Skip to main content

Full text of "Memoirs of the American Academy in Rome"

See other formats


MEMOIRS 

OF  THE 

AMERICAN  ACADEMY  IN  ROME 


VOLUME   XXV 


AMERICAN    ACADEMY    IN     ROME 

1957 


^      -W/,A, 


M'/  .■;; 


MEMOIRS 


o        / 


OF  THE 


AMERICAN  ACADEMY  IN  ROME 


/// 


VOLUME   XXV 


/ 


AMERICAN    ACADEMY     IN     ROME 

1957 


/z 

869426 


Roma,  1957  -  Tipografia  del  Senato  del  Dott.  G.  Bardi. 


CONTENTS 


JAMES  HENRY  OLIVER-^Symmachi,  Homo  Felix 7-16 

(before  the  text:  a  plate) 

MASON  HAMMOND — Imperial  Elements  in  the  Formula  of  the 
Roman  Emperors  during  the  first  Two  and  a  Half  Centu- 
ries OF  THE  Empire 17-64 

(after   the  text:  a  bibliography) 

DORIS  MAE  TAYLOR -Cosa:    Black-Glaze  Pottery        ....         65-193 

(before  the  text:  a  table  of  contents  and  a  list  of  abbreviations; 
in  the  text:  forty  cuts  of  profiles;  after  the  text:  forty-four 
plates  without  page  numbers) 


SYMMACHI,   HOMO   FELIX 


BY 


JAMES    HENRY    OLIVER 


-a 

CO 


■o 


3 


^i*^„f.^.^-S.H>.[:,.{Z.«L^.Jli-„2««.aXS..s«5..ft.«r.s..&^^ 


^4 

P-. 


."2 


<; 


in  f  »>>ij.  1  ft^uimi  i  I  •  jod 


JiuiL£JMMI. 


o 
o 


o 


H 
H 
< 


SYMMACHI,  HOMO  FELIX 


Two  mosaics  portraying  gladiatorial  combats  were  found  together  in  the 
seventeenth  century  in  a  property  called  the  "  Orto  del  Carciofolo  "  on  the 
Via  Appia  outside  of  Rome.  Today  these  mosaics,  illustrated  in  the  plate,  are 
nos.  3600  and  3601  in  the  Museo  Arqueologico  Nacional  (hereafter  MAN)  in 
Madrid.  '  Professor  Marion  Blake  discussed  them  in  these  Memoirs  XVII  (1940) 
112-113  from  drawings  since  she  herself  had  never  seen  the  originals  and  did 
not  have  any  photographs.  According  to  her  note  213,  she  found  most  details 
in  the  drawings  published  by  Winckelmann  in  Monumenti  antichi  inediti  I 
plates   197  and   198. 

Of  the  pair  it  is  MAN  3601  =  Winckelmann  198  in  which  we  are  primarily 
interested  for  its  inscription.  We  may  begin  with  Winckelmann  himself  who 
says  of  the  scene:  "  e  figurato  un  combattimento  di  soli  gladiatori  anch'essi  col 
lor  lanista  allato,  con  la  visiera  dell'elmo  calata,  che  loro  cuopre  il  v.iso,  cosi 
com'Eteocle  e  Polinice  combattendo  insieme  ci  son  descritti  da  Stazio  ".  It 
is  notable  that  he  identifies  the  two  non-combatants  as  lanistae,  but  Winckel- 
mann does  not  reveal  how  he  interpreted  the  inscription,  except  that  he  misread 
each  theta  as  a  phi. 

It  was  Marini  who  identified  this  sign  as  the  theta  nigrum.  He  went  on  to 
describe   it   as:    "  I'indizio   che  gl'infelici   Gladiatori    Calendione  e  Materno  eran 

I.  Bibliography  of  the  pair  of  mosaics:  -  Johannes  Winckelmann,  J/(>«a»«^«//  antichi  inediti 
(Rome,  1767)  I  plates  197  and  198,  and  II  258-259;  Gaetano  Marini,  Gli  atti  e  monumenti  de'  Fra- 
telli  Arvali  etc.  I  (Rome,  1795)  165;  A.  L.  Millin,  Description  des  tombeaux  qui  out  ete  decouverts 
a  Pompei  dans  Vannee  1812  (Naples  1813)  31-32  and  35-37;  Johann  Caspar  Orelli,  Inscriptionum 
latinarum  selectarum  amplissima  collectio  etc.  (Zurich  1828)  no.  2555;  A.  Chabouillet,  "  Observa- 
tions sur  une  statuette  representant  un  retiaire  ainsi  que  sur  divers  monuments  relatifs  a  cette 
classe  de  gladiateurs  ",  Revue  archeologique  VIII  (1851-2)  pp.  407-410;  Charles  Loriquet,  La  mo- 
saique  des  promenades  et  autres  trouvees  a  Reims:  etude  sur  les  mosaiques  et  sur  les  jeux  de  V amphi- 
theatre (Reims,  1862)  214  and  217;  Emil  Hiibner,  Die  antiken  Bildwerke  in  Madrid  (Berlin,  1862) 
196-197  nos.  399  and  400;  E.  Bormann,  W.  Heinzen  and  Chr.  Huelsen,  Corpus  inscriptionum  lati- 
narum VI.  2  (Berlin  1882)  no.  10205;  Thomas  Ashby,  "  Drawings  of  Ancient  Paintings  in  English 
Collections:  Part  I,  the  Eton  Drawings",  Papers  of  the  British  School  at  Rome  N\\  (1914)  17 
Marion  Elizabeth  Blake,  "Mosaics  of  the  Late  Empire  in  Rome  and  Vicinity",  Memoirs  of  the 
American  Academy  in  Rome  XVII  (1940)  112-113;  Louis  Robert,  "Monuments  de  gladiateurs  dans 
I'orient  grec  ",  Hellenica,  III  (1946)  123-136  and  V  (1948)  84-86;  Antonio  Blanco  Freijeiro,  "Mo- 
saicos  romanos  con  escenas  de  circo  y  anfiteatro  en  el  Museo  Arqueologico  Nacional  ",  Archivo 
espaiiol  de  arqueologia  XXIII  (1950)  127-142  (with  an  accurate  description  of  the  colors  and  tech- 
nique) and  figures  8-9,  the  first  photographs  (here  reproduced);  Jean  Colin,  "  Juvenal,  les  baladins 
et  les  retiaires  d'apres  le  manuscript  d'Oxford  (Juv.,  Sat.,  VI,  365,  1-26)  ",  Atti  delta  Accademia  delle 
Scienze  di  Torino  LXXXVII  (1952-3)  365  (without  mention  of  Blanco's  basic  publication). 

Note  that  in  the  quotations  from  Marini  and  from  Millin  on  p.  10  the  punctuation  and 
spelling  has  been  somewhat  modernized. 


,o  JAMES  H.  OLIVER 

morti;   rimasti   in   vita  e  vincitori  Astianatte  ed  Abile  ".     For  him,  accordingly, 
the  two  gladiators  of  MAN  3601  were  Maternus  and  Habilis. 

Millin    made    the   first    attempt    to    interpret    the    inscriptions.     Criticizing 
VVinckelmann,  he  wrote: 

Non  seulement  Winckelmann  n'avoit  point  distingue  cette  sigle,  a 
laquelle  le  savant  Abbe  Marini  a  le  premier  fait  attention,  en  reproduisant 
ces  mosaiques  dans  ces  Ai^t  de  i  fratelli  Arvali  p.  165  mais  on  n'a  point 
encore  explique  les  singulieres  inscriptions  qui  les  accompagnent  et  Win- 
ckelmann n'en  dit  pas  un  mot.  L'une  d'elles  n'offre  aucune  difficulte,  .  .  .Les 
inscriptions  de  I'autre  mosaique  n.  198  sont  bien  plus  longues.  Elle  est 
aussi  partagee  en  deux  scenes,  dans  la  premiere  on  lit  au  dessus  des  deux 
combattans  MATERNVS  HABILIS:  comme  ces  mots  sont  intervertis  dans  la 
seconde  scene,  il  est  evident  qu'ils  designent  les  deux  gladiateurs;  mais 
que  veulent  dire  ceux-ci,  ecrits  au  dessus  dans  la  premiere  scene,  QUIBUS 
PUGNANTIBUS  SIMMACHIUS  FERRUM  MISIT:  il  est  probable  que  Ce  Symma- 
chius  etoit  le  chef  de  la  trouppe,  et  qu'il  envoya  le  fer,  c'est  a  dire  I'epee, 
dont  I'un  des  deux  gladiateurs  devoit  frapper  I'autre,  dans  ces  combats 
a  outrance,  et  ce  sont  ces  epees  courtes,  a  la  romaine,  que  ces  gladiateurs 
tiennent  a  la  main.  Dans  la  seconde  scene  on  voit  Maternus,  renverse  sur 
le  ventre  au  milieu  de  I'arene  par  Habilis,  et  probablement  le  Lanista  Sym- 
machius  qui  tient  sa  baguete  a  la  main,  et  qui  semble  fuir  pour  eviter 
ce  spectacle  sanglant.  II  y  a  au  dessus  NE  CO  HAEC  VIDEMVS,  je  remplie 
les  deux  premiers  mots  par  NE  COram,  et  alors  cela  veut  dire  ne  voyons 
pas  cela  de  pres.  On  lit  dans  le  coin  cette  acclamation  SIMMACHI  HOMO 
FELIX  Symmachhis  homme  heureux.  Cette  formule  annonce  que  ce  monu- 
ment a  ete  fait  dans  un  bas  tems,  I'artiste  a  probablement  voulu  joindre 
au  nom  de  Symmachius  une  de  ces  acclamations  de  bonne  augure,  dont  les 
monuments  nous  offrent  un  grand  nombre  d'exemples. 

In  this  interpretation  of  the  letters  NE  CO  HAEC  VIDEMVS  Millin  assumes 
one  serious  error,  VIDEMVS  for  VIDEAMVS,  and  a  very  unlikely  abbreviation, 
CO(RAM).  The  reader  will  note  also  that  the  gladiators  are  thought  to  be 
named  Maternus  and  Habilis,  that  Symmachius,  the  recipient  of  an  accla- 
mation, is  identified  as  a  lanista,  and  that  the  difficulty  of  interpreting  the 
phrase  /(?rr«^z^  misit  is  not  avoided.  This  is  a  serious  attempt  at  exegesis,  but 
apart  from  Orelli  and  Chabouillet,  later  students  of  the  mosaic  do  not  seem  ro 
have  consulted  Millin  at  all.  In  reference  to  the  theta  nigrum  which  signifies  death 
Orelli,  II  p.  297,  cited  Persius  IV  13:  Et  poiis  es  nigrum  vitio  praefigere  theta. 
Hiibner  describes  the  scenes  as  follows: 

Gladiatorenkampfe  in  zwei  Reihen  iibereinander. 

Oben  kampfen  zwei  mit  Schildern  und  kurzen  Schwerten  gleichmassig 
bewafifnete.  L.  steht  ein  Herold  oder  Aufseher  mit  dem  Stab.  Unter  dem 
Schild  des  ersten  siegenden  Kampters  1.  steht  HABILIS,  unter  dem  des 
besiegten  r.  MATERNVS  0.     Ueber  dem  Ganzen  steht  die  Inschrift: 


SYMMACHI,  HOMO  FELIX  n 

SYMMACHI 
NECO  HAEC  VIDEMVS  HOMO   FELIX  a 

Unten  steht  wiederum  1.  ein  Herold,  aber  ohne  Stab.  Der  besiegte 
steht  hier  1.  mit  der  Unterschrift  MATERNVS  0;  iiber  dem  Sieger  r.  steht 
HABILIS.     Unter    dem   Ganzen    steht    die    Inschrift; 

M 
QVIBVS   PVGNANTIBVS   SYMMACHIVS   FERRV   MISIT 

Die  Ausfiihrung  nach  guter  Zeichnung,  ist  hochst  sorgfaltig,  aus  ganz  klei- 
nen  Steinen.  Die  Inschrift  oben  ist  wohl  als  Wechselrede  zu  fassen:  neco 
sagt  der  Sieger,  haec  videmus  das  Pubhcum,  und  dasselbe  akklamiert  Sim- 
machi,  homo  felix.  Die  Inschrift  unten  ist  eine  erklarende  Bemerkung  des 
KiJnstlers. 

In  Hiibner's  description  attention  may  be  called  to  the  treatment  of  the 
words  HABILIS  MATERNVS  in  the  upper  register  and  MATERNVS  HABILlS  in  the 
lower  register.  Since  he  associates  HABILIS  in  both  cases  with  the  figure  which 
he  identifies  as  the  victorious  gladiator,  he  presumably  took  HABILIS  as  the 
name  of  the  victor  and  MATERNUS  as  that  of  the  defeated.  Also  attention  may 
be  called  to  the  identification  of  the   non-combatants   as  heralds  or   overseers. 

In  the  Corpus  VI,  2,  10205,  the  inscription  is  not  interpreted  but  two  of 
the    non-combatants    are    identified    as    lanistae: 

b 

sVmmachi 

ne    co     haec  videmvs       homo  felix  & 

lanista         § 

HABIS-LIS  MATERNVS  0 

^  gladiator  galeatus  humi  prostratus 

^  M 

QVI   BVS   PVG   NANTIBVS    sY   MMA   CHIVS   FERRV 

MA  TERNVS    0    HA    BILIS  MISIT 

lanista      gladiatores  duo  galeati,  gladiis  et  lanista 

parmis  armati,  pugnantes 

The  text  in  the  Corpus  produced  some  ambiguity,  since  Ashby,  in  Papers 
of  the  British  School  in  Rome  VII  (19 14)  17,  asserts  that  in  the  upper  panel 
"  the  two  lanistae  bear  the  names  of  Neco  and  Habilis  ".  Of  the  lower  scene 
he  says,  "The  gladiator  on  the  left  bears  the  name  Maternus  (again  with  the  0) 
and  he  on  the  right  Habilis.  See  Winckelmann,  Mon.  Ined.  198;  C.I.L.,  vi 
10205  b.  ".  In  Ashby's  understanding  of  the  inscription,  therefore,  HABILIS 
in  the  lower  panel  becomes  the  name  of  the  victorious  gladiator,  as  Hiibner 
had    understood    it,    while   in    the    upper  panel    HABILIS   becomes    a    name    too 


12  JAMES  H.  OLIVER 

but  the  name  of  a  lanista,  not  of  the  gladiator  as  Hiibner  had  apparently  un- 
derstood it.  NECO,  which  Hiibner  had  interpreted  as  a  verb,  an  exclamation  of 
the  victorious  gladiator,  now  becomes  the  name  of  a  lanista  But  Ashby  did  not 
know  Hiibner's  publication  which  the  editors  of  the  Corptis  had  not  mentioned. 
Miss  Blake  consulted  both  the  Corpus  and  Ashby  for  the  inscription  but  did 
not  know  Hiibner's  publication.  With  her  usual  clarity  she  recognized  the 
problem  created  by  the  interpretation  of  NECO  as  the  name  of  a  lanista, 
and  with  her  usual  honesty  she  was  not  content  to  gloss  it  over.  She  commen- 
ted: "  HAEC  VIDEMVS  in    the  center  of  the  top  seems  quite  superfluous  ".     She 

M 
tried  to  explain  the  words  QVIBVS  PVGNANTIBVS  SYMMACHIVS  FERRY     MISIT    by 

translating:  "  and  while  these  were  fighting,  Symmachius  thrust  (?)  the  sword  ". 
Of  the  rest  of  the  inscription  in  the  lower  panel  she  said:  "  MATERNVS  0  and 
HABILIS  placed  below  seem  to  designate  the  contestants,  but  inasmuch  as  Habilis 
is  the  trainer  in  the  upper  part  of  the  picture,  the  mosaicist  apparently  made 
a  mistake  in  naming  his  characters  ".  Thus  she  brought  out  the  difficulties  of 
Ashby 's  interpretation  and  tentatively  proposed  the  theory  of  a  mosaicist's  error 
in  an  vmconvincing  attempt  to  make  sense  of  Ashby 's  interpretation.  It  may 
be  added  that  since  she  had  never  seen  either  the  mosaic  itself  or  a  photograph 
of  it,  she  was  not  restrained  from  identifying  as  an  umpire  the  figure  leaning 
over  the  fallen  gladiator. 

In  Hellenica  III  (1946)  132-136,  Louis  Robert,  though  he  referred  to  the 
gladiators  as  Maternus  and  Habilis,  did  not  discuss  the  inscription  but  concen- 
trated on  the  type  of  gladiator,  which,  he  concluded,  was  not  a  myrmillo  but 
a  light-armed  gladiator  of  still  unidentified  type.  In  Hellenica  V  (1948)  84-86, 
Robert  gave  parallels  to  identify  as  a  referee  the  figure  of  the  non-combatant 
with  the  staff,  and  he  suggested  that  the  staff  was  that  of  the  summa  rudis. 
An  ex-gladiator,    accordingly,    served    as    referee. 

In  t\\&  Arckivo  espahol de  argueologia'KXlW  (1950)  134-142,  Blanco  identified 
the  non-combatants  as  lanistae  and  the  two  gladiators  as  possibly  myrmillones, 
one  of  whom  was  the  leaning  figure  in  the  upper  panel.  Blanco  entitles  his 
section  on  MAN  no.  3601:  "  Habilis  contra  Maternus  ";  hence  it  is  clear  that 
he  interprets  HABILIS  as  the  name  of  the  victorious  gladiator,  and  he  embra- 
ces unreservedly  the  theory  of  a  mosaicist's  error:  "  Hay,  pues,  una  confusion 
entre  los  nombres  Habilis  y  Symmachius  ". 

We  shall  now  present  our  own  interpretation. 

The  first  word  NECO  must  be  taken  with  Hiibner  as  a  verb,  because  other- 
wise the  phrase  Haec  videmus  has  no  bearing.  If  it  is  a  verb,  it  is  a  general- 
izing statement,  because  it  has  no  definite  object.  It  does  not  mean  "  I  am 
in  the  act  of  killing  him  ",  much  less  "  I  intend  to  kill  him  ".  It  means  "  When 
they  fight  with  me,  they  die  ". 

The  phrase  //aec  videmus  makes  excellent  sense  as  Hiibner  interpreted  it, 
namely  as  the  reply  of  the  crowd  to  the  successful  gladiator.  The  crowd  says 
//aec  videmus  and  not  Hoc  videmus,  because  they  understand  the  exclamation 
Neco  as  applying  to  more  than  one  occasion. 


SYMMACHI,  HOMO  FELIX  13 

The  phrase  Symmachi  homo  felix  is  not  only  an  acclamation  of  the  crowd 
(so  Hiibner)  but  an  acclamation  addressed  to  the  victorious  gladiator.  There 
is  one  piece  of  evidence  the  significance  of  which  escaped  every  student  except 
Chabouillet,  and  since  neither  Hiibner  nor  the  editors  of  the  Corpus  ndr  Ashby 
nor  Marion  Blake  nor  Blanco  knew  of  Chabouillet's  comment,  it  has  not  been 
considered  hitherto,  but  it  contributes  an  argument  which  to  me  seems  decisive. 
I  refer  to  the  leaf  after  the  phrase  Symmachi  homo  felix.  If  the  reader  will 
turn  to  Plate  I  for  the  other  mosaic,  MAN  no.  3600,  he  will  see  that  on  the 
companion  piece  a  leaf  follows  the  name  of  Astyanax,  the  winning  gladiator, 
and  follows  it  immediately,  breaking  the  phrase  Astyanax  vicit.  Since  the  leaf 
after  the  name  of  Astyanax  was  obviously  not  there  as  punctuation,  it  should 
not  be  interpreted  as  punctuation  after  the  phrase  Symmachi  homo  felix.  On 
both  mosaics  the  leaf  marks  the  winning  gladiator. 

The  word  HABILIS,  which  has  always  been  interpreted  as  a  name,  either 
the  name  of  the  lanista  or  that  of  the  winning  gladiator,  cannot  be  a  name. 
In  the  lower  panel  it  cannot  be  the  name  of  the  lanista;  hence  it  cannot  be  the 
name  of  the  lanista  in  the  upper  panel  either,  because  there  is  no  distinction 
in  the  use.  But  it  cannot  be  the  name  of  the  winning  gladiator,  because,  as 
we  have  just  seen,  the  name  of  the  winning  gladiator  is  Symmachius.  An  error 
of  the  mosaicist  is  so  desperate  an  explanation  that  we  may  exclude  it  as  no 
explanation  at  all.  Another  explanation  seems  to  me  not  only  possible  but 
imposed,  namely  that  HABILIS  is  a  modifying  adjective.  It  is  in  both  panels 
an  adjective  accompanying  the  name  of  the  losing  gladiator  Maternus,  whose 
name  is  followed,  as  Marini  noted,  by  the  0  which  means  0(avaTO«;)  or  0(ava)v), 
or  obiit.  "  The  adjective  habilis  expresses  the  skill  of  a  good  gladiator.  Its 
opposite  occurs  in  the  minutes  of  the  senatorial  discussion  of  A.  D.  177  concern- 
ing gladiators,  in  line  63  of  the  Aes  Italicense:  Is  quoque  qui  senior  atque  in{/i)a- 
bilior  operant  suam  denuo,  etc.,  see  the  new  text  available  in  Hesperia  XXIV 
(1955)  320-49.  Habilitas  then  may  be  described  as  the  technical  proficiency 
of  a  good  gladiator  in  his  prime. 

A  striking  contrast  accordingly  emerges  between  the  chiastically  related 
phrases,  Symmachi  homo  felix  and  habilis  Maternus.  The  juxtaposition  and 
chiastic  balance  are  not  fortuitous  but  indicate  that  the  two  phrases  belong 
together.  The  phrase  habilis  Maternus  is  part  of  the  acclamation  which  the 
crowd  shouts  to  the  winning  gladiator.  Just  as  the  design  in  the  upper  panel 
represents  the  scene  at  the  culminating  moment,  the  inscription  in  the  upper 
panel  represents  the  cries  and  acclamation  at  the  culminating  moment.  A  read- 
er interested  in  the  importance  attached  to  acclamations  may  consult  Th.  Klaus- 
ser,  Reallexikon  ficr  Antike  und  Christentum  I  coll.  216-33  under  "Akklamation  ". 
Here  I  treat  merely  the,  to  a  modern  observer,  obscure  meaning  of  the  invidious 
comparison  contained  in  the  acclamation  for  the  winning  gladiator. 

The  antithesis  habilitas-felicitas  may  be  explained  by  the  meaning  usually 

"  G.  R.  Watson,  "  Theta  nigrum  ",  JRS  XLII  (1952)  56-62. 


44  JAMES  H.  OLIVER 

given  and  specifically  here  given  to  the  word  felicitas.  Erkell  '  has  shown 
how  frequently  the  word  felicitas  is  coupled  with  virtus,  and  he  argues  that 
felicitas  is  sometimes  used  alone  to  cover  virtus  and  felicitas.  Accordingly  one 
might  feel  that  felicitas  practically  becomes  a  moral  quality,  and  that  the 
antithesis  habilitas-felicitas  was  that  between  skill  and  courage.  Furthermore 
Erkell  shows  that  felicitas  is  a  quality  which  some  Romans  attributed  to  the 
gods,  so  that  it  might  be  represented  as  a  divine  endorsement  of  outstanding 
courage. 

But  Wagenvoort  *  shows  clearly  xhSiX.  felicitas  is  often  contrasted  with  virtus, 
so  that  our  antithesis  cannot  lie  between  habilitas  and  virtus.  To  me,  at  least, 
it  seems  clear  that  Wagenvoort  has  the  stronger  proof  when,  on  the  basis  of 
evidence,  he  explains /^//czVa^-  as  an  effective  innate  power  of  success,  originally 
a  magical  quality,  and  says  that  if  some  Romans  attributed  felicitas  to  the  gods, 
they  also  attributed  virtus  and  other  qualities  to  the  gods.  Particularly  impor- 
tant, however,  is  the  sententia  in  Publilius  Syrus  C  36:  Contra  felicem  vix  deus 
vires  habet.  This  expresses  the  original  feeling  much  better  than  the  comments 
of  highly  educated  Romans,  who  had  not  shaken  off  verbal  vestiges  but  had 
further  outgrown  the  primitive  thought  of  the  ancient  environment  in  which 
the  idea  oi felicitas  had  developed.  Though  the  philosophically  educated  tended 
to  reinterpret  the  true  Roman  feeling  about  felicitas,  the  composer  of  our  mosaic 
inscription,  or  rather  the  crowd  in  the  Colosseum,  retained  more  of  the  original 
feeling.     Contra  felicem  habilis  gladiator  nullas  vires  habet. 

In  the  Aeneid  IX  "JJi-TJi,  Vergil  says: 

Inde  ferarum 
vastatorem  Amycum,  quo  non  felicior  alter 
ungere  tela  manu  ferrumque  armare  venena. 

The  hunter  Amycus  was  not  felicior  at  smearing  poison  on  his  weapons;  he  was, 
as  it  were,  felicior  in  combat,  but  his  success  in  combat  with  beasts  surpassed 
that  of  other  good  hunters  because  of  his  peritia  in  choosing  the  poison  and 
smearing  it  over  his  weapons.  Therefore  Servius  comments  "felicior  peritior: 
nam  in  ungendis  telis  non  est  felicitas,  sed  peritia  ".  Vergil's  poetic  licence  or 
richly  suggestive  use  of  the  word  felicior  does  not  help  us,  but  the  distinction 
made  by  Servius  between  skill  and  felicitas  is  here  cited  as  a  parallel  for  the 
antithesis  of  our  mosaic. 

In  conclusion,  the  two  mosaics  are  a  pair  in  subject  as  well  as  in  size.  On 
each  mosaic  there  are  two  panels  with  the  fight  represented  below  and  the  vic- 
tory above,  in  one  case  with  four  figures  above  and  three  below,  in  the  other 
case  with  three  figures  above  and  four  below.  One  represents  the  triumph  of 
the  heavy  gladiator  Astyanax  over  a  retiarius,  the  other  the  triumph  of  the  light 
gladiator  Symmachius.    The  former  presents  a  fight  between  gladiators  of  two 

'  Harry  Erkell,  Augustus,  felicitas,  fortuna:  lateinische  Wortstudien  (Goteborg  1952)  67. 
*■  H.  Wagenvoort,  "  Felicitas  imperatoria  ",  Mnemosyne  VII  (1954)  300-322. 


SYMMACHI,  HOMO  FELIX  15 

types.  The  latter,  MAN  3601,  presents  a  fight  between  gladiators  of  one  still 
unidentified  type  known  from  a  relief  at  Chieti  and  from  mosaics  at  Reims, 
Kreuznach  and  Zliten,  as  Louis  Robert  shows;  these  carry  no  defensive  armor 
except  a  small  round  or  oval  shield  and  a  helmet  with  visor  and  two  plumes, 
and  wear  a  tunic  tied  up  and  cut  to  leave  the  knees  and  arms  free.  One  non- 
combatant  in  each  panel  is  represented  with  a  staff;  he  obviously  serves  as 
referee.  The  other  non-combatant  seems  to  have  no  staff.  I  have  no  reason 
to  identify  either  non-combatant  as  a  lanista,  and  I  doubt  that  anyone  wanted 
a  picture  of  a  despised  lanista.  I  can  well  believe  that  both  non-combatants 
are  ex-gladiators,  even  though  one  in  each  mosaic  is  represented  without  a  staff. 
Perhaps  a  summa  rudis  carried  his  staff  when  he  served  in  the  arena  as  the  (chief) 
referee.  The  other  non-combatant  may  be  a  secunda  rudis  who  serves  without 
his  staff  as  assistant  referee. 

In  the  upper  panel  of  MAN  3601  the  leaning  gladiator  seems  to  be  reaching 
for  something,  perhaps  his  helmet.  The  fallen  gladiator  has  a  cloth  or  flag  over 
his  head,  a  flag  which  does  not  appear  in  the  lower  panel  at  all.  It  is  probably 
the  mappa,  placed  there  by  the  referee. 

The  inscriptions  concern  the  gladiators  alone  and  there  is  no  confusion 
of  names  or  scribal  error  on  MAN  3601.  The  latter  presents  a  comparison. 
The  comparison  does  not  mean  that  Maternus  was  a  great  gladiator  but  Sym- 
machius  lucky.  It  means  rather  that  Maternus  was  a  gladiator  of  great  technical 
proficiency  but  that  Symmachius  possessed  an  innate  superhuman  power  which 
made  him  invincible.  The  words  QVIBVS  PVGNANTIBVS  SYMMACHIVS  FERRVM 
MISIT  may  be  translated  "  In  the  fight  between  these  two  gladiators  it  was 
Symmachius  who  delivered  the  iron  ".  ' 

The  date  cannot  be  stated  confidently.  Marion  Blake,  who  entitled  her 
article  "Mosaics  of  the  Late  Empire  in  Rome  and  Vicinity  ",  included  the  entire 
third  century  and  the  period  of  the  Severi  under  the  term  "  Late  Empire  ". 
Blanco  on  epigraphical  grounds  described  the  two  mosaics  as  post-Hadrianic  or 
third-century,  and  on  p.  141  he  says  that  the  most  obvious  indication  of  date 
is  perhaps  the  coexistence  of  the  traditional  plasticity  of  the  figures  together 
with  an  almost  radical  disregard  of  the  laws  of  perspective,  so  that  he  prefers 
to  date  them  tentatively  toward  the  middle  of  the  third  century.*  Mason  Ham- 
mond, in  a  letter,  has  called  my  attention  to  an  additional  indication  of  date: 
"  the  development  of  action  in  both  mosaics  from  bottom  up  is  like  that  in  the 
panels  on  the  Arch  of  Septimius  Severus  at  Rome  (A.  D.  204)  where  the  fight- 
ing is  represented  below  and  the  victory  above  ".  ' 


'  The  phrase  ferrum  misit  is  the  opposite  of  the  phrase  ferrum  receperunt  in  Tertullian,  De 
spectaculis  21,  where  it  means  "  received  the  death  blow  ". 

*  In  the  upper  panel  Blanco  calls  attention  to  the  two  fallen  shields,  which  look  as  if  they 
were  suspended  from  a  wall.  In  the  lower  panel  he  calls  attention  to  the  shield  of  the  man  on 
the  left:  we  should  see,  not  the  outside,  but  the  inside  of  the  shield  and  the  arm  which  holds  it. 

'  The  writer  expresses  appreciation  to  Professor  Mason  Hammond  for  this  and  other  help, 
likewise  to  Don  Augusto  Fernandez  de  Avilds. 


IMPERIAL   ELEMENTS   IN  THE   FORMULA 
OF  THE  ROMAN  EMPERORS 
DURING    THE    FIRST  TWO 

AND  A  HALF  CENTURIES  OF  THE  EMPIRE 


BY 


MASON     HAMMOND 


IMPERIAL    ELEMENTS    IN   THE    FORMULA    OF    THE     ROMAN 
EMPERORS  DURING  THE  FIRST  TWO  AND  A  HALF  CENTURIES 

OF  THE  EMPIRE 


The  formula,  style,  or  designation  of  a  Roman  emperor  is  the  complex  of 
personal  names,  imperial  titles,  honorific  epithets,  ancestors,  and  republican 
offices,  powers,  and  honors  which  served  to  designate  a  given  emperor.  '  Natu- 
rally this  formula  may  appear  less  or  more  extensively,  from  the  simplest  legends 
on  coins,  such  as  Augustus  or  Hadrianus  Augustus,  to  the  elaborate  and  resound- 
ing designation  of  Caracal  la  in  a  military  diploma  of  216:  Imp{erator)  Caes{ar) 
diui  Septimi  Seueri  Pii  Arabiici)  Adiabienici)  Parthiici)  Maxiimi)  Britiannict) 
Maxiimt)  fiilius)  diui  M{arci)  Antonini  Pii  Germ{anici)  Sarni(aiici)  nepips)  diui 
Antomm  Pii  pronepips)  diui  Hadriani  abnep{os)  diui  Traiani  Parthici  et  diui 
Neruae  adnepips)  M{arcus)  Aurellius  Antoninus  Pius  Felix  Aug{ustus)  Parth{icus) 
Max{imus)  Brit{annicus)  Max{imus)  Germ{anictis)  Max{imus)  pontif{ex)  max- 
{imus)  tribiunicid)  potiestate)  XVIIII  imp{erator)  III  co(n)s{ul)  /III  {pater) 
p{atriae)  proc(pnsul).  "  At  first  sight  this  last  lengthy  formula  seems  a  far  cry 
from  the  style  of  Augustus  as,  for  instance,  it  appeared  in  the  last  year  of  his 

'  This  paper  is  a  prelude  to  a  study  of  the  Antonine  Monarchy.  As  indicated  in  the  text, 
it  is  limited  to  the  imperial  element  in  the  formula,  since  the  republican  offices  relate  more 
closely  to  the  powers  and  responsibilities  of  the  emperor  and  must  be  included  within  the  study 
thereof.  Dates  in  the  courrent  era  appear  without  A.  D.  Works  frequently  cited  are  given, 
after  their  first  appearance,  with  abbreviated  titles  but  may  be  found  in  full  in  the  bibliography 
at  the  end.     In  abreviated   titles,   commas   are  omitted  between  author  and   title. 

The  indices  to  the  Catalogue  of  Coins  of  the  Roman  Empire  in  the  British  Museum  (hereafter 
BMC)  show  the  wide  variety  of  the  imperial  formula  in  coin  legends.  For  Augustus,  see  BMC 
I  431;  iox  Hadrianus  Augustus,  III  616.  For  the  coin  legends  of  Trajan,  Hadrian,  and  Antoninus, 
see  also  P.  L.  S  track,  Untersuchungen  zur  romischen  Reichspragung  des  zweiten  Jahrhunderts.  A 
good  selection  of  imperial  formulas  on  inscriptions  is  given  in  the  third  index  of  H.  Dessau, 
Inscriptiones  Latinae  Selectae  (hereafter  Dess.)  Ill  i  pp.  257-317.  Dessau  classifies  the  elements 
of  the  formula  under  three  headings:  nomina,  honores,  and  maiores.  H.  Mattingly,  in  the  prefaces 
to  the  volumes  oi BMC  (I  Ixvii-lxx,  II  xix-xxi.  III  xxiv-xxvii,  IV  xxii-xxv,  V  xxxii-xxxv)  discusses 
each  element  of  the  formula  separately.  So  also  do  H.  Nesselhauf  in  his  edition  of  the  military 
diplomas  in  C<?r/«5  Inscriptionum  Latinarum  (hereafter  CIL)  XVI  pp.  153-154  and  W.  Liebenam 
in  his  Fasti  Consulares  Imperii  Romani  (hereafter  Liebenam  Fasti)  index  IV  on  pp.  101-103. 
A.  Degrassi  in  his  more  recent  and  complete  /  Fasti  Consolari  delV Impero  Romano  etc.  (hereafter 
Degrassi  Fasti)  does  not  discuss  the  imperial  formula.  The  present  paper  divides  the  imperial 
elements  into  classes,  namely:  personal  names  and  imperial  titles  (treated  together),  epithets, 
and  ancestors,  since  such  a  classification  gives  more  insight  into  the  development  and  significance 
of  the  formula. 

*  The  formula  of  Caracalla  is  from  CIL  XVI  137,  a  diploma  issued  to  discharged  praeto- 
rians on  Jan.  7,  216.  The  only  restorations  are  Imp.  C]  in  the  first  line  and  Par.]  in  the  second. 
These  are  missing  because  the  first  tablet  (the  only  one  to  survive)  has  lost  one  corner  which  had 
the  opening  on  both  outside  and  inside.  In  the  text  above,  following  Nesselhauf,  abbreviations 
are  expanded  in  parentheses.     For  the  spelling  Aurellius,  see  below  n.   100. 


20  MASON  HAMMOND 

life:  Impierator)  Caesar  diui  iijlius)  Augustus  pontifex  maximius)  co{n)s{ul)  XIII 
impierator)  XX  tribunic{ia)  potest{ate)  XXXVII  p{ater)  piatriae).  '  Vet  a  brief 
consideration  will  show  the  essential  continuity  from  Augustus  to  Caracalla. 

Within  the  formula  there  are  two  major  parts,  an  "  imperial  "  and  a  "  re- 
publican ".  The  republican  part  comprises  three  republican  magistracies  or 
offices,  those  of  pontifex  maximus,  consul,  and  occasionally  through  Domitian, 
censor;  two  powers,  the  tribunicia  potestas  and,  in  the  second  century,  the  pro- 
consular imperium  indicated  by  proconsul;  and  two  honorific  titles,  one  military, 
imperator  followed  by  a  number  to  show  how  many  times  the  emperor  had  been 
acclaimed  by  his  victorious  soldies,  and  one  civil,  pater  patriae,  to  suggest  that 
his  relation  to  his  people  was  that  of  a  loving  father  to  his  devoted  children. 
Augustus  had  received  these  various  republican  offices,  powers,  and  titles  to 
indicate  that  he  was  no  king,  dictator,  or  tyrant  but  a  first  citizen  to  whom 
had  been  given  specific  and  limited  powers  and  functions.  But  even  in  his  life- 
time the  principate  was  widely  regarded  as  a  monarchy;  the  congery  of  powers 
as  one  overriding  control.  During  the  succeeding  two  centuries,  the  republican 
part  of  the  formula  continued  unchanged  except  for  the  appearance  of  proconsul 
under  Trajan.  It  represented  an  outward  respect  for  Augustus  and  the  compro- 
mise which  he  had  so  successfully  achieved  between  the  need  for  central  con- 
trol and  the  great  tradition  of  the  Roman  republic.  But  since  the  powers  and 
functions  which  the  republican  part  represented  came  to  be  absorbed  into  a 
generalized  imperial  power,  a  discussion  of  them  belongs  to  the  consideration 
of  the  constitutional  position  of  the  emperor.  The  present  paper  will  therefore 
deal  only  with  the  imperial  part  and  will  show  how,  from  a  primarily  personal 
designation,  with  monarchical  overtones,  there  developed  a  true  imperial  "  style  ". 

Within  the  imperial  part  can  be  distinguished  four  elements.  The  personal 
designation  of  Augustus  became  first  a  hereditary  series  of  names  and  then  a 
real  title  for  the  emperor,  in  the  form  Imperator  Caesar  .  .  .  Augustus.  Into 
this  title,  succeeding  emperors  intruded  personal  praenomina  like  Titus  or  Marcus, 
gentile  nomina  like  Claudius  or  Aurelius,  and  family  agnomina  like  Traianus 
or  Antoninus  or  Seuerus,  in  order  to  distinguish  themselves  from  their  prede- 
cessors. Some  of  the  nomina  and  agnomina  became  in  their  turn  hereditary. 
Naturally  the  nicknames  by  which  certain  emperors  are  today  familiarly  know, 
for  example  "  Caligula  "  or  "Caracalla  ",  had  no  official  recognition  in  the  for- 
mula.    Thirdly,  individual  emperors  received  honorary  epithets,  such  as  Optimus, 

3  Augustus'  formula  is  from.  CIL  XI  367  =  Dess.  113,  the  inscription  of  a  bridge  at  Ari- 
minium  begun  by  Augustus  and  completed  by  Tiberius,  whose  formula  runs:  Ti.  Caesar  diui  Au- 
gustif.  diui  luli  n.  August,  pontif.  maxim,  cos.  IIII  imp.  VIII  trib.  potest.  XXII  dedere.  Augustus' 
formula  is  of  14,  except  that  before  his  death  he  became  imp.  XXI;  the  XX  of  the  inscription 
may  well  be  an  error  since  Tiberius'  formula  is  of  21,  and  presumably  the  whole  inscription  was 
cut  in  that  year.  For  the  Augustan  formula,  see  M.  Hammond,  The  Augustan  Frincipate  ():itxta.htr 
Hammond  AF)  110-113.  The  stimulating  study  by  J.  Beranger,  Recherches  sur  V aspect  ideolo- 
gique  du  Frincipat,  does  not  discuss  the  formula  as  such,  although  in  ch.  H,  «  La  Terminologie  », 
appear  such  terms  as  Frinceps,  Imperator,  or  Auctoritas,  and  such  powers  as  Imperium  and  Tri- 
bunicia Fotestas. 


IMPERIAL  ELEMENTS  IN  THE  FORMULA,  ETC.  21 

Pius,  or  Felix  or  those  signifing  victory  like  Parthicus.  Some  of  these  became, 
as  had  Augustus,  attached  to  the  imperial  titles.  Finally,  during  the  second 
century  the  lengthening  list  of  ancestors  emphasized  the  hereditary  nature  of 
the  imperial  position.  In  the  following  discussion,  the  imperial  titles  and  per- 
sonal names  will  be  treated  together  as  the  closely  associated  designation  of  the 
individual  emperor.  The  epithets  and  ancestors  will  be  discussed  in  separate 
sections. 

(i)     Personal  Names  and  Imperial  Titles. 

In  the  course  of  his  rise  to  the  principate,  Augustus  had  shed  all  of  his 
"  proper  names  "  except  his  adoptive  cognomen  of  Caesar.  This  he  promoted 
to  be  his  gentile  nomen,  as  if  to  show  that  Julius  Caesar  had  founded  a  new 
gens  or  clan,  rendered  by  his  own  eminence  independent  of  the  traditional  gens 
of  the  lulii,  of  which  the  Caesares  had  until  him  been  a  branch.  To  Caesar 
Augustus  added  two  titles:  I?nperator,  which  he  made  into  a  personal  prae- 
nomen,  and  Augustus,  which  he  received  in  27  B.C.  as  an  honorific  epithet  in  a 
fashion  common  under  the  republic,  but  which  he  used  almost  as  if  it  were 
a  family  cognomen.  Thus  when  he  indicated  his  descent  from  the  deified  Ju- 
lius, he  placed  diui  filius  between  Caesar  and  Augustus,  just  as  under  the  repu- 
blic, filiation  came  between  nomen  and  cognomen,  for  instance  in  Marcus  Tullius 
M.  f.  Cicero.  Initially,  however,  Augustus  may  have  conceived  that  he  had 
two  names  and  a  title  and  placed  his  filiation  before  the  title,  in  the  manner, 
for  instance,  of  Gn.  Pompeius  Gn.  f.  Magnus.  *■ 

*  For  the  imperial  elements  in  Augustus'  formula,  see  Pauly/Wissowa/usw.,  Real-Encydopd- 
die  usw.  (hereafter  RE)  X  (9)  275-276;  E.  de  Ruggiero,  Dizionario  Epigrafico  etc.  (hereafter  DE) 
I  917-919;  Prosopographia  Imperii  Romani  (hereafter  PIR)  ed.  i  II  172  /  no.  140;  B.  Doer,  Die 
romische  Natnengebung  usw.  75-90. 

Augustus  was  originally  named  Gains  Octauius.  By  adoption  in  Caesar's  will  (44  B.C.),  he 
became  Gains  lulius  Caesar  Octauianns.  The  gentile  Inlius  and  the  agnomen  oiOctauianns  do  not 
appear  on  coins  and  inscriptions;  see  Doer  Namengebung  77-78.  It  should  however  be  noted  that 
the  laws  initiated  by  Augustus  in  virtue  of  his  tribunician  power  were  called  leges  luliae,  that  his 
daughter  and  granddaughter  were  named  Inlia,  that  after  his  death  Livia  was  called  lulia  Angusta, 
and  that  the  name  lulius  occurs  for  Germanicus  and  his  sons  Nero  and  Drusus  and  for  Drusus  son 
of  Tiberius,  see  Dess.  Ill  i  pp.  260-264. 

About  38  B.C.,  Augustus  substituted  Imperator  for  Gains  as  a  praenomen.  Th.  Mommsen, 
Romisches  Staatsrechi  (hereafter  Mom.)  II  2  (ed.  3)  770,  794,  thought  that  this  indicated  that 
Augustus  held  an  imperium  proconsnlare  mains  for  life.  M.  Grant,  From  Imperium  to  Anctoritas 
411-423,  follows  Mommsen  but,  on  pp.  424-453,  holds  that  after  27  b.c.  Augustus  began  to  keep 
in  the  background  both  the  "  revolutionary  "  imperium  and  Xhe^ praenomen  of  Imperator  and  to 
substitute  for  them  his  anctoritas  and  the  cognomen  (or  agnomen)  of  Augustus  and  after  23  B.C. 
the  indication  of  the  annual  tenure  of  the  tribunicia  potestas.  The  thesis  of  Mommsen  that  Impe- 
rator signified  the  imperium  was  denied  by  D.  McFayden,  The  History  of  the  Title  Imperator  etc., 
followed  by  Hammond  AP  33-34,  48-50.  And  Grant  probably  exaggerates  the  importance  of 
auctoritas  and  the  eclipse  of  the  imperium,  see  H.  Last,  "  Imperium  Mains:  A  Note  "  in  Journal 
of  Roman  Studies  XXXVII  (1947)  157-164  and  Hammond's  review  of  Grant  in  American  Journal 
of  Philology  LXIX  (1948)  321-323.  So  also  A.  von  Premerstein,  in  Vom  Werden  und  Wesen  des 
Prinzipats  245-260  (especially  pp.  256-260),  regsuds  Imperator  not  as  Mommsen's  title  signifying 


22  MASON  HAMMOND 

Tiberius  refused  the  praenomen  of  Imperator  and  its  occurrence  for  him 
and  his  successors  until  Nero  may  be  regarded  as  unofficial.  '  Tiberius  similarly 
desired  that  Augustus  be  reserved  for  the  founder  of  the  principate.  However, 
since  it  appears  regularly  for  him,  it  must  be  assumed  that  it  changed  from  an 
honorary  epithet  of  Augustus  himself  to  an  imperial  name  or  title  even  before 
Augustus'  death.  Both  Tiberius  and  Gains  used  Caesar  in  virtue  of  inheritance, 
but  Claudius,  who  had  no  right  to  it  by  blood  or  adoption,  nevertheless  added 
it  to  his  ov^n  praenomen  and  nomen,  to  yield  Tiberius  Claudius  Caesar  Augustus.  ' 

Though  it  might  appear  that  thus  Caesar  Augustus  became  a  combined 
title  for  the  imperial  position,  the  continued  use  of  Caesar  by  the  heirs  of 
emperors  shows  that  it  was  still  considered  to  be  a  name,  not  a  title.  ^  When 
Nero  passed  by  adoption  into  the  family  of  the  Claudii  Nerones,  he,  as  had  Drusus 
the  Elder,  reversed  the  order  to  Nero  Claudius  and  as  emperor  he  tended  to 
omit    the   Claudius.  '     In    the    year   66,  probably  in  connection    with    the    sub- 

the  imperium  but  as  a  name,  inherited  from  Caesar  and  even  under  Augustus  having  a  monarchical 
significance.  Indeed,  Grant,  From  Imperium  etc.  22-23,  408-410,  shows  how  the  sons  of  Pompey 
likewise  used  both  Imperator  and  Magnus  as  inherited  elements  of  their  names,  compare  also  RE 
IX  (17)  1144-1154  (especially  1149);  DE  IV  i  43-45.  However,  Beranger,  Recherches  etc.  50-54, 
returns  to  Mommsen's  view,  by  connecting  Imperator  both  with  the  imperium  and  with  the 
triumph  earned  in  virtue  of  the  imperium;  he  says  that  consequence  it  acquired  an  absolutist  con- 
notation expressed  clearly  by  the  Greek  equivalent  auToxpaxcop.  In  this  paper,  Imperator  as  a 
title  or  praenomen  will  be  capitalized  but  as  a  republican  honor  will  begin  with  a  lower  case  i. 
Sometimes,  as  for  Galba,  it  remains  uncertain  whether  Imperator  was  used  as  an  imperial  title  or  a 
republican  honor. 

Augustus  was  originally  an  honorific  title  bestowed  by  the  senate  on  Augustus  in  27  B.C.  and 
having  overtones  both  oi auctoritas  and  of  divinity,  see  Hammond  AF  iio-iii;  A.  Magdelain,  Auc- 
toritas  Frincipis  47.  For  a  republican  with  only  two  names  placing  his  filiation  between  the  second 
and  his  honorific  title,  see  Cn.  Pompeius  Cn.f.  Magnus  in  the  index  to  Dess.  Ill  i  p.  116  and 
note  especially  inscriptions  nos.   876  and  877  (the  second  restored). 

5  For  the  formula  of  Tiberius,  seei?^X  (19)  478; /'/y?='  II  219  C  no.  941;  Dess.  Ill  i  p.  262; 
BMC  I    120  ff.;   Hammond  AP  50-51,  226  nn.   16-18. 

*  For  .the  changed  significance  of  Augustus,  see  Hammond  AF  112,  268  n.  22;  below 
pp.  23,  40-41. 

1  For  the  formula  of  Gaius,  see  RE  X  (9)  385;  DE  II  i  35-36;  FIR  II  175  /  no.  143; 
Dess.  Ill  I  p.  264;  BMC  I  146  ff. 

For  the  formula  of  Claudius,  ■s.t^RE  III  (6)  2787;  DE  II  i  295-296;  FIR''  II  225  C  no.  942; 
Dess.  Ill  I  p.  265;  CIL  XVI  i;  BMC  I  164  ff.  Claudius  may  have  assumed  Caesar  simply  because 
of  its  potent  associations,  or  he  may  have  pretended  a  descent  by  adoption  and  retained  the 
family  name  of  Claudius  to  distinguish  himself  from  Tiberius. 

'  Britannicus  inherited  Caesar  from  Claudius  just  as  much  as  did  Nero,  see  Mom.  II  2  770 
n.  4;  FIR'  II  186  C  no.  820. 

'  For  Nero's  formula,  see  RE  suppl.  Ill  352-353;  {DE  has  not  yet  reached  N)\  FIR"  II 
34  D  no.  129;  Dess.  Ill  i  pp.  267-268;  CIL  XVI  4;  BMC  I  200  ff.  Drusus  the  Elder,  brother 
of  Tiberius,  appears  both  as  Nero  Claudius  Drusus  and  as  Claudius  Nero  {Drusus),  see  FIR"  II 
195  C  no.  857;  Dess.  Ill  i  p.  261;  such  inversions  were  not  uncommon,  for  instance  Caesar 
Augustus  or  Augustus  Caesar.  But  Drusus  does  not  show  his  original  praenomen  of  Decimus, 
which  is  attested  only  by  Suet.  Claud,  i  i.  Nor,  for  that  matter,  does  Caesar,  assigned  to  him 
by  Suetonius,  appear  in  his  inscriptions.  Nero  son  of  Germanicus  placed  Nero  before  Caesar: 
Nero  {lulius)  Caesar,  see  FIR  II  181  /  no.  149;  Dess.  Ill  i  p.  263.  The  emperor  Nero  did  not 
use  Claudius  on  his  gold  and  silver  except  in  54/55,  see  BMC  I  200-201  nos.  1-8.  It  is  occa- 
sionally omitted  on  his  bronze,  see  H.  Mattingly  and  E.  A.  Sydenham,  The  Roman  Imperial 
Coinage  (hereafter  MS)  I  140-142,  which  is  clearer  than  BMC  I  clxiii,  clxvi,  clxviii-clxx. 


'^ 


IMPERIAL  ELEMENTS  IN  THE  FORMULA,  ETC.  23 

mission  of  Tiridates,  king  of  Parthia,  he  officially  revived  the  praenomen  im- 
peratoris  so  that  the  final  form  of  his  name  and  title  was  Imperator  Nero  Caesar 
Augustus.  '°  Thus,  by  the  end  of  the  Julio-Claudian  period  it  had  become 
customary  for  an  emperor  to  surround  his  own  name  or  names  with  three 
imperial  titles:  Imperator,  in  origin  an  honor  but  made  into  a  praenomen;  Caesar, 
which  still  retained  its  character  as  a  name,  but  a  name  assumed  in  virtue  of 
becoming  emperor,  without  any  necessary  inheritance;  and  Augustus,  an  epi- 
thet which  had  come  to  designate  the  ruler.  " 

In  the  course  of  this  change,  Augustus  probably  lost  much  of  the  religious 
significance  which  it  had  had  originally  and,  in  particular,  its  connotation  of 
auctoritas.  Augustus  had  outwardly  limited  himself  to  certain  specific  powers, 
but  he  continued  to  dominate  the  whole  imperial  administration  in  virtue,  accord- 
ing to  his  own  statement,  of  his  pervasive  auctoritas,  that  quality  in  himself 
which  commanded  the  respect  and  obedience  of  others  even  when  he  had  no 
legal  right  thereto.  "  With  the  development  of  the  concept  of  a  general  impe- 
rium,  that  is,  of  the  legally  recognized  control  by  the  emperor  of  the  whole 
government,  the  vague  auctoritas  no  longer  needed  to  be  emphasized.  '^  Yet 
Augustus  alone  never  became  a  regular  term  for  the  rulers.  Pliny  in  his  Pan- 
egyric addressed  Trajan  as  Caesar  Auguste  or  simply  as  Caesar;  the  speaker  on 
gladiatorial  expenses  in  176/8  appealed  to  Marcus  and  Commodus  as  magni 
imperatores.  '* 

'°  For  Nero's  revival  of  the /rfle«i)Wf«  oi Imperator ,  see  Suet.  Nero  13  2;  Hammond^/'  51, 
226  n.  19;  BMC  I  clxvi,  clxvii  (especially  n.  3).  Dessau,  III  i  p.  268,  gives  only  a  few  instances  of  the 
occurrence  of  Imp.  on  Nero's  inscriptions  and  Claudius  appears  on  them  frequently  even  after  66. 
Presumably  those  who  erected  the  inscriptions  were  not  always  fully  cognizant  of  recent  changes 
in  the  official  formula. 

"  A.  N.  Sherwin-White,  The  Roman  Citizenship  253,  points  out  that  in  the  Gallic  revolt 
of  68,  Julius  Sabinus  claimed  descent  from  Julius  Caesar,  see  Tac.  Hist.  IV  55  2  and,  in  §  67  i: 
Caesarem  se  salutari  iubet;  compare  also  Dio  LXVI  (LXV)  3  i;  PIR  II  211  /  no.  351.  Sherwin- 
White  thinks  that  Sabinus  had  in  mind  throughout  the  family  connotation  while  Tacitus  in  the 
second  passage  regarded  Caesar  as  an  imperial  title.  Probably  Sabinus,  like  the  Julio-Claudians, 
did  not  distinguish  clearly  between  the  two  concepts. 

"  For  auctoritas,  see  Hammond  AP  266  n.  7;  von  Premerstein  Vom  Wesen  176-225;  Grant 
From  Imperium  443-453;  Magdelain  Auctoritas  Principis  throughout;  '&ixa.r\^^x  Recherches  etc.  114- 
131.     The  critical  passage  is  Aug.  i^M  Cw/ae  34  3  as  found  in  the  fragments  from  Antioch  in  Pisidia. 

'3  Significant  of  the  early  loss  of  the  personal  and  religious  significance  of  the  title  Augustus 
is  its  bestowal,  in  the  feminine  form  Augusta,  upon  wives  of  emperors.  This  began  with  Livia, 
who  received  the  title  (and  the  name  lulid)  by  Augustus'  will,  see  Tac.  Ann.  182.  The  empress 
might  well  be  regarded  as  an  "  august  "  personage.  Moreover  Livia  and  later  empresses  sought 
to  intervene  directly  in  the  government;  see,  for  Agrippina  the  Younger,  C.H.V.  Sutherland,  Coin- 
age in  Roman  Imperial  Policy  146-155.  But  such  auctoritas  as  they  exercised  had  no  recognized 
constitutional  basis,  contrary  to  the  arguments  advanced  by  E.  Kornemann,  Doppelprinzipat  und 
Reichstellung  im  Imperium  Romanum  (hereafter  DP),  see  especially  for  Livia  pp.  35-42  and  for 
Agrippina  the  Younger  pp.  57-59  and  for  the  Julias  of  the  Severan  dynasty  pp.  93-95;  compare 
also  H.  G.  Mullens,  "  The  Women  of  the  Caesars  "  in  Greece  and  Rome  XI  (1942)  59-67.  The 
title  Augusta  should  therefore  be  regarded  as  purely  honorary  for  the  wife  and  later  for  other 
women  related  to  the  Augustus. 

'*  For  Trajan,  see  Pliny  Pan.  4  3,  S  2,  9  3,  14  i,  etc.  For  Marcus  and  Commodus  in  the 
speech  on  gladiatorial  expenses  of  176/178,  see  C.  G.  Bruns,  Pontes  luris  Romani  Antiqui  ed.  7 


24  MASON  HAMMOND 

Galba  used  Imperator  sometimes  before  and  sometimes  after  his  name, 
in  the  latter  case  without  numeral,  so  that  it  is  hard  to  know  whether  it  repre- 
sents the  first  salutation  or  whether  the  variation  is  simply  one  of  the  order  of 
nomen  and  cognomen.  ''  His  bronze  as  initially  coined  in  Gaul  and  Rome,  pre- 
sumably under  senatorial  direction,  places  imperator  after  his  name  and  omits 
Augtistus.  '*  His  gold  and  silver  throughout  and  his  bronze  issued  after  his 
arrival  at  Rome  in  October  place  Imperator  before.  Vet  three  copies  of  a  dis- 
charge issued  by  Galba  for  the  veterans  of  legio  I  Adiutrix  on  December  22, 
68,  have  the  order  Ser.  Galba  Imperator  Caesar  Augustus.  "'  Perhaps  at  first, 
as  a  "  republican  "  gesture,  he  assumed  imperator  as  an  honor,  without  numeral, 
to  indicate  his  salutation  by  the  troops  but  not  as  establishing  any  claim  to 
to  the  empire  or  to  the  title  Augustus.  '^  Upon  his  recognition  by  the  senate, 
he  took  the  imperial  titles  Imperator  Caesar  Augustus  but,  in  view  of  Nero's 
recent  use  of  Imperator  as  a  regular  title,  uncertainty  existed  whether  it  should 
precede  or  follow  Galba,  particularly  since,  unlike  his  predecessor,  he  kept  his 
own  praenomen.  '' 

Of  the  formula  of  Piso  after  his  adoption  by  Galba  nothing  is  known 
save  that  he  probably  assumed  Caesar  and  perhaps  also  Galba  as  part  of  his 
name.  "° 

Otho    shows    two    forms,    with    or    without  his  personal  praenomen:    Imp. 


(hereafter  Bruns)  207  no.  63  =  S.  Riccobono  and  others,  Pontes  Juris  Romani  Aniejustiniani  ed.  2 
(hereafter  FIRA)  I  294  no.  49  =  Dess.  5163  =  J.  H.  Oliver  and  R.E.A.  Palmer,  "Minutes  of 
an  Act  of  the  Roman  Senate  "  in  Hesperia  XXIV  (1955)  320-349,  line  12.  In  the  acclamationes 
recorded  by  the  "  Scriptores  Historiae  Augustae  "  (herefter  SHA)  and  probably  all  to  be  rejected 
as  inventions,  Marcus  is  addressed  as  Antonine,  Auid.  13  2;  Pertinax  as  Augusie  or  Caesar,  Com. 
18  10,  19  i;  Alexander  as  Auguste  innocens,  Antonine  Alexander,  Antonine  Augusie,  or  the  like, 
Alex.  6  2,  7  1,83,  10  6-12  I.  Auguste  is  used  by  Martial  to  address  Domitian,  but  far  less 
frequently  than  Caesar,  see  L.  Friedlander's  index  to  his  edition  of  Martial  II  371. 

■5  For  Galba's  formula,  see  RE2  IV  (7)  774-775,  782;  DE  III  372-373;  FIR  III  284  .S 
no.  723;  Dess.  Ill  i  p.  268;  CIL  XVI  7-9;  BMC  in  next  note. 

'*  For  Galba's  use  of  Imperator  on  his  coinage,  see  BMC  I  cciii.  Augustus  is  omitted  not 
only  on  his  bronze  {aes)  but  also  on  his  early  gold  and  silver,  pp.  Ixviii,  ccx,  337-351. 

"'  Galba's  diplomas  of  68  are  CIL  XVI  7,  8,  9,  showing  Aug.,  August.,  or  Augustus. 

''  For  Galba's  republicanism,  see  M.  Hammond,  "The  Transmission  of  the  Imperial  Pow- 
ers etc.  "  in  Memoirs  of  the  American  Academy  in  Rome  XXIV  (1956)  67-68. 

''  MacFayden,  Hist.  Title  Imp.  63  n.  91,  suggests  that  the  order  Imp.  Caes.  Aug.  was  the 
order  in  which  the  titles  were  voted  to  Galba.  Suetonius,  Galba  11,  says  that  Galba  assumed 
Caesar  only  upon  receipt  of  news  that  the  senate  had  accepted  him;  see  also  Dio  LXIII  29  6, 
who  adds  that  he  did  not  at  once  use  Imperator.  Mommsen,  II  2  769  n.  5,  compares  with  the 
variation  Galba  Imp.  or  Imp.  Galba  the  similar  variation  Nero  Imp.  or  Imp.  Nero.  Galba's  name 
before  his  accession  had  become  after  his  adoption  by  his  step-mother  L.  Liuius  Sulpicius  Galba, 
see  refs.  above  in  n.  15.  Upon  his  accession  he  dropped  the  first  three  and  resumed  his  own 
original  praenomen  of  Seruius.  Sulpicius  occurs  occasionally  on  coins,  see  BMC  I  440,  451  (in 
index  VI).  As  between  coins  and  diplomas,  there  is  little  to  choose  as  representing  best  the 
official  usage. 

^  For  the  adoption  of  Piso,  see  Tac.  Hist.  I  29  2;  W.  Henzen,  Acta  Fratrum  Arualium  (here- 
after AFA)  xci  line  26,  which  reads  as  of  Jan.  10,  69:  [ob  ad\optione\m  Ser.  Sulpici  Gar\ba 
C[aesaris].  This  is  too  heavily  restored  to  give  sure  evidence  for  Piso's  assumption  of  the  name 
of  Galba.     See  also  Mom.   II  2  770  n.  4;  FIR"  II  72  C  no.  300;  Doer  Namengebung  85-86. 


IMPERIAL  ELEMENTS  IN  THE  FORMULA,  ETC.  25 

{M)  Otho  Caesar  Augustus.  "  The  second  may  have  been  meant  to  recall  Nero's 
final  formula.  " 

Vitellius  reverted  to  Galba's  "  republican  "  style  by  placing  Iniperator  after 
his  name.  "'^  But  he  elevated  an  honorary  epithet,  Germanicus,  to  a  position 
before  Imperator  Augustus."*  This  new  title  referred  not  to  a  victory  over  the 
Germans  but  to  his  election  by  the  German  legions  and  he  seems  to  have  want- 
ed it  to  be  for  him  what  Augustus  had  been  for  the  first  emperor,  a  personal 
distinction.  °'  Augustus  appears  on  his  coins  even  later  than  does  tr.  p.  so 
that  it  may  have  been  assumed  only  on  his  entry  into  Rome.  "*  Caesar  he 
refused  until  towards  the  end  of  his  life.  ''^  By  preferring  Germanicus  to  these 
two  titles  he  may  have  meant  to  make  a  definite  break  with  the  Julio-Claudian 
house,  or  he  may  have  regarded  Iniperator  (Caesar)  Augustus  as  a  formula  indi- 
cative of  the  rule  and  therefore  placed  it  after  his  name  and  personal  distinction. 
Hence  his  final  formula  reads  ^4.  Vitellius  Germanicus  Imperator  [Caesar)  Augustus. 

Vespasian  patterned  his  formula,  as  he  did  his  general  program,  on  that  of 
Augustus.  ''^     He    received    no  personal  distinction    like   Augustus,  but  he  em- 


'"  For  Otho's  formula,  see  Mom.  II  2  769  n.  5;  RE2  I  (2)  2037;  (DE  has  not  reached  O); 
Dess.  Ill  I  p.  269;  BMC  I  ccxix-ccxx;  McFayden  Hist.  Title  Imp.  64.  Tacitus,  Hist.  I  47  2, 
says  that  all  the  imperial  honors  were  voted  to  Otho  at  one  time. 

^^  Dio,  LXIV  8  2  (i)  =  Xiphilinus,  states  that  Otho  assumed  the  name  Nero  but  the  coins 
and  inscriptions  do  not  show  this;  so  also  the  literary  sources  say  that  Didius  used  the  name 
Commodus,  below  n.  93,  but  are  not  supported  by  the  coins  or  inscriptions. 

"^  For  Vitellius'  formula,  see  Mom.  II  2  769  n.  5;  {RE  and  DE  have  not  yet  reached  Vi); 
FIR  III  449  V  no.  499;  Dess.  Ill  i  p.  269;  BMC  I  Ixvii.  CIL  X  8016  =  Dess.  243,  from  Sar- 
dinia, shows  [Im\p.  A.   Vitellius  c[os.  perp.^ 

"*  Of  Vitellius,  Suet.  Vit.  8  2  says:  cognomen  Germanici  delatum  ab  uniuersis  cupide  recepit, 
Augusti  distulit,  Caesaris  in  perpetuum  recusauit;  see  Tac.  Hist.  II  90  2;  G.  M.  Rushforth,  Latin 
Historical  Inscriptions  80  n.  on  no.  68. 

"5  Early  coins  of  Vitellius  minted  at  Tarraco  and  Lyons  show  Imp.  Germanicus,  see  BMC  I 
Ixxxv  n.  I,  ccxxiii;  compare  Tac.  Ann.  I  31  i  for  movements  among  the  German  legions  to  put 
the  command  in  the  hands  of  Germanicus;  Vitellius  may  have  meant  to  recall  the  affection  of  the 
legions  for  Germanicus  as  well  as  to  portray  himself  as  their  nominee.  H.  Mattingly,  "  Some 
Historical  Roman  Coins  of  the  First  Century  a.d.  "  in  Journal  of  Roman  Studies  X  (1920)  39-40, 
argues  that  Vitellius  first  used  Imperator  Germanicus  to  show  that  he  was  the  "  Emperor  made 
in  Germany  "  by  the  Roman  legions  there  but  when  he  was  accepted  at  Rome  he  changed  the 
order  to  Germanicus  Imperator  so  that  Germanicus  became  a  personal  epithet  although  the  collo- 
cation of  the  two  words  still  suggested  how  he  rose  to  power. 

Comparable  to  Vitellius'  use  of  Germanicus  not  for  victory  over  Germans  but  for  connection 
with  Germany  is  the  use  of  Parthicus  by  Q.  Labienus,  the  son  of  Caesar's  lieutenant,  on  a  coin 
minted  by  him  as  commander  of  Parthian  forces  operating  against  Antony,  see  M.  Ceixy,  History 
of  Rome'  449,  citing  BMC  Republic  II  500  nos.  131-132  (pi.  cxiii,  19-20);  Dio  xlviii  26  5;  Strabo 
XIV  2  24.  Claudius  made  a  curiously  similar  confusion  in  his  speech  for  the  Aeduan  chiefs  when 
he  said  that  an  ancestor  of  Persius  was  called  Allobrogicus  because  he  was  an  Allobrogian,  not 
because  he  defeated  them,   see  Bruns  197  no.  52  =  FIRA  I  284  no.  43,  col.  II  line  25. 

"*  Suet.   Vit.  8  2,  quoted  above  n.    24;  Tac.  Hist.  II  90  2;  MS  I  221;  BMC  I  ccxxii. 

^'  Tac.  Hist.  I  62  2,  III  58  3,  against  Suet.  Vit.  8  2,  quoted  above  n.  24;  compare  W.  A. 
Spooner,  Cornell  Taciti  Historiae  164  n.  on  Hist,  i  62  for  eastern  coins;  J.  Vogt,  Die  Alexan- 
drinischen  Miinzen  I  41  for  Alexandrian  coins;  Dess.  Ill   i  p.   269,  who  gives  no  inscr.  with  Cawar. 

"^  For  Vespasian's  "  Augustanism,  "  see  CAH  XI  5,  10,  11,  19;  BMC  II  xxxiii-xxxiv  {Fax), 
xxxviii-xxxix,  xliii,  xlix;  McFayden  Hist.  Title  Imp.  64-66;  L.  Homo,   Vespasien   193-195. 


26  MASON  HAMMOND   

ployed  his  cognomen  alone,  without  praenomen  or  nomen.  "'  He  placed  Caesar 
before  Vespasianus  so  that  at  first  sight  it  appears  as  though  he  meant  it  to 
be  joined  with  the  praenomen  Imperatoris  as  an  introductory  title  denoting  his 
position.  If  this  were  so,  the  change  in  the  character  of  Caesar  begun  by  Claudius 
would  have  been  complete  and  Impertor  Caesar  would  under  Vespasian  have 
established  themselves  in  the  initial  position  which  they  retained  until  the  end 
of  the  empire,  as  a  combined  title  peculiar  to  the  ruler.  But  Caesar  was  also 
assumed  by  his  sons;  Titus  placed  it  between  his  praenomen  and  his  cognomen 
and  Domitian  regularly  has  it  before  his  cognomen.  ^°  Probably,  therefore,  Ve- 
spasian conceived  Caesar  to  be  a  gentile  nomen  with  which  he  replaced  his  origi- 
nal cognomen,  Flauius,  in  virtue  not  of  adoption  but  of  accession.  ^'  Imperator 
Caesar  Augustus  was  the  founder  of  an  imperial  house  into  which  had  entered 
Imperator  Caesar  Vespasianus  Augustus  and  his  sons  Titus  Caesar  Vespasianus 
and  Caesar  Domitianus.  '"^ 

Nor  was  the  order  of  Vespasian's  formula  settled  immediately.  Early  issues 
of  coins  in  the  east  and  two  copies  of  a  discharge  issued  to  veterans  of  the 
legio  II  Adiutrix  in  Rome  on  March  7,  70,  show  Imp.  Vespasianus  Caesar  Augu- 
stus. "  Moreover,  in  the  beginning  some  coins  omit  Augustus,  and  both  coins 
and  inscriptions  show  occasionally  the  order  Imperator  Caesar  Augustus  Vespa- 
sianus. '■'     Probably,   therefore,   the  style  was  not  finally  determined  until  after 


'9  For  Vespasian's  formula,  see  RE  VI  (12)  2635-2637;  {DE  has  not  reached  Ve);  PIR^  III 
180  F  no.  398;  Dess.  Ill  i  269-270;  CIL  XVI  10-23;  BMC  below  in  n.  t^-x,.  Doer,  Namengebung 
97-104,  calls  attention  to  the  inheritance  of  the  mother's  name  as  a  cognomen  in  -anus  by  the 
second  son  as  a  characteristic  of  central  Italy,  in  origin  Etruscan;  compare  Vespasianus,  Domi- 
tianus; the  family  came  from  Reate. 

3°  For  Titus  and  Domitian,  see  below  pp.  27,   39. 

3'  This  is  confirmed  by  the  position  of  the  ancestors  in  the  Flavian  formulas,  see  below 
P-  55- 

3'  Vespasian's  realization  that  the  man  counted  for  more  than  mere  titles  appears  in  a  story 
told  by  Dio,  LXVI  (LXV)  11  3,  that  when  Arsaces  addressed  a  letter  to  him:  pamXcu?  pamXetov 
'Apaaxn]?  <I)Xaouia>  OusCTTraa'-avcji  x*'P^''>'>  Vespasian  omitted  all  his  imperial  titles  in  his  reply.  For 
the  parallel  with  Augustus,   see  McFayden  Hist.  Title  Imp.  64. 

"  For  Vespasian's  coinage  in  the  east,  see  BMC  II  94,  109;  contrast  the  Roman  coinage 
of  69/70,  pp.  I,  III,  with  Imp.  Caes.  Vesp.  Coins  on  which  Caesar '\%  omitted  are  not  relevant, 
since  this  was  done  on  Xhe  quadrantes  of  Rome  throughout  the  reign,  to  economize  space,  see  BMC 
n  134-13S  (of  71),  138-139  (of  72/73),  162  (of  74),  166  (of  75),  170  (of  76),  175  (of  77/78),  and 
on  asses  of  Commagene,  217  (of  70.?)  and  onaurei  of  Antioch,  lob  (of  72).  The  diplomas  are  CIL 
XVI  10,  11;  the  leg.  II  Ad.  was  originally  levied  from  the  sailors  of  the  fleet  at  Ravenna.  The 
other  diplomas  of  Vespasian,  from  Feb.  9,  71  (no.  12)  through  Apr.  15,  78  (no.  23)  have,  where 
the  heading  is  preserved,  Imp.  Caesar  Vespasianus  Aug.  The  inscriptions  show  both  of  these 
orders,  namely  Imp.  Caes.  Vesp.  Aug.  (most  common)  and  Imp.  Vesp.  Caes.  Aug.  (not  infrequent), 
as  well  as  that  mentioned  in  the  next  sentence,  Imp.  Caes.  Aug.  Vesp.  (infrequent);  see  Dess. 
Ill  I  p.  269. 

3«  For  the  omissions  oi  Aug.,  %&&  BMC  II  67.  For  Imp.  Caes.  Vesp.  alone  on  a  first  issue 
from  Tarraco,  see  BMC  II  liv;  compare  two  inscriptions  listed  in  Dess.  Ill  i  p.  269,  namely 
984  from  Rome  and  1979  from  Isauria.  Mattingly,  MS  II  9  and  BMC  II  liv  n.  3,  suggested 
that  the  order  Imp.  Caesar  Aug.  Vespasianus  was  meant  to  recall  A.  Vitellius  Imp.  Germ,  but 
the  parallel  is  hard  to  see. 


•^ 


IMPERIAL  ELEMENTS  IN  THE  FORMULA,  ETC.  27 

the  senate  had  accepted  Vespasian  in  December  or  even  until  Vespasian  himself 
reached   Rome,    probably   at   some   time   during   the   summer  of  70.  " 

The  position  assigned  to  Imperator  in  the  formula  of  Titus  while  he  was 
heir  fluctuated  considerably.  ^*  Occasionally  during  the  reign  of  Vespasian, 
Augustus  appears  incorrectly  for  Titus  as  well.  "  Titus  established  the  form 
of  his  name,  which  he  continued  as  emperor,  by  placing  his  own  praenomen  before 
Caesar  to  distinguish  himself  from  his  father.  ^^  Thus  as  heir  his  formula  runs 
{/mp.)  Titus  Caesar  {Imp.)  Vespasianus  {Imp.),  with  Imperator  appearing  only 
once  but  in  any  of  the  three  positions  indicated.  ''  As  emperor  it  is  regularly 
Imp.   Titus  Caesar  Vespasianus  Aug.  ''° 

Domitian,  who  did  not  receive  the  praenomen  Imperatoris  under  either 
Vespasian  or  Titus,  used  the  simple  formula  Caesar Domitianus  as  heir  and  Im.p. 
Caesar  Domitianus  Aug.  as  emperor.  "'  The  omission  of  his  personal  praenomen 
was  undoubtedly  due  to  the  fact  that  his  cognomen  distinguished  him  sufficiently 
from  his  father  and  his  brother.  ''° 

Nerva  followed  the  Flavian  practice  of  dropping  his  praenomen  and  nomen, 
M.  Cocceitis,  but  he  reverted  to  the  Julio-Claudian  use  of  Caesar  after  his  own 
cognomen:  Imp.  Nerua  Caesar  Aug.  ^^  Since  he  had  a  remote  relationship  with 
the  Julio-Claudian  house,  it  is  possible  that  he  meant  to  indicate  that  the  old 
"  principate  "  had  been  revived.  ■**  Or  he  may  have  meant  to  contradict  the 
dynastic  policy  of  the  Flavians  by  using  Caesar  as  an  imperial  title,  not  as  a 

35  For  Vespasian's  recognition  at  and  arrival  in  Rome,  see  M.  Hammond,  "  The  Tribunician 
Day  etc.  "  \n.  Memoirs  of  the  American  Academy  in  Rome  XV  (1938)  33-34  nn.  113-114.  Imp.  Caes, 
Vesp.  Aug.  became  established  permanently  with  cos.  iter  tr.  pot.,  that  is,  in  70,  see  BMC  II  69  ff. 

3*  For  Titus'  use  of  Imperator,  see  Hammond  Transmission  80-82,  who  cites  in  n.  94  Pick  in 
Zschr.  fur  Num.    XIII   (1885)    190-238. 

3'  Dess.  Ill  I  p.  270;  for  eastern  coins,  see  BMC  II  Ixv,  Ixix. 

38  For  Titus'  formula,  see  RE  VI  (12)  2696-2697,  2708-2713;  {DE  has  not  reached  Ti);  FIR' 
III  no.  391;  Dess.  Ill   i  pp.  270-271;  CIL  XVI  24,  26;  BMC  below  in  n.  40. 

39  McFayden,  Hist.  Title  Imp.  65  (especially  n.  103),  thought  that  Titus'  use  of  Imp.  while  he 
was  heir  was  the  last  time  that  as  a  cognomen  it  denoted  a  subordinate  Imperator  and  that  thereafter 
Caesar  leplsLced  it.  However,  Titus'  possession  of  the  secondary  imperium  is  not  certain,  nor  was  he 
ever  designatus  Imperator,  MS  II  8;  BMC  II  xix,  so  that  the  praenomen  probably  still  had  no  connec- 
tion with  the  imperium.  An  isolated  later  parallel  occurs  for  Caracalla  in  CIL  VI  1050:  M.  Aurelio  / 
Antonino  /  Caes.  Imp.,  which  probably  represents  his  position  as  designatus  Imperator,  below  p.  35. 

*°  Diplomas  of  Titus  are  CIL  XVI  24-26.  Vespasianus  is  sometimes  omitted  on  coins,  see 
BMC  II  471,  478,  index  V;  and  compare  Dess.  263,  6088   {lex  Salpensana)  ch.  xxii  line  8. 

<'  For  Domitian's  formula,  see  RE  VI  (12)  2547,  2550-2551;  DE  II  3  2028-2033;  FIR"  III 
147  D  no.  259;  Dess.  Ill  i  271-273;  CIL  XVI  28-39;  suppl.  158-159  BMC  II  460-461,  466-467. 
Domitianus  Caesar  occurs  on  denarii  from  Ephesus,  BMC  II  98-99  (of  71?);  on  an  inscription  from 
Bithynia,  CIL  III  suppl.  6993  =  Dess.  253  (of  TTIt&),  which  gives  also  Imp.  Caesar  Vespasianus 
Aug.  and  Imp.  T.  Caesar;  and  on  one  from  Armenia,  CIL  III  303  =  Dess.  8904  (of  76?),  which 
gives  Imp.    Vespasiano  Caesare  Aug.,  Imp.  Tito  Caesare,  and  \Domitian\o  [Caes]are. 

*"  Domitian's  praenomen  was  also  Titus,   see  RE  VI  (12)  2543. 

♦3  For  Nerva's  formula,  see  RE  IV  (7)  136-137;  FIR"  II  292  C  no.  1227;  Dess.  Ill  i  273- 
274;  CIL  XVI  40;  BMC  III  617,  619,  620;  DE  has  not  yet  reached  N.  Inscriptions  occasionally, 
but  coins  never  (Dess.  Ill  i  p.   273),  show  Imp.  Caes.  Nerua  Aug. 

*♦  The  Cambridge  Ancient  History  (hereafter  CAH)  XI  189.  Nerva  was  the  last  emperor 
buried  in  the  Mausoleum  of  Augustus,  S.  B.  Platner  and  T.  Ashby,  A  Topographical  Dictionary  of 


28  MASON  HAMMOND 

family  name.  In  any  case,  he  undoubtedly  intended  a  "  republican  "  contrast 
to  Domitian's  autocracy. 

Trajan,  upon  his  adoption,  assumed  the  cognomen  of  Nerua  but  retained  in 
addition  his  own,  Traianus.  He  did  not  use  his  personal  praenomen  or  nomen, 
M.  Ulpius.  ■"  Apart  from  Pliny's  mention  of  Caesar  and  Imperator  among  the 
successive  grants  to  him  after  his  adoption,  there  is  no  evidence  for  his  style  before 
he  became  emperor.  ••*  In  his  imperial  formula,  the  position  of  Caesar  varies. 
At  first  he  sometimes  followed  Nerva:  Imp.  Nerua  Caesar  Traianus  Aug.  More 
frequently  he  reverted  to  the  Flavian  practice:  Imp.  Caesar  Nerua  Traianus 
Aug.  •"  The  latter  seems  to  have  been  that  which  he  himself  approved.  "^ 
Trajan  therefore  reverted  from  the  practice  of  the  Julio-Claudians,  as  revived 
by  Nerva,   to   that  devised  by  the  Flavians. 

Hadrian  also  dropped  his  own  praenomen  and  nomen  of  Publius  Aelius,  and 
assumed  Trajan's,  but  not  Nerva's,  cognomen  before  his  own.  "'  As  evidence 
for  his  formula  while  heir  there  is  only  a  lost  aureus,  which  is  reported  to  have 
read  Hadriano  Traiano  Caesari.  ^°  If  this  was  genuine,  it  affords  the  first  clear 
instance  in  which  Caesar  after  the  name  had  become  a  title  to  designate  the 
heir.  ''  The  new  practice  undoubtedly  was  modeled  upon  the  appearance  of 
Caesar  in  the  formulas  of  Titus  and  Domitian  under  Vespasian,  but  the  change 
from  a  name  to  a  title,  so  far, as  such  a  gradual  change  can  be  dated,  should  be 
placed  under  Nerva  and  Trajan.  Not  even  yet,  as  the  use  for  heirs  shows, 
did  Caesar  wholly  cease  to  be  a  name  passed  from  father  to  son,  from  ruler  to 
destined  successor,  because  in  the  appointment  of  a  successor  the  establishment 
of  filiation   by   blood   or  adoption   remained  an   important   element.  ^'^ 

Ancient  Rome  334,  though  the  body  of  Julia  Domna  may  have  lain  in  it  temporarily,  id.  pp.  t,^7„ 
335.  477  from  Dio  LXXVIII  (LXXIX)  24  3. 

«  For  Trajan's  formula,  see  PIR  III  464  U  no.  575;  {RE  and  DE  have  not  reached  Ul)\ 
CIL  XVI  42-65,  suppl.  160-165;  Dess.  Ill  i  p.  274;  MS  II  236;  BMC  III  617-621;  Strack  I 
{Trai.)  throughout. 

<*  Pliny  Pan.  8  6. 

♦'  The  inscriptions  occasionally  also  show  Imp.  Nerua  Trai.  Caesar  Aug.  And  both  inscrip- 
tions and  coins,  BMC  III  xxv,  may  omit  Caesar  or  Nerua  or  both.  On  the  coins.  Imp.  Nerua  Caes. 
7ra/a«.  appears  only  in  98/100,  and  occurs  on  all  metals  in  the  same  issues  as  the  more  usual  order, 
but  much  less  frequently,  see  BMC  III  xxiv,  Ivii-lviii,  xciv,  620  under  the  heading  Imp.  Nerua 
Caes.   Traian.;  Strack  I  {Trai)   20-21. 

<*  The  diplomas  of  Trajan  show  Imp.  Caes.  etc.  from  the  beginning,  for  instance  CIL  XVI  42 
of  Feb.  20,  98.  The  variations  on  the  coins  and  inscriptions  may  be  due  to  the  fact  that  at 
first  some  people  followed  Nerva's  style  until  they  knew  definitely  what  Trajan  wished. 

<»  For  Hadrian's  formula,  see  RE  I  (i)  496,  499-500;  DE  III  607-614;  PIR"  I  28  A  no.  184; 
Dess.  Ill  I  p.  276;  CIL  XVI  66-86,  suppl.  169,  173,  174;  BMC  III  616. 

5°  For  the  lost  aureus  of  Hadrian  Caesar,  see  BMC  III  124  no.  *  from  a  cast  of  Cohen  II  246 
no.  5,  discussed  by  Hammond  Transmission  92  n.   169. 

'"  Trajan  may  have  used  Caesar  for  the  brief  period  during  which  he  was  heir,  see  Hammond 
Transmission  88-89.  However,  Victor  Caes.  13  12,  quoted  below  n.  57,  puts  the  first  use  of  Caesar 
to  denote  the  heir  as  after  the  adoption  of  Hadrian  and  the  death  of  Trajan.  This  suggests,  but 
does  not  prove,  that  Victor  regarded  Hadrian  as  the  first  to  use  Caesar  as  a  title  of  succession. 

5'  For  the  importance  of  inheritance  in  the  succession,  see  Kornemann  DP  throughout;  Beran- 
ger,  Recherches  etc.  141-149,  connecting  inheritance,  adoption,  and  the  gesture  on  accession  which 
he  calls  "  le  refus  du  pouvoir  ". 


IMPERIAL  ELEMENTS  IN  THE  FORMULA,  ETC.  29 

When  Hadrian  became  emperor,  his  formula  on  coins  first  ran  Imp.  Cues. 
Hadrianus  Aug.,  but  eventually  he  reduced  this  ordinarily  to  Hadrianus  Augus- 
tus. ^^  In  the  east,  the  order  varies  between  Hadrianus  Aug.  and  Aug.  Hadria- 
nus and  it  is  likely  that  this  style,  so  far  as  it  was  not  simply  economical, 
reflects  his  Hellenizing  tendency;  since  Augustus  was  a  title  for  the  ruler,  he 
used  it  in  the  way  in  which  the  Greek  monarchs  had  employed  paaiXeu^,  before 
or  more  commonly  after  a  single  name.  ^*  On  inscriptions,  he  is  usually  Imp. 
Caes.   Traianus  Hadrianus  Aug.  '^ 

Hadrian's  first  choice  as  heir,  L.  Ceionius  Commodus,  retained  his  own  prae- 
nomen  after  his  adoption  but  adopted  the  nomen  of  Hadrian  and  placed  Caesar, 
according  to  the  Julio-Claudian  fashion,  in  the  position  of  a  cognomen  so  that 
he  appears  as  L.  Aelius  Caesar.  '*  The  Life  says  of  him:  nihil  habet  in  sua  uita 
m,emorabile,  nisi  quod  primus  tantum  Caesar  est  appellatus  non  testamento,  ut 
antea  solebat,  neque  eo  modo  quo  Traianus  est  adoptatus,  sed  eo  prope  genere  quo 
nostris  temporibus  a  uestra  dementia  Maximianus  atque  Constantius  Caesares  dicti 
sunt,  quasi  quidam  principum  fili  uirtute  designati  augustae  maiestatis  heredes.  '^ 
The  statement  that  all  Caesares  before  Trajan  had  become  so  by  will  is  perhaps 
a  confused  recollection  that  Caesar  had  been  inherited  as  a  family  name  until 
the  beginning  of  the  second  century.  '*     Nor  would  the  writer  have  known  that 

53  Mattingly,  BMC  III  xxv,  cxv-cxvi,  dates  the  dropping  of  Imp.  Caes.  from  the  coinage  of 
Hadrian  about  125;  Strack,  II  {Hadr.)  12-13,  i^  123/124.  In  general  for  the  formula  of  Hadrian, 
see  L.  Ferret,  La  titulature  imperiale  d'Hadrien. 

5*  For  the  use  of  paaiXciii;  before  or  after  the  personal  name  of  a  ruler,  see  M.  Hammond, 
"  Hellenistic  Influences  on  the  Structure  of  the  Augustan  Principate  "  in  Memoirs  of  the  American 
Academy  in  Rome  XVII  (1940)  13,  esp.  nn.  131- 133.  Beranger,  Recherches  etc.  50,  54,  compares 
|3o«jtX£u<;  with  Imperator  rather  than  with  Augustus.  Mattingly,  MS  III  335;  BMC  III  cliv,  clxi, 
395  no.  1095,  suggests  that  Hadrian's  shortened  formula  with  its  variable  order,  Hadr.  Aug.  or 
Aug.  Hadr.,  was  meant  to  connote  that  he  was  a  second  Augustus;  compare  CAH  XI  307;  Strack 
II  {Hadr.)   13.     But  this  is  perhaps  less  likely  than  the  explanation  in  the  text. 

55  Dess  III  I  p.  276;  this  order  is  invariable  on  the  diplomas  which  have  the  headings  preser- 
ved, CIL  XVI  67-86,  and  not  unexampled  on  coins,  %&^  BMC  III  617;  Strack  II  {Hadr.)  i;  Ferret 
Tit.  Hadr.   15-18.     The  ancestors  usually  come  between /w;^.  Caes.  and  the  rest,  below  p.  56. 

56  For  Aelius,  see  RE  III  (6)  1830-1831;  DE  III  638-639;  PIR^  II  136  no.  605;  Dess.  Ill 
I   p.   277;  BMC  III  622;  Strack  II  {Hadr)    166-167. 

5"  SHA  Ael.  2  1-2  with  uirtute  emended  from  uiri  et\  compare  §  i  2:  qui  primus  tantum 
Caesaris  nomen  accepit,  adoptione  Hadriani  familiae  principum  adscitus.  Actually  previous  heirs 
had  received  Caesar  by  adoption,  see  BMC  I  cli  n.  i.  Compare  SHA  Ver.  i  6:  Lucius  Aelius 
Verus,  qui  ab  Hadriano  adoptatus  primus  Caesar  est  dictus  etc. •,N\cX.  Caes.  13  12:  abhinc  {\!ci&  adoption 
of  Hadrian  and  the  death  of  Trajan;  see  above  n.  51)  diuisa  nomina  Caesarum  atque  Augusti  induc- 
tumque  in  rem  publicam  uti  duo  seu  plures  summae  potentiae  dissimiles  cognomento  ac  potestate 
dispari  sint.  All  of  these  passages  show  that  adoption  was  still  regarded  in  the  fourth  century  as 
an  important  factor  in  assuring  the  orderly  succession  of  someone  not  an  heir  by  blood.  E.  Hohl, 
"  Uber  die  Glaubwiirdigkeit  der  Hist.  Aug.  "  in  Sitz.-ber.  der  deutsch.  Akad.  der  Wiss.  zu  Berlin 
Kl.  fiir  Gesell.-Wiss.  1953  no.  2  ch.  II,  pp.  33-54,  argues  that  the  Life  of  Aelius  is  worthless  as  a 
historical  source  and  shows,  pp.  35-40,  that  it  wrongly  calls  him  Verus  by  confusion  with  his 
son,  who  took  this  name  (Marcus'  family  name,  below  p.  31)  only  when  Marcus  made  him  co- 
emperor  in  161. 

5^  Fossibly  the  confusion  arose  from  a  belief  that  previously  only  emperors  had  been  called 
Caesar;  a  belief  perhaps  based  on  the  title  of  Suetonius'  Vitae  XII  Caesarum,  which  ended  with 
Domitian. 


30  MASON  HAMMOND 

possibly  Trajan  and  Hadrian  had  for  a  brief  time  been  Caesares  without  other 
titles.  "  His  tanium  Caesar  means,  naturally,  "  only  Caesar  (without  other 
title)  ",  and  not  necessarily  "  without  other  powers  ",  since  Aelius  had  held 
the  tribunician  power  and  probably  a  proconsular  imperium.  *°  Despite  these 
inaccuracies,  the  emphasis  laid  by  the  Augustan  History  on  the  significance 
of  the  change  in  the  use  of  Caesar  for  Aelius  is  as  justified  as  is  that  in  the  Life 
of  Marcus  on  the  significance  of  the  status  of  colleague  given  by  Marcus  to 
Verus.  '■  Though  Caesar  appears  as  a  cognomen  in  Aelius'  formula,  it  was  ac- 
tually almost  a  title,  since  his  son  did  not  assume  it  at  the  same  time.  ^"^ 

On  the  death  of  Aelius,  Hadrian  adopted  Titus  Aurelius  Fulvius  Boionius 
Arrius  Antoninus,  who  should  gladly  have  exchanged  so  cumbersome  a  name 
for  Titus  Aelius  Antoninus.  *'  This  new  name  followed  the  practice  of  Aelius 
in  keeping  his  own  praenomen  but  adopting  the  nomen  of  Hadrian.  Antoninus 
assumed  at  once  the  praenomen  Imperatoris.  *''  He  indicated  his  secondary  rank 
by  placing  Caesar  not  immediately  after  Imp.  but  after  T.  Aelius,  as  had  Aelius, 
and  by  not  adding  Augustus.  In  full,  therefore,  his  names  and  titles  as  heir 
read  Imp.  T.  Aelitis  Caesar  Antoninus,   followed  by  his  ancestors  and  honors.  *= 

Upon  his  accession,  he  advanced  Caesar  to  the  imperial  position  after  Imp., 
placed  his  ancestors  between  Imp.  Caesar  and  his  name,  inserted  the  cognomen 
of  Hadrian  after  Aelius,  and  added  Augustus:  Imp.  Caesar  (ancestors)  T.  Aelius 
Hadrianus   Antoninus   Aug.  ^     After    the    grant    of  the  epithet  Pius    and  the 

5'  For  Trajan  and  Hadrian  as  Caesares,  see  above  nn.  46,  50,  51. 

*°  For  Aelius,  see  Hammond  Transmission  93-95.  The  writer  of  the  Life  may  have  thought 
(if  he  thought  at  all,  see  above  n.  57)  that  the  absence  of  imperial  titles,  as  on  the  funeral  inscription, 
C/ZVI   I  985  =  Dess.  329,  implied  the  lack  of  those  powers  which  he  did  not  mention. 

*'  For  Verus,  see  SHA  Marc.  7  6. 

*^  For  Aelius'  use  of  Caesar,  see  von  Rohden  vciRE  HI  (6)  1831,  citing  SHA  Ael.  2  1-2  and 
Ver.  I  6  (both  quoted  above  n.  57);  Mom.  H  2  770  n.  i,  1139  nn.  1-2;  CIL  XV  i  732.  The 
character  of  Cawa/- as  a  title  is  confirmed  by  the  position  of  the  ancestors  following  it,  below  p.  56 
and  n.  220. 

