Stamped bricks from the ager cosanus (Orbetello, Grosseto): Integrating archaeometry, archaeology,...

at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Journal of Archaeological Science 40 (2013) 1042e1058

Contents lists available

Journal of Archaeological Science

journal homepage: http: / /www.elsevier .com/locate/ jas

Stamped bricks from the ager cosanus (Orbetello, Grosseto): integratingarchaeometry, archaeology, epigraphy and prosopography

Elisabetta Gliozzo*

Dipartimento di Scienze della Terra, Università di Siena, via Laterina, no. 8, 53100 Siena, Italy

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 25 April 2012Received in revised form21 July 2012Accepted 30 July 2012

Keywords:Stamped bricksAger cosanusArchaeologyEpigraphyArchaeometryMineralogyPetrographyOptical microscopySEMeEDSICP-OESICP-MSINAA

* Tel.: þ39 (0)577233856; fax: þ39 (0)577233938.E-mail address: [email protected].

0305-4403/$ e see front matter � 2012 Elsevier Ltd.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2012.07.018

a b s t r a c t

This paper documents a comprehensive study of thirty-two stamped bricks found in territory of theancient town of Cosa (Ansedonia, Grosseto). The geographical distribution of these materials distin-guished ‘municipal’ productions, i.e. those found within the territory of Cosa (ager cosanus) only, and‘urban’ productions, i.e. those found in the ager cosanus, as well as in the territory comprising Rome andits suburbs and/or the entire Tiber Valley. Main aim of the study was to verify the provenance of‘municipal’ productions, by a combination of archaeological, epigraphical, prosopographical andarchaeometrical (OM, SEMeEDS, ICP-OES, ICP-MS, INAA) research instruments and techniques. Dataintegration revealed that six ‘municipal’ productions (over a total of nine) were produced in the territorysurrounding the Cosa’s promontory, using marine and fluvial clayey deposits. Conversely, three‘municipal’ productions were assigned to the ‘urban’ area, and possibly assigned to the Tiber Valley. Animportant distinction was made among the ‘urban’ productions, proving the feasibility of theirdiscrimination.

� 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

The stamped bricks productions represent one of the mostinteresting research subject in the field of the instrumentumdomesticum, namely that branch of epigraphy dealing with thestudy of inscribed tools and utensils of daily use (e.g. ceramickitchenware, tableware and building materials, glasses, household,surgical, etc.). These studies serve as a tool for advancing mean-ingful hypotheses on several topics, such as the productive andsocial structure of Roman society, the means and the quality ofseveral productive technologies, as well as themodalities and rangeof commercial trades and economic connections.

Numerous stamps further provide the archaeologists witha powerful dating method. For instance, the mention of the con-sules, i.e. the two annual ‘prime-ministers’ of the Roman Republicand Empire, allows a dating within a single year. Similarly, themention of the Emperor provides well known chronological limits.

All rights reserved.

Since the end of the nineteenth century, a few scholars havebeen involved in the study of the Roman collections (Marini, 1884;Dressel, 1891; Bloch, 1947, 1953, 1968; Steinby, 1974e1975, 1977e1978, 1986; Helen, 1975). The researchers mostly focused on theso-called ‘urban’ bricks and tiles (i.e. those found at or nearby Rome,further including Ostia and the entire Tiber Valley). As a conse-quence, the productions found only outside Rome or the TiberValley count sporadic or even rare systematic studies. These arecalled ‘municipal’ or ‘provincial’, depending on whether they werefound in the Roman regiones or provinciae (i.e. inside or outside Italyrespectively).

Far from indicating the findsite only, the distinction between‘urban’ and ‘municipal’ provides the most likely provenancehypothesis, until proven otherwise. This is especially true for‘municipal’ productions, which do not appear to have been theobject of long-range trades; subsequently, it appears legitimate tohypothesise that their findsite corresponds to their productionarea.

The provenance of ‘urban’ productions has proved to be a moredelicate question. Firstly, the term ‘urban’ indicates awide territory,from the Tiber Valley to the territory of Rome; secondly, the same

Delta:1_given name

Delta:1_given name

Delta:1_given name

mailto:[email protected]

www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/03054403

http://www.elsevier.com/locate/jas

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2012.07.018



Fig. 1. Map of central Italy with the location of the archaeological sites of Cosa andSettefinestre.

E. Gliozzo / Journal of Archaeological Science 40 (2013) 1042e1058 1043

‘urban’ stamp can be found in the area of Rome, as well as along theTiber valley or in coastal sites along the Tyrrhenian sea, posing thefundamental question of which findsite should be recognised as theproduction site. Among materials found along the Tiber valley, it isfrequently applied the rule of the northernmost find, i.e. thenorthernmost findsite is indicated as the likely production area,excluding the upstream transport of these goods.

Before going through the details of this research, it is necessaryto recall another important definition, which is that of epigraphictype. This corresponds to one and only one punch, therefore, thestyle, size, layout, etc. of the stamps attributed to a single type mustbe the same. A high degree of variability among similar stampsmakes it necessary to determine a number of types variants; theseoccurrences can be due to a different shrinkage of the ceramic bodyduring firing, the wear or breakage of a punch, the conservationstate of the brick etc.

Given that a punch usually mentions the names of the owner(dominus/domina) and/or the name of the manufacturer (servus,officinator), and/or the name of the production (e.g. figlina), it isassumed that the exemplars attributed to a single type are referredto a single production area or even to a single production plant. Thisassumption is true until proven otherwise, according to the samerules previously expressed (for another application of these basicconcepts see also Gliozzo et al., 2011).

At this point, it is worth underlining that all these assumptionsgained increasing acceptance, since they have never been seriouslycontradicted by archaeological discoveries, but nobody grants thema greater value than that of a working hypothesis. The connectionsbetween the place of discovery, the typological definition and theprovenance hypothesis have been widely debated in the field ofepigraphic studies. This is not the place for a review on a discussionthat lasted over 100 years, while a closer integration among epig-raphy, archaeology, and archaeometry is sought and pursued.

This study is focused on a ceramic collection including either‘municipal’ and ‘urban’ stamped bricks, found in the ager cosanus,mostly at the archaeological sites of Cosa and Settefinestre (modernterritory of the municipality of Orbetello, Grosseto; Fig. 1). Based onthe previous assumption, it is possible to hypothesise that‘municipal’ types are locally produced while ‘urban’ types areimported from the area of Rome; the latter being either a produc-tion area and a call for goods arriving from the Tiber valley. Themain objective of this research is to verify whether the localproduction of the ‘municipal’ types can be sustained by archaeo-metric arguments. The epigraphic and archaeological studies willbe integrated with the results obtained by the archaeometricinvestigations, in order to provide new insights on the productiondynamics and the commercial trades of these important buildingmaterials.

2. The archaeological sites of Cosa and Settefinestre

The victory of the Romans over Vulci and Volsinii (280 BC) madeit necessary to establish a new colony, in order to control theterritories recently acquired. Cosa was founded in 273 BC on top ofa coastal promontory, particularly suitable for the control of the sea,threatened by the Carthaginians. The city walls, encircling 13.25 hafor a length of about 1500 m, dated back to the foundation.

At the end of the 3rd century BC, numerous public buildingssuch as the Curia-Comitium, the prison, the temple of Jupiter on theacropolis, the Forum Piscarium were built. During the 2nd centuryBC, building activities significantly increased, as it is testified by theconstruction of the temple D on the acropolis, the atria around theForum, the Capitolium, the Basilica, and the temple next to theComitium, to mention just a few examples. Cosa became a muni-cipium in the 1st century BC. In line with the political choices of

most Etrurian towns, Cosa supported Marius against Sulla, there-fore, themunicipium should not have received special favours fromthe central power. The house of Q. Fulvius and the “Casa delloscheletro” are dated back to this period, which also includes themodification of the harbour and the construction of the fishery.

Around the mid 1st century BC, the town of Cosa began to losepopulation, according to a different economic and social structuredeveloping in land ownership. In fact, the small landowners gaveway to the assemblage of large latifundia and the inhabitants beganto occupy the underlining valley of Succosa (Subcosa).

About in the same period, on a hill located in the hinterland ofCosa, the construction of the Settefinestre villa was started at thebehest of P. Sestius, and finished by the son L. Sestius (Manacorda,1981, 1985). The villa consisted of about 250 ha of arable land,woodland and pasture. Initially, it was mainly devoted to theproduction of wine and neatly divided into a residential area (parsurbana) and a production area (pars rustica); the latter includingthe houses for the servi, the stores, the tools and the productionplants.

The beginning of the Imperial age corresponded at Cosa to therestoration phase (e.g. the Capitolium) and the conversion of somepre-existent buildings (e.g. the Basilica into the Odeum, or somebuildings around the Forum into private houses).

With the end of the 1st century AD, the changes in landownership organization induced a gradual shift fromwine growingto grain cultivation and breeding. The villa of Settefinestre wererationally adapt to the new needs, favouring the pars rustica at theexpenses of the elegant residential quarters of the pars urbana.

At the end of the 2nd century AD, the villa was nearly aban-doned. Similarly, the slow abandonment of the town of Cosa led tothe gradual destruction of buildings. The imperial interventiontestified by the foundation of Res Publica Cosanorum at the begin-ning of the 3rd century AD must have been ineffective in practice.

E. Gliozzo / Journal of Archaeological Science 40 (2013) 1042e10581044

The town underwent a progressive decline and passed into thehands of different rulers, till the definitive abandonment in the 14thcentury AD.

3. The epigraphic collection

The epigraphic collection consists of 173 exemplars: 114 fromthe town of Cosa, 33 from the Settefinestre villa, 13 from the site ofTorre della Tagliata, 10 from the territory of Orbetello, 2 from the

Table 1The 44 types, corresponding to 173 exemplars, found in the ager cosanus. Please note thafindsites quoted in the references of ‘urban’ types are not shown. In the last five columns t1975; Celuzza, 1985, Solin 1982.

Chronology

‘Municipal’ Cassi Not later than the 2nd cPro(bus?, -culus?, . ) Cn. F( ) s(ervus) 1st cen. BCGavi* Late republican ageeage

of Augustus[S]ynegdemi/T. Larci Early imperial age?Cn. Maeli Optati 1st century ADefirst de

of the 2nd cen. ADC. Oppi (ex) figilin(is)/Tra<n>stag(nensibus)Dipi(lus) s(ervus)/f(ecit)

Late republican age

Pri( ) Cn. Ru( ) 1st cen. BCL. S(esti) (aper) Second half 1st cen. BCL. S(esti) (aper) Second half 1st cen. BCBELBERAC 1st cen. BCe1st cen. ADM^A Late republican ageeJul

Claudian ageUnreadable e

Totals (12 type)‘Urban’ CIL XI 6689, 17 ¼ LSO 3 Julio-Claudian age

CIL XV 118a ¼ LSO 158 Age of Vespasianeage oCIL XV 152a Age of DomitianCIL XV 154 ¼ S. 44 corr. ¼ LSO 182 End of age of Marcus AuCIL XV 183a ¼ LSO 209 205e211 ADCIL XV 221a ¼ LSO 234 Age of Commodus or

Septimius SeverusCIL XV 292 ¼ LSO 295 End of age of Hadrian-b

of Antoninus PiusCIL XV 298 ¼ LSO 298 End of age of Hadrianeb

of Antoninus PiusCIL XV 313 ¼ LSO 308 Age of TrajanCIL XV 367 corr. ¼ LSO 346 Age of Marcus Aurelius

Lucius VerusCIL XV 377b comp. ¼ LSO 358 Late age of Trajaneage oCIL XV 398b ¼ LSO 377 169e176 ADCIL XV 690 ¼ LSO 588 Age of Septimius Severu

of CaracallaCIL XV 695 ¼ LSO 593 Age of Hadrian or shortlCIL XV 814 ¼ LSO 593 Mid 1st cen. ADCIL XV 874 ¼ LSO 717 Late 1st cen. BC and the

pre-Hadrianic ageCIL XV 922 ¼ S. 250 Beginning of 2nd cen. AS. 251 ¼ LSO 742 Late Flavian ageS. 252 ¼ LSO 743 Late Flavian ageCIL XV 951 ¼ LSO 751 Second half 1st cen. ADCIL XV 970a ¼ LSO 762 1st cen. AD, likely befor

age of NeroCIL XV 992d ¼ LSO 767 Late Flavian ageCIL XV 1033 ¼ LSO 797 123 ADCIL XV 1114 125 ADCIL XV 1116c ¼ LSO 882 123 ADCIL XV 1116d ¼ LSO 883 123 ADCIL XV 1182b Age of HadrianCIL XV 1325 Age of Augustus or shorCIL XV 1383c ¼ LSO 1023 e

S. 397 Late age of Trajaneearlyage of Hadrian

S. 398 ¼ LSO 1093 Late age of Trajaneearlyage of Hadrian

CIL XV 2207 ¼ S. 442 Claudius-NeroTotals (32 types)

Albegna valley and 1 from the valley of Succosa. The record sheetsof these exemplars (mostly unpublished) is provided as backgrounddataset in Supplementary materials.

