (1904), p. 75 ff. The

names of vessels include the interesting word _pannae_, whence our

“pan.”

Footnote 3467:

See _Oberbayr. Archiv für vaterl. Gesch._ xxii. (1863), p. 38, pl. 4,

fig. 1; _C.I.L._ iii. 6010, 68; Déchelette, i. p. 210.

Footnote 3468:

_Bonner Jahrb._ xcvi. p. 136.

Footnote 3469:

_Oberbayr. Archiv_, xxii. (1863), p. 43.

Footnote 3470:

_C.I.L._ vii. 1337, 22.

Footnote 3471:

Orelli, 4189; Blanchet in _Bullet. Archéol._ 1898, p. 29, and _id._,

_Mélanges Gallo-romaines_, ii. (1902), p. 109.

Footnote 3472:

See Marquardt, _Privatleben der Römer_, p. 648, note 7.

Footnote 3473:

Henzen, 7258; Blanchet, _loc. cit._: cf. _C.I.L._ iii. 5833.

Footnote 3474:

Steiner, _Cod. Inscr. Danub. et Rheni_, ii. p. 305; Orelli, 2029.

Footnote 3475:

Orelli, 4302; Henzen, 7259; Blanchet, _loc. cit._

Footnote 3476:

Steiner, _op. cit._ i. p. 58, No. 130. Other names of consuls from

199 to 228 are given in _Bonner Jahrb._ xv. p. 61 (these are in

_graffito_).

Footnote 3477:

Steiner, ii. p. 349 ff., Nos. 1649-51, 1653, 1661; _Bonner Jahrb._

xv. p. 53 ff.

Footnote 3478:

_Gaz. Arch._ 1877, p. 180; Roach-Smith, _Collect. Antiq._ iii. pl.

31, p. 193.

Footnote 3479:

_Journ. Brit. Arch. Assoc_, iv. p. 364.

Footnote 3480:

_C.I.L._ vii. 1335, 4.

Footnote 3481:

For the technique of this process see above, p. 442, and Brongniart,

_Traité_, i. p. 425.

Footnote 3482:

There is an example of this ware from Cologne in the British Museum

(Greek and Roman Department), and others at Turin and Trier.

Déchelette (ii. p. 309) states that it is found in the first century

B.C.

Footnote 3483:

See _Bonner Jahrb._ xcvi. p. 111 ff.; Hölder, _Formen der röm.

Thongef._ p. 8.

Footnote 3484:

Déchelette, ii. p. 309.

Footnote 3485:

Koenen, _Gefässkunde_, p. 101.

Footnote 3486:

_Bonner Jahrb._ xcvi. p. 120.

Footnote 3487:

_Op. cit._ p. 121: cf. _Mus. Borb._ v. 13.

Footnote 3488:

See for examples Déchelette, ii. pl. 5; _Bonner Jahrb_. lxxxiv. pl.

2, figs. 2-5, p. 109; Roach-Smith, _Ill. Rom. Lond._ p. 93;

_Oberbayr. Archiv._, 1863, pl. 4, fig. 11; and Plate LXIX. fig. 4.

Footnote 3489:

Vol. ii. p. 325.

Footnote 3490:

i. p. 41 ff.

Footnote 3491:

i. p. 64 ff.

Footnote 3492:

i. p. 138 ff.

Footnote 3493:

_C.I.L._ xiii. 10009, 3; Déchelette, i. p. 31 ff.

Footnote 3494:

_C.I.L._ iii. Suppl. 12013, 3; Déchelette, i. p. 34.

Footnote 3495:

Déchelette, i. p. 60.

Footnote 3496:

See also Jullian in _Revue des Études Anciens_, i. (1899), p. 152.

Footnote 3497:

Painted vases with Geometrical decoration were widely exported, even

to Bohemia: see _Rev. Arch._ xxvi. (1895), pls. 5, 6, p. 196 ff.;

_Gaz. Arch._ 1881-2, pls. 3-4, p. 17.

Footnote 3498:

See Déchelette, i. p. 66; it is the form numbered 11 by Dragendorff.

Footnote 3499:

_Op. cit._ i. p. 68: cf. _C.I.L._ xi. 6700, 821.

Footnote 3500:

See Déchelette, i. pls. 6, 7, p. 69.

Footnote 3501:

_Op. cit._ i. pl. 8, p. 74.

Footnote 3502:

Reference has already been made to a paper by M. Blanchet, in which he