*'  The  coins  of  Antoninus  with  Hadr.  between  Caesar  and  Antoninus,  BMC  HI  369  no.  ='=, 
532  no.  i848n.,  S51  no.  -f-  and  no.  1498  n.,  seem  to  be  hybrids,  see  S track  I H  {Ant)  3i7nos.  8a, 
9;  BMC  III  clii.  Hadrianus  does  not  occur  in  inscriptions  before  Antoninus'  accession,  see  Dess. 
Ill  I  p.  278;  W.  Hiittl,  Antoninus  Pius  I  50-51.  Compare  RE  II  (4)  2497-2499;  DE  I  499-500; 
PIR''  I  310  A  no.  1513  Doer  Namengebung  122-123;  CAH  XI  330;  G.  Lacour-Gayet,  Antoninus 
Pius  34.  Antoninus'  original  name  shows  how  the  republican  practice  of  using  only  three  names 
had  broken  down  because  of  the  desire  to  perpetuate  the  memory  of  blood  or  adoptive  relationships. 
The  preservation  after  his  adoption  by  Hadrian  of  elements  of  his  original  name  without  alteration 
is  also  characteristic  of  the  practice  under  the  empire;  compare,  for  instance,  Pliny  the  Younger's 
preservation  of  Caecilius  after  his  adoption  by  his  uncle  Plinius,  see  below  n.  225.  Under  the 
republic,  an  adopted  person  took  the  name  of  his  new  father  and  preserved  his  former  name  at 
most  in  a  derivative  form  as  an  epithet,  for  instance.  Gains  Caesar  Octauianus,  see  above  nn.  3,  29. 

'"'  For  Antoninus'  assumption  of  Imp.,  see  BMC  III  clii;  compare  CIL  VI  i  998  =  Dess. 
331  =Huttl  Ant.  II  229;  CIL  III  suppl.  13795  =  Dess.  8909  =  Hiittl  Ant.  II  222. 

*5  For  Antoninus' use  of  C(7Mar,  see  Hiittl  ^«/.  I  73  n.  8.  Vogt,  ^Z^*.  Miinzen  I  4,  111-112, 
132,  regards  the  insertion  of  Caesar  in  the  name  of  Antoninus  as  evidence  that  he  was  a  "  Biir- 
gerkaiser  ",  a  "  constitutional  monarch  ",  but  Titus  had  also  done  so,  see  above  p.  26.  For  the 
position  of  the  ancestors  after  the  names  in  the  formulas  of  Caesares,  see  below  p.  57. 

**  For  Antoninus' imperial  formula,  see  Dess.  Ill  i  p.  278;  CILXNl  87-117,  suppl.  177-184. 
The  coins  of  138/139  show  both  Imp.  Caes.  Ael.  Antoninus  Aug.  and  Imp.  T.  Ael.  Caes.  Hadr.  Ante- 


IMPERIAL  ELEMENTS  IN  THE  FORMULA,  ETC.  31 

honor  pater  patriae  the  obverses  of  coins  usually  show,  from  139  onwards,  simply 
Antoninus  Aug.  Pius  p.  p.  *'. 

Antoninus,  upon  his  adoption  by  Hadrian,  had  been  asked  in  his  turn  to 
adopt  his  wife's  nephew,  Marcus,  and  the  son  of  Aelius,  L.  Ceionius  Commo- 
dus.  *^  Marcus  had  originally  been  named  for  his  mother's  grandfather,  M.  An- 
nius  Catilius  Seuerus,  but  when  his  father  died  about  130,  he  was  adopted  by 
his  father's  father  and  changed  his  name  to  M.  Annius  Verus.  *'  After  their 
adoption  by  Antoninus,  the  youths  became  respectively  M.  Aelius  Aurelius 
Verus  and  L.  Aelius  Aurelius  Commodus.  '°  These  names  followed  the  pre- 
cedent of  Antoninus  himself:  personal  praenomen,  nomen  and  cognomen  of  pre- 
decessor, and  personal  cognomen.  ''  When  Marcus  became  destined  successor 
in  138-139,  he  added  Caesar  at  the  end  of  his  names.  '"^  This  change  from 
Antoninus'  practice  of  including  Caesar  within  the  name  suggests  that  it  had 
become  fully  a  title.  The  other  youth  remained  simply  Augusti filius .  "  When 
Marcus  received  the  tribunician  power  on  Dec.  i,  147,  and  the  secondary  pro- 
consular  imperium,    he    made   no  change  in  his  names  and  titles.  '*     When    he 

ninus  I  Aug.,  see  BMC  IV  1-7,  10-15,  169-171,  175,  177.  Hence  the  change  from  his  previous 
formula  was  not  made  at  once,  see  Strack  III  {Ant.)  1-4.  So  little  evidence  survives  for  the  for- 
mulas of  Trajan  and  Hadrian  during  the  lives  of  their  predecessors  that  it  cannot  be  proved  that 
the  adoption  of  the  predecessor's  cognomen  only  after  his  death  followed  a  practice  established 
by  them.  The  lost  aureus  of  Hadrian,  above  n.  50,  if  it  was  genuine,  suggests  that  he  used  Tra- 
ianus  at  once.  Hadrian  never  used  Ulpius  nor  had  Trajan  used  Cocceius.  On  the  other  hand, 
Aelius  used  only  Aelius,  not,  like  Antoninus,  Hadrianus  as  well.  Antoninus  apparently  began  by 
using  Aelius  alone  and  then  added  Hadrianus.  Perhaps  this  is  an  example  of  his  pietas  towards 
his  unpopular  predecessor,  see  below  p.  47.  Verus,  unlike  Marcus,  did  not  use  Aurelius  until 
after  his  accession. 

*^  BMC  IV  xxiv  (/.  /.),  XXV  {Pius),  16,  177;  Strack  HI  {Anl.)  5.  The  reverses  after  139 
usually  show  tr.  p.  cos.  II.  After  139,  Imp.  Caes.  T.  Ael.  Hadr.  Antoninus  Aug.  Pius  p.p.  con- 
tinues to  appear  occasionally  on  obverses,  see  BMC  IV  924  index  VI  j.  u.,  especially  in  151/152, 
pp.   105-110,  309-315;  Strack  III  {Ant.)  8,  23. 

*^  Marcus'  father,  Annius  Verus,  married  Domitia  Lucilla,  sister  of  Faustina  the  Elder;  see 
RE  I  (2)  2289-2290. 

^  For  the  adoption  of  Marcus  by  his  grandfather,  see  RE  I  (2)  2282. 

">  For  Marcus'  formula,  seeRE  I  (2)  2283;  DE  I  943-944;  PIR"  I  119^  no.  697;  Dess.  Ill  i 
p.  280.  For  Verus',  see  RE  HI  (6)  1834-1835;  {DE  has  not  reached  V);  PIR^  II  138  C  no.  606; 
Dess.  Ill  I  p.  282.     For  the  diplomas,  see  below  n.  75. 

''  The  failure  to  perpetuate  any  element  of  Trajan's  name  is  curious;  it  can  hardly  reflect 
doubts  as  to  the  validity  of  Hadrian's  adoption,  since  upon  this  depended  the  line  of  succession 
and  because  Trajan  continued  to  appear  among  the  ancestors,  see  below  p.  57.  Did  the  peaceful 
and  "  senatorial  "  Antoninus  want  to  obscure  the  memory  of  his  warlike  and  military  predecessor.? 
But  Hadrian,  too,  is  portrayed  as  more  anti-senatorial  than  Trajan,  yet  Antoninus  preserved  two 
of  Hadrian's  names.  Antoninus  may  have  hoped  to  make  Aelius  a  gentile  name  for  the  ruling 
house,  as  Aurelius  was  to  become  under  the  Severi;  if  so,  Marcus  abandoned  the  project  by  drop- 
ping Aelius  when  he  became  emperor,  see  below  n.  75. 

'^  For  Marcus' formula  as  Ca(?.far,  see  j^.fi' I  (2)  2284;  Hiittl  Ant.  I  73  n.  8.  Various  elements 
may  be  omitted,  see  Dess.  Ill  i  p.  280;  and  the  coins  show  chieilj  Aurelius  Caesar  hut  edso  M.  Au- 
relius Caesar,   see  BMC  IV  913-914,   931    in  index  V;  Strack   III  {Ant.)  13. 

'3  For  Verus'  formula  as  Caesar,  see  SHA  Ver.  3  4-5;  CIL  III  3843  =  Dess.  358.  There  are 
no  coins  for  him  of  so  early  a  date. 

'♦  For  Marcus'  tr.  pot.,  see  M.  Hammond,  "The  Tribunician  Day:  A  Reexamination"  in 
Memoirs  of  the  American  Academy  in  Rome   XIV   (1949)  56-63,  73-74.     The   absence  of    the  prae- 


32  MASON  HAMMOND 

became  emperor,  he  dropped  Aelius,  placed  Imp.  Caesar  first,  and  added  Au- 
gustus: Imp.  Caes.  M.  Aurelius  Antoninus  Aug.  "  He  gave  fulfillment  to  the 
wishes  of  Hadrian  by  associating  his  adoptive  brother  in  the  rule  with  the  for- 
mula Imp.  Caes.  L.  Aurelius  Verus  Aug.  '*  After  164,  Marcus'  coins  regularly 
show  M.  Antoninus  Aug.  " 

The  titles  of  Commodus  resembled  in  their  changes  those  of  Marcus.  He 
began  simply  as  L.  {Aelius)  Aurelius  Commodus.  '^  In  166,  he  added  Caesar.  " 
In  177  he  became  full  colleague  of  Marcus  with  the  formula  Imp.  Caes.  L.  {Aelius) 
Aurelius  Commodus  Aug.  followed  by  the  ancestors.  ^°  The  death  of  Marcus 
meant  no  change  in  his  titles,  but  he  altered  his  praenomen  to  Marcus,  advanced 
his  ancestors  to  the  "  imperial  "  position  within  his  name,  permanently  dropped 
Aelius,  and  added  the  by  now  dynastic  name  Antoninus  after  Commodus:  Imp. 
Caes.  (ancestors)  M.  Aurelius  Commodus  Antoninus  Aug.  ^'  On  the  coins  the 
formula  is,  like  those  of  his  predecessors,  usually  shortened;  at  first  it  is  sometimes 
M.  Antoninus  Commodus  Aug.  but  often  also  (and  later  always)  M.  Commodus 


nomen  Imp.  shows  that  this  had  no  connection  with  the  proconsular  imperium,  and  that  it  had 
probably  come  to  signify  the  supreme  rule.  Tr.  p.  naturally  figured  in  the  republican  part  of  his 
formula. 

'5  For  Marcus'  imperial  formula,  see  RE  I  (2)  2291-2292.  For  his  diplomas  with  Verus,  see 
CIL  XVI  121-125,  suppl.  185-186;  there  survives  only  one  of  Marcus  alone,  no.  127  with  the  formula 
lost,  and  one  of  Marcus  with  Commodus,  no.  128.  Dessau  gives  one  inscription,  CIL  VI  1012 
=  Dess.  360,  from  Rome,  with  Aelius;  the  coins  often  omit  Caes.  or  Imp.  Caes.,  as  they  do  for 
Hadrian  and  Antoninus,  and  occasionally  Aurelius,  but  rarely  M.,  since  this  was  necessary  to 
distinguish  Marcus  from  Lucius,  see  BMC  IV  cix-cx. 

'*  For  Verus'  imperial  formula,  see  RE  III  (6)  1938-1840;  for  the  diplomas,  see  last  note. 
The  coins  of  Verus  frequently  omit  Imp.  Caes.  and  Aurelius  but  very  rarely  L.,  MS  III  249,  see 
last  note.  SHA  Marc.  7  5  says  that  Lucius  retained  Commodus  after  Verus  but  the  coins  and 
inscriptions  do  not  support  this.  Compare  also  Hohl  Uber  die  GlaubwUrdigkeit  usw.  (above  n.  57) 
35-43.  It.  is  interesting  that  Marcus  had  his  colleague  assume  his  own  family  cognomen  and  his 
son  that  of  his  colleague. 

"  BMC  cix-cxv;  M.  is  occasionally  omitted  on  the  coins  of  Marcus.  Epithets  of  victory 
and  the  trib.  pot.  often  follow  the  name  on  the  obverse. 

"  For  Commodus,  see  RE  II  (4)  2469-2471;  Z^S  II  i  550-556;  RIR^  I  301  C  no.  1482;  Dess 
II   I   283-284.     For  his  use  of  "  Aelius  ",   see  below  n.  80. 

'9  SHA  Com.  II  13  gives  the  date  on  which  Commodus  became  Cawar  as  Oct.  12,  166,  perhaps 
from  an  official  calendar,  see  RE  II  (6)  2466;  J.  M.  lieer,£>er  historische  Wert  der  Vita  Commodi 
usw.  166-172.  His  brother,  M.  Annius  Verus,  was  also  made  Caesar  but  died  in  169,  see  RE  I  (2) 
2309.  Coins  show  Commodus  Caesar  first  in  175,  see  BMC  IV  475,  476,  641.  For  inscriptions 
see  Dess.   Ill  i  p.  283. 

*>  For  Commodus'  imperial  formula  as  colleague  of  Marcus,  see  Hammond  Tr.  Day  52-53; 
RE  II  (4)  2468.  Aelius  is  usually  omitted  by  Commodus;  DE  II  i  550  gives  no  case  of  its 
occurrence,  but  it  appears  in  the  diploma  of  Marcus  and  Commodus  of  Mar.  23,  178,  CIL  XVI  128 
(omitted  by  DE),  and  in  an  inscription  from  Praeneste,  Dess.  376,  see  also  III  i  p.  283.  For 
Commodus'  placing  of  the  ancestors,  see  below  p.  56;  their  position  probably  indicates  a  certain 
subordination.  On  the  coins,  Commodus  dropped  Caes.,  whether  before  or  after  his  name,  as  soon 
as  he  received  Aug.,  see  BMC  IV  497,  669;  compare  on  Marcus  above  n.  75.  Commodus  also  drop- 
ped the  praenomen  Imp.  on  coins  as  soon  as  his  salutations  began,  see  BMC  IV  499,  672.  His 
predecessors  had  likewise  tended  to  eliminate  Imp.  Caes.  from  the  coinage. 

''  For  Commodus'  imperial  formula  as  sole  emperor,  see  RE  II  (4)  2469;  Dess.  Ill  i  283-284; 
for  the  one  diploma,  see  below  n.  84. 


IMPERIAL  ELEMENTS  IN  THE  FORMULA,  ETC.  33 

Antoninus  Aug.  ^^  He  probably  dropped  Aurelius  and  retained  Commodus  to 
distirguish  himself  from  Marcus.  In  186,  as  will  be  shown  below,  he  advanced 
Pius  Felix  from  a  position  among  the  epithets  to  one  before  Augustus  so  that 
thereafter  they  became  titles,  or  at  least  modifiers  oi  Augustus.  ^^  Late  in  191, 
however,  he  resumed  his  original  names  and  replaced  Pius  Felix  after  Augustus 
so  that  his  final  formula  ran  Imp.  Caes.  (ancestors)  Z.  Aelius  Aurelius  Commodus 
Aug.  Pius  Felix.  ^*  The  reason  for  this  reversion  is  hard  to  imagine;  von  Rohden 
thought  that  he  desired  to  break  with  the  tradition  of  Marcus  and  to  stand  indepen- 
dently, but  the  preservation  oi  Aurelius  and  the  resumption  of  ^^/m^  maintained 
his  connection  with  his  predecessors.  ^^  Possibly  he  dropped  Marcus  and  Anto- 
ninus because  they  had  more   "  republican  "   connotations   than  Aelius. 

The  ephemeral  successors  of  Commodus  kept  to  the  forms  established  by 
the  Antonines.  ^*  For  Pertinax,  the  coins  and  inscriptions  show  Imp.  Caes. 
P.  Heluius  Pertinax  Aug.  ^'  The  Life  says  that  on  the  day  on  which  the  titles 
were  voted  to  him,  he  also  received  that  of  pater  patriae,  which  it  calls  the  first 
instance  of  so  early  a  grant  of  this  honor.  It  adds  that  his  wife  got  the  title 
Augusta  but  that  Pertinax  refused  this  for  her  and  Caesar  for  his  son.  *'  These 
statements  are  of  dubious  value,  and  the  assertion  later  in  the  Augustan  History 
that  both  Pertinax  and  Didius  took  the  cognomen  oi  Antoninus  receives  no  support 
from  the  epigraphic  and  numismatic  evidence.  *'  Didius  appears  as  Imp. 
Caes.  M.  Didius  {Seuerus)  lulianus  Aug.  ^  His  Life  says  that  he  took  Seuerus 
on  his  accession  at  the  suggestion  of  the  consul  designate.  ''  But  its  infrequent 
occurrence  suggests  that  he  assumed  it  in  competition  with  Septimius,  perhaps 
when  he  offered   to  share   the  power  with  his  rival.  '^     Dio  and  Herodian  add 

^^  For  the  variations  in  the  order  of  Commodus'  formula  during  180/183,  ^^e  BMC  IV  697- 
708,  759-789- 

83  For   the   position  of  Pius  Felix,   see  below  p.  48;  BMC  IV  721,  802. 

*■•  For  Commodus'  final  formula,  see  BMC  IV  746,  833;  Vogt  Alex.  Miinzen  I  147,  after  Aug. 
29,  191.  The  coins  of  Commodus  usually  omit  Imp.  Caes.,  see  above  n.  80.  The  inscriptions  some- 
times retain  the  order  Pius  Felix  Aug.,  for  instance,  CIL  VIII  305  =  Dess.  378,  from  Africa;  com- 
pare DE  II  I  553,  to  which  add  CIL  XVI  133,  a  diploma  of  Mar.  16,  192.  For  a  full  formula, 
see  Dio  LXXII  (LXXIII)  15  5.  Commodus  is  also  said  to  have  used  the  gladiatorial  title  palus 
primus  secutorum,  see  SHA  Com.   15  8;  Dio  LXXII  (LXXIII)  22  2. 

*5  von  Rohden  in  RE  II  (4)  2470. 

^  For  the  circumstances  and  dates  of  the  accessions  of  the  successors  of  Commodus,  see  Ham- 
mond Transmission  107-110.     For  their  formulas  on  coins,  see  BMC  V  xxxii-xxxv. 

^'  For  Pertinax's  formula,  see  RE  Suppl.  Ill  899;  PIR  II  131  P  no.  49;  Dess.  Ill  i  285; 
BMCN  I,  5;  K.  Pink  vsxNum.  Zschr.  LXVI  23;  L.  Giordano,  Pertinace  etc.  173-199;  {DE  has  not 
yet  reached  P). 

*'  The  grant  of  powers  to  Pertinax  is  given  in  SHA  Pert.  5-6;  see  BMC  V  Ixv,  esp.  n.  3,  and 
Ixvi-lxvii. 

*9  The  statement  in  SHA  Macr.  3  6  and  Diad.  6  3  that  Pertinax  and  Didius  called  themselves 
Antoninus  is  rejected  in  RE  Suppl.   Ill  899  and  in  V  (9)  412. 

9°  For  Didius'  formula,  see  RE  V  (9)  412;  DE  IV  176;  PIR  IIP  16  D  no.  77;  Dess.  Ill  i 
p.  285;  BMC  V  11-12,   14-15;  Pink  in  Num.  Zschr.  LXVI   23. 

9'  For  Didius'  use  of  Seuerus,  see  SHA  Did.  7  2. 

9^  Mattingly,  BMC  V  Ixx,  thinks  that  Seuerus  may  have  been  part  of  Didius'  original  name 
but  that  he  used  it  on  coins,  see  pp.  12,  15,  only  when  he  wished  to  come  to  terms  with  Septimius. 

5 


34  MASON  HAMMOND 

that  the  praetorians  hailed  him  as  Commodus  but  no  evidence  survives  to  show 
that  he  used  this  name.  '^  Pescennius  placed  Justus  before  Augustus  upon  his 
accession,  in  imitation  of  the  position  in  which  Commodus  had  put  Pius:  Imp. 
Caes.  C.  Pescennius  Niger  {Justus)  Aug.  '''  Clodius  inserted  Septimius  among 
his  names,  possibly  on  the  occasion  of  his  adoption,  if  indeed  he  was  adopted, 
by  Septimius.  "  He  is  at  first  D.  Clodius  [Septimius)  Albinus  Caes.;  later  Jmp. 
Caes.  D.  Clodius  {Septimius)  Albinus  Aug. 

Septimius  began  a  new  dynasty.  When  he  first  took  the  imperial  titles  in 
193,  he  inserted  Pertinax  as  a  second  cognomen  after  Seuerus,  to  ingratiate  him- 
self both  with  the  senate  and  with  the  legionaries,  who  had  been  disgusted  by 
the  praetorians'  elevation  of  Didius.  '*  His  early  formula  runs  Jmp.  Caes. 
L.  Septimius  Seuerus  Pertinax  Aug.  ''  In  195,  he  connected  himself  by  a  pre- 
tended adoption  with  the  Antonine  house.  ''  He  then  inserted  as  ancestors  in 
the  imperial  position  his  predecessors  back  to  Nerva  and  including  Commodus 


'3  For  Didius'  supposed  use  of  Commodus,  see  Dio  LXXIII  (LXXIV)  12  i;  Her.  II  6  11; 
and  compare  Otho's  supposed  use  oi  Nero,  above  n.  22. 

*•  For  Pescennius  Niger's  formula,  see  RE2  XIX  (37)  1090;  {DE  has  not  yet  reached  P); 
J.  Hasebroek,  Untersuchung  zur ...  K.  Sept.  Sev.  154;  Dess.  Ill  i  p.  285;  BMC  Y  ex,  71,  74. 
Mattingly,  BMC  V  cvii-cix,  remarks  that  though  the  bulk  of  Pescennius'  coinage  was  struck 
at  Antioch,  mints  may  have  been  active  elsewhere  in  the  east.  He  struck  no  aes.  Pink, 
Num.  Zschr.  LXVI  24-25,  gives  no  formulas  for  Pescennius.  Justus  may  have  been  an  epithet 
qualifying  Pescennius  himself  or  an  adjective  modifying  Augustus,  see  below  p.  49;  BMC 
V  XXXV.  As  it  appears  only  after  his  elevation  as  emperor,  it  was  probably  not  part  of  his 
original  name. 

w  For  Clodius  Albinus,  see  RE  IV  (7)  67;  DE  I  390;  PIR''  II  280  Z)  no.  ii86;  Dess  III 
I  p.  285;  Hasebroek  Sept.  28;  BMCN  Ixxxii,  ciii,  35,  63-71,  132,  155;  Pink  in  Num  Zs(Ar.L.XVl 
25-26.  Mattingly,  BMC  V  Ixxxii,  thinks  that  Septimius  was  part  of  Clodius'  original  name,  which 
he  began  to  use  on  coins  as  a  compliment  to  Septimius  Severus.  The  presence  or  absence  of 
Septimius  on  the  coins  of  Clodius  is  not  significant  for  the  dating  as  it  appears  on  coins  with  both 
Caes.  and  Aug.  All  Clodius'  coinage  was  struck  at  Lyons  and  only  one  aes  of  him  as  Aug.  is  listed 
in  BMC  V  cvi,  155  no.  622. 

«*  For  Septimius'  formula,  see  SHA  Sept.  7  9;  Her.  II  10  9,  who  attributes  the  name  Pertinax 
to  the  acclamations  of  the  legionaries.  SHA  Pert.  15  2  says:  a  senatu  Pertinacis  nomen  accepit; 
see  Her.  II  14  3;  Hasebroek  Sept.  42-43;  below  p.  49.  Pertinax  appears  on  the  earliest  coins  of 
Alexandria,  those  of  year  2,  namely  Aug.  29,  193/  Aug.  28,  194,  see  Vogt  Alex.  Miinzen  I  160.  On 
the  date  of  Septimius'  elevation,  see  Hammond  Tr.  Day  54  n.  370. 

9'  For  Septimius'  formula,  see  RE2  II  (4)  1943;  {DE  has  not  yet  reached  S);  PIR  III  213  6' 
no  346;  Dess.  Ill  i  p.  285;  CIL  XVI  134,  the  only  surviving  diploma  of  Septimius  alone,  dated 
Feb.  I,  194;  CIL  VIII  1 170  =  Dess.  413  =  Hasebroek  Sept.  no.  4  =  G.  J.  Murphy,  The  Reign 
oftheEmp.  L.  Sept.  Sev.  etc.  7,  an  inscription  of  193;  BMC  V  Ixxix,  cxxx,  and  the  coins  through- 
out; Pink  in  Num.  Zschr.  LXVI  27.  Septimius  often  omits  Imp.  Caes.  at  the  beginning  of  his 
formula  on  coins  and  later  dropped  Pert,  to  make  room  for  Parth.  Max.  Murphy's  appendix  B, 
pp.    102-103,   on  "Imperial  Titles"   is   somewhat  summary. 

98  For  Septimius'  invention  of  a  relationship  with  the  Antonines,  see  Dio  LXXV  (LXXVI) 
7  4,  and  §  8  for  his  postumous  honors  to  Commodus.  Dio,  LXXVI  (LXXVII)  9  4,  reports  a 
joke  by  Aspax  on  the  occasion  of  Septimius'  adoption  which  may  imply  that  this  was  announced 
in  (and  confirmed  by  .')  the  senate.  Hasebroek,  Sept.  88-93,  points  out  that  Septimius  first  appears 
&f.diui  M.  Piif.  on.  corns  oi  tr.  p.  Ill  imp.  V.  The  third /r.  pot.  began  on  Dec.  10,  194,  or  Jan. 
I,  195,  and  the  fifth  salutation  was  his  first  for  the  Parthian  war,  see  Hammond  Tr.  Day  54-56; 
RE2  II  (4)  1943,  1960-1961. 


IMPERIAL  ELEMENTS  IN  THE  FORMULA,  ETC.  35 

as  his  brother,  and  he  placed  Pius  in  his  name  before  Pertinax.  ''  He  did  not, 
however,  himself  assume  the  nara^  Antoninus ,  as  is  asserted  in  theZz/^ofMacrinus. 
However,  when  Septimius  made  his  eldest  son,  Bassianus,  Caesar  in  196, 
he  renamed  him  M.  Aurelius  (or  Aurellius)  Antoninus  Caesar.  '°°  Bassianus  is 
commonly  known  by  the  nickname  Caracalla,  properly  Caracallus,  derived  from 
a  Gallic  cloak  which,  when  he  became  emperor,  he  adopted  for  his  own  use  and 
prescribed  for  the  troops  '°'.  About  a  year  after  he  became  Caesar,  perhaps  on 
the  occasion  of  the  defeat  of  Albinus  in  February,  197,  Caracalla  acquired  the 
novel  title  of  Imperator  destinatus,  placed  after  Caesar.  '"^  This  title  shows  to 
what  a  degree  Imperator  had  ceased  to  be  an  honorary  praenomen  and  had  come 
to  denote  the  "  emperor  ".  During  the  winter  of  198,  after  the  capture  of 
Ctesiphon,  Septimius  raised  Caracalla  to  full  colleagueship  under  the  formula 
Imp.  Caes.  M.  Aurelius  (or  Aurellius^  Antoninus  Aug.  '°^  By  200,  Caracalla 
had  inserted  Pius  and  probably  Felix  before  Augustus,  in  imitation  of  Commo- 
dus.  '"^  He  appears  on  the  coins  from  194  as  Ajitoninus  Augustus,  from  201  as 
Antoninus  Pius  Augustus ,  and  also  after  207  as  M .  Aurelius  Antoninus  Pius 
Augustus.  '°' 


**  For  the  Antonine  ancestors,  see  below,  p.  57;  for  Pius,  below  pp.  49-50.  Pius  does  not 
appear  in  Septimius'  diploma  of  Feb.  i,  194,  CIL  XVI  134.  The  inscriptions  often  omit  it  or 
■^\2i<z&'\\2S\.^x  Pertinax  Aug.,  see  Dess.  Ill  i  p.  285.  On  the  coins  it  first  appears  in  201:  Seuerus 
{Pius)  Aug.;  see  Hasebroek  Sepl.  92  n.  i  (dating  in  200);  BMC  V  cxlvii  (201-209),  190,  202, 
(201),  299  {aes  only  in  202). 

'°°  For  Caracalla's  formula,  see  J?£  II  (4)  2435-2438;  Z)^  II  i  105-107;  P/P  203  S  no.  321; 
Dess.  Ill  I  288-290;  C/L  XVI  135  (with  Severus),  137  and  138  (both  alone).  For  Caracalla's  assump- 
tion of  the  Antonine  name,  see  SHA  Macr.  3  6,  Diad.  6  3;  Her.  Ill  10  5.  The  spelling  Aurellius 
is  regular  for  Caracalla  and  common  for  Elagabalus  and  Alexander,  see  Thesaurus  Linguae  Latinae 
(hereafter  TLL)  II  1482  lines  74  ff.  s.  u.  The  first  occurrence  of  this  spelling  on  a  diploma  is 
on  that  of  Septimius  and  Caracalla  of  208,  CIL  XVI  135,  quoted  at  the  opening  of  this  article; 
compare  137  of  Jan  7,  216;  138  has  lost  all  of  his  name  eyx,e-^\.Yoninus .  No.  139,  of  Elagabalus 
in  221,  hus  Aurelius  on  the  inside  (which  by  then  had  come  to  be  the  less  exact  of  the  two  texts, 
inside  and  outside).  Nos.  142,  143,  144,  145,  and  suppl.  189,  of  Alexander,  have  Aurellius  except 
that  143  has  Aurelio  (for  Aurellius)  inside.  The  coinage  seems  to  show  one  /,  see  below,  n.  iii. 
Caracalla's  original  name  was  probably  {Septimius')  Bassianus;  his  oxxgiTViX  praenomen  is  not  known. 
Bassianus  derived  from  the  father  of  Julia  Domna,  his  mother.  For  his  initial  coinage  in  186,  see 
BMC  V  xcii,  43,  50,   150;  Pink  in  Num.  Zschr.  LXVI  27. 

'°'  The  form  of  the  nickname  is  either  Caracallus  or  Caracalla,  see  the  refs.  in  RE  II  (4) 
2436  §  3,  where  its  meaning  is  also  discussed;  also  TLL  III  427-428  for  the  word  and  7ZZ  Ono- 
masticon  II  178  for  its  use  as  a  name.  Dio,  LXXIX  (LXXVIII)  33,  discusses  both  the  nickname 
Caracalla  and  two  others  which  he  uses  more  regularly  for  this  emperor,  namely  Bassianus  or 
Tar  aulas,  see  also  §  9  3. 

'"'^  For  Caracalla  as  Imp.  dest.,  see  RE  II  (4)  2440-2441;  DE  II  i  107;  Dess.  Ill  i  288; 
BMC  V  xcv,  52  (silver  but  not  aes,  see  p.  152);  Pink  in  Num.  Zschr.  LXVI  34;  Beranger  Recher- 
ches  etc.  148-149,  who  notes  the  variant  imp.  designatus  in  one  African  inscription,  CIL.,  VIII  10569 
=  suppl.   14394. 

■°3  For  Caracalla  as  Augustus,  see  SHA  Sept.  14  3;  CIL  VIII  2465  =  Dess.  2485;  RE  II  (4) 
2441;  RE2  II  (4)   197 1;  Hasebroek  Sept.  113. 

'"■t  For  Caracalla's  assumption  oi  Pius  and  Felix,  see  below  nn.  191,  193. 

'°5  For  the  formulas  of  Caracalla  on  coins,  see  BMC  V  cxxx,  clxxi,  329,  345,  351;  Pink  in 
Num.  Zschr.  LXVI  28-29.  The  formula  M.  Aur{el).  Antoninus  Pius  Aug.  occurs  only  on  aes;  Pink 
dates  it  to  207,  Mattingly  to  202-209  (211). 


36 


MASON  HAMMOND 


Already  in  198,  his  brother  Geta  had  in  his  turn  acquired  a  novel  title:  Z., 
later  P.,  Septimius  Geta  nobilissimus  Caesar.  "°*  Towards  the  end  of  209,  Geta 
became  equal  to  Caracalla  with  the  formula  Imp.  Caes.  P.  Septimius  Geta  Pius 
Aug.  "''  Naturally,  as  Augusti,  both  Caracalla  and  Geta  have  the  Antonine 
ancestry  in  the  imperial  position.  '°^ 

The  death  of  Septimius  in  211  occasioned  no  change  in  the  formulas  of  his 
two  sons  nor  did  the  murder  of  Geta  alter  his  brother's,  unless  it  made  Felix 
more  regularly  part  of  his  name  than  it  had  hitherto  been  '°'.  The  inscrip- 
tion of  Caracalla's  reign  occasionally  insert  Seuerus  between  Aurelius  and  Anto- 
ninus but  this  was  probably  not  an  official  practice  since  it  does  not  appear 
on  the  coins  or  on  the  one  surviving  diploma  issued  by  him  alone.  "°  His 
coins  continue  to  show  both  Antoninus  Pius  Augustus  and  M.  Aurelius  Anto- 
ninus Pius   (Felix)  Augtistus.  '" 

The  equestrian  upstart  Macrinus  preserved  the  Severan  style:  Imp.  Caes. 
M.  Opellius  Seuerus  Macrinus  Pius  Felix  Aug.  '"  He  inserted  the  Seuefus  to 
connect  himself  with  his  predecessors,  though  he  seems  to  have  omitted  the  an- 
cestors."' His  son  appears  as  M.  Opellius  Antoninus  Diadumenianus  nobilissimus 
Caesar.  "^   No  epigraphical  evidence  confirms  the  statement  of  Dio  that  Macri- 

'°6  For  Geta's  formula,  see i?^2  II  (4)  1566-1568;  Z?£  III  527-528; /V/?  Ill  206  ^no.  325;  Dess. 
Ill  I  p.  291;  there  are  no  diplomas.  The  coins  do  not  show  nobilissimus  before  Caesar,  BMC 
V  cxxx,  cxxxviii;  Pink  in  Num.  Zschr.  LXVI  27;  compare  below  n.  119  for  Alexander.  Many 
inscriptions  and  the  earliest  coins  give  Geta's /we^owze'w  as  Z.;  Mattingly,  BMC  V  cxxx,  dates  the 
change  to  P.  in  202.     For  the  title  nobilissimus  Caesar,  see  McFayden  Hist.  Title  Imp.  65  n.   104. 

'°'  The  coins  of  Geta  change  from  Caes.  to  Aug.  in  209,  see  BMC  V  clxxvi,  clxxviii,  clxxxii; 
Pink  in  Num.  Zschr.  LXVI  29. 

108  For  the  Antonine  ancestry  for  Caracalla  and  Geta,  see  below  p.  57;  Dess.  Ill  i  pp.  289,  291. 

"^  For  Caracalla's  use  of  Pius  and  Felix,  see  below  nn.   191,   193. 

"°  For  Caracalla's  use  oi  Seuerus,  see  PE  II  (4)  2436;  P>E  II  i  105-106;  Dess.  Ill  i  p.  289. 
C/L  XVI  137,  a  diploma  of  Jan.  7,  216,  lacks  it.  For  the  unreliability  of  Severan  inscriptions  in 
matters  of  titles,  see  W.  F.  Snyder  in  Memoirs  of  the  American  Academy  in  Rome  XV  (1938) 
62-69;  Mom.   II  2  801  n.  3. 

'"  For  coins  of  Caracalla  as  sole  emperor,  see  BMC  V  cxciv-cxcv,  cc-ccii,  ccix-ccxi;  Pink  in 
Num.  Zschr.  LXVII  4.  M.  Aurel.  Antoninus  Pius  {Felix)  Aug.  continues  to  appear  only  on  the  aes, 
see^J/CV  474  ff.  ^J/C  V  index  V  lists  only  a  unique  a2<rf«j-,  p.  i74n.  121,  that  spells  out  ^2<re//«.f; 
which,  with  the  frequent  Aurel.,  suggests  that  this,  rather  than  Aurellius,  was  the  spelling  preferred  by 
the  mint,  see  above  n.   100. 

'"  For  Macrinus'  formula,  see  RE  XVIII  (35)  541-542;  {DE  has  not  yet  reached  M);  FIR 
II  433  O  no.  71;  Dess.  Ill  i  p.  291  (there  are  no  diplomas);  Vogt  Alex.  Miinzen  I  173  Pink 
in  Num.  Zschr.  LXVI  50-54;  BMC  V  ccxvi.     The  coins  omit  Pius  Felix. 

"3  Both  SHA  Macr.  5  7  and  Dio,  LXXVIII  (LXXIX)  16  2,  37  5,  comment  that  Macrinus  had 
no  right  to  Seuerus.  SHA  Macr.  2  i  also  attributes  to  him  Antoninus,  probably  from  con- 
fusion with  his  son,  and  in  §  11  2,  Pertinax,  both  incorrectly;  see  H.  J.  Bassett,  Macrinus  and 
Diadumenianus  li,.  The  eastern  coins  also  show  6'^«<;r«j- regularly,  see  the  indices  to  the Hunterian 
Coll.  and  the  British  Museum  Catalogues  of  Greek  coins.  For  the  absence  of  ancestors  in  Macrinus' 
formula  see  refs.  above  in  n.   112. 

"*  For  the  formula  of  Diadumenianus,  see  RE  XVIII  (35)  540;  (DE  II  2  1727  postpones  to  the 
still  unpublished  article  Macrinus);  FIR  II  433  O  no.  70;  Dess.  Ill  i  p.  292;  BMC  V  ccxix; 
Basset  Macr.  26.  The  coins  occasionally  omit  Ant.  Dess.  462a,  a  lead  pipe  from  Rome,  uniquely 
gives  Seuerus  instead  of  Antoninus.  For  Antoninus,  see  Dio  LXXVIII  (LXXIX)  19  i,  37  6 
SHA  Macr.  2  5-3  9,  6  6,  7  5-8,   10  6,  14  1-2,  Diad.  1-2,  6-7,  Alex.  9  3. 


IMPERIAL  ELEMENTS  IN  THE  FORMULA,  ETC.  37 

nus,  during  his  struggle  against  Elagabalus,  raised  his  son  to  the  rank  of 
Augushis.  But  one  denarius,  probably  minted  at  Antioch,  and  some  local 
eastern  coins  agree  with  Dio  by  showing  Diadumenianus  as  Augustus.  "^ 

When  the  army  became  discontented  with  Macrinus,  the  reputation  of  the 
Severan  family  enabled  a  niece  of  Julia  Domna  to  secure  support  for  her  youth- 
ful son's  claim  to  the  throne.  The  boy's  original  name,  derived  from  his  father 
and  great-grandfather,  was  Varius  Auitus  Bassianus.  "*  But  he  is  commonly 
known  by  the  name  of  the  god  of  Emesa,  Elagabal,  whose  priest  he  was.  "' 
Upon  his  elevation,  he  pretended  that  he  had  really  been  born  from  an  affair 
between  Caracalla  and  his  mother  and,  as  emperor,  he  adopted  or  accepted 
from  the  soldiers  Caracalla's  style:  Imp.  Caes.  M .  Aurelius  Antoninus  Pius  Felix 
Aug.,  as  well  as  the  Severan  ancestry.  It  is,  therefore,  often  difficult  to  determine 
whether   inscriptions   or  coins   belong   to   him   or   to  Caracalla.  "* 

In  221  Elagabalus  was  compelled  by  the  troops  to  adopt  as  his  successor 
his  cousin,  son  of  Julia  Mamaea,  whose  name  appears  to  have  been  Gessius 
Bassianus  Alexianus.  The  new  heir  exalted  his  name  by  including  that  of  the 
great  Alexander,  already  a  favorite  hero  of  Caracalla:  M.  Aurelius  Alexander  nobi- 
lissimus  Caesar.  "'    Before  the  death  of  Elagabalus,  Alexander  had  been  raised 

"5  Dio,  LXXVIII  (LXXIX)  34  2,  37  6,  38  2,  asserts  the  elevation  of  Diadumenianus  as 
Augustus.  The  prophecies  of  the  mathematici  quoted  in  SHA  Diad.  5  i  and  4  imply  that  he 
became  imperator,  see  also  the  letter  "  quoted  "  in  §  8  <,: patri  Augusta filius  Augustus.  SHA  Macr.  also 
suggests  an  equality,  §51:  in  participatum.  adscito;  §61:  ex  oratione  Macrini  et  Diadumeni  impe- 
ratorum.  But  in  §  10  4,  the  Life  states  definitely  that  Diadumenianus  was  only  Caesar,  never 
Augustus.  Mattingly,  BMC  V  ccxxiv,  accepts  his  elevation  to  full  equality  on  the  basis  of  one 
denarius,  p.  511  no.  95,  which  he  attributes  to  Antioch  and  which  reads  on  the  obverse:  Imp.  C.  M. 
Opel.  Ant.  Diadumian.  Aug.     See  Hammond  Transmission  p.  118  with  n.  349  for  the  Greek  coins. 

"*  For  the  names  and  formulas  of  Elagabalus,  see  RE2  VIH  (15)  391-404  throughout;  DE 
HI  658-662;  PIR  I  ig4  A  no.  1204  (in  ed.  2,  he  is  reserved  for  the  Varii;  contrast  ed.  i  HI  385 
V  no.   184);  Dess.  HI   i  292-293. 

"'  Elagabalus  was  originally  a  local  Syrian  Baal,  but  he  was  identified  in  the  Roman  world 
with  Sol  and  with  Jupiter,  see  RE2  VIII  (15)  393,  397;  DE  II  3  2089;  FIR  I  194  A  no.  1204; 
RE  V  (10)  2219-2222;  BMC  V  ccxxxviii.  From  this  identification  derived  the  common  but 
mistaken  spelling  Heliogabalus. 

"8  For  Elagabalus,  Pink,  Num.  Zschr.  LXVII  11,  and  Mattingly,  BMC  V  ccxxx,  give  the 
various  formulas  which  appear  on  the  coins;  see  also  Vogt  Alex.  Miinzen  I  175.  Dio,  LXXVIII 
(LXXIX)  32  2,  attributes  the  assumption  of  the  name  M.  Aurelius  {or  Aurellius,  ahowe-n.  100) 
Antoninus  to  acclamation  by  the  legionaries;  see  LXXIX  (LXXX)  2  2  for  Elagabalus'  pretended 
sonship  from  Caracalla;  other  references  inBMCY  ccxxix  n.  i.  Dio  regularly  calls  him  "  the  false 
Antoninus  ",  see  particularly  LXXIX  (LXXX)  I  i.  For  criteria  for  distinguishing  coins  of  Caracalla 
and  Elagabalus,  see  Cohen  IV  321-322. 

"9  For  Alexander's  formula,  see  RE  II  (4)  2526-2528;  Z)^  I  396-397,  III  665  (for  the  diplomas, 
see  below  n.  121);  FIR''  I  328  A  no.  1610;  Dess.  Ill  i  p.  293-294;  BMC  V  ccxli;  Pink  in  Num. 
Zschr.  LXVIII  13.  The  coins  omit  nobilissimus  before  Caesar;  see  above  n.  106  for  Geta.  For 
the  common  spelling  Aurellius,  see  above  n.  100.  Only  as  Augustus  did  he  add  Seuerus  before 
Alexander;  not,  as  the  Life  regularly  places  it,  after  in  the  form  Alexander  Seuerus,  see  W.  Thiele 
De  Seuero  Alexandra  Imp.  i  n.  i.  For  the  influence  of  Alexander  the  Great  on  him,  and  in 
general  in  the  Severan  period,  see  A.  Jarde,  Etudes  .  .  .  sur  .  .  .  Severe  Alexandre  3  n.  i;  Hammond 
Transmission  120  n.  356;  A.  Bruhl,  "  Le  Souvenir  d'Alexandre  le  Grand  et  les  Remains  "  in 
Melanges  d^Arch.  et  d'Hist.  de  PiScolefranf.  de  Rome  XLVII  (1930)  202-221  (especially  for  Alexander 
pp.  218-219);  P.  Treves,  //  Mito  di  Alessandro  etc.  97-98  for  Caligula  and  Caracalla  (in  n.  11 
to  ch.  IV;  Treves  is  primarily  concerned  with  the  literary  tradition  concerning  Alexander). 


38  MASON  HAMMOND 

to  near,  if  not  complete,  collegiality  as  Imp.  Caes.  (ancestors)  M.  Aurelins 
Alexander  nobilissimus  Caesar.  "°  Apparently,  however,  only  on  the  death  of 
his  predecessor  did  he  add  Seuerus  between  Aurelius  and  Alexander  and  replace 
nob.  Caes.  with  the  fully  imperial  Pius  Felix  Aug.,  so  that  his  full  name 
as  emperor  ran  Imp.  Caes.  (ancestors)  M.  Aurelius  Seuerus  Alexander  Pius 
Felix  Aug.  "" 

The  specifically  imperial  part  of  the  formula  preserved  to  a  surprising 
degree  during  the  second  century  the  form  which  it  had  assumed  by  the  end 
of  the  Julio-Claudian  period.  Vespasian  and  Nerva,  who  came  to  power  like 
Augustus  as  "  new  men  ",  used  only  single  elements  of  their  personal  nam.es, 
since  there  was  little  likelihood  that  they  would  be  confused  with  any  predecessor. 
Domitian  also  employed  only  his  cognomen,  which  was  peculiar  to  him.  But 
Septimius,  who  might  have  been  expected  to  be  satisfied  with  one  personal  ele- 
ment, kept  his  full  three  names.  The  four  pretenders  of  the  years  193-196  and 
later  Macrinus  did  the  same.  Clearly,  therefore,  the  peaceful  century  of  rule 
by  emperors  bearing  more  than  one  personal  name  had  antiquated  the  earlier 
and  simpler  practice  of  using  only  enough  to  distinguish  the  ruler  from  his 
predecessors. 

Emperors  who  succeeded  parents  by  blood  or  adoption  naturally  added  some 
distinguishing  personal  element  when  their  cognomina  were  the  same  as  those 
of  their  predecessors.  From  the  reign  of  Antoninus,  the  personal  praenomen 
was  regularly  retained  by  all  rulers;  previously  the  practice  had  varied.  '"  In 
the  case  of  Caracalla  and  his  Severan  successors,  the  fictitious  adoption  into  the 


"°  For  Alexander's  status  as  quasi-colleague  under  Elagabalus,  see  Hammond  Transmission 
121-122.  CIL  XVI  140  and  141,  diplomas  of  222,  though  very  fragmentary,  support  his  formula 
as  given  above.  During  the  lifetime  of  Elagabalus,  Alexander  appears  only  as  Caesar,  not  as 
Augustus,  on  the  coinage  {denarii  and  aes,  not  aurei),  see  BMC  Y  571,  614;  Pink  in  Num.  Zschr. 
LXVIII  13.  Two  graffiti  from  the  walls  of  the  quarters  of  the  Seventh  Cohort  of  the  Vigiles 
(in  Trastevere),  CIL  VI  i  3069  and  2999,  read  respectively:  Imperatores  (thus,  for  Imperatoribus) 
Antonino  et  A/[e]ssaniiro  j  Grata  et  Se.  cos.  k.  lunis  etc.,  and:  Imp.  IJIIIIJIJIJj  Alexand\ro  Caesa[re] 
Augg.  Grata  et  S\e\lleuca  cos.  etc.  The  first  is  in  conflict  with  the  Feriale  Duranum  col.  II  lines 
16-18  in  dating  the  association  of  Alexander  before  June  i,  221,  instead  of  between  June  14-30, 
as  the  Feriale  does,  see  Yale  Classical  Studies  VI  (1940)  141-145,  especially  p.  142  at  the  end  of 
n.  620,  where  the  words  Imperatores  Antonino  et  Al[e]ssandro  are  regarded  as  a  later  addition  to 
the  graffito.  The  second  graffito  wrongly  combines  for  Alexander  Caesar  and  Augustus  (in  the 
plural  Augg.),  see  D£  III  665;  Hammond  Tr.  Day  58-59  and  Transmission  121-122  nn.  365-366. 
The  uncertainty  about  Alexander's  precise  position  and  titles  is  the  first  instance  of  the  increasing 
approximation  during  the  third  century  of  the  titles  of  Caesares  to  these  of  Augusti,  for  which 
see  Mom.  II   i   1164  "•  5- 

'"  The  coinage  of  Alexander  shows  Pius  only  in  231-235,  see  MS  IV  2  71  {BMC  has  not  yet 
appeared  beyond  Elagabalus);  Pink  in  Num.  Zschr.  LXVIII  13.  But  Pius  Felix  occurs  as  early 
as  225  in  an  inscription,  Dess.  479,  and  in  a  diploma,  CIL  XVI  142.  For  Alexander's  full  for- 
mula, seey?^'  II  (4)  2527;  Z)^  I  397;  PIR^  I  327  A  no.  1610;  Dess.  Ill  i  p.  293;  CIL  XVI  142- 
145,  suppl.  189  (diplomas  of  225-233).  The  debate  reported  in  SHA  Alex.  6-11,  in  which  the 
senate  tried  to  force  him  to  call  himself  Antoninus  and  Magnus  and  he  refused,  is  probably  a 
worthless  invention  to  account  for  the  absence  of  Antoninus  from  the  name  of  an  emperor  so 
admired  by  the  the  SHA,  see  C.  Lecrivain,  Pjudes  sur  VHist.  Aug.  77-78. 

'"  For  the  retention  of  the  'peri.owaX  praenomen,  see  Perret  Tit.  Imp.  d'Hadr.  19. 


IMPERIAL  ELEMEIsTS  IN  THE  FORMULA,  ETC.  39 

popular  Antonine  house  let  to  the  assumption  of  the  names  proper  to  it  and 
to  the  elimination  of  most  of  the  Severan  elements.  "^ 

At  first  sight,  the  names  and  titles  of  the  second  century  rulers  seem  longer 
and  more  cumbersome  than  those  of  the  Julio-Claudians  and  suggest  that  the 
general  tendency  towards  multiple  nomenclature  affected  also  the  imperial  for- 
mula. But  in  fact,  the  personal  names  of  the  emperors  of  the  second  century 
do  not  exceed  three  or  four  and,  if  Caesar  be  counted  as  a  family  cognomen, 
both  Claudius  and  Nero  in  the  early  Empire  regularly  show  three  names.  The 
cumbersomeness  of  the  formulas  of  the  second  century  is  due  to  the  greater 
length  of  such  names  as  Hadrianus  and  Antoninus  compared  with  Claudius  or 
Caesar,  to  the  inclusion  within  the  strictly  imperial  part  of  the  formula  of 
such  epithets  as  Pius  and  Felix,  to  the  change  of  Caesar  from  a  name  to  a 
title,  to  the  long  series  of  ancestors  which  had  accumulated  by  the  end  of  the 
period,   and   to   the  accumulation   of  magniloquent  epithets. 

The  praenomen  Imperatoris,  resumed  by  Nero,  was  adopted  by  all  succeed- 
ing emperors  save  Galba.  It  held  the  first  place  in  the  formula  as  the  title 
preeminently  of  the  ruler  in  virtue  of  his  military  position.  Although  it  pro- 
bably never  denoted  the  specifically  proconsular  imperium,  it  did  come  to 
signify  the  more  generalized  imperium  into  which  the  proconsular  merged  under 
the  Flavians.  ""*  In  the  second  century,  however,  the  proconsular  imperium 
reappears  distinct  from  the  general  one  to  indicate  the  military  command  of  the 
emperor  in  the  provinces.  It  received  recognition  by  the  use  of  proconsul  in 
the  republican  part  of  the  formula. 

Closely  united  with  Imperaior  was  Caesar.  Vespasian  placed  this  second  in 
his  formula  in  imitation  of  Augustus.  '"'  The  Flavians  still  regarded  it  as  a 
name  which  showed  that  they  were  members  of  a  ruling  dynasty.  '^*  Titus 
placed  his  praenomen  before  Caesar.  Nerva  did  the  same  with  his  personal 
cognomen.  "''  Hence  Imperator  Caesar  did  not  become  the  invariable  initial 
title  of  the  emperor  until  early   in   the  reign  of  Trajan.     Thereafter  it  contin- 


"3  For  the  "Antonine  name  ",  see  E.  Renan,  Marc-Aurele  487,  citing  from  the  SHA  Sept. 
19  2-3,  Car.  9  2,  Geta  2  2-5  Macr.  2  5-3,  7  5-8,  10  6,  Diad.  1-2,  3  i,  6,  Hel.  i  5-7,  2  4-3  3,  17 
9-18  I,  24  6-7,  Alex.  5-12,  Gord.  4  7-8.  Elagabalus  was  the  last  to  assume  Antoninus.  It  may 
be  noted  that  if  a  single  name  is  used  on  the  coinage  in  the  Severan  period,  it  is  the  cognomen, 
as  Seuerus  or  Antoninus,  and  not  the  gentile  nomen,  as  Septimius  or  Aurelius,  see  BMC  V  xxxiii. 

"♦  For  a  collection  of  relevant  citations  on  the  praenomen  Imp.,  see  TLL  VII  i  556-560 
wnder  imperaior  III.  For  the  development  of  the  specific  (proconsular)  imperium  of  Augustus  into 
a  generalized  (monarchical)  imperium,  see  Beranger  Recherches  etc.  68-74;  for  Imperator,  see  pp.  50- 
54  and  compare  above  n.  4. 

"5  For  Caesar,  see  TLL  Onomasticon  I  36-37  under  Caesar  IV. 

1=6  With  the  Flavian  use  of  Caesar,  compare  its  assumption  by  Sabinus  in  Gaul  in  70,  above 
n.  II.  A.  H.  J.  Greenidge,  Roman  Public  Life  354,  follows  a  suggestion  of  O.  Karlowa,  Romische 
Rechtsgeschichte  I  508,  that  the  assumption  of  the  name  Caesar  may  have  served  to  establish  a 
claim  to  the  crown  property  in  virtue  of  family  inheritance.  But  it  is  dubious  whether  the  crown 
property  could  pass  by  will  or  inheritance,  see  Hammond  AP  243  n.  74,  244  n.  84. 

"'  Mommsen,  II  2  769  n.  5,  compares  the  variation  in  the  placing  of  Caesar  in  the  formula 
with  variations  in  the  order  of  Roman  personal  names  at  all  periods. 


40  MASON  HAMMOND 

ued  in  use  until  the  fourth  century.  Then,  like  the  indication  of  imperial  saluta- 
tions, it  gradually  disappeared  from  the  formula  and  was  replaced  by  dominus 
noster,  which  had  begun  to  appear  formally  alongside  of  Imperator  Caesar  as 
early  as  the  Severi.  "^ 

The  use  of  Caesar  alone  after  the  name  to  indicate  the  heir  to  the  throne 
has  ordinarily  been  attributed  to  the  Flavians  because  of  the  formula  Domi- 
tianus  Caesar.  "'  At  that  time,  however,  Caesar  was  still  a  family  name.  Trajan 
may  have  been  for  a  brief  period  Traianus  Caesar,  if  we  may  thus  interpret  Pliny 
the  Younger's  vague  statement.  And  one  now  lost  aureus  is  reported  to  have 
read  Hadriano  Traiano  Caesari  for  Hadrian  as  successor  designate.  But  the 
Augustan  History  justly  signalizes  L.  Aelius  Caesar  as  the  first  clear  case  in 
which  Caesar  is  the  title  of  a  subordinated  successor,  the  usage  which  became 
so  important  under  Diocletian.  Mommsen  points  out  that  the  son  of  Aelius, 
L.  Verus,  was  the  first  agnate  descendant  of  an  emperor  not  to  receive  the 
name  Caesar;  even  upon  his  adoption  by  Antoninus  he  did  not  assume  it.  '^° 
This  confirms  the  view  that  it  had  become  a  title  confined  to  the  heir,  not  a 
name  belonging  to  the  family.  Nevertheless,  it  never  wholly  lost  its  character 
of  a  family  name.  Clodius  probably  and  Alexander  certainly  were  adopted 
when   they   were  elevated    to   the   rank  of  Caesares. 

This  use  of  Caesar  after  the  name  as  a  title  perhaps  contributed  to  the  change 
of  Augustus  from  an  adjective  to  a  noun.  Augustus  retained  the  significant 
position  which  it  had  assumed  under  the  first  emperor  at  the  end  of  the  strictly 
imperial  part  of  the  formula.  It  had  originally  been  an  adjectival  epithet,  like 
those  common  under  the  republic.  But  its  use  alone  to  designate  the  first  ruler, 
or  even  any  ruler,  converted  it  into  a  noun,  either  a  proper  name  or  a  term  for 
the  position  of  ruler.  "^'  When  Commodus  placed  before  it  the  adjectives  Pius 
Felix,  he  may  have  meant  these  to  be  adjectival  epithets  of  himself  but  it  is 
equally  possible  that  he  intended  them  to  modify  Augustus.  '^° 

Vet  the  title  Augustus  always  remained  closely  connected  with  the  personal 
name  of  the  ruler,  probably  because  it  did  not  wholly  lose  its  original  significance 
as  an  adjectival  agnomen.     When  the  emperor  died,  and  particularly  if  he  was 

"*  For  the  disappearance  oi  Imp.  Caes.,  see  McFayden  //hi.  Title  Imp.  67  especially  n.  in; 
Dess.  Ill  I  286. 

"«  Mommsen,  II  i  770  n.  5,  cited  Tac.  Hist.  Ill  86  3:  Domitianum  .  .  Caesarem  consalu- 
tatum  miles  .  .  .  deduxit;  %t&BMC  II  xx;  CAH  XI  414;  von  Premerstein  Vom.  Werden  271-272;  A.  Gu- 
deman,  Tac.  Dialogus"  p.  236  on  §  8  7;  Neumann  in  RE  III  (6)  1287  under  Cawar.  See  generally 
TLL  Onomasticon  II  37-38  under  Caesar  V;  Mom.  II  2  iio-iii.  For  Caesar  Augustus,  see 
Komemann  DP  91. 

''"Mom.  II  2  771  n.  I,  compare  1139-1141;  McFayden  Hist.  Title  Imp.  65  n.  104.  Von 
Premerstein,  Vom  Werden  271-272,  refers  to  Dio  LIII  18  2:  \  yap  8y]  tou  Kabapo?  t^  ts  tou  AuyouaTou 
7tp6<jp7)<Ji?  Suvajxiv  \i.ht  ou8£(xtav  auxoi?  oExsiav  7rpo(jTt8T)Oi,  SrjXoi  S'SXXto?  t6  |i4v  tJjv  tou  y^vou?  <J9<ov  8iaSox'')v, 
t6  8J  ttjv  tou  ii5'-";J.aTo<;  XajjiTrp^TyjTa;  Compare  SHA  Alex.   10  4,  Quoted  below  n.   134. 

'3"  TILL  II  1382-1390  treats  the  use  oi  Augustus  for  Augustus  and  his  successors  as  a  cogno- 
men and  in  cols.    1390- 1403  discusses  its  adjectival  use  for  things  connected  w^ith   the  emperor. 

'''  For  the  uncertainty  whether  Pius  Felix  modified  the  emperor  personally  or  the  title 
Augustus,  see  below  pp.  48-49  and  compare  Trajan's  use  of  Optimus,  below  pp.  44-45. 


IMPERIAL  ELEMENTS  IN  THE  FORMULA,  ETC.  41 

deified,  Imperator  Caesar  before  his  personal  name  and  all  the  republican  titles 
were  dropped.  A  survey  of  the  third  index  to  Dessau  shows  that  the  sirnplest 
form  of  reference  was  to  join  diuus  with  the  single  most  commonly  used  personal 
name,  or  perhaps  with  two  such.  Wo'^^v&c ,  Augustus  likewise  is  not  infrequently 
preserved,  in  the  first  century  usually  and  in  the  second  century  always  last. 
The  typical  form  is  that  of  the  inscription  on  the  Arch  oiThus:  Senaius  j  Popu- 
lusque  Romanus  j  diuo  Tito  diui  Vespasiani  f.  /  Vespasiano  Augusta  j.  '" 

It  should  also  be  remarked  that  Augustus  does  not  occur  for  the  ancestors  in 
the  filiation  of  living  emperors.  But  by  the  end  of  the  second  century,  such 
personal  epithets  as  Pius  for  Antoninus  and  Severus  or  Magnus  for  Caracalla 
are  preserved  if  they  are  mentioned  as  ancestors,  as  are  likewise  their  military 
epithets.  Hence  Augustus  was  regarded  not  as  a  personal  epithet  but  as  one 
peculiar  to  the  living,  ruling  emperor.  It  might,  however,  alone  among  the 
elements  of  the  imperial  formula,  be  preserved  for  a  deceased  emperor  if  he 
was  the  principal  subject  of  an  inscription  and  not  merely  included  among  the 
ancestors  of  some  successor. 

This  exaltation  of  Augustus  is  symbolic,  if  not  symptomatic.  Augustus 
had  a  divine  significance,  it  set  the  ruler  above  ordinary  men.  Despite  its  first 
bearer's  "  constitutionality  ",  the  term  served  to  emphasize  the  absolutism  of 
the  imperial  power  and  it  subordinated  the  individual  ruler  to  the  tradition  of 
the  empire,  as  had  "  Pharaoh  "  in  Egypt.  ^^*  During  the  third  century,  the 
more  human  and  Roman  titles  Imperator  Caesar  gave  way  to  dominus,  which 
likened  .the  relation  of  the  emperor  to  his  subjects  to  that  of  a  master  to  his 
slaves.  But  Augustus  gained,  if  anything,  enhanced  importance  as  the  chief 
designation  of  an  autocratic  ruler. 


(2)  Epithets. 

The  imperial  epithets  properly  belong  with  the  names  and  titles  in  the 
specifically  imperial  part  of  the  formula.  They  have,  however,  even  less  signi- 
ficance for  the  constitutional  development.  Augustus,  strictly  an  epithet,  became 
so  closely  associated  with  the  imperial  position  rather  than  with  any  specific 
emperor,  that  it  joined  with  Imperator  Caesar  to  form  the  titles  of  the  ruler 
and  as  such  has  already  been  discussed.  Two  other  epithets  have  become 
associated  with  individual  emperors:  Optimus  is  peculiar  to  Trajan,  Pius  to 
Antoninus. 


'"  The  inscription  from  the  Arch  of  Titus  is  CIL  VI  i  945  =  Dess.  265.  The  relevant 
material  on  the  formulas  of  diui  may  be  found  in  Dessau's  third  index,  III   i   257-294. 

'^'t  In  SHA  Alex.  10  4,  Alexander  is  represented  as  saying  in  a  speech  to  the  senate:  Augustus 
primus  est  huius  auctor  imperii  et  in  eius  nomen  omnes  uelut  quadam  adoptione  aut  iure  heredi- 
taria succedimus  etc.     See  the  passage  from  Dio  quoted  above  in  n.   130. 


42  MASON  HAMMOND 

The  concept  of  an  optimus  princeps,  the  best  prince  and  the  optimi  status 
auctoT,  creator  of  the  ideal  state,  had  repubHcan  antecedents.  '^'  The  phrase 
optimus  princeps  is  applied  to  Claudius  in  a  senatorial  decree  quoted  by  Pliny 
the  Younger  and  also  in  the  Claudian  decree  of  the  senate  against  destroying 
buildings.  '^*  In  the  decision  of  a  procurator  of  Sardinia  of  uncertain  date  but 
cited  by  a  proconsul  under  Otho,  the  reigning  emperor  appears  as  optimi  maxi- 
mique  principis.  '"  A  military  document  from  Egypt  speaks  of  citizenship 
acquired  beneficii  eiusdem  optimi  principis,  namely  from  Domitian.  "^*  Pliny 
quotes  from  his  own  speech  against  Certus  the  phrase  reddat  praemium  sub  optima 
principe  (Nerva)  quod  a  pessimo  (Domitian)  accepit.  '^'  And  he  regularly  applies 
optimus  princeps  to  Trajan  during  the  early  years  of  the  latter's  reign.  "'°  He 
also  applies  optimus  to  others  than  the  emperor.  ""  The  epithet  therefore,  unlike 
Augustus  in  27  B.C.,  had  been  long  in  use  to  designate  a  "good  "  man,  with  phi- 
losophical and  moral  implications,  and  particularly  to  denote  a  "good"  em- 
peror. '■•" 

At  the  opening  of  his  Panegyric,  Pliny  states  that  the  epithet  Optimus  had 
already  been  voted  to  Trajan  by  the  senate.  "''^  The  Panegyric  was  delivered  in 
the  autumn  of  100  and  it  is  not  likely  that  Pliny  would  have  added  this  posi- 
tive statement  about  a  well-known  matter  in  a  later  revision.  '"  Moreover,  he 
constantly  reverts  to  the  idea,  especially  to  contrast  Trajan  with  Domitian.  "^' 


'35  J.  Vogt,  "  Vorlaufer  des  Optimus  Princeps  "  in  Hermes  LXVIII  (1933)  84-92,  traces  the 
concept  back  to  the  Scipios  and  to  the  political  meaning  under  the  later  republic  of  boni  and 
optimates.  See  also  for  Cicero,  E.  Lepore,  //  Princeps  Ciceroniano  141-201.  Vogt  regards  the 
revival  of  optimus  Trajan  as  denoting  the  rapprochement  between  senate  and  emperor.  See  also 
BMC  III  xcii.  Compare  ^k.xaxvg^x  Recherches  etc.  31-40  {Princeps),  55-68  {Principatus  vs.  Domi- 
natus),  249  {Optimus  Princeps  as  an  aspect  of  natural  monarchy). 

'5*  Pliny  Ep.  VIII  6  10  (see  alse  §  13):  princeps  optimus  parensque  publicus.  The  decree  is 
Bruns  200  no.  54  =  FIRA  I  288  no.  45  =  CIL  X  1401  =  Dess  6043  line  3.  See  RE  III  (6) 
2788;  DE  II   I  298  col.  i;  BMC  III  Ixx  n.  2. 

'"  Bruns  241  no.  71a  =  FIRA  I  322  no.  59  =  CIL  X  2  7852  =  Dess  5947  lines  9-10. 
Mommsen,  Hermes  II  (1876)  io5-iii  =  GS  V  {HS  II)  329-335,  dates  the  procurator  Rixa  under 
Nero,  in  dGjitT,  and  refers  the  phrase  to  that  emperor,  see  also  RE  X  (20)  1367  under  luventius  19; 
PIR  II   256  /  no.  592. 

'38  CIL  XVI  146  no.  12  =  Dess.  9059  interior  line  17,  dated  July  i,  94;  see  CIL  X  444  = 
Dess.  3546  (from  Lucania,  cited  inZlfi'  II  3  2041  col.  i),  a  gift  of  farms  to  a  college  of  worshippers 
of  Silvanus  in  honor  of  Domitian,  which  in  lines  21-22  speaks  of  salute  optimi  principis  et  domini. 

'"  Pliny  ^/.  IX  13  23;  compare  VI  27  3  for  the  contrast  of  <?//2>«z<j  {princeps)  with  pessimus 
quisque.  In /"««  38  i,  88  5,  89  i,  Nervals  optimus  princeps  or  the  like;  see  ingeneral  M.  Durry, 
ed.  Pline  Pan.   18-21. 

■♦°  Pliny  ^/.   II  13  8,   III  13  I,   18  3,  IV  22   I,  V  13  7. 

'♦'  Pliny  .£■/.  IX  22  i,  X  2;  Pan.  86  i;  compare  CIL  II  1805  =  Dess.  1406:  optima  uiro  et 
integrissimo  of  a  certain  Salutaris  under  Septimius  Severus. 

'<'  Pliny  Pan.    88  3:  optima  cuique  principum. 

'*'  Pan.  2  7:  iam  quid  tam  ciuile,  tam  senatorium  quam  illud  additum  a  nobis  "Optimi" 
cognomen,  and  §  88  4:  Senatus  Populusque  Romanus  Optimi  tibi  cognomen  adiecit. 

'"  Durry  Pan.  1-15;  M.  Hammond,  "  Pliny  the  Younger  etc.  "  in  Harvard  Studies  in  Classical 
Philology  XLIX   (1938)  1 19-120. 

'■•'  Pliny  Pan.  36  i,  56  i,  91  i,  95  4;  compare  §  53  2  and  Ep.  X  i  2:  optimus  imperator. 
See  Hammond  Pliny  121  n.   i,  124  n  4. 


IMPERIAL  ELEMENTS  IN  THE  FORMULA,  ETC.  43 

The  bronze  coinage  of  103/104  bears  on  its  reverse  S.PQ  R.  Optimo  Principi, 
and  Mattingly  argued  that  the  senate  did  not  formally  vote  this  honor  until 
the  end  of  the  first  Dacian  War.  "•*  Furthermore,  though  the  coinage  of  all 
metals  shows  Optimo  Principi  for  some  years  thereafter,  the  epithet  Optimus 
alone  appears  in  the  formula  only  in  114.  "'^  Dio  indeed  states  that  the  epithet 
Optimus  was  voted  to  Trajan  in  that  year  by  the  senate  in  honor  of  the  sub- 
mission of  Parthimasiris  at  Elegeia.  "*'  Only  guesswork  can  harmonize  these 
various  dates.  Perhaps  the  senate  originally  voted  the  title  to  Trajan  soon 
after  his  accession  and,  when  he  modestly  refused  to  use  it,  again  hailed  him  as 
Optimus  Princeps  in  103,  and  finally  in  the  early  summer  of  114  renewed  the 
grant.  After  his  final  victory  over  the  Parthians  in  the  following  autumn, 
signalized  by  his  seventh  salutation,  Trajan  felt  that  his  achievements  justified 
the  epithet  Optimus.  ''" 

The  epithet  was  meant  to  connect  Trajan,   the  earthly  ruler,  with  luppiter 


146  For  coinage  of  103/104,  see  BMC  III  Ixx-Ixxi,  index  p.  630.  The  date  is  only  approxi- 
mate as  Trajan  has  the  same  obverse,  with  tr.  p.  cos.  V.  p.  p.,  from  his  fifth  consulship  in  103 
until  his  designation  for  the  sixth  in  iii,  see  BMC  III  54,  87,  162,  203.  On  p.  xxvi,  Mattingly 
dates  the  phrase  Optimus  Princeps  from  about  105  and  the  epithet  Optimus  alone  in  114/115,  see 
also  p.  Ix. 

'■"  For  Optimus  alone  in  114,  see  R.  P.  Longden  in  Journal  of  Roman  Studies  XXI  (1931) 
10  n.  4;  BMC  III  xxvi,  Ixi.  When  Opt.  appears  on  the  obverse.  Optimo  Principi  is  dropped  from 
the  reverse,  see  BMC  III  Ixxxiv,  civ.  For  inscriptions  showing  Optimus  before  114,  see  Longden 
loc.  cit.\  Strack  I  {Trai.)  36  n.   70. 

148  Pqj.  tjjg  bestowal  of  Optimus,  see  Dio  LXVIII  23  i  and  compare  LXVIII  19  3  for  the 
salutation  of  Trajan  by  the  troops  at  Elegeia.  Mattingly,  BMC  III  cv,  Ixxxii,  identifies  this  salu- 
tation with  the  title  imp.   VII,  against  Strack  I  {Trai.)  35,  220-221. 

'■"  P.  L.  Strack,  in  Gnomon  XIII  (1937)  673-674,  attacks  Longden's  and  Mattingly's  date  for 
the  grant  of  Optimus,  namely  114/115,  in  view  of  the  uncertain  dates  of  the  earthquake  at  Antioch, 
below  n.  153,  and  of  the  capture  of  Ctesiphon.  A  diploma  of  Sept.  i,  114,  CIZ  XVI  61,  has 
Optimus  with  tribunic.  potestat.  XVII  imp.  VII  cos.  VI.  A  fragmentary  one,  CIL  XVI  60,  dated 
by  Nesselhauf  to  1 14,  has  Optimus  with  imp.  VI,  which  led  him  in  his  note  on  no.  60  to  place  the 
acceptance  of  the  title  Optimus  before  the  seventh  salutation.  Similarly,  Durry,  Pan  231-232,  in 
appendix  I,  collects  the  relevant  material  under  the  following  headings  and  dates:  i)  epithet  Optimus 
(98),  2)  dedications  Optimo  Principi  (103),  3)  agnomen  of  Optimus  (July,  114).  However  Alexan- 
drian coins  show  Optimus  only  in  year  18,  Aug.  29,  114/Aug.  28,  115,  see  Vogt  Alex.  Miinzen  I 
66,  92;  Strack  I  (TVa/.)  35  n.  68;  BMC  III  liii;  Longden  in  JRS  XXI  (1931)  10  n.  4.  F.  A.  Lep- 
per,  Trajan's  Parthian  War  34-39,  reviews  all  the  above  evidence  and  plots  it  on  a  somewhat 
complicated  table  on  p.  35.  He  points  out  that  the  bulk  of  Alexandrian  coinage  for  the  Egyptian 
regnal  year  18,  beginning  Aug.  29,  114,  does  not  show  Optimus  and  that  if  the  diploma  of  Sept. 
I,  114,  gives  the  terminus  ante  quem  for  its  bestowal,  all  this  coinage  must  have  been  minted  in 
advance  and  issued  without  the  new  and  important  title.  To  avoid  this  difficulty,  he  suggests 
that  the  diploma  in  question  may  be  an  instance  in  which  the  consular  date  is  later  than  the  im- 
perial titles  would  suggest.  If  the  consuls,  who  are  attested  only  by  this  diploma  (A.  Degrassi, 
Fasti  Consulares  34),  do  not  belong  in  114,  then  Dec.  9,  114,  the  last  day  of  Trajan's  tr.  pot.  xviii, 
becomes  the  terminus  ante  quem.  However,  on  p.  197,  Lepper  would  dissociate  the  acceptance 
of  Optimus  from  the  megalomania  which  he  thinks  overtook  Trajan  at  the  end  of  his  life.  While 
there  are  indeed  indubitable  cases  of  disagreement  between  imperial  titles  and  consular  dates  on 
diplomas,  for  which  see  Lepper  p.  37  nn.  i,  2,  and  add  to  his  references  Hammond  Tr.  Day 
Re'ix.  40-44,  54-55,  72-73,  it  seems  simpler  to  keep  the  diploma  on  Sept.  i,  114,  and  to  assume 
that  for  some  other  reason,  perhaps  delay  in  news  reaching  Alexandria,  the  coins  were  prepared  and 
issued  there  without  the  new  title  for  at  least  the  later  part  of  114. 


44  MASON  HAMMOND 

Optintus  Maximus,  the  heavenly.  '^°  PHny  draws  the  parallel  in  the  Panegyric 
and  it  reappears  on  the  Arch  of  Beneventum,  dated  by  its  inscription  to  114.  "5" 
The  upper  left  panel  of  the  "  Roman  "  side  portrays  Jupiter  among  the  Olym- 
pians in  the  act  of  surrendering  his  thunderbolt  to  Trajan  who,  in  the  right 
panel,  is  welcomed  by  Roma  and  the  consuls.  ''"  Coins  of  114/115  commemorate 
the  rescue  of  Trajan  by  a  superhuman  figure  in  an  earthquake  at  Antioch  and 
suggest  that  the  figure  was  Jupiter.  '" 

The  epithet  Optimus  received  a  prominent  position  before  Augustus.  "'*  It 
is  possible  that  Augustus  had  become  a  noun  already  and  the  Optimus  was  meant 
to  modify  it;  Trajan  had  been  Optimus  Princeps  and  was  now  Optimus  Augustus. 
Some  confirmation  for  this  view  may  be  found  in  the  fact  that  after  his  death 
Optimus,  like  the  rest  of  his  titles,  disappeared  from  his  name.  '"  But  more 
probably  Optimus  was  an  epithet,  or,  as  Pliny  calls  it,  a  cognomen,  qualifying 
Trajan  in  the  way  that  Augustus  had  qualified  the  first  emperor  and  as  Op- 
timus Maximus  did  Jupiter.'^*  The  epithet  was  remembered  in  the  phrase 
with  which  the  senate  acclaimed  emperors  in  the  fourth  century:  felicior  Au- 
gusto,  melior  Traiano.  '"  Pliny  already  suggests  this  idea  in  his  remark:  minus 
est  enim  imperatorem  et  Caesarem  et  Augustum.  quam,  omnibus  imperatoribus  et 
Caesaribus  et  Augustis  esse  m,eliorem,.  "'^ 

After  Trajan's  death,  Optimus,  like  Trajan's  other  epithets,  appeared  for 
a  short  time  on  the  coinage  of  Hadrian.  But  the  new  emperor,  probably  when 
he   reached   Rome,   decided   that   these  epithets   should   remain   peculiar   to  his 

■5°  For  Trajan  and  Jupiter,  see  Pliny  Pan.  8  i,  80  4,  88  8;  BMC  III  Ixxxii  n.  2;  R.  Pari- 
beni,  Optimus  Princeps  II  156-157,  esp.  n.  19.  The  parallel  between  the  good  ruler  and  Zeus 
was  a  commonplace  of  Stoic  political  thought  and  appears  particularly  in  Dio  Chrysostom,  see 
H.  von  Arnim,  Dio  von  Prusa  419;  L.  Frangois,  Essai  sur  Dion  Chrysostome  198.  Durry, 
Pan.  217  on  §  88  8,  quotes  Sen.  de  Clem,  i  19  9:  hoc  adfectare,  hoc  imitari  decet.  Maximum 
ita  haberi  ut  Optimus  simul  habeare,  addressed  to  Nero.  Trajan  appreciated  the  title,  see  Dio 
LXVIII  23  2. 

'5'  The  inscription  from  Trajan's  Arch  at  Beneventum  is  CIL  IX  1558  =  Dess.  296.  It  is 
dated  trib.  potest.  XVIII  imp.   VII,  that  is,  in  114. 

"»  A.  von  Domaszewski  in  Jahresh.  des  dst.  arch.  Inst.  II  (1899)  176-177  =  Abh.  rom.  Pel. 
29-30,  summarized  by  E.  A.  Strong,  Roman  Sculpture  215-217;  see  also  P.  G.  Hamberg,  Roman 
Imperial  Art  (iy]o;^.^QZ,\x)Q\x,  La  Religion  RomaineY  431-437.  A  thunderbolt  had  also  appeared 
on  the  coinage  of  Domitian,  BMC  II  xciv-xcv,  and  Trajan  may  have  been  more  inclined  to  a 
superhuman  autocracy  than  Pliny  wished  to  recognize,  see  Hammond  Pliny  122  n.  2. 

'S3  For  Trajan's  rescue  from  an  earthquake  at  Antioch,  see  Dio  LXVIII  24-25,  esp.  §  25  5-6; 
for  the  coins,  BMC  III  Ixxxii.  The  date  of  the  earthquake  is  disputed;  Longden,  in  JRS  XXI 
(1931)  2-7,  placed  it  early  in  115,  but  Lepper,  Trajan's  Parthian  War  9,  21-27,  83,  follows  Guey 
in  accepting  the  date  of  Dec.  13,  115,  given  by  Malalas. 

"*  For  the  order  Optimo  Aug.  on  Trajan's  coinage,  see  the  index  of  legends  in  BMC  III 
617-618.  Inscriptions  vary  in  their  order,  see  Dess.  Ill  i  p.  274,  but  the  hesi  shovi  Optimo  Aug., 
for  instance  Dess,  293,  295-302,  304,  as  do  the  diplomas  in  which  Optimus  is  preserved,  CIL 
XVI  60-62,  suppl.   165. 

'55  For  the  dropping  oi  Optimus  from  Trajan's  formula  after  his  death,  see   below  n.   160. 

'5*  For  the  parallel  between  Trajan  and  Augustus,  see  Paribeni  OP  II  151.  Pliny,  Pan. 
88  10,  draws  a  parallel  between  Optimus  and  Augustus. 

'"  The  famous  salute  to  later  rulers  is  reported  by  Eutropius  VIII  5  3. 

■58  Pliny  Pan.  88  7 


IMPERIAL  ELEMENTS  IN  THE  FORMULA,  ETC.  45 

predecessor.  '^'  And  in  fact,  though  Trajan  appears  among  the  ancestors  of  his 
successors  as  diuus  Traianus  Parthicus,  Optimus  vanished.  ^^  As  was  remarked 
above,  this  might  suggest  that  it  was  a  modifier  of  Augustus  but  more  probably 
the  successors  of  Trajan,  and  even  he  himself,  were  more  proud  of  his  military 
successes  than  of  his  excellence  as  a  ruler  and  chose  to  keep  the  epithet  which 
reflected  the  might  of  the  empire  and  the  defeat  of  her  traditional  rival.  The 
contrast  with  Pitis,  which  Antoninus  continued  to  bear  as  an  ancestor,  should 
not  be  pressed  since  Antoninus  had  no  other  more  glorious  military  epithet  and 
also  since  Pius  did  not  continue  in  use  for  him  immediately  after  his  death  but 
was  reintroduced  by  Commodus.  '*' 

Although  none  of  Trajan's  successors  used  Optimus  as  an  imperial  epithet, 
it  was  sometimes  employed  in  the  established  fashion  as  an  adjective  peculiarly 
appropriate  with  princeps  or  imperator.  Examples  can  be  cited  for  Hadrian, 
Antoninus,  Marcus,  Commodus,  Caracalla  and  Alexander.  "*°  Under  Commodus, 
however,  optimus  princeps  began  to  be  replaced  by  such  forms  as  fortissim,us, 
felicissitnus,  or  sanctissimus  princeps. ''^^  "Constitutionality",  philosophically 
based  on  Stoicism,  was  giving  way  to  absolutism,  based  on  militant  religion.  '^'' 

Pius  was  voted  to  Antoninus  by  the  senate  and  first  appears  after  his  access- 
ion on  July   10,   138,  and,   to  judge  from  the  rarity  of  its  appearance  with  cos. 


'59  For  early  coinage  of  Hadrian  with  Optimus,  see  BMC  III  cxxiv,  236,  397-399  (all  of 
early  117);  Strack  II  {Hadr.)  3. 

160  Yor  the  absence  of  Optimus  when  Trajan  occurs  among  the  ancestors  of  his  successors, 
see  Dess.  Ill   i  index  III  under  maiores. 

'*'  For  the  retention  of  Pius  when  Antoninus  occurs  among  the  ancestors,    see    below  p.  47. 

'*''  For  the  use  oi  Optimus  by  Hadrian,  see,  besides  refs.  in  n.  159  above,  RE  I  (i)  499-500; 
DE  III  614;  Ferret  Tit.  Imp.  Hadr.  25-30.  For  its  use  by  Antoninus,  see  Hiittl  Ant.  I  64-65 
DE  I  506;  Vogt  Alex.  Miinzen  I  117-118.  As  Caesar,  Marcus  twice  appears  as  optima  ac piisimo,  in 
CILYl  1009  =  Dess.  2012  =  Hiittl  Ant  II  p.  231  and  in  CIL  XIV  suppl.  i  4366  =  Hiittl  Ant.  II 
p.  299,  and  once  as  optima  et  indulgentissimo  principi  when  emperor,  in  CIL  XIV  4003  =  Dess. 
6225.  For  Commodus,  see  DE  II  i  557.  For  Caracalla,  see  HE  \l  (2)  2438;  DE  II  i  106-107; 
note  particularly  the  phrases  Augustus  optimus  and  optimus  sanctissimus  Pius  Felix  Augustus,  in 
which  optimus  apparently  modifies  Augustus,  not  the  emperor  himself.  For  Alexander,  see  RE 
II  (4)  2527.     In  general,  see  Dess.  HI  i  index  HI. 

'*3  For  the  use  of  more  forceful  adjectives  than  optimus  for  Commodus,  see  DE  1\  i  557; 
for  Septimius,  see  Dess.  Ill  i  p.  286;  for  Caracalla,  see  DE  II  i  106-107;  for  Elagabalus,  see 
DE  III  668;  for  Alexander,  see  RE  II  (4)  2527.  Sacratissimus  had  been  applied  to  the  emperor 
at  least  as  early  as  Domitian,  see  K.  Scott,  Imperial  Cult  under  the  Flavians  99-100  for  this  and 
similar  terms.  On  Trajan's  accession,  Pliny  addressed  him  as  imperator  sanctissime,  Ep.  X  i  i 
with  E.  G.  Hardy's  n.  on  p.  77  of  his  edition  oi  Pliny's  Letters  X.  Hadrian  is  caWtd  fortissimo  libe- 
ralissimoque  in  CIL  VIII  2534  (from  Lambaesis  in  Africa). 

'*''  For  the  emergence  of  "  absolutist  "  terms  for  the  emperor,  see  A.  Alfoldi,  "  Die  Ausges- 
taltung  des  mon.  Zeremoniells  "  in  Mitt,  des  deutsch.  Arch.  Inst.  rom.  Abt.  XLIX  (1934)  3-118. 
O.  T.  Schulz,  Vom  Prinzipat  zum  Dominat  254-257,  contrasts  earlier  titles  with  the  late  second  and 
third  century  preference  for  dominus.  Despite  the  common  use  of  dominus  for  Domitian  by  such 
authors  as  Martial,  it  only  occurs  for  him  in  two  inscriptions,  CIL  VI  2354  and  X  444  ^  Dess. 
3546  (quoted  in  n.  138  above);  see  DE  II  2040-2041;  Scott  Imp.  Cult  102-112,  both  of  which  also 
discuss  the  combination  used  by  authors  of  dominus  et  deus.  The  phrase  dominus  noster  seems  to 
be  rare  in  inscriptions  until  Septimius,  see  G.  J.  Murphy  Sept.  Sev.  102-103,  with  reference  to  the 
articles  on  Dominus  in  RE  V  (9)  1305-1309  and  DE  II  1952-1955. 


46  MASON  HAMMOND 

alone,  close  to  his  designation  for  a  second  consulship.  '*'  Since  imperial  desi- 
gnations seem  during  the  second  century  to  have  occurred  late  in  the  year, 
perhaps  about  November  i,  the  grant  may  have  come  in  the  fall  of  138.  "** 
The  presence  of  Pius  for  Antoninus  on  the  funeral  inscription  of  Hadrian,  where 
Hadrian  himself  is  not  called  diuus,  might  suggest  that  the  title  was  voted  before 
the  deification  of  Hadrian  and  was  not,  therefore,  a  reward  for  Antoninus'  per- 
sistence in  securing  this  deification.  '*'  However,  this  inscription  was  erected  at 
least  six  months  and  perhaps  a  year  after  the  death  of  Hadrian,  since  Anto- 
ninus appears  as  cos.  II  design.  Ill,  the  first  of  which  he  became  only  on  January 
I,  139,  and  the  second  perhaps  as  late  as  November.  '*^  This  seems  a  long  post- 
ponement of  the  deification,  even  considering  the  opposition  with  which  it  met 
in  the  senate,  and  the  inscription  may  have  given  Hadrian  the  titles  which 
he  bore  when  he  died,   though  erected  considerably  later.  '*' 

The  significance  of  the  epithet  Pius  has  been  much  discussed  and  does  not 
strictly   concern    the   constitutional   position   of   the   emperor.  "'°     Probably,    the 

'*5  For  Pius,  see  Hiittl  Ant.  I  5411.  20;  E.  E.  Bryant,  Antoninus  Pius  2%;  RE  II  (4)  2497-2498; 
BMC  IV  XXV,  xl,  xlviii.  In  BMC  IV  3,  Pius  appears  on  the  fourth  issue  of  gold  and  silver  during 
tr.  p.  COS.,  that  is,  in  138.  On  pp.  169-170,  only  one  sestertius,  no.  ♦,  is  given  with  Pius  during 
this  period  and Mattingly  regards  the  obverse  as  a  later  one  with  the  reverse  oi  \t,9,.  Pius  becomes 
regular  with  tr.  p.  cos.  des.  II,  that  is,  late  in  138,  see  pp.  4,  170,  and  Strack  III  {Ant.)  2-3. 

'**  There  is  little  evidence  to  determine  at  what  time  of  year  designation  for  the  consulship 
occurred  during  the  second  century,  see  Mom.  I  587-588  n.  6;  DE  II  i  690  (where  October  is 
suggested). 

'*'  For  the  funeral  inscription  of  Hadrian,  see  CIL  VI  i  984  =  Dess.  322  and  compare  DE  I 
501,  505,  5o5;  PE  II  (4)  2498;  H.  Schiller,  Geschichte  der  rdm.  Kaiserzeit  I  628;  Hiittl  Ant.  I  53. 
Compare  also  P.  L.  Strack's  discussion  of  the  date  and  significance  of  Pius  in  his  review  of  MS 
III  in  Journal  of  Roman  Studies   XXI  (1931)   145-146. 

'*^  For  the  consulships  of  Antoninus,  see  BMC  IV  xxxii-xxxvii  (chronological  table);  Liebe- 
nam  Fasti  108. 

'^^  CIL  VI  I  99  =  Dess.  333  =  Hiittl  Ant.  II  230,  of  138,  already  calls  Hadrian  diuus, 
and  Cicotti,  DE  I  501  col.  i,  regarded  it  as  in  error.  Strack,  II  (Hadr.)  190-192,  cites  other 
inscriptions  from  138  with  diuus  and  argues  that  Hadrian  was  deified  soon  after  the  body  reached 
Rome  and  that  the  epithet  Pius  was  voted  to  Antoninus  in  consequence  thereof.  He  discounted 
Dio's  version  as  based  on  a  pro-senatorial  source  hostile  to  Hadrian. 

''"  T.  Ulrich,  Pietas,  discusses  the  significance  of  Pius.  See  also  Beaujeu  La  Religion  I  87-91 
for  Xh^  pietas  of  Trajan  and  pp.  280-291  for  pietas  and  the  title  Pius  of  Antoninus.  On  pp.  281- 
283,  Beaujeu  gives  some  republican  and  earlier  imperial  antecedents  for  the  title  Pius.  Some 
usages  of  pietas  under  the  Empire  may  be  noted.  The  funeral  inscription  of  Lucius  Vitellius, 
colleague  of  Claudius  in  the  censorship,  x^aA  pietatis  immobilis  erga  principem,  see  Suet.  Vit.  3  i. 
Domitian  used  of  the  senate  the  phrase  a  pietate  uestra,  that  is,  their  piety  towards  himself,  see 
Suet.  Dotn.  11  3;  compare  §  10  i  and  Mooney  Suetonius  notes  on  pp.  321,  556,  565,  to  these 
passages.  Pliny,  ii^  a  letter  to  Trajan,  uses  tua  pietas  of  the  emperor's  feeling  towards  Nerva, 
see  Ep.  X  i  1  with  Hardy's  note  in  his  ed.  of  Pliny's  Letters  X  p.  77.  Pliny  says  that  under 
Domitian,  a  certain  Massa,  accused  by  Senecio  and  himself  on  behalf  of  Baetica  of  extortion, 
countercharged  Senecio  with  impietas  because  the  latter  went  beyond  his  brief,  see  Ep.  VII  j,t,  7. 
Often,  though  perhaps  not  here,  impietas  seems  equivalent  to  maiestas.  Legions  faithful  in  time 
of  revolt  received  the  epithets  Pia  Fidelis,  for  instance  VII  and  XI  Claudia,  which  were  in  Dal- 
matia  under  Claudius  at  the  time  of  the  revolt  of  Scribonianus,  see  RE  XII  (23)  1249,  XII  (24) 
1628,  1705;  likewise  VI  Victrix,  X  Gemina,  I  Minerua,  XXII  Primigenia,  various  auxiliaries,  and 
the  classis  Germanica  at  the  time  of  the  revolt  of  Antonius  in  Germany  under  Domitian,  see 
^.  Cjf,e\\  Essai  sur  .  .  .  Domitien  256;  RE  XII  (24)  1434,  1613,  1690,  1820.  In  general,  see  Ulrich 
Pietas  91  index  under  legio,  especially  pp.  41-49. 


IMPERIAL  ELEMENTS  IN  THE  FORMULA,  ETC.  47 

epithet  Pius  was  meant  to  cover  various  aspects  of  Antoninus'  pietas:  towards 
his  family,  towards  the  state,  and  towards  the  gods.  He  was  noted  for  this 
virtue  even  before  his  accession  and  his  devotion  to  the  memory  of  Hadrian 
would  have  enhanced  the  appropriateness  of  the  epithet.  '''  But  whether  or 
not  the  deification  occasioned,  if  it  did  not  motivate,  the  vote  cannot  be  decided 
in  the  light  of  extant  evidence. 

During  the  life  of  Antoninus,  Pius  took  its  place  in  the  formula  after 
Augustus.  ''"  On  coins  of  Faustina  the  Elder  occasionally,  and  on  those  of 
Marcus  as  Caesar  and  of  Faustina  the  Younger  frequently,  Antoninus  figures 
simply  as  Aug.  Pii  instead  of  Antonini  Aug.  Pii.  '"  After  Antoninus'  death, 
Marcus  officially  omitted  Pius  and  included  his  predecessor  among  the  ancestors 
simply  as  diui  Antonini.  ''^  Pius  occurs  frequently,  however,  for  the  deified 
Antoninus  in  unofficial  inscriptions  during  the  reign  of  Marcus.  ""  In  a  diploma 
of  178,  Marcus  is  still  ditii  Antonini fil.  but  Commodus,  his  colleague,  \^  Antonini 
Aug.  fil.,  diui  Pii  nepos,  and  divi  Pii  remained  customary  for  Antoninus  among 
the  ancestors  until  the  end  of  the  Severan  dynasty.  ''*  Thus,  from  the  time  of 
Commodus,  Pius,  unlike  Optimus,  became  almost  as  regular  a  name  for  Anto- 
ninus as  Augustus  had  long  before    become    for  the    founder  of  the  principate. 

