Hellenistic and Roman Gerasa: The Archaeology and History of a Decapolis City (Jerash Papers) (French Edition) (Jerash Papers, 5) (English and French Edition) [Bilingual ed.] 9782503585048, 2503585043

Citation preview

Hellenistic and Roman Gerasa

JERASH PAPERS General Editors Achim Lichtenberger, Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität Münster Rubina Raja, Aarhus Universitet

VOLUME 5

Hellenistic and Roman Gerasa The Archaeology and History of a Decapolis city

Edited by

Achim Lichtenberger and Rubina Raja

British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library.

© 2020, Brepols Publishers n.v., Turnhout, Belgium All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior permission of the publisher. D/2020/0095/45 ISBN: 978-2-503-58504-8 e-ISBN: 978-2-503-59019-6 DOI: 10.1484/M.JP-EB.5.120687 Printed in the EU on acid-free paper

Contents List of Illustrations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii Abbreviations.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xvii 1. Invisible Pasts, Urban Fates, and the Central Role of Ceramics: Gerasa in the Hellenistic and Roman Periods

ACHIM LICHTENBERGER and RUBINA RAJA. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

2. Late Hellenistic and Roman Antiochia on the Chrysorrhoas, also Called Gerasa: A Reappreciation of the Urban Development in the Light of the Findings of the Danish-German Jerash Northwest Quarter Project (2011–17)

ACHIM LICHTENBERGER and RUBINA RAJA. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

3. Ceramics in Cities in Context: An Overview of Published Roman Imperial to Umayyad Pottery in the Southern Levant PHILIP BES, TOM BRUGHMANS, ACHIM LICHTENBERGER, RUBINA RAJA, and IZA ROMANOWSKA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

4. Les productions de céramiques locales de Jerash au début de la période romaine (ier siècle avant J.-C. – iie siècle après J.-C.) : influences et diffusion

ANNE-MICHÈLE RASSON-SEIGNE et JACQUES SEIGNE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119

5. La céramique importée à Jerash pendant l’époque romaine (fin ier siècle avant J.-C. – fin iiie siècle après J.-C.) : l’apport des fouilles du sanctuaire de Zeus

ANNE-MICHÈLE RASSON-SEIGNE et JACQUES SEIGNE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129

6. Les timbres amphoriques trouvés à Jerash STÉPHANE DUPLESSIS, FRANCESCA DI NAPOLI, et JACQUES SEIGNE (Avant-propos et Conclusion). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145

7. Late Antique Ceramic Imports in Gerasa: New Light on the Macellum Finds (with Special Reference to the Neighbouring Region)

ALEXANDRA USCATESCU. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173

vi

Contents

8. Roman-Period Roof Tiles from the Northwest Quarter of Jerash

PHILIP EBELING. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 301

9. Pottery from Sanctuaries in the Hinterland of Gadara/Umm Qays ( Jordan)

LISA C. BERGER. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 313

10. Pottery from Abila and Gadara

NORA M. VOSS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 325

11. Quantifying Ceramic Trends at Umm el-Jimal

ELIZABETH A. OSINGA. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 339

12. Roman City Coins of Gerasa: Contextualizing Currency and Circulation from the Hellenistic to the Late Roman Period

ACHIM LICHTENBERGER and RUBINA RAJA. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 369

Index. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 383

List of Illustrations Achim Lichtenberger and Rubina Raja Figure 2.1.

Map of the region of the Decapolis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Figure 2.2.

Map of Gerasa.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Figure 2.3.

Current view of ancient Gerasa and parts of the modern city, today called Jerash.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Figure 2.4.

Map of Gerasa.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Figure 2.5.

Map of Palestine.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Figure 2.6.

View of the partly restored Ottoman House in Suf. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Figure 2.7.

Side view plan of the Artemision with the Laokoon group.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Figure 2.8.

Detail of the Roman mosaic excavated in 1907, with bust of the personification of summer.. . . . . . . 16

Figure 2.9.

Plan of the reconstructed mosaic from a domestic setting in Gerasa excavated in 1907.. . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Figure 2.10. Map of Gerasa with the mudir’s house marked, made by Schumacher.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Figure 2.11. Drawing of the church mosaic by Dorothy Hodgkin.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Figure 2.12. Bonfils’s photo­graph of the Circassian settlement on the eastern bank of the wadi. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Figure 2.13. Aerial view, showing the extent of the Circassian settlement in 1918. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Figure 2.14. Stepped podium at the Ain Karawan spring.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Figure 2.15. View of the East Baths. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Figure 2.16. View of the Temple of Artemis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Figure 2.17. View up through the Propylaeum.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Figure 2.18. View of the Temple of Zeus.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Figure 2.19. View of the West Baths.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Figure 2.20. View of the North Theatre.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Figure 2.21. View of the partly reconstructed Nymphaion on the main street (Cardo).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Figure 2.22. View of the northern part of the main street (Cardo).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Figure 2.23. View of the North Decumanus in the direction of the Northwest Quarter. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Figure 2.24. Plan of the Northwest Quarter survey area with all excavated trenches marked.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Figure 2.25. Remains of the ancient bridge by the Sanctuary of Artemis Propylaea.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

viii

L ist of Illustrations

Figure 2.26. Fragment of a Jewish purity limestone vessel found in trench H.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Figure 2.27. Sherd from the base of a black glazed bowl or plate. Hellenistic, late second to early first centuries bc . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Figure 2.28. Sherd of an African Red Slip plate, Late Roman period. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Figure 2.29. Sketch of the cistern on the south slope of the Northwest Quarter. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Figure 2.30. Sampling the bands of mortar lining the cistern .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Figure 2.31. Drone photo of sediment basin on the terrace above cistern on the south slope.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Figure 2.32. View of the city wall .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Figure 2.33. Photogrammetric view of the inner side of the city wall in trench Q excavated in 2015. . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Figure 2.34. Fragmented inscription incised in limestone.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Figure 2.35. Dense pottery-fill layers in trench J, east profile in rock-cut staircase.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Figure 2.36. Wall-painting fragments from trench S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Figure 2.37. Fragment of a Roman-period locally produced limestone relief.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Figure 2.38. Fragment of a marble sculpture of the Artemis Rospigliosi type.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Figure 2.39. Drawings of all sides of the monumental architectural block.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Figure 2.40. Photo of the monumental architectural block.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Figure 2.41. Photo and reconstruction of the block.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 Figure 2.42. Roman-period horned altar from Gerasa. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 Figure 2.43. View of the entrance to the sanctuary in Sfire with altars depicted on the entrance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 Figure 2.44. Overview drawing of trench A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 Figure 2.45. Drawing of the trench A profile .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 Figure 2.46. Intentionally deposited cooking pots in trench A.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 Figure 2.47. Drawing of the fragmented miniature altar. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 Figure 2.48. View of the part of the cistern (trench S) excavated on the top of the hill.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 Figure 2.49. Combined profile of trenches A and S.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 Figure 2.50. The staircase in trench S leading down into the cistern.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 Figure 2.51. Wall paintings in situ in the staircase leading down to the cistern on top of the hill.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 Figure 2.52. Intentionally deposited cooking pots in trench S. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 Figure 2.53. Stuccoed column (trench S) from the destroyed building standing on top of the cistern.. . . . . . . . . . . 46 Figure 2.54. Decorative stucco fragment (trench S) from the destroyed building standing on top of the cistern.. 47 Figure 2.55. Wall-painting fragments (trench S) from the destroyed building standing on top of the cistern. . . . . 47

List of Illustrations

ix

Philip Bes, Tom Brughmans, Achim Lichtenberger, Rubina Raja, and Iza Romanowska Figure 3.1.

Location of the sixteen urban sites included in this overview, plus Gerasa. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

Figure 3.2.

Distribution of ceramic material chrono­logies by type of dating.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84

Figure 3.3.

Number of ceramic fragments dated to different periods per trench. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86

Figure 3.4.

Proportions of local, regional, and imported pottery per trench . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87

Figure 3.5.

Distribution of Ware types in Gerasa. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88

Figure 3.6.

The absolute numbers of categories of ceramic fragments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88

Figure 3.7.

Proportions of local, regional, and imported pottery per ceramic category.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89

Table 3.1.

List of abbreviations used throughout the text. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

Table 3.2.

Attestation of amphorae types, arranged by area of provenance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78

Table 3.3.

Attestation of Hayes Forms for ARSW, CRSW/LRD, and LRC.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81

Table 3.4.

An overview of mostly non-regionally manufactured tablewares, amphorae, oil lamps, cooking wares, and varia.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90

Table 3.5.

An attempt at summarizing the studied literature regarding local, regional, and long-distance imported pottery for the sixteen sites, for the Roman, Byzantine, and Umayyad periods. . . . . . . . . . . 93

Anne-Michèle Rasson-Seigne et Jacques Seigne Figure 4.1.

Sanctuaire de Zeus. Plan de situation des sondages. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120

Figure 5.1.

Les céramiques importées à Jerash pendant l’époque romaine.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130

Stéphane Duplessis, Francesca Di Napoli, et Jacques Seigne Figure 6.1.

Emplacements des découvertes des anses timbrées. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147

Figure 6.2.

Typo­logie des amphores rhodiennes des iie et ier siècles avant notre ère).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148

Figure 6.3.

Fragment d’amphore portant l’estampille n° 18 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148

Figure 6.4.

Tétradrachme de Rhodes (vers 230–205 av. J.-C.). Tête d’Hélios sur l’avers, rose sur le revers.. . . . . 165

Figure 6.5.

Pièce rhodienne (vers 350–300 av. J.-C.). Tête de Rhodos sur l’avers, rose sur le revers.. . . . . . . . . . . 165

Figure 6.6.

Graphique des périodes les plus représentées par les timbres de Jerash.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167

Planche 1.

Cat. 1–7.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149

Planche 2.

Cat. 8–13.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150

Planche 3.

Cat. 14–18.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151

Planche 4.

Cat. 19–26.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152

Planche 5.

Cat. 29–33. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153

Planche 6.

Cat. 34–39.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154

x

L ist of Illustrations

Planche 7.

Cat. 40–46.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155

Planche 8.

Cat. 47–54.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156

Tabl. 6.1.

Liste récapitulative des timbres présentés.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157

Tabl. 6.2.

Index des noms d’éponymes et fabricants rhodiens figurant dans le catalogue.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165

Tabl. 6.3.

Index par attributs et par formes.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166

Tabl. 6.4.

Tableau de la fréquence des mois rhodiens mentionnés sur les timbres de Jerash.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166

Tabl. 6.5.

Ce tableau répertorie uniquement les timbres rhodiens datés, soit dix-huit timbres d’éponyme et dix timbres de fabricant. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166

Alexandra Uscatescu Figure 7.1.

Plan of the macellum of Gerasa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174

Figure 7.2.

1. Strati­graphical section of the western dividing wall of taberna 17; 2. Northern wall of tabernae 17 and 21. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177

Figure 7.3.

North–south section of a wall over the South Stenopos. South-western corner of the macellum, plot C-K/25-31 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 178

Figure 7.4.

Early imports from the excavations of the macellum. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179

Figure 7.5.

Early imports from the excavations of the macellum. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180

Figure 7.6.

ARS C imports from the excavations of the macellum. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183

Figure 7.7.

ARS D1 and D2 imports from the excavations of the macellum. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .186

Figure 7.8.

ARS D1 and D2 imports from the excavations of the macellum. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .187

Figure 7.9.

ARS D1 and D2 imports from the excavations of the macellum. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .189

Figure 7.10. ARS D1 and D2 imports from the excavations of the macellum. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .190 Figure 7.11. ARS D1 and D2 imports from the excavations of the macellum.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191 Figure 7.12. ARS D4 or ‘Pseudo-Egyptian C’ imports from the excavations of the macellum.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194 Figure 7.13. African wares from the excavations of the macellum. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195 Figure 7.14. Map of ARS finds in the Levant.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 196 Figure 7.15. Map of African amphora and domestic-ware finds in the Levant. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199 Figure 7.16. LRC imports from the excavations of the macellum.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200 Figure 7.17. LRC imports from the excavations of the macellum.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 202 Figure 7.18. Map of LRC finds in the Levant.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203 Figure 7.19. LRD imports from the excavations of the macellum.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205 Figure 7.20. LRD imports from the excavations of the macellum.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 206 Figure 7.21. Map of LRD finds in the Levant.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207 Figure 7.22. LRA 1 imports from the excavations of the macellum.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 210

List of Illustrations

xi

Figure 7.23. LRA 1 imports from the excavations of the macellum.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211 Figure 7.24. Map of LRA 1 finds in the Levant. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 212 Figure 7.25. LRU imports from the excavations of the macellum, and map of LRU finds in the Levant.. . . . . . . . 213 Figure 7.26. Sinopean amphorae from the excavations of the macellum.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 216 Figure 7.27. Sinopean amphora finds from the region.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 217 Figure 7.28. Map of Sinopean amphora finds in the Levant. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 218 Figure 7.29. Map of LRA 2 finds in the Levant.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 219 Figure 7.30. LRA 3 import from the excavations of the macellum, and map of LRA 3 finds in the Levant. . . . . . 220 Figure 7.31. A. Map of ERS A and painted Coptic-ware finds in the Levant; B. Map of LRA 7 finds in the Levant.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 222 Figure 7.32. Egyptian imports from the excavations of the macellum.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 223 Figure 7.33. ‘Akko or M-334 amphora from the excavations of the macellum.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 224 Figure 7.34. LRA 4 imports from the excavations of the macellum.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 226 Figure 7.35. 159–60. LRA 4 imports from the excavations of the macellum. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 227 Figure 7.36. Map of LRA 4 finds in the Levant, with indication of the kilns.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 228 Figure 7.37. LRA 5 imports from the excavations of the macellum.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231 Figure 7.38. Local version of the Palestinian bag-shaped amphora from the excavations of the macellum.. . . . . . 232 Figure 7.39. Map of LRA 5/6 finds in the Levant, with indication of the kilns. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 233 Figure 7.40. Map of ‘southern’ LRA 5 finds in the Levant, with indication of the kilns.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 234 Figure 7.41. 1. LRA 5 examples from Late Roman to Early Islamic periods; 2. LRA 6 examples from Late Byzantine to Early Islamic periods.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235 Figure 7.42. FBW imports from the excavations of the macellum. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 236 Figure 7.43. Map of FBW finds in the Levant. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 237 Figure 7.44. Gerasa, south-west cemetery finds. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 238 Figure 7.45. Gerasa imports from different locations in the town.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 239 Figure 7.46. Imports from the Zeus Temple Terrace and the Northwest Quarter of Gerasa. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 240 Graph 7.1. Late Antique deposits from the macellum of Gerasa. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176 Graph 7.2. Comparison of contexts dated to c. 500/50–660 ad: Macellum of Gerasa and Caesarea Maritima, Late Byzantine Building.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 241 Graph 7.3. Sixth–seventh century fine ware imports from the coastal strip.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 241 Graph 7.4. Sixth–seventh century fine ware imports from continental northern sites. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 242 Graph 7.5. Sixth–seventh century fine ware imports from southern sites. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 242 Graph 7.6. Fifth–seventh century amphora imports from the coastal strip.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 243

xii

L ist of Illustrations

Graph 7.7. Fifth–seventh century amphora imports from continental sites. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 243 Graph 7.8. Fine-ware imports by periods. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 243 Table 7.1a.

Imports and coin data from Early and Late Byzantine contexts from the macellum.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 248

Table 7.1b. Imports and coin data from contexts dated to the earth­quake of 659/60 and after the earthquake (c. 660–700).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 249 Table 7.2.

ARS imports. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 250

Table 7.3.

African amphorae and domestic wares and other western imports.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 255

Table 7.4.

LRC imports.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 256

Table 7.5.

LRD imports.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 261

Table 7.6.

LRA 1 imports.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 266

Table 7.7.

LRU imports.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 267

Table 7.8.

Black Sea imports and similar amphora types. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 268

Table 7.9.

Aegean imports.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 268

Table 7.10.

Egyptian imports.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 269

Table 7.11. LRA 4 imports.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 270 Table 7.12. LRA 5/6 imports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 273 Table 7.13. FBW imports. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 276 Philip Ebeling Figure 8.1.

Plan of the Northwest Quarter with excavated trenches.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 302

Figure 8.2.

Photo of J14-Jd-32-174 from above.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 303

Figure 8.3.

Photo of J14-Jd-35-78 from above.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 303

Figure 8.4.

Photo of J16-Sh-56-5 from above with scale.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 303

Figure 8.5.

Map of the southern Levant with find spots of ridged roof tiles marked. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 304

Figure 8.6.

Roof tile with ridge from Petra. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .304

Figure 8.7.

Photo of J14-Jc-53-5 from above with scale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 305

Figure 8.8.

Spouted roof tile from Gordion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 306

Figure 8.9.

Photo of J16-Sb-23-15 from above with scale.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 306

Figure 8.10. Photo of J16-Sc-2-1 from above with scale.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 307 Figure 8.11. Model of interlocking ridged tiles. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 308 Figure 8.12. Demonstration of the function of the spouted tile vs. an unlikely use. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 308 Figure 8.13. Comparison of the worked breaks of J16-Scd-13-68+69 and J16-Sd-13-33 with the unworked breaks of J16-Sd-13-34 .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 309 Figure 8.14. Two close-up photos of the northern and western face of ‘cistern 2’. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 309

List of Illustrations

xiii

Lisa C. Berger Figure 9.1.

The survey area and the location of the sanctuaries. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 314

Figure 9.2.

Gadara/Umm Qays Hinterland Survey. View from Arqūb Rūmi towards the settlement hill of Gadara. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 315

Figure 9.3.

Gadara/Umm Qays Hinterland Survey. View from Arqūb Rūmi towards al-Qabū. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 315

Figure 9.4.

Fine ware from Arqūb Rūmi.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 316

Figure 9.5.

Kitchen-ware from Arqūb Rūmi.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 316

Figure 9.6.

Storage vessels from Arqūb Rūmi.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 317

Figure 9.7.

Storage vessels from al-Qabū.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 318

Figure 9.8.

Imported fine ware from al-Qabū.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 318

Figure 9.9.

Kitchen-ware from al-Qabū.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 319

Figure 9.10. Grey ware from al-Qabū.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 319 Nora M. Voss Figure 10.1. Palestinian ‘bag-shaped’ amphora. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 328 Figure 10.2. Cooking bowl.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 329 Figure 10.3. Mortarium.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 331 Figure 10.4a. Coarse ware from Abila. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 332 Figure 10.4b. Tableware from Abila. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 332 Figure 10.5a. Coarse ware from Gadara . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 332 Figure 10.5b. Tableware from Gadara. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 332 Colour Plate 1.1a. Ware A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 337 Colour Plate 1.1b. Ware A.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 337 Colour Plate 1.2a. Ware E. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 337 Colour Plate 1.2b. Ware E. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 337 Colour Plate 1.3a. Ware F. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 337 Colour Plate 1.3b. Ware F.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 337 Colour Plate 2.1a. Ware B. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 338 Colour Plate 2.1b. Ware B.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 338 Colour Plate 2.2a. Ware H . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 338 Colour Plate 2.2b. Ware H.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 338 Colour Plate 2.3a. Mortarium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 338 Colour Plate 2.3b. Mortarium.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 338

xiv

L ist of Illustrations

Elizabeth A. Osinga Figure 11.1. Umm el-Jimal in Late Antiquity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 339 Figure 11.2. Plan of Umm el-Jimal showing the relationship between town and village . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 340 Figure 11.3. Plan of Umm el-Jimal showing the origins of the three datasets. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 341 Figure 11.4. Plan of House XVII–XVIII showing the excavation trenches. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 342 Figure 11.5. Plan of the Commodus Gate Area and location of Trench EE.3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 343 Figure 11.6. Sherd type by count and weight in House XVII–XVIII (2014). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 344 Figure 11.7. Comparing ceramic groups in the Commodus Gate Area (2015 and 2017) and House XVII–XVIII (2014).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 345 Figure 11.8. Comparing pottery provenance in the Commodus Gate Area (2015 and 2017) and House XVII–XVIII (2014).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 345 Figure 11.9. Periodization of the common wares in House XVII–XVIII (2014).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 347 Figure 11.10. Pottery provenance by period in House XVII–XVIII (2014)... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 348 Figure 11.11. Pottery provenance in Late Roman contexts at the Commodus Gate Area... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 348 Figure 11.12. Pottery types in Late Roman contexts at the Commodus Gate Area.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 348 Figure 11.13. Pottery types and provenance in Late Roman contexts at the Commodus Gate Area (EE.3, Locus 008, 009)... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 349 Figure 11.14. Fine-ware provenance in Late Roman contexts at the Commodus Gate Area and House XVII–XVIII. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 349 Figure 11.15. Cooking pots (Nabatean and Roman)... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 350 Figure 11.16. Cooking pots (Late Roman)... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 351 Figure 11.17. Cooking pots (Late Roman and Early Byzantine)... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 352 Figure 11.18. Cooking pots (Byzantine)... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 353 Figure 11.19. Casseroles... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 354 Figure 11.20. Jugs... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 355 Figure 11.21. Juglets and bottles... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 356 Figure 11.22. Burnished vessels... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 357 Figure 11.23. Bowls... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 358 Figure 11.24. Jars... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 359 Figure 11.25. Nabatean pottery... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 360 Figure 11.26. Eastern Sigillata A and miscellaneous fine ware... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 361 Colour Plate 3. Photomicro­graphs of the primary ware/fabric groups.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 364

List of Illustrations

xv

Achim Lichtenberger and Rubina Raja Figure 12.1. Bronze coin of Gerasa minted in 67/68 ad with head of Zeus Olympios on obverse and cornucopia on reverse. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 370 Figure 12.2. Bronze coin of Gerasa minted under Hadrian with head of Hadrian on obverse and bust of Artemis on reverse. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 370 Figure 12.3. Bronze coin of Gerasa minted under Lucius Verus with head of Lucius Verus on obverse and standing figure of Artemis as huntress on reverse. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 370 Figure 12.4. Bronze coin of Gerasa minted under Commodus with head of Commodus on obverse and standing figure of Tyche and Greek founder on reverse. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 370 Figure 12.5. Bronze coin of Gerasa minted under Septimius Severus with head of Septimius Severus on obverse and bust of Alexander the Great on reverse. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 370 Figure 12.6. Distribution of Roman provincial coins minted by Gerasa. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 370 Figure 12.7. Roman provincial bronze coins found in Gerasa. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 371 Figure 12.8. Bronze coin of Philadelphia minted under Elagabalus with head of Elagabalus on obverse and chariot on reverse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 371 Figure 12.9. Bronze coin of Neapolis minted under Volusian with head of Volusian on obverse and Garizim on reverse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 373 Figure 12.10. Bronze coin of Tyre minted under Elagabalus with head of Elagabalus on obverse and Tyche with trophy, palm tree, and Nike on column on reverse. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 373 Figure 12.11. Roman imperial coins found in Gerasa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 374 Figure 12.12. Dupondius of Trajan from the mint of Rome. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 375 Figure 12.13. Bronze coin of King Rabbel II (ad 70–106) with Rabbel and Gamilath on obverse and cornucopiae on reverse.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 377 Table 12.1. Distribution of Roman provincial bronze coins minted by Gerasa.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 372 Table 12.2. Roman provincial bronze coins found in Gerasa.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 372 Table 12.3. Roman imperial coins found in Gerasa.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 375 Table 12.4. Roman provincial coins of the second and third centuries ad found in Gerasa.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 376 Table 12.5. Late first-century bc to first-century ad non-civic find coins from Gerasa.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 376 Table 12.6. Hellenistic find coins from Gerasa.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 379

Abbreviations Atlante i

Anselmino, L. and others. 1981. Atlante delle forme ceramiche, i: Ceramica fina romana nel bacino mediterraneo (Medio e Tardo Impero), Suppl. Enciclopedia dell’Arte Antica Classica e Orientale (Rome: Istituto della Enciclopedia Italiana).

Atlante ii

Hayes, J. W. and others. 1985. Atlante delle forme ceramiche, ii: Ceramica fine romana nel bacino mediterraneo (Tardo Ellenismo e Primo Impero), Enciclopedia dell’Arte Antica Classica e Orientale (Rome: Istituto della Enciclopedia Italiana).

CIL

Corpus inscriptionum Latinarum

Lc

Luke

Mk

Mark

Mt

Matthew

Pind. Ol.

Pindar, Olympian Odes

Symmachus Ep. Symmachus Epistulae

1. Invisible Pasts, Urban Fates, and the Central Role of Ceramics: Gerasa in the Hellenistic and Roman Periods Achim Lichtenberger Institut für Klassische Archäo­logie und Christliche Archäo­logie/Archäo­logisches Museum, Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität Münster. [email protected]

Rubina Raja Centre for Urban Network Evolutions/Classical Studies, School of Culture and Society, Aarhus Uni­ver­sity. [email protected]

T

he obscure Hellenistic period and more easily grasped Roman and Byzantine periods as reflected in the material culture of ancient Gerasa have been a focus of study since archaeo­logical research was initiated at the site in 1902.1 By contrast, the Early Islamic and Middle Islamic periods have until recently remained understudied.2 It therefore seemed fully appropriate that the series of three volumes taking their point of departure in the ceramics of Gerasa should end with the volume focusing on the Hellenistic and Roman periods and include a reappreciation of the finds made over the last approximately hundred years and attempt to contextualize these within their broader archaeo­logical, cultural, and historical frameworks. The three volumes focus on bringing new research undertaken within the context of the Danish-German Jerash Northwest Quarter Project and the project Ceramics in Context to the forefront and integrate the research done within the projects into the broader knowledge that we have about Gerasa and which has emerged since the investigations of the 1920s and 1930s.3 However, 1 

For the early history of archaeo­logical research at the site, see Lichtenberger and Raja (‘Late Hellenistic and Roman Antiochia on the Chrysorrhoas’) in this volume. Also see Lichtenberger and Raja 2018b for contributions which include references to the early research history of the site and the German soundings undertaken in 1902, see Kraeling 1938. 2  Lichtenberger and Raja 2018a; 2019. 3  The two volumes already published are Jerash Papers 3 and 4 (Lichtenberger and Raja 2018a; 2019). For the preliminary reports published in the Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan, see Lichtenberger and Raja 2012; Kalaitzoglou, Lichtenberger, and Raja 2013; 2014; 2015; Lichtenberger, Raja, and Sørensen 2013; 2014; 2015; Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming a); (forthcoming b).

the intention with the volumes was and is also to share the research of other international missions working at the site over the last decades in order for knowledge about the ceramic material across project boundaries to become available in a comprehensive form to the broader academic community. Over recent years, we have been working our way — together with many of these international colleagues — back in time through the ceramics and therefore also the history of Gerasa, later Jerash, covering more than 1500 years of ceramo­logical history.4 This volume is the third and concluding volume that focuses on the ceramic finds made by several of the archaeo­logical missions working at the site over recent decades. The volume also includes contributions on the Hellenistic and Roman archaeo­ logy in general at the site, the research history, as well as These reports hold the most important published assemblages of the ceramic finds from the excavation. For a full overview of the activities and publications of the projects, see the following webpages: [accessed 1 November 2019], [accessed 1 November 2019]. 4  We would like to thank the international colleagues who often several times have agreed to participate in workshops and conferences connected to our project and contribute with until now unpublished material. They are too many to name here, but the three volumes, as well as another Jerash Papers volume edited by Lichtenberger and Raja (2018b), reflect the range of archaeo­logical projects in Gerasa, which have been involved in initiatives that we have furthered over the last years. It has been a pleasure to see how scholars have been brought together in a variety of constellations and have benefitted from the discussions which have taken place. We hope in this way to have contributed to laying the grounds for further collaborative efforts within the context of the archaeo­logy and history of Gerasa and the numerous topics that still remain to be addressed.

Hellenistic and Roman Gerasa: The Archaeo­logy and History of a Decapolis City, ed. by Achim Lichtenberger and Rubina Raja, JP 5 (Turnhout: Brepols, 2020), 1–5 BREPOLS PUBLISHERS DOI 10.1484/M.JP-EB.5.120805

2 the Roman-period find coins from the Danish-German Jerash Northwest Quarter Project. Furthermore, a central contribution pulls together published ceramics and the chrono­logies published from several sites in the Decapolis region in order to push forward discussions about the importance of full-quantification studies on current excavations. This supports a much-needed move towards not exclusively focusing on imports as significant factors for dating and interpretations of the cities’ centrality within their respective local and regional areas. These are contributions which are meant to contextualize the ceramic finds in a broader urban context as well as reach beyond the city itself and encourage us to remember to contextualize our archaeo­logical findings on both site-specific, local, regional, interregional, and even, where possible, global levels. We hope that this volume will spur wide-ranging discussions about the ways in which ceramics are published and should be published in the future, the challenges that we are faced with as classical and Near Eastern archaeo­logists working in regions with extremely rich archaeo­logical records, as well as the amazing opportunities that we have in light of the techno­logical advances made within archaeo­logical and computational sciences over recent years. With this volume, we also want to ask how we can improve baselines for future research on the basis of the most common and available daily-use ware of Antiquity, namely the pottery of the societies with which we deal in all excavations and which often ends up being treated as the stepchild — usually because of the lack of resources available for processing, contextualizing, and publishing the overwhelming volume of these finds. While ceramics remain the most common everyday ware of Antiquity, it also often remains the most problematic category of material evidence in archaeo­logical excavations. Ceramics often let us decide on dates through typo­logies established a long time ago — on more or less secure bases (and not always published together with the necessary strati­graphic information), and pottery is used to date fill layers and discuss chrono­logies in broader contexts. However, when we look at the often locally produced pottery, which makes up the backbone of the finds at numerous sites, it becomes clear that we have to deal with extremely complex archaeo­logical situations, where ceramics often are found out of context in complex secondary contexts, but despite such problematics still rule the ways in which the overall archaeo­logical situations are interpreted. However, and above all, the lack of publications of ceramic finds holds back advances in understanding the local ceramics as well. While most

Achim Lichtenberger and Rubina Raja archaeo­logical projects have good intentions in terms of publishing their pottery, the publication of ceramic assemblages regularly ends up being delayed for years or decades. This often has to do with the separated realms of the field archaeo­logists and the ceramo­logists as well as with the fieldwork reality. The processing of ceramics most often becomes entirely separated from the in-field considerations as soon as the ceramic leaves the field. Often pottery specialists have to rely on information conveyed from field diaries and context sheets, but are not always involved in the on-site work while the excavation is going on. Therefore, in many ways, this volume also comes with a call for a firmer integration and even greater focus on the importance of the understanding of ceramics in both large- and small-scale excavations. Such understanding may often be quite easily achieved by focusing on specific closed contexts and contained secondary contexts, as well as through the implementation of archaeoscience-based analysis on assemblages, which stem from controlled contexts.5 The Hellenistic and Roman periods in Gerasa took centre stage at the last of the three Ceramics in Context workshops hosted within the framework of the DanishGerman Jerash Northwest Quarter Project and the Ceramics in Context project. The workshop was organized by Achim Lichtenberger (Münster Uni­ver­sity) and Rubina Raja (Aarhus Uni­ver­sity) at the Centre for Urban Network Evolutions, Aarhus Uni­ver­sity in the fall of 2017.6 The aim of the workshop was, as the title of the volume indicates, to focus on the ceramic finds from the Hellenistic and Roman periods in Gerasa through archaeo­ logical research undertaken over the last few decades by a variety of scholars and missions working in Gerasa and the broader Decapolis region. While imports stood at the centre of the workshop originally, it quickly became clear that a focus was needed on the locally produced wares in order to contextualize the importance of the very few imports in a broader context. Therefore, the edited volume consists of eleven contributions, nine of which concern ceramics from Gerasa and the Decapolis region. Several of these contributions were developed in the wake of the workshop as a result of the discussions which followed the papers. The first contribution by Lichtenberger and Raja gives an overview of the urban development of Gerasa in the Hellenistic and Roman period as we can retrieve 5  See for example Ting, Lichtenberger, and Raja 2019 with further references as well as Ebeling in this volume. 6   [accessed 1 November 2019].

1. Invisible Pasts, Urban Fates, and the Central Role of Ceramics it from the available sources and current archaeo­ logical research undertaken and published. With a focus on the Northwest Quarter, the paper contextualizes the few Hellenistic findings and the more common Roman-period findings from this area of the city within the larger picture of the overall development of Gerasa in a regional and imperial context. The contribution, among other things, highlights the forgotten fact that archaeo­logical research at Hellenistic and Roman Gerasa was begun earlier than usually thought, namely by the German team headed by Puchstein, who spent a summer in Gerasa compiling comparative material — in particular for their research on the Hellenistic and Roman periods — for the work undertaken by them at Baalbek. Furthermore, the contribution discusses the general ideas about Gerasa’s urban development in the Late Hellenistic and Roman periods on the basis of the new research undertaken by the Danish-German Jerash Northwest Quarter Project since 2011.7 The second contribution is a result of an overview research project that was initiated by the editors after the workshop. It required substantial research resources but also enhances the overall knowledge status of Roman- to Early Islamic-period ceramic studies in the region. This overview project focused on the published contributions on Roman to Early Islamic pottery in the southern Levant. The research and author team included the two editors, a pottery specialist (Philip Bes), as well as two archaeo­logists with computational-science modelling skills (Tom Brughmans and Iza Romanowska). With this contribution, we hope to show that such overview studies bring to the forefront the lacunae in the publication record as well as the problems which these lacunae bring with them in terms of understanding the overall patterns of ceramic circulation, but also the possibilities which are still inherently present in ceramic material from the ancient world. The contribution contains a comprehensive literature overview and can be used by any scholar or interested student as a good starting point for understanding the current state of publication of ceramics in the Decapolis region. The three contributions which follow draw on the material found during the excavations of the French mission headed by Jacques Seigne. The contribution ‘Les 7  Also see the earlier work by the authors on Gerasa’s develop­ ment: Lichtenberger 2003; Raja 2012; Lichtenberger and Raja 2015, as well as Lichtenberger and Raja 2017 for an edited volume that incorporates a status report on several of the sub-projects within the larger project.

3

productions de céramiques locales de Jerash au début de la période romaine (ier siècle avant J.-C. – iie siècle après J.-C.) : influences et diffusion’ concerns itself with the chrono­logy of the local ceramics found in a variety of contexts over the years, while the contribution ‘La céramique importée à Jerash pendant l’époque romaine (fin ier siècle avant J.-C. – fin iiie siècle après J.-C.) : l’apport des fouilles du sanctuaire de Zeus’ focuses on the ceramic imports found in parts of the excavations. Both contributions are written by Anne-Michèle Rasson-Seigne and Jacques Seigne. The last contribution ‘Les timbres amphoriques trouvés à Jerash’ by the French colleagues, Stéphane Duplessis and Francesca Di Napoli, concerns itself with amphorae finds and in particular the amphorae stamps, which give an original provenance for these items. Since many of these from Gerasa have not been published, this contribution also brings important knowledge to light about the circulation of goods in ancient Gerasa. Alexandra Uscatescu, with her contribution ‘Late Antique Ceramic Imports in Gerasa: New Light on the Macellum Finds with a Special Reference to the Neighbouring Region’, revisits the finds of the Spanish team who focused their work in the macellum on the main street. She sets these in a regional context, and through her profound knowledge of ceramic finds in the region she introduces new perspectives on the Late Antique imports found in Gerasa. We also included a contribution on roof tiles from Gerasa found in the context of the Danish-German Jerash Northwest Quarter Project, since this group of material remains an inherently understudied one. This contribution ‘RomanPeriod Roof Tiles from the Northwest Quarter of Jerash’ written by Philip Ebeling presents an overview of the roof tiles found in the Northwest Quarter. Surprisingly few were found, a result that leads to further discussions. The next three contributions, ‘Pottery from Sanc­ tuaries in the Hinterland of Gadara/Umm Qays ( Jor­ dan)’ by Lisa Berger, ‘Pottery from Abila and Gadara’ by Nora M. Voss, and ‘Quantifying Ceramic Trends at Umm el-Jimal’ by Elizabeth A. Osinga, focus on the ceramic finds from the Decapolis cities Abila and Gadara, as well as the non-Decapolis site of Umm el-Jimal close to the modern Syrian border in the Jordanian part of the Hauran region. These contributions are included in order to give comparative outlooks based on the material brought to light by new archaeo­logical research, and they are important additions to the current status quo in ceramic studies from these sites. Furthermore, a contribution on the Roman city coins from Gerasa based on the finds from the Danish-German

4 Jerash Northwest Quarter Project is included. This contribution, written by the editors of the volume, contextualizes the Roman-period coin finds within a broader framework in order to show the ways in which discussions about urban development, the presence of various groups of material culture, and general discussions of monetarization processes in the Roman period cannot be separated from each other, but need to be pulled together through careful study of the published evidence. The variety of the material presented in this volume makes a strong primary evidence-based and methodo­ logical contribution to the ways in which we should publish and discuss ceramic studies from the Decapolis region — also in the future. Therefore, it is our profound hope that colleagues will engage themselves and write about the material published here as well as involve themselves in future initiatives in order to pave the ground for collaborative work pushing the boundaries for what can be done with ceramic evidence from the Decapolis region.

Acknowledgements The editors are grateful for the generous funding received for the undertaking of the Danish-German Jerash Northwest Quarter Project since 2011 from the Carls­b erg Foundation; the Danish National Research Foundation (grant no.  119 — Centre of Excellence for Urban Network Evolutions (UrbNet)); Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, Deutscher Palästina-Verein; the EliteForsk initiative of the Danish Ministry of Higher Education and Science; and H. P. Hjerl Hansens Mindefondet for Dansk Palæstinaforskning. In this context, we thank in particular the Carlsberg Foundation for funding the collective research project Ceramics in Context, which funded, among other things, the conference from which the papers in this volume stem. We would also like to thank Nickey Fregerslev and Eva Mortensen (both Centre for Urban Network Evolu­ tions, Aarhus Uni­ver­sity) for the professional editing of the manu­script as well as coordination of much of the author correspondence. We thank Lasse R. Olesen for the preparation of the index. We also thank Rosie Bonté from Brepols Publishers for handling the publication process extremely professionally, as well as Tim Barnwell for the copyediting and Martine Maguire-Weltecke for the layout of the book. Without the professionalism and engagement throughout the duration of the project by the entire team, the volume would not have come to completion this fast.

Achim Lichtenberger and Rubina Raja

1. Invisible Pasts, Urban Fates, and the Central Role of Ceramics

5

Works Cited Kalaitzoglou, G. and others. (forthcoming a). ‘Preliminary Report of the Fifth Season of the Danish-German Jerash Northwest Quarter Project 2015’, Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan, 60. ——  (forthcoming b).  ‘Preliminary Report of the Sixth Season of the Danish-German Jerash Northwest Quarter Project 2016’, Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan, 61. Kalaitzoglou, G., A.  Lichtenberger, and R.  Raja. 2013. ‘Preliminary Report of the Second Season of the Danish-German Jerash Northwest Quarter Project 2012’, Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan, 57: 57–79. ——  2014. ‘The Danish-German Jerash North-West Quarter Project 2013: Preliminary Field Report’, Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan, 58: 11–37. ——  2015. ‘Preliminary Report of the Fourth Season of the Danish-German Jerash Northwest Quarter Project 2014’, Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan, 59: 11–43. Kraeling, C.  H. (ed.). 1938. Gerasa, City of the Decapolis: An Account Embodying the Record of a Joint Excavation Conducted by Yale Uni­ver­sity and the British School of Archaeo­logy in Jerusalem (1928–1930), and Yale Uni­ver­sity and the American Schools of Oriental Research (New Haven: American Schools of Oriental Research). Lichtenberger, A. 2003. Kulte und Kultur der Dekapolis: Untersuchungen zu numismatischen, archäo­logischen und epi­graphischen Zeugnissen (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz). Lichtenberger, A. and R.  Raja. 2012. ‘Preliminary Report of the First Season of the Danish-German Jerash Northwest Quarter Project 2011’, Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan, 56: 231–40. ——  2015. ‘New Archaeo­logical Research in the Northwest Quarter of Jerash and its Implications for the Urban Development of Roman Gerasa’, American Journal of Archaeo­logy, 119: 483–500. ——  (eds). 2017. Gerasa/Jerash: From the Urban Periphery (Aarhus: Fællestrykkeriet, AUTRYK). ——  (eds). 2018a. Middle Islamic Jerash (9th Century – 15th Century): Archaeo­logy and History of an Ayyubid-Mamluk Settlement, Jerash Papers, 3 (Turnhout: Brepols). ——  (eds). 2018b. The Archaeo­logy and History of Jerash: 110 Years of Excavations, Jerash Papers, 1 (Turnhout: Brepols). ——  (eds). 2019. The Byzantine and Umayyad Periods in Jerash Reconsidered: Transitions, Transformations, Continuities, Jerash Papers, 4 (Turnhout: Brepols). Lichtenberger, A., R. Raja, and A. H. Sørensen. 2013. ‘Preliminary Registration Report of the Second Season of the Danish-German Jarash Northwest Quarter Project 2012’, Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan, 57: 9–56. ——  2014. ‘The Danish-German Jerash Northwest Quarter Project 2013: Preliminary Registration Report’, Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan, 58: 39–103. ——  2015. ‘The Danish-German Jerash Northwest Quarter Project 2014: Preliminary Registration Report’, Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan, 59: 45–131. Raja, R. 2012. Urban Development and Regional Identity in the Eastern Roman Provinces, 50  bc–ad 250: Aphrodisias, Ephesos, Athens, Gerasa (Copen­hagen: Museum Tusculanum Press). Ting, C., A. Lichtenberger, and R. Raja. 2019. ‘The Techno­logy and Production of Glazed Ceramics from Middle Islamic Jerash, Jordan’, Archaeometry, 61: 1296–1312 .

2. Late Hellenistic and Roman Antiochia on the Chrysorrhoas, also Called Gerasa: A Reappreciation of the Urban Development in the Light of the Findings of the Danish-German Jerash Northwest Quarter Project (2011–17) Achim Lichtenberger* Institut für Klassische Archäo­logie und Christliche Archäo­logie/Archäo­logisches Museum, Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität Münster. [email protected]

Rubina Raja* Centre for Urban Network Evolutions/Classical Studies, School of Culture and Society, Aarhus Uni­ver­sity. [email protected]

Antiochia on the Chrysorrhoas, Gerasa of the Decapolis: An Ordinary City?

T

he Decapolis city Antiochia on the Chrysorrhoas, Gerasa,1 in northern Jordan (Figs 2.1–2) is one of the most important ancient urban sites in the classical and Early Islamic world when it comes to understanding the longue durée development of middlesized urban settlements.2 It is so because of the state of preservation of the site, which overall is extremely good.

* The authors gratefully acknowledge the funding received for the project from the following funding bodies: the Carlsberg Foundation, the Danish National Research Foundation (grant no.  119 — Centre of Excellence for Urban Network Evolutions (UrbNet)), Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, Deutscher PalästinaVerein, the EliteForsk initiative of the Danish Ministry of Higher Education and Science, and H. P. Hjerl Hansens Mindefondet for Dansk Palæstinaforskning. 1   The name of the city including that of the pre-Seleucid era, Gerasa (of Semitic origin), is first attested in an inscription published in Kraeling (Welles 1938, 390–91, no. 30). It is one of the few inscriptions in Latin from the site and relates to the visit of the Emperor Hadrian in ad 129/30. The inscription was seen by Henry Reitlinger in November 1913 according to Welles in Kraeling 1938a. It is reproduced in copy from Reitlinger’s notes in the 1938 volume. 2  For overviews of the archaeo­logy and history of the site, see Lichtenberger 2003; Raja 2012, 137–89. Although in some respects outdated, Kraeling 1938a remains a standard work on the site with a good overview of the archaeo­logy and history of the city. Also see the collection of articles in which much of the new research undertaken on the site within the last decades is presented including further references: Lichtenberger and Raja 2018a. On the term Decapolis, see Lichtenberger 2003, 6–20. Also see the recent, but heavily criticized by Sartre 2019, publication on the broader geo­g raphical definition of the Decapolis region: Dan and Nodet 2017. Also see Lichtenberger (2019) for a contribution on the name of the river.

However, the archaeo­logical site and its surroundings are rapidly deteriorating due to modern urban and hinterland developments (Fig.  2.3).3 The archaeo­logy of the site stretches far beyond the flourishing historical periods. Immediately south of the modern city one of the so-called mega-sites of the Neolithic period was discovered, called Tell Abu Suwan. This site testifies to the fact that the location of Gerasa was one which over several thousands of years was suitable for human habitation. This was not least because of the easy access to water and the hilly topo­graphy of the landscape, which provided a view of the surrounding region and could be protected.4 In the area, which covers the ancient classical site of about 80 ha, stray finds from the Neolithic period and up through time have also been found, showing that at least some activity also would have taken place there. It is, however, unknown to what extent the core area of the classical site also was inhabited in these early periods, just as the Iron Age also remains elusive to us, although it is clear that activity took place in this period as well.5 3 

Stott and others 2018. See al-Nahar 2005; 2018, for recent publications on the Neo­ lithic site that has been excavated under the direction of Professor Maysoon al-Nahar from the Jordan Uni­ver­sity in Amman. 5  On the general problems of the archaeo­logy of the Iron Age, see Blömer, Lichtenberger, and Raja 2015. Although this volume focuses on the religious life of the region, it underlines the ways in which we can or cannot trace continuity and change in the material culture of the region. In particular for Gerasa, see Clark and Bowsher 1986, 343; Lichtenberger 2003, 209; Lichtenberger, Raja, and Sørensen 2013, 49, no. 157 and 201, no. 46; Zayadine 1986b, 7–8. 4 

Hellenistic and Roman Gerasa: The Archaeo­logy and History of a Decapolis City, ed. by Achim Lichtenberger and Rubina Raja, JP 5 (Turnhout: Brepols, 2020), 7–54 BREPOLS PUBLISHERS DOI 10.1484/M.JP-EB.5.120806

Achim Lichtenberger and Rubina Raja

8

also been excavated.9 Nonetheless, we do not have a comprehensive overview of the extent of the site in this period or the Hellenistic period leading up to it.10 It was not on the agenda of the archaeo­logical expeditions of the 1920s and 30s to investigate the pre-Roman period, so although they obviously encountered it, they did not pursue the evidence in any depth as far as we can tell, nor did they publish it in the edited volume by Kraeling from 1938, only mentioning it in passing. It was only from the first century bc onward that the urban activity really seems to have taken off at the site judging from the archaeo­logical remains.11 While legend has it that Alexander the Great or his general Perdiccas founded the site,12 it is more likely that the site was resettled under Antiochos IV. This would fit with the general pattern of reorganization and refounding of cities in the region in this period, among other things for the purpose of establishing settlements in order to create stability in the region, which had been unstable following the power struggles between the Ptolemies and the Seleucids in the third and second centuries bc.13 The site supposedly flourished from this period well into the middle of the eighth century ad, when the earthquake of 18 January ad 749 hit the city in the morning and devastated it to such an extent that it never fully recovered. As far as we can tell from the archaeo­logy, any settlement beyond that date is limited to what had been the ancient Figure 2.1. Map of the region of the Decapolis (Danish-German Jerash Northwest Quarter Project).

Epi­graphic evidence relating to Gerasa’s existence dates already to the second century bc.6 It is, however, only in the Late Hellenistic period that Gerasa becomes archaeo­ logically graspable. Some remains in the area, where the modern museum is located, yielded Late Hellenistic finds including building structures during the excavations undertaken there.7 Furthermore, construction phases in the Sanctuary of Zeus testify to monumental building activity taking place in this period, underlining that the constructions must have been organized by a larger community.8 Graves dating to this period have 6 

Lichtenberger 2003, 192. Kraeling 1938b, 31, who mentions Camp Hill as the most likely location for the Greek city. See also Braemer 1987. 8  The Sanctuary of Zeus Olympios has been excavated and researched by a French team headed by Jacques Seigne for decades. Several preliminary publications on the development of this important sanctuary have been published, but no final reports or publications. See for example: Seigne 1989a; 1989b; 1992a; 1993: 7 

Seigne and others 1986. Also see Raja 2012, 172–75; 2013, 31–46. 9   See Kehrberg-Ostrasz and Manley 2019, 7–8 for a Late Hellenistic grave dated to after the late second century bc on the basis of ceramics and a coin, which provides a terminus post quem. 10  Kehrberg presents some considerations on this in KehrbergOstrasz and Manley 2019. See for example chapters 3–4 for a description of dump layers serving as foundation layers under the city wall, which contained pottery dating from the late second century bc until the end of the first century ad. She also presents considerations on the general urban development implying that the city’s western side would have been the one where all the Hellenistic and Early Roman-period graves would have been located. While her conclusions are worth considering and taking seriously, they also lack a general in-depth analysis of the work done by other archaeo­ logical expeditions in the city. 11  Kraeling 1938b, 30–31; Seigne 1989a; 1989b; 1992a; 1993. 12  Lichtenberger 2003, 191–92. 13  See Kraeling 1938b, 30 for this assumption as well as the connection between Antiochus IV and the cult of Zeus Olympios. Kraeling’s observations are still followed by most scholars today as well: Lichtenberger 2003, 191–243; 2008; 2017. See also Raja 2012, 137–89 for an account of the history and development of the city. Kennedy 2007 as well as most recently Andrade 2013, 160–69 have offered accounts of the city’s history.

2. Late Hellenistic and Roman Antiochia on the Chrysorrhoas, also Called Gerasa

Figure 2.2. Map of Gerasa (from Stott and others 2019).

9

Achim Lichtenberger and Rubina Raja

10

Figure 2.3. Current view of ancient Gerasa and parts of the modern city, today called Jerash. (Danish-German Jerash Northwest Quarter Project).

city centre and just beyond.14 Later in the Middle Islamic period, the site seems to have been resettled to some extent, but the nature of this settlement seems to have been dispersed across the site.15 The Middle Islamic 14 

Kraeling 1938b, 69. For the Islamic periods centred around the ancient main street, see Blanke 2016; 2018; Blanke, Lorien, and Rattenborg 2010; Blanke and Walmsley 2010; Rattenborg and Blanke 2017; Walmsley and others 2008. For the earthquake, see Tsafrir and Foerster 1992. See also Lichtenberger and Raja 2019b for further references to the earthquake. 15  Now see Lichtenberger and Raja 2018d; in the same volume

period remains one which is understudied, despite recent attempts to understand the archaeo­logy and history of this period in more detail.16 The city seems to see Kalaitzoglou 2018 for the so-called Hamlet in the Northwest Quarter and Rasson-Seigne, Seigne, and Tholbecq 2018 for the Middle Islamic evidence in the area of the Sanctuary of Zeus Olympios. 16  See the contributions in Lichtenberger and Raja 2018b for numerous articles, which deal with the archaeo­logy and history of Middle Islamic Jerash. Furthermore, recently a doctoral dissertation on the Middle Islamic period ceramics of Jerash has been completed:

2. Late Hellenistic and Roman Antiochia on the Chrysorrhoas, also Called Gerasa

have thrived immensely through the entire period until the earthquake hit in the middle of the eighth century ad. The Late Roman, Byzantine, and Umayyad periods all yield an archaeo­logical record which turned out to be Peterson 2019. Also see the contributions by: Lichtenberger and Raja 2016b; Lichtenberger and Raja 2018c; 2018d for recent contributions re-evaluating the Middle Islamic finds. Before these contributions our most recent ones were: Pierobon 1983; 1983–84; Tholbecq 1997–98; Walmsley 2001. Bethany Walker has published larger synthesis works on the Middle Islamic period in the region as well, see Walker 2004; 2009; 2010; 2011; 2017.

11

much richer than thought at the time of the publication by Kraeling and his team, although they acknowledged the rich evidence stemming from the Byzantine period in terms of the numerous churches attested at the site.17 17 

See Lichtenberger and Raja 2019a for a new edited volume, which includes a series of articles on ceramic finds in particular and the analysis of these from the various archaeo­logical missions working in Gerasa. In particular, see the introductory articles Lichtenberger and Raja 2019b; 2019c for a reassessment of the overall view of the archaeo­logy and history of the site in these periods. For the churches, see Crowfoot 1931; 1938, and more recently Michel 2011, 224–76.

Figure 2.4. Map of Gerasa by Seetzen (Forschungsbibliothek Gotha der Universität Erfurt, SPK 547-112723136).

2. Late Hellenistic and Roman Antiochia on the Chrysorrhoas, also Called Gerasa

The History of Research at Gerasa: From Schumacher to the Danish-German Jerash Northwest Quarter Project The Early Explorations of Gerasa Gerasa has been explored for more than two centuries after its rediscovery in 1806 by Ulrich Jasper Seetzen, who identified the site as that of ancient Gerasa and was the first in modern times to place it correctly on a map (Fig. 2.4).18 Seetzen was travelling with the map of Paulus in hand (Fig. 2.5), who had situated Gerasa much closer to the Lake of Galilee based on the biblical story, which recounts that Jesus exorcised demons out of one or two individuals and into pigs at Gerasa, which then ran to the lake and drowned themselves there.19 After Seetzen followed a string of travellers to the site, who all described more or less the same ancient monuments as well as the people who lived in the area, in particular the inhabitants of Suf, the village north-west of Jerash (Fig.  2.6). The locals are not described in the mildest terms by several travellers and do not seem to have been particularly welcoming to the visitors, who usually were traveling with the consent and written permission of the Ottoman rulers of the region.20 In the period, we do not know about any archaeo­logical investigations undertaken at Gerasa, which of course does not mean that they could not have taken place.21 However, to the best of our knowledge recordings do not exist. 18  Lichtenberger 2002; Seetzen 1854. Furthermore, see the forthcoming volumes by Lichtenberger and Raja on the travellers to Gerasa in the period from the rediscovery of Seetzen until the publication by Schumacher in 1902. Lichtenberger and Raja (forthcoming ), which includes numerous accounts and commentaries on these of the visits to Gerasa. 19  Mk 5. 1–20, Lc 8. 26–39, Mt 8. 28–34. It is clear that Gerasa in fact was located too far away from the lake for the pigs to have had run down to it. Even the texts of Gospels which mention the miracle were incoherent, mentioning in different versions Gergesa (Matthew); Gerasa or Gadara (all three Gospels mention those two names in various versions of the manu­scripts). Therefore, there seems to have been confusion (and also knowledge) about Gerasa’s real physical location, since the writers did not just settle for Gerasa in all three Gospels, well knowing that the story then hardly could have been true. 20   See Lichtenberger and Raja (forthcoming ), which is a comprehensive collection of the accounts of early visits to the site with commentaries and observations on the descriptions given by the numerous travellers. Stinespring in Kraeling 1938a also accounts for the earliest western travellers to Gerasa: Stinespring 1938, 1–3. 21  See Peterson 2018 for a contribution which deals with the potential size of the settlement at a certain point in the Ottoman

13

The German Baalbek Expedition’s Visit and Soundings at Gerasa in 1902 According to Stinespring, the most extensive early explorations in Gerasa, albeit not extensive excavations but a string of soundings, were undertaken by the German team headed by Puchstein that worked at Baalbek, but spent an entire month in Gerasa in 1902. He and the team were collecting comparative material for the material they had documented in Baalbek, including making a set of drawings and plans of several of the central monumental complexes (Fig. 2.7).22 They were as such not interested in Gerasa’s archaeo­logy and history for its own sake, as far as we can read Stinespring’s description of their work, although he highly compliments the quality of the work done. The Puchstein team seems to have been mostly interested in the Hellenistic and Roman-period monuments of Gerasa in order to find comparisons for the grand monuments which they had encountered at Baalbek. Perhaps their interest in the site dwindled because they did not find as grand monuments as in Baalbek, nor did they find any Hellenistic monuments. The first excavations which we hear of were those in which the famous mosaic, now in Berlin, was found in a domestic context in 1907, although Stinespring is careful about calling them actual excavations (Fig. 2.8).23 period. For a discussion of Ottoman attitudes towards ancient remains in general, see the recent article on the topic: Anderson 2015. Here he investigates overlooked sources which show that, although often said to have been disinterested in the remains of the past at the various sites across the Ottoman Empire, there was more of an interest than usually acknowledged by scholars. 22   Stinespring 1938, 2 and n.  4. In Jahrbuch des Deutschen Archäo­logischen Instituts, 17 (1902) there is a list of the monuments which the Puchstein team investigated during their month-long stay (thirty days in June/July 1902) in Gerasa: Puchstein and others 1902, 106. These included the Sanctuary of Artemis; the Propylaea including the later church of the Sanctuary of Artemis; the South Tetrapylon; the Peripteros by the theatre (Sanctuary of Zeus Olympios — but not mentioned as such in the list, since it was not known that it was a Zeus sanctuary at this point); the theatre (South Theatre); the Odeion and the street in front of it and the stretch until the North Tetrapylon. According to Stinespring, the German team only went to Gerasa to collect comparative material to that which they had found at Baalbek and therefore no final publications were produced of the collected Gerasa material. Some drawings were reproduced in Krencker 1934 and numerous others, together with some photo­graphs, are held in the archives of the DAI (Lichtenberger and Raja (forthcoming)). 23  See also the contribution by Mortensen 2018 on the early excavation history in Gerasa. Biebel 1938, 351–52 for the context of the mosaic, according to Kraeling as seen by Carl Watzinger in situ, lifted by Schumacher and brought to Berlin. Kraeling notes that the

14

Achim Lichtenberger and Rubina Raja

Figure 2.5. Map of Palestine, made by Paulus. Gerasa is here seen north-east of the Sea of Galilee (Heidelberg Uni­ver­sity Library — H. E. G. Paulus: Sammlung der merkwürdigsten Reisen in den Orient: In Uebersetzungen und Auszügen mit ausgewälten Kupfern und Charten, auch mit den nöthigen Einleitungen, Anmerkungen und Kollektiven Registern, i: Mit Anmerkungen eines Naturforschers und der verbesserten D’Anvilleschen Charte von Palästina ( Jena, 1792), CC BY-SA 3.0 ).

2. Late Hellenistic and Roman Antiochia on the Chrysorrhoas, also Called Gerasa

15

Figure 2.6. View of the partly restored Ottoman House in Suf (Danish-German Jerash Northwest Quarter Project).

According to the publication edited by Kraeling the mosaic had been seen in situ by Carl Watzinger, who reported it in the Jahrbuch des Deutschen Archäo­logischen Instituts in 1919, but it was excavated and taken to Berlin by Schumacher and is to this day on display in the Pergamon Museum in Berlin.24 This mosaic, of which other fragments have dispersed into collections, mainly in the USA, stems from a domestic context in Gerasa and according to Kraeling dates to the third century ad, but may, judging by the shape of the letters, have been made on the basis of much earlier (Hellenistic) models, which is not surprising (Figs 2.9–10).25 The mosaic depicts Dionysian scenes as well as personifications, among other things of the seasons. It is likely to have been located in a banqueting room, triclinium, and is a fine specimen of the high quality of work which also mosaic was found under the then mudir’s house on the eastern side of the wadi. For the location of the house of the mudir, see Schumacher 1902 for a plan of the city (Fig. 2.10). Watzinger was, according to Stinespring, the first to have seen the mosaic and recommended to the museum that it should be acquired. See Schröder 1919, 117–18 for the entry on the objects as being incorporated into the collection in Berlin. See Welles 1938, 458–59 for the inscriptions on the mosaic. See also Stinespring 1938, 3 as well as n. 7. 24  For publications on various parts of the mosaic excavated between 1907 and 1935, see ‘Acquisitions 2004’ 2005, 153; Biebel 1938, 351–52; Brody and Hoffman 2011, 370 and 372, pls 69 and 71; Grossmann 2006, fig. 3; Joyce 1980a; 1980b; Kondoleon 1995, 215–17; Piccirillo 1986, 107; 1993, 282–83; Talgam and Weiss 2003; von Boeselager 1995; Welles 1938, 458–59. 25  Biebel 1938, 351–52.

was done at the site at this period in time. Nothing similar has been found since then, although the churches of course display many mosaics, but of a much later date and of lower quality. However, this situation might well pertain to the fact that not much archaeo­logical research has been done on the private houses of Gerasa in general and that many houses seem to have been situated on the eastern side of the riverbank, as is indicated on early maps of the city.26 Archaeo­logy at Gerasa after World War I: A Flourishing Period for Urban Archaeo­logy World War I put a stop to all archaeo­logical activities in the region, although according to Stinespring, members from the French École Biblique in Jerusalem visited Gerasa once in a while in this period.27 When the British Mandate was implemented in the region coinciding for obvious reasons with the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire, archaeo­logical undertakings at Gerasa were promptly reactivated and Garstang was appointed to reopen the site and undersee repairs of the monuments. He ensured that one of his pupils, George Horsfield, moved to Jerash in April 1925 and took charge of the

26  See for example the maps by Burckhardt (Burckhardt 1822; Raja (forthcoming )) and Bankes (Boyer 2016b; Seigne (forth­ coming)). 27  Stinespring 1938, 3.

Achim Lichtenberger and Rubina Raja

16 Figure 2.7. Side view plan of the Artemision with the Laokoon group (Deutsches Archäo­logisches Institut Berlin, Archiv der Zentrale, Nachlass Daniel Krencker, Kasten 5, Blaue Nr. 64).

Figure 2.8. Detail of the Roman mosaic excavated in 1907, with bust of the personification of summer (Theros), Berlin, Antikensammlung, Inv. No. Mos. 73 (© bkp / Antikensammlung, SMB).

2. Late Hellenistic and Roman Antiochia on the Chrysorrhoas, also Called Gerasa

Figure 2.9. Plan of the reconstructed mosaic from a domestic setting in Gerasa excavated in 1907 (Yale Uni­ver­sity Art Gallery, illustration by Richard Grossman (see Grossmann 2006, fig. 1)).

17

18

Achim Lichtenberger and Rubina Raja

Figure 2.10. Map of Gerasa with the mudir’s house marked, made by Schumacher (from Schumacher 1902, Taf. 6).

2. Late Hellenistic and Roman Antiochia on the Chrysorrhoas, also Called Gerasa

19

Figure 2.11. Drawing of the church mosaic by Dorothy Hodgkin (Yale Uni­ver­sity Art Gallery. Gerasa Archives).

work.28 The work done in the period 1925–28 focused on repairs of monuments and laying out modern infrastructure at the site in order to reach the various parts of the ancient city that otherwise had only been reachable on foot and therefore hampered any larger archaeo­ logical works in being carried out.29 The excavations, initially jointly by Yale Uni­ver­sity and the British School of Archaeo­logy in Jerusalem (1928–30) and thereaf28   Stinespring

1938, 3 and n.  9. Horsfield, as Stinespring indicates, did not publish much himself, but he gave his diary to the Kraeling team for them to write the history of excavation chapter in Kraeling 1938b, 27–69. 29  Citation by Horsfield in Stinespring 1938, 3.

ter between Yale Uni­ver­sity and the American School (1930–34), went on for six years. In the first years under the field direction of J. W. Crowfoot the focus was on the churches of Gerasa,30 and only from 1930 onward did the focus turn firstly to the Sanctuary of Artemis, an immense undertaking, and thereafter to other parts of the ancient city.31 When looking through the records of the early twentieth century, it seems that archaeo­logy in Gerasa was 30  Brenk, Jäggi, and Meier 1995; 1996; 1998; Crowfoot 1929; Moralee 2006; Raja 2015. 31  For further references to the earlier preliminary reports of the joint mission: Stinespring 1938, 5–10.

Achim Lichtenberger and Rubina Raja

20 undertaken to an extent which has not been acknowledged fully by later scholarship until now. Here again the footnotes in Kraeling’s now more than eighty-yearold publication are helpful and a treasure of information with references to earlier publications on finds at the site. The overview of the history of excavations by Stinespring remains an important source of information on the early archaeo­logical work at the site as well, also before the period of the Yale Uni­ver­sity joint expedition. Although it often is said that the publication edited by Kraeling is outdated, it in fact remains a crucial source for information about the period before the 1928–34 excavations. We find systematized archaeo­log y at Gerasa in the period shortly after the region became part of the British Mandate after the First World War.32 In 1928, a team of archaeo­l ogists, epi­g raphers, and historians took up archaeo­logical fieldwork in Gerasa. This mission, which was a joint mission between Yale Uni­ ver­sity and the British School in Jerusalem under the direction of John Winter Crowfoot, would over the next decade and beyond undertake what still remains an impressive amount of archaeo­logical research at the site, much of which to this day remains valid interpretation-wise.33 While the Yale-British mission undertook excavations in various parts of the city, they mainly focused on the western side of the River Chrysorrhoas, the modern Wadi Jerash. They focused their work mainly on the monumental complexes in the ancient city as well as the numerous churches (Fig. 2.11). Already at this point in 32 

For archaeo­logical research in the region and the impact of the mandate-period, see Raja 2017b as well as Raja 2019 — although focusing on Syria, which was under the French mandate, the considerations are relevant for Gerasa as well. 33   Crowfoot 1938. It was Crowfoot who published the churches of Gerasa in the volume edited by Kraeling, and it was his talented daughter Dorothy who did some of the drawings of the mosaics, now in the Yale Uni­ver­sity Art Gallery Archive. Dorothy Hodgkin, her married name, went on to study chemistry at the Uni­ver­sity of Oxford and became the first female Nobel Prize winner in chemistry. She was also the first to introduce geochemical analyses applied to archaeo­logical material from Gerasa, since she undertook chemical analysis of glass tesserae in order to study the provenance of the glass back at the Uni­ver­sity of Oxford. There are vivid descriptions of her struggle with these analyses — not unlike the pains which modern scholars undergo when working with such (although much more refined) methods today. See [accessed 1 November 2019]. Also see the bio­g raphy of Dorothy Crowfoot Hodgkin by Georgina Ferry: Ferry 1998.

time modern settlement, which accelerated with the settling of the Circassian population in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, was spreading over larger parts of the eastern side of the wadi (Figs 2.12–13).34 The modern settlement has in turn meant that Gerasa has not been explored to any great extent on the eastern bank, apart from remains of churches, the Romanperiod remains around the spring (which today is part of the waterworks station of modern Jerash, Ain Karawan), as well as the architectural remains of the large so-called East Baths currently undergoing new investigations (Figs 2.14–15).35 Even the city walls on the eastern side of the wadi have not been properly surveyed since the time of Kraeling’s publication. Post-World War II Archaeo­logy at Gerasa and the DoA–UNESCO Joint Jerash Archaeo­logical Project The period between the two world wars was one in which intense archaeo­logical investigations, conducted by American and European as well as Russian missions, took place across the Near East. Such work came to a halt with growing political instability spreading worldwide and in turn leading to World War II, and for a long time, archaeo­logy in the Near East came to an almost complete halt. Not much archaeo­logy was undertaken at the site until the large-scale archaeo­logical investigations within the framework of Jerash Archaeo­logical Project, which was an international initiative headed by the Department of Antiquities of Jordan (DoA) and UNESCO, and which involved numerous international teams, who all worked on assigned parts and monuments in Jerash. The results of the various subprojects were published in a set of articles in 1986 and 1989, respectively.36 After the Jerash Archaeo­logical Project ended, several of 34 

Stinespring 1938, 1–3. 2008; Lepaon, Turshan, and Weber-Karyotakis 2018; Lichtenberger and Raja 2016a. 36  Zayadine 1986a; 1986b. As well as volume 66 (1989) in the journal Syria, which was dedicated to articles relating to the Jerash Archaeo­logical Project. For such extensive and important projects undertaken at such a crucial site, it is surprising to note that no final reports have been produced, apart from the publication of the ceramics only in Spanish of the so-called macellum: Uscatescu 1996. The final report of the architecture has not been published, but a summary of the results was given in: Uscatescu and Martín-Bueno 1997. While the articles in Jerash Archaeo­logical Project and Syria 66 certainly give information about the various undertakings, they cannot be called final reports. 35   Lepaon

2. Late Hellenistic and Roman Antiochia on the Chrysorrhoas, also Called Gerasa

21

Figure 2.12. Bonfils’s photo­graph of the Circassian settlement on the eastern bank of the wadi (courtesy of Special Collections, Fine Arts Library, Harvard Uni­ver­sity).

the missions which had been working there as part of the project continued their archaeo­logical activities in Jerash, and some remain active to this day.37 While much archaeo­logical research has been undertaken at the site, most has been driven by either a particular interest in a certain period or focus on specific monuments.38 Not many areas have been explored with a view to covering all the periods yielded in the rich archaeo­logical record. 37   See Lichtenberger and Raja 2018a for a string of these missions’ work over the last decades (as well as the extensive biblio­g raphy). Among these, the Italian and French missions both represented in the volume should be mentioned: Gatier 2018; Brizzi 2018; Baldoni 2018; Parapetti 2018; Seigne 2018. 38  See for example: the Danish-Jordanian Islamic Jarash Project, directed by Alan Walmsley [accessed 1 November 2019]. See also Blanke 2018; Blanke, Lorien, and Rattenborg 2010; Walmsley 2018, or the work by the French mission on the Sanctuary of Zeus or the Italian mission on the Sanctuary of Artemis: Brizzi 2018; Brizzi, Sepio, and Baldoni 2010; Lepaon, Turshan, and Weber-Karyotakis 2018; Parapetti 2002; 2018; Seigne 1989a; 1989b; 1993.

Within the framework of the recently completed Danish-German Jerash Northwest Quarter Project (2011–17), a different approach was implemented. The focus in this project has been on documenting all periods encountered in the archaeo­logical record in an attempt to contextualize the Northwest Quarter within the broader archaeo­logical and historical framework of the site, its surroundings, and the wider regional context. This has led to numerous publications on all periods as well as a number of international conferences and workshops focusing on a variety of material and historically defined periods.39

39 

See and [accessed 1 November 2019] for full lists of publications as well as listings of the activities hosted with this Danish-German collaboration project. See Lichtenberger and Raja 2017a for a book which gives brief overviews of the numerous ongoing and finished subprojects within the larger project.

22

Achim Lichtenberger and Rubina Raja

Figure 2.13. Aerial view, showing the extent of the Circassian settlement in 1918 (photo: Gustaf-Dalman-Institut Greifswald).

2. Late Hellenistic and Roman Antiochia on the Chrysorrhoas, also Called Gerasa

Figure 2.14. Stepped podium at the Ain Karawan spring (Danish-German Jerash Northwest Quarter Project).

Figure 2.15. View of the East Baths (Danish-German Jerash Northwest Quarter Project).

23

Achim Lichtenberger and Rubina Raja

24

Figure 2.16. View of the Temple of Artemis (Danish-German Jerash Northwest Quarter Project).

The Late Hellenistic and Roman Periods in Gerasa Seen from the Archaeo­logy: A Status Quo from Schumacher to 110 Years of Excavations40 While a complete overview of all archaeo­logical remains pertaining to the Late Hellenistic and Roman periods in Gerasa will not be given here, the general developments of this period will be outlined in order to contextualize and evaluate the newest findings from the Northwest Quarter in the city, which will be discussed below.41 In an article published in the American Journal of Archaeo­ logy in 2015, we presented the finds dating to the Roman 40  This refers to the name of the conference organized by the authors and held at the Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters in Copen­hagen in March 2017 and published in 2018: Lichtenberger and Raja 2018a. However, now that we know that the mosaic in fact had been excavated already in 1902, the title is somewhat misleading — there had already been 115 years of documented excavations going on at Gerasa by 2017. 41   For the general agreed conclusions about the urban development of the site from the Late Hellenistic period until the Early Islamic times, see Lichtenberger 2003, 191–243; Kennedy 2007; Raja 2012, 137–89, as well as Andrade 2013, 160–69. See also Lichtenberger and Raja 2015a for a comprehensive survey of the developments of the Roman period.

period from the Northwest Quarter in Gerasa. However, in the light of the findings made after this article was published, it is now necessary to present new material and elaborate on conclusions made in our 2015 article. Furthermore, we need to make some broader observations and remarks on the significance of these new finds and their implications for our understanding of the Late Hellenistic and Roman periods in Gerasa in general.42 For most parts in other excavations dealing with the Late Hellenistic and Roman periods in Gerasa the emphasis has been on the monumental architectural complexes of the city: the sanctuaries of Artemis and Zeus Olympios, the bath complexes, the public spaces and monu42 

Lichtenberger and Raja 2015a: Our main findings dating to the Roman period included: quarry activity (488); the large cistern on the southern slope of the Northwest Quarter (488–90); a monumental architectural block with altar icono­graphy (490–93); and two pieces of locally produced sculpture, most likely both representing the city’s main goddess Artemis (493–94). See also these sections for further references to the single finds.

2. Late Hellenistic and Roman Antiochia on the Chrysorrhoas, also Called Gerasa

Figure 2.17. View up through the Propylaeum (Danish-German Jerash Northwest Quarter Project).

Figure 2.18. View of the Temple of Zeus (Danish-German Jerash Northwest Quarter Project).

25

Achim Lichtenberger and Rubina Raja

26

Figure 2.19. View of the West Baths (Danish-German Jerash Northwest Quarter Project).

Figure 2.20. View of the North Theatre (Danish-German Jerash Northwest Quarter Project).

ments, such as the main streets, the Nymphaion, the so-called macellum, the two theatres, and the city walls (Figs 2.16–21).43 43  See the publications by Seigne already cited in this article as well as the collection of articles in Zayadine 1986a and in Syria 66 (1989). Also see the new work done by Lepaon on the East Baths: Lepaon, Turshan, and Weber-Karyotakis 2018, and see Kehrberg-Ostrasz and Manley 2019 for the City Walls Project. See Lichtenberger and Raja 2018a for a collection of articles which give updated biblio­graphies for the Italian excavations of the Sanctuary of Artemis as well as a string of other ongoing archaeo­logical projects in Gerasa.

Not much has been said about the non-monumental complexes of these periods, mostly because such have either not been recognized, found, or investigated.44 Late Hellenistic phases in the Sanctuary of Zeus have 44 

Kehrberg did publish a Hellenistic grave found under the city wall, which she uses as a reason for dating the city wall to the Hellenistic period. Kehrberg-Ostrasz 2004; 2006; 2018; KehrbergOstrasz and Manley 2019, chapter 1, 7–8. The date of the grave is based on the identification of a coin laying at the feet of the deceased, which dates to the late second century bc and therefore constitutes a terminus post quem.

2. Late Hellenistic and Roman Antiochia on the Chrysorrhoas, also Called Gerasa

27

Figure 2.21. View of the partly reconstructed Nymphaion on the main street (Cardo) (DanishGerman Jerash Northwest Quarter Project).

Figure 2.22. View of the northern part of the main street (Cardo) (Danish-German Jerash Northwest Quarter Project).

Achim Lichtenberger and Rubina Raja

28

Figure 2.23. View of the North Decumanus in the direction of the Northwest Quarter (Danish-German Jerash Northwest Quarter Project).

been found as well as evidence on the so-called Camp Hill, where the new museum of the site is located and which originally got its name from the fact that it served as the area where Kraeling’s team set up their lodging while campaigning in Gerasa in the 1920s and 30s.45 The overall development of the urban core of Romanperiod Gerasa, which really took off in the first century ad, seems to have developed around the area of the 1.2 kmlong main street running almost straight north–south through the city from the Sanctuary of Zeus Olympios to the North Gate in the city wall. 46 From the main street, two intersecting side streets branched off to both sides (Fig. 2.22). On their eastern sides, they would have run to the ancient bridges, now lost, and to the west they 45  See all the publications by Seigne mentioned above about the Sanctuary of Zeus. More recently see Raja 2013; Raja 2017a for comprehensive overviews of the work done and published by the French team on the work undertaken on the Sanctuary of Zeus. 46  See Raja 2013 for considerations on the development of the area around the Sanctuary of Zeus Olympios, also for further literature.

ran towards the city gates. It is now clear that the northernmost side street, the so-called North Decumanus, did not extend to the western city wall and the supposed collapsed city gate (Fig. 2.23). This has been confirmed by a set of trenches excavated by the Danish-German Jerash Northwest Quarter Project (Fig. 2.24).47 The first three centuries ad yield a lot of information, both archaeo­logical and epi­graphic, about large building projects undertaken in the city. These naturally included the extension of water supply and management installations, which were crucial to urban life.48 Additionally, 47 

Trenches G (excavated 2013), I, M (both excavated 2014), and R (excavated 2015). See the preliminary reports published in Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan: Trench G: Kalaitzoglou, Lichtenberger, and Raja 2014; Lichtenberger, Raja, and Sørensen 2014. Trench I and M: Kalaitzoglou, Lichtenberger, and Raja 2015; Lichtenberger, Raja, and Sørensen 2015. Trench R: Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming b). Furthermore, see Lichtenberger and Raja 2015a, 495–96. 48   See most recently the intriguing and well-documented work done by Boyer 2016a; 2018. Furthermore, see Lepaon 2008;

2. Late Hellenistic and Roman Antiochia on the Chrysorrhoas, also Called Gerasa

29

Figure 2.24. Plan of the Northwest Quarter survey area with all excavated trenches marked (Danish-German Jerash Northwest Quarter Project).

the Sanctuary of Zeus was further developed, as were the surroundings. The two theatres were constructed.49 In the second century ad, the monumental Sanctuary of Artemis was constructed, and until recently it was thought to have been constructed ex nihilo in that space; now, however, Brizzi assumes that there might be remains which could be earlier.50 Across from the North Theatre, a large public square was laid out including a basilica situated directly across from the theatre. Yet neither the basilica, which has been excavated by the French mission, nor the square, which has not been investigated in detail, have been published. Lichtenberger and others 2015; Lichtenberger and Raja 2016a; Seigne 2004; 2008. 49  Clark, Bowsher, and Stewart 1986; Schaefer and Falkner 1986. Fischer 1938, 19–20 for a description of the site. Also: Raja 2012, 184 for further references. 50  Brizzi 2018.

The eastern side of the city does seem to have been the area in which most of the large public undertakings were located, apart from the monumental East Baths on the eastern side mentioned above and some churches. It is therefore reasonable to assume, as the excavations of the mosaic in 1907 also indicate as well as some of the early maps of the site, that private dwellings were located on the eastern side of the wadi, which in Antiquity was spanned by at least five bridges (Fig. 2.25).51 It is now commonly assumed that the city walls date to the early second century ad.52 It seems that some of the open space 51 

Lichtenberger and Raja 2016a. Also see Lichtenberger and Raja 2015a, 485 for a full overview of the literature pro and con a second-century date. Furthermore, see the evidence presented in: Kehrberg-Ostrasz and Manley 2019. The evidence in general points to an early second-century date. While this seems very likely, it is difficult to assert the preciseness of the dating Kehrberg gives, since the hard evidence, such as the ceramics 52 

Achim Lichtenberger and Rubina Raja

30 Figure 2.25. Remains of the ancient bridge by the Sanctuary of Artemis Propylaea (Danish-German Jerash Northwest Quarter Project).

within the walled city was never occupied and much of the site remains unexplored, firstly due to modern developments on the eastern bank of the wadi and secondly because few archaeo­logical projects have explored areas outside the central urban core.53 Small finds from the Hellenistic and Early Roman periods do exist, but they are scarce. This might be due to a number of factors. Already noted, by for example Bellinger, is the fact that at a big site with largely unexplored areas, the material evidence from a specific area might be very circumstantial and therefore not suitable for making broad generalizations about the overall state and development of the site.54 As mentioned, a Hellenistic-period tomb was excavated under the direction of Ina Kehrberg and the inventory, which today is partly on display in the museum on the site, clearly shows that objects of a wide variety were available in Gerasa in the Late Hellenistic period.55 Members of the and coins and other materials are not presented in the report, only referred to. 53  See Lichtenberger and Raja 2017a. 54   Bellinger 1938a, 497 on the coins from the excavations of which there were 1484 identifiable specimens, published in Bellinger 1938b. See also Lichtenberger and Raja (‘Roman City Coins’) in this volume on the find coins from the Danish-German Jerash Northwest Quarter Project. 55   Kehrberg-Ostrasz and Manley 2019, 56–122 as well as related illustrations. Preliminary reports: Kehrberg-Ostrasz and Manley 2001; 2002; 2003.

French mission in Gerasa have also contributed to this volume, discussing amphorae with stamps dating them to the Hellenistic period found during the excavations of the Sanctuary of Zeus.56 Rhodian amphora stamps are also mentioned in the publication edited by Kraeling from 1938.57 Yet a very low number of Hellenistic coins were found in the excavations.58 While it can be concluded on the basis of the evidence available to us that material from the Hellenistic period remains scarce in the archaeo­logical record, it must also be considered that the intensive use and reuse of the city’s various areas and of its urban materials in general, including building materials and materials that objects were made of, metal, glass, and pottery for example, over centuries will have had an immense impact on the way in which we today face an archaeo­logical record full of lacunae.59 The archaeo­logical situation in Gerasa opens many questions about the ways in which we must try to reconstruct the earlier periods on the basis of little, but 56 

Duplessis and Di Napoli in this volume. See Duplessis and Di Napoli in this volume and Kraeling 1938b, 31. 58  See on the coin evidence the contribution by the authors in this volume. 59  See for example the recent publications from the DanishGerman Jerash Northwest Quarter Project: Barfod 2017; Barfod and others 2018, in which glass analyses showing heavy reuse of earlier Roman-period glasses in the Late Roman period would have led to Roman glass ‘disappearing’ in the archaeo­logical record. 57 

2. Late Hellenistic and Roman Antiochia on the Chrysorrhoas, also Called Gerasa indisputable, evidence from the earlier periods. This is a methodo­logical question, which needs to be addressed in more detail in the future in comparison with other urban sites where we also know that the Hellenistic and Early Roman periods must have existed, and where archaeo­logy and intense development over time have left us with virtually no hard evidence.

The Danish-German Jerash Northwest Quarter Project (2011–17): A New Archaeo­logical Approach Since 2011, a Danish-German team has been investigating the so-called Northwest Quarter located on the highest point within the walled city.60 This area covers about 4 ha and was virtually not investigated when the project was begun, apart from the two-week-long excavation by Kraeling’s team in 1928 of what was known until recently as the Synagogue-Church, as well as two test trenches laid out in the 1980s by an American-British team.61 The area was surveyed, both geodetically as well as geophysically in 2011, and the results published in preliminary reports in the Annual of the Department of Antiquities in Jordan as well as in the Antiquity Project Gallery.62 The results of the survey campaign showed that the entire area was densely covered with heavily weathered structures made of the local limestone. However, it was impossible on the basis of the surveys to say anything about the general chrono­logy of these structures. The following five excavation campaigns in the years 2012–16 focused on clarifying a string of research questions related to better understanding the overall development of the area from the earliest periods until the modern period.63 The material dating to the period 60 

For the preliminary reports of the project, see Lichtenberger and Raja 2012; Lichtenberger, Raja, and Sørensen 2013; 2014; 2015; Kalaitzoglou, Lichtenberger, and Raja 2013; 2014; 2015; Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming a); (forthcoming b). 61  On the Synagogue-Church, see Crowfoot 1938, in particular for the Synagogue-Church 234–39; Crowfoot and Hamilton 1929. See also: Schumacher 1902, 121, pl. 6 for a description of some of the remains in the area. For the test trenches, see Clark and Bowsher 1986. 62  Kalaitzoglou and others 2012; Lichtenberger and Raja 2012; 2019b; Lichtenberger, Raja, and Stott 2019. 63  There is a small building dating to the Circassian period on the North Slope of the Northwest Quarter. While this has not been excavated, it has been marked on the plans produced by the project. Trench A: Kalaitzoglou, Lichtenberger, and Raja 2013, 58–63; Lichtenberger, Raja, and Sørensen 2013, 10–12. Trench B: Kalaitzoglou, Lichtenberger, and Raja 2013, 63–68; Lichtenberger, Raja, and Sørensen 2013, 12–13. Trench C: Kalaitzoglou,

31

from the third century ad until ad 749 was overwhelming.64 The Problem of the Ceramics at Gerasa In particular, the ceramic finds were rich, as they also are in other excavations at the site. Over a period of five excavation campaigns, about eight hundred thousand sherds were excavated, registered, and processed.65 Full quantification of the ceramic finds was performed and it can be shown that locally produced wares were overwhelming in quantity, while imports only amount to approximately 1 per cent of the entire find material across the full chrono­logical span of almost eight hundred years.66 Gerasa seems to have been, including in the Roman period, specialized in producing large quantities of pottery with a range extending over the types that were needed to cover all needs within the group of table and cooking wares. Only in the later Roman period was the locally produced fine ware, the so-called Jerash Bowl, introduced.67 However, the Late Hellenistic and Lichtenberger, and Raja 2013, 68–75; Lichtenberger, Raja, and Sørensen 2013, 13. Trench D: Kalaitzoglou, Lichtenberger, and Raja 2014, 13–17; Lichtenberger, Raja, and Sørensen 2014, 40–42. Trench E: Kalaitzoglou, Lichtenberger, and Raja 2014, 17–22; Lichtenberger, Raja, and Sørensen 2014, 42–43. Trench F: Kalaitzoglou, Lichtenberger, and Raja 2014, 22–29; Lichtenberger, Raja, and Sørensen 2014, 43. Trench G: Kalaitzoglou, Lichtenberger, and Raja 2014, 29–32; Lichtenberger, Raja, and Sørensen 2014, 43–44. Trench H: Kalaitzoglou, Lichtenberger, and Raja 2014, 32–35; Lichtenberger, Raja, and Sørensen 2014, 44. Trench I: Kalaitzoglou, Lichtenberger, and Raja 2015, 15–19; Lichtenberger, Raja, and Sørensen 2015, 46. Trench J: Kalaitzoglou, Lichtenberger, and Raja 2015, 19–26; Lichtenberger, Raja, and Sørensen 2015, 46–48. Trench K: Kalaitzoglou, Lichtenberger, and Raja 2015, 26–31; Lichtenberger, Raja, and Sørensen 2015, 48–49. Trench L: Kalaitzoglou, Lichtenberger, and Raja 2015, 31–37; Lichtenberger, Raja, and Sørensen 2015, 49. Trench M: Kalaitzoglou, Lichtenberger, and Raja 2015, 37–42; Lichtenberger, Raja, and Sørensen 2015, 49. Trench N–R: Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming a). Trench S–W: Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming b). 64  See the volume Lichtenberger and Raja 2019a for contri­ butions relating to the finds (the contributions by Lichtenberger and Raja). See the other contributions for excavations and finds by other missions. 65  See Romanowska and others 2018. 66  Romanowska and others 2018. See also the two volumes: Lichtenberger and Raja 2018b; 2019a, which largely consist of contributions that deal with the various ceramic groups from the site and its surrounding cities. Also see Bes and others in this volume. 67  Csitneki 2016; 2017 as well as Watson 2018 for further references.

32

Figure 2.26. Fragment of a Jewish purity limestone vessel found in trench H (Danish-German Jerash Northwest Quarter Project).

Achim Lichtenberger and Rubina Raja

Figure 2.27. Sherd from the base of a black glazed bowl or plate. Hellenistic, late second to early first centuries bc (Danish-German Jerash Northwest Quarter Project).

Roman-period material was fairly scarce. A few significant finds should be mentioned. The first, although not of clay, is an Early Roman limestone vessel with broad straight chisel traces along the body on the outside (Fig. 2.26). This was found out of its original context and belonged to a so-called purity vessel. Such vessels are characterized as belonging to Jewish populations and have rarely been found in the Decapolis, an exception being Tell Zira’a close to Gadara/Umm Qais.68 Such a vessel is likely to have belonged to the period pre-ad 70.69 Another find, also out of original context, is a fragment of a Hellenistic Black Glazed vessel (Fig. 2.27).70 The fragment was found in an inverted strati­g raphic sequence in trench H, which was located on the north slope of the hill and it is likely that it had eroded down the hill. These finds, although both found in secondary contexts, do testify to activity in these periods somewhere in Gerasa, if not in the Northwest Quarter itself. A few pieces of imported Terra Sigillata were also found in mixed fill layers testifying to Roman-period activity (Fig. 2.28).71

68  Lichtenberger and Raja 2015a, 494–95, as well as Vieweger 2003, 214; Vieweger and Häser 2015. 69  Deines 1993; Gibson 2003; Magen 2002; Magness 2011. 70  Lichtenberger, Raja, and Sørensen 2014, 46 and 51, cat. no. 2 ( J13-Ha-Ha1-13-31). 71  Lichtenberger, Raja, and Sørensen 2013, 10, 14, and 17, cat. no. 2; 2014, 42, 46, and 51–52, cat. nos 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8; 2015, 68, cat. no. 1; Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming a), cat. nos 37, 40, 41, 42, 43, and 44.

Figure 2.28. Sherd of an African Red Slip plate, Late Roman period (Danish-German Jerash Northwest Quarter Project).

It is important to mention that typo­logies of the local pottery types are not yet refined to an extent that we can tell the difference between for example a first-century ad vessel and a second-century ad vessel that was produced at the site. Until now, not enough well-dated

2. Late Hellenistic and Roman Antiochia on the Chrysorrhoas, also Called Gerasa

33

able insight into crucial developments of Early Islamic pottery at the site, they do little to help us further our understanding of the Late Hellenistic and Roman periods.73 It is remarkable how much pottery, much of which seems pristine or very little used, was used in fill layers in the Late Roman period. One must ask where such ceramics came from and who would have had the right to use it as fill in building projects, as well as who would have been in charge of the organization of such amounts of ceramic dump. These immense amounts clearly show that some sort of organization must have been behind these enterprises and it is expected that a better understanding of Late Roman urban organization may come out of the final analysis of these fill layers. Quarry Marks Quarry marks were found in almost every trench in the Northwest Quarter, which was excavated to the bedrock.74 They clearly indicate that the area had been used as a quarry site for a period of time. There are no indications which can tell us when exactly quarry activity began. However, such activity within the Roman-period city walls is not Figure 2.29. Sketch of the cistern on the south slope of the Northwest Quarter from the restricted to the Northwest Quarter. Also, in Yale Uni­ver­sity Art Gallery Archive (Yale Uni­ver­sity Art Gallery. Gerasa Archives). the city wall excavations of Kehrberg, such traces have been found indicating that quarry activity pottery assemblages in Gerasa have been published for seems to have been widespread across the site.75 This is establishing a typo­logy. This greatly hampers the understanding of ceramic development and also of the chrono­ logy in general. Furthermore, local pottery shapes do 73  See Lichtenberger and others 2016; Lichtenberger and Raja not seem to have developed much typo­logically over the 2017b, for publications related to the parts of Early Islamic houses centuries and the pace of the small differences in types excavated by the project. Also see Lichtenberger and Raja 2017b; and shapes are difficult to pin down.72 One further prob2019a; 2019b; 2019c. lem with the ceramics from the Danish-German Jerash 74   For quarry marks, see Kalaitzoglou, Lichtenberger, and Northwest Quarter Project is that almost all pottery was Raja 2013, 58 (Trench A) and 69–70 (Trench C); Kalaitzoglou, Lichtenberger, and Raja 2014, 13–14 (Trench D), 18 (Trench E), found in secondary fill layer contexts. Only seldom were and 25 (Trench F); Kalaitzoglou, Lichtenberger, and Raja 2015, vessels found in primary contexts and when they were, 20–22 (Trench J) and 28 (Trench K); Kalaitzoglou and others these contexts dated to the Early Islamic period. While (forthcoming a), Trenches O and Q; Kalaitzoglou and others these earthquake-destroyed trenches have yielded valu(forthcoming b), Trenches U, V, W, and X. 72 

See Csitneki 2016; 2017; Kristensen 2017; Möller 2017. The cited publications are preliminary results of some of the analysis of the different pottery types from the excavations (2012–16). A catalogue of the ceramic will be presented by Heike Möller in due course.

75 

Kehrberg-Ostrasz and Manley 2019, 63 and 126. Kehrberg also speaks about the entire area of western Gerasa as having been used as a quarry site and for tombs before the Roman-period developments. Whether or not this in fact is a theory that holds up remains to be shown. At least extensive quarrying activity seems to have been in place at an early point in time, which predates first-

Achim Lichtenberger and Rubina Raja

34

Figure 2.30. Sampling the bands of mortar lining the cistern (Danish-German Jerash Northwest Quarter Project).

Figure 2.31. Drone photo of sediment basin on the terrace above cistern on the south slope (Danish-German Jerash Northwest Quarter Project).

not surprising, since the bedrock in many places is visible or lies not too far beneath the soil. Limestone could therefore easily have been quarried close to the place where it was needed. If transportation could be kept to a minimum, time and resources were optimized, and century ad developments (see below for the cistern on the south slope in the Northwest Quarter as well as the complex in trenches A and S).

in a period in which it seems that intense activity was going on, this would have mattered in the larger picture. Although we cannot date the quarry activity, it must stem to the period before or be contemporary with the first building activities in the Northwest Quarter, which now can be said to belong to at least the Early Roman period.76 76 

See below for trenches A, S, and F.

2. Late Hellenistic and Roman Antiochia on the Chrysorrhoas, also Called Gerasa

35

Figure 2.32. View of the city wall (Danish-German Jerash Northwest Quarter Project).

The Cistern on the South Slope The largest cistern to date discovered in Gerasa remains the one on the southern slope of the Northwest Quarter. 77 It was already drawn by Kraeling’s team in 1930 (Fig.  2.29). Between 2012 and 2016 various trenches related to this massive, almost 41 m by 18 m cistern were investigated in order to get closer to the chrono­logy of it. The cistern was cut into the bedrock and had several phases, which could be distinguished through archaeo­logical investigations. The main phase was when the cistern functioned as a water reservoir.78 77  For the cistern, see Kalaitzoglou, Lichtenberger, and Raja 2014, 22–29 (Trench F); 2015, 31–37 (Trench L); Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming a), Trench O; (forthcoming b), Trench X. See also Lichtenberger and others 2015. A PhD thesis was completed by Kristine Thomsen at Centre for Urban Network Evolutions, Aarhus Uni­ver­sity, on the geochemical features of mortars from a range of trenches in the excavation, see Thomsen 2019. Thomas Daubjerg, Centre for Urban Network Evolutions and the Aarhus AMS Centre, Aarhus Uni­ver­sity, is currently undertaking a PhD project on the optimization of dating methods for mortar, in particular hydraulic mortars. 78  Lichtenberger and others 2015, 125 for datings of all phases: 1: second/third century ad — in use as a water reservoir; 2a: third/ sixth century ad — repair phases in the cistern; 2b: fifth/sixth century ad — last repair of the complex as a cistern; 3: fifth/sixth century ad (after phase 2b) — used for habitation; 4: sixth/seventh century ad — the complex was entirely backfilled.

This phase had several subphases. After the parts of the eastern end of the cistern had collapsed over a natural lacuna in the limestone, the lacuna was used as a cistern and the cistern space was used for habitation and production spaces. In a third phase the entire complex was completely filled in. Already in 2014, a thorough study was done on the various thick hydraulic mortar layers found in the cistern and these analyses showed that the earliest phases of the cistern dated to at least the second century ad, if not earlier (Fig. 2.30).79 Such a date was confirmed through the later trenches in which the settling basin directly north of the cistern on the higher terrace was found (Fig. 2.31). The mortar in this basin was of high quality, not encountered before in the Northwest Quarter. It is still not clear how water would have left the cistern, since no outlets have been found. The Conundrum of Gerasa’s City Walls In 2015 trench Q, which was laid out on both the internal and external side of the city wall, was excavated (Figs 2.32–33). This trench was excavated to down below the foundations in order to get closer to obtaining a date for the foundations.80 This proved difficult since most 79  80 

Lichtenberger and others 2015, 125. For trench Q, see Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming a).

Achim Lichtenberger and Rubina Raja

36

Figure 2.33. Photogrammetric view of the inner side of the city wall in trench Q excavated in 2015 (Danish-German Jerash Northwest Quarter Project).

sherds were unidentifiable. However, the identifiable finds pointed unambiguously to a Roman date. When held together with the 14C dates from the trench, such a date fits. It is highly likely that the city wall foundations were laid out in the second century ad, around the middle of the century.81 This coincides with the dates which have been obtained by the Jarash City Wall Project.82 81  Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming a): pl. 3.19, cat. no. 19 ( J15-Rbd-31-7), pl. 3.20, cat. no. 20 ( J15- Ok-47-5), pl. 3.21, cat. no. 21 ( J15-Qac-45-10), pl. 5.37, cat. no. 37 ( J15-Qh-3-7), pl. 5.43, cat. no. 43 ( J15-Qac-40-7), pl. 17.99, cat. no. 99 ( J15-Q-44-88). 82  Final report: Kehrberg-Ostrasz and Manley 2019. See also Kehrberg-Ostrasz and Manley 2001; 2002; 2003.

Trenches N, J, and S In the trenches laid out more centrally in the Northwest Quarter (trenches J and N), Roman-period finds in secondary contexts also came to light.83 In trench J, a fragmented piece of limestone was found with parts of letters incised and painted in red (Fig. 2.34).84 Furthermore, some Roman-period pottery was found in the fill layers 83   Trench

J: Kalaitzoglou, Lichtenberger, and Raja 2015, 19–26. See especially 23–24 for the Late Roman fill in secondary context. Trench N: Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming a). 84  Lichtenberger, Raja, and Sørensen 2015, 126, cat. no. 180 ( J14-Jd-32-216).

2. Late Hellenistic and Roman Antiochia on the Chrysorrhoas, also Called Gerasa

37

Figure 2.34. Fragmented inscription incised in limestone. The remains of five letters, arranged on two lines, are preserved. In the upper line an R and an O may be reconstructed — in the lower line an M and an R. There are traces of intense red paint in all letters (Danish-German Jerash Northwest Quarter Project).

Figure 2.35. Dense pottery-fill layers in trench J, east profile in rock-cut staircase. The pottery was used to fill up the entire staircase and close off the entrance to an underground cave (Danish-German Jerash Northwest Quarter Project).

Figure 2.36. Wall-painting fragments from trench S (Danish-German Jerash Northwest Quarter Project)

Achim Lichtenberger and Rubina Raja

38

to trenches A, B, D, as well as S is presented.86 All this evidence points in the direction that activities of a sacred nature took place in the Northwest Quarter. Roman-Period Finds in the Northwest Quarter Related to Sacred Spaces

Figure 2.37. Fragment of a Roman-period locally produced limestone relief, most likely depicting an Artemis figure (Danish-German Jerash Northwest Quarter Project).

Figure 2.38. Fragment of a marble sculpture of the Artemis Rospigliosi type, most likely locally produced, while the stone was imported (Danish-German Jerash Northwest Quarter Project).

as well (Fig. 2.35). In trench S, numerous wall-painting fragments were found (Fig. 2.36). These certainly date to the Roman period.85 While the evidence is not abundant, it is still significant and shows that Roman-period activity certainly was present in the Northwest Quarter. However, it does not tell us about the nature of the activity. Nevertheless, in the next section evidence relating 85 

Trench N: Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming a). Trench S: Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming b). See also Thomsen 2019.

A few minor but significant finds need to be mentioned first. In the survey campaign in 2011, a fragmented relief sculpture made in the local limestone was found by the city wall.87 The sculpture represented a striding person with an animal by the right foot. This might well originally have been a representation of Artemis, which would have belonged to a frieze of relief sculptures (Fig. 2.37). The other find, a fragmented torso of a locally produced marble sculpture, without doubt represents the Artemis Rospigliosi type (Fig. 2.38).88 This fragment was found in a secondary context built into a wall in a Middle Islamic context — in trench D in 2013. It is interesting to note that this sculpture must have been a local attempt at copying the Rospigliosi type. These fragments, found in the Northwest Quarter, can of course be claimed to have been moved there from the Artemis Sanctuary, which lies below the Northwest Quarter, however, they could also originally have been in use in the Northwest Quarter. In 2012, when the first set of trenches were excavated, it was decided to excavate in an area which had been disturbed in modern times.89 In the area of trench B, a monumental block was sticking out of the ground on which icono­graphy related to Roman-period altar architecture could be seen.90 The top of the block was found a little away from the trench and therefore the entire height 86   Trench A: Kalaitzoglou, Lichtenberger, and Raja 2013, 58–63; Lichtenberger, Raja, and Sørensen 2013, 10–12. Trench B: Kalaitzoglou, Lichtenberger, and Raja 2013, 63–68; Lichtenberger, Raja, and Sørensen 2013, 12–13. Trench D: Kalaitzoglou, Lichtenberger, and Raja 2014, 13–17; Lichtenberger, Raja, and Sørensen 2014, 40–42. Trench S: Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming b). See also Gordon, Lichtenberger, and Raja 2017; Lichtenberger and Raja 2015b; 2015c. 87  Lichtenberger and Raja 2012, 233–36, fig. 6. 88  For Trench D, see Kalaitzoglou, Lichtenberger, and Raja 2014, 13–17; Lichtenberger, Raja, and Sørensen 2014, 40–42 (for the Artemis Torso specifically, see 41 and 82, figs 146a–c and 89, cat. no. 146). Also see Lichtenberger and Raja 2015a, 493, fig. 12. 89  For trench B: Kalaitzoglou, Lichtenberger, and Raja 2013, 63–68; Lichtenberger, Raja, and Sørensen 2013, 12–13. See also Lichtenberger and Raja 2015b. 90  Lichtenberger and Raja 2015b.

2. Late Hellenistic and Roman Antiochia on the Chrysorrhoas, also Called Gerasa

39

Figure 2.39. Drawings of all sides of the monumental architectural block (DanishGerman Jerash Northwest Quarter Project).

Figure 2.40. Photo of the monumental architectural block (Danish-German Jerash Northwest Quarter Project).

of the block could be reconstructed (Figs  2.39–41). Furthermore, the block had a fine anathyrosis on its left short side, indicating that it originally would have fitted into a wall. On the right short side, it bore a stylized firebowl motif and protruding horns. On the front towards the top of the block, a niche was located centrally flanked by two pilaster columns. The top was rounded. The block was reconstructed to a height of 2.7 m, which is a height which would have fitted well with the block being part of an entrance to a larger complex.91 The block had been reused in a Late Roman oil press as one of the press piers, and at some point in time there had also been an attempt at sawing the block into two parts, which however had been given up — a sawing trace on the back of the block testifies to this attempt. The block’s icono­graphy is a good example of local sacred icono­graphy in terms of the horns placed on it. In Gerasa in particular, but also in the surrounding region, the 91   Lichtenberger

and Raja 2015b, 117–20 for a thorough description of the two parts of the block.

motif with horns on sacred buildings and altars is well known (Fig. 2.42).92 Based on the comparative material the date of the block can range from the Hellenistic period to the Roman period, but it certainly stands in a local tradition tied to the realm of sacred life and in particular sanctuary entrances (Fig. 2.43).93 Again, it can be argued that the block and its top had been moved from somewhere else in the city to the Northwest Quarter in order to be reused in the oil press. However, the likelihood is just as high that the block in fact had its origins in the Northwest Quarter and would have been part of a building complex standing in this area in the Late Hellenistic or Early Roman period. The strongest evidence for religious activity having taken place in the Northwest Quarter is found on the top of the hill at the highest point within the walled city of Gerasa. Here trenches A and S were laid out in 2012 and 92  Lichtenberger and Raja 2015b, 120–27 for regional and local comparanda. 93  Lichtenberger and Raja 2015b, 127.

Achim Lichtenberger and Rubina Raja

40 Figure 2.41. Photo and reconstruction of the block (Danish-German Jerash Northwest Quarter Project). Figure 2.42. Romanperiod horned altar from Gerasa (DanishGerman Jerash Northwest Quarter Project).

Figure 2.42. Roman-period horned altar from Gerasa (Danish-German Jerash Northwest Quarter Project).

Figure 2.43. View of the entrance to the sanctuary in Sfire with altars depicted on the entrance (from Steinsapir 2005, 134).

2. Late Hellenistic and Roman Antiochia on the Chrysorrhoas, also Called Gerasa

41

Figure 2.44. Overview drawing of trench A (Danish-German Jerash Northwest Quarter Project).

2016 respectively. Trench A yielded enigmatic finds.94 Not far below the surface rock-cut bedrock and only in the easternmost part of the trench part of a rock-cut deep feature were encountered (Fig. 2.44). This complex, part of a larger room, was mortared on all sides. Its extensions to the east as well as the north were not clear though, since the trench was not extended to cover the entire complex. 94  

For trench A, see Kalaitzoglou, Lichtenberger, and Raja 2013, 58–63; Lichtenberger, Raja, and Sørensen 2013, 10–12.

Judging from 14C dates the complex seems to have been closed off between the second half of the third century ad or in the fourth century ad and filled up entirely in one go (Fig. 2.45). During this process, cooking pots had been placed carefully in the fill and one of them had been closed off with parts of a tile (Fig. 2.46).95 These cooking pots were intentional ritual deposits used in the situation 95 

Lichtenberger and Raja 2015c.

Achim Lichtenberger and Rubina Raja

42

Figure 2.45. Drawing of the trench A profile (Danish-German Jerash Northwest Quarter Project).

Figure 2.46. Intentionally deposited cooking pots in trench A (Danish-German Jerash Northwest Quarter Project).

2. Late Hellenistic and Roman Antiochia on the Chrysorrhoas, also Called Gerasa

43

Figure 2.47. Drawing of the fragmented miniature altar (Danish-German Jerash Northwest Quarter Project)

when the building was being closed off. This tradition is known from other locations in Gerasa but also widely in the region.96 One noticeable small find was a miniature altar with horns, which was found in the fill (Fig. 2.47).97 In 2012, we did not come to a conclusion about the use of this complex, since only what turned out to have been a small part of it had been excavated. In 2016, work was continued in trench S (close to trench A) in order to clarify the nature of the complex (Figs 2.48–49). It quickly turned out that the complex found in 2012 was part of a larger well-constructed cistern, which in total measured 14.2 m by 7.2 m.98 The cistern was divided into two chambers, which originally had been spanned by arches. On the northern long side, rock-cut pilaster columns were located. The cistern was mortared with high-quality hydraulic mortar and a settling basin was found in the north-western corner. A staircase connected the cistern with the monumental building, which 96 

Lichtenberger and Raja 2015c, 312–13 and 323–25. Kalaitzoglou, Lichtenberger, and Raja 2012, 6; Lichtenberger, Raja, and Sørensen 2012, 43, cat. no. 165. 98  Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming b). For trench S, see the section on strati­graphy and contexts. 97 

had stood on top of the cistern (Fig. 2.50). The staircase was decorated with elaborate wall paintings with stone imitations and colourful patterns (Fig. 2.51). The staircase went down below what would have been the maximum water level of the cistern meaning that the cistern was not filled to the optimal height. The elaborate staircase is a curious feature as well. The monumental building on top of the cistern had been demolished at some point and many architectural elements and some of the building’s inventory had been thrown into the cistern as fill material before a very homogenous fill consisting of fist-sized stones and then soil layers (like in trench A) had been filled into the cistern to close it off completely and level it with the bedrock. Cooking pot deposits were found in the fills in this part of the cistern as well (Fig. 2.52). The elements found in the cistern included stuccoed columns, stucco profiles, wall-painting fragments, as well as fragments of marble sculpture and a magical amulet (Figs 2.53–55).99 All elements would have belonged to a building of a certain standing and quality. Like in trench A, the filling in of the cistern had taken place in one go and thereafter the area had not been touched again. 99 

Gordon, Lichtenberger, and Raja 2017.

44

Achim Lichtenberger and Rubina Raja

Figure 2.48. View of the part of the cistern (trench S) excavated on the top of the hill (Danish-German Jerash Northwest Quarter Project).

Figure 2.49. Combined profile of trenches A and S (Danish-German Jerash Northwest Quarter Project).

2. Late Hellenistic and Roman Antiochia on the Chrysorrhoas, also Called Gerasa

45

Figure 2.50. The staircase in trench S leading down into the cistern (Danish-German Jerash Northwest Quarter Project).

Some stucco elements as well as the wall-painting fragments point to a date which lies between the first century bc and the first half of the first century ad.100 But fragments of later dates are also present among the debris, which filled parts of the complex. 14C dates point to a closure of the complex around the third to fourth centuries ad. Judging from its location and the monumental size of the complex as well as the quality of the finds in the debris in the fill layers there is no doubt that the complex must have been one of importance. While we can now say that there certainly was Early Roman-period activity in the Northwest Quarter, it is still not possible to say precisely how the Roman complex on the very top of the hill was connected to the centre of the city in this period. The ritual closure of the monumental complex, underlined by intentional cooking pot deposits, indicates that the complex was very likely of a sacred nature. 100 

See forthcoming contribution by Kristine Thomsen based on her doctoral dissertation (Thomsen 2019).

Figure 2.51. Wall paintings in situ in the staircase leading down to the cistern on top of the hill (DanishGerman Jerash Northwest Quarter Project).

Achim Lichtenberger and Rubina Raja

46

Figure 2.52. Intentionally deposited cooking pots in trench S (Danish-German Jerash Northwest Quarter Project).

Gerasa: An Unfinished City or an Example of Failed Urbanism? While Gerasa has often been perceived as a model example of Roman urbanism, it has become clear that Gerasa by no means developed successfully along what seems to have been an overall conceived and organized plan.101 This was of course also the case with numerous other cities, but it often remains an understudied aspect when considering urban development of the Roman Imperial period. While not much is in fact known about the way in which the city was shaped in the late first century bc and early first century ad, there seem to have been several obstructions or at least interruptions to the attempts at constructing and extending the city during the Trajanic and Hadrianic periods, but also in successive Antonine periods. The developments of these periods all focused on the monumentalization of the city as well as the extension and embellishment of the areas around the main street on the west side of the river. However, when we look in more detail at these monumental projects, several interruptions can be detected, which even included interruptions of core urban monumental projects such as the Artemision that was laid out to become one of the largest 101 

Seigne 1992, but also Raja 2012, 141–47 for schematic plans of the overall development of the city based on the evidence then available.

Figure 2.53. Stuccoed column (trench S) from the destroyed building standing on top of the cistern (Danish-German Jerash Northwest Quarter Project).

2. Late Hellenistic and Roman Antiochia on the Chrysorrhoas, also Called Gerasa

47

Figure 2.54. Decorative stucco fragment (trench S) from the destroyed building standing on top of the cistern (Danish-German Jerash Northwest Quarter Project).

Figure 2.55. Wall-painting fragments (trench S) from the destroyed building standing on top of the cistern (DanishGerman Jerash Northwest Quarter Project).

temple complexes in the ancient world, but which was never fully finished.102 While the impetus for the first wave of monumental development at Gerasa seems to have taken place in the Trajanic period and focused on the infrastructure of the city centre, further projects were initiated in the Hadrianic period. The finances for such massive developments, such as the monumentalization of the main street and the side streets as well as the construction of the so-called Oval Piazza and the Nymphaion, would have been tied to the institution of the Provincia Arabia and the generally improved infrastructural situation in the region through the construction of the Via Traiana Nova, and would have been further spurred by the later profound interest that the emperor Hadrian took in the region and in Gerasa specifically, where it seems he stayed with troops in the winter of ad 129/30. In the Trajanic period there were certainly projects which furthered the overall development of the city’s internal infrastructure, such as the layout of the main street as well as the layout of side streets. However, as shown above there is no evidence for the northernmost side street ever having reached the gate located in the area of the Northwest Quarter. This in itself might not have been a failed or unfinished attempt at extending 102 

Brizzi 2018, 87–91.

the infrastructure, but as much an attempt at finishing only the areas around the city’s core, namely the locations more or less bordering the main street. There is in fact no evidence until now for attempts indicating that the northernmost side street was ever meant to have extended beyond the area where the North Theatre and the basilica were located. The monumentalization of the city seems to have been focused on the area just around the main street in the Trajanic period and on giving the impression of a dynamic city centre, which included the monuments to be expected of such a Roman city, while integrating already existing monumental complexes, such as the Sanctuary of Zeus Olympios, which was situated off the grid. The construction of the more than 4 km-long protective city walls with bastions located at regular intervals in the second century ad supports the conclusion that some unrest was present in this period and most likely made the city decide to protect its urban area through the construction of the walls, which must have been an expensive and prestigious project. The area enclosed by the walls enclosed a much larger area than was ever built up, and might also be one indication that the decision to build the walls might have been taken quite fast and with great optimism in terms of the area which the city would or should come to enclose over time. Both the Trajanic and Hadrianic periods in Gerasa (certainly supported by the attention that the emperors

48 paid to the region in general — and to Gerasa specifically in the case of Hadrian) seem to have been periods in which impetus and finances for larger projects were available at certain points in time. While the developments of the Trajanic period may be argued, on the basis of our current archaeo­logical knowledge, to have deliberately focused intensively on the development of the areas around the main street of the city, the urban core so to say, those of the Hadrianic period, in particular the Artemision, seem to have been left unfinished for other reasons. These might have been due to the unrest in the region, not least those connected with the Second Jewish War. In this period, finances might have been put to use in order to invest in other measures. However, it should be noted that the construction of the second Temple of Zeus Olympios took place in this period, an indication that not all city centre focused projects came to a halt. While research still remains to be undertaken on the detailed and chrono­logical developments of several monuments in the city, which could support the above suggestions, it seems clear that there were at least two urban monumentalization phases: one focusing on the main street and the areas right around it and one focusing on the extreme monumentalization of the city centre through the layout of the Artemision and the extension of the Sanctuary of Zeus Olympios. There is until now no evidence for Gerasa being an example of a failed urban experiment, but much more likely an example of efficient and focused Trajanic-period expansion on the one hand, and an example of partly interrupted expansion in the Hadrianic and Antonine periods on the other.

Achim Lichtenberger and Rubina Raja well as extensive installations for water management.103 There are still not the slightest of traces of any necropoleis in the Northwest Quarter and the full quantification done on the bones from the area has, apart from one Islamic-period burial and one earthquake victim, not yielded a single human bone.104 The evidence from the Northwest Quarter belonging to the Late Hellenistic and Roman periods indicates that at least the top of the hill, the most prominent location of the entire city, was occupied by a building complex, which must have phases that date back to at least the Early Roman period. This complex was entirely destroyed and intentionally filled in at some point in the period between the second half of the third and middle of the fourth centuries ad. After this happened the area was not occupied again before the Byzantine period, where traces of architectural complexes are found immediately east of the top of the hill beneath later Middle Islamic structures.105 Judging from the nature of the finds in the cistern below the monumental building, this was one of particular significance. We know from the inscription dating to ad 79/80 that the worshippers of Artemis had dedicated a pool and porticos to the goddess in a complex, which cannot have been the second-century ad Artemision east of the Northwest Quarter. The cistern complex on the top of the hill with its extremely elaborately decorated staircase leading down below the optimal water level as well as the finds found inside the cistern, indicate that we might be dealing with a building of sacred character. However, it remains unclear whether this complex was related to the structures mentioned in the first-century ad inscription.

Conclusion: Out of the Twilight: The Invisible Late Hellenistic and Early Roman Periods in Gerasa Intense urban habitation led to extensive use and reuse of materials at Gerasa over several centuries. We know that the site flourished throughout the Late Roman, Byzantine, and Early Islamic periods. Recycling of materials took place from the Roman period onwards and led to the fact that many primary source materials including buildings from earlier periods have gone missing. We must now conclude that remains dating to the Late Hellenistic and Roman periods are more prominent in the Northwest Quarter than they seemed a few years ago. It seems that the Northwest Quarter was much more well developed and less liminal in this period than once thought, containing prominent building complexes as

103  Seigne 1992b. Also see Lichtenberger and Raja 2015a for the Roman-period evidence. 104  For trenches S and V (sector H), see Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming b). 105  For trench C, see Kalaitzoglou, Lichtenberger, and Raja 2013, 68–75; Lichtenberger, Raja, and Sørensen 2013, 13. For trench T, see Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming b).

2. Late Hellenistic and Roman Antiochia on the Chrysorrhoas, also Called Gerasa

49

Works Cited ‘Acquisitions 2004’. 2005. Yale Uni­ver­sity Art Gallery Bulletin, 2005: 153. al-Nahar, M. 2005. ‘The Neolithic Site of Tell Abu as-Suwwan: Preliminary Report’, Neo-Lithics, 1: 7–12. ——  2018. ‘The Neolithic Site of Tell Abu Suwwan in Jerash, Jordan’, in A. Lichtenberger and R. Raja (eds), The Archaeo­logy and History of Jerash: 110 Years of Excavations, Jerash Papers, 1 (Turnhout: Brepols), pp. 7–14. Anderson, B. 2015. ‘An Alternative Discourse: Local Interpreters of Antiquities in the Ottoman Empire’, Journal of Field Archaeo­ logy, 40: 450–60. Andrade, N. J. 2013. Syrian Identity in the Greco-Roman World (Cam­bridge: Cam­bridge Uni­ver­sity Press). Baldoni, D. 2018. ‘A Byzantine Thermopolium on the Main Colonnaded Street in Gerasa’, in A. Lichtenberger and R. Raja (eds), The Archaeo­logy and History of Jerash: 110 Years of Excavations, Jerash Papers, 1 (Turnhout: Brepols), pp. 15–38. Barfod, G. H. 2017. ‘Recycling, Reuse and Reduce: Glass in Ancient Gerasa’, in A. Lichtenberger and R. Raja (eds), Gerasa/Jerash: From the Urban Periphery (Aarhus: Fællestrykkeriet, AUTRYK), pp. 115–19. Barfod, G. H. and others. 2018. ‘Geochemistry of Byzantine and Early Islamic Glass from Jerash, Jordan: Typo­logy, Recycling, and Provenance’, Geoarchaeo­logy, 33: 623–40 . Bellinger, A. R. 1938a. ‘Coins from Jerash, 1928–1934’, Numismatic Notes and Mono­graphs, 81: 1–141. ——  1938b. ‘Coins’, in C. H. Kraeling (ed.), Gerasa, City of the Decapolis: An Account Embodying the Record of a Joint Excavation Conducted by Yale Uni­ver­sity and the British School of Archaeo­logy in Jerusalem (1928–1930), and Yale Uni­ver­sity and the American Schools of Oriental Research (New Haven: American Schools of Oriental Research), pp. 497–504. Biebel, F.  M. 1938. ‘Mosaics’, in C.  H. Kraeling (ed.), Gerasa, City of the Decapolis: An Account Embodying the Record of a Joint Excavation Conducted by Yale Uni­ver­sity and the British School of Archaeo­logy in Jerusalem (1928–1930), and Yale Uni­ver­sity and the American Schools of Oriental Research (New Haven: American Schools of Oriental Research), pp. 297–352. Blanke, L. 2016. ‘Late Antique Jarash Project’, American Journal of Archaeo­logy, 120: 643–45. ——  2018. ‘Abbasid Jerash Reconsidered: Suburban Life in Jerash’s Southwest District over the Longue Durée’, in A. Lichtenberger and R. Raja (eds), The Archaeo­logy and History of Jerash: 110 Years of Excavations, Jerash Papers, 1 (Turnhout: Brepols), pp. 39–48. Blanke, L., D. Lorien, and R. Rattenborg. 2010. ‘Changing Cityscapes in Central Jarash: Between Late Antiquity and the Abbasid Period’, Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan, 54: 311–27. Blanke, L. and A. Walmsley. 2010. ‘Islamic Jerash Project’, American Journal of Archaeo­logy, 114: 517–19. Blömer, M., A. Lichtenberger, and R. Raja. 2015. Religious Identities in the Levant from Alexander to Muhammed: Continuity and Change, Contextualizing the Sacred, 4 (Turnhout: Brepols). Blömer, M. and R. Raja. (forthcoming). The History of Urban Archaeo­logy in the Near East. Boeselager, D. von. 1995. ‘Zum Mosaik aus Gerasa’, in R. Ling (ed.), Fifth International Colloquium on Ancient Mosaics, ii, Journal of Roman Archaeo­logy, suppl. 9 (Ann Arbor: Uni­ver­sity of Michigan), pp. 57–63. Boyer, D. 2016a. ‘Recent Advances in Understanding the Water Delivery System to Gerasa of the Decapolis’, in G. Wiplinger (ed.), De aquaeductu atque aqua urbium Lyciae Pamphyliae Pisidiae: The Legacy of Sextus Julius Frontinus: Tagungsband des internationalen Frontinus-Symposiums Antalya, 31 Oktober–9 November 2014 (Leuven: Peeters), pp. 143–54. ——  2016b. ‘The Ruins of Gerasa in 1816–1819: An Analysis of the Plan and Drawing Archives of William John Bankes and Charles Barry’, Studies in the History and Archaeo­logy of Jordan, 12: 279–300. ——  2018. ‘The Role of Landscape in the Occupational History of Gerasa and its Hinterland’, in A. Lichtenberger and R. Raja (eds), The Archaeo­logy and History of Jerash: 110 Years of Excavations, Jerash Papers, 1 (Turnhout: Brepols), pp. 59–86. Braemer, F. 1987. ‘Two Campaigns of Excavations on the Ancient Tell of Jerash’, Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan, 31: 525–29. Brenk, B., C. Jäggi, and H.-R. Meier. 1995. ‘The Buildings under the “Cathedral” at Gerasa: The Second Interim Report on the Jerash Cathedral Project’, Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan, 39: 211–20. ——  1996. ‘Neue Forschung zur Kathedrale von Gerasa: Probleme der Chrono­logie und der Vorgängerbauten’, Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins, 112: 139–55. ——  1998. ‘Temple, Kiln and Church: Fourth Interim Report on the Jerash Cathedral Project (Autumn 1997)’, Annual of the Department of Antiquities in Jordan, 42: 425–32. Brizzi, M. 2018. ‘The Artemis Temple Reconsidered’, in A. Lichtenberger and R. Raja (eds), The Archaeo­logy and History of Jerash: 110 Years of Excavations, Jerash Papers, 1 (Turnhout: Brepols), pp. 87–110. Brizzi, M., D.  Sepio, and D.  Baldoni. 2010. ‘Italian Excavations at Jarash 2002–2009: The Area of the East Propylaeum of the Sanctuary of Artemis and the “Propylaea Church” Complex’, Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan, 54: 345–69. Brody, L. R. and G. L. Hoffman (eds). 2011. Dura-Europos: Crossroads of Antiquity (Boston: McMullen Museum of Art). Burckhardt, J. L. 1822. Travels in Syria and the Holy Land (London: John Murray). Clark, V. A. and J. M. C. Bowsher. 1986. ‘A Note on Soundings in the Northwestern Quarter of Jerash’, in F. Zayadine (ed.), Jerash Archaeo­logical Project, i: 1981–1983 (Amman: Department of Antiquities of Jordan), pp. 343–49.

50

Achim Lichtenberger and Rubina Raja

Clark, V. A., J. M. C. Bowsher, and J. D. Stewart. 1986. ‘The Jerash North Theatre: Architecture and Archaeo­logy’, in F. Zayadine (ed.), Jerash Archaeo­logical Project, i: 1981–1983 (Amman: Department of Antiquities of Jordan), pp. 205–302. Crowfoot, J. W. 1929. ‘The Church of St Theodore at Jerash’, Palestine Exploration Fund Quarterly Statement, 51: 17–36. ——  1931. Churches at Jerash: A Preliminary Report of the Joint Yale-British Expeditions to Jerash, 1928–1930, Supplementary Papers, 3 (London: Council of the British School of Archaeo­logy in Jerusalem). ——  1938. ‘The Christian Churches’, in C. H. Kraeling (ed.), Gerasa, City of the Decapolis: An Account Embodying the Record of a Joint Excavation Conducted by Yale Uni­ver­sity and the British School of Archaeo­logy in Jerusalem (1928–1930), and Yale Uni­ver­sity and the American Schools of Oriental Research (New Haven: American Schools of Oriental Research), pp. 171–262. Crowfoot, J. W. and R. W. Hamilton. 1929. ‘The Discovery of a Synagogue-Church in Jerash’, Palestine Exploration Fund Quarterly Statement, 61: 211–19. Csitneki, D. 2016. ‘Jerash Bowls, Typo­logie, Chrono­logie und Ikono­graphie einer feinkeramischen Gattung in Gerasa ( Jordanien)’ (unpublished master’s thesis, Ruhr-Universität Bochum). ——  2017. ‘Jerash Bowls: Fine Tableware from Jerash’, in A. Lichtenberger and R. Raja (eds), Gerasa/Jerash: From the Urban Periphery (Aarhus: Fællestrykkeriet, AUTRYK), pp. 99–105. Dan, A. and É. Nodet. 2017. Cœlé-Syrie: Palestine, Judée, Pérée, Cahiers de la Revue Biblique, 86 (Leuven: Peeters). Deines, R. 1993. Jüdische Steingefäße und pharisäische Frömmigkeit: Ein archäo­logisch-historischer Beitrag zum Verständnis von Joh 2,6 und der jüdischen Reinheitshalacha zur Zeit Jesu, Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament, 2 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck). Ferry, G. 1998. Dorothy Hodgkin: A Life (London: Granta). Fisher, C. S. 1938. ‘Description of the Site’, in C. H. Kraeling (ed.), Gerasa, City of the Decapolis: An Account Embodying the Record of a Joint Excavation Conducted by Yale Uni­ver­sity and the British School of Archaeo­logy in Jerusalem (1928–1930), and Yale Uni­ver­ sity and the American Schools of Oriental Research (New Haven: American Schools of Oriental Research), pp. 11–26. Gatier, P.-L. 2018. ‘Un Romain à Gerasa: une inscription grecque trouvée dans les fouilles de L’hippodrome’, in A. Lichtenberger and R. Raja (eds), The Archaeo­logy and History of Jerash: 110 Years of Excavations, Jerash Papers, 1 (Turnhout: Brepols), pp. 111–18. Gibson, S. 2003. ‘Stone Vessels in the Early Roman Period from Jerusalem and Palestine: A Reassessment’, in G. C. Botti, L. Di Segni, and L. D. Chrupcata (eds), One Land, Many Cultures: Archaeo­logical Studies in Honour of Stanislao Loffreda OFM, Studium Biblicum Franciscanum, Collectio Maior, 41 ( Jerusalem: Franciscan Printing Press), pp. 287–308. Gordon, R. L., A. Lichtenberger, and R. Raja. 2017. ‘A New Inscribed Amulet from Gerasa ( Jerash)’, Syria, 94: 297–306. Grossmann, R. A. 2006. ‘A New Reconstruction of a Mosaic from Gerasa’, Yale Uni­ver­sity Art Gallery Bulletin, 2006: 149–53. Joyce, H. 1980a. ‘Dionysiac Artists and Cult Practices in a Mosaic from Gerasa’, American Journal of Archaeo­logy, 84: 215–16. ——  1980b. ‘A Mosaic from Gerasa in Orange, Texas and Berlin’, Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäo­logischen Instituts, Römische Abteilung, 87: 307–25. Kalaitzoglou, G. 2018. ‘A Middle Islamic Hamlet in Jerash: Its Architectural Development’, in A. Lichtenberger and R. Raja (eds), Middle Islamic Jerash (9th Century – 15th Century): Archaeo­logy and History of an Ayyubid-Mamluk Settlement, Jerash Papers, 3 (Turnhout: Brepols), pp. 97–116. Kalaitzoglou, G., A.  Lichtenberger, and R.  Raja. 2013. ‘Preliminary Report of the Second Season of the Danish-German Jerash Northwest Quarter Project 2012’, Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan, 57: 57–79. ——  2014. ‘The Danish-German Jerash North-West Quarter Project 2013: Preliminary Field Report’, Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan, 58: 11–37. ——  2015. ‘Preliminary Report of the Fourth Season of the Danish-German Jerash Northwest Quarter Project 2014’, Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan, 59: 11–43. Kalaitzoglou, G. and others. 2012. ‘Report on a Geophysical Prospection of the Northwest Quarter of Gerasa/Jerash 2011’, Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan, 56: 79–90. ——  (forthcoming a). ‘Preliminary Report of the Fifth Season of the Danish-German Jerash Northwest Quarter Project 2016’, Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan, 60. ——  (forthcoming b). ‘Preliminary Report of the Sixth Season of the Danish-German Jerash Northwest Quarter Project 2015’, Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan, 61. Kehrberg-Ostrasz, I. 2004. ‘Late Hellenistic and Early Roman Pottery of Gerasa: A Commercial Enterprise in View of International Norms’, Studies in the History and Archaeo­logy of Jordan, 8: 189–96. ——  2006. ‘A Late Hellenistic Link between Jordan and Cyprus: A View from Gerasa’, in L. Beaumont, C. Barker, and E. Bollen (eds), Festschrift in Honour of J. Richard Green, Mediterranean Archaeo­logy, 17 (Sydney: Mediterranean Archaeo­logy), pp. 299–306. ——  2018. ‘Jerash Seen from Below. Part Two: Aspects of Urban Living in Late Antiquity’, in A. Lichtenberger and R. Raja (eds), The Archaeo­logy and History of Jerash: 110 Years of Excavations, Jerash Paper, 1 (Turnhout: Brepols), pp. 119–30. Kehrberg-Ostrasz, I. and J. Manley. 2001. ‘New Archaeo­logical Finds for the Dating of the Gerasa Roman City Wall’, Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan, 45: 437–46. ——  2002. ‘The 2001 Season of the Jarash City Walls Project: Preliminary Report’, Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan, 46: 197–203.

2. Late Hellenistic and Roman Antiochia on the Chrysorrhoas, also Called Gerasa

51

——  2003. ‘The Jarash City Walls Project 2001–2003: Report of Preliminary Findings of the Second Season 21 September–14 October 2002’, Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan, 47: 83–86. ——  2019. The Jarash City Walls Project: Excavations 2001–2003: Final Report (Sydney: Uni­ver­sity of Sydney) [accessed 1 February 2020] Kennedy, D. 2007. Gerasa in the Decapolis: A ‘Virtual Island’ in Northwest Jordan (London: Duckworth). Kondoleon, C. 1995. Domestic and Divine: Roman Mosaics in the House of Dionysos (Ithaca: Cornell Uni­ver­sity Press). Kraeling, C.  H. (ed). 1938a. Gerasa, City of the Decapolis: An Account Embodying the Record of a Joint Excavation Conducted by Yale Uni­ver­sity and the British School of Archaeo­logy in Jerusalem (1928–1930), and Yale Uni­ver­sity and the American Schools of Oriental Research (New Haven: American Schools of Oriental Research). ——  1938b. ‘The History of Gerasa’, in C. H. Kraeling (ed.), Gerasa, City of the Decapolis: An Account Embodying the Record of a Joint Excavation Conducted by Yale Uni­ver­sity and the British School of Archaeo­logy in Jerusalem (1928–1930), and Yale Uni­ver­sity and the American Schools of Oriental Research (New Haven: American Schools of Oriental Research), pp. 27–69. Krencker, D. M. 1934. ‘Römische Städtebaukunst an den Rändern des Römischen Weltreiches’, in Sonderdruck aus Berichtsheft der 72. Hauptversammlung des Vereines deutscher Ingenieure in Trier (Berlin: VDI-Verlag), pp. 22–29. Kristensen, S. B. 2017. ‘Cooking up Culture: Production Traditions in Late Roman-Byzantine Locally Produced Cooking Ware’, in A. Lichtenberger and R. Raja (eds), Gerasa/Jerash: From the Urban Periphery (Aarhus: Fællestrykkeriet, AUTRYK), pp. 75–81. Lepaon, T. 2008. ‘Les édifices balnéaires de Gerasa de la Décapole: premières observations’, Syria, 85: 51–70. Lepaon, T., N. Turshan, and T. M. Weber-Karyotakis. 2018. ‘The “Great Eastern Baths” of Jerash/Gerasa: Balance of Knowledge and Ongoing Research’, in A. Lichtenberger and R. Raja (eds), The Archaeo­logy and History of Jerash: 110 Years of Excavations, Jerash Papers, 1 (Turnhout: Brepols), pp. 131–42. Lichtenberger, A. (ed). 2002. U. J. Seetzen: Unter Mönchen und Beduinen: Reisen in Palästina und angrenzenden Länders 1805–1807 (Stuttgart: Thienemann). ——  2003. Kulte und Kultur der Dekapolis: Untersuchungen zu numismatischen, archäo­logischen und epi­graphischen Zeugnissen, Abhandlungen des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins, 29 (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz). ——  2008. ‘Artemis and Zeus Olympios in Roman Gerasa and Seleucid Religious Policy’, in T. Kaizer (ed.), The Variety of Local Religious Life in the Near East in the Hellenistic and Roman Periods (Leiden: Brill), pp. 133–53. ——  2017. ‘Die Jerusalemer Religionsreform im Kontext. Antiochos IV: Antiochia und Zeus Olympios’, in F. Avemarie and others (eds), Die Makkabäer (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck), pp. 1–20. ——  (2019). ‘Antioch at the Chrysorrhoas – Gerasa, but which River?’, Syria, 96: 471–76. Lichtenberger, A. and R.  Raja. 2012. ‘Preliminary Report of the First Season of the Danish-German Jerash Northwest Quarter Project 2011’, Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan, 56: 231–40. ——  2015a. ‘New Archaeo­logical Research in the Northwest Quarter of Jerash and its Implications for the Urban Development of Roman Gerasa’, American Journal of Archaeo­logy, 119: 483–500. ——  2015b. ‘An Architectural Block with Altar-Icono­graphy from the North-West Quarter of Jerash’, Levant, 47: 112–30. ——  2015c. ‘Intentional Cooking Pot Deposits in Late Roman Jerash (Northwest Quarter)’, Syria, 92: 309–28. ——  2016a. ‘Living with and on the River-Side: The Example of Roman Antiochia-on-the-Chrysorrhoas-Formerly-Called-Gerasa’, in J. K. Madsen, N. O. Andersen, and I. Thuesen (eds), Water of Life: Festschrift for Peder Mortensen, Proceedings of the Danish Institute in Damascus, 11 (Copen­hagen: Orbis), pp. 98–117. ——  2016b. ‘Ğeraš in the Middle Islamic Period: Connecting Texts and Archaeo­logy through New Evidence from the Northwest Quarter’, Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palastina-Vereins, 132: 63–81. ——  (eds). 2017a. Gerasa/Jerash: From the Urban Periphery (Aarhus: Fællestrykkeriet, AUTRYK). ——  2017b. ‘Mosaicists at Work: The Organisation of Mosaic Production in the Early Islamic Jerash’, Antiquity, 91: 998–1010. ——  (eds). 2018a. The Archaeo­logy and History of Jerash: 110 Years of Excavations, Jerash Papers, 1 (Turnhout: Brepols). ——  (eds). 2018b. Middle Islamic Jerash (9th Century – 15th Century): Archaeo­logy and History of an Ayyubid-Mamluk Settlement, Jerash Papers, 3 (Turnhout: Brepols). ——  2018c. ‘The Middle Islamic Period in Northern Jordan and its Pottery: Ceramics in Context’, in A. Lichtenberger and R. Raja (eds), Middle Islamic Jerash (9th Century – 15th Century): Archaeo­logy and History of an Ayyubid-Mamluk Settlement, Jerash Papers, 3 (Turnhout: Brepols), pp. 1–4. ——  2018d. ‘Middle Islamic Jerash through the Lens of the Longue Durée’, in A. Lichtenberger and R. Raja (eds), Middle Islamic Jerash (9th Century – 15th Century): Archaeo­logy and History of an Ayyubid-Mamluk Settlement, Jerash Papers, 3 (Turnhout: Brepols), pp. 5–36. ——  (eds). 2019a. The Byzantine and Umayyad Periods in Jerash Reconsidered: Transitions, Transformations, Continuities, Jerash Papers, 4 (Turnhout: Brepols). ——  2019b. ‘Defining Borders: The Umayyad-Abbasid Transition and the Earthquake of ad 749 in Jerash’, in A. Lichtenberger and R. Raja (eds), Byzantine and Umayyad Jerash Reconsidered: Transitions, Transformations, Continuities, Jerash Papers, 4 (Turnhout: Brepols), pp. 265–86.

52

Achim Lichtenberger and Rubina Raja

——  2019c. ‘Introduction: The Conundrum of Chrono­logies of the Byzantine and Umayyad Periods in Jerash’, in A. Lichtenberger and R.  Raja (eds), Byzantine and Umayyad Jerash Reconsidered: Transitions, Transformations, Continuities, Jerash Papers, 4 (Turnhout: Brepols), pp. 1–6. ——  2019d. ‘Open-Data Presentation of a Geophysical Survey in Gerasa ( Jerash), Jordan’, Antiquity, 93.371: e31 . ——  (eds). (forthcoming). By the Golden River: Gerasa through the Eyes of the 19th and 20th Century Visitors, Jerash Papers, 2, 2 vols (Turnhout: Brepols). Lichtenberger, A., R. Raja, and A. H. Sørensen. 2013. ‘Preliminary Registration Report of the Second Season of the Danish-German Jarash Northwest Quarter Project 2012’, Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan, 57: 9–56. ——  2014. ‘The Danish-German Jerash Northwest Quarter Project 2013: Preliminary Registration Report’, Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan, 58: 39–103. ——  2015. ‘The Danish-German Jerash Northwest Quarter Project 2014: Preliminary Registration Report’, Annual of the Department of Antiquities in Jordan, 59: 45–131. Lichtenberger, A. and others. 2015. ‘Radiocarbon Analysis of Mortar from Roman and Byzantine Water Management Installations in the Northwest Quarter of Jerash, Jordan’, Journal of Archaeo­logical Science: Reports, 2: 114–27. ——  2016. ‘A Newly Excavated Private House in Jerash: Reconsidering Aspects of Continuity and Change in Material Culture from Late Antiquity to the Early Islamic Period’, Antiquité Tardive, 24: 317–59. Lichtenberger, A., R. Raja, and D. Stott. 2019. ‘Mapping Gerasa: A New and Precise Map of the Site’, Antiquity Project Gallery, 93.367: e7. Magen, I. 2002. The Stone Vessel Industry in the Second Temple Period: Excavations at Hizma and the Jerusalem Temple Mount, Judea and Samaria Publications, 1 ( Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society). Magness, J. 2011. Stone and Dung, Oil and Spit: Jewish Daily Life in the Time of Jesus (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans). Michel, A. 2011. Les églises d’époque et umayyade de la Jordanie (provinces d’Arabie et de Palestine), Ve–VIIIe siècle: typo­logie architecturale et aménagements liturgiques (Turnhout: Brepols). Moralee, J. 2006. ‘The Stones of St Theodore: Disfiguring the Pagan Past in Christian Gerasa’, Journal of Early Christian Studies, 14: 183–215. Mortensen, E. 2018. ‘The Early Research History of Jerash: A Short Outline’, in A. Lichtenberger and R. Raja (eds), The Archaeo­logy and History of Jerash: 110 Years of Excavations, Jerash Papers, 1 (Turnhout: Brepols), pp. 167–86. Möller, H. 2017. ‘Ceramics in Context: Interpreting Life through Pottery’, in A. Lichtenberger and R. Raja (eds), Gerasa/Jerash: From the Urban Periphery (Aarhus: Fællestrykkeriet, AUTRYK), pp. 59–65. Parapetti, R. 2002. ‘Gerasa und des Artemis-Heiligtum’, in A.  Hoffmann and S.  Kerner (eds), Gadara-Gerasa und die Dekapolis (Mainz: L’Antiquité Classique), pp. 23–35. ——  2018. ‘Recent Italian Restoration Work and Excavation in the Sanctuary of Artemis 2008–14’, in A. Lichtenberger and R. Raja (eds), The Archaeo­logy and History of Jerash: 110 Years of Excavations, Jerash Papers, 1 (Turnhout: Brepols), pp. 187–94. Peterson, A. 2018. ‘A Commentary and Analysis of Two Ottoman Tax Records: Settlement History of Late Islamic Jerash’, in A. Lichtenberger and R. Raja (eds), Middle Islamic Jerash (9th Century – 15th Century): Archaeo­logy and History of an AyyubidMamluk Settlement, Jerash Papers, 3 (Turnhout: Brepols), pp. 37–44. ——  2019. ‘Ceramics in Context: The History and Pottery of a Middle Islamic Settlement in the Northwest Quarter of Jerash’ (unpublished doctoral thesis, Aarhus Uni­ver­sity). Piccirillo, M. 1986. I mosaici di Giordania (Rome: Quasar). ——  1993. The Mosaics of Jordan (Amman: American Center of Oriental Research). Pierobon, R. 1983. ‘Guglielmo di Tiro e il castrum di Gerasa’, Prospettive Settanta, 5: 8–13. ——  1983–84. ‘Gerasa in Archaeo­logical Historio­graphy’, Mesopotamia, 18–19: 13–35. Puchstein, O. and others. 1902. ‘Zweiter Jahresbericht über die Ausgrabungen in Baalbek’, Jahrbuch des Deutschen Archäo­logischen Instituts, 17: 87–124. Raja, R. 2012. Urban Development and Regional Identity in the Eastern Roman Provinces, 50  bc–ad 250: Aphrodisias, Ephesos, Athens, Gerasa (Copen­hagen: Museum Tusculanum Press). ——  2013. ‘Changing Space and Shifting Attitudes: Revisiting the Sanctuary of Zeus in Gerasa’, in T. Kaizer and others (eds), Cities and Gods: Religious Space in Transition (Leuven: Peeters), pp. 31–46. ——  2015. ‘Bishop Aeneas and the Church of St Theodore in Gerasa’, in E. Rebillard and J. Rüpke (eds), Group Identity and Religious Individuality in Late Antiquity (Washington, D.C.: Catholic Uni­ver­sity Press), pp. 270–92. ——  2017a. ‘Zeus Olympios, Hadrian and the Jews of Antiochia-on-the-Chrysorrhoas-Formerly-Called-Gerasa’, in E. Minchin and H. Jackson (eds), Text and the Material World: Essays in Honour of Graeme Clarke, Studies in Mediterranean Archaeo­logy, 185 (Uppsala: Åströms Förlag), pp. 171–95. ——  2017b. ‘Danish Pioneers at Palmyra: Historio­graphic Aspects of Danish Scholarship on Palmyra’, in R. Raja (ed.), Palmyra: Pearl of the Desert (Aarhus: Sun-Tryk), pp. 21–29.

2. Late Hellenistic and Roman Antiochia on the Chrysorrhoas, also Called Gerasa

53

——  2019. ‘Harald Ingholt and Palmyra: A Danish Archaeo­logist and his Work at Palmyra’, in A. M. Nielsen and R. Raja (eds), The Road to Palmyra (Copen­hagen: Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek), pp. 42–64. ——  (forthcoming). ‘Johann Ludwig Burckhardt (1784–1817)’, in A. Lichtenberger and R. Raja (eds), By the Golden River: Gerasa through the Eyes of 19th and Early 20th Century Visitors, Jerash Papers, 2, 2 vols (Turnhout: Brepols), i. Rasson-Seigne, A.-M., J. Seigne, and L. Tholbecq. 2018. ‘Une occupation d’époque médiévale dans la sanctuaire de Zeus ( Jérash, Jordanie)’, in A. Lichtenberger and R. Raja (eds), Middle Islamic Jerash (9th Century – 15th Century): Archaeo­logy and History of an Ayyubid-Mamluk Settlement, Jerash Papers, 3 (Turnhout: Brepols), pp. 65–96. Rattenborg, R. and L. Blanke. 2017. ‘Jarash in the Islamic Ages (c. 700–1200 ce): A Critical Review’, Levant, 49: 1–21. Romanowska, I. and others. 2018. ‘Urban Networks Seen through Ceramics: Formal Modelling Approaches to Pottery Distribution in Jerash’, in R. Raja and S. M. Sindbæk (eds), Urban Network Evolutions: Towards a High Definition Archaeo­logy (Aarhus: Aarhus Uni­ver­sity Press), pp. 131–38. Sartre, M. 2019. ‘Retour vers la Coelé-Syrie’, Syria, 95: 447–62. Schaefer, J. and B. K. Falkner. 1986. ‘An Umayyad Potters’ Complex in the North Theatre, Jerash’, in F. Zayadine (ed.), Jerash Archaeo­ logical Project, i: 1981–1983 (Amman: Department of Antiquities of Jordan), pp. 411–35. Schröder, B. 1919. ‘Erwerbungen der Antiksamlungen in Deutschland’, Archäo­logischer Anzeiger: Beiblatt zum Jahrbuch des Deutschen Archäo­logischen Instituts, 34: 89–118. Schumacher, G. 1902. ‘Dscherasch’, Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palastina-Vereins, 25: 109–77. Seetzen, U. J. 1854. Reisen durch Syrien, Palästina, Phönicien, die Transjordan-Länder, Arabia Petraea und Unter-Aegypten (Berlin: Reimer). Seigne, J. 1989a. ‘Recherches sur le sanctuaire de Zeus à Jerash’, Syria, 66: 29–106. ——  1989b. ‘History of Exploration at Jerash: The Sanctuary of Zeus’, in D. Homes-Fredericq and J. B. Hennessy (eds), Archaeo­logy of Jordan, ii.1: Field Reports, Surveys and Sites (A-K), Akkadica Supplementum (Leuven: Peeters), pp. 319–23. ——  1992a. ‘À l’ombre de Zeus et d’Artémis: Gerasa de la Décapole’, ARAM Periodical, 4: 185–95. ——  1992b. ‘Jérash romaine et byzantine: développement urbain d’une ville provinciale orientale’, Studies in the History and Archaeo­ logy of Jordan, 4: 331–41. ——  1993. ‘Découvertes récentes sur le Sanctuaire de Zeus à Jerash’, Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan, 37: 341–58. ——  2004. ‘Remarques préliminaires à une étude sur l’eau dans la Gerasa antique’, in H.-D. Bienert and J. Häser (eds), Men of Dikes and Canals: The Archaeo­logy of Water in the Middle East: International Symposium Held at Petra, Wadi Musa (H. K. of Jordan) 15–20 June, 1999 (Rahden: Leidorf ), pp. 173–85. ——  2008. ‘Fontaines et adduction d’eau à Gerasa ( Jérash, Jordanie)’, Syria, 85: 33–50. ——  (forthcoming). ‘William John Bankes (1786–1855) and Giovanni Finati (1797–?)’, in A. Lichtenberger and R. Raja (eds), By the Golden River: Gerasa through the Eyes of 19th and Early 20th Century Visitors, Jerash Papers, 2, 2 vols (Turnhout: Brepols), i. Seigne, J. and others. 1986. ‘Recherches sur le Sanctuaire de Zeus à Jerash: Octobre 1982–Décembre 1983: rapport préliminaire’, in F. Zayadine (ed.), Archaeo­logical Project, i: 1981–1983 (Amman: Department of Antiquities of Jordan), pp. 29–59. Steinsapir, A.  I. 2005. Rural Sanctuaries in Roman Syria: The Creation of a Sacred Landscape, British Archaeo­logical Reports, International Series, 1431 (Oxford: Hedges). Stinespring, W.  F. 1938. ‘The History of Excavation at Jerash’, in C.  H. Kraeling (ed.), Gerasa, City of the Decapolis: An Account Embodying the Record of a Joint Excavation Conducted by Yale Uni­ver­sity and the British School of Archaeo­logy in Jerusalem (1928–1930), and Yale Uni­ver­sity and the American Schools of Oriental Research (New Haven: American Schools of Oriental Research), pp. 1–10. Stott, D. and others. 2018. ‘Mapping an Ancient City with a Century of Remotely Sensed Data’, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 115 . Talgam, R. and Z. Weiss. 2003. ‘The Mosaics in the House of Dionysos at Sepphoris’, Qedem: Mono­graphs of the Institute of Archaeo­ logy, Hebrew Uni­ver­sity of Jerusalem, 44: 5–7. Tholbecq, L. 1997–98. ‘Une installation d’époque islamique dans le Sanctuaire de Zeus de Jérash ( Jordanie): le céramique’, ARAM Periodical, 9: 153–79. Thomsen, K. 2019. ‘Urban Life in Jerash, Jordan: The Techno­logical and Stylistic Development of Mortar, Plaster and Wall Paintings from Roman Times to the Middle Islamic Period from an Archaeo­logical and Geoarchaeo­logical Perspective, i: Text, and ii: Catalogue’ (unpublished doctoral thesis, Aarhus Uni­ver­sity). Tsafrir, Y. and G. Foerster. 1992. ‘The Dating of the “Earthquake of the Sabbatical Year” of 749 ce in Palestine’, Bulletin of the Schools of Oriental and African Studies, 55: 231–35. Uscatescu, A. 1996. La cerámica del Macellum de Gerasa (Ŷaraš, Jordania), Informes Arqueológicos/Jordania, 5 (Madrid: Instituto del Patrimonio Histórico). Uscatescu, A. and M. Martín-Bueno. 1997. ‘The Macellum of Gerasa ( Jerash, Jordan): From a Market Place to an Industrial Area’, Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, 307: 67–88. Vieweger, D. 2003. ‘Der Tell Zera’a im Wadi el-’Arab: Die Region südlich von Gadara’, Das Altertum, 48: 191–216.

54

Achim Lichtenberger and Rubina Raja

Vieweger, D. and J. Häser. 2015. ‘Tall Zirā’a, Jordanien: Die Kalksteingefäße aus der frührömischen Zeit: Religiöse und sozio-ökonomische Implikationen’, e-Forschungsberichte des Deutschen Archäo­logischen Instituts, 2: 20–23. Walker, B. J. 2004. ‘Mamluk Investment in Transjordan: A “Boom and Bust” Economy’, Mamluk Studies Review, 7: 119–47. ——  2009. ‘Imperial Transitions and Peasant Society in Middle and Late Islamic Jordan’, Studies in the History and Archaeo­logy of Jordan, 10: 75–86. ——  2010. ‘From Ceramics to Social Theory: Reflections on Mamluk Archaeo­logy Today’, Mamluk Studies Review, 14: 109–57. ——  2011. Jordan in the Late Middle Ages: Transformation of the Mamluk Frontier (Chicago: Middle East Documentation Center). ——  2017. ‘Early Ottoman/Late Islamic I/Post-Mamluk: What Are the Archaeo­logical Traces of the 16th Century in Syria?’, in S. Conermann and G. Şen (eds), The Mamluk-Ottoman Transition: Continuity and Change in Egypt and Bilād al-Shām in the Sixteenth Century (Göttingen: Bonn Uni­ver­sity Press), pp. 343–65. Walmsley, A. 2001. ‘Fatimid, Ayyubid, and Mamluk Jordan and the Crusader Interlude’, in B.  MacDonald, R.  Adams, and P. Bienkowski (eds), The Archaeo­logy of Jordan (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press), pp. 515–59. ——  2018. ‘Urbanism at Islamic Jerash: New Readings from Archaeo­logy and History’, in A. Lichtenberger and R. Raja (eds), The Archaeo­logy and History of Jerash: 110 Years of Excavations, Jerash Papers, 1 (Turnhout: Brepols), pp. 241–56. Walmsley, A. and others. 2008. ‘A Mosque, Shops, and Bath in Central Jerash: The 2007 Season of the Islamic Jerash Project’, Annual of the Department of Antiquities in Jordan, 52: 109–37. Watson, P.  M. 2018. ‘The Icono­graphy of the Painted Cross Motif on Jerash Bowls’, in A.  Lichtenberger and R.  Raja (eds), The Archaeo­logy and History of Jerash: 110 Years of Excavations, Jerash Papers, 1 (Turnhout: Brepols), pp. 257–72. Welles, C. B. 1938. ‘The Inscriptions’, in C. H. Kraeling (ed.), Gerasa, City of the Decapolis: An Account Embodying the Record of a Joint Excavation Conducted by Yale Uni­ver­sity and the British School of Archaeo­logy in Jerusalem (1928–1930), and Yale Uni­ver­sity and the American Schools of Oriental Research (New Haven: American Schools of Oriental Research), pp. 355–494. Zayadine, F. (ed.). 1986a. Jerash Archaeo­logical Project, i: 1981–1983 (Amman: Department of Antiquities of Jordan). ——  1986b. ‘The Jerash Project for Excavation and Restoration: A Synopsis with Special Reference to the Work of the Department of Antiquities’, in F. Zayadine (ed.), Jerash Archaeo­logical Project, i: 1981–1983 (Amman: Department of Antiquities of Jordan), pp. 7–27.

3. Ceramics in Cities in Context: An Overview of Published Roman Imperial to Umayyad Pottery in the Southern Levant Philip Bes* Den Haag, The Netherlands. [email protected]

Tom Brughmans School of Archaeo­logy, Uni­ver­sity of Oxford. [email protected]

Achim Lichtenberger Institut für Klassische Archäo­logie und Christliche Archäo­logie/Archäo­logisches Museum, Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität Münster. [email protected]

Rubina Raja Centre for Urban Network Evolutions/Classical Studies, School of Culture and Society, Aarhus Uni­ver­sity. [email protected]

Iza Romanowska Computer Applications in Science and Techno­logy, Barcelona Supercomputing Centre. [email protected]

Introduction Although pottery is the main find group at most archaeo­logical sites in the Roman to Early Islamic southern Levant, relatively little is known about its manufacture, distribution, and consumption. This issue is largely caused by a research tradition that has long focused on monumental architecture and imported pottery, result* Philip Bes studies the Roman and Byzantine pottery from the excavations at the synagogue of Horvat Kur (Kinneret Regional Project) since 2012, and at Caesarea Maritima (Vanderbilt Uni­ versity, Nashville/Israel Antiquities Authority) since 2018, This provided a valuable background in the course of research for this paper, whose financial support by the Carlsberg Foundation is kindly acknowledged. Achim Lichtenberger and Rubina Raja direct the Danish-German Jerash Northwest Quarter Project, which since 2011 has been financed by a variety of foundations including the Carlsberg Foundation, the Danish National Research Foundation (Grant No. 119), the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, the Deutsche Palästinaverein, the EliteForsk Award, and the H. P. Hjerl Hansens Mindefondet for Dansk Palæstinaforskning. Tom Brughmans is supported by a Leverhulme Early Career Fellowship (ECF-2016-197). Iza Romanowska is supported by the Carlsberg Foundation. We gratefully acknowledge the funding received for the project. Philip Bes also wishes to express his gratitude to Peter Gendelman (Israel Antiquities Authority) for commenting on the section on Caesarea Maritima.

ing in comparatively limited recording and publication of quantified non-imported ceramic evidence. As a result, the current state of published ceramic evidence does not allow for the precise identification of the distribution width of pottery that was manufactured in any one production centre, let alone the comparison of distribution patterns of all regional production centres. It has been observed that the study of pottery is a late development within the archaeo­logist’s range of research possibilities for the region,1 and as such presumably (partly) suffers from the perception and attitudes of long-established research traditions in this region.2 A case in point, the ancient city of Gerasa (present-day Jerash) is one of several places in the region where indisputable evidence for the local manufacture of pottery has been attested.3 Of particular note are the so-called Jerash 1 

Dentzer 1997, 88 and 90. Freyberger 1989, 46 n. 5: ‘M.E. ist aber die gemalte nabatä­ ische Keramik nicht ein so exaktes chrono­logisches Indiz wie die Bau­ornamentik’. 3  See e.g. Kehrberg 2001; 2009; Lichtenberger and Raja 2018; 2019a for further references to publications by other archaeo­logical 2 

Hellenistic and Roman Gerasa: The Archaeo­logy and History of a Decapolis City, ed. by Achim Lichtenberger and Rubina Raja, JP 5 (Turnhout: Brepols, 2020), 55–118 BREPOLS PUBLISHERS DOI 10.1484/M.JP-EB.5.120807

56

Philip Bes, Tom Brughmans, Achim Lichtenberger, Rubina Raja, and Iza Romanowska

Bowls and Lamps, both of which experienced some degree of regional popularity during the Late Byzantine and Umayyad periods.4 At the same time, pottery that was manufactured at Gerasa is, not surprisingly, dominant in Gerasa proper. In the study region (see below), archaeo­logical evidence for local pottery production has also been attested at Roman-period Bostra and Umayyadperiod Baysan (Roman Scythopolis) (see below). Here we present the first exhaustive survey of published pottery — to the best of our knowledge — in the region from the Roman Imperial to the Umayyad period. This research was prompted by the need for establishing a detailed ceramo­logical context — geo­ graphical and chrono­logical — to better understand the local pottery manufacture at Gerasa, as well as the circulation of regional and long-distance pottery within the southern Levant. This context was constructed by using published evidence from the following sixteen sites: Caesarea Maritima (Caesarea hereafter); Dora; Hippos; Neapolis; Samaria-Sebaste (Samaria hereafter); Scythopolis; Tiberias; Abila; Capitolias; Gadara; Pella; Philadelphia; Bostra; Canatha; Damascus; and Philippopolis. Previously published regional ceramic studies generally — though certainly not all — focused on specific ceramic categories, and for instance proposed or identified regional variations in the distribution of fabrics, shapes, and/or typo­logical repertoires; 5 the identification and reconstruction of detailed regional morpho­logical and/or stylistic patterns is, however, not pursued here. This overview reveals highly variable recording and publication practices, and the overall rather limited availability of quantified ceramic data, which could inform future excavation, recording, and publication practices in the region. This need for a more detailed ceramo­logical context grew within the framework of the Danish-German Jerash Northwest Quarter Project; both directors of this project are co-authors of this chapter.6 Within this promissions in Gerasa. The fact remains that the pottery, not least the local pottery production in Gerasa is poorly understood and until now not well published. 4  Watson 1991; 2018. 5  Adan-Bayewitz 1993; Chrzanovski 2015; Da Costa 2010; Diez Fernández 1983; Gerber 2014; Hartal 2008; Magness 1993; Uscatescu 2003; Vokaer 2012; Wicenciak 2016. 6  See for a full list of publications by the project, several of which are open access. For the pottery, the preliminary reports are useful. Also see the short article by Romanowska and others 2018 for current work being undertaken on the pottery from the excavation.

ject, full quantification of the excavated pottery has been undertaken during every campaign (2012–16). While such an approach enables better strati­g raphic control it also gives many new insights into the make-up of the overall ceramic assemblages, percentages of imports over time, and so forth. Moreover, it serves as a solid basis upon which to develop a refined typo­logy and chrono­ logy of local pottery types.7 Unfortunately, full quantification comparable to that undertaken by the DanishGerman Jerash Northwest Quarter Project remains rare in the region, leaving many questions open, a situation that does not allow us to properly compare and verify patterns or developments. This is a more general problem in pottery studies, not least in the southern Levant. This is the issue that the present paper turns to.

Aims The overall aim of this paper can be broken down into three distinct, albeit related elements: 1. To create a Roman Imperial to Umayyad-period ceramic profile for each of the selected sixteen urban sites in the study region, which focuses on a qualitative and quantitative diachronic summary of local, regional, and long-distance pottery; 2. To present and discuss three case studies (on longdistance imported amphorae, on imported Byzantine-period Red Wares, and on the fully quantified material of Gerasa) within a wider framework of observed or supposed trends; and 3. To assess to what extent conclusions about the overall ceramic patterns at these sites over time can be made through published material, to observe and discuss the patterns in the published data, and to offer ideas and suggestions for how this line of research can be pushed forward. These three aims are explored through a literature review — the core aspect of this study — that focuses on sixteen urban sites (not including Gerasa, which is the focus of the third case study) in the southern Levant. It will be shown below that this resulted in a considerably uneven picture, with some sites lacking in key information, whilst others are (comparatively) well studied. The first research question is explored in the sixteen site-based summaries in the section Roman to Umayyad Ceramic Profiles per Site below that focuses on the general pat7 

Möller (forthcoming).

3. Ceramics in Cities in Context

57

Table 3.1. List of abbreviations used throughout the text. ARSW African Red Slip Ware CBM Ceramic Building Material CRSW Cypriot Red Slip Ware ERSW Egyptian Red Slip Ware ESA Eastern Sigillata A ESB Eastern Sigillata B

FBW Fine Byzantine Ware

LRA3 Late Roman Amphora 3

ICW Islamic Cream Ware

LRA4 Late Roman Amphora 4

ITS Italian Sigillata

LRA5 Late Roman Amphora 5

LRC Late Roman C

LRA6 Late Roman Amphora 6

LRD Late Roman D

LRA7 Late Roman Amphora 7

LRRW Late Roman Red Ware

LRA13 Late Roman Amphora 13

ESC Eastern Sigillata C

LRA1 Late Roman Amphora 1

PRSW Phocaean Red Slip Ware

ESD Eastern Sigillata D

LRA2 Late Roman Amphora 2

SRSW Sagalassos Red Slip Ware

terns. This paper does not evaluate individual finds and their strati­g raphic, functional, or chrono­logical attributes but gives an overview of the pottery. In the process, however, some original data could be typo­logically adjusted or classified for the first time. A brief note on chrono­logical termino­logy and periodization used in this paper: archaeo­logical research in the southern Levant employs a chrono­logical framework that is different from that used elsewhere in the Eastern Mediterranean. The Roman period starts in 64/63 bc with the creation of the Provincia Syria following Pompey the Great’s conquest of the East, and ends in the earlier fourth century ad. The Byzantine period begins after the early fourth century ad, and ends with the Arab conquests of the second quarter of the seventh century ad. 8 The first part of the Early Islamic period spans the period from ad 634 to ad 750 with the Umayyad dynasty; and finally, the Abbasid period runs well beyond the upper chrono­logical border that this chapter focuses on, and the mid-eighth century ad is employed as a rough chrono­logical boundary. The general dating of material culture is on more than one occasion framed by the historical-chrono­logical outline, for example at Capernaum,9 or by specific events, in this area perhaps most notably the earthquake that struck in ad 749.10 Making the dating of material culture related, perhaps even dependent on a historical background, is prone to affect methodo­logical but above all interpretive matters (see below). Throughout this paper, a number of abbreviations are used that pertain to more common ceramic categories (Table 3.1).

8 

See e.g. Parker 1999, 139. Loffreda 2008. 10   Lichtenberger and Raja 2019b; Marco and others 2003; Russell 1985; Tsafrir and Foerster 1992. 9 

The Study Region: Selected Sites Sixteen ancient urban sites were selected in relation to the above aims (Pleiades location identifiers are given in footnotes) (Fig. 3.1).11 Israel and Occupied Palestinian Territories Caesarea;12 Dora;13 Hippos;14 Neapolis;15 Samaria;16 Scythopolis;17 Tiberias.18 Jordan Abila;19 Capitolias;20 Gadara;21 Pella;22 Philadelphia.23 Syria Bostra;24 Canatha;25 Damascus;26 Philippopolis.27

11  We did not include Umm el-Jimal in the survey, since most of the pottery is Late Roman and Byzantine. On Umm el-Jimal, however, see the contribution by Osinga in this volume. 12  Meyers and others 2018a. 13  Meyers and others 2018b. 14  Meyers and others 2019a. 15  Meyers and others 2018c. 16  Meyers and others 2018d. 17  Meyers and others 2018e. 18  Brown and others 2012. 19  Meyers and others 2019b. 20  Meyers and others 2018f. 21  Meyers and others 2018g. 22  Meyers and others 2018h. 23  Parker and others 2018. 24  Meyers and others 2018i. 25  Meyers and others 2015. 26  Meyers and others 2018j. 27  Meyers and others 2018k.

