STUDII DE ARHEOLOGIE ŞI ISTORIE OMAGIU PROFESORULUI NICOLAE GUDEA LA 70 DE ANI STUDIES IN ARCHAEOLOGY AND HISTORY AN ANNIVERSARY VOLUME TO PROFESSOR NICOLAE GUDEA ON HIS 70TH BIRTHDAY Editor Călin Cosma Editura Mega Cluj-Napoca, 2011 © Călin Cosma, 2012 DTP: Ovidiu Vlad Coperta I: Statuia Iupiter Optimus Maximus Dolichenus de la Porolissum Coperta IV: Poarta castrului de la Porolissum – reconstituire (stânga sus) Principia castrului mare de pe Pomet, Porolissum (dreapta sus) Clădirea L7 – locuinţă din vicus, Porolissum (stânga centru) Clădirea LM1 – taberna, Porolissum (dreapta centru) Terasa Sanctuarelor, Porolissum ( jos) ISBN 978-606-543-240-6 Editura Mega | www.edituramega.ro e-mail: mega@edituramega.ro REMARKS ON THE USE AND MISUSE OF LATIN TERMS IN THE STUDY OF ROMAN BRONZE VESSELS Silvia MUSTAŢĂ T he use of Latin terms for designating Roman artefacts preserved until today represents a much debated subject in the literature. Regarding the Roman bronze vessels and the Roman vessel shapes in general, W. Hilgers’ study, Lateinische Gefässnamen. Bezeichnungen, Funktion und Form römischer Gefäße nach der antiken Schriftquellen1, represented from the moment of its publication a milestone for all the scholars who considered the use of Latin names convenient. Even if the above mentioned author never intended it, his study together with Dictionnaire des Antiquités Grecques et Romaines2 edited by Ch. Daremberg and E. Saglio encouraged this line of research3. Although it represents a very useful tool for any specialist dealing with Roman vessels, regardless of the material they were made of, it has to be stressed from the outset that Hilger’s intention was never that of creating a catalogue of Latin names designating diferent vessel shapes. His aim was expressed very clear in the introduction: “Die vorliegende Arbeit beschäftigt sich, ausgehend von den Bezeichnungen römischer Gefäße in den antiken Schriftquellen, mit deren Funktionen und vor allem Formen [...] In der Archäologie ist es üblich, bestimmte Gefäßtypen mit bestimmten Namen zu benennen [...] Die Benennungen sind aber selten gesichert, oft nur wahrscheinlich richtig, mitunter aber auch ofensichtlich falsch. Die vorliegende Arbeit kann nur in weniger Fällen eine neue Identifizierung bringen, in einigen möchte sie bisher gebrauchte als falsch oder allzu unbegründet ausmerzen. Wenn es ihr aber gelingt, in vielen anderen Fällen die bisherige Deutung anhand der schriftlichen Überlieferung zu überprüfen und dabei neue Argumente für ihre Berechtigung oder wahrscheinliche Richtigkeit beizubringen bzw. durch Überprüfung dieser Überlieferung von selbst zu den bisher verwendeten Termini technici zu gelangen, ist eine weitere wichtige Aufgabe erfüllt”4. The study gathers in a catalogue all the vessel names which appear in the Latin sources. The author tries, up to a certain extent, to assign the Latin names from the sources to objects coming from archaeological excavations, but, with a few exceptions5, most of the identifications do not have a real base and in many cases one term is illustrated through several shapes with diferent functionalities. At a closer look it is obvious that the number of identified Latin terms is much higher than the shapes of known vessels6. Most of them do not have a correspondent in reality7, just as well as for many known shapes no ancient name has been identified yet8. 1 HILGERS 1969. 2 DAREMBERG, SAGLIO 1877 – 1919. 3 A critical approach referring to the way Dictionnaire des Antiquités Grecques et Romaines has influenced and has been employed by the specialists dealing with the Greek and Roman material culture can be found at ALLISON 1999, 59-65. For a useful discussion of the Latin, Greek and Italian terms used in Giornali degli Scavi from Pompeii see: ALLISON 2006, 16-38. 4 HILGERS 1969, 1. 5 Between the identifications which seem plausible the following can be mentioned: turibulum (HILGERS 1969, 82 – 83, 294 – 295); amphora (HILGERS 1969, 35 – 36, 99 – 102); dolium (HILGERS 1969, 35 – 36, 171 – 176); operculum (HILGERS 1969, 70 – 71, 234 – 235); atramentarium (HILGERS 1969, 39, 112); cortina (HILGERS 1969, 51 – 52, 155 – 156); situla (HILGERS 1969, 77 – 79, 282 – 283); infundibulum (HILGERS 1969, 61, 198); lanx (HILGERS 1969, 65 – 67, 206 – 209); mortarium (HILGERS 1969, 68 – 70, 225 – 227); simpulum (HILGERS 1969, 279). 