Furthermore,  like  Augustus,  Pius  was  adopted  by  later  emperors.  Marcus 
did  not  use  it,  probably  with  the  expectation  that  it  would  remain  peculiar  to 
his  predecessor.  '"  After  Marcus'  death,  Commodus  added  it  to  the  name  of 
his  father  and  also  preserved  Marcus'  military  epithets:  diui  M.  Antonini  Pii 
Germ.  Sarm.fil.,  diui  Pii  nepos.  "*    Moreover  he  himself  assumed  the  epithet.  '" 

'"  For  the  pietas  of  Antoninus,  see  Ulrich  Pietas  65-69;  HuttI  Ant.  I  52-58;  Bryant  Ant.  28; 
Beaujeu  La  Religion  282,  286-289. 

''^  For  the  place  of  Pius,  see  BMC  IV  911- 12,  923-24  under  index  V;  Dess.  Ill  i  p.  278. 
The  diplomas  show  it  regularly,  after  Aug.  and  before  pont.  max.;  see  C/Z  XVI  p.   153. 

'"  The  coins  are  collected  more  conveniently  in  MS  than  in  BMC.  Pius  occurs  only  on  aes 
of  Faustina  I,  usually  in  the  combination  Antonini  Aug.  Pii,  see  MS  III  66-68,  158-161.  For 
Marcus  Caesar,  see  MS  III  77-92,  171-190.     For  Faustina  II,  see  MS  III  92-95,  191-194. 

'"♦  For  the  official  disappearance  of  Pius,  see  for  instance  CIL  XVI  11 8- 123,  diplomas  of 
Marcus  and  Verus,  with  one  set  of  ancestors  for  both. 

'"  For  the  unofficial  survival  of  Pius,  see  DE  I  506  col.  i;  Hiittl  Ant.  I  59;  Dess.  Ill  i 
pp.  280  (Marcus'  ancestors),  282  (Verus'  ancestors). 

"'*  CIL  XVI  128,  where  the  use  of  Pius  serves  the  practical  purpose  of  distinguishing  Anto- 
ninus from  Marcus.  For  the  later  occurrence  of  diui  Pii  among  the  ancestors,  see  Dess.  Ill  i 
index  III  under  the  successors  of  Commodus;  DE  I  506  col.   i. 

'"  Dessau  gives  one  inscription,  no.  362,  in  which  Marcus  bears  Pius  during  his  life,  but  this 
is  an  irregular  and  careless  fragment  from  Germany.  For  pietas  on  the  coins  of  Marcus,  see 
Ulrich  Pietas  72-73;  BMC  IV  962  index  s.  u. 

"8  For  Marcus'  posthumous  formula,  see  DE  I  944,  II  i  551;  BMC  IV  civ,  691-693,  762- 
764;  Ulrich  Pietas  74.  The  military  epithets  are  not  invariable;  for  instance,  the  Acts  of  the  Arval 
Brethren  for  Jan.  7,  183,  read  simply  diui  M.  Antonini  fil.,  diui  Antonini  nepoti,  etc.,  see  Henzen 
AFA  clxxxvi  lines  13-14.  However  the  first  preserved  diploma  of  Commodus,  CIL  XVI  133 
dated  Mar.  16,  192,  gives  good  evidence  for  the  official  usage  as  quoted  in  the  text  above.  Fau- 
stina II  appears  as  diuae  Piae  Faustinae  in  CIL  VI  i  1019  =  Dess.  382  or  as  diua  Faustina  Pia 
in  BMC  IV  488-491,  650-656.     See  Ulrich  Pietas  74. 

"9  SHA  Com.  8  i:  Commodus  senatu  semet  inridente  .  .  .  appellatus  est  Pius,  see\J\x\cYi  Pietas 
74-75.     Pius  does  not  occur  for  Commodus  in  CIL  VIII  suppl.  14791  =  Dess.  6808,  of  182  from 


48  MASON  HAMMOND 

He  undoubtedly  realized  how  popular  Antoninus  had  been  and  how  regretfully 
a  world  exhausted  by  twenty  years  of  frontier  warfare  looked  back  to  that  hal- 
cyon reign.  Also,  the  souls  of  men  were  increasingly  disturbed  by  doubts  and 
perplexities  and  many  must  have  felt  that  the  evils  of  their  times  were  due 
to  some  lack  of  piety  towards  the  gods.  '^°  Commodus  seems  to  have  assumed 
the  epithet  after  the  detection  of  the  conspiracy  of  Lucilla,  when  he  might  well 
have  desired  to  bolster  up  his  waning  popularity  by  an  appeal  to  his  illustrious 
ancestry  and  also  to  create  an  impression  that  his  pietas  placed  him  and  the 
state   under   the   special   protection   of  the  gods.  '*' 

In^Commodus'  early  formula,  Pius  continued  to  occupy  the  position  after 
Augustus  which  Antoninus  had  assigned  to  it.  Late  in  185,  Commodus  added 
the  epithet  Felix.  '^^  He  did  so  in  consequence,  probably,  of  the  suppression 
of  the  military  revolt  in  Britain.  ''^  Soon  thereafter,  he  advanced  Pius  Felix 
to  a  position  before  Augustus.  ''''  But  at  the  end  of  his  reign,  when  he  changed 
his  praenomen  from  Marcus  back  to  Lucius,  the  coins  again  show  Piius)  Feliix) 
after  Augiustus).  "*'     It  is  difficult   to  determine  whether  he  meant  Pius  Felix 

Africa,  which  does  show  diui  M.Antonini  PiiGerm.Sarm.  fil.,  diui  Pii  nep.  etc.  /"/aj  does  appear 
for  Commodus  in  the  Acts  of  the  Arval  Brethren  for  Jan.  7,  183,  not  in  the  consular  heading, 
Henzen  A  FA  clxxxv  line  i,  but  in  the  nuncupatio  uotorum:  Imp.  Caes.  M.Aurelio  ll\\\\\  Antonio 
Aug.  Pio  Sarmat.  Germ.  Maximo,  in  p.  clxxxvi  lines  12-13,  compare  also  the  restored  name  in 
p.  clxxv  line  3;  see  DE  II  i  551.  Coins  show  Pius  for  Commodus  in  183,  see  BMC  IV  clvii, 
clxxii,  704,  y88.  Vogt,  Alex.  Miinzen  I  147,  says  that  Pius  appears  in  Alexandria  only  in  the 
second  half  of  183,  compare  p.  175.  The  omission  of  Pius  for  Commodus  in  the  African  inscrip- 
tion is  not  conclusive  in  view  of  the  fact  that  the  Acts  of  the  Arval  Brethren  show  it  for  Commo- 
dus, but  omit  it  for  the  ancestors,  for  whom  the  African  inscription  gives  it.  The  coins,  however, 
suggest  that  Commodus  applied  it  at  once  to  his  predecessors,  but  assumed  it  himself  only  in  183, 
perhaps  as  the  Life  suggests  by  vote  of  the  senate. 

"^  Ulrich,  Pietas  79-82,  connected  the  assumption  of  Pius  with  Commodus'  greco-oriental 
religious  policy;  see  BMC  III  clviii  n.   i. 

'*'  Mattingly,  in  MS  III  358  and  BMC  clxxiii  (compare  cliii,  clvii),  following  Heer  Com.  69, 
connects  Commodus'  assumption  of  Pius  with  the  conspiracy  of  Lucilla.  Ulrich,  Pietas  75,  sug- 
gest an  unidentified  victory.  SHA  Cowz.  8  I  connects  it  with  the  elevation  of  one  of  his  mother's 
adulterers,  L.  "Tatilius  Pontianus  Gentianus,  to  the  consulship,  see  RE  II  (4)  2475. 

'8=  Felix  appears  in  Pliny  Pan.  2  8  of  Trajan:  quod  felices  nos,  felicem  ilium  praedicamus. 
In  §  88  s,  Pliny  seems  to  refer  to  Sulla  Felix  and  Pompey  Magnus  in  contrast  to  Trajan  Optimus: 
an  satius  fuit  felicem  uocare  .  .  satius  magnum?;  see  Durry  Pline  Pan.  216  n.  ad  loc.  For  Felix 
used  of  Commodus,  see  Beaujeu  La  Religion  I  395-396,  where  the  ti  tie  is  presented  as  part  of 
Commodus'  general  megalomania  and  self-deification.  For  Pius  Felix  Aug.  of  Commodus  and 
succeeding  emperors  even  down  to  Justin  II  in  the  sixth  century,  see  DE  III  44-49;  CIL  XVI 
P-  153- 

'^3  So  von  Rohden  in  RE  II  (4)  2476.  He  rejected  coins  of  tr.  p.  Villi,  Dec.  10,  183/Dec. 
9,  184,  which  show  Fel.,  Cohen  III  289  no.  463,  316  no.  658;  MS  III  376  nos.  91,  98a.  Mattingly, 
MS  III  p.  358,  accepted  these  coins  and  connected  them  with  some  Sarmatian  victory.  But  in 
BMC  IV  clix-clx  (compare  xxv,  cliii,  clxxv),  he  accepts  for  Felix  the  date  of  185  and  a  connec- 
tion with  the  fall  of  Perennis,  though  he  does  not  reject  the  coins;  see  his  comment  under  the 
formulas  on  p.  712.  SHA  Com.  8  i  connects  Felix  with  the  fall  of  Perennis,  a  result  of  the  British 
mutiny;  ^et  DE  II  i  551.     See  also  Vogt  Alex.  Miinzen  I   185. 

'«*  The  coins  of  185,  BMC  IV  712,  717  ff.,  798  ff.  802,  show  either  Aug.  P.  Brit.  Fel.  or  P. 
Fel.  Aug.  Brit. 

'*5  Instead  of  M.  Comm.  Ant.  P.  Fel.  Aug.,  Commodus  appears  late  in  191  and  in  192  as 
L.  Ael.  Aur{el).  Com(m).  Aug.  P.  F(el).,  see  BMC  IV  746,  833.     However,  a  diploma  of  Mar.   16, 


IMPERIAL  ELEMENTS  IN  THE  FORMULA,  ETC.  49 

to  be  epithets  or  even  names  applied  directly  to  himself,  as  he  had  applied  Pius 
alone  to  his  two  predecessors  and  as  Optimus  had  probably  been  applied  to 
Trajan,  or  whether  he  intended  them  to  be  adjectival  modifiers  of  Augustus, 
which  by  then  had  become  a  noun  designating  the  emperor.  "^^  Towards  the 
end  his  life,  Commodus  identified  himself  with  Inuictus  Hercules  Romanus.  '^' 
The  transitory  emperors  of  193/196  rejected  the  epithets  Pius  Felix,  pre- 
sumably because  of  their  association  with  the  unpopular  Commodus.  The  assump- 
tion of  lustus  by  Pescennius  and  of  Pertinax  and  Pius  by  Septimius  within  the 
imperial  titles  has  already  been  discussed.  '^^  In  all  likelihood  Septimus  assumed 
Pertinax  in  193  as  a  name  which  would  connect  him  with  Commodus'  successor, 
though  in  form  it  might  equally  be  an  epithet.  Pius  he  may  have  adopted  in 
195  either  as  a  hereditary  name  or  as  an  epithet.  His  formula  became  Imp. 
Caes.  (ancestors)  L.  Septimius  Seuerus  Pius  Pertinax  Aug.  '^'    This  order  suggests 

192,  CIL  XVI  133,  keeps  the  earlier  order  P.  F.  A.  with  the  new  name:  Imp.  Caes.  (ancestors) 
L.  Aelius  Aurelius  Commodus  Pius  Felix  Aug.  Sarm.  Germ..  Max.  Britt. 

'**  Comparable  with  the  use  of  Pius  as  a  hereditary  epithet  is  the  republican  practice  of 
inheriting  such  cognomina  as  Africanus  in  the  Scipionic  family  or  Pictor  in  the  Fabian,  see  Doer 
Namengebung  50-51,  68-72.  Compare  also  the  epithet  Germanicus  among  the  Claudian  emperors, 
below  p.  52.     For  Optimus,  see  above  p.  45. 

'^'  The  identification  of  Commodus  with  Hercules  is  asserted  by  Dio  LXXII  (LXXIII)  15  2 
and  by  SHA  Com.  8  5:  Romanus  Hercules;  see  Heer  Com.  95  if.;  G.  Wissowa,  Religion  und  Kultur 
der  Romen^  94  n.  3;  Beaujeu  La  Religion  I  401-408.  The  only  epigraphical  evidence  is  an  inscrip- 
tion from  Trevi  on  the  Anio  reported  in  the  14th  cent.,  CIL  XIV  3449  =  Dess.  400,  of  the  end  of 
192:  Imp.  Caes.  L.  Aelio  Aurelio  Commodo  Aug.  Sarmatico  Germanico  Maximo  Brittanico  pacatori 
orbis  felici  inuicto  Romano  Herculi  etc.  Dessau,  III  i  p.  284  in  his  index,  so  punctuates  as  to 
make  inuictus  a  separate  epithet  applicable  to  Commodus,  not  to  Romano  Herculi;  see  DE  II  i 
556  col.  2.  This  seems  supported  by  the  name  Inuictus  ('Avix7)tci;)  which  Dio,  LXXII  (LXXIII) 
15  3)  s^ys  that  Commodus  gave  to  one  of  the  months;  see  also  SHA  Com.  11  8:  pro  Octobri  Inuic- 
tum;  BMC  IV  clxii.  The  epithet  Inuictus  does  not,  however,  occur  officially  until  the  third  cen- 
tury, see  below  nn.  199-200.  Mattingly  thinks  that  the  identification  with  Hercules  is  represented 
on  coins  of  late  191  and  192  with  the  obverse  legend:  L.  Ael.  Aurel.  Comm.  Aug.  P.  Fel.,  and  the 
reverse:  Herculo  Romano  Aug.,  see  BMC  IV  751  no  -f- ,  752-753,  842-845;  compare  pp.  clxviii, 
cbcvi,  clxxviii,  and,  for  medallions,  clxxxii-elxxxiii;  see  also  Ferrero  in  DE  II  i  557;  von  Rohden 
in  RE  II  (4)  2470.  That,  however,  these  legends  refer  to  Hercules  as  distinct  from  Commodus 
might  be  argued  from  such  earlier  reverses  as:  Marti  Uliori  Aug.,  BMC  IV  834  no.  •,  836  no.  »; 
Romae  Felici,  p.  740  nos.  275-277;  Apol.  Monet.,  p.  743  no.  291.  Commodus,  to  be  sure,  is  shown 
with  the  attributes  of  Hercules  in  a  famous  bust  in  the  Conservatori  Museum,  see  the  British 
School  Catalogue  of  Sculptures  in  the  Palazzo  dei  Conservatori  139-142  no.  20  and  plate  48;  compare 
the  analysis  of  this  bust  in  Beaujeu  La  Religion  I  406-408,  who  regards  it  as  evidence  for  Com- 
modus' self-deification.  But  earlier  emperors  had  been  represented  with  the  attributes  of  various 
divinities,  see  Hammond  Z^<?//.  Inf.  5.  Trajan,  for  instance,  was  identified  with  Dionysus,  conqueror 
of  the  world,  see  Vogt  Alex  Milnzen  I  93.  He  is  also  called  by  Pliny,  Pan.  8  2,  an  inuictus 
Imperator,  and,  in  §  14  2,  may  be  likened  to  Hercules,  see  Vogt  Alex.  Miinzen  I  72-73;  BMC  III 
Ixvii-lxviii;  Strack  I  {Trai.)  95-104.  Hercules  represented  for  the  Stoics  the  great  benefactor  of 
mankind,  to  whom  they  assimilated  the  emperor.  Thus,  as  Beaujeu,  La  Religion  I  409,  says, 
Commodus  only  exaggerated  an  already  customary  tendency  and  did  not  introduce  an  official 
innovation  among  the  titles. 

188  Pqj.  t^jjg  iniperial  names  and  titles  of  the  transitory  emperors  of  193/196,  see  above 
pp.  33-34.  lustus,  the  epithet  of  Pescennius,  appears  occasionally  on  reverses  of  the  coinage  of 
Septimius  in  the  East,  see  BMC  V  xxxv. 

'^9  For  the  imperial  names  and  titles  of  Septimius,  see  above  p.  34  and  n.  97.  An  early 
example  of  his   full   formula  is  CIL  VIII  9317  =  Hasebroek  Sept.  Sev.  no.  28,  dated  tr.  p.  Ill, 


JO  MASON  HAMMOND 

that  if  Pertinax  was  a  name,  so  also  was  Pius,  and  not  an  adjective  modifying 
Augustus.  Despite  Septimius'  own  assumption  of  Pius  and  his  deification  of 
Commodus,  he  dropped  this  epithet  from  the  latter's  name  among  the  ances- 
tors, though  he  retained  it  for  Marcus  and  for  Antoninus. '«°  There  was,  appar- 
ently, a  limit  to  his  admiration  for  the  last  of  the  Antonines. 

His  son  Caracalla,  who  became  his  colleague  in  198,  gradually  adopted  both 
Pius  and  Felix  before  Augustus,  though  the  dates  and  order  are  uncertain.  '«' 
Geta,  as  third  Augustus  in  209,  bore  Pius  but  not  Felix.  '^  Hence  Caracalla 
may  not  have  assumed  the  latter  officially  until  after  his  "  escape  "  from  his 
brother^s  "  plot  ".  "'  Pius  Felix  Augustus  remained  the  regular  style  for  Ma- 
crinus,  Elagabalus,  Alexander,  and  their  successors.  "'''  Caracalla  also  retained 
Pius  for  the  deified  Septimius.  He  himself,  in  turn,  received  it  as  ancestor  from 
Elagabalus  and  Alexander.  ''^ 

Elagabalus,  moreover,  recognized  Caracalla's  admiration  for  Alexander  the 
Great  by  awarding  to    him    the    epithet    Magnus;    the    Syrian    stated    his    fic- 

or  in  195.  CIL  VIII  306  =  Dess.  417,  also  of /r.  /.  ///,  has  Pertinax  without  Pius.  A  di- 
ploma of  Feb.  1,  194,  CIL  XVI  134,  also  lacks  Pius,  but  this  epithet  appears  in  the  next  pre- 
served one  CIL  XVI  135,  of  the  much  later  year  208,  where  it  precedes  Pertinax  Aug.  for  Septi- 
mius and  ^«^.  for  Caracalla,  see  p.   153. 

'9°  For  Septimius'  ancestors,  see  Dess.  Ill  i  p.  286,  giving  the  full  list  as  diui  M.Antonini 
Pit  Germ.  Sarm.  filius,diui  Commodi  f rater,  diui  (Antonini)  Pii  nepos,  and  so  on  back  to  Nerva. 

'9'  Taramelli  in  DE  II  i  is  not  very  clear  in  his  description  of  Caracalla's  epithets.  On 
p.  107  col.  I,  he  gives  Pius  in  201  and  Felix  in  213,  but  on  pp.  107  col.  2  -  108  col.  2,  he  gives 
Aug.  Pius  in  199,  Pius  Aug.  in  201,  and  Pius  Felix  Aug.  in  210.  Pii  Felicis  Aug.  appears  on 
Apr.  I,  200,  in  a  dedication  of  the  equites  singulares,  CIL  VI  i  225  =  Dess.  2186;  compare  the 
praetorian  "Mithraic  "  dedication  CIL  VI  i  738  =  F.  Cumont,  Textes  et  Monuments  etc.  II  100 
n.  37  =  M.  Durry,  Les  Cohortes  Pretoriennes  340-341,  restored  to  read  Aug.  Pii  [Felicis  .  .  .].  Felix 
does  not  occur  in  the  diploma  of  208,  CIL  XVI  135,  which  gives  only  Pius  Aug.,  and  only  rarely 
on  inscriptions  before  213,  see  RE  II  (4)  2437.  The  coins  show  Pius  Aug.  in  201,  see  BMC  IV 
cxxx,  204  (not  on  aes  until  202-210,  see  pp.  322,  329),  and  Pius  Fel.  Aug.  briefly  in  212/214, 
see  p.  cxiv  with  reference  to  Commodus  Pius  Felix  in  BMC  IV  clix. 

■«"  For  Geta,  see  i?^  II  (4)   1568;  DE  III  529;  Hasebroek  Sept.  143;  Dess.  Ill   i  p.  291. 

■«  BMC  V  XXXV. 

'9*  For  Macrinus  and  his  successors,  see  Dess.  Ill  i  pp.  291-294;  CIL  XVI  p.  153.  Ma- 
crinus'  coinage  shows  Aug.  alone,  see  BMC  V  ccxvi.  That  of  Elagabalus  shows  Aug.,  Pius  Aug., 
Pius  Fel.  Aug.,  or  P{ius)  F(elix)  Aug.,  see  BMC  V  ccxxi,  ccxlii-ccxlvi.  Alexander's  coinage 
usually  shows  Aug.  or  Pius  Aug.,  see  MS  IV  2  71,  but  Pius  Felix  Aug.  occurs  on  p.  88  no.  229. 
The  inscriptions  show  that  SHA  Macr.  11  2  (see  also  §§  7  2  and  5)  is  wrong  to  state  that  when 
the  senate  addressed  Macrinus  as  Pius  Felix,  he  accepted  only  Felix.  For  Alexander,  Pius  appears 
on  coins  of  Alexandria  from  the  beginning  but  at  Rome  only  after  231,  see  Vogt  Alex.  Miinzen 

I  183;  MS  IV  2  87,  III. 

'95  For  Pius  as  applied  to  the  deified  Septimius,  see  Dess.  Ill  i  p.  289  (two  instances);  DE 

II  I  106  {Pius  Pertinax).  A  diploma  of  Caracalla,  CIL  XVI  137,  shows  diui  Septimi  Seueri Pii 
Arab.  Adiab.  Parth.  max.  Brit.  Max.  f.;  one  of  Elagabalus,  no.  139  (restored),  and  several  of  Alex- 
ander, nos.  140-145,  suppl.  189,  show  simply  diui  Seueri  Pii  nepos.  For  the  deified  Caracalla  in 
the  ancestry  of  Elagabalus  and  Alexander  as  diui  {Magni)  Antonini  {Magni)  Pii,  with  Magni, 
when  it  occurs,  in  either  of  the  two  places  indicated  and  Pii  present  when  it  is  also  used  for 
Septimius,  see  Dess.  Ill  i  pp.  292,  293-294;  Zf^  II  i  109;  also  the  diplomas  just  cited,  which  give 
regularly  diui  Antonini  Magni  Pii  fil.  for  both  Elagabalus  and  Alexander.  Pius,  as  just  noted,  is 
not  invariable  for  the  deified  ancestors;  for  instance,  CIL  VIII  10347  =  Dess.  469  (fromMau- 
retania)  gives  Pius  to  Antoninus  alone  among  the  ancestors  of  Elagabalus. 


IMPERIAL  ELEMENTS  IN  THE  FORMULA,  ETC.  51 

titious  parentage  as  diui  Antonini  Magni  Pit    f.  ''*    Alexander  preserved    this 
form.  "»' 

Inuictus  does  not  appear  as  a  regular  epithet  for  Commodus  or  his  successors 
in  the  diplomas  or  on  coins.  ''^  But  it  appears  occasionally  in  inscriptions  for 
Caracalla  and  more  frequently  for  Elagabalus  and  for  Alexander.  '*'  In  the  later 
third  and  fourth  centuries,  Inuictus  became  a  regular  epithet,  especially  in  the 
superlative  inuictissimus.  ^°° 

These  epithets,  Optimius,  Pius,  Felix,  and  Inuictus,  began  as  sincere  tributes 
from  the  senate  to  the  qualities  for  which  they  admired  certain  emperors.  Less 
deserving  emperors  assumed  them  or  received  them  from  a  servile  senate  because 
of  the  value  of  associating  themselves  with  their  predecessors  and  also  in  the 
hope  that  the  names  might  magically  endow  them,  or  at  least  their  reigns,  with 
the  good  fortune,  if  not  with  the  virtue,  which  had  characterized  the  original 


'9*  For  J/i7^««j  as  an  epithet  of  Caracalla  after  his  death,  see  ZJ^  II  i  109;  Dess.  Ill  i  p.  292; 
BMC  V  ccxxxi.  CIL  XVI  p.  153  does  not  list  it  but  it  appears  in  the  diplomas  of  Elagabalus 
and  Alexander  listed  in  the  last  note,  in  the  order  diui  Antonini  Magni,  though,  as  stated,  other 
inscriptions  show  it  before  Antoninus  or  omit  entirely.  During  his  lifetime,  Caracalla  had  appeared 
as  magnus  imperator  in  inscriptions  of  213/214,  see  DE  11  i  106  col.  2,  but  not  in  a  diploma  of 
Jan.  7,  216,  CIL  XVI  137  =  Dess.  2007;  see  RR  II  (4)  2437.  For  his  admiration  for  Alexander 
the  Great,  see  V.  Capocci,  Za  Constitutio  Antoniana  71;  Bruhl  \nMel.  d'Arch.  et  d'Hist.  de  r£cole 
franf.  de  Rome  XLVII  (1930)  214-218;  A.  Alfoldi  in  Mitt,  der  deutsch.  arch.  Inst.  rom.  Abt.  L(i935) 
151;  BMCY  cciii-cciv,  especially  p.  cciv  n.  i;  Treves  II  mito  di  Alessandro  97-98  in  n.  11   to  ch.  IV. 

'9'  ForCaracalla  as  Alexander's  "  father  ",  see  for  example  the  ancestors  in  C/Z  XVI  142-145. 

'9^  Inuictus  appears  only  once  for  Commodus  in  an  inscription,  see  above  n.  187;  DE  II  i 
556  at  the  bottom  of  the  second  column,  citing  Dio  LXXII  (LXXIII)  15  2  and  CIL  XIV  3449. 
Inuictus  is  not  listed  by  Nesselhauf,  CIL  XVI  p.  153,  among  the  epithets  of  emperors  in  the 
diplomas,  though  Elagabalus  applied  it  to  the  Sun  in  his  formula  in  nos.  139,  140,  141  (.'): 
sacerdos  amplissimus  dei  Inuicti  Solis  Elagabali.  Aurei  oiG&ta,,  coined  c.  200/202,  call  him  on  their 
reverses  Seueri  Inuicti  Aug.  Pii  fit.,  see  BMC  V  199  nos.  244-245.  The  article  on  Inuictus  in  ZilZ' 
IV  I  79-80  does  not  collect  the  material  in  the  way  that  it  is  presented  by  that  on  Felix  in 
III  44-49,  but  simply  lists  the  divinities  and  emperors  for  whom  it  occurs  and  concludes  that  it 
appeared  only  late,  under  the  Severi. 

'99  DE  II  I  106-107  gives  no  references  for  Caracalla  Inuictus  but  simply  puts  his  assumption 
of  the  epithet  in  211,  see  CIL  III  3472  =  Dess.  2320  (from  Hungary,  no  date):  Pii  Inuicti  Aug. 
CIL  III  4784  =  Dess.  4835  (from  Germany,  no  date):  Pii  Felicis  Inuicti;  CIL  X  6854  =  Dess. 
5822  (from  Italy,  dated  216):  Inuictus  Pius  Felix  Aug.;  CIL  III  207  =  Dess.  5865a  (from  Syria, 
no  date):  Inuicte  Imp.,  CIL  VI  671  =  Dess.  3543  (from  Rome,  no  date);  domn.  inuicti.  For  Ela- 
gabalus Inuictus,  see  DE  III  668  and  CIL  VIII  4440  and  suppl.  18587  =  Dess.  5793  (from  Nu- 
midia,  no  year  date):  [I]mp.  Caes.  M.  Aurelio  Inuicto  Pio  Felice  Aug.  amplissimo  [sacerdoie  dei 
Inuicti  Solis  Elagabali  .  .  .],  which  seems  certainly  (see  Dess.  n.  i)  to  refer  to  Elagabalus  (and 
was  so  restored  by  Henzen)  despite  the  simple  form  of  the  name,  M.  Aurelio.  See  also  an  inscrip- 
tion cited  in/PZ'^  VIII  (15)  399  from  Osterr.  Jahresh.  XXIX  (1935)  265-268  (from  Noricum):  [/]»?/. 
Caes  M.  Aurel.j  [A]ntoninus  Pius  Felix  I  \In\uictus  Aug.  cos.  Ill  p.  p.  \  [sac]erdos  amplissimus  et  j 
[M.  Au]rel.  Alexander  C[aesar],  early  in  221.  For  Alexander  Inuictus,  see  RE  II  (4)  2527;  Dess. 
Ill  I  p.  293,  where  two  inscriptions  are  cited  for  Inuictus  Pius  Felix  Aug.  and  one  for  {Piusl 
Felix  Inuictus  [Aug.]  and  one  for  dominus  n.  Inuictus  Imp.  M.  Aur.  Alexander  Aug. 

=°°  For  emperors  of  the  third  and  fourth  century,  Dess.  Ill  i  pp.  294  if.  gives  both  orders: 
Inuictus  Pius  Felix  Aug.  or  Pius  Felix  Inuictus  Aug.  In  the  examples  of  later  usage  (without 
references)  in  Z^Z  III  48-49,  the  intrusion  of  words  like  Victor  and  Triumphator  and  especially  of 
the  adverb  semper  with  Aug.  suggests  that  the  epithets  Pius  Felix  Inuictus  were  thought  of  as 
epithets  of  the  emperor  himself  and  not  as  modifiers  of  Aug. 


52 


MASON  HAMMOND 


bearers  of  the  epithets.  But  the  epithets  also  expressed  the  desires  of  the  times. 
Augustus  had  embodied  a  real  feeling  that  the  achievements  of  Octavian  had 
raised  him  above  the  level  of  ordinary  mortals.  Optimus  reflects  the  Stoic  ideals 
of  the  upper  classes  of  the  turn  of  the  century  and  the  rapprochement  between 
the  senate,  embodying  the  traditions  of  the  republican  optimates,  and  the  em- 
peror. The  mid  second  century  witnessed  a  revival,  or  rather  a  renovation,  of 
religious  feeling  which  found  its  expression  in  emphasis  on  the  concept  of  pietas, 
whether  or  not  this  was  the  simple  old  Roman  virtue  or  had  become  tinged  with 
mystical  connotations.  The  troubles  of  the  reigns  of  Marcus  and  Commodus 
led  men^to  hope  that  good  fortune  and  success  would  rest  with  the  Roman  armies; 
that   the  emperor  would  be  Felix  and  Inuidus. 

The  importance  attached  to  these  epithets,  not  merely  because  of  their 
associations  with  the  past  but  also  for  their  possible  magical  benefits,  appears 
in  the  exalted  position  which  they  received  in  the  imperial  formula  from  the 
time  of  Commodus.  Before  that,  they  had  been  simple  epithets,  characterizing 
their  bearer.  Commodus,  however,  joined  them  closely  to  his  personal  name, 
within  the  imperial  titles  of  Imp.  Caes.  .  .  .Aug.  In  part,  probably,  he  was 
influenced  by  the  fact  that  Augustus  itself  had  developed  from  an  epithet  into 
a  name  for  the  first  ruler  and  a  title  for  his  successors.  In  part,  he  may  have 
regarded  Pius  as  a  name  which  he  had  inherited  from  Marcus  and  Antoninus. 
But  he  undoubtedly  also  wanted  to  make  it  absolutely  clear  that  he,  whether 
in  his  own  person  or  as  Augustus,  was  Pius  Felix  Inuictus.  By  the  time  of 
Elagabalus,  these  epithets  were  attached  to  the  emperor  himself,  to  judge  from 
an  acclamation  of  the  Arval  Brethren  when  they  undertook  uota  annua  et  decen- 
nalia  on  his  behalf  on   July   14,   219:   Feli\cis'\s{ime)\   Saepe  de  nostr{is)  ann{is) 

augeat  tibi  [r\up[piter  annos\ Sis  p'\ius  et  felix  Miarce)  Aifitonint) 

Im{perator)   C{aesar)  Aug{uste)\  Di  te   seru{ent)\  etc.  '°^ 

The  epithets  of  victory  demand  less  attention.  They  regularly  followed 
either  directly  after  Augustus  or  after  the  epithets  just  discussed,  Optimus,  Pius, 
Felix,  when  these  followed  Augustus.  For  Trajan,  Marcus,  and  the  Severi 
they  are  often  retained  after  death,  when  these  emperors  are  mentioned  among 
the  ancestors.  The  only  epithet  of  victory  which  merits  individual  comment  is 
Germanicus.  This  had  had  popular  associations  with  the  son  of  Drusus  the 
Elder  and  was  regularly  borne  by  the  Claudian  emperors  Gaius,  Claudius,  and 
Nero  as  a  hereditary  agnomen.  ^""^  Vitellius  adopted  it  with  the  novel  conno- 
tation not  that  he  had  defeated  Germans  but  that  he  had  been  elevated  by  the 

"°'  For  the  acclamation  of  the  Arval  Brethren  to  Elagabalus,  see  Henzen  AFA  ccvii  lines 
36-37,  cited  in  RE2  VIII  (15)  395. 

°°"  For  Germanicus  as  an  epithet  in  general,  see  RE  VII  (13)  1251-1257  s.  u.  For  its  use 
under  the  Julio-Claudians,  see  BMC  I  Ixxix;  Dess.  Ill  i  264-267.  It  is  noteworthy  that  despite 
his  "  conquest  "  of  Britain,  Claudius  did  not  himself  assume  the  epithet  Britannicus,  though  his 
son  did  so,  DE  II  i  295-296,  302.  In  this  he  may  have  imitated  his  father  Drusus  the  Elder, 
for  whom  Germanicus  appears  only  as  a  posthumous  honor,  voted  by  the  senate,  see  RE  III  (6) 
2705  towards  bottom  (the  inscriptions  listed  in  Dess.  Ill  i  p.  261  all  seem  to  be  posthumous), 
though  his  son  bore  it  regularly  as  a  personal  name,   see  RE  X  (19)  435;  Dess.  Ill  i  p.  262. 


IMPERIAL  ELEMENTS  IN  THE  FORMULA,  ETC.  53 

German  legions;  he  appears  as  A.  Vitellius  Germ.  imp.  Aug.  ''°'  Domitian  reviv- 
ed the  epithet  to  commemorate  his  defeat  of  the  Chatti  in  83,  and  thereafter, 
when  it  was  assumed,  as  it  was  by  Nerva  at  the  end  of  97,  it  had  its  proper 
connotation  of  victory  over  the  Germans.  °°''  Pliny  comments  on  the  fact  that 
Trajan  received  it  from  Rome,  that  is,  presumably,  from  the  senate  and  not  from 
the  armies,  so  that  probably  under  "  constitutional  "  rulers  it  derived  from  a 
vote  of  the  senate,  not  from  salutation  by  the  armies.  ^^  The  same  must  have 
been  true  of  similar  epithets  referring  to  victories  over  others  of  Rome's  ene- 
mies, which  begin  to  multiply  from  the  reign  of  Trajan  onwards.  ''°^  Dacicus, 
Parthicus,  Medicus,  Armeniacus,  Sarmaticus ,  Arctbicus,  or  Adiabenicus  reflect  not 
only  the  widening  scope  of  Rome's  warfare  and  the  advent  of  new  enemies,  but 
also  the  tendency  to  split  up  larger  ethnic  groups  into  smaller  components  in 
order  to  enhance  the  emperor's  glory. 

Verus  first  first  added  Maximus  to  an  epithet  of  victory;  in  his  case  as 
Parthicus  Maximus,  which  he  assumed  in  165.  Since  Marcus  remained  simply 
Parthicus  in  a  diploma  of  167,  the  Maximus  may  have  been  inserted  to  compen- 
sate for  Verus'  lack  of  the  office  ot  pontifex  maximus.  ^°'  But  on  coins  of  166, 
Marcus  also  is  Parthicus  Maximus  without  p.  m.  so  that  either  the  diploma 
may  be  in  error  or  the  maximus  with  pontifex  in  Marcus'  normal  formula  was 
meant  to  do  double  duty.  ''°^  In  any  case,  on  the  death  of  Verus  in  169,  Marcus 
dropped  the  epithets  of  victory  shared  with  him,  namely  Armeniactis ,  Medictis, 
and  Parthicus   {Maximus}),   and    the  first   five   salutations.  ''°'    After  the  death 

^°3  For  Vitellius  Germanicus,  see  above  p.  25,  especially  nn.  24,  25;  RE  VIII  (13)   1252. 

204  Pqj.  Domitian  Germanicus,  see  DE  II  3  2039-2040;  RE  VI  (12)  2550,  2556,  2559;  RE 
VII  (13)  1252;  CAH  XI  24  n.  I.  It  does  not  appear  until  83,  ?,te  BMC  II  xx,  Ixxxv,  xc.  Domi- 
tian probably  did  not  mean  to  suggest  any  connection  with  the  Julio-Claudian  Germanici.  Nerva 
shows  the  epithet  on  some  inscriptions,  see  Dess.  Ill  i  273,  and  on  the  coinage  from  the  end  of 
Oct.  to  the  end  of  Dec.  in  97,  see  BMC  III  xxxiv;  RE  VII  (13)  1253. 

^°5  For  Trajan  Germanicus,  see  Pliny  Pan.  9  2-3.  It  is  hard  to  tell  whether  in  this  passage 
he  is  contrasting  Trajan  with  Vitellius  (who  used  the  epithet  wrongly)  or  (as  is  more  probable) 
with  Domitian  (who  used  it  in  Pliny's  eyes  without  justification);  in  RE  VII  (13)  1252,  Trajan's 
use  is  attributed  to  his  adoption  by  Nerva,  from  whom  he  would  then  inherit  it. 

"°*  For  other  epithets  of  victory,  see  .5j^C  III  xxvi,  IV  xxiv-xxv,  V  xxxiv-xxxv.  Nesselhauf 
in  CIL  XVI  pp.  153-154  does  not  discuss  the  epithets  of  victory. 

^°''  For  Verus'  use  of  Maximus,  see  RE  III  (6)  1840  (dates),  1848.  Parth.  Max.  appears  for 
Verus  with  tr.  p.  V  imp.  Ill,  that  is,  before  Dec.  10,  165,  see  BMC  IV  437,  588.  For  the 
diploma  of  167,  see  CIL  XVI  123  and  p.  153;  Mom.  II  2  iio8n.  i.  Compare  the  equalization  of 
the  consulships  of  Verus  with  those  of  Marcus;  Marcus,  cos  III  on  his  accession  on  Mar.  7,  161,  did 
not  hold  the  office  again  while  Verus,  who  had  been  cos.  II  with  Marcus  ///  at  the  opening  of  161, 
became  cos II I'm.  167  with  M.  Ummidius Quadratus,  see^BMC  IV  cii-civ  (table);  Liebenam  Pasti  108. 

=°*  Marcus  assumed  imp.  Ill  in  ir.  p.  XIX,  before  Dec.  10,  165,  see  BMC  IV  435,  584,  but 
Parth.  Max.  only  in  tr.  p.  XX.  after  Dec.  10,  165,  see  pp.  440  ff.,  592  ff.  von  Rohden,  RE  I  (2) 
2295,  connected  the  assumption  of  Parth.  Max.  with  the  triumph  celebrated  by  the  two  emperors 
on  Aug.  23,  166,  as  indicated  by  CIL  VI  i  360  =  Dess.  366,  which  shows  for  both  Armeniaci  Par- 
thici  Maximi  Medici  in  a  dedication  of  Aug.  22,  166,  for  the  safe  delivery  of  a  daughter  by  Lucilla, 
wife  of  Verus  and  daughter  of  Marcus;  see  PIR^  I   127  A  no.  707. 

''°9  According  to  SHA  Marc.  12  9,  Marcus  kept  only  his  own  epithet  6'^rwa««Vaj.  During 
tr.  p.  XXIII,  169,  Parth.  Max.  is  dropped  from  the  obverse  and  imp.  V.  from  the  reverse  of 
the  coins  of  Marcus,  see  BMC  IV  454,  607. 


54  MASON  HAMMOND 

of  Marcus,  Maximus  begins  to  appear  frequently  with  the  epithets  of  victory 
in  the  inscriptions  of  Commodus  but  not  on  his  coinage.  "°  Under  Septimius 
and  his  successors,  Maximus  appears  separately  with  the  epithet  or  epithets  of 
victory  and  with  pontifex  maximus  and  it  is  repeated  with  more  than  one  such 
epithet.  This  indicates  that  it  appHed  only  to  that  epithet  which  it  immediately 
followed.  ""  When  Maximus  was  first  introduced  with  epithets  of  victory,  it 
was  probably  meant  to  set  Verus'  Parthian  victory  above  that  of  Trajan  and  also 
to  compensate  him  for  the  lack  of  the  office  of  pontifex  maximus.  With  the 
passage  of  time,  the  desire  to  flatter  the  reigning  emperor  caused  the  distinction 
to  be  extended   to  every  victory. 

It  is  the  lengthening  series  of  epithets,  both  honorific  and  victorious,  which 
accounts  in  a  large  degree  for  the  longer  and  more  cumbersome  character  of 
the  imperial  formula  during  the  second  century  as  compared  with  what  it  had 
been  in  the  Julio-Claudian  period.  This  tendency  reflects  both  the  servility 
of  the  senate  and   the  increasing  exaltation  of  the  imperial  position. 

"°  For  Commodus'  use  of  Maximus,  see  DE  II  i  555;  Dess.  Ill  1  p.  284.  He  did  not  use 
Maximus  during  the  life  of  Marcus,  who  did  not  himself  use  it  after  Verus' death.  For  the  coinage 
of  Commodus  as  sole  emperor  after  181,  see  BMC  IV  689  ff.,  759  ff.  The  use  of  Germ.  Sarm. 
is  regular  on  the  coinage  of  Marcus  and  Commodus  in  175-177,  see  BMC  IV  475-500,  641-672,  but 
then  ceases.  Commodus  shows  .5«/.  from  184  until  his  change  of  formula  late  in  191,  see  pp.  710- 
746,  798-832.  Since  a  diploma  of  192,  CIL  XVI  133,  still  shows  Sarm.  Germ.  Max.  Britt.,  the  epithets 
of  victory  were  probably  not  dropped  by  Commodus  but  simply  omitted  on  the  coinage  to  save 
space. 

"'  For  the  occurrence  of  Maximus  under  Septimius,  see  M.  Platnauer,  The  Life  and  Reign 
of  the  Emperor  L.  Sept.  Severus  96  n.  i;  RE2  11  (4)  1961-1962.  Maximus  appears  separately  with 
the  epithets  of  victory  and  with  pontifex,  for  instance  in  CIL  XVI  135  (of  20^):  Arab.  Adiab. 
Parlhic.  Max. poniif.  max.;  compare  Dess.  Ill  i  p.  286.  Thus  by  208  it  certainly  did  not  inofficial 
use  appear  singly  to  do  double  duty  with  the  military  epithet  and  pontifex.  An  inscription  of 
Septimius  from  Rome  of  202/204,  CIL  VI  i  1074  =  Dess.  456,  does,  however,  read  pontificis  et 
Parthici  Maximi,  where  the  Maximi  apparently  goes  with  both.  For  Caracalla,  CIL  XVI  135 
(of  208)  preserves  no  epithets,  but  no.  137  (of  216)  affords  Parth.  Max.  Brit.  Max.  Germ.  Max. 
pontif.  max.;  compare  no.  138  and  CIL  VIII  4197  =  Dess.  450  (of  212).  Parth.  Max.  had  been 
assumed  by  Septimius  with  imp.  XI  in  the  fall  of  198,  see  Platnauer  Sept.  117;  Hasebroek  Sept. 
159;  BMC  V  cxxxvii.  Parth.  Max.  is  given  for  Caracalla  in  200  by  DE  II  i  107;  in  199  by 
RE  II  (4)  2441  on  the  basis  of  CIL  VIII  884.  RE  also  cites  for  200  two  coins  in  Cohen  IV 
163  nos.  181,  182,  which  may  now  be  found  in  BMCY  295  nos.  715-717.  These  were  minted  in 
the  east  (?  at  Laodicea,  p.  276).  The  reverse  legend  reads  p.  max.  tr.  p.  III.  Though  p.  max. 
might  conceivably  stand  ior  Parth.  Max.,  the  whole  legend  is  exactly  parallel  to  that  on  the  coins 
of  Septimius  of  the  same  year,  where  Part.  Max.  appears  on  the  obverse  and  the  reverse  reads 
/.  max.  tr.  p.  VIII  cos.  II  p.  p.,  see  BMC  V  294  nos.  712-714.  The  eastern  die-cutter  probably 
extended  the  supreme  pontificate  by  mistake  to  Caracalla,  see  Mattingly  on  p.  clxvi.  Caracalla 
became  Parth.  Max.  Brit.  Max.  in  210  with  Septimius,  see  RE  II  (4)  2437;  DE  II  i  108;  Dess. 
Ill  I  p.  289.  He  became  Germ.  Max.  in  213,  see  Henzen  AFA  cxcvii  =  Dess.  451,  where  he 
is  Germanice  max{ime)  in  the  acclamations  of  theArval  Brethren  on  May  18-20,  though  the  victory 
was  not  celebrated  until  Oct.  6,  see  RE  II  (4)  2437,  2447.  Caracalla  shows  Brit,  with  Septimius 
and  Geta  on  the  coinage  late  in  210,  see  BMC  V  clxxviii-clxxix,  clxxxiii-clxxxiv.  He  substitutes 
Germ,  for  Brit,  on  his'coinage  in  214,  see  pp.  cxciv-cxcv,  ccii,  ccx.  Precise  dating  of  the  formulas 
of  the  Severi  is  made  more  difficult  by  the  fact  that  Septimius  ceased  to  put  his  salutations  on 
his  coinage  after  200,  see  BMCY  cxxix-cxx,  175,  202,  285,  294,  297,  317.  And  Caracalla  shows 
none  until  213,  after  the  death  of  Septimius  and  the  murder  of  Geta,  when  he  shows  imp.  II  (not 
imp.  Ill),  see  BMC  V  oxci,  cxiv  n.  i,  cci  n.  2. 


IMPERIAL  ELEMENTS  IN  THE  FORMULA,  ETC.  55 


(3)    Ancestors. 

In  the  imperial  formula  of  the  second  century,  the  hst  of  ancestors  is  usually, 
and  officially,  placed  after  Imperator  Caesar  and  before  the  personal  names.  ''" 
The  position  after  Caesar  represents,  probably,  a  survival  of  the  practice  of  Au- 
gustus and  Tiberius.  Augustus  had  used  Caesar  as  his  second  name,  the  repub- 
lican gentile  nomen,  so  that,  in  the  traditional  fashion,  his  filiation  came  be- 
tween it  and  his  cognomen,  Augustus,  which  for  him  replaced  the  republican 
family  cognomen.  Imperator  Caesar  diui  filius  Augustus  follows  exactly  the 
form  of  Marcus  Tullius  Marci  films  Cicero.  °'^  With  equal  consistency,  Claudius 
and  Nero  placed  the  filiation  after  their  gentile  nomen  of  Claudius,  and  before 
Caesar  Augustus  both  of  which  were  in  their  case  cognomina:  Tiberius  Claudius 
Drusi  f.  Caesar  Aug.  Germanicus  and  Nero  Claudius  diui  Claudi  filius  Germanici 
Caesar  is  nepos  Ti.  Caesar  is  Aug.  pronepos  diui  Aug.  abnepos  Caesar  Aug.  Ger- 
manicus. '"'' 

Vespasian,  who  returned  to  the  brief  Augustan  style  in  his  formula,  had 
no  imperial  ancestors  to  whom  he  was  related  by  blood  or  adoption,  and  therefore 
inserted  none.  Since  Caesar  became  again  for  him  and  his  family  a  nomen, 
Titus  placed  his  filiation  between  it  and  his  family  cognomen  both  as  heir  and 
as  emperor:  {Imp.)  Titus  Caesar  diui  {Vespasiani)  f.  Vespasianus  (Aug.).  "'  Simi- 
larly, Domitian,  omitting  the  personal  praenomen,  has  (Imp.)  Caesar  diui  {Aug.) 
Vespasiani  f.  Domitianus  {Aug.)."'^ 

Nerva,  like  Vespasian,  placed  no  imperial  ancestors  in  his  formula,  so  that 
it   is   impossible   to  determine  whether   or  not  he  would  have   regarded  Nerua 

''"^  The  most  convenient  summary  of  the  ancestors  in  the  formulas  of  the  Roman  emperors 
is  the  entry  maiores  under  each  in  Dess.  Ill  i  index  III;  see  also  CIL  XVI  p.  153  and  the 
articles  on  those  emperors  for  which  D£  affords  them. 

"'3  For  the  position  of  filiation  in  the  Roman  name  under  the  republic,  see  J.  Marquardt, 
Das  Privatleben  der  Rorner^  I  8-9;  Doer  Rom.  Namengebung  56-59.  For  diui  f.  in  the  formula  of 
Augustus,  ses  Hammond  AP  108  with  reference  to  RE  Suppl.  VI  826  under  "  Herrscherkult  "; 
von  Premerstein  Vom  Wesen  249;  L.  R.  Taylor,  The  Divinity  of  the  Roman  Emperor  130-131; 
Mom.  II  2  756  n.   I. 

''*  For  the  ancestors  in  the  formulas  of  Claudius  and  Nero,  see  Dess.  Ill  i  pp.  265,  267. 
For  Claudius,  see  DE  II  i  295;  RE  III  (6)  2782.  For  Nero,  Hohl,  in  RE  Suppl.  II  391,  does 
not  give  the  formula  and  DE  has  not  yet  reached  him.  Claudius  does  not  show  the  ancestors 
in  his  diplomas,  CIL  XVI  i,  3,  but  Nero  does  in  no.  4.  Gaius  exceptionally  places  his  ancestors, 
whom  he  carried  back  to  Augustus  and  even  to  Julius,  between  Gaius  Caesar  Germanicus  and  Aug., 
as  in  CIL  II  4716  =  Dess.  193,  or  between  the  full  Gaius  Caesar  Aug.  Germanicus  and  the  repu- 
blican offices,  as  in  CIL  III  14147  i  =  Dess.  8899;  see  DE  II  i  36.  Whether  the  lengthy  an- 
cestry used  by  Gaius  and  Nero  as  against  the  simplicity  of  that  of  Claudius  reflects  their  desire 
to  emphasize  the  hereditary  and  monarchical  character  of  their  rule  or  simply  the  recognition  of 
a  legal  claim  by  blood  or  adoption  which  Claudius  lacked  is  uncertain.  Tiberius  sometimes  carries 
his  ancestry  back  through  Augustus  to  Julius,  see  Dess.  Ill   i  p.  262. 

^'5  For  Titus'  ancestors,  see  Dess.  Ill  i  pp.  270-271.  Titus'  diploma  of  Sept.  8.  79,  CIL 
XVI  24,  omits  diui  Vesp.f.  but  that  of  June  30,  80,  no.  26,  shows  the  full  formula  given  in  the 
text.     For  the  place  of  Caesar  in  Titus'  formula,  see  above  p.  27. 

'*'*  For  Domitian's  filiation,  see  Dess.  Ill  i  p.  272;  CIL  XVI  27-29,  suppl.  158-159;  DE  II 
2  2030. 


56  MASON  HAMMOND 

as  a  gentile  name;  probably  his  formula  would  have  run:  Imp.  Nerua  (ancestors) 
Caesar  Augustus,  in  the  Claudian  style.  When  Trajan  established  Imperator 
Caesar  as  introductory  imperial  titles,  he  was  probably  copying  the  Flavian 
formulas.  Consistently,  he  placed  diui  Neruae  filius  between  these  titles  and 
his  personal  names,  both  of  which  were  family  cognomina,  the  one  adoptive,  the 
other  his  own:  Imp.  Caes.  diui  Neruae  f.  Nerua  Traianus  Aug.  "' 

This  position  after  Imperator  Caesar  remained  official  for  the  ancestors  in 
the  imperial  formula  during  the  second  century.  From  the  middle  of  the  cen- 
tury however,  thay  are  often  also  placed  after  the  personal  names  and  Augustus 
or  even-  quite  at  the  end,  after  the  offices.  °''  In  the  diplomas,  the  ancestors 
come  after  Imp.  Caes.  from  the  time  of  Domitian,  with  two  exceptions.  In 
those  of  Marcus  and  Verus,  one  set,  placed  after  the  names  and  offices  of  Verus, 
does  service  for  both  emperors.  And  in  those  of  Marcus  and  Commodus, 
though  each  has  his  own  set,  those  of  Commodus  come  between  A ugusttts  and  the 
offices,   a  position  which  perhaps  indicates  a  certain  subordination  to  his  father.  ^'' 

When  L.  Ceionius  Commodus  was  adopted  by  Hadrian  he  took  the  name 
L.  Aelius  Caesar.  Instead,  however,  of  placing  the  ancestors  in  the  republican 
position,  between  Aelius  and  Caesar,  he  placed  them  after  Caesar  and  before 
his  republican  offices.  °''°  He  thus  preserved  their  position  relative  to  Caesar 
as  an  imperial  title  and  no  longer  looked  upon  this  last  as  a  cognomen.  """  Heirs 
during  the  following  reigns  bore  combinations  of  the  imperial  titles,  ranging  from 
simple  Caesar  at  the  end  of  the  name  to  the  full  Imp.  Caesar  .  .  .  Aug.  In 
cases  of  full  collegiality,  the  ancestors  show  the  same  variation  of  position  for 
the  junior  heir  as  for  the  senior  father.  "'     In  cases  of  subordination,   inscrip- 

="'  For  Trajan's  filiation  with  Nerva,  see  Dess.  Ill   i  p.  274;  CIL  XVI  42-64,  suppl.   160-164. 

"^  Dessau,  III  i  p.  276,  gives  only  one  instance  of  the  ancestors  occurring  after  Augustus 
for  Hadrian  and,  p.  278,  none  for  Antoninus.  DE  I  499-505  and  Hiittl  Ant  I  50  ff.  do  not 
discuss  the  position  of  the  ancestors  of  Antoninus.  It  would  be  interesting  to  know  whether,  if 
they  had  come  after  Aug.  in  his  formula,  they  would  have  come  between  it  and  Fius  or  after 
this  also.  For  Hadrian's  ancestors  in  diplomas,  see  CIL  XVI  66-84,  suppl.  169,  173,  174;  for 
those  of  Antoninus,   see  nos.  87-117,  suppl.    175-184. 

"9  The  diplomas  with  ancestors  of  Marcus  and  Verus  are  CIL  XVI  121-124,  suppl.  185-186; 
of  Marcus  and  Commodus,  no.  128.  The  only  diploma  datable  under  Marcus  as  sole  emperor, 
no.  127,  survives  only  in  its  end.  In  no.  135,  Septimius  and  Caracalla  both  have  the  ancestors 
after  Imp.  Caes,;  so  also  do  Elagabalus  and  Alexander  in  the  much  restored  nos.  140,  141,  and 
Alexander  in  the  well-preserved  suppl.  189.  The  diploma  of  Septimius  and  Caracalla,  no.  135, 
shows  the  curious  feature  that  whereas  the  whole  formula  of  Septimius  runs  in  continuous  lines, 
that  of  Caracalla  is  broken  into  two  paragraphs,  Imp.  Caes.  and  the  ancestors  in  one  and  M.  Au- 
rellius  Antoninus  Pius  Aug.  etc.  beginning  a  second.  This  might  suggest  that  the  initial  Imp 
Caes.  was  conceived  of  as  belonging  to  L.  Septimi  Severi  etc.  f.  and  not  to  M.  Aurellius  etc., 
were  it  not  that  the  diplomas  of  Caracalla  as  emperor  preserved  the  division  even  after  Septimius 
had  become  diuus,  which  meant  that  Imp.  Caes.,  was  dropped  from  the  latter's  formula,  see  CIL 
XVI  137-138. 

"°  The  ancestors  of  Aelius  follow  Caesar  in  all  the  inscriptions  given  by  Dessau:  nos.  319 
ifil.  alone),  328,  329,  5963  {imp.,  imp.  fit.,  cos);  see  DE  III  639  and  compare  on  Gaius  above 
n.  214. 

''"   For  Aelius'  use  of  Caesar,  see  above  pp.  29-30  and  n.  62. 

"'  When  Commodus  was  colleague  of  Marcus,  he  placed  his  ancestors  between  Aug.  and  the 
offices,  above  n.  219.  When  Caracalla  was  colleague  of  Septimius,  he  placed  them  after /w/.  Caes., 


IMPERIAL  ELEMENTS  IN  THE  FORMULA,  ETC.  57 

tions  have  the  ancestors  either  after  Caesar,  following  the  precedent  of  Aelius, 
or  at  the  end,  after  the  ofifices.  "'"'^  The  subordinate  heirs  do  not  figure  in  the 
diplomas,  but  the  coins  show  that  they  followed  the  practice  of  Aelius  in  plac- 
ing at  least  their,  father's  name  after  Caesar,  running  over  under  the  Severi 
onto   the  reverse.  "'"' 

The  position  which  the  ancestors  occupied  was  under  the  Flavians  still  in 
the  republican  manner  after  the  gentile  nomen,  which  happened  to  be  Caesar. 
But  Trajan  respected  the  connection  with  Caesar  rather  than  tradition  and  there- 
after the  practice  for  both  emperors  and  heirs  was  different  from  that  followed 
by  ordinary  persons.  Private  individuals  placed  their  filiation  in  the  usual 
way  after  the  gentile  nomen,  though  naturally  the  lengthening  of  names  beyond 
the  traditional  three  and  the  frequent  change  of  name  through  adoption,  made 
the  order  less  simple  than  it  had  been  under  the  republic.  "'  Furthermore, 
while  ordinary  persons  generally  mention  only  their  fathers,  the  emperors  preserved 
among  their  ancestors  all  those  predecessors  from  whom  the  power  had  descended 
continuously  in  virtue  of  succession  by  blood  or  by  adoption  or  even  in  virtue 
of  fictitious  relationship.  The  long  period  of  peace  meant  that  Commodus  had 
five  ancestors,  Septimius  six,  since  he  included  his  fictitious  "  brother  "  Com- 
modus, and  Caracalla  also  six,  since  he  omitted  Commodus  but  included  Sep- 
timius. """^  Elagabalus  and  Alexander,  probably  because  the  list  had  grown 
unwieldy  and  the  memory  of  the  earlier  emperors  had  become  dim,  carried  the 

in  Dess.  422,  424,  449;  CIL  XVI  135,  or  after  ^a^.,  in  Dess.  2156,  or  after  the  republican  offices, 
in  Dess.  448,  2157.  Alexander  as  colleague  of  Elagabalus  placed  them  after  Imp.  Cues.,  in  Dess. 
475.  9°S8;  CIL  XVI  140.  The  last  two  inscriptions  show  nob.  Caes.  after  the  name,  not  Aug., 
see  above  p.  38. 

'^^  Antoninus  under  Hadrian,  with  Imp.  alone  before  his  name,  placed  the  ancestors  between 
Caesar  Antoninus  and  the  republican  offices,  in  Dess.  331,  8909.  Marcus  as  Cawar  placed  them 
ancestors  between  Caesar  and  the  offices,  in  Dess.  355,  356,  or  after  the  offices,  in  Dess.  353, 
354-  In  the  s.  c.  de  Cyzicenis,  Bruns  207  no.  62  =  FIRA  P  293  no.  48  =  Dess.  7190  lines  5-7, 
the  old  republican  form  appears:  M.  Aelius  imp.  Tiii  Aeli  j  [Hadriani  An]toninif.  Fap.  Aurelius 
Ve[rus  etc.].  It  is  interesting  that  Verus,  though  not  a  Caesar,  has  the  ancestors  after  his  name, 
in  Dess.  357,  6899  (neither  with  any  offices),  as  well  as  in  the  name,  as  in  no.  358:  L.  Aelio  Aurelio 
Aug.  f.  Commodo  cos.  For  Commodus  as  Caesar  the  ancestors  come  between  Caes.  Germanico 
and  the  offices  in  no.  389.  For  Caracalla  as  Caesar  they  appear  between  Caes.  and  the  offices, 
in  no.  445;  or  after  Caes.  Imp.  dest.  in  no.  446.  Clearly  the  more  correct  place  was  that  used  by 
Aelius,  after  Caesar  and  before  the  offices,  see  above  n.   220. 

"■t  For  Aurelius  Caesar  Aug.  Pii  f.  or  the  like,  see  BMC  IV  913-14  (index);  for  (Z.  Aurel.) 
Commodo  Caes.  Aug./.,  see  pp.  914-915,  927.  For  Seueri  Aug.  Pii.  fil.  on  the  reverse  of  coins 
of  Caracalla,  see  BMCY  50-51,  150-151.  For  the  same  on  coins  of  Geta,  see  pp.  181,  303,  316, 
340.  Th^  order  Seueri  Pii  Aug.  Jil.  occurs  on  other  contemporary  reverses  of  Caracalla,  seep.  187 
no.   172,  p.  317  no.  -|- . 

^''^  Pliny  the  Younger  appears  in  the  famous  inscription  from  Como,  CIL  V  5262  =  Dess. 
2927  =  Schuster's  ed.  p.  466,  as  C.  Plinius  L.  f.  Ouf.  Caecilius  [Secundus];  see  also  CIL  V  5263, 
5667  =  Schuster's  ed.  pp.  467,  468.  He  was  the  son  of  Caecilius,  Hammond  Pliny  117  n.  i,  but 
was  adopted  by  his  uncle  C.  Plinius  Secundus.  For  filiation  at  the  end  of  the  names  of  private 
persons,  see  CIL  X  7346  =  Dess.  1083  (from  Sicily);  VIII  supp.  12291  =  Dess.  1085  (from  Africa); 
X   1123,   1122,    1124=  Dess.    1086-1088  (from  Salerno);  etc. 

226  Yor  the  ancestors  in  the  formulas  of  the  Severi,  see  Dess.  Ill  i  284,  286,  289.  Naturally  the 
full  list  back  to  Nerva  does  not  always  appear.   Macrinus  does  not  show  any  ancestors,  see  above  n.  113. 

8 


58  MASON  HAMMOND 

line  back  only  to  Septimius  in  their  diplomas,  although  some  inscriptions  of 
Elagabalus  still  show  the  whole  series  back  to  Nerva.  °''  Alexander  dropped 
his  unpopular  "  father  "  Elagabalus  after  the  latter's  death. 

No  dynasty  after  Alexander  during  the  third  century  lasted  long  enough 
to  establish  a  list  of  ancestors  beyond  a  father  and  among  the  military,  anti- 
senatorial  emperors  of  that  period  the  repute  of  the  Antonine  name  ceased.''"* 
Thus  the  custom  of  placing  the  ancestors  in  the  imperial  formula  gradually 
died  out.  "' 

The  importance  of  the  ancestors,  apart  from  the  perpetuation  in  an  enlarged 
form  of  ,an  old  Roman  custom,  lay  naturally  in  the  legimitization  of  the  reigning 
emperor  by  an  appeal  to  a  dynastic  succession.  The  hereditary  element,  tacitly 
recognized  by  Augustus,  had  become  explicit  under  his  successors  because  of 
its  weight  in  securing  the  allegiance  of  the  civilian  population  and  especially 
of  the  troops.  The  diui,  the  deified  emperors,  were  included  among  the  gods 
by  whom  oaths  were  confirmed  and  their  statues  were  placed  in  temples  and 
in  the  headquarters  of  the  camps.  °^°  Descent  from  them  heightened  the  divine 
character  of  the  living  emperor  who,  though  not  officially  a  god,  was  elevated 
in  various  ways  to  a  superhuman  status.  Undoubtedly,  too,  the  connection 
of  an  emperor  with  such  popular  figures  as  Trajan,  Antoninus,  and  Marcus, 
apart  from  any  religious  implications,  exercised  a  strong  appeal  on  popular 
imagination.  But  it  is  noteworthy  that  apart  from  the  two  fictitious  adoptions, 
of  Septimius  as  the  son  of  Marcus  and  of  Elagabalus  as  the  son  of  Caracalla, 
new  dynasties  did  not  claim  filiation  with  their  predecessors.  This  respect  for 
the  real  family  significance  of  filiation,  whether  established  by  blood  or  by 
adoption,  is  a  further  indication  that  the  use  by  new  dynasties  of  the  Augustan 
formula  Imperator  Caesar ...  Augustus  meant  that  this  had  come  to  signify 
the  position  of  ruler  and  no  longer  primarily  showed  family  descent. 

"=''  For  a  shortened  list  of  ancestors  in  the  formulas  of  Elagabalus  and  Alexander,  see  Dess. 
Ill  I  292-294.  For  Elagabalus,  see  C/Z  XVI  139;  VIII  10347=0633.469,  cited  in  ^^2  VIII  (15) 
394;  DE  III  661  col.  I.  During  the  lifetime  of  Elagabalus,  Alexander  appears  as  his  son,  grand- 
son of  Caracalla,  and  great-grandson  of  Septimius.  Elagabalus'  name  was  dropped  after  his  death, 
and  Alexander  appears  as  son  of  Caracalla  and  grandson  of  Septimius  like  his  predecessor;  contrast 
CIL  XVI  140- 141  (restored)  with  142-145  suppl.  189;  and  see  DE  I  398. 

"^  For  the  popularity  of  the  Antonine  name  among  the  senatorial  class  as  evidenced  by  ref- 
erences in  the  SHA,  see  the  passages  listed-  above  in  n.  123  from  Renan  Marcus  487,  especially 
SHA  Macr.  2   5-3  9,  Alex.  6  11. 

^'9  The  entries  under  the  emperors  of  the  third  century  in  Dess.  Ill  i  index  III  show  that 
the  ancestors  gradually  dropped  out  of  the  formula. 

"3°  For  the  place  of  the  diui  in  official  worship,  see  G.  Wissowa,  Religion  und Kultus  der  Romer' 
342-348;  von  Premerstein  Vom  Wesen  85-89.  A.  Alfoldi's  two  articles  on  court  ceremonial  and 
on  the  imperial  costume  and  regalia  in  Mitt,  des  deutsch.  arch.  Inst,  rom  Abt.  XLIX  (1934)  3-1 18 
and  L  (1935)  3-171  show  that  there  was  an  increasing  elevation  of  the  emperor  to  superhuman  status. 
Further  study  on  this  aspect  of  the  trend  towards  absolutism  has  been  pursued  by  H.  P.  L'Orange 
and  others. 


IMPERIAL  ELEMENTS  IN  THE  FORMULA,  ETC.  59 


Conclusion. 

The  formula  of  the  Roman  emperors  during  the  first  two  hundred  and  fifty 
years  of  the  empire  maintains  to  a  remarkable  degree  an  outward  loyalty  to 
the  precedent  set  by  Augustus.  The  republican  elements  remain  the  same  except 
for  the  addition  of  proconsul.  The  imperial  part,  as  this  paper  has  shown, 
grew  in  length  and  complexity  but  never  lost  its  Roman  and  Augustan  character. 
Only  at  the  very  end,  when  Elagabalus  applied  the  epithet  Magnus  to  Caracalla, 
probably  on  the  model  of  Alexander  the  Great  rather  than  of  Pompey,  and  him- 
self took  the  religious  title  sacerdos  aniplissimi  Solis,  did  elements  of  a  non- 
Roman  and  eastern  color  appear.  The  autocratic  terms  dominus  et  deus  by 
which  poets  addressed  Domitian  never  became  established  officially,  and  even 
in  unofficial  use  dominus  begins  to  occur  frequently  only  under  the  Severi. 

Yet  this  traditionalism  did  not  prevent  the  imperial  part  of  the  formula 
from  assuming  an  openly  monarchical  significance.  In  this  respect,  the  develop- 
ment of  the  formula  well  illustrates  the  whole  change  in  the  nature  of  the  im- 
perial position  from  the  Augustan  principate  to  the  Antonine  monarchy.  Augus- 
tus had  so  successfully  compromised  between  republicanism  and  monarchism 
that  scholars  will  always  argue  about  his  intentions.  If  he  was  sincere  in  his 
claim  to  have  "  restored  the  Republic  ",  then  his  name  Imperator  Caesar  diui 
filius  Augushis  follows  exactly  the  pattern  of  the  Roman  name  and  only  adds, 
in  a  fashion  adumbrated  by  the  leaders  of  the  later  republic,  a  heightened  tone 
suitable  to  a  princeps  of  outstanding  merit  who  had  rendered  preeminent  service 
to  the  state.  If  Augustus  meant  to  veil  behind  a  republican  facade  a  hereditary 
monarchy,  then  he  hinted  at  this  by  instituting  a  new  gens  of  Caesares,  divorced 
from  the  traditional  lulii  and  characterized  by  the  quality  of  victorious  command 
as  implied  in  making  the  soldiers'  salutation  of  imperator  into  a  praenomen, 
by  descent  not  from  a  human  father  but  from  a  heroized  diuus,  and  by  an 
overriding  auctoritas  whose  superhuman  validity  was  suggested  when  the  reli- 
gious epithet  Augustus  became  a  family  cognomen. 

Whichever  of  these  two  aims  was  Augustus',  the  second,  despite  Tiberius' 
hesitancy,  was  developed  by  the  Julio-Claudian  dynasty.  Thus  after  the  revo- 
lution of  68,  the  successful  claimant  of  the  imperial  position  could  incorporate 
himself  artifically  into  that  dynasty  by  using  the  name  of  its  founder  as  a 
frame  into  which  to  put  his  own  name  as  a  personal  differentiation.  In  this 
way,  Imperator  Caesar .  .  .  .Augustus  became  the  hereditary  title  of  the  successive 
rulers.  Later  family  names  like  Antoninus  and  Seuerus  became  in  their  turn 
hereditary  but  were  never  so  much  so  as  either  to  become  part  of  or  to  displace 
the  Augustan  terms. 

A  subsidiary  development  was  that  of  Caesar  alone  from  a  gentile  nomen 

into   a    title,    placed   after    the   personal    names,    for  the  recognized  heir  to  the 

.power.     This  was  clearly  true  for  Lucius  Aelius  and  may  have  been  so  for  Ha- 


(So  MASON  HAMMOND 

drian  and  even  for  Trajan  during  the  brief  and  now  poorly  attested  periods 
in   which   they  were  heirs-apparent. 

The  bestowal  on  emperors  of  honorific  epithets  of  civil  or  military  meaning 
may  in  origin  have  been  patterned  on  the  grant  oi  Augustus  to  the  first  princeps. 
Certainly  Germanicus  for  Domitian,  Optimus  for  Trajan,  and  initially  Pius  for 
Antoninus  were  used  by  each  alone,  and  only  in  his  lifetime.  Similarly  the 
military  epithets  were  restricted  to  those  who  bore  them  and,  though  they 
survived  for  their  bearer  among  the  ancestors,  they  were  not  inherited.  How- 
ever, from  the  reign  of  Commodus,  there  was  felt  an  increasing  need  to  emphasize 
the  devout  and  fortunate  quality  of  the  ruler.  Hence  Pius  and  Felix  became 
regular  elements  of  the  imperial  part  of  the  formula,  attached  closely  to  Au- 
gustus either  as  adjectives  modifying  this  title  or,  like  it,  as  added  titles  of 
the  emperor. 

Finally,  under  the  Antonines  and  early  Severi,  emphasis  was  laid  on  the 
continuing  and  hereditary  character  of  the  imperial  position  by  the  lengthen- 
ing list  of  ancestors.  But  successive  dynasties,  though  they  took  Imperator 
Caesar ...  Augustus  as  a  "style"  indicative  of  rule,  generally  respected  the 
tradition  that  filiation  should  represent  real  descent,  either  by  blood  or  by 
adoption. 

All  four  elements  of  the  imperial  part  of  the  formula:  the  personal  names, 
the  titles  of  position,  the  epithets,  and  the  ancestors,  therefore  lost  their  indi- 
vidual quality  and  became  trappings  of  power.  The  imperial  part  of  the  for- 
mula, though  outwardly  traditional  and  even  republican,  became  in  fact  a 
monarchical  "  style  ",  suited  to  a  ruler  whose  superhuman  wisdom  and  forti- 
tude guided   and   protected    the   empire. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 


Alfoldi,  A.,  "  Die  Ausgestaltung  des  monarchischen  Zeremoniells  am  romischen  Kaiserhofe  ",  Mit- 

teilungen  des  deutschen  archdologischen  Insiituts,   rom.  Abt.   XLIX  (1934)  3-118. 
Alfoldi,  A.,   "  Insignien  und  Tracht  der  romischen  Kaiser  ",  Mitteilungen  des  deutschen  archdolo- 
gischen Instituts,  rom.  Abt.  L  (1935)  3-171. 
von  Arnim,  H.,  Leben  und  Werke  des  Dio  von  Prusa  usw.,  Berlin,  Weidmann,   1898. 
Bassett,   H.    J.,   Macrinus  and  Diadumenianus,  Menasha  (Wise,   Diss.   Wisconsin),  Banta,   1920. 
Beaujeu,  J.,  La  Religion   romaine  a  I'apogee  de  VEmpire  I:  "  La  Politique  religicuse  des  Antonins 

(96-192)  ",   Paris,  Les  Belles  Lettres,   1955. 
Beranger,   J.,  Recherches  sur  Vaspect    ideologique    du  Principal  {Schweizerische  Beitrdge  zur  Al/er- 

tumswissenschaft  VI),  Basel,  Reinhardt,   1953. 
BMC:  British  Museum  Catalogue,  that  is,  of  coins.  Standing  alone,  it  signifies  Mattingly,  H.,  Coins 

of  the  Roman  Empire  in  the  British  Museum,  of  which  five  volumes  have  appeared,  covering 

from  Augustus  through  Elagabalus,  London,   1923-1950. 
Bruhl,  A.,  "  Le  Souvenir  d'Alexandre  le  Grand  et  les  Romains  ",  Melanges  d'Arch.  et  d'Hist.  de 

r£cole  fran(aise  de  Rome  XVII  (1930)  202-221. 
Bryant,  E.  E.,  The  Reign  of  Antoninus  Pius  {Cambridge  Historical  Series  VIII:  Thirwall  Diss.  1894), 

Cambridge  (Eng.),  C.  Univ.  Press,   1895. 
CAH:  The  Cambridge  Ancient  History,  especially  vols.  XI:  "  The  Imperial  Peace,  A.  D.  70-192  " 

(1936),  and  XII:  "  The  Imperial  Crisis  and  Recovery,  A.  D.   193-324  "  (1939). 
Capocci,  v.,  "  La  Constitutio  Antoniniana  etc.  ",  Memorie  delta  R.  Accademia  dei  Lincei  di  scienze 

morali  etc.  CCXXII  ser.  VI  vol.  I  fasc.  i  (1924),  Rome,  Bardi,   1925. 
Cary,  M.,  A  History  of  Rome  down  to  the  Death  of  Constantine,  London,  Macmillan,  ed.  2   1954. 
CIL:  Corpus  Inscriptionum  Latinarum. 
Cohen,  H.,  Description  historique  des  Monnaies  f rappees  sous  l' Empire  romain  etc.,  Paris,  Rollin 

and  Feuardent,   ed.   2   in  8   vols.,    1880-1892. 
Cumont,  F.,  Textes  et  Monuments  figures  relatifs  aux  Mysteres  de  Mithra,  Brussels,  Lamertin,  2  vols. 

1896-1899. 
DE:  Dizionario  Epigrafico  di  Antichita  Romane,  ed.  by  de  Ruggiero,  E.,  and  others,  Rome,  Pasqua- 

lucci  and  other  publishers  (still  very  incomplete),   1895  ff. 
Degrassi   Fasti:    Degrassi,   A.,    /  Fasti  Consolari  delVImpero  Romano  dal  30  av.  C.  ald^id.  C. 

(Sussidi  Eruditi  5),  Rome,  Edizioni  di  Storia  e  Letteratura,   1952. 
Dess.:  Dessau,   H.,   Inscriptiones  Latinae  Selectae   (often  abbreviated   as  ILS),  Berlin,  Weidman, 

3  vols.  (vols.  II  and  III  each  in  two  parts)   1892-1916. 
Doer,  B.,  Die  romische  Namengebung:  ein  historische  Versuch,  Stuttgart  (Diss.  Berlin),  Kohlhammer 

1937- 

von  Domaszewski,  A.,  "  Die  politische  Bedeutung  der  Traiansbogen  in  Benevent  ",  Jahreshefte 
des  osterreichen  archdologischen  Institutes  in  Wien  II  (1899)  173-192  —-  Abhandlungen  zur  romi- 
schen Religion  (Leipzig  &  Berlin,  Teubner,  1909)  25-52. 

T>\ixrY,M..,  Les  Cohortes  Preioriennes  {Bibliotheque  des  £coles  franfaises  d'Athenes  et  de  Rome  CXLV), 
Paris  (Diss.  Paris),  de  Boccard,   1938. 

Durry,  M.,  Pline  le  Jeune,  Panegyrique  de  Trajan,  Paris  (Diss.  Paris),  Les  Belles  Letteres,  1938. 

Fer.  Dur.:  "  The  Feriale  Duranum  "  ed.  Fink,  R.  O.,  Hoey,  A.  S.,  and  Snyder,  W.  F.,  Yale  Clas- 
sical Studies  VI  (1940)  1-122. 

FIRA:  Pontes  luris  Romani  Antejustiniani,  ed.  Riccobono,  S.,  and  others,  Florence,  Barbera,  3 
vols.  (I  &   II  ed.  2),   1940-1943. 

Frangois,  'L.,  Essai  sur  Dion  Chrysostome,  Paris  (Diss.  Paris),  Delagrave,   1921. 

Friedlander,  L.,  M.  Valerii  Martialis  Epigrammaton  Libri,  Leipzig,  Hirzel,  2  vols.   1886. 

Giordano,  L.,  Publio  Elvio  Pertinace,  V Imperatore  Piemontese,  Turin,  Rosenberg  &  Sellier,  1936. 

Grant,  M.,  From  Imperium  to  Auctoritas,  A  Historical  Study  of  Aes  Coinage  in  the  Roman  Empire, 
4g  B.C.-A.D.  14,  Cambridge  (Eng.),  C.  Univ.  Press,  1946. 


62  MASON  HAMMOND 

Greenidge,  A.  H.  J.,  Roman  Public  Life  (in  Macmillan's  Handbooks  of  Archaeology  and  Antiquities), 
London  &  New  York,  Macmillan,  1901. 

Gsell,  S.,  Essai  sur  le  Regne  de  VEmpereur  Domitien  {Bibliotheque  des  £.coles  frangaises  d'Athenes  et 
de  Rome  LXV),  Paris,  Thorin,  1894. 

Gndtraaxi,  Pi..,  Publii  Cornelii  Taciti Dialogus  de  Oratoribus, 'Leipzig  Sc   Berlin,  Teubner,  ed.  2   19 14. 

Hamberg,  P.  G.,  Studies  in  Roman  Imperial  Art  etc.,  Copenhagen,  Munksgard;  Upsalla  &  Stock- 
holm, Almqvist  &  Wiksells,   1945. 

Hammond  AP:  Hammond  M.,  The  Augustan  Principate  etc.,  Cambridge  (Mass.),  Harvard  Univ. 
Press,  1933. 

Hammond,  M.,  "  Hellenistic  Influences  on  the  Structure  of  the  Augustan  Principate  ",  Memoirs  of 
the  American  Academy  in  Rome  XVH  (1940)   1-24. 

Hammond,  M.,  "  Pliny  the  Younger's  Views  on  Government  ",  Harvard  Studies  in  Classical  Phi- 
lology XLIX  (1938)  115-140. 

Hammond,  M.,  Review  of  Grant.,  M.,  From  Imperium  to  Auctoritas,  in  American  fournal  of  Phi- 
lology LXIX  (1948)  317-324- 

Hammond,  M.,  "  The  Transmission  of  the  Powers  of  the  Roman  Emperor  from  the  Death  of  Nero 
in  A.D.  68  to  that  of  Alexander  Severus  in  a.d.  235  ",  Memoirs  of  the  American  Academy 
in  Rome  XXIV  (1956)  61-133. 

Hammond  Tr.  Day:  Hammond,  M.,  "  The  Tribunician  Day  during  the  Early  Empire  ",  Memoirs 
of  the  American  Academy  in  Rome  XV  (1938)  23-69. 

Hammond,  Tr.  Day  Reex.:  Hammond,  M.,  "  The  Tribunician  Day  from  Domitian  through  Antoni- 
nus, a  Reexamination  ",  il/^wwW  ^Me  ^»?m(ra«  ^cfli/^wrc /«  .^o»«^  XIX  (1949)  36-76. 

Hardy,  E.  G.,  C.  Plinii  Caecilii  Secundi  Epistulae  ad  Traianum  Imperatorem  cum,  eiusdem  Responsis, 
London  &  New  York,  Macmillan,   1889. 

Hasebroek,  J.,  Untersuchungen  zur  Geschichte  des  Kaisers  Septimius  Severus,  Heidelberg,  Winter, 
1921. 

Heer,  J.,  Der  historische  Wert  der  Vita  Commodi  in  den  Sammlung  der  Scriptores  Historiae  Augustae 
(Philologus  Suppl.  IX  1-208  =  Heft  i),  Leipzig,  Dieterich,   1901. 

Hohl,  E.,  "  Uber  die  Glaubwiirdigkeit  der  Historia  Augusta",  Sitzungsberichte  der  deutschen  Aka- 
demie  der  Wissenschaften  zu  Berlin,  Klasse  fiir  Gesellschaftswissenschaften  Jahrgang  1953 
Nr.  2,  Berlin,  Akademie  Verlag,   1953. 

Homo,  L.,  Vespasien,  VEmpereur  du  bon  Sens  {60-JO  ap.  f.-C),  Paris,  Michel,  1949. 

Huttl,  W.,  Antoninus  Pius,  Prag,  Calve,  vol.  I  (text)  1936,  II  (inscriptions)   1933. 

ILS:  see  Dess.:  Dessau,  H.,  Inscriptiones  Latinae  Selectae. 

Jarde,  A.,  Etudes  critiques  sur  la  Vie  et  le  Regne  de  Severe  Alexandre,  Paris,  de  Boccard,  1925. 

Karlowa,  O.,  Romische  Rechtsgeschichte,  Leipzig,  Veit,  2  vols.   1885-1901. 

Komemarm  Z)/".-  Kornemarm,  'E,.,  Doppelprinzipat  und  Reichstellung  im  Imperium  Romanum,  Leip- 
zig &   Berlin,  Teubner,   1930. 

Lacour-Gayet.  G.,  Antonin  le  Pieux  et  son  Temps  etc.,  Paris,  Thorin,   1888. 

Last,  H.,  "  Imperium  Maius:  A  Note  ",  Journal  of  Roman  Studies  XXXVII  (1947)  157-164. 

L^crivain,  C,  Etudes  sur  I'Histoire  Auguste,  Paris,  Fontemoing,  1904. 

Lepore,  E.,  II  Princeps  Ciceroniano  e  gli  Ideali  politici  delta  tarda  Repubblica,  Naples,  Istituto  Ita- 
liano  per  gli  Studi  Storici,  1954. 

Lepper,  F.  A.,  Trajan's  Parthian  War  (in  Oxford  Classical  and  Philosophical  Monographs),  Oxford, 
O.  Univ.  Press,  1948. 

Liebenam  Fasti:  Liebenam,  W.,  Fasti  Consulares  Imperii  Romani  von  30  v.  Chr.  bis.  565  n.  Chr. 
usw.  (Lietzmarm's  Kleine  Texteftir  theologische  und philologische  Vorlesung  und  tjbungen  XLI- 
XLIII),  Bonn,  Marcus  &  Weber,  1909. 

Longden,  R.  P.,  "  Notes  on  the  Parthian  Campaign  of  Trajan  ",  Journal  of  Roman  Studies  XXI 
(1931)  1-35- 

Magdelain,  A.,  Auctoritas  Principis  {Collection  des  £tudes  Latines  publiee  par  la  Societe  des  £tudes 
Latines  sir.  scientifique  XXII),  Paris,  Les  Belles  Lettres,  1947. 

Marquardt,  K.  J.,  Das  Privatleben  der  Romer  {Handbuch  der  romischer  Alterthiimer  VII),  Leipzig, 
Hirzel,  ed.  2  by  Mau,  A.,   1886. 

Mattingly,  H.,  see  BMC  and  MS. 

Mattingly,  H.,  "  Some  Historical  Roman  Coins  of  the  First  Century  A.  D.  ",  Journal  of  Roman 
Studies  X  (1920)  37-41. 


IMPERIAL  ELEMENTS  IN  THE  FORMULA,  ETC.  63 

McFayden,  D.,  The  History  of  the  Title  Itnperaior  under  the  Roman  Empire,  Chicago  (Diss.  Chicago), 

Univ.  of  C.  Press,  1920. 
Mom.:  Mommsen,    Th.,   Romische  Staatsrecht,   Leipzig,    Hirzel,  vols.  I  &  II  (2  parts)    ed.  3,   III 

(2  parts)  ed.  i,  1887-1888. 
Mooney,  G.  W.,  C.  Suetoni  Tranquilli  De  Vita  Caesarum  Libri  VII-VIII:  Galba,Domitianus,  etc., 

London  &  New  York  &  Toronto,  Longmans  Green  &  Co.;  Dublin,  Hodges  Figgis  &  Co.,  1930. 
MS:  Mattingly,   H.,   and  Sydenham,    E.  A.,    and  others,   The  Roman  Imperial  Coinage,  London, 

Spink  &  Sons,  vols.  I-V  2  (Augustus  -  The  Usurpers  of  the  Third  Century),  IX  (Valenti- 

nian  I  -  Theodosius  I),   1923-1951. 
Mullens,  H.  G.,  "  The  Women  of  the  Caesar  ",  Greece  and  Rome  XI  (1942)  59-67. 
Murphy,  Gerald  J.,   The  Reign  of  the  Emperor  L.    Septimius   Severus  from  the  Evidence   of  the 

Inscriptions  (Diss.  Pennsylvania),  Philadelphia  (St.  Peter  College  Press,  Jersey  City,  N.  J.), 

1945- 

Nesselhauf,  'H.,  Diplomata  Militaria,  CIL  XVI  (1936)  and  supplement  (1955). 

Oliver,  J.  H.,  and  Palmer,  R.E.A.,  "Minutes  of  an  Act  of  the  Roman  Senate  ",  Hesperia  XXIV 
(1955)  320-349. 

Paribeni,  ^.,  Optimus  Princeps  etc^yitisma.,  Principato,  2  vols.  1926-1927. 

Pauly  &  Wissowa  &  others  see  RE:  Real-Encyclopadie  usw. 

Perret,  L.,  la  Titulature  imperiale  d^Hadrien,  Paris,  de  Boccard,   1929. 

Pick,  B.,  "  ZurTitulatur  der  Flavier  ",  Zeitschrift  fiir Numismatik  XIII  (1885)   190-238,  XIII 
(1885)  356-383,  XIV  (1887)  294-374. 

Pink,  K.,  "  Die  Aufbau  der  romischen  Munzpragung  in  der  Kaiserzeit  ",  Numismatische  Zeitschrift 
LXVI  (1933)  17-54,  LXVII  (1934)  1-17,  LXVIII  (1935)  12-34,  LXIX  (1936)  10-28.  These 
articles  (in  vols.  XXVI-XXIX  of  the  "  neue  Folge  ")  cover  from  Septimius-Aemilianus. 

PIR:  Prosopographia  Imperii  Romani  Saeculorum  /,  //,  ///,  ed.  i  by  Klebs,  E.,  Dessau,  H.,  and 
von  Rohden,  P.,  Berlin,  Reimer,  3  vols.  1897-1898;  ed.  2  by  Groag,  E.,  Stein,  A.,  and  Stroux, 
J.,  Berlin  &  Leipzig,  de  Gruyter,  vols.  I  {A)  -  IV  fasc.   1  (C),   1933-1952. 

Platnauer,  M.,  The  Life  and  Reign  of  the  Emperor  Lucius  Septimius  Severus,  London  etc.,  Oxford 
Univ.  Press,  1918. 

Platner,  S.  B.,  &  Ashby,  T.,  A  Topographical  Dictionary  of  Ancient  Rome,  London,  Oxford  Univ. 
Press,   1929. 

von  Premerstein,  A.,  Vom  Werden  und  Wesen  des  Prinzipats  (ed.  Volkmann,  H.;  Abhandlungen  der 
bayerischen  Akademie  der  Wissenschaft  zu  Miinchen  phil.-hist.  Abt.  neue  Folge  XV),  Munich 
Beck,   1937. 

RE,  RE2,  RE  Suppl.:  Real-Encyclopadie  der  classischen  Altertumswissenschaft  Reihe  I  {A-P),  Reihe 
II  {R-Z),  and  Supplementbande,  Stuttgart,  Metzler,  1894  ff.  (since  1946,  other  publishers). 
The  present,  3rd.,  edition  was  first  edited  by  Wissowa,  G.,  on  the  basis  of  the  first  two 
editions  begun  by  Pauly,  A.,  and  has  been  continued  by  other  editors.  All  three  parts  are 
still  incomplete. 

Renan,  E.,  Marc-Aurele  et  la  Fin  du  Monde   antique,  Paris,  Levy,   1881  and  later  reprints. 

Riccobono,  S.,  see  FIRA:  Pontes  luris  Romani  Antejustiani . 

De  Ruggiero,  E.,  see  DE:  Dizionario  Epigrafico  di  Antichita  Romane. 

Rushforth,  G.  McN.,  Latin  Historical  Inscriptions  etc.,  Oxford,  Clarendon  Press,  1893  (reprint  Lon- 
don, Oxford  Univ.  Press,   1930). 

Schiller,  H.,  Geschichte  der  romischen  Kaiserzeit,  Gotha,  Perthes,  2  vols,  in  3  parts  1883-1887. 

Scott,  K.,  The  Imperial  Cult  under  the  Flavians,  Stuttgart  &   Berlin,  Kohlhammer,   1936. 

SHA:  Scriptores  Historiae  Augustae,  whose  Lives  of  the  Roman  Emperors  from  Hadrian  to  Dio- 
cletian are  cited  from  the  ed.  by  Hohl,  E.,  Leipzig,  Teubner,  2  vols.   1927. 

Sherwin- White,  A.  N.,  The  Roman  Citizenship,  Oxford,  Clarendon  Press,   1939. 

Snyder,  W.  F.,  "  Note  on  the  Irregular  Evidence  upon  the  Date  of  the  Beginning  of  the  Tribu- 
nician  Power  during  the  Reigns  of  Septimius  Severus  and  of  Caracalla  ",  Memoirs  of  the  Amer- 
ican Academy  in  Rom.e  XV  (1938)  62-69. 

Spooner,  W.  A.,  Cornelii  Taciti  Historiarum  Libri  etc.,  London,  Macmillan,   1891. 

Strack,  P.  L.,  Review  oi  BMC  III  in  Gnomon  XIII  (1937)  669-680. 

Strack,  P.  L.,  Review  of  MS  III  in  fournal  of  Roman  Studies  XXI  (1931)  145-146. 

Strack,  P.  L.,  Unteresuchungen  zur  romischen  Reichsprdgung  des  zweiten  Jahrhunderts,  Stuttgart,  Kohl- 
hammer, 3  vols.  (Trajan,  Hadrian,  and  Antoninus),  1931-1937. 


64  MASON  HAMMOND 

Strong,  E.  A.,  Roman  Sculpture  from  Augustus  to  Constantine,  London,  Duckworth;  New  York, 
Scribners,   1907. 

Sutherland,  C.  H.V.,  Coinage  in  Roman  Imperial  Policy,  31  b.c.-a.d.  68,  London,  Methuen,   1951. 

Taylor,  L.  R.,  The  Divinity  of  the  Roman  Emperor  {Philological  Monographs  published  by  the  Amer- 
ican Philological  Association  I)   Middletown  (Conn.),  Am.  Philol.  Assn.,  1931. 

Thiele,  W.,  Di  Sevsro  Alexandro  Imperatore,  Berlin,  Mayer  &  Miiller,   1909. 

TLL:  Thesaurus  Linguae  Latinae. 

Trewts,  v.,  II  Mito  di  Alessandro  e  la  Roma  d'Augusto,M\\eLn.&i  Naples,    Ricciardi,   1953. 

Ulrich,  Th.,  Pietas  (Pius)  als  politischer  Begriff  im  rdmische  Staaie  bis  zum  Tode  des  Kaisers  Com- 
modus,  Breslau,  Marcus,   1930. 

Vogt,  J.,  Die  Alexandrischen  Mtinzen,  Grundlegung  einer  alexandrinischen  Kaisergeschichte ,  Stuttgart, 
Kohlhammer,  2  vols,  in  i,   1924. 

Vogt,  J.,  ""  Vorlaufer  des  Optimus  Princeps  ",  Hermes  LXVIII  (1933)  84-92. 

Wissowa,  G.,  Religion  und  Kultus  der  Romer  (Miiller's  Handbuch  V  iv),  Munich,  Beck,  ed.  2  1912. 


