Textual Evidence
The fifth and final form of evidence for the reuse of amphorae as packaging containers is textual evidence. This consists of two inscriptions from Rome that suggests that amphorae were regularly reused in west central Italy for the
packaging of wine at two different points during the imperial period and a passage from Pliny the Elder that may refer to the reuse of oil amphorae for the packaging of cabbages.
The first of the two epigraphical texts is an epitaph probably dating to the period ca. a.D. 50-150 said to have been found outside the Porta Salaria (CIL 6.37807) (Wilson 1910: 35-6). This records a certain Gaius Comissius Sucessus, who is termed a negotians Porto Vinario lagonaris [lagona trader at the Portus Vinarius]. The Portus Vinarius appears to have been a specialized wine-trading district at Rome, perhaps situated on the right bank of the Tiber River near the site of the early modern Porto di Ripa Grande (Peiia 1999: 11 -12).47 Although it is clear from the textual sources that during the period in question the word lagona was most often employed to refer to small-sized wine amphorae, most likely classes belonging to the family of small, flat-bottomed containers produced in Sicily, central Italy, and Adriatic Italy, such as the Middle Roman 1, Spello amphora, and Forli amphora (Peiia :999: 75-6), it also appears that it could be employed to refer to wine amphorae in general or, indeed, to full-sized wine containers.48 By considering the role that amphorae likely played in the operations that took place in the Portus Vinarius, one can make some educated inferences regarding the nature of Successus' activities. It seems a fair assumption that the activities carried out at the Portus Vinarius would have generated large numbers of empty amphorae, as wine brought there in these containers was transferred to the dolia housed in the special-purpose cellae vinariae [wine storehouses] that are known to have existed in this district. At the same time, these operations would have required the use of large numbers of empty amphorae, as shipments ofwine arriving in wagon-mounted cupae and cullei were prepared for storage, sale, or conveyance to buyers, or wine that had been transferred to the dolia was readied for sale or conveyance to buyers. In light of these considerations, it seems likely that Successus worked as an amphora broker - the term negotians suggests activity on a large scale - purchasing empty amphorae from traders who no longer had need of containers that had been emptied of their content, and reselling these to others who needed containers in order to take away wine that they had purchased.49
A second epitaph from Rome, in this case from a burial facility located along the Via Appia and of uncertain date, may record a second individual involved in activities of this kind (CIL 6.9488). This is dedicated to a certain Leontia, presumably a slave, who is termed an ad Porta(m) Trigemina(m)
lagunara [lagunara at the Porta Trigémina]. Although the interpretation of the term lagunara is unclear, it may perhaps refer to an individual involved in the buying and selling of used amphorae (Rodriguez-Almeida 1984: 97).50
The presence of brokers such as Successus would have greatly facilitated trading operations in places such as the Portus Vinarius, where there were concentrations of wine sellers. The systematic reuse oflarge numbers of wine amphorae that would have been the result of the activity of these individuals may account to some extent for the lack of any conspicuous, concentrated deposit of discarded wine containers at Rome analogous to Monte Testaccio, the massive mound of discarded oil amphorae located in the city's Emporium district (see Section 9.3.2), and, as a consequence, lie behind the difficulties that scholars have encountered in determining the location of the Portus Vinarius.
The second epigraphical text that may point to the reuse ofwine amphorae as packaging containers in the Rome area is a large public inscription recovered in fragmentary condition in the northeastern Campus Martius (CIL 6.1785 = 6.31931) (Lega 1993; Peña 1999: 177-8). This records what appears to be an edict issued by the praefectus urbi that established the amount of money that landowners were obliged to pay, presumably as a gratuity in recompense for their services, to several classes of functionaries involved in the collection of wine being consigned to the state as tax in kind under the land tax. Although the date of this inscription is uncertain, it can be assigned generally to the fourth century, most probably to the period after a.d. 365. At the end of a list of specific functionaries and the amounts of money due them either for each cupa of wine or for each receipt issued, and preceding a final entry that appears to indicate the overall amount due for each cupa of wine, is the provision: De ampullis placuit ut post degustationem possessori reddantur [Regarding the ampullae, it has been resolved that these should be returned to the landowner after the tasting (i.e., of the wine)].
Although the reconstruction of the set of operations that this inscription indicates was involved in the consignment of tax wine at Rome remains problematic, the most plausible scenario sees the landowners conveying the wine to the city in amphorae, where, following a tasting carried out by representatives of the office of the praefectus annonae in order to ensure that it had not soured, the wine was formally accepted by these officials and transferred to cupae for storage in a state warehouse. If this reconstruction is correct, then the ampullae referred to in the portion of the text highlighted above should be understood to be the containers in which the landowners had transported the wine from their estates into the city for consignment to the state.51 According to this interpretation, the word ampullae, which is the diminutive form of amphora, refers not to flasks, as in normal usage (Hilgers 1969: 102-4), but rather to small amphorae, presumably the small, flat-bottomed containers produced in central and southern Italy during the fourth and fifth centuries.
The motive behind the provision that the empty ampullae should be returned to the landowner is not entirely clear. On the one hand, the office of the praefectus annonae simply may have been interested in devolving onto landowners the responsibility for disposing of the large numbers of empty amphorae that would have been an incidental by-product ofthe consignment operation. Alternatively, the provision may derive from an understanding that, in contrast with the legal opinions concerning the legation of wine discussed in Section 4.2.3, these containers were not regarded simply as an accessory to the wine being consigned as tax in kind, but rather as items of significant intrinsic value, the ownership of which remained with the landowner. Whatever the case, the landowners presumably did one of three things with the empty containers that they found themselves in possession of at the completion of the consignment operation: they discarded them at their earliest possible convenience, they sold them to some third party for eventual reuse - perhaps to amphora brokers of the sort discussed above - or they carried them back to their estates for reuse, perhaps for refilling with tax wine.52
Finally, as noted above, a passage from Pliny the Elder (Naturalis historia 19.41.142) may refer to the reuse of amphorae for the packaging of cabbages. This passage, which is ofconsiderable interest, is here worth reporting in its entirety: aA^upiSia vocant, quoniam nisi in maritumis non proveniunt. aiunt navi-gatione quoque longinqua virides adservari si statim desecti ita ne humum adtingant in cados olei quam proxime siccatos opturatosque condantur omni spiritu excluso. [They call (cabbages of this variety) halmyridia, because they grow only in areas close to the sea. They say that these remain green even for a lengthy voyage if, as soon as they are cut and without touching the ground, they are placed in oil cadi that have just been dried and these are then stoppered without any air being allowed to get inside.] This passage suggests that it was a regular practice in certain coastal areas where cabbages of the variety under discussion were grown to employ examples of one or more classes of amphorae generally regarded as oil containers for the storage and/or packaging of these, including, apparently in some instances, their packaging for distribution by means of a lengthy sea voyage. Whether this involved the prime use of newly manufactured containers or the reuse of vessels that had been emptied of a prime-use content of oil is unclear, as the verb siccare [to dry or drain] might refer either to the removal of ambient moisture absorbed into the walls of either newly manufactured or used amphorae or to the elimination from used containers ofresidues oftheir prime-use content. The range of containers that Pliny, writing in the middle decades of the first century a.d., might have been referring to as a cadus olei includes the Dressel 6B, the Dressel 20, the Neo-Punic amphora, and the Tripolitanian 1. It is impossible to estimate the likelihood that any of the regions where these classes were manufactured included a coastal zone known for the raising of cabbages, and thus to evaluate the possibility that the practice that Pliny describes involved the use of newly manufactured rather than used containers.
Post a comment