Among the 173 exemplars, 68 correspond to 12 types (Table 1),which have been found in the ager cosanus only and are thereforeindicated as ‘municipal’.

Another group of 85 exemplars correspond to 32 types (Table 1),which find a comparison with ‘urban’ types included in the XVvolume of the Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum compiled by Dressel

t the findsites listed for ‘municipal’ types are the only ones known; conversely, theo the right, the number of exemplars is shown. Chronologies are from Steinby 1974e

Settefinestre Cosa Orbetello Torre dellaTagliata

Other

en. AD 2 1 e e

3 9 1 e

1 10 e e 1 Albegnavalley

1 (missing) e e e e

cades e 2 e e e

4 1 e e e

4 (?; missing) e e e e

13 2 e e e

1 (missing) e e e e

e 10 e e e

io- e 1 e e e

e 1 e e e

29 37 1 0 1e 1 1 e e

f Trajan 1 e e e e

e e 1 e e

relius e 1 e e e

e 1 e e e

e 1 e e e

eginning e 1 e e e

eginning e 2 e e e

e 1 2 2 e

and e 1 e e e

f Hadrian 1 e e e e

e 1 e e e

seage e 3 e e e

y after e e 2 e e

e 3 e e e

e 2 e e e

D e e 1 e e

e e e 1 e

e e e e 1 Succosa1 e e e e

e the e 3 e e e

1 e e e e

e 3 e e e

e e 1 e e

e 2 e e e

e 5 e e e

e e 1 1 e

tly after e e e 1 e

e 7 e e e

e e e 2 e

e e e 6 1 Albegnavalley

e 19 e e 5 Luna33 94 10 13 3


(1891; hereafter indicated as CIL XV) or in its supplement (Bloch,1947; hereafter indicated as S.) or in the catalogue of the stampsfound at Ostia (Steinby,1977e1978; hereafter indicated as LSO). Theremaining 20 fragmentary exemplars cannot be attributed toa specific type.

The ‘municipal’ stamps represent the object of this research,therefore, they have been systematically sampled (Table 2; Fig. 2).When possible, three exemplars were taken for each type, in orderto achieve a complete characterisation of the production and toverify whether a local manufacture could be reasonably supportedby chemical, mineralogical and petrographic data. Unfortunately,three types from Settefinestrewere not available anymore: the typeof L. S(estius)with the wild boar upside down, the type mentioningT. Larcius and that of Pri( ) Cn. Ru( ) (Celuzza, 1985).

A total of 8 ‘urban’ types were collected to serve for chemical andmineralogicalepetrographic comparison only. The selection of thissmall sample-set followed different criteria, such as the numericalabundance of a type, the state of conservation of the exemplars andthe information available/lacking for the type. Exceptionally,a systematic sampling of the production was made for the type ofL. Titinius Glaucus Lucretianus (CIL XV 2207 ¼ S. 442; Fig. 2). This wasfound at Lorium (CIL XV 2207), i.e. in ‘urban’ territory, but most find-ings come from the ager cosanus and the ager lunensis, i.e. two

Table 2The thirty-two exemplars under investigation. The first column reports the tran-scription of the type. The numbers in the last column correspond to the cardcompiled in the catalogue provided as Supplementary materials.

Type Sample Findsite Catalogue #

Cassi Cassius 1 Settefinestre 1Cassius 2 Cosa 2Cassius 3 Settefinestre 3

Pro(bus?, -culus?, . )Cn. F( ) s(ervus)

F( ) 1 Cosa 7F( ) 2 Cosa 11F( ) 3 Cosa 15

Gavi Gavius 1 Cosa 19Gavius 2 Cosa 27Gavius 3 Cosa 28

Cn. Maeli Optati Maelius Cosa 31C. Oppi (ex) figilin(is)/Tra<n>

stag(nensibus) Dipi(lus)s(ervus)/f(ecit)

Oppius 1 Settefinestre 32Oppius 2 Settefinestre 34Oppius 3 Cosa 36

L. S(esti) (aper) Sestius 1 Cosa 48Sestius 2 Settefinestre 51Sestius 3 Settefinestre 55

B E L B E R A C BELBERAC 1 Cosa 81BELBERAC 2 Cosa 84

MÂ M

ˇ

A Cosa 86Unreadable Unreadable Cosa 87O(pus) P. Servili Fortunati

Macedonia(num) expr(aedis)/T. Statili MaximiSeveri ʃramus palmaeʅ

XV 292 Cosa 95

Op(us) dol(iare) ex pr(aedis)Aug(ustorum duorum)n(ostrorum) figl(linis)Voco/nian(is) M. LiciniCallistiani

XV 690 Cosa 107

L. Atini XV 874 Cosa 115Ex figlinis/L. Corneli Prisc(i) XV 951 Settefinestre 119Cuspi De(metri?) XV 970a Cosa 122Successi M. H(erenni) P(ollionis)

s(ervi) ʃramus palmae etcaduceus alatus in cuspidemdesinens dextrorsum iacetʅ

XV 1182b Torre Tagliata 136

L. Postu(mi?) XV 1383c_1 Cosa 139XV 1383c_2 Cosa 143

L. Titini/Glauci Lucretiani XV 2207_1 Cosa 63XV 2207_2 Cosa 68XV 2207_3 Cosa 74XV 2207_4 Luna e

different ‘municipal’ territories. In this case, the collectionwas furtherextended to materials found at the Roman site of Luna (La Spezia),where an exemplar of the same type known at Cosawas sampled.

The list of the investigated samples is provided in Table 2, whilethe catalogue of the exemplars is provided as Supplementarymaterials. The epigraphic and prosopographic comment is part ofthe discussion.

4. Experimental

Ceramic fragments for the preparation of thin sections were cutperpendicular to the surface of the artefact. All thin sections wereinvestigated by optical microscopy and scanning electron micros-copy. At the SEMeEDS, point analyses (5 mm beam diameter) onsingle phases and area analyses (20 � 20 mm) on the matrix wereboth carried out. Observations were mainly performed in back-scattered electrons. The instrument used was a Philips XL 30 SEMequipped with an Energy Dispersive Spectrometer (EDAX-DX4)working at 20 kV. A variety of natural silicates, oxides and syntheticmaterials were used as primary and quality control standards.

For bulk chemical analyses, 5 g were grinded and submitted todifferent sample preparation methods and techniques:

(1) lithiummetaborateetetraborate fusion on a Thermo Jarrell AshENVIRO II inductively coupled plasma optical emission spec-trometer (ICP-OES) for determining major elements and Ba, Sr,Y, Zr and V. Samples are prepared and analysed in a batchsystem, containing a method reagent blank, certified referencematerial, and 17% replicates. Reagent blanks with and withoutthe lithium borate flux are analysed, as well as the methodreagent blank. Calibration is performed using multiple USGSand CANMET certified reference materials. Two of the stan-dards are used during the analysis for every group of tensamples;

(2) four acid total digestions. A 0.25 g sample aliquot is digestedwith hydrofluoric, perchloric, hydrochloric and nitric acids at200 �C to fuming and is then diluted with aqua regia. Thesample solution is also spiked with internal standards andintroduced into a Perkin Elmer SCIEX ELAN 6000 inductivelycoupled plasma mass spectrometer (ICP-MS) for determiningCu, Ni, Zn and Pb. Calibration is performed using USGS andCANMET certified reference materials as above;

(3) instrumental neutron activation analysis (INAA) for deter-mining As, Br, Co, Cr, Cs, Hf, Rb, Sb, Sc, La, Ce, Nd, Sm, Eu, Yb, Lu,U and Th. A 1 g aliquot is encapsulated in a polyethylene vialand irradiated with flux wires and an internal standard (1 for11 samples) at a thermal neutron flux of 7 � 1012n cm�2 s�1.After a 7-day decay, the samples are counted on a high purityGe detector. Using the flux wires, the decay-corrected activitiesare compared to a calibration developed from multiple certi-fied international reference materials.

Loss on ignition (LOI) was also determined (1050 �C for 2 h).

5. Results

5.1. The productions of Cassius, L. Sestius and MÂ

These three productions have been grouped based on theirmineralogical and petrographic similarity. The brownish matricesshow variable CaO values, with samples Sestius 1e3 richer thansamples Cassius 1e3 and, especially, sample MÂ (Table 3). Thelatter show a Ca-poor matrix which makes uncertain the compar-ison with the other two productions, otherwise suggested by thearray of data. The skeleton is constituted by frequent quartz with

Table 3The chemical composition of the matrices. The ‘municipal’ types are indicated with he gentilicium of the producer. Values (expressed in wt%) are obtained by a minim m of 8 square analyses (10 mm side) � sample. The areaenclosed in the square showed crystals with dimensions <20 mm, actually corresp ding to the clay fraction.

Cassius1e3

Sestius1e3

M

ˇ

A F( ) 1e3 Gavius1e3

Maelius Oppius1e3

BELBERAC1e2

Unreadable XV292

XV690

XV874

XV970a

XV 1182b XV 1383c XV2207

n ¼ 24 sd n ¼ 24 sd n ¼ 8 sd n ¼ 25 sd n ¼ 28 sd n ¼ 8 n ¼ 26 sd n ¼ 16 sd n ¼ 8 sd n ¼ 8 n ¼ 9 sd n ¼ 8 sd n ¼ 8 sd n ¼ 8 sd n ¼ 8 sd n ¼ 32 sd

Na2O 1.8 0.2 1.5 0.7 3.8 2.3 1.3 0.3 1.2 0.4 1.3 1.8 0.3 1.5 0.1 1.5 0.3 1.3 0.2 1.7 0.4 1.7 0.2 1.2 0.2 1.0 0.2 1.4 0.2 1.6 0.1MgO 3.1 0.1 3.3 0.2 4.6 4.2 3.5 0.3 3.4 0.5 2.8 3.0 0.4 3.7 0.7 4.4 0.6 3.9 0.2 5.7 0.3 4.3 0.8 3.8 0.2 3.9 0.3 4.3 0.2 3.5 0.4Al2O3 19.6 0.5 18.0 0.9 18.6 1.2 18.6 1.0 18.0 0.6 15.2 19.9 0.8 16.4 1.4 18.4 0.3 14.5 0.8 15.4 0.3 16.1 1.4 16.8 0.4 17.3 1.1 15.9 1.3 19.6 1.1SiO2 55.5 0.8 53.9 1.7 57.3 5.6 55.7 1.7 57.7 1.2 50.6 55.7 2.5 52.8 1.8 51.4 1.3 55.7 1.7 52.8 1.3 54.3 1.4 53.7 2.0 50.8 2.1 53.4 1.3 50.9 1.9K2O 1.9 0.1 1.9 0.5 4.9 2.8 2.8 0.2 2.7 0.4 1.8 2.8 0.3 1.3 0.3 1.8 0.3 2.4 0.2 1.7 0.4 1.1 0.6 1.9 0.4 3.1 0.1 1.1 0.1 2.1 0.5CaO 11.6 0.6 14.6 0.7 4.8 4.5 10.5 1.0 9.3 1.2 22.7 9.4 2.4 17.5 0.7 15.3 0.7 16.8 1.1 16.8 1.8 15.5 3.1 15.8 1.6 17.7 1.6 17.4 1.7 16.7 2.7TiO2 1.0 0.1 0.7 0.3 1.1 0.6 0.8 0.3 0.9 0.2 0.6 0.7 0.2 0.9 0.5 0.6 0.2 0.6 0.3 0.6 0.1 0.7 0.1 0.7 0.1 0.7 0.1 0.6 0.1 0.6 0.1Cr2O3 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.1MnO 0.2 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.1FeO 5.2 0.2 5.5 0.3 4.4 3.9 6.0 0.6 6.3 0.7 4.6 6.1 0.3 5.5 0.5 6.4 0.4 4.6 0.4 5.0 0.1 5.9 0.9 5.6 0.5 5.1 0.3 5.3 0.1 4.8 0.6Tot. 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

Table 4The chemical composition of the pyroxenes obtained by SEM-EDS. The ‘municipal ypes are indicated with the gentilicium of the producer. Oxides contents are expr sed in wt%.