6 The catalogue comprises a number of 382 Latin terms designating vessels: HILGERS 1969, 91 – 305. 7 See: HILGERS 1969, Taf. 1 – 4. 8 See: TASSINARI 1995, 18 – 19. 234 | Silvia MUSTAŢĂ The problems arise from the fact that the information contained by the ancient texts is ambiguous and incomplete. This situation is obvious from the beginning with respect to vessels for everyday usage which, due to their common character and frequency, did not receive detailed descriptions from the ancient writers. The vague character originates also in the lack of intention from the authors of describing specific shapes. The vessels were never the main subject around which the action evolved and they were in general mentioned collaterally. Such premises determine a totally uneven presentation of the information: in some cases some aspects referring to a vessel are described, in other instances, emphasis is placed on completely diferent features, e.g.: a certain shape can have a lid or not, can present handles or not etc. There are few situations in which complete descriptions, which allow proper identifications, are ofered9. The situations when the same shape was labelled by the Romans with several diferent terms have to be taken into consideration as well. In this regard Marcus Terentius Varro’s account, about the same vessel shapes which are named with Latin terms when used in cultic activities and with Greek ones when used in every day life, should not be ignored10: Qui vinum dabant ut minutatim funderent, a guttis guttum appellarunt; qui sumebant minutatim, a sumendo simpulum nominarunt. In huiusce locum in conviviis e Graecia successit epichysis et cyathus; in sacruficiis remansit guttus et simpulum. To this we have to add the lack of information in the descriptions, referring to the material the vessels were made from. An example in this direction is ofered by the last two books of Martial’s epigrams: book XIII (Xenia) and XIV (Apophoreta)11, both of them a very important documentary source with respect to every day life aspects and the objects employed. They comprise the texts attached to the gifts ofered for Saturnalia, respectively the gifts which were given to the guests during visits. Although an important number of vessels are mentioned, most of the time we do not know what they were made of and the descriptions are not accurate, since it was not the author’s intention to describe vessel shapes. Another important aspect is represented by the impossibility of using the Latin names in such a manner that could cover all the terminological variety required by a typology. The only compromise in this direction could be ofered by a mixed terminology which is not desirable due to the confusions it would create12. The modern typologies are based on elements which were never important for the person from the past who used a certain vessel. The situation is the same today: we do not notice in every detail the morphology of the vessels we use in every day activities. This is why vessels with similar functionalities appear in the ancient accounts under the same name, even if they were diferent from a morphological viewpoint. An example for this is ofered by the vessels used during the toilette in Roman times. Even if the ancient sources mention terms like ampulla13 or unguentarium14 as vessels for keeping diferent crèmes or perfumes, the shapes existing in reality are made from diferent materials and display a very diverse morphology, especially the ones made from copper alloys: from flask-shaped pieces and globular forms to bust or head-shaped vessels15. At a closer look, even if all of them can be included in the general category of toilette vessels, their functionality difers, each shape being used for diferent activities during this process16. To this one must add the arbitrary usage of some Latin terms which in Antiquity had nothing or little to do with vessel shapes. One such example is represented by unguentarium, a designation widely used in the archaeological literature. When trying to analyse the original contexts where the word appears, it is surprising to see that it was mentioned only once in the ancient sources and this mention is a late one, dated in the 5th century AD, in a letter sent by Evodius, bishop of Rouen, to St. Augustine17. Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue latine contains only the form unguentarium (aes) – which refers to the money used for buying perfume –, unguentaria (taberna) – the shop of a perfumer – and unguentarius, -a – the perfumer18. Dictionnaire des Antiquités Grecques et Romaines does not include the term unguentarium, only that of unguentum and it mentions a funerary inscription from Lyon which belonged to a unguentarius19. 9 TASSINARI 1993, 21. 10 VARRO, DE LINGUA LATINA, V, 124; the same reference to Varro’s text appears in STRONG 1979, 131, note 2, with the mention that the reference is wrong: the account can be found at VARRO, DE LINGUA LATINA, V, 124, not at V, 125. 11 MARTIAL, XIII (XXVIII, XXIX, CIII), XIV (XII, XIII, LII, XCIII – XCVIII, CI – CIII, CV – CXVIII). 12 TASSINARI 1993, 21. 13 HILGERS 1969, 37 – 38. 14 HILGERS 1969, 298. 15 See e.g.: SZABÓ 1984; NENOVA-MERDJANOVA 1995. 16 See the discussion at SZABÓ 1984; see also NENOVA-MERDJANOVA 2000. 17 HILGERS 1969, 298; MIGNE, PL, XXXIII, 698. 18 ERNOUT, MEILLET 2001, 747, s. v. unguo. 19 DAREMBERG, SAGLIO 1877 – 1919, V/1, 591 – 598, unguentum (V. Chapot). Remarks on the use and misuse of Latin terms in the study of Roman bronze vessels | 235 A similar example as the one presented above is represented by balsamarium, a modern word which was never used in Antiquity by the Latin speakers20. It is a technical term and for this reason it was not included in Dictionnaire des Antiquités Grecques et Romaines21. For the same reason there is no mention in the ancient sources of a vessel with such a name22. The variants balsamarius or balsamaria exist in Latin with an adjectival meaning, that of balsamic. Both forms derive from balsamum-i, formed from the Greek word bálsamon which, in turn, comes from the Semitic languages23. Thus, balsamarium can be used for denominating vessel shapes as a technical term which became an archaeological convention, but not as a Latin name. Both unguentarium and balsamarium, if used, need to be employed at a general level, without attributing special functionalities to the vessels they would denominate, namely that of perfume, crème, oil containers, since it is still very difficult to be sure about their real content. It is not clear at all what kind of content each individual shape had24. Considering the above mentioned and the fact that the ancient names for each shape are not known, the use of a modern, descriptive terminology represents a more cautious choice, especially when it comes to typology. The use of ancient names, which carry a strong functional component, might create serious confusions. Probably the best example in this respect is represented by the term patera. W. Hilgers identified two shapes as paterae25: a shallow, open vessel, without a handle and the same shape, this time with a cylindrical handle, plain or decorated with parallel grooves. In Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue latine, patera is defined as a wide, flat shape, with a reverted rim which was used for pouring the wine on the altar or on the head of the animal which was about to be sacrificed26. If the first shape identified by W. Hilgers corresponds from a morphological viewpoint to a patera27, the second one represents something totally diferent: a shallow vessel with a cylindrical handle, ending with zoomorphic or anthropomorphic representations28, known in the German literature as Grifschale29, which has a diferent functionality. In Dictionnaire des Antiquités Grecques et Romaines, patera is considered to be a vessel used for libations during sacrifices, the Latin version of the Greek shape phiala and it is clearly specified that the vessel does not have a handle 30. The most important contribution in this direction, which pointed out the major functional