COSA:  BLACK-GLAZE  POTTERY 


BY 


DORIS    MAE    TAYLOR 


COSA:    BLACK  GLAZE    POTTERY 


CONTENTS 

PAGE 

Abbreviations 68 

Acknowledgments       6g 

Introduction 70 

Deposits:  Introductions  and  catalogues: 

Deposit  A 75 

Deposit  B     .    , 91 

Deposit  C 105 

Deposit  D 117 

Deposit  E 133 

Conclusions: 

Fabrics  and  forms  (with  forty  cuts  of  profiles  in  the  text): 

Type  I 143 

Type  II 152 

Type  III       164 

Type  IV 173 

Other  types 188 

Ceramic  industry  and  trade 189 

Plates: 

Photographs  of  pieces           I-XX 

Drawings  of  profiles        xxi-XLlii 

Drawings  of  graffiti XLIV 

Note 

The  photographs  of  pieces  are  reproduced  in    full  scale;   the  profiles  and 
drawings  in   the  text  and  plates  are  four-fifths  actual  size. 


ABBREVIATIONS 


AAA:  Annals   of  Archaeology   and   Anthropology. 

AJA:  American  Journal  of  Archaeology. 

Albenga:  Nino  Lamboglia,  "  La  nave  romana  di  Albenga,  "  Rivista  di  Studi  Liguri  i8  (1952)  131-236. 

Ampurias:  Martin  Almagro,  Las  Necropolis  de  Ampurias  I  (Barcelona  1953). 

Antioch:  Antioch-on-the  Orontes 

I,  The  Excavations  of  1932,  edited  by  G.  W.  Elderkin,  (Princeton  1934). 
IV,  pi.  J,  Frederick   O.   Waage,    Ceramics  and  Islamic   Coins  (Princeton  1948). 
Ardea:  Louise  Adams  Holland  (Mrs.  L.  B.  Holland),  "  Vases  from  Ardea  in  Pennsylvania  Museum,  " 

Bollettino  delVAssociazione  Internazionale  degli  Studi  Mediterranei  IV  4-5  (1933-34)- 
Athens:  Homer  A.  Thompson,  "  Two  Centuries  of  Hellenistic  Pottery,  "  Hesperia  3  (1934)  311-480. 
BMCRep:  H.  A.  Grueber,  Coins  of  the  Roman  Republic  in  the  British  Museum  (London  19 10). 
BollStM:  Bollettino  delVAssociazione  Internazionale  degli  Studi  Mediterranei. 
BullComm:  Bollettino  della   Commissione  Archeologica   Comunale  di  Roma. 

Ceramica  Campana:  Nino  Lamboglia,  "  Per  una  classificazione  preliminare  della  ceramica  campana,  " 
estratto  dagli  Atti  del  1°  Congresso  Internazionale  di  Studi  Liguri  (1950)  (Bordighera  1952). 
CRR:  E.  A.  Sydenham,  The  Coinage  of  the  Roman  Republic  (London  1952). 
CVA:  Corpus   Vasorum  Antiquorum. 

CVH:  J.  Cabre  Aguilo,   Corpus    Vasorum  Hispanorum   ~   Ceramica  de  Azaila  (Madrid  1944). 
Dura:  The  Excavations  at  Dura-Europos,   Final  Report  IV  pt.  I  fasc.  I:  Dorothy  Hannah  Cox, 

The  Greek  and  Roman   Pottery   (New   Haven    1949). 
EVP:  Sir  John  D.  Beazley,  Etruscan   Vase-Fainting  (Oxford  1947). 
GazArch:  Gazette  archeologique . 
Holwerda:  J.  H.  Holwerda,  Het  Laat-Grieksche  en  Romeinsche  Gebruiksaardewerk  uit  het  Middelland- 

sche-Zee-Gebied  in  het  Rijkmuseum  van  ouheden  te  Leiden  (Leiden  1936). 
JDAI:  Jahrbuch  des  k.  deutschen  archdologischen  Instituts. 
JRS:  Journal  of  Roman  Studies. 

MAAR:  Memoirs  of  the  American  Academy  in  Rome. 

MemNap:  Societa  R.  di  Napoli,  Memorie  della  R.  Accademia  di  Archeologia,  Lettere  e  Belle  Arti. 
Minturnae:  Agnes  Kirsopp  Lake  (Mrs.  W.  C.  Michels),  "  Campana  Supellex:   the  Pottery  Deposit 

at  Minturnae  ",  BollStM  5  nos.  4-5  (1934-35). 
MonAnt:   Monumenti  Antichi. 
NS:  Notizie  degli  Scavi  di  Antic  hit  a. 
NumChron:  Numismatic  Chronicle. 
Rome:  Inez  Scott  Ryberg  (Mrs.  M.  E.  Ryberg),  An  Archaeological  Record  of  Rome  from  the  Seventh 

to  the  Second  Century  B.  C,  Studies  and  Documents,  edited  by  Kirsopp  Lake  and  Silva  Lake, 

13  pt.   1  (London  1940). 
RSLig:  Rivista  di  Studi  Liguri. 
Samaria:  G.  A.  Reisner,  C.  S.  Fisher,  D.  G.  Lyon,  Harvard  Excavations  at  Samaria,  igo8-igio,  I 

(Harvard  1924). 
StEtr:  Studi  Etruschi. 
Tarsus:  Excavations  at  Gozlti-Kule,  Tarsus,  I,   chap.  VI:   Frances   FoUin   Jones,   "The  Pottery", 

(Princeton  1952). 
Ventimiglia:  Nino   Lamboglia,   Gli   scavi  di  Albintimilium    e   la  cronologia  della  ceramica   romana 

(Bordighera  1950). 

"C"  followed  by  a  letter  and  a  number  refers   to  the  catalogue  of  the  objects  excavated 
at  Cosa. 


ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 


This  project  was  started  in  1948  when,  as  a  Fellow  of  the  American  Aca- 
demy in  Rome,  I  was  a  member  of  the  staff  of  the  excavations  at  Cosa.  A 
fellowship  from  the  American  Association  of  University  Women  in  1952-53  gave 
me  an  opportunity   to  continue   it.  ' 

I  am  particularly  indebted  to  Professor  Frank  E.  Brown  of  Yale  University 
for  suggestions  and  criticisms.  His  queries  have  untangled  many  difficulties. 
I  owe  a  great  debt  of  gratitude  to  Professor  Lily  Ross  Taylor,  Professor-in-Charge 
of  the  School  of  Classical  Studies  of  the  American  Academy  in  Rome,  1952-55, 
for  advice  and  encouragement.  Everyone  who  has  given  assistance  to  the  exca- 
vations at  Cosa  has  helped,  in  some  way,  in  preparing  the  pottery  for  study. 
Special  thanks  are  due  to  Professor  Lawrence  Richardson  of  Yale  University, 
who  has  read  the  introductions  to  the  catalogues  and  made  suggestions  for  their 
improvement,  to  Arch.  Alberto  Davico,  who  has  drawn  most  of  the  profiles,  and 
to  Sig.  Johannes  Felbermeyer,  who  has  made  the  photographs.  The  inspector 
of  Cosa,  Dr.  G.  Maetzke,  and  Assistente  Gino  Tozzi  have  contributed  to  the 
development  of  the  project. 

For  opportunities  to  study  comparable  material  I  am  extremely  grateful  for 
the  generosity  of  the  administrators  of  museums  and  their  assistants.  I  wish 
to  thank,  in  particular,  Professor  Nino  Lamboglia  for  granting  me  permission 
to  study  the  pottery  in  Ventimiglia  and  giving  information  concerning  unpub- 
lished material  there  and  elsewhere.  I  wish  to  acknowledge  the  courtesies 
granted  by  the  late  Professor  Antonio  Minto  and  Professor  Giacomo  Caputo  in 
Florence,  by  Professor  Pietro  Romanelli,  Dr.  GianfilippoCarettoni,  and  Dr.  Lucos 
Cozza  in  Rome,  by  Professor  Luigi  Bernabo  Brea  and  Dr.  Alessandro  Stucchi 
in  Syracuse,  by  Dr.  Giorgio  Buchner  in  Ischia,  by  Sig.  Mario  Vagelli  in  Casti- 
glioncello,  by  Professor  Fernand  Benoit  in  Marseilles,  by  M.  Louis  Malbos  in 
Aix-en-Provence,  by  Professor  Martin  Almagro  and  Dr.  Alberto  Balil  Illana  in 
Barcelona,  by  Dr.  Lucy  Talcott  in  Athens,  and  by  Professor  G.  Roger  Edwards 
in   Philadelphia. 

Dr.  Virginia  Grace  has  furnished  all  the  dating  evidence  of  the  Greek  stam- 
ped amphorae;  Professor  Henry  S.  Robinson  has  given  me  information  on  the 
red-glaze  wares  of  Athens;  Professor  Agnes  Kirsopp  Lake  Michels  of  BrynMawr 
College  and  Dr.  Marion  E.  Blake  have  read  an  earlier  form  of  the  manuscript 
and  given  helpful  suggestions;  Professor  Mason  Hammond,  Professor-in-Charge 
of  the  School  of  Classical  Studies  of  the  American  Academy  in  Rome,  1955-57, 
has  supervised  the  printing;  Mrs.  Brooks  Emmons  Levy  of  Wheaton  College  has 
read  the  proof  and  eliminated  a  number  of  errors.  I  am  glad  to  have  this 
opportunity  to  thank  these  friends  and  colleagues  for  the  assistance  they  have 

given.  T-^  A/r    T- 

^  Doris  M.  Taylor 

'  An  earlier  version  of  this  study  was  submitted  to  Bryn  Mawr  College  in  partial  fulfillment 
of  the  requirements  for  the  degree  of  Doctor  of  Philosophy. 


INTRODUCTION 


This  study  describes  the  black-glaze  pottery  in  use  at  Cosa  '  over  a  period 
of  approximately  two  hundred  years,  from  the  last  part  of  the  third  century 
B.  c.  to  40-30  B.  c,  when  the  production  of  black-glaze  pottery  ended,  and  defines 
it  in  terms  of  its  fabric,  "  form,  source,  and  distribution.  The  excavations  have 
produced  five  deposits  which  represent  this  span  of  years.  These  five  have 
been  arranged  in  sequence,  analysed,  and  interpreted  in  a  method  which  paral- 
lels thai  used  by  Thompson  in  his  study  of  Hellenistic  pottery  of  Athens.  '  This 
study,  like  the  Athenian  one,  consists  of  catalogues  of  pottery  in  a  series  of 
dated  deposits  followed  by  a  description    of  certain  fabrics  in  those  deposits. 

Deposit  A  is  relatively  large.  Part  of  it,  small  bowls  and  perhaps  a  few 
other  pieces,  was  used  for  a  ritual  ceremony  on  the  sacred  area  beneath  the 
Capitolium.  The  remainder,  which  probably  had  no  ceremonial  significance, 
gives  a  representative  picture  of  the  pottery  of  the  late  third  century  and 
the  first  half  of  the  second.  Deposits  B  and  C  are  not  large  but  they  overlap 
chronologically  and  supplement  each  other.  The  two  combined  give  a  sampling 
of  the  pottery  in  use  at  the  middle  of  the  second  century.  Deposits  Dand  E, 
the  debris  of  households  and/or  shops,  are  large  and  varied  in  content.  Each 
is  probably  characteristic  of  its  period:  Deposit  D  of  the  late  second  and  early 
first  centuries.   Deposit  E  of  part  of  the  first  century. 

In  1950  in  the  excavation  of  part  of  Deposit  D  three  types  of  black-glaze 
pottery,  each  distinguished  by  a  peculiar  fabric,  were  identified.''  In  195 1  these 
types  were  recognized  in  Deposits  A,  B,  and  E  and  identified  with  Types  A,  B, 
and  C  found  in  the  excavations  at  Ventimiglia.  '  In  1950  Lamboglia  had  pub- 
lished a  preliminary  classification  of  these  three  types  which  identified  sixty- 
three  forms  of  the  fourth,  third,  second  and  first  centuries,  described  the  forms 
of  each  of  the  three  types,  and  suggested  a  location  for  the  workshop  (or  work- 
shops)  of  each   type.  *     In  general    the  evidence  of  the  deposits  of  Cosa  gives 

'  Frank  E.  Brown,  "Cosa  I:  History  and  Topography",  MAAR  20  (1951)  1-113. 

=  In  this  study  "  fabric  "  means  clay  and  glaze. 

3  Homer  A.  Thompson,  "Two  Centuries  of  Hellenistic  Pottery  ",  Hesperia  3  (1934)  311-476. 

•<  The  identification  was  made  by  Dr.  Lucy  T.  Shoe  and  Professor  Frank  E.  Brown. 

5  Nino  Lamboglia,  Gli  scavi  di  Albintimilium  e  la  cronologia  della  ceramica  romana,  parte 
prima,  campagne  di  scavo  1938-1940  (Bordighera  1950).  Lamboglia  identified  Types  A-G.  He  has 
informed  me  that  he  believes  that  Types  D-G,  which  do  not  have  parallels  in  the  pottery  found 
at  Cosa,  are  local.  Lamboglia  has  published  a  revised  chronology  for  the  stratification  at  Albin- 
timilium in  "  La  ceramica  iberica  negli  strati  di  Albintimilium  e  nel  territorio  ligure  e  tirrenico  " 
RSLig  20  (1954)  83-125. 

*  Nino  Lamboglia,  "  Per  una  classificazione  preliminare  della  ceramica  campana  "  Atti  del 
1°  Congresso  Internazionale  di  Studi  Liguri  (1950)  139-206.  This  study  was  also  published  sepa- 
rately by  the  Istituto  Internazionale  di  Studi  Liguri  (Bordighera  1952).  The  chronology  of  this 
classification  was  based  upon  the  evidence  of  the  excavations  at  Ventimiglia,  at  three  sites  in 
southern  France  (Entremont,  Enserune,  and  Saint-Blaise),  at  two  sites  in  the  eastern  part  of 
Spain  (Valencia  and  Bastida),  and  at  Alcudia  on  the  island  of  Maiorca.  Lamboglia's  conclusions 
with  regard  to  the  location  of  the  workshop  of  each  type  and  the  distribution  of  the  pottery  are 


COSA:  BLACK-GLAZE  POTTERY  71 

support  to  Lamboglia's  classification  of  the  three  types  and  their  forms  for  the 
late  second  and  first  centuries  but  it  offers  no  evidence  for  several  of  the  forms 
of  his  classification,  especially  for  a  group  assigned  to  the  fourth  and  third 
centuries.  Cosa,  however,  presents  new  forms  and  fabrics  and  gives  evidence 
for  more  exact  dating.  One  new  fabric  has  several  forms  which  were  not  inclu- 
ded in  Lamboglia's  classification.  To  avoid  confusion  between  the  classification 
of  types  found  at  Ventimiglia  and  those  found  at  Cosa,  the  types  of  Cosa  are 
identified  by  Roman  numerals.  Types  I,  II,  and  III  correspond  to  Types  A, 
B,  and  C,  respectively,  of  Lamboglia's  classification;  Type  IV  is  a  new  fabric. 

Types: 

The  clay  of  Type  I  varies  in  color  from  a  pink-buff  to  a  red-brown,  orange, 
orange-red,  and  red-brown  predominating.  It  is  coarse,  often  granular  and  usually 
hard  in  texture.  '  The  glaze  varies  from  a  firm  black  to  a  thin  metallic  black 
or  brown. 

The  clay  of  Type  II  varies  less  in  color  and  texture  than  that  of  Type  I. 
Except  in  three  or  four  pieces  it  is  pink-buft  or  buff.  It  is  usually  hard,  com- 
pact, and  finely  levigated,  with  a  smoothly  finished  surface.  The  glaze  is  black, 
blue-black,  or,  more  rarely,  blue,  and  generally  firm,  but  thin  on  carelessly 
finished  pieces.  It  frequently  has  a  high  sheen  and  is  rarely  metallic.  Glaze 
was  not  applied  inside  the  feet  of  most  of  the  forms  in  Type  II. 

The  clay  of  Type  III  is  grey;  the  glaze  is  black  or  grey-black.  Variations 
in  color  of  clay  or  glaze  are  rare  and  probably  attributable  to  accidents  of  firing. 
On  the  other  hand,  variations  in  texture  of  clay  (hard  to  soft)  and  quality  of 
glaze  (firm  to  thin)  suggest  that  several  workshops  produced  grey  fabrics  but, 
unfortunately,  the  fragments  found  at  Cosa  do  not  give  positive  evidence  for  a 
differentiation  of  the  shops.  The  type  is  relatively  rare  (few  forms  can  be  iden- 
tified in  full)  and  the  fragments  which  have  been  found  are  in  very  poor  con- 
dition. The  soft  clay  of  many  pieces  has  worn  away  so  that  the  original  form 
of  the  vessel  has  been  obliterated  and  the  glaze  on  some  has  almost  disappeared. 
Although  Cosa  does  not  provide  criteria  for  definite  subdivision,  I  have,  as  a 
temporary  measure,  subdivided  Type  III  on  the  basis  of  the  variations  in  the 
texture  of  the  clay,  hoping  that  this  may  be  useful  in  identifying  workshops, 
and  have  suggested  possible  bases  for  subdivision. 

based  upon  the  evidence  of  the  pottery  from  these  excavations  and  additional  examples  in  mu- 
seums of  Italy,  France,  and  Spain.  Almagro,  in  his  publication  of  the  necropolis  of  Ampurias  in 
Spain  {Las  Necropolis  de  Ampurias,  Barcelona  1953),  has  used  Lamboglia's  classification,  identi- 
fied four  new  forms,  that  is,  forms  64-68,  and  given  new  evidence  for  dating  the  forms.  (I  am 
not  able  to  account  for  the  numbering  of  the  new  forms  of  this  publication.  On  page  395  they 
are  summarized  as  forms  64,  65,  67  and  68.  On  page  215,  where  form  68  first  occurs,  it  is  called 
form  66.  In  the  introduction  to  the  group  of  tombs  in  which  form  68  first  occurs  it  is  also  refer- 
red to  as  form  66.  Elsewhere  in  the  publication  pieces  of  the  same  form  are  identified  as 
form  68). 

^  In  this  study   "  texture  "   refers   to  degree   of  hardness  of  the  clay. 


72  DORIS  M.  TAYLOR 

The  clay  of  Type  IV  shows  great  variation  in  color,  from  a  pink  or  pink- 
orange  to  buflf.  It  is  usually  hard  in  texture,  full  of  impurities,  and  frequently 
coarse  and  granular.  It  is  often  not  well  mixed  and  fired  unevenly.  A  single 
piece  may  vary  from  orange  to  pink  or  buff.  The  clay  has  a  rough  surface, 
that  is,  the  potter  did  not  take  the  trouble  to  smooth  the  turning  ridges.  Since 
the  glaze  frequently  wears  off  along  the  ridges  the  rough  surface  becomes  more 
conspicuous  than  it  was  originally  and  furnishes  a  good  clue  to  the  identification. 
The  glaze  of  Type  IV  is  black,  dull  or  metallic,  firm  on  the  best  pieces  and 
thin  on  the  poorest.  It  sometimes  has  a  high  sheen.  The  potter  did  not  glaze 
the  pots  with  any  more  care  than  he  turned  them.  The  glaze  has  worn  off 
the  poorest  pieces.  Almost  all  the  bases  are  mottled  and  stacking  rings  are 
common. 

Two  groups  of  forms  occur  in  the  fabric  of  Type  IV:  one  peculiar  to  it, 
the  other  composed  of  poor  copies  of  the  forms  of  Type  II.  Copies  of  the  forms 
of  Type  I  or  Type  III  are  rare.  The  quality  of  the  clay  and  glaze  usually 
differentiates  Type  IV  from  Type  II,  although  the  color  of  the  clay  is  sometimes 
a  guide  to  identification  since  Type  IV  is  frequently  pink  or  orange,  whereas 
Type  II  is  predominantly  buff.  While  no  evidence  for  the  local  production  of 
black-glaze  pottery  has  been  found  in  Cosa,  it  seems  likely  that  Type  IV  was 
made  in  or  very  near  the  town.  ^  It  is  poor  in  quality  and  varies  in  workmanship. 
Fragments  of  pots  which  were  damaged  in  the  workshops  and  the  closed  forms 
that  would  have  been  difficult  to  transport  must  indicate  local  production. 
Some  of  the  forms  peculiar  to  the  type  disappear  when  Types  I,  II,  and  III  and 
copies  of  Type  II  become  more  common,  that  is.  Type  IV  supplied  the  market 
with  its  own  forms  until  other  types  were  imported  in  quantity,  then  gave  way 
to   the  competition  and   produced   only   poor  copies  of  Type  II. 

The  identification  of  Type  IV  in  the  catalogues  is  probably  conservative, 
since  a  poor  fabric  such  as  Type  IV  has  greater  variations  in  clay  and  glaze 
than  a  good  one.  Variations  due  to  poor  workmanship  or  the  effort  to  copy 
new  importations  must  have  caused  differences  in  the  local  pottery.  It  is  not 
surprising  that  the  bowls  ot  Type  IV  in  Deposit  A,  for  example,  are  very 
different  in  form  and  quality  of  glaze  from  the  imitations  of  Type  II  in  Depos- 
its D  and  E. 

Catalogues: 

The  catalogue  of  each  of  the  five  deposits  is  introduced  by  a  description 
of  its  place  of  finding  and  the  evidence,  internal  and  external,  for  dating  the 
deposit.  Coins'  and  stamped  amphorae,  supplemented  by  a  comparative  analy- 
sis  of  lamps   and    pottery,    have  given  most    of  the  chronological  limits.    The 

8  A  mold  for  a  decorated  relief  bowl  (CB  is67a  and  b)  shows  that  there  was  local  pottery 
production. 

9  The  coins  have  been  dated  by  the  chronology  given  by  E.  A.  Sydenham  in  The  Coinage 
of  the  Roman  Republic  (London  1952). 


COSA:  BLACK-GLAZE  POTTERY  73 

fact  that  Cosa  was  founded  in  273  b.  c.  gives  a  terminus  post  quern  for  Deposits 
A  and  B.  In  the  introduction  to  these  two  deposits  the  evidence  of  dated 
pottery  of  other  sites  has  been  used  to  show  that  most  of  the  pottery  of  Deposit  A 
dates  in  the  late  third  century  or  later,  that  Deposit  B  has  a  terminus  post 
quern  later  than  that  of  Deposit  A. 

Each  catalogue  is  arranged  on  the  basis  of  form:  plates,  saucers,  and  other 
open  forms  followed  by  pitchers,  jugs,  and  other  closed  forms.  The  basis  for 
distinction  between  plate  and  saucer  or  plate  and  shallow  bowl  may,  at  times, 
seem  arbitrary  but  in  a  deposit  composed  of  very  fragmentary  pieces  it  is  some- 
times impossible  to  recognize  the  full  form.  It  is  difficult,  for  example,  to 
distinguish  a  fragment  of  the  rim  of  a  plate  with  upturned  rim  from  that  of 
a  bowl  with  incurved  rim.  Variations  of  a  form  are  listed  separately  or  as 
subdivisions  of  one  listing.  The  method  followed  depends  upon  the  complexity 
of  the  form  and  its  variations.  The  aim  has  been  clarity  of  description  for 
each  deposit  rather  than  consistency  throughout  the  five.  Deposit  A,  for  exam- 
ple, which  is  more  heterogeneous  in  fabrics  and  forms  than  the  other  deposits, 
has  more  listings  and  fewer  subdivisions  than  Deposit  D,  a  much  larger  group 
of  pottery.  "  Unique  "  means  that  the  example  is  the  only  one  of  that  form 
in   the  five  deposits. 

In  the  catalogues  the  clay  and  glaze  of  every  piece,  or  group  of  pieces  of 
the  same  fabric  and  form,  are  described,  and  examples  in  the  fabrics  of  Types  I, 
II,  III,  and  IV  are  identified  by  type.  Other  pieces,  some  of  which  may  belong 
to  Type  IV,  are  not  identified  by  fabric  but  listed  and  described  individually. 
This  practice  may  seem  to  magnify  the  importance  of  the  unidentified  material 
since  in  quantity  it  is  smaller  (except  in  Deposit  A)  than  the  material  listed 
under  the  four  main  types.  Thirty  plates  of  Type  II,  for  example,  may  be 
included  under  one  number,  while  a  single  sherd  of  an  unidentified  fabric  has 
its   own   listing. 

Conclusions: 

The  description  of  fabrics  and  forms  in  the  conclusions  will,  however,  help 
to  eliminate  this  "  distortion  ".  In  this  description  Types  I,  II,  III,  and  IV 
are  considered  in  detail,  with  a  general  description  of  each  of  the  types  pre- 
ceding the  discussion  of  its  individual  forms.  At  the  end  of  this  section  of 
the  conclusions  a  few  other  fabrics  represented  by  more  than  one  form  receive 
brief  descriptions.  The  final  section  of  the  conclusions  interprets  the  evidence 
of  the  five  deposits  for  the  ceramic  industry  and  trade  of  Cosa  and  the  Medi- 
terranean  World. 

Bibliography: 

The  bibliography  for  comparative  material  does  not  pretend  to  be  exhaus- 
tive.    Excavation   reports  have   received   more  attention   than  museum  collec- 

10 


74  DORIS  M.  TAYLOR 

tions  of  pottery  of  unknown  proveniences,  and  reports  from  sites  in  the  Western 
Mediterraean  more  than  those  from  excavations  in  the  Eastern  Mediterranean. 
In  order  to  avoid  a  cumbersome  bibHography  I  have  taken  advantage  of  three 
comparatively  recent  publications  which  are  rich  in  bibliographical  material. 
Reference  to  classifications  and  lists  of  examples  in  Sir  John  Beazley's  Etruscan 
Vase  Painting  has  eliminated  a  great  number  of  bibliographical  entries.  Lam- 
boglia's  bibliography  in  his  study,  Per  una  classificazione  preliminare  delta  cera- 
mica  campana,  has  been  used  to  show  the  proveniences  of  examples  of  the  forms 
and  types.  '°  For  parallels  in  form  in  the  Eastern  Mediterranean  I  have  occa- 
sionally cited  the  excellent  bibliography  given  by  Frances  Follin  Jones  in  the 
publication   of  the   pottery   from  Tarsus.  " 

By  cross-references  I  have  attempted  to  eliminate  monotonous  repetition 
of  bibliography.  The  bibliography  for  parallels  for  a  form  occurs  at  the  first 
entry  of  this  form  in  the  catalogues  and  reference  to  this  bibliography  is  given 
at  each  subsequent  appearance  of  the  form  in  the  catalogues.  The  biblio- 
graphy in  the  catalogues  indicates  the  proveniences  of  other  examples  of  the 
form  and  the  dating  of  comparable  forms  found  at  other  sites.  The  bibliography 
in  the  description  of  the  types  in  the  conclusions  gives  Lamboglia's  dating  and 
distribution   of   the  forms  and  Almagro's  dating  of  them. 

"°  I  have  seen  many  of  the  examples  that  he  has  cited  and  agree  with  almost  all  his  iden- 
tifications of  the  forms  of  Types  A,  B,  and  C  in  use  in  the  second  and  first  centuries. 
'■  Excavations  at  Gozlii  Kule,  Tarsus  I  (Princeton   1952), 


COSA:  BLACK-GLAZE  POTTERY  75 

DEPOSITS 
Deposit  A:  Introduction 

In  1948  and  1949,  the  first  two  seasons  of  excavations  at  Cosa,  the  Capi- 
tolium  on  the  Arx  was  cleared  to  bedrock  in  the  areas  of  the  three  celiac  and 
parts  of  the  pronaos.  Protrusions  of  bedrock  beneath  the  Capitolium  had  caused 
great  variation  in  the  depth  of  the  fill.  Cuttings  in  the  rock  and  a  layer  of 
carbonized  material  around  a  cleft  in  it  indicated  that  an  area  beneath  the  celiac 
had  been  marked  off  as  a  sacred  area  sometime  prior  to  the  construction  of  the 
temple.     The  fill,   however,   showed  no  evidence  of  stratification. 

The  pottery  whi^h  can  be  identified  definitely  as  belonging  to  this  fill  is 
limited  because  the  fill  had  been  disturbed  by  burials  which  had  been  placed 
beneath  the  floors  of  the  Capitolium  and  by  excavations  made  sometime  after 
Cosa  was  abandoned.  The  cella  Minerva  and  the  cella  lunonis  each  measured 
11.60  m.  X  5.05  m.;  the  central  cella,  11.60  m.  X  6.40  m.  The  cella  Minervae 
(Cella  i)  had  been  gouged  with  pits  in  two  corners,  NE  and  NW,  by  previous 
excavations  and  in  a  third  corner,  SW,  the  floor  was  broken  by  burials  of  a 
later  period.  The  fill  varied  in  depth  from  about  three  meters  on  the  west 
side  to  a  meter  and  a  half  on  the  east  side.  In  the  central  cella  (Cella  2)  a 
large  pit  had  been  made  by  some  previous  excavation.  The  fill  was  about  a 
meter  in  depth.  The  cella  lunonis  (Cella  3)  had  the  best  preserved  fill.  It 
varied  in  depth  from  about  a  half  meter  on  the  west  side  to  a  meter  and  a 
half  on   the   east   side  but  was   very  shallow   (ca.  0.17  m,)   near   the  center. 

The  fill  around  a  large  cistern  in  the  southwest  half  of  the  pronaos  had 
been  disturbed  by  the  collapse  of  the  cistern's  roof  so  that  only  a  relatively 
small  section  immediately  in  front  of  the  front  wall  of  the  cellae  was  original 
fill  for  the  building.  This  was  a  narrow  L-shaped  area,  seven  and  a  half  meters 
in  length  on  the  west  arm,  six  and  a  half  meters  in  length  on  the  north  arm. 
It  varied  in  depth  from  about  a  half-meter  in  the  west  arm  to  about  two  and 
a  half  meters  in   the  northwest  corner. 

Excavations  around  column  bases  in  the  pronaos  cut  into  undisturbed  fill. 
The  areas  excavated  were  irregular  in  shape  and  not  large.  None  of  them 
extended  to  bedrock. 

To  the  pottery  of  the  fill  under  the  temple  floors  can  be  added  a  small 
quantity  found  at  the  east  end  of  the  isolating  trench  along  the  south  side  of 
the  temple  and  forecourt.  This  small  deposit  (Level  IV  of  the  trench)  was  in 
a  level  of  red  earth  packed  with  spalls  from  the  working  of  blocks  for  the  retain- 
ing wall  of  the  forecourt  above.  It  must  be  contemporary  with  some  of  the 
pottery  of  the  temple  fill  and  has,  therefore,  been  included  in  Deposit  A.  In 
this  study  the  term  "  Capitolium  Fill  "  will  be  used  synonymously  with  Deposit  A 
and  will   include  the  pottery  from  Level  IV  of  the  isolating  trench. 


76  DORIS  M.  TAYLOR 

It  is  difficult  to  determine  the  interval  of  years  which  the  pottery  of  De- 
posit A  represents.  The  sure  terminus  ante  quern  is  the  date  of  the  construc- 
tion of  the  Capitolium,  a  date  for  which  coins  and  a  stamped  amphora  handle 
furnish  evidence.  In  the  stone  foundation  under  the  southeast  corner  of  the 
retaining  wall  of  the  forecourt,  with  the  debris  of  construction,  was  found  a 
bronze  coin,  an  "uncial"  as  (CC  no),  dated  by  Sydenham  in  the  interval  ca.  155- 
133  B.  c.  '  In  the  construction  level  of  the  trench  along  the  south  side  of  the 
forecourt  appeared  a  stamped  Rhodian  amphora  handle  (CC  788;  for  which  a 
date  in  the  second  quarter  of  the  second  century  has  been  suggested.  "  A  qua- 
drans  (CA  519)  which  was  lying  on  the  signinum  pavement  of  the  cella  lunonis 
amid  the  debris  of  a  later  mosaic  floor  and  probably  dropped  under  it  is 
assigned  to  the  interval  ca.  155-150  b.  c.  This  evidence  suggests  a  date  near 
the  middle   of   the  second   century   for  the  construction   of  the  Capitolium. 

The  terminus  post  quern,  for  Deposit  A  must  be  determined  by  a  study  of 
the  material  found  in  it.  The  lamps  and  black-glaze  pottery  differ  greatly 
from  those  of  the  other  four  deposits  in  fabrics  and  forms.  Two  types  of  lamps, 
both  wheel-made,  were  found  in  the  Capitolium  Fill. '  Both  types  are  dupli- 
cated in  Deposit  C;  examples  of  the  commoner  type  are  found  in  Deposits  B,  D, 
and  even  E.  No  molded  lamps  are  found  in  Deposit  A.  They  appear  in  all 
the  other  deposits  and  in  great  quantity  in  Deposits  D  and  E.  The  pottery 
can  be  devided  into  three  groups:  forms  of  imported  fabrics,  primarily  Types  I 
and  II,  small  bowls  with  incurved  rim  in  a  limited  number  of  fabrics,  a  variety 
of  other  forms  in  a  number  of  fabrics.  The  pottery  of  Types  I  and  II,  since 
it  is  very  fragmentary,  must  have  been  brought  to  the  Arx  from  elsewhere  as 
part  of  the  levelling  process  preparatory  to  the  construction  of  the  floors  of 
the  Capitolium.  The  relative  rarity  of  these  types  in  Deposits  B  and  C  shows 
that  they  were  not  imported  in  quantity  by  the  middle  of  the  second  century. 
The  period  of  greatest  importation  is  represented  by  Deposit  D,  that  is,  130-120- 
70-60  B.  c.  The  pieces  in  Deposit  A,  therefore,  must  be  among  the  latest  in 
that  deposit. 


'  CRR  no.  302.  Sydenham  assigns  this  "  uncial  "  issue  to  the  interval  ca.  155-133  B.C.,  the 
period  in  which  the  "  uncial  "  standard  was  officially  recognized.  In  a  note  on  this  series  (ser.  11) 
he  has  written  {op.  cit.  t,^:  "  Exact  dating  of  the  '  uncial  '  bronze  is  impossible.  Coins  assigned 
to  this  period  are  generally  below  rather  than  above  the  normal  weight.  " 

"  On  this  stamp,  a  rectangular  stamp  of  Zenodotus,  Dr.  Virginia  Grace  has  written  in  a  per- 
sonal communication  "  on  the  basis  of  present  information,  second  quarter  of  the  second  century 
is  probably  a  reasonable  guess.  The  type  is  uncommon  and  it  has  not  been  found  in  contexts 
which  establish  its  date  independently.  The  date  is  suggested  partly  by  the  relatively  large  size 
of  the  stamp;  earlier  Rhodian  stamps  are  mostly  smaller  in  proportion  to  the  handle.  .  .  More 
satisfactory  evidence  for  dating  this  type  before  about  150  would  be  helpful.  However,  the  fact 
that  it  is  so  rare  -  only  about  fourteen  examples  known  to  me  at  present  -  may  explain  the  lack 
of  any  example  as  yet  on  file  for  Corinth  or  Carthage.  " 

3  The  wheel-made  lamps  found  at  Cosa  can  not  be  typed  by  the  classification  established 
by  O.  Broneer  in  Corinth  IV  it:  Terracotta  Lamps  (Cambridge,  Massachusetts  1930).  A  classific- 
ation of  the  lamps  of  Cosa  based  upon  the  examples  found  in  the  excavation  of  the  Atrium  Publi- 
cum is  being  prepared  for   publication  by  Dr.    Eric  Baade. 


COSA:  BLACK-GLAZE  POTTERY  77 

The  second  group  is  composed  of  many  small  bowls  with  incurved  rim,  appro- 
ximately 130  of  them,  a  few  of  which  are  almost  complete.  They  must  be 
remains  of  a  ritual  ceremony  which  was  held  on  the  sacred  area  before  the 
Capitolium  was  constructed.  Their  uniformity  in  proportions  and  shape  indi- 
cates that  they  were  all  produced  within  a  short  period  of  time.  Within  the 
group  there  is  some  evidence  of  degeneration  of  form,  glaze,  and  stamped  decor- 
ation. The  bowls  become  more  angular  in  bodies  and  feet  and  thinner  in 
sidewalls.  The  glazes  vary  from  a  firm  black  to  a  metallic  grey-black.  The 
bo^ls  with  better  glazes  have  central  stamps  (rosette  or  star)  or  three  or  four 
scattered  ones  (rosettes  or  palmettes);  those  with  inferior  glazes  are  unstamped 
or  decorated  with  scattered  stamps  (rosettes  or  palmettes  or  ^  -shaped  stamps). 
A  few  of  these  bowls  have  the  fabric  of  Type  I;  one  may  be  Type  III.  The 
form,  however,  is  not  common  in  later  deposits.  Similar  bowls  occur  in  Depos- 
its B  and  C;  the  example  in  Deposit  D  is  almost  rimless.  The  evidence  of 
these  later  deposits  shows  that  the  form  had  disappeared  by  130-120  b.  c, 
perhaps  earlier.  The  bowls  of  Deposit  A  are  comparable  in  form  to  a  bowl 
found  in  a  burial  at  Ampurias  which  was  dated  in  the  second  half  of  the  third 
century,  to  seven  others  in  six  burials  dated  to  the  transition  of  the  III-II 
centuries  or  the  first  half  of  the  second.  (See  zn/ra  85  A  21.)  ■•  Bowls  in 
Group  D  of  Thompson's  study  of  the  Athenian  Agora  are  similar  to  the  Cosa 
examples.  This  group  has  been  assigned  to  the  middle  of  the  second  century. 
Bowls  from  the  Minturnae  deposit,  assigned  to  the  middle  of  the  third  century, 
and  from  the  Carsoli  one,  predominantly  third  century,  are  more  curved  and 
thicker- walled  than  the  Cosa  bowls.  The  simplicity  of  the  stamp  patterns  on 
the  Cosa  bowls  and  the  absence  of  any  stamp  on  many  of  them  suggest  that 
the  group  represents  almost  the  end  of  the  use  of  stamps  on  bowls  of  this  form. 
In  comparison  with  the  stamps  of  the  Carsoli  deposit,  the  Cosa  stamps  show 
less  variety  and  care  in  workmanship.  A  smaller  version  of  the  bowl  A  25  is 
similar  in  form  to  a  bowl  found  in  Cosa  in  the  fill  beneath  the  floor  of  the  colon- 
nade on  the  northwest  side  of  the  Forum.  This  fill  was  probably  made  before 
ca.  167  B.  c.  (See  the  introductions  to  Deposits  B  and  C.)  All  this  evidence  sug- 
gests that  the  bowls  with  incurved  rim  in  Deposit  A  should  be  assigned  to  the 
last  half  of  the  third  century  or  the  first  half  of  the  second,  probably  the 
latter. 

The  third  group  of  pottery  in  Deposit  A,  a  variety  of  forms  in  a  number 
ot  fabrics,  is  very  fragmentary.  Most  ot  it,  like  the  pieces  of  Types  I,  II, 
and  III,  must  also  have  been  in  the  fill  brought  from  another  part  of  the  town 
in  preparation  for  the  construction  of  the  floors  of  the  Capitolium.  Some  of 
the  fragments  must  have  been  used  for  the  ritual  ceremony  on  the  site,  e.g., 
a  jug,  A  38,  with  a  dedicatory  inscription.  Some  of  the  pieces  of  this  third 
group  are  carefully  turned  and  glazed.     Many  of  the  fabrics  and  forms  do  not 

*  The  bibliography  for  the  parallels  cited  in  this  introduction  is  given  in  the  catalogue  of  the 
deposit. 


78  DORIS  M.  TAYLOR 

appear  in  later  deposits.  Several  forms  with  handles,  which  are  rare  in  other 
deposits,  occur  in  Deposit  A.  Some  of  the  pieces  have  decorative  devices, 
such  as  painting  or  ribbing,  which  are  not  represented  in  the  other  deposits. 
This  group  of  pottery  is  more  difficult  to  date.  A  38,  and  possibly  A  I,  are 
"  pocola  ",  a  group  which  Ryberg  judged  to  be  probably  a  little  earlier 
than  the  middle  of  the  third  century;  Beazley  thinks  this  date  is  not  too 
early.  Bianchi-Bandinelli  dated  the  "  pocola  "  group  270-230  b.  c.  A  I,  if  it 
belongs  to  this  group,  would  be  a  very  late  example  of  it.  A  parallel  for  the 
form  of  "  fish  plate  "  (A  2),  was  found  at  Tarsus  in  the  bottom  level  of  the 
Hellenistic-Roman  Unit.  This  unit  has  been  dated  from  approximately  the 
mid-second  century  to  the  mid-first  century.  A  date  in  the  second  half  of  the 
fourth  century  has  been  suggested  for  A  4,  which  must  be  the  oldest  fragment 
in  the  deposit.  A  13,  a  saucer,  has  a  parallel  in  form  from  Tarsus  in  a  context 
dated  ca.  second  quarter  of  the  second  century.  Earlier  versions  of  cups 
A  27  and  A  28  were  found  in  the  Minturnae  deposit.  An  example  similar  to 
A  27  was  found  in  La  Tomba  della  Pellegrina  at  Chiusi,  a  tomb  which  Levi 
dated  earlier   than    the  second  century,  and   in    the  Carsoli  deposit. 

With  the  exception  of  the  plate  A  4,  all  the  black  glaze  pottery  of  Depos- 
it A  could  probably  be  assigned  to  the  interval  ca.  225  to  ca.  150  b.  c.  A 
terminus  post  quern  in  the  late  third  century  would  account  for  the  differences 
between  Deposit  A  of  Cosa  and  the  deposits  from  Minturnae,  a  deposit  as- 
signed to  the  middle  of  the  third  century,  and  from  Carsoli,  a  stips  which  accu- 
mulated in  the  last  decades  of  the  fourth  century,  the  third  century  and  the 
first  quarter  of  the  second  century.  This  terminus  would  explain  also  the  simi- 
larities between  Deposit  A  and  the  Carsoli  deposit. 

To  account  for  the  difierences  between  the  pottery  of  Deposit  A  and  that 
of  Deposits  B  and  C,  it  is  necessary  to  assume  that  most  of  the  pottery  of 
Deposit  A  antedates  ca.  167  b.  c,  the  terminus  post  quern  for  Deposit  C  and  a 
large  part  of  Deposit  B. 

Deposit  A:  Catalogue 

A  I     Plate  (or  bowl)  with  high   flaring  rim.     PI.    I.    PI.    XXI. 

Clay  buff,  medium.  Surface  finished  roughly.  Glaze  blue-black  with  sheen.  Floor 
slightly  concave.  Remains  of  decoration  in  superposed  color:  on  rim  a  single  ivy  leaf  in 
thin  white  paint,  on  floor  remains  of  paint  show  head,  shoulders,  and  part  of  bodies  of  two 
adjacent  figures  and  part  of  head  of  a  third.  Scene  enclosed  in  two  concentric  circles,  also 
in  the  paint.     Neither  composition  of  scene  nor  colors  of  paint  clear.     Unique. 

D.  of  floor,  0.20  m.  D.  of  rim,  0.22  m.  H.  of  rim,  0.03  m.  Six  fragments,  three 
joining. 

This  plate  seems  to  be  another  member,  a  late  one,  of  Beazley's  Volcani  Group  of  "  pocola  " 
{EVP  210-215).  The  style  of  the  figures  indicates  that  the  plate  should  be  assigned  to 
the  end  of  this  decorative  technique,  the  application  of  color  over  the  glaze.  This  is  a 
western  Mediterranean  version  of  the  "  Six  Technique  "  of  the  archaic  Greek  vases  (Six, 
"Vases  polychromes  sur  fond  noir  "  GazArch  13  (1888)  193-210,  281-294.  See  also  Tar- 
sus 158).     It  should  be  compared  with  a  cylix  from  Ostia  {NS  (1950)  93  fig.  2b,  and  96) 


COSA:  BLACK-GLAZE  POTTERY  79 

with  two  central  figures  and  a  border  of  ivy  leaves  alternating  with  circles.  Parallels  cited 
for  this  cylix  relate  it  to  the  Sokra  Group  (EVP  201-204).  The  composition  of  the  figures  on 
the  floor  supports  this  attribution;  however,  the  ivy  leaf  border  is  similar  to  that  of  the 
Volcani  Group.  The  border  of  the  Ostia  cylix  is  like  that  on  a  cup  from  Tarquinia  {EVP 
210  no.  6;  R.  Bianchi-Bandinelli  "  Un  '  pocolom  '  anepigrafe  del  Museo  di  Tarquinia,  "  Scritti 
in  onore  di  Bartolomeo  Nogara  (Citta  del  Vaticano  1937)  11-20;  MonAnt  36  (1937)  488  fig.  31.) 
The  ivy  and  circle  pattern  might  be  compared,  also,  with  that  on  the  well-known  "  Elephant 
plate"  from  Capena  {EVP  211  and  pi.  39,  i).  The  distribution  of  the  Sokra  Group  is 
wide.  Chiusi,  Todi,  and  Volterra  account  for  a  large  proportion  of  the  examples.  A  cup 
from  Vulci  {EVP  202  no.  6;  JDAI  43  (1928)  356  fig.  30),  the  provenience  nearest  to  Cosa, 
is  not  a  parallel  for  the  Cosa  fragments.  For  the  "  pocola  "  Bianchi-Bandinelli  {op.  cii.  18) 
and  Ryberg  {Rome  139  f.)  suggested  Rome  as  the  center.  Beazley  {EVP  210)  believes 
they  were  probably  made  in  Latium.  Bianchi-Bandinelli  {loc.  cit.)  dated  the  group  to  the 
interval  270-230  b.c.  The  Cosa  plate  may  be  even  later  than  the  group  dated  by  him.  The 
Cosa  example,  like  the  Ostia  cylix,  seems  to  have  elements  of  the  Sokra  Group  and  the 
Volcani  Group,  the  composition  of  an  Etruscan  group  combined  with  elements  of  "  Gna- 
thian  "  decoration  used  on  a  group  from  Latium. 

A  2     "Fish  Plate".     PI.  XXI. 

Clay  buff,  hard,  finer  than  A  i.  Glaze  blue-black  with  sheen,  granular,  mottled  red 
near  base.  Groove  on  top  at  angle  of  rim.  Depressed  floor.  Foot  has  angular  exterior, 
oblique  interior.     Unique. 

D.  of  rim,  0.19  m.     D.  of  foot,  0.06  m.     Four  non-joining  fragments. 

Ampurias  fig.  343  no.  6  (base  only);  Ceramica  Campana  172  form  23,  examples  from 
Enserune,  from  Ampurias  and  other  areas  of  Catalonia,  from  La  Bastida  del  Mogente; 
Holwerda  no.  155  pi.  i  from  Volterra;  Minturnae  type  42  pis.  5  and  7;  P.  Mingazzini,  CVA 
Italy  fasc.  11  (Museo  Campano)  pi.  5  no.  4  and  pi.  6  no.  10;  F.  Mouret  CVA  France  fasc.  6 
pi.  22  nos.  45-46;  Tarsus  212  fig.  178  C;  Antioch  IV  pt.  i,  7,  10,  11  no.  10  pi.  i;  Samaria  297 
8  2a  fig.  174  no.  31  and  2b  fig.  174  no.  32.  For  bibliography  of  other  examples  from  the 
eastern  Mediterranean  area  see  Tarsus  212  note  7.  The  Ampurias  example  is  assigned  to 
the  end  of  the  third  century  and  the  beginning  of  the  second.  Lamboglia  {Ceramica 
Campana  loc.  cil.)  thinks  that  the  use  of  the  form  does  not  extend  far  into  the  second 
century.  The  Tarsus  example,  which  is  the  closest  parallel  in  form  for  the  Cosa  plate,  was 
found  in  the  bottom  level  of  the  Hellenistic  Roman  Unit,  dated  from  "  ca.  mid-second  cen- 
tury to  ca.  mid-first  century.  " 

A  3     Plate  with  downturned  rim.     PI.  XXI. 

Clay  hard   buff.    Glaze   thin   brown-black   on  upper  surface    only,   mottled  orange  on 
edges.     Unique.     Similar  in  fabric   to  A  20,   perhaps  from  the  same  workshop. 
D.  of  rim,  0.13  m.     Two  joining  fragments  of  rim. 

A  4     Plate  with  downturned  rirn.     PI.  I.   PI.  XXI. 

Clay  buff,  peels  easily.  Glaze  black  thinning  to  orange  on  upper  surface;  traces  of 
orange-brown  on  area  underneath  rim.  Glaze  applied  in  wave  pattern  on  upper  surface 
Unique. 

D.  of  rim,  0.14  m. 

EVP  ro,  175-177,  "The  Genucilia  Group"  pi.  38,  17-27;  Rome  loi  f.  Dr.  Mario 
Del  Chiaro  has  kindly  contributed  the  following  information  on  the  Genucilia  Group:  "My 
researches  have  shown  two  centers  of  manufacture  for  the  Genucilia  Group:  Caere  and 
Falerii.  The  Caeretan  Group  produced  plates  during  the  second  half  of  the  fourth  century 
(c.  350-300  B.C.);  the  Faliscan  Group  during  the  first  half  of  the  third  century.  It  over- 
laps the  Caeretan  Group  slightly.     It  is  highly  probable  that  the  Cosa  fragment  belongs  to 


8o  DORIS  M.  TAYLOR 

the  Caeretan  Group  for  there  are  a  number  of  proveniences  for  it  along  the  Tyrrhenian 
coast,  e.g.,  Caere,  Tarquinia,  Talamone,  Populonia  and  Genoa.  "  Dr.  Del  Chiaro  tells  me 
that  other  examples  of  this  group  have  been  found  at  or  near  Carthage,  Cumae,  Anzio, 
Palestrina,  Grottaferrata,  Carsoli,  Veii,  Todi,  and  Volterra,  that  the  Faliscan  Group  has 
been  found  at  or  near  Ardea,  Capena,  Rignano  Flaminio,  Fabbrica  di  Roma,  Falerii,  Cor- 
chiano,  Poggio  Sommavilla  and  Vignanello. 

A  5     Plate  with  downturned  rim.     PI.  XXI. 

Clay  unique  in  its  hardness  and  rose-grey  color.     Glaze  hard  blue-black,  metallic.     Rim 
turns  downward  more  sharply  than  A  3  or  A  4.     After  a  border  0.028  m.  in  width,  wall 
drops  sharply  to  form  shallow  bowl.  A  variety  of  fruit  plate.     Unique. 
»     D.  of  rim,  0.13  m. 

A  6     Plate  with  horizontal  offset  rirn.     PI.  XXI. 

Type  II.    Clay  pink-bufF,  hard.    Glaze  firm  blue-black. 

D.  of  rim,  0.30  m.    Two  non-joining  fragments  of  one;  fragment  of  second. 

Similar  form:  B  7  and  26,  C  i  and  22,  D  i,   E  i. 
Similar  fabric:  B  26,  D  ib,  E  ib. 

See  infra   154  for  description  of  form  in  Type  II. 

Black  glaze:  Ampurias  fig.  162  no.  2;  Albenga  fig.  26,  example  from  the  sea  near  Albenga, 
and  fig.  74,  examples  from  the  sea  near  Genoa  (Pegli);  Ceramica  Campana  147  form  6  Type  B, 
examples  from  Ventimiglia,  one  from  the  museum  of  Alba,  one  from  the  Museo  Nazionale  of 
Syracuse,  158  form  6  Type  C,  example  from  the  Museo  Nazionale  of  Syracuse,  examples  from 
Tindari,  169  form  6  Type  A,  examples  from  Ventimiglia,  Entremont,  and  Saint-Remy; 
Ventimiglia  fig.  34  nos.  2-3,  fig.  35  no.  25,  fig.  47  no.  5;  F.  Mouret,  CVA  France  fasc.  6 
pi.  23  nos.  3,  4,  6  and  7,  all  from  Enserune.  Tarsus  231  no.  252,  example  in  the  bottom 
level  of  the  Hellenistic- Roman  Unit,  dated  "  ca.  mid-second  century  to  ca.  mid-first  century  "; 
Antioch  IV,  pt.  I,  12  no.  27;  Athens  D  i  figs.  55  and  116,  E  22-26  fig.  83.  Group  D  is 
dated  middle  of  the  second  century;  Group  E  to  the  turn  of  the  second  and  the  first  century 
and  the  early  years  of  the  first.  Other  examples:  two  from  Falerii  Veteres  (Museo  Nazionale 
di  Villa  Giulia  in  Rome),  several  from  Castiglioncello  (Museo  Archeologico  in  Castiglioncello), 
examples  from  Tuscania  (some  in  the  Museo  Nazionale  Tarquiniese,  others  in  the  Museo 
Archeologico  in  Florence),  several  examples  from  Tarquinia  (Museo  Nazionale  Tarquiniese), 
example  from  Volterra  (Museo  Guarnacci,  camera  9),  example  in  Arezzo  (Museo  Archeolo- 
gico Mecenate  no.  1307),  several  examples  from  Paestum  (Museo  Nazionale  di  Paestum),  exam- 
ples from  Granada  (Museo  Arqueologico  Nacional  in  Madrid,  sala   II,  case  18,  no.  52). 

Red  glaze:  Tarsus  nos.  252  and  253  fig.  188  "  Hellenistic-Pergamene  ";  Antioch  IV,  pt.  I, 
24  no.  137;  unpublished  examples:  Athenian  Agora,  P  4247  and  P  11850,  "Hellenistic- 
Pergamene.  " 

Form  in  impasto:  G.  Matteucig,  Poggio  Buco:  the  Necropolis  of  Statonia  (Berkeley  and 
Los  Angeles  1951),  pi.  v  no.  13;  F.  N.  Pryce,  CVA  Great  Britain  fasc.  lo  pi.  5  no.  16,  from 
Falerii;  J.  D.  Beazley  and  F.  Magi,  La  Raccolta  Benedetto  Guglielmi  nel  Museo  Gregoriano 
Etrusco   (Citta   del   Vaticano    1939)   pi.  45  and  fig.  38. 

A  7     Plate  with  upturned  rim.     PI.  XXI. 

Type  II.    Clay  pink-buff.     Glaze  firm  black. 
D.  of  rim,  0.18-0.26  m.     Fragments  of  three. 

Similar   form:    B  9,  23  and  24,  C  4  and  25,  D  5  and  6,    E  5; 

Similar   fabric:    B    23a  (or  copy),   C  4b   and   25,  D  5b   and   6b,    E   5bl  and  II. 

See  infra  156  for  description  of  form  in  Type  II. 

Black  glaze:  RSLig  21  (1955)  274  and  277  fig.  5,  examples,  Types  I  and  II,  from  Vado 
Ligure;  RSLig  20  (1954)  121  fig.  45,  three  examples  from  Castiglioncello;  Ampurias  fig.  260 


COSA:  BIJ>lCK-GLAZE  POTTERY  8i 

no.  3;  Albenga  figs.  25  and  27,  both  from  the  sea  near  Albenga;  Ceramica  Campana  146 
form  5  Type  B,  example  from  Rome,  from  Enserune,  from  Ventimiglia,  148  form  7  Type 
B,  example  from  S.  Miguel  de  Sorba,  158  form  5  Type  C,  example  from  Tindari,  from  the 
Museo  di  Cavaillon,  from  Ventimiglia,  159  form  7  Type  C,  examples  from  Ventimiglia,  Syra- 
cuse, and  Tindari,  example  from  the  Museo  di  Cavaillon;  tVIS' (195 1)  270  fig.  8A,  271,  272 
fig.  9D,  275,  all  from  Syracuse;  Ventimiglia  fig.  23  no.  5,  fig.  24  no.  8,  fig.  27  no.  20,  fig.  34 
nos.  4-7,  fig.  35  nos.  28-30,  fig.  43  nos.  2-3,  fig.  48  nos.  5,  10-12,  fig.  51,  nos  4-5,  fig.  52 
nos.  6,  7  and  15,  fig.  55  nos.  2,  9,  15,  and  16,  fig.  58  no.  2,  fig.  97  no.  5,  fig.  no  nos.  3-4; 
CVH  pi.  59  nos.  3-8,  14,  16,  20  and  24;  Holwerda  no.  234  pi.  2,  from  Volterra;  F.  Mouret, 
CVA  France  fasc.  6  pi.  22  no.  42;  other  examples:  one.  Type  III,  from  Castiglioncello  (Museo 
Archeologico  in  Castiglioncello),  one.  Type  II,  from  Volterra  (Museo  Guarnacci,  camera  9), 
two.  Types  I  and  III,  from  Malta  (museum  in  Citta  Vecchia  in  Malta),  one.  Type  I,  in 
Museo  Arqueologico  Nacional  in  Madrid  (case  19),  other  examples.  Type  II,  from  Archena 
(same  museum,  no.  33957),  from  Galera  (same  museum,  sala  II,  case  18),  from  Azaila  (same 
museum,  sala  II,  case  40). 

Red  glaze:  " Hellenisiic-Pergamene" :  Dura  7-8  nos.  39  and  41;  Tarsus  231  fig.  188:  A;  An- 
tioch  I  71  no.  ID  pi.  15;  Antioch  IV,  pt.  I,  23  nos.  120-121:  Athens  E  151  and  152  figs,  no 
and  116;  F.  O.  Waage,  "The  Roman  and  Byzantine  Pottery"  Hesperia  2  (1933)  pi.  8 
shape  45;  unpubhshed  examples:  Athenian  Agora,  P  7952,  P  8019,  P  11230,  P  14963.  The 
Tarsus  example  was  found  in  the  top  level  of  the  Middle  Hellenistic  Unit,  dated  third  cen- 
tury, beginning  of  second.  Group  E  from  Athens  is  dated  to  the  turn  of  the  second  and 
the  first  century  and  the  early  years  of  the  first. 

A  8     Base  of  large  plate.     PI.  XXI. 

Type  I.  Clay  coarse  red-brown.  Glaze  firm  blue-black,  slightly  metallic,  carelessly 
applied  around  base.  Stacking  ring  on  floor.  Foot  is  heavy,  slightly  rounded  on  exterior, 
slightly  oblique  on  interior. 

D.  of  foot,  0.08  m.  Two  examples.  Two  joining  fragments  of  part  of  foot  and  wall 
of  each. 

A  9     Base  of  plate  (or  bowl).     PI.  I.     PI.  XXI. 

Type  IV.  Clay  orange-buff,  hard.  Glaze  thin  blue-black  mottled  red  near  base.  Stack- 
ing ring.  Thin  walls  and  foot.  Foot  has  oblique  sides  and  narrow  resting  surface.  On 
floor  four  rows  of  rouletting  encircle  a  stamped  pattern  consisting  of  a  central  palmette  .sur- 
rounded by  four  stamps,   alternating  palmettes  and  stylized  tree  (?). 

D.  of  foot.  0.04  m. 

Similar  form  and  arrangement  of  stamps:  C  26e;  similar  form:  C  26h.  See  infra  173 
for  a  discussion  of  this  base. 

Identical  stamps:  W.  Van  Ingen,  CVA  USA  fasc.  3  pi.  32  no.  16  and  pi.  34  no.  i.  Form 
of  this  example  similar  to  A  21.     Example  said  to  be  from  Chiusi. 

A  10     Base  of  plate  (or  bowl).     PI.  I.     PI.  XXII. 

Clay  buff,  hard.     Glaze    thin   green-black.     Foot  high  with    slightly    profiled    exterior. 
On  floor  a  design  of  three  rows  of  rouletting  encircling  a  central  rosette. 
D.  of  foot,  0.05  m. 

F.  Mouret,  CVA  France  fasc.  6  pi.  27  no.  6,  similar  stamp,  no.  8,  degenerate  form  of 
stamp,    both   from   Enserune.     For  other  rosette  stamps  see  A  21b. 

A  II     Base  of  plate  (or  bowl).     PI.  XXII. 

Clay  buff,  medium.     Glaze  thin  blue,  which  covers  entire  surface,  mottled  red  on  foot. 
Stacking  ring.     Foot  is  divided  into  two  bands  by  grooves. 
D.  of  foot,  0.04  m. 

11 


82  DORIS  M.  TAYLOR 

Similar  but  less  distinct  profile:  C  26d. 

Cf.  foot  of  two-handled  cup:  Ceramica  Campana  195  form  49,  profile  of  an  example  from 
Ampurias.  Lamboglia  lists  other  examples  of  this  cup  from  Minturnae,  "  nell'oppido  di  Teste 
Negre  "  (southern  France),  Maiorca  and  Ampurias.  The  example  from  Minturnae  does  not 
have  a  foot  identical  to  the  Cosa  one.  Another  form  from  Minturnae,  a  pseudo-cylix,  docs 
have  a  similar  foot  {Minturnae  100  type  20  pi.  4  pi.  5). 

A  12     Base  of  plate. 

Clay  buff,  hard.    Glaze  blue-black  on  floor,  metallic  green  on  exterior.    Glaze  covers 
entire  surface.     High  foot  with  oblique  interior. 
»  D.  of  foot,  0.04  m. 

A  13     Saucer  with  thickened  downturned  rim.     PI.   XXII. 

Clay  buff.    Glaze  firm  blue-black.    Unique.  -- 

D.  of  rim,  0.20  m. 

Holwerda  no.  231  fig.  5  pi.  2  pi.  10,  from  Volterra.  Tarsus  213  fig.  179  D  (red  glaze  with 
center  black  from  stacking).  See  Tarsus  212,  note  9  for  bibliography  of  other  examples 
in  the  eastern  Mediterranean  area.  The  Tarsus  example  was  found  in  the  late  Hellenistic 
Unit,  dated  "  ca.   second  quarter  of  second  century  B.C.  " 

A  14     Bowl  with  outrolled  rim.     PI.  XXII. 

Type  n   (?).     Clay  buff,   hard.     Glaze    blue-black   which  peels  easily.     Deep  body. 
D.  of  rim,  0.16  m. 

Similar  form:  A  15,  B  36,  C  7,  20,  and  28,  D  8,  and  E  8.  See  infra  157  for  descrip- 
tion of  this  form  in  Type  H. 

The  bowl  with  outrolled  rim  has  a  longer  history  than  any  other  form  found  at  Cosa. 
It  also  shows  greater  variation  in  shape  than  any  other  form.  Its  history  is  complicated 
by  the  fact  that,  in  some  fabrics,  it  develops  into  a  rimless  bowl.  The  bibliography  below 
gives  a  great  number  of  shapes.  The  bibliography  for  individual  fabrics  and  comparative 
dating  will  be  given  in   the  descriptions  of  the  fabrics. 

Black  glaze:  Ampurias  fig.  135  no.  i,  fig.  332  no.  5,  fig.  334  no.  7;  Albenga  fig.  28, 
from  the  sea  near  Albenga;  NS  (1951)  270  fig.  8A,  from  Syracuse;  Ceramica  Campana  160 
forms  17,  18  and  19  Type  C,  examples  from  the  Museo  Nazionale  of  Syracuse,  from  Ven- 
timiglia,  171  form  22  Type  A,  examples  from  the  museum  of  Valencia,  from  Ampurias, 
from  Enserune,  177  form  28  Type  A,  examples  from  Enserune  and  Minturnae,  example  from 
Ventimiglia,  another  from  Ischia;  Ventimiglia  fig.  28  no.  24,  fig.  34  no.  9,  fig.  52  nos.  8,  9, 
and  12,  fig.  55  no.  11;  EVP  244  ii,  example  from  Cerveteri,  another  from  Sovana;  Minturnae 
type  18  pis.  I  and  3;  F.  Mouret,  CVA  France  fasc.  6  pi.  14  no.  10,  pi.  22,  nos  32,  48-50, 
58,  all  from  Enserune;  Antioch  IV  pt.  I,  9,  H9,  and  10  pi.  i;  Athens  A  7-13  fig.  3,  C  3 
and  4  fig.  28,  D  2-6  fig.  55,  E  33-44  figs.  83,  115,  117.  The  bowls  in  Groups  D  and  E 
of  Athens  are  the  closest  parallels  for  most  of  the  Cosa  bowls.  The  Cosa  bowls  of  Type  II 
and  a  few  pieces  of  similar  form  are  exceptions.  They  are  closer  to  the  bowls  in  earlier 
groups  or  to  "  Hellenistic-Pergamene  "  bowls.  Other  examples:  one,  Tjrpe  II  or  very  simi- 
lar, from  Arezzo  (Museo  Archeologico  Mecenate,  no.  1305);  several,  Type  II,  in  theMuseo 
Arqueologico  of  Barcelona  and  the  museum  in  Ampurias;  examples.  Type  IV,  from  Tarqui- 
nia  (Museo  Nazionale  Tarquiniese). 

Red  glaze:  Dura  9  nos.  49  and  50;  Tarsus  234  no.  290  and  fig.  188:  E  and  290. 
F.  O.  Waage,  "  The  Roman  and  Byzantine  Pottery  "  Hesperia  2  (1933)  pi.  8  shape  48. 
See  Tarsus  234  note  35,  other  examples  of  red  glaze  bowls  in  the  eastern  Mediterranean  area. 


COSA:  BLACK-GLAZE  POTTERY  83 

A  15     Bowl  with  outturned  rim.     PI.  XXII. 

Type  n.    Clay  buff,   hard.     Glaze   firm   blue-black.     Rim   flattened   on   top. 
D.    of   rim,    0.18  m.     Fragments   of   two. 

Similar  form:   see  A   14.     See  infra    157   for  description  of  this  form  in  Type  II. 

A  16     Bowl  with   heavy   outturned  rim.     PI.  XXII. 

Type  IV.    Clay  orange-pink,  fired  irregularly.    Glaze  firm  black.     Groove  made  with 
pointed  instruments  runs   around  bowl  on  exterior,  0.03  m.  below  rim. 
D.  of  rim,  0.16  m. 

See  infra   185  for  description  of  this  form. 

A  17     Small  bowl  with  thickened  lip.     PI.  XXII. 

Type  IV  (?).    Clay  orange-buff.     Glaze  metallic  black.     Deep  full  body. 
D.  of  rim,  o.io  m.     Two  joining  fragments. 

See  infra  185  for  discussion  of  this  form. 

A  18     Rimless  bowl  with  angular  wall.     PI.   XXII. 

Type  IV.    Clay  orange-pink,    very   hard.     Glaze    thin   black. 

D.  of  rim,  0.18  m.  Three  examples;  six  fragments,  two  of  which  join. 

Similar   form:    A  19,  B  37-39,  C  8,  10,    17-19,    29    and    36,  D  9  and   13,   E  9  and  11. 
Similar  fabric:  B  38,  C  loa  and   b,  19a,  29b,   E  11. 

See  infra  180  for  description  of  this  form  in  Type  IV. 

The  rimless  bowl,  like  the  bowl  with  outrolled  rim,  varies  greatly  in  angularity  of 
wall.  The  bibliography  and  comparative  dating  for  the  forms  of  the  individual  fabrics 
will  be  given  in   the  descriptions  of  the  fabrics. 

Ampurias  fig.  130  no.  13,  fig.  241  no.  5,  fig.  248  no.  5,  fig.  294  no.  3,  fig.  ZZZ  no.  4, 
fig.  354  no.  I,  fig.  359  no.  8;  Ceramica  Campana  148  form  8  Type  B,  example  in  the  museum 
in  Ampurias,  another  in  theMuseo  Arqueologico  of  Barcelona,  159  form  16  Type  C,  example 
from  the  Museo  Nazionale  in  Syracuse,  177  form  28  Type  A,  example  from  Enserune, 
another  from  Ventimiglia,  i78f.  form  29  Type  A,  example  from  Minturnae,  another  from  the 
Museo  Nazionale  of  Palermo,  179  form  30  Type  A,  example  from  Minturnae,  others  from 
Ventimiglia,  180  form  31  Type  A,  examples  from  Enserune,  another  from  Minturnae,  exam- 
ples from  Saint-Remy,  from  Cavaillon,  from  Ventimiglia,  182  form  t,;^  Type  A,  examples  from 
Enserune,  from  Ventimiglia;  Ventimiglia  fig.  20  nos.  42-44,  fig.  23  no.  i,  fig.  24  nos.  1-3, 
fig.  27  nos.  17  and  22,  fig.  34  nos.  5-8,  10-13,  %•  37  nos.  47-49,  52-53,  fig  43  no.  2,  fig.  47 
nos.  1-2,  fig.  48  no.  2,  fig.  51  no.  i,  fig.  55  nos.  3-4,  17-18,  20-22,  fig.  97  no.  3,  fig.  no 
nos.  5-8,  fig.  in  nos.  1-4;  Holwerda  no.  272  fig.  2  pi.  3,  from  Volterra;  Minturnae  type  17 
pis.  I  and  3,  type  22  pi.  4,  type  30  pi.  6;  W.  Van  Ingen,  CVA  USA  fasc.  3  pi.  32  no.  23, 
said  to  be  from  Cumae;  F.  Mouret,  CVA  France  fasc.  6  pi.  23  no.  8,  from  Enserune; 
Athens  E  43-44;  other  examples:  from  Volterra  (Museo  QjW2C!:r\3.(iQ\,  pianterreno,  sala  6,  and 
Museo  Archeologico  in  Florence),  from  Castiglioncello,  Types  I  and  II  (Museo  Archeologico 
in  Castiglioncello),  from  Paestum,  Type  I  (Museo  Nazionale  di  Paestum). 

Red  glaze:  Dura  9  no.  48;  Tarsus  no.  275  figs.  137  and  188;  Antioch  IV  pt.  /,  24 
no.   132  pi.  4;  Samaria  306,  7a-b,  c-d. 

A  19     Rimless  bowl  with  vertical  wall.      PI.  XXII. 

Type  IV.   Clay  orange-pink,  hard.  Glaze  thin  black,  slightly  metallic.  Smaller  than  A  18. 
D.  of  rim,  0.08  m.     Three  examples. 


84  DORIS  M.  TAYLOR 

Similar  form:  see  A  18. 

Similar  fabric  and  form:  C  19c,  D  12. 

See  infra  181  for  description  of  this  form. 

Example,  Type  IV,  in  the  Museo  Nazionale  Tarquiniese,  two  from  Tuscania  (Museo 
Archeologico  in  Florence,  sala  XVI),  one  from  Castiglioncello  (Museo  Archeologico  in  Casti- 
glioncello,  tomb  XVIII). 

A  20     Bowl  with  horizontal  rim,   profiled  at  edge.     PI.  XXII. 

Clay  hard  buff.    Glaze  thin  brown-black.    Unique. 
D.  of  rim,  0.19  m. 

Similar  fabric:  A3. 

Holwerda  nos.  247-254  fig.  5  pi.  2,    from   Volterra. 

A  21     Bowl  with  slightly  incurved  rim. 

Type  IV.  Clay  pink-buff  to  buff,  occasionally  greyish,  fine  and  hard,  breaks  with  a 
sharp  fracture.  Glaze  firm  black,  dull  or  lustrous,  mottled  red  near  base.  Bottom  of  foot 
usually  unglazed.  Thinner  glazes  somewhat  iridescent.  Stacking  rings  common.  Bowls 
with  better  glazes  have  thicker  walls  and  fuller  curving  bodies,  lower  broader  feet  with 
rounded  exteriors,  oblique  interiors.  Those  with  poorer  glazes  have  thinner,  more  angular 
walls,   higher,    straighter  feet. 

H.,  0.05-0.06  m.  D.  of  rim,  0.12-0.16  m.  D.  of  foot,  0.04-0.05  m.  No  complete  bowls. 
Many  non-joining  fragments.  Pieces  of  approximately  one  hundred  twenty  bowls.  Subdivi- 
sions of  form  are  based  upon  form  of  foot  and/or  quality  of  glaze.  They  probably  indicate 
workshops. 

2ia      PI.  II. 

Clay  pink-buff,  fine.    Glaze  firm  black  with  high  sheen. 
D.  of  rim,  0.14  m.     Single  fragment. 

2ib      PI.  II.     PI.  III.     PI.  XXIII. 

Clay  pink-buff  to  buff.  Glaze  firm  black  but  duller  than  A  21a.  With  and  without 
stamps. 

H.,  o.io  m.     D.  of  rim,  0.12  m.     D.  of  foot,  0.05  m.     Fragments  of  many   examples. 

Similar  stamps:  single  rosette,  NS  (1949)  255  fig.  31  nos.  f-i,  from  Cagliari;  F.  Mouret, 
CVA  France  fasc.  6  pi.  26  no.  5,  pi.  27  nos.  6  and  8,  pi.  28  nos.  1-3,  5,  7,  9,  11-13,  iS> 
pi.  29  nos.  4-6,  8,  pi.  30  nos.  2-3,  7-11,  14-15,  17,  24;  four  rosettes,  ibid.,  pi.  29  nos.  2  and  15; 
four  palmettes,   ibid.,   pi.    25    no.    3,    all   from  Enserune. 

21C      PI.  IV.     Pi.   XX.     PI.  XXIII.     PI.  XLIV. 

Clay  and  glaze  similar  to  A  21b.    Foot  lower  and  broader.     With  and  without  stamps. 
H.,  0.05  m.     D.  of.  rim,  0.13  m.     D.  of  foot,  0.05  m.  Fragments  of  several  examples. 
Less  common  than  A  21b.     Graffito  on  one  fragment. 

Similar  stamps:  single  star  (see  also  D  26al)  J.  M.Casal,  Fouilles de  Virampatnam-Arika- 
medu  (Paris  1949)  pi.  16-B.  Example  shown  is  from  Rome  (Museo  Nazionale);  similar 
rosettes:    F.  Mouret,    CVA    France  fasc.    6  pi.  29  no.   15,    from  Enserune. 

2id      PI.  IV.     Pi.  XXIV. 

Clay  similar  to  A  21b  and  c.  Glaze  is  generally  poorer  in  quality.  Foot  is  higher. 
Wall   is   thinner.     Without  stamps. 

H.,  0.05  m.  D.  of  rim,  0.14  m.  D.  of  foot,  0.05  m.  Fragments  of  many  examples. 
Almost  as  common   as  A  21b. 


COSA:  BLACK-GLAZE  POTTERY  85 


aie     PI.  XXIV. 


Clay  and  glaze  similar  to  A  21  d.     Foot  is  high  and  slightly  offset.     Without  stamps. 
H.,  0.05  m.     D.   of  rim,  0.14  m.     D.  of  foot,  0.05  m. 

Similar  form:  A  22-24,  B  i4  and  42,  C  30,  D  9e.  A  25-26  and  B  4  are  smaller  versions 
of  the  same  form. 

See  infra  183  for  description   of   this   form   in  Type  IV. 

The  bibliography  for  the  bowl  with  incurved  rim  is  enormous.  I  have  attempted  to 
confine  it  to  bowls  which  are  very  similar  in  curve  of  body  and  rim  to  the  Cosa  exam- 
ples: 

RSLig  21  (1955)  274  and  277  fig.  5,  Type  I,  from  Vado  Ligure;  Ampurias  fig.  178  no.  5, 
fig.  211  no.  2,  fig.  224  no.  16,  fig.  232  no.  16,  fig.  248  no.  6,  fig  325  nos.  9-10,  fig.  332 
no.  3,  fig.  334  no.  9.  One  of  the  burials  in  which  the  form  occurs  is  dated  in  the  second 
half  of  the  third  century;  seven  are  dated  to  the  transition  of  the  third-second  centuries  and 
the  first  half  of  the  second,  one  is  undated.  NS  (1951)  169-224,  especially  figs.  14-15,  from 
Carsoli.  These  bowls  are  more  curved  than  the  Cosa  ones;  their  stamps  include  a  greater 
variety  of  patterns.  Most  of  this  votive  deposit,  datable  by  its  coins,  must  have  accumula- 
ted in  the  last  decades  of  the  fourth  century  and  the  third  century.  Sydenham's  chronology 
{CRR)  places  its  closing  in  the  second  century,  near  the  beginning  of  the  second  quarter. 
Seven  hundred  eighty  coins  were  found  in  this  deposit.  It  has  been  dated  {NS  (1951)  184) 
from  the  last  decades  of  the  fourth  century  to  217  B.C.,  a  dating  based  upon  the  chronology 
in  BMCRep.  Coins  of  the  "  uncial  "  standard  are  not  represented  and  only  ten  of  the  "  sex- 
tantal  ".  Eight  of  the  latter  standard  are  without  symbols  or  letters;  one  of  the  two  remaining 
is  a  quadrans  dated,  according  to  the  chronology  in  CRR,  "c.  187-175  B.C.  "  (CRR  no.  148  <r) 
and  the  other  a  sextans  dated  by  the  same  chronology  "  c.  182-172  B.C.  "  {CRR  no.  160  c). 
Ceramica  Campana  176  form  27  Type  A,  examples  from  Enserune,  Minturnae,  Ampurias, 
Ventimiglia.  Lamboglia  believes  that  the  form  was  in  use  in  the  fourth  century,  became 
common  in  the  third,  and  second.  Ventimiglia  fig.  23  no.  i,  fig.  27  no.  21,  fig.  34  nos.  13-15, 
fig.  47  nos.  3-4,  fig.  48  no.  i;  CVH  pi.  59  nos.  11  and  15;  W.  Van  Ingen,  CVA  USA  fasc.  3 
pi.  32  no.  16,  pi.  34  no.  I,  example  said  to  be  from  Chiusi;  MonAnt  37  (1938)  pi.  37  no.  16 
from  Foci  del  Garigliano.  These  bowls  are  slightly  more  curved  than  the  Cosa  ones.  Boll~ 
Comm  64  (1936)  100  fig.  8,  from  Rome,  the  excavations  of  the  Largo  Argentina.  The  large 
black  glaze  bowls  of  the  votive  stips  of  Temple  A  in  the  Largo  Argentina  are  slightly  more 
curved  than  the  bowls  of  Cosa  A  21.  The  smaller  ones  have  oblique  walls  very  similar 
to  those  of  Cosa  A  24  and  25.  Unfortunately,  the  coin  which  was  used  to  date  the  tran- 
sition from  the  first  to  the  second  period  of  Temple  A  is  identified  (96)  only  as  "  una 
moneta  del  iii  secolo  av.  Cr.  "  The  altar  of  this  phase  of  Temple  A,  that  is,  the  period 
of  the  stips,  is  analogous  in  type  and  proportions  to  the  altar  of  Aulus  Postumius  Albi- 
nus  (97).  The  date  for  the  latter  has  been  placed  "  alia  fine  del  iii  secolo  av.  Cr.  "  (For 
the  dating  of  the  altar  of  Aulus  Postumius  see  G.  Marchetti-Longhi,  "  Gli  scavi  del  Largo 
Argentina,  "  BollComm  71  (1943-44)  58  ff).  Holwerda  no.  276  fig.  2  pi.  3,  examples  from 
Vol  terra;  Minturnae  type  13  pis.  i  and  3.  The  Minturnae  bowls  are  slightly  more  curved 
than  the  Cosa  examples.  The  Minturnae  deposit  dates  in  the  middle  of  the  third  century. 
F.  Mouret,  CVA  France  fasc.  6  pi.  22  nos.  21-31  and  2,2,,  all  from  Enserune.  Some  of  the 
bowls  may  be  more  curved  than  the  Cosa  ones.  C.  L.  Woolley,  "  Some  Potters'  Marks 
from  Cales,  "  JRS  i  (191 1)  202  fig.  38  no.  9.  In  MonAnt  37  (1938)  899-900,  Mingazzini  dates 
the  stamps  on  the  Cales  bowls  by  similar  forms  of  letters  and  ligatures  on  coins.  (He  follows 
the  chronology  in  BMCRep).  The  coins  which  he  uses  for  the  comparison  are  "  sextan tal  " 
bronze,  that  is,  coins  dated,  according  to  the  chronology  in  CRR,  after  ca.  187  B.C.  Almost 
all  these  coins  have  been  assigned  {CRR)  to  the  interval  "  c.  150-133  B.C.  ".  Tarsus  nos. 
52  and  67  fig.  180;  Antioch  IV,  pt.  I,  13  nos.  75-78  pis.  2  and  3,  especially  76  a,  77  k  (black 
glaze),  no.  79  pi.  3  (red  glaze);  Athens  D  9  figs.  55  and  117.  Group  D  is  dated  in  the 
middle  of  the  second  century.  Example  from  Talamone  (Museo  Archeologico  in  Florence 
no.  10594),  from  Vetulonia  (same  museum),  from  Paestum,  Type  I  (Museo  Nazionale  di 
Paestum),   from  Tarquinia  (Museo  Nazionale  Tarquiniese). 


86  DORIS  M.  TAYLOR 

A  22     Bowl  with  slightly  incurved  rim.     PI.  XX.     PI.  XXII.     PI.  XLVI. 

Type  I.  Clay  brown-red.  Glaze  firm  black,  mottled  red  on  upper  part  of  foot.  Most 
of  foot  unglazed.  Form  similar  to  A  21  except  that  rim  curves  inward  less.  Thin  wall.  Foot 
has  rounded  exterior,  oblique  interior.  One  fragment  preserves  part  of  a  single  rosette  on 
center  of  floor.     Graffito  on  exterior  of  bowl   with  rosette  stamp. 

H.,  0.06  m.  D.  of  rim,  0.14  m.  D.  of  foot,  0.05  m.  Fragments  of  four,  two  joining 
pieces. 

Similar  fabric  and  form:  B  42c,  D  loa  and  26al  and  311.  See  infra  148  for  description 
of  form  in  Type  I. 

Identical   rosette  stamp:  F.  Mouret,  CVA  France  fasc.   6  pi.  25  no.  3,  from  Enserune. 

A  23     Bowl  with  slightly  incurved  rim  with  decoration  in  white  paint. 

Type  I.  Clay  pink-buff,  coarse  and  hard.  Glaze  thin  black,  metallic.  Body  less  full 
than  A  21,  more  than  A  22.  Heavy  wall.  Bowl  distinguished  by  decoration  of  narrow 
bands  of  white  paint  which  encircle  interior  just  below  rim.  This  kind  of  decoration  is 
peculiar  to  Type  I  bowls. 

D.  of  rim,  0.13  m.    Two  fragments. 

See  infra  149  for  description  of  form  in  Type  I. 

A  24     Bowl  with  slightly  incurved  rim.     PI.  XXII. 

Tjrpe  III  (?).  Clay  grey,  hard.  Glaze  firm  black,  slightly  iridescent.  Inside  of  foot 
unglazed.  Thin  wall.  Low  foot  similar  to  A  21b.  On  floor  part  of  central  rosette  stamp, 
depressed. 

D.  of  rim,  0.13  m.     D.  of  foot,  0.06  m. 

Similar  bowl  (fabric  and  form):  B  42d. 

See  infra  170  for  description  of  form  in  Type  III. 

A  25    Small  bowl  with  incurved  rim.     PI.   IV.     PI.   XXII. 

Type  IV  (?).  Clay  buff  to  orange.  Glaze  thin  black,  metallic,  mottled  red.  Thick 
heavy  wall.  Low  foot  with  rounded  exterior,  oblique  interior.  Distinct  turning  point  on 
inside  of  foot. 

H.,  0.03  m.     D.  of  rim,   0.07  m.     D.  of  foot,   0.03  m.     Fragments  of  seven. 

Similar   form:   B  4. 

See  infra  183  for  discussion  of  this  form. 

Ampurias  fig.  118  no.  2,  form  dated  in  the  third  century;  Ceramica  Campana  173 
form  25  Type  A,  example  from  Enserune,  from  the  Museo  Arqueologico  of  Barcelona,  the 
latter  from  Ampurias  and  other  sites  on  the  Catalonian  coast.  Lamboglia  believes  that  this 
form  was  in  use  in  the  last  half  of  the  fourth  century  and  continued  in  the  third  and 
second  centuries;  Holwerda  no.  281  pi.  3;  Minturnae  types  14  and  15  pis.  3  and  5;  F.  Mouret, 
CVA  France  fasc.  6  pi.  17  nos.  8,  10  and  13,  pi.  22  nos.  61-63.  For  additional  bibliography 
see  A  21. 

A  26    Small  bowl  with  sharply  incurved  rim.     PI.   IV.     PI.   XXII. 

Type  IV  (?).  Clay  pink-buff,  hard  and  coarse.  Glaze  thin  black  mottled  red  on  base. 
Thick  wall  tapering  to  thin  lip.  Foot  has  straight  exterior,  oblique  interior  and  central 
turning  point. 

H.,  0.03  m.     D.  of  rim,  0.05  m.     D.   of  foot,  0.03  m. 

See  infra   183  for   discussion   of   this   form. 
For  bibliography  see  A   21  and  A  25. 


COSA:  BLACK-GLAZE  POTTERY  87 

A  27     Small   bowl  with  curved  overhanging  rim.     PI.  V.     PI.   XXII. 

Clay  orange-buff,  hard.  Glaze  thin  metallic.  Full  curving  body.  Foot  has  oblique 
exterior  and  interior  with  slight  point  on  inside  of  foot.  On  center  of  floor  a  "  fish  plate  " 
type  depression  with  surrounding  ridge.  Exterior  of  rim  decorated  with  pattern  of  incised 
oblique  lines   and  crosses.     For  graffito,  see  pi.  XLIV.     Unique. 

H.,  0.03  m.     D.  of  rim,  0.05  m.     D.  of  foot,  0.03  m. 

See  EVP  244  f.  iv  for  variations  of  the  form  and  its  distribution.  Rome  fig.  120  e. 
Ryberg  {Rome  94,  note  70)  rfers  to  innumerable  little  dishes  with  striated  overhanging  rim  in 
theMuseo  Nazionale  in  Rome.  D.  Levi,  CVA  Italy  fasc.  8  IV  B  2  pi.  i  no.  14,  from  Vetulonia; 
MonAnt  37  (1938)  pi.  37  nos.  9,  21  and  22  from  Foci  del  Garigliano;  Holwerda  no.  286 
%■  S  pl-  3.  from  Montalcino;  Minturnae  types  45  and  46  pis.  5  and  6.  Mintumae  examples 
and  those  from  Foci  del  Garigliano  are  earlier  versions  in  the  same  tradition  of  form  and 
incised  decoration.  NS  (1931)  493  fig.  11  e,  from  La  Tomba  della  Pellegrina  at  Chiusi. 
The  tomb  is  dated  (505)  earlier  than  second  century.  Unpublished  example  from  the  votive 
deposit  of  Carsoli;  another  in  Volterra  (Museo  Guarnacci,  sala  9).  Bowl  with  depressed 
floor  and  ridge  but  without  striation,  from  Sovana  (Museo  Archeologico  in  Florence, 
sala  XX).  The  distribution  of  the  bowls  .similar  to  A  27  indicates  a  source  in  or  near 
Rome. 

A  28    Small  bowl  with  broad  ribbon-band  rim.     PI.  V.     PI.  XXIV. 

Clay  grey-buff,  hard.  Glaze  firm  black. 
D.  of  rim,  0.06  m. 

See  infra  185  for  discussion  of  this  form. 

See  EVP  244  f.  iv  for  variations  of  this  form  and  its  distribution;  Holwerda  no.  164 
fig.  s,  no.  165  pi.  2.  Example  in  Volterra  (Museo  Guarnacci,  sala  9),  many  in  Ferrara 
(Museo  Gregorio-Etrusco  di  Spina,  sala  i,  excavations  of  1933-37,  Deposit  A). 

A  29     Small   bowl  with  broad  ribbon-band  rim.      PI.   XX.      PI.   XXIV. 

Type  IV.  Clay  orange-buff'.  One  example  (a)  has  a  firm  black  glaze  thinning  to  red 
on  the  edges.  It  has  a  graffito  on  the  interior  (see  pi.  XLIV).  The  other  (b)  has  a  glaze 
of  poorer  quality  and  rougher  surface.  Both  have  a  deep  groove  on  the  exterior  at  the  base 
of  the  band. 

H.  of  body,  0.04  m.     D.  of  rim,  0.07  m.     Four  joining  fragments  of  example  a. 

Similar  fabric  and  form:  B  13  and  43a,  C  9a,  D  11,   E  10. 

See  infra  184  for  description  of  this  form  in  Type  IV. 
A  29  must  be  a  local  version  of  A  28. 

Ceramica  Campana  195  form  51,  example  from  Ampurias.  Examples  with  similar  form: 
D.  Levi,  "  Le  necropoli  puniche  di  Olbia  "  Studi  Sardi  <)  (1950)  pi.  15a,  F  29;  from  Falerii 
Veteres  (Museo  Nazionale  di  Villa  Giulia  in  Rome,  nos.  927,  955,  2038,  3682,  50807),  from 
Tuscania  (Museo  Archeologico  in  Florence,  no.  75327,  and  the  Museo  Nazionale  Tarqui- 
niese),  from  Pitigliano  (museum  in  Pitigliano). 

A  30     Large  bowl  with  broad  ribbon-band  rim.     PI.  XXIV. 

Type  IV  (?).    Clay  pink-buff,  soft.    Glaze  dull   thin  black  which  flakes  easily. 
D.  of  rim,  0.16  m. 

Cf.  form  of  C  33  and  D  15. 

See  infra  184  for  discussion  of  this  form. 


88  DORIS  M.  TAYLOR 

A  31     Large  bowl  with  ribbon-band  rim. 

31a  PI.  V.  PI.  XXIV.  Clay  pink-buff,  hard,  fired  irregularly.  Glaze  firm  black,  both 
matt  and  metallic,  covers  entire  surface.  Shallow  bowl  with  almost  oblique  wall.  Exterior 
and  interior  of  foot  oblique.  Conspicuous  instrument  marks  encircle  foot  and  body.  Floor 
has  wide  band  of  rouletting  bounded  by  concentric  circles.  In  center  a  small  circle  surrounded 
by  five  identical  stamps. 

H.,  0.06  m.  D.  of  rim,  0.16  m.  D.  of  foot,  0.05  m.  Two  non-joining  fragments.  Sec- 
tion of  body  missing. 

EVP  244  iii,  eleven  examples  from  Vol  terra,  one  possibly  from  Vol  terra,  one  from  Vetu- 
lonia,  and  one  of  unknown  provenience;  Chr.  Blinkenberg  and  K.  F.  Johansen  CVA  Den- 
mark fasc.  5  pi.  222  no.  I,  from  Vol  terra  (no.  3  in  EVP).  This  bowl  is  heavier  than  the 
Cosa  example.  MonAnt  37  (1938)  pi.  37  no.  17,  from  Foci  del  Garigliano;  Holwerda  no.  255 
fig.  2  and  pi.  2,  no.  256  pi.  2,  nos.  257-60  pi.  3,  no.  261  fig.  2,  nos.  262-267  fig-  2  and  pi.  3, 
nos.  268-69  pi.  3,  no.  270  fig.  2  and  pi.  3,  no.  271  fig.  2  and  pi.  3;  example  from  Vetulonia 
(MuSeo  Archeologico  in  Florence),  from  Castiglioncello  (Museo  Archeologico  in  Castiglion- 
cello).  None  of  these  examples  is  stamped.  For  a  similar  but  not  identical  stamp  see  W.  Van 
Ingen,  CVA  USA  fasc.  3  pi.  33  no.  11,  bowl  identified  as  Greek.  On  this  form  Beazley 
{EVP  loc.  cit.)  writes:  "  this  variety  of  dishie  appears  to  be  Etruscan;  at  least  in  the  Attic 
type  that  corresponds  to  it  the   lip   is   less   prominent.  " 

He  mentions  a  grey  bucchero  example  of  the  form  in  a  late  fifth  century  tomb  of 
Todi. 

31b.    Clay  pink-buff.     Glaze   thin  black  fired  an  orange-red.     Form  similar  to  A  31a. 
Section  of  rim  and  body  only. 

A  32     Bowl  with  two  handles.     PI.  XXIV. 

Clay  pink-buff,  hard.  Broad  template  marks  encircle  body.  Glaze  black  with  high 
sheen.  Full  curving  body.  Foot  is  raised,  with  oblique  exterior  and  interior  and  central 
point.     Small    spurs   on    top    of  handle.     Unique. 

H.,  o.o5  m.  D.  of  rim,  0.14  m.  D.  of  foot,  0.05  m.  Six  pieces,  four  joining,  of  foot, 
body,   rim,    and   one   handle. 

Holwerda  nos.  179-180  fig.  3  pi.  2,  from  Vol  terra;  Minturnae  type  26  pis.  i  and  6.  The 
Cosa  bowl  must  be  several  years  later  than  the  Minturnae  examples.  For  comparable  handle 
shape  see  Tarsus  217  fig.  181:  A,  from  bottom  level  of  Middle  Hellenistic  Unit,  which  is  dated 
in  the  third  century  and  beginning  of  second;  B,  from  bottom  level  of  Hellenistic-Roman 
Unit,  which  is  dated  "  ca.  mid-second  to  mid-first  ",  no.  126  fig.  183,  from  Middle  Hellenistic 
Unit.     Example  from  Tuscania  (Museo  Archeologico  in  Florence,  sala  XVI). 

A  33     Bowl  with  handle.     PI.  XXIV. 

Clay  buff.  Conspicuous  marks  of  template  on  interior,  brush  on  exterior.  Glaze  thin 
blue-black. 

D.  of  rim,  0.20  (?)  m.  Fragment  of  rim,  body  and  handle  of  one  example;  handle  of 
a   second.     First  example   broken  just   below  handle  because   it  was    too  heavy  for  wall. 

A  34     Rimless  bowl  with  handle.     PI.  XXV. 

Clay  dark  buff,  granular  and  hard.  Glaze  blue-black  with  sheen.  Unique.  Form  may 
be  a  cylix. 

D.  of  rim,  o.io  m. 


COSA:  BLACK-GLAZE  POTTERY  89 

A  35     Handle  of  cup.     PI.  XXV.  .      . 

Clay  hard  pink-bufF.  Glaze  thin  black.  Handle  rolled  carelessly  and  glaze  applied 
unevenly.     Elliptical  in  cross  section. 

A  36     Rimless  cup  with  handle.     PI.   XXV. 

