Untitled Document

Gens Caristania caught the interest of researchers at the beginning of the twentieth century[1]. At that time, the ruins of ancient Pisidian Antioch were being unearthed and it was discovered that the Caristanii were one of the most prominent families in this Roman colony [2]. This is made particularly clear by the careers of C. Caristanius Fronto Caesianus Iullus and C. Caristanius Fronto[3]. The former was promoted to the status of eques during Augustus’ reign[4]. However, he did not give up his municipal career, for he held, amongst others, the function ofpraefectus pro IIviro three times and was given the titles of pontifex and sacerdos [5]. A recently discovered inscription, which he erected in AD 45/46 to celebrate the victory of Claudius in Britannia (AD 43) could indicate that he even had relations with the Emperor’s court[6]. C. Caristanius Fronto, in turn, had an even more meteoric career. As an eques[7], he was instantly promoted to the status of senator: adlectus in senatum inter tribunicios (Rémy [see not. 3]: 69 AD; Halfmann [see not. 3]: 73/74 AD) and then promotus inter praetorios (Rémy [see not. 3]: 73/74 AD; Halfmann [see not. 3]: 74/75 AD)[8]. Finally, he became a consul suffectus in AD 90.

However, little is known about the origin of the Antiochian Caristanii. In the opinion of B. Levick the family itself probably originated from southern Etruria[10]. According to the British historian, this can be confirmed by epigraphic sources, which document the presence of this unique nomen gentilicium in this region. Of major significance here would be the inscription from Sutrium [11]. It is a plaque, the heading of which reads[12]:

Therefore, we are dealing with a list of the highest priests of this colony (fasti pontificum), and their names are written in chronological order in three columns. The inscription is presumably not complete. There is visible damage at the bottom of the plaque and this could indicate that an uncertain number of names may have been destroyed. L. Keppie, on the basis of: “an examination of their (i.e. pontifices [I.W., W.P.]) nomenclature and of the orthography of the inscription” concluded that it should be dated to the period of Augustus or Tiberius [13].

Fig. 1: Museo del Patrimonium di Sutri. Lapide dei Pontefici di Sutri
(Photo del Museo del Patrimonium di Sutri)

Among the pontifices in the third column, the name of C. Caristanius (line 2) is evident.

Fig. 2: Museo del Patrimonium di Sutri. Lapide dei Pontefici di Sutri (CIL XI 3254 col. III v. 1–2)
(Photo: W. Pietruszka)

His name appears after the “in loco” phrase, which means that he was replaced by another pontifex. Therefore it is quite likely that he was mentioned primarily in the second or even first column (in the damaged part of the plaque). It seems though that he cannot be treated as the ancestor of the Antiochian branch, because of the relatively late date of the inscription[14]. It should be borne in mind that, at the same time, the career of C. Caristanius Fronto Caesianus Iullus was developing[15]. Furthermore, Sutrium, like Antiochia, was also a newly formed colony (dated to the time after Caesar’s death or even to the period of Augustus) [16]. It is therefore difficult to precisely delineate the ancestry of its inhabitants. In the search for the Etrurian roots of the family of little help is another inscription from Etruria. It only documents a family of slave origin from Capena [17]. They could, supposedly, have been freedmen of the Caristanii from Sutrium. Other Italian sources document only freedmen or people of presumably slave origin[18]. The current state of the source database makes it impossible to prove the assumption that these two families shared an affinity — with Etrurian ancestors and Antiochian descendants. Should common ancestors have existed, they are still hidden in the darkness of history in an unknown area.

Although the fasti pontificum from Sutrium do not indicate the origin of gens Caristania, it is still worth studying when looking into the family’s history. The authors believe the plaque’s text could suggest that another member of this family may have held an important function in Sutrium. This information can be found in the eighteenthline of the second column.

Fig. 3: Museo del Patrimonium di Sutri. Lapide dei Pontefici di Sutri (CIL XI 3254 col. II v. 17–18)
(Photo: W. Pietruszka)

Starting from the publication of E. Bormann, G. B. de Rossi and C. Zangemeister in CIL XI 3254, the following reading of the line was adopted:

IN LOC·C·CARISTI PON^T

In the editors’ view, it would constitute the name of C. Caristius Pont.[19]. However, the correct reading of this line is difficult because of the plaque’s destruction. The plaque has been broken into three pieces and dismantling has resulted in chisel marks in the lower part of the inscription. The results of the abovementioned defects are twofold:

1. a cut in the middle of nomen gentilicium, between CAR and STI;

2. the text in the lower part is damaged due to chiselling (see Fig. 4 and Fig. 5).