Cassius1e3

Sestius1e3

M

ˇ

A F( )1e3

Gavius1e3

Maelius Oppius1e3

BELBERAC1e2

XV 292 XV 690 XV 690 XV 874 XV 970 XV 1182 XV1383c

XV2207

n ¼ 14 sd n ¼ 14 sd n ¼ 5 sd n ¼ 11 sd n ¼ 12 sd n ¼ 5 n ¼ 11 sd n ¼ 14 sd n ¼ 6 sd n ¼ 8 sd n ¼ 7 sd n ¼ 8 n ¼ 6 sd n ¼ 6 sd n ¼ 6 sd n ¼ 16 sd

Na2O 0.8 0.3 0.7 0.4 0.9 0.2 0.5 0.1 0.6 0.2 0.5 .3 0.7 0.2 0.6 0.1 0.6 0.1 0.5 0.3 0.4 0.2 0.7 0.5 0.2 0.4 0.1 0.6 0.3 0.5 0.2MgO 12.2 2.2 13.0 0.7 13.8 1.4 13.7 1.7 13.2 1.9 13.1 .9 13.9 2.0 13.3 0.8 13.3 1.1 13.4 2.0 14.8 3.1 13.2 2 13.3 2.5 15.8 0.7 14.1 1.7 13.8 2.7Al2O3 5.4 0.9 5.6 1.3 5.1 2.2 5.1 1.1 5.1 2.1 5.8 .5 4.9 1.9 4.9 2.2 4.7 1.4 4.3 2.1 1.0 0.1 5.2 6.6 3.1 3.8 0.6 5.1 2.2 5.9 2.6SiO2 49.9 1.0 48.7 1.7 50.3 1.5 49.3 1.5 48.9 2.2 46.2 .4 50.0 1.8 48.4 2.4 48.9 1.7 49.6 2.5 50.3 2.0 49.4 1 47.0 3.9 50.5 0.7 48.1 2.8 48.6 3.3K2O 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 .0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1CaO 20.8 0.5 22.0 1.3 21.1 1.4 22.5 0.3 22.9 0.7 23.8 .0 22.2 1.3 24.0 0.9 23.3 0.4 22.9 1.3 1.2 0.2 22.9 1 24.0 0.9 24.6 0.3 24.2 0.9 23.2 0.9TiO2 0.8 0.2 0.8 0.4 0.8 0.3 0.8 0.2 0.8 0.3 1.3 .5 0.7 0.2 0.9 0.4 0.8 0.1 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.2 1.0 1.0 0.7 0.4 0.1 0.8 0.4 0.8 0.4Cr2O3 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 .1 0.1 0.1 0.4 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.2MnO 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.2 0.4 0.2 0.4 0.1 0.4 0.3 0.3 .2 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.4 0.2 0.3 0.2 1.0 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.1FeO 9.3 2.4 8.4 0.6 7.4 1.6 7.3 2.1 7.9 2.3 8.5 .0 7.0 2.6 7.0 1.5 7.6 1.9 8.2 3.4 30.7 5.2 6.8 7.0 3.3 3.9 0.8 6.6 2.7 6.7 3.1

100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

Na 0.058 0.051 0.065 0.036 0.044 0.037 0.051 0.044 0.046 0.036 0.030 0.051 0.036 0.029 0.044 0.036Mg 0.681 0.728 0.763 0.762 0.738 0.742 0.771 0.745 0.745 0.749 0.864 0.734 0.746 0.870 0.789 0.767Al 0.238 0.248 0.223 0.224 0.225 0.260 0.215 0.217 0.207 0.190 0.046 0.229 0.293 0.165 0.225 0.259Si 1.868 1.829 1.866 1.839 1.833 1.755 1.861 1.820 1.837 1.860 1.970 1.842 1.768 1.864 1.804 1.812K 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.003 0.005 0.005 0.014 0.005 0.000 0.005 0.005Ca 0.834 0.885 0.839 0.899 0.920 0.969 0.885 0.967 0.939 0.920 0.050 0.915 0.967 0.973 0.973 0.927Ti 0.023 0.023 0.022 0.022 0.023 0.037 0.020 0.025 0.022 0.014 0.006 0.028 0.028 0.011 0.023 0.022Cr 0.003 0.003 0.006 0.012 0.006 0.009 0.003 0.012 0.007 0.006 0.006 0.009 0.006 0.012 0.006 0.009Mn 0.019 0.016 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.010 0.009 0.010 0.013 0.010 0.033 0.009 0.006 0.006 0.006 0.006Fe 0.291 0.264 0.230 0.228 0.248 0.270 0.218 0.220 0.240 0.257 1.005 0.212 0.220 0.120 0.207 0.209Ox 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6

E.Gliozzo

/Journal

ofArchaeological

Science40

(2013)1042

e1058

1046

ton

sd

0.30.31.01.71.13.50.20.10.10.2

’ t

sd

0112010004

u

es

sd

0.4.2

1.5.5

0.4.9

0.30.20.22.5


small dimensions (generally <150 mm, can reach 400 mm); abun-dant K-feldspars (both orthoclase and sanidine) with considerabledimensions (<800 mm); large crystals (up to 500 mm) of bytownite(Ab13e6) and small crystals (25e80 mm) of albite/oligoclase (Ab97e94), the latter being frequently highly spherical; abundant clino-pyroxene characterised by similar dimensions to those of K-feld-spar and CaO contents over 20 wt%, especially in samples Sestius 1e3 (Table 4); sporadic biotite (<650 mm) frequently Mg-and Ti-rich(similar to a phlogopite or a hydrobiotite), rare muscovite (<80 mm)often illitised; rare garnet showing very large dimensions anda grossular-type composition (average Py3Al15Gr81Sp1); abundantopaque minerals (<300 mm), generally represented by Fe- and Ti-oxides; and frequent lithic fragments (<1 mm) are furtherpresent. The latter include abundant brownish glass (Table 5) andvolcanic rocks, constituted by aggregates of plagioclase, with minorclinopyroxene and opaque minerals; several fragments of latiticetrachytic rocks and of ‘selagite’ (i.e. conventional term used toindicated hypo-abyssal Cretaceous rocks from the area of MountAmiata). The microfauna is represented by foraminifera.

The discriminating mineralogical and petrographic key featuresof these productions are as follows: 1) abundant K-feldspar andclinopyroxenes with considerable dimensions, frequently largerthan those of quartz; 2) presence of plagioclases, neatly distin-guished by both composition and dimensions: small albite, largebytownite; 3) abundant and largeMg-and Ti-rich biotite crystals; 4)abundant volcanic rocks fragments and dark-brownish glass.

As for the bulk chemical composition (Tables 6a andb; Figs. 3e4),the three exemplars Cassius 1e3 slightly differ in terms of SiO2 andCaO contents, while the three exemplars Sestius 1e3 further showa wider compositional variation in Fe2O3 contents. Compared witheach other, they showgreat similarities in terms ofmajor,minor andtrace element contents; major variations are observed in the Al2O3,CaO, Pb and Zn contents.

Prosopographic data are practically useless for the study of theproduction of Cassius. The wide diffusion of this gentilicium, makesthe onomastic comparison ineffective for provenance issues. Forinstance, in the context of the instrumentum domesticum, the gensCassia is mentioned both in Tuscan (Vingone kilns, Scandicci,Firenze; see Shepherd, 2006) and in urban brick productions (e.g.CIL XV 915e917, S. 416); lucernae stamped CASSI (CIL XI 6699,46)and mortaria stamped CASSI (CIL XIII 10006, 20; Martinez-Saiz,1976) are further known. Conversely, the epigraphic study of thestamp is fundamental for dating; a rectangular frame enclosinga single line of text should not be dated later than the 2nd centuryAD (see Steinby, 1974e1975).

The situation changes substantially with the productionof L. Sestius. The producer is generally identified with L. SestiusAlb(inianus) Quirinalis, consul designated by Augustus in 23 BC andowner of the villa of Settefinestre (Manacorda, 1981, 1985 withreferences therein). According to the reconstruction drawn by

Table 5The chemical composition of the glass fragments obtained by SEMeEDS.

Sestius 1e3 Cassius 1e3 M

ˇ

A

n ¼ 8 sd n ¼ 6 sd n ¼ 4

Na2O 2.8 0.3 2.9 0.3 3.1MgO 2.4 0.5 2.5 0.2 2.2Al2O3 18.9 0.3 18.8 0.5 17.8SiO2 56.8 1.3 55.3 1.0 56.7K2O 6.7 1.1 6.8 0.2 5.3CaO 5.8 1.1 6.1 0.7 5.9TiO2 0.7 0.1 0.8 0.1 1.1Cr2O3 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2MnO 0.2 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.4FeO 5.6 1.1 6.2 1.1 7.4Total 100 100 100

Manacorda (1981), the construction of the villa began withP. Sestius, praetor in the years 55e53 BC, andwas finished by the sonhe had with Albinia, L. Sestius. The latter likely produced both thesebricks and the wine amphoras stamped SES and SEST, widely foundin the ager cosanus, as well as in other Italian, French and Spanishsites (see LydingWill, 1979; Manacorda, 1978, 1980, 1981). Previousarchaeometric investigations indicated the southern coast of Tus-cany between Orbetello and Civitavecchia as the production area ofthe amphoras (Lavizzari Pedrazzini, 1985-1987), which was local-ised nearby the portus Cosanus through archaeological investiga-tions (Manacorda, 1985).

The ‘urban’ productions stamped by L. Sesti(us) Alb(inianus)Quirinalis (CIL XV 1445), found in urban, suburban and Tiberineareas (Manacorda, 2012), and the production testified by the brickstamped by P. vel L. Sext[ius?] Quiri[nalis?], found at Luna(Rossignani, 1977), may be related to the same producer of Sette-finestre; similarly, the ‘urban’ bricks stamped by L. Sesti(us) (CIL XV1444) and thewine amphoras stamped P. Ses(tii) (Munzi, 1998) maybe related to the same producer or to a member of the same family.Given the prosopographic identification of the producer, thestamped bricks owing its name can be dated back to the laterepublican period.

As regards the type M^A, the two letters in ligature and theabraded surface of the frame do not allow to tell if visible text iscomplete or partial. In ‘municipal’ productions, the square frame israther rare. Comparison can be drawn with the stamp V^O^L^V^Sfrom Populonia (Gliozzo et al., 2004; further exemplars found atAlbinia and edited by Vitali in 2007 will be considered in a forth-coming manuscript), and the stamp G^RAS from Luna (CIL XV1171 ¼ LSO 911; Lavizzari Pedrazzini, 1977), both likely datingbetween the late Republican and the early Imperial ages. Moreover,similar ligatures were used from the late republican age to the 2ndcentury AD, however, this convention was particularly exasperatedonly until the Julio-Claudian age.

5.2. The production of Pro(bus?, -culus?, . ) Cn. F( ) s(ervus)

The mineralogical and petrographic assemblage of the threeexemplars is perfectly comparable. The matrices show a composi-tion which is very similar to that observed in samples Sestius 1e3and Cassius 1e3, although Ca-poorer (Table 3). The skeleton isconstituted by abundant quartz (<200 mm); abundant K-feldspars(<500 mm), represented by orthoclase and rare sanidine; frequentplagioclases (<150 mm), showing the entire compositional range oftheir series (Ab97e10), with calcic terms showing larger dimensionsthan the sodic ones; sporadic primary calcite, developing reactionrims; frequent clinopyroxenes with small dimensions (<150 mm;Table 4); sporadic phyllosilicates with very small dimensions(<50 mm), with muscovite (frequently illitised) prevailing overbiotite and rare MgeFe chlorites of appreciable and/or measurable

XV 292 XV 690 XV 2207

sd n ¼ 7 sd n ¼ 4 sd n ¼ 8 sd

0.4 3.7 0.4 2.7 0.1 1.7 0.50.3 1.3 0.2 1.2 0.3 3.5 2.21.7 19.8 0.2 19.4 0.2 18.6 3.03.5 58.2 0.7 60.0 1.9 54.7 9.20.2 7.6 0.7 8.5 1.5 3.9 1.60.2 4.4 0.7 3.6 0.2 8.3 4.80.5 0.7 0.1 0.7 0.3 1.1 0.70.1 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.10.1 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.3 0.24.4 3.6 0.7 3.6 2.9 7.7 4.1

100 100 100

Table 6aICP-OES and ICP-MS chemical analyses for 33 samples. Major element contents are expressed in wt%. Detection limits are provided in the second line.

SiO2 Al2O3 Fe2O3 MnO MgO CaO Na2O K2O TiO2 P2O5 Tot.

