North Tunisian Red Slip Ware: From Production Sites in the Salomonson Survey (1960-1972) (Babesch Supplementa) 9789042939868, 9789042939875, 9042939869

Citation preview

NORTH TUNISIAN RED SLIP WARE FROM PRODUCTION SITES IN THE SALOMONSON SURVEY (1960-1972) Carina Hasenzagl

PEETERS

NORTH TUNISIAN RED SLIP WARE FROM PRODUCTION SITES IN THE SALOMONSON SURVEY (1960-1972)

Dedicated to the memory of Jan Willem Salomonson (12 September 1925 – 5 March 2017)

B A B E S C H Annual Papers on Mediterranean Archaeology Supplement 37 — 2019

BABESCH FOUNDATION Stichting Bulletin Antieke Beschaving

NORTH TUNISIAN RED SLIP WARE FROM PRODUCTION SITES IN THE SALOMONSON SURVEY (1960-1972)

Carina Hasenzagl

PEETERS Leuven - Paris - Bristol, CT 2019

BABESCH Supplement Series edited by

G.J. van Wijngaarden

Photo on the cover: Selected ARS fragments of Salomonson’s collection, detail of clean breaks (photo Stefan Diesner)

All volumes published in the BABESCH Supplements are subject to anonymous academic peer revieuw.

© 2019 Peeters, Bondgenotenlaan 153, B-3000 Leuven All rights reserved, including the right to translate or reproduce this book or any part in any form. ISBN 978-90-429-3986-8 eISBN 978-90-429-3987-5 D/2019/0602/62

CONTENTS

PREFACE by R. Docter and V. Gassner

VII

1

Introduction

1

2

Present state of research 2.1 HISTORY OF RESEARCH 2.2 NORTH TUNISIAN ARS PRODUCTIONs 2.2.1 7KH,WDOLDQFODVVLÀFDWLRQRI1RUWK7XQLVLDQ$56 2.2.1.1 ARS A 2.2.1.2 ARS C/D 2.2.1.3 ARS D 2.2.1.4 ARS F 2.2.2 'LVFRXUVHRQWKH,WDOLDQFODVVLÀFDWLRQRI$56 2.2.3 2UJDQL]DWLRQDQGLQIUDVWUXFWXUHRI$56ZRUNVKRSV

3 3 7 7 7 9 9 11 11 13



0HWKRGRORJ\RIIDEULFFODVVLÀFDWLRQ



4

The 4.1. 4.2 4.3

Salomonson survey (1960 – 1972) THE ORIGIN AND SIGNIFICANCE OF THE SURVEY COLLECTION THE WHEREABOUTS OF THE SURVEY COLLECTION DOCUMENTATION SYSTEM OF SALOMONSON’S SURVEY FINDS

17 17 21 22

5

The North tunisian tableware from the Salomonson survey 5.1 BORDJ EL DJERBI 5.1.1 History of research 5.1.2 Vessel and decoration types 5.1.3 Typochronology 5.1.4 Fabrics 5.2 HENCHIR EL BIAR 5.2.1 History of research 5.2.2 Vessel and decoration types 5.2.3 Typochronology 5.2.4 Fabrics 5.3 OUDNA 5.3.1 History of research 5.3.2 Vessel and decoration types 5.3.3 Typochronology 5.3.4 Fabrics 5.4 PHERADI MAIUS 5.4.1 History of research 5.4.2 Vessel and decoration types 5.4.3 Typochronology 5.4.4 Fabrics 5.5 SIDI RHERIB

23 23 23 24 25 27 32 32 33 34 35 38 38 40 42 44 49 49 51 52 59 63

6

Concluding remarks

67

Abbreviations Appendix 1 Appendix 2 Bibliography Catalogue Plates Figure and table captions

76 77 82 87 93 108 141

Preface ,WLVDJUHDWSOHDVXUHWRZULWHDSUHIDFHWR&DULQD+DVHQ]DJO·VVWXG\RQWKH5HG6OLS:DUHIURPÀYH1RUWK Tunisian production sites surveyed by the late Jan Willem Salomonson between 1960 and 1972. The geographical coherence of the sites, Bordj el Djerbi, Henchir el Biar, Oudna, Pheradi Maius, and Sidi Rherib, merited a separate treatment and we are grateful to the editors of the BABESCH Supplementary Series for having accepted the manuscript of this young scholar, after an anonymous peer review procedure. 7KHVWRU\RIWKHVHVXUYH\ÀQGVVSDQVPRUHWKDQKDOIDFHQWXU\DQGKDVLQLWVHOIEHFRPHDFKDSWHULQ the history of the discipline. The material had been collected by Salomonson in the frame of his studies on African Red Slip ceramics1 during several survey campaigns in Tunisia and Algeria. During these \HDUVKHZDVÀUVWHPSOR\HGDWWKH1DWLRQDO0XVHXPRI$QWLTXLWLHVLQ/HLGHQ5025LMNVPXVHXPYDQ Oudheden; 1957-1964), then at the Dutch Institute at Rome (NIA – Nederlands Instituut te Rome; 19641968),2 DQG ÀQDOO\ DW WKH$UFKDHRORJLFDO 'HSDUWPHQW RI 8WUHFKW 8QLYHUVLW\ 88   :LWK DXWKRUL]DWLRQ RI WKH 7XQLVLDQ$QWLTXLWLHV 'HSDUWPHQW ,1$$  O·,QVWLWXW 1DWLRQDO G·$UFKpRORJLH HW d’Art), the collection was temporarily transferred to the NIA and later to UU to facilitate the study DQG SXEOLFDWLRQ 1RW RQO\ WKLV VXUYH\ PDWHULDO IRUPHG SDUW RI WKH WUDQVIHU RI ÀQGV IURP 7XQLVLD WR 8WUHFKWLWLQFOXGHGDOVRWKHÀQGVIURPKLVH[FDYDWLRQVRQWKHVLWHRI8]LWD 7KHLQWHQGHG WHPSRUDOLW\ RI WKLV WUDQVIHU RI ÀQGV SURYHG WR EHFRPH D PDWWHU RI ÁH[LEOH LQWHUSUHWDWLRQ DV WKH \HDUV SDVVHG6DORPRQVRQUHWLUHGDQGÀQDOO\HYHQWKH$UFKDHRORJLFDO,QVWLWXWHLQ8WUHFKWFORVHG,QWKHPHDQWLPHDQGTXLWHVDGO\DSDUWIURPDVKRUWVWXG\E\0DULDQQH6WHUQLQBABESCH 43 (1968),3 nothing had been published from this important collection. After the closure of the Archaeological Institute, the ARS survey and Uzita excavation material was put under the aegis of the University Museum at UU where it was taken care of by Mr. Joop Derksen, who combined his part time position at UU with a position as lecturer at the Archaeological Department of the University of Amsterdam (UvA - Universiteit van Amsterdam). In Utrecht, the material remained stored in the basement of the former Archaeological Institute, where one of us (RD) studied part of the ÀQGVIURP8]LWDVRPHZKHUHLQWKHODWH(LJKWLHVRUHDUO\1LQHWLHV,QWKHIROORZLQJ\HDUVDVWKLVVWRUDJH space had to be emptied, the University Museum decided to put the 124 wooden boxes and 14 carton ER[HVZLWKÀQGVLQDQRͿVLWHVWRUDJHIDFLOLW\DWWKHIRUPHUPLOLWDU\IRUW5LMQDXZHQDW%XQQLN$FFRUGLQJ to Salomonson (oral communication in 2009), both he and the University had in the meantime tried to HVWDEOLVKFRQWDFWZLWKWKH7XQLVLDQ$QWLTXLWLHV'HSDUWPHQWWKHQ,13,QVWLWXW1DWLRQDOGX3DWULPRLQH  with a view of repatriation, but apparently nothing had come out of this. When Derksen retired in 2003 in both Utrecht and Amsterdam, one of us (RD) was present at his farewell reception and raised the VXEMHFWRIWKH$56DQG8]LWDFROOHFWLRQV,WWXUQHGRXWWKDWWKHVWDͿRIWKH8QLYHUVLW\0XVHXPDW88 ZDVXUJHQWO\ORRNLQJWRÀQGDGHVWLQDWLRQIRUWKLV1RUWK$IULFDQFROOHFWLRQWKDWWKH\RQO\KHOGLQ¶WHPSRUDU\·FXVWRG\7KHXUJHQF\ZDVQRWRQO\PRWLYDWHGE\WKHUHWLUHPHQWRIWKHODVW¶FXVWRV·'HUNVHQ  but also by the presence of bats, a protected species in the Netherlands, that had found an ideal hibernation space in the vaults of the nineteenth-century fort at Rijnauwen. So, before the onset of winter, WKHÀQGVKDGWREHPRYHGRUZRXOGRWKHUZLVHKDYHUHPDLQHGLQDFFHVVLEOHIRUPDQ\PRQWKV2QWKH 19th of September 2003, one of us (RD) went with Derksen to Rijnauwen to transfer the collection in a minivan to the Archaeological Department of Ghent University, Belgium. With this transfer came also the archives of the Uzita excavations, but unfortunately no documentation on the ARS survey was found to exist. Between 2004 and 2006, the Tunisian authorities at the INP were approached several times by 5'WRKDYHDIRUPDODUUDQJHPHQWIRUVWXG\LQJWKHÀQGVDQGIRUUHSDWULDWLQJWKHÀQGVWKHUHDIWHUWKHVH UHTXHVWVZHUHXQIRUWXQDWHO\QHYHUDQVZHUHG7KHWUDQVIHUWR*KHQWZDVWKHQIRUPDOL]HGRQWKHth of October 2006 in an agreement with the University Museum of UU. In Ghent, the collection was stored in the basement of the Archaeological Department. Since then, the ARS survey collection has been visited and studied by several specialists: in 2004 by Manuel Flecker4 aQG LQ 1RYHPEHU  E\ 0LFKHO %RQLID\ -RKQ /XQG DQG -HURHQ 3REORPH ,Q YLHZ RI WKH VFLHQWLÀF

SRWHQWLDO RI WKH FROOHFWLRQ LW ZDV GHFLGHG LQ  WR KDYH WKH ÀQGV LQFOXGHG LQWR D SURMHFW RI LQWHU disciplinary studies on the provenance of ancient pottery which began at that time at the University of Vienna under the direction of one of us (VG) and in the following years lead to the formation of the FACEM database.5 In May 2009, Silvia Radbauer, a collaborator of the project in Vienna, visited the collection in Ghent to make a provisional inventory and take samples of a selection. $WWKDWRFFDVLRQWKHÀQGVZHUHUHRUJDQL]HGSXWLQQHZSODVWLFEDJVDQGWKHQLQQHZSODVWLFFUDWHV per site and, in January 2010, the whole survey collection was transported from Ghent to Vienna with the intention to organize the study of the material. Finally, in 2013 we also found the appropriate person for the study of this important material in the context of a master thesis and the ARS material collected by Salomonson was assigned to Carina Hasenzagl who studied the material under the supervision of VG from 2013 to 2015.6 The present volume is the outcome of this study and its inclusion in the BABESCH supplements Series is a worthy conclusion of a long-delayed study and publication trajectory. It is true that publication of the ARS material collected at the production sites visited by Salomonson would have been far more important in the Sixties and Seventies of the last century, but its full presentation and analysis according to the stringent FACEM methodology in 2018 is nevertheless a great advance to ARS studies and may RͿHUDVWLPXOXVIRUIXUWKHUUHVHDUFKLQWKHGRPDLQ In 2016, the Special Research Fund at Ghent University granted a PhD project to Carina Hasenzagl ¶0DGHLQ$IULFD3URGXFWLRQDQG&RQVXPSWLRQRI$IULFDQ5HG6OLS:DUHLQ/DWH$QWLTXLW\·  under our joint promotership. It entails the analysis of the remaining ARS production sites in Central Tunisia and Algeria that were surveyed by Salomonson. This part of the investigations having been concluded in the meantime, it is foreseen that all macropictures of the sampled fragments will be made accessible online within the FACEM platform. The PhD project takes the investigations a step further DQGFRPSDUHVWKH¶ÀQJHUSULQWV·RIWKH$56IDEULFVZLWKWKHVLPLODUO\DQDO\]HGVDPSOHVIURPVHOHFWHG central and western Mediterranean consumption sites. It is hoped to contribute in this way to the reconstruction of patterns in the trade of the ARS wares. It has always been the intention to have the collection returned to Tunisia and Algeria respectively. )RUWXQDWHO\DIWHUWKH-DVPLQ5HYROXWLRQWKDWVWDUWHGLQ7XQLVLDLQWKHFRXQWU\VDZDQHZpODQDOVR ZLWKLQWKHDGPLQLVWUDWLRQRIWKH$QWLTXLWLHV'HSDUWPHQWV,QWKHPDUJLQRIWKH/HLGHQH[KLELWLRQ¶&DUthago’ (2014-1015),7 one of us (RD) met with the then Director General of the INP, Prof. Nabil Kallala, ZKRH[SUHVVHGKLVYLYLGLQWHUHVWLQKDYLQJWKHFROOHFWLRQÀQDOO\EDFNLQ7XQLVLD:LWKWKHSXEOLFDWLRQRI WKLVYROXPHDWOHDVWSDUWRIWKHVFLHQWLÀFREOLJDWLRQWRZDUGVWKH7XQLVLDQSHRSOHDQGWKHLQWHUQDWLRQDO VFLHQWLÀFFRPPXQLW\KDVEHHQIXOÀOOHG,WLVKRSHGWKDWZLWKWKHUHSDWULDWLRQRIWKHFROOHFWLRQDOVRRXU obligation in bringing this periplousWRDQHQGZLOOEHÀQDOO\PHW Roald Docter (Ghent University) & Verena Gassner (University of Vienna) January 12th, 2018 1

Salomonson, J.W., 7HUUHQDYDVD5RPHLQVDDUGHZHUNDOVEURQYDQLQIRUPDWLHYRRUKLVWRULFXVHQDUFKHRORRJ5HGHJHKRXGHQELM de aanvaarding van het ambt van gewoon hoogleraar in de klassieke archeologie aan de rijksuniversiteit te Utrecht op 1 september 1969, Bussum 1969; Enlarged English version: Salomonson, J.W., Roman pottery: a source of information for historians and archaeologists, BABESCH 46, 1971, 173-192. 2 Cools, H./H. de Valk, ,QVWLWXWXP1HHUODQGLFXP0&0,900,9+RQGHUGMDDU1HGHUODQGV,QVWLWXXWWH5RPH, Hilversum, 106-107. 3  6WHUQ(01RWHDQDO\WLTXHVXUGHVWHVVRQVGHVLJLOOpHFODLUHUDPDVVpVj+HQFKLUHV6ULUDHW6LGL$wFKBABESCH 43, 1968, 146-154. 4 Flecker, M., (;2),&,1$1$9,*, – Die Werkstatt des Navigius in Henchir es Srira (Zentraltunesien), Kölner Jahrbuch 37, 2005, 107-244, esp. 157-158. 5 FACEM: Fabrics of the Central Mediterranean, see http: //facem.at/ 6 Hasenzagl, C., 1RUGWXQHVLVFKH7HUUD6LJLOODWD$XVZHUWXQJGHV6XUYH\PDWHULDOVDXVGHU.ROOHNWLRQ-DQ:LOOHP6DORPRQVRQ (Masterarbeit an der Universität Wien 2015). 7  'RFWHU55%RXVVRͿDUD37HU.HXUVHGV Carthago. Opkomst en Ondergang, Zutphen, 2014; Docter, R./R. Boussoffara/P. Ter Keurs (eds), Carthage. Fact and Myth, Leiden, 2015.

1 Introduction ‘Archaeologists, therefore, strive to learn, where the pottery was made, how it was made, and who it was made for.’1 (James M. Skibo) As the American anthropologist Skibo has already simply and aptly formulated, archaeologists seek to gain knowledge of the production and consumption of pottery. The author of this work is not excluded from this endeavor. More specifically, this book is primarily focused on the issues of where and how African red Slip Ware (hereafter ARS) was made in addition to centrally investigating the rather neglected topic of classification by fabric. The great potential and importance of African tableware in research is the result of its wide chronological and geographical distribution. ARS was produced from the 1st to the 7th century AD in the Roman provinces (Africa Proconsularis, Byzacena, Tripolitana (fig. 1), Numidia and Mauretania Caesariensis) of modern day Tunisia, Algeria and Libya and exported on a massive scale to the whole Mediterranean basin and beyond. Due to the variety and variation of vessel and decoration types during the long production period, ARS is considered a good chronological indicator and used for tracing and explaining supra-regional trade. The following pages are intended to present a comprehensive summary of the present state of research (Chapter 2). The introductory Chapters aim at the presentation of (new) questions, controversies and progress in research (Chapters 2.1 and 2.2) on African tableware. The traditional division of the ARS into several categories and the problems that come along with this classification are dealt with in detail (Chapter 2.2.1 and 2.2.2). All currently known North Tunisian production sites (Chapter 2.2.1), the difficulties of localizing workshops as well as the organization and infrastructure of potteries are also discussed (Chapter 2.2.3). The main aspect of this book is the documentation of the North Tunisian tableware collected by the Dutch archaeologist J.W. Salomonson during several survey campaigns in Tunisia and Algeria in the 1960s and 1970s (Chapter 4). This analysis includes ARS from the production sites of Bordj el Djerbi (Chapter 5.1), Henchir el Biar (Chapter 5.2), Oudna (Chapter 5.3), Pheradi Maius (Chapter 5.4) and Sidi Rherib (Chapter 5.5). The repertoire of forms and stamps as well as their chronological sequence and a quantitative evaluation of the

samples of each workshop are presented. The key concept of this study is standardized fabric description, an archaeological method to classify pottery according to the microscopic features of the sherd defined by the source and treatment of clay as well as the temperature and atmosphere during firing. The development and execution of the method will be explained in an introductory section (Chapter 3). By applying standardized fabric description to the North Tunisian samples of Salomonson’s survey, there is an ability to gain new insight on the production and the production centers of North Tunisian tableware (Chapter 6) and will therefore open new lines of research into the (Late) Roman economy.2 Not only can it bridge the gap between conventional archaeological methods and archaeometry but also help to answer the most essential questions we are all striving for - namely how and where ARS was made and for whom it was produced.

1

N Utica Carthage

Bulla Regia Thagaste Thuburbo Maius

A F R IC A PROCONSULARIS Hadrumetum

Mactar

Kairouan

Thysdrus Kasserine Thelepte

Sufetula

Sidi Bouzid

Thaenae

BYZACENA NUMIDIA

TRIPOLITANA 0

50

100 km

Fig. 1. Main area of production of African tableware (illustration Hasenzagl).

2

2 Present state of research African tableware has been of great interest for researchers for many decades, the result being a large number of studies on the topic. In order to get a better understanding of African Red Slip Ware and subsequent questions and controversies of today’s research, it is necessary to examine its beginnings within scientific studies. 2.1. HISTORY

OF RESEARCH

Even before ARS was recognized as Roman tableware, many pieces of ARS were taken to museums and private collections by European travelers and delegates in the 19th century.3 Apart from Red Slip Ware found in North Africa,4 pieces from illegal excavations in Italy, Egypt or Sardinia were traded on the black market. Due to the appealing appearance of the vessels, African tableware enjoyed great popularity with collectors all over the world. Although a completely preserved jug from Thapsus was published in 1833,5 the origin of the globally scattered pieces has remained unknown and the African tableware scientifically unnoticed for many years. In 1885, the Tunisian Service des Antiquités et des Arts was founded by the French protectorate. The predecessor of today’s Institut national du Patrimoine de Tunisie initiated the first systematical archaeological exploration of Tunisia and led to several excavations conducted by S. Reinach, R. Cagnat and P. Gauckler. These excavations unearthed high quantities of ARS, which were neither dealt with nor properly published. At the same time, many archaeological sites, including several potteries, were found during the topographic land survey by the Service géographique de l’Armée.6 The Tunisian reports of archaeological finds between 1888 and 1923 should have highlighted the importance of the Tunisian tableware production and their workshops; however these reports were largely overlooked by international researchers.7 Nevertheless, ARS became more popular at the beginning of the 20th century. Researchers were not only interested in the Christian decoration8 of the later stamped wares but also in the similarities and especially the differences to known tableware from Italy and Gaul. H. Dragendorff dealt with tableware found in Egypt and called them ‘false’ sigillata, unlike the ‘true’ Italic and Gaulish terra sigillata.9 Dragendorff compared the decoration of his false Sigillata to that of so-called African lamps

without realizing that they were both produced in North Africa.10 A few years later, J. Déchelette recognized non-Gaulish forms among the sigillata finds in Gaul and found counterparts to those pieces in Tunisian museums.11 ARS frequently occurred at Mediterranean excavations; however, the lack of a classification and terminology produced many different - sometimes confusing - terms to describe this tableware.12 Moreover, it was still unclear from where the tableware derived its origin. Except for some vague assumptions of a North African provenience, the theory of an Egyptian origin was favored and strongly supported by K. Kübler, who worked on the late antique pottery of the Athenian Kerameikos in 1931.13 In 1933, F.O. Waagé performed pioneering work regarding a standard definition and term for the African sigillata. Waagé studied the Late Roman and Byzantine ceramic finds from the first excavation at the Athenian Agora and subdivided the late antique pottery into Late Roman A, B, C and D - according to the quality of their clay (Chapter 2.2.2).14 The African tableware was assigned to groups A and B. Late Roman A corresponds to the fine, partly appliqué-decorated ware, while Late Roman B matches the coarser, frequently stamped ware. In 1933, Waagé believed that Late Roman A was produced in Italy, Gaul or Asia Minor and that Late Roman B had an Egyptian origin.15 However, having dealt with the Late Roman pottery from Antioch at the Orontes and therefore Late Roman A and B again in 1948, Waagé realized that both wares originated from North Africa, where they were found in earlier contexts than in the Mediterranean.16 At about the same time, but without any knowledge of the research in the Eastern Mediterranean, studies on ARS also began in the Western Mediterranean. Based on the ceramic finds from the excavations at Ventimiglia and Ampurias, N. Lamboglia created four categories of African tableware and called them, due to their light color, sigillata chiara A, B, C and D (Chapter 2.2.2); although, group B later turned out to be a Gaulish product.17 Types A, C and D not only represent different productions of African tableware, but also a chronological sequence whereby A is the oldest and D the youngest. Furthermore, Lamboglia tried to record the whole spectrum of vessel forms and thereby establish a typology.

3

Bizerte Utica SIDI RHERIB

Tunis

BORDJ EL DJERBI

Béja

D

EL MAHRINE

A?

Kelibia

HR. EL BIAR

A?

F

OUDNA

D2

A?

Neapolis Hammamet

PHERADI MAIUS

El Kef

Algeria

Karthago

1

HR. EL OUREZLA

C/D CHOUGAFIYA

C1-C5 SIDI MARZOUK TOUNSI

Sousse Monastir

Uzita

HAFFOUZ

Kairouan

A?

SIDI SAAD HR. ES SRIRA MADJE KSAR El GUELLAL

Sufetula

A/D ? C/E E?

El Djem

HR. EL GUELLAL/DJILMA

Kasserine THELEPTE

Sidi Bouzid Sfax

SIDI AICH HR. EL GUELLALMAKNASSI

Gafsa

C/E E Tozeur

? Gabès

BIR OUED FARAH

Tunisia

Médinine Ben-Guerdane

Remada

Libya ARS-WORKSHOP PRESUMED WORKSHOP modern city ancient city

100 km

Fig. 2. Schematic map of Tunisian ARS-workshops and productions (based on Bonifay 2004, 46, Fig. 22; adapted by Hasenzagl).

4

Waagé 1933/1948

Lamboglia 1958/1963

Hayes 1972

Atlante 1981

Late Roman B (early) __________

sigillata chiara A

form 1 – 11;13 – 27

__________

form 28 – 33

Late Roman A

sigillata chiara C

form 40 – 58; 71 – 74; 82 – 85; 89

C 1 – C5

Late Roman B (middle – late)

sigillata chiara D

form 12; 58 – 111

D1 – D2

__________

__________

form 45B – C; 46; 58A

__________

__________

form 60; 62; 68; 70; 77; 92

A 1 – A2 A/D

C/E E

Table 1. Classification of African tableware until 1981. Lamboglia took notice of Waagé’s work for the first time in 1963. He suggested taking Late Roman A and sigillata chiara C as equivalent, but exclude Late Roman B from his sigillata chiara completely.18 He believed in an Italian origin of the sigillata chiara C, but was not convinced of an African provenience of the sigillata chiara A and D;19 although this was already proposed three years earlier by F. Pallarés Salvador after having worked with Roman pottery from Tunisia in the National Museum of Copenhagen.20 Salomonson, who collected a great deal of Roman pottery during surveys in Algeria and Tunisia since the beginning of the 1960s (Chapter 4), finally concluded that Late Roman A and B and sigillata chiara A, C and D were only different terms for the same kind of pottery. He equated Late Roman A with sigillata chiara C and Late Roman B with sigillata chiara A and D and called the African tableware according to the French translation of Lamboglia’s chiara series sigillée claire A, C and D (table 1).21 Moreover, he made clear for the first time that the tableware was locally produced in Tunisia, Libya and Eastern Algeria.22 Salomonson had already seen problems with assigning sigillata finds to one of the categories A, C and D. Believing in the necessity to create more groups and subgroups, Salomonson established the transitional category A/C, which is also called El Aouja ware - characterized by closed vessels with appliqué décor.23 He was also interested in a special production of African sigillata, which consists of appliqué-decorated jugs, head-pots and lamps that can be attributed to the potter Navigius because of the inscriptions on the vessels (EX OFICINA NAVIGI) naming his workshop, which Salomonson correctly suspected to be in Henchir es Srira (fig. 2).24 In addition, Salomonson dealt with the chronology and development of African tableware as well as its distribution in the Mediterranean. He also

published the first scientifically acknowledged classification of the stamped decoration of sigillata D.25 Earlier studies on the stamped wares done by A. Jodin and M. Ponisch in 1960 or by A. Moutinho de Alarcão and J. de Alarcão in 1963/64 hardly received any attention.26 In close cooperation with Salomonson was A. Carandini, who published the findings from the excavations at ‘Terme del Nuotatore’ in Ostia. Carandini pleaded for a uniform classification, terminology and typology and advised examination of all sites with sigillata material together in order to attain that uniformity.27 Following Salomonson’s idea of a greater subdivision of the African tableware, Carandini created the categories A1, A2, A1/2, A/D, C1, C2 and C3.28 Carandini and St. Tortorella proposed sigillata (or ceramica) africana as a standard term for the African tableware.29 At the same time, he introduced an economic theory that became especially popular for its catchphrases ‘olive boom’ or ‘African boom’.30 He presumed that the economic supremacy of North Africa in the Mediterranean since the late 2nd century AD was directly related to the production and export of African olive oil and also led to political and social changes in the African provinces. Assuming that all African amphorae contained olive oil and were traded together with the tableware, the olive boom also became Carandini’s explanation for the importance and wide distribution of sigillata africana. Another milestone in the history of research came with J.W. Hayes’ publication of ‘Late Roman pottery’ (LRP) in 1972. Hayes presented all known vessel types and their morphological evolution. His typo-chronological classification was principally based on finds from the Athenian Agora, from several West and East Mediterranean sites as well as on the holdings in European and African museums.31 He was, however, aware of the flaws

5

in his typology, due to frequently missing stratigraphic sequences and sealed finds. He considered LRP to be a temporary framework, which could be used for further studies and already he modified some of his own data in his Supplementum published in 1980.32 Hayes proposed the term African Red Slip (ARS) Ware, which was originally used by K.M. Kenyon for finds from Sabratha and adopted by Hayes for the African tableware with a regular overseas market in the Mediterranean.33 Hayes quoted Waagé’s and Lamboglia’s classification of fabrics and sometimes connected them with certain vessel types without being entirely satisfied, this is due to the frequent problems of distinguishing these main classes and of the need to create more subgroups types (Chapter 2.2.3).34 Hayes differentiated 200 vessel types and the two main lamp types I and II, which were produced in the quality variations A and B. Furthermore, he proposed a division of the stamped decoration into the five major styles A-E with 336 different motifs and noticed, like Salomonson, a stylistic evolution in three stages.35 Additionally, Hayes dealt with the distribution of ARS and mapped all known sites with ARS material. After the publication of LRP, the number of studies on African tableware and of archaeological projects in Tunisia increased, but Hayes’ typological framework was not completely undisputed (Chapter 2.2).36 A revision of the known categories in ‘Atlante delle forme ceramiche I’ edited by Carandini (1981) brought the new subgroups C4, C5, D1 D2 and D1/2 as well as the fabrics C/E and E.37 Stratigraphically sequenced finds from Ostia, Nador and Carthage were used to create more vessel types and to improve the dating of several Hayes forms, however the results were chronological modifications rather than actual corrections.38 Additionally, new variations of ARS lamps were presented, leading to a total of 12 types, which can be separated by the form of their body, discus, channel and nozzle and by the number and order of the filling-holes.39 The work on ARS from the British excavations on Avenue du Président Habib Bourguiba in Carthage by M. Fulford in 1984 showed that the system published in the Atlante was not universally welcomed. Fulford and P.S. Peacock created their own classification of fabrics, whereby they assigned the ARS to their fabric 2.1 a-d, which has a high amount of quartz and lime.40 At the same time, the late antique pottery was getting more popular with French scientists. In 1983, some of them founded the association C.A.T.H.M.A. (Céramique d’Antiqutité Tardive et du Haut Moyen-Age),

6

which was able to provide insight into the imported African tableware in the Roman territory of modern France. Although the results of C.A.T.H.M.A. and other research groups were important, they focused once again on the destination of African export and not on the African production centres - some of which were already known for many years but were not yet scientifically dealt with, except for Sidi Aïch and Henchir es Srira (fig. 2) which were investigated by M. Stern in 1968.41 In order to get a better understanding of the ARS-potteries, large parts of Tunisia have been surveyed since the beginning of the 1980s. In 1984/1985, a British-Tunisian survey conducted by Peacock, F. Bejaoui and N. Ben Lazreg managed to localize some amphorae production sites and the then-unknown ARS workshops of Sidi Marzouk Tounsi, Henchir el Guellal (Djilma) and Chougafiya in Central Tunisia (fig. 2).42 The North Tunisian ARS production centres of El Mahrine, Henchir el Biar and Bordj el Djerbi (fig. 2) were prospected and partly analysed by M. Mackensen.43 Apart from many international projects,44 the Tunisian Carte National des Sites Archéologiques et des Monuments Historiques was established in the early 1990s with the purpose of mapping all archaeological sites of the country. Since then, the 290 survey districts of Tunisia have been systematically prospected and revealed a high number of sites.45 However, only in Ounda46 and Pheradi Maius47 (fig. 2) have excavations into workshops been conducted so far. Although the surveys and excavations increased information on the production of African tableware, there were still problems with the classification. A solution was proposed whereby the raw materials are analyzed, since their chemical characteristics can be measured and are therefore less questionable.48 The most recent comprehensive study on African pottery of late antiquity was written by M. Bonifay.49 Based on the data from surveys and excavations as well as petrographic and chemical analyses, he took a closer look at the production, typology, chronology and distribution of the African wares. Whereas the typology of his predecessors was widened by some new vessel types, the modifications to the chronology Bonifay made were more profound. Moreover, he invalidated Carandini’s concept of the ‘olive boom’ by downplaying the importance of olive oil for the export of African pottery and by highlighting the significance of agricultural goods like cereal, spices, fish products or textiles.50 According to the quantified ARS and amphorae material of several Mediterranean sites, Bonifay was able to argue that the Afri-

can tableware and the amphorae were exported separately; the amphorae were traded as containers of oil, wine and fish products and the tableware with cereal, spices and textiles.51 Related to that matter, he also examined regional and supra-regional trade as well as possible routes of transportation. All these aspects were further developed by Bonifay himself and taken up by many researchers. Furthermore, ceramic studies in Tunisia made significant progress in the last few years.52 The most comprehensive research so far was done by M. Ben Moussa, who focused on the North Tunisian production centers.53 Although the history of research considerably increases our understanding of ARS, the need for further studies has been recently expressed during the ICREA/ESF workshop initiating the revision of Late Roman fine wares, including the African tableware.54 This book was also initiated based on this need and seeks to contribute to the classification of ARS.55 2.2. NORTH TUNISIAN ARS

PRODUCTIONS

The system of categorizing African tableware was created at a time when the origin of the tableware was still controversially discussed (see Chapter 2.1) and no workshop had been recognized. It was begun by Lamboglia and was followed by many scholars creating a strong and long-lasting tradition that is widely accepted and still in use. However, what originally started with Lamboglia’s categories A, C and D has now reached a complex level of transitions and subdivisions, namely A1, A1 fine, A1/2, A2, A/D, C1-C6, C/D, D1-D5, C/E, E and the so-called continental56 productions. Most recently the categories ARS F (Chapter 2.2.1) and ARS G57 were proposed. The elaboration and complexity of this open system is evident. Hence, the task of sorting ARS material can be quite challenging and gets even more complicated by the still increasing ARS finds and their variety. Since each fragment of ARS that has to be sorted must be attributed to a category, the system of categories must be comprehensive. Before discussing the Italian system of classifying ARS - still embedded in today’s research - the meaning given by the different categories and subdivisions will be examined. Since this book is a presentation of North Tunisian ARS workshops, only the traditional categories A, C/D and D as well as the recently added group ARS F restricted to this area will be considered here.

2.2.1. The Italian classification of North Tunisian ARS 2.2.1.1. ARS A A is the earliest production in the ARS series and was manufactured from the late 1st to the first half of the 4th century AD.58 This medium-walled ware has an orange to brick-red body clay and a similarly colored slip. Due to the high amount of quartz and the rather large red to yellowish inclusions, the texture is granular and resembles the surface of an orange; it can be compared to the African cooking wares A and C.59 ARS A is divided into the subgroups A1 and A2 (‘A tarda’) that vary in quality of their slip. Whereas A1, dating from the late 1st to the 2nd century AD, has a thick and lustrous slip, A2, which was made from the late 2nd to the 1st half of the 4th century AD, is characterized by a thinner and more dull slip with a rough surface and a color from reddish to rosé.60 With the occurrence of A2, ARS was liberated from the influence of the Italic and Gaulish tableware. By giving up the morphological similarities to the Italic and Gaulish vessel types, which clearly served as an example for the early ARS forms Hayes 2, Hayes 3, Hayes 4, Hayes 5 and Hayes 8, it was possible to create new types like Hayes 14-18 or Hayes 27.61 In addition, many closed vessels - especially mugs, jugs and flagons - were made in ARS A-quality. In contrast to the usually plain or sometimes roulette-decorated A1 and A2, the transitional fabric A1/2 generally shows an appliqué-decoration with animals and floral motifs. A1/2 was produced in the second half of the 2nd or at the beginning of the 3rd century AD and classified between A1 and A2 because of its slip; however it also has a connection to the fabric C1 with applied decoration.62 Moreover, there exists the subgroup ‘A1 fine’ that can also be compared to fabric C due to its typical fine matrix, but already occurs with the early ARS A forms Hayes 2/3A and Hayes 8A.63 The localization of the ARS A-workshops is highly controversial. Of the many possible theories, none is generally accepted so far. The high amount of ARS A in Carthaginian contexts and the similarity to the North Tunisian ARS D led to the belief that ARS A was produced in the hinterland of Carthage.64 According to the assumption of a North Tunisian origin of ARS A, which was favored by many researchers, the possibility of an early tableware production in the Late antique production centers of ARS D was also discussed; although there is no evidence of predecessor workshops in the known ARS D ateliers.65

7

HIPPO DIARRHYTUS

N

UTICA

THABRACA

CARTHAGO THUBURBO MINUS

AUDOLES

El Mahrine

BULLA REGIA

UTHINA

Mejerda O.

SIMITTHUS

CARPI

THUCCABOR

VAGA

UCHI MAIUS

CURUBIS NEAPOLIS

THUGGA THABBORA

THUBURBO MAIUS

PUPPUT PHERADI MAIUS

SICCA VENERIA

ASSURAS

ALTHIBUROS

ABTHUGNI

O. Siliana

FURNOS MAIUS

O. Meliane

MACTARIS possible area of location presumed location of ateliers

AMMAEDARA SUFES

0

ARS-workshop

50

100 km

ancient city

Fig. 3. Possible (dark gray) and presumed (light gray) location of ARS A-workshops (after Ben Moussa 2007a, 40, fig. 3; adapted by Hasenzagl). However, the resemblance of the North Tunisian ARS D and the controversial ware A/D, which was made in Central, North Tunisian and/or Libyan workshops,66 also shows that similar fabrics are not necessarily in accordance with their geographic provenance. Even with some of the arguments invalidated, scientists adhered to the North Tunisian origin of ARS A and came up with new theories for locating the workshops. Ben Moussa believes that ARS A, which was strongly influenced by Italic tableware traditions in the beginning, was produced in several, small and private potteries of Roman property owners.67 Based on historical sources, the earliest Roman estates since the 1st century BC were located in the North Tunisian area between Thuburbo Minus, Neapolis, Mactar and Simitthus (fig. 3). Within this region, Ben Moussa suspects the ARS A workshops were most likely in three zones. The first zone includes the lower Mejerda Valley and the Cap Bon, where the pagi of the veterans were located, in addition to Caesar’s and Augustus’ colonies. The second zone is the campi magni between Bulla Regia and Simitthus and the third includes the land between Uchi Maius and Thugga, which belonged to rich

8

Italic families and senators. Unfortunately, there are no archaeological remains to strengthen this theory. However, the lack of archaeological evidence may be caused by the exceptionally thick alluvial deposits in North Tunisian river valleys which are probably still covering unknown sites.68 Bonifay also supports a North Tunisian provenance of ARS A. His assumption is based on the similarity between ARS A1 and A2 and the cooking ware A and C. Due to the cooking ware’s distribution restriction to the area of Carthage, he assumes that it was produced locally and, because of the petrographic resemblance of table- and cooking ware, he concludes that ARS A was manufactured in the same geographic region.69 Moreover, he thinks that the production of the appliqué-decorated fabric A1/2 as well as fabric A1 fine near or in Oudna is possible, because a high number of tableware in these qualities was found in Oudna and the accordance of the chemical and petrographic composition of A1/2 and the later ware D2 are sufficient to presume a manufacturing of both fabrics in the same area.70 Unlike Bonifay, Mackensen believes that the archaeometric results regarding A1/2 and D2 are not clear enough to

prove that they were both made in Oudna; instead he finds a general North Tunisian origin of ARS A seems also very likely.71 Nevertheless, there is also a possibility that ARS A was produced in Central Tunisia. In 1960, Salomonson found high quantities of ARS A in the Central Tunisian necropolis of Raqquada, including many early vessel types with a locally restricted distribution to Central Tunisia.72 In the 3rd and 4th century AD Raqquada received its tableware from central Tunisian potteries of ARS C, which can be macroscopically compared to ARS A1 fine.73 Due to their macroscopic resemblance, the same provenance of ARS A and C was suspected, however archaeometric analyses could rule out an origin of ARS A from all known ARS C workshops.74 A recently discovered workshop in the region of the Wadi El Gattar, in the immediate vicinity of Sidi Marzouk Tounsi75 (fig. 2), could be an ARS A atelier. However, a clear identification is only possible after the archaeometric analyses of the ARS A samples, which are still expected.76 Equally, it is not yet clear if the early forms Hayes 3 and Hayes 6 that were lately documented by Ben Moussa in the workshop of Chougafiya are an indication of an ARS A production.77 Of relevance for the localization of ARS A workshops may also be the high incidence of early tableware in Algeria.78 However, it is still unsure if it was produced in Algeria or imported. Although the ARS A found in Algeria looks like a typical version of ARS A, many pieces microscopically show a different fabric that may indicate a local Algerian production.79 However, with regard to the still ongoing controversy, the correctness of all hypotheses also has to be taken into account. Especially in the earliest production phase of African tableware it could be expected that ARS was made in several small, contemporaneous workshops in different parts of Tunisia and Algeria with only a local distribution. 2.2.1.2. ARS C/D ARS C/D is a mixture of characteristic ARS C (quality of the sherd) and ARS D (vessel types) elements.80 Apart from few typological imitations of ARS C-forms, Hayes 84 for instance, the similarity of C/D’s smooth and compact clay with many little quartz inclusions to the fineness of fabric C is especially evident;81 this resemblance was also noticed by Hayes.82 C/D, however, is less calcareous, tempered with argillaceous rock fragments and has a smooth, thin, orange-reddish slip, which has a velvety shine. This is the result

of different raw materials due to a diverging geographical location of the C and C/D workshops. C/D was made in Pheradi Maius (=Sidi Khalifa), Chougafiya and Henchir el Ourezla from the 4th to the 7th century. The most important known production center of ARS C/D is located in Pheradi Maius (see Chapter 5.4, fig. 2). The ruined city in the Gulf of Hammamet, 13 km from the present town of Enfidah, has already been explored by travelers and scientists since the 18th century and was identified as an ARS workshop by Salomonson in 1968. Archaeological activities at the end of the 20th century revealed a pottery district with at least four kilns in the western and northwestern portions of the ancient city. The production of the main forms Hayes 61B, Hayes 87A, Hayes 88, Hayes 91 and Hayes 103 lasted from the 4th to the 7th centuries AD. A similar spectrum of vessel types was also produced in C/D-quality in the small, Central Tunisian atelier of Chougafiya (fig. 2) that was discovered during the British-Tunisian survey in 1984 and in Henchir el Ourezla (fig. 2) recently documented by a Tunisian survey team.83 2.2.1.3. ARS D ARS D, which was made from the 4th to the 7th century AD, is the most heterogeneous group among the African tableware. Due to its extremely variable macroscopic and microscopic appearance, at least two subgroups can be distinguished, having only the partially applied slip in common. D1 that exists from the 4th century AD onwards is defined by many rounded quartz particles, iron oxide concretions as well as calcareous particles and low quantities of feldspar and mica.84 It also has an irregular, slightly granular slip matching the color of tangerine to brick-red clay and only covering the inside and outer rim of the vessels.85 A chronological subdivision into two phases, as it was proposed in the Atlante, can only be performed based on the different styles of the stamped decoration.86 D1, which came from the workshops in El Mahrine, Henchir el Biar (Chapter 5.2) and Bordj el Djerbi (Chapter 5.1), is represented mainly by the forms Hayes 58B, Hayes 59A/B, Hayes 61, Hayes 62A, Hayes 63, Hayes 67 and Hayes 76. D2, dating from the 4th century AD onwards, is a very complex subgroup, because it was used as a collective term for different productions, although it principally served to distinguish pieces from D1 due to the lack of alternative subgroups.87 D2 was also divided into two phases, although

