Navigation – Plan du site

AccueilNuméros135-2VariaThe ceizra vessels and makers’ st...

Résumés

Cet article ajoute deux exemples récemment découverts du cachet des fabricants de ceizra sur les askoi en céramique de Gabii et Populonia à cette série de timbres étrusques de la période hellénistique. C’est la première inscription étrusque trouvée à Gabii. Les discussions précédentes autour de ce timbre se sont concentrées sur les questions d’intérêt linguistique et prosopographique ; cette étude tente plutôt de reconstruire la forme originale du récipient et examine le contexte d’utilisation et les raisons de la distribution de cet objet en Étrurie et au Latium. Les marques de fabricants de cette période, annonciatrices des timbres en terre sigillée bien étudiés de la même région, sont également considérées dans le cadre du style régional consistant à utiliser des marques pour délimiter et décorer les vases en céramique.

Haut de page

Notes de l’auteur

All dates are BCE unless otherwise stated. Permission to study these two objects is gratefully acknowledged from the Soprintendenza Archeologia, Belle Arti e Paesaggio per le province di Pisa e Livorno, which oversees Populonia, and the Soprintendenza Speciale per il Colosseo, il Museo Nazionale Romano e l’Area Archeologica di Roma, which oversees Gabii (local inspectors Arch. Chiara Andreotti and Dott. Rocco Bochicchio, and the late Dott. Stefano Musco, under permit DG-ABAP 0015053/2018). My thanks are also due to Daniele Manacorda and Maria Letizia Gualandi who welcomed me at the excavations of le Logge di Populonia and to my colleagues at the Gabii Project, in particular Anna Gallone and Rachel Opitz. Thank you to Nancy de Grummond, Daniel Diffendale, and to the anonymous reviewers for their comments on this paper. Errors remain my own.

Texte intégral

Background

  • 1 E.g. Colonna 2014, p. 47; Paleothodoros 2020, p. 43.
  • 2 Colonna 1975, 1993, 1997, 2014.
  • 3 First published in 2012, it was updated in 2015. This functions as a significantly expanded and mo (...)
  • 4 A recent summary of the evidence we have for Etruscan artisans can be found in Gentili 2019.

1The study of artists’ signatures is increasingly an important part of the study of the Etruscan language. The structure of artists’ signatures can help decode case structures of the language since, like many Etruscan texts, signatures are only a few words long and disentangling the difference between ownership, dedication, and creation depends on the interpretation of a final -s, the contraction of neighbouring letters, and the appearance of verbs of making or verba faciendi.1 Giovanni Colonna’s work has been foundational in publishing many first examples of signatures and in articulating the differences in different types of artisans’ markings.2 More recently for Hellenistic Italy in particular, David Nonnis’ collation of artisans’ names in Latin, Etruscan, and Oscan will be the reference volume for the prosopography of production for decades to come.3 Paradoxically, the attention given to the epigraphy of artists’ signatures – transcribing and translating them, identifying the relationships amongst individuals – has often meant that the object on which they are imprinted is much less carefully considered.4

The object(s) and the stamp

  • 5 For example, see Batigne Vallet 2009, p. 118-123; Bertoldi 2011, p. 69-88.

2There are seven examples of this vessel with its stamp (six of which are fully published) in Etruria and Latium: at Caere, Vulci, Velletri, Rome, and three examples at Bolsena, in addition to two new examples described herein (table 1). Every instance of the vessel has been recovered broken in about the same place: just at or below its shoulders. The ceramic fabric is a yellow/buff (Munsell 7.5 YR 8/4) ceramica acroma depurata or “creamware.” Such highly-levigated calcareous clay was relatively common of plainwares of the archaic period in Etruria and Latium particularly in bowl forms similar to those appearing in bucchero ware. The fabric is also common in table vessels, in particular jugs, in a slightly less-levigated form in the Republican period and later in central Italy.5 The decorative details of every vessel in this series are identical: around the lip of the rim bulbs alternate with incised decorative V-shaped notches to create an egg-and-dart look. Just inside the lip are stamped in relief the words putina ceizra acil running sinistroverse around the vessel opening. The letters are between 3 and 5 mm high and there is a gap of about 1 cm between putina and acil.

Fig. 1a. Photograph of ceizra vessel from Gabii (special find n. 539, from SU 4018) (photo: author).

Fig. 1a. Photograph of ceizra vessel from Gabii (special find n. 539, from SU 4018) (photo: author).

Fig. 1b. Photograph of ceizra vessel from Gabii showing duplication of letter p in putina (photo: author).

Fig. 1b. Photograph of ceizra vessel from Gabii showing duplication of letter p in putina (photo: author).

Fig. 1c. Drawing of letters in relief on vessel from Gabii (drawing: author).

Fig. 1c. Drawing of letters in relief on vessel from Gabii (drawing: author).
  • 6 Manacorda 2003, p. 299; Nonnis 2015, p. 166.
  • 7 The first interpretation was by Bernard Liou and Mauro Cristofani (1968). Carlo De Simone articula (...)

3Since putina seems to mean “vessel”6 and acil means “work/product” in Etruscan the words translate essentially to “(this) vessel (is) the work of” and Ceizra could be a gentilical name, marking the person as from the city of Caere, or it could be the adjective for the city itself, thus “Caeretan work.” The precise grammatical explanation for how the translation comes about has been a matter of some debate resulting in a substantial bibliography for these vessels.7 The general meaning of the phrase and the association with Caere is typically agreed, and as will become evident over the course of this paper, fits in well with a broader exploration of the vessel’s possible use and distribution. The date of the deposits in which this object type has been recovered, its fabric, and to a certain extent the letter forms, help to establish the period of its production in the late 3rd century or perhaps early 2nd century (table 1).

Table 1. Details of the nine ceizra vessels.

Site Context Date of context Preservation Rix/Meiser reference and Main bibliography
Bolsena unclear First half of the 2nd c. Whole rim and neck, including flared shoulders (6.8 cm height) Vs 6.7; Balland – Goudineau 1968, p. 201; CIE 10789
Bolsena unclear 40% of rim preserved, with neck to shoulders (4 cm height) [ ] izra acil Vs 6.8; CIE 10790
Bolsena In the Domus delle Pitture House first constructed in the early 2nd c. Whole rim and neck, down to shoulders (6 cm height) Vs 6.9; on the object see: CIE 10791; on the context see: Gros – Mascoli 1981, p. 62
Caere Cistern fill Second half of 3rd c. Whole rim and neck, including flared shoulders (5 cm height) Cr 6.5; Cristofani 1986, p. 8-9; Briquel 2014a
Rome Near the Temple of Jupiter Capitolinus Unpublished. Referenced in Briquel 2002 and Nonnis 2015, p. 165
Velletri Votive deposit with terracotta figurines, anatomical votives, bronzes, coins 4th to 2nd c. materials Whole rim and part of neck preserved (c. 3 cm in height) La 6.3; on the object see Ghini – Colonna 2002; on the context see Ghini 2004
Vulci Unknown context. Purchased in 1944 Whole rim and neck preserved down to shoulder flare (6.5 cm in height) Vc 6.18; Briquel 2002
Gabii Natural accumulation layer to the east of republican house (SU 4018) Mixed deposit, but including ceramics and coins from the 3rd c. Whole rim and neck, down to shoulders (6 cm height) On the context see: Mogetta – Opitz forthcoming
Populonia Construction fill of terrace and wall to the west of republican house (Saggio IX, att. 73) Early 2nd century 40% of rim preserved, with neck to shoulders (3.5 cm height) [ ] na.ceiz [ ] On the context see Mascione et al. 2003; 2005

4For the new fragment from Gabii, the entire rim is preserved along with the neck of the vessel and the beginning of the flare of the shoulders. The stamped words are quite distinct but the p of putina appears twice, suggesting that the die was slightly adjusted while it was being impressed (fig. 1a-c).

5For the new fragment from Populonia, the fragment preserves only 40% of the rim, the length of the neck, and only the beginning of the flare of the shoulders. The legible stamped letters are [ ] na.ceiz [ ]. The visible words are in much lower relief in comparison to the Gabii example (fig. 2a-c).

Fig. 2a. Photograph of ceizra vessel from Populonia acropolis (from Saggio IX, att. 73) (photo: author).

Fig. 2a. Photograph of ceizra vessel from Populonia acropolis (from Saggio IX, att. 73) (photo: author).

Fig. 2b. Photograph of ceizra vessel from Populonia (photo: author).

Fig. 2b. Photograph of ceizra vessel from Populonia (photo: author).

Fig. 2c. Drawing of letters in relief on vessel from Populonia (drawing: author).

Fig. 2c. Drawing of letters in relief on vessel from Populonia (drawing: author).

Location of production

  • 8 Pandolfini 1987, p. 624. There is certainly a problem of recovery bias here. While three examples (...)
  • 9 Camporeale 2016.
  • 10 Rasmussen 2016.
  • 11 Del Chiaro 1957; 1974.
  • 12 Rizzo 2008; Winter 2008; Colivicchi 2015, p. 193-195.
  • 13 Di Giuseppe 2012, p. 81 and table 7. The location of production may have been Vigna Parrochiale. E (...)
  • 14 Sordi 1960, p. 123-134; Torelli 2016, p. 264-265; Gagliardi 2016, p. 378-380.
  • 15 Colivicchi 2015, 2020.

