Introduction

Notes to introduction

The Edition

Editorial Abbreviations and Conventions

References and Abbreviations

List of Plates

Concordances

Via Gabina, Site 10 Villa

I. Edited Examples (Nos. 1-50)

II. Unedited Fragments (Nos. 1-20)

II. Figured Stamps without Text (Nos. 1-9)

A. Decorated with Curved or Straight Lines (Nos. 1-7)
B. Decorated with Animal Tracks (Nos. 8-9)

IV. Graffito (No. 1)

Via Gabina,Site 11 Villa

I. Edited Stamps (Nos. 1-13)

II. Unedited Fragments with Texts (Nos. 1-8)

III. Stamps without Text (Nos. 1-2)

Via Gabina, Site 17 Villa

I. Identified Stamps (Nos. 1-7)

II. Unedited Fragments (No. 1)

II. Figured Stamps without Texts (No. 1)

Introduction

The excavations of the Roman villas at sites G-10 and G-11, as well as a surface survey of villa site G-17, have yielded a quantity of stamped bricks which, when their texts have been identified, expanded, and classified, can yield valuable evidence, particularly since the findspots of most of the stamped bricks have been carefully documented by the excavators. Such Roman brick stamps discovered in situ can provide valuable testimony for the chronology of construction at the villas, can confirm or revise other dating evidence especially in regard to the sequences of building activity, and indicate the sources of the brick used in construction. At the same time, study of these stamps adds evidence to the corpus of known brick stamps and thus provides epigraphical and prosopographical information on the ancient Roman brick industy.

The evidence indicates that Roman brick makers began to use stamps as identifying marks on bricks in the early to mid first century B.C. Texts of the earliest stamps were simple: the name of one person and, occasionally, of the estate or brickyard in which the brick was produced. During the second half of the first century A.C., as demand for brick in the city of Rome grew dramatically after the devastating fire of A.D. 64, stamp texts became more complex, often including names of both dominus (owner of the estate upon which the clay fields lay) and officinator (contractor who actually arranged for the production of the bricks), and sometimes the name of the slave (servus) who had actually made the bricks. The names of figlinae (brickyards) continue to occur. In A.D. 110 the names of the Roman consuls for the year first appeared on a brick stamp (CIL XV. 18); this specific indication of date was sporadically employed thereafter until A.D. 164; in the reign of Hadrian (A.D. 117-138) consular dates were especially common (in the year A.D. 123 all known brick stamps included the names of the consuls, for reasons that remain unknown). After 164 demand for brick slowly declined in and around Rome and so did the number of brickyards and of brick stamps in use. From the end of the reign of Caracalla (A.D. 217) until the reign of Diocletian (A.D. 285-305), brick stamps with texts were not employed at all; they reappear ca. A.D. 295 and then occur periodically through the fourth century A.C. and beyond, even to the times of the Gothic kings Theoderic and Athalaric (CIL XV. 1663-1675).¹

Study of the brick stamp texts available to us, combined with the evidence of brick stamps found in situ and in independently datable architectural or archaeological contexts, has permitted a reliable chronology of the brick stamps in use in Rome and her environs to be determined. More recent finds of brick stamps throughout Rome and Lazio have refined the details of that chronology -- especially the copious and well-documented brick stamps excavated at Ostia -- to the point that brick stamps, once discarded as useless curiosities of excavation, have become artifacts to be sought after and carefully documented. The information thus yielded has on the whole proved the reliability both of the use of the stamps as evidence for dating construction and of the general chronology.²

While the evidence of brick stamps from an excavation can provide good evidence for periods of construction and, in the case of in situ discovery of consular-dated stamps, specific years of manufacture of the materials used in construction, they do not provide absolute and incontrovertible evidence for chronology or dating for several reasons, and must always be used in association with other evidence including independent literary or epigraphical testimony, pottery chronology, stratigraphical sequence, and numismatic or other artifactual evidence found in situ. While it is tempting to take the specific date or the period of time attested by a brick stamp and insist that it conclusively dates a site or an architectural feature, no such absolute information should be assumed. The caveats important in the use of evidence provided by brick stamps include: 1) the fact that only a relatively small percentage of bricks produced were stamped (for purposes of inventory at the brickyard? of product advertising upon delivery and use in construction? as records for tax assessment?); 2) the well-attested tendency, especially during the third century A.C. and later, for bricks from earlier construction to be re-used in later building projects where, of course, the datings attested by the stamps become meaningless even if found in situ (for instance, the Aurelianic walls surrounding Rome, built between A.D. 270 and 275, contain numerous bricks stamped during the two preceding centuries which have nothing to do with the date of actual construction of the walls); and 3) the fact that a significant minority of brick stamps contain no texts but consist of figures or, in one especially unusual class, the tracks of animals, and occur in all otherwise datable architectural contexts (rendering any dating of them by association with stamps with texts highly speculative and unreliable).³

The brick stamps found in the excavations of the Via Gabina villas (sites G-10 and G-11) appear, for both sites, to confirm the stratigraphical and pottery evidence for the phases of construction of the site. Site G-11 has yielded a total of 42 stamps (as of 1989) among which were 13 separate and identifiable texts plus one previously unattested one. For the villa at G-11, the first phase of construction yielded no brick stamps and should thus most likely date before the first century B.C. (independent evidence places this first phase in the third century B.C.). The second major period, attested by the brick stamps (including examples of CIL XV. 818, 864, 933, 1237, 1318, 1232c and 2260) as well as the other evidence, was Augustan or, at the latest, early in the Julio-Claudian period (again independent evidence tends toward an Augustan dating), and it was followed by a further significant alteration which involved more brick construction at the very end of the first or beginning of the second century A.C., most likely during the reign of Trajan and continuing into the reign of Hadrian (attested by examples of CIL XV. 4-83, 454 [from A.D. 123], 506a [from A.D. 126], perhaps 535a, 1106b and S 351). No stamps clearly datable later than the second quarter of the second century A.C. were discovered. (cf. G-11, fig. 2).⁴

At site G-10, the number of stamps discovered was far larger (150 as of 1989) and contained 50 separate identifiable texts. Again, the brick stamps indicate several phases or sub-phases of construction at the villa, and are on the whole congruent with the pottery chronology and the stratigraphic evidence. An initial phase of building in the late Republic is confirmed by the occurrence of stamps from before the reign of Augustus (including examples of CIL XIV. 5308.18, CIL XV. 1171, possibly NOVUM 2277/2278.1, but it could also be of early Augustan date)⁵ A significant building period at the villa during the age of Augustus is indicated in the stamps (including examples of CIL XV. 1335, 1445a, and possibly NOVUM 2277/2278.1). A second building phase around the middle of the first century A.C. is indicated by stamps assigned generically to the first century A.C. which are quite likely to be Julio-Claudian (these include CIL XV. 535b, 1239a, 1264, 1270, 1464a and 2260), three stamps from the villa (CIL XV. 306a, 635c, 1383) are certainly Julio-Claudian and are best dated ca. A.D.50, which again confirms the independent evidence. There is strong evidence in the stamps for a period (or two immediately sequential periods) of construction at the end of the first or very beginning of the second century A.C. -- perhaps late in the reign of Domitian and continuing under Nerva and into the first years of Trajan's principate (cf. CIL XV. 635a, 635c, 710b, 1390, 1449a, S. 156) -- and during the reign of Hadrian, perhaps beginning around the time of Trajan's death in A.D.117 (cf. CIL XV. 124, 373 [A.D. 123], 455 [A.D. 134], 506a [A.D. 126], 515b [A.D. 134], 548c [A.D. 123], 577a, NOVUM 577b/578a, 578a, 578b)⁶ It should be borne in mind that these two groups of stamp (Domitianic/ Trajanic and Trajanic/ Hadrlanic) may indicate one construction period carried out in two phases, or even one phase only in which bricks made some years earlier but not previously used (the Domitianic/Trajanic ones) were employed at the same time and in the same (or a related) construction project as contemporary bricks (i.e. the Trajanic/Hadrianic examples). Stamps datable after the reign of Hadrian may indicate minor rebuilding or repairs but do not seem to imply further major construction, these include examples of CIL XV. 375 (reign of Antoninus Pius), 475 (ca. A.D. 155-165), 746 (ca. A.D. 180), and 424a (reign of Caracalla) (cf. G-10, fig. 1).

Surface survey of site G-17 yielded Neronian (CIL XV. 657c), Flavian (CIL XV. 1248a), and Hadrianic (CIL XV. 506a [from A.D. 126]. 1384 [from A.D. 123]) stamps.⁷ In thorough surface surveys of the vicinity of Torre Angela during the 1960s, Fr. Coste and his crew reported examples of many of the same stamps recovered in the Rice University excavations, confirming the general suitability of the apparent chronology of these villas to the broader constructional history of this vicinity of the Via Gabina in antiquity.⁸ The occurrence of animal track and figured stamps at sites G-10 and G-17 would often be interpreted as indicating some kind of construction during the third century A.C., but (at least, for site G-10) this does not seem to be confirmed by the stratigraphic or pottery chronologies and does not in and of itself constitute sufficiently certain evidence upon which to contest or amend those chronologies. The stamps from the Via Gabina villas also provide some useful evidence in corroborating or correcting previous publications of certain brick stamp texts. Discussion of variationes, correcta, completa and nova is given in the commentaries to the individual stamps, these include previously unpublished variants of CIL XV. 506a (G-11.3 and G-17.1), and unpublished corrections and completions to LSO 467 (G-10.11), S 156 (G-10.42), CIL XV. 2260 (G-10.49 and G-11.13), and to the NOVUM CIL XV. 2277/2278.1 first published in fragmentary condition by Steinby (G-10.50). New texts here published for the first time include G-10.14 (to be classified between CIL XV. 577 b and 578a), and the otherwise unknown stamp from site G-11 (catalog G-11. section II. no. 1) of C. Clau(dius?) Andro(?).

Notes to Introduction

1. cf., James C. Anderson, jr., The Thomas Ashby Collection of Roman Brick Stamps, Archaeological Monographs of the British School at Rome, vol.3 (London, 1991), 8-9.

2. H. Bloch, I bolli laterizi e la storia edilizia romana Rome. 1947 (reprint 1968); E. M. Steinby. "La cronologia delle figlinae doliari urbane," BullComm 84 (1974-75) 7-132. On the chronology of the stamps found in situ at Ostia. see H. Bloch, "I bolli laterizi e la storia ediilzia di Ostia." Appendix to Scavi di Ostia I; Topografia generale, ed. G. Calza. G. Becatti, I. Gismondi, G. De Angelis D'Ossat, H. Bloch (Rome, 1953) 215-227.

3. On brick stamps without texts from the Aurelianic walls, see G. J. Pfeiffer, A. W. Van Buren and H. H. Armstrong. "Stamps on Bricks and Tiles from the Aureli an Wall at Rome," Supplementary Papers of the American School of Classical Studies at Rome, 1 (1905) 1-86.

4. On the chronology of site G-11. see Walter Widrig, NSc ser. 8 .. vol. 37 (1983) 141-155, also Appendix I ("A Stratigraphic Summary of the Pottery from Site 11") by Joann Freed (pp. 167-175). cf, Walter Widrig, "Land Use at the Via Gablna Villas," in Ancient Roman Villa Gardens (Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, 1987) 227, 251-54.

5. cf. Widrig, "Land Use", 255. Kahane reports an example of CIL XV. 1315a ("Early") from site G-10 (A. Kahane and J. B. Ward-Perkins, "The Via Gabina." PBSR 40 (1972) 121).

6. cf. Widrig "Land Use" 255-59. Kahane also reports an example of CIL XV.578a ("Hadrianic") from G-10 (Kahane and Ward-Perkins, op. cit., 121).

7. Kahane reports an example of CIL XV. 714 ("Shortly before A.D. 138") from site G-17 (Kahane and Ward-Perkins, op. cit., 121).

8. Jean Coste. S. M., "Ricerca dei bolli laterizi in una zona dell'Agro romano, RendPontAcc 43 (1970-71) 71-108.

The Edition

The excavations and surface surveys of the three Via Gabina villas yielded a total of 201 examples of Roman brick stamps, and one graffito. Of the examples, 150 come from the villa at site G10 (G-10, fig. 1), 42 from the villa at site G11 (G-11, fig. 2), and 9 from the surface survey of the villa at site G17. The stamps are entered in this edition by site, in the order G10, G11, G17. For each site, the stamps are presented in the order in which they would appear in CIL XV. 1, and XV.1, S., in accordance with the procedures esta b lished by Herbert Bloch in his Supplement and now generally employed; examples first published in the Supplement are included at their proper positions within the order of CIL XV. 1. New stamps are inserted into the system at the appropriate place when their texts are sufficiently complete to allow classification by Dressel's system; fragments-with texts that cannot be securely identified are listed after the identifiable examples. These are followed by stamps without texts, and (for site G10 only) a graffito scratched on the wall of a dolium .

The individual entries in the catalog are constructed, with some modifications, according to the format employed by Steinby, LSO, and Bodel, KM Each entry provides, in order, the excavation inventory number for the stamp, the physical dimensions of the stamp and its letters, the measurements of the brick, the provenance (findspot and stratigraphic level) of the stamp as recorded in the excavation inventory, the identifying reference to CIL. or S, an indication of the form of the stamp, a transcription of the text with lacunae indicated, an interpretation or expansion of the text, the date of the stamp insofar as it is known, commentary, and (for selected examples) a photograph in the Plates. All measurements are given in centimeters; the sign + follows the largest measurement of a fragmentary example. A question mark indicates that a feature is missing or unmeasurable on an example; a dash indicates that the feature does not occur.

1. Excavation inventory number is given before the measurements of every example. When a stamp is represented by more than one clearly identifiable copy, the number of auxiliary lines and, in the transcription of the text, both lacunae and punctuation may be incorporated from the other examples.

2. Physical dimensions of the stamp (Sig.) are given a) for rectangular stamps in the order length then height; b) for circular stamps the diameter of the stamp is given (determined for fragmentary examples by doubling the radius); c) for orbicular stamps the diameter of the stamp is followed by the diameter of the orbiculus (orb.) (again determined for fragments by doubling the radius). On margin of error in such measurements, see LSO , p. 25 and KM, p. 8.