9

they do not describe a chronological difference within D2 but rather two different productions. The first phase from the 4th to the 7th century AD includes pieces with coarse, light orange to brownish clay as well as a thick, dull and brownish-orange slip covering the inside of the vessels, while the outside has an irregular surface with lots of tooling-marks.88 ARS D2 occurs combined with the vessel types Hayes 103 and Hayes 104A-B and the stamp style Hayes E(ii). It is assumed that it was produced in yet unknown D2 potteries (‘atelier X’). The second phase of D2 matches the tableware that was exclusively produced in Oudna (Chapter 5.3) from the late 5th to the middle of the 7th century AD. Its clay matrix shows fine, rounded to angular quartz and feldspar, argillaceous rock fragments and iron oxide particles and the thick, lustrous engobe can be compared to that of fabric A.89 Frequent vessel types of this tableware are Hayes 91, Hayes 96, Hayes 97, Hayes 98, Hayes 99 and Hayes 102 although the bowl Hayes 99 is by far the most common one. The necessity to create more subgroups for D was noticed early and explicitly implied by Bonifay in 1983,90 since it was not possible to categorize all ARS D finds into one of the existing subgroups.91 To provide a more accurate subdivision of fabric D, the categories D3, D4 and D5 were established. D3, which is represented by the forms Hayes 90, Hayes 91 D, Hayes 101, Hayes 105, Hayes 106, Hayes 108 and Hayes 109A of the late 6th and 7th century AD, has a granular and porous matrix like D2 and an irregular surface because of the very thin orange to rosé slip that often has a blackish discoloration.92 In contrast, D4 is typified by a quite calcareous, porous, soft and beige to brownish clay with a pink to light orange, dull and often flaky slip and occurs in combination with the vessel types Hayes 98, Hayes 99C and 109. The quality of D4 increasingly deteriorated during its production from the end of the 6th to the beginning of the 8th century AD because the slip got thinner and the firing, now frequently done without saggars, caused brown or gray discolorations.93 Sandy and soft clay as well as a reddish brown engobe - which tends to come off easily - define fabric D5; it only appears with the forms Hayes 87B and C in 6th century contexts.94 The North Tunisian origin of ARS D was already detected by Salomonson in 1968. In addition to the workshop of Oudna, which was known since the 19th century, several surveys in the 1960s succeeded in localizing the ateliers of El Mahrine, Bordj el Djerbi and Henchir el Biar (fig. 2), which

10

are situated in the Mejerda Valley, south of Tebourba in the Carthaginian hinterland.95 These ateliers (El Mahrine, Bordj el Djerbi and Henchir el Biar) that produced ARS D1 were extensively investigated by Mackensen. The most studied and most important D1-workshop, regarding the production scale, is El Mahrine, located 8 km south of Tebourba. El Mahrine manufactured plain and stamped tableware as well as lamps from the first third of the 4th until the mid-7th century and was surveyed by Mackensen 1981-1989, 1991 and 1997-1999.96 In two large, separated workshop areas (MI and MII) Mackensen documented the production of Hayes 58B, Hayes 59A/B, Hayes 61A, Hayes 62A, Hayes 63, Hayes 67, Hayes 73A/B, Hayes 76A/B, Hayes 91, Hayes 93A/B, Hayes 99, Hayes 104 and lamps. In 2006, Ben Moussa discovered architectural structures of workshops and kilns.97 In the immediate vicinity of El Mahrine is the pottery of Henchir el Biar (see Chapter 5.2, fig. 2), which was surveyed by Mackensen in 1987 and 1998. From the first third of the 4th to the first half of the 6th century AD it produced the plain and decorated vessel types Hayes 58B, Hayes 59A/B, Hayes 61A, Hayes 62A, Hayes 63, Hayes 67, Hayes 76A/B, Hayes 91A/B, Hayes 93B as well as lamps.98 Bordj el Djerbi (see Chapter 5.1, fig. 2), investigated by Mackensen in 1997-1999, was active from the first third of the 4th to the middle of the 7th century AD and manufactured the main types Hayes 58B, Hayes 59A/B, Hayes 61A/B, Hayes 62A, Hayes 63, Hayes 67, Hayes 73A, Hayes 76A/B, Hayes 93B and Hayes 104B. ARS D2 can be assigned to the production center of Oudna (Chapter 5.3, fig. 2), 30 km southwest of Carthage. One workshop had already been discovered in the bath of the Laberii by Gauckler; who described thick layers of debris, including thousands of ARS sherds, saggars and potter tools.99 However, there have been doubts about an ARS workshop in a bathing complex for many years. The secondary installation of a pottery atelier in the late 5th century, after the bath was shut down in the beginning of the same century, was proved by Tunisian-French surveys and excavations 1988-1990 and 1994-1996.100 The workshop, dating from the late 5th to the mid-7th centuries manufactured lamps and the plain or decorated main vessel types Hayes 91, Hayes 96, Hayes 97 and Hayes 99, which is considered to be the leading form in Oudna. This repertoire corresponds broadly with the products of another, probably contemporaneous, atelier that could be located in an area of about four hectares in the northeast of the ancient

city, due to surface finds and the remains of four kilns.101 Recent discoveries in Oudna suggest an earlier ARS production, possibly as early as the middle of the 4th century AD.102 Moreover, the existence of other D2 potteries that could not be identified so far must be expected, because many D2 pieces microscopically and/or stylistically differ from the known production in Oudna. The so-called atelier X, consisting of one or more potteries, was active from the first third of the 4th until the second half of the 7th century AD and can be possibly located in the region between El Fahs, Zaghouan and Oudna (fig. 2).103 Atelier X’s most numerous vessel types are the 6th-century-forms Hayes 103 A/B and Hayes 104 A-C with stamped decoration of the styles Hayes E(i)-E(ii). The assignment of the late fabrics D3-D5 is still difficult. Chemical analyses of samples of frequently represented forms Hayes 105 and Hayes 109A/B deliver inconclusive results, especially as the possibility of a Central Tunisian origin of Hayes 105 is currently discussed.104 Equally, the localization of the production site of ARS D4, which is frequently documented in the region of Nabeul and Carthage, as well as of ARS D 5 remains uncertain.105 2.2.1.4. ARS F A 5th-century-ARS production was identified in the amphorae workshop of Sidi Zahruni (fig. 2) in the Nabeul region. The manufacturing of ARS in the amphorae-workshop, which was discovered in the 1990s 6 km north of Nabeul, was revealed during fieldwork in 2001, when a number of saggars for tableware was documented.106 The coarse sherds with many rounded quartz inclusions, characteristic of the amphorae, can also be seen at the tableware, which has a dark orange, matte, slightly grainy coating that is very fine to nonexistent.107 The moderate quality is often shown by the clay clumps, which were not removed after the shaping and adhere to the vessel.108 Despite the similarity of amphorae and ARS fabric, resulting from the same raw material, the ARS was defined as a local variant of ARS D, but was most recently transformed into the new category ARS F.109 The same applies to the secondary manufacturing of 5th century ARS in the amphorae ateliers of Labayed and possibly also Aïn Amroun - both are located in the area of Sidi Zahruni and both produced amphorae.110 The ateliers of the Nabeul region only produced a limited repertoire of forms, namely Hayes 50B no. 61, Hayes 53B, Hayes 57, Hayes 58 and variants of Hayes 61A/B.111

2.2.2. Discourse on the Italian classification of ARS It is not only important to know how ARS has been classified thus far, but also to be aware of the circumstances of its origin as well as of the purposes of ARS classification in research and the potential problems that come along with them. Ceramic classifications generally tend to answer questions of when, how, where and why pottery was made.112 Focusing on one of these questions can lead to different classifications, namely: a chronological, technical, spatial or functional classification.113 Consequently, the choice of one of these different kinds of purposes is also reflected by the selection of diagnostic attributes.114 Naturally, most classifications are not intended to serve only one purpose but were developed to aid several at a time, as it also was the case with ARS classifications.115 However, the prime purpose of each classification depends on which criteria were considered first. Due to the involvement of many scholars, the priority and parameter of divisions, as well as the nomenclature used to describe said divisions, are controversial. Lamboglia made a classification of ARS from different stratigraphic levels at the excavations at Ampurias and Ventimiglia, i.e. he primarily created a chronological system based on vessel types, since the forms from the bottom layers were different from those at the top.116 Arranged in a chronological sequence, Lamboglia noticed that the vessel types also reflected varying characteristics of clay, slip, color or decoration, which led to the differentiation of three classe117 or tipi fondamentali118 which he called A, C and D; A being the earliest and D the latest.119 Contrary to Lamboglia, Waagé decided all along to make the clay the primary factor for dividing the Late Roman pottery at the Athenian Agora and at Antioch at the Orontes.120 Following this principle, he created different kinds of wares that were comprised of pieces with the same quality of clay that he synonymously called fabric, as well as with the same surface treatment, color variation and the same group of vessels and decorations. As a consequence, he grouped Lamboglia’s tipi A and D due to the similarities of the clay and labelled it Late Roman B Ware,121 whereas Late Roman A Ware corresponds with Lamboglia’s tipo C. The problem of transition groups also became apparent at an early stage with both systems because the attributes of some pieces matched different wares/tipi, i.e. ‘typical’ vessel types of one category but with the macroscopic appearance of another. Whereas Lamboglia called the pieces attrib-

11

utable to more than one category ‘imitations’122, Waagé named them ‘intermediate’ specimen and considered that it was the close (geographical) connections of workshops that caused the mixture of characteristics.123 Salomonson, who was following Lamboglia’s system, also had problems assigning ARS finds to one of the existing categories and therefore created the first transition type, namely A/C.124 Furthermore, Salomonson brought up questions of localizing ateliers and explicitly mentioned certain workshops by name, thereby basically introducing intra-African provenance studies of ARS for the first time.125 As a consequence, the classification of ARS started to get a new spatial dimension. However, at this point only a very limited number of workshops126 had been known. Carandini, who was strongly influenced by Lamboglia and Salomonson, adapted the existing system of tipi e fasi di produzione (or simply called produzione) by adding new fasi e fasi di transi- zione (A1, A2, A1/2, A/D, C1, C2 and C3).127 Furthermore, Carandini performed pioneering work regarding the visualization of clay properties that often cannot be adequately described with words by presenting drawings of microscopic photos.128 Hayes decided on a typochronological system because he believed that ‘vessel forms provide a firmer guide to the overall development of the ware than the changes in fabric (which are naturally largely due to local factors)’, although he observed that some fabrics tend to be associated with particular forms.129 Hayes uses the term ‘ware’ to describe the ARS in general and ‘fabrics’ when referring to varieties of this basic ware, i.e. different properties of the sherd, which he mainly considered to ‘represent the products of different factories within the main manufacturing region’.130 Since knowledge of ARS workshops was still limited, Hayes proposed a division of ARS into three manufacturing groups (similar to the division of Gaulish terra sigillata); they are North Tunisian, Central Tunisian and South Tunisian and several workshops within these regions.131 This system did not gain acceptance and cannot be combined well with the traditional classification because some groups, e.g. ARS A (see Chapter 2.2.1.1), ARS A/D132 or C/D (see Chapter 2.2.1.2), were supposedly produced in more than one region (fig. 2). Nevertheless, the categories are generally used to indicate the provenance of ARS. Hence, ARS D (Chapter 2.2.1.3) was connected with North Tunisian workshops, ARS C attributed to Central Tunisian ateliers and the production of ARS C/E and E was located in Central/South Tunisia (fig. 2).

12

Hayes’ descriptions of the varieties of fabrics, which he considered to be not sufficiently clear-cut to justify a classification of ARS by fabric133, were cited and used by the Atlante to create further subdivisions (C4, C5, D1 D2 and D1/2 as well as the fabrics C/E and E); they were called produzioni as well as fabbriche.134 However, the classification of the Atlante was a priori, a chronological assignment that again focused on technological aspects and attempted to record an evolution of fabbriche and their subdivisions. Therefore, the Atlante principally missed the point of Hayes’ term ‘fabric’ which he thought to be the products of different workshops regardless of the production period. The Atlante’s descriptions of fabbriche were mostly based on macroscopic observations and included material properties as well as characteristics of the technology (fire, surface treatment, etc.) and of the vessel types.135 However, it is not possible to connect a certain vessel type exclusively and invariably to a single ARS workshop. Moreover, a different macroscopic appearance is not necessarily the result of diverging technologies or production periods. Even if all ARS workshops used the same technologies (also Chapter 2.2.3), it would have turned out differently because it was made in a different place, using different sources of clay. Nevertheless, the distinguished produzioni/fabbriche were considered to be produced at several different workshops (e.g. El Mahrine, Henchir el Biar and Bordj el Djerbi producing all ARS D1, Pheradi Maius and Chougafiya maunufacturing C/D). At the same time, however, one workshop could have made divergent categories (e.g. Henchir el Guellal producing A/D and ARS C136) - a fact that considerably complicates the task of sorting and attributing ARS material. The extensive subdivision begun by Carandini in 1968 and continued by the Atlante has led to today’s overall confusion of connecting ARS finds with fabbriche and, consequently, with workshops. The system of the Atlante was not accepted by all scholars and was also criticized from the beginning. Critics claimed that the ‘descriptions given in the Atlante [...] are insufficiently objective, difficult to transfer and as a consequence of the comparative nature of many of the criteria (for example more or less coarse, more or less glossy) difficult to apply’.137 Above all, the categories in the Atlante were considered unsuitable for distinguishing the tableware of certain workshops or recording the macroscopic variation (e.g. color and quality of the slip) within a workshop.138 About 30 years after it was realized that the traditional system of categorizing ARS is not ade-

quate for determining the origin of ARS material and after lots of studies enriching our knowledge on ARS, controversies on the traditional classification system continued.139 A revision of ARS classification was already proposed.140 However, the classifications (Lamboglia/Atlante or Hayes) and their refinements were designed for sorting and for detecting changes over time - purposes they successfully served - and the categories were built according to certain diagnostic attribute(s), e.g. macroscopic features (texture of break, slip, color, etc.) or vessel and decoration type. They were primarily not meant to define the origin of the tableware. The origin of African tableware and detailed studies on the workshops became a priority only in the last two decades. This shift towards provenance studies was also reflected by a change of methods and is also the key aspect of the present study. To differentiate the workshops and their products in the best possible way, it was important to find a reliable feature. This feature is provided on a petrographic and chemical level, because among all components that determine the appearance of ceramics, the raw material is the most workshop-specific. Even with different techniques within a workshop, and thus several macroscopic variations and a large spectrum of forms, the petrographic and chemical composition of the sherd is usually the lowest common denominator of all products of a workshop.141 In order to determine the exact origin of ARS finds, the future aim in research (hence, also the aim of this contribution) is to define the characteristics of all workshops based on the material properties of their products (Chapter 3). However, this is only useful if a standardized understanding of characteristics of a workshop is established. Otherwise, the determination of ARS becomes even more complicated and less transparent. The approach (Chapter 3) presented here tries to clear away some of the confusion regarding the current ARS classification and to adapt it to new needs by proposing a classification by fabric based on workshops (Chapter 5). To avoid continuing the controversial terminology, the traditional division into ARS A-E will be called productions, categories or groups, since the translation of the Italian fabbrica and German Fabrikat into English (=fabric) would be misleading and confusing again. This book’s meaning of the term fabric, i.e. fabric description and analysis, will be presented in Chapter 3.

2.2.3. Organization and infrastructure of ARS workshops As a contribution focused on the production centers of ARS the present state of research on the organization and infrastructure of ARS workshops should also be taken into account, although it is very difficult to provide information, since the vast majority of ateliers have only been surveyed. To date, there are no geophysical prospections and the few excavation data from Oudna, Pheradi Maius and Tiddis are not sufficient to reconstruct the size, arrangement and equipment of workshop buildings or the number of workshops within a production center.142 Thus, further enquiries about the specialization of individual workshops, the number of potters as well as their living and working conditions are also problematic.143 More often than not, these are only basic and general considerations. In larger production centers, e.g. more personnel and a higher degree of division of labor (i.e. specialists) can be expected, whereas in small potteries probably only a few workers were responsible for all manufacturing processes. Overall, the ARS ateliers produced widely distributed mass-market products, for which a high degree of organization and standardization is certainly required. We do not know if there was a universal ‘recipe’ for African tableware or terra sigillata in general or an imperial wide known ideal of tableware all workshops tried to imitate, since the term terra sigillata is a modern creation and there is no ancient source telling us anything about it.144 The archaeological evidence suggests that they at least had the same kiln designs and potter’s tools.145 Moreover, ARS vessels and lamps have no stamps with the potter’s name. It is totally unclear if the ancient consumer of African tableware was able to differentiate the products of the ateliers or was even interested in doing it. Hence, it is not only a question of who the consumers were, but whether the purchase of tableware was tied to specific social structures, class differences, or ethnicity, or if it expressed a certain lifestyle or fashion trend.146 Names of potters or information about the pottery were, except for the Navigius ware, not written on the ARS products but on potter tools and saggars. Additionally, there are a number of tools with different symbols and Christograms, which may also serve for the individual identification of potters/workshops. At the moment, graffiti is the only evidence to indicate ownership/lease situations in the African ateliers. Mentioned are either

13

letters and shortened or full names in the nominative and genitive case, or there is a reference to a workshop with the indication ex of(f)icina and (a) trailing name(s), some of them paleographically datable.147 Without chronologically relevant characteristics, only a classification for the duration of production is possible. However, the position of the mentioned persons in a production center or an individual atelier is always unclear. Whereas genitive names, e.g. Rogatinni, Magni or Quadvultdei, in connection with ex of(f)icina could be the owner as well as the tenant of the pottery, Crescen(n)s or Victor possibly refers to the names of potters or assistants.148 All other letters and (shortened) names can be interpreted diversely. In theory, it would also be possible that several production centers were connected by the same owner or manager. Mackensen pointed out the similarities of decorative motifs and stamps from different production sites and indicated a transfer of technology - which is very likely but not easily provable.149 This is also relevant in the context of the geographical transfer of workshops during the 1st and the 7th centuries AD. Despite the unknown origin of some fabrics, the activity of ARS production geographically changes over the century, especially between North and Central Tunisia. The relocation of workshops took place in six phases.150 Whereas during phase 1 (i.e. the production of ARS A) a large geographic area is possible, phase 2 and the beginning of ARS C since the 3rd century AD was restricted to Central Tunisia. In a third stage, the D1-potteries of the Mejerda Valley were built at the beginning of the 4th century AD and very soon became more important than the Central Tunisian workshops. However, under the rule of the Vandals in phase 4, the most important ARS products were produced in Central Tunisia (C5) and in the Gulf of Hammamet (C/D). In stages 5 and 6, which date from the early 6th to the beginning of the 8th centuries AD, the North Tunisian workshops of ARS D2, a local variant D and C/D, were especially active. According to Bonifay, these fluctuations are explainable mainly due to economic reasons. The regional development of agriculture that increasingly produced for an external market is closely linked to the increase in the ARS production in certain Tunisian regions.151 Whereas the situation in the 2nd century AD is still largely unknown, there are many 3rd- and 4th-century ateliers, especially in agricultural regions for cereal and spice cultivation and the productions of oil, wine and textiles. In the area of large estates, entire settlements of potteries developed.152 Residing in the

14

vicinity of olive and wine presses,153 despite the sometimes very long distance to the coastal ports, seems to have been an ideal economic advantage, since the tree clippings and residues of the pressing could be used as fuel for high-temperature ARS kilns.154 The waste of date palms was also a long-term, readily available and cheap alternative to wood, as the procurement of firewood and the multiphase processing into charcoal were far more labor-intensive and involved very high costs.155 With Pheradi Maius and Oudna, however, workshops occur at the edge of or inside a town. The tendency towards urban centers of pottery production seems to be a late development and is common in the Byzantine period.156 Nevertheless, the kilns in urban potteries were also fueled by waste products from nearby presses as olive stones in the kiln of Oudna show.157 Precondition for the installation of urban or rural workshops was always the presence of sufficient clay, fuel and water. In addition to that, a change of location may also have been caused by individual political events. Persecutions and land confiscations in northern Tunisia during the reign of the Vandals may have initiated the migration of many people to Central Tunisia, and thus led to the start of C5 production. However, with the Byzantine reconquest at the turn of the 5th to the 6th centuries AD, the manufacturing in Northern Tunisia started again.158 The existence of a suspected, centralized control system, which could have activated the migration of workshops, is still uncertain.159 It remains to be tested whether the discovery of new workshops will support Bonifay’s theory. The discovery of the ARS A, A/D, C/E or E ateliers could change the situation completely. Moreover, a geographical shift of production centers over a long period of time is not uncommon. However, it has to be pointed out that the development and economic strength of the North African ceramics production was directly related to the total production and the demand for all agricultural goods. The emergence and promotion of export-oriented agriculture is linked to various historical and political events as well as social factors that mutually influenced each other.160 Therefore, there is no monocausal explanation for the emergence and relocation of workshops. Apart from economic and political events that affected the whole of Tunisia, there are also individual, site-specific causes, which made the difference between success and failure for an atelier. Only systematic archaeological research of all workshops can provide more and better information.

3 Methodology of fabric classification African tableware per se can easily be distinguished from other Mediterranean sigillatae, but the intraTunisian productions are hard to differentiate from each other. It was already shown (Chapter 2.2.2) that the traditional subdivision of ARS into several categories (A1, A1 fine, A1/2, A2, A/D, C1-C6, C/D, D1-D5, C/E, E, F, G and the so-called continental productions), i.e. generally formulated, non-standardized descriptions of the appearance of different African tablewares that can be individually interpreted, are not suitable for differentiating ARS production centers because they in this case they lead to controversial determination of finds. In addition, the vessel and decoration type are not an adequate distinguishing feature within every African workshop. In contrast, archaeometric analyzes have provided excellent results and usually allow an unambiguous assignment of samples to specific workshops.161 However, they have been conducted only on selected groups and a limited number of samples due to financial limitations and can only be processed by archaeologists dealing with ARS material that has also been analyzed archaeometrically. Alternatively, this book is intended to highlight the potential of classifying African tableware and identifying ARS workshops by fabric applying standardized fabric description. Faced with vague definitions and the problem of determining the origin of ceramics in general, the study of pottery and its visible material properties started in the second half of the 20th century. The aim was to provide a method for archaeologists and to eliminate sources of error, like subjective assessments as well as individual work habits, by defining objective and standardized guidelines.162 It had initially been invented for analyses in the field of geology, but was adapted for the examination of pottery by several archaeologists. Pioneering work was done in 1956 by A. Shepard, who tried to study pottery not only with classical-archaeological approaches like form and style, but also to create a systematic description of ceramics’ material properties.163 She already dealt with important elements, such as hardness, characteristics of the break and the texture as well as with the size and shape of inclusions and voids. In 1977, Peacock created precise guidelines for defining and describing sherds. Their basic structure has been widely accepted and is still the current system of fabric description.164 As a sample

strategy regardless of vessel forms and types of decoration and also mostly unaffected by preservation conditions, it was further developed by C. Orton and adapted by V. Gassner and R. Sauer.165 Together with B. Bechtold and M. Trapichler and in collaboration with several international partners, like R. Docter, G. Greco and B. Maraoui Telmini, Gassner established the online database FACEM (FAbrics of the CEntral Mediterranean), which records fabrics of Roman, Greek and Punic pottery of different ware types.166 Contrary to the traditional understanding of the categories A-E defined by mostly macroscopic observations of material properties of the sherd as well as characteristics of the technology (fire, surface treatment, etc.) and of the vessel types (Chapter 2.2.2), a fabric is considered to be ‘the composition of a fired ceramic, including clay, inclusions and voids and excluding surface treatment’.167 This summarizes all features of a sherd defined by the source and treatment of clay as well as the temperature and atmosphere during firing. These characteristics are discernable on a clean break by visual examination with the naked eye or by using a binocular microscope.168 Only samples with archaeologically and/or archaeometrically secured provenances can be used to categorize pottery according to the fabric. Defining the distinctive microscopic features of a workshop, which is like a fingerprint, primarily serves to find out which atelier exported its products and to where.169 Cross-referencing these ‘fingerprints’ with samples from selected consumption sites enables to accurately reconstruct distribution and trading patterns and therefore provides a new approach in understanding the ancient economy.170 Furthermore, the defined fabrics of each workshop are used to gain additional knowledge of the manufacturing process. By stating the workshop’s general microscopic features, variations of these can provide insight into the technology and standardization as well as the possibility of several workshops within a production site. Moreover, a possible relationship between certain fabrics and particular forms within an atelier will be estimated. The analyses in this study are according to the criteria applied in FACEM.171 Comparison charts and a well-defined vocabulary guarantee a standardized documentation of all fabrics. The description of a sherd is recorded on uniform sheets. After

15

macroscopic observations of the color (Munsell Soil Color Charts), hardness and texture of the fresh break, as well as notation of inclusions recognizable with the naked eye, there follows a microscopic inspection of the break, the matrix, its porosity and its inclusions. The size and shape of the particles and voids and the percentage of their occurrence as well as the sorting of inclusions are determined by comparison charts.172 The images with a light background are suited for sherds fired in an oxidizing and those with a dark background for samples fired in a reducing atmosphere. Subjective perceptions of number and appearance cannot be completely avoided; however, the error rate is significantly limited. Because it is an archaeological method done by archaeologists without a geological expertise, it is not always possible to correctly denominate the individual grains, but this has proven to form no obstacle in previous research. To avoid falsely labeling the inclusions, it is wise to decide against identification by name. Nevertheless, it is obligatory to describe every kind of particle in the best possible manner. Mica and limestone particles or carbonate pseudomorphoses (= burnt lime particles) are named as such because they are usually easily recognizable. Normally, the identification of argillaceous rock fragments is also possible. Argillaceous rock fragments are quite common in African pottery and have probably been introduced into the clay with the sand-sized temper, i.e. they are naturally occurring particles and not grog.173 The existence of quartz in the North African pottery is without doubt; however, the optical distinction between quartz and feldspar is nearly impossible for archaeologists. Therefore, quartz and feldspar are classified in the same category. All other inclusions are generally characterized only by their shape and color. The color has to be chosen from pre-defined options. The reddish-brown or black particles are mostly iron oxide concretions, but during the analysis only descriptive and not interpretative comments are made. Information on the frequency of the particles is not given in percentages, but are verbally indicated with ‘riddled with - very frequentfrequent- infrequent - singular’.174 The largest and smallest specimens of every existing particle type and of the voids are measured. The measurements are taken by means of the scale inside the ocular of the microscope and are quoted in millimeters. The fabric descriptions of all samples are compared to one another. Specimens sharing similar characteristics are grouped and represent a fabric type. However, not all representatives of a fabric

16

type look identical. The features of a fabric have to be understood as general characteristics, which constitute an average, including a certain degree of optical variations. The size of the sample, for instance, is important because small fragments show only a minimal segment in which the entire range of inclusions may not be visible. It is also relevant from which part of the vessel the samples were taken. In the formation process the clay tends to get more compressed on the rim and base as well as on handles than on the vessel walls, which may have changed the structure and texture optically. The comparison of rim and base fragments as well as handles with wall fragments may therefore be misleading under certain circumstances or can result in the definition of several fabrics for fragments of the same vessel. Moreover, the color can also distort the impression. However, ARS was not an industrial product, i.e. produced by machine, even though the technological standards were high. Differences in color and minor variations in the appearance of the sherd are common. Regardless of the variability due to the resources, the ability, experience and daily condition/mood of the potter could also have influenced the appearance. Non-intentional, production-related deviations or errors are not a fabric type. There is often a tendency for a strong subdivision of the fabrics due to minimal differences.175 In general, however, the definition of a few large groups is usually more advisable. Until different fabric groups are formed, a multiphase process is carried out, which can also be time-intensive depending on the amount of material that has to be investigated. Prior to the fabric description, a pre-sorting of the material is recommended. Nevertheless, a large material basis is advantageous for the analysis since more samples generally provide a greater number of data and, consequently, also statistically more reliable results. Once the fabric types have been found, the reference samples can be used for determining further material collections. In addition, it should be emphasized that the fabric decription cannot and is also not intended to replace fabric analyses with archaeometric methods. Ideally, there is a combination of both methods. The petrographic and chemical tests are used for analyzing raw materials, for gaining insight on fabrication technique and to confirm the classification of fabric description.176

4 The Salomonson survey (1960-1972) AND SIGNIFICANCE OF THE SURVEY

COLLECTION

Systematic surveys have been an integral part of archaeological field research for decades. It is hard to imagine how the ARS research today would look like without the information gained during many survey projects, e.g. the British-Tunisian survey conducted by Peacock, Bejaoui and Ben Lazreg in 1984, the prospection of El Mahrine, Henchir el Biar and Bordj el Djerbi by Mackensen in 1980s or the still ongoing project of the Carte National des Sites Archéologiques et des Monuments Historiques. However, it was the Dutch archaeologist Salomonson, who performed pioneering work by systematically surveying Algerian and Tunisian (production) sites and collecting Roman pottery since the beginning of the 1960s. Salomonson, working at the Netherlands Institute in Rome and as Professor at the University of Utrecht until 1983, was the first to use surveys as a tool for discovering ARS potteries and was also among the first in the field of Mediterranean survey archaeology in general. In several campaigns from 1960 to 1972, Salomonson surveyed 15 Tunisian and three Algerian sites (table 2) and collected more than 2,000 pieces of ceramic that are the basis for this study. The majority, thus 70%, of the finds are ARS (fig. 4), for which Salomonson developed a special interest and which was addressed by him in a number of publications.177

A preliminary publication of the survey finds and of information on the sites has only been done for the necropolis of Raqqada,178 and the two ARS workshops Henchir es Srira179 and Sidi Aïch.180 In the years 1960-1961, Salomonson had collected the ARS material from Raqqada after the Roman necropolis had been revealed during construction work a few kilometers southwest of Kairouan. Salomonson’s survey was followed by the excavation of some graves in 1964 that produced even more ceramic material.181 The pottery found in Bir el Aouja and Henchir el Aouja is associated with the Roman necropolis El Aouja, which is located just a few kilometers from Raqqada and was discovered in 1913. The material from the remaining sites of Salomonson’s surveys have not yet been studied or published. However, the typological composition of Salomonon’s survey finds as well as available historical and archaeological information indicate a basic interpretation of the nature and functions of the survey sites. Hence, the North Tunisian sites Bordj el Djerbi, Henchir el Biar, Oudna and Pheradi Maius (fig. 5; Chapters 5) can be unquestionably addressed as late antique ARS production centers. Equally, the Algerian Tiddis and Timgad can be considered as producers of African tableware (fig. 5). Tiddis, around 15 km northwest of the present city Constantine, has been researched since 1941 by A. Berthier and is well excavated. Twenty kilns, several clay processing basins, ten stone

1600

absolute value

1400

80% 70%

70%

1200

60%

1000

50%

800 600

40%

1400

30% 20%

400

percentages

4.1. THE ORIGIN

20% 400

200 0 ARS

cooking and coarse ware

7.5%

2.5%

150

50

lamps

amphorae

10% 0%

Fig. 4. Absolute value and percentage of the ceramic wares in total stock (n=2000) of survey material.

17

Bizerte

SIDI RHERIB

Annaba

Tunis

BORDJ EL DJERBI

Béja

HENCHIR EL BIAR

Kelibia OUDNA

TIDDIS

Constantine

Hammamet El Kef

Algeria

PHERADI MAIUS

Kairouan Batna

Sousse Monastir

RAQQADA BIR EL AOUJA HENCHIR EL AOUJA

Batna

TIMGAD

UZITA

Tébessa

KSOUR ESSAF SALAKTA

HENCHIR ES SRIRA

El Djem

SBEITLA

Kasserine

Sidi Bouzid BIR EL HAFAY

Sfax

SIDI AICH AD MAIORES

Gafsa

Tozeur

Gabès

Tunisia Médinine

El Oued

Ben-Guerdane

SALOMONSON'S EXPEDITION

Remada

modern city

Libya Libya

100 km

Fig. 5. Schematic map of Salomonson’s survey and excavation sites (illustration Hasenzagl). splash pans of potter’s wheels, 250 pottery tools and large amounts of ARS were detected there.182 These findings are the most extensive evidence for an ARS workshop in Africa so far. The potential for the research of ARS ateliers can only be

18

estimated, as the publication status in Tiddis, judged by the available material, is fairly poor and the pieces already published were only considered from a typological point of view and not in their context. In the northeast of the city, sev-

Site Ad Maiores Bir el Aouja (Aouja Bir) Bir El Hafay Bordj el Djerbi Henchir el Aouja (Aouja Hr) Henchir el Biar Henchir es Srira H(enchir) Guennara? Ksour Essaf Oudna Pheradi Maius Raqqada Salakta Sbeitla Sidi Aïch (hill 1-5) Sidi Rherib Tiddis Timgad Uzita

country Algeria Tunisia Tunisia Tunisia Tunisia Tunisia Tunisia Tunisia Tunisia Tunisia Tunisia Tunisia Tunisia Tunisia Tunisia Tunisia Algeria Algeria Tunisia

Character of the site city necropolis city? ARS and CW workshop necropolis ARS workshop city, ARS and CW workshop ? amphorae atelier city, ARS and CW workshop city, ARS and CW workshop necropolis amphorae atelier city city, ARS and CW workshop ARS and CW workshop? city, ARS workshop city, ARS workshop? city

date of the survey 14th May 1966 1960 /61? 1970 1968 1960/61? June 1968 1st October 1966 25th March/April? 197? ? June 1968 1961 1960/1961 ? 15th May 1966 2nd October 1966 25th May 1970 ? ? 1970-1972 (excavation)

Table 2. Algerian and Tunisian survey sites visited by J.W. Salomonson. CW = cooking and coarse ware eral buildings were associated with the production of 4th- and 5th- century-tableware, which is reminiscent of the secondary installation of a pottery in the Baths of the Laberii in Oudna.183 The ceramic finds from Tiddis show the production of local, stamp decorated ARS D and Algerian tableware with a dark discolored rim.184 Another ARS workshop was located in 1903 in the south of the city of Timgad (Thamugadi), 40 km east of modern Batna (fig. 5). The material revealed in 1903 is mainly unpublished. The production of local, stamp decorated ARS (D?) can only be suspected because of two published clay punches.185 The amount of material collected by Salomonson, however, is not sufficient to draw any conclusions about the ARS production in Timgad. Whereas the interpretation of Ksour Essaf and Salakta (Sullecthum) as amphorae ateliers is clear,186 the survey site of Sidi Rherib (Chapter 5.5) may be another, hitherto unknown, producer of ARS and cooking ware (fig. 5). Ad Maiores, Sbeitla, Bir el Hafay and Uzita (fig. 5), of which the excavated Punic amphorae together with simultaneous amphorae from further sites prospected by Salomonson were already published187, are cities and therefore consumers of ARS. H(enchir) Guennara (?) cannot be intepreted.

Unfortunately, there is only limited information on the survey campaigns of Salomonson available (Chapter 4.2). It is consequently not possible to provide details on the process and strategies of collecting for any site visited by him. Equally, the geographic area of Salomonson’s sampling activity within the sites could not be defined. With the exception of the sketch plan from the survey in Sidi Aïch (fig. 6), there is no data on where exactly the material was collected. Due to the missing mapping of finds, no concentrations of ARS can be recorded and therefore no assumptions about the location of individual workshops or workshop units in a production center can be made. As a result, the pieces from the ARS production sites in Salomonson’s collection can only be evaluated as products of the whole production center. Furthermore, there is unfortunately no information on the size of the surveyed area, the intensity of the prospecting or the number of persons involved. According to the date on some find labels, the surveys were conducted in a few days or even only in one day. Hence, the partly small numbers, with a maximum of approximately 400 fragments collected in Henchir es Srira, are hardly surprising. However, it is not possible to estimate whether the ARS was already subjected to certain selection criteria (size, vessel type, condition etc.)

19

Fig. 6. Sketch plan of the surveyed area in Sidi Aïch (photo Hasenzagl). during the survey. The varying numbers of samples from the sites within Salomonson’s collection are, however, not necessarily the result of a divergence in survey intensity or selective collecting. It is also impossible to understand the landscape and state of preservation of the sites during Salomonson’s visits in the 1960s and 1970s. Agricultural activities or vegetation may have affected the visibility and prevented survey findings or instead enabled a survey at a location that is today inaccessible or even has dissapeared. Apart from this, one may assume a certain correlation between the number of fragments collected and the number of collectable pieces in general. The immense number of sherds, which were documented in Pheradi Maius and Henchir es Srira before the survey of Salomonson, for instance is also reflected in the large amount of finds in Salomonson’s material. Although the lack of available documentation on the survey campaigns makes it impossible to give a complex evaluation and complete interpretation of the finds in the context of their find spot, Salomonson’s survey is still very important for research due to the significance of the ARS per se. The scientific value of the survey material is given by the fact that Salomonson collected the ARS in (or in the vicinity of) a pottery workshop.

20

Hence, the prospected sites are not only the find spots but also the places of origin. The survey material cannot only contribute to increasing the knowledge of the known potteries but may also enable identification of new production sites by detecting misfired samples, pottery tools and saggars. Moreover, the material can also provide new insights on the technology, the function, typology and chronology of the workshops, since a single sherd contains information on the raw material, the production technique, the vessel type and perhaps even decoration.188 Archaeometric, as well as fabric analyses will open new lines of research into provenance studies of ARS (Chapter 3) and consequently into the Roman economy and the relations between the African producers and the Mediterranean consumers. Although the ARS assemblages are always more or less simply extensive samples, the pieces can in addition to, or in accordance with, already known shapes and ornaments be used to gain further knowledge of the form and decoration spectrum of a production site.

4.2. THE WHEREABOUTS OF

THE SURVEY COLLECTION

After Salomonson’s survey campaigns, the collected material was transported first to Rome and then to the Netherlands, where it was stored at the University of Utrecht for decades (for the whereabouts of the collection see also Preface by Docter and Gassner). In 2003, it was handed over to Docter and Ghent University. This transfer was formalized in 2006. An inventory and a first typological sorting of finds was done by Bonifay in Ghent on 14 and 15 May 2008. At this time, the collection was kept in nine wooden boxes labeled ‘Prospections Tunisie’ in a depot of the archaeological department of Ghent University. The contents of a tenth box, which contained only pieces from Henchir es Srira, was already sorted, partially sampled and repacked into a plastic box by M. Flecker in 2004.189 In 2008, all wooden boxes were repacked into eight plastic boxes and it was attempted to maintain the old system according to bags. Changes to the original system of Salomonson before 2008, as suspected by Bonifay,190 may be in connection with the evaluation of the material by J. Derksen, who took a bag of Pheradi Maius and a bag of Aouja to the Archaeological Institute at Amsterdam Amsterdam on 10 April 1995.191 However, a re-sorting of the material could have also been done by someone else at another time. In 2010, Docter arranged to have Salomonson’s collection temporarily transferred to Vienna University. In July of the same year, the digitalization of the inventory and the examination of the ARS finds directed by Gassner began. Although Salomonson had counted the collected pieces, he provided only a few fragments from Pheradi Maius with inventory numbers.192 The pieces from Henchir es Srira and Sidi Aïch were provided with inventory numbers, in all probability by Stern, but they often were not legible any more.193 Therefore, all finds were numbered later (again) in Vienna. Because the material of a site was sometimes spread among several boxes and bags, the original order was finally abolished and specimens were grouped according to the place of their discovery. The inventory numbers of the fragments now do not depend on a box or a bag number, but on the site, which is indicated by a unique combination of letters (e.g. BD = Bordj el Djerbi, HB = Henchir el Biar etc.). Furthermore, the collected fragments were quantified. There are 1400 ARS samples, 400 pieces of coarse ware, 50 fragments of amphorae and 150 parts of lamps (fig. 4). The 454 ARS specimens from the North Tunisian ateliers Bordj el

Djerbi, Henchir el Biar, Oudna, Pheradi Maius and Sidi Rherib are presented in this book.194 In many cases, the original finds labels or scratches of paper (fig. 7) were enclosed and at least indicate the time of the survey of each site. Thus, the labels show that the survey in Henchir es Srira was conducted on 1 October 1966 and in Sidi Aïch (fig. 7. 9) on 2 October 1966.195 In Sidi Aïch, even the exact locations of the survey could be reconstructed due to a sketch plan drawn by Salomonson (fig. 6).

Fig. 7. Original labeling of the Salomonson’s survey finds (photo Hasenzagl).