6Despite the artisan perhaps having something to do with Caere, the discovery of the first example of this vessel at Bolsena as well as the use of a -z rather than an -s in ceizra led to the suggestion that it was manufactured at Bolsena. The subsequent discovery of an example at Caere and at various other sites has typically ended this speculation.8 Caere has a long history of ceramic craftsmanship and artistic innovation.9 Throughout the archaic period bucchero production occurred at a relatively large scale and also with a good deal of experimentation. There are many examples of unusual and singular forms of ceramic stands and vessels with plastic decoration coming from Caere.10 In the 4th and 3rd century red-figure vessels were produced at Caere and circulated throughout the Italian peninsula.11 This was matched by the production of architectural terracotta and sculpture.12 From at least the early 3rd century black gloss pottery was also produced at Caere.13 Caere was granted hospitium publicum by Rome in the 4th century and then was made a civitas sine suffragio in 273 as its residents vied with other Etruscan cities to establish their place in Rome’s consolidation of power in Italy.14 This new status is a sign of Rome’s grip on the landscape of Southern Etruria on the whole; but despite the city of Caere’s bond with Rome it seems to have remained a vibrant centre through the 3rd and 2nd centuries.15

Form

  • 16 Hellenistic tombs are well-published at Populonia (Shepherd 1992), Tarquinia (Cavagnaro Vanoni 199 (...)

7The fragmentary nature of every example of the ceizra vessel stymies a secure reconstruction of the vessel’s form. There are no other similar objects in ceramica acroma or other contemporary wares with which to compare the remaining fragments. Since complete vessels are typically recovered from tombs, this also means that if there were similarly-shaped vessels in circulation at the time, they were not the type of vessel deposited in tombs.16

  • 17 The CIE entry for the first published example from Bolsena (Poggio Moscini) calls it a laguncula ((...)
  • 18 Pagenstecher 1909, n. 175 and n. 189.

8The vessel has typically been labelled by scholars an askos.17 It is unclear if the form which was imagined with this label is similar to the circular or discoidal askoi, or gutti relatively common in Attic red figure pottery, especially later in the 5th and into the 4th centuries. These vessels have a round body which lays horizontally and a narrow neck and spout protruding vertically or nearly vertically (fig. 3). Sometimes they have a hole in the centre like a doughnut, so have been called askoi a ciambella or askoi annulari. A century later, similar black gloss gutti mold-made with elaborate relief decoration were produced at Cales.18 There are many whole examples of the red-figure and black gloss examples which are currently in foreign museum collections and are thus likely from Etruscan tombs. Thus, this would have been a familiar though uncommon form for an Etruscan viewer.

Fig. 3. Hypothetical reconstruction of the ceizra vessel as a discoidal askos laying horizontally using 3D image of the Gabii fragment (drawing: author).

Fig. 3. Hypothetical reconstruction of the ceizra vessel as a discoidal askos laying horizontally using 3D image of the Gabii fragment (drawing: author).
  • 19 There are, for example, an italo-geometric vessel from Veii (Neri 2008), and bronze versions from (...)

9Examination of the relatively well-preserved example of the ceizra vessel from Gabii and the photos of the largest Bolsena fragment suggests, however, that the short narrow neck flaring out to a wide shoulder seems to meet the body of the vessel straight on, rather than meeting it perpendicularly. The flared shoulders suggest the body of the vessel was a flattened circular pouch oriented vertically like a “pilgrim flask.” Rare examples of fiasche del pellegrino appear in Iron Age examples in Etruria and Latium in bronze with bossed decoration and in painted ceramic.19 The finger smoothing on the interior of the walls of the Gabii ceizra example as well as the form itself suggest that this was a hand-built object, rather than being a neck applied to a wheel-thrown body. Based on the remaining fragments there are several hypothetical reconstructions with or without a hole in the centre (fig. 4). It is unclear if the vessel would have had a base, either flattened or made with an added ring of clay.

Fig. 4. Two hypothetical reconstructions of the vessel as a pilgrim flask (drawing: author).

Fig. 4. Two hypothetical reconstructions of the vessel as a pilgrim flask (drawing: author).
  • 20 Hp. Morb. II, 12.
  • 21 Blanck – Proietti 1986, p. 27. Another suspicious object hangs above this on the same pillar. It i (...)
  • 22 Blanck – Proietti 1986, p. 36-37. Two similar shapes are found on the main wall of the tomb on eit (...)

10The thick decorative ridge along the top of the shoulders in the best-preserved examples from Bolsena, Caere, and Gabii suggests a binding or seam like on a leather container. Coincidentally, the Greek word askos referred to a leather pouch in the form of a wineskin. A singular 5th century Greek example from Hippocrates suggests the use of a leather skin (τὸν ἀσκὸν τὸν σκύτινον) filled with hot water to treat a patient with a disease.20 Visual evidence for Etruscan purses or bags is rare. The best examples appear in the Tomb of the Reliefs at Caere. This late 4th century chamber tomb contains household tools, weaponry, and decorations carved in relief and detailed with plaster on its tuff walls and painted in vibrant colours. The carvings conjure the idea of the personal belongings of the deceased and the storage of objects in the Etruscan house. Two pillars stand in the centre of the tomb. On the left side of the right-hand pillar hangs a small rectangular pouch with a pointed bottom (fig. 5a). It is brownish-red in colour and is closed by means of a dowel suspended on a cord of leather or rope. The pouch’s colour and texture (it looks plump from being full) suggest it is made of leather.21 Facing opposite this on the right side of the left-hand pillar appears a much larger bag in the form of a satchel or backpack (fig. 5b). It is buff-white in colour and has painted brown cross hatched lines like a net. It seems to have a flap opening and a series of straps of leather and rope for handles. On the face of it rests a yellow circular object which may be a bronze ring for strapping on tools temporarily.22

Fig. 5a-b. Leather bags on the walls of Caere’s Tomb of the Reliefs (Wilkinson 1856, pl. 4.2 and 5.2).

Fig. 5a-b. Leather bags on the walls of Caere’s Tomb of the Reliefs (Wilkinson 1856, pl. 4.2 and 5.2).
  • 23 De Angelis 2015, figs. 39 and Cac 1, Cac 2, and Cac 3. Francesco De Angelis calls them saddlebags (...)

11Depiction of bags or rounded vessels also appears on alabaster cinerary urns of the late 3rd century as part of the motif of the Etruscan myth of the prophet or spirit Cacu and the Vipinas brothers. In the main relief carved on at least four similar urns, Cacu reclines at the centre of the scene and is about to be attacked by the brothers on either side of him. Below at their feet rests a strap or yoke with two pouches hanging from it. In two of the examples the pouches look like they are soft like fabric or leather. In two examples they look more stiff-walled like they are round ceramic vessels.23

  • 24 On skeuomorphs in ancient pottery see Vickers – Gill 1994, especially p. 106 and following.

12What was the function of the potentially skeuomorphic ceizra vessel?24 Part of this can be considered along with discussion of the stamp and the overall distribution of the objects in Italy.

Makers’ stamps

  • 25 Paleothodoros 2020, p. 43.
  • 26 Colonna 1997; Pieraccini 2003, p. 145-146. Note that in the 5th century, there are several example (...)
  • 27 Scalia 1968; Pieraccini 2003, p. 187-188.
  • 28 Ameri et al. 2018.
  • 29 Dusinberre 2005, p. 19

13The earliest Etruscan artists’ signatures date to the middle of the 7th century and are hand inscribed before firing, rather than stamped.25 The earliest stamped signature in Etruria can be found on impasto rosso braziers produced at Caere in the first half of the 6th century. On three separate examples along the flattened rim of the braziers is a design of birds impressed together with the words mi larices crepu. This translates to “I [am the work] of Larice Crepu.”26 The motif and words repeat around the rim because they were created with a cylinder seal stamp. Cylinder seals were used to impress relief decoration on braziers from Caere and over eighty different decorative schemes have been identified. At about the same time cylinder seals were also used to decorate bucchero vessels produced at Chiusi, Tarquinia, and Orvieto.27 In the Eastern Mediterranean, Western Asia, and Egypt from the Early Bronze Age and Iron Age cylinder seals and carved gems stones were used as part of decorative and ownership markings.28 In Elspeth Dusinberre’s study of sealings from over a 1,000 year period at Gordion, she emphasizes that seals “perform a whole range of functions simultaneously:” while they might have a specific functional or practical aim, they can simultaneously have a symbolic effect.29 A similar polyvalence should be understood for stamps on ceramics in an Etrusco-italic context.

  • 30 Following the larice crepu stamp, there is also an artists’ stamp on a 6th-century roof tile (Colo (...)
  • 31 Nonnis 2015, p. 477.
  • 32 Nonnis 2015, tab. IV 3a, tab IV 1a and tab I 2.
  • 33 Di Giuseppe 2012, p. 84-93 and table 8; Morel 1988, p. 54-55; Nonnis 2015. These studies do not in (...)
  • 34 Morel 1988, p. 54.

