Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T20:20:37.588Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

‘Salvation from the Sea’: Amphorae and Trade in the Roman West*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 September 2012

Jeremy Paterson
Jeremy Paterson
Affiliation:
University of Newcastle upon Tyne
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

‘Le salut, pour l'histoire économique de l'antiquité, ne peut venir que de la mer’—heady talk, but typical of its time. It may well be that the decade of the’ 70s will come to be seen as the high summer of amphorae studies and it is, perhaps, no accident that such great claims have been made in a report on a wreck at Port-Vendres which is closely dated by the stamps on a remarkable series of ingots and also has an exceptional series of painted inscriptions on the amphorae of the cargo. Few wrecks have produced information of such quality.

Type
Survey Article
Information
The Journal of Roman Studies , Volume 72 , November 1982 , pp. 146 - 157
Copyright
Copyright © Jeremy Paterson 1982. Exclusive Licence to Publish: The Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Éitienne, R. in Colls, D., Étienne, R., Lequément, R., Liou, B., and Mayet, F., ‘L'Épave Port-Vendres II et le commerce de la Bétique à Pepoque de Claude’, Archaeonautica 1 (1977), 129Google Scholar.

2 ‘Di un deposito di anfore rinvenuto nel nuovo quartiere di Castro Pretorio’, Bolletino delta Commissione Archeologica Comunale di Roma 6 (1879), 36 ff.Google Scholar and ‘Ricerche sul Monte Testaccio’, Annali dell'Istituto di Corrispondenza Archeologica 1878, 118 ff. The results of Dressel's work are published in CIL xv. On the history of the investigation of Monte Testaccio see now: Rodriguez Almeida, E., ‘Novedades de epigrafia anforaria del Monte Testaccio’, Recherches, 108 ff.Google Scholar

3 A. Mau in CIL IV.

4 Loeschcke, S., ‘Keramische Funde in Haltern’, in Ausgrabungen bei Haltern, 101 ff.Google Scholar (Mitteilungen der Altertums-Kommission für Westfalen v, 1909), Albrecht, C., Das Römerlager in Oberaden (1938)Google Scholar, Bohn, O., ‘Die ältesten römischen Amphoren in Gallien’, Germania 1923, 8 ff.Google Scholar, and ‘Amphorenschicksale’, Germania 1925, 78 ff., Oxé, A., ‘Die ältesten römischen Amphoren am Rhein und in Gallien’, Germania 1924, 80 ff.Google Scholar, Uenze, O., Frührömische Amphoren als Zeitmarken im Spätlatène (1958)Google Scholar. For Britain see the careful reports in Hawkes, C. F. C. and Hull, M. R., Camulodunum (1947)Google Scholar and more recently Peacock, D. P. S., ‘Roman Amphorae in pre-Roman Britain’, in Hill, D. and Jesson, M., eds., The Iron Age and its hillforts (University of Southampton Monographs Series 1, 1971), 161 ff.Google Scholar

5 E. Ettlinger, ‘Aspects of amphora typology—seen from the north’, Méthodes Classiques.

6 For the reuse of amphorae see Callender, M. H., Roman Amphorae (1965)Google Scholar, ch. 3 and M. Beltrán Lloris, Anforas Romanas en España (Monografias Arqueológicas (Anejos de ‘Caesaraugusta’) 8, 1970), ch. v.

7 Zevi, F., ‘Appunti sulle anfore romane’, Archeologia Classica 18 (1966), 208 ffGoogle Scholar.

8 Remark, P., De amphorarum inscriptionibus Latinis quaestiones selectae (1912)Google Scholar. It is an indication of the lack of interest in evolving a typology that the illustrative plate which was produced by Dressel for CIL xv was reproduced so frequently and dominated all discussion of amphorae types until the 1950s. Dressel's table of amphora shapes was never intended as a sophisticated typology, but merely to enable him in the text of CIL to note briefly the shape of amphora on which a particular stamp was found. He was, however, an acute observer. He was careful to distinguish type 6 according to his table and amphorae ‘formae 6 similis’; it is now realized that these are different types of amphorae, see Baldacci, P., ‘Alcuni aspetti dei commerci nei territori cisalpini’ in Atti del Centra Studi e Documentazione sul'Italia Romana I, 1967–1968 (1969), 11 ff.Google Scholar

