Mortarium at Cetamura Del Chianti in Context Melissa Beth Hargis

Florida State University Libraries

Electronic Theses, Treatises and Dissertations The Graduate School

2007 A Mortarium at Cetamura del Chianti in Context Melissa Beth Hargis

Follow this and additional works at the FSU Digital Library. For more information, please contact [email protected] THE FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY

COLLEGE OF ARTS AND SCIENCES

A MORTARIUM AT CETAMURA DEL CHIANTI IN CONTEXT

MELISSA BETH HARGIS

A Thesis submitted to the Department of Classics in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Art

Degree Awarded Fall Semester 2007. The members of the Committee approve the thesis of Melissa Hargis on April 23, 2007

______Nancy T. de Grummond Professor Directing Thesis

______Daniel J. Pullen Committee Member

______David Stone Committee Member

The Office of Graduate Studies has verified and approved the above named committee members.

For my mothers and fathers. You have given me life, heart, and home. I love you.

iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to give my greatest thanks my parents who let me choose my own path and supported me throughout the process of completing this thesis. I would also like to my friends for their companionship and understanding and Jacquelyn Clements for her beautiful drawings, and I would like to thank the members of my committee for their advise, insight, and patience. I would also like to acknowledge to Roberta Lapucci, Nora Marosi and Renzo Giacchetti, who direct the conservation work at Studio Arts Centre International (SACI) where the mortarium was expertly restored in the summer of 2006. Thanks to Ms. Marosi for arranging for Dr. Claudia Pelosi of the Universita' degli Studi di Viterbo to analyze the residues and prepare the report presented in Appendix B, and I would like to express my gratitude to Dr. Pelosi for meeting personally at Viterbo on June 18, 2007 to discuss the interpretation of the results.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Maps...... vi List of Figures...... vii Abstract...... ix

1. INTRODUCTION ...... 1

2. MORTARIA IN ANCIENT LITERATURE ...... 7

3. ARTISTIC REPRESENTATIONS OF THE MORTARIUM IN ANTIQUIY...... 20

4. GRINDERS AND BONE TOOLS ...... 38

5. A MORTARIUM AT CETAMURA DEL CHIANTI ...... 32

APPENDIX A. MORETUM ...... 45

APPENDIX B. RESIDUE ANALYSIS AND GRAPH ...... 52

MAPS AND FIGURES ...... 53

IMAGE CREDITS ...... 90

REFERENCES ...... 92

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ...... 97

v LIST OF MAPS

Map 1: Location of Cetamura ...... 53

Map 2: General Site Plan ...... 54

Map 3: Zone II ...... 55

Map 4: Area G ...... 56

vi LIST OF FIGURES

1. Milstones recoverd from Lake Mezzano: Early – Middle Bronze Age ...... 57

2. Woodcut of kitchen scene from the Tomb of Ramses III at the Valley of the Kings: DXX ....57

3. Figure 3: Terracotta figurines of women using mortars ...... 58 – 59

4. Basalt cosmetic mortaria from Roman Egypt ...... 60

5. Greek mortars ...... 60

6. Biotian black-figure Lekythos ...... 61

7. Red-figure cup attributed to the Byrgos painter ...... 61

8. Details of terracotta figurines depicting the pestles ...... 62

9. Mosaic from Spain depicting items from the pantry and kitchen ...... 63

10. Modern take on the ancient mortarium (Roman Britain) with pestle ...... 64

11. Reconstruction of kitchen from Roman Britain ...... 65

12. Funeral marker from Roman Bologna ...... 66

13. Artist’s drawing of banquet preparation scene from the Golini Tomb at Orvieto ...... 67

14. Detail of the mortarium from the Golini Tomb at Orvieto ...... 68

15. Pillar from La Tomba dei Rilievi at Cerveteri ...... 69

16. Pestles and grinders ...... 70

17. Antler tool from Trash Pit II in Zone I at Cetamura ...... 71

18. Mortarium in earth prior to removal ...... 72

19. The spout of the mortarium ...... 73

20. Reconstructed mortarium (overhead view) ...... 74

21. Reconstructed mortarium (cross views) ...... 75

vii 22. Reconstructed mortarium (front and rear views) ...... 76

23. Reconstructed mortarium (detail: spout) ...... 77

24. Reconstructed mortarium (base) ...... 78

25. Composite view of the mortarium with a 1:2 scale ...... 79

26. CF3 fragment from Cetamura del Chianti ...... 80

27. Stamp found near the mortarium ...... 80

28. Bronze Age mortar from Ayios Kosmas with its pestle ...... 81

29. “Greek” mortar from Kamarina, sicily ...... 82

30. Mortarium from Roman Britain with its stamp ...... 82

31. Mortarium from Ostia ...... 83

32. Central – Italian mortarium: Tarraconense, Spain ...... 84

33. Apparent mortaria labeled “impasto basin” ...... 85

34. Etruscan mortaria: Benacci Tombs, Bologna ...... 86

35. Etruscan mortarium, Poggio la Croce ...... 87

36. Mortarium labeled for removal ...... 88

37. Mortariun with associate pot sherds and tile ...... 89

viii ABSTRACT

In the 2003 excavation season at Cetamura del Chianti, a mortarium was unearthed which is currently being cleaned, restored and undergoing residue analysis. A mortarium is a vessel used for grinding or mashing food items in conjunction with a grinding implement (pestle).This study will review the mortarium from several aspects: a review of the circumstances of its discovery, a study of the mortarium in Greek and Roman literature to help determine its possible use, a review of mortars in art, and a brief discussion of grinding tools. A discussion of the mortar and its circumstances will help to illuminate the use of this mortarium at Cetamura del Chianti.

ix CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION

Located 60 kilometers south of Florence and 30 kilometers north of Siena, the site of Cetamura del Chianti is in the Monti del Chianti, a mountain range that runs along the western edge of the Arno River Valley, at 695 meters above sea level in the heart of the Italy’s Chianti region. As one of the highest points in the region, Cetamura is well situated to provide excellent views to the surrounding areas,1 and would have been easily defended in the case of an attack. In the larger scale of the Chianti region, Cetamura is centrally located near other major Etruscan centers such as Fiesole, Volterra, Arezzo, Roselle, Vetulonia, and Orvieto (Map 1).2 Its location is advantageous in regards to trade and movement, and perhaps made Cetamura one of most important Etruscan, and later Roman, settlements in the region. Cetamura is also conveniently located close for various resources such as clay for ceramics production and stone for construction. Hydraulic works on the hill – the cistern complex in Zone II (Structures A and B) and the well in Zone I (Map 2) – provided water to the inhabitants, for there was no natural, flowing source of water (e.g. a spring) on the hilltop. Combined, these features made Cetamura an ideal location for settlement. Cetamura was discovered on September 14, 1964, by Alvaro Tracchi, a public accountant and amateur archaeologist, and his assistant Aghinaldo Lastrucci, while searching for ancient roads and sites in the Chianti-Valdarno region. During his survey, Tracchi cleared much of the overgrowth and identified four zones on the site. He also identified several structures, and removed materials from walls and parts of the well, and collected surface finds. He produced a map of the site which is still useful today and also created the basic chronology for habitation and construction at Cetamura. Tracchi published two works in which he reported on Cetamura: an article in Studi Etruschi and a book, published posthumously in 1978 entitled Dal Chianti al Valdarno, in which he reported on his studies in the Chianti-Valdarno Region.

1 It is possible to view the city of Siena from Zone I. 2 Waterways made travel between many of these cities vastly more possible than by land travel.

1 In 1973 Cetamura became associated with The Florida State University when John Reich, a professor in the Classics department, acquired a permit from the Soprintendenza Archaeologica della Toscana in Florence to excavate the hilltop. Three years later, in September, the first campaign at Cetamura took place. Reich would supervise the fieldwork for the next decade with the aid of two alternate directors: W. W. de Grummond (Fall 1975) and John Oleson (Spring 1976). Cetamura became a field school project in 1978 under the direction of Nancy T. de Grummond; she has been the field director from 1983 to the present.3 The site itself has born witness to prolonged occupation over several prehistoric and historical periods: The Paleolithic, Etruscan (Archaic and Hellenistic periods), Roman (Republican and Imperial), and Medieval periods. Each period has provided artifacts or architectural remains to attest to the various peoples that lived there.4 During Tracchi’s survey, by identifying artifacts from several distinct periods he produced a basic chronology which has since been refined and expanded by continuing excavation. The earliest visitors to Cetamura were probably nomadic hunter-gatherers from the Paleolithic period (c. 40, 000 bp) as evidenced by the discovery of flint scrapers and projectile points.5 There is no evidence of activity on the hill after the Paleolithic until the Archaic Etruscan period in the seventh and sixth centuries BCE. An Archaic post pit on Zone I hints that the “acropolis” was being inhabited (Map 4). Like many other Etruscan cities, Cetamura seems to have been deserted during the fifth century, but was slowly repopulated at the end of the 4th and beginning of the third centuries BCE.6 The site was evidently deserted again around the time of the Social Wars, and was then utilized by the Romans during Augustus’ reign and them sporadically until the fourth century CE. There is no further mention of habitation at Cetamura until the eleventh century, when the name Civitamura refers to the hill in a bill of sale to Badia a Coltibuono. During the Medieval Period a fortified castrum was built on the hilltop. Cetamura disappears from the written record over a century later until its rediscovery in the twentieth century.

3 de Grummond 2000, 4 – 6. 4 See de Grummond 2000, 6 – 21 for a complete discourse on the historical background of Cetamura. 5 de Grummond 2000, 7, 23 entries 1 and 2. 6 Ibid 2003, 7. The complete timeline puts the repopulation of Cetamura at c. 325 BCE.

2 In the 2003 season, a remarkable find was uncovered on the scarp between Zone I and II at Cetamura. During the removal of fill from the terracing of the Roman baths, a layer appeared which was hypothesized to be Etruscan and to be associated with a nearby trash pit that demonstrably belonged to the period 325 – 300 BCE. The layer contained a large deposit of broken pottery and roof tile. The pottery cluster contained four different types of pottery; each type given an unique label to identify and study them at a later date. Type A was half of a large vessel composed of what was identified as the local fabric Cetamura Fabric Three – a hard, fine grained, often light colored fabric used for local pots. The three other ceramic types labeled Types B, C, and D were hypothesized to also be tile, but are currently unidentified. It appeared that half of the vessel remained and it had been crushed into a little over 30 pieces. Upon removal, a spout was revealed and the vessel was identified as a mortarium – a vessel used for pounding and grinding, often in conjunction with a pestle. The mortar can be found in nearly every ceramic producing culture on the planet. Examples come from Africa, North and South America, Asia, Australia, and Europe in the form of both ceramic and worked stone. The mortar and quern – a hand operated mill – were an essential part of food production and preparation prior to the industrial revolution when so many previously manual tasks became mechanized. They were the main instruments for grinding grains and maize into flour and meals, and the main tool for mixing and crushing of various ingredients to create dishes and medicines. In regards to the mortar in the Mediterranean (from this point referred to by its Latin name: mortarium) it appears in the archaeological record of the major Western cultural centers that existed in antiquity: Egypt, Greece, and Italy. Prior to the appearance of the mortarium, millstones – created from pieces of naturally abrasive stone – such as those recovered from Lake Mezzano in Italy – were used to mill grains into flour (Figure 1).7 These millstones gave way to the mortarium as a ceramic or stone vessel that takes on three main forms: a tall, cylindrical vessel in which large pestles are used to pound and crush (Figures2 and 3B); small, hand-held mortaria used for cosmetics (Figure 4) 8; and the shallow, round, often spouted vessels with textured interiors for grinding with smaller pestles (Figure 5).

7 L’Alimentazione nel mondo antico. Vol. 3. 1987, 143. 8 Small mortaria called coticula in Latin literature are recorded as being used for preparing medicines.

3 The mortarium was a common and important tool amongst the Greeks, Etruscans, and Romans,9 enough so that it worked its way not only into the kitchen and doctor’s kit, but into Greek and Roman literature, where we can read about its uses from the ancients’ perspective. It is also represented in art, though the instances are uncommon, of Egypt, Greece, Rome and Etruria as part of the pantry or being utilized by an accompanying figure (Figures 3, 6, and 7). The Etruscans even included the mortarium as a grave good along with other ceramic vessels and precious objects.10 Despite being a rather standard find in Roman and many Greek sites, the mortarium is seemingly less prevalent in Etruria. The apparent lack of mortaria may be due in part to the state of scholarship. The modern study of mortaria is something of a predicament. The mortarium receives the most attention in Roman ceramic studies, and much of this focuses on Roman Britain where mortaria have been preserved on a seemingly larger scale than in the Mediterranean. Even so, mortaria are usually included as part of a larger whole of ceramic studies in Roman Britain, with the exception of K. Hartley’s work A Mortarium Kiln at Elingham, Norfolk which is devoted exclusively to mortaria. Hartley is the authority on Romano-British mortaria and their stamps, and has contributed to numerous publications from Roman Britain. In scholarship where Hartley has not personally worked on mortaria, her work is the main reference for other scholars. Her studies have its base in Italian mortaria prior to focusing on Roman Britain.11 Mortaria in Italy are not a mainstream course of study. They appear in basic pottery handbooks,12 and, when discussed, are a smaller section within a larger work. This is also true of their study in North Africa.13 Where the mortarium does constitute a large contribution in Italian ceramic studies, it is often because a rather large number were found in a single context such as a shipwreck.14 Carmen Aguarod Otal has, perhaps, the largest discourse of Italian mortaria; focusing on those which had been imported into Tarraconense, part of the province of Hispania,

9 Many modern interpretations of Roman kitchens are sometimes reconstruct them with multiple mortaria (Figure 17) 10 Several mortaria were recovered from the Benaci Tombs in Bologna, and now reside the Museo Civico Archeologia di Bologna with their fellow grave goods. 11 See Hartley 1973. 12 See de la Bèdoyére 2000, and Hayes 1997 for basic pottery handbooks. 13 See Humphrey 1976 and 1978. 14 See Parker 1990.

