7
The language of the potteries:
communication in the production and
trade of gallo-roman terra sigillata
Alex Mullen
A unique corpus from La
Graufesenque
The substantial corpus of texts from La Graufesenque,
containing both Latin and an indigenous language,
Gaulish, is unparalleled in the West, and makes La
Graufesenque one of the most interesting sites in
the Empire for considering the function of Latin and
indigenous languages.1 Situated on the outskirts of
Millau (ancient Condatomagos) in South-western France
(Aveyron, Midi-Pyrénées) at the confluence of the Tarn
and the Dourbie, this site was first investigated at
the end of the 18th century and has been the centre
of scholarly interest ever since.2 Archaeologists have
uncovered a vast samian ware pottery of which only
a small proportion has been excavated, but so far it
has yielded a phenomenal number of finds (Schaad
2007b).3 Production of proto-sigillata ware began at the
site at the end of the 1st century BC, followed by the
manufacture of genuine samian ware in the first decade
AD.4 The pottery flourished in the second half of the
1st century AD, before production tailed off in the first
half of the 2nd century.5
The epigraphic material falls into two main categories:
the stamps and signatures on the vessels and the so-
called graffiti. The stamps and signatures are found on
vessels destined for external consumption.6 Debate has
arisen over the exact function of these marks: they may
have been multifunctional and those functions may
have varied over time, but both identification of work
within the pottery and brand recognition outside the
pottery seem likely components (Dannell 2002, 215–20;
Fülle 1997, 114–17; 2000b, 48). Now that the corpus of
stamps has been published (NOTS), detailed analysis
is possible.
In addition to the stamps and signatures, around 250
graffiti have been uncovered at the site, mostly dating
from the Neronian to late Flavian period and edited
most recently by Marichal (1988) and Lambert (2002).7
These are largely firing-lists inscribed onto pottery
which was fired in the kiln along with the pottery it
recorded (the format usually included potter’s names,
vessel types and quantities),8 though other inscriptions
are attested, for instance the record of the purchase of
a slave (Marichal 1988, no. 211; see also King 1980). The
material falls loosely into three groups: inscriptions that
are mostly in Gaulish (the Celtic language of Gaul), those
that are mostly in Latin, and many that are so mixed
that they resist the binary linguistic classification.
An interdisciplinary approach opens up considerable
scope for research on the stamps and graffiti and can
provide crucial information for analysing the linguistic
choices, bilingual phenomena and naming practices of
a well-defined bilingual community.9
Language and community dynamics
at La Graufesenque
Two main interpretations concerning the linguistic
composition of the graffiti are found in the traditional
philological literature. 10 One sees the texts as in
essence Latin but influenced, even ‘corrupted’, by
the Celtic language, Gaulish.11 Hermet (1923, 171), in
his publication of the early finds of graffiti, stated
that ‘c’est du latin, mais un latin tout imprégné
98 alex mullen