0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.005 0.01

Cassius 1 54.49 16.55 6.58 0.17 3.74 12.98 1.24 2.95 0.74 0.33 99.78Cassius 2 55.37 17.60 7.17 0.17 2.70 10.97 1.57 3.07 0.82 0.30 99.74Cassius 3 54.99 16.95 7.09 0.16 2.89 11.98 1.53 3.11 0.77 0.27 99.74n ¼ 3 54.6 17.0 6.9 0.2 3.1 12.3 1.4 3.0 0.8 0.3 99.75sd 1.0 0.5 0.3 0.0 0.6 1.5 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0

Sestius 1 54.94 16.14 8.55 0.13 2.86 11.42 1.67 3.07 0.73 0.26 99.77Sestius 2 57.10 14.88 6.29 0.12 2.51 13.99 1.25 2.79 0.66 0.21 99.79Sestius 3 53.96 16.00 6.40 0.11 2.93 15.10 1.38 2.95 0.73 0.24 99.79n ¼ 3 55.3 15.7 7.1 0.1 2.8 13.5 1.4 2.9 0.7 0.2 99.78sd 1.6 0.7 1.3 0.0 0.2 1.9 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0

F( ) 1 58.27 16.79 6.53 0.10 2.80 10.17 1.04 3.26 0.74 0.12 99.82F( ) 2 57.47 17.27 6.81 0.10 3.14 9.53 1.15 3.41 0.76 0.19 99.83F( ) 3 56.79 17.11 8.49 0.12 2.65 9.06 1.06 3.46 0.72 0.35 99.80n ¼ 3 57.5 17.1 7.3 0.1 2.9 9.6 1.1 3.4 0.7 0.2 99.82sd 0.7 0.2 1.1 0.0 0.3 0.6 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1

Gavius 1 54.48 16.67 7.04 0.13 2.39 13.95 1.26 2.79 0.81 0.31 99.82Gavius 2 57.66 17.26 6.48 0.08 2.71 10.58 0.85 3.30 0.76 0.14 99.82Gavius 3 56.45 15.68 5.97 0.08 2.68 14.10 1.08 2.89 0.69 0.22 99.83n ¼ 3 56.2 16.5 6.5 0.1 2.6 12.9 1.1 3.0 0.8 0.2 99.82sd 1.6 0.8 0.5 0.0 0.2 2.0 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.1

Maelius 52.09 14.77 7.60 0.14 2.37 18.06 1.63 2.08 0.68 0.34 99.78

Oppius 1 59.37 16.40 6.66 0.41 2.04 9.35 1.14 3.41 0.73 0.27 99.78Oppius 2 58.43 15.03 6.07 0.33 2.09 7.53 1.01 3.54 0.66 0.28 94.96Oppius 3 60.98 16.43 7.29 0.44 1.95 7.13 1.26 3.40 0.75 0.15 99.78n ¼ 3 59.6 16.0 6.7 0.4 2.0 8.0 1.1 3.4 0.7 0.2 98.17sd 1.3 0.8 0.6 0.1 0.1 1.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1

BELBERAC 1 51.04 16.18 7.55 0.16 3.65 16.23 2.13 1.61 0.79 0.38 99.72BELBERAC 2 51.93 15.91 7.07 0.15 3.46 16.21 1.91 1.97 0.75 0.36 99.72n ¼ 2 51.5 16.0 7.3 0.2 3.6 16.2 2.0 1.8 0.8 0.4 99.72sd 0.6 0.2 0.3 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0

M^A 58.27 15.46 5.35 0.16 2.27 12.15 1.65 3.61 0.64 0.26 99.81Unreadable 55.31 15.65 6.34 0.06 4.26 13.70 1.07 2.47 0.78 0.19 99.84

XV 292 56.13 14.87 5.86 0.09 3.14 14.42 1.44 2.95 0.66 0.25 99.83XV 690 53.36 15.36 8.72 0.12 4.00 12.07 1.82 3.50 0.62 0.19 99.76XV 874 50.75 16.13 7.14 0.15 3.58 16.94 2.17 1.66 0.80 0.42 99.73XV 951 54.58 14.58 5.43 0.09 4.54 15.40 2.13 2.24 0.62 0.21 99.82XV 970a 51.97 16.15 7.62 0.18 3.44 15.08 2.24 1.86 0.76 0.39 99.69XV 1182b 51.91 13.78 5.75 0.12 4.07 18.89 1.15 3.23 0.63 0.30 99.84XV 1383c 49.69 15.19 11.08 0.21 3.74 14.57 2.47 1.60 0.73 0.39 99.67

XV 2207_1 55.78 14.06 6.64 0.09 3.11 15.17 1.27 2.82 0.66 0.21 99.81XV 2207_2 54.97 14.23 7.06 0.10 3.44 15.06 1.53 2.51 0.66 0.21 99.76XV 2207_3 53.79 13.68 5.50 0.09 4.14 17.48 1.24 2.60 0.64 0.28 99.43XV 2207_4 55.61 14.23 5.71 0.13 3.51 15.25 1.11 2.98 0.67 0.59 99.79n ¼ 4 55.0 14.1 6.2 0.1 3.6 15.7 1.3 2.7 0.7 0.3 99.70sd 0.9 0.3 0.7 0.0 0.4 1.2 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.2


dimensions; abundant opaque minerals (<500 mm), generally rep-resentedby Fe- andTi-oxides; abundant lithic fragments (<1.5mm).Lithics include sandstones and carbonate rocks, together with rarevolcanic rocks with glomeroporphyric structures.

The discriminating mineralogical and petrographic key featuresof this production are as follows: 1) abundant quartz, K-feldsparsand clinopyroxenes; 2) frequent plagioclases showing the entirecompositional variation of their group; 3) sporadic muscoviteprevailing over biotite and rare MgeFe chlorites; 4) abundantsandstones and carbonate rocks and rare volcanic rocks.

As for the bulk chemical composition (Table 6a and b; Figs. 3e4),the three exemplars slightly differed in Fe2O3 and CaO contents.With respect to the other productions, comparison can be estab-lished with that of Gavius, which is chemically very similar both interms of major and minor element contents.

The prosopographic study is complicated, if not hindered, by thedifficulty of restoring a correct reading of the text. The latter couldabbreviate the name of a servus Pro(bus?, -culus?, . ), followed bythepraenomenCn. and thefirst letterof thenomenof thedominus F( ).This is the most probable reading but not the only one possible.The onomastic comparisonwith epigraphs from the territory of Cosadoesnot allowanyattemptof identification. The ancientpaleographyand the absence of the cognomen suggest an early chronology,withinthe 1st century BC (Manacorda, 1985).

5.3. The production of Gavius

The mineralogical and petrographic assemblage of the threeexemplars is perfectly comparable and it is very similar to thatobserved for the production of F( ), both in terms of matrices

Table 6bICP-OES and ICP-MS chemical analyses for 33 samples. Minor and trace element contents are expressed in ppm.

Ba Sr Y Zr V Cu Ni Pb Zn As Br Co Cr Cs Hf Rb Sb Sc Th U La Ce Nd Sm Eu Yb Lu

3 2 1 2 5 1 1 5 1 2 1 1 1 0.5 0.5 20 0.2 0.1 0.5 0.5 0.2 3 5 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.05

Cassius 1 605 632 20 134 123 30.0 53.3 36.8 114.9 10 5 16 89 15 4 144 2 13 16 4 42 78 30 6.4 1.4 2.3 0.3Cassius 2 693 719 24 176 151 55.8 59.4 65.6 136.0 9 2 24 113 18 5 146 2 15 14 4 48 78 41 7.2 1.9 2.2 0.3Cassius 3 686 751 21 176 142 40.2 55.1 46.8 113.5 10 3 18 97 19 5 169 1 14 19 5 49 95 40 7.1 1.7 2.5 0.3n ¼ 3 661 701 22 162 139 42.0 55.9 49.7 121.5 10 3 19 100 17 5 153 2 14 16 4 46 84 37 6.9 1.7 2.3 0.3sd 49 62 2 24 14 13.0 3.1 14.6 12.6 1 2 4 12 2 1 14 1 1 3 1 4 10 6 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.0

Sestius 1 599 639 22 160 139 37.0 58.0 43.0 108.0 14 3 19 119 16 5 130 1 15 14 4 50 82 56 6.3 1.8 2.3 0.3Sestius 2 557 588 20 146 123 22.3 54.0 23.6 76.2 9 5 14 86 15 4 153 1 13 16 4 41 76 31 6.1 1.4 2.3 0.3Sestius 3 524 588 25 165 117 32.5 41.8 39.4 81.2 8 5 17 107 18 5 136 1 15 14 5 45 85 45 6.8 1.4 2.2 0.3n ¼ 3 560 605 22 157 126 30.6 51.3 35.3 88.5 10 4 17 104 16 5 140 1 14 15 4 45 81 44 6.4 1.5 2.3 0.3sd 38 29 3 10 11 7.5 8.4 10.3 17.1 3 1 3 17 2 1 12 0 1 1 1 4 5 13 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.0

F( ) 1 413 380 25 133 100 47.2 71.6 25.6 100.0 10 2 19 120 7 4 118 1 17 9 3 39 73 26 5.9 1.1 2.3 0.4F( ) 2 409 377 27 146 100 48.0 72.0 27.0 121.0 10 3 17 117 7 3 100 1 14 9 2 34 60 26 5.4 1.3 2.2 0.3F( ) 3 498 377 24 147 106 53.0 68.0 31.0 149.0 13 5 21 132 8 4 130 1 17 10 3 44 76 41 5.6 1.7 2.7 0.4n ¼ 3 440 378 25 142 102 49.4 70.5 27.9 123.3 11 3 19 123 7 4 116 1 16 9 3 39 70 31 5.6 1.4 2.4 0.4sd 50 2 2 8 3 3.1 2.2 2.8 24.6 2 2 2 8 1 1 15 0 2 1 1 5 9 9 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.1

Gavius 1 644 187 31 155 99 41.0 76.0 25.0 108.0 4 1 16 116 6 4 90 1 13 10 2 36 65 26 5.8 1.3 2.5 0.4Gavius 2 448 344 25 140 120 39.0 71.5 23.0 85.6 12 0 21 140 8 4 152 1 19 11 2 43 78 31 6.7 1.4 2.8 0.4Gavius 3 474 308 23 147 92 41.0 65.9 27.4 87.7 11 3 15 110 5 4 129 1 16 9 2 36 69 28 5.8 1.1 2.4 0.4n ¼ 3 522 280 26 147 104 40.3 71.1 25.1 93.8 9 1 17 122 6 4 124 1 16 10 2 38 71 28 6.1 1.3 2.6 0.4sd 106 82 4 8 15 1.2 5.1 2.2 12.4 4 2 3 16 2 0 31 0 3 1 0 4 7 3 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.0

Maelius 572 495 24 175 108 97.0 53.0 32.0 132.0 16 4 18 96 11 5 120 1 14 17 5 62 101 55 7.4 1.8 2.5 0.3

Oppius 1 602 343 29 176 94 32.6 46.3 76.7 195.2 47 6 18 103 12 4 123 64 15 15 2 48 88 43 8.1 1.5 2.3 0.4Oppius 2 616 280 27 164 110 37.8 65.6 86.9 219.3 43 2 28 115 12 4 150 119 16 15 2 43 87 42 6.7 1.3 2.2 0.4Oppius 3 495 240 29 161 105 49.5 65.7 95.0 309.4 57 2 19 113 10 4 152 103 17 12 3 44 79 42 6.8 1.7 2.9 0.5n ¼ 3 571 288 28 167 103 40.0 59.2 86.2 241.3 49 3 22 110 11 4 142 95 16 14 2 45 85 42 7.2 1.5 2.5 0.4sd 66 52 1 8 8 8.7 11.2 9.2 60.2 7 2 6 6 1 0 16 28 1 2 1 2 5 1 0.8 0.2 0.4 0.1

BELBERAC 1 868 709 28 219 140 87.0 70.0 56.0 145.0 17 3 26 119 18 6 150 1 17 28 7 91 141 75 10.7 2.6 2.7 0.4BELBERAC 2 860 662 31 208 131 62.0 63.7 80.6 89.4 16 6 22 93 20 5 137 1 15 30 7 75 140 62 11.1 2.0 2.2 0.3n ¼ 2 864 686 30 214 136 74.5 66.9 68.3 117.2 17 5 24 106 19 6 144 1 16 29 7 83 141 69 10.9 2.3 2.5 0.3sd 6 33 2 8 6 17.7 4.5 17.4 39.3 1 2 3 18 1 1 9 0 1 1 0 11 1 9 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.0

M^A 548 375 27 228 90 26.3 31.4 32.6 73.0 14 5 16 66 11 5 100 1 12 15 3 51 90 38 6.9 1.6 2.5 0.4Unreadable 316 323 24 141 113 35.3 76.8 21.0 94.8 4 0 16 160 7 4 92 1 16 9 6 37 68 28 5.7 1.1 2.4 0.4

XV 292 483 302 22 153 92 41.0 65.0 18.0 87.0 15 2 17 93 9 5 110 1 14 14 5 42 75 40 5.3 1.4 2.5 0.3XV 690 721 539 20 143 101 78.0 63.0 32.0 145.0 18 7 21 157 11 4 150 1 15 14 4 48 81 49 5.5 1.5 2.4 0.3XV 874 711 625 32 212 132 59.7 76.7 66.2 123.5 23 3 23 110 15 5 113 1 15 26 6 83 144 57 10.6 2.0 2.7 0.4XV 951 431 400 22 176 89 24.4 54.1 31.2 62.7 21 5 13 101 14 4 145 2 11 21 7 43 79 31 5.9 1.2 2.5 0.4XV 970a 978 719 28 224 151 79.0 67.2 78.8 75.6 19 3 21 83 21 5 180 2 14 39 8 85 149 52 10.3 2.2 2.6 0.4XV 1182b 395 392 20 116 104 31.0 60.0 31.0 79.0 28 4 13 128 8 2 90 1 12 8 2 28 49 23 4.5 1.0 1.7 0.3XV 1383c 1030 624 27 232 149 106.0 57.0 163.0 141.0 20 6 24 110 17 6 160 2 14 33 8 98 151 81 12.2 2.7 2.5 0.3

XV 2207_1 539 418 22 142 92 26.9 59.3 151.0 88.1 16 2 14 100 10 3 77 1 14 12 3 38 72 27 6.0 1.2 2.1 0.3XV 2207_2 600 505 20 152 127 66.0 65.0 75.0 282.0 12 3 19 149 13 4 110 1 17 12 4 43 78 32 5.4 1.4 2.6 0.3XV 2207_3 448 497 22 136 91 20.5 64.3 81.0 71.4 13 4 14 100 9 4 84 1 15 10 3 32 57 24 5.3 1.0 2.0 0.3XV 2207_4 731 440 24 133 82 40.0 62.9 46.3 68.9 11 3 16 112 11 4 115 1 16 11 2 35 66 33 6.4 1.1 2.0 0.3n ¼ 4 579 465 22 141 98 38 63 88 128 13 3 16 115 11 4 96 1 15 11 3 37 68 29 5.8 1.2 2.2 0.3sd 119 43 2 8 20 20 2 44 103 2 1 2 23 2 0 19 0 1 1 1 5 9 4 0.5 0.2 0.3 0.0

E.Gliozzo

/Journal

ofArchaeological

Science40

(2013)1042

e1058

1049

Fig. 2. Drawings of the ‘municipal’ types and of type CIL XV 2207 (L. Titini Glauci Lucretiani).


