Download - Soricelli - Libyan Studies 1987
-
8/10/2019 Soricelli - Libyan Studies 1987
1/16
Lib) al/
Sludi
eJ IK( I
-
8/10/2019 Soricelli - Libyan Studies 1987
2/16
G.
SO ruCELU
The analyses of diverse
groups
of ware
comin
g from excavations
carried out
in . he las t
few years at Pompeii (the Impianto Elettrico excavation: for preliminary results see Arthur
1986), at Naples
and
at o
ther Campanian si
tes (Ischja, Sinuessa, Cales) have, in fact,
permitted a quantitative eva
lu
ati
on of
the presence of 'Tripolitanian Sigillata' in
Campania
,
and as regards its origin, an
al ternative hypothesis to
that proposed
by Kenrick can n
ow
be
advanced .
'Production N sigillata in Campania
Among the
sigillata wares appearing in levels
datable between
the first century BC and the
s cond century AD, it has been possible to isolate a number of fragments of a ware which
I
shall refe r to as
'Production /1\
whose
ho
mogeneous morphological characteristics
c o
spond closely with those of 'Tripolitanian Sigillata', whilst being easily distinguishable both
fro m the best Italian sigillata and from other import
ed
sigillata wares (Soricellj 1984a ).
The iden tification of these fragments as 'Tripolitanian SigiLlata'
is
verified either by the
shapes of the vases
or
by the
prese
nce
of
a few
potters' stamps
in
common
.
An
example o f
this is the base of a cup found at Pompeii in a level of the Impianto
Elettrico
excavation,
the profile of which is comparable with the form Berenice B42 5,2. This bears the
rectangular stamp L.PVLLljCARPI (Fig. 1.1 ), the s
ame
po tter who stamped the base of a
pla te of 'Tripolitanian Sigillata' recovered at Berenice (Kenrick 1985 , 30 1, X164,
L.PVLL
/CA RPl .
In
con
trast
wi
th Bereruce and Sabratha, a t Pompeii -Producti
on
A/Tripolitaruan i g i l
lata' (hereafter refe
rred
to as 'Prod. /1\), appears
in
several
con
tex
ts
of the Impianto
Elettrico excavation with a
pre
liminary dating of around the middle of the first century
BC, a
per
iod
char
acterised by a greatly
reduced
prop0l1ion of sigillata (22 fragments in all,
of which m
or
e
than
half
are
attributable to
Easte
rn
i ~ i l l a t a
A
or
to
productions
imitating
its forms), with respect to other fragments offine tableware, cillefly Black Glaze.
These products recur at Pompeu in much larger quantity in
group
dated
abou
t 30-20
BC, assoc iated with the 'archaic' Arretine forms of Goudineau (1968, form 2, 5 and 6.)
and with the radial Arretjne stamp
C SER.
/
OCE eVArr
177 9). In till
group,
composed
f
68 fragments, 'Prod . /1\ I presents approximately 61.7 of the sigillata recovered,
against 27.9 of Italian si: iLla ta
and
5.5 of
Eastern
Sigillata A. The f
orm
most
quently enc
ountered
in this group (Fig. 1.2) has a hanging lip (wruch could be typologically
connec
t d with the rims of 'Service la' of Fellman),
appare
nt ly with a later da te of around
20 BC (Goudineau 1968,47). It has not been recognised at Berenice
or
Sabra tha. For the
other two forms presen t, a plate
and
a bowl, they may
be
compared with t
he
plate Berenice
B399.2 and the c
up
Bereruc B
42
3.1 (Fig. 1.3 ).
Well stratified level
of
later Augustan date have not
been
found save for a group of
sherds amongst willch was the stamp L.
PVLLI
/CARPI. T hese fragments,
tho
ugh not
belonging to any specific con text, are chronologically homogenous (their provenance was
the b c k i l l of a trench dug by A . Maiuri in the 1940's between the erarillm and the
pifo/
ium
almost certainly composed of material distu rbed by his excavation). In tills
group consisting f 200 fragments, 'Prod.
A
again represents approximately 38.5 of the
total tableware, against 51.5 of Italian sigillata, and 9(/0
made
up
of
J5 fragments
grouped t
ogether under
the name of 'Production
C,
being imilar to -Prod. either in
fab ric
or
type. Many of the -Prod. /1\ types in tills group compare with those noted at e r e
nice. T he t
wo
pla tes (Fig. 1
.4
and
1.5)
can
be
compared
respectively to t
he
shapes
Bere
nice
B399
and B4
{)O
willie o t
her
examples (Fig. 1.6 and 1.7) can be likened to the plates
Bere
n ice B409 and B4 10. Nevertheless
some
new designs
are
present,
such
as the
plate
(Fi
g.
1.8) with bipa rtite interna l wall and anothe r plate (Fig. 1.9), willch may be a deriva-
74
-
8/10/2019 Soricelli - Libyan Studies 1987
3/16
TRlPOUTANIAN SIGILLATA' FROM CAMPANIA
. G
-I
I
j
1
,:::?
)
=;
7
--
7.
6
~
7
7
C?
"
8
J
====
/
J
9
s
=
Fi
gure
I
Nos 1-9 Impilllllo Elellrico Po
mp
eii. Scale I:
2
tion
o f
the
'Servi
ce
l of Haltern (
equivalent to Kenrick
's group
A)
. Furthermore this is
the
only
gr
oup
of
stamped fr
agments
from
the
excavation .
In
addi
tion
to th
at
of
L.
Pullius Carpus, a ra
di
al
stamp
CHI/RE
in a
circular
cartouch
e
and
, on
the
base of a cup
Berenic
e B42S.2 a
rectangular stam
p with two lines
of uncertain
lettering (perhaps EROS on the lo
wer
line?) are also
to be
noted.