d’influences gauloises’.12 Dottin (1924, 73) continued 3. morphology of personal names: Latin -us and
along this track when he likewise referred to ‘un latin Gaulish -os
imprégné d’influences gauloises’. Marichal (1988, 57), 4. different vocabulary: Latin summa, Gaulish
in his excellent edition of the entirety of the graffiti uxedia, both meaning ‘total’.
found before 1980, also took a similar stance arguing
In analysing each graffito in turn, Adams (2003, 715)
that: ‘Tout en gardant toujours présente à l’esprit la
asserts that ‘the difficulty then is not so much that of
distinction entre «gaulois» et «latins», il convient, je
identifying the language of each segment, but that of
crois, de considérer tous les bordereaux [firing-lists]
assigning a dominant language to the utterance as a
comme des textes en «latin vulgaire» sur un substrat
whole’. The main hurdles are the fragmentary nature
gaulois plus ou moins apparent’, though later in
of the texts and the complex mixture of diagnostic
his volume he states that the scribes of his Gaulish
features from both Gaulish and Latin within the same
examples ‘ne savent pas le latin’ (ibid. 101).13
texts (ibid. 687–724; Blom forthcoming). Adams analyses
The other view sees the evidence from La Graufes­
the graffiti as the bilingual output of individuals
enque as displaying a mixed language. This was
and interprets them with reference to the bilingual
an interpretation offered by Thurneysen (1927,
phenomena described by modern bilingualism theory,
304) as early as the 1920s: ‘Die Graffiti geben einen
namely code-switching, interference and borrowing.
wundervollen Einblick in die Mischung von Latein
Code-switching, for example, is illustrated by intra-
und Keltisch im Gallien des ersten Jahrhunderts’, and
sentential examples: e.g. a Latin preposition and Gaulish
supported by Hermet (1934, 294) in his 1934 edition of
dependent noun extra tuθ (Marichal 1988, no. 14) and
the graffiti: ‘c’est un mélange de latin et de gaulois où
morphological code-switching in personal names
le gaulois paraît dominer’. Whatmough (1970, 278) also
e.g. Masuetos, Masuetus and by inter-sentential code-
supports this view: ‘The potters of La Graufesenque
switching: e.g. Gaulish tuθos occurs as a heading to
at that date counted in Keltic, and talked a mixture
Latin text (Marichal, 1988 no. 30).17 Adams believes that
of Keltic and Latin’, as does Evans (1967, 33) who
we should not be surprised that different individuals
mentions that ‘the mixed character of the language
produced different texts; this is perfectly natural in a
of the graffiti is shown clearly by the potters’ names’.
highly bilingual environment.
Flobert (1992, 113) refers to the language of the lists as
Based on the fact that Latin alone is used as the
‘gallo-latin’14 which he describes as ‘une langue mixte et
language of the stamps (officina, fecit, manus), Adams
mouvante’ created through ‘créolisation’.15 Woolf (1998,
interprets the societal bilingualism at the site as being
96) also suggests that the graffiti might represent ‘the
suitable for a diglossic interpretation; he describes
written record of languages half way between Celtic
the ‘grading of the two languages in terms of their
and Latin’.16
status and function, with Latin treated more as an
The unique nature of this material from La
international or imperial language, but Gaulish as
Graufesenque and its importance for understanding
provincial and unsuited for use in the wider world.
language contact and related issues in the Empire
Here again is a trace of the polar diglossic opposition
encouraged Adams (2003) to devote a whole chapter
H-L’ (Adams 2003, 705–6, my italics). Diglossia, strictly
to La Graufesenque in his magnum opus on bilingualism
defined, refers to societal bilingualism in which the
and the Latin language. Flobert (1992) had repeatedly
linguistic varieties can be assigned ‘High’ and ‘Low’
stated the importance of bilingualism in interpreting
values and are functionally compartmentalised.
the language of the graffiti, but until Adams no one had
However, it seems that on several grounds diglossia is
looked at the graffiti in the context of the linguistic
unsuitable for describing bilingualism at the pottery.
interactions of the Empire and applied the insights of
It would be hard to find a corpus of material which
contemporary bilingualism theory. From his analysis he
alternates between languages more than the graffiti,
concludes that ‘there is not a single, mixed language in
which, in a diglossic community, would be in only one
evidence’ (Adams 2003, 693), no ‘institutionalised mixed
language (Gaulish), with the stamps in another (Latin).
language’, no ‘popular fusion’ (ibid. 694). The texts
Furthermore, since in situations of diglossia the two
are not in a mixed language but rather in a ‘mixture
varieties are kept strictly apart, bilingual phenomena
of languages’, a subtle, but important, difference. He
such as code-switching are unlikely. Whether we
argues that the languages can be differentiated and
agree with all of Adams’s exacting classification of the
that the potters were able to appreciate two separate
instances of bilingual phenomena in the graffiti or
languages at the site. The key differentiating features
not, the languages are clearly not kept strictly apart.
identified by Adams include:
In addition, it seems unwise to interpret the stamps
1. morphology of vessel names: Gaulish -i as containing ‘language’ as such; the non-onomastic
nominative plurals for Latin neuters material employed is formulaic and the flaunting
2. loss of final consonants: Gaulish sometimes of Latin grammar as seen in Paulus m(anu), of(ficina)
shows loss of -s, Latin does not Bassus suggests that sometimes the stamps were not
 the language of the potteries
necessarily created with a living language in mind
(NOTS 1, 10). Indeed, it has been suggested that dies for
stamping may have been made by specialists (Bémont
2004, 109),18 who may not have been part of the resident
potting community at all, in which case their utility in
making assumptions about the linguistic composition
of the community is further restricted.
Despite Adams’s excellent discussion of the com­
plexities of the interactions between the languages,
which represents the best interpretation of the lin­guistic
evidence thus far, his suggestion of diglossia as a valid
characterisation of language use at La Graufesenque
seems problematic. Two other scholars, Strobel (1992)
and Fülle (1997; 2000a; 2000b), writing on the nature
of the community at La Graufesenque using linguistic
evidence, have offered a no more likely scenario. They
have ignored the clear signs from the philologists that,
whatever the exact nature of the written language of
the graffiti, i.e. it may be Latin heavily influenced by
Gaulish or vice versa, a mixed language or the result of
the complexity of bilingual negotiations, the languages
at the site are very unlikely to have been kept apart.
Using the suggestion (by Marichal and others) that
the graffiti can be loosely, for convenience, split into
two linguistic groups, those predominately Gaulish
and those predominately Latin, Strobel and Fülle have
also split the potting community into two, asserting
‘dass wir hier zwei sprachlich unterschiedlich geprägte
Werkstattmilieus vor uns haben, eines in Terminologie,
Fachsprache und Buchführungspraxis lateinisch-italisch
geprägtes, das zweite mit Fortführung der keltischen
Töpferfachsprache und mit gallischer Prägung’ (Strobel
1992, 39; see also Fülle 2000a, 69). This hypothesis might
have elicited support if the more Gaulish-influenced
versus the more Latin-influenced material had been
found exclusively in different areas of the site or at
clearly different periods, which is demonstrably not
the case.19 Dannell has rightly rejected the ghettoising
of the community of potters, though his important
comments are relegated to a footnote at the end of
his article on the organisation of the pottery at La
Graufesenque. He states: ‘The concept of two separate
potting communities, one Gallic-speaking, and the
other Latin-speaking (Strobel 1992, 39, quoting K. H.
Schmidt)20 seems extreme’ (Dannell 2002, 239, note
131). He also reminds us that the graffiti are likely the
product of scribes and that the language used should
not be incautiously assigned to the potters, who may,
or may not, be one and the same.
Whilst we must not view the graffiti and stamps as
directly representing the language spoken at La
Graufesenque, no other site in the Western Empire
provides better evidence for exploring the interaction
of languages and bilingualism. The code-switching,
interference, borrowing, translations of names, and
mixtures of names and languages indicate the exact
opposite of the ghettoising of languages and com­
99
munities that Strobel and Fülle allege or the strict
division of labour between the languages as required
under diglossia. The community at La Graufesenque
was doubtless bilingual, to the extent that both Latin
and Gaulish could be used alternately and in tandem
in the internal bureaucracy. The majority of the potters
were no doubt Gaulish-speaking, and would have picked
up linguistic competency in Latin at levels varying from
a smattering (vessel names, sizes etc.) to fluency; those
workers who joined the potters from Italy, whether
Latin- or Greek- and Latin-speaking, would no doubt
also have learnt anything from a low-level Gaulish to
fluency in order to communicate widely at the site and
perhaps beyond. It is relatively likely that levels of
proficiency in Latin at the site may have increased over
its history, though it seems impossible to demonstrate
this through an analysis of the graffiti.21
‘Notes et bordereaux partiels’:
a problem for the linguistic analysis
We need to think about the site in terms of non-
diglossic, non-ghettoised bilingualism, but our best
analysis of the bilingual negotiations at the site, Adams
2003, overlooks a key aspect of the formulation of the
graffiti. Adams discusses reasons motivating a switch
in language in the graffiti and describes the texts as if
they represent the direct written record of bilingual
individuals.22 However, he has neglected the important
technical point that Marichal (1988, 104–5) explains
in his discussion of the ‘coutume ouvrière’, namely,
that the firing-lists were probably created through
an amalgamation of notes and dockets.23 Three pieces
of evidence are offered by Marichal in support of his
suggestion. First, Marichal presents a series of six
graffiti (Marichal 1988, nos 163–168) which he refers to
as ‘notes et bordereaux partiels’.24 These include lists of
vessel names and numbers without potters’ names (165,
166, 168), one note with a potter’s name and number
(168) and two intriguing examples: 163 with the potter’s
name in the genitive, Secundini, followed by a list of
vessel names and numbers and 164 Priuat[u]s dat ca[ |
Reginus dat ca[. It could be argued that perhaps we have
found fewer of these partial lists than we might have
expected had they been in widespread use,25 but perhaps
some of the fragmentary firing-lists could actually
be analysed as notes, some notes may not have been
written on pottery and future finds may turn up more.26
Indeed, in his presentation of additional graffiti found
since Marichal’s edition, Lambert (2002, 83–146) points
to those perhaps constituting ‘bordereaux partiels’, for
example, L-30l to L-30o and L-35.5. Marichal’s second
piece of evidence is that the partial lists may explain
the occasional occurrence of genitive potters’ names
in the firing-lists. He notes in particular that lines
3–10 of 19 may be ‘la copie servile d’un bordereau
100 alex mullen
partiel semblable au no 163’. Thirdly, there are hints
in the firing-lists that stamps, perhaps from the top
of a stack of vessels to be added to the list, may have
been copied directly into the composite documents.
We find, for example, ‘dans les nos 46 et 74, au lieu
d’Aper et de Modestus, Apriman et Moes qui ne peuvent,
à mon sens, s’expliquer que par la copie servile de deux
estampilles’ (Marichal 1988, 104). I wonder whether the
occurrence of par]axides and paraxidi in consecutive
lines in 34, might also be the result of a mechanical
mixing of notes.
Marichal’s repeated reference to ‘slavish copying’
undermines the fine analysis presented by Adams. If the
lists are created through a collection of written notes
in either Gaulish or Latin or both, stamps on vessels,
or indeed verbal information from a range of different
people arriving with items to be fired in the kiln, the
bilingual phenomena and language mixture attested in
the composite documents will not necessarily reflect the
scribe’s, or anyone else’s, language. What the bilingual
documents clearly demonstrate, however, is that the
site should be viewed in terms of language contact and
interaction. There would be little point in operating a
bilingual internal bureaucracy if the community were
not, at least in part, bilingual.27
The names on stamps and graffiti
from La Graufesenque
The names of the personnel at La Graufesenque attested
in both the firing-lists and the stamps are potentially
extremely useful for trying to understand the nature
of the bilingual community at the site. Now that the
corpus of NOTS has been published and once the online
database is fully operational, scholars can undertake
in depth onomastic studies, comparing sites, change
over time and the output of certain potters — studies
which were previously virtually impossible. However,
we need to proceed with caution, especially with the
‘etymological approach’ of linguistic analysis.28 Many
names resist such analysis; for example, is a name such
as Senica Latin or Celtic or both? Even when it is possible
to assign linguistic origins to a name, the origins of
names may not have been significant to the bearers,
particularly if semantic bleaching has occurred (that
is if the names had semantic value in the first place,
which is not always the case), and at any rate may tell us
little about the ethnicity and/or linguistic competence
of the bearer. As a salutary example we might consider
that not all those named Kevin speak Irish, or indeed
have any sense of an Irish-based identity, ‘ethnic’ or
otherwise. The strategies implicated in adopting names
from another language may be impossible to recover,29
and changes in nomenclature are easily masked if
earlier phases are unavailable. Even when changes are
visible, we may not interpret these appropriately. Our
access to the intentionality of naming is restricted
(Häussler 2002, 66–7).
A further complicating issue is that names can cross
linguistic boundaries, whether bleached of semantic
content or not, and their linguistic origins may become
immaterial. This is a particular problem, of course, with
Greek and Latin names: when the cultures are so deeply
intertwined and so many Greek names have become
part of the Latin stock, it is difficult to know where to
draw the lines. We might consider, for example, the
name Atticos in the firing-lists and Atticus in the stamps.
Clearly this name was in origin Greek, but became so
popular amongst Romans that it would be perverse to
consider it Greek in Roman contexts without question.
The fact that the name occurs twice in the graffiti from
La Graufesenque (Marichal 1988, nos 28, 212), but in the
form Atticos, namely the Greek form, might lead us to
wonder whether we are in fact dealing with a Greek
name, though of course the standard interpretation of
-os endings in the names of the graffiti is that it is a
Gaulish feature. Marichal does not list Atticos as Graeco-
Latin, but does list Carilos, Elenos, Stepanos. He counts
as Greek: Celados, Coros, Diogenes, Diomedes, Maccarius,
Murtijos, Polos, Stamulos, Summacos, but adds the caveat
that ‘pour plusieurs entre eux, il a été proposé aussi une
origine celtique’ (Marichal 1988, 93 note 132).
Despite these caveats, La Graufesenque provides a
much better than average stock of naming evidence
from the ancient world. The context is well known
and restricted, and dating is often within decades
rather than centuries. Indeed, I have previously
used La Graufesenque as paradigmatic of modes of
adoption of naming.30 Whilst the material should
be used with the attendant issues firmly in mind, it
should nevertheless be exploited, in broad terms at
least, to illuminate the naming practices at the site
and possible group origins and cultural contacts. In
2009, I made a preliminary analysis of the names in the
stamps from La Graufesenque, by creating a database
of the then available material from NOTS (names A-
I) and supplemented by material gleaned from the
catalogue by Genin and Schenck-David (2007, 169–272).
A sample of my database is available in Table 7.1. The
full database includes a total of 763 names. Of these,
179 were excluded with the designations ‘n/a’, when
the name was too short to be analysed, or ‘?’, when
the name resisted classification. The remaining names
were categorised into 15 groups, which are shown in
Table 7.2 along with the frequency of their attestation.
This tentative analysis provided some rough figures
concerning the origins of names in the stamps which
could then be compared with the figures relating to
the names in the graffiti presented by Marichal (Table
7.2).
Two key findings emerged. First, the levels of Gaulish
and Latin names are roughly similar across the two
types of material, the stamps and graffiti, particularly
 the language of the potteries 101