(Table 3) and skeleton composition. The latter is constituted byabundant quartz (<450 mm), showing higher average dimensionsthan in the previous productions; abundant K-feldspars(<500 mm), generally characterised by a high sphericity; frequentplagioclases with very small dimensions (<50 mm), complicatingthe determination of their compositional range (the presence ofsodic terms is ascertained); abundant primary calcite, developingreaction rims. In this instance, it is worth observing that sampleGavius 2 was fired at a lower temperature than Gavius 1, based onthe abundance and the decomposition stage of calcite crystals. Theskeleton further includes abundant clinopyroxenes (Table 4), withconsiderable dimensions (<500 mm) and high sphericity; frequentphyllosilicates (<150 mm), represented by biotite (sometimeschloritised) and stechiometric muscovite; very rare grossular-typegarnet (<150 mm; Py2e3Al10e11Sp1Gr88e89); frequent opaqueminerals (<200 mm), generally represented by Fe- and Ti-oxides;and sporadic lithic fragments (<1.5 mm). The latter include sand-stones, sometimes rounded, together with very rare volcanic rockswith glomeroporphyric structures.

The discriminating mineralogical and petrographic key featuresof this production are the same of the production of F( ) with a fewdifferences: 1) the high sphericity of K-feldspars and clinopyrox-enes crystals; 2) the inverted proportion between micas.

As for the bulk chemical composition (Table 6a and b; Figs. 3e4),the three exemplars slightly differed in terms of SiO2, Al2O3 andCaO contents only, being very similar to those of F( ). It is worthobserving, that Cs and Th values, as well as most REE contents, aregenerally depleted with respect to the other productions.

Prosopographically, the situation is very similar to that alreadyfaced with the production of Cassius. The gentilicium Gavius wasrather common and, unfortunately, the identification of theproducer is not feasible with any of the Gavii otherwise known. InEtruria, the Gavii are widely attested by lapidary inscriptions (seee.g. the over 30 citations listed in CIL XV, from Pisa, Firenze, Siena,Arezzo, Chiusi, Orvieto, Tuscania, Viterbo, Faleri, Trevignano, Tar-quinia, Lorium, Perusia) but also by stamps impressed on terrasigillata arretina pottery (Oxè-Comfort, 1968; nn. 727e734) fromArezzo. The gens Gavia is further known by ‘urban’ brick

Fig. 3. Bulk chemical analyses. Binary diagrams SiO2eAl2O3, MgOeCaO, Na2OeK2O, MnOeFe2O3. The former two well distinguish ‘municipal’ from ‘urban’ productions. Please notethat ‘urban types are indicated with the number only (e.g. 970), without specifying the variant (i.e. a, b, c).


productions, signed by Gavius Proculus (CIL XV 523), Sex. GaviusSarinus (S. 315), P. Gavius Secundus (S. 535), Gavia Amyl(la) (CIL XV355, 397 and S. 92e93). Manacorda (1985) suggested an interestingrelationship between the Gavii may be attested at Cosa by Cicero(Verr. 5, 158e170), in the first half of the 1st century BC. A chro-nology between the late republican age and the age of Augustus hasbeen proposed for this type (Celuzza, 1985; Manacorda, 1985).

5.4. The production of Maelius

The ceramic body is greatly heterogeneous, showing non-oriented bands with a fine granulometry and a particularly Ca-rich composition (Table 3). The skeleton is constituted by abun-dant quartz (<300 mm); abundant K-feldspars (<200 mm); frequentplagioclases (<120 mm), with albitic to andesinic composition(Ab97e53), generally associated to clinopyroxene and/or K-feldsparwithin large aggregates; frequent clinopyroxenes of large dimen-sions (<250 mm; Table 4); sporadic phyllosilicates with appreciabledimensions (<80 mm), prevalently represented by chloritised bio-tite; rare garnet (Py14e30Al63e81Sp1�2Gr2e5) of very small dimen-sions (<50 mm); frequent opaque minerals (<200 mm), generallyrepresented by Fe- and Ti-oxides; abundant lithic fragments

(<600 mm). Lithics include microcrystalline quartz and numerousvolcanic rocks; the latter beingmainly represented by aggregates ofsodic plagioclase and clinopyroxene. The microfauna must havebeen abundant, however, the firing process reached the destabili-sation temperature of calcite and destroyed the fossils. Someshapes are still recognisable on the basis of the calcitic and/or Ca-silicatic crowns originated by the reaction of the decomposedcalcite in contact with the clay.

The discriminating mineralogical and petrographic keyfeatures of this production are as follows: 1) abundant lithicfragments and opaque fragments; 2) abundant traces ofmicrofauna.

The bulk chemical composition (Table 6a and b; Figs. 3e4) doesnot show peculiar features, with the exception of relatively highvalue of CaO and Cu. In general, this production seemsmore similarto the ‘urban’ than to the ‘municipal’ ones, however, the discrimi-nation is not straightforward.

The producer Cn. Maelius Optatus is not otherwise known. Anillegible figuration seems present in the middle of the stamp. Thecomparison with the stamps found in Rome suggests a chronologybetween the 1st century AD and the first decades of the 2ndcentury AD (see Steinby,1974e1975, p.19). The circular shape of the

Fig. 4. Bulk chemical analyses. Binary diagrams BaeZr, TheLa, CeeNd, SmeEu. The ‘urban’ types BELBERAC, CIL XV 874, 970a and 1383c are well distinguished from the rest of thecollection. Please note that ‘urban types are indicated with the number only (e.g. 970), without specifying the variant (i.e. a, b, c).


stamp addresses the territory of Rome and the Tiber Valley for thelocalisation of the production, however, the limited distribution ofthis type suggested to leave open the unlikely possibility of a localproduction.

5.5. The production of Oppius

The mineralogical and petrographic assemblage of the threeexemplars is perfectly comparable. The red matrix is ratherhomogeneous and compositionally similar to that of samplesGavius 1e3 (Table 3). The skeleton is constituted by frequent quartz(<180 mm); abundant K-feldspars (<250 mm), represented by bothorthoclase and sanidine; sporadic plagioclases of small dimensions(<80 mm) with sodic (Ab99e93) or calcic (Ab12e10) extremecompositions; sporadic primary calcite, developing large coroniticstructures along the rims; frequent clinopyroxenes (<150 mm;Table 4); frequent phyllosilicates (<150 mm), with biotite (oftenchloritised) prevailing over muscovite (sometimes illitised);frequent opaque minerals (<200 mm), generally represented by Fe-and Ti-oxides and epidotes; abundant lithic fragments (<3 mm).The latter include microcrystalline quartz, numerous aggregates of

quartz and phyllosilicates (esp. biotite or muscovite); Mn-richnodules, with a concentric banded structure.

The discriminating mineralogical and petrographic key featuresof this production are as follows: 1) abundant phenochrysts of K-feldspars and, to a lesser extent, of clinopyroxenes; 2) presence ofsporadic plagioclases with albitic or bytownitic composition; 3)presence of Mn-rich nodules; 4) primary calcite undergoingdecomposition and developing coronitic structures with a Ca-silicatic composition.

The latter feature resulted from technological processes.Although it could not infer useful indications for provenance issues,it was included in the description of the assemblage for theconstancy with which it has been observed in the three samples.

The bulk chemical composition (Table 6a and b; Figs. 3e4) of thethree exemplars differed in SiO2, Al2O, Fe2O3 and CaO contents.With respect to the other productions, significant differences canbe observed in high SiO2, MnO, K2O, Pb, Zn, As, and Sb contents, andin low CaO contents.

Palaeographic, linguistic and onomastic criteria indicate a late-republican chronology, associating this stamp to the first phase ofthe Settefinestre villa (Manacorda, 1985). Noticeable both themention of the figlina (Tra<n>stag(nensis)), which is rather rare in


early productions, and the shape (in planta pedis) of the stamp. Thecomparison with the local onomastic does not provide insights onthe prosopography of the producer C. Oppius.

5.6. The production of BELBERAC

The very fine matrix shows reddish and ocher areas and a Ca-rich composition (Table 3). The skeleton is constituted by abun-dant quartz and K-feldspar (<250 mm); abundant plagioclase(Ab98e8), with smaller dimensions and a prevalent albitic compo-sition; abundant phyllosilicates (<150 mm), among which biotiteprevails over muscovite and frequent MgeFe chlorites of smalldimensions (<40 mm); frequent and large (<450 mm) Ca-rich cli-nopyroxenes (Table 4); rare garnet (<80 mm), with almandine-type(Py14e15Al63e83Sp1Gr1e21) or andradite-type (Py1Al37Sp1Gr61)composition. The abundant opaque minerals are frequently of largedimensions (<150 mm), andmostly represented by epidotes and Fe-and Ti-oxides. Abundant and large (<2 mm) lithic fragments aremainly represented by leucite-bearing lavas.

The discriminating mineralogical and petrographic keyfeatures of this production are as follows: 1) abundant lithicfragments, mainly represented by leucite-bearing lavas, and opa-que minerals of large dimensions; 2) clinopyroxenes, generally oflarger dimensions than those of K-feldspars, quartz andplagioclases.

The chemical composition of the two exemplars (Tables 6a andb; Figs. 3e4) does not show significant variations. With respect tothe other productions, this type appears compositionally moresimilar to the ‘urban’ than to the ‘municipal’ productions.

The epigraphic study of this stamp is complicated by the textreading. Personal names such as Belberac(us?), Belber(?) orBerac(?) are not known. Onomastic comparisons can be found forindividual names beginning with BEL (e.g. Belenius, Bellius, Bel-lonius, etc.; cfr. Solin and Salomies, 1994), BER (e.g. Berienus,Beriola, Berius, Berosus, Beruenus; Beryllus; cfr. Solin and Salomies,1994) and AC (e.g. Acanthus, Acastus, Achilles, Acutus, etc.; cfr.Solin and Salomies, 1994). Moreover, the comparison with typeCIL XV 886 [BELBER - A^P: Bel( ) Ber( ) Ap(pi) (servi)] suggests themention of a gentilicium like Accius or Acilius or Aconius etc. Thesimilarity between the stamps found at Cosa and the type CIL XV886, found along the via Tiburtina in Rome (Verano’s area), maysuggest a close relation between the two stamps, furtherimplying a misreading of the type CIL XV 886. A furthercomparison should be made with the stamp BEL BARA, found atGrottaferrata (Rome) (N. 885/6; Steinby, 1987, p. 38, n. 41, datedafter the 2nd century BC).

The ancient paleography and the stamp layout seem to indicatea chronology between the 1st century BC and the 1st century AD(Steinby, 1974e75); conversely, the archaeological context ofdiscovery suggests a later chronology. However, the exemplarsfound on the floor of the Capitolium e especially the one found onthe paving of the pronaos cistern e could have been employed, aswell as reemployed, for the fourth and last renovation of the Cap-itolium (AntonineeSeverian age).

5.7. The unreadable production

The matrix composition is comparable to that of the other Ca-rich samples (Table 3), conversely, the mineralogical assemblageis completely different to all those observed in this brick collection.The skeleton represent a very small percentage (w10%) of theentire ceramic body, the latter being very fine, non-oriented andhighly sintered. The skeleton includes quartz (<120 mm), K-feldspar(orthoclase, <100 mm) and a few opaque minerals (apatite, <80;minor Fe-oxides).