4 which discuses mortaria from the Italian countryside and central Italy.15 Likewise, Greek mortaria receive a similar treatment in modern scholarship,16 though mortaria from the Bronze Age Aegean do receive some more focused discussion in small articles.17 Part of this may be due to the general attitude towards ceramic studies in the Mediterranean as Peacock explains.18 In Rome and Greece excavations can readily uncover mountains of pottery, too much ever to feasibly analyze all the recovered fragments. This leaves the excavator with the choice to focus on a select group of ceramics – usually the more interesting, datable decorated wares – which leaves the coarser, “less interesting” ceramics ignored. At a site like Cetamura where considerably less decorated pottery is excavated the common can be exotic. Though mortaria have been discovered in Etruscan archaeological contexts, it does not receive as much attention in scholarship when compared to their Greek and Roman counterparts. Thus, the discovery of a mortarium in a potential Etruscan layer at Cetamura provides an opportunity not only to further study the mortarium itself, but also, in attempting to determine the cultural source (Etruscan or Roman) of this vessel, attempt to bring together previously unpublished Etruscan examples. The main purpose of this thesis is to put the mortarium into context. This will entail examining the history of Cetamura, and to explore mortaria in the Mediterranean with particular focus on literary evidence and physical comparanda from other sites. Since the large-scale study of mortaria is limited to Roman Britain, the present research will help to serve as a resource for those looking outside of Roman Britain in the study of coarsewares, since it reviews the literary and artistic sources, and gathers examples from around the Mediterranean; bringing together these examples will also help to determine to which period the mortarium at Cetamura belongs: Roman or Etruscan. Of course, studying a household tool like the mortarium will help illuminate another aspect of everyday life at Cetamura. Here in Chapter One I have provided an overview of Cetamura, the finding of the mortar, and have noted the status of scholarship on ancient mortaria. Chapter Two focuses on representations of the mortarium in antiquity by looking at Greek and Roman literature. Chapter

15 See Aguarod Otal 1991. 16 See Sparkes and Talcott 1970. 17 Runnels 1988, 257 – 272. 18 Peacock 1982, 1.

5 Three will be an overview of the mortarium in art from Greece, Rome, and Etruria. Chapter Four contains a brief discourse on pestles, both of stone and bone. Chapter Five focuses closely on the Cetamura mortarium, its analysis and comparanda, and the conclusions drawn about the it considering the information gathered. Two appendices are provided: one containing the full text of Moretum, a poem attributed to Virgil from the 1st century BCE, is provided, the other containing the report of the residue analysis performed on the Cetamura mortarium, followed by the maps and illustrations, the image credits, and bibliography.

6 CHAPTER TWO: MORTARIA IN ANCIENT LITERATURE

I. Vocabulary We are fortunate that in both the Greek and Latin literary traditions there are numerous mentions of the mortar, appearing as several different words in Greek and Latin and in several different contexts. Both cultures provide examples of three main uses for the mortar: I have identified these uses as follows: 1) the domestic use in which the mortar is used for food preparation; 2) the medicinal use in which the mortar is used to prepare medicines; and 3) the industrial use in which the mortar is used to create clay matrices, binding mortar, or pigments. The search for the ancient literary sources on the mortar and pestle begins with modern scholarship to help identify the words used by ancient Latin and Greek authors in reference to the mortar and pestle. Roman scholars invariably use the Latin names for the mortar, mortarium, and pestle, pistillum.1 The Oxford Latin Dictionary (OLD) provides English definitions for the Latin terminology as well as citing some of the ancient authors who used these words. The OLD also gives pistillum as a word often found in conjunction with mortarium. A search of the Thesaurus Linguae Latinae (TLL) provides dozens of examples beyond those listed in the OLD, separating the texts into categories of use: the grinding and pounding of food and medicine,2 and grinding sand for industrial purposes;3 it also provides Greek equivalents.4 In 1958, D. A. Amyx, in his study of vessels in and Attic stelai includes a small section on mortars and pestles, especially in conjunction with bread making. In his work he gives one of the Greek words for mortar, ὅλμος, and for pestle, ὕπερον.5 B. A. Sparkes revisits the mortar and pestle in the Greek world several years later in his work on the Greek kitchen and cook wares. He goes further than Amyx in his studies of the vessels themselves, paying close attention to the Greek vocabulary, and identifying the equivalent terms in Latin. He gives the Greek

1 For examples see de la Bèdoyére 2000, 40 – 44, or Hayes 1997, 80. 2 “Usu communi: a teruntur cibi, medicamenta sim.” TLL, “mortarium.” 3 “teritur arenatum in opera aedificandi.” TLL, “mortarium.” 4 Sparkes 1962, 125. 5 Amyx 1958, 233, 235 – 9.

7 δοῖδοξ and ἀλετρίβανςος for the Latin pistillum, and θυεία and ἴγδις for mortarium. In his cross identification of terms he helps to provide two more Latin terms that are not referenced in the TLL or OLD: he equates ὅλμος to the Latin pila (mortar) and ὕπερον to pilum (pestle).6 The distinctions between the two sets of terms (words for mortar and words for pestle) have to do with the physical objects they refer to. ῞Ολμος (pila) designates the tall,7 cylindrical

mortar which uses the ὕπερον (pilum), the long, narrow pounding stick as its pestle (Figure 15

and 16). Θυεία and ἴγδις are used to label the shallow, sometimes spouted, mortar with gritty

interior that uses the δοῖδοξ and ἀλετρίβανςος, small round stones or shaped stone, as its grinders.8 As with the Latin vocabulary, a Greek lexicon provides definitions for the aforementioned Greek terms and lists several instances where they occur in ancient texts; a more thorough list of occurrences is derived with the aid of the Thesaurus Linguae Graecae (TLG). It seems that both mortarium and pila are used equally in the Latin literary tradition; the TLL inventories a fairly uniform number of occurrences in general.9 According to the TLL, however, mortarium is the slightly more common term used in texts on food preparation, and pila is most often found in texts on industrial usages. In the texts, mortarium is always used to refer to the aforementioned uses, and the word specifically refers to the vessel. Unlike mortarium, pila has a wider range of connotation in Latin. 10 It not only indicates the actual vessel, but it can also apply to a military mortar (i.e. missile) and binding mortar used for construction. The term often found in juxtaposition with both mortarium and pila is pistillum (pestle) as it is the instrument used in conjunction with a mortar to aid in grinding and pounding.11

6 Sparkes 1962, 125. 7 A passage from the Iliad is often cited as a reference to this trunk-like type of mortar. In 11.147, Homer uses the ὅλμος as a method of describing the torso (“trunk” of a man) rolling through the masses of warriors. See Sparkes 1962, 125 – 6. 8 Ibid. 9 The TLL lists roughly 50 occurrences of each term. It should be noted, however, that the lists for mortarium, pila, pilum, and pistillum are by no means exhaustive. 10 Sometimes both terms are used by the same author in the same context. 11 The pilum mentioned my Sparkes is, according to the TLL, often found in conjunction with pila and not with mortarium.

8 Greek uses a great many more words for mortar than Latin, but the general term used seems to be θυεία and its derivatives.12 A dozen others occur, but ὅλμος and ἴγδις appear to

be the most common terms after θυεία.13 A fourth term, μάκτρα, is sometimes translated as

“mortar,” but is more often considered a kneading trough.14 Like the Latin mortarium, θυεία, and its associated terms, appears in the three main contexts of mortar usage. Unlike the Latin pila, it appears that none of the Greek terms used to indicate the vessel branch out to include the military or construction context. The Greek word for pestle can be rather elusive. Again, there are a dozen words that translate into “pestle” or “pounder.” No one word is used more than twice, and not by the same author. When a word for pestle appears it usually occurs alone, without a word for mortar to accompany it.15 It is likely that by using θυεία, or other words for mortar, that it carries the idea that a pestle should be used and, thus, a word for the pestle itself is not included. II. Usages: Domestic The domestic use is, by far, the most common literary context in which the mortar appears. It is most heavily represented in Latin literature, mainly due to the survival of a text on cooking attributed to Apicius, collected in the late fourth and early fifth centuries CE.16 While the recipes in Apicius may look strange to a person whose shelves are filled with cookbooks, the format of the recipes may be more familiar to a trained and experienced chef. Many of the recipes are little more than lists of ingredients. It is assumed that the person following the instructions is practiced enough to know how to combine and prepare them.17 An example of this occurs in the first book, which instructs the user on how to create various necessities for the

12 The TLG (electronic version) has the ability to search its entire author list for specific words. Unfortunately, there is no morphological search capacity which forces the user to search by entering all the possible declensions for the search term. This method of inquiry can lead to conflicting numbers in the event that an odd or obscure declension of a term exists. This is unlike the TLL which is organized by word rather than author. 13 Liddell and Scott write that ἴγδις is obsolete for θυεία. 14 Sparkes 1962, 125 – 6. 15 Ar. Eq. 984 δοῖδοξ; Ar, Pax. 259 ἀλοτρίβανος; An exception appears in Hesiod’s Works and Days 421 - 23 where the word ὄλμος is often translated as “mortar” followed closely by ὔπετροᾳ for “pestle” as part of a list of instructions. 16 Some of the recipes in Apicius date back to the first century CE. Grocock and Grainger 2006, 15. 17 Ibid, 23. Grocock and Grainger write that Apicius was most likely intended for those who were learned in the kitchen.

9 kitchen (the modern mise en place); the recipe calls for a paste (hypotrimma) to be made using a mortarium: 18 XXXV. Mortaria: mentam rutam coriandrum feniculum, omnia uiridia; ligusticum piper mel liquamen. si opus fuerit acetum addes.

1.35. Mortaria: mint, rue, coriander, fennel, all fresh; lovage, pepper, honey, liquamen. Add vinegar if needed.19 The mortarium features heavily throughout Apicius. The recipes call for the crushing and pounding of dry ingredients, animal flesh, and their combination together. A standard formula for instructions is included in the following recipe:20 III.IV.I. callosiores reddes gustum ad cucurbitas: coctas expressas in patinam conpones, adicies in mortarium pipere cuminum silfi modice (id est laseris radicem), rutam modicum; liquamine et aceto temperabis; mittes defreto modicum ut coloretur; ius exinanies in patenam. cum ferbuerit iterum ac tertio, depones et piper minutum asperges.

3.4.1. To make tougher-skinned gourds tasty: arrange cooked and well-drained gourds in a dish; put into a mortar pepper, cumin, and a little silphium (that is, a laser root), a little rue; temper it with liquamen and vinegar; put in a little defrutum so that it has color; pour this sauce into the dish. When it has come to a boil three times, remove [from the heat] and sprinkle with ground pepper. The mortarium is alluded to in many of the recipes. While the word mortarium may not appear in the preparation instructions, the text reveals that various ingredients should be “pounded” (teres) together:21 IV.II.XXVII. patina zomoteganona: crudos quoslibet pisces in patina conpones: adicies oleum liquamen uinum coctum fasciculum porri coriandri; dum quoquitur teres piper ligusticum origanum fasciculum de suo sibi fricabis; suffundes ius de suo sibi; oua cruda dissolues, temperas, exinanies in patinam; facies ut obligetur. cum tenuerit piper asparges et inferes.

4.2.27. patina zomoteganona: arrange any raw fish you like in a dish, add oil, liquamen, boiled wine, and a bundle of coriander and leek; while it is cooking, pound pepper, lovage, and oregano; pound again and pour

18 Apicius text taken from Grocock and Grainger 2006. 19All translations are my own unless otherwise noted. It should be noted that, frequently, there is no instruction to pound or grind. Rather, it is implied by calling for the use of the mortarium. 20 Note that the mortarium appears in this recipe. 21 tero, terere, triui, tritum. Sometimes translated in Apicius as “crush.”

10 on the cooking liquid and raw eggs so that you make a smooth emulsion, pour back over the sole [fish] and cook on a gentle fire. When it has set, sprinkle with ground pepper and serve. Though Apicius provides solid, textual evidence for the domestic use of mortaria in Latin, it is by no means the only source that shows the mortarium in a domestic setting. The mortar appears in literature from the Republic and early Empire. Cato the Elder’s On Agriculture (second century BCE) gives instructions on how to make libum – a cheese-bread, placenta – a cake with cheese and honey, and a laxative wine. In his instructions for libum and placenta he calls for cheese to be pounded in a mortar (in both instances Cato uses mortarium): LXXV. Libum hoc modo facito. Caesei P. II bene disterat in mortario. 75. The way to make libum. Cut two pounds of cheese well in a mortar. In his recipe for placenta, the mortarium appears to be little more than a mixing bowl. There are no explicit instructions, as in the guide to making libum, which say to pound or crush the ingredients: LXXVI. Placentam sic facito…in mortarium purum minibus condepsito conminuitoque quam maxime...transeat in mortarium.

76. This how to make placenta…in a clean mortar knead [the dough] by hand and make it as smooth as possible…force [the cheese] through it into the mortar. Cato also includes his instructions on how to make a laxative wine. In this recipe, he breaks from using the word mortarium and instead instructs to pound a poisonous root in a pila: CXIV. Vinum si voles concinnare, ut alvum bonam faciat…Veratri atri radices contundito in pila, eas radices dato circum…

114. If you wish to make a wine, so that it makes the stomach well…Pound the roots of hellebore in the mortar, and apply around the roots… In the Moretum, a work attributed to Virgil from the first century BCE, a dish named for the mortarium is made called moretum. The moretum itself is a spread made of garlic, parsley, rue, coriander, cheese, finished with olive oil and vinegar. This dish was served with bread, which the cook (named Simulus) prepared at the beginning of the poem. Virgil, if he is indeed the author of the poem, describes how the mortarium was used. Other authors instruct the reader to pound or crush their ingredients in the mortarium without any hint as to the technique. Here,

11 however, we read that Simulus braces the mortar between his thighs and uses a pestle to grind and mash the components together:22 …et laeva testam setosa sub inguina fulcit, dextra pistillo primum fragrantia mollit alia, tum pariter mixto terit omnia suco.23

…and with his left hand he props up the mortar between his shaggy thighs, with his right he first crushes the fragrant garlic with a pestle, then grinds everything evenly in a juicy mixture. Moretum appears again in the first century CE, described in prose, in the work of Columella. He hints at the mortarium having a spout when he instructs the reader to lift the mortar to get rid of the excess moisture: XII.LVII.I. Deinde statim mortarium erigito, ut omnis humor eliquetur.

12.57.1. Then immediately raise up the mortar, so that all the liquid runs out. Columella calls for the mortarium or pila in recipes for salads,24 in preparing spices for oils,25 and in preparing herb seeds for special planting.26 Like Cato, he uses both terms for the mortar. Outside of Apicius, the Moretum, Cato, and Columella, the mortarium shows up sporadically. Pliny the Elder suggests making your own omphacium – an oil made of unripe olives and grapes – using a mortarium.27 And it appears in Plautus’ Aulularia along with the pestle (pistillum) as an object found in a kitchen. The Greek gives us less in regards to domestic usage. Xenophon in his Oeconomicos (middle of the fourth century BCE), like Plautus, mentions the mortar, μάκτρα, as an object found and needed in the kitchen:28 …ἄλλη τω̂ν ἀμφὶ λουτρόν, ἄλλη ἀμφὶ μάκτρας, ἄλλη ἀμφὶ τραπέζας.

22 Virgil: Text taken from the Loeb Classical Library. The entire text is located in Appendix A of this thesis. 23 Vergil, Moretum. 98 – 100. Here testam refers to the fired clay vessel as the word mortarium has been mentioned several times already. 24 Col. 12.59.1. 25 Col. 12.53.3. 26 Col. 11.3.33. Here, Columella recommends that if you want parsley with curly leaves you should lightly grind the seeds in a pila. 27 Plin. HN. 12.60 28 Xen, Oec. 9.7.

12 …others, again, of the things required for washing, at the kneading-trough, and for table use. III. Usages: Medicinal The medicinal use of the mortarium is thus far the least represented in literature. As mentioned previously, Galen (late second century CE) uses the mortar several times in his works in his instructions on preparing ingredients for medicines:29 …Μαλακόν ἄγαν εὔτριπτον εἰς ἴγδην βαλών, Λέαινε τ δοίδυκι, καὶ λεῖον ποιν...