Type  IV.  Clay  coarse  orange-buff  with  conspicuous  tool  and  brush  marks.  Glaze  thin 
black,  mottled  red  near  base  and  underneath  handle.  Glaze  flakes  and  wears  off  easily.  Small 
low  foot  with  rounded  exterior  and  interior  and  broad  resting  surface.  Height  and  form 
of  body  not  clear.  Handle  takes  off  from  lip  and  curves  downward.  Shape  of  base 
and  finish  of  clay  indicate  that  this  bowl  was  made  by  the  same  hand  as  the  small  bowls 
of  A  21C. 

D.  of  rim,  0.09  m.  D.  of  foot,  0.03  m.  Two  fragments  give  base,  part  of  lip  and 
handle  of  one  example.     Base  of  second. 

See  infra  186  for  discussion  of  this  form  of  Type  IV. 

EVP  236  A.  ii;  Holwerda  nos.   181-182  fig.  3  pi.  2,  from  Volterra. 

A  37    Cup  (?)  with  handle.     PI.  V.     PI.  XXV. 

Clay  hard  grey,  finished  roughly  on  interior.  Glaze  grey-black,  slightly  metallic.  Rim 
turns  outward.  On  exterior  decoration  of  fat  palmette  and  tendril  in  thin  white  paint. 
Unique. 

D.  of  rim,  0.12  m.  Six  fragments,  two  joining  pairs,  give  lip,  handle  take-off  and  part 
of  body. 

Similar  form  and  decoration:  NS  (191 2)  274  fig.  2,  from  Ostia.  Similar  form:  Rome 
fig.  131a,  "  Gnathian  "  ware  from  Rome.  Similar  decoration:  EVP  207  f.  "The  Group  of 
Ferrara  T  585  "  and  Rome  102  f.  and  fig.  no  (from  the  Esquiline).  The  palmette  on  the 
side  of  the  skyphos  from  the  Esquiline  is  very  similar  in  shape  to  that  of  A  37.  The 
wall  of  the  skyphos,  a  fourth  century  example,  is  much  heavier  than  that  of  the  Cosa 
fragment.  Ryberg  {Rome  103,  note  20)  mentions  four  examples  of  this  type  of  skyphos 
from  Roman  finds,  others  from  Falerii,  the  museum  at  Tarquinia,  and  from  Populonia. 
Beazley  {EVP  loc.  cii.)  includes  skyphoi  from  Populonia,  Rome,  Spina  and  Enserune  and 
askoi  from  Capena  and  Rome  in  "  The  Group  of  Ferrara  T  585.  " 

A  38     Small  jug.     PI.  V.     PI.  XXV.      PI.  XLIV. 

Clay  pink-buff,  hard.  Conspicuous  ridges  on  interior.  Glaze  firm  black  with  sheen, 
better  quality  than  most  of  the  pieces  in  this  deposit.  Full  form  not  clear.  Thin  wall. 
Egg-shaped  body,  almost  spheroid.  Sharply  outturned  rim.  On  exterior  the  letters  poco 
painted  in  white  around  the  body  just  below  the  rim.     Unique. 

D.  at  neck,  0.05  m.     Two  non-joining  fragments  of  body  and  part  of  rim. 

This  is  another  example  of  the  "  pocola  "  series.  Ci.  NS  (1951)  214,  from  Carsoli;  EVP 
209-216,  especially  209  (g)  and  216;  Rome  135-140.  For  source  and  date  of  this  series  see 
A  I.  The  full  form  of  the  Cosa  jug  was  probably  similar  to  the  example  in  Ritschl,  Priscae 
Latinitatis  Monumenta,  pi.  10  a  and  A,  example  formerly  in  Museo  Campano.  For  an 
identical  form  with  two  handles  see  Ardea  pi.  2  no.  23  and  EVP  234.  For  handleless  version 
see  Holwerda  nos.  209-210  fig.  3  pi.  2,  from  Volterra.  For  footless,  handleless  versions  see 
EVP  247   ii  and  iii. 

The  last  of  these  versions  has  bucchero  prototypes  {Ardea  pi.  i  no.  14  and  F.  N.  Pryce 
CVA  Great  Britain  fasc.  10  pi.  24  no.  11).  G.  Matteucig  op.  cit.  (A  6)  70  notes  that 
footless,  handleless  impasto  jars  of  this  form  appear  frequently  in  central  and  southern 
Etruria,  especially  in  the  region  of  Sovana. 

12 


90  DORIS  M.  TAYLOR 

A  39    Small  jug.     PI.  XXV.     PI.  XLIV. 

Clay  buff.  Glaze  black  with  sheen.  Glaze  on  exterior  and  rim  and  neck  of  interior 
Angular  wall,  flaring  rim.  Design  with  three  diagonal  lines  on  exterior,  0.025  below  rim, 
scratched  with  pointed  instrument.    Unique. 

D.  of  rim,  o.io  m.     Fragment  of  rim  and  wall. 

For  form  cf.  C  40. 

A  40     Pitcher  with  spout.     PI.  XXV. 

Clay  yellow-buff,  hard.  Glaze  very  thin  black,  motded  red  on  exterior  and  on  interior 
of  Up.  Glaze  flakes  easily.  Low  foot,  slightly  profiled,  with  rounded  exterior.  Rounded 
body,  contracted  neck  and  sharply  flaring  rim.    Unique. 

D.  of  rim,  o.ii  m.  D.  of  neck,  0.08  m.  D.  of  foot,  0.05  m.  Four  fragments,  two 
joining,  give  Hp,  parts  of  wall,   spout  and  base. 

A  41     Pitcher.     PI.  XXV. 

Clay  deep  orange,  slivers  off  in  layers.    Turning  ridges  on  interior.    Glaze  thin  black, 
*       mottled  red  near  base.     Interior  of  body  and  bottom  of  foot  unglazed.     Broad  foot,  slightly 
profiled.     Gently  curving  wall.     Unique. 

D.  of  foot,  0.07  m.     Nine  fragments,   three    joining,  of  base  and  lower  part  of  body. 

A  42     Pitcher.     PI.  XXV. 

Clay  coarse  grey,  fired  irregularly.  Thin  grey  slip  on  interior  slivers  off.  Glaze  black 
with  some  sheen.  Interior  of  body  and  inside  of  foot  unglazed.  Low  broad  base  similar 
to  those  of  black  glaze  bowls  of  grey  clay  (A  24).  Thick  wall.  Distinct  shoulder  and 
narrow  neck.     Handle  attachment   just  above  shoulder.     Unique. 

D.  of  foot,  0.06  m.  Seven  fragments,  two  joining,  give  base,  shoulder,  and  point  of 
handle  take-off. 

A  43     Base  of  closed  form.     Pi.  VI.     PI.  XXV. 

Clay  grey-buff,  coarse,  rough  finish  on  interior.  Glaze  metallic  black,  mottled  red  near 
base.  Inside  of  foot  unglazed  except  for  a  long  leaf  in  thinned  black.  This  is  probably 
the  mark  of  identification  of  a  shop  or  a  potter.  Interior  has  faint  traces  of  black  glaze. 
Low  foot  and  heavy  wall.  Similar  in  this  respect  to  A  42.  Depression  in  center  of  floor. 
Unique. 

D.  of  foot,  0.05  m. 

A  44     Pitcher  (?)   PI.   XXV. 

Clay  pink-buff,  hard.  Glaze  thin  black  with  sheen  on  exterior  and  on  interior  of  neck. 
Flakes  easily.  Body  has  thin  wall.  Shoulder  curves  gradually  to  a  narrow  neck.  Base 
of  heavy  ribbon  handle  at  bottom  of  shoulder. 

Preserved  height,  0.07  m. 

Three  fragments:  two,  parts  of  neck,  shoulder,  and  base  of  handle;  third,  a  handle.  Form 
may  be  a  small  amphora  rather   than  a  pitcher. 

A  45    Closed  form.     Unidentified.     PI.  VL 

Clay  grey-pink,  hard.     Glaze  metallic  black,  on  exterior  only.     Glaze  similar  in  metallic 
quality   to   that  of  A  27.     Fine  shallow  ribbing  on  part  of  exterior.     Unique. 
Two  non-joining  pieces.     Dimensions  of  larger,   0.02  x  0.02  m. 


COSA:  BLACK-GLAZE  POTTERY  91 

A  46    Closed  form.     Unidentified.     PI.  VI. 

Clay  buff,  fine  and  hard.  On  exterior  a  slipped  surface  on  which  a  decoration  in  black 
glaze  (or  paint)  thinning  to  reddish  brown  is  applied.  Remains  of  three,  perhaps  four, 
long  palmette  leaves.     Unique. 

Dimensions,  0.06X0.03  m. 

A  47    Closed  form.     Unidentified.     PI.  VI. 

Clay  and  glaze  (or  paint)  same  as  A  46.  Piece  is  thinner  and  more  curved  than  A  46, 
but  may  be  part  of  the  same  vessel.  Design  on  exterior  consists  of  thin  parallel  lines  and 
raindrops.    Unique. 

Dimensions,  0.04   X   0.03  m. 

I  have  not  been  able  to  identify  this  fragment  or  A  46,  which  has  similar  fabric  and 
decorative  technique.  They  may  be  late  members  of  the  "Group  of  Toronto  495  "  {EVP 
182-186).  A  jug  from  Populonia  (Museo  Archeologico  in  Florence,  sala  xxxi)  and  another 
in  Castiglioncello  (case  i,  tomb  xi,  no.   106)  have  similar  raindrop-decoration. 

A  48    Closed  form.     Unidentified. 

Clay  warm  buff.     Glaze  metallic  black  on  exterior  only.    Thick-walled  base  of  small 
vessel.     Base  rounded  on  exterior,   oblique  on  interior.     Slight  central  point. 
D.  of  foot,  0.03  m.     Bases  of  three  examples. 

A  49    Closed  form.     Unidentified. 

Clay  grey.     Glaze  blue-black  on  exterior  only.     Foot  oblique  on  exterior  and  interior. 
D.  of  foot,  0.02  m.     Base  of  one  example. 


Deposit  B:  Introduction 

In  the  excavation  of  the  great  basilica  on  the  northeast  side  of  the  Forum 
in  195 1  deposits  sealed  under  its  floors  were  removed  from  four  areas:  one 
from  the  north  corner,  a  second  near  the  middle  of  the  northwest  wall,  a  third 
from  almost  the  center  of  the  nave,  and  a  fourth  from  the  northeast  aisle  not 
far  from  the  east  corner  of  the  basilica. 

In  the  north  corner  a  fault  caused  by  the  collapse  of  the  corner  of  the 
basilica  was  cleaned  of  fallen  debris  and  enlarged  to  a  five  meter  square.  This 
excavation  was  carried  to  a  depth  of  one  meter.  Stratification  consisted  of 
layers  of  filling  earth:  yellow,  reddish,  and  black,  divided  roughly  midway  by  a 
sloping  layer  of  greyish  yellow  clay  mud. 

In  the  area  near  the  middle  of  the  northwest  wall  a  pit  was  cleaned  of 
fallen  debris  and  enlarged  to  a  rectangle  ca.  5.5  Xca.  2.0  m.  This  area  was 
excavated  to  a  depth  of  about  a  meter  and  a  half.  Through  the  center  of  the 
fill  near  the  northwest  side  of  the  basilica  a  rough  wall  of  large  unworked 
stones,  scantily  mortared,  ran  in  a  line  perpendicular  to  the  foundations  of 
that  side  of  the  basilica.  This  wall  divided  the  fill  beneath  the  basilica  floor  and 
protected  the  wall  and  vault  of  a  great  cistern  beneath  the  floor.     Northwest 


92  DORIS  M.  TAYLOR 

of  the  wall  was  a  stratification  similar  to  that  in  the  north  corner;  southeast 
of  it  were  two  brownish  red  strata  laid  as  packing  for  the  cistern. 

In  the  center  of  the  nave  the  debris  of  a  circular  pit  (ca.  2.5  m.  in  diameter) 
where  the  basilica  floor  had  broken  was  cleared  and  an  area  approximately 
three  meters  square  was  excavated.  Bedrock  was  encountered  in  this  area  2.33  m. 
below  the  last  basilica  floor.  The  fill  here  was  similar  to  that  in  the  north 
corner. 

The  sounding  near  the  east  corner  of  the  basilica  covered  a  rectangular  area 
approximately  four  and  a  half  meters  in  length  and  four  in  width,  and  extended 
to  a  depth  of  2.45  m.  Excavation  revealed  a  wall  of  rubblework  which  antedated 
the  basilica  and  ran  almost  parallel  to  its  northeast  wall.  The  fill  on  both  sides 
of  this  wall  under  the  basilica  was  almost  entirely  fine  debris  from  the  working 
of  the  travertine  columns  of  the  basilica. 

Beyond  the  west  corner  of  the  basilica,  a  colonnade  was  discovered,  run- 
ning at  right  angles  to  the  basilica  and  partially  buried  under  the  basilica  at 
the  time  of  its  construction.  Excavation  in  this  area  (3.2  X  7.4  m.),  went 
through  five  levels:  Level  I  or  surface,  Level  II,  the  two  successive  signinum 
pavements  of  the  basilica.  Level  III,  fill  beneath  the  basilica  floors  above  the 
pavement  of  the  colonnade.  Level  IV,  the  two  colonnade  pavements,  and 
Level  V,  fill  of  earth  and  limestone  spalls  above  bedrock.  The  fill  in  Level  III 
was  slightly  less  than  a  meter  in  depth;  that  in  Level  V  about  a  half-meter. 
Deposit  B  is  the  fill  of  the  basilica;  therefore,  it  includes  the  pottery  of  Level  III 
of  this  area,  but  does  not  include  the  pottery  of  Level  V.  Since,  however,  the 
pottery  of  Level  V  has  some  value,  on  a  comparative  basis,  for  dating  the  pottery 
of  Deposits  A,  B,  and  C,  it  appears  with  the  catalogue  of  Deposit  B.  The 
classification  BB  differentiates  the  pottery  of  this  Level  from  the  fill  of  the  basi- 
lica. In  the  catalogue  of  Deposit  B  the  locus  of  each  piece  has  been  given  in 
the  hope  that  future  excavations  may  clarify  the  constructions  under  the 
basilica. 

The  terminus  ante  quern  of  Deposit  B  depends  upon  the  dates  of  the  con- 
struction of  the  basilica  and  the  colonnade.  A  denarius  (CD  1050)  found  in  the 
fill  of  the  basilica  below  its  lowest  step  on  the  northwest  side  is  dated  "  c.  145- 
138  B.C.  "  '  The  later  of  two  bronze  coins  (CD  913)  found  in  the  fill  of  the 
colonnade  is  a  quadrans  dated  "  c.  167-155  B.C.  "  ^  The  basilica,  therefore,  was 
constructed  sometime  after  ca.  145  B.C.,  the  colonnade  after  ca.  167  b.c.  These 
conclusions  are  supported  by  the  evidence  of  other  coins.  Two  were  found  in 
the  fill  of  the  basilica,  one  in  the  north  corner  (CD  910)  and  the  other  in  the 
northeast  aisle  (CD  912).     The  first,  an  as,^  is  dated   "  c.    187-175    b.c";   the 

'  CRR  no.  376.  See  E.  A.  Sydenham,  "  Ornamental  Detail  as  a  Guide  to  the  Classifica- 
tion of  Republican  Denarii,  "  NumChron  Sixth  Series  I  117  f.  and  "  Problems  of  the  Early  Roman 
Denarius,  "  Transactions  of  the  International  Numismatic  Congress  (London  1938)  262  f.  for  the 
dating  evidence  for  this  coin. 

"  CRR  no.  23 1  c. 

5  Ibid.  no.   143.       .  .  ■  .    . 


COSA:  BLACK-GLAZE  POTTERY  93 

second,  a  quadrans,  *  "  c.  167-155  b.c.  "  The  other  coin  in  the  fill  for  the  colon- 
nade is  a  triens  dated  in   the  late   third  or  early  second  century.  ' 

The  lamps  of  Deposit  B  offer  assistance,  on  a  comparative  basis,  in  dating 
the  deposit.  Examples  of  the  more  numerous  wheel-made  type  of  Deposit  A 
were  found  in  some  quantity  in  Deposit  B.  A  few  fragments  of  molded  lamps 
occur  in  Deposit  B,  none  in  Deposit  A.  Deposit  B,  therefore,  seems  to  have 
a  terminus  ante  quern   later   than  Deposit  A. 

The  black-glaze  pottery  discovered  in  Level  III  of  the  area  near  the  south- 
west corner  of  the  basilica  is  similar  to  that  found  in  Deposit  C  (Level  III 
and,  especially.  Level  IV  of  Section  16  of  the  Atrium  Publicum  adjoining  the 
basilica  and  the  colonnade  on  the  northwest).  These  pieces  seem  to  be  part 
of  the  pottery  of  the  same  household,  or  shop,  represented  by  Deposit  C.  With 
the  exception  of  these  pieces,  the  pottery  of  Deposit  B  is  poor  and  fragmentary. 
In  comparison  with  the  pottery  of  Deposit  A  the  forms  are  simpler  and  the 
workmanship  more  careless.  The  glazes  are  poor.  Decorative  devices  in  De- 
posit B  are  rare.  Floor  designs  are  limited  to  rings  and  rouletting.  A  few 
pieces  which  show  the  influence  of  metal  work  are  unique  to  Deposit  B,  e.g., 
a  base  (B  33)  and  a  "  Megarian  "  bowl  (B  36c).  Many  forms  found  in  Deposit  A 
do  not  appear  in  Deposit  B.  Almost  all  the  duplicates  in  the  two  deposits  .occur 
in  the  forms  which  are  common  in  the  later  deposits,  that  is,  forms  which  are 
probably  the  latest  ones  in  Deposit  A.  Types  I  and  II,  for  example,  which 
appear  in  Deposit  A  in  small  quantities  and  in  Deposit  B  in  relatively  greater 
quantities,  account  for  several  of  the  duplicates.  Type  III,  rare  in  Deposit  A, 
is  more  common  in  Deposit  B. 

The  evidence  of  the  pottery  from  the  fill  of  the  basilica  indicates  that  most 
of  the  pieces  are  later  than  those  in  the  fill  of  the  Capitolium  (Deposit  A)  and 
that  the  two  fills  do  not  overlap  chronologically  by  many  years.  A  construction 
date  for  the  basilica,  the  terminus  ante  quern  for  Deposit  B,  of  ca.  140  B.C.  would 
be  consistent  with  the  date  of  the  coin  found  in  the  fill  below  its  step.  If  the 
Capitolium  was  constructed  about  the  middle  of  the  second  century  and  a 
period  of  several  years  separates  most  of  its  fill  from  that  of  the  basilica,  the 
latter  must  represent  an  accumulation  in  the  years  immediately  preceding 
ca.  140,  at  most  a  period  of  twenty  or  thirty  years.  This  interval  would  be 
sufficient  to  explain  the  small  overlap  between  the  two  fills.  A  terminus  ante 
quern  for  Deposit  B  of  ca.  140  B.C.  would  account,  also,  for  the  fact  that 
Deposit  B  does  not  overlap  Deposit  D,  for  which  a  terminus  post  quem  of  130- 
120  B.C.   is  suggested.     (See   the  introduction   to  Deposit  D.) 


■<  Ibid.  no.  23 ic. 

5  BMCRep  ii  220  no.  341.  This  coin  is  not  given  in  CRR.  The  dating  in  BMCRep  is 
"  c.  217-197  B.C.  "  The  only  examples  of  this  type  listed  in  CRR  belong  to  the  "  sextan  tal  " 
standard  (see  no.  148b)  and  have  a  date  of  "  c.  187-175  B.C.  "  Despite  the  coin's  light  weight 
Grueber  suggested  that  this  issue  might  have  formed  part  of  an  earlier  one  {BMCRep  ii  220  note  2). 
Sydenham  {CRR  no.  148)  seems  to  have  recognized  only  one  issue.  In  his  reference  to  Grueber's 
types  corresponding   to  his  classification,  however,  he  did  not  mention  the  lighter  series. 


94 


DORIS  M.  TAYLOR 


Since  one  area  of  the  excavation  below  the  basilica  floors  was  cleared  to 
bedrock  the  only  %\vc^' terminus  post  quern,  for  Deposit  B,  as  for  Deposit  A,  is 
273  B.C.,  the  date  of  the  founding  of  the  colony.  Some,  but  very  few,  of  the 
pieces  of  black  gflaze  pottery  in  Deposit  B  may  be  products  of  the  third  or 
early  second  century.  The  period  indicated  by  most  of  the  pottery  of  the 
deposit  is  that  of  transition  at  Cosa  from  the  more  complicated  forms  produced 
in  a  variety  of  workshops  to  simpler  forms  from  a  limited  number  of  work- 
shops. The  slight  evidence  of  the  five  pieces  of  pottery  found  in  the  fill  of 
the  colonnade  (listed  in  the  catalog'ue  as  BB)  may  indicate  that  these  shops 
were  not  sending  their  products  to  Cosa  before  the  earliest  possible  date  for  the 
construction  of  the  colonnade,  that  is,  before  ca.  167  B.C.  Three  of  the  five 
pieces  in  this  fill  have  been  identified  as  Type  IV,  the  local  fabric.  The  two 
others  have  black  glazes  fired  red.  They  have  forms  typical  of  Type  IV,  forms 
not  created  in  the  workshop  of  Type  I,  II  or  III.  If  the  basilica  was  construc- 
ted ca.  140  B.C.  and  the  colonnade  was  in  use  sometime  before  it  was  partially 
destroyed  by  the  basilica  construction,  the  colonnade  was  probably  built  very 
soon  after  167  B.C.  A  date  near  to  this  for  the  first  importation  of  Type  I, 
II  and  III  to  Cosa  would  account  for  their  scarcity  in  the  fill  of  the  Capito- 
lium  and  greater  frequency  in   the  fill  of  the  basilica. 


DEPOSIT  B:  Catalogue 

Beneath  the  colonnade  floor. 

BB  I     Base  of  plate.     PI.  XXVI. 

Type  IV.    Clay  pink-bufF,  coarse.    Glaze  thin  black  which  flakes  easily,  metallic.     Rest- 
ing surface  and  inside  of  foot  unglazed.     Foot  has  oblique  sides  and  rounded  bottom. 
D.  of  foot,  0.07  m.     One  example. 

BB  2     Base  of  plate  or  shallow   bowl.     PI.    XXVI. 

Type  IV.  Clay  orange-buff,  hard.  Glaze  thin  black,  mottled  red  near  base.  Stacking 
ring.  Foot  is  raised  but  low  and  heavy  with  curving  exterior,  almost  straight  interior. 
Central  point.     One  example  has  a  single  row  of  rouletting  on  floor. 

D.  of  foot,  0.05  m.     Two  examples. 

BB  3     Bowl  with  flaring  waU.     PI.  XXVI. 

Clay  orange-buff,   hard.    Glaze  black,  fired  to   reddish  brown. 
D.  of  rim,   0.16   m.     Fragment  of  one. 

BB  4    Small  bowl  with   incurved   rim.     PI.  VI.     PI.  XXVI. 

Clay  orange-buff",  hard.  Conspicuous  template  ridges  on  exterior.  Glaze  orange,  flakes 
easily.     Shallow  bowl,   small  foot. 

H.,  0.03  m.     D.  of  rim,  0.09  m.     D.  of  foot,  0.03  m. 

Similar  form:  A  25. 

See  infra  184  for  discussion  of  this  bowl. 


COSA:  BLACK-GLAZE  POTTERY  95 

BB  5     Base  of  bowl.     PI.  XXVI. 

Type  IV.    Clay  orange-buff,  hard.    Glaze  thin  black,  metallic,  mottled  red  near  base. 
Foot  has  straight  exterior,  oblique  interior.    Three  rows  of  roulettingon  floor.     Stacking  ring. 
D.  of  foot,  0.04  m. 

Above  the  colonnade  floor  and  beneath  the  basilica  floor. 

B  6     Plate  with  horizontal  recurving  rim.     PI.  XXVI. 

Type  I.    Clay  orange-red,  coarse  and  soft.     Glaze  black,  slightly  metallic.     Peels  easily. 
D.  of  rim,  0.26  m. 

Similar  form:  B  25,  C  2,   16  and  23,  D  3,   E  3. 
Similar  fabric  and  form:  C  2,   16,  23a  and  b,  D  3a. 

See  infra  146  for  description  of  this  form   in  Type  I. 

RSLig  21  (1955)  274  and  277  fig.  5,  Type  I,  from  Vado  Ligure;  Ampurias  fig.  185  no.  2, 
fig.  224  no.  IS,  fig.  244  no.  2,  fig.  294  no.  4,  fig.  295  no.  3,  fig.  328  no.  8,  fig.  344  no.  i, 
fig.  371  no.  2,  fig.  388  no.  2,  all  examples  assigned  to  first  or  second  half  of  the  second 
century;  Ceramica  Campana  183  form  36,  Type  A,  examples  from  Ventimiglia,  Saint-Remy, 
Enserune,  and  Ampurias.  Form  assigned  to  third,  second,  and  first  centuries.  Venti- 
miglia fig.  34  no.  I,  fig.  43  no.  I,  fig.  47  no.  6,  fig.  51  no.  2;  Holwerda  no.  232  pi.  2,  from 
Volterra;  Minturnae  type  41  pis.  5  and  7;  W.  Van  Ingen,  CVA  USA  fasc.  3,  pi.  32  no.  i 
(duplicate  from  Musee  Lavigerie,  Carthage),  no.  3,  said  to  be  from  Chiusi;  F.  Mouret,  CVA 
France  fasc.  6  pi.  22  nos.  40-41,  from  Enserune.  Samaria  297  8  sd  fig.  174  no.  9.  Plate 
is  deeper  than  Cosa  examples.  R.  Pagenstecher,  Die  griechischagyptische  Sammlung  Ernst 
von  Siegelin,  Part  3.  "  Die  Gefasse  in  Stein  und  Ton;  Knockenschnitzereien  "  (vol.  2  of 
Expedition  Ernst  von  Siegelin.  Ausgrabungen  in  Alexandrien,  ed.  Ernst  von  Siegelin)  151 
fig.  161  no.  34.  Other  examples:  from  Tuscania  (Museo  Nazionale  Tarquiniese),  from  Tar- 
quinia  (same  museum),  from  Falerii  Veteres  (Museo  Nazionale  di  Villa  Giulia  in  Rome),  from 
Volterra,  Type  I  (Museo  Archeologico  in  Florence),  from  Populonia,  Type  I  (same  museum, 
sala  XXXI),  two  from  Saturnia  (same  museum,  sala  XXII),  two  from  Bolsena  (same  mu- 
seum, sala  XVIII,  nos.  76583  and  76585),  several  from  Paestum,  Type  I  (Museo  Nazionale 
di  Paestum),  one,  Type  I,  in  Madrid  (Museo  Arqueologico  Nacional,  sala  ii,  case  23,  no.  51). 

B  7     Plate  with  horizontal   offset  rim.     PI.  XXVI. 

Clay  buff.     Glaze  firm  black,  matt. 
D.  of  rim,  0.03  m. 

Similar  form:  A  6,  B  26;  C  i  and  22;  D  i;   E  i. 

Bibliography:  A  6. 

B  8     Plate  with  upturned  rim.     PI.  XXVI. 

Type  I.    Clay  orange,  coarse  and  soft.     Glaze  black  which  thins  to  brown. 
D.  of  rim,  0.22  m. 

Similar  fabric   and   form:    B  24b,  €43  and  25,  D  sal,   E  5a. 

See  infra  145  for   description   of  this   form    in  Type   I. 

B  9     Plate  with  upturned  rim.     PI.  XXVI. 

Type  IV.    Clay  buff,  soft.     Glaze  thin  black  which  peels  easily. 
D.  of  rim,  0.20  m. 

Similar  fabric  and  form:   D  sdll,   E  sdl  and   II. 

See  infra   175  for  description  of  form   in  Type  IV, 


96  DORIS  M.  TAYLOR 

B  10     Base  of  open  form.     Unidentified.     PI.  VI. 

Clay  yellow-buff,  soft.  Glaze  blue-black,  peels  easily.  Floor  has  design  in  relief;  central 
figure  with  flowing  hair  or  drapery  surrounded  by  a  circle  which  is  lined  with  an  ovolo 
pattern  turned  toward  the  central  figure.  Traces  of  metallic  white  paint  on  ovolo  pattern 
and  central  figure. 

Dimensions,  0.02X0.03  m. 

"  Calene  "  pottery.  I  have  not  been  able  to  find  a  very  close  parallel  to  this  pattern. 
Cf.  an  example  from  Rome  in  Rome  131  and  fig.   151. 

B  II     Saucer  with   furrowed   rim.     PI.  VI.     PI.   XXVI. 

Type  IV.  Clay  hard  red-orange  to  softer  coarser  buff.  Glaze  matt  black  varying 
from  firm  coating  to  thin  grey.  Glaze  mottled  near  base.  Stacking  ring.  Four  rows  of 
rouletting  on  the  floor  of  one  example. 

H.,  0.04-0.05  m.     D.   of  rim,   0.18-0. 19  m.     Fragments  of  eight. 

Similar  form:  B  35,  C  6  and  27,  D  7,   E  7. 

Similar  fabric  and  form:   B  35,  C  6  and  27,  D  7,   E  7a. 

Same  workshop  as  B  iid:  B  13. 

See  infra  177  for  description  of  this  form  in  Type  IV. 

EVP  246,  from  Montalcino;  Holwerda  no.  243  fig.  5  pi.  11,  from  Montalcino  (same 
plate);  Ardea  pi.  2  no.  29,  example  has  two  grooves  inside  rim,  similar  rim  form,  depressed 
floor;  Tarsus  no.  40  fig.  179,  unstratified;  Antioch  IV  pt.  I  no.  17  pis.  i  and  2  (given  as  a 
variety  of  "fish  plate");  and  Samaria  297,  S-2  b.  Cf.  Athens  C  i  figs.  28,  115  and  116. 
Form  is  shallower  and  heavier  than  the  Cosa  examples.  It  is  clearly  an  earlier  example  in 
the  same  tradition.  Group  C  is  assigned  to  the  beginning  of  the  second  century.  Dura 
17  no.  97  (grey  ware).  Examples  with  similar  form:  from  Tarquinia  (Museo  Nazionale 
Tarquiniese),  from  Tuscania  (Museo  Archeologico  in  Florence  no.  75310,  andMu.seo  Nazionale 
Tarquiniese),  from  Talamone  (Museo  Archeologico  in  Florence),  from  Volterra  (Museo  Guar- 
nacci),  from  Arezzo  (Museo  Archeologico  Mecenate,  no.  1291),  from  Castiglioncello  (Museo 
Archeologico  in  Castiglioncello,   tomb   XL,  no.  246). 

B  12     Rimless   saucer   (or   plate)   with   angular  wall.      PI.    XXVII. 

Type  IV.  Clay  orange-buff,  hard  to  soft.  Glaze  black  matt.  Examples  with  better 
glazes   have  more   rounded   lips. 

D.  of  rim,  0.16-0. 18  m.     Fragments  of  four. 

Similar   fabric   and   form:   C  13,   17  and    36,    D   isbll. 

See  infra  178  for  description  of  this  form  in  Type  IV. 

Example,  Type  IV,  in  the  Museo  Nazionale  Tarquiniese. 

B  13     Small  bowl  with  broad  ribbon-band  rim.     PI.  VI.     PI.  XXVII. 

Type  IV.  Clay  buff.  Glaze  poor  quality  black,  matt,  applied  thinly  over  entire  sur- 
face. Deep  groove  on  exterior  at  base  of  band.  Foot  has  rounded  exterior,  oblique  inte- 
rior and  central  turning  point.  Color  of  clay,  quality  and  application  of  glaze,  and  form 
of  foot  indicate  that  this  piece  came  from  the  same  workshop,  perhaps  the  same  hand, 
as  B  ud  (PI.  XXVI). 

H.,  0.04  m.     D.  of  rim,  0.07   m.     D  of  foot,  0.04  m.  '' 

Similar  form:  A  28  and  29,  B  43,  C  9,  D  11,   E  10. 
Similar  fabric  and  form:  A  29,  B  43a,  C  9a,  D  11,   E  10. 

See  infra   184  for  description  of  this  form  in  Type  IV. 
Bibliography   for  form:   A  28. 


COSA:  BLACK-GLAZE  POTTERY  gj 

B  14     Bowl  with  incurved  rim.     PI.    XXVII. 

Clay  buff,  fine,  hard  and  smooth-grained  to   coarse  and  granular.    Glaze  black,  iride- 
scent on  heavy  coarse  grained  fragment. 
D.  of  rim,  0.14  m.     Fragments  of  four. 

Similar  form:  A  21-24,  B  42,  C  30,  D  9. 

Bibliography:  A  21. 

B  15     Base  of  bowl:   PI.   XX.      PI.  XLIV. 

Clay  hard  orange-buff.  Conspicuous  template  lines  on  exterior.  Glaze  black,  matt 
mottled  red  near  base.  Foot  has  rounded  exterior,  oblique  interior.  Graffito  on  exterior 
of  wall. 

D.  of  foot,  0.05  m. 

B  16     Base  and  wall  of  bowl  (.?)     PI.  XXVII. 

Type  IV  (?)  Clay  yellow-buff,  hard,  carelessly  worked.    Glaze  thin  black,  matt,  flakes 
easily.     Probably  an  overfired  example  of  Type  IV. 
D.  of  foot,  0.05  m.     Part  of  foot  and  wall. 

B  17     Base.     PI.  XXVII. 

Clay  orange-buff  covered  with  orange  slip.    Glaze  thin  black,  matt,  mottled  orange  near 
base.     Foot  has  very  angular  interior  and  narrow  resting  surface. 
D.  of  foot,  0.08  m. 

B  18     Base  of  bowl.     PI.  XXVII. 

Clay  buff,  soft  and  coarse.     Glaze  thin  black,  matt,  carelessly  applied  over  entire  sur- 
face.   Unusual   form. 
D.  of  foot,  0.04  m. 

B  19     Pedestalled  foot. 

Clay  orange-buff,    coarse.     Glaze   firm    black.     Resting    surface   unglazed.     Interior   of 
body  has   traces  of  glaze.     Stem  is  short.     Form  not  clear. 
W.  of  foot,  0.04  m.     H.  of  pedestal,  0.02  m. 

B  20    Closed  form.     PI.  XXVII. 

Clay  yellow-buff,  soft.     Glaze  thin,  matt  black  on  exterior  and  part  of  wall  on  interior. 
Full  form  of  vessel  not  clear.  Unique. 
D.  of  base,  0.07  m. 

B  21     Closed  form  with  furrowed  rim.     PI.  XXVII. 

Clay  orange,  soft.    Glaze  thin  black  fired  orange-red.    Almost  horizontal  rim  with  two 
furrows  on  upper  surface.     Full  form  not  clear.     Unique. 
D.  of  rim,  0.08  m. 

B  22     Large  closed  form.     PI.  XXVII. 

Clay  orange-buff,  coarse  and  soft.  Glaze  black,  matt,  flakes  easily.  Interior  unglazed. 
Unique. 

D.  of  rim,  0.18  m.     Fragment  of  rim  and  neck. 

13 


98  DORIS  M.  TAYLOR 

Beneath  the  basilica  floor  in  the  following  areas:  near  the  northwest  wall  below  the  nave  {N  i);  near 
the  center  of  the  nave  {N  j)/  in  the  north  corner  {NEA  i);  and  in  the  northeast  aisle  not  far 
from  the  east  corner  {NEA  6).  The  number  of  examples  of  a  form  in  each  area  is  indicated. 
In  general,  the  examples  of  a  form  are  given  in  descending  order  according  to  the  quality  of 
the  glaze. 

B  23     Large  plate  with  upturned  rim. 

23a  PI.  XXVII.  Type  II  or  copy.  Clay  warm  buff,  hard.  Glaze  black,  slightly  metallic. 
Rim  thickened  at  curve,  tapered  at  lip.  Floor  of  one  example  has  five  rows  of  rouletting 
bordered  by  incised  circles. 

D.  of  rim,  0.40-0.44  m.  Three  examples,  NEA  i.  Four  joining  fragments  of  rim  and 
floor  of  one  example  which  was  repaired  in  antiquity  by  means  of  lead  wedges,  rim  of  second, 
foot  of  third. 

Similar  fabric,   form  and  size:   D  sb,  6b,   E  5b  1 1. 

See  infra  156  for  description  of  this  form  in  Type  II. 

23b       PI.  XXVII.    Type  III.    Clay  buff,  soft.    Glaze  grey-black.     Raised  foot  with  angular 
exterior  and  oblique  interior.    Groove  in  resting  surface.   Floor  has  a  pattern  of  concentric 
circles:    two   deep   ones   surrounding    two  more  shallow. 
D.  of  foot,  0.12  m.     Fragment  of  one  base,  NEA   i. 

See  infra  167  for  description  of  this  form  Type  III. 

Bibliography  for  form  B  23:  A  7. 

B  24     S.Tiall  plate  with  upturned  rim. 

24a       PI.  XXVII.    Clay  hard  buff.     Glaze  firm  black,  thin.    Thin  floor  and  rim. 
D.  of  rim,  0.18  m.     Fragment  of  one,  N   i;  a  second,  NEA  i;  a  third,  N  3. 

Similar  form  and  size:  A  7,  B  9,  C  4  and  25;  D  5b  and  6b,   E  5b. 

24b  Type  I.  Clay  coarse  red-brown.  Glaze  metallic  black.  Form  similar  to  a  except 
that   rim    is    thicker. 

D.  of  rim,  0.18  m.     Fragment  of  one,  N  i. 

Similar  fabric   and  form:   B  8,  C  4a   and   25,   D  53!,   E  5a. 

See  infra  145  for  description  of  form  in  Type  I. 

Bibliography  for  form  B  24:  A  7. 

B  25     Plate  with  horizontal  recurving  rim.      PI.   XXVIL 

Type  IV.    Clay  coarse  buff.     Glaze  metallic  black  which  flakes  easily.     Rim  less  broad 
and  bowl  less  deep    than   examples   of   this   form  in  Type  I. 
D.  of  rim,  0.20  m.     Fragment  of  one,   N    i. 

Similar  form:   B  6,  C  2,   16  and  23;  D  3,   E  3. 

Similar  fabric  and  form:  D  3b,   E  3. 

See  infra  176  for  description  of  this  form   in  Type  IV. 

Bibliography  for  form:  B  6. 

B  26     Plate  with  horizontal   offset  rim.     PI.  XXVIL 

Type  II.    Clay  hard  buff.     Glaze  firm  blue-black. 

D.  of  rim,   0.22-0.36  m.     Fragments  of  five,  NEA  i.  ' 

Similar  form:  A  6,  B  7  and  27,  C  i   and  22,  D  i,   E  i. 
Similar  fabric  and  form:  A  6,  D  ib,   E  ib. 

See  infra  154  for   description  of  form   in  Type  II. 
Bibliography  for  form:  A  6. 


COSA:  BLACK-GLAZE  POTTERY  99 

B  27     Plate  with   horizontal   offset  rim.,    PI.  XXVII. 

Clay  pink-buff,  coarse.  Glaze  metallic  black  thinning  to  red.  Distinct  offset  from  rim 
to  body.     Rim  turns  up  sharply  at  lip. 

D.  of  rim,  0.30  m.     Fragment  of  one,  NEA  6. 

Similar  form:  A  6,  B  7  and  26,  C  i  and  22,  D  i,   E  i. 

Bibliography  for  form:  A  6. 

B  28     Plate  with   horizontal    rim   which  forks   at   lip.     PI.    XXVII. 

Type  IV.    Clay   hard   buff  with   rough    template  marks.     Glaze  dull   black.     Unique. 
D.  of  rim,    0.24  m.     Fragment  of  one,   NEA   6. 

See  infra  176  for  discussion  of  this  form. 

Example  from  Chiusi  (Museo  Archeologico  in  Florence,  no.  75188).  Cf.  plate  or  shallow 
bowl  with  forked  lip:  Tarsus  no.  134  figs.  127  and  183,  from  top  level  of  Middle  Hellenistic 
Unit,  which  is  dated  third  century,  beginning  of  second. 

Cf.  form  in  impasto:  J.  D.  Beazley  and  F.  Magi.  op.  cit.  (A  6)  149  no.  83  fig.  36  and 
pi.  45,  in  bucchero:  example  from  Bolsena  (Museo  Archeologico  in  Florence,  sala  XVIII), 
six  from  Chiusi  (same  museum,  two  in  sala  XLV,  four  on  terzo  piano,  sala  X). 

B  29     Base  of  large  plate.     PI.  XXVII. 

Type  I.  Clay  pink-buff,  coarse.  Glaze  black,  peels  easily.  Glaze  covers  entire  surface. 
Low  broad  foot  with  vertical  exterior  and  slightly  oblique  anterior.  Two  large  concentric 
circles  incised  in  floor. 

D.  of  foot,  0.08  m.    One  example,  NEA  6. 

See  infra  143  for  description  of  forms  of  Type  I. 

B  30     Floor  of  plate.     PI.  VII. 

Type  II.     Clay  buff.     Glaze  blue-black.     Pattern  on  center  of  floor  of  small  depressed 
circle  and  central  knob.     This  pattern  is  common  in  Type  II. 
Dimensions,    c.05   X   0.03  m.     Fragment   of  floor,   N  3. 

See  infra  153  for  description  of  forms   of  Type  II. 

B  31     Base  of  plate.     PI.  XXVII. 

Type  II.  Clay  soft  buff.  Glaze  blue-black  mottled  red  near  base.  High  raised  foot 
which  turns  outward  at  bottom,  rises  obliquely  to  floor  on  interior.  On  floor  five  rows 
of  tiny  hatched  lines  bordered  by  slightly  depressed  circles. 

D.  of  foot,  0.08  m.     Fragment  of  base,  N  3. 

See  infra  153  for  description  of  forms  of  Type  II. 

B  32     Base  of  plate.     PI.  XXVIII. 

Type  I.  Clay  red-brown.  Glaze  metallic  black  over  entire  surface.  Two  examples. 
One  has  a  raised  foot  which  turns  outward  on  exterior,  curves  on  interior.  Groove  on  inte- 
rior near  floor.  Cf.  D  6f,  a  more  elaborate  version  of  this  shape.  The  other  example  has 
a  level  floor  with  oblique  side. 

D.  of  foot,  0.04  m.     First   example,   N  i;  second,  NEA  6. 

See  infra  143  for  discussion  of  forms  of  Type  I. 


lOO 


DORIS  M.  TAYLOR 


B  33     Base  of  open  form.     PI.  XXVIII. 

Clay  buff,  flaky.    Glaze  firm  black  over  entire  surface.     High  profiled  foot.     Knob  on 
floor  and  sharp  central  point  on  inside  of  foot.     Unique. 
D.  of  foot,   0.04  m.    One  example,  NEA  i.      : 

B  34     Plate  (or  saucer)  with   re-entrant  rim.     PI.   XXVIII. 

Type  I.    Clay   red-brown,    coarse.    Glaze   black.     Rim    turns   up  very   slightly. 
D.  of  rim,  0.20  m.     Fragment  of  one,  NEA  i. 

Similar  fabric  and  form:  C  3  and  24,  D  sail. 

,    See  infra  146  for  description  of  form  in  Type  I. 

RSLig  20  (1954)  121  fig.  45,  from  Castiglioncello;  Ceratnica  Campana  196  form  55 
Type  A,  example  from  Minturnae;  VentimigUa  fig.  34  no.  17,  fig.  48  no.  6;  Minturnae  type 
40  pi.  7;  C.  L.  Woolley  op.  cit.  (A  21)  202  fig.  38  no.  5,  from  Cales;  Antioch  IV  pi.  I  no.  i, 
especially  profile  i  u.     Example  from  Vol  terra  (Museo  Archeologico  in  Florence,,  sola  XXXII). 

Form  in  bucchero;  P.  Matteucig  op.  cit.  (A  6)  pi.  17  no.  i,  pi.  21  nos.  14,  21-24,  from 
Poggio  Buco;  J.  D.  Beazley  and  F.  Magi  op.  cit.  (A  6)  149  no.  82,  fig.  35  and  pi.  45. 
Cf.  S.  Gsell,  Fouilles  dans  la  Necropole  de  Vulci  (Rome  1891)  474  form  179.  Gsell 
thought   that  this  form  was  peculiar  to  the  fabric  of  Vulci. 

B  35    Saucer  with  furrowed  rim.     PI.  XXVIII. 

Type  IV.    Clay  orange   to  buff,  hard.    Glaze   thin  black,  dull  or  metallic. 
D.  of  rim,  0.18-0.28  m.     Fragments  of  seven,  NEA  i;  fragments  of  two,  N  3. 

Similar  form:  B  11,  C  6  and  27,  D  7,  E  7. 

Similar  fabric  and  form:  B  11,  C  6  and  27,  D  7,   E  7a. 

Bibliography  for  form:  B  11.  ■ 

See  infra   177  for  description  of  form  in  Type  IV. 

B  36     Bowl  with  outturned  rim. 

36a        PI.   VIII.     PI.  XXVIII.    Type  IV.    Clay  buff.     Rough  lines  of  turning   on   exterior. 
Glaze  firm  to  thin.    One  example   (NEA  6)  has  a  horizontal  rim;  six  with  softer  clay  and 
thinner  glaze  more  rounded  rims  (fragments  of  two,  N   i;  of  one,  NEA  6;  of  three,  NEA  1). 
D.  of  rim.  0.16-0. 17  m. 

Similar  fabric  and  form:  B  37d,  C  7b,   18,  and  28b,  D  8dl  and   III,  i3bl,   E  8d. 

See  infra  179  for  description  of  this  form  in  Type  IV. 

36b        PI.  XXVIII.    Type   III.    Clay  grey  with  impurities,  soft  or  hard.     Glaze  dull  black 
which  peels   very  easily.     Shallow  curving  body   and  rounded  lip. 
D.  of  rim,   0.18  m.     Fragments  of  two,  NEA  i. 

Similar  fabric  and  form:  C  7a  and  28a,  D  8cl  and  II,  E  8b  I  and  III. 

See  infra  168  for  description   of   this   form   in  Type  III. 

Bibliography  for  forms  B  36a  and  b:  A  14. 

36c  PI.  VIII.  PI.  XXVIII.  "Megarian"  bowl.  Clay  buff  with  impurities.  Roughly 
finished  surface.  Glaze  thin  black,  slightly  metallic.  Angular  rim.  Relief  pattern  of  sim- 
plified guilloche  0.03  m.  below  lip.    Unique. 

D.  of  rim,  0.16  m.    One  fragment,  NEA   i. 

F.  Benoit,  "  L'Arch6ologie  sous-marine  en  Provence,  "  RSLig  18  (1952)  fig.  15,  bowl 
found  in  recent  excavations  of  the  "  boat  of  Sestius  "  in  the  sea  near  Marseilles.  This  bowl 
has  a  guilloche  in  the  upper  zone,  but  not  in  the  top  register.    The  "  boat  of  Sestius  "  has 


COSA:  BLACK-GLAZE  POTTERY  loi 

been  assigned,  on  the  basis  of  its  black  glaze  pottery  and  amphorae,  to  160-150  B.c  {ESLig 
20  (1954)  226).  F.  Benoit,  "  Recherches  archeologiques  dans  la  region  d'Aix-en-Provence, 
I.  Les  fouilles  d'Entremont  en  1946,  "  Gallia  5  (1947)  82  fig.  2,  guilloche  in  top  register. 
M.  Schwabacher,  "  Hellenistische  Reliefkeramik  im  Kerameikos,  "  A/A  45  (1941)  pi.  i  A  i 
(Megara)  and  B  10  (Athens,  National  Museum),  pi.  2  A  i  (Megara)  B  8  and  B  12  (both  Cera- 
micus),  pi.  4  A  9  A  13  B  18  (all  Ceramicus),  pi.  5  B  10  (Athens,  National  Museum),  pi.  6 
B  14  B  16  B  21  B  26  (all  Ceramicus),  pi.  8  B  14  and  B  15  (both  Ceramicus).  P.  V.  C. 
Baur,  "Megarian  Bowls  in  the  Rebecca  Darlington  Stoddard  Collection  of  Greek  and  Ita- 
lian Vases  in  Yale  University, "  A/A  45  (1941)  no.  198  fig.  3  and  pi.  11,  assigned  to  Athenian 
fabric.  Athens  C  16  fig.  34,  C  19  fig.  37,  C  23  fig.  41,  D  34  fig.  65.  Thompson  {Athens 
455  ff.)  considers  C  16  among  the  earliest  of  the  Megarian  bowls  in  the  Athenian  series. 
The  pottery  of  Group  D  is  ascribed  to  the  middle  of  the  second  century.  H.  Thompson, 
"The  Excavation  of  the  Athenian  Agora,  "  Hesperia  17  (1948)  161  fig.  5,  bowl  found  in 
a  cistern.  R.  Edwards,  Small  Objects  from  the  Pnyx:  II,  Hesperia:  Supplement  X:  "  Hellenistic 
Pottery"  (Princeton  1956)  90  footnote  12,  states  that  this  filling  is  now  dated  in  the  last 
quarter  of  the  third  century.  Edwards,  op.  cit.  pi.  35  nos.  i  and  2,  pi.  37  no.  16,  pi.  40 
and  pi.  51  no.  32,  pi.  45  nos.  67  and  70.  He  writes  (90)  "It  seems  likely,  on  the  evidence 
now  available,  that  Megarian  bowls  were  first  manufactured  around  the  middle  of  the  third 
century  b.c.  "  The  guilloche  does  not  appear  in  the  top  register  of  examples  from  Athens. 
See  Tarsus  fig.  14  no.  14  and  Antioch  I  67  pi.  14c  for  a  guilloche  in  the  top  register.  The 
guilloche  of  the  Athenian  examples,  however,  is  closer  to  the  Cosa  one.  F.  Courby,  Les 
Vases  grecs  a  reliefs   (Paris    1922)   fig.  68  no.  7. 

B  37     Rimless  bowl  with  oblique  wall. 

37a      Clay  hard  orange-buff.    Glaze  dull  black.  Thin  wall. 
D.  of  rim,   0.09  m.    One  fragment,  N  i. 

Similar  fabric:   B   42a. 

Similar  in  form  to   B  37d  (Type  IV). 

37b       PI.   XXVIII.    Type  I.    Clay  coarse   red-brown.    Glaze  black,  metallic.    Narrow  white 
strip  encircles  interior  just  below  lip. 

D.  of  rim,  0.14  m.     Fragment   of  one,   N  i;  of  two,  NEA    i. 

Similar  fabric  and  form:  C  29a,   D  i3al,    E  9*1. 

See  infra   151  for  description  of  this  form  in  Type  I. 

37c      Type   I.    Clay   coarse   pink.    Glaze    thin  black,   poor   quality.     " 
D.  of  rim,  0.14  m.     One   fragment,   NEA   6. 

Similar  fabric  and  form:  B  39,  C  8  and  29a,  D  9a  and  i3an,   E  9aII. 

See  infra  150  for  description  of  this  form  in  Type  I. 

37d      PI.    XXVIII.    Type  IV.    Clay  hard  buff.    Glaze  thin  black  which  peels  along  rough 
turning  lines.     Bowl  flares  outward  to  lip. 

D.  of  rim,  0.16-0.18  m.     Fragments  of  four,  N  i;  of  five,  N  3,  of  seven,   NEA  i;  of 
five,  NEA  6. 

Similar  fabric  and  form:  B   36a,  C  7b,   18  and  28b,  D   8dl  and  III,   i3bl,   E  8d 

See  infra  179  for  description  of  this  form  in  Type  IV. 

Bibliography  for  form  B  37:  A  i8. 

B  38     Rimless  bowl  with  angular  wall. 

Type  IV.    Clay  buff,  hard.    Glaze  black.     Encircling  groove  on  exterior  just  below  lip. 
D.  of  rim,  0.14  m.     Fragment  of  one,  NEA  i. 

Similar  fabric  and  form:  A  18,  C  loa  and  b,  19a,   20b,    E  11. 

See  infra  180  for  description  of  this  form  in  Type  IV. 
Bibliography  for  form:  A  18. 


I02  DORIS  M.  TAYLOR 

B  39     Rimless  bowl  with  curved  wall.     PI.   XXVIII. 

Type  I.  Clay  red-brown,  coarse.  Glaze  metallic  black.  Rim  thickened  and  flattened 
at  an  angle  on  top.     Form  peculiar  to  Type  I. 

D.  of  rim,  0.15  m.     Fragments  of  two,  NEA  i. 

Similar  fabric  and  form:  B   37c,  C  8  and  29a,   D  9a  and  isall,    E  9aII. 

See  infra  150  for  description  of  this  form  in  Type  I. 
Bibliography  for  form:  A  18. 

B  40    Shallow  rimless  bowl.     PI.  VIII.     PI.  XXVIII. 

Type  III.  Clay  soft  grey.  Glaze  dull  thin  black  over  entire  surface.  High  foot  which 
curves  outward  near  bottom.  Pattern  on  floor  of  two  concentric  circles  close  to  center  and 
two  more  almost  over  circle  of  foot.  A  similar  pattern  on  shallow  bowls  of  Type  II  in 
Deposit  D. 

H.,  0.04  m.  D.  of  rim,  0.15  m.  D.  of  foot,  0.06  m.  Fragment  of  one,  N  i;  of 
another,  NEA  i. 

See  infra  169  for  description  of  this  form  in  Type  III. 

B  41     Bowl  with  broad  foot  and  curved  wall. 

41a       PI.  XXVIII.     Type    II.     Clay    buff.      Glaze   firm    black.      Two  encircling  grooves  on 
exterior  just  below   rim. 

D.  of  rim,  0.16  m.     Fragment  of  one,  NEA  i. 

Similar  fabric  and  form:  D  16a,   E  14a. 

4xb      Clay  buff,  coarser  than  B  41a.     Glaze  metallic  black.     Body  deeper  and   less   curving 
than  B  41a.     Encircling  grooves  separated  by  a  narrow  band. 
D.  of  rim,  0.15  m.     Fragments  of  two,  NEA  i. 

Similar  form:  D  16.   E  14. 

Bibliography  for  form  B  41:  Ceramica  Campana  143  form  i  Type  B,  examples  from  Rome 
Ventimiglia,  Gergovie,  Ampurias,  Azaila,  San  Miguel  de  Sorba;  Ventimiglia  fig.  20  nos.  35-36, 
fig.  23  no.  4,  fig.  27  no.  13,  fig.  35  nos.  26-27,  35,  fig.  44  no.  7,  fig.  47  no.  10,  fig.  48 
no.  8,  fig.  52  no.  5,  fig.  55  nos.  5-6,  fig.  no  no.  2;  D.  Levi,  "  Le  necropoli  punichedi 
Olbia  "  Studi  Sardi  9  (1950)  pi.  15b:  F  8;  CVH  pi.  59  nos.  9-10,  12-13;  J. -J  Hatt,  "  Les 
fouilles  de  Gergovie"  (1943-44)  Gallia  5  (1947)  293  fig.  7  no.  16;  Holwerda  no.  240  fig.  5; 
F.  Mouret,  CVA  France  fasc.  6  pi.  22  no.  44  from  Enserune.  Example  in  the  Museo 
Arqueologico  in  Madrid  (sala  i,  case  12). 

B  42     Bowl  with  slightly  incurved  rim. 

4*a       PI.   XXVIII.     Clay  hard  orange-buff.     Glaze  firm  black.     Thin  wall. 
D.  of  rim,  0.14  m.    Fragment   of  one,    NEA    i. 

Similar  fabric:  B  37a. 

42b       PI.   XXVIII.    Clay  buff.     Glaze  black,   thinner  and  more  metallic  than  B  42a. 
D.  of  rim,  0.13  m.     Fragment  of  two,  N  i. 

42c      PI.  XXVIIL    Type  I.    Clay  coarse  red-brown.     Glaze  metallic  black.     Heavy  wall. 
D.  of  rim,  0.15  m.     Fragments  of  two,  NEA  i;  of  one,  N  i. 

Similar  fabric  and  form:  A  22,  D  loa  and  26a  I  and  II. 

See  infra  148  for  description   of   this   form  in  Type  I. 


\ 


COSA:  BLACK-GLAZE  POTTERY  103 

42d      Type  III.    Clay  hard  grey,   roughly  finished.     Glaze  dull  grey.     Glaze  on  interior  and 
upper  part   of  exterior. 

D.  of  rim,  0.18  m.     Fragment  of  one,  NEA   i. 

Similar  fabric  and  form  (?):  A  24. 

See  infra  170  for  description  of  this  form  in  Type  IH. 

42e       PI.  XXVin.     Type  IV.    Clay  buff,  hard.     Glaze  dull  black   which  peels  readily  along 
turning  lines.    Curve  of  rim  slight.     Wall  irregular. 

D.  of  rim,  0.18  m.     Fragments  of  three,  NEA  i;  of  one,  N  i. 

Similar  fabric  and  form:  A  21,  C  30,  D  9e. 

See  infra  183  for  description  of  this  form  in  Type  IV. 

Bibliography   for  form  B  42:  A  21. 


B  43     Small   bowl   with   broad   ribbon-band   rim. 

43a       PI.  XXVIII.    Type  IV.     Clay    orange-buff,    hard.     Glaze    black    which  peels  easily. 
Groove  on  exterior  at  base  of  band. 

D.  of  rim,  0.07  m.     Fragments  of  two,  N  i. 

Similar  fabric  and  form:  A  29,  B  13,  C  9a,  D  11.  E  10. 

See  infra  184  for  description  of  this  form  in  Type  IV. 

43b      Clay    soft   light   buff.      Glaze    very    thin   black   mottled  orange.      Wall  curves  inward 
less  than  B  43a. 

D.  of  rim,  0.06  m.     Fragment  of  one,  N  i. 

Bibliography  for  form  B  43:  A  28.  ' 


B  44     Foot  of  bowl.     Unstamped. 

44a  Type  IV.  Clay  buff  to  orange-bufF,  generally  hard.  Glaze  thin  black,  mottled  red 
near  base.     Low   rounded   exterior   and  oblique   interior.     Slight  turning  point. 

D.  of  foot,  0.04-0.05  m.    Two  examples,  N  i;  two,  N  3;  three,  NEA  i;  three,   NEA  6. 

44b  PI.  XXVIII.  Type  II  (i>)  Clay  hard  buff.  Glaze  blue-black.  Foot  and  area  above 
on  exterior  (0.007  "^-  ^^  height  above  foot)  reserved.  Foot  is  low  and  oblique  on  both  sides. 
Fragment  seems  to  belong  to  Type  II  but  full  form  of  vessel  is  not  clear  and  identification 
is  not  certain. 

D.  of  foot,  0.06  m.     Fragment  of  one,  N  i. 

44c       PI.  XXVIII.    Type  I.    Clay  soft  pink-brown.    Glaze  black  over  entire  surface.     Stack- 
ing ring.     Foot  has  rounded  exterior  and  oblique  interior. 
D.  of  foot,    0.05  m.     Fragment   of  one,   NEA   6. 

44d  PI.  XXVIII.  Clay  hard  orange-buff.  Conspicuous  template  marks.  Glaze  black  with 
band  of  red  o.oi  m.  in  width  above  base.  Stacking  ring.  Crude  circle  0.025  ^-  in  dia- 
meter incised  on  floor.    Unique  form. 

D.  of  foot.  0.05  m.     One  example,  N   i. 

44e  PI.  XXVIII.  Clay  hard  grey.  Glaze  grey-black,  slightly  iridescent.  Raised  foot  with 
angular  exterior  and  oblique  interior. 

D.  of  foot,  0.05  m.     One  example,  NEA  i. 

44f  Clay  hard  buff.  Glaze  thin  black  over  entire  surface.  Form  and  dimensions  similar 
to  B  44a.     One  example,  N  i;  a  second,  NEA  6. 


,04  DORIS  M.  TAYLOR 

B  45     Pitcher  (?)     PI.  XXIX. 

Type  II  (?)    Clay  hard  buff.    Glaze  blue-black.     Rough  finish  of  interior  suggests  that 
fragment  may  be  from   the  neck  of  a  pitcher. 
D.  of  rim,  0.05  m.    One  fragment,  NEA   i. 

Similar  form:   D  21c,   E  i8a. 

See  infra  162  for  discussion  of  this  form  in  Type  II. 

B  46     Rim  of  closed  form.     PI.  XXIX. 

Type  III.  Clay  medium  gray.  Glaze  dull  black  thinning  to  grey.  Full  form  not 
clear. 

D.  of  rim,  o.io  m.    One  fragment,  NEA  i. 

See  infra  164  for  description  of  forms  of  Type  III. 

B  47     Rim  and  neck  of  closed  form.     PI.  VII.     PI.   XXIX. 

Type  IV.    Clay  buff.    Glaze  dull  black  which  peels  easily.     Rim  of  broad  band  (0.023  m- 
in  width).    Two  encircling  lines  incised  on  the  exterior  of  the  rim  near  its  center.     Unique. 
D.  of  rim,   0.12  m.    One  fragment,  NEA   i. 

See  infra  187  for  discussion  of  forms  of  Type  IV. 

Cf.  Tarsus  fig.  195  no.  538,  black-glazed  "  Pergamene  "  ware. 

B  48     Form  with  spout. 

Clay  buff.     Glaze  firm  black  on  exterior   and    interior.      Interior  of  body   unglazed 
L.  of  nozzle,  0.04  m.    One  example.  NEA  i. 

B  49     Pitcher  with  strainer.     PI.  VII.     PI.  XXIX. 

Clay  very  coarse  pink-buff,  flaky.  Glaze  metallic  black,  poor  quality.  Neck  with  flar- 
ing rim.  Full  body  with  rounded  shoulder.  Handle  elliptical  in  cross- section,  has  upper 
attachment  on  neck,  lower  on  shoulder.     Strainer  at  base  of  neck. 

Preserved  H.,  0.06  m.  D.  of  neck,  0.04  m.  D.  of  body  at  base  of  handle,  o.ii  m.  Frag- 
ment preserves  neck,  handle,  shoulder  and  top  of  body.     One  example,  NEA   i. 

B  50    Large  pitcher.     PI.  XXIX. 

Type  IV.    Clay  coarse  pink-buff  which  flakes  easily.     Glaze  dull  black  on  exterior  and 
on  interior  of  neck.     Ridge  on  exterior  at  base  of  neck.     Full  form  not  clear. 
Preserved  H.,  0.07  m.     Six  pieces,  three  joining  of  one  example,  NEA  6. 

See  infra  173  for  discussion   of  forms  of  Type  IV. 

B  51     Large  pitcher.     PI.  XXIX. 

Type  IV  (?)  Clay  buff,  coarse  and  thick  with  broad  lines  of  turning  on  interior.  Glaze 
thin  black  fired  brown  and  orange.  Glaze  covers  exterior  surface  and  interior  of  spout. 
Foot  low  and  broad  with  wide  resting  surface.  Long  angular  spout  which  flares  at  end. 
Full  form  not  clear. 

D.  of  foot,  0.09  m.     Seven  pieces  of  one  example,  NEA  6. 

See  infra  187  for  discussion  of  forms  of  Type  IV. 


COSA:  BLACK-GLAZE  POTTERY  105 


B  52     Lid. 


52a       PI.  XXIX.  Type  II  (?)    Clay  buff.    Glaze  firm    black,  iridescent  on  bottom.     Bottom 
has  a  pattern  in  center  of  small  central  circle  surrounded  by  two  larger   ones.      Similar 
pattern  appears  on  the  floor  of  the  shallow  pedestalled  vase  of  Type  II  but  angle  of  rim 
of  this  fragment  identifies  it  as  a  lid,  not  a  pedestalled  form. 
D.  of  rim,  o.io  m.     One  fragment,  NEA   i. 

See  infra  163  for  discussion  of  form  in  Type  II. 

52b       PI.  XXIX.    Type  III.    Clay  hard  grey.     Glaze  black.    Top  missing. 
D.  of  rim,  0.12  m.    One  fragment,  NEA  i. 
Similar  form:  D  30,   E  2ib. 

See  infra  172  for  discussion  of  form  in  Type  III. 


Deposit  C:  Introduction 

In  1952  and  1953  a  building,  originally  the  Atrium  Publicum,  immediately 
northwest  of  the  basilica  and  the  forum  colonnade  was  excavated.  During  its 
periods  of  occupation  it  had  been  rebuilt  several  times  with  the  result  that 
early  sealed  levels  were  rare.  In  one  section,  and  one  only,  a  stratified  area 
produced  a  clearly  defined  deposit  of  black-glaze  pottery.  Section  16,  adjacent 
to  the  northwest  basilica  wall  near  its  center,  had  four  levels.  The  section  was 
ca.  6.35  X  5.40  m.  Level  I  ended  in  a  rammed  earth  floor,  much  broken, 
and  missing  in  the  south  and  east  corners  of  the  room.  There  were  traces  of 
burning  and  two  large  segments  of  the  fallen  northwest  wall  of  the  basilica  just 
above  the  earth  floor.  Level  II  extended  to  a  pavement  of  soft  signinum  a 
little  more  than  o.io  m.  below  the  earth  floor  of  Level  I.  In  the  north  corner 
of  the  room,  on  the  level  of  this  pavement,  was  a  tile  hearth.  The  level  was 
thick  with  signs  of  burning,  red  and  black  spotted  earth  and  bits  of  carbonized 
wood.  This  level  was  almost  sterile.  Level  III  was  partly  a  dark  grey  fill 
on  which  the  pavement  was  laid,  partly  virgin  earth  covering  bedrock.  It  varied 
in  depth  from  ca.  0.20  m.  to  ca.  0.45  m.  There  were  traces  of  fire  here  also. 
In  the  southeast  half  of  the  room  this  level  was  a  hardpan  of  bright  red  earth 
and  rock  outcroppings  with  rough  waste  mortar  casts  on  its  surface.  In  the 
middle  of  the  southeast  wall  was  a  deep  bed  of  pure  slaked  lime,  evidently 
the  remains  of  a  lime  pit  used  in  the  building  of  the  northwest  wall  of  the  basi- 
lica. The  lime  had  sunk  into  the  top  of  a  refuse  pit  which  was  about  three 
meters  in  length,  two  in  width,  and  a  meter  and  a  half  in  depth.  Below  the 
level  of  the  lime  was  Level  IV. 

Of  these  four  levels  the  first  produced  great  quantities  of  pottery,  including 
some  pieces  of  black  glaze,  some  showing  a  transition  from  black  to  red,  some 
of  red  glaze.  Level  II  had  no  black  glaze.  Level  III  contained  a  few  pieces 
of  Arretine  and  a  quantity  of  black  glaze  of  good  quality.  Eight  pieces  of  the 
latter  join  with  fragments  from  Level  IV,  a  level  rich  in  black  glaze  sherds  and 
devoid  of  red  glazes.    These  joining  fragments  and  the  duplication  of  forms  in 

14 


,o6  DORIS  M.  TAYLOR 

the  two  levels  indicate  that  they  represent  the  same  occupation  period.  The 
fallen  basilica  wall  must  have  covered  all  the  levels  and  sealed  Levels  III  and 
IV  very  securely.  The  former  eventually  received  a  few  pieces  of  Arretine  which 
had  sifted  down  through  breaks  in  the  signinum  floor.  The  black-glaze  pottery 
of  the  two  lower  levels  of  Section   i6  comprises  Deposit  C. 

It  is  clear  that  not  all  the  pottery  of  Level  III  of  Deposit  C  is  exactly 
contemporary  with  the  pottery  of  Level  IV  but,  since  several  of  the  forms  are 
represented  in  both  levels,  some  of  them  forms  reconstructed  from  pieces  joining 
across  levels,  it  is  impossible  to  assign  a  date  to  each  level.  The  pottery  of 
Level  IV  is  homogeneous  and  it  may  well  represent  the  tableware  of  a  single 
family.    This  is  less  clear  in  the  fragments  of  Level  III. 

There  is  little  external  evidence  for  dating  this  group.  No  datable  coins 
were  found  in  Levels  III  or  IV  or,  in  fact,  in  any  level  of  the  room.  A 
Rhodian  stamped  amphora  handle  (CE  1350)  in  Level  IV  has  been  dated 
ca.  220-180  B.C.  The  lamps  found  in  Level  IV  are  all  wheel-made.  The  two 
types,  sixteen  examples  of  one  and  one  of  the  other,  are  both  represented  in 
the  Capitolium  Fill  and  the  commoner  in  the  Basilica  Fill.  Level  III  contained 
fragments  of  two  wheel-made  lamps  which  correspond  to  the  types  found  in 
Level  IV  and  fragments  of  three  wheel-made  ones  comparable  to  examples  in 
Deposits  B  and  D. 

The  pottery  itself  gives  the  clearest  evidence  of  its  relative  date.  It  has 
several  forms  and  fabrics  in  common  with  the  pottery  found  in  the  fill  between 
the  basilica  and  colonnade  floors  (Deposit  B,  ca.  167-140  B.C.)  and  the  fill  of 
the  basilica  in  its  other  areas  (also  Deposit  B,  terminus  ante  quern  ca.  140  B.C.). 
It  has  few  forms  in  common  with  Deposit  A.  Some  of  the  similarities  between 
the  pottery  of  Deposits  A  and  C  occur  in  the  forms  of  Types  I  and  II,  forms 
which  must  be  among  the  latest  in  Deposit  A.  Deposit  C  duplicates  only  two 
stamp  patterns  found  in  Deposit  A.  It  has  some,  but  not  many  forms  in  com- 
mon with  Deposit  D.  Almost  all  the  similarities  between  the  two  deposits 
occur  in  the  forms  of  Types  I,  II,  and  III,  the  fabrics  which  swamped  the  market 
in  the  last  part  of  the  second  century. 

Since  the  pottery  of  Deposit  C  has  little  in  common  with  Deposit  A  it 
cannot  overlap  that  deposit  much,  if  at  all.  The  close  similarity  of  the  fabrics 
and  forms  of  Level  IV  of  Deposit  C  with  those  of  the  fill  between  the  colonnade 
and  basilica  floors  indicates  that  the  material  in  Level  IV  accumulated  after 
the  colonnade  was  constructed,  that  is,  after,  but  not  long  after,  ca.  167  B.C. 
and  before  the  basilica  was  built,  that  is,  before  ca.  140  B.C.  (See  introduction 
to  Deposit  B.)  Since  Section  16  adjoins  the  basilica  wall  in  an  area  near  the 
colonnade,  Deposit  C,  that  is.  Levels  III  and  IV  of  the  section,  probably  repre- 
sents the  period  of  the  colonnade's  use  before  it  was  altered  by  the  construction 
of  the  basilica.  This  interval,  that  is,  ca.  167  -  ca.  140  B.C.  for  Deposit  C  would 
not  be  inconsistent  with  the  earlier  date  of  the  Rhodian  amphora  stamp  found 
in  Level  IV.  Dr.  Grace  has  informed  me  that  Rhodian  stamps  often  date 
earlier    than    the   rest   of  the    pottery    with   which    they  are  found.     Although 


COSA:  BLACK-GLAZE  POTTERY  107 

no  coins  were  discovered  in  Levels  III  and  IV,  the  coins  found  in  the  block 
of  the  Atrium  Publicum  and  its  adjacent  shops  testify  that  this  area  of  the 
city  was   occupied   during   the  interval  suggested   for  Deposit  C. 


Deposit  C:  Catalogue 

Level  III 

C  I     Large  plate  with  horizontal  offset  rim. 

la        Type  IH.    Clay  soft  grey.     Glaze  dull  thin  black.     Rim  turns  upward  at  lip. 
D.  of  rim,  0.20  m. 

Similar  fabric  and  form:   D  icl,   H  and  HI,   E  ic. 

See  infra  166  for  description  of  form  in  Type  IIL 

rb        Type  IV.    Clay  coarse  buif.     Rough  lines  on  surface.    Glaze  firm  black.     Rim  form 
similar   to   those  of  Type  II.     Floor  of  plate  is  deeper. 
D.  of  rim,  0.18-0.24  m.     Fragments  of  three  rims. 

Similar  fabric   and   form:   D  idl,  E  le. 

See  infra  174  for  description  of  form  in  Type  IV. 

IC        PI.  XXX.    Clay  pink-buff,  hard.    Glaze  black  thinned  to  red  on   edges.     Broad   curv- 
ing rim.     Thin  wall. 
D.  of  rim,  0.26  m. 

Similar  fabric  and  form:  C  22b. 

Bibliography  for  form  C  i:  A  6. 

C  2     Plate  with   horizontal   recurving  rim. 

Type  I.    Clay  orange- red.    Glaze  black,   slightly  metallic. 
D.  of  rim,  0.22  m.    Two  fragments,  probably  same  plate. 

Similar  fabric  and  form:  B  6,  C  16  and  23a  and  b,  D  3a. 

See  infra  146  for  description  of  this  form  in  Type  I. 
Bibliography  for  form:  B  6. 

C  3     Plate  (or  saucer)  with   re-entrant  rim.     PI.   XXX. 

Type  I.    Clay  brown- red.    Glaze  black. 
D.  of  rim,  0.26  m. 

Similar  fabric  and  form:  B  34,  C  24,  D  sail. 

See  infra  146  for  description  of  this  form  in  Type  I. 
Bibliography  for  form:  B  34. 

C  4     Plate  with  upturned  rim. 

4a        Type  I.    Clay  red,  granular.    Glaze  metallic  black.    Oblique  rim,   slightly  upturned. 
D.  of  rim,  0.22  (?)  m.     Fragment  of  one. 
Similar  fabric  and  form:  B  8  and  24b,  C  25,  D  sal,   E  5a. 
See  infra  145  for  description  of   this   form   in  Type  I. 


io8  '        DORIS  M.  TAYLOR 

4b        Type  II.    Clay  buff.    Glaze  firm  black.    Curving  rim;  oblique  wall.    Concentric  circles 
on  floor. 

D.  of  rim,  0.30  m.     Six  fragments,   four  joining,    two  joining. 

Similar  fabric  and  form:  A  7,  C  25,  D  5b  and  6b,   E  5b I. 

See  infra  156  for  description   of   this   form   in  Type  II. 

Bibliography  for  form  C  4:  A  7. 

C  5     Base  of  plate  (or  saucer). 

Type  IV.  Clay  buff,  fired  unevenly.  Glaze  black  mottled  red  near  base.  Stacking 
ring.  Foot  has  rounded  exterior,  oblique  interior.  Central  turning  point.  Single  row  of 
rouletting  on  floor  of  one. 

D.  of  foot,  0.06  m.    Two  bases  of  same  workshop  or  potter. 

C  6    Saucer  with  furrowed  rim. 

Type  IV.    Clay  orange-buff,  fired  unevenly.     Glaze  black.    Cf.  C  27b  for  identical  form. 
H.,  0.04  m.     D.  of  rim,  0.18  m.     D.  of  foot,  0.06  m.     Fragments  of  three;  five  joining 
pieces  of  one  of  them. 

Similar  fabric   and  form:   B  11  and  35,  C  27,  D  7,   E  7a. 
See  infra  i^i  for  description  of  form  in  Type  IV. 
Bibliography  for  form:  B  xi. 

C  7     Bowl  with  outturned  rim. 

7a        Type  III.    Clay  medium  grey.     Glaze  thin  dull   black. 
D.  of  rim,  0.16  m.     Fragment  of  one. 

Similar  fabric  and  form:  B  36b,  C  28a,   D  8cl  and   11,  E  8bl  and  HI. 

See  irfra  168  for   description  of  form  in  Type  III. 

7b         PI.    XXX.      Type  IV.    Clay    yellow    buff,    hard.     Glaze    black    misfired   red.     Small 
torus  rim. 

D.  of  rim,  0.18  m.  Fragments  of  two  examples,  six  joining  pieces  of  one,  two  join- 
ing pieces  of  the  other. 

Similar  fabric  and  form:  B  37d,  C  18  and  28b,  D  8dIII. 

See  infra  179  for   description   of  form   in  Type  IV. 

Bibliography  for  form  C  7:  B  36. 

C  8     Rimless  bowl  with  curved  wall. 

Type  I.  Fragments  of  lips  and  walls  of  two  Piece  with  better  glaze  has  coarse  orange 
clay,  granular.  It  has  the  thickened  Hp  peculiar  to  Type  I.  The  other  piece  has  pink 
clay,  compact  and  hard. 

D.  of  rim,  0.14-0. 16  m. 

Similar  fabric  and  form:   B  37c  and   39,   C  29a,  D  9a  and  t-ViVL,  E  9aII. 

See  infra   150  for  description  of  form  in  Type  I. 
Bibliography  for  form:  A  18. 

C  9     Bowl  with  broad   ribbon-band  rim. 

9a        PI.  VII.    Type  IV.     Hard  orange   clay.    Glaze  black,  motded  red  near  base  and  on 
edges.     Foot  raised,  oblique  sides  and  central  turning  point. 

H.,  0.05  m.     D.  of  rim,  0.07  m.     D.  of  foot,  0.04  m.     Fragment  of  one. 


COSA:  BLACK-GLAZE  POTTERY  icg 

Similar  fabric  and  form:  A  29  and  30  (?),  B  13  and  43»,  D  11,   E  10. 

See  infra   184  for  description  of  form  in  Type  IV. 

9b        Clay  buff,   coarse.    Glaze  dull  thin  black. 
D.  of  foot,  0.03  m.     Fragments  of  two. 

Similar  form:  A  29  and  30  (J),  B  13  and  43,  D  11,   E  10. 
Bibliography  for  form  C  9:  A  29. 

C  10     Rimless  bowl  with  angular  wall. 

Type  IV.    Clay  hard   pink-buff.    Glaze  firm   black   with   high   sheen.     Decoration   of 
encircling  incised  lines  on  exterior  0.028   m.   below  rim. 
D.  of  rim,  0.17  m.     Fragment  of  one. 

Similar  in  fabric   and   form:  A  18,  B  38,  C  19a  and  29b,    E  11. 

Bibliography  for  form:  A  18. 

See  infra  180  for  description  of  form  in  Type  IV. 

C   II      Pyxis. 

Type  II.    Clay  hard  buff.     Glaze  firm  black.     High  rounded  foot. 
D.  of  foot,  0.103  m.     Fragment  of  one. 

Similar  form:  C  34,  D  19,   E  17. 

Similar  fabric  and  form:  C  34,  D  19a,   E  17a. 

See  infra  161  for  description  of  form  in  Type  II. 

F.  Benoit,  "  L'Archeologie  sous-marine  en  Provence,  "  RSLig  18  (1952)  fig.  19,  examples 
found  in  the  recent  excavations  of  the  "  boat  of  Sestius  "  in  the  sea  near  Marseilles;  Cera- 
mica  Campana  145  form  3  Type  B,  examples  from  Ensenine  and  Ventimiglia,  158  form  3 
Tjrpe  C,  example  from  the  Museo  Nazionale  in  Syracuse,  another  in  the  Museo  Arqueolo- 
gico  in  Barcelona  (from  Ampurias)  166  form  3  Type  A,  example  from  Ventimiglia.  (The 
pyxides  {sic)  from  Minturnae  to  which  I^amboglia  refers  in  Ceramica  Campana  167  are  rings, 
not  pyxides).  Ventimiglia  fig.  27  no.  14,  fig.  28  no.  28,  fig.  35  no.  31,  fig.  51  no.  6, 
fig.  55  no.  12,  fig.  97  no.  2.  D.  Levi  "  Le  necropoli  puniche  di  Olbia,  "  Studi  Sardi  9  (1950) 
pi.  15a:  F  26;  EVP  24s  V  "  salt-cellars  ":  no.  i  pi.  38,  11.  Beazley  assigns  this  example, 
which  has  a  blue-black  glaze,  to  the  Malacena  fabric,  a  name  given  to  a  group  of  pottery 
which  came  primarily  from  Calini  Sepus  a  Malacena  near  Monteriggioni.  He  lists,  in 
addition,  examples  from  Vetulonia,  one  from  Sovana,  one  from  Bettona.  M.  Almagro, 
"  Estratigrafica  de  la  ciudad  helenistico-romana  de  Ampurias  ",  Archivo  Espanol  de  Arque- 
ologia  20  (1947)  fig.  13;  CVH  pi.  59  nos.  26  and  30,  from  Azaila;  F.  Mouret,  CVA  France 
fasc.  6  pi.  14  no.  8,  from  Enserune;  C.  L.  WooUey  op.  cit.  (A  21)  202  fig.  38  no.  9;  NS 
(1903)  221  fig.  4  no.  9,  from  Sovana.  Example  from  Talamone,  Type  II  (Museo  Archeo- 
logico  in  Florence,  no.  10552),  from  Saturnia  (same  museum),  from  Tuscania  (same  museum, 
no.  92)  from  Tarquinia  (Museo  Nazionale  Tarquiniese),  from  Arezzo  (Museo  Archeologico 
Mecenate,  nos.  1252  and  1339),  from  Castiglioncello  (Museo  Archeologico  in  Castiglion- 
cello),    from  Volterra  (Museo  Guarnacci,   camera  9). 

C  12     Pitcher 

Clay   hard   buff.    Glaze   dull    thin   black    on   upper  part   of  body  and  neck.     Interior 
unglazed.    Take-off  of  bottom  of  ribbon  handle  at  shoulder.     Full  form  not  clear. 
Dimensions,  0.13  X  0.06  m.     Three  joining  pieces  of  shoulder  and  body. 

C  13     Rimless  saucer  (or  plate)  with  angular  wall. 

Type  IV.    Clay  hard  pink-orange.     Glaze   firm    black. 
D.  of  rim,  0.22  m.     Fragment  of  one. 


no  DORIS  M.  TAYLOR 

Similar  fabric  and  form:  B  12,  C  17  and  36,   D   isbll. 

See  infra  178  for  description  of  this  form  in  Type  IV. 

C  14     Base. 

14a      Type  III.     Clay    hard  grey.     Glaze  thin    dull    black.      Foot  high,    rounded    exterior, 
oblique  interior. 

D.  of  foot,  0.05  m.     Fragment  of  one. 

14b      Type  IV.    Clay  orange-pink,  granular.    Glaze  black,   slightly  metallic.     Stacking  ring. 
Foot  rounded  on  exterior,  oblique  on  interior.     On  floor  crude  rows  of  rouletting  surround 
faint   palmette  stamps. 
~    D.  of  foot,  0.06  m. 

14c        PI.  XXX.        Type  IV  (?).    Clay  hard  pink.    Glaze  black,  mottled    red,    on  exterior 
only.     Low  foot  with  rounded  exterior,   oblique  interior. 
D.  of  foot,  0.03  m. 

C  15    Molded  figurine.     PI.  VIL 

Type  III.  Clay  soft  thick  grey.  Glaze  dull  black  thinning  to  red-brown.  Base  of 
hollow  figurine.  Right  leg,  relaxed  at  knee,  and  fall  of  drapery  of  standing  female  figure. 
Figure  stands  0.03  m.  from  bottom  of  molded  form.  Double  row  of  bullseyes  just  below 
figure.  A  separate  piece,  position  on  figurine  not  clear,  has  a  double  row  of  dots  near  one 
edge.  Three  joining  pieces  from  Level  I  of  Room  16  and  one,  non-joining,  from  Level  III. 
Figurine  may  not  belong  in  Group  C. 

H.,  0.09  m.     W.,  0.04  m. 

Level  III  -  Level  IV 
(examples  which  have  a  piece  or  pieces  in  Level  III  joining  with  piece  or  pieces  in  Level  IV). 

C  16     Plate  (shallow  bowl)  with  horizontal  recurving  rim.     PL  VIL     PI.    XXX. 

Type  I.     Foot  low,    straight  exterior,   oblique   interior. 

H.,  0.05  m.     D.  of  rim,  0.20  m.     D.  of  foot,  0.07  m.     Three  joining  fragments. 

Similar   fabric   and  form:   B  6,  C  2,  23a  and  b,  D  3a. 

See  infra  146  for  description   of  form   in  Type  I. 
Bibliography  for  form:  B  6. 

C  17     Rimless  saucer  with  angular  wall.     PI.  XXX. 

Type  IV.    Clay  hard   orange-buff  with   rough   lines    of  finish  on  surface.     Glaze   firm 
black  with  high  sheen.    Angular  profile.     On  floor  two  incised  concentric  circles. 
D.  of  rim,  0.21  m.     Seven  fragments,  four  joining. 

Similar  fabric  and  form:   B  12,  C  13  and  36,  D  13b  1 1. 

See  infra  178  for  description  of  form  in  Type  IV. 

C  18     Bowl  with  flaring  wall.     PI.  XXX. 

Type  IV.    Clay   hard   orange.    Glaze    thin   dull   black.     Rim    turns  outward. 
D.  of  rim,  0.17  m.     Four  joining  pieces  of  one,  fragment  of  second. 

Similar  fabric  and  form:  B  36a  and  37d,  C  7b  and  28b,  D  8dl  and  III,   E  8d. 

See  infra  179  for  description  of  form  in  Type  IV. 
Bibliography  for  form:  A  18. 


COSA:  BLACK-GLAZE  POTTERY  in 

C  19     Rimless  bowl  with  angular  wall. 

19a      Type  IV.    Clay  hard  orange,  unevenly  fired.     Glaze  thin  dull  black,  mottled  red  near 
base.    Grooves   on   exterior   just   below   rim. 
D.  of  rim,  0.18  m.    Two  joining  pieces. 

Similar  fabric  and  form:  A  18,  B  38,  C  loa  and  b  and  29b,  E  n. 

See  infra  180  for  description  of  form  in  Type  IV. 

19b      Clay   buff.    Glaze   black    thinned    to  brown.     Similar  in  form  to  C  19a. 
D.  of  rim,  0.13  m.    Two  joining  pieces. 
Bibliography  for  form  C  19a  and  b:  A  18. 

19c  PI.  XXX.  Type  IV.  Clay  hard  pink-buff,  unevenly  fired.  Glaze  black  with  high 
sheen,  mottled  red  near  base.  Broad  horizontal  floor,  vertical  wall.  Grooves  on  exterior 
just  below  lip.  Foot  has  angular  exterior,  oblique  interior.  Graffito  on  floor  (see  pi.  XLIV). 
Clay  and  glaze  similar  to  C  lob. 

H.,  0.06  m.     D.  of  rim,  0.09  m.      D.   of  foot,  0.05  m.     Two  joining  pieces. 

Similar  form:  A  19,  D  12. 

See  infra  181  for  description  of  form  in  Type  IV. 

Bibliography  for  form:  A  19. 

C  20     Bowl   with   outturned   rim.     PI.  IX.     PI.  XXX. 

Type  II.  Clay  orange,  fine  and  hard.  Glaze  blue-black,  good  quality.  Glaze  covers 
entire  surface.  Low  outturned  foot  with  groove  in  resting  surface.  Flattened  rim,  full 
curving  body.  Two  encircling  grooves  on  exterior  of  rim.  Pattern  on  floor  of  small  central 
circle  surrounded  by  four  crude  palmettes  which,  in  turn,  are  enclosed  in  large  concentric 
circles  and  fine  rouletting. 

H.,  0.06  m.     D.  of  rim.  0.18  m.     D.  of  foot,  0.06  m.     Two  joining  pieces,  one  non- 
joining. 

See  infra  157  for  description  of  this  form  in  Type  II. 

Ceramica  Campana  148  form  8  Type  B,  example  from  Ampurias. 

C  21     Spout  of  large  closed  form. 

Clay  coarse  buff.     Glaze  firm  black  on  exterior.     Base  of  large  spout  (0.04  m.  at  base) 
opening  off  side  of  large  coarse  vessel. 
Dimensions,  0.06   X   o.io  m. 

Level  IV 

C  22     Plate  with  horizontal   offset  rim. 

22a      Clay  coarse  buff.    Glaze  firm  black,  metallic.     Rim  turns  upward  at  edge.     Deep  bowl. 
D.  of  rim,  0.22  m.     Fragment  of  one. 

Similar  form:  B  7  and  26,  C  i,  D  ib,   E  ib. 

22b      Clay  pink-buff,  hard.     Glaze  black   thinned   to  red  on  edges.      Rim   turns  downward 
in  wide  vertical  band.    Clay  and  glaze  similar  to  C  ic.     Form  similar  to  C  22a. 
D.  of  rim,  0.20  m.     Fragment  of  one. 

22c  Clay  buff,  rather  soft.  Glaze  black  which  peels  easily.  Deep  bowl.  Similar  in  fabric 
to  Type  IV. 

D.  of  rim,  0.20-0.22  m.     Fragments  of  two. 

Similar  form:  C  ib,  D  id  I,   E  le. 


112 


DORIS  M.  TAYLOR 


2id  PI.  XXX.  Clay  buff,  hard  and  flaky.  Glaze  thin  black,  almost  gone.  Shallow 
bowl.  Low  broad  foot,  offset,  with  oblique  exterior  and  interior.  Groove  on  resting  sur- 
face. Bottom  of  foot  fired  red.  On  floor  large  circle  and  rouletting.  Unique  in  fabric. 
Rim  form  similar  to  C  ic. 

H.,  0.04  m.    D.  of  rim,  0.22  m.     D.  of  foot,  0.07  m.     Seven  pieces;  five  joining,  two 
joining. 

Bibliography  for  form  C  22:  A  6. 

C  23     Plate  with  horizontal  recurving  rim. 

23a      Type  I.    Clay  orange-red.    Glaze  firm  black. 
'     D.  of  rim,  0.20  m.     Fragments  of  three. 

Similar  fabric  and  form:  B  6,  C  2  and  16,  D  3a. 

See  infra  146  for  description  of  form   in  Type  I. 

23b      Type  I  (or  good  imitation  of  it).    Clay  orange.     Glaze   thin  black,  metallic. 
D.  of  rim,  0.22-0.26  m.     Fragments  of  two. 

Bibliography  for  form  C  23:  B  6. 

C  24     Plate  (or  saucer)  with  re-entrant  rim. 

Type  L     Clay  red,  granular.     Glaze  metallic,   black. 
D.  of  rim,  0.30  m.     Two  joining  pieces. 

Similar  fabric    and    form:    B  34,  C  3,  D  sail. 

See  infra  146  for  description  of  form  in  Type  L 

Bibliography  for  form  C  24:  B  34. 

C  25     Plate  with  upturned  rim. 

25a       Type  I.     Clay  red,   granular.     Glaze  metallic  black. 
D.  of  rim,  0.30-0.38  m.     Five  fragments. 

Similar  fabric  and  form:  B   8  and  24b,  C  4a,   D  5a  I,   E  5a. 

See  infra   145  for  description  of  form  in  Type  L 

25b      Type  II.     Clay   buff.     Glaze   firm   black.     Thin  wall. 
D.  of  rim,   0.18-0.30  m.     Fragments  of  two. 

Similar  fabric  and  form:   A  7,  C  4b,  D  5b  and  6b,   E  5b I. 

See  infra  156  for  description  of  form  in  Type  II. 

25c  Clay  hard  buff  to  grey.  Glaze  black,  good  on  most  of  the  examples.  Thin  wall. 
Similar  in   form    to  Type  II. 

D.  of  rim,  0.22-0.24  m.     Fragments  of  seven. 

Bibliography  for  form  C  25:  A  7. 

C  26     Base  of  open  form. 

26a  Type  I.  One  fragment  with  hard  red-brown  clay  and  firm  black  glaze;  a  second 
with  softer  clay  and  thin  brown  glaze.  Both  have  almost  vertical  exterior  and  oblique 
interior. 

D.  of  foot,  0.05-0.08  m. 


* 


COSA:  BLACK-GLAZE  POTTERY  113 

26b  PL  IX.  PL  XXXI.  Type  II.  Blue-black  glaze  covers  entire  surface.  Pattern  on 
floor  of  small  central  circle,  four  surrounding  stamps,  all  faintly  impressed,  and  two  larger 
circles  with  rouletting.  Base  of  small  vessel.  Fabric  identifiable  as  Type  II  but  form  is 
unique. 

D.  of  foot,  0.04  m. 

26c  Type  III.  Clay  hard  grey.  Glaze  dull  black.  Low  raised  foot,  vertical  on  exterior, 
oblique  on  interior. 

D.  of  foot,  0.06  m.     Fragments  of  two. 

26d       PL  IX.      PL  XXXI.     Clay  pink-buff,   granular.      Glaze  firm  green-black    over  entire 
surface.     High  profiled  foot  divided  into   two  bands  by  grooves.     On  floor  central  rosette 
surrounded   by  five   palmettes   and   rouletting. 
D.  of  foot,  0.05  m. 

Similar  form:  A  11. 
Bibliography  for  form:  A  11. 

Similar   but   not   identical   floor   pattern:    Tarsus  213  no.  42  fig.    121.     For  additional 
bibliography  on    this   stamp    see  Tarsus  213  note  12. 

26e       PL  IX.     PL  XXXI.     Clay  hard  buff.     Glaze  firm  black.     Lower  half  of  foot  and  inside 
of  it  carefully  reserved.     High  thin  foot  has  oblique  sides  and  narrow  resting  surface.     No 
central   turning  point.     On  floor  several   rows  of  rouletting  encircle  central  rosette   stamp 
surrounded  by  four  stamps,  rosette  and  palmette  alternating. 
D.  of  foot,  0.05  m. 

Similar  form  and  arrangement   of  stamps:   A   9. 

Similar  form:  C  26b. 

See  infra  173  for  discussion  of  this  form. 

26f       Clay  pink,  hard.      Rough  lines  of  template  on  surface.      Glaze  firm  black  over  entire 
surface.     Foot  has  oblique  sides.     On  floor  crude  rosette  stamps,  probably  three,  and  faint 
rouletting.    Graffito  on  floor  (see  pi.  XLIV). 
D.  of  foot,  0.07  m. 