21

The production site of Pheradi Maius was surveyed in 1961 (fig. 7. 7). Moreover, it is known that the prospections in Algerian Ad Maiores took place on 14 May 1966 (fig. 7. 1), and in Central Tunisian Sbeitla (Sufetula) on 15 May 1966 (fig. 7. 8). In Henchir el Biar (fig. 7. 6) and Oudna (fig. 7. 5) pottery was collected in June 1968. Despite missing labeling, the survey of Bordj el Djerbi can also be dated, namely to 1968.196 The prospection of the Central Tunisian city Bir El Hafay was in 1970 and the one of the North Tunisian Sidi Rherib on 25 May 1970 (fig. 7. 10). A barely legible note stating a site and date may indicate the (North?) Tunisian city Henchir Guennara, which was prospected on March 25/April? 197(1?) (fig. 7. 3). The survey material from Uzita has been compiled with great probability during the Dutch-Tunisian excavations 1970-1972. For the surveys in Ksour Essaf, Salakta (Sullecthum), Timgad and Tiddis, no further information is available. 4.3. DOCUMENTATION SYSTEM OF SURVEY FINDS

SALOMONSON’S

The documentation of the finds from Bordj el Djerbi, Henchir el Biar, Oudna, Pheradi Maius and Sidi Rherib visited by Salomonson includes the diagnostic and enigmatic ARS pieces as well as potter’s tools and saggars. All specimen used for fabric analysis are documented in accordance with the criteria applied for FACEM. Prior to the analysis a small sample (1 x 1 cm) was taken from each piece by S. Radbauer in 2009 during a FACEM-project in Ghent, a fresh break was created and examined with the help of a binocular microscope. The specimen, which shows the characteristics of a fabric type best, serves as reference sample and is documented by digital photos with magnifications 8x, 16x, 25x and 40x. The designation of a fabric type is also based on the system of FACEM, which consists of a three-part combination of abbreviations and numbers that can be extended as many times as needed. The first two letters address the presumed place of production, BD representing Bordj el Djerbi, HB Henchir el Biar, OU Oudna, PH Pheradi Maius and SR Sidi Rherib. Pieces of unknown origin are named IG (= ignotum). The first letters are followed by the abbreviation ARS as a superordinate category for African Red Slip and by a continuous number. In the survey material there are also a number of over- and misfired samples with a matrix melted to a shimmering and/or glassy surface. These pieces are associated

22

with fabric types, if type-specific characteristics can be observed. If all diagnostic indicators are lost, the fragments are counted as misfired. Macroscopically and microscopically throughout, black ARS fragments have to be regarded also as misfired. The North Tunisian workshops and their finds are dealt with separately. The catalogue of each site is divided into vessel types, starting with the lowest number of Hayes-forms or with the oldest type. The state of preservation, the dimensions in cm, the fabric type and a description of the décor, if applicable, are given for each sample. Heavily fragmented samples and some specimens with a morphological consistency with already illustrated fragments were only typologically determined and statistically recorded. Counted were all diagnostic fragments including rims, bases, handles and wall fragments with stamp decoration. This quantification strategy was chosen to present simple descriptive statistics with bar charts visualizing the proportions of vessel and decoration types as well as fabric types. Although being aware of the obvious flaw that the number of counted diagnostic fragments may not equal the number of vessels, it was deliberately decided against quantification methods of vessels represented (minimum, maximum or estimated) or estimated vessel equivalents (‘eves’).197 The numbers and percentages presented are a record of the pieces Salomonson collected during his surveys but are no sound statistical evaluation. The approximate dating according to form specific criteria can be gathered from the overview of vessel types given for each site. To avoid potential confusion with the identification of samples from a certain site, the abbreviation of the site of discovery was put before the catalog numbers, i.e. Bb = Bordj el Djerbi, Hb = Henchir el Biar, Ou = Oudna, Ph = Pheradi Maius and Sr = Sidi Rherib. Samples with an illustration are marked with the reference pl. and are shown in scale 1:3, unless otherwise indicated.

5 The North Tunisian tableware from the Salomonson survey 5.1. BORDJ EL DJERBI 5.1.1. History of research

who, in 1923, discovered the remains of a press, several cisterns, capitals and columns to the east of the modern road from El Batane to Bordj el Amri (fig. 9), on the hill Bordj el Djerbi.199 At the bottom of this hill, where they collected ARS D sherds with stamped decoration, pugilla and saggars, they also located several kilns and the remaining building structures of a pottery in addition to a nearby clay deposit.200 Opposite the hill and west of the modern road, the remains of a Late Roman church and an ancient Roman road were found.201 Another Christian sacral building (possibly with a baptistery) was documented 1.5 km to the south of Bordj el Djerbi.202 The identification of Bordj el Djerbi as a Roman pottery has already been made clear based on the finding reports of Poinssot and Lantier, but these

The Late Antique ARS pottery of Bordj el Djerbi (fig. 2) is situated 5 km to the south of the Roman city of Thuburbo Minus; it lies in a vast flat and hilly terrain on the left bank of the Mejerda, which is filled with water year-round. In the Mejerda Valley, which is Tunisia’s most fertile region producing cereals, fruits and vegetables, there are several rural and urban settlements of the Roman period documented (fig. 8). The documentation of rural Roman sites in the hinterland of Carthage has already been initiated in the Atlas Archéologique de la Tunisie, but Bordj el Djerbi was not referred to by name.198 It was specifically mentioned for the first time in the finding reports of L. Poinssot and R. Lantier,

R

U

E AT

M

THUBBA CHOUIGI

CARTHAGE

THUBURBO MINUS TEBOURBA

THIBIUCA

DJ ANSARINE

HR ZOUITINE

CINCARI

Bordj el Djerbi

BJ TOUMI

El Mahrine

a rd

eje

M

CLUACARIA

SUA

FURNOS MINUS

HR EL AHMERA

HR EL MSAADINE

CHAOUACH

AB

TUCCABOR TOUKKABEUR

EZ

DJ

ME

B EL

TURRIS

THISIDUO GRICH EL OUED

0

5 km

Fig. 8. Region of Bordj el Djerbi (overview) (after Cintas/Duval 1976, 854, fig. 1; adapted by Hasenzagl).

23

to Tebourba

Hr. el Kebir

Bordj el Djerbi

El Mahrine

MI

M II Hr. el Biar

3 km 0 to Bordj el Amri

Fig. 9. Region of Bordj el Djerbi (detail) (after Ben Moussa 2007a, 79, fig. 11; adapted by Hasenzagl). went unnoticed for many years. In 1968, Salomonson only collectively mentioned the ARS workshops of the Mejerda Valley.203 One year later, after Salomonson, A. Ennabli and L. Slim had been advised by J. Peyras to survey the Mejerda Valley, the workshops of El Mahrine, Henchir el Biar and Bordj el Djerbi were dealt with separately.204 Another prospection of the potteries was done by J. Deneauve and Ennabli in 1970, but the collected (?) or at least inspected pieces were not adequately described. Therefore, their dating of the tableware, as well as the assumption that the workshops were destroyed during the Vandal conquest, cannot be corroborated.205 It was only between 1997 and 1999 that Mackensen resumed research on Bordj el Djerbi. He documented vessel, lamp and decoration types collected during surveys (1997-1999) and initiated archaeometric analyses.206 However, in the following decades knowledge on Bordj el Djerbi did not increase. 5.1.2. Vessel and decoration types In 1968, Salomonson collected 125 pieces of pottery in Bordj el Djerbi. There are 118 fragments of ARS, which thus forms 94.4 % of the total. The tableware consists of 78 rims, 21 bases and 19 wall

24

fragments (table 3). 24 of the samples could not be used for a classification because of their high degree of fragmentation. The fragmentation of the pottery found in Bordj el Djerbi was also noticed by Mackensen during the survey 1997-1999 and was caused by intensive farming and the use of agricultural machines, although the samples collected in 1968 are significantly larger.207 All in all, 94 diagnostic ARS pieces, i.e. rims, bases and decorated walls (Chapter 4.3), of the ensemble from 1968 are documented here. The ARS material of Bordj el Djerbi, which is traditionally considered to be a producer of ARS D1, is very heterogeneous in terms of the macroscopic appearance and quality. The slip varies from reddish-yellow (5YR 6/6) to light red (2,5YR 6/8) and red (10R 5/8), from (very) thin to thick and from matt to lustrous. It usually covers the inside of the vessels and only parts of the outside wall and often has a rough and granular surface, which flakes off easily. The sample size of the survey in 1968 is rather small, but the available vessel types (Appendix 1) correspond to the forms documented by Mackensen and are therefore representative for the produced spectrum of types in Bordj el Djerbi. Typologically, the forms Hayes 58B, Hayes 59A/B, Hayes 61A/B, Hayes 63, Hayes 67, Hayes 73, Hayes 76B, Hayes 91, Hayes 93A/B and Hayes 104B can be clearly determined. The total number of less than 120 pieces is not sufficient to make conclusions about the numerical proportion of each vessel type within the entire production range of Bordj el Djerbi. Nevertheless, the most dominant forms of Salomonson’s survey comply with Bordj el Djerbi’s leading forms.208 These especially include Hayes 61 and Hayes 67, which account for 17 % and 34 % of the ARS of 1968 (fig. 10). Base fragments with stamped decoration (fig. 10), which may belong to vessel types with flat or almost flat bases, like Hayes 59, Hayes 61, Hayes 67 and Hayes 76, form c. 16 % of the survey material (fig. 10). Whereas Hayes 59 and Hayes 93 each reach 7.4 % and Hayes 58 5.3 %, the forms Hayes 63, Hayes 76, Hayes 91, Hayes 104 as well as jugs are only represented with 1 %. Hayes 8 also exists only once (fig. 10). The stamp decoration shows a majority of Hayes A(i)-A(iii) motifs. The most frequent ones are concentric circles with and without dot- and whirl-fringes, palm branches of varying sizes as well as square or round grille-patterns. A singular piece has a style Hayes E(i)-a left looking dove (cat. Bd.080, pl. 5).

5.1.3. Typochronology The pieces of Salomonson’s survey date from the beginning of the 4th to the second half of the 6th century AD. The fragment of Hayes 8 (cat. Bd.001, pl. 1), which was made in the second half of the 2nd century AD, is an older, non-local vessel type and was clearly not produced in Bordj el Djerbi or any other North Tunisian workshop represented in Salomonson’s collection. The flat-based forms Hayes 58B, Hayes 59 and Hayes 61A were produced since the first third of the 4th century AD, which is also the beginning of production in Bordj el Djerbi. Hayes 58B (cat. Bd.002-Bd.008, pl. 1), which was manufactured during the first half of the 4th century AD, is considered to be the earliest form in Bordj el Djerbi and the predecessor of Hayes 59A/B (cat. Bd.009Bd.015, pl. 1), which has a broader, flat rim than Hayes 58.209 Hayes 58B, which exists in all workshops in the Mejerda valley, is regarded as an imitation of the Central Tunisian ARS C form Hayes 58A, while Hayes 59 was probably a North Tunisian creation made since the establishment of the Mejerda potteries around 320 AD.210 At the same time, the production of the 4th-century form Hayes 61A (cat. Bd.016-Bd.025, pls 1-2) also began.211 Hayes 61B (cat. Bd.030-Bd.031, pl. 3), which is completely absent in the workshops El Mahrine and Henchir el Biar, is characteristic of Bordj el Djerbi and was found in high quantities. Equally common is the type Hayes 61 transitorial, which

combines features of Hayes 61A and Hayes 61B (cat. Bd.026-Bd.029, pl. 2) and was produced contemporaneously with Hayes 61B no. 20/30.212 In addition to Hayes 63 (cat. Bd.032-Bd.033, pl. 3) with a late 4th-century date, the production of the shallow bowl Hayes 67 with multiple variants starts in the middle of the same century.213 Among the pieces of Salomonson’s collection are only the variants B (cat. Bd.034-Bd.039, pl. 3) and C (cat. Bd.040-Bd.064, pls 3-4) that were made from the late 4th to the second half of the 5th century AD. Moreover, during the first half of the 5th century AD Bordj el Djerbi was a producer of the small bowls Hayes 73 and Hayes 76 (cat. Bd.068-Bd.070, pls 4-5). Due to their similarity, several transitional variants can be expected. The plate cat. Bd.068 (pl. 4) is similar to Atlante XXXVI,2 and possibly another variation of Hayes 76. The forms Hayes 59, Hayes 61, Hayes 63, Hayes 67 and Hayes 76 usually have style Hayes A(i)-A(iii), or stamped decoration. Cat. Bd.078 (pl. 5) has to be listed as a special form, its shaping of the rim is reminiscent of Hayes 95, but it is much bigger and may be some sort of predecessor to the small bowl Hayes 95 or may be considered as a variant of Hayes 93. In the mid 5th century AD, Bordj el Djerbi also made flanged bowls of the type Hayes 91B (cat. Bd.071, pl. 5). Hayes 93A (cat. Bd.073-Bd.074, pl. 5) appeared in the second half of the 5th century AD and Hayes 93B (cat. Bd.075-Bd.077, pl. 5) from the late 5th to the mid 6th century AD.214 The inner floor of these bowls is decorated with style

Hayes 8 Hayes 58 Hayes 59 Hayes 61 Hayes 63 Hayes 67 Atlante XXXVI,2 Hayes 76 Hayes 91 Hayes 93 similar Hayes 95 Hayes 104 jug stamped base 0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

Fig. 10. Percentages of vessel types from Bordj el Djerbi (n=94).

25

vessel type (Appendix 1)

ARS

Hayes 8 Hayes 58B Hayes 59A/B Hayes 61A Hayes 61A/B Hayes 61B Hayes 63 Hayes 67 Hayes 67B Hayes 67C Hayes 76 var. Hayes 76B Hayes 91 Hayes 93A Hayes 93B similar Hayes 95 Hayes 104B var. stamped base jug

total

number

rim

1 7 7 10 4 2 2 1 6 25 2 1 2 2 3 1 1 15 2 94

1 5 4 10 4 2 2

base

wall

2

2 1

1 6 25 2 1 1 2 3 1 1

1

15 70

17

2 7

Table 3. Absolute numbers of the survey finds from Bordj el Djerbi. Hayes A(iii)/E(i) and E(i) stamps, which also occur with Hayes 104B (cat. Bd.079, pl. 5) that was produced from the late 5th to the end of the 6th century AD. Hayes 104B is therefore the youngest vessel type of the survey finds from 1968. The majority of diagnostic pieces from Salomonson’s collection are 4th- and 5th-century vessel types, e.g. Hayes 58-61, Hayes 67 and Hayes 76B (table 3; fig. 10). By far lower is the amount of the fragments that can be dated to the transition from the 5th to the 6th century AD, i.e. Hayes 93 and Hayes 104A, as well as to the 6th century AD, only represented by the vessel type Hayes 104B (table 3; fig. 10). Mackensen was able to detect four production phases in the neighboring potteries of El Mahrine and Henchir el Biar.215 The first production phase dates from the first third of the 4th to the middle of the 5th century AD. It was followed by phase 2 that lasted until 470/480 AD and phase 3, which continued until 500 AD. The production ended with the fourth and final phase in the middle of the 7th century AD. A subdivision into different stages of production is not currently possible for Bordj el Djerbi. The motifs of stamps used by Mackensen for the chronology of manufacturing in El Mahrine and Henchir el Biar cannot be consulted for Bordj el Djerbi because of their comparatively low num-

26

ber and due to the difficulties of connecting the stamped fragments with a certain vessel type. Therefore, it is also not possible to say anything about form-specific stamps and their development. Nevertheless, the documented stamps are important for the knowledge of the spectrum of motifs produced in Bordj el Djerbi. There is a high potential that the four production phases of El Mahrine and Henchir el Biar are also valid for Bordj el Djerbi. Reasons to believe in a parallel production and organization include not only the similar and contemporaneous vessel types of the potteries but also the very short geographic distance, which is only about 5 km between Bordj el Djerbi and Henchir el Biar.Mackensen assumed that the potteries of El Mahrine, Henchir el Biar and Bordj el Djerbi were built on the same latifundium in the period of Constantine.216 Although the epigraphic sources are not sufficient to reconstruct ownership or tenancy of the latifundium and the ARS-workshops, it is suspected that they belonged to a private landowner rather than belonging to a city or an imperial saltus.217 The multitude of agricultural facilities, as well as of the potteries on this latifundium, was temporarily leased. In Bordj el Djerbi, three potter tools with graffiti were documented; however, it is not clear if they refer to three potters or to tenants

of officinae.218 Likewise, it is not evident if they were active at the same time or at divergent stages of production. Whereas there is no graffito from Henchir el Biar, in El Mahrine four inscriptions giving at least three different names were found.219 In general, it would be meaningful to consider a number of small, simultaneous officinae in each of the known production sites in the Mejerda Valley. All sites together formed a large ARS-center that was able to provide a sizable volume of output for both local demand and export. Evidence for the final collapse of the production center is scant, but it can be said that neither the Vandal conquest of North Tunisia nor the reconquest of this territory by Justinian had drastic influence on the private ARS-potteries. Whereas the survey finds in Henchir el Biar show that the production lasted until the first half of the 6th century AD, El Mahrine and Bordj el Djerbi manufactured ARS until the middle of the 7th century AD. El Mahrine probably even produced tableware until 680/690 AD for the settlements of the Mejerda Valley and for Carthage.220

5.1.4. Fabrics Bordj el Djerbi is located on the edge of Tertiary hills, which consists of marl and limestone in a shallow depression and is geologically situated in an accumulation area of Paleogene and Neogene clays, sands/sandstones and quaternary alluvial soils (fig. 11).221 A light clay layer observed by Poinssot and Lantier in a depth of only 0.6 m suggests clay mining.222 The tableware of Bordj el Djerbi and the nearby potteries of El Mahrine and Henchir el Biar include, above all, rounded quartz grains, brown iron oxide concretions, argillaceous stone fragments, as well as a few limestone and mica particles.223 Chemically, the productions can be differentiated by a diverging percentage of the trace elements strontium and rubidium as well as silicon and barium.224 The tableware made in Bordj el Djerbi, which is traditionally regarded as producer of ARS D1, consists of three fabrics: BD-ARS-1, BD-ARS-2 and BD-ARS-3 sharing similar characteristics are arranged in order from a compact to coarse and granular matrix.

N Bordj el Djerbi El Mahrine Henchir el Biar Oudhna Tunisian ridge Sidi Khalifa

Quaternary Neogene

Algeria

Paleogene

Mediterranean Sea Sidi Marzouk Tounsi

Cretaceous Jurassic

Henchir es Srira Anticline Zaouia

North-south-Axis

Henchir el Guellel

Silurian

50 km

Fig. 11. Geological area of Bordj el Djerbi, Henchir el Biar, Oudna and Pheradi Maius (overview) (after Baklouti et al. 2014, 525, fig. 1,a; adapted by Hasenzagl).

27

BD-ARS-1 (Bd.052) 8x

BD-ARS-1 (Bd.052) 16x

BD-ARS-1 (Bd.052) 25x

BD-ARS-1 (Bd.052) 40x

BD-ARS-2 (Bd.058) 8x

BD-ARS-2 (Bd.058) 16x

BD-ARS-2 (Bd.058) 25x

BD-ARS-2 (Bd.058) 40x

Fig. 12. BD-ARS-1 and BD-ARS-2 at magnification 8 – 40 (photos Hasenzagl).

28

BD-ARS-1 (fig. 12, Appendix 2, pl. 25) BD-ARS-1 is hard-burned, smooth-breaking and shows some brown and light inclusions of medium size, when examined with the naked eye. The clay color can be described as reddish-yellow (5YR 6/6-6/8). The voids, which occur in the range of 2.5 to 7.5 %, are channel-like or vughy shaped and generally do not exceed 0.125 mm in size. The average number of inclusions is 20 to 25 %. Significant variations in particle size ranging from 0.025-1 mm are apparent at first sight. The partly very large particles stand out against the fine-looking, compact and smooth matrix. The rust colored to reddish-brown inclusions of rounded and elongated/spherical shape are particularly striking. In addition, there are small black particles, often with a metallic lustre, but these are only present in smaller amounts. The calcareous particles and foraminifera, which are up to 0.75 mm in size, are also noticeable.However, their numerical proportion has a maximum of only 5 %. Rare and only discernible at a very high level of magnification are the well-rounded, white and light yellowish-beige carbonate pseudomorphoses. Mica sporadically occurs as silver polygonal particles. Bright shimmering reflections, however, can also be a result from the fractures of the quartz/ feldspar particles. Quartz/feldspar is by far the most abundant type of inclusion, ranging in color from translucent to whitish or greyish and occuring in size from 0.025 to 0.625 mm. On average, these particles are relatively small-dimensioned, spherical and mostly rounded. A further characteristic of BD-ARS-1 are the pluriform, sharply delineated holes, caused by the eruption of quartz/ feldspar as well as the brown particles that can be perceived particularly well due to the smooth matrix. However, the visibility of the up to 0.5 mm large, usually lenticular argillaceous rock fragments, which are beige and also break smoothly, is limited due to the color and texture of the body clay. The darker pieces of the group BD-ARS-1 make it easier to recognize the argillaceous rock fragments. BD-ARS-2 (fig. 12, Appendix 2, pl. 26) BD-ARS-2 has an irregular texture with a series of medium-sized, bright and reddish particles and shows a color variation of reddish-yellow (5YR 6/8) to light red (2.5YR 6/6). Under the microscope, it is evident that the irregular - granular texture results from the large number of quartz/ feldspar grains. The temper, totaled at approxi-

mately 30-35 %, is dominated by quartz/feldspar. The minimum and maximum grain size of 0.025 to 1 mm is nearly the same as with BD-ARS-1, but the translucent, whitish and dull quartz/feldspar particles of subspherical and subrounded form are larger, therefore resulting in a generally coarser appearance of the sherd. Furthermore, BD-ARS-2 seems more porous due to the vughy and channel-like, 0.025-0.125 mm voids, which occur in a frequency of 10-15 %. As a result of the granular and void-rich structure, the inclusions, whose nature and composition are consistent with those of BD-ARS-1, are less discernible. The most striking particles, which clearly stand out from the matrix, are the spherical, well-rounded calcareous particles and carbonate pseudomorphoses. Whereas these are only rarely found in BD-ARS-2, their incidence of around 10 % is considerably higher than in BD-ARS-1. The argillaceous rock fragments, which occur in low quantity and in sizes up to 0.75 mm, are more visible than in BD-ARS-1. The rust colored and reddish-brown particles, which have an elongated/spherical and rounded shape and a size of 0.025 to 0.375 mm, are represented infrequently. The rare small black metallic particles are visible only with a high magnification. Equally rare are the silver mica particles. BD-ARS-3 (fig. 13, Appendix 2, pl. 26) Without optical aid, BD-ARS-3 shows a similar irregular structure as BD-ARS-2 with few large bright particles. All pieces can be described as reddish-yellow (5YR 6/6). Microscopically, BD-ARS-3 has a very granular structure with a high percentage of inclusions. The majority of particles, which account for a total of approx. 40 % of the matrix, are subspherical and subrounded, quartz/feldspar grains of which the average size is even larger than in BD-ARS-2. The matrix, which is almost riddled with quartz/feldspar, has smallsized vughy and channel-like voids, which occur at a frequency of 7.5 %. As in BD-ARS-2, the white to light yellow calcareous particles with dimensions up to 0.625 mm are the most distinctive particles. The rust colored/reddish-brown and black particles are also present in amounts that can be compared with those of BD-ARS-2, but they remain unobtrusive due to the strongly and coarsely grained structure. The argillaceous rock fragments are not noticeable at all or at least only at a high level of magnification. The nature of the inclusions, their appearance and the composition of the particles visualizes the petrographic relation of the fabric types

29

BD-ARS-3 (Bd.049) 8x

BD-ARS-3 (Bd.049) 16x

BD-ARS-3 (Bd.049) 25x

BD-ARS-3 (Bd.049) 40x

IG-ARS-1 (Bd.011) 8x

IG-ARS-1 (Bd.011) 16x

IG-ARS-1 (Bd.011) 25x

IG-ARS-1 (Bd.011) 40x

Fig. 13. BD-ARS-3 and IG-ARS-1 at magnification 8 – 40 (photos Hasenzagl).

30

IG-ARS-2 (Bd.001) 8x

IG-ARS-2 (Bd.001) 16x

IG-ARS-2 (Bd.001) 25x

IG-ARS-2 (Bd.001) 40x

Fig. 14. IG-ARS-2 at magnification 8 – 40 (photos Hasenzagl). BD-ARS-1, BD-ARS-2 and BD-ARS-3, which account for 97 % of the material and indicate a local production in Bordj el Djerbi. 48 %, and thus the majority of the pieces collected in 1968, can be assigned to BD-ARS-1 (fig. 15). BD-ARS-2 reaches a percentage of 31 % (fig. 15) and BD-ARS-3 is represented with 18 % (fig. 15). In the evaluation of local fabric and vessel types of Bordj el Djerbi, no dependencies could be observed. The assignment of the fabrics to certain forms revealed no pattern, which suggests that, in general, any form could be produced in all possible fabric types. It is not possible to comprehend whether the different fabrics can be interpreted as a variation of raw material or as differences in the preparation and processing of the clay by different workshops or potters. There are also no relationships between fabric and engobe. Whereas BD-ARS-1 and BD-ARS-2 cannot be differentiated from each other macroscopically, the often coarser appearance of BD-ARS-3 is not due to the engobe, but to the body clay itself. A generalized and simplistic separation of the pieces into macroscopically fine and coarse is not without exceptions and is not subject to any generally valid criteria. After considering all possible fac-

tors, it can be stated that the fabric types are independent of form, engobe, and dating. However, 3 % of the specimen cannot be grouped with any of the BD-ARS fabrics. Two fragments of a fabric, which is called IG-ARS-1 (fig. 13, Appendix 2), have a reddish-yellow (5YR 6/6) to red (2.5YR 5/8) irregular matrix, which shows many small light particles during a macroscopic examination. Microscopically prominent are the very numerous white subspherical and wellrounded, up to 0.25 mm large carbonate pseudomorphoses, which occur in high quantities that deviate strongly from those in BD-ARS-1, BD-ARS-2 and BD-ARS-3. Also, the small rust colored and black particles cannot be compared to the appearance and frequency in the BD-ARS-1 types. The most common particles are again glassy, milky or greyish quartz/feldspar grains with subspherical and subrounded shape and dimensions from 0.025 to a maximum of 0.625 mm. The two examples of IG-ARS-1 (fig. 13, Appendix 2, pl. 27) are assigned to Hayes 58B and Hayes 59A, which are the earliest documented vessel types in Bordj el Djerbi. A Central Tunisian predecessor for Hayes 58B is already known. Hayes 59A is considered to be a new creation of the Mejerda

31

Valley. However, due to the matching fabrics of the types Hayes 58B and Hayes 59A, another origin for Hayes 59A can be taken into account or at least it can be assumed that both forms were also produced in a different workshop. Whether these surely non-local samples represent ARS A/D is not clear at the moment. The most recent studies of ARS material on Sicily revealed a variety of Hayes 58B, which showed strong similarities to ARS A in the thin section. Regarding the revised date for the end of production of ARS A (first half of 4th century AD), the idea of ARS A workshops producing ARS D forms in a final phase production has also be taken into account.225 Because of the heterogeneous appearance of the tableware from Bordj el Djerbi, the fragments of the type IG-ARS-1 could not a priori be macroscopically recognized as non-local pieces. The fragment of the form Hayes 8 with a thick, glossy engobe has already been typologically and macroscopically referred to as an old/non-local vessel type. A different provenance was also confirmed microscopically by the fabric IG-ARS-2 (fig. 14, Appendix 2, pl. 27), which clearly differs from BD-ARS-1, BD-ARS-2 and BD-ARS-3. The very small sample has a very compact, strong orange matrix with few inclusions and voids. Particularly striking are the few, especially glassy quartz/feldspar particles as well as the calcareous inclusions. Few large white lime particles are supplemented by tiny small yellowish carbonate pseudomorphoses. Black and reddish-brown inclusions occur infrequently.

45

5.2.1. History of research The Late Roman pottery-making center of Henchir el Biar is located in the Tebourba (figs 2, 8) region, 4 km south of the ARS-workshop Bordj el Djerbi (Chapter 5.1) and approximately 1.5 km to the south of the big ARS-production site El Mahrine (fig. 9). The existence of an atelier in Henchir el Biar was already indicated in the Atlas Archéologique de la Tunisie, but not confirmed until the survey in 1968 conducted by Salomonson, Ennabli, Slim and Peyras.226 The ARS from Henchir el Biar presented in this study was collected during this survey in 1968. In 1970, Henchir el Biar was again prospected by Deneauve and Ennabli, however, the results of this campaign have never been published.227 In the years that followed, Henchir el Biar was only listed as a North Tunisian ARS atelier, but no further knowledge was gained.228 A survey in 1987229 by Mackensen could provide new insight in the repertoire of vessel and decoration types, which corresponds to the first production phase in El Mahrine. However, only a limited quantity of the finds from Henchir el Biar, which covers an area of about 0.25 ha, could be documented in the quickly conducted campaign in 1987 and no further investigation has been done thus far.230

60%

48%

50%

absolute value

40 35

25 20

40%

31%

30

30%

45 18%

15

20%

29

10

17 2%

5 0

BD-ARS-1

BD-ARS-2

BD-ARS-3

10% 1%

2

1

IG-ARS-1

IG-ARS-2

Fig. 15. Absolute values and percentages of the fabric types in Bordj el Djerbi (n=94).

32

0%

percentage

50

5.2. HENCHIR EL BIAR

Hayes 67 Hayes 73 Hayes 73 base Hayes 76 Mackensen 10 (BS) Mackensen 11.1 stamped fragment base non id. lamp 0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

Fig. 16. Percentages of vessel types from Henchir el Biar (n=65). 5.2.2. Vessel and decoration types In 1968, Salomonson collected 65 pieces of pottery, which are without exception African tableware. The ARS consists of 45 rims, 13 bases, three wall fragments and four pieces of lamps. All in all, there are 58 diagnostic ARS pieces, i.e. rims, bases and decorated walls (Chapter 4.3) of the ensemble documented from 1968 (Appendix 1). The ceramic finds are very well preserved. In contrast to the high degree of fragmentation of Bordj el Djerbi (Chapter 5.1.2), the majority of the pieces from Henchir el Biar is relatively large. The ARS material of Henchir el Biar, which is usually assigned to the category ARS D1, is very heterogeneous in terms of the macroscopic appearance due to the great variation of color, which ranges from light red (10R 6/6 and 6/8) to red (2.5YR 5/6) and light reddish brown (2.5YR 6/4), all of which can appear on one fragment. The quality of the slip, however, is very similar. It is very thin as well as matt and usually covers the inside of the vessels and only parts of the outside wall. The surface often was not treated conscientiously because it is rough and granular and the slip flakes off easily. At first glance, several over-fired and blackened pieces as well as the fragments with black stains become apparent (e.g. cat. Hb.007, Hb.020, Hb.027, Hb.032). Also remarkable is the typological homogeneity of the finds collected by Salomonson. Henchir el Biar’s main vessel types documented by Mackensen during the survey in 1987 are Hayes

58B, Hayes 59A/B, Hayes 61A, Hayes 61 transitorial, Hayes 62A, Hayes 63, Hayes 67, Hayes 76A/B, Hayes 91A/B, Hayes 93B. In contrast, among the diagnostic pieces of Salomonson’s survey are only four different vessel types, namely Hayes 67, Hayes 73A/B, Hayes 76A/B and one single piece that probably corresponds with Mackensen 11.1/Hayes 80 (table 4, fig. 16). The most dominant form of Salomonson’s survey is Hayes 73, which accounts for 32.3 % or even for 44.6 % (fig. 16) when including the base fragments that can be likely attributed to Hayes 73. The second most frequent type is Hayes 67, which is represented with 30.8 % (fig. 16). Fragments of Hayes 76 form 7.7 % (fig. 16) of the material from 1968. The four ARS-lamps have a share of 6 % (fig. 16). Two of the lamp fragments bearing a whirlfringe on their rim can be either assigned to Atlante VIII A or Atlante VIII C. The two nozzles have rests of the wick hole but are too fragmented for a clear determination of the type. However, an attribution to Atlante VII A/C would also be possible. Whereas the bases typologically not determinable reach almost 5 % and the form Mackensen 10 is 3 %, Mackensen 11.1 as well as one sample with stamp decoration showing most likely the rest of a style Hayes A(ii) palm branch only exist once that equals a percentage of 1.5 % (fig. 16). According to Salomonson’s survey, Hayes 73 would be the leading form of Henchir el Biar, a result that was not documented during the investigations of Mackensen 1987. However, the total number of less than 100 pieces (table 4) is not suf-

33

ARS

vessel type (Appendix 1) Hayes 67A Hayes 67B Hayes 67C Hayes 73A Hayes 73B Hayes 73? Hayes 76A Hayes 76B Hayes 76 Mackensen 10 (BS) Mackensen 11.1 stamped fragment base non id. lamp

total

number 1 7 12 11 10 8 1 2 2 2 1 1 3 4 65

rim 1 7 12 11 10

base

wall

8 1 2 2 2 1 1 3 45

13

3

Table 4. Absolute numbers of the survey finds from Henchir el Biar. ficient enough to make conclusions about the entire production of Henchir el Biar. To assume that Salomonson intentionally collected only these types is not very plausible. It is much more likely that he found only these pieces at the time of the survey. Nevertheless, this is a bit surprising considering the rather small size (c. 0.25 ha) of the workshop in Henchir el Biar. Maybe he discovered the waste material of a kiln containing this limited repertoire of forms. The many mis- and over-fired fragments are also an indication for an interpretation as wasters. 5.2.3. Typochronology According to the dating of the vessel types collected by Mackensen in 1987 and to the assumption of a parallel beginning of production in all workshops of the Mejerda Valley, it is assumed that Henchir el Biar started to produce ARS in the first third of the 4th century AD.231 The earliest vessel type documented in Salomonson’s survey is the shallow bowl Hayes 67, which was made since the middle of the 4th century, maybe even since 340 AD, with multiple rim-variants ranging from merely thickened (Hayes 67A) or hooked (Hayes 67B) to rolled (Hayes 67C).232 As a consequence of the high amount of variations of Hayes 67, which was produced up to the second half of the 5th century AD, the typological development is extremely difficult to detect, a fact that was already noticed by Waagé and Hayes.233 Hayes’ attempt to divide

34

Hayes 67 into three temporally successive variants based on the use of different stamp styles has already been revised since the stamp decorations occur simultaneously.234 Equally dismissed was the division proposed by Tortorella.235 Even though the work of Mackensen (form 9.1-9.5) and Bonifay (Hayes 67A, Hayes 67B and Hayes 67C) have simplified the typology of Hayes 67 considerably, it is still not always possible to assign the individual pieces to one of the variants.236 Among the pieces of Salomonson’s survey are all variants A, B and C as well as variations of them. The oldest variant is Hayes 67A (cat. Hb.001, pl. 7), which was common in the second half of the 4th century. Variants B (cat. Hb.002-Hb.007, pl. 7) and C (cat. Hb.008-Hb.016, pls 7-8) were made from the late 4th or early 5th to the second half of the 5th century AD. The simultaneous production of the two variants is confirmed by their discovery in one and the same saggar in El Mahrine; the highly rounded rim of Hayes 67C (cat. Hb.017- Hb.019, pl. 8), however, is the latest development of Hayes 67.237 One variant of Hayes 67B (cat. Hb.004, pl. 7) shows a slight offset on the upper part of the rim, which is usually common with Hayes 68-a form that was not produced in the Mejerda Valley. Moreover, during the 5th century AD Henchir el Biar also was a producer of Hayes 73 and Hayes 76. The morphological dependence of the small bowls Hayes 73 and the larger plates Hayes 76 with a broad horizontal or slightly diagonal rim and a sharp transition from rim to wall has already been shown several times and is probably due to

the fact that they were part of a service.238 Both forms have a broad horizontal or upward rising rim with a lip of varying shape. Whereas Hayes 73 (cat. Hb.020-Hb.036, pls 8-9) is rather small and has a steep wall and small-sized foot with a low diameter (cat. Hb.037-Hb.043, pl. 9), the flat based Hayes 76 possesses a low curved wall and appears in larger dimensions.239 Hayes 73 was produced in the variants A and B. Hayes 73A’s rim is plain or bears groups of notches on its upper edge. In contrast to A, variant B, which corresponds with Mackensen form 16.3, has grooves in the middle of the rim or at the transition from wall to rim.240 Both types are present in the survey material that also consists of Hayes 76A (cat. Hb.044, pl. 9) with plain rim and Hayes 76B (cat. Hb.045-Hb.046, pl. 9), which is characterized by continuous notches or groups of them on the upper edge of the rim that sometimes also have (a pair of) grooves. Only singularly collected was a fragment of the shallow bowl of the type Mackensen 11.1 (ca. Hb.049, pl. 9) that is similar to Hayes 80 and was made from c. 420 until the second half of the 5th century AD. The stamped fragment (cat. Hb.055, pl. 9) that is a part of a base could possibly be attributed to the forms Hayes 67 and Hayes 76-since the inner floor of these bowls is decorated with stamps. The piece shows only a small detail of a palm-branch that is similar to A(ii) types of El Mahrine dating from the mid-4th to the middle of the 5th century AD.241 Moreover, there are two lamp fragments bearing a band of palm leafs that can either be classified as type Atlante VIII A or Atlante VIII C and their subgroups A1a, A1b, A1c, C1a, C1b, C1c, C2a and C2b. However, the differentiation of VIII A (convex rim) and VIII C (flat rim) is generally difficult and particularly challenging for the subcategories that are also characterized by the number of filling-holes and the design of the discus.242 Whereas cat. Hb.057 has no feature for a precise determination, the position of the rest of a filling-hole of cat. Hb.056 at least indicates that it is a type with two holes, e.g. A1a, A1b, C1a or C2a. The production of Atlante VIII A and C started in the second half of the 4th and continued until the second half of the 5th century AD, although the end of production is still being discussed.243 All of the diagnostic pieces of Salomonson’s survey are 4th- and 5th-century vessel types. They correspond with El Mahrine’s and Henchir el Biar’s production phase 1 that includes, in particular, the manufacturing of Hayes 58B, Hayes 59A/B, Hayes 61A, Hayes 62A, Hayes 63, Hayes 67, Hayes 73A/B, Hayes 76A/B as well as some local vari-

ants.244 Hayes 67, Hayes 73, Hayes 76, Mackensen 10 and Mackensen 11.1 can be assigned to the subphases 1b and 1c. The approximate dating of phase 1 - ending in mid-5th century AD - may have to be reconsidered due to the revision of the chronology of several forms (e.g. Hayes 67). Neither the material collected by Salomonson nor the finds of Mackensen consist of any non-local older ARS types.245 The survey finds of Mackensen signaled that the production of ARS in Henchir el Biar lasted until the first half of the 6th century AD.246 It is assumed that the atelier in Henchir el Biar was closed down approximately 100 - or even 150 years earlier than the neighboring potteries of El Mahrine and Bordj el Djerbi, although this cannot be proved with absolute certainty. Unfortunately, Salomonon’s survey cannot provide new insight on the end of production in Henchir el Biar. 5.2.4. Fabrics Henchir el Biar is geologically situated in an accumulation area of Tertiary marl and limestone, of Paleogene and Neogene clays, sands/sandstones as well as quaternary alluvial soils (fig. 11).247 Like the products of the nearby potteries, Bordj el Djerbi and El Mahrine Henchir el Biar’s tableware mainly consist of rounded quartz grains, brown iron oxide concretions, argillaceous stone fragments, as well as a few calcareous and mica particles.248 Chemically, the productions can be differentiated by a diverging percentage of the trace elements strontium and rubidium as well as silicon and barium, although there are sometimes difficulties of clearly distinguishing between the sites due to the use of clays belonging to the same geological formation.249 In a North Tunisian comparison, the ARS from the Mejerda Valley is richer in Sr, Zr, TiO2, K2O, Al2KO3, Y and Rb than other workshops such as Oudna and Pheradi Mauis.250 On the basis of Salomonson’s survey three fabrics were established for the production in Henchir el Biar, which is considered to be a producer of ARS D1 according to the traditional classification. The microscopic distinction of HB-ARS-1, HB-ARS-2 and HB-ARS-3 sharing overall similar characteristics was made due to differences of the texture varying from fine and compact to rather coarse and porous.

35

HB-ARS-1 (Hb.008) 8x

HB-ARS-1 (Hb.008) 16x

HB-ARS-1 (Hb.008) 25x

HB-ARS-1 (Hb.008) 40x

HB-ARS-2 (Hb.004) 8x

HB-ARS-2 (Hb.004) 16x

HB-ARS-2 (Hb.004) 25x

HB-ARS-2 (Hb.004) 40x

Fig. 17. HB-ARS-1 and HB-ARS-2 at magnification 8 – 40 (photos Hasenzagl).

36

HB-ARS-3 (Hb.011) 8x

HB-ARS-3 (Hb.011) 16x

HB-ARS-3 (Hb.011) 25x

HB-ARS-3 (Hb.011) 40x

Fig. 18. HB-ARS-3 at magnification 8 – 40 (photos Hasenzagl). HB-ARS-1 (fig. 17, Appendix 2, pl. 28) HB-ARS-1 has a smooth texture and only very few macroscopically recognizable inclusions. The color of the clay is generally light red (2.5YR 6/8-5/8) with a slightly pinkish touch. The fabric has a low porosity of 5-7.5 %. Its voids tend to be mainly vughy shaped or channel-like. The inclusions, which appear in an average number of 20-25 %, are usually less than 0.5 cm in size. In general, the particles are not very distinctive, especially in low magnifications. The most abundant particle is subspherical and subrounded quartz/feldspar with a color variation from translucent to whitish or greyish and sizes from 0.025 to 0.5 mm. The translucent quartz/feldspar grains, however, are particularly distinctive. Easily noticed are also the higher amounts of rust colored to reddish-brown particles of mostly subspherical and subrounded shape. The calcareous particles, foraminifera and carbonate pseudomorphoses, are also well-discernable due to their white color. However, they occur infrequently. Furthermore, HB-ARS-1 contains small quantities of black, metallic-looking particles and mica. It is also characterized by pluriform, sharply delineated holes caused by the erup-

tion of quartz/feldspar as well as the brown particles that can be perceived particularly well due to the smooth matrix. The presence of argillaceous rock fragments can only be assumed but could not clearly be traced even with very high magnification. HB-ARS-2 (fig. 17, Appendix 2, pl. 28) HB-ARS-2 has a macroscopically more granular texture than HB-ARS-1 but shows only a few visible inclusions and has the same clay color as HB-ARS-1. Microscopically, it becomes evident that the granular texture results from the larger number and the overall bigger dimensions of quartz/feldspar grains that are also the most abundant particles in fabric HB-ARS-2. The percentage of the temper, as well as the porosity, is only slightly higher than in HB-ARS-1. Like in HB-ARS-1, reddish-brown particles, calcareous inclusions as well as black metallic-looking grains and mica are present in similar amounts. HB-ARS-3 (fig. 18, Appendix 2, pl. 29) Without optical aid, HB-ARS-3, which has the same color as the other fabrics, shows a more gran-

37

ular texture than HB-ARS-2 with fewer visible particles. Microscopically, the increase of the number of inclusions, particularly the amount of quartz/ feldspar, as well as of the porosity, is the only difference to HB-ARS-1 and HB-ARS-2. In its overall characteristics, HB-ARS-3 is the coarsest of the HB-fabrics. The petrographic relationship of the fabric types HB-ARS-1, HB-ARS-2 and HB-ARS-3 is visualized by the same nature of inclusions, their appearance and their composition. The fabric description of the samples yielded a uniform result. All the analyzed pieces can be attributed to one of the HB-ARS fabric types. The majority of the pieces collected in 1968 are type HB-ARS-1, which accounts for 51 % (fig. 19). HB-ARS-2 is represented with 28 % and HB-ARS-3 reaches a percentage of 21 (fig. 19). Due to the fact that there is not a single deviation from the defined types, and given the very limited form spectrum with several misfired pieces, the material collected in Henchir el Biar can be interpreted as the waste material of a workshop. The evaluation of the local fabric and vessel types as well as their surface treatment showed no dependencies between fabric, form and slip. The different fabrics can also not be distinguished macroscopically. Equally, there are no general or clear macroscopic criteria to differentiate the products of Henchir el Biar and the neighboring pottery of Bordj el Djerbi. However, the slip of Bordj el Djerbi’s tableware in Salomonson’s survey material usually appears to be somewhat thicker and glossier. The microscopic differences are far

5.3. OUDNA 5.3.1. History of research The ancient city Uthina (Oudna/Oudhna) is located 30 km from Tunis, on a slight elevation in the plain between the Djebel Ressas, the Djebel Bou Kornine and the Wadi Meliane (figs 2, 20). The urban area extends for several hundred hectares and is in a fertile agricultural landscape. Oudna was first mentioned in the 19th century due to the clearly visible, huge ruins, which attracted the attention of rich travelers. At the same time, a descriptive analysis of the monuments and finds can also be observed.251 The ancient Uthina - documented by the Alexandrian geographer Ptolemy and by Pliny - was equated to the modern Oud(e)na because of the obvious word relationship. It wasn’t until the discovery of an inscription in 1896 that this was confirmed.252 During the French protectorate, Oudna came into focus of the military, which carried out the first, albeit careless excavations directed by Captain Driant and Colonel Abria.253 While excavating the Villa of Fructus they presumably found a late Roman pottery.254 A significant contribution

60%

50.8%

absolute value

30

50%

25

40% 27.7%

20 15

33

21.5%

20%

10

18

5 0

HB-ARS-1

HB-ARS-2

14

HB-ARS-3

Fig. 19. Absolute values and percentages of the fabric types in Henchir el Biar (n=65).