14Using a pre-made die or seal to stamp a signature rather than inscribing a signature manually denotes the desire for consistency and quick reproducibility as well as suggesting a larger scale of production – either of the same vessel type or multiple types of objects emerging from a single workshop or artisan. With the exception of the archaic larice crepu example, stamping artists’ signatures emerges at about the same time on many media in central Italy.30 David Nonnis’ study of artisans and producers of the 4th to the 1st-century Italy provides a comprehensive bibliography of the epigraphic attestations. Nonnis’ catalogue includes 1,803 people identified through over 2,000 stamps, as well as less commonly through inscriptions before firing, tituli picti, and graffiti.31 Black gloss vessels stamped with names seem to pre-date amphora stamps by several decades in the early 3rd century. There are 120 names of black gloss artisans, mostly in Latin, but also in the Etruscan alphabet.32 Maker’s stamps on black gloss are most common from the city of Cales; this production centre was particularly interested in demarcating individual workers. Far fewer stamps have been recovered in Lazio, appearing most commonly at Praeneste, and finally fewer stamps appear at sites in Southern Etruria, including at Caere.33 J.-P. Morel has observed that the locales whose artisans began stamping their black gloss pottery were all within the remit of Rome by the early 3rd century – rather than in Northern Etruria or Magna Graecia.34

  • 35 Oxé et al. 2000, p. 10; Malfitana 2009.
  • 36 Fülle 1997.
  • 37 Di Giuseppe 2012, p. 93-94.

15Then, starting in the 1st century the largest body of makers’ stamps in the Roman world are of course those on terra sigillata pottery made in both Italy and Gaul. It is generally agreed that the purpose of stamps on terra sigillata might have varied depending on the individual workshop, location, and period, and also served many purposes simultaneously. Certain stamps and stamp series make it clear that advertising individual workshops or production locations was an intended function; the ARRETIUM stamp and its variations in reference to Arezzo reveals the existence of branding through a specific word or series of letters.35 Stamps also seem to have served within a workshop setting to mark the output of individual artisans where enslaved workers met quotas and/or where a kiln was shared between multiple workshops.36 Helga Di Giuseppe’s study of black gloss pottery workshops suggests similar reasons for stamps on black gloss pottery. Analogy with the better understood terra sigillata wares as well as the republican evidence for the limited number of black gloss production centres suggest that potters shared kilns at the time of firing. The potters were either itinerant or, though local, needed to share the considerable costs of firing. Thus stamped signatures were a way of identifying which vessel was made by whom. Since firing was the riskiest and most difficult part of production, Di Giuseppe suggests that stamping an individual name on the product may also have had ritual associations; the stamp would identify to the gods who the potter was and act as a thank you offering.37

  • 38 Di Giuseppe 2012, p. 84. On artisans in Hellenistic central Italy from a largely art-historical pe (...)
  • 39 Oxé et al. 2000, p. 513-518, especially types n. 2548, 2549, 2553, 2555.

16Though stamping black gloss pottery with makers’ signatures begins in the 3rd century, it largely disappears in the late 2nd century. From then on only anepigraphic stamps were used to mark black gloss, and much less frequently than during the height of the “groupe des petites estampilles” production. Perhaps stamping diminished because of a monopoly of production which meant that individuals or workshops no longer needed to be identified.38 Anepigraphic stamps also appear in the 1st century on the earliest red terra sigillata wares in Italy and the stamp designs are clearly taken from black gloss pre-cursors.39

  • 40 Stanco 2009; Cf. Roth 2007.
  • 41 Morel 1969, p. 107-111.

17Beyond epigraphic stamps, it is worth further considering how anepigraphic designs may have contributed to the identification of the artisan or brand for an ancient consumer and whether the style or arrangement of stamps on a “petites estampilles” bowl would have signalled something about quality or craftsmanship.40 Morel noted the striking similarities in the motifs on “petites estampilles” stamps to aes grave coins from early 3rd-century Rome and contemporary coinage from Tarentum.41 This quoting of designs at least suggests a consumer familiarity with or even desire for certain motifs.

  • 42 Nonnis 2015, p. 478.; Panella 2010, p. 37.
  • 43 Manacorda 1993; Oxé et al. 2000, p. 10.
  • 44 Laubenheimer 2013, p. 102; Olcese 2017.

18The earliest artisans’ stamps on transport amphorae are from the middle of the 3rd century.42 The study of stamps on amphorae has developed slightly different reasons for makers’ signatures. While advertising and perhaps workshop organization might have featured, it is also easy to imagine that stamps also signified information about the quality of the product with a specific view towards consistent vessel volume and the type of transported contents. While painted labels or tituli picti, when they were used, also communicated this information, the stamp on the amphora handle was important.43 The manufacturing of amphorae as packaging and the production of wine, fish sauce, and oil at large estates seem to have been attached in several instances.44

  • 45 Beazley 1947, p. 275-277. There are also three black gloss examples (and one according to Beazley (...)
  • 46 Cristofani – Cristofani Martelli 1972, p. 511; Stanco 2008, p. 93. This is a revision of Beazley w (...)
  • 47 The most recently recovered example was only a small fragment of the handle with the visible stamp (...)

19A final contemporary series of stamps which provide a good comparandum for the ceizra series is the Rufvies group, abstract zoomorphic askoi of the late 3rd and 2nd centuries. John Beazley originally defined this group and its shape as the “shallow askoi type.” The vessels appear in plainware acroma depurata and with red slip (a.k.a. vernice rossa repubblicana, or red sigillata).45 These are all the same form but there may be two different production locations, one in northern Etruria, the other in southern Etruria.46 When their provenance is known, they have been recovered at many Etruscan sites and in at least three instances, within the city of Rome, quite often preserved whole.47 The stamps, all in the Etruscan alphabet, list names and in two instances the Etruscan word acil (table 2).

Table 2. Zoomorphic “shallow askoi type” of Ruvfies group.

Artisan/text Locations of discovery No. of eg. Main References
Ruvfie
Rufies acil/Ruvfies acil
Tarquinia, Vulci, Orbetello 5 Nonnis 2015, p. 381; Pandolfini 1987, p. 625
Atrane
AtraneAtranesAtrane´s/ Atrane´si
Viterbo, Vulci, Chiusi, Perugia, Caere, Musarna, Rome, Volterra
Uncertain, but probably in: Gubbio, Orbetello, Musarna, Sovana
Several with unclear provenance
26 Briquel 2014b; 2016, p. 285-295
Vel/Thancesca Numnal
vel numnal
θanes ca numnal acil (Vs 6.24)
Tarquinia, near Tarquinia, Bolsena, Vulci, near Vulci, Rome, Campania, several of unknown provenance 12 ET Ta 6.13, AT 6.1, Vs 6.23, Vs 6.24, Vc 6.21, AV 6.7, La 6.1, Cm 6.2, OA 6.3, OI (unknown origin) 6.2, 6.3, 6.6; Colonna 1993
Pultuce
Pulutuce/Pultuce´s/Pultuce´si
Rome, Roselle, Sovana, Perugia, Vulci, Chiusi, Volterra 12 Nonnis 2012, p. 178-179.
Precu Orvieto, Volterra 2 Vs 6.25; Bonamici 2015, n. 20, p. 313-314
  • 48 Colonna has observed that these names seem to suggest that the patrons or workshop owners are wome (...)
  • 49 Briquel 2014b.
  • 50 Ibid., p. 448.

20Similarly to the ceizra vessels, the focus of scholarly attention on these vessels has been on their epigraphy rather than on what they are and why they travelled.48 With twenty-six examples from throughout Etruria and one recently found in Rome, askoi referring to Atrane are the most numerous and widespread.49 All except one stamp is written sinistroverse in relief, meaning that it was inscribed on the original die dextroverse.50 The variety of Atrane stamps, in the nominative, dative, or genitive cases, is interesting. It reveals a sustained desire to name the artisan of this vessel type, using multiple stamps, over perhaps a long period of time, where different linguistic choices were being made by the stamp carver.

  • 51 This stamp form appears in other media as well, including on bronze strigils (Tagliamonte 1993). S (...)
  • 52 Oxé et al. 2000, p. 36, for frames see p. 529-534.

21The form and linguistic structure of the stamps on black gloss vessels, the Rufvies group, and Republican amphorae is quite similar. They are composed of one to three words or single letter abbreviations and ligatures. The stamps are typically one row with a simple rounded rectangular frame, or several letters within a circular frame with a simple border (fig. 6).51 The form of later terra sigillata stamps becomes much more eclectic. While naming structures are relatively monotonous, the stamp frames range from rectangles to circles and crosses, with letters sometimes curving around a frame; decorative borders and underlining appears, and by the early 1st century CE planta pedis frames become common.52 All of these impressions were performed on a relatively flat surface and a single plane, and the stamp seal could be used to stamp any flat material and leave a clear impression. In contrast, the seal which made the ceizra impression is quite different. The surface inside the vessel rim is not flat, but slightly concave suggesting that the surface of the seal was rounded. One possibility is that the seal or die was annular in form and purpose-made for this particular vessel opening. Thus, it would not fit on any other type of object. A reflection of this might be found in later brick stamps which have letters which curve around in a ring. The creation of an annular stamp seal leaves one wondering why the choice was made to leave a gap in the distribution of the words around the vessel opening between putina and acil, rather than having the words fill the whole circular space around the rim.