diferences between patera and Grifschale, based on a thorough analysis of the iconographical and written sources, belongs to H. U. Nuber31. The author makes a clear distinction between patera, a vessel without handle, provided or not with an umbo, which was used during the sacrifice for libations only by the priest32, and Grifschale, a shape with a handle which represents together with the jugs (with trefoil rim or with spout) the hand-washing set used in the votive milieu as well as in the every day activities (for washing during the toilette or for washing the hands during the meals). In votive context the set serves for the ritual hand washing before the sacrifice, but the vessels were never employed by the priest, instead an assistant, camillus or camilla, was using them33. Although patera, Grifschale and the saucepan represent three diferent shapes and have diferent functionality, they are constantly designated in the literature – the metal pieces and their imitations in glass or pottery – with the term patera. The major problem which arises from this is related to the functionality, since patera is a vessel used only in the votive milieu and during the domestic cult, the same type of functionality is attributed to the other shapes as well, and, subsequently, they are used as proof of cultic activities34. 20 MARTI 1996, 979, note 4. 21 DAREMBERG, SAGLIO 1877 – 1919. 22 HILGERS 1969; the author mentions the fact that the form balsamarium does not exist in Latin: HILGERS 1969, 310/Salbgefäß. 23 ERNOUT, MEILLET 2001, 65, s.v. balsamum. 24 SZABÓ 1984; NENOVA-MERDJANOVA 1995; MARTI 1996, 980, 985 – 990. 25 HILGERS 1969, 71 – 72, Bild 59 – 62 with the specification that the vessel illustrated in Bild 62, a saucepan used for mixing and/or measuring as part of the wine sets, is not considered by the author a patera. The scholars who identified the saucepan as a shape with patera referring to Hilger’s study probably din not pay much attention to the text accompanying the illustration: „Man pflegt heute auch eine andere Gefäßformen, die Kelle oder Kasserollen (Bild 62) als patera zu bezeichnen. In Wahrheit ist uns aber ihre Benennung in der Antike unbekannt” (HILGERS 1969, 72). 26 ERNOUT, MEILLET 2001, 488, s. v. patera. 27 HILGERS 1969, 71, Bild 59. 28 HILGERS 1969, 71, Bild 60 – 61. 29 The German term Grifschale will be used as a convention in this paper firstly because of the clear meaning it has which avoids confusions and secondly because of the diiculties encountered when trying to translate it in other languages. 30 DAREMBERG, SAGLIO 1877 – 1919, IV/1, 341, patera (E. Pottier). 31 NUBER 1973. 32 NUBER 1973, 102. 33 NUBER 1973, 105. 34 See e.g.: MAN 2010 where the pottery imitations of bronze saucepans are considered a proof for an intense religious activity on the eastern part of Roman Dacia. In MAN 2003, 59 – 60, the author tries to relate the vegetal decoration displayed by the handles of bronze saucepan imitations in pottery from Cristești (Mureș County) with the cult of Liber Pater. For other objects of this type from Roman Dacia see: RUSU-BOLINDEŢ 1997, with a more 236 | Silvia MUSTAŢĂ This situation distorts the image we have on religious activities being that patera is an exceptional discovery which was used in exceptional situations35. The presumption of a religious or votive character needs to be taken into consideration with caution, since, at least in this case, not the objects are the ones that determine the cultic or profane character of the context of discovery, but the other way around: the discovery circumstances should indicate if the object was used or not in votive activities. This false identification determined the misinterpreting of the scenes depicted on funerary monuments representing servants who carry with them the hand-washing set or the representations of instrumenta sacra on the lateral sides of votive altars36. The equalization of the terms trulla37 and trulleum38 with the shape designated as saucepan (German: Kasserolle) needs also to be done with caution. Even if there is a high probability that the terms were indeed used to designate the saucepans, the information