38

30%

10% 0%

percentage

35

more significant. Considering the petrographic and chemical resemblance of the ARS from Bordj el Djerbi and Henchir el Biar (Chapter 5.1.4), this clear distinction is particularly interesting. Although the overall characteristics of both productions match, the ARS from Bordj el Djerbi is much coarser.

mm ar

N D

j. A

Gulf of Tunis Lake of Tunis

Sebkhet Essijoumi

Tunis

D

OUDNA

Dj

795

.R es sa s

ne

Cap Bon

i rn

Cheylas plain

576

e

Ko

eli a n Wadi M

ou j. B

266

396

Dj. el Oust Aïn el Jour

ir éb K i ad W Le

Zid Sidi Dj.

1295

Fahs

n ua ho g a .Z Dj

0

10 km

Gulf of Hammamet

Fig. 20. Geographic location of Oudna (after Bourgou 2004, 259, fig. 1). to the study of the ancient city was made by Gauckler, who conducted research in Oudna from 1892-1886 and tried in his positions as director of the Museum of Bardo and as the second director of the Service des Antiquités de Tunisie to protect the historical monuments and to get them officially classified as such. However, problems with the modern ownership of the area, where the ancient ruins are situated, thus became evident for the first time.255 Archaeologically relevant were his excavations south and west of the amphitheater in the so-called aristocratic district of Oudna, where there are numerous luxurious residences. The most outstanding building among these is the Villa of the Laberii. In its private baths in Hall A, Gauckler found several thousand whole or

fragmented ARS vessels with stamped decoration of Christian character, as well as lamps, saggars, tools and punches, some of them with graffiti.256 Gauckler suspected that the baths were shut down after the Vandal invasion and that the whole building or parts of it were converted into a pottery, which later was destroyed and the ceramics buried.257 In the following four decades there were no archaeological activities or measures for preservation. At the beginning of World War II,258 33 ha of Uthina were occupied by the military and used as a camp with the arsenal set up in the grand baths. In 1943, there was a great amount of damage to the city due to grenades. In 1946, prisoners of war were used for excavations, which in 1947

39

continued under the supervision of the Service des Antiquités de Tunisie. The Service regained its interest in the exploration of Oudna and tried to obtain a withdrawal of the military, but the nationalization of the site became effective only in 1962. In June 1968, Salomonson was able to collect numerous sherds of ARS vessels and lamps as well as coarse ware, kitchen ware and pottery tools. Since the end of the 1980s, the press raised awareness for the ancient city by reports and events. Subsequently, the Tunisian Council of Ministers decided in 1992 to finance an archaeological park.259 In 1989-1991, the area was surveyed during the project Carte Archéologique National de Tunisie. Several collaborations for professional, interdisciplinary or financial support since 1993 also enabled the conduction of excavations again. Whereas the pre-Roman settlement, controlled by Suffetes, is not well known, the level of knowledge about the Late Republican and Imperial times of Uthina, which was founded as a colony of veterans of the 13th legion of Octavian and flourished in the 2nd and 3rd centuries AD, has increased significantly in recent decades. The excavators gained detailed knowledge of the cityscape with all public and private institutions as well as of the topography and settlements of the surrounding area of Oudna. Studied and/or excavated until today are the Capitol,260 the Forum,261 the amphitheater,262 the large thermal baths263 as well as the northern and northeastern part of town with houses, villas and (private) baths.264 Moreover, in the north, east, west and south of he city, four cemeteries with remains of tombs were identified.265 The ancient road network266 and the water supply267 are further research topics. In the vicinity of Oudna, many individual agricultural settlements that often had oil and wine presses were also documented.268 In addition to further small-scale settlements with some mostly unknown function, rectangular framed structures were also observed. These are most likely Late Antique fortifications that blocked access to the unfortified city and were developed along with the reconstruction of the amphitheater to a fortress and the Citadel at the Capitol in the 6th century AD.269 On a significantly reduced area, a post-Roman and post-Byzantine settlement in Oudna is documented by Islamic ceramics and written sources until the 14th century AD.270 Parts of the imperial city, however, seem to have been abandoned and secondarily used as potteries (fig. 21) before the 6th century AD. A secondary use of vacant or destroyed buildings is also indicated by the installation of potteries. In 1996, excava-

40

tions in the well-known workshops in the bath of the Laberii, which was active from the second half of the 5th to the 7th AD century, revealed three kilns in the halls B and C. In the same quarter, there are further residences with secondarily integrated potteries that used the cisterns and pools of the older buildings.271 Unfortunately, an atelier in the Villa of Fructus that was excavated in 1891 cannot clearly be proven, but four kilns and a high amount of ARS sherds were found in two other houses (1995-1997).272 In the northeastern outskirts of the city, numerous pools and a large cistern, originally needed for dying and pressing textiles, were reused for the construction of workshops in the 5th century AD.273 In this area in 1994 and 1995, the remains of at least 15 kilns, of which four were excavated in 1996, as well as numerous saggars and pottery tools were discovered.274 Except for the concentration of Late Antique workshops, dating from the 5th to the 7th century AD, in the northeastern part of the city (fig. 21), no further clear evidence of kilns could be provided thus far. The use of a ceramic kiln in the southwestern area of the city is just as unclear as the localization of the ateliers, which had supposedly started Oudna’s ARS production already in the 4th century AD.275 5.3.2. Vessel and decoration types The survey material of 1968 comprises a total of 94 ceramic fragments. With 70 pieces, therefore 74.5 %, ARS vessels form the largest group. In addition to that, 9.6 % of ARS lamps, 13.8 % of coarse ware and kitchen ware was well as 2.1 % potter’s tools are present. There are 62 diagnostic, i.e. rims, bases, handles and decorated walls (Chapter 4.3), ARS fragments (Appendix 1), two potter tools and nine lamps, which were studied and catalogued. Eight wall fragments and some heavily fragmented pieces were not recorded. The 62 ARS sherds consist of six completely preserved pieces, 24 rim profiles, 30 bases and fragments of one handle and a lid (table 5). Overall, the ceramic finds are very well preserved. Due to the low level of fragmentation and the size of the finds, a discovery in an area of the ancient city without agricultural reuse can be suspected. The tools, consisting of a saggar and a mushroomshaped potter tool276 as well as some misfired pieces, indicate a workshop context. The macroscopic appearance of Oudna’s ARS, traditionally counted among ARS D 2, is very homogenous. The fragments have a well-covering, relatively thick and smooth slip of reddish-yel-

N

late Roman potteries

0

80 m

Fig. 21. Schematic map of Oudna: Located late antique potteries (gray) in the North of the city (after Jacob/Massy 2004, 64, fig. 4; adapted by Hasenzagl). low (5YR 6/6-6/8) to bright red (2,5YR 6/8) color, which has a tinge of pink. Whereas the inside of the vessels is always engobed, the external slip is often limited to the rim and covers only parts of the wall. The clearly identifiable vessel types are Hayes 61B, Hayes 67, Hayes 91B/C, Hayes 95, Hayes 97, Hayes 99, Hayes 104A and Hayes 12/110 (table 5). They also match the range of forms found at the excavations and surveys from 1994-1997. The dominant form in Salomonson’s collection is Hayes 99, which accounts for nearly 42 %, i.e. for almost half of the finds (fig. 22). This dominance

of Hayes 99 was also documented in the evaluation of the finds from 1994-1997.277 The second and third most common forms are Hayes 97 and Hayes 91, which form only 11 % and 5 % (fig. 22) of the material from 1968 and remain significantly below the amount of Hayes 99 fragments. Hayes 61B has only a 14 % (fig. 22) representation. The quantities of the other vessel types, some of which occur only once, are far below 5 % (fig. 22). Although the total number of 73 documented pieces (table 5) is not sufficient to make generalizations about production range and scale, the

41

extremely high proportion of Hayes 99 and the very small number of other types also reflect the results of the studies from 1994-1997.278 Whereas these studies also recorded a high percentage of jugs, there is only one insignificant handle fragment in the collection of Salomonson. Nevertheless, the vessel types and their percentage of Salomonson’s survey in 1968 and that of the archaeological activity 1994-1997 are very similar. Whether this indicates a production trend for certain workshops, for a certain period of manufacturing or for the entire production in Oudna, cannot be resolved yet. In Salomonson’s ensemble there are a total of 22 stamp-decorated bases (table 5; fig. 22). Almost all of them can be connected with Hayes 99. The majority of the stamps are style Hayes E(i) motifs. At least two of the stamps are consistent with the usual decor of style Hayes A (iii). The nine lamp fragments can be attributed to type Atlante X, D2, provided that they are not too fragmented. All shoulder fragments and lamp discs have a decoration.

ARS

tools

lamps total

5.3.3. Typochronology The fragments of Salomonson’s survey can be typochronologically dated from the second half of the 5th until the second half of the 7th century AD. The oldest vessel types in the material from 1968 are the dishes Hayes 61(B) (cat. Ou.001-Ou.004, pl. 10) and bowls Hayes 67 (cat. Ou.005, pl. 10), which were produced in the second half of the 5th century AD. Much better documented are the flanged bowls Hayes 91 (cat. Ou.006-Ou.008, pl. 10) that were made in the variants B and C from the middle of the 5th to the mid-6th century AD. Moreover, the younger form Hayes 91 Atlante XLIX, 10 (cat. Ou.009, pl. 10) and a special form (cat. Ou.010, pl. 10) were detected. Contrary to the classic version of Hayes 91, the special form, which occurs only once, no longer has a rim and is known from a singular late 5th century deposit in Carthage.279 How long this vessel type was manufactured, cannot be estimated.

vessel type (Appendix 1) Hayes 61B

number

whole profile

rim

3

3

Hayes 61?

1

1

Hayes 67C

1

1

Hayes 91B/C

3

2

Hayes 91, var. Atlante XLIX, 10 Hayes 91 var.

1

1

1

1

Hayes 95

1

1

Hayes 97

8

Hayes 99A

4

Hayes 99B

22

Hayes 99C

1

Hayes 99B/C

2

2

6

4

1

1

1

Hayes 104A

2

2

Hayes 12/110

1

1

8

lamp

1(?)

1

1

30

1

1

17

1

1 9 73

6

24

Table 5. Absolute numbers of vessel types from Oudna.

42

6

1

2

2

1

handle

1

Hayes 99 var.

mushroomshaped tool saggar

wall

4

Hayes 101

non id.

base

At the end of the 5th or in the early 6th century AD there began production of bowls Hayes 95 with a hooked rim (cat. Ou.011, pl. 10) and Hayes 97 with an angular rim (cat. Ou.012-Ou.019, pls 10-11). Although these forms, together with Hayes 96 and Hayes 98, are significant for the production in Oudna, the most characteristic and leading form is the bowl Hayes 99, which was made in the variants A, B and C from the 5th to the advanced 7th century AD. Even though the individual stages of development and the range of variation are still being discussed, it is certain that Hayes 99 is a North Tunisian creation, which also occurs in the workshops of the Mejerda Valley and Pheradi Maius but in much lower quantities. It is uncertain whether the form Hayes 99 represents a workshop-specific invention of Oudna that has been imitated by other potteries or whether the form was taken from other ateliers and became the leading form. The distinction of variants, which primarily depends on the design of the rim as well as on the diameter of the flaring tapering foot, but also on the stamped decoration, is often difficult.280 Variant A (cat. Ou.020Ou.021, pl. 11), which is characterized by a rather high foot and by a high, well-rounded rim, has a central stamp showing birds and crosses, which

are surrounded by one or two circles, on the inner vessel bottom. On the inside bottom of variant B (cat. Ou.022-Ou.43, pls 11-12), which has a lower foot and a narrower, less rounded rim, are also stamped crosses (fig. 23. 4-10) and sometimes unclear motifs, which could be imitations of jewelry (fig. 23. 12-13). Whereas the stamps of Hayes 99B are generally only surrounded by a single groove (if at all), variant Hayes 99C (cat. Ou.044, pl. 12) with a very low foot and a very narrow, barely rounded rim always remains undecorated. For all variants of Hayes 99, further decoration types can be expected. This at least is indicated by a rim and a base - very likely from the same vessel (cat. Ou.046, pl. 12) - with feather-rouletting on the inside.281 The stamp motifs of Hayes 99A/B, however, generally belong to style Hayes E(i), which is considered to be particularly characteristic of the production in Oudna from the end of the 5th until the first half of the 6th century AD. The assumption that Oudna produced exclusively style Hayes E(i), was questioned after the discovery of ARS with stamped decoration Hayes A(iii), A(iii)/E(i) and E(ii) in the pottery district of Oudna and in the big baths.282 However, pieces with stamp decor, of which the motifs were not style Hayes E(i), were

Hayes 61B3 Hayes 61? Hayes 67 Hayes 91B/C Hayes 91 var. Hayes 95 Hayes 97 Hayes 99 Hayes 101 Hayes 104A Hayes 12/110 non id. tool lamp 0%

5%

10%

15%

stamp decoration

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

percentage of vessel types

Fig. 22. Percentages of vessel types from Oudna (n=73).

43

already documented by Gauckler in the bath of the Laberii.283 The observations during the analysis of Salomonson’s collection were similar. The palmettes (fig. 23. 3) that were already shown by Gauckler as well as an angle of diagonal lines (fig. 23. 1) are usually attributed to style Hayes A (iii).284 However, the use as a central stamp is neither style Hayes A (iii) nor the transitional style Hayes A (iii)/E(i), for which the repeating of one or two motifs ranked in a circular decorative band around a central panel is typical.285 Maybe the replacement of decorative bands by single central stamps is a late stage of transition of style Hayes A (iii)/ E(i). The motifs of style Hayes A (iii) were obviously kept in use, only changing the scheme of arrangement, but maybe this was only because of the small size of the bowls Hayes 99, which had no room for a rich décor.286 This raises the question whether the stamp motifs were taken from other potteries and were innovatively used when the production started in Oudna or whether the 5th-century-workshops resorted to a stock of punches of older ateliers in Oudna. A possible continuity of ARS production in Oudna, however, is speculative until the suspected 4th-century-workshop(s) can be located. In the long production period of Hayes 99 from the late 5th to the mid-6th centuries AD, variants of the large dishes H 104A (cat. Ou.050-Ou.051, pl. 12) were also made. This period is also the production phase of the lamp type Atlante X, D2 (pls 13-14). Its décor consists of already known, mainly ornamental motifs or variations of these. Due to the occurrence of Hayes 12/110 (cat. Ou.052, pl. 12) in a Carthaginian deposit of the late 5th century, its production start can be dated to at least before the end of the 5th century AD.287 A production of the basic vessel type Hayes 110 is, according to Hayes, possible until the middle of the 7th century AD.288 A 7th century manufacturing is also assumed for the vessel type Hayes 101 (cat. Ou.049, pl. 12) although there are currently only a few parallels in Oudna for this dish.289 Fragments without form specific features make a chronological analysis impossible. Equally, the potter tools cannot be dated. However, the appearance and the diameter of the saggar can provide evidence. Thus, the maximum diameter of the saggar (cat. Ou.062, pl. 13), which is approximately 24 cm, equals the maximum diameter of vessel types to be fired. Among the currently known ARS vessels of Oudna with an average diameter up to about 24 cm, are especially Hayes 91, Hayes 95-99 and Hayes 12/110. It is rather unlikely that the forms Hayes 61B, Hayes 67 or

44

Hayes 104, which are usually much larger, were fired in the saggar of Salomonson’s collection. Morphological comparisons to a saggar from kiln 1 in the thermal baths of the Laberii are possible.290 Kiln 1 was filled with 180 saggars, each containing 12 vessels of Hayes 99.291 The finds from kiln 1 provide proof for a production until the 7th century AD. The mushroom-shaped potter tool (cat. Ou.063, pl. 13) has no chronological clues. Overall, it was shown that the majority of the finds from Salomonson’s collection, can be typologically dated to the 5th century AD (e.g. Hayes 61B, Hayes 67C) and to the turn from the 5th to the 6th centuries AD (e.g. Hayes 91B/C, Hayes 97, Hayes 99A and Hayes 104A). In addition to that, several fragments were produced during the 6th century AD (e.g. Hayes 95) as well as from the 6th to the 7th centuries AD (e.g. Hayes 99B/C and Hayes 91, Atlante XLIX,10). Hayes 101 and maybe also Hayes 12/110 are the only indications for a production till the mid 7th century AD. The documented production period of the finds from 1968 thus matches the presumed period of manufacturing in the known potteries in the former residential quarter and on the outskirts of the northeastern city. As a result, the ARS collected by Salomonson provides no new insight into an earlier start of production in Oudna. 5.3.4. Fabrics Oudna is situated in a geological landscape (figs 11, 24), which has been formed in the Paleogene and the Quaternary. The local clay deposits of Oudna, which have already been chemically tested in combination with ARS samples from Oudna, are paleogenic deposits of the Oligocene containing clays and sandstones (figs 11, 24).292 The clays of the Oligocene level have been seemingly preferred to other clays of the region due to their purity and ease of processing.293 They mainly consist of quartz/feldspar, argillaceous rock fragments and iron oxide concretions.294 Chemically, SiO2, Al2O3, Fe2O3, MgO, TiO2 and some trace elements define the analyzed ARS and raw material, which have the same properties.295 The production in Oudna is generally very homogenous; nevertheless, it is possible to distinguish between subgroups A and B. This subdivision is the result of a diverging SiO2 content or of the percentage of quartz/feldspar inclusions, which occur more frequently in subgroup B.296 However, the very similar components and trace elements of A and B indicate a use of the same Oligocene clay deposits, in which the number and

2

1

3

6

5

4

7 9

8

10

11

12

13

Fig. 23. Stamp motifs of Salomonson’s survey material (1:1) (illustrations Hasenzagl; photographs Stefan Diesner).

45

N AOU2 AOU3

Oudhna AOU1 AOU4

Recent deposits Alluvial deposit soils

Paleogene

Quaternary

1 km Oligocene: clays and sandstone Eocene: marls and lumachella

Fig. 24. Geological landscape of Oudna (detail) (after Baklouti et al. 2014, 525, fig. 1,c; adapted by Hasenzagl). the grain size of the particles vary naturally.297 Moreover, the sub-grouping could have also been caused by a different treatment of clay. The pieces from Salomonson’s collection that can be assigned to the production center of Oudna, which is considered to be a producer of ARS D2 according to the traditional classification, are divided into two groups. OU-ARS-1 and OU-ARS -2 can only be differentiated by a varying degree of temper. OU-ARS-1 (fig. 25, Appendix 2, pl. 29) OU-ARS-1 is characterized by a fine body clay and an irregular texture, which is visible both macroscopically and microscopically. Visual examination with the naked eye shows a series of bright and reddish brown inclusions as well as a few black particles. OU-ARS-1 is 5YR 6/6 to 5YR 6/8, which can generally be referred to as reddish-yellow - with minor variations. OU-ARS-1 has a minimal-grained structure with only moderately large inclusions, which account for approx. 25 % of the temper and are generally smaller than the maximum observed particle size of 1 mm. OU-ARS-1 has a low porosity and shows irregular voids with dimensions up to 0.375 mm. In large quantities, subspherical

46

and subrounded, transparent, whitish and gray quartz/feldspar grains in dimensions up to 0.5 mm can be observed. In addition to quartz/feldspar, which is the most common type of inclusions, there are some rust colored and reddish-brown subspherical and subrounded particles of medium size up to a maximum of 1 mm. The visibility of these particles depends on the color of the body clay, however, they are the most striking feature in the lighter fragments. Equally influenced are the beige to orange argillaceous rock fragments. The rarely occurring argillaceous rock fragments with dimensions up to 0.5 mm are lenticular or platelet-shaped and partially stick out of the fracture surface. The small-dimensioned black, often metallic shimmering particles, which occur only sporadically or singularly, are easily noticeable. Also clearly visible are the maximum 0.5 mm large, spherical and rounded white calcareous particles and foraminifera. However, together with the small, isolated carbonate pseudomorphoses, they are only detectable in very small amounts. Just as rare are the small polygonal silver mica particles. OU-ARS-2 (fig. 25, Appendix 2, pl. 30) Macroscopically, OU-ARS-2 can hardly be distinguished from OU-ARS-1. In addition to the similar texture and color, some medium sized light and dark inclusions are also visible without optical aids. The color of OU-ARS-2 is quite homogeneous and corresponds to 5YR 6/6-6/8 (reddish-yellow). Under the microscope, OU-ARS-2 mainly has a smaller quantity of inclusions than OU-ARS-1 resulting in a deviating relation of body clay and temper, which is about 15 %. OU-ARS-2 has a very compact, almost cicatricidal matrix. In addition, OU-ARS-2 has only a 1 to 5 % content of voids, which are vughy and can reach a size up to 0.5 mm. Because OU-ARS-2 is generally less tempered, the number of particles is naturally also smaller than in OU-ARS-1, but the composition and the ratio of inclusions are comparable to OU-ARS-1. Thus, quartz/feldspar is also the dominant type of inclusion in OU-ARS-2. Quartz/feldspar is usually subspherical and subrounded and transparent, whitish or grayish in a size up to a maximum of 0.375 mm. Also present are subspherical and subrounded rust colored and reddish-brown particles, which have a maximum dimension of 0.75 mm and sometimes are very poorly visible. Similar to OU-ARS-1, small black-iridescent particles appear only singularly. The number and shape of the calcareous particles

OU-ARS-1 (Ou.032) 8x

OU-ARS-1 (Ou.032) 16x

OU-ARS-1 (Ou.032) 25x

OU-ARS-1 (Ou.032) 40x

OU-ARS-2 (Ou.022) 8x

OU-ARS-2 (Ou.022) 16x

OU-ARS-2 (Ou.022) 25x

OU-ARS-2 (Ou.022) 40x

Fig. 25. OU-ARS-1 and OU-ARS-2 at magnifications 8 – 40 (photos Hasenzagl).

47

and the foraminifera as well as of silver mica are also comparable. The argillaceous rock fragments, mainly in the form of slate-like plates, occur in corresponding quantities to OU-ARS-1, but are more clearly visible, which is a major difference to OU-ARS-1. It could be possible that OU-ARS-1 and OUARS-2 visualize the already chemically differentiated types of fabric, which differ according to their quartz content (SiO2); OU-ARS-1 being the fabric with a higher amount of quartz/feldspar and OU-ARS-2 that with a smaller quantity of quartz/feldspar. OU-ARS-1 is most likely the chemical subgroup B and OU-ARS-2 subgroup A. The majority of the pieces from Salomonson’s survey can be assigned to fabric OU-ARS-1. Whereas OU-ARS-1 accounts for almost 55 % of the fragments, 20 % were produced in fabric OU-ARS-2 (fig. 26). In addition to the majority of vessel and lamp fragments, the saggar and the mushroom-shaped tool also have the basic characteristics of OU-ARS-1 and OU-ARS-2, indicating a common production in Oudna. For eight misfired pieces and thus 11 % (fig. 26), a production in Oudna is also suspected due to the significant microscopic features. For about 10 % (fig. 26) of the pieces, however, an assignment to OU-ARS-1 or OU-ARS-2 can neither be completely excluded nor confirmed with certainty. Whereas the nature of the inclusions corresponds with that of the Oudna fabrics, the grain size of the quartz/feldspar is also very similar to PH-ARS-2 (Chapter 5.4.4, fig.

60%

54.8%

40

50%

absolute value

35 30

40%

25 20

40

30% 20.5%

15

20%

10

15

5 0

11%

8

9.6% 2.7%

2 OU-ARS-1

OU-ARS-2

Oudna (misfired)

tools (Oudna)

10%

7

1.4%

Oudna?

similar IG-ARS2

1

Fig. 26. Absolute values and percentages of fabric types in Oudna (n=73).

48

0%

percentage

45

34). On one hand, the difficulties of the distinction, which are also reflected by the chemical analyses and attributable to the use of the same geological raw materials, become evident.298 On the other hand, economic relations between the cities of Oudna and Pheradi Maius have to be taken into account, although it cannot safely be assumed that the pieces originate from Pheradi Maius. It is noticeable, however, that the non-assignable pieces are the forms Hayes 61B3, Hayes 67, Hayes 91 as well as base fragments, which cannot be determined exactly. Particularly for the samples of Hayes 61B3, a provenance from Pheradi Maius, which is regarded to be a large producer of Hayes 61B3, would be conceivable.299 One fragment (cat. Ou.050, pl. 12) is certainly not a local production. The highly fragmented piece already stands out macroscopically and shows a thick, glossy dark orange to reddish engobe. It maybe has typological characteristics of the form Hayes 104. During the microscopic examination a similarity to the fabric IG-ARS-2 found in Bordj el Djerbi (Chapter 5.1.4; fig. 15) became apparent. However, a common provenance of these fragments can not be proven. In summary, the collected fragments from Oudna, like the finds from Bordj el Djerbi and Hechir el Biar, show no dependencies between the fabric types and certain forms or the engobe. The fabrics are thus also independent of certain forms, a slip or of a certain period of production in Oudna.

W

to Tunis

nndaria i el A ad

to Zaghouan

Sidi Khalifa di S i d Wa

hali f a iK

Pheradi Maius Sidi Mafoud Dj. Chabet ben Hassen

Gulf of Hammamet

Sebkhet Sidi Khalifa

Dj. Bayadha

Wa di

el G a s t la

ribi d Wa i el G h e to Sousse

0

1

2

3 km

Fig. 27. Geographic position of Pheradi Maius (after Ben Moussa 2007a, 110, fig. 22; adapted by Hasenzagl). 5.4. PHERADI MAIUS 5.4.1. History of research The ancient Pheradi Maius, covering an area of about 40 hectares, is located near the present village of Sidi Khalifa, between Hammamet and Sousse.300 The Roman settlement extends over several plateaus of the hill group Sidi Mahfoud and Jebel Chabet Ben Hass, which is crossed by numerous Wadis and merges into the flat coastal plain of the Gulf of Hammamet in the east (figs 2, 27). The study of the site - which dates back to the 3rd century BC - started in the 18th century, after European travelers had discovered the ruins of

the ancient town and the medieval reconstruction. Sidi Khalifa was first mentioned in the travelogue of the British clergyman Th. Shaw, who, in 1743, discovered building remains and an ancient road to the east of Sebkeht Sidi Khalifa.301 Th. Shaw connected Sidi Kahlifa, which was called Fradeese302 in Arabic at the time of his visit, with the ancient Aphrodisium, localized by Ptolemy further west of Hadrumetum, due to the phonetic similarity of the two words.303 Additionally, V. Guérin, who visited Henchir-Phradise in 1861, suggested its identification as Aphrodisium and believed to have found the remains of a temple of Aphrodite at the top of the hill.304 However, Guérin thought it was also possible to identify

49

Sidi Khalifa as the city Grassi that is described by Prokopius and had a palace of a Vandal ruler. Furthermore, he described several visible monument structures, but only the bow and a church were mentioned directly. In the following years, Sidi Kahlifa was called Aphrodisium or Grassi and was studied by Cagnat from 1881-1882.305 Cagnat also mentioned various unspecified pottery sherds - some of which had Graffiti. In 1898, Cagnat and Gauckler succeeded in providing proof for a temple of Pantheus Augustus, Concordia and of Caelestis in Pheradi Maius due to inscriptions.306 They did not agree with Guérin’s proposed dedication of the summit temple to Aphrodite and rather attributed it to an unknown deity. The building at the top of the hill was listed as a fortress by Ch. Diehl; he studied Byzantine Africa and assumed it was a reconstruction of a temple rather than a citadel.307 In March 1903, Sidi Khalifa was visited by L. Carton and other members of the Archaeological Society of Sousse - who surveyed the site and provided new information on the remains of an aqueduct and several water reservoirs to the north of the arch monument as well as on the necropolis to the west of the city.308 A number of large stone vessels were interpreted as belonging to pressing olives. Furthermore, on the verge of another ancient path that leads past the ruins, the remains of walls with a round floor plan of approximately 3 m in diameter were documented and were perhaps part of a kiln. Moreover, an extreme occurrence of red ceramic fragments with shiny coating and fine texture was observed, staining the ground in some areas almost red. Additionally, the identification of the ruined city as Aphrodisium or Grassi was questioned by Carton. New clues to the ancient name of the city could be provided in 1926, after the nymphaeum south of the arch monument was restored at the end of the 19th century. The restoration exposed a marble statue of Neptune with an inscription on its base mentioning Pheradi Maius: NEPTVNO • AVG • SACRVM • PRO • SALVTE • IM P • CAEASARIS • ANTONINI • AVG•PII •P•P•LIBERORVMQ• EIVS•M•BARIGBALIVS •GH VDDIS• F•PHERADITANVS MAIVS• STATVAM• CVM• OSTIIS•EXHSV MIL• N• SVA PECVNIA FECIT IDEMQ • DEDICAVIT309 Pheradi Maius, which was (according to the acts of Congress in Carthage in 411 and 484) also home of the bishops Vincentianus (Feraditanae

50

Majoris) and Aurelius (Feradimaiensis), was declared a municipium under Marcus Aurelius and received the status of a colony in the following century.310 After a quick excavation in 1926, the site was left to itself. Only in the early 1960s were measures taken for the care and protection of the archaeological heritage. Due to the artificial modification of the Wadi that resulted in a rise of the water level, threatening the ruins around the arch monument and already flooded excavated areas.311 Moreover, terracing work and reforestation of the hill group in order to minimize the risk of erosion was initiated. Governmental funding programs also managed to relocate the nomad camps in and around the ruins. Since 1967, the Centre de la Recherche Archéologique et Historique is responsible for the preservation of monuments and archaeological activities in Pheradi Maius. Except for one excavation at the bath in the north of the city in 1972, which is still unpublished, the city was only prospected.312 In 1961, a ceramic survey was conducted by Salomonson. Then, it was made clear by the mass of ceramic sherds that the function of Pheradi Maius was a pottery production center. The prospections of 1997-1999 conducted by Ben Moussa and S. Aounallah, who was working as a site manager of Pheradi Maius 1998-2008, led to the discovery of numerous sherds, misfired pottery, tools and saggars as well as of several kilns that were exposed because of agricultural activity and erosion. The concentration of the kilns (fig. 28) and baths in the western part of the forum suggests an artisan’s quarter, which was built in the beginning of the 4th century AD, using the structures of older houses.313 Kilns 1 and 2 (fig. 28) were excavated and investigated. Very close to the artisan‘s district, about 50 meters away from the bath, another residential building, which was also abandoned in the 4th century AD, was recently excavated and can be interpreted as a pottery (or its dump) due to fragments of saggars found.314 Further excavations since 1997 were intended to find out more about the chronology of the city in general and about the production of ceramics in particular.315 Three sondages beneath the paving of the Forum (fig. 28) revealed that it was built in the second half of the 2nd century AD. A fourth test trench and excavation in a house with an apse (fig. 28) on the west side of the forum suggested an abandonment of the building in the second half of the 4th century AD and another period of use in the 6th century AD. The marketplace and the socalled large square, from which stairs lead to the hill, possibly to a large temple (capitol?), are also places for current excavations.316

kiln 3 kiln 2

10

9

kiln 1

ua artisan‘s q rter

8

7 6

kiln 4

4 3 2 1

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

5

forum house with apse nymphaeum big square capitol market square arch monument villa baths house/sondage 4 kiln

Fig. 28. Area around forum with late antique craft quarter (after Ben Moussa 2007a, 112, fig. 24, adapted by Hasenzagl). Recently, ceramic material was again collected by a Tunisian-Spanish team, with the goal of localizing the clay deposits for the production of ARS by chemical analyses of ARS and clay samples. It was proven that the pottery in Pheradi Maius was made with local clay deposits (Chapter 5.4.4).317 5.4.2. Vessel and decoration types The ARS survey material from Pheradi Maius consists of a total of 291 pieces. However, only 259 pieces could be analyzed. The 32 missing pieces were misplaced and could not be traced yet.318 86 % and thus the absolute majority of the remaining fragments account for ARS. Moreover, there are 14 % of cooking ware and coarse ware. All 222 well preserved ARS sherds, including 191 rims and 30 bases as well as a saggar (table 6) were analyzed. Due to six clearly matching samples, the number of samples documented in the catalogue is 216. Furthermore, two chunks of misfired and fused vessels were collected in Pheradi Maius. The material collected from Pheradi Maius, which is considered to be a producer of ARS C/D, contains a number of overfired and misfired pieces,

varying in their macroscopical appearance. The regularly fired pieces are very uniform and usually show a red (2,5YR 5/6-5/8) to reddish-yellow (5YR 6/8) color and engobe, which seems rather orange at first sight. The slip, which always has a smooth surface, can be thick and shiny as well as thin and dull and always covers the inner surface of the vessel, the rim zone and varying areas below the rim. On the outside of the vessels, the engobe is often applied very irregularly, running and dripping down the surface. The survey material from 1961 includes the vessel types (Appendix 1) Hayes 27, Hayes 50B, Hayes 58B, Hayes 61B, Hayes 68, Hayes 79, Hayes 80B, Hayes 87A, the transitional forms Hayes 87A/88 (=Hayes 87,4), Hayes 88, Hayes 91, Hayes 99, Hayes 103, Hayes 104, Hayes 105 as well as the types Pheradi Maius 27.1, 61, 76 and 77 (table 6). Due to the large material base, it is possible to detect the characteristic spectrum of vessel types of Pheradi Maius. The presented finds also match the pieces collected by Ben Moussa. The most dominant forms are Hayes 88A, Hayes 88B, Hayes 88C and further variants and are represented with 35 % (fig. 29). The second

51

most common vessel type is Hayes 103, which accounts for 19 % (fig. 29). Hayes 87A/88 has a share of 8 % (fig. 29). 5.6 % and 4.2 % (fig. 29) of the finds can be ascribed to the forms Hayes 61B and Hayes 87A, respectively. All other forms, which are often represented only singularly, are consequently in a very low percentage range (fig. 29). Significantly higher is the number of non-identifiable bases, which have a 13 percent share (fig. 43). Only about 1 % (fig. 29) of the pieces has a stamped decoration of the styles Hayes A(i)-A (iii).

ARS

tool total

5.4.3. Typochronology The forms of the survey material from 1961 can be dated to a period between the 3rd and the 7th centuries AD. The oldest recorded vessel type is Hayes 27 (cat. Ph.001, pl. 15), which was produced in the 3rd century AD.319 Whereas the early 3rd-century-form Hayes 27 only occurs once, the second oldest vessel types of the survey material are form Hayes 58B (cat. Ph.003-Ph.004, pl. 15) or variants of it (cat. Ph.005, pl. 15) with a 4th century AD date, although they have not been documented in Pheradi Maius so far. The large bowl

vessel type (Appendix 1) Hayes 27 Hayes 50B Hayes 58B similar Hayes 58B Hayes 61B non id. (lid?) Hayes 67 var.? Hayes 68 Hayes 79 Hayes 81B Pheradi Maius 27.1 Fulford 27

number 1 1 2 1 12 1 2 5 1 1 3 1

rim 1 1 2 1 12 1 2 5 1 1 3 1

Hayes 87A

9

9

Hayes 87A/88

17

17

Hayes 88A

17

17

Hayes 88B

45

45

Hayes 88C

4

4

Hayes 88 var.

9

9

Hayes 91

3

3

Hayes 103

41

41

Hayes 104

1

1

Hayes 104/105

1

1

Hayes 105

2

2

Pheradi Maius 61

1

1

non id. knobbed/grooves

2

2

Pheradi Maius 76

1

1

Pheradi Maius 77

1

1

stamped base

2

base non id.

28

saggar

1

1

216

186

2 28

Table 6. Absolute numbers of pieces from Pheradi Maius.

52

bases

30

Hayes 68 (cat. Ph.021-Ph.025, pl. 16) and probably some variants of Hayes 67 (cat. Ph.019-Ph.020, pl. 16) as well as Hayes 79 (cat. Ph.026, pl. 16), which were already known for the production in Pheradi Maius, were made from the second half of the 4th to the middle or the end of the 5th century AD. However, the vast majority of forms from Salomonson’s survey have a start of production no earlier than the beginning of the 5th century AD. This includes the bowl Hayes 50B.60 (cat. Ph.002, pl. 15) with a conical wall and especially the form Hayes 61B, which was manufactured with its variant B2 (cat. Ph.006, pl. 15) since the beginning of the 5th century AD. B2 is represented only singularly in the survey material, but there are a number of pieces of type Hayes 61B3 (cat. Ph.007-Ph.008, pl. 15), which is considered to be particularly characteristic for Pheradi Maius and is dated to the second half of the 5th century AD.320 The type Hayes 61B3, which is defined by

a high rim and a S-profile of the outer wall, was replaced towards the end of the 5th century AD by a late variant (cat. Ph.009-Ph.017, pls 15-16) with a greatly shortened and thickened rim. At the beginning of the 5th century, there also begins the production of Hayes 87A (cat. Ph.032-Ph.040, pl. 17), which was made until the early 6th century AD. A typological dependence on the form Hayes 61B that is regarded as a predecessor of Hayes 87A (as it was postulated by Hayes and Ph.M. Pröttel) seems less plausible according to the finds of Salomonson’s collection and to the recent approaches of a simultaneous dating of both forms.321 Undoubtedly, however, there is the direct morphological development (fig. 30) of the dishes Hayes 87A, Hayes 87A/88 and Hayes 88, which is also shown by the survey material from 1961. Nevertheless, this typological evolution is complex and the classification of the high amount of variants is still in progress.322 The vertical hooked

Hayes 27 Hayes 50B Hayes 58B similar Hayes 58B Hayes 61B non id. (lid?) Hayes 67 var.? Hayes 68 var. Hayes 79 Hayes 81B Pheradi Maius 27.1 Fulford 27 Hayes 87A Hayes 87A/88 Hayes 88 Hayes 91 Hayes 103 Hayes 104 Hayes 104/105 Hayes 105 Pheradi Maius 61 non id. knobbed/grooves Pheradi Maius 76 Pheradi Maius 77 stamped base base non id. saggar 0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

Fig. 29. Percentages of vessel types from Pheradi Maius (n=216).

53

Ph.033

Ph.041

Ph.053

Ph.058 3 cm

Fig. 30. Morphological evolution from H 87A to H 88 (illustrations Hasenzagl). rim, which is characteristic for Hayes 87A, begins to turn more outwards and to enlarge as with Hayes 87A/88 (cat. Ph.041-Ph.057, pls 16-17) created as a transitional type by Bonifay.323 However, the result of a broad triangular rim is still very similar to Hayes 87A. Hayes 87A/88, which was produced from the end of the 5th until the beginning of the 6th century, shows a further development, leading to the flat, very elongated and pointed rim of Hayes 88. Due to the design of the rim, Hayes 88 is divided into A, B and C as well as a number of other variants within these main groups.324 Hayes 88A (cat. Ph.058-Ph.074, pl. 18), dating from the second quarter to the middle of the 6th century, is defined by a long, tapered rim, which is straight on the outside and convex on the inside, and has a relatively high foot. H 88B was made in the second half of the 6th century AD (cat. Ph.075-Ph.119, pls 18-19) and has a low foot and a broad rim - which is internally very convex and externally slightly concave. Additionally, variant Hayes 88B has a wellrounded wall, which is emphasized at the transition from rim to wall by a S-shape. A thick or slightly misshapen rim is typical for Hayes 88C (cat. Ph.120-Ph.123, pl. 19), which was manufactured from the end of the 6th until the beginning of the 7th century AD. Some pieces of Hayes 87A/88 and Hayes 88 have a blackened outside rim.325 An intentional darkening of the rim zone usually occurs only with the Algerian Red Slip Ware and with a kind of African cooking ware that is called Black Top

54

Ware.326 In both cases, it is assumed that the blackening was caused during firing due to the lack of saggars and/or by an intentionally introduced reduction in the final stage of firing.327 Regardless of the production techniques, the Black Top Ware, which can be attributed to a Punic tradition, demonstrates the controversies concerning a clear separation of ARS and African cooking ware.328 Due to the classification problems, it is often not clear what still belongs to ARS and what is already cooking ware, especially because ARS and cooking ware have not only identical vessel types, but also were often made from the same raw material and both can have a slip.329 The same manufacturing process of pieces of the same vessel type but of different genres are evidence for an efficient use of resources, but it only makes sense if the forms also had a similar function. However, there are also discussions about the function of Black Top Ware vessel types that are often referred to as so-called ‘lid-plates’. This controversy results primarily from a lack of morphologically apparent characteristics and/or of use-wear, which would clearly determine their function as a lid or plate, and from the (non-) existence of a slip. Whereas a slip on the vessel’s inner surface is absolutely necessary for a plate interpretation, it is not an obligatory criterion for the use as a lid, but may also be present. In general, a waterproof surface, which is produced preferably by a slip, has better thermal properties and is far more effective for warming food and keeping it warm than water-permeable surfaces,

Hayes 87A/88 Ph.145

lid?