Philip Bes, Tom Brughmans, Achim Lichtenberger, Rubina Raja, and Iza Romanowska

58

Figure 3.1. Location of the sixteen urban sites included in this overview, plus Gerasa. Present-day country boundaries are included for orientation (© the authors).

The main impetus behind the selection was, as mentioned, to create a context for the situation encountered at Gerasa.28 An overview of the published ceramic evidence from these sites will allow us to explore to what extent the Gerasa data pattern is exceptional for the region, and possibly to obtain a better picture of the regional distribution of pottery manufactured in Gerasa. Furthermore, the selection centred on the Decapolis, to which Gerasa also belonged. The other sites, particularly those on the coast (Caesarea and Dora), Samaria, and those in southern Syria, complete a geo­g raphical picture. In fact, the evidence from coastal sites is required when one wishes to understand long-distance exchange. Whilst this admittedly underscores a Mediterranean perspective, which to a considerable extent holds true for 28 

Meyers and others 2018l.

the Roman and Byzantine periods, contacts (economic and other) with areas beyond the eastern limes also took place, represented for instance by the exchange in spices and incense from the Arabian Peninsula, India, and elsewhere. These directions of contact and exchange were to change quite dramatically following the Arab conquests, which eventually became reflected in the material culture of the region. The list of selected sites above may suggest that these remained known under these names, which was of course not the case. Various reasons could have caused the name of a city to change: a foundation or refoundation under new political circumstances, for instance. The change from Byzantine to Arab rule mirrors a major change in how these cities were known, even if in many cases the existing name was simply corrupted: Tiberias, for example, became known as Tabariyyah. To maintain some

3. Ceramics in Cities in Context level of clarity throughout this paper, however, the more commonly used or known Roman name of each city will be used, cf. the list above, unless circumstances prompt otherwise (when discussing the Umayyad-period pottery, for instance, Baysan instead of Scythopolis is used).

Roman to Umayyad Ceramic Profiles per Site The sites are presented roughly from north-east to south/south-west, starting with Damascus and ending with Caesarea. Each ceramic profile comprises a general and comparative assessment that is based on the literature that was consulted. Further, qualitative and quantitative observations on local, regional, and long-distance pottery are summarized. Numerous preliminary reports and articles mention pottery, yet often without any typo­logical and/or chrono­logical precision. In principle, such observations were ignored. In order to gain a better understanding of the quantitative and geo­g raphical distribution of local, regional, and long-distance pottery, one of the challenges was to try to interpret observations wherein precise quantitative data is lacking but that obviously held some notion about how common or how rare a certain ware or type was. Further on in this paper an attempt is made to summarize such information. The evidence concerning Roman-, Byzantine-, and Umayyad-period pottery from all sixteen sites that was studied and that is discussed above is summarized in the appendix that can be found at the end of this chapter. Damascus Despite Damascus’s (ash-Sham) obvious importance as a regional administrative and religious centre during the Roman, Byzantine, and (Early) Islamic periods,29 very little is known about pottery from these periods. Roman- to Umayyad-period pottery has been excavated, however, in (large) quantities.30 ESA and ITS have been attested,31 as well as oil lamps.32 The most helpful contribution discusses Byzantine pottery from the city’s famous citadel, and which largely comprises ‘production locales’ — a claim that, albeit reasonable to presume, is 29 

Schürer 1979, 127–30; Weber 1993a. Berthier 2002–03, 405 and 409, mentioning one hundred thousand fragments intended for typo­logical and statistical study. 31  Damaskus, Zitadelle, 363. 32  Zouhdi 1974. 30 

59 not further explored or substantiated.33 The excavators distinguished two main phases, each subdivided into subphases a and b, which span the fourth and fifth centuries ad. Identified for these phases are (reflecting a focus on imported pottery): ARSW, CRSW/LRD, PRSW/ LRC (‘d’approvisionnements lointains qui semblent principalement répondre à une demande en vaisselle de table’),34 LRA1, LRA3, LRA4, Agora M334, Spatheion Type 2, as well as a possibly residual amphora from Tyrus.35 Cooking pots, but also basins, mortaria, jugs, and jars occur in (a) fabric(s) different from those used in Beirut, and are possibly of local or regional origin, an observation that finds some tentative support in the different morpho­logical details of the cooking pots.36 Philippopolis Philippopolis is the easternmost site in this study region.37 It is located in the Jabal al-Druze in the Hauran in modern southern Syria and is nowadays called Shahbā. It was named for being the birthplace of the emperor Philip the Arab (ad 244–49), who founded the city as a colonia, though not as creatio ex nihilo. Several publications discuss the urban development and some of the standing architecture, also, various tombs have been excavated. However, hardly anything is known about pottery concerning our periods of interest, or for that matter material culture more generally. In one undisturbed tomb seventeen complete vessels were found, as well as loose sherds: the vessel types that were classified mostly concern cooking pots, storage jars, and bowls, which have been dated to the first century bc.38 An unsubstantiated claim is made that for the manufacture of pottery the same clay that was in use since the third millennium bc was used ‘jusqu’a une époque très tardive’.39 Canatha The ancient city of Canatha is also located in the Hauran in southern Syria. Most published research is devoted to the study of the architectural remains in order to under33 

Tréglia and Berthier 2010, 867. Tréglia and Berthier 2010, 869. 35  Tréglia and Berthier 2010, 867–68. 36  Tréglia and Berthier 2010, 868–69. 37  Oenbrink 2006. 38   Sartre-Fauriat 2001, 151–56; eighteen vessels were on display in the local museum of Shahbā. 39  Sartre-Fauriat 2001, 152. 34 

Philip Bes, Tom Brughmans, Achim Lichtenberger, Rubina Raja, and Iza Romanowska

60

stand Canatha’s development and functional build-up.40 However, just as Philippopolis and Bostra, Canatha — modern Qanawat — is covered by a modern settlement, making it difficult to gain a comprehensive understanding of the ancient phases of the city. Various brief references to pottery are made, which because of their general character are hardly useful for the purposes of this chapter. Mentioned are: Byzantine oil lamps from the sanctuary of Rabbu,41 and unspecified Islamic pottery.42 Of greater interest are various contributions by Henrich, who studied and published pottery from several excavations, including a number of foundation fills.43 Pottery from the Roman, Byzantine, and Early Islamic periods is mentioned. In three separate publications, Henrich discusses the full range of pottery from a Roman-period deposit,44 wherein the regionally manufactured Hauran Ware is of significance. The pottery from this deposit, which was not sealed and includes intrusive material, is variably dated to between c. ad 1–150, the mid-second century ad, and ad 100–50,45 a dating that is mostly based on the ESA finds that are quantified by form.46 Besides oil lamps (mostly non-local?), unprovenanced pottery, and a handful of sherds in Nabataean Painted Ware, the majority is classified as Hauran Ware. The datable pottery — i.e. mostly ESA — is used to chrono­logically pinpoint the morpho­logical repertoire that occurs in Hauran Ware,47 which largely comprises cooking pots, storage vessels, jugs, various bowls, plates, filter jugs, strainers, lids, and, interestingly, vessels that are considered to be imitations of ESA (including Hayes Forms 45 and 54)48 and Nabataean forms. Hauran Ware, referred to as ‘catégorie A’, contains basalt inclusions and is thought to have been manufactured at nearby Seeia (Si’a, c. 2 km south to southeast of Canatha) from the first century ad into the Late Byzantine period.49 In fact, the absence/presence of basaltic inclusions is used to suggest a non-regional/regional provenance. Identified at Seeia, but not at Canatha, is ‘catégorie A'’ that contains volcanic glass, and which is dated to the 40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47  48  49 

Freyberger, Ertel, and Tacke 2015; Schürer 1979, 140–42. Ertel 2010, 260. Freyberger 1999, 37. Fischer 2000, 178, 180, and 182–83. Henrich 2000; 2002; 2003. Henrich 2000, 185; 2003, 66 and 68. Henrich 2002, 280; 2003, 68. Henrich 2003, 65. Henrich 2003, 68. Henrich 2002, 255 and 259.

first century bc,50 which just possibly explains its absence at Canatha. In addition, Wilson and Sa’d (concerning Bostra) observed that lime is present in catégorie A (which could have precipitated into larger bits during firing), and that at Bostra ‘catégories B and C’ do contain basaltic inclusions.51 The typo­logical-functional and decorative repertoires of Hauran Ware, which includes pattern-burnishing,52 are considered characteristic for this region (e.g. also Bostra below),53 which prompted Henrich to think in terms of ‘Keramikprovinzen’.54 Interestingly, a general comparison of cooking pot shapes as well as the repertoire manufactured in Hauran Ware, does indeed show differences with shapes that were manufactured in, for example, the Decapolis. Bostra Bostra, also located in the Hauran, and whose ancient remains are interspersed amongst the modern settlement, is well known because of its large theatre and the archaeo­logically attested legionary camp of the Legio III Cyrenaica.55 Bostra was the capital of the Provincia Arabia and it is, comparatively speaking, the best published site in this part of the study region in terms of Roman- to Umayyad-period pottery. Various Syrian, Italian, French, and American scholars and teams have done research at various places in Bostra, e.g. the Nabataean Arch, the South Baths, and Trajan’s Palace.56 A number of the resulting publications offer valuable albeit incomplete information as to the city’s ceramic material culture.57 As elsewhere, numerous references to pottery finds are made, often in the most general of terms, in other cases somewhat more specific, as in the case of Jerash Bowls that were found in the South Baths,58 and oil lamps from Gerasa, or in Gerasa-style, are reported from elsewhere at the site.59 Joly and Blanc constructed a classification of ceramic wares from Bostra, with thirty-five ‘pâtes’ — several of which are subdivided into two or three

50  51  52  53  54  55  56  57  58  59 

Henrich 2002, 255. Wilson and Sa’d 1984, 61–62. Henrich 2002, 255–56. Dentzer 1997, 91; Wilson and Sa’d 1984, 69–70. Henrich 2002, 262. Sartre 1985. Dentzer 1984 [1986]; Berthier 1985; Piraud-Fournet 2010. See e.g. Mougdad and Makowski 1983. Berthier 1985, 11. Seeden 1984, 127.

3. Ceramics in Cities in Context v­ ariants — that concern the Roman to Umayyad periods.60 The general impression is that, in addition to what was manufactured locally, the majority derived from mostly unprovenanced regional sources. The authors did note several regional (Gerasa pottery, LRA6, and successor types) and imported wares (ESA, Nabataean pottery, LRA1, to which can be added ARSW, LRA4, possibly also LRA5). Of particular interest is pâte 1 — which corresponds to catégorie A from Seeia — and associated wares or variants thereof, which contain basaltic inclusions and are treated as ‘fabrication locale’.61 Indeed, it is prevalent during the Byzantine and Umayyad periods, with Grey Ware and (other) pottery from Gerasa appearing by the Late Byzantine period. This classification also allowed the authors to quantify the pottery (using MNI, Minimum Number of Individuals) from archaeo­logical contexts by ware.62 A fabric classification and quantified data were also published from the excavations at the nymphaeum, yet in the absence of illustrations, it is not possible to gain a precise idea about the assemblages in terms of repertoire and provenance.63 Another significant publication is the report by Wilson and Sa’d.64 Bostra, in fact, is one of the few sites in the study region and, for that matter, within the southern Levant more generally, where undisputable archaeo­logical evidence for local pottery manufacture has been attested. 65 This concerns, predominantly it appears, CBM (Ceramic Building Material) wasters: bricks, tegulae (roof tiles), and imbrices (cover tiles) stamped with LEG III CYR (and variants thereof ) have been found,66 and it can be hypothesized that tubuli and hypocaust tiles that have been found in various excavations were also locally manufactured.67 There is, however, evidence for ceramic categories other than CBM.68 Geophysical research in the 60 

Joly and Blanc 1995, 112–13. Joly and Blanc 1995, 114. Also see Renel 2010, 528. 62   Joly and Blanc 1995, 116–23, tables 1–7. It is not clear whether the authors performed a sherd count. 63  Mougdad and Makowski 1983, 42–43. 64  Wilson and Sa’d 1984. 65  Farioli Campanati 1986, 177, fig. 5. 66   Blanc and Piraud-Fournet 2010, 281; Brulet 1984; Kermorvant, Leblanc, and Lenoir 2002, 140; Leblanc 2001, 143; Leblanc and Lenoir 1999, 529, fig. 45; Lenoir 1998, 524. Jerusalem is another example of pottery production in a military context in the southern Levant: Arubas and Goldfus 2005; Murphy, Goldfus, and Arubas 2018. 67  See e.g. Piraud-Fournet 2010; Wilson and Sa’d 1984, 74. 68   Wilson and Sa’d 1984, 53, reported as a jug rim; other 61 

61 area of the legionary camp has, however, not been able to reveal any anomalies that could indicate the presence of (ceramic) kilns,69 and tile scatters were subsequently interpreted as the archaeo­logical residue of entrepots, or storage facilities, for CBM. Tile wasters, though, were found in the vicinity of an open-air water reservoir, which has been brought into association with the need for water during pottery manufacture, in relation to which also the presence of ‘terre argileuse’ and favourable winds were noted.70 In some of the available literature, claims are made that most pottery is local71 (i.e. besides CBM), claims that largely remain unsubstantiated,72 although several wares of local and/or regional provenance have been characterized.73 Stylistically and morpho­logically, also, tentative clues as to a local or regional style (and thus possible local or regional manufacture) can be observed, such as the folded-grooved handles of some cooking pots,74 possibly a Bostran typo­logical characteristic. Furthermore, archaeometrical research characterized several supposedly local groups, though this research appears never to have seen the light of day in any substantial form.75 Of particular interest, nonetheless, in this context is ethnoarchaeo­logical research on local pottery traditions in Bostra around 1980,76 which for example involved the use of ground basalt as a tempering agent.77 In terms of imported pottery, pottery from Gerasa appears to have been common in the Late Byzantine and Umayyad periods. 78 ARSW, 79 (Phocaean) LRC, and possible CRSW/LRD have been noted, the presence of which seems to vary from one excavation zone to the other: whilst ARSW was ‘assez abondante’ in the ceramic wasters were reported (43, 50, 54, 60, 71). 69  Leblanc and Lenoir 1999, 529. 70  Kermorvant, Leblanc, and Lenoir 2000, 499–500; 2002, 139; Leblanc 2001, 142–43; Leblanc and Lenoir 1999, 528–29. 71  Dentzer 1985, 150; 1997, 90; Dentzer and others 1993, 125. 72  See e.g. Delplace and Fournet 2002, 310. 73   Dentzer 1997, 90–91: céramique C is of possible local origin, presumed to be (Late) Hellenistic in date, whilst céramique A — with basalt inclusions/temper (see also Bostra (pâte 1) and Canatha) — is of Roman date; Joly and Blanc 1995, 112–13. 74  Gualandi 1975, 235–36, figs 27–28, especially 28.3. 75  Bucci 2009, 133 and 136; Dentzer 1985, 149. 76  Bresenham 1985; Kadour and Seeden 1980, 77 and 100; Seeden 1997, 125, pl. 6. 77   Dentzer 1985, 150; Joly and Blanc 1995, 112 (pâte 1); Brulet 1984, 177; Bucci 1997–2000 [2004], 294. 78  Dentzer, Dentzer-Feydy, and Blanc 2001, 468. 79  Minguzzi 2010, 545.

Philip Bes, Tom Brughmans, Achim Lichtenberger, Rubina Raja, and Iza Romanowska

62

area of the cryptoporticus,80 Minguzzi noted its scarcity (and that of LRRW more generally) in the Sergius and Bacchus Church.81 As mentioned, several categories of imported amphorae were noted, to which can be added (besides various unidentified specimens) a Mid-Roman Amphora 1a possibly from Sicily.82 Noteworthy are a few imports considered to be from Parthia.83 Nabataean pottery, which has been identified across Bostra particularly in the deeper trenches,84 is of similar composition to that found at Petra.85 Petra may also have exerted a stylistic influence on the presumed local repertoire.86 In general, however, imported pottery appears to have been uncommon, even if it may have been, or is so claimed to have been, relatively more common than elsewhere.87 Capitolias Capitolias is located in north-west Jordan, and is presently known as Beit Ras.88 The city was founded in the later first century ad, though scarce archaeo­logical evidence suggests that the site was already occupied earlier.89 Already at the time of the excavations in the 1980s under the direction of Lenzen — who in more general (ethno-)archaeo­logical terms published some interesting contributions — the modern settlement covered many of the ancient remains. These excavations mostly resulted in brief, preliminary reports in various journals. With regard to Roman- to Umayyad-period pottery little has been published, and is basically limited to general observations and references, except for recently published research by Młynarczyk. These observations and references do, however, suggest the site was inhab-

80 

Delplace and Fournet 2002, 310. Minguzzi 1993–94 [1999], 226–27. 82  Mazou and Capelli 2011, especially 74; Wilson and Sa’d 1984, cat. no. 497. Whilst workshops in Sicily may have catered for a substantial part of the output of this amphora type, the presence of workshops in Tunisia and/or Tripolitania are suspected. Finds from Latrun in Cyrenaica now allow us to expand this picture. For the type, see Riley 1979, 176–80, figs 26–27. 83  Wilson and Sa’d 1984, 70–71. 84  Dentzer and others 1993, 141; 2002–03, 291–92; 2010, 142–43; Seeden 1981–82, 215; Seeden and Wilson 1984, 21. 85  Dentzer 1985, 151. 86  Dentzer, Dentzer-Feydy, and Blanc 2001, 459; Wilson and Sa’d 1984, 64. 87  Dentzer 1997, 90. 88  Lichtenberger 2003, 114–27; Młynarczyk 2018. 89  Lenzen 2003, 75 n. 16. 81 

ited during these centuries,90 but whether this was without interruption is unclear. Several archaeo­logical finds (wasters, possible spacers and kiln remains, although the latter remains highly tentative) indicate that pottery manufacture was practised at the site, perhaps during the Byzantine and/or Umayyad periods.91 In addition, production of oil lamps during the fifth and sixth centuries ad is postulated, based on interesting albeit circumstantial evidence;92 ‘plain-ware domestic vessels of local/regional types’ of possible second-century ad date suggest these belong to a regional morpho­logical repertoire more than anything else.93 Of equal circumstantial nature are the various references to the quality of the wine from Capitolias. These references date from the Late Antique and into the Abbasid periods and signify that this wine enjoyed some regional fame.94 If so, this wine must have been transported, though in what kind of containers remains unknown. One winery has been reported in a recent publication.95 Various ceramic categories of regional provenance have been attested: Nabataean Painted Ware;96 several vessels from Gerasa (a bowl and lamp); 97 bag-shaped amphorae presumably from Scythopolis or thereabouts and which appear to have been quite common in the Late Byzantine and Umayyad periods;98 ICW;99 Painted Ware and Grey Ware basins (here thought to have been used as milking vessels) of Umayyad date that enjoyed some popularity (as elsewhere), and both categories are considered to be of regional provenance — if not local, although that designation is unsubstantiated.100 90  Lenzen 1992, 300; 1995, 235; Młynarczyk 2018, 475; AlShami 2005, 511–12. 91  Młynarczyk 2018, 479, 503–04, fig. 26. Several sherds and possibly a clay sample were analysed, but unfortunately the results are unknown: Alawneh and Béarat 2011. 92  Da Costa 2010, 75–76. 93  Młynarczyk 2018, 500. 94  Lenzen and Knauf 1987, 35–37, 39, 41–42, and 45; Lenzen 1992, 300; 2003, 76 and 83; Młynarczyk 2018, 482 and 499; AlShami 2005, 510. See also the civic coinage of the second century ad depicting Dionysos (Lichtenberger 2003, 122). 95  Młynarczyk 2018, 499, who further mentions the common presence of fragments of ‘wine jars’ hinting at a connection between the strands of evidence in relation to wine-making and its regional distribution. 96  Lenzen 2003, 75 n. 16. 97  Młynarczyk 2018, 482 and 493–95. 98  Młynarczyk 2018, 482. 99  Młynarczyk 2018, 496–97, fig. 21 bottom. 100  Młynarczyk 2018, 496 and 499.

3. Ceramics in Cities in Context Little long-distance imported pottery is mentioned: some Terra Sigillata101 (including some Late Hellenistic and Early Imperial ESA),102 and one ARSW Hayes 104C.103 Gadara Ancient Gadara (modern Umm Qays) is located in northern Jordan, and also belonged to the Decapolis.104 Gadara is one of the relatively better published sites in the study region,105 particularly regarding otherwise rare attention for CBM: tegulae, imbrices, and tubuli. The pottery suggests no major interruption (if any) in the occupation of the site or its environs106 during the period that this study is concerned with.107 At Gadara ceramic research has been pushed beyond some of the more traditional boundaries. A ware classification (based on macroscopic properties) and chrono­logy was undertaken, which were nevertheless poorly coupled to a sherd-count quantification,108 and a later attempt followed the same path.109 This research showed a dominance of ‘common wares’ of ‘two-thirds of the entire material in the excavation’.110 There is slim (and partly circumstantial) evidence for local production, which comes in the form of two lamps apparently deriving from the same mould, but more significantly, a mould fragment prop er.111 Moreover, one jar waster has been published.112 Otherwise claims for pottery of local origin — e.g. Brittle ware and storage jars,113 oil lamps,114 or a ‘Gadara 101 

Lenzen and Knauf 1987, 30. Młynarczyk 2018, 482 and 504. 103  Młynarczyk 2018, 482. 104   Lichtenberger 2003, 83–114; Schürer 1979, 132–36; Weber 2002. 105  Also see the contributions by Voss (on pottery from Abila and Gadara) and Berger (on the hinterland of Gadara) in this volume. Tall Zira’a, in the hinterland of Gadara, has been the focus of recent archaeo­logical research, which includes extensive research on pottery from the site: Kenkel 2012; 2017. 106  Bührig, Berger, and Pasewald 2012, 693. 107  See e.g. Andersen and Strange 1987; Bührig and Liesen 2006; El-Khouri and Omoush 2015; Vriezen 1992; 1995, 66; 2015, 92–95 and 308. 108  Kerner 1997, 300–02; Kerner and Maxwell 1990, 239–40. 109  Vriezen 2015. 110  Kerner 1997, 292–93. 111  Andersen 1993, 170 n. 15, no. 351 (mould fragment). 112  Kerner 2002, 136, fig. 211.8. 113  Bührig and Liesen 2006, 526. 114  Kehrberg 2015, 168 and 173. 102 

63 Ware’115 — remain unsubstantiated. Last, two of the classified ware types (I and II) in which CBM occurs (roof tiles, tubuli also in ware type I) match the composition of clays from the area of Gadara, one of which was quarried at the time of research, and thus provides a tentative argument for local or close-regional manufacture (i.e. within the wider area of the city — perhaps its chora).116 Utilitarian pottery such as jugs and cooking vessels are commonly attested,117 and the typo­logical picture generally supports the notion that it concerns a largely regional assemblage, with important ties to the Galilee: 118 Kefar Hananya Ware is possibly attested (though see Hippos below), for example.119 In search for a better characterization of ceramic categories of local and/or regional origin, archaeometrical research distinguished two major groups (A and B). Group A was further divided, and several subgroups were sourced to the Galilee (A1, A3) and the Golan (A2, A4). 120 Important is the conclusion that Kefar Hananya Ware was not among these subgroups, even if profiles similar to those of Adan-Bayewitz’s typo­logy can be noticed — and which does not mean that real Kefar Hananya Ware did not reach Gadara. 121 As mentioned, of particular interest are the roof tiles, and some of the classified ware types are thought to be regional.122 Among the roof tiles, ware type VI is considered to come from the Galilee or north-western Jordan,123 and is used to economically contextualize Gadara within the wider 115 

Kerner 1997, 300–02, appendix. Vriezen and Mulder 1997, 326. 117  Andersen 1993, 165 and 167. 118  Daszkiewicz, Liesen, and Schneider 2014, 148. 119  Andersen 1993, 164. 120  Daszkiewicz, Liesen, and Schneider 2014, 152–53. 121   Vriezen 1995, 72–73; see now also Aviam 2014 on the manufacture of Kefar Hananya Ware-style pottery at Yodefat (un­ fortunately no illustrations are included). 122   Dijkstra 2015, 162; Vriezen 1995; Vriezen and Mulder 1997, 326 (ware types III–IV; because of basaltic inclusions these are considered to come from around Lake Tiberias, the Golan, or even the Hauran). Ware type VII is matched to specimens from Jerusalem (Vriezen and Mulder 1997, 330). 123   Vriezen and Mulder 1997, 328–30, fig.  11. Elsewhere, Vriezen 2011, 71–72, notes the occurrence of similar tiles at Tell Keisan and on Cyprus (manufactured at Salamis). Some of the documentation (descriptions, illustrations) concerning roof tiles in ware type VI are reminiscent of a particular group of roof tiles found at Horvat Kur (near Capernaum), for which a provenance in eastern Cilicia (possibly the Gulf of Iskenderun) is tentatively considered: Bes (forthcoming). 116 

Philip Bes, Tom Brughmans, Achim Lichtenberger, Rubina Raja, and Iza Romanowska

64

region.124 Some oil lamps were imported from nearby Gerasa, mostly during the Roman period, though some younger examples have also been attested. 125 There are more, albeit uncertain, indications for regional exchange, such as a Buff to Pink Ware also thought to occur at Samaria.126 Long-distance pottery is attested, though not commonly it appears.127 Various categories of Terra Sigillata and LRRW128 have been identified, and although usually not in great quantity,129 this may, as elsewhere, differ from one excavation area to the next.130 ESA appears to have been the most common category of Terra Sigillata.131 In one study, LRC is the most common by sherd count132 — note, however, the usually much thinner walls of (Phocaean) LRC in comparison to contemporary ARSW and CRSW, thus prone to a higher breakage rate. Categories other than Red Slip Wares are represented by Campanian cooking ware133 and a baking dish from Phokaia (modern Foça, western Turkey).134 A few imported amphorae have been noted, including one with a Latin stamp.135 Abila Abila — nowadays known as Quwaylibah — also belonged to the Decapolis.136 In comparison to the other sites included here, Abila is one of the poorly known sites,137 Vriezen 1995, 31, 35–36, and figs 7–8. Kehrberg 2015, 173. 126  Kerner 1992, 413. It is possible that this or a similar ware also occurs at Horvat Kur, near Capernaum. 127  Bührig and Liesen 2006, 526: ‘The supply of Mediterranean foodstuffs to Gadara in late antiquity is poorly represented by settlement material’. 128  See e.g. Kenrick 2000, nos 239–40; Kerner 1997; Konrad 2013, 103. 129  Andersen 1993, 164. 130  Bührig and Liesen 2006, 526. 131  Kerner 1992, 413; 1997, 291; Konrad 2013, 115; Vriezen 2015, 75–77 and 301. Also, Kenrick 2000: most catalogued examples concern Late Hellenistic forms, with two exceptions (244, 263, and fig. 5.56 and an uncatalogued cup dated to the first century ad). 132  El-Khouri 2014, 122. This publication, though helpful, is methodo­logically not strong. Moreover, two different totals of sherd counts are not explained (116 and 122). 133  Vriezen 2015, pl. XII.7.16. 134  Daszkiewicz, Liesen, and Schneider 2014, 149. 135  Jöhrens 2013, 89, no. 134. 136  Lichtenberger 2003, 62–82; Schürer 1979, 136–37. 137  Though see the contribution by Voss on pottery from Abila and Gadara in this volume.

though ceramic evidence for the periods in question has been attested,138 which includes an early albeit rudimentary quantification.139 Abila is one of the sites for which solid archaeo­logical evidence for local pottery manufacture has been found. In between several tombs a rather well-preserved pottery kiln was excavated ‘on the east slopes of Wadi Quailibah’,140 within which ‘unfired’141 and ‘fired wasters’142 were found, and which ‘was last used in the early fourth century’.143 Whilst a plan and section have been published,144 neither a proper investigation was pursued, nor any clear notion of what shapes were manufactured. Elsewhere this or, more likely, another kiln was dated to the Byzantine period.145 Another kiln was found in a bath building and was dated to the Early Islamic period, though questions how this date came about, or whether this functioned as a pottery kiln, remain unresolved.146 Other tantalizing clues could be of great significance for better understanding pottery production at Abila, yet were not investigated: after having seen pottery kilns at Gerasa, Wineland reported that ‘I think that inhabitants of Abila constructed similar installations from the ruins of the Roman theater’, and a kiln functioning during the Islamic period may have existed in Area B-3.147 Besides the kilns proper, various claims of local pottery have been made,148 as elsewhere, claims that also pertain to cooking vessels.149

124  125 

138 

Chapman 2011, 14; Fuller and Fuller 1992; Mare 1984; 1991a; Maxwell 1988. 139  Mare and others 1982, 46. 140  Mare 1995, 211; 1996, 265; 1999, 458. 141  Smith 1992b, 224: ‘in the area H cemetery […] The c. 2m diameter kiln was housed in a circular stone-walled structure that is surrounded by large ornate polyandria  […] the kiln is nearly surrounded by ornate Roman/Byzantine period tombs. While the kiln is not yet fully excavated, the unfired wasters found in the kiln indicate that it was last used while the adjacent tombs were still “active”. […] This kiln is located on the crest of the Wadi Quailibah where [the] constant wind made the location advantageous’. 142  Smith 1992a, 55. 143  Smith 1992a, 57. 144  Mare 1994, 370–72, fig. 8; Smith 1992a, 55–56, figs 25–26. 145  Wineland 2001, 44, 175, and fig. 31. 146  Chapman and others 2006, 65–66, fig. 5. 147  Wineland 2001, 27–28 and 35. 148  Fuller (M. J.) 1987, 101–02 (unguentaria), 101 (bottles), 101–03 (amphoriskoi, juglets, cooking pots, pans); Mare and others 1985, 227 (oil lamps); see also Voss in this volume. 149  Fuller (M.  J.) 1987, 98; Lenzen 1983b, 38; Fuller 1986, 34–35 and 43.

3. Ceramics in Cities in Context From a regional ceramic perspective, Abila shares several Umayyad-period categories with Pella.150 It is further thought that ‘It is possible that some or all of the Umayyad pottery at Abila and Pella may have been produced in the kilns at Gerasa’,151 e.g. basins, though ‘casseroles with white painted handles’ are lacking,152 and Gerasa-type lamps are scarce.153 In terms of imported pottery, Thin-Walled Ware has been reported,154 and while details are largely lacking, what almost certainly must be ESA has been attested155 that possibly was the ‘most abundant variety of import ware’; 156 attested quantities, however, appear to have been small.157 From further away are recognized ARSW, CRSW/LRD, and LRC,158 the latter claimed to be the most common.159 Rare items include: (unprovenanced) Pompeian Red Ware,160 Italian oil lamps,161 and imported amphorae: LRA4 has been identified.162 The absence of Nabataean Painted Ware is emphasized.163 Hippos The site of Hippos overlooks Lake Tiberias, and its remains occupy a prominent flat hill situated between 150 

Fuller (M. J.) 1987, 83; Fuller 1986, 29–30. Fuller (M. J.) 1987, 83–84. 152  Fuller (M. J.) 1987, 83. 153  Fuller (M. J.) 1987, 122–23. 154  Chapman and others 2006, 62; Fuller (M. J.) 1987, 99–100 (found in a tomb). 155  Mare and others 1987, 213; Mare 1991b, 26–27, fig. 3.6 (if ESA, then perhaps a plate fragment of Hayes Form 4); other fragments that are classified as Eastern Terra Sigillata (26, 28, and fig. 4.1–4) are almost certainly not ESA (at least typo­logically), except perhaps for fig. 4.4 (which rather classifies as a mouldmade (Megarian) bowl). 156  Fuller (M. J.) 1987, 99; Mare 1992, 70. 157  Fuller 1986, 42: ‘dozens of small sherds and one restored vessel’; Fuller (N. B.) 1987, 37, 44. 158  Mare and others 1982, 48: ‘a large number of Late Roman fineware sherds were found during the survey [it appears] mostly […] Cypriot Red Slip forms and LRC forms’; Fuller 1986, 34–35 (LRC and ARSW). 159  Fuller (M.  J.) 1987, 95–97; Lenzen 1983b, 32; Maxwell 1988, 96, 102, and fig. 5.11 (with stamped cross); Fuller 1986, 34, 36, 39, and pl. V.4. 160  Fuller (M. J.) 1987, 100. 161  Fuller (M. J.) 1987, 133 (from a tomb). 162  Lenzen 1983b, 38 (concerning the Byzantine period); Mare and others 1982, 48. 163  Fuller (M. J.) 1987, 103. 151 

65 the lake and the higher Golan plateau.164 It is usually referred to as Hippos or Hippos-Sussita (sussita being the Aramaic word for horse). With occupation that spans the Hellenistic to Umayyad periods (though sherds that pre- and postdate this timeframe have been identified),165 the site is considered to have been abandoned following the mid-eighth-century ad earthquake. Hippos has also been comparatively well published ever since systematic excavations began in 2000. At the same time, most of what has been published is in the form of brief discussions and extensive catalogues, with comparatively little synthetic work, though this situation is currently being redressed somewhat. One hampering factor in this respect is that it is unclear how quantitative observations (e.g. that a ware or type was common) were established. Little clear evidence for local pottery manufacture has been found, although numerous references are made.166 This designation, however, quite often appears to pertain to a particular (regional?) morpho­logical or decorative style or feature, and in some cases might reflect a particular local feature.167 It is claimed that several pithoi (both fabric and shape are paralleled to examples found at Capernaum) ‘were manufactured on site, while the raw material […] may theoretically have been brought from another locality’.168 Deformed amphorae are thought to represent probable evidence for local manufacture, though how these deformations look like remains unclear.169 Recent archaeometrical work ‘suggests that a significant quantity of the [Roman-period] common pottery was produced locally, likely in fairly close proximity to Hippos’.170 Another example concerns Early Roman evidence ‘possibly’ for ‘a figurine and mask 164   Eisenberg 2018; Schürer 1979, 130–32; Lichtenberger 2003, 27–50; Segal and others 2013. 165  See e.g. Kapitaikin 2010; Osband and Eisenberg 2018a, 211–12, table 2. 166  See e.g. Młynarczyk 2002, 39–40, 42–43, concerning oil lamps and cooking vessels; 2003, 55–57; 2004, 142; Kapitaikin 2018. 167  Młynarczyk 2004, 147: ‘A special feature […] is the plastic decoration consisting of one or more rows of finger indentations, present on the rims and/or carinations of a number of vessels in Umayyad cooking ware […] All these vessels, so far unparalleled elsewhere, doubtlessly come from some nearby workshop active in the second quarter of the 8th century’. Another example is a cooking bowl that Młynarczyk (2008, 65) coined the ‘Decapolis type’. 168  Łajtar and Młynarczyk 2017, 292 and 296. 169  Młynarczyk 2004, 142. 170  Osband 2017, 34.

Philip Bes, Tom Brughmans, Achim Lichtenberger, Rubina Raja, and Iza Romanowska

66

workshop’, and ‘Another context of Early Roman pottery was found associated with remains of a kiln/oven south east of the Forum in the area of an apparently [sic] figurine workshop’.171 Lamp manufacture is thought to have taken place during the Umayyad period.172 Most of the oil lamps are presumably regional173 in terms of both style and provenance;174 oil lamps from Gerasa are attested,175 and one Umayyad-period type was also manufactured at Baysan (Scythopolis).176 Otherwise common are dark bag-shaped amphorae with white painted motifs (LRA6 and Umayyad successor types),177 presumably from (around) Scythopolis/Baysan, from where the occasional vessel other than amphorae (e.g. pilgrim flasks) was also brought.178 Amphorae generally seem to be regional in origin,179 including the occasional LRA4,180 and two specimens from the area of Deir Aziz.181 Four petrofabrics could be distilled through the analyses of fifty-four amphorae fragments, all of which suggest a provenance in the wider region of Hippos: the Golan, the area around Hippos, and one group that is chemically related to LRA6 (‘the Beisan type’).182 The latter are, in fact, fairly commonly attested.183 Cooking and utilitarian wares are considered to have come from several (regional) sources,184 including Kefar Hananya, the Golan (see above), Gerasa,185 Sepphoris,186 and possibly Tiberias.187 Roman-period Kefar Hananya Ware 171 

Osband and Eisenberg 2018a, 212–13. Osband and Eisenberg 2018a, 214 n. 12. 173  Iermolin 2010; Kapitaikin 2010, 98–99; Młynarczyk 2009, 115; 2011. 174  Młynarczyk 2006, 99. 175  Kapitaikin 2010, 98. 176  Młynarczyk 2011, 201–02. 177   Kapitaikin 2010, 98–99; 2018, 93, 102, and 108; Młynarczyk 2008, 64; 2009, 109. 178  Młynarczyk 2008, 67; 2009, 108; 2011, 200; Osband and Eisenberg 2018a, 270–73 and pl. 10.3.25 and 10.4.5; Kapitaikin 2018, 102. 179   Osband and Eisenberg 2018a, 213, for the common occurrence of amphorae and cooking vessels from the Galilee and the Golan. 180  Kapitaikin 2018, 103–04. 181  Młynarczyk 2009, 113, nos 138–39. 182  Michniewicz 2008, 139–40. 183  Młynarczyk 2006, 96. 184  Młynarczyk 2003, 54; 2006, 99. 185  Młynarczyk 2005, 120; 2006, 95; 2008, 65. 186  Młynarczyk 2006, 98. 187  Młynarczyk 2006, nos 112 and 132; 2008, nos 54, 149, and 169. 172 

is attested,188 which was in fact rather common in the Early Roman period,189 though analyses make clear that there was another group (the Sussita Group) which closely resembles Kefar Hananya Ware.190 Analyses support the notion that Kefar Hananya Ware largely gave way for cooking wares produced in the Golan during the Mid- and Late Roman period.191 Grey Ware basins, a characteristic Late Byzantine and Umayyad vessel shape, are considered to have been made at Gerasa,192 though there are compelling indications these were in fact (also) manufactured at the coast:193 multiple workshops may have operated across a larger area. One Umayyad-period collection of pottery recalls regional ceramic trends.194 ICW is not commonly attested which is thought to be related to Hippos’s destruction and abandonment.195 As much of the pottery published from Hippos concerns the Byzantine and Umayyad periods, recent work on the Late Hellenistic and Roman periods redresses this uneven situation somewhat,196 which identified amphorae (and juglets?) made at Shikhin.197 The pottery largely represents a regional typo­logical-functional assemblage throughout the Roman to Umayyad periods.198 Pottery imported from further away includes ESA, which appears to have been relatively common199 — ESD is rarely attested.200 In terms of longdistance amphorae, a Dressel 6201 and a Campanian(?) 188 

Kapitaikin 2010, 98. Osband and Eisenberg 2018a, 215: ‘A surprising result was that in the Early Roman Period there was a high percentage of Kefar Hananya produced pottery, higher than what was found at the Jewish site of Gamla which is also geo­graphically closer to the Kefar Hananya production site’. 190  Osband and Eisenberg 2018a, 215. 191  Osband and Eisenberg 2018b, 273, 284. 192  Młynarczyk 2005, 121. 193  See the summary for Scythopolis/Baysan below; Bar-Nathan 2011, 212; Bar-Nathan and Najjar 2011, 202. It is worthwhile noting that Grey Ware basins only rarely occur among the pottery from the recent excavations (2018–19) at Caesarea by Vanderbilt Uni­ver­sity (pers. obs.). 194  Młynarczyk 2004, 144–45 and 147. 195  Młynarczyk 2006, 99. 196  Osband 2017; Kapitaikin 2018. 197  Osband and Eisenberg 2018a, 215; Kapitaikin 2018, 94, 96, and 98. 198  Osband and Eisenberg 2018a, 211; Kapitaikin 2018, 109. 199  Młynarczyk 2001; 2004, 145; Kapitaikin 2018, 90. 200  Młynarczyk 2007, 114. 201  Młynarczyk 2003, 53. 189  

3. Ceramics in Cities in Context Dressel 2–4202 are noted. For later periods Kapitän II,203 LRA1, LRA3, and (Umayyad-period) Egyptian amphorae are occasionally identified.204 CRSW/LRD is identified, having ‘a clear prevalence’ in some contexts, 205 whilst LRC generally is the most common.206 ARSW207 and ERSW are also identified, the latter albeit rarely. A few oil lamps may derive from distant sources such as Cyprus and Greece.208 Rare finds of Ras al-Bassit mortaria209 and Aegean frying pans are reported.210 Tiberias Tiberias, located on the south-west shore of Lake Tiberias, is nowadays again known under that name — during the Islamic period it was known as Tabariyya.211 Excavations in various parts of the ancient city have revealed remains that span the periods under study here.212 The archaeo­logical record is skewed with comparatively fewer finds for earlier periods (i.e. Roman).213 Furthermore, later evaluations of published strati­graphy and the accompanying pottery have resulted in different datings, specifically for Umayyad-period pottery.214 Various claims for local pottery manufacture and suggestions for a local provenance of some of the pottery have been made, 215 although these are not further explained. 216 There is, however, archaeo­logical evidence (spacers, wasters) for local production, possibly of, among others, ICW at Hammath Tiberias in

202 

Młynarczyk 2008, 65–66. 203  Kapitaikin 2018, 96. 204  Młynarczyk 2008, 70–71; Kapitaikin 2018, 103–07; Taxel and Fantalkin 2011, 87. 205  Młynarczyk 2004, 143. 206  Młynarczyk 2014, 193. 207  Kapitaikin 2018, 102, table 2. 208  Młynarczyk 2006, 99, nos 135 and 140. 209  Młynarczyk 2007, 109, no. 35; Osband 2017, 90, fig. 1. 210  Młynarczyk 2005, 120 and 134, fig. 9, no. 117; Kapitaikin 2018, 94. 211  Schürer 1979, 178–83. 212  Miller and De Vincenz 2018. 213   Amir 2004a, 53; Cytryn-Silverman 2012, 604; 2015, 192–93 n. 26; Dothan 1983, 11 and 18, fig. 2E–Q, pl. 5; Johnson 2000a; 2000b. 214  Stacey 2004, 13. 215  Amir 2004a, 42–44, 53, and fig. 3.9; El-Khouri and Omoush 2015, 18. 216  Amir 2004a, 35–36, fig. 3.4.

67 the Abbasid period,217 though a precise chrono­logy is unclear — elsewhere it has been dated to the tenth century ad.218 Local production is claimed to have dominated during the Umayyad period, which included oil lamps, 219 and Tiberias is also thought to have had a local ceramic industry during the Byzantine period.220 The typo­logical-functional repertoire is mentioned in further support of local manufacture, as well as the observation that the same shape occurs both glazed and non-glazed.221 Evidence for glazing during the Umayyad period was summarily published — a claim that was later disputed.222 Interestingly, written evidence mentions ‘a potters’ market’ in Tiberias. This, however, could simply mean a place where pottery was sold, and does not necessarily prove the existence of one or more local workshops.223 Concerning pottery from regional sources, Kefar Hananya Ware (and/or Kefar Hananya Ware-style pottery) has been attested224 as well as FBW.225 One cooking pot is thought to have been made at or near Sepphoris,226 and presumably present is an unprovenanced fabric that was predominantly used to make cooking pots.227 Pottery considered to have been manufactured at Gerasa (e.g. a Grey Ware basin) also reached Tiberias,228 though recent research suggests these were also manufactured at the coast.229 Regional amphorae (LRA5, LRA6) have been attested,230 and Scythopolis/Baysan may have also supplied Tiberias with vessels other than amphorae dur217 

Stern 1995; Johnson 2000a, 54, 88, 90, and fig. 25.51. De Vincenz 2013, 121, 132–33, and pl. 4.19.1–3. 219  Stacey 2004, 89 and 150. 220  Stacey 2004, 89. 221  De Vincenz 2013, 116–17. 222  Oren 1971, 234–35; Stacey 2004, 14. 223  Miller 2013, 432. 224  Amir 2004a, 31–32, 34, 36, 41, and figs 3.1, 3.4, 3.8; Dothan 1983, 62–63, fig. 4.A–H, J, K–L, N. 225  Amir 2004a, 34–36, fig. 3.4; 2004b, 154–55, fig. 9.2; John­son 2000a, 61–62, fig. 13; for FBW, see Magness 1993, 166–71, fig. 10. 226  Amir 2004a, 36–37, fig. 3.5.1. 227  Amir 2004a, 38, 40, and fig. 3.7. This ware, which contains basaltic inclusions, dominates the Byzantine-period pottery at Horvat Kur, c. 10 km north of Tiberias. 228  Amir 2004a, 38–39, fig. 3.6:6; 2004b, 156–58, fig. 9.3:9; Johnson 2000a, 62, 64, and fig. 13, possibly also various pithoi (66); Merkel (forthcoming) for evidence of the production of Grey Ware basins at Gerasa. 229  Bar-Nathan 2011, 212; Bar-Nathan and Najjar 2011, 202. 230  Amir 2004a, 40–41, fig. 3.8. 218 

68

Philip Bes, Tom Brughmans, Achim Lichtenberger, Rubina Raja, and Iza Romanowska

ing the Late Byzantine and Early Umayyad periods.231 Umayyad pottery links up well with what has been identified at for example Pella (e.g. Red-on-Cream Ware).232 Long-distance imported pottery is most notably represented by LRC, ARSW, CRSW/LRD, 233 and ERSW.234 ESA and Western Terra Sigillata (ITS?) have been tentatively identified, yet seem to occur only sporadically.235 Ras al-Bassit mortaria are attested,236 as is Coptic Painted Ware.237 Long-distance amphorae seem to have arrived in small numbers, and thus far only LRA1 has been identified.238 Scythopolis Scythopolis is located in the western Jordan Valley, roughly opposite Pella.239 Following the Arab conquest in the second quarter of the seventh century ad the city was known as Baysan and maintained a regional political, economic, and religious importance. The pottery that has been studied and published suggests no break in urban occupation, though as elsewhere many references merely mention pottery. Scythopolis is one of the sites for which quantified data has been published.240 Scythopolis is without doubt the site that has produced the clearest and best-published evidence for local pottery production. In addition to pottery workshops that were installed within the former classical city centre — most notably in the amphitheatre and on the former Byzantine Agora;241 an Umayyad pottery kiln in a Byzantine-period shop south of Palladius Street is also 231  Amir 2004b, 155–56, fig. 9.2; Stacey 2004, 150 and 153 (oil lamps); Bar-Nathan 2011, 207–08. 232  Johnson 2000a, 65–67, fig. 15. 233  Amir 2004a, 33–35, fig. 3.2–3; 2004b, 153–55, figs 9.1–2; Dothan 1983, 62–63, fig.  4.M, P-R; De Vincenz 2013, 109–10 (LRC ‘is the largest and most widespread group’). 234  Stacey 1988–89; Johnson 2000a, 61–62, fig. 13. 235  De Vincenz 2013, 107–08, pl. 4.1 (ESA); Miller and De Vincenz 2018 (Western Terra Sigillata). 236  Amir 2004a, 37–38, fig. 3.5. 237  Amir 2004a, 42–43, fig. 3.9. 238  Amir 2004b, 156–58, fig. 9.3.19, though this identification is not fully convincing. 239  Schürer 1979, 142–45; Lichtenberger 2003, 128–70. 240  Avshalom-Gorni 2000, 52, table 1; Cohen-Weinberger and Goren 2011, 45, table 1. 241  Bar-Nathan and Atrash 2011, 179; Bar-Nathan and Najjar 2011, 191 and 197–98; Hadad 2002, 9, figs  10–11; Tsafrir and Foerster 1997, 78, 81, 138, and figs 46, 51–52.

reported242 — the best-published evidence concerns the so-called ‘Theater Pottery Workshop’, where ten kilns have been identified. This workshop, which was active during the Late Umayyad period (c. ad 690–749), has been extensively studied and published.243 The ‘pottery repertoire underwent significant change only at the end of the seventh century CE’, though ‘both a continuation of certain traditional Late Byzantine period types, as well as the introduction of new Umayyad types’ are observed,244 conclusions much in the line of research by Walmsley and Watson.245 Finds include a potter’s wheel, unfired vessels, wasters (crucial in determining what shapes were made),246 waste heaps and pigments (presumably for painted decoration).247 Moulds, however, were rare — one was for a Gerasa-type lamp.248 Analyses and source determination further helped to understand the chaîne opératoire: the exploitation and use of specific clay resources (including a raw clay that was quarried c. 15 km from Baysan) as well as the spatial and production organization.249 It is conceivable that different workshops specialized in one or more types.250 During the Roman and Byzantine periods, it is argued that pottery production predominantly took place in the outskirts of Scythopolis if not beyond,251 whilst during the Umayyad period these activities became centralized within the former classical city centre.252 Furthermore, morpho­logical and stylistic analyses determined that imported pottery was a source of inspiration for local potters.253 We can assume that these workshops catered for the lion’s share of the inhabitants’ (ceramic) needs, presumably also for surrounding settlements.254 242 

Tsafrir and Foerster 1997, 81, fig. 52. Bar-Nathan and Atrash 2011. 244  Bar-Nathan 2011, 214. 245  Walmsley 1995; Watson 1992; Bar-Nathan and Najjar 2011, 199–200. Also see Arnon 2008a, 14–16, 19, 56–57, and 90–91; Lenzen 1983a, 394. 246  Bar-Nathan 2011, 206. 247  Bar-Nathan 2011, 185. 248  Bar-Nathan 2011, 206; Hadad 2002, 127 and 149. 249  Bar-Nathan 2011, 211–12; Bar-Nathan and Atrash 2011, 181, 183–84, and 187; Cohen-Weinberger and Goren 2011. 250  Bar-Nathan and Najjar 2011, 195–96, and 200. 251   Covello-Paran and Avshalom-Gorni 2008 (through wasters); Sandhaus and Balouka 2015, 199, fig. 4.6.8–9. 252  Bar-Nathan and Najjar 2011, 191; Zori 1962. 253  Bar-Nathan 2011, 213; Bar-Nathan and Najjar 2011, 201. 254   Bar-Nathan 2011, 205; for what was manufactured at Horbat Rodem: Cohen-Weinberger and Goren 2011, 44–45. 243 

3. Ceramics in Cities in Context Ten functional classes were created: storage vessels; basins; kitchen vessels, and utensils; cooking vessels;255 tableware; small containers; lighting fixtures; miniature art items; heating fixtures; and construction pipes.256 Some of the pottery that was locally manufactured can be characterized as ICW,257 one particular shape being the so-called pilgrim’s flask, a shape found throughout the region. Whether these were (all) manufactured at Baysan is not clear.258 Moreover, from what has been observed elsewhere Baysan (and pre-Islamic Scythopolis too) played an important regional role particularly by means of bag-shaped amphorae that are presumed to have been manufactured at and/or around Scythopolis/ Baysan and which travelled considerable distances within the region (e.g. around Lake Tiberias, the Jezreel Valley, part of the Jordan Valley), and have been attested beyond.259 These, it is hypothesized, carried the wine for which Scythopolis/Baysan — according to literary sources — was renowned.260 Umayyad ceramic products from Baysan and Gerasa show ‘very few exact parallels’, which suggests that each city manufactured a specific repertoire.261 Some figurines are thought to have been locally or close-regionally manufactured.262 During the Umayyad period, some pottery was imported from regional sources,263 perhaps most notably cooking pots, bowls, and lamps from Gerasa,264 yet within the context of the workshops these have been interpreted as belongings of the potters.265 A few Kefar Hananya Ware or Kefar Hananya Ware-style cooking

255 

Though see Bar-Nathan and Najjar 2011, 200. Bar-Nathan 2011, 205. 257  Bar-Nathan 2011, 214 n. 6. 258  Tsafrir and Foerster 1997, 138, fig. 53; Walmsley 2001, 308 (grouped under ICW-A1). 259  See e.g. Cohen-Weinberger and Goren 2011, 224. 260  Landgraf 1980, 80. 261  Bar-Bathan 2011, 210; Peleg 2004 (concerning open and closed cooking pots). 262  Rosenthal-Heginbottom 2016, 208, 212. 263  Bar-Nathan and Najjar 2011, 201: ‘exchange of ceramic vessels between the different cities in Jund al-Urdunn was minor. In most cases, marketing of the products did not extend beyond the close periphery of the city itself (kūra), although an exception is Jerash, whose techno­logical expertise produced items that were more widely traded (at least in the northern part of Jund al-Urdunn) […] the gray basins [!] and bowls, the “Jerash lamp”, and probably, the cooking ware’. 264  Johnson 2006, 544 and 557. 265  Bar-Nathan 2011, 205, 212. 256 

69 vessels have been identified 266 and some FBW. 267 The rather characteristic Grey Ware basins are, based on petro­graphic analyses, postulated to have been manufactured at the coast and not at Gerasa.268 The majority of the oil lamps presumably had a local (e.g. Types 19–20), otherwise regional origin (e.g. Types 16, 21).269 In fact, Baysan and Pella shared a markedly similar lamp repertoire during the Umayyad period, which to a lesser extent included Gadara, Gerasa, Philadelphia, and Bostra.270 Regional amphorae seem rare: a LRA4 has been identified.271 One cooking pot resembles the typical shape associated with Workshop X.272 Long-distance imported pottery appears in small numbers, with ‘the need for’ ‘luxury wares and  […] decorated vessels’ being ‘mostly filled by a small amount of imports’. 273 Campanian Pompeian Red Ware, 274 ESA, ESB, and ITS have been published. 275 ARSW, CRSW/LRD, LRC, and ERSW(-A) — the latter thought to have become more common during the Umayyad period 276 — and ERSW-C have also been recognized. 277 Amphorae and Coptic Painted Ware were also imported from Egypt.278 Ras al-Bassit mortaria are occasionally noted. 279 A few amphorae have been identified that include a Tripolitanian specimen, Kapitän II,280 possible Spanish and Forlimpopuli examples, an Agora M334,281 several Tunisian types,282 266   Johnson

2006, 531 and 539; Sandhaus 2007, 117–18, 120–21, and figs  6.1.8, 6.2.10, and 6.2.13–14; Sandhaus and Balouka 2015, 189–91, fig. 4.1–2. 267  Johnson 2006, 545. 268  Bar-Nathan 2011, 212; Bar-Nathan and Najjar 2011, 202, though see the citation above. 269  Hadad 2002, 148; Nagorsky 2014. 270  Hadad 2002, 149–50. 271  Johnson 2006, 549–50. 272  Sandhaus and Balouka 2015, 200, fig. 4.7.2. 273  Bar-Nathan and Najjar 2011, 201. 274  Johnson 2006, 532. 275  Comfort and Waagé 1936; Johnson 2006, 528. 276   Avshalom-Gorni 2000, 52–53, fig.  8.1(?); Bar-Nathan 2011, 212–13; Hadad 2002, 538, 541–44, and 550–51; Peleg 2004, 64–66, fig. 25.1–5; Sandhaus and Balouka 2015, 203–04, fig. 4.9.5–8. 277  Johnson 2006, 544–45. 278  Bar-Nathan 2011, 213. 279  Johnson 2006, 547; Łajtar 1994. 280  Peleg 2004, 71, 73–74, and fig. 30.4, possibly also 6. 281  Sandhaus and Balouka 2015, 199, fig. 4.6.5. 282  Sandhaus and Balouka 2015, 203, fig. 4.9.3. Fig. 4.9.1 (201,

70

Philip Bes, Tom Brughmans, Achim Lichtenberger, Rubina Raja, and Iza Romanowska

a (late?) LRA1,283 a hollow-284 and solid-toed LRA3, and one (or two?) Sinopean D Snp I–II amphorae.285 A small number of imported oil lamps of Roman and Byzantine date was noted and include possible Attic, Syrian, and North African specimens.286 Pella Pella, also part of the Decapolis, is located in the eastern Jordan Valley.287 The majority of published pottery concerns the Byzantine and Umayyad periods, with much less evidence concerning the Roman,288 even if the site appears to have been continuously occupied during the period we are concerned with. One of the great merits of ceramic research at Pella — with a resonance for the wider region — remains Watson’s and especially Walmsley’s work on Late Byzantine and Umayyad pottery.289 Their research, supported by a detailed ware- and type-classification, focused on thrashing out the question of the extent to which the Arab conquest disrupted existing traditions in (ceramic) material culture.290 Little concrete evidence for local manufacture of pottery is available.291 Also here claims for a local provenance are made,292 for example for ICW,293 and local production is thought to have taken place in earlier times.294 The analyses of clay samples suggest that clays from around Pella are theoretically suitable for pottery manufacture, and an Umayyad-period production 203) is paralleled to Keay Form XLV (presumably Tunisian), but this is doubtful, though it probably concerns an imported amphora. Fig. 4.9.2 (203) is paralleled to Keay Form LIX, but as the handle seems to reach the underside of the lip, this suggests a possible south Spanish provenance. 283  Sandhaus and Balouka 2015, 203, fig. 4.9.4. 284  Sandhaus and Balouka 2015, 195, fig. 4.4.5–6. 285  Bar-Nathan 2011, 213; Johnson 2006, 534, 540–41, and 550. 286  Hadad 2002, 131–35. 287  Schürer 1979, 145–48; Weber 1993b; Lichtenberger 2003, 170–90. 288  Da Costa and others 2002, 504; McNicoll and others 1982, 83. 289  See e.g. Watson 1992; 1995; Walmsley 1982b; 1995; 2001; 2007. 290  Walmsley 1992b; 1995; Watson 1992. 291  Walmsley 1995, 661; Watson 1992, 237 (Umayyad period); Weber 1993b, 81; Bar-Nathan and Najjar 2011, 202 and 212 for possibly locally manufactured cooking pots. 292  Smith 1973, 217. 293  Hennessy and others 1981, 307. 294  Bower, Bromund, and Smith 1975, 397.

is proposed, 295 with further analyses suggesting that cooking pots were locally manufactured.296 The common occurrence of the so-called bilanceolate lamp-type was reason to assume a local manufacturing offshoot,297 though it was later observed that at Pella such lamps occur in ‘a range of wares’.298 Abbasid-period lamps were nearly all manufactured ‘from the same fabrics that are used in other ceramic production’, which might point to local or nearby manufacture.299 One intriguing oil lamp mould — of the Large Candlestick-type — found at Pella apparently had a ‘distortion’ and ‘was probably never used’.300 Various reworked sherds have been interpreted as potter’s tools, and while such tools are known from elsewhere (where their use in pottery manufacture is certain),301 they remain highly ambiguous as evidence for local pottery production.302 In the Umayyad period, it is thought that Pella relied considerably on what was manufactured in nearby Baysan (e.g. bag-shaped amphorae)303 and in Gerasa. It is also during this period that imports from Egypt are thought to have increased like at Baysan.304 Byzantine-period lamp supply, however, may have relied on redistribution through Scythopolis rather than solely on a direct supply. 305 Gerasa-type lamps (which were manufactured at Baysan and Gerasa) occur in Late Byzantine and Umayyad times.306 Gerasa(type) bowls have been attested as well.307 Actual lamps from Gerasa are few and far between, and up to the later sixth century ad ‘trade relations of Pella seem almost entirely restricted to Palaestina Secunda’308 — a pattern that changed in the later sixth century ad, when lamps 295 

Edwards 1992, 292–93 (samples S2 and S5). Bar-Nathan 2011, 212. 297  Andersen 1993, 170 n. 15; Smith, McNicoll, and Hennessy 1983, 61. 298  Da Costa 2010, 74. 299  Da Costa 1993, 231. 300  Da Costa 2010, 78. 301  Kehrberg 2016. 302  Da Costa and others 2002, 529–30, fig. 21.5–6; Smith and Day 1989, 98. 303  Bar-Nathan 2011, 188, 207–08, and 212–13 (also basins and flasks); Walmsley 1988, 152–53; 1992a, 380; 1992b, 261; 1995, Wares 12–14; 2007, 254 and 265; Watson 1992, 236–37, 242 (Wares C–D, L(?)). 304  Watson 1995, 319. 305  Da Costa 2010, 80–81. 306  Da Costa 2010, 79. 307  Smith, McNicoll, and Watson 1992, 179, pl. 117. 308  Da Costa 2010, 81. 296 

3. Ceramics in Cities in Context and common pottery (e.g. cooking pots) from Gerasa ‘routinely’ crossed the borders between Palaestina and Arabia.309 LRA4 and LRA5 (possibly also Agora M334) have been attested.310 Much of the late kitchen and cooking pottery (including some Kefar Hananya Ware-style vessels)311 is considered to have been regionally, if not partly locally, manufactured, 312 but other than vessel morpho­logy and related features, this matter remains unresolved. Walmsley’s research has done much to gain a better understanding of Umayyad-period pottery and its relationship to that of the Late Byzantine313 and Early Abbasid periods.314 A considerable part of these developments reflects broader changes in material culture, as well as mechanisms of inspiration, production, and exchange.315 Much of this pottery is of regional origin,316 though not necessarily in style and morpho­logy. Little pottery appears to have been imported from sources further away. ARSW, LRC, CRSW/ LRD, ERSW, and Coptic Painted Ware have been attested, 317 yet quantities (and their interpretation) vary considerably from one excavation to the next.318 In addition, regionally manufactured tablewares (called Transjordanian Red Slip Wares A and B at the time) ‘may have gained popularity partly in response to a gradual decrease or uncertainty in the supply of fine Red-Slip Ware from elsewhere in the Mediterranean […] toward the end of the 6th century and during the 7th’.319 The occasional ESA is noted,320 yet Roman-period imported Terra Sigillata appears to have been scarce.321 This applies 309 

Da Costa 2010, 82; Watson 2001. 310   Smith and Day 1989, 105–06; Smith, McNicoll, and Watson 1992, 180–81, pl. 115.5 (LRA5, mentioned in Kingsley 2002c, 78); Watson 1986 (LRA4), fig. 4.5 (possibly LRA5); Smith and Day 1989, pl. 52.2 (Agora M334). 311  Smith and Day 1989, 99–100, pls  44–45; referred to in Sandhaus and Balouka 2015, 191. 312  Smith and Day 1989, 99, 101. 313  See e.g. Walmsley 1982a. 314  Walmsley 1991, 145. 315  Watson 1992, 246; Da Costa 2010, 82; Walmsley 1997, 3. 316  Walmsley 1982a, 146–50; 1995, Wares 3(?), 10; 2007, 265; Watson 1992, 246 (Ware L). 317  Watson 1992, 242–43 (with quantified data); 1995, 305, 310, 313–14, and figs 1.1–7, 5.1, and 6.3. 318  Hennessy and others 1983, 353–54; Smith and Day 1989, 103 (‘abundant’). 319  Smith and Day 1989, 105, 116–17, and pls 46–47. 320  Tidmarsh 1996. 321  Smith and Day 1989, 98.

71 to amphorae too: LRA1, LRA3, and Sinopean amphorae have been identified from time to time. 322 Several Umayyad-period Egyptian amphorae types are reported.323 A few Ras al-Bassit mortaria, as well as a possibly imported frying pan, have been noted.324 Philadelphia Philadelphia, modern-day Amman, has seen its fair share of archaeo­logical excavation.325 Little, however, has been published concerning the city’s Roman-, Byzantine-, and Umayyad-period pottery,326 with most references being general at best. What has been published strongly suggests that there were no noticeable interruptions in occupation.327 In terms of local pottery manufacture nothing of interest has been reported, only two tentative ceramic burnishers (i.e. sherds that were reused in the production process).328 Claims of local pottery are made, but in the absence of concrete evidence (archaeo­logical and/ or other) these cannot be assessed properly. 329 While the typo­logical repertoire more generally resembles regional/southern Levantine traditions, some pottery (including pre-Islamic cooking vessels and Umayyadperiod pottery) appears to present features different from those elsewhere,330 which possibly hints at more localized traditions. Long-distance imported pottery has been reported now and then, and includes ITS, 331 possibly ESA, 332 322   Smith and Day 1989, 112, pl.  43A, pl.  52.8 (LRA1), 106, and pl. 50.2, 5 (LRA3); Smith, McNicoll, and Watson 1992, 177–78; Watson 1992, 239–40, fig. 10.75, also fig. 10.80–81(?) (Sinopean). 323   Barkai, Kahanov, and Avissar 2010, 91; Watson 1995, 315–19, fig. 8.2–4, fig. 9. 324  Smith and Day 1989, 107 (Ras al-Bassit mortaria), pl. 45.1 (frying pan). 325  Schürer 1979, 155–60; Lichtenberger 2003, 244–77. 326  Koutsoukou and Najjar 1997; Olávarri-Goicoechea 1985, 21–29, 56–58, and figs 15–18 and 52; Humbert 1995; Harding 1951b. 327  See e.g. Almagro, Jiménez, and Navarro 2000, 448–49, 452–53, and fig. 15; Sauer 1986, 305–06; Bennett and Northedge 1977–78, 286, pl. CI.1; Harding 1951a; Humbert and Zayadine 1992. 328  Koutsoukou 1997, 143 and 154, nos 139–40. 329  Koutsoukou and Najjar 1997, 70. 330  Koutsoukou and Najjar 1997, 110–11; Northedge 1992, e.g. fig. 123.1–2. 331  Koutsoukou and Najjar 1997, 68 and 106, no. 131. 332  Hadidi 1970; 1974, 82; Koutsoukou and Najjar 1997, 68.

Philip Bes, Tom Brughmans, Achim Lichtenberger, Rubina Raja, and Iza Romanowska

72

ESB,333 and Nabataean Painted Ware,334 and for later times LRC,335 ERSW(-B),336 and possibly ARSW.337 Pre-Islamic pottery of eastern origin has also been identified.338 Neapolis This city was founded as Flavia Neapolis — though a settlement already existed — and is nowadays located beneath modern Nablus in the Occupied Palestinian Territories.339 Whilst oil lamps indicate that Neapolis was occupied during the Roman to Umayyad periods,340 little data has been published concerning these periods to gain a solid picture of the city’s ceramic material culture. In fact, as with most other cities in this study, publications refer to pottery (including one concerned with a survey around Nablus)341 but usually not in any detail.342 Arguably the only relevant publication is that by Sarig.343 Sarig’s contribution provides valuable information. Methodo­logically, however, certain aspects leave much to be desired. Local manufacture is claimed, yet nowhere does this receive any further attention. Certain forms are considered to be of local manufacture, but there are no detailed descriptions of the fabric(s), or thoughts on the social and economic context of local manufacture. The presence of soot around the wick holes of oil lamps is brought forward as an argument for local production — the very purpose of lamps refutes this as a reliable argument. Presumably, the scarcity of imports motivated the claim of local manufacture. It is not implausible, however, and part of the typo­logical repertoire can at least be described as regional/southern Levantine in character: bag-shaped amphorae, and cooking bowls and lids with flat, cut, and usually slanted rims. Furthermore, ‘The excavations of Roman Neapolis were carried out in the area of modern Nablus in the midst of residential and public tracts. This hampered executing a strati­ 333 

Northedge 1992, 140. Hadidi 1970; Koutsoukou and Najjar 1997, 67–68 and 106. 335  Koutsoukou and Najjar 1997, 85 and 115, no. 285. 336  Hayes 1972, 410. 337  Greene and ‘Amr 1992, 132–33 and fig. 4.5. 338  Zayadine, Najjar, and Greene 1987, 299, 304, and pl. 50 (green-glazed Sasanian pottery). 339  Magen 2009. 340  Sarig 2009, 16–17. 341  Campbell 1991, 97–98. 342  See e.g. Frumkin 2018, 135. 343  Sarig 2009, also published in Hebrew (Magen 2009). 334 

graphic excavation and recovering sealed assemblages’.344 Therefore, the identification of the pottery relied on external parallels. Some pottery (and glass) is well preserved, however, which suggests that at least part of the strati­graphy was little or not disturbed. Casseroles, cooking pots, cooking jugs, jugs, and oil lamps dominate the published repertoire. Pans with hollow stem handles and especially the casseroles might well be something particular to Neapolis, though these are not listed as being of local manufacture that, according to Sarig, comprised bowls, tablewares, incurving rim bowls, storage jars, and one lamp type. Part of the repertoire does seem to ‘differ from the types known in [Roman] Galilee and Judea’,345 and indeed, besides their general shape, the cooking pots for instance346 do not really resemble the repertoire from around Lake Tiberias, where Kefar Hananya Ware and a quartz-rich fabric dominate the Roman and Byzantine periods respectively. According to Sarig, ‘A very similar assemblage’ of oil lamps ‘was found at Baysan’.347 Another tentative argument in support of local pottery production is the supposedly broad typo­logical variety in cooking pots and cooking jugs, although this may simply be the result of classificatory choices (i.e. lumping or splitting). Anyhow, with no strati­graphic background as a control, this issue remains unresolved. One Hellenistic oil lamp possibly is a waster, though it is not published as such.348 As mentioned, imported pottery appears to have been scarce. Interestingly, it is not Terra Sigillata and LRRW — ESA, ARSW, CRSW/LRD, and possibly (Phocaean) LRC349 can be identified — but amphorae that ‘constitute the majority of imported vessels’ and ‘exhibit a wide range of types’.350 Imports other than amphorae concern, besides tablewares, possibly one or two oil lamps, and two Ras al-Bassit mortaria. Some amphorae identifications are doubtful, some even erroneous, but in terms of typo­logy and provenance indeed present an interesting range: Dressel 2–4; Beltrán  I; Beltrán IIB; Beltrán IVA-B; a Maña C or Punic type(?); Kapitän II; LRA1; LRA3 (mostly hollow feet, i.e. prefifth century ad); and LRA4351 (or Gaza jars, a fairly 344  345  346  347  348  349  350  351 

Sarig 2009, 3. Sarig 2009, 3. See e.g. Sarig 2009, 54–55 and figs 8.4–7 and 8.9. Sarig 2009, 15. Taha and Van der Kooij 2014, 125, fig. C23–19. Sarig 2009, 4, 98–99, fig. 31.4. Sarig 2009, 12–13. Sarig 2009, 12, 123–24, fig. 44.19–23.

3. Ceramics in Cities in Context typical designation in literature concerning the southern Levant). In addition, types that were not identified but are (likely) present: Gauloise 4 (possibly); Mid-Roman Amphora 1(a) (also identified at Bostra and Caesarea); LRA5 (presumably); Agora M334;352 Spatheion 1–2(?); possible Pontic types;353 and various unidentified but likely if not certainly imported examples, including another North African amphora.354 Based on the drawings, Sarig’s identifications of Africana IIA, Dressel 20, and Dressel 28 should be treated with some caution. Samaria Samaria — located in the Occupied Palestinian Territories — was renamed Sebaste during the reign of Herod, and has relatively little to offer concerning Roman- to Umayyad-period pottery.355 Crowfoot’s study arguably remains the site’s main source, if only for Kenyon’s still relevant classification and discussion of various categories of Eastern Sigillata. It is in fact ESA that is well represented,356 both in quantity and by typo­logical variety, with which a rudimentary quantification was published. This entails an indication of the occurrence of each identified type, which is either quantitative or more descriptive, from which can be understood that plates with incurving rims (Hayes Forms 3–4) were the most commonly found.357 During the Early Imperial period, other categories of imported Terra Sigillata were noted: ESB, ESD, ITS, and Gaulish Sigillata.358 The latter is rarely identified in the Eastern Mediterranean and is mainly known at Antioch and Libyan Berenice. Also attested is Late Roman and Byzantine ARSW,359 CRSW/LRD and LRC,360 and a few Pompeian Red Ware baking dishes.361 Among what can presumably, if not certainly, be considered to be regional/southern Levantine are cooking pots and amphorae,362 one category of which concerns 352 

Sarig 2009, 125–26, fig. 45.3. Sarig 2009, 125–26, fig. 45.1, 5, which resemble Kassab Tezgör Type C Snp I(-1) (Kassab Tezgör 2009, 128–29, pl. 16). 354  Sarig 2009, 90–91, fig. 27.12. 355  Schürer 1979, 160–64. 356  Kenyon 1957, 283. 357  Crowfoot 1957a, 306–07 and 315. 358  Crowfoot 1957a, 308. ITS (mostly cups), see 337, 339, and fig. 81.25–31; Kenyon 1957, 296–98, fig. 67.5, 10–11. 359  Crowfoot 1957a, 343, fig. 83. 360  Crowfoot 1957b, 359, fig. 84. 361  Kenyon 1957, 296–98 and fig. 67.5, 10–11. 362  Kenyon 1957, figs 71–72. 353 

73 white-painted bag-shaped amphorae.363 Kenyon noted a difference in the coarse fabric used during the Early Roman period in comparison to the Hellenistic and Late Roman periods, which (if local) could hint at a different source or perhaps a different technique of manufacture.364 Other publications, as elsewhere, refer in more general terms to pottery of the periods in question, such as pottery (mostly jars, but also cooking pots and ESA) that was found in tombs and caves in the vicinity of Samaria.365 The authors noted several ESA vessels (including a jug), LRC, and a possible Gerasa lamp and discuss the more general morpho­logical development of regional Hellenistic to Early Byzantine amphorae (both LRA4 and bag-shaped types), as well as clays that are considered to be from Samaria or its environs.366 The authors indicate that these clays are different from those in Judaea and the coastal zone, and their documentation could help to better understand local and non-local wares and shapes particularly concerning Roman-period bag-shaped amphorae.367 Accordingly, c. 98 per cent is considered to have been locally manufactured, with the import of pottery apparently mostly taking place during the Hellenistic and Roman periods. Dora Tel Dor — known as Dora in Graeco-Roman times — is situated on the coast of modern Israel some 30 km south of Haifa and c. 20 km north of Caesarea.368 Published pottery from both land and underwater excavations largely concerns the Roman and Byzantine periods — the Early Islamic period remains poorly understood.369 Evidence for locally manufactured pottery basically only comes in the form of a figurine mould of Roman date and related albeit circumstantial observations (e.g. shape and fabric similarity, quality and manufacturing technique). Terracotta figurines are more generally thought to be local and/or regional, 370 though this is mostly mere speculation, as in the case of oil lamps371 363  364  365  366  367  368  369  370  371 

Regev and Greenfeld 2013, 553. Kenyon 1957, 290–91. Regev and Greenfeld 2013. Regev and Greenfeld 2013, 551–52. Regev and Greenfeld 2013, 546–47. Schürer 1979, 118–20; Stern 2000. Barkai, Kahanov, and Avissar 2010, 88–89. Erlich 2010. Stern 2000, 306.

Philip Bes, Tom Brughmans, Achim Lichtenberger, Rubina Raja, and Iza Romanowska

74

and ‘the much larger quantity of plain table and kitchen ware’.372 Some lamps are indeed referred to as local,373, though most are thought to have been manufactured in the southern Levant (e.g. Phoenicia, Transjordan); a few Gerasa lamps were noted.374 Of likely regional provenance are several cooking vessels that are morpho­logically reminiscent of Kefar Hananya Ware (but presumably not Kefar Hananya Ware proper).375 Quantified data of the cargo of the Dor D shipwreck, which is dated to the late sixth or early seventh century ad, shows that the majority comprised LRA5 and to a much lesser extent LRA4, with both types occurring in several fabrics and variants.376 This emphasis on regional amphorae specifically concerns the Byzantine period.377 Some pottery from this wreck has been separately published as it is considered intrusive, which includes earlier and later variants of LRA4 and LRA5, as well as ICW.378 Evidence for long-distance imported pottery is not abundant and mostly comprises amphorae — ‘scholars have noted a perplexing lack of imported amphora representation and a reliance on local production’.379 Of particular interest is the Tantura F shipwreck dated to the early eighth century ad in which amphorae and jugs from the Nile Delta and LRA13 (from Cyprus or southern Turkey?) were found — provenances that archaeometrical analyses confirmed.380 Further imports were noted among the pottery excavated in Areas A and C: ESA; ESD;381 a Knidian-style π-handle bowl; frying pans (possibly Early Roman); and some amphorae (Agora G199, which appears to be common; Dressel 24(?); Dressel 1(?)).382 Amongst what is interpreted to have been the assemblage used by the crew of the Dor D

wreck were identified LRA1, LRA2, Keay 62D, ARSW, LRC(?), CRSW, ERSW (from Aswan), and unprovenanced items (including some cooking utensils).383 An underwater survey in the ancient harbour allows us to expand the variety of attested amphorae. 384 Another Late Byzantine shipwreck contained some imported pottery (considered not to have been part of the cargo), including LRA4 and four CRSW/LRD dishes of Hayes Form 9A-B (rather than 9B-C, as the authors suggest).385 A few oil lamps are regarded as long-distance imports,386 and some Ras al-Bassit mortaria were identified. 387 Noteworthy are three moulded vessels thought to be from Knidos or North Africa (Tunisia perhaps?),388 and a few figurines are thought to have been imported, including one specimen possibly from Myrina on the island of Lemnos, Greece.389 Caesarea Caesarea, 390 which was known as Kaysariyya during the Islamic periods, is arguably the best published site regarding Roman, Byzantine, and Umayyad pottery, periods during which the city area was continuously inhabited.391 Caesarea functioned as a major harbour for Eastern, if not Mediterranean-wide economic exchange networks during the Roman and Byzantine periods. As will be discussed, the variety of sources is considerably, if not much greater than for the other fifteen sites.392 Thereby, a relatively large number of quantifications have been published.393 Furthermore, there are several 383 

Kingsley 2002a, 22–25, figs 43–45, and table 3. Kingsley and Raveh 1996a, 54. 385  Barkan and others 2013, 120–21, figs 4–5. 386  Rosenthal-Heginbottom 1995, 241–42, nos 2–3 (possibly Egypt and Italy respectively). 387  Stern 2000, 301–02, fig. 209. 388  Stern 2000, 302–04, fig. 210. 389  Erlich 2010, 139–40. 390  Schürer 1979, 115–18. 391  See e.g. Lenzen 1983a, though see Bull and others 1982–89 [1991], 78: ‘Caesarea was largely uninhabited during the Umayyad period (ad 640–750)’. 392  Adan-Bayewitz 1986, 121: ‘most of the pottery from the Building originated, in all probability, not from Caesarea’. 393   See e.g. Adan-Bayewitz 1986, 118–19, table  2; Arnon 2008c, 238, 243, 257, 264, and figs 13, 18, 33, and 43; Magness 1994 [1995]; Oleson and others 1994, 10–11; Sherwood 1994, 28–32; Sidebotham 1994, 45 and 47; Oleson 1996, 361, 364, 366–67, 369–70, 372, and tables 1–6; Oren-Paskal 2008; Riley 1975, 384 

372 

Rosenthal-Heginbottom 1995, 250. Rosenthal Heginbottom 1995, 238 and 251. 374  Rosenthal-Heginbottom 1995, 244; 2012; Stern 2000, 307. 375  Guz-Zilberstein 1995, 367–68, 388–89, and figs 6.20.9 and 6.21.3. 376  Kingsley 2002a, 30–31 and 34, reported in Kingsley and Raveh 1996b, there dated to c. ad 600–40. 377  Kingsley and Raveh 1996a, 43 and 46; 1996b, 64 and 66–67. 378  Kingsley 2002b, 41 and 43–46, figs 64, 66, and 69–70. 379  Kingsley and Raveh 1996a, 43. 380  Barkai, Kahanov, and Avissar 2010, 96–99. The pottery was previously published in Barkai, Kahanov, and Klein 2007–08. 381   Rosenthal-Heginbottom 1995, 219–21 and 250: ‘for a coastal site […] like Dor, the amount of red-glazed pottery found is surprisingly insignificant’. 382  Guz-Zilberstein 1995. 373 

3. Ceramics in Cities in Context archaeo­metrical contributions, yet not all are helpful: some are arguably too technical, while others provide no macroscopic link with the analysed pottery.394 There is scant evidence for local manufacture, even if various, albeit unclear, claims have been made.395 It is nonetheless very reasonable to consider that LRA5 — at least part of it — was manufactured in Caesarea or in its immediate vicinity, presumably to carry the wine produced around the city.396 Throughout the published literature there is evidence for its common presence (including later variants with fine combing)397 and it is here treated as local.398 As at Dora, regional types (e.g. mainly LRA4–5) dominate the Byzantine amphorae spectrum,399 though their presence is thought to vary across the site.400 There is unelaborated evidence for local manufacture including glazing.401 Limestone moulds for the manufacture of oil lamps and figurines have been published,402 and some terracotta finds are indeed considered to have been locally manufactured,403 as are cerespecially 55–63 (and Blakely 1996); Tomber 1999. 394   Arnon 2008a ; Bennett and others 1987; Blakely, Brinkmann, and Vitaliano 1992; Goldberg 1986; Riley 1975. 395  ‘Ad, Arbel, and Gendelman 2018, 3–4; Arnon 2008c, 220 and 227 (oil lamps); Bull, Krentz, and Storvich 1980–84 [1986], 42 and Bull and others 1993 [1994], 71 and 73, claiming potters (making amphorae) were active, though no evidence is presented; Lenzen 1983a, 304, who already expressed doubt as to the presence of a ceramic workshop; Oleson 1996, 369–70; Roller 1980, 36 and 38. 396   Ringel 1975, 150: ‘Le vin de Césarée est mentionné également dans le Talmud (28), où il est compté parmi les meilleurs du pays, égal au vin de Tibériade et à celui de Sepphoris’. 397  Kingsley and Raveh 1996a, 44. 398  Adan-Bayewitz 1986, 91–92, fig. 1.4–7; Bar-Nathan and Adato 1986b, 132, 135, and fig. 1.11–13; Blakely 1988, 38; Johnson 2008, 20 and 85; Magness 1994 [1995], 135; Oren-Paskal 2008, 51; Patrich 2011, 126; Riley 1975, 26–27. 399  Blakely 1988, 43. 400  Blakely 1996, 338–40, figs 3–5. 401  Bull and others 1982–89 [1991], 71, 75–76, and fig.  6 (‘furnaces’, ‘glazing slag’, ‘lamps and utilitarian cooking wares had been made’); Bull and others 1993 [1994], 66–67, figs 2–4: ‘The high index of household pottery made of the same red clay, the concentration of wasters, the remains of kiln furniture, and the wide and deep layers of kiln debris, point to the presence of an industrial area that included the manufacture of pottery in the eighth to ninth century ce’. 402   Sussman 1980, 76 and 78–79; Sussman 1996, 353: ‘In the fourth century ce a local industry of lamps and figurines was established’; Holum and others 1988, 191–93, figs  139–41 (oil lamps). 403  Gendelman 2015, 31, 36, 45, and 50.

75 tain lamp types.404 Cooking vessels may show the same fabric and could have been made locally, yet manufacturing evidence is lacking.405 From regional sources were drawn LRA6406 and other bag-shaped amphorae, 407 LRA4, 408 Agora M334, 409 Beirut(-type) amphorae, 410 and FBW. 411 During the Early Islamic period Grey Ware basins412 and ICW are encountered,413 yet Late Byzantine-Umayyad Gerasa(type) oil lamps and Umayyad Red-on-White pottery are rare, if not absent.414 Oil lamps appear to have been mostly drawn from (other) regional sources. 415 Some cooking pots in Kefar Hananya Ware or, more probable, Kefar Hananya Ware-style vessels416 were identified, and one or more other regional centres presumably also supplied Caesarea with cooking vessels.417 Caesarea presents the richest evidence regarding long-distance imported pottery, and ‘A wide variety of imported amphorae  […] were excavated’, though mostly ‘single examples of their type’, ‘The origin of ’ which spans the Mediterranean and Black Sea areas.418 404 

For instance Porath and Gur 2015, 17 and 21. Adan-Bayewitz 1986, 108. 406   Adan-Bayewitz 1986, 99–101; Arnon 2008b, 88–90, 94–95, and figs 3.4 and 5.1–2; Johnson 2008, 20 and 91; OrenPaskal 2008, 53; Riley 1975, 31. 407  Bar-Nathan and Adato 1986b, 163, 172, and fig.  2.1–9; Blakely 1987. 408  Adan-Bayewitz 1986, 97–99, fig. 1.8–14; Arnon 2008b, 88–89, fig.  3.2; Bar-Nathan and Adato 1986b, 132, 135, and fig. 1.6–9; Blakely 1988, 37; Oren-Paskal 2008, 49; Peleg and Reich 1992, 147, 149, and figs 13–14; Riley 1975, 27 and 30. 409  Ratzlaff and others 2017, 136–37, fig. 6. The authors point out that, in terms of typo­logy and fabric, these are different from the more classic Agora M334. 410  Johnson 2008, 101, 103, 188, and 190, nos 1217 and 1235; Gendelman 2018, 117–19, 121, and figs 4.8 and 5.8. 411  Arnon 2008a, 29–33. 412  Arnon 2008a, 30. 413  Arnon 2008a, 37; concerning ICW: ‘this group is the largest one unearthed in stratum VII’. 414  Lenzen 1983a, 363 and 393–94; Arnon 2008c, 219 and 227. 415  See, for example, Porath and Gur 2015, 9 (presumed to have come from Judaea). 416  Johnson 2008, 68–71 and 165–68, nos 776, 778–83, 789, and 808–16. 417  Magness 1994 [1995], 134, fig. 1.8–14. 418   Johnson 2008, 20. The catalogue comprises a  range of unidentified (some can be determined) and identified types from Mediterranean and Black Sea sources, generally represented by one or a few examples. Oleson and others 1994, 3–4 and 9; Patrich 2011, 405 

76

Philip Bes, Tom Brughmans, Achim Lichtenberger, Rubina Raja, and Iza Romanowska

LRA2 419 (including the classic Argolid fabric) and LRA13 have been identified, 420 and LRA1, 421 LRA3 (including precursors of the Late Byzantine type), 422 and Eg yptian amphorae (LRA7 and other) further complement the late amphorae spectrum.423 Also recognized are Central North African (including Romanperiod types),424 earlier Pontic,425 Italian,426 Rhodian(type), 427 Spanish, 428 Cretan, 429 and various Western Mediterranean amphorae types. 430 Kapitän  II 431 and 122–23; Riley 1975, 33–34, no.  21 (Gaulish); Siegelmann and Ne’eman 1992, 60. 419   Johnson 2008, 108 and 197, nos 1288–89; pers. obs. (various fabrics, some with typical sharp combing). 420  ‘Ad, Arbel, and Gendelman 2018, 4, fig. 7; Adan-Bayewitz 1986, 102–03, figs 2.6–8, 104. Some later specimens recall findings from a shipwreck at Dora: Barkai, Kahanov, and Avissar 2010; Oren-Paskal 2008, 57; Riley 1975, 33. 421  Adan-Bayewitz 1986, 102, 106, figs 3.13, 103; Bar-Nathan and Adato 1986a, fig. 1.1–4, 132, 135 (fig. 1.3–4 seem uncertain); Magness 1994 [1995], 135; Oren-Paskal 2008, 50; Peleg and Reich 1992, 150–51, fig. 15.15. 422  Adan-Bayewitz 1986, 101–02, fig. 102; Bar-Nathan and Adato 1986a, fig. 1.17, 132, 135 (though other identifications — e.g. Agora M273 or Samos Cistern Type — are possible); Barag 1963, pl. 5B; Riley 1975, 31; Siegelmann 1974, 219–20, fig. 2.4–5; BarNathan and Adato 1986b, 166–67, 173, and fig. 3.15. 423   Adan-Bayewitz 1986, 103–04, 120, and figs  105–08; Watson (1995, 317 n.  75) suggests that there are possibly more Egyptian specimens: Riley’s Type 1C (Riley 1975, 27–28, no. 28), and Blakely 1988, fig. 6.3, 5. 424   Adan-Bayewitz 1986, 105–06, Type 4 (possibly); BarNathan and Adato 1986b, 132, 135, and fig.  1.10 (possibly); Peleg and Reich 1992, 150–51, fig. 15.16 (Africana IIC), 17–18 (Keay  XXV); Riley 1975, 38 and 40, no.  52 (Africana  IIC), 40 (Tripolitanian?); Bar-Nathan and Adato 1986b, 161, 171, pl. 148, and fig. 1.5. 425   Avner and Gendelman 2007, including Zeest 72 (also known from Beirut); Gendelman 2018, 125, fig. 7.5–6; possibly also Bar-Nathan and Adato 1986b, 165, 173, and fig. 3.2. 426  Blakely 1988, 40–41 (Campanian Dressel 1B; Dressel 6); Bull, Krentz, and Storvich 1980–84 [1986], 38, fig. 7; Finkielsztejn 2015, 70–71; presumably some in Holum and others 1988, 134–35, figs 90–91; Johnson 2008, 100, 187, no. 1204, for a possible Dressel 21–22. 427  Blakely 1988, 41. 428  Avner and Gendelman 2007, fig.  7.10; Blakely 1988, 40 (including Dressel 7–11, 20); Finkielsztejn 2015, 70. 429  Avner and Gendelman 2007. 430  Bar-Nathan and Adato 1986b, 161–62, 171, pls 149–53, fig. 1.6, 10–17, some of which are possibly Iberian, some related to Keay  I and/or Gauloise 4?; Blakely 1987, particularly in the Horreum and Mithras phases; Gendelman 2018. 431   Blakely 1987, figs  21.57, 29.103, 30.108; 1988, 41–42;

Agora G199 have also been identified.432 Some cooking vessels were imported, e.g. from Cyprus (presumably),433 the Aegean,434 and Italy (orlo bifido pans, Campanian Pompeian Red Ware) in earlier times, 435 and whilst ‘During the Herodian period and the first three centuries […] the lamps and the utilitarian wares were overwhelmingly foreign’, ‘During the Byzantine period, the utilitarian wares, like virtually all the other ceramics from the harbor, are regional in origin’.436 Sussman has argued for a roughly similar development concerning oil lamps, with changes that already took place in the second and third centuries ad,437 though imported lamps can be recognized throughout the Roman and Byzantine periods.438 Mortaria and a pithos from Ras al-Bassit (and mortaria also from other sources) have been identified, in part through archaeometrical analyses. 439 The occasional Late Roman Unguentarium is discovered.440 ARSW (including some early forms),441 CRSW/LRD, and LRC are plentifully identified. 442 Holum and others 1988, 136, fig. 92; Peleg and Reich 1992, 152–53, fig. 16.4; Riley 1975, 40; Bar-Nathan and Adato 1986b, 162, 171, fig. 1.7–9 (though no. 9 rather not). 432  Bar-Nathan and Adato 1986b, 166, 173, fig. 3.7. 433  Adan-Bayewitz 1986, 120, fig. 4.3–4; Magness 1994 [1995], 135, fig. 1.16–17; Riley 1975, 35–36, no. 32. 434  Johnson 2008, 20; Riley 1975, 41, no. 58. 435  Blakely 1992, 34–35, 40–41, and figs 16.2–4 and 23.7–8; Johnson 2008, 23, 76–77, nos 902–03 and 905. 436   Oleson 1996, 373, also 374–75, though several aspects of the underlying methodo­logy and subsequent interpretation are problematic. For imported oil lamps, see Patrich 2011, 124. 437  Sussman 1996, 347, 354–55, and 358; Sussman 2008; Vine and Hartelius 1986. 438   Bull, Krentz, and Storvich 1980–82 [1986], 53–54, figs 28–29; Holum and others 1988, 167, fig. 117 (North African); Sussman 1995 (Cretan); Porath and Gur 2015, 9 (Italian?). 439   Blakely, Brinkmann, and Vitaliano 1992; Groh 1978; Johnson 2008, 54; Riley 1975, 36–37, nos 41–42; presumably also Bar-Nathan and Adato 1986b, 168, 175, and fig. 3.11. 440  Johnson and Idelson 2011, 174–76, pl.  IV; Riley 1975, 35–37, nos 39–40. For Late Roman Unguentaria, see Hayes 1971. 441  Bar-Nathan and Adato 1986b, 164, 172, and fig. 2.19–20 (no. 20, identified as Hayes Form 181, a cooking vessel). 442   Adan-Bayewitz 1986, 111–12; Bar-Nathan and Adato 1986b, 133, 136, and fig. 2.2–14; Johnson 2008, 20; Johnson and Idelson 2011, pls  I–II; Lenzen 1983a, 312–17; Magness 1994 [1995], 134; Sidebotham 1994; Peleg and Reich 1992, 145–47, figs 13.6–7 and 14.1; Riley 1975, 36–39 and 52–53, e.g. nos 44–47 and 49–50; Siegelmann 1974, 219–20, fig.  2.1–2 (rare ARSW Forms); Tomber 1999, 297–99, tables 1 and 5–6; Bar-Nathan and Adato 1986b, 167–68, 175, and fig. 4.1–10.

3. Ceramics in Cities in Context Also identified are SRSW, 443 FBW, 444 and ERSW 445 and Coptic pottery446 from Egypt. In fact, during the Umayyad and Early Abbasid periods Egyptian pottery — already present in the Byzantine period447 — appears to have comprised a considerable share of what was imported here and elsewhere,448 and possibly included oil lamps.449 Similar observations were made for Pella and possibly Dora (the Tantura F shipwreck) (see above). Earlier (red slip) tablewares are mostly represented by ESA450 and to a lesser extent ESD,451 in addition to which ITS,452 ESB,453 ESC,454 Lead-Glazed,455 Gaulish Sigillata, 456 Nabataean Ware (painted?), 457 Knidian Relief Ware and π-handle bowls(?),458 Ephesian Grey Ware, 459 Corinthian Relief Bowls,460 and ThinWalled Ware461 have been identified. Rarer finds concern stamped legionary tiles from Jerusalem.462 Glazed wares 443 

Johnson 2008, 31. Typo­logically these are doubtful and perhaps better classified as LRD. 444  Johnson 2008, 41–43 and 140–41, nos 321–41. 445   Adan-Bayewitz 1986, 112–13; Arnon 2008b, 91–92, fig.  4.2; Johnson 2008, 54 and 56; Johnson and Idelson 2011, 170–71, pl. II. 446  Adan-Bayewitz 1986, 110; Johnson 2008, 57–58. 447  Johnson and Idelson 2011, 174–76, pl.  IV; Oren-Paskal 2008, 54; Riley 1975, 31–33 n. 20 (amphorae). 448  Arnon 2008a, 40, 54, and 56–57; Taxel and Fantalkin 2011. 449  Arnon 2008c, 216 and 218. 450  Gendelman 2018, 106. 451   Adan-Bayewitz 1986, 113; Avner and Gendelman 2007; Holum and others 1988, 42, fig. 19; Johnson 2008, 20, 25; Sidebotham 1994, 47, table II.36 (where ETS-II is also considered to originate from Cyprus, whereas the text (45) favours western Asia Minor, implying this concerns ESB?); Riley 1975, 52–53. 452  Sidebotham 1994, 46–47, table II.36, and figs 29–30 and 47–48, nos RG89–90, 92, and 164–68; Bull and others 1982–89 [1991], 82; likely Govaars, Spiro, and White 2009, 90–91, 95, and figs 100–01, no. 1017; Holum and others 1988, 80, figs 45–47; Gendelman 2018, 107, 109, 118–20, and figs 1.10–12 and 5.2. 453  Gendelman 2018, 121–22, fig. 6.2. 454  Johnson 2008, 30–32; Riley 1975, 41–42, no. 70 (ESC), 43–44, and 46 (ESB). 455  Riley 1975, 46. 456  Johnson 2008, 20. 457  Johnson 2008, 40. 458  Johnson 2008, 30–31; Gendelman 2015, 25, 40, and 45. 459  Johnson 2008, 30. 460  Johnson 2008, 24. 461  Blakely 1992, 37, 39, and fig. 22; Bull, Krentz, and Storvich 1980–84 [1986], 53–54, figs 28–29; Johnson 2008, 22. 462  Sussman 1996, 347; Bar-Nathan and Adato 1986b, 165.

77 are thought only to have appeared by the later eighth century ad and to have been predominantly imported, including from sources eastwards.463

Case Studies The evidence summarized above allows us to move beyond the site-based data by focusing on two topical case studies (in line with the second aim of this chapter) that serve as an upbeat of sorts to the final part of this chapter. Summarizing and comparing the data of two categories of imported pottery — amphorae and LRRW — allows us to make observations regarding typo­logical, chrono­logical, and spatial quantitative distribution, and discuss shortcomings in the data that prevent a more thorough analysis and interpretation. As a counterpoint, we present a third case study based on the excavations at Gerasa’s Northwest Quarter, revealing the kinds of results that can be expected from a methodo­logy that pursues full quantification of excavated pottery. Ceramic data from the region presents a variety of possibilities for more detailed research: Da Costa’s informative study of regional oil lamp production and distribution is one such example.464 The first two case studies were partly also motivated by the assumption that there is a certain — understandable — preference to recognize, study, and select imported pottery for publication in comparison to local and regional pottery. Simultaneously, the identification of imported pottery implies that our notion of what is presumably regional, if not local pottery can be improved, and is thus of potential interest to help identify and classify local, regional, and imported ceramic categories as a basis for more detailed study. It will nevertheless be argued that even for the relatively well-known imported wares and types the available data represents a far from ideal picture. Case Study 1: Imported Amphorae This first case study focuses on imported amphorae.465 The idea behind it — similar to that for the LRRW (see below) — is to summarize the available evidence, 463 

Arnon 2008a, 20. Da Costa 2010. 465  Several standard works were consulted: Pieri 2005; Bonifay 2004; Keay 1984; Riley 1979; [accessed 2 August 2019]. 464 

Philip Bes, Tom Brughmans, Achim Lichtenberger, Rubina Raja, and Iza Romanowska

78

Bostra

Capitolias

Gadara

Abila

Hippos

Tiberias

Scythopolis

Pella

Philadelphia

Neapolis

Samaria

Dora

Caesarea

Provenance

Damascus

Table 3.2. Attestation of amphorae types, arranged by (general) area of provenance (and per area in rough chrono­logical order), for fourteen of the sixteen sites from where evidence has been published. Cells in light grey mark uncertain identifications.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

X

Dressel 2–4 (Campanian)

 

 

 

 

 

X

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

X

Dressel 6 (or Lamboglia 2)

 

 

 

 

 

X

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

X

Dressel 21–22

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

X

Richborough 527

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

X

Forlimpopuli

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

X

 

 

 

 

 

 

Keay LII

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

X

Gauloise 1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

X

Gauloise 4/Pélichet 47

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

X

 

X

 

Other

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

X

Haltern 70

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

X

Beltrán IIA

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

X

Beltrán IIB

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

X

 

 

 

Beltrán IVA–B

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

X

 

 

 

Dressel 7–11/Beltrán I

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

X

 

 

X

Dressel 7–11/Beltrán I (Tarraconensis?)  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

X

Dressel 20

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

X

Keay XVIA/Almagro 50

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

X

Keay XXIIIbis?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

X

Keay XCI(A)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

X

 

Other (Spanish)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

X

Rhodian (Early Roman)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

X

Agora G197/Crétoise 1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

X

Cretan

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

X

Kapitän II

 

 

 

 

 

X

 

X

 

 

X

 

X

X

Knossos 26/27

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

X

Knossos 39

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

X

Dressel 24/Zeest 90

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

X

 

LRA2

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

X

X

LRA13 (Aegean?)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

X

X

Globular (southern Turkey/Cyprus?)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

X

Other

 

 

 

 

 

X

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Predecessors of LRA3 (e.g. MRA3)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

X

LRA3

X

X

 

 

 

X

 

X

X

 

X

X

 

X

Type Identification

Italy/Adriatic Dressel 1B (Campanian)

France

Iberian Peninsula

Aegean

Western Turkey

continued opposite

Provenance

Type Identification

Bostra

Capitolias

Gadara

Abila

Hippos

Tiberias

Scythopolis

Pella

Philadelphia

Neapolis

Samaria

Dora

Caesarea

79

Damascus

3. Ceramics in Cities in Context

Black Sea

Zeest 72

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

X

C Snp I (Sinopean?)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

X

 

 

 

C Snp II–III (Sinopean?)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

X

X

D Snp I–II(I) (Sinopean)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

X

X

 

 

 

 

X

Tyrus

X

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

X

Kingsholm 117

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

X

LRA4

X

X

 

 

X

X

 

X

X

 

X

 

X

X

LRA5

 

X

 

 

 

 

X

 

X

 

X

 

X

X

LRA6

 

X

X

X

 

X

X

X

X

 

 

X

 

X

LRA6 (Umayyad)

 

 

 

X

X

 

 

X

X

X

 

 

 

X

Agora M334

X

 

 

X

 

X

 

X

 

 

X

 

 

X

Beirut 3.2

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

X

Beirut (other)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

X

Egloff 172 (and related)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

X

LRA7

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

X

X

Egyptian (Bag-Shaped?)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

X

 

 

 

 

X

Egyptian (Umayyad)

 

 

 

 

 

X

 

X

X

 

 

 

X

X

Other

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

X

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

X

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

X

Tripolitanian III

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

X

Africana Grande IIB

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

X

Africana IIC

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

X

Africana Piccolo

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

X

Keay XXV

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

X

Keay LXIID

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

X

 

Spatheion 1–2

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

X

 

 

 

Spatheion

 

 

 

 

 

X

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

X

Tunisian/Tripolitanian

X

 

 

X

 

X

 

X

 

 

X

 

X

X

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

X

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

X

Mid Roman Amphora 1(a)

 

X

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

X

 

 

X

Other

 

 

 

X

 

X

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

X

Levantine

Egyptian

Keay III/V Central North Africa Keay III(bis)

Western Medi­ Keay IA terranean Keay IB

Eastern Medi­ Agora G199 (West Cilicia and Cyprus) terranean LRA1 (mostly East Cilicia and Cyprus?)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

X

X

X

X

 

X

 

X

X

X

 

 

X

 

X

X

Other

Dressel 2–4

 

 

 

X

 

 

 

 

 

 

X

 

 

X

Knossos 18

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

X

80

Philip Bes, Tom Brughmans, Achim Lichtenberger, Rubina Raja, and Iza Romanowska

e­ valuate possible trends, and highlight shortcomings in relation to this chapter’s broader purpose. Amphorae usually comprise one of the more commonly attested ceramic categories for the Roman and Byzantine periods, and this is the case for the studied sites too insofar as the available evidence allows us to draw this conclusion. As a side note: one noteworthy feature in terms of regional amphora morpho­logy is the longevity of the tradition of bag-shaped amphorae that were manufactured throughout the Roman and Byzantine periods as well as thereafter, and actually represent much older morpho­logical regional traditions. In the literature these regionally manufactured vessels are generally referred to as storage jars, a term both somewhat confusing and limiting, as these amphorae clearly circulated within the region — and presumably dominated the market for amphorae-borne foodstuffs — and some categories also beyond. There is considerable evidence for the import of amphorae from across the Mediterranean and the Black Sea. Table 3.2 summarizes the presence in fourteen of the sixteen sites; Philippopolis and Canatha are omitted since no relevant evidence has been published. What is immediately clear is the huge difference in attested type and provenance variety between Caesarea and the other thirteen sites. We need to consider that the unbalanced publication record for the study region is one contributing factor: for example, quantified evidence is mostly available for Caesarea. It is therefore presumably not surprising to find larger quantities as well as a larger variety, thus distorting any interpretation. However, at the same time one cannot escape the question of whether the attested type and provenance variety also signals a basic difference in geo­g raphical distribution that pertains to coastal versus inland, underscoring the role of Caesarea as an important node for regional and Mediterraneanwide economic traffic (and certainly not only concerning pottery). Roman-period data is comparatively scarce (as is the case more generally), yet it is at Caesarea where the largest typo­logical variety occurs. Few types are identified at inland sites (e.g. at Neapolis), usually though represented by single specimens, whereas at Caesarea such types appear more commonly. There is much clearer evidence available for the Byzantine period, and at most sites one or more Late Roman Amphorae types typical for the Eastern Mediterranean (LRA1, LRA3, LRA4, and LRA5) are identified. These generally have fabric and morpho­logical features making fragments relatively easy to recognize, and it is plausible to consider that amidst a plethora of fragments of regional amphorae attention

is favourably directed towards the unusual, which is prone to work its way through into a bias in published evidence in one way or another. The world of Byzantine amphorae manufacture and circulation is much more complex, however, as research increasingly shows, and it appears we are still only scratching the surface. Based on the collected evidence the overall impression is that away from the coast both the quantity and variety of long-distance imported amphorae decreases substantially. Both Caesarea and Dora are dominated by LRA4 and LRA5, a picture that is also observed regarding the amphorae from recent excavations at Caesarea by Vanderbilt Uni­ ver­sity.466 Although this is evidence for intense regional (coastal) traffic, both categories were also destined for Mediterranean-wide surplus export. It is beyond the scope here to discuss content in any detail, but in a region that is usually understood to have focused on the production of wine, the question is what these imported amphorae carried. Amphorae contents is a complicated topic, and the practice and (ideally) also volume of amphora reuse needs to be considered. The imported amphorae that are attested are generally associated with wine, olive oil, and fish-based products. More and similarly collected and studied data is required if future research wishes to investigate detailed regional ceramic patterns, especially to help understand what factors underpinned spatial (coastal versus inland in particular) and diachronic variations. Case Study 2: Imported Late Roman Red Wares The second case study deals with imported LRRW, in particular ARSW, CRSW/LRD, and LRC. 467 Terra Sigillata and Red Slip Wares — basically two monikers for the same ceramic product — are some of the betterknown ceramic representatives of the Late Hellenistic to Byzantine worlds, though certainly not always and everywhere so. Terra Sigillata first appeared as a distinct innovation close to the mid-second century bc (in the form of ESA) presumably in the wider region of Antioch on the Orontes. Through complex processes of distribution and adoption, by the Early Empire, Terra Sigillata had become a defining part of Roman (ceramic) material culture. Red slip tablewares remained a characteristic feature well into the Late Byzantine period, and there

466 

Rife, Lieberman, and Gendelman 2019. Bes 2015, chapters 5–6; several standard works were con­ sulted: Hayes 1972; 1980; 1985; 2008; Meyza 2007; Bonifay 2004. 467 

3. Ceramics in Cities in Context

81

ARSW

9A 17 26 27 32 32/58 33 45(A)? 45/76 50(A?) 50B 50 57 58 59B 59B? 60? 61A 61 62 64 65 67 78 80? 81B 82 83 84 85 89 91A 91B 91B? 91A–B 91C 91 93A 94A 96 99A 99B

Caesarea

Dora

Samaria

Neapolis

Philadelphia

Pella

Scythopolis

Tiberias

Hippos

Abila

Gadara

Capitolias

Bostra

Damascus

Table 3.3. Attestation of Hayes Forms for ARSW, CRSW/LRD, and LRC for fourteen of the sixteen sites from where evidence has been published; form- and stamp-identifications are taken from the studied literature.

X X X X X

X

X

X X X

X

X X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X X X

X

X X X X

X

X

X X X X X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X X X X X X X X

X X

X

X X

X

X X

X X

X

X

X

X

X

X X X X

X X

continued

ARSW (cont.) 99B/C 99C 99 103B 103 104A 104B 104C 104 105 104–105 106 107 108 109 104C/109 181 195 Stamp 67? Stamp 209Bq Stamp 234d+166–172 Stamp Group Aii Stamp Group Eii CRSW/LRD 1 2 3 4 5 5? 7 8A 8A? 8B 8B? (cf. Meyza) 8 9A 9B 9B? 9A–B 9C 9 10 9C–10 11

Caesarea

Dora

Samaria

Neapolis

Philadelphia

Pella

Scythopolis

Tiberias

Hippos

Abila

Gadara

Capitolias

Bostra

Philip Bes, Tom Brughmans, Achim Lichtenberger, Rubina Raja, and Iza Romanowska

Damascus

82

X X

X

X

X

X X

X

X X X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X X

X

X X X X

X

X

X

X

X

X X

X X

X X X X X X X X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X X

X

X X X X X

X

X

X

X

X

X X

X

X X X X

X

X

X

X

X

X X

X

X X X X

X

X

X

X

X X

X

X X

X

X X

continued

CRSW/LRD 11 (late) (cont.) K1 (cf. Meyza 2007) K3 (cf. Meyza 2007) K1/3 (cf. Meyza 2007) K4A (cf. Meyza 2007) LRC

1A 1B 1 2A 2C 3C 3C? 3D 3D/F 3E 3F 3F? 3E–F 3G 3G–H 3H 3 3/10 4? 5A 6 6? 7 8 8? 9 10A 10A? 10B 10B? 10A–B 10B–C 10C 10 Stamp 19 Stamp 45? Stamp 48? Stamp 67 Stamp 71 Stamp Group IIB–III

Caesarea

Dora

Samaria

Neapolis

Philadelphia

Pella

Scythopolis

Tiberias

Hippos

Abila

Gadara

Capitolias

83

Bostra

Damascus

3. Ceramics in Cities in Context

X X X X X X X X X

X X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X X X X

X

X

X

X X

X

X X

X X X

X

X

X

X X

X X

X

X X X

X X X X X

X

X

X

X

X X

X

X X

X X X X

X

X

X

X

X

X X X X X X

X X

Philip Bes, Tom Brughmans, Achim Lichtenberger, Rubina Raja, and Iza Romanowska

84

Figure 3.2. Distribution of ceramic material chrono­logies by type of dating (14C, coins, glass, and pottery typo­logy). Note that pottery coming from contexts with no dating and those whose dating encompass the entire duration of the city’s occupation (i.e. from Roman to Early Islamic) are not included. R: Roman; B: Byzantine; EI: Early Islamic (© the authors).

are indications for partial regionalized continuation into the late seventh and early eighth centuries ad. The study region is no exception to these general patterns, and Terra Sigillata and Red Slip Wares have been attested at nearly all sites; where they have not, especially the more commonly distributed wares, we presume that this is research-related more than anything else. Where present, it appears that the Late Hellenistic and Early Imperial periods are characterized by ESA, and to a much lesser extent by ESD. The latter presumably came from western Cyprus, though recent research hints at a model of regional production, whereby one or more production centres in Lycia and/ or Pamphylia manufactured (partly) similar typo­logical repertoires. 468 More substantial evidence, however, is available for the Byzantine period, and generally concerns the typical triad of ARSW, LRC (a term preferred 468 

Poblome and Fırat 2011; Jackson and others 2012.

here over the older moniker PRSW), and CRSW/LRD (see Table 3.3), categories that are all characterized by a model of regional production, that is, multiple centres producing (partly) similar typo­logical repertoires. Little is known yet about the diachronic dynamics of most of these workshops: for example, did they all operate at the same time? Through which mechanisms was knowledge exchanged or transferred between them? In the case of LRC, however, the workshops at Phokaia appear to have dominated production output and distribution, whilst smaller-scale workshops presumably catered for more regionalized markets. One, two, but mostly all three categories have been identified at fourteen of the sixteen sites. None have been identified at Philippopolis and Canatha, and whilst one could observe that these two sites are most distant from the Mediterranean coast, another, and possibly more likely reason, is that uneven research and/or publication underlies this situation — similarly for the amphorae (see above). All three, after all, have been iden-

3. Ceramics in Cities in Context tified at Damascus. Fragments of these wares are usually easily spotted, especially in a region that did not really have a tradition of Terra Sigillata/Red Slip Ware production during the Late Hellenistic to Byzantine periods. A survey of the typo­logical information that is available makes it clear that what is attested is, in general, a recurrent typo­logical repertoire; this phenomenon is observed also elsewhere, which hints at certain rationales underlying production, but above all distribution and consumption/use. This information also allows us to gain some notion about diachronic distribution. Second to earlier fourth-century ad ARSW Forms, whose general distribution in the Eastern Mediterranean only really took off during the second half of the fourth and earlier fifth centuries ad, have thus far been attested at Bostra, Gadara, Hippos, Neapolis, Scythopolis, Samaria, and Caesarea, which includes possible early variants of the common Hayes Form 50. The fourth- and fifth-century ad distribution of ARSW is arguably best represented by Hayes Forms 50, 61, and 67, and for the sixth and seventh centuries ad by Hayes Forms 91, 99, 104, and 105. In general, however, ARSW appears to have been the least common which, considering its origin (Tunisia mostly), is not necessarily surprising. Quantified contextual data from Caesarea dated to around ad 400, shows that CRSW/LRD was most common, followed by ARSW and then LRC. Around ad 400, the latter had only just begun to make its mark on the (Eastern) Mediterranean market for red slip tablewares. CRSW/LRD maintained a firm hold on the regional market well into the seventh century ad, and is usually represented by Hayes Forms 1, 2, and 9. It is interesting, however, that for several of the studied sites it has been observed that (Phocaean) LRC (typically represented by Hayes Forms 3 and 10) was the most common. What is unclear is whether these observations pertain to the distributional peak of LRC during c. ad 450–550. A typo­logical survey does not necessarily support this, as Hayes Form 10 (with variants A-C), dated from c. ad 550 well into the seventh century ad is also well attested. The same in fact holds true for late forms of ARSW and CRSW/LRD. Whilst it is thought that the widespread distribution of ARSW, CRSW/LRD, and LRC was seriously affected by the Arab conquest, this may not necessarily have been an all-encompassing societal and economic turning point. It is noteworthy nonetheless that for Pella and Caesarea it was observed that ERSW experienced an increase during the Umayyad period, which may be explained in relation to the dis-

85 appearance of ARSW, CRSW/LRD, and LRC from Mediterranean (commercial) markets. The scarcity of quantified data prevents us from looking into fundamental economic and social questions. For example, was there a general availability of these categories (i.e. a democracy of distribution)? How did people perceive vessels aesthetically and functionally? How did they incorporate them within their (ceramic) material culture and dining customs — both real imports as well as regionally manufactured vessels? Did the origin of a vessel in fact matter? What does the fact that various forms of Jerash Bowls show quite strong morpho­logical parallels with certain ARSW Forms tell us about mechanisms of inspiration and preference?469 And finally, were tablewares and for example oil lamps simply easier to transport overland than amphorae? Reynolds’s recent overview of tableware trends in Beirut provides an interesting and valuable example470 (just like Tomber’s study concerning Caesarea) that helps us to better understand the quantitative and qualitative distribution and consumption of Byzantine-period red slip tablewares. Equipped with more of such well-defined and quantitative studies, it will allow us to get a better grip on the dynamics of tableware and amphorae distribution (and other categories) here and elsewhere. Case Study 3: Fully Quantified Ceramic Data from the Jerash Northwest Quarter The third case study provides an example of how a methodo­logy of full pottery quantification allows for a highly detailed picture of changes in ceramic assemblages through time. The excavations of the Jerash Northwest Quarter brought to light a total of 625,063 contextualized ceramic artefacts (not including 133,584 entries from topsoil and mixed assemblages) recovered from twenty-four trenches (A–X). Although the amount of ceramic material coming from different trenches varies substantially, from as little as 212 artefacts in trench A to 144,390 artefacts in trench J, the average number of ceramic finds is around 24,000 per trench. Four sources for establishing a broad chrono­logy were used: pottery typo­logy, glass evidence, coins, and 14 C dating. Figure 3.2 shows the distribution of dated ceramic material for each of these types of dating. The archaeo­logical contexts that could be dated yielded about 50 per cent of all ceramic material found in the 469  470 

Watson 1989, 224 and 226. Reynolds 2011.

86

Philip Bes, Tom Brughmans, Achim Lichtenberger, Rubina Raja, and Iza Romanowska

Figure 3.3. Number of ceramic fragments dated to different periods per trench. R: Roman; B: Byzantine; EI: Early Islamic (© the authors).

excavated trenches. There are clear trends of different types of chrono­logical markers being dominant for different periods. For example, pottery is predominantly identified to be BEI (Byzantine and Early Islamic), while 14 C dates centre around the earliest period. This of course is related to the 14C sampling strategy that was aimed at dating the earliest phases. Ceramic material coming from different trenches shows the different chrono­logical phases of the site and is helpful in indicating particular trenches where the contexts are chrono­logically most heterogenous (e.g. trenches G and H, where almost 90 per cent of the pottery is dated as Roman-Byzantine-Early Islamic, see Fig.  3.3). On the other hand, there are clear chrono­ logical trends detectable in other trenches, e.g. trench A producing predominantly Roman finds, trenches E and M mostly Byzantine finds, and trenches D and V having a strong Early Islamic component. We can also obtain a highly detailed picture concerning the main focus of this paper: differences in local, regional, and imported pottery. In total, 99.31 per cent of the pottery is classified as local, with 0.49 per cent classified as imports and the remainder as regional (see

Fig. 3.4a). This dominance of locally manufactured pottery is maintained throughout the entire occupation of Gerasa and irrespective of the type of dating with only minor fluctuations for the Early Islamic period. Although local pottery dominates in all excavated trenches (see Fig. 3.4a), trench D has over 8 per cent of regional ceramics and in trench V — one of the trenches excavated in a house abandoned due to the earthquake of ad 749 — 11.3 per cent of the recovered ceramic material is classified as imported. Although there is a clear correlation between pottery classified as plain and local, the general pattern of the strong dominance of local ceramic production is preserved even when plain ware pottery is removed from the analysis (a reduction in the number of artefacts from approximately 620,000 to 217,000) (see Fig. 3.4b). In terms of total ware distribution, the most common find at Gerasa is Plain Ware (over 400,000 finds), followed by Grey Ware (over 100,000 finds), Coarse Ware, and finds broadly classified as local (both over 50,000 finds). Among the non-plain wares (see Fig.  3.5) the Red Ware dominates, followed by finds broadly classified as Fine Ware and Import. Jerash Bowls, unpainted Mamluk Wares, and Green Wares are also relatively com-

3. Ceramics in Cities in Context

a

b Figure 3.4. Proportions of local, regional, and imported pottery per trench. a) All ceramic fragments; b) Plain wares removed (© the authors).

87

Philip Bes, Tom Brughmans, Achim Lichtenberger, Rubina Raja, and Iza Romanowska

88

Figure 3.5. Distribution of Ware types in Gerasa. The category ‘Furnishing and Specialised’ includes all fragments that are not amphorae, tableware, cooking ware, coarse ware, or unknown (© the authors).

common finds include cooking and coarse wares (see Fig. 3.6). The provenance of the pottery also correlates well with their types. Not surprisingly, the plain, coarse, and cooking ware were locally produced, while amphorae and specialized vessels (a category which includes painted bowls) were either regionally manufactured or imported (see Fig. 3.7).

Trends

Figure 3.6. The absolute numbers of categories of ceramic fragments (© the authors).

mon with numbers of artefacts in their hundreds. Other local types, as well as ESA and ESB, are significantly less common. In terms of functional categories, tablewares are clearly dominant in absolute (490,000) and relative numbers. This is not surprising given that this category includes plain ware — by far the most abundant. Other

The underlying aim of this chapter is to provide a geo­ graphical and ceramo­logical context for Roman- to Umayyad-period pottery at Gerasa. This context in particular serves to understand to what extent and in what ways Gerasa’s ceramic profile compares to those of the other sixteen sites. In this section, we will explore some of the general trends that can be distilled from the literature review, thereby focusing on long-distance imports, and locally and regionally manufactured pottery. This discussion is supported by a qualitative and quantitative summary of the pottery presented in Tables 3.4–3.5. Long-Distance The overall impression for the studied region, partly supported by quantified data and observations, is that longdistance imported pottery — from Mediterranean and

3. Ceramics in Cities in Context

89

Figure 3.7. Proportions of local, regional, and imported pottery per ceramic category. Please note these represent relative numbers; these categories differ significantly in absolute numbers as can be seen in Figure 3.6 (© the authors).

Black Sea sources — generally becomes scarce both in terms of quantity and in the variety of wares and types once one moves beyond the coastal zone. Here, Caesarea appears to represent this aspect, arguably because it is one of the better investigated and published sites. One cannot escape to contemplate the notion, however, that there were basic differences between coastal and inland sites. Long-distance exchange and consumption in Antiquity, as far as it concerns pottery, may well have been a predominantly coastal phenomenon. What the ware- and type-attestation shows (see Table  3.4) is that the Roman period is underrepresented.471 This can be explained, albeit perhaps partly, by the fact that all sixteen sites were occupied (in one form or the other) at least into the Umayyad period, and in a number of cases until the present day. While this phenomenon reveals, among others, the dynamic character of cities and location preference, at the same time it blurs our view of the Roman period. Amidst this patchy picture, however, there is one aspect that catches the eye: Roman-period long-distance imported amphorae are much less frequently attested in comparison to Terra Sigillata/Red Slip Wares, here mostly represented 471  The same is true for the coin distribution in the region with a low proportion of Roman material, see the contribution by Lichtenberger and Raja on coins from Gerasa in this volume.

by ESA — except for Caesarea, again, where we would expect to find generally more imported amphorae than at inland sites. These amphora types are often represented by single or a few examples at most, whilst tablewares appear to have been slightly more common. We need to be wary of fragmentation (when they break, amphorae produce more sherds), however, as well as recognizability: Red Slip Ware fragments are plausibly easier to spot. Anyone who has worked with pottery (fragments) in the field might recognize an initial tendency to focus on what macroscopically stands out, and it is not entirely unthinkable that this, at least in the past, permeates into what is eventually published. For the Byzantine period we can observe a roughly similar phenomenon: ARSW, CRSW/LRD, LRC, and ERSW — the latter especially during the Late Byzantine and Umayyad periods — are attested at nearly all sites. While Philippopolis and Capitolias appear to be exceptions, from a ceramic perspective these are poorly published, as is Canatha, for which only Roman-period pottery has been published in detail. Byzantine amphorae are usually attested in only small numbers — though more widely in comparison to the Roman period — and mostly concerns LRA6 (an inland product moreover with a wide and sometimes fairly intense circulation), LRA1, LRA3, LRA4, and LRA5.

Philip Bes, Tom Brughmans, Achim Lichtenberger, Rubina Raja, and Iza Romanowska

90

Canatha

Bostra

Capitolias

Gadara

Abila

X

 

X

X

X

X

X

ESB

 

 

 

 

 

X

 

ESC

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ESD

 

 

 

 

 

X

 

X

 

 

ITS

X

 

 

X

 

X

 

X

X

X

ARSW

X

 

 

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

CRSW/LRD

X

 

 

X

 

X

X

X

X

X

X

 

PRSW/LRC

X

 

 

X

 

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

ERSW

 

 

 

 

 

X

 

X

X

X

X

 

Coptic Painted Ware

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

X

X

 

FBW

 

 

 

 

 

X

 

X

X

X

 

Gaulish Sigillata

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Thin-Walled Ware

 

 

 

 

 

 

X

X

 

 

Thin-Walled Ware (Italian)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Lead-Glazed

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ephesian Grey Ware

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Knidian Relief Ware

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(Knidian-style) π-handle bowl

 

 

 

 

 

 

Corinthian(-style) Relief Bowl

 

 

 

 

 

 

Nabataean Painted Ware

 

 

X

X

X

Hauran Ware

 

 

X

X

 

Jerash Bowls

 

 

 

X

X

Sepphoris

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dressel 2–4 (Campanian)

 

 

 

 

 

Dressel 6 (or Lamboglia 2)

 

 

 

 

 

Dressel 21–22

 

 

 

 

Richborough 527

 

 

 

Forlimpopuli

 

 

 

Keay LII

 

 

Gauloise 1

 

Gauloise 4/Pélichet 47

 

Other Haltern 70

 

 

 

 

 

X

X X

X

X

 

 

X

X

 

 

 

 

Caesarea

X

Dora

X

Samaria

Pella

 

Scythopolis

X

Tiberias

X

Hippos

Neapolis

Philippopolis

Tablewares ESA

Philadelphia

Functional Category Ware/Provenance

Damascus

Table 3.4. An overview of mostly non-regionally manufactured tablewares, amphorae, oil lamps, cooking wares, and varia attested at the sixteen sites, based on the studied literature. Cells in light grey mark uncertain identifications.

X

X

X

X

 

X

 

 

X

 

X

X

X

 

X

 

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

 

 

X

X

 

 

 

 

X

 

 

 

 

X

 

 

 

X

 

X

 

 

 

 

 

X

 

 

 

 

 

 

X

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

X

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

X

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

X

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

X

X

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

X

X

 

 

 

 

 

X

 

 

 

X

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

X

X

X

 

X

X

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

X

X

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

X

 

 

X

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

X

 

 

X

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

X

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

X

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

X

 

 

 

 

 

 

X

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

X

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

X

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

X

 

X

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

X

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

X

Beltrán IIA

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

X

Beltrán IIB

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

X

 

 

 

Beltrán IVA-B

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

X

 

 

 

Dressel 7–11/Beltrán I

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

X

 

 

X

Amphorae Dressel 1B (Campanian)

continued

Canatha

Bostra

Capitolias

Gadara

Abila

Hippos

Tiberias

Scythopolis

Pella

Philadelphia

Neapolis

Samaria

Dora

Caesarea

Amphorae Dressel 7–11/Beltrán I (Tarraconensis?)   (cont.)   Dressel 20

Philippopolis

Functional Category Ware/Provenance

91

Damascus

3. Ceramics in Cities in Context

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

X

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

X

Keay XVIA/Almagro 50

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

X

Keay XXIIIbis?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

X

Keay XCI(A)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

X

 

Other (Spanish)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

X

Rhodian (Early Roman)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

X

Agora G197/Crétoise 1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

X

Cretan

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

X

Kapitän II

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

X

 

X

 

 

X

 

X

X

Knossos 26/27

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

X

Knossos 39

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

X

Dressel 24/Zeest 90

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

X

 

LRA2

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

X

X

LRA13 (Aegean?)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

X

X

Globular (southern Turkey/Cyprus?)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

X

Other

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

X

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Predecessors of LRA3 (e.g. MRA3)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

X

LRA3

X

 

 

X

 

 

 

X

 

X

X

 

X

X

 

X

Zeest 72

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

X

C Snp I (Sinopean?)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

X

 

 

 

C Snp II–III (Sinopean?)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

X

X

D Snp I–II(I) (Sinopean)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

X

X

 

 

 

 

X

Tyrus

X

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

X

Kingsholm 117

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

X

LRA4

X

 

 

X

 

 

X

X

 

X

X

 

X

 

X

X

LRA5

 

 

 

X

 

 

 

 

X

 

X

 

X

 

X

X

LRA6

 

 

 

X

X

X

 

X

X

X

X

 

 

X

 

X

LRA6 (Umayyad)

 

 

 

 

 

X

X

 

 

X

X

X

 

 

 

X

Agora M334

X

 

 

 

 

X

 

X

 

X

 

 

X

 

 

X

Beirut 3.2

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

X

Beirut (other)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

X

Egloff 172 (and related)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

X

LRA7

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

X

X

Egyptian (Bag-Shaped?)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

X

 

 

 

 

X

Egyptian (Umayyad)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

X

 

X

X

 

 

 

X

X

Other

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

X

Keay III/V

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

X

 

 

 

 

 

 

Keay III(bis)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

X

Tripolitanian III

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

X

continued

Oil Lamps

Cooking Vessels

Varia

Canatha

Bostra

Capitolias

Gadara

Abila

Hippos

Tiberias

Scythopolis

Pella

Philadelphia

Neapolis

Samaria

Dora

Caesarea

Amphorae Africana Grande IIB (cont.) Africana IIC

Philippopolis

Functional Category Ware/Provenance

Damascus

Philip Bes, Tom Brughmans, Achim Lichtenberger, Rubina Raja, and Iza Romanowska

92

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

X

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

X

Africana Piccolo

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

X

Keay XXV

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

X

Keay LXIID

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

X

 

Spatheion 1–2

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

X

 

 

 

Spatheion

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

X

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

X

Tunisian/Tripolitanian

X

 

 

 

 

X

 

X

 

X

 

 

X

 

X

X

Keay IA

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

X

Keay IB

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

X

Mid Roman Amphora 1(a)

 

 

 

X

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

X

 

 

X

Other

 

 

 

 

 

X

 

X

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

X

Agora G199 (West Cilicia and Cyprus)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

X

X

LRA1 (mostly East Cilicia and Cyprus?) X

 

 

X

 

X

 

X

X

X

 

 

X

 

X

X

Dressel 2–4

 

 

 

 

 

X

 

 

 

 

 

 

X

 

 

X

Knossos 18

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

X

Egyptian

 

 

 

 

 

 

X

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

X

X

Italian

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

X

Attic

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

X

 

 

 

 

 

 

Cretan

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

X

Asia Minor

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

X

Gerasa(-type)

 

 

 

X

X

 

X

X

 

X

X

 

 

X

X

X

Cypriot

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

X

Syrian

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

X

 

 

 

 

 

X

Central North African

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

X

 

 

 

 

 

X

Gerasa

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

X

 

X

X

 

 

 

 

 

Campanian

 

 

 

 

 

X

 

 

 

X

 

 

 

 

X

 

Phokaian/Aegean baking dish

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

X

 

 

 

 

 

 

X

X

Kefar Hananya Ware(-style)

 

 

 

 

 

X

X

X

X

X

 

 

 

 

 

X

Frying pans

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

X

 

X

X

 

 

 

X

 

Brittle Ware

 

 

 

X

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Moulded (Knidos, Tunisia?)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

X

 

Ras al-Bassit (mortaria)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

X

X

 

 

 

X

 

X

X

Ras al-Bassit (pithos)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

X

Nabataean Cream Ware

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

X

Late Roman Unguentarium

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

X

ICW

 

 

 

 

 

X

 

X

X

X

X

 

 

 

X

X

ICW (Abbasid)

 

 

 

 

X

X

 

 

X

X

X

 

 

 

 

X

(Umayyad) Painted Ware

 

 

 

 

X

 

 

 

 

 

X

 

 

 

 

 

Red-on-Cream Ware

 

 

 

 

 

X

X

X

X

 

X

X

 

 

 

 

Grey Ware (basins)

 

 

 

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

 

 

 

X

3. Ceramics in Cities in Context

93

LOCAL Damascus Philippopolis Canatha Bostra Capitolias Gadara Abila Hippos Tiberias Scythopolis Pella Philadelphia Neapolis Samaria Dora Caesarea

Roman Unknown Unknown Unknown Common-Dominant? Common? Rare-Uncommon? Common-Dominant? Common-Dominant? Common-Dominant? Dominant? Unknown Common-Dominant? Common-Dominant? Common-Dominant? Common-Dominant? Common?

Byzantine Common-Dominant? Unknown Unknown Common-Dominant? Common? Rare-Uncommon? Common-Dominant? Common-Dominant? Common-Dominant? Dominant? Common-Dominant Common-Dominant? Common-Dominant? Common-Dominant? Common-Dominant? Common-Dominant?

Umayyad Unknown Unknown Unknown Common-Dominant? Common? Rare-Uncommon? Common-Dominant? Common-Dominant? Dominant? Dominant? Common-Dominant Common-Dominant? Unknown Unknown Unknown Common-Dominant?

REGIONAL Damascus Philippopolis Canatha Bostra Capitolias Gadara Abila Hippos Tiberias Scythopolis Pella Philadelphia Neapolis Samaria Dora Caesarea

Roman Unknown Unknown Dominant Common-Dominant? Common? Common-Dominant? Common-Dominant? Common-Dominant? Rare-Uncommon? Rare-Uncommon? Unknown Common-Dominant? Common-Dominant? Common-Dominant? Common-Dominant Common-Dominant

Byzantine Common-Dominant? Unknown Unknown Common-Dominant? Common? Common-Dominant? Common-Dominant? Common-Dominant? Rare-Uncommon? Rare-Uncommon? Common-Dominant Common-Dominant? Common-Dominant? Common-Dominant? Common-Dominant Common-Dominant

Umayyad Unknown Unknown Unknown Common-Dominant? Common? Common-Dominant? Common-Dominant? Common-Dominant? Rare-Uncommon? Rare-Uncommon? Common-Dominant Common-Dominant? Unknown Unknown Unknown Common-Dominant

LONG-DISTANCE Damascus Philippopolis Canatha Bostra Capitolias Gadara Abila Hippos Tiberias Scythopolis Pella Philadelphia Neapolis Samaria Dora Caesarea

Roman Unknown Unknown Rare-Uncommon Rare-Uncommon? Rare-Uncommon Rare-Uncommon Rare-Uncommon Rare-Uncommon Rare-Uncommon Rare-Uncommon Unknown Rare-Uncommon Rare-Uncommon Rare-Uncommon Rare-Uncommon Common-Dominant?

Byzantine Rare-Uncommon Unknown Unknown Rare-Uncommon? Rare-Uncommon Rare-Uncommon Rare-Uncommon Rare-Uncommon Rare-Uncommon Rare-Uncommon Rare-Uncommon Rare-Uncommon Rare-Uncommon Rare-Uncommon Rare-Uncommon Rare-Uncommon

Umayyad Unknown Unknown Unknown Rare-Uncommon? Rare-Uncommon? Unknown Rare-Uncommon? Rare-Uncommon? Rare-Uncommon Rare-Uncommon Rare-Uncommon Unknown Unknown Unknown Rare-Uncommon? Rare-Uncommon

Table 3.5. An attempt at summarizing the studied literature regarding local, regional, and long-distance imported pottery for the sixteen sites, for the Roman, Byzantine, and Umayyad periods; rare–uncommon: 75 per cent.

Philip Bes, Tom Brughmans, Achim Lichtenberger, Rubina Raja, and Iza Romanowska

94

Were (red) slipped tablewares generally more manageable to transport overland in comparison to amphorae? Per item they weigh much less, and more items could be shipped within the same space. More significantly, perhaps, is the fact that the region did not have any noteworthy tradition of producing (red slip) tablewares prior to the Byzantine period; presumably, other objects were used (perhaps also partly in other materials) that are not immediately perceived as tablewares stricto sensu. Furthermore, long-distance amphorae that did reach inland cities appear to have formed such a small proportion begging the question whether these were required on a subsistence level. 472 The answer to this question partly depends on what these amphorae contained — if they had not been reused. In other words, the scarcity of long-distance amphorae in particular supports other evidence for a largely self-sufficient regional agricultural economy.473 Local and Regional If the above observation is accepted, namely that geo­ graphical distance to the coast played a role in both the proportion and in the variety of long-distance imported pottery, and the currently collected data suggests it can be, the corollary should be that local and regional ceramic products dominate particularly at non-coastal sites. Evidence to support this, however, is generally scarce and circumstantial. Claims of pottery being local are numerous throughout the literature reviewed. In themselves, these claims are perfectly fine as working hypotheses, for which three kinds of arguments can be distinguished: 1. Quantities (and variation in spatial distribution), one or more recurring wares not obviously known from elsewhere, new or unusual shapes or decorative patterns, or a limited distribution are some of the arguments for identifying locally or regionally made pottery; 2. Sherd analyses, ideally matched with raw clay material, allows us to strengthen a case; and 3. Archaeo­logically the best evidence, however, is that of the actual manufacturing process: wasters, discard heaps, equipment (e.g. moulds, tools, potters’ wheels, saggars,  etc.), kilns or kiln remains (also detectable through geophysical research), and the actual workshop infrastructure. 472  473 

Bes (forthcoming). Lichtenberger and others 2019.

Ideally, of course, these three strands of evidence are combined in order to make the strongest case for local pottery manufacture. Such a comprehensive approach is found in the study of local pottery manufacture at Sagalassos, south-west Turkey.474 In the region we are concerned with, the best-published site in this respect arguably is Scythopolis/Baysan, where several Umayyadperiod workshop complexes have been excavated, and of which the so-called Theater Pottery Workshop remains the best researched.475 Archaeo­logical evidence for local manufacture was otherwise found at Gerasa, Bostra (wasters), Abila (kiln remains), and Hippos (presumed workshop). Clay analyses and ware- and/or type-analysis offer indirect clues for these and other sites. In general, however, evidence for local manufacture at the studied sites is slim to say the least, and therefore hardly helpful for gaining a good understanding of locally and regionally manufactured pottery and, for example, its distribution. We nevertheless presume that a considerable number of ceramic workshops were active in the region during the Roman, Byzantine, and Umayyad periods. In fact, it is not at all implausible to consider that many — if not perhaps all — of the sixteen sites had pottery workshops that produced one or more functional categories, and which to considerable extents catered for the ceramic requirements of the inhabitants of each city, its immediate environs, and possibly even the city’s chora. In fact, to what extent were distribution patterns influenced, if not determined, by local and regional administrative borders? A better understanding of locally manufactured pottery helps to understand what clays people had access to and how they worked or manipulated these, the scale of production, the typo­logical repertoire produced by each city, and how these (and other aspects) compare to other places of production, and what one could infer concerning local and regional economies. It could even help to define how an urban community expressed itself via its ceramic repertoire as has been suggested for amphorae types that are associated with Caesarea, Akko, and Beirut.476 At this stage we have to emphasize, however, that we are only at the beginning of being able to differentiate between local and regional pottery, and quite a substantial part of what is classified as local might have been regional in origin. 474  See e.g. Poblome 1999, 2016; Degryse and Poblome 2008; Degryse and others 2008; Murphy and Poblome 2016; 2017; Poblome and Bes 2018. 475  Bar-Nathan and Atrash 2011. 476  Reynolds 2005, 575.

3. Ceramics in Cities in Context While imports can be more easily identified, there is still a long way to go in understanding the dynamics of local and regional pottery production regarding most if not all sites that are the focus of this paper.

Summary and Conclusions The above review of published Roman, Byzantine, and Umayyad ceramic evidence from sixteen urban sites in the southern Levant summarizes a large amount of data and observations, based on which the following three hypotheses can be formulated applying to one or more (historical) periods: 1. Most, and possibly all sixteen, sites were involved in some level of pottery manufacture of one or more functional categories within or near their urban areas; 2. In terms of quantity, these locally/close-regionally manufactured ceramic products catered for a considerable to predominant share of the inhabitants’ ceramic requirements; and 3. The quantity and variety of long-distance imported pottery differs vastly between coastal and inland sites. Ideally, future research needs to test these hypotheses through a further characterization of locally manufactured wares and quantified pottery assemblages — structured around local, regional, and long-distance pottery — at sites in the southern Levant. Such typo­logical, quantitative, mineralogical, and geochemical research has been few and far between. The pottery information summarized in this chapter generally represents six to seven decades of archaeo­ logical research, a period during which the discipline of archaeo­logy — in a broad sense — has gone through fundamental changes concerning theoretical approaches, methodo­logy, excavation techniques, data recording, and so forth — and continues to do so today. The discipline of pottery studies equally continues to develop (the background of which needs to be considered when the results of this review are qualified and interpreted) and within this chapter some of the more significant aspects are: ware and type identification and classification, and the development of analytical and quantification techniques, ultimately to determine and understand provenance, manufacturing technique, and the diachronically proportional role of wares and types in relation to broader social, cultural, and economic questions.

95 We cannot avoid the conclusion, however, that the systematic documentation, quantification, and timely and exhaustive publication of diverse material data types, besides architecture and imported pottery, has become part of this subdiscipline’s research tradition much more slowly and to a more limited extent when compared to other archaeo­logical subdisciplines, notably prehistoric archaeo­logy in Western Europe and the United States as well as Classical archaeo­logy in Western Europe. The published evidence on which this chapter focuses represents a wealth of data that provides a basis for further interpretation. In spite of this, however, there are still a considerable number of issues (see above) that prevent us from obtaining more substantial and clearer views of local, regional, and long-distance pottery production, circulation, and consumption/use, and their underlying economic and artisanal frameworks. These issues need to be overcome particularly if we are to make progress in understanding the manufacture, distribution, and consumption/use of local and regional pottery. We therefore recommend several ways forward to help guide future research in overcoming these issues and redressing the balance somewhat. First, a better understanding — characterization, recording, and publication — of wares that are considered local or regional in origin477 through regional sampling of raw clays, thin-sectioning, and geochemical fabric analyses, guided by integrated archaeo­logical and archaeometrical research programmes that are aimed at archaeo­logically and/or geochemically pinpointing production sites and areas478 and providing baselines for comparisons. Whilst the above is crucial, field identification should be greatly helped with developing typo­logies as well as clear descriptions and visual documentation of the macroscopic fabric and surface treatment (e.g. through colour photo­g raphy). The long-term vision of the Levantine Ceramics Project has already made important progress in these and other respects, and despite a currently somewhat unbalanced situation with regard to the representation of petrofabrics and their relation to typo­logical repertoires, this project’s endeavours will be increasingly important for longue durée ceramic studies in the (Eastern) Mediterranean. Second, related to a variety of methodo­logical issues regarding dating, typo­logy, and chrono­logy, comes the necessity for greater attention to residual and intrusive 477 

See e.g. Alawneh and Béarat 2011. See e.g. Adan-Bayewitz 1993; 2003; Osband and Eisenberg 2018a; 2018b. 478 

Philip Bes, Tom Brughmans, Achim Lichtenberger, Rubina Raja, and Iza Romanowska

96

pottery. Proportions of residual and/or intrusive fragments can be considerable and need to be taken into account when exercises in typo­logical and functional assemblage formation as well as seriation are performed. The same applies to dating : whilst for example numismatic and historical evidence play an important role, we wish to advocate the implementation of more independent approaches. Last, in order to help understand the structures and workings of the Roman, Byzantine, and Umayyad economies through local, regional, and long-distance imported pottery, detailed quantified data from welldefined and well-dated contexts is necessary.479 The full quantification of pottery from the Northwest Quarter of Gerasa, as discussed in the third case study (see above), comprises highly detailed data that can be explored in diverse ways and used to address more complex social theories about past phenomena. It is crucial to emphasize that being able to pin down the proportion of, say, long-distance imported pottery at Gerasa to as little as 0.5 per cent is preferable to the vague label of RareUncommon that we use in our summary Table  3.5. Much can be argued against the methodo­logical and interpretive basis of Table 3.5, but it should be seen as a first attempt to capture the available observations and quantified data derived from the literature that was studied for this chapter. At the same time, it lays bare some of the general problems that Roman- to Umayyad-period ceramic research is confronted with, aspects that were addressed in the final part of this chapter (see above). Ultimately, knowing that the proportion of imported pottery at Gerasa was as low as 0.5 per cent (alongside all other knowledge about the city’s location and history) allows the archaeo­logist to develop and test different socio-economic theories. Of course, this is also only a beginning, and further chrono­logical refinement is needed to achieve a more nuanced historical perspective. We hope that the potential of full quantification demonstrated by the case of the Jerash Northwest Quarter Project, together with the broader context of this chapter, will provide further inspiration for this approach to become more common in our subdiscipline.

479 

Papaioannou 2012.

3. Ceramics in Cities in Context

Appendix Below is a summary of the studied evidence for Roman-, Byzantine-, and Umayyad-period pottery for each of the sixteen sites.

Philippopolis Local — Unknown. Regional/southern Levant — Unknown. Long-distance — Unknown.

Canatha Local — Unknown. Regional/southern Levant — Predominant: some Nabataean sherds were identified (Henrich 2002, 280); so-called basalt-tempered Hauran Ware, manufactured near Seeia/Si’a, is prominent, whose typo­ logical and decorative repertoire sets it rather apart from further west/south-west, e.g. the Decapolis (Henrich 2002; 2003, 67, 71). Differences were already observed for pottery from Bostra, which arguably also falls within a Hauran tradition. Hauran Ware comprises a broad functional range: cooking pots; storage vessels; jugs; other closed forms; carinated, hemispherical and various other bowls; plates; filter jugs; strainers; lids; imitations of ESA, glass and Nabataean vessel shapes. Long-distance — Small: ESA is relatively common in a (mid-?)second-century ad fill, for which quantified form-data is available (Henrich 2000; 2002; 2003).

Damascus Local — Suspected: ‘Le mobilier est constitué, en majeure partie, de productions locales’ (Tréglia and Berthier 2010, 867, 869). Regional/southern Levant — Attested/suspected: LRA4, Agora M334 (which was rather common?) (Tréglia and Berthier 2010, 867–68). A  fabric in which basins, mortaria, jugs, and jars have been identified is thought to come from the region of Damascus (Tréglia and Berthier 2010, 868).

97 Long-distance — Attested: ESA and ITS (Damaskus 2004, 363–64, fig. 11), as well as ARSW, CRSW/ LRD, and LRC (Tréglia and Berthier 2010, 867–69: ‘principalement  […] une demande en vaisselle de table’). Imported amphorae are noted but presumably scarce: LRA1, LRA3, Spatheion 2 (Tréglia and Berthier 2010, 867–68).

Bostra Local — Attested: bricks/tiles/imbrices with stamps from the Legio  III Cyrenaica, tempered(?) with basalt (Brulet 1984; Bucci 1997–2000; Dentzer and others 2002–03, 290). Over- and misfired tiles (Kermorvant, Leblanc, and Lenoir 2000, 499–500; 2002, 139) from the zone of the camp north of Bostra. Leblanc 2001, 142–43: ‘une concentration de tuiles et de tuileaux, vraisemblablement des déchets de cuisson de tuile, des fragments de sole du four’, and ‘la terre argileuse de cet endroit semble favorable à la fabrication de poteries, l’eau permettant l’affinement de cette terre’. Leblanc and Lenoir 1999, 528–29, further discuss the misfired tiles, and geophysical research was aimed at identifying associated kiln(s); some archaeometrical research has been done on tile fragments but are not further discussed (Bucci 2009, 136). Possibly more than one workshop was active (Wilson and Sa‘d 1984, 75). An Early Roman ‘pâte rouge basaltique de production locale’ is mentioned (Dentzer and others 1993, 125, 147). Some wasters are reported (Wilson and Sa‘d 1984, 43, 53–54, 60, 71). Dentzer 1985, 150: ‘productions locales, qui étaient aussi les plus nombreuses’. Dentzer 1997, 90: ‘constituée presque exclusivement de produits locaux’. Umayyad-period lamp manufacture is suspected (Berthier 1985, 11–12). Red ware with a grey core, which can have white-painted decoration, is regarded as local (Delplace and Fournet 2002, 308, 310) and may be Umayyad (Wilson and Sa‘d 1984, 43, 72). Some categories of household and utilitarian wares — pithoi, amphorae, jugs — and CBM are considered local, or at least have good regional parallels (Wilson and Sa‘d 1984, 67–68, 70–71, 73). Regional/southern Levant — Common?: Nabataean pottery (amphorae, painted wares) and ESA are attested (Delplace and Fournet 2002, 308; Dentzer 1984 [1986], 164), and Nabataean pottery is encountered in nearly all deep trenches (Dentzer and others 2010, 142–43; Minguzzi 2010). Early Roman

Philip Bes, Tom Brughmans, Achim Lichtenberger, Rubina Raja, and Iza Romanowska

98

Nabataean pottery was rather common (Dentzer 1985, 153; Seeden and Wilson 1984, 21; Delplace and Fournet 2002, 311, fig.  11). Gerasa products (Byzantine- and Umayyad-period lamps, bowls, cooking ware), Hauran-style lamps (Berthier 1985, 11), notably from the late sixth to the first half of the eighth centuries ad (Dentzer, Dentzer-Feydy, and Blanc 2001, 468; Seeden 1984, 127). Two regional groups — céramique A’ and céramique C — are identified (Dentzer 1997, 90). Pattern-burnishing is a decorative technique that harks back to prehistoric times (Berthier 1985, 11). Cooking pots may have local/ regional morpho­logical characteristics (Gualandi 1975, 235–36, figs  27–28). LRA4 (Delplace and Fournet 2002, 310), LRA5 (Blanc and PiraudFournet 2010, 280), and LRA6 are attested (Kadour and Seeden 1980, 84). Further see: Gualandi 1978; Sogliani 1989 [1992]; Wilson and Sa‘d 1984. Long-distance — Small: A rare import is a Mid Roman Amphora 1a possibly from Italy/Sicily (Wilson and Sa‘d 1984, cat. no. 497). LRA1 (Blanc and PiraudFournet 2010, 280) and LRA3 occur (Delplace and Fournet 2002, 310, 312; Wilson and Sa‘d 1984). ARSW is ‘assez abondante’, though not everywhere (Minguzzi 1993–94 [1999], 227; Minguzzi 2010 only speaks of ARSW); CRSW/LRD and LRC are attested (Delplace and Fournet 2002, 310, 312; Dentzer and others 1993, 147 n. 74; Gualandi 1978, 97–98, fig. 8.16–23; Wilson and Sa‘d 1984). Dentzer 1985, 150: ‘importations présentes en quantités bien plus petites’. Dentzer 1997, 90: ‘tessons importés sont très rares dans le Jebel, une region restée à l’écart des relations maritimes […] importations sont plus nombreuses à Bosra, capitale de province, que dans le milieu rural de Si‘’. Mougdad and Makowski 1983 present percentages of LRRW (some seem surprisingly high). ESA is noted (Dentzer and others 1993, 125; Minguzzi 1993–94 [1999], 226, 230– 31, figs  1–2). Some possible imports from Parthia (Wilson and Sa‘d 1984, 70–71).

Capitolias Local — Attested: Recent excavations brought to light a Roman-period waster (with suspected manufacture during the Byzantine and Umayyad periods), ‘pottery slag’, presumed kiln spacers (Byzantine? Umayyad?) and possible kiln furniture on the city’s outskirts (Młynarczyk 2018, 479, 503–04, fig. 26). Capitolias/

Beit Ras is known from written sources (Byzantine to Abbasid) for the (good) quality of its wine that seems to have enjoyed a regional distribution. This tentatively suggests that amphorae carried this wine (Lenzen and Knauf 1987, 35–37, 39, 41–42, 45; Al-Shami 2005, 510; Lenzen 1992, 300; 2003, 76, 83; Młynarczyk 2018, 482). Lamp manufacture during the Byzantine period is suspected (Da Costa 2010, 75–76). Regional/southern Levant — Attested: Nabataean Painted Ware (Lenzen 2003, 75 n. 16); Late Byzantine and Umayyad Beisan amphorae seem rather common (Młynarczyk 2018, 482); few vessels from Gerasa: a bowl, a lamp (Młynarczyk 2018, 482, 493–95). Second-century ad(?) ‘plain-ware domestic vessels of local/regional types’ (Młynarczyk 2018, 500), and ICW (Młynarczyk 2018, 496–97, fig. 21 bottom), Umayyad Painted Ware and Grey Ware basins were ‘popular’ and considered as regional, if not ‘strictly’ local(?) products (Młynarczyk 2018, 496, 499). Long-distance — Uncommon: ESA (little) of the first centuries bc and ad (Młynarczyk 2018, 482, 504) as well as second-century ad Terra Sigillata is identified (Lenzen and Knauf 1987, 30); an ARSW Hayes Form 104C is attested (Młynarczyk 2018, 482).

Gadara Local — Suspected: a lamp mould was found, and manufacture of the bilanceolate lamp type is considered (Andersen 1993, 170 n.  15); lamps were presumably manufactured locally throughout the Roman to Umayyad periods (Kehrberg 2015, 168). Two categories of roof tiles that are quantitatively common may be from the environs of Gadara (Dijkstra 2015, 162), one matching a clay used today (Vriezen and Mulder 1997, 326); Kerner (1997, 300–02) lists a ‘Gadara Ware’; a ware classification — mostly RomanByzantine — was made (Kerner and Maxwell 1990). Regional/southern Levant — Predominant: lamps from Gerasa seem to have been relatively common during the first to third centuries ad (Kehrberg 2015, 169, 171, 173); an amphora fabric is paralleled to one from Samaria (Kerner 1992, 413); Kefar Hananya Warestyle vessels appear to be relatively common (Vriezen 2011, 72), but see Daszkiewicz, Liesen, and Schneider 2014, who established (mostly through WD-XRF) that kitchen wares originated from the Galilee (but

3. Ceramics in Cities in Context not from Kefar Hananya!) and the Golan. LRA6 and Agora M334 (rare) are noted; three categories of roof tiles possibly come from the wider region (Dijkstra 2015, 162): around the Sea of Galilee, the Golan, and/or the Hauran (Vriezen 2011, 71–72); another matches a roof tile ware from Jerusalem (Vriezen and Mulder 1997, 330); various categories of ICW are attested (El Khouri and Omoush 2015, 17–18; Kerner and Maxwell 1990, 244; Vriezen 2015, 98–100, 310). A ware quantification can be made for one excavation area mirroring the pottery’s strongly regional character (Vriezen 2015). Long-distance — Small: ESA was the most common category of Terra Sigillata (Kerner 1992, 413; Konrad 2013, 115; Kenrick 2000), and ITS, ESB, ESD, and ERSW are also identified (Kerner 1997, 291; Konrad 2013, 103; Vriezen 2015). LRRW generally seems to be relatively common, yet it remains unclear which category is more common, though this may be chrono­logically and/or locality-specific (e.g. Andersen 1993, 164); a quantification of sorts for LRRW can be distilled (e.g. El-Khouri 2014, 122). LRA1 (presumably); Roman and Byzantine Mediterranean amphorae seem to have been rare (Bührig and Liesen 2006, 526): few Dressel 2–4, a North African specimen (Vriezen 2015, 118–21, 316). A  second-/third-century ad Latin amphora stamp is attested ( Jöhrens 2013, 89). One category of roof tile possibly comes from the wider region, or Cyprus (Dijkstra 2015, 162; Vriezen and Mulder 1997, 328, 330) — perhaps from Eastern Cilicia? An unprovenanced Pompeian Red Ware baking dish is identified (Vriezen 2015, 83–86, 105); a Phocaeangroup baking dish and a lid from Campania were identified through WD-XRF (Daszkiewicz, Liesen, and Schneider 2014).

Abila Local — Attested: various kilns have been excavated, the datings of which are unclear. Early fourth century ad: Smith 1992a, 55–57, figs  25–26; 1992b, 224; Mare 1994, 370–72, fig.  8, where ‘unfired wasters’ were attested; Wineland 2001, 44 (there Byzantine), 175, fig.  31. Early Islamic: Chapman and others 2006, 65–66, fig.  5; Wineland 2001, 35. Whether all were pottery kilns is unclear because of a lack of (published) research. One or more (ceramic?) kilns may have been ‘constructed […] from the ruins of the

99 Roman theater’ (Wineland 2001, 27–28). Precisely what kind of vessels were made in these kilns is not known. Local pottery is referred to but this remains unsubstantiated (e.g. Fuller 1986, 34, 42–43; 1987, 101–03; Mare and others 1985, 227; Maxwell 1988, 96; Voss in this volume). Regional/southern Levant — Suspected: Some cooking vessels are Kefar Hananya Ware or Kefar Hananya Ware-style (Fuller (M. J.) 1987, 434–35, figs  60a, 61a). A Byzantine ware used for various functional categories (Fuller 1986, 35, 43: ‘if not locally’ manufactured). There is overlap with Pella in attested Umayyad wares and shapes (Fuller 1986, 29–30; 1987, 83; Lenzen 1983b, 38). Umayyad-period products from Gerasa (e.g. Grey Ware basins) are considered common (Fuller (M. J.) 1987, 83–84), though not lamps (Fuller (M. J.) 1987, 122). LRA4 has been identified (Mare and others 1982, 48). Long-distance — Small: Terra Sigillata (the designation ‘imported or imitation’ is unclear) has been attested (Chapman 2011, 14; Mare 1992, 70), which almost certainly includes ESA (Fuller (M.  J.) 1986, 42). ARSW, CRSW/LRD, and LRC have been attested (Fuller 1986, 34–35; 1987, 95; Mare and others 1982, 48; Maxwell 1988, 96, 102, fig. 5.11). A few lamps may have been imported from Italy (Fuller (M. J.) 1987, 133), and an unprovenanced Pompeian Red Ware dish is attested (Fuller (M. J.) 1987, 100). Imported amphorae are scarce (Lenzen 1983b, 32, 38).

Hippos Local — Suspected: analyses of amphorae identified four petro­graphic groups, one from near Hippos, and two from the Golan (Michniewicz 2008; Osband and Eisenberg 2018a, 215); analyses suggest ‘a significant quantity of the common pottery was produced locally, likely in fairly close proximity to Hippos’ during the Roman period (Osband 2017, 34). An Early Roman figurine and/or mask workshop may have been active (Osband and Eisenberg 2018a, 212–13), and lamp manufacture is considered for the Late Hellenistic (Kapitaikin 2018, 92) and Umayyad periods (Osband and Eisenberg 2018a, 214 n. 12). One or more pithoi are thought to have been manufactured locally with imported clay (Łajtar and Młynarczyk 2017, 296). Młynarczyk often employs the term local, which mostly seems to refer to a style rather than a place of manufacture.

100

Philip Bes, Tom Brughmans, Achim Lichtenberger, Rubina Raja, and Iza Romanowska

Regional/southern Levant — Predominant: if not from local workshops, Hippos otherwise relied predominantly on (close-)regionally manufactured pottery (Kapitaikin 2018, 109): Kefar Hananya Ware frequently occurs, especially during the Early Roman period; by the Late Roman period cooking wares were mostly coming from the Golan (Osband and Eisenberg 2018a, 215; 2018b, 273). Byzantineand Umayyad-period Beisan jars (mostly from Scythopolis?) were also common, and other vessels manufactured at Baysan and Gerasa (Kapitaikin 2018, 108–09). This model certainly applies to the Roman period, when ‘significant quantities of the common cooking ware and storage jars were imported, especially from the Galilee’ (Osband 2017, 34). In addition, smaller quantities from the wider region are noted: Gerasa (third century ad, Umayyad cooking pots, a basin; lamps, a painted bowl/plate?); amphorae and kraters from Shikhin (Kapitaikin 2018, 94, 96, 98); LRA4, Agora M334; oil lamps with various origins ( Judaea, western Galilee); storage jars (i.e. amphorae) from western Galilee, and Early Roman jars from the Golan; amphorae and cooking vessels from the Golan; FBW(?); Deir Aziz (fourth century ad); pilgrim’s flasks from Baysan(?); a northern Golan cooking pot; Phoenician Semi-Fine (southern Phoenicia); Sepphoris (an Early Roman krater); early ICW; a krater from Scythopolis or Tiberias; cooking pots from several places of production.

Tiberias

Long-distance — Small: long-distance imported pottery is reported basically in all publications, and generally concerns single or a few examples, except for tablewares: ESA occurs with a limited frequency during the Late Hellenistic and Early Imperial periods (Kapitaikin 2018), with the occasional ESD and ITS vessel being noted. In the Byzantine period ARSW, CRSW/LRD, and (Phocaean) LRC occur (Kapitaikin 2018, 102, table 2), as well as the occasional ERSW vessel; most forms commonly occur elsewhere. LRC is reportedly the most common. In addition, a limited variety of Roman- and Byzantineperiod amphorae is identified, always in (very) small quantities: Dressel 6; Campanian(?) Dressel 2–4; Kapitän  II; Eg yptian; LRA1; LRA3 (plus Late Roman-Early Byzantine predecessors of the latter: Kapitaikin 2018); Tunisian spatheion. Further noted: Aegean cooking pans, Ras al-Bassit mortaria, and an Early Roman oil lamp presumably from Cyprus.

Regional/southern Levant — Common: Kefar Hananya Ware seems common: Forms 1A, 1C–1E, 3A–B, 4B–C, 4E1, 6C. FBW: Magness Forms 1A, 1B, 1F, 2A, 2C (e.g. Gekht 2015, 79–80); a series of bowls is considered ‘local’; a cooking pot is possibly from Sepphoris (‘in the proximity of which there apparently was a workshop manufacturing these pots’?); LRA5, LRA6, and other regional amphorae (including Roman types), as well as basins from Gerasa are attested; Byzantine (and Umayyad?) cooking vessels in a regional fabric are present (Amir 2004a, b); Red-on-Cream Ware ( Johnson 2000a, 65–67, fig. 15); lamps ( Johnson 2000b; Stacey 2004, 150, 153), basins (Stacey 2004, 97) and presumably other vessels from Baysan (Bar-Nathan 2011, 207– 08; Bar-Nathan and Najjar 2011, 202); Kerbschnitt bowls from Gerasa? (Stacey 2004, 97).

Local — Attested: ICW (Abbasid, very likely also Umayyad), presumably substantially local (Amir 2004a, b; El-Khouri and Omoush 2015); wasters, kiln props (i.e. kiln spacers) ( Johnson 2000a, 54–74, 90); a potter’s market is known from written sources (Miller 2013, 432); a workshop for glazed pottery is attested, but unclear when this operated: Umayyad and/or post-Umayyad? (Oren 1971, though see Stacey 2004, 14; De Vincenz 2013, 116–17); pottery manufacture during the Byzantine period (Stacey 2004, 89); local products dominate the Umayyad period (Stacey 2004, 89), and include lamps(?), amphorae, bowls, kraters(?). A  tenth-century ad workshop for bowls and jars is attested, where kiln spacers were found (Stern 1995), presumably the continuation of Byzantine and/or Islamic ceramic manufacture; ‘kiln bars […] found in the excavation published here [House of the Bronzes] point to the proximity of a production center or kiln’; the wide variety of shapes may well support local production that seems to span the Umayyad and Abbasid periods, possibly even later (largely based on parallels) (De Vincenz 2013, 121, 132–33, plate 4.19.1–3). ‘At Ganei Hammat Tiberias, while the pottery workshops have been dated to no later than ad 749, lamps have been dated to before and after that date’ (De Vincenz 2013, 159).

Long-distance — Uncommon: ESA is attested (Hayes Form 47); Western Terra Sigillata is rare (Miller and De Vincenz 2018); ARSW: fourth-/fifth-­c entury

3. Ceramics in Cities in Context ad stamped floors, and Hayes Forms 61A, 91, 96, 99B, 103, 104C, 105 (Bonifay variante A), 106, 107(?); (Phocaean) LRC (possibly the most common, but varying from one area to the next(?) (De Vincenz 2013, 110): Hayes Forms 3F, 3G(?), 10B, 10C; CRSW/LRD: Hayes Forms 1, 2, 5, 7, 8, 9A, 9B (?), 9C–10; Byzantine ‘Imported fine wares are a common feature at Tiberias’ (De Vincenz 2013, 109), while long-distance amphorae seem rare. Ras al-Bassit mortaria are attested; Coptic Painted Ware (Amir 2004a; 2004b); LRD bowls (Dothan 1983); ERSW (Stacey 1988–89).