3. Heights of letters (litt.) are given in the order in which the lines of the text are transcribed: from the uppermost for rectangular stamps, and from the outermost for circular and semicircular stamps. Minimum and maximum letter heights are recorded for each line if there is variation.

4. Auxiliary lines (lin.) between the lines of text are reported in the same order as heights of letters.

5. Dimensions of the brick fragment (fr.) are arranged a) maximum breadth across the face, b) maximum height across the face, c) depth or thickness of the brick.

6. Provenance is indicated as recorded in the excavation inventory.

7. Photograph indicates the inclusion of a black-and-white photograph of one example of the stamp in the Plates at the number given. All photographs were taken by Ms. Barbara B. Bini.

8. Reference to CIL XV. 1 or S is followed by a question mark if the identification is uncertain. Certain abbreviations may follow the reference: VAR. (variatio) indicates a stamp that differs from the CIL. or S, publication in abbreviations, ligatures, or ornament; CORR. (correctum) indicates any change in the transcription of a text which had previously been published as certain and complete; COMPL. (completum) indicates an example that confirms or improves upon a version given in CIL. or S, as uncertain, incomplete or imperfect. The word NOVUM is placed before the CIL. or S reference if an example differs from previously published examples in form, formula, signum or content, even if the difference is nothing more than the addition, omission or substitution of a single letter. The reasons for assigning these distinctions are discussed in the comments to stamps so designated.

10. Transcription of the text includes an effort to center the lines of circular and semicircular stamps insofar as possible; texts in mirror writing, reversed or inverted letters are either reproduced by hand, or indicated by a description in brackets ( ). Ligatures are indicated by the sign beneath the text. Fragmentary letters are marked by a dot below the letter if a reading is unsure, or by a dot alone if no letter can be reasonably discerned. Signa and decorative elements that cannot be reproduced typographically are described in Latin. The lines of text are normally printed in order from top to bottom for rectangular stamps, from outermost to innermost for circular or semicircular stamps.

11. Date is indicated by the letter a. and the year when that is certain, by ca. a. and a range of years when that can be reasonably determined, or by and an indication of time period (e.g. the reign of an emperor) if that seems indicated. Bibliography for the assigned date is cited, and arguments occasionally discussed, in the comment, unless the date is indisputably established by the presence of consular names in the text.

[ ] --- integrated text

( ) --- interpretation

< > --- text mistakenly omitted from the stamp and added in the interpretation

" " --- corrected text

{ } --- text incised by mistake and eliminated in the interpretation

? --- interpretation uncertain

Note : "__" below inscribed letters has been substituted for the conventional ""

No commas are used in the interpretations, in accordance with the practice adopted in LSO and KM; terms of clarification are seldom used, except for words connected with the names of figlinae that refer to clay products themselves. The most common of these terms are tegula (generally adopted for first century stamps) and opus; when these explanatory terms are employed, they are contained in parentheses and signalled by the abbreviation "sc". The comment sic in the margin indicates an actual error or idiosyncrasy in the text of the stamp. Abbreviations not expanded in the interpretation are those of praenomina, and the abbreviation cos , (for consulibus) when it occurs on consular-dated stamps.

13. Comments will tend to concentrate on the evidence for dating and for restoring the text of the individual stamps, including bibliography for discussions of the dating assigned. Epigraphical, prosopographical, chronological, and historical problems are included only briefly and primarily by reference to important discussions in the scholarly literature.

14. Concordances are designed to link the stamps from the Via Gabina villas with the (now numerous) published collections of Roman brick stamps, both major and minor.

Editorial Abbreviations and Conventions

a. = anno
aet. = aetas, (pl.) aetates
A. C. = after Christ
A. D. = anno domini (for specific dates only)
B. C. = before Christ
c. = century
ca. = circa
cf. = confer (compare)
compl. = completum
corr. = correctum
d. = dexter, dextra (right)
ds. = dextrorsum
e.g. = exempli gratia (for example)
esp. = especially
fr. = fragmentum
i.e. = id est (that is; in other words)
infra = vide infra (see below)
lin. = lineae auxiliares
litt. = litterae
N. = novum
no. = number
orb. = orbiculus
p., pp. = page, pages
saec. = saeculum, (pl.) saecula
sc. = scilicet (you should understand)
sig. = slaillum (sign, mark)
s. = sinister, sinistra (left)
ss. = sinistrorsum
supra = vide supra (see above)
teg. = tegula (tiles)
var. = variatio (variant)

AAR = Anderson, James C., Roman Brick Stamps in the American Academy in Rome including the Thomas Ashby Collection. (forthcoming in Supplementary Monographs of the British School at Rome, 1990-91).

AIRF = Acta Instituti Romani Finlandiae

Ashby, PBSR 1 = Ashby, Thomas, "The Classical Topography of the Roman Campagna I: Via Collatina, Via Praenestina, Via Labicana," PBSR 1 (1902) pp. 125-285.

Blake I = Blake, Marion E., Ancient Roman Construction in Italy from the Prehistoric Period to Augustus. Washington, 1947.

Blake II = Blake, Marion E., Roman Construction In Italy from Tiberius through the Flavians. Washington, 1959.

Blake III = Blake, Marion E. and Bishop, D. T., Roman Construction in Italy from Nerva through the Antonines Philadelphia, 1973

Bloch, BL = Bloch, Herbert, I bolli laterizi e 1a storla edilizia romana Repr., with indices, from BullComm 64 (1936) 141-225; 65 (1937) 83-187; 66 (1938) 61-221. Rome, 1947; Repr. Rome, 1968.

Bloch, S; or Bloch, Suppl. = Bloch, Herbert, 'The Roman Brick Stamps not published in Volume XV. 1 of the Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum," HSCP 56-57 (1947) pp. 1-128.

Bloch, Indices = Bloch, Herbert, 'Indices to the Roman Brick Stamps Published in Volume XV. 1 of the Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum," HSCP 58-59 (1948) pp. 1-104. .

Bloch, Ostia I = Bloch, Herbert, "I bolli laterizi e la storla edilizia di Ostia," Appendix in Scavi di Ostia I: Topografia generale, ed. G. Calza, G. Becatti, I. Gismondi, G. De Angelis D'Ossat, H. Bloch. Rome, 1 953, pp. 215-227.

Bloch, SBRev = Bloch, Herbert, "Sette Bassi Revisited," HSCP 63 (1958) pp. 401-414.

Bodel, KM = Bodel, Jolin P., Roman Brick Stamps in the Kelsey Museum. (The University of Michigan, Kelsey Museum of Archaeology Studies, 6). Ann Arbor, MI, 1983. = KM

BullComm = Bullettino della Commissione Archeologica Comunale di Roma

Camilli, MNR i = Camilli, L., "Contributo allo studio dei bolli laterizi del Museo Nazionale Romano,"RendAccLinc 28 (1973) pp. 298-312, 326-348.

Camilli, MNR i = Camilli, L., "Nuovo contributo allo studio del bolli laterizi del Museo Nazionale Romano," RendAccLinc 34 (1979) pp. 189-191, 194-196, 204-212.

Champlin, Edward, "Figlinae Marcianae," Athenaeumn.s. 71 (1983) pp. 257-264. CIL = Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum CIL XV, I = Dressel, Heinrich, Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum, vol. XV, 1, Berlin, 1891.

Coste, AgRom = Coste, J., "Ricerca del bolli laterizi in una zona dell'Agro romano, Torre Angela,"RendPontAcc 43 (1970 - 1971) pp. 71-108.

Cozzo, Industria = Cozzo, G., Una Industria nella Roma Imperiale. La corporazione del figull ed i bolli doliari (= MemAccLinc, ser. 6, vol. 5,4). Rome, 1936.

FI = Forma Italiae

HSCP = Harvard Studies in Classical Philology

LSO = Lateres Signati Ostienses 1. Testo by M. Steinby in collaboration with T. Helen. Rome, 1978. 2. Tavole by M. Steinby. Rome, 1977. [Separate ed. Ala VII, 1-2.]

Lugli, Giuseppe, La tecnica edilizia romana con particolare ricluardo a Roma e Lazio, I-II Rome, 1957. MemAccLinc = Atti della Accademia Nazionale del Lincei. Memorie. MemPontAcc = Atti della Pontlflcla Accademla Romana di Archeologla. Memorie.

MNR = Museo Nazionale Romano

NSc = Notizie degli Scavi di Antichita

PBSR = Papers of the British School at Rome.

PIR² = Prosopographia Imperil Romani Saec, I. II, III. ed. E. Groag, A. Stein, L. Petersen. Berlin-Leipzig, 1933

QuadAEI = Quaderni del Centro di Studio per l'archeologia etrusco-italica. Quilici, Collatia = Gullici, Lorenzo, Collatia (FI, Reg. I, vol. 10). Rome, 1974.

RE = Paulys Realencyclopadie der classicschen Altertumswissenschaft, ed. G. Wissowa, W. Kroll, K. Mittelhaus, K. Ziegier. Stuttgart, 1894-1978.

RendAccLinc = Atti della Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei. Rendiconti.

RendPontAcc = Atti della Pontiflcia Accademia Romana di Archeologia. Rendiconti.

Righini, Bagno = Righini, V., I bolli laterizi romani. La collezione di Bagno. Bologna, 1975.

SPASR 1 = Pfeiffer, G. J., Van Buren, A. W., and Arms trong, H. H., "Stamps on Bricks and Tiles from the Aurelian Wall at Rome," Supplementary Papers of the American School of Classical Studies at Rome vol. 1 (1905) pp. 1-86.

Steinby, Vatican = Steinby, E. M., "I bolli laterizi," in V. Vaananen, "Le iscrizione della necropoll dell'auto parco vaticano, AIRF 6 (1973) pp. 171-204.

Steinby, Lateran = Steinby, E. M., "I bolli laterlzi," Appendix in G. Pelliccioni, "Le nuove scoperte sulle origini del Battistero Lateranense," MempontAcc 12.1 (1973) pp. 115-25.

Steinby, SMM = Steinby, E. M., "Le tegole antiche di Santa Maria Maggiore," RendPontAcc 46 (1973-74) pp. 101-33.

Steinby, ForoPal = Steinby, E. M., "I boill laterizi degli Antiquarl del Foro e del Palatino, u MemAccLinc 17 (1974) pp. 59-109.

Steinby, CronFiql = Steinby, E. M., La cronologia delle figlinae doliari urbane dalla fine dell'eta repubblicana fino all'inizio del III secolo. Rome, 1976. Updated to 1977 in BullComm 84 (1974-75) pp. 7-132.

Steinby, E. M., "La produzione laterizia" in Pompei 79, ed. F. Zevi, Naples 1979, pp. 26571.

Steinby, App = Steinby, E. M., "Appendice a CIL XV, 1" BullComm 86(1978-79) pp. 55-88.

Steinby, Largo = Steinby, E. M., "I boill laterizi dell'Area sacra di Largo Argentina," in F. Coareill, 1. Kajanto, U. Nyberg, M. Steinby, L'Area sacra di Largo Argentina Rome 1981, pp. 297-332.

Steinby, IC = Steinby, E. M., Indici Complementari ai Bolli Doliari Urbani. (AIRF, XI). Rome, 1987.

Taglietti, MNR i = Taglietti, F. "Contributo allo studio del bolli laterizi del Museo Nazionale Romano,"RendAccLinc 28 (1973) pp. 313-23, 326-48.

Taglietti, MNR i= Taglietti, F., "Nuovo contributo allo studio del bolli laterizi del Museo Nazionale Romano," RendAccLinc 34 (1979) pp. 191-94, 196-204.

Van Essen, Sta, Prisca = Van Essen, C. C., "Inventory of Brick Stamps" in Vermaseren, M. J. and Van Essen, C. C., The Excavations in the Mithraeum of the Church of Santa Prisca in Rome. Leiden, 1965, pp. 243-337.

Ward-Perkins, J. B., and Kahane, A., "The Via Gabina," PBSR 40 (1972) 91-126.

List of Plates (Photographs)

Site G-10 Plates:

1. G 10 / no. 5. II = CIL XV. 373
2. G 10 / no. 10. I = CIL XV. 515b
3. G 10 / no. 11. I = CIL XV. 535b CORR.
4. G 10 / no. 15. I = CIL XV. 578a
5. G 10 / no. 22 = CIL XV. 746
6. G 10 / no. 33. I = CIL XV. 1127 = S. 382
7. G 10 / no. 35. I = CIL XV. 1171
8. G 10 / no. 42. III = CIL XV. S ,156 CORR. & COMPL.
9. G 10 / no. 44. XIV = CIL XV. 1383
10. G 10 / no. 47 = CIL XV. 1449a
11.G 10 / no. 49. I = CIL XV. 2260
12. G 10 / no. 50. I = NOVUM CIL SV. 2277/ 2278a.1 CORR. & COMPL.
13. G 10 / sect. IV, no. 1 = graffito

Site G-11 Plates:

1. G 11 / no. 5. I = CIL XV. 818
2. G 11 / no. 6. III = CIL XV. 864
3. G 11 / no. 8. I = CIL XV. 1106b
4. G 11 / no. 9. II = CIL XV. 1237
5. G 11 / no. 11 = CIL XV. 1323c
6. G 11 / no. 12 = CIL XV. S 351
7. G 11 / sect. II, no. 1 = NOVUM

VIA GABINA, SITE 10: VILLA

EDITED EXAMPLES

1. 84-175 Sig. 5.3+, 2.5; litt. 1.7 - 1.9; lin -; fr. 7.4+, 8.2+, 2.8

Provenance: CC 16 (2)
CIL XIV. 5308.18 = CIL I. 2310

Daps[ilis].

A rare Republican stamp, it was mistranscribed by Lommatzsch (CIL I, 2310), and only a single example is cited in CIL XIV. 5308.18 (from Ostia). A photograph was published by Vaglieri (NSc 1911, p. 454, fig. 4), and a much clearer complete example appears as LSO 12 with photograph. Before the discovery of G-10/1, the stamp was known solely from Ostia.