…Having thrown a soft, very easy to pound (thing) into a mortar, Smooth it with a pestle, and making it smooth… Here, Galen uses ἴγδις as his word of choice, but he more commonly chooses θυεία or

ὅλμος as the term for mortar:30 γο α´, φύλλου μαλαβάθρου γο β´. Κόψας ἐν ὅλμῳ πάντα καὶ στήσας ἅμα Χπρσθαι κελεύσεις, ὡς φράσω μετ´ οὐ πολύ.31

…, second add a leaf of cinnamon. You have (been) urged to consult an oracle and Having placed and pounded everything together in the mortar, as I indicated often. Given that Galen was a proponent of a healthy diet as part of practicing good medicine, it would be right to say that Galen sometimes straddles the line between the domestic and medical use of the mortar. This is especially true in that herbs often pull double duty as both ingredients in foods and as remedies in medicine. Greek medicinal texts often refer to pounding ingredients to create medicines or to prepare herbs without mentioning the actual vessel:32 ´Εκ μέν οὗν τν πυρν βρέξαντές σφας καὶ πτίσαντες καὶ καταλέσαντές τε καὶ διασήσαντες καὶ φοπύξαντες καὶ ὀπτήσαντες ἀπετέλεσαν μέν ἄρτον, ἐκ

29 Galen De antidotis libri ii. 14. 130. Text taken from the TLG. Galen also uses ὅλμος earlier in the same work (14.38) 30 According to the TLG, Galen uses θυεία eight times and ὅλμος seven times, as opposed to the single use of ἴγδις and no occurrence of μάκτρα. 31 Galen De compositione medicamentorum secundum locos libri x, 12.890. Text taken from the TLG. 32 Hipp. Corp. 3.5 (122 J.) Text and translation taken from Schiefsky 2005, 78 – 9.

13 δέ τν κριθέων μάζαν·

From wheat, by moistening, winnowing, grinding, sifting, kneading, and baking it they made bread, and from barley they made barley cake. Hippocrates (fifth century BCE) makes the connection with cooking and the discovery and preparations of medicines in his discourse on medicine. This idea that cooking paved the way for medicine is a common theme in the early sections of the Hippocratic corpus.33 Latin provides us with at least three examples of the mortarium being used to prepare medicines. First, Juvenal (late first/early second century CE), in his seventh Satire, parodies teachers going to court to recover fees, saying that this is apparently more important than real issues. He hints at medicines that are made by pounding:34 haec alii sex vel plures uno conclamant ore sophistae et versa agitant lites raptore relicto; fusa venena silent, malus ingratusque maritus et quam iam veteres sanant mortaria caecos.

So exclaim six or more of our sophists in one breath, entering upon real lawsuits of their own, abandoning “The Ravisher” and forgetting about “The Poisoner” or “The Evil, Ungrateful Husband,” or the pounded drugs that cure old blind men. Celsus (second century CE) offers a straightforward medical example. In his De Medicina he gives instructions on how to create an ointment called euodes – made from wax, oil, turpentine-resin, and walnut. Celsus does not, however, indicate what condition the ointment was used to treat:35 …deinde infusa in mortario teruntur, instillaturque subinde quam optumi mellis acetabulum…

…then pound it, poured into a mortar, and into this gradually drop 1/8 pint of the best honey… It is in the medicinal usage that a specialized word appears in Latin. Pliny the Elder (first century CE) introduces the word coticula to separate the larger, domestic mortaria from a small, handheld mortar that was used to make medicine:36 …contraque suffusiones oculorum cum lacte in coticulis teritur, privatim suggillationibus in linteolo involutus crebroque ex aqua ferventi inpositus, ulceribus oris manantibus in linteolo concerpto, gingivarum tumori infricatus et contra scabritiem linguae fractus commintutuusque.

33 Hipp. Corp. 34 Juvenal, 7.170. 35 Celsus, De Medicina. 5.24.2. 36 Plin. HN. 31. 9. 45.100.

…for a cataract it [sea salt with myrrh and honey] is ground in a little stone mortar with milk, for bruises a specific [Spanish] salt is wrapped in linen, dipped frequently in boiling water and applied, for running ulcers in the mouth it [sea salt with myrrh and honey] is applied in linen, gum-boils are also rubbed with the mixture, and, crushed and broken into pieces, removes scabs from the tongue.

IV. Usages: Industrial The mortarium and pila also appear in what I have labeled “industrial usage.” These are the instances where the text calls for the mortar to be used to grind or mix up clay to create binding mortar, or to crunch up small rocks for cement production, or sand for glass, and possibly the creation of pigments. There is, thus far, no mention in Greek literature of the mortar vessel playing this role. Vitruvius (first century BCE) writes on how to make cement in the De Architectura. After choosing the best available stone, he recommends that the purest and roughest sand should be obtained and mixed with rubble, and then mixed in a trough with the strongest lime to create the cement mixture:37 …caementum de silice frangatur ne gravius quam librarium, calx quam vehementissima mortario mixta…

…[mix together] cement of broken flint [each piece] weighing no less than a pound weight, then the strongest limestone to be mixed in a mortar… Though Vitruvius does not give instructions to pound or crush any material in the mortarium, one can assume that the rough texture of the mortarium’s interior would aid in the mixing of the concrete mixture. Pliny the Elder prefers to use pila when writing about an industrial use for the mortar. In his description of glass-making, he writes that white sand is preferable, and that the sand should be taken from the softest location to be milled and ground before it can be mixed with soda to create glass:38 …qua mollissima est, pila molave teritur.

… wherever it is softest, it is taken to be ground in a mortar (or mill).

37 Vitr. De arch. 7.3.10 38 Plin. HN. 36.194.

15 Cato the Elder provides the most industrial uses for the mortar. He uses mortarium and pila equally. There is no special circumstance surrounding the choosing of each word, though he does introduce another specialized word. In his list of things you will need if you are contracting for a new building, he lists a small mortar for grinding wheat and a fuller’s mortar – a fullonium. Cato does not, however, explain how or if a fullonium is different from a mortarium or pila:39 …paullulam pilam ubi triticum pinsat I, fulloniam I…

…[you will need] one small mortar where he can grind grain, one fuller’s mortar… Cato later instructs the reader on how the grinding station (on the construction site) should be properly set up. In his description he has the mortarium (he has now changed from pila) resting on a stand made of two supports, one for each side of the vessel, sitting atop a table or a slab. The mortar should not be touching the surface of the table. He recommends leaving at least two fingers worth of space between the surface top and the base of the mortar. Cato warns that if the vessel touches a surface, the grinding would be twofold – on both the interior and the outer base of the mortar – thus shortening its life. For all his description on the proper way to set up the mortarium, Cato does not tell us what exactly it will be used for:40 Digitum minimum orbem abesse oportet ab solo mortari…si orbes altiores erunt atque nimium mortarium deorsum teret…

The mortar should be distant [from the table] by only a single finger [width]…if the [support stones] are set too close and wear away at the bottom of the mortar too much… Pliny is the only author who explicitly writes that a mortarium is used to grind materials for this type of use (in his case the creation of glass). Virgil alludes to its use in creating mortars and mixing earth, and Cato makes it known that the mortarium is a part of the construction toolkit. The textual evidence for industrial usage, unfortunately, leaves much to the imagination.41

39 Cato, De agri. 14.2. 40 Ibid, 22.1 – 2. 41 There is another textual use of the mortar in both Greek and Latin where it is used in conjunction with a threat on a person’s life. In the Ibis, Ovid mentions an enemy’s bones being crushed in a mortarium (571), and Aristophanes uses the mortar in reference to execution by use of hemlock in a dialogue between two characters in the Frogs (124).

16 There are also mentions of the mortarium being used to make pigments and paints. Vitruvius provides a quick method for making black paint for painting apartments if the proper ingredients cannot be procured:42 Si autem hae copiae non fuerint paratae, ita necessitatibus erit administrandum, ne expectatione morae res retineatur. Sarmenta aut taedae schidiae comburantur; cum erunt carbones, extinguantur, deinde in mortario cum glutino terantur; ita erit atramentum tectoribus non invenustum.

But if this cannot be procured, in order to prevent delay, the following means may be adopted. Pine branches or chips must be burnt, and, when thoroughly charred, pounded in a mortar with paste; thus the plasterer will procure an agreeable black color.

In this instance a pila is being used to make a pigment. Isidorus of Seville in his Etymologies listed instruments used for medical purposes. In his list are the mortarium, pila, and coticula. Isidorus wrote in the sixth century CE, but was drawing on earlier texts to compile his information:43 Clistere. Pila a pisendis seminibus, id est terendis. Hinc et pigmenta, eo quod in pila et pilo aguntur, quasi piligmenta. Est enim pila vas concavum et medicorum aptum usui, in quo proprie ptisanae fieri et pigmenta concidi solent.

Clyster. You will have ground the seeds in a mortar, they will have been crushed. Hence a pigment is as if a piligmenta [mortar made pigment], that which is made in the mortar and was driven [pounded] by the pestle,. For the mortar is a hollowed out vessel and suitable for medical use, in which barley is properly winnowed and pigments are accustomed to being ground up. Though Isidorus mentions this use in a section on medical tools, the passage provides a clue that the mortar was, at some point, used to crush and grind elements to make pigments in a medicinal setting. V. Usages: Violence Beyond the uses discussed above, other purposes for the mortarium exist in literature. Perhaps the most striking is the mortarium as an instrument for violence. Literary references survive that show the mortar in both Greek and Latin mentioned in conjunction with a threat on a person’s life. In Aristophanes’ The Frogs (fifth century BCE) the “mortar death” is mentioned, in

42 Text taken from the Loeb Classical Library. 43 Isid. Etym. 4, 11, 4. Text taken from Lindsay 1911.

17 this instance as θυεία, as a reference to Socrates’ punishment of drinking hemlock. It seems that the preparation of the fatal drink required the use of a mortar:44 ΗΡ. Ἀλλ῏ ἔστιν ἀτραπὸς ξύντομος τετριμμένη, ἡ διὰ θυείας. ΔΙ. Ἆρα κώνειον λέγεις; ΗΡ. Μάλιστά γε.

Heracles: Then there is a track, a short and beaten cut, With a pestle and mortar. Dionysos: You speak of hemlock? Heracles: That’s it! In the Iliad Homer uses the mortar, ὅλμος, to help paint a bloody picture during one of the many battle scenes. The mortar is used as a simile to describe how a dismembered man’s torso rolls across the ground as a mortar can roll down a hill:45 Ἱ ππόλοχος δ᾽ ἀπόρουσε, τὸν αὖ χαμαὶ ἐξενάριξε χεῖρας ἀπὸ ξίφεϊ τμήξας ἀπό τ᾽ αὐχένα κόψας, ὅλμον δ᾽ ὣς ἔσσευε κυλίνδεσθαι δι᾽ ὁμίλου.

Hippolochos sprang away, but Atreides killed him dismounted, cutting away his arms with a sword-stroke, free of the shoulder, and sent him spinning like a mortar down the battle. A Latin example comes from Ovid’s Ibis (first century CE). In his long, ranting curse, he wishes that his enemy’s bones be crushed into small pieces in a deep mortar, a pila, as someone would routinely pound grain:46 Aut ut Anaxarchus pila minuaris in alta, Ictaque pro solitis frugibus ossa sonent.

Like Anaxarchus may you be crushed to small pieces in a deep mortar, And your pounded bones resound in place of the usual grains.

44 Ar, Frogs. 124. Text taken from the TLG 45 Hom, Il. 11.147 46 Ovid, Ibis. 571.

18 From this brief survey, we can see that the mortar was being utilized in various contexts throughout the Greek and Roman world. Each language developed its own specialized vocabulary to refer to the various shapes of mortars, and explicit vocabulary in Latin to further separate specialized mortars (i.e. coticula) from the more common “kitchen” variety of mortar. By examining the various uses of the mortarium in the Greek and Latin tradition, it is apparent that the evidence for the industrial and domestic use of the mortar is dominated by Roman authors. This situation may be due to the fact that the mortarium was a very popular tool in the Roman kitchen,47 or an accident of history. Greek references tend to fall into the medicinal category, perhaps due to the rather miraculous survival of Greek medicinal text.48 Despite the disparity between the numbers of sources, it is still evident that the mortarium played multiple rolls, sometimes branching out into unexpected areas – like comedy and violence – but the most common uses in the texts are as a kitchen tool, as a miller’s tool for processing wheat, as an aid in preparing ancient medicines, and as a tool for industrial uses.

47 Roman kitchens are sometimes reconstructed as having several mortaria in them of varying sizes. 48 A category not discussed is a “comedic” use. For instance, Aristophanes will sometimes use the mortar as a convenient prop to hold open a door (Ran. 201). Various searches through the TLG often bring up Aristophanes.

19 CHAPTER THREE ARTISTIC REPRESENTATIONS OF THE MORTARIUM IN ANTIQUITY

Representations of the mortarium survive to us not only in the literature of Greece and Rome, but in the artistic tradition as well. Beyond Greece and Rome, the other major cultures on the Mediterranean Sea – the Egyptians and the Etruscans – left behind traces of the mortarium in art. These visual remains allow us to observe how these peoples envisioned and used the mortarium and its companion tool, the pestle. The appearance of the mortarium in art is unfortunately quite rare, especially in comparison to the remaining literary references. Enough representations survive, however, to bring them together. They range from tomb paintings and carved reliefs to terracotta figurines and floor mosaics. I. Egypt In the tomb of Ramses III at Thebes (KV 11) from Dynasty 20 there is a scene of men preparing bread (Figure 13). On the far right hand side of the scene, two men (1 and 2) stand on either side of a tall, cylindrical mortar (a). Using long, rounded pestles (b) they raise, then drop them down into the mortar, probably made from a hollowed piece of granite,1 to help pound the substance inside.2 The figure to the immediate left of the mortar workers (3), sifts the substance (c) to separate out the larger pieces (d) which would then be returned to a mortar to be further processed (4 and 5). Wilkinson provides a translation of the hieroglyphs in the scene (e – e2) which are directions for the workers:3 Hasten all the work in taking care of all that is given out; make ye the bread; the pounding of the corn in the storehouses of… The scene contains multiple mortars and pestles. It is unclear whether the figures represent two workers performing the various actions, or five workers each performing

1 Wilkinson 1878, 203 – 4. He asserts that the types of mortars depicted on the painting would have been carved from granite. 2 According to Wilkinson common things to be crushed in a mortar were salt, seeds, and grains. He also writes that there were persons in Egypt who were employed as mortar workers. They provided this service to their community for when it was problematic to do so in a private home. Wilkinson 1878, 203. 3 Ibid. The end of the inscription is not recorded.