Scythopolis Local — Attested: some figurines are thought to have been locally manufactured (Rosenthal-Heginbottom 2016, 208, 212). Certainly during the Umayyad period, when several workshops (evidenced by kilns, moulds (lamps), a potter’s wheel, unfired vessels, waster dumps, pigment for painting vessels) are archaeo­logically attested at several locations in the classical city centre, and which produced a broad functional range, including LRA6, jugs, flasks, amphorae, and ICW or a variant thereof (Bar-Nathan 2011; Bar-Nathan and Najjar 2011; Walmsley 2001, 308). Associations between vessel function and clay is suggested (Cohen-Weinberger and Goren 2011, 224). During the Roman period, ceramic workshops are thought to have been decentralized around the city, e.g. Horbat Rodem just north of Scythopolis (Sandhaus and Balouka 2015, 194, 199), where wasters were identified (Covello-Paran and AvshalomGorni 2008), though no actual workshop or kiln was found. The finds were generally dated to the Late Roman–Early Byzantine period; if the repertoire that is discussed and illustrated (mostly small and large closed vessels: juglets, jugs, amphorae, also bowls and kraters) is representative of the wasters is unclear. Regional/southern Levant — (Un)common: Kefar Hananya Ware(-style) (in a variety of forms) and (other) Galilean cooking wares are attested ( Johnson 2006, 539, 541; Sandhaus 2007; Sandhaus and Balouka 2015); (Byzantine-)Umayyad cooking pots from Gerasa are attested, as well as the occasional oil lamp and jug (Bar-Nathan 2011), and whilst Grey Ware basins are presumably from Gerasa, coastal production is considered (Bar-Nathan 2011, 212; Bar-Nathan and Najjar 2011, 202). A model is con-

101 sidered for Umayyad-period cities to produce for the local market, Gerasa being a possible exception (Bar-Nathan and Najjar 2011, 201; for lamps: Hadad 2002, 149; Johnson 2006, 544) — though note the distribution of LRA6 and pilgrim’s flasks, part of which is presumed to originate from Scythopolis/ Baysan. LRA4 and LRA5 are sporadically(?) attested ( Johnson 2006, 549–50), possibly also Agora M334 (Sandhaus and Balouka 2015, 199). FBW is attested (Sandhaus and Balouka 2015, 545). If not manufactured locally, oil lamps are largely regional (northern), e.g. Jerusalem, Caesarea, Galilean, Gerasa (Hadad 2002); a shared Umayyad-period ceramic material culture with Pella and Gerasa is proposed (Hadad 2002, 149; Sandhaus and Balouka 2015, 201–02, 204). Long-distance — Uncommon/rare: the occasional longdistance amphora is identified: Cyprus; Spain(?); North Africa (Tunisia, Tripolitania?); LRA1; LRA3 (Sandhaus and Balouka 2015, 195, 203); Rhodes ((L)HELL) and the Black Sea (Sinope D Snp I/II; Johnson 2006, 550) as possible sources (Bar-Nathan 2011, 213; Johnson 2006, 534), as well as a few un- or misidentified examples (e.g. Sandhaus and Balouka 2015, 201–03, fig. 4.9.1–3, with possible single south Spanish and Tunisian examples). ITS is identified (Comfort and Waagé 1936; perhaps also Rowe 1930, 52), as well as Early Roman ESA and ESB (Comfort and Waagé 1936). Imported LRRW is comparatively common ( Johnson 2006, 538); ERSW, Egyptian amphorae and Coptic Painted Ware increased during the Umayyad period (Bar-Nathan 2011, 201, 213; Watson 1995, 305). Some imported lamps — Attic(?); North African; Syria(?) — are attested (Hadad 2002). A Campanian Pompeian Red Ware fragment ( Johnson 2006, 531–32) as well as rare Ras al-Bassit mortaria (a rim in Johnson 2006, 547; Łajtar 1994). A frying pan is possibly also imported (Sandhaus 2007, 120–21). Peleg (2004) included ARSW (c. fourth–fifth centuries ad), Kapitän II, a Beirut(?) amphora, and several presumably Western Mediterranean amphorae.

Pella Local — None(?): no local manufacture is attested (Watson 1992, 237; Weber 1993b, 81), though clays are theoretically suitable, and some analysed samples might match up with Umayyad-period wares

102

Philip Bes, Tom Brughmans, Achim Lichtenberger, Rubina Raja, and Iza Romanowska

(Edwards 1992, 292–93). Two supposed potters’ tools are identified (Da Costa and others 2002, 529– 30, figs 21.5–6). Based on quantitative distribution, Andersen suggests a local lamp industry at Byzantine Pella. Pella is ‘not known to have had an independent pottery industry’ (Bar-Nathan and Najjar 2011, 202), although some cooking pots are possibly local (Bar-Nathan 2011, 212). Regional/southern Levant — Predominant: what is drawn supports the idea that Pella was firmly rooted in regional supply networks. Walmsley’s ware overview supports this (Walmsley 1995, 661–68): Gerasa is regarded as an important supplier during the Late Byzantine and Umayyad periods (cooking pots, bowls), potentially already before (Kefar Hananya Ware(-style) Galilean Bowls are reported (Sandhaus and Balouka 2015, 191)), though most publications in fact deal with the Byzantine and especially the Umayyad periods. In addition, Scythopolis/Baysan (bowls; presumably storage jars/amphorae, basins, flasks (Bar-Nathan 2011, 207–08; Bar-Nathan and Najjar 2011, 188)), the Jerusalem area, the GazaNegev area (LRA4), the Caesarea-Akko coastal stretch (LRA5, possibly Agora M334), possibly Amman or environs, lamps possibly from Capitolias, and additional albeit unidentified production centres had a share in the supply. ‘Most likely, Pella was an important market for the Bet She’an ceramic industry’ (Bar-Nathan and Najjar 2011, 202; Bar-Nathan 2011, 213). Da Costa (2010, especially 82–86) observes factors that underpinned intraregional distribution and changes that occurred therein. Long-distance — Small: throughout the published literature, imported pottery is mentioned, or can be identified as such. Early Roman ESA and rare ITS are reported, and imported LRRW may be relatively common: ARSW; (Phocaean) LRC; CRSW/LRD; ERSW (Watson 1992, 242–43 presents quantified data; Watson 1995 on ERSW). In addition, some amphorae are present: LRA1; LRA3; Sinopean; Egyptian (Smith 1973, 229, pl.  32.489; Watson 1995, 319; Walmsley 1995, 661–68). Egyptian pottery (tablewares, amphorae) was not uncommon in the Umayyad period, perhaps already in the Late Byzantine period, though no quantified data is available (Watson 1995).

Philadelphia Local — Suspected: Koutsoukou and Najjar 1997, 70. Regional/southern Levant — Attested: Nabataean Painted Ware (Hadidi 1970, 13; Humbert 1995, 496–97; Koutsoukou and Najjar 1997, 67–68, 105). Umayyad categories are identified that are also known from Pella, Gadara, Abila, and Gerasa (Koutsoukou and Najjar 1997, 78–96, 112–18). Long-distance — Attested: ‘Eastern Terra Sigillata’ [ESA?] (Hadidi 1974, 82); ESA proper has been identified but not ‘in any significant quantity’ (Koutsoukou and Najjar 1997, 68, also mentioning an ITS plate); ESB (Northedge 1992, 140), ERSW (Hayes 1972, 410), LRC (Koutsoukou and Najjar 1997) and possibly ARSW were noted (Greene and ‘Amr 1992, 132–33).

Neapolis Local — Suspected: ‘similar shapes of the vessels [that] mostly differ from the types known in [Roman] Galilee and Judea’ (Sarig 2009, 3, not further discussed). These shapes/categories concern bowls, tablewares, incurving rim bowls, storage jars (i.e. bagshaped and related amphorae), and one lamp type. The notion about local manufacture seems inferred from the scarcity of imported pottery. The common presence of cooking pots and (cooking) jugs (some apparently made from the same clay, but descriptions are too general: Sarig 2009, 8–9), and especially the broad typo­logical variety could hint at local manufacture. One supposed Hellenistic lamp fragment perhaps is a waster(?) (Taha and Van der Kooij 2014, 125, fig. C23–19). Regional/southern Levant — Unclear: in the absence of evidence for local manufacture, the majority of what is illustrated can be considered regional, or southern Levantine more generally (e.g. the regional bag-shaped amphorae). LRA4; Agora M334; and presumably LRA5 (among the bag-shaped amphorae) are attested. Pans with stem handles and casseroles (cf. Kefar Hananya Ware Form 3A–B) seem particular. Some cooking pots have distinct profiles (Sarig 2009, 8.4–7, 9), and generally are not reminiscent of Kefar Hananya Ware or of shapes from further north more generally. ‘A very similar assemblage [of oil lamps] was found at Beth Shean’ (Sarig 2009, 15) — certain types are common (i.e. a Samaritan type).

3. Ceramics in Cities in Context Long-distance — (Very) small: ‘only a few imported vessels’ (Sarig 2009, 3). Few ESA, ARSW (third century ad?), and CRSW/LRD are noted (drawings are not always convincing). Possible LRC, but unnoticed (Sarig 2009, 4, fig. 31.4). Two Ras al-Bassit mortaria (one looks Late Roman-Early Byzantine). Amphorae ‘exhibit a wide range of types, and constitute the majority of imported vessels’ (Sarig 2009, 12–13). Identified are: Beltrán I, IIB, IVA–B; a Maña C or Punic type(?); Dressel 2–4; Kapitän  II; Gauloise 4(?); mostly hollow feet versions of Maeander amphorae cf. Mid Roman Amphora 3; Pontic (two cf. C Snp I(-1)?); Spatheion 1–2(?); LRA1; various unidentified but likely/certainly imported, including another North African amphora (Sarig 2009, fig. 27.12). Fig. 55.9 likely concerns a Mid Roman Amphora 1(a), a type also identified at Caesarea and Bostra. Africana IIA, Dressel 20, and Dressel 28 identifications seem doubtful. One or two lamps may be imported (Sarig 2009, 18).

Samaria Local — Suspected: Regev and Greenfeld 2013, 546–47. Regional/southern Levant — Attested: Beisan jars (i.e. LRA6 and related; Kenyon 1957, 290–91) and a Gerasa(-type) lamp (Regev and Greenfeld 2013, 556). Long-distance — Attested: ESA appears to be common (Crowfoot 1957a, 307; Kenyon 1957, 283); ESB, ESD, ITS, Gaulish Sigillata, and (unprovenanced) Pompeian Red Ware have been attested (Crowfoot 1957a, 308, 337, 339, 343, figs  81.25– 31, 83; Kenyon 1957, 296–98, fig.  68; Regev and Greenfeld 2013, 552–53). ARSW (including a few earlier forms), CRSW/LRD and LRC have also been attested (Crowfoot 1957b, 358–59, fig.  84; Regev and Greenfeld 2013, 553–54).

Dora Local — Probable/suspected: a Roman figurine mould, two figurines likely from the same mould, and similarity in fabric, are potential clues for local figurine manufacture (otherwise considered regional) (Erlich 2010, 138, 140). Most of the plain table and kitchen wares is suspected to be local (RosenthalHeginbottom 1995, 250; Stern 2000, 306).

103 Regional/southern Levant — Common/dominant: especially amphorae from the southern Levant, particularly LRA4 (Barkan and others 2013, 124–25, fig.  10) but above all LRA5 (from different production places), mostly found in shipwrecks (e.g. Kingsley 2002a; 2002c; Kingsley and Raveh 1996a; 1996b). Early variants of both type families are represented. Quantified data is available for the Dor D wreck. Most lamps are considered local or regional (few from Gerasa; also Stern 2000, 307), identifications being mostly based on style (RosenthalHeginbottom 1995, 244). Long-distance — Uncommon: Early Roman ESA and ESD are attested (Rosenthal-Heginbottom 1995, 219–21, 250: ‘surprisingly insignificant’). Knidian π-bowls; Kefar Hananya Ware(-style) Forms 1C–D, 3B(?); baking dishes; a few ARSW, LRC, CRSW/LRD, and ERSW sherds (Barkan and others 2013, 120–22, figs  4–7); an ICW jug is noted (Kingsley 2002). In terms of amphorae: Dressel 1(?); Agora G199 (which seems rather common: possibly Cypriot?); Dressel 24 (or related)/Zeest 90(?); North African (Guz-Silberstein 1995). LRA1 (Barkan and others 2013, 125–27, fig. 11); LRA2; Keay 62D. Overall, imported amphorae are apparently rare (Kingsley and Raveh 1996a, 43), and further include Kapitän  II(?); Keay 54; Gauloise 4/ Pélichet 47; Pontic Carrot; Keay 91(A)(?); LRA7(?); LRA13. Several figurines, one presumably from Myrina (Erlich 2010, 139–40). Few imported lamps are attested: Egypt(?); Italy (Rosenthal-Heginbottom 1995, 241–42, 251). Possibly a few moulded Knidian and/or North African vessels (Stern 2000, 302–04). Ras al-Bassit mortaria are attested (Stern 2000, 301). Umayyad-period Nile Delta and southern Turkey/ Troodos (Cyprus) amphorae are identified (Barkai, Kahanov, and Avissar 2010; 2013).

Caesarea Local — Attested/suspected: several Roman (Porath and Gur 2015, 17, 21) and Umayyad lamp types (especially the Transitional types) are thought to have been manufactured locally, e.g. types MA (dominant), MC (some) (the type is dominant) (Arnon 2008c, 220, 227, 243, 257, figs  18, 33). A  Late Byzantine workshop (mostly for amphorae?) is claimed, but firm archaeo­logical evidence is not presented (Bull, Krentz, and Storvick 1980–84 [1986],

104

Philip Bes, Tom Brughmans, Achim Lichtenberger, Rubina Raja, and Iza Romanowska

42; 1993 [1994] 71, 73). Glaze slag and an associated kiln are reported from Area B-8: ‘kiln residue and pottery’, and ‘the consistency of the ware and the presence of wasters in Loci 10005 and 10004 suggested that lamps and utilitarian cooking wares had been made’ (Bull and others 1982–89 [1991], 71, 75–76, fig. 6), perhaps also cooking wares: cooking pots and casseroles are mentioned from among the debris (Bull and others 1993 [1994], 66–67, dated to the eighth and ninth centuries ad). Clues for the local manufacture of cooking pots and amphorae are presented (Holum and others 1988, 191–93, figs 139–41). Limestone moulds for (Byzantine) figurines and lamps are reported, and lamps matching one or more of these moulds (Sussman 1980). Roller (1980) speaks of ‘Caesarea clay’. Local and regional cooking wares and amphorae dominate (Tomber 1999). Part of the Roman- and Byzantine-period amphorae, cooking wares, and jugs are considered local (Gendelman 2018). Regional/southern Levant — Common: the majority seems regional, e.g. FBW; Grey Ware basins; cooking vessels; ICW (very common after c. ad 750; Arnon 2008a, 37; 2008b). The Late Byzantine period is also characterized by mostly regional products: LRA4–6 and cooking pots (Arnon 2008b, 85, 87–90; AdanBayewitz 1986, 121; Lenzen 1983a, 331–49). Most (Late) Byzantine and Umayyad lamps are regional (if not local), e.g. types MA1–2 (dominant), MB (Arnon 2008c, 219, 222, 227, 243, fig.  18), whilst several Roman-period types are thought to originate from various sources in the southern Levant. Gerasa lamps are noted in the first few centuries ad (Sussman 1996, 350). LRA4 but above all LRA5 (mostly in the gritty orange fabric, thought to be local/close-regional: Patrich 2011, 126) dominate the Byzantine amphora spectrum, including Roman forerunners (Blakely 1988, 35, 38, 43; Blakely 1996, 338–40, figs  3–5; Johnson 2008, 20, 85; Magness 1994 [1995], 135; Oren-Paskal 2008, 51; Adan-Bayewitz 1986, 118– 19, table 2). Ratzlaff (and others 2017) noted a few Agora M334. LRA6 also occurs, but does not seem common (Blakely 1988, 38; Johnson 2008, 20, 91). In an ad 500–650 deposit most cooking wares are considered Judaean and North Palestinian (Magness 1994 [1995], 134). Local and regional cooking wares and amphorae dominate (Tomber 1999). Tiles of the Legio  X are reported from the Promontory Palace (Sussman 1996, 347); Lenzen (1983a, 393) mentions the absence of Gerasa products.

Long-distance — Some: both Late Hellenistic and Early Roman ESA is common (Gendelman 2018; Govaars, Spiro, and White 2009; Holum and others 1988; Johnson 2008, 20; Riley 1975, 52–53), if not dominant over other categories that include ESD, ITS, Gaulish, ESB, ESC, Knidian, Corinthian Relief Ware, Asia Minor Grey Ware, Lead Glazed, Nabataean ( Johnson 2008, 20, 24–25, 30–32, 40, 47; Riley 1975, 46; Gendelman 2018; Bull and others 1982–89 [1991], 82; Govaars, Spiro, and White 2009; Holum and others 1988). CRSW/ LRD and LRC seem to be the dominant tablewares in at least some areas, though ARSW, FBW, ERSW, and Coptic Painted Ware are also attested. ARSW, CRSW/LRD, and LRC are also published by Lenzen (1983a) and Bar-Nathan and Adato (1986b). Amphorae imports from the first to fourth centuries ad are quite common: Iberian (e.g. Dressel 7–11, 20); Campanian (Dressel 1B?); Dressel 6; Early Roman Rhodian(-type) (Blakely 1987, figs  14.14, 16.23–25); Kapitän  II; North African (Keay  I?) (Blakely 1988, 40–42). Two stamped Dressel 6, a stamped (Latin) Dressel 2–4, and a stamped Dressel 7–11 from Tarraconensis are reported (Finkielsztejn 2015, 70–71). A Dressel 21–22 is noted, in addition to amphorae from Spain, the Adriatic, Italy, the Aegean (including a Kapitän II), and North Africa(?) (Blakely 1987; Holum and others 1988, 134–35, figs 90–91). A Dressel 6 or Lamboglia 2 from elsewhere in Caesarea (Bull, Krentz, and Storvick 1980– 84 [1986], 38, fig. 7). Avner and Gendelman (2007) further noted a Cretan and a North African example, possibly also a Spanish amphora, and several Pontic amphorae (including one or two Zeest 72(?), for which also see Gendelman 2018, 125, fig. 7.5–6). More Kapitän  II, pre-Late Roman North African, and amphorae related to Keay I and/or Gauloise 4(?) were identified in the Promontory Palace excavations (Bar-Nathan and Adato 1986b). LRA2 is sparse (Arnon 2008a, 54), but not necessarily in each area (Oren-Paskal 2008, 57), and LRA3 appears now and again (Barag 1963, pl.  5B; Blakely 1988, 42; Riley 1975, 31; Siegelmann 1974). Johnson (2008) records a wide variety of amphorae: Early Roman Rhodian; Benghazi Early Roman Amphora 2, 3, 5 (= Dressel 6), 6, 7 (= Spanish?) and 11a (early Tripolitanian); Knossos Types 1, 9 (Spanish), 11(?), 18, 26/27, and 39; Lamboglia 2/Dressel 6 (also: Blakely 1987, figs  15.16, 16.22, 17.35); Dressel 21–22(?); Richborough 527; Benghazi Mid Roman

3. Ceramics in Cities in Context Amphora 3; Early–Middle Roman Beirut amphorae; Mid Roman Amphora 1a; Dressel 20 (also: Blakely 1987, fig.  17.38); Agora G199 (also: Bar-Nathan and Adato 1986b, 166, 173, fig.  3.7); Keay  IA–B; Tripolitanian III; Africana Grande IIB; Keay XVIA; Keay  XXIIIbis and XXXbis; Forlimpopuli or related?; Kapitän  II; LRA1; Spatheia; LRA3; amphorae à la Egloff 172 (or related); LRA7(?); LRA2 and Umayyad-period successors (Arnon 2008b). ‘Ad, Arbel, and Gendelman (2018) dated a dozen Aegean amphorae to the second half of the seventh century ad (LRA13) (Yassı Ada Type 2a; LRA13 and/or Globular Amphora), while Johnson identified LRA2 (2008, 108, 197). Further identified are Keay 25 (Peleg and Reich 1992, 150–51), few Gaulish, Africana Grande, Africana IIC (Nabeul?), Campanian and Tripolitanian examples (Riley 1975, 33–34, 38, 40). Gendelman (2018) lists a small variety of Mediterranean and Pontic types. After c. ad 50 only a small scatter of lamps came from distant sources: North Africa, Crete, Western Asia Minor, Cyprus, Egypt, North Italy (the latter still relatively common) (Sussman 1996) — some Roman-period

105 types are noted by Porath and Gur (2015). A limited variety (e.g. ARSW; LRC; LRA2–3), and in small quantities, was published by Adan-Bayewitz (1986). Pompeian Red Ware (Italian) and orlo bifido pans are attested (rather common in the Early Roman period?), as is rare(?) Italian Thin-Walled Ware (Blakely 1992; Bull, Krentz, and Storvick 1980–84 [1986], 53–54, figs  28–29; Johnson 2008, 22–23; Gendelman 2018). Mortaria were also imported, including from Ras al-Bassit (most common, but small sample) (Groh 1978; Blakely, Brinkmann, and Vitaliano 1992, 202, 208, Class 2 (and 1?)). The occasional North African lamp is noted (Holum and others 1988, 167; Sussman 1996, 356; Vine and Hartelius 1986, 375, 377). Aegean baking dishes ( Johnson 2008, 20, 25, 54, 56) and Cypriot(-style) cooking pots (Magness 1994 [1995], 135; Riley 1975, 35–37). Much glazed ware and several other categories were imported from Egypt in the Umayyad period (Arnon 2008a, 20, 40, 54, 56–57; 2008b, 99–102), and some Late Byzantine– Umayyad lamp types are Egyptian (Arnon 2008c, 216, types TD, MA1).

Works Cited ‘Ad, U., Y.  Arbel, and P.  Gendelman. 2018. ‘Caesarea, Area LL’, Hadashot Arkheo­logiyot, 130 [accessed 15 May 2019]. Adan-Bayewitz, D. 1986. ‘The Pottery from the Late Byzantine Building (Stratum 4) and its Implications’, in L.  I. Levine and E. Netzer, Excavations at Caesarea Maritima 1975, 1976, 1979: Final Report, Qedem, 21 ( Jerusalem: The Hebrew Uni­ver­sity of Jerusalem), pp. 90–129. ——  1993. Common Pottery in Roman Galilee: A Study of Local Trade (Ramat-Gan: Bar-Ilan Uni­ver­sity Press). ——  2003. ‘On the Chrono­logy of the Common Pottery of Northern Roman Judaea/Palestine’, in G. C. Bottini, L. di Segni, and L. D. Chrupcala (eds), One Land – Many Cultures: Archaeo­logical Studies in Honour of Stanislao Loffreda OFM, Studium Biblicum Franciscanum, Collectio Maior, 41 ( Jerusalem: Franciscan Printing Press), pp. 5–32. Al-Shami, A.  J. 2005. ‘A New Discovery at Bayt Rās/Capitolias – Irbid’, Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan, 48: 509–19. Alawneh, F. M. and H. Béarat. 2011. ‘Late Byzantine-Early Islamic Ceramic Techno­logy, Transjordan’, in I. Turbanti-Memmi (ed.), Proceedings of the 37th International Symposium on Archaeometry (Heidelberg: Springer), pp. 3–8 . Almagro, A., P.  Jiménez, and J.  Navarro. 2000. ‘Excavation of Building of the Umayyad Palace of Amman: Preliminary Report’, Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan, 44: 433–57. Amir, R. 2004a. ‘Pottery and Small Finds’, in Y. Hirschfeld (ed.), Excavations at Tiberias, 1989–1994, Israel Antiquities Authority Reports, 22 ( Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority), pp. 31–56. ——  2004b. ‘Pottery’, in Y. Hirschfeld (ed.), Excavations at Tiberias, 1989–1994, Israel Antiquities Authority Reports, 22 ( Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority), pp. 153–67. Andersen, F. G. 1993. ‘Tongegenstände’, in I. Nielsen, F. G. Andersen, and S. Holm-Nielsen, Gadara – Umm Qēs, iii: Die Byzantinischen Thermen, Abhandlungen der Deutschen Palästina-Vereins, 17 (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz), pp. 163–71, 177–95, 253–69. Andersen, F. G. and J. Strange. 1987. ‘Bericht über drei Sondagen in Umm Qēs, Jordanien, im Herbst 1983’, Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins, 103: 78–100.

106

Philip Bes, Tom Brughmans, Achim Lichtenberger, Rubina Raja, and Iza Romanowska

Arnon, Y. D. 2008a. Caesarea Maritima, the Late Periods (700–1291 ce), British Archaeo­logical Reports, International Series, 1771 (Oxford: Archaeopress). ——  2008b. ‘Ceramic Assemblages from the Byzantine/Early Islamic Bath’, in K.  G. Holum, J.  A. Stabler, and E.  G. Reinhardt (eds), Caesarea Reports and Studies: Excavations 1995–2007 within the Old City and the Ancient Harbor, British Archaeo­logical Reports, International Series, 1784 (Oxford: Archaeopress), pp. 85–103, 264–69. ——  2008c. ‘The Ceramic Oil Lamps of the Transitional and Medi­eval Periods (640–1300): A Chrono­logical and Typo­logical Study’, in K. G. Holum, J. A. Stabler, and E. G. Reinhardt (eds), Caesarea Reports and Studies: Excavations 1995–2007 within the Old City and the Ancient Harbor, British Archaeo­logical Reports, International Series, 1784 (Oxford: Archaeopress), pp. 213–69. Arubas, B. and H. Goldfus (eds). 2005. Excavations on the Site of the Jerusalem International Convention Center (Binyanei Ha’uma): A Settlement of the Late First to Second Temple Period, the Tenth Legion’s Kiln Works, and a Byzantine Monastic Complex: The Pottery and Other Small Finds, Journal of Roman Archaeo­logy Supplementary Series, 60 (Portsmouth, RI: Journal of Roman Archaeo­logy). Aviam, M. 2014. ‘“Kefar Hananya Ware” Made in Yodefat: Pottery Production at Yodefat in the First Century AD’, in B. Fischer, Y. Gerber, and H. Hamel (eds), Roman Pottery in the Near East: Local Production and Regional Trade: Proceedings of the Round Table Held in Berlin, 19–20 February 2010, Roman and Late Antique Mediterranean Pottery, 3 (Oxford: Archaeopress), pp. 139–46. Avner, R. and P.  Gendelman. 2007. ‘Caesarea’, Hadashot Arkheo­logiyot, 119 [accessed 15 May 2019]. Avshalom-Gorni, D. 2000. ‘A Burial Cave of the Byzantine Period at Bet She’an’, ‘Atiqot, 39: 49–60, 198. Bar-Nathan, R. 2011. ‘The Pottery Assemblage: Introduction’, in R. Bar-Nathan and W. Atrash, Bet She’an, ii: Baysān: The Theater Pottery Workshop, Israel Antiquities Authority Reports, 48 ( Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority), pp. 205–14. Bar-Nathan, R. and M. Adato. 1986a. ‘Byzantine Pottery (Stratum 5)’, in L. I. Levine and E. Netzer, Excavations at Caesarea Maritima 1975, 1976, 1979: Final Report, Qedem, 21 ( Jerusalem: The Hebrew Uni­ver­sity of Jerusalem), pp. 132–36. ——  1986b. ‘B. Pottery’, in L. I. Levine and E. Netzer, Excavations at Caesarea Maritima 1975, 1976, 1979: Final Report, Qedem, 21 ( Jerusalem: The Hebrew Uni­ver­sity of Jerusalem), pp. 160–75. Bar-Nathan, R. and W. Atrash. 2011. ‘The Theater Pottery Workshop: Location, Planning, and Production Processes’, in R. BarNathan and W. Atrash, Bet She’an, ii: Baysān: The Theater Pottery Workshop, Israel Antiquities Authority Reports, 48 ( Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority), pp. 179–90. Bar-Nathan, R. and A. Najjar. 2011. ‘Urban Pottery Workshops in the Umayyad Period: Bet She’an and Jerash’, in R. Bar-Nathan and W. Atrash, Bet She’an, ii: Baysān: The Theater Pottery Workshop, Israel Antiquities Authority Reports, 48 ( Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority), pp. 191–202. Barag, D. 1963. ‘A Survey of Pottery Recovered from the Sea off the Coast of Israel’, Israel Exploration Journal, 13: 13–19. Barkai, O., Y. Kahanov, and S. Klein. 2007–08. ‘The Tantura F Shipwreck: Analysis of the Ceramic Material’, Skyllis, 8.1–2: 30–32. Barkai, O., Y. Kahanov, and M. Avissar. 2010. ‘The Tantura F Shipwreck: The Ceramic Material’, Levant, 42: 88–101. Barkan, D. and others. 2013. ‘The “Dor 2006” Shipwreck: The Ceramic Material’, Tel Aviv, 40: 117–43. Bennett, C. M. and A. E. Northedge. 1977–78. ‘Excavations at the Citadel, Amman, 1976: Second Preliminary Report’, Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan, 22: 172–79, 286. Bennett, M. E. and others. 1987. ‘Appendix IV: Petro­logical and Heavy Mineral Analysis of Selected Amphora Fragments’, in J. A. Blakely, The Pottery and Dating of Vault 1: Horreum, Mithraeum, and Later Uses, The Joint Expedition to Caesarea Maritima Excavation Reports, 4 (Lewiston: Edwin Mellen), pp. 227–48. Berthier, S. 1985. ‘Sondage dans le secteur des Thermes Sud à Busrā (Syrie) 1985’, Berytus, 33: 5–45. ——  2002–03. ‘Premièrs travaux de la Mission Franco-Syrienne (DGAMS-IFEAD) à la bilan préliminaire sur la fouille de la salle a colonnes (2000–2001). Une occupation attestée durant les deux derniers millénaires’, Les Annales Archéo­logiques Arabes Syriennes, 45–46: 393–413. Bes, P. M. 2015. Once upon a Time in the East: The Chrono­logical and Geo­graphical Distribution of Terra Sigillata and Red Slip Ware in the Roman East, Roman and Late Antique Mediterranean Pottery, 6 (Oxford: Archaeopress). ——  (forthcoming). ‘Long-Distance Imported Pottery at Horvat Kur (Galilee, Israel): Categories and Quantities’, in C. Viegas (ed.), Rei Cretariae Romanae Fautorum Acta, 46 (Oxford: Archaeopress). Blakely, J.  A. 1987. The Pottery and Dating of Vault 1: Horreum, Mithraeum, and Later Uses, The Joint Expedition to Caesarea Maritima Excavation Reports, 4 (Lewiston: Edwin Mellen). ——  1988. ‘Ceramics and Commerce: Amphorae from Caesarea Maritima’, Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, 271: 31–50. ——  1992. ‘Strati­graphy and the North Fortification Wall of Herod’s Caesarea’, in R. L. Vann (ed.), Caesarea Papers: Straton’s Tower, Herod’s Harbour, and Roman and Byzantine Caesarea: Including the Papers Given at a Symposium Held at the Uni­ver­sity of Maryland, the Smithsonian Institution, and the Jewish Community Center of Greater Washington on 25–28 March, 1988, Journal of Roman Archaeo­logy Supplementary Series, 5 (Ann Arbor: Journal of Roman Archaeo­logy), pp. 26–41.

3. Ceramics in Cities in Context

107

——  1996. ‘Toward the Study of Economics at Caesarea Maritima’, in A.  Raban and K.  G. Holum (eds), Caesarea Maritima: A  Retrospective after Two Millennia, Documenta et Monumenta Orientis Antiqui, Studies in Near Eastern Archaeo­logy and Civilisation, 21 (Leiden: Brill), pp. 327–45. Blakely, J.  A., R.  Brinkmann, and C.  J. Vitaliano. 1992. ‘Roman Mortaria and Basins from a Sequence at Caesarea: Fabrics and Sources’, in R. L. Vann (ed.), Caesarea Papers: Straton’s Tower, Herod’s Harbour, and Roman and Byzantine Caesarea: Including the Papers Given at a Symposium Held at the Uni­ver­sity of Maryland, the Smithsonian Institution, and the Jewish Community Center of Greater Washington on 25–28 March, 1988, Journal of Roman Archaeo­logy Supplementary Series, 5 (Ann Arbor: Journal of Roman Archaeo­logy), pp. 194–213. Blanc, P.-M. and P. Piraud-Fournet. 2010. ‘La Grande église à plan centré du quartier est de Bosra’, in M. al-Maqdissi, F. Braemer, and J.-M. Dentzer (eds), Hauran, v.1: La Syrie du sud du Néolithique à l’Antiquité tardive: recherches récentes: actes du colloque de Damas 2007, Bibliothèque Archéo­logique et Historique, 191 (Beirut: Institut Français d’Archéo­logie du Proche-Orient), pp. 275–87. Bonifay, M. 2004. Études sur la céramique romaine tardive d’Afrique, British Archaeo­logical Reports, International Series, 1301 (Oxford: Archaeopress). Bower, N. W., R. H. Bromund, and R. H. Smith. 1975. ‘Atomic Absorption for the Archaeo­logist: An Application to Pottery from Pella of the Decapolis’, Journal of Field Archaeo­logy, 2: 389–98. Bresenham, M. F. 1985. ‘Descriptive and Experimental Study of Contemporary and Ancient Pottery Techniques at Busrā’, Berytus, 33: 89–101. Brown, J.  P. and others. 2012. ‘Hammath/Ammathous: A  Pleiades Place Resource’, Pleiades: A  Gazetteer of Past Places [accessed 15 May 2019]. Brulet, R. 1984. ‘Estampilles de la IIIe légion cyrénaïque à Bostra’, Berytus, 32: 175–79. Bucci, G. 1997–2000 [2004]. ‘Bosra 2003: esedra Bahira, saggi I e II’, Felix Ravenna, 153–56: 279–95. ——  2009. ‘Bosra, complesso di Bahira: Basilica Nord, campagne di scavo 2004 e 2005’, in R. Farioli Campanati and others (eds), Ideo­logia e cultura artistica tra Adriatico e mediterraneo orientale (IV–X secolo) il ruolo dell’autorità ecclesiastica alla luce di nuovi scavi e ricerche: atti del convegno internazionale Bo­logna-Ravenna, 26–29 Novembre 2007, Studi e Scavi Nuova Serie, 19 (Bo­logna: Ante Quem), pp. 133–40. Bührig, C. and B. Liesen. 2006. ‘Umm Qeis/Gadara’, American Journal of Archaeo­logy, 111: 524, 526–27. Bührig, C., L. Berger, and G. Pasewald. 2012. ‘Umm Qeis/Gadara and its Urban Hinterland’, in D. R. Keller, B. A. Porter, and C. A. Tuttle, Archaeo­logy in Jordan, 2010 and 2011 Seasons, American Journal of Archaeo­logy, 116: 693. Bull, R. J., E. Krentz, and O. J. Storvick. 1980–84 [1986]. ‘The Joint Expedition to Caesarea Maritima: Ninth Season, 1980’, Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research Supplementary Studies, 24: 31–55. Bull, R. J. and others. 1982–89 [1991]. ‘The Joint Expedition to Caesarea Maritima: Tenth Season, 1982’, Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research Supplementary Studies, 27: 69–94. Bull, R.  J. and others. 1993 [1994]. ‘The Joint Expedition to Caesarea Maritima: Eleventh Season, 1984’, in W.  G. Dever (ed.), Preliminary Excavation Reports: Sardis, Paphos, Caesarea Maritima, Shiqmim, Ain Ghazal, The Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research, 51 (Boston: American Schools of Oriental Research), pp. 63–86. Campbell Jr., E. F. 1991. Shechem, ii: Portrait of a Hill Country Vale: The Shechem Regional Survey, American Schools of Oriental Research Archaeo­logical Reports, 2 (Atlanta: Scholars Press). Chapman, D. W. 2011. ‘Roman Remains at Decapolis Abila: An Update on Twenty-Eight Years of Excavations’, ARAM Periodical, 23: 11–25. Chapman, D. W. and others. 2006. ‘The 2004 Season of Excavation at Abila of the Decapolis’, Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan, 50: 61–68. Chrzanovski, L. 2015. ‘South-Eastern Mediterranean Lamps and their Recent Biblio­graphy. From Terra (Quasi) Incognita to Lychno­ logical Researches which Changed Several Typo-Chrono­logical and Regional “Axioms”’, Journal of Ancient History and Archaeo­ logy, 2.1: 115–25. Cohen-Weinberger, A. and Y. Goren. 2011. ‘The Clay Sources of the Theater Pottery Workshop: A Petro­graphic Study’, in R. BarNathan and W. Atrash, Bet She’an, ii: Baysān: The Theater Pottery Workshop, Israel Antiquities Authority Reports, 48 ( Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority), pp. 215–28. Comfort, H.  C. and F.  O. Waagé. 1936. ‘Selected Pottery from Beth Shan (Roman Date)’, Palestine Exploration Fund Quarterly Statement, 68: 221–24. Covello-Paran, K. and D. Avshalom-Gorni. 2008. ‘Pottery Production at Ḥorbat Rodem near Bet She’an’, ‘Atiqot, 58: 37–46. Crowfoot, G. M. 1957a. ‘3. Terra Sigillata General List’, in J. W. Crowfoot, G. M. Crowfoot, and K. M. Kenyon, Samaria-Sebaste, iii: The Objects from Samaria (London: Palestine Exploration Fund), pp. 306–57. ——  1957b. ‘4. Late Roman A, B and C Wares’, in J. W. Crowfoot, G. M. Crowfoot, and K. M. Kenyon, Samaria-Sebaste, iii: The Objects from Samaria (London: Palestine Exploration Fund), pp. 357–61.

108

Philip Bes, Tom Brughmans, Achim Lichtenberger, Rubina Raja, and Iza Romanowska

Cytryn-Silverman, K. 2012. ‘Excavations at Tiberias (Spring and Autumn 2009): Remains of a District Capital’, in R. Matthews and J. Curtis (eds), Proceedings of the 7th International Congress on the Archaeo­logy of the Ancient Near East, 12 April–16 April 2010, the British Museum and UCL, London, ii (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz), pp. 599–617. ——  2015. ‘Tiberias: From its Foundation to the End of the Early Islamic Period’, in D. A. Fiensy and J. R. Strange (eds), Galilee in the Late Second Temple Mishnah Periods (Minneapolis: Fortress), pp. 186–210. Da Costa, K. A. 1993. ‘Ceramic Lamps from Area XXIX’, in A. G. Walmsley and others, ‘The Eleventh and Twelfth Seasons of Excavations at Pella (Tabaqat Fahl) 1989–1990’, Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan, 37: 227–31. ——  2010. ‘Economic Cycles in the Byzantine Levant: The Evidence from Lamps at Pella in Jordan’, Levant, 42: 70–87. Da Costa, K. A. and others. 2002. ‘New Light on Late Antique Pella: Sydney Uni­ver­sity Excavations in Area XXXV, 1997’, Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan, 46: 503–33. Damaskus, Zitadelle. 2004. Archäo­logischer Anzeiger, 2004.2: 363–64. Daszkiewicz, M., B. Liesen, and G. Schneider. 2014. ‘Provenance Study of Hellenistic, Roman and Byzantine Kitchen Wares from the Theatre-Temple Area of Umm Qais/Gadara, Jordan’, in B. Fischer, Y. Gerber, and H. Hamel (eds), Roman Pottery in the Near East: Local Production and Regional Trade: Proceedings of the Round Table Held in Berlin, 19–20 February 2010, Roman and Late Antique Mediterranean Pottery, 3 (Oxford: Archaeopress), pp. 147–58. De Vincenz, A. 2013. ‘The Pottery Assemblages’, in Y. Hirschfeld and O. Gutfeld, Tiberias: Excavations in the House of the Bronzes: Final Report, i: Architecture, Strati­graphy and Small Finds, Qedem, 48 ( Jerusalem: The Hebrew Uni­ver­sity of Jerusalem), pp. 105–63. Degryse, P. and J. Poblome. 2008. ‘Clays for Mass Production of Table and Common Ware, Amphorae and Architectural Ceramics at Sagalassos’, in P.  Degryse and M.  Waelkens (eds), Geo- and Bio-Archaeo­logy at Sagalassos and in its Territory, Sagalassos, 6 (Leuven: Leuven Uni­ver­sity Press), pp. 231–54. Degryse, P. and others. 2008. ‘Provenancing the Slip of Sagalassos Red Slip Ware’, in P. Degryse and M. Waelkens (eds), Geo- and Bioarchaeo­logy at Sagalassos and in its Territory, Sagalassos, 6 (Leuven: Leuven Uni­ver­sity Press), pp. 255–60. Delplace, C. and T.  Fournet. 2002. ‘Bosra 1999: Deuxième campagne de fouille dans le secteur du cryptoportique’, Les Annales Archéo­logiques Arabes Syriennes, 45: 305–16. Dentzer, J.-M. 1984 [1986]. ‘Sondages près de l’Arc Nabatéen a Bosrà’, Berytus, 32: 163–74. ——  1985. ‘Céramique et environment naturel: la céramique nabatéenne de Bosrà’, in A. Hadidi (ed.), Jordanian Environment: Geo­ graphical and Historical, Studies in the History and Archaeo­logy of Jordan, 2 (Amman: Department of Antiquities), pp. 149–53. ——  1997. ‘Les recherches archéo­logiques françaises dans la perspective de l’exploration de la Syrie du sud basaltique’, Les Annales Archéo­logiques Arabes Syriennes, 41: 87–94. Dentzer, J.-M., J. Dentzer-Feydy, and P.-M. Blanc. 2001. ‘Bușrā dans la perspective par millénaires: la Bușrā nabatéenne’, in Jordan by the Millenia, Studies in the History and Archaeo­logy of Jordan, 7 (Amman: Department of Antiquities), pp. 457–68. Dentzer, J.-M. and others. 1993. ‘Nouvelles recherches franco-syriennes dans le quartier est de Bosra Ash-Sham’, Comptes Rendus des Séances de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres, 137.1: 117–47 . ——  2002–03. ‘L’Éspace de la Bosra antique’, Les Annales Archéo­logiques Arabes Syriennes, 45–46: 285–303. ——  2010. ‘Formation et développement des villes en Syrie du sud de l’époque hellénistique à l’époque byzantine: les exemples de Bosra, Suweida, Shahba’, in M. al-Maqdissi, F. Braemer, and J.-M. Dentzer (eds), Hauran, v.1: La Syrie du sud du Néolithique à l’Antiquité tardive: recherches récentes: actes du Colloque de Damas 2007, Bibliothèque Archéo­logique et Historique, 191 (Beirut: Institut Français d’Archéo­logie du Proche-Orient), pp. 139–69. Diez Fernández, F. 1983. Ceramica comun Romana de la Galilea (Madrid: Escuela Biblica). Dothan, M. 1983. Hammath Tiberias: Early Synagogues and the Hellenistic and Roman Remains ( Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society). Dijkstra, J. 2015. ‘Roof Tiles, Tegulae and Imbrices: A Statistical Survey’, in K. J. H. Vriezen and U. Wagner-Lux (eds), Gadara – Umm Qēs, ii: The Twin Churches on the Roman-Byzantine Terrace and Excavations in the Streets, Abhandlungen des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins, 30.2 (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz), pp. 162–67, 328–36. Edwards, W. I. 1992. ‘Appendix 10: A Progress Report on the Pella Pottery Studies’, in A. W. McNicoll and others, Pella in Jordan, ii: The Second Interim Report of the Joint Uni­ver­sity of Sydney and College of Wooster Excavations at Pella 1982–1985, Mediterranean Archaeo­logy Supplement, 2 (Sydney: Meditarch), pp. 281–98. Eisenberg, M. (ed.). 2018. Hippos-Sussita of the Decapolis: The First Twelve Seasons of Excavations 2000–2011, ii (Haifa: Zinman Institute of Archaeo­logy). El-Khouri, L. 2014. ‘Late Roman Fine Pottery from Gadara (Umm Qais), 2011 Season of Excavation’, Mediterranean Archaeo­logy and Archaeometry, 14.2: 115–38. El-Khouri, L. and M. Omoush. 2015. ‘The Abbasid Occupation at Gadara (Umm Qais), 2011 Excavation Season’, Mediterranean Archaeo­logy and Archaeometry, 15.2: 11–25. Erlich, A. 2010. ‘Technique and Production of the Terracotta Figurines’, in E. Stern, Excavations at Dor: Figurines, Cult Objects and Amulets: 1980–2000 Seasons ( Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society), pp. 138–40.

3. Ceramics in Cities in Context

109

Ertel, C. 2010. ‘Grabungen im Heiligtum des Rabbu in Qanawat’, in M. al-Maqdissi, F. Braemer, and J.-M. Dentzer (eds), Hauran, v.1: La Syrie du sud du Néolithique à l’Antiquité tardive: recherches récentes: actes du Colloque de Damas 2007, Bibliothèque Archéo­logique et Historique, 191 (Beirut: Institut Français d’Archéo­logie du Proche-Orient), pp. 255–66. Farioli Campanati, R. 1986. ‘Die italienischen Ausgrabungen in Bosra (Syrien). Der spätantike Zentralbau der Kirche der Hll. Sergius, Bacchus und Leontius’, Boreas, 9: 173–85. Finkielsztejn, G. 2015. ‘The Stamped Amphorae from the IAA Excavations (1992–1998)’, in Y. Porath (ed.), Caesarea, i.2, Israel Antiquities Authority Reports, 57 ( Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority), pp. 63–72. Fischer, T. 2000. ‘Qanawat – Bericht über die Ausgrabungen 1998 und 1999’, Damaszener Mitteilungen, 12: 177–85. Freyberger, K.-S. 1989. ‘Einige Beobachtungen zur städtebaulichen Entwicklung des römischen Bostra’, Damaszener Mitteilungen, 4: 45–60. ——  1999. ‘Das antike Kanatha (Qanawāt) in römischer und byzantinischer Zeit’, in Zehn Jahre Ausgrabungen und Forschungen in Syrien 1989–98 (Damascus: Deutsches Archäo­logisches Institut, Orient-Abteilung), pp. 29–38. Freyberger, K.-S., C. Ertel, and K. Tacke. 2015. Kanatha von hellenistischer bis spätantiker Zeit, i: Die Heiligtümer: Orte der Herrschaft und urbane Kommunikationszentren (Darmstadt: Von Zabern). Frumkin, A. 2018. ‘The Underground Water Systems of Ma’abarta-Flavia Neapolis, Israel’, Geoarchaeo­logy, 33: 127–40 . Fuller, M. J. 1986. ‘Abila Pottery Types’, Near East Archaeo­logical Society Bulletin, n.s., 27: 25–60. ——  1987. ‘Abila of the Decapolis: A Roman-Byzantine City in Transjordan’ (unpublished doctoral thesis, Washington Uni­ver­sity). Fuller, N. B. 1987. ‘Abila Tomb Excavations: 1986’, Near East Archaeo­logical Society Bulletin, n.s., 29: 31–62. Fuller, M. J. and N. B. Fuller. 1992. ‘Regional Survey and Ethnoarchaeo­logical Investigations at Abila’, ARAM Periodical, 4: 157–71. Gekht, Y. 2015. ‘A Synagogue in Central Tiberias’, Eretz Israel, 31: 76–82 (in Hebrew). Gendelman, P. 2015. ‘The Terracotta Statuary, Masks, Plastic Vases and Portable Altars’, in Y.  Porath (ed.), Caesarea, i.2, Israel Antiquities Authority Reports, 57 ( Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority), pp. 25–61. Gendelman, P. 2018. ‘A Chrono­logical Revision of the Date of the Pottery Finds from the Eastern Circus at Caesarea Maritima’, ‘Atiqot, 92: 105–36. Gerber, Y. 2014. ‘Comparing Pottery Traditions from South Transjordan and from Middle and North Transjordan during the Nabataean/Roman Periods (1st to 5th Centuries ad)’, in B. Fischer, Y. Gerber, and H. Hamel (eds), Roman Pottery in the Near East: Local Production and Regional Trade: Proceedings of the Round Table Held in Berlin, 19–20 February 2010, Roman and Late Antique Mediterranean Pottery, 3 (Oxford: Archaeopress), pp. 189–203. Goldberg, P. 1986. ‘Appendix. Petro­graphic Descriptions of Selected Caesarea Pottery’, in L. I. Levine and E. Netzer, Excavations at Caesarea Maritima 1975, 1976, 1979: Final Report, Qedem, 21 ( Jerusalem: The Hebrew Uni­ver­sity of Jerusalem), pp. 130–31. Govaars, M., M. Spiro, and L. M. White. 2009. Field O: The ‘Synagogue’ Site, The Joint Expedition to Caesarea Maritima Excavation Reports, 9 (Boston: American Schools of Oriental Research). Greene, J. A. and K. ‘Amr. 1992. ‘Deep Sounding on the Lower Terrace of the Amman Citadel: Final Report’, Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan, 36: 113–44. Groh, D. E. 1978. ‘North Syrian Mortaria Excavated at Caesarea Maritima (Israel)’, Levant, 10: 165–69. Gualandi G. 1975. ‘Una città carovaniera della Siria meridionale: Bosra romana e la recente esplorazione archeo­logica nella cattedrale dei SS. Sergio, Bacco e Leonzio’, Felix Ravenna, 109–10: 187–239. Guz-Zilberstein, B. 1995. ‘The Typo­logy of the Hellenistic Coarse Ware and Selected Loci of the Hellenistic and Roman Periods’, in E. Stern (ed.), Excavations at Dor, Final Report, i.B: Areas A and C: The Finds, Qedem, 2 ( Jerusalem: The Hebrew Uni­ver­sity of Jerusalem), pp. 289–433. Hadad, S. 2002. The Oil Lamps from the Hebrew Uni­ver­sity Excavations at Bet Shean, Excavations at Bet Shean, 1, Qedem, 4 ( Jerusalem: The Hebrew Uni­ver­sity of Jerusalem). Hadidi, A. 1970. ‘The Pottery from the Roman Forum at Amman’, Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan, 15: 11–15. ——  1974. ‘The Excavation of the Roman Forum at Amman (Philadelphia), 1964–1967’, Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan, 19: 71–91. Harding, G. L. 1951a. ‘Excavations on the Citadel, Amman’, Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan, 1: 7–16. ——  1951b. ‘A Roman Tomb in Amman’, Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan, 1: 30–33. Hartal, M. 2008. ‘The Use of Pottery as a Tool for the Definition of Provincial Borders’, in S. Dar (ed.), In the Hill-Country, and in the Shephelah, and in the Arabah ( Joshua 12, 8): Studies and Researches Presented to Adam Zertal in the Thirtieth Anniversary of the Manasseh Hill-Country Survey ( Jerusalem: Ariel), pp. 211–22. Hayes, J. W. 1971. ‘A New Type of Early Christian Ampulla’, Annual of the British School at Athens, 66: 243–48. ——  1972. Late Roman Pottery (London: The British School at Rome). ——  1980. A Supplement to Late Roman Pottery (London: The British School at Rome). ——  1985. ‘Sigillate orientale’, in Atlante della forme ceramiche, ii: Ceramica fine romana nel bacino mediterraneo (tardo ellenismo e primo imperio): enciclopedia dell’arte antica: classica e orientale (Rome: Istituto della Enciclopedia Italiana), pp. 1–96.

110

Philip Bes, Tom Brughmans, Achim Lichtenberger, Rubina Raja, and Iza Romanowska

——  2008. Roman Pottery: Fine Ware Imports: Typo­logy, The Athenian Agora, 32 (Princeton: The American School of Classical Studies at Athens). Hennessy, J. B. and others. 1981. ‘Preliminary Report on a Second Season of Excavation at Pella, Jordan’, Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan, 25: 267–309. ——  1983. ‘Preliminary Report on the Fourth Season of Excavations at Pella, 1982’, Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan, 27: 325–61. Henrich, P. 2000. ‘Ein Fundkomplex mit kaiserzeitlicher Keramik (Fundkomplex 98/3)’, in T. Fischer, ‘Qanawat – Bericht über die Ausgrabungen 1998 und 1999’, Damaszener Mitteilungen, 12: 183–85. ——  2002. ‘Studien zur römischen Keramik im Hauran – Untersuchungen am Beispiel eines Fundkomplexes aus Qanawat/Südsyrien’, Damaszener Mitteilungen, 13: 245–315. ——  2003. ‘Ein datierter Fundkomplex mit römischer Keramik aus Qanawat/Syrien’, in K.-S. Freyberger, A. Henning, and H. von Hesberg (eds), Kulturkonflikte im vorderen Orient an der Wende vom Hellenismus zur römischen Kaiserzeit, Orient-Archäo­logie, 11 (Rahden: Leidorf ), pp. 65–73. Holum, K. G. and others. 1988. King Herod’s Dream: Caesarea on the Sea (New York: Norton). Humbert, J.-B. 1995. ‘Céramiques romaines d’Amman-Philadelphia (Summary of the Paper)’, in H.  Meyza and J.  Młynarczyk (eds), Hellenistic and Roman Pottery in the Eastern Mediterranean: Advances in Scientific Studies: Acts of the II Nieborów Pottery Workshop, Nieborów, 18–20 December 1993 (Warsaw: Research Center for Mediterranean Archaeo­logy), pp. 495–97. Humbert, J.-B. and F. Zayadine. 1992. ‘Trois campagnes de fouilles à Ammān (1988–1991). Troisième terrasse de la Citadelle (Mis­ sion franco-jordanienne)’, Revue Biblique, 99: 214–60. Iermolin, A. 2010. ‘Roman Oil Lamps Catalogue’, in A.  Segal, M.  Schuler, and M.  Eisenberg, Hippos-Sussita: Eleventh Season of Excavations ( July 2010) (Haifa: Zinman Institute of Archaeo­logy), pp. 118–52. Jackson, M. and others. 2012. ‘Primary Evidence for Late Roman D Ware Production in Southern Asia Minor: A  Challenge to “Cypriot Red Slip Ware”’, Anatolian Studies, 62: 89–114 . Jöhrens, G. 2013. ‘Amphorenstempel aus Gadara’, in A. Hoffmann and C. Bührig (eds), Forschungen in Gadara/Umm Qays von 1987 bis 2000, Orient-Archäo­logie, 28, Gadara, ii (Rahden: Leidorf ), pp. 53–101. Johnson, B. L. 2000a. ‘The Pottery’, in M. Dothan (completed and edited by B. L. Johnson), Hammath Tiberias, ii: Late Synagogues ( Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society), pp. 54–74. ——  2000b. ‘Lamps’, in M. Dothan (completed and edited by B. L. Johnson), Hammath Tiberias, ii: Late Synagogues ( Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society), pp. 75–83. ——  2006. ‘The Hellenistic to Early Islamic Period Pottery’, in A. Mazar, Excavations at Tel Beth-Shean 1989–1996, i: From the Late Bronze Age  IIB to the Medi­eval Period, The Beth-Shean Valley Archaeo­logical Project Publications, 1 ( Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society), pp. 523–89. ——  2008. ‘The Pottery’, in J. Patrich (ed.), Archaeo­logical Excavations at Caesarea Maritima: Areas CC, KK and NN Final Report, i: The Objects ( Jerusalem: Eisenbrauns), pp. 19–206. Johnson, B. L. and J. Idelson. 2011. ‘Appendix. Pottery Retrieved in the Garden-Soil Layer’, in J. Patrich (ed.), Studies in the Archaeo­ logy and History of Caesarea Maritima: Caput Judaeae, Metropolis Palaestinae, Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity, 77 (Leiden: Brill), pp. 167–76. Joly, M. and P.-M. Blanc. 1995. ‘Nouvelles données sur la céramique de Bosra’, in H. Meyza and J. Młynarczyk (eds), Hellenistic and Roman Pottery in the Eastern Mediterranean: Advances in Scientific Studies: Acts of the II Nieborów Pottery Workshop, Nieborów, 18–20 December 1993 (Warsaw: Research Center for Mediterranean Archaeo­logy), pp. 111–34. Kadour, M. and H. Seeden. 1980. ‘Busra 1980: Reports of an Archaeo­logical and Ethno­graphic Campaign’, Damaszener Mitteilungen, 1: 77–101. Kapitaikin, L.-A. 2010. ‘Pottery Report’, in A. Segal, M. Schuler, and M. Eisenberg, Hippos-Sussita: Eleventh Season of Excavations ( July 2010) (Haifa: Zinman Institute of Archaeo­logy), pp. 95–117. ——  2018. ‘Final Pottery Report of the 2010–2011 Excavation Seasons’, in M. Eisenberg, Hippos-Sussita of the Decapolis: The First Twelve Seasons of Excavations 2000–2011, ii (Haifa: Zinman Institute of Archaeo­logy), pp. 88–209. Kassab Tezgör, D. 2009. Les Fouilles et le matériel de l’atelier amphorique de Demirci près de Sinope, Varia Anatolica, 20 (Paris: De Boccard). Keay, S. J. 1984. Late Roman Amphorae in the Western Mediterranean: A Typo­logy and Economic Study: The Catalan Evidence, British Archaeo­logical Reports, International Series, 196 (Oxford: British Archaeo­logical Reports). Kehrberg, I. 2001. ‘Ceramic Lamp Production in the 4th and 5th Centuries ad at the Hippodrome of Gerasa: An Empirical Study’, in E. Villeneuve and P. M. Watson (eds), La céramique byzantine et proto-islamique en Syrie-Jordanie (IVe–VIIIe siècles apr. J.-C.): actes du colloque tenu à Amman les 3, 4 et 5 décembre 1994, Bibliothèque Archéo­logique et Historique, 159 (Beirut: Institut Français d’Archéo­logie du Proche-Orient), pp. 231–39. ——  2009. ‘Byzantine Ceramic Productions and Organisational Aspects of Sixth Century ad Pottery Workshops at the Hippodrome of Jarash’, in F. al-Khraysheh (ed.), Crossing Jordan, Studies in the History and Archaeo­logy of Jordan, 10 (Amman: Department of Antiquities), pp. 492–512.

3. Ceramics in Cities in Context

111

——  2015. ‘The Umm Qēs Lamps: A Catalogue with Introduction’, in K. J. H. Vriezen and U. Wagner-Lux (eds), Gadara – Umm Qēs, ii: The Twin Churches on the Roman-Byzantine Terrace and Excavations in the Streets, Abhandlungen des Deutschen PalästinaVereins, 30.2 (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz), pp. 168–94. ——  2016. ‘Pottery and Glass Sherd-Tools from Roman and Byzantine Workshops at the Gerasa Hippodrome and Other Sites: A  Reappraisal’, in M.  Jamhawi (ed.), Transparent Borders, Studies in the History and Archaeo­logy of Jordan, 12 (Amman: Department of Antiquities), pp. 411–30. Kenkel, F. 2012. ‘Untersuchungen zur hellenistischen, römischen und byzantinischen Keramik des Tall Zirā’a im Wādī al-’Arab (Nordjordanien): Handelsobjekte und Alltagsgegenstände einer ländlichen Siedlung im Einflussgebiet der Dekapolisstädte’ (unpublished doctoral thesis, Uni­ver­sity of Co­logne). Kenkel, F. 2017. ‘Pottery from the 2001 Survey’, in D. Vieweger and J. Häser (eds), Tall Zirā‘a Gadara Region Project 2001–2011: Final Report, i: Introduction (Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus), pp. 59–123. Kenrick, P. M. 2000. ‘Fine Wares from the City Wall Section at Bait Nawashi (Area XLII)’, Archäo­logischer Anzeiger, 2000: 235–65. Kenyon, K.  M. 1957. ‘1. Terra Sigillata, 2: Stratified Groups’, in J.  W. Crowfoot, G.  M. Crowfoot, and K.  M. Kenyon, SamariaSebaste, iii: The Objects from Samaria (London: Palestine Exploration Fund), pp. 281–306. Kermorvant, A., J. Leblanc, and M. Lenoir. 2000. ‘Bosra (Syrie): le camp de la légion IIIe cyrénaïque. Chronique’, Mélanges de l’École Française de Rome: Antiquité, 112: 496–502. ——  2002. ‘Le camp de la légion IIIe Cyrenaica et sa zone d’activités’, in T. Fournet, P.-M. Blanc, and J.-M. Dentzer, ‘Le Développement urbaine de Bosra de l’époque nabatéenne à l’époque byzantine: bilan des recherches françaises 1981–2002’, Syria, 79: 134–40. Kerner, S. 1992. ‘Umm Qais – Gadara: Recent Excavations’, ARAM Periodical, 4: 407–23. ——  1997. ‘Umm Qays-Gadara: A Preliminary Report 1993–1995’, Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan, 41: 283–302. ——  2002. ‘Gadara: Schwarzweiße Stadt zwischen Adjlun und Golan’, in A. Hoffmann and S. Kerner (eds), Gadara – Gerasa und die Dekapolis (Mainz am Rhein: Von Zabern), pp. 125–36. Kerner, S. and L.  A. Maxwell. 1990. ‘Keramik’, in P.  C. Bol, A.  Hoffmann, and T.  Weber, ‘Gadara in der Dekapolis: Deutsche Ausgrabungen bei Umm Qais in Nordjordanien 1986 bis 1988. Vorbericht’, Archäo­logische Anzeiger, 1990: 239–51. Kingsley, S.  A. 2002a. ‘The Ship’s Pottery: Classification and Quantification of the Cargo and Domestic Assemblage’, in S.  A. Kingsley, A Sixth-Century ad Shipwreck off the Carmel Coast, Israel: Dor D and Holy Land Wine Trade, British Archaeo­logical Reports, International Series, 1065 (Oxford: Archaeopress), pp. 21–38. ——  2002b. ‘Intrusive Pottery and Metal Wares’, in S. A. Kingsley, A Sixth-Century ad Shipwreck off the Carmel Coast, Israel: Dor D and Holy Land Wine Trade, British Archaeo­logical Reports, International Series, 1065 (Oxford: Archaeopress), pp. 39–52. ——  2002c. ‘Palestinian Wine Exports in Late Antiquity: Scales and Structures’, in S. A. Kingsley, A Sixth-Century ad Shipwreck off the Carmel Coast, Israel: Dor D and Holy Land Wine Trade, British Archaeo­logical Reports, International Series, 1065 (Oxford: Archaeopress), pp. 74–84. Kingsley, S. A. and K. Raveh. 1996a. ‘Amphorae and Coarse Pottery: Description of the Isolated Material’, in S. A. Kingsley and K. Raveh, The Ancient Harbour and Anchorage at Dor, Israel: Results of the Underwater Surveys, 1976–1991, British Archaeo­ logical Reports, International Series, 626 (Oxford: British Archaeo­logical Reports), pp. 42–54. ——  1996b. ‘The Shipwrecks at the Entrance to the South Bay’, in S. A. Kingsley and K. Raveh, The Ancient Harbour and Anchorage at Dor, Israel: Results of the Underwater Surveys, 1976–1991, British Archaeo­logical Reports, International Series, 626 (Oxford: British Archaeo­logical Reports), pp. 55–75. Konrad, M. 2013. ‘Hellenistische und römische Feinkeramik aus Gadara: Stratifizierte Fundensembles und deren Evidenz für die Periodisierung des Platzes von der Seleukidenzeit bis zum Ersten Jüdischen Aufstand’, in A.  Hoffmann and C.  Bührig (eds), Forschungen in Gadara/Umm Qays von 1987 bis 2000, Orient-Archäo­logie, 28, Gadara, 2 (Rahden: Leidorf ), pp. 103–34. Koutsoukou, A. 1997. ‘Miscellaneous Finds’, in A.  Koutsoukou and others (eds), The Great Temple of Amman: The Excavations, American Center of Oriental Research Occasional Papers, 3 (Amman: American Center of Oriental Research), pp. 135–56. Koutsoukou, A. and M. Najjar. 1997. ‘The Pottery’, in A. Koutsoukou and others (eds), The Great Temple of Amman: The Excavations, American Center of Oriental Research Occasional Papers, 3 (Amman: American Center of Oriental Research), pp. 55–118. Łajtar, A. 1994. ‘Ein bestempeltes Keramikfragment aus Beth-Shean (zu ZPE 95, 1993, S. 52, Taf. I A)’, Zeitschrift für Papyro­logie und Epi­graphik, 102: 269–70. Łajtar, A. and J.  Młynarczyk. 2017. ‘A Faction Acclamation Incised on a Pithos Found near the North-West Church at Hippos (Sussita)’, Études & Travaux, 30: 289–302. Landgraf, J. 1980. ‘Keisan’s Byzantine Pottery’, in J. Briend and J.-B. Humbert (eds), Tell Keisan, 1971–1976: une cité phénicienne en Galilée, Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis Series Archaeo­logica, 1 (Fribourg: Éditions Universitaires), pp. 51–99. Leblanc, J. 2001. ‘Camp romain’, in J.-M. Dentzer and P.-M. Blanc, ‘Le Centre de la ville de Bosra, travaux de la mission en 1998’, Les Annales Archéo­logiques Arabes Syriennes, 44: 142–43. Leblanc, J. and M. Lenoir. 1999. ‘Bosra (Syrie): le camp de la légion IIIe cyrénaïque’, Mélanges de l’École Française de Rome: Antiquité, 111: 527–29. Lenoir, M. 1998. ‘Bosra (Syrie): le camp de la légion IIIe cyrénaïque’, Mélanges de l’École Française de Rome: Antiquité, 110: 523–28.

112

Philip Bes, Tom Brughmans, Achim Lichtenberger, Rubina Raja, and Iza Romanowska

Lenzen, C.  J. 1983a. ‘The Byzantine/Islamic Occupation at Caesarea Maritima as Evidenced through the Pottery’ (unpublished doctoral thesis, Drew Uni­ver­sity). ——  1983b. ‘Preliminary Report: Abila Pottery, 1982’, Near East Archaeo­logical Society Bulletin, 22: 32–49. ——  1992. ‘Irbid and Beit Ras: Interconnected Settlements c. ad 100–900’, in S. Tell (ed.), Sites and Settlement in Jordan, Studies in the History and Archaeo­logy of Jordan, 4 (Amman: Department of Antiquities), pp. 299–301. ——  1995. ‘From Public to Private Space: Changes in the Urban Plan of Bayt Rās/Capitolias’, in K. ‘Amr, F. Zayadine, and M. Zaghloul (eds), Art and Techno­logy throughout the Ages, Studies in the History and Archaeo­logy of Jordan, 5 (Amman: Department of Antiquities), pp. 235–39. ——  2003. ‘Ethnic Identity at Beit Ras/Capitolias and Umm al-Jimāl’, Mediterranean Archaeo­logy, 16: 73–87. Lenzen, C. J. and E. A. Knauf. 1987. ‘Beit Ras/Capitolias: A Preliminary Evaluation of the Archaeo­logical and Textual Evidence’, Syria, 64: 21–46. Lichtenberger, A. 2003. Kulte und Kultur der Dekapolis: Untersuchungen zu numismatischen, archäo­logischen und epi­graphischen Zeugnissen (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz). Lichtenberger, A. and R. Raja (eds). 2018. Middle Islamic Jerash (9th Century–15th Century): Archaeo­logy and History of an AyyubidMamluk Settlement, Jerash Papers, 3 (Turnhout: Brepols). Lichtenberger, A. and R. Raja (eds). 2019a. The Byzantine and Umayyad Periods in Jerash Reconsidered: Transitions, Transformations, and Continuities, Jerash Papers, 4 (Turnhout: Brepols). Lichtenberger, A. and R. Raja. 2019b. ‘Defining Borders: The Umayyad-Abbasid Transition and the Earthquake of ad 749 in Jerash’, in A. Lichtenberger and R. Raja, The Byzantine and Umayyad Periods in Jerash Reconsidered: Transitions, Transformations, and Continuities, Jerash Papers, 4 (Turnhout: Brepols), pp. 265–86. Lichtenberger, A. and others. 2019. ‘Urban-Riverine Hinterland Synergies in Semi-Arid Environments: Millennial-Scale Change, Adaptations and Environmental Responses at Gerasa/Jerash’, Journal of Field Archaeo­logy, 44 . Loffreda, S. 2008. Cafarnao, vi: Tipo­logie e contesti stratigrafici della ceramica (1968–2003), Studium Biblicum Franciscanum, Collectio Maior, 48 ( Jerusalem: Edizioni Terra Santa). Magen, Y. 2009. Flavia Neapolis, Shechem in the Roman Period, Judea & Samaria Publications, 5 ( Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority). Magness, J. 1993. Jerusalem Ceramic Chrono­logy, circa 200–800 ce (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press). ——  1994 [1995]. ‘The Pottery from Area V/4 at Caesarea’, in W. G. Dever (ed.), Preliminary Excavation Reports: Sardis, Bir Umm Fawakhir, Tell el-Umeiri, the Combined Caesarea Expeditions, and Tell Dothan, The Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research, 52 (Boston: American Schools of Oriental Research), pp. 133–45. Marco, S. and others. 2003. ‘Archaeo­logy, History, and Geo­logy of the ad 749 Earthquake, Dead Sea Transform’, Geo­logy, 31: 665–68. Mare, W. H. 1984. ‘The 1982 Season at Abila of the Decapolis’, Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan, 28: 39–54. ——  1991a. ‘The 1988 Season of Excavation at Abila of the Decapolis’, Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan, 35: 203–21. ——  1991b. ‘Abila 1990 Pottery: Director’s Report’, Near East Archaeo­logical Society Bulletin, n.s., 36: 23–31. ——  1992. ‘Abila: A Thriving Greco-Roman City of the Decapolis’, ARAM Periodical, 4: 57–77. ——  1994. ‘The 1992 Season of Excavation at Abila of the Decapolis’, Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan, 38: 359–78. ——  1995. ‘Abila and Palmyra: Ancient Trade and Trade Routes from Southern Syria into Mesopotamia’, ARAM Periodical, 7: 189–215. ——  1996. ‘The 1994 and 1995 Seasons of Excavation at Abila of the Decapolis’, Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan, 40: 259–69. ——  1999. ‘The 1998 Season of Excavation at Abila of the Decapolis’, Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan, 43: 451–58. Mare, W. H. and others. 1982. ‘The Decapolis Survey Project: Abila, 1980 Background and Analytical Description of Abila of the Decapolis, and the Methodo­logy Used in the 1980 Survey’, Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan, 26: 37–65. ——  1985. ‘The 1984 Season at Abila of the Decapolis’, Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan, 29: 221–37. ——  1987. ‘The 1986 Season at Abila of the Decapolis’, Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan, 31: 205–19. Maxwell, L. A. 1988. ‘The Pottery from the 1986 Season at Abila of the Decapolis’, Near East Archaeo­logical Society Bulletin, n.s., 30: 85–106. Mazou, L. and C. Capelli. 2011. ‘A Local Production of Mid Roman 1 Amphorae at Latrun, Cyrenaica’, Libyan Studies, 42: 73–76. McNicoll, A. W. and others. 1982. ‘A Third Season of Excavations at Pella, 1980/81’, Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan, 26: 343–63. Merkel, S. (forthcoming). ‘Analytical and Technical Studies of Roman, Byzantine and Early Umayyad Ceramics from Jerash, Jordan’, in A. Lichtenberger and R. Raja (eds), Final Publications of the Danish-German Jerash Northwest Quarter Project (Turnhout: Brepols). Meyers, E.  M. and others. 2015. ‘Canatha/*Gabinia/*Septimia: A  Pleiades Place Resource’, Pleiades: A  Gazetteer of Past Places [accessed 15 May 2019].

3. Ceramics in Cities in Context

113

Meyers, E. M. and others. 2018a. ‘Stratonos Pyrgos/Caesarea: A Pleiades Place Resource’, Pleiades: A Gazetteer of Past Places [accessed 15 May 2019]. ——  2018b. ‘Dor(a): A  Pleiades Place Resource’, Pleiades: A  Gazetteer of Past Places [accessed 15 May 2019]. ——  2018c. ‘Neapolis: A Pleiades Place Resource’, Pleiades: A Gazetteer of Past Places [accessed 15 May 2019]. ——  2018d. ‘Samaria/Sebaste: A  Pleiades Place Resource’, Pleiades: A  Gazetteer of Past Places [accessed 15 May 2019]. ——  2018e. ‘Scythopolis/Nysa: A  Pleiades Place Resource’, Pleiades: A  Gazetteer of Past Places [accessed 15 May 2019]. ——  2018f. ‘Kapitolias: A Pleiades Place Resource’, Pleiades: A Gazetteer of Past Places [accessed 15 May 2019]. ——  2018g. ‘Gadara/Pompeia: A  Pleiades Place Resource’, Pleiades: A  Gazetteer of Past Places [accessed 15 May 2019]. ——  2018h. ‘Pella/Berenice/Philippeia: A Pleiades Place Resource’, Pleiades: A Gazetteer of Past Places [accessed 15 May 2019]. ——  2018i. ‘Bostra/Col. Nova Traiana Alexandriana: A Pleiades Place Resource’, Pleiades: A Gazetteer of Past Places [accessed 15 May 2019]. ——  2018j. ‘Damascus: A Pleiades Place Resource’, Pleiades: A Gazetteer of Past Places [accessed 15 May 2019]. ——  2018k. ‘Philippopolis: A Pleiades Place Resource’, Pleiades: A Gazetteer of Past Places [accessed 15 May 2019]. ——  2018l. ‘Gerasa/Antiochia ad Chrysorhoam: A Pleiades Place Resource’, Pleiades: A Gazetteer of Past Places [accessed 15 May 2019]. ——  2019a. ‘Hippos: A  Pleiades Place Resource’, Pleiades: A  Gazetteer of Past Places [accessed 15 May 2019]. ——  2019b. ‘Abila Dekapoleos/Seleukeia: A Pleiades Place Resource’, Pleiades: A Gazetteer of Past Places [accessed 15 May 2019]. Meyza, H. 2007. Cypriot Red Slip Ware: Studies on a Late Roman Levantine Fine Ware, Nea Paphos, 5 (Warsaw: Centre d’archéo­logie méditerranéenne de l’Académie polonaise des sciences). Michniewicz, J. 2008. ‘Petro­graphy and Chemistry of Hippos Jars (2nd bce–8th ce)’, in A.  Segal and others, Ninth Season of Excavations ( June-July 2008) (Haifa: Zinman Institute of Archaeo­logy), pp. 110–42. Miller, S. 2013. ‘Tiberias’, in D. M. Master (ed.), The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Bible and Archaeo­logy, ii (Oxford: Oxford Uni­ver­sity Press), pp. 429–37. Miller, S. and A. de Vincenz. 2018. ‘Tiberias and Hammat Tiberias, Berenice Channel’, Hadashot Arkheo­logiyot, 130 [accessed 15 May 2019]. Minguzzi, S. 1993–94 [1999]. ‘Bosra, Chiesa dei SS. Sergio, Bacco e Leonzio. Ceramiche provenienti dai saggi di scavo 1989–1998. Note preliminari’, Felix Ravenna, 145–48: 225–32. ——  2010. ‘Bosra: La Ceramica proveniente dagli scavi del quartiere della chiesa dei SS. Sergio, Bacco e Leonzio’, in M. al-Maqdissi, F. Braemer, and J.-M. Dentzer (eds), Hauran, v.1: La Syrie du sud du Néolithique à l’Antiquité tardive: recherches récentes: actes du colloque de Damas 2007, Bibliothèque Archéo­logique et Historique, 191 (Beirut: Institut Français d’Archéo­logie du ProcheOrient), pp. 545–49. Młynarczyk, J. 2001. ‘Pottery Report’, in A. Segal, J. Młynarczyk, and M. Burdajemicz, Hippos [Sussita]: Second Season of Excavations July 2001 (Haifa: Zinman Institute of Archaeo­logy), pp. 8–10. ——  2002. ‘Pottery Report, Sussita 2002’, in A. Segal and others, Hippos: Third Season of Excavations July 2002 (Haifa: Zinman Institute of Archaeo­logy), pp. 38–59. ——  2003. ‘Pottery Report’, in A. Segal and others, Hippos-Sussita: Fourth Season of Excavations June–July 2003 (Haifa: Zinman Institute of Archaeo­logy), pp. 50–88. ——  2004. ‘Pottery Report (Hippos-Sussita 2004)’, in A. Segal and others, Hippos-Sussita: Fifth Season of Excavations (September– October 2004) and Summary of all Five Seasons (2000–2004) (Haifa: Zinman Institute of Archaeo­logy), pp. 140–70. ——  2005. ‘Pottery Report’, in A. Segal and others, Hippos-Sussita: Sixth Season of Excavations ( July 2005) (Haifa: Zinman Institute of Archaeo­logy), pp. 113–39. ——  2006. ‘Pottery Report’, in A.  Segal and others, Hippos-Sussita: Seventh Season of Excavations ( July 2006) (Haifa: Zinman Institute of Archaeo­logy), pp. 91–126. ——  2007. ‘Pottery Report’, in A. Segal and others, Hippos-Sussita: Eighth Season of Excavations ( July 2007) (Haifa: Zinman Institute of Archaeo­logy), pp. 105–54.

114

Philip Bes, Tom Brughmans, Achim Lichtenberger, Rubina Raja, and Iza Romanowska

——  2008. ‘Pottery Report’, in A. Segal and others, Hippos-Sussita: Ninth Season of Excavations ( June–July 2008) (Haifa: Zinman Institute of Archaeo­logy), pp. 59–109. ——  2009. ‘Pottery Report’, in A. Segal and others, Hippos-Sussita: Tenth Season of Excavations ( July and September 2009) (Haifa: Zinman Institute of Archaeo­logy), pp. 104–56. ——  2011. ‘Umayyad-Period Terracotta Lamps from Hippos (Susita): Jund al Urdunn’, in D. Frangié and J.-F. Salles (eds), Lampes antiques du Bilad es Sham: Jordanie, Syrie, Liban, Palestine: Ancient Lamps of Bilad es Sham: actes du colloque de Pétra-Amman (6–13 novembre 2005) (Paris: De Boccard), pp. 197–210. ——  2014. ‘LRC (Phocaean) Ware Pottery in the Urban Context of Hippos – Susita’, in H.  Meyza (ed.), Late Hellenistic to Mediaeval Fine Wares of the Aegean Coast of Anatolia: Their Production, Imitation and Use, Travaux de l’Institut des Cultures Mediterranéennes et Orientales de L’Academie Polonaise des Sciences, 1 (Warsaw: Éditions Neriton), pp. 193–200. ——  2018. ‘Beit Ras/Capitolias: An Archaeo­logical Project 2014–2016’, Polish Archaeo­logy in the Mediterranean, 26: 475–506. Möller, H. (forthcoming). Ceramic Finds, Final Publications of the Danish-German Jerash Northwest Quarter Project, Jerash Papers (Brepols: Turnhout). Mougdad, S. and C. Makowski. 1983. ‘Nymphée de Bosra et ses abords. Recherches archéo­logiques en 1979. Rapport préliminaire’, Les Annales Archéo­logiques Arabes Syriennes, 33.1: 35–46. Murphy, E.  A. and J.  Poblome. 2016. ‘A Late Antique Ceramic Workshop Complex: Evidence for Workshop Organisation at Sagalassos (Southwest Turkey)’, Anatolian Studies, 66: 185–99. ——  2017. ‘From Formal to Technical Styles: Production Challenges and Economic Implications of Changing Tableware Styles in Roman to Late Antique Sagalassos’, American Journal of Archaeo­logy, 121: 61–84. Murphy, E. A., H. Goldfus, and B. Arubas. 2018. ‘The Jerusalem Legio X Fretensis Kilnworks: Contextualizing Ceramic Manufacture and “Legionary Wares”’, Oxford Journal of Archaeo­logy, 37: 443–66. Nagorsky, A. 2014. ‘The Oil Lamps from Bet She’an (Youth Hostel)’, ‘Atiqot, 77: 1–21. Northedge, A. E. 1992. Studies on Roman and Islamic ‘Ammān: The Excavations of Mrs C–M Bennett and Other Investigations, i: History, Site, and Architecture, British Academy Mono­graphs in Archaeo­logy, 3 (Oxford: Oxford Uni­ver­sity Press). Oenbrink, W. 2006. ‘Shahba/Philippopolis: Die Transformation einer safaitisch-arabischen Siedlung in eine römische Colonia’, in K.-P. Johne, T. Gerhardt, and U. Hartmann (eds), Deleto paene imperio Romano: Transformationsprozesse des Römischen Reiches im 3. Jahrhundert n. Chr. und ihre Rezeption in der Neuzeit (Stuttgart: Steiner), pp. 243–70. Olávarri-Goicoechea, E. 1985. El palacio Omeya de Amman, ii: La arqueo­logía (Valencia: Institucion San Jeronimo). Oleson, J. P. 1996. ‘Artifactual Evidence for the History of the Harbors of Caesarea’, in A. Raban and K. G. Holum (eds), Caesarea Maritima: A Retrospective after Two Millennia, Documenta et Monumenta Orientis Antiqui. Studies in Near Eastern Archaeo­ logy and Civilisation, 21 (Leiden: Brill), pp. 359–77. Oleson, J.  P. and others. 1994. The Harbours of Caesarea Maritima: Results of the Caesarea Ancient Harbour Excavation Project 1980–1985, ii: The Finds and the Ship, British Archaeo­logical Reports, International Series, 594 (Oxford: British Archaeo­logical Reports). Oren, E. 1971. ‘Tiberias’, Israel Exploration Journal, 21: 234–35. Oren-Paskal, M. 2008. ‘Amphoras from the Abandonment Layer in Area LL (L 1242, 1335)’, in K. G. Holum, J. A. Stabler, and E. G. Reinhardt (eds), Caesarea Reports and Studies: Excavations 1995–2007 within the Old City and the Ancient Harbor, British Archaeo­logical Reports, International Series, 1784 (Oxford: Archaeopress), pp. 49–58, 264–69. Osband, M. 2017. ‘The Common Pottery of Hippos in the Roman Period’, in M. Eisenberg (ed.), Hippos of the Decapolis and its Region: 18 Years of Research, Michmanim, 27 (Haifa: Uni­ver­sity of Haifa), pp. 34, 89–108. Osband, M. and M. Eisenberg. 2018a. ‘Summary of the Pottery Finds’, in M. Eisenberg, Hippos-Sussita of the Decapolis: The First Twelve Seasons of Excavations 2000–2011, ii (Haifa: Zinman Institute of Archaeo­logy), pp. 210–75. ——  2018b. ‘Interregional Trade in the Roman Period: A Diachronic Study of Common Kitchenware from Hippos of the Decapolis’, Tel Aviv, 45: 273–88. Papaioannou, G. 2012. ‘Quantification of the Pottery’, in K. D. Politis, Sanctuary of Lot at Deir ‘Ain ‘Abata in Jordan Excavations 1988–2003 (Amman: Jordan Distribution Agency), pp. 218–22. Parker, S. T. 1999. ‘An Empire’s New Holy Land: The Byzantine Period’, Near Eastern Archaeo­logy, 62: 134–80. Parker, S. T. and others. 2018. ‘Amman/Philadelpheia: A Pleiades Place Resource’, Pleiades: A Gazetteer of Past Places [accessed 15 May 2019]. Patrich, J. 2011. Studies in the Archaeo­logy and History of Caesarea Maritima: Caput Judaeae, Metropolis Palaestinae, Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity, 77 (Leiden: Brill). Peleg, M. 2004. ‘A Late Roman-Byzantine Bathhouse at Bet She’an’, ‘Atiqot, 46: 55–81. Peleg, M. and M. Reich. 1992. ‘Excavations of a Segment of the Byzantine City Wall of Caesarea Maritima’, ‘Atiqot, 21: 137–70. Pieri, D. 2005. Le Commerce du vin oriental à l’époque byzantine (Ve-VIIe siècle): le temoignage des amphores en Gaule, Bibliothèque Archéo­logique et Historique, 174 (Beirut: Institut Français d’Archéo­logie du Proche-Orient).

3. Ceramics in Cities in Context

115

Piraud-Fournet, P. 2010. ‘Un palais épiscopal à Bosra’, in M. al-Maqdissi, F. Braemer, and J.-M. Dentzer (eds), Hauran, v.1: La Syrie du sud du Néolithique à l’Antiquité tardive: recherches récentes: actes du colloque de Damas 2007, Bibliothèque Archéo­logique et Historique, 191 (Beirut: Institut Français d’Archéo­logie du Proche-Orient), pp. 289–304. Poblome, J. 1999. Sagalassos Red Slip Ware: Typo­logy and Chrono­logy, Studies in Eastern Mediterranean Archaeo­logy, 2 (Turnhout: Brepols). ——  2016. ‘The Potters of Ancient Sagalassos Revisited’, in M. Flohr and A. I. Wilson (eds), Urban Craftsmen and Traders in the Roman World (Oxford: Oxford Uni­ver­sity Press), pp. 377–404. Poblome, J. and P. M. Bes. 2018. ‘This Is How We Do It: Methodo­logy of Pottery Processing at Sagalassos’, in S. Biegert (ed.), Rei Cretariae Romanae Fautores Acta, 45 (Bonn: Rei Cretariae Romanae Fautores), pp. 731–40. Poblome, J. and N. Fırat. 2011. ‘Late Roman D. A Matter of Open(ing) or Closed Horizons?’, in M. A. Cau Ontiveros, P. Reynolds, and M. Bonifay (eds), Late Roman Fine Wares: Solving Problems of Typo­logy and Chrono­logy: A Review of the Evidence, Debate and New Contexts, Late Roman Fine Wares, 1, Roman and Late Antique Mediterranean Pottery, 1 (Oxford: Archaeopress), pp. 49–55. Porath, Y. and K. Gur. 2015. ‘The Oil Lamps’, in Y. Porath (ed.), Caesarea, i.2, Israel Antiquities Authority Reports, 57 ( Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority), pp. 3–24. Ratzlaff, A. and others. 2017. ‘The Plurality of Harbors at Caesarea: The Southern Anchorage in Late Antiquity’, Journal of Maritime Archaeo­logy, 12: 125–46. Regev, D. and U. Greenfeld. 2013. ‘New Finds from the Samaria-Sebaste Necropoleis’, in M. Tekocak (ed.), Studies in Honour of K. Levent Zoroğlu (Antalya: Ege Yayınları), pp. 541–68. Renel, F. 2010. ‘La Céramique antique de Syrie du sud: de la période hellénistique à la période byzantine (IIe s. ap. J.-C. – VIe apr. J.C-.). Étude de cas: le Jebel et le Leja’, in M. al-Maqdissi, F. Braemer, and J.-M. Dentzer (eds), Hauran, v.1: La Syrie du sud du Néolithique à l’Antiquité tardive: recherches récentes: actes du colloque de Damas 2007, Bibliothèque Archéo­logique et Historique, 191 (Beirut: Institut Français d’Archéo­logie du Proche-Orient), pp. 515–44. Reynolds, P. 2005. ‘Levantine Amphorae from Cilicia to Gaza: A Typo­logy and Analysis of Regional Production Trends from the 1st to 6th Centuries’, in J. M. Gurt i Esparraguera, J. Buxeda i Garrigós, and M. A. Cau Ontiveros (eds), LRCW, i: Late Roman Coarse Wares, Cooking Ware, and Amphorae in the Mediterranean: Archaeo­logy and Archaeometry, British Archaeo­logical Reports, International Series, 1340 (Oxford: Archaeopress), pp. 563–612. ——  2011. ‘Fine Wares from Beirut Contexts, c. 450 to c. 600’, in M. A. Cau Ontiveros, P. Reynolds, and M. Bonifay (eds), Late Roman Fine Wares: Solving Problems of Typo­logy and Chrono­logy: A  Review of the Evidence, Debate and New Contexts, Late Roman Fine Wares, 1, Roman and Late Antique Mediterranean Pottery, 1 (Oxford: Archaeopress), pp. 207–30. Rife, J. L., P. Lieberman, and P. Gendelman. 2019. ‘Vanderbilt-IAA Excavations at Caesarea Maritima Season Report 2018’ (Inter­nal Report). Riley, J. A. 1975. ‘The Pottery from the First Session of Excavation in the Caesarea Hippodrome’, Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, 218: 25–63. ——  1979. ‘The Coarse Pottery from Benghazi’, in J. A. Lloyd (ed.), Excavations at Sidi Khrebish, Benghazi (Berenice), ii: Economic Life at Berenice (Tripoli: Society for Libyan Studies), pp. 91–497. Ringel, J. 1975. Césarée de Palestine: étude historique et archéo­logique (Paris: Ophrys). Roller, D. W. 1980. ‘Hellenistic Pottery from Caesarea Maritima: A Preliminary Study’, Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, 238: 35–42. Romanowska, I. and others. 2018. ‘Urban Networks Seen through Ceramics. Formal Modelling Approaches to Pottery Distribution in Jerash’, in R. Raja and S. M. Sindbæk (eds), Urban Network Evolutions: Towards a High Definition Archaeo­logy (Aarhus: Aarhus Uni­ver­sity Press), pp. 131–38. Rosenthal-Heginbottom, R. 1995. ‘Imported Hellenistic and Roman Pottery’, in E. Stern (ed.), Excavations at Dor, Final Report, i.B: Areas A and C: The Finds, Qedem, 2 ( Jerusalem: The Hebrew Uni­ver­sity of Jerusalem), pp. 183–271. ——  2012. ‘Lamps from Tel Dor (Dora) – Local Production and Egyptian Icono­graphic Influence’, in L. Chrzanovski (ed.), Le luminaire antique: Lychno­logical Acts, 3. Actes du 3e Congrès International d’études de l’ILA, Université d’Heidelberg, 21-26.IX.2009, Mono­graphies Instrumentum, 44 (Montagnac: Éditions Monique Mergoil), pp. 311–19. ——  2016. ‘Clay Figurines from Nysa-Scythopolis’, ARAM Periodical, 28: 207–18. Rowe, A. 1930. The Topo­graphy and History of Beth-Shan: With Details of the Egyptian and Other Inscriptions Found on the Site, Publications of the Palestine Section of the Museum of the Uni­ver­sity of Pennsylvania, 1 (Philadelphia: Uni­ver­sity Press for the Uni­ver­sity of Pennsylvania Museum). Russell, K. W. 1985. ‘The Earthquake Chrono­logy of Palestine and Northwest Arabia from the 2nd through the Mid-8th Century AD’, Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, 260: 37–59. Sandhaus, D. 2007. ‘The Pottery’, in G. Mazor and A. Najjar, Bet She’an, i: Nysa-Scythopolis: The Caesareum and the Odeum, Israel Antiquities Authority Reports, 33 ( Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority), pp. 115–21.

116

Philip Bes, Tom Brughmans, Achim Lichtenberger, Rubina Raja, and Iza Romanowska

Sandhaus, D. and M. Balouka. 2015. ‘The Pottery’, in G. Mazor and W. Atrash, Bet She’an, iii.1: Nysa-Scythopolis: The Southern and Severan Theaters: The Strati­graphy and Finds, Israel Antiquities Authority Reports, 58.1 ( Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority), pp. 189–206. Sarig, S. 2009. ‘Pottery of Roman Neapolis’, in Y.  Magen, Flavia Neapolis: Shechem in the Roman Period, ii, Judea & Samaria Publications, 11 ( Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority), pp. 3–22. Sartre, M. 1985. Bostra: des origines à l’Islam (Paris: Geuthner). Sartre-Fauriat, A. 2001. Des tombeaux et des morts: monuments funéraires, societé et culture en Syrie du sud du Ier s. av. J.-C. au VIIe s. apr. J.-C., Bibliothèque Archéo­logique et Historique, 158 (Beirut: Institut Français d’Archéo­logie du Proche-Orient). Sauer, J. A. 1986. ‘Umayyad Pottery from Sites in Jordan’, in L. Geraty and L. Herr (eds), The Archaeo­logy of Jordan and Other Studies (Berrien Springs: Andrews Uni­ver­sity Press), pp. 301–30. Schürer, E. 1979. The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (175 bc–ad 135), ii (Edinburgh: Clark). Seeden, H. 1981–82. ‘Busra eski-Šām (Haurān)’, Archiv für Orientforschung, 28: 214–15. ——  1984. ‘Busra eski-Šām (Haurān)’, Archiv für Orientforschung, 31: 126–28. ——  1997. ‘Busra in the Hauran: A  Bronze Age Village, an Umayyad Period Farmhouse and Public Archaeo­logy Today’, in The International Colloquium. History and Archaeo­logy of Mohafazat as-Sweida, Sweida 29–31 October 1990, Les Annales Archéo­ logiques Arabes Syriennes, 41: 117–31. Seeden, H. and J. Wilson. 1984. ‘Bușrā in the Hawrān: AUB’s Ethnoarchaeo­logical Project 1980–1985’, Berytus, 32: 19–34. Segal, A. and others. 2013. Hippos-Sussita of the Decapolis: The First Twelve Seasons of Excavations 2000–2011, i (Haifa: Zinman Institute of Archaeo­logy). Sherwood, A. N. 1994. ‘Utilitarian Wares’, in J. P. Oleson and others, The Harbours of Caesarea Maritima: Results of the Caesarea Ancient Harbour Excavation Project 1980–1985, ii: The Finds and the Ship, British Archaeo­logical Reports, International Series, 594 (Oxford: British Archaeo­logical Reports), pp. 24–43. Sidebotham, S. E. 1994. ‘Fine Wares’, in J. P. Oleson and others, The Harbours of Caesarea Maritima: Results of the Caesarea Ancient Harbour Excavation Project 1980–1985, ii: The Finds and the Ship, British Archaeo­logical Reports, International Series, 594 (Oxford: British Archaeo­logical Reports), pp. 44–57. Siegelmann, A. 1974. ‘A Mosaic Floor at Caesarea Maritima’, Israel Exploration Journal, 24: 216–21. Siegelman, A. and Y. Ne’eman. 1992. ‘A Painted Tomb near Caesarea’, ‘Atiqot, 21: 57–62, 177–78. Smith, R. H. 1973. Pella of the Decapolis, i: The 1967 Season of the College of Wooster Expedition to Pella (Wooster: Eisenbrauns). Smith, R. W. 1992a. ‘The Sixth Season of Tomb Excavation at Abila: Area Supervisor’s Preliminary Report’, Near East Archaeo­logical Society Bulletin, n.s., 37: 40–59. ——  1992b. ‘Secondary Use of the Necropoleis of the Decapolis’, ARAM Periodical, 4: 215–28. Smith, R. H. and L. P. Day. 1989. ‘The Artifacts. The Pottery and Small Finds’, in R. H. Smith and L. P. Day, Pella of the Decapolis, ii: Final Report on the College of Wooster Excavations in Area IX, the Civic Complex, 1979–1985 (Wooster: Eisenbrauns), pp. 96–119. Smith, R. H., A. W. McNicoll, and J. B. Hennessy. 1983. ‘The 1981 Season at Pella of the Decapolis’, Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, 249: 45–78. Smith, R. H., A. W. McNicoll, and P. M. Watson. 1992. ‘The Byzantine Period’, in A. W. McNicoll and others, Pella in Jordan, ii: The Second Interim Report of the Joint Uni­ver­sity of Sydney and College of Wooster Excavations at Pella 1982–1985, Mediterranean Archaeo­logy Supplement, 2 (Sydney: Meditarch), pp. 145–81. Stacey, D. 1988–89. ‘Umayyad and Egyptian Red Slip “A” Ware from Tiberias’, Bulletin of the Anglo-Israel Archaeo­logical Society, 8: 21–33. ——  2004. Excavations at Tiberias, 1973–1974: The Early Islamic Periods, Israel Antiquities Authority Reports, 21 ( Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority). Stern, E. J. 1995. ‘An Early Islamic Kiln in Tiberias’, ‘Atiqot, 26: 57–59. Stern, E. 2000. Dor: Ruler of the Seas: Nineteen Years of Excavations at the Israelite-Phoenician Harbor Town on the Carmel Coast ( Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society). Sussman, V. 1980. ‘Moulds for Lamps and Figurines from a Caesarea Workshop’, ‘Atiqot, 14: 76–79. ——  1995. ‘A Giant Cretan Oil-Lamp from Herod’s Seaside Palace at Caesarea’, Israel Exploration Journal, 45: 278–82. ——  1996. ‘Caesarea Illuminated by its Lamps’, in A. Raban and K. G. Holum (eds), Caesarea Maritima: A Retrospective after Two Millennia, Documenta et Monumenta Orientis Antiqui, Studies in Near Eastern Archaeo­logy and Civilisation, 21 (Leiden: Brill), pp. 346–58. ——  2008. ‘The Oil Lamps’, in J. Patrich, Archaeo­logical Excavations at Caesarea Maritima: Areas CC, KK and NN Final Report, i: The Objects ( Jerusalem: Eisenbrauns), pp. 207–92. Taha, H. and G. van der Kooij (eds). 2014. Tell Balata: Changing Landscape (Ramallah: Ministry of Tourism and Antiquities). Taxel, I. and A. Fantalkin. 2011. ‘Egyptian Coarse Ware in Early Islamic Palestine: Between Commerce and Migration’, Al-Masāq, 23: 77–97.

3. Ceramics in Cities in Context

117

Tidmarsh, J. C. 1996. ‘The Hellenistic/Early Roman Occupation’, in P. M. Watson and J. C. Tidmarsh, ‘Pella/Tall al-Husn Excavations 1993. The Uni­ver­sity of Sydney: 15th Season’, Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan, 40: 305–08. Tomber, R. S. 1999. ‘Pottery from the Sediments of the Inner Harbour (Area I14)’, in K. Holum, A. Raban, and J. Patrich (eds), Caesarea Papers, ii: Herod’s Temple, the Provincial Governor’s Praetorium and Granaries, the Later Harbour, a Gold Coin Hoard, and Other Studies, Journal of Roman Archaeo­logy Supplementary Series, 35 (Ann Arbor: Journal of Roman Archaeo­logy), pp. 295–322. Tréglia, J.-C. and S.  Berthier. 2010. ‘Amphores, céramiques communes et céramiques culinaires byzantines de la citadelle de Damas (Syrie)’, in S. Menchelli and others (eds), LRCW, iii: Late Roman Coarse Wares, Cooking Wares and Amphorae in the Mediterranean: Archaeo­logy and Archaeometry: Comparison between Western and Eastern Mediterranean, British Archaeo­logical Reports, International Series, 2185.2 (Oxford: Archaeopress), pp. 867–76. Tsafrir, Y. and G. Foerster. 1992. ‘The Dating of the “Earthquake of the Sabbatical Year” of 749 ce in Palestine’, Bulletin of the Schools of Oriental and African Studies, 55: 231–35. ——  1997. ‘Urbanism at Scythopolis-Bet Shean in the Fourth to Seventh Centuries’, Dumbarton Oaks Papers, 51: 85–146. Uscatescu, A. 2003. ‘Report on the Levant Pottery (5th–9th Century ad)’, in M. Bonifay, Discussion – Table Ronde. De Rome à Byzance; De Fostat à Cordoue: évolution de faciès céramiques en méditerranée (Ve–IXe siècles), in C.  Bakirtzis (ed.), VIIe Congrès international sur la céramique médiévale en Méditerranée, Thessalonique, 11–16 octobre 1999 (Athens: Ministry of Culture), pp. 546–58. Vine, K. and G. Hartelius. 1986. ‘Ceramic Lamps from the Hippodrome of Caesarea Maritima, 1974’, in L. T. Geraty and L. G. Herr (eds), The Archaeo­logy of Jordan and Other Studies: Presented to Siegfried H. Horn: Professor Emeritus of Archaeo­logy and History of Antiquity Andrews Uni­ver­sity, Berrien Springs, MI (Berrien Springs: Andrews Uni­ver­sity Press), pp. 365–426. Vokaer, A. 2012. ‘Production et diffusion des céramiques culinaires romaines proche-orientales (Ier–Ve siècles ap. J.-C.)’, in C. Batigne Vallet (ed.), Les céramiques communes dans leur contexte régional: faciès de consommation et mode d’approvisionnement: actes de la table ronde organisée à Lyon les 2 et 3 février 2009 à la Maison de l’Orient et de la Méditerranée, Travaux de la Maison de l’Orient et de la Méditerranée, 60 (Lyon: Maison de l’Orient et de la Méditerranée Jean Pouilloux), pp. 155–68. Vriezen, K. J. H. 1992. ‘The Centralised Church in Umm Qais (Ancient Gadara)’, ARAM Periodical, 4: 371–86. ——  1995. ‘A Preliminary Study of the Byzantine Roof Tiles (Tegulae and Imbrices) from Areas I and III in Umm Qeis ( Jordan)’, Newsletter Department of Pottery Techno­logy Leiden Uni­ver­sity, 13: 27–40. ——  2011. ‘Some of Gadara’s Relations to the Region: A Review’, ARAM, 23: 63–79. ——  2015. ‘Ceramics’, in K. J. H. Vriezen and U. Wagner-Lux (eds), Gadara/Umm Qēs, ii: The Twin Churches on the Roman-Byzantine Terrace and Excavations in the Streets, Abhandlungen des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins, 30.2 (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz), pp. 70–161, 300–27. Vriezen, K. J. H. and N. F. Mulder. 1997. ‘Umm Qays: The Byzantine Buildings on the Terrace. The Building Materials of Stone and Ceramics’, in G. Bisheh, M. Zaghoul, and I. Kehrberg (eds), Landscape Resources and Human Occupation in Jordan throughout the Ages, Studies in the History and Archaeo­logy of Jordan, 6 (Amman: Department of Antiquities), pp. 323–30. Walmsley, A. G. 1982a. ‘The Umayyad Pottery and its Antecedents’, in A. W. McNicoll, R. H. Smith, and J. B. Hennessey, Pella in Jordan, i: An Interim Report on the Joint Uni­ver­sity of Sydney and the College of Wooster Excavations at Pella 1979–1981 (Canberra: Australian National Gallery), pp. 143–57. ——  1982b. ‘Pella/Fahl in Jordan during the Early Islamic Period’, in A. Hadidi (ed.), The History and Archaeo­logy of Jordan from the Earliest Prehistoric Times to the End of the Ottoman Period, Studies in the History and Archaeo­logy of Jordan, 1 (Amman: Department of Antiquities), pp. 339–45. ——  1988. ‘Pella/Fiḥl after the Islamic Conquest (ad 635 – c. 900): A Convergence of Literary and Archaeo­logical Evidence’, Medi­ terranean Archaeo­logy, 1: 142–59. ——  1991. ‘Architecture and Artefacts from Abbasid Fihl: Implications for the Cultural History of Jordan’, in M. A. Bakhit and R. Schick (eds), Bilād as-Shām during the Abbasid Period (132 ah/750 ad–451 ah/1059 ad): Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on the History of Bilād as-Shām, 7–11 Sha’ban 1410 ah/4–8 March, 1990 (Amman: The Uni­ver­sity of Jordan Printing Press), pp. 135–59. ——  1992a. ‘Fihl (Pella) and the Cities of North Jordan during the Umayyad and Abbasid Periods’, in M. Zaghloul and A. Hadidi (eds), Sites and Settlement in Jordan, Studies in the History and Archaeo­logy of Jordan, 4 (Amman: Department of Antiquities), pp. 377–84. ——  1992b. ‘The Social and Economic Regime at Fihl (Pella) between the 7th and 9th Centuries’, in P. Canivet and J.-P. Rey-Coquais (eds), La Syrie de Byzance à l’Islam VIIe–VIIIe siècles: actes du colloque international Lyon – Maison de l’Orient Méditerranéen, Paris, Institut du Monde Arabe, 11–15 septembre 1990, Publications de l’Institut Français de Damas, 137 (Damascus: Institut Français de Damas), pp. 249–61. ——  1995. ‘Tradition, Innovation, and Imitation in the Material Culture of Islamic Jordan: The First Four Centuries’, in K. ‘Amr, F. Zayadine, and M. Zaghloul (eds), Art and Techno­logy throughout the Ages, Studies in the History and Archaeo­logy of Jordan, 5 (Amman: Department of Antiquities), pp. 657–68.

118

Philip Bes, Tom Brughmans, Achim Lichtenberger, Rubina Raja, and Iza Romanowska

——  1997. ‘Ceramics and the Social History of Early Islamic Jordan: The Example of Pella (Tabaqat Fahl)’, Al-‘Usur al-Wusta, 9: 1–3, 12. ——  2001. ‘Turning East: The Appearance of Islamic Cream Ware in Jordan: The “End of Antiquity”?’, in E. Villeneuve and P. M. Watson (eds), La Céramique byzantine et proto-islamique en Syrie-Jordanie (IVe–VIIIe siècles apr. J.-C.): actes du colloque tenu à Amman les 3, 4 et 5 décembre 1994, Bibliothèque Archéo­logique et Historique Tome, 159 (Beirut: Institut Français d’Archéo­logie du Proche-Orient), pp. 305–13. ——  2007. ‘Households at Pella, Jordan: Domestic Destruction Deposits of the Mid-8th C.’, in L. A. Lavan, E. Swift, and T. Putzeys (eds), Objects in Context, Objects in Use, Late Antique Archaeo­logy, 5 (Leiden: Brill), pp. 239–72. Watson, P. M. 1986. ‘The Byzantine Period in Plot IVH’, in A. W. McNicoll and others, ‘Preliminary Report on the Uni­ver­sity of Sydney’s Seventh Season of Excavations at Pella (Tabaqat Fahl) in 1985’, Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan, 30: 177–81. ——  1989. ‘Jerash Bowls: Study of a Provincial Group of Byzantine Decorated Fine Ware’, Syria, 66: 223–61. ——  1991. ‘Jerash Bowls: Byzantine Decorated Fine Ware from Jordan’ (unpublished doctoral thesis, Uni­ver­sity of Sydney). ——  1992. ‘Change in Foreign and Regional Economic Links with Pella in the Seventh Century AD: The Ceramic Evidence’, in P. Canivet and J.-P. Rey-Coquais (eds), La Syrie de Byzance à l’Islam VIIe–VIIIe siècles: actes du colloque international Lyon – Maison de l’Orient Méditerranéen, Paris, Institut du Monde Arabe, 11–15 septembre 1990, Publications de l’Institut Français de Damas, 137 (Damascus: Institut Français de Damas), pp. 233–48. ——  1995. ‘Ceramic Evidence for Egyptian Links with Northern Jordan in the 6th–8th Centuries AD’, in S.  Bourke and J.-P. Descœudres (eds), Trade, Contact, and the Movement of Peoples in the Eastern Mediterranean: Studies in Honour of J. Basil Hennessey, Mediterranean Archaeo­logy Supplement, 3 (Sydney: Meditarch), pp. 303–20. ——  2001. ‘Change in Foreign and Regional Economic Links with Pella in the Seventh Century ad: The Ceramic Evidence’, in P. Canivet and J.-P. Rey-Coquais (eds), La Syrie de Byzance à l’Islam VIIe–VIIIe siècles: actes du colloque international Lyon – Maison de l’Orient Méditerranéen, Paris, Institut du Monde Arabe, 11–15 septembre 1990, Publications de l’Institut Français de Damas, 137 (Damascus: Institut Français de Damas), pp. 233–48. ——  2018. ‘The Icono­graphy of the Painted Cross Motif on Jerash Bowls’, in A. Lichtenberger and R. Raja (eds), The Archaeo­logy and History of Jerash: 110 Years of Excavations, Jerash Papers, 1 (Turnhout: Brepols), pp. 257–72. Weber, T. M. 1993a. ‘“Damaskòs Pòlis Epìsemos”. Hellenistische, römische und byzantinische Bauwerke in Damaskus aus der Sicht griechischer und lateinischer Schriftquellen’, Damaszener Mitteilungen, 7: 135–76. ——  1993b. Pella Decapolitana: Studien zur Geschichte, Architektur und bildenden Kunst einer hellenisierten Stadt des nördlichen Ostjordanlandes, Abhandlungen des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins, 18 (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz). ——  2002. Gadara Decapolitana: Untersuchungen zur Topo­graphie, Geschichte, Architektur und der Bildenden Kunst einer ‘Polis Helle­ nis’ im Ostjordanland (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz). Wicenciak, U. 2016. ‘Ceramic Patchwork in Hellenistic to Byzantine Phoenicia: Regionalization and Specialization of Vessel Production’, Polish Archaeo­logy in the Mediterranean, 25: 619–90. Wilson, J. and M. Sa‘d. 1984. ‘The Domestic Material Culture of Nabatean to Umayyad Period Busra’, Berytus, 32: 35–147. Wineland, J. D. 2001. Ancient Abila: An Archaeo­logical History, British Archaeo­logical Reports, International Series, 989 (Oxford: Archaeopress). Zayadine, F., M.  Najjar, and J.  A. Greene. 1987. ‘Recent Excavations on the Citadel of Amman (Lower Terrace). A  Preliminary Report’, Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan, 31: 299–311. Zori, N. 1962. ‘An Archaeo­logical Survey of the Beth Shean Valley’, in N.  Zori (ed.), The Beth Shean Valley ( Jerusalem: Jewish Palestine Exploration Society), pp. 135–98. Zouhdi, B. 1974. ‘Aspect des lampes antiques au Musée de Damas’, Les Annales Archéo­logiques Arabes Syriennes, 24: 161–87.

4. Les productions de céramiques locales de Jerash au début de la période romaine (ier siècle avant J.-C. – iie siècle après J.-C.) :

influences et diffusion Anne-Michèle Rasson-Seigne

Université de Tours, UMR 7324 CITERES-LAT. [email protected]

Jacques Seigne Université de Tours, CNRS, UMR 7324 CITERES-LAT. [email protected]

Introduction Les fouilles archéo­logiques menées par l’équipe française sur le sanctuaire de Zeus à Jerash ont permis de collecter une masse considérable de céramique dans des contextes très variés, bien datés par la strati­graphie. Pour la période romaine (du ier siècle avant J.-C. à la fin du iiie siècle après J.-C.), l’étude de la céramique a montré qu’il s’agit pour l’essentiel de vaisselle commune destinée à la préparation, la cuisson, la présentation et la conservation des denrées alimentaires. Les premières analyses (typo­logie, matériaux et techniques de fabrication) et comparaisons autorisent à proposer pour cette production une origine essentiellement locale. Si la céramique commune, ordinaire, est majoritaire, les ateliers de Jerash ont fabriqué, entre le tournant de l’ère et la fin du ier siècle/tout début du iie siècle après J.-C., d’autres productions dont deux retiendront l’attention ici. La plus importante par le nombre a été isolée dès les premiers travaux sur le sanctuaire de Zeus  1: elle correspond à de la vaisselle de table, composée essentiellement d’assiettes, de coupes et de cruches, présentant des similitudes avec la céramique commune (pâte, tournage, engobe, etc.) mais s’en distinguant nettement par des formes inspirées de modèles empruntés à la sigillée entre autres et par une qualité de fabrication supérieure, constituant ainsi une vaisselle ‘semi-luxueuse’. La deuxième production remarquable est composée de petits récipients et de lampes moulés, caractérisés par une pâte grise, épurée, couverte d’un engobe épais, gris 1 

Braemer 1986, 65, fig. 16. Braemer 1989, 153–67.

foncé ou noir. Ces vases et ces lampes correspondent à des imitations de modèles hellénistiques. La vaisselle ‘semi-luxueuse’ ne semble pas présente en dehors de Gerasa. En revanche, des exemplaires de la céramique ‘moulée modelée grise’ ont été retrouvés dans d’autres sites du nord de la Jordanie, tels Amman, Pella ou encore Um Queis.

Les contextes Le matériel des deux fabriques présentées ici provient de contextes bien datés par la strati­graphie du tournant de l’ère jusqu’au tout début du iie siècle après J.-C. Plusieurs secteurs du sanctuaire de Zeus sont concernés, entre autres la terrasse inférieure, l’intérieur du cryptoportique et la rue longeant le mur oriental du péribole du sanctuaire, dite rue sud (Fig. 4.1). Vers 135/140 de notre ère, la cour de la terrasse dite inférieure du sanctuaire de Zeus fut revêtue d’un dallage de pierre sur pratiquement toute sa surface. Jusqu’au milieu du ve siècle, date de l’arrêt du culte rendu à Zeus Olympien et l’abandon du domaine sacré, ce revêtement fut parfaitement nettoyé et entretenu. Aucune strate d’occupation datable des iie/ve siècles n’y fut rencontrée et les importants dépôts stratifiés fouillés (près de deux mètres de hauteur) ne provenaient que des réoccupations byzantine, omeyyade et médiévale. Ils contenaient de la céramique d’époque romaine, y compris des importations, mais en déposition secondaire, mélangée à du matériel plus tardif. En revanche, les sondages pratiqués sous le dallage de la cour ont permis de retrouver un

Hellenistic and Roman Gerasa: The Archaeo­logy and History of a Decapolis City, ed. by Achim Lichtenberger and Rubina Raja, JP 5 (Turnhout: Brepols, 2020), 119–128 BREPOLS PUBLISHERS DOI 10.1484/M.JP-EB.5.120808

Anne-Michèle Rasson-Seigne et Jacques Seigne

120

Figure 4.1. Sanctuaire de Zeus. Plan de situation des sondages (Mission archéologique française de Jerash. Dessin P. Delmas. Juillet 1988).

abondant matériel y compris importé, associé à de nombreuses monnaies, en particulier pour le ier siècle avant et le ier–début iie siècle après J.-C. Parfaitement stratifiés, ces niveaux correspondent aux différentes phases de construction des installations cultuelles, elles-mêmes précisément datées par l’épi­graphie. Dans le cryptoportique du sanctuaire, construit en 27/28 de notre ère le long de la rue sud, côté oriental de la terrasse inférieure, les niveaux d’occupation stratifiés, accumulés au-dessus du sol de construction, contenaient, en particulier, un dépôt de potier non perturbé, dans lequel furent retrouvés plus de cent vases complets, datables du iiie siècle, scellés par un apport alluvial. Sous le niveau de sol de construction du début du ier siècle de notre ère, les sondages profonds, poussés jusqu’au rocher, ont permis, comme sur la terrasse inférieure, de retrouver plusieurs niveaux parfaitement stratifiés, riches en céramiques d’origine locale et importée, associables, par la strati­graphie, aux différentes phases de construction du sanctuaire. La rue sud présentait une stratification particulièrement importante et complexe comprenant plusieurs mètres de niveaux de recharge et d’occupation, datables des iie/viiie siècles, progressivement accumulés au-dessus des premiers mètres de la voie Gerasa/Philadelphia construite sous Trajan. Par ailleurs, le radier de la voie,

réalisé en grave compactée posée sur un lit de blocs de pierre, mis en place en 112 de notre ère et parfaitement conservé, recouvrait et scellait plusieurs mètres de remblais contenant un très abondant matériel des iie siècle avant J.-C. / ier siècle après J.-C. (strati­g raphie inverse) probablement pris sur les pentes du tell voisin. À l’ouest de la voie, entre le rempart du ive siècle et le sanctuaire de Zeus, dans la zone dite ‘Souk Ouest’, les fouilles et les sondages profonds, ici aussi menés jusqu’au rocher, ont révélé une succession de niveaux d’occupation, parfaitement stratifiés, datables de l’Age du Fer au viiie siècle de notre ère, accumulés sur une hauteur de plus de huit mètres. Des niveaux datables de l’époque romaine y étaient bien présents, en particulier pour la fin du iiie siècle où les vestiges d’habitats et d’installations artisanales, détruits par un incendie, ont livré un très important mobilier non perturbé, associé à plusieurs trésors monétaires datés de la fin du iiie siècle. Enfin, dans la nécropole sud, la surveillance des différents travaux routiers et de construction permit de découvrir plusieurs tombes non violées. Scellées au début du iie siècle lors de la tentative d’extension de la ville vers le sud, plusieurs de ces hypogées ont livré des exemplaires complets de céramiques bien connues par ailleurs par les nombreux fragments découverts en fouille sur le site.

4. Les productions de céramiques locales de Jerash au début de la période romaine

Les productions de céramiques La vaisselle ‘semi-luxueuse’ (tournant de l’ère-début du iie siècle après J.-C. (Cat. 1–11) Particulièrement abondante sur le sanctuaire de Zeus, bien représentée ailleurs sur l’ensemble des fouilles menées à Jerash mais quasi inexistante sur les autres sites de la région, cette céramique présente un aspect très homogène et il est très probable qu’elle ait été fabriquée localement. Frank Braemer a décrit très précisément cette production dans Jerash Archaeo­logical Project 12 et en a établi une typo­logie qui a été confirmée et étoffée au cours des travaux ultérieurs dans le sanctuaire de Zeus et ses environs3 ainsi que dans d’autres secteurs de Jerash, tels l’hippodrome ou les nécropoles. Seuls quelques exemplaires parmi les plus représentatifs de cette vaisselle dite ‘semi-luxueuse’ seront présentés ici. Cette céramique présente des similitudes avec la vaisselle commune trouvée dans les mêmes contextes  : la pâte est de couleur rouge, brun rouge, parfois beige ou grise, comprenant des particules de calcaire, des grains de quartz et des fines particules de chamotte. La plupart des récipients présentent des traces d’engobe rouge, brun rouge ou brun foncé. Celui-ci est posé sans soin, par simple trempage des ouvertures, l’excédent de matière entraînant des coulures le long des parois externes. Toutefois cette fabrique se distingue de la céramique commune par une pâte plus dure, aux cassures nettes, des formes aux parois plus fines. Ces particularités découlent probablement d’une terre mieux épurée et d’une cuisson mieux maîtrisée. Les échantillons soumis à un examen au microscope et à une analyse par diffraction X ont permis de conclure qu’ils provenaient d’un seul et même atelier de fabrication.4 Cette céramique ‘semi-luxueuse’ apparaît sur le sanctuaire de Zeus, dans des niveaux bien datés de la fin du ier siècle avant J.-C. Elle se retrouve également dans tous les niveaux du ier siècle après J.-C. Le début du iie siècle après J.-C. semble marquer la fin de sa fabrication : la construction de la porte Sud en 129/130 et le comblement des salles souterraines du naos de la terrasse dite inférieure, au plus tard en 140 après J.-C., sont les niveaux les plus récents ayant livré des tessons de cette vaisselle fine. On la trouve également dans d’autres secteurs de la ville et plus particulièrement à l’hippodrome, dans 2 

Braemer 1989. Rasson-Seigne 1999. 4  Francus 1988 ; Perdrial et Huet 2002. 3 

121

les niveaux datés des ier/iie siècles après J.-C.,5 et dans des tombes de la nécropole sud6 contenant du mobilier archéo­logique daté du ier siècle après J.-C. jusqu’au début du iie siècle après J.-C (tombes scellées sous Hadrien, lors de la mise en œuvre du projet d’extension urbaine). Elle semble peu présente dans les autres sites de la région. Seuls, à l’heure actuelle, quelques exemples pourraient avoir été trouvés à Amman et à Madaba.7 Trois formes illustrent le mieux cette production : – les coupes carénées à base annulaire ou base en disque plat, munie d’un bord vertical souvent décoré de motifs estampés  (Cat. 1–7). C’est la forme la plus courante. Plusieurs exemplaires sont des copies très fidèles, tant au point de vue de la forme que des dimensions, de coupes en sigillée orientale A8 dont on a retrouvé dans les mêmes contextes plusieurs individus. Cette forme, produite pendant tout le ier  siècle après J.-C. continuera à être fabriquée, en céramique commune, bien après que la production de céramique ‘semi-luxueuse’ soit arrêtée, comme le prouvent les très nombreux exemplaires retrouvés à Jerash dans une citerne fouillée par l’équipe polonaise à l’emplacement du decumanus sud et qui fut comblée en 165 après J.-C.9 et ceux, non moins nombreux, du dépôt de céramiques du cryptoportique du sanctuaire de Zeus, daté du iiie siècle après J.-C.10 Au fil du temps, la forme prendra des dimensions plus importantes, la carène s’émoussera et la qualité ne cessera de se dégrader. Ces coupes disparaissent complètement à la fin du iiie siècle après J.-C. ; – les gobelets, petits récipients à panse globulaire sur base annulaire, décorés également à la molette (Cat.  6–8). Contrairement aux coupes, cette forme n’a pas été retrouvée dans le sanctuaire parmi la vaisselle en sigillée. On peut la rapprocher de certaines formes régionales telles les coupes, non décorées, du type 52 de P. W. Lapp (50 avant J.-C.–68 après J.-C.).11 Avec ses deux anses et son ressaut externe, le gobelet 5 

Kehrberg 2004, 190, fig. 1.5. Abu Dalu 1995. 7  Communications orales lors du Séminaire sur la céramique organisée à l’IFAPO, Amman, 20–23 août 2000. 8  Voir la typo­logie de la sigillée orientale A de John Hayes 1985. 9  Gawlikowski 1986, 109. 10  Rasson 1986, 67–69 (en particulier la fig. 17.3) ; RassonSeigne 1999. 11  Lapp 1961, 175, 52.1, c et d. 6 

Anne-Michèle Rasson-Seigne et Jacques Seigne

122 Cat. 8 se distingue nettement des autres et ne semble pas avoir de parallèle dans le répertoire de la sigillée ou d’autres fabriques de la région pour la même époque ; – les cruches à épaules carénées, à large ouverture et col très anguleux (aucun fond n’a pu leur être associé) (Cat.  9–11). Seules formes fermées attestées pour cette fabrique de céramique fine, ces cruches trouvent très peu de parallèles avec d’autres productions connues. On serait tenté de les rapprocher de la forme Hayes 113 (fin ier après J.-C.) et 114 (milieu ier après J.C.).12 Le col de cruche à large ouverture et bord replié sur la face externe en formant une collerette trouve des parallèles dans le matériel provenant de sites de Galilée.13 Contrairement aux coupes et aux gobelets, aucun exemplaire des cruches de notre répertoire ne présente de décor. La céramique ‘moulée modelée grise’ (ier siècle après J.-C.) (Cat. 12–19) Un nombre significatif de tessons se distingue radicalement du reste du mobilier céramique collecté sur le sanctuaire de Zeus par la pâte, la technique de fabrication, les formes ainsi que les motifs qui les ornent. La terre utilisée est gris clair ou foncé, très épurée (bien que de grosses particules de calcaire blanc fassent parfois éclater la surface) et couverte d’un engobe qui prend toutes les nuances de gris, du plus clair au plus foncé. La surface est molle et rayable à l’ongle, les cassures irrégulières. Cette terre est utilisée pour fabriquer des vases de petites dimensions et des lampes. Les vases, comme les lampes, sont façonnés dans un moule bivalve. Les fonds, les cols et les anses, modelés séparément, sont rapportés ensuite de façon assez maladroite : des bourrelets de pâtes sont visibles, sur la face interne, à l’emplacement des raccords. Parmi les vases, on peut identifier deux formes principales : – une petite cruche cylindrique à base continue, col resserré, achevé par un bord évasé, et une anse placée entre le bord et l’épaule ; – un petit vase globulaire ou biconique muni d’une ouverture assez large avec un bord épaissi.

Tous ces vases sont ornés de motifs moulés de style géométrique : oves, épis, lignes brisées, godrons, placés horizontalement ou verticalement en divers endroits des récipients : la carène, la naissance du col, le bord, le départ de la base. De facture plus soignée que les vases, de nombreux fragments de lampes, moulées, (aucune forme complète) présentent les mêmes particularités techniques. D’un point de vue stylistique, on peut les rapprocher de lampes hellénistiques à pâte grise. Elles ont un corps circulaire et un bec allongé, en forme d’ongle. Le bandeau est orné de motifs géométriques (lignes parallèles, épis de blé, volutes, figures animales, parfois humaines). Elles se distinguent des lampes hellénistiques par leur pâte plus épaisse et moins dure et surtout, par le moindre soin apporté à leur fabrication. On trouve des témoins de cette fabrique de céramique modelée et moulée sur d’autres sites de Jordanie : à Pella, elle est bien attestée et datée de l’époque hellénistique tardive, avec une évolution vers des produits de moindre qualité14 ; à Amman, dans un sondage profond effectué sur la citadelle, un fragment est daté de la période hellénistique15 ; à Umm Queis, dans les fouilles de l’équipe allemande16 où quelques fragments moulés et modelés de couleur grise sont datés de l’époque hellénistique tardive, mais ils sont de facture beaucoup plus soignée que les exemplaires trouvés à Jerash ; enfin, un vase complet est présenté au musée d’Irbid. Découvert dans une tombe des environs de la ville, malheureusement non datée, il est très semblable aux exemplaires incomplets trouvés sur le sanctuaire de Zeus. C’est donc dans le nord de la Jordanie que cette céramique semble la mieux connue. La grande quantité de tessons ‘moulés modelés gris’ retrouvés sur le site de Jerash permet de supposer que ce type de céramique était fabriqué dans les ateliers de Jerash. Elle est présente à Jerash dans les niveaux d’occupation qui contiennent aussi la céramique ‘semi-luxueuse’, c’est-à-dire dès le tournant de l’ère et pendant tout le ier siècle après J.-C. à la fin duquel elle disparaît. Il est possible de rapprocher cette production des figurines, statuettes et masques, également en pate grise, découverts en plusieurs endroits du site, en particulier dans la cache publiée par J. H. Iliffe en 1945.17

14 

McNicoll et autres 1982 ; 1992 ; Tidmarsh 2000. Greene et ’Amr 1992, 113–34, fig. 5.12. 16  Information aimablement communiquée par Susanne Kerner. 17  Iliffe 1945. 15 

12  13 

Hayes 1985, pl. 10. Díez Fernández 1983.

4. Les productions de céramiques locales de Jerash au début de la période romaine Bien que les ateliers n’aient pas encore été localisés, les céramiques présentées ici témoignent de l’activité potière à Jerash au début de l’époque romaine. Elles annoncent les productions ultérieures : durant toute la période romaine — sans parler des époques byzantine et omeyyade — Jerash fabriquera sa propre céramique, copiant des modèles importés.18 Il en résulta des imitations très grossières parmi la céramique ordinaire mais aussi, comme on le voit ici, des tentatives d’imitation plus ou moins réussie de céramique luxueuse. * * * Les fouilles l’ont révélé, à Gerasa, les quantités de céramiques importées, luxueuses ou non, furent très faibles, proportionnellement à la masse considérable des céramiques communes mises au jour. Le phénomène, commun à toutes les époques semble-t-il, est particulièrement et paradoxalement le plus sensible pour l’époque romaine. Qui plus est la céramique commune utilisée massivement sur le site semble de fabrication locale, réservée à un usage local, cette production n’ayant connu, à de très rares exceptions, pratiquement aucune diffusion hors du territoire de la cité. Et ce quelle que soit la période considérée. La fabrication locale de la céramique commune est certaine pour les époques byzantine et omeyyade pour lesquelles de très nombreuses installations artisanales et fours de potiers ont été retrouvés sur le site.19 Elle est tout aussi vraisemblable pour les périodes plus anciennes, même si aucune installation de potier d’époque romaine ou antérieure n’a, pour le moment, été mise au jour. Pour les périodes anciennes, elle est déduite du même phénomène constaté pour les périodes récentes, celui d’une diffusion locale, limitée à la cité, d’un matériel commun produit en quantité considérable, spécifique par ses qualités et matériaux comme les examens et analyse minéralogiques l’ont confirmé. Pour les époques romaine et hellénistique, les ateliers de potiers et leurs fours restent à découvrir, mais ils étaient certainement implantés sur le territoire de Gerasa. Voir Rasson-Seigne et Seigne dans ce volume. Pour la période byzantine, voir les découvertes effectuées à l’emplacement de l’ancien hippodrome. Pour la période omeyyade les fours de potiers retrouvés entre autres, sur le sanctuaire de Zeus, sur le sanctuaire d’Artemis (par ex. Pierobon 1986, 184–87) et dans le théâtre nord (Schaeffer et Falkner 1986, 411–60) témoignent, en plus de la vitalité des potiers locaux, de la rétraction de la ville et de la diminution de sa surface bâtie, les arts du feu n’étant pas acceptés, pour des raisons de simple sécurité (incendies) dans le secteur urbanisé.

123

Les études plus générales manquent encore, mais il semble bien que la situation de Gerasa n’ait rien eu d’exceptionnel. Chaque cité de la région semble bien avoir eu ses propres centres de production, mais le commerce de cet artisanat apparaît limité à leur territoire respectif. À Gerasa, quelques rares productions, en général des copies locales plus ou moins réussies d’objets de qualité importés, traversèrent les limites territoriales. Ainsi les imitations locales de sigillées, en céramique dite ‘semiluxueuse’, connurent-elles une légère diffusion. Il en fut de même pour la céramique dite ‘moulée, modelée grise’, très vraisemblablement produite localement même si le doute subsiste. Les objets réalisés dans une argile spécifique pourraient correspondre à des copies de petites fioles en métal et d’objets en céramique importés. La découverte en octobre 1933, dans une ancienne tombe de la nécropole sud, du célèbre ‘Potter’s store’,20 a livré deux exemplaires (n° 113 et 114) de lampes du type à ‘becs en ongle’, de tradition hellénistique, en céramique grise de très bonne qualité, associés à un lot extraordinaire de statuettes et d’objets remarquablement façonnés. Des exemplaires de lampes de même nature et des copies en ‘moulée, modelée grise’ ont été retrouvés en fouille, confirmant une origine probablement extérieure à la vallée du Chrysorhoas, pour tout le matériel du ‘Potter’s store’. Ce dernier doit être interprété comme le dépôt d’un marchand importateur plutôt que comme celui d’un artisan potier local. Plus remarquable fut le succès, à l’époque byzantine, des Jerash Bowls, vraisemblable interprétation locale, peinte, de céramiques estampillées de type African Red Slip, dont des ateliers de production (avec des exemplaires peints non cuits) étaient installés dans l’ancien hippodrome.21 Plus tardivement, les Jerash Lamps avec leur anse façonnée ou non en ‘tête de chien’22 au gré du potier, connurent également une diffusion hors du territoire de la cité. Toutefois, ces exemples, limités à quelques productions spécifiques, demeurent des exceptions. Importations comme exportations de céramiques restèrent marginales à Gerasa, tout au long de son histoire.

18 

19 

20 

Fisher 1934, 12–13 ; Iliffe 1945, 1–26 et pl. I–V. Kehrberg et Ostrasz 1994 ; 1997. 22  Scholl 1986, 163–66. 21 

124

Anne-Michèle Rasson-Seigne et Jacques Seigne

Œuvres citées Abu Dalu, R. 1995. ‘Three Tombs near the Hippodrome at Jerash : A Preliminary Report’, Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan, 39 : 169–73. Braemer, F. 1986. ‘Recherches sur le sanctuaire de Zeus à Jerash’, dans F. Zayadine (éd.), Jerash Archaeo­logical Project 1981–1983, i (Amman : Department of Antiquities of Jordan), pp. 29–66. ——  1989. ‘Une fabrique (locale ?) de céramiques fines’, dans F. Zayadine (éd.), Jerash Archaeo­logical Project, 1981–1983, ii (Amman : Department of Antiquities of Jordan), pp. 153–67. Díez Fernández, F. 1983. Cerámica común romana de la Galilea : aproximaciones y diferencias con la cerámica del resto de Palestina y regiones circundante ( Jerusalem : Escuela Bíblica). Fisher, C. S. 1934. ‘Jerash in the Autumn of 1933’, Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, 54 : 5–13. Francus, P. 1988. ‘Analyses des céramiques de Jérash. Rapport préliminaire’ (unpublished). Gawlikowski, M. 1986. ‘A Residential Area by the South Decumanus’, dans F. Zayadine (éd.), Jerash Archaeo­logical Projetct, i (Amman : Department of Antiquities of Jordan), pp. 107–21. Green, J. A. et K. ’Amr. 1992. ‘Deep Sounding on the Lower Terrace of the Amman Citadel : Final Report’, Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan, 46 : 134. Hayes, J. 1985. ‘Sigillata Orientale A (Eastern Sigillata A)’, dans G.  Carratelli et autres (éd.), Atlante delle forme ceramiche, ii  : Ceramica fine romana nel balcino Mediterraneo (tardo Hellenismo e primo Impero), Enciclopedia dell’Arte Antica (Rome : Classical e Orientale), pp. 1–48. Iliffe, J. H. 1945. ‘Imperial Art in Trans-Jordan : Figurines and Lamps from a Potter’s Store at Jerash’, Quarterly of the Department of Antiquities in Palestine, 11 : 1–25. Kehrberg, I. 2004. ‘Late Hellenistic and Early Roman Pottery of Gerasa in View of International Norms in the Eastern Mediterranean’, Studies in the History and Archaeo­logy of Jordan, 8 : 189–96. Kehrberg, I. et A. Ostrasz. 1994. ‘Hippodrome, Jerash : Reports on Unfired Ceramics and the Mass Burial of the 7th Century Plague Victims’, American Journal of Archaeo­logy, 98 : 547–48. ——  1997. ‘A History of Occupational Changes at the Site of the Hippodrome of Gerasa’, Studies in the History and Archaeo­logy of Jordan, 6 : 167–73. Lapp, P. W. 1961. Palestinian Ceramic : Chrono­logy 200 bc – ad 70 (New Haven : American Schools of Oriental Research). McNicoll, A. et autres. 1982. Pella in Jordan, i, Mediterranean Archaeo­logy Supplement, 1 (Canberra : Australian National Gallery). ——  1992. Pella in Jordan, ii : The Second Interim Report of the Joint Uni­ver­sity of Sydney and College of Wooster Excavations at Pella 1982–1985, Mediterranean Archaeo­logy Supplement, 2 (Canberra : Australian National Gallery). Perdrial C. et N. Huet. 2002. ‘Rapport d’étude pétro­graphique de céramiques jordaniennes, de Jérash, du ier au viie siècle ap. J.-C.’ (unpublished). Pierobon, R. 1986. ‘The Area of Kilns’, dans R. Parapetti et autres, ‘The Italian Activity within the Jerash Project 1982–1983’, dans F. Zayadine (éd.), Jerash Archaeo­logical Project 1981–1983, i (Amman : Department of Antiquities of Jordan), pp. 184–87. Rasson A.-M. 1986. ‘Matériel céramique de la deuxième moitié du iiie siècle ap. J.-C.’, dans F. Zayadine (éd.), Jerash Archaeo­logical Project 1981–1983, i (Amman : Department of Antiquities of Jordan), pp. 67–69. Rasson-Seigne, A.-M. 1999. ‘La céramique d’époque romaine à Jérash. ( Jordanie) ier siècle av. J.-C.-iiie siècle ap. J.-C.’ (thèse de doctorat, Université Catholique de Louvain). Seigne J. 1997. ‘De la grotte au périptère. Le sanctuaire de Zeus Olympien à Gerasa’, Topoi, 7.2 : 993–1004. Schaeffer, J. et R.  K. Falkner. 1986. ‘An Umayyad Potter’s Complex in the North Theatre, Jerash’, dans F.  Zayadine (éd.), Jerash Archaeo­logical Project 1981–1983, i (Amman : Department of Antiquities of Jordan), pp. 411–59. Scholl, T. 1986. ‘The Chrono­logy of Jerash Lamps  : A  Preliminary Report’, dans F.  Zayadine (éd.), Jerash Archaeo­logical Project 1981–1983, i (Amman : Department of Antiquities of Jordan), pp. 163–66. Tidmarsh, J. C. 2000. ‘The Hellenistic and Early Roman Pottery from Pella in Jordan’ (thèse de doctorat, Uni­ver­sity of Sydney)

Annexe : catalogue Céramique semi-luxueuse (Cat. 1–11) 1

2

1. Inv. C. 8807. Cour de la terrasse. AV 103a–3 (30 ap. J.-C. au plus tard). Coupe carénée presque complète, base en anneau. Pâte rouge clair, noyau gris, fines particules dégraissantes, engobe rouge foncé. Diam. ouv. : 14,2 cm (dessin I. Obeidat). 2. Inv. C. 8443. Cour de la terrasse. Naos (ier siècle ap. J.-C.). Fragment de coupe carénée, base en anneau. Pâte rouge, engobe brun rouge sur la face externe. Diam. ouv. : 20 cm (dessin I. Obeidat). 3. Inv. T.H. 7/10. Nécropole sud, tombe 7 (fin ier siècle ap. J.-C./début iie s. ap. J.-C.). Coupe carénée complète, base en disque plat. Pâte rouge, traces d’engobe rouge. Diam. ouv. : 12 cm (dessin I. Obeidat).

3

4

4. Inv. C. 8489. Cour de la terrasse. AE 102–3a. Sondage 5 (ier siècle ap. J.-C.). Coupe carénée, base en anneau, bord évasé. Pâte rouge clair, fines particules dégraissantes, engobe brun rouge sur les faces interne et externe. Diam. ouv. : 10 cm (dessin I. Obeidat). 5. Inv. C. 8940. Cour de la terrasse. AT 101–3. Sondage 2 (ier siècle ap. J.-C.). Coupe carénée, base en anneau, décor à la molette de languettes. Pâte brune, fines particules de calcaire, engobe brun rouge sur les faces interne et externe. Diam. ouv. : 14 cm (dessin I. Obeidat).

5

6. Inv. T.H. 7/5. Nécropole sud, tombe 7 (fin ier siècle ap. J.-C./début iie s. ap. J.-C.). Gobelet complet, base en anneau, décor à la molette de petits ‘S’. Pâte brune, fines particules de calcaire, engobe brun rouge sur la face externe. Diam. ouv. : 8,5 cm (dessin I. Obeidat). 6

Anne-Michèle Rasson-Seigne et Jacques Seigne

126

7

8

7. Inv. C. 8938. Cour de la terrasse. AT 101–3. Sondage 2 (ier siècle ap. J.-C.). Fragment de gobelet, parois côtelées, bord évasé, engobe sur la face externe et le bord interne. Pâte beige, engobe rouge. Diam. ouv. : 12 cm (dessin I. Obeidat). 8. Inv. C. 6138. Rue sud. AF 99–13 (iiie siècle ap. J.-C./ byzantin). Gobelet incomplet, panse arrondie avec un ressaut médian, deux anses verticales sur le ressaut et sous le bord. Pâte brune, engobe noir. Diam. ouv. : 8 cm (dessin I. Obeidat).

9

9. Inv. C. 8925. Cours de la terrasse. AV 103A–6. Sondage 4 (30 ap. J.-C.). Col de cruche, embouchure large, bord à ressaut externe, bec verseur. Pâte grise, engobe rouge foncé sur les faces interne et externe. Diam. ouv. : 10 cm (dessin I. Obeidat). 10. Inv. C. 8934. Cours de la terrasse. AT101–1. Sondage 2 (ier siècle ap. J.-C.). Col de cruche, embouchure large, bord à ressaut externe. Pâte grise. Diam. ouv. : 12 cm (dessin I. Obeidat).

10

11. Inv. C. 8965. Cours de la terrasse. AS 101–1. Sondage 2 (ier siècle ap. J.-C.). Col et départ de panse de grande cruche/amphore, deux anses verticales. Pâte gris clair, traces d’engobe plus foncé sur le bord et le dessus des anses. Diam. ouv. : 11 cm (dessin I. Obeidat).

11

4. Les productions de céramiques locales de Jerash au début de la période romaine 12

127

15

16

13

Céramique ‘Moulée modelée grise’ (Cat. 12–19)

14

12. Inv. C. 6198. Rue sud. AJ 98–18 (ier–iie siècle ap. J.-C.). Petit vase à panse globulaire et ouverture évasée, décor moulé à la base. Pâte gris clair, fines particules de calcaire et autres dégraissants, engobe noir sur la face externe et le bord interne. Diam. ouv. : 4 cm (dessin I. Obeidat). 13. Inv. C. 9813. Réserve du cryptoportique (iiie siècle ap. J.-C.). Fragment de cruchette à corps cylindrique et col évasé ; départ d’anse ; décor moulé à la naissance du col et sur le corps. Pâte grise, particules de calcaire, engobe gris foncé sur la face externe. Diam. ouv. : 5 cm (dessin I. Obeidat). 14. Inv. C. 9028/29. Cours de la terrasse. AV 103a–4 et 7. Sondage 4 (30 ap. J.-C.). Fragments de cruchette à corps cylindrique et ouverture évasée ; décor moulé à la naissance du col et sur le corps. Pâte grise, fines particules de calcaire, engobe noir sur la face externe. Diam. ouv. : 6 cm (dessin I. Obeidat). 15. Inv. C. 9068. Cryptoportique. AG 100–7 (27/28 ap. J.-C. au plus tard). Col de cruchette, bord évasé ; décor moulé sur le bord. Pâte gris clair, particules de calcaire et fines particules dégraissantes, engobe noir sur la face externe et le bord interne. Diam. ouv. : 5 cm (dessin I. Obeidat). 16. Inv. C. 9090. Cours de la terrasse. AT 101–8. Sondage 2 (ier siècle ap. J.-C.). Col de cruchette, bord replié sur le côté extérieur ; décor moulé sur toute la hauteur du col, bord y compris. Pâte grise, fines particules dégraissantes, engobe noir sur la face externe. Diam. ouv. : 9 cm (dessin I. Obeidat).

Anne-Michèle Rasson-Seigne et Jacques Seigne

128 17

18

17. Inv. C. 9020. Cours de la terrasse. AV 103A–10. Sondage 4 (ier siècle av. J.-C.–ier siècle ap. J.-C.). Fond de petit vase globulaire à fond plat. Pâte grise, fines particules dégraissantes, engobe noir sur la face externe. Décor au-dessus de la base formé d’une bande d’épis et de godrons (dessin I. Obeidat). 18. Inv. C. 9074. Cours de la terrasse. AF 103–9d. Sondage 1 (ier siècle av. J.-C.–ier siècle ap. J.-C.). Fragment de lampe à bec ‘ongle’. Corps ovoïde, décor du bandeau alternant traits perpendiculaires à l’orifice et motif végétal. Long. conservée : 7 cm environ (dessin I. Obeidat). 19. Inv. C. 9004. Cours de la terrasse. Naos (hors strati­ graphie). Fragment de bec de lampe. Pâte grise, fines particules dégraissantes, engobe noir sur la face externe. Long. conservée : 8 cm (dessin I. Obeidat).

19

5. La céramique importée à Jerash pendant l’époque romaine (fin ier siècle avant J.-C. – fin iiie siècle après J.-C.) : l’apport des fouilles du sanctuaire de Zeus Anne-Michèle Rasson-Seigne Université de Tours, UMR 7324 CITERES-LAT. [email protected]

Jacques Seigne Université de Tours, CNRS, UMR 7324 CITERES-LAT. [email protected]

P

armi l’abondant matériel en céramique découvert dans les niveaux d’époque romaine (fin ier siècle avant J.-C. – fin iiie siècle après J.-C.) du sanctuaire de Zeus à Jerash, plusieurs importations ont été identifiées  : des sigillées orientales et occidentales, des productions nabatéennes, des vases provenant du Hauran et peut-être d’Egypte, ainsi que quelques beaux fragments d’African Red Slip1 (Fig. 5.1). Pour les illustrer, nous avons sélectionné les exemplaires les plus représentatifs de chacune d’entre elles et, chaque fois que cela était possible, les mieux datés par la strati­graphie.2

Les contextes Tous les niveaux fouillés dans la zone du sanctuaire de Zeus ont livré de la céramique d’importation, en quantité plus ou moins importante. Le matériel présenté ci-après concerne essentiellement des céramiques trouvées en contextes bien scellés et datables (pour la description de ces derniers, voir la présentation qui en est faite dans l’article concernant les productions locales d’époque romaine). Toutefois, quelques céramiques retrouvées en dépôts secondaires seront mentionnées, non pour

1  Les importations d’amphores sont traitées séparément dans une contribution de Stéphane Duplessis et Francesca Di Napoli, dans ce même volume. 2   Il ne s’agit nullement ici d’une étude céramo­ l ogique approfondie. L’objectif de cette contribution consiste à fournir une première identification des céramiques importées découvertes dans le secteur du sanctuaire de Zeus à Jerash, tout en les situant dans des contextes datés par la strati­graphie.

leur intérêt purement strati­g raphique et typo-chrono­ logique, mais pour les témoignages qu’elles apportent sur les échanges et connexions que Gerasa eut avec les cités voisines et quelques fois lointaines aux différentes étapes de son histoire.

Les céramiques importées Les sigillées (Cat. 1–11) Parmi les céramiques importées, la sigillée occupe la première place par le nombre de fragments collectés, même si, comparée à celle des productions locales, sa présence est extrêmement réduite. Le matériel recueilli est très fragmentaire, souvent en position résiduelle. Trois catégories de sigillées peuvent être distinguées3 : les sigillées orientales A et B et la sigillée occidentale. Sigillée orientale A (Cat. 1–5)

La plupart de ces sigillées, sont des ‘sigillées orientales A’ dont l’origine précise n’a pas encore été déterminée  ; elles proviennent très probablement de la côte méditerranéenne (Palestine, Liban, Syrie). Les formes les plus courantes sont des assiettes et des coupes carénées à base annulaire dont la forme la plus représentée a été restituée grâce à une coupe complète recueillie dans une des tombes de la nécropole sud (Cat. 4). Certaines présentent un décor appliqué à la roulette sur la carène, d’autres un motif estampé sur le fond intérieur ou encore une marque de potier. 3 

D’après un premier examen effectué par John Hayes, lors de sa visite à Jérash.

Hellenistic and Roman Gerasa: The Archaeo­logy and History of a Decapolis City, ed. by Achim Lichtenberger and Rubina Raja, JP 5 (Turnhout: Brepols, 2020), 129–144 BREPOLS PUBLISHERS DOI 10.1484/M.JP-EB.5.120809

Anne-Michèle Rasson-Seigne et Jacques Seigne

130

Figure 5.1. Les céramiques importées à Jerash pendant l’époque romaine : 1. Sigillée orientale A ; 2. Sigillée orientale B ; 3. Sigillée occidentale ; 4. Céramique nabatéenne peinte ; 5. Céramique nabatéenne estampée ; 6. Céramique nabatéenne blanche ; 7 Sigillée nabatéenne ; 8. Céramique pseudo-nabatéenne ; 9. Céramique du Hauran ; 10. Céramique égyptienne (?) ; 11. African Red Slip.

L’examen à l’œil nu des pâtes et des vernis montre une grande diversité des matériaux et des techniques utilisés qui sont autant d’indices de provenances diverses, que les études ultérieures seront à même d’identifier. Dans le contexte du sanctuaire de Zeus, la ‘sigillée orientale A’ est présente dans tous les niveaux d’occupation, du ier siècle avant J.-C. à l’époque médiévale. De nombreux tessons proviennent de remblais et ont circulé pendant longtemps. Toutefois, une série cohérente a été retrouvée in situ dans des dépôts bien stratifiés. Le frag-

ment le plus ancien retrouvé dans le sanctuaire de Zeus est daté par la strati­g raphie du ier siècle avant J.-C. La grande majorité de la sigillée orientale A est concentrée dans les niveaux datés du tournant de l’ère et jusqu’en 27/28 de notre ère. On la retrouve principalement avec des productions locales telles la céramique dite moulée modelée grise ou la vaisselle semi-luxueuse à laquelle elle a servi de modèle4 datées également du tournant de l’ère. 4 

Voir Rasson-Seigne et Seigne dans ce volume.

5. La céramique importée à Jerash pendant l’époque romaine Sigillée orientale B (Cat. 6)

Un très petit nombre de tessons peut être attribué à la ‘sigillée orientale B’. Caractérisée par une pâte de couleur plus foncée que celle de la ‘sigillée orientale A’, elle contient du mica, et le vernis, relativement poreux, est de couleur rouge orangé. Identifiée en Asie Mineure, la ‘sigillée orientale B’ semble apparaître vers le milieu du ier siècle après J.-C. et certaines formes sont datées jusqu’au milieu du iie siècle après J.-C. La petite base de vase présentée ci-dessous a été retrouvée parmi les vases formant le dépôt de potier du cryptoportique daté du iiie siècle après J.-C. ; il n’est pas exclu que ce fragment soit plus ancien. Sigillée occidentale (Cat. 7–11)

La sigillée occidentale a également été identifiée, mais en très petite quantité et dans un état très fragmentaire. Parmi les formes identifiables, on reconnaît certaines formes classiques de la sigillée italique et gauloise. Il s’agit exclusivement de fragments de coupes carénées, ornées de motifs estampés à la molette ou décorées à la barbotine. Plusieurs fragments portent des marques de potiers. Excepté plusieurs fragments recueillis en dehors de tout contexte stratifié, la plupart de ces témoins de la sigillée occidentale provient de niveaux datés du tournant de l’ère jusqu’à la moitié du ier siècle après J.-C. Les céramiques nabatéennes (Cat. 12–24) La céramique nabatéenne est représentée à Jerash en faible quantité mais plusieurs productions ont été identifiées5 : la céramique peinte, la céramique estampée, la ‘sigillée nabatéenne’ et la nabatéenne dite ‘blanche’. Céramique nabatéenne peinte (Cat. 12–18)

Originaire de la région de Pétra, cette céramique est caractérisée par des petites assiettes aux parois extrêmement fines et ornées de motifs géométriques ou floraux peints dans tous les tons de rouge, du rouge lie-de-vin au brun foncé, ou parfois en noir. Elle est illustrée dans le sanctuaire de Zeus par quelques petits fragments d’assiettes qui permettent de suivre l’évolution de cette vaisselle du ier siècle avant J.-C. jusqu’au ve siècle après J.-C., 5   Nous devons l’identification des céramiques nabatéennes retrouvées à Jerash à Khérié ’Amr, archéo­logue du Département des Antiquités de Jordanie. Nous l’en remercions chaleureusement.

131

la fabrication très soignée devenant au fil du temps de plus en plus grossière. – au ier siècle avant J.-C., cette céramique est représentée sur le sanctuaire de Zeus par des fragments de coupes profondes décorées de motifs végétaux peints en rouge clair, parfois brun, et dans un style naturaliste (Cat. 12–13) ; – au courant du ier siècle après J.-C. et jusqu’au début du iie siècle après J.-C., on trouve des coupes au profil angulaire et parois très fines. Les motifs sont plus stylisés et de couleur plus foncée (Cat. 14–15) ; – au iiie siècle après J.-C., et même plus tard, les formes sont plus grossières, présentant des parois plus épaisses et des motifs moins soignés, peints en brun ou en noir (Cat. 16–17). Cette production perdure longtemps : nous la trouvons encore dans des contextes du ve siècle après J.-C., avec des exemplaires très grossiers (Cat. 18). Céramique nabatéenne estampée (Cat. 19)

Présente en plus grande quantité que la céramique peinte avec laquelle elle partage certaines caractéristiques, une céramique fine bien cuite, nommée aussi ‘coquille d’œuf ’, est faite à partir d’une terre épurée contenant de très fines particules dégraissantes. Elle est de couleur brun rouge, plus rarement grise, et n’est pratiquement jamais engobée. La forme la plus courante est une sorte de petite coupe/gobelet sur pied en anneau assez plat, muni d’une panse globulaire et d’un haut bord droit, légèrement évasé. La panse et le bord portent parfois un décor de petites encoches estampé à la molette (Cat. 19). L’origine de cette production céramique a été localisée dans la région de Pétra où elle apparaît au tournant de l’ère et où elle connaît un développement important durant la seconde moitié du ier siècle après J.-C. Parmi les fragments de cette céramique collectée dans les fouilles du sanctuaire de Zeus, le plus gros lot provient du remblai de nivellement de la cour du sanctuaire (terrasse inférieure) daté par la strati­graphie de la période de construction du temple de 27/28 après J.-C. ‘Sigillée’ nabatéenne (Cat. 20–21)

Un petit nombre de vases et de tessons ont été isolés en raison de leur aspect extérieur rappelant celui des sigillées. Leur pâte, bien apurée et bien cuite, est de couleur rouge clair à rouge foncé. Elle est couverte d’un engobe

Anne-Michèle Rasson-Seigne et Jacques Seigne

132 — plutôt qu’un vernis — de même ton que celui de la pâte et parfaitement adhérent. Certains fragments ont des reflets brillants dus au polissage de la surface. Cette description correspond à celle de la céramique dite ‘sigillée orientale de type D’, ‘sigillée chypriote’ ou encore ‘sigillée nabatéenne’. Cette céramique attestée sur les sites nabatéens est datée de la fin du ier siècle après J.-C. et du iie siècle après J.-C. (Cat. 21–22). À Jerash, sur le sanctuaire de Zeus, les témoins de ce matériel importé ont été trouvés dans la réserve du cryptoportique datée du iiie siècle après J.-C. L’excellent état de conservation de certains vases semble montrer que la présence de cette céramique dans un contexte daté du iiie siècle après J.-C. n’est pas accidentelle. La qualité des produits ne semble pas permettre l’hypothèse d’une imitation locale et tardive. La ‘sigillée nabatéenne’ a donc pu connaître une existence plus longue que ce que l’on croyait. Céramique nabatéenne blanche (Cat. 22–24)

Parmi la céramique importée à Jerash, un petit ensemble de vases est caractérisé par une pâte poreuse de couleur blanche, beige très clair ou vert pâle. Cette pâte, contenant de fines particules de calcaire, est douce au toucher, rayable à l’ongle et ne porte généralement pas d’engobe. Les tessons présentent des cassures irrégulières. Cette céramique6 est bien connue dans la région de Pétra et sur certains sites de la Jordanie du sud. On la retrouve également à Khirbet Qumrân, dans le Negev (Oboda) et jusque dans la péninsule arabique. La couleur très claire de la pâte est obtenue par l’addition de sel dans l’argile en vue d’augmenter la porosité des récipients. Cette technique, encore utilisée dans certaines régions, à Hébron par exemple, est utilisée pour la fabrication de récipients destinés à conserver l’eau fraîche : cruches et cruchettes, petites jarres (?) à parois côtelées, etc. Souvent confondue avec une production céramique aux particularités techniques similaires mais beaucoup plus récente (omeyyade  ?), la céramique nabatéenne blanche apparaît au ier siècle après J.-C. et semble encore fabriquée au courant du iie siècle après J.-C. Trois récipients pratiquement complets et quelques fragments de cette céramique nabatéenne blanche proviennent du sanctuaire de Zeus. La plupart d’entre eux ont été trouvés dans le cryptoportique avec les autres récipients formant la réserve datée du iiie siècle après J.-C. 6 

Egalement nommée Cream Ware.

Céramique ‘pseudo-nabatéenne’ peinte (Cat. 25) Malgré d’évidentes différences techniques et stylistiques, deux fragments de coupes avaient été, dans un premier temps, associés aux tessons de la céramique nabatéenne peinte à partir de leurs formes, deux bords incurvés de coupes à parois fines, ainsi que par les motifs peints en rouge ornant leur face interne. Les similitudes avec la céramique nabatéenne peinte s’arrêtent là : l’examen des tessons retrouvés sur le sanctuaire de Zeus révèle des différences dont la plus visible est le moindre soin apporté à la décoration peinte : les motifs sont frustes, peints dans un rouge clair tirant sur l’orange. L’observation de la pâte montre également qu’il s’agit d’une autre fabrique : d’un rouge plus clair, elle est moins fine et contient de nombreuses particules dégraissantes visibles à l’œil nu. Elle a un aspect savonneux alors que la céramique nabatéenne est un peu rugueuse. Il s’agit en fait de fragment de céramique dite ‘céramique de Jérusalem’ ou ‘pseudo-nabatéenne’, datée de la première moitié du ier siècle après J.-C.7 Les deux tessons trouvés à Jerash sont un apport nouveau concernant la diffusion de cette céramique, mais, provenant de strates perturbées, ils n’offrent malheureusement pas d’indications chrono­logiques intéressantes (Cat. 25). Céramique du Hauran (Cat. 26–32) Au cours des fouilles sur le sanctuaire de Zeus, plusieurs vases ou fragments de vases ont attiré l’attention par la couleur et de la texture de leur pâte ainsi que de leur décor, qui les différencient nettement des autres productions retrouvées à Jerash. Ces vases (ouverts ou fermés), aux parois épaisses, sont faits dans une pâte brun foncé contenant des fines et grosses particules de calcaire et des particules dégraissantes de couleur noire (basalte ?). Les cassures sont très irrégulières et les tranches sont rouge vif. La surface est souvent altérée par des craquelures. Un seul exemplaire porte un engobe sur les faces interne et externe. La finition de cette céramique est également particulière : un motif en fines bandes brillantes obtenues sur le tour par polissage orne la face interne des vases ouverts. Sur certaines formes fermées, on retrouve cette même finition sous forme de bandes parallèles ou croisées réalisées hors du tour. 7 

Nous devons cette identification à Khérié ‘Amr.  Nous l’en remercions.

5. La céramique importée à Jerash pendant l’époque romaine Les formes trouvent des parallèles dans la céramique commune de Jerash datée du iii e  siècle après J.-C.  : coupes à carène adoucie, coupes à base annulaire et bord rabattu vers l’extérieur, cruche à corps cylindrique côtelé sur base continue et large col, etc. Cette céramique brune, peu fréquente dans les autres secteurs fouillés de Jerash et en Jordanie de manière générale, semble produite localement dans la région de Bosra.8 Sur le sanctuaire de Zeus, on retrouve cette céramique brune du Hauran en quantité non négligeable (une dizaine de vases complets) dans la réserve du cryptoportique parmi une très grande quantité de céramiques de fabrication locale datées du iiie siècle après J.-C., et dans d’autres contextes également, datés des iie et iiie siècles après J.-C. Céramique égyptienne (?) (Cat. 33–36) Un petit lot de tessons étonne par les motifs bicolores blancs et bruns (plus rarement blancs et rouges) qui les caractérisent. Ces tessons, relativement épais (3 à 8  mm) se distinguent par leur pâte : dure, compacte, bien cuite, de couleur brun clair, parfois rougeâtre, à noyau gris et contenant de nombreuses et fines particules de calcaire. Leur surface est un peu rugueuse et très souvent couverte d’un engobe brun clair. Tous les fragments présentés ici proviennent de formes fermées : des cruches et des petites jarres à large col et épaule arrondie. Le décor, pratiquement toujours en deux tons reproduit des motifs géométriques : croisillons de couleur brune dont chaque losange renferme un point blanc, lignes ondulées alternant bandes blanches et bandes brunes. Plusieurs fragments portent un décor tacheté imitant un pelage animal. Dans le sanctuaire de Zeus, ils ont tous été trouvés dans un contexte d’époque romaine ne dépassant pas le début du iie siècle après J.-C. La pâte, la technique, le décor, totalement différents de ceux des productions locales, font penser que cette céramique est importée. Elle n’est, à notre connaissance, mentionnée sur aucun autre site de Jordanie et son origine est difficile à déterminer.9 8   Nous

remercions F.  Villeneuve de nous avoir permis de constater l’abondance de cette production dans la région de Bosra. Voir la description de cette vaisselle in Dentzer 1986, 239–46. 9  Quelques tessons de fabrication identique ont été retrouvés lors des travaux de fouilles dans l’hippodrome, dans un contexte daté

133

L’enquête menée pour localiser l’origine de cette céramique ne nous a pas permis de conclure formellement. Interrogées pour leur compétence dans ce domaine, Sylvie Marchand et Roberta Tomber estiment qu’il est envisageable de rapprocher les tessons trouvés à Jerash de certaines céramiques égyptiennes (par exemple la céramique de Tebtynis dans le Fayoum), sans pour autant pouvoir identifier la production plus précisément.10 African Red Slip (Cat. 37) La présentation de la céramique importée à Jerash s’achève avec trois ou quatre tessons que l’on peut attribuer à la production dite African Red Slip.11 Cette très belle céramique couverte d’un engobe épais et brillant, très proche de certaines sigillées, est très largement représentée à Jerash pendant toute l’époque byzantine.12 Toutefois, elle semble attestée à Jerash dès la fin du e iii  siècle après J.-C. comme en témoignent l’exemplaire présenté ci-dessous et ceux recueillis en cours de fouille dans le macellum.13 C’est la forme 50A de J. W. Hayes, datée de 300–60 après J.-C., celle d’un plat assez profond, aux parois verticales achevées par un bord droit, légèrement aminci.14 Cette forme de plat à parois verticales plus ou moins évasées trouve de très nombreux parallèles dans le répertoire de la céramique commune locale de Jerash.

Conclusion Cette présentation rapide met en évidence la très faible importance des céramiques importées parmi l’abondant matériel céramique collecté dans les niveaux d’époque romaine fouillés dans le secteur du sanctuaire de Zeus et de ses abords. Ce même phénomène a été constaté en d’autres secteurs du site.15 Il reste pour le moment inexpliqué d’autant qu’à d’autres périodes des importa-

des iie/iiie siècle ap. J.-C. (Information aimablement communiquée par Ina Kehrberg). 10   Qu’elles soient toutes les deux remerciées ici pour leur obligeance à répondre à nos questions. 11  Lors de sa visite à Jerash, John Hayes nous a fait profiter de ses recherches concernant cette production. 12  Voir en particulier Uscatescu 1992, 124–42. 13  Uscatescu 1992, 126–27, fig. 3.15–18. 14  Hayes 1972, 68–69. 15  Par exemple dans le macellum (Uscatescu 1992).

Anne-Michèle Rasson-Seigne et Jacques Seigne

134 tions sont bien représentées. De nombreuses anses d’amphores rhodiennes,16 des fragments de bols mégariens ou encore des lampes hérodiennes attestent des importations à l’époque hellénistique. Pour l’époque byzantine, plusieurs productions importées ont été identifiées  : ‘sigillées’ africaines, céramiques phocéennes, chypriotes et égyptiennes, amphores d’Antioche, de Gaza ou encore du Nord de l’Afrique.17 Les quelques tessons de sigillées occidentales sont d’origines italiques et sud-galliques ; les sigillées orientales proviennent probablement de Palestine, du Liban ou de Syrie ; des contacts avec Jérusalem sont attestés par la présence des quelques tessons de céramique ‘pseudo-nabatéenne’ ; les fragments de céramique peinte en brun et blanc s’ils viennent bien d’Egypte et s’ils sont bien datés du début du iie siècle après J.-C., pourraient avoir été apportés par des soldats postés en Egypte et envoyés à Jerash au moment de la deuxième révolte juive (la faiblesse de l’échantillonnage ne permet pas de conclure) ; la céramique du Hauran peut provenir de simples échanges commerciaux entre la capitale provinciale et la cité des bords du Chrysorhoas. Elle peut également avoir accompagné des soldats lors du séjour de la légion III Cyrenaica au début du iiie siècle après J.-C. La rareté du matériel nabatéen apparaît des plus remarquable, la ville de Jerash étant considérée en zone d’influence nabatéenne pendant plusieurs siècles. Certes, les assiettes peintes étaient peut-être trop fragiles pour être exportées en masse mais on a vu que la céramique nabatéenne ne se limitait pas à cette seule production. Cette quasi-absence de céramique nabatéenne pour les ier siècle avant-ier siècle après J.-C. n’est pas sans poser le problème de la réalité d’une influence nabatéenne à Jerash et de son importance.18 Tout aussi remarquable apparaît l’absence pour la période considérée, de fragments de céramiques ayant pu appartenir à des amphores importées, et, d’une manière générale à des  emballages pour le transport à longue distance. Les seules amphores importées, datées du iiie s. après J.-C., ont été trouvées en contexte funéraire.19 Cette absence est d’autant plus frappante que la décou16 

Voir dans ce même volume Duplessis et Di Napoli. 17  Uscatescu 1992. 18  Sur cette question de la diffusion de la céramique nabatéenne, voir Schmid 2007. 19  Principalement des amphores provenant de la zone égéoméditerranéenne, type Robinson K113. Des exemplaires complets de ce type d’amphore ont été trouvés dans les nécropoles de Jerash (Kraeling 1938, 567, fig. 45 ; Ugdeh 1991, pl. 38).

verte de nombreuses anses timbrées20 prouve qu’à la fin de l’époque hellénistique, la cité importait des denrées de Méditerranée. Il en fut à nouveau de même, semblet-il, à l’époque Byzantine comme le prouve la découverte de nombreux fragments d’amphores de Palestine et d’Egypte. Cette absence, pour le moment pratiquement totale, de conteneurs datables de l’époque romaine pourrait-elle être expliquée par les nombreuses installations de presses à vin et à huile datées des époques romaine et byzantine découvertes dans la région de Jerash ? Pour le stockage de ces produits, les potiers locaux fabriquaient des jarres à panse ovoïde cannelée avec deux anses sur l’épaule (bag-shaped amphora). Plusieurs exemplaires de ces jarres ont été découverts dans l’huilerie du iiie siècle située dans le souk ouest au pied de la Porte Sud.21 Les parois très fines de ces amphores locales, retrouvées en grand nombre en différents contextes et dont l’usage a perduré jusqu’à la période omeyyade au moins, semblent indiquer qu’elles n’étaient pas utilisées pour le transport mais plutôt pour le stockage local. Pendant les cinq premiers siècles de notre ère les productions locales d’huile et de vin pourraient avoir été suffisamment importantes et de qualité pour satisfaire aux besoins de la cité. Une telle situation a-t-elle été constatée dans d’autres cités de Jordanie ? Les informations actuellement disponibles ne permettent pas de répondre complètement à cette question mais semblent indiquer que certains sites aient connu une situation similaire.22 L’enquête serait certainement à approfondir. À cette rareté des importations de denrées comestibles pendant la période romaine correspond également une très faible importation de céramique domestique et culinaire. Quasi nulle pour le matériel d’usage courant, elle apparaît très faible pour la vaisselle de luxe. Parmi les céramiques locales, on constate des imitations de vaisselle fine, en sigillée23 ou autre fabrique luxueuse. Ces imitations trahissent la volonté de copier des modèles venus d’ailleurs tout en s’affranchissant des coûts liés à un tel commerce. Par ailleurs, les très importantes productions locales de céramique commune ou semi-luxueuse 20 

Voir Duplessis et Di Napoli dans ce volume. Seigne et autres 1986, 47–49, Rasson 1986, 67. 22   À Heshban, les importations de sigillées sont attestées pendant la période romaine ancienne mais pas pendant les périodes suivantes (Merling et Geraty 1994, 252–53). À Pella, des fragments de sigillées ont été retrouvés mais en petite quantité (McNicoll 1982, 83. À Khirbet edh-Dharih, on constate que la sigillée y est extrêmement rare (Villeneuve 1990, 375). 23  Braemer 1989, 153–67. 21 

5. La céramique importée à Jerash pendant l’époque romaine

135

semblent n’avoir eu qu’une diffusion très limitée hors du territoire de la cité. Pendant toute la période romaine, la cité de Gerasa semble bien avoir vécu en autarcie, aussi bien pour la production de son mobilier à usage quotidien que pour celle des produits de première nécessité. Cette autonomie vivrière et matérielle, liée à sa situation à l’écart des grands axes commerciaux (au point qu’elle ne figurera même pas sur la Table de Peutinger), ne peut que renforcer les questions posées par l’intérêt que lui portèrent Trajan et Hadrien.