2. 87-100 Sig. 10.0; orb. -; litt. 1.0; lin. 1,2; fr. 14.8+, 30.1+. 3.0

Provenance: W 19 V clean-up

CIL XV. 124

L. Mun(ati) Cresc(entis) [op(us) d(oliare) d(e) f(iglinis) D(omitiae) L(ucillae)]

The full description of the decorative signum of this stamp was completed by LSO 166; the punctuation was debated by Camilli (MNR i: 302-303, no. 10) but restored to Dressel's original reading by LSO 166. A date shortly after a. 123 was established for this stamp by Steinby on the basis of discoveries of it in in situ and together with stamps of the years 124-126 in a wall of the substructures of the Vigna Barberini (CronFigl p. 34 & no. 9); the stamp is a LSO known from the (Hadrianic?) Casa degli Aurighi at Ostia (Bloch, Ostia I, p. 224.

3. 82-406 Sig. 5.0+, 3.8; litt. 1.0-1.4,1.1-1.3; lin.-; fr. 18.1+, 12.3+, 3.9+

Provenance: Z14 A (2)

CIL IV. 306a

	[CSATRINI CO]MMV NIS	intra a. 37 et 68
	[EXFIGLI NIS MARC]IANIS

C. Satrini Communis ex figlinis Marcianis

Since an example of 306a was found in Caligula's ships from Nemi -- together with 307 and 308, as well as several stamps of C. Calpetanus Auctus, the first of the Calpetani to work in the flglinae Marclanae -- and continues to appear in Julio-Claudian archaeological contexts, disappearing only with the beginning of the reign of Vespasian (cf., Bloch, BL, 219 - 221; Blake II, p. 23, note 50), it can be dated with some certainty to the years from A.D. 37 - 68 (in the reigns of Caligula, Claudius and Nero), and establishes the early arrival of the Satrini in the figlinae Marcianae (Steinby, CronFigl p. 63 & note 1).

4. 84-254 Sig. 9.2, orb. 3.6; litt. 0.7 - 1.1, 0.7 - 1.1, 0.8 -0.9; lin. 0, 2, 2; fr. 33.5+, 38.2+, 4.0

Provenance: X18 V (5)

CIL XV. 373

L. Brutti[di(us) Augus]talis fecit op(us) do(liare) ex fig(linis) [Oc(eanis m(inoribus] Cae(saris) n(ostri) Paet(ino) cos.

The date is established by the appearance of the name Paet(ino), consul of A.D. 123.

5.

I. 81-18 Sig. 10.0, orb.13.1; litt. 1.1 -1.3, 0.9 - 1.0; lin. 1, 1, 1, 1; fr. 18.9+,12.5+, 7.9 on flange

Provenance: BB 12 X (4)

II. 86-65 Sig. 10.5, orb 3.8; litt. 1.1 - 1.2, 0.9 - 1.0, 0.8 -0.9; lin. 1, 1, 1, 1; fr. 40.2+ 32.1+, 2.5

Pl. 1

Provenance: W 20 surface

III. 88-59 Sig. 10.5, orb. 3.8; litt. 0.9 - 1.0, 0.8 - 0.9, ?; lin. 1, 1, 1, 1: fr.11.2+, 17.5+, 3.5

Provenance: AA 13 E(2)

CIL XV. 375

	LBRVTTIDIAVG[VSTAL]ISFEC
	OPVS DOLEXFICCAESN
	PROR ET AMBI	saec. 11 fere medii
	Cos

L. Bruttidi(us) Aug[usta]lis fec(it) opus doi(lare) ex fic(linis) Caes(ari) n(ostri) Prop(inquo) et Ambi(bulo) cos.

The (suffect) consulate of Prop(inquus) and Ambi(bulus), initially assigned by Bloch to A.D. 126 (Bloch, Indices, 84-85), cannot have occurred in that year since their stamps were subsequently discovered (also by Bloch) at the villa of Sette Bassi in association with clearly dated stamps from the reign of Antoninus Pius (Bloch, SBRev, pp. 404-405). Hence despite the consular names, an exact year of manufacture cannot be assigned (cf., LSO 355).

6.

I. 80-111 Sig. 10.3, orb. 3.3; litt . 1.0 - 1.1, 1.0 - 1.1; lin. 1, 2, 1, 59.5+, 3.8.

Provenance: X 18 S (7)

II. 80 -33 Sig. ? orb. ?; litt. 1. 1, ?; lin. ?, 2, ?; fr. 8.5+, 17.4+, 3.8.

Provenance: X18 B (4)
CIL XV. 424a

	[IM] P M [AV] R ANT[ONIN AVG] OPVS DOLI
	AR [E] [FIG][L PVBLIL] AN	aet. Caracallae
	[aper ds. currens]

[Im]p(eratoris) M. [Au]r(eli) Ant[onin(i) Aug(usti)] opus doliar(e) [e]x [fig]u[l(inis) Publili]an(is).

The presence of the (official) name of the emperor Caracalla (M Aurelius Antoninus) on this and several other stamps of the figlinae Publilianae dates them securely to a. 211-217 (Steinby, CronFigl p. 78).

7. 85-26 Sig. 10.0, orb. 4.0; litt. 1.1, 1.1, 0.5 - 0.8; lin. 1, 2, 2; fr. 17.0+, 13.2+, 3.1.

Provenance: BB18 AC(2)
CIL XV. 455

	EXPRAE ANN[VERI OFPOMPVITA]
	SERVIANO ET VARO	a. 134
	Cos

cf., Steinby, CronFigl, P. 80.

8. 82-98 Sig. 8.8; litt- 1.5,?, ?, ?; lin, 1, ?; fr. 11.6+, 7.1+, 2.4

Provenance: DD 22 (1)
CIL XV. 475

De figul[inis Saen]ia[nis Caeli Iuliani c(larissimi) v(iri)]

Archaeological discovery of the stamp in situ permits it to be dated to the last years of the reign of Antoninus Pius or the first years of Marcus Aurelius', i.e. ca. A.D. 155165 (Bloch, BL p. 85 note 79; Steinby, CronFigl p. 82.

9. 80-11 Sig. ?, orb. ?, litt. 1.0, 1.0; lin. 1 ?; fr. 2.9+, 5.0+, 1.0

Provenance: X 18 (1)
CIL XV. 506a or 506 A VAR.

vel	[ANNVERETEGGAMBCOS]	a. 126
	E[XPR VLP VLP]IAN
	SAL

[Ann(io) Ver(o) III et Egg(io) Amb(ibulo) cos.] e[x pr(aedis) Ulp(i) Ulp]ian(l) Sal(arese sc. opus)

Due to its poor state of prservation, it is impossible to be certain whether this example took the form of an orbicular stamp like G11/3 ( in which case it constitutes another example of 506a VAR.) or the circular form known to Dressel (506a). The stamp is dated by the consular names; the dominus Ul(plus) Ulplan(us) seems to have been the most consistent user of consular names on brick stamps among the domini of the opus Salarese (Steinby, CronFigl p. 85).

10.

I. 83-78 Sig. 9.0, orb. ?; litt. 0.9 - 1.0; lin. 1, 2, 2, 14.9+, 24.8+, 3.0

Pl. 2

Provenance: CC 20 (1)

II. 83-98 Sig. ?; orb. ?; litt. 1.0, 1.0; fin. 1, 2, 2; fr. 5.0+, 3.6+, 2.5

Provenance: U 20 (1)
CIL XV. 515b

	SERVIANOCOSS[AL]	a. 134
	EXPRL CIVVE

This stamp is a very rare orbicular version of 515a (which is quite common); the texts of the two stamps are identical. The name of the dominus may probably be correctly restored as L. Cae lus Iuventianus = PIR² C 52, rather than as L. Cassius Iuvenalis = PIR² C 496 (first proposed by Steinby, CronFigl p. 85 note 5), due to the likely parental affiliation between the former and Caecilia Quinta known from CIL XV. 575-576 (Setala, Domini, P. 82; cf., LSO = 457).

11.

I. 80-38 Sig. 9.9+, 2.6; litt. 1.4-1.5 ('e' = 0.5); lin. 2, 2; fr. 17.9+, 15.4+, 2.9

Pl. 3

II. 80-73 Sig. 5.6+, 2.1+; litt. 1.8-1.9; fin. ?, 2; fr. 11.5+, 8.5+ 2.7

Provenance: BB 9 F (2)

III. 83-162 Sig. 10.3+, 2.6; litt. 1.4-1.5; lin. 2, 2; fr. 18.6+, 13.2+, 2.8

Provenance: DD 21 E H (3)

IV. 84-16 Sig. 4.8+, 2.5; litt. 1.1-1.2; lin. 2, 2; fr. 16-0+, 22.1+, 3.3

Provenance: DD 18 (2)

V. 64-182 Sig. 16.3, 2.6; litt. 1.1-1.2; lin 2, 2; fr. 29.2+, 28.1+, 6.2 (flange)

Provenance: DD 20 0 (4) 007

VI. 85-4 Sig. 8.6+, 2.7; litt. 1.3-1.4; lin. 2, 2; fr. 21.1+, 33.0+, 6.0 (flange)

Provenance: general clean-up
CIL XV. 535b CORR.

L#Laberi Secundi

All six examples display the double frame described by Dressel but tentatively rejected by Steinby (LSO 467); either LSO 467 represents a variant of 535b or, more likely, a misreading in which the inner left-hand line of the frame has been mistaken for a ramus palmae (compare our fig. with the photograph of LSO 467 and the transcription error will be apparent). Stamp G-10/11.I also establishes the presence of an interpunct between the two initial “L”s of the stamp. Due to the lack of previously attested finds of the stamp in situ, Dressel's generic assignment of it to the first century A.C. has been able to be refined only that, due to its shape and style of lettering, it should date from the first half of that century (Steinby, CronFigl, P. 87). Its occurrence in context in site G-10 may well render its dating more precise.

12. 81-16 Sig. 10.3; litt. 1.0-1.2, 1.1-1.2, 0.6; lin. -; fr. 21.2+, 17.9+, 2.8

Provenance: BB 12 U (3)
CIL XV. 548c

	[EX F]IC DOMITI[AE DO]MITIA[NI SVLP]
	PAETI[O] ET AP[RON]A	a. 123
	CO[S]

Ex fic(linis) Domiti[ae Do]mitia[ni Sulp(icianum sc. opus)] Paetin[o] et Ap[ron]ia(no) co[s]

cf., Steinby, CronFigl, pp. 89 & 90.

13. 79-32 Sig. 9.0; orb. 3.6; litt. 0.7.- 0.9; lin. -; fr. 9.9+, 10.3+, 2.6.

Provenance: P12 N (1)
CIL XV. 577a

	TI CLAVDI BLAS[I ETPALSENNAE]
	VALNTI [SVLP]	aet. Tralanae vel ae Hadrianae ineuntis
	[nux pinea]

Ti, Claudi Blast[i et Palsennae] Valentis [Sulp(iclanum sc. opus)]

This Ti. Claudius Blastus is probably the son of the Ti. Claudius Blastus of PIR² C. 817 (Bloch, Indices, p. 24); all his brick stamps appear in Trajanic contexts or in contexts associated with the first few years of Hadrian's reign, a dating confirmed by the form(s) of the stamps themselves (Steinby, CronFigl, p. 90 & no. 5); cf., G10/14, 15 & 16 (infra). An example of 577a was also discovered in the vicinity of Torre Angela in Fr. Coste'a surface survey (AgRom, p. 89: TA 127-M).

14.

I. 79-49 Sig. 8.4+, 2.2+; litt. ?; lin -; fr. 20.2+, 11.9+, 3.5

Provenance: P12 J

II. 79-29 Sig. 8.3+, 3.2; litt. 3.2; lin. -; fr. 17.9+, 12.8+, 3.5

Provenance: P12 N (5)

III. 80-12 Sig. 7.0+, 3.1; litt. 3.1; lin. -; fr. 10.0+, 6.5+, 3.0

Provenance: X 18 (1)

IV. 82-48 Sig. 8.0+, 2.9; litt. 2.9; lin. -; fr. 17.0+, 19.0+, 3.0

Provenance: DD 18 K (2)
NOVUM 577b/576a

Ti. Claud(i) Blas(ti) Sul(picianum sc. opus)

G10/14 nos. I - IV appear to represent examples of a NOVUM in the series of impressed, single line stamps of Ti. Claudius Blastus so far known from the opus Sulpicianum. The stamp contains five letters-- CLAVD-- of the nomen - and four -- BLAS -- of the cognomen but ends with the VL ligature known from 578b. Since it contains more letters of the name than 578a or b, but exhibits the VL ligature, I have inserted it in the series between 577b and 578a. On the dating, see commentary at G10/13.

Examples found by Coste (AgRom p. 90: TG 21-T, 22-T, 23-T; TBM 33-T, 34-T) near both Torre Gala & (closer to the Via Gabina-villa) at Torre Bella Monaca may be unrecognized examples of this NOVUM, or examples of 578a or 578b insufficiently described for certain identification.

15.

I. 81-50 Sig. 13.0, 3.1; litt. 3.1; lin. -; fr. 20-9+, 21.0+, 3.3

Pl. 4

II. 82-50 Sig. 3.5+, 2.9; litt. 2.9; lin. -; fr. 16.5+, 15.9+, 3.5

Provenance: DD 18 K (2)

III. 83-160 Sig. 5.3+, 2.8; litt. 2.8; 1in. -; fr. 13.8+, 23.7+, 2.9

Provenance: EE 22 C (23)

IV. 84-184 Sig. 13.0, 3.1; litt.e 3.0-3.1; lin. -; fr. 21.0+, 22.0+, 4.0

Provenance: DD 20 0 4 007

V. 84-9 Sig. 4.3+, 3.1; litt. 3.0-3.1, lin. -; fr. 9.1+, 14.2+, 3.3

Provenance: clean-up

VI. 87-6 Sig. 6.4+, 3.0; litt. 3.0; lin- -; fr. 9.0+, 9.2+, 3.0

Provenance: AA 19/20 S (1)

VII. 88-30 & 31 Sig. 8.1+, 3.0; litt. 3.0; lin. -; fr. 13.2+, 23.2+, 3.3

Provenance: S 14 F (3)

CIL XV. 578a

Ti Cla(udi) Bla(sti) Sul(picianum sc. opus)

cf., commentary at G10/13 for the dating. A copy of 578a was reported as a surface find at site G10 by Ward-Perkins and Kahane ("The Via Gabina," PBSR 40 (1972) p. 121, Appendix II). Like many first and second century brick stamps, 578a also appears in third century masonry such as the Aurellanic Walls (e.g. SPASR 1, 106) but only when earlier bricks have been re-used; on the re-use of stamped bricks during the third century, see G. Lugli, La tecnica edlilzia romana, vol. I (Rome 1957) p. 615, and Coste, AgRom, p. 87 & note 81.