2
75
-
8/10/2019 Soricelli - Libyan Studies 1987
4/16
G. SORIC LLl
The percentage values obtained for 'Prod. A' are lower in two contexts of the excavation
dated respectively to the Tiberian and Claudian eras. [11 the Tiberian context (185 frag
ments ) 'Prod. P\ reaches approximately 25.5 ,against 65.4 of Italian sigillata and 3 of
Eastern Sigillata A
The
most complete type in this group corresponds to the bowl Bere
nice B427 (Fig. 2
.1
0), though
other
rims,
comparab
l with the plate Berenice
B409
and
carinated bowl Berenice B417 also occur. In the Claudian context the p roportion
of
'Prod.
P\ drops again, resulting in only 19.7
of
the total 66 sherds, as
do
cs the
prop
ortion of
Italian sigillata (a pproximately 57.6 ); Eas tern Sig illata A howev
er
, rises to approximately
7.5. Overall, the composition of this group is anomalo us with a high
number
of frag
ments of unidentified
pr
oduction (around 13':;'0) and a strong component of residual
material (this seems to be especially true for Eastern
Si
gillata A
).
Data from a group of sherds from excavations at S. Sofia, Naples, seem more reliable.
These
are datable from the Tiberian/Claudian
era
and consist
of
365
fragments.
The
percentage
of
'Prod.
A is
approximately 14.5 , against 73.8
of
Italian sigillata
and
1.5
of Eastern Sigillata A To these must be added c 50/
of
fragments attributed to other local
production. The most
common
types are the large plate Berenice
B407/B409
(F
ig.
2.11 ),
the carinated bowl Berenice
B417
and the conical cup Berenice B427. Some fragments
can be attributed to the hemispherical bowl Berenicc B419, while one base (Fig. 2.12) can
be likened to the plate Berenice B403.
A group of sherds from the excavation at the Girolamini (Naples), may be assigned to
the Claudio-Neronian period. This has yielded a fair quantity of fragments
of
'Prod. P\
with divers examples capable of being almost completely recomposed. The most common
types are still the large plate Berenice
B409
(Fig. 2.13 ) and the conical cup Berenice B427
(Fig. 2.14 ). The carinated bowl Berenice B41 7 is also frequently found, to which may be
added two examples of the hemispherical bowl Berenice B419 (Fig. 3. 15) and one
example similar to the small plate Berenice B410
(Fig. 3.16
).
A group
of
94
sherds from the excavation
of
Carminiello ai Mannesi (Naple
s)
may
be
dated to the middle
of
the first century
AD
.
Here
'P rod
repr
esents approximately
12.8
of
the sigillata, against 73.4
of
Italian sigillata. A further c 10.5
is
made up
of
a
group of fragments of 'Production D', identified for the moment only in Naples (appearing
for the first time at S. Sofia, where they represent 3.6
of
the entire collection of pottery
found ) and whose forms resemble those of 'Prod. ~ 'Prod is represented by the forms
which
appear
to be the most frequent from
Tiberian
times - the large plate Berenice
B409
, the conical
cup
Berenice
B427
and the carinated bowl Berenice B417.
'Prod.
P\ is
again present in
another
group, consisting
of
147 fragments, dated to the end
of the first century A D, also found in the excavations of Carminiello ai
Mann
esi. It
is
represented by approximately 16.8 of the total fine pottery, against 6.1.7 of Italian sigil
lata and 10 of imported products.
In the groups of later date, and particularly in those assigned to the first half of the
second century
AD
the presence
of
'Prod.
P\ is
always meagre, sometimes to tally non
existent,
as in
the assemblage from
Cratere
Senga at Pozzuoli (SoriceUi
1984b
). This leads
me to believe that circulation of this ware in Campania did not continue beyond the firs t
century AD. A reasonably precise chronological peg
is
offered by the Pompeian material
in use in
AD
79.
These
products were still in circulation, as demonstrated by a plate Bere
nice
B407
with a rectangular stamp BL ST
inv.
10139 ) and a few unstamped carinated
bowls attributable to the form Berenice B417
(inv.
15258
and 15271 ). To these
one
may
perhaps also
add
a fragmentary plate, attributable to the type Berenice
B410
with a
rectangular stamp
EP PR
(inv. 37145). However,
one
is
dealing with a reduced percen
tage
of
examples when
compared
with the rest
of
the sigillata discovered at Pompeii and
they may be considered residual specimens still in use at the time of the eruption.
76
-
8/10/2019 Soricelli - Libyan Studies 1987
5/16
----
--
'
TRIPOLlTANlAN
SIGILLATA' F
ROM CAMPAN
IA
....
....
II II
....
h
N
....
-
8/10/2019 Soricelli - Libyan Studies 1987
6/16
G. SORlC LLI
~ ; '
C3
'f2
~
..",.
:
Vi
r
( )
I
o
N
N
.:...."
'53
::::,..
::::,..
,,'
'-'
-'
:..:.J
2
.
::::,..
~
.....
I
.:....,
g
I
I
~
co
-2 '
-
8/10/2019 Soricelli - Libyan Studies 1987
7/16
'TRlPOLITANlAN SIGILLATA' FROM CAMPANIA
In addition, two large groups
of
'Prod. P\ found at Ischia, in the excavations carried out
under the
church
of
S.
Restituta, and at Monte S. Angelo, in the immediate hinterla
nd
of
Pozzuoli, are
wor
thy of consideration.
Bo
th of these lack precise stratigraphic co ntext
s,
though a few sherds
bear
potters' stamps, whilst the class is well represented in
proportion
to
other
contemporaneous sigillata wares.
The
Ischian material provides two stamps:
EROS,
in a rectangular cartouche (Monti
1980, Fig. 95),
prob
ably the same
potter represe
nted at Berenice (Ke
nr
i
ck
1
985
, 30 1,
X 157), and SEX on a palm branch, in an oval
cartou
che (Monti 1980, Fig. 95 ).