20 individual tasks. Regardless, the painting gives us not only a visual interpretation of the Egyptian mortar, but also shows and tells us how it was used in the bread-making process.4 II. Greece Examples of the mortarium in Greek art are dominated by small clay figurines that depict a person, usually a woman, using a mortar. A range of forms is represented in these figurines, and various pestle shapes are present as well. In an example from fifth-century Rhodes (Figure 14A) a woman works in a shallow mortar (θυεία) that is either resting on or affixed to a tripod whose third leg merges with the “legs” of the female figure. The mortar is something of a hybrid between a grinding stone (Figure 7) and the later bowl-shaped mortar; it has a raised center as its grinding surface, which would allow the finer ground particles to be pushed off into the basin, keeping the grinding surface free for grinding down any larger substances. The pestle she uses appears to be a stone with a flattened surface (Figure 23A).5 A second figurine, also from fifth century Rhodes (Figure 14C), uses a cylindrical pestle to grind a substance on a flat rectangular surface (Figure 23 C). The female figure is cut off at the knees, which may be understood as the figure kneeling before a rectangular grinding surface enclosed in a box.6 She has movable arms and a hinged waist to imitate the pushing and pulling motion that would have been used on these flat grinding stones, or in larger examples of the round mortars. An earlier sixth century Argive example of this same type is more rudimentary (Figure 14D), and does not contain the moving parts of the later Rhodian example. The human figure is roughly shaped with articulation occurring only in the extensions of the body – the head and neck, torso, and arms. The pose is the same as the Rhodian female; the figure,7 without legs, can be seen as kneeling before a grinding stone – here it is rounded and resting on a pedestal – with

4 Wilkinson 1878, 203 – 4; Smith 1875, 768 – 9. Both Wilkinson and Smith put forth that the Egyptians would use metal pestles, and that the pestles represented in the painting from the tomb of Ramses III are meant to be the metallic pestles. 5 See Sparkes 1962, plate VIII no. 1 for additional examples of this kind of figure from Boiotia (c. 500 BCE). It is unclear whether the Boiotian figurine is using a kneading table or the same type of mortar as the Rhodian figurine. 6 Sparkes 1962, 134. 7 Ibid.

21 both arms extended in the midst of the grinding motion. The pestle is not the round cylinder (Figure 23D), but a rougher stone with a flat side which is used as the grinding surface. The fourth figurine (Figure 14B) comes from Boiotia and dates 525 – 500 BCE. This female figurine stands at a tall, cylinder-like mortarium. Here, the mortar is in the shape of an hourglass. The figure appears to be sorting through the contents of the mortarium. On the floor on one side of the mortarium is a long, narrow pestle (Figure 23 B) much like those present on the scene from the tomb of Ramses III (Figure 13). On the floor opposite the pestle is a basket. Presumably it either held the material now being processed in the mortarium or it will hold the material after it has been crushed. The mortarium here is the closest, thus far, to what Sparkes and Amyx have labeled ὅλμος (pila) – the tall mortar that Hesiod speaks of,8 and is very close

to the Egyptian mortar. Also the pestle is the type that they have labeled the ὕπερον (pilum) –

the long, narrow pestle with central grip used in conjunction with the ὅλμος (pila). The final example of the mortarium from Greek art comes not in another figurine, but in the form of a sixth century BCE black-figure lekythos from Boiotia (Figure 15).9 The scene depicted on the lekythos is the bread-making process. The painting is very much like the scene from the tomb of Ramses III (Figure 13). In the central and most prominent scene are two figures; here they are women rather than men, standing on either side of the ὅλμος raising and

dropping their ὕπερα into the hollowed-out portion of the vessel.10 The form of the mortar is like the one seen in the Boiotian figurine (Figure 14B): an hourglass shape. To the left of the mortar scene, another woman kneads dough on a table, and to the right of the mortar scene two figures tend to an oven, one figure stoking the fire and the other keeping watch over the bread. A red-figure cup attributed to the Brygos painter (Figure 16) does not contain a mortarium in its scene, but it does illustrate the idea of the mortar or pestle as a tool for violence.11 The cup depicts a scene from the Sack of Troy. Andromache wields a giant pestle as a weapon to cover the flight of her son, Astayanax, to her immediate right. The pestle is given a name by the artist, ῞Υπερος, the Greek word for the long pole-like pestle.

8 Homer Iliad, 147; 9 Sparkes 1962, plate VII no. 2. He indicates that the lekythos is part of the Serpieri Collection. 10 It appears that the two figures in the background may be playing music. 11 See Chapter Two for textual examples of violence with mortars.

22 III. Roman The instances of the mortarium in Roman art are seemingly fewer than the Greek examples. Unlike the Egyptian tomb painting or the Greek figurines and painted vases, the Roman illustrations come from other areas of art: the mosaic and the funeral stele. In 1961 excavation began on a late first century/early second century CE Roman villa in the modern municipality of Marbella, Spain, specifically the city of Malaga. The excavators uncovered various black-on-white mosaics throughout the villa with themes such as nilotic scenes, marine life, gladiatorial games, and food. One mosaic is popularly known as “mosaico de le cocina” and is one of the better preserved mosaics from the villa (Figure 21). The mosaic shows various items found in a kitchen or pantry. The images were laid out in a single row that went around the perimeter of the room. The objects are not represented in scale to each other; rather, they simply fit in the space allotted for the illustrations (height 55 – 60 cm).12 Hooks, frying pans, cups, bowls, foodstuffs, cooking utensils, and even a stove are shown in the bichrome mosaic. Especially relevant to this work is the inclusion of a mortarium,13 a grinding stone/plate, and two sets of pestles (Figure 21 nos. 10 – 11). The mortarium is most interesting as it reveals a new way of showing the mortar, as an overhead view, which is similar to modern diagnostic drawings of mortaria, as opposed to the profile or three-quarter view that is utilized elsewhere. Noteworthy are the concentric lines which may indicate the narrowing of the interior of the vessel. Also note that the mortarium is spouted. Shown next to the mortarium are two pestles and a flat oval shaped item (Figure 21 no. 11).14 I would like to identify the latter as a grinding plate rather than a pestle. This plate may have been used as similar devices are used today: as a surface to grind smaller roots into pastes or to create pastes from other ingredients such as garlic. Its shape seems ill-suited to being a pestle as it is wide and flat. The other two are more suited to be a pistillum of the type used with a mortarium. The short, baseball-bat shaped pestle would be well suited to the Roman mortar, and it is this shape of pestle, normally made of wood, that is often reconstructed along side the mortarium (Figures

12 Balil 1983, 161. 13 Balil 1983, 165. Balil comments that, initially, the mortarium was misidentified as a hogaza – a bread pan. 14 Blanc and Nercessian 1992, 59, number the drawing as follows. 10 – the mortarium, 11 – the oval plate, the long pestle above it, and the smaller lunate shaped pestle beside it.

23 24 and 25).15 The other pestle present in the mosaic is a small double-lunate stone that would have been used as a small pounding stone, unlike the other pestle, which was used as a grinder.16 Also from the same time period comes an example from Roman Bologna (Figure 17). A pair of sandstone funeral markers showing a male figure with four sheep on one stele and on the other a large pestle (pilum) resting in a mortar (pila) . Here we see the other form of the mortar and pestle used by the Romans: the tall, cylindrical mortar with the accompanying long, narrowish pestle with a strap for hanging it up for storage or, perhaps, on the side of the mortar.17 The inscription explains that the deceased, whose name is lost, was a foreigner who settled in the area. His patron put up the monument for him with what he had earned from his hard work and it shows the deceased’s trade:18 I was born far away, in a foreign land, and I ended [my life] here. This is my monument which was made for me by my patron and wife with what little I have earned with my trade and my hard work ... But do not violate my tomb.19 From this passage we can infer that since it is likely that the images on the stelae are representations of the deceased’s trade, that he may have been a shepherd or a farmer, and the mortar and pestle were important tools for his work. Perhaps if he was a farmer, he grew crops such as wheat that needed to be processed in a mortar to refine his product, possibly to make his own meal and bread, or, if he were selling his crop, to make it more marketable to a buyer as already ground meal. IV. Etruscan Both of the Etruscan representations of the mortarium come from funeral monuments. One is in the form of a fresco and the other in carved relief. Both tombs are known for their depiction of objects used or action taking place in the kitchen. Golini Tomb I,20 dating to the third quarter of the fourth century BCE, is a dual

15 de la Bèdoyére 2000, 40 – 4. 16 This pestle is very much like those shown in the Golini Tomb from Orvieto (Figures 18 and 19). 17 As mentioned in the previous chapter, Sparkes equates the Roman pila and pilum with the Greek ὅλμος and ὕπερον. 18 The inscription runs onto the second marker. 19 The translation is my own and made from the Italian translation of the Latin found on http://www.comune.bologna.it/museoarcheologico/index.html 20 Haynes 2000, 331; Steingräber 1985, 286; Steingräber 1986, 278-279 no. 32; Feruglio 1982, 23 – 24. The paintings were in very poor condition upon their discovery and were copied with water colors. Many of the labels

24 chambered painted tomb. One chamber contains paintings depicting the funeral banquet of the Leinie family in the afterlife. The family is welcoming another family member, riding in a funeral chariot, who is accompanied by Vanth to their banquet; Aita and Persipnai (the Etruscan counterparts of Hades and Persephone) preside over the feast. The second chamber is devoted to showing the preparations for the banquet. Meats are shown suspended from hooks while they wait to be prepared,21 and the slaves, who are labeled, are shown performing various tasks in preparing the feast (Figure 18). Moving from left to right, a man butchers meat; another brings cups and foodstuffs to the table where a male and female figure are either preparing the plates or about to carry them out to the banqueters. At the far right a musician plays the auloi for a male servant in a short skirt, who pounds something in a shallow, spouted mortar on a tall tripod with lunate shaped pestles. The image of the mortarium and the servant has been badly damaged by time and is very faded. Thus, it is unknown if there was once an image of food being worked in the mortarium; even the watercolor reconstructions of the tomb only show a man working with an empty vessel. We can, however, speculate about what he might have been preparing. The second chamber showcases the various foods that are being served in the banquet in the first chamber. The servant (Figure 19), he is labeled pazu:mulu(v)ane – perhaps giving his first name and describing his job in the kitchen, may have been preparing spices or components of sauces for the various meat dishes. Also, given the size of the mortarium,22 he may have been preparing an entire dish considering that the mortarium can function not only as a vessel for crushing and grinding, but as a container for mixing and shredding foods. The Golini Tomb I provides a tantalizing glimpse into the kitchen of an aristocratic family, or, at least, the ideal in regards to culinary measures afforded to a funeral banquet in the afterlife. A second possible mortarium appears in the Tomba dei Rilievi at Cerveteri from the latter half of the fourth century BCE, so named because of the extensive relief carving decorating the tomb. Various objects and implements appear: on the back wall armor, weapons, and divine

and names in the “kitchen” chamber are now gone. These water colors were on display in Florence Archaeological Museum in the year 2005 as part of Italy’s cultural theme of food. 21 Ibid. All the meats are labeled with their names; the animals are the ox, partridge, hare, doe, and geese. 22 As the image is faded, it is unclear what the mortarium may be constructed of. Considering its scale in the tomb painting and that it is sitting on a tripod to support its mass, it is possible that the tomb painting is representing a vessel made of stone.

25 figures are present. Weapons and pieces of armor adorn the upper parts of the two side walls as well as the front wall. The two pillars in the tomb are decorated with household items and small animals. The pillar on the right-hand side of the tomb (Figure 20) has two sides decorated with kitchen implements: knives, a fan, ladles, spits, cookware, a duck, a dog, and tray. A pestle has been identified by Blanck and Proietti on the side of the pillar facing the entrance next to what they have named a “bacino su tripode.”23 It is possible that this may be a mortar, perhaps balanced on its side against the wall, represented on a pillar of the tomb.24 There are Greek and Etruscan examples of mortaria that are not spouted, but are shallow bowls with gritted interiors (Figure 9A), and these mortars, with or without a spout, can be placed on some type of stand, usually a tripod (Figure 14A). I submit that, like the other elements on the pillar, the mortarium and its stand have been put away since they are not being used.25 We can see from this survey the various media and methods for depicting the mortar and pestle in the art of the Egyptians, Greeks, Romans, and Etruscans. The mortar appears in a wide variety of media: paint, stone, terracotta, and mosaic; and in a wide variety of contexts including funereal, domestic, and votive. There are common threads throughout these cultures’ depictions of the use of the mortar and pestle. The domestic use of the mortar discussed in Chapter Two is the most heavily represented in the art work. The Egyptians and Greeks are making their bread. The terracotta female figurines are eternally locked in their work either kneeling or standing before the mortar or the grinding stone, and the servant is forever preparing food for his masters in the Golini Tomb. The mortar and pestle appear as a part of a pantry or kitchen in both Roman and Etruscan art, and in a rare instance, the pestle is shown as a weapon from Greece. All these figures help us to see how these ancient cultures viewed the mortar and pestle, not only in regards to their forms and general uses, but in how they were utilized, especially considering the fact that the majority of the representations show the mortar in use. This is very helpful since actual instructions on how to use the mortar and pestle are few.26 The art also helps to illuminate the textual references for in art we can see the differences between the mortarium

23 Blank and Proietti 1986, 31. 24 Like the mortarium represented in the Golini tomb I, it is unclear what material the mortarium in the Tomba dei Rilievi is meant to be constructed of. A clue may come from the color of the paint; the dark gray may indicate that this is a stone vessel. 25 A reconstruction of a kitchen from Roman Britain (Figure 25) shows multiple mortaria, and the one that is not in use has been set on its side and leaned against the wall. 26 Virgil, Moretum. 98 – 100

26 (θυεία) and pila (ὅλμος), likewise, between pistillum (δοῖδοξ and ἀλετρίβανςος) and pilum (ὕπερον).

27 CHAPTER FOUR GRINDERS AND BONE TOOLS

Grinding tools are an essential compliment to the mortarium. Without a tool to pound or move matter over the triturated surface of the mortarium, the vessel would be rather useless and be little more than a mixing or serving bowl. These grinding tools, or pestles, come in many forms and can be constructed from various materials. As indicated in Chapters Two and Three, there was an acknowledged distinction at least for the Romans and the Greeks between two forms of pestles: the smaller, hand held grinder called pistillum (δοῖδοξ and ἀλετρίβανςος) and the tall, narrow crusher/pounder called pilum (ὕπερον). Grinders can be made from various substances as well. Stone is perhaps the most obvious choice. From Cetamura alone there are several examples of stone grinders that would be classified as pistillum if they were used in conjunction with a mortar (Figures 14B and C). Metal is another likely material for making a grinding tool. Collections of mortars from 15th – 17th century Italy showcase some spectacular mortars made of metal with their accompanying metal pestles. Many authors write of the Romans using wood for their pistillum. Though the wood has not survived well, if at all, it is a consensus that wood is a viable option for a grinding tool. In a modern reconstruction of a mortarium and pistillum (Figure 10) we can see that a carved wood pestle is chosen to complete the reconstruction. The form is very similar to the pestle included in the “mosaico de le cocina” from Malaga, Spain (Figure 9 no. 11). It could be that the pestle is indeed a wooden pestle used to grind, and that the lunette pestle, like those seen in the Golini Tomb I from Orvieto (Figure 14 and 15), is stone or metal and used for pounding, rather in the manner of the modern Italian mezzaluna. Beyond stone, metal, and wood other materials exist as a possibility for grinding and crushing tools: bone and antler. In the 2001 excavation season at Cetamura, two antler tools were recovered from a trash deposit a few meters west of the find spot of the mortarium, and at a comparable depth: an apparent hole-punch or awl, and another tool (C-2001-714 and C-2001-

28 715; Figure 17).1 The second tool, at first glance, appears to be like a hammer. Upon closer examination, and after handling the tool, one may consider the possibility that this may have been used for grinding. The longish handle would provide some leverage, and the flat, circular surface would provide a surface area for grinding, or finishing, a substance against a coarse surface. Bone and antler tools are a part of the human tool making tradition around the globe. They have served as weapons, jewelry, domestic tools, such as needles and combs, and were often suitable for tools that were used outside the home, such as hatchets and chisels.2 One hypothesis is that the antler tool might have belonged to the Cetamura mortarium, or another mortar that is now lost. The two flat surfaces of the tool are worn smooth as though they had been subject to much rubbing over time. Upon close inspection, however, it can be determined that it was unlikely that the antler tool was used in conjunction with a mortarium. The roughened surface of a mortarium is very coarse, enough so that the exposed interior of the antler, which is relatively soft and porous, would be shredded by the trituration of the mortarium.3 As already mentioned, however, the two surfaces do show evidence of repeated use as they are worn smooth. It may be that, while the antler tool is not a grinding tool, it is still a pestle.4 The tool may have been employed in the crushing of smaller, softer elements that did not require a great deal of maceration, much as a modern chef might use a smooth, wooden mortar and pestle to make a paste out of garlic. Several stones have been recovered from various locations around Cetamura and have been identified as grinding tool, many of those in conjunction with Structure C (Map 2).5 Structure C is a paved room north of the cistern complex (Structures A and B) which is considered to be associated with weaving. Numerous weaving implements, namely loom weights and spindle whorls, were recovered during the various excavations on and near the structure. In 1993 Lauren Hackworth’s master’s thesis examined the evidence of textile production at Cetamura. In her studies she examined the stone grinders that had been recovered to date from Cetamura.6 Though she acknowledges that these grinding stones could be used for culinary

1 de Grummond 2001. 2 Choyke and Bartosiewicz 2001, 52. 3 For a complete discourse on the formation of bone and antler see MacGregor 1985, 1 – 14. 4 Its shape is reminiscent of a marble pestle recovered in Aquileia (Roman Britain) (Figure 16A) 5 Many of these stones date to the Hellenistic Etruscan period at Cetamura/ 6 Hackworth 1993, 38 – 41.