The results of the cut have been ameliorated by the inscription’s CIL editors, using editions published prior to devastation. One was made in the sixteenth century by M. Smetius[20] according to which, the fragment in question would read as follows: CARISTI. The defects resulting from the plaque’s dismantling, i.e. prior to the oldest known edition of the pontifices plaque, make it harder to read. A substantial part of the line was affected by the destruction, which hinders the reconstruction of the name in question. One of the first publications, i.e. an entry in the Codex musei Florentini, even suggested the following reading:

It appears that such an idea stemmed from drawing an analogy with a similar name — the abovementioned C. Caristanius. However, it involved significant interference in the text — for instance, the LOC phrase was eliminated in order to maintain the appropriate length of the text. This aside, the shape of the preserved letters does not allow for such a reconstruction. In spite of that, the analogy with the name may be instructive. It is worth observing that the nomen gentilicium suggested by the CIL editors — Caristus or Caristius — is not thoroughly documented by sources. In fact it is established solely in the pontifices plaque from Sutrium[21]. Thus, the authors suggest attempting a new, different reading of line II.18. The belief that the last pontifex mentioned in the second column was not C. Caristi(us) Pont. but C. Carist(anius) Front(o) seems justified. A number of assumptions may account for this view.

In the second column, after the IN LOC phrase, one usually encounters people whose names were written down in the following way^{^[22]}: praenomen + nomen gentilicium + filiation (not always) [23].

It is also worth noting that these lines had an indentation, which made them even shorter. Inscribing the tria nomina of C. Caristanius Fronto here would require the use of abbreviations in both the nomen gentilicium and cognomen [24]. The preserved inscription text confirms this practice in two ways:

1. the cognomen includes a ligature (N^T), which is unique for the pontifices plaque;

2. the letter T in the nomen gentilicium has been lifted above the text level, for it could have been c. 1.3 cm or more in width, which made it difficult to fit it into the width of the space between the letters S and I — measuring c. 1 cm (the typical width of a letter in this area of the plaque)[25].

Therefore it is worthwhile paying particular attention to the fragment between the phrase CARIST and the phrase PON^T or, possibly, ON^T.

Fig. 4: Museo del Patrimonium di Sutri. Lapide dei Pontefici di Sutri (CIL XI 3254 col. II v. 18 fragm.)
(Foto: W. Pietruszka)

The authors consider the examination of this place to be the decisive factor that allows for a different reading of the text ^{^[26]}.

Fig. 5: Museo del Patrimonium di Sutri. Lapide dei Pontefici di Sutri (CIL XI 3254 col. II v. 18)
negative (Photo: W. Pietruszka)

First, the spaces between the letters in the examined line of the inscription are c. 0.5 cm in width [27]. Whereas between the letter I and P suggested by the CIL editors, the space is over 1 cm. Furthermore, the upper part of the letter I seems to have a horizontal incision on the right side c. 1 cm in length ^{^[28]}. It seems then, that we are dealing here not with the letter I and a following space separating two words, but a completely different character. Its shape could indicate either the letter E, though such a reconstruction is pointless [29], or the letter F. Going further, the nonstandard width of the area between the letters P and O is striking to some extent. One can observe here the widespread damage caused at the time of chiselling, which affected the aforementioned space and the lower parts of the neighbouring letters. This unusual space amounts to c. 0.6–0.7 cm between the curve of P and the figure of O, which would mean that the field of this letter had to have a width of c. 1.3–1.4 cm. One could thus suppose that in fact the original character was not a narrow P, but B or R. However, the letter B seems to be both onomastically pointless and physically impossible due to the aforementioned width, which is too wide for this letter[30]. Prior to the damaging of the line the letter here was probably R. This assumption could be confirmed by the specific style of the character R used in the pontifices plaque, which forced the employment of a similar, wider than usual, space[31]. Additionally, the presence of the letter R allows for the reconstruction of thecognomen of the pontifex in a way more common than that suggested in CIL, that is as Front(o) instead of the rather enigmatic Pont. Therefore, it is very likely that line II.18 originally read as follows:

IN LOC·C∙CARIST[·]FRON^T

The only known nomina gentilicia beginning with the phrase CARIST are the names of Caristicus and Caristanius[32]. The former, though, is established only for a praetorian from the later period [33]. The authors suggest, then, that the case may indicate C. Caristanius Fronto, and further, that among the Sutrium pontifices there was another member of the Caristanii. His name is located only two lines before C. Caristanius’ name, which could also suggest that they held the function of pontifex at roughly the same time.