Hayes 88 Ph.097

lid?

Hayes 103 Ph.143

3 cm lid?

Fig. 31. Possible function of Hayes 87/88A, Hayes 88 and Hayes 103 as lids (illustrations Hasenzagl). which let liquid through to the outside of the vessel, where it evaporates and withdraws the heat of vessel and its contents.330 From a techno-functional point of view, a slip is thus advantageous for lids.331 As a result, the slip is not an appropriate criterion to distinguish between plate and lid. J. Ikäheimo opposes evasive terms such as lidplate and wants to capture the primary function of vessels instead.332 Although the clarity of classification is a desirable goal, it has to be taken into consideration that it could have been the original intention to create a multifunctional vessel that can be used both as a plate and a lid. Sometimes the Hayes 103 (cat. Ph.136-Ph.176, pls 20-21), which is represented by the variants Sidi Khalifa333 as well as Pheradi Maius 52 and 55334, also shows an intentional blackening of the rim. Hayes 103 types produced in Pheradi Maius have a straight and slanted surface at the outer rim and were mainly manufactured in the 6th century AD, although the production had probably already started in the 5th century AD.335

The Hayes 87A/88, Hayes 88 and Hayes 103 samples with blackening of the rim have a slip on the vessel inside and are typologically not separable from the fragments without blackening. The reasons for blackening only some pieces are unclear. Although the form Hayes 88 has been known exclusively as an ARS vessel thus far, in Pheradi Maius it may have also been produced as cooking ware with a black colored rim. Moreover, the use as a lid cannot be excluded, although there are no known comparable lid forms at the moment. Both Hayes 88 and Hayes 103 have a foot, but not all base fragments in Salomonson’s survey material can be assigned to a certain form. Several base samples show grooves (e.g. cat. Ph.187, pl. 22) on the outer bottom. These grooves are usually not visible when used as plates and bowls, but may indicate a function as lid. In general, for morphological reasons the use as a lid seems more plausible for the dishes Hayes 87A/ Hayes 88 and Hayes 88 than for the bowls Hayes 103 (fig. 31).

55

Ph.018

Ikäheimo 2003 lid no. 18

3 cm

Fig. 32. Ph.018 and its typologically most similar form (after Ikäheimo 2003, Plate 5,18). Furthermore, it has to be considered, although unlikely, that the blackening of typical ARS vessels, like Hayes 88 and Hayes 103 could also be a production error. Perhaps the individual batches were reversed in the workshop, which produced ARS as well as cooking ware, providing the ARS vessels inadvertently with a blackening. Likewise, it has to be considered that the blackening indicates no functional differentiation but was made simply for aesthetic reasons. However, the limitation of this feature to only two vessel types implies an intended coloring. Although the reasons for the blackening remain unclear, it became apparent that the separation between function and genre can be vague. This is also shown by the previously unknown ARS form cat. Ph.018 (pl. 15; fig. 32), which has a well-covering shiny slip both on the inside and outside. Its only known typological correspondence is a lid form of the African cooking ware (fig. 32).336 In Salomonson’s collection, there are also Hayes 81B (cat. Ph.027, pl. 16), dating to the second half of the 5th century AD, and pieces of the vessel type Ben Moussa 2007a PM 27.1 (cat. Ph.028-Ph.030, pl. 16), which is similar to the forms Hayes 84 and Hayes 86 and was made in the late 5th and/or the early 6th century AD. The same dating can also be assumed for the type Fulford 1984 27/39-40 (cat. Ph.031, pl. 16) - which is singularly represented.337 The 5th century and the beginning of the 6th century AD is also the production phase of the flanged bowls Hayes 91A (cat. Ph.133, pl. 20) and the so-called Hayes 91, Sidi Khalifa (cat. Ph.134Ph.135, pl. 20), which is characterized by a short, highly rounded flange and thick vessel walls.338 Hayes 104 (cat. Ph.177, pl. 21) and a transitional version combining Hayes 104 and 105 (cat. Ph.178, pl. 21) are also of 5th-6th century date. The variants of the form Hayes 105 (cat. Ph.179-Ph.180, pls

56

21-22), collectively counted as Ben Moussa 2007a, 63, are characterized by a thick, rounded or slightly squared rim and were produced from the first half of the 6th century until the second half of the 7th century AD.339 The previously unknown forms of cat. Ph.182Ph.183 (pl. 22), which have a typological similarity to the undated forms Ben Moussa 2007a, 61 (cat. Ph.181, pl. 22) and 62, can likewise not be dated.340 A morphological resemblance to the vessel type Sidi Jdidi 8 may indicate a 7th century dating.341 Equally questionable is the dating of the forms Ben Moussa 2007a, 76 (cat. Ph.184, pl. 22) and 77 (cat. Ph.185, pl. 22).342 The two stamped fragments (cat. Ph.214-Ph.215, pl. 23) in Salomonson’s collection show a palm leaf, concentric circles with a whirl-fringe and a grille pattern. The motifs and their circular arrangement are typical for the 4th- and 5th-century styles Hayes A(i)-A(iii). The presented pieces are from forms with flat bases, like Hayes 61. In addition, there are a few base fragments with feather-rouletting (pl. 22), which presumably can also be used to differentiate various production centers and occurs in Pheradi Maius in two different variants.343 Whereas the feather-rouletting of one variant was applied only in narrow circles on the inside of the bottom, in the other variant it covers the entire inner bottom. In the survey material from 1961 there is no evidence for the so-called gloss décor (French: decor luster), which has only been documented in Pheradi Maius so far. The decoration of different geometric, vegetal and Christian motifs as well as inscriptions differentiates from the matt surface of the vessel by their lustre. How this effect was made in detail, is still unclear. On the one hand, it is assumed that it was created by the contrast of the non-engobed vessel surface and the motifs painted with a glossy slip.344 On the

other hand, a far more complex manufacturing process is possible: after having applied the decoration with a potter‘s tool on the slipped vessel surface and after a drying phase, the vessel could have been moistened and smoothed again, which caused the gloss of the decoration during firing.345 Due to the different motifs and their arrangement, two groups of gloss décor can be distinguished.346 Group A is characterized by ornamental, vegetable and Christian motifs and mirrors the development of stamped decoration. Therefore a circular decorative band increasingly gets replaced by a large central motif. A large decoration of mainly ornamental patterns with small central motifs is typical for group B. Whereas group A can be dated from the middle of the 5th until the 6th century AD, group B was common from the second half of the 6th until the 7th century AD. The function of the rare and also rarely exported forms with lustre decoration, which is limited to the vessel types Hayes 87A, Hayes 105 and Hayes 109, is not clear. However, the absence of pieces with lustre décor in the survey material from 1961 can also be a result of the preservation status of survey finds in general. All in all, by far the largest part of the typolog-

ical identifiable pieces of the survey material from 1961 can be dated to the 6th century AD (e.g. Hayes 87A/88, Hayes 88 and Hayes 103). Several fragments were produced in in the 5th century AD (e.g. Hayes 50B, Hayes 61B and Hayes 80B) or in a period from the 5th to the 6th centuries AD (e.g. Hayes 87A, Hayes 99 and Hayes 104) and from the 6th to the 7th (Pheradi Maius 63/Hayes 105). Only few samples are from the 4th or 4th/5th centuries AD (e.g. Hayes 58B, Hayes 67-68 and Hayes 79). Forms of the 7th century AD are represented by the vessel types Pheradi Maius 61 and Pheradi Maius 76-77. 5.4.4. Fabrics Pheradi Maius is situated in a geological region (figs 10, 32) that was formed in the Cretaceous, the Paleocene, the Neocene and the Quaternary.347 In the area (fig. 33) around Pheradi Maius, limestone layers from Cretaceous, Eocene limestones and marl, as well as Oligocene clays, sand, and sandstone layers collide. In addition, Mio- and Pliocene deposits of lime- and sandstones as well as clays and quaternary deposits of red clay and sand exist. Archaeometric analyses of the ARS from

N SKAP 4 SKAP 3 SKAP 2

Wad i Br ahm ia Wadi Melane

lifa Kha idi S i d Wa

SKAP 1

Sidi Khalifa

Sebkha

Mio_Pliocene: conglomerates, clay and sandstone Miocene: limestone, sandstone and clay at the base

Paleogene

Reddish clay and sand

Neogene

Quarternary

1 km Oligocene: clay, sand and sandstone Eocene: marlstone and limestone Cretaceous: limestone

Fig. 33. Geological landscape of Pheradi Maius (detail) (after Baklouti et al. 2014, 525, Fig. 1, b, adapted by Hasenzagl).

57

PH-ARS-1 (Ph.057) 8x

PH-ARS-1 (Ph.057) 16x

PH-ARS-1 (Ph.057) 25x

PH-ARS-1 (Ph.057) 40x

PH-ARS-2 (Ph.210) 8x

PH-ARS-2 (Ph.210) 16x

PH-ARS-2 (Ph.210) 25x

PH-ARS-2 (Ph.210) 40x

Fig. 34. PH-ARS-1 and PH-ARS-2 at magnifications 8 – 40 (photos Hasenzagl).

58

Pheradi Maius and some raw material of the clay deposits around the ancient city have shown that the tableware consists exclusively of fine quartzrich and little calcareous clays of the Oligocene, which were quarried at least at four places north of the city (fig. 33). From a chemical point of view, the clays consist of SiO2, Al2O3, Fe2O3, NaO2, K2O, MgO, CaO, Zr, Sr, Rb, Zn, Cr, Ba, V and Ce.348 Pheradi Maius’ tableware that is traditionally assigned to ARS C/D includes five generally quartz/feldspar rich fabrics. Whereas PH-ARS1-PH-ARS-3 display only minor differences and a rather fine matrix, PH-ARS-4 is the coarsest of the PH-series showing a higher quantity of bigger quartz/feldspar inclusions. PH-ARS-1 (fig. 34, Appendix 2, pl. 31) PH-ARS-1 macroscopically has a fine texture with predominantly small but also some medium-sized light and brownish inclusions. Moreover, there are very small colorless grains that are hardly visible. The color variation of PH-ARS-1 ranges from reddish-yellow (5YR 6/8) to light red (2,5YR 6/6) and often has a pinkish shimmer. Microscopically, a compact matrix with few irregularities and a low porosity of 5-7.5 %, becomes apparent. The voids349 are channel-like as well as vughy and have a maximum size of 0.25 mm. The average rate of inclusion is 20 %. The rust colored and reddish-brown particles, which are elongated/spherical and subrounded and are frequently present in sizes up to 1.25 mm, are the most distinctive inclusions. The transparent, whitish to greyish quartz/feldspar grains dominate. They are subspherical and subrounded with an average size of 0.125 mm and rarely appear larger. Furthermore, singular spherical and rounded black, mostly metallic-shining, inclusions with sizes up to 0.25 mm as well as polygonal, silver mica are visible. In a comparable frequency, there are also lenticular or platelet-shaped, up to 0.75 mm large argillaceous rock fragments, which are difficult to distinguish from the matrix with a similar color. The occurrence of small calcareous particles and carbonate pseudomorphoses is singular. PH-ARS-2 (fig. 34, Appendix 2, pl. 31) PH-ARS-2, which has the same color as PH-ARS-1, appear to be macroscopically slightly coarser than PH-ARS-1, and show a variety of colorless inclusions, which look like salt grains. Moreover, a few medium-sized brown particles are present. Microscopically, however, a compact, but slightly

granular, texture with a moderate number of inclusions and voids is apparent in comparison to PH-ARS-1. Whereas the percentage of temper is about 25 % and thus higher than that of PH-ARS-1, the channel-like and vughy voids are represented in comparable quantities. In addition to the number of particles, it is primarily the average size of the inclusions that makes the difference to PH-ARS-1. In particular, the subspherical and subrounded, colorless, whitish-opaque and greyish quartz/feldspar particles are generally larger and more distinctive than in PH-ARS-1. In general, the composition and shape as well as the size of the inclusions can be compared to PH-ARS-1. PH-ARS-2 also shows the rust colored and reddish-brown particles, isolated calcareous and argillaceous rock fragments as well as sparse black inclusions and silver mica. Between PH-ARS-1 and PH-ARS-2 there is a transitional fabric called PH-ARS-1/2 (fig. 35, Appendix 2, pl. 31). Whereas the nature of the inclusions and their composition is identical in all three groups, they can only be distinguished by the number and average size of the particles. Simplified, they can be described as fine (PH-ARS-1), medium fine (PH-ARS-1/2) and coarse (PH-ARS-2). PH-ARS-3 (fig. 35, Appendix 2, pl. 32) PH-ARS-3, which is also very similar to PH-ARS-1, PH-ARS-1/2 and PH-ARS-2, has a slightly irregular texture with some small and medium-sized brownish particles. PH-ARS-3 is usually reddishorange (5YR 6/8). Microscopically, PH-ARS-3 shows an irregular, slightly grained matrix with an average temper rate of about 30 %. In addition, PH-ARS-3 is significantly more porous than PH-ARS-1 and PH-ARS-2 and has vughy voids, which account for approximately 10 % of the body clay and are generally 0.125 mm in size. In general, PH-ARS-3 is very similar to PH-ARS-1 and PH-ARS-2. The most striking characteristic of PH-ARS-3 are the many rust colored to reddishbrown particles, which can reach sizes over 1 mm and have an elongated to spherical and subrounded shape. Clearly visible are the argillaceous rock fragments, which are lenticular, beige and up to 0.75 mm in size. The most frequent type of inclusions are colorless, whitish to greyish quartz/ feldspar particles, which are subspherical and subrounded and usually no bigger than 0.125 mm. Small black particles and small-dimensioned calcareous particles have a rare occurrence. Silver polygonal mica is also present but only in small quantities.

59

PH-ARS-1/2 (Ph.181) 8x

PH-ARS-1/2 (Ph.181) 16x

PH-ARS-1/2 (Ph.181) 25x

PH-ARS-1/2 (Ph.181) 40x

PH-ARS-3 (Ph.041) 8x

PH-ARS-3 (Ph.041) 16x

PH-ARS-3 (Ph.041) 25x

PH-ARS-3 (Ph.041) 40x

Fig. 35. PH-ARS-1/2 and PH-ARS-3 at magnifications 8 – 40 (photos Hasenzagl).

60

PH-ARS-4 (Ph.010) 8x

PH-ARS-4 (Ph.010) 16x

PH-ARS-4 (Ph.010) 25x

PH-ARS-4 (Ph.010) 40x

IG-ARS-3 (Ph.001) 8x

IG-ARS-3 (Ph.001) 16x

IG-ARS-3 (Ph.001) 25x

IG-ARS-3 (Ph.001) 40x

Fig. 36. PH-ARS-4 and IG-ARS-3 at magnifications 8 – 40 (photos Hasenzagl).

61

PH-ARS-4 (fig. 36, Appendix 2, pl. 32) A few bright and colorless as well as some dark particles can be seen with the naked eye. The color of the sherd is red (2.5YR 5/8) and usually darker than that of the other fabric types. Whereas the percentage of inclusions and voids are comparable to those of PH-ARS-3, there is an increase in the dimension of the grains in PH-ARS-4. For example, quartz/feldspar, which is generally 0.125-0.25 mm in size, often reach sizes of 0.5 mm. The rust colored and reddish-brown inclusions can also be bigger than 1 mm. The calcareous particles are more clearly visible due to the darker fired body clay, but they are not represented in higher numbers than in the other fabrics. Black particles and mica are also rarely observed. In addition, the visibility of the argillaceous rock fragments is severely restricted due to the nature of the matrix. However, singular pieces of approximately 0.5 mm can be seen. A further increase in the particle size was documented with three pieces. The characteristics of this type of fabric, which is called IG-ARS-3 (fig. 36, Appendix 2, pl. 33), differ from the types PH-ARS-1-PH-ARS-4 and can therefore not be unambiguously attributed to the production in Pheradi Maius. Particularly striking are the large, colorless to white or greyish quartz/feldspar particles, frequently in the dimensions of 0.5 mm. These large subspherical and mostly rounded grains are also visible macroscopically. In addition to quartz/feldspar, which is by far the most dominant grain, some rust colored and reddish-brown as well as a few black particles can be seen. Mica is

80

also rare, but light reflections are also caused by the splitting, glassy quartz/feldspar particles. Tiny to medium sized carbonate pseudomorphoses can also be observed in small quantities. The three pieces, which could not be macroscopically sorted out from the products of Pheradi Maius, were assigned to the forms Hayes 27 and Hayes 58B, which are also the typological outliers in the survey material. Whereas the fragments cat. Ph.001 and cat. Ph.003 (pl. 14) can be optically and typologically assigned to ARS, the piece cat. Ph.004 (pl. 14), which morphologically corresponds with cat. Ph.003, has a blackened rim and wall, obscuring the boundaries of African cooking ware and Red Slip Ware once again. The typical large quartz/ feldspar inclusions also occur in the coarse wares and the amphorae of the Carthaginian region, which may indicate an origin of those pieces from the same region.350 In order to confirm a Carthaginian provenance of these fragments, further reference examples and analyses are needed.351 Apart from the very low proportion of imported (?) IG-ARS-3, which is only 1.4 % (fig. 37), the tableware from Pheradi Maius is homogeneous and mainly shows only minimal differences in the fabric types. However, the attribution of Pheradi Maius to the transition group C/D is also mirrored by the defined fabrics. Whereas the finer fabrics PH-ARS-1-PH-ARS-3 are more similar to ARS C, PH-ARS-4 has characteristics of the coarser ARS D. 34 % (fig. 37), and thus the majority, of the fragments from Salomonson’s survey can be assigned to PH-ARS-3. Only marginally lower is the ratio of PH-ARS-1, which accounts for 28.2 % (fig. 37). The

40%

34%

70

35%

60

30%

50

25%

40 30

73 61

20% 14.4%

15%

10.2%

20 22

10 0

31

5.5%

12 PH-ARS-1

PH-ARS-1/2

PH-ARS-2

PH-ARS-3

PH-ARS-4

10%

6%

14

1.3%

5%

3 misfired pieces

IG-ARS-3

0%

Fig. 37. Absolute value and percentages of the fabric types in Pheradi Maius (n=216).

62

percentage

absolute value

28.2%

third most common type is PH-ARS-4, with 14.4 % (fig. 37) of the total stock. Whereas PH-ARS-1/2 is represented by 10.2 % (fig. 37), PH-ARS-2 occurs with a percentage of only 5.6 % (fig. 37). 6 % (fig. 37) of the pieces are misfired. Generally, macroscopic differentiation of Pheradi Maius’ fabrics is not possible. In some cases, however, the microscopically coarser appearance of PH-ARS-4 is also reflected macroscopically by a coarse and slightly porous surface. PH-ARS-4 is mainly represented by the forms Hayes 61 and Hayes 68, but the amount of Hayes 61 and Hayes 68 in the sample collection is not sufficient to postulate a form-specific dependency. However, a generally coarser appearance of Sidi Khalifa’s Hayes 61B was also noticed during recent studies of ARS material from Sicily.352 As with the survey materials from Bordj el Djerbi, Henchir el Biar and Oudna, no relationship between the fabrics, vessel types and the slip could be observed. 5.5. SIDI RHERIB The localization of Sidi Rherib, which was prospected on 25 May 1970, is not possible without some doubt. Due to the sources in the Atlas Archéologique de la Tunisie, a situation in northern Tunisia can be assumed, but the precise location is difficult to discern because of the multiple examples of the name Sidi Rherib as an archaeological site.353 On one hand, Sidi Rherib is documented in the northwestern Tunisian region Ghardimaou near the Algerian border in the middle of the Mejerda Valley and is close to the Roman colonies of Tunusuda and Smitthus; it is the find spot

60

of a water reservoir as well as of ruins, which were interpreted as a fortress in the 19th century.354 On the other hand, there is another site called Sidi Rherib, which is located in a rural area at some distance to the Roman colony of Vaga (modern Béja) and is noted without further details in the Atlas Archéologique de la Tunisie.355 On neither of the two sites exist recent studies. Hence, it is impossible to specify the geographical position of Sidi Rherib at this point. Although the problem of evaluating material from a non-localizable site is evident, the findings from Sidi Rherib nevertheless have to be analyzed, since they can provide new insights on previously unknown ARS workshops. The survey material from Sidi Rherib consists of 66 fragments. Almost 71 % (fig. 38) and thus the vast majority of the finds account for cooking and coarse wares. 12 fragments and therefore around 18 % (fig. 38) can clearly be identified as ARS. The remaining 11 % is comprised of three fragments of amphorae, one pipe from a bath, one conglomerate of several melted vessels, and possibly one saggar (fig. 38). The prospection material is generally in a good state of preservation with some comparatively very large fragments. The ARS has an almost dark red color (2.5YR 5/6) and a well-covering, matte slip, which seems to cover the entire vessel - not only the rim fragments have an engobe on the outside and inside, but also the bases. There are six typologically determinable rim profiles, three base fragments and three unidentifiable wall pieces. Five specimens (cat. Sr.001-Sr.005, pl. 24, Appendix 1) are bowls with a thickened or

80%

73.1%

70% 60%

40

50% 40%

30 49 20 10 0

30%

17.9%

20%

12 ARS

percentage

absolute value

50

cooking and coarse ware

4.4%

1.4%

1.4%

1.4%

3

1

1

1

amphorae

saggar?

misfired piece

pipe

10% 0%

Fig. 38. Percentages of different ceramic wares collected in Sidi Rherib (n=66).

63

SR-ARS-1 (Sr.001) 8x

SR-ARS-1 (Sr.001) 16x

SR-ARS-1 (Sr.001) 25x

SR-ARS-1 (Sr.001) 40x

Fig. 39. SR-ARS-1 at magnifications 8 – 40 (photos Hasenzagl). minimally reinforced, rounded rim similar to Hayes 80/81 or Hayes 62/64. 356 Due to their rather large diameter, they can be most closely matched with Hayes 62/64 that was made in a local version of ARS D in the 4th-5th century AD. Hayes 82/87A (cat. Sr.009, pl. 24, Appendix 1) is represented only once in the material and is also a local variant of ARS D from the second half of the 5th century AD.357 The flat base fragments (cat. Sr.006-Sr.008, pl. 24) are not significant enough to be attributed to a particular vessel type. However, the well-rounded wall may hint at an attribution to Hayes 62/64. The ARS material from Sidi Rherib is not only macroscopically but also microscopically very uniform and can without exception be assigned to fabric SR-ARS-1 (fig. 39, Appendix 2, pl. 33). The color of the sherd varies from red (2.5 YR 5/8-10 R 5/8) to reddish-yellow (5YR 6/8). During visual examination with the naked eye, it is possible to see rare medium-sized dark inclusions. The large number of almost colorless particles is hardly visible. These particles can be microscopically determined as quartz/feldspar, which is the most frequent and at the same time the most striking type of inclusion. They are subspherical and subangu-

64

lar, colorless, whitish or greyish and can appear in sizes up to 0.375 mm. Due to the vughy pores, which are present in a frequency of approximately 10 %, the texture is slightly porous. In the total ensemble of the inclusions, which account for 25 % to 30 %, there are rust colored and reddish-brown particles of spherical to rounded form, which are generally small-sized and only rarely reach a size of 0.75 mm. The visibility of these frequent particles, however, is influenced by the color of the sherd. Equally good or less clearly recognizable are the calcareous inclusions and carbonate pseudomorphoses, which rarely occur as small white dots in the matrix and are no more than 0.125 mm in size. Small black particles and silver mica can occasionally or singularly be detected. Reflections can also be caused by the transparent quartz/feldspar grains. A sample-like microscopic examination of the cooking and coarse wares indicate the same provenance as of the ARS fragments. There are also pieces of Black Top Ware, which, unlike the fragments from Pheradi Maius (see Chapter 5.4.3), have no slipping and can therefore be clearly separated from the ARS. It is not clear whether the fused and completely black vessels (pl. 25) are

ARS or cooking ware. However, there are some misfired pieces among the coarse and cooking ware of Salomonson’s survey, which could be evidence for a workshop. In addition, there may also be a record of a saggar (cat. Sr.010, pl. 25). Although there is only a very limited quantity of ARS fragments and the actual spectrum of vessel types cannot be estimated, a (local?) production of tableware, coarse and cooking ware in Sidi Rherib has to be taken into account. Without further information to indicate otherwise, Sidi Rherib is provisionally listed as a production site for African tableware as well as cooking and coarse ware.

65

Fig. 40. Selected ARS fragments of Salomonson’s collection (detail of clean breaks).

66

6 Concluding Remarks The research presented in this study addresses issues of where and how African tableware was made and reports on the present state of research and the still ongoing controversies about the classification and nomenclature of ARS. It was specifically argued that the traditional Italian system (A, C, D, E and their refinements) of categorizing the African tableware does not succeed in terms of localizing the production centers nor in the identification of the provenance of pottery sherds found on surveys and excavations. Instead, my approach centers on standardized fabric description, an archaeological method to classify pottery according to the characteristics of the sherd defined by the source of clay, the treatment of clay as well as the temperature and atmosphere during firing. This contribution focused on ARS from the North Tunisian production centers of Bordj el Djerbi, Henchir el Biar, Oudna and Pheradi Maius, which were visited by Salomonson in the 1960s and early 1970s (fig. 40). The typo-chronological evaluation showed that Bordj el Djerbi’s survey material, ranging from the 4th to the 6th centuries AD, mainly consists of Hayes 61 and Hayes 67. The majority of the fragments from Henchir el Biar that comprise only three different 4th- and 5th-century-vessel types are Hayes 73 and Hayes 67. The leading form of the material of 5th-7th century date from Oudna is Hayes 99, which includes many stamped fragments with Hayes A(iii), A(iii)/E(i) and E(ii) motifs. The most frequent forms of Pheradi Maius, consisting of 4th-7th century-types, are Hayes 61B, Hayes 87A, Hayes 87A/88 and Hayes 88 and Hayes 103. The vast amount of Hayes 87A, Hayes 87A/88, Hayes 88 and their variants provide information on the morphological development that is still being debated. The results of the standardized fabric description demonstrate both generally discernable features of North Tunisian production areas (Mejerda Valley and Oudna/Pheradi Maius) and clear compositional fabric markers for the individual production sites of Bordj el Djerbi, Henchir el Biar, Oudna and Pheradi Maius. The ARS from Bordj el Djerbi and Henchir el Biar are primarily tempered with translucent to whitish or greyish quartz/feldspar and rust colored to reddish-brown particles. The temper also contains calcareous inclusions as well as small quantities of black, metallic-looking particles and

mica. The samples in Salomonson’s survey material showed that both workshops, traditionally assigned to the category D1, produced a series of three fabrics arranged in order from a compact (i.e. BD-ARS-1 and HB-ARS-1) to coarse and granular matrix (i.e. BD-ARS-2 and BD-ARS-3 as well as HB-ARS-2 and HB-ARS-3). However, the fabrics from Bordj el Djerbi and Henchir el Biar basically differ by their texture, which is much coarser in the case of the BD-fabric series. Furthermore, BD-ARS-1-BD-ARS-3 have by far larger inclusions than Henchir el Biar’s fabrics. A typical feature of Bordj el Djerbi’s fabrics are argillaceous rock fragments that are well-discernable. In contrast, they are hardly visible in Henchir el Biar’s finer grained matrix. This clear distinction during the fabric description is particularly interesting with regard to the petrographic and chemical resemblance of the ARS from Bordj el Djerbi and Henchir el Biar; due to their geographically close location, they are only separated by approximately 5 km and belong to the same geological formation. The geographical position is not necessarily a factor for similar or diverging fabrics. However, it remains to be tested whether El Mahrine, which is situated in a distance of also only a few kilometers from Bordj el Djerbi and Henchir el Biar and also considered as a producer of D1 (but unfortunately not present in the survey material of Salomonson) can be microscopically differentiated from the productions of Bordj el Djerbi and Henchir el Biar as well. Equally difficult is the evaluation of the so-called D2 potteries (also named atelier X) that have not been localized thus far and also could not be taken into account in this contribution. Moreover, Sidi Rherib also has an unclear albeit definitively North Tunisian - location. Its coarse tableware was primarily tempered with quartz/feldspar and has a granular matrix. In lacking other distinctive inclusions it can be differentiated from the North Tunisian workshops presented here. A North Tunisian provenance is also suspected for IG-ARS-2; characterized by glassy quartz/feldspar particles as well as calcareous inclusions and for IG-ARS-3 with large, colorless to white or greyish quartz/feldspar particles and most likely from the Carthaginian region. The IG-ARS-1 (only assigned to forms Hayes 58B and Hayes 59A) that contains a rather high

67

number of carbonate pseudomorphoses strongly deviates from all other fabrics, which have only a small amount of calcareous inclusions. There are no distinctive features that would indicate the origin of fabric IG-ARS-1. In general, the products of the Mejerda Valley can be distinguished from the tableware from Pheradi Maius and Oudna. Although all tablewares presented in this study consist of quartz/ feldspar, rust colored and reddish-brown particles as well as low contents of calcareous grains, black particles and mica, the quantity and average size of inclusions are different. The large translucent and angular quartz/feldspar particles are normally less dominant in Oudna and Pheradi Maius. However, the fabrics of Henchir el Biar bear more resemblance to the products of Oudna and Pheradi Maius than those of Bordj el Djerbi, which produced the coarsest and largest-grained tableware of all North Tunisian production sites in Salomonson’s survey collection. A distinction between the tableware of Oudna and Pheradi Maius, which lie at a distance of about 30 km, is difficult and not always apparent, since both have similar, quartz/feldspar rich fabrics. The fabrics from Oudna tend to have more argillaceous rock fragments than those of Pheradi Maius. Whereas OU-ARS-2, with its rather low density of inclusions and the granular fabric PH-ARS-4, can be recognized more easily, OUARS-1 is particularly similar to PH-ARS-1/2 and PH-ARS-2. However, these difficulties are also reflected by chemical analyses. In this case, it is necessary to look for other workshop-specific features. A combination of all available data, including a macroscopic and typological examination, is assumed anyway. The fact that the D1 productions of Bordj el Djerbi and Henchir el Biar can be clearly differentiated and that the separation of Oudna’s ARS D2 and the ARS C/D produced in Pheradi Maius can be tricky in some cases showed that the Atlante’s subdivisions are meaningless in terms of fabrics. Nevertheless, it is proposed to retain the general Italian division into A-C-D-E for now, but to replace them one by one once the characterization of single workshops is fully-fledged and allows to do so. To help establish the proposed methodology, further studies are required. Moreover, it became apparent that the separation between function and genre can be vague since some samples from Pheradi Maius have a blackened rim that can be attributed to the Black Top Ware and could be typologically classified as so-called lid-plates. These samples, however, can

68

clearly be assigned to ARS and do not have a different fabric. In general, no unambiguous relationship between the fabrics, vessel types and the slip could be observed in any of the analyzed workshops. It is not possible to speculate whether the different fabrics can be interpreted as a variation of raw material or as differences in the preparation and processing of the clay by different workshops or potters. Standardized fabric description could not and cannot give all the answers to production-related questions. It also cannot re-invent the methods of dealing with pottery per se and is explicitly not intended to. This contribution, however, provides an illustration of the information potential of fabric analysis in ARS research. The proposed methodology can be used as a tool to establish a coherent classification of ARS by fabric that will eventually lead to a classification by workshops by adapting the ARS classification to new needs in provenance studies. Its novelty is to combine available archaeological and archaeometric results and methods with fabric description serving as a link. It therefore can not only bridge the gap between the conventional archaeological methods and archaeometry, but also fill in some of the still blank spots in our knowledge on ARS, namely: where and how it was made and for whom358 it was produced. Fabric analysis and the fabric as the identifier of a workshop may help in answering these questions.

NOTES * I am grateful to several people, who have been essential for the creation and publication of this study. I would like to thank my Viennese promotor Dr. Verena Gassner, who introduced me to the broad field of ceramic research in my early phase at university and who has enabled and encouraged me to work with ceramics and standardized fabric description ever since. Thanks go also to Prof. Roald Docter, my promoter at Ghent University, who provided access to the survey material collected by Jan Willem Salomonson and thus made this study of African Red Slip Ware possible at all; I am grateful for his valuable input and inspiring ideas. I could not have done the research without the help and guidance of both of them. I am also indebted to the internal reviewers of the editorial board and the anonymous external reviewers for their valuable suggestions and positive critique, from which the manuscript has benefitted. I extend my gratitude also to the editors of BABESCH Supplements for their guidance during the publication process and, of course, for having accepted the final manuscript in their prestigious series. My thanks go to Kelly Gillikin, who did the proofreading of my English text and to Stefan Diesner, who helped me with the photos. Special thanks to my family, friends and colleagues for talking with me about my work and for being there throughout! 1 Skibo 1999, 2. 2 I am currently analyzing the economic aspects in the frame of my PhD, which is conducted at Ghent University (promotor Prof. Roald Docter) in cooperation with Vienna University (co-promoter Dr. Verena Gassner). The dissertation (‘Made in Africa. Production and Consumption of African Red Slip Ware in Late Antiquity’) focuses on an evaluation of the individual distribution of ARS from individual Tunisian workshops resulting in a reconstruction of the commercial relations between the African producers and Mediterranean consumers at selected consumption centers. 3 Hayes 1972, 2-3. 4 According to the term used in the literature and contrary to its definition as a geographical unit, ‘North Africa’ includes the North African countries Algeria, Tunisia and Libya and excludes Morocco and Egypt. As a result, in this book it is also differentiated between North African and Egyptian. 5 Falbe 1833; See also Hayes 1972, 2; Carandini et al. 1981, 12; Carandini 1983, 158. 6 Mackensen 1993, 22-23. 7 Neglected were especially the reports of A. Merlin, who published fragments of African Red Slip Ware in the annual Bulletins archéologiques du comité des travaux historiques et scientifiques. See Hayes 1972, 3-4; Mackensen 1993, 23. 8 See for example: Leclercq 1907. 9 Dragendorff 1897, 150-152; See also Unverzagt 1925, 141; Holwerda 1936; Waagé 1948, 43; Salomonson 1968, 93; Carandini 1968, 25; Salomonson 1969, 4. 10 Dragendorff 1897, 150; See also Kübler 1931, 81-82; Waagé 1933, 300-301; Salomonson 1969, 73-75. 11 Déchelette 1904, 174-178; See also Hayes 1972, 3. 12 Hayes 1972, 4: ‘frammento di fina argilla detta aretina’ (Garruci, 1880), ‘mock-Samian ware’ (Bliss and Dickie, 1898), ‘plat de terre rouge fine’ (Massigli, 1912), ‘a piece of

13 14 15 16

17

18 19 20 21

22 23

24

25 26

27 28 29 30 31 32

33 34

35

red imitation Samian plate’ (Ashby, 1915) […] ‘vasa Samia’ (Technau, 1929)’. Unverzagt 1925, 142; See also Kübler 1931, 75-86; Waagé 1933, 300; Comfort 1940, 1305-1306; Hayes 1972, 4. Waagé 1933, 293-294; 1948, 43-44; See also Hayes 1972, 287. Waagé 1933, 300; 302-303. Waagé 1948, 45-47; See also Salomonson 1968, 93. H. Comfort, however, already had a category of ‘African tableware’ in his article from 1940, including mainly pieces from Tunisian find reports, but excluded them from Waagé’s Late Roman A & B. See Comfort 1940, 1343; Hayes 1972, 6. Lamboglia 1941, 7-22; 1958, 257-259; See also Pallarés Salvador 1960, 265; Salomonson 1968, 89; 1969, 4-5; Hayes 1972,6-7; 288; Février 1980, 173-174; Carandini et al. 1981, 11-12; Ben Moussa 2007, 28. Lamboglia 1963, 145; 208; See also Salomonson 1968, 90; Hayes 1972, 7. Lamboglia 1963, 181. Pallarés Salvador 1960, 264-265; See also Lamboglia 1963, 157; 181; Hayes 1972, 7. Salomonson 1968, 89-90; 1969, 4-5; See also Hayes 1972, 288; Carandini et al. 1981, 12. Mackensen 1993, 21; Bonifay et al. 2012, 42. The alternative term Late Roman Red Ware presented in 1950 was not used long or often: see Salomonson 1968, 90; Hayes 1972, 6. Salomonson 1968, 111-113; Carandini 1968, 26. Salomonson 1968, 97; 109-114; 120-123; 1969, 54-64; Mackensen 1993, 167-168. However, the problem of transition groups was already recognized by N. Lamboglia and F.O. Waagé. See Waagé 1933, 294; 1948, 43-45; Lamboglia 1963, 155. Salomonson 1969, 85-98; See also Carandini 1970c, 767782; Carandini et al. 1981, 176-181; Flecker 2005; Mackensen/Schneider 2006, 178-179. Salomonson 1968, 121; 143 Appendix VI; See also Carandini 1968, 37; Mackensen 1993, 182. Jodin/Ponisch 1960, 301-310; See also Moutinho de Alarcão/Alarcão 1963/64; A summary: Mackensen 1993, 181-182. Carandini 1968, 28; See also Ben Moussa 2007, 28-29. Carandini 1968, 28-37; 1970b, 107-114; See also Mackensen 1993, 168; Ben Moussa 2007, 29-30. Carandini 1973, 327-331. Carandini 1970b; 1983; See also Mattingly 1988a, 21-22; Hobson 2015, 9-13. Hayes 1972, 1-2; Hayes 2008; See also Carandini et al. 1981, 12; Carandini 1983, 160-161. Hayes 1972, 2: “It must be stressed at this point that the onclusions presented in this volume are of a provi-sional nature, and will no doubt require modifications as more evidence of a precise nature becomes available. […] One of the chief aims of this book is to provide a typological framework for […] future studies.”; Hayes 1980; Hayes 1998. Hayes 1972, 13; See also Mackensen 1993, 168; Ben Moussa 2007, 30. J.W. Hayes was aware of Salomonson’s and Carandini’s work, but could not go into the details of their results, because his text was already finished at the time of their publication. See Hayes 1972, 2; 287-288; Mackensen 1993, 168. Hayes 1972, 217-218; For a summary see Mackensen 1993, 182-183.

69

36 37 38

39

40 41

42 43 44

45

46 47 48 49

50 51

52

53 54 55

56

70

Carandini et al. 1981, 13; See also Mackensen 1993, 169. Carandini et al. 1981, 59-60; 78-79; 117-119. Carandini et al. 1981, XXVIII-XXX; Mackensen 1993, 387. The chronological system of the Atlante was also based on the tableware finds from late antique shipwrecks, which are a source for economic questions but no reliable dating tool. See Tortorella 1981; Mackensen 1993, 387-389. Carandini et al. 1981, 188-207; Furthermore, there are lamp types defined by Salomonson 1968, Ennabli 1973 and Ennabli 1976. African lamps without tableware quality are classified according to Deneauve’s typology from 1969. For the current state of art on African lamps see Rossiter 2009. Fulford 1984, 48-49; See also Mackensen 1993, 169-170; 391-396. Salomonson 1968, 95, note 38; 144, Appendix VII; Salomonson 1969, 75, note 181: Henchir es Srira, Sidi Aïch, Oudna, Pheradi Maius, Henchir el Biar, Henchir Mahrine and Bordj el Djerbi; Stern 1968. Peacock et al.1990. Mackensen 1985; 1993; 1998b; See also Mackensen/Schneider 2002, 125-127; 130-134; 2006, 164-165. e.g. UNESCO Libyan Valleys Survey (1979-1989); Kasserine Survey (1982-1989); The African Proconsularis Survey (1987-1989); Leptimus Survey (1990-1999); Coastal Survey of Tunisia (1987-1997); Dougga Survey (1994-1999); Jerba Survey (1995-2000); North African Ceramics Survey (2010-2011). For the current state of research see: http://www.inp. rnrt.tn/Carte_archeo/html/index_fr.htm (10.4.2016); Stone 2004; Hobson 2015, 73-95. Ben Hassen et al. 1998; See also Barraud et al. 1998; Jacob/Massy 2004. Ben Moussa 2007a, 109-131. Schuring 1988; See also Taylor/Robinson 1996; Mackensen/Schneider 2002; 2006; Bonifay et al. 2012. M. Bonifay not only dealt with the tableware and lamps but also with the amphorae, the coarse and cooking ware and the ceramic building materials. See Bonifay 2004a. Bonifay 2004a, 463-473; 2007b; 2011. Bonifay 2004a, 445-458; 2005; 2007b, 22; 2011, 20; See also Bonifay/Raynaud 2007, 103; Reynolds 2010, 138-139; Lewit 2011, 326; Rice 2011, 90-91; Hobson 2015, 147-149. Recent ceramic finds and older collections of pottery are chosen more often by students for their theses. E.g. unpublished: Dridi 2005; Nasr 2005; Ladhari-Labeyed 2008. Ben Moussa 2001; 2007a; 2007b. Bonifay 2004a, 155; See also Ben Moussa 2007, 133; Cau et al. 2011. The results of this study on North Tunisian Red Slip Ware and new data of Central Tunisian workshops are currently processed into a PhD. The so-called continental productions are products that were primarily meant for the regional African and not for the supra-regional maritime trade and have to be distinguished from the traditional categories A-E. However, the collective term ‘continental’ includes a large number of partly very contrary tableware. Due to the recent discoveries of continental ARS in the Mediterranean basin the long- lasting assumption of a limited distribution and therefore the definition of the continental ARS itself may require revision in the future. In general, the two main production centers of Henchir es Srira and Sidi Aïch can be distinguished. See Hayes 1972, 300; Bonifay 2004a, 51-53; Quaresma 2010; Bonifay 2016, 527.