From
Monte S.
Angelo we have a rectangular sta
mp
reading
Nlr P
(F ig. 3.17 ) and a
radial stamp on two lines, unfortunately illegible (in the u
pper
line only the last two letteL,
10
can be read ). These fragments (a few
of
which are illustrated in F ig. 3.18-21) come from
the area of a villa, the object
of clande
stine excavations, where 'Prod. A' represen ts a
pp
ro
ximately 25.5 of the total of 184 fragments of sigillata gat
hered
from the surface, against
67.4 made up
of
fragments of Italic sigillata, and 7
.1
of
other
types.
Figure 4 summar ises graphically the percentages of the groups found in the excavations
at Pompeii (Impianto Elettrico) and Naples (S. Sofia and Canniniello ai Mannesi ), between
'Prod. A', Italian sigil lata, other sigillata wares attributed to local production (in cluding the
fragments
grouped
toget
her
under the names 'Production C'
and
'Production D' )and other
sigillata wares either inlported or simply unidentified (miscellaneous). To this is added a
frequency table of the material from
Monte
S. Angelo which illustrates the quantities
obtained from an analysis of the surface finds.
These results appeal'
to
indicate a progressive fall-off of '
Pro
d. N. with respect to Italian
sigillata. After having
obtained
par ticularly high percentage values in contexts of the e
nd
of
the first century BC, from the
Ti
berian era 'Prod. N.
represen
ts only 15- 25 in the assem
blages, against 65 - 75
of
Italian sigillat
a. This
strongly marked fall-off would seem to
correspond with a decline in the number of types.
While groups of
sherds from the Augustan period would seem to be characterised by a
larger
number of
vessel types, in l
ater
groups these
seem
to
be
limited to plates
Beren
ice
B409 and B410, (which represent two diverse sizes of the same type-form), the con ical
cup Berenice B4 27 (which would
make
up the 'service;' with the two
pre
ceding forms ), and
the Berenice carinated bowl
(841
7 - to which perhaps may also be added the hemispher ical
bowl Berenice
B419
, relatively
welJ
represented
in
the pottery group of Girolaminj).
All this could be interpreted as a consequence of t
he opening
of the Pozzuoli workshops
in the last years of the first century BC which, with their high-quaHty products, were able
to take over in a short space
of
time, a large slice
of
the
Campanian
market previously
supplied by potters who were producing 'Prod.
A'. The
Pozzuoli workshops, or at least
those which were noted during excavations carr ied
out
by Di Criscio
in
18 73
-74
(Bruzza
1875;
Comfort
196
4 )
must
have begun their activity
around
15-
10
Be.
(
Comfort 1970
,
810), at least twenty five years later than the appearance of
Prod. A'.
This chronological gap between the two wares can be clearly perceived ,
not
only in the
early
appearance
of 'Prod. N. in those levels of the Impianto Elettrico excavation dating to
around
the middle
of
the first century
BC
, but also in various typological differences. In
fact, while some forms
of
'Prod. N. are
correlated
with those of 'Service r
of
Haitern, thus
appearing to indicate their contemporaneity, the typological
repertory
of Puteolan sigillata
seems to consist almost exclusively of later types
or
'Service II' (von Schnurbein
1982,
84 ).
What is more, while the potters who produced 'Prod . N
made
use of the radial
stamp
which, according to Gou
dinea
u (1968,352- 353), was substituted by the central stamp at
Arezzo around I5 - I() BC , radial stamps were never employed for the products of the
Pozzuoli workshops. An even earlier
da
te could be assigned to a series of fragments of
Prod.
A'
which
pr
esent a 'lozenge' stamp.
In
addition to the base of the plate found at
Girolamini (Fig. 3.2 2), two
diff
erent examples
of
this
stamp
may
be no
ted: the first comes
79
-
8/10/2019 Soricelli - Libyan Studies 1987
8/16
G. SORICELLI
654
61
.7
576
515
27
.9
Pompeii I. E.
l iberian
Pompeii I.E.
claudia
pompeii
I,E.
augustan
73.4
Pompe ii
I.
E
30-20 Be
7 8
S.
Sof ia
iberia - claudia
67.4
Carminiello ai Mannesi
mid I AD
61.7
Carminiello ai
Mannesi
late I AD
c J Produzione
A-TripOlitania
Sigi
ll at
a
Italian Sigillata
_ Other loc l Products
Imported and Miscellaneous
Fig
ur
e
4.
'erce l1li1ge vallles 0/ dijTere
ll1
Iypes o/ sigillalo pUllely ("hod. A , laliOI1, ()Iher local prodllcis alld
ill1por/ed or
unid
ellliJied ware.) III Po
mp
eii (/mpianlO
Llellrico
sile),
Napl
es
(S.
Sofia
alld
Canniniello
ai
MIIllnesi) ( l i ld PozUlo
li
(IHol li eS Angelo).
Monte
S.
Ange
1
80
-
8/10/2019 Soricelli - Libyan Studies 1987
9/16
TRlPO
LITANIAN
SIGILLATA
FROM CAMPANIA
from Carminiello ai Mannesi, the second is preserved in the
storerooms
at Pompeii (inv.
37136). Very similar lozenge stamps characterise a
production of
Black Glaze ware of
B-type located in
northern
Campania, probably at Cales and well distributed in the region
Morel, 1975,279-280;
1981,82).
On the other hand, this type of stamp is rather rare on
sigiUata .