29 purposes, the main focus is on their possible industrial application, especially in regard to the creation of pigments for dye-works in textile production. This is not an unreasonable hypothesis as dye-works were often located near areas with an updraft to carry away the overpowering scent of the dye production, and near a ready water source for preparing the textiles for taking and holding the dye.7 Slightly northeast of Structure C are the remains of Structure K, a kiln (Map 2). The trenches made to bring air into the kiln would have created the necessary draft to dissipate strong odors, and the adjacent cisterns would have served as the ready water supply. Structure C’s location near Structure K and Structures A and B, combined with the weaving and spinning implements recovered, strongly support the hypothesis that Structure C was an area utilized for textile production. The grinders are all round and are of a size so that they fit easily into a hand (Figure 16C). Some show tool marks as evidence of being worked into their round shape.8 Others may have simply been picked up from the ground because they were a suitable shape and size. Indeed the grinder labeled C-94-141, a sandstone grinder with no apparent tool marks, fits very nicely into the Cetamura mortarium, as do several others recovered from the site (Figure 16 no.1). Many of these grinders are crafted of local rock, usually sandstone, as it has a naturally gritty exterior which would aid in grinding substances in a mortar. One, C-81-938, is of an imported, unidentified stone.9 A smaller group of possible pestles exist at Cetamura. These are narrow, flatter, and their shape is like an index finger. These may have been used on small mortars to grind a minimal amount of a substance. The sandstone grinder C-81-939 is slightly different from the other round pestles at Cetamura. Two of its surfaces are flattened, and faint circular impressions are present on each side of the stone.10 It has been conjectured that this might be a small, hand-held mortar. The flattened surfaces or the circular impressions could be utilized as a grinding surface with one of the smaller, finger-like pestles. The antler tool and stone grinders, prior to the discovery of the mortarium, pointed to activities that required the use of these tools, notably culinary uses and the textile production

7 Ibid, 39 – 40. 8 Hackworth 1993, 38 – 39.. 9 Ibid, 38 and 133 fig. 48. 10 Ibid, 134 fig. 49.

30 center in Structure C. These tools do not need to be used in conjunction with a mortar to be classified as pestles. The sandstone provided a rough surface to aid in grinding, thus enabling them to be used anywhere on a smooth surface, like marble or a smooth river stone, or a rough one, like a flat rock or piece of wood. The presence of a proper mortarium only increases the effectiveness of the pestle by providing a very coarse surface to hasten the grinding process, and has the added effect of containing the macerated material and, perhaps, allowing for a greater amount of material to be processed at a time. It has been the purpose of this chapter to consider the possibility that tools of deer antler and stone found at Cetamura, which seem to have served as pestles, could have been used in connection with the mortarium. While such tools certainly show further evidence of workers doing grinding jobs at Cetamura, no compelling evidence can be adduced at this time to relate them directly to the mortarium.

31 CHAPTER FIVE A MORTARIUM AT CETAMURA DEL CHIANTI

In 2003, a large vessel was discovered during the excavation of fill from the terracing of the Roman baths in the scarp between Zone I and Zone II at Cetamura (Maps 2 and 4). More than half of the Cetamura mortarium survives to us; found in a level which was hypothesized to be Etruscan and to be associated with a nearby trash pit that demonstrably belonged to the period 325-300 BCE, it was upside down and broken into roughly 30 pieces amongst a deposit of roof tile and pottery (Figure 1). The recovery of a spout helped to confirm the identification of the find as a mortarium (Figures 4 and 30). A cluster of ceramics contained fragments of half of a large vessel at the time labeled Type A, and three other types of ceramic materials labeled Types B, C, and D – which are hypothesized to be roof tile (Figure 3).1 The mortarium fragments were sent for restoration to Studio Arts Centre International (SACI) in Florence, and samples of the earth and residue sent to Università degli Studi della Tuscia in Viterbo for analysis in hopes of determining what the mortarium might have been used for. I. The Mortarium Methodology: The size range of the inclusions of the mortarium’s fabric was determined by taking measurements from five random points. At each point, ten inclusions of each type were measured and recorded to give a range for each of the following: volcanic material, quartz, red sandstone, red clay, and grey clay. The same procedure was carried out on the grinding surface of the vessel for each of the following: pebbles, quartz, red sandstone, white sandstone, pottery, and volcanic material. The diameter of the base, the inner rim, and outer rim were taken by measuring from one point to another, dividing the vessel in half, on each location. The circumference was calculated and recorded. A flexible ruler was used to determine the preserved perimeter of the base and rims. This number was then divided into the potential, full circumference to determine the percent remaining of each.

1 Matteucci 1986, 272. Mortars are often discovered in “waste” deposits such as wells and cisterns.

32 The height of the mortarium was measured in two ways: first, by laying a ruler across the rim of the vessel and measuring down to the center of the grinding surface, then adding the thickness of the base of the vessel; second, by turning the vessel upside down and measuring from the table surface to the base. Both measurements yielded the same result. The thickness of the flanged rim, the vessel wall, and the base were taken on each side of the vessel along the break. The spout was measured for its height and width. The channel of the spout was measured for its height and the widths at the most narrow point, the widest point, and the middle point. Measurements: Fabric in general: Volcanic inclusions: 0.5 – 1.5 mm

Red Sandstone: 1.0 – 1.5 mm

Red Clay: 1.0 – 6.0 mm

Grey Clay: striations: 0.5 - 1.0 x 3.0 – 7.5 mm (broken fragments). Are most apparent on the grinding surface where they run continuously. Otherwise, the grey clay is most noticeable in the breaks of the mortar. On the rim, the grey clay appears as smallish flecks that range from 1.5 – 2.0 mm.

Quartz: 0.5 – 3.0 mm. Grinding surface: Pebbles: 2.0 – 6.0 mm

Quartz: 3.0 – 5.0 mm

Sandstone (Red and White): 2.0 – 7.0 mm

Pottery: 2.0 – 6.0 mm

Volcanic material – 0.5 – 4.0mm

Diameters and Circumferences:

Base: d = 21.5 cm c = 21.5π (67.51 cm) (preserved 43 cm of circumference) 63.69 % of base remaining

Inner rim: d = 36.5 c = 36.5π (114.61 cm) (preserved 63.2 cm of circumference) 55.14 % of inner rim remaining

Outer rim: d = 47.2 cm c = 47.2π (148.208) (preserved 80.5 cm of circumference) 54.32 % of outer rim remaining

Heights, widths, thicknesses:

Vessel: 9.0 cm high

Thickness (spout side): Flanged rim: 1.8 cm Vessel wall: 1.9 cm Base: 2.0 cm Thickness (not spout) Vessel wall: 1.9 cm

34 Flanged rim: 2.0 cm

Spout: Height: 2.6 cm (at depression) 3.2 cm (not at depression)

Width: 10.0 cm Channel: Height: 1.0 cm Widths: 2.5 cm (narrow), 4.4 cm (middle), 6.3 (widest)

Weight: 1.9 kg (4.2 lbs)

The mortarium is 47.2 centimeters across, from outer rim to outer rim, and nine centimeters tall, and weighs just less than two kilograms (Figure 27). The initial cataloguing of the ceramic type in the Cetamura Single Object Inventory (C-03-184) identified the fabric as similar to a ware well-known at Cetamura and called Fabric 3 (CF 3), but noted that there was some difference. In studying the mortarium closely and with a microscope, it was determined that the fabric of the vessel could easily be mistaken for CF3, especially prior to being cleaned. It was soon determined, however, that it was not CF3. CF3 is a hard, durable fabric found at Cetamura that ranges in color from nearly white to a peachy-orange, and the clay has small, fine inclusions of red sandstone, quartz and mica (Figure 33).2 The mortarium is very similar: its color is consistent with the darker examples of CF3, and it has small, fine inclusions which range from 1.0 – 3.0 millimeters. The inclusions here, however, are mainly volcanic and quartz material (Figure 30).3 These volcanic and quartz inclusions are also found, and on a much larger scale, in the trituration of the vessel – the overall name given to the grit that forms the roughened surface that is used for grinding. The trituration on the Cetamura mortarium includes: pebbles,

2 Cetamura Antica, 22. 3 Though it cannot be seen well on the photographs, the volcanic and quartz materials are even more apparent in the sun as they reflect the light and cause the mortarium to “shimmer.”

35 quartz, red sandstone, white sandstone, and volcanic material. The size of the inclusions ranges from 2.0 – 7.5 millimeters. Where areas of the trituration have been worn away by use, veins of red and gray clay can be seen running across the base and the sides of the vessel. I have relabeled the vessel’s material as “mortarium fabric,” since it was different enough from CF3 and there is nothing at Cetamura to which it is comparable. Descriptions of the fabrics of Italian mortaria are consistent with observations of the Cetamura mortarium,4 leading me to believe that this is simply how the fabric matrix of mortaria is typically produced. The level in which the mortarium was found was closely associated with a nearby trash pit dated by de Grummond to ca. 350-300 BCE (Trash Pit II, Map 4) and black gloss fragments adjacent to the mortarium’s find spot, most notably a black gloss stamp (Figure 6),5 also thought to date to the late fourth century. The initial impression of the stratigraphy suggested that the mortar may be an Etruscan vessel. Further inspection of the unit and its finds from the mortarium’s locus and related loci, however, reveal the presence of Roman pottery, such as Roman red gloss and thin-wall ware, recorded in the same locus as the mortarium. In a neighboring locus, a Roman Republican lamp (C-02-136) was recovered in the previous excavation season, against the Roman wall, at a lower depth (217 cmbd)6 than the mortarium (198 cmbd). It was evident from an early date of the work in the unit that the bedrock takes a sharp dive on the north side, near the wall of the Roman bath. Most important to note is that this area was used as a dumping ground, as evidenced by the Etruscan trash pits, and later was terraced to provide a foundation for the Roman baths. Given the inconsistency in dating of the finds and the difficult stratigraphy of the unit, it would be unwise to try and identify the mortarium as Etruscan from the finds alone. Until further study of these elements can be conducted, we must look to comparanda from other sites to help place the vessel. II. Greek Brian Sparkes and Lucy Talcott in their work on plain pottery from the Athenian Agora write that, “Among the kitchen implements in constant and continuing use, the grinding bowl,

4 Davies 1994, 70. “Inclusions are frequently to c 1.0mm, but can be larger, and are set in a fine, micaceous and calcareous clay. Most prominent are abundant volcanic rocks, augite and volcanic glass … The same inclusions occur as trituration grits, where they typically fall into the larger size range.” 5The stamp has not yet been researched to determine convincing comparanda. 6 Centimeters Below Datum

36 θυεία or ἴγδις, holds the first, the most ancient place.”7 It is most fitting, then, that the earliest comparable examples to the Cetamura mortarium come from Greece. In Chapters Two and Three, the Greek ὅλμος (pila) was introduced and discussed; while this is indeed a mortar it is not a form that is analogous with the form present at Cetamura. Thus, we turn to the other type: the shallow, sometimes spouted bowl. Examples of this shape exist from the Early Helladic period onward in Greece. Early mortars from the Argolid and Attica were chipped from stone (Figure 8) and could have one or two handles (sometimes referred to as lugs). Stone was gradually replaced by various forms of ceramics: first hand-made, then wheel-thrown mortars, then mold-made vessels.8 Excavations at the Athenian Agora provide a wide array of the ceramic mortars that were produced, mainly mold-made imports from Corinth constructed first from tile fabric then, later, from a light clay with small inclusions with a texture like that of sandstone,9 which date from the sixth to the fourth centuries BCE. In the middle of the fifth century, gravel is added to the interior of the basin to aid in grinding. In the ceramic mortars, the spout becomes a common addition to the vessel – a device used to make the removal of the ground or pounded substance easier. Likewise, lugs also are a feature of the ceramic mortar, though a spout or lug need not be present for the vessel to be a mortar. The design of the Greek θυεία or ἴγδις is fairly consistent (Figure 9): a shallow bowl, which usually rests on a foot; a thick or over hanging rim; and a gritty interior. These can be augmented with a spout or handle. The spout, which resembles a halved pipe, began as a secondary element added to the mortar, but eventually became part of its design.10 The ceramic mortars were at times embellished with stamped decorations, such as the egg and dart pattern, on their rims, and the handles could be made to resemble volutes or stamped with geometric patterns.11 This “Greek” form can be found in Greek poleis in Italy as well. A

7 Sparkes and Talcott 1970, 221. 8 Runnels 1988, 270. The stone mortars discussed in the article range from 20 to 35 centimeters in diameter. 9 Sparkes and Talcott 1970, 222. 10 Ibid. Spouts began appearing as a common element in the end of the fifth and beginning of the fourth centuries. 11 Ibid, 223. See Sparkes and Talcott 1970, plate 90 no. 1912, 1913, and plate 92 no. 1914, 1915, 1918 for decorative elements on Greek mortars. They comment that the diameters of the mortars recovered are similar,

37 mortar dating to the fourth century BCE, recovered from a cemetery in the city of Kamarina on Sicily (Figure 10), corresponds with the forms that are found on the Greek mainland: the shallow bowl and “half pipe” spout. III. Rome The scope and breadth of the Roman world provides us with an abundance of mortaria from nearly every part of the Empire. Mortaria were being produced in the Roman brick yards and exported across the world, and several shipwrecks give hints about trade routes and production centers. Many Roman mortaria bore stamps that identified the artist, the manager, the owner of the estate, and sometimes consular dates.12 Much of the study of Roman mortaria has focused on these stamps, located on either side of the spout, to track production, trade, and use (Figure 12). Though these stamps are widespread across the Roman world, there is a surprisingly small number of mortaria found in shipwrecks in comparison with other vessels such as amphorae. Less than a dozen cases are known in which it appears that mortaria were part of cargo, and not part of the galley. Many of these occur off the coasts of Spain and France.13 For as many mortaria that were stamped, there appears to be a nearly equal number that are not. This may be due to the rise of local production centers which do not follow the stamping tradition, or to the loss of the stamps through time.14 By the second century CE, mortaria production was no longer centered in Italy. There were important workshops in North Africa,15 Syria,16 Gaul, and, perhaps the most prolific, Britain. As stated previously, scholars in Roman mortaria studies tend to focus on the information that can be gained from studying the stamps; the bulk of Roman mortaria studies come from Roman Britain where hordes of mortaria have been recovered including a mortaria kiln which still contained vessels from its last firing.17 Like its Greek counterparts, the Roman mortarium was a necessary kitchen tool. This can be evidenced by the large numbers of mortaria that are whole and intact, save for the hole that

around 36 centimeters, and that larger vessels are rare. It is noted that small mortars, 20 centimeters in diameter, appear. It is suggested that these smaller mortars may have been used for medicine or grinding pigments. 12 Hartley 1973, 59. 13 Parker 1990, 16 – 18. 14 Hayes 1997, 81. In the eastern part of the empire, the mortarium stamps appear in Greek as well as Latin. 15 Humphrey 1976 and 1978 for information of mortaria recovered from Carthage. 16 Hayes 1957 and 1997, 81 for Syria. 17 Hartley 1997 for her study of the Mortarium Kiln.

