Potters

There is little direct evidence for the organization of pottery production at Pompeii, but it likely corresponded to the organization of production elsewhere in central and southern Italy during the first century AD. Based on what little is known, it may be assumed that pottery production at Pompeii can be framed within a vertically structured system (Berdan 1989, 93—96). In such a system, artisanal activities are under the control of individuals who possess the property and resources necessary for the production of pottery and who are occupied with the distribution of the finished products, either directly or through the agency of middlemen such as slaves or freedmen (Gasperetti 1996, 57—59). While those who actually manufactured pottery in Pompeii likely can be counted among the poorest artisans active in the town, some pottery production facilities may have been part of what might be described as the ‘economic portfolios’ of wealthier members of first century AD Pompeian society, some of whom may even have belonged to families with branches in the town’s decurial elite.

Despite the wealth of epigraphic material related to various artisanal activities, there is only one direct reference to a potter among this material, and it does not actually provide the potter’s name. A tall (0.86m) spherical vase with a high neck and two flat handles, whose upper body, neck, and handles are covered with ornate relief decoration and red paint, was recovered at I 8, 2—3, the Casa di Stephanus (Fig. 7.3; Maiuri 1927, 12, fig. 4; Spinazzola 1953, 687-688). The vase is similar to, although

Fig. 7.3 — Casa di Stefano (I 7, 2—3): Cupids Ornately decorated vase (from NSc 1926, 12).

Much more ornate than, other locally made relief decorated pots in a relatively coarse fabric and may be representative of a local production of this class of vessel (Franchi dell’Orto and Varone 1990, 146—147; 209—211). An impressed text on the side of the pot indicates that it was made by the slave of Publius Cornelius Corinthus (CIL IV, 9683: “P Corneli Corint[h]i servos fecif; Spinazzola 1953, 687; 1011, n. 453).

While it is possible that the Pompeian Cornelii may be descendants of Lucius Cornelius Sulla and his nephew Publius Cornelius Sulla, direct evidence is lacking (Castren 1975, 157). Still, members of the various branches of the Pompeian gens Cornelia held administrative and honorary positions within the town’s ordo decurionum during both the republican period - between 80 and 49 BC - and again during the reign of Nero (Castren 1975, 157-158; Franklin Jr. 2001,9-12). There are also references to members of this family participating in the town’s commercial life. Ten Cornelii are found as witnesses and sellers in the Murecine Tablets, which range in date from AD 29 to 61, and one of these witnesses is identified as Publius Cornelius Erastus, a freedman (T. Sulp. 57 [AE 1974, 270]; Andreau 1974, 268; Mouritsen 2001, 4).

Based on the cognomen Corinthus, which was commonly assigned to freedmen during the late republican and early imperial periods, this particular Cornelius is likely to have been of libertine status (Duff 1958, 52-60; Treggiari 1969, 250-251; Solin 1971, 121-130; Jongman 1988, 242-245) Evidently, and regardless of his legal status, Corinthus was a slave-owner himself and at least one of his slaves was a potter. If the aforementioned P. Cornelius Corinthus was actually a freedman, there is no direct evidence for the relationship with his patron.

Two competing models have evolved over the past two decades to describe the potential relationship between freedmen and their patrons at Pompeii. One posits that the epigraphic selfpresentation of freedmen throughout the town, particularly with respect to urban production and commerce, is likely indicative of the deep involvement of the town’s elite in the production and exchange of goods (Mouritsen 2001, 6-13). In this scenario, P. Cornelius Corinthus would have been an agent of his patron, likely named Publius Cornelius, and, as such, a manager of some aspect of his patron’s productive or commercial interests, here, pottery production (Mouritsen 2001, 9-13). One can imagine a situation in which the freedman Corinthus managed a pottery production facility belonging to his patron, and oversaw activities of the pottery workshop active at this facility. In the case of a wealthy patron, one can imagine that freedmen oversaw various aspects of their patron’s economic portfolio, including land management, urban production, and trade. The position of the production facility with respect to the local traffic pattern also hints at the vertical integration of productive activities at Pompeii during the first century AD, in which a citizen of some means managed his properties and commercial interests through the agency of one or more freedmen.

This model, however, which is based entirely on epigraphic evidence, suggests that there is only one way of reading this evidence and takes no account of the architectural or artifactual evidence from production facilities scattered about the town (Allison 2001, 56-57; Flohr 2007, 130-131). Proponents of the contrasting model suggest that freedmen at Pompeii were probably relatively independent of their former masters and, as such, those engaged in productive activities such as potting represent a generally independent group of economic actors.

It is likely that freedmen at Pompeii during the first century AD were at times dependent on and at times independent of their patrons. Indeed, the archaeological evidence can be interpreted variously to support both models. The Via di Nocera pottery production facility might correspond to a model of elite investment and asset management. As noted above, the production facility was physically integrated with the adjacent Caupona del Gladiatore. It is possible that various productive activities associated with potting took place within the open courtyard of the Caupona del Gladiatore, such as drying, materials preparation, or stockpiling for sale. Also, it is possible that the small vineyard in the Caupona del Gladiatore provided some small part of the pottery production facility’s fuel needs and one can imagine that labor may have been shared between the two facilities, with potters and their assistants participating in the harvest and agricultural laborers assisting in various pottery production activities. Certainly, both properties were owned by a single individual and must have represented some proportion of his/her capital investment in productive and commercial activity. Presumably, there was at least one manager who oversaw activities at both of these properties and a small workforce made up of some number of potters. While the social status of the property’s owner cannot be determined, presumably it was higher relative to that of his manager(s) and workforce, suggesting that the Via di Nocera pottery production facility may be an example of vertical economic integration.

The Via Superior pottery production facility, however, may not have been vertically integrated into the economic portfolios of the town’s wealthier property owners. Physically, it is one of a number of tabernae in a long row of shops lining the Via Superior. It is possible that this row of tabernae was owned by the proprietor of the Villa delle Colonne a mosaico, to which it is attached. As such, the workshop might be part of the owner’s investment portfolio and the workforce attached to it part of the owner’s servile and freed familia. Even if these tabernae were the property of the owner of the Villa delle Colonne a mosaico, their occupants may very well have been commercial or artisanal tenants and their productive activity generally independent of a patron (Flohr 2007, 142; contra Pirson 1999, 165).