The chemical composition (Table 6aeb; Figs. 3e4) is charac-terised by high MgO and low K2O contents, similarly to several‘urban’ productions; conversely, minor and trace elements contentsare comparable to those found in bricks stamped Gavi.

The reading and the interpretation of this fragmentary text isnot certain. Indeed, we might even think of turning it 180� (withrespect to Fig. 2) and read two letters such as ‘DI’ to the right of it.

5.8. The ‘urban’ productions

5.8.1. CIL XV 292This type has been chosen in order to provide a comparison

with a well known production, likely localised along the Tibervalley (CIL XV 292, 9). T. Statilius Maximus, dominus of the figlinaeMacedonianae from the year 123 AD to the Age of Antoninus Pius,has been generally identified with the leg. Aug. pr. pr. Thraciae(years 111e114) and consul (year 115 AD) (Steinby, 1974e1975).However, P. Setälä (1977) distinguished: 1) T. Statilius MaximusSeverus Hadrianus, consul in the year 115 AD, dominus of the fig-linae Brutianae, Platanianae and part of the Macedonianae and 2)T. Statilius Maximus, consul in the year 144 AD and dominus of thefiglinae Macedonianae. The numerous types bearing the mentionof T. Statilius Maximus testify for a consistent and long-lastingbrick production: CIL XV 296 e 297aeb (around 120e130 AD),CIL XV 286 (123 AD), CIL XV 288e289 (134 AD), CIL XV 291, 293e295aeb, 298e300 (late Hadrianic age or beginning of the age ofAntoninus Pius), CIL XV 1456 (138 AD), CIL XV 290 (age of Anto-ninus Pius), CIL XV 292 (before 145e155 AD). The Servilius For-tunatus (CIL XV 292) may be the same officinator of Lucilla Veri,known from the production of the figlinae Terentianae (CIL XV617 ¼ S. 278).

As far as the composition of the ceramic body, the matrix showsa Ca-rich composition (Table 3). The skeleton is constituted byabundant quartz (<350 mm), K-feldspars (<450 mm, orthoclase andsanidine), plagioclases (<250 mm), calcite (<200 mm), phyllosili-cates (<150 mm), sporadic clinopyroxenes (<450 mm; Table 4),opaque minerals (<100 mm) and lithic fragments (<1.5 mm).

The plagioclases show compositions ranging from albite toandesine (Ab96e76). The phyllosilicates are mainly represented bybiotite (sometimes more similar to a phlogopite or a hydrobiotite),muscovite, paragonite and MgeFe chlorites crystals. The lithicfragments include abundant glass (Table 5), sometimes associatedto aggregates of albite and clinopyroxene.

With respect to the other productions, the discriminatingmineralogical and petrographic key features of this production are1) the fine granulometry; 2) the sporadic presence of clinopyrox-enes which, in turn, are generally abundant in the other samples; 2)the abundance of volcanic glass.

The bulk chemical composition (Tables 6a and b; Figs. 3e4) iscomparable to that of the other ‘urban’ products, in terms of SiO2e

Al2O3 and MgOeCaO ratio. In particular, this type results similar tothe ‘urban’ types CIL XV 690, 1182b and 951 and the ‘municipal’sample Sestius 3.

5.8.2. CIL XV 690This type has been chosen for the same reasons that guided the

sampling of type CIL XV 292. The geographical distribution of thestamps bearing the mention of the figlinae Vocconianae suggests tolocalise the production in the Tiber valley (Gliozzo and Filippi,2005). The figlinae were of imperial property and their activityspanned from the age of Commodus to the age of Caracalla (CIL XV44, 47e48; S. 21, 685, 686 ¼ S. 585, 687e690; attributed CIL XV 46,772). The type CIL XV 690 of the officinator M. Licinius Callistianus isdated to the age of Septimius Severus or Caracalla (Steinby, 1974e1975, p. 29).


As far as the composition of the ceramic body, the matrix showsa Ca-rich composition (Table 3). The skeleton is constituted byabundant quartz (<250 mm), K-feldspars (<900 mm, orthoclase andsanidine), plagioclases (<400 mm), clinopyroxenes and orthopyr-oxenes (<500 mm), phyllosilicates (<800 mm), opaque minerals(<180 mm) and lithic fragments (<1.5 mm). The plagioclases showcompositions ranging from albite to labradorite, with the formercharacterised by smaller dimensions than the latter. Clino- andortho-pyroxenes have salitic and ferrohyperstenic compositionsrespectively (Table 4). The phyllosilicates aremainly represented byvery large biotite crystals, together with smaller muscovite andMgeFe chlorites crystals. The lithic fragments are of volcanic originand include glass and aggregates of albite and clinopyroxene andglass (Table 5).

With respect to the other productions, the discriminatingmineralogical and petrographic key features of this production are1) the presence of K-feldspars, labradoritic plagioclases, pyroxenesand biotite crystals of large dimensions; 2) the abundance oforthopyroxenes and lithic fragments.

The chemical composition (Tables 6a and b; Figs. 3e4) of thissample can be compared to that of ‘urban’ types, in terms of SiO2e

Al2O3 and MgOeCaO ratio. Similarly to sample CIL XV 292, themajor, minor and trace element contents suggest to distinguish thetype CIL XV 690 from the types CIL XV 874, 970a and 1383c.

5.8.3. CIL XV 874The finding of this type at Narnia (northernmost findsite)

suggests a localization in the Tiber valley or along one of itstributaries such as the River Nera. The connection betweenL. Atinius and the production of the figlinae ad Mercurium Felicem,dated to the age of Augustus or Tiberius (Steinby, 1974e1975, p. 67),is controversial (see Gliozzo and Filippi, 2005); however, theabsence of the cognomen and the ancient paleography suggesta chronology comprised between the late 1st century BC and thepre-Hadrianic age.

As far as the composition of the ceramic body, the matrix hasa Ca-rich composition (Table 3). The skeleton is constituted byabundant quartz (<250 mm), K-feldspars (<200 mm), plagioclases(<250 mm), clinopyroxenes (<350 mm), phyllosilicates (120 mm),opaque minerals (<180 mm) and very abundant lithic fragments(<2 mm). The plagioclases show albitic composition (prevalentlyAb95e92). Among phyllosilicates, muscovite prevails over biotite,which is generally Mg-rich and K-poor, and MgeFe chlorites. Thelithic fragments mainly include abundant fragments of leucite-bearing lavas.

Based onmajor, minor and trace element contents, the chemicalcomposition of this sample (Tables 6a and b; Figs. 3e4) is definitelydifferent to that of ‘municipal’ productions, with the exception ofthe type BELBERAC. This sample results compositionally verysimilar to types CIL XV 970a and 1383c.

5.8.4. CIL XV 951The geographical distribution of this stamp is limited to Ostia (CIL

XV 951 ¼ LSO 751) and Settefinestre. In this instance, it is nearlyimpossible to suggest a likely production area, however, the typewassampledbecause1) itwasoneof the few ‘urban’productions foundatSettefinestre; 2) it can possibly connected with Sutri, about 10 kmnorthof theBracciano lake, in theprovinceofViterbo. In fact,H. Bloch(CILXV951) suggested the identitybetweenthepontifexof thecolonyof Sutri (CILXI 3254) and the bricks producer, further identifiedwiththe consul of Trajanic age and proconsul Asiae in the Hadrianic age(120 AD) knownby Pliny (Ep. V 20, 7). The small sample available hasbeen submitted to bulk chemical investigation (Tables 6a and b;Figs. 3e4), resulting comparable to ‘urban’ productions, in terms ofSiO2eAl2O3, MgOeCaO and K2OeNa2O ratios.

5.8.5. CIL XV 970aDespite the discovery of at least three exemplars at Cosa, the

geographical distribution of the types of Q. Cuspius does not allowto hypothesize a local production in the ager cosanus. The recoveryin Bomarzo of his type CIL XV 970 (the northernmost findsite) couldsuggest that they were produced in the Tiber valley, while thefinding of this production in the villa named “Le Grotte”, nearPortoferraio (LivornoeElba Island; see Casaburo, 1997, pp. 29, 99and tab. 29b) widen the knowledge of its geographical distribution.The dominus Q. Cuspius (CIL XV 969¼ LSO 761) is known by his brickproduction only. His stamps mention at least 3 slaves: De(metrius?)(CIL XV 970a ¼ LSO 762; CIL XV 970b, S. 263), Melichrysus (CIL XV971) and Suner(os) (CIL XV 972). The production of De(metrius?) isfurther known by the stamps impressed on painted terracottareliefs (‘lastre campana’; CIL XV 970a, 2; Tortorella, 1981, p. 227, n.13). The shape of the frame and the organization of the test suggesta chronology in the 1st century AD, likely before the age of Nero.

As far as the composition of the ceramic body, the matrix showsa Ca-rich composition (Table 3). The skeleton is constituted byabundant quartz (<200 mm), K-feldspar (<300 mm), plagioclase(<180 mm), leucite (120 mm), Ca-rich clinopyroxene (<350 mm;Table 4), phyllosilicates (120 mm), opaque minerals (<180 mm) andlithic fragments (<900 mm). The plagioclases show albiticcompositions (Ab98e96). Among the phyllosilicates, biotite is prev-alent over muscovite and MgeFe chlorites. Among biotite crystals,the largest ones frequently show calcite and Fe-oxides inclusions,apparently wedged in cleavage openings. The lithic fragmentsmainly include numerous fragments of leucite-bearing lavas. Thechemical composition (Table 3; Figs. 3e4) is very similar to that oftypes CIL XV 874 and 1383c, neatly distinguished from ‘municipal’productions based on major, minor and trace element contents.

5.8.6. CIL XV 1182bGiven that this production (as well as the following one CIL XV

1383c) has not been found along the Tiber valley, the samplingaimed at providing a certain heterogeneity in the ‘urban’ sampleset.M. Herennius Pollio may be identified with the consul of the year103 or 104 AD (CIL XV 1179). His brick production is testified bytypes CIL XV 1179, 1180, 1181aeb and 1182, where he is mentionedin association with four officinatores, C. Pappius Vitalis, L. SessiusSuccessus, Cosmus and Successus respectively. L. Sessius Successus isotherwise known by the type CIL XV 420 from the figlinae Pub-lilianae. The type has been dated to the age of Hadrian (CIL XV 1182).

As far as the composition of the ceramic body, the matrix showsa Ca-rich composition (Table 3). The skeleton is constituted byabundant quartz (<200 mm), K-feldspar (<400 mm), plagioclase(<200 mm), Ca-rich clinopyroxene (<450 mm; Table 4), calcite(<250 mm), phyllosilicates (100 mm), and opaque minerals(<100 mm). The plagioclases show albitic to andesinic compositions(Ab98e63). Among the phyllosilicates, biotite is frequent whilemuscovite (frequently illitised) is particularly abundant, togetherwith minor paragonite. The primary calcite is particularly abundantand does not show reaction rims, suggesting a very low firingtemperature. The microfauna is abundant and frequently filled byiron oxides. The absence of lithic fragments represent a character-istic feature of this production.

The chemical composition (Tables 6a and b; Figs. 3e4) resultedcomparable to ‘urban’ productions, in terms of SiO2eAl2O3 andMgOeCaO ratios.

5.8.7. CIL XV 1383cThis stamp cannot be linked to a figlina otherwise known. Most

exemplars have been found at Grottaferrata (south of Rome) andthe producer, L. Postumius (CIL XV 1383 aec), cannot be identified.The sample is characterised by a Ca-rich matrix and a skeleton


constituted by frequent quartz (<200 mm) and K-feldspar(<300 mm), abundant plagioclase (<180 mm), generally associatedwith leucite (200 mm), frequent Ca-rich clinopyroxene (<800 mm;Table 4), phyllosilicates (<100 mm), garnets (<180 mm), opaqueminerals (<180 mm) and very abundant lithic fragments (<900 mm).The plagioclases show albitic compositions (Ab97�87). Among thephyllosilicates, it is possible to observe biotite, muscovite, para-gonite and MgeFe chlorites. The garnets show variable composi-tions ranging from almandine-type (Py3e7Gr16e32Sp3e7Al65e77) toandradite-type (Py1Gr64Sp1Al34) and grossular-type (Py2Gr85Al13).The lithic fragmentsmainly include numerous fragments of leucite-bearing lavas.

The bulk chemical composition (Table 3; Figs. 3e4) resultedcomparable to ‘urban’ productions, in terms of SiO2eAl2O3 andMgOeCaO ratios. This sample is characterised by a particularly highvalue of Fe2O3 and is very similar to types CIL XV 874 and 970a.