Œuvres citées Braemer, F. 1989. ‘Une fabrique (locale ?) de céramiques fines’, dans Fawzi Zayadine (éd.), Jerash Archaeo­logical Project, ii : Fouilles de Jérash 1984–1988 (Amman : Department of Antiquities of Jordan), pp. 153–67. Dentzer, J.-M. 1986. ‘Hauran i, Recherches archéo­logiques sur la Syrie du sud à l’époque hellénistique et romaine. Deuxième partie’, Bibliothèque archéo­logique et historique, 124 : 239–46. Hayes, J. 1972. Late Roman Pottery (London : The British School at Rome). Kraeling, C. H. 1938. Gerasa : City of the Decapolis : An Account Embodying the Record of a Joint Excavation Conducted by Yale Uni­ ver­sity and the British School of Archaeo­logy in Jerusalem (1928–30), and Yale Uni­ver­sity and the American Schools of Oriental Research (1930–31, 1933–34) (New Haven : American Schools of Oriental Research). McNicoll, A.  W. et autres. 1982. Pella in Jordan, i, Mediterranean Archaeo­logy Supplement, 1 (Canberra  : Australian National Gallery). Merling, D. et L. T. Geraty. 1994. Hesban after 25 Years (Berrien Springs : Horn Archaeo­logical Museum), pp. 250–55. Rasson A.-M. 1986. ‘Matériel céramique de la deuxième moitié du iiie siècle ap. J.-C.’, dans F. Zayadine (éd.), Jerash Archaeo­logical Project 1981–1983, i (Amman : Department of Antiquities of Jordan), pp. 67–69. Schmid, S. G. 2007. ‘La distribution de la céramique nabatéenne et l’organisation du commerce nabatéen de longues distance’, dans M. Sartre (éd.), Productions et échanges dans la Syrie grecque et romaine, Topoi, Supplément 8 (Lyon : Maison de L’Orient et de la Méditerranée), pp. 61–91. Seigne, J. 1997. ‘De la grotte au périptère. Le Sanctuaire de Zeus Olympien à Gerasa’, Topoi, 7.2 : 993–1004. ——  2008. ‘Quelques remarques sur les rues de l’antique Gerasa de la Décapole ( Jerash, Jordanie)’, dans P. Ballet, N. Dieudonné-Glad et C. Saliou (éd.), La rue dans l’Antiquité. Définition, aménagement et devenir, de l’Orient méditerranéen à la Gaule. Actes du colloque international de Poitiers, 07–09 septembre 2006 (Rennes : PUR), pp. 169–84. Seigne, J. et autres. 1986. ‘Recherches sur le sanctuaire de Zeus à Jerash (octobre 1982–Décembre 1983)’, dans F. Zayadine (éd.), Jerash Archaeo­logical Project 1981–1983, ii (Amman : Department of Antiquities of Jordan), pp. 29–59. Ugdeh, F. 1991. ‘Une tombe sur la route de Mafraq’, Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan, 25 : 38. Uscatescu, A. 1992. ‘Cerámica importada en Gerasa (Yara, Jordania) el lote de las excavaciones del Macellum’, Caesaraugusta, 69 : 115–82. Villeneuve, F. 1990. ‘The Pottery from the Oil-Factory at Khirbet edh-Dharih’, ARAM, 2 : 367–84.

Anne-Michèle Rasson-Seigne et Jacques Seigne

136

Annexe : Catalogue

1

2

Sigillées 1. Inv. C. 9817. Rue sud. AG/AK 98. Coupe à paroi arrondie, base en anneau. Pâte chamois, vernis rouge brillant. Diam. ouv. : 18 cm (dessin I. Obeidat). 3

2. Inv. C. 2118. Cour de la terrasse. AF 104­-9a. Sondage 1 (tournant de l’ère). Coupe à marli, base en anneau. Pâte chamois, vernis rouge foncé, brillant, traces de double trempage. Diam. ouv. : 26 cm (dessin O. Dussart/I. Obeidat). 3. Inv. C. 21. ANO 95–7. Sondage 6 (milieu ier siècle ap. J.-C.). Fragment de coupe légèrement carénée, bord évasé. Pâte chamois, vernis rouge foncé, brillant, traces de double trempage. Diam. ouv. : 23 cm (dessin O. Dussart).

5. La céramique importée à Jerash pendant l’époque romaine

137 4. Inv. TH 7/4. Nécropole sud, tombe 7 (fin ier siècle ap. J.-C./ début iie s. ap. J.-C.). Coupe carénée complète, base en anneau, bord mouluré. Pâte chamois, vernis rouge brillant. Diam. ouv. : 14,5 cm (dessin I. Obeidat).

4

5. Inv. C. 8691. Réserve du cryptoportique (iiie siècle ap. J.-C.). Fragment de coupe, base en anneau plat, bord évasé. Pâte chamois, vernis rouge foncé, mat, traces de double trempage, intérieur très usé. Diam. ouv. : 19 cm (dessin I. Obeidat). 6. Inv. C. 8688. Réserve du cryptoportique (iiie siècle ap. J.-C.). Base de petite coupe. Pâte chamois foncé, vernis rouge orangé très lisse. Diam. : 3 cm (dessin I. Obeidat).

5 6

8 9

7. Inv. C. 1097. Rue sud. AD 99–25. Sondage 7 (première moitié du ier siècle ap. J.-C.). Fragment de coupe carénée, décor à la barbotine. Pâte 7 chamois, vernis rouge brillant. Diam. ouv. : 7,5 cm (dessin O. Dussart).

8. Inv. C. 6250. Rue sud. AJ 98 (hors strati­graphie). Fragment de coupe carénée, décor à la barbotine. Pâte rose, vernis rouge foncé, brillant. Diam. ouv. : 14 cm (dessin I. Obeidat).

9. Inv. C. 1020. Rue sud. AD 99–17 Sondage 7 (deuxième moitié du ier siècle ap. J.-C.). Fragment de base en anneau portant la marque CRPI. Pâte rose, vernis rouge foncé écaillé. Diam. base : 7 cm (dessin O. Dussart). 10. Inv. C. 6. ANO 95–6. Sondage 6 (milieu ier siècle ap. J.-C.). Fond portant une marque P. CORNEL. Pâte rose, vernis rouge brillant (dessin O. Dussart).

10

Anne-Michèle Rasson-Seigne et Jacques Seigne

138 11. Inv. C. 8549. Cour de la terrasse, hors strati­graphie. Bord de grand plat à paroi verticale décorée à la barbotine d’un motif floral. Pâte rose, vernis rouge foncé, brillant. Diam. ouv. : 29 cm (dessin I. Obeidat).

11

Céramiques nabatéennes 12. Inv. C. 8963. Cour de la terrasse. AS 101–1. Sondage 2 (remblai ier–iiie siècle ap. J.-C.). Bord de coupe, motif floral. Pâte rouge clair fine, peinture rouge liede-vin. Diam. ouv. : 18 cm (dessin I. Obeidat). 13. Inv. C. 6153. Rue sud. AG 98–11 (remblai ier–iiie siècle ap. J.-C./byzantin). Bord de coupe. Pâte rouge clair, fines particules dégraissantes, peinture rouge lie-de-vin. Diam. ouv. : 18 cm env. (dessin I. Obeidat). 14. Inv. C. 2348. Réserve du cryptoportique (iiie siècle ap. J.-C.). Fragment de coupe, motif floral. Pâte rouge fine, peinture brunrouge. Diam. ouv. : 20 cm (dessin J. Humbert).

12

13 14

5. La céramique importée à Jerash pendant l’époque romaine 15. Inv. C. 6333. Rue sud. AK 99–9 (iiie siècle ap. J.-C.). Bord de coupe, motif floral. Pâte rouge clair, noyau gris, fines particules dégraissantes, engobe rouge sur la face interne, brillant par endroits, et décor peint rouge foncé. Diam. ouv. : 18 cm (dessin I. Obeidat). 16. Inv. C. 2350. Rue sud. AI 99–8 (iiie siècle ap. J.-C.). Bord de coupe. Pâte brun clair, noyau gris, nombreuses particules de calcaire formant des cratères, peinture brune. Diam. ouv. : 18 cm (dessin J. Humbert). 17. Inv. C. 8609. Cour de la terrasse. AV 103–14. Sondage 4 (iiie siècle ap. J.-C.). Bord de coupe. Pâte rouge clair, pas très fine, engobe rouge sur la face interne, motifs peints presque noirs. Diam. ouv. : 19 cm (dessin I. Obeidat).

15

16 17

18. Inv. C. 8611. Cour de la terrasse. AU 104–4. Sondage 4 (romain tardif/byzantin). Bord de coupe, motif floral. Pâte rouge épaisse et rugueuse, nombreux dégraissants, 18 cassures irrégulières, décor peint brun presque noir. Diam. ouv. : 18 cm (dessin I. Obeidat).

20 19

19. Inv. C. 11. ANO 95–7.24 Sondage 6 (27/28 ap. J.-C.–100 ap. J.-C.). Pâte brun rouge, particules de calcaire. Diam. ouv. : 8 cm (dessin  O. Dussart).

24 

Braemer 1986, 65, fig. 16.13.

20. Inv. C. 5422. Réserve du cryptoportique (iiie siècle ap. J.-C.). Petit vase complet à panse globulaire sur base en anneau, col vertical à ressaut externe, bord droit, une anse verticale place entre le bord et la partie supérieure de la panse. La panse est décorée à la molette d’une bande horizontale de petits traits. Pâte rouge, fines particules de calcaire, engobe sur la face externe. Diam. ouv. : 7,2 cm (dessin J. Humbert).

139

Anne-Michèle Rasson-Seigne et Jacques Seigne

140

22

21 23

21.  Inv. C. 5678. Réserve du cryptoportique (iiie siècle ap. J.-C.). Cruche complète, panse globulaire sur base en anneau, col étroit, embouchure évasée, une anse verticale placée entre le col et l’épaule ; décor à la molette de plusieurs rangs de petits traits. Pâte rouge, fines particules dégraissantes, cassures irrégulières. Diam. ouv. : 4,6 cm (dessin J. Humbert). 22. Inv. C. 5708. Réserve du cryptoportique (iiie siècle ap. J.-C.). Petit vase fermé, panse globulaire côtelée, base en disque plat, col (légèrement déformé) vertical, bord droit, une anse verticale placée entre le bord et l’épaule. Pâte beige, verdâtre ou rosée, douce au toucher, fines particules de calcaire. Diam. ouv. : 5 cm (dessin J. Humbert). 23. Inv. C. 9469. Réserve du cryptoportique (iiie siècle ap. J.-C.). Cruche presque complète, corps ovoïde en partie côtelé, base en anneau, large col dans la prolongement de la panse, bord légèrement évasé, une anse verticale placée entre le bord et l’épaule. Pâte beige criblée de particules de calcaire et d’autres dégraissants, traces d’engobe rouge sur le col et l’intérieur du bord. Diam. ouv. : 5,5 cm (dessin I. Obeidat). 24

24. Inv. C. 5721. Réserve du cryptoportique (iiie siècle ap. J.-C.). Cruchette, une anse. Pâte beige, verdâtre, poreuse, fines particules dégraissantes. Diam. ouv. : 2 cm. (dessin J. Humbert)

5. La céramique importée à Jerash pendant l’époque romaine

141

Céramique ‘Pseudo-nabatéenne’ 25. Inv. C. 8964. Cour de la terrasse. AS 101–1. Sondage 2 (remblai ier–iiie siècle ap. J.-C.). Fragment de coupe à bord incurvé, décor stylisé (végétal ?) sur la face interne. Pâte rouge clair, nombreux dégraissants, motif peint rouge orange. Diam. ouv. : 17 cm (dessin I. Obeidat). 25

Céramique du Hauran 26. Inv. C. 2364. Réserve du cryptoportique (iiie siècle ap. J.-C.). Coupe complète, paroi arrondie, bord évasé, lèvre rabattue, base en anneau plat. Pâte brune, particules de calcaire et particules de couleur noire. Diam. ouv. : 14 cm (dessin J. Humbert). 27. Inv. C. 5428. Réserve du cryptoportique (iiie siècle ap. J.-C.). Fragment de coupe, face externe supérieure côtelée, bord incurvé. Pâte brune, particules de calcaire et particules de couleur noire, cassures irrégulières, traces de lustrage sur la face interne. Diam. ouv. : 18 cm (dessin J. Humbert).

26

27

28. Inv. C. 5665. Réserve du cryptoportique (iiie siècle ap. J.-C.). Plat profond complet, fond arrondi, carène à mi-hauteur, lèvre rabattue formant marli avec gouttière. Pâte brune, particules de calcaire et particules de couleur noire. Diam. ouv. : 18 cm (dessin J. Humbert). 28

Anne-Michèle Rasson-Seigne et Jacques Seigne

142

30

29

29. Inv. C. 5675. Réserve du cryptoportique (iiie siècle ap. J.-C.). Cruche presque complète, panse biconique partiellement côtelée, fond arrondi, col étroit à ressaut et bord évasé, une anse verticale placée sur le bord et sur l’épaule. Pâte brune, grosses particules de calcaire formant des cratères, particules noires, cassures irrégulières. Diam. ouv. : 3,5 cm (dessin J. Humbert). 30. Inv. C. 5712. Réserve du cryptoportique (iiie siècle ap. J.-C.). Cruchette presque complète, panse (asymétrique) cylindrique côtelée, base continue, col vertical, bord évasé, une anse verticale placée sur le bord et sur l’épaule. Pâte brun foncé, particules de calcaire et particules noires, cassures irrégulières. Diam. ouv. : 5,5 cm (dessin J. Humbert).

31

31. Inv. C. 5741. Réserve du cryptoportique (iiie siècle ap. J.-C.). Cruchette complète, panse globulaire, base en disque plat, col étroit à bord rentrant, une anse verticale placée sur le bord et sur l’épaule. Pâte brune, particules de calcaire et particules noires. Diam. ouv. : 2 cm (dessin J. Humbert). 32. Inv. C. 9804. Réserve du cryptoportique (iiie siècle ap. J.-C.). Vase globulaire à base en disque plat, bord rabattu vers l’extérieur. Pâte brune, particules de calcaire et particules noires, engobe sur les faces interne et externe. Diam. ouv. : 9,5 cm (dessin. I. Obeidat).

32

5. La céramique importée à Jerash pendant l’époque romaine

Céramique égyptienne (?)

143

33

33. Inv. C. 8268. Cour de la terrasse. Naos (jusqu’en 135 ap. J.-C.). Col de petite amphore, deux anses verticales coudées. Pâte beige, nombreuses particules de calcaire, décor peint en blanc et brun. Diam. ouv. : 8 cm (dessin I. Obeidat). 34. Inv. C. 8698. Cour de la terrasse. AV 106–29. Sondage 4 (iiie siècle ap. J.-C.). Fragment de cruche/jarre. Pâte brune, fines particules de calcaire, motif tacheté peint en blanc et brun (dessin I. Obeidat). 35. Inv. C. 8328. Cour de la terrasse. Naos (jusqu’en 135 ap. J.-C.). Fragment de panse de cruche ? Pâte brune, large noyau gris, engobe brun clair, décor peint blanc et brun (dessin I. Obeidat).

34

36. Inv. C. 8330. Cour de la terrasse. Naos (jusqu’en 135 ap. J.-C.). Col de cruche souligné par un ressaut externe et un motif fait de pastilles rondes, bord droit. Pâte brun rouge, large noyau gris, particules de calcaire, décor peint blanc et rouge. Diam. ouv. : 7 cm (dessin I. Obeidat).

36

35

144

Anne-Michèle Rasson-Seigne et Jacques Seigne

African Red Slip 37. Inv. C. 5458. Rue sud. AJ 99–17 (iiie siècle ap. J.-C.). Fragment de plat profond légèrement évasé, paroi fine, bord aminci. Pâte rouge homogène, très fines particules dégraissantes, engobe couvrant de même couleur. Diam. ouv. : 24,5 cm environ (dessin J. Humbert).

37

6. Les timbres amphoriques trouvés à Jerash Stéphane Duplessis Université de Tours. [email protected]

Francesca Di Napoli Inrap Centre-Île de France, centre de Tours, UMR 7324 CITERES-LAT. [email protected]

Jacques Seigne (Avant-propos et Conclusion) Université de Tours, CNRS, UMR 7324 CITERES-LAT. [email protected]

Avant-propos Les origines hellénistiques de Gerasa de la Décapole relèvent encore aujourd’hui plus du mythe, du rêve, plus ou moins orienté, que de la réalité archéo­logique. L’appartenance de la ville à la Décapole, son plan hippodamien, sont encore évoqués pour justifier une fondation par Perdiccas, un des généraux d’Alexandre le Grand, quand ce n’est pas par le grand conquérant macédonien lui-même. Il est vrai que des monnaies de Gerasa furent frappées à l’effigie d’Alexandre, qu’une base de statue dédiée à Perdiccas fut retrouvée sur le site,  etc. mais ces ‘témoignages’ d’une fondation dès le ive siècle avant notre ère ne datent que de l’époque romaine, tout comme appellation Décapole.1 Quant au plan ‘typiquement hellénistique’ de la ville, les recherches récentes ont montré qu’il fut progressivement — et incomplètement — surimposé, à partir du iie siècle de notre ère, à une trame urbaine totalement différente, non organisée.2 Par ailleurs, l’état de conservation remarquable des vestiges datables des époques romaine et byzantine interdit toute fouille profonde, sauf cas exceptionnels. Très peu de sondages ont atteint des niveaux antérieurs à notre ère. Ils ont cependant confirmé que loin d’être une fondation hellénistique, Gerasa est une cité ancienne dont l’histoire, à l’image de ses sœurs de la Décapole, remonte au moins à l’âge de Bronze.3 Il est certain aujourd’hui que la ville classique s’est développée à partir d’un tell ancien

1 

Gatier 2018. Seigne 1992 ; 2019. 3  Braemer 1987 ; Seigne 1992. 2 

implanté sur un promontoire dominant la vallée du Chrysorhoas. Toutefois, faute d’études strati­graphiques suffisantes, la typo­logie du mobilier céramique produit localement pendant les cinq siècles précédant notre ère reste balbutiante et ne permet pas de différencier précisément les rares niveaux d’époque hellénistique rencontrés. Seules quelques monnaies et de rares fragments de céramiques importées du monde égéen, malheureusement trouvées dans des niveaux tardifs de remblais, témoigneraient d’une occupation du site pendant cette période. L’importation de produits dits ‘de luxe’, comme le vin, n’avait laissé que très peu de témoignages à l’exception des sept anses d’amphores timbrées retrouvées lors des grandes campagnes de fouille anglo-américaines réalisées entre les deux guerres mondiales. Ces trop rares documents ne permettaient pas de faire remonter l’existence de la cité avant le iie siècle avant notre ère et notre méconnaissance du matériel céramique produit localement pouvait même laisser supposer que le site aurait pu être abandonné à la fin de l’âge du fer, et n’être réoccupé qu’à partir du règne d’Antiochos IV. À défaut d’avoir été une colonie fondée par Alexandre le Grand, Gerasa apparaissait plutôt comme un petit village, aux origines très anciennes certes, mais peu développé, coupé du monde méditerranéen si ce n’est déserté, avant d’être refondé au début du iie siècle avant notre ère, lors de l’intégration définitive de la région dans le royaume séleucide. La découverte d’une cinquantaine de nouveaux témoins épi­g raphiques d’importations vinaires sur les bords du Chrysorhoas est donc particulièrement importante pour notre connaissance de la Gerasa hellénistique.

Hellenistic and Roman Gerasa: The Archaeo­logy and History of a Decapolis City, ed. by Achim Lichtenberger and Rubina Raja, JP 5 (Turnhout: Brepols, 2020), 145–172 BREPOLS PUBLISHERS DOI 10.1484/M.JP-EB.5.120810

Stéphane Duplessis et Francesca Di Napoli

146 Aux sept anses timbrées retrouvées par les fouilleurs anglo-américains il y a près d’un siècle et publiées par Charles B. Welles dans Carl. H. Kraeling 1938 et incorporées dans cette étude,4 les fouilles récentes et les ramassages de surface ont permis la mise au jour de : – quarante-cinq anses timbrées lors de la fouille des abords du sanctuaire de Zeus (dont une totalement illisible) ; – quatre anses timbrées (n° 6, 7, 17 et 18), figurent en outre dans les collections du musée de Jerash. Probablement découvertes au cours des différents travaux menés par les agents du DoA sur le site, elles ne portent malheureusement aucune indication de provenance. Il est très vraisemblable que quelques autres exemplaires soient conservés dans les réserves ; – une anse timbrée fut découverte lors de la fouille du Macellum par l’équipe espagnole5 ; – une anse timbrée lors de la fouille de la cathédrale par l’équipe suisse6 ; – deux anses timbrées, lors de la fouille du ‘City Wall’.7 Ces quatre derniers documents, dont seuls les dessins de deux d’entre eux ont été publiés, n’ont pas été incorporés à cette recherche. L’étude qui suit est le résultat d’un mémoire de Master I soutenu en 2013 à l’Université de Tours par Stéphane Duplessis.8 Réalisé dans des conditions difficiles en raison de l’éloignement et pendant un temps réduit par les contraintes administratives universitaires, ce travail est une première approche de ce matériel céramique spécifique. Il résulte de l’examen visuel direct des anses conservées et accessibles au cours d’une courte mission à Jerash. Les illustrations ­g raphiques, réalisées au fil des ans, au fur et à mesure des découvertes, sont de la main de plusieurs dessinateurs (Stéphane Duplessis, Odile Dussart, Jean Humbert, Ussam Obeidat et Jacques Seigne). Les textes des empreintes, dessinés par des non 4 

Anses publiées par Welles sous les numéros 241 à 247 dans Kraeling 1938, 460–61 et présentés ci-dessous sous les numéros 8, 9, 10, 11, 17, 24 et 42. Tous nos remerciements vont à Lisa Brody, Megan Doyon et Michael Moore, gestionnaires des collections ‘Gerasa’ à la Yale Uni­ver­sity Art Gallery qui ont bien voulu nous fournir les photo­graphies des estampilles découvertes par la mission anglo-américaine. 5  Uscatescu 1992, 160 et 162, fig. 2.147. 6  Jäggi et autres 1997, 318, fig. 7 n.° 14. 7  Kehrberg-Ostrasz 2018, 442, 1a–b. 8  Duplessis 2013.

spécialistes des amphores, ne correspondent pas toujours aux lectures proposées. Par manque de temps, ils n’ont pas été repris et figurent comme simples documents à côté des photo­g raphies dues, pour la plupart, au talent de Christine Durand.9 La publication de ce mémoire, grâce à Rubina Raja, professeure d’archéo­logie classique à l’Université de Aarhus, Danemark, et directrice du Centre for Urban Net­work Evolutions (UrbNet), et à Achim Lichten­ berger, professeur d’archéo­logie classique à l’Université de Münster en Allemagne, permettra de mettre à la disposition des spécialistes du commerce antique du vin l’un des rares ensembles de timbres amphoriques trouvés à l’est du Jourdain. Francesca Di Napoli, archéo­logue céramo­ logue à l’Institut National de la Recherche en Archéo­logie Préventive, centre de Tours, a bien voulu revoir ce mémoire et le mettre aux normes des publications spécialisées.

Présentation Cette étude porte sur un ensemble de cinquante-quatre timbres amphoriques provenant des différentes campagnes de fouilles réalisées ces dernières décennies à Jerash ( Jordanie). La plupart des timbres présentés, soit quarante-quatre éléments, est issue des fouilles françaises réalisées sur et autour du sanctuaire de Zeus entre 1982 et 2014, plus particulièrement de la zone dite ‘Souk Est’ correspondant aux installations artisanales et commerciales installées sur le côté oriental de la rue sud, entre Place Ovale et Porte Sud (Fig. 6.1). Les autres timbres proviennent soit des fouilles anglo-américaines anciennes (1928/1933), soit des chantiers plus récents des missions espagnole (Macellum), suisse (‘Cathédrale’) et australienne (Rempart). Quatre timbres, exposés au musée de Jerash, proviennent de découvertes fortuites (Department of Antiquities) non localisées. Aucun timbre n’a été trouvé dans un niveau hellénistique, puisque toutes les couches de découverte connues correspondent à des niveaux de remblais datables des époques romaine ou byzantine. Les timbres étudiés sont originaires de l’île de Rhodes qui, du iiie siècle avant et jusqu’au iie siècle après notre ère, produisit du vin destiné essentiellement à l’expor9 

Grâce à Marc Griesheimer, alors directeur de l’archéo­logie à l’IFPO, nous avions pu bénéficier, en 2012 du concours de Christine Durand, photo­g raphe rattachée au centre Camille Jullian/CNRS, Aix en Provence. Les clichés correspondant aux anses découvertes entre 1928 et 1933 ont aimablement été fournis par la Yale Uni­ver­ sity Art Gallery (voir ci-avant note 4).

6. Les timbres amphoriques trouvés à Jerash

Figure 6.1. Emplacements des découvertes des anses timbrées ( J. Seigne d’après plan Th. Lepaon 2011).

147

Stéphane Duplessis et Francesca Di Napoli

148

Figure 6.2. Typo­logie des amphores rhodiennes des iie (a) et ier (b) siècles avant notre ère (d’après Sciallano et Sibella 1991).

tation. Cette denrée, et par conséquent, les amphores qui la transportaient, envahirent les marchés d’Orient d’abord, puis ceux d’Occident pendant plusieurs siècles (Fig. 6.2). Hormis deux exemplaires d’origine lusitanienne et donc plus tardifs (n° catalogue 53 et 54), le corpus concerne des timbres datés de la période hellénistique, contemporaine de la ‘fondation’ séleucide et du début de l’occupation hellénistique attestée de la ville, entre le iie et le ier siècle avant notre ère. À partir de cette période et jusqu’à l’époque augustéenne les amphores rhodiennes sont systématiquement estampillées sur les deux anses, reproduisant ainsi sur l’une le nom de l’éponyme (le magistrat dont la charge est annuelle), parfois accompagné de la mention du mois, et le nom du fabricant sur l’autre.10 10 

Empereur et Hesnard 1987, 15–17.

Figure 6.3. Fragment d’amphore portant l’estampille n° 18 ( J. Seigne).

À Jerash, aucun récipient complet ou partie supérieure présentant les deux anses n’est répertorié (à l’exception du fragment portant le timbre 18, voir Fig. 6.3). Les timbres étudiés proviennent d’anses isolées, fragmentaires. La lecture des timbres et leur interprétation, parfois, malaisées en raison soit du mauvais état de conservation, soit de l’homonymie aussi bien d’éponymes que de fabricants, se réfèrent aux travaux de Martin Nilsson, Virginia Grace, Gerald Finkielsztejn et la base de données Amphoralex mise en place par Jean-Yves Empereur pour le Centre Alexandrin d’Étude des Amphores.11

11  Nilsson 1909 ; Grace 1934 ; 1953 ; 1974 ; 1979 ; 1985 ; 1986 ; Finkielsztejn 2001 ; [accédé 20 novembre 2018].

6. Les timbres amphoriques trouvés à Jerash

Planche 1. Cat. 1–7.

149

150

Stéphane Duplessis et Francesca Di Napoli

Planche 2. Cat. 8–13.

6. Les timbres amphoriques trouvés à Jerash

Planche 3. Cat. 14–18.

151

152

Stéphane Duplessis et Francesca Di Napoli

Planche 4. Cat. 19–26.

6. Les timbres amphoriques trouvés à Jerash

Planche 5. Cat. 29–33

153

154

Stéphane Duplessis et Francesca Di Napoli

Planche 6. Cat. 34–39.

6. Les timbres amphoriques trouvés à Jerash

Planche 7. Cat. 40–46.

155

156

Stéphane Duplessis et Francesca Di Napoli

Planche 8. Cat. 47–54.

6. Les timbres amphoriques trouvés à Jerash

157

Catalogue des timbres amphoriques Tabl. 6.1. Liste récapitulative des timbres présentés. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

C.8620 C. 9835 C.9840 C.9854 C. 10077 G. 346 G. 1317 Welles 241 Welles 243 Welles 242 Welles 247 C. 34 C.42 C. 9824 C.9832 Welles 244 G. 349 G.? C. 10100 C. 10107 C. 8621 C. 10041 C. 9836 Welles 246 C. 5772 C.8622 C.8623

Pl. I Pl. I Pl. I Pl. I Pl. I Pl. I Pl. II Pl. II Pl. II Pl. II Pl. II Pl. II Pl. III Pl. III Pl. III Pl. III Pl. III Pl. IV Pl. IV Pl. IV Pl. IV Pl. IV Pl. IV Pl. IV Pl. V Pl. V Pl. V

28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54

C.9752 C. 9839 C. 9867 C. 10098 C. 9514 C. 9796 C. 10101 C. 9501 C. 9837 C. 10065 C. 10099 C. 10066 C. 10078 C. 9770 Welles 245 C.9490 C. 5775 C.9462 C.9822 C.9844 C. 10088 C. 10089 C. 10097 C. 9841 C. 9838 C. 10086 C.9515

Pl. V Pl. V Pl. V Pl. V Pl. VI Pl. VI Pl. VI Pl. VI Pl. VI Pl. VII Pl. VII Pl. VII Pl. VII Pl. VII Pl. VII Pl. VIII Pl. VIII Pl. VIII Pl. VIII Pl. VIII Pl. VIII Pl. VIII Pl. IX Pl. IX Pl. IX Pl. IX Pl. IX

Introduction au catalogue Le catalogue suivant répertorie cinquante-quatre timbres (Tabl. 6.1 et Planches hors texte 1 à 912). La présentation obéit à différents critères ; figurent d’abord les timbres complets puis ceux lacunaires dont la lecture et l’interprétation ne sont pas toujours aisées. Ils sont ordonnés selon la mention de l’éponyme, éponyme et symbole, fabricant, fabricant et symbole. En dernier apparaissent

les timbres anépi­g raphes où seul le symbole est représenté ou lisible. Chaque timbre comporte l’indication d’un numéro de catalogue, suivi, lorsqu’elle est connue, de la provenance (lieu de découverte) puis du type de timbre, sa lecture et enfin son interprétation et sa datation. Une grande majorité des timbres présentés est issue des fouilles du ‘Souk Est’ réalisées par l’équipe française (Fig. 6.1). Ils sont référencés par le numéro d’enregistrement de céramique de la mission (C. suivi d’un nombre) précédant l’indication de leur provenance (numéro du sondage et de la couche strati­graphique). Sept timbres proviennent des fouilles anglo-américaines effectuées entre les deux guerres mondiales. Ces timbres, publiés par Charles B. Welles dans Gerasa City of the Decapolis, 13 portent les références Welles 241 à 247. Le lieu de découverte est indiqué en suivant. Quatre timbres proviennent de ‘ramassages de surface’ (= découvertes non renseignées) et sont déposés au musée de Jerash où trois ont été enregistrés (lettre G. suivie d’un nombre). Les conventions adoptées pour la description des légendes des timbres sont les suivantes :

[ABΓ] lettres peu ou pas lisibles, mais dont la lecture, proposée entre crochets, est très probable.



[…] lettres non identifiées, en nombre égal à celui des points.



[---] lettres non identifiées, en nombre inconnu.



(ABΓ) lettres omises involontairement, par oubli, ou volontairement, pour abréviation.



{ ABΓ} lettres employées de manière ortho­ graphiquement erronée.



c. 234 av. J.-C.F datation établie par Finkielsztejn 2001.

dessins sont de Stéphane Duplessis, Odile Dussart, Jean Humbert, Issam Obeidat et Jacques Seigne ; les photos sont de Christine Durand, Stéphane Duplessis et Jacques Seigne. Nous adressons nos plus vifs remerciements à M. Doyon et L. Brody de la Yale Uni­ver­sity Art Gallery pour leur aimable transmission des photos des anses d’amphores timbrées conservées aux USA.

/ endroit où aurait dû se situer une séparation de mots.

269–240 av. J.-C.G datation établie par Grace 1974 ; 1985 ou 1986.

12   Les

13 

Kraeling 1938.

Stéphane Duplessis et Francesca Di Napoli

158

Timbres complets

5 — C. 10077

AVEC ÉPONYME 1 — C. 8620 Provenance : AK 98/4. Type : Timbre rhodien ; taille : 4,4 × 1,5 cm. Matrice rectangulaire sans attribut. Le déchiffrement de la légende en deux lignes suggère de lire :

ΕΠΙ Θ[ΡΑΣΥΜ]ΑXΟΥ ΥΑΚΙΝΘΙΟΥ La préposition ἐπί est suivie du nom de l’éponyme, sans doute Θρασύμαχος (Thrasymachos : 85–40 av. J.-C. ; période VIIa), et du nom du mois (Ὑακίνθιος).

Provenance : AI AJ 97/108. Type : Timbre rhodien ; taille : 3,3 × 1,6 cm. Matrice rectangulaire sans attribut, écriture stylisée. Légende  en deux lignes :

ΕΠΙ / CωΔ ΑΜΟΥ

Σώδαμος : éponyme (Sodamos : c. 195 av. J.-C.F ; période IIIa).

6 — G. 346 Provenance : inconnue. Type : Timbre rhodien ; taille : 4,2 × 2,0 cm. Matrice rectangulaire sans attribut  ; la légende est imprimée en miroir rétrograde. Légende en trois lignes :

ΕΠΙ ΙΕΡΕωΣ ΑΡΧΙΛΑΙΔΑ ΚΑΡΝΕΙΟ[Υ]

2 — C. 9835 Provenance : AJ 98/entre le seuil et la rue. Type : Timbre rhodien ; taille : 4,9 × 1,7 cm. Matrice rectangulaire sans attribut. Légende en trois lignes :

ΕΠΙ ΟΝΑΣΑΝ ΔΡΟΥ ΠΑΝΑΜΟΥ La préposition ἐπί est suivie du nom de l’éponyme, Ὀνάσανδρος (Onasandros  ; c.  219 av.  J.-C.F  ; période IIb) et du nom du mois (Πάναμος).

3 — C. 9840 Provenance : AG 98/17. Type : Timbre rhodien ; taille : 4,2 × 2,1 cm. Matrice rectangulaire sans attribut. Légende en trois lignes :

ΕΠΙ ΝΙΚΑΣΑ ΓΟΡΑ ΥΑΚΙΝΘΙΟΥ La préposition ἐπί est suivie du nom de l’éponyme, Νικασαγόρας (sans doute Nikasagoras II14 ; c. 131 av. J.-C.F ; période Vb) et du nom du mois (Ὑακίνθιος).

4 — C. 9854 Provenance : AE 98/égout I. Type : Timbre rhodien ; taille : 5,1 × 1,8 cm. Matrice rectangulaire sans attribut. Légende en deux lignes :

ΕΠΙ MENE[---] CΜΙΝΘΙΟΥ La préposition ἐπί est suivie du nom de l’éponyme, peut-être Μενέλαος (Ménélaos : 85–40 av. J.-C. ; période VIIa) et du nom du mois (Σμίνθιος). 14   Ce timbre ressemble beaucoup au timbre ALEX ABC. 0174.35 (MGR P. 19360) de la base Amphoralex du Centre Alexandrin d’Étude des Amphores.

La préposition ἐπί est suivie de l’épithète ἰερεύς (‘prêtre’) précédant le nom de l’éponyme, Ἀρχιλαίδας (Archilaidas  : c.  165/63 av. J.-C. ; c. 182–176 ; 177 av. J.-C.G ; période iiie) et du nom du mois (Kάρνειος).15

7 — G. 1317 Provenance : inconnue. Type : Timbre rhodien ; taille : 4,1 × 2,2 cm. Matrice rectangulaire sans attribut. Légende en trois lignes :

Ε[ΠΙ] ΤΙΜΟ ΘΕΟΥ ΠΑΝΑΜΟΥ La préposition ἐπί est suivie du nom de l’éponyme, Τιμόθεος (Timo­ théos : c. 128 av. J.-C.F ; période Vb) et du nom du mois (Πάναμος).16

8 — Welles 24117 Provenance  : Fouilles américaines 1930, Forum (= Place Ovale) Pièce 21. Type : Timbre rhodien. Matrice rectangulaire sans attribut. Légende en deux lignes :

ΕΠ’ /ΙΕΡΕωΣ Θ[Ε]ΡΣΑΝΔΡΟΥ La préposition ἐπί est suivie de l’épithète ἰερεύς (‘prêtre’) précédant le nom de l’éponyme, Θέρσανδρος (Thersandros  : c.  137/36 av. J.-C. ; 141/35 av. J.-C. ; période Va). 15  Cette matrice est exactement identique à celle répertoriée dans la base de données Amphoralex sous le n° d’inventaire ALEX MGR P.1117.38. 16  Cette matrice est exactement identique à celle répertoriée dans la base de données Amphoralex sous le n°  d’inventaire TAPOSIRIS MAGNA 024. 17  Welles 241 in Kraeling 1938, 460.

6. Les timbres amphoriques trouvés à Jerash 9 — Welles 24318 Provenance  : Fouilles américaines, sanctuaire d’Artémis, dans la cour, au N de la colonne S14 (14e colonne du portique sud). Type : Timbre rhodien. Matrice rectangulaire sans attribut. Légende en trois lignes :

ΕΠΙ /ΕΥΔΑΜ ΟΥ Π[Α]ΝΑΜΟΥ La préposition ἐπί est suivie du nom de l’éponyme, Εὔδαμος (Euda­ mos : 152–146 av. J.-C. ; période IVb), et du nom du mois (Πάναμος).

10 — Welles 24219 Provenance : Fouilles américaines, Forum (= Place Ovale). Pièce 1. Type : Timbre rhodien. Matrice rectangulaire sans attribut. Légende en deux lignes :

ΕΠΙ ΑΡΧΙΝΟΥ Δ[ΑΛΙΟΥ] La préposition ἐπί est suivie du nom de l’éponyme, Ἀρχίνος (Ar­chinos : c. 120 av. J.-C. ; période Vc), et du nom du mois (Δάλιος).20

11 — Welles 24721 Provenance : Fouilles anglo-américaines, dans les remblais de l’aile S de St. Théodore. Type : Timbre rhodien. Matrice ovale sans attribut. Légende en une seule ligne, intraduisible :

ΕΥΡΥΚΡΑ[---] On peut penser à une erreur de lecture et supposer qu’il s’agit de ΕΠΙ ΕΥΚΡΑ[ΤΕΥΣ] ; la préposition ἐπί serait alors suivie du nom de l’éponyme Εὐκράτης (Eukratès : 145–108 av. J.-C. ; période V).

AVEC ÉPONYME ET SYMBOLE 12 — C. 34 Provenance : AN AO 95/8. Type : Timbre rhodien ; taille : Ø 3.4 cm. Matrice circulaire avec une rose comme attribut. Au revers, légende présentant un K peut être suivi d’un Λ. Autour de la rose, légende avec le sommet des lettres pointant vers l’intérieur :

ΕΠΙ

Welles 243 in Kraeling 1938, 460. Welles 242 in Kraeling 1938, 460. 20  La lecture du nom du mois a été faite par les chercheurs anglais ; il n’existe aucune représentation de ce timbre. 21  Welles 247 in Kraeling 1938, 460–61. 19 

(Δάλιος, si l’on considère que les lettres CΑΔ ont été mal interprétées par le dessinateur22).

13 — C. 42 Provenance : AN AO 95/9. Type : Timbre rhodien ; taille : 5,3 × 1,7 cm. Matrice rectangulaire avec attribut (feuille de lierre ou grappe). Légende en une seule ligne :

ΜΕΝΕΚΛΕΥΣ Μενεκλῆς : éponyme (Ménéklès : 85–40 av. J.-C. ; période VI–VIIa).

14 — C. 9824 Provenance : AG 99/21. Type : Timbre rhodien ; taille : Ø 3,6 cm. Matrice circulaire avec une rose comme attribut. Autour de la rose, légende avec le sommet des lettres pointant vers l’extérieur :

EΠ[I APΙΣ]ΤΕΙΔΑ Δ[ΑΛΙ]ΟΥ La préposition ἐπί est suivie du nom de l’éponyme, Ἀριστείδας : éponyme (Aristeidas I23 ? ; c. 220 av. J.-C. ; 240–225 av. J.-C.G ; période IIa ?), et du nom du mois (sans doute Δάλιος, et non Διόσθυος, étant donné la place restant pour les lettres manquantes).

15 — C. 9832 Provenance : AF 98/Nettoyage mur boutique. Type : Timbre rhodien ; taille : Ø 3,5 cm. Matrice circulaire avec un buste d’Hélios comme attribut. Autour de la rose, légende avec le sommet des lettres pointant vers l’extérieur :

[Ε]ΠΙ /ΔΑΜ[---]Σ ΥΑΚΙΝΘ[ΙΟΥ]

La préposition ἐπί est suivie du nom peu lisible de l’éponyme — 6 noms rhodiens peuvent correspondre aux trois lettres ΔΑΜ et à un génitif Σ : Δαμόθεμις (Damothémis : c. 91 av. J.-C. ; période IIIa), Δαμόκλης I (Damoklès  I  : 304–271  av.  J.-C.  ; période Ia), Δαμόκλης II (Damoklès II : c. 176/74 av. J.-C.F ; avant 188 av. J.-C.G période IIIc), Δαμοκράτης I (Damokratès  I  : c.  244 av.  J.-C.F  ; 269–240 av.  J.-C.G  ; période Ic), Δαμοκράτης II (Damokratès  II  : 107–88/86  av.  J.-C.  ; période VI), Δαμοσθένης (Damosthénès  : 304–271 av. J.-C. ; période Ia) — et du nom du mois (Ὑακίνθιος). Cette indication du mois, absente de la période Ia, m’amène donc à écarter Δαμόκλης I et Δαμοσθένης.

ΑΡΙΣ[ΤΟΓ]ΕΝΕΥΣ {CΑΔ}[..]Υ

La préposition ἐπί est suivie du nom de l’éponyme  : Ἀριστογένης (Aristogénès : vers 129 av. J.-C. ; période Vb), suivi du nom du mois

18 

159

22  Il n’a pas été possible de travailler directement sur ce timbre. Il a donc fallu s’appuyer uniquement sur un dessin déjà existant. 23  Ce timbre ressemble beaucoup au timbre de la production d’Aristeidas I répertorié sous le n° d’inventaire ALEX ABC. 0068.30 (MGR P. 23444) de la base Amphoralex du Centre Alexandrin d’Étude des Amphores. Cependant, il peut s’agir aussi d’Aristeidas III (c.  111 av.  J.-C.F  ; période Vc), dont certains timbres sont assez proches. Cette seconde datation serait plus en accord avec la chrono­ logie du site de Jerash.

Stéphane Duplessis et Francesca Di Napoli

160 16 — Wells 24424

20 — C. 10107

Provenance  : Fouilles anglo-américaines 1928/1933. Thermes de Placcus, salle A51. Type : Timbre rhodien. Matrice circulaire avec un buste d’Hélios de face comme attribut. Autour du buste, légende avec le sommet des lettres pointant vers l’extérieur :

Provenance : AV 105. Type : Timbre rhodien ; taille : 3,4 × 1,5 cm. Matrice rectangulaire sans attribut. Légende en deux lignes :

ΕΠΙ /ΛΕΟΝΤΙΔΑ ΑΡ[ΤΑ]ΜΙ[ΤΙΟΥ] La préposition ἐπί est suivie du nom de l’éponyme, Λεοντίδας (Léontidas  : c.  127 av.  J.-C.  ; période Vb), et du nom du mois (Ἀρταμίτιος).25

ΔΑΜΟΝΙΚΟΥ ΘΕΣΜΟΦΟΡΙΟ[Υ] Le nom du fabricant, Δαμόνικος27 (Damonikos  : c.  240–230 av. J.-C. ; période IIa), est suivi du nom du mois (Θεσμοφόριος).

21 — C. 8621 Provenance : AG 98/13. Type : timbre rhodien ; taille : 3,9 × 1,6 cm. Matrice rectangulaire sans attribut. Légende en une seule ligne :

FABRICANT

[Α]ΦΡΟΔΙΣΙΟΥ

17 — G. 349 Provenance : inconnue. Type : Timbre rhodien ; taille : Ø 3,1 cm. Matrice circulaire avec une rose comme attribut. Δ au revers de l’anse. Autour de la rose, légende avec le sommet des lettres pointant vers l’extérieur :

ΑΝΑΞΙΜΕΝΕΥΣ Ἀναξιμένης : fabricant (Anaximénès : 145–108 av. J.-C. ; période V).

18 — G. ? (sans numéro) Provenance : inconnue. Type : Timbre rhodien ; taille : Ø ≈ 3,0 cm. Matrice circulaire avec une rose comme attribut  ; légende avec le sommet des lettres pointant vers l’extérieur :

ΑΛΕΧΑΝΔΡΟΥ Ἀλεξάνδρος : fabricant (Alexandros I ; 145–108 av. J.-C. ; période V).

19 — C. 10100 Provenance : X 96/106. Type : Timbre rhodien ; taille : 3,6 × 1,8 cm. Matrice rectangulaire sans attribut. Légende en 1 seule ligne.

ΤΙΜAΚΡΑΤEYΣ Τιμακράτης  : fabricant (Timakratès  : 210–175 av.  J.-C.  ; périodes IIc–IIIc).26

Άφροδισίος : fabricant (Aphrodisios II ; 145–108 av. J.-C. ; période V). Il existe deux autres fabricants du même nom, mais Aphrodisios I n’emploie que des matrices circulaires et le nom d’Aphrodisios III, sur ses timbres, est écrit sur deux lignes ou en écriture rétrograde.

FABRICANT ET SYMBOLE 22 — C. 10041 Provenance : AH 97/US 2023. Type : Timbre rhodien ; taille : 4,6 × 1,3 cm. Matrice rectangulaire avec deux attributs, une grappe en haut à droite et en bas un caducée ailé orienté vers la droite. Légende en une seule ligne :

ΜΙΔ

Μίδας : fabricant (Midas : 131–118 av. J.-C. ; périodes Vb–Vc). Ce fabricant très prolifique emploie essentiellement  comme attributs l’association du caducée et de la grappe de raisin, qui figure sur ce timbre.28

23 — C. 9836 Provenance : AH 98/14. Type : Timbre rhodien ; taille : 3,8 × 1,5 cm. Matrice rectangulaire avec, en haut à droite, une rose comme attribut. Légende en une seule ligne :

[OΛY]MΠOY Ὄλυμπος : fabricant (Olympos29).

24 

Wells 243 in Kraeling 1938, 460. 25  La lecture du nom du mois a été faite par les chercheurs anglais, mais l’état de la photo­graphie ne permet pas de retranscrire l’ensemble de cette inscription. 26  Finkielsztejn 2001, 205 évoque ‘le témoignage irréfutable d’une association de deux fabricants, Τιμακράτης et Ἡράκλειτος’. Or, on sait que ce deuxième fabricant a exercé entre 210 et 175 av. J.-C. (cf. Bertucchi et Marangou-Lerat 1989, 77).

27 

Cf. Wallace Matheson et Wallace 1982, 296. Cf. aussi Nilsson 1909, 330 : ‘137 jars found during construction at the Hôtel de Soleil in the city of Rhodes almost all the eponym’s stamps (123) named Pausanias (c. 240–30) and the fabricant stamps Damonikos, Kreon, Mikythos, or Xenotimos’. 28  Le même timbre est issu des fouilles du macellum dirigées par l’équipe espagnole (Uscatescu 1992, 160, 162 fig. 2.147). 29  Le même timbre figure in Grace 1934, 306. L’auteur le date

6. Les timbres amphoriques trouvés à Jerash

161

24 — Welles 24630

28 — C. 9752

Provenance  : fouilles anglo-américaines, 1928/1933. Sanctuaire d’Arté­mis, au nord de la colonne S14 (14e colonne du portique sud). Type : Timbre rhodien. Matrice rectangulaire avec, en haut, un pilier hermaïque orienté vers la gauche comme attribut. Légende en une seule ligne :

Provenance : AP 98/10. Type : Timbre d’origine indéterminée ; taille : 2,9 × 2,3 cm. Matrice rectangulaire sans attribut. Matrice fragmentaire. Légende en deux lignes, illisibles :

EΠI ΠY[---] [---]Y

ΠΑΠΑ Παπᾶς : fabricant (Papas ; 160–146 av. J.-C. ; période IV).

SYMBOLE

Légende en deux lignes, peu lisibles. La préposition ἐπί est suivie du nom illisible de l’éponyme.

29 — C. 9839

25 — C. 5772 Provenance : AB 102/34. Type : timbre rhodien ; taille : 4,6 × 1,5 cm. Matrice rectangulaire sans légende avec pour attributs un caducée orienté à droite et une grappe en haut à droite. Ce timbre semble se rapprocher du timbre n° 22, du fabricant Μίδας (Midas : 131–118 av. J.-C. ; périodes Vb–Vc). Ce fabricant associe très souvent, comme sur ce timbre, le caducée et la grappe de raisin.

Provenance : AH 98/couche cendreuse. Type : Timbre d’origine indéterminée ; taille : 4,9 × 1,6 cm. Matrice rectangulaire sans attribut. Légende en une seule ligne, illisible.

ΕΠΙ [---] Le début du timbre laisse deviner la préposition ἐπί qui annonce un éponyme.

30 — C. 9867 Provenance : AP 99/mur. Type : Timbre rhodien ; taille : 3,6 × 1,6 cm. Matrice rectangulaire sans attribut. Légende en deux lignes :

Timbres lacunaires AVEC ÉPONYME

ΕΠΙ [---]ΓΟ[---] ΑΓΡΙΑΝΙΟΥ

26 — C. 8622 Provenance : AJ 99/28 Type  : Timbre d’origine indéterminée, probablement rhodienne  ; taille : 4,4 × 2,0 cm. Matrice rectangulaire sans attribut. Légende en une seule ligne :

ΕΠΙ ΣΙMIA Le déchiffrement de quelques caractères suggère la préposition ἐπί suivie du nom peu lisible de l’éponyme, sans doute Σιμίας (Simias : 85–40 av. J.-C. ; période VIIa).

27 — C. 8623 Provenance : AI 108/12. Type : timbre rhodien ; taille : 4,5 × 1,8 cm. Matrice rectangulaire sans attribut. Légende en deux lignes :

La préposition ἐπί est suivie du nom de l’éponyme, illisible, et du nom du mois (Ἀγριάνιος), ce qui indique que ce timbre est postérieur à la période Ia.

31 — C. 10098 Provenance : X 96/121. Type : Timbre rhodien ; taille : 3,7 × 1,8 cm. Matrice rectangulaire sans attribut. Légende en trois lignes :

ΕΠΙ ΤΙΜΑ[ΓΟ] ΡΑ ΠΕ{Τ}ΑΓΕI[ΤΝIΟΥ] La préposition ἐπί est suivie du nom de l’éponyme, Τιμαγόρας (Timagoras I32 : 132–121 av. J.-C. ; période Vb) et du nom du mois (Πεδαγείτνιος écrit Πεταγείτνιος).

ΕΠ [---]X[---]ΕΙ ΣΜΙ[ΝΘΙΟΥ] Le déchiffrement des quelques caractères lisibles suggère la préposition ἐπί suivie du nom illisible de l’éponyme et du nom du mois (Σμίνθιος), ce qui indique que ce timbre est postérieur à la période Ia.31 du ‘dernier quart du IIIe siècle av. J.-C.’ ; cependant, Finkielsztejn 2001 classe ce fabricant en périodes III–IV, ce qui incite à rester prudent sur sa datation. 30  Welles 246 in Kraeling 1938, 460. 31  Cf. Finkielsztejn 2001, 55.

32  Cette matrice est exactement identique à celle répertoriée dans la base de données Amphoralex sous le n°  d’inventaire KF 545/100545.

Stéphane Duplessis et Francesca Di Napoli

162

AVEC ÉPONYME ET SYMBOLE

FABRICANT ET SYMBOLE

32 — C. 9514

36 — C. 9837

Provenance : AM 99/6. Type : Timbre rhodien ; taille : Ø 3,3 cm. Matrice circulaire avec une rose comme attribut. Autour de la rose, légende avec le sommet des lettres pointant vers l’intérieur.

Provenance : AL 98/22. Type : Timbre rhodien ; taille : Ø 3,5 cm. Matrice circulaire avec une rose comme attribut. Autour de la rose, légende avec le sommet des lettres pointant vers l’intérieur :

EΠI /ANΔPONEIKOY A[Γ][---]

ΤΙΜΟΞ[ΕΝΟ]Υ

La préposition ἐπί est suivie du nom de l’éponyme, Άνδρόνικος (Andronikos  : vers 132 av.  J.-C.F  ; période Vb)  ; la lettre qui suit l’éponyme (A…) suivie d’une barre verticale suggère que le mois associé est soit Ἀρταμίτιος soit Ἀγριάνιος.

Τιμόξενος : fabricant (Timoxénos : 145–133 av. J.-C. ; période Va).

33 — C. 9796 Provenance : AF 98/21. Type : Timbre rhodien ; taille : Ø 3,1 cm. Matrice circulaire avec une rose comme attribut. Autour de la rose, légende avec le sommet des lettres pointant vers l’extérieur :

EΠI /APXIΛAIΔ[A ΠANA]MOY La préposition ἐπί est suivie du nom de l’éponyme, Ἀρχιλαίδας (Archilaidas  : c.  165/163F av.  J.-C., c.  182–176  ; 177 av.  J.-C.G  ; période iiie) et du nom du mois (Πάναμος).

34 — C. 10101 Provenance : AK 97/HS. Type : Timbre rhodien ; taille : Ø 3,4 cm. Matrice circulaire avec une tête radiée d’Hélios comme attribut. Autour de la tête, légende avec le sommet des lettres pointant vers l’extérieur :

[ΑΡΙΣΤΟ]ΓΕΝEYΣ

Άριστογένης : éponyme (Aristogénès : c. 129 av. J.-C.  ; période Vb). Le nom du mois est illisible. La terminaison -γενευς pourrait convenir à trois éponymes : Aristo­ génès, Theugénès et Pythogénès, mais seul Aristogénès fait figurer un buste d’Hélios sous cette présentation. F

FABRICANT

37 — C. 10065 Provenance : AM 98/106. Type : Timbre rhodien ; taille : 4,6 × 1,6 cm. Matrice rectangulaire avec en bas un caducée ailé orienté vers la droite comme attribut. Légende en 1 seule ligne ΕΥΚΛΕ[ΙΤΟΥ] Εὔκλειτος : fabricant (Eukleitos : 147–127 av. J.-C. ; périodes IVb– Vb).

38 — C. 10099 Provenance : X 96/121. Type : Timbre rhodien ; taille : Ø ≈ 3,0 cm. Matrice circulaire avec une rose comme attribut. Autour de la rose, légende avec le sommet des lettres pointant vers l’intérieur :

[ΔA]ΜΟΦ[IΛΟΥ] On peut supposer qu’il s’agit du fabricant Δαμόφιλος (Damophilos : 145–133 av. J.-C. ; période V).33

SYMBOLE 39 — C. 10066 Provenance : AK 97/101 Type : Timbre rhodien ; taille : Ø ≈ 3,6 cm. Matrice circulaire avec une rose comme attribut. Autour de la rose, légende illisible.

40 — C. 10078

35 — C. 9501 Provenance : AL 99/14. Type : Timbre rhodien ; taille : 4,5 × 1,6 cm. Matrice rectangulaire sans attribut avec deux bandes verticales paral­lèles sur le côté gauche. Légende en deux lignes, peu lisibles.

Provenance : AK 97/120 Type : Timbre d’origine indéterminée ; taille : 3,5 × 1,1 cm. Matrice rectangulaire avec, en bas à droite, une hache à double tranchant comme attribut. Légende en deux lignes, illisibles.

ΘEYΔ[ΑΙΣI] OY / AΓAΘHM[EPOY Le déchiffrement des caractères lisibles suggère le nom du mois (Θευδαίσιος) suivi du nom du fabricant : Ἀγαθήμερος (Agathèméros : 107–186 av. J.-C. ; période VI).

33   Cf.  Finkielsztejn 2001, 143. L’auteur classe Δαμόφιλος parmi ‘les fabricants aux timbres circulaires à la rose’, dont les lettres sont ‘orientées vers l’intérieur, dans un cadre’, ce qui correspond exactement à ce timbre.

6. Les timbres amphoriques trouvés à Jerash

MOIS

163 46 — C. 9822

41 — C. 9770 Provenance : AJ 98/remblais rue. Type : Timbre rhodien ; taille : 4,9 × 1,9 cm. Matrice rectangulaire sans attribut. Légende en deux lignes :

[---]POΣ AΓPIANIOY Légende en deux lignes, peu lisibles. Le déchiffrement des caractères lisibles offre le nom du mois (Ἀγριάνιος), ce qui indique que ce timbre est postérieur à la période Ia.

Provenance : AG 99/20 Type : Timbre non identifiable ; taille : 4,4 × 2,0 cm. Matrice rectangulaire sans attribut. Légende en grec en deux lignes, illisible.

47 — C. 9844 Provenance : AP 100/P2. Type : Timbre d’origine indéterminée ; taille : 4,0 × 1,7 cm. Matrice rectangulaire sans attribut. Légende en deux lignes, illisibles :

[---]ΠE[---] [---]OY

42 — Welles 245 Provenance : Forum (= Place Ovale). Sous la pièce 7. Type : Timbre rhodien. Matrice rectangulaire sans attribut. Légende : une seule ligne con­ servée :

ΣΜΙΝΘΙ(ΟΥ)

La partie supérieure du timbre est cassée. Seul le nom du mois est lisible (Σμινθιοσ) ce qui indique que ce timbre est postérieur à la période Ia.

43 — C. 9490 Provenance : Rue sud. Hors strati­graphie. Type : Timbre rhodien ; taille : 3,5 × 2,1 cm. Matrice rectangulaire sans attribut. Légende en deux lignes, peutêtre trois.

T[---] ΠΑΝΑΜ(ΟΥ) Sur la ligne inférieure se déchiffre le nom du mois (Παναμοσ) ce qui indique que ce timbre est postérieur à la période Ia.

INDÉTERMINÉ

48 — C. 10088 Provenance : AQ 99. Type : Timbre d’origine indéterminée ; taille : 4,3 × 1,5 cm. Matrice rectangulaire avec, peut-être, en bas à droite, une hache à double tranchant ou un ‘X’ souligné comme attribut. Illisible.

49 — C. 10089 Provenance : AQ 99/100. Type : timbre d’origine indéterminée ; taille : 5,3 × 1,7 cm. Matrice rectangulaire avec présence sur le côté droit d’un ‘compas’ ou ‘A’ stylisé comme attribut. Légende en deux lignes, illisibles.

50 — C. 10097 Provenance : X 96/118–121. Type : timbre rhodien ; taille : 5,6 × 2,6 cm. Matrice rectangulaire sans attribut. Légende sans doute en deux lignes :

MEN [---] [---]

51 — C. 9841

44 — C. 5775 Provenance : AD 102/9. Type : timbre d’origine indéterminée ; taille : 5,0 × 1,9 cm. Matrice rectangulaire avec pour attribut peut-être un caducée orienté vers la droite. Légende en une seule ligne, illisible.

45 — C. 9462 Provenance : Remblai sur rue, sud. Type : Timbre rhodien ; taille : 3,6 × 1,7 cm. Matrice rectangulaire sans attribut. Légende en deux lignes :

[---]Υ ΥΑΚΙΝΘΙΟΥ Seul se lit, sur la deuxième ligne, le nom du mois (Ὑακίνθιος), ce qui indique que ce timbre est postérieur à la période Ia.

Provenance : AL 98/20. Type : Timbre d’origine indéterminée ; taille 3,3 × 1,8 cm. Matrice rectangulaire sans attribut. Légende en deux lignes. Illisible

[---]ΔΡΟ[---] ΕΓ[---] 52 — C. 9838 Provenance : AJ 98/46. Type : Timbre rhodien ; taille : 0,9 (conservé) × 1,1 cm. Matrice rectangulaire avec une bande verticale accompagnée de cinq points de grénetis sur son côté droit à la gauche du timbre et présence possible d’une tête radiée d’Hélios, dont il ne resterait que l’extrémité d’un rayon. Illisible.

Stéphane Duplessis et Francesca Di Napoli

164

Timbres lusitaniens

Symboles

53 — C. 10086 Provenance : AQ 99/118 remblais rue. Type : Timbre lusitanien ; taille : 4,1 × 1,8 cm. Matrice rectangulaire avec, pour attribut, un rond qui prend la forme d’une sorte d’escargot à l’envers et orienté vers la gauche. Légende en une seule ligne et en latin :

SVI L’inscription SVI figure sur des amphores de la fin de l’Empire romain (fin iiie ap.  J.-C.–fin ve ap.  J.-C.) produites par un atelier lusitanien. Il s’agit d’amphores de type Almagro 50, qui contenait du garum.34

54 — C. 9515 Provenance : AM 99/6. Type : Timbre lusitanien ; taille : 5,1 × 1,7 cm. Matrice rectangulaire sans attribut. Légende  en une seule ligne et en latin :

LEVGEN L’inscription LEVGEN figure sur des amphores de la fin de l’Empire romain (fin iiie ap. J.-C.–fin ve ap. J.-C.), produites par un atelier lusitanien. LEVGEN peut sans doute être transcrit : L. EV (…) GEN(ialis).35 Il s’agit d’une amphore de type Almagro 50, qui contenait du garum.36

Analyse Éponymes et fabricants Les timbres catalogués (Tabl. 6.2) évoquent essentiellement des éponymes et des fabricants, ce qui concorde avec les timbres rhodiens habituellement connus et répertoriés pour la période hellénistique. Au total trentesix noms au génitif, douze fabricants et vingt-quatre éponymes, ont pu être identifiés. Parfois un même nom apparaît sur deux timbres différents. L’éponyme est le magistrat donnant son nom à l’année et il n’a pas de rôle actif dans l’élaboration du timbre sur lequel son nom apparaît en tant qu’élément datant. À Rhodes, ce magistrat est identifié avec le prêtre d’Hélios et il arrive que sa fonction ‘ἰερεύς’ soit indiquée sur le timbre. Le fabricant, soit l’ἐργαστηριάρχας, est le responsable, probablement le propriétaire, de l’atelier de production qui peut être aussi bien un homme qu’une femme, comme l’indiquent certains timbres. 34 

Cf. Teichner et Pujol 2008, 304. Cf. Keay 1984, 151. 36  Cf. Teichner et Pujol 2008, 304. 35 

De nombreux timbres présentent aussi un attribut, c’està-dire un motif qui peut porter différentes significations à la fois nationales, comme la rose ou Hélios, ou caractéristiques d’un atelier de production dont c’est la marque de fabrique. Les timbres du catalogue présentent six types d’attributs répertoriés ci-dessus. Rose

C’est un motif propre à l’île de Rhodes. Il est constitué le plus souvent d’une fleur à trois pétales et d’une feuille de chaque côté de la fleur. Ce motif se trouve quasi exclusivement sur des timbres circulaires (cf. timbres n° 12, 14, 17, 32, 33, 36, 38 et 39) mais parfois également sur des matrices rectangulaires (n° 23). Le choix de la rose comme symbole de l’île de Rhodes n’est pas anodin car l’île tient son nom de la rose — en grec ῥόδον — et Rhodes se dit Ῥόδος peut-être en raison de la présence dès l’Antiquité de ces fleurs en abondance sur l’île. Buste d’Hélios

Sur les timbres catalogués, ce buste est présenté sous forme d’épaules schématisées (n° 15, 16 et 34) et la tête couronnée de rayons (n° 52 ?). Ce motif, emblématique de Rhodes, évoque, à travers la mytho­logie, la divinité tutélaire de l’île. À cette dernière, selon Pindare,37 aurait été attribuée l’île lors d’un partage divin. Le lien du dieu avec Rhodes se concrétise ensuite par son union avec la nymphe Ῥόδος. Ces deux attributs ont été empruntés au monnayage rhodien, Hélios (ou la nymphe) constituant en général l’avers et la rose le revers des pièces rhodiennes (Figs 6.4 et 6.5).

37  Cf.  Pind. Ol. vii.14  : ὑμνέων παῖδ᾽ Ἀφροδίτας Ἀελίοιό τε νύμφαν, Ῥόδον (‘Je viens chanter la fille marine d’Aphrodite, Rhodes’, traduit par Puech 1970). Cf. aussi Pind. Ol. vii.69–73 : […] βλάστε μὲν ἐξ ἁλὸς ὑγρᾶς νᾶσος, ἔχει τέ νιν ὀξειᾶν ὁ γενέθλιος ἀκτίνων πατήρ, πῦρ πνεόντων ἀρχὸς ἵππων [accédé 20 novembre 2018]  : ἔνθα Ῥόδῳ ποτὲ μιχθεὶς τέκεν ἑπτὰ σοφώτατα νοήματ᾽ ἐπὶ προτέρων ἀνδρῶν παραδεξαμένους παῖδας. (‘De l’onde marine germa l’île ; elle appartient au Dieu générateur des rayons perçants, au maître des chevaux qui soufflent le feu. Là, un jour, il s’unit à Rhodes, et il engendra sept fils, auxquels il transmit, entre tous les hommes des premiers âges, l’esprit le plus inventif ’, traduit par Puech 1970).

6. Les timbres amphoriques trouvés à Jerash

165

Tabl. 6.2. Index des noms d’éponymes et fabricants rhodiens figurant dans le catalogue. Noms grecs en majuscules

Noms au génitif

Transcription

AΓΑΘHΜΕΡΟΣ

Ἀγαθήμερος (-ου)

Agathéméros

fab.

35

C. 9501

AΛΕΞAΝΔΡΟΣ

Ἀλεξάνδρος I (-ου)

Alexandros I

fab.

18

HS

AΝΑΞΙΜEΝΗΣ

Ἀναξιμένης (-ευς)

Anaximénès

fab.

17

G. 349

AΝΔΡOΝΙΚΟΣ

Άνδρόνικος (-ου)

Andronikos

ép.

32

C. 9514

AΡΙΣΤΕIΔΑΣ

Ἀριστείδας I (-α)

Aristeidas

ép.

14

C. 9824

AΡΙΣΤΟΓEΝΗΣ

Ἀριστογένης (-ευς)

Aristogénès

ép.

12 et 34

C. 34 et C.10101

AΡΧΙΛΑIΔΑΣ

Ἀρχιλαίδας (-α)

Archilaidas

ép.

6 et 33

G. 346 et C. 9796

AΦΡΟΔΙΣΊΟΣ

Άφροδισίος II (-ου)

Aphrodisios II

fab.

21

C. 8621

ΔΑΜOΘΕΜΙΣ

Δαμόθεμις (-ιος)

Damothémis

ép.

15

C. 9832

ΔΑΜOΚΛΗΣ

Δαμόκλης I (-ευς)

Damoclès I

ép.

15

C. 9832

ΔΑΜOΚΛΗΣ

Δαμόκλης II (-ευς)

Damoclès II

ép.

15

C. 9832

ΔΑΜΟΚΡAΤΗΣ

Δαμοκράτης I (-ευς)

Damocratès I

ép.

15

C. 9832

ΔΑΜΟΚΡAΤΗΣ

Δαμοκράτης II (-ευς)

Damocratès II

ép.

15

C. 9832

ΔΑΜOΝΙΚΟΣ

Δαμόνικος (-ου)

Damonikos

fab.

20

C. 10107

ΔΑΜΟΣΘEΝΗΣ

Δαμοσθένης (-ευς)

Damosthénès

ép.

15

C. 9832

ΔΑΜΌΦΙΛΟΣ

Δαμόφιλος

Damophilos

fab.

38

C. 10099

ΕYΔΑΜΟΣ

Εὔδαμος (-ου)

Eudamos

ép.

9

Welles 243

ΕYΚΛΕΙΤΟΣ

Εὔκλειτος (-ου)

Eukleitos

fab.

37

C. 10065

ΘEΡΣΑΝΔΡΟΣ

Θέρσανδρος (-ου)

Thersandros

ép.

8

Welles 241

ΘΡΑΣΥΜΑXΟΣ

Θρασύμαχος  (-ου)

Thrasumachos

ép.

1

C. 8620

ΛΕΟΝΤIΔΑΣ

Λεοντίδας (-α)

Léontidas

ép.

16

Welles 244

ΜΕΝΕΚΛHΣ

Μενεκλῆς  (-εῦς)

Ménéklès

ép.

13

C. 42

ΜΕΝΕΛAΟΣ

Μενέλαος (-άου)

Ménélaos

ép.

4

C. 9854

ΜIΔΑΣ

Μίδας (-α)

Midas

fab.

22 et 25

ΝΙΚΑΣΑΓΌΡΑΣ

Νικασαγόρας II

Nikasagoras II

ép.

3

C 9840

OLYMPOΣ

Ὄλυμπος

Olympos

fab.

23

C 9836

OΝAΣΑΝΔΡΟΣ

Ὀνάσανδρος (-ου)

Onasandros

ép.

2

C 9835

ΠΑΠAΣ

Παπᾶς (-α)

Papas

fab.

24

Welles 246

ΣΙΜΙΑΣ

Σιμίας (-α)

Simias

ép.

26

C 8622

ΣΩΔΑΜΟΣ

Σώδαμος (-ου)

Sodamos

ép.

5

C 10077

ΤΙΜΑΓOΡΑΣ

Τιμαγόρας I (-α)

Timagoras I

ép.

31

C 10098

ΤΙΜΑΚΡAΤΗΣ

Τιμακράτης (-ευς)

Timakratès

fab.

19

C 10100

ΤΙΜOΘΕΟΣ

Τιμόθεος (-έου)

Timothéos

ép.

7

G 1317

ΤΙΜOΞΕΝΟΣ

Τιμόξενος (-ου)

Timoxénos

fab.

36

C 9837

Figure 6.4. Tétradrachme de Rhodes (vers 230–205 av. J.-C.). Tête d’Hélios sur l’avers, rose sur le revers ( [accédé 21 novembre 2018], BMC 124).

Fonction

N° catalogue

N° d’inventaire

C.10041 et C. 5772

Figure 6.5. Pièce rhodienne (vers 350–300 av. J.-C.). Tête de Rhodos sur l’avers, rose sur le revers ( [accédé 21 novembre 2018], SNGHell 384v).

Stéphane Duplessis et Francesca Di Napoli

166 Tabl. 6.3. Index par attributs et par formes.

Tabl. 6.4. Tableau de la fréquence des mois rhodiens mentionnés sur les timbres de Jerash.

Attributs

Formes

N° d’inventaire

Caducée

Rectangle

22, 25, 37 et 44 

Mois rhodien

N° d’inventaire

Grappe

Rectangle

13, 22 et 25

Θευδαίσιος 

35

Hache double

Rectangle

40 et 48 ?

Πεδαγείτνιος 

31

Hélios (buste)

Cercle

15, 16 et 34

Βαδρόμιος 

Hélios (tête radiée) Rectangle

52 ? 

Σμίνθιος 

4 et 27

Pilier hermaïque

Rectangle

24

Ἀρταμίτιος 

16

Rose

Cercle

12, 14, 17, 18, 32, 33, 36, 38 et 39

Ἀγριάνιος

30 et 41

Rectangle

23

Ὑακίνθιος 

1, 3, 15 et 45

Πάναμος 

2, 7, 8, 33 et 43

Caducée

Δάλιος 

12 et 14

Représenté comme un bâton surmonté de deux serpents entremêlés (n° 22, 25, 37 et 44) ; ce symbole peut posséder des ailes situées sous les serpents (n° 22 et 37). Il est le plus souvent situé au-dessus de l’inscription, mais peut aussi se trouver en dessous, comme dans les trois timbres du corpus (n° 22, 37 et 44). Le caducée (Tabl. 6.3) est l’attribut d’Hermès, le dieu des commerçants, ce qui explique sa présence sur des éléments à vocation commerciale comme les amphores.

Θεσμοφόριος 

20 et 38

Kάρνειος 

6

Grappe de raisin

Διόσθυος Tabl. 6.5. Ce tableau répertorie uniquement les timbres rhodiens datés, soit dix-huit timbres d’éponyme et dix timbres de fabricant. La chrono­logie adoptée est celle que propose Finkielsztejn (2001). Les numéros soulignés sont ceux pour lesquels la datation proposée s’étend au-delà de la sous-période où ce numéro a été classé. Il s’agit générale­ment de fabricants, dont l’activité peut s’étendre sur de nombreuses années. N° des timbres Eponymes Fabricants

Représentée trilobée, elle renvoie bien évidemment au commerce du vin. Ce symbole est utilisé seul ou associé à un autre attribut, comme le caducée chez le fabricant Μίδας (n° 22).

Période

Années

Ia

304–271

Ib

270–247

Pilier hermaïque

Ic

246–235

II a

234–220

Ce pilier est surmonté d’un buste, peut-être du dieu Hermès ou d’Hélios, orienté vers la gauche, Il est toujours couché et représenté avec un socle et une saillie à l’emplacement théorique des bras (n° 24).

II b

219–210

II c

209–199

III a

198–190

III b

189–182

Hache à double tranchant

III c

181–176/174

III d

175/173–169/167

III e

168/166–161

IV a

160–153

IV b

152–146

9

31

Va

145–133

8 et 18

16, 21, 36 et 38

Vb

132–121

3, 7, 12, 16, 31, 32 et 34

22 et 25

Vc

120–108 13 

35

Simple croix dans un carré, ce symbole est l’un des attributs de Zeus. Cet attribut figure parfois sur des timbres de fabricants rhodiens38 (n° 40 et 48). Tous ces attributs signent le timbre en soulignant sa provenance (Rhodes) et sa fonction (commerciale). Ils constituent la marque distinctive de leur fabricant.39 38 

Selon Nilsson, cette double hache rappellerait le lien qui unissait Rhodes à la cité de Stratonicée qui honorait Zeus χρυσάωρ, avec la double hache comme attribut caractéristique (Nilsson 1909, 84–85). 39  À Thasos, sur les timbres anciens, l’attribut fut d’abord une caractéristique de l’éponyme. À Rhodes et à Cnide, les fabricants

VI

107–88/86

VII a

85–40

VII b

39–31

20 2 19 5

6 et 33

1, 4 et 26

6. Les timbres amphoriques trouvés à Jerash

167

Figure 6.6. Graphique des périodes les plus représentées par les timbres de Jerash.

Sur certaines anses d’amphores, ce premier timbre est accompagné d’un timbre secondaire plus petit, de forme carrée, où est inscrit un monogramme (n° 12 et 17). Mois Vingt et un timbres ont la particularité d’indiquer un nom de mois qui, avec le nom de l’éponyme, complète de façon précise la date (Tabl.  6.4). Cette mention du mois, assez fréquente sur les timbres rhodiens, n’a débuté que vers 235 avant notre ère, à la ‘limite entre les périodes I et II’,40 ce qui constitue un terminus post quem même en l’absence de toute indication d’éponyme ou de fabricant. Des statistiques effectuées par Nathan Badoud 41 sur plus de 6600 timbres rhodiens mentionnant un mois rendent compte de la production amphorique à Rhodes  : Cette production, minimale au mois de Θευδαίσιος (janvier), augmentait de manière régulière jusqu’à un plateau estival entre Ἀγριάνιος et Δάλιος (juin-septembre) pour redescendre à nouveau. Cette disproportion entre mois d’été et mois d’hiver a été étaient libres de choisir leurs attributs, tandis que, pour les timbres récents de Thasos, ceux-ci furent imposés à chaque fabricant par un magistrat (cf. Finkielsztejn 2001, 33). 40  Finkielsztejn 2001, 58. 41  Badoud 2007.

l’objet de plusieurs propositions d’explication : ‘activité accrue des fabriques pendant certaines saisons, formalités administratives regroupées à des périodes déterminées de l’année […]’.42 Les timbres de Jerash permettent en revanche de relever un pic au mois de Πάναμος (Tabl.  6.4). Richard Chaby constate le même décalage sur les timbres trouvés à Tanis : ‘Une explication de ce déphasage pourrait être qu’à Rhodes les amphores préparées en début de production (pendant les mois d’Ἀρταμίτιος à Ὑακίνθιος) soient, une fois remplies, affectées d’abord aux consommateurs locaux, et que c’est seulement lorsque cette consommation locale était satisfaite que la production restante était exportée’.43 Périodes chrono­logiques représentées La mention des éponymes et des fabricants permet de dater précisément au moins vingt-huit timbres et d’esquisser ainsi, à partir de ces données, un cadre chrono­ logique des exportations de vin rhodien à Jerash (Tabl. 6.5). La période représentée par le plus grand nombre de timbres se situe entre les périodes IVb à Vc, soit entre 42  43 

Calvet 1982, 13. Chaby 2009, 42.

Stéphane Duplessis et Francesca Di Napoli

168 152 et 108 avant notre ère, ce qui correspond, pour la première période (IVb), à la ‘fondation’ de la cité sous le règne d’Antiochos IV Épiphane. Dès l’incorporation de Gerasa dans le royaume séleucide, l’importation de vin rhodien, très apprécié dans la région,44 semble s’être très vite mise en place. Le pic du ­graphique aux périodes Va–Vb correspond également à la grande époque d’exportation de ce vin (Fig. 6.6)45 et la baisse significative à partir de la période Vc avec celle du déclin progressif des exportations rhodiennes après la fin du iie avant notre ère.46 Ce changement observé dans les importations rhodiennes ne présage donc en rien d’une baisse d’activité et de développement de la cité des bords du Chrysorhoas. Seuls deux timbres (2 et 5), dont la lecture est incontestable, remontent à une période antérieure à celle qui était considérée comme vraisemblable pour la renaissance du village. Le premier porte le nom de l’éponyme Onasandros, daté de la période IIb (219–210 avant notre ère) aussi bien par la base de données Amphoralex que par Finkielsztejn dans sa Chrono­logie détaillée et révisée des éponymes amphoriques rhodiens.47 Le second porte le nom de l’éponyme Sodamos, daté de la période IIIa (198–190 avant notre ère).48 Ces deux éponymes n’ont pas d’homonymes : il n’y a donc aucune ambiguïté sur leur identification et leur datation. Or, la présence, dans les remblais du ‘Souk Est’, de ces deux timbres antérieurs à la ‘fondation’ supposée de la ville hellénistique au iie siècle avant notre ère permet de relativiser l’abandon qu’aurait connu le site à la fin de l’âge du Fer et au début de l’époque hellénistique : malgré l’absence de vestiges matériels reconnaissables, produits localement et antérieurs au iie avant notre ère,49 le village de Gerasa n’était sans doute pas dépeuplé.

Conclusion Bien que les timbres amphorisques découverts à Jerash soient issus de remblais datables de la période romaine et au-delà, ils contribuent, en étoffant le catalogue des estampilles rhodiennes jusqu’à présent répertoriées en 44 

Cf. note 11. Coulson et autres 1997, 48 : ‘Periods II–V, a period of intense Rhodian exportation’. 46  Coulson et autres 1997, 48 : ‘After the end of the second century bc, the Rhodian export market begins to decline and is gradually taken over by Rome’. 47  Finkielsztejn 2001, 191. 48  Finkielsztejn 2001, 109, 117 et 122. 49  Sartre 2001, 117, note 22. 45 

dehors de l’île, à prouver l’importance des exportations de vin rhodien vers le Proche-Orient aux premiers siècles précédant notre ère. L’analyse des datations confirme que l’optimum de ce commerce coïncide avec la fondation de la ville, vers la période VIb, et rejoint son acmé à la période V, soit au cours de la deuxième moitié du iie siècle avant notre ère pour décliner ensuite. Toutefois, les timbres découverts révèlent que la fin du iiie siècle avant notre ère, au moins, vit le début des importations de vin rhodien sur les bords du Chrysorhoas. Enfin, deux timbres lusitaniens témoignent de la probable importation de garum/salsamenta et d’échanges commerciaux avec l’Hispanie pendant l’Antiquité tardive. À toutes les époques, les importations de céramiques furent, semble-t-il, limitées à Gerasa, mais un des points les plus surprenants concerne sans doute les amphores ayant servi au transport de denrées alimentaires comme le vin. Simples emballages, sans valeur propre, ces céramiques sont plutôt des marqueurs de la vitalité des échanges commerciaux, de l’importation longue distance de produits faisant localement défaut. Leur nombre sur un site devrait être proportionnel à l’importance et à la richesse de ce dernier. Or, Gerasa a livré peu d’amphores et la plupart des fragments mis au jour sur le site appartiennent à des exemplaires produits à Rhodes à l’époque hellénistique. Seuls quelques rares conteneurs plus tardifs, complets, et d’origines indéterminées pour la plupart, ont été essentiellement retrouvés en milieu funéraire. À ne considérer que ce type de matériel mis au jour, tout se passe comme si le maximum d’importation en amphores de denrées exogènes, a priori du vin — ou de l’huile —, avait été atteint au moment où Gerasa n’était encore qu’une bourgade supposée insignifiante, à l’écart des grands circuits commerciaux. Cette première impression est d’autant plus surprenante que les pressoirs à huile et à vin étaient très nombreux autour de Gerasa. Pour la plupart ils n’ont malheureusement pas été étudiés. Beaucoup étaient datables des époques romaine et byzantine, mais il y en avait certainement de plus anciens.50 La vigne est cultivée depuis longtemps à l’est du Jourdain, au point que le pampre et la grappe de raisin constituaient deux des éléments les plus remarquables du décor sculpté, en particulier archaïque. Il est également symptomatique de constater que les productions locales comprirent, à toutes périodes, des 50  

Pour les pressoirs de la région, voir Mansour 2004. Voir également Seigne 2013.

6. Les timbres amphoriques trouvés à Jerash récipients spécifiques, les ‘bag-shaped amphora’,51 vraisemblablement destinés au stockage et au transport local de l’huile et du vin. Il est donc très vraisemblable que la région fut toujours autosuffisante pour son approvisionnement en denrées de base. Produits localement, le vin et l’huile n’étaient pas des denrées à importer, sauf pour quelques cas particuliers, exceptionnels. La présence d’amphores originaires de Rhodes sur les bords du Chrysorhoas apparait donc, a priori, étonnante, et ce d’autant plus qu’elle situerait le maximum d’importation de vin étranger à Gerasa au iie siècle avant notre ère. L’étude qui précède montre tout l’intérêt que peut présenter la découverte de quelques fragments de céramique exceptionnellement datables grâce aux inscriptions qu’ils portent : faute d’autres vestiges actuellement identifiables, mieux que les rarissimes monnaies du iiie siècle avant notre ère découvertes hors contexte, ce sont les seuls témoins prouvant que le site de Gerasa ne fut pas déserté avant la conquête de la région par Antiochos IV, contrairement à certaines hypothèses qui pouvaient être présentées. Il y a là une information majeure permettant de pallier notre méconnaissance actuelle de l’histoire ancienne de la ville et celle de la chrono­logie fine des productions de céramiques locales des siècles précédant notre ère, faute de fouilles strati­g raphiques profondes suffisamment importantes. Hors la confirmation, fondamentale, d’une occupation du site à l’époque hellénistique ancienne, il convient de relativiser l’importance et autres extrapolations que l’on pourrait être tenté de donner à ces témoignages : – À l’exception d’un exemplaire, et à la différence de Phila­ delphia/Amman et de Gadara/Umm Queis, toutes les anses timbrées découvertes à Jerash proviennent de remblais tardifs. Elles ne témoignent donc que d’un simple ‘bruit de fond’, mais ce témoignage est indiscutable ; – Ces témoins, malgré la faiblesse de l’échantillon et avec toutes les précautions d’usage, fournissent des informations compatibles52 avec l’histoire générale de la région : pour les trois cités — où les anses timbrées rhodiennes ne sont que peu représentées —, et malgré des milieux archéo­logiques différents, plus anciens et mieux stratifiés à Philadelphia et à Gada51  

Voir la contribution de Anne-Michèle Rasson-Seigne et J. Seigne concernant les productions de céramiques locales dans ce même volume. 52  Pour Gadara, voir l’étude rédigée par Jöhrens et autres 2013 ; pour Philadelphia, Mansour 2004, 211–25.

169 ra, les courbes statistiques du nombre de timbres par période apparaissent semblables, avec un maximum, dans les trois villes, au iie siècle avant notre ère, période qui est également celle du maximum des exportations rhodiennes. – Seule Gadara se différencierait un peu avec un plus grand nombre d’anses timbrées datables du iiie siècle avant notre ère, mais cette particularité — peut-être temporaire en attendant les résultats de nouvelles fouilles à Amman et à Jerash — peut trouver son origine dans la situation géo­graphique, militaire et économique particulière de Gadara au début de l’époque hellénistique. – Comme indiqué également, la quasi-absence de toute anse timbrée attribuable au ier siècle avant notre ère ne correspond qu’à l’arrêt des productions rhodiennes estampillées. Elle ne signifie rien quant à la poursuite ou non des éventuelles importations, mais l’origine des amphores n’est plus immédiatement reconnaissable. – Les anses rhodiennes font l’objet d’attentions particulières, en raison de leurs timbres. Les anses non marquées et donc non datables précisément pour la plupart d’entre elles, rhodiennes ou pas, ne sont pas inventoriées, tout comme les fragments de panses dont seuls ceux présentant des inscriptions peintes sont réellement repérés. Les statistiques disponibles ne concernent que les anses timbrées. De plus, Rhodes étant à peu près la seule cité à estampiller ses productions vinaires,53 ses exportations se traduisent automatiquement par un ‘effet de masse’. Les statistiques, réalisées à partir des documents étudiés, ne fournissent donc que des informations très partielles, biaisées. Elles ne concernent en réalité qu’une partie des importations, essentiellement rhodiennes. – Reporté sur la période de temps considérée, plus de cent cinquante ans, le nombre d’anses timbrées retrouvées, une cinquantaine pour Gerasa, est insignifiant. Parler d’importation, ou simplement de commerce devient très délicat,54 d’autant plus que nous ne savons rien de la nature réelle de ces emballages : contenants 53  Sur les 134 estampilles étudiées à Gadara, ‘plus de 90% sont rhodiennes’. À Philadelphia le taux est de 93%, à Gerasa 96%. Ces taux ne sont que ceux des anses timbrées — et donc essentiellement rhodiennes par nature — découvertes non du total des anses mises au jour sur chacun des sites (inconnu). 54  Cela équivaudrait à supposer que Gerasa était une ‘Caravan City’ à partir de la découverte d’un dromadaire en terre cuite dans une tombe d’enfant.

170 primaires pour du vin rhodien (hypothèse la plus vraisemblable, bien que la qualité de ce vin n’était en rien exceptionnelle et alors que depuis longtemps la région de Gerasa et, plus généralement l’est du Jourdain, produisait du vin) ? Emballages réutilisés pour transporter un autre vin55 mais alors de quelle provenance ? Un autre liquide, mais lequel (aucune analyse en recherche de traces n’a pu être effectuée56)  ? D’autres denrées comme du garum ou sauces particulières (comme la découverte des timbres lusitaniens 53 et 54 le laisse supposer pour des périodes plus tardives), etc. – Dans le cas le plus probable, celui où les amphores considérées contenaient du vin de Rhodes, correspondaient-elles à une commande passée par un Gérasénien à un importateur de la côte méditerranéenne  ? Ou à un simple achat opportuniste à un commerçant de passage, comme la faiblesse du nombre de témoins conservés et actuellement connus pourrait le laisser croire ? Quand bien même s’agirait-il de commandes, de combien d’amphores les lots étaient-ils composés ? Ces lots correspondaient-ils à des demandes récurrentes ? Sur le long terme ? – Plus généralement, les fragments d’amphores retrouvés à Jerash, estampillés ou non, sont très peu nombreux, proportionnellement à la masse de la céramique mise au jour au cours des fouilles. Toutes époques confondues, il n’y a pas, pour le moment, de preuves archéo­ logiques de réutilisations diverses, systématiques et massives (vides sanitaires, renforcements de chaussées, remplois en maçonnerie, sarcophages à bon marché, en particulier pour des tombes d’enfants, etc.) de ces emballages perdus. Présents sporadiquement dans les déblais, les fragments d’amphores ne furent pas assez nombreux pour constituer un véritable matériau réutilisable et réutilisé. Tout au plus, quelques tessons ont été signalés comme réaménagés en outils.57 55 

Les amphores vides étaient souvent rachetées et réutilisées par d’autres propriétaires pour transporter leurs propres productions (voir par exemple les informations fournies par les papyri de Zénon 76–77, n°  23). Voir également Burkhalter 2013, 261 et 263. Cependant, les estampilles apposées sur les anses des amphores (les inscriptions peintes pouvaient être effacées) constituaient sans doute une garantie sur le contenu et sa date de production. 56  À la fois pour des raisons purement financières, en raison de la faiblesse des crédits alloués à la mission, et techniques, les anses étant rarement associées à des fragments de panse. Qui plus est, elles proviennent de remblais tardifs et avaient largement eu le temps de perdre les éventuelles traces recherchées. 57  Kehrberg 2016.

Stéphane Duplessis et Francesca Di Napoli – Enfin, la relative rareté des importations de denrées alimentaires dont les amphores portent témoignage, en particulier pour l’époque romaine, ne doit pas surprendre. Gerasa était située à l’écart des grands axes de circulation. La grande route nord sud, la Voie Royale, contrôlée par les Nabatéens avant d’être structurée sous Trajan après l’annexion de Pétra, ne passait ni par Philadelphia ni par Gerasa. Les axes transversaux majeurs conduisant directement à la côte méditerranéenne contournaient également la cité des bords du Chrysorhoas. Il y a longtemps que l’hypothèse de Gerasa Caravan City a été rejetée, à juste raison. L’importance et la simple réalité des échanges commerciaux ne peuvent être extrapolées de la présence ou non de quelques anses d’amphores. Les découvertes réalisées et l’étude des céramiques menée à bien ces dernières années ne font que confirmer la nature marginale de Gerasa. Ville moyenne, dotée d’un territoire agricole assurant son autosuffisance, y compris pour l’huile et le vin, la cité vécut largement en autarcie. L’intérêt des quelques emballages perdus retrouvés, céramiques ayant servi à transporter quelques denrées importées, plus exceptionnelles que nécessaires comme certains vins et, probablement, du garum, concerne plus l’histoire des origines mêmes de la cité que le grand commerce international.

6. Les timbres amphoriques trouvés à Jerash

171

Œuvres citées Badoud, N. 2007. ‘La Cité de Rhodes de la chrono­logie à l’histoire’ (thèse de doctorat, Bordeaux 3). ——  2010. ‘Amphores rhodiennes vues à Damas par Henri Seyrig’, Syria, 87 : 165–72. Base de données Amphoralex. ‘Matrices des timbres des éponymes et fabricants rhodiens’ (Le Centre Alexandrin d’Étude des Amphores) [accédé 20 novembre 2018]. Bérend, D. 1995. ‘Rhodes, encore’, Revue numismatique, 6e série, 150 : 251–55. Bertucchi, G. et A. Marangou-Lerat. 1989. ‘Le Remblai hellénistique de la Bourse à Marseille : résultats d’un sondage’, Revue archéo­ logique de Narbonnaise, 22 : 47–84. Braemer, F. 1987. ‘Two Campaigns of Excavations on the Ancient Tell of Jarash’, Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan, 31 : 525–30. Burkhalter, F. 2013. ‘Les Amphores vinaires dans la documentation papyro­logique ptolémaïque : production, prix, capacité’, dans A. Tsingarida, D. Viviers, et Z. H. Archibald (éd.), Pottery Markets in the Ancient Greek World (8th–1st Centuries bc) : Proceedings of the International Symposium Held at the Université libre de Bruxelles 19–21 June 2008 (Bruxelles : CReA-Patrimoine). Calvet, Y. 1982. Kition-Bamboula i : Les Timbres amphoriques (Paris : Éditions Recherche sur les civilisations). Chaby, R. 2009. Les Timbres amphoriques trouvés à Tanis de 1976 à 2008 (Paris : Éditions Recherche sur les civilisations). Coulson, W.  D.  E. et autres. 1997. ‘Stamped Amphora Handles from Tel Beersheba’, Bulletin of the American School of Oriental Research, 306 : 47–62. Duplessis, S. 2013. ‘Étude des timbres amphoriques trouvés à Jérash ( Jordanie)’ (mémoire de Master I, Université de Tours). Empereur, J.-Y. et A. Hesnard. 1987. ‘Les Amphores hellénistiques in Levêque Pierre’, dans J.-P. Morel (éd.), Céramiques hellénistiques et romaines, xi, Annales Littéraires de l’Université de Besançon (Sophia-Antipolis, Valbonne : Centre de Recherches Archéo­ logiques du CNRS), pp. 9–72. Finkielsztejn, G. 2001. Chrono­logie détaillée et révisée des éponymes amphoriques rhodiens de 270 à 108 av. J.-C. environ : premier bilan, British Archaeo­logical Reports, International Series, 990 (Oxford : Archaeopress). Gatier, P.-L. (à paraître). ‘Antioche du Chrysorhoas’, TOPOI, 2018. Grace, V. R. 1934. ‘Stamped Amphora Handles Found in 1931–1932’, Hesperia, 3 : 197–310. ——  1953. ‘The Eponyms Named on Rhodian Amphora Stamps’, Hesperia, 22.2 : 116–28. ——  1974. ‘Revisions in Early Hellenistic Chrono­logy’, Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäo­logischen Instituts, Athenische Abteilung, 89 : 193–200. ——  1979. Amphoras and the Ancient Wine Trade (Princeton : American School of Classical Studies at Athens). ——  1985. ‘The Middle Stoa Dated by Amphora Stamps’, Hesperia, 54 : 1–54. ——  1986. ‘Some Amphoras from a Hellenistic Wreck’, dans J.-Y. Empereur et Y. Garlan (éd.), Recherches sur les amphores grecques, Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique, Supplément 13 (Paris : École Française d’Athen), pp. 551–65. Jäggi, C. et autres. 1997. ‘New Data for the Chrono­logy of the Early Christian Cathedral of Gerasa : Third Interim Report of the Jarash Cathedral Project’, Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan, 41 : 311–20. Jöhrens, G. et autres (éd.). 2013. Forschungen in Gadara/Umm Qays von 1987 bis 2000, Orient-Archao­logie, 28, Gadara, 2 (Rahden : Leidorf ). Keay, S.  J. 1984. Late Roman Amphorae in the Western Mediterranean, British Archaeo­logical Reports, International Series, 196 (Oxford : British Archaeo­logical Reports). Kehrberg, I. 2016. ‘Pottery and Glass Sherd-Tools from Roman and Byzantine Workshops at the Gerasa Hippodrome and Other Sites. A Reappraisal of Earlier Findings’, Studies in the History and Archaeo­logy of Jordan, 12 : 411–30. Kehrberg-Ostrasz, I. 2018. ‘A Caravan Merchant Family of “Antioch on the Chrysorhoas” : A Glimpse of Hellenistic Gerasa as a Caravanserai’, dans L. Nehmé et A. Al-Jallad (éd.), To the Madbar and Back Again (London : Brill), pp. 339–448. Kraeling, C. H. (éd.). 1938. Gerasa : City of the Decapolis (New Haven : American Schools of Oriental Research). Lepaon, T. 2011. ‘Un nouveau plan pour Jerash/Gerasa’, Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan, 55 : 409–20. Mansour, S. 2004. ‘Study of the Rhodian Amphorae Handles Stamps from ‘Amman Citadel’, Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan, 48 : 211–25. Nilsson, M. P. 1909. Timbres amphoriques de Lindos (Copenhague : Bianco Luno). Puech, A. (éd. et trad.). 1970. Pindare, Olympiques, 6e édition (Paris : Les Belles Lettres). Sartre, M. 2001. D’Alexandre à Zénobie. Histoire du Levant antique, ive siècle av. J.-C. – iiie siècle ap. J.-C. (Paris : Fayard). Sciallano, M. et P. Sibella. 1991. Amphores. Comment les identifier ? (Aix-en-Provence : Edisud). Seigne, J. 1992. ‘Jerash romaine et byzantine  : développement urbain d’une ville provinciale orientale’, Studies in the History and Archaeo­logy of Jordan, 4 : 331–41. ——  2013. ‘Des jardins, de la vigne et des oliviers aux portes de la ville. Hommages à Georges Tate’, dans Villes et campagnes aux rives de la Méditerranée ancienne, Topoi, Supplément, 12 (Paris: De Boccard), pp. 407–20.

172

Stéphane Duplessis et Francesca Di Napoli

——  2019. ‘Gerasa : un aperçu du développement urbain de l’époque hellénistique à l’époque oréade’, dans Cornucopia : Studies in Honour of Arthur Segal, Archaeo­logica, 180 (Rome : Giorgio Bretschneider), pp. 47–80. Teichner F. et L.  P. Pujol. 2008. ‘Roman Amphora Trade across the Straits of Gibraltar  : An Ancient Anti-Economic Practice  ?’, Oxford Journal of Archaeo­logy, 27 : 303–14. Uscatescu, A. 1992. ‘Ceramica importa da en Gerasa (Ŷaraš, Jordania) : el lote de las excavaciones del Macellum’, Caesaraugusta, 69 : 115–81. Wallace Matheson, P. M. et M. B. Wallace. 1982. ‘Some Rhodian Amphora Capacities’, Hesperia, 51.3 : 293–321. Welles, C. B. 1938. ‘The Inscriptions’, dans C. H. Kraeling (éd.), Gerasa : City of the Decapolis (New Haven : American Schools of Oriental Research), pp. 355–462.

7. Late Antique Ceramic Imports in Gerasa: New Light on the Macellum Finds (with Special Reference to the Neighbouring Region) Alexandra Uscatescu Universidad Complutense de Madrid. [email protected]

S

ince the first publications on the macellum imported wares, new publications on Mediterranean tablewares and amphorae have come to light, providing new data on the chrono­logical and geo­graphical adscriptions of these imports.1 On the other hand, the strati­ graphic revision of the building, and the incorporation of unpublished ceramic material from the excavations of the south-western corner of the building, would support the present review. Until now, there was no global study on ceramic imports in the city of Gerasa. No doubt the present volume will fill this gap. The ceramic studies that focused on imports at Gerasa were limited to those of the French team, on the Early Roman tablewares and their imitations by Frank Braemer,2 Estelle Villeneuve’s analysis of the Late Antique imports, published without illustrations,3 and the macellum’s findings.4 In general, interest in ceramic imports in Gerasa has been aimed at 1   Abbreviations: ABTW (African ‘Black-Top’ Ware), ARS (African Red Slip), FBW (Fine Byzantine Ware), ERS (Egyptian Red Slip), ES (Eastern Sigillata), JB ( Jerash Bowl), LRA (Late Roman Amphora), LRC (Late Roman C/‘Phocaean’ Red Slip), LRD (Late Roman D/‘Cypriot’ Red Slip Ware), LRU (Late Roman Unguentarium), RBOA (Red-Brown Ovoid Amphora), RHB (quantity of sherds corresponding to Rims, Handles, and Bases). The standard typo­logy used here is referred to the work by John Hayes (1972; 1980b), thus to avoid redundancy throughout the text, the H- abbreviation is employed to mean Hayes’s typo­logy reference. For the designation of the typo­logical shape of the Early Roman pottery production, namely ES, the abbreviation At. is used, which refers to the typo­logy designed by Hayes and published in the Atlante delle forme ceramiche, ii (Atlante ii, 1985). All dates are ad unless otherwise noted. 2  Braemer 1989. 3  Villeneuve 2003. 4  Uscatescu 1992; 1996; 2001.

adjusting the chrono­logical margins of the strati­graphies of the different excavations in the ancient Roman town. This is the case with the Australian excavations at the Cardo/North Decumanus intersection,5 or the data related to the Artemis Sanctuary published by the Italians,6 to mention but a few. In other instances, the absence of imported material explains the lack of studies. However, there are still some unpublished excavations that conceal some interesting ceramic contexts.7 On regional grounds, chrono­logy has been the main object of the study of pottery imports. The study by some Italian researchers on North African imports in Jordan is an exception,8 or Kate Da Kosta’s assessments of the sixth-century trade in the region, 9 or even the analysis of Late Antique Egyptian imports by Pamela Watson.10 Another source of information to assess the scope of these ceramic imports comes from the archaeo­ logical surveys conducted in Jordan, such as the Wādī elArab, Wādī el-Yabis, Kerak Plateau, and central Jordan Valley surveys, or the ones conducted in the south of the country around Ḥumayma and Aqaba.11 Also, the 5 

Watson 1986a. Piazza 1983–84, 119, 122, 126, 128–30, figs 22.1 (LRC form H-3F) and 22.30–31 (ARS form H-91 and stamp H-69 of style A); Baldoni 2010. 7  This is the case with the excavations by the Polish team at the Umayyad house, and probably also the case with the excavations at the Friday Mosque at Gerasa. Years later, Pamela Watson claimed that in the Umayyad house, seven sherds of ERS C were recovered (Watson 1995a, 310), which were not mentioned in the previous publication by Michael Gawlikowski (1986). 8  Munzi and Ciotola 2006. 9  Da Kosta 2007. 10  Watson 1995a. 11  Hanbury-Tenison and others 1984; Mabry and Palumbo 6 

Hellenistic and Roman Gerasa: The Archaeo­logy and History of a Decapolis City, ed. by Achim Lichtenberger and Rubina Raja, JP 5 (Turnhout: Brepols, 2020), 173–299 BREPOLS PUBLISHERS DOI 10.1484/M.JP-EB.5.120811

Alexandra Uscatescu

174

Figure 7.1. Plan of the macellum of Gerasa (author’s drawing).

7. Late Antique Ceramic Imports in Gerasa collective initiatives that tried to evaluate the process of Islamization through ceramic changes, such as the Damascus round table (1990) or the one held at ‘Amman (1994) are noteworthy.12 The analysis of ceramic imports in Gerasa or in Jordan would not be understood without the data collected on the Mediterranean coast. Therefore, the data published in the numerous salvage excavations carried out in Israel, in addition to the corresponding records recovered during the archaeo­logical surveys in that country, cannot be ignored.13 Specific studies on Late Antique trade in the area are also taken into account,14 as well as the re-evaluation of the data from the major urban centres of the region which received most of the Mediterranean trade, such as Caesarea Maritima and its harbour, Sebastos, and the cities of Ashkelon or Ashdod.15 Although in the first part of this contribution the macellum finds dated to the Hellenistic and Early Roman periods will receive some attention, this paper will be focused on the Late Antique pottery productions. In this sense, the amount of data published along with the progress of the research on these kinds of imports necessitates a review of the material previously published from the macellum as well as a re-evaluation of these kinds of imports in the town of Gerasa and its neighbouring region. This review affects not only the African productions, thanks to the excellent synthesis by Michel Bonifay, but also the advances in the knowledge of the fine wares produced in southern Asia Minor.16 As for the amphora production, as Dominique Pieri claims, since seven Late Antique amphora types were distinguished in Carthage by John Riley,17 there are now more than a hundred Late Antique types, together with the discovery of new kilns in Paphos, Sinope, Beirut, Tyre, and Aqaba. Obviously, this new data greatly increases our knowledge on the subject.18 Needless to say, this volume of information cannot be ignored. 1988; Brown 1991, 218–22; Kaptijn 2009; Oleson, ‘Amr, and Holmqvist-Saukkonen 2013; Parker 2014. 12  Sodini and others 1992, 195–96; Villeneuve and Watson 2001. 13  Meyers, Strange, and Meyers, 1981; Magness 2003; Leibner and Ben David 2014. 14  Sodini 2000; Kingsley 2003a. 15  Blakely 1996; Magness 1999; Hayes 2001, 278. 16  Bonifay 2004; Gomez and others 1996; Meyza 2000; 2007; Vandeput and Köse 2008; Jackson and others 2012; Poblome and Firat 2012. 17  Riley 1976. 18  Pieri 2012, 28, fig. 2.2.

175 Obviously, the variety of ceramic imports studied in this article is determined by the nature and provenance of the macellum’s findings, which, even today, remains the site that exhibits the greatest number and diversity of Late Antique pottery imports in the ancient city. This overview will be completed by reference to other pottery imports found in the 1930s excavations in Gerasa and the data recovered in the most recent excavations at the site carried out by Australian, British, French, DanishGerman, and Italian teams. In the first place, there are tablewares and amphorae made in central and northern Tunisia that, in the case of the tablewares are not always easy to identify since they risk being labelled as local imitations, as John Hayes warns us.19 Eastern imports come mainly from the coast of Asia Minor (LRC), as well as southern Anatolia and Cyprus (LRD, LRA 1, and LRU), the Aegean (LRA 3), the Black Sea (Sinopean Amphora and possibly Kapitän II amphora), and Egypt (ERS and RBOA of Islamic chrono­log y). Imports from adjoining areas are represented by ‘Akko amphora (M334) and the amphora productions from Gaza and the Negev (LRA 4 and Southern LRA 5C) as well as the Palestinian bag-shaped amphorae produced in the north of the region (LRA 5/6), and a fine production attributed to the Jerusalem area (FBW). The distribution maps of these productions are accompanied by tables, which include the biblio­g raphic references of the sites registered (Tables 7.2–13).20 The amount of published material and the space available here supports this kind of procedure.

The Archaeo­logical Contexts of the Macellum of Gerasa The macellum is located on the central sidewalk of the Cardo Maximus, between the Oval Piazza and the South Tetrapylon. It was excavated throughout several campaigns since the 1980s. However, there is no pottery record from the first surveys conducted by Adnan Barghouti and Emilio Olavárri at the facade of the building.21 The only ceramic data available corresponds to the campaigns carried out under the direction of Manuel Martín-Bueno. Most of these finds are published, but now some unpublished ceramic material is added. These

19 

Hayes 2001, 278. Due to the size and style of lettering, in the accompanying maps diacritics have been omitted for greater clarity. 21  Barghouti 1982; Olávarri 1986. 20 

Alexandra Uscatescu

176

Graph 7.1. Late Antique deposits from the macellum of Gerasa (for details of the archaeo­logical composition, see Tables 7.1a and 7.1b).

new additions have no strati­graphic interest, but are valuable since they enlarge the corpus of Roman and Late Antique pottery import in Gerasa. The strati­graphic profile of the macellum reveals that the best-dated imports come from the contexts under the foundations of some shops on the southern facade, rebuilt in the fifth century (tabernae 15 and 16) and the contexts predating the 659/60 earthquake, which remained covered by the building collapse (Fig. 7.1). This earthquake was responsible for the partial abandonment of the Roman building.22 During the Umayyad period a retaining wall was constructed between the columns of the South Peristyle in order to continue using the central courtyard of the building.23 At this point, the reader should be warned: in the 1990s, when the first results and interpretations of the macellum excavations were published, those contexts were dated to the beginning of the seventh century, but the subsequent numismatic analysis revealed the existence of folles of Constans II (641–48), and thus it was possible to adjust the date of destruction, associating it to the earthquake of 659/60. On the other hand, it is true that in the deposits dated between this date (659/60) and the disuse of the ancient building after the earthquake of 749, there were recovered some imports (ARS D4, LRD, and LRA 4), but their frag22  23 

Uscatescu and Marot 2016, 281. Uscatescu and Marot 2016, 290–92.

mentary state and eroded surfaces would in turn point to their residual nature. In the drawings accompanying this text, I have included the type of context where the specific pottery type was found by means of the following abbreviations: C (contemporary deposit), B1 (Early Byzantine deposit, c. 300–470, with some intrusion dated to c. 550), B2 (Late Byzantine deposit, c. 580–659/60), Q (659/60 earthquake destruction), PQ (post-659/60 earthquake deposit), U (Umayyad deposit, TAQ 749), PU (post-749 earthquake deposit), and T (topsoil).24 Expressed in percentages, 22.2 per cent of the analysed imported pieces come from topsoil levels, 41 per cent from the contemporary deposit, and 9.9 per cent was recovered from levels dated after the 749 earthquake (PU). The rest of the imports are distributed in the strati­graphic contexts of the macellum as follows: B1 = 2.3 per cent, B2 = 12.5 per cent, Q (659/60) = 2.5 per cent, PQ = 1.7 per cent, and U = 7 per cent (Graph 7.1). I will focus on an unpublished context located at the south-western corner of the macellum. Due to its character and strati­graphical nature, it was not included in the sherds percentages of the macellum published in 1996. This archaeo­logical deposit covers tabernae 17 and 21 as well as the south-western corner of the building (square C-K/25–31). It became visible in the first metre of excavation below topsoil, and reaches 3.00 m depth, starting 24 

Uscatescu 1992, 117.

7. Late Antique Ceramic Imports in Gerasa

Figure 7.2. 1. Strati­graphical section of the western dividing wall of taberna 17; 2. Northern wall of tabernae 17 and 21 (author’s drawing).

177

Alexandra Uscatescu

178

Figure 7.3. North–south section of a wall over the South Stenopos. South-western corner of the macellum, plot C-K/25-31 (author’s drawing).

from the top of the walls of shops 17/21 (Fig. 7.2.1). This pottery deposit shows a striking feature, since the sherds recovered here were quite clean, and the succession of layers was intriguingly classified according to somewhat academic criteria (layers of JB, mortaria and amphorae, sherds of imported tableware, even a layer of glass fragments). Even in the layers formed mostly by fragments of glass, the glass material lacks the typical patina that ancient glass usually exhibits. Except for the strati­graphic position of the deposit, on the top of the remains of the dividing wall of tabernae 17/21, which was dismantled perhaps in the Late Byzantine period (Fig. 7.2.2), it is difficult to establish its chrono­logy. On the other hand, the north–south abrupt dip of the strata seems to indicate that they were thrown from a high point on the north side, and that, in the case of square C-K/25–31, the deposit was sealed by a two-courses wall made up of reused ashlars (Fig. 7.3). One of the oldest preserved aerial photo­graphs of the macellum area (c. 1917) shows how the whole area belongs to a single agrarian property delimited by a stone wall. This wall defines a trapezoidal area, but the photo­g raph unfortunately does not offer the slightest hint that could evidence any movement of earth, which could be associated with an archaeo­logical excavation.25 Therefore, any eventual earth movements that can explain the creation of this deposit should be of a later date. The archaeo­logical practice of the earlier excavations in Gerasa could help us to understand the nature 25 

Reference to similar aerial photo­graphs can be found in the George Horsfield Photo­graph Collection (Institute of Archaeo­logy, Uni­ver­sity Colledge London) and the collection of photo­graphs of the American Colony in Jerusalem (G. Eric and Matson Photo­graph Collection. Library of Congress, Prints & Photo­g raphs Division, LC-DIG-matpc-05594).

of this deposit. During the excavations in the 1920s, at least in the case of the temenos of the Temple of Artemis, deep soundings were dug, and if the findings were of no interest, they were covered immediately.26 The problem is that the first archaeo­logists in Gerasa did not leave any topo­graphical record of these soundings. Thus, this is the only convincing explanation for these clearly anthropic layers at the north-western corner of the macellum.

Hellenistic and Early Roman Imports in the Macellum All sherds assigned to the Hellenistic and Early Roman periods are derelict elements attested in later layers. A body sherd of Campanian B production can be added to the Hellenistic corpus of the macellum,27 as can a handle of an amphora of the type Peacock-Williams 9,28 whose exact origin is difficult to establish, since it was made at several potters’ centres in the Aegean region, including Rhodes (Fig. 7.4.1).29 This handle fragment exhibits a stamp with a caduceus and a bird, which are linked to Μιδα pottery shop.30 Recently, this name has been associated with twenty-two distinct eponyms in ‘Akko, dated to c. 144–119 bc.31 This new data could extend the chrono­ logical framework of the macellum’s fragment, which was previously associated exclusively with the eponyms 26 

Fisher and McCown 1929–30, 5. Uscatescu 1992, 118. 28  Peacock and Williams 1991, 102–04. 29  Peacock 1977, 266–70; Riley 1979, 122–28; Empereur and Picon 1989, 225. 30  Nicolau and Empereur 1986, 527. 31  Finkielsztejn 2000, 147, no. Crh 28.528.5185B. 27 

7. Late Antique Ceramic Imports in Gerasa

179

Figure 7.4. Early imports from the excavations of the macellum. 1. Rodian Amphora; 2. Arretine Sigillata; 3–11. ES A (author’s drawing).

180

Alexandra Uscatescu

Figure 7.5. Early imports from the excavations of the macellum. 12–13. ES A; 14. ES B; 15. ES C; 16. Italian mortarium (author’s drawing).

Aristokles and Aristogen, dated to the end of the third century bc.32 In Jordan, another example of the same potter’s mark comes from the Ez-Zantur/Petra excavations.33 Some other Rodian handles from Jerash (Late housing on the Oval Plaza, Artemis courtyard, and the Baths of Placcus) were published in the 1930s.34 Grace 1934, 219, fig. 2; Uscatescu 1992, 118. Schneider 1996, 131, no. 8, fig. 526. 34  Welles 1938, 460, pl. cxxvii, 242, 243–44, 246. An updated contribution on these stamps by Duplessis, Di Napoli and Seigne

Early Roman tableware is not very abundant in the macellum, where less than twenty sherds are recorded. ES A products, possibly manufactured in the Levant (perhaps Antioch, where pottery moulds have been found),35 are the best represented in this Early Roman assemblage: forms At. 22B (c. 110 bc–ad 10) (Fig. 7.4.3), At. 30 (10–50) (Fig. 7.4.5–6), At. 37A (c. 60–100) (Fig. 7.4.7), At. 50

32  33 

can be found in this volume. 35  Gunneweg, Perlman, and Yellin 1983; Malfitana 2002, 149; Bes 2015, 15–16.

7. Late Antique Ceramic Imports in Gerasa (60/70–100) (Fig. 7.4.4 and 4.9), At. 56 (Fig. 7.4.8),36 and At. 109/110 (10–100) (Fig. 7.4.10).37 Form At. 37A (60–100) also appears at the Temple of Zeus within a level dated to the mid-first century.38 Examining old publications on Gerasa, findings of this kind of tableware in the south-western cemetery could be determined: form At. 55 (100–50) in tomb 4 (Fig. 7.44.174),39 form At. 60B (second century) in tomb 10 (Fig. 7.44.171),40 and form At. 38 (c. 40–60), together with a Χα|ρις stamp, described as ‘Samian Bowls’ (Fig. 7.44.177–78).41 In the excavations at the Northwest Quarter this import is represented by a closed form At. 109/110 (10 bc–ad 100).42 In other cases, the lack of drawings prevents more detailed attributions, except the mention of ES A at the excavations at the Temple of Artemis, the recently published Thermopolium on the Cardo, and the cathedral, together with the local imitations established by Braemer.43 Perhaps originating from Asia Minor (the Valley of the Meander),44 ES B tableware is represented by the form At. 54 (70–150) at the macellum (Fig. 7.5.14).45 Another sherd belongs to form At. 7 (25–50),46 and it was found at the Temple of Zeus excavations.47 In the soundings made at the cathedral foundations, this production was also documented.48 Finally, there is only one bowl of ES C production, form H-3 (c. 180–220), manufactured in the Çandarli and Pergamon region (Fig. 7.5.15).49 There is no record of more examples of this production in Gerasa, and in the region, this ware seems to be very scarce (0.02 per cent).50

36  Form also attested at ‘Amman’s acropolis (Koutsoukou and Najjar 1997, 69, fig. 138). 37 Atlante ii (1985), 23, 28, 31, 37, and 44–45; Uscatescu 1992, 119. 38  Braemer 1989, 63. 39  Fisher 1938, 557 n. 11, fig. 36.8; Atlante ii (1985), 39, pl. 7.6. 40  Fisher 1938, 565, fig. 43.10; Atlante ii (1985), 40, pl. 7.14. 41  Iliffe 1936, 50; Fisher 1938, 566, figs 45.3 and 45.29; Atlante ii (1985), 31, pl. 5.14. 42  Lichtenberger, Raja, and Sørensen 2013, 14. 43  Bitti 1986, 191; Jäggi and others 1998, 430; Baldoni 2018, 18–19, fig. 3.10 (ES A) and fig. 3.11 (local imitations). 44  Bes 2015, 17. 45 Atlante ii (1985), 62; Uscatescu 1992, 123. 46 Atlante ii (1985), 55. 47  Braemer 1986, fig. 16.5. 48  Jäggi and others 1998, 430. 49  Hayes 1972, 321, fig. 64; Uscatescu 1992, 124; Bes 2015, 19. 50  Malfitana 2002, 149.

181 As for the western imports, although they are recorded at the macellum of Gerasa, they are scarcely represented. Arretine Sigillata is only represented by form Haltern 8 (early first century) (Fig. 7.4.2),51 to which can be added a sherd dated to Tiberius’s time and found at the Temple of Zeus excavations.52 Gaulish Sigillata is represented by a pair of bases from the macellum.53 To these western imports, an Italic mortarium which bears an epi­g raphic stamp, Victo[ris]  | Domu[tiani], must be added. Its fabric points to a central Italic origin54 and corresponds to a mortarium of type Dramont 2 (Fig. 7.5.16), with a pronounced trapezoidal peak.55 Due to the presence of the epi­graphic stamp, this piece could be dated c. 50–150/60.56 As for the inscription, a possible vocalic change is observed: V pro I. Two cognomina can be read: Victor and Domitianus.57 It should be stressed that this kind of inscription usually indicates the dominus and the officinator.58 The gens Domitia numbers among the largest owners of figlinae,59 and Victor is a very common name among potters in the West.60 There is evidence for an officina Victoris, potters’ stamps of Cl(audi) Vic(toris), a manufacturer of pottery pestles, and another potter Victor S(eruus). 61 There is a brick stamp associated with the Of(ficina) Dom(itiana) Victoris in Rome.62 Except for the absence of a workshop (officina) indication, this is the closest example to the macellum stamp, taking into account that the right end of the macellum stamp is missing. The problem with this parallel is that the Roman brick is dated between c. 280 and 400,63 when the mortarium manufacture no longer carries epi­graphic marks.

51 

Uscatescu 1992, 119. Braemer 1986, fig. 16.1–3. 53  Uscatescu 1992, 119. 54  Aguarod 1991, 153. 55  Joncheray 1972, 22–25; Beltrán 1990, 215, fig. 106.964. 56  Hartley 1973, 54. 57  Helen 1975, 23. 58  Steinby 1987, 20. 59  Hartley 1973, 54. 60  Hartley and Dickinson 2012, 228–37. 61  Bloch 1947–48, 120–21; CIL xv, 2429 = Dressel 1891, 477; CIL xv, 1515 = Dressel 1891, 382; CIL xv, 2513 = Dressel 1891, 485; CIL xv, 1397 = Dressel 1891, 365; CIL xv, 629 = Dressel 1891, 156; CIL xv, 627 = Dressel 1891, 186. 62 CIL xv, 1580 = Dressel 1981, 399. 63  Bodel 1983, 61. 52 

Alexandra Uscatescu

182

Late Roman/Early Byzantine Imports at the Macellum The first African imports correspond to tableware produced in the centre of Tunisia, in the workshops of Henchir el Gallal, Henchir el Guelel, Henchir Tebraria, Henchir Bloul, Henchir el Kouky, 64 and the most important of all, Sidi Marzouk Tounsi, which stands out particularly for making some of the shapes identified in the macellum (forms H-44, H-50A, and H-50B).65 The production of ARS C does not start before the beginning of the third century,66 and from the middle of that century onwards there is evidence for it being traded to the Levant. However, the first African products to be imported from the northern Tunisian workshops, belonging to type ARS A 2, are registered in coastal towns only: H-9A (100–60+) in Caesarea and forms H-6B (150–80/90) and H-14A (c. 180–220) in Ashkelon.67 Imports from the centre of Tunisia account for 26 per cent at the macellum, represented by form H-32 (c. 220–50) (Fig. 7.6.18).68 From the same series, stands out form H-33 (200–50+), documented in Hippos69 and Jerusalem.70 Also bowl H-44 (c. 250–300) corresponds to fabric C2 (Fig. 7.6.17).71 There are similar finds in the region of the same production series, such as the bowls from Ez-Zantur/Petra (form H-44),72 Ashkelon (form H-44), 73 Samaria (form H-45, dated to 230–320), 74 Capernaum (form H-45),75 and Magdala (form H-48, dated to 220–320).76 The best represented shape of ARS C production is form H-50, documented in two variants: H-50A 64  Hayes 1972, 293–95; Peacock, Bejaoui, and Belazreg 1990, 66, fig. 4.8 and figs 14–23; Mackensen 1993, 37; Mackensen 1998a, 26; Bonifay 2004, 49–50, fig. 22. 65  Mackensen 1998b, 335; Mackensen and Schneider 2002, 132. 66  Cau, Reynolds, and Bonifay 2012, 5. 67  Hayes 1972, 39–41, fig. 6.5; Atlante i (1981), 32; AdanBayewitz 1986; Johnson 2008, 41–51. Revised chrono­log y by Bonifay (2004, 159). 68  Hayes 1972, 55, fig. 9.3–4. 69  Młynarczyk 2003, 58, fig. 1.8. 70  Wightman 1989, 30. 71  Hayes 1972, 61, fig. 10; Uscatescu 1992, 125. 72  Schneider 1996, 140. 73  Johnson 2008, 41–51. 74  Crowfoot, Crowfoot, and Kenyon 1957, fig. 84.3. 75  Loffreda 2008, 91. 76  Loffreda 1976, fig. 10.23.

(230/40–325), the finest and less open dish in C 2 (Fig.  7.6.19), 77 and form H-50B (250–400+) 78 in C3 (Fig.  7.6.20–21) and probably also in D 1 fabric of ‘Carthage-Nabeul’.79 This could be the reason why they have sometimes been identified as local imitations. 80 This form is also the best represented amongst the first African imports in the Levant, as supported by the quantities recovered from Caesarea,81 Gush Ḥalav (where it is the first western and most important import),82 Deir ‘Ain ‘Abata,83 and Ez-Zantur/Petra.84 The macellum apart, in Gerasa form H-50 appears in phase 4 (c.  340–60) of area B at the Cardo/North Decumanus intersection85 and in the Northwest Quarter excavations.86 In Jordan, form H-50A is documented at Gadara,87 Qa ṣ r Umm Rattām,88 and Ḥumayma.89 In the Palestinian region, this form is known at Ḥorbat Qastra (form H-50B),90 Jalame (H-50B),91 Nazareth,92 Ras Abu Ma’aruf ( Jerusalem),93 Khirbat Siyar al-Ghanam,94 and Samaria (form H-50A/ B).95 Finally, it is worth mentioning its presence at the continental town of Boṣ rā,96 although located in the administrative limits of Syria, historical and culturally this town was part of the Decapolis.

77 

Hayes 1972, 73, fig. 12.8; Uscatescu 1992, 126. Hayes 1972, 73, figs 12.46 and 12.60; Uscatescu 1992, 128. 79  Cau, Reynolds, and Bonifay 2012, 5. 80  Lichtenberger, Raja, and Sørensen 2013, 10, fig. 8. It is true that, in the case of Gerasa, the local production of Jerash Stamped Ware has a similar form imitating ARS form H-50 (Uscatescu 2001, fig. 1). 81  Oleson and others 1994, 158, figs 17.RG57, 37.RG.127–29, 38.RG.130–37, and 39.RG.138–39; Riley 1975, 39 and 40–43. 82  Groh 1990, 142. 83  Grey and Politis 2012, 176. 84  Schneider 1996, 140. 85  Watson 1986a, 363 n. 20. 86  Lichtenberger, Raja, and Sørensen 2013, 10. 87  Kerner 1997, 291. 88  Lindner and others 2007, 252. 89  Eadie 1984, 221. 90  In the text, form H-32 is mentioned within the finds from caves 1070–71, while the drawing seems to belong to an ARS form H-50 (Van den Brink and others 2013, 82–84, fig. 15.3–4). 91  Slane and Magness 2005, 258, table 1. 92  Bagatti 1967, fig. 227.4. 93  Rapuano 1999, 174, fig. 3.32. 94  Corbo 1955, fig. 22.23. 95  Crowfoot, Crowfoot, and Kenyon 1957, 357–58, fig. 84.1–2. 96  Sogliani 1994, 453 n. 56; Joly and Blanc 1995, 116. 78 

7. Late Antique Ceramic Imports in Gerasa

Figure 7.6. ARS C imports from the excavations of the macellum (author’s drawing).

183

184 The import of African tableware with appliqué decoration is not very common. In the macellum corpus, there is only one sherd associated with this production, form H-51A (c.  300–20) (Fig.  7.6.22).97 In the region, it is also rare, but form H-52A (300–50?) is documented in the excavations at the Temple Mount in Jerusalem,98 and variant H-52B (280/300–80) in Ez-Zantur/Petra,99 and Sepphoris.100 ARS C 3 production is represented by bowl H-57 (350–400?) (Fig. 7.6.23).101 Another piece was found in Sepphoris.102 Type ARS C5 is represented by a rim of form H-84 (440–500) (Fig. 7.6.24),103 a shape that is also documented at the Northwest Quarter trenches (Fig. 7.46.184).104 At the macellum, in addition to that rim, there are two base sherds decorated by stamps of style D, associated with the same form H-84: stamps 96 and 127 (Fig. 7.6.25–26).105 Form H-84 is also known in Ashkelon, Hippos, Huqoq, and Khirbat Siyar elGhanam (Table 7.2).

Late Byzantine Imports at the Macellum The strati­g raphy of the macellum is rich in contexts belonging to the Late Byzantine period. For this reason, a representative sample of pieces of these contexts is collected here, as well as out-of-context pieces with that specific dating. This clearly indicates that, although there are some levels dated to the Umayyad period and even some marginal occupation during the Abbasid period, the last activity of some relevance at the macellum takes place between the fifth century and the mid-seventh century. Western Imports African Fine Wares: ARS D1 and D2

Most of the pottery production of northern Tunisia, the ARS D1 and D2 included, corresponds to the fabric ‘Carthage-Nabeul’.106 The attribution of ARS found in 97 

Hayes 1972, 75, fig. 13.1. Mazar 2003, 225, pl. III.2.1; Mackensen 2009, 20. 99  Schneider 1996, 140. 100  De Vincenz 2013, 163, pl. 55.2. 101  Hayes 1972, 93, fig. 14.1. 102  De Vincenz 2013, 163, pl. 55.2. 103  Hayes 1972, 133, fig. 23.1. 104  Lichtenberger, Raja, and Sørensen 2013, 17, fig. 4. 105  Hayes 1972, 247 and 251, fig.  44.f and 44.u; Uscatescu 1992, 128, fig. 12.84. 106   Peacock 1984a, 14–15; Tomber 1988, 444; Taylor and 98 

Alexandra Uscatescu Gerasa to the workshops of northern or central Tunisia has been based on the usual macroscopic and typo­ logical criteria. Currently, ARS D1 is associated with El-Mahrine workshop and ARS D2 with the Oudhna one.107 The activity of ARS D workshops is extended until the mid-seventh century and beyond, since, in the most recent publications, their final activity is postponed to the end of that century. However, this late dating has not always been accepted — for instance, the end of activity at the Oudhna workshop is controversial. Michael Mackensen believed that this workshop ceased to be active at the beginning of the seventh century, while its excavators claimed that its activity was maintained until the middle of that century, due to the predominance of form H-99C.108 In the case of Sidi Khalifa, there are no definitive data either. Based on the alleged ascription of forms H-106 and H-109 to the workshop of Sidi Khalifa, Lucia Saguì claimed that the production activity of this centre could have lasted until the end of the seventh century.109 The predominance of later forms (H-105, H-106, and perhaps H-109) in the ARS D2 workshop of unknown location would extend its activity until the end of the seventh century.110 The workshops of ARS D1 are located in the middle valley of the River Mejerda, near Tebourba (Thuburbo Minus): Borj el Jerbi, El Mahrine, and Henchir el Biar.111 The production centres of ARS D2 are established in the north-east area of Tunisia, west of Oued Miliane, at Oudhna, and near the coast, as Sidi Khalifa,112 and the ARS D2 workshop of unknown location is probably situated between El Fahs and Zaghouan.113 At the macellum, the shapes recorded belong to both ARS D1 and D2 productions, but the presence of Oudhna’s recognizable products is remarkable (forms H-91, H-95, Robinson 1996; Mackensen and Schneider 2002, 134–42. 107  Cau, Reynolds, and Bonifay 2012, 5. 108   Barraud and others 1998, 148; Mackensen 1998a, 30; Mackensen and Schneider 2002, 130. 109  Mackensen 1998a, 30; Mackensen and Schneider 2002, 128 n. 29; Saguì 2002, 36. 110  Mackensen and Schneider 2002, 128. 111  Mackensen 1985; Mackensen 1993, 26–27; Mackensen and Schneider 2002, 125. 112   Salomonson 1968, 95; Hayes 1972, 291–92; Atlante i (1981), 78–80, pl. 35.7a–b; Tortorella 1987, 286; Mackensen 1993, 32–33; Taylor and Robinson 1996, 239; Barraud and others 1998, 148; Mackensen 1998a, 37; Mackensen and Schneider 2002, 128; Bonifay 2003, n. 145; Bonifay 2004, 49 n. 12 and 139–40. 113  Capelli 1998, 251; Mackensen and Schneider 2002, 123; Mackensen 2009, 20.

7. Late Antique Ceramic Imports in Gerasa H-97, and H-99A to H-99D), as are some forms typical of the Sidi Khalifa workshop (form H-87A/88).114 The following forms were determined at the Spanish excavations at the macellum: H-32/58, H-58B, H-60, H-61A/B (previously classified as H-61A), H-63, H-66, H-67, H-87A/88, H-91A/B, H-91B, H-91C, H-91D (previously classified as H-92), H-93A, H-93B, H-94A, H-95, H-97, H-99A, H-99B, H-99C, H-99D (previously classified as H-80B/99), H-103A/B, H-104A, H-104B, H-104C, H-105A, H-105B, H-106 (previously classified as H-90A), H-107, and H-108.115 Form H-32/58 in ARS D1 (280–320)116 is related to form H-58, which presents some problems of adscription in contexts of the early fourth century (Fig. 7.7.27).117 In Gerasa, we have another example from the Northwest Quarter, 118 and other pieces have been found in Gadara, 119 Meiron, 120 and Jalame (Table  7.2). Form H-58B (300–50/75) in ARS D 1 (Fig.  7.7.28), 121 was manufactured at the El Mahrine workshop.122 In addition to the macellum rim sherd, there is another example from the region, which is from Ḥ orbat Qastra.123 Form H-59B (340/50–400/20) also is produced in ARS D1, associated mainly with the El Mahrine workshop (Fig. 7.7.29).124 In the Jordanian region a complete plate found in a Roman soldier’s tomb in al-Ḥaditha (Dead Sea) and decorated by stamps 3, 28, and 44b of style A(ii) stands out.125 Form H-60 (350–400) is documented in a fabric similar to ARS D1 (Fig. 7.7.30),126 and not in the customary ARS E, as also seems to be the case with a base found in Ḥammath Tiberias.127 The same form is also recorded in Ashkelon and Jalame (Table 7.2). 114 

Taylor and Robinson 1996, 241; Barraud and others 1998, 140, fig. 8. 115  Uscatescu 1992, 129–39. 116  Hayes 1972, 95–96, fig. 14.22. 117  Cau, Reynolds, and Bonifay 2012, 5. 118  Lichtenberger, Raja, and Sørensen 2013, 17, fig. 3 (classified as ARS form H-32). 119  El-Khouri 2014b, 131. 120  Meyers, Strange, and Meyers 1982, 212, pl. 8.31.23–25. 121  Hayes 1972, 94–96, fig. 14.9; Atlante i (1981), 81–82. 122  Mackensen 1993, 370, 388, and 590, pl. 52.5–6. 123  Van den Brink and others 2013, 82–84, fig. 15.5–6. 124   Hayes 1972, 99–100, fig.  15.19; Atlante i (1981), 82; Mackensen 1985, 30, fig. 1.2–3; Mackensen 1993, 370, 399, and 591, pl. 53.1 (form Mahrine 2.2). 125  Parker 1994. 126  Hayes 1972, 100, fig. 15.1. 127  Dothan 1983, fig. 4.R.

185 The wide dish with two horizontal grooves on the outer wall, form H-63 (375/400–50), made in ARS D1 (Fig. 7.7.33),128 is associated with the El Mahrine workshop, where it was manufactured until c. 450.129 The same kind of fabric is shown by a rim similar to form H-66 (350–400/20), but it is lacking grooves (Fig. 7.7.34).130 Shallow dish H-61 has been the subject of an extensive review by Bonifay. At the macellum, there are some sherds corresponding to the transitional shape H-61A/ B2 (Fig.  7.7.31) 131 and H-61A/B3 (Fig.  7.7.32) 132 in ARS D 1, whose chrono­log y has been shortened by Bonifay to c.  400–50. 133 In the region, a plate of the variant H-61A in the tomb of the Roman soldier at al-Ḥaditha, decorated by stamps 32 and 19 variant of style A(iii) stands out.134 The same can be observed in relation to form H-67, following the review by Bonifay, who underlines the existence of three variants according to rim shape and its relation to the wall thickness.135 Some sherds of the macellum are associated with variant H-67A (350–400), which exhibits a rim and wall of the same thickness (not illustrated),136 other rims belong to H-67B (390/400–50) (not illustrated),137 while others can be identified as variant H-67C (c. 450–500) in ARS D2 (Fig. 7.7.35–36).138 Form H-67 is one of the best represented forms in Jordan: al-Lajjūn, Beidha survey site 12 (Wādī Musa),139 Deir ‘Ain ‘Abata, Dibon, es-Safi, Feifa, ‘Iraq el-Amir, Khirbat al-Mukhayyat, Madaba, Mt Nebo, and Petra; as well as in Israel and Palestine: Arbel, Ashkelon, Beth She’an, Bethany, Bethlehem, Caesarea, Capernaum, Herodium, Hippos, Jalame, Jerusalem, Kanisat er-Rawat (Shepherds’ Field), Khirbat el-Jiljil, Khirbat el-Qaṣr, Khiṣaṣ, Meiron, Mimlaḥ, Naḥal Hur Survey Site 99.36/3, Ramat Ra ḥ el, Ras Abu Ma’aruf ( Jerusalem), Sepphoris, and Tel Jezreel (Table 7.2). 128  Hayes 1972, 109; Atlante i (1981), 86; Fulford 1984b, 49, fig. 11.2.11. 129  Mackensen 1993, 370, pl. 55.1 (form Mahrine 6.1). 130  Hayes 1972, 111–12; Atlante i (1981), 85, pl. XXXVI.1. 131  Hayes 1972, 105–07; Bonifay 2004, 167–71, fig. 90.3. 132  Hayes 1972, 107, fig. 17.7; Bonifay 2004, 167–71, fig. 90.6. 133  Bonifay 2004, 170–71. 134  Parker 1994. 135  Bonifay 2004, 171 and 173, fig. 92 (compare with type 41). 136  Bonifay 2004, 171–73. 137  Bonifay 2004, 173, fig. 92. 138  Hayes 1972, 116, fig. 19.1 and 19.4; Bonifay 2004, 171–73, fig. 92.7–8. 139  ‘Amr and others 1998, fig. 4.16.

Alexandra Uscatescu

186

Figure 7.7. ARS D1 and D2 imports from the excavations of the macellum (author’s drawing).

7. Late Antique Ceramic Imports in Gerasa

Figure 7.8. ARS D1 and D2 imports from the excavations of the macellum (author’s drawing).

187

Alexandra Uscatescu

188 Form H-87A/88 in ARS D2 (Fig. 7.8.37) is represented at the macellum by one specimen. Hayes considers it an early variant of form H-88, dated to c. 490–520, and associated with the Sidi Khalifa workshop.140 The flanged bowl is one of the best represented forms at the macellum. Due to the small size of some fragments, they do not preserve the internal groove and therefore must be classified as H-91A/B (Fig. 7.8.38).141 Generally, the variants determined by Hayes are still applicable, but form H-91A/B appears somewhat earlier, c.  400/20, as observed by the Italian team in Carthage.142 Variant H-91A would be dated to the first half of the fifth century (Fig. 7.8.39).143 At the same time, the chrono­ logical lifespan proposed by Hayes for variant H-91C (Fig. 7.8.40–41), has been shortened to the central decades of the fifth century (c. 440–60).144 The shape of some bases allows us to identify an uncommon complete piece and a decorated base as H-91D variants (600–50) that exhibit a flat base with low moulding at the edge and a broad groove on underside (Fig. 7.8.42–43).145 In Jordan, this form is found in Tall Zar’ā,146 and in Israel and Palestine, at Giv’at Mahat and at Nesher Quarry at Ramla (Table 7.2). The bowls with flat everted rim present some problems of identification, especially when it comes to fragments. This problem concerns forms H-93, H-98, H-107, and H-108, particularly when dealing with rim sherds only.147 At the macellum, this kind is represented by form H-93A (c. 450/70–500) in ARS D1 (not illustrated),148 which Michael Fulford considered residual by the end of the fifth century, an assessment that contrasts with the dating of Hayes. At the El Mahrine workshop it is dated to c. 470/80–500/10.149 In Gerasa, there are some pieces classified as H-93A in the Northwest Quarter, but this attribution can be questioned, since the upper moulding of these rims are totally absent in the imported type.150 140 

Bonifay 2004, 175. Hayes 1972, 140. 142  Tortorella 1982, 127; Bonifay 2004, 177. 143  Bonifay 2004, 179. 144  Hayes 1972, 141–44; Bonifay 2004, 179. 145  Hayes 1972, 141. 146  Rothe, Zerbini, and Kenkel 2014, 264, fig. 10.1. 147  Cau, Reynolds, and Bonifay 2012, 5. 148  Hayes 1972, 148, fig. 27.3; Atlante i (1981), 102. 149  Fulford 1984b, 67 (form Fulford 49); Mackensen 1993, 373, 413–14, and 605, pl. 65.6 (form Mahrine 21.3). 150  Lichtenberger, Raja, and Sørensen 2013, figs 9–10. 141 

Variant H-93B (c. 500–50) offers a controversial dating (Figs  7.8.44–45 and 7.9.46). The Italian team in Carthage dates its first occurrence to the end of the fifth century, a chrono­logy supported by Mackensen who dates it to the last quarter of the fifth century, on the grounds of its decorative link with style E(i).151 Form H-94A (480–520) is also documented (Fig. 7.9.47),152 and form H-108 produced in ARS D2 (Fig. 7.11.71),153 for which Hayes proposes a restricted dating at the beginning of the seventh century,154 which Bonifay extends to c. 600–50.155 Form H-95 (500–50/75) in ARS D2 (Fig. 7.9.48)156 shows some datation problems. Fulford considers a slightly later date for this form, c. 550–75, while Tortorella thinks that its initial chrono­log y can be c. 425–50.157 Two other pieces of evidence for this form in the neighbouring region come from Ḥ orbat Be’er Shema’ and Khirbat al-Karak (Table 7.2). Form H-97 (500–50), together with H-95 just mentioned, is manufactured in ARS D2 (Fig. 7.9.48–50) and is typical of the Oudhna workshop.158 In Jordan, it is registered in Umm al-Raṣaṣ, and in Israel, in Ashkelon, En-Boqeq, and Tell Shiqmona (Table 7.2). Form H-99 has also been subject to review by Bonifay, who observes that it begins to be manufactured at the end of the fifth century and that it lasts for two centuries more, showing some morpho­logical evolution.159 Form H-99 was mainly produced at the Oudhna workshop in ARS D2.160 Bonifay considers that variants H-99A and H-99B are typical of sixth-century production and accepts an initial dating of c. 480.161 Variant H-99A occurs at both the El Mahrine and Oudhna 151 

Hayes 1972, 148, fig. 27.19; Atlante i (1981), 101; Tortorella 1987, 305; 1998, 67; Mackensen 1993, 414. 152  Hayes 1972, 148, fig. 27.1. 153 Atlante i (1981), 112–13. 154  Hayes 1972, 171, fig. 33. 155  Bonifay 2004, 187. 156  Hayes 1972, 149; Atlante i (1981), 103. 157  Fulford 1984b, 69 (form Fulford 54); Tortorella 1987, 306; 1998, 67. 158  Hayes 1972, 151; Atlante i (1981), 111; Fulford 1984b, 68, fig. 19.56 (form Fulford 56); Barraud and others 1998, fig. 9.8; Mackensen and Schneider 2002, fig. 4.8. 159  Bonifay 2011, 15. 160  Tortorella 1987, 306; Mackensen 1993, 373, pl. 67.3–11 (form Mahrine 29.1–29.2); Barraud and others 1998, figs 8.1–5 and 17.26–30. 161  Bonifay, Carré, and Rigoir 1998, 362 n. 169; Bonifay 2004, 181.

7. Late Antique Ceramic Imports in Gerasa

Figure 7.9. ARS D1 and D2 imports from the excavations of the macellum (author’s drawing).

189

Alexandra Uscatescu

190

Figure 7.10. ARS D1 and D2 imports from the excavations of the macellum (author’s drawing).

7. Late Antique Ceramic Imports in Gerasa

Figure 7.11. ARS D1 and D2 imports from the excavations of the macellum (author’s drawing).

191

Alexandra Uscatescu

192 workshops (Fig. 7.9.51–53).162 The chrono­logical proposal by Bonifay extends Hayes’s datation for this variant (490/500–50).163 Variant H-99B is the one that shows a major chrono­logical adjustment (Fig. 7.9.54), because although Hayes dated it to c. 530–80,164 Bonifay, in his review, demonstrates that it is well attested c. 525–620.165 Variant H-99C would be later than what Hayes initially thought (Fig. 7.9.55),166 now being dated to c. 580–680,167 as the Italian contexts of San Antonino di Perti and Crypta Balbi in Rome support; all of them dated in the second part of the seventh century and associated with the finding of form H-109.168 Finally, variant H-99D, which is the latest product of this form, corresponds to the former shape H-80B/99 and would be dated to c. 650–700.169 The rim sherds of the macellum, previously published as form H-80B/99, are now labelled with this new variant denomination (Fig. 7.10.56–58).170 Evidence from the castrum of San Antonino di Perti proves that form H-99D continued to be traded in the second half of the seventh century, and that it is usually found in association with late African amphorae, such as forms Keay 8A and 62V and other globular types.171 As for shallow dishes at the macellum, form H-103A/B (Fig. 7.10.59) is documented and produced in ARS D2 (500–75/600).172 Its final chrono­logy is supported by the stamped decoration of style E(i), also documented at the macellum.173 The open plate H-104 is represented by its three variants, whose datations have been revised by Mackensen on the basis of the styles of stamps, possibly beginning at the end of the fifth century with style A(iii)/E(i) decoration.174 Form H-104A1

(Fig. 7.10.60–61) is an early variant (c. 490–530) in D2, as is variant H-104A2 (525–50) (not illustrated). 175 Variant H-104B (Fig. 7.10.62) is also in D2,176 and has an enlarged chrono­logy by Bonifay, c. 550–600.177 Variant H-104C (Fig.  7.10.64–66) 178 has a revised chrono­ logy of c. 550–650179 and is one of the best represented in Jordan: Madaba (field C),180 Dhībān Plateau survey site 14,181 Tall Zar’ā,182 and also at Boṣrā, although not identified as such.183 The examples of form H-105 found at the macellum belong to D2 fabric, although there is a base fragment with two grooves, which can be attributed to the workshops of central Tunisia (Henchir echChekaf ). According to Bonifay’s proposal,184 variant H-105A (Fig. 7.11.67) is dated to c. 580/600–50,185 and variant H-105B (Fig. 7.11.68) to c. 640–60.186 As for form H-107 in ARS D1 (c. 600–60) (Fig. 7.11.69–70),187 the earlier chrono­logy proposed by Fulford (c. 550) lost argumentative strength when it was determined that the rim sherds illustrated by the British team in Carthage, in fact corresponded to the earliest H-93A form.188 In Jordan, form H-105 is registered in Pella in a context dated to the mid-seventh century.189 As for the decorative styles, at the macellum we find stamps associated with early style A(ii), such as stamp 53 (Fig. 7.11.72) corresponding to form H-59 (c. 350–400).190 Stamps 36 and 69 are also associated with the same form in fabric D1 (Fig. 7.11.74), form H-61 or H-67, which correspond to style A(ii)/(iii), dated

175 

Bonifay 2004, 183, fig. 97. Hayes 1972, 166, fig. 30–31; Atlante i (1981), 95. 177  Bonifay 2004, 183, fig. 97.34; Cau, Reynolds, and Bonifay 2012, 5. 178  Hayes 1972, 166, nos 23 and 29; Atlante i (1981), 95. 179  Bonifay 2004, 183, fig.  97; Cau, Reynolds, and Bonifay 2012, 5. 180  Harrison 1994, 442, fig. 3.9; Foran and others 2004, 89, fig. 10.13–14. 181  Chang-Ho and Jong-Keun 1998, 551, fig. 2.1. 182  Rothe, Zerbini, and Kenkel 2014, 264, fig. 10.2–3. 183  Wilson and Sa’d 1984, 100, fig. 368. 184  Bonifay 2004, 183–85. 185  Hayes 1972, 169, fig. 31; Bonifay 2004, 185, fig. 98.5. 186  Bonifay 2004, 185, fig. 98.9. 187  Hayes 1972, 171, fig. 33.1; Atlante i (1981), 102; Mackensen 1993, 425, pl. 65.8–9. 188  Fulford 1984b, 75, fig. 21.69.1–69.2 (form Fulford 69). 189  Walmsley and others 1993, 205, fig. 19.3. 190  Hayes 1972, 240, fig. 41.n; Uscatescu 1992, 139, fig. 12.81. 176 

162  Hayes 1972, 152–55; Atlante i (1981), 109; Mackensen 1993, 415–17, pl. 67.3–5; Barraud and others 1998. 163  Bonifay 2004, 181; Cau, Reynolds, and Bonifay 2012, 5. 164  Hayes 1972, 155. 165  Bonifay 2004, 181; Cau, Reynolds, and Bonifay 2012, 5. 166  Hayes 1972, 155. 167  Bonifay 2004, 181; Cau, Reynolds, and Bonifay 2012, 5. 168  Murialdo and others 1998, 241; Saguì 1998, 308, fig. 5. 169  Hayes 1972, 155, fig. 28.28; Atlante i (1981), 105 and 109; Bonifay 2004, 181 (type 55); Cau, Reynolds, and Bonifay 2012, 5. 170  Uscatescu 1992, 133. 171  Murialdo and others 1998, 242. 172  Hayes 1972, 160; Atlante i (1981), 98–99. 173   Tortorella 1987, 306. Years later, Tortorella reckoned that eventually its initial date would cast back to 470/80, taking into account the data from Rome, Porto Torres, and Marseilles (Tortorella 1998, 67). 174  Bonifay 2004, 183; Cau, Reynolds, and Bonifay 2012, 5.

7. Late Antique Ceramic Imports in Gerasa to c. 380–475.191 A dolphin stamp 179 (Fig. 7.11.73) belongs to style A(iii) of ARS D1.192 Stamp 118 corresponds to style E(i), in ARS D2 (Fig. 7.11.76)193 and this is found on a base attributed to form H-99C and dated to c.  580–680, which could come from the Oudhna workshop, although this shape is also manufactured at Sidi Marzouk Tounsi. 194 Stamp 228 or 234, depicting a soldier or saint, corresponds to style E(ii) of ARS D2 (Fig. 7.11.75).195 As for the trading of other forms manufactured in the African workshops (Fig. 7.14), I believe that it is important to underline that African lamps are practically absent in the region but for a few specimens found in the harbours of the coastal strip. This fact contrasts with data obtained from other eastern provinces.196 The ARS D4 Production and the Question of the ‘Pseudo-Egyptian Red Slip C’

Hayes identified the so-called ‘Egyptian Red Slip C’, now labelled as ‘Pseudo-Egyptian’, with an Egyptian or Palestinian production with serious doubts, since in the 1970s it was a convenient attribution as most of the findings were concentrated in those geo­g raphical areas, admitting that it could have been manufactured elsewhere.197 Nonetheless, it is one of the most easily distinguishable ceramic productions, characterized by the soapy appearance of its intense red slip. So far, different production centres have been proposed, such as Abu Mina and Alexandria, both of which have been discarded again due to a lack of evidence. 198 Recently, Bonifay has associated this production with his ARS D4, a group characterized by a slip of soapy touch and a porous fabric of beige colour, soft texture, and crimson red slip, represented by forms H-98, H-99C, and H-109 in Tunisia.199 In the Western Mediterranean, this ware is recorded at Marseilles (forms H-91C, H-91D, H-98,

193 H-99C, and H-109),200 Pupput, Nabeul, and Rougga in contexts dated to the seventh century. According to Bonifay, its connection with lustrée decoration could elucidate the problem of its origin, revealing itself as the later evidences of African production, dated to after c. 650.201 Therefore, a large part of the ceramics previously classified as ERS C could correspond to the late ARS D4 type, the occurrence of which begins in the end of the seventh century.202 Thus the supposed local character of the latest ARS D productions of Nabeul, Pupput, and Sidi Jdidi would be questioned, since they have been traded, although to a lesser extent than the previous ARS types.203 The pieces found at the macellum and at other Palestinian sites stand out for the morpho­logical fidelity to the African model.204 This also was observed by Mieczysław Rodziewicz, who made the same remark for the ceramic group K of Alexandria.205 The attested forms at the macellum are: three bowls of form H-97 (500–50) (Fig.  7.12.77); two open bowls similar to form H-104A/C (c. 500–700) (Fig. 7.12.78–79), very close to the African production attested at Sidi Jdidi (form 4, although this form corresponds to the continental production of Sidi Khalifa’s workshop);206 and a sherd decorated by rouletting, which initially was attributed to form H-90A,207 but the straight profile of the interior of the plate would fit better with form H-106 (c. 600–60+),208 which Bonifay also associates to ARS D4 (Fig. 7.12.80).209 In this sense, a formal African parallel stands out, decoration included, found in two late deposits of the Carthage excavations: the one dated to the late sixth century/early seventh century, and the other to the second half of the seventh century.210 In Gerasa, in addition to the finds at the macellum, this production is known at the excavations of the 200 

Bonifay, Carré, and Rigoir 1998, 363 n. 173. Hayes 1972, 401; Bonifay, Carré, and Rigoir 1998, 363 n. 173; Bonifay 2004, 207. 202  Bonifay 2005a, 570 n. 34. 203  Bonifay 2003, 127. 204  Uscatescu 1992, 155, figs 16.125–27 and 17.128–30. 205  Rodziewicz 1976, 12 and 50, fig. 17; Rodziewicz 1984, 236 n. 215; Ballet and Picon 1987, 37 and 40, fig. 5.3; Ballet 2005, 41. 206  Bonifay 2004, 205, fig. 108.1. 207  Uscatescu 1992, 130. 208  Hayes 1972, 171. 209  Bonifay 2004, 210, fig. 110.1 (type 91). 210  Hayes 1978, 50, fig. 12.3; Riley 1981, 100, fig. 4.8. 201 

191 

Hayes 1972, 24 and 237; Uscatescu 1992, 142, fig. 12.82. Hayes 1972, 257, fig. 48.e; Uscatescu 1992, 142, fig. 12.83. 193  Hayes 1972, 249, fig. 44.r. 194  Mackensen 1998b, 363, 368, figs 6.8 and 8.5. 195  Hayes 1972, 263 and 265; Uscatescu 1992, 139, fig. 11.80. 196  Bonifay 2005a, 571. 197  Imitation Late ware B: Waagé 1948, 44–45; Hayes 1972, 399; 1980b, 530; Bonifay 2005a, 571. 198  Rodziewicz 1976, 67; Engemann 1992, 156; Ballet 1997, 55 n. 10. 199  Bonifay 2004, 48 and 461. 192 

Alexandra Uscatescu

194

Figure 7.12. ARS D4 or ‘Pseudo-Egyptian C’ imports from the excavations of the macellum (author’s drawing).

Temple of Zeus.211 The distribution of this ware in Jordan was first studied by Watson who, in addition to pieces similar to form H-104B in Pella, records seven examples from the Umayyad house of the South Decumanus, corresponding to forms H-104A, H-104C, and H-105, and one fragment from the macellum.212 In addition to the specimens collected by Hayes in Khirbat al-Karak,213 we can add the most recent find of Gadara214 and ‘Iraq 211 

Villeneuve 2003, 147. Watson 1995a, 310, fig. 1.6 (H-104B = CN 4357 from Pella). 213  Hayes 1972, 399. 214  El-Khouri 2014b, 134, fig. 7.6. 212 

el-Amir (form H-94), as well as the Palestinian finds of Be’er Sheva (form H-104C),215 Caesarea (form H-105), En Boqeq, Ḥ orbat Ḥ a ẓ a ẓ (Ashkelon), 216 Jalame, 217 Khirbat es-Suyyagah (forms H-104C and H-105),218 Tiberias, and with some doubts also Samaria.219 In the case of Ashkelon, the pieces classified as ERS B could 215 

Israel, Seriy, and Fedor 2013, fig. 12.12. Nahshoni 2007, 91, fig. 14.2. 217  Slane and Magness 2005, 260. 218  Taxel 2009, 100, figs 3.10.1, 3.17.4, 3.18.6, and 3.24.5. 219   Bes 2015, 112 and n.  929; contra: Tal and Taxel 2010, 117–18, fig. 24 (classified as LRC form H-10). 216 

7. Late Antique Ceramic Imports in Gerasa

Figure 7.13. African wares from the excavations of the macellum. 81–85. Shallow dishes of form H-181; 86. African mortarium; 87. African amphora toe; 88. Unknown amphora toe (author’s drawing).

195

Alexandra Uscatescu

196

Figure 7.14. Map of ARS finds in the Levant (author’s drawing).

7. Late Antique Ceramic Imports in Gerasa actually correspond to the ‘Pseudo-Egyptian ERS C’ or ARS D 4; in fact, the typo­logy used by Barbara  L. Johnson is exactly the same as that of the ARS, and many forms are identical to those of the macellum, especially forms H-97220 and H-104C with rouletting decoration on the outer rim.221 At the Ophel in Jerusalem, a single piece was found, corresponding to form H-90, for which an Egyptian origin is claimed.222 Other African Imports: Domestic Wares and Amphorae

Unlike the Western Mediterranean, where African domestic wares and amphorae proved to be common in the coastal strip; in our region, the opposite happens, since only an African casserole of form H-23A has been recorded at Bet Zayit.223 At the macellum, the same trend is observed, and African domestic wares are poorly represented, just a single form, H-181, successor of form H-26 in ARS A2, whose evolution has been revised and systematized by Bonifay, from the beginning of the second century until the mid-fifth century.224 It should be noted that the macellum pieces lack the blackened top, but their fabric is macroscopically compatible with an African import:225 form H-181 no. 13 (Fig. 7.13.81), H-181A (90–150) (Fig. 7.13.84–85), H-181B (180–350) (Fig. 7.13.83), and H-181D (c. 350–450) (Fig. 7.13.82).226 In Gerasa, there are pieces similar to form H-181 found in the south-western cemetery excavated by Clarence S. Fisher. In tomb 4, form H-181C could be dated between the end of the second century and throughout the third century (Fig. 7.44.175–76).227 In tomb 9, another earlier variant is found, variant H-181A (c. 90–150) (Fig. 7.44.173).228 In the quarter west of the church of St Theodore, in cave 5, form H-181 is associated with coins of Domitian and Commodus (late first to second centuries). In other cases, the findings have been considered imitations, but since this attribution cannot be contrasted, the most I can do is indicate where form H-181A has been regis220 

Johnson 2008, 87, no. 273 [A5/86.38.64.L45.B33.(6)]. Johnson 2008, 88–89; no.  277 [A5/86.38.63.L503.B13. (1)] and no. 279. 222  Fleitman 2015, 154, fig. I.3A.1.13. 223  Greenhut and Weiss 2000, fig. 147.2. 224  Bonifay 2004, 211. 225  Uscatescu 1992, 142. 226  Bonifay 2004, 214. 227  Fisher 1938, 557, figs 36.1–2 and 36.5. 228  Fisher 1938, 564, fig. 42.11 n. 16. 221 

197 tered: at the carpenter’s workshop at the South Gate, dated to the second half of the third century,229 at the North Theatre,230 and also at the eastern Propylaeum area of Artemis complex in a context dated to early third century.231 Outside Gerasa, it is documented in Gadara,232 Tell Faysal,233 and Jerusalem, where form H-181 is particularly abundant.234 As for African domestic wares, there is a rim sherd corresponding to Carthage mortarium Class 1 found at the macellum (Fig. 7.13.86), also classified as form Fulford 2 (c.  500–600+), 235 which Bonifay dates to c. 375–550.236 With regard to African amphorae, the production centres of which are found in Tunisia and Tripolitania (south of Tunisia), 237 at the macellum there is only one amphora toe that could correspond to the fabric ‘Carthage-Nabeul’ type (Fig. 7.13.87)238 and, with doubts, to form Africana 2B/Keay 4 (c.  230–400).239 In the rest of the city, African amphorae are not better represented. On the basis of an old drawing, a complete piece from the quarter west of the church of St Theodore would correspond to amphora Africana 2B (c. 230–400) 229 

Rasson 1986, 67, fig. 17.2. Clark and Falkner 1986, 249, fig. 20.13. 231  Baldoni 2010, 362, fig. 10.10. 232  Kerner 1997, 291. 233  Palumbo and others 1993, fig. 12.2. 234  Wightman 1989, 7–8. 235  Fulford 1984a, 199–200, fig. 76.2.1. 236  Bonifay 2004, 252, fig. 138, type 11. 237  Workshops in Ariana, el Assa, Port-Prince (Bon Peninsula), Nabeul, Sidi Zahruni, Sidi Aoun, Susa, Leptis Minor, Moknine, El Hri 1–2, Salakta, Ras Bou Tria, Henchir Thyna, Borj Younga, Oued el Akarit, Maklouba, Ras Aïed, Henchir ech Chekaf 1–2, Henchir Krechrem, Chtiouine, El Mokaïda, Hamedet Ahmed Saïd, Bir Abbed, Henchir Ben Hassine, Henchir ech Choggaf, Aioun ech Chekaf, Tarfayat, Henchir Mbarek, Aioun es Soltan, Majoura and Gafsa (Panella 1973, 608; Manacorda 1977, 185; Anselmino and others 1986, 177; Peacock and others 1989, 183–98; 1990, 61–64, fig. 2.2–11; Peacock and Tomber 1991, 291; Ben Lazreg and others 1995, 129–31, fig.  11; Bonifay and Pieri 1995, 100; Tortorella 1995, 87; Stone, Stirling, and Ben Lazreg 1998, 311; Bonifay 2003, fig. 1; 2004, 30–41; 2005b, 453–54; Ghalia, Bonifay, and Capelli 2005, 496–98). Workshops in southern Tunisia: Guellala ( Jerba island) and Zitha (Ben Lazreg and others 1995, 130, fig. 11; Bonifay 2004, 29). 230 

238 

The rim sherd, previously published as an African amphora, proved to be a rim of a pottery pipe (Uscatescu 1992, 163, fig. 19.144). 239   Panella 1973, 582–85; Manacorda 1977, 162; Bonifay 2004, 111–14, fig. 59.

