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 • jo d 



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 

^ gladiator galeatus humi prostratus 

^ M 

QVI BVS PVG NANTIBVS sY MMA CHIVS FERRV 

MA TERNVS 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 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 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 



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 




5b 



D 5 b 



D Set 



DORIS M. TAYLOR 



PLATE XXXIV 



D 5c III 




6h 



6e 



er 



COSA: BLACK-GLAZE POTTERY 



PLATE XXXV 




D 8 c I 
D 8 e ^N 8 r T^ 



^ D 10 b 



9b 



loa 



« 



8b 



D 8dl 



D 8dll 




QC 




D9a 09b 






III 



D9 d 





D 11 



12 



DORIS M. TAYLOR 



PLATE XXXVI 




16C 



C 15 bll 



COSA: BLACK-GLAZE POTTERY 



PLATE XXXVII 




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 



26cVI 



26 



26 i 





27 




D 28 a 



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