57

58

59

60

61 62 63 64

65

66

During recent surveys on Sicily a production characterized by a very light clay and a peeling orange to chimney red engobe was observed. Many fragments show a slight gradation of color darkening towards the rim that probably was caused by the absence of a saggar. For this ware, which mainly occurs with the forms Hayes 81A and Hayes 73, the terminus ARS G was proposed. Petrographic analyses indicate a resemblance to the fabrics of the area of Hippo Regius on the easternmost border of the province Zeugitana in modern-day Tunisia. See Bonifay 2016, 526-527; Capelli et al. 2016, 319-320. The discussion on the end of production of ARS A is still ongoing. A production of ARS A2 up to the first half of the 4th century AD has already been indicated by Bonifay in 2004. The investigations of J. C. Quaresma in the province of Lusitania, where importation of ARS A continued beyond the 3rd century AD, support this dating. See Bonifay 2004a, 159; Quaresma 2011; Bonifay 2016, 522. Hayes 1972, 289; See also Carandini et al. 1981, 19; Pröttel 1996, 9; Bonifay 2010, 43; Bonifay et al. 2012, 45. The similarity of ARS A and cooking ware A and C may be relevant for the localization of the workshops, because to date neither the ateliers for cooking ware A and C nor for ARS A could be clearly located. Lamboglia 1958, 296; See also Salomonson 1968, 97; Carandini 1968, 29-30; Hayes 1972, 289; Pröttel 1996, 9; Bonifay 2004a, 159; Ben Moussa 2007a, 63; Bonifay et al. 2012, 44-45; Bonifay 2016, 522. Lamboglia 1958, 296; See also Carandini 1968, 30; Hayes 1972, 15; Pröttel 1996, 25-29; Bonifay 2004a, 154-162. Salomonson 1969, 66-67; See also Carandini et al. 1981, 19; Mackensen 2006a, 108-109; Bonifay et al. 2012, 45-46. Bonifay 2004a, 47; 2016, 522; See also Cau et al. 2011, 4; Bonifay et al. 2012, 45-46. Carandini 1968, 33; See also Hayes 1972, 298; 1980, 518; Carandini et al. 1981, 13; 19; Schuring 1988, 13, 25; Pröttel 1996, 15; 25; Lund 1995, 464; Bonifay 2004a, 45-46; Ben Moussa 2007a, 42. Mackensen 1993, 170; 465; See also Pröttel 1996, 25; Mackensen/Schneider 2002, 125; Bonifay 2004a, 47; Ben Moussa 2007a, 37; Bonifay et al. 2012, 44; Tortorella 1987, 286. According to the heterogeneous appearance of ARS A/D with microscopically different fabrics, it is assumed that it was manufactured in different regions. A production of ARS A/D in Henchir el Guellal (Djilma) proposed by Ph.M. Pröttel in 1996 (Pröttel 1996, 20-21), was recently questioned by Bonifay (Bonifay 2016, 522-523). During the Tunisian coastal survey 1987-1997 it became apparent that ARS A/D was mainly distributed south of La Chebba, 150 km from Henchir el Guellal and very often occurred at excavations in Libyan settlements (Bonifay et al. 2002-2003, 137; Bonifay 2004a, 50). The A/D tableware from Sabratha, the biggest Libyan consumption center of ARS, differs both macroscopically and microscopically from the ones supposedly produced in Henchir el Guellal and originates from a still unknown atelier in North Tunisia or in Tripolitana, probably in the vicinity of Sabratha (Mackensen/Schneider 2006, 173-174; 182-183; Mackensen 2010, 398-399; Bonifay et al. 2012, 46-47; Bonifay 2016, 523). Because there is no clear data available yet, this unknown workshop is named after the findspot ‘group A/D (Sabratha)’. Recent finds from the Vexillation Fort Gheriat el-Gharbia revealed a third A/D production center that is also still unidentified and called A/D Tripolitania group (Mackensen 2010, 401-403).

67 68

69 70 71 72 73 74 75

76 77 78 79

80

For the following review of Ben Moussa’s theory see: Ben Moussa 2007a, 37-42. Hayes 1980, 518; See also Bonifay 2004a, 47; Ben Moussa 2007a, 38. For recent geoarchaeological investigations to locate sites in the alluvial deposits in the Mejerda Valley see Delile et al. 2015. Most recently, however, an ARS A workshop might have been discovered in Carpis: see Ben Moussa 2017, La production de céramique romaine au Cap Bon: état de la question, in M. Bourgou, La péninsule du Cap Bon entre crises et mutations: actes du colloque organisé à Beït al-Hikma les 19 et 20 avril 2016, Carthage, 102 Schuring 1988, 13; 25; 43-45; See also Bonifay 2004a, 67; 2010, 43; Bonifay et al. 2012, 45; 58. Bonifay 2004a, 47-48; 2016, 520-522; See also Bonifay et al. 2012, 44-46. Mackensen/Schneider 2006, 173; Mackensen 2009, 19-20. Salomonson 1968, 97-109; See also Pröttel 1996, 25, note 3; Bonifay 2004a, 47; Ben Moussa 2007a, 42. Pröttel 1996, 25, note 3; See also Bonifay 2004a, 47; Bonifay et al. 2012, 45-46. Mackensen/Schneider 2006, 173; See also Bonifay et al. 2012, 45-46. Sidi Marzouk Tounsi produced ARS C1-C5 from the early 3rd to the mid-6th centuries AD. Large quantities of tableware, pottery tools, firing aids, moulds, misfired pottery and scrap material gave evidence for the long activity, but a comprehensive study of the architectural structures as well as the of the spectrum of vessel and decoration types is not available yet. Nevertheless, the ARS from Sidi Marzouk Tounsi has been chemically and petrographically analyzed and can be distinguished from other Central Tunisian production sites. However, the largely unexplored workshop that also exported a high amount of tableware increasingly suffers from the intensive agricultural use and illicit excavations since the 1960s. See e.g. Peacock et al.1990, 66-74; Mackensen 1998a, 26-30; Mackensen/Schneider 2002, 141; Mackensen 2003b; Mackensen 2004; Mackensen 2006a; Mackensen 2006b; Mackensen/Schneider 2006, 166; 174-177. Ben Moussa 2007a, 42; 2007b; See also Cau et al. 2011, 4; Bonifay et al. 2012, 44-46. Cau et al. 2011, 4. Pröttel 1996, 25, note 3; See also Bonifay 2004a, 48. In contrast to the Tunisian fabrics, the Algerian ARS is less researched, even though it frequently occurred on many sites since the 1960s. The latest and thus far only archaeometric studies on Algerian ARS, conducted within the framework of a not yet published PhD thesis by Mustafa Filah and based on samples from the workshop of Diana Veteranorum and its vicinity, show a homogenous sherd, which is easily distinguished from the Tunisian products. The Algerian tableware has an orange slip that is lighter than the Tunisian ARS due to the more calcareous clay and is characterized by the absence of aeolian quartz. Moreover, diverging techniques in the production of the two North African tablewares can be observed. No saggars were used for firing the Algerian ARS and also the preferred blackening of the vessel rims generally deviates from the Tunisian ARS. Besides Diana Veteranorum, Tiddis and Timgad were also identified as a tableware workshop. For an overview on Algerian tableware see: Guéry/ Bonifay 1995, 4-5; Bonifay et al. 2012, 46, note 38; 56; Fentress 2013; Bonifay 2016, 528. The category C/D as transition fabric with typical ARS D-vessel types in ARS C-quality was created by Delgado

81 82 83

84 85 86 87 88 89

90 91

92 93 94 95

96 97 98 99 100

101 102 103 104

in 1975 and taken up by Bonifay in 2004 (See Delgado 1975, 255; Bonifay 2004a, 49) However, it should not be mistaken with the intermediate production C/D mentioned by Bourgeois/Mayet in 1991 and already described by Waagé in 1948 which probably is a fine version of the El Mahrine area production, represented mainly by the form Hayes 67. See Waagé 1948, 48-49, no. 828-829, 863; Bourgeois/Mayet 1991, 267-277; Bonifay 2004a, 49. Bonifay 2004a, 49; See also Ben Moussa 2007a, 72; 2007b, 132-133; Bonifay et al. 2014, 51. Hayes 1972, 136; 292; See also Bonifay 2004a, 49; Bonifay et al. 2012, 51. Bonifay 2004a, 49. For the recently investigated workshop of Henchir el Ourezla see: Babelon/Cagnat/Reinach 1893, Feuille XLIII, no. 44, Djebibina; Ben Moussa 2017, 167-169. Mackensen 1993, 171-172; See also Bonifay et al. 2012, 48. Mackensen 1993, 171-172; See also Pröttel 1996, 10; Bonifay et al. 2012, 48. Hayes 1972, 192; See also Carandini et al. 1981, 78-79; Mackensen 1993, 173-174; cf. Pröttel 1996, 10-11. The best example is the new definition of fabric C/D: Bonifay et al. 2012, 49. Hayes 1972, 292; See also Carandini et al. 1981, 78; Bonifay 2004a, 48; Bonifay et al. 2012, 50. Hayes 1972, 292; See also Carandini et al. 1981, 78; Bonifay 2004a, 48; Ikäheimo 2003, 27; Bonifay et al. 2012, 49-50. Février 1980, 171-172; See also Bonifay 1983, 305. This problem was also noticed by the Atlante and dealt with a transition group D1/2 that was merely used in praxis. See Carandini et al. 1981, 78. Bonifay 1983, 306; 2004a, 48; 207; See also Bonifay et al. 1998, 363-364; 2012, 51-52. Bonifay 1983, 306; 2004a, 48; 210; See also Bonifay et al. 1998, 363-364; 2012, 51-52; Capelli et al. 2016, 316. Bonifay et al. 1998, 363-364; See also Bonifay 2004a, 48; 207-210. Higher quantities of pottery around Tebourba have already been noted in the Atlas archéologique de la Tunisie (Babelon/Cagnat/Reinach 1893) and in Tunisian find reports. El Mahrine and Bordj el Djerbi were surveyed by L. Maurin and J. Peyras in 1968, but the collected ARS D never got published. At the end of the 1960s there were further surveys by J.W. Salomonson, also in collaboration with L. Slim. See Babelon/ Cagnat/Reinach 1893, Feuille XIX (Tebourba); Salomonson 1968, 122; 144, Appendice VII; 1969, 75; Carandini 1970b, 114; Mackensen 1993, 25-27; 41. Mackensen 1985; 1993; See also Mackensen/Schneider 2002, 125; 143-145. Ben Moussa 2007a, 79-80. Mackensen 1993, 26; See also Mackensen/Schneider 2002, 125-127; 145-147. For a detailed summary of Gauckler’s observations in 1896 and 1897 see Mackensen 1993, 27-32. Fevrier 1964, 134-135; note 15; See also Hayes 1972, 298; Mackensen 1993, 27-32; Barraud et al. 1998; Mackensen/Schneider 2002, 128-130; Bonifay 2004a, 53-55. Barraud et al. 1998; See also Mackensen/Schneider 2002, 128-130; 150-151; Bonifay 2004a, 55. Bonifay et al. 2004, 233-234. Mackensen 1998a, 33-37; See also Mackensen/Schneider 2002, 128; 149; Bonifay 2004a, 49; Bonifay et al. 2012, 50. Bonifay 2004a, 51; See also Ben Moussa 2007a, 69; Cau et al. 2011; 4; Bonifay et al. 2012, 51-52. For the possible Central Tunisian origin survey results from Leptimus

71

105

106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116

117 118 119 120 121

122 123 124 125

126

127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135

136

72

and typological similarities between the forms Hayes 90 and Hayes 105 are considered. In 1995 P. Reynolds assumed a Northwestern Tunisian and Algerian origin of ARS D5, but could not been confirmed so far. See Reynolds 1995, 11; Bonifay 2004a, 175; Bonifay et al. 2012, 51-52. Bonifay 2004a, 57; See also Ghalia et al. 2005, 495-497; 504, Fig. 5, 29-35; Bonifay et al. 2010, 3-5. Bonifay 2004a, 57; See also Ghalia et al. 2005, 496; Boniay et al. 2010, 3-5; 2012, 57; Bonifay 2016, 526. Bonifay 2004a, 197; 2016, 526. Bonifay 2004a, 46; 49; 2016, 526; See also Bonifay et al. 2012, 57; Capelli et al. 2016, 318. Mrabet/Ben Moussa 2007, 26-28; 30-33; See also Bonifay et al. 2010, 3-6. Bonifay 2004a, 197-199; 2016, 526; See also Capelli et al. 2016, 318. For an overview of possible purposes for classifying archaeological finds see e.g. Adams/Adams 1991, 157-168. For general aspects of classification see e.g. Adams/ Adams 1991, 160-161. Adams/Adams 1991, 157-168. For multiple purposes see e.g. Adams/Adams 1991, 165-168. See e.g. ‘[…]il nome di terra sigillata chiara C, poiché essa è la terza in ordine di tempo che appare […].’ Lamboglia 1963, 145. Lamboglia 1963, 145. Lamboglia 1958, 259. The term tipo was also used as Spanish equivalent by Salvador Pallares 1960. Lamboglia 1959, 296; 1963, 146; 180. Lamboglia’s tipo B was dismissed as a Gaulish product afterwards. Waagé 1933, 294; 1948, 43-45. Recent studies indicate that ARS A was produced up to the first half of the 4th century AD and show that ARS A and D, which was produced from the first third of the 4th century AD, not only shared similar characteristics of the clay but also had a chronological connection. See Bonifay 2004a, 159; 2016, 522; Quaresma 2011. Lamboglia 1963, 155. Waagé 1948, 44. Salomonson 1968, 97; 109-114; 120-123; 1969, 54-64. Salomonson 1968, 95, note 38; 144, Appendix VII; 1969, 75, note 181: Henchir es Srira, Sidi Aïch, Oudna, Pheradi Maius, Henchir el Biar, Henchir Mahrine and Bordj el Djerbi; Stern 1968. Namely: Henchir es Srira, Sidi Aïch, Oudna, Pheradi Maius, Henchir el Biar, Henchir Mahrine and Bordj el Djerbi. Carandini 1968. Carandini 1968, 38-39, fig. Į-fig. İ. Hayes 1972, 15; 288. Hayes 1972, 288. Hayes 1972, 297-299; See also Bonifay 2004a, 45. See note 66. Cf. Delgado 1975, 249; 253-254. Hayes 1972, 288; See also Carandini et al. 1981. The translation and definition of the term ‘fabbrica’ equals the German term ‘Fabrikat’ that is synonymous to ‘Fabrikatsgruppe’, ‘Qualitätsgruppe’ or ‘Machart’. For a summary of the development and use of the term ‘Fabrikat’ in the German-speaking research, e.g. the classification of fine wares at Magdalensberg in Austria see Gassner 2000, 187-188; Gassner 2003, 26. However, a production of ARS A/D in Henchir el Guellal (Djilma) was recently questioned by Bonifay. See Bonifay 2016, 522-523.

137

138 139

140

141

142

143

144 145

146 147 148 149 150

151 152 153 154

Schuring 1988, 4. See also Mackensen 1993, 169; Pröttel 1996, 13. Pottery studies in Carthage generally followed Hayes‘ typochronological system: Michigan I; Michigan IV, Michigan VI; Fulford 1984. Schuring 1988, 4. See also Mackensen 1993, 169; Lund 1995, 464; Pröttel 1996, 13; Bonifay 2004a, 48. This even included a recommendation of three stages of how to proceed when sorting ARS macroscopically: ‘1) refer to specific workshops only when identification is obvious (e.g. Oudna); 2) refer to Lamboglia/Atlante’s nomenclature ‘A-C-D-E’, taking into consideration that it is not necessary to specify all the refinements of this classification when identification is not secure (e.g. C1,2,3,4) refer only to ‘ARS’ in all other cases.’ See Cau et al. 2011. Bonifay 2004a, 155: “[…] il faut bien admettre que le plus grand désordre règne actuellment non seulement dans la classification des pâtes mais également dans la typologie et la chronologie de cette céramique.”; Ben Moussa 2007a, 132; Cau et al. 2011, 4-5. However, the possibility that a workshop has used several clay deposits chemically and petrographically diverging from each other has to be considered in an investigation. Barraud et al. 1998; See also Ben Moussa 2007a, 109131; Mackensen 2009, 38. Additionally the ceramic material and the rest of workshop facilities have often been illegally taken away or relocated. Thus ‘the pottery from the fields’ in the Mejerda Valley was evidently used for the foundation of houses since the 1970s. See Ben Moussa 2007, 79-80. For an examination of the nature and organization of labor, particularly of workshop labor in ceramic production see Murphy/Poblome 2011; Murphy 2014; Murphy 2015. For a summary of the creation and development of the term terra sigillata in research see Van Oyen 2015, 11-31. For forming techniques of ARS see Hayes 1972, 292-295; Mackensen 1993, 24; 64-69; Bonifay 2004a, 59; Peña 2009. For slipping, surface treatment of ARS as well as tools for polishing see: Mackensen 1993, 75-77; 83; Bonifay 2004a, 59-60; Mackensen 2009, 21-28; Peña 2009; Jauch/ Weiss 2013. For the production of appliques see Mackensen 1993, 84-87; Mackensen 2006b, 177-181 and Bussière 2008, 98-100. For the production of stamps see: Hayes 1972, 295-296; Mackensen 1993, 183-186; Mackensen 1998b, 361-365; Bussière 2008, 89-98. For saggars see Peacock et al.1990, 68-70; Mackensen 1993, 88-91; 291-293; Barraud et al. 1998, 162-165; Bonifay 2004a, 60-65; Bonifay 2007c, 150; Mackensen 2009, 28-38; Cau et al. 2011, 4. For ARS kilns see: Mackensen 1993, 92-93; Barraud et al. 1998, 140-146; Ben Moussa 2007a, 128-131; Bonifay 2010, 42; Cau et al. 2011, 4. See e.g. Schörner 2010. See also Walsh 2013, 220-232. Mackensen 1993, 473-475; 2009, 38-39. Mackensen 1993, 474-475; 2009, 38-40. Mackensen 1993, 465-469; 2006a, 108; 2009, 39, note 121; See also Bonifay 2004a, 484; 2007c, 154. For the following report on the relocation of ARS ateliers in six phases see Bonifay 2003; 2004a, 478-482; 2007c, 153-154; 2011, 22-23. Bonifay 2003, 127; 2004a, 484-485; 2007c, 153-154; 2011, 23. Mackensen 1993, 479-486; 2006b, 177-178; See also Bonifay 2007c, 156; Reynolds 2010, 140. For an overview of the current research on Tunisian oil and wine presses see Hobson 2015, 89-102. Mackensen 1993, 55-56; See also Ikäheimo 2003, 100-102; Lewit 2011, 316-320; Lewit 2013; Leitch 2011, 172-173.

155 156 157 158 159

160 161

162 163 164 165 166 167

168 169

170

171

172

173

Mackensen 1993, 55-56; See also Ikäheimo 2003, 102; Lewit 2011, 319-320; Leitch 2011, 173. Bonifay 2003, 127; 2004a, 484-485; 2007c, 156; See also Leone 2003; Ben Moussa 2007a, 229-230. Barraud et al. 1998, 144-145; See also Lewit 2011, 322; Leitch 2011, 172. Reynolds 1995, 112-116; See also Leone 2003; Bonifay 2003, 121-124; 2004a, 481-482; 2007c, 154. Hobson 2015, 153-157; See also Lewit 2013; Whittow 2013, 137-143. Insight into a possible imperial influence can only be provided by clarifying the ownership relations of the potteries and agricultural units. For known imperial estates in North Africa see Reynolds 1995, 46. For the organization of the imperial oil supply see Peña 1998. For more detailed comments on the political and social factors see Hobson 2015, 143-160. E.g. Taylor/Robinson 1996; Mackensen/Schneider 2002; Brun 2004; Mackensen/Schneider 2006; Brun 2007; Fouzai et al. 2012; Baklouti et al. 2014; Baklouti et al. 2015; Capelli et al. 2016. In general see Shepard 1956, 97-100; Gassner 2003, 27-29. Shepard 1956; See also Gassner 2003, 27. Peacock 1977, 1-3; See also Orton et al. 1993, 67-75; 132140; 231-242; Tomber/Dore 1998; Gassner 2003, 27-28. Orton et al. 1993; See also Gassner 2003, 26-34; http:// facem.at/project/about.php (12.01.2018). Gassner/Schaller 2009; See also Gassner et al. 2014; www.facem.at (12.01.2018). This definition is based on Orton et al. 1993, 67. See also Rice 1987, 176; 456; Gassner 2003, 26; Orton/ Hughes 2013, 71-80; 150 -189. To avoid confusion about the terms used, it is pointed out again that ‘fabric’ does not equal the traditional categories A, C, D and E that also were synonymously called fabrics In the past (Chapter 2.2.2). Rice 1987, 54-110; See also Orton et al. 1993, 132-135; Gassner 2003, 26. However, the possibility that a workshop has used several clay deposits chemically and petrographically diverging from each other, has to be considered in a seperate investigation. The economic aspects will be analyzed in the frame of my PhD, which is currently conducted at Ghent University (promotor Prof. Roald Docter), cooperating with Vienna University (co-promoter Dr. Verena Gassner). The dissertation (‘Made in Africa. Production and consumption of African Red Slip ware in Late Antiquity’) focuses on an evaluation of the individual distribution of ARS from individual Tunisian workshops resulting in a reconstruction of the commercial relations between the African producers and Mediterranean consumers at selected consumption centers. The following criteria and the described working steps of the fabric analysis are according to Gassner 2003, 30-34 or were passed on to the author personally in the course of activities for the database FACEM by V. Gassner. In addition, personal observations of the author are explained. Examples for comparison charts are presented e.g. in Pettijohn et al. 1973; Flügel 1978, 160-161; Courty et al.1989, 72, fig. 5.6; Orton et al. 1993, 239, fig. A.6. The interpretation as grog can be excluded because the particles in Roman African pottery do not meet the characteristics of grog. Equally, it is not possible that the grains are undissolved lumps of clay or argillaceous minerals formed during firing process. See

174

175

176

177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186

187 188

189 190

191

192 193 194

195 196 197 198

199 200

201 202 203

Ikäheimo 2003, 27; cf. Schuring 1988, 38-39; 50. The percentage guidelines for these termini are: singular: less than 5 %; infrequent: 5-10 %; frequent: 10-25 %; very frequent: 25-40 %; riddled with: more than 40 %. A strong or weak subdivision generally depends on the psychology of person doing the analysis. According to Orton et al. 1993,78: “[…] workers can be divided into ‘lumpers’ and ‘splitters’: the former tend to assume that all fabrics are the same unless they can be demonstrated to be different, while the latter assume that all fabrics are different unless they can be demonstrated to be the same”. The results of the archaeometric tests for the fabrics defined in this contribution were not yet available at the time of this publication. Salomonson 1968; 1969; 1971. Salomonson 1968. Sern 1968; Flecker 2005. Stern 1968. Salomonson 1968. Mackensen 1993, 24; 2009, 21-22; See also Berthier 2000. Lassus 1958, 251-257; See also Février 1964, 134, note 15. Guéry/Bonifay 1995, 4-5. Ballu 1911, 22-26; See also Salomonson 1968, 95, note 41; Mackensen 1993, 23-24; fig. 2; Bussière 2008, 90. For a recent study of the pottery production in the region of Salakta and Ksour Essef see Nacef 2015. However, there was no ARS production attested in this region. Perugini/Ryckbosch 2015; Perugini 2016. Pottery as a source of various historic information was already discussed by J.W. Salomonson. See Salomonson 1971. Flecker 2005; Mackensen/Schneider 2006, 189. While sifting and inventorying Salomonson’s survey material M. Bonifay wrote a report summarizing his observations. My thanks goes to Michel Bonifay for sending this report to Vienna and providing useful information for this study. ‘Karton 3: 1 Zak Pheradi Maius 1961 meegenomen 10.4. 1995’ (signed by J. Derksen); ‘Karton 6: 1 Zak Aoudja-mat meegenomen 10.4.1995’ (signed by J. Derksen). It is most probable that this material was later returned to Utrecht, but did not end up in the right boxes. Salomonson called those pieces N1-N11. Some inventory numbers (HS = Henchir es Srira; SA= Sidi Aïch were mentioned in Stern 1968, fig. 2; Pl. I; Pl. III. The Central Tunisian workshops of the survey material will be analyzed in the PhD project currently conducted at Ghent University, in cooperation with Vienna University. The whole collection will be returned to Tunisia after the conclusion of the PhD, as invisaged by Salomonson. Stern 1968. Slim 1969-70, 248, note 4; See also Mackensen 1993, 26-27. E.g. Orton 1989; Orton/Tyres 1992; Orton 1993; Raux 1998; Warner Slane 2003; Orton 2009. Bordj el Djerbi may be attributed to the entries No 148/149 or the clay tiles mentioned in Henchir Mahrine no 159. See Babelon/Cagnat/Reinach 1893, feuille XIX; Mackensen 1993, 26-27; Ben Moussa 2007a, 78. Poinssot/Lantier 1923, LXXIV-LXXV. Poinssot/Lantier 1923, LXXV-LXXVI; See also Mackensen 1993, 26-27; Mackensen 1998a, 23; Ben Moussa 2007a, 78. Poinssot/Lantier 1923, LXXVI-LXXVIII. Poinssot/Lantier 1923, LXXVIII. Salomonson 1968, 122; 144, Appendice VII.

73

204

205 206 207 208 209 210

211

212

213 214 215

216 217 218

219

220 221 222 223 224 225 226

227 228 229 230 231 232

74

Salomonson 1969, 75, note 181; See also Slim 1969-70, 248, note 4; Maurin/Peyras 1971, 33-34; Mackensen 1993, 26-27; 41, note 4; 1998a, 23-25; Ben Moussa 2007a, 78. Deneauve 1972, 219-220; See also Mackensen 1993, 41-42. Mackensen/Schneider 2002, 124-127; 147-149. Mackensen/Schneider 2002, 125. Mackensen/Schneider 2002, 147. Mackensen 1993, 367-368; See also Pröttel 1996, 42-43; Cau et al. 2011, 5. Mackensen 1993, 398-401; See also Pröttel 1996, 45; Cau et al. 2011, 5. The most recent studies of African Sigillata material on Sicily revealed a variety of Hayes 58B, which showed strong similarities to ARS A in the thin section. Regarding the revised date for the end of production of ARS A (first half of 4th century AD) the idea of ARS A workshops producing ARS D forms in a final phase production is not far-fetched. See Capelli et al. 2016, 304; Bonifay 2016, 522. Cau et al. 2011, 5; For Hayes 61A a Central Tunisian model in ARS C quality or in the continental fabric from Henchir es Srira is discussed. See Mackensen 1993, 401-403; 468; Pröttel 1996, 43-44. Hayes 1972, 105; See also Mackensen 1993, 402-403; Mackensen/Schneider 2002, 125-127; Bonifay 2004a, 167-168. Mackensen 1993, 403-405; See also Pröttel 1996, 46-47; Bonifay 2004a, 171-173; Cau et al. 2011, 5. Mackensen 1993, 413-414. This is a relative chronology mainly based on vessel types with stamp decoration. For the production phases of El Mahrine and Henchir el Biar see: Mackensen 1993, 288-301; 366-374. Mackensen 1993, 479-486. Mackensen 1993, 479-486. Bordj el Djerbi: pugillum: […]mi/[…]felici/ter bono; saggar: tuo/[…]emmeni EX OF(F)ICIN[A…]; saggar: [ex] officina T(iti) […] See Mackensen 1993, 474; Mackensen 2009, 21; 32-33. El Mahrine: tool: […]ponoq[…]/[…]ifecit[…]; tool: […] ANI; saggar: […]OI; saggar: B. See Mackensen 1993, 94; Mackensen 2009, 41-42. Mackensen 1993, 494-496. Mackensen 1993, 54; See also Baklouti et al. 2014, 525, fig. 1; Carte géologique de la Tunisie (1:500 000). Poinssot/Lantier 1923, LXXV; See also Mackensen 1993, 54-55. Mackensen 1993, 170-172; See also Bonifay et al. 2012, 48-49. Mackensen/Schneider 2002, 136-139; See also Bonifay et al. 2012, 48-49. Bonifay 2016, 522; See also Capelli et al. 2016, 304. See Babelon/Cagnat/Reinach 1893, feuille XIX; Salomonson 1968, 144, Appendice VII; 1969, 75, note 181; Mackensen 1993, 26; Ben Moussa 2007a, 78. It has to be noted that in Salomonson 1968 only Henchir el Biar is referred to by name, although Bordj el Derbi and El Mahrine were prospected in the same year. Deneauve 1972, 219-220; Mackensen 1993, 26. Carandini 1970b, 114; See also Carandini et al. 1981, 80; Carandini 1983, 146. Mackensen 1993; See also Mackensen/Schneider 2002, 125-127. Mackensen 1993; See also Mackensen/Schneider 2002, 125-127. Mackensen 1993, 462-465. Mackensen 1993, 403-405; See also Pröttel 1996, 46-47; Bonifay 2004a, 171-173; Cau et al. 2011, 5.

233 234 235 236

237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251

252

253 254

255

256

Waagé 1948, 49 (form 868-873); See also Hayes 1972, 115; Mackensen 1993, 325-327; Cau et al. 2011, 5. Hayes 1972, 115; See also Mackensen 1993, 325-327; 403-405; Pröttel 1996, 47. Carandini et al. 1981, 88; See also Mackensen 1993, 326. Mackensen 1993, 325-327; 403-405; Bonifay 2004a, 171173. Bonifay Hayes 67A = Mackensen 9.4; Bonifay Hayes 67B = Mackensen 9.1 and 9.3; Bonifay Hayes 67C = Mackensen 9.2 and 9.5. The importance of a correct identification as well as the importance of providing adequate illustrations of Hayes 67 and its variants was also underlined during the ICREA/ESF workshop. See Cau et al. 2011, 5. Mackensen 1993, 403-405; See also Bonifay 2004a, 173. Mackensen 1993, 333; See also Pröttel 1996, 48. Hayes 1972, 121-125; See also Mackensen 1993, 327-331; 333. Mackensen 1993, 333. Mackensen 1993, 192-196. Mackensen 1993, 111-117; See also Bonifay 2004a, 358-368. Carandini et al. 1981, 195; See also Mackensen 1993, 46-151; Bonifay 2004a, 358-368. Mackensen 1993, 288-301; 366-374. Mackensen 1993, 463. Mackensen 1993, 490; See also Mackensen/Schneider 2002, 125. Mackensen 1993, 54; See also Baklouti et al. 2014, 525, Fig. 1; Carte géologique de la Tunisie (1:500 000). Mackensen 1993, 170-172; See also Bonifay et al. 2012, 48-49. Mackensen/Schneider 2002, 136-139; See also Bonifay et al. 2012, 48-49; Baklouti et al. 2014, 534. Baklouti et al. 2014, 534. Whereas A. Rousseau dealt with Oudna’s mosaics in the mid-19th century, H. Dunant and G. Flaubert in 1858 described gates, bridges, aqueducts, cisterns, a temple, numerous columns, marble statues, baths and an amphitheater in the ancient city. V. Guérin, who visited Oudna in August 1860, identified, in addition to the buildings already known, a theater, a church and an Arab citadel. For an overview of Rousseau‘s, Dunant’s, Flaubert’s and Guérin’s observations see: Guérin 1862, 282-285; Ben Hassen et al. 1998, 22-24. Guérin 1862, 284-285; See also Gauckler 1897, 179, note 1; Ben Abdallah et al. 1998, 53-54. While for the ancient city only the spellings Uthina and Utina existed, in modern language Henchir Oudena, Oudna or Oudhna have become common. Babelon/Cagnat/Reinach 1893, feuille XXVIII, Nr. 48; See also Ben Hassen et al. 1998, 25-26. Colonel Abria writes in a letter to Gauckler about his bservations in the Villa of Fructus: “ […] une chambre remplie de pots de toutes formes, dont pas un n’etait intact; comme il y avait autour terre rougeâtre, j’ai pensé que j’etais tombé chez un potier.” See Ben Hassen et al. 1998, 26, note. 34; Jacob/Massy 2004, 81, note. 85. Ben Hassen et al. 1998, 26-27; 30-31. A conflict occurred mainly after L. Ducroquet and his son, who carried out excavations in Oudna, had built a house within the ancient site at the Capitol. In 1960, parts of the ancient city were still privately owned. The documented Christian stamps are: 14 different Christogramms and crosses as well as a lamb, sheep, rooster, dove, an altar, palms and rosettes. See Gauckler 1897, 215; Carton 1916, 43-45; Mackensen 1993, 27-31. Tools with graffiti: pugillum: ex of[…]/Abis […]; pugillum: RENATI; punch: PER see Mackensen 2009.

257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276

277 278 279 280

281

282 283 284

Gauckler 1897, 215; See also Mackensen 1993, 27-31. For the activities during World War II see Ben Hassen et al.1998, 31; Jacob/Massy 2004, 87-88. The projects and research objectives since 1993 see Ben Hassen/Massy 1998; Jacob/Massy 2004. Ben Hassen/Golvin 1998, 117-130; See also Ben Hassen/Golvin 2004, 93-116. Jacob/Massy 2004, 67-76. Ben Hassen/Golvin 1998, 107-117; See also Ben Hassen/Golvin 2004, 117-180. Ben Hassen/Golvin 1998, 130-136. Jacob/Massy 2004, 63-67. Barraud et al. 1998, 174-176; See also Jacob/Massy 2004, 57, Fig. 2; 61-63. Maurin 1998, 217-226; See also Jacob/Massy 2004, 56-58. Barraud et al. 1998, 189-206; See also Maurin 1998, 224226; Chouchane/Texier 2004. Barraud et al. 1998, 180-185; See also Jacob/Massy 2004, 58-61. Barraud et al. 1998, 177-180; See also Jacob/Massy 2004, 82-83; Ben Hassen/Golvin 2004, 142-144. Jacob/Massy 2004, 84-85. Jacob/Massy 2004, 63-66; 82. Ben Hassen et al. 1998, 26, note 34; See also Jacob/ Massy 2004, 63-64; 81, note 85; 82. Jacob/Massy 2004, 63-64; 81-82. Barraud et al. 1998, 140-146; See also Jacob/Massy 2004, 81-82. Jacob/Massy 2004, 82; See also Bonifay et al. 2004, 234. Hollow, mushroom-shaped clay objects of different sizes have a convex lower surface and a kind of spout, which might serve to attach a handle. Due to supra-regional comparisons of similar tools and to experimental archaeological investigations, several interpretations for the use of these objects exist. It could have served as a counter pressure on the inside of the vessels when formed on the potter’s disc. It would also be suitable for finishing and smoothing the surface of the inner side of the vessel or for applying the stones in the interior of mortars since they had to be firmly pressed into the wall in order to prevent them from falling out again after the drying and firing of the clay. Because of the fact that the currently known mushroom-shaped tools were predominantly made of wood, the small number of finds in Tunisian potteries may be material-dependent. A mushroom shaped tool with the graffito ‘Vitalis’ was also found in Ounda. Clay mushrooms were also discovered in the workshops of Tiddis, El Mahrine and Henchir es Srira. For more details see Mackensen 1993, 69-71; Mackensen/Schneider 2006, 188, fig. 13, no. 1; Bonifay 2004a, 59-60; Mackensen 2009; Peña 2009, 57; Jauch/Weiss 2013. Barraud et al. 1998, 157, Tabl.1; 159, Tabl.2. Barraud et al. 1998, 157, Tabl.1; 159, Tabl.2. Hayes 1976, 70-71, Fig. 10, 12; See aslo Mackensen 1993, 420-421, fig. 119. For the following summary of Hayes 99’s decoration, see Hayes 1972, 152-155; Mackensen 1993, 344-345; 415417; Barraud et al. 1998, 149; Bonifay 2004a, 180-181. Although a random matching of the fragments cannot be completely excluded, both pieces were put together in the catalogue (cat. Ou.046, pl. 12). Mackensen 1993, 27-32; See also Barraud et al. 1998, 149; Bonifay 2004a, 192. Gauckler 1897, pl. 8-9; See also Mackensen 1993, 27-32; Barraud et al. 1998, 149; Bonifay 2004a, 192. Gauckler 1897, pl. 8-9; See also Mackensen 1993, 29, fig. 4, 6-7; Barraud et al. 1998, 149; Bonifay 2004a, 192.

285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295

296 297

298 299 300 301 302

303 304 305

306

307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318

Hayes 1972, 219; 221-22; See also Mackensen 1993, 250-254. Bonifay 2004a, 192. Hayes 1976, 70-71, Fig. 10, 6-7; See also Mackensen 1993, 420-421, fig. 119. Hayes 1972, 172. Hayes 1972, 156. Barraud et al. 1998, 163, Fig. 20, n°38. Barraud et al. 1998, 162-165; See also Bonifay 2004, 61; 2007c, 150; Mackensen 2009, 29. Bourgou 2004; See also Baklouti et al. 2014, 525; Carte géologique de la Tunisie (1:500 000). Baklouti et al. 2014, 527. Bonifay et al. 2012, 49-50. For a listing and evaluation of all chemical components of the samples from Oudna see Mackensen/Schneider 2002, 140-141; Brun 2004; Baklouti et al. 2014, 528-535. Brun 2004, 238-240; See also Bonifay et al. 2012, 49-50; Baklouti et al. 2014, 534-535. The assumption of a common clay deposit for both subgroups A and B was only presented in 2014. Prior to this, it was believed that the few chemical and petrographic deviations between the groups were due to different raw materials. See Baklouti et al. 2014, 535537; cf. Taylor/Robinson 1996; Brun 2004, 240, note 23. Baklouti et al. 2014, 534. Bonifay 2004a, 171. See no. 043.005: http://www.inp.rnrt.tn/Carte_archeo/ html/ipamed_043_fr.htm Shaw 1743, 207-208; See also Ennabli 1972, 225. Since the discovery of the ruins in 1743 several names or different spellings were used in the find and travel reports: Fradeese (1743), (Henchir) Phradise (1844, 1862), (Henchir) Fradise (1885), (Henchir) Fradiz (1888, 1898) or Phradize (1903). See Poinssot 1927a. Shaw 1743, 207-208; See also Poinssot 1927a, 62-63. For Guérin’s observations, presented in the following see Guérin 1862, 311-315; Ennabli 1972, 225-226. His special interests were the area around the arch monument and the alleged Temple of Aphrodite. By interpreting the temple as a fortification he followed the idea of E. Pelissier, who was in Sidi Khalifa several times from 1840 - 1842. Moreover, Cagnat wrote about the church, an amphitheater, various inscriptions and unspecified pottery sherds - some of which had Graffiti. For details of Cagnat’s study see Cagnat 1885; Ennabli 1972, 226. For the temples documented by R. Cagnat and P. Gauckler see Cagnat/Gauckler 1898, 32; 40; 136; pl. XXII; Ennabli 1972, 227. Diehl 1896, 182; 270; 295; 401; See also Ennabli 1972, 227. The following sentences are a summary of the results presented in Carton 1903 and Ennabli 1972, 226-227. Poinssot 1927a. Poinssot 1927a; 1927b. For this measures see Ennabli 1972, 228-233; Ben Moussa 2007a, 109. Ben Moussa 2007a, 109-110. Ben Moussa 2007a, 109-110; 127-131. Ben Moussa 2007a, 122-126. Ben Moussa 2007a, 112-121. Ennabi 1972, 230-231; See also Ben Moussa 2007a, 121-122. Fouzai et al. 2012; See also Baklouti et al. 2014. PH-21, PH-28, PH-29, PH-30 PH-33, PH-35, PH-36, PH-39, PH-46, PH-48, PH-50, PH-52, PH-54, PH-59, PH-60, PH-65, PH-66, PH-68, PH-73, PH-76, PH-85, PH-86, PH-89, PH-91, PH-92, PH-93, PH-94, PH-95, PH-96, PH-97, PH-98 und PH-99: These were probably

75

319 320 321 322 323 324

325

326

327 328 329 330 331

332

333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349

76

misplaced within the large collection of Uzita excavation material that is currently being inventored at Ghent University. Bonifay 2004a, 158-159. Bonifay 2004a, 167-171. Hayes 1972, 136; See also Pröttel 1996, 57-58; Bonifay 2004a, 167-171. Cau et al. 2011, 5; See also Fernández 2014, 170-174; 208-211. Bonifay 2004a, 173-177; See also Ben Moussa 2007a, 149-158. For all known variants of Hayes 88 see Bonifay 2004a, 174-177; Ben Moussa 2007a, 153-158; Fernández 2014, 170-174; 208-211. The pieces with blackened rims are marked as ‘black top’ in the catalogue. On the plates the black areas of the selected samples are visualized with the color gray. The name Black Top Ware was first introduced by Hayes in 1976, following the Italian term ceramica a orlo annerito, which was founded by A. Carandini. As part of the Black top products Hayes also included the ceramica ad patina cenerognola, which represents a ceramic with a black outer side of the vessel, according to Carandini‘s definition. The pottery with blackened rim and the blackening of the outer side are, however, to be regarded as two separate types of African kitchenware, according to the latest investigations by J. Ikäheimo. See Carandini 1973; Hayes 1976, 87-88; Ikäheimo 2003, 3; 13, note 27; 22; Ben Moussa 2007a, 64. Ikäheimo 2003, 13, Anm. 27; 98-100; See also Bonifay et al. 2012, 56. See also fabrics Dougga group 3 and Dougga Ware Bonifay 2004a, 205-207; Capelli et al. 2016, 320-321 Schuring 1988, 43-45; See also Ikäheimo 2003, 72-73; 91, note 437. Schiffer 2013. However, there are only few documented expamles for lids with an impermeable slippled surface. See Ikäheimo 2003, 76-77. Ikäheimo 2003, 75-79: “[…] most scholars have avoided taking a firm stand by using a diplomatic definition lid-plates.[…] it is hoped that the use of definitions like ‘lid-bowl’and ‘plate-lid’ […] will cease in the future […]”. Bonifay 2004a. Ben Moussa 2007a. Bonifay 2004a, 203-205; See also Ben Moussa 2007a, 166-169. Ikäheimo 2003, 45; Plate 5,18. Fulford 1984, 56-57, Fig. 14; 61-63, Fig. 16; See also Bonifay 2004a, 201-203. Bonifay 2004a, 203-204. Bonifay 2004a, 183-185; See also Ben Moussa 2007a, 173175. Ben Moussa 2007a, 171-173. Bonifay 2004a, 205-206. Ben Moussa 2007a, 178-181. Ben Moussa 2007a, 208-210. Hayes 1972, 283; See also Bonifay 2004a, 193-196; Ben Moussa 2007a, 212. Aquilue 1992, 177-179; See also Ben Moussa 2007a, 212. The differentiation of two types was introduced by M. Bonifay. See Bonifay 2004a, 193-196. Baklouti et al. 2014, 525, Fig. 1; Carte géologique de la Tunisie (1:500 000). Brun 2007, 572; 577; See also Baklouti et al. 2014, 527528, Tab. 2. The characteristic of a uniform orientation of the voids

350 351

352 353 354 355 356

357 358

parallel to the surface of the fragments could not be defined for any of the fabrics of Pheradi Maius. Cf. Bonifay et al. 2012, 51. http://facem.at/search/results.php?sp=Carthage+region&page=1(12.01.2018). In this context the recent analyses of the Sicilian ARS finds, particularly of the variety of Hayes 58B forms showing similarities to ARS A in thin section, may also be of relevance. See Bonifay 2016, 522; Capelli et al. 2016, 304; see Chapter 5.1.4 in this volume. Capelli et al. 2016, 309; See also Bonifay 2016, 525. Babelon/Cagnat/Reinach 1893, Feuille No. XXXI, 114; Carte Ghardimaou, Nr. 114; Carte Beja, Nr. 51. Babelon/Cagnat/Reinach 1893, Feuille No. XXXI, 114; Carte Ghardimaou, Nr. 114. Babelon/Cagnat/Reinach 1893, Carte Beja, Nr. 51. Bonifay 2004a, 200-201. For Hayes 80/81 see Bonifay 2004a, 200-201; Ben Moussa/Revilla Calvo, 164, fig. 4.184.19; for Hayes 62/64 see Gambaro 2007, Pl.11.2 IX. Bonifay 2004a, 202-203. The economic aspects will be analyzed in the frame of my PhD (‘Made in Africa. Production and Consumption of African Red Slip Ware in Late Antiquity’).