It appears that the suggested reconstruction may have a significant impact on the unravelling of the family history. One should begin with the fact that the name of C. Caristanius (without a cognomen) is more thoroughly documented than just by the pontifices plaque in Sutrium. On the via Cassia — the road between Sutrium and Rome — in the ruins of a villa near Tomba di Nerone a brick from an Augustan or early Julio-Claudian phase of the building was found with the stamp that reads as follows[34]:

Arguments of an onomastic, territorial and chronological nature allow us to conclude that the producer may be identified as the pontifex from Sutrium — as seen, the only C. Caristanius known in this region[35]. In addition, during archaeological survey works taking place alongside the via Cassia (near La Storta) c. 6 km north of the aforementioned villa, fragments of ceramic building materials with the following stamps[36] were found: [...]ARISTA[...], [...]RISTANI, [...]RIS[...], [...]TANI, [...]ANI[37]. It seems quite possible that the damaged name should be read as [C]ARISTANI[38]. This assumption seems even more justifiable given that we are dealing here with a unique nomen gentilicium. Moreover, it is the same ceramics production sector and the proximity of these archaeological sites is striking. Additionally, the epigraphic sources from this region do not mention any other name which contains the letters ARISTANI [39]. It is therefore very likely that the bricks or roof tiles from the vicinity of La Storta were also produced by C. Caristanius[40].

In this context, the authors would like to point to another important fact connected with the involvement of the Caristanii in ceramics production. The unique name of C. Caristanius can also be found on other ceramic materials, i.e. on amphorae. It may be surmised that the producer of building ceramics from southern Etruria sought revenue from the production of ceramic containers as well. The amphorae were found in Carthage[41], Aquileia[42] and possibly in Padua[43], Brindisi[44] and Novara [45]. Although their descriptions are not precise, these were probably Dressel 6A amphorae. This is the type of amphora frequently connected with the wine trade in the Adriatic area from the late first century BC until the mid-first century AD [46]. Such a classification of C. Caristanius’ containers is based on the fact that the amphora from Aquileia was previously described as Dressel 6 as well as the fact that in Carthage his amphora was used to build a wall, in which amphorae of well-known Dressel 6A producers were also found[47]. One more fact is of significance here — an amphora with C. Caristanius Fronto’s name was found in the very same wall[48].

Apparently, the name of C. Caristanius Fronto frequently occurs on Dressel 6A amphorae[49]. His stamps may, in the authors’ view, be classified based on three patterns according to the sixteen preserved items:

1. CCAR^IS^TFRON^T (seven items): Carthage[50], Cavtat[51], Cupra Marittima[52], Padua (twice)[53], Pescara (uncertain)[54] and Triest [55]

2. CCARFRON^T (five items): Magdalensberg (twice)[56], Modena (uncertain)[57], Rome[58] and Verona [59]

3. CCA^RIST(S^T)FRON^TO (four items): Dimale[60], Lucera[61], Magdalensberg[62] and Padua [63]

It was previously assumed that the producer was identical with C. Caristanius Fronto, i.e. the senator from Pisidian Antioch [64]. This assumption was not without plausibility. His high social status appears to accord with the position of one of the major Dressel 6A producers. This view seemed all the more justified as some other producers of Dressel 6A amphorae are also said to have originated from the imperial elite (among others: T. Helvius Basila, M. Herennius Picens and L. Tarius Rufus) [65]. However, chronology proved to be a serious obstacle. The political and economic activities of these other producers — unlike the consul from 90 AD — are dated to a substantially earlier period, i.e. the end of the first century BC and the beginning of the first century AD. However, due to the limited possibilities of identification it has been recognized that senator C. Caristanius Fronto had to have been one of the last Dressel 6A producers[66]. As a result of that, for some time it was suspected that Dressel 6A amphorae may have been produced even until the end of the first century AD. Only E. Buchi put forward a different chronology based on amphora finds from Verona[67]. The amphora stamped with the name of C. Caristanius Fronto was located in the homogeneous layer dated to Augustus’ time. Moreover, subsequent amphora finds from Magdalensberg irrefutably confirmed such an early chronology[68]. This signifies that C. Caristanius Fronto was an early first century AD producer, which in that case makes his identity debatable[69]. The main problem was indeed the lack of any proof for the existence of any C. Caristanius Fronto in Italy. The authors suggest that the reconstruction of line II.18 on the pontifices plaque in Sutrium that was presented above might indicate that the mysterious amphorae producer did indeed originate from southern Etruria ^{^[70]}. The unique name of C. Caristanius and C. Caristanius Fronto would not only be preserved on Dressel 6A amphorae, but also prevail in the same town and the same time. Moreover, both Caristanii would perform the same prestigious function — that of pontifex — which would undoubtedly indicate their high social status (with considerable wealth) and, consequently, greater economic opportunities[71]. The authors consider it impossible for this situation to be accounted for by pure coincidence.