ofered by the ancient sources seems to indicate their use in a specific context: as pairs inside the drinking sets39. A diferent example of confusions which can occur when the Latin terms are misused is represented by the identifications of the vessels designated with the modern terms jugs40 or jugs with trefoil rim or spout, with the Latin words guttus, lagoena or urceus. The ancient sources describe guttus, as a vessel with narrow neck41 and only one rim opening used in diferent activities: for serving the wine, for keeping the oil used during meals or during the toilette, for pouring the water as part of the hand-washing set, but also employed in the votive milieu42. Lagoena, a corrupt form from laguna43, is, according to the same sources, a vessel with narrow rim, globular body, which can have one or two handles. A precise identification of a vessel shape existing in reality is not possible. The shape generally identified with this term is the common Roman jug with narrow rim and one handle, identification based manly on the inscriptions found on the vessels, containing the term lagona or lagoena. However, this designation was used for other shapes as well and it seems that it refers more to functional aspects: container for wine, than to a shape in particular44. Urceus / urceolus was used in the ancient accounts to describe two diferent shapes: a vessel with handle and wide rim, used for serving the wine or for pouring the water during hand washing in the Christian cult as well, but also a vessel with lid used for storing supplies and related to the so-called honey pots45. Based on these descriptions the attempt of distinguishing between the diferent shapes of jugs existing in the archaeological material in order to identify them with one of the above mentioned Latin terms seems almost impossible. The available data is scarce and disproportionate. Some sources mention functional aspects when referring to a vessel, others morphological elements, therefore it is not possible to extract all of the features which should define a shape. Another question which needs to be addressed in this context refers to the correctness of using the term ministerium with its two components: vasa escaria (the set for serving and consuming the food) and vasa po(ta)toria (the drinking set)46 for designating the group of vessels used for serving and consuming food and drinks. First of all, the use of the terms cannot be extended on all the shapes without taking into cautious approach in extending the cultic functionality of the objects and a discussion which emphasizes on the random use of the terminology in the literature. Analyzing the imitations of metal saucepans with the handle decorated in relief discovered at Sirmium, Singidunum and Viminacium, called paterae, I. Popović explains the presence of such a great number of pieces through the expansion of the cult of Silvanus (POPOVIĆ 2008). Another paper which uses in an improper manner the term patera belongs also to A. Ștefănescu (ȘTEFĂNESCU 2004). The author presents three categories of Roman bronze vessels: saucepans, Grifschalen and sets of dippers and strainers. In the title all three are named paterae, while in the text the term is only attributed to Grifschalen. See also: TASSINARI 1970A with the specification that the term patera is used at a general level, without attributing to it a religious or cultic meaning. Subsequently (TASSINARI 1970B, 162), the author keeps her choice of using the term patera at a general level, but considers that regarding some categories of saucepans, the ones with the handle decorated in relief, a religious meaning cannot be excluded, even though the ones discovered at Pompeii, despite the Bachhic representations on the handles, were part of the wine services. For both functionalities see: PETROVSZKY 1993, 89 – 91 and for objects of this type see: PETROVSZKY, STUPPERICH 2002. 35 The discoveries of vessels which indeed can be identified with paterae are very rare. See e.g.: TASSINARI 1975, 34, nos.: 25, 26, Pl. VII/25, Pl. VIII/26. In the same category of the paterae the author includes two saucepans with the handle decorated in relief and two Grifschalen. 