ABBREVIATIONS ARS CW frag. h. pres.

African Red Slip Ware Cooking Ware fragmented height preserved

w.

width

Appendix 1 Vessel type Hayes 8 Hayes 27 Hayes 50B Hayes 58B similar Hayes 58B Hayes 59A/B

Hayes 61A

Hayes 61A/B1*

Hayes 61A/B2*

Hayes 61A/B4*

Hayes 61B1/B2*

Hayes 61B2*

Hayes 61B3*

Hayes late 61B3*

non id. Hayes 62/64 Hayes 63

Hayes 67A*

Description Carinated bowl with small foot, large convex moulding and small ridge below rim. Two grooves on vessel inside. Dish with curved flaring walls and an almost vertical rounded rim. Groove on inside below rim. Flat-based dish with straight conic walls and plain rim.

ø (cm) 12.5-27

Flat-based dish with curved wall and horizontal or slightly sloping rim, which often has two fine grooves. Dish with curved flaring wall and horizontal thickened rim. Flat-based plate with a curved wall and a broad horizontal or slightly sloping rim, which can be stepped into two fasciae. While variant A has a vertical or diagonal gouging on exterior wall, variant B is plain. Flat-based dish with curved wall and a distinctively chamfered rim of triangular or rounded shape. Inner floor often with grooves and/or stamp decoration. Flat-based dish with slightly curved wall and a distinctively chamfered and slightly indented rim of triangular or rounded shape. Groove on inside of rim. Inner floor often with grooves and/or stamp decoration. Flat-based dish with slightly curved wall and a distinctively chamfered and high, almost vertical rim of triangular or rounded shape. Inner floor often with grooves and/or stamp decoration. Flat-based dish with slightly curved wall and a distinctively chamfered and indented rounded rim with a moulding on the exterior. Inner floor often with grooves and/or stamp decoration. Flat-based dish with slightly curved wall and a distinctively chamfered and almost vertical rim of triangular or rounded shape. Moulding on the exterior. Inner floor often with grooves and/or stamp decoration. Flat-based dish with slightly curved wall and a distinctively chamfered and almost vertical rim of triangular or rounded shape. Moulding on the exterior. Inner floor often with grooves and/or stamp decoration. Flat-based dish with slightly curved wall and an almost vertical rounded or knobbed with groove inside. Moulding on the exterior. Inner floor often with grooves and/or stamp decoration. Flat-based dish with straight slightly bent wall forming almost an S in rim zone. Short, knobbed rim. Moulding on the exterior. Inner floor often with grooves and/or stamp decoration. Vessel with straight steep wall and rounded knobbed rim. Small moulding on exterior below rim. Dish with curved wall and rounded or tapering, plain rim.

22-42

Flat-based dish with curved wall and vertical rounded rim. Varying number of grooves on outside below rim. Inner floor often with grooves and/or stamp decoration. Large bowl with curved wall and strongly stepped transition from wall to rim zone. Flat flaring, barely thickened and short rim. Very low foot with grooves and/or stamp decoration on inner floor.

20-28 20-40

22-42 21-42

22-44

22-44

Date second half of 2nd century AD 3rd century AD first half 5th century AD first half of the 4th century AD 4th century AD 320-end of the 4th century AD

first third of 4th-end of 4th century AD first half of 5th century AD

22-44

first half of 5th century AD

22-44

first third of 5th century AD

22-44

first half of 5th century AD

22-44

first half of 5th century AD

22-44

second half of 5th century AD

22-44

end of 5th century AD

?

?

25-40

4th-5th century AD last third of 4th century AD

24-40

20-45

second half of 4th century AD

77

Hayes 67B*

20-45

end of 4th-first half of 5th century AD

20-45

second half of 5th century AD

20-45

second half of 5th century AD

c. 40

?

c. 30

4th-5th century AD?

25-49

second half 4th-first half 5th century AD

15-22

end of 4th-mid-5th century AD

15-22

end of 4th-mid-5th century AD

15-22

end of 4th-mid-5th century AD

25-42

first half of 5th century AD

c. 30

mid-4th-end of 5th century AD 5th century AD

Hayes 80/81 Hayes 81B var.

Large bowl with curved wall and strongly stepped transition from wall to rim zone. Flat flaring rim with triangular hooked lip and one or two grooves on the edge. Very low foot with grooves and/or stamp decoration on inner floor. Large bowl with curved wall and strongly stepped transition from wall to rim zone. Flat flaring rim with thickened and rounded lip with or without grooves on the edge. Very low foot with grooves and/or stamp decoration on inner floor. Large bowl with curved wall and strongly stepped transition from wall to rim zone. Flat flaring rim with thickened and heavily rounded lip with or without grooves on the edge. Very low foot with grooves and/or stamp decoration on inner floor. Flat plate with low foot, straight and strongly bent wall and vertical triangular rim Plate/bowl with flat flaring rim and thickened, rounded lip with or without grooves on the edges. Slightly stepped transition from wall to rim zone. Large bowl with curved wall and strongly stepped transition from wall to rim zone. Broad rim with hooked lip. One groove at lip, groove(s) and/or an offset above the (slightly) V-shaped moulding on interior. Small bowl with low foot, straight walls and a broad, flat flaring rim with raised lip, hooked on underside. Variant A is undecorated and B with grooves on inside of the rim. Notches on rim possible with both variants. Small bowl with low foot, straight walls and a broad, flat flaring rim with slightly raised lip, barely hooked or rounded on underside. Variant A is undecorated and B with grooves on inside of the rim. Notches on rim possible with both variants. Small bowl with low foot, straight walls and a broad, flat flaring rim with raised lip, rounded on underside. Sometimes with S-curvature on exterior below rim. Variant A is undecorated and B with grooves on inside of the rim. Notches on rim possible with both variants. Flat-based dish with a broad flat and knobbed or thick triangular rim. Variant A with plain rim, B with continuous notches or groups of them on the upper edge of the rim that sometimes also has (a pair of) grooves. Flat-based dish with straight walls and horizontal rim with a small external flange. Shallow bowl with straight flaring wall and plain rounded rim. Two grooves on exterior below rim. Bowl with curved wall and rounded or tapering, plain rim. Deep bowl with plain rounded rim. Undecorated.

similar Mackensen 10

Plate with differently shaped foot and straight flaring walls.

14-28

similar Mackensen 11.1

Bowl with straight flaring wall and rounded rim.

16-19

Pheradi Maius 27.1**

Deep dish with hardly curved wall and triangular vertical rim with two or three grooves on exterior.

20-30

similar Fulford 1984 27.2./39-40

Dish with curved wall and slightly triangular rim that is concave on the exterior. Grille pattern on exterior wall.

c. 30

Hayes 67C*

Hayes 67C* heavily rounded rim

Plate similar Atlante XXXVI,2 non id (Hayes 67 var.?)

Hayes 68

Hayes 73A/B hooked rim

Hayes 73A/B barely hooked/rounded rim

Hayes 73A/B knobbed rim

Hayes 76A/B

Hayes 79 Hayes 80A

78

16-20 c. 20 15-30

5th century AD second half 5th century AD 5th century AD? second half of 5th century AD end of 5thbeginning of 6th century AD? end of 5thbeginning of 6th century AD

similar Hayes 82/87A*

Bowl with curved wall and short, thick triangular rim.

Hayes 87A*

Dish with low foot, straight wall and short, vertical, knobbed or hooked rim. Slightly concave wall on interior below rim.

25-44

Hayes 87A/88*

Dish with low foot, straight wall and almost vertical, short rim, chamfered on the outside and convex on the inside. Convex wall on interior below rim.

25-44

Hayes 87A/88* var.

Dish with low foot, straight wall and slightly flaring, short rim, chamfered on the outside and convex on the inside. Slightly convex wall on interior below rim. Dish with low foot, straight wall and thickened, flaring rim, usually chamfered on the outside and convex on the inside.

25-44

Dish with low foot, slightly rounded wall and thickened, steeply flaring rim, usually (slightly) concave on the outside and convex on the inside. The transition from wall to rim zone is marked by a slight S-form. Dish with low foot, slightly rounded wall and thickened, flaring rim, usually slightly concave on the outside and convex on the inside. The transition from wall to rim zone is marked by a slight S-form. Dish with broad, thickened, flaring rim, slightly concave on the outside and strongly convex on the inside. The transition from wall to rim zone is marked by a clear S-form. Dish with broad, thickened, flaring rim, slightly concave on the outside and convex on the inside. The transition from wall to rim zone is marked by a big groove. Dish with low foot, slightly rounded wall and thickened, flaring rim, usually slightly convex or shapeless on the outside and on the inside. Dish with thickened, steeply flaring, broad rim, chamfered on the outside and convex on the inside. The top of the lip is knobbed. The transition from wall to rim zone is marked by a slight S-form Dish with straight walls, thickened, steeply flaring, broad rim, chamfered on the outside and convex on the inside. The top of the lip is hooked. Dish with straight walls, thickened, steeply flaring, broad rim, convex on the inside and divided into two parts on the outside. Dish with straight walls, thickened, flat, flaring, broad rim, convex on the outside and chamfered on the inside. Groove on inner rim. Dish with straight walls, flaring broad rim, convex on the inside and straight on the inside. Chamfer at transition from wall to rim on exterior wall. Flanged bowl with straight walls. Plain rim and flange sloping downwards with a rounded lip. Two grooves at central inner wall. Small flanged bowl with a wide, flat foot and a curved wall. Plain high rim and broad horizontal flange with slightly hooked lip. Feather-rouletting on inner wall and floor. Small flanged bowl with a wide, flat foot and a slightly curved wall. Plain rim and flange sloping downwards with a rounded lip. Feather-rouletting on inner wall and floor.

30-44

Hayes 88A*

Hayes 88B*

Hayes 88B* concave

Hayes 88B S-shaped wall Hayes 88B var. groove Hayes 88C*

Hayes 88 Pheradi Maius 34.8**

Hayes 88 Pheradi Maius 34.8 hooked rim** Hayes 88 Pheradi Maius 34.11** Hayes 88 var. convex Hayes 88 var. chamfered rim Hayes 91A Pheradi Maius 38.2** Hayes 91B

Hayes 91C

30-44

second half of 5th century AD? first half of 5th-beginning of 6th century AD end of 5th-beginning of 6th century AD beginning of 6th century AD second quarter of 6th-mid-6th century AD second half 6th century AD

30-44

second half 6th century AD

30-44

second half 6th century AD

30-44

second half 6th century AD

30-44

end of 6thbeginning of 7th century AD first half of 6th century AD

30-44

30-44

first half of 6th century AD

30-44

6th century AD

30-44

6th century AD

30-44

6th century AD

16-32

4th-end of 5th century AD

16-30

mid-5th century AD

16-30

mid-6th century AD

79

Hayes 91 Atlante XLIX, 10 Hayes 91 var. (Hayes 1976, Fig.10,12) Hayes 91, Sidi Khalifa* Hayes 93A

Hayes 93B

Hayes 95 similar Hayes 95

Hayes 97

Hayes 99A

Hayes 99B

Hayes 99C

Hayes 99 Pheradi Maius 43** Mackensen 1993, 28.2 (= Hayes 80B/99) Hayes 103 Pheradi Maius 52.1** Hayes 103 Pheradi Maius 52.5** Hayes 103 variant Sidi Khalifa* Hayes 103 variant Sidi Khalifa* var. Hayes 103 similar Pheradi Maius 55** Hayes 104A

Hayes 104A1

Hayes 104B, No. 22

80

Small flanged bowl with a wide, flat foot and a slightly curved wall. Plain rim and flange sloping downwards with a rounded lip. Feather-rouletting on inner wall and floor. Small flanged bowl with a slightly curved wall, a flange sloping slightly downwards and a hooked lip. Flanged bowl with straight flaring walls. Plain short rim and short rounded flange sloping slightly downwards. Large bowl with high foot and curved wall. Broad thin rim, slightly sloping downwards with groove on upper side of rim. Large bowl with high foot and curved wall. Broad thickened and rounded rim, slightly sloping downwards with groove on upper side of rim. Bowl with high flaring foot, curved wall and broad horizontal rim with an upward hook at lip. Bowl with wide horizontal rim with the outer edge bending vertically upwards. Bulge on the exterior of the vessel below the rim. Bowl with foot, curved wall and broad flat or slightly tilted downward rim forming eight or ten slightly concave sides. Grooves on upper edge of rim. Bowl with high flaring tapering foot and sloping floor with offset on interior wall. Walls of almost hemispherical shape, thickened large rim and rounded or hooked lip. Inner floor often with grooves and/or stamp decoration. Bowl with flaring foot of medium height and sloping floor with offset on interior wall. Walls of almost hemispherical shape, thickened rim and rounded lip. Inner floor often with grooves and/or stamp decoration. Bowl with low foot and sloping floor with offset on interior wall. Walls of almost hemispherical shape, thickened, small rim and rounded lip. Inner floor usually without decoration. Bowl with straight flaring wall and short thickened rim. Bowl with straight flaring wall, thickened and rounded lip and groove on inside below rim. Large dish with foot of medium height, straight walls and hooked or rounded, vertical rim. Large dish with foot of medium height, straight walls and short triangular rim. Large dish with foot of medium height, straight walls and short triangular rim with a slightly or clearly chamfered lip on the exterior. Large dish with foot of medium height, straight walls and short triangular rim with a chamfered bottom lip on the exterior. Large dish with foot of medium height, straight walls and short angular rim. Dish/bowl with high foot, curved wall and small knobbed rim. Normally a groove below rim on interior. Inner floor often with grooves and/or stamp decoration. Dish/bowl with high foot, curved floor and highly rounded rim. Normally a groove below rim on interior. Inner floor often with grooves and/or stamp decoration. Dish/bowl with high foot, curved wall and knobbed rim that is flattened on the inside. Normally a groove below rim on interior. Inner floor often with grooves and/or stamp decoration.

16-30

16-30 16-30 22-33

22-33

12-20 c. 42

10-24

14-21

14-21

14-21

14-21

24-36 24-36 24-36

end of 6thbeginning of 7th century AD end of 5th century AD ? first half of 6th century AD? second half of 5th-first third of 6th century AD end of 5th – mid 6th century AD first half of 6th century AD ?

end of 5th-first half of 6th century AD end of 5th-mid-6th century AD second quarter of 6thbeginning of 7th century AD end of 6th-7th century AD 6th/7th century AD second half of 7th century AD (end of 5th? -) 6th century AD (end of 5th? -) 6th century AD (end of 5th? -) 6th century AD

24-36

(end of 5th? -) 6th century AD

24-36

6th century AD? end of 5thfirst third of 6th century AD end of 5th-first third of 6th century AD second half of 6th century AD

24-50

24-50

24-50

Hayes 104 Pheradi Maius 57.4** Hayes 105 Pheradi Maius 63**

Dish/bowl with straight flaring wall and small knobbed rim. Slight bend on interior below rim. Large plate with high foot, slightly curved wall and knobbed or angular rim. Groove on interior below rim.

24-50

similar Pheradi Maius 61**

Plate with curved walls and highly knobbed rim. Three grooves on top of the rim that is slightly sloping downwards on the outside. Vessel with rounded/knobbed rim that is chamfered on the inside and bears grooves. Grooves or slight moulding on exterior wall. Bowl with curved flaring walls and flanged rim. Bowl with straight, almost vertical wall and short horizontal rim. Small bowl with rounded rim and internal flange. Curved wall with three grooves.

30-42

non id. rounded/ knobbed rim with grooves Pheradi Maius 76** Pheradi Maius 77** Hayes 12/110

Lamp Atlante VIII A

Lamp Atlante VIII C

Lamp Atlante X, D2

Pear-shaped with slightly hollow base, massive handle, open channel and convex broad rim bearing ornamental or floral decoration. Oval discus with one or two filling holes and floral/ornamental/figural decoration. Pear-shaped with slightly hollow base, massive handle, open or closed channel and flat broad rim bearing ornamental or floral decoration. Oval discus with one or two filling holes and floral/ornamental/figural decoration. Pear-shaped with slightly hollow base, thin high handle, closed channel and flat broad rim bearing ornamental or floral decoration. Round or oval discus with one or two filling holes and floral/ornamental/figural decoration.

30-42

6th century AD? first half 6thsecond half 7th century AD 7th century AD ?

c. 35

7th century AD?

20-30 c. 35

? ?

/

/

/

end of 5th-mid-7th century AD second half of 4th-second half of 5th century AD second half of 4th-second half of 5th century AD end of 5th-mid-6th century AD

* Bonifay 2004a; ** Ben Moussa 2007a

81

Appendix 2

Fabric

BD-ARS-1

BD-ARS-2

BD-ARS-3

82

Short description reference sample: BD-92 (cat. Bd.052), pl. 25 color (Munsell): 5YR 6/6 - 6/8 hardne fresh break: smooth sorting: unsorted porosity: 2.5-7.5 % shape of voids: vughy, channels; max. 0.25 mm percentage of temper: 20-25 % particle size: 0.025-1 mm quartz/feldspar: frequent; subelongate - spherical/subrounded; transparent, whitish - gray; max. 0.625 mm calcareous particles: infrequent; spherical/rounded; white - yellowish; max. 0.75 mm carbonate pseudomorphoses: infrequent, spherical/rounded, white - yellowish; max. 0.375 mm reddish-brown particles: frequent; subspherical/subrounded; rust colored - reddish-brown; max. 1 mm black particles: singular - infrequent; spherical/rounded; max. 0.25 mm mica: infrequent; polygonal; silver; max. 0.125 argillaceous rock fragments: infrequent; lenticular/plate-like; beige; max. 0.5 mm reference sample: BD-100 (cat. Bd.058), pl. 26 color (Munsell): 2.5 YR 6/6 - 5YR 6/8 hardness: hard texture of fresh break: granular sorting: unsorted porosity: 10-15 % shape of voids: vughy, channels; max. 0.125 mm percentage of temper: 30-35 % particle size: 0.025-0.75 mm quartz/feldspar: very frequent; subelongate - spherical/subrounded; transparent, whitish - gray; max. 0.625 mm calcareous particles: infrequent; spherical/rounded; white - yellowish; max. 0.5 mm carbonate pseudomorphoses: infrequent, spherical/rounded, white - yellowish; max. 0.375 mm reddish-brown particles: infrequent; subspherical/subrounded; rust colored - reddish-brown; max. 0.5 mm black particles: singular - infrequent; spherical/rounded; max. 0.2 mm mica: infrequent; polygonal; silver; max. 0.125 argillaceous rock fragments: infrequent; lenticular/plate-like; beige; max. 0.75 mm reference sample: BD-59 (cat. Bd.049), pl. 26 color (Munsell): 5YR 6/6 hardness: hard texture of fresh break: granular sorting: unsorted porosity: 7.5 % shape of voids: vughy, channels; max. 0.125 mm percentage of temper: 40 % particle size: 0.025-1 mm quartz/feldspar: riddled with; subelongate - spherical/subrounded; transparent, whitish - gray; max. 0.625 mm calcareous particles: infrequent; spherical/rounded; white - yellowish; max. 0.625 mm carbonate pseudomorphoses: singular, spherical/rounded, white - yellowish; max. 0.075 mm reddish-brown particles: infrequent; subspherical/subrounded; rust colored - reddish-brown; max. 1 mm black particles: singular - infrequent; spherical/rounded; max. 0.1 mm mica: infrequent; polygonal; silver; max. 0.125

HB-ARS-1

HB-ARS-2

HB-ARS-3

OU-ARS-1

reference sample: HB-01 (cat. Hb.008), pl. 28 color (Munsell): 2.5 YR 6/8 - 5/8 hardness: hard texture of fresh break: smooth sorting: unsorted porosity: 5-7.5 % shape of voids: vughy, channels; max. 0.25 mm percentage of temper: 20-25 % particle size: 0.025-0.5 mm quartz/feldspar: frequent; subspherical/subrounded; transparent, whitish - gray; max. 0.5 mm calcareous particles: infrequent; spherical/rounded; white; max. 0.25 mm carbonate pseudomorphoses: infrequent, spherical/rounded, white - yellowish; max. 0.125 mm reddish-brown particles: frequent; subspherical/subrounded; rust colored - reddish-brown; max. 0.5 mm black particles: singular - infrequent; subspherical/subrounded; max. 0.125 mm mica: infrequent; polygonal; silver; max. 0.125 reference sample: HB-13 (cat. Hb.004), pl. 28 color (Munsell): 2.5 YR 6/8 - 5/8 hardness: hard texture of fresh break: granular sorting: unsorted porosity: 10 % shape of voids: vughy, channels; max. 0.625 mm percentage of temper: 25-30 % particle size: 0.025-0.625 mm quartz/feldspar: very frequent; subspherical/subrounded; transparent, whitish - gray; max. 0.625 mm calcareous particles: infrequent; spherical/rounded; white; max. 0.5 mm carbonate pseudomorphoses: infrequent, spherical/rounded, white; max. 0.125 mm reddish-brown particles: frequent; spherical/rounded; rust colored - reddish-brown; max. 0.5 mm black particles: singular - infrequent; subspherical/subrounded; max. 0.25 mm mica: infrequent; polygonal; silver; max. 0.125 reference sample: HB-04 (cat. Hb.011), pl. 29 color (Munsell): 2.5 YR 6/8 - 5/8 hardness: hard texture of fresh break: granular sorting: unsorted porosity: 10-15 % shape of voids: vughy, channels; max. 0.375 mm percentage of temper: 30-35 % particle size: 0.025-0.625 mm quartz/feldspar: very frequent; subspherical/subrounded; transparent, whitish - gray; max. 0.625 mm calcareous particles: infrequent; spherical/rounded; white; max. 0.25 mm carbonate pseudomorphoses: infrequent, spherical/rounded, white; max. 0.2 mm reddish-brown particles: frequent; subspherical/subrounded; rust colored - reddish-brown; max. 0.75 mm black particles: singular - infrequent; subspherical/subrounded; max. 0.5 mm mica: infrequent; polygonal; silver; max. 0.125 reference sample: OU-03 (cat. Ou.032), pl. 29 color (Munsell): 5YR 6/6 - 5YR 6/8 hardness: hard texture of fresh break: fine, irregular sorting: unsorted porosity: 5-7.5 % shape of voids: vughy, channels; max. 0.375 mm percentage of temper: 25 % particle size: 0.025-1 mm quartz/feldspar: frequent; subspherical/subrounded; transparent, whitish - gray; max. 0.5 mm calcareous particles: infrequent; spherical/rounded; white; max. 0.5 mm carbonate pseudomorphoses: infrequent, spherical/rounded, white; max. 0.125 mm reddish-brown particles: frequent; subspherical/subrounded; rust colored - reddish-brown; max. 1 mm black particles: singular - infrequent; subspherical/subrounded; max. 0.375 mm mica: infrequent; polygonal; silver; max. 0.125 argillaceous rock fragments: infrequent; lenticular/plate-like; beige; color of sherd; max. 0.5 mm

83

OU-ARS-2

PH-ARS-1

PH-ARS-2

PH-ARS-1/2

84

reference sample: OU-02 (cat. Ou.022), pl. 30 color (Munsell): 5YR 6/8 hardness: hard texture of fresh break: fine, compact sorting: unsorted porosity: 1-5 % shape of voids: vughy, channels; max. 0.5 mm percentage of temper: 15 % particle size: 0.025-0.75 mm quartz/feldspar: frequent; subspherical/subrounded; transparent, whitish - gray; max. 0.375 mm calcareous particles: infrequent; spherical/rounded; white; max. 0.625 mm carbonate pseudomorphoses: infrequent, spherical/rounded, white; max. 0.2 mm reddish-brown particles: infrequent; subspherical/subrounded; rust colored - reddish-brown; max. 0.75 mm black particles: singular - infrequent; subspherical/subrounded; max. 0.2 mm mica: infrequent; polygonal; silver; max. 0.125 argillaceous rock fragments: infrequent; lenticular/plate-like; beige; color of sherd; max. 0.75 mm reference sample: PH-203 (cat. Ph.057), pl. 30 color (Munsell): 5YR 6/8 - 2.5YR 6/8 hardness: hard texture of fresh break: fine, compact sorting: unsorted porosity: 5-7.5 % shape of voids: vughy, channels; max. 0.25 mm percentage of temper: 20 % particle size: 0.025-1.25 mm quartz/feldspar: frequent; subspherical/subrounded; transparent, whitish - gray; max. 0.5 mm calcareous particles: singular; subspherical/rounded; white; max. 0.25 mm carbonate pseudomorphoses: singular, spherical/rounded, white; max. 0.125 mm reddish-brown particles: frequent; elongate - spherical/subrounded; rust colored - reddish-brown; max. 1.25 mm black particles: singular - infrequent; subspherical/subrounded; max. 0.25 mm mica: infrequent; polygonal; silver; max. 0.125 argillaceous rock fragments: singular - infrequent; lenticular/plate-like; beige, max. 0.75 mm reference sample: PH-106 (cat. Ph.026), pl. 31 color (Munsell): 5YR 6/8 - 2.5YR 6/8 hardness: hard texture of fresh break: compact, slightly granular sorting: unsorted porosity: 5 % shape of voids: vughy, channels; max. 0.125 mm percentage of temper: 25 % particle size: 0.025-0.375 mm quartz/feldspar: very frequent; subspherical/subrounded; transparent, whitish - gray; max. 0.25 mm calcareous particles: singular; subspherical/rounded; white; max. 0.375 mm carbonate pseudomorphoses: singular, spherical/rounded, white; max. 0.125 mm reddish-brown particles: frequent; elongate - spherical/subrounded; rust colored - reddish-brown; max. 0.375 mm black particles: singular - infrequent; subspherical/subrounded; max. 0.25 mm mica: infrequent; polygonal; silver; max. 0.125 argillaceous rock fragments: singular - infrequent; lenticular/plate-like; beige, max. 0.375 mm reference sample: PH-09 (cat. Ph.181), pl. 31 color (Munsell): 5YR 6/8 - 2.5YR 6/8 hardness: hard texture of fresh break: compact, slightly granular sorting: unsorted porosity: 5-7.5 % shape of voids: vughy, channels; max. 0.25 mm percentage of temper: 25 % particle size: 0.025-0.625 mm quartz/feldspar: very frequent; subspherical/subrounded; transparent, whitish - gray; max. 0.25 mm calcareous particles: singular; subspherical/rounded; white; max. 0.5 mm carbonate pseudomorphoses: singular, spherical/rounded, white; max. 0.125 mm reddish-brown particles: frequent; subspherical/subrounded; rust colored - reddish-brown; max. 0.625 mm black particles: singular - infrequent; subspherical/subrounded; max. 0.5 mm mica: infrequent; polygonal; silver; max. 0.125 argillaceous rock fragments: singular - infrequent; lenticular/plate-like; beige, max. 0.375 mm

PH-ARS-3

PH-ARS-4

SR-ARS-1

IG-ARS-1

reference sample: PH-06 (cat. Ph.041), pl. 32 color (Munsell): 5YR 6/8 hardness: hard texture of fresh break: granular sorting: unsorted porosity: 10 % shape of voids: vughy, channels; max. 0.125 mm percentage of temper: 30 % particle size: 0.025-1.25 mm quartz/feldspar: very frequent; subspherical/subrounded; transparent, whitish - gray; max. 0.5 mm calcareous particles: singular; subspherical/rounded; white; max. 0.25 mm carbonate pseudomorphoses: singular, spherical/rounded, white; max. 0.125 mm reddish-brown particles: frequent; elongate - spherical/subrounded; rust colored - reddish-brown; max. 1.25 mm black particles: singular - infrequent; subspherical/subrounded; max. 0.25 mm mica: infrequent; polygonal; silver; max. 0.125 argillaceous rock fragments: singular - infrequent; lenticular/plate-like; beige, max. 0.75 mm reference sample: PH-125 (cat. Ph.010), pl. 32 color (Munsell): 2.5YR 6/8 hardness: hard texture of fresh break: granular (coarse) sorting: unsorted porosity: 10 % shape of voids: vughy, channels; max. 0.25 mm percentage of temper: 30 % particle size: 0.025-1 mm quartz/feldspar: frequent; subspherical/subrounded; transparent, whitish - gray; max. 0.5 mm calcareous particles: singular; subspherical/rounded; white; max. 0.25 mm carbonate pseudomorphoses: singular, spherical/rounded, white; max. 0.25 mm reddish-brown particles: frequent; elongate - spherical/subrounded; rust colored - reddish-brown; max. 1 mm black particles: singular - infrequent; subspherical/subrounded; max. 0.25 mm mica: infrequent; polygonal; silver; max. 0.125 argillaceous rock fragments: singular - infrequent; lenticular/plate-like; beige, max. 0.5 mm reference sample: SR-01 (cat. Sr.001), pl. 33 color (Munsell): 2,5 YR 5/8, 10 R 5/8 - 5YR 6/8 hardness: hard texture of fresh break: granular sorting: unsorted porosity: 10 % shape of voids: vughy, channels; max. 0.25 mm percentage of temper: 25-30 % particle size: 0.025-0.75 mm quartz/feldspar: frequent; spherical/rounded; transparent, whitish - gray; max. 0.375 mm calcareous particles: infrequent; spherical/rounded; white - yellow; max. 0.125 mm carbonate pseudomorphoses: singular, spherical/rounded, white - yellow; max. 0.125 mm reddish-brown particles: (in)frequent; spherical/rounded; rust colored - reddish-brown; max. 0.75 mm black particles: singular - infrequent; spherical/rounded; max. 0.125 mm mica: infrequent; polygonal; silver; max. 0.125 reference sample: BD-63 (cat. Bd.013), pl. 27 color (Munsell): 2.5 YR 5/8 - 5YR 6/6 hardness: hard texture of fresh break: irregular sorting: unsorted porosity: 10-15 % shape of voids: vughy, channels; max. 0.2 mm percentage of temper: 15 % particle size: 0.025-0.625 mm quartz/feldspar: frequent; subspherical/subrounded; transparent, whitish - gray; max. 0.625 mm calcareous particles: frequent; spherical/rounded; white; max. 0.25 mm carbonate pseudomorphoses: frequent, spherical/rounded, white; max. 0.25 mm reddish-brown particles: infrequent; subspherical/subrounded; rust colored - reddish-brown; max. 0.25 mm black particles: singular; subspherical/subrounded; max. 0.25 mm mica: singular; polygonal; silver; max. 0.125

85

IG-ARS-2

IG-ARS-3

86

reference sample: BD-109 (cat. Bd.001), pl. 27 color (Munsell): 5YR 6/8 hardness: hard texture of fresh break: smooth sorting: unsorted porosity: 5 % shape of voids: vughy; max. 0.2 mm percentage of temper: 15 % particle size: 0.025-0.5 mm quartz/feldspar: infrequent; subspherical/subrounded; transparent; max. 0.5 mm calcareous particles: infrequent; spherical/rounded; white - yellow; max. 0.5 mm carbonate pseudomorphoses: infrequent, subspherical/rounded, white; max. 0.3 mm reddish-brown particles: singular; subspherical/subrounded; rust colored; max. 0.25 mm black particles: singular; spherical/rounded; max. 0.125 mm mica: singular; polygonal; silver; max. 0.125 reference sample: PH-34 (cat. Ph.001), pl. 33 color (Munsell): 5YR 6/8 hardness: hard texture of fresh break: granular sorting: unsorted porosity: 10 % shape of voids: vughy, channels; max. 0.25 mm percentage of temper: 20 % particle size: 0.025-0.75 mm quartz/feldspar: very frequent; subspherical/subrounded; transparent, whitish - gray; max. 0.625 mm calcareous particles: singular; subspherical/rounded; white; max. 0.375 mm carbonate pseudomorphoses: infrequent, spherical/rounded, white; max. 0.125 mm reddish-brown particles: infrequent; subspherical/subrounded; rust colored - reddish-brown; max. 0.75 mm black particles: singular; spherical/rounded; max. 0.25 mm mica: singular; polygonal; silver; max. 0.125

Bibliography Adams, W.Y./E.W. Adams 1991, Archaeological Typology and Practical Reality: a Dialectical Approach to Artifact Classification and Sorting, Cambridge. Aquilue, X. 1992. Sobre algunas cerámicas de producción Africana con decoración espatulada, RAPon 2, 177-198. Babelon, E./R. Cagnat/S. Reinach, 1893, Atlas Archéologique de la Tunisie, Paris. Baklouti, S./L. Maritan/N. Laridhi Ouazaa/L. Casas/J.-L. Joron/ S. Larabi Kassaa/J. Moutte 2014, Provenance and Reference Groups of African Red Slip Ware Based on Statistical Analysis of Chemical Data and REE, JASc 50, 524-538. Baklouti, S./L. Maritan/N. Laridhi Ouazaa/C. Mazzoli/S. Larabi Kassaa/J.-L. Joron/B. Fouzaï/L. Casas Duacastella/M. Labayed-Lahdari 2015, African Terra Sigillata from Henchir es-Srira Archaeological Site, Central Tunisia: Archaeological Provenance and Raw Materials based on Chemical Analysis, Applied Clay Science 105106, 27-40. Ballu, A. 1911, Les ruines de Timgad (antique Thamugadi): Sept années de découvertes 1903 - 1910, Paris. Barraud, D./M. Bonifay/F. Dridi/J.-F. Pichonneau 1998, L’industrie céramique de l’Antiquité tardive, in Ben Hassen/Maurin 1998, 139-167. Barraud, D./J.-C. Golvin/L. Maurin 1998, Les environs immédiats d’Oudna, La périphérie de la ville, les établissements ruraux, le réseau des aqueducs, in Ben Hassen/ Maurin 1998, 172-207. Ben Abdallah, Z./H. Ben Hassen/L. Maurin 1998, L’histoire d’Uthina par les textes, in Ben Hassen/Maurin 1998, 37-91. Ben Hassen, H./J.-C. Golvin 1998, Les monuments publics, in Ben Hassen/Maurin 1998, 107-137. Ben Hassen, H./J.-C. Golvin 2004, Le capitole; L‘amphitheâtre d’Oudna, in Ben Hassen/Maurin 2004, 93-180. Ben Hassen, H./J.-C. Golvin/L. Maurin 1998, La ville. Recherches anciennes et présentation d’ensemble, in Ben Hassen/Maurin 1998, 21-36. Ben Hassen, H./L. Maurin (eds) 1998, Oudhna (Uthina), La dedécouverte d’une ville antique de Tunisie (Ausonius éditions mémoires 2), Bordeaux-Paris-Tunis. Ben Hassen, H./J.-L. Massy 1998, Introduction: Un project d‘évaluation et de mise en valeur du site d’Oudhna. Les recherches de 1993 à 1996, in Ben Hassen/Maurin 1998, 11-17. Ben Hassen, H./L. Maurin (eds) 2004, Oudhna (Uthina), Colonie de vétérans de la XIIIe égion. Histoire, urbanisme, fouilles et mise en valeur des monuments (Ausonius éditions mémoires 13), Bordeaux-Paris-Tunis. Ben Moussa, M. 2001, Les ateliers des sigillées africaines dans la Tunisie septentrionale, Aix-en-Provence. Ben Moussa, M. 2007a, La production de sigillées africaines, Recherches d’histoire et d’archéologie en Tunisie septentrionale et centrale (Instrumenta 23), Barcelona. Ben Moussa, M. 2007b, Nouvelles données sur la production de sigillées africaines dans la Tunesie central, in A. Mrabet/J. Remesal Rodríguez (eds), In Africa et Hispania: Etudes sur l’Huile Africaine (Instrumenta 25), Barcelona, 107-136. Ben Moussa, M. 2017, Nouvelles découvertes d’ateliers de céramique antique en Tunisie, in A. Mrabet, Le peuplement du Maghreb antique et médiéval: actes du troisiéme colloque international, Sousse, 05, 06 et 07 mai 2016, Sousse, 165-176. Ben Moussa, M./V. Revilla Calvo 2016, La céramique romaine: contextes, répertoires et typologies, in N. Kallala/J.

Sanmartí/M.C. Belarte, Althiburos. II, L’aire du capitole et dans la nécropole méridionale: études, Tarragona, 141-241. Berthier, A. 2000, Tiddis: cité antique de Numidie, Paris. Bes, Ph./J. Poblome 2007, (Not) See the Wood for the Trees? 19,700+ Shreds of Sigillata and What We Can Do With Them, ReiCretActa 40, 1-10. Bes, Ph./J. Poblome 2009, African Red Slip Ware on the Move: The Effects of Bonifay’s Etudes for the Roman East, in J.H. Humphrey (ed.), Studies on Roman Pottery of the Provinces Africa Proconsularis and Byzacena. (JRA Suppl. 76), Portsmouth, 63-75. Bonifay, M. 1983, Eléments d’évolution des céramiques de l’Antiquité tardive à Marseille d’après les fouilles de la Bourse, RANarb XVI, 285-346. Bonifay, M./C. Brenot/D. Foy/J.P. Pelletier/D. Pieri/Y. Rigoir 1998, Le mobilier de l’Antiquité tardive, in M. Bonifay/M.-B. Carre/Y. Rigoir (eds), Fouilles à Marseille. Les mobiliers (Ier-VIIe s.), Paris, 355-375. Bonifay, M./Cl. Capelli/T. Martin/J.P. Pelletier/D. Pieri/Y. Rigoir 2002-2003, Le littoral de la Tunisie, étude géoarchéologique et historique (1987-1993): la céramique, AntAfr 38-39, 125-202. Bonifay, M. 2003, La céramique africaine, un indice du développement économique? AntTard 11, 113-128. Bonifay, M. 2004a, Études sur la céramique romaine tardive d’Afrique (BARIntSer 1301), Oxford. Bonifay, M. 2004b, A la suite des remarques de Paul-Albert Février sur la céramique d’Afrique du Nord, in M. Fixot, Paul Albert Février de l’Antiquité au Moyen Age: actes du colloque de Fréjus, 7 et 8 avril 2001, Aix-en-Provence, 325-340. Bonifay, M./F. Dridi/H. Jacquest, Céramique d’Oudna, in Ben Hassen/Maurin 2004, 219-235. Bonifay,M./P. Reynaud 2004, La céramique, in A. Ben Abed Ben Khader/M. Fixot/M. Bonifay/S. Roucole, Sidi Jdidi I: la basilique sud (CEFR 339), Rom, 229-316. Bonifay, M. 2005, Observations sur la diffusion des céramiques africaines en Méditerranée orientale durant l’Antiquité tardive, in F. Baratte/V. Déroche/C. Jolivet-Lévy/B. Pitarakis, Mélanges Jean-Pierre Sodini (Travaux et Mémoires 15), Paris, 565-581. Bonifay, M. 2007a, Cargaisons africaines: reflet des entrepôts? AntAfr 43, 253-260. Bonifay, M. 2007b, Que transportaient donc les amphores africaines?, in E. Papi (ed.) Supplying Rome and the Empire (JRA Suppl. 69), Porthsmouth, 8-32. Bonifay, M. 2007c, Ceramic Production in Africa during Late Antiquity: Continuity and Change, in L. Lavan/E. Zanini/A. Sarantis, Technology in Transition AD 300-600 (Late Antique Archaeology 4), Leiden, 143-158. Bonifay, M./Cl. Raynaud 2007, Les échanges et la consummation, in M. Heijmans/J. Guyon, Antiquité tardive, haut Moyen Age et premiers temps chrétiens en Gaule méridionale 2, Gallia 64, 93-161. Bonifay, M./C. Capelli/A. Drine/T. Ghalia 2010, Les productions d’amphores romaines sur le littoral tunesien: archeology et archéometrie, ReiCretActa 41, 319-327. Bonifay, M. 2010, Avancées dans l’étude des céramiques africaines de l’Antiquité tardive (IIIe-VIIe s.), in D. 3DSDQLNROD%DNLUW]ď'.RXVRXODNRXHGV ƑƤƯƠƫƨƩп ƲƦư ԔƱƲƤƯƦư ƈƯƵƠƨфƲƦƲƠư Ơ›ф ƲƮƬ ƤƪƪƠƣƨƩф ƵцƯƮ ƮưƮưƠƨƫƝ Ƥ›ƨƱƲƦƫƮƬƨƩпƱƳƬнƬƲƦƱƦƏƤƱƱƠƪƮƬрƩƦ,  ƔƮƤƫơƯрƮƳ  ƋƦƫƮƱƨƤхƫƠƲƠ ƈƯƵƠƨƮƪƮƢƨƩƮх

87

ƐƬƱƲƨƲƮхƲƮƳƓƠƩƤƣƮƬƨƩцƬƩƠƨƏƯƠƩƨƩцƬƙ›ƮƳƣцƬ8, Thessaloniki, 37-64. Bonifay, M. 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, 2005 on Late Antique Societies, Religion, Pottery and Trade in Germania, Northern Africa, Greece and Asia Minor. (BARIntSer 2268), Oxford, 15-30. Bonifay, M./C. Capelli/C. Brun 2012, Pour une approche intégrée archéologique, pétrographique et géochimique des sigillées africaines, in: M. Cavalieri (ed.) Industria Apium. L’archéologie: Une démarche singulière, des pratiques multiples - Hommages à Raymond Brulet, Louvain, 41-62. Bonifay, M./A. Tchernia 2012, Les réseaux de la céramique africaine (Ier-Ve siècles), in S. Keay (ed.) Rome, Portus and the Mediterranean (Archaeological Monographs of the British School at Rome), London, 315-333. Bonifay, M. 2013, Africa: Patterns of Consumption in Coastal Regions vs. Inland Regions. 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, 529-566. Bonifay, M. 2016, Élements de typologie des céramiques de l’Afrique romaine, in Malfitana/Bonifay 2016, 507-574. Bourgeois, A./F. Mayet 1991, Belo VI. Les sigillées, Madrid. Bourgou, M. 2004, Le cadre géographique du site archéologique d’Uthina, in Ben Hassen/Maurin 2004, 257-263. %UXQ&'pWHUPLQDWLRQG·RULJLQHSDUÁXRUHVFHQFH; de quelques exemplaires de l’ensemble de céramiques du IVe s. ap. J.-C. decouvertes dans une citerne du capitole d’Uthina (Tunisie), in Ben Hassen/Maurin 2004, 236-244. Brun, C. 2007, Etude technique des productions de l’atelier de Sidi Khalifa (Pheradi Maius, Tunisie): céramiques culinaires, sigillées et cazettes, in M. Bonifay/J.-Ch. Tréglia, LRCW 2. Late Roman Coarse Wares, Cooking Wares and Amphorae in the Mediterranean: Archaeology and archaeometry. (BARIntSer 1662), Oxford, 569-580. Bussière, J. 2008, Nouveaux outils de potiers africains d’époque romaine (IVe -VIe s.), Facta, 89-105. Cagnat, R. 1885, Rapport sur une mission en Tunisie (18811882), Archives des Missions scientifiques XI, 13-19. Cagnat, R. 1888, L’atelier de poterie de Sidi Aïch, BAParis, 473-474. Cagnat, R./P. Gaukler 1898, Les monuments historiques de la Tunisie. Temples païens, Paris, 32; 40; 136; pl. XXII. Capelli, C./M. Bonifay 2007, Archéométrie et archéologie des céramiques africaines: une approche pluridisciplinaire, in M. Bonifay/J.-Ch. Tréglia, LRCW 2. Late Roman Coarse Wares, Cooking Wares and Amphorae in the Mediterranean. Archaeology and Archaeometry. (BARIntSer  2[IRUGï Capelli, C./M. Bonifay/C. Franco/C. Huguet/V. Leitch/T. Mukai 2016, Étude archéologique et archéométrique intégrée, in Malfitana/Bonifay 2016, 273-352. Carandini, A. 1968, Ostia I, Le Terme del Nuotatore, scavo dell’ambiente IV. (StMisc 13), Rom, 25-91. Carandini, A. 1970a, Ostia II, Le Terme del Nuotatore, scavo dell’ambiente I (StMisc 16), Rom, 67. Carandini, A. 1970b, Produzione agricola e produzione ceramica nell’Africa di età imperiale. Appunti sull’economia della Zeugitana e della Byzacena, StMisc 15, 97-119. Carandini, A. 1970c, Ampullae olearae. Appunit sulla produzione e il commercio della ceramic Africana in età imperiale, MEFRA 82, 753-783.