Fig. 6. Stamps on black gloss from Cales (Woolley 1911, fig. 39).

Fig. 6. Stamps on black gloss from Cales (Woolley 1911, fig. 39).

22Another and perhaps more likely option is that this ceizra impression was created using a cylinder seal. The seal would have to have been less than 1 cm high to fit within the vessel rim, and quite wide in circumference to account for almost 6 cm of text length. This would mean it was discoidal in shape (fig. 7). The use of a cylinder would also account for the concave surface of the text – the cylinder could be barrel-shaped. The use of a cylinder instead of a stamp seal would also explain the example from Gabii, with its clear letters but duplicated letter p at the start of the inscription (fig. 1b, c). There was a mistake at the beginning of the rolling of the cylinder, but after it was corrected the rest of the letters appear clearly. The use of a cylinder seal rather than a stamp seal could also account for the gap remaining between acil and putina: the cylinder had to be wide enough to hold the three words, but it needed to fit and be pressed within the confined rim of the vessel. The gap provided the extra space need for the cylinder to be manipulated within the walls of the rim and then removed.

Fig. 7. Hypothetical reconstruction of the cylinder stamp used to stamp the ceizra vessel (photo: author).

Fig. 7. Hypothetical reconstruction of the cylinder stamp used to stamp the ceizra vessel (photo: author).
  • 53 Curri 1984. This was found outside the city walls on the modern surface.
  • 54 Cassieri 2004, p. 176, fig. 41.
  • 55 Oxé et al. 2000, p. 12-13.
  • 56 Curri 1984, p. 243.
  • 57 Pieraccini 2003, p. 183.
  • 58 Ambrosini 2014, p. 186 and fig. 4.3.

23Despite the several instances in which cylinder seals were used in Etruscan ceramic production in the archaic period, only one physical seal has been found. A terracotta cylinder from Roselle depicts a chain of six inscribed rosettes (fig. 8). It is impasto pottery fired dark grey and its dimensions are squatter than the typical stone cylinder seals of Western Asia since it is wider than it is tall.53 Other matrices or seals for ceramics in Italy are similarly rare. One bronze stamp seal in the form of a palmette common on black gloss pottery was recovered in a votive deposit in southern Latium near Sezze.54 The study of Roman terra sigillata vessels suggests that the dies were made of variety of different materials: clay, ivory or bone, and certainly metal. The level of fine detail and precision of some terra sigillata impressions would have been difficult to attain and maintain with fired clay stamps.55 Thus, the lack of evidence for a cylinder seal bearing the ceizra inscription does not mean one was not used. Perhaps stamp and cylinder seals in Etruria were typically made of perishable materials or, like the black gloss stamp might suggest, made of metal and re-melted when no longer needed.56 Based on analogy with the many cylinder seals made of precious stone from Western Asia, Lisa Pieraccini suggested that Etruscan cylinder seals could also have been made with stone and have simply not yet been recovered.57 By the Hellenistic period, if not before, there is strong evidence for fine carving in stone in Etruria and Latium. The production of scaraboid gems with finely carved intaglios increased in frequency from the 4th into the 1st century. In addition to the suite of mythological representations on gems, a small number represent craftspeople at work – even the gem carver himself working with a bow and fine drill.58

  • 59 Oxé et al. 2000, p. 10; Malfitana 2009, p. 203.
  • 60 Kenrick 1997. On scale of production in Gaul, see for example, Van Oyen 2016. On the organization (...)

24The decision to stamp the small batch output of the ceizra vessel series does not seem similar to the case of black gloss and terra sigillata vessels produced at a workshop scale. Both the ceizra vessels and the zoomorphic Ruvfies askoi were unusual shapes that would not be confused with another artisans’ products if shared kilns were employed for firing. Nor do the stamps seem like they were strictly promoting the product because these objects were rare enough that a reader/viewer would not have a general reference for what the product was, unlike later terra sigillata.59 Unlike Ateius or Perennius at Arezzo or Pisa where hundreds of examples have been recovered throughout the Roman empire, the viewer of a ceizra vessel is unlikely to have encountered the name elsewhere or another vessel like it.60

Fig. 8. Cylinder seal from Roselle (photo courtesy of the Museo Archeologico e d’Arte della Maremma, permission from Soprintendenza Archeologica, Belle Arti, e Paesaggio per le province di Siena, Grosseto, e Arezzo).

Fig. 8. Cylinder seal from Roselle (photo courtesy of the Museo Archeologico e d’Arte della Maremma, permission from Soprintendenza Archeologica, Belle Arti, e Paesaggio per le province di Siena, Grosseto, e Arezzo).

Function and distribution

25The fact that the ceizra vessels are closed-form bottles may suggest that they were sold containing a specific liquid. Like amphorae, their narrow openings were easily stoppered. The reconstructed size was certainly small – no more than a litre, certainly, and likely much less. This would be a small amount for wine, oil, or even water, and it is an unlikely size for fine perfume which seems to have been traded or stored in miniscule amounts in aryballoi, alabastra, or unguentaria.

  • 61 The publication of the first and best-preserved example from Bolsena reports that there were other (...)

26The fragmentary nature of every example and consistent location of breakage of the ceizra vessels is notable. It is tempting to read the consistent breakage pattern as reflecting an intentional action. We might imagine holding the neck of the vessel and smashing its body as part of a ritual action. The scholarly focus on these vessels’ epigraphy has meant that no information is available about other potential fragments of the same vessel; however, both the examples from Populonia and Gabii had no other fragments of the same fabric which were obviously from this vessel in the same deposit.61 This suggests that the separation of the neck from the rest of the vessel took place separately from the neck’s discard. Furthermore, the find contexts of several of the ceizra vessels have clear ritual associations and there is also a bias towards contexts where they are relatively in phase, rather than being residual objects in a later phase. This may suggest that they were discarded in a purposeful manner rather than being kept around for a long time and abandoned.

  • 62 Popkin 2018.
  • 63 Ibid., p. 449.

27If the word ceizra indeed refers to the city of Caere/Cisra/Kysra, it is furthermore interesting to consider whether these vessels acted as a kind of souvenir – rare purpose-made objects directly-tied to a distant place. Maggie Popkin’s study of thirteen glass souvenir flasks from late Roman Puteoli and Baiae emphasizes their haptic aspects and their portability.62 These were small glass bulbs with a narrow neck which had cityscapes etched on them and in a few instances the scenes were labelled with the name of the city. They have been recovered at sites throughout Italy, Iberia, as well as Germania and North Africa and they may have originally contained wine or spring water.63 A similar scale to the ceizra vessels, whatever original liquid they contained, these vessels ended their lives empty with the original suggestion of their origin inscribed onto them forever associating them with a distant place.

  • 64 AV 6.9; CIE 11373.
  • 65 ET 411-412.
  • 66 Several inscriptions have the word mi and one from Lavinium has the Etruscan verbs muluvanice mama (...)
  • 67 Benelli 1994, p. 43.

28If we again consider the Ruvfies zoomorphic askoi, an example of those inscribed pultucesi suggests their intended function: included within the stamp’s frame is the image of the very vessel pouring from its spout into the open mouth of a person with their head tilted back to drink.64 It is possible that like the zoomorphic askoi, the ceizra vessels were similarly intended for drinking. Though the Ruvfies askoi have not been recovered in Latium outside of Rome, the ceizra vessels made it as far south as Velletri and Gabii. As of 2014, only twenty-five Etruscan inscriptions have been found in Latium, fourteen of which are from Rome itself.65 The two ceizra vessels from Velletri and now Gabii are among the longest and most complex of these since most of the recovered inscriptions in Latium have only a few letters and typically have words which seem to be proper names.66 This raises questions about the average Latin reader’s engagement with and understanding of the Etruscan alphabet and language. Within Etruria between the 3rd and 1st centuries we have the first bilingual Latin/Etruscan inscriptions as part of the increasing integration of Etruscan settlements into the Roman political and cultural sphere. Enrico Benelli notes that the languages are rarely confused by the writers of these inscriptions though there are obvious similarities in the alphabet which would have been familiar.67

  • 68 This is evident in the recording and publication of the Atrane stamp which has appeared in the CIL(...)

29When stamped names in the Etruscan alphabet bear only the artisan’s name there is the possibility for understanding by Latin readers or speakers. In such a small form as a stamp with letters only a few millimeters high, one can imagine that it might have even been difficult to distinguish between the Etruscan and Latin alphabet since many of the letter forms are identical.68 However, on the ceizra vessel, the Etruscan words putina and then acil are distinctively not Latin, so while the letters would have been recognizable and pronounceable, they may not have held meaning for a Latin reader, unless a Latin reader might confuse them for proper names.

  • 69 Fülle 1997, p. 116.