T
hi
s provides
an
opportunity to refer to a unique example from Rome of a lozenge with
fi
ve points, hearing
T/
at the centre, which has been attributed hypothetically to local pro
duction (Schindler
Kaudelka 1984,24, No. 81 )
and
which resembles a series
of
stamps on
Black Glaze ware (themselves bearing five-pointed lozenges with
A T
(from
Capua,
CVA
Capua-Museo
Campano
,
fasc. HI, plate 29, No.9 ), or P
at
the centre (from the Vesuvian
area, DAvino-Parma
1981,
Fig. 1)). The presence on sigillata of lozenge stamps similar to
those which appear on Black Glaze ware justifies the belief in their
contemporaneity and
indicates that the design was passed from Black Glaze ware to sigillata. In this case the
fragments of Prod. A (and the Roman example ) could
be
dated towards the middle
or
the
third quarter
of the first century BC
Considering, therefore, that these products appear in the region of the Bay of Naples
earlier than their appearance at Berenice and Sabratha, and the fact that they possess
higher percentage values in Italy, it is difficult to believe that these wares were imported
into Campania from North Africa.
Furthermore, the distribution of the few stamps attributed to this ware, their
appearance
in
both
G reek and Latin, and the names of the potters themselves, all seem to indicate a
Campanian origin for this class of pottery, particularly in the Phlegraean Fields, an area of
Greek culture and language. The potter s stamp of BAACT//MOYN, as has already been
noted, occurs on four vessels, coming respectively from Pozzuoli, Cuma and Catania and a
fourth from Berenice. A further example from Tarragona gives the same name in Latin-
BLAST/
/NIVNA
T/
CVAr,.
1033d
).
The
plate from Pompeii with the
stamp
BLAST
can
also be attributed to this potter (for the
Grecian
Blastus see Solin 1982,962-963 ). In addi
tion to the relative concentrations
of
these stamps in the Phlegraean-Vesuvian
area
, it must
be noted that the genlilicium Munatius is very common in the region. It has been noted in
Naples even
ill
mid-Imperial times CIL10.1492; NOI.Sc.
1887,291;
Maiuri
1913.
Perhaps
even
CILIO.2573,
attributed to Pozzuoli, is Neapolitan).
The
name occurs at Pozzuoli
CIL10.1767, 2048,2285,2751
, 2752,2754,
Not.Sc.1913,
25 ), Miseno
CILlO.3505,
3609
), Herculaneum
CIL1
0.14(3 ), and Pompeii (Castren 1975, 193 ).
The
Greek/Latin
alternation on the stamps may reflect a bilingualism in the
area
of
pro
duction. Potters who signed their ware in Greek , but whose products were distributed
exclusively in the West are known at Pozzuoli, where the stamps LJ/ONYEION
and f lYAA
were found by Di Criscio (Comfort 1964, 24. No. 89 , while examples
of
bilingual signa
tures
are
known also at a later
date on
the lamps with the stamps
KELCEI/CELSI,
produced for approximately a century at a workshop located most probably in
Campania
(Pavolini 198 1, ).
The
base of a plate from Nuceria referred to as form Goudineau ] 4 and with a rect
angular stamp AMlwN, (Budetta et al. 1984 ) may be equatable with the potter who at
Catania, Carthage and Berenice signed himself
AMPHIO or ANIPHIOI
on vessels
of
Prod.
A
CVArr
65b
and c; Ke
nr
ick
19
85, 300, X 152
and
X 153 ). Bearing in mind that
the stamp
AMlw
N recurs also on Eastern Sigillata A
s
ee Hayes
1985, 36,
form 48
),
the
fragment from Nuceria (not examined by the writer) could equally, therefore, have an
Eastern origin.
Examples
of
signatures known, at the moment, only in Greek, are the stamp NlrEP
together with the stamps signed
EPlfl
from Berenice (letters which Kenrick 1985,
300
,
X156, prefers to EPID ): the use of Greek by these potte rs lends
support
to the hypothesis
of their localisation in an
area
of
Greek
culture. One may bear in mind that even in
8
-
8/10/2019 Soricelli - Libyan Studies 1987
10/16
G. SORlC LLI
Imperial times magistrates at Nap les
re
tained their
Greek
names, whilst also k
eep
ing alive
the typically
Greek
institutions like the fratriae and using Greek for pu blic documents.
In Campania, other family names which appear on these prod ucts turn out to be rather
comm on, uch as Pompeius, Marius and Pullius.
Th
e first two do not appear to be
particularly indicative since, alt ho ugh
th
ey are
widespread
in Ca
mpani
a, they are also fre
quentl
y
attested
in
other
areas. Sex. Pompeii are, howev
r,
attested
at Pozzuoli
(CIL IO .1 594, 2862 )
and in the Ve suvius
area
(ClL10
.1 403
fro m
Herculan
e um;
8157
fr m Pompeii),
wh
ile a O
Pomp
eius ap pears
am
ongst the
Ii
t
of pott
rs from Pozzuoli
0.
Pompeius Serenus, CVA . . 1
354
- 1359). Similarly, M. Marius
is
no ted
many
times in the
Phlegraean area (C
lL
IO.27 12 from Pozzuoli; Denni on 1898,385, No. 29 from Pozzuoli;
3 2,
No.
49
fro m Baia; IGXrv
720 from
Nap les).
T he name Pullius,
on
the ot
he
r
han
d, is f
requ
ntly
met
with in Campania,
but
seldom
elsewh re: it is
found
at
Pozzuo
li by the
end of
the
seco
nd
cen
tury B (Cl
Ll 0.1 781,
datable to 105 BC). Pullii are
noted
at Capua in early Imperial times
CILl
0.4309), at
So rrento
(CILl
O.742 )and possibly in th v suvian area CIL1 0.2900 - 29
02
, at tri buted to
Pozzuoli , bu t found in the Ve suvian area .
The
na
me
i usua lly widespread in Campania
under
the
form
of Po
ll
ius, a
lready
attested at Capua in
94
BC
(CILI O.3772),
and fre
q
ue
ntly at Pozzuol i
CIL1 0.1574 ,
in the Ne
ro
nian era;
10.2252, 2856 ).