16.

I. 81-15 Sig. 2.4+, 3.0; lin. -; fr. 12.3+, 20.0+, 3.5

Provenance: fill ‘78

II. 81-30 Sig. 5.8+, 3.0; litt. 3.0; lin. -; fr. 10.6+, 10.4+, 3.0

Provenance: S 14 J (3)

III. 81-51 Sig. 5.4+, 3.0; litt. 3.0; lin. -; fr. 12.4+, 15.7+, 3.5

Provenance: EE 18 W B (2)
CIL XV. 578b

Ti Cl(audi) Bl(asti) Sul(piclanum sc. opus)

cf. commentary at G10/13 (supra).

17. 82-44 Sig. 10.0+, orb. ?; litt. 1.0, 0.7- 0.8; lin. ?: fr. 11.1+, 14.0+, 2.7

Provenance: U 21 S (1)
CIL XV. 635a

Ex figlin[is Tonnelanis ab] L. Licin[io Felic]<e>.

The accusative Felicem is presumably a die-cutter's error for the intended ablative Felice (required by the preposition’s ab).

Examples of the series 635a-c first appear in Domitianic masonry and continue to appear through ca. A.D. 120 or shortly thereafter (Steinby, CronFigl 98-99); 635a has been found in the Pantheon (Bloch, BL, 110) and the earlier sections of Hadrian's villa at Tivoli QL, 161); in Domitianic, Trajanic.and Hadrianic contexts at Ostia (Bloch, Ostia I, pp. 215, 216, 222 & 223; and in the vaulting of the portico of the Domitianic Stadium Palatinum (NSc 1893, p. 118). Two examples of 635a were collected as surface finds near Torre Angela by Fr. Coste (AgRom, p. 90: TA 355, 382).

18. 86-43 Sig. 8.8; orb. 5.6; litt. 0.8, 1.1; lin. 1, 2, /: fr. 29.7+, 25.2+, 2.9

Provenance: X 21 L (2)
CIL XV. 635c

Ex figlin(is) Tonnelan(is) ab Li Licin(io Feli(ce)

For the range of dating, see commentary at G10/17. Examples of 635b and 635c have been found in archeological contexts from the early phases of the Villa Adriana at Tivoli (Bloch, BL, 161), from the so-called “Temple of Augustus" (actually a Domitianic entry gate to the Palatine) on the SE side of the Forum Romanum (BL, 30), and in similar dated contexts (cf., Blake II, P. 125 note 5, p.139 note 43, p. 141 note 56).

19. 83-262 Sig. 11.0, 3.3; litt. 1.1-1.3, 1.0-1.2; lin. -; fr. 49.0+, 58.2+, 3.5

Provenance: CC 22 L (8)
CIL XV. 637

	MPVBLICI	aet. Domitianae vel Tralanae ineuntis
	SED TEG TON

M. Publici Sed(ati) teg(ula) Ton(neiana).

The stamps of M. Publicius Sedatus are primarily Domitianic, and disappear entirely by A. D.110. Archaeological contexts for 637 include the Markets of Trajan (Bloch, BL 56); the Domitianic entryway to the Palatine from the Forum (BL, 56 & 345); the so-called “Headquarters of the Palace Guard" nearby on the slope of the Palatine, also Domitianic (Blake II, p. 117 & note 20); the Palatine Stadium (Blake II, p. 122 & note 85); the Domitianic additions to the Baths of Neptune at Ostia (Blake II, P. 132, note 4); and the Domitianic villa at Circeo on Lago di Paola (now called Lago di Sabaudia: Blake II, pp. 138-39 & note 43).

20.

I. 82-306 Sig. +9.0; 6.4; litt. 1.3-1.5, ?; lin. -; fr. 12.3+, 17.9+, 2.3

Provenance: 0 14 B (2)

II. 88-19 Sig. +1.9; 6.4; litt. 1.,3-1.5, ?; lin. -; fr. 9.0+, 11.1+, 3.2

Provenance: W 16 B (3)
CIL XV. 661a

	VICCIANADF[IGLTONN]
	[EIAPOLINARIS]	aet. Neronlanae(sic)
	[caput vituli lacens]

Vicclana (sc. tegula) d(e) f[igl(inis) Tonnel(anis) Apolinaris vel Tonnel Apolinaris]

The dating to the reign of Nero is based on the semi-circular shape of the stamp rather than on examples discovered in situ, but appears nonetheless to be relatively secure due to the small number of semi-circular brick stamps attested and their inscriptional and prosopographical connections with one another (Steinby, CronFigl, 96, 97 & note 1). Examples of 661a are relatively uncommon, although it is known at Ostia (LSO 568).

21.

I. 82-43 Sig. 9.1, orb. 4.0; litt. 0.9-1.0, 0.9-1.0; lin. 1, 1, 1; fr. 29.1+, 21.1+, 3.5

Provenance: U 21 S A (3)

II. 82-45 Sig. ?; orb. ?; litt. 0.9-1.0, ?; lin. 1, 1, ?; fr. 11.0+, 13.1+, 3.0

Provenance: U 21 S (1)

III. 82-46 Sign. 9.1, orb. 4.0; litt. 0.9-1.0, 0.9, 1.0; lin. 1, 1, 1; fr. 17.1+, 16.2+, 3.4

Provenance: U 21 S B(3)
CIL XV. 710b

De fig(linis) Caes(aris) n(ostri (a T.) Flavlo Corintho.

An example of 710b was reported by Dressel from the sidewalls of the great exedra of the Baths of Trajan, and accepted by Bloch (BL, 38) as legitimately TrajanIc (cf., BL, p. 337). Otherwise it has not previously appeared in situ in a dateable context although the shape of the stamp and the Caes(ari) n(ostri) formula would perhaps sugget a dating in the second rather than the first half of the second century A.C. (cf., commentary on G10/22, infra). Steinby does not assign a date to the stamp at all; clearly more finds in situ are essential.

22. 80-93 Sig. 9.5; orb. 3.5; litt. 0.8-0.9; lin. 1, 2, 2; fr. 32.2+ 22.5+, 3.0 4

Pl. 5

CIL XV. 746

	[OPVSFIGLIN] DAREXPRCAEOF	ca. a. 180
	[CCALPET]NIPANNYCI
	[anser ds.]

(Opus figlin(um)] doliar(e) ex pr(aedis) Cae(saris) n(ostri) of(ficina) C. Calpetani Pannyci

As with CIL XV. 710b (cf., G10121 supra), 746 is difficult to date. Dressel assigned it to the late second century A.C. on the basis of shape and of the formula 'Cae(sari) n(ostri)", but neither criterion is reliable without the evidence of finds in datable archaeological contexts, and this stamp has never before been discovered anywhere in situ; both Bloch and Steinby refuse to date it.

23. 79-7 Sig. 5.9+, 3.4; litt. 0.9-1.0, 0.9; lin. -; fr. 13.9+, 14.7+, 2.6

Provenance: P 12 J (2)
CIL XV. 819a

[L. An]toni [Marion]is

819a is a rare stamp; the only other published example is one in the Antiquarlo del Foro Romano (Steinby, ForoPal, P. 69). It can be tentatively dated, due the small ize of the letters, with the various other ANTONIUS stamps (CIL XV. 815-821, S., 223-225) to the first century A.C. and perhaps to the first half of that century (Steinby, CronFigl, 69), but discoveries in situ have until now been unknown.

24. 85-2 Sig. ?; orb. 4.3; litt. 1.5; lin. -; fr. 11.0+, 7.1+, 3.0

Provenance: AA 22 (1)
CIL XV. 2, 267 VAR. = (XV. 987 VAR.)

Duo(rum) Dom(itiorum)

G 10-24 constitutes a variant of S., 267 (itself a variant of CIL XV. 987) due to the presence of the ramus paimae at the left; furthermore, like XV. 987 but unlike S.267, G10/24 is not in mirror-writing. All stamps of the two Domiti1 (Cn. Cn. Domitil Lucanus et Tullus) occur during the era of the Flavians era (A.D. 70-96) but S.267 cannot be more precisely dated since it does not provide the name of a know servus, nor has it appeared in situ (Steinby, CronFigl, p. 49).

25. 82-? Sig. 10.8, orb. 3.8; litt. 1.0-1.1, 0.9, 1.0; lin. 1, 2, 2; fr. 45.5+ 31.1+, 3.0

Provenance: W 20 N (5)
CIL XV. 1030a

	EX F[G] OM LVC O D [IO] DOM L V S E
	SE[R]IANO ET VARO C[OS]	a. 134
	crux

Ex fi(g)(linis) Dom(itiae)Luc(illae) o(pus) d(oliare) D[io]n(ysi) Dom(itiae) Lu(cillae) se(rvi) Se[r]viano III et Varo c[os].

cf., LSO 796; Cozzo, Industria, tav. XXII, fig. 66.

26. 87-43 Sig. + 10.0; orb. ?; litt. 1.0, 0.9; lin. 1, 2, ?; fr. 8.5+, 7.7+, 3.5

Provenance: BB 21 E (1)
XV. S, 275 = (XV. 1035/6)

	[Palma s. DP]RDPFLVCIL[E Palma d.]
	[H]ELS[SER]	a. 114-117

[D(e) p]r(aedis) D(omitiae) P. F. Lucilla[e H]elenus[ser(vus)].

LSO 799 provided the initial palmette of line 1 as a CORR. to S 275.” The stamp has been found in situ at Ostia together with stamps of the last three years of Trajan's reign, hence the dating assigned (Bloch, BL, P. 346 and Ostia I, p. 217; cf., Steinby, CronFigl P. 53 & note 2). This example, though heavily abraded, is identifiable by the abbreviated forms D P F Lucilla[e].

27.

I. 84-176 Sig. +9.2; or b. 3.3; litt. 0.9, 0.8; lin. ?, 2, 2; fr. 13.1+, 15.3+, 4.0

Provenance: CC 16 (2)

II. 86-44 Sig. +9.0, orb. ?; litt. 1.0, 1.0; lin. ?, 2, ?; fr. 14.1+, 14.0; 2.3

Provenance: X 21 L (2)

CIL XV. 1053

	OP [D]OLEXPRLVC[ILFE]
	LCARFE PONTET A[TILI]A COS	a. 135
	[corona lemniscata]

Op(us) [D]ol(iare) ex pr(aedis) Lu[cil(lae) Fe]l(ix) Car(icus) fe(cit) Pont(iano) et A[tili]a(no) cos.

Fel(ix) Car(icus) is also known from a stamp of A.D. 123 (S., 292), at which time he was working in the figl. Quintanensia, and from CIL XV. 1211 (cf., Bloch, BL, p. 207), in which he is associated with another officinator Iulius Stephanus -- when both were apparently employed by Domitia Lucilla (Steinby, CronFigl, p. 54).

28. 82-? Sig. +10.0, orb. ?; litt. 1.0-1.1, 0.9-1.0, ?; lin. 1, 2, 1,; fr. 16.9+, 9-0+, 3.7

Provenance: unstratified
CIL XV. 1057

	EXPRDPFL]VCILLAEODOLFEC[MAPR]
	[LAELCAE]SPCOELBAL[BIN]	a. 137
	[Palma d.]
	[COS]	v.3 linea recta
	[Palma s.]

[Ex pr(aedis) Nomitlae) P. f. L]ucillae o(pus) dol(iare) fec(it) [M. A( ) Pr( ) L. Ael(io) Cae]s(are) II P. Coello Bal[bin(o) cos.]

cf., LSO 815. Examples of this stamp appear among stamps from the Aurellanic Walls, where they had clearly been reused from earlier buildings (cf., commentary at G10/15 supra).

29. 86-7 Sig. 11.0, orb. 3.7; litt. 1.1, 1.0, 1.0; lin. 1, 2, 2; fr. 11.5+, 11.7+, 3.5

Provenance: Y 21 (1)
CIL XV. 1059

	EX PR D[OMITIAE P F LVCILL OF POM FEL]
	[L AELI[O CAESARE ET BAL BI]	a. 136
	CO[S]	v.3 linea recta

Ex pr(aedis) D[omitlae P. f. Lucill(ae) of(ficina) Pom(pel? vel ponl?) Fel(icis)1 L. Aeli[o Caesare II et Balbi(no)] co[s]

Pom (?) Felix was in the employ of Memmia Macrina in a. 134 (CIL XV. 1301), and must have moved to the larger operation of Domitla Lucilla ca. a. 135 (Steinby, CronFigl, p. 55).

30. 80-125 Sig. 9.6, orb. 3.5; litt.1.0, 1.1; lin. 1, 2, 2; fr. 11.5+, 15.7+, 2.4

Provenance: X 18 L (2)
CIL XV. 1073

	[OPD E]XPR[DOMLV]CEPCL QVIN
	S[E]RV[IAN]O COS	a. 134

[Op(us) d(oliare) e]x pr(aedis) [Dom(itiae) Lu]c(illae) Ep(agathi) Cl(audi) Ouin(quatralis) S[e]rv[ian]o III cos.

The correct punctuation for this stamp was established by Steinby (Vatican B27).

31. 83-197 Sig. 11.0, orb. 6.2; litt. 1.3-1.5; lin. -; fr. 21.2+, 17.1+, 2.1

Provenance: DD 16 A (4)
CIL XV. S. 283 (cf., XV. 1094)

Cn. Domiti Arignoti

Most of the Airgnotus stamps are Domitianic; however XV.1094h (= S 501) is known from Pompeii (and hence must predate A.D. 79), and it has also been found in Vespaslanic contexts with XV.1094g (= S 500) and S. 283 (Bloch, BL, pp. 71, 77; Blake 11, pp. 104 no. 66, 118 no. 36, 127 no. 21).