It appears that the Caristanii, as members of the municipal elite from southern Etruria, did not restrict themselves to making profit from providing Rome and its suburbium with building ceramics. Although it constituted a huge and developing market, profits from it could be limited due to significant competition, which is corroborated, inter alia for the first century AD, by numerous petty producers’ names on stamps [72]. This could have mobilized some local entrepreneurs to seek additional, new profit opportunities. They could, to some extent, have followed the example of the imperial elite, whose members started investing in the newly-established northern regions of Italy at that time (Umbria [Ager Gallicus], Aemilia, Venetia et Histria, Transpadana) [73]. The considerable number of senatorial names on the stamps preserved in Dressel 6A amphorae is worth noting here, and it constitutes an exception when compared to the similar sources from other regions of Italy [74]. This area, with a rapidly growing demand for building ceramics as well as containers used for transporting wine, olive oil and garum along the Adriatic coast, the Po valley, and even to areas across the Alps and Danube — could have been considered an Eldorado for experienced producers from “old” Italy, who could boast proper capital and technology. The Caristanii, then, would be one such family, prepared to embark on a risky enterprise, despite their considerable distance from the areas across the Apennines. The number and vast extent of the stamp distribution, especially that of C. Caristanius Fronto, points to the fact that such an investment decision was most probably profitable.

[1] G. L. Cheesman, The Family of the Caristanii at Antioch in Pisidia, JRS 3 (1913) 253–266; W. M. Ramsay, Colonia Caesarea (Pisidian Antioch) in the Augustan Age, JRS 6 (1916) 83–134, esp. 88–89, 95–96, 131; we would like to thank Andrzej Los and Tommaso Valeri for their great help.

[3] PIR² C 423 (C. Caristanius Fronto); PIR² C 425 (C. Caristanius Fronto Caesianus Iullus); W. Eck, Senatoren von Vespasian bis Hadrian. Prosopographische Untersuchungen mit Einschluß der Jahres- und Provinzialfasten der Statthalter (Vestigia 13), München 1970, 66, 68, 103; B. Rémy, Les carrières sénatoriales dans les provinces romaines d’Anatolie au Haut-Empire (31 av. J.-C.–284 ap. J.-C.) (Pont-Bithynie, Galatie, Cappadoce, Lycie-Pamphylie et Cilicie) (Varia Anatolica II), Istanbul, Paris 1989, 62–64; A. Krieckhaus, Senatorische Familien und ihre patriae (1./2. Jh. n.Chr.) (Studien zur Geschichtsforschung des Altertums 14), Hamburg 2006, 150; H. Halfmann,Italische Ursprünge bei Rittern und Senatoren aus Kleinasien, in: G. Urso (ed.), Tra Oriente e Occidente. Indigeni, Greci e Romani in Asia Minore. Atti di convegno internazionale, Cividale del Friuli, 28–30 settembre 2006 (I convegni della Fondazione Niccolò Canussio 6), Pisa 2007, 165–187, esp. 181–184.

[4] Cheesman, The Family (see not. 1) 254f.

[5] ILS 9502 = AE 1913.235; ILS 9503 = AE 1914.260; AE 2001.1918. His high status in the city is also indicated by the information in the inscription ILS 9502 = AE 1913.235: huic primo omnium publice d(ecreto) d(ecurionum) statua posita est.

