Chapter V

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

[Illustration: FIG. 212. ROMAN KILN FOUND AT HEDDERNHEIM, GERMANY.]

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

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

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

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

[Illustration: FIG. 213. KILN FOUND AT CASTOR, NORTHANTS.]

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

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

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

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

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

[Illustration: FIG. 214. PLAN OF KILN AT HEILIGENBERG.]

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

[Illustration: FIG. 215. SECTION OF KILN AT HEILIGENBERG.]

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

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

1. ITALY

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

2. FRANCE

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

Allier Champ-Lary Blanchet, p. 89.

Lubié ” p. 95.

St.-Bonnet ” p. 96.

St.-Didier-en- ” p. 96. Rollat

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

Vichy Blanchet, p. 95.

Aube Nogent-sur- ” p. 106. Seine

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

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

Auriol Blanchet, p. 98.

Marseilles ” p. 98.

Charente Jarnac ” p. 101.

Chez Ferroux ” p. 102.

Eure-et-Loire Chartres ” p. 104.

Gard Uzès ” p. 99.

Haute-Garonne Vieille- ” p. 101. Toulouse

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

Haute-Saône Luxueil Blanchet, p. 107.

Ille-et-Vilaine Redon ” p. 102.

Indre-et-Loire Nouâtre ” p. 104.

Loire Montverdun ” p. 96.

Loire- Herbignac ” p. 102. Inférieure

Loire-et-Cher Thoré ” p. 104.

Lot Cahors ” p. 100.

Mélines ” p. 101.

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

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

Nièvre Chantenay Blanchet, p. 96.

Gravier ” p. 96.

Oise Bois-Ibert ” p. 105.

Compiègne ” p. 104. (Forest of)

Mont-de-Hermes, ” p. 105. Beauvais

Sampigny ” p. 105.

Orne Chandai ” p. 103.

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

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

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

Thiers Blanchet, p. 94.

Rhône Lyons ” p. 100.

Sarthe Grand-Lucé ” p. 103.

Seine Paris ” p. 104.

Seine- Incheville ” p. 103. Inférieure

Somme Amiens Blanchet, p. 106.

Tarn Montans ” p. 97.

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

Muret ” p. 97.

Vendée Trizay ” p. 102.

Yonne Sens ” p. 106.

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

3. GERMANY

Alttrier, Luxemburg Von Hefner, p. 60.

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

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

Cannstadt Von Hefner, p. 61.

Cologne _Bonner Jahrb._ lxxix. p. 178.

Commern _Ibid._ iv. p. 203.

Dalheim, Luxemburg Von Hefner, p. 61.

Dieburg ” p. 61.

Güglingen _Bonner Jahrb._ i. p. 74.

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

Heidelberg _Bonner Jahrb._ lxii. p. 7.

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

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

Herbishofen Von Hefner, p. 61.

Nassenfels ” p. 61.

Petzel, Luxemburg ” p. 61.

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

Riegel Von Hefner, p. 61.

Rottenburg _Bonner Jahrb._ iv. p. 141.

Schönbuch, Würtemberg Blanchet, p. 108.

Trier ” p. 108.

Waiblingen Von Hefner, p. 61.

Westheim ” p. 62.

Westerndorf ” p. 62.

4. ENGLAND

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

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

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

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

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

” New Forest _Ibid._ p. 326.

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

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

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

Lancashire, Warrington _Reliquary_, 1900, p. 263.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

” Littlemore _Ibid._ liv. p. 349.

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

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

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

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

4. POTTERY IN LATIN LITERATURE; SHAPES AND USES

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

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

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

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

* * * * *

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

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

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

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

Deprome quadrimum Sabina, O Thaliarche, merum diota.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Illustration: FIG. 216. AMPULLA (BRITISH MUSEUM).]

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

[Illustration: FIG. 217. LAGENA FROM FRANCE, INSCRIBED.]

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

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

Of drinking-cups the Romans had almost as large a variety as the Greeks, the majority of the ornamented vases preserved to this day being apparently for this purpose; the number of names recorded in literature is, however, much less, as many of those given in the long list on pp. 181-183 of Vol. I. are mere nick-names for ordinary forms. The generic name for a drinking-cup was _poculum_,[3269] the Greek ποτήριον, just as _vas_ was the generic name for a larger vessel; it occurs constantly in the poets, who, indeed, use it somewhat loosely, and has already been met with in the series of small bowls with Latin inscriptions described in