Alexandra Uscatescu

198 (Fig.  7.45.181), 240 to which we could add a rim of a spatheion of Bonifay type 1B (c. 400–50) found at the Northwest Quarter excavations (Fig.  7.46.186).241 In this sense, the regional panorama is not very encouraging either. At the Wādī Zarqa survey, at al-Birah, an amphora Keay 25.3 was registered,242 and in Khirbat alWad’ah, Africana 2 and 3 types were recorded.243 Also at Wādī Feynan were documented some cylindrical amphorae without a precise typo­logy.244 In Aqaba, there is evidence of the types Africana 1 and 2.245 In the rest of the region (Fig.  7.15), the African amphora finds in the largest cities of the coastal strip also reflect the poverty of the findings inland: in Shavei Zion, there are some small spatheia; 246 in Bet Galim (Haifa), an Africana 2D and an amphora Keay 62Q/R (450–550) are registered;247 in Ḥorbat Qastra and the underwater site of Kafr Samir, several African amphora have been identified such as the cylindrical type Keay 8B (450/65–620/50), spatheia Keay 25.2 (300–450), Keay 26G/Bonifay type 1 (500–600+) as well as amphorae Keay 40/41 (450–620), Keay 57, Keay 62A (425/50–620), and Keay 62Q/R (450–550). 248 Closer, in Tell Shiqmona, there are amphorae Keay 45 and Keay 62Q/R (450–550) as well as a spatheion.249 In Caesarea and its harbour the largest number of African amphora imports in the region are documented, but in a low percentage compared to other amphora imports (1.8 per cent): Africana 1, Africana 2A, Africana 2C, Keay 57 (450–620), Keay 58, Keay 25.1 (300–450), and Tripolitanian amphora.250 In Ashkelon, Africana 2 and 240 

Fisher and McCown 1929–30, 31, fig. 3.x4, pl. 11. 241   Bonifay 2004, 125, fig.  67.6; Lichtenberger, Raja, and Sørensen 2013, fig. 121. 242  Peruzzetto and Wilson 1996; Bonifay 2004, 119. 243  Peruzzetto and Wilson 1996; Munzi and Ciotola 2006. 244  Barker and others 1998, 285; Munzi and Ciotola 2006. 245  Parker 2002, 424. 246  Prausnitz 1967, fig. 11.8. 247  Bonifay and Pieri 1995, 102; Freed 1995, 185; Macias and Remolà 2000, 485; Bonifay 2004, 137 (type 45). 248   Panella 1982, fig.  23; Keay 1984, 213, 293, and 298, fig.  90.12; Peacock 1984b, 130 and 135, fig.  42.101; Bonifay and Pieri 1995, 100 (Keay 57); Freed 1995, 185 and 191, fig. 3.3; Bonifay, Carré, and Rigoir 1998, 262; Keay 1998, 147; Macias and Remolà 2000, 485; Remolà 2000, 160; Bonifay 2004, 125, 132, and 137 (type 45); Bonifay 2005b, 452–53; Haddad 2009, 84–86; Van den Brink and others 2013, 90, fig. 17.6. 249  Freed 1995, 185; Bonifay and Pieri 1995, 102; Macias and Remolà 2000, 485; Bonifay 2004, 137 (type 45). 250  Panella 1973, 582 and 586; Manacorda 1977, 125; Keay

Keay 62 amphorae are also documented.251 With the exception of Jerusalem that shows a certain variety of amphora finds — such as Africana 2B (230–400), Keay 25.3 (300–450), and the Tripolitanian types 252 — in the inland areas there is hardly any evidence of African amphora imports. At Beth She’an, the type Africana 1 has been identified. In the south, the African amphorae evidence is little varied and very limited: in Ḥorbat Be’er Shema’, amphora Keay 8B (450/65–620/50) and a spatheion type Bonifay 3C are identified;253 in Ḥorbat Ma’on there is another spatheion.254 Finally, due to its particular chrono­logy, the evidence at Capernaum of four late African globular amphorae (c. 650–700) is quite relevant in relation to the arrival of African imports to the region as late as the seventh century.255 Though the African amphora imports are very scarce, the western imports are even more so. In this sense, in addition to the imports located on the coastal sites, such as Ashkelon (Baetic amphora Beltrán 72)256 and Caesarea Maritima (Hispanic/Lusitanian amphorae),257 the identification by Heike Möller of an Almagro 50 amphora in the Northwest Quarter excavations (c. 200–400/50) (Fig. 7.46.187),258 coming from the Iberian Peninsula (Lusitanian or Baetic workshops) and associated with the garum trade,259 is quite relevant for the study of the rare western imports at Jerash. Eastern Imports from the North: Anatolian and Cypriot Productions Tableware Imports: LRC

LRC is also called Phocaean Red Slip ware, but since its production is not only restricted to the Foça/Phocaea 1984, 293–98; Peacock 1984b, 130; Peleg and Reich 1992, 154, fig.  15.16–18; Oleson and others 1994, 7; Magness 1994, 135, fig. 2.6–7; Bonifay and Pieri 1995, 100; Remolà 2000, 155; Bonifay 2004, 119. 251  Johnson 2008, 159 and 176, nos 496–97. 252  Panella 1973, 559; Bonifay 2004, 119 and 122 (Africana 3B); Fleitman and Mazar 2015, 224, 242, and 246, fig. 1.5.1.91. 253  Erickson-Gini, Dolinka, and Shilov 2015, 231, fig. 28.2. 254  Nahshoni and Seriy 2014, fig. 5.8. 255  Keay 1998, 148; Bonifay 2004, 153, fig. 83; Loffreda 2008, 146. 256  Johnson 2008, 159. 257  Blakely 1988, 40. 258  Möller 2017, 62. 259  Panella 1973, 605; Keay 1984, 393; Fabiâo and Carvalho 1990, 52; Mayet 1990, 31; Peacock and Williams 1991, 130; Mayet, Schmitt, and Tavares da Silva 1996, 194.

7. Late Antique Ceramic Imports in Gerasa

Figure 7.15. Map of African amphora and domestic-ware finds in the Levant (author’s drawing).

199

Alexandra Uscatescu

200

Figure 7.16. LRC imports from the excavations of the macellum (author’s drawing).

7. Late Antique Ceramic Imports in Gerasa workshops, as it was also determined at the archaeo­ logical sites of Çandarli and Grinion,260 it is preferable to return to the original LRC denomination. At the macellum, LRC is the pottery group that requires the least revision. However, a great number of unpublished sherds found within the contemporary deposit of the macellum must be mentioned: H-1A (c.  380/400–20) (Fig.  7.16.89), H-2A (c.  400–50) (Fig.  7.16.90), H-3C (c.  450–75) (Fig.  7.16.91), H-3D (c. 480–500) (Fig. 7.16.92), H-3E (c. 480–520) (not illustrated), H-3F (c.  520–50) plain examples (Fig. 7.16.93–94) as well as grooved (Fig. 7.16.95–97) or roulette d examples (Fig s  7.16.98–99 and 17.100–04), H-3H (c. 550–600) (Fig. 7.17.105), H-3/4 (Fig. 7.17.106), and H-9 (c. 520–600) (Fig. 7.17.107).261 Furthermore, there are also some LRC stamps of group II, such as a dolphin or motif 45 dated to the sixth century (Fig. 7.17.109), and of group III, such as a cross or motif 68j, dated to c. 500 (Fig. 7.17.108), and an unregistered stamped motif (Fig. 7.17.110).262 Research advances on this kind of pottery production indicate that the initial chrono­logy of forms H-1 and H-3 could be adjusted to the beginning of the fifth century, whereas the lifespan of form H-2 would be restricted to the fifth century.263 The first imports of LRC in Gerasa have only been identified at the macellum, since the stamps on a base fragment classified as form H-2B in the Northwest Quarter should more likely be identified as a base of ARS decorated with palmette stamps and concentric circles of African style A(i)-(ii).264 The number of variants of form H-3 collected in the macellum is also noteworthy, but, as it has been pointed out recently, this form may be the result of a linear evolution, or the number of variants is the consequence of different workshops manufacturing this form.265 In Gerasa, form H-3 is the best represented, with findings of form H-3E in phase 6 of the Cardo/North Decumanus intersection (c.  500–20),266 and form H-3G found in the Northwest Quarter excavations (Fig.  7.46.185).267 260  Mayet and Picon 1986, 133; Empereur and Picon 1986, 144; Cau, Reynolds, and Bonifay 2012, 5. 261  Uscatescu 1992, 146–47. 262  Uscatescu 1992, 150, fig. 15.115–16. 263  Hayes 2000, 285; Cau, Reynolds, and Bonifay 2012, 5. 264  Lichtenberger, Raja, and Sørensen 2013, 19, fig. 6. 265  Cau, Reynolds, and Bonifay 2012, 5. 266  Watson 1986a, 363. 267  Lichtenberger, Raja, and Sørensen 2013, 17, fig. 5.

201 In Jordan, it is documented in Gadara,268 Tall Zar’ā,269 Khirbat al-Masarrat,270 Tall al-Kharrār (where it was erroneously classified as ARS),271 and Aqaba.272 On the other hand, attention should be drawn to significant absences at the macellum corpus, for instance of form H-10, which is especially striking on account of the amount of late layers within the strati­g raphy of this building. However, the explanation for this absence could be due to the fact that these later layers are dated to c. 659/60, and the production of LRC, in the opinion of many researchers, does not go beyond 660.273 However, variant H-10C could subsist beyond that date. 274 In Jordan, form H-10 is documented in al-Lajjūn (H-10A), 275 Barsinia (H-10C), Deir ‘Ain ‘Abata (H-10C), Gerasa/Temple of Artemis (H-10?), Gadara (H-10A and H-10B),276 Madaba (H-10A), Mt Nebo (H-10A),277 Pella (H-10A and H-10C), Tall Zar’ā (H-10A and H-10C),278 and Umm al-Raṣāṣ (H-10A). A  sherd decorated with a cross stamp, motif 71, in Madaba should be highlighted, although it has not been recognized as such.279 Tableware Imports: LRD

Advances in the knowledge of the pottery production of LRD have been very considerable in recent years, although the problem of Cypriot production, supported by mineralogical analysis, has not been solved.280 According to new findings, Hayes argued that its origin must be sought in Anatolia and not in Cyprus.281 The only kilns known so far are found precisely in south-

268 

El-Khouri 2014b, 124. Vieweger 2002, 168, fig.  18.2–5; Hässer and Vieweger 2005, fig. 10.26. 270  Ghrayyib 2004, 33. 271  Abu Shmeis and Waheeb 2002, 578, fig. 13.6. 272  Parker 2002, 424. 273  Sodini and others 1992, 207. 274   Bes and Poblome 2007, 4; Cau, Reynolds, and Bonifay 2012, 7. 275  Parker 2006, 359–61. Finally, Hayes seems to admit an early occurrence of LRC form H-10A, in c. 550 (Hayes 2008, 86). 276  El-Khouri 2014b, 124. 277  Alliata 1990b, 458. 278  Rothe, Zerbini, and Kenkel 2014, 264, fig. 10.7. 279  Harrison and others 2003, 146, fig. 12.9. 280  Gomez and others 1996, 77; Meyza 2007, 13 and 15–20. 281  Hayes 2001, 277. 269  

Alexandra Uscatescu

202

Figure 7.17. LRC imports from the excavations of the macellum (author’s drawing).

7. Late Antique Ceramic Imports in Gerasa

Figure 7.18. Map of LRC finds in the Levant (author’s drawing).

203

Alexandra Uscatescu

204 ern Anatolia, in the Pisidia region near Gebiz. 282 In recent years, the existence of kilns and pottery wasters has been determined in Perge, Pednelissos (Camii Yikiği, Kiremitli Mevkiisi, Kömbeci Mevkii, Kadirgürü Mevkiisi, Haciahmet Kiri, and Budaklar Mevkiisi), and Sagalassos.283 For this reason, it is suggested that the nomenclature introduced in the 1990s of Cypriot Red Slip, should return to its original name of LRD.284 Without denying a possible Cypriot production, supported by the direct cultural relationship between Cyprus and southern Anatolia,285 this model of production in two geo­graphically close areas is the same as the one observed for LRA 1. The initial date of LRD importation seems to be fixed in the third quarter of the fourth century, both in Kourion and at Yassi Ada’s shipwreck.286 In this sense, the corrected chrono­logy of Jalame does not allow a beginning of its presence in the Levant before that date.287 As for its final occurrence, it is highly probable that LRD was produced until the end of the eighth century, although so far the evidence dated after c. 700 is noted only in Cyprus.288 Although, Pamela Armstrong believes that in Palestine there has always been a tendency to date the specimens within the earliest frameworks.289 The typo­logical corpus of LRD has been increased in recent years. In this sense, the work of Henryk Meyza is fundamental and considerably broadens Hayes’s repertoire.290 For the specific case of Gerasa’s macellum, it can now be explained why some specific sherds were mistakenly incorporated into the group of ‘Microasiatic Red Slip’, why other pieces were misidentified,291 and even why some forms undoubtedly attributed to LRD production were without a typo­logical reference in the 1990s. In the present contribution, I add several previously unpublished forms, accompanied by new chrono­ logical data.

282 

Jackson and others 2012, 89. Vandeput and Köse 2008, 33; Armstrong 2009, 158; Jackson and others 2012, 90–91. 284  Poblome and Firat 2012, 49. 285  Jackson and others 2012, 90. 286  Armstrong 2009, 159. 287  Hayes 1998, 11; Slane and Magness 2005, 257; Armstrong 2009, 167 n. 45. 288  Armstrong 2009, 157; Cau, Reynolds, and Bonifay 2012, 7. 289  Armstrong 2009, 169. 290  Meyza 2007. 291  Uscatescu 1992, fig. 17.131–33. 283 

A hemispherical bowl of the macellum, which in the 1990s had no typo­logical reference,292 can now be assigned to form H-1/3C (Fig.  7.19.111). It is dated to c.  360–450/75 293 and produced at Camii Yikiği, Kadirgürü Mevkiisi, and Kömbeci Mevkii workshops.294 Another variant is form H-1/K.1 (Fig. 7.19.112), dated to c. 380–450.295 In the case of form H-2, its starting date is moved forward to the beginning of the fifth century (c. 420/50–550),296 and it is considered an eastern version of forms H-83–86 of ARS.297 Some of the pieces from the macellum show a double grooving and a careful rouletting decoration, all correspond to pieces dated to c. 450–75 (Fig. 7.19.113),298 although there are also later and coarser specimens (Fig. 7.19.114).299 In Gerasa, another rim of form H-2 is also documented at the Northwest Quarter excavations.300 A piece, previously identified with another production, can now be classified as form H-4 (Fig. 7.19.115),301 whose dating in the fifth century was extended by Meyza to beyond the end of the sixth/beginning of the seventh century. 302 Featuring a characteristic skeuomorphic repoussé, the production of this form is determined in the Turkish workshops of Kardirgürü Mevkiisi and Camii Yikiği.303 Although it is an unusual form, another example is registered in the region, in Gush Ḥ alav. 304 Form H-5 also extended its chrono­logical frame (c. 520/50–620/50).305 If we compare some of the findings of the macellum with the Beirut pieces dated after the 551 earthquake, in the Spanish excavations, we would have the oldest examples (Fig. 7.19.116–17).306 292 

Uscatescu 1992, 152, fig. 15.122. Meyza 2007, 49–50, pl. 3.18. 294  Jackson and others 2012, 109, fig. 18.1–3. 295  Meyza 2007, 51, pl. 2. 296  Meyza 2007, 51–52. 297  Cau, Reynolds, and Bonifay 2012, 7; Reynolds 2012, 57; contra: Meyza 2007, 52. 298  Reynolds 2012, 57–60, fig. 1.5. 299  Reynolds 2012, 57, fig. 2.13. 300  Lichtenberger, Raja, and Sørensen 2013, 19, fig. 7. 301  Uscatescu 1992, 128, fig. 7.52. 302  Meyza 2007, 55. 303  Hayes 1998, 10; Meyza 2007, 56; Jackson and others 2012, 95 and 100, fig. 11.6–8. 304  Groh 1990, 140, nos 28–29. 305  Meyza 2007, 56–57; Poblome and Firat 2012, 52. 306  Reynolds 2012, 57, fig. 3.30–32. 293 

7. Late Antique Ceramic Imports in Gerasa

Figure 7.19. LRD imports from the excavations of the macellum (author’s drawing).

205

Alexandra Uscatescu

206

Figure 7.20. LRD imports from the excavations of the macellum (author’s drawing).

7. Late Antique Ceramic Imports in Gerasa

Figure 7.21. Map of LRD finds in the Levant (author’s drawing).

207

Alexandra Uscatescu

208 The chrono­logy of form H-7 (Fig. 7.19.118–19) is also extended (c. 450–600/20),307 and it was produced in the Kadirgürü Mevkiisi workshop.308 The generally accepted chrono­logy for form H-9 (c. 550–680) could be extended to c. 800.309 In this sense, Armstrong compiles some pieces associated with numismatic findings dated to the second third of the eighth century in Cyprus (Panagia, cave of Kornos, Lymira, and Dhiorios).310 At the macellum, variant H-9B is documented in a coarser variant exhibiting the typical incised zigzag band on the outside of the rim (Fig. 7.20.120), a decoration documented at the Kadirgürü Meckiisi workshop,311 and also with rouletting decoration (Fig. 7.20.121). Following Meyza’s classification, some rim sherds from the macellum that belong to the family of form H-9 would have a better fit in the transitional form K.1/K.3 (Fig. 7.20.122), dated to fifth/sixth century.312 Another piece presents a profile similar to a shape defined by Meyza for the first time, K.2B (Fig. 7.20.123), possibly dated to c. 580–650313 and, morpho­logically, closer to a piece of Apollonia (c. 642).314 Some of the pieces previously attributed to Asia Minor, with fabrics similar to those of LRD (Fig. 7.20.124–25),315 can now be securely classified as LRD form K.5B (c.  580–680). This includes certain variants of form H-10,316 manufactured at the workshops of Kadirgürü Mevkiisi and Sagalassos.317 In the region, form K.5B is found in Khirbat al-Karak,318 Nazareth,319 and Nessana.320 Finally, an annular base decorated with a palmette and a cross is registered, without known parallels (Fig. 7.20.126).321 Its tiny foot could be associated with forms H-1B or H-2, and therefore dated to c. 375–550.

In Jordan, LRD is slightly less well represented than LRC imports (Fig. 7.21), from north to south, whereas in Aqaba it is attested since the fifth century.322 LRA 1 or North-Syrian/Cilician and Cypriot Amphorae

LRA 1 amphorae were produced in two undisputed production centres:323 in the area of Isauria and Cilicia (Aya ṣ , Soles, Karatoas, Tarsus, Yumurtalik/Aegiae, Arsuz/Rhosus Soloi, and Elaiussa-Sebaste),324 and on the island of Cyprus, where several kilns that manufactured the Berenice LRA 1a and LRA 1b/Kellia 164 types have been located (Curium, Paphos, Amathus, and Zygi).325 The insular production of LRA 1 has a clear explanation, since Cyprus during the sixth century maintained close economic and administrative ties with the northern area of Syria and Cilicia.326 Pieri attributes the Cypriot production to different unfavourable conditions that effected the continental production (the earthquake of 526, epidemics, and the Persian conquest).327 Currently, the proposals suggesting that this amphora was manufactured in the Istro-Pontic zone, Sicily, Eg ypt, or Palestine can be ruled out.328 At Carthage, an African imitation of LRA 1 was found.329 Some researchers have also called certain productions ‘imitations of LRA 1’, such as the pieces made with the whitish fabric of Sinope as well as other productions with clays similar to those of the Nile Delta and Valley.330 This is not the case with the macellum finds. Thanks to the publications of Stella Demesticha, the macellum finds can be divided into continental and Cypriot products. 322 

307 

Meyza 2007, 58. Jackson and others 2012, 95, fig. 12.2. 309  Poblome and Firat 2012, 53. 310  Armstrong 2009, 160–61 and 164–65. 311  Jackson and others 2012, 105, fig. 16.3 and 6. 312  Meyza 2007, 65, pl. 8.5. 313  Meyza 2007, 62, pl. 20. 314  Reynolds 2012, 65, fig. 6.63. 315  Uscatescu 1992, 155, fig. 17.131–33. 316  Meyza 2007, 70. 317  Jackson and others 2012, 104, fig. 15.1–2; Poblome and Firat 2012, 53. 318  Delougaz and Haines 1960, 34, pl. 52.8–9. 319  Bagatti 1967, fig. 228.18. 320  Baly 1962, pl. 48.15.C6–67. 321  Uscatescu 1992, 153, fig. 16.123. 308 

Parker 2002, 424. Continental fabrics’ description: Egloff 1977, 110–12; Peacock 1984a, 20–22; Riley 1979, 212; Williams 1982, 102. Cypriot fabrics’ description: Touma 1989, 873; Demesticha 2003, 470–71; n. 11. 324  Empereur and Picon 1989, 236, fig. 10–19; Reynolds 2005, 566; Ferrazzoli 2010, 46, fig. 41; Demesticha 2014, 601. 325   Hayes 1980a, 379; Williams 1982, 102–03; Empereur 1985, 989; Empereur and Picon 1989, 236–37; Touma 1989, 873; Demesticha and Michaelides 2001; Demesticha 2003, 470; 2014, 601. 326  Demesticha 2003, 474. 327  Pieri 2007b, 615. 328  Tudor 1937–40, 384; Riley 1975, 35; Egloff 1977, 190; Scorpan 1977, 278; Hayes 1980a, 376; Wilson 1990, n. 149; Burgio, Macaluso, and Rizzo 1993, 225. 329  Hayes 1978, 50, fig. 11.2 (deposit 23). 330  Pieri 2007b, 117; 2012, 47; contra: Empereur and Picon 1992, 149; Engemann 1992, 154. 323  

7. Late Antique Ceramic Imports in Gerasa Some pieces of the macellum correspond to the early type or Kellia 169 (Fig.  7.22.127), 331 produced c. 350–450.332 It has not been determined where this variety, which is not very common, even at a regional level, was manufactured.333 In Jordan, a specimen from the excavations of the Central Baths of Gerasa is known (Fig. 7.45.182), and another from Pella, where it was identified as an Egyptian amphora (ware H-3).334 On the coast, there are some pieces from the Caesarea inner harbour335 and Tell Keisan.336 It is unknown whether this particular form arrived to Aqaba,337 but the furthest export of this type is the one identified by Roberta Tomber in Prabas Pan (India).338 The second type documented at the macellum is the largest in number of sherds (Figs  7.22.128–32 and 7.23.133–38) and corresponds to the standard LRA 1 or form Kellia 164, sometimes called LRA 1b. It is documented from the late fourth to mid-seventh centuries,339 when it is no longer considered a residual variant, as before.340 Despite the abundance of late levels in the macellum, the latest variant or type Saraçhane 21 is not documented (c.  650–700). 341 Some neck sherds may be associated with the Cypriot production (Fig. 7.22.130–31). 342 The shaping of some rims fits with the description of Cypriot type 2 by Demesticha (Fig. 7.23.133–35). The latest piece of the macellum would correspond to the Cypriot type 3 (Fig. 7.22.131), produced in the kilns of Paphos and Zygi where the last generation of LRA 1 was manufactured 331   Egloff

1977, 111, pl.  57.9. In Marseilles, type Kellia 169 is called LRA 1a, a term which should not be confused with the Berenice LRA 1a type (compare with Riley 1979, 216, fig. 91.346–47; Bonifay and Pieri 1995, 108, fig. 6.41–43, Pieri 1998, 98). According to Pieri, Berenice LRA 1a is included in his subgroup LRA 1C (Pieri 1998, 99). 332  Egloff 1977, 11; Abadie-Reynal 1989, 52, fig. 9; Carignani and Pacetti 1989, 611. 333  Demesticha 2014, 601. 334  Smith and Day 1989, 105–06; Watson 1992b, 240, fig. 10.80. 335  Tomber 1999, 313, fig. 5.82–85. 336  Landgraf 1980, 67. 337  Parker 2002, 424. 338  Tomber 2004, 401. 339  Riley 1976, 116; Egloff 1977, 112; Riley 1979, 212–16, fig. 91.337–38; Peacock and Williams 1991, 185, fig. 104 (Class 44A). 340  Hayes 1978, 46–47; Bonifay 1986, 295; Maetzke 1991, 87; Sazanov 1997, 88. 341  Hayes 1992, 69 (type Saraçhane 5). 342  Demesticha and Michaelides 2001, 291, fig. 10.

209 (c. 580–650).343 In some cases, the survival of LRA 1 has been assumed in contexts dated to the eighth century, as in the islet of Pseira (north-eastern coast of Crete) and other examples in Asia Minor. 344 In the case of Jordan, there are not comparable cases, since the latest evidence for LRA 1 corresponds to the evidence at the Church of St Stephen at Umm al-Ra ṣ ā ṣ (c. 785), where body sherds were found reused in the preparatory mortar layer for the mural paintings of the church.345 In Gerasa, this type of amphora is represented by a pair of specimens found in a cistern on the terrace of the Sanctuary of Zeus, dated to the end of the sixth century, and two bodies reused in the Thermopolium on the Cardo.346 Sometimes, these amphorae have been confused with the Sinope amphora, however, by the description of their fabrics and morpho­logy they would fit better with a classification as LRA 1B or type 4 of Cypriot manufacture.347 In Jordan, LRA 1 is registered in Pella, 348 Mt Nebo, 349 al-Lajjūn, 350 Deir ‘Ain ‘Abata, Wādī Feynan, Petra, Ḥumayma (lower church),351 and Aqaba, from where it was exported to the Red Sea ports (Berenice, Shenshef, and Abu Sha’ar) and southern Arabia. In Palestine, it is much better represented (Fig. 7.24). Tituli picti appear in all the variants of LRA 1.352 At the macellum, a wall sherd bears a dipinti in red paint, of which only one letter is legible: μ (Fig. 7.23.139). This would coincide with a usual inscription on this type of amphora or papyri: χμγ.353 In Rome, these annotations had a religious reading, as Χριστὸν Μαριά γέννα,354 the same as at Mt Nebo. 355 This could be an evidence of isopsephism, words or phrases expressed by their 343 

Demesticha 2014, 601. Armstrong 2009, 164. 345  Alliata 1987, 177; 1991, 371, fig. 3.11. 346  Rasson and Seigne 1989, 134, fig. 12.1; Baldoni 2018, 22, fig. 3.24 (incorrectly labelled as North Palestinian amphorae or LRA 5/6). 347  Demesticha 2003, 472, fig. 3. T4(iv); Pieri 2012, fig. 2.3. 348  Watson 1992b, 239, fig. 10.78–79. 349  Vanni Desideri 2012, 308, fig. 14.8960. 350  Parker 1987, fig. 118.207. 351  Although, in this site this amphora is classified as storage jar: Schick 2013, 264, fig. 7.49. 352  Egloff 1977, 113; Crawford 1990, 84, fig. 430. 353  Derda 1992, 136 n. 6. 354  Pensabene 1981, 191–94; Incitti 1986, 589. 355  Piccirillo 1976, 317, pl. 43; Bagatti 1985, 251. 344 

Alexandra Uscatescu

210

Figure 7.22. LRA 1 imports from the excavations of the macellum (author’s drawing).

7. Late Antique Ceramic Imports in Gerasa

Figure 7.23. LRA 1 imports from the excavations of the macellum (author’s drawing).

211

Alexandra Uscatescu

212

Figure 7.24. Map of LRA 1 finds in the Levant. Site names underlined means that both types, Kellia 169 and LRA 1, were found (author’s drawing).

7. Late Antique Ceramic Imports in Gerasa

213

Figure 7.25. LRU imports from the excavations of the macellum, and map of LRU finds in the Levant (author’s drawing).

numerical equivalent.356 These tituli picti do not help to determine their content, which most researchers believe to be olive oil.357 However, LRA 1 amphorae found at the port of Caesarea, Amathus, Qustul, Yassi Ada, and Nesebar have an inner pitch that would point to the transport of wine.358 LRU or Anatolian Unguentaria

The first systematization for the small fusiform Late Antique unguentaria was published by Hayes, who thought that they would have been produced in Palestine,359 a hypothesis now ruled out. The mineralogical analyses suggest that the production area should be located in Cilicia and Pisidia.360 Although LRU are well distributed throughout the Mediterranean between the sixth and seventh centuries,361 in the Levant there are not so many specimens known: Caesarea, Dibon,

356 

Avi-Yonah 1940, 42, no. 643. Riley 1979, 215; Arthur 1985, 256. 358  Kirwan 1938, 388; Bouzek and Kordac 1963, 258; Bass 1982, 164; Empereur and Picon 1989, 242; Oleson and others 1994, 15; Van Alfen 1996, 203. 359  Hayes 1971, 246. 360  Cottica 2000, 1005–08; Lafli 2003, 108 and 124–25. 361  Lochner, Sauer, and Linke 2005, 649. 357 

Bethany, Jerusalem, and Tell Shiqmona (Fig.  7.25).362 In Gerasa, there were recovered only five pieces at the macellum. Most of them are plain, without stamps, so they can be attributed to the first phase of production (Fig.  7.25.140–43).363 The later examples usually bear stamped monograms difficult to transcribe. Normally, these monograms correspond to proper names, and less commonly, to a qualifier (such as episcopus).364 In the circular stamp with monogram on a base found at the macellum (Fig. 7.25.144), under the symbol of the cross, the letters Σ, Τ, Α, Τ, Ι(?), Κ, and Ο can be discerned. A possible reading would be Στατικό[ς]. Bearing in mind that the feminine noun στατική is linked to the ‘art of weighing’, the masculine name or noun is interesting, as its semantic root could be related also to weight, perhaps in relation to the content of the unguentarium. Or could it be a personal name? There is another piece with a monogram from the excavations of Knight’s Palace Hotel in Jerusalem.365 362 

Tushingham 1972, 159, fig. 13.80. Lochner, Sauer, and Linke 2005, 648. 364  Symmachus, in a letter addressed to his brother Flavianus, gives some details on the features of these monograms, since he claimed that the sealed letters by his brother’s signet are easier to comprehend than to read (Symmachus, Ep. 1.11.12; Leclerq 1934, 2370). 365  Seligman 2002, fig. 4.14. 363 

Alexandra Uscatescu

214 Black Sea Imports Amphorae Kapitän II

The amphora Kapitän II, although it is not represented in the corpus of the macellum, should be included here since it has been documented in other places in the city of Gerasa. The origin of this amphora is being questioned. Initially it was attributed to the Aegean area, but the island of Rhodes is ruled out,366 and now Paul Reynolds proposes an origin in the Black Sea, accepted by other authors with some reluctance.367 The truth is that this amphora is very well represented in the Black Sea, but as noted by some authors, it also reaches places as far away as the French coast.368 Its chrono­logy is restricted to the third and fourth centuries.369 In Gerasa, some complete pieces were recovered from tombs 10 and 11 in the southwestern cemetery (Fig. 7.44.172 and 179).370 In room R-5 of the quarter west of the Church of St Theodore, an amphora of this type was found (Fig. 7.45.180). The coins recovered from another room of the same complex (room R-11) were associated with the second half of the third century.371 In Jordan, important finds in Aqaba are pointed out by Thomas Parker. 372 Although this amphora reaches the interior of the region, with examples in Khirbat Ibreiktas,373 Hippos,374 Nazareth,375 and the North Wall and Ophel in Jerusalem,376 it is certainly more abundant on the coast, in Caesarea377 and Ashkelon.378 Sinopean Amphorae

This group of Sinopean amphorae shares some morpho­ logical features with other amphora groups: mainly with LRA 1,379 but also with M334.380 Due to the presence of 366  367  368  369  370  371  372  373  374  375  376  377  378  379  380 

Empereur and Picon 1989, 235. Reynolds 2010, 141; Bonifay 2013, 532. Paraschiv 2006, 87–88; Lewit 2015, 162. Riley 1979, 191. Fisher 1938, 565–66, figs 43.1 and 45.50. Fisher and McCown 1929–30, 32, fig. 3.x1–3, pl. 11. Parker 2002, 424. Kletter and Rapuano 1998, 48, fig. 3.4. Młynarczyk 2006, 104, fig. 3.43. Bagatti 1967, fig. 217.2. Hamilton 1940, fig. 21.5; Fleitman and Mazar 2015, 246. Oleson and others 1994, 4 and 17. Johnson 2008, 137, nos 444–47. Pieri 2007a, 304. Arthur 1998, 170.

red dipinti, in many cases, it has been considered a subtype of LRA 1. This is the case for the amphorae found in Dibsi Faraj and Ibn Hani.381 At the macellum, it was incorporated into the amphora group XL-1A (forty-two RHB sherds, with the addition of five more examples).382 This amphora was clearly separated from the standard LRA 1 and was morpho­logically associated with the amphora found in the cistern II of Beth She’an, which Gerald Fitzgerald published in the early 1930s (Fig. 7.27.A).383 Macroscopically, the fabric of the macellum specimens is identical to that of Demirci, defined as ‘whitish clay’ tending towards a yellow or greenish colour (2.5 Y8/2–8/4) with pyroxene grains.384 In this Pontic workshop, different macroscopic types of pink, red, and white fabrics were employed, showing pyroxene, calcite, quartz, and feldspar grains. However, laboratory analyses have demonstrated that all belong to the same source.385 According to Kassab-Tezgör, the ‘carrot’-red fabric amphorae from the Demirci workshops are older than those from the white fabric or type B workshops, typical of the sixth century.386 Morpho­logically, the Sinopean amphora corresponds to an elongated amphora with grooved wall, hollow rounded bottom, and two handles from neck to shoulders (Fig.  7.26.145–48 and 150). It can be classified as Demerci type B or B/C1 387 or as amphora Paraschiv 16/Kuzmanov 13 type.388 The list of findings that I compiled in 1999 for the Thessaloniki congress — Beth She’an (Fig.  7.27.A), Capernaum (Fig. 7.27.C and E), Caesarea (Fig. 7.27.F), Gerasa, and Pella (Fig. 7.27.D) — can be revised and enlarged with more findings (Fig.  7.28). 389 Outside the region, the amphora of Sinope is found in Seleucia Pieria, Zeugma, Dibsi Faraj, Ibn Hani, Beirut, and Ras al-Bassit, in addition to Alexandria (Kôm el-Dikka).390 381 

Rasson and Seigne 1989, fig. 12.1; Sodini and others 1992, 197. Uscatescu 1996, 175. 383  Fitzgerald 1931, 37–38, pl. 31.27. 384  Erten and others 2004, 104 and 113, fig. 1c; Kassab-Tezgör and Touma 2001, 10, fig. 6. 385  Kassab-Tezgör 2010, 167. 386  Kassab-Tezgör, Lemaître, and Pieri 2003, 178. 387   Kassab-Tezgör, Lemaître, and Pieri 2003, 177–78, pl. 10.18–19. 388  Paraschiv 2006, 54–55, pls 10.81, 11.88. 389  Uscatescu 2003, 549; Fitzgerald 1931, 37–38, pl. 31.27; Loffreda 1983, 363–64, fig. 10.1–4; Peleg and Reich 1992, 146, fig. 13.22; Watson 1992b, 240, fig. 10.75 (no. 2154). 390   Kassab-Tezgör and Touma 2001, 111; Kassab-Tezgör, 382 

7. Late Antique Ceramic Imports in Gerasa The problem with many of the published lists is that they usually include pieces that cannot be considered as genuine Sinopean amphorae. This is due to a ‘domino effect’, where the fabric descriptions are not considered. This is the case with the pieces from Tell Keisan, some amphorae from the cistern of the Temple of Zeus at Gerasa, and others from Mt Nebo.391 The lack of definition of this amphora type has produced a ripple effect, since many of the parallels adopted as reference by some authors correspond to other typo­logies. Mainly, the M334 amphora of Palestinian origin and, above all, examples of LRA 1 have been assumed as parallels.392 But the contrary has also happened: specimens belonging morpho­logically to the Sinopean amphora type (as in the case of Pella) have served as reference for real LRA 1 examples, as is for example the case in Deir ‘Ain ‘Abata.393 Thus, the overview of Sinopean amphorae is complex, and in the case of the amphorae found in Syria, the logical comparison of the fabrics by means of laboratory analysis in order to determine their provenance has been undertaken by Dominique Kassab-Tezgör and May Touma (Dibsi Faraj, Ibn Hani, and Ras al-Bassit).394 It would be desirable to do the same analyses with the Palestinian and Jordanian findings. In the coastal zone, there are six examples from Khirbat al-Man ṣ ur el-‘Aqab, 395 five from Ḥ orbat Qastra,396 and one from the so-called ‘Third Mile Estate’ near Ashkelon (Fig.  7.27.B).397 In the region inland, thirty-seven specimens were collected in Capernaum,398 and there is problably another one from Sepphoris.399

Lemaître, and Pieri 2003, 178; Kassab-Tezgör 2010, 172 n. 56. 391  Landgraf 1980, fig. 26.24; Rasson and Seigne 1989, fig. 12.1. 392   Arthur 1998, 160, fig.  2.2; Kogan-Zehavi 1999, 200, fig. 24.3; Slane and Sanders 2005, 255, fig. 4.1–24; Loffreda 2008, 148; Israel and Erickson-Gini 2013, 212 ( Ḥ orbat ‘Aqav); De Vincenz 2013, 152. 393  Grey and Politis 2012, 183, fig. 409 (18.1 AIV 2.1). 394  Kassab-Tezgör and Touma 2001, 111; Touma 2001, 50, fig. 1a. 395   Hirschfeld and Birger-Calderon 1991, 87, fig.  5. The shape of these six amphorae from Kh. al-Manṣur el-‘Aqab fits with the general shape of the typical Sinopean amphora. However, this publication does not include any clue on their fabric. The same can be said of the amphorae found in the cistern II at Beth She’an (Fitzgerald 1931, 37–38). 396  Haddad 2009, 83, fig. 3.4. 397  Israel and Erickson-Gini 2013, 212, fig. 37.3. 398  Loffreda 2008, 148, compare with Anf48. 399  De Vincenz 2013, 152, pl. 47.16.

215 The morpho­logy is quite similar, but on behalf of their fabrics, the findings can be subdivided into two groups: those of whitish/greenish clays (Caesarea, Capernaum, Gerasa, and Ḥ orbat Qastra) possibly related to the Demirci workshop, and those of pink or red fabrics covered by a white/cream slip (Pella, Ashkelon/‘Third Mile Estate’, and Sepphoris).400 In Beirut, a variant of hard red fabric and white slip is registered, which Pieri considers an imitation of unknown origin.401 Both subtypes present dipinti, which, in the case of the Capernaum Sinopean examples, have been interpreted as abbreviations of the names of archangels Michael (μιχ) and Gabriel ([Γ]αβρ) (Fig. 7.27.D and E).402 The dipinti fragments from the macellum are too fragmentary (Fig. 7.26.149), and perhaps they are simply numerals (N). The content of this kind of amphora appears to be olive oil.403 As for its chrono­log y, everything points to the sixth century. In Demirci, it is associated with coins of Justinian (527–65) and Justin II and Sophia (565–78). This supports a dating in the second half of the sixth century and perhaps beyond.404 In Beirut, the amphora of whitish/greenish fabric is no longer attested after the 551 earthquake,405 while in Capernaum, a piece of context L240 (phase 9) is associated with form H-10 of LRC production, and dated to c. 550–650.406 Some Black Sea findings could reach the seventh century,407 as in Zeugma (Syria), in a context dated to the early seventh century.408 The white-slip and red-fabric variant of Pella is associated with phase IIIb of this site, dated by Watson to c. 550–75, but due to the presence of other imports (LRC form H-10C and LRD form H-9C), I think the dating of that phase is more likely c. 600/25.409 At the macellum, a nearly complete piece was found in a context dated to the early sixth century (Fig. 7.26.145).

400 

Israel and Erickson-Gini 2013, 212; Bourke 2014, 5 (Ware

401 

Pieri 2007a, 305. Loffreda 1983, 364. Kassab-Tezgör, Lemaître, and Pieri 2003, 178. Kassab-Tezgör 2010, 171. Reynolds 2003a, 538, fig. 4.3; Reynolds 2013, 102. Loffreda 2008, 148. Paraschiv 2006, 39–40. Reynolds 2013, 100, pl. 68. Watson 1992a, 177, pl. 113.2.

H-5).

402  403  404  405  406  407  408  409 

Alexandra Uscatescu

216

Figure 7.26. Sinopean amphorae from the excavations of the macellum (author’s drawing).

7. Late Antique Ceramic Imports in Gerasa

217

Figure 7.27. Sinopean amphora finds from the region. A. Beth She’an’s Cistern II (redrawn from Fitzgerald 1931, pl. XXXI.27); B. Third Mile Estate near Ashkelon (redrawn from Israel and Erickson-Gini 2013, fig. 37.3); C. Capernaum (redrawn from Loffreda 1983, fig. 10.2); D. Pella (redrawn from Watson 1992a, pl. 112.5); E. Capernaum (redrawn from Loffreda 1983, fig. 10.1); F. Caesarea Maritima (redrawn from Peleg and Reich 1992, fig. 13.22).

Alexandra Uscatescu

218

Figure 7.28. Map of Sinopean amphora finds in the Levant (author’s drawing).

Aegean Imports: LRA 2 and LRA 3 In general, the Aegean amphorae are poorly represented in the region, and in Gerasa in particular (Fig.  7.29). LRA 2410 — produced on the Greek islands of Chios and Kounoupi, and perhaps on the coast of Asia Minor411 — is only represented by one wall sherd in Jordan, found in Deir ‘Ain ‘Abata,412 and with the exception of finds in Beth She’an and Upper Zohar, the rest has been found at

sites on the coastal strip: Ashkelon,413 Ḥorbat Qastra,414 Tell Shiqmona,415 and Bat Galim (Haifa).416 The finds belong to the standard shape of the amphora, dated from the mid-fourth to the sixth centuries. Some examples from Beth She’an,417 Caesarea,418 and the Tantura Shipwreck F,419 correspond to the late type found in con413 

410  Robinson 1959, 109, pl. 29; Scorpan 1976, 159, pl. VII. 3; Keay 1984, figs 165–66; Peacock and Williams 1991, 182–84; Hayes 1992, 66, fig. 22.8 and 22.10–11. 411  Radulescu 1973, 205; Riley 1979, 219; Williams 1982, 102; Megaw and Jones 1983, 246; Zimmerman Munn 1985, 342; Arthur 1989, 82 n. 2; Abadie-Reynal 1989, 51. 412  Grey and Politis 2012, 184.

Johnson 2008, 159 and 170–71, no. 478–79. Siegelmann 1996, 88, fig. 13.2; Haddad 2009, 83, fig. 3.5–6. 415  Calderon 2010, fig. 7.70–71. 416  Oren-Paskal 2008, 43, fig. 6.39. 417  Avissar 2014, 79, fig. 9.1. 418  Adan-Bayewitz 1986, fig. 2.6; Oleson and others 1994, 158, fig. 41.A86; Tomber 1999, 313, fig. 5.92–93. 419  Barkai, Kahanov, and Avissar 2010, 93, fig. 4.5 and 4.7–8. 414 

7. Late Antique Ceramic Imports in Gerasa

219

Figure 7.29. Map of LRA 2 finds in the Levant (author’s drawing).

texts dated from the end of the sixth century to the first half of the seventh century.420 In Gerasa, the only known Aegean import comes from the macellum and is a small neck of LRA 3 (Fig.  7.30.151) 421 manufactured with the characteristic micaceous fabric from the area of western Turkey (the valleys of the Meander and Hermos Rivers). 422 The fragmentary nature of our pieces prevents greater chrono­logical accuracy, except the fact that LRA 3 420 

Bass 1982, 186, fig. 8–19; Arthur 1998, 169. 421  Robinson 1959, 79, pl. 17; Riley 1976, 117; Egloff 1977, 116, pl. 60.2; Riley 1979, 229; Keay 1984, 281, fig. 124. 422  Picard and Sodini 1972, n. 37; Riley 1975, 31; Riley 1976, 117; Scorpan 1976, 158; Williams 1982, 104; Hayes 1992, 63.

was manufactured from the late fourth century and until the mid-seventh century with some remarkable morpho­logical changes. But when it comes to the end of this production, as in the Crypta Balbi (Rome) and Chersonesos contexts of late seventh-century date, various doubts have been raised.423 In Jordan, there are some examples from Pella424 and Deir ‘Ain ‘Abata,425 although LRA 3 is more common on the coast, in Ashkelon,426 423  Sazanov 1997, 88 (compare with Type Sazanov 3); Saguì 1998, 318. 424  Sodini and others 1992, 199. 425  Grey and Politis 2012, 184. 426  Johnson 2008, 171–72, nos 480–85.

Alexandra Uscatescu

220

Figure 7.30. LRA 3 import from the excavations of the macellum, and map of LRA 3 finds in the Levant (author’s drawing).

Caesarea,427 Naḥal Tanninim,428 and Ḥorbat Qastra,429 and inland, again better represented than LRA 2, with evidence recorded in Khirbat al-Karak,430 Khirbat Siyar al-Ghanam,431 and Jerusalem (Fig. 7.30).432 Some com427  428  429  430  431  432 

Oleson and others 1994, 16. ‘Ad 2000, fig. 59.11–12. Haddad 2009, 84, fig. 4.1–2. Delougaz and Haines 1960, pl. 54.18. Corbo 1955, 59, fig. 15.3. Fleitman and Mazar 2015, 229.

plete mono-handled pieces are known from Meiron and the synagogue of Khirbat Shema’,433 which would correspond to the first imports of the late fourth/early fifth century. Some amphorae found at Caesarea correspond to the two-handled later version.434

433  Meyers, Kraabel, and Strange 1976, 237, pl. 7.23.26–27; Meyers, Strange, and Meyers 1981, 65, pl. 8.13.3. 434  Siegelmann 1974, fig. 2.4–5.

7. Late Antique Ceramic Imports in Gerasa Egyptian Imports Byzantine Fine Wares and Amphorae

In comparison to other imported tableware, the presence of this type of import in the region is less well represented, despite the geo­graphical proximity (Fig. 7.31). The local distribution in their production areas (Aswan and the Nile Valley) does not usually go beyond the adjacent provinces.435 In many cases, its occurrence or the increase in the volume of imports has been linked to the Islamic conquest.436 The productions of Aswan or ERS A are those that have a greater geo­graphic expansion (Fig. 7.31.A).437 In Gerasa, there is only one bowl of ERS A from the macellum (form V). It has a rouletted decoration on the outer rim and is dated to c. 550–650 (Fig. 7.32.152).438 Other Jordanian finds come from al-Lajjūn,439 Gadara (forms Q and H), Pella, Madaba (form H),440 and Ḥumayma,441 and to these can also be added those found at Boṣrā. Most findings seem to extend from the Mediterranean ports to continental sites: Ḥ orbat Qastra (forms KM and J),442 Caesarea and its harbour Sebastos (forms J and AA), Yavneh-Yam (forms K and J/M), and Ashkelon (forms H, J, K, M, Q, S, II, and KK).443 In the interior of Palestine, Eg yptian imports are found in Jalame, Khorazim, Capernaum (form J), 444 Sepphoris (form P),445 Tiberias (form J),446 Kafr Kama, Khirbat al-Karak, Nevé Ur (form J),447 Tel Jezreel,448 Khirbat Burin, Tel Ḥ ashash, 449 Kafr ‘Ana, Ramla (form K), 450 Jerusalem, Khirbat Suyyagah, ‘En Gedi,451 En-Boqeq, Reḥovot-in-

221 the-Negev (form J), and Yotvata, where they are better represented.452 Precisely, the southernmost finds in Sinai monastic sites (Ein Najila, Wādī Fra’iya, Sigilliya, Sufsafa, and Abu Jiffa)453 would point to the presence of imports from Aswan (ERS A) and the Nile Valley (ERS B) in Aqaba,454 explained by the caravan commerce. In this respect, the image of the cameleer Orbikon on the mosaic of the church of Kissufim (c. 576) is relevant, although in this case, the amphora load could consist of LRA 4.455 A similar panorama is drawn for the Coptic painted pottery that, in Jordan, has only been identified in Pella, Gerasa, and Aqaba.456 This ware prevails at the coastal sites Yavneh-Yam,457 Ashkelon,458 Caesarea,459 Ḥ orvat Sumaqa,460 and Ḥorbat Qastra, and at the continental sites of Khirbat al-Karak,461 Nesher Quarry near Ramla, Ḥorbat Ma’on,462 and En-Boqeq (Fig. 7.31.A: site names underlined). It must be acknowledged that sometimes the identification of these pieces is not easy, because they can be confused with painted local productions, such as Jerash Bowls or painted examples of FBW. This may be the case with some painted sherds from Reḥovot-in-theNegev463 or Deir ‘Ain ‘Abata,464 respectively. Although absent from the macellum, evidence for the trade of Egyptian amphorae in the region, mainly LRA 7 (Fig. 7.31.B), is equally poor.465 Its distribution pattern is limited to Mediterranean harbours or the coastal fringe, such as Tell Keisan466 and Caesarea,467 with exceptions located in the interior, such as Jerusalem and Bir 452 

435  436  437  438  439  440  441  442  443  444  445  446  447  448  449  450  451 

Bes and Poblome 2007, 2. Kingsley and Decker 2001, 4; Reynolds 2003a, 537. Hayes 1972, 397; 1980b, 530. Uscatescu 1992, 153, fig. 16.124. Williams 2009, 19–24. Acconci and Gabrieli 1994, 463, fig. 35.107. Williams 2009, 19–24. Van den Brink and others 2013, 82–84, fig. 15.19–22. Johnson 2008, 75–85. Loffreda 2008, 232. De Vincenz 2013, 167, pl. 57.7. Stacy 1988–89, 21. Shalem 2002, 153, fig. 5.1–2. Grey 2014, 119, fig. 11.5. Tal and Taxel 2010, 117. Kletter 2005, 72. Hadas 2005, 58, fig. 15.4.

Avner, Davis, and Magness 2004, 411. Williams 2009, 17. 454  Parker 2002, 424. 455  Hachlili 2009, 266, pl. VII.18.a. 456  Watson 1995a, 311. 457  Fischer and Taxel 2014, 230, fig. 16. 458  Johnson 2008, 95–98. 459  Tomber 1999, 320, fig. 9.142. 460  Kingsley 2003a, 117. 461  Delougaz and Haines 1960, pl. 54.1. 462  Nahshoni and Seriy 2014, 27, fig. 17.8–9. 463  In Reḥovot-in-the-Negev there were serious doubts about the attribution of several painted sherds to an Egyptian production or to the Jerash Bowl production (Watson 1995b, 457). 464  Magness 1993, 194 (compare with Form 2B dated to the eighth century); Grey and Politis 2012, 178. 465  Peacock and Williams 1991, 204–07. 466  Landgraf 1980, 67. 467  Riley 1975, 33; Adan-Bayewitz 1986, fig. 2.10. 453 

Alexandra Uscatescu

222

Figure 7.31. A. Map of ERS A and painted Coptic-ware finds in the Levant (underlined: painted Coptic finds; underlined and +: painted Coptic and ERS A finds); B. Map of LRA 7 finds in the Levant (author’s drawing).

Madhkur.468 In the southern region, the findings came from the port of Aqaba and its surroundings ( Jabal es-Saḥāki).469 RBOA: Islamic Amphorae Imports

In recent years, the label ‘Red-Brown Ovoid Amphora’ is used to refer to the small bag-shaped amphorae that Michel Egloff recorded in Kellia (forms Kellia 187–90) or Riley in Benghazi.470 The Egyptian origin of these amphorae has been demonstrated in Abu Mena, where the fabric belongs to alluvial clays (Nile Delta silt).471 468 

Parker 2014, 288, fig. 4.52. Parker 2002, 424; Parker 2014, 207, fig. 4.40. 470  Egloff 1977, 118, pl. 61.4. 471  Egloff 1977, 117; Ballet and Picon 1987, 19 and 39; Barkai, Kahanov, and Avissar 2010, 98; Taxel and Fantalkin 2011, 79–80. 469 

Morpho­logically, these amphorae correspond to a miniaturization of the classical Palestinian globular amphorae.472 In a fragmentary state, rim sherds may present identification problems, since the shape and length of the neck is proportional to the ovoid and striated body of the amphora. Outside the Egyptian region, evidence points to a seventh-century date for the beginning of its production. In Benghazi, this amphora appeared together with a rim of ERS in the upper level of a cistern dated to the seventh century, and at the basilica of Kourion, where it is dated to the end of the seventh century.473 The accepted starting date for this amphora is c. 650,474 while the final date 472 

Sodini and others 1992, 198. Riley 1979, 224. 474  Ballet 2005, 35. 473 

7. Late Antique Ceramic Imports in Gerasa

223

Figure 7.32. Egyptian imports from the excavations of the macellum. 152. ERS A bowl; 153. Red-Brown Ovoid Amphora type Kellia 190. Map of the Red-Brown Ovoid Amphora finds in the Levant (author’s drawing). Examples of Kellia 190 amphora. A. Pella (redrawn from Smith 1982, pl. XXI.5); B. Kellia (redrawn from Egglof 1977, pl. 61.4); C. Umm el-Walid (redrawn from Haldimann 1992, fig. 7.13); D. Luzit (redrawn from Avni and Dahari 1990, fig. 5.5); E. Ashdod (redrawn from Dothan and Freedman 1967, fig. 13.12); F. Pella (redrawn from Smith 1973, pl. 32.295).

Alexandra Uscatescu

224 of its production is controversial. Some authors consider that from the mid-eighth century these amphorae begin to be scarce.475 In Pella, the first evidence belongs to contexts dated to the beginning of the eighth century, and the last amphorae are found in deposits associated with the 749 earthquake.476 Recently, new data forced us to consider that the final date is too early, since the C14 dating obtained at the Tantura Shipwreck F points to a date between the mid-seventh and the end of the eighth centuries,477 which agrees with the Ramla finds associated with Abbasid pottery.478 As for the content, the Tantura RBOA contained Tilapia bones.479 In Gerasa, this type of amphora has been recognized at the macellum: the upper part of an amphora with an everted neck and two handles on the shoulders, one of them slightly twisted (Fig. 7.32.153). Recently, Itamar Taxel and Alexander Fantalkin have compiled the findings in the region that affect both the Mediterranean coast and the interior of the region, greatly enlarging the distribution map presented here (Fig. 7.32). For the sake of prudence, I prefer to include only the pieces that preserve a more complete profile, from rim to shoulders.480 The authors of the first published corpus of RBOA in Palestine recognized that some pieces could be local.481 Initially, this amphora type was recorded at many harbours in the area: Ashkelon,482 Ashdod (Fig. 7.32.E),483 Caesarea, Ḥorbat Qastra,484 Bet Galim (Haifa), and even at the Tantura Shipwreck F. This allows us to establish several variants that fit, more or less, with the shapes defined by Egloff in Kellia (Fig. 7.32.B).485 In Jordan, it is registered in Pella (Fig.  7.32.A), 486 ‘Amman, Mt Nebo, Umm el-Walid (Fig. 7.32.C),487 and Jabal Hārūn.

475 

Vogt 1997, 257–58, pl. 11. Watson 1992b, 244, fig. 14.124; 1995a, 319, fig. 9. 477  Taxel and Fantalkin 2011, 83; Barkai, Lernau, and Kahanov 2013, 189, fig. 3. 478  Tal and Taxel 2008, 151. 479  Barkai, Kahanov, and Avissar 2010, 90. 480  Taxel and Fantalkin 2011, 84–88, table 1. 481  Taxel and Fantalkin 2011, 88. 482  Nahshoni 2009, fig. 7.5. 483  Dothan and Freedman 1967, fig. 13.12. 484  Haddad 2009, 82, fig. 3.1. 485  Barkai, Kahanov, and Avissar 2010, 90, fig. 3.1–5, 3.7–8 (Kellia 188), and 3.3.6. 486  Smith 1973, pl. 32.295 and 32.489; Watson 1995a, 317–19; Walmsley 1988, 153, pl. 9.1–2. 487  Haldimann 1992, fig. 7.13. 476 

Figure 7.33. ‘Akko or M-334 amphora from the excavations of the macellum (author’s drawing).

In the Palestinian region it is better represented: Khirbat el-Baṭiya, Capernaum,488 Qiryat Ata, El Kursi, Hippos(?),489 Nevé Ur,490 Beth She’an,491 Zur Natan,492 Tel Ḥashash, Kafr ‘Ana,493 Khirbat Beit Kufa,494 Ramla,495 Khirbat ‘Asfura,496 Jericho,497 Jerusalem,498 Bethany,499 Bir el-Qutt, 500 Khirbat es-Suyyagah, 501 Ḥ orvat Luzit 488 

Loffreda 1983, 366, fig. 12.1; Loffreda 2008, 146. Młynarczyk 2003, 71, fig. 11.1. 490  Shalem 2002, 164, fig. 10.3. 491  Fitzgerald 1931, pl. 32.5; Avissar 2014, 106, fig. 28.9. 492  Fowler 1990, 43, no. 10. 493  Gophna, Taxel, and Feldstein 2007, 38, fig. 3.7–8. 494  Parnos and Avissar 2005, fig. 5.21. 495   Tal and Taxel 2008, 151; Cyntryn-Silverman 2010, pl. 9.14.1 and 9.15.4. 496  Ajami 2008, fig. 5.14. 497  Zemer 1978, 73. 498  Magness 1992b, fig. 10.4–5. 499  Saller 1957, 259, pl. 113.4. 500  Corbo 1955, fig. 41.10. 501  Taxel 2009, 103, fig. 3.18.11. 489 

7. Late Antique Ceramic Imports in Gerasa (Fig.  7.32.D), 502 Herodium, 503 Giv’ati Junction, 504 Ḥorbat Paṭṭish,505 Upper Naḥal Besor,506 and Reḥovot-inthe-Negev.507 Regional Imports from Palestina and Gaza/Negev The ‘Akko Amphora or M334

Amphora M334 corresponds to the North Palestinian ‘carrot-bodied’ amphora produced in ‘Akko/Ptolemais, although its production was recently reported in the kilns of Ḥorvat ‘Uẓa/Tell Aiyadiya (together with the Palestinian type LRA 5), Ḥorvat Masref, and Ḥorvat ‘Eitayim. 508 The appearance of some pieces, which exhibit a white or yellow slip, raised some doubts about whether it was the same type of Sinopean amphora also found in the region.509 In general, none of the pieces included under the heading of ‘Sinopean Amphorae’ with red or orange fabric covered with a cream or white slip has the typical carinated lip of amphora M334, neither does the amphora found at the Third Mile Estate near Askhelon, which has a similar rim shaping (Fig. 7.27.B). In Sagalassos, a fragment of an amphora base has been considered an imitation of the Palestinian amphora M334. 510 The formal similarities exhibited by the ‘amphora of Beirut’,511 which is close in date to M334, have also been underlined, thus obscuring the M334-amphora attributions even more. The findings of the ‘Akko amphora/M334 are recorded in contexts dated between the first half of the fifth century and the first half of the sixth century. After this date it is quite rare,512 despite the findings in the Yassi Ada shipwreck (c. 625) and the Crypta Balbi (Rome), dated to the late seventh century. 513 At the 502 

Avni and Dahari 1990, 307, fig. 5.5. Birger 1981, pl. 12.4. 504  Paran 2009, fig. 8.18. 505  Paran 2000, 120, fig. 187.3–4. 506  Ben Michael, Israel, and Nahlieli 2004, 115, fig. 11.22. 507  Rosenthal-Heginbottom 1988, pl. 7.26.55; apud: Loffreda 2008, 146. 508  Robinson 1959, 115, pl. 33.M334; Reynolds 2005, 570; Pieri 2007a, 303. 509  Hayes 2003, 532. 510  Poblome, Bes, and Degryse 2005, 228, fig. 3c. 511  Pieri 2007a, 306. 512  Reynolds 2003a, 539. 513  Bass and Van Doornick 1982, 185–86; Saguì 1998, 318, fig. 10.1 n. 52; Reynolds 2005, 572. 503 

225 macellum, there is a fragment of the upper part of an amphora of this type (Fig. 7.33.154). As for its distribution in the region, according to the data published by Paul Arthur, it is registered in Jalame, and another piece has been found in a tomb at Even Menahem, dated to the end of the sixth century. In addition, there are some other examples from Qasrawet in Sinai (late fifth century).514 And maybe there is a representation on the mosaic of the diakonikon of the Byzantine church near Jabaliyah, c. 451.515 LRA 4 or ‘Gazan’ Amphorae

LRA 4 is produced in the south-western area of the region, from the third century onwards.516 Although this amphora has fairly homogeneous features, different variants have been established over time: the smaller and oldest of the Late Roman series, LRA 4A-Machjerek 2 (third to fourth centuries) (Fig. 7.35.A); the mediumsized shape, LRA 4B-Majcherek 3 (fifth to sixth centuries) with elongated cylindrical body and pointed base with a flat ending (Fig. 7.35.B);517 and the latest variant, LRA 4C-Majcherek 4 (sixth century to 660/70) with a slender body and pointed base (Fig. 7.35.C–D).518 There have been several attempts to segregate these variants geo­graphically. The first to do so was Philip Mayerson, who associated one size with the gazition and the other with the askalōnion mentioned by the Hebrew sources,519 and recently Pieri has suggested that LRA 4B is preferably associated to the Gaza area.520 However, in some workshops, such as at Khirbat Baraqa near Ashdod, the production of the three variants is attested.521 Since Riley first attributed it to the Gaza area, more than thirty producing centres have been discovered in the coastal strip, from Ashdod to Gaza, and inland in 514 

Arthur 1998, 160. Although Rachel Hachlili identifies this depiction as a LRA 4, I believe that the amphora shape depicted on the mosaic fits better with the amphora M334 (Hachlili 2009, 265, pl. XII.6.g). 516   Riley 1975, 27, fig.  12; 1976, 117; Egloff 1977, 117, pl. 60.3; Zemer 1978, 61 and 113, pls 18–19; Riley 1979, 219–20, fig.  92.351–56; Hayes 1992, 64; Keay 1984, 278; figs  121–23; Peacock and Williams 1991, 196–98, figs 115–16; Majcherek 1995, 164. 517   Egloff 1977, 191; Zemer 1978, 66; Blakely 1988, 35; Mayerson 1992, 80; Reynolds 2005, 575. 518  Majcherek 1995, 165–69. 519  Gatier 1988, n. 19; Mayerson 1992, 79. 520  Pieri 1998, 100–02. 521  Gadot and Tepper 2003, 143–44. 515 

Alexandra Uscatescu

226

Figure 7.34. LRA 4 imports from the excavations of the macellum (author’s drawing).

7. Late Antique Ceramic Imports in Gerasa

227

Figure 7.35. 159–60. LRA 4 imports from the excavations of the macellum (author’s drawing). A. LRA 4A from Heletz (redrawn from Zemer 1978, pl. 19.53); B. LRA 4B from Helezt (redrawn from Zemer 1978, pl. 18.49); C. LRA 4C from Tell Fara (redrawn from Tubb 1986, fig. 1.1); D. LRA 4C from Pella (redrawn from Watson 1992a, pl. 116.8).

the western Negev. This explains the mineralogical variations of the examined samples.522 The proposed production centre at Mareotis (Egypt) has been ruled out.523

The Palestinian kilns are associated with oil and wine presses, 524 and since the literary sources of the Late Antique period mention the wines of Gaza and Ashkelon, these amphorae have been associated with

522  Riley 1975, 31; Zemer 1978, 120; Riley 1979, 222; Blakely and others 1987, 112; Blakely 1988, 38; Israel 1993a, 105; 1993b, 106, fig. 113. 523  Egloff 1977, 117; Riley 1979, 222; Empereur and Picon

1986, 108, fig.  9; Ballet and Picon 1987, 32–33; Blakely 1988, 38; Empereur and Picon 1989, 243; Arthur and Oren 1998, 201; Empereur and Picon 1992, 149; Majcherek 1995, 165. 524  Glucker 1987, 93; Frankel 1999.

Alexandra Uscatescu

228

Figure 7.36. Map of LRA 4 finds in the Levant, with indication of the kilns (author’s drawing).

7. Late Antique Ceramic Imports in Gerasa those wines.525 Some pieces preserve the inner pitch,526 and the content analysis carried out on some sherds from the Schola Praeconum in Rome determined the use of olive and sesame oils. In spite of these results, Monica Rothschild-Boros admitted that those remains could belong to the oil used to fix the amphora lid.527 The workshops are concentrated around Ashdod and Ashkelon: Khirbat Makkūs,528 Khirbat Baraqa,529 Giv’ati junction (LRA 4C),530 Ashkelon/Barnea (LRA 4A),531 Ashkelon/Third Mile Estate (LRA 4C-Majcherek 4),532 Khirbat Irza,533 and Gan Yavne.534 In the area of Gaza, there is a high density of centres at Mefalsim and Naḥal Bohu,535 and in the Negev, between Naḥal Lachish and Na ḥ al Besor, twenty-two kilns were registered. 536 In some cases, there are local distribution kilns, such as the one in Haluza/Eleusa, whose products have only been found in central Negev (Avdat and Mamshit).537 As for its chrono­logy, the end of LRA 4 is troubling. Some of the deposits where the LRA 4C variant is registered are dated to the second half of the seventh century, yet it is difficult to assess the residual character of the finds in those deposits of Carthage, Marseilles, Rome (Crypta Balbi), and Ostrakin (northern Sinai).538 Nowadays, the chrono­logical limit for its export is considered to be c. 659/60. The findings at Chersonesos (associated with coins dated c.  641–68) 539 and finds from Pella (associated with the earthquake of c. 659/60

525 

Scheffer-Boichorst 1885, 209–11; Riley 1979, 222; Gatier 1988, n. 19; Mayerson 1993; Kingsley and Decker 2001, 12; Decker 2013, 104 and 107. 526  Kirwan 1938, 390; Schuring 1984, 173; Adan-Bayewitz 1986, 99; Incitti 1986, 589; Hayes 1992, 64; Oleson and others 1994, 117. 527  Whitehouse 1979, 193; Rothschild-Boros 1981, 86; Bonifay and Pieri 1995, 112. 528  Gibson, Vitto, and Di Segni 1998, 322, fig. 1. 529  Gadot and Tepper 2003, 143–44. 530  Baumgarten 2001. 531  Israel 1993a, 101–05. 532  Israel and Erickson-Gini 2013, 174 and 198. 533  Israel 1999, 80–81, fig. 162. 534  Israel and Erickson-Gini 2013, 201. 535  Israel 1993b, 106–07. 536  Israel 1993a; Baumgarten 2001; Gadot and Tepper 2003, 151. 537  Fabian and Goren 2002, 145–46. 538  Hayes 1978, 46 and 54, fig. 13.48 (deposits XXI and XXIV); Bonifay 1986, 295; Arthur and Oren 1998, 207; Saguì 1998, 318. 539  Sazanov 1997, 88.

229 (Fig.  7.35.D))540 are chrono­logically similar to some macellum contexts where this kind of amphora is found (Figs 7.34.155–58 and 7.35.159). Some production centres were destroyed by the earthquake of 659/60, such as Giv’ati junction (near Khirbat ‘Ajjis er-Ras) and Tell Yavneh. In the case of the workshop of Tell Yavneh, there were some doubts about the earthquake responsible for the destruction of the site: it could be either the one dated to September 634 or the one of June 659. The polyno­logical analysis carried out determined that the kilns were destroyed in summer, and therefore, this destruction must be attributed to the earthquake of 659.541 This production centre did not resume its production after the disaster. This data reaffirms the assumption that the Islamic conquest did not have a direct influence on the termination of trade with this amphora.542 Nowadays, the discussion focuses on elucidating whether the production and the trading of LRA 4 continued into the Umayyad period, as some authors argue.543 In Nessana and in Caesarea its occurrence is observed in layers dated until the middle of the eighth century.544 But in deposit 4 of Caesarea, for example, LRA 4C appears together with forms H-1 and H-3F of LRC, and this association would speak for its residual character.545 In this sense, it seems that wine production continued after 660, but on a smaller scale and at a very local level.546 The Khirbat Baraqa kiln continued until the early eighth century,547 but in Beirut, in the eighth century, LRA 4 is no longer documented.548 Therefore, the findings of Khirbat el-Jijil in Abbasid contexts, no doubt, should be considered residual.549 In Jordan, the presence of LRA 4 is scarce, especially compared to the Palestinian region. Findings are recorded in Gadara, Pella, Gerasa (macellum only), Bo ṣ rā (Syria), Tell Jawa, 550 Uyūn Mūsā, Mt Nebo, Khirbat al-Mukhayyat, Madaba, Deir ‘Ain ‘Abata, Wādī 540 

Watson 1992b, 239, fig. 10.77. Langgut and others 2015, 10. 542  Decker 2013, 112. 543  Arthur 1998, 162. 544  Lenzen 1983, pl. 7.10; Arnon 2008, 32 and 80, type 813a. 545  Wiemken and Holum 1981, 44, fig. 15.27; Langgut and others 2015, 2. 546  Langgut and others 2015, 12. 547  Gadot and Tepper 2003, 151 n. 3. 548  Reynolds 2003b, 726. 549  Młynarczyk 2005, 140, fig. 2.18. 550  Daviau 2010, 269, fig. 8.16.3. 541 

Alexandra Uscatescu

230 Feynan, Jabal Hārūn, Makhtar Gharandal, and Aqaba (Fig. 7.36). Its presence in Aqaba is remarkable, corresponding to 16.66 per cent of the total amphorae found here (five hundred of three thousand fragments),551 and this may explain the existence of findings in Arikamendu (India).552 To the list of LRA 4 findings we could add the mosaic representations of the Church of the Papyri in Petra and the Church of Be’er Shema’ as well as some trade pictures in the Nilotic scenes of the mosaic at the House of Leontis in Beth She’an (fifth century) and in a church pavement in Haditha (sixth century).553 LRA 5/6 or Palestinian Bag-Shaped Amphorae

The amphora category of Palestinian bag-shaped amphorae was subdivided because of its firing environment: oxidizing (LRA 5)554 or reducer (LRA 6).555 Both types of amphora are the result of a long tradition of bag-shaped amphorae in the region, and they were used as storage jars (Fig. 7.41.1.A–B, early types), a function maintained well into the eighth/ninth century (Fig. 7.39).556 Here we are concerned with those amphorae dated to the Byzantine and Early Islamic periods that, regardless of the colour of their fabric (red or black), have a bag-shaped or spheroid body covered with grooves, a rounded base, small handles on the shoulders, and simple geometric painted decoration in white.557 It should be noted that in Palestine the most used typo­logy is Riley’s, which is based on the morpho­logy of the neck and the presence of decoration (Caesarea types 1B, 1X–Y, and 3). 558 However, in the case of fragments it is not always easy to follow this classification (Fig. 7.41). In Watson’s opinion, the length of the neck and not the moulding, would be decisive for dating the pieces: a long neck is typical for the specimens of the fifth century and the Umayyads of the eighth century, while a short neck would be more typi551 

Parker 2002, 424. Tomber 2004, 401. 553  Hachlili 2009, 265–66, pls V.7.a–b and XII.6.f and h. 554  Riley 1975, 26; Egloff 1977, 117, pl. 60.4; Zemer 1978, 66, pl. 20; Riley 1979, 117 and 223; Landgraf 1980, 76, fig. 22; Keay 1984, fig. 166; Peacock and Williams 1991, 191, fig. 110. 555   Riley 1975, 31, figs  16–18; Riley 1976, 117; Landgraf 1980, 69, fig. 21; Hayes 1992, 65; Peacock and Williams 1991, 191, fig. 110. 556  Riley 1979, 223; Kingsley 1994–95, 39. 557  Landgraf 1980, 74; Kingsley 1994–95, 40. 558  Riley 1975, 26 and 31; contra: Sodini and others 1992, 198. 552 

cal of the sixth century and the beginning of the following century (Fig. 7.41.2.K).559 As for its content, the white wines of Palestine are suggested, with examples from the port of Caesarea that preserved remains of inner pitch.560 A complete piece from the macellum would indicate its primary use as a wine container (Fig. 7.37.161) due to a small hole, which David Adan-Bayewitz attributes to the release of carbon dioxide emitted by young wine during its fermentation, very useful for aromatic wines.561 The amphorae from Dor shipwreck D had grape seeds attached to the inner resin cover.562 On the other hand, olive-oil transport has been proposed for LRA 6, since some specimens are associated with oil presses (Tell Sush, El Kursi, and Karf er-Rama).563 The LRA 5/6 fabrics are quite heterogeneous, which is explained by the archaeo­logical distribution of kilns.564 The kiln of Ḥorvat ‘Uẓa/Khirbat Aiyadiya near ‘Akko was active between the sixth century and the beginning of the seventh century, and it was specialized in the production of the painted LRA 5 as well as the M334 amphora.565 Some of the pieces found in vault 1 of the horrea at Caesarea would come from this workshop.566 In the north of the region, there are the workshops of Kefar Hananiya and Kafr Naḥf.567 Due to the high frequency of this type of findings and the presence of vitrified fragments, the existence of a workshop of LRA 5/6 at Caesarea was assumed.568 In the Decapolis, the Beth She’an kilns produced both painted versions.569 Recently, local distribution kilns have been identified at Khirbat ‘Azzun/Ra’anana (third/fourth century).570 559 

Sodini and others 1992, n. 31. Riley 1979, 223; Oleson and others 1994, 117. 561  Adan-Bayewitz 1986, 92–94. In contrast, in the case of African amphorae, Bonifay asserts that the presence of this kind of holes could be interpreted as an alternative opening of the container, different from the customary one (Bonifay 2004, 467–68). 562  Kingsley 2003b, 88. 563  Adan-Bayewitz 1986, 100–01. 564  Riley 1975, 26 and 30; Zemer 1978, 66; Riley 1979, 223; Peacock 1984a, 22–23. 565  Landgraf 1980, 78. 566  Landgraf 1980, 76; Blakely and others 1987, 141. 567  Ben-Tor 1966, 2; Vitto 1980, 205; Johnson 1986, 590. 568  Riley 1975, 31; Riley 1979, 223; Blakely 1988, 39; Kingsley 1994–95, 45. 569  Landgraf 1980, 80; Adan-Bayewitz 1986, 101; Johnson 1986, 590 (compare with ‘gritty ware’). 570  Erlich 2017, 193, fig. 6. 560 

7. Late Antique Ceramic Imports in Gerasa

231

Other workshops somewhere in the south of the region might be responsible for the manufacture of LRA 5C, comparable to the Caesarea 1C type (Fig. 7.41.1.C–D), a type which combines characteristics of the northern Palestinian bag-shaped amphorae (rounded base and plain, horizontal band towards the upper half of the body) with other local features (deeper grooving in the upper part of the body and absence of painted decoration). This variant is dated from the end of the fifth century and throughout the seventh century.571 In Jordan, the pieces from the macellum and the East Propylaeum area of the Artemis Sanctuary in Gerasa stand out.572 The macellum amphora was found in a context dated to the end of the sixth century, in the βαφεῖον/officina tinctoria of shop 11 (Fig. 7.37.161). This amphora was reused, since after it had been split in two, it was reconstructed by applying a layer of mortar inside it. The general shape of this amphora is very similar to that of some pieces from the monastery of Khirbat es-Suyyagah 573 and from Ḥ umayma. 574 This variant is also registered in Aqaba, although in a local version with fingerprints on the rim.575 A good number of pieces belong to variant LRA 5C, which presents the typical accretions of dry clay on the rim, a feature directly related to the manufacture of LRA 4 (Fig.  7.41.1.H).576 The southern Palestinian or Gazan variant has been determined only in two Jordanian sites: Gerasa and Uyūn Mūsā (Fig. 7.35.160).577 It is more common in Palestine (Fig. 7.40): 571 

Riley 1975, 26, fig. 5. 572  Baldoni 2010, 362. 573  Taxel 2009, fig. 2.35. 574  Schick 2013, 283, fig. 7.67, dated to the mid-seventh century. 575   Whitcomb 2001, 298, fig.  2h; Parker 2002, 424. 576  Magness 1992a, 131. 577  Uyūn Mūsā: Alliata 1990a, 248, fig. 1.2 and 1.4; Gerasa : Uscatescu 1996, 172–74, fig. 95.626 (Group XXXIX-form 4).

Figure 7.37. LRA 5 imports from the excavations of the macellum (author’s drawing).

Alexandra Uscatescu

232

Figure 7.38. Local version of the Palestinian bag-shaped amphora from the excavations of the macellum (author’s drawing).

Apollonia/Arsuf, Ashkelon, Bat Galim (Haifa), Be’er Sheva, Caesarea, Capernaum, Ḥorbat Gelilot, Ḥorbat ‘Illin, Ḥorbat Paṭṭish, Ḥorvat Ḥermeshit, Jalame, Kefar Sirkin, Khirbat Beit Kufa, Khirbat Burin, Khirbat elNi’ana, Moshav HaBonim, Ramla, Ramla-Nesher Quarry, Ramot Nof, Ṣ arafond el-Kharab, Tel ‘Afar, and Tell Shiqmona.578 Outside the region, this particular produc578  Apollonia/Arsuf: Tal 2009, 237, fig. 7.12; Ashkelon: Johnson 2008, 177, no. 499; Nahshoni 2009, fig. 7.9; Kol-Ya’akov and Farhi 2012, fig. 6.19; Bat Galim: Oren-Paskal 2008, 41, fig. 6.30; Be’er Sheva’: Israel, Seriy, and Fedor 2013, 66–67, fig. 15.6; Caesarea: Lenzen 1983, 332, pls 7.1 and 13.1; Adan-Bayewitz 1986, fig. 1.4; Magness 1992a, 131; Peleg and Reich 1992, 145, fig. 13.15–16; Magness 1994, 142, fig. 2.11; Capernaum: Loffreda 1974, 44, fig. 9 (Clase C1); Ḥorbat Gelilot: Calderon 2011, fig. 9.3–4; Ḥorbat ‘Illin: Weksler-Bdolah 2012, fig. 36.16; Ḥorbat Paṭṭish: Paran 2000, 122, fig. 189.7; Ḥorvat Ḥermeshit: Greenhut 1998, 128, fig. 10.11; Jalame: Johnson 1988, 24 and 216, fig. 7–52.788–89 (compare with ‘Soft light red fabric’); Kefar Sirkin: Singer and ‘Ad 2003, 267, fig. 1.7–8; Khirbat Beit Kufa: Parnos and Avissar 2005, fig. 5.18; Khirbat Burin: Kletter and Stern 2006, 206, fig. 29.8; Khirbat el-Ni’ana: De Vincenz and Sion 2007, 25, fig. 3.6–8; Sion 2007, 32, figs  3.7 and 8.6–7; Moshav HaBonim: ‘Ad 2017, fig. 15.9–10; Ramla: Tal and Taxel 2008, 76, fig. 5.42.9–10; CyntrynSilverman 2010, 100, pl. 9.18.1 and 9.35.1; Ramla-Nesher Quarry: De Vincenz 2015, 100, figs 5.3.9, 5.11.9, 5.23.65, 5.26.8, 5.28.26, and 5.30.19–20; Ramot Nof: Ustinova and Nahshoni 1994, 161; Ṣarafond

tion is found in Beirut (c. 551), Rome, and Tarragone.579 Years ago, the existence of a hypothetical workshop in Gaza or in the Negev was proposed, and now this is evidenced by the Naḥal Besor, Be’er Sheva, and Ḥorvat Suphah kilns, which manufactured the LRA 5C variety,580 and even by the workshop of Tell Yavneh where the production of both amphora types, LRA 4 and LRA 5C, is unequivocally attested.581 The activity of these workshops ended abruptly as a consequence of the 659/60 earthquake, so the presence of this amphora variety in Ṣarafond el-Kherab in a context of 650–750582 and at the Crypta Balbi in Rome, where it was found in association with a treasure of silver silicas of Constans II (c. 668), indicates that its production was maintained for a few more years in another Palestinian potter’s workshop.583 el-Kharab: Singer 2004, 49, fig. 1.7; Tel ‘Afar: Peilstöcker 2009, 107, fig. 7.1; Tell Shiqmona: Torge and Uzi 2013, fig. 21.18. 579  Beirut: Reynolds 2005, 574; Rome: Saguì 1995, fig. 4.5; Tarragone: Remolà and Uscatescu 1998, 557, fig. 4.30. 580  Rosenthal-Heginbottom 1988, 80; Kingsley 1994–95, 45. 581  Langgut and others 2015, 2. 582  Singer 2004, 49, fig. 1.7. 583  Saguì 1995, n. 22; 1998, 306 and 318; 2002, 8.

7. Late Antique Ceramic Imports in Gerasa

Figure 7.39. Map of LRA 5/6 finds in the Levant, with indication of the kilns (author’s drawing).

233

234

Alexandra Uscatescu

Figure 7.40. Map of ‘southern’ LRA 5 finds in the Levant, with indication of the kilns (author’s drawing).

7. Late Antique Ceramic Imports in Gerasa

235

Figure 7.41. 1. LRA 5 examples from Late Roman to Early Islamic periods. A. Meiron (redrawn from Meyers, Strange, and Meyers 1981, fig. 3.22.F); B. Classe, port of Ravenna (redrawn from Stoppioni 1983, fig. 8.18); C. Tell Fara (redrawn from Tubb 1986, fig. 3.1); D. Gerasa, from the macellum; E. Reḥovot-in-the-Negev (redrawn from Rosenthal-Heginbottom 1988, pl. II.26); F. Ramat Raḥel (redrawn from Aharoni 1964, fig. 9.4); G. Ramat Raḥel (redrawn from Aharoni 1964, fig. 8.14); H. Luzit (redrawn from Avni and Dahari 1990, fig. 5.12). 2. LRA 6 examples from Late Byzantine to Early Islamic periods. I. Mt Nebo (redrawn from Alliata 1990b, fig. 6); J. Tell Keisan (redrawn from Landgraf 1980, fig. 21.1); K. Pella (redrawn from Smith 1973, pl. 45.281); L. El-Kursi (redrawn from Tzaferis 1983, fig. 7.1).

Alexandra Uscatescu

236

Figure 7.42. FBW imports from the excavations of the macellum (author’s drawing).

Finally, there is a second great production area in the Nile Delta where these spheroidal amphorae were manufactured. There, a very late version of the second half of the seventh century was determined, which continued the Palestinian tradition.584 A second hypothetical Egyptian workshop would be located in Middle Egypt.585 Abu Mena amphorae continue to be commercialized, at least on the East African coast and in the Levant, until the beginning of the eighth century. 586 However, the spheroid shape cannot be considered symptomatic of an Egyptian origin, since many southern Palestinian pieces exhibit that particular shape, such as the amphora from Kafr ‘Ana587 and amphorae from the monastery of Ramat Raḥel,588 Bethany,589 and Ḥumeyma, dated to the second

584   Ballet and Picon 1987, 34; Egloff 1977, 117 and 191 (compare with Kellia 186); Empereur and Picon 1989, 243. 585  Empereur and Picon 1989, 243. 586  Egloff 1977, 118 (compare with forms Kellia 186 and 187, respectively). 587  Gophna, Taxel, and Feldstein 2007, 38, fig. 3.4.4. 588  Aharoni 1964, fig. 9.4–8. 589  Saller 1957, 206, fig. 39.7051.

half of the seventh century (Fig. 7.41.1.E–G).590 It has also been identified in Pella (phases 5 and 7), although some authors doubt this attribution.591 At the macellum, the imported LRA 5/6 are not abundant, perhaps because they occur with Late Byzantine local productions, in both variants (red and grey) characterized by their painted decoration, thinner walls, and umbilicated bases (Fig. 7.38.165–66), more stable and better adapted to the storage function.592 In Gerasa, a very small oxidizing production of local consumption dated to the Umayyad period is attested in the North Theatre and in the temenos of Artemis.593 LRA 5/6 trading outside the region seems to be maintained between the middle of the sixth and the beginning of the seventh centuries, as is seen in Cartagena, Marseilles, and Vibo Valentia.594 Some pieces surpass 590 

‘Amr and Schick 2001, 110, fig. 4.5. Watson 1995a, 315, fig. 8.1–4; contra: Taxel and Fantalkin 2011, 78. 592  Uscatescu 2003, 549. 593  Pierobon 1986, 185; Schaefer and Falkner 1986, 431, fig. 13.7–9. 594  Arthur and Peduto 1985–86, 10; Bonifay 1986, 292; Laíz and Berrocal 1991, 335, pl. 6.1. 591 

7. Late Antique Ceramic Imports in Gerasa

Figure 7.43. Map of FBW finds in the Levant (author’s drawing).

237

238

Alexandra Uscatescu

Figure 7.44. Gerasa, south-west cemetery finds. 171. ES A, form At. 60B, from tomb 10 (redrawn from Fisher 1938, fig. 43.10); 172. Amphora Kapitän II, from tomb 10 (redrawn from Fisher 1938, fig. 43.1); 173. African shallow dish form H-181, from tomb 10 (redrawn Fisher 1938, fig. 42.11); 174. ES A, form At. 55 from tomb 4 (redrawn from Fisher 1938, fig. 36.8); 175–76. African shallow dish form H-181, from tomb 4 (redrawn from Fisher 1938, fig. 36.1–2); 177. ES A, form At. 38, from tomb 11 (redrawn from Fisher 1938, fig. 45.3); 178. ES A potter’s stamp from tomb 11 (Fisher 1938, fig. 45.29); 179. Amphora Kapitän II, from tomb 11 (redrawn from Fisher 1938, fig. 45.50).

7. Late Antique Ceramic Imports in Gerasa

239

Figure 7.45. Gerasa imports from different locations in the town. 180. Amphora Kapitän II from the quarter west of St Theodore (redrawn from Fisher and McCown 1929–30, fig. 3.x1–3); 181. African amphora Africana 2B type, from the quarter west of St Theodore (redrawn from Fisher and McCown 1929–30, fig. 3.x4); 182. Amphora Kellia 169-LRA 1 from the Central Baths (redrawn from Walmsley and others 2008, fig. 25.19).

240

Alexandra Uscatescu

Figure 7.46. Imports from the Zeus Temple Terrace and the Northwest Quarter of Gerasa. 183. LRA 1a from a cistern in the Terrace of the Sanctuary of Zeus (redrawn from Rasson and Seigne 1989, fig. 12.1); 184. ARS C form H-84 (redrawn from Lichtenberger, Raja, and Sørensen 2013, fig. 4); 185. LRC form H-3G small (redrawn from Lichtenberger, Raja, and Sørensen 2013, fig. 5); 186. African spatheion type Bonifay 1B (redrawn from Lichtenberger, Raja, and Sørensen 2013, fig. 121); 187. Lusitanian amphora Almagro 50 (drawn from Möller 2017, fig. 3).

7. Late Antique Ceramic Imports in Gerasa

241

Graph 7.2. Comparison of contexts dated to c. 500/50–660 ad: Macellum of Gerasa and Caesarea Maritima, Late Byzantine Building, strata 4–5 (data source: Adan-Bayewitz 1986, 91–113; Bar-Nathan and Adato 1986, 132–33).

Graph 7.3. Sixth–seventh century fine ware imports from the coastal strip (data source: Tell Keisan (Landgraf 1980, 62 and table 1); Tell Shiqmona (Amir 2006, 145); Jalame ( Johnson 1988, 146–67); Ḥorvat Sumaqa (Kingsley 2003a, 118); Ḥorvat ‘Ovesh (Aviam and Getzov 1998, 72); Caesarea Maritima (Riley 1975, tables 1, 3, and 6–8; Wiemken and Holum 1981, 41; Adan-Bayewitz 1986, table 2; Bar-Nathan and Adato 1986, 132–33; Tomber 1999, tables 1 and 5)).

the dating of the mid-seventh century, such as the findings of Ashdod (associated with coins of Heraclius and Justin II), Saraçhane (deposit 30, c. 655–70),595 and the Crypta Balbi (c. 650–700).596 These pieces are interesting because they attest to the trade of LRA 5/6 beyond the Islamic conquest of the region.597 However, it is true that there was a gradual microregionalization of productions after the Islamic conquest. This started in the Late Byzantine period, where 595 

Dothan and Freedman 1967, 35; Hayes 1992, 103. Saguì, Ricci, and Romei 1997, 36. 597  Hayes 1992, 104, fig. 48.172–73.

there is a clear predominance of the grey types derived from the LRA 6, and where new forms appear with more structured rims that do not seem to be intended for export beyond the eastern region.598 Other Regional Fine Wares: FBW

FBW is a production comprising bowls and small jars with incised decoration of wavy lines or parallel strokes (Fig.  7.42.168–70), manufactured with an extremely purified fabric: ‘the vessels have thin walls, are hard-fired,

596 

598 

Smith 1973, 234, pl. 31.105.

242

Alexandra Uscatescu

Graph 7.4. Sixth–seventh century fine ware imports from continental northern sites (data source: Bab el-Hawwa (Leibner and Ben David 2014, 189, table 2); Pella (Watson 1992b, 243–44); Gerasa (Uscatescu 1992, 163; 1996, 63; unpublished data); Capernaum (Loffreda 2008, 113 table V, 132–37, 146–48, and 235)).

Graph 7.5. Sixth–seventh century fine ware imports from southern sites (data source: Deir ‘Ain ‘Abata (Grey and Politis 2012, 178; Grey 2014); En-Boqeq (Hayes 2001, 282); Ḥumayma (Oleson, ‘Amr, and Holmqvist-Saukkonen 2013, 24 and 30); Aila/Aqaba (Culclausure 2017, 71)).

and are usually light brown (7.5 YR 7/6), orange-brown (5 YR 6/6 to 5 YR 7/6) or light orange (2.5 YR 6/8) at the surface. There is often a grey core’.599 Although in the past it was considered a Nabatean production, its Late Byzantine–Umayyad chrono­logy (sixth–eighth/ninth centuries) is beyond doubt.600 There is a plain version with similar pure fabric (Fig. 7.42.167). In Jordan, in addition to the pieces from the macellum, it has been identified in Wādī al-Arab, Tall Zar’ā,601 Pella (where it does not go beyond 659/60),602 ‘Amman, Tall 599 

Magness 1993, 193. Gichon 1974, 119; Magness 1993, 193. 601  Vieweger 2002, 169, fig. 19. 602  Sodini and others 1992, 208; Watson 1992b, 241, figs 11.94 and 12.97–98 (Wares J and k). 600 

al-Kharrār (some of them of Islamic chrono­logy),603 Mt Nebo, Khirbat al-Mukhayyat, Madaba,604 Dibon, Umm al-Raṣaṣ, es-Safi, Feifa, Gharandal, Khirbat edh-Dharih, Jabal Hārūn, Ḥ umayma,605 Qaṣ r Qā’as-Su’aydiyyīn,606 and Aqaba (Fig. 7.43).607 The painted version is only registered at Deir ‘Ain ‘Abata, but it is better represented in Palestine (Ramla).608

603  Abu Shmeis and Waheeb 2002, 577–78, fig. 14.10–11 and 15.1–2. 604  Harrison 1994, 441; Harrison and others 2003, fig. 11.9–13. 605  Oleson, ‘Amr, and Holmqvist-Saukkonen 2013, 23–24. 606  Parker 2014, 269. 607  Melkawi, ‘Amr, and Whitcomb 1994, 456. 608  Cyntryn-Silverman 2010, 108.

7. Late Antique Ceramic Imports in Gerasa

243

Graph 7.6. Fifth–seventh century amphora imports from the coastal strip (data source: Tell Keisan (Landgraf 1980, 67, table 6); Jalame ( Johnson 1988, 211–12); Caesarea Maritima (Riley 1975, tables 1, 3, and 6–8; Wiemken and Holum 1981, 41; AdanBayewitz 1986, table 2; Bar-Nathan and Adato 1986, 132–33; Tomber 1999, tables 1 and 5); Aila/Aqaba (Parker 2002, 424)).

Graph 7.7. Fifth–seventh century amphora imports from continental sites (data source: Capernaum (Loffreda 2008, 113 table V, 132–37, 146–48, and 235); macellum of Gerasa (Uscatescu 1992; 1996; unpublished data); Reḥovot-in-the-Negev (RosenthalHeginbottom 1988, 79).

Graph 7.8. Fine-ware imports by periods (data source: Tables 7.2, 7.4, and 7.5 in this article).

244

Alexandra Uscatescu

Some Final Annotations on the Late Antique Imports

Gerasa as a Continental Producer Town

The present conclusions are accompanied by charts that support the following observations (Graphs 7.1–8). It should be noted that it is not usual to state the quantities of fragments found (RHB) in most of the works consulted.609 In some cases, although the percentages of these imports are provided in the publications, the final figures sometimes are too low (less than one hundred sherds) to be considered statistically. For example, the data from an excavation in Beth She’arim with some sixty-four sherds of fine pottery,610 or in Gadara, where 530 sherds were unearthed, but only sixty-nine correspond to imported tablewares (13 per cent).611 The database compiled here and shown by means of tables (Tables 7.2–13) collects information from 398 sites of the region, where Late Antique pottery imports were registered. Unfortunately, the exact number of RHB is not available in all cases.612 To offer a picture as close to reality as possible, the ­g raphs show the percentages of each type of imported tableware (ARS, LRC, LRD, and ERS) in contrast to fine tablewares of regional or local provenance (FBW and JB) as well as the predominant amphorae (LRA 1, LRA 2, LRA 3, etc.). The collected data is very unequal, depending on the site. For this reason, in the upper part of the data bars, the total number of RHB is indicated, so that the reader can appreciate the exact amount recorded in each excavation or site. For example, ARS at the macellum of Gerasa accounts for 26 per cent of the tableware, while in Capernaum it would reach 11.6 per cent. However, the percentage in Gerasa corresponds to 219 sherds and in Capernaum to a notoriously larger number of 896 fragments (Graph  7.4). Likewise, the establishment of paradigms that only work at a microregional level has been avoided.613

Firstly, in Gerasa, as in many other inland towns of a region with no important rivers that connect the coast with the interior of the country, the general volume of imports is small and cannot be compared with the tons of imported ceramic that is usually found in the ports of the Eastern Mediterranean, such as at Ephesus and Beirut, with a percentage of imported tableware that can only be expected to reach 10 per cent for instance.614 Secondly, in Gerasa there is a striking difference between the macellum, with a high variety of imports, and other areas of the city, with lesser imports.615 So far the macellum is the only site that offers RHB numbers that can be transformed into percentages or g­ raphs that can be compared to other sites.616 In other cases, Late Antique imports seem unrepresentative, or just the repertoire of forms has been provided and not quantities. This is the case with the Sanctuary of Zeus, for which Villeneuve did not specify amounts (ARS D forms H-67, H-91B, H-93, H-99C, and H-106; LRC form H-3; LRA 1 and LRA 5/6).617 Despite the producer status of Late Antique Gerasa, both of tableware ( JB) and, to a lesser extent, of local storage amphorae of umbilicated base (Fig. 7.38.165–66), this circumstance does not seem to have caused a lower inflow of ARS imports (the imported tableware that constitutes the main model for the production of JB) from the mid-sixth century onwards. On the contrary, it could explain the low rates of LRC and LRD registered (Graph 7.4; compare with Graphs 7.3 and 7.5). A similar pattern has been established for other producing areas, such as Jerusalem, where the relative relevance of imports has been related to the existence of local fine wares (FBW). 618 The same observation has been made in a study by Uzi Leibner on the presence of imported tablewares in Galilee. However, the conclusions have been recently rectified by Jodi Magness and Daniel Schindler, introducing as a counterweight the

609 

Hayes 2001, 278. Vitto 1996, 128. 611  El-Khouri 2014b, 116. 612  The ICRATES project has gotten a bigger database (2302 sherds in 2007; 3660 sherds in 2009) since the sampling was recovered from the entire Eastern Mediterranean (2070 sherds of ARS; 807 sherds of LRD): Bes and Poblome 2007, 2; 2009. These authors follow the same system used by Fentress and Perkins, recording intervals of thirty years each and including out-ofcontext sherds (Fentress and Perkins 1988, 205; Fentress and others 2004, 148). 613  For instance, at micro-regional level (Galilee) it has been stated that ARS forms H-105 and H-106, and LRD form H-7 did not reach the interior of the region (Leibner 2009, 56), while these 610 

imported forms are well-attested at continental towns such as Gerasa and Pella and were published in the 1980s and 1990s. 614  Hayes 2000, 285. 615   For the Northwest Quarter, the estimated imported sherds reached as much as 1 per cent: pers. comm. with Achim Lichtenberger and Rubina Raja. 616  A total of 595 imported sherds (RHB), excluding 459 sherds of JB and three local amphorae similar to LRA 5/6 (Uscatescu 1992, 163). 617  Villeneuve 2003. 618  Hayes 2001, 279–80.

7. Late Antique Ceramic Imports in Gerasa percentage of Galilean Bowls.619 In the case of Syria, this balance between imported tablewares and series of local imitations does not happen until later, in the seventh century.620 In general terms, the percentages of the macellum are not very different from those obtained in other continental cities, such as Pella (Graph  7.4). In order to contrast this information, we have proceeded to compare the contexts of the Late Byzantine period of the macellum with other chrono­logically similar contexts from sites on the coast which received and distributed imports, such as Caesarea Maritima (Late Byzantine building, stata 4–5). In the resulting chart, Gerasa stands out with an absolute predominance of JB and the presence of other Mediterranean tablewares in slightly lower percentages (Graph 7.2). As for the amphorae, the profile of Caesarea presents a greater variety of amphorae productions, highlighting the regional imports (LRA 4 and LRA 5/6), undoubtedly due to its nature as seaport from where a good part of the Palestinian productions would be traded throughout the Mediterranean. At the macellum, the absence of Aegean productions is outstanding, and there is a predominance of imports from the surrounding regions of the North (Cilicia/Cyprus and the Black Sea). In Caesarea, on the other hand, the scarce supply of LRA 1 is outstanding, and the punctual absence of Sinopean amphorae in the Late Byzantine building, which contrasts with its presence in another part of the city is noteworthy (Figs 7.27.F and 7.28). The scarce presence of Aegean amphorae and the absence of Egyptian imports is shared by most sites in the region (Figs 7.29–31) and even in Syria.621 In some way, the provenance of the imported tableware at the macellum of Gerasa differs from the usual representative percentages in the Levant, since there is a clear predominance of ARS, a fact that only coincides with Aila/Aqaba and Ḥumayma (Graphs 7.3 and 7.4).622 The general trend is that LRC imports are higher in all cases, followed by LRD,623 with a regular distribution throughout the region (Table 7.3 and Fig. 7.18). In Jalame, for instance, LRD is the best represented tableware (Graph 7.3). Sometimes, the difference between LRC and LRD is not so relevant, as in Tell Shiqmona 619 

Magness and Schindler 2015, 191–94 n. 3. Vokaer 2013, 485. 621  Vokaer 2013, 488. 622  Parker 2002, 424; Oleson, ‘Amr, and Holmqvist-Saukkonen 2013, 30; Culclausure 2017, 71. 623  Hayes 2001, 279. 620 

245 and Bab al-Hawwa. This is equally valid for the macellum, but it cannot be extended to the entire Jordan. For example, in the excavations of the ‘Cortile’ Bajali in Madaba, the LRD is practically absent (Table 7.4 and Fig. 7.21).624 With the exception of Gerasa, the least represented tableware imports are in all cases the regional ones, specifically JB. Although present in many sites in the region, this ware only shows relevant numbers in Pella and Capernaum (Graph 7.4).625 Despite the geo­g raphical proximity of the Egyptian production centres, ERS imports are scarcely represented, except in Aila/Aqaba (Graph  7.5 and Fig. 7.31.A),626 showing a contrast to the number recovered from other inland sites, such as Ḥumayma.627 This pattern is comparable to the Syrian case, where imported tableware shows this tendency, especially since local productions are not so relevant: LRC is the main import, while LRD predominates on the coast and in the south, as is the case for Beirut.628 From a chrono­logical point of view, the first imports of ARS in the region come from the workshops of the north of Tunisia (ARS A production) in the mid-second century, specifically, forms H-9 in Caesarea and H-14A in Ashkelon 629 and Jalame, 630 the final date of which should be extended until the beginning of the third century.631 In general, the first African imports at the macellum would be dated shortly before mid-third century (H-32), a case similar to Gadara (H-45).632 But the bulk of these first imports date from the mid-third century (H-44, H-50A, and H-50B), as is the case at inland sites from southern Jordan (Petra and Ḥumayma),633 which matches the pattern documented in the coastal strip. This is a pattern somewhat different from the rest of the Eastern Mediterranean, where ARS appeared in the second century.634 624 

Acconci and Gabrieli 1994, 510. Uscatescu 2019, fig. 57. 626  Uscatescu 2003, 551. 627  Oleson, ‘Amr, and Holmqvist-Saukkonen 2013, 23. 628  Reynolds 2003a, 536; Vokaer 2013, 485. 629  Johnson 2008, 41–51. 630  Johnson 1988, 146, fig. 7.6.90–91. Some authors questioned this attribution (Slane and Magness 2005, 258, table 1). 631  Bonifay 2004, 159. 632  Kenrick 2000, 264. 633   Schneider 1996, 140; Oleson, ‘Amr, and HolmqvistSaukkonen 2013, 12. 634  Bonifay 2005a, 566. 625 

Alexandra Uscatescu

246 As for the imported tableware, this is documented in 275 of the 398 sites recorded in our database. Taking into account the number of deposits where the three main imported tablewares (ARS, LRC, and LRC) are documented, the resulting chart (Graph 7.8), organized into four chrono­logical blocks (A: 250–350, B: 350–450, C: 450–550, and D: 550–660/700), allows us to visualize the fluctuation in the arrival of these Mediterranean imports to the Levant. The supply of ARS remains more or less stable, although in small proportions, until the end of its production. The evolution of the behaviour of LRD is somewhat different, increasing its commercialization at the end of Late Antiquity, when other productions of imported tableware cease to be produced. As for LRC, this production plays a minor role in the regional trade at the beginning of its manufacture, perhaps in relation to the difficulty of identifying the first LRC forms (forms H-1 and H-2 are difficult to distinguish from other fine wares), but has a strong peak in the sixth century (form H-3 is easy to identify) (Graph 7.8). This shift is observed at the macellum, where the scarce presence of early types stands out (H-1, H-2, and a total lack of variants H-3A and H-3B), and there is an absence of the latest types of this production (H-10). This is applicable to the rest of Gerasa, except for a dubious piece of form H-10 found in the Temple of Artemis (Table 7.4). Sometimes, it has been claimed that the distribution of tableware imports runs out in the interior of the region.635 In view of the data collected here, I believe that this statement should be better qualified. Regardless of their geo­g raphical location, coastal or inland, the largest cities of the region have a stable number of Mediterranean imports for the period, from the midthird century to the second half of the seventh century (Tables 7.2–12). With a lesser trading fluctuation, these large cities receive the main Mediterranean tableware (ARS, LRC, and LRD): Caesarea Maritima, Askhelon, Ḥorbat Qastra, and Tell Shiqmona on the coastal fringe, and in the largest inland towns: Sepphoris, Esdraela (T.  Jezreel), Jerusalem, Capernaum, Hippos, Gadara, and Gerasa. The small volume of amphora finds is typical for the entire region, except the coastal strip (Tables 7.3, 7.6, 7.8–10 and Figs 7.15, 7.24, 7.28–31A, and 7.32). A trend that only breaks in the case of the regions that have potter’s workshops of LRA 4 and LRA 5/6 (Tables 7.11–12 and Figs 7.36 and 7.39–40) and recalls the 635 

Da Kosta 2007, 41.

same phenomenon analysed by Bonifay for the African case, with the narrow coastal strip as consumption or redistribution area.636 In Caesarea Maritima, the seabed of the harbours included, approximately 80 per cent of the ceramic traffic corresponds to amphorae, while 20 per cent belongs to imported tableware and lamps.637 For the Late Antique period, it must be recognized that only 2.7 per cent of these amphorae corresponds to the Byzantine period.638 In the south, especially the port of Aqaba presents a certain diversity of amphorae (Africana 1 and 2, Hispanic Dressel 20, Käpitan II, LRA 1, LRA 4, LRA 5/6, and LRA 7), especially significant is the presence of the local amphora type Aila/ Axum.639 In the case of African imports, it has already been observed that the presence of ARS and the presence of African amphorae do not go hand in hand.640 This fact could be explained by the content of the amphorae, which is related to agricultural products. Basically these products were to be found in the place where the annona ended up in the Late Antique period, namely in Constantinople.641 In the rest of the Mediterranean ports, its presence would be less important. It is possible that this apparent segregation of products occurs in the ports themselves, and this idea is supported by the reuse of amphorae. So the most plausible solution is that the weight of the amphora, regardless of its use as a container designed for shipping, served as a necessary ballast for navigation, hence its widespread use and its advantage over other lighter containers such as barrels or skins.642 This idea might be supported by the evidence provided by Dor shipwreck D that sailed from Cyprus to the Palestinian coast shortly after 541, shipping a cargo of empty LRA 5, as Sean A. Kingsley claims.643 Land traffic would occur, for example, from the producing centres of the Negev, where LRA 4 would be distributed using pack animals, as shown by a mosaic in Kissufim

636 

Bonifay 2013, 529. Blakely 1996, 343; Oleson and others 1996, 361. 638  Oleson and others 1994, 158. 639  Parker 2002; 424; Parker 2014, 207, fig.  4.40 and 4.52. Tomber identified LRA 1 in Aila/Aqaba (Tomber 2004, 400). The Aila amphora has been found also in Ḥumayma (Oleson 2013, 182, fig. 6.22). 640  Bonifay 2005a, 565 and 576. 641  Bonifay 2003, 123–24. 642  McCormick 2012, 74; Bonifay 2013, 553. 643  Kingsley 2003a, 128; 2003b. 637 

7. Late Antique Ceramic Imports in Gerasa with amphorae of this type on the back of a camel.644 This clear association of amphora-maritime transport is observed in another non-Mediterranean port, in Aila/ Aqaba (Graph 7.6).645 The Last Mediterranean Imports in Late Antiquity: Contexts Dated to c. 659/60 and Beyond In the Late Antique contexts of the macellum, imports are present in all of them, although they are much more significant in those dating from the Byzantine period before the earthquake of c. 659/60 and, to a lesser extent, in subsequent contexts (Graph  7.1). Western imports from Early Roman times are always a minority (Arretine or Gaulish Sigillata) in contrast to regional imports (ERS A and B) and obviously, their local imitations. The most important contexts of this site are those layers sealed by the 659/60 earthquake (B2) and the collapse itself (Q), which constitute the last levels where potentially contemporaneous imports would be attested: ARS D forms H-99D, H-104A, H-105B, and H-107, LRD form H-7, LRU, LRA 1, LRA 4C, LRA 5, LRA 5C (southern), and LRA 6, together with folles of Phocas and Constans II (Tables 7.1a and 7.1b, respectively).646 Similar data is recorded in phase V in Pella and in plot XXXIVA at Tell el-Hu ṣ n: ARS D forms H-104C, H-105B, and H-107, LRC forms H-10A and H-10C, LRD form H-9C, LRA 4C, spheroid LRA 5, together with a coin of Constans II (641–68).647 In this sense, the destruction of Tell Yavneh and Giv’ati junction kilns, as a result of the 659/60 earthquake, seems to mark a turning point in the production of certain regional amphorae: namely LRA 4 and LRA 5C.648 The survival of other workshops, at least for another decade, is demonstrated at the Crypta Balbi deposit in Rome associated with a monastery, where the latest imports of Late Antiquity arrived: ARS H-99C, H-105, H-106, and H-109 (three thousand sherds), Palestinian amphorae (LRA 4 and LRA 5), and ‘Beirut amphorae’ (Crypta Balbi type 1), and also at the St Gervais shipwreck.649 In spite of certain opinions already discussed above, this trade eviHachlili 2009, 266, pl. VII.18.a. Parker 2002, 424. 646  Uscatescu and Marot 2016, 285 and 302. 647  Watson 1992a, 181, pls 115.5–6 and 116.8; Watson 1993, 204. A destruction first attributed to the 633 earthquake: Watson 1990, 76–78. 648  Langgut and others 2015, 5. 649  Saguì 2002, 9–15.

247 dences that the Islamic conquest did not, at first, directly affect amphora production.650 Although its chrono­log y is somewhat diffuse, the recording of some African imports of ARS D4 or ‘Pseudo-Egyptian C’, with a significant concentration of findings in Jordan/Palestine (Table  7.2) is interesting. As Bonifay observes, its low visibility may be a consequence of the poor quality of the latest African productions, which become confused with local imitations.651 The occurrence of African globular amphorae in Capernaum,652 which would support the maintenance of certain North African imports after the Islamic conquest of the region, is also relevant. In the scarce levels dated to the Umayyad period recorded at the macellum, some imports are found, such as ARS D4, specifically form H-104, inside the small bench abutting the Roman wall of the vaulted structure over exedra 4, sealed by the earthquake of 747 (Fig. 7.12.79). In addition to that, a LRD form H-5 and some LRA 4B (Fig. 7.19.117) were also recovered. Nowadays, there is no doubt that these three productions transcend the Islamic conquest, but I believe that the particular chrono­logy of these forms, as well as their state of conservation, would support their consideration as residual pieces in those contexts dated to the mid-eighth century at the macellum. The only known import at that time would correspond to RBOA or Kellia amphora 190 (Fig. 7.32.153). For example, in the Umayyad contexts of Beirut, ERS is the only registered import; neither LRC, nor LRD or LRA 4 are documented, and the wall-sherds of LRA 1 are considered residual finds. Instead, the occurrences of LRA 5, Aegean imitations of LRA 2, and Egyptian Kellia 190 and LRA 7 constitute the only reliable imports of the period.653

644  645 

650 

Pieri 2012, 32. Bonifay 2005a, 570. 652  Keay 1998, 148; Bonifay 2004, 153, fig. 83; Loffreda 2008, 146. 653  Reynolds 2003a, 544. 651 

Alexandra Uscatescu

248 Table 7.1a. Imports and coin data from Early and Late Byzantine contexts from the macellum (source: Uscatescu 1992; 1996; Marot 1998, 177–273).

B1: Early Byzantine deposits, c. 350–470 (intrusive elements c. 550) Class/Type

Form

Frag.

ES A

At. 109/110* Base* ARS C2/C3 H-50A H-50B ARS C5 Stamp 96 ARS D H-91C H-91 Unknown form ABTW H-181.13 H-181A H-181D LRC H-3F* JB JB* Amphora Sinope*

1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 16 1

B2: Late Byzantine deposits, c. 550–659/60 Chronology 10 bc – ad 100 230/40–325 250–400+ 440–500 440–60 400–700

Class/Type

Form

Frag.

Gaulish Sigillata

Base

1

100–200

ARS C

H-57

1

350–400?

ARS D

H-58B

1

300–50/75

H-59B

3

340/50–400/20

H-61A/B.2

1

400–50

H-99D

1

650–700

H-104A1

1

490–530

H-104A2

1

525–50

H-104A base

1

490–550

H-104C

2

550–650

H-105B

1

640–60

H-105 base

1

575–700

H-107

1

600–60

Unknown form

2

ABTW

H-181D

1

350–450

LRC

H-3D

2

480–500

H-3F

2

520–50

Unknown form

3 1

90–150 90–150 350–450 520–50 550–660 500–650?

Total 30 sherds (*) Intrusive and residual sherds

B1: Early Byzantine deposits, c. 350–470 (intrusive elements c. 550) Type

Authority

AE Nummus AE3/AE4 AE3 AE3 AE3 AE3/AE4 AE3/AE4 AE4 AE4 AE4 AE3/AE4 AE3/AE4 AE2 AE3/AE4 AE4 AE3 AE3/AE4 AE3/AE4 AE3/AE4 AE4 AE4

Aretas IV Constantinian dynas. Constantinian dynas. Constantius II Constans I Jovian Valentinian dynasty Valentinian I Gratian Theodosius I Valen.II/Theodosius Arcadius Theodosian dynasty Theodosian dynasty Valentinian II Valentinian dynasty Honorius Theodosian dynasty Theodosius II fourth–fifth century fourth–fifth century Basiliscus

Chronology

Qty.

Chronology

LRD

H-7

1 2 13 3 1 1 19 3 1 1 2 5 15 1 3 1 3 6 3 60 1 1

9 bc – ad 40 348–61 348–61 348–61 348–61 363–4 364–78 364–78 383 383 383 383–95 383–95 392–95 393–95 383–92 395–408 395–08 402–50

JB

JB

FBW

Bowl

1

2

Juglet 2A

1

550–720

LRU

LRU

4

500–700

Amphorae

African Keay 4(?)

1

230–400

Sinope

5

500–650?

LRA 1

5

390–650

LRA 1 Cypriot

5

500–650

LRA 4B

6

400–600

LRA 4C

1

500–660/70

LRA 4 painted

4

LRA 4 handle

1

LRA 5 accretions

1

500–660/70

LRA 5 southern

1

500–660/70

LRA 5

3

500–660

LRA 5 local

2

500–660

LRA 6 local

1

500–660

Total 146 coins

106

450–600/20 550–660

Total 151 sherds 425–55 475–76

7. Late Antique Ceramic Imports in Gerasa

249

Table 7.1a. Imports and coin data from Early and Late Byzantine contexts from the macellum (source: Uscatescu 1992; 1996; Marot 1998, 177–273). (cont.)

B2: Late Byzantine deposits, c. 550–659/60 Type AE AE2 Tetradrac. Tetradrac. Nummus Nummus AE3/AE4 AE3/AE4 AE 3 AE4 AE3/AE4 AE4 AE4

Authority Aretas IV Antoninus Pius Heliogabalus Alexander Severus Tetrarchy Constantius II Constantinian dynasty Valentinian dynasty Valentinian II Theodosius I Theodosian dynasty Arcadius Theodosius II

Qty. 1 1 1 1 1 1 7 9 1 1 6 2 2

Chronology 9 bc – ad 40 138–61 218–22 225–35 301–24 327–30 348–61 361–95 367–75 383 383–402 393–408 425–50

Type AE AE3 AE4 Follis 1/2 Follis Follis Nummus 1/2 Follis Follis Follis 1/2 Follis Follis Follis

Authority Marcian fourth–fifth century fourth–fifth century Anastasius I Anastasius I Justinian I Justinian I Justin II Justin II Tiberius II Maurice Tiberius Phocas Constans II

Qty. 1 36 119 3 1 2 2 2 4 1 1 1 1

Chronology 450–57

498–518 498–518 527–38 534–41 565–78 570–77 581–82 583–97 604–10 641–68

Total 208 coins

Table 7.1b. Imports and coin data from contexts dated to the earth­quake of 659/60 and after the earthquake (c. 660–700) (source: Uscatescu 1992; 1996; Marot 1998, 177–273).

Q: Earthquake 659/60 Class/Type

Form

ARS D ARS D4 JB FBW LRU Amphorae

Unknown form H-106 simil JB Bowl 1B LRU LRA 1 LRA 1 Cypriot LRA 4B LRA 4C LRA 5 accretions

Frag.

Chronology

4 1 30 1 1 2 1 5 1 1

600–60+ 550–660 550–680/720 500–700 490–650 500–650 400–600 500–660/70 500–660/70

Total 47 sherds Type

Authority

AE Tetradrac. Nummus AE Follis 1/2 Follis Follis Nummus Follis

Antoninus Pius Alexander Severus Constantius II with uncoined blanks Anastasius I Anastasius I Justin I Justinian I Justin II

Qty. 1 1 1 77 2 1 2 1 3

Chronology 138–61 222–35 327–30 300–500 498–518 498–518 518–27 539–41 565–78

Type

Authority

1/2 Follis Dodeca. Follis 1/2 Follis Follis 1/2 Follis Follis

Justin II Justin II Tiberius II Maurice Tiberius Phocas Heraclius Constans II

Qty. 1 2 1 2 2 1 3

Chronology 565–78 565–78 580–81 591–601 604–10 629–31 641–48

Total 101 coins

PQ: Post-659/60 earthquake deposits Class/Type ES A Mortarium ARS D

FBW Amphorae

Form base Dramont 2 H-94A H-105B Unknown form Bowl 1A Bowl 1C LRA 1 LRA 4C LRA 4

Frag. 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 3 1 Total 14 sherds

Mostly residual coins, some Arabic feluses recorded

Chronology 50–150/60 480–520 640–60 550–680/720 600–750 490–650 500–660/70 400–660/70

Alexandra Uscatescu

250

Table 7.2. ARS imports. X indicates that there is evidence of this kind of pottery, but the publications consulted do not indicate shape or decoration. The underlined references are related to the forms underlined. Site

ARS

ARS decoration

ARS D4 (ERS C)

Bibliography

‘Abû Shusheh ‘Iraq al-Amir

H-50A H-67

   

  H-94

Aila/Aqaba

H-99A/B

 

 

al-Ḥaditha al-Lajjûn ‘Amman/Citadel Arbel

H-59B, H-61A/B3 H-50, H-58, H-59, H-67 H-181A? H-59, H-67, H-103, H-104C H-6B, H-14A, H-44, H-45B, H-50A, H-50B, H-52B, H-53A, H-58A, H-58B, H-59B, H-60, H-61A, H-61B, H-67, H-70, H-73A, H-84, H-91A/B, H-97, H-99A, H-105, H-107, H-181

X  

   

 

 

Leibner 2009 Brown 1980; Munzi and Ciotola 2006 Melkawi, 'Amr, and Whitcomb 1994; Parker 2002; 2014; Culclausure 2017 Parker 1994 Parker 1987; Parker 2006 Koutsoukou and Najjar 1997 Leibner 2009

 

H-97, H-104 (rouletted), H-105

Nahshoni 1999; Johnson 2008

H-50A/B

 

 

Israel and Erickson-Gini 2013

X   H-61A, H-99C, H-104A, H-107 H-99A/B

  Motif 223/224 stamps Motif 209B

       

Leibner and Ben David 2014 El-Khouri 2014a Oren-Paskal 2008 Fabian and Goldfus 2004

Ashkelon

Ashkelon/Third Mile Estate Bab el-Hawwa Barsinia Bat Galim (Haifa) Be'er Sheva Be'er Sheva North (Train Station) Beidha Site 12 Bet She'arim Beth Alpha

H-73B, H-104A, H-104C, H-105A

Motif 119 (Style E)

H-104C

Israel, Seriy and Fedor 2013

H-67 H-93A, H-104C, H-107  

    Motif 228

     

Beth Ma'on

H-93

 

 

Beth Netofa

H-50A, H-58 H-27, H-32, H-50, H-61A, H-67, H-91A, H-91B, H-93B, H-99A/B, H-104B, H-104C, H-181 H-54, H-58, H-59, H-67, H-69, H-91C, H-104C H-67 X

 

 

‘Amr and others 1998 Vitto 1996 Bagatti 1953 Leibner 2009; Magness and Schindler 2015 Leibner 2009

Motifs 179, 157

 

Fitzgerald 1931; Peleg 2004; Avissar 2014

Beth She'an Bethany Bethlehem Bir Madhkur Boṣrâ

Caesarea Maritima/ Sebastos

Caesarea Maritima

H-50, H-58?, H-60, H-91A/B, H-91B, H-92, H-97, H-99B, H-104C, H-106, H-181 H-47, H-50, H-58, H-59, H-59A, H-61A, H-62, H-67, H-91, H-91A/B, H-104C, lamp H-9A, H-27/31, H-50, H-50A, H-50A/B, H-50B, H-72, H-73, H-85, H-86 var., H-90B, H-91 (base), H-91A/B, H-91B/C, H-93, H-94A, H-99, H-99C, H-103, H-103B, H-104 (base), H-104B, H-104B/C (base), H-104C, H-105B, H-181

Motif palm (Style A), 227 (Style E)    

 

Bagatti 1953; Saller 1957

   

 

 

Bagatti 1952 Parker 2014 Gualandi 1978; Wilson and Sa'ad 1984; Sodini and others 1992; Joly and Blanc 1995; Munzi and Ciotola 2006

Motif 28

 

Oleson and others 1994; Tomber 1999

H-105

Siegelmann 1974; Riley 1975; Wiemken and Holum 1981; AdanBayewitz 1986; Bar-Nathan and Adato 1986; Magness 1992a; 1994

Motif 17 (Style D)

7. Late Antique Ceramic Imports in Gerasa Site

Capernaum

Deir 'Ain 'Abata Deir al-Kahf Dhîbân Plateau Site 14 Dibon Eastern Galilee Survey El Kursi El-Misdah En Gedi En-Boqeq Er-Rabbah Es-Safi Feifa Gadara

ARS

ARS decoration

251 ARS D4 (ERS C)

Bibliography

Motif palm [Style A(iii)], 69 [Style A(ii)–(iii)], 75, 71, H-45, H-50, H-50A, H-58, H-59, boar, 82, 171, 116, 172 [Style H-61A, H-61B, H-67, H-69, H-78, E(ii)], 223 (Style E), 230   H-91, H-91A, H-91A/B, H-93, H-93B, [Style E(ii)], 232 [Style E(i)], H-97, H-99, H-104A, H-104C, H-107 250 [Style E(ii)], 262 [Style E(ii)], 314 [Style E(i)], Cross Mackensen 263–264 H-50B, H-61, H-61A, H-67, H-99A/B, Motif 25, 32n   H-101, H-105, H-107, H-108, H-109 H-99D    

Brown 1991

H-104C

 

Chang-Ho and Jong-Keun 1998

H-61, H-63, H-64, H-67, H-91C, H-99C, H-104A H-50, H-58, H-59, H-61, H-62, H-67, H-93, H-91, H-103, H-104, H-105, H-107 H-104C H-67 H-104A H-97 H-67 H-50, H-61A?, H-67, H-181 H-67 H-32/58, H-45, H-50, H-61, H-61A, H-62, H-91A/B, H-103B, H-104 (base), H-104A, H-104B, H-104C, H-181

Stamps (drawings are too small to discern the type of decoration) 

Tushingham 1972

 

 

Leibner and Ben David 2014

      Stamp (human head)      

      X      

Tzaferis 2014 Brown 1991 Hadas 2005 Gichon 1993; Magness 2003 Brown 1991 Rast and Schaub 1974 Rast and Schaub 1974

Style A (ii) or (iii), B, C, and E(ii)

X

Kerner 1997; Kenrick 2000; Munzi and Ciotola 2006; El-Khouri 2014b

 

Watson 1986a

 

Loffreda 1974; 1982; 1983; 2008; Leibner and Ben David 2014; Magness and Schindler 2015

Grey and Politis 2012

Gerasa/Cardo/ North Decumanus

H-50A, H-50B, H-67, H-91

 

Gerasa/Macellum

H-32, H-44, H-50A, H-50B, H-51A, H-57, H-32/58, H-58B, H-59B, H-60, H-61A/B, H-63, H-66, H-67A, H-67B, H-67C, H-84, H-87A/88, H-91A, H-91A/B, H-91C, H-91D, H-93A, H-93B, H-94A?, H-95, H-97, H-99A, H-99B, H-99C, H-99D, H-103A/B, H-104A, H-104B, H-104C, H-105A, H-105B, H-107, H-108, H-181

Motifs 96 (Style D), 52 (Style Aii), 179 (Style Aiii), H-97, H-104C, 36 and 69 (Style Aii/iii), H-106 simil 127 (Style D), 228 or 234 (Style Eii), and 118 (Style Ei)

Uscatescu 1992; 1996; 2003; Unpublished

H-181

 

 

Clark and Falkner 1986

H-32/58, H-50A, H-50B, H-84

Motif 1a [Style A(i)/(ii)]

 

Lichtenberger, Raja, and Sørensen 2013

H-91, H-181

Motif 69

 

Piazza 1983–84; Baldoni 2010

H-50, H-32/58, H-67, H-91B, H-93, H-99C, H-106, H-181

 

X

Rasson 1986; Villeneuve 2003

H-181

 

 

Fisher 1938

H-104C, H-181 H-91D, H-93A

   

   

Walmsley and Grey 2001 Varga 2002

Gerasa/North Theatre Gerasa/Northwest Quarter Gerasa/Sanctuary of Artemis Gerasa/Sanctuary of Zeus Gerasa/Southwest Cemetery Gharandal Giv'at Maḥat

Alexandra Uscatescu

252 Site Gush Ḥalav Ḥammath Gader Har Nitai Caves Herodium

Hippos Ḥorbat 'Illin Ḥorbat Anusha

ARS H-27, H-50A, H-50B, H-58, H-61A, H-91A, H-99C, H-104C, H-104 (local?), H-105 H-91B H-105 H-67, H-104A H-33, H-67, H-81B, H-84, H-88, H-91A/B, H-93A, H-99A/C, H-104A/B or H-105, H-105, H-108, H-109 H-104B X

ARS decoration

ARS D4 (ERS C)

Bibliography

 

 

Meyers, Strange, and Groh 1978; Wolff 2009

   

   

Ben-Arieh 1997 Leibner 2009 Birger 1981

Style A

 

Młynarczyk 2003; 2006

   

   

Weksley-Bdolah 2012 Sion and others 2007

Ḥorbat Barfiliya Site 67

H-61

 

 

Kogan-Zehavi and Zelinger 2008

Ḥorbat Be'er Shema'

H-95, H-104B

 

 

Erickson-Gini, Dolinka, and Shilov 2015

Ḥorbat Qastra Ḥorbat Roẓeẓ Ḥorvat 'Ovesh Ḥorvat Haẓaẓ Ḥorvat Ḥermeshit Ḥorvat Hur Site 63.37 Ḥorvat Ma'on Ḥorvat So'a Site 15.85/2 Ḥorvat Sumaqa

H-32, H-50B, H-58, H-59, H-91B, H-91C, H-93, H-99C, H-104B, H-104C, H-105B, H-107 H-106 H-99A, H-104B, H-104C, H-108   H-94, H-104A or B

 

 

Siegelmann 1996; Van den Brink and others 2013

       

    X  

Yannai 2010 Aviam and Getzov 1998 Nahshoni 2007 Greenhut 1998

H-105

 

 

Magness 2003

H-104C

 

 

Nahshoni and Seriy 2014

X

 

 

Magness 2003

X

Kingsley 2003a Eadi 1984; Oleson, ‘Amr, and Holmqvist-Saukkonen 2013 Magness and others 2014 Abu-Raya 2016 Parker 2014 Parker 2014 Gerber 2008; Gerber and Holmqvist 2008

Ḥumayma

H-50, H-181

 

 

Ḥuqoq I'Billin Jabal as-Saḥâki West Jabal as-Shahbi

H-84 H-93 X H-50

       

       

Jabal Hârûn

H-93B, H-104A, H-104C

 

 

Jalame

H-14 (?), H-50A, H-50B, H-32/58, H-58, H-59A, H-59B, H-60, H-61A, H-62 (classified as PhRS H-1), H-63,   H-67, H-70 (is a H-67), H-83/84, H-91A, H-91B, H-94, H-104A

X

Johnson 1988; Slane and Magness 2005; Leibner and Ben David 2014

Jericho/Tulul ‘Abû Al-'Alayiq

H-91C

 

Kelso and Baramki 1949-50

Jerusalem

H-33, H-52A, H-53A, H-61A, H-61B, H-64, H-67, H-73A, H-83, H-91A, H-93? H-99A, H-99A/B, H-99B, H-99C, H-104C, H-105, H-106, H-107, H-181

H-90

Hamilton 1940; Bagatti 1953; Hayes 1985; Wightman 1989; Rahmani 1991; Magness 1992a; Seligman and Abu Raya 2000; Mazar 2003; Mazar and Peleg 2003; Weksley-Bdolah 2006; Fleitman and Mazar 2015; Baruch and Reich 2016

 

Motifs 162 (Style Eii), 208– 209 (Style E), cross, 209B

7. Late Antique Ceramic Imports in Gerasa

253

Site

ARS

ARS decoration

ARS D4 (ERS C)

Bibliography

Kafr 'Ana Kafr Kanna Kafr Yasif/Dar elGharbiya Kanisat er-Rawat (Shepherds’ Field) Kefar Baruk Khirbat 'Addasa (North Jerusalem)

H-107 H-91A, H-106

   

   

Gophna, Taxel, and Feldstein 2007 Meyers, Strange, and Groh 1978

H-99A/B

 

 

Syon and Stern 2014

H-67

 

 

Tzaferis 1975

H-99C (?)

 

 

Syon 2004

H-67

 

 

Khalaily and Avissar 2008

H-91A/B, H-95, H-104A, H-104B, H-104C, H-105

Motif 278

 

Delougaz and Haines 1960

Lamp

 

 

Hirschfeld and Birger-Calderon 1991

Khirbat al-Karak Khirbat al-Manṣur el-'Aqab Khirbat alMukhayyat Khirbat Bellaneh Khirbat el-Jiljil

H-58, H-67, H-94/H-108 (base)

 

 

Alliata 1988; Michel 1998

H-61 H-61A, H-67

   

   

Khirbat el-Qaṣr

H-67

 

 

Khirbat es-Samrâ’ Khirbat es-Suyyagah Khirbat Ḥamam Khirbat Shema' Khirbat Siyar alGhanam Khirbat Tinani Khirbat Umm el-’Amad/Ḥorvat ‘Ammudim Khiṣaṣ

H-104B H-61A, H-107 H-58 H-59

    Motif 69  

  H-104C, H-105    

Leibner 2009 Młynarczyk 2005 Hirschfeld and Kloner 1988–89; Magness 1999 Desreumaux and Humbert 1981 Taxel 2009 Leibner 2009 Meyers, Kraabel, and Strange 1976

H-50B, H-84

Motifs 3 (Style A), 69

 

Bagatti 1953

H-104B, H-107

 

 

Gil 2000

Base, H-58, H-61, H-93

 

 

Adan-Bayewitz 1982; Magness and Schindler 2015

Madaba Magdala Magen Mamshit Meiron Mimlaḥ Mt Nebo Naḥal Besor Site 53 Naḥal Hur Site 99.36/3 Naḥal Molada Site 192.23/1 Nazareth

H-67 H-58, H-67, H-91A, H-93B, H-99A, H-99A/B, H-99C, H-104B, H-104C, H-105A, H-105B, H-107 H-48, H-58 H-58, H-91 H-105

H-59, H-67, H-107   H-67, H-91, H-93B, H-104A, H-104B, H-104B var. Mahrine, H-105A, Motifs 233?, 232 (Style E) H-105B, H-109? H-50B, H-64  

   

Syon 2000 Alliata 1982; 1986; Alliata and Derosas 1993; Acconci and Gabrieli 1994; Foran and others 2004 Loffreda 1976 Feig 1985 Magness 2003 Meyers, Kraabel, and Strange 1976; Meyers, Strange, and Meyers 1981; Feig 2002; Magness and Schindler 2015 Leibner 2009 Schneider 1950; Hayes 1972; Bagatti 1985; Alliata 1990b; Vanni Desideri 2012 Magness 2003

H-52A, H-67

 

 

Magness 2003

X

 

 

Magness 2003

H-50, H-57, H-58, H-59, H-91B/C, H-104C

 

 

Bagatti 1967; Hayes 1972

H-32/58, H-58, H-58B, H-59, H-61A, H-67, H-91C, H-92

Motifs 239B, 273

 

     

     

 

   

Alexandra Uscatescu

254 Site Nessana Nimrin Pardessiya Pella Pella/Tell al-Huṣn Petra Qaṣr Umm Rattâm Qiryat Ata Ramat Raḥel Ramla/Nesher Quarry Ramot Nof Ras Abu Ma'aruf / Jerusalem Reḥovot-in-theNegev

ARS H-93A, H-94, H-99A/B, H-99C, H-104A, H-104C, H-106, H-107 H-107   H-58, H-82, H-91, H-91B, H-99B/C, H-99C, H-104A, H-104B, H-104C, H-105, H-105B, H-106, H-107, H-109 H-104C, H-107 H-44, H-50A, H-50B, H-52B, H-67, H-91C, H-93B, H-181

ARS decoration

ARS D4 (ERS C)

Bibliography

Motifs 247, 223, 328 or 331

 

Baly 1962; Hayes 1972

  Stamp

   

Leibner 2009 Ayalon 2008

Motif: soldier

 

Smith 1973; Smith and Day 1989; Watson 1992a

 

 

Stamps

 

     

     

Watson 1992b Horsfield and Horsfield 1942; Hammond 1965; Schneider 1996; Gerber 2001 Lindner and others 2007 Siegelmann 1998 Aharoni 1956; Hayes 1972

H-50A H-103A, H-104B H-67, H-104A H-91D, H-99C, H-104C (wrongly classified as H-105) H-75, H-99A/B

 

 

De Vincenz 2015

 

 

Ustinova and Nahshoni 1994

H-50B, H-67, H-104C

Motifs 36, 75

 

Rapuano 1999

H-59, H-99A, H-106, H-107

Motif 28

 

Rosenthal-Heginbottom 1988

Shavei Zion Sirfa Tall Faysal

H-45A, H-50A/B, H-50A, H-61A, H-76, H-91A/B, H-104B H-50A, H-52B apliquée, H-57 apliquée, H-58, H-59B, H-61A, H-67, H-73A, H-91A, H-94, H-99A, H-105, H-107 (wrongly classified as H-93B) H-104C, H-105A, H-107 H-99D H-181

Motifs 83, 133, 227 (Style E) X

Crowfoot, Crowfoot, and Kenyon 1957

Motifs 26, 331A (wrongly classified as PhRS stamped cross)

 

De Vincenz 2013

Motif 197    

     

H-91/92, H-104C

 

 

H-99A H-93, H-99A/B, H-107, H-132 H-67, H-91B, H-93B, H-104C, H-105B, H-107 H-63, H-67, H-105 H-61A, H-104A H-91B/C, H-99C, H-99 (base), H-104B, H-105A H-61A, H-91, H-181 H-68 or H-59 H-58, H-91B, H-91C, H-93B, H-94, H-97, H-99A/B, H-99B, H-104A, H-104B, H-104C, H-105, H-105A, H-107

   

   

Prausnitz 1967; Hayes 1980b Brown 1991 Palumbo and others 1993 Hässer and Vieweger 2005; Rothe, Zerbini, and Kenkel 2014 Porat 2008 Peilstöcker 2009

Tall Zar'â Ṭamra Tel 'Afer

Unknown stamp

 

Grey 1994; 2014

 

 

Landgraf 1980

   

   

Parnos, Milevski, and Khalaily 2010 Flanagan, McCreery, and Yassine 1994

Motif 35

 

Amir 2006; Calderon 2010; Torge and ‘Ad 2013

Tiberias

 

Motif 2 + 44B [Style A(ii)]; Motif 1/3 + 36 [Style A(ii)/ X (iii)]

Dothan 1983; Williams 2009

Umm al-Raṣâṣ

H-58, H-87B/88?, H-97, H-104B, H-107, H-109

X

Alliata 1991; Alliata 1994

Samaria/Sebaste

Sepphoris

Tel Jezreel Tell ‘Ammata Tell Deir ‘Allâ Tell Keisan Tell Maloṭ (East) Tell Nimrin Tell Shiqmona

Kaptijn 2009 Kaptijn 2009

 

7. Late Antique Ceramic Imports in Gerasa

255

Site

ARS

ARS decoration

ARS D4 (ERS C)

Bibliography

Upper Zohar Wâdî al-'Arab Site 026 Wâdî al-'Arab Site 076 Wâdî el-Yabis/ Kurkuma

H-91, H-93, H-107

 

 

Magness 1999; Magness 2003

H-104C, H-104 (base)

 

 

Watson 1984

H-107 (base)

 

 

Watson 1984

H-107

 

 

Mabry and Palumbo 1988

Wâdî Feynan

H-50, H-59, H-61A, H-107

Style A

 

Wâdî Museimir Western Golan Survey Yavneh-Yam Yotvata

H-50A H-50, H-58, H-59, H-60, H-67, H-99, H-91, H-104 H-99C, H-105 H-50, H-61A

 

 

Barker and others 1998; Munzi and Ciotola 2006 Parker 2014

 

 

Leibner and Ben David 2014

   

   

Fischer and Taxel 2014 Culclausure 2017

Table 7.3. African amphorae and domestic wares and other western imports. X indicates that there is evidence of this kind of pottery, but the publications consulted do not indicate shape or decoration. Site

African amphorae and domestic wares Western amphorae

Aila/Aqaba al-Birah/Wādī Zarqa Site 67 Ashkelon Ashkelon/al-Nabi Hussein Bat Galim (Haifa) Bet Zayit Beth She’an Boṣrā

Africana 1, Africana 2 K-25P Africana 2 K-62 Africana 2D, K-62Q H-23A (ABTW) Africana 1 X Africana 2, Africana 2C, K-57, K-58, K-25.1, Tripolitanian Africana 1, Africana 2A, Tripolitanian Globular Amphorae Mortarium F-2.1/3.3, amphora toe (?) Spatheion Bonifay type 1 Africana 2B K-8B, spatheion type 3C (Bonifay, yellow fabric) K-8B, K-25F (spatheion), K-26G (spatheion), K-40/41, K-57, K-62A, K-62Q Spatheia K-25G Africana 2A, K-5, K-25Q/S, Tripolitanian I

Caesarea Maritima Caesarea Maritima/Sebastos Capernaum Gerasa/Macellum Gerasa/Northwest Quarter Gerasa/St Theodore Ḥorbat Be’er Shema’ Ḥorbat Qastra Ḥorvat Ma’on Ḥorvat Sumaqa

Jerusalem Khirbat al-Wad’ah/ Wādī Zarqa Shavei Zion Tell Shiqmona Wādī Feynan

Bibliography

Dressel 20 (Hispanic)   Beltran 72 (Baetic)          

Parker 2002; Parker 2014; Culclausure 2017 Peruzzetto and Wilson 1996 Johnson 2008 Kol-Ya’akov and Farhi 2012 Oren-Paskal 2008 Greenhut and Weiss 2000 Peleg 2004; Avissar 2014 Sodini and others 1992; Munzi and Ciotola 2006 Wiemken and Holum 1981; Bar-Nathan and Adato 1986; Hispanic/Lusitanian Blakely 1988; Peleg and Reich 1992; Magness 1994   Oleson and others 1994; Tomber 1999   Loffreda 2008   Unpublished Almagro 50 (Lusitanian) Lichtenberger, Raja, and Sørensen 2013; Möller 2017   Fisher and McCown 1929–30  

Erickson-Gini, Dolinka, and Shilov 2015

 

Haddad 2009; Van den Brink and others 2013

 

Nahshoni and Seriy 2014 Kinsgley 2003a

 

Fleitman and Mazar 2015

Africana 2, Africana 3

 

Peruzzetto and Wilson 1996; Munzi and Ciotola 2006

Spatheia K-45, K-62R, spatheia Cylindrical amphorae

     

Prausnitz 1967 Amir 2006; Calderon 2010; Torge and ‘Ad 2013 Barker and others 1998; Munzi and Ciotola 2006

Alexandra Uscatescu

256

Table 7.4. LRC imports. X indicates that there is evidence of this kind of pottery, but the publications consulted do not indicate shape or decoration. The underlined references are related to the forms underlined. Site

LRC

LRC decoration

Bibliography

‘Ain Nashut ‘Iraq el-Amir Abila

H-3C H-3 H-1B

     

Aila/Aqaba

H-4

al-Lajjūn Almin ‘Amman/Citadel Arbel Ashdod

H-10A H-10 H-3F H-3, H-10A, H-10C H-10A H-1A, H-1B, H-1D, H-3, H-3B, H-3C, H-3D, H-3E, H-3F, H-3H, H-5B, H-6, H-10A, H-10B, H-10B/C, H-10C H-3 H-3, H-3E X H-3E, H-10C H-3H H-3F

   

Meyers, Strange, and Meyers 1981 Brown 1991 Sodini and others 1992 Meloy 1991; Parker 2002; Parker 2014; Culclausure 2017 Parker 1987; Parker 2006 Magness and Schindler 2015 Koutsoukou and Najjar 1997 Leibner 2009 Dothan and Freedman 1967

 

Kogan-Zehavi 1999; Johnson 2008; Nahshoni 2009

        Stamp Motif 35 Motif 38i (Group II), 68 (Group II)  

Kol-Ya’akov and Farhi 2012 Israel and Erickson-Gini 2013 Leibner and Ben David 2014 El-Khouri 2014a Oren-Paskal 2008 Fabian and Goldfus 2004

Feig 2003

Motif 70

Vitto 1996

 

Magness and Schindler 2015 Fitzgerald 1931; Hayes 1980b; Avshalom-Gorny 2004; Avissar 2014 Bagatti 1953; Saller 1957 Saller 1957 Magness 2003 Gualandi 1978; Sodini and others 1992; Munzi and Ciotola 2006

Ashkelon Ashkelon/al-Nabi Hussein Ashkelon/Third Mile Estate Bab el-Hawwa Barsinia Bat Galim (Haifa) Be’er Sheva Be’er Sheva North (Train Station) Beit Ṣafafa

H-3F, H-3H

   

Beth Ma’on

H-3D, H-3G H-3E, H-3F, H-10A, H-10B, H-10C H-3, H-10

Beth She’an

H-3F small, H-3F, H-3/10

Motifs 36, 43, 47, 68, 65

Bethany Bethel Bir Wakili Shuteiwi Site 221

H-3B, H-3E, H-10A H-3C H-3

Motifs 45, 48, 79 Motif 41  

Boṣrā

H-3C

 

Bet She’arim

Caesarea Maritima

Caesarea Maritima/Sebastos

Capernaum

Deir ’Ain ’Abata Desert of Gerasimus

H-1, H-1A, H-1B, H-2, H-3B, H-3C, H-3C/D, H-3C/E, H-3D, H-3D/E, H-3E, H-3E/F, H-3F, H-3 small, H-5A, H-5B, H-6, H-8, H-3/10, H-10A, H-10B, H-10C H-1, H-3C, H-3F, H-10A, H-10C H-1A, H-1B, H-2A, H-3A, H-3B, H-3C, H-3D, H-3E, H-3F, H-3G, H-3 late, H-5, H-8, H-10, H-10A, H-10B, H-10C H-3C, H-3F, H-9 or H-10, H-10C H-3C, H-3F

Israel, Seriy, and Fedor 2013

Motifs 67, 71

Riley 1975; Wiemken and Holum 1981; AdanBayewitz 1986; Bar-Nathan and Adato 1986; Magness 1992a; Peleg and Reich 1992; Magness 1994

 

Oleson and others 1994; Tomber 1999

Motifs 8, 9, 12, 13, 16, 17, 18, 33, Loffreda 1974; 1979; 1982; 1983; Peleg 1989; 34, 35, 36, 38, 39, 41, 42, 43, 45, Loffreda 2008; Leibner and Ben David 2014; 46, 48, 49, 59, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, Magness and Schindler 2015 71, 72, 74, 75, 78, 79, 80, 84 MacDonald and Politis 1988; MacDonald, Clark, Motifs 37g, 41b, 60, 66h, 67, 71 and Neeley 1988; Grey and Politis 2012; Grey 2014 Motif 67 or 79 Patrich, Arubas, and Agur 1993

7. Late Antique Ceramic Imports in Gerasa Site Dibon Dor Eastern Galilee Survey ed-Dura El Kursi El Qubab Emmaus En Gedi En-Boqeq Es-Safi Gadara Gerasa/Cardo/North Decumanus

LRC H-3C, H-3D, H-3E, H-3F, H-3F small X H-2, H-3, H-5, H-10 H-3 H-3F, H-10A, H-10B, H-10C H-3F, H-10C H-1D, H-2A, H-3C, H-3E, H-3H H-3, H-10 H-3 H-3, H-3B, H-3C, H-3D, H-3E, H-3F, H-3H, H-10A, H-10B H-3E

257 LRC decoration

Bibliography

 

Tushingham 1972

          Motif 67 or 68

Dauphin 1981 Leibner and Ben David 2014 Magness and Schindler 2015 Tzaferis 1983; Tzaferis 2014 Gady 2005 Bagatti 1947

 

Hadas 2005

Motif 67/68  

Gichon 1993; Magness 2003 Rast and Schaub 1974 Nielsen, Andersen, and Holm-Nielsen 1993; Kerner 1997; El-Khouri 2014b

Motif 48  

Watson 1986a

Motifs 45, 68

Uscatescu 1992; 2003

         

Lichtenberger, Raja, and Sørensen 2013 Piazza 1983–84; Pierobon 1986 Villeneuve 2003 Varga 2002 Magness 2003 Tzaferis 1974 Meyers, Strange, and Groh 1978; Meyers, Strange, and Meyers 1981; Wolff 2009

Ḥorbat Roẓeẓ

H-1A, H-2A, H-3C, H-3D, H-3F, H-3H, H-9 H-3G, H-3F/4 H-3F, H-10? H-3 H-3 H-3 H-3C H-3, H-3C, H-3E, H-3F, H-3F/H H-3F, H-3H, H-10A, H-10B, H-10C X H-3 H-3, H-3F H-2A, H-3, H-3D, H-3F, H-6, H-8 (?), H-10, H-10A, H-10B, H-10C H-3, H-3F, H-3H, H-10-A, H-10B, H-10C H-3 H-3, H-10A H-1A H-3C H-1, H-3, H-3F, H-5, H-10A, H-10C H-10A

Ḥorbat Tittora

H-3

 

Ḥorbat Yagur

H-3, H-3C, H-3F, H-3/10 H-3E/F, H-10A, H-10C H-1, H-3F H-3F, H-10A

    Motifs 68, 41  

Gerasa/Macellum Gerasa/Northwest Quarter Gerasa/Sanctuary of Artemis Gerasa/Sanctuary of Zeus Giv’at Maḥat Giv’at Maḥat Site 29.38/7 Giv’at Shaul Gush Ḥalav Ḥammath Gader

Har Beriah Site 242.91/1 Harei ’Anim Site 148.85/3 Herodium Hippos Ḥorbat ’Illin Ḥorbat Anusha Ḥorbat Barfiliya Site 67 Ḥorbat Be’er Shema’ Ḥorbat Borin Ḥorbat Qastra

Ḥorvat ’Ovesh Ḥorvat Haẓaẓ Ḥorvat Herev

 

Ben-Arieh 1997      

Magness 2003 Magness 2003 Birger 1981

 

Młynarczyk 2003; 2006

 

Weksley-Bdolah 2012

       

Sion and others 2007 Kogan-Zehavi and Zelinger 2008 Erickson-Gini, Dolinka, and Shilov 2015 Sa’id 2011

 

Siegelmann 1996; Van den Brink and others 2013

 

Yannai 2010 Jabour and Davidson-Yekutiel 2000; Kogan-Zehavi 2012 Sa’id 2013 Aviam and Getzov 1998 Nahshoni 2007 Schuster 2000a

Alexandra Uscatescu

258 Site

LRC

LRC decoration

Bibliography

Ḥorvat Ḥermeshit

  Motif 71    

Ḥorvat Yittan Site 162.24/4

H-3 H-1D, H-3C H-3F, H-3 small H-3 X H-3

Ḥumayma

H-3C

 Motif 79

Ḥuqoq

H-3B, H-3C, H-3E, H-3F, H-3H H-3F, H-3H H-10 H-3C, H-3F H-1, H-1A, H-1B, H-1D, H-2A, H-3B, H-3C, H-3E, H-3H, H-3 small, H-4 (= H-3/4), H-8 H-3 H-3C, H-3F, H-10A H-1, H-1A, H-1D, H-1/3, H-2, H-2A, H-2B, H-3, H-3 small, H-3B, H-3C, H-3E, H-3E/F, H-3F, H-3G, H-3H, H-5B, H-6, H-10A, H-10B, H-10B/C, H-10C H-3E, H-3F, H-10C H-3F H-6 H-3F, H-10C H-3C, H-3F H-3F

       

Greenhut 1998 Magness 2003 Levy 1960; Nahshoni and Seriy 2014 Magness 2003 Kingsley 2003a Magness 2003 Eadie 1984; Oleson, ‘Amr, and Holmqvist-Saukkonen 2013; Schick 2013 Magness and others 2014 Meyers, Strange, and Groh 1978; Amitai 2000 Abu Raya 2016 Gerber 2008; Gerber and Holmqvist 2008

Ḥorvat Hur Site 63.37 Ḥorvat Ma’on Ḥorvat So’a Site 15.85/2 Ḥorvat Sumaqa

Hurfeish I’Billin Jabal Hārūn Jalame Jalbina Jericho/Tulul ‘Abū Al-’Alayiq

Jerusalem

Kafr ’Ana Kafr er-Rama Kafr Kanna Kafr Miṣr Kafr Naḥf Kafr Yasif/Dar el-Gharbiya Kanisat er-Rawat (Shepherds’ Field) Kefar Baruk Kefar Sirkin Khirbat ’Addasa (North Jerusalem) Khirbat al-Karak Khirbat al-Masarrat Khirbat al-Mukhayyat Khirbat Bata/Carmiel Khirbat Beit Kufa Khirbat Burin Khirbat el-Jiljil Khirbat el-Qaṣr Khirbat el-Thahiriya Khirbat es-Samrā’ Khirbat es-Suyyagah Khirbat et-Tina

 

Motifs 1, 18, 35, 69, 71, 72

Motif 1          

Magness and Schindler 2015 Kelso and Baramki 1949-50 Hamilton 1940; Netzer and Ben-Arieh 1983; Hayes 1985; Tushingham 1985; Wightman 1989; Magness 1992b; Ben-Arieh and Coen-Uzzielli 1996; Seligman and Abu Raya 2000; Seligman 2002; Mazar 2003; Mazar and Peleg 2003; Weksley-Bdolah 2006; 2011; Fleitman and Mazar 2015 Gophna, Taxel, and Feldstein 2007 Tzaferis 1980 Meyers, Strange, and Groh 1978 Onn 1994 Smithline 2008 Syon and Stern 2014

H-2A, H-3F

 

Tzaferis 1975

H-10C H-3C

   

Syon 2004 Singer and ‘Ad 2003

H-10A, H-10C

 

Khalaily and Avissar 2008

Motifs 35, 37, 42, 48, 67, 70

Delougaz and Haines 1960

   

Ghrayyib 2004 Alliata 1988; Michel 1998

 

Yeivin 1992

  Motif group III         Motif 67

Parnos and Avissar 2005 Kletter and Stern 2006 Młynarczyk 2005 Hirschfeld and Kloner 1988–89; Magness 1999 Kogan-Zehavi and Hadad 2012 Desreumaux and Humbert 1981 Taxel 2009 Hirschfeld 1985

H-3, H-3C, H-3E, H-3F, H-10A, H-10B, H-10C H-3 H-3C H-3, H-3C, H-3F, H-10A (wrongly classified as H-10C) H-3   H-3, H-10 H-3F, H-10 H-10 H-3F H-1A, H-3, H-10A, H-10C H-3E/E

   

Johnson 1988; Slane and Magness 2005; Leibner and Ben David 2014

Motifs 24, 35, 48, 67/68 or 79/80, 67

7. Late Antique Ceramic Imports in Gerasa

259

Site

LRC

LRC decoration

Bibliography

Khirbat Hajala Khirbat Ḥamam

H-10B, H-10C H-2, H-3

   

Khirbat Hananiyah

H-3B, H-3C

 

Khirbat Jannaba et-Tahta Khirbat Khureitun Khirbat Nakhil Khirbat Qeiyuma

H-10C H-3C, H-3F H-3C, H-3F H-1

 

Khirbat Shema’

H-3C, H-3F

 

Khirbat Shuwayka Khirbat Sitt Leila Khirbat Siyar al-Ghanam Khirbat Umm el-’Amad/Ḥorvat ‘Ammudim Khorazin Kisra Ma’oz Hayyim

H-3C H-3 H-3B, H-3C, H-3E, H-3F

 

H-1, H-3, H-3C, H-3F, H-10

 

H-3F, H-10 H-3, H-10A H-3, H-10

     

Madaba

H-3A, H-3C, H-3E, H-3F, H-3G, H-10A

Motifs 37, 67, 71

Magdala Magen Mamshit Mazra’at Quneitra

H-3F, H-6 H-3G, H-5B, H-3/10 H-3 H-3F

       

Meiron

H-1A, H-3, H-3B/C, H-3C, H-3F

Motifs 67 and bird stamp

Migdal Ha’emeq Mitzep Gadot Modi’in Moshav Ha-Bonim

H-3, H-10 H-3 H-1 H-3F, H-10A

       

Mt Nebo

H-3, H-3C, H-3F, H-10A

Motif 67

H-3

Motifs 42, 71  

Ronen and Olami 1978 Leibner 2009 Meyers, Strange, and Groh 1978; Meyers, Strange, and Meyers 1981 Dauphin 1991 Hirschfeld 1985 Kareem 2001 Meyers, Strange, and Groh 1978 Meyers, Kraabel, and Strange 1976; Meyers, Strange, and Meyers 1981 Abu Khalaf 2005 Aharoni 1959 Corbo 1955; Tzaferis 1975 Meyers, Strange, and Groh 1978; Adan-Bayewitz 1982; Magness and Schindler 2015 Hayes 1980b; Tzaferis 1982 Abu ’Uqsa 2006a Tzaferis 1982 Alliata 1982; Alliata and Derosas 1993; Acconci and Gabrieli 1994; Harrison and others 2003; Foran and others 2004 Loffreda 1976; Meyers, Strange, and Groh 1978 Feig 1985 Magness 2003 Meyers, Strange, and Meyers 1981 Meyers, Kraabel, and Strange 1976; Meyers, Strange, and Meyers 1981; Feig 2002; Magness and Schindler 2015 Shalem 1996 Magness and Schindler 2015 Golani 2005 ‘Ad 2017 Schneider 1950; Bagatti 1985; Alliata 1990b; Vanni Desideri 2012 Meyers, Strange, and Meyers 1982 Magness 2003

H-3

 

Magness 2003

H-3F, H-5B H-10C (may be an ERS A) H-3 H-3 H-3 H-1, H-3F H-3 H-3 H-3 H-3 H-3C, H-3E, H-3F

                    Motifs 67, 71

Katz 1993 Magness 2003 Magness 2003 Magness 2003 Magness 2003 ‘Ad 2000 Magness 2003 Magness 2003 Magness 2003 Magness 2003 Bagatti 1967

Nabratein Naḥal ’Anim Site 186.84/5 Naḥal Be’er Sheva’ Site 251.00/3 Naḥal Beqa’ Naḥal Mitnam Naḥal Niẓẓona Naḥal Pattir Site 80.67/8 Naḥal So’a Site 167.44/3 Naḥal Tanninim Naḥal Yattir Site 109.56/3 Naḥal Yattir Site 114.56/6 Naḥal Yeshua’ Site 123.86/3 Naḥal Yeshua’ Site 125.96/1 Nazareth

   

Motifs 67

Alexandra Uscatescu

260 Site

LRC

LRC decoration

Bibliography

Nessana Nir’am Junction Nuṣeib ’Uweishīra Or ’Aqiva Pardessiya

Motifs 38, 67        

    Motifs 37, 47, 50, 67, 71, 79  

Baly 1962 Schuster 2000b Netzer and Birger 1990 ‘Ad 2009 Ayalon 2008 Walmsley 1988; Smith and Day 1989; Watson 1992a; 1992b Watson 1990; 1992b; 1993 Horsfield and Horsfield 1942; Gerber 2001 Hirschfeld 1985 Siegelmann 1998; Vitto 2008 Brown 1991 Aharoni 1956; Aharoni 1964 Kletter 2005; Cyntryn-Silverman 2010; Haddad 2013a

 

De Vincenz 2015

  Motif 41/42 (Group III)  

Ustinova and Nahshoni 1994 Rapuano 1999 Rosenthal-Heginbottom 1988

Motif 9

Crowfoot, Crowfoot, and Kenyon 1957

Saylat adh-Dhahr Sede Boqer Sepphoris Shavei Zion Shelomi Tabgha Tall al-Kharrār Site 8

H-3F H-10 H-3C, H-3F H-2A H-3, H-3D, H-3F, H-10A H-3D (or C/E), H-3E, H-3F, H-3 small, H-3/10, H-10A, H-10C H-10A, H-10C H-3F H-3F H-3F, H-10A H-3E H-3B, H-3F H-3, H-3F, H-10 H-3B, H-3C, H-3D, H-3E, H-3F, H-3H, H-10A, H-10B, H-10C H-3C, H-3F H-3C, H-3F, H-10A H-1D, H-3E, H-3F H-3B, H-3C, H-3E, H-3F, H-3/10, H-4, H-10C H-10A H-3, H-3C H-3 H-3, H-10 H-10B, H-10C H-3 H-3 H-3

  Motif 69   Motifs 71, 72 Motifs 45, 71, 67, 80      

Tall Zar’ā

H-3, H-3F, H-10A, H-10C

 

Ṭamra Tecoa Tel ’Afer Tel ’Ira Tel Barom Tel Ḥashash

    Cross (Group II)   Motif 13   Motifs 48, 59/60, 67

Grey 1994; 2014

Tel Mevorakh-Tell Mubarak

H-3F, H-10, H-10A, H-10B H-3C, H-3F H-3F, H-10A, H-10B H-3 H-3F H-3, H-10 H-1D, H-3C, H-3F, H-3H, H-6, H-10A, H-10B, H-10C H-3C

Singer 2004 Sellers and Baramki 1953; Hayes 1972 Magness 2003 De Vincenz 2013 Prausnitz 1967 Tahan and Syon 2010 Rosenthal and Hershkovitz 1980 Abu Shmeis and Waheeb 2002 Hässer and Vieweger 2005; Rothe, Zerbini, and Kenkel 2014 Porat 2008 Escobar 1976 Peilstöcker 2009 Magness 2003 Damati 2007 Tal and Taxel 2010

 

Tel Yoqne’am

H-3, H-10C

 

Tell ‘Abū al-N’eim

H-3F, H-10A H-3C, H-3E/F, H-3F, H-10A/B, H-10B, H-10C H-3E, H-3F, H-8 H-3E Motif 57 H-3F, H-3G, H-5, H-3/10, Motifs 67, 71, 79 H-10A, H-10B, H-10C

Rosenthal 1978 Ben-Tor and Rosenthal 1978; Ben-Tor, Portugali, and Avissar 1979 Kaptijn 2009

Pella Pella/Tell al-Huṣn Petra Qaṣr Abū Leimun Qiryat Ata Qreifilla Ramat Raḥel Ramla Ramla/Nesher Quarry Ramot Nof Ras Abu Ma’aruf/Jerusalem Reḥovot-in-the-Negev Samaria/Sebaste Ṣarafond el-Kharab

Tel Jezreel

Tell ‘Ammata Tell Deir ‘Allā Tell en-Nasbeh Tell Keisan

     

Kaptijn 2009 Kaptijn 2009 Wampler 1947 Landgraf 1980

7. Late Antique Ceramic Imports in Gerasa

261

Site

LRC

LRC decoration

Bibliography

Tell Maloṭ (East) Tell Qasīle

H-3F H-3 H-1D, H-3A, H-3C, H-3E, H-3F, H-3G, H-3H, H-8, H-10A, H-10B, H-10C H-3F H-3 H-3 H-10A H-3C, H-10A, H-10C

  Motif 17

Parnos, Milevski and Khalaily 2010 Maisler 1950–51; Hayes 1972

Motifs 67, 71

Zemer 1978; Amir 2006; Calderon 2010; Torge and ‘Ad 2013

         

Dothan 1983; Stacy 1988–89 Meyers, Strange, and Meyers 1982 Munzi and Ciotola 2006 Alliata 1991, 1994 Magness 1999; 2003

H-3

 

Magness 2003

X H-3F/10A, H-10A H-10 base H-3F Base H-3F H-1 H-3 H-3, H-10 H-10A, H-10C H-6

                     

Vieweger 2002 Watson 1984 Watson 1984 Watson 1984 Mabry and Palumbo 1988 Mabry and Palumbo 1988 Mabry and Palumbo 1988 Barker and others 1998; Munzi and Ciotola 2006 Leibner and Ben David 2014 Fischer and Taxel 2014 Meyers, Strange, and Groh 1978

Tell Shiqmona Tiberias Umm al-’Amud Umm al-Jimāl Umm al-Raṣāṣ Upper Zohar Urim/Ze’elim Junction Road Site 210 Wādī al-’Arab Wādī al-’Arab Site 025 Wādī al-’Arab Site 026 Wādī al-’Arab Site 027 Wādī el-Yabis/Kurkuma Wādī el-Yabis/Sherhabil Wādī el-Yabis/Zeqeq Wādī Feynan Western Golan Survey Yavneh-Yam Yodefat

Table 7.5. LRD imports. X indicates that there is evidence of this kind of pottery, but the publications consulted do not indicate shape or decoration. The forms revised by Meyza in 2007 are underlined. Site ‘Afula

LRD

H-9 H-1?, H-1B, H-1/3C, H-2, H-9B ‘Ain Nashut [K.3B] ‘Akko H-1B var. ‘En Daniel H-1B ‘Enot Sho’im H-1B, H-2, K-3A/B [H-9A/B] ‘Uzeir H-2/7, H-2? Abila X Aila/Aqaba X al-Lajjūn H-9A Arbel H-1, H-2, H-7, H-9A, H-10 H-1, H-2, H-4, H-7, H-8B, H-9, H-9B [K.3A/B], H-9C [K.4A, Ashkelon K.4A/B], H-11 Ashkelon/al-Nabi Hussein H-1 Ashkelon/Third Mile Estate H-7 Bab al-Hawwa X Bat Galim (Haifa) H-2, H-9B, H-11 Be’er Sheva North (Train Station) H-9A, H-9B K.3B [H-9B] Be’er Sheva Bene Baraq H-1B

LRD decoration

Bibliography

 

Dothan 1955 Meyers, Strange, and Meyers 1981; Meyza 2007 (‘Ain Nashut = H. ‘En Nashut) Meyza 2007 Meyza 2007 Meyza 2007 Meyza 2007 Sodini and others 1992 Parker 2002; 2014; Culclausure 2017 Parker 2006 Leibner 2009

                   

Kogan-Zehavi 1999; Nahshoni 1999; Johnson 2008; Nahshoni 2009; Meyza 2007 Kol-Ya’akov and Farhi 2012 Israel and Erickson-Gini 2013 Leibner and Ben David 2014 Oren-Paskal 2008 Israel, Seriy and Fedor 2013 Meyza 2007 Meyza 2007

Alexandra Uscatescu

262 Site Bet She’arim Beth Ma’on Beth She’an Bethany Bethlehem (David’s wells) Boṣrā

Caesarea Maritima

Caesarea Maritima/Sebastos

Capernaum

Deir ’Ain ’Abata Eastern Galilee Survey El Kursi El Qubab el-Khirbeh Emmaus En-Boqeq Er-Rabbah Er-Rama Es-Safi Gadara Gerasa/Macellum Gerasa/Northwest Quarter Gerasa/Sanctuary of Artemis Giv’at Maḥat Site 29.38/7 Gush Ḥalav Haifa Haifa/el-Yadschur Site 112 Ḥammamat Ḥammath Gader

LRD

LRD decoration

H-2, H-2/K.3 var., H-5/K.3, H-7, H-7/K.4B, H-8B, H-9A, H-11A,   K.3A/H-5, K.3B H-2, H-9, H-10   H-1, H-2, H-5, H-7, H-9B [K.3A or K.3B], H-9C, H-10, K.3A?, K.4B   [H-9/10], K.4B/5B H-10   H-9   H-2   H-1, H-1/3, H-1/3C, H-1/5A, H-1B, H-2, H-2/K.3 var., H-2/9, H-4, H-7, H-7 var., H-8A/B, H-9, H-9A, H-9A/B [K.3A, K.3B], H-9B, Motif 2/9, H-9C, H-9C/10 [K.4A, K.4B, new motif (fish) K.4B/K.4A], H-10, H-11C/A, H-12B, K.3/K.6, K.3B var., K.3B/K.4A H-1, H-2, H-3, H-7, H-9B, K.5, jug   H-1, H-1B, H-1/5, H-2, H-2 var., H-2/7, H-5, H-5/K.3, H-7, H-8A, H-8B, H-9, H-9A, H-9B, Motif h, m H-9C [K.4A, K.4B], H-10, H-11, K.1, K.3A, K.3/K.1, K.3B/5B, K.4B/H-7, K.5A H-1, H-2, H-9, H-9A, H-9B   H-1, H-1/2, H-2, H-7, H-9, H-10   H-3, H-9A, H-9B [K.3A/B], H-9C   [K.4A], H-11 H-10   H-1/2   H-2, H-9C   H-9 [K.3B]   H-2   H-1B H-9A/B   H-2, H-7, H-9A, H-9B, H-9C, H-10,   H-2/9, H-9C/10 H-1B or H-2, H-1/3C, H-1/K.1, Motif (new) H-2, H-4, H-5, H-7, H-9A, H-9B, cross and palm K.1/3, K.5B H-2   H-9?   H-1   H-1B, H-2/9, H-4, H-5B/K.3, H-7,   H-8, H-8B?, H-9, H-9A, K.3A H-1   H-2   H-2 H-2 [H-2/K.3A], K.1, K.5B, H-9B, H-9C