32. 80-26 Sig. ?; orb. ?; litt. 1.4 - 1.5; lin. ?; fr. 15.0+, 8.5+, 3.0

Provenance: X 18 B (3)
CIL XV. 1118a

[Nep]tis Cn. Do[miti Trophi(mi)]

The stamps of Nepos are remarkably like the variants 1115 a-b, which can be dated Just before or just after a. 123 by finds in situ (for 1118a: Bloch, BL, 111, 113, 161, 323; for 1115a-c: Bloch, BL 323 and Ostia I, p. 220; NSc 1893, p. 118; NSc 1909, p. 201). The close correspondence in shape and decoration to 1115a-c was established by Steinby (CronFigl, p. 57). Another fragmentary copy of 1118a was collected by Thomas Ashby (AAR 170).

33.

I. 89-16 Sig. 6.3, orb. 4.4; litt. 0.7-1.2; lin. 1, 1; fr. 11.5+, 18.9+, 2.6

Pl. 6

II. 82-159 Sig. +6.5, orb. ?; litt. 0.9-1.0; lin. 1, 1; fr. 5.4+, 11.0+, 1.8

Provenance: W 19 (2)

III. 82-149 Sig.?, orb?; litt. ?; lin. 1, 1; fr. 11.8+, 4.9+, 2.5

Provenance: unstratified
CIL XV. 1127 = S. 382

Dori Servil(lae) Secun(dillae).

cf., AAR 173 (an example collected by Thomas Ashby at Bovillae); LSO 891. The first century A.C. date was suggested by Dressel; the stamp has not previously been discovered in a dateable context, although surface finds of It from the Via Gabina district are reported by Coste (AgRom p. 91: TA 31a, 31b-H, 167-H), specifically from the area around Torre Angela.

34. 85-90 Sig. 4.9+, 3.5; litt. 2.7-2.8; lin. -; fr. 11.0+, 10.7+, 2.1

Provenance: X 21 U (2)
CIL XV. L 298 (cf., XV. 1160/1161)

P-Foli

An example of this stamp was published in BullComm 39 (1901), p. 95, (cf., S 298) where it is unfortunately not provided with a dateable context. No other examples have been published.

35.

I. 80-94 Sig. 6.1+, 3.8; litt. 3.5; lin. -; fr. 10.5+, 15.6+ 2.3

Pl. 7

II. 80-67 Sig. 5.3+, 3.8; litt. 3.5; lin. -; fr. 17.3+, 17.7+, 2.4

Provenance: X 18 A (7)

III. 82-250 Sig. 4.0+, 4.5; litt. 3,5; lin. -; fr. 6.2+, 10.9+, 2.5

Provenance: DD 22 S (2)

IV. 84-15 Sig. 4.5+, 3.7+, litt?; lin. -; fr. 9.4+, 14.6+, 2.7

Provenance: DD 18 (2)
CIL XV. 1171

G. Ras(?) vel Gras(ini vel -sl vei -sidi)

cf., LSO 911 & comment where Steinby argues that the stamp probably contains the abbreviation of a single name (Gras ... ) rather than the G. Ras (?) or G. Ra( ) s(ervus) proposed by Dressel and Bloch. The form is typologically similar to CIL XV. 864 and 865, and has been tentatively assigned to the late Republic by Vagileri (Nag 1911, 208; cf., LSO 714 & 715) from finds in context at Ostia.

36.

I. 80-115 + 80-31 Sig. 10.7+, 2.8+; litt. 1.5?; lin. -; fr. 16.9+, 15.0+, 3.5

Provenance: X 18 B (4) (#31) / X 18 W (3) (#115)

II. 80-112 Sig. 10.8+, 3.5; litt. 1.5, 1.5; lin. -; fr. 17.4+, 15.6+, 3.9

Provenance: X 18 B (5)

III. 82-367 Sig. 5.5+, 3.2; litt. 1.5, 1.4; lin. -; fr. 8.7+, 10.0+, 3.5

Provenance: Z 14 B (2)
CIL XV. 1174a

	SERVIANO COS	a. 134
	[H] SERVANDI	litt. cavis

Serviano III cos. [H.] P. Servandi.

Though the stamp is fairly common (see Concordances) and carries a consular date, the praenomen and nomen of H. P. Servandus remain unknown. Examples come from the Via Gabina area (Coste, AgRom, p. 91: TA 206-J), specifically from a surface find near Torre Angela. For a specimen from a reused Roman reservoir called "I] Torraccio", which still exists on the Via Labicana (Quilici, Collatia, 640-41, no. 586, figs. 1390-94) not too far from the Via Gabina, see Thomas Ashby, PBSR 1 (1902) P. 241; cf. AAR 176.

37. 82-307 Sig. 5.6+, 2.3+; litt. 1.5; lin. 1, 1; fr. 17.7+, 18.0+, 3.0

Provenance: O 14 (1)

CIL XV. 1197 VAR.

	IANV[ARI corona, ramus palmae(?)]

Ianuari.

G10/37 represents a new VAR. of CIL XV. 1197 which lacks the initial palm branch reported by Dressel. cf., MNR i, no. 73 (p. 208) for another VAR. in which the ultimate palm branch was omitted (indeterminable for our example). A previously unattested stamp of MARCIA IANVARIA was published by Coste (AgRom , p. 101, "Inedito 8": 3 copies from Torre Gala = 60E. 160, 163) with a photograph (p. 100, fig. 11); that stamp may have some typological relationship to G10/37, but is in no way identical, since G10/37 clearly contained only a single line of text, and its measurements are very similar to the example of 1197 known from Ostia (LSO 918). No exact dating can be proposed for the stamp, since it has not previously been identified in any archaeological context.

38. 87-7 Sig. + 11.0, orb., -; litt. 0.8- 0.9, 0.8-0.9, ?; lin. 1, 2, 2; fr. 6-0+, 5-5+, 2.6

Provenance: Z 21/22 J (1)
CIL XV. 1229b

	[EX PR IVN[I SVLP hERP]
	PONT [ET ATIL]	a. 135
	[COS]

(Ex] pr(aedls) Iun[i Sulp(icianD h(?) erp (?) vel herp(?)) Pont(iano) [et Atli(iano) cos.]

The correct form of the stamp was established by Steinby (ForoPal, p. 93).

39. 86-45 Sing. 10.1+; 2.7; litt. 1.4-1.7; lin. -; fr. 10.0+, 10.1+, 2.8

Provenance: X 21 L (2)
CIL XV. 1239a

	[Q LEPI]DI Q F IDVARI	litt. bonis
		saec. I

[Q Lepi]di Q. f. Iduari.

Examples of 1239a were already known from the Via Gabina area surface surveys (Coste, AgRom, P. 91) from Torre Gala (TG 55) as well as from Torre Angela's vicinity (TA 185-D). The form and lettering of the stamp place it most probably in the first century A.C.

40. 87-39 Sig. 5.8+, 3.7; litt. 1.2-1.3, 1.2-1.3; lin. -; fr. 25.1+, 21.0+, 6.0 (flange)

Provenance: Y 20 W (2)
CIL XV. 1264

	[LM]ANLI	saec. I
	[FVS]CI

[L. M]anli [Fus]ci.

Dressel assigned the stamp to the first century A.C.; lack of previous finds in situ or in context have made more precise dating impossible. A variant of 1264 appears in the Thomas Ashby collection (AAR 187) but its findspot is unknown.

41. 82-305 Sig, 7.6+, 2.3; litt. 1.8-1.9; lin. -; fr. 21.9+, 15.6+, 3.1

Provenance: S 14 X (4)
CIL XV. 1270

NEARC[VS MAR C-S]

saec. I

Nearc(us Mar(ci) C. S(ervus)]

While the stamp is probably first century, and forms part of a group of stamps used by the servi of C. Marclus, there are too few examples known from archaeological contexts to permit more exact dating (cf., Steinby, CronFigl, p. 15 & note 1). For a VAR. of 1270, see Steinby, App, no. 20.

42.

I. 80-55 + 80-113 Sig. 8.5, orb. 5.2; 1itt. 1.1-1.3; lin. 2, 2; fr. 22.9+, 9.7+, 2.3

Provenance: X 18 S (7) (#55) / X 18 B (5) (#113)

II. 80-74 Sig. ?; orb. ?; litt. 1.4-1.6; lin. 2, 2; fr. 9.0+, 12.4+, 2.1

Provenance: X 18 T (5)

III. 82-71 Sig. +8.5, orb. ?; litt. 0.8-1.2; lin. 2, 2; fr. 22.6+, 11.0, 3.0

Pl. 8

IV. 84-174 Sig, +10.0, orb. ?; litt. 1.0-1.4; lin. 2, 2; fr. 12.0+, 12.2+ 1.9

Provenance: BB 23 V (3)

V. 84-117 Sig. ?; orb. ?; litt. 1.0-1.3; lin. ?; fr. 11.2+, 7.3+, 2.0

Provenance: X 18 L (3)
CIL XV. S. 156 CORR. & COMPL. (cf., XV. 1275)

STA TI M FORTVN

ca. a. 70-96

Stati M(arci) Fortun(ati)

Bloch published as S.,156 an example reported in NSc 1908, p. 246 which ended with the letter V (FORTV). However, the presence of the N in the inscription is clear on G 10.I & III (see fig.); hence they would appear to serve both as correcta and completa to S 156. The stamps of St. Marcius Fortunatus (XV. 1275a & b; S. 155-157) are found primarily in Domitianic contexts, although 1275b occurs in the Vespasianic levels of the Colosseum (Blake II, p. 108 note 128, p. 141 note 56). The connection of St. Marcius Fortunatus to the figi. Marclanae remains cloudy (Steinby, CronFigl, p. 64; but cf., E. Champlin, "Figlinae Marclanae", Athenaeum n. 9.71 (1983), 257-264).

43.

I. 78-13 Sig. 7.0+, 3.7+; litt. 2.1; lin. -; fr. 12.6+, 14.0+, 3.4

Provenance: P 16 B (4)

II. 79-2 Sig. 7-1+, 4.1+; litt. 2.072.5; lin. -; fr. 10.0+, 5.3+, 2.4

Provenance: P 12 N A (1)

III. 79-6 Sig. 11.4+, 4.5; litt. 2.0-2.5; lin. -; fr. 14.5+, 7.4+, 3.0

Provenance: P 12 J (2)

IV. 79-1 Sig. 3-1+, 3.4+; litt. ?; lin. -; fr. 5.0+, 6.5+, 3.2

Provenance: P 12 (1)

V. 79-27 Sig. 4.5+, 3-8+; litt. 2.5; lin. -; fr. 9.9+, 9.5+, 2.7

Provenance: P 12 J (2)
CIL XV. 1335

C NAEVI ST

aet. Augustanae

C. Naevi St (?)

All the various stamps of C., L., and P. Naevius (1315-1336, 1489, 1972-1978, 342-345) date from the Augustan period (Steinby, CronFigl, p. 67 & note 8), and are frequently found in Augustan masonry (cf., Blake I, P. 299; NSc 1957, pp. 80, 84, 91, 94).

44.

I. 79-28 Sig. 5.0+, 2.5; litt. 1.9-2.0; lin. -; fr. 12.8+, 10.5+, 2.9

Provenance: discard pile

II. 80-59 Sig. 9.7+, 2.1+; litt, ?; lin. -; fr. 20.5+, 19.6+, 2.3

Provenance: X 18 B (5)

III. 81-42 Sig. 11.0+, 2.5; litt. 1.3-1.8; lin. -; fr. 14.1+, 18.3, 3.0

Provenance: DD 16 S (1)

IV, 81-213 Sig. 6.5+, 2.7; litt. 1.7-1.8; lin. -; fr. 11.0+, 7.1+, 2.5

Provenance: DD 15 D (4)

V. 81-22 Sig. 12.3, 2.9; litt. 1.7-1.8; lin. fr. 16.5+, 14.3+, 2.4

Provenance: DD 16 S (1)

VI. 82-329 Sig. 5.4+, 2.5; litt. 1.5; lln.-; fr. 20.0+, 15.1+ 2.5

Provenance: DD 22 (10)

VII. 82-405 Sig. 9.7+, 2.5; litt. 1.5-1.6; lin. -; fr. 11.5+, 8.9+, 2.4

Provenance: Z 14 B (2)

VIII. 82-270 Sig. 3.6+, 2.7; litt. 1.4-1.8; lin:-; fr. 14.0+,15.2+, 2.6

Provenance: DD 22 N (8)

VIII. 84-201 Sig. 10.0+, 2.5; litt. 1.5-1.8; lin. -; fr. 20.7+, 30.4+, 3.0

Provenance: DD 16 C (2)

X. 84-100 Sig. 10.5+, 2.5; litt. 1.5-1.8. lin.-; fr. 12.5+, 6.2+, 2.5

Provenance: DD 20 0 (4) 012

XI. 87-3 Sig, 3.2+, 2,7; litt, lin.-; fr, 9.1+, 10,0+, 2.5

Provenance: Y 25 (1)

XII. 87-4 Sig. 2.6+, 2.5; litt.1.8; lin. -; fr. 8.5+, 8.0+, 3.0

Provenance: Y 20 J (1)

XIII. 88-24 Sig. 2.2+, 1.3+, litt. 1.8; lin. -; fr. 4.1+, 22.8+, 3.3

Provenance: AA 13 A (2)

XIV. Sig. 11.81+, 2.7; litt. 2.1-2.3; lin.-; fr. 16.9+, 22.8+, 3.3

Pl. 9

XV. 89-3 Sig. 4.6+, 2.7; litt. 2.0; lin.-; fr. 12.5+, 20.2+, 3.5

Provenance: AA 13 B (5)
CIL XV. 1383

L POSTVMI

aet. Galanae (?)

L. Postumi.

The stamp is certainly Julio-Claudian; its occurrence on Caligula's ships at Lake Nemi may render that dating even more precise. cf., AAR 201.

45. 82-47 Sig. +10,0, orb. ?; litt. 1.0-1.1; 0.8-0.9; lin.-; fr. 14.2+, 13.5+, 2.0

Provenance: U 21 S A (3)
CIL XV. 1390

	[palma s. MPVBLIC]IIANVARI palma d.
	[EX OFFIDIOLEARIA	a. 95-105
	[MAI]ORIS

[M. Public]i Ianuari [ex offi(cina) d]olearia [Mai]loris.