[6] M. Christol, Th. Drew-Bear, M. Taslialan, L’empereur Claude, le chevalier C. Caristanius Fronto Caesianus Iullus et le culte impérial à Antioche de Pisidie, Tyche 16 (2001) 1–20. This is most probably linked to the fact that one of the slaves belonging to the Antiochian Caristanii became a very influential imperial freedman (procurator, praegustator, a secretis Augusti) and his name was Ti. Claudius Epinicus (ILS 9504 = AE 1914.261; Cheesman, The Family [see not. 1] 258–259). Interestingly enough, after returning to his homeland he held the function of VIvir Augustalis, and his responsibilities could therefore have included the cult of the Emperor. He may possibly have inspired the Caristanii to erect the inscription, which would account for the fact that its text was archaized — this would indicate a good knowledge of the linguistic and aesthetic preferences of Claudius, the freedman’s patron (G. Standing, The Claudian Invasion of Britain and the Cult of Victoria Britannica, Britannia 34 [2003] 281–288, esp. 282).

[7] See ILS 9485: tribunus militum, praefectus equitum alae Bosporanorum.

[8] ILS 9485; dating: Halfmann, Italische Ursprünge (see not. 3) 182; Rémy, Les carrières 63 (see not. 3).

[9] CIL III 14192.4; AE 1949.23; Halfmann, Italische Ursprünge (see not. 3) 182; Rémy, Les carrières (see not. 3) 63. Apart from that he performed the following functions (ILS 9485 = AE 1914.262; IGR III 300 = SEG 2002.1368, 511–512, 555, 729):legatus pro praetore Ponti et Bithiniae (Rémy [see not. 3]: 74/75 or 75/76; Halfmann [see not. 3]: 76/77), legatus Imperatoris divi Vespasiani Augusti legionis IX Hispanae in Britannia (Rémy [see not. 3]: after Agricola; Halfmann [see not. 3]: 78–80/81), legatus pro praetore Imperatoris divi Titi Caesaris Augusti et Imperatoris Domitiani Caesaris Augusti provinciae Pamphiliae et Liciae (Rémy, Halfmann [both see not. 3]: 81–84).

[10] B. Levick, Roman Colonies in Southern Asia Minor, Oxford 1967, 63. It has been suggested that Antiochian colonists — in part probably veterans of the legions V (Gallica) and VII — could have originated from central and northern Italy, see: M. Christol, Th. Drew-Bear,Vétérans et soldats légionnaires d’Antioche de Pisidie, in: G. Paci (ed.), Epigrafia romana in area adriatica. Actes de la IX^e rencontre franco-italienne sur l’épigraphie du monde romain (Macerata, 10–11 novembre 1995) (Ichnia 2), Macerata, Pisa, Rome 1998, 303–332, esp. 332; but see: H. Bru, L’origine des colons romains d’Antioche de Pisidie, in: H. Bru, F. Kirbihler, S. Lebreton (eds.), L’Asie mineure dans l’Antiquité. Échanges, populations et territoires, Rennes 2009, 263–287.

[11] CIL XI 3254; L. Camilli, F. Taglietti, Osservazioni sulla produzione laterizia della tarda età repubblicana e della prima età imperiale, in: Epigrafia della produzione e della distribuzione. Actes de la VII^e rencontre franco-italienne sur l’épigraphie du monde romain (Rome, 5–6 juin 1992) (Publications de l’École française de Rome 193), Rome 1994, 307–333, esp. 316, fig. 4; M. Frisina, Nuovo, probabile frammento dei fasti pontificum di Sutri, ZPE 125 (1999) 253–256.

[12] Pontifices from the “Colonia Coniuncta Iulia Sutrina” in order of appointment.

[13] L. Keppie, Colonisation and Veteran Settlement in Italy 47–14 B.C., London 1985, 169–170.

[14] Camilli, Taglietti, Osservazioni (see not. 11) 316–318.

[15] Camilli, Taglietti, Osservazioni 319.

[16] Camilli, Taglietti, Osservazioni 317; G. Duncan, J.M. Reynolds, Sutri (Sutrium) (Notes on Southern Etruria 3), PBSR 26 (1958) 63–134, esp. 68; Keppie, Colonisation (see not. 13) 169–170.

[18] CIL VI 10347 = 32317 (freeborn?), CIL VI 14406–14407; CIL VI 29565; CIL X 4417. See not. 32. In addition, there are two copies of a signaculum which read C. CARISTANI/
CAESET RVFI — one from Capua (CIL X 8059.93), the other held in a collection in Spain (A. Castellano, H. Gimeno, A. U. Stylow, Signacula. Sellos en bronce del Museo Arqueológico Nacional, Boletin del Museo Arqueológico Nacional 17 [1999] 59–95, esp. 89–90; HEp. IX 636). See not. 75.