Bibliography Vitto 1996; Meyza 2007 Magness and Schindler 2015 Fitzgerald 1931; Peleg 1994; Avshalom-Gorny 2004; Meyza 2007; Avissar 2014 Saller 1957 Bagatti and Alliata 1980 Wilson and Sa’ad 1984

Riley 1975; Wiemken and Holum 1981; Adan-Bayewitz 1986; Bar-Nathan and Adato 1986; Magness 1992a, Meyza 2007

Oleson and others 1994; Tomber 1999

Loffreda 1974; 1979; 1982; 1983; Peleg 1989; Meyza 2007; Loffreda 2008

Grey and Politis 2012; Grey 2014 Leibner and Ben David 2014 Tzaferis 1983; Meyza 2007; Tzaferis 2014 Gady 2005 Leibner 2009 Bagatti 1947 Magness 2003; Meyza 2007 Brown 1991 Meyza 2007 Rast and Schaub 1974 Kerner 1997; El-Khouri 2014b Uscatescu 1992; 2003; Unpublished Lichtenberger, Raja, and Sørensen 2013 Pierobon 1986 Magness 2003 Meyers, Strange, and Groh 1978; Meyers, Strange, and Meyers 1981; Groh 1990; Meyza 2007; Wolff 2009 Yanklevitz 2008 Ronen and Olami 1978 Meyza 2007 Ben-Arieh 1997; Meyza 2007

7. Late Antique Ceramic Imports in Gerasa Site Hippos Ḥorbat ‘Al Ḥorbat Barfiliya Site 67 Ḥorbat Be’er Shema’ Ḥorbat Biẓ’a Ḥorbat Borin Ḥorbat Gedora Ḥorbat Karkara Ḥorbat Qastra Ḥorbat Tittora Ḥorbat Yagur Ḥorbat Zafzafot Ḥorvat ’Ovesh Ḥorvat ‘Usa Ḥorvat Berachot Ḥorvat Ḥermeshit Ḥorvat Hur Site 63.37 Ḥorvat Ma’on Ḥorvat Peharim Ḥorvat So’a Site 15.85/2 Ḥorvat Sumaqa

LRD H-1B, H-2, H-7, H-9, H-9A, H-9B, H-9C, H-11A/B K.3A? H-5, H-9 H-2, H-9, H-9B H-9B, K.3B, K-3.1 H-9C H-2, H-7 H-11B H-1, H-2, H-2/K.3, H-3, H-3A var., H-7, H-7/2, H-8A/B, H-9B, H-9C, H-10, H-11A, H-11B [K.3B, K.4A, K.4B?] H-5/K.3A H-1, H-2, H-7, H-8, H-9A, H-11 H-7/K.4B H-2, H-2/K.3, H-7, H-8?, H-9A, H-9B, H-9C, H-11B [K.3A/B, K.4A/B, K.5B] H-1B H-9 H-9/K.6, K.3A H-1, H-9 [K.3B] H-2, H-9, H-9B H-2, H-7 H-1 H-1B, H-1B var., H-2, H-7, H-7/8, H-8A, K.1, K.1/K.3, K.3A/B, K.3B, K.4A, K.4B, K.4B/H-7

263 LRD decoration

Bibliography

 

Młynarczyk 2003; Młynarczyk 2006; Meyza 2007

       

 

Siegelmann 1996; Meyza 2007; Haddad 2009; Van den Brink and others 2013

 

Meyza 2007 Sa’id 2013 Meyza 2007

 

Aviam and Getzov 1998; Meyza 2007

       

H-9B [K.3B]

Ḥuqoq I’Billin Jabal Hārūn

H-1, H-2, H-11   H-1, H-2, H-9B, H-10   H-9A, H-9B, H-9C   H-1A, H-1B, H-1/2, H-1/3 var., H-1/5, H-2, H-2/3, H-2/5, H-7, New motif H-8A, H-9 [K.1, K.1/K.3, K.1/K.4, K.3A, K.3A/B, K.3B, K.5A]

Jerusalem Kafr ’Ana Kafr Kama Kafr Kanna Kafr Miṣr Kanisat er-Rawat (Shepherds’ Field) Karm er-Ras Kefar Baruk

 

H-1B, H-1/2, H-2, H-8A, H-9,   H-9A, H-9B [K.1, K.3A, K.6, K.6A] H-1, H-9C H-9 H-7 H-10, H-7/K.4B

       

H-2? H-1B? H-2

Meyza 2007 Magness 2003 Meyza 2007 (Ḥ. Ḥermeshit = Ḥorvat Ḥermeshit) Magness 2003; Meyza 2007 Levy 1960; Nahshoni and Seriy 2014 Meyza 2007 Magness 2003 Kinsgley 2003a; Meyza 2007

Ḥumayma

Jalame

Meyza 2007 Kogan-Zehavi and Zelinger 2008 Erickson-Gini, Dolinka, and Shilov 2015 Gendelman 2012 Sa’id 2011 Meyza 2007 Meyza 2007

‘Amr and Schick 2001; Meyza 2007; Oleson, ‘Amr, and Holmqvist-Saukkonen 2013; Schick 2013 Leibner 2009; Magness and others 2014 Abu Raya 2016 Gerber 2008; Gerber and Holmqvist 2008 Johnson 1988; Slane and Magness 2005; Meyza 2007; Leibner and Ben David 2014 Bagatti and Milik 1958; Hayes 1972; Netzer and BenArieh 1983; Wightman 1989; Maier and Bahat 2004; Rahmani 1991; Magness 1992b; Weksley-Bdolah 2006; Meyza 2007; Fleitman and Mazar 2015 Gophna, Taxel, and Feldstein 2007 Ben-Nachum 2007 Meyers, Strange, and Groh 1978; Meyza 2007 Onn 1994, Meyza 2007 Meyza 2007

 

Meyza 2007 Syon 2004

Alexandra Uscatescu

264 Site

LRD

LRD decoration

Bibliography

Kefar Hananya

H-9B H-1 var., H-2, H-7 [H-7/8], H-7/ K.4B, H-9A, H-9C, H-10, H-11B/C [K.3, K.3A, K.4A, K.4B, K.5] H-9B [K.3B] K.3B H-2, H-7, H-11B, K.3A, K.4A H-9B, H-11 H-9B, H-9C H-9A, H-9B H-9B, H-9C, H-10 H-1, H-1/2 H-1 or H-2, H-9B H-9B [K.3B] H-1B H-1B? H-1B, H-1 var., H-2?, H-9 [K.3A/B] H-9

 

Meyers, Strange, and Groh 1978

 

Delougaz and Haines 1960; Meyza 2007

 

Yeivin 1992; Meyza 2007 Calderon 1999; Meyza 2007 Meyza 2007 Młynarczyk 2005 Kogan-Zehavi and Hadad 2012 Taxel 2009 Ronen and Olami 1978 Leibner 2009 Meyers, Strange, and Groh 1978; Meyza 2007 Dauphin 1991; Meyza 2007 Meyza 2007 Meyza 2007 Meyers, Kraabel, and Strange 1976; Meyers, Strange, and Meyers 1981; Meyza 2007 Tzaferis 1975 Adan-Bayewitz 1982; Meyza 2007; Magness and Schindler 2015 Meyza 2007 Khalil and Kareem 2002 Hayes 1980b; Tzaferis 1982; Meyza 2007 Abu ’Uqsa 2006a Tzaferis 1982; Meyza 2007 Loffreda 1976 Feig 1985; Meyza 2007 Vitto 1998; Meyza 2007 Magness 2003 Meyza 2007

Khirbat al-Karak Khirbat Bata/Carmiel Khirbat ed-Deir Khirbat el-Hamsin Khirbat el-Jiljil Khirbat el-Thahiriya Khirbat es-Suyyagah Khirbat Hajala Khirbat Ḥamam Khirbat Hananiyah Khirbat Jannaba et-Tahta Khirbat Kafr Jinnis Khirbat Sa’weh Khirbat Shema’ Khirbat Siyar al-Ghanam Khirbat Umm el-’Amad/ Ḥorvat ‘Ammudim Khirbat Umm et Tawaqi Khirbat Yajuz Khorazin Kisra Ma’oz Hayyim Magdala Magen Maḥoza d-Yamnin Mamshit Mazor Meiron Migdal Ha’emeq Mimlaḥ Mishor Adummim Moshav Ha-Bonim Mount Nebo Naḥal ‘En-Gev Naḥal ‘Iron Naḥal Hur Site 99.36/3 Naḥal Shillo Naḥal Tanninim Naḥal Tavor Naḥal Yeshua’ Site 125.96/1 Nazareth

H-1B, H-2, H-5, H-9, H-10 K.3B H-9B H-1B var. H-2 H-1, H-2, H-3B, H-9 [K.4A, K.4B] H-1, H-9B H-1A, H-1B, H-9B, K.5B? H-9C [K.4A] H-9 H-5/K.3, K.3B H-1A var., H-1A/B, H-1/3C, H-1/3 var., H-1/5, H-1B, H-2, H-7, H-8B?, H-9, H-9A K.4B H-10 K.3A H-10 H-9 H-2 H-1B H-1B K.3B H-1A, H-2 [H-2/K.3], H-10 [K.4B], H-11B H-2, K.4A, K.4B H-9 H-1, H-2, H-7, H-9A, K.5, H-9B, H-9C/10

             

                     

 

     

 

Meyers, Strange, and Meyers 1981; Feig 2002; Meyza 2007; Magness and Schindler 2015 Meyza 2007 Leibner 2009 Meyza 2007 ‘Ad 2017 Vanni Desideri 2012 Meyza 2007 Meyza 2007 Magness 2003; Meyza 2007 Meyza 2007

 

‘Ad 2000; Meyza 2007

 

Meyza 2007 Magness 2003

 

Bagatti 1967

7. Late Antique Ceramic Imports in Gerasa Site

LRD

265 LRD decoration

Bibliography

 

Baly 1962; Hayes 1972; Meyza 2007

   

Schuster 2000b; Meyza 2007 Netzer and Birger 1990 Meyza 2007 Ayalon 2008

Shelomi Sirin Subaita/Shivta

H-1?, H-2, H-4, H-6, H-7, H-9, H-9A, H-9B, H-9C [K.3B, K.4A, K.5] H-1B var., H-2, K-4/4A H-9B H-3A, H-11B H-2, H-7 H-1, H-1/3C, H-2, H-2/3, H-3, H-4, H-7, H-9A, H-9B, H-9C [K.2, K.3A, K.3B, K.4A] H-7? H-7 [H-7/K.4B], H-11A H-1 var., H-2/3, H-2/K.3, H-2 or K.3A, H-3A, H-7, H-8B, H-11B? [K.1/K.3A, K-3A/H-5] H-9B, H-9C [K.4A] K.3B? H-10 H-3, H-8, H-9, H-9A, H-9B, H-11 H-2, H-9A [K.3A] X H-9B, H-9A/B [K.3A, K.3B] H-2, H-7 H-2 H-1, H-1/2, H-2, H-5, H-7, H-9B, H-10, H-11 H-7, H-8B, H-9A, H-9B, H-9C, H-10, H-11A, H-12A [K-3A, K.3A/B, K.3B, K.4B] H-9C K.3A/B H-9 [K.3A/B]

Tall Zar’ā

X

 

Ṭamra Tecoa Tel ’Afer Tel ’Ira Tel ‘Avdon Tel Ḥashash

H-9B [K.3B], H-10 H-2 H-2, H-7, H-8 H-8B, K.3A/B, K.3B/K.5B H-11B H-1, H-9 H-1, H-2, H-7, H-9B [K.3B], H-9C, H-11 K.3B H-1B, H-1/3C, H-2, H-7, H-8A, H-11A, H-11A/B, H-11B, H-11C/A, K.1 H-8B H-2 H-7, H-9A/B

       

Nessana Nir’am Junction Nuṣeib ’Uweishīra Or ‘Aqiva North Pardessiya Pella Petra Qiryat Ata Ramat HaNadiv Ramat Raḥel Ramat Yishay Ramla Ramla/Nesher Quarry Ramot Nof Ras Abu Ma’aruf/Jerusalem Reḥovot-in-the-Negev Samaria/Sebaste Saylat adh-Dhahr Sepphoris Shavei Zion

Tel Jezreel Tel Yeshua’ Tel Yoqne’am Tel Zomera Tell ‘Ammata Tell Deir ‘Allā

   

 

Smith 1973; Smith and Day 1989; Watson 1992a; 1992b; Meyza 2007 Meyza 2007 Siegelmann 1998; Meyza 2007 Meyza 2007

    Motif k/l (cross)       Meyza h   Motif stamped palm; stamp on closed form

Aharoni 1964; Meyza 2007 Meyza 2007 Cyntryn-Silverman 2010 De Vincenz 2015 Ustinova and Nahshoni 1994; Meyza 2007 Rapuano 1999 Rosenthal-Heginbottom 1988; Meyza 2007 Crowfoot, Crowfoot, and Kenyon 1957; Meyza 2007 Sellers and Baramki 1953; Hayes 1972; Meyza 2007 De Vincenz 2013

 

Prausnitz 1967; Meyza 2007

 

 

Tahan and Syon 2010 Meyza 2007 Crowfoot 1936; Meyza 2007 Hässer and Vieweger 2005; Rothe, Zerbini, and Kenkel 2014 Meyza 2007; Porat 2008 Escobar 1976 Peilstöcker 2009 Meyza 2007 Meyza 2007 Tal and Taxel 2010

 

Grey 1994; Meyza 2007; Grey 2014

 

Meyza 2007  

Ben-Tor and Rosenthal 1978; Meyza 2007 Meyza 2007 Kaptijn 2009 Kaptijn 2009

Alexandra Uscatescu

266 Site Tell Keisan Tell Maloṭ (East) Tell Masos Tell Qasīle Tell Shiqmona Tell Zaitane Tiberias Umm al-Raṣāṣ Upper Zohar Wādī al-’Arab Site 025 Wādī al-’Arab Survey Wādī al-’Arab Survey plot 005 Wādī Feynan Western Golan Survey Yavneh-Yam Ẓalmon

LRD

LRD decoration

H-1B, H-2, H-5 [H-3/5], H-7 [H-7/K.4B], H-9A, H-9C, H-11B   [K.3A, K.3B, K.3A/B, K.3B/K.4A, K.4A] H-9B   H-8   H-3A, K.3A?   H-1, H-2, H-5, H-7, H-7 var., H-8,   H-9, H-9A, H-9B, H-10, H-11 H-2? H-2, K.5B   H-2?, K.1 X H-9A [K.3A]   H-9C   X   H-9C   H-2   H-1, H-2, H-7, H-9, H-10   H-9A, H-9B, H-9C   H-1/2  

Bibliography Landgraf 1980; Meyza 2007 Parnos, Milevski, and Khalaily 2010 Magness 2003 Hayes 1972; Meyza 2007 Amir 2006; Calderon 2010; Torge and ‘Ad 2013 Meyza 2007 Stacy 1988–89; Meyza 2007; Williams 2009 Sanmori and Pappalardo 1997; Meyza 2007 Magness 1999; Magness 2003; Meyza 2007 Watson 1984 Vieweger 2002 Watson 1984 Barker and others 1998; Munzi and Ciotola 2006 Leibner and Ben David 2014 Fischer and Taxel 2014 Leibner 2009

Table 7.6. LRA 1 imports. Site

K169

Aila/Aqaba al-Lajjūn Ashdod Ashkelon Ashkelon/al-Nabi Hussein Bat Galim (Haifa) Be’er Sheva Be’er Sheva North (Train Station) Bethany Boṣrā Caesarea Maritima Caesarea Maritima/Sebastos Capernaum Deir ’Ain ’Abata Gerasa/Central Baths Gerasa/Macellum Gerasa/Northwest Quarter Gerasa/Sanctuary of Zeus Gezer Ḥammath Gader Ḥorbat Be’er Shema’ Ḥorbat Qastra Ḥorbat Yagur

LRA 1

LRA 1a Bibliography

X X X X X X X X X X X X

X X

X X X

X X X

X X X X X X X X

Parker 2002 Parker 1987 Dothan and Freedman 1967 Kogan-Zehavi 1999; Masarwah 2000; Johnson 2008; Nahshoni 2009 Kol-Ya’akov and Farhi 2012 Oren-Paskal 2008 Fabian and Goldfus 2004 Israel, Seriy, and Fedor 2013 Saller 1957 Wilson and Sa’ad 1984; Joly and Blanc 1995 Riley 1975; Adan-Bayewitz 1986; Bar-Nathan and Adato 1986; Magness 1992a; Peleg and Reich 1992; Magness 1994 Oleson and others 1994; Tomber 1999 Loffreda 2008 Grey and Politis 2012 Walmsley and others 2008 Uscatescu 1992; 2003 Möller 2017 Rasson and Seigne 1989 Rosenthal-Heginbottom 1988 Ben-Arieh 1997 Erickson-Gini, Dolinka, and Shilov 2015 Siegelmann 1996; Haddad 2009; Van den Brink and others 2013 Sa’id 2013

7. Late Antique Ceramic Imports in Gerasa Site

K169

Ḥorvat Haẓaẓ Ḥorvat Sumaqa Ḥumayma

Jalame Jerusalem Kafr ’Ana Kafr Yasif/Dar el-Gharbiya Karm er-Ras Khirbat al-Manṣur el-’Aqab Khirbat es-Suyyagah Magen Mt Nebo Naḥal ’Anim Site 210.52/3 Naḥal Beqa’ Naḥal Shoqet Nessana Pardessiya Pella Petra Ramla/Nesher Quarry Ramot Nof Ras Abu Ma’aruf/Jerusalem Reḥovot-in-the-Negev Sede Boqer Sepphoris Shavei Zion Tanninim reservoir Tantura Lagoon (Tel Dor) Tel ’Afer Tel Jezreel Tell Fara Tell Keisan Tell Khreis Tell Shiqmona Umm al-Raṣāṣ Wādī Feynan

X

LRA 1

LRA 1a Bibliography

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

X

X X X X X X X X X X X

267

X

Nahshoni 2007 Kingsley 2003a ‘Amr and Schick 2001; Schick 2013 Johnson 1988 Crowfoot and Fitzgerald 1929; Fleitman and Mazar 2015; Baruch and Reich 2016 Gophna, Taxel, and Feldstein 2007 Syon and Stern 2014 Loffreda 1975 Hirschfeld and Birger-Calderon 1991 Taxel 2009 Feig 1985 Piccirillo 1976; Bagatti 1985; Alliata 1990b; Vanni Desideri 2012 Magness 2003 Katz 1993 Magness 2003 Baly 1962 Ayalon 2008 Smith and Day 1989; Watson 1992a Fiema, Schick, and ‘Amr 1995 De Vincenz 2015 Ustinova and Nahshoni 1994 Rapuano 1999 Rosenthal-Heginbottom 1988 Magness 2003 De Vincenz 2013 Prausnitz 1967 Porath, Gundelman, and Arnon 2007 Sibella 1995 Peilstöcker 2009 Grey 1994; 2014 Tubb 1986 Landgraf 1980 Ronen and Olami 1978 Amir 2006; Calderon 2010; Torge and ‘Ad 2013 Alliata 1991; 1992 Barker and others 1998; Munzi and Ciotola 2006

Table 7.7. LRU imports. Site Bethany Caesarea Maritima Dibon Gerasa/Macellum Jerusalem Tell Shiqmona

LRU Bibliography X X X X X X

Hayes 1971 Riley 1975; Adan-Bayewitz 1986; Magness 1992a Tushingham 1972 Uscatescu 1992; 2003 Magness 1992a; Seligman 2002 Calderon 2010

Alexandra Uscatescu

268 Table 7.8. Black Sea imports and similar amphora types. Site

Sinope

Aila/Aqaba Ashkelon Ashkelon/Third Mile Estate Beth She’an Caesarea Maritima Caesarea Maritima/Sebastos Capernaum Gerasa/Macellum Gerasa/St Theodore Gerasa/Southwest Cemetery Hippos Ḥorbat Qastra Jerusalem Khirbat al-Manṣur el-’Aqab Khirbat Ibreiktas Nazareth Pella Sepphoris

Kapitän II Bibliography X X

X X X

Parker 2002 Johnson 2008 Israel and Erickson-Gini 2013 Fitzgerald 1931 Riley 1975; Adan-Bayewitz 1986; Peleg and Reich 1992 Oleson and others 1994; Tomber 1999 Loffreda 1983; 2008 Uscatescu 1992; 2003 Fisher and McCown 1929–30 Fisher 1938 Młynarczyk 2003; Młynarczyk 2006 Haddad 2009 Hamilton 1940; Fleitman and Mazar 2015 Hirschfeld and Birger-Calderon 1991 Kletter and Rapuano 1998 Bagatti 1967 Watson 1992a; 1992b De Vincenz 2013

X X

X X X X X X X X X X X X

Table 7.9. Aegean imports (LRA 3 m: monohandled; b: two-handled). Site

LRA 2

Ashkelon Bat Galim (Haifa) Bet She’arim Beth She’an

X X

Caesarea Maritima

X

Caesarea Maritima/Sebastos Deir ’Ain ’Abata Gerar Gerasa/Macellum Ḥorbat Qastra Ḥorvat Sumaqa Jalame Jerusalem Khirbat al-Karak Khirbat Shema’ Khirbat Siyar al-Ghanam Meiron Naḥal Tanninim Pella Sepphoris Tantura Shipwreck F Tel Jezreel Tell Fara Tell Shiqmona Upper Zohar

LRA 2a LRA 8 LRA 3 M273 Samos Bibliography

X

X X X X (m, b)

X

X (m, b)

X

X X

X

X X X (b) X X X X X (m) X X (m) X X

X X

X

X X

X X

X X X

Johnson 2008 Oren-Paskal 2008 Vitto 1996 Fitzgerald 1931; Bar-Nathan and Mazor 1992; Avissar 2014 Siegelmann 1974; Riley 1975; Blakely and others 1987; Wiemken and Holum 1981; Bar-Nathan and Adato 1986; Magness 1992a Oleson and others 1994; Tomber 1999 Grey and Politis 2012 Duncan 1930 Unpublished Siegelmann 1996; Haddad 2009 Kinsgley 2003a; Meyza 2007 Johnson 1988 Tushingham 1985; Mazar 2003; Fleitman and Mazar 2015 Delougaz and Haines 1960 Meyers, Kraabel, and Strange 1976 Corbo 1955 Meyers, Strange, and Meyers 1981 ‘Ad 2000 Smith 1973; Smith and Day 1989 De Vincenz 2013 Barkai, Kahanov and Avissar 2010; Barkai, Lernau, and Kahanov 2013 Grey 1994; 2014 Tubb 1986 Calderon 2010 Harper 1995; Grey and Politis 2012

7. Late Antique Ceramic Imports in Gerasa

269

Table 7.10. Egyptian imports. X indicates that there is evidence of this kind of pottery, but the publications consulted do not indicate shape or decoration. Site Aila/Aqaba al-Lajjūn Amman Ashdod Ashkelon

ERS Type A (form H-59), Type B X

ERS decoration LRA 7 K188–190 Bibliography X

Caesarea Maritima

Parker 2002; Williams 2009; Parker 2014; Culclausure 2017 X X

Type A (forms H, J1, J2, Coptic painted J3, K, M, Q, S, II, KK)

Beth She’an Bethany Bir al-Qutt Bir Madhkur Boṣrā

X

X X X X X

Type A Type A (forms J2, J3, base AA) Type A Type A (form J)

Caesarea Maritima/Sebastos Capernaum El Kursi En Gedi Type A En-Boqeq Type A (H-104) Gadara Type A (forms Q, H) Gerasa/Macellum Type A (form V) Giv’ati Junction Herodium Hippos Ḥorbat Paṭṭish Ḥorbat Qastra Type A (forms K-M, J) Ḥorvat Hur Site 63.37 Type A Ḥorvat Ma’on Ḥorvat Sumaqa X Ḥumayma X Jabal as-Saḥāki Jabal Hārūn Jalame Type A Jericho-Tulul ‘Abū Al-’Alayiq Jerusalem Type A Kafr ’Ana Type A Kafr Kama X Khirbat ‘Asfura Khirbat al-Karak X Khirbat Beit Kufa Khirbat Burin Type A Khirbat el-Baṭiya Khirbat es-Suyyagah Type A Khorazin Type A Luzit Madaba Type A (form H)

Coptic painted

X

Coptic painted

X

X X X

Coptic painted X X X X X X

Coptic painted Coptic painted jar X X

X

X

X X X? X

Coptic painted X X? X X

Parker 2006; Williams 2009 Harding 1951 Dothan and Freedman 1967 Johnson 2008; Nahshoni 2009. ERS B seems to be ERS C (see Table 2: ARS imports) Fitzgerald 1931; Avissar 2014 Saller 1957 Corbo 1955 Parker 2014 Gualandi 1978; Sodini and others 1992; Munzi and Ciotola 2006 Riley 1975; Wiemken and Holum 1981; Adan-Bayewitz 1986; Blakely 1988 Tomber 1999 Loffreda 1974; 1983; Peleg 1989; Loffreda 2008 Tzaferis 1983 Hadas 2005 Gichon 1993; Magness 2003 El-Khouri 2014b Uscatescu 1992; 1996 Paran 2009 Birger 1981 Młynarczyk 2003 Paran 2000 Haddad 2009; Van den Brink and others 2013 Magness 2003 Nahshoni and Seriy 2014 Kingsley 2003a; Williams 2009 Williams 2009 Parker 2014 Gerber 2008; Gerber and Holmqvist 2008 Slane and Magness 2005 Zemer 1978 Riley 1979; Hayes 1985; Magness 1992b Gophna, Taxel, and Feldstein 2007 Ben-Nachum 2007 Ajami 2008 Delougaz and Haines 1960 Parnos and Avissar 2005 Kletter and Stern 2006 Abu ’Uqsa 2006b Taxel 2009 Hayes 1980b; Tzaferis 1982 Avni and Dahari 1990 Acconci and Gabrieli 1994

Alexandra Uscatescu

270 Site Mt Nebo Naḥal Besor (Upper) Naḥal Oded Nevé Ur

ERS

ERS decoration LRA 7 K188–190 Bibliography X X

Type A Type A (form J)

X

Type A

X

Pella Qiryat Ata Ramla

X Type A (form K = H-104) Fayyum painted jug, coptic painted

Ramla/Nesher Quarry Reḥovot-in-the-Negev Sepphoris

X X

Type A (form J) Type A (form P)

Tantura Shipwreck F

X

Tel Ḥashash Tel Jezreel Tell Keisan Tell Masos Tiberias Umm al-Walid Yavneh-Yam Yotvata Zur Natan/Khirbat Majdal

Type A Type A

X X

Type A (classified as H-107) Type A (form J; Egloff 66)

Zemer 1978 Ben Michael, Israel, and Nahlieli 2004 Magness 2003 Shalem 2002 Smith 1973; Walmsley 1980; 1988; Watson 1992a; Walmsley 1995 Siegelmann 1998; Vitto 2008 Kletter 2005; Arnon 2007; Tal and Taxel 2008; CyntrynSilverman 2010 De Vincenz 2015 Rosenthal-Heginbottom 1988 De Vincenz 2013 Barkai, Kahanov, and Avissar 2010; Barkai, Lernau, and Kahanov 2013 Tal and Taxel 2010 Grey 2014 Landgraf 1980 Magness 2003 Stacy 1988–89; Williams 2009

X Type A (forms K, J/M) Coptic painted jar Type A X

Haldimann 1992 Fischer and Taxel 2014 Avner, Davis and Magness 2004; Williams 2009 Fowler 1990

Table 7.11. LRA 4 imports. Site

LRA 4

‘Akko Aila/Aqaba Arsuf/Apollonia Ashdod

X X

Ashkelon

X

Ashkelon/al-Nabi Hussein Ashkelon/Barnea: Kilns LRA 4 Ashkelon/Kilns LRA 4 (rural estate) Ashkelon/Third Mile Estate: Kilns LRA 4 Atlit Bat Galim (Haifa) Be’er Manoah Be’er Sheva Be’er Sheva North (Train Station) Beit Ṣafafa Beth She’an Bethany

X

LRA 4A

LRA 4B

LRA 4C Bibliography

X X

X

X

X X

X X

X X

X

X

X

X X X X X X X

X X

Zemer 1978 Parker 2002; Williams 2009; Parker 2014; Culclausure 2017 Tal 2009 Dothan and Freedman 1967 Israel 1993a; Kogan-Zehavi 1999; Masarwah 2000; Nahshoni 1999; Fabian and Goren 2001; Nahshoni 2009 Kol-Ya’akov and Farhi 2012 Israel 1993a Israel 1993a Israel and Erickson-Gini 2013 Zemer 1978 Oren-Paskal 2008 Mayerson 1992 Fabian and Goldfus 2004 Israel, Seriy, and Fedor 2013 Feig 2003 Avshalom-Gorny 2004 Saller 1957

7. Late Antique Ceramic Imports in Gerasa Site

LRA 4

LRA 4A

Boṣrā

LRA 4B

271 LRA 4C Bibliography

X

Caesarea Maritima

X

X

X (4B/C)

Caesarea Maritima/Sebastos Capernaum Deir ’Ain ’Abata Deir al-Balah Dor El Qubab En Gedi En-Boqeq Erez Gadara Gan Yavne: Kilns LRA 4 Gaza: Kilns LRA 4 Gerar Gerasa/Central Baths Gerasa/Macellum Gezer Giv’ati Junction/Kh. ’Ajjis el-Ras: Kilns LRA 4 Haluẓa: Kilns LRA 4B Har Beriah Site 242. 91/1 Harei Yattir Site 78.57/2 Heletz Hippos Ḥorbat ’Illin Ḥorbat Anusha Ḥorbat Be’er Shema’ Ḥorbat Biẓ’a Ḥorbat Gelilot Ḥorbat Hermas Ḥorbat Paṭṭish Ḥorbat Qastra Ḥorbat Roẓeẓ Ḥorbat Siv Ḥorbat Yagur Ḥorvat Haẓaẓ Ḥorvat Herev Ḥorvat Hur Site 63.37 Ḥorvat Ma’on Ḥorvat So’a Site 15.85/2 Ḥorvat Sufa: Kilns LRA 4B Ḥorvat Sumaqa Jabal Hārūn Jalame

X X

X

X

X

X X X

X

X X X X X X X X X X X X

X

X X

X X X

X

X

X

X X X X Haluẓa X

X X X X X

X X X X X X X X X X

X

X

X

X X X X

X

Wilson and Sa’ad 1984; Joly and Blanc 1995 Riley 1975; Wiemken and Holum 1981; Adan-Bayewitz 1986; BarNathan and Adato 1986; Blakely 1988; Magness 1992a; Peleg and Reich 1992; Magness 1994 Oleson and others 1994; Tomber 1999 Loffreda 1982; 1983 Grey and Politis 2012 Mayerson 1985 Dauphin and Gibson 1994–95 Gady 2005 Hadas 2005 Gichon 1993; Magness 2003 Zemer 1978 Nielsen, Andersen, and Holm-Nielsen 1993 Israel and Erickson-Gini 2013 Riley 1975 Petrie 1928 Walmsley and others 2008 Uscatescu 1992; 2003 Riley 1979; Tubb 1986 Baumgarten 2001; Paran 2009 Fabian and Goren 2002; Bar-Oz, Weissbrod, and Erickson-Gini 2016 Magness 2003 Magness 2003 Rahmani 1961; Zemer 1978; Riley 1979 Młynarczyk 2006 Weksley-Bdolah 2012 Sion and others 2007 Erickson-Gini, Dolinka, and Shilov 2015 Gendelman 2012 Calderon 2011 Sion 2005 Paran 2000 Haddad 2009; Van den Brink and others 2013 Yannai 2010 Sa’id and ‘Ad 2011 Sa’id 2013 Nahshoni 2007 Schuster 2000a Magness 2003 Levy 1960; Nahshoni and Seriy 2014 Magness 2003 Israel 1993b Kinsgley 2003a Gerber and Holmqvist 2008 Johnson 1988

Alexandra Uscatescu

272 Site

LRA 4

Jerusalem

X

Kafr ’Ana Kefar Sava Khirbat al-Manṣur el-’Aqab Khirbat al-Mukhayyat Khirbat Baraqa: Kilns LRA 4 Khirbat Beit Kufa Khirbat Deiran Khirbat el-Jiljil Khirbat el-Ni’ana Khirbat es-Suyyagah Khirbat Ibreiktas Khirbat Irza: Kilns LRA 4 Khirbat Makkūs: Kilns LRA 4 Khirbat Siyar al-Ghanam Khirbat Tinani Luzit Ma’agan Mikhael Ma’aleh Ramon Site 40 Magen Makhtar Gharandal Mefalsim: Kilns LRA 4A, 4C Moshav Ha-Bonim Mt Nebo Naḥal ’Amin Site 211.52/2 Naḥal ’Anim Site 151.85/4 Naḥal ’Anim Site 186.84/5 Naḥal Besor Site 245 Naḥal Besor Site 55 Naḥal Besor Site 57 Naḥal Besor: Kilns LRA 4B Naḥal Bohu: Kilns LRA 4A Naḥal Zin Site 231 Naḥal Zin Site 233 Naḥal Zin Site 446 Nazareth Nessana Oboda/Avdat: Kilns LRA 4 Pardessiya Pella Pella/Tell al-Huṣn Ramat HaNadiv Ramat Raḥel Ramla Ramla/Nesher Quarry

X X

LRA 4A

X

LRA 4B

X

LRA 4C Bibliography

X

X X X

X

X X X X

X X X

X X

X X X X X X X X X

X X X

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

X X X Haluẓa X

X X X X

X X X X X

Crowfoot and Fitzgerald 1929; Hamilton 1940; Tushingham 1985; Wightman 1989; Rahmani 1991; Magness 1992b; 1992c; Ben-Arieh and Coen-Uzzielli 1996; Seligman and Abu Raya 2000; Seligman 2002; Mazar and Peleg 2003; Weksley-Bdolah 2006; Fleitman and Mazar 2015; Weksley-Bdolah and Avissar 2015 Gophna, Taxel, and Feldstein 2007 Gorzalczany 2009 Hirschfeld and Birger-Calderon 1991; Mayerson 1992 Alliata 1988 Gadot and Tepper 2003 Parnos and Avissar 2005 Avissar 2007; Bouchenino 2007 Młynarczyk 2005 De Vincenz and Sion 2007; Sion 2007 Taxel 2009 Kletter and Rapuano 1998 Israel 1999; Israel and Erickson-Gini 2013 Gibson, Vitto, and Di Segni 1998 Corbo 1955 Gil 2000 Avni and Dahari 1990 Riley 1975; 1979 Magness 2003 Feig 1985 Parker 2014 Israel 1993b ‘Ad 2017 Bagatti 1985 Magness 2003 Magness 2003 Magness 2003 Magness 2003 Cohen 1985 Magness 2003 Israel 1993b Israel 1993b Magness 2003 Magness 2003 Magness 2003 Bagatti 1967 Baly 1962 Fabian and Goren 2002 Ayalon 2008 Smith 1973; Watson 1986b; Smith and Day 1989; Watson 1992a; 1992b Watson 1992b Mayerson 1992 Aharoni 1964 Arnon 2007; Tal and Taxel 2008; Cyntryn-Silverman 2010; Shmueli 2012 De Vincenz 2015

7. Late Antique Ceramic Imports in Gerasa Site

LRA 4

Ramot Nof Ras Abu Ma’aruf/Jerusalem Reḥovot-in-the-Negev Ṣarafond el-Kharab Sede Boqer Sede Boqer West Site 94 Sepphoris Shavei Zion Sheikh ez-Zuweid Tall Jawa Tantura Lagoon Shipwreck Tel Ḥashash Tel Jezreel Tel Lod Tell Fara Tell Keisan Tell Maloṭ (East) Tell Shiqmona Tell Yavneh: Kilns LRA 4 Urim/Ze’elim Junction Road Site 210 Wādī Feynan Zur Natan/Khirbat Majdal

LRA 4A

273

LRA 4B

LRA 4C Bibliography

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

X

X X X

X X X X X

Ustinova and Nahshoni 1994 Rapuano 1999 Rosenthal-Heginbottom 1988 Singer 2004 Magness 2003 Cohen 1985 De Vincenz 2013 Prausnitz 1967 Zemer 1978 Daviau 2010 Sibella 1995 Tal and Taxel 2010 Grey 2014 Haddad 2013b Duncan 1930; Tubb 1986 Landgraf 1980 Parnos, Milevski, and Khalaily 2010 Zemer 1978; Calderon 2010; Torge and ‘Ad 2013 Langgut and others 2015 Magness 2003 Barker and others 1998 Masarwa 2016

Table 7.12. LRA 5/6 imports [* = Islamic-period pieces]. Site ‘Afula ‘Ain al-Ghuweir ‘Ain el-Jedide Abila Aila/Aqaba ‘Amman Arsuf/Apollonia Ashdod Ashkelon Ashkelon/al-Nabi Hussein Barsinia Bat Galim (Haifa) Be’er Sheva Be’er Sheva North (Train Station) Bet She’arim

LRA 5

LRA 5A

LRA 5D

LRA 5C

LRA 6

LRA 5/6 Bibliography

X X X* X? X X

X

X

X (accret.) X X (accret.) X (accret.)

X X

X X (accret.)

X X X

X (accret.) X

X

Beth She’an: Kilns LRA 6

X

Bethany

X

Caesarea Maritima

X

X

Caesarea Maritima/Sebastos

X

X

X

X (painted) X (accret.) X (painted) X

X X

Dothan 1955 Bar-Adon 1977 Hamilton 1934; Zemer 1978 Sodini and others 1992 Parker 2002; Culclausure 2017 Harding 1951 Tal 2009 Dothan and Freedman 1967 Johnson 2008; Nahshoni 1999; 2009 Kol-Ya’akov and Farhi 2012 El-Khouri 2014a Oren-Paskal 2008 Fabian and Goldfus 2004 Israel, Seriy, and Fedor 2013 Vitto 1996 Fitzgerald 1931; Bar-Nathan and Mazor 1992; Avshalom-Gorny 2004 Saller 1957 Riley 1975; Wiemken and Holum 1981; AdanBayewitz 1986; Bar-Nathan and Adato 1986; Blakely 1988; Magness 1992a; Peleg and Reich 1992 Oleson and others 1994; Tomber 1999

Alexandra Uscatescu

274 Site Capernaum Deir ’Ain Abata Desert of Gerasimus Dibon Dor Dor Shipwreck 6 El Kursi En Gedi Gadara Gerar Gerasa/Macellum Gerasa/Sanctuary of Artemis Gerasa/Sanctuary of Zeus Gerasa/Southwest Cemetery Gharandal Giv’at Mahat Giv’at Shaul Haluẓa Harei Yattir Site 78.57/2 Herodium Hippos Ḥorbat ’Illin Ḥorbat Be’er Shema’ Ḥorbat Biẓ’a Ḥorbat Gelilot Ḥorbat Pattish Ḥorbat Qastra Ḥorvat Berachot Ḥorvat Hazaza/Sede Boqer East Site 83 Ḥorvat Hazon Ḥorvat Ḥermeshit Ḥorvat Ma’on Ḥorvat Sumaqa Ḥorvat Uza/Khirbat Aiyadiya: Kilns LRA 5/6 Ḥorvat Ẓeferin Ḥumayma Ḥuqoq Jalame Jericho/Tulul ‘Abū Al-’Alayiq

LRA 5

LRA 5A

LRA 5D

LRA 5C

LRA 6

X

X

X (accret.)

X X (painted) X (painted) X

X

LRA 5/6 Bibliography X

X X X X X

X X X

X

X

X X X

X X X X X X X X X X X

X (accret.) X X (accret.) X (accret.)

X X

X X

Cohen 1981

X X (accret.) X X X X

X

X X

Jerusalem

X

Kafr ’Ana Kafr er-Rama Kafr Miṣr Kafr Naḥf: Kilns

X

X

X X

Loffreda 1974 Grey and Politis 2012 Patrich, Arubas, and Agur 1993 Tushingham 1972 Dauphin 1981 Kingsley and Raveh 1994 Tzaferis 1983 Hadas 2005 Holm-Nielsen, Nielsen, and Andersen 1986 Duncan 1930; Petrie 1928 Uscatescu 1992; 2003 Baldoni 2010 Villeneuve 2003 Fisher 1938 Walmsley and Grey 2001 Varga 2002 Wightman 1989 Bar-Oz, Weissbrod, and Erickson-Gini 2016 Magness 2003 Birger 1981 Młynarczyk 2006 Weksley-Bdolah 2012 Erickson-Gini, Dolinka, and Shilov 2015 Gendelman 2012 Calderon 2011 Paran 2000 Haddad 2009; Van den Brink and others 2013 Magness 2003

X

Bahat 1974; Zemer 1978 Greenhut 1998 Nahshoni and Seriy 2014 Kingsley 2003a X Ben-Tor 1966; Landgraf 1980 (painted) X* Avissar 2015 ‘Amr and Schick 2001; Schick 2013 X Magness and others 2014 X Johnson 1988 Kelso and Baramki 1949-50 Hamilton 1940; Bagatti and Milik 1958; Rahmani 1967; Tushingham 1985; Wightman 1989; Magness X (painted) X 1992b; Mazar 2003; Mazar and Peleg 2003; Rahmani 1991; Seligman and Abu Raya 2000; Weksler-Bdolah 2011; Fleitman and Mazar 2015 X Gophna, Taxel, and Feldstein 2007 X Adan-Bayewitz 1986 X Onn 1994 Smithline 2008; Vitto 1980

7. Late Antique Ceramic Imports in Gerasa Site Kafr Samir Kefar Hananya: Kilns LRA 5/6 Kefar Sirkin Khirbat al-Karak Khirbat al-Mafjar Khirbat al-Manṣur el-’Aqab Khirbat al-Mukhayyat Khirbat Asfura Khirbat Baraqa: Kilns LRA 4 and Southern LRA 5 Khirbat Bata/Carmiel Khirbat Beit Kufa Khirbat Burin Khirbat Deiran Khirbat el-Baṭiya Khirbat el-Jiljil Khirbat el-Kiliya Khirbat el-Ni’ana Khirbat el-Qaṣr Khirbat el-Thahiriya Khirbat es-Suyyagah Khirbat Shema’ Khirbat Siyar al-Ghanam Luzit Madaba Magen Meiron Migdal Ha’emeq Modi’in Moshav Ha-Bonim Mt Gerizim Mt Nebo Naḥal ’Anim Site 210.52/3 Naḥal Be’er Sheva’ Site 252.00/4 Naḥal Beqa’ Naḥal Besor Site 34 Nazareth Nessana Nir’am Junction Nuṣeib ’Uweishīra Pella Pella/Tell al-Huṣn Qedumin Qumram Quseir Ramat Gan Ramat Raḥel

LRA 5

LRA 5A

LRA 5D

275 LRA 5C

LRA 6

LRA 5/6 Bibliography X X

X X

X (accret.)

X X X

X

X

X X (painted) X

X (accret.)

Gadot and Tepper 2003

X

X X (accret.) X (accret.)

X X X X X (accret.) X X X X X X

X X X (accret.)

X

X X

X

X X

X X

X X X Paint.

X

X X

X (accret.) X X X X

X X

X

X X X

X

X

X (painted) X

X X X X X

Haddad 2009. Kingsley 1994–95 Singer and ‘Ad 2003 Delougaz and Haines 1960 Baramki 1942 Hirschfeld and Birger-Calderon 1991 Alliata 1988; Michel 1998 Ajami 2008

Yeivin 1992 Parnos and Avissar 2005 Kletter and Stern 2006 Avissar 2007; Bouchenino 2007 Abu ’Uqsa 2006b Młynarczyk 2005 Magen 1990 De Vincenz and Sion 2007; Sion 2007 Hirschfeld and Kloner 1988–89 Kogan-Zehavi and Hadad 2012 Taxel 2009 Meyers, Kraabel, and Strange 1976 Corbo 1955 Avni and Dahari 1990 Acconci and Gabrieli 1994; Alliata 1986; Alliata and Derosas 1993 Feig 1985 Feig 2002; Meyers, Strange, and Meyers 1981 Shalem 1996 Golani 2005 ‘Ad 2017 Bull and Campbell 1968 Alliata 1990b; Landgraf 1980; Schneider 1950; Vanni Desideri 2012 Magness 2003 Magness 2003 Katz 1993 Cohen 1985 Bagatti 1967; Landgraf 1980 Baly 1962 Schuster 2000b Netzer and Birger 1990 Smith 1973; Watson 1986b; 1992a; 1992b; Walmsley 1995 Watson 1993 Adan-Bayewitz 1986 Lapp 1961 Frankel 1992 Brand 1995 Aharoni 1956; 1964

Alexandra Uscatescu

276 Site

LRA 5

LRA 5A

LRA 5D

LRA 5C

LRA 6 X

Ramla

X*

X (accret.)

Ramla/Nesher Quarry Ramot Nof Ras Abu Ma’aruf/Jerusalem Reḥovot-in-the-Negev Samaria/Sebaste Ṣarafond el-Kharab Saylat adh-Dhahr Sechem/Tell Ballata Sepphoris Shavei Zion Subaita/Shivta Tantura Lagoon (Tel Dor) Tel ’Afer Tel Aviv/Giv’at Bet Hamitbahayim Tel Ḥashash Tel Jezreel Tel Lod Tel Mevorakh/Tell Mubarak Tell en-Nasbeh Tell Fara Tell Keisan Tell Khreis Tell Maloṭ (East) Tell Rosh Ha’ayin Tell Shiqmona Tell Sush Tell Yavneh Tiberias Umm al-Raṣāṣ Uyūn Mūsā Yavneh-Yam Zur Natan/Khirbat Majdal

X

X (accret.) X

X X X

‘Abū Sucheiban Aila/Aqaba Amman/Citadel ‘Amman/Khirbat el-Kursi Ashkelon Ashkelon/Third Mile Estate Be’er Sheva North (Train Station) Be’er Tarshan Site 198.73/1 Beit Ṣafafa Beth She’an Boṣrā Burgus

X X X

X X X (accret.) X

X X X

X

X (painted) X X

X X X X X

X (accret.)

X X

X

X X

X

X

X X X X X

X X X X (accret.)

X X

X X X* (painted)

X X (accret.)

X X

Table 7.13. FBW imports. Site

LRA 5/6 Bibliography

FBW Bibliography X X X X X X X X X X X X

Gichon 1974 Melkawi, ’Amr, and Whitcomb 1994 Koutsoukou and Najjar 1997 ‘Amr 1988 Nahshoni 1999 Israel and Erickson-Gini 2013 Israel, Seriy, and Fedor 2013 Magness 2003 Feig 2003 Fitzgerald 1931 Sodini and others 1992; Wilson and Sa’ad 1984 Gichon 1974

Arnon 2007; Cyntryn-Silverman 2010; Tal and Taxel 2008; Zemer 1978 De Vincenz 2015 Ustinova and Nahshoni 1994 Rapuano 1999 Rosenthal-Heginbottom 1988 Crowfoot, Crowfoot, and Kenyon 1957 Singer 2004 Sellers and Baramki 1953 Bull and Campbell 1968 Strange, Groh, and Longstaff 1995; De Vincenz 2013 Prausnitz 1967 Crowfoot 1936; Landgraf 1980 Sibella 1995 Peilstöcker 2009 Levy 1995 Tal and Taxel 2010 Grey 1994; Grey 2014 Haddad 2013b Rosenthal 1978 Wampler 1947 Tubb 1986 Landgraf 1980 Ronen and Olami 1978 Parnos, Milevski, and Khalaily 2010 Meyers, Kraabel, and Strange 1976 Torge and ‘Ad 2013 Adan-Bayewitz 1986 Langgut and others 2015 Stacy 1988–89; Williams 2009 Alliata 1991; 1994 Alliata 1990a Fischer and Taxel 2014 Fowler 1990; Masarwa 2016

7. Late Antique Ceramic Imports in Gerasa Site

277

FBW Bibliography

Caesarea Maritima Caesarea Maritima/Sebastos Capernaum Deir ’Ain ’Abata Desert of Gerasimus Dibon En-Boqeq Feifa Fuwaiyil el Mahdhi Gerasa/Macellum Gerasa/North Theatre Gharandal Giv’at Maḥat Site 32.38/4 Ḥammath Gader Har Beriah Site 242.91/1 Harei Yattir Site 44.68/3 Herodium Hippos Ḥorbat ’Illin Ḥorbat Barfiliya Site 67 Ḥorbat Be’er Shema’ Ḥorbat Biẓ’a Ḥorvat ’Ovesh Ḥorvat Berachot Ḥorvat Hazaz Ḥorvat Ḥermeshit Ḥorvat Hur Site 63.37 Ḥorvat Kasf Ḥorvat Molada Ḥorvat Samra Ḥorvat Yittan Site 162.24/4 Ḥumayma Jabal Hārūn

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

Jerusalem

X

Kafr ’Ana Kefar Hananya Khirbat ’Addasa (North Jerusalem) Khirbat al-Karak Khirbat al-Mafjar Khirbat al-Mukhayyat Khirbat edh-Dharih Khirbat el-Jiljil Khirbat el-Ni’ana Khirbat es-Suyyagah Khirbat Siyar al-Ghanam Luzit Madaba

X X X X X X X X X X X X X

Magness 1994 Oleson and others 1994 Loffreda 2008 Grey and Politis 2012 Patrich, Arubas, and Agur 1993 Tushingham 1972 Gichon 1993; Magness 2003 Rast and Schaub 1974 Magness 2003 Uscatescu 1996; 2001 Clark and Falkner 1986 Walmsley and Grey 2001 Magness 2003 Ben-Arieh 1997 Magness 2003 Magness 2003 Birger 1981 Młynarczyk 2006 Weksley-Bdolah 2012 Kogan-Zehavi and Zelinger 2008 Erickson-Gini, Dolinka, and Shilov 2015 Gendelman 2012 Aviam and Getzov 1998 Magness 2003 Nahshoni 2007 Greenhut 1998 Magness 2003 Gichon 1974 Gichon 1974 Gichon 1974 Magness 2003 ‘Amr and Schick 2001; Oleson, ‘Amr, and Holmqvist-Saukkonen 2013 Gerber 2008; Gerber and Holmqvist 2008 Hamilton 1940; Wightman 1989; Magness 1992b; Seligman and Abu Raya 2000; Mazar 2003; Mazar and Peleg 2003; Maier and Bahat 2004; Weksley-Bdolah 2006; Baruch 2007; Fleitman and Mazar 2015; Weksley-Bdolah and Avissar 2015 Gophna, Taxel, and Feldstein 2007 Meyers, Strange, and Groh 1978 Khalaily and Avissar 2008 Delougaz and Haines 1960 Baramki 1942 Michel 1998 Waliszewski 2001 Młynarczyk 2005 De Vincenz and Sion 2007 Taxel 2009 Corbo 1955 Avni and Dahari 1990 Alliata 1986; Acconci and Gabrieli 1994; Harrison and others 2003

Alexandra Uscatescu

278 Site Mamshit Mezad Ahbar Mezad Hatul Mojet Awad Moshav Ha-Bonim Mt Nebo Naḥal ’Amin Site 211.52/2 Naḥal ’Anim Site 151.85/4 Naḥal ’Anim Site 184.84/3 Naḥal ’Anim Site 185.84/4 Naḥal ’Anim Site 186.94/1 Naḥal ’Anim Site 210.52/3 Naḥal Be’er Sheva’ Site 251.00/3 Naḥal Be’er Sheva’ Site 252.00/4 Naḥal Hur Survey Site 102.46/6 Naḥal Hur Survey Site 99.36/3 Naḥal Molada Site 169.54/3 Naḥal Molada Site 192.23/1 Naḥal Yattir Site 136.55/3 Naḥal Yattir Site 207.02/5 Naḥal Yattir Site 78.57/2 Naḥal Yeshua’ Site 122.86/2 Naḥal Yeshua’ Site 123.86/3 Naḥal Yeshua’ Site 125.96/1 Nuṣeib ’Uweishīra Pardessiya Pella Qaṣr Qā’as-Su’aydiyyīn Ramat Raḥel Ramla Ramla/Nesher Quarry Ras Abu Ma’aruf/Jerusalem Samaria/Sebaste Sepphoris Tall al-Kharrār Site 8 Tel ’Ira Tel Ḥashash Tel Jezreel Tel Lod Tell Malhata Tell Maloṭ Tell Masos Tell Shiqmona Tuweil el-Mahdi Umm al-Raṣāṣ Upper Zohar Wādī al-’Arab Yavneh-Yam

FBW Bibliography X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

Magness 2003 Gichon 1974 Gichon 1974 Gichon 1974 ‘Ad 2017 Schneider 1950; Alliata 1990b; Vanni Desideri 2012 Magness 2003 Magness 2003 Magness 2003 Magness 2003 Magness 2003 Magness 2003 Magness 2003 Magness 2003 Magness 2003 Magness 2003 Magness 2003 Magness 2003 Magness 2003 Magness 2003 Magness 2003 Magness 2003 Magness 2003 Magness 2003 Netzer and Birger 1990 Ayalon 2008 Smith 1973; Watson 1992a Parker 2014 Aharoni 1956; Aharoni 1964 Arnon 2007; Cyntryn-Silverman 2010 De Vincenz 2015 Rapuano 1999 Crowfoot, Crowfoot, and Kenyon 1957; Sodini and others 1992 De Vincenz 2013 Abu Shmeis and Waheeb 2002 Gichon 1974; Magness 2003 Tal and Taxel 2010 Grey 2014 Haddad 2013b Gichon 1974 Parnos, Milevski, and Khalaily 2010 Gichon 1974; Magness 2003 Torge and ‘Ad 2013 Gichon 1974 Alliata 1991; 1992; 1994; Sanmori and Pappalardo 1997 Magness 1999; Magness 2003 Vieweger 2002 Fischer and Taxel 2014

7. Late Antique Ceramic Imports in Gerasa

279

Works Cited ‘Ad, U. 2000. ‘Naḥal Tanninim’, Ḥadashot Arkheo­logiyot: Excavations and Surveys in Israel, 111: 39–41. ——  2009. ‘Or ‘Aqiva: Remains of a Farming Complex and Irrigation System from the End of the Byzantine–Beginning of the Early Islamic Periods in the Agricultural Hinterland of Caesarea’, ‘Atiqot, 61: 49–60 (Hebrew). ——  2017. ‘A Church and Agricultural Installation South of Moshav Ha-Bonim’, ‘Atiqot, 88: 9–42. ‘Amr, A. 1988. ‘The Pottery’, in M. Piccirillo, ‘A Chapel at Khirbat el-Kursi–Amman’, Liber Annuus, 38: 361–82. ‘Amr, K. and others. 1998. ‘The Petra National Trust Site Projects Archaeo­logical Survey of the Wadi Musa Water Supply and Wastewater Project Area’, Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan, 42: 503–48. ‘Amr, K. and R. Schick. 2001. ‘The Pottery from Ḥumeima: The Closed Corpus from the Lower Church’, in E. Villeneuve and P. M. Watson (eds), La céramique byzantine et proto-islamique en Syrie-Jordanie (IVe-VIIIe siécles apr. J.-C.): actes du colloque tenu à Amman les 3, 4 et 5 décembre 1994, Bibliothèque Archéo­logique et Historique, 159 (Beirut: Institut Français d’Archéo­logie du Proche-Orient), pp. 107–27. Abadie-Reynal, C. 1989. ‘Céramique et commerce dans le bassin égéen du IVe au VIIe siècle’, in C. Morrisson and J. Lefort (eds), Hommes et richesses dans l’empire byzantine, i: IVè–VIIè siècles (Paris: Lethielleux), pp. 143–59. Abu ‘Uqsa, H. 2006a. ‘Kisra’, ‘Atiqot, 53: 9–19 (Hebrew). ——  2006b. ‘The Excavations at Khirbet el-Baṭiya (Triangulation Spot 819)’, ‘Atiqot, 53: 21–28 (Hebrew). Abu Khalaf, M. 2005. ‘The Archaeo­logical Excavations at Khirbat Shuwayka, Eighth Season 2004’, Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan, 49: 15–29. Abu Shmeis, A. and M. Waheeb. 2002. ‘Recent Discoveries in the Baptism Site: The Pottery’, Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan, 46: 561–81. Abu-Raya, R. 2016. ‘Remains from Iron Age IIB until the Ottoman Period at I’Billin’, ‘Atiqot, 85: 37–95 (Hebrew). Acconci, A. and E. Gabrieli. 1994. ‘Scavo del cortile Bajali a Madaba’, Liber Annuus, 44: 405–520. Adan-Bayewitz, D. 1982. ‘The Ceramics from the Synagogue of Horvat ‘Ammudim and their Chrono­logical Implications’, Israel Exploration Journal, 32: 13–31. ——  1986. ‘The Pottery from the Late Byzantine Building (Stratum 4) and its Implications’, in L.  I. Levine and E.  Netzer (eds), Excavations at Caesarea Maritima, 1975, 1976, 1979: Final Report, Qedem, 21 ( Jerusalem: The Institute of Archaeo­logy of the Hebrew Uni­ver­sity of Jerusalem), pp. 90–129. Aguarod, C. 1991. Cerámica romana importada de cocina en la Tarraconense (Zaragoza: Institución Fernando el Católico). Aharoni, Y. 1956. ‘Excavations at Ramat Rahel, 1954: Preliminary Report’, Israel Exploration Journal, 3: 102–11. ——  1959. ‘Zephath of Thutmose’, Israel Exploration Journal, 9: 110–22. ——  1964. Excavations at Ramath-Rahel: Season 1961 and 1962, Serie Archeo­logica, 6 (Rome: Centro di Studi Semitici). Ajami, M. 2008. ‘Rehovot, Khirbet ‘Asfura’, Ḥadashot Arkheo­logiyot: Excavations and Surveys in Israel, 120 [accessed 1 March 2020]. Alliata, E. 1982. ‘Nota sulla ceramica’, in M. Piccirillo, ‘La chiesa della Vergine a Madaba’, Liber Annuus, 32: 403–08. ——  1986. ‘Nota sulla ceramica dello scavo’, in M. Piccirillo, ‘Il Palazzo brucciato di Madaba’, Liber Annuus, 36: 328–34. ——  1987. ‘Nota sulla ceramica dello scavo’, in M.  Piccirillo, ‘Le iscrizioni di Umm er-Rasas – Kastron Mefaa in Giordania  I (1986–1987)’, Liber Annuus, 37: 221–39. ——  1988. ‘La ceramica dello scavo della cappella del prete Giovanni a Khirbat Mukhayyat’, Liber Annuus, 38: 317–60. ——  1990a. ‘Ceramica bizantine e omayyade di ‘Uyūn Mūsā’, Liber Annuus, 40: 247–61. ——  1990b. ‘Nuovo settore del Monastero al Monte Nebo-Siyagha’, in G. C. Bottini, L. Di Segni, and E. Alliata (eds), Christian Archaeo­logy in the Holy Land: New Discoveries: Essays in Honour of Virgilio C. Corbo, OFM, Studium Biblicum Franciscanum, 36 ( Jerusalem: Franciscan Printing Press), pp. 427–66. ——  1991. ‘Ceramica del complesso di Santo Stefano a Umm al-Rasas’, Liber Annuus, 41: 365–422. ——  1992. ‘Ceramica e piccoli oggetti dallo scavo della chiesa dei Leoini a Umm al-Rasas’, Liber Annuus, 42: 227–50. ——  1994. ‘Ceramica romana, bizantine, araba’, in M. Piccirillo and E. Alliata (eds), Umm al-Rasas Mayfa’ah, i: Gli scavi del complesso di Santo Stefano, Studium Biblicum Franciscanum, Collectio Maior, 28 ( Jerusalem: Franciscan Printing Press), pp. 278–89. Alliata, E. and M. Derosas. 1993. ‘Nota sulla ceramica dello scavo’, in M. Piccirillo, ‘La chiesa dei Sunna’ a Madaba’, Liber Annuus, 43: 294–313. Amir, R. 2006. ‘Pottery, Stone and Small Finds from Shiqmona’, ‘Atiqot, 51: 145–61. Amitai, A. 2000. ‘Ḥurfeish (B)’, Ḥadashot Arkheo­logiyot: Excavations and Surveys in Israel, 111: 10–11. Anselmino, L. and others. 1986. ‘Cartagine’, in A. Giardina (ed.), Società romana e impero tardoantico: le merci, gli insediamenti (Bari: Editori Laterza), pp. 163–95. Armstrong, P. 2009. ‘Trade in the East Mediterranean in the 8th Century’, in M.  Mundell Mango (ed.), Byzantine Trade, 4th– 12th Centuries: The Archaeo­logy of Local, Regional and International Exchange: Papers of the Thirty-Eighth Spring Symposium of Byzantine Studies, St John’s College, Uni­ver­sity of Oxford (March 2004) (Farnham: Ashgate), pp. 157–78.

280

Alexandra Uscatescu

Arnon, Y. D. 2007. ‘Excavations in Marcus Street, Ramla: Pottery, Oil Lamps and Carved Stone Vessels’, in M. Artzy, S. Yankelevitz, and G. Tsioni (eds), Contract Archaeo­logy Report, ii: Excavation in Marcus Street, Ramla: Reports and Studies of the Recanati Institute for Maritime Studies Excavations (Haifa: Leon Recanati Institute for Maritime Studies), pp. 38–99. ——  2008. Caesarea Maritima: The Late Periods (700–1291 ce), British Archaeo­logical Reports, International Series, 1771 (Oxford: Archaeopress). Arthur, P. 1985. ‘Naples: Notes on the Economy of a Dark Age City’, in C. Malone and S. Stoddart (eds), Papers in Italian Archaeo­ logy, iv: Classical and Medi­eval Archaeo­logy, British Archaeo­logical Reports, International Series, 246 (Oxford: Archaeopress), pp. 247–59. ——  1989. ‘Aspects of Byzantine Economy: An Evaluation of Amphorae Evidence from Italy’, in V. Déroche and J.-M. Spieser (eds), Recherches sur la céramique Byzantine, Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique, suppl. 18 (Athens: École Français d’Athens), pp. 79–93. ——  1998. ‘Eastern Mediterranean Amphorae between 500 and 700: A View from Italy’, in L. Saguì (ed.), Ceramica in Italia: VI–VII secolo: atti del convegno in onore di John W. Hayes (Roma, 11–13 maggio 1995), Biblioteca di Archeo­logia Medi­evale (Florence: all’insegna del Giglio), pp. 157–84. Arthur, P. and E.  D. Oren. 1998. ‘The North Sinai Survey and the Evidence of Transport Amphorae for Roman and Byzantine Trading Patterns’, Journal of Roman Archaeo­logy, 11: 193–212. Arthur, P. and P. Peduto. 1985–86. ‘Un edificio bizantino extra moenia a Vibo Valentia’, La Calabria bizantina, 8–9: 9–19. Avi-Yonah, M. 1940. Abbreviations in Greek Inscriptions (The Near East, 200 bc – ad 1000), The Quarterly of the Department of Antiquities of Palestine, 9, suppl. ( Jerusalem: Oxford Uni­ver­sity Press). Aviam, M. and N. Getzov. 1998. ‘A Byzantine Smithy at Ḥorvat ‘Ovesh, Upper Galilee’, ‘Atiqot, 34: 63–83 (Hebrew). Avissar, M. 2007. ‘The Pottery from Shelim 2 at Khirbat Deiran, Reḥovot’, ‘Atiqot, 57: 91–104 (Hebrew). ——  2014. ‘The Ceramic Finds from the Late Roman to the Ottoman Periods at Bet She’an (Youth Hotel)’, ‘Atiqot, 77: 65–146 (Hebrew). ——  2015. ‘Ḥorvat Ẓerifin (East). Appendix: The Pottery’, Ḥadashot Arkheo­logiyot: Excavations and Surveys in Israel, 127: 1–3. Avner, U., G. Davis, and J. Magness. 2004. ‘The Roman Fort at Yotvata: Interim Report (2003)’, Journal of Roman Archaeo­logy, 17: 405–12. Avni, G. and U. Dahari. 1990. ‘Christian Burial Caves from the Byzantine Period at Luzit’, in G. C. Bottini, L. Di Segni, and E. Alliata (eds), Christian Archaeo­logy in the Holy Land: New Discoveries: Essays in Honour of Virgilio C. Corbo, OFM, Studium Biblicum Franciscanum, 36 ( Jerusalem: Franciscan Printing Press), pp. 301–14. Avshalom-Gorny, D. 2004. ‘Remains from the Byzantine to Ottoman Periods at Bet She’an: Salvage Excavation West of the Amphitheater’, ‘Atiqot, 46: 93–111 (Hebrew). Ayalon, E. 2008. ‘A Church and Village Remains from the Byzantine Period at Pardessiya in the Sharon’, ‘Atiqot, 58: 67–89 (Hebrew). Bagatti, B. 1947. I  monumenti di Emmaus El-Qubeibeh e dei dintorni, Publications of the Studium Biblicum Franciscanum, 4 ( Jerusalem: Franciscan Printing Press). ——  1952. Gli antichi edifici sacri di Betlemme in seguito agli scavi e restauri pratticati dalla custodia di Terra Santa (1948–51), Publication of the Studium Biblicum Franciscanum, 9 ( Jerusalem: Franciscan Printing Press). ——  1953. ‘Terre sigillate in Palestina nei secoli V e VI’, Faenza, 39: 70–75. ——  1967. Gli scavi di Nazaret, i, Publications of the Studium Biblicum Franciscanum, 17 ( Jerusalem: Franciscan Printing Press). ——  1985. ‘Nuova ceramica dal Monte Nebo (Siyagha)’, Liber Annuus, 35: 249–78. Bagatti, B. and E. Alliata. 1980. ‘Scavo ai pozzi di Davide a Betlemme’, Liber Annuus, 30: 250–62. Bagatti, B. and J.  T. Milik. 1958. Gli scavi del Dominus Flevit (Monte Oliveto-Gerusalemme), i: La necropoli del periodo romano, Publications of the Studium Biblicum Franciscanum, 13 ( Jerusalem: Franciscan Printing Press). Bahat, D. 1974. ‘A Roof Tile of the Legio VI Ferrata and Pottery Vessels from Horvat Hazon’, Israel Exploration Journal, 24: 160–69. Baldoni, D. 2010. ‘The Pottery Finds’, in M. Brizzi, D. Sepio, and D. Baldoni, ‘Italian Excavations at Jarash 2002–2009: The Area of the East Propylaeum of the Sanctuary of Artemis and the “Propylaea Church” Complex’, Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan, 54: 359–65. ——  2018. ‘A Byzantine Thermopolium on the Main Colonnaded Street in Gerasa’, in A.  Lichtenberger and R.  Raja (eds), The Archaeo­logy and History of Jerash: 110 Years of Excavations, Jerash Papers, 1 (Turnhout: Brepols), pp. 15–37. Ballet, P. 1997. ‘De l’empire romaine à la conquête arabe. La Céramique médièvale en Mediterranéen’, in G. D. d’Archimbaud (ed.), La céramique médiévale en Méditerranée: actes du VIe congrès de l’AIECM2, Aix-en-Provence (13–18 novembre 1995) (Aix-enProvence: Narration Éditions), pp. 53–61. ——  2005. ‘De L’Égypte byzantine à l’Islam: Approches céramo­logiques’, Archéo­logie Islamique, 10: 29–53. Ballet, P. and M. Picon. 1987. ‘Recherches préliminaires sur les origines de la céramique des Kellia (Égypte). Importations et productions égyptiennes’, Cahiers de la céramique égyptienne, 1: 17–41. Baly, T.  J.  C. 1962. ‘The Pottery’, in H.  Dunscombe Colt (ed.), Excavations at Nessana (Auja Hafir, Palestine) (London: British School of Archaeo­logy in Jerusalem), pp. 270–303.

7. Late Antique Ceramic Imports in Gerasa

281

Bar-Adon, P. 1977. ‘Another Settlement of the Judean Desert Sect at ‘En el-Ghuweir on the Shores of the Dead Sea’, Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, 227: 1–25. Bar-Nathan, R. and M. Adato. 1986. ‘Byzantine Pottery (Stratum 5)’, in L. I. Levine and E. Netzer (eds), Excavations at Caesarea Maritima, 1975, 1976, 1979: Final Report, Qedem, 21 ( Jerusalem: The Institute of Archaeo­logy of the Hebrew Uni­ver­sity of Jerusalem), pp. 132–36. Bar-Nathan, R. and G. Mazor. 1992. ‘City Center (South) and Tell Iztabba Area’, in G. Foerster and others, ‘The Bet She’an Excavation Project (1989–1991)’, Ḥadashot Arkheo­logiyot: Excavations and Surveys in Israel, 98: 33–55. Bar-Oz, G., L. Weissbrod, and T. Erickson-Gini. 2016. ‘Ḥaluẓa’, Ḥadashot Arkheo­logiyot: Excavations and Surveys in Israel, 128 [accessed 1 March 2020]. Baramki, D. C. 1942. ‘The Pottery of Khirbet el Mefjer’, Quarterly of the Department of Antiquities of Palestine, 10.2/3: 65–103. Barghouti, A. N. 1982. ‘Urbanization of Palestine and Jordan in Hellenistic and Roman Times’, Studies in the History and Archaeo­ logy of Jordan, 1: 209–29. Barkai, O., Y. Kahanov, and M. Avissar. 2010. ‘The Tantura F Shipwreck: The Ceramic Material’, Levant, 42: 88–101. Barkai, O., O. Lernau, and Y. Kahanov. 2013. ‘Analysis of Fish Bones from the Tantura F Shipwreck, Israel’, Archaeofauna, 22: 189–99. Barker, G. W. and others. 1998. ‘Environment and Land Use in the Wadi Faynan, Southern Jordan: The Third Season of Geoarcheo­ logy and Landscape Archaeo­logy (1998)’, Levant 31.1: 225–92. Barraud, D. and others. 1998. ‘L’industrie céramique de l’Antiquité tardive’, in H. Ben Hassen and L. Maurin (eds), Oudhna (Uthina): la redécouverte d’une ville antique de Tunisie, Ausonius Publications-Mémoires, 2 (Bordeaux: Institut de Recherche sur l’Antiquité et le Moyen Age), pp. 139–67. Baruch, Y. 2007. ‘The Archaeo­logical Finds in the Soil Debris Removed from the Temple Mount, Jerusalem, 1999–2000’, ‘Atiqot, 56: 55–64. Baruch, Y. and R. Reich. 2016. ‘Excavations near the Triple Gate of the Temple Mount, Jerusalem’, ‘Atiqot, 85: 37–95 (Hebrew). Bass, G. F. 1982. ‘The Pottery’, in G. F. Bass and F. H. van Doorninck (eds), Yassi Ada, i: A Seventh-Century Shipwreck (Texas: Rachal Foundation Nautical Archaeo­logy Series), pp. 155–88. Bass, G. F. and F. H. van Doorninck (eds). 1982. Yassi Ada, i: A Seventh-Century Shipwreck (Texas: Rachal Foundation Nautical Archaeo­logy Series). Baumgarten, Y. 2001. ‘A Pottery Kiln near the Giv’ati Junction’, ‘Atiqot, 42: 43–50 (Hebrew). Beltrán, M. 1990. Guía de la cerámica romana (Zaragoza: Libros Pórtico). Ben Lazreg, N. and others. 1995. ‘Production et commercialisation des salsamenta de l’Afrique ancienne’, in P.  Trousset (ed), Productions et exportations africaines: actualités archéo­logiques en Afrique du Nord antique et médieval (Paris: Éditions du CTHS), pp. 103–32. Ben Michael, J., Y. Israel, and D. Nahlieli. 2004. ‘Upper Naḥal Besor: A Village from the Early Islamic Period in the Negev Highlands’, ‘Atiqot, 48: 105–22 (Hebrew). Ben-Arieh, R. 1997. ‘The Roman, Byzantine and Umayyad Pottery’, in Y. Hirschfeld (ed.), The Roman Baths of Hammat Gader: Final Report ( Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society), pp. 347–81. Ben-Arieh, R. and T. Coen-Uzzielli. 1996. ‘The Pottery’, in G. Avni and Z. Greenhut (eds), The Akeldama Tombs: Three Burial Caves in the Kidron Valley, Jerusalem, Israel Antiquities Authority Reports, 1 ( Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority), pp. 73–94. Ben-Nachum, C. 2007. ‘Tombs of the Roman Period and Building Remains of the Byzantine and Early Islamic Periods at Kafr Kama’, ‘Atiqot, 56: 105–12. Ben-Tor, A. 1966. ‘Excavations at Horvat Usa’, ‘Atiqot (Hebrew Series), 3: 1–24. Ben-Tor, A., Y. Portugali, and M. Avissar. 1979. ‘The Second Season of Excavations at Tel Yoqne’am, 1978’, Israel Exploration Journal, 29: 65–83. Ben-Tor, A. and R. Rosenthal. 1978. ‘The First Season of Excavations at Tel Yoqne’am, 1977’, Israel Exploration Journal, 28: 57–82. Bes, P. 2015. Once upon a Time in the East: The Chrono­logical and Geo­graphical Distribution of Terra Sigillata and Red Slip Ware in the Roman East, Roman and Late Antique Mediterranean Pottery, 6 (Oxford: Archaeopress). Bes, P. and J. Poblome. 2007. ‘(Not) See the Wood for the Trees? 19,700+ of Sherds of Sigillata and What We Can Do with Them…’, Rei Cretariae Romanae Fautorum Acta, 40: 1–10. ——  2009. ‘African Red Slip Ware on the Move: The Effects on Bonifay’s Études for the Roman East’, in J.  H. Humphrey (ed.), Studies on Roman Pottery of the Provinces of Africa Proconsularis and Byzacena (Tunisia): Hommage à Michel Bonifay, Journal of Roman Archaeo­logy, suppl. 76 (Portsmouth, RI: Journal of Roman Archaeo­logy), pp. 73–91. Birger, R. 1981. ‘Pottery and Miscellaneous Finds of the Byzantine Period’, in E.  Netzer (ed), Greater Herodium, Qedem, 13 ( Jerusalem: The Institute of Archaeo­logy of the Hebrew Uni­ver­sity of Jerusalem), pp. 75–77. Bitti, M.  C. 1986. ‘The Area of the Temple Stairway’, in R.  Parapetti and others, ‘The Italian Activity within the Jerash Project, 1982–83’, in F.  Zayadine (ed.), Jerash Archaeo­logical Project, i: 1981–1983 (Amman: Department of Antiquities of Jordan), pp. 189–92.

282

Alexandra Uscatescu

Blakely, J.  A. 1988. ‘Ceramics and Commerce: Amphorae from Caesarea Maritima’, Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, 271: 31–50. ——  1996. ‘Toward the Study of Economics at Caesarea Maritima’, in A.  Raban and K.  G. Holum (eds), Caesarea Maritima: A Retrospective after Two Millennia (Leiden: Brill), pp. 327–45. Blakely, J. A. and others. 1987. Caesarea Maritima: The Pottery and Dating of Vault, i: Horreum, Mithraeum and Later Uses, American Schools of Oriental Research Excavation Reports, 4 (Philadelphia: American Schools of Oriental Research). Bloch, H. 1947–48. ‘Supplement to vol. xv.1 of the Corpus inscriptionum Latinarum, Including Complete Indices to the Roman Brick-Stamps’, Harvard Studies in Classical Philo­logy, 56–57: 1–128. Bodel, J. P. 1983. Roman Brick Stamps in the Kebey Museum (Ann Arbor: The Uni­ver­sity of Michigan). Bonifay, M. 1986. ‘Observations sur les amphores à Marseille d’après les fouilles de La Bourse (1980–1984)’, Revue Archéo­logique Narbonnaise, 19: 269–305. ——  2003. ‘La Céramique africaine, un indice du développement économique?’, Antiquité Tardive, 11: L’Afrique vandale et byzantine (2è partie): 113–28. ——  2004. Études sur la céramique romaine tardive d’Afrique, British Archaeo­logical Reports, International Series, 1301 (Oxford: Archaeopress). ——  2005a. ‘Observations sur la diffusion des céramiques africaines en Méditerrannée orientale durant l’Antiquité tardive’, in F. Baratte and others (eds), Mélanges Jean-Pierre Sodini, Travaux et Mémoires, 15 (Paris: Centre de Recherche d’Histoire et civilisation de Byzance), pp. 565–81. ——  2005b. ‘Observations sur la typo­logie des amphores africaines de l’Antiquité Tardive’, in J. M. Gurt, J. Buxeda, and M. A. Cau (eds), LRCW, i: Late Roman Coarse Wares, Cooking Wares and Amphorae in the Mediterranean: Archaeo­logy and Archaeometry, British Archaeo­logical Reports, International Series, 1340 (Oxford: Archaeopress), pp. 451–72. ——  2011. ‘Production et diffusion des céramiques africaines durant l’Antiquité Tardive’, in R. Attoui (ed.), When Did Antiquity End? Archaeo­logical Case Studies in Three Continents: The Proceedings of an International Seminar Held at the Uni­ver­sity of Trento on April 29–30 on Late Antique Society, Religion, Pottery and Trade in Germania, Northern Africa, Greece, and Asia Minor, British Archaeo­logical Reports, International Series, 2268 (Oxford: Archaeopress), pp. 15–30. ——  2013. ‘Africa: Pattern of Consumption in Coastal Regions versus Inland. The Ceramic Evidence (300–700 ad)’, in L. Lavan (ed.), Local Economies? Production and Exchange of Inland Regions in Late Antiquity, Late Antique Archaeo­logy, 10 (Leiden: Brill), pp. 529–66. Bonifay, M., M. B. Carré, and Y. Rigoir. 1998. ‘Le Mobilier de l’Antiquité Tardive’, in M. Bonifay, M. B. Carré, and Y. Rigoir (eds), Fouillés à Marseille: les mobiliers (Ie-VIIe siècles ap. J.-C.), Études Massaliètes, 5 (Paris: Errance), pp. 355–75. Bonifay, M. and D. Pieri. 1995. ‘Amphores du Vème au VIIème siécles à Marseille: nouvelles données sur la typo­logie et le contenue’, Journal of Roman Archaeo­logy, 8: 94–120. Bouchenino, A. 2007. ‘Building Remains and Industrial Installation from the Early Islamic Period at Khirbat Deiran, Reḥovot’, ‘Atiqot, 56: 119–44 (Hebrew). Bourke, S. 2014. ‘New Light on Classical and Late Antique Pella’, ACOR Newsletter, 26.1: 1–6. Bouzek, J. and F. Kordač. 1963. ‘Examination of Amphorae Fragments from an Early Mediaeval Ship-Wreck from the Black Sea’, Listy Filo­logicke, 86: 256–58. Braemer, F. 1986. ‘Études strati­graphiques au NE de la façade du Temple de Zeus’, in F. Zayadine (ed.), Jerash Archaeo­logical Project, i: 1981–1983 (Amman: Department of Antiquities of Jordan), pp. 61–66. ——  1989. ‘Une fabrique (locale?) de céramique fine à Jerash au tournant de l’ère’, Syria, 66: 153–67. Brand, E. 1995. ‘Ramat Gan’, Ḥadashot Arkheo­logiyot: Excavations and Surveys in Israel, 100: 48–50. Brown, R. 1980. ‘The 1976 ASOR Soundings’, in N. L. Lapp (ed.), The Excavations at Araq el-Emir, i, The Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research, 47 (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns), pp. 105–32. ——  1991. ‘Ceramics from the Kerak Plateau’, in J.  Maxwell Miller (ed.), Archaeo­logical Survey of the Kerak Plateau, American Schools of Oriental Research Archaeo­logical Reports (Atlanta: Scholars Press), pp. 169–279. Bull, R. J. and E. F. Campbell. 1968. ‘The Sixth Campaign of Balatah (Shechem)’, Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, 190: 2–41. Burgio, A., R. Macaluso, and M. S. Rizzo. 1993. ‘Le classi dei materiali’, in O. Belvedere and others (eds), Termini Imerese: Ricerche di topografia e di archeo­logia urbana (Palermo: Istituto di Archeo­logia), pp. 217–65. Calderon, R. 1999. ‘The Pottery’, in Y. Hirschfeld (ed.), The Early Byzantine Monastery at Khirbat ed-Deir in the Judaean Desert: The Excavations in 1981–1987, Qedem, 38 ( Jerusalem: Hebrew Uni­ver­sity of Jerusalem), pp. 135–47. ——  2010. ‘Pottery from the Late Byzantine Remains near Shiqmona’, ‘Atiqot, 63: 183–208. ——  2011. ‘The Pottery from Ḥorbat Gelilot’, ‘Atiqot, 66: 63–78 (Hebrew). Capelli, C. 1998. ‘Addendum. Analisi minero-petrografiche preliminari su ceramiche di Thuburbo Majus’, in Hommages à Georges Souville, 2, Antiquités Africaines, 34: 251–53.

7. Late Antique Ceramic Imports in Gerasa

283

Carignani, A. and F. Pacetti. 1989. ‘Anfore tardo-antiche dagli scavi del Palatino’, in Amphores romaines et histoire économique: dix ans de recherche: actes du colloque de Sienne (1986), Collection de l’École Française de Rome, 114 (Rome: École Française de Rome), pp. 610–15. Cau, M. A., P. Reynolds, and M. Bonifay. 2012. ‘An Initiative for the Revision of Late Roman Fine Wares in the Mediterranean (c. ad 200–700): The Barcelona ICREA/ESF Workshop’, in M. A. Cau, P. Reynolds, and M. Bonifay (eds), Late Roman Fine Wares, i: Solving Problems of Typo­logy and Chrono­logy: A Review of the Evidence, Debate and New Contexts (Oxford: Archaeopress), pp. 1–13. Chang-Ho, C. J. and L. Jong-Keun. 1998. ‘Preliminary Report on the Survey of the Dhībān Plateau, 1997’, Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan, 42: 549–72. Clark, V. A. and R. K. Falkner. 1986. ‘The Pottery’, in V. A. Clark, J. M. C. Bowsher, and J. D. Stewart, ‘The Jerash North Theater: Architecture and Archaeo­logy, 1982–1983’, in F.  Zayadine (ed.), Jerash Archaeo­logical Project, i: 1981–1983 (Amman: Department of Antiquities of Jordan), pp. 247–51. Cohen, R. 1981. Archaeo­logical Survey of Israel: Map of Sede Boqeq East (168) 13–03, Archaeo­logical Survey of Israel ( Jerusalem: Archaeo­logical Survey of Israel). ——  1985. Archaeo­logical Survey of Israel: Map of Sede Boqeq West (167) 12–03, Archaeo­logical Survey of Israel ( Jerusalem: Archaeo­ logical Survey of Israel). Corbo, V. 1955. Gli scavi di Khirbat Siyar el Ghanam (Campo dei pastori) e i monasteri dei dintorni, Publications of the Studium Biblicum Franciscanum, 11 ( Jerusalem: Franciscan Printing Press). Cottica, D. 2000. ‘Unguentari tardo antichi dal Martyrion di Hierapolis, Turchia’, Mélanges de l’École Française de Rome: Antiquité, 112: 999–1021. Crawford, J. S. 1990. The Byzantine Shops at Sardis, Archaeo­logical Exploration of Sardis, 9 (Cam­bridge, MA: Harvard Uni­ver­sity Press). Crowfoot, G. M. 1936. ‘The Nabatean Ware of Sbaita’, Palestine Exploration Quarterly, 68: 14–27. Crowfoot, J.  W., G.  M. Crowfoot, and K.  M. Kenyon. 1957. Samaria-Sebaste, iii: The Objects from Samaria (London: Palestine Exploration Fund). Crowfoot, J. W. and G. M. Fitzgerald. 1929. Excavations in the Tyropoeon Valley, Jerusalem, 1927, Palestinian Exploration Fund, 5 (London: Palestine Exploration Fund). Culclausure, D. N. 2017. ‘The Supply of the Roman Military in Wadi Arabah during Late Antiquity (ca. 284–636 ce)’ (unpublished master’s thesis, Raleigh, North Carolina State Uni­ver­sity). Cyntryn-Silverman, K. 2010. ‘The Ceramic Evidence’, in O. Gutfeld (ed.), Ramla: Final Report on the Excavations North of the White Mosque, Qedem, 51 ( Jerusalem: The Institute of Archaeo­logy of the Hebrew Uni­ver­sity of Jerusalem), pp. 97–212. Da Kosta, K. 2007. ‘The Limits of Long-Distance Exchange: Evidence from Sixth Century Palestina/Arabia’, in A.  Harris (ed.), Incipient Globalization? Long-Distance Contacts in the Sixth Century, British Archaeo­logical Reports, International Series, 1644 (Oxford: Archaeopress), pp. 35–45. Damati, E. 2007. ‘Tel Barom’, ‘Atiqot, 55: 63–81 (Hebrew). Dauphin, C. 1981. ‘Dor, Byzantine Church, 1980’, Israel Exploration Journal, 31: 117–19. ——  1991. ‘The Excavation of a Byzantine Site at Khirbet Jannaba Et-Tahta’, ‘Atiqot, 20: 111–17. Dauphin, C. and S.  Gibson. 1994–95. ‘The Byzantine City of Dor/Dora Discovered’, Bulletin of the Anglo-Israel Archaeo­logical Society, 14: 9–38. Daviau, P. M. M. 2010. ‘The Pottery: A Functional and Formal Typo­logy’, in P. M. M. Daviau (ed.), Excavations at Tall Jawa, Jordan, iv: The Early Islamic House (Leiden: Brill), pp. 171–292. De Vincenz, A. 2013. ‘Fine Wares: Byzantine–Early Islamic Wares’, in E. M. Meyers and C. L. Meyers (eds), Sepphoris, i: The Pottery from Ancient Sepphoris (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns), pp. 142–227. ——  2015. ‘The Roman, Byzantine, and Early Islamic Pottery’, in V. W. Avrutis, Wine Presses at the Nesher-Ramla Quarry: A Thousand Years of Winemaking ( Jerusalem: Zinman Institute of Archaeo­logy), pp. 99–186. De Vincenz, A. and O. Sion. 2007. ‘Two Pottery Assemblages from Khirbat el-Ni’ana’, ‘Atiqot, 51: 21–52. Decker, M. J. 2013. ‘The End of the Holy Land Wine Trade’, Strata: Bulletin of the Anglo-Israel Archaeo­logical Society, 31: 103–16. Delougaz, P. and R. C. Haines. 1960. A Byzantine Church at Khirbat al Karak, Oriental Institute Publications, 85 (Chicago: Uni­ ver­sity of Chicago Press). Demesticha, S. 2003. ‘Amphora Production on Cyprus during the Late Roman Period’, in Association International pour l’Étude des Céramiques Médiévales Mediterranéenes (ed.), VIIe Congrès international sur la céramique médieval en Méditerranée, Thessaloniki, 11–16 October 1999 (Athens: Caisse des Recettes Archéo­logiques), pp. 469–76. ——  2014. ‘Late Roman Amphora Typo­logy in Context’, in N. Poulou-Papadimitriou, E. Nodarou, and V. Kilikoglou (eds), LRCW, iv.1: Late Roman Coarse Wares, Cooking Wares and Amphorae in the Mediterranean: Archaeo­logy and Archaeometry: The Medi­ ter­ranean: A  Market without Frontiers, British Archaeo­logical Reports, International Series, 2616 (Oxford: Archaeopress), pp. 599–606.

284

Alexandra Uscatescu

Demesticha, S. and D. Michaelides. 2001. ‘The Excavations of a Late Roman 1 Amphora Kiln in Paphos’, in E. Villeneuve and P. M. Watson (eds), La céramique byzantine et proto-islamique en Syrie-Jordanie (IVe-VIIIe siécles apr. J.-C.): actes du colloque tenu à Amman les 3, 4 et 5 décembre 1994, Bibliothèque Archéo­logique et Historique, 159 (Beirut: Institut Français d’Archéo­logie du Proche-Orient), pp. 289–96. Derda, T. 1992. ‘Inscriptions with the Formula θεοῦ χάρις κέρδος on Late Roman Amphorae’, Zeitschrift für Papyro­logie und Epi­ graphik, 94: 135–52. Desreumaux, A. and J.-B. Humbert. 1981. ‘Hirbet es-Samra’ (contribution à l’épi­graphie syro-palestinienne, augmentée de quatre inscriptions en grec)’, Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan, 25: 33–83. Dothan, M. 1955. ‘The Excavation at ‘Afula’, ‘Atiqot, 1: 19–70. ——  1983. Hammath Tiberias: Early Synagogues and the Hellenistic and Roman Remains ( Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society). Dothan, M. and D. N. Freedman. 1967. Ashdod, i: The First Season of Excavations, 1962, ‘Atiqot, 7 ( Jerusalem: Israel Department of Antiquities and Museums). Dressel, H. 1891. Corpus inscriptionum Latinarum, xv: Inscriptiones urbis Romae Latinae, 1: Instrumentum domesticum (Berlin: Reimer). Duncan, J. G. 1930. Corpus of Dated Palestinian Pottery, British School of Archaeo­logy in Egypt (London: Uni­ver­sity College). Eadie, J. W. 1984. ‘Humayma 1983: The Regional Survey’, Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan, 28: 211–24. Egloff, M. 1977. Kellia: la potterie copte: quatre siècles d’artisanat et d’échanges en Basse-Égypte, Recherches suisses d’archéo­logie copte, 3 (Geneva: Georg). El-Khouri, L. 2014a. ‘Byzantine and Umayyad Period Pottery at Barsinia (2006 Season of Excavation)’, Palestine Exploration Quarterly, 146: 308–31. ——  2014b. ‘Late Roman Fine Pottery from Gadara (Umm Qais), 2011 Season of Excavation’, Mediterranean Archaeo­logy and Archaeometry, 14.2: 115–38. Empereur, J.-Y. 1985. ‘Le Port. Rapport sur les travaux de l’école française à Amathonte de Chypre en 1984’, Bulletin de Correspondance Héllenique, 109: 984–89. Empereur, J.-Y. and M. Picon. 1986. ‘À propos d’un nouvel atelier de Late Roman C’, Figlina, 7: 143–46. ——  1989. ‘Les Régions de production d’amphores impériales en Méditerranée Orientale’, in Amphores romaines et histoire économique: dix ans de recherche: actes du colloque de Sienne (1986), Collection de l’École Française de Rome, 114 (Rome: École Française de Rome), pp. 223–48. ——  1992. ‘La Reconnaissance des productions des ateliers céramiques: l’exemple de la Maréotide’, Cahiers de la céramique égyptienne, 3: 145–52. Engemann, J. 1992. ‘À propos des amphores d’Abou Mina’, Cahiers de la céramique égyptienne, 3: 153–59. Erickson-Gini, T., B. J. Dolinka, and L. Shilov. 2015. ‘A Late Byzantine Industrial Quarter and Early Islamic-Periods Finds at Ḥorbat Be’er Shema’’, ‘Atiqot, 83: 209–48. Erlich, A. 2017. ‘A Roman Pottery Kiln at Khirbet ‘Azzun (Ra’anana), Israel’, Levant, 49: 192–204. Erten, H. N. and others. 2004. ‘The Typo­logy and Trade of the Amphora of Sinope: Archaeo­logical Study and Scientific Analyses’, in J. Eiring and J. Lund (eds), Transport Amphorae and Trade in the Eastern Mediterranean: Acts of the International Colloquium at the Danish Institute at Athens, September 26–29, 2002, Mono­graphs of the Danish Institute at Athens (Aarhus: Aarhus Uni­ ver­sity Press), pp. 103–16. Escobar, J. 1976. ‘Estudio de los restos arqueológicos de Tecoa’, Liber Annuus, 26: 1–26. Fabian, P. and H. Goldfus. 2004. ‘A Byzantine Farmhouse, Terraces and Agricultural Installations at the Goral Hills near Be’er Sheva’’, ‘Atiqot, 47: 1–14 (Hebrew). Fabian, P. and Y. Goren. 2001. ‘A Byzantine Warehouse and Anchorage South of Ashqelon’, ‘Atiqot, 42: 210–19. ——  2002. ‘A New Type of Late Roman Storage Jar from the Negev’, in J. H. Humphrey (ed.), The Roman and Byzantine Near East, iii, Journal of Roman Archaeo­logy, suppl. 49 (Portsmouth, RI: Journal of Roman Archaeo­logy), pp. 145–53. Fabiâo, C. and A. Carvalho. 1990. ‘Ânforas de Lusitânia: uma perspectiva’, in A. Moutinho de Alarcâo and F. Mayet (eds), As Ânforas lusitanas: tipo­logia, produçâo, comércio (Paris: De Boccard), pp. 37–63. Feig, N. 1985. ‘Pottery, Glass, and Coins from Magen’, Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, 258: 33–40. ——  2002. ‘Salvage Excavation at Meron’, ‘Atiqot, 43: 87–107. ——  2003. ‘Excavations at Beit Ṣafafa: Iron Age II and Byzantine Agricultural Installations South of Jerusalem’, ‘Atiqot, 44: 191–238. Fentress, E. and P. Perkins. 1988. ‘Counting African Red Slip Ware’, in A. Mastino (ed.), L’Africa romana, v (Sassari: Pubblicazzioni del Dipartamento di Storia dell’Università di Sassari), pp. 205–14. Fentress, E. and others. 2004. ‘Accounting for ARSW: Fineware and Sites in Sicily and Africa’, in S. E. Alcock and J. F. Cherry (eds), Side-by-Side Survey: Comparative Regional Studies in the Mediterranean World (Oxford: Oxbow), pp. 147–62. Ferrazzoli, A. F. 2010. ‘Economy of Roman Eastern Rough Cilicia: Some Archaeo­logical Indicators’, Bolletino di Archeo­logia on line, 1: 30–50.

7. Late Antique Ceramic Imports in Gerasa

285

Fiema, Z., R.  Schick, and K. ‘Amr, 1995. ‘The Petra Church Project: Interim Report, 1992–1994’, in J.  H. Humphrey (ed.), The Roman and Byzantine Near East, i: Some Recent Archaeo­logical Research, Journal of Roman Archaeo­logy, suppl. 14 (Portsmouth, RI: Journal of Roman Archaeo­logy), pp. 293–303. Finkielsztejn, G. 2000. ‘Amphoras and Stamped Handles from ‘Akko’, ‘Atiqot, 39: 135–53. Fischer, M. and I. Taxel. 2014. ‘Yavneh-Yam in the Byzantine-Early Islamic Transition: The Archaeo­logical Remains and their SocioPolitical Implication’, Israel Exploration Journal, 64: 212–42. Fisher, C. S. 1938. ‘The Southwest Cemetery’, in C. H. Kraeling (ed.), Gerasa, City of the Decapolis: An Account Embodying the Record of a Joint Excavation Conducted by Yale Uni­ver­sity and the British School of Archaeo­logy in Jerusalem (1928–1930), and Yale Uni­ ver­sity and the American Schools of Oriental Research (New Haven: American Schools of Oriental Research), pp. 549–71. Fisher, C. S. and C. C. McCown. 1929–30. ‘Jerash-Gerasa 1930: A Preliminary Report of the First Two Campaigns of the Joint Expedition of Yale Uni­ver­sity and the American Schools of Oriental Research’, Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research, 11: 1–62. Fitzgerald, G. M. 1931. Beth Shean Excavations, 1921–1923: The Arab and Byzantine Levels (Philadelphia: Uni­ver­sity of Pennsylvania Press). Flanagan, J.  W., D.  W. McCreery, and K.  N. Yassine. 1994. ‘Tell Nimrin Preliminary Report on the 1993 Season’, Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan, 38: 205–44. Fleitman, Y. H. 2015. ‘Area A: Late Roman and Byzantine Pottery’, in E. Mazar (ed.), The Ophel Excavations to the South of the Temple Mount 2009–2013: Final Reports, i ( Jerusalem: Old City Press), pp. 149–59. Fleitman, Y. H. and E. Mazar. 2015. ‘The Late Roman and Byzantine Pottery from the 2012–2013 Excavation Season: Areas Upper A, B and C’, in E. Mazar (ed.), The Ophel Excavations to the South of the Temple Mount 2009–2013: Final Reports, i ( Jerusalem: Old City Press), pp. 211–91. Foran, D. C. and others. 2004. ‘The Tall Mādabā Archaeo­logical Project: Preliminary Report of the 2002 Field Season’, Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan, 48: 79–96. Fowler, A. 1990. ‘The Pottery of Zur Natan’, in E. Matthews, W. Neidinger, and E. Ayalon (eds), Preliminary Report on the Excavations of Zur Natan, 1989 and 1990 Season (Houston: The Texas Foundation for Archaeo­logical and Historical Research), pp. 34–51. Frankel, R. 1992. ‘Some Oil Presses from Western Galilee’, Bulletin of the American Schools Oriental Research, 286: 39–71. ——  1999. Wine and Oil Production in Antiquity in Israel and Other Mediterranean Countries, American Schools of Oriental Research Mono­graph Series, 10 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press). Freed, J. 1995. ‘The Late Series of Tunisian Cylindrical Amphoras at Carthage’, Journal of Roman Archaeo­logy, 8: 155–91. Fulford, M. 1984a. ‘The Coarse (Kitchen and Domestic) and Painted Wares’, in M. Fulford and D. P. S. Peacock (eds), Excavations at Carthage: The British Mission, i: The Avenue du Président Habib Bourghiba, Salammbo, 2: The Pottery and Other Ceramic Objects from the Site (Sheffield: British Academy), pp. 155–231. ——  1984b. ‘The Red-Slipped Wares’, in M.  Fulford and D.  P.  S. Peacock (eds), Excavations at Carthage: The British Mission, i: The Avenue du Président Habib Bourghiba, Salammbo, 2: The Pottery and Other Ceramic Objects from the Site (Sheffield: British Academy), pp. 48–115. Gadot, Y. and Y. Tepper. 2003. ‘A Late Byzantine Pottery Workshop at Khirbet Baraqa’, Tel Aviv, 30: 130–62. Gady, M. E. 2005. ‘El Qubab’, ‘Atiqot, 51: 55–67 (Hebrew). Gatier, P.-L. 1988. ‘Le Commerce maritime de Gaza au VIème siècle’, Cahiers d’histoire, 33.3–4: Navires et commerces de la Méditerranée antique: hommage à Jean Rougé, 1988: 361–70. Gawlikowski, M. 1986. ‘A Residential Area by the South Decumanus’, in F. Zayadine (ed.), Jerash Archaeo­logical Project, i: 1981–1983 (Amman: Department of Antiquities of Jordan), pp. 107–36. Gendelman, P. 2012. ‘The Pottery from Ḥorbat Biẓ’a’, ‘Atiqot, 70: 33–47. Gerber, Y. 2001. ‘Selected Ceramic Deposits’, in Z.  T. Fiema and others (eds), The Petra Church (Amman: American Centre for Oriental Research), pp. 359–69. ——  2008. ‘The Byzantine and Early Islamic Pottery from Jabal Hārūn’, in Z. T. Fiema and J. Frösén (eds), Petra – The Mountain of Aaron: The Finnish Archaeo­logical Project in Jordan, i: The Church and the Chapel (Helsinki: Societas Scientiarum Fennica), pp. 287–310. Gerber, Y. and V. Holmqvist. 2008. ‘Appendix: The Catalog of Ceramics from Selected Deposits Associated with the Church and the Chapel’, in Z. T. Fiema and J. Frösén (eds), Petra – The Mountain of Aaron: The Finnish Archaeo­logical Project in Jordan, i: The Church and the Chapel (Helsinki: Societas Scientiarum Fennica), pp. 311–29. Ghalia, T., M. Bonifay, and C. Capelli. 2005. ‘L’Atelier de Sidi Zahruni: mise en evidence d’une production d’amphores de l’antiquité tardive sur le territoire de la cité de Neapolis (Nabeul, Tunisie)’, in J. M. Gurt, J. Buxeda, and M. A. Cau (eds), LRCW, i: Late Roman Coarse Wares, Cooking Wares and Amphorae in the Mediterranean: Archaeo­logy and Archaeometry, British Archaeo­logical Reports, International Series, 1340 (Oxford: Archaeopress), pp. 495–507.

286

Alexandra Uscatescu

Ghrayyib, R. 2004. ‘Preliminary Report of the Excavations at al-‘Aluk and al-Masarrat 2002/2003/2004’, Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan, 48: 23–36 (Arab). Gibson, S., F. Vitto, and L. Di Segni. 1998. ‘An Unknown Church with Inscriptions from the Byzantine Period at Khirbet Makkūs near Julis’, Liber Annuus, 48: 315–34. Gichon, M. 1974. ‘Fine Byzantine Wares from the South of Israel’, Palestine Exploration Fund, 106: 119–39. ——  1993. En Boqeq: Ausgrabungen in Einer Oase am Toten Meer, i: Geo­graphie und Geschichte der Oase: Das SpätrömischeByzantinische Kastell (Mainz am Rhein: Von Zabern). Gil, Z. 2000. ‘Haifa, Khirbet Tinani’, Ḥadashot Arkheo­logiyot: Excavations and Surveys in Israel, 111: 20–21. Glucker, C. A. M. 1987. The City of Gaza in the Roman and Byzantine Periods, British Archaeo­logical Reports, International Series, 325 (Oxford: Archaeopress). Golani, A. 2005. ‘Salvage Excavation in the Modi’in Landscape’, ‘Atiqot, 50: 73–97. Gomez, B. and others. 1996. ‘Clays Used in the Manufacture of Cypriot Red Slip Pottery and Related Ceramics’, Report of the Department of Antiquities of Cyprus, 1996: 69–82. Gophna, R., I. Taxel, and A. Feldstein. 2007. ‘Kafr ‘Ana: A Rural Settlement in the Lod Valley’, Salvage Excavation Reports, 4: 3–138. Gorzalczany, A. 2009. ‘An Early Islamic Site and a Late Islamic Cemetery in Arab Kefar Sava’, ‘Atiqot, 61: 83–96. Grace, V. 1934. ‘The American Excavations in the Athenian Agora. Fourth Report: Stamped Amphora Handles Found in 1931–1932’, Hesperia, 3: 197–310. Greenhut, Z. 1998. ‘Ḥorvat Ḥermeshit (1988–1990)’, ‘Atiqot, 34: 121–72 (Hebrew). Greenhut, Z. and D. Weiss. 2000. ‘Bet Zayit’, Ḥadashot Arkheo­logiyot: Excavations and Surveys in Israel, 111: 99–100 (Hebrew). Grey, A. 2014. ‘Esdraela: The Ceramic Record from a Settlement of Hellenistic and Roman Times to Late Antiquity in Palestine’, Palestine Exploration Quarterly, 146: 105–34. Grey, A. D. 1994. ‘The Pottery of the Later Periods from Tel Jezreel: An Interim Report’, Levant, 26: 51–62. Grey, A. D. and K. D. Politis. 2012. ‘The Pottery’, in K. D. Politis (ed.), The Sanctuary of Lot at Deir ‘Ain ‘Abata in Jordan: Excavations 1988–2003 (Amman: Jordan Distribution Agency), pp. 179–205. Groh, D. E. 1990. ‘The Late Roman Fine Wares of the Gush Ḥalav Synagogue’, in E. M. Meyers and others, Excavations at the Ancient Synagogue of Gush Ḥalav (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns), pp. 139–48. Gualandi, G. 1978. ‘Bosra: La Seconda campagna di scavi della chiesa dei Ss Sergio, Bacco e Leonzio’, Felix Ravenna, 115: 67–124. Gunneweg, J., I.  Perlman, and J.  Yellin. 1983. The Provenience, Typo­logy and Chrono­logy of Eastern Terra Sigillata, Qedem, 17 ( Jerusalem: The Institute of Archaeo­logy of the Hebrew Uni­ver­sity of Jerusalem). Hachlili, R. 2009. Ancient Mosaic Pavements: Themes, Issues, and Trends (Leiden: Brill). Hadas, G. 2005. ‘Excavations at the Village of ‘Ein Gedi: 1993–1995’, ‘Atiqot, 49: 41–71 (Hebrew). Haddad, E. 2009. ‘Roman Byzantine Amphorae from a Terrestrial Site and its Underwater Environs: Horbat Castra and Kfar Samir (Southern Levant) as a Case Study’, Levant, 41: 79–91. ——  2013a. ‘An Early Islamic-Period Roadbed (?) in Ramla’, ‘Atiqot, 75: 31–44 (Hebrew). ——  2013b. ‘Remains of a Public Building from the Byzantine Period and a Farmhouse from Early Islamic Period North of Tel Lod’, ‘Atiqot, 76: 23–39 (Hebrew). Haldimann, M.-A. 1992. ‘Les implantations omeyyades dans le Balqa: L’apport d’Umm el-Walid’, Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan, 36: 307–23. Hamilton, R. W. 1934. ‘Note on a Chapel and Winepress at ‘Ain El Jedide’, The Quarterly of the Department of Antiquities of Palestine, 4: 111–17. ——  1940. ‘Excavation against the North Wall of Jerusalem’, The Quarterly of the Department of Antiquities of Palestine, 10: 1–54. Hammond, P. C. 1965. The Excavation of the Main Theater at Petra, 1961–1962: Final Report (London: Quaritch). Hanbury-Tenison, J. W. and others. 1984. ‘Wadi Arab Survey 1983’, Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan, 28: 385–424. Harding, G. L. 1951. ‘Excavations on the Citadel, Amman’, Annual of the Department of Antiquities, 1: 7–16. Harper, R. P. 1995. ‘The Pottery’, in R. P. Harper (ed.), Upper Zohar: An Early Byzantine Fort in Palaestina Tertia: Final Report of Excavations in 1985–1986, British Academy Mono­graph in Archaeo­logy, 9 (Oxford: Oxford Uni­ver­sity Press), pp. 21–33. Harrison, T. P. 1994. ‘A Sixth Century Ceramic Assemblage from Madaba, Jordan’, Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan, 38: 429–46. Harrison, T.  P. and others. 2003. ‘The Tall Mādabā Archaeo­logical Project: Preliminary Report of the 1998–2000 Field Season’, Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan, 47: 129–48. Hartley, B. R. and B. M. Dickinson. 2012. Names on Terra Sigillata: An Index of Markers’ Stamps and Signatures on Gallo-Roman Terra Sigillata (Samian Ware), ix: T to Ximus (London: Institute of Classical Studies, Uni­ver­sity of London). Hartley, K. F. 1973. ‘La Diffussion des mortiers, tuiles et autres produits en provenance des fabriques italiennes’, Cahiers d’Archéo­logie Subaquatique, 2: 39–60. Hässer, J. and D.  Vieweger. 2005. ‘Preliminary Report on the Archaeo­logical Investigations of the Wādī al-‘Arab and Tall Zar’a, 2003–2004’, Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan, 49: 135–46.

7. Late Antique Ceramic Imports in Gerasa

287

Hayes, J. W. 1971. ‘A New Type of Early Christian Ampulla’, Annual of the British School at Athens, 66: 243–48. ——  1972. Late Roman Pottery: A Catalogue of Roman Fine Wares (London: The British School at Rome). ——  1978. ‘Pottery Report – 1976’, in J. H. Humphrey (ed.), Excavations at Carthage Conducted by the Uni­ver­sity of Michigan, 1976, iv (Ann Arbor: Kelsey Museum, Uni­ver­sity of Michigan), pp. 23–98. ——  1980a. ‘Problèmes de la céramique des VIIème-IXème siècles à Salamine et à Chypre’, in C. Diederich (ed.), Salamine de Chypre: histoire et archéo­logie: état des recherches (Lyon 1978) (Paris: Éd. CNRS), pp. 375–87. ——  1980b. Supplement to Late Roman Pottery (London: The British School at Rome). ——  1985. ‘Hellenistic to Byzantine Fine Wares and Derivatives in the Jerusalem Corpus’, in A. D. Tushingham (ed.), Excavations in Jerusalem 1961–1967, i (Toronto: Royal Ontario Museum), pp. 181–94. ——  1992. Excavations at Saraçhane in Istambul, ii: The Pottery (Princeton: Princeton Uni­ver­sity Press). ——  1998. ‘Introduction. The Study of Roman Pottery in the Mediterranean: 23 Years after Late Roman Pottery’, in L. Saguì (ed.), Ceramica in Italia: VI–VII secolo: atti del convegno in onore di John W. Hayes (Roma, 11–13 maggio 1995), Biblioteca di Archeo­ logia Medi­evale (Florence: All’insegna del Giglio), pp. 9–21. ——  2000. ‘From Rome to Beirut and Beyond: Asia Minor and Eastern Mediterranean Trade Connections’, Rei Cretariae Romanae Fautorum Acta, 36: 285–97. ——  2001. ‘Late Roman Fine Wares and their Successors: A  Mediterranean Byzantine Perspective (with Reference to the SyroJordanian Situation)’, in E. Villeneuve and P. M. Watson (eds), La céramique byzantine et proto-islamique en Syrie-Jordanie (IVeVIIIe siécles apr. J.-C.): actes du colloque tenu à Amman les 3, 4 et 5 décembre 1994, Bibliothèque Archéo­logique et Historique, 159 (Beirut: Institut Français d’Archéo­logie du Proche-Orient), pp. 275–82. ——  2003. ‘Greece’, in M. Bonifay (ed.), ‘Table ronde de Rome à Byzance; de Fostat à Cordoue: évolution des faciès céramiques en Méditerranée (Ve-IXe siècles)’, in Association International pour l’Étude des Céramiques Médiévales Mediterranéenes (ed.), VIIe Congrès international sur la céramique médieval en Méditerranée, Thessaloniki, 11–16 October 1999 (Athens: Caisse des Recettes Archéo­logiques), pp. 529–34. ——  2008. The Athenian Agora, xxxii: Roman Pottery, Fine-Wares Imports (Princeton: The American Schools of Classical Studies at Athens). Helen, T. 1975. Organization of Roman Brick Production in the First and Second Centuries ad: An Interpretation of Roman Brick Stamps, Annales Accademiae Scientiarum Fennica, Dissertationes Humanorum Litterarum, 5 (Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia). Hirschfeld, Y. 1985. Archaeo­logical Survey of Israel: Map of Herodium (1081/2) ( Jerusalem: Archaeo­logical Survey of Israel). Hirschfeld, Y. and R.  Birger-Calderon. 1991. ‘Early Roman and Byzantine Estates near Caesarea’, Israel Exploration Journal, 41: 81–111. Hirschfeld, Y. and A. Kloner. 1988–89. ‘Khirbet el Qasr: A Byzantine Fort in the Judean Desert’, Bulletin of the Anglo-Israel Archaeo­ logical Society, 8: 5–20. Holm-Nielsen, S., I. Nielsen, and F. G. Andersen. 1986. ‘Excavation of Byzantine Baths in Umm Qeis’, Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan, 30: 219–32. Horsfield, G. and A.  Horsfield. 1942. ‘Sela-Petra, the Rock of Edom and Nabatene: The Finds’, Quarterly of the Department of Antiquities of Palestine, 9: 105–205. Iliffe, J. H. 1936. ‘Sigillata Ware in the Near East: A List of Potter’s Stamps’, Quarterly of the Department of Antiquities in Palestine, 6: 4–54. Incitti, M. 1986. ‘Osservazione sulle anfore’, in M.  Incitti, R.  Meneghini, and C.  Mocchegiani Carpano, ‘Lungotevere Testaccio’, Bulletino della Commissione Archeo­logica Communale di Roma, 91.2: 586–93. Israel, Y. 1993a. ‘Ashqelon’, Ḥadashot Arkheo­logiyot: Excavations and Surveys in Israel, 100: 100–05. ——  1993b. ‘Survey of Pottery Workshops, Nahal Lakhish-Nahal Besor’, Ḥadashot Arkheo­logiyot: Excavations and Surveys in Israel, 100: 106–07. ——  1999. ‘Khirbet Irza’, Ḥadashot Arkheo­logiyot: Excavations and Surveys in Israel, 107: 80–81 (Hebrew). Israel, Y. and T.  Erickson-Gini. 2013. ‘Remains from the Hellenistic through the Byzantine Periods at the Third Mile Estate, Ashqelon’, ‘Atiqot, 74: 167–222. Israel, Y., G. Seriy, and O. Fedor. 2013. ‘Remains of a Byzantine and Early Islamic Rural Settlement at the Be’er Sheva North Train Station’, ‘Atiqot, 73: 51–76 (Hebrew). Jabour, I. and B. Davidson-Yekutiel. 2000. ‘Ḥorbat Tittora’, Ḥadashot Arkheo­logiyot: Excavations and Surveys in Israel, 111: 60–62 (Hebrew). Jackson, M. and others. 2012. ‘Primary Evidence for Late Roman D Ware Production in Southern Asia Minor: A  Challenge to “Cypriot Red Slip Ware”’, Anatolian Studies, 62: 89–114. Jäggi, C. and others. 1998. ‘Temple, Kiln, and Church: Fourth Interim Report on the Jarash Cathedral Project (Autumn 1997)’, Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan, 52: 425–32.

288

Alexandra Uscatescu

Johnson, B. L. 1986. ‘Syro-Palestinian Bag-Shaped Amphoras in the Athenian Agora and Corinth Collections’, in J.-Y. Empereur and Y. Garlan (eds), Recherches sur les amphores grecques, Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique, suppl. 18 (Athens: École Français d’Athens), pp. 589–97. ——  1988. ‘The Pottery’, in G.  Davidson Weinberg (ed.), Excavations at Jalame: Site of a Glass Factory in Late Roman Palestine (Columbia: Uni­ver­sity of Missouri Press), pp. 137–226. ——  2008. Ashkelon, ii: Imported Pottery of the Roman and Late Roman Periods: Final Reports of the Leon Levi Expedition to Ashkelon, Harvard Semitic Publications (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns). Joly, M. and P.-M. Blanc. 1995. ‘Nouvelles donnés sur la céramique de Bosra’, in H. Meyza and J. Młynarczyk (eds), Hellenistic and Roman Pottery in the Eastern Mediterranean: Advances in Scientific Studies: Acts of the 2nd Nieborów Pottery Workshop (Warsaw: Research Center for Mediterranean Archaeo­logy, Polish Academy of Sciences), pp. 111–34. Joncheray, J.-P. 1972. ‘Contribution à l’étude de l’épave Dramont D, dite des pelvis d’après les travaux du groupe d’études sous-marines de Saint-Raphael’, Cahiers d’Archéo­logie Subaquatique, 1: 11–34. Kaptijn, E. 2009. Life on the Watershed: Reconstructing Subsistence in a Steppe Region Using Archaeo­logical Survey: A  Diachronic Perspective on Habitation in the Jordan Valley (Leiden: Sidestone). Kareem, J. 2001. ‘The Pottery from the First Season of Excavations at Khirbet Nakhil’, in E. Villeneuve and P. M. Watson (eds), La céramique byzantine et proto-islamique en Syrie-Jordanie (IVe-VIIIe siécles apr. J.-C.): actes du colloque tenu à Amman les 3, 4 et 5 décembre 1994, Bibliothèque Archéo­logique et Historique, 159 (Beirut: Institut Français d’Archéo­logie du Proche-Orient), pp. 77–93. Kassab Tezgör, D. 2010. ‘Le réseau commercial des amphores sinopéennes entre les IIe-IIIe siécles et le VIe siècle de notre ère’, in D. Kassab Tezgör and N. Inaishvili (eds), Patabs, i: Production and Trade of Amphora in the Black Sea: actes de la table ronde international de Batoumi et Trabzon (27–29 avril 2006), Varia Anatolica, 21 (Istanbul: Institut Français d’Études AnatoliennesGeorges Dumézil), pp. 167–73. Kassab Tezgör, D., S. Lemaître, and D. Pieri. 2003. ‘La collection d’amphores d’Ismail Karakan à Sinop’, Anatolia Antiqua, 9: 169–200. Kassab Tezgör, D. and M. Touma. 2001. ‘Amphores exportées de mer Noire en Syrie du Nord’, Anatolia Antiqua, 9: 105–15. Katz, O. 1993. ‘Be’er Sheva, Nahal Beqa’ 1’, Ḥadashot Arkheo­logiyot: Excavations and Surveys in Israel, 99: 96–97. Keay, S. J. 1984. Late Roman Amphorae in the Western Mediterranean: A Typo­logy and Economic Study: The Catalan Evidence, British Archaeo­logical Reports, International Series, 196 (Oxford: Archaeopress). ——  1998. ‘African Amphorae’, in L. Saguì (ed.), Ceramica in Italia: VI–VII secolo: atti del convegno in onore di John W. Hayes (Roma, 11–13 maggio 1995), Biblioteca di Archeo­logia Medi­evale (Florence: All’insegna del Giglio), pp. 141–55. Kelso, J. L. and D. C. Baramki. 1949–50. Excavation at New Testament Jericho and Khirbet en-Nitla, Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research, 29–30 (New Haven: Yale Uni­ver­sity Press). Kenrich, P. 2000. ‘Fine Wares from the City Wall Section at Bait Nawashi (Area XLII)’, Archäo­logischer Anzeiger, 2000: 235–65. Kerner, S. 1997. ‘Umm Qays-Gadara: A  Preliminary Report 1993–1995’, Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan, 41: 283–302. Khalaily, H. and M. Avissar. 2008. ‘Khirbat ‘Adasa: A Farmstead of the Umayyad and Mamluk Periods in Northern Jerusalem’, ‘Atiqot, 58: 91–122 (Hebrew). Khalil, L. and J. Kareem. 2002. ‘Abbasid Pottery from Area E at Khirbat Yajuz, Jordan’, Levant, 33: 111–50. Kingsley, S. A. 1994–95. ‘Bag-Shaped Amphorae and Byzantine Trade: Expanding Horizons’, Bulletin of the Anglo-Israel Archaeo­ logical Society, 14: 39–56. ——  2003a. ‘Late Antique Trade: Research Methodo­logies and Field Practices’, in L. Lavan and W. Bowden (eds), Theory and Practice in Late Antique Archaeo­logy (Leiden: Brill), pp. 113–38. ——  2003b. ‘The Dor D Shipwreck and the Holy Land Wine Trade’, The International Journal of Nautical Archaeo­logy, 32: 85–90. Kingsley, S.  A. and M.  Decker. 2001. ‘New Rome, New Theories on Inter-Regional Exchange: An Introduction to the East Mediterranean Economy in Late Antiquity’, in S.  A. Kingsley and M.  Decker (eds), Economy and Exchange in the East Mediterranean during Late Antiquity (Oxford: Oxbow), pp. 1–27. Kingsley, S. A. and K. Raveh. 1994. ‘Stone Anchors from Byzantine Contexts in Dor Harbour, Israel’, The International Journal of Nautical Archaeo­logy, 23: 1–12. Kirwan, L. P. 1938. ‘The Pottery’, in W. B. Emery and L. P. Kirwan, The Royal Tombs of Ballana and Qustul: Mission Archéo­logique de Nubie 1929–1934 (Cairo: Service des Antiquités de l’Égypte), pp. 386–99. Kletter, R. 2005. ‘Early Islamic Remains at ‘Opher Park, Ramla’, ‘Atiqot, 49: 57–99. Kletter, R. and Y. Rapuano. 1998. ‘A Roman Well at Khirbet Ibreiktas’, ‘Atiqot, 35: 42–59. Kletter, R. and E. J. Stern. 2006. ‘A Mamluk-Period Site at Khirbat Burin in the Eastern Sharon’, ‘Atiqot, 51: 175–214. Kogan-Zehavi, E. 1999. ‘A Painted Tomb of the Roman Period at Migdal Ashqelon’, ‘Atiqot, 37: 181–209. ——  2012. ‘Tombs and Installation from the Iron Age II to the Byzantine Periods from South Ḥorbat Tittora’, ‘Atiqot, 72: 13–92. Kogan-Zehavi, E. and S. Hadad. 2012. ‘A Building and an Olive Press from the Byzantine-Abbasid Periods at Khirbat El-Thahiriya’, ‘Atiqot, 71: 81–112 (Hebrew).

7. Late Antique Ceramic Imports in Gerasa

289

Kogan-Zehavi, E. and Y. Zelinger. 2008. ‘The Agricultural Hinterland West of Ḥorbat Barfiliya, Modi’n’, ‘Atiqot, 57: 1–27. Kol-Ya’akov, S. and Y. Farhi. 2012. ‘Ashqelon (al-Nabi-Ḥussein): Evidence for the Burial of Jews, Christians and Pagans in a Late Roman Period Burial Ground’, ‘Atiqot, 70: 87–111. Koutsoukou, A. and M. Najjar. 1997. ‘The Pottery’, in A. Koutsoukou and others (eds), The Great Temple of Amman: The Excavations, The American Center of Oriental Research Occasional Papers, 3 (Amman: The American Center of Oriental Research), pp. 55–118. Lafli, E. 2003. Studien zu hellenistischen, kaiserzeitlichen und spätantik-frühbyzantinischen Tonunguentarien aus Kilikien und Pisidien (Südtürkei): Der Forschungsstand und eine Auswahl von Fundobjekten aus den örtlichen Museen (Co­logne: Köln Universität). Laíz, M. D. and M. del C. Berrocal. 1991. ‘Un vertedero tardío en c/ Duque, 33’, Antigüedad y Cristianismo, 8: 321–40. Landgraf, J. 1980. ‘Keisan’s Byzantine Pottery’, in J.  Briend and J.-B.  Humbert, Tell Keisan (1971–1976) une cité phénicienne en Galilée, Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis, Series Archaeo­logica, 1 (Fribourg: Éditions universitaires), pp. 51–99. Langgut, D. and others. 2015. ‘Resolving Historical Earthquake Date at Tel Yavneh (Central Israel) Using Pollen Seasonality’, Palyno­ logy, 40: 1–16. Lapp, P. W. 1961. Palestinian Ceramic Chrono­logy: 200 bc–ad 70 (New Haven: American Schools of Oriental Research). Leclerq, H. 1934. ‘Monogramme’, in F. Cabrol and H. Leclerq (eds), Dictionnaire d’archéo­logie chrétienne et de liturgie (Paris: Librairie Letouzey et ané), cols 2369–92. Leibner, U. 2009. Settlement and History in Hellenistic, Roman, and Byzantine Galilee: An Archaeo­logical Survey of the Eastern Galilee, Texte und Studien zum antiken Judentum, 127 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck). Leibner, U. and C.  Ben David. 2014. ‘Imported Fine Wares in Palaestina Secunda: Geo­graphic, Economic and Ethnic Aspects’, Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, 371: 185–201. Lenzen, C. J. 1983. ‘The Byzantine/Islamic Occupation at Caesarea Maritima as Evidenced through the Pottery’ (unpublished master’s dissertation, Graduate School of Drew Uni­ver­sity, New Jersey). Levy, S. 1960. The Ancient Synagogue of Ma’on (Nirim) ( Jerusalem: Hebrew Uni­ver­sity) (reprinted from the Bulletin III of the Louis M. Rabinowitz Fund for the Exploration of Ancient Synagogues). Levy, Y. 1995. ‘Tel Aviv. Giv’at Bet Hamitbahayim’, Ḥadashot Arkheo­logiyot: Excavations and Surveys in Israel, 100: 51–53. Lewit, T. 2015. ‘The Second Sea: Exchange between the Mediterranean and the Black Sea in Late Antiquity’, Post-Classical Archaeo­ logies, 5: 149–74. Lichtenberger, A., R. Raja, and A. H. Sørensen. 2013. ‘Preliminary Registration Report of the Second Season of the Danish-German Jerash Northwest Quarter Project 2012’, Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan, 57: 9–56. Lindner, M. and others. 2007. ‘Umm Rattām Survey: Specialized Reports’, Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan, 51: 243–56. Lochner, S., R.  Sauer, and R.  Linke. 2005. ‘Late Roman Unguentaria? A  Contribution to Early Byzantine Wares from the View of Ephesos’, in J.  M. Gurt, J.  Buxeda, and M.  A. Cau (eds), Late Roman Coarse Wares, Cooking Wares and Amphorae in the Mediterranean, British Archaeo­logical Reports, International Series, 1340 (Oxford: Archaeopress), pp. 647–54. Loffreda, S. 1974. Cafarnao, ii: La Ceramica, Publications of the Studium Biblicum Franciscanum, 19 ( Jerusalem: Franciscan Printing Press). ——  1975. ‘Un lotto di ceramica de Karm er Ras presso Kafr Kanna’, Liber Annuus, 25: 193–98. ——  1976. ‘Alcune osservazioni sulla ceramica di Magdala’, in Studia Hierosolymitana in Onore del P. Bellarmino Bagatti, i: Studi archeo­logici, Studium Biblicum Franciscanum, 22 ( Jerusalem: Franciscan Printing Press), pp. 338–54. ——  1979. ‘Potsherds from a Sealed Level of the Synagogue at Capharnaum’, Liber Annuus, 29: 215–20. ——  1982. ‘Documentazione preliminare degli oggetti della XIV campagna di scavi a Cafarnao’, Liber Annuus, 32: 409–26. ——  1983. ‘Nuovi contributi di Cafarnao per la ceramo­logia palestinese’, Liber Annuus, 33: 347–72. ——  2008. Cafarnao, vi: Tipo­logie e contesti stratigrafici della ceramica (1968–2003), Publications of the Studium Biblicum Franciscanum, Collectio Maior, 48 ( Jerusalem: Franciscan Printing Press). Mabry, J. and G. Palumbo. 1988. ‘The 1987 Wadi el-Yabis Survey’, Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan, 32: 275–305. MacDonald, B., G. A. Clark, and M. Neeley. 1988. ‘Southern Ghors and Northeast ‘Araba Archaeo­logical Survey 1985 and 1986, Jordan: A Preliminary Report’, Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, 272: 23–45. MacDonald, B. and K.  D. Politis. 1988. ‘Deir ‘Ain ‘Abata: A  Byzantine Church/Monastery Complex in the Ghor Es-Safi’, Liber Annuus, 38: 287–96. Macias, J. M. and J. A. Remolà. 2000. ‘Tarraco visigoda: Caracterización del material cerámico del siglo VII d.C.’, in V Reunión de Arqueo­logía Cristiana Hispánica, Cartagena, 16–19 de abril 1998 (Barcelona: Institut d’Estudis Catalans), pp. 485–97. Mackensen, M. 1985. ‘Prospektion einer spätantiken sigillatatöpferei in El Mahrine, Nordtunesien’, CEDAC Carthage Bulletin, 6: 29–39. ——  1993. Die spätantiken Sigillata-und Lampentöpfereien von El Mahrine (Nordtunesien): Studien zur nordafrikanischen Feinkeramik des 4. bis 7. Jahrhunderts (Munich: Beck).

290

Alexandra Uscatescu

——  1998a. ‘Centres of African Red Slip Ware Production in Tunisia from the Late 5th to the 7th Century’, in L.  Saguì (ed.), Ceramica in Italia: VI–VII secolo: atti del convegno in onore di John W. Hayes (Roma, 11–13 maggio 1995), Biblioteca di Archeo­ logia Medi­evale (Florence: All’insegna del Giglio), pp. 23–39. ——  1998b. ‘New Evidence for Central Tunisian Red Slip Ware with Stamped Decoration (ARS Style D)’, Journal of Roman Archaeo­ logy, 11: 355–70. ——  2009. ‘Techno­logy and Organisation of ARS Ware Production-Centres in Tunisia’, in J. H. Humphrey (ed.), Studies on Roman Pottery of the Provinces of Africa Proconsularis and Byzacena (Tunisia), Journal of Roman Archaeo­logy, suppl. 76 (Portsmouth, RI: Journal of Roman Archaeo­logy), pp. 17–44. Mackensen, M. and G. Schneider. 2002. ‘Production Centres of African Red Slip Ware (3rd–7th c.) in Northern and Central Tunisia: Archaeo­logical Provenance and Reference Groups Based on Chemical Analysis’, Journal of Roman Archaeo­logy, 15: 121–58. Maetzke, G. 1991. ‘La Struttura stratigrafica dell’area Nordoccidentale del foro romano come appare dai recenti interventi di scavo’, Archeo­logia Medi­evale, 18: 43–200. Magen, Y. 1990. ‘A Roman Fortress and a Byzantine Monastery at Khirbet El-Kîliya’, in G. C. Bottini, L. Di Segni, and E. Alliata (eds), Christian Archaeo­logy in the Holy Land, New Discoveries: Essays in Honour of Virgilio C. Corbo, OFM, Studium Biblicum Franciscanum, Collectio Maior, 36 ( Jerusalem: Franciscan Printing Press), pp. 321–42. Magness, J. 1992a. ‘Late Roman and Byzantine Pottery: Preliminary Report, 1990’, in R. L. Vann (ed.), Caesarea Papers, i: Straton’s Tower, Herod’s Harbor, and Roman and Byzantine Caesarea, Journal of Roman Archaeo­logy, suppl. 5 (Ann Arbor: Journal of Roman Archaeo­logy), pp. 129–53. ——  1992b. ‘The Late Roman and Byzantine Pottery from Areas H and K’, in A. De Groot and D. T. Ariel (eds), Excavations at the City of David 1978–1985 Directed by Yugal Shiloh, iii, Qedem, 33 ( Jerusalem: The Institute of Archaeo­logy of the Hebrew Uni­ ver­sity of Jerusalem), pp. 149–64. ——  1992c. ‘The Late Roman and Byzantine Pottery from Areas 2A and G’, in A. De Groot and D. T. Ariel (eds), Excavations at the City of David 1978–1985 Directed by Yugal Shiloh, iii, Qedem, 33 ( Jerusalem: The Institute of Archaeo­logy of the Hebrew Uni­ver­sity of Jerusalem), pp. 164–86. ——  1993. Jerusalem Ceramic Chrono­logy, circa 200–800 ce (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press). ——  1994. ‘The Pottery from Area V/4 at Caesarea’, in W.  G. Dever (ed.), Preliminary Reports: Sardis, Bir Umm Fawakhir, Tell el-’Umeiri, the Combined Caesarea Expeditions, and Tell Dothan, Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research, 52 (Philadelphia: American Schools of Oriental Research), pp. 133–45. ——  1999. ‘Redating the Forts at Ein Boqeq, Upper Zohar and Other Sites in SE Judaea, and the Implications for the Nature of the Limes Palaestinae’, in J. H. Humphrey (ed.), The Roman and Byzantine Near East, ii: Some Recent Archaeo­logical Research, Journal of Roman Archaeo­logy, suppl. 31 (Portsmouth, RI: Journal of Roman Archaeo­logy), pp. 189–206. ——  2003. The Archaeo­logy of Early Islamic Settlement in Palestine (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns). Magness, J. and D. Schindler. 2015. ‘Pottery and Jewish Settlement in Late Roman Galilee’, Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, 374: 191–207. Magness, J. and others. 2014. ‘Huqoq (Lower Galilee) and its Synagogue Mosaics: Preliminary Report on the Excavations of 2011–13’, Journal of Roman Archaeo­logy, 27: 327–55. Maier, A. M. and D. Bahat. 2004. ‘Excavations at Kikkar Safr (City Hall), Jerusalem, 1989’, ‘Atiqot, 47: 169–92. Maisler, B. 1950–51. ‘The Excavations at Tell Qasīle’, Israel Exploration Journal, 1: 194–218. Majcherek, G. 1995. ‘Gaza Amphorae: Typo­logy Reconsidered’, in H. Meyza and J. Młynarczyk (eds), Hellenistic and Roman Pottery in the Eastern Mediterranean: Advances in Scientific Studies: Acts of the 2nd Nieborów Pottery Workshop (Warsaw: Research Center for Mediterranean Archaeo­logy, Polish Academy of Sciences), pp. 163–78. Malfitana, D. 2002. ‘Eastern Sigillata Wares in the Eastern Mediterranean: Notes on an Initial Quantitative Analysis’, in F. Blondé, P. Ballet, and J.-F. Salles (eds), Céramiques hellénistiques et romaines: productions et diffusion en Méditerranée orientale : Chypre, Égypte et côte syro-palestinienne: actes du colloque tenu à la Maison de l’Orient Méditerranéen Jean Pouilloux, 2–4 mars 2000, Travaux de la Maison de l’Orient Méditerranéen, 35 (Lyon: Maison de l’Orient Méditerranéen Jean Pouilloux), pp. 133–57. Manacorda, D. 1977. ‘Anfore’, in A. Carandini and C. Panella (eds), Ostia, iv: Le terme del Nuotatore: Scavo dell’ambiente XVI e dell’area XXV, Studi Miscellanei, 23 (Rome: De Luca), pp. 119–265 and 359–83. Marot, T. 1998. Las monedas del macellum de Gerasa (Ŷaraš, Jordania): aproximación a la circulación monetaria en la provincia de Arabia (Madrid: Museo Casa de la Moneda). Masarwa, D. 2016. ‘Zur Natan, Khirbat Majdal’, Ḥadashot Arkheo­logiyot: Excavations and Surveys in Israel, 128 [accessed 1 March 2020]. Masarwah, Y. 2000. ‘Tel Ashqelon’, Ḥadashot Arkheo­logiyot: Excavations and Surveys in Israel, 111: 114–15 (Hebrew). Mayerson, P. 1985. ‘The Wine and Vineyards of Gaza in the Byzantine Period’, Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, 257: 75–80. ——  1992. ‘The Gaza Wine Jar (Gazition) and the Lost Ashkelon Jar (Askalônion)’, Israel Exploration Journal, 42: 76–80.

7. Late Antique Ceramic Imports in Gerasa

291

——  1993. ‘The Use of Ascalon Wine in the Medical Writers of the Fourth to the Seventh Centuries’, Israel Exploration Journal, 43: 169–73. Mayet, F. 1990. ‘Typo­logie et chrono­logie des amphores lusitaniennes’, in A. Moutinho de Alarcâo and F. Mayet (eds), Ânforas lusitanas: tipo­logia, produçâo, comércio (Paris: De Boccard), pp. 29–35. Mayet, F. and M.  Picon. 1986. ‘Une sigillée phocéenne tardive (“Late Roman C Ware”) et sa diffusion en Occident’, Figlina, 7: 129–42. Mayet, F., A. Schmitt, and C. Tavares da Silva. 1996. Les amphores du Sado (Portugal): Prospection des fours et analyse du matériel (Paris: De Boccard). Mazar, E. 2003. ‘Architecture and Strati­graphy (Areas II and XII)’, in E. Mazar (ed.), The Temple Mount Excavations in Jerusalem 1968–1978 Directed by Benjamin Mazar: Final Reports, ii: The Byzantine and Early Islamic Periods, Qedem, 43 ( Jerusalem: The Institute of Archaeo­logy of the Hebrew Uni­ver­sity of Jerusalem), pp. 203–45. Mazar, E. and O. Peleg. 2003. ‘The Pottery Assemblage from the Large Byzantine Structure in Area XV’, in E. Mazar (ed.), The Temple Mount Excavations in Jerusalem 1968–1978 Directed by Benjamin Mazar: Final Reports, ii: The Byzantine and Early Islamic Periods, Qedem, 43 ( Jerusalem: The Institute of Archaeo­logy of the Hebrew Uni­ver­sity of Jerusalem), pp. 86–103. McCormick, M. 2012. ‘Movements and Markets in the First Millennium: Information, Containers, and Shipwrecks’, in C. Morrisson (ed.), Trade and Markets in Byzantium (Washington, D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection), pp. 51–98. Megaw, A. H. S. and R. E. Jones. 1983. ‘Byzantine and Allied Pottery: A Contribution by Chemical Analysis to Problems of Origin and Distribution’, Papers of the British School at Rome, 78: 235–63. Melkawi, A., K. ‘Amr, and D. S. Whitcomb. 1994. ‘The Excavation of Two Seventh Century Pottery Kilns at Aqaba’, Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan, 38: 447–68. Meloy, J. L. 1991. ‘Results of the Archaeo­logical Reconnaissance in West Aqaba: Evidence of the Pre-Islamic Settlement’, Annual of the Department of Antiquities, 35: 397–414. Meyers, E. M., A. T. Kraabel, and J. F. Strange. 1976. Ancient Synagogue Excavations at Khirbat Shema’, Upper Galilee, Israel 1970–72, Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research, 42 (Durham, NC: Duke Uni­ver­sity Press). Meyers, E. M., J. F. Strange, and D. E. Groh. 1978. ‘The Meiron Excavation Project: Archaeo­logical Survey in Galilee and Golan, 1976’, Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, 230: 1–24. Meyers, E. M., J. F. Strange, and C. L. Meyers. 1981. Excavations at Ancient Meiron, Upper Galilee, Israel, 1971–72, 1974–75, 1977, Meiron Excavation Project, 3 (Durham, NC: American Schools of Oriental Research). ——  1982. ‘Second Preliminary Report on the 1981 Excavations at en-Nabratein, Israel’, Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, 246: 35–54. Meyza, H. 2000. ‘Cypriot Red Slip: Development of the Ware (an Attempt at Refinement)’, in G. K. Ioannides and S. A. Hadjistyllis (eds), Third International Congress of Cypriot Studies, 16–20 April 1996 (Nicosia: Society of Cypriot Studies), pp. 507–29. ——  2007. Nea Paphos, v: Cypriot Red Slip Ware: Studies on a Late Roman Levantine Fine Wares (Warsaw: Polish Academy of Science). Michel, A. 1998. ‘Trois campagnes de fouilles à Saint-Georges de Khirbat al-Mukhayyat (1995–1997). Rapport final’, Liber Annuus, 48: 257–416. Młynarczyk, J. 2003. ‘Pottery Report’, in A. Segal and others (eds), Hippos-Sussita: Fourth Season of Excavations, June–July 2003 (Haifa: Zinman Institute of Archaeo­logy), pp. 50–88. ——  2005. ‘The Pottery Report from Khirbet el-Jiljil (Second Season)’, Bulletin of the Anglo-Israel Archaeo­logical Society, 23: 139–66. ——  2006. ‘Pottery Report’, in A. Segal and others (eds), Hippos-Sussita: Seventh Season of Excavations, July 2006 (Haifa: Zinman Institute of Archaeo­logy), pp. 91–126. Möller, H. 2017. ‘Ceramics in Context: Interpreting Life through Pottery’, in A. Lichtenberger and R. Raja (eds), Gerasa/Jerash from the Urban Periphery (Aarhus: Fællestrykkeriet, AUTRYK), pp. 59–66. Munzi, M. and A. Ciotola. 2006. ‘Ceramica africana in Transgiordania. Il quadro regionale alle luce delle ricerche nel Wadi Zarqa’, in L’Africa romana, xvi (Sassari: Pubblicazzioni del Dipartamento di Storia dell’Università di Sassari), pp. 1511–37. Murialdo, G. and others. 1998. ‘La ceramica comune in Liguria nel VI e VII secolo’, in L. Saguì (ed.), Ceramica in Italia: VI–VII secolo: atti del convegno in onore di John W. Hayes (Roma, 11–13 maggio 1995), Biblioteca di Archeo­logia Medi­evale (Florence: All’insegna del Giglio), pp. 227–51. Nahshoni, P. 1999. ‘A Byzantine Site in the Migdad Neighborhood Ashqelon’, ‘Atiqot, 38: 99–111. ——  2007. ‘Remains from the Roman and Byzantine Periods at Ḥorbat Ḥaẓaẓ, Ashqelon’, ‘Atiqot, 56: 81–97. ——  2009. ‘Ashqelon, Final Report’, Ḥadashot Arkheo­logiyot: Excavations and Surveys in Israel, 121 [accessed 1 March 2020]. Nahshoni, P. and G. Seriy. 2014. ‘A Byzantine Monastery and Islamic-Period Settlement Remains at Ḥorbat Ma’on’, ‘Atiqot, 78: 13–62. Netzer, E. and R. Birger. 1990. ‘A Byzantine Monastery at Nuseib ‘Uweishira, West of Jericho’, in G. C. Bottini, L. Di Segni, and E. Alliata (eds), Christian Archaeo­logy in the Holy Land, New Discoveries: Essays in Honour of Virgilio C. Corbo, OFM, Studium Biblicum Franciscanum, Collectio Maior, 36 ( Jerusalem: Franciscan Printing Press), pp. 191–200.

292

Alexandra Uscatescu

Netzer, E. and S. Ben-Arieh. 1983. ‘Remains of an Opus Reticulatum Building in Jerusalem’, Israel Exploration Journal, 33: 163–75. Nicolau, I. and J.-Y. Empereur. 1986. ‘Amphores rhodiennes du Musée de Nicosie’, in J.-Y. Empereur and Y. Garlan (eds), Recherches sur les amphores grecques: actes du colloque CNRS (Athènes 1984), Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique, suppl. 13 (Athens: École Français d’Athens), pp. 513–33. Nielsen, I., F. G. Andersen, and S. Holm-Nielsen. 1993. Gadara – Umm Qês, iii: Die byzantinischen Thermen, Abhandlungen des Deutschen Palästinavereins, 17 (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz). Olávarri, E. 1986. Excavaciones en el ágora de Gerasa en 1983 (Madrid: Ministerio de Cultura). Oleson, J. P. 2013. ‘Field B100: Byzantine Church and Early Islamic House’, in J. P. Oleson and R. Schick (eds), Humayma Excavation Project, ii: Nabatean Campground and Necropoli, Byzantine Churches, and Early Islamic Domestic Structures (Boston: American Schools of Oriental Research), pp. 161–219. Oleson, J. P., K. ‘Amr, and E. Holmqvist-Saukkonen. 2013. ‘The System of Ceramic Analysis and Reporting’, in J. P. Oleson and R. Schick (eds), Humayma Excavation Project, ii: Nabatean Campground and Necropoli, Byzantine Churches, and Early Islamic Domestic Structures (Boston: American Schools of Oriental Research), pp. 7–37. Oleson, J. P. and others. 1994. The Harbours of Caesarea Maritima: Results of the Caesarea Ancient Excavation Project, 1980–1985, ii: The Finds and the Ship, British Archaeo­logical Reports, International Series, 594 (Oxford: Archaeopress). ——  1996. ‘Artifactual Evidence for the History of the Harbors of Caesarea’, in A. Raban and K. G. Holum (eds), Caesarea Maritima: A Retrospective after Two Millennia (Leiden: Brill), pp. 359–77. Onn, A. 1994. ‘The Ancient Synagogue at Kafr Miṣr’, ‘Atiqot, 25: 117–34. Oren-Paskal, M. 2008. ‘Excavation in Bat Galim: The Pottery’, Contract Archaeo­logy Reports, 3: 32–53. Palumbo, G. and others. 1993. ‘The Cultural Resources Management Project in Jordan, Salvage Excavations at Tell Faysal, Jarash’, Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan, 37: 89–117. Panella, C. 1973. ‘Anfore’, in A. Carandini and C. Panella (eds), Ostia, iii: Le terme del nuotatore di Ostia: scavo degli ambienti III, IV, VII, Studi Miscellanei, 21 (Rome: De Luca), pp. 460–633. ——  1982. ‘Le anfore africane della prima, media e tarda etá imperiale: tipo­logia e problemi’, in Actes du colloque sur la céramique antique, Carthage 23–24 juin 1980, CEDAC Carthage Bulletin, 1 (Paris: Centre d’Etudes et de Documentation Archéo­logique de Carthage), pp. 171–96. Paran, N. S. 2000. ‘Ḥorbat Paṭṭish’, Ḥadashot Arkheo­logiyot: Excavations and Surveys in Israel, 111: 117–22. ——  2009. ‘Giv’ati Junction’, Ḥadashot Arkheo­logiyot: Excavations and Surveys in Israel, 121 [accessed 1 March 2020]. Paraschiv, D. 2006. Amfore romane şi romano-bizantine în zona Dunării de Jos (sec. I–VII p.Chr.) (Iaşi: Editura Fundației Axis). Parker, S. T. 1987. The Roman Frontier in Central Jordan: Interim Report on the Limes Arabicus Project, 1980–1985, British Archaeo­ logical Reports, International Series, 340 (Oxford: Archaeopress). Parker, T. 1994. ‘A Late Roman Soldier’s Grave by the Dead Sea’, Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan, 38: 385–94. ——  2002. ‘The Roman ‘Aqaba Project: The 2000 Campaign’, Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan, 46: 409–28. ——  2006. The Roman Frontier in Central Jordan: Final Report on the Limes Arabicus Project, 1980–1989, Dumbarton Oaks Studies, 40 (Washington, D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks). ——  2014. ‘The Pottery from the Survey’, in T. Parker and A. M. Smith (eds), The Roman Aqaba Project Final Report, i: The Regional Environment and the Regional Survey (Boston: American Schools of Oriental Research), pp. 311–48. Parnos, G. and M. Avissar. 2005. ‘Khirbet Beit Kufa’, Ḥadashot Arkheo­logiyot: Excavations and Surveys in Israel, 117 [accessed 1 March 2020]. Parnos, G., I. Milevski, and H. Khalaily. 2010. ‘Remains from the Late Prehistoric to Early Islamic Periods at the Foot of Tell Maloṭ (East)’, ‘Atiqot, 64: 25–77 (Hebrew). Patrich, J., B. Arubas, and B. Agur. 1993. ‘Monastic Cells in the Desert of Gerasimus near the Jordan’, in F. Manns and E. Alliata (eds), Early Christianity in Context: Monuments and Documents, Studium Biblicum Franciscanum, Collectio Maior, 38 ( Jerusalem: Franciscan Printing Press), pp. 277–96. Peacock, D. P. S. 1977. ‘Roman Amphorae: Typo­logy, Fabric and Origins’, in G. Vallet (ed.), Méthodes classiques et méthodes formelles dans l’étude des amphores, Collection de l’École Français de Rome, 32 (Rome: École Française de Rome), pp. 261–78. ——  1984a. ‘Petro­logy and Origins’, in M. Fulford and D. P. S. Peacock (eds), Excavations at Carthage: The British Mission, i: The Avenue du Président Habib Bourghiba, Salammbo, 2: The Pottery and Other Ceramic Objects from the Site (Sheffield: British Academy), pp. 6–28. ——  1984b. ‘The Amphorae: Typo­logy and Chrono­logy’, in M. Fulford and D. P. S. Peacock (eds), Excavations at Carthage: The British Mission, i: The Avenue du Président Habib Bourghiba, Salammbo, 2: The Pottery and Other Ceramic Objects from the Site (Sheffield: British Academy), pp. 116–40. Peacock, D.  P.  S., F.  Bejaoui, and N.  Belazreg. 1989. ‘Roman Amphora Production in the Sahel Region of Tunisia’, in Amphores romaines et histoire économique: dix ans de recherche: actes du colloque de Sienne (1986), Collection de l’École Française de Rome, 114 (Rome: École Française de Rome), pp. 179–222.

7. Late Antique Ceramic Imports in Gerasa

293

——  1990. ‘Roman Pottery Production in Central Tunisia’, Journal of Roman Archaeo­logy, 3: 59–84. Peacock, D. P. S. and R. Tomber. 1991. ‘Roman Amphora Kilns in the Sahel of Tunisian: Petro­graphic Investigation of Kiln Material from a Sedimentary Environment’, in A. Middleton and I. Freestone (eds), Recent Development in Ceramic Petro­graphy, British Museum Occasional Papers, 81 (London: British Museum), pp. 289–304. Peacock, D.  P.  S. and D.  F. Williams. 1991. Amphorae and the Roman Economy: An Introductory Guide (Hong Kong: Longman Archaeo­logical Series). Peilstöcker, M. 2009. ‘Tel ‘Afer: A Byzantine Site South of Caesarea’, ‘Atiqot, 61: 95–118. Peleg, M. 1989. ‘Domestic Pottery’, in V.  Tzaferis (ed.), Excavations at Capernaum, i: 1978–1982 (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns), pp. 31–113. ——  1994. ‘Bet She’an: A Paved Street and Adjacent Remains’, ‘Atiqot, 25: 139–55. ——  2004. ‘A Late Roman-Byzantine Bathhouse at Bet She’an’, ‘Atiqot, 46: 55–81. Peleg, M. and R. Reich. 1992. ‘Excavations of a Segment of the Byzantine City Wall of Caesarea Maritima’, ‘Atiqot, 21: 137–70. Pensabene, P. 1981. ‘Anfore tarde con iscrizioni cristiane dal Palatino’, Rivista di Studi Liguri, 47: 189–213. Peruzzetto, A. and M. D. Wilson. 1996. ‘Hellenistic to Byzantine Period’, in G. Palumbo and others (eds), ‘The Wādī az-Zarqā/Wādī aḍ-Ḍulayl Excavations and Survey Project Report on the October–November 1993 Fieldwork Season’, Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan, 40: 412–16. Petrie, W. M. F. 1928. Gerar, British School of Archaeo­logy in Egypt, 43 (London: Uni­ver­sity College). Piazza, M. G. 1983–84. ‘Soundings in the Intermediate Terrace of the Sanctuary of Artemis at Gerasa, 1979–1981’, in Mesopotamia, 18–19: Gerasa, i: Report of the Italian Archaeo­logical Expedition at Jerash: Campaigns 1977–1981: 113–34. Picard, O. and J.-P. Sodini. 1972. ‘Sondage Delcos-Valma. Rapports sur les travaux de l’école française en 1971: Thasos’, Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique, 96: 936–49. Piccirillo, M. 1976. ‘Campagna archeo­logica nella basilica di Mose profeta sul Monte Nebo-Siyagha’, Liber Annuus, 26: 281–318. Pieri, D. 1998. ‘Les Importations d’amphores orientales en Gaule méridionale durant l’Antiquité tardive et le Haut-Moyen age (IVeVIIe siècles après J.-C.). Typo­logie, chrono­logie et contenu’, in Les importations d’amphores en Gaule du Sud du règne d’Auguste à l’antiquité tardive: actes du congrès d’Istres, 21–24 mai 1998 (Marseille: Société française d’étude de la céramique antique en Gaule), pp. 98–106. ——  2007a. ‘Béryte dans le grand commerce méditerranéen. Production et importation d’amphores dans le Levant protobyzantine (Ve-VIIe siécle ap. J.-C.)’, in M. Sartre (ed.), Productions et échanges dans la Syrie gréco-romaine: actes du 2e colloque international sur la Syrie antique, Tours, 12–13 juin 2003, Topoi Orient Occident, suppl. 8 (Paris: De Boccard), pp. 297–327. ——  2007b. ‘Les Centres de production d’amphores en Méditerranée orientale durant l’antiquité tardive: quelques remarques’, in M. Bonifay and J. C. Tréglia (eds), LRCW, ii: Late Roman Coarse Wares, Cooking Wares and Amphorae in the Mediterranean: Archaeo­logy and Archaeometry, British Archaeo­logical Reports, International Series, 1662 (Oxford: Archaeopress), pp. 611–25. ——  2012. ‘Regional and Interregional Exchanges in the Eastern Mediterranean during the Early Byzantine Period: The Evidence of Amphorae’, in C. Morrisson (ed.), Trade and Markets in Byzantium (Washington, D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection), pp. 27–50. Pierobon, R. 1986. ‘The Area of the Kilns’, in R. Parapetti and others, ‘The Italian Activity within the Jerash Project, 1982–83’, in F. Zayadine (ed.), Jerash Archaeo­logical Project, i: 1981–1983 (Amman: Department of Antiquities of Jordan), pp. 184–87. Poblome, J., P.  Bes, and P.  Degryse. 2005. ‘The Decline and Fall of Sagalassos: A  Ceramic Perspective’, Rei Cretariae Romanae Fautorum Acta, 39: 225–30. Poblome, J. and N.  Firat. 2012. ‘Late Roman D: A  Matter of Open(ing) or Closed Horizons?’, in M.  A. Cau, P.  Reynolds, and M. Bonifay (eds), Late Roman Fine Wares, i: Solving Problems of Typo­logy and Chrono­logy: A Review of the Evidence, Debate and New Contexts (Oxford: Archaeopress), pp. 49–55. Porat, L. 2008. ‘A Site from the Iron Age until the Early Islamic Period near Ṭamra in Lower Galilee’, ‘Atiqot, 58: 45–56. Porath, Y., P. Gendelman, and Y. Arnon. 2007. ‘An Ancient Flour Mill on the North Dam of the Tanninim Reservoir’, ‘Atiqot, 56: 151–66 (Hebrew). Prausnitz, M. W. 1967. Excavations at Shavei Zion: The Early Christian Church, Monografie di Archeo­logia e d’Arte (Rome: Centro per le antichità e la storia dell’arte del vicino oriente). Radulescu, A. 1973. ‘Amfore cu inscriptii de la edificiul roman cu mozaic din Tomis’, Pontica, 6: 193–206. Rahmani, L. Y. 1961. ‘A Tomb from the Fourth Century ad in Heletz’, Yediot, 25: 150–56. ——  1967. ‘Jason’s Tomb’, Israel Exploration Journal, 17: 61–99. ——  1991. ‘Two Byzantine Wine Presses in Jerusalem’, ‘Atiqot, 20: 95–110. Rapuano, Y. 1999. ‘The Hellenistic through Early Islamic Pottery from Ras Abu Ma’aruf (Pisgat Ze’ev East A)’, ‘Atiquot, 38: 171–203. Rasson, A.-M. 1986. ‘Matérial céramique de la deuxième moitié du IIIème siècle ap. J.-C.’, in F. Zayadine (ed.), Jerash Archaeo­logical Project, i: 1981–1983 (Amman: Department of Antiquities of Jordan), pp. 67–69. Rasson, A.-M. and J. Seigne. 1989. ‘Une citerne byzantino-omeyyade sur le sanctuaire de Zeus’, Syria, 66: 117–51.

294

Alexandra Uscatescu

Rast, W. E. and R. T. Schaub. 1974. ‘Survey of the Southeastern Plain of the Dead Sea, 1973’, Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan, 8: 5–53. Remolà, J. A. 2000. Las ánforas tardo-antiguas en Tarraco (Hispania Tarraconensis), Col·lecció Instrumenta, 7 (Barcelona: Universidad de Barcelona). Remolà, J.  A. and A.  Uscatescu. 1998. ‘El comercio de ánforas orientales en Tarraco (siglos V–VII d.C.)’, in Museu de Badalona (ed.), II Col.·loqui internacional d’arqueo­logia romana: el vi a l’antiguitat: economia, producció i comerç al Mediterrani occidental, Monografies Badalonines, 14 (Badalona: Museo de Badalona), pp. 553–62. Reynolds, P. 2003a. ‘Lebanon’, in Association International pour l’Étude des Céramiques Médiévales Mediterranéenes (ed.), VIIe Congrès international sur la céramique médieval en Méditerranée, Thessaloniki, 11–16 October 1999 (Athens: Caisse des Recettes Archéo­logiques), pp. 536–46. ——  2003b. ‘Pottery and the Economy in 8th Century Beirut: An Umayyad Assemblage from the Roman Imperial Baths (Bey 045)’, in M. Bonifay (ed.), ‘Table ronde de Rome à Byzance; de Fostat à Cordoue: évolution des faciès céramiques en Méditerranée (Ve-IXe siècles)’, in Association International pour l’Étude des Céramiques Médiévales Mediterranéenes (ed.), VIIe Congrès international sur la céramique médieval en Méditerranée, Thessaloniki, 11–16 October 1999 (Athens: Caisse des Recettes Archéo­ logiques), pp. 725–34. ——  2005. ‘Levantine Amphorae from Cilicia to Gaza: A Typo­logy and Analysis of Regional Production Trends from the 1st to the 7th Centuries’, in J. M. Gurt, J. Buxeda, and M. A. Cau (eds), Late Roman Coarse Wares, Cooking Wares and Amphorae in the Mediterranean, British Archaeo­logical Reports, International Series, 1340 (Oxford: Archaeopress), pp. 563–611. ——  2010. Hispania and the Roman Mediterranean, ad 100–700: Ceramics and Trade (London: Duckworth). ——  2012. ‘A Note on the Development of Chypriot Late Roman D Forms 2 and 9’, in M. A. Cau, P. Reynolds, and M. Bonifay (eds), Late Roman Fine Wares, i: Solving Problems of Typo­logy and Chrono­logy: A Review of the Evidence, Debate and New Contexts (Oxford: Archaeopress), pp. 57–65. ——  2013. ‘Transport Amphorae of the First to Seventh Centuries: Early Roman to Byzantine Periods’, in W.  Aylward (ed.), Excavations at Zeugma Conducted by Oxford Archaeo­logy, ii (Los Altos: The Packard Humanities Institute), pp. 93–161. Riley, J. A. 1975. ‘The Pottery from the First Session of Excavation in the Caesarea Hippodrome’, Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, 218: 25–63. ——  1976. ‘Amphoras from the Early Roman Levels: Late Amphoras’, in J. H. Humphrey (ed.), Excavations at Carthage Conducted by the Uni­ver­sity of Michigan, 1975, i (Ann Arbor: Kelsey Museum, The Uni­ver­sity of Michigan), pp. 108–20. ——  1979. ‘Coarse Pottery from Berenice’, in J.  Lloyd (ed.), Excavation at Sidi Khrebish (Benghazi), ii, Lybia Antiqua, suppl. 5 (Tripoli: Department of Antiquities), pp. 91–467. ——  1981. ‘The Pottery from the Cisterns 1977.1, 1977.2 and 1977.3’, in J. H. Humphrey (ed.), Excavations at Carthage Conducted by the Uni­ver­sity of Michigan, 1977, iv (Ann Arbor: Kelsey Museum, The Uni­ver­sity of Michigan), pp. 85–124. Robinson, H. S. 1959. The Athenian Agora, v: Pottery of the Roman Period: Chrono­logy (New Jersey: The American School of Classical Studies at Athens). Rodziewicz, M. 1976. Alexandria, i: La céramique romaine tardive d’Alexandrie (Warsaw: Centre d’Archéo­logie Méditerranéenne de l’Academie Polonaise des Sciences). ——  1984. Alexandria, iii: Les habitations romaines tardives d’Alexandrie: Kom el-Dikka (Warsaw: Centre d’Archéo­ logie Méditerranéenne de l’Academie Polonaise des Sciences). Ronen, A. and Y. Olami. 1978. Archaeo­logical Survey of Israel: Atlit Map, Archaeo­logical Survey of Israel, 1 ( Jerusalem: Archaeo­ logical Survey of Israel). Rosenthal, R. 1978. ‘The Roman and Byzantine Pottery’, in E. Stern (ed.), Excavations at Tel Mevorakh (1973–1976), i: From the Iron Age to the Roman Period, Qedem, 9 ( Jerusalem: The Institute of Archaeo­logy of the Hebrew Uni­ver­sity of Jerusalem), pp. 11–19. Rosenthal, R. and M. Hershkovitz. 1980. ‘Tabgha’, Israel Exploration Journal, 30: 207. Rosenthal-Heginbottom, R. 1988. ‘The Pottery’, in Y.  Tsafrir and others (eds), Excavations at Rehovot-in-the-Negev, Qedem, 25 ( Jerusalem: The Institute of Archaeo­logy of the Hebrew Uni­ver­sity of Jerusalem), pp. 78–96. Rothe, U., A. Zerbini, and F. Kenkel. 2014. ‘Excavation in Area III on Tall Zar’ā’, Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan, 58: 257–73. Rothschild-Boros, M.  C. 1981. ‘The Determination of Amphora Contents’, in G.  Barker and R.  Hodges (eds), Papers in Italian Archaeo­logy, ii: Archaeo­logy and Italian Society: Prehistoric, Roman and Medi­eval Studies, British Archaeo­logical Reports, International Series, 102 (Oxford: Archaeopress), pp. 79–89. Sa’id, ‘A. a-S. 2011. ‘Remains from the Early Roman to the Crusader/Ayyubid Periods at Ḥorbat Borin’, ‘Atiqot, 66: 1–16 (Hebrew). Sa’id, K. 2013. ‘A Settlement from the Roman-Mamluk Periods at Ḥorbat Yagur’, ‘Atiqot, 73: 77–90 (Hebrew). Sa’id, K. and U. ‘Ad. 2011. ‘Ḥorbat Siv: Quarries, Burial Caves, Kiln, Agricultural Installation, Roads and a Columbarium’, ‘Atiqot, 65: 66–87 (Hebrew). Saguì, L. 1995. ‘L’Esedra della Crypta Balbi e il Monastero di S. Lorenzo in Pallacinis’, Archeo­logia Laziale, 12: 121–29.

