162

of the third century AD. This is confirmed by the amphora rim found in the same context
with the rooftile fragment. Vessels of this type were in use on the Lower Danube from the
end of the second through the early fourth century AD. The early and characteristic rim
variant of this Container precised the dating to the beginning through second ąuarter of
the third century AD.18
The suggested reading of the inscription places it in the category of name stamps,
which is a fairly well represented categoiy among the finds from army camps and forts in
the different provinces of the Roman empire.19 Similar stamps have been recorded at
Novae, although their interpretation has remained obscure.20
Stamps with a personal name in the nominative or genitive bear all the features of
“civil” stamps known not only from Romę,21 which are usually explained in the context
of the brick and rooftile production process. The names, occasionally fumished with ad-
ditional expressions like praedia,figlinae, officina, tegula and others, are interpreted by
researchers as private individuals involved in the production of building ceramics on vari-
ous levels, from the owner of the clay source and in conseąuence usually also the brick-
works to the workshop manager and even ordinary worker, possibly also of slave status.22
Against all appearances, it is difficult on such grounds to reconstruct the organization of
production in the brickworks, because building ceramics were stamped irregularly and we
do not know in practice why stamps were impressed, just as we do not know what the cri-
teria were for choosing a particular form of the inscription or a particular name.23
Even so, the discovery of such “civil” stamps, that is, stamps from private workshops,
in the army camps and forts provoked a debate on the possibility of private entrepreneurs
producing and delivering building ceramics for the army.24 The issue can be resolved with
new archaeological finds and it will still be difficult to estimate the scalę of such a pro-
duction. Building ceramics were used by army units as such, hence production and deliv-
eries must have followed different rules than those for the huge private industry and trade
operating for the needs of individual soldiers.25 Conseąuently, it is difficult at the present
stage of research to interpret name stamps as explicit evidence of private deliveries of
bricks and rooftiles from local workshops to given army units.
Moreover, personal names can occur together with the names of army units on stamps
discovered in military archaeological contexts. They can also appear together with a re-
ference to the military rank of a given person.26 This has suggested to researchers the pos-
sibility that even in the case of name stamps without military connotations we may actually
be dealing with soldiers or officers, assuming of course that the stamp was found in an
army carnp or in some other military context. In effect and by analogy with private brick-

18 Dyczek2001, pp. 143-144; Dyczek 2010, p. 994.
19 Kurzmann 2006, pp. 215-255.
20 Sarnowski 1983, pp. 33, 61, fig. 22: 10, 11;Iva-
NOV 2002, pp. 97-99.
21 Piso 1996, pp. 153-200.
22 Steinby 1978, coli. 1489-1531; Żelazowski
1999, pp. 280-283.
23 Helen 1975; SetAla 1977.
24 Kurzmann 2006, pp. 215-232; Alfóldy 1967,
pp. 44-51.

25 Bowman 1998, pp. 65-81.
26 It is noteworthy that leg(atl) Aug(usti) are also
sometimes found on stamps, which is interesting be-
cause building ceramics are not usually taken into
consideration when discussing the activities of
legates in the provinces, Kurzmann 2006, pp. 230-
231; Żelazowski 2009, pp. 131-145.