38 has been worn through the base due to frequent use (Figure 11). They are mold-made vessels which have their own distinctive forms. They have over-hanging, flanged rims and molded spouts that often resemble a pigs’ snout (Figure 11); they may be shallow or deep. The spouts can vary greatly from being very simple, like the example from Ostia, to an embellished flare that was most likely created after the vessel was molded and while the mortar was still wet (Figure 12). Roman mortaria were constructed from local clays that were available to the workshop. This results in a wide range of colors and inclusions in the clay matrix. The method, however, is similar in many cases. A hard, durable clay is used, and rough inclusions are present – very small in the vessel in general and then the larger counterparts form the trituration in the interior of the mortarium. Volcanic material was popular where it was available, hence the presence of volcanic stones in Italian mortaria and the absence of it in their British counterparts. Despite the variations in fabric, the form is surprisingly constant even into the fifth and sixth centuries CE.18 Outside of the work done in Roman Britain, perhaps the largest discussion of Italian mortaria comes from Spain. Otal has determined that many of the mortaria recovered from Tarraconense are Italian imports from the Campania region and central Italy, with several “imitación del morteros campanos” that are made locally in Spain.19 Diffusion of Italian mortaria to Roman Spain becomes steady around 150 BCE.20 Otal divided the mortars by Italian and “imitación” and further location (e.g. Campania) and form – usually based on the spout and rim. The study also includes an investigation of the stamps, which aid in determining where and when the mortarium originated. The forms evolve from being a rounder bowl with a protruding spout, to a more square-like base with an incorporated spout (Figure 34), but the overall form and construction remains the same.

IV. Etruscan:

18 Hayes 1997, 80 – 1. 19 Aguarod-Otal 1991, 44. One such “imitation” center comes from near the Ebro River in Spain. 20 Ibid, 123. There are mortaria which date a hundred years earlier, but these are thought to be random finds and not a sign of the wholesale import of Italian mortaria.

39 In comparison with Greek and Roman mortaria, there is less focus on mortaria in Etruscan ceramic scholarship. What does exist shows itself in occasional articles,21 as a portion of a larger work on ceramics, in museum catalogues, labels, and passing mentions in museum guides, making personal observation on of the main tools for distinguishing the Etruscan mortarium from its Greek and Roman cousins. A clue does exist in the Golini Tomb I at Orvieto (Figure 19) which was discussed in Chapter Three. An initial problem in looking for a physical example of an Etruscan vessel was terminology. Many times what is labeled as an “impasto basin” upon closer inspection can be identified as a mortarium, which can be seen in the “impasto basins” from Vetulonia and Orvieto (Figure33). The interior contained trituration that had clearly been worn away from use. Two examples dating to the 6th century BCE, from Vetulonia and Orvieto do not have spouts.22 From the Golini Tomb, it is clear that Etruscan mortaria could have spouts. Verification of the form depicted in the tomb painting can be found at Bologna and Poggio la Croce (Figs. 36-37). The Etruscan spouted mortar is made up of a durable clay with inclusions, much like the Greek and Roman mortaria and the interior of the vessel has trituration. It has a shaped rim; on the earlier non-spouted mortar it is flanged like the Roman mortarium, and can have handles (Figure 36). The Etruscan spout is pinched and pulled out to create the pouring surface.23 It is not the Greek “half pipe,” and it is not the deliberate and embellished Roman, snub spout, nor do any of the examples have a stamp. The Etruscan mortarium appears, seemingly often, in a funerary context, such as the mortaria from the Benacci tombs in Bologna, e.g., Tomb 953 (Figure 36C). The mortarium was placed next to the body almost touching the right arm.24 This type of mortarium spout can also

21 Matteucci’s 1986 article is one such article that discusses the mortarium in the Mediterranean which includes the Etruscan mortarium 22 Matteucci 1986, 268 – 9. Early Etruscan examples from the 7th and 6th centuries are often found with a band of paint on their interiors (Figure 33A), and with a finely shaped rim on an almost trunk-like foot. They also contain micaceous elements in their fabric and the shapes and profiles become more refined and elaborate in the 6th and 5th centuries. 23 Ibid, 271. The spouts on mortaria become less awkward and more refined as an inclusive feature on the mortar as the form evolves in Greek, Roman, and Etruscan mortaria. 24 A diagram of the burial is part of the exhibit showcasing these tombs, revealing the placement of all the objects in the tomb in relation to the body. See also Vitali 1982, 325 for a brief reference to this tomb and mortar (holmos). On a rather interesting note, Matteucci mentions that the mortarium can have a sacred function, one function being a funeral function. At the time of the article, the presence of the mortarium in a tomb is sometimes used to try and determine if the deceased was female. Matteucci 1986, 273.

40 be found at Poggio la Croce in Radda in Chianti (Figure 37). The form is not as embellished as those which are in Bologna, but it still has a shallow bowl, a worked rim, and the pulled-out spout that is seen in the Golini tomb, unlike the mortars in Bologna, the mortar at Poggio la Croce was discovered in the settlement and not in a tomb.25 V. Conclusions: The lack of scrutiny of mortaria in the larger picture of classical ceramic studies leaves those wishing to learn more about the mortarium in the classical world at an impasse. The greatest amount of ready information is specialized in that it is focused in on the Romano-British mortarium and its stamps, leaving a hole that is only sporadically filled by the occasional study on groups, such as the discussion by Otal. This lack requires us to investigate on our own by digging through archaeological and textual records. By studying the various facets of the mortarium in antiquity we can hope to reach conclusions about how they chose to utilize the vessel from descriptions in their writings, how these cultures viewed the mortar visually through their art, and, from their physical remains, how they were constructed. We are fortunate in that the textual references help to support what is represented in the artistic tradition: namely the domestic use of the mortarium. Recipes are numerous in Latin texts, especially in the works of Apicius. Other uses mentioned in the texts such as industrial and medicinal are apparently, and unfortunately, not represented in art. These uses survive to us only through writings and help us to confirm hypotheses regarding the mortarium’s use in antiquity. Modern scientific resources can further aid in corroborating their use through residue analyses. Further evidence of mortar use is found in the presence of grinding tools such as pestles and pounders. These were an important component in making the mortarium a successful and viable tool – made from stone, wood, or bone – enough so that the different types of pestles earned their own designations in both Latin and Greek (δοῖδοξ and ἀλετρίβανςος for the

Latin pistillum, and ὕπερον for pilum). Likewise, the ancient writers recognized the distinctions between mortar forms and gave specific names to their mortars which were the tall, deep vessels used to crush (ὅλμος and pila), the shallow, sometimes spouted forms that became

25 Coincidentally, the Etruscan mortaria and the Golini Tomb date to around the same period of the late fourth century/early third century BCE.

41 an essential component of the kitchen in Greece and Italy (θυεία, ἴγδις, mortarium) and those which were medicinal (coticula). Where, then, does the Cetamura mortarium fit? What was its function at Cetamura? As we cannot as yet rely on the finds and stratigraphy from the unit in which it was discovered to date the mortarium, the comparanda from other sites must suffice to try and identify it. From form alone, we can assume that the mortar is not Etruscan. The spout is a key in distinguishing a Greek mortar from a Roman or Etruscan mortar, as each culture has a unique way of shaping the spout. The Cetamura mortarium does not have the pinched and pulled spout that is found on the mortars from Bologna, or Poggio la Croce, or what is shown on the walls of the Golini Tomb. Nor is it the Greek “half pipe.” This leaves the Roman forms to consider. The form of the spout of the Cetamura mortarium is comparable (Figure 30) and very much like those from Italy which date from the second century BCE onward. A mortarium from Ostia, which is worn through from use, greatly resembles the Cetamura mortarium in its general form and in the basic shaping of its spout (Figure 11). The mortaria exported from Campania and central Italy to Spain from the same time period (Figure 34) share the same physical form as what was discovered at Cetamura.26 From the observations on the various forms of mortaria from the Greeks, Romans, and Etruscans it would be safe to label the Cetamura mortarium a Roman form, most likely from the second or first century BCE. Roman pottery, such as a lamp, found near the mortar during its excavation can help to solidify this theory, but until a complete and thorough analysis is done on the unit and its finds, there is room for doubt. The question of what the mortar was being used for may be addressed looking at the residue analysis performed by Claudia Pelosi of the Università degli Studi della Tuscia in Viterbo.27 A red-colored residue was observed on the triturated surface of the mortarium during its excavation which raised questions about its function. The result of the analysis was that the residue contained earth and iron oxide, i.e., rust. Rust was, and still is, a common ingredient in

26 Figure 34 shows two stamps on the mortarium. The Cetamura mortarium does not have a stamp, but only half the vessel survives to us, and not all Roman mortaria had two stamps if they had a stamp at all which can be seen on the mortar from Ostia (Figure 11). 27 For the report prepared by Dr. Pelosi, see Appendix B, with Italian text and English translation.

42 red-colored pigments. This use is also supported by the writings of Isidorus28 and Vitruvius.29 Further, there is a plausible hypothesis for the usage of a mortarium at Cetamura to grind pigments in connection with the artisans’ quarter on Zone II at Cetamura.30 The presence of textile production in Structure C (Map 3), supported not only by the discovery of weaving implements but by its location near a water supply and near the drafts created by the kiln, and the numerous grinders recovered from the area suggest the presence of dye-works.31 That the last substance to touch the grinding surface of the mortarium was rust, a substance used for coloring, raises the question if the mortarium was being used for that purpose.32 In sum, given its appearance and function, it would be logical to assume that the mortarium is first and foremost a kitchen tool. Literature, however, does provide examples where the mortarium steps outside of a culinary role and in to the function of a medicinal aide and a tool used in construction (i.e. the creation of paints, glass, and cements). The mortarium, at first glance, is deceptive in that it appears to serve a limited purpose: a vessel for grinding and crushing. We have seen through the ancient literature that is, in fact, a great multitasking tool. For instance, a grinder serves a specific purpose: to grind. Likewise, a mill exists for milling.33 This image of the mortar performing a particular role is reinforced by the English Language where “mortar and pestle” carries with it a specific idea: a bowl-shaped vessel used in conjunction with a cylindrical tool to grind herbs for medicines and potions. The mortarium is more than a grinding tool used for a single function. The mortarium serves not only as a grinder or a small-scale mill, but a mixing tool, a base for maceration and shredding, to soak and dry materials (food, medicine, or industrial), a place to wash, and a platform for crushing.34

28 Isid. Etym. 4.11.4 29 Vitruv. De Arch. 7.4.10. 30 See de Grummond, Cetamura Antica, esp. 27-31. 31 In a personal interview, however, Dr. Pelosi hesitated to confirm that pigment was indeed the residue in the mortarium as the analysis could not confirm if the iron oxide is a natural component of the soil or resulting from a man-made material. 32 The recent revelation that Cetamura once housed a sacred area, especially in the 2nd and 1st centuries BCE, opens another possibility for the presence of the mortarium at Cetamura. Matteucci briefly discusses the sacred applications of the mortarium, one being the funerary the other is mortars found in sacred areas. These are linked to bread offerings, and that there is evidence that the mortar itself was sometimes the offering. Matteucci 1986, 273 – 4. 33 Matteucci 1986, 1. 34 Ibid, 250 – 1.

43 The mortar’s importance is demonstrated in its innumerable mentions in Greek and Roman literature, where we see that the Greeks and Romans recognized its diverse applications in the culinary realm for food preparation, in medicine to make remedies, and its employment in creating plasters, paints, and mortars for industrial uses. This importance is further emphasized in appearance in art, where it appears in various media ranging from tomb decoration (Figures 12 and 14), to mosaic work (Figure 9), to vase painting (Figures 6 and 7), or to small figurines (Figure 3). Its inclusion in the arts, literary or visual, I believe, is a comment on the esteem in which the mortarium was held – a respect that carried over to the afterlife which is shown in its inclusion not only in the funeral arts, but as a grave good. The mortarium likely dates to the 2nd to 1st centuries BCE, based on its form, but the stratigraphy in which it was discovered is vexing and requires in depth study for it to be fully understood. What role the mortarium at Cetamura served is also, unfortunately, unclear. The possibility exists that it is a remnant of the dye-works from Zone II. The presence of rust in the residue analysis could lead us to believe that prospect, but as it is unknown if the rust is a natural component of the soil or from an outside source – that the mortarium served an industrial purpose at Cetamura must remain a possibility. Furthermore, at the time of the analysis, testing for organic compounds was not available, which leaves the use of the mortarium in a culinary or medicinal role a viable option. The results of this study have brought together a base of information, from ancient and modern literature and ancient, which can allow us to speculate on the possibilities surrounding the Cetamura mortaria. And while aspects of the mortar remain a mystery, it raises questions that we can try to answer through further testing. Perhaps by testing for organic compounds in the residue from mortarium will help reveal, either by confirmation or elimination, the last substance to touch its grinding surface; or, examination of the clays which compose the fabric of the mortar can help illuminate which region of Italy it was made. I hope to be able to answer these questions, and drawing on this base of knowledge, provide those answers in further publications.