Table 7.1. Sample of the database of names on stamps showing ‘origins’ based on an analysis which included checking various
corpora (LC = Kajanto 1965, NPC = Delamarre 2007, GPN = Evans 1967, KGPN = Schmidt 1957).

Production site Name ‘Origin’ LC NPC GPN KGPN Forms attested Date

La Graufesenque Celsus ii Latin • x x x OI AD 85–110

La Graufesenque Cennatus Celtic x • • • CIIT AD 40–65
La Graufesenque Censor i Latin • x x x  AD 70–90
La Graufesenque Censorinus i Latin • x x x CNSORIN¬ AD 70–110?
La Graufesenque? Cerialis vi Latin • x x x CIIRIL[¬ AD 55–80
La Graufesenque Cervesa Celtic x • • x CRE[ AD 15–35

Table 7.2. Percentages of names of different linguistic or perceived origin in the stamps and graffiti.

Classification of the linguistic Frequency Percentage of total Percentage in graffiti

or perceived origin of the name in stamps classified in stamps (based on figures from
Marichal)

Latin 246 42.12 48.46

?Latin 19 3.25
Celtic 149 25.51 33.85
?Celtic 68 11.64
Latin/Celtic 63 10.79 8.46
?Latin/Celtic 15 2.57
(Latin?)/Celtic 5 0.86
Greek 6 1.03 6.92 or 9.23
?Greek 4 0.68
Greek/Celtic 4 0.68
?Greek/Celtic 1 0.17
Greek / ?Latin 1 0.17
Graeco-Latin/Celtic 1 0.17
?Graeco-Latin/Celtic 1 0.17
?Greek/Latin/Celtic 1 0.17