5.9. Type CIL XV 2207 e the production of L. Titinius GlaucusLucretianus

Based on the findings from Lorium, this production is included inthe ‘urban’ group; however, most exemplars were found in thearchaeological excavations performed at Cosa and Luna.

The mineralogical and petrographic assemblage of the fourexemplars, hence including the sample from Luna, is perfectlycomparable. The matrix shows a Ca-rich and Al-rich composition(Table 3). The skeleton is constituted by frequent quartz(generally < 800 mm but generally < 250 mm); abundant K-feld-spars (both orthoclase and sanidine) with considerable dimensions(<1 mm); frequent crystals (up to 600 mm but prevalently around50e80 mm) of plagioclases, showing the entire compositionalrange of their series (Ab94e7); sporadic primary calcite, developingreaction rims; frequent clinopyroxene with considerable dimen-sions (<650 mm; Table 4); frequent biotite crystals (<250 mm),generally larger than those of muscovite (<80 mm, often illitised);sporadic garnets, showing small crystals (<50 mm) withalmandine-type composition (Py4e15Al69e80Sp2e7Gr3e20) and largecrystals (<150 mm) with grossular-type composition (Py2e4Al13e22Sp1Gr74e82); abundant opaque minerals (<220 mm), generallyrepresented by Fe- and Ti-oxides; sporadic lithic fragments(<800 mm). Lithics include aggregates of a) microcrystallinequartz; b) sporadic lumps of brown glass (Table 5) and c) volcanicrocks, constituted by aggregates of plagioclases, with minor cli-nopyroxenes and opaque minerals. Microfauna is represented byforaminifers.

The discriminating mineralogical and petrographic key featuresof this production are as follows: 1) abundant phenochrysts of K-feldspars and clinopyroxenes; 2) frequent plagioclases, showingthe entire compositional range of their series; 3) frequent biotite,with larger crystals thanmuscovite, the latter frequently illitised; 4)sporadic garnets of two types: small almandine-type and largegrossular-type crystals; 5) sporadic volcanic rocks fragments anddark-brownish glass; 6) sporadic foraminifers.

As for the bulk chemical composition (Tables 6a andb; Figs. 3e4),the results obtained for the four exemplars from Cosa and Luna,make it possible to address all these stamped bricks to a singleproduction site. The major element contents are comparable, beingCaO the sole component which varies consistently among the fourexemplars. With respect to the average values of this group, varia-tions such as those ofV, Cu andZn in sample Titinius2, or thatof Pb insample Titinius 1 must be considered as a common compositionalvariation within a ceramic production. With respect to the otherproductions, major element contents resemble those of some‘urban’ productions (e.g. CIL XV 292, 951, and 1182b), while minor

and trace element contents are similar to those found in theproductions of Pro(bus?, -culus?, . ) Cn. F( ) s(ervus) and Gavius.

Lastly, it is important recalling the available prosopography ofthe producer. L. Titinius Glaucus Lucretianus was a member of thelocal aristocracy of Luna, afterwards involved in the reconstructionof the Capitoline temple and of the odeum at Cosa (Fentress, 2003).From the public offices administrated at the municipium of Lunaand the colony of Cosa, he rose to the various positions of a presti-gious equestrian career (tribunus militum legionis XXII Primigeniae,praefectus pro legato insularum Baliarum, and tribunus militumlegionis VI Victricis) in the first years of the sixties, under thepatronage of the Emperor Nero (PIR, T, p. 328, n. 191; Devijver, 1977pp. 786e787; Demougin, 1992 no. 589). Such a rapid political risewas may be stimulated by the imperial family, which favouredthose genteswhich could ensure the exploitation of sources. In fact,a link between L. Titinius Glaucus Lucretianus and the Carraramarbles has been often invoked as an explanation for his politicalescalation (Ciampoltrini, 1989; Angeli Bertinelli, 1990). The proso-pography frames this brick production between the age of Claudiusand that of Nero.

6. Discussion

With regard to the mineralogicalepetrographic characterisationof a ceramic type, the observation of a single sample providedsimilar results with respect to those obtained from the observationof three samples. On the other hand, the comparison among thedata obtained on three samples allowed to observe the repeti-tiveness of some features (e.g. presence/absence, frequency, grainsize of a specific phases), in order to evaluate their consistency fortype definition and to convert them into reliable discriminatingparameters.

With regard to the bulk chemical characterisation of theceramic bodies, it has been possible to observe several composi-tional differences (especially in relation to SiO2 and CaO contents)which are certainly tolerable, if considered in the context of anentire production. However, it should be borne in mind that thecompositional variability shown by these productions is perhapsgreater than that we would be willing to tolerate without thesupport of epigraphic tools. This is to say that the compositionalvariability which is generally ‘accepted’ in order to distinguisha production from another is generally lower. Moreover, consid-ering the bulk chemical composition only, a production such as theunreadable one should be compared to that of Gavius, which,conversely, is completely different based on a mineralogical pointof view.

As far as provenance issues, among the nine productions cata-logued as ‘municipal’,

- six proved to be of local origin (L. S(esti); Cassi; M^A; Pro(bus?,-culus?, . ) Cn. F( ) s(ervus); Gavi; C. Oppi (ex) figilin(is)/Tra<n>stag(nensibus) Dipi(lus) s(ervus)/f(ecit)),

- two were assigned to the ‘urban’ area (BELBERAC; Cn. MaeliOptati),

- one e unreadable e remained of obscure origin.

The productions of L. Sestius (second half of the 1st century BC),Cassius (not later than the 2nd century AD) and M^A representa group of materials which can be assigned to the same productionarea. The presence of foraminifers may address the marine depositsof clays and sands, below the coastal dunes; the latter being verythin in coastal plane at the foot of Ansedonia. The lithic fragmentsseem to address the area of the Mount Amiata and, therefore, thesediments reworked by the Albegna River. Hence, themineralogicaland petrographical assemblage is clearly compatible with the


territory of Cosa, which includes both the Albegna valley and thesouthern territory of modern Ansedonia and Capalbio.

The presence of sandstones, limestones and volcanic fragmentsdistinguishes the productions of Pro(bus?, -culus?, . ) Cn. F( )s(ervus) and Gavius (both dated in the 1st century BC) from theprevious ones. Moreover, the volcanic fragments are different,showing a glomeroporphyric structure which was not observed inthe other productions. The contemporaneous presence of sedi-mentary and volcanic rocks indicates a reworked deposit such asthose found in the alluvial planes. The high sphericity of K-feldsparsand clinopyroxenes crystals observed in samples Gavius 1e3,supports this hypothesis. The mineralogical assemblage and thecrystal shape appear very similar to that observed in the plastersused at Cosa (Damiani et al., 2003), likely employing sedimentsoutcropping along the Albegna Valley. In addition, one exemplar ofGavius was found in the Albegna Valley and one exemplar ofPro(bus?, -culus?, . ) Cn. F( ) s(ervus) was found at Orbetello,therefore, the exploitation of a supply area north, north-east of Cosais even more reasonably hypothesised.

The mineralogical assemblage of the production stamped byC. Oppius is comparable to that observed in the productions ofPro(bus?, -culus?, . ) Cn. F( ) s(ervus) and Gavius; however, thepresence of Mn-rich nodules, together with the absence of lithicfragments of volcanic origin, provide a clear distinction for thisproduction that still addresses the territory of Cosa. The manganeseconcretions are present in Pleistocenic fluvial deposits south ofCosa. Their presence may indicate the exploitation of the sandyclays outcropping, for instance, at the foot of the hill where the villaof Settefinestre was built.

As a last thought on the productions assigned to the ager cosa-nus, it is worth observing that they generally show lower SiO2e

Al2O3 and CaOeMgO ratios than the ‘urban’ ones. This feature is

Fig. 5. SEMeEDS micro-chemical analyses of the matrices. AeB) The binary diagrams Al2O3e

ager cosanus. C) Compositions of pyroxenes plotted in WoeEneFs triangular diagram.

particularly evident if considering the chemical composition of theclay fraction; the latter investigated by square analyses by SEMe

EDS (Fig. 5AeB). This type of analyses has the great advantage ofavoiding the chemical contribution of tempers or natural inclusionswhich abundance can be casual.

Among themselves, an important distinguishing feature is rep-resented by the presence/absence of volcanic glass. The latter beingpresent in the productions of L. Sestius, Cassius and M^A, absent inthe productions of Pro(bus?, -culus?,.) Cn. F( ) s(ervus), Gavius andC. Oppius. The glass composition (Table 5) further supports thelocalization in the territory of Cosa, and provides a distinguishingfeature with respect to the other productions, especially based onSiO2 and K2O contents. Unfortunately the composition of pyroxeneswas of little help in distinguishing production; several ‘urban’ and‘municipal’ productions were characterised by similar clinopyrox-enes (Fig. 5C).

Moving to ‘urban’ productions, the type BELBERAC resulted verydifferent from the ‘municipal’ ones but very similar to the types CILXV 874, 970a and 1383c. A close similarity is established amongthese types, based on both the mineralogical assemblage and theabundant presence of leucite-bearing lavas. Furthermore, theirchemical compositions are comparable in terms of major, minorand trace element contents and clearly distinguishable from therest of the collection, mainly based on Na2OeK2O, BaeZr, TheLa,CeeNd, SmeEu ratios. Based on the northernmost finding rule,a localisation along the Tiber valley is suggested for them all.

The production ofMaelius should be searched within the ’urban’territory, as suggested by the chemical, mineralogical and petro-graphic composition. Analogously, the stamp layout is of ‘urban’style while it finds little comparison among the ‘municipal’productions. Unfortunately, the composition cannot be strictlycompared with any of the exemplars included in this collection, or

SiO2, MgOeCaO clearly distinguish the ‘urban’ productions from those assigned to the


better, it shows several features in common with each one of thembut with no one conclusively. The high contents of CaO in thematrix represent a distinctive characteristic of this production.

Similar problem is faced with the unreadable stamp. The bulkchemical composition should better compared to urbanproductions but the mineralogical and petrografic characterisationdoes not provide key elements to delimit a likely provenance area.

As far as the ‘urban’ productions, they were collected forcomparison only, with the exception of the bricks stamped byL. Titinius Glaucus Lucretianus. The discovery of one exemplar atLorium suggested to include this type within the ‘urban’ produc-tions, however, a ‘municipal’ production had always seemedfavourable, based on the abundant distribution of these exemplarsin the municipal territories of Luna and Cosa. Moreover, theinvolvement of the dominus in the political administration of Cosa,suggested that Cosa, better than Luna, could have been the mostlikely production area. The archaeometric investigations providedcontroversial results. The bulk chemical composition is comparableto the ‘urban’ productions. Conversely, the mineralogical andpetrographic composition shows a close similarity with respect tothe productions of L. Sestius, Cassius and M^A. The main differencesrelate to the lower frequency of lithic fragments and micas and thegreater abundance of garnets and plagioclases in the production ofL. Titinius with respect to the ones assigned to the ager cosanus.Hence, although the rarity of this type outside Cosa and Lunamakesa localisation in the ager cosanus still acceptable, the archeometricinvestigations strongly suggest to leave open the possibility of an‘urban’ provenance.

Lastly, it is worth noting that a clear distinction can be tracedamong the ‘urban’ productions CIL XV 874, 970, 1383c and the typeBELBERAC and a second set of ‘urban’ productions (CIL XV 292, 690,951 and 1182) which resulted chemically similar to the municipalones. From a mineralogical and petrographic point of view, the firstset is mainly characterised by the abundance of leucite-bearinglavas, while the second set appears more heterogeneous. Thepresence of orthopyroxenes and large biotites characterises thetype CIL XV 690; the absence of lithic fragments with appreciabledimensions is the main distinguishing feature of the type CILXV1182; the relative rarity of clinopyroxenes, together with theabundance of volcanic glass, characterise the type CILXV 292.

Given that archaeometric investigations of ‘urban’ brickproductions are very scarce (and often limited to bulk chemicalanalyses), it is not possible to exploit this evidence for provenanceissues. The types CIL XV 292, 690, 874, and 970were all found alongthe Tiber valley, while the types CIL XV 951, 1182 and 1383 werefound at Rome or in southern sites such as Lanuvio and Grotta-ferrata; hence, the geographical distribution of the exemplars is ofno help in this instance.

7. Conclusions

The integration of chemical and mineralogicalepetrographicinvestigations represents the key for an accurate and completecharacterisation of a ceramic production. The bulk chemistrywarrants reliable results, especially when multiple sampling isapplied to a single production type. The mineralogicalepetrographic characterisation is necessary and should not belimited to a mere listing of mineralogical phases; although not alldata can be singularly discussed, they are all part of a generaldescription which is necessary to describe a production and allowan effective comparison for all those involved in ceramic studies.For this reason the use of tables may be simplistic, because it tendsto overly synthesise and standardise the descriptions. The micro-chemical investigation of the matrices was effective in dis-tinguishing the productions and it should be considered as

a routine measurement, as well as the characterisation of thechemical compositions of mineralogical phases and volcanicglasses.

