ABSTRACT
If the starting point of historical research is terra sigillata as a homogeneous, widespread category, as is the case in retrospective accounts, then the question of that category’s stability never enters into the picture. Such stability is the necessary a priori to make the analysis work: one needs to assume that sigillata pots were the same thing always and everywhere in order to enter them into charts or distribution maps. The category is taken as ‘ready-made’, a historical given. Chapter 3 has shown how this starting point was actually the outcome of a situated process of negotiation and alignment of production practices, for example at Lezoux. Sigillata became defined as a homogeneous category, with a standardized package of traits, and clearly separate from other ceramic production sequences at the same site. Instead of undermining the kinds of big historical narratives that tend to be retrospectively built based on sigillata pots, this realization actually makes for advances in our use of terra sigillata for history-writing, as shown in chapter 4 with regard to the topics of trade and exchange (sigillata as history-teller). At the same time, it does justice to the role of sigillata itself in assuring smooth transitions between the different stages in its distribution chain (sigillata as history-maker).