F inally, two
examples
of
sigillata s
tam
p d
POLLl eVAr. 1349)
probably ref
er
to the
gentilicium of
Polliu , n
oted on
possibly locally p
rod
uced vessels
from
D i
Cri
'cio 's excavation at
Pozzuo li.
The
h pothesis that the so-call
ed
'Tripolitanian sigillata'
or i
ginated in t
he
Bay of Naples
receives additional supp
or
t,
howeve
r fro m p
trolog
ical a nalys s and
fro
m the discovery of
possible kiln was te which aUow Naples to b
pin-pointed a
a
poten
ti al centre of
prod
uc tion.
Petrology
Result
from
the thin se
ct
ion analyses ca rried out by Dr. D. F Williams
on
five samples f
'Production A
(Sam
ples 1,
2
,3,
4, 6)
and
one
of
Produ
ction C' (Sample 5)
,
are given
her
e:
Sample I : the most prominent non-p lastic inclusions are grains
of
grcen colourless clinopyroxene scattered
throughollt the fabric. Also present are some fragments of volcanic rock , sanidine felspar, ye llow-b rown
g
am
t, some gra in s
of quartz
and l1e ks
of
mica, and with a little limestonc.
This
sherd is d istinctive in thc
hand specim n as the fabric appears to con ta in much 'black san d ' - due to the presence of dark-colou red
augite, T his re ails the fab ric of Pompeian Rcd Ware and the am phora typcs Dress I 1 and D ressel 2-4 ,
thought to have been m
ade
in the region
of
Pompcii and He rculaneum (Peacock 1971 , fabric 2; 1977,
fa
bric
1). A si milar origin seems likely f
or
the sigi
ll
ata sherd.
Samples 2 -6: sa
mp
les 2 (F ig , 1
,7
) a
nd
3 ap pear fai rly simila r under th e microsc
ope
with a scatte r
of
sub
angul
ar
quart
z grains, nec ks
of
mica, s
ome
li
me
tone , sanidine
fel
sp
ar
and a few gra in s
of
clinopyroxene,
Th
e
other th ree sampl es also co ntain some grains of clinl>pyroxene and sanidine but lack the limeston e and are
slightly coarser, with samplcs 5 (F ig. 3.23 ) and
j
(F
ig, 1.
6) in pa rt icular di splaying frequ ent grains
of
qua
rtz
and tlecks of mica. Thc presence of clinopyroxene and sanidine in all fi e she rds sugge,.ts a so urce, o r more
like ly so urces , along thc It
li
an volc
an
ic tract.
The
fab ric of th se [j e sherds is diffe r
en
t from previously
sampled sigill ata and mou ld s fro m
Cu
ma (So rice
lli ,
while the Po Valley seems geologica
ll
y unlikely (tw
sugncsted origins).
The
pctrology wou ld fit a local Campanian
or
ig in, and Puteo
li
is a possibility (Will iams
J97 8), howe er othe r sources cannot be ruled ou t (includ ing eapolis),
Some possible k lo
wasters
At least two probab le wasters from kilns have been discovered at Naples.
The
first was
found in the pottery
assem
blag from the Girolamini xcavations. This
con
i ts of a small
cup,
simi
l
ar
to the
form Berenice
B427,
wi
th
the
body stro
ngly
deformed
by a firing acci
dent
(Fig.
3.24 ). The
clay
where
it is not overfired ,
i
brown, with flecks
of
mica
and
grains
of
limestone.
The
slip
comple
tely b
urnt on
the
rim
and
on
pa
rt of
the bowl, has tu
rned
brown
and shows flecks
of
mica.
82
-
8/10/2019 Soricelli - Libyan Studies 1987
11/16
'TRIPO
LITANI
AN S
lGlLLATA' FROM
CAMPANIA
Thesecondwasterhasbeenfound inthecourse
of
recentexcavationscarried
out
inthe
sq
uareinfrontofthechurchof
S.
MariaMaggiore,inaback-fillgivenapreliminarydating
to
thefi rs tyearsof the
secon
dcenturyAD. This exampleis afragmentof aplateattribut
able to theformBereniceB409 (Fig.3.25).
The
characteristics
of
theclayandtheslipare
not definablebecauseof overfiring. Inthesamestratumasecondfragment
of
'Prod. \ has
alsobeenfound,exhibiti ngreduction
on
t
he
internalsurfaces.
W hilst
itmust
be
admittedth
at
vesselscan
be
distorted byheatincircumstances
other
than theirinitialmanufactureand thatinneither casewasanykiln structure located,the
presenceof possiblewastersunderlinesthebeliefthatNapleswasthe seatof one or more
wor
ks
hopswhichmade this pottery.Itmustbe added that, at leastmicroscopically, the
clay of these products is differentfromthatof the Black Glazeware Campana /\, also
produced atNaples betweentheendof thethirdcenturyBC and the middleof thefirst
centuryBC,either because oftheemployment
of
differenttechniques, or becauseofthe
useofdifferentclayso
ur
ce
s.
It isprobable, however,that, in additiontotheworks hopssuggestedby thewastersat
Naplesandahypothetical one inthe Vesuvianareapresumedon thebasisof clayanalyses,
theremayhave
been other
wo
rk
sh
ops
locatedin thearea
of
theBay
of
Naples.Infact,des
piteasubstantialmorphologicaluniformitywithin 'Prod./\, sufficientvariationsoccur to
suggest the
pr
esence
of
various wo rkshops: variations which, as in the exampleof the
groupsfrom IschiaandMo
nte
S.Angelo,may
be
notedbythethicknessof thewails, the
typeofslip,thesurfacefinishandthegradeofclayelutriation.