[20] M. Smetius, Inscriptionum antiquarum quae passim per Europam liber, Leiden 1588, fol. XLIIII.15.

[21] W. Schulze, Zur Geschichte lateinischer Eigennamen, Berlin, Zürich, Dublin ²1966, 147, 438; O. Salomies, H. Solin, Repertorium nominum gentilium et cognominum Latinorum (Alpha-Omega, Reihe A 80), Hildesheim, New York, Zürich 1988, 47.

[22] Frisina, Nuovo (see not. 11) 254.

[23] However, one can observe here an exception (the use of tria nomina) in line II.2, in which Q. Vibius Rosa can be found. His nomen gentilicium and cognomen were so short that they fitted into the fixed visible width of the column.

[24] The text of the pontifices plaque indicates in two instances the practice of shortening the more lengthy names. We may observe this by looking into the elaborate name of P. Siccius P. f. Aligidienus (II.15), in which case the stonecutter had no choice but to use the abbreviation in the cognomen (however, because the line referred to a new pontifex, and thus began without an indentation, a larger amount of space made it possible to shorten only the cognomen — into the form of ALGIDIEN). In turn, in the case of Sex. Praesentius (II.10), whose nomen gentilicium turned out to be too long in comparison with the existing layout of the line beginning with the IN LOC phrase, the stonecutter used an abbreviation PRAESEN (however, a cognomen cannot be found here).

[25] It was also applied in the inscription’s heading for probably the same reason — at least in the second line. Apart from that, only the letter I is from time to time lengthened in the inscription; nevertheless, it does not affect the text’s width — as in the case of letters with horizontal elements.

[26] The shape of the epigraphic punctuation mark following the letter I seems to be the first trace of the chisel incision from the dismantling process, rather than a deliberate separation gap as such. Nor can it be found in the CIL publication.

[27] That is between IN and LOC, LOC and C and, finally, C and CARIST (including punctuation marks).

[28] The horizontal incision is particularly noticeable in the negative of the picture (Fig. 4). The overhead lighting used to illuminate the antiquities in the Museo del Patrimonium di Sutri exhibits the horizontal parts of the inscription’s letters in great detail. Apart from that, inspection of the monument showed that the right serif of the horizontal incision appears to still bear some traces of red pigment.

[29] See also: wrong reading in AE 1998.1224d: CCARISEPONTO.

[30] The letter B has usually a typical width of c. 1 cm.

[31] The R letters with a protruding diagonal line in the inscription in Sutrium are usually about 1.4 cm wide.

[32] Salomies, Solin, Repertorium (see not. 21) 47. They also mention the name of Caristanus. However, its existence appears to be questionable. This results from the fact that the two examples, i.e. C. Caristanus Tertullus (CIL VI 10347 = 32317) and C. Caristanus Myro(n) (CIL VI 14406 = 14407) occur solely in the genitive as C. Caristani Tertulli and C. Caristani Myronis. It seems that a single “i” in the ending of the nomina gentilicia could be a typical contraction of the double vowel “i” in the genitive (a common practice at that time, see: A. L. Sihler, New Comparative Grammar of Greek and Latin, Oxford 1995, 260; P. Baldi, The Foundations of Latin, Berlin, New York 2002, 314). Since there is no other evidence for the existence of the name Caristanus, it seems more probable that we are dealing here with the name Caristanius. A third example is the dubious name Carisianus Hylas (CIL VI 29565).

[34] Camilli, Taglietti, Osservazioni (see not. 11) 308, 315, fig. 3.

[35] Camilli, Taglietti, Osservazioni 316–318.

[36] J. T. Peña, Roman-period Ceramic Production in Etruria Tiberina: a Geographical and Compositional Study (Ph.D. thesis), University of Michigan 1987, 309: “fragmentary versions of the same rectangular maker’s stamp”.

[37] Peña, Roman-period Ceramic 315–317, 334–335. Camilli, Taglietti citing also the following inscription from Veii: [...]RISTA[...] ( Osservazioni [see not. 11] 319, 322, fig. 5).

[38] Peña, Roman-period Ceramic (see not. 36) 314–315. Graham made no attempt to reconstruct the name (S. Graham, Ex figlinis : the Network Dynamics of the Tiber Valley Brick Industry in the Hinterland of Rome [British Archaeological Reports, Int. Ser. 1486], Oxford 2006, 128).