44 APPENDIX A

Moretum

Iam nox hibernas bis quinque peregerat horas excubitorque diem cantu praedixerat ales, Simulus exigui cultor cum rusticus agri, tristia venturae metuens ieiunia lucis, 5 membra levat vili sensim demissa grabato sollicitaque manu tenebras explorat inertes vestigatque focum, laesus quem denique sensit. parvulus exusto remanebat stipite fomes et cinis obductae celabat lumina prunae. 10 admovet his pronam summissa fronte lucernam et producit acu stuppas umore carentis, excitat et crebris languentem flatibus ignem. tandem concepto, sed vix, fulgore recedit oppositaque manu lumen defendit ab aura 15 et reserat clausae, qua pervidet, ostia clavis. fusus erat terra frumenti pauper acervus: hinc sibi depromit quantum mensura patebat, quae bis in octonas excurrit pondere libras. inde abit adsistitque molae parvaque tabella, 20 quam fixam paries illos servabat in usus, lumina fida locat; geminos tunc veste lacertos liberat et cinctus villosae tergore caprae perverrit cauda silices gremiumque molarum. advocat inde manus operi, partitus utroque: 25 laeva ministerio, dextra est intenta labori. haec rotat adsiduum gyris et concitat orbem (tunsa Ceres silicum rapido decurrit ab ictu),

45 interdum fessae succedit laeva sorori alternatque vices. modo rustica carmina cantat 30 agrestique suum solatur voce laborem, interdum clamat Scybalen (erat unica custos, Afra genus, tota patriam testante figura, torta comam labroque tumens et fusca colore, pectore lata, iacens mammis, compressior alvo, 35 cruribus exilis, spatiosa prodiga planta): hanc vocat atque arsura focis imponere ligna imperat et flamma gelidos adolere liquores. postquam implevit opus iustum versatile finem, transfert inde manu fusas in cribra farinas 40 et quatit; ac remanent summo purgamina dorso; subsidit sincera foraminibusque liquatur emundata Ceres. levi tum protinus illam componit tabula, tepidas super ingerit undas, contrahit admixtos nunc fontes atque farinas, 45 transversat durata manu liquidoque coacta, interdum grumos spargit sale. iamque subactum levat opus palmisque suum dilatat in orbem et notat impressis aequo discrimine quadris. infert inde foco (Scybale mundaverat aptum 50 ante locum) testisque tegit, super aggerat ignis. dumque suas peragit Vulcanus Vestaque partes, Simulus interea vacua non cessat in hora, verum aliam sibi quaerit opem, neu sola palato sit non grata Ceres, quas iungat comparat escas. 55 non illi suspensa focum carnaria iuxta durati sale terga suis truncique +vacabant+, traiectus medium sparto sed caseus orbem et vetus adstricti fascis pendebat anethi:

46 ergo aliam molitur opem sibi providus heros. 60 hortus erat iunctus casulae, quem vimina pauca et calamo rediviva levi munibat harundo, exiguus spatio, variis sed fertilis herbis. nil illi deerat quod pauperis exigit usus; interdum locuples a paupere plura petebat. 65 nec sumptus erat ullius erat, sed regula curae: si quando vacuum casula pluviaeve tenebant festave lux, si forte labor cessabat aratri, horti opus illud erat. varias disponere plantas norat et occultae committere semina terrae 70 vicinosque apte circa deducere rivos. hic holus, hic late fundentes bracchia betae fecundusque rumex malvaeque inulaeque virebant, hic siser et nomen capiti debentia porra grataque nobilium requies lactuca ciborum, 75 crescitque in acumina radix et gravis in latum dimissa cucurbita ventrem. verum hic non domini (quis enim contractior illo?) sed populi proventus erat, nonisque diebus venalis umero fasces portabat in urbem, 80 inde domum cervice levis, gravis aere redibat vix umquam urbani comitatus merce macelli: cepa rubens sectique famem domat area porri quaeque trahunt acri vultus nasturtia morsu intibaque et Venerem revocans eruca morantem. 85 tum quoque tale aliquid meditans intraverat hortum; ac primum leviter digitis tellure refossa quattuor educit cum spissis alia fibris, inde comas apii graciles rutamque rigentem vellit et exiguo coriandra trementia filo.

47 90 haec ubi collegit, laetum consedit ad ignem et clara famulam poscit mortaria voce. singula tum capitum nodoso corpore nudat et summis spoliat coriis contemptaque passim spargit humi atque abicit; servatum +gramine+ bulbum 95 tinguit aqua lapidisque cavum demittit in orbem. his salis inspargit micas, sale durus adeso caseus adicitur, dictas super ingerit herbas, et laeva testam saetosa sub inguina fulcit, dextera pistillo primum fragrantia mollit 100 alia, tum pariter mixto terit omnia suco. it manus in gyrum: paulatim singula vires deperdunt proprias, color est e pluribus unus, nec totus viridis, quia lactea frusta repugnant, nec de lacte nitens, quia tot variatur ab herbis. 105 saepe viri nares acer iaculatur apertas spiritus et simo damnat sua prandia vultu, saepe manu summa lacrimantia lumina terget immeritoque furens dicit convicia fumo. procedebat opus; nec iam salebrosus, ut ante, 110 sed gravior lentos ibat pistillus in orbis. ergo Palladii guttas instillat olivi exiguique super vires infundit aceti atque iterum commiscet opus mixtumque retractat. tum demum digitis mortaria tota duobus 115 circuit inque globum distantia contrahit unum, constet ut effecti species nomenque moreti. eruit interea Scybale quoque sedula panem, quem laetus recipit manibus, pulsoque timore iam famis inque diem securus Simulus illam 120 ambit crura ocreis paribus tectusque galero

48 sub iuga parentis cogit lorata iuvencos atque agit in segetes et terrae condit aratrum.

49 Translation by Jeffrey Henderson (Loeb Classical Library, Harvard University Press: 2000)

Moretum

Now had the winter's night completed its tenth hour, and with his crowning sentinel cock had proclaimed the advent of the day, when Simulus, the rustic tiller of the little far, fearful of grim hunger o the coming morn, slowly uplifts his limbs from the poor bed on which he had laid them, and with cautious hands feels his way through the lifeless night, and gropes for the hearth, which he at last painfully finds. In a burned-out log there still remained some flimsy kindling, while ashes concealed the glow of live coal beneath. Bending low his head, he brings the lamp forward to the embers, draws out with a needle the dried-up wick, and many a puff wakes up the sluggish fire. Rousing at last the flame, though hard the task, he draws back, and with sheltering hand guards the light from the draught, while his key, peeping through, unlocks the closet door. On the ground was poured a poor heap of corn: from this he helps himself to as much as the measure, which runs to twice eight pounds in weight, would hold.

And now he goes and takes his place at the mill; and on a tiny shelf, firmly fastened on the wall for such needs, he places his trusty lamp. Then he frees both arms from his garment and girt in a shaggy goatskin he carefully sweeps with its tail the stones and hollow of the mill.' Next he summons his hands to the work, which he allots to this side or that: the left is devoted to supplying the grain, the right lying the mill. The right hand, in constant circles, turns drives the wheel (the grain, bruised by the stones’ swift blows, runs down); the left, at intervals, relieves her wearied sister and changes places. Now he sings rustic songs, and with rude strains solaces his toil; at times he shouts to Scybale. She was his only help, African by race, her whole appearance proclaiming her native land: her curly, her lips swollen, and her complexion dark; she was wide-chested, with breasts hanging low, her belly somewhat pinched, her legs thin, her feet broad and ample. Her he calls, and bids her place fuel on the fire to burn, and over the flame heat cold water.

When the task of grinding has come to its due end, he pours out the meal, transfers it by hand into a sieve and shakes: the black husks remain on the upper side; the flour, clean and pure, sinks down, filtering through the crevices. Then straightway on a smooth table he lays it out, pours warm water on it and packs together the now mingled moisture and meal into lumps which he turns over and over till they are hardened and cohere through the action of hand and liquid, from time to time sprinkling salt thereon. And now he lifts the kneaded mixture and with open palms spreads it out into its rounded shape which he marks into quadrants, stamped out at equal intervals. Then he puts it in the hearth (Scybale had first cleaned a suitable place) and covers it with tiles, heaping up the fire above. And with heat and hearth playing their part, Simulus meanwhile is not slack in that idle hour, but seeks for himself another resource, and lest bread by itself should displease his palate, he gathers dainties to flavor it. Near his hearth no meat-rack hung from the ceiling; backs and sides of bacon cured with salt were lacking; but there was suspended only a round cheese pierced through its middle with a string and some old dill tied up in a bunch. Therefore provident hero devises for himself another resource.

50 Adjoining the cottage was a garden, sheltered by a few osiers and the slender stalks of reeds which he used as a fence; it was small in extent, but rich in various herbs. Naught did it lack that a poor man's need demands; at times a wealthy neighbor would turn to the poor man's stock for more. Nor did his little property cost him anything but his labor: if ever rainy weather or a holiday kept him idle in his cottage, if by any chance there was respite from the task of ploughing, that time was given to the garden. He knew how to set out the various plants, to entrust seeds to the hidden soil and to lead nearby streams as required around the crops. Here flourished cabbage, here beets, their arms far outspread, with sorrel in profusion mallows, and elecampane; here skirret and leeks, that owe their name to the head, and lettuce that brings pleasing relief to rich meals: here the roots of spiky asparagus which grow into spear points, and the heavy gourd that swells into its broad belly. But this crop was not for the owner (for who more frugal than he?) but for the people; and every ninth day over his neck he would carry his bundles to town for sale. Thence he would return home, with shoulders light but with heavy pockets, and seldom accompanied by purchases from the market. It was red onion that tamed his hunger, and his plot of chives. And watercress which with its sharp taste screws up the face, and rocket which revives a man's flagging potency.

At this hour, too, with some such plan in mind had he entered the garden. At first, lightly digging up the ground with his fingers, he draws out four garlic bulbs with thick fibers, then plucks slender parsley leaves and unbending rue, and coriander, trembling on its scanty stalk. These culled, he sits down by the pleasant fire, and loudly calls to the maid for a mortar. Then he strips the single heads of their rough membranes, and despoils them of the outermost skins, scattering about on the ground the parts rejected and casting them away. The bulb, saved with the leaves, he dips inn water, and drops into the mortar's hollow circle. Thereon he sprinkles grains of salt, adds cheese hardened with consuming salt, and heaps on top the herbs he has collected; with his left hand he wedges the mortar between his shaggy thighs, while his right first crushes with a pestle the fragrant garlic, then grinds all evenly in a juicy mixture. Round and round goes his hand: little by little the ingredients lose their peculiar strength; the many colors blend into one, yet neither is this wholly green, for milk-white fragments still resist, nor is it a shining milky-white, being colored by so many herbs. Often the strong dour stings the man's open nostrils, and with turned-up nose he condemns his breakfast fare, often drawing the back of his hand across his watering eyes, and cursing in anger the innocent smoke.

The work goes on: and the pestle, no longer in uneven pace, as before, but heavier in weight, moves on in slaver circles. He therefore pours on it some drops of olive oil, adding a little strong vinegar, then once more stirs up the dish and handles the mixture afresh. Finally he wipes two fingers round all the mortar, and into one ball packs the sundry pieces, so that, in reality as in name, there is fashioned a perfect moretum.

Meanwhile Scybale, too, industrious maid, draws forth the bread, which Simulus gladly receives in his hands; now that fear of hunger is driven away, carefree for the day, he wraps his legs in a pair of gaiters, and covered with a cap forces his submissive bullocks under their leather-bound yokes, and drives them to the fields, there in the earth burying his plough.

APPENDIX B

Laboratory Analysis of Residue in C-03-184

Nel campione si riscontra la presenza di terra con molti frammenti rossi fortemente adesi ai grumi di terra (tutto ciò visibile al microscopio stereoscopico). Lo spettro infrarosso (FTIR, Fourier Transform InfraRed; fig. 1) mostra che i grani rossi sono costituiti da terra rossa (silicati e silico-alluminati, picchi a 1872.63, 1624.25, 1027.11 and 798.15 cm-1), con ossidi di ferro (picco a 472.47 cm-1). La banda larga a 3436.63 cm-1 è dovuta allo stiramento del legame O-H presente nella struttura cristallina della terra.(Il campione è stato seccato in stufa prima di realizzare lo spettro IR; quindi non è presente acqua di idratazione).

In the sample is found present earth with many red particles closely adhering to the lumps of soil (all of which is visible under the stereoscopic microscope). The infrared spectrum (FTIR; fig. 1) shows that the red granules are constituted of red earth (silicate and silico-aluminate, with peaks at 1872.63, 1624.25, 1027.11 and 798.15 cm-1), with iron oxides (peak at 472.47 cm-1). The wide band at 3436.63 cm-1 is due to the stretching of the O-H bond present in the crystalline structure of the soil. (The sample was dried in an oven before executing the IR spectrum; thus no water for hydration was present.)

Claudia Pelosi: Laboratorio di Diagnostica per la Conservazione e il Restauro “Michele Cordaro” Dipartimento di Studi per la Conoscenza e la Valorizzaione dei beni Storici e Artistici Facoltà di Conservazione dei Beni Culturali Università degli Sudi deel Tuscia (Viterbo)

Map 1:

Location of Cetamura in Tuscany

Map 2:

General Site Plan

Map 3:

Zone II

Map 4:

Area G, Zone I

Figure 1:

Millstones recovered from Lake Mezzano: Early – Middle Bronze Age.

Figure 2:

Woodcut of kitchen scene from the Tomb of Ramses III at the Valley of the Kings: Dynasty XX.

A. Rhodes: Mid 5th c. BCE Figure 3:

Terracotta figurines of women using mortars.

B. Boiotia: 525 – 500 BCE.

C. Rhodes: 5th c. BCE

Figure 3 Continued:

D. Argive: 6th c. BCE

Figure 4:

Basalt cosmetic mortaria from Roman Egypt: Museo Civico Archeologia di Bologna. 31 – 324 CE, unknown provenance.

A: ca. 500 BCE; grinder: ca. 300 BCE B: ca. 400 BCE

Figure 5:

Greek mortars. Athenian Agora.

Figure 6:

Boiotian black-figure Lekythos depicting the bread making process: middle of the 6th c. BCE

Figure 7:

Red-figure cup attributed to the Byrgos painter depicting the Sack of Troy: c. 490 – 480 BCE

A. Rhodes B. Boiotia

C. Rhodes D. Argive

Figure 8:

Details of terracotta figurines (Figure 3) depicting the pestles.

Figure 9:

Mosaic from Spain depicting items from the pantry and kitchen. Items 10 and 11 showcase a mortarium and a pestle: late 1st – early 2nd c. CE.

Figure 10:

Modern take on the ancient mortarium (Roman Britain) with pestle.

Figure 11:

Reconstruction of kitchen from Roman Britain at Museum of London. Note the multiple mortaria.

A. Funeral Marker

B. Detail

C. Inscription on companion marker.

Figure 12:

Funeral marker from Roman Bologna with pila and pilum: end of the 2nd – beginning of the 1st c. CE. Originally a pair. 192 x 186 cm.

Figure 13:

Artist’s drawing of banquet preparation scene from the Golini Tomb at Orvieto: last quarter of the 4th c. BCE

Figure 14:

Detail of the mortarium from Golini Tomb at Orvieto.

Figure 15:

Pillar from La Tomba dei Rilievi at Cerveteri: last half of the 4th c. BCE.