Bloch records the stamp from the brick-faced walls of the west side of the Forum of Julius Caesar near the so-called Basilica Argentarla, where it is in clear association with other early Trajanic stamps (BL pp. 61, 65). He suggests the years 95-105, a suggestion that has been borne out by subsequent investigations that have revealed a Domitianic building project (probably never finished) against the slope of the Arx where it approached the Forum Julium (cf., J. C. Anderson, The Historical Topography of tile Imperial Fora (Collection Latomus, vol. 182), Brussels, 1984, pp. 54-60.

46. 88-20 Sig. 7.2+, 2.9; litt. 0.9, 0.8; lin.-; fr. 7.2+, 13.6+, 3.3

Provenance: AA 13 B (2)
CIL XV. 1445a

	LSESTI[PFALB]	1itt. parvis antiquoribus
	[QVIRI]NA[LIS A]	aet. Augustanae

L. Sesti [P.f. Alb(ani? vel -anlanl?) Quirli]na[lis A ( )].

This stamp can very probably be connected to L. Sestius P.f. Alb(anianus?) Quirinalis, perhaps the suffect consul of 23 B. C. (Steinby, CronFigl p. 87; on L. Sestius P.f. Albanlanus, cf., RE II A, col. 1885, no. 3). The name occurs on CIL XV. 1444-1446, and L Sestius may, in turn, have given his name to the figlinae Sestianae (or Sextianae) known from various stamps (XV. 539-540, S.153, S.443).

47. 84-185 Sig. 8.5, orb. 3.6; litt. 1.3-1.5; lin. 1, 1; fr. 18.9+, 13.6+, 3.5

Pl. 10

CIL XV. 1449a

Palma s. LSEXTILIRVF[I Palma d.]

aet. Domitianae

L. Sextill Rufi

The stamps is well-known in Domitianic contexts and has been found in situ with other Domitianic stamps (Bloch, BL 29, 35; Steinby, CronFigl, p. 51) most notably in the masonry of the stadium Domitiani.

48. 82-251 Sig. 3.7+, 2.5; litt. 1.6-1.7; lin.-; fr. 17.5+, 22.1+, 2.6

Provenance: unstratifled
CIL XV. 1464a

	[LTARO]VITI	saec. I
		litt. antiquoribus

[L. Tarq]uilti

The stamp is first century, and very well-known in the area of the ancient Via Praenestina and Via Gabina: Ashby collected a copy from a tumulus just east of "Ponte di Nona" (PBSR i, P. 170; cf., AAR 210), and Coste's surveys produced a number of (probable though fragmentary) examples from the Torre Angela vicinity (AgRom, p. 94: TA 162-1); cf., TA 5, 323).

49.

I. 79-30 Sig. 11.6, 3.5; 1itt. 1.2-1.5; lin. -; fr. 20.5+, 13.4+, 3.7

Pl. 11

II. 79-26 Sig. 3.8+, 3.1+; litt. 1.5; lin. -; fr. 21.4+, 14.3+, 3.5

Provenance: P 12 K (2)

III. 79-23 Sig. 3.0+, 3.1+; litt. ?; lin. -; fr. 7.0+, 9.2+, 2.5

Provenance: P 12 N (2)

IV. 81-71 Sig. 6.2+, 3.5; litt. 1.5-1.6, 1.1-1.2; lin.-; fr. 11.5+, 15.4+, 3.0

Provenance: CC 20 E (1)

V. 82-421 Sig. 5.3+, 3.0+; litt. 1.1-1.2; lin.-; fr. 9.5+, 11.1+, 3.0

Provenance: W 15 (2)

VI. 82-422 Sig. 3.5+, 3.2+; litt. 1.1-1.3; 0.9-1.0; lin.-; fr. 3.5+, 6.9+, 2.9

Provenance: W 15 (3)

VII. 83-33 Sig. 6.5+, 3.6+; litt.?; lin.-; fr. 8.8+, 10.2+, 2.5

Provenance: CC 24 E (1)

VIII. 88-5 Sig. 7.0+, 3.2; litt. 1.5-1.7, 0.9-1.3; lin.-; fr. 12.4+, 10.5+, 3.5

Provenance: W 15 A Y (2)

IX. 86-2 Sig. 3-4+, 3.2; litt. 1.6, 1.2; lin. -; fr. 10.5+, 7.0+, 3.2

Provenance: W 15 (1)

X. 89-26 & 89-29 Sig. 11.7, 3.4; litt. 1.2-1.3, 1.0-1.1; lin.-; fr. 31.9+, 13.9+, 3.4

Provenance: AA 15 B WEL 459 (8)
CIL XV. 2260

	C PLAETORI	saec. I (?)
	IVSTIANI

C. Plaetori(s) Iustiani.

Unfortunately, no direct dating evidence has previously been discovered in situ or in a stratigraphic context for this stamp; it could well be early first century A.C. or even before from its shape and lettering. It is quite common in the Via Gabina vicinity (cf., G11/13; Coste, AgRom, p. 94: TA114a-G, 114b-I; TG74-D). Coste asserted that the stamp's first line ended with TOR, but the complete example photographed here (G10/49.I) shows this assumption to have been in error, as the ultimate I of PLAETORI is clearly present.

50.

I. 82-133 Sig. 9,7, 1.4; litt. 0.8-1.0; lin. -; fr. 17,5+, 17.0+, 3.5

Pl. 12

II. 86-4 Sig. 9.3, 1.3; litt. 0.7-0.8; lin. -; fr. 25.2+, 12.1+, 3.0

Provenance: EE 16 (1)

III. 88-60 Sig. 6.0+, 1.5; litt. 0.8; lin.-; fr. 9.5+, 10.7+, 3.3

Provenance: AA 13 E (2)

IV. 89-4 Sig. 3.4+, 1.5; litt. 1.3; lin. -; fr. 18.1+, 28.6+, 7.0 (flange)

Provenance: AA 13 B (5)

V. 89-8 Sig. 6.8+, 1.5; litt. 1.3; lin. -; fr. 15-4+, 17-5+, 2.6

Provenance: AA 13 B (5)

VI. 89-6 Sig. 5-2+, 1.5; litt. 1.2-1.3; lin. -; fr. 24.2+, 20.6+, 7.1 (flange)

Provenance: Aa 13 B (5)
NOVUM CIL XV. 2277/2278.1 CORR. & COMPL.

MTVLIMLSAL

M. Tull M(arci?) L(iberti?) Sal(arese sc. opus)

G10/50 is an example of a previously unpublished NOVUM. Its text would appear to be able to be expanded as above; and it can best be classified between 2277 and 2278.1. Its first part appears to relate to the text of CIL XV. 2277 M TVLI), but that stamp is impressed in planta pedis, while G 10/50 is an impressed rectangle with frame. A fragmentary example of the G10/50 stamp.19 reported from the collection of the Museo Nazionale Romano (containing the letters M TVLI M L) by Steinby (IC, p. 132; cf., App., no. 207), but remains unpublished. G10/50 provides the entire text of the stamp for the first time as well as correcting the punctuation of the MNR example as reported by Steinby.

G10/50 increases the known text of the stamp, identifying Tulius as a freedman of Marcus), giving him the praenomen Marcus), and placing him in the (opus) Sal(arese). he opus Salarese began to produce bricks (under that name at least) in the period 98-113 and continued through ca. A.D. 160, but not nearly as early as the form and lettering of this stamp would tend to indicate (Steinby, CronFigl, p. 111; cf. pp. 83-86).

UNEDITED FRAGMENTS (insufficient data to establish typology)

1. 79-36 Sig. 2.7+, 2.5+; litt. 1.3+; lin.-; fr. 24.6+, 18.9+, 2.5

Provenance: JP 16 (4) B

EX [

2. 80-33 Sig. ?, orb.?; litt. 0.9;lin. 2,?; fr. 8.5+, 17.4+, 3.8

Provenance: X 18 B (4)

]DOL[

3. 81-5 Sig. ?; orb. ?; litt. 1.1; lin. 1, ?; fr. 13.0+, 9.1+, 4.4

Provenance: S 14 (1)

] F L [

4. 81-31 Sig.?; litt. ?; fr. 10.5+, 9.0+, 2.3

Provenance: S 14 J (3)

vel	illegible; heavily abraded

5. 81-29 Sig. + 10.0; orb.?; litt. 1.4-1.5; lin.-; fr. 9.0+, 17.9+, 3.0

Provenance: S 14 J (3)

] R I [

6. 83-? Sig. 8.0; orb. 3.4; litt. ?; lip.-; fr. 20.7+, 26.7+, 4.0

Provenance: none

illegible; heavily abraded

7. 83-? Sig. +8.0; orb.+ 4.0; litt.?; lin.-; fr. 18.0+, 28.9+, 2.0

Provenance: none

illegible; heavily abraded

8. 84-202 Sig. 8.3; orb. 3.8; litt.?; lin. -;fr. 25.5+, 26.2+, 2.8

Provenance: CC 22 K (3) 042

] [

9. 84-103 Sig. 10.2; orb. 3.0; litt. 1.1-1.3; .1.0-1.1; lin. 0, 1, 0; fr. 15.1+, 18.6+, 1.8

Provenance: DD 20 0 (3)

	[ ] P[ ]
	[ ] [ ]

10. 84-105 Sig. + 9.0, orb. 3.0; litt. 0.8-0.9, 0.8, 0.8; lin.?;, 2, 2; fr, 11.3+, 13.2+, 2.6

Provenance: DD 16 C (2)

	E [ ] R P
	P [ ]	a. 115?, 123?, 126?, 129?
		131?, 135?, 153?
	C	v.3 linea recta

11. 84-259 Sig. 10.5, orb 3.8; litt. 1.0; lin. ?; fr. 16.5+, 11.9+, 4.0

Provenance: DD 12 007

	heavily abraded
	]CIL[

12. 85-42 Sig. 5.0+, 2.7; litt. 1.9-2.1; in.-; fr. 5.9+, 6.5+, 2.2

Provenance: BB 18 (2) 127

] T A [

13. 85-28 Sig.7.0+, 3.3; litt. 1.5, 1.0; lin.-; fr. 8.0+, 8.5+, 3.5

Provenance: CC 16 D (1)

	] ILA [
	] S [

14. 85-46 Sig. 9,6+, 2.9+; litt.?; lin.-; fr. 10.0+, 9,5+, 3.6

Provenance: BB 17 F (2)

] [

15. 87-8 Sig. 1.4+, 3.8; litt. 2.2; lin. -; fr. 17.5+, 25.9+, 2.0

Provenance: AA 23 C (3)

S[

16. 86-27 Sig. ?; orb.-; litt.?; lin.-; fr. 24.2, 17.1, 7.9 (flange)

Provenance: AA 13 E (3)

illegible; heavily abraded

17. 88-12 Sig. 3.4+, 2.8; litt. 2.8; lin.-; fr. 9.5+, 13.8+, 3.6

Provenance: X 16 Y (3)

I C [

litt. cavis

18. 88-26 Sig.?; orb.-; litt.?; lin.-; fr. 10.4+, 5.8+, 2.2

Provenance: AA 13 E (3)

vel	heavily abraded

19. 81-101 Sig. +9.2; orb.?; litt. 1.0-1.1; 0.9-1.0; lin.?, ?; fr. 10.5+, 7.2+, 3.8

Provenance: BB 20 20 S E (3)

vel	] EX PR [ ]
	O [

20. 81-171 Sig.?; orb.?: litt. 1.1; lin. 2, 1; fr. 29.1+, 20.8+, 4.1

Provenance: unstratified

vel	] O EX P [

cf, Steinby, IC, pp. 306-307 for occurrences of this very common abbreviated construction.

FIGURED STAMPS WITHOUT TEXT

A. Stamps decorated with curved or straight lines or indentations

1. 81-174 Sig. 3.0; fr. 9.1+, 10.0, 2.8

Provenance: EE 23 E (3)

2. 82-51 Sig.?; fr. 9.5+, 9.3+, 2.5

Provenance: DD 18 F (2)

3. 82-? Sig. 1.4, 12.0+; fr. 10.2+, 14.7+, 3.0

Provenance: CC 22 (1)

4. 82-? Sig. ?; fr. 1.45+, 14.6+, 3.0

Provenance: CC 22 A (2)

5. 82-? Sig. ?; fr. 8.0+, 6,9+, 2.3

Provenance: W 15 A (3)

6. 88-? sig. 10.0, 0.7; fr. 11.2+, 13.7+, 2.8

Provenance: Y 16 U (2)

7. 88-32 Sig. 12.3, 0.7; fr. 14.2+, 12.4+, 2

Provenance: AA 13 B (2)

B. Stamps decorated with animal tracks; all probably saec. III

8.

I. 81-135 Sig. 5.3, 4.5; fr. 11.0+, 9.1+, 1.1

Provenance: EE 23 C (2)

II. 82-? Sig. 6-0+, 3.9+; fr. 18.5+, 9.4+, 3.2

Provenance: CC 19 5 A (2)

III. 82-41 Sig. 6.3, 4.8; fr. 35.5+, 20.2+, 4.7

Provenance: U 21 5 A (2)

IV. 83-47 Sig. 5.1, 4.7; fr. 20.7+, 14.2+, 3.5

Provenance: W 19 B (4)

V. 89-7 Sig. 7-5+, 4.5; fr. 9.8+, 12.5+, 2.0

Provenance: S 14 F (5)

9. 89-10 Sig. 3.6, 2.9; fr. 31.0+, 25-6+, 3.3

Provenance: AA 13 B (5)

Such animal track stamps appear to have been in use during much of the third c. A.C. in lieu of brick stamps with texts (which disappear with the death of Caracalla in A.D. 217 only to reappear during the reign of Diocletian); however, we have no knowledge of what information such stamps were intended to communicate, or what purpose they served. For numerous examples, see Van Essen, Sta, Prisca, pp. 261, 266, 273, 277, 280, 283, 295 (examples from the third century Mithraeum beneath the church of Sta. Prisca on the Aventine), and AAR nos. 278-282 (examples from the Campagna collected by Thomas Ashby) and 363.