It is clear thatpreciseanswers to thisproblem will be obtainedonlythrough thedis
covery ofmore rich kilnwaste(andconsequentidentificationof eventualcentresof pro
duction )andbyamore thoroughprogramme of petrologicalanalyses.
Another problem which needs clarifying is that of the connection with other
terr
sigillata
productioninnorthernCampania(where,however, Prod./\
is
recorded),particu
larlywith the'Localimitationsof
terr sigillata
signalledamongstthesherdsfromthevil
las
of
Posto and San Rocco (Morris 1979,
123-
126; Bird 1985, 188-190 ).This last
groupseemsto possessa ratherdifferenttypological repertoryfromthat
of
theproducts
from theBayof Naples,(thoughthismaybedue toratherscantydocumentation),but also
sharescertaintraits,possiblydue toanalogousproductiontechniques.
If
the 'Localimita
tions'fromPostoand S. Rocco belongto'Prod. \ thetypologicaldifferencesencountered
couldindicatetheexistenceoffurtherworkshopssitedinthe
north of
Campania.
istribution
Leavingaside the
mo
reor less limited circulation so far ascertainedfor the
pr
oducts
of
individual works
ho
ps, the field
of di
stributi
on
of 'Prod. A' on the whole appears to be
widespread,taki nginSouthern
It
aly,t
he
c
oa
st
of
NorthAfricaand, tosomedegree,Spain
(Fig.5).T hedistributioninSouthItalyappearslimitedmost
ly
totheregionsborderingthe
Ty rreneanSea.
Inaddition tobeingparticularlywidespreadin theareasurroundingtheg
ul
fofNaples,
'Prod. \ is also recorded, in apparently more modest quan ti ties, also in Northern
Campania, atLiternum,SinuessaandCales.For themoment,the
mo
st
nor th
erlyappear
anceofthiswareis
repre
s
ented
byasmallgroup
of
fragmentsfoundatthevilla
of
Matrice
(nearCampobasso),inMo
li
se.
Information fromsouthern
Campania
has notyet beengathered though the classmay
bepresentatPaestum(Pedley- Torelli
1984,375,
pointed
out
thepresence
of
an'imita
tion sigillata of unknown provenance' without, however, describing its characteristics).
FromCalabriaother examples
of
'Prod.A
.'
have
been
recorded:fromViboValentia(infor
mation from
Dott
. B. Sangineto ); from Reggio Calabria (material exhibited in the
83
-
8/10/2019 Soricelli - Libyan Studies 1987
12/16
--
G. SORICELLI
t-
0
;[
'
.::
:o
VJ
.g
.
S-
C
t::
t;
;:;
l:
e..
c-
t::
'S
's
'
Q
lr
-'
:::
5fo
-
114
-
8/10/2019 Soricelli - Libyan Studies 1987
13/16
'TRlPOLlT
AN
lAN SIGILLATA FROM CAMPANLA
museum ); fro m Scolacium (excavation by Prof. E. Arslan ) and perhaps also from
Ciro'
Marina (material exhibited in the museum of Reggio Calabria).
As regards Sicily, at present one must refer to finds reported by Kenrick (19R5,
281-28 4 ).
The pre
se
n
ce
of Prod.
N in
Adriatic coastal regions may be confirmed by several frag
ments discovered at O tranto (information from Dott.ssa G. Semeraro). To these may
p
er
haps
be adde
d a
sma
ll
group
of
sherds
from
Ordona
(Vanderhoeven
1976
,
81,
Tech
nique C) which, from a typological point of view,
are
fairly similar to forms up tiU now
classed as Prod.
A:
(e .g. Vanderhoeven 1976, Plates XLIV, 130; XLVlll , 186; LVIIJ, 404 ).
A Campanian origin for these fragments could be backed up by the relatively high percen
tage
of
Puteo lan sigiJlata ware found at Ordona (approximately 13
of
the stamps on
Italian si,gilla ta published by Vanderhoeven), though a possible local origin has been sug
gested
on
somewhat dubious grounds (Vanderhoeven 1979,83 ).
Fo r the
North
African discoveries one turns once again to Kenricks
reports
( l985 ,
283-
28 4). The conspicuous presence of Prod. N at Benghazi exists side by side with an
equally no table quantity of
other
products from Campania and , in particular, from the Bay
of
Na
ples (fine
pottery
, coarseware
and
amphorae
).
These
finds point to the existence
of
stron
g tra
de
links between
Campania
and Benghazi in the
fi
rst century
AD
(Kenrick 1985 ,
49 4), which would explain the large market which Prod. N found in this area. The ware
may also have been
more common
at
Carthage
than was originaUy thought (Hayes
1976;
1978; M. Fulford pers comm ).
T he presence of this ware in Spain is indicated by the stamp-BLASTI/MVNATI,
reported from Tarragona
eV rr
1033d ). It could also be present in France,
where
, more
over, local wares exist with morpl1ological characteristics very close to Prod. N (e.g. the
ateliers of
Bram
). Two plates recovered from the wreck of the Tradelier, attributed to an
eastern production, could be Prod. A forms (Liou, 1975 , Fig . 41 ; in particular Fig. 41.1
could be identified with form Berenice
B399,
and Fig. 41.2 with form Berenice B401 ).
Conclusion
In conclusion, the p r m remains as to how to define, in future , 'Production A/Tripolita
nian Sigillata.
f
one accepts the localisation of the production of this ware in the area of
the Gulf
of
Naples, it will be necessary to abandon the term Tripolitanjan SigiJlata in
favour of another,
more appropriate
name.