30This returns us to the purpose of stamping of the ceizra vessels and how much a reader in Etruria and Latium would have understood this stamp. Gunnar Fülle’s exploration of the organization of the terra sigillata industry includes the observation that beyond a literal understanding of the content of makers’ stamps, “the very occurrence of stamps was seen as a sign of quality”.69 Even when a consumer or reader was not able to understand the content of the stamp it may be a case where the written word becomes a symbol, rather than imbuing important literate meaning. The materiality of the stamp itself became important.

  • 70 This is not quite the case with Genucilia plates whose distribution in areas which do not normally (...)

31How do we understand the method of distribution of the ceizra vessels? Pottery of different types had been travelling around Etruria and Latium throughout the archaic periods and Caere was an important origin point for ceramic objects. When black gloss pottery began to be produced throughout Etruria, Latium, Campania, and Sicily we see the travel of different vessel productions outside of their area of manufacture as part of a thriving trade network. Morel suggested that the distribution and circulation of black gloss pottery in the 4th and 3rd centuries reflects both commercial nodes with Rome as well as commercial links between Etruscan cities themselves.70 But the scholarly focus on the market production and circulation of black gloss pottery leaves little to aid in our understanding of the circulation of comparatively rare objects. If the ceizra vessels were instead souvenirs, then these were transported by their purchasers to new sites; their distribution reflects the movements of individual actors from town to town in Etruria and Latium.

  • 71 Romualdi 1992.
  • 72 Mascione 2005.
  • 73 Pais 2003.

32The inhabitants of Hellenistic Populonia are visible in the site’s tombs and the extensive building program on its acropolis. Chamber tombs and simple pit tombs in several different locations around the promontory of the settlement attest to the significant population at the city from the 4th to the early 2nd century.71 The saddle-shaped area between the two hills of its acropolis provides the evidence for the settlement. Here, the area sacra, three temples were built around an open courtyard over the course of the 3rd century forming a public central space. A wide basalt road connects this area with an upper terrace where two domus were built in the 3rd and 2nd centuries.72 It is in the construction fill of one of these domus that the ceizra vessel was recovered. Both domus are built against a large stone terrace wall with a stone arcaded façade, modelled after the terrace sanctuaries of Terracina and Palestrina. The wall supports a platform forty metres long and housing a multitude of rooms which seem to have been built for the purpose of public gathering or cult celebration, and some are certainly bathing rooms. This probably dates to the late 2nd century.73

  • 74 Johnston et al. 2018.
  • 75 Opitz et al. 2016.
  • 76 Almagro Gorbea 1982.
  • 77 On the continued use and visibility of the Etruscan language at Populonia see Benelli 2015. Latin (...)

33Similarly, contemporary Gabii was undergoing a period of monumentalisation in building with stone. Recent excavations in several city blocks have uncovered a monumental complex was first built at the end of the 3rd century. Its large scale suggests a public use and its features (a monumental entrance, gathering rooms, a small bath, an upper terrace with dramatic views of the landscape) suggest a ritual function.74 At the same time, houses were being constructed in the neighbouring city blocks whose earliest phases date to the 3rd century.75 In the middle of the 2nd century, a single-cella peripteral temple with a theatre cavea along its front was built in the location of an earlier healing cult.76 It is tempting to consider if the ceizra vessel was more exotic at 3rd century Gabii or Velletri, or even Rome, than in Populonia, where the Etruscan language was still in use at the time.77

Conclusions

34In the fifty years since the first examples of ceizra vessels were first recovered and identified, the corpus has not increased in number significantly, despite the continued excavation and publication of Hellenistic deposits of Etruscan and Latin sites. The two new examples from Populonia and Gabii increase the small number of examples we have; however, in comparison with the corpus of stamped objects from the Hellenistic period, it does not appear that we are missing a large number of vessels which were manufactured. These were limited-edition objects and although we do not know what the vessels would have contained, current evidence suggests their preciousness. The desire for precision in printing in the makers’ stamp, despite the limited production of these vessels, may reflect the prevailing style for stamped decoration of the period. Whether the ceizra vessel was impressed using a cylinder seal or a stamp seal, this was a unique object made for a singular use. This further supports the sense that this was a high prestige object, rare in antiquity as well as today.

Haut de page

Bibliographie

Primary sources

Hp. Morb. II = Hippocrates of Cos, De Morbis, II, trans. P. Potter, 1988 (Loeb classical library, 5).

Secondary sources

Almagro Gorbea 1982 = M. Almagro Gorbea (ed.), El santuario de Juno en Gabii, Rome, 1982 (Biblioteca itálica, 17).

Ambrosini 2014 = L. Ambrosini, Images of artisans on Etruscan and Italic gems, in Etruscan and Italic studies, 17/2, 2014, p. 173-91.

Ameri et al. 2018 = M. Ameri, S.K. Costello, G. Jamison, S.J. Scott (ed.), Seals and sealing in the ancient world. Case studies from the near east, Egypt, the Aegean, and South Asia, Cambridge, 2018.

Batigne Vallet 2009 = C. Batigne Vallet, Le mobilier céramique, in É. Rebillard (ed.), Musarna 3. La nécropole impériale, Rome, 2009 (Collection de l’École française de Rome, 415), p. 111-123.

Balland – Goudineau 1968 = A. Balland, C. Goudineau, Volsinii, in REE, 36, 1968, p. 197-201.

Beazley 1947 = J.D. Beazley, Etruscan vase-painting, Oxford, 1947.

Benelli 1994 = E. Benelli, Le iscrizioni bilingui etrusco-latine, Florence, 1994.

Benelli 2012 = E. Benelli, Il liber linteus di Zagrabia: alcune riflessioni su una recente riedizione, in Mediterranea, 9, 2012, p. 235-40.

Benelli 2015 = E. Benelli, Un titulus Populoniensis dal saggio XXV, in V. Di Cola, F. Pitzalis (ed.), Materiali per Populonia, XI, Pisa, 2015, p. 189-207.

Bertoldi 2011 = T. Bertoldi, Ceramiche comuni dal Suburbio di Roma, Rome, 2011 (Studi di archeologia, 1).

Blanck – Proietti 1986 = H.  Blanck, G. Proietti. La tomba dei Rilievi di Cerveteri, Rome, 1986 (Studi di archeologia, 1).

Bonamici 2015 = M. Bonamici, Volaterrae: piano di Castello. Santuario dell’acropoli, in REE, 77, 2015, p. 297-315.

Briquel 2002 = D. Briquel, Volci, in REE, 65-68, 2002, p. 324.

Briquel 2014a = D. Briquel, I nomi della città, in F. Gaultier, L. Haumesser, P. Santoro (ed.), Gli Etruschi e Il Mediterraneo. La città di Cerveteri, Rome, 2014, p. 75-76.

Briquel 2014b = D. Briquel, Les askoi avec marques Atrane, in L. Ambrosini, V. Jolivet (ed.), Les potiers d’Étrurie et leur monde. Contacts, échanges, transferts. Hommages à Mario Del Chiaro, Paris, 2014, p. 439-450.

Briquel 2016 = D. Briquel, Catalogue des inscriptions étrusques et italiques du musée du Louvre, Paris, 2016.

Camporeale 2016 = G. Camporeale, Workshops, artistic exchange, and the economy, in N. T. de Grummond, L. Pieraccini (ed.), Caere, Austin, 2016, p. 165-172.

Caspio et al. 2009 = A. Caspio, C. D’Agostini, C. Molinari, S. Musco, D. Raiano, G. Rizzo, F. Zabotti, I contesti tardo-repubblicani di Viale della Serenissima e di Quarto del Cappello da Prete, in V. Jolivet (ed.), Suburbium, II, Il suburbio di Roma dalla fine dell’età monarchica alla nascita del sistema delle ville (V-II secolo a. C.), Rome, 2009, p. 455-496 (Collection de l’École française de Rome, 419).

Cassieri 2004 = N. Cassieri, Il deposito votivo di Tratturo Caniò a Sezze, in A.M. Reggiani, L. Quilici, S. Nievo, G. Papi (ed.), Religio: santuari ed ex voto nel Lazio meridionale. Atti della giornata di studio, Terracina, 2004, p. 163-181.

Cavagnaro Vanoni 1996 = L. Cavagnaro Vanoni, Tombe tarquiniesi di eta ellenistica: catalogo di ventisei tombe a camera scoperte dalla Fondazione Lerici in località Calvario, Rome, 1996 (Studia archaeologica, 82).

Colivicchi 2015 = F. Colivicchi, After the fall: Caere after 273 B.C.E., in Etruscan and Italic studies, 18/2, 2015, p. 178-199.

Colivicchi 2020 = F. Colivicchi, A blurring frontier: the territory of Caere in the fourth and third centuries B. C. E., in Etruscan and Italic studies, 23/1-2, 2020, p. 107-129.

Colonna 1975 = G. Colonna, Firme arcaiche di artefici nell’Italia centrale, in RM, 82, 1975, p. 181-192.

Colonna 1993 = G. Colonna, Ceramisti e donne padrone di bottega nell’Etruria arcaica, in G. Meiser (ed.), Indogermanica et Italica: Festschrift für Helmut Rix zum 65. Geburtstag, Innsbruck, 1993, p. 61-68.