7. Late Antique Ceramic Imports in Gerasa

295

——  1998. ‘Il deposito della Crypta Balbi: una testimonianza imprevedibile sulla Roma del VII secolo?’, in L. Saguì (ed.), Ceramica in Italia: VI–VII secolo: atti del convegno in onore di John W. Hayes (Roma, 11–13 maggio 1995), Biblioteca di Archeo­logia Medi­ evale (Florence: All’insegna del Giglio), pp. 305–34. ——  2002. ‘Roma. I centri privilegiati e la lunga durata della Tarda Antichità. Dati archaeo­logici dal deposito di VII secolo nell’esedra della Crypta Balbi’, Archeo­logia Medi­evale, 29: 7–42. Saguì, L., M. Ricci, and D. Romei. 1997. ‘Nuovi dati ceramo­logici per la storia economica di Roma tra VII e VIII secolo’, in G. D. d’Archimbaud (ed.), La céramique médiévale en Méditerranée: actes du VIe congrès de l’AIECM2, Aix-en-Provence (13–18 novembre 1995) (Aix-en-Provence: Narration Éditions), pp. 35–48. Saller, S.  J. 1957. Excavations at Bethany (1949–1953), Publications of the Studium Biblicum Franciscanum, 12 ( Jerusalem: Franciscan Printing Press). Salomonson, J.  W. 1968. ‘Spätromische rote tonware mit reliefverzierung aus nordafrikanischen werkstätten’, Bulletin Antieke Beschaving, 43: 4–109. Sanmori, C. and C. Pappalardo. 1997. ‘Ceramica dalla chiesa di San Paolo e della capella dei Pavoni – Umm al-Rasas’, Liber Annuus, 47: 395–428. Sazanov, A. 1997. ‘Les amphores de l’Antiquité tardive et du moyen age: continuité ou rupture? Le cas de la mer Noire’, in G. D. d’Archimbaud (ed.), La céramique médiévale en Méditerranée: actes du VIe congrès de l’AIECM2, Aix-en-Provence (13–18 novembre 1995) (Aix-en-Provence: Narration Éditions), pp. 87–102. Schaefer, J. and R. K. Falkner. 1986. ‘An Umayyad Potters’ Complex in the North Theatre, Jarash’, in F. Zayadine (ed.), Jerash Archaeo­ logical Project, i: 1981–1983 (Amman: Department of Antiquities of Jordan), pp. 411–59. Scheffer-Boichorst, P. 1885. ‘Zur Geschichte der Syrer im Abendlande’, Mitteilungen des Instituts für österreichische Geschichtsforschung, 6: 521–50. Schick, R. 2013. ‘Field C101: Byzantine Church (“Lower Church”)’, in J.  P. Oleson and R.  Schick (eds), Humayma Excavation Project, ii: Nabatean Campground and Necropoli, Byzantine Churches, and Early Islamic Domestic Structures (Boston: American Schools of Oriental Research), pp. 221–97. Schneider, C. 1996. ‘Die Importkeramik’, in A.  Bignasca and others (eds), Petra – ez-Zantur, i: Ergebnisse der SchweizerischLiechtensteinischen Ausgrabungen 1988–1992, Terra Archaeo­logica, 2 (Mainz: Von Zabern), pp. 129–49. Schneider, H. 1950. The Memorial of Moses on Mount Nebo, iii: The Pottery, Publications of the Studium Biblicum Franciscanum, 1 ( Jerusalem: Franciscan Printing Press). Schuring, J. M. 1984. ‘Studies on Roman Amphorae I-II’, Bulletin Antieke Beschaving, 59: 137–95. Schuster, Y. 2000a. ‘Ḥorvat Ḥerev’, Ḥadashot Arkheo­logiyot: Excavations and Surveys in Israel, 112: 133–35. ——  2000b. ‘Nir’am Junction’, Ḥadashot Arkheo­logiyot: Excavations and Surveys in Israel, 112: 135–38. Scorpan, C. 1976. ‘Origini si linii evolutive in ceramica romano-bizantina (sec. IV–VII din spatiul Mediterranean si pontic)’, Pontica, 9: 115–75. ——  1977. ‘Contribution à la connaissance de certains types céramiques romano-byzantins (IVe-VIIe siècles) dans l’espace istropontique’, Dacia, n.s., 21: 269–97. Seligman, J. 2002. ‘Jerusalem’s Ancient Walls Strike Again: The Knight’s Palace Hotel’, ‘Atiqot, 43: 73–85. Seligman, J. and R. Abu Raya. 2000. ‘Dwelling Caves on the Mount of the Olives (Eṭ-Ṭur)’, ‘Atiqot, 40: 123–36. Sellers, O. R. and D. C. Baramki. 1953. A Roman Byzantine Burial Cave in Northern Palestine, Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, suppl. studies, 15–16 (New Haven: American Schools of Oriental Research). Shalem, D. 1996. ‘Magdal Ha’emeq’, Ḥadashot Arkheo­logiyot: Excavations and Surveys in Israel, 103: 36–41. ——  2002. ‘Nevé Ur: An Early Islamic Period Village in the Beth She’an Valley’, ‘Atiqot, 43: 149–75. Shmueli, O. 2012. ‘An Umayyad-Period Aqueduct for the Irrigation of Farmland South of Ramla’, ‘Atiqot, 70: 145–52 (Hebrew). Sibella, P. 1995. ‘The Ceramics’, The INA Quarterly, 22.2: The 1994 INA/CMS Joint Expedition to Tantoora Lagoon, Israel: 13–16. Siegelmann, A. 1974. ‘A Mosaic Floor at Caesarea Maritima’, Israel Exploration Journal, 24: 216–21. ——  1996. ‘Soundings at Ḥ. Qastra, 1988’, ‘Atiqot, 29: 77–92 (Hebrew). ——  1998. ‘An Oil Press of the Byzantine Period in Qiryat Ata’, ‘Atiqot, 34: 101–05 (Hebrew). Singer, K. 2004. ‘The Pottery Assemblages from the Excavations at Ṣarafand el-Kharab, Nes Ẓiyyona’, ‘Atiqot, 46: 49–58 (Hebrew). Singer, K. and U. ‘Ad. 2003. ‘The Pottery from the Winepress at Kefar Sirkin’, ‘Atiqot, 44: 267–70. Sion, O. 2005. ‘Ḥorbat Hermas’, ‘Atiqot, 51: 19–31. ——  2007. ‘The Excavation at Khirbat el Ni’ana’, ‘Atiqot, 57: 29–49 (Hebrew). Sion, O. and others. 2007. ‘Excavations and Surveys at Ḥorbat Anusha and Ḥorbat Leved in the Samarian Shephelah’, ‘Atiqot, 55: 109–59. Slane, K. W. and J. Magness. 2005. ‘Jalame Restudied and Reinterpreted’, Rei Cretariae Romanae Fautorum Acta, 39: 257–61. Slane, K. W. and G. D. P. Sanders. 2005. ‘Corinth: Late Roman Horizons’, Hesperia, 74: 243–97. Smith, R. H. 1973. Pella of the Decapolis, i: The 1967 Season of the College of Wooster Expedition to Pella (Wooster: The College of Wooster).

296

Alexandra Uscatescu

——  1982. ‘Preliminary Report on the 1981 Season of Sydney/Wooster Joint Expedition to Pella (Spring Session)’, Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan, 26: 323–34. Smith, R. H. and L. P. Day (eds). 1989. Pella of the Decapolis, ii: Final Report on the College of Wooster Excavation in Area IX: The Civic Complex, 1979 (Wooster: The College of Wooster). Smithline, H. 2008. ‘Results of Three Small Excavations in Naḥf, Upper Galilee’, ‘Atiqot, 59: 87–101. Sodini, J.-P. 2000. ‘Productions et échanges dans le monde protobyzantine (IVe-VIIe s.): le cas de la céramique’, in K. Belke and others (eds), Byzanz als Raum: Zu Methoden und Inhalten der historischen Geo­graphie des östlichen Mittelmeerraumes, Denkschriften der philosophisch-historischen Klasse, 283, Veröffentlichungen der Kommission für die Tabula Imperii Byzantini, 7 (Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften), pp. 181–208. Sodini, J.-P. and others. 1992. ‘Le Passage de la céramique byzantine à la céramique omeyyade en Syrie du Nord, en Palestine et en Transjordanie’, in P. Canivet and J.-P. Rey-Coquais (eds), La Syrie de Byzance à l’Islam (VIIè – VIIIè siècle) (Damascus: Institut Français de Damas), pp. 195–218. Sogliani, F. 1994. ‘Le testimonianze ceramiche tardoantique e medi­evali a Bosra (Siria). Per un primo contributo alla conoscenza delle tipo­logie’, in Istituto di antichità ravennati e bizantine (ed.), XLI corso di cultura sull’arte ravennate e bizantina: Ravenna, Constantinopoli, Vicino Oriente (Ravenna: Edizioni del Girasole), pp. 433–62. Stacy, D. 1988–89. ‘Umayyad and Egyptian Red Slip A Ware from Tiberias’, Bulletin of the Anglo-Israel Archaeo­logical Society, 8: 21–33. Steinby, E. M. 1987. Indici complementari ai bolli doliari urbani (CIL XV.1), Acta Instituti Romani Finlandiae, 11 (Rome: Institutum Romanum Finlandiae). Stone, D. L., L. M. Stirling, and N. Ben Lazreg. 1998. ‘Suburban Land-Use and Ceramic Production around Leptiminus (Tunisia): Interim Report’, Journal of Roman Archaeo­logy, 11: 305–17. Stoppioni, M.  L. 1983. ‘Le anfore’, in G.  B. Montanari (ed.), Ravenna e il porto di Classe: venti anni di ricerche archeo­logiche tra Ravenna e Classe, Fonti e Studi, 7 (Bo­logna: Uni­ver­sity Press Bo­logna), pp. 132–46. Strange, J. G., D. E. Groh, and T. R. W. Longstaff. 1995. ‘Excavations at Sepphoris: The Location and Identification of Shikhin, ii’, Israel Exploration Journal, 45: 171–87. Syon, D. 2000. ‘Khiṣaṣ’, Ḥadashot Arkheo­logiyot: Excavations and Surveys in Israel, 112: 3–10. ——  2004. ‘A Late Byzantine Oil Press at Kefar Baruk’, ‘Atiqot, 47: 155–68. Syon, D. and E. J. Stern. 2014. ‘Excavations at the Dar el-Gharbiya Neighborhood of Kafr Yasif: A Crusade Estate in the Territory of ‘Akko’, ‘Atiqot, 79: 233–61. Tahan, H. and D. Syon. 2010. ‘A Christian Inscription at Shelomi’, ‘Atiqot, 62: 161–76. Tal, O. 2009. ‘A Winepress at Apollonia-Arsuf: More Evidence on the Samarian Presence in Roman-Byzantine Southern Sharon’, Liber Annuus, 59: 319–42. Tal, O. and I.  Taxel. 2008. Ramla (South): An Early Islamic Industrial Site and Remains of Previous Periods, Salvage Excavation Reports, 5 (Tel Aviv: The Emery and Claire Yass Publications in Archaeo­logy). ——  2010. ‘A Re-appraisal of the Archaeo­logical Findings at Tel Ḥashash: On the Archaeo­logy of the Yarqon Estuary from Classical Times to Late Antiquity’, Palestine Exploration Quarterly, 142: 95–126. Taxel, I. 2009. Khirbet es-Suyyagh: A Byzantine Monastery in the Judean Shephelah, Salvage Excavation Reports, 6 (Tel Aviv: The Emery and Claire Yass Publications in Archaeo­logy). Taxel, I. and A. Fantalkin. 2011. ‘Egyptian Coarse Ware in Early Islamic Palestine: Between Commerce and Migration’, Al-Masāq, 23: 77–97. Taylor, R.  J. and V.  J. Robinson. 1996. ‘Neutron Activation Analysis of Roman African Red Slip Ware Kilns’, Archaeometry, 38: 231–43. Tomber, R. 1988. ‘Pottery from the 1982–83 Excavations’, in J. H. Humphrey (ed.), The Circus and a Byzantine Cemetery at Carthage (Ann Arbor: Uni­ver­sity of Michigan Press), pp. 437–538. ——  1999. ‘Pottery from the Sediments of the Inner Harbor (Area I14)’, in K. G. Holum and others (eds), Caesarea Papers, ii: Herod’s Temple, the Provincial Governor’s Praetorium and Granaries, the Later Harbor, a Gold Coin Hoard, and Other Studies, Journal of Roman Archaeo­logy, suppl. 35 (Portsmouth, RI: Journal of Roman Archaeo­logy), pp. 295–322. ——  2004. ‘Amphorae from the Red Sea and their Contribution to the Interpretation of Late Roman Trade beyond the Empire’, in J. Eiring and J. Lund (eds), Transport Amphorae and Trade in the Eastern Mediterranean: Acts of the International Colloquium at the Danish Institute at Athens, September 26–29, 2002, Mono­graphs of the Danish Institute at Athens (Aarhus: Aarhus Uni­ver­ sity Press), pp. 393–402. Torge, H. and U. ‘Ad. 2013. ‘Late Byzantine Buildings on the Eastern Fringes of Tell Shiqmona’, ‘Atiqot, 72: 99–129 (Hebrew). Tortorella, S. 1982. ‘La Sigillata africana a Cartagine fra il 400 d.C. e la conquista vandala: i dati dello scavo della missione archeo­ logica italiana’, in Actes du colloque sur la céramique antique, Carthage 23–24 juin 1980, CEDAC Carthage Bulletin, 1 (Paris: Centre d’Etudes et de Documentation Archéo­logique de Carthage), pp. 125–39.

7. Late Antique Ceramic Imports in Gerasa

297

——  1987. ‘La ceramica africana: un riesame della problemática’, in P. Lévêque and J.-P. Morel (eds), Céramiques hellénistiques et romaines, ii (Paris: Les Belles Lettres), pp. 279–327. ——  1995. ‘La ceramica africana. Un bilancio dell’ultimo decennio di recerche’, in P. Trousset (ed.), Productions et exportations africaines: actualités archéo­logiques en Afrique du Nord antique et médieval (Paris: Les Belles Lettres), pp. 79–101. ——  1998. ‘La Sigillata africana in Italia nell VI e nell VII secolo d.C.: Problemi di crono­logia e distribuzione’, in L. Saguì (ed.), Ceramica in Italia: VI–VII secolo: atti del convegno in onore di John W. Hayes (Roma, 11–13 maggio 1995), Biblioteca di Archeo­ logia Medi­evale (Florence: All’insegna del Giglio), pp. 41–69. Touma, M. 1989. ‘La céramique protobyzantine d’Amathonte: remarques sur le matériel trouvé en 1988’, Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique, 113: 871–75. ——  2001. ‘Quelques témoignages de la céramique sur les échanges syro-chypriotes à la période byzantine’, in E. Villeneuve and P. M. Watson (eds), La céramique byzantine et proto-islamique en Syrie-Jordanie (IVe-VIIIe siécles apr. J.-C.): actes du colloque tenu à Amman les 3, 4 et 5 décembre 1994, Bibliothèque Archéo­logique et Historique, 159 (Beirut: Institut Français d’Archéo­logie du Proche-Orient), pp. 49–58. Tubb, J. N. 1986. ‘The Pottery from a Byzantine Well near Tell Fara’, Palestine Exploration Quarterly, 118: 51–65. Tudor, D. 1937–40. ‘Sucidava II’, Dacia, 7–8: 359–400. Tushingham, A.  D. 1972. The Excavations at Dibon (Dhībān) in Moab: The Third Campaign 1952–53, Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research, 40 (New Haven: American Schools of Oriental Research). ——  1985. Excavations in Jerusalem 1961–1967, i (Toronto: Royal Ontario Museum). Tzaferis, V. 1974. ‘A Tower and Fortress near Jerusalem’, Israel Exploration Journal, 24: 84–94. ——  1975. ‘The Archaeo­logical Excavation at Shepherds’ Field’, Liber Annuus, 25: 5–52. ——  1980. ‘A Roman Bath at Rama’, ‘Atiqot, 14: 66–75. ——  1982. ‘The Ancient Synagogue at Ma’oz Hayyim’, Israel Exploration Journal, 32: 215–44. ——  1983. The Excavations of Kursi – Gergesa, ‘Atiqot, 16 ( Jerusalem: Department of Antiquities and Museums, Ministry of Education and Culture). ——  2014. ‘New Archaeo­logical Finds from Kursi-Gergesa’, ‘Atiqot, 79: 175–97. Uscatescu, A. 1992. ‘Cerámica importada de Gerasa (Ŷaraš, Jordania): el lote de las excavaciones del Macellum’, Caesaraugusta, 69: 115–81. ——  1996. La cerámica del Macellum de Gerasa (Ŷaraš, Jordania), Informes Arqueológicos/Jordania, 5 (Madrid: Instituto del Patrimonio Histórico). ——  2001. ‘L’Apport des fouilles du macellum ( Jérash, Jordanie) à la connaissance des céramiques byzantine tardives de Gerasa’, in E. Villeneuve and P. M. Watson (eds), La céramique byzantine et proto-islamique en Syrie-Jordanie (IVe-VIIIe siécles apr. J.-C.): actes du colloque tenu à Amman les 3, 4 et 5 décembre 1994, Bibliothèque Archéo­logique et Historique, 159 (Beirut: Institut Français d’Archéo­logie du Proche-Orient), pp. 59–76. ——  2003. ‘Report on the Levant Pottery (5th–9th Century ad)’, in M. Bonifay (ed.), ‘Table ronde de Rome à Byzance; de Fostat à Cordoue: évolution des faciès céramiques en Méditerranée (Ve-IXe siècles)’, in Association International pour l’Étude des Céramiques Médiévales Mediterranéenes (ed.), VIIe Congrès international sur la céramique médieval en Méditerranée, Thessaloniki, 11–16 October 1999 (Athens: Caisse des Recettes Archéo­logiques), pp. 546–58. ——  2019. ‘Revisiting Jerash Late Antique Fine Wares: A Material and Visual Culture Approach’, in A. Lichtenberger and R. Raja (eds), The Byzantine and Umayyad Periods in Jerash Reconsidered: Transitions, Transformations, Continuities (Turnhout: Brepols), pp. 7–114. Uscatescu, A. and T. Marot. 2016. ‘The Ancient Macellum of Gerasa in the Late Byzantine and Early Islamic Periods: The Archaeo­ logical Evidence’, in I. Thuesen (ed.), Islamic Archaeo­logy Symposium: Proceedings of the 2nd International Congress on the Archaeo­ logy of the Near East, 22–26 May, 2000, Copen­hagen, ii (Bo­logna: Uni­ver­sity of Bo­logna), pp. 281–306. Ustinova, Y. and P. Nahshoni. 1994. ‘Salvage Excavations in Ramot Nof, Be’er Sheva’, ‘Atiqot, 25: 157–77. Van Alfen, P. G. 1996. ‘New Light on the 7th Century Yassi Ada Shipwreck: Capacities and Standard Sizes of LRA 1 Amphoras’, Journal of Roman Archaeo­logy, 9: 189–213. Van den Brink, E. and others. 2013. ‘Two Roman-Byzantine Subsurface Features at Ḥorbat Qasṭra (Castra), at the Foot of Mount Carmel’, ‘Atiqot, 75: 71–125. Vandeput, L. and V. Köse. 2008. ‘Pisidia Survey Project 2008: Research in the Territory of Pednelissos’, Anatolian Archaeo­logy, 14: 32–33. Vanni Desideri, A. 2012. ‘I saggi archeo­logici dell’Università de Firenze sul Monte Nebo-Siyagha (Luglio, 1987)’, in L. Di Segni and L. D. Chrupcala (eds), Christ Is Here! Studies in Biblical and Christian Archaeo­logy in Memory of Michele Piccirillo, OFM, Studium Biblicum Franciscanum, Collectio Maior, 52 (Milan: Edizione di Terra Santa), pp. 297–317. Varga, D. 2002. ‘A Farmhouse at Giv’at Maḥat (Ḥura)’, ‘Atiqot, 43: 107–13 (Hebrew). Vieweger, D. 2002. ‘Tall Zar’ā in Wādī al-‘Arab: The Gadara Region Project’, Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan, 46: 157–77.

298

Alexandra Uscatescu

Villeneuve, E. 2003. ‘La céramique de Jérash au temps des églises. Un aperçu des productions et des importations’, in N. Duval (ed.), Les Églises de Jordanie et leur mosaïques: actes de la journée d’études organisée le 22 février 1989 au Musée de la Civilisation galloromaine de Lyon, Bibliothèque Archéo­logique et Historique, 169 (Beirut: Institut Français d’Archéo­logie du Proche-Orient), pp. 147–50. Villeneuve, E. and P. Watson (eds). 2001. La céramique byzantine et proto-islamique en Syrie-Jordanie (IVe-VIIIe siécles apr. J.-C.): actes du colloque tenu à Amman les 3, 4 et 5 décembre 1994, Bibliothèque Archéo­logique et Historique, 159 (Beirut: Institut Français d’Archéo­logie du Proche-Orient). Vitto, F. 1980. ‘Potter’s Kilns at Kfar Naḥf ’, Israel Exploration Journal, 30: 205–06. ——  1996. ‘Byzantine Mosaics at Bet She’arim: New Evidence for the History of the Site’, ‘Atiqot, 28: 115–46. ——  1998. ‘Maḥoza D-Yamnin: A Mosaic Floor from the Time of Eudocia’, ‘Atiqot, 35: 109–34. ——  2008. ‘A Byzantine Church at Qiryat Ata’, ‘Atiqot, 60: 165–76. Vogt, C. 1997. ‘Les céramiques ommeyyades et abbasides d’Istabl’antar – Fostat: traditions méditerranéennes et influence orientales’, in G. D. d’Archimbaud (ed.), La céramique médiévale en Méditerranée: actes du VIe congrès de l’AIECM2, Aix-en-Provence (13–18 novembre 1995) (Aix-en-Provence: Narration Éditions), pp. 243–60. Vokaer, A. 2013. ‘Continuity and Changes in Ceramic Production and Exchange in Syria, between the End of the Byzantine and the Beginning of the Early Islamic Periods (6th–9th Century ce)’, in A. Kralides and A. Gkoutzioukostas (eds), Byzantium and the Arab World: Encounter of Civilisations, Proceedings of the International Symposium (Thessaloniki, 16–18 December 2011) (Thessaloniki: Aristotle Uni­ver­sity of Thessaloniki), pp. 483–510. Waagé, F. O. 1948. ‘Hellenistic and Roman Tableware of North Syria’, in Antioch on-the-Orontes, iv.1: Ceramics and Islamic Coins (Princeton: Princeton Uni­ver­sity Press), pp. 1–60. Waliszewski, T. 2001. ‘Céramique byzantine et proto-islamique de Khirbet edh-Dharih’, in E. Villeneuve and P. M. Watson (eds), La céramique byzantine et proto-islamique en Syrie-Jordanie (IVe-VIIIe siécles apr. J.-C.): actes du colloque tenu à Amman les 3, 4 et 5 décembre 1994, Bibliothèque Archéo­logique et Historique, 159 (Beirut: Institut Français d’Archéo­logie du Proche-Orient), pp. 95–106. Walmsley, A. 1980. ‘Areas III and IV: The Umayyad Deposit’, Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan, 24: 26–32. ——  1988. ‘Pella/Fiḥl after the Islamic Conquest (ad 635–c.  900): A  Convergence of Literary and Archaeo­logical Evidence’, Mediterranean Archaeo­logy, 1: 142–59. ——  1995. ‘Tradition, Innovation, and Imitation in the Material Culture of Islamic Jordan: The First Four Centuries’, Studies in the History and Archaeo­logy of Jordan, 5: 657–68. Walmsley, A. and A. D. Grey. 2001. ‘An Interim Report on the Pottery from Gharandal (Arindela), Jordan’, Levant, 33: 139–64. Walmsley, A. and others. 1993. ‘The Eleventh and Twelfth Season of Excavation at Pella (Ṭabaqt Faḥl) 1989–1990’, Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan, 37: 165–239. ——  2008. ‘A Mosque, Shops and Bath in Central Jarash: The 2007 Season of the Islamic Jarash Project’, Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan, 52: 109–37. Wampler, J. C. 1947. Tell En-Nasbeh, ii: The Pottery (Berkeley: The Palestine Institute of Pacific School of Religion). Watson, P. 1984. ‘Pottery from the Hellenistic to the Islamic Periods’, in J. W. Hanbury-Tenison and others, ‘Wadi Arab Survey 1983’, Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan, 28: 404–11. ——  1986a. ‘Area B: The Cardo-Decumanus Corner. A Report on Seven Centuries of Occupation’, in W. Ball and others, ‘The North Decumanus and North Tetrapylon at Jarash: An Archaeo­logical and Architectural Report’, in F. Zayadine (ed.), Jerash Archaeo­ logical Project, i: 1981–1983 (Amman: Department of Antiquities of Jordan), pp. 359–67. ——  1986b. ‘The Byzantine Period in Plot IV’, in A. W. McNicoll and others, ‘Preliminary Report on the Uni­ver­sity of Sydney’s Seventh Season of Excavation at Pella (Ṭabaqat Faḥl) in 1985’, Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan, 30: 177–81. ——  1990. ‘Byzantine Remains on the Summit of Tell el-Huṣn (Area XXXIV)’, in C. E. Phillip and others, ‘Preliminary Report on the Uni­ver­sity of Sydney’s Tenth Season of Excavations at Pella (Ṭabaqat Faḥl) in 1988’, Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan, 34: 76–80. ——  1992a. ‘Byzantine Domestic Occupation in Areas III and IV (Pl.  108–18, Endplates 4–6)’, in A.  W. McNicoll and others (eds), Pella in Jordan, ii: The Second Interim Report of the Joint Uni­ver­sity of Sydney and College of Wooster Excavations at Pella, 1982–1985, Mediterranean Archaeo­logy, suppl. 2 (Canberra: Australian National Gallery), pp. 163–81. ——  1992b. ‘Change in Foreign and Regional Economic Links with Pella in the Seventh Century ad: The Ceramic Evidence’, in P. Canivet and J.-P. Rey-Coquais (eds), La Syrie de Byzance à l’Islam (VIIè-VIIIè siècle) (Damascus: Institut Français de Damas), pp. 233–48. ——  1993. ‘Tell al-Huṣn (Area XXXIV)’, in A. G. Walmsley and others, ‘The Eleventh and Twelfth Seasons of Excavations at Pella (Ṭabaqat Faḥl) 1989–1990’, Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan, 27: 198–210. ——  1995a. ‘Ceramic Evidence for Egyptian Links with Northern Jordan in the 6th–8th Centuries ad’, in S.  Bourke and J.-P. Descoeudres (eds), Trade, Contact, and the Movement of Peoples in the Eastern Mediterranean: Studies in Honour of J. Basil Hennessy, Mediterranean Archaeo­logy, suppl. 3 (Sydney: MeditArch), pp. 304–20.

7. Late Antique Ceramic Imports in Gerasa

299

——  1995b. ‘Production and Classification of Jerash Bowl: The Role of Chemical Analysis’, in H. Meyza and J. Młynarczyk (eds), Hellenistic and Roman Pottery in the Eastern Mediterranean – Advances in Scientific Studies: Acts of the 2nd Nieborów Pottery Workshop (Warsaw: Research Center for Mediterranean Archaeo­logy, Polish Academy of Sciences), pp. 453–62. Weksler-Bdolah, S. 2006. ‘The Old City Wall of Jerusalem, the Northwestern Corner’, ‘Atiqot, 54: 95–119. ——  2011. ‘The Fortification System in the Northwestern Part of Jerusalem from the Early Islamic to the Ottoman Periods’, ‘Atiqot, 65: 105–30 (Hebrew). ——  2012. ‘Ḥorbat ‘Illin (Upper): Rock-Cut Installation from the Late Hellenistic and Early Roman Periods, and Remains of a Settlement from the Byzantine and Early Islamic Periods’, ‘Atiqot, 71: 13–75 (Hebrew). Weksler-Bdolah, S. and M. Avissar. 2015. ‘An Excavation in the Courtyard of the Knight’s Palace Hotel in the Christian Quarter, the Old City of Jerusalem’, ‘Atiqot, 80: 67–108 (Hebrew). Welles, C. B. 1938. ‘The Inscriptions’, in C. H. Kraeling (ed.), Gerasa, City of the Decapolis: An Account Embodying the Record of a Joint Excavation Conducted by Yale Uni­ver­sity and the British School of Archaeo­logy in Jerusalem (1928–1930), and Yale Uni­ver­sity and the American Schools of Oriental Research (New Haven: American Schools of Oriental Research), pp. 355–494. Whitcomb, D. 2001. ‘Ceramic Production at Aqaba in the Early Islamic Period’, in E. Villeneuve and P. Watson (eds), La céramique byzantine et proto-islamique en Syrie-Jordanie (IVe-VIIIe siécles apr. J.-C.): actes du colloque tenu à Amman les 3, 4 et 5 décembre 1994, Bibliothèque Archéo­logique et Historique, 159 (Beirut: Institut Français d’Archéo­logie du Proche-Orient), pp. 297–303. Whitehouse, D. 1979. ‘La Schola Praeconum al Palatino’, Archeo­logia Laziale, 2: 279–82. Wiemkin, R. C. and K. G. Holum. 1981. ‘The Joint Expedition to Caesarea Maritima: Eighth Season 1979’, Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, 244: 27–52. Wightman, G. J. 1989. The Damascus Gate: Excavation by C. M. Bennet and J. B. Hennessy at the Damascus Gate, Jerusalem, 1964– 1966, British Archaeo­logical Reports, International Series, 519 (Oxford: Archaeopress). Williams, C. L. 2009. ‘Egyptian Red Slip Pottery at Aila’ (unpublished master’s thesis, North Carolina State Uni­ver­sity). Williams, D.  F. 1982. ‘The Petro­logy of Certain Byzantine Amphorae: Some Suggestions as to Origins’, in Actes du colloque sur la céramique antique, Carthage 23–24 juin 1980, CEDAC Carthage Bulletin, 1 (Paris: Centre d’Etudes et de Documentation Archéo­logique de Carthage), pp. 99–110. Wilson, J. and M. Sa’ad. 1984. ‘The Domestic Material Culture of Nabatean to Umayyad Period Buṣrā’, Berytus, 32: 35–147. Wilson, R. J. A. 1990. Sicily under the Roman Empire: The Archaeo­logy of a Roman Province, 36 bc–ad 535 (Warminster: Aris and Phillips). Wolff, S. R. 2009. ‘A Sounding near the Summut of Gush Ḥalav’, ‘Atiqot, 61: 41–50. Yanklevitz, S. 2008. ‘A Burial Complex from the Roman Period in Ancient Haifa’, ‘Atiqot, 60: 1–11 (Hebrew). Yannai, E. 2010. ‘A Salvage Excavation at Ḥorbat Roẓeẓ’, ‘Atiqot, 62: 105–37. Yeivin, Z. 1992. ‘Excavations at Carmiel (Khirbet Bata)’, ‘Atiqot, 21: 109–28. Zemer, A. 1978. Storage Jars in Ancient Sea Trade (Haifa: National Maritime Museum). Zimmerman Munn, M. L. 1985. ‘A Late Roman Kiln Site in the Hermionid Greece’, American Journal of Archaeo­logy, 89: 342–43.

8. Roman-Period Roof Tiles from the Northwest Quarter of Jerash Philip Ebeling Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität Münster, Institut für Klassische Archäo­logie und Christliche Archäo­logie/ Archäo­logisches Museum, Münster. [email protected]

Introduction Tiled roofs in the southern Levant were introduced under King Herod (37  bc–ad 4), 1 but were not widely adopted for architectural constructions in the region. After the Jewish War in the first century ad, the Roman military was permanently present in the region. During this time and in the following century, only the tenth and sixth Roman legions manufactured roof tiles. These are only known from contexts of refuse or reuse.2 Especially the products of the tenth legion are a very well-known group of ceramic building produce, and the ceramics have received a lot of attention due to their stamps. They are mostly found in Jerusalem. The roof tiles of the sixth legion are rather rare. The camp of that legion was stationed at a small antique settlement (Capercotani/Kfar ‘Othnay) in the plains of Megiddo. However, the camp of the tenth legion was one of the factors for the refoundation of Jerusalem under the name of Aelia Capitolina in the second century ad, and in this new city there was an increase in stamped roof tiles for the various buildings. The earliest evidence for tiles on roofs in the Roman period is preserved in destruction levels of the third to fourth centuries ad.3 These roof tiles also happen to be the earliest, manufactured by privately owned workshops. During Byzantine times, the use of roof tiles spread 1 

The earliest evidence of primary use in Pritchard 1951, 11. 2  For some examples: Adler 2001; Arubas and Goldfus 1995; Barag 1967; Geva 2003 for the tenth legion and Tepper 2017, 133–39 for the sixth legion. 3  Adan-Bayewitz 1982, 25–27, 29; Dar 1993, pl. 8; Karz Reid 2005, fig. 32. One exception is the stadium (Crowfoot 1933, 69 only mentions this — no documentation) and the first layer of roof tiles in the Basilica of Samaria (Reisner, Fisher, and Lyon 1924, fig. 146a).

quickly across the southern Levant. Even in remote places, deep in highly arid areas with almost no rainfall, the gabled roofs of churches carried roof tiles.4 During the Early Islamic period, some mosques were roofed with tiles,5 however, most of the roof tiles from contexts corresponding to these times stem from deposits of refuse or reuse. We can safely assume a decline in the use of roof tiles during the Early Islamic period. The reuse of all sorts of building ceramics, including roof tiles, continued occasionally even up to the twelfth century ad.6 Even though no roof can be reconstructed in the Northwest Quarter of Jerash, numerous roof tiles were unearthed during excavations from 2012 to 2016 in all opened trenches. 7 Of these roof tiles, 256 have been kept. The assemblage consists of 225 pantiles, tegulae, and thirty cover tiles, imbrices. A pantile is a flat, rectangular, or tapering piece of fired clay, with at least two lateral flanges at its long sides. A cover tile is an elongated sheet of fired clay, usually rounded, forming half a tube. It can also be buckled lengthwise. An imbrex is used to cover two adjacent flanges of tegulae, and fixed in place by mortar. As gabled roofs are sloping, a roof tile has a lower and an upper end or rim.

Major and Minor Contexts In 2012 and again in 2016, in Trenches A and S (Fig. 8.1) on the hill of the Northwest Quarter of the 4  For tiled church roofs in arid areas, see e.g.: Tsaferis 1985, 13 in the Wadi Araba. 5  Damgaard 2011 for Jerash. 6  Kletter and Stern 2006, 201. 7  Ebeling (forthcoming).

Hellenistic and Roman Gerasa: The Archaeo­logy and History of a Decapolis City, ed. by Achim Lichtenberger and Rubina Raja, JP 5 (Turnhout: Brepols, 2020), 301–312 BREPOLS PUBLISHERS DOI 10.1484/M.JP-EB.5.120812

Philip Ebeling

302

Figure 8.1. Plan of the Northwest Quarter with excavated trenches (Danish-German Jerash Northwest Quarter Project).

antique Antioch on the Chrysorrhoas formerly called Gerasa, a monumental cistern was excavated. It formed part of an unknown, larger structure that was probably monumental as well. The cistern was filled in during the late third or early fourth century.8 This act of closing was carried out on a single occasion, and not in stages.9 It was accompanied by several cooking pot deposits, containing ashes, chicken bones, and glass pieces: evidence of a magical ritual.10 Whether it was privately or publicly organized cannot be determined, but it underlines the importance of the very act of filling up the cistern and of the structure to which it once belonged.11 During excavation of that structure, many fragments of ceramic 8  Lichtenberger and Raja 2018, 150–53; Olsen and Philippsen (forthcoming). 9  Lichtenberger and Raja 2018, 150–53. 10  Lichtenberger and Raja 2015. 11  Lichtenberger and Raja 2018, 150.

building material were found and kept for further study. This major evidence is referred to simply as the ‘Hill-top Cistern’ in the following. The main tegula type in this context shows a ridge on its top surface. In the campaign of 2014, Trench J was opened. It revealed a staircase, leading down into a karst-cave (Fig.  8.1). At one point, during the Early Byzantine period, the northern entrance to the cave was blocked and the staircase filled up. This major infill consisted mainly of material of the Late Roman period (third– fourth centuries ad), next to a rather small amount of Byzantine pottery. Between the many vessel sherds, fragments of ceramic building material were part of the deposit. This second major evidence is referred to as the ‘Cave Filling’. The main tegula type in this context shows a flange, that is adjusting around a cut-out at the lower rim of the tegula. These two major sources of evidence provide a large number of roof tiles and a rather certain date in chrono­

8. Roman-Period Roof Tiles from the Northwest Quarter of Jerash

Figure 8.2. Photo of J14-Jd-32-174 from above (Danish-German Jerash Northwest Quarter Project).

Figure 8.3. Photo of J14-Jd-35-78 from above (Danish-German Jerash Northwest Quarter Project).

logy for the deposition. Next to those, a small number of minor contexts was excavated in which roof tiles were present. However, their contents stem from different periods and their absolute dates are uncertain. These roof tiles from minor contexts form part of the overall assemblage of Roman-period material from the Northwest Quarter as well.

Two Roof Tile Types The Roman roof tiles unearthed in the Northwest Quarter all belong to the Roman or ‘hybrid’ roofing system that combines a Corinthian pantile with a Laconian cover tile. All roof tiles from the Northwest Quarter had a very rough and diverse appearance. A petro­graphic study, conducted on a small amount of building ceramics, made it clear that the raw materials for the tegulae, imbrices, and more were of local origin. Neither was the clay levigated, nor tempered with inorganic material.12 In a number of fragments though, organic temper occurs in the form of chaff, which can be seen in the ashy, black voids and cavities in the clay body. For a tegula, a rectangular sheet of clay would be cut out of the raw material, perhaps with the help of an instrument, such as a frame or a mould. The flanges would be formed next by simply buckling two of the sides of the clay sheet. A very limited number of flanges were shaped in a different way; they were 12 

Apart from one single piece: Ebeling and Barfod (forth­ coming).

Figure 8.4. Photo of J16-Sh-56-5 from above with scale (Danish-German Jerash Northwest Quarter Project).

303

Philip Ebeling

304

Figure 8.6. Roof tile with ridge from Petra (Hamari 2017, fig. 6.2. Copyright Pirjo Hamari, 2017).

Figure 8.5. Map of the southern Levant with find spots of ridged roof tiles marked (Philip Ebeling).

separately formed, set on top of the body and merged by hand or with a tool.13 No example from the Northwest Quarter has been fully preserved. Intact, complete, or reconstructable examples from other excavations show that there is no fixed metro­logy to the roof tiles. Even the products of a Roman legion can vary greatly in size.14 In a subsequent production step, the tegulas’s surface would receive a fine smoothing that is in many cases associated with a light beige wash. This wash is a rather rough, thin 13 

Another flange-forming technique, present in Jerash with only three examples, is documented by Vriezen (1995, figs 5.7 and 6.9) for roof tile flanges found in Gadara. 14  Barag 1967, 251.

layer of clay, mixed with chalk or lime and water for better dispersion.15 This production step obscures many other production marks on the pantile. Some bottom surfaces received smoothing as well. In such cases, the bottom surface shows a pattern that slightly resembles impressions caused by wooden boards of working tables or moulds. A  closer look, however, reveals these patterns are handmade. Impressions of a wooden underlay are rare. They are in some cases identified with certainty. An additional last step is in some cases a diagonal and/or lateral scoring of the bottom’s sides. Top sides are either inscribed, decorated with a pattern, or left without further marks. In most cases, the preserved inscriptions are just one or two Greek letters, whose meaning is at present obscure.16 In one case it is clear that a name was written in full on the tile (Fig. 8.2). All letters were either inscribed with a finger or using a small tool or utensil. On one fragment of a tegula body, a decoration in form of a zigzag pattern is found (Fig. 8.3). Many ground impressions on bottom surfaces can reveal that most tegulae laid on the uncleaned ground to rest and dry. The most common Roman roof tile type shows a transversal ridge running from flange to flange (Fig. 8.4). The ridge is always set c. 4.5–5 cm beneath the upper rim. In some cases, ridge and flanges are not connected, 15 

Appendix to Ebeling and Barfod (forthcoming). They might represent workers, customers, places of delivery, positions on a roof, etc. Single letters can represent numerals as well; however, the available combinations of letters cannot be read as numbers. 16 

8. Roman-Period Roof Tiles from the Northwest Quarter of Jerash but a small gap in between separates them. The ridges themselves are always peaked in cut-section and their thickness usually varies between c.  5–10  mm. Every fragment of this tegula type is fired red in an oxidizing atmosphere. Overall, the ridged tiles from the Northwest Quarter are a rather homogenous group of objects; there are not many differences to other published fragments from the southern Levant. However, the similarities are striking: the ridges, peaked in cross-section, are always set 4.5–5 cm below the upper rim. Ridged tiles appear among a significant amount of Roman to Late Roman contexts in the region, but are not limited to that period (Fig. 8.5). No tegula of the Northwest Quarter, at least so far, seems to have had a tapering form. Just a handful of published fragments of tegulae with a ridge show a tapering form.17 The deposition of roof tiles with a ridge in the Hill-top Cistern took place in the late third to the early fourth centuries ad. This is roughly contemporary with the first destruction of roofs with locally made roof tiles.18 The destruction of the Synagogue of Horvat ‘Ammudim seems to be the earliest roof destruction of this type.19 Other ridged roof tiles in roof destructions are known from the earthquake debris of ad 363 in Petra (Fig. 8.6).20 All the roof tiles in the Hill-top Cistern of Jerash, however, were in a state of refuse from the same period. They were produced earlier, maybe in the middle or the early third century ad. Only one roof tile with a ridge is published from an earlier context of refuse, but it is a military product.21 The roof tile type with a ridge seems to be less favoured during Byzantine and Early Islamic times, as its numbers decrease in find records from these periods. Tegulae, with a characteristic adjustment to the lower end of their flanges, were found in the Cave Filling: at the left and right lower end, a piece of the body and flange is cut out of the tegula. Around this cut, a hand-formed, smaller flange is set and merged with the remaining flange (Fig. 8.7). Strong surface treatment obscures further marks. This adjustment makes the lower end of the 17 

Schick 1889, 182–83, no. 1; Weksler-Bdolah 2016, fig. 18.4. All of these roof tiles happen to have a ridge, see n. 3. 19  Adan-Bayewitz 1982, 25–27 and 29. The roof tiles from the portico at the stadium of Samaria-Sebaste are even earlier, but are not documented, only mentioned (Crowfoot 1933, 69). 20  Hamari 2017, fig. 6.2–3; Hammond 1965, pl. 39; Karz Reid 2005, fig. 32. The second roof tile layer in the Basilica of Samaria is not precisely dated (Reisner, Fisher, and Lyon 1924, fig. 146c), but might originate from the ad 363 earthquake. 21  Bahat 1974, 162–63. 18 

305

Figure 8.7. Photo of J14-Jc-53-5 from above with scale (Danish-German Jerash Northwest Quarter Project).

tegula narrower, gathers the stream of water and directs it away from the lateral flanges. Contrary to the homogeneity of the roof tiles with a ridge, tegulae with the characteristic adjustment are very heterogeneous: not a single fragment shows any similarities to another one, in terms of size and form. It is safe to assume that no fragment once belonged to the same tegula. Tegulae with this adjustment do not appear in the Hill-top Cistern. This tegula type does not find any close comparison so far,22 22  One fragment, identifiable with certainty as a spouted tile, originates from the bath house under or from the Congregational Mosque of Jerash itself, but was not part of any of these buildings, thus, just a single, isolated piece (Barnes and others 2006, fig. 17.4; Walmsley 2002, fig.  24B bottom left). One pantile fragment, published by drawings and profiles from a Byzantine-period context of the sixth century ad from Madaba might resemble a waterspout, but can also represent a lower cutaway (Piccirillo 1994, 402, no. 18, fig. 10.18). Another roof tile from Mt Nebo, not contextualized, is

Philip Ebeling

306

Figure 8.9. Photo of J16-Sb-23-15 from above with scale (Danish-German Jerash Northwest Quarter Project).

Figure 8.8. Spouted roof tile from Gordion (Glendinning 1996, pl. 31a. Copyright Matthew Randall Glendinning, 1996).

but features with a similar effect for the flow of water are known from other sites in Asia Minor23 (Fig. 8.8) and Cyprus.24 They date from the Greek Archaic period (seventh to sixth century bc) up to the Late Roman period (late fourth century ad). With the available comparison, the fragments with adjustments are identified as a late variant of spouted or eaves tiles. The closest comparison in date and geo­graphy comes from Late Roman Cyprus: tegulae, with an adjustment, interpreted as controlling the flow of water, were found around the Temple of Apollon Hylates in Kourion. Their date of use from the first to the last quarter of the fourth century ad matches with the approximate date of those in the Cave Filling. But as no more examples of spouted tiles are published from the wider region, one cannot say if they were still produced in the fifth and sixth centuries. The Roman-period imbrices are found less often than the tegulae. There are two basic forms of imbrices: the rounded Laconian form, and the gabled Corinthian form. Every Roman-period imbrex from the Hill-top Cistern and the Cave Filling is of the Laconian form (Fig.  8.9). Only one fragment of an imbrex from a mixed context was of the gabled Corinthian form. From the southern Levant there are not many comparisons for Corinthian imbrices available. Most of them stem from Roman-period contexts. 25 Therefore, the one described in a way that matches the outline of the waterspouts of the Northwest Quarter (Saller 1967, 61–62). In both cases, a proper identification is not possible or is, at best, questionable. 23  Åkerström 1966, pl. 3.1 for Neandria (after Koldewey 1891, fig. 66); Glendinning 1996, figs 3–2 and 5, pl. 31.1 and 32.1–2 for Gordion. 24  Huffstot 1987, 263–73. 25  Kanellopoulos 1994, figs 29–30; Reisner, Fisher, and Lyon 1924, figs 96, 146; Smithline 1997, fig. 5.3; Stern and Getzov 2006,

example from the Northwest Quarter is more likely of Roman date than of Byzantine date. Unfortunately, this one fragment does not give any insight into its forming process. The rounded Laconian imbrices, however, do show some more marks and make further observations possible: they were cut out of an untreated mass of clay. On their underside, they are unmarked or show a pattern of marks, which might resemble sand or dirt. On their top surfaces, they show zoned marks of surface treatment. This indicates that they were either produced in a mould and filled with earth, or they were hung above a small mound of sand before firing.26 No Roman-period imbrex from the Northwest Quarter is preserved with a full width, but comparative evidence makes it clear that there is no certain pattern or rule fig.  17. Some Byzantine contexts in Gadara yielded Corinthian imbrices too, but they are not connected to roofs of buildings (Vriezen 1995, fig. 7). 26   The most preferred reconstruction is formed by a semicylindrical mould, pushed under the clay-sheet (Hampe and Winter 1965, pls 15.5–6, 34.5, 42.6, 49.1–2, 55.2 for modern evidence of that technique; Vriezen 1995, fig. 4 for evidence from Gadara).

8. Roman-Period Roof Tiles from the Northwest Quarter of Jerash concerning imbrex widths. However, one imbrex of a chrono­logically mixed context gives a width of 13 cm. One fragment from the Hill-top Cistern can be reconstructed with a width of c. 19–20 cm. No imbrex of the Hill-top Cistern or the Cave Filling is preserved with a frontal or dorsal flange. Examples from later periods show a simple, funnel-like widening made by hand. One imbrex from the Hill-top Cistern received a brown wash and another one was inscribed with two Greek letters (XP). Most imbrices did not receive further surface treatment. The number of Roman-period imbrices, safely identified as such, is rather limited and none excavated show a beige wash, which is the predominant colour for wash on tegulae. However, a pattern on a roof with different coloured tiles is possible.27 One imbrex from the Hill-top Cistern shows a unique, decorative treatment to its lateral rim: impressions from a finger in irregular intervals to the contact zone of imbrex rim and tegula top surface (Fig. 8.10).

307

Figure 8.10. Photo of J16-Sc-2-1 from above with scale (Danish-German Jerash Northwest Quarter Project).

Primary Use of Roof Tiles in Roman-Period Jerash Although no roof was excavated in the Northwest Quarter, much information about Roman-period roof construction can be gathered by a closer study of the Roman roof tiles. The most frequently recurring feature on tegulae from the Hill-top Cistern were transversal ridges. Ridges can be found on many roof tiles of Archaic and Classical times in Italy and Asia Minor.28 They are part of a system that was developed to stabilize the tiles on the roof: the ridge at the upper rim was supposed to fit into a notch in the bottom surface of the tegula following above. This system would prevent the higher tegula from sliding down, but be interlocked with the tile beneath it (Fig. 8.11). In other cases, a small lip, extending from the lower rim of a tegula, would hold onto the ridge of the tegulae beneath it. However, neither lips nor notches on bottom sides are preserved on any of the fragments from the Northwest Quarter. The lack of evidence of these features from other sites in the southern Levant makes it clear that no such notches or lips were used in connection with the ridges found in the

region.29 Roof tiles with waterspouts close to the edge of the roof occur since the Archaic period. They formed part of the last row of tegulae on a roof and replace a proper sima.30 As no waterspout was found to be slightly similar to another one, it is not impossible to draw a conclusion about all seventeen waterspouts representing seventeen different roofs. This, however, remains speculation. A tiling system, in which the tile rests with the exterior of its spout on the upper flange-ends of the tegula below, seems inconclusive. The hand-formed and irregular outline of the waterspouts makes a possible rest rather unstable. Additionally, this observation rules out any option for an identification of these objects as lower cutaways. Spouted tiles seem to have been widely used on the roofs of Roman Jerash for directing rainwater (Fig. 8.12). None of these two Roman-period tegula types function within a self-supporting tiling system. It is safe to assume that the tiles would have been kept in place by their weight31 or by a substance, like mortar, on 29 

27 

For roofs with colour patterns, made of differently coloured roof tiles, see Broadribb 1976, 137. Two painted fragments of a spouted roof tile, unfortunately from a chrono­logically mixed context, hint towards coloured roofs as well, perhaps of Romanperiod times. For this, see Ebeling and Barfod (forthcoming). 28  Åkerström 1966, fig. 5 (Assos), 12 (Larisa), pl. 52.2 (Samos); Gräber 1881, 17 (Sicily). Ramage 1978, 35, fig. 124.

Stern and Getzov 2006, fig. 11 shows a lip, extending down­ wards from the lower rim. This is an exception, and its interpretation as holding onto a ridge might be incorrect. However, this object can be an import from Asia Minor or Cyprus. For roof tiles and clay sarcophagi imported into the coastal southern Levant, see Shapiro 1997, 1–5. 30  Koldewey 1891, 47. 31  Rook 1979, 295.

Philip Ebeling

308 the roof. The scoring of bottom surfaces supports the latter assumption.32 The many roof tiles from the Hill-top Cistern and the Cave Filling were very unlikely to have been taken from the same building-debris. Several monumental public structures or luxurious private buildings served as a source. The number of buildings in the third century ad from the surroundings of the Northwest Quarter were few.

Figure 8.11. Model of interlocking ridged tiles (Philip Ebeling).

Figure 8.12. Demonstration of the function of the spouted tile vs. an unlikely use (Philip Ebeling).

A safe redistribution of the fragments to their structures of origin is not possible, but a few buildings must have had a tiled roof. It can cautiously be suggested that the majority of tiles originate from there. Geo­g raphically closest are the various buildings of the temenos of Artemis33 or the basilica north of the North Theatre.34 The structure, of which the cistern was once part, is not yet well known. It could have had a tiled roof, too. These three structures were probably the source for the tiles in the Hill-top Cistern and the Cave Filling. This suggestion, however, remains hypothetical, since none of these structures have so far yielded archaeo­logical evidence for a tiled roof. It can be summarized that there were at least two types of roof tiles used in the Roman period in Jerash (next to regular roof tiles without any special feature). Although the number of imbrex fragments is small, both Laconian and Corinthian forms are present in Roman Imperial times. Additionally, from both tegulae and imbrices there is evidence for inscriptions and lavish decoration. Lastly, we can still note the many variations 32 

Suggestions for the function of bottom surface scoring: Fisher 1931, 146. Mortar sticking to bottom sides: Alcock and others 2010, 159; Adan-Bayewitz 1982, 25; Landgraf 1980, 87; Saller 1941, 178; Sukenik 1932, 14. 33  See Brizzi 2018 for the latest reconstruction of the temenos. The temple itself is convincingly reconstructed as unfinished and without a tiled roof, but a flat one (figs 6.3 and 6.9). The hesthiatoria along the temenos perimeter are still reconstructed with tiled roofs. 34  Ecker 2016, 116–19; Stewart 1986, 206–29.

within this rather small number of objects from Roman Imperial times. The evidence gives us reason to assume intricately decorated roofs in Roman-period Jerash.

Reuse in Roman Times and of Roman Roof Tiles The majority of roof tiles from the Northwest Quarter originate from contexts of refuse. A  specific group of tegulae formed part of the destruction level of 749 ad. Each of these forty tegulae was part of the Early Islamic dwelling in Trench V and P. This domestic structure was entirely sealed in the earthquake during the Umayyad period.35 Many of the tegula fragments encountered in the dwelling, were of Roman-period date, but the overall assemblage consisted of tegulae of many dates. No imbrex was part of this assemblage. This group of tegulae was interpreted as a purposefully collected assemblage of discarded pantile fragments. All of these tegulae showed breaks, which were carefully reworked in Antiquity. The breaks were either totally even and straight with very sharp edges, or they were rounded with softened edges (Fig. 8.13). Surfaces like these can be caused by sawing and cutting a tile or by filing and grinding an already existing break. The precise way of reworking is not easy to identify, but bears important implications: a sawn or cut break is evidence of an intentional act of breaking, while a filed or ground break could be an accidental, unintended side effect of reuse. To avoid misinterpretations, 35 

Lichtenberger and Raja 2018, 158–61.

8. Roman-Period Roof Tiles from the Northwest Quarter of Jerash

309

Figure 8.13. Comparison of the worked breaks of J16-Scd-13-68+69 and J16-Sd-13-33 with the unworked breaks of J16-Sd-13-34 (Danish-German Jerash Northwest Quarter Project).

Figure 8.14. Two close-up photos of the northern and western face of ‘cistern 2’ (Philip Ebeling).

they are identified as ‘smoothed’ breaks only. Ceramic objects with smoothed break surfaces are in many cases connected to workshops, such as pottery production and tanning industries. Subsequently, they are interpreted as being caused by a specific reuse as a tool.36 However, in the case of the private house, the roof tiles were not used for any kind of production. The evidence of a built structure, filled with plain, white mosaic tesserae, in combination with the finds of tesserae-cutting equipment, suggests a renovation of the floor, which is also hinted at by the assemblage of tiles with smoothed breaks. 37 36 

Kehrberg 2009, 493–500; 2016, 411–22; Taxel 2018, 112. Evidence for the house undergoing renovation: Lichtenberger and Raja 2017, 1003–05. Fundaments comprised of or partly making reuse of roof tiles: Daviau 2010, 131; Hamari 2017, 91–92; Taxel 2018, 113 and fig. 5.8; Tsaferis 1982, pl. 32a.

Cistern 238 adjacent to St Theodore in Jerash gives an example of a method of reuse for roof tiles that is much more applicable to the evidence from the domestic house (Fig. 8.14). The tiles were laid down into a layer of mortar, with their bottom sides facing the cistern’s interior. The breaks of the tiles were finely smoothed and evened beforehand to ensure a better spacing with the least possible space left between them. The roof tiles in the Early Umayyad domestic structure were likely prepared for such a reuse too, but in a fundament layer. This context demonstrates, how Roman-period roof tiles were about to be reused in an Early Umayyad-period household of antique Jerash.

37 

38 

Excavated by and first published under this name in Fisher and McCown 1931, 14.

Philip Ebeling

310 Other forms of reuse for Roman-period roof tiles in the Northwest Quarter are not as easily reconstructed. Within the Hill-top Cistern, some breaks of roof tile fragments appear to be smoothed, too. These smoothed breaks suggest that the Roman-period industries of the city knew this method of reuse. However, no Romanperiod workshop is known, and evidence for such reuse of roof tiles in private contexts is not available. Unfortunately, no further observation or reconstruction can be done. Tegulae were often reused for ovens and kilns. Some vitrified fragments from the Cave Filling attest to this reuse in Roman times, but no Roman-period oven from Jerash is known so far.39 Ovens constructed from reused roofing material, however, are known from other Roman-period contexts, e.g. a Late Roman bakery in Jerusalem.40 39 

For a study on misfired tegulae from the Northwest Quarter, see: Barfod, Ebeling, and Lesher (forthcoming). 40  Mazar 2011, 145–78.

The forms of reuse known from the Northwest Quarter only apply to tegulae. No imbrex was found in a state of reuse. Imbrices, however, were reused in water channels as conduits, but nothing similar was encountered during the excavations in the Northwest Quarter.41 In general, tegulae were prone to more forms of reuse. Imbrices and other ceramic building material, especially tubuli, seem to have received less attention for reuse. Thus, tegulae have been much more valued as material for reuse throughout the antique southern Levantine societies. This seems to be partly the reason for tegulae being preserved in higher numbers in the Northwest Quarter and throughout the wider region in general.

For reuse of imbrices probably during Late Roman times: Oleson 1986, 100. All other known examples date to the Byzantine period or later: De Groot and Michaeli 1992, 83, pl. 44.1; Parker 1991, 131; Saller 1941, 102; Zelinger and Barbé 2017, 58. 41 

8. Roman-Period Roof Tiles from the Northwest Quarter of Jerash

311

Works Cited Adan-Bayewitz, D. 1982. ‘The Ceramics from the Synagogue of Horvat ‘Ammudim and their Chrono­logical Implications’, Israel Exploration Journal, 32: 13–31. Adler, N. 2011. ‘Stamp Impressions of the Tenth Legion from the Temple Mount Excavations’, in E. Mazar (ed.), The Temple Mount Excavations in Jerusalem 1968–78 Directed by Benjamin Mazar: Final Reports, iv: The Tenth Legion in Aelia Capitolina, Qedem, 52 ( Jerusalem: Institute of Archaeo­logy, Hebrew Uni­ver­sity of Jerusalem), pp. 319–32. Åkerström, Å. 1966. Die architektonischen Terrakotten Kleinasiens, Skrifter utgivna av Svenska institutet i Athen, 4.11 (Lund: CWK Gleerup). Alcock, S. E. and others. 2010. ‘The Brown Uni­ver­sity Petra Archaeo­logical Project: Report on the 2009 Exploration Season in the “Upper Market”’, Annual of the Department of Antiquities, 54: 153–66. Arubas, B. and H. Goldfus. 1995. ‘The Kilnworks of the Tenth Legion Fretensis’, in The Roman and Byzantine Near East: Some Recent Archaeo­logical Research, Journal of Roman Archaeo­logy Supplementary Series, 14 (Ann Arbor: Cushing Molly), pp. 95–107. Bahat, D. 1974. ‘A Roof Tile of the Legio VI Ferrata and Pottery Vessels from Horvat Hazon’, Israel Exploration Journal, 24: 160–69. Barag, D. 1967. ‘Brick Stamp-Impressions of the Legio X Fretensis’, Bonner Jahrbücher, 167: 244–67. Barfod, G. H, P. Ebeling, and C. E. Lesher (forthcoming). ‘“Misfired” Ceramic Tegulae from the Northwest Quarter, Geresa’, in A. Lichtenberger and R. Raja (eds), Architectural Elements, Mosaics, Wall-Decorations, and Roof Tiles: Final Publications from the Danish-German Jerash Northwest Quarter Project IV, Jerash Papers, 9 (Turnhout: Brepols). Barnes, H. and others. 2005. ‘From “Guard House” to Congregational Mosque: Recent Discoveries on the Urban History of Islamic Jarash’, Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan, 50: 285–314. Brizzi, M. 2018. ‘The Artemis Temple Reconsidered’, in A. Lichtenberger and R. Raja (eds), The Archaeo­logy and History of Jerash: 110 Years of Excavations, Jerash Papers, 1 (Turnhout: Brepols), pp. 87–110. Broadribb, G. 1987. Roman Brick and Tile (Gloucester: Alan Sutton). Crowfoot, J. W. 1933. ‘Samaria Excavations: The Stadium’, Palestine Exploration Quarterly, 65: 62–73. Damgaard, K. 2011. ‘Sheltering the Faithful: Visualising the Umayyad Mosque in Jerash’, Aram Society for Syro-Mesopotamian Studies Periodical, 23: 191–208. Dar, S. 1993. Settlements and Cult Sites on Mount Hermon, Israel: Ituraean Culture in the Hellenistic and Roman Periods, British Archaeo­logical Reports, International Series, 589 (Oxford: Tempus Reparatum). Daviau, M. 2010. Excavations at Tall Jawa, Jordan, iv: The Early Islamic House, Culture and History of the Ancient Near East, 11.4 (Leiden: Brill). De Groot, A. and D. Michaeli. 1992. ‘Area H – Strati­graphic Report’, in A. de Groot and D. T. Ariel (eds), Excavations at the City of David 1978–1985, Directed by Yigal Shiloh, iii: Strati­graphical, Environmental, and Other Reports, Qedem, 33 ( Jerusalem: Institute of Archaeo­logy, Hebrew Uni­ver­sity of Jerusalem), pp. 35–53. Ebeling, P. (forthcoming). ‘The Ceramic Building Material from the Northwest Quarter of Jerash’, in A. Lichtenberger and R. Raja (eds), Architectural Elements, Mosaics, Wall-Decorations, and Roof Tiles: Final Publications from the Danish-German Jerash Northwest Quarter Project IV, Jerash Papers, 9 (Turnhout: Brepols). Ebeling, P. and G. Barfod. (forthcoming). ‘In the Floor, the Wall and on the Roof – Surrounded by Building Ceramics: An Analytical and Technical Study’, in A. Lichtenberger and R. Raja (eds), Architectural Elements, Mosaics, Wall-Decorations, and Roof Tiles: Final Publications from the Danish-German Jerash Northwest Quarter Project IV, Jerash Papers, 9 (Turnhout: Brepols). Ecker, A. 2016. ‘The Urbanization of Roman Iudaea/Palaestina from the First Century bce to the Fourth Century ce’ (unpublished doctoral thesis, Hebrew Uni­ver­sity of Jerusalem). Fisher, C. S. 1931. ‘The Campaign at Jerash in September and October 1931’, The Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research, 11: 131–69. Fisher, C.  S. and C.  C. McCown. 1931. ‘Jerash-Gerasa 1930: A  Preliminary Report of the First Two Campaigns of the Joint Expedition of Yale Uni­ver­sity and the American Schools of Oriental Research’, The Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research, 11: 1–59. Geva, H. 2003. ‘Stamp Impressions of the Legio X Fretensis’, in H. Geva (ed.), Jewish Quarter Excavations in the Old City of Jerusalem, Conducted by Naham Avigad, 1969–1982, ii: The Finds from Area A, W and X-2: Final Report ( Jerusalem: Institute of Archaeo­ logy, Hebrew Uni­ver­sity of Jerusalem), pp. 405–22. Glendinning, M. 1996. ‘A Mid-Sixth-Century Tile Roof System at Gordion’, Hesperia, 65.1: 99–119. Gräber, F. 1881. Über die Verwendung von Terrakotten am Geison und Dache Griechischer Bauwerke, 41, Programm zum Winckelmannfeste der archäo­logischen Gesellschaft zu Berlin (Berlin: Reimer), pp. 14–22. Hamari, P. 2017. ‘The Roofscapes of Petra: The Use of Ceramic Roof Tiles in a Nabataean-Roman Urban Context’, in P. Mills and U. Rajala (eds), Forms of Dwelling: 20 Years of Taskscapes in Archaeo­logy (Oxford: Oxbow), pp. 85–113. Hammond, P. 1965. The Excavation of the Main Theater at Petra, 1961–1962: Final Report (London: Quaritch). Hampe, R. and A. Winter. 1965. Bei Töpfern und Zieglern in Süditalien, Sizilien und Griechenland (Mainz: Habelt).

312

Philip Ebeling

Huffstot, J. 1987. ‘Roof Tiles’, in D. Soren (ed.), The Sanctuary of Apollo Hylates at Kourion, Cyprus (Tucson: Uni­ver­sity of Arizona Press). Kanellopoulos, C. 1994. The Great Temple of Amman: The Architecture (Amman: American Center of Oriental Research). Karz Reid, S. 2005. The Small Temple: A Roman Imperial Cult Building in Petra, Jordan (New Jersey: Gorgias). Kehrberg, I. 2009. ‘Byzantine Ceramic Production and Organisational Aspects of Sixth Century ad Pottery Workshops at the Hippodrome of Jarash’, Studies in the History and Archaeo­logy of Jordan, 10: 493–512. ——  2016. ‘Pottery and Glass Sherd-Tools from Roman and Byzantine Workshops at the Gerasa Hippodrome and Other Sites: A Reappraisal’, Studies in the History and Archaeo­logy of Jordan, 12: 411–30. Kletter, R. and E. Stern. 2006. ‘A Mamluk-Period Site at Khirbat Burin in the Eastern Sharon’, ‘Atiqot, 51: 173–214. Koldewey, R. 1891. Neandria, Programm zum Winckelmannfeste der archäo­logischen Gesellschaft zu Berlin, 51 (Berlin: Reimer). Landgraf, J. 1980. ‘Roof Tiles’, in J. Briend and J.-B. Humbert (eds), Tell Keisan (1971–1976), une cité phénicienne en Galilée, Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis Series Archaeo­logica, 1 (Fribourg: Èditions Universitaires), pp. 83–87. Lichtenberger, A. and R. Raja. 2015. ‘Intentional Cooking Pot Deposits in Late Roman Jerash (Northwest Quarter)’, Syria, 92: 309–27. ——  2017 ‘Mosaicists at Work: The Organisation of Mosaic Production in Early Islamic Jerash’, Antiquity, 91.358: 998–1010. ——  2018. ‘A View of Gerasa/Jerash from its Urban Periphery: The Northwest Quarter and its Significance for the Understanding of the Urban Development of Gerasa from the Roman to the Early Islamic Period’, in A. Lichtenberger and R. Raja (eds), The Archaeo­logy and History of Jerash: 110 Years of Excavations, Jerash Papers, 1 (Turnhout: Brepols), pp. 143–66. Mazar, E. 2011. The Temple Mount Excavations in Jerusalem 1968–1978 Directed by Benjamin Mazar: Final Reports, v: The Tenth Legion in Aelia Capitolina, Qedem, 52 ( Jerusalem: Hebrew Uni­ver­sity of Jerusalem, Institute of Archaeo­logy). Oleson, J. P. 1986. ‘The Humayma Hydraulic Survey: Preliminary Report of the 1986 Season’, Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan, 30: 253–59. Olsen, J. and B. Philippsen. (forthcoming). ‘Radiocarbon Dating and Bayesian Modelling’, in Environmental Studies, Remote Sensing, and Modelling: Final Publications from the Danish-German Jerash Northwest Quarter Project I, Jerash Papers, 6 (Turnhout: Brepols). Parker, T. 1991. ‘Preliminary Report on the 1989 Season of the “Limes Arabicus” Project’, Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research Supplement, 27: 117–54. Piccirillo, M. 1994. ‘La Chiesa del Profeta Elia a Madaba: Nuove Scoperti’, Liber Annuus, 44: 318–404. Pritchard, J. B. 1951. ‘The 1951 Campaigns at Herodian Jericho’, Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, 123: 8–17. Ramage, A. 1978. Lydian Houses and Architectural Terracottas, Archaeo­logical Exploration of Sardis, 5 (Cam­bridge, MA: Harvard Uni­ver­sity Press). Reisner, G. A., C. S. Fisher, and D. G. Lyon. 1924. Harvard Excavations at Samaria, 1908–1910 (Cam­bridge, MA: Harvard Uni­ ver­sity Press). Rook, T. 1979. ‘Tiled Roofs’, in A. McWhirr (ed.), Roman Brick and Tile: Studies of Manufacture, Distribution and Use in the Western Empire, British Archaeo­logical Reports, International Series, 68 (Oxford: British Archaeo­logical Reports), pp. 259–303. Saller, S. 1941. The Memorial of Moses on Mount Nebo ( Jerusalem: Franciscan Press). ——  1967. ‘Hellenistic to Arabic Remains at Nebo, Jordan’, Liber Annuus, 17: 60–62. Schick, C. 1889. ‘The Mount of Olives’, Palestine Exploration Fund. Quarterly Statement, 21: 174–84. Shapiro, A. 1997. ‘Petro­graphic Analysis of Roman Clay Sarcophagi from North-Western Israel and Cyprus’, ‘Atiqot, 33: 1–5. Smithline, H. 1997. ‘Burial Caves of the Roman and Byzantine Periods in Western Galilee’, ‘Atiqot, 33: 47–60 (in Hebrew). Stern, E. J. and N. Getzov. 2006. ‘Aspects of Phoenician Burial Customs in the Roman Period in Light of an Excavation Near El-Kabri (Kabri)’, ‘Atiqot, 51: 91–123. Stewart, J. D. 1986. ‘Part 1: The Architecture of the Roman Theatre’, in F. Zayadine (ed.), Jerash Archaeo­logical Project, 1981–1983, i (Amman: Department of Antiquities), pp. 206–29. Sukenik, E. L. 1932. The Ancient Synagogue of Beth Alpha (London: Oxford Uni­ver­sity Press). Taxel, I. 2018. Fragile Bio­graphy: The Life Cycle of Ceramics and Refuse Disposal Patterns in Late Antiquity and Early Medi­eval Palestine, Babesch Supplement Series (Leuven: Peeters). Tepper, Y. 2017. ‘Roof Tiles and Bricks Bearing Roman Legionary Stamps from Legio’, ‘Atiqot, 89: 133–39 (Hebrew, with an English summary on pp. 123–24). Tsaferis, V. 1982. ‘The Ancient Synagogue at Ma’oz Hayyim’, Israel Exploration Journal, 32: 215–44. ——  1985. ‘An Early Christian Church Complex at Magen’, Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, 258: 1–15. Vriezen, K. J. H. 1995. ‘A Preliminary Study of the Byzantine Roof Tiles (tegulae and imbrices) from Areas 1 and 3 in Umm Qeis ( Jordan)’, Newsletter of the Department of Pottery Techno­logy, Leiden Uni­ver­sity, 13: 26–39. Walmsley, A. 2002. Searching for Islamic Jarash: A Report on the 2002 Field Season of the Danish-Jordanian Islamic Jarash Project [accessed 24 April 2019]. Weksler-Bdolah, S. 2016. ‘A Villa and Pottery Kiln from the Late Roman–Early Byzantine Times in ‘En Ya’el (Nakhal Refa’im), Jerusalem’, ‘Atiqot, 87: 71–119 (in Hebrew). Zelinger, Y. and H. Barbé. 2017. ‘A Byzantine Monastery in Nahal Qidron, Jerusalem’, ‘Atiqot, 89: 49–82.

9. Pottery from Sanctuaries in the Hinterland of Gadara/Umm Qays ( Jordan) Lisa C. Berger* Universität zu Köln, Archäologisches Institut. [email protected]

Introduction Gadara/Umm Qays is situated in the north-west of Jordan, about 10 km from Lake Tiberias at the eastern edge of a fertile plateau (Ard al-Ala). North to the plateau runs the Yarmouk River, today the border between Jordan and Syria. South of the city lies the Wādī l-ʿArab. In the west the fertile plateau descends steeply towards the Jordan Valley (Fig. 9.1). The first traces of settlement in the surrounding area of Gadara date back to the Early Palaeolithic. BronzeAge and Iron-Age remains are also recorded.1 In the area of the Graeco-Roman city, excavations have not yet revealed layers of these periods, but Iron-Age pottery has been excavated in the area of the ‘Roman-Byzantine Terrace’. 2 The aim of ongoing research at the southeastern corner of the hill-top of the city is to work out the beginning of settlement activities more concretely.3 In the following, they will be compared with settlement developments and settlement shifts in the region. The earliest classic settlement patterns in Gadara are dated to the third century bc. The town was fortified by a wall around 200 bc.4 In the following centuries, the * I am grateful to Claudia Bührig (German Archaeo­logical Institute Berlin, Orient-Department Damascus Branch and Research Unit in Amman) who gave permission to present selected pottery from the Gadara/Umm Qays Hinterland Survey and valuable information about Gadara and its region. Furthermore, I am deeply indebted to Bernd Liesen (LVR-Archäo­logischer Park Xanten) for providing comparative data from Gadara/north theatre (German Archaeo­logical Institute, excavations 2002–07) and Heike Möller (German Archaeo­logical Institute, Berlin) who helped to identify vessels made in the pottery workshops at Jerash. 1  Moser and Bührig 2018, 386–401. 2  Vriezen 2015. 3  The excavations in this area have been carried out since 2018 under the direction of Claudia Bührig, German Archaeo­logical Institute. 4  Bührig 2009, 167.

increasing city expanded to the west. A new city wall was erected, the main street paved, and various gates and public buildings built up. At the beginning of the third century ad, the city covered an area of about 45 ha5 and was part of the Decapolis. As a bishop’s seat, the city continued up to the seventh century ad. Gadara was closely connected to the Jordan River, the Mediterranean coast, and cities in the north, such as Bostra and Damascus.6 Therefore, this wealthy community received most kinds of goods, including pottery, from the Mediterranean. From 1965 onwards archaeo­logical excavations in the Decapolis city have been carried out by the German Protestant Institute of Archaeo­logy and the Orient Department of the German Archaeo­logical Institute.7 Furthermore, surveys by the German Archaeo­logical Institute in 1998 (all over Ard al-Ala)8 and since 2010 (to the north and east of modern Umm Qays)9 provide insight into the hinterland. Another survey done by the German Protestant Institute from 2009 to 2011 was focused on the Wādī l-ʿ Arab including Tall Zirā’a.10 The goal of the Gadara/Umm Qays Hinterland Survey, ongoing since 2010, is the systematic exploration of settlements, water and economic installations, graves, quarries, and workplaces. The settlement activity inside the survey area, which is about 17 km2, stretches from the Early Palaeolithic11 to recent times. 5 

Bührig 2009, 179. Hoffmann 1999b, 229; Bührig 2003, 62–63. 7  Bührig 2013, 36. 8  Riedl 1999. 9  Jahresbericht 2010, 257–58; 2011, 269–70. 10  Soennecken and Leiverkus 2014; Leiverkus and Soenn­ecken 2017. 11  Moser and Bührig 2018, 386–401. 6 

Hellenistic and Roman Gerasa: The Archaeo­logy and History of a Decapolis City, ed. by Achim Lichtenberger and Rubina Raja, JP 5 (Turnhout: Brepols, 2020), 313–323 BREPOLS PUBLISHERS DOI 10.1484/M.JP-EB.5.120813

314

Lisa C. Berger

Figure 9.1. The survey area and the location of the sanctuaries. Dotted line: supposed course of ancient roads; Dashed line: limitation of the survey area; red: ancient sites mentioned (© DAI, Orient-Department, C. Bührig and C. Hartl-Reiter).

9. Pottery from Sanctuaries in the Hinterland of Gadara/Umm Qays (Jordan)

315

Figure 9.2. Gadara/Umm Qays Hinterland Survey. View from Arqūb Rūmi towards the settlement hill of Gadara (© DAI, Orient-Department, Lisa Berger).

Figure 9.3. Gadara/Umm Qays Hinterland Survey. View from Arqūb Rūmi towards al-Qabū (© DAI, Orient-Department, Lisa Berger).

Within the scope of the Umm Qays hinterland project (Gadara/Umm Qays Hinterland Survey), now up to about 530 sites have been surveyed, and about thirteen thousand pottery sherds have been recorded. None of the sherds collected during the survey have been petro­g raphically or chemically analysed so far. The analysis was carried out macroscopically. For comparison purposes, chemically analysed pieces from the excavation in the theatre were used. This preliminary report presents selected pottery from Arqūb Rūmi and al-Qabū, two major sites from the survey area,

and compares the pottery with data from Gadara and beyond.12 12  Pottery research at Gadara is far from exhaustive: the material from the Byzantine baths (Andersen 1993), the city wall (Posselt 1999), the North Theatre (Bernd Liesen, pers. comm.), the baths at Hammat Gader (Ben Arieh 1997), and Bait Nawashi (Kenrick 1990) provide data. In addition, certain sites in Galilee (Díez Fernández 1983), Capernaum (Loffreda 1974), Bethsaida (Fortner 2008), Hippos (Kapitaikin 2018; 2010; Młynarczyk 2009), as well as Pella and the Tall Zirā’a (Kenkel 2012) are suitable for comparing related material.

316

Lisa C. Berger

Figure 9.4. Fine ware from Arqūb Rūmi (© DAI, Orient-Department, Lisa Berger). 1: SUQ11.128.3; jug with rouletted décor; ESA; Hayes 1985, 45 (111). 2: SUQ11.134.3; jug with one handle; ESA; Hayes 1985, 43–44 (104). 3: SUQ11.127.2; plate; ESA. 4: SUQ11.133.3; plate; ESA. 5: SUQ11.133.4; echinus bowl; buff to brown fine ware; Berlin 1997, 74; Posselt 1999, 69 (R35); Kenkel 2012, 107–08 (Sa1.7).

Figure 9.5. Kitchen-ware from Arqūb Rūmi (© DAI, Orient-Department, Lisa Berger). 1: SUQ11.134.2; cooking bowl; hard red ware; Díez Fernández 1983, 124–25 (T 14.1); Loffreda 1974, 42 (A17); Adan-Bayewitz 1993, 111–19 (3A). 2: SUQ11.143.1; cooking bowl with single grooved rim; hard red ware; Loffreda 1974, 36–37 (A11); Díez Fernández 1983, 126 (T 15.1a); Adan-Bayewitz 1993, 88–91 (1A). 3: SUQ11.147.1; cooking bowl with single grooved rim; hard red ware; Loffreda 1974, 36–37 (A11); Díez Fernández 1983, 126 (T 15.1a); Adan-Bayewitz 1993, 88–91 (1A). 4: SUQ11.150.1; cooking bowl with single grooved rim; hard red ware; Loffreda 1974, 38 (A12); Díez Fernández 1983, 127 (T15.2b); AdanBayewitz 1993, 91–97 (1B). 5: SUQ11.150.2; cooking pot; hard red ware; Loffreda 1974, 29 (A4); Díez Fernández 1983, 119–20 (T10.5); AdanBayewitz 1993, 124–25 (4A). 6: SUQ11.164.8; cooking pot with double-grooved rim; hard red ware; Loffreda 1974, 32 (A5); Díez Fernández 1983, 120 (T 10.6b); Adan-Bayewitz 1993, 128–30 (4C). 7: SUQ11.156.1; casserole; hard red to brown ware; Smith 1973, pl. 43, no. 1313; Andersen 1993, cat. 171–76. 8: SUQ11.164.12; casserole; hard red to brown ware; Smith 1973, pl. 43, no. 1313; Andersen 1993, cat. 171–76.

9. Pottery from Sanctuaries in the Hinterland of Gadara/Umm Qays (Jordan)

317

Figure 9.6. Storage vessels from Arqūb Rūmi (© DAI, Orient-Department, Lisa Berger). 1: SUQ11.133.2; basin; beige buff ware; Clark and others 1986, 248, fig. 20.17. 2: SUQ11.149.1; amphora; buff to pink ware. 3: SUQ11.147.3; jug; buff to pink ware. 4: SUQ11.150.3; jug; buff to pink ware; Kenkel 2012, 208–08 (Kru9).

Arqūb Rūmi is an isolated hill with a good view over the landscape and towards the city of Gadara (Fig. 9.2). On the hill-top, limestone walls enclosed a rectangular area of 55 × 20–25 m. Only one stone layer of the walls has been preserved in most cases. Inside this area some basins were observed, and beneath the hill-top some caves and some single ashlars provide evidence for a high-place sanctuary on Arqūb Rūmi.13 The plateau of al-Qabū is situated next to the main street, ancient and modern, leading from Gadara to the east (Fig. 9.3). At the top there is a terrace where an Early Roman podium temple was found.14 From both of these sanctuaries there is an unobstructed view towards the ancient city, which might indicate that the rural sanctuaries are associated with the Sanctuary of Zeus, the main sanctuary of the city,15 and the North Theatre intra muros. At the edge of the plateau in front of the North Theatre there is another high place.16 According to Adolf Hoffmann, a processional road from al-Qabū to Gadara could be expected.17

Pottery from Arqūb Rūmi The survey all over the hill-top in 2011 has yielded a total of 1300 sherds of tableware, kitchen-ware, and storage ware (first century bc to seventh century ad). Imported fine wares are represented by Eastern Sigillata A (ESA) plates and jugs (Fig. 9.4.1–4). Further­ more, probably local or regional cups came to light (Fig. 9.4.5). The majority of the kitchen-ware, about 35 per cent of the sherds, corresponds macroscopically to chemi13 

Bührig 2015. 14  Bührig 2009, 175 n. 52 with further literature. 15  Hoffmann 1999a, 913–14; Lichtenberger 2003, 96–98 and 103. 16  Hoffmann 1999a, 804–05. 17  Hoffmann 1999b, 234–35.

cally analysed pottery unearthed in the North Theatre at Gadara, which matches well with reference groups from Galilee and the Golan.18 The type range consists of bowls and pots (Fig. 9.5.1–6) of the first century bc to the fourth century ad. Iron-rich kitchen-ware is represented by casseroles as seen in Figure 9.5.7–8, which are significant for fifth- to seventh-century contexts.19 Most of the storage vessels are made from buff to pink ware,20 which is common during the Roman period. The workshops are unknown, only one waster gives evidence of local production sites.21 The hard-fired buff to pink ware represents about 34 per cent of the sherds. The type range consists of jars, jugs (Fig. 9.6.2–4), and basins (Fig. 9.6.1). Brown-slipped white-painted ware,22 frequent in the Byzantine and Umayyad periods, is not common at this site. One fragment of handmade painted ware, some glazed-ware sherds, and some twentieth-century vessels have been found. Thus, the site of Arqūb Rūmi has a clear focus of activity from the Early to the Late Roman period with only little evidence from the Byzantine era. In Mamluk and modern times the place was visited sporadically.

Pottery from the Sanctuary from al-Qabū In 2010 a survey all over the hill of al-Qabū and a small excavation yielded about 3300 sherds. All surface finds were collected during the survey on the approximately 1.5 ha large area of the plateau and the slope of al-Qabū adjoining to the south. Many of the sherds were large, 18  Daszkiewicz, Liesen, and Schneider 2014. Cf. Loffreda 1974, 36; Fortner 2008, 38–40; Kenkel 2012, 37 and 161–62. 19  Andersen 1993, 168; Ben Arieh 1997, 349. 20  According to Kerner and Maxwell 1990, 241. Also see Kenkel 2012, 34 (Ware B). 21  Kerner 2002, 136, fig. 211.8. 22  Kerner and Maxwell 1990, 242; Kenkel 2012, 36 (Ware A).

318

Lisa C. Berger

Figure 9.7. Storage vessels from al-Qabū (© DAI, Orient-Department, Lisa Berger). 1: SUQ10.32.66; amphora; Hellenistic buff ware; Fortner 2008, pl. 60, 1075–87; Kenkel 2012, 219–20 (Am6.4). 2: SUQ10.31.22; amphora; buff to pink ware; Díez Fernández 1983, 106–07 (T 1.2); Kenkel 2012, 229 (Am23.3). 3: SUQ10.39.28; amphora; buff to pink ware; Díez Fernández 1983, 106–07 (T 1.2); Kenkel 2012, 229 (Am23.3). 4: SUQ10.32.48; amphora; brown-slipped white-painted ware; Loffreda 1974, 43 (B); Kenkel 2012, 230 (Am23.9). 5: SUQ10.33.54; amphora; buff to pink ware, beige. 6: SUQ10.39.39; amphora; brown-slipped white-painted ware, brown surface; Loffreda 1974, 43 (B).

Figure 9.8. Imported fine ware from al-Qabū (© DAI, Orient-Department, Lisa Berger). 1: SUQ10.35.33; bowl; Phocaean Red Slip Ware; Hayes 1972, 343–46 (10C). 2: SUQ10.35.34; bowl; Phocaean Red Slip Ware; Hayes 1972, 343–46 (10C). 3: SUQ10.35.35; bowl; Phocaean Red Slip Ware; Hayes 1972, 343–46 (10C). 4: SUQ10.31.23; bowl; Phocaean Red Slip Ware; Hayes 1972, 343–46 (10C). 5: SUQ10.35.36; bowl; Phocaean Red Slip Ware; Hayes 1972, 329–38 (3E/F). 6: SUQ10.31.20; bowl; Phocaean Red Slip Ware; Hayes 1972, 329–38 (3E/F). 7: SUQ10.31.44; flanged bowl; African Red Slip Ware; Hayes 1972, 140–44 (91). 8: SUQ10.32.62; bowl; Cypriot Red Slip Ware; Hayes 1972, 379–82 (9); Meyza 2007, 70; Reynolds 2011, 64–65; Jackson and others 2012, 105–06, figs 16–17. 9: SUQ10.39.33; bowl; Cypriot Red Slip Ware; Meyza 2007, pl. 19 (H7). 10: SUQ10.33.64; bowl; Cypriot Red Slip Ware; Hayes 1972, 379–82 (9); Meyza 2007, 70; Reynolds 2011, 64–65; Jackson and others 2012, 105–06, figs 16–17. 11: SUQ10.35.28; bowl; Cypriot Red Slip Ware; Hayes 1972, 373–76 (2).

9. Pottery from Sanctuaries in the Hinterland of Gadara/Umm Qays (Jordan)

319

Figure 9.9. Kitchen-ware from al-Qabū (© DAI, Orient-Department, Lisa Berger). 1: SUQ10.34.80; cooking bowl; hard red ware; Adan-Bayewitz 1993, 111–19 (3A); Díez Fernández 1983, 124–25 (T 14.1); Loffreda 1974, 42 (A17). 2: SUQ10.33.09; cooking bowl; hard red ware; Loffreda 1974, 38 (A12); Díez Fernández 1983, 127 (T15.2b); Adan-Bayewitz 1993, 91–97 (1B). 3: SUQ10.32.65; cooking pot; red to brown kitchen-ware with quartz sand; McNicoll, Smith, and Hennessy 1982, pl. 138.6. 4: SUQ10.33.50; cooking pot; hard red ware; Loffreda 1974, 32 (A5); Díez Fernández 1983, 120 (T 10.6b); Adan-Bayewitz 1993, 128–30 (4C). 5: SUQ10.32.64; casserole; red to brown kitchen-ware tempered with quartz sand; Loffreda 1974, 48–49 (C5); Kenkel 2012, 161 (Kas16). 6: SUQ10.31.18; casserole with vertical rim; hard red to brown ware; Smith 1973, 222, pl. 43, nos 1208, 1304, and 1313; 1992, 172, pl. 109, nos 9 and 10; Andersen 1993, cat. 171–76. 7: SUQ10.39.32; cooking pot; red to brown kitchen-ware with quartz sand; Loffreda 1974, 45 (C2).

Figure 9.10. Grey ware from al-Qabū (© DAI, Orient-Department, Lisa Berger). 1: SUQ10.33.69; basin, repaired with lead; hard grey ware; Schaefer 1983, 428, fig. 9; McNicoll, Smith, and Hennessy 1982, pl. 139.4. 2: SUQ10.31.19; basin; hard grey ware; Schaefer 1983, 428, fig. 9. 3: SUQ10.32.78; bowl; hard grey ware. 4: SUQ10.39.34; basin; hard grey ware; McNicoll, Smith, and Hennessy 1982, pl. 139.4; Schaefer 1983, 428, fig. 9.

320 sharp-edged, and covered by a layer of sinter. Hellenistic to Umayyad pottery is represented in different quantities: about 50 per cent of the sherds consists of Byzantine and Umayyad brown-slipped white-painted ware, predominant are regional subtypes of Palestinian Late Roman Amphorae 523 (Fig. 9.7.4–6). The colour ranges from orange-red to grey-black. Many body sherds show traces of white multiple-brush painting. Hellenistic and Roman vessels are less frequent. Besides the Byzantine and Umayyad storage vessels, about 23 per cent consists of buff to pink ware and represents amphorae, jars, and jugs (Fig. 9.7.2–3). Hellenistic buff ware24 (amphora, Fig. 9.7.1) as a precursor of buff to pink ware is relatively soft and sometimes greyish or greenish in colour. Furthermore, Late Roman wares such as Cypriot Red Slip Ware (Fig. 9.8.8–11), Phocaean Red Slip Ware (Fig. 9.8.1–6), and African Red Slip Ware were found (Fig. 9.8.7). The majority of kitchen-ware consists of casseroles in dark to brown Byzantine/Umayyad quartz-tempered ware25 (Fig. 9.9.5). The assemblage comprises some handmade basins and bowls (Fig. 9.10) made of hard and well-fired dark grey ware. They were produced in Jerash during the Umayyad period.26 Up to now about thirty fragments could be safely attributed to this fabric according to macroscopic identification.

Discussion It is likely that there were strong trading connections between Gadara and the surrounding settlements, primarily because Gadara can be regarded as one of the major towns in the region. The research suggests that the sanctuaries located in the vicinity of Gadara were supplied from the city of Gadara, since the same pottery products were found. In Gadara there is poor evidence for pottery production, as no kilns have been discovered, and only a few wasters of storage vessels are known.27 Since only large public buildings and representative residential buildings have been excavated in Gadara so far, 23  Andersen 1993, 165; Bloch 2006, 36–38, pl.  13; Kenkel 2012, 230. 24  Kerner and Maxwell 1990, 241; Kenkel 2012, 35 (Ware F). 25  Loffreda 1974, 48; Andersen 1993, 168; Kenkel 2012, 37 (Ware H). 26  Schaefer 1986, 425 (Ware II). 27  Kerner 2002, 136, fig. 211.8.

Lisa C. Berger it is not surprising that production sites for pottery or other products have not yet been discovered. It can be assumed that these were located on the periphery of the city. Studies to locate the production sites would bring the picture of pottery supplies in northern Jordan further. Also during the survey in the vicinity of the city no pottery kilns have been discovered so far. Generally, the survey’s spectrum of pottery is in no way inferior to that of the city. Not just pottery, but also lamps and glass vessels show the same tendencies as the finds from the city. Long-distance imports to Gadara and its hinterland come from Italy, Asia Minor/Phocaea, Pamphylia, northern Africa, Rhodes, and northern Syria. The quantity of imported fragments of African Red Slip Ware, Cypriot Red Slip Ware, and Phocaean Red Slip Ware in the survey material does not amount to more than ten–twenty pieces each. A slightly larger contribution comes from ESA, namely 1.5 per cent within the survey material. Products from Italy and Rhodes are not yet identified in the survey material, but are well known from the excavations within the city.28 The pottery supply to Gadara was carried out by workshops in different regions: products from Galilee made up a large amount of Roman kitchen and storage vessels. In the survey material the share is about 14 per cent. Apart from very small quantities of pottery from Jerash, connections to the Decapolis, e.g. Nabatean pottery, have not been recorded. The Decapolis cities were part of the same administrative system, but there is strong evidence that their pottery supply exploited different sources according to their transport infrastructure. Gadara’s trade relations are strongly oriented from east to west.29 The main route runs to the west towards the Mediterranean harbour cities of Tyros, Ptolemais, and Caesarea Maritima. These trade routes are also reflected in the coins found in Gadara.30 In Gadara, for example, considerably more Jewish coins than Nabatean coins have been found. In Gerasa, for example, this ratio is exactly the opposite.31 There is a direct connection to Bostra in the other direction. It may therefore be assumed that the distribution of pottery has followed similar routes. 28   Pompeian red dish (Daszkiewicz, Liesen, and Schneider 2014, 151, fig. 5.1) and Italian sigillata; for Rhodian amphorae, see Jöhrens 2013. 29  Bührig 2008, 155–68 especially 167–68. 30  Noeske 2013. 31  Noeske 2013, 139.

9. Pottery from Sanctuaries in the Hinterland of Gadara/Umm Qays (Jordan) A comprehensive analysis was carried out with sherds of kitchen-ware from the North Theatre. The chemical composition of certain samples matches well with reference data from Kefar Hananya and Meiron.32 According to macroscopic observation it is likely that the same fabric groups are represented at both sanctuaries extra muros. The production sites in Galilee and the Golan33 cannot be separated macroscopically. The casseroles with a grooved vertical rim are probably not from Galilee,34 but they are found frequently in Gadara and the hinterland. Bag-shaped amphorae are very common in the whole area from northern Jordan to the Mediterranean Sea.  They were produced at many sites in Palestine, including Gadara, from the Roman (buff to pink ware) to Umayyad (brown-slipped white-painted ware) period.35 They were produced for wine and might have been reused as water-storage containers.36 The similarities and differences in the occurrence of pottery within the cities of the Decapolis should be examined more intensively in order to trace the exchange and the flow of products more precisely. As a preliminary result,37 it seems that Gadara and its region was supplied less from the south than by pottery workshops in Galilee.38

32 

2014.

33 

Adan-Bayewitz 1993; Daszkiewicz, Liesen, and Schneider

Kfar Hananya, Meiron (Adan-Bayewitz 1993), and Yodefat (Aviam 2014). 34  Provenance unknown (Daszkiewicz, Liesen, and Schneider 2014, 154). 35  Reynolds 2005, 573–74. Workshops were unearthed in Pella (Watson 2006, 184). 36  Reynolds 2005, 574. 37   Further research on pottery from Gadara is currently in progress, with Bernd Liesen and Heike Möller evaluating the material found in the North Theatre. The publication of the results of the excavation in the Theatre-Temple Area is in preparation and will be published in a different place. 38  Cf. the very similar distribution in Capernaum (Loffreda 1974) or Bethsaida (Fortner 2008).

321

322

Lisa C. Berger

Works Cited Adan-Bayewitz, D. 1993. Common Pottery in Roman Galilee: A Study of Local Trade ( Jerusalem: Bar-Ilan Uni­ver­sity Press). Andersen, F. G. 1993. ‘Die Funde’, in I. Nielsen, F. G. Andersen, and S. Holm-Nielsen (eds), Gadara – Umm Qes, iii: Die byzantinischen Thermen, Abhandlungen des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins, 17 (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz), pp. 153–201. Aviam, M. 2014. ‘“Kefar Hananya Ware” Made in Yodefat: Pottery Production at Yodefat in the First Century ad’, in B. FischerGenz, Y. Gerber, and H. Hamel (eds), Roman Pottery in the Near East: Local Production and Regional Trade, Roman and Late Antique Mediterranean Pottery, 3 (Oxford: Archaeopress), pp. 139–46. Ben-Arieh, R. 1997. ‘The Roman, Byzantine and Umayyad Pottery’, in Y. Hirschfeld (ed.), The Roman Bath of Hammat Gader, Final Report ( Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society), pp. 347–81. Berlin, A. 1997. ‘The Plain Wares’, in S.  C. Herbert (ed.), Tel Anafa, ii.i: The Hellenistic and Roman Pottery, Journal of Roman Archaeo­logy Supplementary Series, 10 (Ann Arbor: Kelsey Museum), pp. ix–211. Bloch, F. 2006. ‘Hirbat al-Minya. Die unglasierte Keramik’, in F. Bloch, V. Daibler, and P. Knötzele, Studien zur spätantiken und islamischen Keramik, Orient Archäo­logie, 18 (Rahden: Leidorf ), pp. 1–110. Bührig, C. 2003. ‘Von der befestigten Kuppensiedlung zur repräsentativen Straßensiedlung entlang der Ost-West-Achse. Wachstums­ phasen der hellenistisch-römischen Stadt Gadara’, in Deutsches Archäo­logisches Institut (ed.), Die Stadt als Großbaustelle: Von der Antike bis zur Neuzeit (Berlin: Mann), pp. 56–65. ——  2008. Das spätkaiserzeitliche Bogenmonument extra muros in Gadara: Städtebauliche Bedeutung und Funktion eines freistehenden Torbaus an der Schnittstelle von Stadt und Umland, Orient Archäo­logie, 21 (Rahden: Leidorf ). ——  2009. ‘Das Theater-Tempel-Areal von Gadara/Umm Qais. Struktureller Wandel eines urbanen Raums’, Zeitschrift für OrientArchäo­logie, 2: 162–207. ——  2013. ‘Zur Bedeutung topo­graphischer Bestandskarten für die archäo­logische Forschung: Am Beispiel der Karten von Gadara (Umm Qays)’, in A. Hoffmann and C. Bührig (eds), Forschungen in Gadara/Umm Qays von 1987 bis 2000, Orient Archäo­logie, 28 (Rahden: Leidorf ), pp. 35–52. ——  2015. ‘Gadara, Jordanien: Forschung und capacity building – Die Arbeiten der Jahre 2012 bis 2014’, eForschungsberichte des DAI, 2015.2: 37–38. Clark, V. A. and others. 1986. ‘The Jerash North Theatre: Architecture and Archaeo­logy 1982–1983’, in F. Zayadine (ed.), Jerash Archaeo­logical Project 1981–1983 (Amman: Department of Antiquities of Jordan), pp. 205–302. Daszkiewicz, M., B. Liesen, and G. Schneider. 2014. ‘Provenance Study of Hellenistic, Roman and Byzantine Kitchen Wares from the Theatre-Temple Area of Umm Qais/Gadara, Jordan’, in B. Fischer-Genz, Y. Gerber, and H. Hamel (eds), Roman Pottery in the Near East: Local Production and Regional Trade, Roman and Late Antique Mediterranean Pottery, 3 (Oxford: Archaeopress), pp. 147–58. Díez Fernández, F. 1983. Cerámica común romana de la Galilea: aproximaciones y diferencias con la cerámica del resto de Palestina y regiones circundantes (Madrid: Biblia y Fé). Fortner, S. 2008. Die Keramik und Kleinfunde von Bethsaida-Iulias am See Genezareth, Israel (Munich: Ludwig-MaximiliansUniversität München). Hayes, J. W. 1972. Late Roman Pottery (London: British School at Rome). ——  1985. ‘Sigillata orientale A (Eastern Sigillata A)’, in G.  Pucci (ed.), Enciclopedia dell’arte antica classica e orientale: atlante delle forme ceramiche, ii: Ceramica fine romana nel bacino mediterraneo (tardo ellenismo e primo impero) (Rome: Instituto della Enciclopedia Italiana), pp. 9–48. Hoffmann, A. 1999a. ‘Ein hellenistisches Heiligtum in Gadara’, Toπoι Orient – Occident, 9: 795–831. ——  1999b. ‘Gadara – Stadt und Umland’, in E.-L.  Schwandner and K.  Rheidt (eds), Stadt und Umland: Neue Ergebnisse der archäo­logischen Bau- und Siedlungsforschung: Bauforschungskolloquium in Berlin vom 7. bis 10. Mai 1997 (Mainz: Von Zabern), pp. 223–36. Jackson, M. and others. 2012. ‘Primary Evidence for Late Roman D Ware Production in Southern Asia Minor: A  Challenge to “Cypriot Red Slip Ware”’, Anatolian Studies, 62: 89–114. Jahresbericht 2010. German Archaeo­logical Institute (ed.), Jahresbericht 2010, Archäo­logischer Anzeiger, 2011.1 Beiheft (Munich: Hirmer). ——  2011. German Archaeo­logical Institute (ed.), Jahresbericht 2011, Archäo­logischer Anzeiger, 2012.1 Beiheft (Munich: Hirmer). Jöhrens, G. 2013. ‘Amphorenstempel aus Gadara’, in A. Hoffmann and C. Bührig (eds), Forschungen in Gadara/Umm Qays von 1987 bis 2000, Orient-Archäo­logie, 28 (Rahden: Leidorf ), pp. 53–101. Kapitaikin, A.-L. 2010. ‘Pottery Report’, in A.  Segal, M.  Schuler, and M.  Eisenberg (eds), Hippos-Sussita: Eleventh Season of Excavations (Haifa: Zinman Institute of Archaeo­logy), pp. 96–117. ——  2018. ‘Final Pottery Report of the 2010–2011 Excavation Seasons’, in M. Eisenberg (ed.), Hippos-Sussita of the Decapolis: The First Twelve Seasons of Excavations 2000–2011, ii (Haifa: Zinman Institute of Archaeo­logy), pp. 88–209.

9. Pottery from Sanctuaries in the Hinterland of Gadara/Umm Qays (Jordan)

323

Kenkel, F. 2012. Untersuchungen zur hellenistischen, römischen und byzantinischen Keramik des Tall Zirā’a im Wādī al-’Arab (Nord­ jordanien): Handelsobjekte und Alltagsgegenstände einer ländlichen Siedlung im Einflussgebiet der Dekapolisstädte (Co­logne: Uni­ ver­sity of Co­logne). Kenrick, P. M. 1990. ‘Fine Wares from the City Wall Section at Bait Nawashi (Area XLLL)’, Archäo­logischer Anzeiger, 1990: 236‒65. Kerner, S. 2002. ‘Gadara – Schwarzweiße Stadt zwischen Adjlun und Golan’, in A. Hoffmann and S. Kerner (eds), Gadara – Gerasa und die Dekapolis (Mainz: Von Zabern), pp. 125–36. Kerner, S. and L. A. Maxwell. 1990. ‘Die Keramik’, in P. C. Bol, A. Hoffmann, and T. Weber (eds), ‘Gadara in der Dekapolis. Deutsche Ausgrabungen bei Umm Qais in Nordjordanien 1968–1988’, Archäo­logischer Anzeiger, 1990: 193–266. Leiverkus, P. and K. Soennecken. 2017. ‘The Wādi al-‘Arab Survey’, in D. Vieweger and J. Häser (eds), Tall Zirā‘a: Gadara Region Project 2001–2011: Final Report, i: Introduction ( Jerusalem: Gütersloher Verlagshaus), pp. 198–201. Lichtenberger, A. 2003. Kulte und Kultur der Dekapolis: Untersuchungen zu numismatischen, archäo­logischen und epi­graphischen Zeugnissen, Abhandlungen des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins, 29 (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz). Loffreda, S. 1974. Carfanao, ii: La ceramica, Pubblicazioni dello studium biblicum Franciscanum, 19 ( Jerusalem: Franciscan Printing Press). McNicoll, A., R. Smith, and B. Hennessy. 1982. Pella in Jordan, i: An Interim Report on the Joint Uni­ver­sity of Sydney and the College of Wooster Excavations at Pella, 1979–1981 (Sydney: Meditarch). Meyza, H. 2007. Cypriot Red Slip Ware: Studies on a Late Roman Levantine Fine Ware, Nea Paphos, 5 (Varsovie: Neriton). Młynarczyk, J. 2009. ‘Pottery Report’, in A.  Segal and others (eds), Hippos-Sussita: Tenth Season of Excavations (Haifa: Zinman Institute of Archaeo­logy), pp. 104–56. Moser, J. and C.  Bührig. 2018. ‘Gadara/Umm Qays Hinterland Survey. Die Steingeräte aus den Geländebegehungen der Jahre 2010–2016’, Zeitschrift für Orient-Archäo­logie, 11: 386–403. Noeske, H.-C. 2013. ‘Die Fundmünzen’, in A. Hoffmann and C. Bührig (eds), Forschungen in Gadara/Umm Qays von 1987 bis 2000, Orient-Archäo­logie, 28 (Rahden: Leidorf ), pp. 135–52. Posselt, E. 1999. ‘Gadara-Keramik. Entwicklung einer Typo­logie’ (unpublished master’s thesis, Freie Universität Berlin). Reynolds, P. 2005. ‘Levantine Amphorae from Cilicia to Gaza: A Typo­logy and Analysis of Regional Production Trends from the 1st to 7th Centuries’, in J. M. Gurt i Esparraguera, J. Buxeda i Garrigós, and M. A. Cau Ontiveros (eds), LRCW, i: Late Roman Coarse Wares, Cooking Wares and Amphorae in the Mediterranean: Archaeo­logy and Archaeometry, British Archaeo­logical Reports, International Series, 1340 (Oxford: Archaeopress), pp. 563–611. ——  2011. ‘A Note on the Development of Cypriot Late Roman D Forms 2 and 9’, in M. Á. Cau, P. Reynolds, and M. Bonifay (eds), LRFW, i: Late Roman Fine Wares: Solving Problems of Typo­logy and Chrono­logy: A  Review of the Evidence, Debate and New Contexts, Roman and Late Antique Mediterranean Pottery, 1 (Oxford: Archaeopress), pp. 57–65. Riedl, N. 1999. ‘Umm Qais, Hinterland Survey’, in V. Egan and P. M. Bikai, ‘Archaeo­logy in Jordan’, American Journal of Archaeo­logy, 103: 485–87. Smith, R.  H. 1973. Pella of the Decapolis, i: The 1967 Season of the College of Wooster Expedition to Pella (London: College of Wooster). ——  1992. ‘The Byzantine Period’, in A. W. McNicoll, R. H. Smith, and B. Hennessy, Pella in Jordan, ii: The Second Interim Report of the Joint Uni­ver­sity of Sydney and College of Wooster Excavations at Pella 1982–1985, Mediterranean Archaeo­logy Supplement, 2 (Sydney: Meditarch), pp. 145–81. Schaefer, J. 1986. ‘An Umayyad Potters’ Complex in the North Theatre, Jerash’, in F. Zayadine (ed.), Jerash Archaeo­logical Project 1981–1983 (Amman: Department of Antiquities of Jordan), pp. 411–59. Soennecken, K. and P. Leiverkus. 2014. ‘Survey in the Wādī al-’Arab 2009–2011’, in F. Kenkel and D. Vieweger (eds), With Trowel and Hightech: German Archaeo­logical Projects in Jordan (Berlin: Wichern), p. 14. Vriezen, K. 2015. ‘Ceramics’, in K. Vriezen and U. Wagner-Lux (eds), Gadara – Umm Qēs, ii: The Twin Churches on the RomanByzantine Terrace and Excavations in the Streets (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz), pp. 71–72. Watson, P. 2006. ‘Settlement and Land Use in the Hinterland of Pella’, in A. S. Lewin and P. Pellegrini (eds), Settlements and Demo­ graphy in the Near East in Late Antiquity (Pisa: Istituti editoriali e poligrafici internazionali), pp. 171–91.

10. Pottery from Abila and Gadara Nora M. Voss* Institute of Classical Archaeo­logy, Uni­ver­sity of Vienna. [email protected]

T

his paper presents some observations and preliminary results of the analysis of ceramics1 from surveys in two neighbouring cities of Gerasa/ Jerash,2 the ancient city of Abila, modern Quwailiba, and Gadara, modern Umm Qays. Abila and Gadara are both less than 50 km from Gerasa, and as discussed below there is evidence of ceramic trade from Gerasa to both sites. The surveys took place in the context of the project ‘Historical Land-Use and Landscape Reconstruction in the Decapolis Region ( Jordan)’, carried out at the Institute for Classical Archaeo­logy at the Uni­ver­sity of Vienna.3 The focus of the investigation is on the ceramics from Abila. As the ceramics from Gadara are very similar to the assemblage from Abila, they will be used as a reference and thus complement the studies. The pottery from Abila has not been described in detail yet, and the research on ceramics in Gadara is at an early stage. Therefore, the aim of this paper is to present the ceramic assemblages of the surveys and make them accessible for comparison with other cities in the region. 4 This * I would like to thank Rubina Raja and Achim Lichtenberger for giving me the opportunity to attend the conference ‘The Archaeo­ logy and History of Jerash: 110 Years of Excavations’ on 2 and 3 March 2017 in Copen­hagen (see Lichtenberger and Raja 2018) and to contribute the first results of my research to this volume. 1  Currently, the study of ceramics is still ongoing. 2  Three surveys were carried out and will be discussed in my forthcoming dissertation ‘Economy, Trade and Local Traditions: Ceramics from Ancient Cities and their Surroundings in Northern Jordan’. 3  The project is realized in cooperation with Bethany Walker (Annemarie Schimmel Kolleg for Mamluk Studies, Bonn) and Bernhard Lucke (Institut für Geo­graphie, Uni­ver­sity of Erlangen). The project supervisor in Vienna is Günther Schörner. 4  The entire ceramic corpus of the surveys around Abila, Umm

research focuses on the analyses of the fabrics, which make the pottery from different sites comparable to each other. Due to this method the origin of the ceramics can be determined. Analysing common forms provides knowledge about what kind of pottery was traded between certain sites. Based on a better knowledge of the ceramics, the regional economy can be discussed in more detail in the future. By determining the origin of ceramics, trade routes can be identified and the flow of goods into the cities under research can be retraced. On the basis of this method, regional and also supraregional trading networks can be made visible.

Abila The ancient city of Abila, as well as Gerasa, belonged to the ancient league of the Decapolis, which was formed in the Early Imperial period. The ruins still visible today can be identified by two inscriptions as ancient Abila.5 The Onomastikon of Eusebius is one of the few sources mentioning Abila. It is stated that: Άβελα οι νοφός καλουένη, διεστῶσα Γαδάρον σημείοις ίβ͗ τοĩς προς α͗νατολαĩς.6 The city is situated in the fertile highlands, not far from the Jordan and Yarmuk Rivers. Because of adequate rainfall and a source that is still rich today, the area around the ancient city could be used for agricultural purposes.7 Not far from the city was an important el-Jimal, and Gadara will soon be presented in my dissertation. Within the PhD project the ceramics will be presented and investigated. On the basis of the ceramic material, trade relations, economic aspects, and traditional craftsmanship in the region will be analysed and discussed. 5  Wineland 2001, 2. 6  Klostermann 1966, 62. ‘Abela fertile of wine, in the region 12 miles to the east of Gadara’, Wineland 2001, 1–2. 7  Fuller 1987, 384.

Hellenistic and Roman Gerasa: The Archaeo­logy and History of a Decapolis City, ed. by Achim Lichtenberger and Rubina Raja, JP 5 (Turnhout: Brepols, 2020), 325–338 BREPOLS PUBLISHERS DOI 10.1484/M.JP-EB.5.120814

Nora M. Voss

326 east–west road from the Jordan Valley to southern Syria, which was already used in pre-Roman times.8

Historical Overview Early Bronze Age ceramic sherds and silex tools (3300–1950 bc) mark the first traces of settlement in Abila.9 From the fourth millennium until the Abbasid caliphate, Abila was continuously populated. The most densely populated period was between the first century bc and the eighth century ad. However, from the tenth century onwards there was no permanent settlement, although the place was still used seasonally by shepherds.10 For the period up to the middle of the third century bc, there are just a few written and archaeo­logical sources for the settlement. Polybios reported that in the fourth Syrian War (221–217 bc) Antiochus III brought Abila under Seleucid rule, along with other cities in the region. About a century later (104/03 bc) Abila belonged to the Hasmonean Kingdom. In the course of the reorganization of the region by Pompey (64/63 bc) during the disturbances in Judaea, Abila was assigned to the Decapolis and thus belonged to the province of Syria. This withdrew the city from the sphere of influence of local rulers and gave it a certain independence.11 The city flourished in the Late Roman and Byzantine periods, and the population reached around six to eight thousand inhabitants in Late Antiquity.12 In the Late Byzantine period, Abila became a bishopric. In this period, a population growth of up to around twelve thousand inhabitants is estimated.13 The city prospered in the following centuries with uninterrupted construction activity. After the devastating earthquakes in the middle of the eighth century ad and the transfer of the capital of the Abbasid caliphate from Damascus to Baghdad, the Decapolis and therefore also Abila lost its importance.14 The cities moved from the centre of the Islamic Empire to its periphery.

Exploration and Excavations Abila was first described and correctly identified by Ulrich Seetzen in 1806.15 In the following 150 years, the ruins were visited and described by many travellers; of note is Gottlieb Schumacher, who first published plans and drawings of the ruins.16 After the Second World War, excavation was undertaken by the Department of Antiquities of Jordan as well as by German and French archaeo­logists.17 The focus of the excavations was primarily the large number of tombs and the monumental architecture. Since 1979, Abila has been intensively researched by William Herold Mare,18 whose work mainly consists of surface survey with a focus on the early stages of the settlement. A second focus of research in Abila concerns the numerous early Christian churches.19 Despite the ongoing research at the site, there are only a few publications dealing with the ceramics.20 Only the dissertation by Michael Fuller gives an overview of the ceramics found in Abila.21 Since 2008, excavation at the site has been directed by David Vila.22

Survey Methods The intensive Abila Survey took place in June 2014 across a previously selected area. All archaeo­logical artefacts were collected, though the finds were mainly ceramic. This process provides, on the one hand, a large spectrum of ceramics, which originate from different epochs and strata of society. Simple cooking and storage vessels were found as well as luxurious imported tableware. On the other hand, one can make various statements about agricultural processes on the basis of the occurrence of ceramics. This assumption refers to a thesis by Tony J. Wilkinson, who argues that the ceramics found outside settlements were intentionally deposited on the fields together with the organic waste.23 15 

Seetzen 1854, 317–75. Schumacher 1889. 17  Wineland 2001, 15–17. 18  Covenant Theo­logical Seminary in Saint Louis (Missouri, USA). 19  Mare 1999; 1997; 1992. 20  Carnagey 1991; Maxwell 1988; Lenzen 1983. 21  Fuller 1987. 22  John Brown Uni­ver­s ity, Siloam Springs (Arkansas, USA) [accessed 7 June 2017]. 23  Wilkinson 1982. 16 

8 

Zangenberg and Busch 2003, 129. Fuller 1987, 199. 10  Wineland 2001, 103–14; Fuller 1987, 8. 11  Zangenberg and Busch 2003, 117. 12  Kennedy and Bewley 2004, 199; Fuller 1987, 253. 13  Fuller 1987, 253. 14  Wineland 2001, 114. 9 

10. Pottery from Abila and Gadara The survey consisted of four transects with a length of 2.5  km. Each transect started from Tell Abil, the centre of the ancient settlement. In addition to the survey by Michael and Neathery Fuller in the 1970s,24 the transects were extended to the north-east (NE), northwest (NW), south-east (SE), and south-west (SW). The respective fields were measured by GPS and divided into plots of 50 m each. They were then searched by two to nine students walking next to each other at a predefined distance of 2 m. Thus, each field was 2 m × 50 m, or 100 m2, and one field was investigated at an average of five minutes. Each participant finally defined an individual visibility of the area, depending on its vegetation and morpho­logy. A  total of eighty-two fields were examined. The findings were counted, packaged, and labelled according to plot number. The number of fields per transect ranged widely due to the varying geomorpho­logy of the terrain around Abila. Due to the large quantity of finds so far, only the diagnostic fragments of Transects NE and NW have been considered.25

Fabric Typo­logy The investigation of the ceramics concentrates on the period between the beginning of the Hellenistic period at the end of the fourth century bc and the reign of the Umayyads in the eighth century ad. Altogether around eighteen thousand sherds from the relevant period were collected around Abila.26 Due to the poor state of conservation of the ceramics and the fact that they were surface finds, the focus of the investigation lies on the analysis of the fabrics and the provenance. By examining the composition of the clay and identifying the inclusions, certain places of production can be assigned for some of the defined fabrics. The pottery is 24 

Fuller 1987, 68–74 and 128–226. 25   Rims, bottom sherds, handles, spouts, and body sherds with characteristic and significant features have been counted as diagnostic sherds. In total 17,936 fragments were found during the survey in Abila. From that 9867 are processed so far, and 1192 of these were considered as diagnostic sherds. The body sherds were divided into wares and vessel types, showing a similar distribution as the diagnostic fragments (see Fig. 10.4a). 26   The previously dissected finds from the Islamic period (eighth–twentieth century ad) were examined within a PhD project at the Annemarie Schimmel Kolleg at the Uni­ver­sity of Bonn. (AlSababha 2018, ‘Pottery and Communal Identity. Archaeometrical Study of Islamic Ceramic Assemblages in Northern Jordan’ (unpublished doctoral thesis, Uni­ver­sity of Bonn)).

327 studied under an incident light microscope at 40× magnification. The type of inclusions, including colour, size, shape, and frequency, are recorded as characteristics. Also noted is the frequency of voids within the matrix as well as its structure and the behaviour of the newly made break.27 The colour of the entire sherd is registered, but this is not considered to be decisive in determining its division into a fabric or a ware. A number of wares have been recognized. Each ware consists of several fabrics with similar characteristics.28 Some of them can be assigned to a production site. They are provisionally identified by a letter or, as far as possible, identified with a name common in the literature. Nevertheless, the results presented here must be regarded as preliminary, considering that the archaeometric investigations as well as verification on a broader material basis are still pending. The origin of the imported fine ware can be considered as reliable, as can most of the provenances presented here. The classification of the wares into a chrono­logical framework has not been undertaken, as this has to be considered on the basis of comparisons with ceramics from strati­graphically excavated contexts. The material from Abila consists of five principal wares, which are made up of several fabrics that have similar characteristics. The photos show one very characteristic representative of the described ware. All photos were taken with an enlargement of factor 16.29 Coarse Ware Coarse ware appears mainly in vessel forms used for storing and preparing food. The size of the inclusions in the various fabrics varies in some cases, so appearance may be very different.

27 

In order to give a standardized and comprehensive description of the fabric, the Munsell Soil Color Charts (Baltimore 2009) for colour determination were used. To give the shape, sorting, and the frequency of the inclusions and air pockets, I use the estimates from Kinne 2006, 28–30. In the determination of the inclusions, I follow the assessments of Orton, Tyer, and Vince 2013, 236–37. 28  The term ‘ware’ refers to fragments grouped by its micro­ scopic characteristics — that is, fabrics with similar inclusions. The considered characteristics are in particular inclusions and voids, as well as the appearance of the break. A ware can be divided in subgroups, if groups of fabrics are similar, but have varied features. ‘Fabric’ refers only to the composition of the clay and its appearance. 29   All photos were taken by Kristina Klein (Institute for Classical Archaeo­logy, Uni­ver­sity Vienna) and the author.

Nora M. Voss

328 Ware A (Colour Plate 1.1): With about 11 per cent of the total number of sherds (see Fig. 10.4a below), Ware A is the third largest group within the whole material, after Ware G and Ware F (see below). The fabrics of Ware A are soft to hard with a buff to pinkish colour. The tempering consists of white and red, rounded particles of variable size, maybe lime and grog or iron ore. Two subgroups show additional inclusions, such as a small amount of quartz or small greyish particles. This ware consists mainly of jars30 and small storage vessels,31 but big plates and bowls with overhanging rims32 are also present. A small amount of tableware, such as juglets,33 smaller bowls, and a few drinking vessels, as well as fragments of lamps and unguentaria34 are also found. Vessels associated with cooking are not found in this ware. This is probably due to the nature of the inclusions, especially the frequent occurrence of lime, as well as the presumed low firing temperature, which render this ware unsuitable for cooking. Vessel shapes from the Hellenistic/Early Roman period until the Byzantine period were used for this ware. Because of the large number of finds, the great compositional variation of the tempering of the fabric, and the variation in vessel shapes, this fabric is probably locally made in the region of Abila or Gadara. This is based on the assumption that, if a ware occurs particularly frequently at one place and not at others, it could be a locally manufactured ware. The probability of this increases if the vessels come from different epochs and functional groups of pottery.35 Sherds of this ware also make up a large part of the body sherds. They usually have ribs on the outer side and therefore probably belong to storage vessels, though fragments of thin-walled vessels are also present. Ware E (Colour Plate 1.2 and Fig.  10.1): Ware E is the smallest and most inhomogeneous group. It consists of three subgroups. Common to all is a very hard sherd with reddish yellow to dark reddish brown colour. All subgroups include irregularly shaped, red particles, elongated, dark yellow inclusions, as well as lime.36 30 

Fuller 1987, 93 and 426, fig. 52A. 31  Segal and others 2007, 137, fig. 14.212. 32  Segal and others 2008, 76, fig. 3.41. 33  Kenkel 2012, 211, fig. 36 (Kru72). 34  Fuller 1987, 100 and 437, fig. 63. 35  Mommsen 2007, 188. 36   For an analysis of the inclusions, see Osinga 2017, 187; Cohen-Weinberger and Goren 2011, 216–17.

Figure 10.1. Palestinian ‘bag-shaped’ amphora. (Drawing author).

Most fabrics contain a lot of mica. The subgroups differ mostly within the size and amount of inclusions. The colour of the matrix also plays an important role. Depending on the basic colour of the newly made break, the tempering components appear very differently, because the firing conditions have an impact on the colour of the inclusions. Ware E appears frequently in a distinctive amphora shape, but also in jars and more rarely in open vessels, such as bowls and lids. Due to the analysis of the already mentioned amphora shapes (Fig. 10.1), Ware E can be associated with a certain type of Palestinian ‘bag-shaped’ Amphora.37 Some of these bag-shaped jars were produced at Beth She’an, the ancient city of Scythopolis, another city of the Decapolis.38 This ware can be dated to the fifth–eighth centuries ad.39 Ware F40 (Colour Plate 1.3): Ware F represents the largest cluster of fabrics, and it is the second largest group of the whole material. It consists of three subgroups. Common to all subgroups are transparent colourless to grey mineral tempering, which is quartz. Depending on the subgroup, the fabrics include also some amount of lime or red or dark clay particles.41 Nevertheless, the matrix is so similar that it can be assumed that it is one ware. The colour varies from yellowish brown to reddish yellow. Some pieces have a self-slip. This ware consists

37 

Kenkel 2012, 229, fig. 34 (Am23.6f ). Osinga 2017, 187; Cohen-Weinberger and Goren 2011. 39  Osinga 2017, 186. 40  This ware shows great similarities with Clark and Falkner’s type C (1986, 251) and Uscatescu’s group C (1996, 46) at Jerash, as well as Kerner and Maxwell’s ‘Terrakotta’ (1990, 241) at Gadara and Osinga’s ‘Jerash Terracotta’ (2017, 166) at Umm el-Jimal. See also Osinga in this volume. 41  Osinga 2017, 166. 38 

10. Pottery from Abila and Gadara

329

Figure 10.2. Cooking bowl. (Drawing author).

mainly of closed vessels, such as jars,42 and small storage vessels,43 but plates, bowls, and lids as well as casseroles44 are also present. Cooking vessels such as casseroles, bowls,45 and cooking jars46 were also found. These vessels are usually made of a subgroup of Ware F with large inclusions. Comparison of the matrix with that of the Jerash Bowls, which has been investigated in depth,47 reveals striking parallels. Since the Jerash Bowls were surely produced in Gerasa, the production site of Ware F can also be assumed to have come from Gerasa but other places of origin are currently also considered.48 The most common vessel forms of Ware F are dated to the sixth–eighth centuries ad.49

Ware B (Harte rote Ware) (Colour Plate 2.1 and Fig. 10.2): Ware B is very hard fired in a dark red colour, often with a dark reduced core. The tempering consists of coarse quartz particles and sometimes a small amount of lime and very fine mica. This fabric, described by Susanne Kerner as ‘Harte rote Ware’,50 has not yet been connected to a production facility in Jerash, but the obvious similarities with the other fabrics of Ware F allow this as a working hypothesis. The fabric is found only in cooking vessels, mainly casseroles/bowls with a very distinctive rim. The rim is in a vertical position with a pinched top and grooves on the outside (Fig. 10.2).51 Kerner dated this ware to the Late Roman to Byzantine period with reference to the vessel forms.52

Cooking Ware

Ware C (Galilean Bowl): Ware C has a very fine, dark red to reddish brown fabric with porous, black and round, white inclusions. The vessel repertoire mainly comprises cooking utensils, such as pans and deep bowls, 53 cooking pots, 54 and casseroles. 55 This ware is well published by David Adan-Bayewitz. 56 So far, I  have identified two of the three subgroups defined by Adan-Bayewiz in my material: Kefar Hananya Ware, produced on the north-western shore of Lake Tiberius, and the so-called Competing Ware, for which a production site is assumed in the Galilean highlands between the Jordan River and the coastal area.57 The Competing

The wares in this group are primarily used for cooking. Naturally, fragments which have been used for cooking are also found in other wares such as, for example, Ware F. These are, however, very difficult to detect, since they are very rarely blacked with soot or show other indications of a use in connection with fire. Isolated fragments have discolourations or a crazed surface, suggesting a secondary heat effect. 42 

Osinga 2017, 428–29, plate X.135. Fuller 1987, 93 and 426, fig. 52A. 44  Kenkel 2012, 159, fig. 22 (Kas12.1). 45  Kenkel 2012, 121, fig.  16 (Sa7.3); Adan-Bayewitz 1993, 88–91, fig. 1A.4. 46  The vessel imitates Adan-Bayewitz 1993, 128–30, fig. 4D. 47  Csitneki 2017; Uscatescu 1995; Watson 1989. 48  Watson 1989, 234. 49  The dating of the single forms is still ongoing. Some common forms are comparable to Kenkel 2012, 177, fig. 26 (Kt30.2) and 159, fig. 22 (Kas12.1); Ben-Arieh 1997, VI.6, 356 and 362; Hennessy, McNicoll, and Smith 1992, 173, 110.3. 43 

50 

Kerner and Maxwell 1990, 241. Vriezen and Wagner-Lux 2015, 133 and 319, fig. XII. 22, nos 11–14; Kerner and Maxwell 1990, 246, fig. 37.15. 52  Kerner and Maxwell 1990, 241. 53  Common in the survey assemblage: Adan-Bayewitz 1993, 91–97, fig. 1B.5, 13, and 20, 100–03, fig. 1D.3. 54  Adan-Bayewitz 1993, 128–30, fig. 4E.2, 132–35, fig. 4E.3. 55  Adan-Bayewitz 1993, 103–09, fig. 1E.5 and 8. 56  Adan-Bayewitz 1993, 60–78 and 155–56. 57  Adan-Bayewitz 1993, 156. 51 

Nora M. Voss

330 Ware differs from the other subgroups by the presence of quartz. The Galilean Bowls are with over 20 per cent of the total number of sherds by far the largest group within the whole material (see Figs 10.4a and 10.5a below). The ceramics from Kefar Hananya were mainly produced between the beginning of the second to the end of the third century ad.58 The smaller production of the Competing Ware started in the middle of the fourth century ad and continued until the sixth century ad.59 Within the material from Abila and Gadara vessel forms from the first century bc to the early fifth century ad are found. Fine Ware The fine wares are to a large extent composed of vessels belonging to Ware A and Ware F. They have the same inclusions as the other fabrics of the same ware, but the clay is better processed and contains fewer and smaller inclusions. They are also more thin-walled, and the surface has been worked more carefully. In addition to regional tableware, imported ceramics such as Eastern Sigillata A, Late Roman C, and African Red Slip were also found. Ware J ( Jerash Bowls): The ware is essentially the same as Ware F. The sherds are hard to very hard and have an intense red to yellowish red colour. Most sherds have a matt slip. The matrix mainly contains many small quartz particles as well as a few rounded, red and white inclusions. Jerash Bowls, which mainly imitated African Red Slip shapes, had their production peak between the midsixth and the mid-seventh centuries ad.60 In the material from Abila, the bowls are found exclusively in forms 2a and 14b.61 Jerash Lamps: Only three fragments of lamps were found throughout the material. One case is the zoomorphic handle of a Jerash Lamp.62 The fabric also corresponds to that of Ware F, but contains only very fine quartz particles. Ware M: This final group cannot be assigned to a production site. The ware contains a little amount of small quartz particles, rounded, red inclusions, mica, and 58 

However, the production period in Kefar Hananya ranges from about 50 bc to ad 430 (Adan-Bayewitz 1993, 148). 59  Adan-Bayewitz 1993, 148. 60  Csitneki 2017, 99–100. 61  Watson 1989, 225 and 228. 62  Kehrberg 1989, 97, fig. 5.25.

white inclusions which could be lime. The fabrics differ in the size and frequency of the inclusions. It has a hard sherd with an intensive brownish to yellowish red colour. More interesting than the fabric are the vessel shapes of this group, which almost exclusively imitate Late Roman C forms 3 and 10 from the sixth century ad.63 Because of this, it can be assumed that a local workshop offered a cheaper alternative to the otherwise expensive imported tableware. Another explanation for this ware could be that it actually is Late Roman C, however, not from the major production site at Phokaia but from a nearby city that also manufactured vessels of this shape. This possibility would be unusual as Late Roman C appears to only have been exported from Phokaia.64 For comparison with the material from Abila, the ceramics collected around Gadara will be presented and discussed briefly.

Gadara The ancient city of Gadara lies 21.5 km to the west of Abila on a plateau above Lake Tiberius. The survey around Gadara in September 2016 followed the same method described above. It was confined at the western part of the plateau next to the city, which was probably the most densely cultivated area in the vicinity of the settlement.65 Three transects were radially extended from the tell. In total 25,500 fragments have been collected from the relevant time period. Only the 2756 diagnostic fragments found in the Transects north-west (NW) and south-west (SW) are considered here. The two areas investigated are located at the extreme north and south ends of the plateau. The composition of the material has a striking similarity to that of Abila, but is in a much better condition.66 There are two new groups: Ware H and the mortaria or small basins, which occur only in two very similar fabrics. 63 

Hayes 1972, 334–38. Ladstätter 2005, 144. 65  The fields are still cultivated intensively today. 66  Fabrics 35 and 36, which appear separately in the diagram (Fig. 10.5), are also present in the material from Abila, but not in such great quantities. The two fabrics are similar to Ware A, but whether they belong to the same raw material group still needs further investigation. The terms fabric, ware, and raw material group in this paper are used as Gassner has defined them for her work about the pottery from Velia (2003, 26–27). 64 

10. Pottery from Abila and Gadara

331

Figure 10.3. Mortarium. (Drawing author).

Ware H (Colour Plate 2.2): Ware H has a hard sherd with a characteristic whitish light brown to light yellow colour. The fabrics of the ware contain a lot of rounded, dark red and porous, black inclusions as well as small oval air pockets. The most common vessel forms of Ware H are jars and other storage vessels, but also a few bowls were found. Mortaria (Colour Plate 2.3 and Fig. 10.3): Another interesting group consists of mortaria or small basins. They have a characteristic form (Fig.  10.3) and occur only in two very similar fabrics. Both fabrics are hardfired and yellowish brown to reddish yellow in colour. They contain many dark red, rounded particles as well as a little lime and rounded, opaque quartz particles. Since the inclusions of the ware are very different from those already described, it is likely that the mortaria were imported. A total of forty fragments of this type were found. They do not occur in the material from Abila. Apart from this type, no other mortaria or any related shapes are found in the material.

Analysis Dating the single vessel forms and wares is still ongoing. But some general hints about the chrono­logy can be made. Ware A seems to run from the Hellenistic/Early Roman to the Byzantine period. So this ware occurs during the whole researched time span. The Galilean Bowls (Ware C) were also produced over a comparably long period: in Abila and Gadara forms dated from the first century bc to the early fifth century ad are present. The other cooking ware (Ware B) commonly occurs as types of casseroles/cooking bowls (Fig. 10.2) dated to the mid-fifth century ad.67 Thus, Ware B may have 67 

Nielsen, Andersen, and Holm-Nielsen 1993, 186 and 261, fig. 172–74; Hennessy, McNicoll, and Smith 1992, 173, fig. 109.10.

replaced the Galilean Bowls whose production ended just prior to this. Both Ware E and Ware F, as well as the other wares probably manufactured at Gerasa, such as Jerash Bowls and Jerash Lamps, are dated to the Late Byzantine period from the fifth to the eighth centuries ad. The largest group of imported pottery is Late Roman C (Fig. 10.4b). By considering the character and size of the settlement during the frequent appearance of Late Roman C, African Red Slip, Jerash Bowls, and Ware M in contrast to the appearance of Roman-period Eastern Sigillata A, there was greater prosperity and a larger settlement at Abila in Late Antiquity. This is not true for Gadara, seeing as the imported fine ware from the sixth century ad onwards68 and the Eastern Sigillata A (second century bc to second century ad) (Fig. 10.5b) are about equal in number. When the proportions of the wares are compared (Figs 10.4a and 10.5a), fragments of Ware C dominate. One quarter of the whole material consists of this ware. Considering that this is exclusively cooking vessels, it has to be assumed that they were imported because of their specific quality. Fragments from the production site of Kefer Hananya appear about four times as frequently as fragments from the Galilean highlands of the Competing Ware. Also Ware B occurs exclusively as vessel shapes which are associated with cooking. Together with Ware F, it takes up another 20 per cent of the assemblage. Particularly, the spectrum of vessels appearing in those two wares (Wares B and F), which were perhaps manufactured in Gerasa from Byzantine times onwards, seems to have covered the entire demand for daily use. Cooking and fine ware also occur. Ware E is found mostly as closed vessels, such as amphorae and jars. Body sherds of this type usually have ribs on the outside, and it can be assumed that this 68  Most of the Late Roman C Ware, the Jerash Bowls, and Ware M from Gadara dated to the second half of the sixth to the early seventh century ad.

Nora M. Voss

332

Figure 10.4a. Coarse ware from Abila (author).

Figure 10.5a. Coarse ware from Gadara (author).

Figure 10.4b. Tableware from Abila (author).

Figure 10.5b. Tableware from Gadara (author).

ware was mainly used as a container for foodstuffs (oil, wine, etc.).69 Also the vessels of Ware A seem to cover a large part of the vessels for daily requirements. Nevertheless, vessels made of this ware seem to be mainly shapes associated with preparing and serving food, as well as small-sized storage vessels. Since this locally made ware was not used for cooking ceramics, it could explain why cooking ware was imported in such a great number. In the diagrams (Figs 10.4a and 10.5a) ‘unknown’ refers to pottery that was not associated with a defined fabric and whose shape cannot provide information about the dating, origin, or vessel shape. The group con-

sists almost exclusively of handles. The category ‘others’ includes all fabrics that cannot be assigned to a ware and contain fewer than forty fragments, such as individual fragments of Late Roman Amphorae 1 and 6. The conclusions about the common forms and the origin of the ceramics from Abila also apply for the ceramics from Gadara. Even the percentage of individual wares is remarkably similar (Figs 10.4a and 10.5a). Ware C and Ware A share the same high percentage of the material, followed closely by the fragments that probably originated at Gerasa (Wares F and B). The high quantity of Ware A at both sites lends support to the assumption that this is a locally produced ware of Abila or Gadara.70 The greatest difference between the two surveyed areas is that more fragments of large-volume transport amphorae were found at Gadara than at Abila. A total of twelve diagnostic fragments of these transport amphorae, which have the same fabric and probably came from

69  However, it must be pointed out that second-hand use of the vessels should always be considered. For example, an amphora with Rhodian wine could be sold to one of the coastal cities, and after it has been emptied of wine, it could be filled again and transported to the location where its fragments were found. This alternative approach for the introduction of imported vessels must always be taken into account, especially in the case of sporadically occurring storage vessels types (Gassner 2003, 134–37).

70 

An in-depth comparison with other excavations in the region in order to analyse how far this ware spread is in process.

10. Pottery from Abila and Gadara the south-eastern Aegean region, were found around Gadara. Two of the fragments are handles with stamp imprints. Moreover, the material from Gadara consists of a far broader spectrum of fragments of imported vessels71 than the material from Abila. Although the number of sherds is relatively small, it rarely exceeds a dozen, through its presence it is possible to conclude the existence of a diverse trade with goods from the Mediterranean. Body sherds of large-sized storage vessels, such as dolia and transport amphorae, with a wall thickness of more than 1.5 cm are rarely found in Abila’s material. This is just as remarkable as the small number of lamp fragments found during the survey and the complete absence of other frequently occurring ceramic small finds, such as loom weights and spinning whorls. The absence of bricks, clay pipes, and other building material is also notable.

Trade Routes Trade routes must be considered in connection with these results. Because transportation by water, which was preferred in Antiquity, is excluded in this region, transport of goods by land must be assumed. The street network of the Decapolis region is well known for the first– third centuries ad. Later, the network of trade routes is not so well explored, but sources such as the Tabula Peutingeriana and written sources, such as Eusebius and Procopius, suggest that many of the roads were in use at least until the Abbasid period.72 The best indicator for roads are milestones, many of which are known from the Levant.73 Analysing them suggests a route system that points to the important function of the ancient cities of Damascus, Bostra, Philadelphia, and Gerasa in the trade between the two important provinces of Egypt and Syria as well as from the Arabian peninsula to the Mediterranean.74 From the second century ad, the important trade routes were shifted further east. It is to be assumed that the existing roads did not lose their importance because of military reasons.75 71  This includes fragments of relief ware, Late Roman Amphorae 1, 5, and 6, the already mentioned mortaria and amphorae with stamped handles, as well as fine ware that may have come from Cyprus and the western provinces. 72  Roll 1999, 112. 73  Thomsen 1917. 74  Roll 1999, 111. 75  Gregoratti 2011, 519.

333 Within the examined region, two main routes existed. The already mentioned north–south route, the Via Nova Traiana from Aila, modern Aqaba at the Red Sea, towards the north. The second is an east–west route from Caesarea Maritima to Scythopolis, Pella, and Gerasa, which runs in the vicinity of Philadelphia, modern Amman, to the Via Nova Traiana, connecting the inland towns and cities with the Mediterranean ports.76 An alternative route from Scythopolis via Gerasa to Bostra has been proposed for the road leading from the Jordan Valley past Gadara and Abila to the east.77 It should be taken into account, however, that this much shorter connection is much more difficult because of the differences in altitude to be overcome. With regard to this, it is obvious that the preferred trading partners of both settlements are largely in line with the easily accessible cities in the vicinity of the settlements. Abila and Gadara are located on a commercial road connecting Scythopolis and the region around Lake Tiberias with the settlements in the inland of the country. Gerasa is also relatively easy to reach.

Conclusion By reference to the spectrum of the vessel repertoire of the sites, it can be concluded that the ceramics from the region around Lake Tiberias and from Asia Minor were imported as commodities in themselves, probably because they had qualities that locally produced ceramics had not. Amphorae and other closed vessels could also have functioned as containers for goods like oil or wine. This can be explained by a lack of raw materials or know-how. The imported tableware also had a status value,78 which resulted in the imitation of vessel types of Late Roman C and African Red Slip in regional fabrics. In the case of ceramics originating from Palestine (Ware E), the situation is different. Presumably foodstuffs were imported from Palestine, since mainly bagshaped jars were found. The explanation for the ceramics from Gerasa is much more complex. In Gerasa, both Jerash Bowls and cooking ware made of Ware B were presumably exported as commodities because of their specific quality. In addition, however, vessels for storage from Gerasa were also found, which probably came to their place of discovery as containers for imported food. 76 

Gregoratti 2011, 517. Vriezen and Wagner-Lux 2015, 1. 78  Schörner 2010, 57. 77 

Nora M. Voss

334 In summary, it can be said that the material of Abila and Gadara is remarkably homogeneous. More than half of the total number of fragments can be attributed to the Galilean Bowls (Ware C), Ware A, Ware F, ‘Harte rote Ware’ (Ware B), and Ware E described above. It has been shown that the preferred trade partners for Abila are Gerasa and cities in Galilee, such as the region around Lake Tiberias and Scythopolis, which were easy to reach. A  large number of ceramics (Ware A) were probably made regionally around Abila and the nearby city of Gadara (Ware B and F). Supraregional trade contacts existed mainly with Ionia and today’s eastern Turkey, but also with North Africa and the south-eastern Aegean. Despite a century of continuous research at Abila, the ceramics are still virtually unprocessed; therefore, this contribution is an important step in understanding ceramic use and provenance at the site. Based on the nature of this project, there is an extraordinary opportunity to investigate three sites of different character using the same method. This makes it possible to intensify the research on sites already explored, such as Gadara, and also to investigate under-explored places like Abila. Due to the poor state of preservation and the high degree of fragmentation, the focus of this article was primarily on the fabrics and their origin, and thus less on the function of the vessel. Comparing this new ceramic data from Abila and Gadara revealed a striking similarity in the ceramic repertoire as well as key differences between the ceramic assemblages. The analysis also facilitated a discussion of pottery provenance and the movement of goods in the region. The results can in the future be considered alongside ceramic studies in other parts of northern Jordan, which ask similar questions about pottery provenance and economic shifts. Thus, the results will help to build a more detailed picture of ceramic use, production, and socio-economic change in the region.79

79 

Möller 2017, 59–60; Osinga 2017.

10. Pottery from Abila and Gadara

335

Works Cited Adan-Bayewitz, D. 1993. Common Pottery in Roman Galilee: A Study of Local Trade (Ramat-Gan: Bar-Ilan Uni­ver­sity Press). Ben-Arieh, K. 1997. ‘The Roman, Byzantine and Umayyad Pottery’, in Y. Hirschfeld (ed.), The Roman Baths of Hammat Garder ( Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society), pp. 347–81. Carnagey, G. A. 1991. ‘The Area AA 1990 Excavations at Abila: Area Supervisor’s Preliminary Report’, Near East Archaeo­logical Society Bulletin, 36: 2–34. Clark, V.  A. and R.  Falkner. 1986. ‘The Jerash North Theatre. Architecture and Archaeo­logy 1982–3, Part Three: The Finds. A. The Pottery’, in F. Zayadine (ed.), Jerash Archaeo­logical Project, 1981–1983 (Amman: Department of Antiquities of Jordan), pp. 247–51. Cohen-Weinberger, A. and Y. Goren. 2011. ‘The Clay Sources of the Theatre Pottery Workshop: A Petro­graphic Study’, in R. BarNatan (ed.), Bet She’an, ii: Baysan: The Theater Pottery Workshop, the Bet Shean Archaeo­logical Project, 1989–1999, Israel Anti­ quities Authority Report, 48 ( Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority), pp. 215–28. Csitneki, D. 2017. ‘Jerash Bowls: Fine Tableware from Jerash’, in A. Lichtenberger and R. Raja (eds), Gerasa/Jerash: From the Urban Periphery (Aarhus: Fællestrykkeriet, AUTRYK), pp. 99–105. Fuller, M. 1987. ‘Abila of the Decapolis: A Roman-Byzantine City in Transjordan’ (unpublished doctoral thesis, Washington Uni­ ver­sity). Gassner, V. 2003. Kultur und kulturelle Identität in Elea in spätarchaischer-frühklassischer Zeit: Untersuchungen von Gefäß und Baukeramik aus der Unterstadt (Grabungen 1987–1994) (Vienna: Verlag der österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaft). Gregoratti, L. 2011. ‘The Role of the Decapolis Region in Connecting Inland Syria with the Mediterranean Coast’, ARAM Periodical, 23: 509–25. Hayes J. 1972. Late Roman Pottery (London: British School at Rome). Hennessy, B., A. McNicoll, and R. Smith. 1992. Pella in Jordan, ii: The Second Interim Report of the Joint Uni­ver­sity of Sydney and College of Wooster Excavations at Pella: 1982–1985 (Sydney: Meditarch). Kehrberg, I. 1989. ‘Selected Lamps and Pottery from the Hippodrome at Jerash’, Syria, 66: 85–97. Kenkel, F. 2012. ‘Untersuchungen zur hellenistischen, römischen und byzantinischen Keramik des Tall Zirā’a im Wādī al-’Arab (Nordjordanien). Handelsobjekte und Alltagsgegenstände einer ländlichen Siedlung im Einflussgebiet der Dekapolisstädte’ (unpublished doctoral thesis, Universität zu Köln). Kennedy, D. L. and R. H. Bewley. 2004. Ancient Jordan from the Air (London: Council for British Research in the Levant). Kerner, S. and L. A. Maxwell. 1990. ‘Gadara Vorbericht 1986–1988’, Archäo­logischer Anzeiger, 105: 239–51. Kinne, A. 2006. Tabellen und Tafeln zur Grabungstechnik, 4th edn (Dresden: Selbstverlag). Klostermann, E. (ed.). 1966. Eusebius: Das Onomastikon der biblischen Ortsnamen (Hildesheim: Olms). Ladstätter, S. 2005. ‘Late Roman C-Ware und lokale spätantike Feinware aus Ephesos’, in F. Krizinger (ed.), Spätantike und mittelalterliche Keramik aus Ephesos, Archäo­logische Forschungen, 13 (Vienna: Verlag der österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaft), pp. 143–201. Lenzen, C. 1983. ‘Preliminary Report – Abila Pottery, 1982’, Near East Archaeo­logical Society Bulletin, 22: 32–49. Lichtenberger, A. and R. Raja. 2018. The Archaeo­logy and History of Jerash: 110 Years of Excavations, Jerash Papers, 1 (Turnhout: Brepols). Mare, H. 1992. ‘Abila: A Thriving Greco-Roman City of Decapolis’, ARAM Periodical, 4: 57–77. ——  1997. ‘The 1996 Season of Excavations at Abila of the Decapolis’, Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan, 41: 303–10. ——  1999. ‘The 1998 Season of Excavations at Abila of the Decapolis’, Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan, 43: 451–58. Maxwell, L. A. 1988. ‘The Pottery from the 1986 Season at Abila of the Decapolis’, Near East Archaeo­logical Society Bulletin, 30: 84–106. Möller, H. 2017. ‘Ceramics in Context: Interpreting Life through Pottery’, in A. Lichtenberger and R. Raja (eds), Gerasa/Jerash: From the Urban Periphery (Aarhus: Fællestrykkeriet, AUTRYK), pp. 59–66. Mommsen, H. 2007. ‘Tonmasse und Keramik: Herkunftsbestimmung durch Spurenanalyse’, in G. Wagner (ed.), Einführung in die Archäometrie (Berlin: Springer), pp. 179–92. Nielsen, I., F. Gorm Andersen, and S. Holm-Nielsen. 1993. Gadara – Umm Qes, iii: Die byzantinischen Thermen, Abhandlungen des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins, 17 (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz). Orton, C., P. Tyer, and A. Vince. 2013. Pottery in Archaeo­logy (Cam­bridge: Cam­bridge Uni­ver­sity Press). Osinga, E. 2017. ‘The Countryside in Context: Strati­graphic and Ceramic Analysis at Umm el-Jimal and Environs in North-eastern Jordan (1st to 20th Century ad)’ (unpublished doctoral thesis, Uni­ver­sity of Southampton). Roll, I. 1999. ‘The Roads in Roman-Byzantine Palaestina and Arabia’, in M. Piccirillo (ed.), The Madaba Map Centenary 1897–1997: Travelling through the Byzantine Umayyad Period: Proceedings of the International Conference Held in Amman, 7–9 April 1997 ( Jerusalem: Franciscan Printing Press), pp. 109–13.

336

Nora M. Voss

Schörner, G. 2010. ‘Dinge und ihre soziale Bedeutung: Behavioral Archaeo­logy, Terra sigillata und die Imelda-Marcos-Hypothese’, in E. Tietmeyer (ed.), Die Sprache der Dinge, Schriftenreihe Museum Europäischer Kulturen, 5 (Münster: Waxmann), pp. 53–63. Schumacher, G. 1889. Abila of the Dekapolis (London: Palestine Exploration Fund). Seetzen, U. J. 1854. Reisen durch Syrien, Palästina, Phönicien, die Transjordan-Länder, ed. by F. Kruse (Berlin: Reimer). Segal, A. and others. 2007. Hippos-Sussita: Eighth Season of Excavations ( July 2007) (Haifa: Itzhak Bar-Haim). ——  2008. Hippos-Sussita Ninth Season of Excavations ( June–July 2008) (Haifa: Itzhak Bar-Haim). Thomsen, P. 1917. ‘Die römischen Meilensteine der Provinz Syria, Arabia und Palaestina’, Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins, 40: 1–103. Uscatescu, A. 1995. ‘Jerash Bowls and Other Related Local Ware from the Spanish Excavations at the Macellum of Gerasa ( Jerash)’, Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan, 39: 365–408. ——  1996. La Cerámica del Macellum de Gerasa (Ŷaraš, Jordania) (Madrid: Instituto del Patrimonio Histórico Español). Vriezen, K. J. and U. Wagner-Lux. 2015. Gadara – Umm Qes, ii: The Twin Churches on the Roman-Byzantine Terrace and Excavations in the Streets, Abhandlungen des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins, 30.2 (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz). Watson, P. 1989. ‘Jerash Bowls: Study of a Provincial Group of Byzantine Decorated Fine Ware’, Syria, 66: 223–61. Wilkinson, T. J. 1982. ‘The Definition of Ancient Manured Zones by Means of Extensive Sherd-Sampling Techniques’, Journal of Field Archaeo­logy, 9: 323–33. Wineland, John D. 2001. Ancient Abila: An Archaeo­logical History, British Archaeo­logical Reports, International Series, 989 (Oxford: Archaeopress). Zangenberg, J. and P. Busch. 2003. ‘Hippos und Gadara. Ein Hauch von Welt am See’, in G. Fassbeck and others (eds), Leben am See Gennesaret: Kulturgeschichtliche Entdeckungen in einer biblischen Region? (Mainz: Von Zabern), pp. 117–29.

10. Pottery from Abila and Gadara

337

Colour Plate 1.1a. Ware A (Kristina Klein, Uni­ver­sity of Vienna).

Colour Plate 1.1b. Ware A (author).

Colour Plate 1.2a. Ware E (Kristina Klein, Uni­ver­sity of Vienna).

Colour Plate 1.2b. Ware E (author).

Colour Plate 1.3a. Ware F (Kristina Klein, Uni­ver­sity of Vienna).

Colour Plate 1.3b. Ware F (author).

Nora M. Voss

338

Colour Plate 2.1a. Ware B (Kristina Klein, Uni­ver­sity of Vienna).

Colour Plate 2.1b. Ware B (author).

Colour Plate 2.2a. Ware H (Kristina Klein, Uni­ver­sity of Vienna).

Colour Plate 2.2b. Ware H (author).

Colour Plate 2.3a. Mortarium (Kristina Klein, Uni­ver­sity of Vienna).

Colour Plate 2.3b. Mortarium (author).

11. Quantifying Ceramic Trends at Umm el-Jimal Elizabeth A. Osinga* The Umm el-Jimal Project (www.ummeljimal.org). [email protected]

Figure 11.1. Umm el-Jimal in Late Antiquity (after Bert de Vries. Reproduced with permission).

Introduction Umm el-Jimal is located a few kilometres from the via nova on the basaltic plateau in north-eastern Jordan (the badia/badiyah), which is part of the southern Hauran region of northern Jordan and southern Syria. The numerous settlements dotted around the basaltic steppe — Umm el-Jimal being the largest and best preserved of the sites — are testament to the population of this region (Fig. 11.1). While Umm el-Jimal is renowned for its extant Late Antique basalt-hewn architecture, the site was founded much earlier in the Nabatean/Early Roman period (mid-/late first century ad). The first few centuries of occupation have been comparatively little studied, due in large part to a paucity of surviving strati­g raphy and architecture dated to that period, save for military structures and poorly preserved remains in the village southeast of the town (Fig. 11.2). Since 2012, renewed excavations at Umm el-Jimal, along with analysis of unpublished contexts from previous campaigns, have shed new light on these formerly obscured periods.

This paper presents the current ceramic evidence for the Nabatean/Roman through Early Byzantine period1 at Umm el-Jimal, focusing on two types of pottery: common wares (tableware, cooking ware, and thin-walled storage ware) and fine wares. Three key datasets will be interrogated: quantified deposits from the 2012 and 2014 excavations at Houses XVII–XVIII (c. mid-/late first century to eighth century) and from the 2015 and 2017 excavations at the Commodus Gate Area (c. mid-/late first century to third century), and unquantified ceramics from the Northern Dump (c. mid-/late first century to third century) excavated in 1981. While some badiyah sites have been subject to excavation and other archaeo­logical research, and surveys have been conducted in the region, ceramic analysis has been rare.2 * I am very grateful to Bert de Vries and Alison Gascoigne for their helpful comments on this paper. Any errors remain my own. 1  The periodization used in this paper is adapted from Uscatescu (2003, n. 11) and Parker (2006, 332), and is tailored to Umm elJimal’s history. All dates are ad. Nabatean (NAB) c. mid-/late first century–106. Roman (R): Early Roman (ER) c.  mid-/late first century–135; Late Roman (LR) 135–324. Byzantine (BYZ): Early Byzantine (EBYZ) 324–491; Late Byzantine (LBYZ) 491–640. 2   Principal ceramic publications from the badiyah include: surface pottery from Khirbet es-Samra (Humbert and Desreumaux 1990) and a study of ceramics from that site and Mafraq (Humbert 2001); ceramics from the Southern Hauran Survey’s investigations of the hinterland of Umm el-Quttein and from an excavation trench at the site (Kennedy, Freeman, and Falkner 1995); and from Umm el-Jimal, a preliminary report from the 1977 excavations (Parker 1998b) and an analysis of lamp fragments from a domestic complex (Lapp 1995).

Hellenistic and Roman Gerasa: The Archaeo­logy and History of a Decapolis City, ed. by Achim Lichtenberger and Rubina Raja, JP 5 (Turnhout: Brepols, 2020), 339–367 BREPOLS PUBLISHERS DOI 10.1484/M.JP-EB.5.120815

Elizabeth A. Osinga

340

Figure 11.2. Plan of Umm el-Jimal showing the relationship between town and village (after Bert de Vries. Reproduced with permission).

As a consequence, knowledge of pottery types, their origin, and any transitions over time are poorly understood. The new ceramic evidence from Umm el-Jimal presents, therefore, an important case study in both local and regional ceramic consumption. First, the three corpora will be presented in their archaeo­logical context. Second, the ceramic methodo­ logy will be introduced, including the study of pottery types, a discussion of ceramic provenance, and descriptions of the major ware groups. Next, the two quantified corpora will be interrogated, drawing out trends in production over time. A discussion of typo-chrono­logy as linked with the major wares follows, which supplements the results of the quantified analysis. The article concludes with the presentation of the ceramic trends within their socio-historical context and a discussion of the importance of this new data in the study of the regional economy, in particular when approaching the question of production volume, periodization, and range of export at Jerash.

Three Ceramic Corpora The pottery discussed in this article comes from three different parts of the town: House XVII–XVIII in the south-eastern quadrant, the Commodus Gate Area in the west, and a dump in the north (Fig. 11.3). House XVII–XVIII (Area C) House XVIII was first excavated during the 1977 season as two soundings.3 In 2012 and 2014, with funding from the U.S. Ambassadors Fund for Cultural Preservation, fourteen further trenches were laid out within the houses, as well as one abutting exterior walls and one within House XVIII’s reservoir (Fig. 11.4). The pottery from 2014 was the first dataset from the site to be quantified, the methodo­logy of which is outlined in the following sections. Strati­graphic and ceramic analysis pointed to an early sixth-century Late Byzantine date for the construction of the complex and illuminated major reconstruction in 3 

Brown 1998.

11. Quantifying Ceramic Trends at Umm el-Jimal

341

Figure 11.3. Plan of Umm el-Jimal showing the origins of the three datasets (after Bert de Vries. Reproduced with permission).

House XVIII’s courtyard in the Umayyad period (early eighth century), as well as short-lived activity in the Late Ayyubid/Mamluk period and perhaps later.4 In many cases, strati­g raphy was disturbed by the reconstruction or was the product of long-term accumulation. Despite the Late Byzantine construction date, soil layers in both houses as well as one undatable subfloor over bedrock in House XVIII’s courtyard, well below the level of the doorframes, are testament to activity in 4 

Osinga 2017, 105–41.

earlier periods. The lack of surfaces or architectural features between or within these deposits and the very fragmentary nature of much of the pottery suggest that the soil layers were probably formed by natural and cultural factors of accumulation or dumping. Given the amount of earlier material culture, it is quite possible that there was one or more structures over parts of the area before the housing complex was built, and it is certain that there was ample activity in that quadrant. Thus, while the excavations at House XVII–XVIII yielded Nabatean/Early Roman to Early Byzantine pottery, its fragmentary nature and the fact that most of

Elizabeth A. Osinga

342

Figure 11.4. Plan of House XVII–XVIII showing the excavation trenches (after Muwafaq al-Bataineh. Reproduced with permission).

the deposits from these periods contained pottery dated across a few centuries did not allow for any detailed quantification of the early periods of settlement. The results did, however, illuminate basic trends over time: it was possible to separate the bulk of the pottery into two broader periods (c. mid-/late first century to early sixth century and c. sixth to eighth centuries) and to compare and contrast these groups in terms of pottery type, ware, and proportion.

The Commodus Gate Area (Area EE) In 2015 and 2017, under a grant by the USAID SCHEP project, excavations were undertaken at and around the Commodus Gate, constructed in ad 177–80.5 A total of nine trenches were laid out in the area, from the West Church to just north of the gate. One in particular produced well-stratified and quantifiable deposits: Trench EE.3, which was laid out over what turned out to be a series of gravel subsurfaces leading out from the gate, angling towards the north (Fig.  11.5). The reason for 5 

Littman, Magie, and Stuart 1913, 131–32.

11. Quantifying Ceramic Trends at Umm el-Jimal

343 structed around the turn of the fourth century, which is when the earlier castellum in the east of the town was built.7 A sounding nearer to the gate did not reveal any traces of the original second-century Late Roman road, which appears to have been destroyed or removed. The Northern Dump (Area K)

The Northern Dump, a mound of soil and pottery located in an open area between houses, was excavated in 1981. It is one of several similar dump-like feaFigure 11.5. Plan of the Commodus Gate Area and tures across the site that do not location of Trench EE.3 seem to be the product of reser(after R. Linnaea Cahill. voir clean-out, but it is the only Reproduced with permission). one to have been excavated. Preliminary analysis and publication suggested that the mound was a kiln dump, the orientation of the road is not known, as there are no due to the presence of ‘wasters’;8 however, the author’s obvious barriers to a path leading out perpendicular to analysis of the pottery revealed that there were in fact no the Gate. pottery wasters, nor any kiln furniture present.9 Some Beneath topsoil and the remnants of a medi­e val or of the pottery had been badly burned, and the surface later field wall lay a tight-packed surface consisting of basalt chips, soil, and pottery fragments. A few cobbles of the dump yielded some very degraded sherds, perhaps leading to the misidentification. that would have been laid across this subsurface were The preliminary report suggested that the dump was in situ near the western curb of the pavement. Sealed of one phase, and this was supported by the author’s beneath the pavement was a soil deposit containing potanalysis of the pottery that was saved from the excavatery that ranged from Nabatean/Early Roman to c. later tions (388 sherds, or 7.7 per cent of the total sherds colsixth to seventh century in date. A probe through the soil lected). As with the finds from the Late Roman contexts revealed another similar, slightly thinner packed subsurat the Commodus Gate, the pottery from the dump face (Locus 008). Beneath and lying over the bedrock ranges in date from the mid-/late first century to c. 300. was a c. 0.75 m thick, ashy soil layer (Locus 009). Much This dump might be another example of destruction and of the pottery from this probe was burned, and it ranged clean-up after the Palmyrene–Roman wars, but with in date from the mid-/late first century to c. 300. Thus, such a small percentage of the pottery saved for analysis the deposit over bedrock and the packed gravel above this must remain a strong hypothesis. were the first sealed contexts dated to the Late Roman Although quantification of this corpus is not posperiod to be quantified. sible, the diagnostics were larger than has been typical The thick, ashy deposit and Late Roman subroad are for these periods, and thus the Northern Dump ceramics significant for a second reason: although destruction at Umm el-Jimal during the Palmyrene rebellion has been 7 The castellum’s date is based on architectural parallels and hypothesized,6 this is the first strati­g raphic evidence of the construction of other such structures in the region at the damage and of clean-up and rebuilding in the decades time (Parker 1998b, 146) as well as unpublished soundings at the following. It is probable that the roadway was recon6 

de Vries 1993, 451; Sartre 2004, 360.

structure (Kennedy 2000, 88). 8  de Vries 1993, 442. 9  Osinga 2010, 27 and 46.

Elizabeth A. Osinga

344

Figure 11.6. Sherd type by count and weight in House XVII–XVIII (2014) (illustration by author)

have been instrumental in fleshing out the typo-chrono­ logy at Umm el-Jimal and in understanding how the principal pottery wares relate to the common forms.

Ceramic Research and Methodo­logy There is no evidence of pottery production at Umm el-Jimal, and thus the ceramics used at the site were imported. The author’s doctoral research10 focused primarily on the pottery corpus from House XVII–XVIII, defining first the major fabric and ware groups11 at the site both macroscopically and microscopically, and developing a methodo­logy of quantification, which was later employed during the excavations in the Commodus Gate Area. All pottery from the excavations was quantified by sherd count and weight. This method was chosen in large part due to the low percentage of diagnostics (Fig. 11.6), as well as due to the fragmentary and worn nature of the sherds: the average sherd weight for the 2014 season was 5.4 g, and that fell by 2 g for the 2015 and 2017 corpora. In addition, every sherd was assigned a ware and fabric group as well as a form whenever possible, thus allowing for quantified analysis by ware/fabric and functional group, and by chrono­logical span when known.

10 

Osinga 2017. 11   ‘Ware’ describes pottery grouped by its macroscopic characteristics (e.g. surface treatment and decoration) and sometimes form. Groups can be broad (e.g. buff wares) or narrow (e.g. greyware basins). ‘Fabric’ refers to the composition of the clay, and likewise the groupings can be general or specific.

As a consequence of the highly fragmentary pottery, it was not possible to break the corpus down into specific forms — e.g. cooking pots, jugs, and bowls — though this was occasionally possible for individual contexts, which will be demonstrated below with the Late Roman ceramics from the Commodus Gate Area. Broadly, the pottery was divided into five functional groups: 1) cooking wares, tablewares, and thin-walled storage wares (the common wares); 2) thick-walled storage wares (e.g. dolia and basins); 3a) amphorae and 3b) bag-shaped jars; 4) fine wares; and 5) lamps and lanterns. As stated above, this article focuses on Groups 1 and 4, the common wares and the fine wares. When comparing pottery group proportions between the corpora from House XVII–XVIII (2014) and the Commodus Gate-Area excavations (2015 and 2017), the majority of the pottery unsurprisingly falls into Group 1, and there are only minor differences within the other groups, such as the higher percentage of amphorae in the Commodus Gate Area (Fig.  11.7). Although the fine wares make up only a small percentage of the total pottery, they are included in this study because they illuminate supraregional trade, can be compared with other sites to show patterns in regional consumption of fine tablewares, and are understudied chrono­logical markers for settlement in north-eastern Jordan.

Pottery Provenance Production Regions Umm el-Jimal’s pottery can be broken down into three categories of production: 1) Local — pottery produced in the Hauran, which includes all ceramics made from

11. Quantifying Ceramic Trends at Umm el-Jimal

345

Figure 11.7. Comparing ceramic groups in the Commodus Gate Area (2015 and 2017) and House XVII–XVIII (2014) (illustration by author).

Figure 11.8. Comparing pottery provenance in the Commodus Gate Area (2015 and 2017) and House XVII–XVIII (2014) (illustration by author).

basaltic clay, or in cases of high levigation, clay that contains volcanic mineral components;12 2) Regional — all non-basaltic/volcanic fabrics that were imported from up to c. 150 km away, though most are probably within about 60–100 km; 3) Supraregional — pottery imported from a distance of more than 150 km. When contrasting pottery import of House XVII– XVIII in the south-eastern quadrant of the site with the Commodus Gate Area in the north-west, the results show a strong correspondence (Fig. 11.8): regional pottery dominates, followed by a small amount of local pottery and a sliver of supraregional wares. 12 

This group excludes rare basalt fragments, such as fragments in wadi sand.

Thus, although the closest urban centre to Umm elJimal is Bostra, only a day’s journey away in Antiquity, the majority of the pottery came from outside the Hauran. The second nearest city to the site, twice as far away as Bostra, is Jerash in north-western Jordan, where numerous pottery kilns and other evidence of production ranging in date from the Roman to the Early Islamic period have been discovered.13 The impact of production from Jerash on the amount of regional pottery at Umm el-Jimal will be considered in the sections following. The overarching view of production does not, however, reveal any developments over time in Umm el13   Selected

examples include: Roman (Kehrberg 2007); Byzantine (Kehrberg 2009); Early Islamic (Schaefer 1986).