One possibility would be to rename it 'Campanian Sigillata - a definition which, how
ever, could
generate
confusion with
other
sigillata wares which were produced in the
region and which show noticeable morphological differences, such as those of Pozzuoli
and
Cuma
and, in particular, those of the Campanian'
potters reported
by Pucci (
1977,
14-15
). lt
is
perhaps prefe
rable to
continue
to call the
ware 'Production
A
of
the Bay
of
Naples, whilst awaiting mo
re
precise evidence regarding its centres of
production
,
of
which Naples is currently the strongest possibility.
Acknowledgements
Although this article has d isagreed wit h Philip Kenricks
hy
pothesis concern.ing the provenance of 'Trip oli
tanian Sigillata ,
it
must
be
str
es
sed th at many other aspects
of hi
s
outstanding
and pioneering resea rch
on
Me
diterranean
fine wares
wi
ll
remain of fund amental
importance
for many years to come.
I wi sh to thank Dr Jo hn Lloyd for having invited me to contribute this paper to the journal ihyan Sill dies
and for having offered me the opportunity to prepare for publication the sig
ill
ata from his excavations at
Matrice.
This
s
tud
y forms part of a r
esea
rch project on
the
production a
nd
distribution of Roman potte ry in
Ca
mpania
,
coordinat
ed by
Dr
Paul
Arthur,
whom I thank for he lpful criticism.
Furthermore
I also
wi
sh to
thank Prof. Raffaela Pierobo n,
Dr M.
Fulford
and Dr
P. Kenrick for having r
ea
d and
comm
ented on this study.
Prof. Enrica Pozzi
and
Prof.
Balda
ssa re Conticello, Superintendents of the provinc
es
of Naples
and
Caserta, and Pompeii respectively, as we
ll
as Dott. G iuseppe Vecchio, Sergio Cascel la and Don
Pietro
Monti ,
8
-
-
8/10/2019 Soricelli - Libyan Studies 1987
14/16
G. SORlCE LU
have permitted me access to
unpublish
ed mate rial. Dr David W
il
liams kindly carried out the petrological
analyses.
La
st,
but
not leas t, Dott.ssa Aless
andra
Pollio prepared
the
illustrations
and Mr
s linny
Hutchinson under
t
oo
k bo th the burden of translating my Italian text into E nglish , and the task of typing it.
All rrors arc my own.
Bi
bli
graphy
Arthu
r,
P.
198(). Problems
of
the Urbanisation of Pomp
ii
: xcavations 1980-198l. Antiquaries Journal
06:
29-44
Bird , l .
1985.
Local Terra Sigillata. In M.
A
Cotton
and
G. P. R. Met rau x The S(/II
Roc
co Villa /1 Francolise,
London: 188-190.
Bruzza, L IS75. Scoperta di figuline in Po
zzuoli.
Bullelino dell ' InSlilUiO di Corrispondenza
Ar
cheologica.
242-246.
Budetta, T.
,
Laforgia, E. and
Miniero
, P. 19 84. La sequenza stratigrafica ed i materiali dello scavo della torre
III di Nocera. l
Selllillario de cicio: Su lle orliftcaziolli in Italia
ce
ntro-meridio
nal
e
Il
el
1I
e lleI I secolo
o. C. Centre Jea n Berard apoli.
Castren, P. 1975. Ordo Populusque Pompeianus. Polily and SocielY in roman Pompeii . Romel.
e
lL
=
Corpus
In
sc
ripliol1ul11
LalillalTllI1.
Comfort. H . 1964 .
Puteolan
SigiUata at the Louvre. Rei Crelariae Romane F([U/orum A C
a.
5/6: 7-28.
Co mfort, H . 1970. Ceramica
Puteolana. sotto
voc e Terra Sigillata. In En ciclopedia dell'Arle Anlica,
Suppl
e
mento , Roma: 8
10-81
1
C VA = Corpus Vasomm Allliqllomm.
eVA rr
= A.
Oxe
and
H. Comfort (
eds
), Corpus Vasorum Arretil1orllll1. Bonn.
D'Avino, R. and Parma, N. 1981. Una villa rust ica romana in localita' up a Olivella a S nt'Anastasia. In 1I
COllvegllo dei Gruppi Archeologici della Campania. (Maddaloni, 24-25 aprile 1981 ): 9-53.
Dennison,
W.
1898. Some new inscriptions from Puteoli, Baiae, Misenum and C umae. Am
erica
ll
Journal
or
Archaeology 2: 373-398.
Goudineau , Ch.
1968. La
cerarnique aretine lisse (Fol/illes de I'Eco
le
Fral/{'aise de Rome i Bolse
na-Po
gg io
Moscini -
1962-/96 7 IV ), in
Melang
es
de {'Eco
le rran(
'oise de Rome,
Suppl. IV.
Hayes, 1. W. 1976. Pottery, stratified groups and typology. In J. H .
Humphr
ey (ed.), Excavations at Carthage
1975 conducted by the University
of
Michigan.
Vol. 1.
Ann Arbor:
47-123.
Hayes, 1. W. 1975. Pottery repo rt. In 1. H. Humphrey (ed. ), EXClivatiol1s al Carlhage 1976 condl/cted by Ihe
Ulliversity
a/M
ichigan. Vol.
rv.
Ann Arbor: 23- 98.
Hayes, 1. W. 1985. SigiJlate Orientali. In Atla/7/e delle forme ceramiche
II
Ceramicajlne romona nel bacino del
Medilerraneo
(ICIrdo
ellen ism
0
e primo illlpero). t;ncicIopedia dell'Arte Antica. Supplemento, Roma:
1-95
.
IG = Im criptiones Graecae.
Kenrick, P. 1985. Excavaliolls at Sidi Khrebish, Benghazi (Berenice
),
1I1,
I: The jine pOltel)'. Tripoli.
Kenrick,
P. 1986.
Excavalions at Sabratha 1948-N51.
London.
Liou, B. 1975. Recherches Archeo logiques
sous-marines.
Galha 33; 570-605.