Besides providing the initial work hypotheses, epigraphy provedto be an essential research tool for provenance issues. For sixproductions, epigraphically grouped as ‘municipal’, the composi-tion of the ceramic bodies resulted compatible with the sedimentsoutcropping in the area delimited by the distribution of theexemplars. The productions of Cassius, L. Sestius, M^A, Oppius, F( ),and Gavius were assigned to the territory of Cosa. The former threeproductions likely used the marine sands and clays deposits of thecoastal plane at the foot of the Ansedonia promontory, where lithiccontributions from the Mount Amiata arrived too, likely trans-ported by the Albegna River. C. Oppius likely selected the Pleisto-cenic fluvial deposits, outcropping for several kilometres behindthe coastal dunes, south of Ansedonia. F( ) and Gavius likelypreferred the fluvial deposits outcropping north of the Cosapromontory, still in the Albegna valley.

These results helped reconstructing an important ceramicproduction between the late Republican age and the first Imperialage. The localization of the amphora production of Sestius at thePortus Cosanus further contributes to reconstruct a fertile produc-tive framework, which coincides with the construction of the Set-tefinestre’s villa (around the mid 1st century BC) and therestoration phase of Cosa (beginning of the Imperial age). Inter-estingly, the production of L. Sestius further testifies the economicalaffairs undertaken in Tuscany by important families involved in thepublic administration of Rome.

The local ‘municipal’ productions suffered from competition of‘urban’ productions from the beginning. The type BELBERAC, datedbetween the 1st century BC and the 1st century AD, was knownexclusively by the discoveries made in the ager cosanus but thearchaeometric investigations suggested to consider these bricks asimported products. The comparison drawn with type CIL XV 874further addressed the Tiber Valley as the probable production area.

However, the ‘urban’ productions were initially scarce. Onlyfour/five types can be surely dated before the end of the Julio-Claudian age (CIL XI 6689, 17, CIL XV 814, 970a, 1325; 874?; seeSupplementary data), for a total of 11 stamped bricks. Mostevidences of this period are related tomunicipal productions (morethan 50 exemplars) and the controversial production CIL XV 2207 ofL. Titinius Glaucus Lucretianus (19 exemplars).

Given that the ‘municipal’ attribution of Cn. Maeli Optatiproductionwas denied by the archaeometric analyses, it is possibleto observe that, beginning with the Flavian age, the ‘municipal’productions disappeared from the ager cosanus.

The imports increased from the Flavian dynasty (six types testi-fiedby1exemplareach:CILXV118a,152a, 951, 992d, S. 251e252; seeSupplementary data), to the period between Trajan and AntoninusPius (13 types testified by 33 exemplars: CIL XV 292, 298, 313, 377b,695, 922,1033,1114,1116ced,1182b, S. 397e398; seeSupplementarydata); before declining again between the age of Marcus Aureliusand that of Caracalla (6 types testified by 8 exemplars: CIL XV 154,183a, 221a, 367, 398b, 690; see Supplementary data).

Among these ‘urban’ productions, it has been possible to verifythat imports have different origins. Although a precise localizationit is not possible, the discrimination operated among types CIL XV874, 970,1383c by a side and types CIL XV 292, 690, 951,1182 on theother is of great importance. It is now possible to foresee the realand concrete opportunity to discriminate among the ‘urban’productions, in respect of which the archaeometric study areaprioristically rejected, assuming it will be fruitless.

Lastly, uncertainties remain as to whether consider ‘municipal’or ‘urban’ the production of L. Titinius Glaucus Lucretianus. This wasever thought to be a local production, made ad hoc for the


restorations of the Cosa buildings, between the age of Claudius andthat of Nero. A possible location in Luna remained open, whilea location in the ‘urban’ territory seemed unlikely. Surprisingly, thearchaeometric analyses allowed to definitely discard the prove-nance hypothesis regarding Luna but weakened the hypothesis ofa Cosa’s production as well. Whether to give greater credence to thebulk chemical analyses, indicating a greater similarity to the ‘urban’productions, or rely on the mineralogical and petrographic char-acterisation, that shows close similarities with the productions ofL. Sestius, Cassius and M^A, is controversial. This is one of thosecases where the lack of extensive studies on ceramic materials fromsouthern Tuscany and northern Lazio prevents a conclusive resultbut the need of using both bulk chemical and mineralogicalepetrographical for the characterisation of the ceramic materials isfurther proved by the present case.

Acknowledgments

This paper gives me the opportunity to offer my sincerestgratitude to Prof. Daniele Manacorda, who guided me withhis patience and knowledge through Archaeology. The archaeo-metric investigations I performed on this collection have been self-financed.

Appendix A. Supplementary data

Supplementary data related to this article can be found at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2012.07.018.

References

Angeli Bertinelli, M.G., 1990. Ancora a proposito di L. Titinius Glaucus Lucretianus.Athenaeum 68, 541e545.

Bloch, H., 1947. The roman brick stamps not published in vol. XV, 1 of the CorpusInsciptionum Latinarum. Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 56e57, 128.

Bloch, H., 1953. I bolli laterizi nella storia edilizia di Ostia. In: Calza, G. (Ed.), Scavi diOstia I. Topografia generale. Libreria dello Stato, Roma, pp. 215e227.

Bloch, H., 1968. I bolli laterizi e la storia edilizia romana. C. Colombo, Roma.Casaburo, S., 1997. Elba romana: la villa delle Grotte. Fondazione Agnelli, Torino.Celuzza, M.G., 1985. Catalogo dei bolli. In: Ricci, A. (Ed.), Settefinestre. Una villa

schiavistica nell’Etruria romana. La villa e i suoi reperti, Modena, pp. 348e350.Ciampoltrini, G., 1989. Patronato senatorio e milizie equestri: il caso di L. Titinius

Glaucus Lucretianus. Athenaeum 67, 295e296.CIL, Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum. CIL XV - Inscriptiones urbis Romae Latinae.

Instrumentum domesticum. Pars I edited by H. Dressel in 1891 (impr. iter. 1966)ISBN 3-11-001401-7. Pars II, fasc. 1 edited by H. Dressel in 1899 (impr. iter. 1969)ISBN 3-11-001419-X.

Damiani, D., Gliozzo, E., Memmi, I., Spangenberg, J., 2003. Pigments and plastersdiscovered in the House of Diana (Cosa, Grosseto, Italy): an integrated studybetween Art History, Archaeology and scientific analyses. Archaeometry 45,341e354.

Demougin, S., 1992. Prosopographie des chevaliers romains julio-claudiens. In:Collections de l’Ecole Française de Rome, 153. Roma, No. 589.

Devijver, H., 1977. Prosopographia militiarum equestrium quae fuerunt ab Augustoad Gallienum II, pp. 786e787.

Dressel, H. (Ed.), 1891. Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum. Inscriptiones urbis RomaeLatinae. Instrumentum domesticum, vol. XV. Academy of Sciences andHumanities, BerlineBrandenburg.

Fentress (Ed.), 2003. Cosa V: an Intermittent Town, Excavataions 1991e1997. TheUniversity of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, Michigan, pp. 55e62.

Gliozzo, E., Filippi, G., 2005. Archeologia e archeometria della produzione doliarebollata “urbana”: ulteriori dati e riflessioni. C. Bruun (a cura di), Interpretare ibolli laterizi di Roma e della valle del Tevere: produzione, storia economica etopografia. Acta Institutum Romanum Finlandiae 32, 229e247.

Gliozzo, E., Manacorda, D., Shepherd, E.J., 2004. I bolli VOLVS nell’Etruria romana:tipologia e problemi di interpretazione. In: Gualandi, M.L., Mascione, C. (Eds.),Materiali per Populonia, vol. 3, pp. 191e216. Firenze.

Gliozzo, E., Damiani, D., Camporeale, S., Memmi, I., Papi, E., 2011. Building materialsfrom Thamusida (Rabat, Morocco): a diachronic local production from theRoman to the Islamic period. Journal of Archaeological Science 38, 1026e1036.

Helen, T., 1975. Organization of Roman brick production in the first and secondcenturies A.D. An interpretation of Roman brick stamps. Acta InstitutumRomani Finlandiae 9.

Lavizzari Pedrazzini, M.P., 1985e1987. Ceramica e scambi commerciali a Luni:materiali della tarda età repubblicana e della prima età imperiale. Quaderni delCentro di Studi Lunensi 10e12, 251e260.

Lavizzari Pedrazzini, M.P., 1977. Bolli laterizi. In: Frova, A. (Ed.), Scavi di Luni.Relazione delle campagne di scavo 1972e1973e1974. Giorgio Bretschneider,Roma, p. 404.

Lyding Will, E., 1979. The Sestius amphoras: a reappraisal. Journal of Field Archae-ology 6, 339e350.

Manacorda, D.,1978. The ager cosanus and the production of the Amphorae of Sestius.New evidence and a reassessment. Journal of Roman Studies 68, 122e131.

Manacorda, D., 1980. L’ager cosanus tra tarda Repubblica e Impero. Forme di pro-duzione e assetto della proprietà. Memoirs of the American Academy in Rome36, 173e184.

Manacorda, D., 1981. Produzione agricola, produzione ceramica e proprietari nell’-ager cosanus nel I a.C. In: Giardina, A., Schiavone, A. (Eds.), Società romana eproduzione schiavistica 2. Merci, mercati e scambi nel Mediterraneo, Roma-Bari, pp. 3e54.

Manacorda, D., 1985. L’interpretazione della villa. Dai Sestii agli imperatori. In:Carandini, A. (Ed.), Settefinestre. Una villa schiavistica nell’Etruria romana I: lavilla nel suo insieme, Modena, pp. 101e106.

Manacorda, D., 2012. Frammento di tegola bollata. In: Manacorda, D., Mancini, F.F.(Eds.), Museo della Città in Palazzo Eroli a Narni. Giunti, Firenze, p. 260. n. 72.

Marini, G., 1884. Iscrizioni antiche doliari. Tipi del Salviucci, Roma.Martinez Saiz, A., 1976. Materiales para un indice de marcas de ceramista en

mortaria romanos. Boletin de Seminario de Estudios de Arte y Arqueologia 42,149e180.

Munzi, M., 1998. I praedia statoniensia dei Sestii: rinvenimenti epigrafici a Piam-miano (Bomarzo). Ostraka 7, 92.

Oxè, A., Comfort, A., 1968. Corpus Vasorum Arretinorum. Bonn.PIR, 1933-1970. In: Groag, E., Stein, A., Petersen, L. (Eds.), Prosopographia Imperii

Romani saec. I, II, III. Berlin & Leipzig.Rossignani, M.P., 1977. Bolli laterizi. In: Frova, A. (Ed.), Scavi di Luni II. Relazione

delle campagne di scavo 1972e1973e1974, Roma, p. 314. tav. 173, n� 9.Setälä, P., 1977. Private Domini in Roman Brick Stamps of the Empire, vol. 9. Acta

Instituti Romani Finlandiae.Shepherd, E.J., 2006. L’impianto produttivo del Vingone e la costruzione di Flor-

entia. Rassegna di Archeologia 22B, 15e26.Solin, H., Salomies, O., 1994. Repertorium nominum gentilium et cognominum

Latinorum, GermanySolin, H., 1982. Die griechischen Personennamen in Rom: ein Namenbuch, Berline

New York.Steinby, E.M., 1974-1975. La cronologia delle figlinae doliari urbane dalla fine dell’età

repubblicana fino all’inizio del III secolo. Bullettino della Commissione Arche-ologica Comunale di Roma 84, 7e132.

Steinby, E.M., 1977-1978. Lateres signati Ostienses, vols. 1e2. Acta Instituti RomaniFinlandiae, 7, 390 pp.

Steinby, E.M., 1986. L’industria laterizia di Roma nel tardo impero. In: VV, A.A. (Ed.),Società romana e impero tardoantico, II. Roma: politica, economia, paesaggiourbano, Roma-Bari, pp. 99e164.

Steinby, E.M., 1987. Indici complementari ai bolli doliari urbani (CIL. XV, 1). ScuolaTipografica, Italo-Orientale S. Nilo, 422 pp.

Tortorella, S., 1981. Le lastre Campana. In: Giardina, A., Schiavone, A. (Eds.), Societàromana e produzione schiavistica. Merci, mercati e scambi nel Mediterraneo,Roma, pp. 219e293.

Vitali, D., 2007. VOLVS e Albinia. In: Vitali, D. (Ed.), Le fornaci e le anfore di Albinia,Atti del Seminario (Ravenna 6e7 Maggio 2006). Università di Bologna, Bologna,pp. 103e108.



Stamped bricks from the ager cosanus (Orbetello, Grosseto): Integrating archaeometry, archaeology,...

Documents

Transcript of Stamped bricks from the ager cosanus (Orbetello, Grosseto): Integrating archaeometry, archaeology,...