36 See the discussion at PETRUţ, MUSTAţĂ 2010: since the Grifschalen represented in the hands of the servants were considered to be paterae, the depictions were interpreted as libation scenes. 37 HILGERS 1969, 291 – 293. 38 HILGERS 1969, 293. 39 BENDER 2000. 40 The term jug was used in this paper as a correspondent for two German terms, since in English it is not possible to distinguish between Krug (displaying a round rim, without a spout) and Kanne (with a trefoil rim or with a spout). The distinction was made in the following manner: jug corresponds to Krug and jug with trefoil rim or spout to Kanne. 41 ERNOUT, MEILLET 2001, 286, s. v. guttus. 42 HILGERS 1969, 58 – 60. 43 ERNOUT, MEILLET 2001, 338, s. v. lagona. 44 HILGERS 1969, 61 – 65; for the possible multiple functionalities of the vessels identified with the term lagoena see: ALLISON 1999, 65. 45 HILGERS 1969, 83 – 86. 46 HILGERS 1969, 15. Remarks on the use and misuse of Latin terms in the study of Roman bronze vessels | 237 consideration the nature of the material they were made of. The ancient sources refer with respect to these terms to vessels made out of precious metals and glass, and especially to the silver ones: argentum escarium and argentum potorium47. The terms ministerium and escarium were never associated in the accounts with bronze vessels or pottery48 and potorium appears associated with vessels set with precious stones49. The most serious problems which arise, especially regarding the bronze vessels, when using a classification based on such a strong functional component, is represented by the fact that for many shapes the functionality is either uncertain or multiple: there are vessels which were used for more than one purpose. As such, a classification based on functionality can only force in some situations the framing of the objects in fixed categories, even if it is not clear in which context they were used. Taking into account all the above discussed issues, the use of Latin terms, when analysing Roman bronze vessels and not only, has to be done with caution. Due to the strong functional meaning, they cannot be used as such within a typology. A modern, pure descriptive, terminology, deriving from the morphology of the shapes can constitute a safer and more correct approach. Still, this does not mean that the Latin denominations should be ignored. A discussion on the possible terms used by the Romans to denominate a certain shape should find its place inside the analysis. Bibliography ALLISON 1999 P. M. Allison, Labels for ladles: interpreting the material culture of Roman households, P. M. Allison (ed.), The archaeology of household activities, London 1999, 57–77. ALLISON 2006 P. M. Allison, The Insula of the Menander at Pompeii. Volume III: The Finds, a contextual study, Oxford – New York 2006. BENDER 2000 S. Bender, Paarbildung bei römischen Schalen mit flachem horizontalen Grif („Kasserolen“), R. Thomas (Hrsg.), Antike Bronzen. Werkstattkreise: Figuren und Geräte. Akten des 14. Internationalen Kongresses für Antike Bronzen in Köln, 21. bis 24. September 1999, KJ, 33, 2000, 469–483. DAREMBERG, SAGLIO 1877 – 1919 Ch. Daremberg, E. Saglio (dir.), Dictionnaire des antiquités greques et romaines d’aprés les textes et les monuments, tome 1 – 5, Paris, 1877 – 1919. ERNOUT, MEILLET 2001 A. Ernout, A. Meillet , Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue latine. Histoire de mots, reprint after the 4th edition (1959) with additions and corrections from J. André, Paris, 2001. HILGERS 1969 W. Hilgers, Lateinische Gefässnamen. Bezeichnungen, Funktion und Form römischer Gefässe nach den antiken Schriftquellen, Beihefte der Bonner Jahrbuch 31, Dusseldörf, 1969. MAN 2003 N. Man, Vase cu destinaţie specială din așezarea romană de la Cristești, Marisia, XXVII, 2003, 55 – 72. MAN 2010 N. Man, Art and religions on the eastern part of Dacia (with special regard on the Upper Mureş Area), Marisia, XXX, 2010, 95 – 114. MARTI 1996 V. Marti, De l´usage des „balsamaires“ anthropomorphes en bronze, MEFRA, 108, 1996, 979 – 1000. MARTIAL Martial, Epigrams, vol. I – II, with an English translation by Walter C. A. Ker, London – New York, 1919 – 1920. MICHELI 1991 M. E. Micheli, Il servizio da tavola, il ministerium: argentum escarium, argentum potorium, L. Pirzio Biroli Stefanelli, L´Argento dei Romani. Vasellame da tavola e d´apparato, Roma, 1991, 111 – 124. 