Colonna 1997 = G. Colonna, Larice Crepu vasaio a San Giovenale, in B. Magnusson, S. Renzetti, P. Vian (ed.), Ultra terminum vagari: scritti in onore di Carl Nylander, Rome, 1997, p. 61-76.

Colonna 2014 = G. Colonna, Firme di artisti in Etruria, in AnnFaina, 21, 2014, p. 45-74.

Cristofani 1986 = M. Cristofani, Nuovi dati per la storia urbana di Caere, in Bollettino di archeologia, 35-36, 1986, p. 1-24.

Cristofani – Cristofani Martelli 1972 = M. Cristofani, M. Cristofani Martelli, Ceramica presigillata da Volterra, in MEFRA, 84, 1972, p. 499-514.

Curri 1984 = C. Curri, Un cilindretto etrusco di Roselle, in G. Maetzke, L. Tamagno Perna, M.G. Marzi Costagli (ed.), Studi di Antichità in onore di Guglielmo Maetzke, Rome, 1984, p. 243-249 (Archaeologica, 49).

De Angelis 2015 = F. De Angelis, Miti greci in tombe etrusche. Le urne cinerarie di Chiusi, Rome, 2015 (Monumenti antichi/Accademia nazionale dei Lincei, 73).

De Simone 1976 = C. De Simone, Ancora sul nome di Caere, in SE, 44, 1976, p. 163-184.

Del Chiaro 1957 = M.A. Del Chiaro, The Genucilia Group. A class of Etruscan red-figured plates, Berkeley, 1957.

Del Chiaro 1974 = M.A. Del Chiaro, Etruscan red-figured vase-painting at Caere, Berkeley, 1974.

Di Giuseppe 2012 = H. Di Giuseppe, Black-gloss ware in Italy. Production management and local histories, Oxford, 2012 (BAR International series, 2335).

Dusinberre 2005 = E.R.M. Dusinberre, Gordion seals and sealings. Individuals and society, Philadelphia, 2005 (University Museum monograph, 124).

Fülle 1997 = G. Fülle, The internal organization of the Arretine terra sigillata industry: problems of evidence and interpretation, in JRA, 87, 1997, p. 111-155.

Gagliardi 2016 = L. Gagliardi, Droit romain et droits locaux dans les municipes italiques avant la lex iulia de civitate, in Revue historique de droit français et étranger, 94/3, 2016, p. 369-391.

Gentili 2019 = M.D. Gentili, Opere firmate nell’artiginato etrusco, in Archaeologia classica, 70, 2019, p. 575-592.

Ghini 2004 = G. Ghini, Luoghi di culto e santuari in area albana e pontina, in A.M. Reggiani, L. Quilici, S. Nievo, G. Papi (ed.), Religio: santuari ed ex voto nel Lazio meridionale. Atti della giornata di studio, Terracina, 2004, p. 41-51.

Ghini – Colonna 2002 = G. Ghini, G. Colonna. Latium vetus: Velitrae., in REE, 65-68, 2002, p. 370-372.

Gros – Mascoli 1981 = P. Gros, L. Mascoli, Scavi della scuola francese di Roma a Bolsena (Poggio Moscini), I, Bolsena. Guida agli scavi, Rome, 1981 (Collection de l’École Française de Rome, 6/1).

de Grummond 2006 = N.T. de Grummond, Etruscan myth, sacred history, and legend, Philadelphia, 2006.

Immerwahr 1992 = H.R. Immerwahr, New wine in ancient wineskins: the evidence from attic vases, in Hesperia, 61/1, 1992, p. 121-132.

Johnston et al. 2018 = A.C. Johnston, M. Mogetta, L. Banducci, R. Opitz, A. Gallone, J. Farr, E.C. Cicci, N. Terrenato. A monumental mid-Republican building complex at Gabii, in PBSR, 86, 2018, p. 1-35.

Kenrick 1997 = P.M. Kenrick, Cn. Ateius – the inside story, in Rei Cretariae Romanae Fautorum Acta, 35, 1997, p. 179-190.

Laubenheimer 2013 = F. Laubenheimer, Amphoras and shipwrecks, in J. DeRose Evans (ed.), A companion to the archaeology of the Roman Republic, Chichester, 2013, p. 97-109.

Liou – Cristofani 1968 = B. Liou, M. Cristofani. Note e commenti: Volsinii, in REE, 36, 1968, p. 257-262.

Maggiani 2015 = A. Maggiani, Caere: località S. Antonio, in REE, 77, 2015, p. 345-353.

Malfitana 2009 = D. Malfitana, Archeologia della produzione e diritto romano. Il marchio Arretinum: copyright, falsificazione o messagio pubblicitario?, in Minima epigraphica et papyrologia, 14-17, 2009, p. 201-212.

Manacorda 1993 = D. Manacorda, Appunti sulla bollatura in età romana, in W. V. Harris (ed.), The inscribed economy. Production and distribution in the Roman Empire in the light of instrumentum domesticum, Ann Arbor, 1993, p. 37-54 (Journal of Roman archaeology. Supplement, 6)

Manacorda 2003 = D. Manacorda, Schiavi e padroni nell’antica Puglia romana: produzione e commerci, in F. Lenzi (ed.), L’archeologia dell’Adriatico dalla Preistoria al Medioevo, Florence, 2003, p. 297-316.

Maras 2015 = D.F. Maras, Un momento pubblico alle porte d’Etruria, in L. Atteni (ed.), Studi Sulle mura poligonali, Frosinone, 2015, p. 195-203.

Marchesini 1997 = S. Marchesini, Studi onomastici e sociolinguistici sull’Etruria arcaica: Il caso di Caere, Florence, 1997 (Biblioteca di studi etruschi/Istituto nazionale di studi etruschi ed italici, 32).

Mascione 2005 = C. Mascione, Populonia nell’età della romanizzazione: lo scavo sull’acropoli, in B. M. Giannattasio, C. Canepa, L. Grasso, E. Piccardi (ed.), Aequora, jam, mare… Mare, uomini e merci nel Mediterraneo antico. Atti del convegno internazionale, Genova, 9-10 dicembre 2004, Borgo San Lorenzo, 2005, p. 134-143.

Mascione et al. 2003 = C. Mascione, E. Giorgi, F. Minucci, C. Rizzitelli, S. Nerucci, Scavi sull’acropoli: relazione preliminare sulla campagna 2001, in C. Mascione, A. Patera (ed.), Materiali per Populonia, 2, Florence, 2003, p. 17-53.

Mascione et al. 2005 = C. Mascione, A. Comini, S. Camaiani, A. De Laurenzi, C. Megale, F. Minucci, C. Rizzitelli, S. Santoni, G. Saltini Semerari, E. Vattimo. I saggi di scavo sull’acropoli: un aggiornamento, in A. Camilli, M.L. Gualandi (ed.), Materiali per Populonia, 4, Pisa, 2005, p. 7-75.

Massa-Pairault 1985 = F.-H. Massa-Pairault, Recherches sur l’art et l’artisanat étrusco-Italiques à l’époque hellénistique, Rome, 1985 (Bibliothèque des écoles françaises d’Athènes et de Rome, 257).

Mogetta – Opitz forthcoming = M. Mogetta, R. Opitz (ed.), A domestic to industrial transition at Gabii, Ann Arbor, forthcoming.

Morel 1969 = J.-P. Morel, Études de céramique campanienne, 1, L’atelier des petites estampilles, in Mélanges d’archéologie et d’histoire, 81/1, 1969, p. 59-117.

Morel 1988 = J.-P. Morel, Artisanat et colonisation dans l’Italie romaine aux IVe et IIIe siècles av. J.-C., in Dialoghi di archeologia, 3rd s., 6/2, 1988, p. 49-63.

Neri 2008 = S. Neri, Una nuova fiasca del pellegrino: integrazioni al repertorio vascolare veiente dell’Orientalizzante, in Aristonothos. Rivista di studi sul Mediterraneo antico, 3, 2008, p. 87-110.

Nonnis 2012 = D. Nonnis, Attività produttiva a Perugia tra ellenismo ed età Romana: la documentazione epigrafica, in G. Bonamente (ed.), Augusta Perusia. Studi storici e archeologici sull’epoca del bellum Perusinum, Perugia, 2012, p. 155-183.

Nonnis 2015 = D. Nonnis, Produzione e distribuzione nell’Italia repubblicana. Uno studio prosopografico, Rome, 2015.

Olcese 2017 = G. Olcese, Wine and amphorae in Campania in the Hellenistic Age: the case of Ischia, in T.C.A. de Hass, G. Tol (ed.), The economic integration of Roman Italy, Leiden, 2017, p. 299-321.

Opitz et al. 2016 = R. Opitz, M. Mogetta, N. Terrenato (ed.), A mid-Republican house from Gabii, Ann Arbor, 2016.

Oxé et al. 2000 = A. Oxé, H. Comfort, P.M. Kenrick, Corpus vasorum arretinorum. A catalogue of the signatures, shapes and chronology of Italian sigillata, Bonn, 2000 (Antiquitas Reihe, 3, Abhandlungen zur Vor- und Frühgeschichte, zur klassischen und provinzial-römischen Archäologie und zur Geschichte des Altertums, 41).