9 M. H. Callender, op. cit. (n. 6), 5.

10 See Zevi, F., review-discussion of Callender in JRS 57 (1967), 234 ff.Google Scholar and Tchernia, A., ‘Les amphores romaines et l'histoire économique’, Journal des Savants 1967, 216 ff.Google Scholar

11 The difficult and time-consuming nature of the work means that there ares till comparatively few full and detailed reports of whole wrecks. The majority of underwater sites still have been inadequately investigated and many thousands of the amphorae which have been found cannot be accurately assigned to a particular provenance. The progress of the identification and investigation of underwater sites can be followed in the pages of Gallia, Rivista di Studi Liguri, CRIS Revista de la Mar, Cahiers d'archéologie subaquatique, and the International Journal of Nautical Archaeology and Underwater Exploration.

12 Benoit, F., L'épave du Grand Congloué a Marseille, Gallia Supp. 14 (1961)Google Scholar.

13 It is unnecessary to rehearse here the long bibliography on the Grand Congloué wreck and the SES stamps. A list of the major contributions is given by Manacorda, D., ‘The Ager Cosanus and the production of the amphorae of Sestius: new evidence and a reassessment’, JRS 68 (1978), 125Google Scholar, n. 11. Doubts about the date and interpretation of the Grand Congloué wreck and the SES amphorae were raised by Thevenot, E., ‘Les importations vinaires en pays bourguignon avant le développement de la viticulture’, Revue archéologique de l'Est et du Centre-Est 4 (1953), 234 ff.Google Scholar and ‘La marque d'amphore “Sesti”’ in Revue archéologique de l'Est et du Centre-Est 5 (1954), 234 ff., and by Will, E. Lyding, ‘Les amphores de Sestius’, Revue archéologique de l'Est et du Centre-Est 7 (1956), 224 ff.Google Scholar Professor Will has continued the study of the amphorae from Cosa and for the most recent review of the debate and the evidence see Will, E. Lyding, ‘The Sestius Amphoras: a reappraisal’, Journal of Field Archaeology 6 (1979). 339 ff.Google Scholar D. Manacorda has returned to the task of tying in the information about the amphorae with our knowledge of the owners of estates in the region of Cosa and the archaeological remains of the villas of the area: see Manacorda, D., ‘Considerazioni sull'epigrafia della regione di Cosa’, Athenaeum 57 (1979). 73 ff.Google Scholar and ‘L'ager cosanus tra tarda repubblica e impero: forme di produzione e assetto della proprietà’, MAAR 36 (1980), 173 ff. and now: D. Manacorda, ‘Produzione agricola, produzione ceramica e proprietari nell'ager cosanus nel I A. C.’ in Istituto Gramsci, 3 ff. The possibility that the Sestius who produced most of the SES amphorae was L. Sestius, father of P. Sestius, who owned property at Cosa (Cicero, ad Att. 15. 27. 1 and 15. 29. 1) is raised by J. H. D'Arms, ‘Republican Senators' involvement in commerce in the late Republic: some Ciceronian evidence’, MAAR 36 (1980), 83.

14 Zevi, F. and Tehernia, A., ‘Amphores de Byzacène au Bas-Empire’, Antiquiés Africaines 3, 173 ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

15 On the Albenga amphora see Lamboglia, ‘La nave romana di Albenga’, Rivista di Studi Liguri 18 (1952), 164 ff.Google Scholar, figs. 22–23. On its origins in S.W. Italy see: Zevi, F., ‘Anfore istriane a Ostia’, Atti e Memorie della Società Istriana di Storia Patria 15 (1967), 21 ff.Google Scholar; P. Baldacci, art. cit. (n. 8) and ‘Importazioni cisalpine e produzione apula’, Recherches, 7 ff. On the, as yet, inadequate information about the kiln site at Apani near Brindisi see Sciarra, B., ‘Un primo saggio di scavi’, Quaderno Museo ‘Francesco Ribezzo’ (1964), 39 ff.Google Scholar, ‘Alcuni bolli anforari brindisini’, Epigraphica 28 (1966), 122 ff.Google Scholar and ‘Ricerche in contrada Apani, agro di Brindisi’, Recherches, 29 ff. On the evidence that the amphora carried wine see: Formenti, F., Hesnard, A., Tchernia, A., ‘Une amphore Lamboglia 2 contenant du vin dans l'épave de la Madrague de Giens’, Archaeonautica 2 (1978)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For the important stamp on Apulian amphorae of M. Tuccius L. F. Tro (mentina tribu) Galeo, whose inheritance Cicero took up (ad Att. II. 12. 4), see: A. Tchernia, ‘Les fouilles sous-marines du Planier (Bouches-du-Rhône)’, Comptes rendus de l'Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres 1969, 292 ff.; id., ‘Premiers résultats des fouilles de juin 1968 sur l'épave 3 du Planier’, Études Classiques 3 (1968–70), 51 ff.; and the comments of J. H. D'Arms, MAAR 36 (1980), 79 ff.