if many of the ‘?Celtic’ names found in the stamps can
in fact be classified as Celtic. I was highly cautious in
my positive assignations. At any rate, it is demonstrably
not the case, as Adams states with regard to the names
on the stamps, that ‘not only is the -us ending almost
universal,31 but Celtic names themselves are virtually
eliminated. […] The language choice is determined by
the expected readership’ (Adams 2003, 705; also Blom
forthcoming). This fallacy may have been based on the
comment by Marichal (1988, 93) that ‘tous les noms
latins et celto-latins ont reçu des désinences en -us, mais
encore beaucoup de noms indigènes ont été éliminés’
and was one of the reasons why Adams thought diglossia
might be relevant in the classification of the site. It
should be clarified that Marichal’s comment must refer
specifically to the fact that many of the names in the
firing-lists are simply not found on the stamps and it
does not imply a desire to eliminate specifically Celtic
names from the stamps. Indeed, as the introduction
to NOTS 1 (23) states, ‘of 163 names on the firing-lists
only 54 are the same as those of contemporary potters
who stamped samian (33 per cent), 87 names are not
known on contemporary stamps (53 per cent), and
the remaining 22 names (14 per cent) are unlikely
on the whole to be related to contemporary stamps’.
At least some of the individuals listed in the firing-
lists may not be potters at all. For example, some
may have been ‘agents’ for the potters (G.B. Dannell
pers. comm.) or ‘removal men’ employed to transport
material, including vessels, around the site. We are also
plagued, of course, by the eternal problem of trying to
distinguish individuals with homonyms.
The other important point arising from a comparison
of both sets of names (from stamps and firing-lists) is
that there appears to be a small, but perhaps significant,
difference in the percentages of names of Greek origin
in the two different sources. It appears that, whereas
only 1 per cent of the names on the stamps may be
Greek, up to 9 per cent of the names on graffiti may be.
The significance of this is yet to be debated, though the
reason may be related to the role of the individuals in
the firing-lists, which, as we have just seen, has not as
yet been established for certain. Whilst it is extremely
common for Gaulish-speaking communities to take
102
on Latin names in the Roman period, there is much
less evidence that Greek names (other than those that
were common within the Latin stock) were taken on
by indigenous groups and it is therefore quite possible
that some of these Greek names are perhaps those of
Greek-speaking individuals.32
The nature and possible significance
of Greek in the firing-lists from La
Graufesenque
Whilst those named in the firing-lists may in fact have
no relationship with those scribes writing the lists,
the possible occurrence of Greek language within the
firing-lists also requires investigation, as it suggests
that there may have been at least a handful of Greek-
speaking individuals at the site. It is an aspect of the
lists that has not been subject to any rigorous analysis
in the literature and indeed the Greek seems to have
been either ignored by the linguists and/or simply
regarded as part of the Latin content of the lists (e.g.
Adams 2003; Blom forthcoming).
The following sets out the possible examples of Greek
from the lists published to date. This represents an
initial tentative analysis, which will need to be reviewed
in the light of future finds and interpretations.
aematini  (Marichal 154.6; 165.2)
Marichal is probably correct in suggesting that this
should be associated with the adjective haematinus
found in Pliny’s haematinum uitrum (HN 36.198) referring
to an opaque, red glass.33
fit et tincturae genere obsianum ad escaria vasa et totum rubens
vitrum atque non tralucens, haematinum appellatum.
‘Obsidian’ glass used for tableware is made by artificial
colouring and there is also a glass that is red all through,
and opaque, known as ‘hæmatinum’.
This clearly derives from Greek αἱμάτινος ‘blood-red’,
though whether the word at La Graufesenque has
been transferred directly from Greek or via Latin is
unclear. The loss of aspiration in this word can be
Latin or Gaulish, and is also seen in the name Elenos
above and in the alternations between Abitus and
Habitus in the stamps (the form found in the firing-
lists is Abitos (Marichal 67.5)). At 154.6 aematin[i is
used in the adjectival position after the vessel name
parabs]idi and at 165.2, in one of the so-called ‘notes et
bordereaux partiels’, aematini appears in a left-hand
column containing a mixture of adjectives and vessel
names followed by a right-hand column of numerals.
The use of an adjective meaning ‘blood-red’ might be
deemed superfluous for the designation of terra sigillata
(Bémont 2004, 122), and, of course, the potters will not
be sure what shade of red their vessels will turn out
alex mullen
before the firing, which is when these lists are drawn
up. However, the attestation in Pliny might cause us to
think specifically about the use of designs from cut-glass
in the decoration of samian ware, and whether this was
a designation of a vessel with such designs. Dannell
(pers. comm.) has suggested that such an adjective
may perhaps distinguish rouletted vessels from non-
rouletted. It is possible that this term reoccurs in the
graffiti from Chémery (Appendix 7.1, no. 8.6), though
Hoerner and Scholz (2000, 48) take the form ematini to be
a potter’s name Ematinus rather than aematini showing
the typical non-standard monophthongisation of ae.
a]palani  (Marichal 96.4)
This could be associated with the Greek adjective ἁπαλός
‘soft’ (Marichal 1988, 84). Considering the beginning of
this word is missing and the p is very uncertain, it is
sensible to consider this suggestion extremely tentative.
Due to its position this word should be equivalent to
the vessel names in the rest of the fragment and it is
unclear how the meaning ‘soft’ might be relevant.
broci / brocio  (Marichal 12.4; Lambert 2002, L30c)
Marichal (1988, 84) seems to follow Vendryes’s (1924–
1925, 40) suggestion that broci may be related to Greek
βροχίς ‘ink pot’. Ink-pots were produced at the site
(vessel form Hermet 18), however, there is a substantial
problem with this analysis in that βροχίς in Greek
normally seems to mean a small noose, and only once
may mean ‘ink pot’ (Anth. Pal. 6.295), and even there the
meaning is extremely murky. The association made with
the verb βρέχω ‘I wet, sprinkle’ to support the ink-pot
hypothesis seems questionable, and it is possible that
instead the word broci may designate vessels with strap
handles (i.e. a pot described as being ready for a little
noose),34 for instance some examples of Drag. 37.
Various authors have instead attempted to relate
the term broci(o) to Irish brocc, Welsh broch ‘badger’,35
and though the badger etymology on the face of it
seems very unlikely, the problem with the semantics
has been swept away with a suggestion that the vessel
may be the same shape as the muzzle of a badger (Loth
1924, 49; Whatmough 1970, 444). Indeed, whilst this
seems an unlikely semantic shift,36 we find a plausible
association with Latin broccus ‘having protruding teeth’
(for attestations, see Whatmough 1970, 444) which
might have been used to refer to certain shapes of vessel
and may have its origins in the Celtic ‘badger’ word.
However, there is a possibility that broci(o) may simply
be a personal name, originally derived from ‘badger’
(Brocchus/ius, Broccus, Broccilla, Brocina, Brocio, Brocus are
all listed in Delamarre’s Noms de personnes celtiques).37
In the case of Marichal 12, the word follows under two
personal names and sigla (POLOS S = CCC and CASTOS =
= CC) and is followed by the numeral designation XXX,
and so is quite likely a name, though it could equally
designate an output of Castos. For the other attestation:
 the language of the potteries
Ciratos Brocio canasrus CC[, Lambert (2002, 113) claims
that the form ‘ne peut être qu’un nom propre, d’après
le contexte’.
Whatever the exact nature of broci(o) (and it may be
a personal name in one instance but not the other), we
are probably dealing with either a Latin word of Celtic
origins or a Celtic word, rather than a Greek offering.
buxe[  (Marichal 88.2; 90.2)38
The first example of buxe is found in the right hand
column of fragment 88, following the sigla indicating
two sextans. The second example appears in the second
line of a graffito headed with the name Carilos (90):
paroxed · brina · buxe[. An association for this term has
been made with both Greek πύξις / πύξος ‘box’ and
Latin derivative forms (Loth 1924, 48). It is impossible
to say whether the word has been borrowed directly
from Greek or via Latin, as the change p > b is perfectly
well attested in Celtic languages. Marichal (1988, 91)
excludes Latin buxeus ‘wooden’ as an origin, but Lambert
(2002, 114) restores it as an option. Marichal (1988, 91)
states that ‘le rapport avec paroxed reste énigmatique
tant qu’on n’aura pas élucidé brina’. Lambert (2002, 114)
has suggested that it might be possible to relate brina
(found also at 90.5) to the Gaulish term prinas, found
in Marichal 46b.24 (the reverse of a firing-list), which
might be the ‘buying’ verb related to Welsh prynu, Old
Irish crenaid, and perhaps also to Gaulish rinati (165). If
so, again, the word would show the above-mentioned
fluctuation between p and b. Lambert has also suggested
that prinas might even be a verb meaning ‘fournir en
bois’, analysing the whole phrase (Marichal 46b) prinas
sibu[… [[ta]] tuddud [… as ‘Sibu[…] a fourni en bois n
cuissons’ (Lambert 2002, 119). He later backs away
from this option, however, on the grounds that such
a note would be unlikely to have been mixed into the
potters’ accounts and has stated that it would be ‘plus
prudent’ to analyse prinas as a adjective describing a
type of ceramic (2003, 135). But the ‘fournir en bois’
analysis is not entirely implausible: details of the
origins or supplier of fuel for a kiln may occasionally
have been noted, for example if the usual arrangements
had changed in some way, and then either deliberately
noted in the main firing-lists, or accidently included by
a scribe who was not reading what he was compiling.
Whether this assessment for prinas is correct or not, it
need not necessarily apply to brina in 90.2, though if it
were to apply, the suggestion that buxe[ represents some
kind of term related to wood or boxes might become
more plausible. Indeed, it is possible that some vessels
may have been placed inside the kiln in non-wooden
boxes, or sometimes the need to box up the vessels
immediately after firing might have been noted.
canastri  (multiple occurrences, see Marichal (1988,
273) for a list)
This is undoubtedly the clearest example of a term in
103
the lists which is likely to have been borrowed directly
from Greek (κάναστρον ‘basket’) rather than through
the medium of Latin (canistrum). As Marichal (1988,
85) clearly states: ‘Les potiers en auraient emprunté
directement le nom au grec, seul le no 184, où cani ne
peut guère se résoudre autrement, suppose la forme
latine’. Adams (2007) has discussed this term in the
context of the regional variety of Latin in Gaul and we
shall return to consider his comments below.
c]roax  (Marichal 11 verso)
Marichal makes the suggestion that this word may
represent Greek κόραξ ‘crow’ with metathesis. This
seems daring considering the first letter of the word is
missing and this form of metathesis is not a particularly
common phenomenon. The claim finds inspiration in
that the word is written within the scratched image of
a bird. But bird names are notoriously numerous and
often onomatopoeic and it seems possible that this may
equally be the Gaulish designation of a bird, though a
direct equivalent is not known to us from Insular or
Continental Celtic sources.
cuibalini  (Marichal 90.4)
Considering the position of this word in the text, it
is likely to be either a vessel name or an adjective
referring to the paroxed of line 2. Lambert (2002, 114)
suggests that we should see it as cui(m)balini and
therefore a borrowing from Greek κύμβαλον ‘cymbal’
with a well attested development κυ > cui, and meaning
‘vases en forme de cymbale’, which might designate
gourds.39
duprosopi / d]ipruso[pi / bibrosopi etc  (multiple
occurrences, see Marichal (1988, 273) for a list, also
Lambert 2002, L-30 g and p)
An early interpretation by Loth (1924, 49) and Vendryes
(1924–1925, 42–3) considered the word to be a Celtic
formation < *dubrosoipi ‘vases à verser de l’eau’. This
was rejected by Marichal (1988, 87) on several grounds
and the form was instead linked to Greek διπρόσωπος
‘two-faced’: ‘il s’agit donc d’un emprunt direct au grec
dont les gaulois connaissaient fort bien le sens, que les
plus instruits, qui sont les plus “latins”, ont conservé
intact ou transposé en bipros, tandis que les “gaulois”
l’ont maladroitement “latinisé” en dupros- par analogie
de duo’ (see also Bohn (1924, 25); Fraser (1925, 93–4)
and Hilgers (1969, 176–7)). Lambert partially revitalizes
the original Celtic interpretation by suggesting ‘un
remodelage proche de l’étymologie populaire’ whereby
‘diprosopon “vase à double face” devient duprosopi, sous
l’influence du gaulois dubro- “eau”’ (also suggested by
Vendryes (1924, 494)). The analyses linking the form
to dubro- ‘water’ do not easily account for the form
bibrosopi and the suggestion of a Greek origin with some
transposition seems the most plausible.
104 alex mullen
duisom[  (Marichal 30.13)
Marichal (1988, 84, also Lambert 2002, 114) suggests
that this form may be related to Greek δίσωμος, but
this seems rather unlikely considering a change di > dui
which is different from the du / di alternation found in
the previous example and is further weakened by the
fact that some of the word is missing. The argument
would be that the lexeme meant ‘double-bodied’ in
parallel to the ‘double-faced’ designation. But a perhaps