Pagenstecher 1909 = R. Pagenstecher, Die Calenische Reliefkeramik, Berlin, 1909 (Jahrbuch des Kaiserlich deutschen archäologischen instituts, 8, Ergänzungsheft).

Pais 2003 = A. Pais, Edilizia monumentale a Populonia: il complesso delle logge. Tecniche murarie, in C. Mascione, A. Patera (ed.), Materiali per Populonia, II, Florence, 2003, p. 143-157.

Paleothodoros 2020 = D. Paleothodoros, Etruscan vase-painters: literate or iliterate?, in R.D. Whitehouse (ed.), Etruscan literacy in its social context, London, 2000, p. 69-89.

Pallecchi 2002 = S. Pallecchi, I mortaria di produzione centro-italica. Corpus dei bolli, Rome, 2002 (Instrumentum, 1).

Pandolfini 1987 = M. Pandolfini, Considerazioni sulle iscrizioni etrusche di Bolsena su instrumentum, in MEFRA, 99/2, 1987, p. 621-633.

Panella 2010 = C. Panella, Roma, il suburbio e l’Italia in età medio- e tardo-repubblicana: cultura materiale, territori, economie, in Facta. A journal of Roman material culture studies, 4, 2020, p. 11-124.

Pfiffig 1976 = A.J. Pfiffig, Etruskische Signaturen: Verfertigernamen Und Töpferstempel, Vienna, 1976 (Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften. Philosophisch-Historische Klasse. Sitzungsberichte, 304, Abh. 2).

Pieraccini 2003 = L. Pieraccini, Around the hearth. Caeretan cylinder-stamped braziers, Rome, 2003 (Studia archaeologica, 120).

Popkin 2018 = M.L. Popkin, Urban images in glass from the late Roman Empire: the souvenir flasks of Puteoli and Baiae, in AJA, 122/3, 2018, p. 427-462.

Rasmussen 2016 = T. Rasmussen, Bucchero, in N. T. de Grummond, L. Pieraccini (ed.), Caere, Austin, 2016, p. 173-182.

Rizzo 2008 = M.A. Rizzo, Scavi e ricerche nell’area sacra di S. Antonio a Cerveteri, in Mediterranea, 5, 2008, p. 93-120.

Romualdi 1992 = A. Romualdi (ed.), Populonia in età ellenistica. I materiali dalle necropoli. Atti del seminario, Firenze, 30 Giugno 1986, Florence, 1992.

Rosselli 2018 = L. Rosselli, Le necropoli delle ripaie di Volterra. Le tombe di età ellenistica e romana, Pisa, 2018.

Roth 2007 = R. Roth, Styling Romanisation. Pottery and society in central Italy, Cambridge, 2007.

Scalia 1968 = F. Scalia, I cilindretti di tipo chiusino con figure umane (contibuto allo studio dei buccheri neri a ‘cilindretto’), in SE, 36, 1968, p. 357-402.

Shepherd 1992 = E.J. Shepherd, Ceramica acroma, verniciata e argentata, in A. Romualdi (ed.), Populonia in età ellenistica. I materiali dalle necropoli, Florence, 1992, p. 152-178.

Sordi 1960 = M. Sordi, I rapporti romano-ceriti e l’origine della civitas sine suffragio, Rome, 1960.

Stanco 2008 = E.A. Stanco, Ceramica a vernice rossa di periodo repubblicano, in Ceramica romana. Guida allo studio, Rome, 2008, p. 91-104.

Stanco 2009 = E.A. Stanco, La seriazione cronologica della ceramica a vernice nera etrusco-laziale nell’ambito del III secolo a. C., in V. Jolivet (ed.), Suburbium, II, Il suburbio di Roma dalla fine dell’età monarchica alla nascita del sistema delle ville (V-II secolo a. C.), Rome, 2009, p. 157-193 (Collection de l’École française de Rome, 419).

Tagliamonte 1993 = G. Tagliamonte, Iscrizioni etrusche su strigili, in Spectacles sportifs et scéniques dans le monde étrusco-italique. Actes de la table ronde de Rome (3-4 mai 1991), Rome, Paris, 1993, p. 97-120 (Collection de l’École française de Rome, 172).

Torelli 2016 = M. Torelli, The Roman period, in N. T. de Grummond, L. Pieraccini (ed.), Caere, Austin, 2016, p. 263-270.

Van Oyen 2016 = A. Van Oyen, How things make history. The Roman Empire and its terra sigillata pottery, Amsterdam, 2016.

Vickers 1994 = M. Vickers, D.J. Gill, Artful crafts. Ancient Greek silverware and pottery, Oxford, 1994.

Wallace 2008 = R. Wallace, Zikh Rasna. A manual of the Etruscan language and inscriptions, Ann Arbor, 2008.

Winter 2008 = N.A. Winter, Sistemi decorative di tetti ceretani fino al 510, in Mediterranea, 5, 2008, p. 187-196.

Woolley 1911 = C.L. Woolley, Some potters’ marks from Cales, in The journal of Roman studies, 1, 1911, p. 199-205.

Zuchtreigel 2014 = G. Zuchtriegel, Céramique « étrusque » à Gabii et dans le Latium archaïque : entre koinè tyrrhénienne et exception latine, in L. Ambrosini, V. Jolivet (ed.), Les potiers d’Étrurie et leur monde. Contacts, échanges, transferts. Hommages à Mario Del Chiaro, Paris, 2014, p. 169-175.

Haut de page

Notes

1 E.g. Colonna 2014, p. 47; Paleothodoros 2020, p. 43.

2 Colonna 1975, 1993, 1997, 2014.

3 First published in 2012, it was updated in 2015. This functions as a significantly expanded and more sophisticated version of Pfiffig’s slim Etruskische Signaturen (1976).

4 A recent summary of the evidence we have for Etruscan artisans can be found in Gentili 2019.

5 For example, see Batigne Vallet 2009, p. 118-123; Bertoldi 2011, p. 69-88.

6 Manacorda 2003, p. 299; Nonnis 2015, p. 166.

7 The first interpretation was by Bernard Liou and Mauro Cristofani (1968). Carlo De Simone articulated most clearly the various possibilities for our grammatical understanding of the words (1976, p. 166-172), with the approbation of Maristella Pandolfini (1987, p. 624-625) and Simona Marchesini (1997, p. 144). Enrico Benelli suggested further that putina is an adjective qualifying acil as in “vessel production” (2012, p. 239). Dominique Briquel and Daniele Maras read ceizra as an adjective for the city (Briquel 2014a, p. 76, n. 14; Maras 2015, p. 200). David Nonnis included ceizra in his catalogue of artisans as if it is a proper name (Nonnis 2015, p. 165-166). Colonna and Wallace are unconvinced that ceizra relates to the city of Caere at all (Ghini – Colonna 2002, p. 372; Wallace 2008, p. 185).

8 Pandolfini 1987, p. 624. There is certainly a problem of recovery bias here. While three examples come from Bolsena more than any other site, it is a well-excavated and unusually well-published Hellenistic period site.

9 Camporeale 2016.

10 Rasmussen 2016.

11 Del Chiaro 1957; 1974.

12 Rizzo 2008; Winter 2008; Colivicchi 2015, p. 193-195.

13 Di Giuseppe 2012, p. 81 and table 7. The location of production may have been Vigna Parrochiale. Enrico Stanco identifies a “Caeretan production” of gruppo dei piccoli stampigli (GPS), though with little explanation for why to suspect this production location other than preponderance of stamped vessels recovered (Stanco 2009, p. 160-164).

14 Sordi 1960, p. 123-134; Torelli 2016, p. 264-265; Gagliardi 2016, p. 378-380.

15 Colivicchi 2015, 2020.

16 Hellenistic tombs are well-published at Populonia (Shepherd 1992), Tarquinia (Cavagnaro Vanoni 1996), and Volterra (Rosselli 2018).

17 The CIE entry for the first published example from Bolsena (Poggio Moscini) calls it a laguncula (CIE 10789).

18 Pagenstecher 1909, n. 175 and n. 189.

19 There are, for example, an italo-geometric vessel from Veii (Neri 2008), and bronze versions from 8th century Ansedonia (Vatican Museums Cat. 12632) and 8th century Vulci (Villa Giulia Museum Cat. 64489).

20 Hp. Morb. II, 12.

21 Blanck – Proietti 1986, p. 27. Another suspicious object hangs above this on the same pillar. It is a large convex disc which is yellow in colour and hangs from leather straps. It has been labelled a musical instrument like a “gong” or “drum,” and Blanck and Prioetti tentatively suggest it is a cushion. It is possible that this is also some sort of purse, pouch, or container like a discoidal flask (ibid., p. 32). A rare Greek example of someone with a cloth purse appears on a red-figure cup by Douris (Harvard 501.1937 in Immerwahr 1992).