26g       PL   IX.    PL  XX.    PL  XLIV.    Clay  hard,   coarse  buff.    Glaze  thin  red-brown,  on  floor 
only.     Foot  high  and  raised,  oblique  sides.      Stacking    ring.      On  floor    pattern  of  central 
palmette  surrounded  by  rosette  stamp  similar  to  C  26f.     Graffito  on  inside  of  foot. 
D.  of  foot,  0.09  m. 

26h      Clay  creamy  white,    soft   as  lamp  clay.    Glaze  dull  black. 
D.  of  foot,  0.05  m.     Four  joining  fragments. 

Similar  form:  A  9  and  C  26e. 

Similar  fabric:  D  id  I. 

See  infra  i88  for  discussion  of  this  form. 

26i       PL  XXXI.     Clay  creamy  white,  hard.    Glaze  dull  black,    almost  gone.    Low  heavy 
base.     Unique  fabric  and  form. 
D.  of  foot,  0.05  m. 

26j        Type  IV.      Clay  coarse  orange-buff.      Glaze  thin  black  mottled  red  near  foot.     Stack- 
ing ring.     Low  heavy  foot  with  rounded   exterior,   oblique  interior. 
D.  of  foot,  0.05-0.06  m.     Fragments  of  three. 

C  27    Saucer  with  furrowed  rim. 

Type  IV.    At  least  two,  perhaps   three,   workshops  or  potters  are  represented. 
Similar  fabric  and  form:   B  11  and  35,  C  6,  D  7,   E  7a. 

15 


,  14  DORIS  M.  TAYLOR 

27a       PI.    XXXI.    Clay  hard   orange-brown.     Glaze  blue-black   over  entire  surface,   mottled 
red  near  base.     Stacking  ring.     Several  rows  of  rouletting  on  floor. 
H.,  0.05  m.     D.   of  rim,   0.18  m.     D.   of  foot,   0.05  m. 

27b  PI.  X.  PI.  XXXI.  Clay  hard  buff.  Glaze  black  mottled  red  near  foot.  Stacking  ring. 
Rouletting  on  floor  of  largest  example.  Graffito  on  floor  of  profiled  example  (see  pi.  XLIV). 
Rim  droops  more  than  C  27a. 

H.,  0.03-0.05  m.      D.    of  rim,   0.14-0.19   m.      D.  of  foot,  0.05-0.06  m.     Fragments   of 
approximately  twelve. 

27c  Clay  hard  pink.  Glaze  black,  slightly  metallic.  Form  similar  to  C  27b.  Fragments 
of  five. 

Bibliography  for  form  C  27:  B  11. 
See  infra   ijy  for  description  of  form. 

C  28     Bowl  with  outturned  rim. 

28a      Type  III.     Clay   medium   grey.     Glaze  dull  brown-grey. 
D.  of  rim,  0.17  m.     Fragment  of  one. 

Similar  fabric  and  form:  B  36b,  C  7a,   D  8cl  and   II,   E  8b  I  and  HI. 

See  infra   168  for  description  of  this  form  in  Type  III. 

28b       PI.  XI.     PI.  XXXI.     Type  IV.    Clay  hard  pink-buff.     Glaze  thin  metallic  black. 
H.,  0.07  m.     D.    of  rim,    0.20  m.     D.    of  foot,  0.06  m.     Fragments  of  two 

Similar   fabric   and   form:    B  37d,  C  7b  and  18,  D  8dIII,   E  8d. 

See  infra  179  for  description  of   this   form   in  Type  IV. 

Bibliography  for  form  C  28:  A  14. 


C  29     Rimless  bowl. 

29a  Type  I.  Clay  coarse  red.  Glaze  metallic  black.  Rounded  body.  One  example  has 
small  white  stripe  on  interior. 

D.  of  rim,  0.14   m.     Fragments  of  three. 

Similar  fabric  and  form:  B  37b  and  c,   39,  C  8,  D  9a  and  i3al  and  II,   E  9al  and   II. 

See  infra  150  for  description   of  form   in  Type  I. 

29b  PI.  XI.  PI.  XII.  PI.  XXXII.  Type  IV.  Two  workshops  or  potters  seem  to  be 
represented.  One  example  has  orange  clay,  one  has  buff.  Clay  of  both  is  hard;  glaze  is 
firm  black.  Example  of  orange  clay  has  grooves  around  bowl  on  exterior  just  below  lip 
and  rouletting  on  floor.  Each  example  has  angular  body  and  foot  with  curving  exterior, 
oblique  interior  and  central  turning  point. 

H.,  0.06-0.07  rn-     D-  of  rim,   0.16  m.     D.  of  foot,  0.06  m. 

Similar  fabric   and   form:   A  18,  B  38,  C  10  and  19a,   E  11. 

See  infra  180  for  description   of  form   in  Type  IV. 

29c  PI.  XXXII.  Type  IV.  Clay  hard  orange-buff.  Glaze  thin  orange-black.  Bowl  almost 
hemispherical.  Workmanship  on  this  example  similar  to  that  on  example  of  orange  clay 
in  C  29b. 

H.,  0.06  m.     D.  of  rim,  0.14  m.     D.    of  foot,    0.04  m. 

See  infra   182  for  discussion   of   this   form   in  Type  IV. 

Cf.  Holwerda   no.    279  fig.  2  pi.  3  from  Montalcino. 
Bibliography  for  form  C  29:  A  18. 


^ 


COSA:  BLACK-GLAZE  POTTERY  115 

C  30     Bowl  with  incurved  rim. 

« 
Type  IV.     Clay   hard   buff.     Glaze    thin   black. 

D.  of  rim,  0.12-0.14  m.     Fragments  of  seven. 

Similar  fabric   and  form:  A  21,  B  420,  D  9e. 

See  infra  183  for  description  of  form  in  Type  IV. 
Bibliography  for  form:  A  21. 

C  31     Bowl  with  ribbon-band  rim.     PI.  IX. 

Clay  buff,   hard.     Glaze   thin  black. 

H.,  0.05  m.     D.   of  rim,   0.07  m.     D.   of  foot,   0.04  m.     Fragments  of  five. 

Similar  form:  A  29  and  30;  B  13  and  43,  C  9,  D  11,   E  10. 

C  32  Bowl  with  incurved  rim  and  angular  wall.     PI.  XXXII. 

Type  IV  (.?).     Clay  hard  buff.     Glaze  firm  black. 
D.  of  rim,  0.09  m. 

Cf.  D  xob  for  comparable  form  in  smaller  size. 
See  infra  150  for  description  of  this  form. 

MonAnt  37  (1938)  pi.  38  no.  i,  from  Foci  del  Garigliano;  BollComm  64  (1936)  100 
fig.  8,  from  Rome,  the  excavations  of  the  Largo  Argentina,  two  bowls  with  similar  profiles 
but  heavier  walls  (See  A  21  for  the  dating  of  the  pottery  of  this  stips).  G.  Becatti,  CVA 
Italy  fasc.  16  IV  Eb  pi.  14  no.  5,  example  from  Todi;  R.  P.  Delattre,  Musees  de  VAlgerie  ei 
de  la  Tunisie:  Musee  Lavigerie  de  Saint-Louis  de  Carthage  (Paris  1900)  pi.  24  no.  5.  Exam- 
ples from  Falerii  Veteres  (Museo  Nazionale  di  Villa  Giulia,  nos.  1879  and  2037);  example 
from   Statonia  (Museo  Archeologico   in   Florence). 

Form  in  bucchero:  F.  N.  Pryce,  CVA  Great  Britain  fasc.  10  pi.  21  no.  9,  several  exam- 
ples from  Statonia  (Museo  Archeologico  in  Florence,  sala  XX),  from  Saturnia  (same  museum, 
sala  XXII),  from  Vetulonia  (same  museum,  sala  XXVI),  from  Populonia  (same  museum, 
sala  XXIX,  XXX),  from  Volterra  (same  museum,  sala  XXXII).  Form  in  impasto:  G.  Mat- 
teucig,  op.  cit.  (A  6)  pi.  4  nos.  21-23,  pl-  9  nos.  4  and  7,  pi.  15  no.  3,  pi.  18  nos.  5,  13  and 
several  other  examples  very  similar  in  form,  from  Poggio  Buco.  Matteucig,  op.  cit.  25,  cites 
an  example  from  Heba,  one  from  Saturnia,  another  from  MassaMarittima;  J.  D.  Beazley  and 
F.  Magi,  op.  cit.  (A  6)  pi.  46  no.  86  and  bibliography  cited  for  no.  86;  StEtr  9  (1935) 
pis.  2  and  3,  thirteen  examples  from  tombs  at  Poggio  Volpaio  (Heba),  several  examples  from 
Statonia  (Museo  Archeologico  in  Florence,  sala  XX). 

C  33     Large  bowl   with   ribbon-band    rim.      PI.  XXXII. 

Clay  hard  buff.     Glaze  firm  black. 

D.  of  rim,  0.20  m.     Fragments  of  two. 

Cf.  form  of  A  30  and  D  15. 

See  infra   185  for  discussion  of  this  form. 

C  34     Pyxis 

Type  II.    Clay    hard   buff.     Glaze   black,   good   quality.       Foot   has   been  filed  off  so 
that  its  exact  form  is  unknown. 
D.  of  rim,  0.08  m. 

Similar  fabric  and  form:  C  11,  D  19a,   E  17a. 

See  infra   161  for  description  of  this  form  in  Type  II. 
Bibliography  for  form:  C  11. 


1 16  DORIS  M.  TAYLOR 

C  35    Cylix.     PI.  X. 

Clay  hard  buff.  Glaze  firm  green-black  with  high  sheen.  Fragment  of  rim,  handle, 
and  foot.     Unique. 

D.  of  rim,  0.14  m.     D.  of  foot,  0.05  m. 

Similar  fabric:  D  9d  and  aid. 

See  infra  188  for  description  of  forms  in  this  fabric. 

Similar  handle:  EVP  238  ii  from  Monteriggioni;  C.  W.  L.  Scheurleer,  CVA  Holland 
fasc.  2  IV  E  pi.  3  no.  10;  NS  (1903),  220  fig.  3  no.  3,  from  Sovana.  Four  examples  from 
Volterra  (Museo  Guarnacci,  sala  9),  one  from  Saturnia  (Museo  Archeologico  in  Florence,  sala 
XXII),  one  from  Chiusi  (same  museum,  sala  XLIII),  another  said  to  be  from  Chiusi  (Museo 
Guarnacci,  sala  d'aspetto),  two  from  Castiglioncello  (Museo  Archeologico  in  Castiglioncello, 
tomb  X,   no.    173). 

C  36     Rimless  saucer  with  angular  wall.     PI.  XXXII. 

Type  IV.    Clay  hard  pink-buff.     Glaze  firm   black.     Rouletting  on  floor. 
D.  of  rim,  0.20-0.21  m.     Fragments  of  eight. 

Similar  fabric  and  form:  B  12,  C  13  and  17;  D   labll. 

See  infra  178  for  description  of  this  form  in  Type  IV. 

C  37    Spur  handle. 

Clay  hard  buff.    Glaze  black,  metallic,  carelessly  applied.     Degenerated  form  of  spur 
is  a  thickened  thumb  rest. 
H.,  0.04  m. 

C  38     Pitcher.     PI.  XXXII. 

Clay  buff.  Glaze  thin  black,  metallic.  Band  of  glaze  0.04  m.  wide  on  top  of  exterior; 
otherwise  reserved.  Outturned  rim.  Vertical  handle,  elliptical  in  cross  section,  takes  off 
at  rim. 

D.  of  rim.  0.08  m. 

Cf.  form  of  D  20  and  E  i8b. 

Cf.  Ampurias  fig.  120  no.  6  and  395  no.  2,  form  65;  RSLig  18  (1952)  252  fig.  18  from 
the  "  boat  of  Sestius  "  found  in  the  sea  near  Marseilles. 

C  39    Cup  with  handle.     PI.  XXXII. 

Clay  hard  pink-buff.  Glaze  thin  black  on  exterior  and  interior.  Outturned  rim.  Heavy 
vertical  loop  handle. 

D.  of  rim,   0.09  m.     Two   joining   fragments. 

C  40    Small  pitcher.     PI.  X.     PI.  XXXII. 

Clay  yellow-buff.  Glaze  black  on  exterior  and  top  half  of  interior.  Encircling  ridge 
on  neck,  groove  on  shoulder.  Outturned  rim,  narrow  neck,  oblique  body,  footless.  Single 
horizontal  handle   takes  off  at  lip,  joins  body  near  base. 

H.  0.06  m.     D.   of  rim,    0.04  m.     D.  of  foot,   0.03  m. 

Cf.  form  of  rim  and  body  of  A  39. 

Cf.  CVH  pi.  61  no.  20,  Museo  Arqueologico  Nacional,  Madrid.  C  40  has  a  neck  nar- 
rower than  the  Madrid  example. 


^ 


COSA:  BLACK-GLAZE  POTTERY  117 

C  41     Base  of  closed  form.     PL  XXXIL 

Clay  hard  orange  to  orange-buff.    Glaze  thin  black  on  exterior.    Low  outturned  foot. 
D.  of  rim,   0.06-0.07  rn-     Fragments  of  two. 

C  42     Large  vesseL     Full  form  unknown.     PL  XXXIL 

Clay  hard  buff,  coarse  and  thick.    Glaze  black  which  peels  easily. 
D.  of  rim,  0.30  m.     Fragment  of  rim. 

C  43     Base  of  shallow  bowl  (or  plate). 

Type  IV.  Clay  hard  buff  or  pink.  Glaze  thin  black  mottled  near  base.  Most  of  the 
examples  undecorated;  some  have  rouletting.  Foot  has  rounded  exterior,  oblique  interior. 
Central    turning  point. 

D.  of  foot,   0.05-0.07  m.     Fragments  of  eleven. 


Deposit  D:  Introduction 

In  the  course  of  the  excavation  seasons  of  1948,  1949  and  1950  an  isolating 
trench  two  meters  wide  was  dug  along  the  south  side  of  the  Capitolium  and  its 
forecourt.  The  trench  was  about  forty-seven  meters  in  length.  Since  bedrock 
falls  steeply  on  this  side  of  the  Arx,  the  depth  of  the  trench  varied  greatly  along 
its  length.  Along  the  temple  itself  medieval  burials  were  found  immediately 
beneath  the  surface  (0.25  m.)  both  in  the  "  macco  "  blocks  facing  the  base  of 
the  temple  and  in  the  adjoining  area.  A  rammed  earth  surface  ca.  0.80  m. 
below  ground  level  and  0.20  m.  below  the  top  surviving  course  of  the  facing  of 
the  base  of  the  temple  must  have  been  the  last  ancient  ground  level.  The  earth 
above  was  full  of  decorative  architectural  terracottas  and  roof  tiles  which  had 
fallen  from  the  Capitolium  after  it  was  abandoned.  This  was  Level  I  or  "Graves 
Trench.  "  Below  this  fallen  material,  along  the  forecourt  as  well  as  the 
temple,  was  Level  II,  rich  in  fragments  of  architectural  terracottas,  pottery, 
lamps,  and  miscellaneous  small  objects.  It  varied  in  depth  from  ca.  0.30  m. 
near  the  southwest  corner  of  the  temple  to  two  meters  at  the  southeast  corner 
of  the  forecourt.  In  this  level  at  a  point  near  the  end  of  the  anta  of  the 
temple  itself  was  encountered  an  extensive  fall  of  building  material,  the  ruin 
of  Temple   X  which   once  stood    to   the  south  of  the  Capitolium. 

Level  III  was  a  thin  layer  (0.08-0.15  m.)  of  wood-ash  and  coals.  Lying  on 
or  in  this  deposit  were  a  terracotta  pedimental  statue  and  some  fire-blackened 
fragments  of  architectural  terracotta.  There  was  no  black-glaze  pottery  on  this 
level.  Level  IV  was  the  construction  level  of  the  temple  and  forecourt;  hence 
its  pottery  is  contemporary  with  some  of  the  pottery  of  the  temple  fill.  (See 
the  introduction  to  Deposit  A.) 

The  black-glaze  pottery  of  Level  II  of  this  trench  constitutes  Group  D. 
In    this    study    "  pottery    of  the  trench  south    of  the  Capitolium  "    will  mean 


n8  DORIS  M.  TAYLOR 

pottery  of  Level  II  of  that  trench.  Its  terminus  post  quern  is  determined  by  the 
burned  layer  (Level  III)  which,  in  turn,  postdates  the  construction  of  the  temple 
by  some  years.  Since  the  finished  exterior  surfaces  of  the  blocks  of  the  retaining 
wall  of  the  forecourt  and  the  podium  of  the  temple  indicate  that  the  blocks 
were  to  be  seen,  the  charred  deposit  and  Level  II  above  it  must  have  been 
thrown  against  the  wall  when  fire  destroyed  Temple  X  some  years  after  the 
Capitolium  was  built.  The  evidence  of  a  coin  and  a  Rhodian  stamped  amphora 
handle  from  Level  IV  of  this  trench  have  been  used  to  date  the  construction  of 
the  Capitolium.  They  suggest  a  date  near  the  middle  of  the  second  century.  (See 
the  introduction  to  Deposit  A.)  Level  II  contained  masses  of  pottery  for  many 
uses,  lamps,  loomweights,  many  types  of  architectural  terracottas,  roof  tiles,  coins, 
fragments  of  inscriptions  and  other  debris.  This  mass  seems  clearly  to  be  more 
than  a  casual  accumulation  in  and  near  Temple  X.  It  must  have  been  a  fill 
brought  to  the  Arx  from  another  part  of  the  city.  The  homogeneous  quality 
of  this  material  and  its  great  difference  from  the  deposit  under  the  floors  of  the 
temple  itself,  and  even  from  the  fill  under  the  floors  of  the  basilica,  which  is  later 
than  that  of  the  temple,  indicate  that  the  material  which  was  dumped  into  the 
trench  was  produced  several  decades  after  the  Capitolium  was  constructed. 
The  fill  of  the  basilica.  Deposit  B,  and  Levels  III  and  IV  of  Section  i6  of  the 
Atrium  Publicum,  Deposit  C,  do  not  have  much  in  common  with  Deposit  D. 
A  terminus  ante  quern  of  ca.  140  B.C.  has  been  suggested  for  them.  Deposit  E, 
which  started  to  accumulate  later  than  Deposit  D  did  and  overlaps  it  chrono- 
logically, has  a  coin  and  stamped  amphorae  as  evidence  that  its  terminus  post 
quern  probably  falls  late  in  the  second  century.  The  pottery  of  Deposit  D, 
Level  II  of  the  trench  south  of  the  Capitolium,  must  represent  an  accumula- 
tion which   started    130-120   B.C. 

The  terminus  ante  quem  is  determined  by  the  nature  of  the  black-glaze  pottery, 
the  scarcity  of  fine-ware  forms  and  red-glaze  wares.  The  last  group  of  this  study. 
Deposit  E,  proves  that  the  fine  wares  were  in  use  at  Cosa  before  Arretine  and 
other  red-glaze  wares  became  common.  A  comparison  of  the  quality  of  the 
black-glaze  pottery  of  the  two  groups  shows  that  the  accumulation  of  Deposit D 
ended  before  that  of  Deposit  E.  The  period  of  Deposit  D  marks  the  peak  of 
the  importation  of  the  black-glaze  pottery  of  Types  I,  II,  and  III.  The  pottery 
of  Deposit  E  shows  the  same  types  degenerated  in  finish  of  forms  and  glaze. 
If  Deposit  E  is  pre-Arretine,  that  is  earlier  than  40-30  B.C.,  then  Deposit  D  must 
have  been  made  before  the  middle  of  the  first  century.  A  probable  date  would 
be   70-60   B.C.  or  perhaps  a  decade  earlier. 

Coins  and  stamped  amphorae  handles  give  support  to  this  interval,  that  is, 
130-120  B.C.  — 70-60  B.C.  The  latest  coin  in  the  deposit  is  an  as  (CB  1819)  of 
"  semuncial  "  standard,  dated  ca.  84  b.c.  '  Near  the  bottom  of  Level  I  was  an 
as  (CC  64)  of  the  same  standard,  dated  87   B.C.  '     The  four  other  bronze  coins 


■  CRR  no.  725. 
»  Ibid.  no.  704. 


# 


COSA:  BLACK-GLAZE  POTTERY  119 

found  in  Level  II  are  all  very  worn,  an  indication  that  they  were  in  use  for 
several  years  before  they  got  into  the  deposit.  Two  (CB  1816  and  CC  28)  are 
asses  of  reduced  "  sextantal  "  standard,  dated  165-155  b.c.  '  The  other  two  can 
not  be  identified.  By  weight  and  style  one  of  them,  an  as  (CB  1818),  seems 
to  have  been  an  issue  of  the  period  175-168  b.c;  the  second  is  an  as  (CB  181 7) 
of  reduced  "  sextantal  "  standard  or  "  uncial  "  standard,  that  is,  an  issue  after 
ca.    165    B.C.    but  not  later  than  ca.  90  b.c. 

Two  stamped  amphora  handles,  one  Rhodian  and  the  other  possibly  Rho- 
dian,  were  found  in  Level  II  of  the  trench.  The  first  (CB  1667)  has  been  dated 
second  century  B.C.  For  the  second  (CB  1720),  which  is  not  completely  legible, 
a  date  late   in   the  second   century  has  been  suggested. 

The  lamp  fragments  of  Level  II  show  a  great  variety  of  forms  and  types. 
In  contrast  to  the  three  deposits  described  previously  most  of  the  lamps  are 
mold-made.  In  lamp  types,  as  in  pottery.  Deposit  D  has  much  in  common 
with  Deposit  E. 

The  bulk  of  the  black-glaze  pottery  of  Level  II  was  made  in  a  limited 
number  of  workshops  —  shops  represented  in  the  earlier  deposits  by  a  relatively 
small  number  of  pieces.  Three  fabrics  seem  to  have  flooded  the  market  at 
Cosa  sometime  after  the  date  of  the  basilica's  construction  and  in  a  few  years, 
ten  or  twenty  at  most,  driven  others  from  the  market.  The  black-glaze  pottery 
of  Level  II  represents  the  tableware  in  use  at  Cosa  in  the  last  quarter  of  the 
second  century  and  the  first  years  of  the  first  century. 


Deposit  D:  Catalogue 

D  I         Large  plate  with  horizontal   offset  rim. 

la  PI.  XXXIII.  Type  I.  Clay  pink-buff  to  red-brown.  Glaze  metallic  black  thinning  to 
red-brown.  Glaze  usually  covers  entire  surface.  Rim  turns  upward  at  lip,  or  has  a  hori- 
zontal termination  similar  to  that  of  the  corresponding  form  of  Type  II.  Low  broad  foot 
with  almost  vertical  exterior  and  slightly  oblique  interior.  Base  level  or  raised.  Floor 
has  concentric  circles.  An  example  which  has  a  small  central  circle  surrounded  by  two 
larger  ones  seems  to  be  a  poor  copy  of  a  decoration  common  on  open  forms  of  Type  II. 
D.  of  rim,  0.18-0.28  m.     D.  of  foot,  0.06-0.10  m.     Fragments  of  twenty. 

Similar   fabrics   and   form:   E  la. 

See  tn/ra  144  for   description  of  form  in  Type  I. 

lb  Plate  XXXIII.  Type  II.  Clay  buff  to  pink-buff.  Glaze  black  and  blue-black,  firm 
to  thin.  Fragments  with  best  glazes  have  rims  with  sharpest  angles.  The  foot  is  low, 
level  or  raised.  It  turns  outward  on  the  exterior,  rises  obliquely  on  the  interior.  On  the 
center  of  the  floor  is  a  stamp  consisting  of  a  small  flattened  knob.  This  is  surrounded  by 
a  circle  in  relief  and  two  large  concentric  circles,  incised,  above  the  circumference  of  the 
foot.  This  pattern  occurs  in  many  degenerate  forms  in  Types  I,  III  and  IV  and  unidenti- 
fied fabrics.  The  decoration  in  the  center,  which  is  stamped  on  the  pieces  of  Type  II  with 
best  glazes,  becomes  one  or  two  circles  made  with  a  blunt  tool. 

3  /ii'd.  no.  296. 


,20  DORIS  M.  TAYLOR 

D.  of  rim,  0.20-0.26  m.     D.   foot,   0.06-0.07  m.     Fragments  of  approximately  forty. 

Similar  fabric  and  form:  A  6,  B  26,   E  ib. 

See  infra  154  for  description  of  this  form  in  Type  II. 

ic        Type  III. 

Id       PI.  XXXIII.    Clay  soft  grey.    Glaze   thin  black. 
D.  of  rim,  0.15-0.24  m.     Fragments  of  four. 

Similar  form,  same  texture:  C  la,  E  ic. 

icll     PI.  XXXIII.     Clay  hard  grey,  similar  to  D  sell  and  D  Sell. 

Glaze  black,    almost  disappeared.     Unique  form. 
D.  of  rim,  0.28  m.    One  fragment. 

icIII  Clay  hard  grey,  much  darker  than   II.     Glaze  firm  black.     Very  thin  wall. 
D.  of  rim,  0.24  m.    One  fragment. 

See  infra  166  for  description  of  form  D   ic  in  Type  III. 

id        Type  IV. 

idl       PI.  XXXIII.    Clay  buff  to  orange-buff.    Glaze  dull  black.    Great  variety  in  form 
of  rim.    At  least  two  workshops  are  represented.     Only  identifiable  base  has  a  pattern 
of  circles  on  the  floor  in  imitation  of  a  pattern  of  Type  II. 
H.  0.05  m.     D.  of  rim,  0.18-0.28  m.     D.  of  foot,  0.06  m. 

Similar  fabric  and  form:   C  ib,   E  le. 

See  infra   174  for  description  of  this  form  in  Type  IV. 

idll     PI.  XII.     PI.  XXXIII.     Profiled  lip  with  incised  ovolo  pattern  on  outturned  rim. 
Shallow  bowl.     Form  of  foot  unknown.    Two  distinct   textures  of  clay  are  represented 
in  this  form;  one  a  very  soft  whitish  clay,   the  other  a  hard  buff.     Firm   black  glaze 
suggests    that    the   form   is   one  of   the  earliest  of  the  type  in  this  group. 
D.  of  rim,  0.24-0.28   m.    One  example  of  each  fabric. 

For  form  of  rim,  cf.  E  8c.  For  soft  clay  of  the  texture  similar  to  one  example, 
cf.  C  26  h. 

See  infra   177  for  description  of  this  form  in  Type  IV. 

Red  glaze:  Dura  10  nos.  56-57  pi.  3;  "  Hellenistic-Pergamene  ":  Tarsus  no.  269  fig. 
137  Antioch  I  70  no.  5  pis.  14-15;  Antioch  IV  -pt.  i,  22  nos.  101-102  fig.  4  nos.  5-15; 
Samaria  fig.  185  no.  6a  and  b;  unpublished  examples  from  the  Athenian  Agora:  P 
14548,  P.  7138,  P.  3785  (Professor  Henry  S.  Robinson  informs  me  that  plates  with 
stamped  rims  from  Lesbos,  Pergamon,  Qadesh  (Palestine),  Petra  and  Cyprus,  in  addition 
to  the  examples  from  Tarsus,  Athens,  Antioch  and  Samaria,  are  known  to  him.)  For 
additional  bibliography  see  Tarsus  233  note  32. 

idlll        Imitations  of  Type  II.    Clay  coarse  buff.     Glaze  thin  black.     Patterns  of  circles 
or  rouletting  on  floor.     Several  pieces   are  fragments  of  very  large  plates. 
D.   of  rim,   0.18-0.38    m.     Fragments   of   twenty-five. 

See  infra  174  for  description  of  this   form   in  Type  IV. 


le 


Clay  hard  buff.    Glaze  firm  blue-black  with  high  sheen. 
Differs  from  Type  II  in  quality  of  clay  and  glaze. 
D.  of  rim,  0.22  m.     Fragments  of  two  rims. 

Similar  fabric:  D  8e  and  29b. 

See  infra  188  for   description   of  the  forms   of   this    fabric. 

Bibliography  of  form  D  i:  A  6. 


4 


COSA:  BLACK-GLAZE  POTTERY  I2i 

D  2     Small  plate  on  a  high  foot.     Offset  rim. 

2a  PI.  XXXin.  Type  IL  Clay  hard  buff.  Glaze  black  and  blue-black.  Horizontal 
rim  similar  in  form  to  that  of  plate  with  horizontal  offset  rim.  Foot  is  rounded  at  bottom 
of  exterior.  It  is  hollow  for  a  quarter  of  its  height.  Pattern  on  floor  of  concentric  circles, 
small  one  in  center  and  a  pair  of  large  ones.  One  example  has  rows  of  fine  rouletting  be- 
tween   the    two   larger   circles. 

D.  of  rim,   0.11-0.16  m.     D.   of  foot,   0.05   m.     Fragments  of  approximately  eight. 

Similar   fabric   and   form:    E    2a. 

See  infra   155  for  description  of  form  in  Type  IP 

Ceramica  Campana  145  form  4  Type  B,  example  from  San  Miguel  de  Sorba,  another 
from  Azaila,  another  from  Rome,  examples  from  Ventimiglia;  Ventimiglia  fig.  27  no.  15  and 
fig.  35  no.  32;  CVH  pi.  59  nos.  27  and  29;  Chr.  Blinkenberg  and  K.  F.  Johansen,  CVA 
Denmark  fasc.  5  pi.  221  no.  12;  example  from  Vol  terra  (Museo  Archeologico  in  Florence), 
one  from  Castiglioncello  (Museo  Archeologico  in  Castiglioncello),  one  from  Spina  (Museo 
Gregorio-Etrusco  di  Spina,  sala  I,  excavations  of  1933-37,  Deposit  A). 

Form  in  impasto:  J.  D.  Beazley  and  F.  Magi  op.  cit.  (A  6)  fig.  40  pi.  45;  form  in  buc- 
chero  from  Chiusi  (Museo  Archeologico  in  Florence,  terzo  piano  sala  X). 

2b         Type  IV. 

2bl         PI.   XXXIII.     Clay   buff.     Glaze   firm   black.     Angular   profile. 
D.  of  rim,  o.io  m. 

See  infra  175  for  description  of  form  in  Type  IV. 

2bII     Imitations  of  Type  II.    Clay  buff.     Glaze  thin  black. 
Fragments  of  six. 

D  3     Plate  with  horizontal  recurving  rim. 

3a  PI.  XXXIII.  Type  I.  Clay  orange-red  to  red-brown.  In  general,  glazes  on  the 
fragments  of  this  form  are  good,  a  characteristic  which  suggests  that  this  is  one  of  the  earliest 
forms  of  Type  I  in  Deposit  D.  The  best  glazed  pieces  have  narrower,  fuller  curving  rims. 
Form   of  foot  not  clear. 

D.  of  rim,    0.16-0.28   m.    Fragments   of  fifteen. 

Similar  fabric  and  form:  B  6,  C  2,  16,  23a  and  b. 

See  infra  146  for  description  of  form   in  Type  I.  ' 

3b         PI.   XXXIII.     Type  IV.    Clay  hard  buff.     Glaze  firm  black.     Rim  is  narrow  with  full 
curve.     Form  of  foot  not  clear.     Firm  glaze  suggests  that  this  form  is  one  of  the  earliest 
products  of  Type  IV  in  Deposit  D. 
D.  of  rim,  0.20  m. 

Similar  fabric  and  form:  B  25  and  E  3. 

See  infra  176  for  description  of  form  in  Type  IV. 

Bibliography  for  form  D  3:  B  6. 

D  4     Shallow  rimless  bowl. 

Clay  coarse   orange,   heavy   and    thick.     Glaze    thin  brown  which   peels    easily.     Large 
bowl   or  plate  with  oblique   wall. 
D.  of  rim,  0.42  m. 

16 


,22  DORIS  M.  TAYLOR 

D  5     Plate  with  upturned  rim. 

Sa        Type  I 

sal  PI.  XXXIII.  Clay  pink-buff  to  red-brown.  Metallic  black  glaze  covers  entire 
surface.  Shallow  rim.  Thick  oblique  floor.  Low  broad  foot  with  vertical  exterior 
and  slightly  oblique  interior.  Base  is  level  or  raised.  Stacking  ring.  Floor  is  undeco- 
rated  (for  a  possible  exception  see  D  6)  except  for  two  large  concentric  circles  on  some 
examples. 

H.  0.04-0.05  m.     D.   of  rim,  0.14-0.32  m.     D.   of   foot,   0.05-0.08    m.    Fragments 

of  thirty-five. 

Similar  fabric  and  form:  B  8  and  24b,  C  4a  and  25,    E  5a. 

See  infra  145  for  description  of  form  in  Type  I. 

Bibliography  for  form:  A  7. 

5aII  PI.  XXXIII.  Clay  red.  Glaze  firm  black.  Plate  (or  saucer)  with  re-entrant  rim. 
Form  of  foot  unknown. 

D.  of  rim,  0.20  m.  (?)     Fragments  of  two.  '- 

Similar  fabric  and  form:  B  34,  C  3  and  24,  D  sail. 

Bibliography  for  form:  B  34. 

See  infra  146  for   description   of   this   form   in  Type  I. 

5b  PI.  XXXIII.  Type  II.  Clay  buff  to  pink-buff,  hard.  Glaze  black  and  blue-black, 
firm  to  thin.  The  most  common  form  of  this  type.  Most  of  the  fragments  have  a  sUghtly 
oblique  floor  and  shallow  upturned  rim  which  tapers  at  the  lip.  Examples  with  best  glazes 
have  rims  thickened  at  the  curve.  The  sharply  upturned  rim  is  rare  and  confined  to  the 
large  plate.  No  full  profile  is  preserved  but  the  form  is  clear.  For  profiles  of  feet  and 
stamp  patterns  see  D  6b.  Patterns  vary.  All  floors  have  concentric  circles,  a  small  one  in 
the  center  and  one  or  two  larger  ones  just  above  the  foot.  Some  have  rouletting  between 
the  outer  circles  and  several  stamps  in  the  free  area  around  the  central  circle. 
D.  of  rim,  0.18-0.22  m.     Fragments   of  approximately  fifty  plates. 

Similar  fabric  and  form:  A  7,  B  23a,  C  4b  and  25,   E  sbl  and  II. 

See  infra  156  for  description  of  form   in  Type  II. 

5c        Type  III. 

5cl  PI.  XXXIII.  Clay  soft  grey.  Glaze  dull  thin  black.  Lower  part  of  body  often 
unglazed  on  exterior.  Shallow  bowl  with  oblique  wall  and  slightly  upturned  rim.  Pat- 
tern on  floor  of  a  pair  or  pairs  of  concentric  circles.  Low  straight-sided  feet  with  groove 
in  resting  surface,   a  form  peculiar   to  Type  III. 

D.  of  rim,  0.20-026  m.     D.  of  foot,  0.08  m.     Fragments  of  approximately  seven. 

5cII  Clay  grey  but  finer  and  harder  than  D  5c I.  Cf.  clay  of  D  icll  and  Sell.  Thin 
black  glaze  covers  entire  surface.  Form  of  rim  and  body  similar  to  D  5cl.  Form 
of  foot  not  identified.     Fragments  of  three. 

5cIII  PI.  XXXIV.  Clay  soft  grey,  as  D  scl.  Glaze  dull  black.  Rim  turns  upward  at 
a  sharp  angle.  Foot  is  low,  outturned  or  straight,  groove  in  resting  surface.  Pattern 
on  floor  of  rouletting  bounded  by  circles,  or  circles  alone. 

D.  of  rim.  0.26-0.54.     D.   of  foot,  0.10-0.18  m.     Fragments  of  approximately  six. 

See  infra  167  for  description  of  form  D  5  in  Type  III. 

5d        Type  IV. 

Sdl       PI.  XXXIV.     Clay   orange-pink.     Glaze   firm   black    with   high    sheen.    Oblique 
wall.     Encircling  groove  on  exterior  just  below  lip.     Lip  turns    out  slightly.    Unique. 
D.  of  rim,  0.24  m. 

Cf.  form  of  A  16,   E  13  and  i6. 

See  infra  185  for  description  of  this   form   in  Type  IV. 


COSA:  BLACK-GLAZE  POTTERY  123 

5dII     Imitations   of  Type  II.    Clay  coarse   buff.     Glaze   thin   dull   black. 

D.   of  rim,   0.14-0. 16  m.     Plate  with   oblique   wall:   fragments  of  seventy.     Plate 
with    sharply   upturned   rim:    fragments   of  four. 

5e         PI.    XXXIV.    Clay   hard   buif,    coarse.     Glaze   black,    slightly  metallic.     Shallow   rim. 
Encircling  grooves  on  both  surfaces.     Form  of  foot  unknown.    Unique. 
D.  of  rim,    0.24   m.     Two   pieces. 

Bibliography  for  form  D   5:  A  7. 


D  6     Base  of  open  form. 

6a         PI.  XII.     PI.   XXXIV.     Type  I.     Clay  coarse  pink-orange.     Glaze  black,    thinning  to 
brown.     Heavy    foot,    unglazed    on    bottom.      Exterior   of  foot   more    rounded    than  most 
examples  of  this  type.     Stacking  ring.     On  floor  pattern  of  several  rows  of  fine  rouletting 
which  surround  four  large   triangular  palmette  stamps.     Unique. 
D.  of  foot,  0.07  m. 

See  infra   143  for  discussion  of  this  example. 

Similar  stamps:  Ampurias  fig.  334  no.  7;  NS  (1931)  603  no.  10  fig.  16-X,  from  Caivano 
in  Campania.  This  necropolis  is  dated  (by  four  coins  of  Neapolis  and  one  of  Irnum)  bet- 
ween the  middle  of  the  fourth  century  and  the  first  decades  of  the  third  century.  F.  Mouret, 
CVA  France  fasc.  6  pi.  24  nos.  9  and  11,  both  from  Enserune;  other  examples:  one  from  the 
excavations  at  Luni  (Museo  Archeologico  in  Florence,  no.  1840),  one  on  a  plate  with  up- 
turned rim  from  Castiglioncello  (Museo  Archeologico  in  Castiglioncello,  tomb  XXX),  one 
in  the  Musee  d'Archeologie  mediterraneenne  in  Marseilles,  one  in  the  Museo  Arqueologico 
Provincial   of  Tarragona   (no.    4262). 

6b  PI.  XII.  PL  XIII.  PI.  XIV.  PI.  XXXIV.  Type  II.  Clay  buff  to  pink-buff.  Glaze 
black  and  blue-black,  firm  to  thin.  Foot  is  low  and  turns  outward  near  bottom.  Many 
examples  are  offset  just  above  the  resting  surface.  Floors  of  all  examples  have  a  small 
central  circle  and  one  or  more  pairs  of  large  concentric  circles.  With  four  exceptions 
floors  have  rouletting  between  larger  circles  and  stamps  in  the  free  central  area.  One  excep- 
tion has  stamps  instead  of  rouletting;  the  other,  rouletting  but  no  stamps.  Two  without 
stamps   have  poor  glazes. 

D.  of  foot,  0.05-0. II  m.     Fragments   of  approximately    twenty. 

See  infra  153  and  156  for  discussion  of  forms  of  Type  II. 

6c         Type  III. 

6cl       PI.  XXXIV.    Clay    medium    grey.     Glaze    thin    dull    black    over    entire    surface. 
High  raised  foot  with  rounded  exterior,  oblique  interior.    Concentric  circles  on  floor. 
D.  of  foot,  0.08  m.     Fragment  of  one. 

6cII     PI.  XXXIV.     Clay  soft  grey.     Glaze  thin  black.     One  fragment  preserves  a  stamp. 
Dimensions,  0.055  X  o-i°   "i-    Two   joining  fragments. 

6d         Type  IV. 

6dl  PI.  XXXIV.  Clay  pink-buff.  Glaze  thin  dull  black.  Heavy  foot  with  curving 
exterior,    oblique   interior. 

D.  of  foot,  0.06  m.     Fragments  of  five. 

6dII  Clay  buff  to  orange-buff,  coarse.  Glaze  thin  dull  black.  Floors  undecorated 
except  for  rouletting  on  a  few  examples.  Many  bases  copy  the  forms  of  Type  II; 
others  are  rounded  on  exterior,  oblique  on  interior. 

D.  of  foot,  0.04-0.12  m.    Approximately  fifty  bases. 


,24  DORIS  M.  TAYLOR 

6e         PI.    XIV.     PI.    XXXIV.    Clay   buff,    coarse.     Glaze  thin    red-brown,    metallic,    covers 
entire  base.     Base  has  profiled  exterior,  oblique  interior  and  distinct  central  point.     Floor 
has  crude  stamp  of  palmettes  joined  by  arcs.    Unique. 
D.  of  foot,  0.06  m. 

Cf.  stamp  of  D  6g. 

Cf.  Ceramica  Cantpana  155  no.  6,  from  Ampurias,  no.  7,  in  the  Museo  Arqueologico 
Provincial  of  Tarragona,  162  no.  4,  from  Enserune;  Ventimiglia  fig.  55  no.  8;  Gallia  6  (1948) 
74  fig.  19  no.  2034,  from  Gergovie;  Rome  125  fig.  137c,  from  the  Tiber;  Ph.  Helena,  Les 
Origines  de  Narbonne  (Paris  Toulouse  1937)  397  fig.  259;  W.  Van  Ingen,  CVA  USA  fasc.  3 
pi.  35  no.  6  (with  gorgoneion  in  center),  said  to  be  from  Cumae,  pi.  35  no.  7  (with  head  of 
Selene  (?)  in  center),  said  to  be  from  Cumae;  MonAnt  22  (1913-14)  703  nos.  i,  8  and  9 
(alt  with  gorgoneion  in  center),  from  Cumae;  MemNap  2  (1913)  226  fig.  40  (with  female 
head  in  center),  from  Pompeii. 

6f        PI.     XIV.     PL    XXXIV.     Clay   buff,    hard.     Glaze   hard   green-grey,    metallic.     Glaze 
covers    entire    surface.     Raised    foot  turns  outward.     Exterior  is    profiled,    interior  curved. 
Stacking  ring.     Floor  has   stamp   of  ivy  leaves   joined  by  arcs. 
D.  of  foot,  0.06  m. 

Cf.  B  3*,  a  simpler    version  of  this  form. 

6g        Clay  coarse  pink-buff.     Glaze  thin  black.     Form  of  base  identical  to  form  in  Type  II 
(D  6b).    On  floor  pattern  of  concentric  circles   and  stamps  of  arcs  similar  to  D  6e. 
D.  of  foot,  0.06  m. 

Bibliography  for  stamp:  D  6e. 

6h        PI.    XIV.     PI.    XXXIV.    Clay   buff,   hard.     Glaze   blue-black   with  high  sheen.     Foot 
and  band  0.02  m.  above  it  reserved.     Interior  glazed.     Foot  level  with  oblique  sides.    Stack- 
ing ring.     Rows  of  rouletting  and  stamp  on  floor.     Unique. 
D.  of  foot,  0.07  m. 

6i        Clay  pink  buff,  hard  and  coarse.     Glaze  green-black,  metallic.     Foot  raised,  curved  on 
exterior,  oblique  on  interior.    Central  turning  point.     Form  of  foot  similar  to  that  of  Type  II 
but   workmanship   less   precise.     Stacking   ring  and    rows  of  rouletting   on   floor. 
D.  of  foot,  0.06  m.     Fragments  of  three  or  four  examples. 

Similar  fabric:  D   17c,    E  2b,   14c  and  17  c. 

See  infra  188  for  description  of  forms  in   this  fabric. 

D  7    Saucer  with  furrowed  rim.     PI.  XXXV.      PI.   XLIV. 

Type  IV.  Clay  hard  red-orange  to  buff.  Glaze  black,  mottled  red  near  base.  Glaze 
of  some  examples  metallic.  Variation  in  fabric  suggests  different  workshops.  Flaring  wall 
with  outturned  rim.  Some  rims  are  furrowed  on  both  sides;  most  of  them  above  only. 
Some  floors  have  rouletting;  others  are  undecorated.  Graffito  on  profiled  example  (on 
exterior   near   foot). 

D.  of  rim,   0.16-0.20  m.     D.  of  foot,   0.06  m.     Fragments  of  fourteen. 

Similar  fabric  and  form:  B  11  and  35,  C  6  and  27,   E  7a. 
See  infra  177  for   description   of  form   in  Type  IV. 
Bibliography  for  form:  B  11. 

D  8     Bowl  with  outturned  rirn. 

8a         PI.  XXXV.     Type  I.    Clay  orange-red.     Glaze  metallic  black,  good  quality  for  Type  I. 
D.  of  rim,  o.  10  m.     Fragments  of  two  rims. 

See  infra  147  for   description  of  form   in  Type  I. 


COSA:  BLACK-GLAZE  POTTERY  125 

8b  PI.  XXXV.  Type  IL  Clay  buff  to  pink-buff.  Glaze  black  and  blue-black,  firm  to 
thin.  Carefully  profiled.  Pieces  with  best  glaze  have  rims  which  are  flattened  on  top. 
Bowls  of  Type  II  are  deeper  than  those  of  other  types. 

D.  of  rim,    0.14-0.20  m.     Fragments  of  twenty-five  rims. 

Bases  for    this   form:    D  26bl   and  II  ,E  i9bl  and   II. 
Similar  fabric  and  form:  A  14  and  15,  C  20,   E  8a. 

See  infra   157  for  description  of  form   in  Type  II. 

8c        Type  III. 

8cl  PI.  XIV.  PI.  XXXV.  Clay  soft  grey.  Glaze  dull  black.  Heavy  wall.  Body 
deep  with  curving  wall.  Rim  turns  outward  very  slightly.  Foot  rounded  on  exterior, 
oblique  on  interior. 

D.  of  rim,  0.14-0. 18  m.     Fragments  of  eleven. 

Sell  Clay  grey,  harder  than  D  8cl.  Glaze  thin  black  which  peels  readily.  Form  simi- 
lar to  D  8c I.     Fragments  of  two  rims. 

Similar  texture:   D  id  I  and  sell. 

See  infra   168  for  description  of  form   D  8  in  Tjrpe  III. 

8d         Type  IV. 

8dl       PI.    XXXV.     Clay   buff,    fine.      Glaze    black    with   high   sheen.      Rim    turns    out 
sharply.     Unique  piece  in    this   type. 
D.  of  rim,  0.18  m. 

8dII     PI.  XXXV.    Clay  buff.     Glaze  firm   black.     Rim    turns   outward   and    downward. 
D.  of  rim,  0.20  m.     Fragments  of  two. 
See  infra  \ii  for  discossion  of  this  form. 

Sdlll  PI.   XXXV.    Clay  buff,  hard.     Glaze    dull    or   metallic   black   which   peels   along 
rough  encircling  lines  of  clay.     Rim    turns   outward  slightly. 
D.  of  rim,  0.16-0. 18  m.     Fragments  of  forty-five  rims. 

Similar  fabric   and   form:   B  37d,  C  7b,   18  and  28b,  D  i3bl,   E  8d. 

See  infra   179  description  of  form  D  8  in  Type  IV. 

8e        PI.  XXXV.    Clay  grey-buff,  fine  and  hard.     Glaze  firm  black  with   high  sheen.     Rim 
turns  outward  sharply. 
D.  of  rim,  0.16  m. 

Similar  fabric:  D  le  and  29b. 

See  infra  188  for  discussion  of  forms  in  this  fabric. 

8f        PI.  XXXV.    Clay  white,  very  soft,  similar  to  lamp  clay.    Glaze  thin  black  which  peels 
easily.     Unique. 

D.  of  rim,  0.18  m. 

Cf.  fabric  of  D  id  1 1  and  C  26h. 

See  infra   188  for  discussion  of  this  form. 

Bibliography  for  form  D  8:  A  14. 

D  9     Rimless  bowl  with  curved  wall. 

9a        Type    I.     Clay   coarse   red.     Glaze    thin   metallip   black.     Heavy  wall.     Thickened  lip. 
D.  of  rim,   0.10-0.16  m.     Fragments  of  seven  rims. 

Similar  fabric  and  form:  B  37c  and  39,  C  8  and  29a,  D  I3all  and  E  9aII. 

See  infra  150  for  description  of  form  in  Type  I. 


,26  DORIS  M.  TAYLOR 

9b  PI.  XV.  PI.  XXXV.  Type  II  (?)  Clay  buff.  Glaze  firm  black.  Interior  of  foot 
carefully  reserved.  Shallow  bowl  with  thin  wall.  High  level  foot  which  flares  outward 
at  bottom.  Pattern  on  floor  of  dainty  ring  and  rouletting  surrounding  four  leaf-like  stamps 
which  radiate  from  a  small  central  circle.    Unique  form  and  decoration. 

H.,  C.04  m.     D.  of  rim,  0.16  m.     D.  of  foot,  0.05  m.     Six  joining  pieces. 

See  infra   159  for  discussion  of  this  form. 

9C        Type  II.    Clay  buff.     Glaze  firm  black.     Clay  has  rough  finish.     Form  is  heavier   than 
that  of  D  9b.     Form  of  foot  not  known.     One    example  has   rings  and  rouletting  on  floor. 
D.  of  rim,  0.12-0. 16  m.     Fragments  of  six. 

Similar  fabric  and  form:  E  9b. 

See  infra  159  for   description   of   this   form   in  Type  II. 

9d  PI.  XXXV.  Clay  buff,  very  hard.  Glaze  firm  green-black  with  high  sheen.  Tapered 
lip.     Shallow  bowl. 

D.  of  rim,  0.14  m.     Fragment  of  one.  .: 

Similar  fabric:  C  35  and  D  2id. 

See  infra  188  for  description  of  forms  in  this  fabric. 

9e        Type  IV.    Clay  buff.     Glaze   thin  black. 

D.  of  rim,  0.12 -0.16  m.     Fragments  of  fourteen  rims. 

Cf.  fabric  and  form:  A  21,  25  (?)  and  26  (?),  B  426,  C  30. 
See  infra  183  for  description  of  form  in  Type  IV. 

Bibliography  for  form  D  9:  A  18,  A  21. 

D  10     Bowl  with  incurved  rim. 

Type  I. 
loa       PI.  XXXV.    Clay   coarse    red.     Glaze    thin   metallic   black.      Similar    in  heaviness  of 
form  to  D  9a. 

D.  of  rim,  0.09  m. 

Similar  fabric  and  form:  A  22,  B  42c,  and  bases  D  26a I  and   II  (?). 
See  infra  148  for  description  of  form   in  Type  I. 
Bibliography  for  form:  A  21. 

10b      PI.   XXXV.    Clay  soft  orange.      Glaze   thin  black.     Rim   turns  inward   sharply.     An- 
gular wall  thickened  at  turn  of  rim. 
D.  of  rim,  0.06  m. 

Cf.  form  of  C  32. 

See  infra  150  for  discussion  of  form  in  Type  I. 

Ampurias  fig.  198  no.  4;  Ceramica  Campana  182  form  34  Type  A,   example  from  Ischia, 
examples    from    Entremont,   Museo   Arqueologico    Provincial  of  Tarragona,    and  Ampurias. 

D  II     Small  bowl  with  broad  ribbon-band  rim.    PI.   XV.     PI.  XXXV. 

Type  IV.    Clay  hard  buff.    Glaze  metallic  black.     Foot  rounded  on  exterior,  oblique 
on  interior.     Groove  at  base  of  rim. 

H.  0.03  m.     D.   of  rim,   0.04  m.     D.   of  foot,   0.02  m. 

Similar  fabric  and  form:  A  29  and  30  (?),  B   13  and  43a,  C  9a,  E  10. 

See  infra   184  for  description   of   form    in   Type  IV. 


COSA:  BLACK-GLAZE  POTTERY  127 

D  12    Small  bowl  with  vertical  rim.     PI.  XXXV. 

Type  IV.    Clay  coarse  buff.     Glaze   thin  dull  black.     Foot  has  oblique  exterior  and 
interior.     Incised  line   on  exterior  just  below  lip. 

H.,  0.05  m.     D.  of  rim,  0.09  m.     D.  of  foot,  0.06  m.     Fragments  of  three. 

Similar  fabric  and  form:  A   19,  C   19c. 

See  infra   181  for  description  of  form  in  Type  IV. 

D  13     Rimless  bowl. 

13a      Type  I. 

i3al  PI.  XV.  PI.  XXXVI.  Clay  coarse  red  to  red-brown.  Glaze  black,  thin  and 
metallic  on  some  examples.  Rim  tapers.  One  or  two  encircling  bands  of  white  paint 
on  interior  just  below  lip.  Although  no  complete  profile  is  preserved  it  is  clear  that 
pieces  with  this  decoration  go  with  feet  which  have  concentric  circles  of  white  paint 
on  their  floors.  Feet  with  this  decoration  have  glaze  over  their  entire  surface.  They 
are  low  with  straight  exteriors,  oblique  interiors.  Central  turning  points.  Fragments 
of  ten. 

D.  of  rim,  0.14-0. 16  m.     D.  of  foot,  0.04-0.06  m. 

Similar  fabric,  form,  and  decoration:  B  37b,  C  29a,   E  9al. 

i3all  PI.  XXXVI.  Clay  coarse  red  to  red-brown.  Glaze  metallic  black  thinning  to 
brown.  Wall  is  more  rounded,  less  oblique  than  D  133!.  No  central  turning  point. 
With  this  wall  must  go  the  undecorated  foot  similar  to  those  for  form  D  133!.  Frag- 
ments of  thirty-nine. 

D.  of  rim,  0.16-0.22  m. 

Similar  fabric  and  form  (no  decoration):  B  37c  and  39,  C  8  and  29a,  D  9a,   E  9a 1 1. 

See  infra  150  for  description  of  form  D   13  in  Type  I. 

13b       Type  IV.  . 

13b I  PI.  XXXV.  Clay  hard  buff.  Rough  finish.  Glaze  thin  black,  usually  poor  in 
quality.     Oblique  wall  with  slight  flare  at  rim. 

D.  of  rim,  0.14-0. 18  m.     Fragments  of  nine  rims. 

Similar   fabric   and   form:   B  37d,  C  7b,   18  and  28b,    D  8dIII,   E  8d. 

See  infra  179  for  description  of  this  form  in  Type  IV. 

i3bll  PI.  XXXVI.  Clay  buff,  soft  to  hard.  Glaze  black,  firm  in  best  pieces.  Angu- 
lar shallow  body  peculiar  to  this  type. 

D.  of  rim,  0.22-0.24  m.     Fragments  of  seven  rims. 

Similar  fabric  and  form:  B   12,  C  13,   17  and  36. 

See  infra  178  for  description  of  this  form  in  Type  IV. 

13c       PI.    XXXVI.    Clay   hard  grey.     Glaze   dull    thin   black. 
D.  of  rim,  0.16-0. 18  m.     Fragments  of  three  rims. 

13d       PI.   XV.     PI.  XXXVI.    Clay  hard  coarse  buff.     Glaze  thin  black,  mottled  red.    Glaze 
covers  interior  and  upper  part  of  exterior.     Oblique  wall.     Heavy  foot,  carelessly  formed. 
H.,  0.06  m.     D.  of  rim,  0.12  m.     D.  of  foot,  0.05  m.     Fragments  of  two. 

Bibliography  for  form   D  13:  A  18. 

D  14     Rim  of  large  vessel.     Bowl  (?)     PI.  XXXVI. 

Clay  very  hard  orange.     Glaze  dull  black  on  exterior.     Unique    in  fabric    and  form. 
D.  of  rim,  0.20  m. 


raS  DORIS  M.  TAYLOR 

D  15     Shallow  bowl  with  ribbon-band  rim.     PI.  XXXVI. 

Clay  coarse  grey.    Glaze  duU  blue-black. 
D.  of  rim,  o.i8  m. 

Cf.  forms  C  33  and  D  15. 

D  16     Bowl  with  broad  foot  and  curved  wall. 

163  PI.  XVI.  PI.  XXXVI.  Type  II.  Clay  hard  buff.  Glaze  black.  Bottom  of  foot  some- 
times glazed,  sometimes  reserved.  Some  examples  have  two  encircling  grooves  on  the  exte- 
rior just  below  the  rim.  Wall  is  almost  straight,  curved  just  above  the  foot.  Broad  foot 
has  oblique  exterior  and  interior  and  narrow  resting  surface.  Floor  has  central  circle  and 
two  larger  concentric  circles  made  with  a  blunt  instrument. 

H.,  0.04  m.     D.   of  rim,   0.12-0. 13  m.     D.   of  foot,  0.08-0.12  m.     Fragments  of  six. 

Similar  fabric  and  form:      B  41a,    E   14a. 

See  infra   159  for  description  of  form  in  Type  II.  ,, 

i6b      Type  III. 

i6bl    Clay  hard  grey,  granular.     Glaze   dull   black   over   entire  surface.     Similar  in  form 
to  D  i6a.     Graffito  on  bottom  of  foot  (see  pi.  XLIV). 
D.  of  foot,  o.io  m.     Fragment  of  foot. 

Cf.  form  E  14b. 

Clay  similar  in  texture:  D  29  and  30. 

i6bH  PI.    XXXVI.    Clay  soft  grey,    flaky.      Glaze  dull  black.     Fragment  may  be   base 
of  pitcher  rather  than  of  this  form. 
D.  of  foot,  0.06  m. 

See  infra  171  for  description  of  form  D  16  in  Type  III. 

16c  PI.  XVI.  PI.  XXXVI.  Type  IV.  Clay  coarse  buff.  Glaze  thin  metallic  black.  Bot- 
tom of  base  sometimes  glazed,  sometimes  reserved.  Form  similar  to  that  of  Type  II. 
Rims,  except  for  one  example  with  poor  glaze,  have  two  grooves  on  exterior  just  below  lip. 
Most  of  the  floors  have  concentric  circles  similar  to  the  decoration  on  the  Type  II  examples 
of  this  form.  Two  bowls  of  poor  glaze  are  undecorated.  Graffito  on  bottom  of  base  of  one 
example  (see  pi.  XLIV). 

H.  0.04-0.05  m.      D.   of  rim,   0.11-0.16  m.      D.  of  base,    0.08-0.12  m.      Fragments  of 
twenty-six. 

Similar  fabric  and  form:   E  i4d.  - 

See  infra  182  for  description  of  form  in  Type  IV. 

Bibliography  for  form  D  r6:  B  41. 

D  17     Cup  with    broad   foot   and   flaring  wall. 

17a  PI.  XVI.  PI.  XXXVII.  Type  II.  Clay  hard  buff.  Glaze  black,  covers  entire  surface. 
Broad  foot  with  oblique  exterior  and  narrow  resting  surface  (cf.  D  16).  One  example  has 
two  grooves  on  exterior  just  below  lip. 

H.,  0.06  m.     D.  of  rim,  o.ii  m.     D.  of  foot,  0.07  m.     Fragments  of  ten. 

See  infra  160  for  description  of  form   in  Type  II. 

17b         PI.  XXXVII.     Type  III.     Clay    soft   grey.     Glaze    dull    black.     Rim    turns  outward 
more  than  the  corresponding  form  of  Type  II.     Form  of  foot  unknown. 
D.  of  rim,  o.io  m. 

Cf.  fabric  and  form  of  E  isa  . 

See  infra  171  for  description  of  form  in  Type  III. 


4 


COSA:  BLACK-GLAZE  POTTERY  129 

17c       PI.  XXXVII.     Clay  pink-buff,   hard  and  coarse.     Glaze  black  thinned   to  brown,   very 
metallic.     Glaze  covers  entire  surface. 

H.,  0.05   m.     D.    of  rim,    o.io  m.     D.    of  foot,    0.06  m. 

Similar  fabric:  D  6i,  E  2b,  14c,  17c. 

See  infra   188  for   description   of   forms    in    this    fabric. 

Bibliography  for  form  D  17:  Ampurias  fig.  332  no.  5;  Ceramica  Campana  144  form  2 
Type  B,  example  from  Ampurias,  from  San  Miguel  de  Sorba,  examples  from  Ventimiglia, 
Azaila,  and  Enserune,  157  form  2  Type  C,  example  from  the  Museo  Nazionale  of  Syracuse; 
Ventimiglia  fig.  27  no.  11,  fig.  52  no.  8,  fig.  55  no.  6;  CVH  pi.  59  nos.  21-23,  from  Azaila; 
example  from  Talamone  (Museo  Archeologico  in  Florence),  from  Castiglioncello  (Museo 
Archeologico  in  Castiglioncello),  in  the  Museo  Arqueologico  in  Barcelona  (no.  1076),  two 
examples  on  high  feet  from  Spina  (Museo  Gregorio-Etrusco  di  Spina)  sala  VI,   tomb  456. 

Cf.  bucchero  chalices  from  Bisenzio  (Museo  Archeologico  in  Florence,  sala  XVII, 
nos.  73385-6). 

D  18     Form  with  flaring  wall.     PI.  XXXVII. 

Type  IV.  Clay  hard  orange-buff.  Glaze  black.  Outturned  rim.  Groove  on  exterior 
just  below  lip.     Unique.  • 

D.  of  rim,  0.16  m. 

See  infra   174  for  discussion   of  this  form. 

D  19     Pyxis. 

19a       PI.   XVII.     PI.  XXXVII.     Type  II.     Clay  buff  to  pink-buff,   hard.     Glaze  black   and 
blue-black,  firm  to  thin.     Glaze  covers  entire  surface.     Pieces  with  firmer  glazes  have  hea- 
vier, higher  and  more  rounded  feet.     Distinct  groove  separates  interior  of  foot  from  base. 
H.,  0.04-0.06  m.      D.   of  rim,   0.04-0.10  m.      D.  of  foot,   0.05-0.10  m.      Fragments    of 
twelve. 

Similar  fabric  and  form:  C  11  and  34,   E  17a. 

See  infra  161  for  description  of  form  in  Type  II. 

19b       PI.  XXXVII.     Type  III.     Clay  soft  grey.     Glaze  dull  thin  black.     Glaze  covers  entire 
surface.     Similar  in  form  to  D  19a. 

D.  of  foot,  0.09  m.     Fragments  of  two  bases. 

See  infra  172  for  description  of  form  in  Type  III. 

19c       PI.   XXXVII.     Type  IV.     Clay  buff.     Glaze   dull  black   which   peels    easily.     Blotches 
of  black   on   bottom.     Flat   base.     Projection   near   bottom.     Unique   form. 
D.  of  foot,  0.08  m. 

See  infra   186  for  description  of  form  in  Type  IV. 

i9d       PI.   XXXVII.     Clay  hard  buff.     Glaze  very  thin  metallic  black.     Blotches  of  black  on 
bottom.     Unique. 

D.  of  foot,  0.08  m. 

Bibliography  for  form  D  19:  C  11. 

D  20     Pitcher   (or  cup  with   handle).     PI.  XXXVII. 

Type  IV.    Clay  pale  buff.     Glaze  dull  black  which  peels  easily.     Glaze  covers  exterior 
and  small  band  on  top  of  interior.     Rimless.     Heavy  handle  takes  off  just  below  lip. 
Dimensions,   0.05   X   0.04  m.     Fragment   of  lip,   body   and  one  handle. 

Cf.  form  of  C  38  and  E  i8b. 

See  infra  187  for  discussion  of  this  form  in  Type  IV. 

17 


I30  DORIS  M.  TAYLOR 

D  21     Jug. 

aia      PI.   XXXVII.    Type  II.     Clay  hard  buflf.     Glaze  blue-black  with  high  sheen,  exterior 
only.     High  central  point  on  floor.     Identification  of  form  uncertain.    Unique. 
D.  of  foot,  0.04  m. 

aib  PI.  XXXVII.  Type  III.  Clay  very  soft  grey.  Glaze  completely  gone.  One  rim 
similar  in  form  to  the  jug  of  Type  II  (E  i8a)  and  copy  of  Type  II  (D  21c);  the  other  has 
thicker  wall,   thin  neck  and  tapered  rim. 

D.  of  rim,  0.07  m.     Fragments  of  rims  of  two  examples. 

See  infra  172  for  discussion  of  form  in  Type  III. 

aic  ,  PI.  XXXVII.  Type  IV.  Clay  buff.  Glaze  black  on  exterior  and  interior.  Outturned 
rim.  Thick  neck.  Two  handles.  Heavy  flaring  foot  with  broad  resting  surface.  Copy 
of  Type  II  form. 

H.,  o.io  m.     D.   of  rim,  0.08  m.     D.   of  foot,  0.05  m.     Fragments  of  three. 

Similar  form:  B  45  (?),   E  18a.  '. 

See  infra  162  and  187  for  description  of  form  in  Type  IV. 

Cf.  form  in  Ceramica  Campana  149  form  10  Type  B,  example  from  Museo  Arqueolo- 
gico  Provincial  of  Tarragona  and  from  Azaila;  CVH  ^\.  59  no.  2.  EVP  237  e  pi.  38  no.  10, 
example  from  Cortona,  SanMiniato,  and  Volterra.  Three  examples  of  unknown  provenience. 
Holwerda  fig.  4  nos.  21 1-2 12,  from  Cortona  (nos.  2  and  3  in  EVP);  example  from  Casti- 
glioncello  (Museo  Archeologico  in  Castiglioncello),  from  Tarquinia  (Museo  Nazionale  Tar- 
quiniese). 

2id  Clay  hard  buff'.  Glaze  firm  green-black  with  high  sheen.  Thin  handle  with  three 
ridges,    imitation    tripartite,  on  upper  surface. 

Dimensions,   0.03    X   0.02  m.     Fragment   of  handle. 

Cf.  fabric   of  C  35  and  D  9d. 

See  infra  188  for  description  of  forms  in   this  fabric. 

aie      PI.   XXXVII.    Clay  buff,  rather  fine.     Glaze  black  thinned  to  brown  on  exterior  and 
interior  of  lip.     Flaring  rim.     Single  handle  which  takes  off  below  rim. 
D.  of  rim,  0.04  m.     Fragment  of  rim  and  neck. 

D  22     Pitcher-Strainer. 

a2a  Clay  hard  grey-buff.  Glaze  thin  dull  black  on  exterior  and  on  interior  to  strainer. 
Flaring  rim.    Unique. 

D.  of  rim,  0.06  m.     Fragment  of  rim  and  neck. 

22b  PI.  XXXVIII.  PI.  XXXIX.  Clay  coarse  orange.  Glaze  thin  black,  mottled  red 
on  exterior  and  on  interior  of  neck  to  strainer.  Flaring  mouth.  Single  handle,  thin,  from 
neck  to  shoulder.  Strainer  at  base  of  neck.  One  example  has  a  short  thick  neck  and 
rounded  rim.  Its  handle  takes  off  in  the  middle  of  the  neck.  The  other  has  a  tall  thin 
neck  and  sharply  profiled  rim.  The  handle  takes  off  just  below  the  rim  and  joins  the 
body  on  the  top  of  the  shoulder.  Each  example  has  a  tall  curving  body  and  low  broad 
foot. 

D.  of  rim,  0.07-0.08  m.     D.  of  foot,  0.09-0.10  m. 

D  23     Large  amphora  (.?)     PI.  XVIL     PI.     XL. 

Clay  coarse  orange,  uneveidy  fired.    Glaze  dull  black,  on  rim  and  interior.     Petals  of 
large   palmette   in   black   glaze   (or  paint)    extend   upward  on  neck.     Unique. 
D.  of  rim,  0.02  m.     Two  fragments  preserve  rim  and  part  of  neck. 


COSA:  BLACK-GLAZE  POTTERY  131 

Cf.  earlier  examples  of  amphorae  with  wide  black  rim  and  palmettes  on  neck:  StEtr  21 
(1950-51)  385  figs.  I  and  2,  example  from  Bisenzio;  StEtr  16  (1942)  no.  70997  pi.  49,  from  Pescia; 
StEtr  15  (1941)  no.  80677  pl-  36,  from  Saturnia,  no.  4149  pi.  36,  no.  75786  pi.  37,  the  latter 
from   Orvieto,    no.    4138  pi.  37,  no.  4177  pi.  38. 

D  24     Large  closed  form.     PL  XVII. 

Clay  hard  orange,  fired  unevenly.  On  exterior  buff  slip  and  dull  black  glaze.  On 
this  surface  part  of  an  incised  figure,  a  warrior,  running  left,  wearing  a  short  cloak  with 
zigzag  pattern  at  hem.     Full  form  of  vessel  unknown.     Unique. 

Dimensions,  o.  10   X   o.io  m.     Fragment  of  wall. 

D  25    Molded  form. 

Type  in.  Clay  soft  grey.  Glaze  black.  Fragment  seems  to  have  been  half  of  a  bird's 
head.     It   may   be   from    an  askos.     Unique. 

Dimensions,  0.04   X   0.04  m.     Broken  through  center,  lengthwise,  along  lines  of  mold. 
See  infra  164  for  discussion  of  this  form  in  Type  III. 

D  26     Base  of  bowl. 

26a        Type  I. 

26al  PI.  XVIII.  PI.  XL.  Clay  orange-red.  Glaze  black,  covers  entire  surface.  Exterior 
of  foot  curved,  interior  slightly  oblique.  Stamp  on  floor  of  central  rosette  or  circle 
with  dots. 

D.  of  foot,  0.04-0.05  m.     One  example  of  each  stamp. 

Cf.  stamp  A  21C.  Cf.  stamps  of  circles:  Ampurias  fig.  325  no.  9,  fig.  332  no.  3. 
F.  Mouret  CVA  France  fasc.  6  pi.  29  nos.  7  and  9,  pi.  30  nos.  i  and  28,  all  from  En- 
s^rune. 

36an  PI.  XVIII.  PI.  XL.  Clay  orange-red.  Glaze  metallic  black.  Foot  level  or 
raised,  less  rounded  than  D  26al.  Stacking  ring.  Four  ivy  leaf  stamps  irregularly 
placed  within  a  circle   of  rouletting. 

D.  of  foot,  0.04-0.06  m.     Three   examples. 

Cf.  stamps:  Ceramica  Campana  203  no.  6b  Type  A,  example  from  Enserune; 
F.  Mouret,  CVA  France  fasc.  6  pi.  24  nos.  4  and  8,  pi.  28  no.  8,  pi.  29  no.  i,  all  from 
Enserune;  Rome  fig.  139b,   example  from  Rome. 

26b       Type  II. 

26bl  PI.  XVIII.  PI.  XL.  Clay  buff  to  pink-buff.  Glaze  black  and  blue-black,  firm 
to  thin.  Foot  flares  outward  at  bottom.  Bottom  of  base  is  flat,  with  no  central 
point.  Pattern  on  floor  of  central  circle  and  two  pairs  of  larger  concentric  circles  with 
four  stamps,  alternating  pairs,  in  the  open  area  between  the  small  and  larger  circles. 
Stacking  ring.  Fragment  gives  base  and  part  of  wall.  This  form  probably  had  a 
flattened  rim  and  two  grooves  on  exterior  just  below  rim.  Cf.  C  20,  Other  bases 
which  may  have  come  from  bowls  of  this  form  are  described  under  D  6b. 
D.  of  foot,  0.06  m. 

See  infra  157  for  description  of  this  form  in  Type  II. 

26bII  PI.  XVIII.  PI.  XL.  Clay  hard  grey.  Glaze  dull  blue.  Glaze  covers  entire 
surface.  Foot  flares  outward.  It  has  distinct  offset  on  interior.  On  floor  pattern 
central  circle  and  two  pairs  of  larger  concentric  circles.  Four  similar  stamps  cluster 
around  smallest  circle.  Unique.  Texture  of  clay  and  color  of  clay  and  glaze  are 
probably  due  to  overfiring. 
D.  of  foot,  0.05  m. 

Cf.  clay  and  glaze  of  E  19b  1 1. 


132  DORIS  M.  TAYLOR 

ate      Type  III. 

2tel     PI.    XL.      Clay   grey,    soft  to    hard.      Glaze    dull    black.       High    foot    which    is 
rounded  on  exterior.     On  floor  pattern  of  two  small  and  two  large  concentric  circles. 
D.  of  foot.  0.05-0.06  m.     Fragments  of  five. 

2teII   Similar  in  fabric  and  form  to   D  26c  I.     Clay  medium  in  texture.     Glaze   of   poor 
quality.     Floor  undecorated. 
D.  of  foot,  0.05  m. 

2teIII      PI.    XL.      Clay    soft   grey.       Glaze    dull    thin  black.      Low    outturned    foot. 
Concentric  circles  on  floor. 
D.  of  foot,  o.io  m. 

2telV     PI.  XL.    Clay  soft  pink-grey  with  sand  and  impurities.     Low  broad  foot   which 
'    turns   outward   slightly.     On  floor  rows  of  rouletting. 
D.  of  foot,  0.12  m. 

26cV    PI.    XL.      Clay    grey,    hard  and  granular.    Glaze  blue-black  over    entire  surface. 
Small  irregular  foot  which  turns  outward.     Stacking  ring. 
D.  of  foot,  0.05  m. 

2teVI  PI.  XL.  Clay  grey,  finer  and  softer  than  D  26c V.  Glaze  thin  dull  black 
over  entire  surface.  High  thin  raised  foot,  curved  exterior,  oblique  interior.  Stacking 
ring. 

D.  of  foot,  0.05  m. 

26d      Clay  hard  buff'.     Glaze  firm  black  over  entire  surface.     Low  outturned  foot  with  oblique 
interior.     Groove   incised   around   central    turning  point.  Unique. 
D.  of  foot,  0.05  m. 

26e      Clay  hard  grey.      Glaze  black  thinning  to  grey.      Broad  raised  foot  with  vertical  exte- 
rior, oblique  interior  and  central  turning  point.     Wall  at  sharp  angle  to  floor.     Unique. 
D.  of  foot,  0.06  m. 

26f       Clay  soft  orange  which  flakes  easily.     Metallic  black  glaze  on  entire  exterior  surface. 
Broad   floor.     Low   outturned   foot.     Interior  of  foot  is    continuous  oblique   line  to  central 
depression.     Unique.     Fragment  is  probably  the  base  of  a  pitcher.     A  small    ribbon-band 
handle  with  ribs  on  upper  surface  must  go  with  this  base. 
D.  of  foot,  0.05  m. 

2ig      Clay  orange-buff,  hard.      Glaze  firm  blue-black.     Shallow  bowl.      Full  form  not  clear. 
Broad  foot,  vertical  exterior,  oblic}ue  interior  and  very  narrow  resting  surface.     Fabric  similar 
to  Type  n  but  form  of  foot  is  unique. 
D.  of  foot  0.10  m. 

26h      Clay  buff'.     Glaze  blue-black  with  high  sheen.     Fabric  similar  to  Type  H.     Form  is  not 
clear.     It  seems  to  be  part  of  the  base  of  a  large  closed  vessel  which  was  glazed  on  exterior 
and  interior.     Foot  is  low  and  broad,  with  broad  resting  surface.     Fragment  is  badly  chipped. 
Neither  full  dimensions  nor  profile  can  be  determined. 
Approximate  dimensions,  0.07  X  0.07  m. 

26i        PI.   XL.    Clay   orange-buff",  coarse.      Glaze    black    thinned  to    orange,   on   exterior  and 
interior.     High  outturned  foot.    Crude  workmanship. 
D.  of  foot,  0.05  m. 

26J  Type  IV.  Clay  buff,  coarse.  Glaze  black  thinning  to  red.  Foot  has  curved  exterior, 
oblique  interior,  central  turning  point.  Several  workshops  may  be  represented  but  the 
differences  in  clay,  glaze  and  workmanship  are  not  great  enough  to  show  subdivisions  of 
the  type. 

D.  of  foot,  0.03-0.07  m.     Fragments  of  thirty. 


COSA:  BLACK-GLAZE  POTTERY  133 

D  27     Base  (?)     PL  XL. 

Clay  coarse  pink-orange.    Glaze  metallic  black.     Fabric  similar  to  Type  I.     Form  not 
clear.     Low  false  ring  foot.     On  floor  stamped  pattern  of  large  rosette. 
D.  of  base,  0.03  m. 

D  28     Stand. 

28a       PI.  XL.     Type  IV  (.')    Clay  pink-buflf,  granular.     Glaze  black,   slightly  metallic. 
D.  of  base,  o.io  m. 

See  infra  174  for  description   of  form   in  Type  IV. 

28b       PI.  XL.    Clay  hard  grey  with  rough  ridges  on  surface.     Glaze  firm  grey. 
D.  of  base,  0.09  m. 

D  29     Form  with  spout. 

29a      Type  III.     Clay  hard  grey,  granular.      Glaze  dull  black.      Similar  in   texture  of  clay 
and  in  glaze  to  D  i6bl    and   D  30.     Tapering  spout. 
L.  0.05  m. 

See  infra  164  for  discussion  of  form  in  Type  III. 

29b      Clay  grey-buff',  fine  and  very  hard.      Glaze  firm  black  on  interior.      Tapering.     Take-off' 
of  ribbon  handle  at  base  of  spout.     Probably  part  of  a  guttus. 
L.  0.05  m. 

Similar  fabric:  D  le  and  8e. 

See  infra  188  for  description  of  forms  in   this   fabric. 

D  30     Lid.     PI.  XL. 

Type  III.     Clay  hard  grey.     Glaze  firm  dull  black.     Similar  in  texture  of  clay  and  in 
glaze    to   D  i6bl    and    D  29. 
Dimensions:  0.08   X   0.04  m. 

Similar  fabric  and  form:  B  52b  and  E  21b. 

See  infra  172  for  description   of    this    form    in   Type  III. 


Deposit  E:  Introduction 

In  the  spring  of  1949,  some  time  before  the  excavation  season  began,  a  cut 
for  earth  for  road  grading  was  made  in  the  slope  outside  the  curtain  between 
Towers  8  and  9  of  the  city  wall.  By  chance  the  ctit  hit  a  pocket  in  bedrock 
which  had  been  filled  in  antiquity  with  a  pottery  dump.  The  dump  was  par- 
tially disturbed  and  quantities  of  pottery  were  scattered  over  the  area  in  front 
of  the  cut  and  along  the  road  nearby  before  the  excavation  season  began. 

The  dump  had  originally  covered  a  strip  about  thirteen  meters  in  length 
parallel  to  Curtain  8/9.  It  seems  to  have  accumulated  from  pottery  which 
rolled  or  scattered  when  it  was  thrown  from  the  city  wall  and  fell  into  crevices 
and  gullies    in    the   bedrock.    The   cut   which    the  road  builders   made  showed 


,34  DORIS  M.  TAYLOR 

that,  in  general,  amphorae  and  other  heavy  vessels  had  been  thrown  or  rolled 
toward  one  side,  the  lighter  cooking  and  domestic  vessels  had  fallen  into  the 
center,  and  the  thinner  vessels  had  fallen  on  the  other  side,  into  a  large  pocket 
in  the  bedrock  very  near  the  wall  (1.38  m.  from  it).  This  last  section,  the  deepest 
(ca.  2.50  m.)  was  stratified  in  five  levels  but  excavation  of  it  revealed  that  the 
dump  was  the  result  of  a  single  cleanup  or  the  accumulation  of  a  short  period. 
All  types  of  wares  appeared  in  all  levels  and  several  joining  fragments  came  from 
different  levels.  Level  III,  a  stratum  (ca.  1.06  m.  in  depth)  of  small  stones 
and  large  lumps  of  hard  white  lime  mortar,  and  possibly  Level  IV,  an  irre- 
gular packed  deposit  of  small  rocks  and  soft  grey  earth,  were  construction 
waste.  The  pottery  was  thrown  on  top  of  this  debris  and  filtered  down.  In 
other  parts  of  the  dump  these  strata  sloped  sharply  downward  from  the  city 
wall  and  were  not  always  clear  on  account  of  the  irregularities  of  the  bedrock 
and  great  boulders.  The  black-glaze  pottery  of  the  entire  dump  comprises 
Deposit  E. 

The  external  evidence  of  Deposit  E  indicates  a  terminus  post  quern  late  in 
the  second  century.  The  single  legible  coin,  (CB  1706)  found  0.15  m.  below 
the  surface,  was  a  quinarius  of  M.  Porcius  Cato,  dated  "  c.  93-91  B.C.  "  '  The 
four  Rhodian  stamped  amphorae  handles  found  in  the  dump  have  been  as- 
signed to  the  second  century,  more  precisely:  (i)  probably  second  quarter  (CC  167 1), 
{2)  second  half  (CC  1672)  (3)  third  quarter  (CB  1759),  and  (4)  probably  last 
quarter  (CB  uncatalogued).  A  Latin  amphora  stamp  represented  by  two  exam- 
ples fCB  1709,  CB  1 7 12)  has  been  dated  late  second  century,  at  the  earliest.' 
The  terminus  ante  quern  from  Deposit  E  must  come  from  the  pottery  itself.  All 
the  pottery  of  the  dump  is  in  bad  condition.  The  black-glaze  pieces  are  of 
poor  quality,  poorer  than  the  pottery  of  any  other  deposit.  The  dump  has 
many  fabrics  and  forms  in  common  with  Deposit  D.  It  has  a  greater  propor- 
tion of  red-glaze  wares  and  thin-walled  cups  and  bowls  than  Deposit  D.  The 
red-glaze  wares  include  two  rim  forms,  a  large  plate  with  downturned  rim,  a 
plate  with  upturned  rim  and  two  bases  which  have  been  identified  as  "  Hellen- 
istic-Pergamene,  " '  a  few  pieces  of  Arretine,  and  unidentified  fabrics.  The 
poor  quality  of  the  black-glaze  pottery  and  the  greater  proportion  of  the  red- 
glaze  wares  and  fine  wares  indicate  that  the  terminus  ante  quern  of  Deposit  E 
must  be  later  than  that  of  Deposit  D.  Since  it  has  so  many  fabrics  and  forms 
in  common  with  Deposit  D,  it  can  not  be  much  later.  A  comparison  of  the 
lamp  fragments  of  Deposits  D  and  E  parallels  that  of  the  pottery.  The  two 
have  many  types  in  common.  The  difference  in  the  two  deposits  is  in  the  rela- 
tively greater  frequency  of  wheel-made  types  in  Deposit  D  and  the  better 
quality  of  its  black-glaze  lamps.    The  presence  of  Arretine  ware  in  Deposit  E 

'  CRR  no.  S97C. 

•  I  am  grateful  to  Mrs.  Frederic  Will,  who  is  preparing  a  study  of  Roman  amphorae,  for 
this  information.  Her  dating  is  based  on  amphorae  of  the  same  form  which  have  been  found 
in  the  Athenian  Agora  in  dated  contexts. 

3  This  identification  was  made  by  Professor  Henry  S.  Robinson. 


COSA:  BLACK-GLAZE  POTTERY  135 

indicates  that  it  closed  very  near  to  30  B.C.,  perhaps  ten  years  earher.  Deposit 
E  represents  the  last  period  of  black-glaze  production.  An  interval  from  iio- 
100  B.C.  to  40-30  B.C.  for  the  deposit  E  seems  to  be  consistent  with  the  external 
and  internal  evidence.  This  period  would  account  for  the  similarities  and  dif- 
ferences between  Deposits  D  and  E  and  the  presence  of  Arretine  fragments 
in  the  latter. 


Deposit  E:  Catalogue 

E  I     Plate  with  horizontal  offset  rim. 

la  PI.  XLL  Type  I.  Clay  pink-buff  to  red-brown.  Glaze  metallic  black  thinning  to 
brown.  Glaze  usually  covers  entire  surface.  Examples  with  best  glazes  turn  upward  sharply 
at  rim.  In  Deposit  E  bases  of  this  form  are  indistinguishable  from  those  of  plate  with 
upturned  rim  0.16-026. 

D.     of  rim,  0.16-0.26  m.     Fragments  of  eight. 

Similar  fabric  and  form:  D  la. 

See  infra  144  for  description  of  form  in  Type  I. 

lb  PI.  XLI.  Type  H.  Clay  buff  to  pink-buff.  Glaze  black  and  blue-black,  firm  to  thin. 
Rim  turns  upward  near  lip.  Foot  turns  outward  on  exterior,  rises  obliquely  on  interior. 
It  is  level  or  raised,  more  frequently  the  latter.  Pattern  on  floor  of  small  depressed  circle 
in  center  and  two  large  concentric  circles  above  foot. 

D.  of  rim,  0.20-0.22  m.     D.   of  foot,   0.06  m. 

Fragments  of  approximately  eighteen. 

Similar  fabric  and  form:  A  6,  B  26,  D  ib. 

See  infra  154  for  description  of  form  in  Type  II. 

ic  Type  III.  Clay  hard  grey.  Glaze  thin  black  which  peels  easily.  On  floor  concentric 
circles  and  rouletting. 

Dimensions  of  larger  fragment,  0.07    X  0.06  m. 

Cf.  fabric  and  form  of  C  la  and  D  ic. 

See  infra  166  for  description  of  form  in  Type  III. 

id  PI.  XLI.  Clay  buff,  hard  and  coarse.  Glaze  thin  red-brown.  Edge  of  rim  turns  up 
sharply. 

D.  of  rim,  0.22  m.     Two  joining  pieces  of  rim  and  body. 

le         PI.  XLI.     Type  IV.     Clay  hard  pink-buff.     Glaze  thin  black  which  peels  easily. 

H.  0.05  m.     D.   of  rim,   0.19  m.     D.  of  foot,  0.06-0.07  n^-    Six  joining  pieces  of  one 
example  give  full  profile.     Fragments  of  five  other  examples. 

Similar  fabric  and  form:  C  ib,  D  id. 

See  infra  174  for  description  of  form  in  Type  IV. 

Bibliography  for  form  E  i:  A  6. 

E  2     Small  plate  on  a  high  foot. 

2a         PI.   XLI.     Type  II.     Clay  buff.     Glaze   thin  black. 

D.  of  rim,   0.12   m.     D.   of  foot,   0.05  m.     Fragments  of  three:   rims  of  two  and  foot 
of  a  third. 

Similar  fabric  and  form:   D   2a. 

See  infra  155  for  description   of  form   in  Type  II. 


136  DORIS  M.  TAYLOR 

2b        PI.  XLI.    Clay  hard  buff.    Glaze  green-black,  metallic  and  hard.    Termination  of  rim 
is  almost   vertical. 

D.  of  rim,  0.12  m.     Fragment  of  rim  of  one  example. 

Similar  fabric:  D  6i   and  17c,   E  14c  and  17c. 

See  infra  188  for  description  of  forms  in   this  fabric. 

ac        PI.  XLI.    Clay    coarse    buff.    Glaze    thin   black.     Foot  is  straight  or  angular.    Crude 
pattern   of  concentric   circles  on  floor. 

D.  of  foot,  0.04-0.05  m.     Fragments  of  five  feet  and  floors. 

Bibliography  for  form  E  2:  D  2. 

E  3     Plate  with  horizontal  recurving  rim.     PI.  XLL 

Type  IV.    Clay  hard  buff  with  rough  surface.    Glaze  hard  metallic  black.     Firm  glaze 
.suggests    that    this   is   one  of  the  oldest  pieces  in  this  deposit. 

D.  of  rim,  0.18  m.  « 

Similar  fabric  and  form:   B  25,  D  3b. 

See  infra  176  for   description   of  form   in  Type  IV. 

Bibliography  for  form:  B  6. 

E  4     Small  plate  with   re-entrant  rim.     PI.  XLL 

Clay  soft  buff.     Glaze   thin  dull  black.     Stamp  on  floor  must  have  been  one  of  seve- 
ral around  center. 

D.  of  rim,  0.09  m. 

Similar  form:  B  34,  C  3  and  24,  D  sail. 

Bibliography  for  form:  B  34. 

E  5     Plate  with  upturned  rim. 

5a        PI.  XLI.    Type  I.    Clay  pink-buff  to  red-brown.     Glaze  metallic  black  to  red-brown, 
covers   entire   surface.     Shallow   rim.     Thick   oblique   floor.     Low  broad   foot   with  vertical 
exterior   and    slightly   oblique   interior.     Foot  is  level   or   raised.     Stacking   ring.     Floor  is 
undecorated  except  for  t\yo  large  concentric  circles  on  a  few  examples. 
D.  of  rim,  0.16-0.26  m.     D.   of  foot,   0.05-0.07  m.     Fragments  of  ten. 

Similar  fabric  and  form:  B  8  and  24b;  C  4a  and  25;  D  sal. 

See  infra  145  for   description   of  form   in  Type  I. 

Sb        Type  II. 

Sbl       PI.  XIX.   Clay  buff  to  pink-buff,  hard.      Glaze  black  and  blue-black,  firm  to  thin. 
Examples  with  best  glazes  have   thickened  rims.     Oblique  wall.     Foot  turns   outward 
on  exterior,  is  oblique  on  interior.     Only  one  of  approximately  twenty  examples  bears 
a  stamp;  all  others  have  simple  rouletting  and  concentric  circles  or  no  decoration. 
D.  of  rim,  0.18-0.32  m.     D.  of  foot,  0.06-0.12  m. 

Similar  stamp  arrangement:  Rome  125  fig.  140c,  from  Rome. 

Sbll    PI.  XLI.    Clay    hard    buff.     Glaze    black,    firm    to    thin.     Large  plate  with    ver- 
tical rim. 

D.  of  rim,  0.36-0.38  m.     Fragments  of  five  rims. 

Fabric  and  form  similar  to  E  5b:  A  7,  B  23a  (or  copy),  C  4b     and  25,  D  sb  and  6b. 
E  sbl  and  II. 

See  infra  156  for  description  of  form    E   sb   in  Type  II. 


^ 


COSA:  BLACK-GLAZE  POTTERY  137 

5c        Type  III. 

5c I       PI.    XLI.    Clay  hard  grey.      Glaze  firm  black.     Form  of  foot  not  identified      On 
floor  pattern  of  circles  and  rouletting. 

D.  of  rim,  0.22-0.26  m.     Fragments  of  five. 

sell     PI.  XLI.     Clay  hard  grey.     Glaze  thin  black.     Vertical  rim. 
D.  of  rim,  0.26  m.     Fragment  of  one. 

Fabric   and   form    similar    to    E  5c:  B  23b,  D  5cl,   II  and  III. 
See  infra  167  for  description  of  form  E  5c  in  Type  III. 

5<i        Type  IV. 

5dl       Clay   buff.     Glaze    thin  black.     Imitation   of  small    plate  of  Type  II. 
D.  of  rim,  0.14-0. 18  m.     Fragments  of  sixteen. 

Sdll    Clay   buff.      Glaze    thin   dull    black.     Vertical    rim.      Imitation    of   large   plate  of 
Type  II. 

D.  of  rim,  0.18-0.32  m.     Fragments  of  eight. 

See  infra  175  for  description  of  forms  of  Type  IV. 

Bibliography  for  form  E  5:  A  7. 


E  6     Base  of  plate. 

6a         Type  III. 

6al      PI.   XLI.     Clay   soft  grey.      Glaze   dull   black.     Low   foot   with  groove   in  resting 
surface.     On  floor  concentric  circles. 
D.  of  foot,  0.13  m. 

6aII.  PI.  XLI.  Clay  grey,  harder  than  E  6al.  Glaze  dull  black.  High  raised  foot 
with  rounded  exterior,  oblique  interior.  On  floor  pattern  of  rouletting  with  deep  star 
stamp  within  it. 

D.  of  foot,  o.  10  m. 

6b         PI.   XIX.     PI.  XLI.    Clay    pale    buff,    soft.     Glaze    thin   green-black,  metallic.     Glaze 
covers    entire    surface.     Stacking  ring.     Low    foot  with    oblique    sides    and  central  turning 
point.     On  floor  pattern  of   three   crude  pabnette  stamps.     Unique. 
D.  of  foot,  0.05  m. 

Cf.  stamp:  F.  Mouret,  CVA   France  fasc.  6  pi.   24  no.    3,  pi.  29  no.   10,  pi.  30  no.   19, 
all  from  Enserune. 

6c         PI.  XLI.    Clay  orange,   coarse   and   unevenly  fired.     Glaze  thin  black,  mottled  red  on 
exterior.     High  offset  foot  with  concave  exterior,  convex  interior.     Stacking  ring.     On  floor 
rings  and  rouletting  and  four  identical  stamps  in  free  central  area.     Unique. 
D.  of  foot,  0.07  m. 

6d        Type  IV. 

6dl       Clay  buff.      Glaze   thin  blue-black.      Each  example  has  outturned  foot  typical  of 
Type  II.     Floor  of  larger  example  has  central  circle  and  two  larger  circles  with  rou- 
letting between  them.     Floor  of  smaller  one  has  only  circles. 
D.  of  foot,  0.06-0.09  m. 

6dII  PI.  XLI.  Clay  pink-buff  to  orange-buff.  Glaze  thin  black  mottled  red  near 
foot.  Foot  is  level  or  slightly  raised,  with  rounded  exterior  and  oblique  interior.  Stack- 
ing ring. 

D.  of  foot,  0.06  m.     Fragments  of  seven. 

18 


138  DORIS  M.  TAYLOR 

E  7    Saucer  with  furrowed  rim. 

7a        PI.  XLII.    Type  IV.    Clay  orange-buff.    Glaze  firm  black. 
D.  of  rim,  0.18  m.     Fragment  of  one. 

Similar  fabric  and  form:  B  11  and  35,  C  6  and  27,  D  7. 

See  infra  177  for  description  of  form  in  Type  IV. 

7b        Clay  soft  grey.    Glaze  firm  blue-black.     Form  of  this  example  thinner  and  less  coarse 
than  Type  IV  one. 
D.  of  rim,  0.20  m. 