Maiuri, A. 1913. La nuova isc ri zione della fratria Napoletana deg
li
Artemisii. Studi
Romani
1: 21-36.
Monti P. 1980.
Ischia, archaeolog
ia
e sloria.
Napoli .
Mor
el,
1.
P.
1975.
Aspects
de
I
artisanat dan
s la
Grande Grcce
Romaine. In
La
J\llaglla
G
re
c
ia
in ela' romal/o.
Alii
del
XV
Convegno di sludi sulla lVlagn(/ Grecia
T
a
ranto
), 5-lO ottobre
1975: 263- 324.
Morel,1.
P.
198 I. Giramique campal1iel1lle. Les Formes. Roma.
Morris
, 1. 197
c
. Te rra Sigillata Wares
and
Imitations . In M. A. Cotton The Late Republical/ Villa al POS IO ,
Fr([llcofise. London :
177
-126.
Not. Sc. = NOlizie Salvi Antichila.
Pavolini, C. 1981. Le lucerne nell 'lt alia
romana.
In
A
G iardina and
A Schiavone
(eds ), Merci, mercali e
scambi
nel tvledilerran eo. Ba
ri: 139-184.
Peacock, D .
P.
S. 1971. Roman amphorae in Pre-Roman Br
it
ain. In M. J
esso
n and D. H
ill
(eds ), The Iron Age
and its lIill-Forts.
Southampton:
169-18
8.
Peacoc k, D. P. S. 19 77. Pompeian Reel Ware. In D. P. S. Peacock (ed. , Pot/elY and early
cO
lllmerce. Southamp
ton: 147-162.
Pedley,
1. G. and To
relli, M.
19 84. Excavations
at
Paestum 1983.
American Joul'I1al
of
Archaeology 88:
367-376.
Pucci, G.
1977.
Le terre sigillatae italic he, galliche e orientali. In
A.
C
arandini
(
cd
.),
L'lnstmm
elllwn domesti
CUIIl
di Ercolano e Pompei nel/a Prima eta' imperiale. Quademi di cullum materia
Ie,
I:
9-21.
Schindler
Kaud
elka,
E.
1984. Terra Sigillata aus Rom. D ie
Sammlung
O lcott.
Re
i Cretariae ROlllallae
Faulomm
Acta 26: 13 -3 6 .
86
-
8/10/2019 Soricelli - Libyan Studies 1987
15/16
TRJPOLITANIAN SIGLLLATA' FROM CA MPA NIA
Solin, H .
198
2.
Die G riechischen Persollenllomen in R om. Ein
Iiandbll
c
h. Berlin-New York.
So rieelli, G .
1982.
U n
o
ffieina di
N.
Naevius Hilarus a
Cuma.
A rcheo logia C1assica 34: ]
90-195.
Soricelli, G . 1984a.
Ricerche Preliminuri sulla Produz ione e
la
circo[azione della Terra Sigillata ill Campania
Ira la [(/I da
r
epubbli
ca e la
prima
eta ' imperiale.
University of Naples, undergraduate thes is.
Soricelli,
G.
19
84b
. Le sigilJate.
n F.
Garcea, G. Miraglia and G .
So
rice
lli
, U
no sca
rico di materiale
ceramico
di
eta'
ad
rianeo-antonina da C ratere Senga (Pozzuoli .
Puleo
i 7/8: 245-285.
Vanderho
even. M . 1976 .
La
terre sigillee
i
sse , In J. Mertens
cd.),
Ordona V. Bruxelles : 79-182.
Vanderh oeven, M.
1979
.
La terr
e s igillee
a
re lief.
In
J . Mertens (ed.
, Or
dona
VI.
Bru
xe
ll
cs:
83-104.
von Schn
ur
bein, S. 1
982
.
Die unverzierle Terra S
igill(ll(1
aus H.allern . Bociellalleriimer Westfalens
19, Mtinste r.
Willia
ms
, D.
F.
19
78
. Petrological analysis of Arretine
and
early Samian: a
pr
eliminary
report.
In P. Arthur
and
G. Marsh, (ed s.), ar
ly fine
wa
res in Roman Britain.
British Archaeological Report s 57: 5-12.
87
-
8/10/2019 Soricelli - Libyan Studies 1987
16/16
G. SORICELLI
Tripolitanian SigilIata : A Response
By
P M enrick
I am grateful to Dr. Soricelli
and
to thc Editor for the opportunity to see this intercsting article in
advance
of
publication.
The evidence
prcscnted here
of
chronology,
distribution
and petrology
seem
to me to offer com-
pelling reasons for supposing the ware discussed to have
been
produced in Campania
and
this is
further
supported by the
names
of the potters and their
occasional
use
of
the G reek
alphabet.
(
This
was a factor to
which I had not given adequate weight
in
suggesting an origin in Punic North A frica ). As to the precise origin
of the warc within the region, I am dubious of the significance of two wasters found on their own in separate
excavations:
an accident
in the later life of a vessel may on occasion
be
indistinguishable from
an
original fault
in firing, and a greater concentration of Wasters would be necessary to have the force of definite proof. Besides
which, the foot of the cup illustrated in
Figure 3.24
is not typ ical for P
roduction
A/ Tripolitanian Sigillata.
Soricelli is undoubtedly right in suggesting that a plurality of similar wares was produced
in
different parts of
Campania (and probably other parts of Southern Italy and Sicily) during the first
ccnturies
BC and AD. Their
individual characterisation will
depend on
the
publication
an d
study of
a great deal more material from the
region and the
present
article represents an important step
l
ong that road.
And
as we
know
that the products
of Campania could
so
readily find their way into distant
markcts throughout
the Mediterranean
so
the
identification
of more
of these products
is
likely
t be of
relevance to
xcavators
working in
many
different
parts of the Roman World.