47 See: MICHELI 1991. 48 HILGERS 1969, 179, 222: ministerium is a term which designates gold and silver sets, usually used in cultic activities; a lot of the sources which mention it refer to the Christian cult. 49 HILGERS 1969, 263. 238 | Silvia MUSTAŢĂ MIGNE, PL J.-P. Migne (ed.), Patrologiae cursus completus. Series Latina, XXXIII, Paris, 1865. NENOVA-MERDJANOVA 1995 R. Nenova-Merdjanova, Typology and Chronology of the Bronze Vessels used in the Palaestra and in the Baths from the Roman Provinces Thrace and Moesia, S. T. A. M. Mols, A. M. Gerhartl-Witteveen, H. Kars, A. Koster, W. J. Th. Peters, W. J. H. Willems (eds.), Acta of the 12th International Congress on Ancient Bronzes, Nijmegen, 1 – 4 June 1992, ROB, 18, 1995, 51 – 58. NENOVA-MERDJANOVA 2000 R. Nenova-Merdjanova, Bronze vessels and the toilette in Roman times, C. C. Mattusch, A. Brauer, S. E. Knudsen (eds.), From the Parts to the Whole: Acta of the 13th International Bronze Congress, held at Cambridge, Massachusetts, May 28 – June 1, 1996, vol. I – II, JRA suppl. ser. 39, 2000, 200 – 204. NUBER 1973 H. U. Nuber, Kanne und Grifschale. Ihr Gebrauch im täglichen Leben und die Beigabe in Gräbern der römischen Kaiserzeit, BRGK, 53, 1972 (1973), 1 – 232, Taf. 1 – 31. PETROVSZKY 1993 R. Petrovszky, Studien zu römischen Bronzegefäßen mit Meisterstempeln, Kölner Studien zur Archäologie der Römischen Provinzen 1, Buch am Erlbach, 1993. PETROVSZKY, STUPPERICH 2002 R. Petrovszky, R. Stupperich, Die „Trau-Kasserollen“. Einige Bemerkungen zu den reliefverzierten Kasserollen E 151, Mentor. Studien zu Metallarbeiten und Toreutik der Antike 1, Möhnesee, 2002. PETRUţ, MUSTAţĂ 2010 D. Petruţ, S. Mustaţă, The iconography of the waiting servants depicted on the funerary reliefs from Roman Dacia, Revista Bistriţei, XXIV, 2010, 171 – 202. POPOVIĆ 2008 I. Popović, Relief decorated handles of ceramic paterae from Sirmium, Singidunum and Viminacium, Starinar, 58, 2008, 119 – 134. RUSU-BOLINDEŢ 1997 V. Rusu-Bolindeţ, Grife keramischer Paterae aus dem römischen Dakien, ActaMN, 34/1, 1997, 325 – 388. STRONG 1979 D. E: Strong, Greek and Roman Gold and Silver Plate, London – New York, 1979. ŞTEFĂNESCU 2004 A. Ştefănescu, Bronze paterae in Roman Dacia, C. Muşeţeanu (ed.), The Antique Bronzes: Typology, Chronology, Authenticity. The Acta of the 16th International Congress of Antique Bronzes, Organised by The Romanian National History Museum, Bucharest, May 26th – 31st, 2003, Bucharest, 2004, 421 – 429. SZABÓ 1984 K. Szabó, Balsamaires en bronze provenant de la Pannonie, ***, Bronzes Romains figurés et appliqués et leur problème techniques. Actes du VIIe Colloque international sur les Bronzes antiques, Székesfehérvár, 1982, Alba Regia, 21, 1984, 99 – 113, Pl. LII – LV. TASSINARI 1970A S. Tassinari, Patères a manche orné d´un décor en relief, Tagung über römische Bronzegefäße im Rijksmuseum G. M. Kam in Nijmegen von 20. bis einschließlich 23. April 1970. Hektogr. Niederschrift 1970 – manuscript without ISBN and page numbers (Römisch-Germanische Kommission Library, Frankfurt am Main, registration: H 1117), 3 pages, fig. 1 – 4. TASSINARI 1970B S. Tassinari, Patères a manche orné, Gallia, 28/1, 1970, 127 – 163. TASSINARI 1975 S. Tassinari, La vaisselle de bronze romaine et provinciale au Musée des Antiquités Nationales, Gallia suppl. 29, Paris, 1975. TASSINARI 1993 S. Tassinari, Il vasellame bronzeo di Pompei, Ministero per i beni culturali ed ambientali, Soprintendenza Archeologica di Pompei, Cataloghi 5, Roma, 1993. Remarks on the use and misuse of Latin terms in the study of Roman bronze vessels | 239 TASSINARI 1995 S. Tassinari, Vaisselle antique de bronze, Collections du Musée Départemental des Antiquités de Rouen, Rouen, 1995. VARRO, DE LINGUA LATINA M. Terentii Varonis de Lingua Latina. Librorum Quae Supersunt. Emendata et annotata a Carolo Odofredo Muellero. Anno MDCCCXXXIII, Lipsiae, In Libraria Weidmanniana.