16 M. Beltrán Lloris, op. cit. (n. 6).

17 The Laeetanian wine amphora, Dressel I Pascual D as Beltrán Lloris labelled it, was recognized by R. Pascual Guasch, ‘Centres de producción y difusión geográfica de un tipo de ánfora’, VII Congreso Nacional de Arqueologia, Barcelona 1960 (1962), 334 ff. and ‘Algunos aspectos del comercio antiguo según las “anforas”’, Comunicaciones a la I reunión de história de la economiá antigua de la península ibérica, Papeles del laboratório de arqueologia de Valencia 5 (1968) and ‘Las anforas de la Layetania’, Méthodes Classiques, 47 ff. The evidence is drawn together and analysed by Tchernia, A., ‘Les amphores vinaires de Tarraconaise et leur exportation au debut de l'Empire’, Archivo Español de Arqueologia 44 (1971), 38 ff.Google Scholar and updated in ‘L'Atelier d'amphores de Tivissa et la marque “SEX DOMITI”’, Mélanges J. Heurgon (Collection de l'École française de Rome 27, 1971), 973 ff.

18 Pliny, NH 14. 71.

19 For the kiln of L. Volteilius, whose stamp appears on the Laeetanian wine amphora, see Guasch, R. Pascual in Ampurias 24 (1962), 298Google Scholar.

20 A. Tchernia, art. cit. (n. 17), 38 ff.; A. Tchernia and Zeyi, F., ‘Amphores vinaires de Campanie et de Tarraconaise à Ostie’, Recherches, 25 ff.Google Scholar See in particular the articles by L. Fariñas del Cerro, F. de la Vega and A. Hesnard, by C. Panella and M. Fano, and by D. Peacock in Méthodes Classiques. For the suggestion that the region of Istria may also have been producing Dressel 2–4 type amphorae see C. Panella, ‘Anfore’ in Ostia II, Studi Miscellanei 16 (1970), 127 ff. Dressel 2–4 handles come from a kiln at Felline near Ugento in Apulia, see Pagliara, C. in Studi classici e orientali 17 (1968), 227 ff.Google Scholar

21 M. Beltrán Lloris, op. cit. (n. 6) and ‘Problemas de la morfologia y del concepto historico — geografico que recubre la nocion tipo’, Méthodes Classiques, 97 ff.; de Almeida, D. Fernando, Zbyszewski, G., Ferreira, O. da Veiga, ‘Descoberta de fornos lusitano — romanos na região da Marateca (Setúbal)’, O Archeologo Português 5 (1971), 155 ff.Google Scholar; A. Tchernia and J.-P. Villa, ‘Note sur le matériel recueilli dans la fouille d'un atelier d'amphores à Velaux’ in Méthodes Classiques, 231 ff.

22 Duncan, G. C., ‘A Roman pottery near Sutri’, PBSR 32 (1964), 38 ff.Google Scholar; Peacock, D. P. S., ‘Recent discoveries of Roman amphora kilns in Italy’, Antiquaries Journal 1977, 262 ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar; A. Hesnard, ‘Note sur un atelier d'amphores Dr. 1 et 2–4 près de Terracine’, MEFRA 89. 1 (1977), 157 ff.; A. Hesnard and C. Lemoine, ‘Les amphores du Cécube et du Falerne, prospections, typologie, analyses’, MEFRA 93. I (1981), 243 ff.

23 Pliny JH 14. 61, 65; 17.31.

24 D. P. S. Peacock, op. cit. (n. 22), 266 ff.

25 For Greco-Italiots from Sinuessa see A. Hesnard and C. Lemoine, op. cit. (n. 22) and W. Johannowsky, ‘Problemi archeologici Campani’, Rendicottti della Accademia di Archeologia, Lettere e Belle Arti di Napoli (1974), 3 ff.