fatal problem with the Greek origin hypothesis is that
the Greek term δίσωμος is only found in astronomical
literature.
strogia  (Marichal 89.8)
This term is in the adjectival position following acitabli.
An association with Greek στρογγύλος ‘spherical’ was
proposed by Hermet (1923, 102). The loss of the nasal
notated by Greek <γγ> (if this is what is represented
in the form strogia) is quite normal and not diagnostic
(Marichal 1988, 66). The loss of the -ull- segment is
noted, but not explained, by Marichal (ibid.). It is
possible that the potters of La Graufesenque may
have analysed this segment as a diminutive (as in
Latin) and then subsequently removed this segment
when referring to large vessels.40 There is no obvious
alternative from Latin or Gaulish.
trocliati  (Marichal 30.12) words have alternative explanations in Gaulish and/or
The position of this word in the text seems to suggest an
adjective, perhaps related to Greek τροχήλατος ‘turned
on a potter’s wheel’ as Marichal proposes, though he
cites Welsh treiglo ‘turn’ as being from the same root.
The problem, as Marichal (1988, 91) recognizes, is that
this interpretation would be ideal as long as some of
the paraxides, which the adjective modifies, could have
been ‘moulés et décorés’ rather than wheel-made.
It is, however, very difficult to be sure which vessels
the term paraxides actually designates. Dannell (2006,
149) reminds us that trying to align modern vessel
terminology with the scribal descriptions is ‘rather like
trying to squeeze the proverbial quart into a pint pot’. In
his opinion, paraxides were possibly Drag. 24/5, perhaps
Ritt. 8, and Drag. 35, plus related forms (2006, 162).
In the absence of any certainty as to the exact forms
involved and given our incomplete knowledge of the
totality of the production from the site, it is extremely
difficult to discount the possibility of paraxides which
were ‘moulés et décorés’, though it seems relatively
unlikely. It is possible that the wheel designated by
trocliati may be a specific type of wheel, perhaps of Greek
type, though we are firmly in the realms of conjecture
here. Flobert (1992, 112) suggests linking trocliati with
Latin trochlea, which he translates as ‘muffle’. This Latin
term is not attested in the context of kilns41 (the Oxford
Latin Dictionary’s definition is ‘a mechanical contrivance
for raising weights, a case or sheaf containing one or
more pulleys, a block’), and, even if it had been used in
such a manner, it does not seem obvious how this would
be relevant since muffle technology would presumably
have been used throughout the site in the period to
which the graffiti have been dated.
Seven of the above terms attested in the graffiti have
plausible Greek origins: aematini, buxe, canastri, cuibalini,
duprosopi, strogia, trocliati, and Marichal (1988, 83) even
goes so far as to say that: ‘l’emploi d’un adjectif tel
qu’aematinus qui n’est ici, ni savant, ni technique, mais
expressif, dénote chez son auteur une connaissance du
grec évidemment plus étendue que celle de quelques
noms de vases, certains d’entre eux n’appelaient-ils pas
d’ailleurs le corbeau, volatile commun à la Graufesenque
et connu des celtes depuis plusieurs siècles, non pas
bran, ni coruus, mais corax’. Marichal has picked up a
significant point here. If Greek origins were only to be
found in the standard Graeco-Latin vessel name stock,
we would have nothing to discuss. Yet several of the
words cited here appear to be adjectival and, with
the exception of canastri, not otherwise known from
ancient sources discussing pottery. These words do not
represent the standard stock vocabulary for Graeco-
Roman pottery, as far as we know it, and therefore
might be a reflection of more ad hoc influence from
Greek-speaking individuals on the ground.42
However, we should exercise caution. Several of the
Latin; and the Greek is by no means assured in every
instance. A major problem with interpreting these
words as evidence of knowledge of Greek amongst the
scribes involved in the internal bureaucracy at the
site is the possibility that some of these terms have
arrived via the medium of Latin from production sites
in Italy and do not necessarily imply the movement
or influence of Greek-speaking individuals. However,
at least one of the words, canastrum, is very likely to
have come directly from Greek,43 as the Latin form
is widely attested elsewhere as canistrum: ‘the word
cannot have been introduced to the pottery by native
speakers of Latin from outside Gaul; it must have
been borrowed from Gallic Greek. Here is evidence
that, though Italian potters might have moved to the
site, they did not impose Italian Latin technical terms
on the pottery to the exclusion of local terminology’
(Adams 2007, 281–2). I would query, however, whether
the term must have come via Gallic Greek, by which
Adams means the Greek of the colonies of Gaul. No
Greek colony is situated near La Graufesenque and
colonial Greek does not seem to have taken root beyond
the colonies of Gaul except in restricted circumstances
(Mullen forthcoming). It appears more likely that, if we
can establish traces of Greek in the bureaucracy at the
site, these come with Greek-speaking individuals from
Italian production centres. If this is the case, we might
wonder whether the proposed development of this
form of pottery, from so-called ‘Eastern sigillata’ from
 the language of the potteries
Asia Minor to Italy to Gaul,44 might have involved the
transmission of knowledge by skilled Greek-speaking
individuals. Perhaps Greek-named individuals attested
at these sites should not be dismissed as slaves without
further discussion of their possible roles, which may
have included scribal activity.45 At the earliest known
production site of genuine terra sigillata in Gaul, La
Muette (Lyon), links have been clearly established
around 10 BC with Arezzo and Pisa (Polak 2000, 33),46
and for La Graufesenque the association is most clear
with Arezzo, perhaps partly via La Muette, though this
is not assured (ibid. 22–3 and 34).
Comparanda: possible firing-lists
and related material from outside La
Graufesenque
In order to lift this suggestion out of the realm of pure
hypothesis, we would need supporting epigraphic
information from the production sites of Eastern
sigillata and Italian sigillata to help us trace the roles of
Greek-speaking individuals, but this has so far proven
absent for the former and very scanty for the latter
(see Appendix 7.1). Sadly, to date none of the Italian
production sites has yielded a rich series of graffiti as
found at La Graufesenque. However, despite the small
volume of evidence from Italian production centres
(beyond the copious stamps which do contain Greek
names) we have a graffito on Arretine ware (CIL XI, 6702,
1) in Latin and Greek in Greek script with numerous
Greek names (Figs 7.1 and 7.2), apparently from ‘about
the turn of our era’ (Johnston 1985, 121). This text (side
‘A’ of two, side ‘B’ is obscure) mentions an otherwise
unattested ορδω κατιλαριων ‘Society of Dishmakers’
(ibid. 122; Latin lexemes, but Greek morphology on the
second) and a ουερνα (uerna) ‘a household-born slave’.
Johnston (ibid.) concludes that ‘Greek was a living
Fig. 7.1. Graffito on sherd of Arretine ware found in Arezzo
(© The Trustees of the British Museum. Accession number
1919,0718.24).
105
language in the potteries at Arezzo at the turn of our era,
being spoken at least by some of those slaves who were
members of this particular Society, whether they had
Greek names or no’. Kenrick (2006, 205) is more cautious:
‘On its own, this item is tantalizing but tells us little. It
shows that Greek script (and language?) were current
at Arezzo in the Augustan period’. This material, of
course, does not prove that Greek-speaking individuals
were involved in the bureaucracy at La Graufesenque,
but it provides evidence, however meagre, of possible
Greek speakers involved in the internal bureaucracy
at Arezzo, a site that we know had close links with La
Graufesenque.
We might look beyond Italy for evidence for graffiti
related to the production of samian ware (and other
pottery) to see whether we can make advances in the
reconstruction of the bureaucratic practice at the
potteries and its scribes (Appendix 7.1). Unfortunately,
the evidence does not become any more copious,
though thirteen sites offer anything from one to a
handful of possible firing-lists. This material, as Dannell
(2002, 213) has rightly pointed out, is ‘certainly not
available for meaningful statistical comparison’, and
it is striking that even those sites with large outputs,
such as Lezoux or Arezzo, have offered far less graffiti
than La Graufesenque (ibid. 227).47 It is possible, of
course, to posit the use of perishable material such as
wood for the documents at these other sites, though
this cannot be proven.
It is apparent that the knowledge and need to write
these lists had spread over a large area, but it also seems
likely, based on the evidence from all the sites, including
La Graufesenque, that no manuals existed to help the
scribes.48 At La Graufesenque the alternating endings and
spellings for vessel names and the appearance of Gaulish,
and even Greek, in the internal bureaucracy suggest that
there was no model from which to copy. This also appears
to be the case at the other sites where, when we have
enough evidence to investigate, for example at Montans,
]ατω· .[ c.3].[
]α·
ο]ρδω κατιλαριω[ν
Αρχελαος·
Διογενης·
].νν Διοκλης· Απολλωνιος·
Αντερως· Γεμελλος·νν.[
].υις ουερνα· Ερως·
]το.[ ]ρμαν[
Fig. 7.2. Latin and Greek graffito in Greek script on Arretine
ware (Johnston 1985).
106 alex mullen
we find alternation between terms such as parapsidi
and parabsides. Similarly, the representation of personal
names across the sites shows considerable differences.
For example, potters’ names seem to be presented in
the genitive at Blickweiler (Bohn 1923, 65), whereas
the nominative seems normal at La Graufesenque and
Montans, and in the list from Vayres the names of potters
are consistently found with -o endings rather than -os.
Indeed, at least one other pottery production centre
may display Greek in its accounts (Appendix, 7.1, no. 10,
Vichy). And yet, the written material from the sites is
relatively homogenous in terms of layout, its use of Latin
symbols for numerals, which are a recurrent feature
in even the most fragmentary documents and, most
significantly, its frequent use of cursive Latin. Cursive
Latin is not an easy script to manage and a survey of
the longest documents from outside La Graufesenque
(Montans, Blickweiler and Vayres) demonstrates no clear
signs of lack of skill. It appears that the scribal literacy
at all these sites is most likely the result of movement
of skilled scribes and of training on the job. The theory
that the scribes at La Graufesenque attended schools in
the Gallo-Roman countryside is unconvincing (Flobert
1992, 106); their scribal training was unregulated, not
centrally organised and involved movement of skilled
personnel. Hoerner and Scholz (2000, 57) conclude
in their survey of possible links between the scribal
practices at Chémery and elsewhere that, whilst we
probably cannot reconstruct the exact transmission of
know-how between the sites, ‘die häufig nachweisbaren
Standortwechsel der Töpfer waren ja ein wesentlicher
Faktor bei der Verbreitung technischen Wissens und
bewährter Praktiken’. The mobility of those with
specialist skills is, of course, a well-attested feature for
both the modern and ancient world.
Final remarks
We have discussed the linguistic composition of La
Graufesenque, finding that societal bilingualism is the
best way of understanding the site, but a bilingualism
of interaction and fluidity rather than of diglossia
and/or separate linguistic communities. We saw that,
despite excellent attempts, the mechanical composition
of documents means that we cannot directly reach the
spoken bilingualism of the site. In fact, the evidence
of the names and graffiti demonstrated that a third
language, Greek, may need to be taken into account,
and that Greek-speaking scribes may have been at work,
alongside others, at La Graufesenque. Using Italian
and provincial comparanda the existence of manuals
was rejected and the possibility of the movement of
skilled scribes put forward. Once again this material
has demonstrated very clearly the importance of
production, trade and commerce in the spread of
languages and literacy.
Acknowledgments
I am extremely grateful for the generous advice and
encouragement from James Clackson, Brenda Dickinson,
Geoff Dannell, Pierre-Yves Lambert, Allard Mees, Paul
Russell and Andrew Wilson. I am particularly grateful
to Jim Adams for setting me on the trail of the Greek
of the graffiti and to Alderik Blom for sharing his
forthcoming article with me.
Appendix 7.1
Published Graffiti relating to pottery
from sites other than La Graufesenque
This section provides a compilation of the published
graffiti probably related to the production of pottery
found from sites other than La Graufesenque. It is
intended as a rough guide for ease of reference; it does
not claim to be complete and I have not attempted to
re-edit the inscriptions but cite them as they appear in
print. Dates are offered where these have been given
in the publications.
Italy:
a) Arezzo (CIL XI 6702 1, 2, 3, 5, 9, 10; Camodeca 2006)
A series of graffiti on Arretine vessels, according to
Marichal (1988, 16) ‘mal déchiffrés’.
CIL XI 6702 1 (Greek names?), 2 (mostly numerals), 3
(fornax?),
5 cursive
?Meti | acet | pul | cim
9, 10 (not included by Marichal, but possibly to be
considered)
acet | acat[
b) Horta (CIL XI 6702 23a)
‘in frusto paterae’
Very fragmentary, it is only really possible to make out
the numerals.
c) Pisa (CIL XI 6702 15)
Cursive Latin ‘in fragmento vasis Arretini Pisis rep.’
XIIII k(alendas) Iun(ias)
Principis
Ti…
d) Pisa (Isola di Migliarino) (Camodeca 2006; Oxé et al.
2000, 31) Date: late 1st century to early 2nd century
AD.
 the language of the potteries 107