GRAFFITO

1. 79-48 litt. 5.0-5.2, 5.0; fr. 14.4+, 19.2+, 3.6

Pl. 13

Provenance: P 12 J (2) doorway

	] O V V
	] V I

This graffito consists of letters scratched onto the rounded exterior wall of a dolium, found in the (4th century A.C. ?) "granary" (horreum). The text cannot be fully restored, but from the second line, it could conceivably represent a label that identified the contents of the dolium, i.e. VI (num). The fabric of the doilum itself would appear to be of third century A.C. manufacture.

EDITED STAMPS (CIL XV.)

1.

I. 78-67 Sig. 6.6+, 3.4; litt. 1.0-1.3; 1.0-1.2; lin.-; fr. 8.1, 13.3, 2.0

Provenance: L 22

II. 78-91 Sig. 9.6+, 1.9+; litt. 1.0-1.3, ?; lin. -; fr. 28.5, 22.1, 5.7 (on flange)

Provenance: K 21 (tile dump in room)
CIL XV. 283

	DEFMACEDO[NIAN]
	[L] TPCAS[SIOR]	saec. I exeuntis

[D]e f(iglinis) Maced[onianls] L. et P. Cas[siorum] ?

XV. 283 is one of the earliest stamps from the figl. Macedonlane. It is not securely datable, but appears to have been in use at the end of the first c. A.C. (cf., D. Facenna, NSc 1950, p. 69; Steinby, CronFigl, P. 59 & note 7). Van Essen dates the stamp incorrectly to A. D. 125-130 (Sta. Prisca, p. 244) due to a misinterpretation of a remark by Bloch, BL, pp. 201, 204. A date during the reign of Domitlan would seem most likely to be correct.

2. 77-177 Sig. 16.0+, orb. ?; litt. 0.8-1.0, 0.8-1.0; lin, -; fr. 16.4, 11.5, 3.7

Provenance: I 19 D (3)
CIL XV. 454 (a or b)

	[APRON ET PUT COS]	a. 123
	[P]P [VIT EX PR]
	ANNI VER[I QVINT]

[Apron(iano) et Paet(ino) cos. Pomp(oni) [Vit(alis) ex pr(aedis)] Anni Veri [Quint(anense sc. opus))

cf., LSO 416.

3.

I. 77-183 Sig. 12.0+, orb. 4.0; litt. 0.5-1.0, 0.9-1.1, 0.9-1.0; lin.-; fr. 2.4, 22.3, 3.1

Provenance: K - 21 D (2)

II. 77-52 Sig. 11.2+, orb. 3.9; litt. 0.6-1.0, 1.1, ?; lin.-; fr. 17.9, 23.7, 5.7 (on flange)

Provenance: J 21 B K21 & K21 D (2)

III. 78-34 Sig. 11.0+, orb. 3.9; litt. 0.9-1.1, ?;, ?; fr. 16.6+, 14.3+, 2.7

Provenance: L 22 (2)
CIL XV. 506a VAR.

	ANNVERETEGGAMBCOS	a. 126
	EXPR VLPVLPIAN
	SAL

Ann(io) Ver(o) III et Egg(io) Amb(ibulo) cos ex pr(aedis) Ulp(i) Ulplan(i) Sal(arese sc. opus)

This example is a variant of XV. 506a due to its orbicular shape, since 506a is circular. On M. Ulpius Ulpianus, see CIL XV. a, 143 (a. 123), XV. 504 & 505 (a.125), XV. 507 a-b (a, 129), 508 & 509 580 (a. 133); cf., Steinby, CronFigl pp. 83, 85.

4. 78-102 Sig. 8.5; orb. ; litt. 1.4-1.6; lin.-;fr. 28.0, 18.1, 2.8

Provenance: J 19 (7) B
CIL XV. 535a

[L] A[B]RI SECVN[DI]

aet. Flavlanae (?)

L. Laberi Secundi

All stamps of L. Laberlus Secundus were regarded as first century A. C. by Dressel, but lack of previous discoveries of them in situ or in otherwise datable contexts does not permit more precise dating. The circular form and type of signum led Steinby to assign 535a tentatively to the Flavlan period (CronFigl, p. 87).

5.

I. 78-? Sig. 9.0+, 2.3+; litt. 1.6-1.8; lin.-; fr. 23.1, 13.4, 2.5

Pl. 14

II. 78-14 Sig. 3.9+, 2.4+; litt. 1.6-1.8; lin.-; fr. 3.9, 3.0, 1.7

Provenance: L 22 (2)
CIL XV. 818

	[LANTO]NI[VS]	saec. I
	MARIO

L. Antonius Mario

The stamp is generically first century A.C. or earlier according to Dressel; neither Bloch nor Steinby can make the dating more precise, due to a lack (prior to this example) of finds in context.

6.

I. 76-13 Unseen (lost, but recorded in inventory)

Provenance: F 21 E (1)

II. 78-18 Sig. 5.5, 2.5+; litt. 2.0; lin.-; fr. 13.2, 16.9, 2.4

Provenance: K 18 N (1)

III. 77-28 Sig. 5.5, 2.7; litt. 2.0; lin.-; fr. 32.0, 14.5, 2.5

Pl. 15

IV. 77-36 Sig. 4.7+, 2.1+; litt. 1.6+; lin. -; fr. 9.7, 10.1, 2.4

Provenance: J 21 C (3)

V. 77-65 Sig. 5.5, 2.7; litt. 2.0; lin.-; fr. 17.6, 8.7, 2.6

Provenance: K21 B K22 (2)
CIL XV. 864

C AS PR

saec. I

C. Aspr(i vel-enatis vel-ini)?

Clearly first century A.C., and probably early to middle first century, as Dressel speculated, the cognomen abbreviated here might be Aspr(us), Aspr(enas), or Aspr(inus) (cf., LSO 714, 715); Steinby has also suggested that the single gentile name Casp(e)r(ius) might be intended (LSO 658). At Ostia, this stamp was found on a brick also stamped with CIL XV. 785, which is also first century A.C.

7. 77-? Sig. 8.5+, 3.8; litt. 1.4-1.5, 1.3+; lin.-; frag, 16.8+, 15.7+, 2.1

Provenance: K 21 (1)
CIL XV. 933 (a or b)

	TICLAV[DI]
	S[A]BIN[I]	saec. I

TI. Clau[di] S[a]bin[i]

Not known in situ or in precisely datable context by Bloch or Steinby, the stamp is most probably first century A.C. from its form and lettering; cf., LSO 744.

8.

I. 77-16 Sig. 10.0, 4.0; litt. 1.5-1.8; lin. 1, 2; fr. 19.0, 17.4, 3.2

Pl. 16

II. 79-20 Sig. 10.0+; orb. 3.4+; litt. 1.5+; lin. 1, 2; fr. 10.5, 10.7, 4.2

Provenance: unstratified

III. 79-? Sig. 10.3, orb 4.2; litt. lin. fr. 23.0, 36.0, 2.8

Provenance: unstratified (1)

CIL XV. 1106b

	APRILIS CN DOMITI AGATHOBVLI			ca. a. 115-120
	ramus	caput	ramus
	palmae	bovis	palmae

Aprilis Cn(aei) Domiti Agathobuli

Cn. Domitlus Agathobuius is known from other stamps as a slave of Tullus and of Domitia Cn f. Lucilla (e.g. M XV.1008), and appears to have been manumitted shortly before a. 115 (Bloch, BL, 113). He then entered the brick industry as an officinator very soon after that date, and continued to employ two of his former fellow seryl, Aprilis and Trophimus, throughout the last years of Trajan's reign and the first years of Hadrian's, until Aprills' own manumlsslon slightly before a. 123 (cf., CIL XV. 1109, 1110; Bloch, BL, 345) at which time Agathoboulos seems to have left the brick industry, since his name never occurs on any consular stamps (Steinby, CronFigl, pp. 55-56). Hence, 1106b can be quite securely dated on prosopographical grounds to a. 115-120, and this is confirmed by various finds in situ or in context (Bloch, BL, 105; Bloch, Scavi di Ostia I, P. 222, no. III.I 14).

9.

I. 76-80 Unseen (example lost but recorded in excavation records)

Provenance: H 23 B (2)

II, 77-66 Sig. 11.6, 2.8; litt. 2.0-2.1; lin.-; fr. 26.0+, 22.1+, 7.4 (on flange)

Pl. 17

III. 78-5 Sig. 9.0+, 2.9; litt. 2.0-2.2; lin.-; fr. 17.5+, 16.4+, 2.9

Provenance: L 21 A (2)

IV. 78-15 Sig. 3.0+, 2.9; litt. 1.0-2.0; lin.-; fr. 20.2+, 28.5+, 6.4 (on flange)

Provenance: L21 - B - L22 C (2)

V. 78-30-1 Sig. 6.5+, 2.3+; litt. 1.7+; lin-; fr. 15.2+, 20.6+, 3.2

Provenance: L20 - L21

VI. 78-30-2 Sig. 4.7+, 2.9; litt. 2.0; lin.-; fr. 7.4+, 11.3; 2.5

Provenance: L20 - L21

VII 78-33 Sig. 8.0+, 2.9; litt. 2.0-2.2; lin.-; fr. 21.2+, 14.5+, 2.4

Provenance: L21 - B - L22 (2) A

VIII. 78-35 Sig. 11.8, 2.9; litt. 2.0-2.2; lin.-; fr. 38.8+, 37.4+, 6.7 (on flange)

Provenance: L 22 (2)

IX. 78-40 Sig. 5.4+, 2.9; litt. 2.0; lin.-; fr. 24.2+, 30.7+, 7.2 (on flange)

Provenance: J20-B-K20 (2)

X.78-103 Sig. 11.8, 2.9; litt. 2.0-2.2; lin.-; fr. 28.0, 53.5+, 7.8(on flange)

Provenance: K19-B-L19 (5) F

XI. 79-41 Sig. 11,1+, 2.9; litt. 2.0-2.1; lin.-; fr. 15.0+, 19.5+, 3.2

Provenance: H 17 (3) B
CIL XV. 1237 = X. 8042.65

LEPIDI

ca. a. 15-40

Lepidi

All the stamps of Lepldius seem to have originated in Campania (cf,. M. Steinby, “La produzione laterizia.” in Pompei 79, ed. F. Zevi, Naples, 1979, p. 267) but have been found in Rome, in the Campagna, and as far north as Florence (Bodel, KM., nos. 7 and 91). Steinby and Bodel date the stamp to the early Jullo-Claudian period.

10. 78-67 Sig. 5.2+, 3.1; litt. 1.4-2.0; lin.-; fr. 16.1+, 10.2+, 2.2

Provenance: L22
CIL XV. 1318

P N[EVIVS]

aet. Augustanae

P. Na(evius)

The stamps of the various Naevil (CIL XV. 1315-1336, S., 342-345, XV. 1489, XV. 19721978) can all be dated to the reign of Augustus or slighty thereafter by numerous finds in situ or in context. See in general Blake I, p. 299 and for XV. 1318, see NSc 1967, pp. 80, 84, 91, 94, 309, 313; where the dating is clearly demonstrated.

11. 77-56 Sig. 11.9, 3.9; litt. 2.0-2.3; lin.-; fr. 22.0+, 16.2+, 3.0

Pl. 18

CIL XV. 1323c

C AE A

aet. Augustanae

C. Nae(vius) As(clepiades)

See comment on preceding stamp.

12. 77-64 Sig. 9.0, orb. 3.3+; litt. 1.3-1.7; lin-; fr. 14.3+, 9.6+, 2.6

Pl. 19

CIL XV. S., 351

	QOPPIVERECV[DI]	aet. Tralanae vel Hadrianae ?
	ramus palmae ds.

Q. Oppl. Verecun[di]

The direction of the ramus palmae (dexstrorsum) and the relatively small size of the orbiculus identify the stamp securely as an example of 5, 351. Steinby dates this stamp to the Trajanic or Hadrianic periods (CronFigl p. 54), and goes on to note the ease with which It may be mistaken for CIL XV. 1348b; indeed, the various in situ examples published as 1348b by Bloch BL, pp. 90,.94, 161, 41so Scavi di Ostia I, p. 217) are more likely examples of ~, 351 according to Steinby (CronFigl p. 54, note 8).

13. 77-21 Sig. 8.5+, 3.4; litt. 1.4-1.5; 1.2-1.3; lin.-; fr. 12.5+, 13.2+, 3.8

Provenance: K 19 N A (3)
CIL XV. 2260 CORR. et COMPL.

	C PLAETO[RI]	saec. I (?)
	IVS[TIANIS]	litt. antiquoribus

C. Plaeto[ri] Ius[tianias]

cf. comment at G 10/49.

UNEDITED FRAGMENTS WITH TEXTS

1. 79-96 Sig. 8.0+, 3.4; litt. 1.0-1.1; lin.-; fr. 14.1+, 17.5+, 3.0

Pl. 20

NOVUM ? (previously unattested stamp)

	C CLAV
	ANDRO

C. Clau[di] Andro[machi] ? / C. Clau[di] Andro (servus) vel C. Clau[di] Andro(clus servus)?

No such stamp text occurs in Bloch, Indices or in Steinby, E. Nor does the fragmentary example published here provide any hint toward assigning it a classification according to the CIL XV scheme.

No C. Claudius Andro(-) is attested in the Roman world; indeed there is only one cognomen beginning ANDRO attested in all Latin nomenclature: ANDROMACHUS, a procurator ad dlocesin Alexandriae some time before A.D. 272 (whose full name was probably L. Aemillus Decius Andromachus) mentioned on P. Oxy. 10, 1264 (PIR ². 584). C(aius) is only attested eight times as a praenomen for Claudii (PIR ² II. 800, 836, 837, 868, 952, 994, 1009, 1023 and 1044). Hence, ANDRO(-) cannot be regarded as a cognomen of C. Clauldius), and so probably represents the name of a servus.

PIR² attests two slave names with ANDRO- (1). ANDRO, a musician and geometrician who taught Marcus Aurelius (SHA Marc. 2.2) = PIR ² II.583; and (2). ANDROCLUS , the slave recognized and saved by a lion in the Circus Maximus (Aellan, nat, anim, 7.48) during the tir of Tiberius or Claudius (Aul. Gell)., NA 5.14, cf., Seneca, de benef. 2.19.1) = PIR2 II .583 (a story made famous by the comedy of George Bernard Shaw).