26 For kilns producing both Dressel I and Dressel 2–4 see articles cited in n. 22. The latest consular date on a Dressel I is 13 B.C. (CIL xv. 2, 4539 and 4575). see F. Zevi, Archeologia Classica 18 (1966), 208 ff., while the dates on known Dressel 2–4 are mainly in the first century A.D. (see Zevi, op. cit.); as Hesnard (MEFRA 93. 1 (1981), 259) points out, CIL IV, 3, 9313 and NSc 1933, 331, give a date of 35 B.C. for Dressel 2–4.

27 A. Hesnard, MEFRA 89. 1 (1977), 161 n. 24 disposed of the supposed evidence for examples of Dressel 2–4 in second- and early-first-century B.C. contexts. The Augustan deposit of amphorae at La Longarina, Ostia, which contained some 181 wine amphorae and appears to have been a homogeneous deposit laid down at one time, has no example of Dressel I, while there are several Dressel 2–4, see A. Hesnard, ‘Un dépôt Augustéen d'amphores à La Longarina, Ostie’, MAAR 36 (1980), 141 ff.

28 As A. Hesnard, MEFRA 89. 1 (1977), 163, n. 34.

29 C. Panella, ‘L a distribuzione e i mercati’, Istituto Gramsci, 55 ff.

30 As C. Panella, op. cit., 65.

31 A. Tchernia, ‘Quelques remarques sur le commerce du vin et les amphores’, MAAR 36 (1980), 306 ff.

32 De antidotis (Kühn XIV, 77).

33 Pliny, NH 14. 38.

34 C. Panella, ‘Retroterra, Porti e Mercati: L'Esempio dell'Ager Falernus’, MAAR 36 (1980), 251 ff.

35 A. Hesnard, MEFRA 89. 1 (1977), 162. Carrazé, F., ‘L'épave ‘Grand Ribaud A’, sondages et travaux preliminaires’, Cahiers d'Archéologie Subaquatique 4 (1975), 38Google Scholar n. 52 has an over-ingenious point that Pliny makes a number of allusions to the containers for wine from Campania including NH 14. 136 that the best wines of Campania were left out in ‘cadi’. It is just remotely possible that ‘cadi’ refers to Greek-style vessels, cf. Pliny, NH 14. 97: Julius Caesar distributed Falernian wine in ‘amphorae’, but the wine of Chios in ‘cadi’. On the comparative scarcity of cargoes of Greek amphorae in the west in the Late Republic see Lequérnent, R. and Liou, B. in Cahiers Ligures de préhistoire et d'archéologie 24 (1975), 76 ff.Google Scholar

36 D. Manacorda, ‘Produzione agricola, produzione ceramica e proprietari nell' ager cosanus nel I a.C.’, Istituto Gramsci, 34 and ‘Ager Cosanus tra tarda repubblica e impero: forma di produzione e assetto della proprietà’, MAAR 36 (1980), 173 ff.

37 Gianfrotta, P. A., ‘Archeologia sott'acqua: rinvenimenti sottomarini in Etruria meridionale’, Bollettino d'Arte, Series VI, Vol. 10 (1981), 73 ff.Google Scholar

38 Santamaria, Cl., ‘Travaux et découvertes sur l'épave “A” du Cape Dramont à Saint-Raphael (Var)’, Actes du IIe Congrès international d'Archéologie sous-marine (Albenga, 1958) (1961)Google Scholar.

39 See Wiseman, T. P., New Men in the Roman Senate 139 B.C.–14 A.D. (1971), 198Google Scholar and Shatzman, I., Senatorial Wealth and Roman Politics (1975), 333 f.Google Scholar

40 Tchernia, A., Pomey, P., Hesnard, A., etc., ‘L'épave romaine de la Madrague de Giens’, Gallia Supp. 34 (1978)Google Scholar.

41 Archivio del Camerlengato, Archivio di Stato di Roma tit. IV, part II, fasc. 1524 (1831), communication of L. Mazzanti, an early report of the site. A find of 200 amphorae including numerous examples of the stamps of P. Veveius Papus was made in 1881 and published in CIL x. 8050. A. Hesnard, MEFRA 89. 1 (1977), 157 ff.