XII k. Augu(stas) 3) Montans (Marichal 1988 appendix; Whatmough 1970,

fornax minor one- no. 88 (1); Martin 2006, 329) Date: ?AD 1–175.
ra[ta?]
Cretici cat(illi) cccl 1.
Nonian[i] cat(illi) dcccl ]. CC parapsidi[
Saturn[ini] cat(illi) cccxl c]atilli DC (X)(X)(X) DCC
Lu+++ui? par(opsides) ccc ]ES pannas S = D cruminis[
Coniunc.? ace(tabula) cxc ]li DCC acitabli CCCCL par[apsidi
Thiodori ace(tabula) dc (X)(X)(X)DCCCLXXV
]IUS et Dercillus
Extra Italy: XXX
1) Toulon-sur-Allier (Unpublished, mention in Lambert ]pannas S = .[
2002, 114) 2.
Lambert kindly sent me a scan of photographs (attached parab]sides
to a letter from Hugues Vertet to Paul Marie Duval) ac]itabla
and reads the fragmentary inscription as follows. Mo]ntanus Sensilio[
Unfortunately the letter does not comment on the type pannas semisses[
of ceramic used. ]Regalis catilli[
]s. satla XX parabsides [
] XXXV[ acitabla [
salari [
Marichal (1988, 90) knew of this graffito and noted: ‘un ]. Colus pa[
nouvel exemplaire [of sat(t)l(l)a] vient d’en être trouvé
à Toulon-sur-Allier, le mot n’est donc pas propre aux 4) Blickweiler (Marichal 1988 appendix; Whatmough
Rutènes, c’est semble-t-il, le seul enseignement qu’on 1970, no. 229 (very different reading)) Date: ‘vers A.D.
puisse tirer de cette trouvaille’. 140’ (Marichal 1988, 261)