Bibliography  for  form  E  7:  B  11. 

E  8     Bowl  with  outturned  rim. 

8a        PI.  XLII.    Type  II.    Clay  buff.     Glaze  blue-black  and  black,  firm  to  thin.     Examples 
with  best  glazes  have  flattened  rims. 

D.  of  rim,  o.i6-o.i8  m.     Fragments  of  five  rims. 

Similar    fabric    and    form:    A  14  and  15,  C  20,  D  8b;    bases  D  26b I  and  II,   E  19b I 
and  II. 

See  infra   157  for  description  of  form  in  Type  II. 

8b         Type  III. 

8bl      PI.   XLII.    Clay  very    soft    grey    with    many  impurities.      Glaze    thin  red-brown. 
Encircling  groove  on  upper  surface  of  rim. 
D.  of  rim,  0.14  m. 

Cf.  fabric   and   form   of  B  36b,   C  7a  and  28a,  D  8c. 

8bII    PI.    XLII.      Clay  grey,   harder   and  finer   than    E  8bl.      Glaze  black   with  sheen. 
Ridge  on  top  of  rim  has  been  cut  at  intervals  by  a  sharp  instrument.    Unique. 
D.  of  rim,  0.30  m. 

SblllClay  medium  grey.    Glaze  black   thinned   to  red-brown.     Rounded  rim. 
D.  of  rim,   0.16  m.     Fragments  of  four. 

See  infra   168  for  description  of  form  E  8bl  and  III  in  Type  III. 

8c        PI.  XLII.    Clay  soft  buff,  granular.     Glaze  firm  blue-black.     Shallow  bowl  with  over- 
hanging rim.     Crude  ovolo  pattern  in  relief  on  upper  side  of  rim. 
D.  of  rim,  0.24  (?)  m.     Two  joining  fragments. 

Cf.  similar  rim  pattern:   D  id  1 1. 
Bibliography  for  form:  D  idll. 

8d         PI.  XLII.     Type  IV.    Clay   orange-buff  to   buff.     Glaze  thin   black.     Pieces  with  best 
glazes  have  flattened  rims;  those  with  poorer  glazes  roll  outward. 
D.  of  rim,  0.18  m.     Fragments  of  twenty- two. 

Similar  fabric  and  form:  B   37d,  C  7b,   18  and  28b,   D  Sdlll. 

See  infra  179  for  description  of  form  in  Type  IV. 

Bibliography  for  form   E  8:  A  14. 

E  9     Rimless  bowl  with  curved  wall. 

9a        Type  I. 

9al       PI.   XLII.     Clay  coarse  red  to  red-brown.     Glaze  black,  thin  and  metallic.     Deep 
bowl.     Low    foot    with    almost    vertical    sides.     One  or  two    encircling    bands  of  thin 


COSA:  BLACK-GLAZE  POTTERY  139 

white  paint  on  interior  just  below  lip.     On  floor  two  large  concentric  circles  in  same 
white  paint. 

D.  of  rim,  0.14-0. 16  m.     D.  of  foot,  0.16  m.     Fragments  of  seven. 

Similar  fabric,  form,  and  decoration:  B  37b,  C  29a,  D  133!. 

See  infra  151  for  description  of  form  in  Type  I. 

9aII  PI.  XX.  PI.  XLII.  PI.  XLIV.  Clay  coarse  red,  harder  and  more  granular 
than  E  9a I.  Glaze  thin  metallic  black.  Thick  wall.  Graffito  on  bottom  of  one 
example. 

D.  of  rim,  0.14-0. 18  m.     D.  of  foot,  0.05  m.     Fragments  of  four. 

Similar  fabric  and  form:  B  37c,  and  39,  C  8  and  29a,  D  9a,  and  i3all. 

See  infra   150  for  description  of  form  in  Type  I. 

9b         PI.   XLII.     Type  II.    Clay  buff.     Glaze  firm  black. 
D.  of  rim,  0.16-0. 18  m.     Fragments  of  three. 

Similar  fabric  and  form:  D  9c. 

See  itfra  159  for  description  of  form  in  Type  II. 

9C         PI.  XLII.  Type  III. 

Clay  soft  grey.     Glaze  dull  black.      Low  foot  with  groove  in  resting  surface.      On 
floor  pattern  of  pairs  of  concentric  circles. 

H.  0.03  m.     D    of  rim,  0.13  m.     D.  of  foot,  0.06  m.     Fragments  of  three. 

Similar  fabric  and  form:  B  40. 

See  infra   169  for  description  of  form  in  Type  III. 

9d        Clay  buff,  hard  and  soft.     Glaze  thin  black.     Similar  in  form  to  E  9b. 
D.  of  rim,  0.13-0.16  m.     Fragments  of  six. 

Bibliography  for  form  E  9:  A  18. 

E  10     Small  bowl  with  broad  ribbon-band  rim. 

Type  IV.    Clay  buff.     Glaze  thin  metallic  black  which  peels  easily.     Groove  at  bottom 
of  rim. 

D.  of  rim,  0.07  m. 

Similar  fabric   and   form:   A  29  and  30  (.'),  B  13  and  43a,  C  9a,  D  11. 

See  infra   184  for  description  of  form  in  Type  IV. 
Bibliography  for  form:  A  28. 

E  II     Rimless  bowl  with  angular  wall.     PI.  XLII. 

Type  IV.    Clay  orange-grey.     Glaze  thin  grey-black.     Fragment  has  been  subjected  to 
fire  after  it  was  broken. 
D.  of  rim,  0.17  m. 

Similar  fabric  and  form:  A  18,  B  38,  C  loa  and  b,  19a  and  29b. 

See  infra   180  for  description  of  form  in  Type  IV. 
Bibliography  for  form:  A  18, 

E  12     Deep  bowl  (?).     PI.  XLII. 

Clay  soft  buff.     Glaze  firm  blue-black  on  exterior  and  on  interior  of  neck.     Thick  rim 
is  flattened  on  top.   Full  form  unknown. 
D.  of  rim,  o.io  m. 


140  DORIS  M.  TAYLOR 

E  13     Bowl  with  thickened  lip.     PI.  XLII. 

Type  IV.    Clay  buff.  Glaze   thin  red-brown. 
D.  of  rim,  0.12  m. 

Cf.  fabric  and  form  of  A  r6,  D  sdl,   E  16. 

See  infra  185  for  description  of  form  in  Type  IV. 

E  14     Bowl  with  broad  foot  and  curved  wall. 

14a  PI.  XLII.  Type  II.  Clay  hard  buff.  Glaze  thin  black  over  entire  surface.  Two 
small  grooves  encircle  exterior  of  bowl  just  below  lip.  On  floor  pattern  of  two  large  con- 
centric circles. 

D.  of  rim,   0.16  m.     D.   of  foot,   0.12  m.     Fragments  of  two. 

Similar  fabric   and   form:   B  41a,  D  i6a. 

See  infra   159  for  description  of  form  in  Type  II. 

14b  PI.  XLII.  Type  III.  Clay  soft  grey.  Glaze  dull  black  on  interior  and  top  of 
exterior.  On  floor  pattern  of  three  concentric  circles,  small  one  in  center  and  two  large 
ones. 

D.  of  base,  0.12  m. 

Cf.  fabric  and  form   of  D  i6b.  , 

See  infra  171  for  description  of  form  in  Type  III.  .   <■ 

14c  Clay  hard  buff.  Glaze  green-black,  metallic.  Grooves  on  exterior  just  below  rim. 
Pattern  of  concentric  circles  on  floor.     Form  similar  to  that  of  Type  II.     Fragments  of  two. 

Cf.  fabric  of  D  6i  and  17c,   E  2b  and  17c. 

See  infra  188  for  description  of  forms  in  this  fabric. 

i4d  Type  IV.  Clay  buff,  soft  to  hard.  Glaze  thin  dull  black.  One  or  two  grooves  on 
exterior  just  below  rim.  Crude  circle  pattern  on  floor.  Form  an  imitation  of  that  of 
Type  II.     Fragments  of  approximately  twenty-five. 

Similar  fabric  and  form:  D  i6c. 

Bibliography  for  form   E  14:  B  41. 

E  15     Cup  with  broad  floor  and  flaring  wall.  ' 

15a       PI.   XLII.    Type  III.    Clay  soft  grey.     Glaze   thin  black. 
D.  of  rim,  0.14-0.16  m.     Fragments  of  two. 

Cf.  fabric  and  form  of  D  17b. 

See  infra  171  for  description  of  form  in  Type  III. 

15b  Clay  coarse  buff.  Glaze  thin  black,  sometimes  metallic.  Form  similar  to  that  of 
Type  II.     Fragments  of  five. 

Bibliography  for  form  E  15:  D  17. 

E  16     Bowl  with  thickened  lip.     PI.  XLII. 

Type  IV.    Clay  orange-buff,  soft.   Glaze  thin  black  mottled  red.     Full  form  not  known. 
D.  of  rim,  0.18  m. 

Cf.  fabric  and  form  of  A  16,  D  5dl,   E  13. 

See  infra  185  for  description  of  form. 


COSA:  BLACK-GLAZE  POTTERY 


141 


E  17     Pyxis.  '  .   .  •      . 

17a  PI.  XLII.  Type  II.  Clay  hard  buff.  Glaze  black,  firm  to  thin.  Lips  and  feet  of 
examples  with  better  glazes  curve  outward  more.  Groove  separates  interior  of  foot  from 
the  base.     It  has  almost  disappeared  on  two  examples. 

H.  0.04-0.06  m.     D.  of  rim,  0.07-0.08  m.     D.  of  foot,  o.io-o.ii  m.     Fragments  of  nine. 

Similar  fabric  and  form:  C  11  and  34,  D  19a. 

See  infra  161  for  description  of  form  in  Type  II. 

17b       Type  IV. 

17b I     PI.  XLII.     Clay  soft  buff.     Glaze  thin  black  mottled  red. 
D.  of  foot,  0.08  m. 

Similar  in  fabric  to  E  13  and  E  16. 

17b  1 1  Clay  buff,    soft  and  coarse.     Glaze  thin  dull  black.      Form    similar    to    that  of 
Type  II.     Smallest   fragment   has   full    dimensions  thus: 

H.  0.03  m.    D.  of  rim,  0.05  m.    D.  of  foot,  0.06  m.    Fragments  of  three,  perhaps  four. 

See  infra   186  for  description  of  form   E  17  in  Type  IV. 

17c  Clay  buff,  hard  and  coarse.  Glaze  green-black,  unevenly  fired.  Form  similar  to  that 
of  Type  II.  . 

H.  0.06  m.     D.   of  rim.   0.08  m.     D.   of  foot,  0.08  m. 

Similar  fabric:   D  6i  and   17c,   E  2b  and  14c. 

See  infra  188  for  description   of  forms   in    this   fabric. 

Bibliography  for  form  E  17:  C  n. 

E  18     Jug  (or  pitcher). 

i8a      Type  II.    Clay  buff.   Glaze  black.    Glaze  on  exterior  and  interior.     Full  form  not  known. 
Dimensions:  0.05   X   0.055  i"-      Fragment  of  neck  and  shoulder  with  handle   take-off. 

i8b       PI.   XLII.     Clay  hard  pink-buff.     Band  of  metallic  black  glaze  covers  rim  and   band 
(0.025  m.  in  width)  below  rim  on  exterior.     Outturned  rim.     Full  form  not  known. 
D.  of  rim,  o.og  m. 

Three  fragments,    two   joining,   give   profile  of  rim,   part   of  body  and   handle. 
Cf.  forms  of  C  38  and  D  20. 

i8c      Clay  hard  orange.      Glaze  thin  black  on  exterior  and  on  interior  of  rim.      Rim  turns 
outward  and  upward.     Ribbed  ribbon-handle  takes  off  at  lip.     Imitation  of  Type  II  form. 
D.  of  rim,  0.07  m.     Two  joining  fragments  of  one  example  and  handle  of  second. 

i8d      PI.  XIX.     PI.  XLII.    Clay  soft  buff.     Decoration  on  edges  of  flattened  rim  in  bands 
of  thinned  black  glaze  and  on  upper  surface  of  handle  in  horizontal  and  criss-crossing  bands. 
Handle,   elliptical   in  cross   section,    takes   off  below  rim.     Full  form  not  known.     Unique. 
D.  of  rim,  0.09  m.     Fragment   of  rim   and   handle. 


E  19     Base  of  bowl. 

19a       PI.   XLII.     Type   I.      Clay  orange-red.      Thin  metallic  glaze  on  exterior.     Low  broad 
foot  with  vertical  exterior,  oblique  interior,  and  narrow  resting  surface.     Thick  wall. 
D.  of  foot,  0.06  m. 

19b       Type  II. 

i9bl  PI.  XIX.  PI.  XLII.  Clay  hard  buff.  Glaze  firm  blue-black  over  entire  surface. 
On  floor  pattern  of  small  central  circle,  incised,  surrounded  by  four  stamps  which,  in 
turn,  are  enclosed  in  two  pairs  of  concentric  circles  with  rouletting  between  them. 


,.^2  DORIS  M.  TAYLOR 

D.  of  foot,  0.06  m.     Fragments  of  two. 

Cf.  stamps    of    Ceramica    Campana  155  no.  9  (Museo  Arqueologico    Provincial    of 
Tarragona);  Rome  125  fig.  141b,   from   Rome. 

i9bll     PI.  XIX.    PI.  XLII.     Clay  hard  grey-buff  which  splinters   at  fractures.    Conspi- 
cuous  template  marks  on  exterior.     Blue  glaze  covers  entire  surface.     Stacking  ring. 
On  floor  pattern  of  central  circle,  incised,  surrounded  by  four  small  stamps  which,  in 
turn,  are  enclosed  in  two  pairs  of  large  concentric  circles. 
D.  of  foot,  0.05  m. 

Cf.  clay  and  glaze  of  D  26b  1 1. 

19c        PI.  XLIII.    Clay    hard    buff.     Rough    encircling    lines  on  surface.     Glaze  thin    black 
m'otded  red.     Foot  is  heavy,  usually  raised,   with  curved  exterior  and  oblique  interior. 
D.  of  foot,  0.05-0.07  m.     Six  examples. 

i9d       PI.  XLIII.      Clay   buff,    firm    and  hard.     Glaze  firm    black   over   entire  surface.     Low 
foot  with  oblique  sides.     Floor  depressed.     Foot  of  small  bowl.  < 

D.  of  foot.  0.03  m. 

Cf.  A  37,  bowl  with  depressed  floor. 

i9e       PI.  XLIII.    Clay  soft  buff.    Careless  workmanship.     Glaze  thin  black,  mottled  red  on 
exterior  and  interior.    Unique. 
D.  of  foot,  0.04  m. 

Cf.  F.  O.  Waage,  "  The  Roman  and  Byzantine  Pottery,  "  Hesperia  3  (1933)  shape  67  p.  8: 
"  Pergamene.  "     For  the  development  of  the  concave  cup  in  "Pergamene"  see  Antioch  I  ^2. 

i9f      PI.  XLIII.     Clay  orange-buff,  coarse.    Glaze  thin  black  mottled  red  on  entire  exterior. 
High  foot. 

D.  of  foot,  0.05  m. 

i9g      PI.  XLIII.     Clay   hard  orange-buff.     Rough   finish.     Glaze  dull  thin   black   on   upper 
part  of  body.    Small  base  with  conspicuous  central  point. 
D.  of  foot,  0.04  m. 

i9h      PI.  XLIII.      Clay  pink-buff.    Glaze  thin  black,  metallic.     Low  broad  foot.    Thin  wall 
and  floor. 

D.  of  foot,  0.05  m. 

E  20    Closed  form  with  handle. 

Type  III.     Clay  soft  grey.     Glaze  black.     Form  not  clear.     It  is  probably  an  askos. 
Dimensions:    0.055    X   o-05    ni-     Fragment    preserves    only  a  section    of  the  body  and 
take-off  of  handle. 

E  21     Lid. 

2ia      PI.  XLIII.    Type  II.    Clay   buff.    Glaze  black.     Full  form  not  known.    Unique. 
D.  of  rim,  0.16  m. 

See  infra  163  for  discussion  of  form. 

21b    Type  nil.    Clay  medium  grey.    Glaze  thin    dull  black.     Form    incomplete.     It   seems 
to  be  similar  to  that  of  lids  of  Type  III  in  other  deposits. 
Dimensions:  0.08   X  0.04  m. 

Cf.  fabric  and  form   of  B    S2b  and  D  30. 

See  infra  172  for  description  of  form  in  Type  III. 


COSA:  BLACK-GLAZE  POTTERY  143 

CONCLUSIONS 

Conclusions:  Fabrics  and  forms 

Type  I :  '  Introduction  to  forms. 

The  variations  in  the  clay  and  glaze  of  Type  I  have  been  stated  in  the 
Introduction.  The  clay  of  this  type  has  a  greater  range  of  color  than  that  of 
any  other  type,  yet  it  is  the  easiest  to  identify.  The  coarse  red  or  orange 
clay  and   the  metallic  black  glaze  distinguish  it  from  all  other  fabrics. 

The  forms  are  simple.  Plates  (or  saucers)  and  bowls  are  the  only  forms 
represented  in  the  five  deposits  of  pottery.  The  plates  have  several  shapes: 
upturned  rim,  horizontal  offset  rim,  horizontal  recurving  rim,  and  re-entrant 
rim.  The  bowls  have  incurved  or  outturned  rim  or  no  rims  at  all.''  There  are 
no  cups  or  forms  with  handles  in  the  fabric  of  Type  I  in  any  of  the  five  depo- 
sits.    The  shapes  are   the  ones  which  stacked  easily  for  transportation.  ' 

The  forms  are,  in  general,  heavier  than  the  corresponding  ones  of  other 
fabrics.  Walls  are  thick.  Stacking  rings  are  common.  Feet  are  lower  and 
straighter  in  profile  than  the  feet  of  other  types.  The  best  examples  of  the 
type  have  a  firm  black  glaze.  The  potter  sometimes  made  an  attempt  to  keep 
the  inside  of  the  foot  unglazed,  but  as  the  workmanship  becomes  more  care- 
less, a  thin  coat  of  glaze  is  applied  over  the  entire  surface,  as  if  the  plate  or 
bowl  had  been  dipped  hastily.  The  glaze  becomes  more  and  more  metallic. 
Within  the  simple  repertory  of  the  type  there  is  increasing  angularity,  less 
roundness. 

Most  of  the  forms  of  Type  I  are  undecorated.  On  the  open  forms  the 
most  common  device  of  decoration  is  two  large  concentric  circles,  approximately 
above  the  foot.  The  addition  of  a  small  circle  at  the  center  seems  an  imitation 
of  the  more  precise  decoration  on  the  floors  of  some  of  the  forms  of  Type  II. 
A  unique  stamped  base  of  Type  I  (D  6a)  must  be  an  early  product  of  the 
type  and  an  intrusion  into  Deposit  D.  Its  sides  are  more  rounded  than  those 
of  most  of  the  examples  of  this  type  and  its  floor  has  a  pattern  of  several  rows 
of  fine  rouletting,  a  sign  of  attentive  workmanship  rare  in  Cosa's  examples  of 
Type  I,  and  four  large  triangular  palmette  stamps.  Other  examples  with  the 
same  kind  of  stamp  have  been  found  in  a  context  dated  first  half  of  the  second 

'  Ceramica  Campana  Type  A. 

^  The  rim  and  body  forms  of  two  fragments  of  Type  I,  B  3a  and  D  27,  have  not  been 
identified.  The  quality  of  the  glaze  of  both  pieces  suggests  that  they  are  early  products  of  the 
type.     Each  piece  is  unique. 

3  This  stacking  is  illustrated  by  the  pottery  from  the  boat  found  in  the  sea  near  Albenga 
{Albenga)  and  from  the  recent  excavations  off  Marseilles  (F.  Benoit,  "  L'Arch^ologie  sous-marine  en 
Provence  "  RSLig  18  (1952)  237-307  and  L.  Casson,  "  Sea  Digging  "  Archaeology  6  (1953)  221-228). 


144 


DORIS  M    TAYLOR 


century  (Ampurias),  in  another  dated  between  the  middle  of  the  fourth  century 
and  the  first  decades  of  the  third  (Caivano  in  Campania).  The  bowls  of  Type  I 
show  greater  variety  in  decoration  than  the  plates.  A  few  of  the  bowls, 
probably  some  of  those  with  incurved  rim,  have  stamped  floors.  The  stamp 
may  be  a  central  one,  a  rosette  or  a  circle  of  dots,  or  a  scattered  design,  four 
ivy  leaves  within  a  circle  of  rouletting.  There  is  some  evidence  that  the 
central  stamp  is  the  earlier  design.  Another  group  of  bowls  of  Type  I  has 
encircling  bands  on  the  interior  of  the  wall  and  circles  on  the  floor  in  thin  white 
paint,  a  type  of  decoration  peculiar  to  Type  I.  It  has  a  long  life  for  it  appears 
in  Deposit  A  and  is  still  in  use  in  the  period  represented  by  Deposit  E. 

Examples  of  Type  I  are  found  in  all  five  deposits  of  pottery  but  they  are 
rare  in  Deposit  A  and  must  be  one  of  the  latest  fabrics  of  that  group.  The 
variations  in  fabric  and  workmanship  of  a  single  form  indicate  that  several 
workshops  (or  potters)  were  producing  the  pottery  of  Type  I.  The  period  of 
its  use  shows  a  change  in  popularity  of  forms  and  quality  of  workmanship. 
(See  the  description  of  individual  forms  of  Type  I  for  a  detailed  analysis  of 
this  change.)  The  type  shows  a  continuous  degeneration  in  quality  of  clay  and 
glaze  and  finish  of  form.  Apparently  the  demands  of  mass  production  made 
the  potter  more  careless  in  finishing  the  piece  and  applying  the  glaze. 


Type  I:  Plate  with  horizontal  offset  rim. 


D   la 

(D  la,  PI.  XXXIII;   E  la,  PI.   XLI) 


In  Deposit  D  this  form  has  a  rim  which  turns  upward  sharply  at  the  lip 
or  a  horizontal  one  similar  to  that  of  the  offset  rim  of  Type  II.  (See  infra  154.) 
It  has  a  low  broad  foot  with  almost  vertical  exterior  and  slightly  oblique  interior. 
The  base  is  level  or  raised.  The  floors  of  identifiable  examples  have  concentric 
circles  and  some  of  the  patterns  seem  to  be  poor  copies  of  a  decoration  common 
on  open  forms  of  Type  II.  (See  infra  153.)  The  rim  forms  of  Deposit  E  are 
similar  to  those  of  Deposit  D.  Examples  with  best  glaze  have  rims  which  turn 
upward  sharply  at  the  lip.  Since  Deposit  D,  which  has  a  greater  number  of 
examples  of  the  plate  of  this  form,  does  not  show  this  distinction,  the  pieces  in 
Deposit  E  with  sharper  rims  can  not  be  judged  earlier.  They  probably  represent 
a  more  careful  group  of  potters.     The  plate  with  horizontal  offset  rim  in  Type  I 


# 


COSA:  BLACK-GLAZE  POTTERY  145 

did  not  appear  at  Cosa  until  the  last  quarter  of  the  second  century  B.C.,  perhaps 
later.  It  was  probably  in  use  until  40-30  B.C.  It  is  always  less  common  in 
this  type  than   the  plate  with  upturned  rim.  '' 


Type  I:  Plate  with  upturned  rim. 


D   sal 

(B  8,  PI.   XXVI;  B  24b;  C  4a;  C  25;  D  53!,  PL   XXXIII;   E  sa,  PI.  XLI) 

Many  examples  of  this  form  were  found  in  Deposits  D  and  E.  The  full 
profile  can  be  reconstructed  from  the  fragments  in  these  two  groups. 

The  glaze  covers  the  entire  surface.  The  plate  has  a  rim  more  shallow  than 
the  corresponding  form  of  other  fabrics.  The  floor  is  thick  and  slightly  oblique. 
The  foot  is  low  and  broad,  with  vertical  exterior  and  slightly  oblique  interior; 
the  base  is  level  or  raised.  A  stacking  ring  is  common.  A  few  floors  of  examples 
of  this  form  in  Type  I  are  decorated  with  two  concentric  circles;  others  are 
undecorated.  The  evidence  of  these  four  deposits  of  pottery  indicates  that 
this  form  was  first  imported  to  Cosa  near  the  middle  of  the  second  century. 
It  was  an  extremely  popular  form  in  the  last  quarter  of  that  century  and  the 
first  sixty  or  seventy  years  of  the  first  century.  During  this  period  the  glaze 
becomes  progressively  coarser,  the  rim  shallower.  There  is  no  evidence  to  show 
whether  the  simple  decoration  on  some  examples,  concentric  circles  on  the  floor, 
represents  the  practice  of  a  period  or  a  casual  addition  made  by  individual 
potters.  ^ 

t  RSLig  20  (1954)  121  fig.  45,  from  Castiglioncello;  Ampurias  fig.  162  no.  2,  dated  second 
half  of  second  century  b.c;  Albenga  fig.  74,  from  the  sea  near  Genoa  (Pegli);  Ceramica  Campana 
168  form  6  Type  A  from  Entremont,  Saint-Remy,  and  Ventimiglia,  dated  second  century  and 
continuing  into  the  first;  Ventimiglia  fig.  47  no.  5,  from  strato  VI  B,  dated  (Nino  Lamboglia, 
"  La  ceramica  iberica  negli  strati  di  Albintimiiium  e  nel  territorio  ligure  e  tirrenico  "  RSLig  20 
(1954)  85-87)  between  180-170  and  100-90  b.c;  other  examples  from  Paestum  (Museo  Nazionale 
di  Paestum). 

5  RSLig  21  (1955)  274  and  277  fig.  5,  from  Vado  Ligure;  RSLig  20  (1954)  121  fig.  45,  from 
Castiglioncello;  Archaeology  6  (1953)  222  fig.  5,  from  the  excavations  in  the  sea  near  Marseilles; 
Albenga  fig.  25  no.  i;  Ceramica  Campana  167  form  5  Type  A,  from  Entremont,  Saint-Remy, 
Enserune,  Albenga,  Ventimiglia;  Ventimiglia  fig.  34  nos.  4-7,  from  strato  VI  B,  fig.  43  no.  3 
from  strato  VI  B,  fig.  47  nos.  3-4,  from  strato  VI  B,  fig.  55  no.  2,  from  strato  V.  Strato  VI  B 
has  been  dated  (see  j-«/ra,  note  4)  180-170 — 100-90  e.g.;  strato  VI  A,  100-90 — 30-20  B.C.;  strato  V, 
10  B.c.-A.  D.  10;  F.  Mouret,  CVA  France  fasc.  6  pi.  22  no.  42;  an  example  from  Malta  (museum 
inCitta  Vecchia  in  Malta),  in  the  Museo  Arqueologico  Nacional  in  Madrid  (case  19). 

J9 


,46  DORIS  M.  TAYLOR 

Type  I:  Plate  with  horizontal  recurving  rim. 


C   16 

(B  6,  PI.  XXVI;  C  2;  C  16,  PI.  XXX;  C  23a  and  b;  D  3a,  PI.  XXXIII) 

The  single  example  of  this  form  in  Deposit  B  was  found  in  the  fill  above 
the  colonnade  floor  and  beneath  the  basilica  floor,  an  indication  that  it  was 
imported  to  Cosa  after  ca.  167  B.C.  but  before  ca.  140  B.C.  The  examples  in 
Deposit  C  show  it  was  in  use  in  a  Cosan  household  or  shop  near  the  middle 
of  the  second  century.  The  quality  of  the  glaze  in  the  fragments  in  Deposit  D 
suggests  that  the  pieces  are  among  the  earliest  examples  of  the  fabric  in  the 
fill  dumped  into  the  trench.  It  is  not  surprising,  therefore,  that  these  plates 
do  not  appear  in  Deposit  E.  The  second  half  of  the  second  century  seems  to 
represent   the   period   of   their   popularity   at  Cosa. 

The  form  shows  some  development  during  this  period.  As  its  glaze  dege- 
nerated in  quality  the  floor  of  the  plate  became  shallower,  the  rim  less  curving 
and  the  offset  between  the  two  less  distinct.  Unfortunately  few  bases  can  be 
identified.  No  conclusions  can  be  drawn  concerning  developments  of  its  form 
or  the  presence  or  absence  of  decoration  on  the  floor.  The  identifiable  floors 
have  no  decoration.  The  plate  with  recurving  rim  is  almost  a  monopoly  of 
Type  I.' 

Type  I:  Plate  {or  saucer^  with  re-entrant  rim. 


V 


B  34  D   sail 

(B  34,   PI.   XXVIII;  C  3,   PI.   XXX;  C  24;  D  sail,  PI.   XXXIII) 

This  form  is  rare  at  Cosa.  In  the  pottery  of  the  five  Deposits  only  six 
examples  appear,   one  in  Deposit  B,   two  in  Deposit  C,   two  in  Deposit  D  and 

*  RSLig  21  (1955)  274  and  277  fig.  5,  from  Vado  Ligure;  Archaeology  6  (1953)  222  fig.  5, 
from  excavations  in  the  sea  near  Marseilles;  Ampurias  fig.  185  no.  2,  dated  at  the  end  of  the 
second  century,  fig.  224  no.   15,  dated  first  half  of  the  second  century,  fig.  244  no.  2,  same  date. 


COSA:  BLACK-GLAZE  POTTERY  147 

one  in  Deposit  E.  The  example  in  the  last  group  has  a  different  fabric.  The 
clay  of  the  other  five  fragrnents  is  red-brown  or  red,  the  glaze  a  firm  black. 
It  is  metallic  in  one  example  (C  24).  The  quality  of  the  glaze  indicates  that 
the  form  was  one  of  the  earliest  of  Type  I  imported  to  Cosa. 

The  rim  turns  inward  abruptly  at  the  lip.  The  wall  is  oblique.  The 
shape  of  the  foot  is  unidentified.  On  the  basis  of  so  few  fragments,  it  is  im- 
possible to  draw  conclusions  concerning  the  development  of  the  plate.  The 
rim  of  the  example  in  Deposit  B  is  rounded;  it  terminates  in  a  point  in  Depos- 
it D,  a  later  group  of  pottery. 

This  form  of  plate  (or  saucer)  in  Type  I  must  have  been  in  use  at  Cosa 
in  the  last  half  of  the  second  century.  It  apparently  did  not  prove  to  be 
popular,   either  for  later  importation  or  for  duplication   in  other  fabrics.  ' 


Type  I:  Bowl  with  outturned  rim. 
D  8a,  PI.   XXXV 


This  form  is  rare  at  Cosa.  Fragments  of  two  rims  were  found  in  Depos- 
it D.  The  base  is  unidentified.  The  clay  of  the  two  rim  fragments  is  orange- 
red,  the  glaze  metallic  black,  of  good  quality  for  Type  I.  The  rim  turns  out- 
ward slightly.  The  body  seems  to  be  angular  rather  than  curved.  The  quality 
of  the  glaze  suggests  that  these  fragments  are  among  the  early  examples  of 
Type  I  in  Deposit  D.  The  absence  of  the  bowl  in  Deposits  A,  B,  C,  and  E 
implies  that  it  did  not  come  to  Cosa  until  after  ca.  140  B.C.  and  that  it  was 
not   in   use   in    the   first   century.  ^ 


fig.  294  no.  4,  same  date,  fig.  295  no.  3,  dated  middle  of  second  century,  fig.  328  no.  8,  dated 
first  half  of  second  century,  fig.  352  no.  5  (identification  uncertain),  dated  second  century,  fig.  358 
no.  I  (identification  uncertain),  dated  first  half  of  second  century,  fig.  371  no.  2,  dated  beginning 
of  the  second  century;  Ceramica  Campana  183  form  36  Type  A,  from  Ventimiglia,  Enserune  and 
Ampurias,  assigned  to  third,  second,  and  first  centuries;  Ventimiglia  fig.  34  no.  i,  from  stratoVI  B, 
fig.  43  no.  I,  from  strato  VI  B,  fig.  47  no.  6,  from  strato  VI  B,  fig.  51  no.  2,  from  strato  VI  A. 
StratoVI  B  has  been  dated  (see  j«</;-a,  note  4)  180-170 — 100-90  b.c;  stratoVI  A,  100-90 — 30-20B.C. 
F.  Mouret,  CVA  France  fasc.  6  pi.  22,  nos.  40-41;  other  examples:  from  Volterra  (Museo  Archeo- 
logico  in  Florence),  from  Populonia  (same  museum,  sala  XXXI),  from  Paestum  (Museo  Nazionale 
di  Paestum),  in  Madrid  (Museo  Arqueologico  Nacional,  sala  II,  case  23,  no.  51). 

^  RSLig  20  (1954)  121  fig.  45,  example  from  Castiglioncello;  Ceramica  Campana  196  form  55 
Type  A,  the  single  example  cited  is  from  Minturnae.  This  deposit  from  which  Lamboglia  has  taken 
his  example  is  a  local  one.  The  Minturnae  black  glaze  pottery  I  have  seen  (in  the  University 
Museum,  Philadelphia)  does  not  have  the  fabric  of  Type  I  of  Cosa.  Ventimiglia  fig.  34  no.  17, 
fabric  of  Type  I,  in  strato  VI  B,  dated  (see  supra,  note  4)  180-170 — 100-90  B.C. 

8  Ceramica  Campana  177  form  28  Type  A,  examples  from  Enserune,  Ischia,  Minturnae  and 
Ventimiglia  cited.  The  fabric  of  the  Minturnae  deposit  (see  supra,  note  7)  is  local.  Ventimiglia 
fig.  34  no.  9,  fabric  of  Type  I,  in  strato  VI  B,  dated   (see  supra,  note  4)  180-170 — 100-90  B.C. 


148  DORIS  M.  TAYLOR 


Type  I:  Bowl  with  incurved  rim. 

The  bowl  with  incurved  rim  so  abundant  in  Deposit  A,  the  fill  of  the 
Capitolium,  was  probably  used  for  ritual  purposes.  It  is  not  common  in  the 
four  later  deposits.  The  basis  for  the  classification  "  bowl  with  incurved  rim  " 
is  the  general  similarity  in  size  and  curve  of  body  of  the  great  number  of  bowls 
in  Deposit  A.  The  inward  curve  of  the  rim,  however,  shows  great  variation, 
and  examples  in  the  fabric  of  Type  I,  in  particular,  are  scarcely  distinguishable 
from  the  rimless  bowl.  Only  six  of  more  than  130  bowls  in  Deposit  A  belong 
to  Type  I.  With  the  exception  of  one  fragment  identified,  with  some  doubt, 
as  Type  III,  Type  I  is  the  only  one  of  the  major  types  of  imported  black 
glaze  represented  in  the  small  bowls  in  the  Capitolium  Fill.  The  bowl  with 
incurved  rim  is  the  only  identifiable  form  of  Type  I  in  the  fill  of  the  temple 
and  is,  therefore,  the  earliest  form  of  Type  I  at  Cosa.  It  is  reasonable  to 
assume  that  the  bowls  of  this  fabric  in  the  temple  fill  are  among  the  latest 
pieces  in  the  deposit.  The  bowl  with  incurved  rim  can  be  subdivided  on  the 
basis  of  the  presence  or  absence  of  painted  decoration,  that  is,  narrow  encircling 
bands  of  thin  white  paint  on  the  interior  of  the  bowl.  (Cf.  rimless  bowl 
infra  150).  ' 

(a)   Bowl  without  painted  decoration. 


A  22 

(A  22,   PL   XX,  PI.   XXII,  PI.  XLIV;  B  42c,   PI.  XXVIII;  D  loa,  PI.  XXXV;  D  26al, 

PI.   XVIII,  PI.  XL;  D  26aII(.'),  PI.   XVIII,  PL   XL) 

9  RSLig  21  (1955)  274  and  277  fig.  5,  from  Vado  Ligure;  Ampurias  fig.  178  no.  5,  fig.  244 
no.  16,  fig.  232  no.  16,  fig.  248  no.  6,  fig.  325  nos.  9-10,  fig.  332  no.  3,  fig.  334  no.  9,  fig.  374 
no.  10.  One  of  the  burials  in  which  the  form  occurs  is  dated  in  the  second  half  of  the  third  century; 
six  are  dated  to  the  transition  of  the  third-second  centuries  and  the  first  half  of  the  second;  one 
is  undated.  Ceramica  Campana  176  form  27  Type  A,  from  Enserune,  Minturnae,  Azaila,  Ampurias, 
and  Ventimiglia.  The  fabric  of  the  Minturnae  deposit  (see  supra  nota  ■])  is  local.  Lamboglia  assigns 
the  form  to  the  fourth  ("  iv  secolo  avanzato  "),  third,  and  second  centuries.  Ventimiglia  fig.  23 
no.  I,  from  strato  VI,  fig.  34  nos.  13-15,  from  strato  VI  B,  fig.  47  nos.  3-4,  from  strato  VI  B, 
fig.  48  no.  I,  from  strato  VI  A,  fig.  no  nos.  3-4,  from  strato  V.  Strato  VI  B  has  been  dated 
{see  supra    note  4)    180-170 — 100-90   B.C.,    strato  VI  A,    100-90 — 30-20    B.C.,    strato  V,   10  B.C. — 


COSA:  BLACK-GLAZE  POTTERY  149 

Four  of  the  six  bowls  of  Type  I  in  Deposit  A  are  unpainted.  They  have 
a  brown-red  clay.  The  firm  black  glaze  is  mottled  on  the  upper  part  of  the 
feet  and  most  of  the  foot  of  each  example  is  unglazed.  The  rim  curves  inward 
slightly.  The  wall  is  thin  and  almost  oblique.  The  foot  has  a  rounded  exterior, 
oblique  interior.  One  fragment  has  a  single  rosette  stamp  in  the  center  of  the 
floor.  (Stamped  bases  of  Type  I  are  rare  at  Cosa).  Only  one  fragment  in  Depos- 
it D  curves  enough  to  justify  its  classification  as  a  "  bowl  with  incurved  rim.  " 
The  foot  of  this  piece  is  unknown  but  the  same  deposit  has  five  stamped  bases 
of  bowls  of  the  fabric  of  Type  I.  Each  of  the  examples  with  central  stamp, 
one  with  a  rosette,  the  other  with  a  circle  with  dots,  has  a  foot  form  similar 
to  that  of  the  stamped  bowl  of  Deposit  A.  The  other  three  bases  have  four 
ivy  leaf  stamps  within  a  circle  of  rouletting  and  feet  less  rounded  than  the 
foot  of  the  example  in  Deposit  A.  The  rims  and  bodies  to  match  these  bases 
cannot  be  identified.  Most  of  the  bowls  of  Type  I  in  Deposit  D  have  an 
outturned  rim  or  no  rim  at  all.  There  is  no  evidence  in  any  of  the  five  depo- 
sits of  pottery  that  bowls  of  these  forms  were  stamped.  In  view  of  the  great 
number  of  unstamped  bases  of  Type  I  in  Deposit  D  it  seems  reasonable  to 
assume  that  the  stamped  bases  are  not  contemporary  with  most  of  the  bases 
in  that  deposit,  and  that  they  belong  to  the  earlier  form,  i.e.  A  22,  with  incurving 
rim.  The  evidence  of  Deposit  A,  combined  with  that  of  Deposit  D,  suggests 
that   the  single  central   stamp   was  earlier   than  the  scattered   ivy  leaf  form. 

Several  characteristics  of  the  four  bowls  in  the  Capitolium  Fill  indicate 
that  they  are  older  than  most  of  the  other  pieces  of  Type  I  at  Cosa.  The 
glaze  is  unusually  firm  and  less  metallic  than  that  on  most  of  the  pieces  of  this 
type.     The  foot  is  higher  than  most  feet  of  Type  I  and  its  exterior  is  more  rounded. 

The  unpainted  bowl  with  incurved  rim  was  known  at  Cosa  in  the  first  half 
of  the  second  century,  perhaps  earlier.  It  continued  in  use  during  most  of 
that  century. 

(b)   Bowl  with  painted  decoration:    A  23. 

The  clay  of  these  two  pieces,  in  contrast  to  that  of  the  unpainted  fragments 
of  A  22,  is  pink-buff,  coarse  and  hard.  The  glaze  is  a  thin  metallic  black.  The 
body  is  more  full  than  that  of  the  unpainted  examples.  The  wall  is  heavy. 
The  form  of  the  foot  is  not  identified.  Narrow  bands  of  white  paint  encircle 
the  interior  just  below  the  rim. 

This  bowl  and  the  rimless  bowl  with  similar  decoration  probably  are  the 
products  of  a  particular  workshop  or  potter.  The  bowl  with  incurved  rim 
occurs  only  in  the  Capitolium  Fill.  It  must  be  the  ancestor  of  the  rimless  bowl 
which  occurs  in  the  four  later  deposits. 


A.D.  10.  Examples  from.  Paestum  (Museo  Nazionale  di  Paestum),  example  from  Tarquinia,  Type  I 
or  very  similar  (Museo  Nazionale  Tarquiniese).  Rosette  stamp:  F.  Mouret,  CVA  France  fasc.  6 
pi.  25  no.  3,  identical  to  A  22;  stamp  of  circles:  Ampurias  fig.  325  no.  9,  fig.  332  no.  3,  F. Mouret, 
CVA  France  fasc.  6  pi.  29  nos.  7  and  9,  pi.  30  nos.  i  and  28;  stamp  of  ivy  leaves:  Ceramica 
Campana  203  no.  6b,  from  Enserune;  F.  Mouret,  CVA  France  fasc.  6  pi.  24  nos.  4  and  8,  pi.  28 
no.  8,  pi.  29  no.   i,  from  Enserune;  Rome  fig.   139  b,  example  from  Rome. 


ijo  DORIS  M.  TAYLOR 

Type  I:  Bowl  with  incurved  rim  and  angular  wall. 
D  lob,  PI.  XXXV 

This  form  is  represented  by  only  one  fragment.  Its  rim  curves  inward 
sharply.  The  angular  outside  wall  is  thickened  at  the  point  where  the  rim  turns. 
The   base   has   not  been  identified. 

The  form  does  not  appear  in  any  of  the  other  three  major  types  of  black 
glaze  pottery  found  at  Cosa.  A  larger  bowl  of  the  form  in  a  hard  buft  clay 
with  firm  black  glaze  was  found  in  Deposit  C  (C  32).  Its  wall  is  not  thickened 
at   the  angle  of  the  body. 

The  Type  I  fragment  appears  in  the  context  which  has  been  dated  130- 
120—70-60  B.C.  The  similar  form  of  another  fabric  occurs  in  a  group  of  pot- 
tery dated    170-160— 140  B.C.  '° 

Type  I:  Rimless  bowl. 

This  form  of  Type  I  appears  in  Deposits  B,  C,  D  and  E.  Since  many  of 
the  fragments  preserve  only  a  small  section  of  the  wall  and  lip,  it  is  impossible 
to  subdivide  the  form  accurately  on  the  basis  of  angularity  or  curve  of  bowl. 
An  obvious  division  can  be  made  on  the  basis  of  painted  decoration,  that  is, 
the  presence  or  absence  of  narrow  encircling  band  or  bands  of  thin  white  paint 
on  the  interior  of  the  bowl. 

(a)  Rimless  bowl  without  painted  decoration. 


B  39 

(B  37c;  B  39,  PI.   XXVIII;  C  8;  C  29a;  D  9a; 
D  laall;  E9aII,  PI.  XX,  PI.  XLII,P1.  XLIV) 


The  best  examples  of  this  bowl,  and  probably  the  earliest,  have  a  thickened 
lip  carefully  formed  and  flattened  at  an  angle  on  top.  This  lip  is  peculiar  to 
Type  I.  The  body  of  this  form  seems  to  be  curved.  The  e.iact  shape  of  its 
foot  is  unknown. 

In  the  later  deposits  the  forms  show  less  careful  workmanship  and  the  glaze 
becomes  progressively  thinner.     In  Deposit  D,  for  example,  the  bowl  with  care- 

'°  Ampurias  fig.  198  no.  4,  from  a  burial  dated  200  B.C.;  Ceramica  Campana  182  form  34 
Type  A,  from  Ischia,  Entremont,  Museo  Arqueologico  Provincial  of  Tarragona,  and  Ampurias. 
Lamboglia  assigns  the  form  to  the  second  century. 


COSA:  BLACK-GLAZE  POTTERY  151 

fully  thickened  lip  is  relatively  uncommon.  The  rounded  lip  is  represented  by 
many  more  fragments.  Deposit  E  seems  to  indicate  that  the  flattened  lip  of 
B  39  has  disappeared.  The  clay  of  the  unpainted  bowls  in  Deposit  E  is  harder 
and  more  granular  than  that  of  the  painted  ones  but  this  distinction  is  not 
clear  in  other  deposits. 

Fragments  in  Deposit  D  show  the  form  of  the  foot  of  the  unpainted  bowl. 
It  is  low,  with  straight  or  oblique  sides.  There  is  no  proof  that  any  of  the 
stamped  bases  belongs  to  a  rimless  bowl.  The  unpainted  rimless  bowl  of  Type  I 
first  appeared  at  Cosa  about  the  middle  of  the  second  century.  It  became 
popular  in  the  last  part  of  the  second  century  and  the  early  decades  of  the 
first.  It  seems  to  have  been  less  common  at  Cosa  in  the  last  decades  of  the 
use  of  black  glaze  pottery. 

fb)  Rimless  bowl  with  painted  decoration. 


D   13a  I 

(B  37b,   PI.   XXVIII;  C  29a;  D   i3al, 
PI.   XV,   PI.  XXXVI;    E  9al,  PI.  XLII) 


The  clay  is  coarse  red  to  red-brown.  The  glaze,  which  covers  the  entire 
surface,  is  black,  often  thinned  to  brown  and  metallic. 

The  lip  tapers;  the  bowl  is  deep.  Most  of  the  fragments  suggest  an  oblique 
wall  which  curves  just  above  the  base.  The  foot  is  low,  with  straight  or  oblique 
exterior  and  oblique  interior  and  a  central  turning  point.  One  or  two  encircling 
bands  of  thin  white  paint,  on  the  interior,  just  below  the  lip,  decorate  the  bowl. 
The  floor  has  one  or  more  commonly  two  concentric  circles  in  the  same  white  paint. 

The  examples  of  the  decorated  bowl  in  the  four  deposits  give  no  indication 
of  a  development  of  form  or  decoration.  Some  of  the  fragments  in  Deposits  D 
and  E  have  a  poor  thin  glaze.  In  Deposit  E  the  clay  seems  to  be  softer  than 
that  of  other  examples  of  Type  I  and  the  forms  of  the  bases  less  angular. 
These  distinctions  are  not  recognizable  in  other  deposits.  The  fragments  in 
Deposit  E  may  represent  the  products  of  a  single  potter. 

The  rimless  bowl  with  painted  decoration  was  in  use  at  Cosa  by  the  middle 
of  the  second  century  B.C.,  perhaps  earlier.  Its  ancestor  must  have  been  the 
bowl  with  incurved  rim  and  similar  decoration  (A  23).  It  continued  in  use 
in  the  Cosan  household  during  the  last  half  of  the  second  century  and  the  first 
half  of  the  first,   perhaps  until   the   end   of   the  use  of  black  glaze   pottery.  " 

"  Archaeology  6  (1953)  222  fig.  5,  from  the  excavations  in  the  sea  near  Marseilles;  Ceramica 
Campana,    182   form   2;^  Type  A,   from  Enserune  and  Ventimiglia.     Lamboglia  assigns  the   form 


,52  DORIS  M.  TAYLOR 


Type  II:  "  hitroduction  to  forms. 

The  characteristic  fabric  of  Type  II  has  been  described  in  the  Introduction. 
The  best  examples  are  easy  to  identify.  Its  hard,  finely  levigated  buff  clay 
and  firm  black  or  blue-black  glazes  distinguish  the  fragments.  In  some  exam- 
ples, however,  the  fabric  is  similar  to  that  of  Type  IV.  (For  the  characteristics 
of  Type  IV  see  the  introduction  to  it,  infra  173.)  With  the  exception  of  Types  I 
and  III  and  a  few  individual  pieces  the  majority  of  the  black-glaze  pottery  of 
Cosa  is.  composed  of  a  coarse  buff  or  pink-buff  clay  and  dull  black  glaze,  fabrics 
similar  to  that  of  very  poor  examples  of  Type  II.  When  the  sherds  of  Type  II 
cannot  be  distinguished  by  clay  and  glazes,  other  characteristics  of  the  type, 
its  forms  and  their  finish  and  its  decorative  devices,  usually  differentiate  it 
from  other  fabrics.  It  has  its  own  repertory  of  shapes  and  designs.  The  distinc- 
tion between  Type  II  and  its  copies,  most  numerous  in  Deposits  D  and  E, 
must  be  made  on  the  basis  of  the  quality  of  the  clay  and  glaze  in  combination 
with   the   finish   of   the   form. 

Cosa  imported  several  forms  in  the  fabric  of  Type  II.  The  workshops  of 
Type  II  produced  the  bulk  of  the  imports  of  two  forms,  the  bowl  with  broad 
foot  and  curved  wall,  the  cup  with  similar  foot  and  a  flaring  wall.  Both  of 
these  forms  have  a  coarser  clay  and  show  less  careful  workmanship  than  the 
best  pieces  of  Type  II.  With  the  exception  of  one  fragment  of  the  bowl  they 
do  not  appear  at  Cosa  before  the  last  decades  of  the  second  century.  These  two 
shapes  of  Type  II  or  copies  in  the  local  fabric.  Type  IV,  continue  in  use  during 
the  first  century.  The  unusual  shape  of  the  feet  of  these  forms  may  mark 
them  as  products  of  a  single  potter  or  small  group  of  potters. 

The  plates  with  upturned  rim  and  with  horizontal  offset  rim  were  more 
popular  than  the  same  forms  in  other  fabrics.  They  were  both  known  at  Cosa 
before  the  middle  of  the  second  century.  At  the  end  of  that  century  and  begin- 
ning of  the  next  these  plates  are  very  common.  They  continue  in  use  until  the 
advent  of  ierra  sigillata.  The  finish  of  the  clay  and  glaze  degenerates  a  little 
in   the  first   century  and   copies   become   more   frequent. 

The  bowl  with  outturned  rim  has  two  shapes.  One,  represented  by  only 
one  example,  seems  to  be  a  hybrid.  It  combines  some  elements  of  the  bowl 
with  broad  foot  with  those  of  the  bowl  with  outturned  rim.     This  was  found  in 

to  the  third,  second,  and  first  centuries.  Ventimiglia,  examples  for  which  painted  decoration  is  not 
indicated:  fig.  24  nos.  i  and  3  from  strato  VI,  fig.  34  no.  12  from  strato  VI  B,  fig.  47  nos.  1-2 
from  strato  VI  B,  fig.  48  no.  2  from  strato  VI  A,  fig.  iii  nos.  1-2  from  strato  V;  examples  with 
painted  decoration:  fig.  23  no.  i  from  strato  VI,  fig.  24  no.  2  from  strato  VI.  Strato  VI  B  has 
been  dated  (see  supra  note  4)  180-170 — 100-90  b,c.,  strato  VI  A,  100-90 — 30-20  B.C.,  strato  V, 
10  B.c.-A.D.  10.  F.  Mouret  CVA  France  fasc.  6  pi.  23  nos.  8-11,  all  with  painted  bands;  no.  8 
has,  in  addition,  ivy  leaves  between  the  bands;  example  without  decoration  from  Paestum  (Museo 
Nazionale  di  Paestum);  example  with  decoration  from  Castiglioncello  (Museo  Archeologico  in  Casti- 
glioncello). 

"  Ceramica  Campana  Type  B.  .■  • 


« 


COSA:  BLACK-GLAZE  POTTERY  153 

the  deposit  dated  170-160 — 140  b.c.  The  more  common  form  has  a  flattened 
rim  and  deep  rounded  bowl.  It  occurs  in  all  five  deposits.  The  rimless  bowl 
with  curved  wall  is  rare  in  Type  H.  The  only  example  which  can  be  identi- 
fied with  certainty  occurs  In  Deposit  D,  dated   130-120 — 70-60  B.C. 

The  workshops  of  Type  II  produced  the  pyxides  most  common  at  Cosa. 
Examples  in  a  firm  black  or  blue-black  glaze  were  imported  about  the  middle 
of  the  second  century.  The  quality  of  the  glaze  is  still  good  near  the  end  of  that 
century;  it  degenerates  somewhat  in  the  first  century.  Copies  of  this  form  are 
not  common.     Lids  and  pitchers  in  Type  II  are  rare. 

Type  II  has  several  characteristic  forms  of  the  foot.  One,  limited  to  bowls 
with  curved  wall  and  cups  with  flaring  wall,  is  low  and  broad.  Its  sides  are  sharply 
oblique;  the  resting  surface  is  very  narrow.  The  pyxis  has  a  high  foot  with  a 
groove  on  the  inside  at  the  juncture  with  the  floor.  In  examples  with  better 
glazes  it  turns  outward  in  a  curve,  with  poorer  glazes  it  is  more  angular.  Plates 
and  most  of  the  bowls  have  level  or  raised  feet  which  turn  outward  near  the 
bottom.  The  interior  is  straight  or  oblique.  A  small  offset  on  the  interior 
appears  on  several  examples. 

The  type  employs  several  kinds  of  decorative  devices.  The  bowls  with 
broad  feet  have  one  or  two  grooves  on  the  exterior  just  below  the  lip.  Many 
plates  and  bowls  have  concentric  circles  and  rouletting  on  their  floors.  Two 
techniques  of  floor  decoration  are  peculiar  to  Type  II.  A  stamp  of  a  central 
flattened  knob  surrounded  by  a  depressed  ring  occurs  on  plates.  This  dege- 
nerates into  a  single  or  double  circle  made  with  a  blunt  instrument  which  both 
Type  II  and  imitations  of  it  use.  Plates  and  bowls  have  patterns  of  four  stamps, 
usually  alternating  pairs,  in  the  free  area  between  a  small  central  circle  and  one 
or  two  pairs  of  larger  concentric  circles.  Decorated  floors  are  the  rule  for 
plates  and  bowls  of  Type  II.  There  is  some  evidence  that  the  stamps  disappear 
in  the  course  of  the  first  century;  the  rings  and  rouletting  seem  to  continue  in  use. 

The  pottery  of  Typa  II  was  imported  to  Cosa  in  small  quantities  in  the  first 
half  of  the  second  century.  The  bowl  with  outturned  rim,  plates  with  horizontal 
and  with  upturned  rims  were  the  earliest  forms  known  at  Cosa.  They  occur  in 
Deposit  A  but  must  be  among  the  latest  pieces  in  the  temple's  fill.  The  pyxis 
and  the  bowl  with  broad  foot  are  added  to  the  repertory  about  the  middle  of 
the  second  century.  The  small  plate  on  a  high  foot,  the  cup  with  broad  foot, 
the  rimless  bowl,  the  pitcher  and  the  lid  all  appear  in  the  deposit  dated  130-120 
70-60  B.C.  All  the  forms  of  Type  II  continue  in  use  in  the  first  century,  most 
of  them  until  the  arrival  of  red-glaze  wares. 

Several  of  the  forms  of  Type  II  inspired  a  great  number  of  copies  in  the 
first  century,  perhaps  earlier.  Fragments  of  Type  II  outnumber  those  of  any 
other  fabric  in  Deposit  D,  which  is  dated  130-120 — 70-60  B.C.  In  this  deposit 
the  clay  and  glaze  of  most  of  the  pieces  of  the  type  show  careful  workmanship. 
In  the  period  of  the  Pottery  Dump,  iio-ioo— 40-30  B.C.,  the  clay  and  glaze 
have  deteriorated  somewhat  but  the  fabric  is  still  common  In  contrast  to 
Type  I,  Type  II   maintained  a  relatively  high  level  of  workmanship  until  some- 

20 


,54  DORIS  M.  TAYLOR 

time  in  the  first  century.    At  Cosa  it  is  the  black  glaze  pottery  par  excellence 
in   the  late  second  and  first  centuries. 

Some  of  the  forms  and  decorative  devices  of  Type  1 1  have  bucchero  or  im- 
pasto  ancestors,  e.g.,  the  plate  with  horizontal  offset  rim,  the  small  plate  on  a 
high  foot,  and  the  floor  pattern  of  a  central  knob  and  pairs  of  concentric  circles; 
other  forms  seem  to  be  derived  from  Greek  forms,  e.g.,  the  bowl  with  broad 
foot  resembles  a  Greek  cotyle,  the  cup  with  flaring  wall  is  a  stemless  chalice. 
In  comparison  with  the  other  fabrics  represented  at  Cosa,  Type  II  has  more 
forms  in  common  with  the  "  Hellenistic- Pergamene  "  ware  of  the  eastern  Medi- 
terranean area.  In  addition,  forms  and  decorative  details  of  Type  II  seem 
to  have  a  greater  affinity  to  Arretine  ware,  e.g.,  the  plate  with  sharply  uptu- 
rned rim  and  the  floor  pattern  of  rings  and  rouletting. 


Type  II:  Plate  with  horizontal  offset  rim. 


D    lb 

(A  6,  PI.  XXI;  B  26,  PI.   XXVII;  D  ib,  PI.   XXXIII;   E  ib,  PI.  XLI) 


The  plate  with  horizontal  offset  rim  was  extremely  popular  at  Cosa  in  the 
late  second  century  and  most  of  the  first.  Type  II  examples,  which  seem  to 
be  the  earliest  ones  in  this  form  in  use  at  Cosa,  were  imported  sometime  in  the 
first  half  of  the  second  century,  probably  in  the  second  quarter.  By  the  last 
part  of  the  second  century  the  form  appears  in  several  fabrics  but  the  Type  II 
form  and  its  copies  are  the  most  common.  There  is  no  visible  change  in  form 
in  the  early  period  of  its  use  at  Cosa.  At  the  peak  of  its  popularity  it  has  a 
well-formed  rim  set  off  distinctly  from  the  body.  The  rim  has  a  point  on  top 
near  the  lip.  The  foot  turns  outward  near  the  bottom,  rises  obliquely  on  the 
inside.  It  is  level  or  raised.  The  floor  has  two  large  concentric  circles  and  a 
central  stamp  of  a  flattened  knob  surrounded  by  a  depressed  ring.  The  form 
of  Type  II  plates  prompted  copies  in  other  fabrics.  In  the  course  of  the  first 
century  the  clay  of  the  Type  II  examples  becomes  coarser,  the  glaze  deterio- 
rates.   The  rims  and  feet  are  less  precise  in   their  angularity  and  the  central 


•^ 


COSA:  BLACK-GLAZE  POTTERY  155 

stamp  degenerates  to  one  or  two  circles  made  with  a  blunt  instrument.  It  is 
difficult  to  distinguish  the  poorest  examples  of  Type  II  from  its  copies  in  the 
local   fabric,  Type  IV.  '^ 


Type  II:  Small  plate  on  a  high  foot. 


D    2a 

(D  2a,  PI.   XXXIII;   E  2a,  Pi.  XLI) 


This  form  is  not  common  at  Cosa.  In  Deposit  D  eight  of  the  fifteen  examples 
have  the  fabric  of  Type  II,  six  of  the  remaining  seven,  in  the  fabric  of  Type  IV, 
copy  the  Type  II  form.  In  Deposit  E  also,  copies  are  relatively  common. 
The  pottery  in  use  at  Cosa  in  the  second  and  first  centuries  indicates  that  the 
relative  difficulty  of  transportation  was  an  important  factor  in  the  pottery 
trade.  The  shape  of  this  form  would  certainly  have  discouraged  transportation 
in  great  quantities  and  encouraged  local  products. 

The  examples  in  Deposit  D  are  sturdy  and  well-formed.  The  rim  is  heavy 
and  offset  from  the  floor.  I  ts  profile  shows  a  curved  rather  than  an  angular 
form.  The  floor  has  a  pattern  of  concentric  circles,  a  small  one  in  the  center 
and  a  pair  of  larger  ones.  Fine  rouletting  between  the  two  larger  circles  distin- 
guishes one  example.  (Both  circles  and  circles  with  rouletting  are  common 
decorative  devices  on  open  forms  of  Type  II.)  In  Deposit  E  the  rims  and 
bodies  of  the  form  have  thinner,  more  fragile  walls.  The  shape  of  the  foot  of 
this  plate  varies.     The  example  in  Deposit  D  with  the  best  glaze  is  slender  and 


'3  Ceramica  Campana  147  form  6  Type  B,  from  the  museum  of  Alba,  Ventimiglia,  and  Museo 
Nazionale  of  Syracuse;  Ventimiglia  fig.  35  no.  25  in  strato  VI  B,  dated  (see  supra  note  4)  between 
180-170  and  100-90  B.C.;  other  examples:  one  from  Falerii  Veteres,  (Museo  Nazionale  di  Villa  Giulia 
in  Rome),  one  from  Volterra  (Museo  Guarnacci  in  Vol  terra,  (ra^wera  9),  one.  Type  II  or  very  similar, 
in  Arezzo  (Museo  Archeologico  Mecenate,  no.    1307). 


156 


DORIS  M.  TAYLOR 


convex  at  the  bottom.   The  lower  part  of  it  is  hollowed.     Other  examples  have 
a  foot  which  curves  outward  at  the  bottom. 

The  plate  with  high  foot  was  imported  to  Cosa  about  the  end  of  the  second 
century  or  the  beginning  of  the  first.  It  continued  in  use  during  the  first 
century.  '* 

Type  II:  Plate  with  upturned  rim. 


D  5b  D  6b 

(A  7,  PI.   XXI;  B  23a,  PI.   XXVII;  C  4b;  C  25;  D  5b,  PI.   XXXIII;  D  6b,  PI.   XXXIV,  PI.   XII 
PI.   XIII,  PI.   XIV;   E  5bl,  PL  XLI,  PI.   XIX;   E  sbll,  PI.   XLI) 


The  plate  with  upturned  rim  had  a  long  period  of  use  at  Cosa  and  great 
popularity.  The  simplicity  of  its  shape  made  it  handy  to  use  and  easy  to 
manufacture.  The  smaller  version,  at  least,  was  convenient  to  transport.  These 
plates  were  imported  to  Cosa  sometime  in  the  first  half  of  the  second  century. 
(The  examples  of  the  fabric  of  Type  II  in  Deposit  A  must  be  among  the 
latest  pieces  in  that  group.)  They  became  common  in  the  last  quarter  of  that 
century  and   continued  in  use  during   the  first  century. 

The  smaller  plate,  which  was  much  more  common  than  the  larger  version, 
had  oblique  walls.  They  gradually  became  thinner  and  lost  the  thickness  at 
the  curve  of  the  rim.  The  larger  plate  had  a  vertical  rim.  There  is  no  evi- 
dence from  Type  II  examples  for  change  in  the  form  of  its  rim.  The  copies 
of  it,  however,  show  increasing  thinness  and  depth  of  rim.  The  feet  of  both 
sizes  of  plate  are  carefully  formed  in  the  examples  with  best  glazes.     The  exte- 

'■•  Ceramica  Campana  145  form  4  Type  B,  from  San  Miguel  de  Sorba,  Azaila,  Rome  and  Ven- 
timiglia;  Ventimiglia  fig.  27  no.  15  from  strato  VI  A;  dated  (see  supra  note  4)  180-170 — 100-90 
B.C.  fig.  32  no.  32  from  strato  VI  B;  dated  100-90 — 30-20  B.C.;  CVH  pi.  59  no.  27;  example  from 
Volterra  (Museo  Archeologico  in  Florence). 


% 


COSA:  BLACK-GLAZE  POTTERY 


157 


rior  is  angular,  the  interior  frequently  offset  near  the  bottom.  This  shape 
does  not  deteriorate  greatly.  The  plates  in  Deposit  E  give  ample  proof  that 
the  black  glaze  pottery  of  Type  II  maintained  a  relatively  high  quality  of 
workmanship  until  red-glaze  wares  began  to  replace  the  black.  The  same  deposit 
shows,  however,  that  copies  of  Type  II  plates  become  increasingly  common  at 
Cosa.  It  is  not  surprising  that  in  Deposit  E  the  number  of  copies  of  the  larger 
plate  exceeds  the  number  of  the  real  product.  Plates  of  this  size  would  have 
been   heavy  and  cumbersome  to  transport. 

The  plates  of  Type  II  show  diminishing  use  of  decorative  patterns  on  the 
floor.  In  Deposit  D  all  floors  have  a  central  circle  and  one  or  more  pairs  of 
larger  concentric  circles.  Most  of  them  (16  of  20)  have  rouletting  between  the 
larger  circles  and  stamps  in  the  free  central  area.  One  exception  has  stamps 
instead  of  rouletting;  the  three  others,  rouletting  but  no  stamps.  Two  of  these 
without  stamps  have  poor  glazes.  The  imitations  of  this  form  in  the  same 
deposit  have  no  stamps.  In  Deposit  E  only  one  of  approximately  twenty 
examples  bears  a  stamp  and  all  others  have  simple  rouletting  and  concentric 
circles  or  no  decoration.  Apparently  stamps  on  plates  of  Type  II  were  rare 
in    the  first   century   and   they  were  beginning  to  disappear  before  70-60   B.C.  '' 

Type  II:  Bowl  with  outturned  rim. 


c  20 

(A  14,  PI.   XXII;    A  15,  PI.   XXII;  C  20,  PI.   XXX;  D  8b,    PI.    XXXV;    D    26bl,    PI.    XVIII, 
PI.    XL;  D   26bn,    PI.    XVIII,   PI.    XL;    E  8a,  PI.  XLII;   E  i9bl,  PI.  XIX,  PI.  XLII;   E   i9bll, 

PI.  XIX,  PI.  XLII) 


The  examples  of  this  form  with  the  firmest  glaze  are  carefully  profiled. 
The  rim  is  flattened  on  top,  a  finish  characteristic  of  Type  II.  This  is  rare  in 
other  fabrics  and  occurs  only  in  conjunction  with  a  glaze  of  good  quality.    The 


■5  Smaller  plate:  RSLig  21  (1955)  274  and  277  fig.  5,  from  Vado  Ligure;  Ampurias  fig.  260 
no  3,  burial  dated  second  half  of  second  century;  Ceramica  Campana  146  form  5  Type  B,  from 
Rome,  Enserune,  and  Ventimiglia;  Ventimiglia  fig.  23  no.  5  from  strato  VI,  fig.  24  no.  8  from 
strato  VI,  fig.  35  nos.   28-30  from  strato  VI  B,  fig.  43  nos.  2-3  from  strato  VI  B,  fig.  44  no.  9 


,58  DORIS  M.  TAYLOR 

bowl  of  the  Type  II  fabric  is  deeper  and  more  rounded  than  the  corresponding 
form  in  other  fabrics.  The  foot  turns  outward  near  the  bottom.  The  bottom 
of  the  base  is  flat,  with  no  central  turning  point.  A  stacking  ring  is  common. 
On  the  floor  there  is  a  pattern  of  a  central  circle  and  two  pairs  of  larger 
concentric  circles  with  four  stamps,  usually  alternating  pairs,  in  the  open  area 
between  the  small  and  larger  circles.  (Since  the  floor  of  this  bowl  is  broad  it 
is  sometimes  impossible  to  distinguish  its  base  from  that  of  the  plate  with  the 
upturned  rim.     They  seem   to  have  similar  floor  patterns.) 

This  form  is  common  in  Deposit  D.  The  fragments  in  Deposit  A  must 
be  ameng  the  latest  pieces  in  that  fill.  By  the  first  century,  represented  by 
Deposit  E,  the  form  has  become  more  rare.  The  bowl,  therefore,  must  have 
had  its  peak  of  popularity  in  the  last  decades  of  the  second  century.  Fragments 
of  rims  show  some  variation  in  form  and  quality  of  glaze.  The  more  rounded 
rim  is  associated  with  poorer  glaze.  There  is  no  indication  of  a  change  in  the 
base.    The  stamped  patterns  appear  in  Deposit  E  as  well    as  D. 

The  bowl  in  Deposit  C  seems  to  be  a  hybrid,  combining  elements  of  the 
bowl  with  broad  foot  and  the  bowl  with  outturned  rim.  Its  rim  is  flattened 
on  top.  The  body  is  shallow  with  full  curve.  The  low  outturned  foot  has  a 
groove  in  the  resting  surface.  Two  grooves  encircle  the  bowl  just  below  the 
rim.  The  floor  has  a  pattern  of  a  small  central  circle  surrounded  by  four  crude 
palmettes  which,  in  turn,  are  enclosed  in  large  concentric  circles  and  fine  rou- 
letting.  The  fabric,  flattened  rim,  grooves  below  the  rim,  curved  shape  of  bowl, 
outturned  rim,  and  general  type  of  decoration  on  the  floor  are  all  characteristics 
of  Type  II.  This  combination  of  elements,  the  groove  in  the  resting  surface,  a 
characteristic  of  Type  III,  or  an  identical  floor  pattern  is  not  repeated  on 
any  other  example  at  Cosa. 

Two  bases,  D  26b  11  and  E  19b  11,  have  a  peculiar  grey-buff  clay  and  a 
blue  glaze  which  covers  the  entire  surface.  Each  has  some  characteristic  of 
Type  II  but  they  do  not  resemble  each  other.  The  color  of  the  clay  and  glaze 
of  D  26b n  is  probably  due  to  an  accident  of  firing.  The  base  from  Deposit  E 
has  a  variation  in  the  shape  of  the  foot  which  might  justify  assigning  it  to  a 
separate  workshop.  '* 

from  strato  VI  B,  fig.  48  no.  5  from  strato  VI  A;  bases:  fig.  23  no.  7  from  strato  VI,  fig.  27 
no.  9  from  strato  VI  A,  fig.  35  nos.  ^^  and  36  from  strato  VI  B,  fig.  51  nos.  4-5  from  strato  VI  A, 
fig.  52  no.  6  from  strato  V,  fig.  no  nos.  i  and  3  from  strato  V.  Strato  VI  B  has  been  dated 
(see  supra  note  4)  180-170 — 100-90  b,c.;  strato  VI  A,  100-90 — 30-20  B.C.;  strato  V,  10  b.c.-a.d.  10. 
Example  from  Castiglioncello  (Museo  Archeologico  in  Castiglioncello),  one  from  Volterra  (Museo 
Guamacci,  camera  9),  examples  from  Archena  (Museo  Arqueologico  Nacional  inMadrid,  ja/a  II, 
case  22,  no.  33957),  from  Galera  (same  museum,  sala  II,  case  18),  from  Azaila  (same  museum, 
sala  II,  case  40).  Larger  plate:  Ceramica  Campana  148  form  7  Type  B,  from  San  Miguel  de 
Sorba  and  Ventimiglia;  Ventimiglia  fig.  48  no.   5  from    strato  VI  A,  fig.  52  no.  7  from    strato  V. 

Cf.  Sumps:  NS  (1949)  255  fig.  3ie  from  Cagliari;  G.  H.  Chase  and  M.  Z.  Pease,  CVA  USA 
fasc.  8  pi.  31  no.  \\Romef^g.  140c,  fig.  141a,  fig.  141b;  ^^5(1934)  52  fig.  5,  from  Arezzo;  W.  Van 
Ingen  CVA  USA  fasc.  3  pi.  27  no.  7,  pi.  33  nos.  3  and  7;  NS  (1920)  193  fig.  9a  and  b,  from  Arezzo. 

'*  This  form  does  not  appear  in  Lamboglia's  classification  in  Ceramica  Campana,  or  in  Ahna- 
gro's  additions  to  it  in  Ampurias.    Cosa  bowl  C  20  is  somewhat  similar  to  Lamboglia's  form  8 


COSA:  BLACK-GLAZE  POTTERY 


159 


Type  II:  Rimless  bowl  with  curved  wall. 


D  9b 

D  9b  (?),  PI.   XV,  PI.  XXXV;  D  9c;   E  9b,  PI.   XLII) 

This  shape  in  the  fabric  of  Type  II  is  rare  at  Cosa.  Only  one  example 
can  be  identified  in  its  full  form.  Its  lip  tapers;  its  bowl  is  shallow  \yith 
thin  wall.  It  has  a  high  foot  which  flares  outward  at  the  bottom.  The  floor 
has  a  pattern  of  a  dainty  ring  and  rouletting  surrounding  four  leaf-like  stamps 
which  radiate  from  a  small  central  circle.  The  variation  from  other  forms  of 
Type  II  in  the  shape  of  the  foot  and  the  floor  pattern  suggest  that  this  bowl 
may  be  the  product  of  a  workshop  which  did  not  send  many  of  its  wares  to 
Cosa.  It  is  impossible  to  draw  conclusions  about  a  development  of  the  form. 
It  occurs  at  Cosa   in    the  deposits   of  the  late  second   and  first  centuries.  '' 


Type  II:  Bowl  with  broad  foot  and  curved  wall. 


E    14a 

(B  41a,  PI.  XXVIII;   D  16a,  PI.  XVI, 

PI.   XXXVI;  E  14a,    PI.   XLII) 


A  single  fragment  of  this  shape  occurs  in  Deposit  B.  The  full  form  is  clear 
from  the  fragments  in  Deposits  D  and  E.  The  bottom  of  the  foot  is  some- 
times glazed,  sometimes  reserved.     Variation  in  application  seems    to  mark  pro- 


in  Type  B  {Ceramica  Campana  148).  The  example  cited  there  is  from  Ampurias.  Example  in 
Type  II  (or  very  similar)  from  Arezzo  (Museo  Archeologico  Mecenate  no.  1305),  example  in  the 
Museo  Arqueologico  of  Barcelona  and  the  museum  in  Ampurias.  Cf.  stamps  referred  to  in  note  15. 
'7  Ampurias  fig.  248  no.  5  (like  D  9b),  example  dated  200-150  b.c.  Cf.  fig.  354  no.  i,  similar 
bowl  with  heavy  foot.  Ceramica  Campana,  148  form  8  Type  B,  from  Museo  Arqueologico  of 
Barcelona;  imitation  of  form  8  from  Castiglioncello  (Museo  Archeologico  in  Castiglioncello). 


i6o 


DORIS  M.  TAYLOR 


ducts  of  different  potters  rather  than  a  difference  in  date  of  manufacture.  Most 
of  the  fragments  have  two  encirchng  grooves  on  the  exterior  just  below  the 
rim.  The  wall  is  almost  vertical,  curved  just  above  the  low  broad  foot.  The 
foot  has  oblique  sides  and  narrow  resting  surface.  The  floor  has  a  central 
circle  and  two  larger  concentric  circles  made  with  a  blunt  instrument. 

The  shape  is  a  very  common  one  in  Deposits  D  and  E.  Most  of  the 
examples  do  not  have  the  fabric  of  Type  II  but  show  attempts  to  copy  details 
of  Type  II.  Many  of  the  copies  have  the  fabric  of  Type  IV.  The  examples 
of  Type  II  show,  by  comparison,  more  careful  workmanship  in  attention  t,o 
quality  and  finish  of  clay,  application   of  glaze  and  decorative  details. 

This  form  was  first  imported  to  Cosa  about  the  middle  of  the  second 
century.  Even  the  best  examples  of  it  have  a  glaze  which  is  poor  in  quality 
for  Type  II  and  this  implies  that  the  form  was  a  late  product  of  the  type.  It 
had  great  popularity,  and  prompted  many  copies,  in  the  last  decades  of  the  second 
century  and  first  part  of  the  first.  If  conclusions  can  be  drawn  on  the  basis 
of  the  large  number  of  examples  of  the  form  in  Deposits  D  and  E,  the  rela- 
tive scarcity  of  Type  II  examples  in  Deposit  E  indicates  that  copies  of  Type  II 
competed  on  the  market  and  almost  eliminated  Type  II  products  in  the  first  cen- 
tury. Deposit  E,  which  has  a  terminus  post  quern,  of  iio-ioo  B.C.,  has  only  two 
examples  of  the  Type  II  fabric  compared  with  more  than  twenty-five  imitations.  '^ 


Type  1 1 :  Cup  with  broad  foot  and  flaring  wall. 


D   17a 

(D  17a,   PI.   XVI,  PI.   XXXVII) 


This  form  of  Type  II  is  found  in  only  one  deposit.  The  clay  has  a  rough 
finish;  the  glaze,  thin  and  metallic,  covers  the  entire  surface.  The  wall  flares 
outward  and  joins  the  floor  at  a  sharp  angle.     The  foot  is  broad,  with  oblique 

"8  Ceramica  Campana  143  form  i  Type  B,  from  Ventimiglia,  Gergovie,  Rome,  Ampurias,  Azaila, 
San  Miguel  de  Sorba.  Ventimiglia  fig.  20  nos.  35-36  from  strato  V,  fig.  23  no.  4  from  strato  VI, 
fig.  27  no.  13  from  strato  VI  A,  fig.  35  nos.  26-27,  35  from  strato  VI  B,  fig.  44  no.  7  from  strato 
VI  B,  fig.  47  no.   10  from  strato  VI  B,  fig.  48  no.  8  from  strato  VI  A,  fig.  52  no.  5  from  strato  V, 


COSA:  BLACK-GLAZE  POTTERY 


i6i 


sides  and  narrow  resting  surface  (cf.  the  shape  of  the  foot  of  the  preceding 
form).  Only  one  example  has  any  decorative  detail,  the  two  encircling  grooves 
on  the  exterior  just  below  the  lip.  The  form  is  not  common  at  Cosa.  Deposit  D 
has  twelve  examples,  ten  identified  as  Type  II,  one  as  Type  III,  and  one  of 
another  fabric.  Deposit  E  has  seven,  two  of  Type  III  and  five  which  imitate 
the  form  of  Type  II. 

The  cup  with  broad  foot  seems  a  close  parallel  in  form,  quality  of  work- 
manship, and  period  of  use  to  the  bowl  with  broad  foot.  It  is  not  known  at 
Cosa  before  the  last  decades  of  the  second  century,  the  period  of  the  great 
popularity  of  the  bowl  of  Type  II.  The  cup  with  flaring  wall  in  other  fabrics 
is  in  use  in  the  first  century  but  the  Type  II  product  has  left  the  market. 
There  is  no  evidence  for  a  development  of  the  form.  The  workmanship  is 
never  careful;  the  glaze  is  poor  in  quality.  "' 


Type  II:  Pyxis. 


D   19a 
(C  11;  C  34;  D  19a,  PI.   XVII,  PI.  XXXVII;   E  17a,   PI.   XLII) 

Pyxides  of  the  fabric  of  Type  II  account  for  most  of  the  examples  of  the 
form  at  Cosa.  There  are  no  other  fabrics  in  the  pyxides  of  Deposit  C;  in  Depos- 
it D  twelve  of  the  sixteen  examples  have  the  fabric  of  Type  II  and  in  Depos- 
it E  the  proportion  is  approximately  the  same.  The  examples  not  of  Type  II 
represent  a  variety  of  fabrics.  Most  of  them  are  similar  in  form  to  the  exam- 
ples of  Type  II.  At  least  four  of  the  six  in  Deposit  E  can  be  identified  as 
Type  IV,  a  local  fabric. 

fig.  55  nos.  5-6  from  strato  V,  fig.  no  no.  2  from  strato  V.  Strato  VI  B  is  dated  (see  supra 
note  4)  180-170 — ^100-90  B.C.;  strato  VI  A,  100-90 — 30-20  B.C.;  strato  V,  10  b.C.-a.d.  10.  J.-J.  Hatt, 
"  Les  fouilles  de  Gergovie  "  (1943-44)  Gallia  5  (1947)  293  fig.  7  no.  16;  CVH  pi.  59  nos.  9-10, 
12-13. 

'9  Ceramica  Campana  144  form  2  Type  B,  from  Ampurias,  Ventimiglia,  Azaila,  San  Miguel 
de  Sorba,  and  Enserune;  Ventimiglia  ^g.  27  no.  11  from  strato  VI  A,  fig.  55  no.  6  from  strato  V. 
Strato  VI  A  (see  j«/w  note  4)  is  dated  100-90 — 30-20  bc;  strato  V,  10  b.c.-a.d.  10.  CVH  -^X.  59 
nos.  21-22;  example  from  Talamone  (Museo  Archeologico  in  Florence),  imitation  of  form  from 
Castiglioncello  (Museo  Archeologico  in  Castiglioncello). 


31 


1 62 


DORIS  M.  TAYLOR 


In  its  earliest  form  the  pyxis  of  Type  II  has  a  high  rounded  foot  with  a 
groove  between  the  interior  of  the  foot  and  the  base.  The  foot  is  lower  and 
more  angular  in  examples  with  poorer  glaze.  The  changes  in  lip  and  body  form 
are  less  clear.  The  form  of  the  pieces  in  Deposit  E  suggests  that  examples 
which  curve  outward  more  are  earlier.  The  glaze  covers  the  entire  surface  and 
remains  relatively  firm,   better   than    that   of  many  other  forms  of  Type  II. 

The  pyxis  of  Type  II  was  being  imported  to  Cosa  by  the  middle  of  the 
second  century.  It  was  in  use  in  the  late  second  century  and  part  of  the  first. 
The  consistency  of  the  quality  implies  a  short  life  for  the  form.  By  the  late 
second,  or  early  first  century  imitations  of  the  form  of  the  pyxis  of  Type  II 
were  in  use  but   the  Type  II  product  continued.  '° 


Type  II:  Pitcher. 


D    2IC 

(B  45,  PI.  XXIX;  D  21c  (copy),  PI.  XXXVII;   E  18a) 


Although  the  full  form  of  a  pitcher  of  Type  II  does  not  exist  in  any  of 
the  five  deposits  it  can  be  reconstructed  from  copies  in  the  local  fabric  which 
use  the  elements  of  Type  II  forms.  Deposit  D  has  fragments  of  three  such 
pitchers  in  a  bufif  clay  and  dull  black  glaze.     The  glaze  covers  the  entire  sur- 


»  RSLig  i8  (1952)  fig.  19,  from  the  excavations  in  the  sea  near  Marseilles;  Ceramica  Campana 
14s  form  3  Type  B,  from  Enserune;  Ventimiglia  fig.  27  no  14  from  strato  VI  A  fig  35  no.  31 
strato  VI  B,  fig.  51  no.  6  strato  VI  A,  fig.  97  no.  2.      Strato  VI  B  is  dated  (see  supra  note  4) 


COSA:  BLACK-GLAZE  POTTERY  163 

face.  The  rim  turns  outward;  the  neck  is  thick.  The  pitcher  has  two  handles 
which  take  off"  just  below  the  rim  and  join  the  body  about  half  way  doWn  the 
side.  The  handles  are  thin,  elliptical  in  cross  section,  sometimes  ribbed..  The 
foot  is  high  and  turns  outward  at  the  bottom.  The  pieces  which  can  be  iden- 
tified with  certainty  as  the  fabric  of  Type  II  are  too  fragmentary  to  give  infor- 
mation on  the  development  of  the  form.  (The  identity  of  the  piece  B.45  as 
a  part   of  a  pitcher   is   not  certain). 

The  chronological  span  of  the  fragments  of  the  Type  II  pitcher  extends 
from  ca.  170  B.C.  to  the  end  of  the  use  of  black  glaze  pottery.  The  copies 
occur  in  Deposits  D  and  E,  that  is,  from  130-120  B.C.  to  40-30  b.c.  "' 


Type  II:  Lid. 


B  52a  E  2ia 

(B  52a,   PI.   XXIX;   E  2ia,   PI.   XLIII) 


Each  of  the  two  examples  of  lids  in  the  fabric  of  Type  II  has  a  unique 
form.  The  tw"o  have  no  similarities  except  in  the  fabric.  The  example  in 
Deposit  B  has  a  form  and  floor  pattern  of  concentric  circles  very  like  those  of 
the  small  pedestalled  plate  (see  supra  155).  The  angle  of  the  rim  of  this 
fragment  suggests  that  it  is  a  lid,  not  a  pedestalled  form.  The  rim  is  sharply 
profiled.  The  handle  tapers  but  the  form  of  its  termination  is  not  known. 
This  piece  indicates  the  form  was  in  use  at  Cosa  before  ca.    140  B.C. 

The  angle  of  the  rim  of  the  fragment  in  Deposit  E  is  not  clear.  The  rim 
is  profiled,  less  distinctly  than  that  of  the  example  in  Deposit  B,  in  a  manner 
similar  to  that  of  the  rim  of  the  Type  II  plate  with  horizontal  offset  rim.  The 
lid   is   not   complete.     Deposit  E    has   been   dated    1 10-100— 40-30  B.C. ''^ 

180-170 — 100-90  B.C.;  strato  VI  A,  100-90 — 30-20  b.c.  Example  from  Talamone  (Museo  Archeologico 
of  Florence,  no  10552);  imitation  of  Type  II  from  Saturnia  (same  museum)  and  from  Tarquinia 
(Museo  Nazionale  Tarquiniese)  and  from  Castiglioncello  (Museo  Archeologico  in  Castiglioncello). 

='  Archaeology  6  (1953)  222  fig.  5,  from  the  excavations  in  the  sea  near  Marseilles;  Ceramica 
Campana  149  form  lo  Type  B,  from  Museo  Arqueologico  Provincial  of  Tarragona,  Ampurias,  and 
Azaila;  CVH  p\.  59  no.  2;  imitations  of  Type  II  from  Castiglioncello  (Museo  Archeologico  in  Casti- 
glioncello) and  from  Tarquinia  (Museo  Nazionale  Tarquiniese). 

^^  Not  in  Lamboglia's  classification  in  Ceramica  Campana  or  Almagro's  additions  to  it  in 
Ampurias. 


i64  DORIS  M.  TAYLOR 


Type  III:  "'  Introduction  to  forms. 

See  the  Introduction  for  a  description  of  the  clay  and  glaze  of  Type  III. 
Although  it  is  not  difficult  to  'differentiate  Type  III  from  the  other  fabrics 
represented  in  these  five  groups  of  pottery,  it  is  impossible  to  describe  the  type 
accurately  in  terms  of  its  forms  or  a  development  of  them.  Few  shapes  can 
be  fully  identified.  Fragments  ^ftf  others  suggest  that  a  great  number  were 
produced,  some  of  which  must  have  been  relatively  complicated  and  unusual.  "'• 
A  single  example,  a  small  bowl  with  incurved  rim,  not  definitely  identified  as 
Type  III,  appears  in  Deposit  A.  A  fragment  of  a  plate  with  upturned  rim, 
several  closed  forms,  and  a  lid  are  in  Deposit  B,  a  plate  with  horizontal  offset 
rim,  the  bowl  with  outturned  rim'and  a  figurine  in  Deposit  C,  plates  with  up- 
turned and  horizontal  rims,  bowls  with  outturned  rims,  bowls  with  broad  foot,  cup 
with  broad  foot,  a  pyxis,  a  pitcher,  a  lid,  and  a  molded  head  of  a  bird  in  Depos- 
it D,  plates  with  upturned  and  horizontal  rims,  a  rimless  bowl,  bowls  with 
outturned  rim,  a  bowl  with  broad  foot,  a  cup  with  broad  foot  and  a  lid  in 
Deposit  E.  The  fabric  seems  to  have  been  best  known  at  Cosa  in  the  second 
half  of  the  second  and  early  first  centuries.  Many  of  its  forms  were  imported 
but,  in  comparison  with  Types  I  and  II,  not  in  great  quantity.  The  unusual 
forms,  the  bird's  head,  the  figurine,  the  form  with  spout,  imply  that  the  work- 
shops producing  in  the  grey  clay  were  supplying  the  decorative  and  novelty 
pieces,  perhaps  the  luxury  pottery,  for  the  Cosan  household  in  the  last  half  of 
the  second   and  early  first  centuries,, 

A  large  number  of  the  fragments  are  composed  of  a  soft  grey  clay.  Almost 
every  form  made  in  a  gray  clay  has  at  least  one  example  in  a  clay  of  soft 
texture:  the  plate  with  upturned  rim  (B  23b,  D  5cl  and  HI),  the  plate  with 
horizontal  rim  (C  la,  D  id),  the  bowl  with  outturned  rim  (B  36b,  D  8c I,  E  8b), 
the  rimless  bowl  (B  40,  E  9c),  the  bowl  with  broad  foot  (E  14b),  the  cup  with 
flaring  wall  (D  17b,  E  15a),  the  pyxis  (D  19b),  the  pitcher  (D  2lb),  the  bird's 
head  (D  25)  and  the  figurine  (C  15).  Since  many  of  these  forms  occur  also 
in  harder  clay,  the  texture  cannot  be  offered  as  a  criterion  for  distinguishing  a 
workshop.  A  form  of  foot  peculiar  to  Type  III  is  restricted  to  certain  plates 
and  bowls  in  soft  grey  clay.  These  are  found  in  Deposits  D  and  E.  The 
foot  is  low  and  broad,  with  straight  or  outturned  exterior  and  oblique  interior. 
It  has  a  groove  in  the  resting  si^rface.  The  groove  on  the  upper  surface  of  the 
rim  of  a  bowl  with  outturned  rim  (E  8b),  also  in  a  soft  clay,  probably  indicates 
a  similar  taste  in  the  finish  of  a  piece.  There  is  some  evidence  suggesting  that 
the  pieces  of  soft  clay  were  produced  within  a  limited  period  of  time.  The 
single  fragment  of  Type  III  in  Deposit  A  has  a  very  hard  clay.     Only  a  few 

'3  Ceramica  Catnpana  Type  C. 

=<  .Six  forms  of  Type  III  remain  unidentified:  the  closed  form  of  B  46  (clay  medium  in  texture), 
the  figurine  of  C  15  (clay  soft),  the  head  of  a  bird  of  D  25  (clay  soft),  the  spouted  form  D  29a 
(clay  hard  and  granular),  the  form  with  outturned  rim  of  E  8b  1 1  (clay  medium)  and  the  closed 
form  with  handle,  E  20  (clay  soft).     The  last  piece  is  probably  part  of  an  askos. 


COSA:  BLACK-GLAZE  POTTERY  165 

of  the  pieces  in  Deposit  B  have  a  soft  clay  and  only  two  in  Deposit  C.  Many 
of  the  pieces  in  Deposit  D,  however,  and  some  in  Deposit  E  have  a  very  soft 
clay.  This  distribution  would  seem  to  indicate  that  the  soft  grey  clay  was, 
primarily,  a  product  of  the  last  half  of  the  second  century,  perhaps  even  the 
last  quarter,   and   the  early  years  of  the  first. 

A  method  of  application  of  glaze  is  peculiar  to  Type  III.  The  glaze  on 
the  exterior  of  a  bowl  with  incurved  rim  (B  42d),  several  plates  with  upturned 
rim  (D  5c I)  and  a  bowl  with  broad  foot  (E  14b)  is  limited  to  the  upper  part 
of  the  body.  Since  the  bowl  with  incurved  rim  is  composed  of  a  hard  clay, 
the  plates  and  the  other  bowl  of  a  soft  one,  this  technique  of  application  can 
not  have  been  limited  to  one  texture  of  clay.  If  the  forms  in  soft  clay  repre- 
sent a  taste  which  developed  in  the  last  part  of  the  second  century,  the  bowl 
of  B  42d  would  then  be  an  earlier  product  of  the  same  workshop  or  potter, 
D  5c  I  and  E  14b  the  later  ones. 

In  Deposit  D  two  other  groups  of  grey  clay  can  be  distinguished  but  the 
forms  of  these  are  not  clear.  One  group  has  a  hard  grey  clay  and  thin  black 
glaze  which  peels  easily.  The  plates  with  upturned  rim  (D  5c  11)  and  bowls 
with  outturned  rim  (D  Sell),  can  not  be  distinguished  from  the  corresponding 
forms  in  soft  clay.  The  fragment  of  a  plate  with  horizontal  rim  (D  icin) 
has  a  unique  form.  The  offset  for  the  rim  has  almost  disappeared  and  the  floor 
of  the  plate  has  a  peculiar  curve.  The  form  probably  represents  poor  work- 
manship or  an  accident  in  the  kiln  rather  than  an  attempt  at  originality.  The 
hardness  of  the  clay,  the  poor  quality  of  the  glaze  of  the  examples  in  this  group, 
and  the  peculiar  form  of  D  ic  m  suggest  that  these  pieces  are  overfired  exam- 
ples rather  than  fragments  of  an  unusual   fabric. 

The  second  group  has  somewhat  stronger  evidence  to  recommend  it  as  a 
separate  workshop  Three  forms,  a  bowl  with  broad  foot  and  curved  wall 
(D  l6bl),  a  form  with  spout  fD  29),  and  a  lid  (D  30),  all  are  composed  of  a 
hard  granular  grey  clay.  Their  glazes  are  dull  black.  The  relative  rarity  of 
these  shapes  suggests  that  they  represent  a  single  workshop  or  potter  special- 
izing in  the  production  of  such  forms.  The  other  identifiable  example  of  the 
bowl  with  broad  foot  was  found  in  Deposit  E.  Its  clay  is  soft  but  the  form 
of  its  foot  is  very  different  from  that  of  D  l6bl.  The  form  with  spout  is 
the  only  example  in  a  grey  clay.  Lids  of  grey  clay  were  found  also  in  Deposits  B 
and  E.  The  form  of  the  example  in  Deposit  B  seems  to  be  similar  to  that  of 
D  30  but  the  composition  of  the  clay  is  not  identical.  They  might  be  pro- 
ducts of  the  same  workshop.  The  example  in  Deposit  E  is  too  fragmentary 
to  be  used  as  evidence  of  a  similar  form.     Its  clay  is  also  hard. 

