We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 09 November 2011
A catalogue of stamped bronze vessels found in Britain, published by McPeake and Moore in a recent volume of this journal, discusses a total of 40 vessels, one of which was omitted by accident from their published list (Part II below, No. 34). There are, however, a number of errors and omissions in this catalogue, and they have failed to include three stamped skillets that have been known since early this century: all these vessels are referred to in papers used by McPeake and Moore in compiling their catalogue. A principal purpose of this paper, therefore, is to correct the major inaccuracies in McPeake's and Moore's contribution, and to bring to wider notice the three ‘forgotten’ skillets together with three recent finds from Cumbria: this work forms the basis of our Part II. In Part I, however, we discuss the evidence for the date at which Publius Cipius Polybius, the most prolific of the Capuan bronzesmiths, was chiefly active.
1 This paper stems from initial research by R.Y., the first part was written principally by J.B., the second part by R.Y.; the authors are however jointly responsible for the opinions expressed here. We are grateful to Mr B. Frank (Ryedale Folk Museum), Mr M. McCarthy (Carlisle Archaeological Unit) and Mr Colin Richardson (Tullie House Museum, Carlisle), for permission to publish items in their respective collections. Deirdre O'Sullivan and James Summerly helped in the preparation of the text by providing useful information and constructive criticism.
2 McPeake, J. C. and Moore, C. N., Britannia ix (1978), 331–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3 R. Bosanquet, ‘A Stamped Bronze Handle’ in R. E. M. Wheeler, The Roman Fort near Brecon (1926), 107–11.
4 The method of production and the lathe turning of Roman cast skillets is discussed in A. Munz, Die Kunst des Metalldrehens bei den Römern (1972), 9–50; for a spectrographic analysis of the metal used see also Boesterd, M. H. P. den and Hoekstra, E., Oudheidkundige Medelingen uit het Rijksmuseum van Oudheden te Leiden xlvi (1966), 100–27.Google Scholar
5 Wright, R. P., Arch. Ael., 4th ser. xlvii (1969), 1–5.Google Scholar
6 C. Cichorius, Die Reliefs der Traianssäule (1896–1900), scenes iv (the parade scene) and cxxvii.
7 R. P. Wright, op. cit. (note 5), 4.
8 Esperandieu, E., Recueil General des Bas-Reliefs … de la Gaule Romaine V (1913), 4097.Google Scholar
9 Nuber, H. v., Bericht der Römisch-Germanischen Kommission 53 (1972), 1–233, discusses the type.Google Scholar
10 J. M. C. Toynbee, Art in Britain under the Romans (1964).
11 Frederiksen, M. W., Papers Brit. School Rome xxvii (1959), 80–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar, discusses the Capuan evidence for the Ansii and the Cipii.
12 Bosanquet, R. in Gardner, W., Arch. Camb. lxxxii (1927), 129–140Google Scholar, read one of the Glyn Dwfrdwy skillet stamps as ]ISAT[, for CIP]I SAT[URNINI, but a more recent examination suggests that this should be ]ASEL[. We are most grateful to George Boon for this information.
13 Lindeberg, I., Saalburg Jahrbuch xxx (1973), 5–69Google Scholar, records over 60 vessels bearing the stamp of Publius Cipius Polybius.
14 C. F. C. Hawkes and M. R. Hull, Camulodunum (1947), 334.
15 C. Simonett, Tessiner Gräberfelder (1941), 159–163. Lamboglia, N., Rivista di Studi Liguri ix (1943), 167Google Scholar, discusses the dating of this grave.
16 I. Lindeberg, op. cit. (note 13), 17.
17 I. Lindeberg, op. cit. (note 13), 17.
18 Eggers, H. J., Jahrbuch des Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums Mainz xiii (1966), 67–164, especially 73–74.Google Scholar
19 A. Radnoti, Die römischen Bronzegefüsse von Pannonien (1938), 52.
20 H. Willers, Neue Untersuchungen über die römische Bronzeindustrie von Capua und Niedergermanien (1907), 78.
21 M. H. P. den Boesterd, Description of the Collections in the Rijkmuseum G. M. Kam at Nijmegen: V, The Bronze Vessels (1956), 8.
22 J. C. McPeake and C. N. Moore, op. cit. (note 2), 333.
23 C. F. C. Hawkes and M. R. Hull, op. cit. (note 14), 334.
21 ibid. 93.
25 ibid., 95 and 151 for the coin.
26 C. Simonett, op. cit. (note 15), 159–163.
27 N. Lamboglia, op. cit. (note 15), 167.
28 C. Isings, Roman Glass from Dated Finds (1957), passim, refers to the glass from these graves, but her dating of the Cadra items seems influenced by Lamboglia's review.
29 Since this was written, Dr Kevin Greene, of Newcastle University, has pointed out to the writers that the makers of North Italian samian were exceptionally conservative, producing Claudian and Neronian forms, with ‘Sohlenstempel’, well into the Flavian period. We are most grateful to Dr Greene for this confirmation.
30 Wilson, D., Journal Roman Studies lix (1969), 198–234.Google Scholar
31 Richmond, I. A., Arch. Ael. 4th ser. xiii (1936), 139–151.Google Scholar
32 M. H. P. den Boesterd, op. cit. (note 21), xx.
33 Note, however that a ‘fan-tail’ handle with trefoil piercing was found at Milecastle 48 on Hadrian's Wall, a site not occupied until after A.D. 122; this was undoubtedly an heirloom when lost.
34 I. A. Richmond, op. cit. (note 30), 144.
35 H. J. Eggers, op. cit. (note 18), 73–74.
36 Our independent conclusion and study is confirmed by I. Lindeberg op. cit. (note 13), 17; ‘Die meisten Polybius-Kasserollen haben runde Grifflöcher, nur ein paar zeigen kleeblattförmige Löcher, nur eine einzige hat ein halbrundes Loch’.
37 A. Radnoti, op. cit. (note 19), 55.
38 Norling-Christensen, H., Acta Arch. viii (1937), 168–181.Google Scholar
39 J. C. McPeake and C. N. Moore, op. cit. (note 2), nos. 13 and 14; this paper, Part II, no. 42.
40 A Radnoti, op. cit. (note 19), 48. Two skillets bearing the stamp P. CIP I POLIBII F. have been recovered from Vysoka, both with trefoil-pierced handles. In both cases the F is for ‘fabrica’ and the stamp has been explained as indicating that the workshops of Polybius had changed hands after his death (I. Lindeberg, op. cit. (note 13), 17). Given the comparative rarity of this stamp, and its occurrence on skillets with ‘early’ type handles, we reject this explanation, as it could equally well be argued that the stamp is the earliest used by Polybius himself.
41 R. Bosanquet, op. cit. (note 12).
42 A. Radnoti, op. cit. (note 19), Taf. 17, 12.
43 S. Tassinari, La Vaisselle de Bronze Romaine et Provinciale, au Musée des Antiquitiés Rationales (1975), 29.
44 Egglestone, W. M., untitled note in Proc. Soc. Antiq. Newcastle-upon-Tyne vii (1915), 9–11.Google Scholar and I. A. Richmond, op. cit. (note 30), 150.
45 Wright, R. P., JRS lix (1969), 235–246Google Scholar; Ephem. Epigr. ix, 1312Google Scholare and f; and J. Bennett and R. Young, ‘A Stamped Patera Handle from Lincoln City’ (forthcoming).
46 T. W. Potter, Romans in North-West England (1978), 215.