42 M. Della Corte, NSc 1911, 348 f.

43 Lequément, R. and Liou, B., ‘Les épaves de la côtes de Transalpine’, Cahiers Ligures de préhistoire et d'archéologie 24 (1975), 76 ff.Google Scholar, confirming an observation made long ago by N. Lamboglia, ‘La nave romana di Albenga’, REL 18 (1952), 235 ff.

44 See J. Paterson, ‘Transalpinae Gentes: Cicero, de republica 3. 16’, CQ 28 (1978), 452 ff.

45 Stead, I. M., ‘A La Tène III Burial at Welwyn Garden City’, Archaeologia 101 (1967), 1 ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

46 D. P. S. Peacock, ‘The Rhine and the problem of Gaulish wine in Roman Britain’ in J. du Plat Taylor and H. Cleere, eds., Roman shipping and trade: Britain and the Rhine provinces (CBA research report 24, 1978), 49 ff. For the Southern Gaulish origin see A. Tchernia and J.-P. Villa, art. cit. (n. 21) and on contents see C. Panella, ‘Appunti su un gruppo di anfore della prima, media e tarda età imperiale’, Ostia III (Studi Miscellanei 21).

47 These are the tentative, but important, conclusions of C. Panella, ‘La Distribuzione e i mercati’ in Istituto Gramsci, 55 ff. (in particular the table on 68–9) based in part on the finds in the Terme del Nuotatore and the deposit at La Longarina, both at Ostia: C. Panella, ‘Annotazioni in margine alle stratigrafie delle terme ostiensi del nuotatore’, Recherches, 69 ff. and op. cit. (n. 46).

48 P. Baldacci, art. cit. (n. 8), ‘Alcuni aspetti’; ‘Le principali correnti del commercio di anfore romane in Cisalpina dal III sec. a. C. al II d. C.’, I problemi della ceramica romana di Ravenna, della valle padana e dell'alto Adriatico (Atti del convegno internazionale, Ravenna 10-12 maggio 1969) (1972), 103 ff.; ‘Importazioni cisalpine e produzione apula’, Recherches, 7 ff. See also: F. Zevi, art. cit. (n. 15), 21 ff.; E. Buchi, ‘Banci di anfore romane a Verona, note sui commerci cisalpini’, Il Territorio Veronese in età romana (1973), 531 ff. and ‘Commerci delle anfore istriane’, Aquileia Nostra 45–46 (1974–1975), 432 ffGoogle Scholar.

49 CIL xv 4582, 4653.

50 Pliny, NH 15. 8. A. Degrassi, ‘Aquileia e l'Istria in età romana’, Studia aquileiesi offerti a G. Brusin (1953), 51 ff. and ‘L'esportazione di olio e olive istriane nell'età romana’, Atti e Memorie della Società Istriana, n.s. 4 (1956), 104 ff.