2) Lezoux (Bet & Delage 1993) Date: Tiberian Column 1

‘La constitution de ce corpus [graffiti from Lezoux] a ]. I
permis, cependant, d’en trouver deux exemplaires [of ]n(umero) LXX uass(a) n(umero) CCXXXX
‘comptes de poteries’] avec certitude.’ Texts are dated to Pet]rulli
the Tiberian period and are therefore older than those p]annias n(umero) DCCC uass(a) n(umero) (X)DC
at La Graufesenque. Unlike those at La Graufesenque, Column 2
they are inscribed after firing. Bituni
a) Bet & Delage 1993, 325, inv. GI011 parusp(idi) remat(i) n(umero)[
- - - III (I)CCCC | catilli (I)CCCC[D] - - - | [R] ILNAS (I) - - - Carietistani
catilli justi[
Lambert (2002, 183) suggests b]r[in]ituas? for the final SACIANTRI
line, and more recently (pers. comm.): catilli carnuat(i) n(umero)[
–[
paruspi(di) pullati n(umero) II
actari MCCCC
] catilli. MCCCC…
]r[.l/c]itiuas C..[ 5) Vayres (Lambert 2002, L-27) Date: c.AD 150
cesido urciu CXXI
b) Bet & Delage 1993, 325, inv. GI008 congialidi XXV
- - - I CCCCC - - - | - - - XX melauso urciu LVI
souxtu CC
c) Bet & Delage 1993, 326, inv. GI038 scutra V
This example is described by Bet and Delage (1993, 326) atticco trisextia LXX
as of ‘usage indéterminé’, but Lambert (2002, 183) states congialidi XXV
that it is ‘certainement un bordereau partiel’. souxtu CXXV
ueriđuco congialidi XIIII
- - - I CAVTILLI [III] trisextia XXX
Lambert (2002, 183) reads this ‘bordereau partiel’: ]u suxtu C
| Toutilli par[absides], though he now prefers Tautilli cintumo souxtu CXXX
(pers. comm.).
108 alex mullen