22 Blanck – Proietti 1986, p. 36-37. Two similar shapes are found on the main wall of the tomb on either side of the tomb’s central brier. Both are badly damaged, but early travellers identified them both as bags or satchels similar to the one on the second pillar. Instead, Blanck and Prioetti read these as badly-damaged busts of a man and woman where the lower portion of the shoulders and chest appear similar to a satchel (ibid., p. 20-21).

23 De Angelis 2015, figs. 39 and Cac 1, Cac 2, and Cac 3. Francesco De Angelis calls them saddlebags (De Angelis 2015, p. 250). Nancy de Grummond calls them vessels (de Grummond 2006, p. 175).

24 On skeuomorphs in ancient pottery see Vickers – Gill 1994, especially p. 106 and following.

25 Paleothodoros 2020, p. 43.

26 Colonna 1997; Pieraccini 2003, p. 145-146. Note that in the 5th century, there are several examples in Etruscan and Attic black figure of artists’ signatures painted within the rim of table amphorae (Paleothodoros 2020, p. 79).

27 Scalia 1968; Pieraccini 2003, p. 187-188.

28 Ameri et al. 2018.

29 Dusinberre 2005, p. 19

30 Following the larice crepu stamp, there is also an artists’ stamp on a 6th-century roof tile (Colonna 1993).

31 Nonnis 2015, p. 477.

32 Nonnis 2015, tab. IV 3a, tab IV 1a and tab I 2.

33 Di Giuseppe 2012, p. 84-93 and table 8; Morel 1988, p. 54-55; Nonnis 2015. These studies do not include single letter stamps (e.g. “A” or “H”). Including these would have provided several more Southern Etruria examples. See also a new collection of makers’ stamps most recently from Caere in Maggiani 2015, n. 57-79, p. 345-353.

34 Morel 1988, p. 54.

35 Oxé et al. 2000, p. 10; Malfitana 2009.

36 Fülle 1997.

37 Di Giuseppe 2012, p. 93-94.

38 Di Giuseppe 2012, p. 84. On artisans in Hellenistic central Italy from a largely art-historical perspective, see Massa-Pairault 1985.

39 Oxé et al. 2000, p. 513-518, especially types n. 2548, 2549, 2553, 2555.

40 Stanco 2009; Cf. Roth 2007.

41 Morel 1969, p. 107-111.

42 Nonnis 2015, p. 478.; Panella 2010, p. 37.

43 Manacorda 1993; Oxé et al. 2000, p. 10.

44 Laubenheimer 2013, p. 102; Olcese 2017.

45 Beazley 1947, p. 275-277. There are also three black gloss examples (and one according to Beazley has “bad brownish-red glaze”) but none of these have stamps, so it is not certain that these should be grouped with the rest.

46 Cristofani – Cristofani Martelli 1972, p. 511; Stanco 2008, p. 93. This is a revision of Beazley who says that because of the similarity in their fabric they must all come from the same workshop (Beazley 1947, p. 275).

47 The most recently recovered example was only a small fragment of the handle with the visible stamp (Caspio et al. 2009, p. 484).

48 Colonna has observed that these names seem to suggest that the patrons or workshop owners are women in some cases and the stamps list the name of a slave or at least subservient artisan (Colonna 1993).

49 Briquel 2014b.

50 Ibid., p. 448.

51 This stamp form appears in other media as well, including on bronze strigils (Tagliamonte 1993). Stamps also appear on brick and tile starting in the 2nd century (Nonnis 2015, p. 481-482). Stamps on mortaria began in the 1st century CE (Pallecchi 2002).

52 Oxé et al. 2000, p. 36, for frames see p. 529-534.

53 Curri 1984. This was found outside the city walls on the modern surface.

54 Cassieri 2004, p. 176, fig. 41.

55 Oxé et al. 2000, p. 12-13.

56 Curri 1984, p. 243.

57 Pieraccini 2003, p. 183.

58 Ambrosini 2014, p. 186 and fig. 4.3.

59 Oxé et al. 2000, p. 10; Malfitana 2009, p. 203.

60 Kenrick 1997. On scale of production in Gaul, see for example, Van Oyen 2016. On the organization of workshops see Fülle 1997.

61 The publication of the first and best-preserved example from Bolsena reports that there were other sherds of similar fabric in the deposit where it was found, but none of them joined with the stamped fragment (Balland – Goudineau 1968, p. 201).

62 Popkin 2018.

63 Ibid., p. 449.

64 AV 6.9; CIE 11373.

65 ET 411-412.

66 Several inscriptions have the word mi and one from Lavinium has the Etruscan verbs muluvanice mamarce (ET La 2.9).

67 Benelli 1994, p. 43.

68 This is evident in the recording and publication of the Atrane stamp which has appeared in the CIL, the CIE, and CII (Briquel 2014b).

69 Fülle 1997, p. 116.

70 This is not quite the case with Genucilia plates whose distribution in areas which do not normally have other Etruscan-made pottery suggests that Rome acted as a commercial intermediary or re-distribution node (Morel 1988, p. 52).

71 Romualdi 1992.

72 Mascione 2005.

73 Pais 2003.

74 Johnston et al. 2018.

75 Opitz et al. 2016.

76 Almagro Gorbea 1982.

77 On the continued use and visibility of the Etruscan language at Populonia see Benelli 2015. Latin cities including Gabii, had strong connections to the Etruscan ceramic market in the Archaic period (e.g. Zuchtriegel 2014).

Haut de page

Table des illustrations

Titre Fig. 1a. Photograph of ceizra vessel from Gabii (special find n. 539, from SU 4018) (photo: author).
URL http://journals.openedition.org/mefra/docannexe/image/16005/img-1.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 282k
Titre Fig. 1b. Photograph of ceizra vessel from Gabii showing duplication of letter p in putina (photo: author).
URL http://journals.openedition.org/mefra/docannexe/image/16005/img-2.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 239k
Titre Fig. 1c. Drawing of letters in relief on vessel from Gabii (drawing: author).
URL http://journals.openedition.org/mefra/docannexe/image/16005/img-3.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 24k
Titre Fig. 2a. Photograph of ceizra vessel from Populonia acropolis (from Saggio IX, att. 73) (photo: author).
URL http://journals.openedition.org/mefra/docannexe/image/16005/img-4.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 127k
Titre Fig. 2b. Photograph of ceizra vessel from Populonia (photo: author).
URL http://journals.openedition.org/mefra/docannexe/image/16005/img-5.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 168k
Titre Fig. 2c. Drawing of letters in relief on vessel from Populonia (drawing: author).
URL http://journals.openedition.org/mefra/docannexe/image/16005/img-6.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 12k
Titre Fig. 3. Hypothetical reconstruction of the ceizra vessel as a discoidal askos laying horizontally using 3D image of the Gabii fragment (drawing: author).
URL http://journals.openedition.org/mefra/docannexe/image/16005/img-7.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 25k
Titre Fig. 4. Two hypothetical reconstructions of the vessel as a pilgrim flask (drawing: author).
URL http://journals.openedition.org/mefra/docannexe/image/16005/img-8.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 31k
URL http://journals.openedition.org/mefra/docannexe/image/16005/img-9.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 37k
Titre Fig. 5a-b. Leather bags on the walls of Caere’s Tomb of the Reliefs (Wilkinson 1856, pl. 4.2 and 5.2).
URL http://journals.openedition.org/mefra/docannexe/image/16005/img-10.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 515k
URL http://journals.openedition.org/mefra/docannexe/image/16005/img-11.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 544k
Titre Fig. 6. Stamps on black gloss from Cales (Woolley 1911, fig. 39).
URL http://journals.openedition.org/mefra/docannexe/image/16005/img-12.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 274k
Titre Fig. 7. Hypothetical reconstruction of the cylinder stamp used to stamp the ceizra vessel (photo: author).
URL http://journals.openedition.org/mefra/docannexe/image/16005/img-13.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 166k
Titre Fig. 8. Cylinder seal from Roselle (photo courtesy of the Museo Archeologico e d’Arte della Maremma, permission from Soprintendenza Archeologica, Belle Arti, e Paesaggio per le province di Siena, Grosseto, e Arezzo).
URL http://journals.openedition.org/mefra/docannexe/image/16005/img-14.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 150k
Haut de page

Pour citer cet article

Référence papier

Laura M. Banducci, « The ceizra vessels and makers’ stamps in Hellenistic Italy »Mélanges de l'École française de Rome - Antiquité, 135-2 | 2023, 475-491.

Référence électronique

Laura M. Banducci, « The ceizra vessels and makers’ stamps in Hellenistic Italy »Mélanges de l'École française de Rome - Antiquité [En ligne], 135-2 | 2023, mis en ligne le 10 avril 2024, consulté le 14 juin 2024. URL : http://journals.openedition.org/mefra/16005 ; DOI : https://doi.org/10.4000/mefra.16005

Haut de page

Auteur

Laura M. Banducci

Carletown University – laurabanducci@cunet.carletown.ca

Haut de page

Droits d’auteur

CC-BY-NC-ND-4.0

Le texte seul est utilisable sous licence CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Les autres éléments (illustrations, fichiers annexes importés) sont « Tous droits réservés », sauf mention contraire.

Haut de page
Rechercher dans OpenEdition Search

Vous allez être redirigé vers OpenEdition Search