51 Chilver, G., Cisalpine Gaul (1941), 140Google Scholar.

52 Münzer, F., Beiträge zur Quellenkritik der Naturgeschichte des Plinius (1897), 385 ff.Google Scholar

53 CIL XI 6695. 77 a–c, III 12010. 4; F. Zevi, art. cit. (n. 15), 29; A. Oxé, Germania 8, 80 ff.

54 M. Callender, op. cit. (n. 6), 183, no. 1101.

55 Pliny, NH 18. 37; Dio 50. 14; CIL v. 8112. 78, III 12010. 30; NSc (1930), 439; (1967), 15.

56 CIL XV 3408.

57 M. Callender, op. cit., 258, no. 1717; CIL x 5056.

58 CIL xv 4660 b–c.

59 CIL xv 4657 b, f–h.

60 M. Callender, op. cit., 103, no. 365; Gnirs, , Jahrbuch für Altertumskunde 4 (1910), 79Google Scholar.

61 CIL v 698.

62 CIL v 8112. 24, 25, 139; III 14371. 7; 12010. 7; xv 3381; v 8110. 207.

63 For viticulture in the region of Aquileia, for example, see Herodian 8. 2. 3, Cassiodorus, Var. 12. 22. I.

64 The literature on individual finds is vast. It is hoped that the works cited in the notes above will open the way for the newcomer into the subject. Particular attention has been paid to the amphorae associated with Italian wine. There has also been a concentration on the Western Mediterranean. Much work still needs to be done on Italy's exports to the East. See Riley, J. A., ‘Italy and the Eastern Mediterranean in the Hellenistic and Early Roman Periods: the evidence of coarse pottery’ in Barker, G. and Hodges, R., eds., Archaeology and Italian Society (BAR International Series 102, 1981), 69 ff.Google Scholar The amphorae of other areas can reveal similar information about the economy of their regions. The most notable example of this, of course, is the large spheroid oil amphora of Baetica, Dressel 20, on which see Bonsor, G. E., The Archaeological Expedition along the Guadalquivir, 1889–1931 (1931)Google Scholar; Étienne, R., ‘Les amphores du Testaccio au IIIe siècle’, MEFRA 1949, 151 ffCrossRefGoogle Scholar.; Tchernia, A., ‘Amphores et marques d'amphores de Bétique à Pompéi et à Stabies, MEFRA 1964, 419 ff.Google Scholar; A. Tchernia, art. cit. (n. 10), 216 ff.; M. Beltrán Lloris, op. cit. (n. 6); E. Rodriguez Almeida, ‘Novedades de epigrafia anforaria del Monte Testaccio’, Recherches, 107 ff.; A. Guénoche and A. Tchernia, ‘Un modèle descriptif des amphores Dr. 20’, Méthodes Classiques. In particular see now the excellent discussion of the Dressel 20 amphorae from the Claudian wreck at Port-Vendres: D. Colls, Étienne, R. et al. , ‘L'épave Port-Vendres III et le commerce de la Bétique à l'époque de Claude, Archaeonautica 1 (1977)Google Scholar. The finds from this wreck make possible a new interpretation of the tituli picti on the oil amphorae. Most notably the ship was also carrying amphorae of the type known as ‘Haltern 70’. Tituli picti from this wreck now reveal that this was used for carrying wine. The wine of Southern Spain can now be shown to have been widely exported at the same time as the oil of the region. For those who wish to have an introduction to the various types of amphorae with illustrations, there are: M. Beltrán Lloris, op. cit. (n. 6), and also his Cerámica Romaana, Tipologia y Clasificación (Zaragoza). The main types of amphorae are illustrated with only brief commentary by J.-P. Joncheray, Nouvelle Classification des Amphores (second edition, 1976). An excellent introduction to the interpretation of evidence from wrecks is to be found in Parker, A. J., ‘The evidence provided by underwater archaeology for Roman trade in the Western Mediterranean’, in Blackman, D. J., ed., Marine Archaeology (Colston Papers 23, 1971), 361 ff.Google Scholar He provides a fruitful line of research by trying to tie in literary evidence about the produce of an area and the amphorae from the area, for which see also A. J. Parker, ‘Lusitanian amphorae’ in Méthodes Classiques. For petrological analysis of amphorae see many of the contributions to Méthodes Classiques, and for techniques for determining the contents of amphorae see M. C. Rothschild-Boros, ‘The Determination of Amphora Contents’, in G. Barker and R. Hodges, op. cit., 79 ff.

65 Benoit, F., ‘Typologie et épigraphie amphorique’, Rivista di Studi Liguri 23, 1–2 (1957), 279 ffGoogle Scholar. and op. cit. (n. 12), 56 ff.; J. Heurgon, ‘Les Lassii Pompeiens’, PdP 1952, 113.

66 Manacorda, D., JRS 68 (1978), 126Google Scholar.

67 J. H. D'Arms, ‘Republican senators' involvement in commerce in the late Republic: some Ciceronian evidence’, MAAR 36 (1980), 77 ff. and Commerce and Social Standing in Ancient Rome (1981), Chapter 2.

68 Helen, T., The Organisation of Roman Brick Production in the First and Second Centuries A.D. (Annales Academiae Scientiarum Fennicae. Dissertationes Humanarum Litterarum, 1975)Google Scholar and Setala, P., Private Domini in Roman Brick Stamps of the Empire (Annales Academiae Scientiarum Fennicae. Dissertationes Humanarum Litterarum 10, 1977)Google Scholar.

69 Dig. 33. 7. 25: ‘quidam cum in fundo figlinas haberet, figulorum opera maiore parte anni ad opus rusticum utebatur’; Dig. 8. 3. 6: ‘veluti si figlinas haberet, in quibus ea vasa fierent, quibus fructus eius fundi exportarentur (sicut in quibusdam fit, ut amphoris vinum evehatur aut ut dolia fient)’.