6) Rheinzabern (Oxé 1925, 52; Whatmough 1970, no. 230) 14. [–]
ALBIN[us–?]
a) X
………
[aci]tabla(?) 15. [–]
]xxx ALBIN[us]
]ria(?) lxxv
]xxv 9) ‘Inscriptions of the Santones’ (Whatmough 1970,
………. 387)
]tata ‘In Bull. Soc. arch. et hist. Charente 1926, xlix, J. Marveau
gives from a piece of terra sigillata, as a continuous line
b) of text, what is probably to be read dometio m crumin
]xl and therefore to be compared with the graffiti of La
]ccc Graufesenque.’
……….
………. 10) Vichy (Allier) (Bémont 1972, 161–4; Lambert 2002,
[cer]uesa(ri)? cl L-72) Date: 1st century AD?
]cccc Described as a ‘compte sur terra nigra’ (according to the
discrepancies between this example and some notes
7) Bavay (Whatmough 1970, 280; AE 1928, 138) concerning ‘the same’ graffito from 1880, Bémont
]acit | catill(i) II | san[ suggests that there may have been more than one). No
interpretation of the text is given by Bémont. Lambert
8) Chémery (Hoerner & Scholz 2000; Whatmough 1970, (2002, 193) seems to think the language is Greek: ‘Il n’est
280) Date: c.AD 60–150 pas rare de trouver des documents de langue grecque
15 inscriptions are presented in Hoerner & Scholz. et d’alphabet latin (ainsi à Pompéi). Cela est peut-être
2–4, 9 contain only symbols for numerals. The other en relation avec l’habitude gauloise, signalée chez les
graffiti are listed below. It should be noted that the Helvètes par César, de tenir les comptes en grec.’
translations in Hoerner & Scholz have been misplaced, Lambert’s reading:
the translation for 3 should be for 5, that for 5 for 6, [ ]atelus . tisincser u
that for 6 for 7. [.]s (denier) V
1. [– con?]STATA (denier) X
[–]CLXX VASA XXXXVIIICCLXXX ]Isarnouclítos
[–]LVIII VAS(a) (I)(I)DCCCVIII ]ire ]mar[
[–]VAS(a) (I)C ]riston[ ]…[
[–O]LLA CCLXXII VAS(a) (I)(I)DCCXXX In its fragmentary state it is hard to be sure which
[–]CCLIIII language the graffito represents, though the signs taken
[–]LXXX[–?] to represent ‘denier’ suggest that it is some form of
5. [–i]DVS DIICIIMBRIIS account rather than a firing-list.
[–idu]S MAJIAS VIIII
[–? pan]NAS CCC 11) Les Martres-de-Veyre (Puy-de-Dôme) (Lambert 2002,
[–]S X VX CCL L-71) Date: 1st to 2nd century AD
[–]VI VX LX One example cited in Lambert, not a firing-list. Lambert
notes that ‘graffites latins’ have been found, stating that
6. [–]S XIIII K(alendas) IVLIAS A.-M. Romeuf is in charge of their publication. None
[–]RIIS IIMATINI? of the grafitti presorted in Romeuf 2000 seems to be a
[–]X) BRACIS(?) firing-list. Many appear to be potters’ signatures.
[–]IIII
7. [–ma?]CIDA[–] 12) Saint-Bonnet à Yzeure (Allier) (Lambert 2002 L-73)
[–]S VINA[ri?–] Date: 1st century AD
[–]CX[–?] List of names on first century céramique blanche, from
a workshop of Gallo-Belgic wares. Exact purpose
8. [–?]MI[–] unknown.
RO[–]
MA[–] 13) Haute-Yutz (Moselle) (Hatt 1962, 491–2; Duval &
10–13. Very fragmentary. Marichal 1966, 1341 note 3) Date: pottery in operation
c.AD 150 to 3rd century.
 the language of the potteries
Hatt (1962) remarks: ‘Il s’agit probablement d’un
bordereau d’enfournement portant mention de trois
séries de trente vases, distingués par leur contenu :
medimni, vicenarii? cotyli. On remarquera que les mesures
de médimnes, de cotyles sont des mesures grecques,
utilisées surtout dans l’Orient hellénique’.
ME XXX CO XXX
VIC XXX TILI
Notes
  1 See, for example, discussions by Adams 2003, 687–724 and
Blom forthcoming.
  2 See Schaad 2007b, 61–215 for a comprehensive survey of all
the excavations undertaken at the site.
  3 Dannell (2002, 214) remarks that ‘these excavations have
examined, at the most, some 3 per cent of the area which is
known to have been involved in pottery production’. The site
has already yielded an ‘aire cultuelle’, comprising a temple,
two fana and a well, first fully published in Schaad (2007b,
85–133).
  4 See Brulet et al. 2010 for discussion of Roman ceramic types
in Gaul and Bémont & Jacob 1986 for an overview of Gallo-
Roman terra sigillata.
  5 See Polak 2000, 15–38 for an admirably clear overview of the
South Gaulish production centres and the reasons for their
rise and fall; on the latter subject, see also Middleton 1980.
  6 ‘It is known that throughout the production period by far
the majority of vessels produced at La Graufesenque were
stamped’ (Dannell 2002, 220); though see Bémont 2004, 130–1
for changes over time in stamping. During the main period
of production, when stamps are usually on one line, potters’
names are found in the nominative or genitive and may be
abbreviated. Officina is common at La Graufesenque and Le
Rozier (scarce elsewhere), fecit occurs everywhere in Gaul
and manu(s) is used by c.45 potters at La Graufesenque. The
earliest stamps at La Graufesenque are on two lines, following
the practice at Arezzo, sometimes with the qualification
ar(r)etinum (90 per cent of Arretine ware is stamped). See
Dannell 2002, 215–19, Genin & Schenck-David 2007, 275–82
and NOTS 1, 18–22 for discussion of the details of the stamps.
For a discussion of both the stamps and signatures, see
Bémont 2004, 104–14.
  7 To which should be added two further graffiti, Bémont &
Vernhet 1990–1991 and Vernhet & Bémont 1992–1993.
  8 Originally it was thought that the graffiti had been inscribed
post cocturam, but close analysis of the material has proven
the inscription to be ante cocturam, see Bémont 2004, 114 note
202.
  9 Dannell (2002, 215) urges that we should not treat the stamps
and graffiti separately.
10 See Blom (forthcoming) for a detailed overview of the
development of scholarship and information on the dating,
groupings and language of the graffiti. I highlight some key
points here.
11 Loth’s 1924 discussion of the graffiti focuses on Gaulish (as do
others), in his opinion the language of the potters, but does
not explicitly describe the overall linguistic composition of
the graffiti.
12 Also, earlier in the text, ‘c’est du latin, mais du latin déformé,
abâtardi’ (Hermet 1923, ix).
13 Schmidt’s review of Marichal’s edition (1990, 743) takes issue
with the inconsistency of some of Marichal’s summarizing
statements as to the linguistic composition of the graffiti.
109
14 This seems an inappropriate term to use considering the
possible confusion with ‘Gallo-Latin’, which is used to refer
to Gaulish written in Roman script.
15 Creolisation is also an inappropriate term when we are
dealing with two closely related languages and high levels
of bilingualism, see Mullen 2012.
16 See Meid 1983 for Gaulish-Latin bilingual texts.
17 The classification of all these examples as code-switches
could be questioned: extra may well be Gaulish and not Latin
(Lambert 2008, 106); Blom (forthcoming) discusses various
problems with the code-switching analysis of -os versus -us
endings in personal names and the tuθos heading followed
by Latin is fragmentary and poses several problems of
interpretation.
18 For an argument against, see Polak 2000, 39.
19 See Blom (forthcoming) for an important discussion of
the issues in dating the material and in creating potting
‘clienteles’.
20 The quotation can be found at Schmidt 1990, 743.
21 Dannell (2002, 239 note 131) remarks that ‘Polak (2000,
tables 7.1, 7.2 and fig 7.1) offers slight evidence where it
can be seen that the later group there (admittedly only four
graffiti) are ‘Latin’, while the earliest graffiti are found among
the ‘Gaulish’ or mixed group. The Flavian ‘Atelia’ day-book
is Latin.’ Bémont (2004, 115) notes that Gaulish is spread
throughout the graffiti.
22 Blom (forthcoming) also takes issue with Adams on this point.
23 Fülle (2000a, 69) works this into his model.
24 Marichal (1988, 225) also refers to 77, 82, 90 and possibly 53
as ‘bordereaux partiels’. These are all fragmentary to the
extent that it seems impossible to be sure of their difference
from the main firing-lists. They are included by Marichal with
the main lists as they are in the same hands. I am curious to
discover whether any of these proposed notes are unfired or
incised post cocturam.
25 Dannell 2002, 220 note 67: ‘These inscriptions may have
been the basis for compiling the graffiti, but one might
expect more to have survived (at least one to a line). On
the other hand, they might be part of a different recording
system, required to document the relationships between the
non-stamping potters and their workshops. However, it is
admitted that in both cases they rank as ephemera’.
26 Lisa Bendall (pers. comm.) suggests from her knowledge of
the Linear B clay tablets, that perhaps notes may have been
incised on dry, unfired clay, and after use could have been
disposed of in piles of clay.
27 Whilst I concur with many of Blom’s comments in his
forthcoming article, his insistence on the distance of the
language of the graffiti from the languages spoken at the site
may have been pushed too far, particularly since he himself
repeatedly discusses the features of the texts in relation to
spoken languages. Similarly, his attacks on Adams (2003)
sometimes suggest a reductive reading of Adams’s complex
analysis.
28 For an introduction to onomastics, see Mullen 2007; forth­
coming.
29 For a ‘hierarchy of adoption’ of names, see Mullen 2007. See
Delamarre 2003, 347–50 for lists of Gaulish-Latin cover names
and translation names. The fact that I found it difficult to
classify so many names from La Graufesenque as either Latin
or Celtic is testament to the fact that cover names were
particularly popular. This representation of a double identity
is of course important for our understanding of the cultural
contacts at the site.
30 Mullen 2007 contains many examples from La Graufes­
enque.
31 For examples of -os endings in the stamps, see Bémont 2004,
105.
110 alex mullen
32 Marichal (1988, 93), conversely, thinks that all the names in
the firing-lists ‘peuvent être dits “indigènes”’.
33 An alternative, a designation for a container for blood-garum
(αἱμάτιον), has recently been suggested by Susan Weingarten,
cited in Dannell (2006, 166 note 46).
34 I am grateful to Martin West and Patrick James for their
advice on this.
35 Celtic apparently has two words for badger, one from *brokko
and the other from *taSKo, see Katz 1998.
36 Loth 1924, 49 cites a possibly analogous development in hog
and hogshead ‘large cask of liquid’, though there are doubts
over the origins of this term.
37 Broc(c)(h)- is not listed as a key name element in either of the
major corpora Evans (1967) or Schmidt (1957); Evans (1967,
159 note 5) simply makes a note under his entry for Brog-
‘border, territory, land’ that despite the alternation of c / g
in Gaulish, this element is ‘not to be connected with PNN in
broc(c)-’.
38 I briefly considered the possibility that this word might
be related to the Italian settlement Buxentum, perhaps the
adjective Buxentinus and referring to a distinctive style of
vessel typical of that site. However, it seems that Buxentum is
not known to be a production centre. I am grateful to Geoff
Dannell, Brenda Dickinson and Emanuele Vaccaro for their
advice on this.
39 Bohn (1924, 25) had already suggested a link with the
diminutive form κυμβάλιον.
40 I am grateful to Paul Russell for this suggestion.
41 I am grateful to John Blundell for checking the slips
concerning trochlea at the Thesaurus Linguae Latinae in
Munich.
42 Only one text from La Graufesenque shows any hint of Greek
language rather than the isolated lexemes discussed above:
Lambert 2002, L-47.3. However, the linguistic analysis of
this fragment remains extremely tentative and at any rate
the text has been described by Lambert (2002, 146) as a
glossary and perhaps an ‘exercice d’écolier’ and might not
be relevant for understanding the internal bureaucracy of
the potteries.
43 It is possible that it has come via Latin canistrum and then
undergone vocalic assimilation (a - i > a - a) (Paul Russell,
pers. comm.), but a borrowing from Greek seems the simpler
explanation.
44 ‘The derivative Gaulish productions involving potters attested
at Arezzo, which appear at Lyon from 10 BC and then at La
Graufesenque in Southern Gaul, are now thought to reflect
migration of expert potters rather than the establishment
of branch workshops’ (Wilson 2008, 398). See Hartley 1977
for an early statement on ‘wandering potters’.
45 Slaves are attested at La Graufesenque, for example Marichal
1988, nos 169 and 211, but it is impossible to extrapolate their
roles and numbers from these documents, see Bémont 2004,
129.
46 For the Lyon potteries, see the dossiers in Gallia 1996 and
1997.
47 Bet & Delage (1993) consider why so few lists relating to
the pottery have been found at Lezoux. They suggest that
perhaps wooden tablets had been used, though I think that
this is probably unlikely given the abundance of clay.
48 As for the overall nature of the linguistic composition
of the lists and whether any patterns can be seen either
geographically or chronologically, which might help us to
reconstruct the origins of these ‘comptables’, the material
is simply too partial to be submitted to such an analysis.