A. British Museum: Roman, 1st – 2nd c CE B. Cetamura: C-99-395 (stone pestle?) Aquileia, Marble.

C. Cetamura: 1) C-94-141 (sandstone grinder); 2) C-76-G1 (sandstone grinder); 3) C-83- 552 (sandstone grinder – Structure B).

Figure 16:

Pestles and grinders.

Figure 17:

Antler tool recovered from Trash Pit II in Zone I at Cetamura.

Figure 18:

Mortarium in earth prior to removal.

Figure 19:

The spout of the mortarium.

Figure 20:

Reconstructed mortarium (overhead view)

A. Interior

B. Exterior

Figure 21:

Reconstructed mortarium (cross views)

A. Front

B. Rear

Figure 22:

Reconstructed mortarium (front and rear views)

Figure 23:

Reconstructed mortarium (detail: spout)

Figure 24:

Reconstructed mortarium (base)

Figure 25:

Composite view of the mortarium with a 1:2 scale.

Figure 26:

CF3 fragment from Cetamura del Chianti.

scale = 1:1 scale = 4:1

Figure 27:

Stamp found near the mortarium.

Figure 28:

Bronze Age mortar from Ayios Kosmas with its pestle: Early Helladic II.

Figure 29:

“Greek” mortar from Kamarina, Sicily. 4th c. BCE

Figure 30:

Mortarium from Roman Britain with its stamp: 51 – 160 CE.

Figure 31:

Mortarium from Ostia: 1st c. BCE/CE.

Figure 32:

Central – Italian mortarium: Tarraconense, Spain: 1st c BCE.

A. Orvieto

B. Vetulonia

Figure 33:

Apparent mortaria labeled “impasto basin:” 6th c BCE

A. Tomb 934 B. Tomb 968

C. Tomb 953

Figure 34:

Etruscan Mortaria: Benacci Tombs, Bologna: 3rd c BCE

Figure 35:

Etruscan mortarium, Poggio la Croce: 4th – 3rd c BCE

Figure 36:

Mortarium labeled for removal.

Figure 37:

Mortarium with associated pot sherds and tile.

89 Image Credits

Map 1: de Grummond, N. T., ed. 2000. Cetamura Antica Traditions of Chianti. Tallahassee: Florida State University Department of Classics. Plate I.

Maps 2 – 4: Provided by Dr. Nancy de Grummond.

Figure 1: Ministero per i Beni Culturali e Ambientali. 1987. L’Alimentazione nel Mondo Antico. Vol. 2, Gli Etruschi. Rome: Istituto Poligrafico e Zecca dello Stato. pg. 143.

Figure 2: Wilkinson, J. G. 1878. The Manners and Customs of the Ancient Egyptians. Vol. 2. London: Samuel Birch LL. D., D.C.L. p. 204.

Figures 3A – B, 8A – B (detail of Figures 3A – B): Sparkes, B. A. and L. Talcott. 1951. Pots and Pans of Classical Athens. Princeton: American School of Classical Studies at Athens. figs. 33 – 5.

Figures 3C – D, 6, 8C – D (detail of Figures 3C – D): Sparkes, B. A. 1962. “The Greek Kitchen.” JHS 82: 121 – 137.

Figure 4, 12, 17, 20 – 24, 26, 33 – 35: Personal photographs.

Figure 5: Sparkes, B.A. and L. Talcott. 1970. “Black and Plain Pottery of the 5th and 4th Centuries BCE.” The Athenian Agora. Vol. 12. The American School of Classical Studies at Athens, Princeton.

Figure 7: Pfuhl, E. 1926. Masterpieces of Greek Drawing and Painting. Translated by J. D. Beazley. New York: MacMillan Company. Plate 52.

Figure 9: Blanc, N. and A. Nercessian. 1992. La cuisine romaine antique. Grenoble: Glénat, Faton. p.59.

Figures 10 – 11. Renfrew, J. M. 2004. Roman Cookery: Recipes & History. Swindon: English Heritage. p. 56, 59.

Figures 13 – 14: Haynes, S. 2000. Etruscan Civilization A Cultural History. Los Angeles: The J. Paul Getty Museum. p. 333 – 4.

90 Figure 15: Blank, H., and G. Proietti. 1986. La Tomba dei Rilievi di Cerveteri. Studi di Archeologia Pubblicati dalla Sorprintendenza Archeologica per l’Etruria Meridionale 1. Rome: De Luca Editore. p. 79, plate, XXVII b.

Figures 18, 36 – 7, 19, 27, 29. Photographs and drawings provided by Dr. Nancy de Grummond.

Figure 25: Composite drawing by Jeff Shanks, Jacquelyn Clements, and Melissa Hargis.

Figure 28: Runnels, C. 1988. “Early Bronze-Age Stone Mortars from the Southern Argolid.” Hesperia 57.3: p. 266.

Figure 31: Ministero per i Beni Culturali e Ambientali. 1987. L’Alimentazione nel Mondo Antico. Vol. 3, I Romani. Rome: Istituto Poligrafico e Zecca dello Stato. p. 161.

Figure 30: Museum of London online catalogue. http://www.museumoflondon.org.uk/. Accession number: 22757. (2006 January 30).

Figure 32: Aguarod-Otal, C. 1991. Ceramica romana importada de cocina en la Terraconense. Institución Fernando el Católico: Zaragoza. Fig. 40.

91 REFERENCES

Aguarod Otal, C. 1991. Ceramica romana importada de cocina en la Tarraconense. Institución Fernando el Católico: Zaragoza.

L’Alimentazione nel mondo antico. 1987. Ministero per i Beni Culturali e Ambientali. Vol. 2, Gli Etruschi. Rome: Istituto Poligrafico e Zecca dello Stato.

——— 1987. Ministero per i Beni Culturali e Ambientali Vol. 3, I Romani. Rome: Istituto Poligrafico e Zecca dello Stato.

Amyx, D. A. 1958. “The Attic Stelai: Part III. Vases and Other Containers.” Hisperia 27.3: 163 – 254.

Arthur, P., and D. Williams. 1979. “An Unusual Late Roman Mortarium from Caistor by Yarmouth, Norfolk.” Britannia 9: 394 – 5.

Balil, A. 1983. “Un Bodegon in Mosaico hallado en marbella (Malaga),” Baetica 6: 159 – 174.

Bird, J., M. Hassall, and H. Sheldon. eds. 1996. Interpreting Roman London, Papers in Memory of Hugh Chapman. Oxbow Monograph No. 58. Oxford: Oxbow Books.

Blanc, N. and A. Nercessian. 1992. La cuisine romaine antique. Grenoble: Glénat, Faton.

Blank, H., and G. Proietti. 1986. La Tomba dei Rilievi di Cerveteri. Studi di Archeologia pubblicati dalla Soprintendenza Archeologica per l’Etruria Meridionale 1. Rome: De Luca Editore.

Choyke, A. M and L. Bartosiewicz, eds. 2001. Crafting Bone: Skeletal Technologies Through Time and Space: Proceedings of the 2nd Meeting of the (ICAZ) Worked Bone Research Group, Budapest, 31 August - 5 September 1999. Oxford: Archaeopress.

Curtis, R. I. 2001. Ancient Food Technology. Boston: Brill.

Davies, B., B. Richardson, and R. Tomber. 1994. A Dated Corpus of Early Roman Pottery from the City of London. Vol. 5, The Archaeology of Roman London. CBA Research Report No. 98. York: The Museum of London and the Council for British Archaeology. de Grummond, N. T., ed. 2000. Cetamura Antica, Traditions of Chianti. Tallahassee: Florida State University, Department of Classics. de Grummond, N. T. 2001. Unpublished excavation report: Cetamura del Chianti 2001 Season.

——— 2004. Unpublished excavation report: Cetamura del Chianti 2003 – 2004 Season.

de la Bèdoyére, G. 1986. The Roman Site at Billingsgate Lorry Park, London. A Catalogue of the Samian and Other Finds. BARBS 154. Oxford: Archaeopress.

——— 2000. Pottery in Roman Britain. Princes Risborough: Shire.

Down. A. 1978. Chichester Excavations III. Sussex: Phillimore & Co. LTD.

Evans, J. 1993. “Pottery Function and Finewares in the Roman North.” Journal of Roman Pottery Studies 6: 95 – 118.

Feruglio, A. 1982. Pittura etrusca a Orvieto. Rome.

Fulford. M. G. 2000. New Forest Roman Pottery: Manufacture and Distribution with a Corpus of the Pottery Types. BARBS 17. Oxford: Archaeopress.

Gillam, J. P. 1968. Types of Roman Coarse Pottery Vessels in Northern Britain. Newcastle upon Tyne: Oriel Press.

Glare, P. G. W., ed. 2004. The Oxford Latin Dictionary. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Grocock, J. and S. Grainger. 2006. Apicius. Devon: Prospect Books.

Hackworth, L. 1993. “Evidence of Textile Production at Cetamura del Chianti, Italy: A Catalog and Context.” M.A. Thesis, Florida State University.

Hartley, K. F. 1973. “La diffusion des mortiers, tuiles et autres produits en provenance des fabriques italiennes,” Cahiers d'Archéologie Subaquatique, 2: 49-60.

——— 1997. A Mortarium Kiln at Ellingham, Norfolk. Norfolk: Gressenhall.

——— 2001. “Mortaria.” Journal of Roman Pottery Studies 9: 39 – 47.

Hayes, J. W. 1967. “North Syrian Mortaria.” Hisperia 36: 4: 337 – 347.

——— 1997. Handbook of Mediterranean Roman Pottery. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.

Haynes, S. 2000. Etruscan Civilization A Cultural History. Los Angeles: The J. Paul Getty Museum.

Hippocrates. 2005. On Ancient Medicine. Translated by M. J. Schiefsky. Brill Press: Boston.

Humphrey, J. H., ed. 1976. Excavations at Carthage 1975 Conducted by the University. Vol. 1. American Schools of Oriental Research: Tunis.

93 ——— 1978. Excavations at Carthage 1976 Conducted by the University. Vol. 4. American Schools of Oriental Research: Tunis.

Liddell, H. G. and R. Scott. 1996. A Greek – English Lexicon. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Lindsay, W. M. 1911. Isidore of Seville: The Etymologies (or Origins). Oxford Press: Oxford. MacGregor, A. 1985. Bone, Antler, Ivory, and Horn. The Technology of Skeletal Materials Since the Roman Period. Sydney: Croom Helm.

Mannoni, L. 1975. “Studio mineralogico di alcuni tipi ceramici provenienti dall'abitato preromano di Genova.” Archaeologica : scritti in onore di Aldo Neppi Modona IX: 373 – 386.

Matteucci, P. 1986. “L’uso dei mortai di terracotta nell’alimentazione antica.” Studi classici e orientali 36: 239 – 277.

Museo Civico Archeologico di Bologna. September 2006. http://www.comune.bologna.it/museoarcheologico/index.html (2 April, 2007)

Niblett, R. 1985. Sheepen: An Early Industrial Site at Camulodunum. CBA Research Report No. 57. London: The Council for British Archaeology.

Orsi, P. 1990. Le necropoli di Passo Marinaro a Camarina: Campagne di Scavo, 1904-1909. Vol. 4. Rome: Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei

Peacock, D. P. S. 1982. Pottery in the Roman world: An Ethnoarchaeological Approach. New York: Longman.

Parker, A. J. 1990. Ancient shipwrecks of the Mediterranean and the Roman Provinces, British archaeological reports. International series, 580, Tempus Reparatum: Oxford.

Pfuhl, E. 1926. Masterpieces of Greek Drawing and Painting. Translated by J. D. Beazley. New York: MacMillan Company.

Renfrew, J. M. 2004. Roman Cookery: Recipes & History. Swindon: English Heritage.

Romualdi, A. 1992. Populonia in età ellenistica : i materiali dalle necropoli : atti del seminario, Firenze, 30 giugno 1986. Firenze : Il Torchio.

Runnels, C. 1988. “Early Bronze-Age Stone Mortars from the Southern Argolid.” Hesperia 57.3: 257 – 272.

Rush, P., B. Dickinson, B. Hartley, and K. F. Hartley. 2000. Roman Castleford, Excavations 1974-85. Vol. 3, The Pottery. Wakefield: West Yorkshire Archaeology Service.

Salza Prina Ricotti, E. 1995. Dining as a Roman Emperor: How to Cook Ancient Roman Recipes Today. Rome: "L'Erma" di Bretschneider.

Smith, W. 1875. A Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities. John Murray: London.

Sparkes, B. A. 1962. “The Greek Kitchen.” JHS 82: 121 – 137.

Sparkes, B. A. and L. Talcott. 1951. Pots and Pans of Classical Athens. Princeton: American School of Classical Studies at Athens.

——— 1970. “Black and Plain Pottery of the 5th and 4th Centuries BCE.” The Athenian Agora. Vol. 12. The American School of Classical Studies at Athens, Princeton.

Steingräber, S. ed., 1985. Catalogo ragionato della pittura etrusca. Milano, Jaca Book.

Steingräber, S. ed., 1986. Etruscan Painting. Catalogue Raisonné of Etruscan Wall Paintings English eds. D. Ridgway and F. R. Serra Ridgway. New York: Johnson Reprint Corp.

Stillwell, R., ed. 1976. The Princeton Encyclopedia of Classical Sites. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Tracchi, A. 1966. “Ritrovamenti sulle colline Chianti-Valderno,” SE 34: 187 – 292.

Tracchi, A. 1978. Dal Chianti al Valdarno. Rome, 1978.

Vitali, D. 1982. “Sala XIIA: Bologna e il suo territorio en età gallica.” In Il Museo Civivo Archeologico di Bologna. Pages 319 – 328. Bologna: University Bologna Press.

Wilkinson, J. G. 1878. The Manners and Customs of the Ancient Egyptians. Vol. 2. London: Samuel Birch LL. D., D.C.L.

Virgil. 2000. Aeneid VII – XII and Appendix Vergiliana. Translated by H. R. Fairclough. Revised by G. P. Goold. Loeb Classical Library. Harvard University Press: Cambridge.

Ancient Sources

Apicius, De Re Coquinaria.

Aristophanes, Frogs.

Aristophanes, Knights.

Aristophanes, Peace.

Cato, De Agricultura.

Celsus, De Medicina.

Columella, De Re Rustica.

Galen, De antidotis libri ii.

Galen De compositione medicamentorum secundum locos libri x.

Hesiod, Works and Days.

Hippocrates, Corpus.

Homer, Iliad.

Isodore, Etymologies.

Juvenal, Satire VII.

Ovid, Ibis.

Plautus, Aulularia.

Pliny, Historia Naturalis

Virgil, Moretum.

Vitruvius, De Architectura.

Xenophon, Oeconomicos.

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

Melissa Beth Hargis was born March 28, 1982 in Tallahassee, Florida to Marian and Virgil Hargis. After finishing high school, Melissa returned to Tallahassee to attend the Florida State University. She received her Bachelor of Arts in Classical Archaeology and Latin in the Spring of 2004. As a graduate student she has participated in the Classics Department’s excavations in Italy at Cetamura del Chianti for three consecutive summers and has delivered a presentation on her work in the Cetamura Symposium in the Fall 2006. Melissa will be awarded her Master of Arts in Classical Archaeology in the Fall of 2007 and will go on to teach Latin in high school before attaining her P.h.D.