Elizabeth A. Osinga

346 Jimal’s long history. Quantification of the dated contexts will address the question of whether chrono­logical analysis can help identify any trends in regional import, and more specifically how proportions of the principal pottery wares change over time. The Common Wares The first group of pottery, and the only major14 local product, is Hauran Ware.15 As its name suggests, this pottery originates in the Hauran. One production site for this pottery was at Sī’ in southern Syria, identified due to the presence of kiln furniture.16 In colour, the ware is reddish or purplish, sometimes brownish or orangey. It is typically oxidized, often with a darker core. The fabric typically contains fragments of olivine/iddingsite basalt and/or its mineral components (sometimes altered), and the coarseness and percentage of inclusions varies (Colour Plate 3a).17 In well-levigated examples, the basalt might not be visible with a hand lens, but in most sherds the black or greyish basalt is visible with a lowpower lens or to the eye. The sherds tend to be slipped in a watery version of the clay. The most common type of decoration/finishing is line burnishing on the inside of bowls or the outside of jars/jugs. Finger-pinched or applied decoration is also evidenced, particularly along or under the lip of jars. The first of the regional pottery groups is Jerash Terracotta, 18 which originates at that urban site. 19 Pottery from Jerash was first identified in the badiyah by the Southern Hauran Survey.20 These products are also 14 

There are two additional basaltic wares, one buff/cream and one brownish, with distinctive fabrics; however, these yielded very few examples and thus for these purposes are quantified with Hauran Ware. 15  Published parallels come from Sī’: Groupe A (Villeneuve and others 1981, 47–49), Catégorie A (Barret, Courtois, and Villeneuve 1985, 224–26), Pâte A (Orssaud, Barret, and Blanc 2003); Bostra: Pâte 1 ( Joly and Blanc 1995, 112); southern Syria: Pâte basaltique claire (Renel 2010, 524); and Umm el-Quttein and environs: Hauran Ware (Kennedy, Freeman, and Falkner 1995, 63). 16  Barret, Courtois, and Villeneuve 1985, 225. 17   Augite was not found in the dozen samples examined, though this was present occasionally in Syrian examples (Villeneuve and others 1981, 47–49). 18  In this paper, ‘terracotta’ refers to earthenware vessels. 19  Principal published parallels from Jerash: Type C (Clark and Falkner 1986, 251); type δ (Uscatescu 1996, 46); reddish/red brown ware (Lichtenberger, Raja, and Sørensen 2015, 15). 20  Kennedy, Freeman, and Falkner 1995, 63.

common at sites in southern Syria, particularly from the fifth century.21 The pottery ranges in colour depending on firing, but tends to appear in hues of red and brown or sometimes orange or grey. The fabric is quite distinct in that it contains a small number of commonly visible elements: quartz, micritic limestone, and iron-rich, opaque argillaceous nodules. The coarseness of the clay and the percentage of each element varies (Colour Plate 3b). Petro­logical results from a recent study of Jerash’s pottery also noted occasional feldspar and the typical presence of sparse, tiny muscovite flakes.22 The final pottery group and second regional ware is miscellaneous terracotta. This is a catch-all category for cooking wares, tableware, and thin-walled storage wares that were not consistent with the known fabric from Jerash, nor with other well-published wares (e.g. Golan Ware, Nabatean Coarse Ware). Thus, there are no known production sites for the various fabrics that belong in this group. Generally, the fabrics are coarser than Jerash Terracotta, but finer examples are also present. The typical elements visible macroscopically or microscopically, apart from limestone and quartz, are rock fragments, typically siltstone and sandstone, and in rare cases shell is also present. There is one distinct group within miscellaneous terracotta: grooved or notched bowls, often with burnished surfaces. The fabric typically contains pale speckles to the eye, and under the microscope is composed of common to abundant quartz, poorly sorted argillaceous fragments, and occasionally other small inclusions (e.g. carbonate rocks/minerals) (Colour Plate 3c).23 The Fine Wares The three principal fine ware groups of the Nabatean/Early Roman–Early Byzantine period are Nabatean Fine Ware, Eastern Sigillata A, and miscellaneous fine ware. While African Red Slip is present at Umm el-Jimal, no forms dated prior to the fifth century have been found, and based on the analysis from House  XVII–XVIII, the majority commenced circulation in the Late Byzantine period.24 21 

Renel 2010, 535–39. Merkel 2019. 23  It is important to note that the same general forms of these notched or grooved bowls are associated with kiln dumps from Jerash (Kehrberg 2007), suggesting that they were also produced there. The fabric of the bowls found at Umm el-Jimal is, however, distinctive from Jerash Terracotta (Colour Plate 11.3b–c). 24  Of the datable African Red Slip from House XVII–XVIII, 22 

11. Quantifying Ceramic Trends at Umm el-Jimal

347 The last group is miscellaneous fine ware, which is a general category that encompasses regional and local pottery produced in the style of sigillata wares, mimicking the same forms and sometimes the red slip. There are two principal fabrics in this group: local, which is that of Hauran Ware, and regional, which includes varied fabrics that fall under the miscellaneous-terracotta category.

Quantifying Production over Time

Figure 11.9. Periodization of the common wares in House XVII–XVIII (2014) (illustration by author).

Nabatean Fine Ware was imported from southern Jordan, more than 200 km from Umm el-Jimal. Kilns and a clay source were identified at Zurrabah, just outside Petra.25 There are three types of Nabatean Fine Ware found at Umm el-Jimal: painted is the most common, followed by unpainted and rouletted/impressed wares.26 These ceramics are quite distinct due to their thinness (c. 1–4 mm) and the very well-levigated, high-fired clay. The second fine ware of the Nabatean/Roman period is Eastern Sigillata A.27 Produced in northern Syria,28 this fine ware is a common find at Eastern Mediterranean sites, including the badiyah29 and the nearby urban centres of Bostra30 and Jerash.31 While it appears in other parts of Jordan, Eastern Sigillata B has not been found at badiyah sites. there were 1–3 sherds/MNV of African Red Slip from the Early Byzantine period, followed by 11–16 sherds/7–11 MNV from the Late Byzantine period (Osinga 2017, 291–92). 25  ‘Amr 1991; 1999. 26  The most recent comprehensive study of typo-chrono­logy, decoration, and developments in Nabatean Fine Ware, particularly painted and unpainted wares, uses data from the excavations of finely appointed domestic complexes at Ez-Zantur, located on the ridge above the so-called Great Temple and gardens at Petra (Schmid 2000). 27  Principal publications include its identification by Kenyon (1957) and later studies by Hayes (1985) and Slane (1997). 28  Kilns have not been located, but chemical and petro­logical studies suggest an origin north of Antioch (Schneider 1995, 418). 29  Eastern Sigillata A was found during the author’s survey work at Umm es-Surab and Deir al-Kahf (Osinga 2017, 270) as well as by the Southern Hauran Survey (Kennedy, Freeman, and Falkner 1995). 30  For example, see Joly and Blanc 1995, 112, pâte 3. 31  Such as Uscatescu 1992.

In this section, the quantified corpora from House XVII– XVIII and the Commodus Gate Area are analysed, and the trends in common wares and fine wares are discussed. Common Wares (Group 1) As shown in Figure 11.7, the common wares of Group 1 make up the bulk of both corpora by count and weight. When the House XVII–XVIII group is analysed chrono­logically, using strati­g raphic and typo-chrono­ logical analysis, it is possible to assign a date range to most of the pottery: either the c. mid-/late first to early sixth century or the c. sixth to eighth century (Fig. 11.9). About a quarter of the material cannot be assigned to a period, which is due to disturbed contexts or long-term accumulation, as well as the fact that some pottery types are produced across period boundaries. The datable pottery can then be analysed by production region and ware,32 and be contrasted chrono­ logically by the two broader periods (Fig. 11.10). The fragmentary nature of most ceramics and disturbed or long-lived strati­g raphy did not always allow for precision; for example, it was not feasible to separate Jerash Terracotta from miscellaneous terracotta in the common instances where sherds were 1 cm2 or smaller, and thus there is overlap between the two groups. Nonetheless, contrasting the two periods highlighted important trends: first, that there was no evidence of Hauran-Ware consumption after the Early Byzantine period; second, that only a few examples of sixth-century or later forms in miscellaneous terracotta were present; and third, that 32  The additional ware in period II, red-painted and unpainted ware (Walmsley 2007, 342), is an eighth-century product, with known production sites at Jerash (Clark and Falkner 1986, 251; Uscatescu 1996, 46) and Baysan (Bar-Nathan 2011, 247–49 and 265–70), and probable production in middle Jordan (Walmsley 2007, 342). Its prominence in period II is in large part due to the abandonment of the structure during that century. Of note is the fact that cooking vessels are not present in this ware and continued to be supplied in Jerash Terracotta in the eighth century.

Elizabeth A. Osinga

348

Figure 11.10. Pottery provenance by period in House XVII–XVIII (2014) (illustration by author).

Figure 11.11. Pottery provenance in Late Roman contexts at the Commodus Gate Area (EE.3, Locus 008, 009) (illustration by author).

Figure 11.12. Pottery types in Late Roman contexts at the Commodus Gate Area (EE.3, Locus 008, 009) (illustration by author).

Jerash Terracotta was dominant from at least the Late Byzantine period. The well-stratified CommodusGate Late Roman material provided an opportunity to focus on the earlier periods in Umm el-Jimal’s history and to try to understand the relationship between the local and regional wares during this time. When the pottery within and beneath the subroad was quantified in terms of production region, the results were quite different from the overall picture of pottery provenance from the entire Commodus Gate-Area excavations, shown in Figure 11.8. In the Late Roman contexts, local rather than regional pottery dominates the corpus (Fig. 11.11). Althoug h this is a considerably smaller corpus than that of House XVII–XVIII, the ceramics were less fragmentary, and thus it was possible to quantify the contexts by pottery type, including one miscellaneous group (Fig. 11.12). Jars and jugs were the most common form, followed by cooking vessels and tablewares. When these types are quantified according to their ware, the results are quite striking (Fig. 11.13): excluding the miscellaneous group, Hauran Ware dominates all types by count and weight and is the only ware to be present in bowls or kraters. Miscellaneous terracotta is the second most common, appearing in three types and the miscellaneous group, and Jerash Terracotta the least common. In fact, when Jerash Terracotta appears in a form group, it always makes up the smallest percentage out of all wares present. Further trends in pottery import were revealed by this context; first, that Hauran Ware was probably the most common import until around the turn of the fourth century, and that it appears across a wide variety of vessel types; second, that both regional wares are present alongside Hauran

11. Quantifying Ceramic Trends at Umm el-Jimal

349

Figure 11.13. Pottery types and provenance in Late Roman contexts at the Commodus Gate Area (EE.3, Locus 008, 009) (illustration by author).

Ware, though the chrono­logy of developments and how this might affect the proportions of the wares cannot be assessed, as the material from this deposit spans over two centuries. While important trends and transitions have been pinpointed through quantification of the two corpora, questions and gaps still remain. Most intriguing is the transition from local to regional pottery during or slightly after the Late Roman period, which is complete by the sixth century, when local pottery is no longer present. When does Jerash Terracotta, so common by the sixth century, become a dominant import, both in general and across certain pottery types? Does it share the market equally with miscellaneous terracotta and Hauran Ware in the fourth/fifth centuries, or does the city of Jerash become the bulk supplier during this time? Investigating these important changes hinges on the study of Early Byzantine pottery, which cannot be isolated within these corpora. However, as presented in the follow-

Figure 11.14. Fine-ware provenance in Late Roman contexts at the Commodus Gate Area and House XVII–XVIII (illustration by author).

ing section, studying Umm el-Jimal’s typo-chrono­logy as linked with pottery provenance results in a preliminary analysis of the presence of these wares in the Early Byzantine period. Fine Wares (Group 4) Fine wares, as shown in Figure 11.7, constitute a very small percentage compared to the other ceramic types. When comparing the finds of the Late Roman con-

Elizabeth A. Osinga

350

No.

Context

Form

Ware

Munsell

1

House XVIII west block room C.1:014.18.9

CP1

M

Ext/Int S: 5YR 7/4 Fab: 7.5YR 5/1

2

Commodus Gate destruction deposit EE.3:009.18.16

CP1

H

Ext S: 2.5YR 5/4 Fab: 2.5R 5/6 Int: 10R 5/4

3

Commodus Gate road subsurface EE.3:008.33.2

CP1

H

Ext/Int S: 5YR 4/3 Fab: 5YR 5/4

4

Commodus Gate destruction deposit EE.3:009.34.4

CP1

H

Ext S: 2.5YR 4/4 Fab: 2.5YR 5/8 Int: 2.5YR 4/8

5

Northern Dump K.1:002.9.15

CP2

J

Ext S: 2.5YR 6/4 Fab/Int: 5YR 6/6

6

Northern Dump (surface) K.S.232

CP2

J

Ext/Int S: 10YR 4/1 Fab: 7.5YR 4/2

7

Northern Dump K.1:007.25.17

CP2

H

Ext/Int S: 2.5YR 5/4 Fab: 2.5YR 6/4

8

Northern Dump K.1:001.4.4

CP2

H

Ext S: 2.5YR 5/3 Fab: 2.5YR 4/8 Int: 2.5YR 5/4

Figure 11.15. Cooking pots (Nabatean and Roman) (illustration by author).

texts of the Commodus Gate Area with the finds from House XVII–XVIII, the three principal ware groups are present in each: Eastern Sigillata A is the most common in both instances, while the proportions of Nabatean Fine Ware and miscellaneous fine ware vary (Fig. 11.14). Nabatean Fine Ware, of course, was imported over a much shorter period of time than the other two groups.

Date

Selected parallels

NAB/R (mid-1st– mid-2nd cen.)

Kefar Hananya (Adan-Bayewitz 1993, pl. 4B.3); Sī’ (Orssaud, Barret, and Blanc 2003, pl. 151.62–63)

LR

A distinctive variation of groovedrim cooking pots (See Figure 16) Sī’ (Orssaud, Barret, and Blanc 2003, pl. 151.31)

Common Ware Typo-Chrono­logy The pottery illustrated in Figures 11.15–2633 originates primarily in the three areas introduced in this article, 33   The

context includes the pottery registration number, given as Area.Trench:Locus.Pail.Sherd. Ware abbreviations are: H (Hauran Ware); J ( Jerash Terracotta); M (miscellaneous terracotta); NAB (Nabatean Fine Ware); and ESA (Eastern Sigillata A). Under the Munsell column, ‘S’ refers to slip. Burnishing on Hauran-Ware vessels is indicated by stippling.

11. Quantifying Ceramic Trends at Umm el-Jimal

No.

Context

Form

Ware

Munsell

1

Northern Dump K.1:001.3.6

CP3

M

Ext S: 5YR 6/6 Fab: 10YR 8/2 Int: 5YR 7/4

2

Northern Dump K.1:002.11.33

CP3

H

Ext S: 2.5YR 6/6 Fab: 2.5YR 5/6 Int: 2.5YR 6/3

3

Northern Dump K.1:001.7.18

CP3

H

Ext S: 2.5YR 4/3 Fab: 5YR 4/1 Int: 5YR 4/3

4

Northern Dump K.1:001.3.10

CP3

J

Ext S: 5YR 6/6 Fab/Int: 10YR 8/2

5

Northern Dump K.1:002.9.3

CP3

J

Ext S: 10R 5/4 Fab/Int: 5YR 6/6

6

Northern Dump K.1:002.8.61, 62

CP3

J

Ext S: 10R 5/2 Fab: 10R 6/4 Int: 10R 6/6

7

Northern Dump K.1:002.11.31

CP3

H

Ext/Int S: 2.5YR 5/4 Fab: 2.5YR 5/6

8

Northern Dump K.1:001.4.10

CP3

J

Ext S: 7.5YR 5/2 Fab: 10YR 7/3 Int: 7.5YR 7/6

351

Date

Selected parallels

This general form encapsulates various subtypes of grooved-rim pots. Amman (Olávarri-Goicoechea 1985, fig. 6.5–6 and 6.9–12); Bostra (Wilson LR principally, but the and Sa'd 1984, figs 414 and 417–24); form can extend into the Hesban (Gerber 2012, figs 3.25.9–14, EBYZ period (c. mid-3rd– 3.30.20–24, 3.31, and 3.32.1–2); mid-/late 4th cen.) Jerash (Falkner 1985, figs 29–30.332– 46); Lejjûn (Parker 2006, figs 16.1.1–3 and 16.2.4–5); Sharah (Renel 2010, fig. 12.6); Sī’ (Orssaud, Barret, and Blanc 2003, pl. 151.32–61)

Figure 11.16. Cooking pots (Late Roman) (illustration by author).

save for one sherd from the West Church courtyard, a structure north of the Late Roman subroad, and one sherd from the water system excavations. As the contexts at Umm el-Jimal can include many centuries of material culture, the dating of these forms is based primarily on parallels from nearby sites. While teasing out fine transi-

tions in the typo-chrono­logy was not feasible, the analysis allowed for comparison with regional trends, pinpointed several important transitions within a number of pottery types, and in some cases shed light on the hazy Early Byzantine period.

Elizabeth A. Osinga

352

No.

Context

Form

Ware

Munsell

1

House XVII courtyard C.16:013.22.18

CP4

J

Ext S: GLEY N5 Fab: 2.5YR 6/6 Int: 5YR 6/6

2

House XVII courtyard C.16:014.28.18.21

CP4

H

Ext/Int S/Fab: 10R 5/4

3

Commodus Gate destruction deposit EE.3:011.24.1

CP4

J

Ext S: 2.5YR 7/6 Fab: 7.5YR 7/4 Int: 7.5YR 7/6

4

House XVII courtyard C.16:013.22.21

CP5

J

Ext S: 2.5YR 6/6 Fab: 7.5YR 7/4 Int: 5YR 7/4

5

West Church courtyard entrance EE.4:008.10.2

CP5

M

Ext S: 5YR 6/6 Fab: 5YR 5,6/6 Int: 5YR 7/6

6

House XVII courtyard C.16:010.14.40

CP6

J

Ext S: 2.5YR 5/1 Fab: 5YR 7/4 Int: 2.5YR 7/4

7

House XVII/XVII C.15:001.8.14

CP6

H

Ext/Int S: 10R 4/3 Fab: 2.5YR 4/6

8

House XVII courtyard C.16:010.25.15

CP6

M

Ext S: 5YR 6/6 Fab: 5YR 5,6/6 Int: 5YR 7/6

Figure 11.17. Cooking pots (Late Roman and Early Byzantine) (illustration by author).

Cooking Pots Cooking pot diagnostics are the most common type, with vessels ranging from the first to the fifth century in date. Only one form thus far dates to the earliest phase of settlement in the Nabatean/Early Roman period: the double-grooved-rim pot (Fig. 11.15.1–4). Hauran-Ware sherds make up the majority of examples. The one miscellaneous-terracotta rim might be a Palestinian import, though the ware and fabric do not match published groups from the Galilee or Golan. By far the most common of the forms is the groovedrim pot of various subtypes (Fig.  11.15.5–8 and Fig. 11.16), which appears in all three wares, but less commonly in miscellaneous terracotta. Principally a

Date

Selected parallels

Amman (Zayadine 1977, fig. 22.317; LR/ Olávarri-Goicoechea 1985, fig. 8.3); EBYZ Hesban (Gerber 2012, fig. 3.48.3, 3.48.6, and (c. 4th– 3.48.12); Jerash (Falkner 1985, fig. 30.347); mid?-5th cen.) Lejjûn (Parker 2006, fig. 16.9.9)

EBYZ (c. mid-4th –5th cen.)

Amman (Zayadine 1977, fig. 21.334); Hesban (Gerber 2012, figs 3.47.6–7, 3.47.13–14, 3.48.2, 3.48.8, and 3.48.17); Jerash (Falkner 1985, fig. 30.351); Lejjûn (Parker 1987, fig. 107.139 and 107.141); Meiron (Adan-Bayewitz 1993, pl. 4B.2–3)

EBYZ

Amman (Olávarri-Goicoechea 1985, fig. 8.1 and 8.4); Lejjûn (Parker 1987, fig. 107.140)

Late Roman type, it probably also extends slightly into the fourth century, the Early Byzantine period. Most illustrated examples are Late Roman in date, from the Northern Dump. One type of bevelled-rim pot crosses period boundaries from the Late Roman to the Early Byzantine period (Fig.  11.17.1–3). A  single Hauran-Ware example was found, but most of this type is Jerash-Terracotta vessels. A similar form with a distinct lip has only been produced in regional wares (Fig. 11.17.4–5). The last form of cooking pot that includes a Hauran-Ware example is a vessel with a slightly rounded bevel that was only evidenced in fragments (Fig. 11.17.6–8). The last three types, dated to the fifth century or possibly slightly later, were imported from regional sites. Two forms have only appeared in Jerash Terracotta: hooked-rim pots with a curved neck (Fig. 11.18.1–2)

11. Quantifying Ceramic Trends at Umm el-Jimal

353

No.

Context

Form

Ware

Munsell

1

House XVII entryway C.7:014.16.7

CP7

J

Ext S: 2.5YR 5/4 Int/Fab: 2.5YR 6/6

2

House XVIII courtyard C.14:013.21

CP7

J

Ext S: 2.5YR 6/4, 6, GLEY N4, 5 Fab: 2.5YR 6/6 Int: 2.5YR 6/6,8

3

Commodus Gate Area EE.8:000.2.2

CP8

M

Ext/Int S: 2.5YR 4/8 Fab: 2.5YR 4/6

4

House XVII courtyard C.16:012.21.18

CP8

M

Ext S: 2.5YR 6/6, 2.5YR 5/1 Fab: GLEY N4 Int: 5YR 5/2

5

House XVII/XVII C.14:012.19.17

CP9

J

Ext S: 2.5YR 6/4, 2.5YR 5/2 Fab: 5YR 6/6 Int: 2.5YR 6/6

6

House XVII courtyard C.15:001.8.3

CP9

J

Ext S: 2.5YR 5/2, 6/4 Fab/Int: 2.5YR 6/6

7

House XVII courtyard C.16:006.12.20

CP9

J

Ext S: 2.5YR 6/6 Fab/Int: 2.5YR 7/6

Figure 11.18. Cooking pots (Byzantine) (illustration by author).

and cooking pots or jars with an everted or thickened and bevelled rim and strongly ribbed necks (Fig. 11.18.5–7). The last form, with a flattened rim and variable neck length, has only been found in miscellaneous terracotta (Fig. 11.18.3–4), and in fewer examples than the JerashTerracotta forms.

Date

Selected parallels

Amman (Zayadine 1977, fig. 22.311); Jerash (Falkner 1985, nos 353–54); Umm el-Jimal (illustrated as a bowl: EBYZ (c. 5th cen.) Parker 1998b, fig. 154.20); Umm el-Quttein (Kennedy, Freeman, and Falkner 1995, fig. 34.80) Amman (Olávarri-Goicoechea 1985, fig. 8.5); Jerash (Falkner 1985, no. 275); Lejjûn (Parker 1987, fig. 106.134–35); Pella (Smith and Day 1989, pl. 52.25) BYZ (c. 5th cen., poss. early 6th cen.)

Hesban (Gerber 2012, pl. 3.46.26–27); Lejjûn (Parker 1987, fig. 117.205)

The typo-chrono­logy of cooking pots reveals that all of the Nabatean- and Roman-period forms were produced in more than one ware, and in the case of the grooved-rim pots, all three. During these periods, it is common for cooking pots to be imported both locally and regionally. In the fourth century in the Early Byzantine period, Hauran Ware still appears alongside regional examples, but far less frequently than before.

Elizabeth A. Osinga

354

No.

Context

Form

Ware

Munsell

1

Northern Dump K.1:002.9.54

CASS1

J

Ext S: 2.5YR 7/4 Fab: 2.5YR 4/1 Int S: 2.5YR 6/6

2

Northern Dump K.1:001.5.2; 2.1

CASS1

H

Ext S: 2.5YR 5/4 Fab: 2.5YR 5/1 Int S: 10R 5/4

3

Northern Dump K.1:001.4.1

CASS1

H

Ext/Int S: 2.5YR 5/4 Fab: 2.5YR 4/2

4

House XVII entryway C.7:014.16.10

5

Northern Dump K.1:002.9.21

6

Northern Dump K.1:002.8.58

Date

Selected parallels

LR (later 2nd– early 3rd cen.)

Amman (Koutsoukou and Najjar 1997, fig. 219); Bostra (Wilson and Sa'd 1984, figs 465–68); Jerash (Falkner 1985, fig. 8.104–05; Kehrberg 2007, fig. 6.98 and 6.100–102); Sī’ (Orssaud, Barret, and Blanc 2003, pl. 129.27–30; Orssaud 1985, pl. 1.28–31)

J

Ext S: 2.5YR 6/6 Int, Fab: 5YR 6/6

LR/ BYZ

Amman (Olávarri-Goicoechea 1985, fig. 7.20); Hesban (Gerber 2012, figs 3.26.13– 14 and 3.35.9–12); Jerash (Falkner 1985, fig. 28.326–27); Lejjûn (Parker 2006, figs 16.5.15–16 and 16.6.17–19)

CASS3

J

Ext S: 5YR 7/4 Fab: 2.5YR 5/6 Int: 2.5YR 6/6

LR (late 2nd–early 4th cen.)

Amman (Koutsoukou and Najjar 1997, fig. 196); Hesban (Gerber 2012, fig. 3.25.22); Jerash (Falkner 1985, fig. 8.217; Kehrberg 2007, fig. 5.173–75)

CASS4

J

Ext: 2.5YR 6/4 Fab: 2.5YR 5/6 Int: 2.5YR 6/6

R

Amman (Koutsoukou and Najjar 1997, fig. 220); Jerash (Falkner 1985, fig. 8.97)

CASS2

Figure 11.19. Casseroles (illustration by author).

By the fifth century, this group is now dominated by regional production, particularly imports from Jerash. The increase in imports from Jerash, especially visible in the fifth century, was also observed at sites in southern Syria, particularly Suweida.34 Casseroles Casserole diagnostics are much less common than cooking pots, and tend to be very fragmentary. However, the Northern Dump yielded several larger fragments that date 34 

Renel 2010, 535–39.

to the Roman period. The most common form was a carinated casserole with a ledge rim and vertical strap handles (Fig. 11.19.1–3). This type was produced in both Hauran Ware and Jerash Terracotta. Another frequent form is the string-cut casserole (Fig. 11.19.4), a vessel type which changes little over the centuries, and thus is not a reliable chrono­logical indicator without tight strati­g raphy. No string-cut casseroles in Hauran Ware have been found at the site; all fragments thus far have been regional in origin, with Jerash Terracotta being the most common. The last two forms illustrated are the only examples of their type: the first is a miscellaneous-terracotta deep casserole or jar (Fig. 11.19.5), and the second a sharply carinated casserole in Jerash Terracotta (Fig. 11.19.6).

11. Quantifying Ceramic Trends at Umm el-Jimal

355

No.

Context

Form

Ware

Munsell

1

Northern Dump (surface) K.S.250

JUG1

M

Burned post-deposit

2

Northern Dump (surface) K.S.236

JUG1

H

Ext/Int S: 2.5YR 5/4 Fab: 2.5YR 5/6

3

Northern Dump K.1:002.9.16,45

JUG1

H

Ext/Int S: 2.5YR 5/4 Fab: 2.5YR 4/6

4

House XVII courtyard C.16:012.21.11

JUG3

M

Ext/Int/Fab: 2.5YR 6/6

5

House XVII courtyard C.16:013.27.20

JUG3

J

Ext S: 7.5YR 5/1 Fab: 7.5YR 5/2 Int: 7.5YR 6/3

J

Ext S: 2.5YR 5/2–4; 2.5YR 6/3 Fab: 2.5YR 7/4,5 Int: 2.5 YR 6/8; 2.5YR 7/6; 2.5YR 8/4

6

House XVII courtyard C.16:013.22.29–33

JUG3

Date

Selected parallels Similar jugs with different lips.

LR? Lacks well -stratified parallels.

Bostra (Wilson and Sa'd 1984, fig. 147); Jerash (Falkner 1985, fig. 19.252); Lejjûn (Parker 2006, fig. 16.39.198); Sī’ (Orssaud, Barret, and Blanc 2003, pl. 155.27 and fig. 157.18–21; Orssaud 1985, pl. 6.11)

LR (no. 4)

Similar jugs with different lips.

EBYZ (nos 5–6)

Hesban (Gerber 2012, fig. 3.33.1); Jerash (Falkner 1985, fig. 20.273); Lejjûn (Parker 2006, figs 16.33.162 and 16.38.194)

Figure 11.20. Jugs (illustration by author).

With so few examples, the evolution of casserole forms and their association with pottery wares cannot be fleshed out to the degree of the cooking pots. Nonetheless, it is important to note that no HauranWare casseroles date beyond the Late Roman period. Jugs From these early centuries of occupation, well-preserved jugs are a rare find. There are two general forms that encompass variations in lip shape. The first has a rounded or squared lip and a lid seat (Fig. 11.20.1–3). These vessels lack well-stratified parallels, but probably date to the Late Roman period or slightly earlier. This shape appears most often in Hauran Ware, but also includes one variation in miscellaneous terracotta.

The second form has a thickened lip, either squared or rounded, and different types of ribbing on the neck (Fig. 11.20.4–6). These examples are Late Roman and Early Byzantine in date (c.  fourth–fifth centuries), and only appear in miscellaneous terracotta or Jerash Terracotta. While there are fewer examples in this group compared to cooking pots, as was the case with the casseroles, it is striking that Hauran Ware only appears in common forms of the Late Roman period. Juglets and Bottles Small closed tablewares and personal vessels are generally poorly preserved, and it can be difficult to determine the shape and function of the vessel from small fragments.

Elizabeth A. Osinga

356

No.

Context

Form

Ware

Munsell

Date

Selected parallels

1

Northern Dump K.1:002.11.17

JGT/ BOT1

H

Ext/Int S: 5YR 6/3 Fab: 5YR 5/4

NAB/R

Sī’ (Orssaud, Barret, and Blanc 2003, pl. 153.44–46; Orssaud 1985, pl. 6.1–4)

2

Northern Dump K.1:001.3.11

JGT/ BOT2

J

Ext/Int S: 10YR 5/1 Fab: 10YR 6/1

LR

Bostra (Wilson and Sa'd 1984, fig. 76); Hesban (Gerber 2012, pls 3.32.25 and 3.50.18); Jerash (Kehrberg 2007, fig. 9.206– 209); Lejjûn (Parker 2006, fig. 16.10.38–39)

3

House XVIII courtyard C.14:004.3.2

JGT/ BOT3

J

Ext, Int S: 7.5YR 4/1 Fab: 5YR 5/4

4

House XVII courtyard C.16:013.29.18

JGT/ BOT3

J

Ext S: 5YR 6/6 Fab, Int: 2.5YR 6/6

LR/?EBYZ

Hesban (Gerber 2012, pl. 3.32.26–27, fig. 3.50.19 and 3.50.32)

5

House XVIII cistern C.2:001.2.1

JGT/ BOT4

H

Ext S: 2.5YR 5/4 Fab:2.5YR 4/4 Int: 5YR 5/2

House XVIII courtyard C.12:010.17.10

JGT/ BOT4

NAB/R? Few parallels

J

Bostra (Wilson and Sa'd 1984, figs 72 and 148); Sī’ (Orssaud, Barret, and Blanc 2003, pl. 153.12–15)

6

Ext S: GLEY N4 Fab: GLEY N5 Int: 7.5YR 4/1

Figure 11.21. Juglets and bottles (illustration by author).

Juglets and bottles/unguentaria appear most commonly in Hauran Ware and Jerash Terracotta, though fragments of miscellaneous terracotta have also been found — particularly bases. One of the best-preserved examples is a long-necked vessel in Hauran Ware (Fig. 11.21.1), which has affinities with a similar type with a pinched handle in Jerash Terracotta (Fig.  11.21.2). Vessels with an everted lip forming a ridge were produced in Jerash Terracotta (Fig. 11.21.3–4). Hauran Ware makes up the majority of examples of the final form, which has an out-flared neck and squared lip, but one Jerash-Terracotta rim was also found (Fig. 11.21.5–6). In addition to the forms illustrated, several small fragments of Jerash-Terracotta trefoil-rim juglets have been found. Bases are much more common than rims and appear in a number of forms; for example, small, string-cut bases appear in Hauran Ware and miscellaneous terracotta, rounded and omphalos bases in Hauran Ware, and slightly concave bases in all three wares.

This group of pottery is difficult to evaluate from a typo-chrono­logical perspective, due to potentially longlived forms and a small number of examples. As with the casseroles and jugs, however, no juglets or bottles in Hauran Ware can be dated to the Early Byzantine period. Bowls/Kraters and Cups Diagnostics for open forms are less common than closed forms and tend to be very fragmentary and not suitable for illustration. The two groups of pottery with ample examples are line-burnished Hauran Ware and a variety of Late Roman carinated and notched/grooved bowls. Open Hauran-Ware vessels with burnishing date from the first century ad, and the technique continues until the Early or Late Byzantine period. 35 The most common vessels found at Umm el-Jimal are a range of large bowls or kraters with ledge rims or everted lips (Fig. 11.22.1–4). They are typically burnished horizontally on the interior and often have a low ring-footed 35 

Renel 2010, figs 10.7, 10.10–12, and 15.2.

11. Quantifying Ceramic Trends at Umm el-Jimal

No.

Context

Form

Ware

Munsell

1

Water System FF.6:004.6.1

BB1

H

Ext: 2.5YR 5/4 Fab: 2.5YR 5/8 Int S: 2.5YR 4/3

357

Date

Selected parallels

LR?

Bostra (Wilson and Sa'd 1984, figs 236–40, 245–47 and 250); Sī’ (Orssaud, Barret, and Blanc 2003, pl. 139.26)

NAB/R

Bostra (Wilson and Sa'd 1984, fig. 235); Khirbet Massabeb (Renel 2010, fig. 11.15); Sharah and Suweida (Renel 2010, fig. 10.6–7); Sī’ (Orssaud 1985, pl. 3.18–22; Orssaud, Barret, and Blanc 2003, pl. 141)

2

Northern Dump K.1:002.11.15

BB1

H

Ext: 2.5YR 5/3 Fab: 5YR 4/6 Int S: 5YR 5/4

3

Northern Dump K.1:001.4.10

BB2

H

Ext: 7.5YR 5/2 Fab: 10R 7/3 Int S: 7.5YR 7/6

4

Northern Dump K.1:002.9.10

BB2

H

Ext: 2.5YR 4/2 Fab: 2.5YR 4/6 Int S: 5YR 4/3

5

Northern Dump K.1:001.7.11

BB3

H

Ext/Int S: 10R 5/4 Fab: 2.5YR 4/8

NAB/R

Bostra ( Joly and Blanc 1995, pl. 2.10–19); Sī’ (Orssaud, Barret, and Blanc 2003, pl. 131.30–44)

6

Northern Dump K.1:001.6.4, K.1001.7.5

BB4

H

Ext: 2.5YR 5/4 Fab: 2.5YR 5/6 Int S: 2.5YR 6/4

LR

Sī’ (Orssaud, Barret, and Blanc 2003, pl. 125.31– 41)

7

Northern Dump K.1:001.7.13

BB5

H

Ex/Int S, discoloured: 7.5YR 7/3 Fab: 5YR 5/3

LR

Bostra (Wilson and Sa'd 1984, figs 230 and 278); Sī’ (Orssaud, Barret, and Blanc 2003, pl. 137.81); Southern Syria (Renel 2010, fig. 11.16)

Figure 11.22. Burnished vessels (illustration by author).

base.36 Line burnishing appears on a myriad of different forms: examples include a small bowl or cup of unknown date (Fig. 11.22.5), and from the Late Roman period, a casserole (Fig. 11.22.6) and an incised and burnished bowl (Fig. 11.22.7). Other bowl and cup types found at Umm el-Jimal are common outside the Hauran: carinated or notched/ grooved cups and bowls. While small fragments of the vessels have been found in various contexts at Umm el-Jimal, excluding House XVII–XVIII, the Northern Dump yielded a concentration of forms. The carinated 36 

For example, Renel 2010, fig. 10.6–7.

vessels are the most diverse in fabric, with one example from each of the three principal wares (Fig. 11.23.1–3). Although Jerash was a production centre for these forms,37 the notched or grooved vessels found at Umm el-Jimal are miscellaneous-terracotta vessels with a distinctive fabric, as described above (Fig.  11.23.4–6). These bowls are often burnished (internally, externally or both), but the finishing, such as incised bands, can be slightly rough and less refined than that of the fine wares. One variant is an incurved bowl with a shallow groove beneath the lip (Fig. 11.23.7). 37 

Kehrberg 2007.

Elizabeth A. Osinga

358

No.

Context

1

Northern Dump K.1:001.6.18

Form

Ware

Munsell

M

Ext S: 5YR 6/4 Fab/Int: 2.5YR 6/6

BO1

2

Northern Dump K.1:001.7.9

BO1

H

Ext/Int S: 10R 5/4 Fab: 2.5YR 4/6

3

Northern Dump (surface) K.S.76

BO1

J

Ext: burned Fab: 10YR 5/3 Int S: 5YR 5/6

4

Northern Dump K.1:001.5.4

BO2

M

Ext: burned Fab: 10YR 5/1 Int S: 2.5YR 6/6

5

Northern Dump K.1:001.3.22

BO2

M

Ext S: 2.5YR 5/6 Fab: 5YR 5/1 Int: 2.5YR 6/4

6

Northern Dump K.1:001.2.3

BO2

M

Burned post-deposit

7

Northern Dump K.1:002.9 .13,30

BO3

M

Ext S: 7.5YR 7/4 Fab: 10YR 5/2 Int S: 2.5YR 6/4

Date

Selected parallels

LR (late 3rd– early 4th cen.)

Amman (Koutsoukou and Najjar 1997, figs 148–49); Bostra (Wilson and Sa'd 1984, fig. 312); Hesban (Gerber 2012, fig. 3.40.22); Jerash (Kehrberg 2007, fig. 3.13–14 and 3.29–32); Lejjûn (Parker 2006, fig. 16.13.59); Sī’ (Orssaud, Barret, and Blanc 2003, pl. 125.32)

LR (c. late 2nd– 3rd cen.)

Amman (Koutsoukou and Najjar 1997, fig. 130; Olávarri-Goicoechea 1985, fig. 7.11 and 7.15); Bostra (Wilson and Sa'd 1984, figs 336–38, 345–46, 357–59, and 370–74); Hesban (Gerber 2012, fig. 3.38.2–7); Jerash (Kehrberg 2007, fig. 2.12 and 2.29–32; Falkner 1985, fig. 7.73–74 and 7.76–78); Lejjûn (Parker 2006, figs 16.28.132 and 16.69.346)

LR (c. late 2nd– early 3rd cen.)

Jerash (Kehrberg 2007, fig. 2.7)

Figure 11.23. Bowls (illustration by author).

Due to their comparative rarity as diagnostics, it is not possible to trace the evolution of these open forms or any changes in ware into the Early Byzantine period. The forms in this group are rarely found in more than one ware, in large part due to the range of types that were only produced in Hauran Ware or miscellaneous terracotta. Nonetheless, it is clear that Hauran Ware produced a wide variety of vessel types, which probably date primarily to the Late Roman period and earlier, and that open forms are comparatively rare in the other wares.

Jars Small and large jars38 dated prior to the Late Byzantine period display different results than the other categories. Very few and fragmentary examples of jars in the regional wares are present; the vast majority of diagnostics are local, appearing in a number of forms with slight variations within the groups. The first type has an everted or thickened lip and outward-sloping neck (Fig. 11.24.1–3). The second is characterized by finger 38   Bag-shaped jars generally consistent with northern Pales­tinian forms are quantified separately (Group 3b) and do not typically share the same fabric as regional wares, save for miscellaneous terracotta on rare occasions and Jerash Terracotta from the sixth century.

11. Quantifying Ceramic Trends at Umm el-Jimal

No. 1

Context Northern Dump K.1:002.9.4

Form JA1

Ware

Munsell

H

Ext/Int S: 10R 5/4 Fab: 2.5YR 4/6

359

2

Northern Dump K.1:002.9.18

JA1

H

Ext S: 5YR 5/3 Fab: 2.5YR 5/8 Int: 5YR 6/4

3

Northern Dump K.1:002.8.50

JA1

H

Ext/Int S: 2.5YR 5/4 Fab: 2.5YR 4/8

Date

Selected parallels

NAB?/R Lacks wellstratified parallels.

Sharah (Renel 2010, fig. 11.5–6); Sī’ (Orssaud, Barret, and Blanc 2003, pl. 159.1–17; Orssaud 1985, pl. 5.17–23)

Jars with pinched decoration, varied lips 4

Northern Dump K.1:002.11.27

JA2

H

Ext/Int S: 2.5YR 5/3 Fab: 2.5YR 4/6

5

Northern Dump K.1:001.5.1

JA2

H

Ext/Int S: 2.5YR 5/4 Ext B: 2.5YR 4/4 Fab: 2.5YR 4/4

6

Northern Dump K.1:002.9.9

H

Ext/Int S: 2.5YR 5/3 Fab: 2.5YR 4/8

JA3

NAB?/R/ ?EBYZ Possible long-lived form. Lacks well-stratified parallels.

NAB/R? Lacks wellstratified parallels.

Bostra (Wilson and Sa'd 1984, figs 477– 86); Sahr al-Leja (Renel 2010, fig. 11.7); Sī’ (Orssaud, Barret, and Blanc 2003, pl. 159.18–19 and 159.48; Orssaud 1985, pl. 5.3–4); Southern Hauran Survey (Kennedy, Freeman, and Falkner 1995, fig. 29.18–19); Umm el-Jimal (Parker 1998b, fig. 153.4 and 153.9) Sī’ (Orssaud, Barret, and Blanc 2003, pl. 155.18)

Figure 11.24. Jars (illustration by author).

pinching of the lip or beneath it and is sometimes burnished on the exterior (Fig. 11.24.4–5), and the last type has a triangular rim and large, heavy handles that display finger-indents from smoothing (Fig. 11.24.6). Dating these forms is difficult. Typo­logies of Hauran Ware have been published from excavations at Sī’,39 yet only one typo-chrono­logy has been produced from excavations in the Syrian Hauran, albeit without the presentation of strati­g raphic data.40 Thus, determining when 39  40 

Orssaud, Barret, and Blanc 2003; Orssaud 1985. Renel 2010.

these types begin to circulate, when production ends, and whether any variations in form have chrono­logical significance is not currently possible due to the lack of well-stratified parallels from within or without Umm elJimal. Given how common these forms are, particularly taking into account large body fragments and handles, and considering that regionally produced jars do not seem to be imported in significant numbers, it is possible that jars follow a different pattern to the other types of pottery and continue strongly into the Early Byzantine period. Furthermore, it has been observed that in parts

Elizabeth A. Osinga

360

No.

Context

Ware

Munsell

Date

1

Northern Dump K.1:001.5.11

NAB

Ext: 2.5YR 6/6 Int S/Fab: 10R 6/6 Paint: 10R 4/3

2

Northern Dump K.1:001.6.22

NAB

Ext/Int S: 2.5YR 6/6 Fab: 2.5YR 5/2 Paint: 2.5YR 4/1

3

Northern Dump K.1:002.8.13

NAB

Burned post-deposit

4

Northern Dump K.1:002.8.19

NAB

Ext/Int S/Fab: 2.5YR 6/6

Nabatean Fine Ware Phase 3B (Schmid 2000, Abb. 54–55)

5

Northern Dump K.1:004.13.25

NAB

Ext: 2.5YR 5/4 Fab: 2.5YR 6/6 Int: burned

Probably Nabatean Fine Ware Phase 3B (e.g. Schmid 2000, Abb. 57–59 and 102)

6

Northern Dump K.1:002.9.22

NAB

Ext/Fab: 2.5YR 6/6 Int S: 10R 6/6

NAB (c. AD 70/80–100)

NAB (probably c. AD 70/80–100)

Selected parallels

Nabatean Painted Fine Ware Phase 3B (Schmid 2000, Abb. 91 and Farbtafeln 3.7–8 and 4.9–11)

Probably Nabatean Fine Ware Phase 3B (e.g. Bikai and Perry 2001, fig. 9.5–6)

Figure 11.25. Nabatean pottery (illustration by author).

of southern Syria during this period storage vessels in Hauran Ware are the most common or the only type in evidence.41 Whether some or all of the larger jars were used to transport foodstuffs is not known; however, one potential substance is wine, as it was produced at Sī’ and its environs from at least the Byzantine to Umayyad periods, and no containers have been identified.42

Fine Ware Typo-Chrono­logy Unlike many of the common ware forms, which can circulate for a century or more or are difficult to date due to their fragmentary nature, fine wares can suggest smaller chrono­logical spans. More precise dating is particularly 41  42 

2013c.

Renel 2010, 535. Dentzer and others 2003a; 2003b; Zerbini 2013a; 2013b;

essential at a site like Umm el-Jimal, where coin-secured strati­graphy is very rare and contexts tend to be highly mixed in date. These fine wares are especially useful for pinpointing the first activity and probably also settlement at the site. Nabatean influence is evidenced around the turn of the first century bc at Bostra, and the earliest Nabatean Painted Fine Ware (NPFW) published from the site belongs to Schmid’s Phase 2B (c.  30/20–1  bc). 43 At Umm el-Jimal, however, all NPFW thus far dates to a later phase: Schmid’s Phase 3B (c. ad 70/80–100)44 (Fig. 11.25.1–3), as does the unpainted rim (Fig. 11.25.4). Thus, the rouletted bases are probably of the same phase (Fig. 11.25.5–6). 43  Wilson and Sa’d 1984, fig. 31; Schmid 2000, 147–50, Abb. 84–86. 44  Schmid 2000, 150–52, Abb. 91, Farbtafeln 3.7–8 and 4.9–11.

11. Quantifying Ceramic Trends at Umm el-Jimal

361

No.

Context

Ware

Munsell

Date

Selected parallels

1

Northern Dump K.1:002.9.38

ESA

Ext/Int S: 2.5YR 3/4 Fab: 10YR 8/2

NAB/ER (c. ad 40–70 and later)

Hayes Form 48 (Hayes 1985, tav. VI.16)

2

Northern Dump K.1:002.11.35

ESA

Ext/Int S: burned Fab: 5YR 7/4

NAB/ER (c. mid to end 1st cen.)

Hayes Forms 48–50 (Hayes 1985, tav. VI.13 and VI.15–18)

3

Northern Dump K.1:001.6.12

ESA

Ext/Int S: 2.5YR 4/6 Fab: 7.5YR 7/4

4

Commodus Gate destruction deposit EE.3:016.36.3

ESA

Ext./Int. S: 2.5YR 4/8 Fab: 7.5YR 6/3

NAB/R (c. last third 1st cen.– mid-2nd cen.)

Hayes Form 54 (Hayes 1985, tav. VII.5)

5

Northern Dump K.1:001.3.4

M

Ext/Int: burned Fab: 2.5YR 5/4

6

Northern Dump K.1:002.11.33

H

Ext./Int. S: 2.5YR 5/4 Fab: 2.5YR 4/6

7

Northern Dump (surface) K.S.56

ESA

Ext/Int S: 10R 4/8 Fab: 5YR 6/4

8

House XVIII gate C.6:012.16.1; C.6:013.17.1

ESA

Ext./Int. S: 2.5YR 5/8 Fab: 7.5YR 6/6

Variations on Hayes Form 60A (See no. 8 below) R (c. 1st half 2nd cen.)

Hayes Form 57 (Hayes 1985, tav. VII.1) Hayes Form 60A (Hayes 1985, tav. VII.13; 2008, 139, fig 7.166)

Figure 11.26. Eastern Sigillata A and miscellaneous fine ware (illustration by author).

The concentration of Nabatean pottery in the last third of the first century ad might be a badiyah­-wide trend. The dates of the Nabatean pottery found during the Southern Hauran Survey45 are not known; however, the sherd found during the author’s survey at Deir alKahf dates to the same phase as Umm el-Jimal’s numerous finds. 46 Nabatean inscriptions from the badiyah also fall into the same time period, during the reign of 45  46 

Kennedy, Freeman, and Falkner 1995. Osinga 2017, 280.

Rabbel II: at Umm es-Surab from ad 7647 and at Umm el-Quttein from Rabbel II’s general reign.48 Only one Eastern Sigillata A rim and one base that might predate the last third of the first century have been found at Umm el-Jimal (Fig.  11.26.1–2); however, the upper end of the date range coincides with the date for the Nabatean pottery. The majority of Eastern Sigillata A rims and bases fall under the chrono­logically 47  48 

Littman 1914, 2–6, Inscr. 2. Lidzbarski 1908, 252–53; Littman 1914, 30, Inscr. 33.

Elizabeth A. Osinga

362 later Hayes Form 54 or the similar Hayes Forms 57–60 (Fig. 11.26.3–4 and 7–8). Fragments of grooved handles and one base, not illustrated, attest to the presence of closed forms, but cannot be assigned a date. Finally, there were only a small number of fragments that were variations of Eastern Sigillata A forms and only two rim sherds: one in Hauran Ware and the other regional in origin (Fig. 11.26.5–6). Umm el-Jimal’s fine wares are consistent with Levantine trends in import; however, there are interesting possible local trends, such as the appearance and disappearance of Nabatean pottery over a few decades. As several of the sites in the badiyah are believed to have been founded in or saw major activity during the first century ad, the appearance of this well-dated Nabatean pottery, along with the epi­graphic evidence, is an important indicator of site activity. Thus far, the strati­graphic and ceramic evidence at Umm el-Jimal — the only case study for the region — points to the mid-first century ad, in particular the last third, as the start of prominent activity and probable settlement.

Production and Consumption through the Centuries An in-depth analysis of Umm el-Jimal’s pottery, including provenance studies, quantification of types and production over time, and typo-chrono­logy, has proved very fruitful in tracing changes in pottery consumption from the Nabatean/Early Roman to Early Byzantine period. These results are not just useful when interpreting the socio-economic history of the site itself; the data also shed important light on regional production and import — particularly from Jerash, but also with reference to undiscovered production sites. Four key trends and transitions in common-ware import emerged from the analysis, each showing a slightly different relationship between the local and regional wares. First, despite the first–eighth-century pottery being overwhelmingly regional in origin, local pottery was the dominant find in contexts that contained mid-/late first– third-century pottery. A look at common forms revealed that Hauran Ware was produced in a wide range of vessel types and seems to have been particularly common in open forms and small and large jars. A more detailed relationship of the regional wares to the local and to one another is difficult to assess: both Jerash Terracotta and miscellaneous terracotta were present in forms of this period, with Jerash pottery possibly appearing slightly later (c. mid-second century).

Second, there was a decrease in local pottery use at Umm el-Jimal, which probably commenced during the fourth century. Forms of this date in Hauran Ware were less common than for the Nabatean and Roman periods, particularly cooking wares. However, due to the difficulty of dating Hauran Ware, particularly open vessels and jars, it is possible that certain types continued to be imported in considerable quantity. Third, by the fifth century the regional imports, particularly Jerash Terracotta, made up the bulk of the corpus across most or all pottery types. As with the fourth century, it is possible that certain forms continued to be imported in Hauran Ware, such as larger jars that might be containers for foodstuffs; however, Early Byzantine forms appear in no other pottery type. Miscellaneous terracotta appears to be less common in this period, and thus it is possible that most vessels, particularly cooking wares, came from Jerash. Finally, by the sixth and until the eighth century, miscellaneous-terracotta forms were very rare at Umm el-Jimal. The common wares were dominated by Jerash Terracotta, and then later supplemented primarily by red-painted and unpainted ware in the eighth century. What the material culture does not tell us, of course, is why these shifts in import occurred at a particular point in time and in the way they did. While it is difficult to characterize these trends fully with the available data, the impact of historical and socio-economic change at the site and in the region is worth brief consideration. That Hauran Ware was so common in the earliest centuries is not unusual, given Umm el-Jimal’s proximity to Bostra, where there was surely a large market where this pottery could be purchased. In addition, Umm el-Jimal had an agricultural connection to Bostra as a supplier of grain, and there were socio-political ties between the two sites, as we know that citizens from Umm el-Jimal sat on the city council in Bostra.49 Yet, by the fourth century, local pottery import began to fall, even though the ware was still dominant in nearby areas of southern Syria.50 One potential factor to consider is the impact of destruction at Umm el-Jimal in the later third century, evidenced by the reconstruction of the Late Roman road over a thick, ashy deposit, and probably also by the Northern Dump and other such unexplored mounds. While certain structures survived, such as the Commodus Gate and the Praetorium, no houses or other buildings from the Nabatean and Roman periods have 49  50 

de Vries 1998, 232 and 234–35. Renel 2010, 528.

11. Quantifying Ceramic Trends at Umm el-Jimal been located. Lost architecture from these centuries is attested to by reuse of Nabatean columns and Romanperiod architectural elements and ashlars in later constructions, and by remnants of houses in the village, which likewise appears to have been destroyed at this time.51 There may have been a sharp decrease or break in population at the site in the fourth century, save for military presence;52 however, since so few domestic structures have been excavated, the civilian population at this time may simply not yet have been recognized in the archaeo­logical material. If the late third-century destruction was severe, on the other hand, it is possible that the population relocated or adopted a nomadic lifestyle, and also that changes in landownership might have occurred in the following decades. Could the increased import of regional pottery be due in part to socio-economic connections to regions outside the Hauran? Or, given that Hauran Ware starts to disappear or become less common in parts of southern Syria in the fifth century, is regional pottery merely filling a gap in the markets? These questions are difficult to answer without more data from the region and better knowledge of Hauran-Ware production; in fact, its disappearance is an intriguing occurrence in its own right. The dominance of regional pottery, particularly Jerash Terracotta, could therefore have been a necessity, if Hauran-Ware production was dwindling. Nonetheless, the increase in import has potential socio-economic implications for Jerash; for example, whether the higher rate of Jerash-Terracotta consumption at Umm el-Jimal indicates a boost in production at Jerash or a shift in trade priorities — or both. These earlier periods of pottery production at Jerash are difficult to study, due in large part to strati­g raphic disturbance and the issue of assessing the volume of production through kiln waste.53 Therefore, studying the consumption of this pottery proportionally is an essential component to understanding Jerash’s production and the changes in volume and export range over time. Similar types of analysis from other sites, Hauranian and otherwise, are a necessary addition to the current data and would produce a geo­ graphically broad view of trends in the region, as well as allow for better interrogation of why and how these changes occurred.

51 

Momani and Horstmanshof 1995. de Vries 1998, 230. 53  Kehrberg 2011, 7–8. 52 

363

Concluding Remarks This case study on the relationship between local and regional pottery imported to north-eastern Jordan could not have been undertaken without quantification of the corpora in question. Even in the case of House XVII– XVIII, where the periods that could be isolated were broad in date, the data nonetheless revealed general trends that could be complemented and refined by future analysis. There exists, however, no similar analysis from nearby sites in northern and middle Jordan with which to compare the results from Umm el-Jimal. The use of quantification or the publication of its results is still relatively rare in Levantine studies. While observation can be used to discuss ceramic trends, especially in cases where the pottery is already sampled, quantification is designed to be a repeatable process, baring its methodo­logy and allowing for critical assessment by other scholars. The scientific approach can give evidence to observed trends and provide detail that would not be possible to glean without comparison of the data, such as the break-down of forms in Umm el-Jimal’s Late Roman contexts. The results of this first analysis of Umm el-Jimal’s earliest pottery are by no means absolute. Questions still remain concerning the phasing of the trends, and it is possible that the import is more complex than outlined; for instance, Hauran-Ware jars may continue to be used for a longer period of time than other types. Other issues to consider include whether there might be different proportions of wares in different areas of the site, and to what degree the Late Roman-road corpus from the Commodus Gate Area is representative of the town as a whole. Furthermore, the data cannot tell us why the changes occur and how increased or decreased production and/or trade from the centres supplying the pottery might have impacted the changes. The conclusions of this study are not meant to oversimplify the potential intricacy of ceramic import and site use, but are nonetheless an important step towards a fuller understanding of the socio-economic history of the region.

Elizabeth A. Osinga

364

Colour Plate 3. Photomicro­graphs of the primary ware/fabric groups (photos by author).

11. Quantifying Ceramic Trends at Umm el-Jimal

365

Works Cited ‘Amr, K. 1991. ‘Preliminary Report on the 1991 Season at Zurrabah’, Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan, 35: 313–23. ——  1999. ‘The Discovery of Two Additional Kilns at az-Zurraba/Wadi Musa’, Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan, 43: 175–94. Adan-Bayewitz, D. 1993. Common Pottery in Roman Galilee: A Study of Local Trade, Bar-Ilan Studies in Near Eastern Languages and Culture (Ramat-Gan: Bar-Ilan Uni­ver­sity Press). Bar-Nathan, R. 2011. ‘The Pottery Corpus’, in R.  Bar-Nathan and W.  Atrash (eds), Bet She’an, ii: Baysan: The Theatre Pottery Workshop, Israel Antiquities Authority Reports, 48 ( Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority), pp. 229–343. Barret, M., L.  Courtois, and F.  Villeneuve. 1985. ‘Le Matériau Céramique’, in J.-M.  Dentzer (ed.), Hauran, i: Recherches archéo­ logiques sur la Syrie du Sud à l’époque hellénistique et romaine, Bibliothèque Archéo­logique et Historique, 124 (Paris: Geuthner), pp. 223–33. Bikai, P.  M. and M.  A. Perry. 2001. ‘Petra North Ridge Tombs 1 and 2: Preliminary Report’, Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, 324: 59–78. Brown, R. M. 1998. ‘A Large Residence (House XVIII)’, in B. de Vries (ed.), Umm el-Jimal: A Frontier Town and its Landscape in Northern Jordan, i: Fieldwork 1972–1981, Journal of Roman Archaeo­logy Supplementary Series, 26 (Portsmouth, RI: Journal of Roman Archaeo­logy), pp. 195–204. Clark, V. A. and R. Falkner. 1986. ‘The Jerash North Theatre. Architecture and Archaeo­logy 1982–3. Part Three: The Finds. A, The Pottery’, in F.  Zayadine (ed.), Jerash Archaeo­logical Project, 1981–1983 (Amman: Department of Antiquities of Jordan), pp. 247–51. De Vries, B. 1993. ‘The Umm el-Jimal Project, 1981–1992’, Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan, 27: 433–60. ——  1998. ‘Towards a History of Umm el-Jimal in Late Antiquity’, in B. de Vries (ed.), Umm el-Jimal: A Frontier Town and its Land­ scape in Northern Jordan, i: Fieldwork 1972–1981, Journal of Roman Archaeo­logy Supplementary Series, 26 (Portsmouth, RI: Journal of Roman Archaeo­logy), pp. 229–41. Dentzer, J.-M. and others. 2003a. ‘Description de l’Installation de Sī’ 8’, in J. Dentzer-Feydy, P.-M. Blanc, and J.-M. Dentzer (eds), Hauran, ii: Les Installations de Sī’ 8: du sanctuaire à l’établissement viticole, Bibliothèque Archéo­logique et Historique, 164 (Beirut: Institut Français du Proche-Orient), pp. 121–25. ——  2003b. ‘Les pressoirs à cuves multiples du Jebel al-‘Arab’, in J. Dentzer-Feydy, P.-M. Blanc, and J.-M. Dentzer (eds), Hauran, ii: Les Installations de Sī’ 8: du sanctuaire à l’établissement viticole, Bibliothèque Archéo­logique et Historique, 164 (Beirut: Institut Français du Proche-Orient), pp. 127–45. Falkner, R. 1985. ‘The Pottery from the British Excavations at the Jerash North Theatre 1982–83’, unpublished report (Amman: British Institute at Amman for Archaeo­logy and History), pp. 1–58. Gerber, Y. 2012. ‘The Classical Periods’, in J. A. Sauer and L. G. Herr (eds), Ceramic Finds: Typo­logical and Techno­logical Studies of the Pottery Remains from Tell Hesban and Vicinity, Hesban, 11 (Berrien Springs: Institute of Archaeo­logy and Andrews Uni­ver­sity), pp. 175–503. Hayes, J. W. 1985. ‘Sigillate Orientali’, in G. Pugliese Carratelli (ed.), Atlante delle Forme Ceramiche, ii: Ceramica Fine Romana nel Bacino Mediterraneo (Tardo Ellenismo e Primo Impero), Enciclopedia dell’Arte Antica Classica e Orientale (Rome: Istituto della Enciclopedia Italiana), pp. 1–96. ——  2008. Roman Pottery: Fine-Ware Imports, Agora, 32 (Princeton: The American School of Classical Studies at Athens). Humbert, J.-B. 2001. ‘Arguments chrono­logiques pour expliquer le déclin de Khirbet es-Samra et de Mafraq: des jarres, du vin et des images’, in E. Villeneuve and P. M. Watson (eds), La Céramique byzantine et proto-islamique en Syrie-Jordanie (IVe–VIIIe siècles apr. J.-C.): actes du colloque tenu à Amman les 3, 4 et 5 Décembre 1994, Bibliothèque Archéo­logique et Historique, 159 (Beirut: Bibliothèque Archéo­logique et Historique), pp. 149–61. Humbert, J.-B. and A. Desreumaux. 1990. ‘Huit Campagnes de Fouilles au Khirbet es-Samra (1981–1989)’, Revue Biblique, 97: 252–69. Joly, M. and P.-M. Blanc. 1995. ‘Nouvelles Données sur la Céramique de Bosra’, in H. Meyza and J. Młynarczyk (eds), Hellenistic and Roman Pottery in the Eastern Mediterranean: Advances in Scientific Studies: Acts of the II Nieborów Pottery Workshop, Nieborów, 18–20 December 1993 (Warsaw: Research Centre for Mediterranean Archaeo­logy, Polish Academy of Sciences), pp. 111–34. Kehrberg, I. 2007. ‘Gerasa as Provider for Roman Frontier Stations: A View Seen from Late Roman Potters’ Waste at the Hippodrome and the Upper Zeus Temple’, Studies in the History and Archaeo­logy of Jordan, 9: 31–48. ——  2009. ‘Byzantine Ceramic Productions and Organisational Aspects of Sixth Century ad Pottery Workshops at the Hippodrome of Jarash’, Studies in the History and Archaeo­logy of Jordan, 10: 493–512. ——  2011. ‘Roman Gerasa Seen from Below: An Alternative Study of Urban Landscape’, in A.  Mackay (ed.), ASCS 32 Selected Proceedings [accessed 6 December 2018]. Kennedy, D. L. 2000. The Roman Army in Jordan (London: Council for British Research in the Levant). Kennedy, D. L., P. Freeman, and R. Falkner. 1995. ‘Southern Hauran Survey 1992’, Levant, 27: 39–73.

366

Elizabeth A. Osinga

Kenyon, K. M. 1957. ‘Terra Sigillata’, in J. W. Crowfoot, G. M. Crowfoot, and K. M. Kenyon (eds), Samaria-Sebaste, iii: The Objects from Samaria (London: Palestine Exploration Fund), pp. 281–88. Koutsoukou, A. and M. Najjar. 1997. ‘The Pottery’, in A. Koutsoukou and others (eds), The Great Temple of Amman: The Excavations (Amman: American Center of Oriental Research), pp. 55–118. Lapp, E. C. 1995. ‘The 1993 and 1994 Seasons at Umm al-Jimal: Byzantine and Early Islamic Oil Lamp Fragments from House 119 at Umm al-Jimal’, Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan, 39: 437–45. Lichtenberger, A., R. Raja, and A. H. Sørensen. 2015. ‘Preliminary Registration Report of the Second Season of the Danish–German Jarash North-West Quarter Project 2012’, Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan, 57: 9–56. Lidzbarski, M. 1908. Ephemeris fèur Semitische Epi­graphik, ii: 1903–1907 (Giessen: Ricker). Littman, E. 1914. Nabataean Inscriptions from the Southern Haurân, Publications of the Princeton Uni­ver­sity Archaeo­logical Expeditions to Syria in 1904–1905 and 1909, Division iv: Semitic Inscriptions, Section A (Leiden: Brill). Littman, E., D. Magie, and D. R. Stuart. 1913. Greek and Latin Inscriptions in Southern Syria, Publications of the Princeton Uni­ver­ sity Archaeo­logical Expeditions to Syria in 1904–1905 and 1909, Division iii: Greek and Latin inscriptions in Syria, Section A (Leiden: Brill). Merkel, S. 2019. ‘Ceramic Petro­graphy of Locally Produced Byzantine/Umayyad Pottery from Jerash’, in A. Lichtenberger and R. Raja (eds), Byzantine and Umayyad Jerash Reconsidered: Transitions, Transformations, Continuities, Jerash Papers, 4 (Turnhout: Brepols), pp. 229–237. Momani, A. and M. Horstmanshof. 1995. ‘The 1993 and 1994 Seasons at Umm al-Jimāl: Umm al-Jimāl Area R 1994 Field Season’, Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan, 39: 469–76. Olávarri-Goicoechea, E. 1985. El Palacio Omeya de Amman, ii: La Arqueo­logía (Valencia: Institución San Jerónimo). Orssaud, D. 1985. ‘La Céramique du Sondage D’, in J.-M. Dentzer (ed.), Hauran, i: Recherches archéo­logiques sur la Syrie du Sud à l’époque hellénistique et romaine, Bibliothèque Archéo­logique et Historique, 124 (Paris: Geuthner), pp. 235–48. Orssaud, D., M. Barret, and P.-M. Blanc. 2003. ‘La céramique de Sī’ en pâte A: essai de formalisation des éléments descriptifs’, in J. Dentzer-Feydy, P.-M. Blanc, and J.-M. Dentzer (eds), Hauran, ii: Les installations de Sī’ 8: du sanctuaire à l’établissement Viticole, Bibliothèque Archéo­logique et Historique, 164 (Beirut: Institut Français du Proche-Orient), pp. 199–222. Osinga, E. 2010. ‘Ceramic Change at Umm el-Jimal in Northeast Jordan: Investigating Trade Patterns and Production c. 1st–8th Centuries CE’ (unpublished master’s thesis, Uni­ver­sity of Southampton). ——  2017. ‘The Countryside in Context: Strati­graphic and Ceramic Analysis at Umm el-Jimal and Environs in Northeastern Jordan (1st to 20th Century ad)’ (unpublished doctoral thesis, Uni­ver­sity of Southampton). Parker, S. T. 1987. ‘The Pottery’, in S. T. Parker (ed.), The Roman Frontier in Central Jordan: Interim Report on the Limes Arabicus Project, 1980–1985, British Archaeo­logical Reports, International Series, 340 (Oxford: British Archaeo­logical Reports), pp. 525–619. ——  1998a. ‘The Defenses of the Roman and Byzantine Town’, in B. de Vries (ed.), Umm el-Jimal: A Frontier Town and its Landscape in Northern Jordan, i: Fieldwork 1972–1981, Journal of Roman Archaeo­logy Supplementary Series, 26 (Portsmouth, RI: Journal of Roman Archaeo­logy), pp. 143–47. ——  1998b. ‘The Pottery (1977)’, in B.  de Vries (ed.), Umm el-Jimal: A  Frontier Town and its Landscape in Northern Jordan, i: Fieldwork 1972–1981, Journal of Roman Archaeo­logy Supplementary Series, 26 (Portsmouth, RI: Journal of Roman Archaeo­ logy), pp. 205–18. ——  2006. ‘The Pottery’, in S. T. Parker (ed.), The Roman Frontier in Central Jordan: Final Report on the Limes Arabicus Project, 1980–1989, Dumbarton Oaks Studies, 40 (Washington, D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks), pp. 229–372. Renel, F. 2010. ‘La céramique antique de Syrie du Sud de la période hellénistique à la période byzantine (IIe s. av. J.-C.–VIe s. apr. J.-C.). Étude de cas: le Jebel et le Leja’, in M. al-Maqdissi, F. Braemer, and J.-M. Dentzer (eds), Hauran, v: La Syrie du Sud du Néolithique à l’Antiquité Tardive: recherches récentes: actes du colloque de Damas 2007, Bibliothèque Archéo­logique et Historique, 191 (Beirut: Institut Français du Proche-Orient), pp. 515–44. Sartre, M. 2004. The Middle East under Rome (Cam­bridge, MA: Belknap). Schaefer, J. 1986. ‘An Umayyad Potters’ Complex in the North Theatre, Jerash’, in F. Zayadine (ed.), Jerash Archaeo­logical Project, 1981–1983 (Amman: Department of Antiquities of Jordan), pp. 411–39. Schmid, S.  G. 2000. Petra – Ez Zantur, ii.1: Ergebnisse der Schweizerisch-Liechtensteinischen Ausgrabungen: Die Feinkeramik der Nabatäer: Typo­logie, Chrono­logie und kulturhistorische Hintergründe, Terra Archaeo­logica, 4 (Mainz: Von Zabern). Schneider, G. 1995. ‘Roman Red and Black Slipped Pottery from NE-Syria and Jordan: First Results of Chemical Analysis’, in H. Meyza and J. Młynarczyk (eds), Hellenistic and Roman Pottery in the Eastern Mediterranean: Advances in Scientific Studies: Acts of the II Nieborów Pottery Workshop, Nieborów, 18–20 December 1993 (Warsaw: Research Centre for Mediterranean Archaeo­ logy, Polish Academy of Sciences), pp. 415–22. Slane, K. W. 1997. Tel Anafa, ii.1: The Hellenistic and Roman Pottery: The Fine Wares, Journal of Roman Archaeo­logy Supplementary Series, 10 (Ann Arbor: Journal of Roman Archaeo­logy).

11. Quantifying Ceramic Trends at Umm el-Jimal

367

Smith, R. H. and L. P. Day. 1989. Pella of the Decapolis, ii: Final Report on the College of Wooster Excavations in Area IX, the Civic Complex, 1979–1985 (Wooster: College of Wooster). Uscatescu, A. 1992. ‘Cerámica importada en Gerasa (Ŷaraš, Jordania): el Lote de las excavaciones del Macellum’, Caesaraugusta, 69: 115–82. ——  1996. La cerámica del Macellum de Gerasa (Ŷaraš, Jordania) (Madrid: Instituto del Patrimonio Histórico Español). ——  2003. ‘Report on the Levant Pottery (5th–9th Century ad)’, in C. Bakirtzis (ed.), VIIème Congrès international sur la céramique médiévale en Méditerranée, Thessaloniki 11–16 October 1999 (Athens: Caisse des Recettes Archéo­logiques), pp. 546–58. Villeneuve, F. and others. 1981. ‘Examen scientifique, description et classement archéo­logiques des céramiques de la fouille de Sia ( Jabal el Arab, Syrie méridionale)’, in Actes du XX symposium international d’archéométrie, Paris 1980, iii, Revue d’Archéométrie Supplément, 1 (Rennes: Université de Rennes), pp. 45–52. Walmsley, A. G. 2007. ‘Economic Developments and the Nature of Settlement in the Towns and Countryside of Syria-Palestine, ca. 565–800’, Dumbarton Oaks Papers, 61: 319–52. Wilson, J. and M. Sa’d. 1984. ‘The Domestic Material Culture of Nabataean to Umayyad Period Bosra’, Berytus, 32: 35–147. Zayadine, F. 1977. ‘Excavations on the Upper Citadel of Amman, Area A (1975 and 1977)’, Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan, 22: 20–56. Zerbini, A. 2013a. ‘Landscapes of Production in Late Antiquity: Wineries in the Jebel al-‘Arab and Limestone Massif ’, in A. Le Bihan and others (eds), Territoires, architecture et matériel au Levant: doctoriales d’archéo­logie Syrienne: Paris-Nanterre, 8–9 Décembre 2011 (Beirut: Institut Français du Proche-Orient) [accessed 6 December 2018] ——  2013b. ‘The Si’a Valley Survey’, Palestine Exploration Quarterly, 142: 217–21. ——  2013c. ‘Society and Economy in Marginal Zones: A Study of the Levantine Agricultural Economy (1st–8th c. ad)’ (unpublished doctoral thesis, Royal Holloway Uni­ver­sity of London).

12. Roman City Coins of Gerasa: Contextualizing Currency and Circulation from the Hellenistic to the Late Roman Period Achim Lichtenberger* Institut für Klassische Archäo­logie und Christliche Archäo­logie/Archäo­logisches Museum, Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität Münster. [email protected]

Rubina Raja* Centre for Urban Network Evolutions/Classical Studies, School of Culture and Society, Aarhus Uni­ver­sity. [email protected]

Introduction: Roman City Coins During the Roman period, numerous cities in the Greek East minted their own local currency in the shape of bronze coins. These bronze coins were used as small change in addition to currency in precious metals, mainly silver. The silver coins for larger transactions were 1) either the imperial coins from Rome and other imperial mints, 2) provincial coins, such as the SyroPhoenician tetradrachms, or 3) in rare cases civic silver coins, such as the silver coins minted by Tyre.1 The local bronze coins were issued by the cities, and minting was a direct response to local needs for small change. It is widely accepted that the coinage was mainly made for circulation within the city’s territory and that the coins only rarely travelled further. This was also due to the varying denominational systems, which prevented easy exchangeability of the bronze coins minted by different cities.2 The bronze coins usually depict the emperor or a member of his family on the obverse and local subjects, such as deities, myths, or civic/religious monuments, on the reverse. The strong local character of the icono­graphy on the bronze coins of the Greek cities during the imperial period makes these coins a prime source for civic selfrepresentation and identities, and icono­graphic analyses are a focus of current research.3 Less well investigated, however, is the distribution of local bronze coins in the * The authors would like to thank Donald Ariel ( Jerusalem) for our discussion on find coins and Lianna Hecht (Münster) for drawing the ­graph and maps. 1  For the various imperial coinages and their circulation, see Butcher and Woytek 2018. 2  Klimowsky 1974; Lichtenberger 2003, 24–25. 3  For examples, cf. the volumes by Nollé, Overbeck, and Weiss 1997 and Howgego, Heuchert, and Burnett 2005.

Eastern provinces, and in the following we are looking at the distribution patterns of civic coins in Gerasa and of Gerasa and how they relate to other contemporary currencies. Most of the civic bronze mints in the southern Levant end their emissions in the Late Severan period, some of them continue into the second half of the third century ad. In this paper, we also bring the volume of coin output from the Roman period in relation to that from the Late Roman period and discuss explanations for a significantly higher quantity of find coins from the Late Roman period.4

Roman Provincial Coins Minted by Gerasa Gerasa initiated minting during the First Jewish Revolt (Fig. 12.1).5 This introduction coincides with other cities in the region and is best explained by the need for small change for the military.6 The next period of minting in Gerasa, which can be detected, took place during the reign of Hadrian (Fig. 12.2). Hadrian visited Gerasa in ad 129/30, and his visit initiated a spur in building activity in Gerasa, which triggered both the economy in general and the minting of coinage.7 After Hadrian, 4  On problems of how to quantify find coins and use them for an economic history analysis, cf. Reece 1979, and for the Near East, cf. Evans 2006, 63–70. 5  On the bronze coins of Gerasa, cf. Spijkerman 1975; 1978, 156–67; Lichtenberger 2003, 195–200; 2008. On the find-coin patterns of Gerasa, see Bellinger 1938; Augé 1986; Bowsher 1986; Marot 1998; Sheedy, Carson and Walmsley 2001, 34; Noeske 2013, 136–38. 6  Lichtenberger 2018. For a general sketch of the development of coinage in the Decapolis, cf. Lichtenberger 2003, 20–26. 7  Seigne 2018.

Hellenistic and Roman Gerasa: The Archaeo­logy and History of a Decapolis City, ed. by Achim Lichtenberger and Rubina Raja, JP 5 (Turnhout: Brepols, 2020), 369–381 BREPOLS PUBLISHERS DOI 10.1484/M.JP-EB.5.120816

370

Figure 12.1. Bronze coin of Gerasa minted in 67/68 ad with head of Zeus Olympios on obverse and cornucopia on reverse (after Spijkerman 1978, pl. 33.1).

Achim Lichtenberger and Rubina Raja coins were minted under Marcus Aurelius (Fig.  12.3) and Commodus (Fig.  12.4) as well as in the Severan period under Septimius Severus (Fig. 12.5), Caracalla, and Elagabalus. As in most cities of the Decapolis, minting of coinage stopped with Elagabalus. The reverses of the coins of Gerasa are dominated by images of Artemis and Tyche. Depictions of Zeus are only attested during the First Jewish Revolt. Alexander the Great is depicted as the founder of Gerasa in the late second and third centuries ad.

The Distribution of Coins from Gerasa

Figure 12.2. Bronze coin of Gerasa minted under Hadrian with head of Hadrian on obverse and bust of Artemis on reverse (Münz­ sammlung des Archäo­logischen Museums der Universität Münster, Inv. No. M 5915).

Figure 12.3. Bronze coin of Gerasa minted under Lucius Verus with head of Lucius Verus on obverse and standing figure of Artemis as huntress on reverse (Münzsammlung des Archäo­logischen Museums der Universität Münster, Inv. No. M 5916).

In total, 175 civic bronze coins of Gerasa are documented with clear provenances of which only fifteen, which is less than 10 per cent, were found outside of Gerasa. This is of course only a minimalistic approximation since all too often find coins from excavations remain unidentified and unpublished. However, mapping the available coins helps us to understand the distribution patterns of the civic coins of Gerasa (Fig. 12.6 and Table 12.1). The mapping of coins in modern Israel is more accurate than the data from Jordan and Syria. We were able to draw on data from the Israel Antiquities Authority, which documents all the find coins excavated in the state of Israel. This of course leads to a distortion of the data overall. Still, the picture that emerges is clear: the great majority of the coins stem from Gerasa itself. A small number come from other cities in the Decapolis. The well-excavated cities of Gadara, Pella, and Scythopolis yielded only small amounts. Stray finds come from western Palestine, and some of these, such as the Neronian coins from Masada, can be explained by troop movements during the First Jewish Revolt. Also, the one coin stemming from

Figure 12.4. Bronze coin of Gerasa minted under Commodus with head of Commodus on obverse and standing figure of Tyche and Greek founder on reverse (Münzsammlung des Archäo­logischen Museums der Universität Münster, Inv. No. M 5921).

Figure 12.5. Bronze coin of Gerasa minted under Septimius Severus with head of Septimius Severus on obverse and bust of Alexander the Great on reverse (after Lichtenberger 2003, 454, no. MZ115).

Figure 12.6. Distribution of Roman provincial coins minted by Gerasa (illustration: Lianna Hecht).

12. Roman City Coins of Gerasa

371

Figure 12.7. Roman provincial bronze coins found in Gerasa (illustration: Lianna Hecht).

Dura Europos can be explained by movements of Syrian troops. It is therefore obvious that the civic bronze coins minted in Gerasa were mainly produced for circulation within the city. When looking at the numbers, it has to be mentioned that the number of Gerasene coins found in Gerasa is unusually high, because a large amount of civic coins of Gerasa (in total 107) were found in a coin hoard (see below),8 distorting the numbers. But even if we calibrate the data, it is clear that the large majority is from the city of Gerasa.

Roman Provincial Coins Circulating in Gerasa In total, 306 Roman provincial coins were found in Gerasa. Mapping the provenances of these coins provides us with insight into the currency that was circulating in Gerasa (Fig. 12.7 and Table 12.2). It does not come as a surprise that coins minted by Gerasa constitute the majority of the Roman pro8 

Augé 1998.

Figure 12.8. Bronze coin of Philadelphia minted under Elagabalus with head of Elagabalus on obverse and chariot on reverse (find coin from the Danish-German Jerash Northwest Quarter Project, J13-Gb-8-3).

vincial coins found in the city,9 although it has to be mentioned again that the numbers are distorted due to the high number of coins from one hoard.10 It is not surprising that several coins of other neighbouring cities were found, among them a considerable number of coins from Philadelphia (Fig.  12.8). This cluster of coins stemming from Philadelphia is probably not by chance, since both cities belonged to the Provincia Arabia and seem to have had similar minting patterns, being the only cities of the Decapolis that issued coins under Hadrian. Since there have hardly been published any provenanced find coins from Philadelphia, it is impossible to say whether coins from Gerasa circulated there. These cities might have shared each other’s coins, and potentially their coins were convertible, or they had intensive trade relations or both.11 9 

See the similar situation in Scythopolis, Barkay 2003, 185. Augé 1998. 11   However, see also the caveats mentioned by Butcher (2001–02, 117) regarding conclusions from find coins on trade. 10 

Achim Lichtenberger and Rubina Raja

372 Table 12.1. Distribution of Roman provincial bronze coins minted by Gerasa. Decapolis Gerasa

16012

Pella

113

Gadara

114

Scythopolis

4

Tel Dover (chora of Hippos)

1

15 16

Galilee Magdala

117

Samaria Silat adh-Dhahr

118

Megiddo

219

Judaea Khirbet Tittora

1

20

Idumaea Masada

221

Syria Dura Europos Total

1

22

175

12  Bellinger 1938, 29–31, nos 40–47 and 37, no. 76 (thirteen coins); Kirkbride 1947, 5 (one coin); Augé 1986, 77 (twenty coins); Bowsher 1986, 257 (six coins); Bitti 1986, 191 n. 41 (one coin); Watson 1986, 361 (two coins); Ball and others 1986, 401, nos 3–5 (three coins); Olavarri Goicoechea 1986, 46, no. 8 (one coin); Augé 1998 (107 coins); Marot 1998, 391–92, nos 26–27, 29, 33 (four coins) and two coins from the Danish-German Jerash Northwest Quarter Project ( J15-R-25-1 and J16-Se-22-99). 13  Sheedy, Carson, and Walmsley 2001, 126, no. 8. 14  Noeske 2013, 141. 15  Unpublished coins in the Israel national collection. 16  Unpublished coin in the Israel national collection. 17  Syon 2001, 35, no. 27 (one coin). 18  Spijkerman and Starcky 1958, 583, no. 89. 19  Two unpublished coins in the Israel national collection, one from Givat Mishteret Megiddo, the other from Kefar Otnay. 20  Kogan-Zehavi, Bijovsky, and Nagar 2012, 58, no. 1 (one coin). 21  Meshorer 1989, 125, nos 3810–11 (two coins). 22  Bellinger 1949, 87, no. 1855 (one coin).

Table 12.2. Roman provincial bronze coins found in Gerasa. Decapolis Gerasa

160

Philadelphia

923

Pella

124

Gadara

325

Hippos

126

Canatha

127

Galilee Tiberias

128

Sepphoris

129

Samaria Neapolis

2230

Caesarea Maritima

1331

Judaea Aelia Capitolina

232

Eleutheropolis

133

Ascalon

234

Gaza

135

23   Bellinger 1938, 31, no.  48; Augé 1986, 79 (two coins); Bowsher 1986, 257 (two coins); Olavarri Goicoechea 1986, 45, no. 7 (one coin); Walmsley 2006, 43 (one coin [= Blanke 2015, 93]); Lichtenberger, Raja, and Sørensen 2014, 96, no. 179 (one coin) and another coin from the Danish-German Jerash Northwest Quarter Project ( J15-Pd-16-19x). 24  Marot 1998, 390, no. 17. 25  Bowsher 1986, 257 (one coin); Olavarri Goicoechea 1986, 46, no. 9 (one coin) and one coin from the Danish-German Jerash Northwest Quarter Project ( J15-Ra-11-2). 26  Bowsher 1986, 257 (one coin). 27  Augé 1986, 79 (one coin). 28   Fisher and McCown 1929, 40 (one coin). The coin is, however, not mentioned any more in Bellinger 1938. 29  Bellinger 1938, 25, no. 24. 30  Bellinger 1938, 26, nos 25–28 (fifteen coins); Augé 1986, 79 (two coins); Bowsher 1986, 257 (three coins) and two coins from the Danish-German Jerash Northwest Quarter Project ( J16-X-0-2 and J16-Uc-41-7). 31  Bellinger 1938, 25, nos 22–23 (four coins); Augé 1986, 79 (two coins); Bowsher 1986, 257 (four coins); Marot 1998, 392–93, nos 32 and 38–39 (three coins). 32  Marot 1998, 391, nos 21–22 (two coins). 33  Augé 1998, 243 (one coin). 34  Bowsher 1996, 257 (one coin); Marot 1998, 391, no. 23 (one coin). 35  Marot 1998, 393, no. 36 (one coin).

12. Roman City Coins of Gerasa

373

Table 12.2 (cont.). Roman provincial bronze coins found in Gerasa. Phoenicia Berytos

136

Tyre

1137

Arabia Bostra

3038

Philippopolis

639

Adraa

640

Madaba

141

Rabbathmoba

242

Figure 12.9. Bronze coin of Neapolis minted under Volusian with head of Volusian on obverse and Garizim on reverse (find coin from the Danish-German Jerash Northwest Quarter Project, J16-X-0-2).

Syria Antiochia

2643

Edessa

144

Asia Minor Perge

145

Thrace Plotinopolis

146

Peloponnesus Thuria

147

Thelpusa

148

Total

36 

306

Bellinger 1938, 22, no. 10 (one coin). Bellinger 1938, 23–24, nos 15–16 and 18–19 (six coins); Bowsher 1986, 257 (six coins) and one coin from the DanishGerman Jerash Northwest Quarter Project ( J14-Jd-36-7). 38  Bellinger 1938, 27–29, nos 32–39 (ten coins); Augé 1986, 79 (three coins); Bowsher 1986, 257 (eleven coins); Clark and Bowsher 1986, 345 (one coin); Marot 1998, 392–93, nos 30–31 and 37 (three coins); Baldoni 2018, 19 (one coin) and one coin from the Danish-German Jerash Northwest Quarter Project ( J14Iac-18-11). 39  Bellinger 1938, 26–27, nos 29–31 (four coins); Marot 1998, 393, nos 41–42 (two coins). 40  Bowsher 1986, 257 (six coins). 41  Bowsher 1986, 257 (one coin). 42  Marot 1998, 392, no. 34 (one coin); Augé 1998, 243 (one coin). 43  Bellinger 1938, 31–34, nos 50–54 and 56–63 (twenty coins); Augé 1986, 79 (two coins); Bowsher 1986, 257 (four coins). 44  Bowsher 1986, 257 (one coin). 45  Bellinger 1938, 36, no. 72 (one coin). 46  Bowsher 1986, 257 (one coin). 47  Bellinger 1986, 37, no. 74 (one coin). 48  Bellinger 1938, 36, no. 73 (one coin). 37 

Figure 12.10. Bronze coin of Tyre minted under Elagabalus with head of Elagabalus on obverse and Tyche with trophy, palm tree, and Nike on column on reverse (find coin from the Danish-German Jerash Northwest Quarter Project, J14-Jd-36-7).

Among the find coins in Gerasa, the number of coins of Neapolis (Fig. 12.9), Caesarea Maritima, Tyre (Fig. 12.10), Bostra, and Philippopolis stand out. The quantities can be explained by the long duration of minting of some of these coinages well into the late third century ad, when Gerasa and other cities of the Decapolis already had stopped minting. Bostra and Philippopolis are — as were Gerasa and Philadelphia — cities of the Provincia Arabia, and it can be assumed that they shared an intensive exchange. Not surprising are the finds of several bronze coins from Antiochia, the capital of Syria, which had a strong coin output, supplying numerous cities in the Near East with currency.49 Single coin finds from Mesopotamia, Asia Minor, Thrace, and the Peloponnesus are remarkable. These coins might be explained by troop movements; at least for the coins from the Peloponnesus, this is a wellobserved, but little explained, pattern.50

49  Butcher 2004, 170–71. Butcher (2004, 171) even speculates there may have been a preference for coins from Antiochia in Gerasa because Gerasa was also named Antiochia. On coins from Antiochia in Beirut, see Butcher 2001–02, 114–15. 50  Bellinger 1949, 207; Dahmen and Lichtenberger 2004, 161 n. 7; Butcher 2004, 179.

Achim Lichtenberger and Rubina Raja

374

Figure 12.11. Roman imperial coins found in Gerasa (illustration: Lianna Hecht).

Tyrian Silver and Roman Imperial Coins Circulating in Gerasa Roman provincial bronze coins were only a part of the currency, circulating in a monetarized economy. All larger transactions were made with silver or gold coins, and during the Roman imperial period these coins usually were emitted by the imperial mints. Only in rare cases was silver also minted by civic or provincial mints, such as the civic silver of Tyre and the provincial tetradrachms of several Syro-Phoenician mints.51 The Tyrian silver was important for paying the temple tax in Jerusalem. With the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem in ad 70, minting of civic silver in Tyre ceased. It is debated whether there was a direct correlation between the destruction of the temple and the end of the minting in Tyre.52 In any case, it is clear that Tyrian silver was also used in places other than the Jewish temple. Although no Tyrian silver coins have been found and published from Gerasa so far,53 it is clear that here, too, it 51 

Prieur and Prieur 2000. Ariel and Fontanille 2012, 36–42. 53  Although some denarii have been found in the excavations 52 

played an important role for larger transactions: in two inscriptions from the Temple of Zeus, dating to about ad 42 and 43, ‘Tyrian silver’ is mentioned as a donation for constructions within the Temple of Zeus.54 Two other inscriptions from about ad 69/70, one of them set up by a possible Jewish refugee of the Jewish War,55 mention silver drachms, and although they are not specified as Tyrian, this cannot be excluded.56 In any case, the inscriptions underline that silver currency was used for larger transactions in Roman Gerasa. To get an idea of the currency circulating in an urban economy, such as that of Roman Gerasa, it is also necessary to discuss the Roman imperial coins of the first to third centuries ad found in Gerasa. Only pre-Diocletian coins are listed here (Fig. 12.11 and Table 12.3). of Gerasa (see below), silver or even gold coins are very rare in excavations in the region. See Syon 2015, 38–39. 54  Welles 1938, 374–75, nos 3 and 4. 55  Rigsby 2000. 56  Welles 1938, 375–78, nos 5 and 6.

12. Roman City Coins of Gerasa

375

Table 12.3. Roman imperial coins found in Gerasa. Trajan (ad 98–117)

857

Claudius II Gothicus (ad 268–70)

1072

Hadrian (ad 117–38)

458

Aurelian (ad 270–75)

873

Antoninus Pius (ad 138–61)

859

Vaballathus (ad 270–72)

274

Marcus Aurelius (ad 161–80)

1760

Probus (ad 276–82)

1375

Commodus (ad 180–92)

361

Carus (ad 282–83)

576

Septimius Severus (ad 193–211)

362

Numerianus (ad 283–84)

477

Elagabalus (ad 218–22)

163

Carinus (ad 283–85)

278

Alexander Severus (ad 222–35)

364

Total

117

Maximinus Thrax (ad 235–38)

2

Gordian III (ad 238–44)

366

Philippus Arabs (ad 244–49)

267

Decius (ad 249–51)

268

Trebonianus Gallus (ad 251–53)

269

Valerianus (ad 253–60)

270

Gallienus (ad 253–68)

1471

57 

65

Bellinger 1938, 38–39, nos 80–82 (sestertius, dupondius, quadrans); Watson 1986, 361 (two denarii); Ball and others 1986, 401, nos 6–7 (two denarii) and one dupondius from the DanishGerman Jerash Northwest Quarter Project ( J16-Ud-57-1x). 58   Bellinger 1938, 39, no.  83 (as); Augé 1986, 79 (two unspecified); Bowsher 1986, 259 (denarius). 59  Augé 1986, 79 (seven unspecified); Olavarri Goicoechea 1986, 46, no. 10 (one unspecified). 60  Bellinger 1938, 39–40, nos 84–87 (three asses, one denarius); Augé 1986, 79 (eleven unspecified); Marot 1998, 394, no.  44 (denarius); Baldoni 2018, 19 (one sestertius). 61  Augé 1986, 79 (three unspecified). 62  Augé 1986, 79 (one unspecified); Augé 1998, 243 (two denarii). 63  Augé 1986, 79 (one unspecified). 64   Bellinger 1938, 40, no.  88 (as); Augé 1986, 79 (two unspecified). 65   Marot 1998, 394, no.  45 (as); Lichtenberger, Raja, and Sørensen 2014, 95–96, no. 176 (sestertius). 66  Bowsher 1986, 259 (three unspecified). 67  Bellinger 1938, 40, no.  89 (as); Bowsher 1986, 259 (one unspecified). 68  Bellinger 1938, 40, no.  90 (as); Bowsher 1986, 259 (one unspecified). 69  Bellinger 1938, 41, no.  91 (as); Bowsher 1986, 259 (one unspecified). 70  Bowsher 1986, 259 (two unspecified). 71  Bellinger 1938, 41–43, nos 92–102 (Antoniniani); Bowsher 1986, 259 (two unspecified) and one Antoninianus from the DanishGerman Jerash Northwest Quarter Project ( J16-Sd-22-162).

Figure 12.12. Dupondius of Trajan from the mint of Rome (find coin from the Danish-German Jerash Northwest Quarter Project, J16-Ud-57-1x).

Sometimes excavation reports mention further imperial coins without specifying which or identifying them precisely. The count of such coins amounts to at least thirtyfour pieces.79 When looking at the imperial coin data, it is remarkable that there are no imperial coins attested in Gerasa before the reign of Trajan (Fig.  12.12). Furthermore, it is remarkable that the majority of the coins before Gallienus were bronze coins. These were later followed 72  Bellinger 1938, 43, nos 103–05 (Antoniniani); Augé 1986, 79 (two unspecified); Bowsher 1986, 259 (four unspecified); Marot 1998, 394, no. 50 (Antoninianus). 73  Bellinger 1938, 44, nos 105–06 (Antoniniani); Augé 1986, 79 (three unspecified); Bowsher 1986, 259 (one unspecified); Marot 1998, 394, nos 46–47 (Antoniniani). 74  Marot 1998, 394, nos 48–49 (Antoniniani). 75  Bellinger 1938, 44–45, nos 107–10 (Antoniniani); Augé 1986, 79 (three unspecified); Bowsher 1986, 259 (five unspecified); Marot 1998, 395, no. 51 (Antoninianus). 76  Bellinger 1938, 45, no. 111 (Antoninianus); Augé 1986, 79 (one unspecified); Bowsher 1986, 259 (three unspecified). 77  Bellinger 1938, 45–46, no. 112 (Antoninianus); Augé 1986, 79 (one unspecified). 78  Augé 1986, 79 (one unspecified); Bowsher 1986, 259 (one unspecified). 79  Augé 1986, 79 (two coins either of Probus or Carus); 1998, 243 (thirty-two coins between Trajan and Commodus); Marot 1998, 395, no. 52 (Antoninianus).

Achim Lichtenberger and Rubina Raja

376 by silver coins, Antoniniani. In general, it needs to be emphasized that the number of Roman imperial coins found in Gerasa is remarkably low.80 To contextualize this number, it is useful to look at some selected publications of Late Roman find coins from Gerasa with coins in the time between Diocletian and before Anastasius I (ad 491–518). These roughly cover the same amount of time, namely two centuries: Alfred R. Bellinger, in the 1938 publication of the Joint Expedition, lists 256 coins from this time span; Christian Augé, in the 1986 publication of the French excavations in the Temple of Zeus, has 259 coins; Julian M. C. Bowsher lists 316 coins from the excavations in the North Theatre;81 and Teresa Marot, in her 1998 publication of the coins from the macellum, lists 1136 coins. The total amounts to 1967 coins, which is nearly twenty times the number of Roman imperial coins from before Diocletian. Also, the small number of coins minted by provincial authorities from the second and third centuries ad that were found in Gerasa do not amount to a significant modification of the general picture of a small proportion of Roman coins in Gerasa (Table 12.4). The coins of the first-century ad Roman procurators of Judaea are listed below in Table 12.5. Table 12.4. Roman provincial coins of the second and third centuries ad found in Gerasa. Provincial coins from Alexandria

8

Trajan (ad 98–117)

582

Elagabalus (ad 218–22)

183

Alexander Severus (ad 222–35)

184

Gallienus (ad 253–68)

185

Syro-Phoenician tetradrachms

3

Caracalla (ad 211–17)

1 (Tyre)86

Macrinus (ad 217–18)

1 (Hierapolis)87

Elagabalus (ad 218–22)

1 (Antiochia)88

80  81  82  83  84  85  86  87  88 

But see the even lower number in Beirut, Nurpetlian 2016, 214. Bowsher 1986, 260. Bellinger 1938, 35–36, nos 67–71 (five coins). Marot 1998, 392, no. 35. Marot 1998, 393, no. 40. Marot 1998, 393, no. 43. Bellinger 1938, 24, no. 17. Bellinger 1938, 34–35, no. 65. Bellinger 1938, 33, no. 55.

Table 12.5. Late first-century bc to first-century ad non-civic find coins from Gerasa. Nabateans

32

Obodas III (39–30 bc)

289

Aretas IV (9 bc–ad 40)

1590

Malichos II (ad 40–70)

291

Rabbel II (ad 71–106)

792

Unspecified Nabatean

693

Herodians

6

Herod Archelaos (4 bc–ad 6)

394

Herod Agrippa (ad 37–44)

395

Procurators of Judaea

6

Coponius (ad 6–9)

196

Valerius Gratus (ad 15–26)

297

Pontius Pilatus (ad 26–36)

198

Antonius Felix (ad 52–59)

299

First Jewish Revolt (ad 66–70)

3100

Roman administration of Judaea under Domitian

1101

Total

48

89   Bowsher

1986, 257 (one coin); Kehrberg-Ostrasz and Manley 2019, 59 and 242 (one coin). 90  Bellinger 1938, 37–38, nos 77–78; Augé 1986, 79 (seven coins); Bowsher 1986, 257 (two coins); Marot 1998, 388–89, nos 3–5; Kehrberg-Ostrasz and Manley 2019, 242 (one coin). 91  Augé 1986, 79 (two coins). 92  Bellinger 1938, 38, no. 79; Kirkbride 1947, 4 (one coin); Augé 1986, 79 (one coin); Bowsher 1986, 257 (one coin); Marot 1998, 389, nos 6–8; Lichtenberger, Raja, and Sørensen 2014, 96, no. J12-1. 93  Augé 1986, 79 (six unspecified). 94  Bowsher 1986, 257 (one coin); Olavarri Goicoechea 1986, 45, nos 4–5 (two coins). 95  Bellinger 1938, 21, no. 5; Marot 1998, 390, no. 13 and one coin from the Danish-German Jerash Northwest Quarter Project ( J16-Wcd-19-3). 96  Bellinger 1938, 21, no. 7. 97  Augé 1986, 79 (one coin); Marot 1998, 390, no. 12. 98  Augé 1986, 79 (one coin). 99  Augé 1986, 79 (one coin); Olavarri Goicoechea 1986, 45, no. 6 (one coin). 100  Augé 1986, 79 (three coins). 101   Bellinger 1938, 21, no.  8. On this group of coins, cf. Meshorer 2001, 192–93.

12. Roman City Coins of Gerasa

377

Coinage of the First Century ad From the discussion above, it is obvious that pre-Trajanic imperial coinage is in fact absent from the published archaeo­logical record in Gerasa. Therefore, we need to look at other currencies from this period, in addition to the civic bronzes above, of which some belong to the first century ad. This group relates to coins minted by the Nabatean and Herodian kings, some of them stretching back into the first century bc, and to the Roman procurators of Judaea (Table 12.5). For a contextualization, other Hellenistic coins, including Hasmonean coins are listed in the appendix below. Since there are uncertainties about the attribution of Nabatean coins to kings, we have to rely on the numismatists who identified the coins, since these coins usually are not depicted in the respective publications. The table of the coinage from the late first-century bc to the first-century ad non-civic coins found in Gerasa shows that pre-Trajanic small change was provided almost exclusively from the Nabatean realm (Fig. 12.13), suggesting a strong Nabatean economic (and political?) influence on Gerasa before the creation of the Provincia Arabia. But this coinage was not exclusive. Herodian coins and coinage of the Roman administration in western Palestine was also circulating, underlining Gerasa’s connections with neighbouring regions. The coins from the First Jewish Revolt are rare in the Decapolis102 and possibly attest to the ambiguous position of Gerasa during the revolt.

The Zeus Temple Hoard In 1998, a Roman coin hoard was found on the upper terrace of the Sanctuary of Zeus in Gerasa. This coin hoard remains unpublished, but Augé wrote a short report about this important discovery, providing basic information about its content.103 In total, it contained 155 coins, all, with the exception of two (silver) denarii, bronze coins. The other coins were two Hellenistic coins, thirty-two Roman imperial coins, twelve provincial city coins, and 107 coins of Gerasa. The latest coins

102  No such First Jewish Revolt coins were found and published e.g. in Pella (Sheedy, Carson, and Walmsley 2001) or Gadara (Noeske 2013). One coin is attested from Hippos (Berman 2009, 157, no. 12) and eight from Scythopolis (Shivtiel, Zissu, and Eshel 2010, 80–81 and 85). In general, coins of the First Jewish Revolt are rare in Transjordan. See Deutsch 2017, 177 and 186. 103  Augé 1998.

Figure 12.13. Bronze coin of King Rabbel II (ad 70–106) with Rabbel and Gamilath on obverse and cornucopiae on reverse (find coin from the Danish-German Jerash Northwest Quarter Project, J12-Af-19-17).

stem from the reign of Septimius Severus. Although Augé gave little detail about the coins, it is clear that the majority of the coins stems from the period between Trajan and Septimius Severus, and it seems that the hoard reflects the typical currency pattern of Gerasa with the majority of coins being local bronze coins as well as some from neighbouring cities104 and imperial coins mostly of bronze with only very few silver coins. A final publication of the hoard will certainly give a more detailed and differentiated understanding of its composition and might also have an impact on our general understanding of coin circulation in Roman Gerasa.

Conclusions The starting point of this contribution was the investigation of distribution patterns of Roman-period civic coins of Gerasa. We looked, on the one hand, at where these coins were found, and on the other hand, at which other city coins circulated in Gerasa. It became clear that the bronze coins of Gerasa were minted mainly for local circulation and also — with some exceptions — did not travel far beyond the territory of Gerasa. The period of minting — between Nero and Elagabalus — coincided with the peak in urban development in Gerasa, where numerous public monuments were constructed from the Trajanic period onwards.105 Considering that Gerasa has been the subject of intense archaeo­logical research for more than a century, the total number of coins of Gerasa from the Roman period is surprisingly low. Therefore, we also looked at possible currencies other than the civic bronzes, 104  The proportion of city coins other than those from Gerasa in Table 12.2 (above) is higher than in the hoard. This is partly due to the fact that the hoard was sealed by the reign of Septimius Severus, while in Table 12.2 coins from after Elagabalus (with whom Gerasa stopped minting) are also taken into account, and therefore a substantial number of post-Severan coins from Antiochia, Tyre, Caesarea Maritima, Aelia Capitolina, Neapolis, Bostra, and Philippopolis are included in Table 12.2, distorting the picture. 105  Kraeling 1938.

378 but it turned out that there were also relatively few preDiocletian imperial coins and other currencies from the same period. Compared to the subsequent two centuries, the number of Roman coins is only small in relation to the Late Roman material. It can be estimated that the first three centuries ad yielded approx. 1:5 of the number of coins compared to the subsequent two centuries. Until now, the find coins have only been studied thoroughly in a few of the cities of the region. In general, the evidence is quite similar from these places. Both Pella (ratio approx. 1:6)106 and Gadara (approx. 1:5)107 have similar proportions of Roman vs. Late Roman and Byzantine coins. At Scythopolis (approx. 1:2) 108 the ratio is much more balanced. Also in Beirut, Late Roman coins are more frequent than earlier coins, but the ratio is more balanced than in Gerasa.109 In Caesarea Maritima (approx. 1:6), the ratio is comparable to Gerasa.110 This underlines that Gerasa is not unique in this strong bias towards Late Roman find coins. There are several possible explanations for this situation: a. Overestimated significance?

Might the low number of Roman coins from Gerasa be explained through a modern overestimation of the city’s significance in the Roman period? This explanation can probably easily be dismissed since the large-scale building programme of the Roman period clearly attests to a wealthy city and not to a poor settlement.111 However, it should be considered that the large number of Late Roman coins indeed attests to this period as being a peak period of the city with an upswing in population and economic activities. b. Distortion of research?

Another explanation that can probably be dismissed as well is that we are facing a research bias. Although it is clear that more structures and layers from the later periods have been excavated than structures

106 

Sheedy, Carson, and Walmsley 2001; Evans 2006, 12, 26, and 63–70. 107  Noeske 2013. 108  Evans 2006, 12 and 26. 109  See e.g. Butcher 2001–02 with a ratio of approx. 1:4, and Nurpetlian 2016, 214 with a ratio of 1:2. 110  Evans 2006, 12, 26, and 63–70. 111   On methodo­ l ogical problems of concluding from numismatic data to economic history, cf. Butcher 2001–02, 116–17.

Achim Lichtenberger and Rubina Raja from the Hellenistic and Roman periods, nevertheless enough Roman strata and monuments have been uncovered that coins from these periods should also have turned up in large numbers if they were there. c. Loss of earlier coins through recycling?

Also unlikely as an explanation for the low number of Roman coins compared to Late Roman coins is the suggestion that the earlier coins were melted and reminted with later types. Although this definitely happened,112 it does not explain why in sealed Roman layers, too, far fewer coins are found than in later layers. Again, also from these strata contemporary currency should be available, and we could expect appropriate numbers of Roman coins. d. Smaller (and later) coins more easily get lost than larger (and earlier) coins?

It has been postulated that smaller coins are more easily lost than larger coins and smaller denominations are less precious and therefore less searched for.113 Since Roman coins usually have a larger diameter than Late Roman coins, this observation can be part of an explanation for the general picture. However, since Hellenistic coins, e.g. the coins from the Nabateans and the Herodians, also have much smaller diameters than for example a Roman sestertius, we would have to assume that they, too, should occur in larger numbers than they in fact do. But their numbers are much smaller than the Late Roman coins. In this case, however, it needs to be taken into account that Hellenistic strata have hardly been excavated and cannot be compared to Roman and Late Roman ones, so that a different coin-loss pattern indeed might be a reasonable explanation for the proportions of Late Roman vs. Roman coins. But again, this situation cannot explain the proportions completely, so that another explanation must be taken into account. e. Low monetarized economy?

In view of the significant discrepancy between Roman and Late Roman coins and in view of much higher 112  Regarding Beirut, cf. Butcher 2001–02, 96, and in general, cf. Syon 2015, 36; Chameroy and Guihard 2016. 113  Regarding Pella, cf. e.g. Sheedy, Carson, and Walmsley 2001, 5, and in general, cf. Syon 2015, 36–37; Peter 2016, 100–01.

12. Roman City Coins of Gerasa numbers of Roman find coins from other areas in the Roman Empire (especially from the West), it should be considered that the economy of the Roman city of Gerasa was less monetarized than other Roman cities and less monetarized than Late Roman Gerasa. The same would apply also to the other cities mentioned above which share a similar ratio of Roman vs. Late Roman find coins. This of course would imply that other modes of exchange were in place, of which, however, we only have little evidence.114 To sum up, no mono-causal explanation is sufficient to explain the picture of the coin evidence with very high numbers in the Late Roman period and significantly low numbers in the Roman period. It remains a conundrum why the architecturally prosperous Roman city yielded so few coins, and only publication of more find coins from the city and from the region will make it possible to shed more light on this.

379

Appendix: Hellenistic Find Coins in Gerasa In the following, Hellenistic find coins from Gerasa are listed. It needs to be mentioned that the attribution to specific rulers sometimes is difficult. In the following, we follow the identification made by the numismatists who published the coins, knowing that there could be also posthumous coins among the coins assigned to e.g. Ptolemaios I. Also the attribution of Hasmonean coins to specific rulers is still subject to debate. Table 12.6. Hellenistic find coins from Gerasa. Ptolemies Ptolemaios I (305–286 bc) Ptolemaios II (285–246 bc) Ptolemies, unspecified Seleucids Demetrius I (162–150 bc) Antiochos VII (138–129 bc) Demetrius III (95–88 bc) Antiochos XII (87–82 bc) Hasmoneans John Hyrcanus (135–104 bc) Alexander Jannaeus (103–176 bc) Civic Arados Tyre Akko Hellenistic, unspecified Total 115 

Bowsher 1986, 257 (one coin). Bellinger 1938, 23, no. 12. 117  Augé 1986, 79 (one coin); Marot 1998, 388, nos 1–2. 118  Kehrberg-Ostrasz and Manley 2019, 242 (one coin). 119  Bellinger 1938, 22, no. 11. 120  Bellinger 1938, 34, no. 64. 121  Olavarri Goicoechea 1986, 45, no. 1. 122  Bellinger 1938, 21, nos 1–4. 123  Augé 1986, 79 (one coin); Bowsher 1986, 257 (one coin); Olavarri Goicoechea 1986, 45, no. 3 (one coin); Marot 1998, 389, nos 9–11 (three coins). 124  Bellinger 1938, 22, no. 9 (second century bc). 125  Bellinger 1938, 23, nos 13–14 (second century bc and first century bc/ad) (two coins) and one coin from the Danish-German Jerash Northwest Quarter Project ( J13-Ed-8-3). 126  Bellinger 1938, 24–25, nos 20–21 (second century bc) (two coins); Olavarri Goicoechea 1986, 45, no. 2. 127  Augé 1986, 79 (eleven unspecified coins), Augé 1998, 243 (two unspecified coins). 116 

114 

For at least some evidence, see Syon 2015, 32–33.

5 1115 1116 3117 4 1118 1119 1120 1121 10 4122 6123 7 1124 3125 3126 13127 39

380

Achim Lichtenberger and Rubina Raja

Works Cited Ariel, D. T. and J.-P. Fontanille. 2012. The Coins of Herod: A Modern Analysis and Die Classification (Leiden: Brill). Augé, C. 1986. ‘Rapport preliminaire sur les monnaies’, in F. Zayadine (ed.), Jerash Archaeo­logical Project, i: 1981–1983 (Amman: Department of Antiquities of Jordan), pp. 77–82. ——  1998. ‘De Nouvelles monnaies de Gérasa ( Jérash, Jordanie)’, Bulletin de la Société Française de Numismatique, 19: 242–45. Baldoni, D. 2018. ‘A Byzantine Thermopolium on the Main Colonnaded Street in Gerasa’, in A. Lichtenberger and R. Raja (eds), The Archaeo­logy and History of Jerash: 110 Years of Excavations, Jerash Papers, 1 (Turnhout: Brepols), pp. 15–37. Ball, W. and others. 1986. ‘The North Decumanus and North Tetrapylon at Jerash: An Archaeo­logical and Architectural Report’, in F. Zayadine (ed.), Jerash Archaeo­logical Project, i: 1981–1983 (Amman: Department of Antiquities of Jordan), pp. 351–409. Barkay, R. 2003. The Coinage of Nysa-Scythopolis (Beth Shean) ( Jerusalem: The Israel Numismatic Society). Bellinger, A. R. 1938. ‘Coins from Jerash, 1928–1934’, Numismatic Notes and Mono­graphs, 81: 1–141. ——  1949. The Excavations at Dura-Europos: Final Report, vi: The Coins (New Haven: Yale Uni­ver­sity Press). Berman, A. 2009. ‘Coins Catalogue’, in A. Segal and others (eds), Hippos-Sussita: Tenth Season of Excavations ( July and September 2009) (Haifa: Zinman Institute of Archaeo­logy), pp. 157–72. Bitti, M.  C. 1986. ‘The Area of the Temple Stairway’, in F.  Zayadine (ed.), Jerash Archaeo­logical Project, i: 1981–1983 (Amman: Department of Antiquities of Jordan), pp. 189–92. Blanke, L. 2015. ‘Washing the Masses, Washing the Self: An Architectural Study of the Central Bathhouse in Gerasa’, Syria, 92: 85–103. Bowsher, J.  M.  C. 1986. ‘The Coins’, in F.  Zayadine (ed.), Jerash Archaeo­logical Project, i: 1981–1983 (Amman: Department of Antiquities of Jordan), pp. 253–62. Butcher, K. 2001–02. Small Change in Ancient Beirut: Coins from BEY 006 and 045, Berytus, 45–46 (Beirut: American Uni­ver­sity of Beirut). ——  2004. Coinage in Roman Syria: Northern Syria, 64 bc – ad 253 (London: Royal Numismatic Society). Butcher, K. and B.  Woytek. 2018. ‘The Grand Scheme of Things: Modelling Coin Production and Coin Distribution in the Roman Empire in the First and Second Centuries ad’, in B. Woytek (ed.), Infrastructure and Distribution in Ancient Economies: Proceedings of a Conference Held at the Austrian Academy of Sciences, 28–31 October 2014 (Vienna: Austrian Academy of Sciences), pp. 253–81. Chameroy, J. and P.-M. Guihard (eds). 2016. Produktion und Recyceln von Münzen in der Spätantike (Mainz: Verlag des RömischGermanischen Zentralmuseums). Clark, V. and J. Bowsher. 1986. ‘A Note on the Soundings in the Northwestern Quarter of Jerash’, in F. Zayadine (ed.), Jerash Archaeo­ logical Project, i: 1981–1983 (Amman: Department of Antiquities of Jordan), pp. 343–49. Dahmen, K. and A. Lichtenberger. 2004. ‘Pellene, nicht Pella. Ein Korrekturnachtrag’, Boreas, 27: 161–64. Deutsch R. 2017. Jewish Coinage during the First Revolt against Rome 66–73 ce ( Jerusalem: Archaeo­logical Center Publications). Evans, J.  D. 2006. The Coins and the Hellenistic, Roman and Byzantine Economy of Palestine, The Joint Expedition to Caesarea Maritima, 6 (Boston: The American Schools of Oriental Research). Fisher, C. S. and C. C. McCown. 1929. ‘Jerash-Gerasa 1930: A Preliminary Report of the First Two Campaigns of the Joint Expedition of Yale Uni­ver­sity and the American Schools of Oriental Research’, Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research, 11: 1–59. Howgego, C., V. Heuchert, and A. Burnett (eds). 2005. Coinage and Identity in the Roman Provinces (Oxford: Oxford Uni­ver­sity Press). Kehrberg-Ostrasz, I. and J. Manley. 2019. The Jarash City Walls Project: Excavations 2001–2003: Final Report (Sydney: The Uni­ver­ sity of Sydney, Fisher Library: Repository Library). Kirkbride, A. S. 1947. ‘Some Rare Coins from Transjordan’, Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, 106: 4–9. Klimowsky, E. W. 1974. ‘The Monetary Function of City Coins’, in E. W. Klimowsky, On Ancient Palestinian and Other Coins: Their Symbolism and Metro­logy (Tel Aviv: Israel Numismatic Society), pp. 113–63. Kogan-Zehavi, E., G. Bijovsky, and Y. Nagar. 2012. ‘Tombs and Installations from the Iron Age II to the Byzantine Period from South Ḥorbat Tittora’, ‘Atiqot, 72: 13–92 (Hebrew). Kraeling, C.  H. (ed.). 1938. Gerasa, City of the Decapolis: An Account Embodying the Record of a Joint Excavation Conducted by Yale Uni­ver­sity and the British School of Archaeo­logy in Jerusalem (1928–1930), and Yale Uni­ver­sity and the American Schools of Oriental Research (New Haven: American Schools of Oriental Research). Lichtenberger, A. 2003. Kulte und Kultur der Dekapolis: Untersuchungen zu numismatischen, archäo­logischen und epi­graphischen Zeugnissen (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz). ——  2008. ‘Artemis and Zeus Olympios in Roman Gerasa and Seleucid Religious Policy’, in T. Kaizer (ed.), The Variety of Local Religious Life in the Near East in the Hellenistic and Roman Periods (Leiden: Brill), pp. 133–53. ——  2018. ‘The First Jewish Revolt as Reflected on the City Coins of the Southern Levant’, Israel Numismatic Research, 13: 121–38.

12. Roman City Coins of Gerasa

381

Lichtenberger, A., R. Raja, and A. H. Sørensen. 2014. ‘The Danish-German Jarash Northwest Quarter Project 2013: Preliminary Registration Report’, Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan, 58: 39–103. Marot, T. 1998. Las monedas del macellum de Gerasa (Ŷaraš, Jordania): aproximación a la circulación monetaria en la provincia de Arabia (Madrid: Museo Casa de la Moneda). Meshorer, Y. 1989. ‘The Coins’, in Masada, i: The Yigael Yadin Excavations 1963–1965: Final Report ( Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society), pp. 71–132. ——  2001. A Treasury of Jewish Coins: From the Persian Period to Bar Kokhba ( Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi). Noeske, H.-C. 2013. ‘Die Fundmünzen’, in A. Hoffmann and C. Bührig (eds), Forschungen in Gadara/Umm Qays von 1987 bis 2000 (Rahden: Leidorf ), pp. 135–52. Nollé, J., B. Overbeck, and P. Weiss (eds). 1997. Internationales Kolloquium zur kaiserzeitlichen Münzprägung Kleinasiens: 27.-30. April 1994 in der Staatlichen Münzsammlung, München (Milan: Edizioni ennerre). Nurpetlian, J. 2016. ‘The Coin Finds from the Roman Theater of Beirut’, Levant, 55: 213–27. Olavarri Goicoechea, E. 1986. Excavaciones en el Agora de Gerasa en 1983 (Madrid: Ministerio de Cultura). Peter, M. 2016. ‘Zum spätrömischen Kleingeldumlauf anhand kontextualisierter Einzelfunde’, in J. Chameroy and P.-M. Guihard (eds), Produktion und Recyceln von Münzen in der Spätantike (Mainz: Verlag des Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums), pp. 97–103. Prieur, M. and K. Prieur. 2000. A Type Corpus of the Syro-Phoenician Tetradrachms and their Fractions from 57 bc to ad 253 (Lancaster: Classical Numismatic Group). Reece, R. 1979. ‘Zur Auswertung und Interpretation römischer Fundmünzen aus Siedlungen’, in M. R. Alföldi (ed.), Studien zu den Fundmünzen der Antike, i (Berlin: Mann), pp. 175–95. Rigsby K. J. 2000. ‘A Suppliant at Gerasa’, Phoenix, 54: 99–106. Seigne, J. 2018. ‘Pourquoi Hadrien a-t-il passé l’hiver de 129/30 à Gerasa ?’, in A. Lichtenberger and R. Raja (eds), The Archaeo­logy and History of Jerash: 110 Years of Excavations, Jerash Papers, 1 (Turnhout: Brepols), pp. 207–14. Sheedy, K., R. Carson, and A. Walmsley. 2001. Pella in Jordan, 1979–1990: The Coins (Sydney: Adapa). Shivtiel, Y., B. Zissu, and H. Eshel. 2010. ‘The Distribution of Coins of the Jewish War against Rome in Galilee and Phoenicia’, Israel Numismatic Journal, 17: 77–87. Spijkerman, A. 1975. ‘A List of the Coins of Gerasa Decapoleos’, Liber Annuus, 25: 73–84. ——  1978. The Coins of the Decapolis and Provincia Arabia ( Jerusalem: Studium Biblicum Franciscanum). Spijkerman, A. and J. Starcky. 1958. ‘Un nouveau lot de monnaies palestiniennes’, Revue Biblique, 65: 568–84. Syon, D. 2001. ‘The Coins from Migdal’, ‘Atiqot, 42: 33*–6* (Hebrew). ——  2015. Small Change in Hellenistic-Roman Galilee: The Evidence from Numismatic Site Finds as a Tool for Historical Reconstruction ( Jerusalem: The Israel Numismatic Society). Walmsley, A. 2006. Islamic Jarash Project 2006 [accessed 3 February 2019]. Watson, P. 1986. ‘Area B: The Cardo – Decumanus Corner: A Report on Seven Centuries of Occupation’, in F. Zayadine (ed.), Jerash Archaeo­logical Project, i: 1981–1983 (Amman: Department of Antiquities of Jordan), pp. 359–67. Welles, C. B. 1938. ‘The Inscriptions’, in C. H. Kraeling (ed.), Gerasa, City of the Decapolis: An Account Embodying the Record of a Joint Excavation Conducted by Yale Uni­ver­sity and the British School of Archaeo­logy in Jerusalem (1928–1930), and Yale Uni­ver­sity and the American Schools of Oriental Research (New Haven: American Schools of Oriental Research), pp. 355–494.

Index Page numbers in italics refer to images, maps, graphs, and tables

Topography Abila: 3, 56, 57, 63 n. 105, 64, 65, 78, 79, 81–83, 90–93, 94, 99, 102, 256, 261, 273, 325, 326, 327, 328, 330, 331, 332, 333, 334 see also Quwaylibah/Quailibah Abu Mina: 193 Adraa: 373 Aelia Capitolina: 301, 372, 377 n. 104 see also Jerusalem Aila: 242, 243, 245, 246, 247, 250, 255, 256, 261, 266, 268, 269, 270, 273, 276, 333 Akko: 94, 102, 175, 178, 224, 225, 230, 261, 270, 379 al-Birah: 198, 255 Alexandria: 193, 214, 376 al-Lajjūn: 185, 201, 209, 221, 250, 256, 261, 266, 269 al-Qabu: 315, 317, 318, 319 al-Shami: 62 nn. 90 and 94, 98 Amathus: 208, 213 Amman: 7 n. 4, 71, 102, 119, 121, 122, 169, 175, 181 n. 36, 224, 242, 250, 256, 269, 273, 276, 333, 351, 352, 353, 354, 358 see also Philadelphia Anatolia: 175, 201, 204 Antioch/Antioche/Antiochia: 73, 80, 134, 180, 347 n. 28, 373, 376, 377 n. 104 Antioch/Antiochia on the Chrysorrhoas: 1 n. 1, 7, 302, 373 n. 49 see also Gerasa; Jerash Aqaba: 173, 175, 198, 201, 208, 209, 214, 221, 222, 230, 231, 242, 243, 245, 246, 247, 250, 255, 256, 261, 266, 268, 269, 270, 273, 276, 333 Arabian Peninsula: 58, 333 Arbel: 75 n. 395, 76 n. 420, 105, 185, 250, 256, 261 Arqub Rumi: 315, 316, 317 Ascalon/Ashkelon: 175, 182, 184, 185, 188, 194, 198, 214, 215, 217, 218, 219, 221, 224, 227, 229, 232, 245, 250, 255, 256, 261, 266, 268, 269, 270, 273, 276, 327

Ashdod: 175, 223, 224, 225, 229, 241, 256, 266, 269, 270, 273 Ashkelon: 175, 182, 184, 185, 188, 194, 198, 214, 215, 217, 218, 219, 221, 224, 227, 229, 232, 245, 250, 255, 256, 261, 266, 268, 269, 270, 273, 276 Asia Minor: 77 n. 451, 92, 104, 105, 175, 181, 208, 209, 218, 306, 307, 320, 333, 373 Baalbek: 3, 13 badia/badiyah: 339, 346, 347, 361, 362 Barsinia: 201, 250, 256, 273 Baysan/Baysān: 56, 59, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 72, 94, 100, 101, 102, 347 n. 32 see also Beth She’an; Scythopolis Be’er Sheva: 194, 232, 250, 256, 259, 261, 266, 270, 270, 273, 273, 275, 276, 278 Beirut: 59, 75, 76 n. 425, 79, 85, 91, 94, 101, 105, 175, 214, 215, 229, 232, 244, 245, 247, 373 n. 49, 376 n. 80, 378 Beit Ras: 62, 98 see also Capitolias Benghazi: 104, 222 Berenice: 73, 208, 209 Berytos: 373 Bet Zayit: 197, 255 Beth She’an: 185, 198, 214, 215 n. 395, 217, 218, 224, 230, 250, 255, 256, 262, 268, 269, 270, 273, 276 see also Baysan/Baysān; Scythopolis Bethany: 185, 213, 224, 236, 250, 256, 262, 266, 267, 269, 270, 273 Bethlehem: 185, 250, 262 Bir el-Qutt: 224 Black Sea, region: 75, 79, 80, 101, 175, 214, 245 Boṣrā/Bostra: 56, 57, 60, 61, 62, 69, 73, 78, 79, 81, 82, 83, 85, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 97, 98, 103, 133, 182, 192, 221, 229, 250, 255, 256, 262, 266, 269, 271, 276, 313, 320, 333, 345, 346, 347, 351, 354–60, 362, 373, 373, 377 n. 104

Caesarea/Caesarea Maritima: 56–59, 66 n. 193, 73–75, 78, 79, 80, 81–83, 85, 89, 90–93, 94, 101–04, 175, 182, 185, 194, 198, 209, 213–15, 217, 218, 220, 221, 224, 229–32, 241, 243, 245, 246, 250, 255, 256, 262, 266–69, 271, 273, 277, 320, 333, 372, 373, 377, 378 see also Kaysariyya Canatha: 56, 57, 59, 60, 61 n. 73, 80, 84, 89, 90–93, 97, 372 see also Qanawat Capercotani: 301 see also Kfar ‘Othnay Capernaum: 57, 63 n. 123, 64 n. 126, 65, 182, 185, 198, 214, 215, 217, 221, 224, 232, 242, 243, 244–47, 251, 255, 256, 262, 266, 268, 269, 271, 274, 277, 315 n. 12, 321 n. 38 Capitolias: 56, 57, 62, 78, 79, 81–83, 89, 90–93, 98, 102 see also Beit Ras Cartagena: 236 Carthage: 175, 182, 188, 192, 193, 208, 229 Chersonesos: 219, 229 Cilicia: 63 n. 123, 79, 92, 99, 208, 213, 245 Cyprus: 63 n. 123, 67, 74, 76, 77 n. 451, 78, 79, 84, 91, 92, 99, 100, 101, 103, 105, 175, 201, 204, 208, 245, 246, 306, 307 n. 28, 333 n. 71 Damascus: 56, 57, 59, 78, 79, 81–83, 85, 90–93, 97, 175, 313, 326, 333 Decapolis: 2–4, 7, 8, 32, 58, 60, 63, 64, 70, 97, 157, 182, 230, 313, 320, 321, 325, 326, 328, 333, 369, 370, 371, 372, 373, 377 Deir ‘Ain ‘Abata: 182, 185, 201, 209, 215, 218, 219, 221, 229, 242, 242, 251, 256, 262, 266, 268, 271, 277 Deir Aziz: 66, 100 Dhībān Plateau survey site: 192 Dibon: 185, 213, 242, 251, 257, 267, 274, 277 Dibsi Faraj: 214, 215

384 Dora: 56–58, 73, 75, 76 n. 420, 78, 79, 80, 81–83, 90–93, 103 see also Tel Dor Dura Europos: 371, 372 Edessa: 373 Egypt/Egypte: 69, 70, 74 n. 386, 77, 79, 103, 105, 129, 134, 175, 208, 222, 227, 236, 333 El Kursi: 224, 230, 235, 251, 257, 262, 269, 274, 276 Eleutheropolis: 372 En Gedi: 221, 251, 257, 269, 271, 274 En-Boqeq: 188, 221, 242, 251, 257, 262, 269, 271, 277 es-Safi: 185, 257, 262 Feifa: 185, 242, 251, 277 Foca: 64, 198 see also Phokaia Gadara: 3, 13 n. 19, 32, 56, 57, 63, 64 nn. 127 and 137, 69, 78, 79, 81–83, 85, 90–93, 98, 102, 169, 182, 185, 194, 197, 201, 221, 229, 244–46, 251, 257, 262, 269, 271, 274, 304 n. 12, 306 nn. 24–25, 313, 315, 315, 317, 320, 321, 325, 328, 330, 331, 332, 332, 333, 334, 370, 372, 377 n. 102, 378 see also Umm Qays/Umm Qais Galilee, lake: 13, 14, 99 Galilee, region: 63, 66 n. 179, 72, 98, 100, 102, 122, 244, 251, 257, 262, 315 n. 12, 317, 320, 321, 334, 352, 372 Gan Yavne: 229, 271 Gaza: 102, 134, 175, 225, 227, 229, 232, 271, 372 Gerasa: 1–3, 7, 8, 9, 11 n. 17, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20, 24, 26 n. 43, 28, 30–33, 35, 39, 40, 43, 46–48, 55, 56, 58, 60, 61, 64–71, 73, 77, 86, 88, 89 n. 471, 92, 94, 96, 98–104, 119, 120, 123, 129, 145, 146 n. 4, 157, 168–70, 173–76, 176, 178, 181, 182, 184, 185, 188, 193, 197, 201, 204, 209, 213–15, 218, 219, 221, 224, 229, 231, 235, 236, 238–43, 244–46, 251, 255, 257, 262, 266–69, 271, 274, 277, 302, 320, 325, 329, 331–34, 369–71, 372–74, 373, 374, 375, 376, 377, 378, 379 see also Jerash Gharandal: 230, 242, 251, 274, 277 Giv’at Mahat: 188, 251, 257, 262, 274, 277 Giv’ati junction: 225, 229, 247, 269, 271 Golan, region: 63, 65, 66, 99, 100, 317, 321, 346, 352 Greece: 67, 74 Gush Ḥalav: 182, 204, 252, 257, 262 Haifa: 73, 198, 218, 224, 232, 250, 255, 256, 261, 262, 266, 268, 270, 273 Hasmonean Kingdom: 326

Index Hauran, region: 3, 59, 60, 63 n. 122, 99, 129, 130, 132–34, 141, 339, 344–46, 357, 359, 363 Herodium: 185, 225, 252, 257, 269, 274, 277 Hippos/Hippos-Sussita: 56, 57, 63, 65, 66, 78, 79, 81–83, 85, 90–93, 94, 99, 100, 182, 184, 185, 214, 224, 246, 252, 257, 263, 268, 269, 271, 274, 277, 315 n. 12, 372, 377 n. 102 Ḥorbat ‘Illin: 232, 252, 257, 271, 274, 277 Ḥorbat Be’er Shema’: 188, 198, 252, 255, 257, 263, 266, 271, 274, 277 Ḥorbat Gelilot: 232, 271, 274 Ḥorbat Ma’on: 198, 221 Ḥorbat Paṭṭish: 225, 232, 269, 271, 274 Ḥorbat Qastra: 182, 185, 198, 215, 218, 220, 221, 224, 246, 252, 255, 257, 263, 266, 268, 269, 271, 274 Ḥorvat ‘Eitayim: 225 Ḥorvat ‘Uẓa: 225, 230 Ḥorvat Ḥermeshit: 232, 252, 258, 263, 274, 277 Ḥorvat Luzit: 224 Ḥorvat Masref: 225 Ḥumayma/Ḥumeyma: 173, 182, 209, 221, 231, 236, 242, 242, 245, 246 n. 639, 252, 258, 263, 267, 269, 274, 277 Huqoq: 184, 252, 258, 263, 274 Ibn Hani: 214, 215 Idumaea: 372 India: 58, 209, 230 Iraq el-Amir: 185, 256 Isauria: 208 Islamic Empire: 326 Israel: 57, 73, 175, 185, 188, 370 Italy: 74 n. 386, 76, 78, 98, 99, 103–05, 307, 320 Jabal al-Druze: 59 Jabal Hārūn: 230, 242, 252, 258, 263, 269, 271, 277 Jalame: 182, 185, 194, 204, 221, 225, 232, 242, 243, 245, 252, 258, 263, 267–69, 271, 274 Jerash: 1, 10 n. 16, 13, 15, 20, 21, 55, 69 n. 263, 119, 121–23, 129, 130, 131–34, 146, 148, 157, 159 n. 23, 166, 167, 167–70, 180, 198, 301 n. 5, 304 n. 12, 305, 307–10, 320, 325, 328 n. 40, 329, 340, 345, 346, 347, 349, 351–54, 354, 355–57, 358, 362, 363 Artemision: 46, 48 basilica: 29, 47, 308 baths: 24, 26, 29, 209, 239, 266, 271, 305 n. 21, 315 n. 12 Cardo/Cardo Maximus: 27, 173, 175, 181, 182, 201, 209, 251, 257 Cave Filling: 302, 305–08, 310 city walls: 20, 26, 29, 33, 35, 47 hamlet, Northwest Quarter Middle Islamic: 10 n. 15

Hill-top Cistern: 302, 305–08, 310 macellum: 3, 20 n. 36, 26, 133, 146, 160 n. 28, 173, 174, 175, 176, 178, 178, 179, 180, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 194, 195, 197, 200, 201, 202, 204, 205, 206, 208, 209, 210, 211, 213, 213, 214, 215, 216, 219, 220, 221, 223, 224, 224, 225, 226, 227, 229, 230, 231, 231, 232, 235, 236, 236, 241, 242, 243, 244, 245–47, 248, 249, 251, 255, 257, 262, 266–69, 271, 274, 277, 376 main streets: 3, 10 n. 14, 26, 27, 28, 46–48 North Decumanus: 28, 28, 173, 182, 201, 251, 257 North Theatre: 315 Northwest Quarter: 21, 24, 28, 29, 31–36, 38, 39, 45, 47, 48, 77, 85, 96, 181, 182, 184, 185, 188, 198, 201, 204, 240, 244 n. 615, 251, 255, 257, 262, 266, 301, 302–08, 310 Nymphaion: 26, 27, 47 Oval Piazza: 47, 175 Propylaeum: 13 n. 22, 25, 30, 197, 231 Sanctuary of Artemis: 13 n. 22, 19, 21 n. 38, 26 n. 43, 29, 30, 251, 257, 262, 274 Sanctuary of Zeus Olympios/sanctuaire de Zeus: 8, 10 n. 15, 13 n. 22, 21 n. 38, 26, 28–30, 47, 48, 209, 240, 244, 257, 266, 274, 317, 377 side streets: 28, 47 south slope: 33, 34, 35 South Tetrapylon: 13 n. 22, 175 Synagogue-Church: 31 Temple of Artemis: 24, 178, 181, 201, 246 Temple of Zeus: 25, 48, 181, 194, 215, 374, 376 see also Cardo/Cardo Maximus; Gerasa; Sanctuary of Artemis; Sanctuary of Zeus Olympios/sanctuaire de Zeus; Temple of Artemis; Temple of Zeus Jericho: 224, 252, 258, 269, 274 Jerusalem: 15, 19, 20, 61 n. 66, 63 n. 122, 77, 99, 101, 102, 132, 134, 175, 178 n. 25, 182, 184, 185, 197, 198, 213, 214, 220, 221, 224, 244, 246, 252–55, 258, 260, 263, 265, 267–69, 272–74, 276–78, 301, 310, 374 Jezreel, valley: 69 see also Tel Jezreel Jordan/Jordanie: 3, 7, 57, 62, 63, 119, 122, 132–34, 146, 173, 175, 180, 182, 185, 188, 192, 194, 201, 208, 209, 214, 218, 219, 221, 224, 229, 231, 242, 245, 247, 313, 320, 321, 325, 327 n. 26, 334, 339, 344, 345, 347, 363, 370 Jordan, valley: 68–70, 173, 313, 326, 333 Judea/Judaea: 72, 73, 75 n. 415, 100, 102, 104, 326, 372, 376, 376, 377

Index Kafr ‘Ana: 221, 224, 236, 253, 258, 263, 267, 269, 272, 274, 277 Kafr Samir: 198, 275 Kanisat er-Rawat: 185, 253, 258, 263 Kaysariyya: 74 see also Caesarea/Caesarea Maritima Kefar Hananya: 66, 99, 264, 275, 277, 231, 330 n. 58, 350 Kefar Sirkin: 232, 258, 275 Kfar ‘Othnay: 301 see also Capercotani Khirbat ‘Asfura: 224, 369 Khirbat ‘Azzun: 230 Khirbat al-Karak: 188, 194, 208, 220, 221, 253, 258, 264, 268, 269, 275, 277 Khirbat al-Manṣur el-‘Aqab: 215, 253, 267 268, 272, 275 Khirbat al-Masarrat: 201, 258 Khirbat al-Mukhayyat: 185, 229, 242, 253, 258, 272, 275, 277 Khirbat al-Wad’ah: 198, 255 Khirbat Baraqa: 225, 229, 272, 275 Khirbat Beit Kufa: 224, 232, 258, 269, 272, 275 Khirbat Burin: 221, 232, 258, 269, 275 Khirbat edh-Dharih: 242, 277 Khirbat el-Baṭiya: 224, 269, 275 Khirbat el-Jiljil: 185, 253, 258, 264, 272, 275, 277 Khirbat el-Ni’ana: 232, 272, 275, 277 Khirbat el-Qaṣr: 185, 253, 258, 275 Khirbat es-Suyyagah: 194, 224, 231, 253, 258, 264, 267, 269, 272, 275, 277 Khirbat Ibreiktas: 214, 268, 272 Khirbat Irza: 229, 272 Khirbat Makkūs: 229, 272 Khirbat Siyar al-Ghanam: 182, 220, 253, 259, 264, 268, 272, 275, 277 Khirbat Suyyagah: 221 Khirbet Tittora: 372 Khiṣaṣ: 185, 253 Khorazim: 221 Knidos: 74, 92 Kourion: 204, 222, 306 Lemnos: 74 Levant: 3, 55–57, 61, 73, 74, 79, 95, 97–104, 180, 182, 196, 199, 203, 204, 207, 212, 213, 213, 218–20, 222, 223, 228, 233, 234, 236, 237, 245, 246, 301, 304, 305–07, 310, 333, 369 Lycia: 84 Madaba: 121, 185, 192, 201, 221, 229, 242, 245, 253, 259, 269, 275, 277, 305 n. 21, 373 Magdala: 182, 253, 259, 264, 372 Makhtar Gharandal: 230, 272 Marseilles: 192, 193, 209 n. 331, 229, 236 Masada: 370, 372 Mefalsim: 229, 272 Megiddo: 301, 372 Meiron: 185, 220, 235, 253, 259, 264, 268, 275, 321, 352

385 Mesopotamia: 373 Mimlaḥ: 185, 253, 264 Moshav HaBonim: 232 Mt. Nebo: 185, 201, 209, 215, 224, 229, 235, 242, 253, 259, 264, 267, 277, 272, 275, 278, 305 n. 21 Nabeul: 105, 182, 184, 193, 197 n. 237 Nablus: 72 see also Neapolis Naḥal Bohu: 229, 272 Naḥal Hur Survey Site: 185, 253, 264 278 Naḥal Tanninim: 220, 259, 264, 268 Nazareth: 182, 208, 214, 253, 259, 264, 268, 272, 275 Neapolis/Flavia Neapolis: 56, 57, 72, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 85, 90–93, 102, 372, 373, 377 n. 104 see also Nablus Nesebar: 213 Nessana: 208, 229, 254, 260, 265, 267, 272, 275 Nevé Ur: 221, 224, 270 North Africa: 74, 76, 79, 92, 99, 101, 103, 104, 105, 173, 247, 334 Palestina/Palestine: 14, 129, 134, 182, 185, 188, 193, 204, 208, 209, 213, 221, 224, 225, 229–31, 242, 247, 321, 333, 370, 377 see also Palestinian Territories Palestinian Territories: 57, 72, 73 see also Palestine Paphos: 175, 208, 209 Parthia: 62, 98 Pella: 56, 57, 65, 68–70, 77, 78, 79, 81–83, 85, 90–93, 99, 101, 102, 119, 122, 134 n. 22, 192, 194, 201, 209, 214, 215, 217, 219, 221, 223, 224, 227, 229, 235, 236, 242, 244 n. 613, 245, 247, 254, 260, 265, 267, 268, 270, 272, 275, 278, 315 n. 12, 321 n. 35, 333, 353, 370, 372, 377 n. 102, 378 Peloponnesus: 373 Perge: 204, 373 Petra/Pétra: 62, 131, 132, 170, 180, 182, 184, 185, 209, 230, 245, 254, 260, 265, 267, 304, 305, 347 Philadelphia: 56, 57, 69, 71, 78, 79, 81–83, 90–93, 102, 120, 169, 170, 333, 371, 372, 373 see also Amman Philippopolis: 56, 57, 59, 60, 80, 84, 89, 90–93, 97, 373, 377 n. 104 see also Shahbā Phoenicia: 74, 100, 373 Phokaia: 64, 84, 330 see also Foca Pisidia: 204, 213 Plotinopolis: 373 Provincia Arabia: 47, 60, 71, 209, 371, 373, 377

Qanawat: 60 see also Canatha Qaṣr Qā’as-Su’aydiyyīn: 242, 278 Qaṣr Umm Rattām: 182, 254 Qiryat Ata: 224, 254, 260, 265, 270 Quwaylibah/Quailibah: 64 see also Abila Rabbathmoba: 373 Ramat Raḥel: 185, 235, 236, 254, 260, 265, 272, 275, 278 Ramla: 188, 221, 224, 232, 242, 254, 260, 265, 267, 270, 272, 276, 278 Ramot Nof: 232, 254, 260, 265, 267, 273, 276 Ras Abu Ma’aruf: 182, 185, 254, 260, 265, 267, 273, 276, 278 Ras al-Bassit: 67–69, 71, 72, 74, 76, 92, 100, 101, 103, 105, 214, 215 Reḥovot-in-the-Negev: 221, 235, 243, 254, 260, 265, 267, 270, 273, 276 Rhodes: 101, 146, 160 n. 27, 164, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 178, 214, 320 Samaria: 57, 58, 64, 73, 78, 79, 81–83, 85, 90–93, 98, 103, 182, 194, 254, 260, 265, 276, 278, 372 see also Sebaste Ṣarafond el-Kharab: 232, 260, 273, 276 Scythopolis: 56, 57, 59, 62, 66–70, 78, 79, 81–83, 85, 90–93, 94, 100, 101, 102, 328, 333, 334, 370, 371, 372, 377, 378 see also Baysan/Baysān; Beth She’an Sebaste: 56, 73, 208, 254, 260, 265, 276, 278 see also Samaria Seeia: 60, 61, 97 see Sī’/Si’a Sepphoris: 66, 67, 75 n. 396, 90, 100, 184, 185, 215, 221, 246, 254, 260, 265, 267, 268, 270, 273, 276, 278, 372 Shahbā: 59 see also Philippopolis Shavei Zion: 198, 254, 255, 260, 265, 267, 273, 276 Shikhin: 66, 100 Sī’/Si’a: 60, 97, 98, 346, 350, 351, 354–360 see Seeia Sicily: 62, 98, 208, 307 n. 27 Sidi Marzouk Tounsi: 182, 193 Silat adh-Dhahr: 372 Sinope: 175, 208, 209, 214, 268 Suf: 13, 15 Syria: 20 n. 32, 57–59, 101, 182, 208, 215, 229, 245, 313, 320, 326, 333, 339, 346, 347, 354, 357, 360, 362, 363, 370, 372, 373 Tabariyya/Tabariyyah: 58, 67 see also Tiberias Tall al-Kharrār: 201, 260, 278 Tall Zar’ā: 188, 192, 201, 242, 254, 260, 265

386 Tel Dor: 73, 267, 276 see also Dora Tel Dover: 372 see also Hippos/Hippos-Sussita Tel Ḥashash: 221, 224, 260, 265, 270, 273, 276, 278 Tel Jezreel: 185, 221, 254, 260, 265, 267, 268, 270, 273, 276, 278 Tell Keisan: 63 n. 123, 209, 215, 221, 235, 241, 243, 254, 260, 266, 267, 270, 273, 276 Tell Shiqmona: 188, 198, 213, 218, 232, 241, 245, 246, 254, 255, 261, 266, 267, 268, 273, 276, 278 Tiberias, lake: 63 n. 122, 65, 69, 72, 313, 333, 334 Tiberias: 56–58, 66, 67, 78, 79, 81–83, 90–93, 100, 101, 185, 194, 221, 254, 261, 266, 270, 276, 372 see also Tabariyyah, Tunisia: 62 n. 82, 74, 85, 101, 175, 182, 184, 192, 193, 197, 245 Turkey: 64, 74, 78, 91, 94, 103, 219, 334 Tyre: 175, 369, 373, 373, 374, 376, 377 n. 104, 379 Umm al-Raṣāṣ: 188, 201, 209, 242, 254, 261, 266, 267, 276, 278 Umm el-Jimal: 3, 57 n. 11, 325 n. 4, 328, n. 40, 339, 340, 340, 341, 343–49, 351, 353, 356, 357, 359–63 Commodus Gate Area: 339, 340, 342, 343, 344, 345, 345, 347, 348, 349, 350, 353, 363 Umm el-Quttein: 339, 346, 353, 361 Umm el-Walid: 223, 224 Umm es-Surab: 347 n. 29, 361 Umm Qays/Umm Qais: 3, 32, 63, 313, 315, 315, 325 see also Gadara Uyūn Mūsā: 229, 231, 276 Wādī al/el-Arab: 173, 272 Wādī el-Yabis: 173, 255, 261 Wādī Feynan: 198, 209, 255, 261, 266, 267, 273 Yarmuk/Yarmouk, river: 313, 325 Yassi Ada: 105, 204, 213, 225, Yavneh-Yam: 221, 255, 261, 266, 270, 276, 278 Yotvata: 221, 255, 270 Zeugma: 214, 215 Zur Natan: 224, 270, 273, 276

Index

Individuals

Periods

Alexander Severus: 249, 375, 376 Alexander the Great: 8, 370 Antiochos IV: 8, 145, 168, 169 Antoninus Pius: 249, 375 Antonius Felix: 376

Abbasid: 57, 62, 67, 70, 71, 77, 98, 100, 184, 229, 326, 333 Antonine: 46, 48 Archaic: 306, 307 Ayyubid: 341

Caracalla: 370, 376 Commodus: 197, 370, 370, 375

Byzantine (BYZ): 1, 11, 48, 56–62, 64, 65 n. 162, 66–68, 70–77, 80, 84–86, 89, 93, 94–100, 102–04, 119, 123, 133, 134, 145, 146, 168, 230, 246, 247, 301, 305, 306, 310 n. 39, 317, 320, 326, 328, 329, 331, 339 n. 1, 345 n. 13, 353, 353, 354, 360

Diocletian: 376, 378 Domitian: 181, 197, 376 Elagabalus: 370, 371, 373, 375, 376, 377 Eusebius: 325, 333 Gallienus: 375, 375, 376 Hadrian: 7 n. 1, 47, 48, 369, 370, 371, 375 Heraclius: 241, 249 Herod: 73, 301 Justinian: 215, 249 Kraeling, Carl Hermann: 8, 11, 13 n. 23, 15, 19 n. 28, 20, 28, 30, 31, 35, 146 Marcus Aurelius: 370, 375 Perdiccas: 8, 145 Polybios: 326 Pompey the Great: 57, 326 Rabbel II: 361, 376, 377 Schumacher, Gottlieb: 13, 15, 18, 24, 326 Seetzen, Ulrich Jasper: 12, 13, 326 Septimus Severus: 370, 370, 375, 377 Stinespring, William Franklin: 13, 15, 19 n. 28, 20 Trajan: 120, 135, 170, 375, 375, 376, 377

Classical: 7, 68, 101, 307 Early Byzantine (EBYZ): 302, 339, 339 n. 1, 346, 347, 349, 351, 351, 352, 352, 353, 355, 355, 356, 356, 358, 359, 359, 362 Early Imperial: 63, 73, 84, 100, 325 Early Islamic: 1, 2, 7, 24 n. 41, 33, 48, 55, 57, 59, 60, 64, 73, 75, 84, 86, 86, 99, 230, 235, 301, 305, 345 Early Roman (ER): 31, 32, 34, 39, 45, 48, 66, 105, 175, 178, 247, 317, 328, 331, 339, 346, 352, 361, 362 Early Umayyad: 309 First Jewish Revolt: 369, 370, 376, 377 see also Jewish War; Second Jewish War fourth Syrian War: 326 Hadrianic: 46–48 Hellenistic: 1–3, 8, 13, 15, 24, 26 n. 44, 30, 31, 39, 65, 73, 175, 178, 327, 328, 331 Herodian: 76 Imperial: 3, 46, 56, 308, 369, 374 Iron Age: 313 Islamic: 48, 64, 67, 74, 327 n. 26 Jewish War: 301, 374 see also First Jewish Revolt; Second Jewish War Late Antique: 62, 227, 246 Late Byzantine (LBYZ): 178, 184, 235, 236, 241, 242, 245, 326, 331, 339 n. 1, 340, 341, 346, 348, 356, 358 Late Hellenistic: 3, 8, 24, 26, 30, 31, 33, 48, 66, 80, 84, 85, 99, 100 Late Roman (LR): 11, 30 n. 59, 31, 32, 33, 48, 66, 100, 235, 302, 306, 317, 326, 329, 339 n. 1, 343, 349, 350, 351, 352, 352, 354, 355, 356, 357, 357, 358, 355, 358, 369, 379 Late Severan: 369 Late Umayyad: 68

Index Mamluk: 317, 341 Middle Islamic: 1, 10, 11 n. 16, 38, 48 Nabatean (NAB): 339, 343, 346, 347, 350, 352, 356, 357, 360, 361, 359, 362, 377 Neolithic: 7 pre-Islamic: 69 pre-Roman: 8 Roman: 1, 2, 3, 4, 13, 20, 24, 28, 30, 31, 32, 33, 36, 38, 39, 46, 48, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 62, 66, 67, 68, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 76, 80, 84, 86, 89, 94, 96, 98, 99, 100, 101, 301, 308, 310, 317, 321, 339, 345, 347, 350, 354, 354, 356, 359, 361, 362, 369, 374, 377–79 Second Jewish War: 48 see also First Jewish Revolt; Jewish War Severan: 370 Trajanic: 46, 47, 48, 377 Umayyad: 11, 56, 57, 61, 62, 65–70, 72, 74 n. 391, 75, 77, 85, 89, 93, 94, 98–102, 103, 105, 176, 184, 229, 236, 247, 308, 317, 320, 341, 360

387

General African ‘Black-Top’ Ware (ABTW): 173, 248, 255 African Red Slip/Ware (ARSW/ARS): 32, 57, 59, 61, 63–65, 68, 69, 71–74, 76, 80, 81, 82, 84, 85, 89, 90, 97–105, 123, 129, 130, 133, 173 nn. 1 and 6, 176, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189–91, 192, 193, 194, 196, 197, 201, 204, 240, 244–47, 248–55, 269, 318, 320, 330, 331, 333, 346, 347 n.24 amphorae: 3, 30, 56, 57, 59, 62, 64–80, 84, 85, 88–94, 97–105, 134, 148, 173, 175, 178, 179, 192, 195, 197, 198, 199, 208, 209, 213–18, 220–25, 229–32, 236, 238–40, 243, 244–47, 248, 249, 255, 268, 317, 318, 320, 321, 328, 331–33, 344 Arab/Islamic conquests: 68, 70, 85, 221, 229, 241, 247 see also Islamization archaeometry: 95, 97, 327, 61, 63, 65, 74, 76 architecture: 20 n. 36, 38, 55, 59, 95, 326, 339, 363 basins: 34, 35, 43, 59, 62, 65, 66, 67, 69, 70, 75, 92, 97–102, 104, 317, 319, 320, 330, 331, 344 baths: 20, 23, 26, 29, 60, 180, 209, 239, 266, 271, 315 n. 12 see also Jerash baths bones: 48, 224, 302 bowls: 32, 56, 59, 60, 62, 65 n. 155, 69, 70, 72, 74, 77, 88, 90, 97, 98, 100–03, 181, 182, 184, 188, 193, 204, 221, 223, 241, 245, 248, 249, 316, 317, 318, 319, 320, 328–31, 333, 334, 344, 346, 348, 353, 356–58 see also kraters; Jerash Bowl Brown-slipped white-painted ware: 317, 318, 320, 321 buff to pink ware: 64, 317, 317, 318, 320, 321 Byzantine-period Red Wares: 56 Campanian Pompeian Red Ware: 69, 76, 101, see Pompeian Red Ware casseroles: 65, 72, 102, 104, 197, 316, 317, 319, 320, 321, 329, 331, 354–57 ceramics: 1–4, 8 n. 9, 10 n. 16, 20 n. 36, 29 n. 52, 31, 33, 76, 86, 193, 301, 303, 325–27, 330, 332–34, 339, 343, 344, 347, 348 churches: 11, 13 n. 22, 15, 19, 20, 29, 31, 62, 197, 209, 214, 221, 225, 230, 301, 326, 342, 351, 352 cisterns: 24 n. 42, 33–35, 43, 44, 45–47, 48, 76, 209, 214, 215, 217, 222, 240, 302, 305–10, 356 Coarse Ware: 86, 88, 88, 327, 332, 346 Coinage: 62 n. 94, 369, 370, 373, 377

Competing Ware: 329–31 cooking wares/pots/vessels: 31, 41, 42, 46, 59–61, 63, 64, 65 nn. 166–67, 66, 67, 69–76, 88, 88, 90, 92, 97–105, 329, 331–33, 339, 344, 346–48, 350, 351–55, 362 Coptic Painted Ware: 68, 69, 71, 90, 101, 104 Cypriot Red Slip Ware (CRSW): 57, 59, 61, 64, 65, 67–70, 71–74, 76, 80, 81, 84, 85, 89, 90, 97–104, 173 n. 1, 318, 320 see also Late Roman D Danish-German Jerash Northwest Quarter Project: 1–4, 8, 10, 13, 15, 21, 23–28, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36–47, 56, 302, 303, 305, 307, 309, 371, 372 nn. 12, 23, and 25, 373, 375, 376 n. 95, 377, 379 dishes: 64, 73, 74, 92, 99, 103, 105, 182, 185, 192, 195, 238, 320 n. 28 dwellings: 29, 308 see also houses earthquake(s): 10 n. 14, 33, 48, 204, 208, 215, 224, 247, 305, 308, 326 of ad 659/60: 176, 229, 232, 247, 249 of ad 749: 8, 11, 57, 65, 86, 176 Egyptian Red Slip/Ware (ERSW, ERS): 57, 67–69, 71, 72, 74, 85, 89, 90, 99–104, 173 n. 1, 175, 193, 194, 197, 221, 222, 222, 223, 244, 245, 247, 250–55, 259, 269, 270 Ephesian Grey Ware: 77, 90 figurines: 69, 75, 103 Fine Byzantine Ware (FBW): 57, 67, 69, 75, 77, 90, 100, 101, 104, 173 n. 1, 175, 221, 236, 237, 241, 244, 248, 249, 276–78 Galilean Bowls: 102, 245, 330, 331, 334 glass: 20 n. 33, 30, 60, 72, 84, 85, 97, 178, 302, 320 Golan Ware: 346 Green Ware: 86 Greyware (also Grey Ware): 61, 62, 66, 67, 69, 75, 77, 86, 90, 92, 98, 99, 101, 104, 319, 320, 344 Hauran Ware: 60, 63 n. 122, 90, 97, 346–50, 352–56, 358–60, 362, 363 Hellenistic coins: 30, 377, 378 see also coinage houses: 15, 18, 33 n. 73, 86, 100, 173 n. 7, 194, 230, 305 n. 21, 309, 339–50, 352–56, 357, 361–63 see also dwellings inscription: 7 n. 1, 15 n. 23, 37, 48, 160 n. 25, 164, 166, 169, 170 n. 55, 181, 209, 304, 308, 325, 361, 374

388 Islamic Cream Ware (ICW): 57, 62, 66, 67, 69, 70, 74, 75, 92, 98–101, 103, 104 Islamization: 175 see also Arab/Islamic conquests jars: 63, 209 n. 351, 369, 370, 354 Jerash Bowl ( JB): 31, 60, 85, 86, 90, 123, 173 n. 1, 178, 221, 244, 245, 248, 249, 329, 330, 331, 333 Jerash Lamp/Gerasa Lamp: 69 n. 263, 73, 74, 104, 123, 330, 331 Jerash Terracotta: 328 n. 40, 346–50, 352–56, 358, 362, 363 see also Terracotta jugs: 59–61, 63, 64, 66, 72–74, 97, 101, 102–04, 262, 270, 316, 317, 317, 320, 344, 346, 348, 355, 355, 356 Kefar Hananya Ware: 63, 66, 67, 69, 71, 72, 74, 75, 92, 98–103, 329 kilns: 61, 64, 65, 68, 94, 99, 101, 175, 201, 204, 208, 209, 225, 227, 228, 229, 230, 232, 233, 234, 247, 270–75, 310, 320, 345, 347 see also spacers; wasters kitchen vessels/ware: 69, 74, 98, 103, 316, 317, 319, 320, 321 Knidian Relief Ware: 77, 90 kraters: 100, 101, 348, 356 see also bowls lamp(s): 56, 59, 60, 62–70, 72–77, 85, 90, 92, 97–105, 119, 122, 123, 128, 134, 193, 246, 250, 253, 320, 328, 330, 331, 333, 339 n. 2, 344 Late Roman C (LRC): 57, 59, 61, 64, 65, 67–69, 71–74, 76, 80, 81, 83, 84, 85, 89, 90, 98–105, 173 n. 1, 175, 194 n. 219, 198, 200, 201, 202, 203, 208, 215, 229, 240, 244–47, 248, 256–61, 330, 331, 333 see also Phocaean Red Slip Ware Late Roman D (LRD): 57, 59, 61, 65, 67–69, 71–74, 76, 77, 80, 81–83, 84, 85, 89, 90, 97–104, 173 n. 175, 176, 201, 204, 205–07, 208, 215, 244–47, 248, 261–66 see also Cypriot Red Slip Ware Late Roman Red Ware (LRRW): 57, 62, 72, 77, 80, 98, 99, 101, 102 Levantine Ceramics Project: 95 lids: 60, 72, 97, 99, 229, 328, 329, 355 limestone: 31, 32, 32, 34–36, 37, 38, 38, 75, 104, 317, 346 Mamluk Ware: 86 metal: 30, 123, 369 monuments: 13, 15, 19–21, 47, 48, 369, 377, 378 monumentalization: 46–48 mortar: 34, 35, 43, 209, 231, 301, 307, 308 n. 31, 309

Index mortaria: 59, 68, 69, 71, 72, 74, 76, 92, 97, 100, 101, 103, 105, 178, 180, 181, 195, 197, 249, 255, 330, 331, 331, 333 n. 71, 338 mosaics: 13, 15, 16, 17, 19, 20 n. 33, 24 n. 40, 29, 221, 225, 230, 246, 309 mosques: 173 n. 7, 301, 305 n. 21 see also churches Nabataean Coarse Ware: 346 see also Nabataean Painted Ware; Nabatean Fine Ware Nabatean Fine Ware: 346, 347, 350, 360 see also Nabatean Coarse Ware; Nabatean Painted Ware Nabataean Painted Ware: 60, 62, 65, 72, 90, 98, 102 see also Nabataean Coarse Ware; Nabatean Fine Ware pans: 64 n. 148, 67, 71, 72, 74, 76, 92, 100–02, 105, 329 Phocaean Red Slip Ware (PRSW): 57, 59, 84, 90, 198, 318, 320 see also Late Roman C pilgrim’s flask: 69, 101 pithoi: 65, 67 n. 228, 76, 92, 97, 99 Plain-Ware (also Plain Ware): 62, 86, 87, 88, 98 plates: 32, 60, 65 n. 155, 73, 97, 100, 102, 185, 192, 193, 316, 317, 328–31 Pompeian Red Ware: 65, 69, 73, 76, 99, 103, 105 see also Campanian Pompeian Red Ware pottery manufacture/production: 56, 58, 61, 62, 64, 65, 67, 68, 70–72, 94, 95, 100, 173 n. 1, 175, 184, 201, 309, 320, 344, 363 see also workshops quarry: 24 n. 42, 33, 34 see also limestone quartz: 72, 121, 214, 319, 320, 328–31, 346 Red-on-Cream Ware: 68, 92, 100 ritual: 41, 45, 302 Roman city coins: 3, 369 see also coinage; Roman Imperial coins; Roman Provincial coins Roman Imperial coins: 374, 375–77 see also coinage; Roman city coins; Roman Provincial coins Roman provincial coins: 369, 370, 371, 376 see also coinage; Roman city coins; Roman Imperial coins roof tiles: 3, 61, 63, 98, 99, 301–10 imbrices: 61, 63, 97, 301, 303, 306–08, 310 pantile: 301, 303–05, 308 tegulae: 61, 63, 301–08, 310

Sagalassos Red Slip Ware (SRSW): 57, 77 sculpture: 24 n. 42, 38, 43 shipwrecks: 74, 76 n. 420, 77, 103, 204, 218, 224, 225, 230, 246, 247, 268, 270, 273, 274 Sigillata: 32, 57, 63–65, 68, 71–73, 77, 80, 84, 85, 89, 90, 98–100, 102, 103, 173 n. 1, 179, 181, 247, 248, 317, 320 n. 28, 330, 331, 346, 347, 350, 361, 362 Southern Hauran Survey: 339 n. 2, 346, 347 n. 29, 359, 361 spacers: 62, 67, 98, 100 see also kilns; wasters stamps 3, 30, 61, 64, 65 n. 159, 77, 81–83, 97, 99, 104, 121, 123, 129, 130, 131, 146, 160 n. 27, 168–70, 173 n. 6, 178, 181, 184, 185, 192, 193, 201, 213, 238, 248, 250, 251, 254, 256, 259, 265, 301, 333 storage vessels: 60, 69, 97, 317, 317, 318, 320, 326, 328, 329, 331–33, 360 strainers: 60, 97 survey: 20, 29, 31, 38, 56, 57 n. 11, 65 n. 158, 72, 74, 85, 173, 175, 185, 192, 198, 251, 255, 257, 261, 262, 266, 278, 313, 314, 315, 315, 317, 320, 325–27, 330, 332, 333, 339, 346, 347 n. 29, 359, 361 Syro-Phoenician tetradrachms: 369, 376 see also coinage tableware: 69, 71, 72, 77, 80, 85, 88, 88, 89, 90, 94, 100, 102, 104, 173, 175, 178, 180–82, 184, 198, 201, 221, 224, 245, 246, 317, 326, 328, 330, 333, 339, 344, 346, 348, 355 terracotta: 73, 75, 328 n. 40, 346–49, 350 n. 33, 352–58, 362 see also Jerash Terracotta tesserae: 20, 309 Thin-Walled Ware: 77, 105 tombs/tombes: 30, 33 n. 75, 59, 64, 65 nn. 154 and 161, 73, 120–23, 125, 129, 137, 169 n. 54, 170, 181, 185, 197, 214, 225, 238, 326 trade routes: 320, 325, 333 tubuli: 61, 63, 310 urban development: 2–4, 8 n. 10, 24 n. 41, 46, 59, 377 wasters: 61–64, 67, 68, 72, 75 n. 401, 94, 97–102, 104, 204, 317, 320, 343 see also kilns; spacers workshops: 66–69, 75 n. 395, 84, 94, 97, 99–101, 103, 181, 182, 184, 185, 188, 192, 193, 197, 198, 201, 204, 208, 214, 215, 225, 229–32, 236, 245–47, 301, 309, 310, 317, 320, 321, 330 see also pottery manufacture/production

Jerash Papers All volumes in this series are evaluated by an Editorial Board, strictly on academic grounds, based on reports prepared by referees who have been commissioned by virtue of their specialism in the appropriate field. The Board ensures that the screening is done independently and without conflicts of interest. The definitive texts supplied by authors are also subject to review by the Board before being approved for publication. Further, the volumes are copyedited to conform to the publisher’s stylebook and to the best international academic standards in the field.

Titles in Series The Archaeology and History of Jerash: 110 Years of Excavations, ed. by Achim Lichten­berger and Rubina Raja (2018) Middle Islamic Jerash (9th Century–15th Century): Archaeology and History of an Ayyubid-Mamluk Settlement, ed. by Achim Lichtenberger and Rubina Raja (2018) Byzantine and Umayyad Jerash Reconsidered: Transitions, Transformations, Continuities, ed. by Achim Lichtenberger and Rubina Raja (2019)

In Preparation Environmental Studies, Remote Sensing, and Modelling: Final Publications from the Danish-German Jerash Northwest Quarter Project I, ed. by Achim Lichtenberger and Rubina Raja Metal Finds and Coins: Final Publications from the Danish-German Jerash Northwest Quarter Project II, ed. by Achim Lichtenberger and Rubina Raja Glass, Lamps, and Jerash Bowls: Final Publications from the Danish-German Jerash Northwest Quarter Project III, ed. by Achim Lichtenberger and Rubina Raja