[39] The only exception could have been M. Aristanius. A. M. Kahane (D. David Andrews, A. M. Kahane, Field Survey of an Area South and West of La Storta, PBSR 45 [1977] 138–190, esp. 182) wrote, relying on a then forthcoming publication of Buchanan, that the brick stamps of M. Aristanius were common near La Storta. Though the authors have not read the work of Buchanan, which has probably never been published (see: Camilli, Taglietti, Osservazioni [see not. 11] 322), the most recent literature describing producers from this region does not mention any M. Aristanius (see: Peña, Roman-period Ceramic [see not. 36]; Graham, Ex figlinis [see not. 38]).

[40] Nor can this assumption be refuted by the chronology of the stamps — given their shape, they must have been made between the end of the first century BC and the beginning of the second century AD (Peña, Roman-period Ceramic [see not. 36] 309–310).

[41] CIL VIII 22637.25; BCTH 1926: 210.47.

[43] RTAR 2063 (http://publications.univ-provence.fr/rtar).

[45] F. Scafile, Un deposito di anfore romane rinvenuto a Novara, in: Studi di Archeologia dedicati a Pietro Barocelli, Torino 1980, 219–222, esp. 220; C. Zaccaria, Per una prosopografia dei personaggi menzionati sui bolli delle anfore romane dell’Italia nordorientale, in: Amphores romaines et histoire économique. Dix ans de recherches. Actes du colloque de Sienne (22–24 mai 1986) (Publications de l’École française de Rome 114), Rome 1989, 469–488, esp. 475.

[46] M. B. Carre, M. T. Cipriano, Production et typologie des amphores sur la côté adriatique de l’Italie, in: Amphores romaines et histoire économique. Dix ans de recherches. Actes du colloque de Sienne (22–24 mai 1986) (Publications de l’École française de Rome 114), Rome 1989, 67–104.

[47] A. Tchernia, Le vin de l’Italie romaine. Essai d’histoire économique d’après les amphores (Bibliothèque des Écoles Françaises d’Athènes et de Rome 261), Rome 1986, 150.

[49] Zaccaria, Per una prosopografia (see not. 45) 480.

[51] V. Dautova Ruševljan, Rat, Cavtat-ostava keramike, Arheološki pregled 13 (1971) 60–63, tab. XXXVIII.

[52] P. Fortini, Cupra Marittima: aspetti di vita economica attraverso la documentazione storica ed archeologica, in: G. Paci (ed.), Cupra Marittima e il suo territorio in età antica. Atti del Convegno di Studi, Cupra Marittima, 3 maggio 1992 (Picus Supplementi 2), Tivoli 1993, 83–181, esp. 119; RTAR 3688 (see not. 43).

[53] S. Cipriano, S. Mazzocchin, Bonifiche con anfore a Padova: note di aggiornamento alla cronologia e alla distribuzione topografica, in: Tra Protostoria e Storia. Studi in onore di Loredana Capuis (Antenor Quaderni 20), Padua, Rome 2011, 331–367, esp. 340; CEIPAC 32794–32795 (http://ceipac.ub.edu).

[54] A. R. Staffa, Scavi nel centro storico di Pescara 1: primi elementi per una ricostruzione dell’assetto antico ed altomedievale dell’abitato di Ostia Aterni–Aternum , Archeologia medievale (1991) 201–367, esp. 322; RTAR 4227.

[55] P. Sticotti, Scavi al Bosco Pontini, Archeografo Triestino 32 (1908) 263–271, esp. 264.

[56] V. Maidl, Die Inschriften auf den Amphoren von Magdalensberg und ihre wirtschaftlichen Aspekte. Eine Zusammenfassung, Carinthia 100 (1990) 63–84, esp. 78–79.

[57] C. Scotti, Anfore, in: A. Cardarelli, I. Pulini, C. Zanasi (eds.), Modena dalle origini all’
anno mille. Studi di archeologia e storia 2 , Modena 1989, 89–98, esp. 91, 98.

[59] E. Buchi, Banchi di anfore romane a Verona. Nota sui commerci cisalpini, in: R. Peroni (ed.), Il territorio veronese in età romana. Convegno del 22–24 ottobre 1971. Atti, Verona 1973, 531–637, esp. 567–569.