The  forms  of  the  feet  of  Type  III,  except  for  the  group  mentioned  above, 
have  no  distinguishing  characteristics.  Several  fragments  show  forms  with 
high  raised  feet  with  rounded  exteriors  and  oblique  interiors  but  they  have  no 
other  signs  of  unity.  The  most  common  floor  pattern  is  concentric  circles. 
Rouletting  and  stamps  are  rare.  The  bowl  in  Deposit  A  has  a  depressed  rosette 
on   center  of   the   floor.     A   base   in   Deposit  E  has  a   deep   star  stamp  within 


i66  DORIS  M.  TAYLOR 

the  rouletting.  A  fragment  of  a  floor  in  Deposit  D  (D  6c II)  has  a  stamp 
similar  to   those  of  Type  II. 

It  is  significant  that  several  pieces  of  Type  III  duplicate  Type  II  in  form 
and  or  decoration.  A  shallow  rimless  bowl  in  Deposit  B  has  a  pattern  of 
concentric  circles  similar  to  that  of  Type  II.  This  pattern  is  so  common  in 
the  second  century,  however,  that  it  cannot  be  considered  evidence  of  copying. 
There  is  a  possibility  that  a  workshop  producing  a  hard  grey  clay  was  imita- 
ting the  forms  of  Type  II  and  that  Type  II,  on  the  other  hand,  copied  some  of 
the  forms  of  the  workshop  (or  centers)  producing  a  soft  clay.  It  is  unlikely 
that  the  evidence  of  a  single  site  could  prove  these  hypotheses.  That  of  Cosa 
is  offered  as  a  suggestion.  The  bowl  with  broad  foot,  the  plate  with  upturned 
rim,  the  plate  with  horizontal  offset  rim,  and  the  bowl  with  outturned  rim,  all 
common  forms  in  Type  II,  were  made  in  a  hard  grey  clay.  At  Cosa  the  Type  II 
examples  were  found  in  earlier  contexts.  The  forms  of  a  pyxis  and  a  rimless  bowl 
of  soft  grey  clay  are  each  duplicated  by  a  single  example  in  Type  II.  The  exam- 
ples of  grey  clay  occur  in  earlier  contexts.  This  copying  did  not  alter  the  produc- 
tion of  Type  II  orType  III.  At  least  some  forms  of  Type  III,  in  clays  both  hard 
and  soft  in  texture,  continued  production  in  a  tradition  independent  of  Type  II. 

The  poor  condition  of  the  fragments  of  Type  III  and  their  relative  rarity 
at  Cosa  give  little  opportunity  for  observation  of  development  of  the  forms. 
The  clays  and  glazes  have  deteriorated  so  much  that  the  original  quality  of 
many  pieces  has  been  lost.  The  type  is  interesting  more  for  its  variety  of 
forms   than   for  its  role  as  a  competitor  on    the   market  at  Cosa. 

Type  III:  Plate  with  horizontal  offset  rim. 


D   id  D   icll 

(C  la;  D   Id,   PI.   XXXIII;  D  idl,   PI.   XXXIII;  D   idll;  E  ic;  bases  of  plates:  C  26c;  D  6d, 
PI.  XXXIV;  D  6cII,  PI.  XXXIV;   E  6al,  PI.   XLI;   E  6an,  PI.   XLI) 

This  plate  occurs  in  the  soft  grey  clay  in  Deposits  C  and  D,  only  one  exam- 
ple in  the  first  and  four  in  the  second.  (A  base  of  an  open  form  was  found  in 
Deposit  E.  Similar  bases  occur,  however,  in  plates  with  upturned  rim.)  The 
rims  are  carelessly  finished.  A  fragment  of  a  floor  of  an  unidentified  open  form 
(D  6cII)  has  a  stamp  similar  to  one  found  on  Type  II  forms. 

All  fragments  in  the  clay  of  harder  texture  occur  in  Deposits  D  and  E. 
The  pieces  seem  to  show  a  difterence  in  the  depth  of  color  and  quality  of  glaze. 
The  plate  of  lighter  color  in  Deposit  D  has  almost  no  rim  offset.     It  is  prob- 


COSA:  BLACK-GLAZE  POTTERY 


167 


ably  a  potter's  error  rather  than  an  intentional  variation  of  the  form.  An- 
other fragment  of  rim  in  the  same  deposit,  with  darker  clay  and  firmer  glaze, 
has  a  thin  wall. The  two  pieces  of  this  shape,  in  the  lighter  grey  clay,  in  Depos- 
it E  give  no  additional  information  on  the  form  of  the  rim.  They  have 
concentric  circles  and  rouletting  on  the  floor.  The  bases  of  the  plate  with 
horizontal  offset  rim  in  the  clay  of  harder  texture  cannot  be  distinguished 
from  those  of  other  open  forms.  (See  discussion  of  plate  with  upturned  rim 
infra).  The  two  possible  shapes  are  the  low  raised  foot  with  vertical  exterior, 
oblique  interior  (C  26c)  or  a  higher  foot  with  rounded  exterior  and  oblique 
interior.  One  example  of  the  latter  (D  6cl)  has  concentric  circles  on  the  floor, 
another   (E  6a II)   has  rouletting  with  a  deep  star  stamp  within  it. 

The  plate  with  horizontal  offset  rim  in  grey  clay  is  never  common  at  Cosa. 
Identified  fragments  of  the  form  in  the  soft  texture  occur  in  deposits  which 
give  a  chronological  span  of  170-160 — 70-60  b.c.  Identified  pieces  of  the  harder 
texture  are  confined  to  the  two  deposits  which  give  a  span  from  130-120— 
40-30  B.C.  The  rim  forms  show  no  consistency  in  the  grey  clays  as  a  whole, 
or  even  in  the  clays  of  different  textures,  that  is,  there  is  no  evidence  of  a 
standard  form  comparable  in  consistency  to  that  of  Type  II  .  ''^ 


Type  III:  Plate  with  upturned  rim. 


D   5cIII 

(B  23b,   PI.   XXVII;   D   5cl,   PL    XXXIII;   D    sell;   D    5CIII,   PI. 

XXXIV;   E  5cl,  PI.  XLI;  E  sell,  PI.  XLI;  bases  of  plate:  C  26c; 

D  6cl,  PI.  XXXIV;  D  6cII,  PL   XXXIV;   E  6al,  PL  XLI; 

E  6aII,  PI.   XLI) 


At  least  two  textures  of  grey  clay  are  represented  by  this  form.  The 
shapes  of  the  plates  in  a  soft  grey  clay  can  be  reconstructed  from  the  pieces 
in  Deposit  D.  A  smaller  plate  has  a  slightly  oblique  floor  and  incurved  rim. 
The  lower  part  of  the  body  is  often  unglazed  on  the  exterior.   It  has  a  low  straight- 


^5  Albenga   167-168  nos.  2-3  fig.  26;  Ceramica  Campana   158  form  6  Type  C,  example  from 
Museo  Nazionale  of  Syracuse,  from  the  excavations  of  the  amphitheatre,  examples  from  Tindari. 


1 68 


DORIS  M.  TAYLOR 


sided  foot.  Its  floor  has  a  pair  or  pairs  of  concentric  circles.  A  larger  plate 
has  a  horizontal  floor  and  vertical  rim.  It  has  a  low  angular  foot,  as  well  as  the 
straight-sided  version.  Its  floor  has  concentric  circles  or  circles  and  rouletting. 
Both  sizes  of  plates  have  a  groove  in  the  resting  surface,  a  peculiarity  of  Type  III. 

With  the  exception  of  an  unusual  plate,  B  23b  (see  infra  for  a  discus- 
sion of  it),  plates  of  the  soft  grey  clay  were  not  brought  to  Cosa  before  the 
last  decades  of  the  second  century.  The  rims  are  similar  to  those  of  the  corre- 
sponding forms  of  Type  II;  the  feet  are  peculiar  to  Type  III.  There  is  no 
evidence  for  a  development  of  the  forms.  Fragments  of  open  forms  in  the  soft 
clay  ace  rare  (a  single  base)  in  the  Pottery  Dump,  a  first  century  deposit. 

Rims  of  the  same  forms  in  a  grey  clay  of  harder  texture  occur  in  the  two 
Deposits  D  and  E  but  with  relatively  greater  frequency  in  the  later  one.  The 
base  of  this  form  in  the  harder  clay  cannot  be  differentiated  from  those  of  other 
open  forms.  One  fragment  in  Deposit  E  preserves  enough  of  the  floor  to 
show  a  pattern  of  circles  and  rouletting.  Two  bases  in  Deposit  C  have  low 
raised  feet,  vertical  on  the  exterior  and  oblique  on  the  interior.  The  other 
two  bases,  D  6cl  and  E  6a  11,  have  high  raised  feet  with  rounded  exteriors, 
oblique  interiors.  One  example  has  concentric  circles  on  the  floor;  the  other 
has  rouletting  with  a  deep  star  stamp  within  it. 

A  unique  base  of  a  plate  in  Deposit  B  (B  23b)  has  the  soft  texture  clay  and 
color  of  glaze  peculiar  to  Type  III.  The  clay,  however,  is  buff"  and  the  form 
of  the  foot  is  similar  to  that  of  Type  II.  The  floor  has  two  pairs  of  concentric 
circles.  This  base  does  not  seem  to  be  a  poorly  fired  example  of  Type  II. 
Since  the  evidence  of  these  five  deposits  of  pottery  shows  that  the  Type  II 
plates  were  earlier  than  those  of  Type  III,  this  piece  may  represent  an  attempt 
to  copy  the  form  of  Type  II  in  the  fabric  of  Type  III.''* 

Type  III:  Bowl  with  outturned  rim. 


D  Scl 


(B  36b,  PI.  XXVIII;  C  7a;  C  28a;  D  8cl,   PI.   XIV,  PI.   XXXV;  D  8cII;   E  8bl,   PI.  XLII;  E  Sblll; 
bases  of  bowls,  €143,  D  26c  I,  PI.   XL;  D  26c  1 1;  D  26c  1 1 1,  PI.   XL;  D  26cIV,  PL  XL) 


'*  Smaller  plate:   Ceramica  Campana    158  form  5  Type  C  examples  from  Tindari,   example 
from  Museo  di  Cavaillon,  from  Ventimiglia;   Ventimiglia  fig.  27  no.  20  from  strato  VI  A,  fig    55 


COSA:  BLACK-GLAZE  POTTERY 


169 


The  more  common  form  of  bowl  with  outturned  rim  at  Cosa  (B  36c,  C  7a, 
C  28a,  D  8cl  and  11,  E  8b  HI)  varies  in  texture  of  clay  from  soft  to  hard, 
fragments  of  both  textures  appearing  in  Deposits  B  and  D.  .  There  is  no  evi- 
dence in  this  form  that  the  differences  in  texture  have  significance  for  variations 
in  form  or  chronology.  None  of  the  examples  shows  workmanship  of  high  qua- 
lity. The  rim  of  this  group  is  rounded  or  flaring  outward.  In  Deposit  D, 
where  the  full  shape  can  be  identified,  an  example  in  soft  clay  has  a  flaring 
rim,  thick  wall  and  raised  foot  with  rounded  exterior,  oblique  interior.  The  floor 
is  undecorated.  The  high  foot  of  C  14a  and  D  26c I  and  11  may  belong  to 
bowls  with  outturned  rim  or  rimless  bowls.  Some  of  them  have  concentric 
circles  on  the  floor.  This  form  of  bowl  was  imported  to  Cosa  about  the  middle 
of  the  second  century  or  earlier.  It  is  relatively  common  in  the  deposits  of  the 
end  of  the  second  century  and   the  first  century. 

The  other  form  of  the  bowl  with  outturned  rim  (E  8b I)  is  represented  by 
a  single  fragment  of  rim  and  body.  It  has  a  soft  clay  with  many  impurities. 
Its  glaze  is  a  thin  red-brown,  the  color  apparently  the  result  of  careless  firing. 
The  rim  is  wide  and  almost  horizontal  with  an  encircling  groove  on  top.  Al- 
though the  fabric  of  this  piece  is  unusually  poor  in  quality,  the  form  probably 
shows  the  same  tradition  of  craftsmanship  as  the  plates  with  upturned  rim  and 
rimless  bowl  which  have  a  groove  in  the  resting  surface.  The  feet  of  these  two 
forms  are  low.  The  best  candidate  for  the  foot  of  this  shape  of  bowl  is  the  uni- 
dentified low  outturned  foot  of  D  26c  HI  or  IV.  Deposit  D  has  a  closing  date 
of  70-60  B.C.     This  fragment  of  rim  occurs  in  the  first  century  deposit.  "^ 


Type  III:  Rimless  bowl. 


B  40  E  9C 

(B40,  PI.  VIII,  PI.  XXVIII;   E  9c,  PI.   XLII;  bases  of  bowls:  C  14a;   D  26cl,   PI.   XL;  D  26cII) 

no.  9  from  strato  V.  StratoVI  A  is  dated  (see  ja//-a  note  4)  100-90 — 30-20  b.c;  stratoV,  iob.c- 
A.D.  10.  Larger  plate:  NS  (1951)  270  fig.  8  and  275,  from  Syracuse;  Ceramica  Campana  150 
form  7  Type  C,  example  from  Ventimiglia,  examples  from  Museo  Nazionale  of  Syracuse,  from 
Tindari,  example  from  Museo  di  Cavaillon;  Ventimiglia  fig.  48  no.  11  from  strato  VI  A;  example 
from  Castiglioncello  (Museo  Archeologico  in  Castiglioncello)  from  Malta  (museum  in  Citta  Vecchia 
in  Malta). 

"7  NS  (1951)  270  fig.  8,  from  Syracuse;  Ceramica  Campana  160  forms  17,  18,  19,  Type  C: 
form  17,  example  from  Museo  Nazionale  of  Syracuse,  form  18,  from  same  museum,  form  19, 
example  from  same  museum  and  from  Ventimiglia.     The  Cosa    examples  seem  to  be  form    19; 


22 


J70  DORIS  M.  TAYLOR 

These  two  bowls,  B  40  and  E  9c,  have  very  little  in  common.  They  both 
have  a  soft  clay.  The  bowl  in  Deposit  B  has  a  dull,  thin  black  glaze  over 
the  entire  surface.  Its  high  foot  curves  outward  near  the  bottom.  The  floor 
has  a  pattern  of  two  concentric  circles  close  to  the  center  and  two  more  almost 
over  the  foot.  In  form  of  foot  and  pattern  on  floor  this  bowl  is  similar  to 
Type  II.  A  base  (C  14a),  similar  in  shape  but  with  hard  clay,  may  be  part 
of  a  similar  bowl.  It  has  no  floor  pattern.  The  six  bases  in  Deposit  D  (D  26cl 
and  n)  have  rounded  feet  and  may  belong  to  bowls  of  similar  form.  The 
clay  of  these  pieces  varies  from  soft  to  hard.  Five  of  them  have  concentric 
circles,on  the  floor  in  a  pattern  similar  to  one  of  Type  II;  the  other  is  unde- 
corated.  The  bowl  B  40  is  dated  about  the  middle  of  the  second  century, 
perhaps  somewhat   earlier. 

The  bowl  in  Deposit  E,  a  first  century  deposit,  has  a  broad  floor  and  a  low 
foot.  There  is  a  groove  in  the  resting  surface,  a  device  common  in  plates  with 
upturned   rim.     The   floor   is   decorated   with   pairs   of  concentric   circles.  °* 


Type  III:  Bowl  with  incurved  rim. 
A  24  (?),  PL.  XXII;  B  42d 

Only  two  examples  of  this  form  in  the  fabric  of  Type  III  occur  in  the  five 
deposits.  One,  not  identified  with  certainty,  is  in  the  group  of  small  ritual 
bowls  found  in  the  fill  of  the  Capitolium.  It  has  a  very  hard  clay  and  a  firm 
black  glaze  which  is  slightly  iridescent.  The  inside  of  the  foot  is  unglazed. 
The  bowl  has  a  thin  wall.  Its  low  heavy  foot  is  similar  in  form  to  A  2lb,  round- 
ed on  the  exterior  and  oblique  on  the  interior.  On  the  floor  a  central  rosette 
stamp  has  been  pressed  deeply  into  the  clay. 

The  fragment  in  Deposit  B  has  a  hard  grey  clay  which  is  roughly  finished. 
Its  dull  grey  glaze  covers  the  interior  and  only  the  upper  part  of  the  exterior. 
The  method  of  applying  glaze  is  used  on  some  of  the  plates  with  upturned  rim 
(with  soft  clay)  of  Type  III.  It  seems  to  be  a  peculiarity  of  the  type.  The 
form  of  the  foot  of  this  bowl  is  not  identified. 

These  two  examples  suggest  that  the  bowl  with  incurved  rim  of  Type  III 
was  in  use  at  Cosa  in  the  first  half  of  the  second  century,  perhaps  as  late  as  the 
beginning  of  the  second  half.  The  differences  between  the  two  bowls  are  so 
great  that  they  cannot  be  attributed  to  a  chronological  development  alone.  They 
must  come  from  different  hands  or  workshops.  °' 

however,  some  of  the  pieces  are  too  fragmentary  to  show  the  distinctions  in  form  which  Lamboglia 
has  recognized.     Ventimiglia  fig.  52  no.  12  from  strato  V,  dated  (see  supra  note  4)  10  b.c.-a.d.  10. 

'*  Ceramica  Campana  161  form  20  Type  C,  example  from  Museo  Nazionale  of  Syracuse;  Ven- 
timiglia fig.  27  no.  21  from  strato  VI  A,  dated  (see  supra  note  4)  100-90 — 30-20  B.C.  (Identifica- 
tion of  the  form  of  this  example  is  uncertain). 

^  Ceramica  Campana  176  form  27.     Lamboglia  has  not  given  this  form  in  Type  C. 


COSA:  BLACK-GLAZE  POTTERY  171 

Type  III:  Bowl  with  broad  foot  and  curved  wall. 


V 


D   i6bll  E  14b 

(D  i6bl,  PL.  XLIV;  D   i6bll,  PI.   XXXVI;   E  14b,    PI.  XLII) 

The  bowl  with  broad  foot  in  a  grey  clay  is  relatively  rare.  Only  two  frag- 
ments (D  l6b  I  and  E  14b)  can  be  identified  with  certainty.  They  differ  in 
the   texture  of  the  clay,   application  of  glaze,  and  form    ot  toot. 

The  example  in  Deposit  D,  D  l6b  I,  has  a  hard  granular  clay.  A  dull  black 
glaze  covers  the  entire  surface.  The  rim  is  not  known.  In  form  of  the  foot 
and  curve  of  the  lower  part  of  the  body  this  piece  is  identical  to  the  corre- 
sponding form  of  Type  II.  The  other  base  in  the  same  deposit  has  a  lower, 
less  angular  foot.     Its  clay  is  soft. 

The  fragment  in  the  Pottery  Dump  (E  14b)  has  a  soft  grey  clay  and  dull 
black  glaze.  As  in  the  case  of  some  of  the  plates  with  upturned  rim  of  Type  III, 
the  glaze  covers  the  interior  and  only  the  top  of  the  exterior.  The  form  of  the 
rim  is  not  known.  The  foot  is  low,  curved  on  the  exterior,  oblique  on  the  interior. 
It  has  a  broad  resting  surface.  On  the  floor,  a  pattern  of  three  concentric  cir- 
cles, a  small  one  in  the  center  and  a  pair  of  larger  ones,  is  incised. 

Of  the  two  examples  of  this  form  of  bowl  which  can  be  identified,  one, 
with  hard  clay,  comes  from  the  deposit  dated  in  the  late  second  and  early 
first  centuries,  the  other,  of  softer  texture,  from  the  deposit  of  the  first  century.  ^° 


Type  III:  Cup  with  broad  foot  and  flaring  wall. 


E   15a 
(D  17b,   PL   XXXVII;    E  15a,  PI.   XLII) 


The  three  fragments  of  this  form,  one  in  Deposit  D  and  two  in  Deposit  E, 
have  a  soft  grey  clay  and  dull  black  glaze.  The  rim  flares  outward  more  than 
that  of  the  corresponding  fprm  of  Type  II.     The  form  of  the  foot  is  unknown. 

3°  Ceramica  Campana   157  form   i  Type  C,  two  example  from  Syracuse. 


,72  :■'    DORIS  M.  TAYLOR 

As  in    the  case  of  the  cup  of  the  fabric   of  Type  II,  this  form   seems  almost 
contemporary  with   the  bowl  with  broad  foot  in  identical  fabric. 

The  cup  of  Type  III  occurs  in  the  deposits  of  the  late  second  and  first 
centuries.  ^' 

Type  III:  Pyxis. 
D  19b,  PI.  XXXVII 

The  two  bases  of  the  pyxis  of  Type  III  have  a  soft  grey  clay  and  dull 
black  glaze.  The  glaze  seems  to  cover  the  entire  surface.  The  curve  ot  the 
body  and  rim  is  unknown.  In  shape  the  foot  is  almost  identical  with  one  of 
the  examples  of  Type  II.  It  is  rounded  on  the  exterior.  On  the  inside  of  the 
foot  at  its  juncture  with  the  base  a  groove  is  incised. 

These  examples  occur  in  the  fill  of  the  trench  south  of  the  Capitolium. 
Its  termini  are  130-120  and  70-60  b.c.  ^^ 


Type  III:  Lid. 


B  52b 

(B  52b,   PI.    XXIX;  D  30, 
PI.   XL;    E   21b) 


One  fragment  was  found  in  each  of  three  deposits:  B,  D,  and  E.  Each  has 
a  hard  or  relatively  hard  clay.  The  examples  in  Deposits  B  and  D  have  firm 
black  glazes;  the  one  in  Deposit  E  has  a  thinner  coat.  The  form  is  simply 
profiled.     The  shape  of  the  top  is  not  known. 

The  shape,  since  it  occurs  in  Deposit  B,  was  known  at  Cosa  by  ca.  140  B.C. 
It  was  in  use,  but  rare,  in  the  late  second  and  first  centuries.  There  is  no  evi- 
dence of  a  change  in  form.  '^ 


Type  III:  Pitcher  (?) 


D   2ib 
(D  21b;  PI.  XXXVII) 


3'  Ceramica  Campana  157  form  2  Type  C,  example  from  the  Museo  Nazionale  in  Syracuse. 
3=  Ceramica  Campana  158  form  3  Type  C,  one  example  from  the  Museo  Nazionale  in  Syracuse, 
another  from  the  Museo  Arqueologico  in  Barcelona. 

33  Lamboglia  has  not  given  this  form  in  Ceramica  Campana. 


COSA:  BLACK-GLAZE  POTTERY  173 

The  identification  of  this  form  is  uncertain.  The  clay  is  clearly  the  soft 
grey  of  Type  III  but  the  glaze  has  disappeared  completely.  The  two  examples, 
each  of  which  preserves  rim  and  neck  only,  differ  in  form.  One  has  a  tapered 
rim,  narrow  neck  and  flaring  body.  It  is  thick  at  the  neck  and  rim.  The 
other  has  an  outturned  rim  and  thick  neck  similar  to  the  form  of  the  pitcher 
of  Type  II. 

Deposit  D  dates  in  the  last  decades  of  the  second  century  and  the  first 
part  of  the  first.  ^* 

Type  IV:  Introduction  to  fortns. 

The  variations  in  the  fabric  of  Type  IV  have  been  given  in  the  Introduc- 
tion. The  type  has  two  distinct  groups  of  forms:  one  a  repertory  peculiar  to  it, 
the  other  copies  of  the  forms  of  other  fabrics,  primarily  those  of  Type  II.  The 
former  group  was  recognized  from  the  evidence  of  Deposit  C,  the  deposit  in 
Section  16  of  the  house  adjoining  the  basilica,  supplemented  by  the  fill,  part 
of  Deposit  B,  between  the  colonnade  and  basilica  floors.  This  group,  with  the 
exception  of  two  forms,  is  not  common  in  earlier  or  later  deposits,  that  is, 
the  group  was  almost  confined  to  the  middle  of  the  second  century,  before  the 
importation  of  Types  I  and  II  in  quantity.  The  latter  group  is  common  in 
the  two  latest  deposits.  It  is  clear  that  the  workshops  of  Type  IV  produced 
their  own  forms  in  the  second  century,  but  that  when  Types  I  and  II  came  to 
the  market  of  Cosa,  they  stopped  this  production  and  began  to  copy  the  forms 
of  these  new   types. 

Most  of  the  earlier  forms  of  Type  IV,  that  is,  those  in  Deposits  B  and  C, 
are  simple:  rimless  saucer,  saucer  with  furrowed  rim,  bowl  with  outturned  rim, 
with  ribbon-band  rim,  rimless  bowls  with  curving,  angular,  or  vertical  wall. 
Most  of  these  forms  occur  in  shapes  peculiar  to  Type  IV,  but  the  plate  with 
horizontal  offset  rim,  a  form  in  Types  I  and  II,  also  occurs.  The  plate  with 
recurving  rim,  the  small  plate  on  a  high  foot,  the  plate  with  profiled  rim,  the 
plate  with  forked  lip,  the  bowl  with  thickened  lip,  the  pyxis,  pitcher,  and  a  large 
jar  are  found  in  other  deposits.  Of  these  forms  the  plate  with  profiled  rim, 
the  plate  with  forked  lip,  the  bowl  with  thickened  lip,  th,e  pyxis,  the  large  jar, 
and  the  pitcher  occur  in  Type  IV  in  shapes  unique  or  different  from  those  of 
the  other  identified  types.  '' 

a*  Ceramica  Campana  149  form  10.     Lamboglia  has  not  given  this  form  in  Type  C. 

35  Some  forms  in  the  fabric  of  Type  IV  have  not  been  identified.  Abase,  A  9,  with  unusual 
form  and  stamp  pattern  is  puzzling.  The  foot  is  very  thin,  with  oblique  walls  and  narrow  resting 
surface.  On  the  floor  four  rows  of  rouletting  encircle  a  stamped  pattern  consisting  of  a  central 
palmette  surrounded  by  four  stamps,  alternating  palmettes  and  stylized  tree  (?).  Another  example 
in  an  unidentified  fabric,  C  26e,  has  the  same  narrow  foot  and  a  comparable  stamp  formation. 
Since  none  of  the  other  identified  bases  of  Type  IV  has  the  angularity  of  example  A  9,  the  iden- 
tification of  the  fabric  as  Type  IV  may  be  open  to  question.  Such  a  precise  stamp  pattern  is 
not  usual  in  Deposit  A;  it  is  rare  in  Deposit  C.  Both  bases,  A  9  and  C  26e,  probably  refiect 
a  late  third  or  early  second  century  taste  in  stamp  decoration.     The  unusual  form  of  the  foot 


174 


DORIS  M.  TAYLOR 


With  the  exception  of  the  earliest  form  of  the  type,  the  small  bowls  in 
Deposit  A,  the  most  conspicuous  characteristic  of  Type  IV  is  the  angularity  of  its 
saucers  and  bowls.  They  were  turned,  glazed  and  fired  with  little  care.  The  results 
were  clumsy  but  sturdy  shapes.  The  walls  are  rather  thick;  the  feet  are  heavy 
with  rounded  or  oblique  exteriors,  oblique  interiors   and   central  turning  points. 

Decorative  devices  are  no  more  complicated  than  the  shapes.  With  the 
exception  of  the  bowls  in  Deposit  A,' the  forms  have  unstamped  floors.  Rou- 
letting  and/or  concentric  circles  are  not  common.  (For  another  exception  see 
supra  173,  note  35.)  The  potters  of  Type  IV  had  a  fondness  for  adding  encir- 
cling grooves  on  bowls  and  plates.  Some  of  these  grooves  were  used  to  accen- 
tuate the  form,  as,  for  example,  on  the  saucer  with  furrowed  rim  and  the  bowl 
with  ribbon-band  rim.  Since  several  of  the  forms  of  Type  IV  are  descendants 
of  ones  which  had  had  as  long  tradition  (see  the  description  of  individual  forms), 
all  the  grooves  may  be  remnants  of  earlier  and  more  complicated  forms.  Some 
of  the  bowls  with  incurved  rim  in  Deposit  A  have  simple  stamp  patterns,  central 
stars  or  rosettes  or  scattered  palmettes,   rosettes,   or  ^  stamps. 

The  clumsy,  heavy  forms  of  Type  IV,  the  local  fabric,  are  no  compliment 
to  the  taste  of  the  Cosan  housewife.  The  plates,  bowls,  and  pyxides  of  Types  I, 
II  and  III  must  have  been  her  "  better  dishes.  "  Her  household  ornament  was 
the  little  figurine  of  Type  III. 


Type  IV:  Plate  with  horizontal  offset  rim. 


D  iidl 


(C   lb;  D   idl,   PL   XXXIII;  D   idlll;   E   le,   PI.   XLI) 


This    form    in    Type  IV,  as  in  Type    III,    shows  no   standard   shape.     It 
seems  to  be  attempting  to  pattern  itself  after  Type  II.     The  three  examples  in 

of  A  9  must  be  a  copy  of  some  imported  fabrics.  The  base-C  26e  may  represent  this  import.  The 
base  of  a  form  C  14b  has  a  unique  floor  pattern.  Circles  of  coarse  rouletting  surround  faint  pal- 
mette  stamps.  The  foot  has  a  form  characteristic  of  Type  IV.  This  base  seems  to  combine  the 
rouletting  of  some  of  the  bowls  of  later  deposits  with  the  stamp  of  the  small  bowls  in  Deposit  A. 
The  full  form  represented  by  a  rim  fragment,  D  18,  can  not  be  identified.  It  seems  to  be  part 
of  a  bowl  with  flaring  wall  and  outturned  rim,  a  form  not  duplicated  in  other  fabrics  in  any 
depcsit.  It  has  a  decorative  device  typical  of  Type  IV:  two  grooves  on  the  exterior  just  below 
the  rim.  One  of  the  stands  in  Deposit  D  (D  28a)  seems  to  have  the  clay  and  glaze  of  Type  IV. 
The  identification  is  not  certain. 


COSA:  BLACK-GLAZE  POTTERY  175 

Deposit  C  have  rims  similar  to  those  of  Type  II.  The  bowl  is  deeper.  The 
thirty-five  examples  in  Deposit  D  have  great  variety  in  the  shape  of  the  rim. 
Most  of  them  are  similar  in  form  to  Type  II.  The  only  identifiable  base  has 
a  floor  design  of  concentric  circles  like  a  degenerate  example  of  Type  II. 
The  foot  of  this  base  has  oblique  sides  and  a  conspicuous  central  turn- 
ing point.  Other  bases  of  plates  have  patterns  of  circles  or  rouletting  on 
the  floor. 

In  Deposit  E  it  is  difficult  to  distinguish  plates  of  Type  II  from  its  copies. 
Examples  of  Types  I  and  II  seem  to  be  more  plentiful  than  local  copies.  The 
peak  of  the  production  of  the  copies  of  Type  II  occurs  in  the  late  second 
century. 

Several  examples  of  this  plate  in  Type  IV  are  very  large,  an  indication 
that  the  local  product  is  supplying  the  market  with  pieces  which  would  be 
heavy  to  transport.  ^* 


Type  IV:  Small  plate  on  a  high  foot. 

D  2bl,   PI.   XXXIII;  D  2bII 

One  example,  D  2b  I,  has  a  very  angular  profile  and  deep  floor.  The  form 
of  the  foot  is  not  known.  Since  the  glaze  of  the  fragment  is  firm,  the  plate  is 
probably  one  of  the  earliest  examples  of  Type  IV  in  the  deposit,  that  is,  it 
dates  in  the  late  second  century  rather  than  the  first.  Six  other  examples  from 
the  same  deposit  imitate  the  form  of  Type  II. 

The  small  plate  on  a  high  foot,  either  in  Type  II  or  in  its  copies,  was  not 
common  at  Cosa.  The  form  of  the  foot  shows  so  much  variation,  in  Types  II 
and  IV,  that  it  is  impossible  to  determine  if  the  local  product  has  forms  independ- 
ent of  Type  II.  " 


Type  IV:  Plate  with  upturned  rim. 
B  9,  PI.  XXVI;  D  5dn;  E  5dl  and  H;  bases:  D  6dn,  E  6dl,  and  H 

The  plates  with  upturned  rim  in  Type  IV  are  copies  of  the  two  sizes  of 
Type  II.  They  differ  from  them  only  in  quality  of  workmanship  and  decorative 
devices  on  the  floors.  Type  IV  is  usually  devoid  of  decoration;  a  few  examples 
have  circles  or  rouletting.  A  single  example  of  Type  IV  occurs  in  Deposit  B. 
Copies  of  the  smaller  plate  of  Type  II  are  extremely  common  in  Deposit  D. 
Copies  of  the  larger  plate  are  relatively  more  common  in  Deposit  E.  ^* 

3*  Ceramica  Campana  147,   158,   168  form  6. 

37  Ceramica  Campana  145,   167  form  4. 

38  Ceramica  Campana  146,   158,   167  form  5;   148,   159  form  7. 


176  "      DORIS  M.  TAYLOR 

Type  IV:  Plate  with  horizontal  recurving  rim. 


D  3b  E  3 

(B   25,   PI.    XXVII;   D   3b,   PI.    XXXIII;    E   3,   PI.    XLI) 


The  example  in  Deposit  B  has  a  narrow  curving  rirn  and  shallow  bowl; 
that  in  Deposit  D  has  a  rim  with  fuller  curve.  The  glaze  of  the  latter  suggests 
that  it  is  one  of  the  earliest  examples  of  Type  IV  in  the  deposit.  The  frag- 
ment in  Type  IV  in  Deposit  E  is  the  only  example  of  this  form  in  the  deposit. 
Its  firm  glaze  indicates  that  it  is  one  of  the  oldest  pieces  in  the  deposit,  if  not 
an  intrusion.  Its  rim  has  a  shallow  curve;  its  floor  is  oblique  rather  than 
curved. 

Plates  of  the  workshop  of  Type  I  supplied  the  market  of  Cosa  with  this 
form.  Copies  of  it  are  rare.  All  three  examples  of  Type  IV  probably  date 
in  the  last  half  of  the  second  century.  They  seem  to  reflect  the  change  in  shape 
visible  in  examples  of  Type  I,  a  decrease  in  the  curve  of  the  rim  and  floor. 
The  base  of  the  form  in  Type  IV  is  indistinguishable  from  that  of  other  plates.  ^^ 


Type  IV:  Plate  with  wide  rim  which  forks  at  lip. 


B  28 

(B  28,  PL   XXVI 1) 


The  single  fragment  of  this  form  is  in  the  local  fabric.  This  and  the  plate 
(or  shallow  bowl)  with  profiled  rim,  D  id  11  and  D  8d  11,  are  the  only  forms  in 
Type  IV  which  seem  to  be  unrelated  to  the  angular  forms  so  characteristic  of 
the  fabric  or  to  the  forms  of  other  major  types  which  Type  IV  copies.  It  is 
worth  noting  that  both  these  forms  have  parallels  in  the  eastern  Mediterranean. 

The  closest  parallels  in  form  to  B  28,  however,  occur  in  impasto  and  buc- 
chero.  '° 

39  Ceramica  Campana  183  form  36. 

*°  Not  in  Ceramica  Campana.  ■'        ' 


COSA:  BLACK-GLAZE  POTTERY 


177 


Type  IV:  Plate  {or  shallow  bowl)  with  profiled  rim. 


•M^  WW  w\ 


VN 


D   idll  D  Sdll 

(D  idll,  PI.   XII,  PI.  XXXIII;  D  8dII,  PI.   XXXV) 


At  least  three  of  the  five  examples  of  this  form  were  made  in  workshops 
of  Type  IV.  They  show  a  change  in  form  of  rim  and  body  which  is  probably  a 
development.  One  example,  D  id  IE,  has  a  divided  rim.  The  top  of  it  is 
flattened;  the  other  segment  turns  outward.  The  floor  curves.  The  upper  side 
of  the  rim  bears  an  ovolo  pattern.  The  other  two  in  the  same  fabric,  D  Sdll, 
have  a  simpler  rim,  an  oblique  floor  and  no  stamp  on  the  rim.  The  form  of  the 
base  of  this  plate  is  not  known. 

Another  example  with  stamped  rim  in  Deposit  D  has  a  soft  whitish  clay. 
It  may  be  an  underfired  example  of  Type  IV. 

Deposit  D,  in  which  the  examples  of  Type  IV  occur,  is  dated  130-120 — 
70-60  B.C.  ■" 

Type  IV:  Saucer  with  furrowed  rim. 


C  27b 

(B  n,  PI.  VI,  PL  XXVI;  B  35,  PI.  XXVIII;  C  6;  C  27a,  PI.   XXXI;  C  27b,  PI.   X,  PL   XXXI 
C  27c;  D  7,  PL   XXXV,  PL  XLIV;   E  7a,  PL   XLII) 

This  form  was  common  at  Cosa.  The  clay  shows  variations  in  color  but 
its  texture  and  finish  remain  the  same.  It  is  hard  and  rough  on  the  surface. 
The  glaze  is  firm  on  the  earliest  examples,  thinner  on  those  in  Deposit  D. 
The  single  fragment  in  Deposit  E  has  a  firm  glaze,  an  indication  that  it  is  one 
of  the  earliest  pieces  in  that  group.  The  glaze  is  frequently  metallic  and  mot- 
tled red  near   the  base.     Stacking  rings  are  common. 

*'  Not  in  Ceramica  Campana. 
23 


,78  DORIS  M.  TAYLOR 

In  general,  examples  with  the  firmest  glaze  have  drooping  rounded  rims. 
The  walls  are  slightly  curved.  The  feet  are  usually  rounded  on  the  exterior, 
oblique  on  the  interior.  Most  of  the  bases  have  a  central  turning  point.  The 
proportions  of  the  saucer  give  it  a  sturdy,  well-balanced  shape.  Almost  all 
examples  have  a  single  furrow  on  the  top  of  the  rim.  A  few  in  Deposit  D  are 
furrowed  on  both  sides  of  the  rim.  Decorations  on  the  floor  are  rare.  One  example 
in  Deposit   B   has   four   rows   of  rouletting;  a  few  in  Deposit  D  have  rouletting. 

Eight  examples  of  this  saucer  were  found  in  Deposit  B,  in  the  fill  beneath 
the  basilica  floor  and  above  the  colonnade  floor;  twenty-one  were  found  in  Depos- 
it C,  in  Section  i6  adjoining  the  basilica.  This  is  one  of  the  forms  common 
to  the  two  areas  which  give  strong  evidence  that  the  occupancy  of  Section  i6 
was  contemporary  with  the  period  of  the  colonnade's  use  before  the  construction 
of  the  basilica.  This  interval  has  been  fixed  by  coins  as  170-160 — ca.  140  B.C. 
Since  there  are  no  examples  of  this  saucer  in  Deposit  A,  which  probably  over- 
laps Deposit  B  by  a  few  years  in  its  other  areas,  the  examples  of  this  form  in  these 
areas  are,  no  doubt,  late  in  the  period  of  Deposit  B  and  contemporary  with 
the  examples  found  above  the  colonnade  floor. 

The  saucers  show  some  but  not  much  variation  in  the  shapes  of  the  rim  and 
foot.  The  greatest  variation  exists,  however,  within  the  relatively  short  period  of 
Deposit  C  and  the  contemporary  part  of  Deposit  B.  They  must  represent  varia- 
tions of  a  workshop  rather  than  chronological  developments.  The  fourteen  examples 
in  Deposit  D,  compared  with  one  (plus  one  in  another  fabric)  in  Deposit  E  indicate 
that  the  form  was  in  use  in  the  late  second  century  but  probably  not  in  the  first. 

The  shape  is  a  virtual  monopoly  of  Type  IV.  The  piece  in  Deposit  E  is 
the  only  example  in  another  fabric.  The  form  is  probably  a  descendant  of  the 
"  fish  plate.  "  An  example  of  the  "  fish  plate  "  in  the  fill  of  the  Capitolium, 
A  2,  for  example,  has  much  in  common  with  the  saucer  with  furrowed  rim.  Such 
an  ancestry  would  explain   the  drooping  rims  on   saucers  with  better  glazes.  *" 


Type  IV:  Rimless  saucer  {or  plate)  with  angular  zvall. 


B   12  C  17 

(B  12,  PI.   XXVII;  C  13;  C  17,  PI.   XXX;  C  36;  PI.   XXXII;  D   i3bll,   PI.   XXXVI) 

«'  Not  in  Ceramica  Campana.     Examples     with     similar     fabric  and  form:   from  Tarquinia 
(Museo  Nazionale  Tarquiniese).    Examples  with  similar  form;  from  Tuscania  (Museo  Archeologico 


COSA:  BLACK-GLAZE  POTTERY 


179 


This  form  is  very  simple.  In  the  best  examples  in  Deposit  B  the  lip  is 
rounded;  it  is  usually  blunt.  The  wall  is  oblique,  with  a  slight  angle  not  far 
from  the  top.  The  base  has  not  been  identified.  It  must  have  been  similar 
to  the  one  found  on  all  the  other  forms  of  Type  IV,  a  heavy  foot  with  rounded 
exterior  and  oblique  interior.  Some  of  the  fragments  in  Deposits  C  and  D 
have  rouletting  on  their  floors.  There  is  no  evidence  of  development  in  the 
form.  It  is  neither  graceful  nor  stable  in  appearance,  for  the  angularity  of  the 
wall  gives  it  an  ungainly  character. 

This  form,  found  in  Deposit  B  in  the  fill  between  the  colonnade  and  basi- 
lica floors,  is  one  of  the  shapes  common  to  this  area  of  the  basilica  fill  and 
Deposit  C  which  gives  evidence  that  Section  16  (Deposit  C)  is  contemporary  with 
the  period  of  the  colonnade's  use  before  the  construction  of  the  basilica.  Seven- 
teen of  the  twenty-four  examples  recorded  in  the  three  deposits  occur  in  Sec- 
tion 16  and  the  area  of  the  basilica  fill  directly  above  the  colonnade  floor.  The 
form  was  in  use  by  the  middle  of  the  second  century,  perhaps  a  few  years 
earlier.  It  must  have  disappeared  in  the  late  second  century.  The  oblique 
plate  with  upturned  rim  which  was  so  common  in  Deposit  D  must  have  taken 
its  place.  ^^ 

Type  IV:  Bowl  with  outturned  rim. 


C  28b 

(B  36a,    PI.   VIII,    PL    XXVIII;    B  37d,    PI.   XXVIII;  C  7b,  PL   XXX;  C  18,  PL  XXX;  C  28b, 

PL    XI,   PL    XXXI;   D   8dl,   PL    XXXV;   D   8dIIl;,  D    I3bl,   PL    XXXVI;   E   8d,   PI.   XLII) 


This  is  the  most  popular  form  of  bowl  at  Cosa  in  the  period  represented 
by  Deposits  B,  C,  D  and  E,  that  is,  from  170-160  b.c.  to  40-30  B.C.,  the  end 
of  the  use  of  black  glaze.     There  is  some  evidence  for  development  of  the  form. 


in  Florence,  no.  7S3io>  and  the  museum  in  Tarquinia),  from  Talamone  (Museo  Archeologico  in 
Florence),  from  Volterra  (Museo  Guarnacci),  from  Arezzo  (Museo  Archeologico  Mecenate,  no.  1291), 
and  from  Castiglioncello  (Museo  Archeologico  in  Castiglioncello,  tomb  XL,   no.  246). 

t3  Not  given  in  Ceratnica  Campana.     Example,  Type  IV,  in  the  Museo  Nazionale  Tarquiniese. 


i8o 


DORIS  M.  TAYLOR 


Since  it  seems  to  vary  from  a  sharply  outturned  rim  to  no  rim  some  examples 
appear  in    the  catalogue  under  the  classification  of  "  rimless   bowls  ." 

The  bowl  in  Type  IV  first  occurs  in  Deposit  B.  The  example  in  that  fill 
which  has  the  best  glaze  has  a  horizontal  flattened  rim.  The  other  twenty- 
seven  examples  have  outrolled  rim  or  flaring  wall  with  no  rim.  The  five  exam- 
ples of  Type  IV  in  Deposit  C  have  forms  similar  to  that  of  C  28b.  The  rim 
flares  outward,  the  body  is  curved.  The  foot  has  a  rough  finish  on  the  exterior 
and  it  is  almost  oblique  on  both  sides.  There  is  a  conspicuous  central  turning 
point.  One  of  the  examples  in  Deposit  D  and  some  in  Deposit  E  with  comparative- 
ly good  glaze  turn  outward;   the  other  examples  flare  outward  or  have  no  rim. 

The  rims  which  turn  outward  sharply  may  be  imitations  of  the  Type  II 
bowl.  The  great  number  of  bowls  with  flaring  rim  in  Deposit  B  shows  that 
the  flaring  rim  was  already  popular  by  the  middle  of  the  second  century  and 
probably  earlier.  Since  no  examples  of  the  Type  IV  bowl  occur  in  Deposit  A, 
the  only  evidence  that  the  piece  with  flattened  rim  in  Deposit  B  is  earlier  than 
the  others  in  the  same  deposit  is  the  good  quality  of  its  glaze.  The  same  distinc- 
tion in  rims  and  qualities  of  glaze  in  Deposits  D  and  E,  however,  argues  against 
a  development  from  a  bowl  with  flattened  rim  to  a  bowl  without  rim.  The 
most  common  form  of  Type  IV  has  a  flaring  wall  and  outturned  rim.  The 
rimless  bowl   is  relatively   more  common   in   later  deposits.  '•'' 


Type  IV:  Rimless  bowl  with  angular  wall. 


C  29b 


(A   18,   PI.    XXII;  B   38;  C   10;  C   19a;  C  29b,    PI.    XI,   PI.    XII;  PI.   XXXII;   E   II,   PI.   XLII) 


This  bowl  has  a  rounded  lip  and  angular  wall.  Its  foot  is  carelessly  fin- 
ished,  almost    angular  on  the    exterior,    oblique   on    the    interior.    The  central 

<<  Ceramica  Campana  177  form  28.  Examples  of  a  similar  form:  from  Enserune  and  Min- 
tumae;  EVP  244  ii,  from  Cerveteri,  from  Sovana;  F.  Mouret  CVA  France  fasc.  6  pi.  22  nos.  32, 
50,  s8;  Minturnae  type  18  pis.  i  and  3;  Athens  C  3  fig.  28,  D  2-6  figs.  55,  115,  and  117,  E  33-34 
fig.  83  and  117.  The  examples  in  Groups  D  and  E  are  close  parallels  in  form  to  the  Cosa 
bowls.  Antioch  IV  12  no.  42  pi.  2;  Dura  4  no.   12. 


COSA:  BLACK-GLAZE  POTTERY 


i8i 


turning  point  is  conspicuous.  The  glaze  on  the  lower  part  of  the  exterior  is 
mottled  red.  Some  examples  have  a  groove  on  the  exterior  just  below  the  lip. 
One  fragment  with  this  groove  has  rouletting  on  the  floor.  There  is  no  evi- 
dence of  a  development  of  the  form  and  the  variations  must  be  attributed  to 
different  hands. 

The  shape  had  a  rather  short  life  at  Cosa.  The  three  examples  in  Deposit  A 
have  thin  glazes,  an  indication  that  they  are  probably  among  the  latest  pieces 
in  the  fill.  Since  the  large  group  of  pottery  in  Deposit  D  did  not  contain  a 
single  example  of  the  form  the  piece  in  Deposit  E  must  be  an  intrusion  frorri 
an  earlier  period.  The  use  of  this  form  of  bowl  therefore  was  limited  to  the 
second  and  third  quarters  of  the  second  century,  perhaps  only  to  the  second. 
It  was  replaced  by  the  bowls  of  Types  I  and  II  so  common  in  Deposit  D.  ■•' 


Type  IV:  Rimless  bowl  with  vertical  wall. 


C  19c 

(A  19,  PI.   XXII;  C  19c,  PI.   XXX;  and  PI.  XLIV;  D  12,  PL  XXXV)    . 


This  form  is  clear  from  the  single  example  in  Deposit  C.  It  has  a  tapered 
lip,  a  high  vertical  wall  and  broad  floor.  The  foot  has  an  angular  exterior,  oblique 
interior.     There  is  a  groove  on  the  exterior  just  below  the  lip. 

The  form  is  rare  at  Cosa.  The  evidence  from  Deposits  A  and  C  suggest 
that  it  was  known  there  sometime  in  the  first  half  of  the  second  century. 
Since  the  three  examples  in  Deposit  A  have  a  thin  metallic  glaze  they  are 
probably  among  the  latest  pieces  in  the  fill.  The  three  examples  in  Deposit  D 
have  a  coarse  buff  clay  and   thin  dull  glaze.     They  may  be  poor  examples  of 


«  Ceramica  Campana  177  form  28.  Examples  of  a  similar  form:  from  the  museum  of  Ense- 
rune;  Ventimiglia  fig.  27  no.  17  from  strato  VI  A,  fig.  34  no.  9  from  strato  VI  B.  Strato  VI  B 
is  dated  (see  supra  note  4)  180-170 — 100-90  B.C.;  strato  VI  A,  100-80 — 30-20  B.C.  F.  Mouret  CVA 
France  fasc.  6  pi.  22  no.  51;  Tarsus  no.  41  figs.  120,  179;  Antioch  IV  12  no.  43U  pi.  2. 


l82 


DORIS  M.  TAYLOR 


this  form  of  Type  IV.    They   seem  to  be  hybrids  between    the  bowl  with  ver- 
tical wall  and  the  bowl  with  ribbon-band  rim,  another  form  of  Type  IV.''* 


Type  IV:  Rimless  bowl  with  curved  wall. 


C  29c 

(C  29c,  PI.  XXXII) 

There  is  only  one  example  of  this  form.  The  identification  is  sure,  however, 
because  the  bowl  shows  workmanship  identical  to  that  of  one  of  the  bowls 
with  angular  wall  in  the  same  deposit. 

The  bowl  is  almost  hemispherical.  The  foot  is  small,  curved  on  the  exterior, 
and  oblique  on   the  interior.     The  central   turning  point  is  high. 

Deposit  C  is  dated  170-160 — ca.   140  b.c.  ■" 


Type  IV:  Bowl  with  broad  foot  and  curved  wall. 


D   i6c 
(D  i6c,  PI.   XVI,  PI.   XXXVI,  PI.   XLIV;   E  i4d) 


**  Not  in  Ceramica  Campana.     Example,  Type  IV,  in  the  Museo  Nazionale  Tarquiniese. 
*'  Ceramica  Campana  179  form  30. 


COSA:  BLACK-GLAZE  POTTERY  183 

Type  IV  copies  Type  II  in  this  form.  Since  the  shape  is  one  of  the  latest 
and  poorest  of  Type  II,  the  real  product  is  often  indistinguishable  from  its 
Type  IV  copies.  It  is  clear  that  Type  IV  has  no  shape  peculiar  to  it  and 
that  copies  are  more  common  than  the  Type  II  product  in  the  late  second 
century  and   the  first  century.  ■*' 


Type  IV:  Bowl  with  incurved  rifn. 


A  2ie 
(A  2ia,   PL   II;  A  21b,   PI.   II,  PI.   Ill,  PI.   XXIII;  A  21c,   PL  IV,  PL   XX,  PL  XXIII;  PL  XLIV; 
A  2id,    PL   IV,    PL    XXIV;    A  2ie,    PL  XXIV;    A  25  {})    PL     IV,    PL   XXII;    A  26  (.?),    PL   IV, 

PL   XXII;  B  42e,  PL   XXVIII;  C  30;  D  9e) 


Most  of  the  ritual  bowls  of  the  Capitolium  Fill,  approximately  120  of  them, 
have  the  fabric  of  Type  IV.  The  bowls  with  better  glazes  have  thicker  walls, 
fuller  curving  bodies,  lower  broader  feet  with  rounded  exteriors,  oblique  interiors. 
Those  with  poorer  glazes  have  thinner,  more  angular  walls,  higher,  straighter 
feet.  In  the  catalogue  of  Deposit  A  these  bowls  have  been  subdivided,  on  the 
basis  of  shape  of  foot  and  quality  of  glaze,  into  five  groups.  These  groups 
probably  represent  different  hands  rather  than  a  chronological  difference.  Two 
groups,  one  of  them  very  common,  occur  both  with  and  without  stamps.  Most 
of  the  floor  patterns  are  the  common  stamps:  central  rosettes  or  stars  or  four 
scattered  rosettes  or  palmettes.     One  example  has  four  ^  stamps. 

The  fact  that  no  whole  bowls  can  be  reconstructed  from  the  many  fragments 
in  the  Capitolium  Fill  suggests  that  the  bowls  were  not  thrown  or  placed  on 
the  sacred  area  immediately  before  the  temple  was  constructed.  Rather,  in  the 
levelling  process  preparatory  to  the  construction  of  the  temple,  some  of  the 
pieces  must  have  been  carried  away.  On  the  other  hand,  since  several  of  the 
fragments  in  the  fill  have  relatively  complicated  forms  and  floor  patterns,  the 
simplicity  of  the  form  and  stamp  patterns  of  these  bowls  certainly  suggests  that 
the  bowls  were  not  the  earliest  pieces  in  the  temple  fill.     The  bowl  of  Type  I, 

■♦'  Ceramica  Campana  143  form  i. 


,84  DORIS  M.  TAYLOR 

which  must  be  one  of  the  latest  pieces  in  the  fill  since  Type  I  is  rare  at  Cosa 
until  a  later  period,  is  identical  in  form  to  A  21,  the  Type  IV  bowl. 

Deposit  A  has  been  dated  ca.  225 — ca.150  B.C.  The  ritual  bowls,  A  21, 
can  probably  be  assigned  to  the  first  half  of  the  second  century.  The  form 
seems  to  have  disappeared  about  the  middle  of  the  second  century  for  Depos- 
it D  shows  that  bowls  of  comparable  size  have  almost  no  inward  curve  at  the  rim. 

The  miniature  bowls  of  Deposit  A,  A  25  and  A  26,  must  be  remains  of  the 
same  ritual  practice.  The  identification  of  their  fabric  is  not  certain.  The  only 
other  example  of  the  same  miniature  form  (in  an  unidentified  fabric)  was  found 
in  Deposit  B,  beneath  the  colonnade  floor,   that  is,  antedating  ca.   167  B.C.  *« 


Type  IV:  Bowl  with  broad  ribbon-band  rim. 


B   13 

(A  29,   PI.   XX,    PI.   XXIV,  PI.  XLIV;  A  30  (.?),  PL   XXIV;    B  13,  PI.  VI,    PI.   XXVII;  B  43a, 
PI.  XXVIII,  C  9a,   PI.  VII;  D   II,   PI.   XV,   PI.   XXXV;  E  lo) 


This  bowl  occurs  in  two  sizes,  both  small,  and  possibly  a  larger  size.  The 
body  is  curved;  the  foot  is  rounded  on  the  exterior,  oblique  on  the  interior. 
The  turning  point  is  conspicuous.  The  examples  with  best  glazes  have  a  distinct 
groove  at   the  bottom  of  the  rim. 

All  three  examples  of  the  fabric  of  Type  IV  in  Deposit  B  have  glazes  of 
poor  quality.  One  example  was  found  in  the  fill  for  the  basilica  above  the 
colonnade  floor.  The  other  two  of  Type  IV  and  a  fourth  in  another  fabric 
were  found  in  the  basilica  fill  in  the  northwest  end  of  the  nave,  in  the  area 
adjacent  to  Section  16  (Deposit  C).  They  are  probably  contemporary  with  the 
examples  from  the  fill  above  the  colonnade  floor  and  from  Section  16,  that  is, 
they  are  some  of  the  pieces  which  were  mixed  with  the  fill  for  the  basilica  when 
it  was  constructed  and  the  colonnade  underneath  it  was  destroyed.  One  exam- 
ple in  the  fill  of  the  Capitolium  is  so  much  better  in  quality  that  it  must  antedate 
the  examples  in  Deposits  B  and  C  by  several  years.  If  the  pieces  in  these 
two    latter    deposits    are    contemporary,    they  are  dated  170-160 — ca.   140  B.C. 

«  Ceramica  Campana  176  form  27  (see  also  173  form  25).  See  A  21  for  bibliography  for 
this  form. 


COSA:  BLACK-GLAZE  POTTERY  185- 

Since  the  good  example  in  Deposit  A  is  not,  by  any  means,  the  earHest  piece 
of  pottery  in  the  CapitoHum  Fill,  it  probably  dates  sometime  earlier  in  the 
second  century. 

In  addition  to  the  two  examples  of  a  small  bowl  Deposit  A  has  a  fragment 
of  the  body  of  a  large  bowl  with  ribbon-band  rim.  The  clay  and  glaze  are  poor 
in  quality  and  the  rim  carelessly  formed.  The  piece  cannot  be  identified  with 
certainty  as  Type  IV.  The  form  does  not  appear  in  later  deposits  except  in 
Deposit  D  (D  15)  which  has  a  single  fragment  in  an  unidentified  fabric.  A 
simplified  version  of  the  ribbon-band  occurs  on  C  33.  A  single  example  of  a 
small  bowl  in  Deposit  D  indicates  that  the  form  is  rare  in  the  late  second  cen- 
tury. It  and  the  example  in  Deposit  E  show  that  the  form  did  not  change. 
The  clay  and  glaze  of  the  piece  in  Deposit  E  are  poor  in  quality. 

The  bowl  with  ribbon-band  rim  must  be  the  last  in  a  tradition  of  bowls 
with  wide  curving  rims.  The  small  bowl  with  overhanging  rim  A  27  and  the 
large  bowl  A  31a  and  b  with  ribbon-band  rim  must  be  earlier  examples  in  the 
same  tradition.  ^°  The  bowl  A  28,  which  is  similar  in  form  to  the  examples 
of  Type  IV  but  much  better  in  quality,  would  represent  an  intermediate  stage. 
The  form  has  practically   disappeared   by   the  first  century.  '" 


Type  IV:  Bowl  {or  plate)  with  thickened  lip. 


A  16  D  sdl 

(A  16,  PI.   XXII;  D  5dl,  PI.   XXXIV;   E  13,  PI.   XLII;   E  16,  PI.   XLII) 


The  tilt  of  the  rim  in  the  profile  of  A  16  makes  the  piece  appear  to  be 
part  of  a  bowl,  whereas  the  profile  of  D  5dl  shows  a  form  closer  to  a  plate  or 
saucer.     They  must  represent  the  same  tradition  of  form.     The  shallow  bowl, 

5°  See  Minturnae  type  46  pi.  5,  pi.  i,  for  another  bowl  in  the  tradition.  This  example  has 
an  incised  decoration  on  the  rim  similar  to  A  27,  the  Cosa  bowl  with  overhanging  rim.  The  rim 
of  the  Minturnae  example,  like  that  of  A  28,  forms  part  of  the  body  of  the  bowl. 

5'  Ceramica  Campana  195  form  51.  Examples  with  similar  form:  D.  Levi,  "  Le  necropoli 
puniche  di  Olbia  "  Studi  Sardi  9  (1949)  pi.  15a,  F.  29;  from  Falerii  Veteres  (Museo  Nazionale  di 
Villa  Giulia  in  Rome,  nos.  927,  955,  2038,  3682,  50807),  from  Tuscania  (Museo  Archeologico  in  Flor- 
ence, no.  75327,  and  the  Museo  Nazionale  Tarquiniese),  from  Pitigliano  (museum  in  Pitigliano). 

24 


,g6  DORIS  M.  TAYLOR 

A  17,  in  a  fabric  very  similar  to  Type  IV  and  the  rims  E  13  and  E  16  must 
belong  to  the  same  family  of  shapes,   a  shallow  form  with  thickened  rim. 

The  piece  in  Deposit  A  has  an  encircling  groove  on  the  exterior  of  the  bowl; 
the  shallower  example  in  Deposit  D  has  a  groove  on  the  exterior  just  below 
the  lip.  The  three  examples  in  the  later  deposits,  D  5dl,  E  13,  and  E  16  have 
shallower  bowls  and  more  rounded  lips  than  the  two  examples  in  Deposit  A. 
These  differences  may  indicate  the  development  of  the  form.  The  bowl  with 
thickened  lip  is  relatively  rare  at  Cosa  but  it  seems  to  have  been  in  use  over 
a  long  period  of  time.  '" 

Type  IV:  Pyxis. 


D   19c 

(D   19c,   PI.     XXXVII;     E    I7bl, 

PL    XLII;  E  i7bll) 


The  example  D  19c  has  a  form  reminiscent  of  the  high  footed  pyxides 
of  the  fifth  century,  a  flat  base  with  a  horizontal  projection  near  the  bottom. 
The  form  of  the  upper  part  is  not  known.  The  finish  of  the  piece  is  poor. 
The  glaze  is  applied  in  blotches  on  the  bottom.  One  example  in  Deposit  E 
has  a  base  that  is  almost  flat.  This  piece  shows  workmanship  identical  to  that 
on  the  plates  (or  bowls)  with  thickened  rim,  E  13  and  E  16.  A  few  other  pyxides 
of  Type  IV  in  Deposit  E  copy  the  form  of  Type  II.  The  pyxis  in  Type  IV, 
which  does  not  appear  until  the  last  part  of  the  second  century,  is  never  com- 
mon. "    The  Type  II  product  must  have  supplied  the  market. 


Type  IV:  Rimless  cup  with  handle. 
A  36,  PI.  XXV 

This  cup,  represented  by  two  examples,  shows  poor  workmanship.  It  has 
conspicuous  tool  and  brush  marks  and  a  thin  flaky  black  glaze.  The  handle 
takes  off  at  the  lip  and  curves  downward.  The  foot  is  small,  with  oblique 
exterior  and  interior.  The  shape  of  the  base  and  finish  of  clay  of  one  example 
are  identical  to  the  small  bowls  of  A  2IC.  The  cup,  like  the  bowls,  must  have 
been  produced   sometime  in   the  first  half  of  the  second  century.  ^^ 

5'  Not  given  in  Ceramica  Campana. 
55  Not  given  in  Ceramica  Campana. 

5<  Not  given  in  Ceramica  Campana;  cf.  the  form  of  these  examples:  Holwerda  nos.  181-182 
fig.  3  pi.  2,  from  Volterra. 


COSA:  BLACK-GLAZE  POTTERY  187 

Type  IV:  Large  jar. 

B  47,  PI.  VII;  PI.  XXIX 

The  fragment  in  Deposit  B  is  unique  in  form.  The  mouth  flares  in  a 
wide  rim  which  is  divided  into  three  parts  by  encircHng  grooves.  The  remainder 
of  the  form  has  not  been  identified. 

The  closing  date  for  Deposit  B  is  ca.  140  B.C.  The  only  certain  terminus 
post  quern  for  the  deposit  is  273  B.C.,  the  date  Cosa  was  founded.  Most  of 
the  pieces  in  the  deposit  seem  to  be  products  of  the  middle  of  the  second 
century.  Since  none  of  the  examples  of  Type  IV  in  Deposit  A,  which  also 
has  a  terminus  post  quem  of  273  B.C.,  seem  to  be  among  the  earliest  pieces  in 
the  group,  Type  IV  production  probably  did  not  begin  before  the  second 
century.  The  unusual  jar  in  Deposit  B,  a  form  not  repeated  in  any  later 
deposit,   may   be  an  early   product  of  Type  IV.  " 


Type  IV:  Pitcher  {or  cup  with  handle). 
D  20,  PI.  XXXVII;  D  aic,  PI.  XXXVII 

Since  the  interior  of  the  fragment  D  20  has  glaze  at  the  top  only,  it  is 
probably  part  of  a  pitcher  rather  than  a  cup.  Fragments  in  different  fabrics 
but  somewhat  similar  in  form,  C  38  and  E  l8b,  must  be  parts  of  a  pitcher. 
They  seem  too  deep  for  a  cup.  The  exteriors  of  both  these  pieces  are  unglazed 
and  their  interiors  have  only  a  band  of  glaze  at  the  top. 

The  example  D  20  is  rimless.  A  heavy  handle,  elliptical  in  cross  section, 
takes  off  just  below  the  lip.     The  foot  of  the  form  is  not  known. 

The  other  three  examples  in  Deposit  D  duplicate  the  form  of  Type  II.  '* 


Type  IV:  Large  pitcher. 
B  51,  PI.   XXIX 

This  form  is  very  fragmentary.  Rim,  neck,  handle,  and  part  of  the  spout 
are  missing.  The  finish  of  the  clay  and  glaze  is  poor.  The  foot  is  low  and 
broad  with  broad  resting  surface.  The  large  oblique  spout  flares  at  the  end. 
The  full  form  must  have  been  similar  to  that  of  one  of  the  strainer-pitchers 
of  D  22b. 

Every  household  at  Cosa  must  have  had  large  pitchers  but  glazed  examples 
are  uncommon.  The  one  in  Deposit  B  and  the  two  in  Deposit  D  all  have 
coarse  strainers  at  the  base  of  the  neck.     This  type  of  pitcher  must  have  had 

55  Not  given  in  Ceramica  Campana. 

5*  D  20:  not  given  in  Ceramica  Campana;  D  21c:   149  fonn  10. 

24* 


i88  DORIS  M.  TAYLOR 

some  special  use.    The  application  of  glaze  on  the  exterior  is  so  careless  that 
it  must  have  been  for  utilitarian  rather  than  for  decorative  purposes.  " 

Other  Types: 
A  3,  PL  XXI;  A  20,  PI.  XXII 

The  clay  is  hard  buiif;  the  glaze  a  thin  brown-black.  Each  form,  represented 
by  a  single  piece,   is  fragmentary.     The  forms  are  peculiar  to  this  fabric. 

C  35,   PI.   X;  D  9d,   PI.   XXXV;  D  2id 

The  clay  is  hard  bufif,  the  glaze  firm  green-black  or  blue-black  with  high 
sheen.  All  three  oi  these  forms  are  unusual.  The  cylix  in  Deposit  C  has 
handle  and  foot  with  peculiar  forms  (see  PI.  X).  The  rimless  bowl  of  Depos- 
it D  is  shallow;  its  lip  is  more  tapered  than  that  of  other  forms.  The  small 
thin  handle  of  D  2ld  has  three  ridges  on  the  upper  surface  in  imitation  of  a 
tripartite  division. 

D   le;  D  8e,   PI.    XXXV;   D  29b 

The  clay  is  bufif  or  grey-buff,  fine  and  hard.  The  glaze  is  firm  black  or 
blue-black  with  high  sheen.  Few  pieces  with  clay  and  glaze  of  this  quality 
have  been  found  at  Cosa.  The  forms  represented  in  the  fabric  are  the  plate 
with  horizontal  offset  rim  (fragments  of  two),  the  bowl  with  outturned  rim, 
and  a  guttus  (?)  with  ribbon  handle. 

D  6i;   D    17c,    PI.    XXXVII;    E   2b,   PI.    XLI;    E   14c,    E   17c 

The  clay  is  pink-buff  or  bufi,  hard  and  coarse.  The  glaze  is  black  or  green- 
black  and  metallic.  All  the  forms  in  this  fabric,  the  small  plate  on  a  high 
foot,  the  bowl  with  broad  foot  and  curved  wall,  the  cup  with  broad  foot  and 
flaring  wall,  the  pyxis  and  bases,  duplicate  those  of  Type  II  but  show  poorer 
workmanship. 

C  26h;  D   idll,   PL    XII;   PL   XXXIII;  D  8f,  PL   XXXV 

The  clay  is  creamy  white  and  soft  like  lamp  clay.  The  glaze  is  a  dull  black. 
These  pieces  may  be  underfired  examples  of  Type  IV.  All  three  forms,  the 
plate  with  profiled  rim,  the  bowl  with  outturned  rim,  and  the  angular  foot  were 
produced  in  the  fabric  of  Type  IV. 

»'  Not  given  in  Ceramica  Campana. 


COSA:  BLACK-GLAZE  POTTERY  189 


Conclusions:  Ceramic  industry  and  trade 

The  black-glaze  pottery,  the  tableware  of  the  colonists  of  Cosa  in  the 
third  and  second  centuries  and  part  of  the  first,  gives  information  on  the  indus- 
trial life  of  the  colony  and  its  activity  in  trade.  Cosa,  a  Latin  colony  founded 
in  273  B.c,  commanded  the  coastline  by  Etruscan  Vulci  and  offered  a  harbor 
for  sea  traffic  to  Gaul  and  Spain  by  way  ot  the  islands  Corsica  and  Sardinia.  The 
colony,  however,  was  more  than  a  port  town,  for  many  of  its  colonists  culti- 
vated the  rich  grain  fields  in  the  territory  attached  to  it.  ^^  There  is  no  reason 
to  believe  that  Cosa  differed  in  its  role  from  a  great  number  of  other  Latin 
colonies.  Its  economic  life  and  commercial  activity,  therefore,  must  reflect  the 
vicissitudes  of  Rome,   Italy  and  the  Western  Mediterranean. 

The  five  deposits  of  pottery  give  a  picture  of  the  pottery  from  ca.  225  B.C. 
to  40-30  B.C.  Ceramic  evidence  for  the  first  fifty  years  of  the  colony,  that  is, 
from  273  B.C.,  must  come  from  future  excavations.  The  earliest  of  these  five 
deposits  is  dated  225-150  b.c.  or  thereabouts.  The  pottery  of  this  period, 
however,  can  be  subdivided  into  three  groups.  The  oldest,  which  does  not 
appear  in  later  deposits,  consists  of  a  great  variety  of  forms  from  a  number  of 
workshops.  Some  of  the  fragments  represent  the  last  stages  of  fourth  and 
third  century  forms,  e.g.,  fish  plates  and  cantharoi,  and  decorative  devices  such 
as  ribbing  and  paint  superposed  on  the  glaze.  Most  of  the  parallels  for  these 
pieces  seem  to  come  from  sites  in  southern  Etruria  and  Latium.  The  great 
number  of  workshops  represented  and  the  small  number  of  pieces  from  any 
one  shop  argue  against  a  mass  importation  from  the  south  and  suggest  that 
this  group  was  brought  to  the  colony  by  chance  visitors  or  new  colonists.  It 
may  have  been  in  the  household  equipment  of  the  new  colonists  who  came  in 
197  B.C.  (Livy,  33.   24.  8-9). 

The  second  group  consists  of  local  pottery,  a  very  poor  product.  By  far 
the  most  common  shape  of  this  group,  which  contains  simple  forms  of  bowls  and 
cups  used  in  a  ritual  ceremony,  is  the  small  bowl  with  incurved  rim,  with  or 
without  floor  stamp.  These  bowls  are  comparable  in  angularity  and  propor- 
tions to  late  third  and  early  second  century  bowls  tound  in  many  parts  of  the 
Mediterranean  area.  The  third  group,  which  is  a  small  one,  can  be  identified 
and  described  by  the  evidence  of  later  deposits  and  will  be  discussed  in  con- 
nection with  them. 

Two  of  the  five  deposits  show  the  black-glaze  pottery  in  use  in  the  middle 
of  the  second  century,  from  ca.  165  B.C.- 140  B.C.  A  large  part  of  these  deposits 
is  poor  in  quality,  degenerate  copies  of  simple  bowls  and  cups  in  use  in  Etruria 
and  Latium  in  the  third  century.  The  quantity  of  local  pottery  and  the  scar- 
city of  imported  wares  indicate  that  Cosa  was  living  on  its  own  resources  in 
the  middle  of  the  second  century.    This  is  the  period  in  which  the  colony  turned 

5^  F.  E.  Brown,  oJ>.  cit.  {supra  70,  note  i)  113. 


,9o  DORIS  M.  TAYLOR 

its  attention  to  its  own  civic  life  and  beautified  its  center.  The  great  Capito- 
lium  and,  a  few  years  later,  the  basilica  on  the  forum,  bear  witness  to  local 
prosperity. 

A  fourth  deposit  shows  that  by  the  last  quarter  of  the  second  century 
pottery  imported  to  Cosa  virtually  monopolized  the  market.  This  imported 
pottery  can  be  ascribed  to  three  shops.  The  three  types,  each  of  which  is 
characterized  by  a  peculiar  fabric  and  repertory  of  forms,  have  been  identified 
and  classified  by  Lamboglia  on  the  basis  of  excavations  in  Liguria,  at  Venti- 
miglia,  the  ancient  Albintimilium.  In  1950,  Lamboglia  published  a  preliminary 
classification  of  the  three  types;  in  1953  Almagro,  on  the  basis  of  the  excava- 
tions in  Spain,  at  Ampurias,  the  ancient  Emporium,  supplemented  the  classifi- 
cation and  gave  new  evidence  for  dating.  Excavations  in  and  near  Syra- 
cuse, near  Marseilles  (especially  the  boat  which  has  been  found  in  the  sea  near  it), 
and  at  Cosa,  have  confirmed  Lamboglia's  classification  and  corrected  it  in  many 
details.  It  is  still  too  early,  however,  for  a  classification  of  the  black-glaze  pottery 
of  the  Western  Mediterranean  area.  At  the  present  time,  the  greatest  handicap 
is  the  dearth  of  preserved  and  datable  material  from  excavations  in  Italy.  The 
pottery  which  has  been  discovered  at  Cosa  shows  clearly  that  Lamboglia's  classi- 
fication needs  additions  and  modifications. 

Two  of  the  three  types  of  black-glaze  pottery  imported  in  quantity  by  the 
last  quarter  of  the  second  century  had  appeared  at  Cosa  before  the  middle  of 
this  century.  They  occurred  in  small  quantity  in  the  earliest  deposit  and  in 
somewhat  greater  proportion  in  the  two  deposits  of  the  middle  of  the  second 
century.  Type  I,  which  has  a  red  or  orange  clay  and  metallic  black  glaze,  is 
identical  in  fabric  with  pottery  which  has  been  discovered  on  the  island  of  Malta, 
in  Sicily  at  Syracuse  and  Tindari,  on  Ischia,  on  the  mainland  of  Italy  at  Paestum, 
Rome,  Tarquinia,  Populonia,  Castiglioncello,  Volterra,  Vado  Ligure,  and  Venti- 
miglia,  in  southern  France  at  Saint-Remy,  Entremont,  Enserune,  and  I'Aute, 
an  island  near  Narbonne,  ^'  in  Spain  at  Ampurias,  Tarragona  (museum), 
Azaila  and  Madrid  (museum).  Some  of  the  pottery  recently  recovered  from 
the  sea  at  Albenga,  north  of  Genoa,  came  from  the  workshop  of  Type  I.  A 
cargo  of  products  of  the  shop  has  been  found  in  the  boat  excavated  from  the 
sea  near  Marseilles.  The  location  of  this  shop  is  not  known  but  all  the  evi- 
dence suggests  a  site  in  Campania.  The  earliest  forms  of  the  type  appear  in 
the  ware  produced  in  Campania  in  the  third  century.  The  deposit  from 
Minturnae  contains  local  versions  of  some  of  these  forms.  Moreover,  the  distri- 
bution of  the  finds  and  the  cargoes  of  the  two  boats  indicate  a  location  on 
or  near  the  sea.  The  earliest  forms  produced  by  the  shop  have  been  found  at 
Paestum,  Enserune  and  Ampurias  and  in  the  boat  near  Marseilles.  *° 

59  RSLig  21  (19SS)  216. 

*°  Pottery  of  the  shop  may  have  come  to  Cosa  in  the  traffic  by  sea  which  Diodorus  (5.13) 
mentions.  In  a  description  of  iron  and  the  mines  on  the  Island  of  Elba  he  describes  merchant 
routes  from  Populonia  to  Puteoli  thus:  "Merchants  buy  these  [the  pieces  of  smelted  iron]  with 
money  or  an  exchange  of  goods  and  carry  them  to  Dicaearchaea  [Puteoli]  and  other  ports.  "     It 


COSA:  BLACK-GLAZE  POTTERY  191 

Pottery  of  Type  I  is  distinctly  inferior  to  another  type  which  was  contem- 
porary with  it  but  imported  in  greater  quantity  before  the  middle  of  the  second 
century.  This  second  type,  which  has  a  buff  clay  and  firm  black  or  blue- 
black  glaze,  is  identical  in  fabric  with  pottery  found  at  Syracuse  (museum),  on 
the  mainland  of  Italy  at  Rome,  near  Civitacastellana,  at  Talamone,  Castiglion- 
cello,  Volterra,  Vado  Ligure,  Ventimiglia  and  Alba  (museum),  in  France  at 
Gergovie,  and  Enserune,  in  Spain  at  Ampurias,  Tarragona  (museum),  San  Miguel 
de  Sorba,  Azaila,  Archena,  and  Galera.  The  boat  found  near  Marseilles  con- 
tained a  few  pieces  of  this  type.  The  type  is  similar  to,  but  not  identical  with, 
the  black-glaze  pottery  of  Arezzo.  Cosa  gives  new  evidence  for  this  type:  that  it 
was  imported  to  Cosa  and  Ventimiglia  at  the  same  time  and  before  it  reached 
other  towns  on  the  coast,  e.g.,  Enserune  in  France,  Ampurias  in  Spain;  that 
it  was  copied  locally  in  great  quantity.  In  the  last  quarter  of  the  second 
century  and  throughout  the  first,  all  local  potters  follow  the  forms  of  Type  II. 
The  shop  which  produced  the  black  glaze  pottery  of  this  type  was,  without 
doubt,  located  in  Etruria.  *'  The  proveniences  of  bucchero  and  impasto  proto- 
types of  some  of  the  forms  give  support  to  the  attribution. 

By  the  middle  of  the  second  century,  perhaps  earlier,  a  third  type  of  black 
glaze  pottery  was  being  imported  to  Cosa.  This  type  is  found  in  the  last 
quarter  of  the  second  century  and  continues  in  use  in  the  first  century  but  it 
never  achieves  the  popularity  of  Types  I  and  II.  The  type,  which  has  a  grey 
clay  and  dull  black  glaze,  has  been  found  on  the  island  of  Malta,  in  Sicily  at 
Syracuse  and  Tindari  (in  great  quantity  at  both  sites),  on  the  mainland  of 
Italy  at  Albenga,  Vado  Ligure,  *'"  and  Ventimiglia,  in  France  (museum  of  Cavail- 
lon),  and  in  Spain  (Museo  Arqueologico  of  Barcelona).  The  predominance  of 
the  type  in  recent  excavations  at  Syracuse  and  Tindari  suggests  that  the  work- 
shop was  in  eastern  Sicily;  however,  no  examples  of  the  type  have  been  found 
in  the  excavations  at  Megara  Hyblaea,  which  is  in  the  eastern  part  of  the  island. 

The  three  workshops  which  sent  quantities  of  black-glaze  pottery  to  Cosa 
in  the  late  second  century  were  beginning  to  export  their  wares  in  the  first 
half  of  the  century.  The  pottery  of  Cosa  seems  to  show  that  the  colony  began 
to  import  in  the  last  part  of  the  first  half  of  the  second  century.  In  the 
middle  of  the  century  the  imports  are  still  on  a  limited  scale;  by  the  last  quarter 
of  it  mass  importation  controls  the  local  market.  This  new  activity  in  trade 
coincides  with  the  development  of  extensive  use  of  slave  labor,  the  condition 
which  Cato  describes  in  his  De  Agricultura,  peace  on  the  seas  and  stabilization 
of  Roman   coinage.     The  foundation   of  colonies,  especially  maritime  establish- 

has  been  estimated  that  the  slag  heaps  at  Populonia  (from  smelting  rather  than  forges)  began  to 
accumulate  about  200  B.C.;  see  A.  Minto,  Populonia  (Florence  1922)  9;  Tenney  Frank,  An  Eco- 
nomic Survey  of  Ancient  Rome  I:  Rome  and  Italy  of  the  Republic  (Baltimore  1933)  289.  Cosa, 
in  easy  access  to  Populonia  by  land  or  sea,  could  have  received  its  pottery  from  this  traffic. 

*■  Several  forms  of  this  type  have  been  identified  as  Etruscan  by  Beazley  {EVF).  For  indi- 
vidual forms  consult  the  bibliographies  in  the  catalogues  and  the  footnotes  in  the  description  of 
Type  II  in  the  Conclusions. 

*»  RSLig  21  (1955)  274. 


192  DORIS  M.  TAYLOR 

ments,  and  an  improved  system  of  roads,  would  have  encouraged  commerce. 
Low  port-dues  for  Italian  harbors  would  have  been  favorable  to  trade.  The 
activities  of  the  consuls  of  179  B.C.  (Livy  40.  51)  in  increasing  harbor  facilities 
for   Italy   reflect  new   interest   in   commerce. 

The  deposit  of  pottery  of  the  first  century  shows  that  the  three  imported 
types  continue  on  the  market  but  all,  especially  Types  I  and  III,  degenerate 
in  quality  and  local  production  becomes  more  active.  The  poor  quality  of  the 
imports  and  the  large  proportion  of  poor  local  pottery  reflect  the  impoverish- 
ment of  all  Italy.  The  fighting  of  the  Social  and  Civil  Wars  exhausted  the 
resources  of  everyone.  In  the  first  part  of  the  first  century,  moreover,  piracy, 
which  had  been  troublesome  in  the  early  years  of  the  second  century,  was 
again  a  factor  in  trade  by  sea.  Pirates,  who  were  active  in  many  areas  of 
the  Mediterranean,  threatened  and  attacked  the  coasts  of  Italy.  *^  In  75  B.C. 
the  consul  Cotta  announced  that  enemies  were  everywhere  along  the  shores  of 
Italy  (Sallust  Hist.  2.  47.  7).  They  were  especially  troublesome  to  the  people 
near  Brundisium  and  on  the  coasts  of  Etruria  and  Campania  (Appian  Mithr.  93; 
Florus  3.  6).  A  few  years  later  trade  had  stopped  and  famine  was  threatening 
Rome  (Livy  Ep.  99;  Plutarch  Pomp.  27;  Dio  Cass.  36.  31).  The  distribution 
of  Pompey's  forces  in  67  B.C.  (Appian  Mithr.  95;  Florus  3.  6)  indicates  the  size 
of  the   threatened   area  as  well  as  the  thoroughness  of  his  campaign.  ** 

The  workshops  of  black-glaze  pottery  which  were  sending  their  wares 
abroad  in  the  Western  Mediterranean  in  the  second  and  first  centuries  did  not, 
as  far  as  I  have  been  able  to  determine,  export  to  the  Eastern  Mediterranean. 
Delos,  the  trading  center,  should  indicate  such  traffic  in  pottery,  if  it  existed. 
It  is  not  surprising  that  the  sites  for  which  pottery  of  the  Hellenistic  period 
has  been  published,  e.g.,  Athens  and  Antioch  and  Tarsus,  do  not  show  evidence 
of  importation  from  the  west  during  the  second  century.  Athens  was  producing 
its  own  pottery;  Antioch  and  Tarsus  imported  from  Athens  and  other  centers 
of  the  Eastern  Mediterranean  and  produced  pottery  locally.  Antioch  and  Tarsus, 
moreover,  were  somewhat  remote  from  trafiic  from  the  Western  Mediterranean. 
In  the  first  century  economic  conditions  in  the  west  and  piracy  on  the  Mediter- 
ranean would  have  discouraged  commercial  relations.  It  is  worth  noting, 
however,  that  the  forms  of  black-glaze  pottery  in  use  at  Cosa  ca.  225  to  40- 
30  B.C.  parallel  forms  in  the  eastern  Mediterranean  area.  Few  forms  are  pecul- 
iar to  the  West.  Almost  all  the  forms  of  Types  I  and  III  illustrate  the  tradition 
of  Athenian  black  glaze.  Type  IV,  for  the  most  part,  represents  degenerate 
versions  of  these  forms  or  copies  of  the  forms  of  Type  II.  The  forms  of  Type  II, 
however,  are  the  most  independent  of  the  four  major  fabrics  found  at  Cosa  and 
in  the  Western  Mediterranean  in  the  second  and  first  centuries.  They  show 
the  influence  of  Athenian  black  glaze  and  the  persistence  of  Etruscan  tradition. 
The  forms  of  Type  II   bear  some  resemblance  to  those  of  the  so-called  "  Hellen- 

*3  H.  A.  Ormerod,   Piracy  in  the  Ancient  World  (London  1924)  231   ff. 
*<  H.  A.  Ormerod,    "  The  Distribution  of  Pompey's  Forces   in  the  Campaign   of  67  B.C.  " 
AAA  10  (1923)  46-51. 


COSA:  BLACK-GLAZE  POTTERY  193 

istic-Pergamene.  "  At  least  one  of  its  forms  paralleled  in  "  Hellenistic-Per- 
gfamene  ",  the  plate  with  horizontal  offset  rim,  has  an  Etruscan  prototype.  A 
comparison  of  the  black-glaze  pottery  of  Cosa  with  the  pottery  of  the  eastern 
Mediterranean  area  reveals  a  similar  introduction  of  new  forms  and  fabrics  in 
the  first  half  of  the  second  century.  In  the  Western  Mediterranean  the  tradi- 
tion  of  black-glaze  pottery   continues   until   the  arrival   of  Arretine   ware. 

In  conclusion,  the  black-glaze  pottery  of  Cosa  shows  that  the  colonists  of 
the  late  third  century  and  the  first  half  of  the  second  were  familiar  with  the 
pottery  in  use  in  southern  Etruria  and  Latium  and  copied  some  of  these  forms. 
There  is  no  proof,  however,  that  Cosa  carried  on  extensive  trade  in  pottery 
with  central  Italy  during  this  period.  (The  colony's  plea  for  reinforcements  in 
199  B.C.  (Livy  32.  2.7)  attests  to  its  poverty  at  the  turn  of  the  century.)  Some- 
time in  the  first  half  of  the  second  century  trade  in  the  western  Mediterranean 
area  began  to  expand.  The  establishment  of  colonies,  especially  those  on  or 
near  the  sea,  the  expansion  of  the  road  system,  the  stabilization  of  Roman  coinage, 
new  harbor  facilities,  and  small  port-dues  for  Italian  harbors  must  have  promoted 
trade  in  this  period.  The  pottery  imported  to  Cosa  reflects  this  new  activity 
in  commerce.  At  the  middle  of  the  second  century,  however,  the  colony  still 
depended,  for  the  most  part,  on  local  products.  In  the  last  part  of  the  second 
century  Cosa  shares  in  the  activity  in  trade  in  the  western  Mediterranean  area. 
In  the  first  century,  when  Italy  suffers  from  the  economic  catastrophes  of  the 
Social  and  Civil  Wars  and  the  effects  of  piracy,  the  colony's  imports  in  pottery 
and  its  own  copies  of  them  degenerate  in  quality. 


PLATES    I-XLIV 


COSA:  BLACK-GLAZE  POTTERY 


PLATE  I 


A  9 


A   10 


PLATE  II 


DORIS  M.  TAYLOR 


A  21  b 


A  21  b 


COSA:  BLACK-GLAZE  POTTERY 


PLATE  in 


A  21  b 


DORIS  M.  TAYLOR 


PLATE  IV 


A  21  c 


A  21  c 


A   21  d 


A  25 


A  26 


COSA:  BLACK-GLAZE  POTTERY 


PLATE  V 


A   38 


A   37 


DORIS  M.  TAYLOR 


PLATE  VIII 


B  40 


COSA:  BLACK-GLAZE  POTTERY 


PLATE  IX 


C   26  b 


C  31 


DORIS  M.  TAYLOR 


PLATE  X 


:i-mim0^- 


C  35 


C  40 


COSA:  BLACK-GLAZE  POTTERY 


PLATE  XI 


DORIS  M.  TAYLOR 


PL.\TE  XII 


D  6b 


D  6a 


COSA:  BLACK-GLAZE  POTTERY 


PLATE  XIII 


D  6b 


PL-\TE  XIV 


DORIS  M.  TAYLOR 


COSA:  BLACK-GLAZE  POTTERY 


PLATE  XV 


D    13  a  I 


PLATE   XVI 


DORIS  M.  TAYLOR 


D   16c 


D    17a 


COSA:  BLACK-GLAZE  POTTERY 


PLATE  XVII 


D   24 


0   23 


DORIS  M.  TAYLOR 


PL.\TE  XVIII 


"V^,...,      , 


D  26  b  II 


COSA:  BLACK-GLAZE  POTTERY 


PLATE  XIX 


E    18d 


DORIS  M.  TAYLOR 


PL.\TE  XX 


C   26g 


E   9a  II 


COSA:  BLACK-GLAZE  POTTERY 


PLATE  XXr 


A  1 


A    2 


A   3 


A    4 


A    5 


A    6 


V 


A    7 


r\4  C  A 


""^ 


A   8 


A   9 


DORIS  M.  TAYLOR 


PL.\TE  XXII 


A   15 


A   20 


A  10    • 


1^ 


A   10 


A  11 


A    13 


V 


A  16 


A  17 


A    18 


A    14 


A   19 


A   24 


A  22 


A    25 


A   26 


A   27 


COSA:  BLACK  GLAZE  POTTERY 


PLATE  XXIII 


A  21  b 


^%^ 


?fe        6^ 


fl 


A    21  b 


A  21  b 


A    21  b 


^*ji 


A    21  b 


A   21  b 


A    21   b 


A   21  b 


A   21  b 


A    21  c 


A    21a 


A   21  c 


DORIS  M.  TAYLOR 


PLATE  XXIV 


A    21  d 


A    21  e 


A    33 


A    32 


A    32 


COSA:  BLACK-GLAZE  POTTERY 


PLATE  XXV 


A    34 


A    38 


A  39 


I     I 


\ 


A    35 


A  36 


V^ 


A    37 


I  I 


A  41 


A   40 


V     V. 


A    42 


A  43 


A  44 


DORIS  M.  TAYLOR 


PLATE  XXVI 


BB  1 


B  B     2  BBS 


BB    4 


V 


8    6  B    7 


B    8  B    9 


BB    5 


B  lid 


COSA:  BLACK-GLAZE  POTTERY 


B   12  a  ^^^^  B   14 

B   12  b       ^^-. 


PLATE  XXVI I 


fV 


B    21  B  22 


B18 


U 


B  20 


B   23  a 


B   25  B    26 


B    23  b 


B    24  a 


B    27 


B   28 


B   29 


B  31 


DORIS  M.  TAYLOR 


PLATE  XXVIII 


T 


B  32 


V 


B  33        B  34 


B  35  a 


B  35  b 


B  40 


B  41  a 


B  42  a  B  42  b  ^^^. 

B42c^^ 


B  42  e      B  43  a 


i'^*^ 


B  44  b 


B  44  c 


B  44  d 


B  44  e 


COSA:  BLACK-GLAZE  POTTERY 


PLATE  XXIX 


B   A5 


B  46 


B   47 


8    49 


8     50 


B    52  a 


B   52  b 


8    51 


DORIS  M.  TAYLOR 


PLATE  XXX 


C1C 


C  3 


C    7  b 


C  14  c 


18 


C   17 


C    18 


C    IS    c 


C  22d 


» 


COSA:  BLACK-GLAZE  POTTERY 


PLATE  XXXI 


'yi  71 


C    26  b  C    26  d 


I 


C    26  e 


C    26  i 


C   27a 

C   27  b 

V  ^ 

C  28  b 


DORIS  M.  TAYLOR 


PLATE  XXXII 


C  33 


COSA:  BLACK-GLAZE  POTTERY 


PLATE  XXXIII 


0    5b 


D    5  b 


D    Set 


DORIS  M.  TAYLOR 


PLATE  XXXIV 


D  5c  III 


0   6h 


0   6e 


0  er 


COSA:  BLACK-GLAZE  POTTERY 


PLATE  XXXV 


D  8  c  I 
D  8  e     ^N  0  8  r  T^ 


^  D  10  b 


0  9b 


0  loa 


« 


0  8b 


D  8dl 


D  8dll 


QC 


D9a  09b 


III 


D9  d 


D  11 


0  12 


DORIS  M.  TAYLOR 


PLATE  XXXVI 


0    16C 


C  15  bll 


COSA:  BLACK-GLAZE  POTTERY 


PLATE  XXXVII 


0    21  c 


D  21  a 


DORIS  M.  TAYLOR 


PLATE  XXXVI I  r 


D    22    b 


COSA:  BLACK-GLAZE  POTTERY 


PLATE  XXXIX 


D   22  b 


PLATE  XL 


DORIS  M.  TAYLOR 


D   26cV 


0  26cVI 


0  26 


0    26  i 


0   27 


D    28  a 


0  28  b 


D   30 


COSA:  BLACK-GLAZE  POTTERY 


PLATE  XL I 


E  6d 


E   6C 


DORIS  M.  TAYLOR 


PLATE  XL  1 1 


E    19a 


E   19  bi 


E  19  b  II 


COSA:  BLACK-GLAZE  POTTERY 


PLATE  XLIin 


E    19  c 


\H 


E  19  d 


E   19e 


"^  >H 


E    19g  E    19h 


E   21a 


E    19  r 


DORIS  M.   TAYLOR 


PLATE  XLIV 


H 


A    '2.»<- 


A  sLt  An  A  ii«. 


t#  €& 


^SF 


A    3? 


/v 


A    3q 


T^ 


B  IS 


C  At  f  C    a.fc 


? 


C     i7t 


/V 


C    W 


i 


3)7 


'(rt 


^ 


6v/\ 


D    Ubi 


D  i(, 


E    <?all 


DO  American  Acadeny  in  Rome 

12  Memoirs 

A575 

V.25 


PLEASE  DO  NOT  REMOVE 
SLIPS  FROM  THIS  POCKET 


CIRCULATE  AS  MONOGRAPH 


UNIVERSITY  OF  TORONTO 
LIBRARY