70 See previous note.

71 See Dig. 19. I. 6. 4: ‘si vas aliquod mihi vendideris et dixeris certain mensuram capere vel certum pondus habere, ex empto tecum agam si minus praestes’.

72 For sale on the vine: Pliny, NH 14. 48 f.; Pliny, Ep. 8. 2. 1. I do not wish to deny that goods, such as wine, could get to the consumer by a great variety of means. Varro, RR I. 2. 23: ‘ut etiam, si ager secundum viam et opportunus viatoribus locus, aedificandae tabernae deversoriae’; this is just the kind of building found at Boscoreale near Pompeii, see Carrington, J., JRS 21 (1931), 122Google Scholar, no. 28. Some wine would never get to the market at all but go to the owner's town house for his own use: see the amphorae at the House of the Vettii at Pompeii, some of which carried tituli picti detailing from which dolium the wine came and from which estate.

78 F. de Zulueta, The Roman Law of Sale (1945); R. Yaron, ‘The sale of wine’ in D. Daube, ed., Studies in The Roman Law of Sale dedicated to the memory of F. de Zulueta (1959).

74 Dig. 18. 1. 34. 5: ‘Alia causa est degustandi, alia metiendi, gustus enim ad hoc proficit, ut improbare liceat, mensura vero non eo proficit, ut aut plus aut minus veneat, sed ut appareat, quantum ematur’.

75 See Albertario, , ‘Contratti agrari nel de Agri Cultura di Catone’, Studi di Diritto Romano 6 (1953), 273 ff.Google Scholar; J.-H. Michel, ‘L'influence de la lex venditionis sur les régies du contrat de vente’, RIDA (ser. 3) 13 (1966), 325 ff.

76 Dig. 18. 6. 1. I: 18. 6. 4. 2. This period of storage raised problems for the jurists, given the prevalent opinion that the proper completion of a sale was the transference of the goods involved from the seller to the buyer: see the problem discussed in Dig. 41. I. 7 and Gaius, Inst. 2. 79, ‘proinde si ex uvis meis vinum … feceris, quaeritur utrum meura sit id vinum’; see also Dig. 41. 2. 51, and 33. 7. 27. 3.

77 Dig. 19. I. 9: ‘si is, qui lapides ex fundo emerit, tollere eos nolit, ex vendito agi cum eo potest’. For wine see Dig. 18. 6. I. 4.

78 R. Yaron, op. cit. (n. 73), 77, although see the interesting discussion in Dig. 33. 6. 15: ‘illud verum esse puto, cui vinum cum vasis legatum erit, ei amphoras cados, in quibus vina diffusa servamus, legatos esse: vinum enim in amphoras et cados diffundimus, ut in his sit, donec usus causa probetur, et scilicet id vendimus cum his amphoris et cadis: in dolia autem alia mente coicimus, scilicet ut ex his postea vel in amphoras et cados diffundamus vel sine ipsis doliis veneat’.

79 For the plebiscitum Claudianum and the later restriction in the Lex Julia de repetundis, see now D'Arms, J. H., Commerce and Social Standing in Ancient Rome (1981), 31 ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

80 As, for example, at the Madrague wreck (see below) and Dramont ’A’ (see n. 38). For a convenient collection of ancient literary sources concerning amphorae see W. Hilgers, Lateinische Gefässnamen (Banner Jahrbucher Beiheft 31, 1969). For attempts to regularize the methods for constructing typologies of amphorae see the articles in Méthodes Classiques.

81 A. Tchernia, op. cit. (n. 40), 33 ff.

82 F. Hultsch, Metrologicorum scriptorum reliquiae (1866), II. 71: ‘quadrantal, quod nunc (second century A.D.) plerique amphoram vocant’. However the technical term ‘quadrantal’ continues to be used (CIL xv. 4619, 4850; VIII 12574).

83 D. Manacorda, in Istituto Gramsci, 24.

84 Dig. 18. I. 71: ‘quibus mensuris aut pretiis negotiatores vina compararent, in contrahentium potestate esse’.

85 For wine measures expressed in terms of weight see the Lex Silia de ponderibus publicis (FIRA I.79): ‘uti quadrantal vini LXXX pondo siet’; Carmen de ponderibus (Hultsch, Met. scr., no. 120; 1, 91 ff.) in which a formula is given for the approximate weight relation between identical capacities of wine, oil, and honey.

86 Cockle, H., JRS 71 (1981), 87 ff.Google Scholar