[60] B. Dautaj, Gjetje epigrafike nga Dimale, Iliria 24 (1994) 105–150, esp. 127; B. Dautaj, A. Mano, Përpjekje për një katalogilizim të amforave antike nga Dimali, Iliria 27 (1997) 127–166, esp. 143, 163; see also: AE 1998.1224d.

[61] G. Volpe, La circulazione delle anfore romane nello Daunia: dati preliminari, in: Amphores romaines et histoire économique. Dix ans de recherche. Actes du colloque de Sienne (22–24 mai 1986) (Publications de l’École française de Rome 114), Rome 1989, 629–632, esp. 630; CEIPAC 32177 (see not. 53).

[62] Maidl, Die Inschriften (see not. 56) 78–79.

[63] P. Pastore, Anfore da varie località di Padova, in: S. Pesavento Mattioli (ed.), Anfore Romane a Padova. Ritrovamenti della città (Materiali d’archeologia 1, Veneto 1), Modena 1992, 103–149, esp. 109, 138; CEIPAC 9628 (see not. 53); RTAR 2032 (see not. 43).

[64] M. H. Callender, Roman Amphorae with Index of Stamps, London, New York, Toronto 1970, esp. 93–94. It has been assumed it could have been his homonymous son (IGR III 300 = SEG 2002.1368), based on the reading of the stamp published as CIL XV 3427. At the end of the stamp the letter F vel P has been seen, which could have been the abbreviation of the word filius (PIR² C 424; Callender, Roman Amphorae 94). In the view of the authors however, it is a stamp, which undoubtedly shows complete similarity to the stamps CCARFRON^T. We would have then been dealing with the ligature N^T.

[65] Zaccaria, Per una prosopografia (see not. 45) 481.

[66] Zaccaria, Per una prosopografia (see not. 45) 480–481.

[67] Buchi, Banchi (see not. 59) 567–569; M. B. Carre, Les amphores de la Cisalpine et de l’Adriatique au début de l’Empire, MEFRA 97 (1985) 207–245, esp. 212–213; Zaccaria, Per una prosopografia (see not. 45) 480.

[68] T. Bezeczky, Amphorenfunde vom Magdalensberg und aus Pannonien. Ein Vergleich (Archäologische Forschungen zu den Grabungen auf dem Magdalensberg 12), Klagenfurt 1994. See also: T. Bezeczky, Amphora Types of Magdalensberg, AArchSlov 49 (1998) 225–242, esp. 228.

[69] Carre, Les amphores (see not. 67) 213; Zaccaria, Per una prosopografia (see not. 45) 480–481; Camilli, Taglietti, Osservazioni (see not. 11) 320–321.

[70] Probably, due to the considerable length of his name, C. Caristanius Fronto adopted the strategy of shortening it, which is demonstrated by the stamps on the amphorae, where there are inscriptions requiring even radical abbreviations of names. From the three abovementioned stamp patterns, the one which best resembles the modified name in the plaque from Sutrium prevails: CCAR^IS^TFRON^T.

[71] W. Langhammer, Die rechtliche und soziale Stellung der Magistratus municipales und der Decuriones in der Übergangsphase der Städte von sich selbstverwaltenden Gemeinden zu Vollzugsorganen des spätantiken Zwangsstaates (2.–4. Jahrhundert der römischen Kaiserzeit) , Wiesbaden 1973, 123–125.

[72] T. Helen, Organization of Roman Brick Production in the First and Second Centuries A.D. An Interpretation of Roman Brick Stamps, Helsinki 1975, 12–13.

[73] Carre, Les amphores (see not. 67); N. Purcell, Wine and Wealth in Ancient Italy, JRS 75 (1985) 1–19, esp. 9; Tchernia, Le vin (see not. 47) 167.

[74] Zaccaria, Per una prosopografia (see not. 45).

[75] Moreover, there are reasons to believe the family to have also been economically active in other regions. A bronze stamp found in Campania with C. Caristanius’ name on it (CIL X 8059.93) may substantiate this hypothesis. Its copy was found in Spain (Castellano, Gimeno, Stylow, Signacula [see not. 18] 89–90). In addition, a freedman of the Caristanii (C. Caristanius C. l. Hermaescus) — who formed ties of some kind with the freedmen of gens Vitellia, a family socially and economically active in Campania in the first half of the first century AD — is established in Capua (CIL X 4417; G. D’Isanto, Capua Romana. Ricerche di prosopografia e storia sociale [Vetera 9], Rome 1993, 264–265).