2. 76-7 ? unseen

Provenance: F 21 W (1) ploughed soil

F. P (?)

3. 76-32 ? unseen

Provenance: H 22 (1) ploughed soil

B H

Possibly a modern (19th or 20th c.) brickstamp.

4. 76-78 ? unseen

Provenance: G 21 S (2)

illegible

5. 76-79 ? unseen

Provenance: F 21 W A (2)

] N E S I ?

litt. cavis

6. 77-? Sig. 7.2+, 3.0+, litt. 1.2+; lin.-; fr. 13.2+, 22.7+, 2.7

Provenance: clean-up

	[	] A (?)
		(?)

7. 77-? Sig. 1.5+, 3.5+; litt. 1.1, 1.1; lin.-; fr. 18.6+, 36.4+, 5.5 (on flange)

Provenance: K 21 B K 22 (2)

	D [
	L [

8. 78-11 ? unseen (example lost but recorded in excavation records) fr. 17.0, 17.0

Provenance: I 19 (B & K) (5)

STAMPS WITHOUT TEXT

1. 78-8 Sig. ?, orb. ?; litt. ?; lin. ?; fr. 14.7+, 11.9+, 3.3

Provenance: L 21 (2)

corner of a lunate stamp

2. 76-34 Sig. 6.3, 6.2+; litt.-; lin.-; fr. 24.4, 13.

Provenance: clean-up

cf. comment at G 10/ section III-B, nos. 8 & 9

IDENTIFIED STAMPS WITH TEXTS

1. G 17/7 Sig. ?, orb. ?; 1itt. 1.0-1.2, 1.0-1.1; lin.-; fr. 11.8+, 8.9+, 2.5

CIL XV. 506a VAR.

	[ANN] VER ET EGG [AMBCOS]	a. 126
	[EX] PR VLPVL[PIAN]
	[SAL]

See comment at G 11, no. 3.

2. Sig. 17.0, 2.4; litt- 2.3-2.4; lin.-; fr. 20.9+, 22.0+, 3.9

CIL XV. 2, 165

PHOEBSVL

litt. cavis

Phoeb(i) Sul(picianum)

The stamp was first reported in BullComm 30 (1902) p. 290, and Bloch inserted it into Dressel's system between CIL XV. 597 and 598 as his S., 165. This example (G 17/2) is an exact replica of the one reported and categorized by Bloch, but see below, G 17/3 for a variant.

3. Sig. 13.8, 2.0; litt. 1.8-2.0; lin. -; fr. 21.5+, 21.8+, 3.9

CIL XV. S. 165 / XV. 598 VAR.

PHOEBSVL litt. cavis

Phoeb(i) Sulp(icianum)

This stamp is an example of Coste's S 165 VAR. (AgRom, p. 95; cf., Steinby, E, p. 192) on which the P in SVLP (icianum) is included and the letters are of a smaller size than those of S 165. Coste's example came from the vicinity of Torre Angela, near the Via Gabina villa sites.

4. Sig. 6.7+, orb. -; litt- 1.3-1.4; lin. -; fr. 22.4+, 15.5+, 2.9

C IL XV. 657c

	[TONNEIANADEFIGLIN]	aet. Neronianae
	[ramus palmae ds.]
	VICCIAINIS]	v. 3 linea inversa

[Tonnelana (sc. tegula) de flgiln(is)] Viccia[nis]

The entire series of semicircular stamps without orbicull from the figlinae Vicclanae CIL (XV. 656, 657a-c, S. 198, 657 VAR.) can be assigned to the reign of Nero, since they have been found in datable archaeological contexts with other certainly Neronlan examples including CIL XV. 666, S., 617 and S., 583. cf., Blake II, p. 65 n. 33 (666); p. 56 n. 22 (S, 617); p. 56 n. 19 (656).

5. Sig. ?; orb. ?; litt. ?; lin.-; fr. 14.9+, 10.6+, 2

CIL XV. 1248a

	[aquila alis expansis ss. respiclens
	duobus cornibus copiae insistit.]
	L * ILVRI * BLA]NDI	aet. Flavianae

L [Lvri Bla]ndi

L. Lurlus Blandus was an officinator in the figlinae Marclanae (on which, see E. Champlin, "Fliglinae Marcianae," Athenaeum n. s. 71 (1983) 257-264), apparently at the same time as St. Marcius Fortunatus, whose stamps have been found in both Vespaslanic (Colosseum = 1275b) and Domitianic (1257a; cf. Blake II p. 108 n. 128 and P. 141 n. 56) contexts, and St. Marclus Lucifer (XV. 62) It seems probable that the two Statil Marcil had left the figlinae Marcianae by the early years of Domitian's reign (Steinby, CronFigl, pp. 64-65) but Lucius Blandus may have continued brick production there. Hence "Flavian" is the best dating available for his stamps. cf., LSO 953, KM 92, AAR 185.

6. Sig. 6.7+, 2.8+; litt. 1.6; lin.-; fr. 16.2+, 13.6+, 3.4

CIL XV. 1384

	OTH[YMENI]	litt . cavis
	[PAIET IET APR COS]	a. 123

Pothfymeni Palet(ino) fet Apr(onlano) cos].

CIL XV.1384 is one of a group of unusual stamps produced in A.D. 123 in the Praedla Quintanensla (Steinby, CronFigl, pp. 78-79) in which the dominus is never mentioned, but the consular names are given together with that of the offlcinator (cf., Ashby, PBSR ¹ (1902) 229-232, and the list given by Bloch, BL p. 206) or sometimes the servus (Bloch, BL, P. 208; Steinby, CronFigl p. 79) of which latter type this is one of the rare examples (cf., AAR no. 202).

7.

I. Sig, 9.5, 2.5; litt. 2.0-2.5; lin. -; fr. 21.2+, 22,5+, 4.0

II. Sig. 5.0+, 2.0; litt. 1.9-2.0; lin.-; fr. 13.1+, 13.0+, 3.5

CIL XV. 2237 CORR.

[A] ATI[ONI]

litt. cavis

The presence of an interpunct between T and I was not recorded by Dressel. cf., XV. 2236 = M. ATI ERONIS; LSO1251 & p. 391 (?) = A AT[i].

UNEDITED FRAGMENTS

1. Sig. ?; orb. ? litt. 1.1; lin. -; fr. 13.0+, 3.2

A [

FIGURED STAMPS WITHOUT TEXTS

1. Sig. 3.8, 12.0+; litt. -; lin. -; fr. 26.9+, 24.3+, 4.3

series of impressed dots saec. III?

For simllar stamps from a third century context, see SPASR 1, pp. 83-4 & P1, IX; AAR nos. 288-291, 364.

CONCORDANCES

CIL.

XIV. 5308.18 (c 10/11) = CIL I.2310 = LSO 12 = ForoPal p. 72

XV. 124 (G 10/2) = MNR i. no. 10 & P. 327 = LSO 166 = SPASR 1, 13 = ForoPal, p. 67

XV. 283 (G 11/1) = CIL IX. 6078.21 = X. 8043.45 = LSO 289

XV. 306a (G 10/3) = CIL X. 8056.600

XV. 373 (G 10/4) = LSO 353 = ForoPal, p. 68 = AAR 43 = SPASR 1, 54

XV. 375 (G 10/5) = CIL VIII. 22632.7 = LSO 355; cf. Righini, Bagno, 58 = ForoPal, p. 68 = AAR 44 & 311 = SPASR 1, 55 = KM, p. 77

XV. 424a (G 10/6) = SPASR 1, 65 = MNR i, p. 322 = LSO 395 = ForoPal, p. 74 = Lateran, 20

XV. 454 (G 11/2) = CIL X. 8043.26./ 454a = LSO 416 = ForoPal 84 / 454b = LSO 417 = MNR i, no. 52 = MNR i, p. 322 = SPASR 1, 74 = ForoPal pp. 68, 74. cf., ForoPal p. 84 = AAR 59 & 314 / 454c = AAR 60 Righini, Bagno, 67 = KM, p. 78

XV. 455 (G 10/7) = LSO 418

XV. 475 (G 10/8) = LSO 435 = ForoPal pp. 68, 74

XV. 506a (G 10/9, G 11/3, G 17/1)

XV. 515b (G 10/10)

XV. 535a (G 11/4) = IC, p. 382 = MNR i. p, 333

XV. 535b CORR. (G 10/11) = cf., LSO 467

XV. 548c (G 10/12)

XV. 577a (G 10/13) = AgRom, p. 89 (TG1-T; TA 127-M) = AAR 82

NOVUM XV. 577b/578a (G 10/14) = cf., AgRom, P. 90 (TG 21-T, 22-T, 23-T; TBM 33-T, 34-T)

XV. 578a (G 10/15)= SPASR 1, 106 = ForoPal, pp. 68, 74

XV. 578b (G 10/15)

XV. S. 165 (G 17.2) = [XV. 597/8] = XV. 1841 = Lateran, 63

NOVUM XV. S. 165 / XV. 598 (G 17/3)

XV. 635a (G 10/7) = AgRom, p. 90 (TA 355, 382) = MNR i, p. 334 = LSO 539 = ForoPal = pp. 69, 75 = Largo, 46

XV. 635c (G 10/18) = CIL X. 8043.63 = Vatican B 47 = MNR i, p. 334 = LSO 541 = ForoPal, pp. 69,75

XV. 637 (G 10/19) = CIL VIII. 22632.29 = LSO 542 = MNR i, P. 334 = ForoPal, pp. 69, 75

XV. 657c (G 17/4) = cf., SPASR 1, 122 = MNR i, P. 334 = LSO 559

XV. 661a (G 10/20) = LSO 568 = SPASR 1, 124

XV. 710b (G 10/21) = MNR i, P. 335 = Righini, Bagno, 109

XV. 746 (G 10/22) = LM 637 = MNR i, P. 336 = ForoPal, P. 75

XV. 818 (G 11/5) XV. 819a (G 10/23) = ForoPal, p. 69

XV. 933a/b (G 11/7) = cf., (933a): MNR i, p. 338 = LSO 744 = Largo 71 (933a/b): ForoPal, p. 75

XV. & 267 VAR. [XV. 987] (G 10/24)

XV. 1030a (G 10.25) = MNR i, p. 339 = LSO 796 = Righini, Bagno, 153

XV. 1, 275 [1035/6] (G 10/26) = LSO 799 (CORR.)

XV. 1053 (G 10/27) = LSO 812 = ForoPal, p. 76

XV. 1057 (G 10/28) = LSO 815 (CORR.) = SPASR 1, 163 = MNR i, p. 339

XV. 1059 (G 10/29) = LSO 817 = Righini, Bagno, 146 = KM, p. 81

XV. 1073 (G 10/30) = Vatican B 27 = LSO 833 = ForoPal, pp. 70,76

XV. 2, 283 [1094] (G 10/31) = IC, p. 391

XV. 1106b (G 11/8) = XV. 2417 = LSO 874 = SPASR 1, 176 = ForoPal, pp. 70, 75 = KM p. 81

XV. 1118a (G 10/32) = IC, P. 392 = ForoPal, p. 70 = AAR 170

XV. 1127 (G 10/33) = S. 382 = AgRom, p. 91 (TA 31a, 3lb-H, 167-H) = LSO 891 = Vatican B 39 = ForoPal pp. 70, 76 = AAR 173 = Righini, Bagno, 172

XV. S. 298 [1160/1] (G 10/34)

XV. 1171 (G 10/35) = I. 2315 = VIII. 22632.63(?) = XIV. 756 = LSO 911

XV. 1174a (G 10.36) = XV. 2030 = p. 393 = AgRom, p. 91 (TA 206-J) = ForoPal p. 76 = MNR i, p. 341 = AAR 176

XV. 1197 VAR. (G 10/37) = cf., MNR i no. 73 (VAR.) / cf., LSO 918 (1197) / cf., ForoPal p. 70 (1197)

XV. 1229b (G 10/38) = ForoPal p. 93 (COMPL.)

XV. 1237 (G 11/9) = X. 8042.65 (?) = IC., p. 394 = ForoPal, p. 76 = KM no. 7 = and no. 91

XV. 1239a (G 10/39) = XIV. 4090.45 = AgRom p. 91 (TG 55, TA 185-D) = LSO 948

XV. 1248a (G 17.5) = SPASR 1, 185 = ForoPal p. 76 = MNR i, p. 341 = AAR 185 = KM no. 92

XV. 1264 (G 10/40) = AgRom p. 91 (TA 288-A) = AAR 187

XV. 1270 (G 10/41) = MNR i, p. 342 = LSO 964 = Righini, Bagno, 186 cf., App.50 (VAR.)

XV. S. 156 CORR/COMPL. [1275] (G 10/42)

XV. 1318 (G 11/10) = 1318a = I. 3483a = AgRom p. 91 (TA 258) = AAR 91 / 1318b = I. 3483b = App. 57 = IC 60 (p. 40) = AAR 192 / cf., MNR i, no. 77 (VAR.)

XV. 1323c (G 11/11) = MNR i, p. 342

XV. 1335 (G 10.43)

XV. S. 351 [1348b] (G 11/12) = MNR i. p. 342 = LSO 1001 = ForoPal, p. 76

XV. 1383 (G 10.44) = IC., p. 396 = cf., LSO 1023 = AAR 201 = MNR i, p. 343

XV. 1384 (G 17.6) = LSO 1024 = AAR 202

XV. 1390 ( 10/45) = VIII. 22632.34 = LSO 1026

XV. 1445a (G 10.46) = VIII. 22632.80 = LSO 1057 cf., ForoPal, p. 94 (VAR.)

XV. 1449a (G 10/47) = X. 8043.81 = LSO 1059 = ForoPal, pp. 71, 77 = KM p. 82

XV. 1464a (G 10/48) = AgRom, p. 94 (TA 162-D; cf., TA 5, TA 323; TG 150?) = AAR = 210

XV. 2260 (G 10/49, G 11/13) = cf., AgRom, p. 94 (TG 74-D; TA 114a-G, 114b-1)

NOVUM XV. 2277 CORR. & COMPL (G 10/50)