88

Carandini, A. 1973, Ceramica a patina cenerognola, Ceramica a orlo annerito, in A. Carandini/C. Panella, Ostia III, Le Terme del Nuotatore, scavo dell’ambiente III, V, VI, VII e saggio nell’area SO. (StMisc 21), Rom, 408-420. Carandini, A./L. Anselmino/C. Pavolini/L. Saguì/St. Tortorella/E. Tortorici, 1981, Atlante delle forme ceramiche, I, Ceramica fine romana nel Bacino mediterraneo (medio e tardo impero) Enceclopedia dell’Arte Antica, Rom. Carandini, A. 1983, Pottery and the African Economy, in P. Garnsey/K. Hopkins/C.R. Whittaker, Trade in the ancient economy, Berkeley and Los Angeles, 145-163. Carte National des Sites Archéologiques et des Monuments Historiques : http://www.inp.tn/cnsa/find_site.php Carton, L. 1903, Excursions et promenades. Henchir Sidi Khalifat (Aphrodisium?), Bulletin de la Societé Archéologique de Sousse, 26-32. Carton, L. 1916, Les fabriques des lampes dans l’ancienne Afrique. IV. Époque Romaine, Bulletin de la Société de Géographie et d’Archéologie d’Oran 36, 43-45. Cau, M.Á./P. Reynolds/M. Bonifay 2011, An Initiative for the Revision of Late Roman Fine Wares in the Mediterranean (c. AD 200-700): The Barcelona ICREA/ESF Workshop, in: M.Á. Cau/P. Reynolds/M. Bonifay (eds), LRFW 1. 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, 1-13. Chouchane A./P. Texier, La reconnaissance des aqueducs d’Oudhna (1998 - 2000) Les caractères d’ensemble du réseau, in Ben Hassen/Maurin 2004, 181-218. RE Suppl. VII (1940) 1295-1352 s.v. Terra Sigillata (H. Comfort). Courty, M. A./P. Goldberg/R. Macphail, 1989, Soils and micromorphology in archaeology, Cambridge. Déchelette, J. 1904, Les vases céramiques ornés de la Gaule romaine II, Paris. Delile, H./A. Abichou,/A. Gadhoum/J.-Ph. Goiran/E. Pleuger/J.-Y. Monchambert/A. Wilson/E. Fentress/J. Quinn/I. Ben Jerbania/F. Ghozzi, 2015, The Geoarchaeology of Utica, Tunisia: The Paleogeography of the Mejerda Delta and Hypotheses Concerning the Location of the Ancient Harbor, Geoarchaeology: An International Journal 30, 291-306. Deneauve, J. 1969, Lampes de Carthage, Paris. Deneauve, J. 1972, Céramique et lampes africaines sur la côte de Provence, AntAfr 6, 219-240 Diehl, Ch. 1896, Afrique Byzantine, Paris, 182; 270; 295; 401. Dragendorff, H. 1897, Zur Terrasigillataindustrie in Griechenland, Kleinasien, Südrussland und Ägypten, BJb CI, 140-152. Dridi, F. 2005, L’atelier d‘Uthina (Oudna, Tunisie). Étude d’une production céramique de l‘Antiquité tardive, Bordeaux (unpublished). Ennabli, A. 1972, Pheradi Maius, Africa III-IV, Tunis, 225-233. Ennabli, A. 1973, Lampes de terre cuite, in A. Ennabli/A. Majoubi/J.W. Salomonson, La nécropole romaine de Raqqada, Tunis. Ennabli, A. 1976, Lampes chétiennes de Tunisie, Paris. FACEM Database www.facem.at Falbe, C.T. 1833, Recherches sur l’emplacement de Carthage, Paris, 128-129, pl. V.1. Fentress, L./S. Fontana/B. Hitchner/P. Perkins 2004, Accounting for ARS: Fineware and Sites in Sicily and Africa, in S. Alcock/J. Cherry (eds), Side by Side Survey. Comparative Regional Studies in the Mediterranean World, Oxford, 47-162. Fentress, E. 2013, Diana Veteranorum and the Dynamics of

an Inland Economy, in L. Lavan (ed.), Local Economies? Production and Exchange of Inland Regions in Late Antiquity (Late Antique Archaeology 10), Leiden, 315-342. Fernández Fernández, A. 2014, El comercio tardoantiguo (ss. IV-VII) en el Noroeste Peninsular a través del registro cerámico de la Ría de Vigo (Roman and Late Antique Mediterranean Pottery Series 5), Oxford. Février, P.-A. 1964, Remarques sur la céramique d’Afrique du Nord, CahTun 12, 130-137. Flecker, M. 2005, EX OFICINA NAVIGI - Die Werkstatt des Navigius in Henchir es Srira (Zentraltunesien), KölnJb 37, 107-244. Flügel, E. 1978, Mikrofazielle Untersuchungsmethoden von Kalken, Berlin. Fouzai, B./L. Casas/N.L. Ouazaa/A. Álvarez 2012, Archaeomagnetic Data from four Roman Sites in Tunisia, JASc 39, 1871-1882. Fulford, M.G. 1984, The Red-Slipped Wares, in M.G. Fuldford/D.P.S. Peacock, Excavations at Carthage: The British Mission I,2 The Avenue du Président Habib Bourguiba, Salammbo. The Pottery and Other Ceramic Objects from the Site, Sheffield, 48-115. Fulford, M.G. 2009, Introduction: Bonifay’s Etudes, in J.H. Humphrey (ed.), Studies on Roman Pottery of the Provinces Africa Proconsularis and Byzacena. (JRA Suppl. 76), Portsmouth, 9-16. Gambaro, L. 2007, Reperti ceramici dalle aree 22.000 e 24.000: vasellame da mensa, da illuminazione, trasporto, in C. Vismara, Uchi Maius 3: i frantoi: miscellanea, Sassari, 303-371. Gassner, V. 2000, Die Keramik mit Ausnahme der Terra Sigillata, in V. Gassner/S. Groh/S. Jilek/A. Kaltenberger/W. Pietsch/R. Sauer/H. Stiglitz/H. Zabehlicky, Das Kastell Mautern/Favianis. (RLÖ 39), Wien, 184-189. Gassner, V. 2003, Materielle Kultur und kulturelle Identität in Elea in spätarchaisch-frühklassischer Zeit. Untersuchungen zur Gefäß-und Baukeramik aus der Unterstadt (Grabungen 1987-1994) (Velia-Studien II), Wien, 19-36. Gassner V./K. Schaller 2009, Ein webbasiertes Informationssystem für Keramikscherbentypen (fabrics) im zentralen Mittelmeerraum (FACEM), Forum Archaeologiae 53/XII/2009 (http://farch.net) Gassner V./M. Trapichler, with a contribution from Kurt Schaller 2004, A Web-based Information System of Pottery Fabrics in the Central Mediterranean (FACEM), in G. Greco/L. Cicala (ed.), Archeometry. Comparing experiences (Quaderni del Centro Studi Magna Grecia 19), Pozzuoli, 17-28. Gauckler, P. 1905, La découverte d’un atelier de poteries chrétiennes à Henchir-es-Srira, BAParis, CLXVI - CLXVIII. Gauckler, P. 1897, Le domaine des Laberii à Uthina, MonPiot 3, 177-229. Ghalia T./M. Bonifay/C. Capelli 2005, L’atelier de SidiZahruni: Mis en évidence d’une production d’amphores de l’Antiquité tardive sur le territoire de la cite de Neapolis, in J.M. Gurt i Esparraguera/J. Buxeda i Garrigós/M.A. Cau Ontiveros (eds), LRCW 1. Late Roman Coarse Wares, Cooking Wares and Amphorae in the Mediterranean. Archaeology and Archaeometry (BARIntSer 1340), Oxford, 495-516. Guérin, V. 1862, Voyage archéologique dans la Régence de Tunis, Paris, 311-315. Guéry R./M. Bonifay 1995, C.A.T.H.M.A. Compte-rendu de la réunion du 20 janvier 1995 Guéry R./L. Slim 1998, Trois matrices de plats rectangulaires à décor moulé du Bas-Empire, AntAfr 34, 199-212. Hayes, J.W. 1972, Late Roman Pottery, London. Hayes, J.W. 1976, Pottery: Stratified Groups and Typology,

in J.H. Humphrey (ed.) Excavations at Carthage 1975 Conducted by the University of Michigan I, Tunis, 47-108. Hayes, J.W. 1980, A Supplement to Late Roman Pottery, London. Hayes, J.W. 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, Firenze, 9-21. Hayes, J.W. 2008, The Athenian Agora XXXII, Roman Pottery: Fine-Ware Imports, Princeton, 67-73. Hobson, M. S. 2015, The North African Boom? Evaluating Economic Growth in the Roman Province of Africa Proconsularis (146 B.C. - A.D. 439) (JRA Suppl. 100), Leicester Holwerda, J.H. 1936, Het laat grieksche en romeinsche gebruiksaardewerk uit het middellandse zeegebied. In het rijksmuseum van oudheden te Leiden, Den Haag Humphrey, J.H. (ed.) 2009, Studies on Roman Pottery of the Provinces Africa Proconsularis and Byzacena (JRA Suppl.76), Portsmouth. Ikäheimo, J.P. 2003, Late Roman African Cookware of the Palatine East Excavations, Rome. A holistic approach (BARIntSer 1143), Oxford. Jacob, J.-P./J.-L. Massy 2004, La ville. La topographie urbaine: méthodologie, description et interprétations, in Ben Hassen/Maurin 2004, 51-91. Jauch V./J. Weiss 2013, Ein ‘Jo-Jo’ aus Buchsbaum?, Anzeiger AEAS - Feuille d’avis GAES, 9-15 Jodin, A./M. Ponisch 1960, La céramique estampée du Maroc, BAMaroc 4, 287-318. Kübler, K. 1931, Spätantike Stempelkeramik, AM 56, 75-86. Ladhari-Labeyed, M. 2008, La céramique sigillée claire d’atelier de Henchir es-Skhrira en Tunesie central, Tunis (un- published). Lamboglia, N. 1941, Terra sigillata chiara, RStLig 7, 7-22. Lamboglia, N. 1958, Nuove osservazioni sulla “terra sigillata chiara” (tipi A e B), RStLig 24, 257-330. Lamboglia, N. 1963, Nuove osservazioni sulla “terra sigillata chiara” (II), RStLig 29, 145-212. Lassus, J. 1958, L’archéologie algérienne en 1957, Libyca 6, 251-264. Leclercq, H. 1907, Manuel d’archéologie chrétienne: depuis les origines jusqu’au VIIIe siècle II, Paris, 530-540. Leitch, V. 2011, Location, Location, Location: Characterizing Coastal and Inland Production and Distribution of Roman African Cooking Wares, in D. Robinson/A. Wilson, Maritime archaeology and ancient trade in the Mediterranean, Oxford, 169-195. Leone, A. 2003, Late Antique North Africa: Production and Changing Use of Buildings in Urban Areas, Al-Masaq, Journal of the Medieval Mediterranean, 15,1, 21-33. Lewit, T. 2011, Dynamics of Fineware Production and Trade: The Puzzle of Supra-regional Exporters, JRA 24, 313-332. Lewit, T. 2013, The Lessons of Gaulish Sigillata and Other Finewares, in L. Lavan (ed.), Local Economies? Production and Exchange of Inland Regions (Late Antique Archaeology 10), Leiden, 227-257. Lund, J. 1995, Hellenistic, Roman and Late Roman Fine Wares from the Segermes Valley - Forms and Chronology, in S. Dietz/L. Ladjimi Sebaï/H. Ben Hassen, Africa Proconsularis: Regional Studies in the Segermes Valley of Northern Tunisi, II, Copenhagen, 449-629. Lund, J. 2009, Methodological constraints affecting the precise dating of African Red Slip Ware, in Humphrey 2009, 65-72. Mackensen, M. 1908. Tonpunzen für stempelverzierte Sigillata D, BayVgBl 45, 199-204. Mackensen, M. 1985, Prospektion einer spätantiken Sigillatatöpferei in El Mahrine/Nordtunesien, CEDAC 6, 29-33.

89

Mackensen, M. 1993, Die spätantiken Sigillata- und Lampentöpfereien von El Mahrine (Nordtunesien). (MünchBeitrVFG 50), München. Mackensen, M. 1998a, Centers 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, Firenze, 23-39. Mackensen, M. 1998b, Central Tunisian Red Slip Ware with Stamped Decoration, JRA 11, 355-370. Mackensen, M. 2003a, Production of 3rd century Sigillata A/C (C1-2) or ‘el-Aouja’ and its Transition to Sigillata C3 with Appliqué Decoration in Central Tunisia, ReiCretActa 38, 279-286. Mackensen, M. 2003b, Datierung und Provenienz einer spätantiken figürlichen Punze für nordafrikanische Sigillata. Zur Spätphase der Feinkeramikproduktion in Sidi Marzouk Tounsi (Zentraltunesien), BayVgBl 68, 101-108. Mackensen, M. 2004, Tonpatrizen und Vorlagen figürlicher Darstellungen auf spätantiken nordafrikanischen Sigillataplatten der Form Hayes 56, KölnJb 37, 791-804. Mackensen, M. 2006a, The Study of 3rd century African Red Slip Ware Based on the Evidence from Tunisia, in: D. Malfitana/J. Poblome/J. Lund, Old Pottery in a New Century. Innovating Perspectives on Roman Pottery Studies. Atti del Convegno Internazionale di Studi, Catania, 22-24 aprile 2004 (Monografie dell’Istituto per i Beni Archeologici e Monumentali - C.N.R. 1), Catania, 105-124. Mackensen, M. 2006b, Gipsmatrizen für Appliken zentraltunesischer Sigillata des 3. bis Mitte des 5. Jahrhunderts, BayVgBl 71, 177-196. Mackensen, M. 2009, Technology and Organisation of ARS Ware Production-centres in Tunisia, in: Humphrey 2009, 17-44. Mackensen, M. 2010, Das severische Vexillationskastell Myd(---)/Gheriat el-Garbia am limes Tripolitanus (Libyen). Bericht über die Kampagne 2009, Mitt. DAI Rom 116, 398-408. Mackensen M./G. Schneider 2012, Production Centres of African Red Slip Ware (3rd-7th c.) in Northern and Central Tunisia: Archaeological Provenance and Reference Groups Based on Chemical Analysis, JRA 15, 121-158. Mackensen M./G. Schneider 2006, Production Centers of African Red Slip Ware (2nd-3rd c.) in Northern and Central Tunisia: Archaeological Provenance and Reference Groups Based on Chemical Analysis, JRA 19, 163-190. Malfitana D./M. Bonifay/C. Capelli 2007, Un progetto italo-francese (CNR-CNRS) per lo studio delle importazioni di ceramiche africane nella Sicilia romana, Problemi archaeologici e archaeometrici, status quaestionis, metodologie e percorsi d indagine, RdA 31, 227-235. Malfitana D./M. Bonifay (ed.) 2016, La ceramica africana nella Sicilia romana/La céramique africaine dans la Sicile romaine, Cantania. Mattingly, D.J. 1988a, The Olive Boom. Oil Surpluses, Wealth and Power in Roman Tripolitania, LibSt 19, 21-41. Mattingly, D.J. 1988b, Olea Mediterranea?, JRA 1, 123-161. Maurin, L./J. Peyras 1971 (1973), Uzalitana, la region de l’ Ansarine dans l’Antiquité, CahTun 19, 11-103. Maurin, L. 1998, Uthina (Oudhna) dans le Nord-Est de l’Afrique Proconsulaire, in Ben Hassen/Maurin 1998, 209-240. Moutinho de Alarcão A./J. de Alarcão 1963/64, Cerâmica estampada vermelha de Conimbriga, Arquivo de Beja 20 - 21, 81-100. Mrabet, A./M. Ben Moussa 2007, Nouvelles données sur la production d’amphores dans le territoire de l’antique

90

Neapolis (Nabeul), in A. Mrabet/J. Remesal Rodríguez, In Africa et Hispania: Etudes sur l’Huile Africaine (Instrumenta 25), Barcelona, 13-40. Murphy E. A./J. Poblome 2011, Producing Pottery vs. Producing Models: Interpreting Workshop Organization at the Potters’ Quarter of Sagalassos, in M. Lawall/J. Lund (eds), Conference Proceedings of Pottery in the Archaeological Record: A View from the Greek World. Danish School at Athens. 20-21, June, Aarhus, 29-36. Murphy, E. A. 2014, Roman Workers and their Workplaces: Some Archaeological Thoughts on the Organization of Workshop Labor, in K. Verboven/C. Laes (eds), Work, Labor, and Professions in the Roman World, Leiden, 133-146. Murphy, E.A. 2015, Socially Embedded Work Practices and Production Organization in the Roman Mediterranean: Beyond Industry Lines, JmedA 28.2, 221-239. Nacef, J. 2015, La production de la céramique antique dans la région de Salakta et Ksour Essef (Tunisie), Roman and late antique Mediterranean pottery 8, Oxford. Nasr, M. 2005, La sigillée africaine dans la région de la Byzacène du Sud-Ouest: produc-tion et circuits commerciaux, Aix-en-Provence (unpublished). Orton, C. 1989, An introduction to the quantification of assemblages of pottery, JRomPotSt 2, 94-97. Orton, C./I. Tyres 1992, Counting Broken Objects: The Statistics of Ceramic Assemblages. New Developments in Archaeological Science. A Joint Symposium of the Royal Society and the British Academy, February 1991, Oxford, 163-184. Orton, C. 1993, How Many Pots Make Five? An Historical Review of Pottery Quantification, Archaeometry 35, 1-2, 169-184. Orton, C./P. Tyres/A. Vince, Pottery in Archaeology2, Cambridge. Orton, C. 2009, “Four Pots Good, Two Pots Bad”: Exploring the Limits of Quantification in the Study of Archaeological Ceramics, FACTA 3, 65-73. Orton, C./M. Hughes 2013, Pottery in Archaeology (2nd edition), Cambridge. Quaresma, J.C. 2010, Une hypothèse d’importation de vaiselles d’Henchir es Srira et de Sidi Aïch au sein de la sigillée africaine C à Chãos Salgados (Mirobriga), Portugal, ReiCretActa 41, 491-496. Quaresma, J.C. 2011, Chronologie final de la sigillée africaine A à partir des contextes de Chãos Salgados (Mirobriga?): différence des facies entre Orient et Occident, in M.Á. Cau/P. Reynolds/M. Bonifay, LRFW 1. 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 Series 1), Oxford, 67-85. Pallarés Salvador, F. 1960, Notas complementarias sobre “terra sigillata clara”. Sigillata clara en el museo de Copenhague, RSL 26, 264-288. Peacock, D.P.S. (ed.), Pottery and Early Commerce, Characterization and Trade in Roman and Later Ceramics, London. Peacock, D.P.S./F. Bejaoui/N. Ben Lazreg 1990, Roman pottery production in central Tunesia, JRA 3, 59-84. Peña, J.Th. 1998, The mobilization of State Olive Oil in Roman Africa. The evidence of Late 4th-century ostraca from Carthage, in: Peña et al. (eds), Carthage papers: The Early Colony’s Economy, Water Supply, a Public Bath, and the Mobilization of State Olive Oil (JRA Suppl. 28), Portsmouth, 116-238. Peña, J.Th. 2007, Roman Pottery in the Archaeological Record, Cambridge. Peña, J.Th. 2009, The Forming and Slipping of African Sigillata: Evidence from the Palatine East Assemblage, in Humphrey 2009, 45-63.

Perugini, A./K. Ryckbosch 2015, Commercial Contacts in the Sahel Region during the Punic Period: The Case of Uzita, TMA 54, 13-18. Perugini, A. 2016, Uzita: Preliminary Observations on the Middle and Late Punic Amphora Repertoire’, in H. Töpfer/F. Schön (eds), Proceedings of the international workshop “Kathago Dialoge. Karthago und der punische Mittelmeerraum - Kulturkontakte und Kulturtransfers im 1. Jahrtausend v. Chr., Tübingen. Pettijohn, F.J./P.E. Potter/R. Siever 1973, Sand and sandstones, New York. Poblome, J./D. Malfitana/J. Lund 2006, A concluding Dilemma: Sisyphos versus Daidalos, in D. Malfitana/J. Lund, Old pottery in a new century. Innovating Perspectives on Roman Pottery Studies. Atti del Convegno Internazionale di Studi, Catania, 22-24 aprile 2004 (Monografie dell’Istituto per i Beni Archeologici e Monumentali - C.N.R. 1), Catania, 557-579. Poblome, J. 2013, Money Makes Pottery Go Round, Leuven. Poinssot. L./R. Lantier 1913, III, El Mahrine. Établissements agricoles et église, BAParis, LXXIV-LXXVIII. Poinssot, L. 1927a, Pheradi Majus, Comptes rendus des séances de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres, 71e année, N. 1, 62-65. Poinssot, L. 1927b, Inscriptions de Pheradi Majus, BAParis, 53-60. Pröttel, Ph.M. 1996, Mediterrane Feinkeramikimporte des 2. bis 7. Jahrhunderts n. Chr. im oberen Adriaraum und in Slowenien (KSARP 2), Leidorf. Raux, S. 1998, Méthodes de quantification du mobilier céramique: Etat de la question et pistes de réflexion, in P. Arcelin/M. Tuffreau-Libre (eds), La quantification des céramiques: conditions et protocole; Actes de la Table Ronde du Centre Archéologique Européen du Mont Beuvray (Gluxen-Glenne, 7-9 avril 1998) / sous la direction de Patrice Arcelin et Marie Tuffreau-Libre, Glux-en-Glenne, 11-16. Reynolds, P. 1995, Trade in the Western Mediterranean, AD 400-700: The Ceramic Evidence (BARIntSer 604), Oxford. Reynolds, P. 2010, Hispania and the Roman Mediterranean: AD 100 - 700. Ceramics and Trade, London. Reynolds P./M. Bonifay/M.Á. Cau, Key contexts for the dating of late Roman Mediterranean fine wares: a preliminary review and ‘seriation’, in M. Á. Cau/P. Reynolds/M. Bonifay, LRFW 1. 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 Series 1), Oxford, 15-32. Rice, P.M. 1987, Pottery Analysis. A Sourcebook 4, Chicago. Rice, C. 2011, Ceramic assemblages and ports, in D. Robinson/A. Wilson, Maritime archaeology and ancient trade in the Mediterranean, Oxford, 81-92. Rossiter, J.J. 2009, North African Lamps: Bonifay and beyond, in Humphrey 2009, 93-103. Salomonson, J.W. 1968, Études sur la céramique romaine d’Afrique. Sigillée claire et céramique commune de Henchir el Ouiba (Raqqada) en Tunisie centrale. BABesch 43, 80-145. Salomonson, J.W. 1969, Spätrömische rote Tonware mit Refliefverzierung aus nordafrikanischen Werkstätten. Entwicklungsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zur reliefgeschmückten Sigillata Chiara »C«, BABesch 44, 4-109. Salomonson, J.W. 1971, Roman pottery. A source of information for historians and archaeologists, BABesch 46, 173-192. Schiffer, M.B. 2013, Controlled Experiments: Surface Treatments and Ceramic Performance, in M.B. Schiffer, The Archaeology of Science, Studying the Creation of Useful Knowledge, New York, 48-51.

Schörner, G. 2010, Dinge und ihre soziale Bedeutung: Behaviorial Archaeology, Terra Sigillata und die ImeldaMarcos-Hypothese, in E. Tietmeyer/C. Hirschberger/K. Noack/J. Redlin (eds), Die Sprache der Dinge. Kulturwissenschaftliche Perspektiven auf die materielle Kultur, Münster, 53-64. Schuring, J.M. 1988, Terra sigillata africana from the San Sisto Vecchio in Rome, BaBesch 63, 1-68. Shaw, Th. 1743, Voyages de Mr Shaw, M.D. dans plusieurs provinces de la Barbarie et du Levant I, 207-208 Shepard, A.O. 1956, Ceramics for the Archaeologist 5, Washington. Skibo, J.M. 1999, Pottery and People, in J.M. Skibo/G.M. Feinman, Pottery and People. A Dynamic Interaction, Salt Lake City, 2-8. Slim, L. 1969-70 (1972), Découverte d’une nécropole romaine à El-Mahrine, Africa 3-4, 247-248. Stern, E.M. 1968, Note analytique sur des tessons de sigillée claire ramassés à Henchir es Srira et Sidi Aïch, BABesch 43, 146-154. Stone, D.L. 2004, Problems and Possibilities in Comparative Survey: A North African Perspective, in S. Alcock/J. Cherry (eds), Side-by-Side Survey: Comparative Regional Studies in the Mediterranean World, Oxford, 132-143. Taylor, R.J./V.R. Robinson 1996, Provenance Studies of Roman African Red Slip Ware Using Neutron Activation Analysis, Archaeometry 38,2, 245-255. Tomber, R./J.N. Dore 1998, The national Roman fabric reference collection: A handbook, MoLAS 2, London. Tortorella, St. 1981, Ceramica di produzione africana e rinvenimenti archeologici sottomarini della media e tarda età imperiale. Analisi dei dati e dei contrubuti reciproci, MEFRA 93, 355-380. Tortorella, St. 1987, La ceramica africana: un riesame della problematica; in P. Lévêque/J.-P. Morel, Céramiques hellénistiques et romaines II, Paris, 279-327. Trousset, P. 1974. Recherches sur le limes tripolitanus, du chott el-Djerid à la frontière tuniso-libyenne, Paris. Van Oyen, A. 2015, How Things Make History: The Roman Empire and its Sigillata Pottery (Amsterdam archaeological studies 23), Amsterdam Unverzagt, W. 1925, Studien zur Terra sigillata mit Rädchenverzierung, PZ 16, 123-165. Waagé, F.O. 1933, The American excavations at the Athenian agora 1st report: the roman and byzantine pottery, Hesperia II, 279-328. Waagé, F.O. 1948, Hellenistic and Roman Tableware of North Syria, in F.O. Waagé et al., Antioch on-the-Orontes IV, 1, Ceramics and Islamic Coins, Princeton, 43-58. Walsh, J.St.P. 2013, Consumption and Choice in Ancient Sicily, in F. De Anchelis (ed.), Regionalism and Globalism in Antiquity: Exploring their Limits (Colloquia Antiqua 7), Leiden, 219-245. Warner Slane, K. 2003, Corinth’s Roman Pottery: Quantification and Meaning, in: C. K. Williams (ed.), Corinth, XX, The Centennary 1896-1996, Princeton, 321-335. Whittow, M. 2013, How much Trade was Local, Regional and Inter-regional? A Comparative Perspective on the Late Antique Economy, in L. Lavan (ed.), Local Economies? Production and Exchange of Inland Regions in Late Antiquity (Late Antique Archaeology 10), Leiden 2013, 133-165.

91

Catalogue Cat. No. Bd.001 Bd.002 Bd.003 Bd.004 Bd.005 Bd.006 Bd.007 Bd.008

Pl.

Type

Condition

1 1 1 1 1 / / /

Inv. No. BD-109 BD-40 BD-54 BD-48 BD-85 BD-101 BD-18 BD-28

Fabric

Remarks

rim rim rim rim rim rim wall wall

ø (cm) 16 30 30 31 27 32 / /

Hayes 8 Hayes 58B Hayes 58B Hayes 58B Hayes 58B Hayes 58B Hayes 58B Hayes 58B

IG-ARS-2 BD-ARS-2 IG-ARS-1 BD-ARS-2 BD-ARS-1 BD-ARS-2 BD-ARS-1 BD-ARS-1

/ Hayes 58B, no. 15 Hayes 58B, no. 11,19 / / / / /

Bd.009

1

BD-66

Hayes 59A

base

12

BD-ARS-3

BD-88

Hayes 59A

base

BD-ARS-1

/

BD-84

Hayes 59A

wall

non id. /

BD-ARS-2

Bd.012

1

BD-32

Hayes 59A

rim

40

BD-ARS-2

Bd.013

1

BD-63

Hayes 59A

rim

32

IG-ARS-1

Bd.014 Bd.015 Bd.016 Bd.017 Bd.018 Bd.019 Bd.020 Bd.021 Bd.022 Bd.023

1 / 1 2 / 2 / 2 2 2

BD-70 BD-08 BD-83 BD-36 BD-56 BD-78 BD-93 BD-105 BD-108 BD-49

Hayes Hayes Hayes Hayes Hayes Hayes Hayes Hayes Hayes Hayes

59B 59B 61A 61A 61A 61A 61A 61A 61A 61A

rim rim rim rim rim rim rim rim rim rim

40 32 42 44 32 44 38 42 32 34

BD-ARS-3 BD-ARS-2 BD-ARS-2 BD-ARS-2 BD-ARS-3 BD-ARS-2 BD-ARS-3 BD-ARS-3 BD-ARS-2 BD-ARS-3

Bd.024

/

BD-52

Hayes 61A

rim

40

BD-ARS-3

Bd.025 Bd.026 Bd.027 Bd.028 Bd.029

2 2 2 / 2

BD-46 BD-61 BD-41 BD-57 BD-96

rim rim rim rim rim

40 34 42 32 34

BD-ARS-2 BD-ARS-2 BD-ARS-2 BD-ARS-2 BD-ARS-2

Bd.030 Bd.031 Bd.032 Bd.033 Bd.034 Bd.035 Bd.036 Bd.037

3 / 3 3 3 3 / /

BD-110 BD-80 BD-91 BD-99 BD-34 BD-58 BD-33 BD-67

Hayes 61A Hayes 61A/B1 Hayes 61A/B2 Hayes 61A/B2 Hayes 61A/B4 var. Hayes 61B? Hayes 61B? Hayes 63 Hayes 63 Hayes 67B Hayes 67B Hayes 67B Hayes 67B

vertical gouging on exterior of wall vertical gouging on exterior of wall vertical gouging on exterior of wall diagonal gouging on exterior of wall diagonal gouging on exterior of wall / / Hayes 61A, no. 4 Hayes 61A, no. 7 Hayes 61A, no. 7 Hayes 61A, no. 7 Hayes 61A, no. 7 Hayes 61A, no. 7 Hayes 61A, no. 7 Hayes 61A, no.7, var. with groove on outside below rim Hayes 61A, no.7, var. with groove on outside below rim Hayes 61A, no. 7 var. / / / /

Bd.010

/

Bd.011

rim rim rim rim rim rim rim rim

32 32 40 32 32 40 38 34

BD-ARS-1 BD-ARS-2 BD-ARS-1 BD-ARS-1 BD-ARS-3 BD-ARS-3 BD-ARS-2 BD-ARS-3

/ / / / / / / /

92

92

Bd.038 Bd.039 Bd.040 Bd.041 Bd.042 Bd.043 Bd.044 Bd.045 Bd.046 Bd.047 Bd.048 Bd.049 Bd.050 Bd.051 Bd.052 Bd.053 Bd.054 Bd.055 Bd.056 Bd.057 Bd.058 Bd.059 Bd.060 Bd.061 Bd.062 Bd.063 Bd.064 Bd.065 Bd.066

/ / 3 3 3 3 3 / / / / / / / / / / 4 4 4 4 / / / / / / / 4

BD-74 BD-95 BD-35 BD-39 BD-65 BD-75 BD-106 BD-24 BD-26 BD-44 BD-53 BD-59 BD-60 BD-82 BD-92 BD-102 BD-107 BD-45 BD-55 BD-69 BD-100 BD-30 BD-47 BD-62 BD-71 BD-89 BD-98 BD-68 BD-01

Hayes 67B Hayes 67B Hayes 67C Hayes 67C Hayes 67C Hayes 67C Hayes 67C Hayes 67C Hayes 67C Hayes 67C Hayes 67C Hayes 67C Hayes 67C Hayes 67C Hayes 67C Hayes 67C Hayes 67C Hayes 67C Hayes 67C Hayes 67C Hayes 67C Hayes 67C Hayes 67C Hayes 67C Hayes 67C Hayes 67C Hayes 67C Hayes 67 Hayes 67

rim rim rim rim rim rim rim rim rim rim rim rim rim rim rim rim rim rim rim rim rim rim rim rim rim rim rim wall base

34 38 40 32 38 36 40 36 34 30 32 38 38 32 34 34 36 40 38 36 34 40 40 34 40 32 34 / 16

BD-ARS-1 BD-ARS-1 BD-ARS-1 BD-ARS-1 BD-ARS-1 BD-ARS-1 BD-ARS-1 BD-ARS-1 BD-ARS-3 BD-ARS-1 BD-ARS-2 BD-ARS-3 BD-ARS-1 BD-ARS-1 BD-ARS-1 BD-ARS-1 BD-ARS-1 BD-ARS-2 BD-ARS-1 BD-ARS-1 BD-ARS-2 BD-ARS-2 BD-ARS-1 BD-ARS-1 BD-ARS-1 BD-ARS-1 BD-ARS-2 BD-ARS-3 BD-ARS-3

/ / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / heavily heavily heavily heavily heavily heavily heavily heavily heavily heavily

Bd.067

4

BD-02

Hayes 67

base

10

BD-ARS-3

Bd.068

4

BD-38

plate Hayes 76 var.

whole profile

BD-ARS-2

Bd.069 Bd.070 Bd.071 Bd.072 Bd.073 Bd.074 Bd.075 Bd.076

4 5 5 / 5 / 5 5

BD-09 BD-51 BD-43 BD-76 BD-94 BD-79 BD-37 BD-81

Hayes 76B var. Hayes 76 Hayes 91B Hayes 91 Hayes 93A Hayes 93A Hayes 93B var. Hayes 93B var.

rim rim rim flange rim rim rim rim

rim: 40; base 28; h. 3.7 30 34 16 non id. 34 31 40 34

two palm branches (pres. h. 1.9 cm; w. 1.2 cm) with all ribs turned upwards and three concentric circles (ø 0.9 cm) surrounded by three grooves = first third of 4th- mid-5th c. AD three circles with left turned whirl-fringe A(ii)-A(iii) (ø 0.9 cm) and two small palm branches (pres. h. 0.6; w. 0.4 cm); surrounded by two grooves = mid 4th-mid 5th c. AD similar Atlante XXXVI,2

BD-ARS-1 BD-ARS-1 BD-ARS-1 BD-ARS-3 BD-ARS-2 BD-ARS-2 BD-ARS-1 BD-ARS-1

/ / / 4th-6th c. AD Hayes 93A no. 3 Hayes 93A no. 5.10 var. Mackensen 1993, 18.2 var. Mackensen 1993, 18.2

rounded rounded rounded rounded rounded rounded rounded rounded rounded rounded

rim rim rim rim rim rim rim rim rim rim

93

Bd.077 Bd.078

/ 5

BD-103 BD-50

rim rim

36 42

BD-ARS-1 BD-ARS-3

/ /

BD-87

Hayes 93B var. similar Hayes 95/93 Hayes 104B

Bd.079

5

rim

30

BD-ARS-1

5

BD-04

non id.

wall/base

/

BD-ARS-1

Bd.081

5

BD-05

non id.

wall/base

/

BD-ARS-2

Bd.082

6

BD-06

non id.

wall/base

/

BD-ARS-1

Bd.083

6

BD-07

non id.

wall/base

/

BD-ARS-1

Bd.084

6

BD-10

non id.

wall/base

/

BD-ARS-1

Bd.085

6

BD-11

non id.

wall/base

/

BD-ARS-1

Bd.086

6

BD-12

non id.

wall/base

/

BD-ARS-1

Bd.087

6

BD-13

non id.

wall/base

/

BD-ARS-1

Bd.088

6

BD-15

non id.

wall/base

/

BD-ARS-2

Bd.089

6

BD-16

non id.

wall/base

/

BD-ARS-2

Bd.090

6

BD-17

non id.

wall/base

/

BD-ARS-2

Bd.091

/

BD-03

non id.

wall/base

/

BD-ARS-1

Hayes 104B no. 22 = Mackensen 1993, 40 left looking dove (E(i), similar Hayes 196; pres. h. 1.7 cm); surrounded by two grooves = last quarter 5th-first quarter 6th c. AD two palm branches (A(i)-A(iii), pres. h. 2.5 cm) with all ribs turned upwards = beginning of 4th-mid 5th c. AD rouletting décor bordered by two grooves, smaller version of same motif towards middle of vessel, in between: ribbon-like decoration consisting of small circles and arcs (square?) pattern consisting of vertical and diagonal lines (A(ii)-A(iii), pres. h. 1.2 cm; w. 1.6 cm) and part of not identifiable stamp = mid 4th-mid 5th c. AD circular (ø 2 cm) grille-pattern with diagonal cross bars A(ii)A(iii) and central, polygonal gap (intentional?); surrounded by two grooves = mid 4th-mid 5th c. AD four concentric circles (ø 1.7 cm) with dot fringe A(ii)-A(iii), parts of two more of same motif = mid 4th-mid 5th c. AD stripe-like grille-pattern (pres. h. 2 cm; w. 2.5 cm) with diagonal cross bars A(ii)-A(iii) = mid 4th-mid 5th c. AD two circles with left turned whirl-fringe A(ii)-A(iii) (ø 1.3 cm), two (stripe-like?) grille-patterns with diagonal cross bars and a palm branch (pres. h. 2.3 cm; w. 0.7 cm) with all ribs turned upwards = mid 4th-mid 5th c. AD palm branch A(i)-A(ii); pres. h. 1.3 cm; w. 1.1 cm) with all ribs turned upwards surrounded by two grooves = beginning of 4th-mid 5th c. AD stripe-like grille-pattern (pres. h. 1.9 cm; w. 1.4 cm) with diagonal cross bars A(ii)-A(iii) = mid 4th-mid 5th c. AD Crescent formed by a series of radiating lines Hayes 73 k A(i)A(iii); (h. 0.6 cm; w. 1.2 cm) = beginning of 4th-mid 5th c. AD part of circular stamp

Bd.080

94

Bd.092 Bd.093 Bd.094 Hb.001 Hb.002 Hb.003

/ / / 7 7 7

Hb.004

7

BD-14 BD-29 BD-72 HB-06 HB-07 HB-9 = HB-20 HB-13

Hb.005 Hb.006 Hb.007 Hb.008 Hb.009 Hb.010 Hb.011 Hb.012 Hb.013 Hb.014 Hb.015 Hb.016 Hb.017 Hb.018 Hb.019 Hb.020

7 7 / 7 7 7 7 8 8 8 8 / 8 8 / 8

HB-15 HB-19 HB-17 HB-01 HB-02 HB-03 HB-04 HB-05 HB-10 HB-11 HB-16 HB-18 HB-08 HB-12 HB-14 HB-21

Hb.021

8

HB-24

Hb.022

8

HB-33

Hb.023

8

Hb.024

/

HB-23 = HB-40 HB-35

Hb.025

8

HB-38

Hb.026

8

HB-39

Hb.027

8

Hb.028

/

HB-26 = HB-36 HB-29

Hb.029

/

Hb.030

8

HB-32 = HB-37 HB-44

Hb.031

8

HB-25

non id. jug jug Hayes 67A Hayes 67B Hayes 67B

wall/base shoulder shoulder rim rim rim

/ / / 28 32 34

BD-ARS-1 BD-ARS-1 BD-ARS-1 HB-ARS-2 HB-ARS-1 HB-ARS-1

feather-rouletting / / / overfired /

Hayes 67B, var.

rim

32

HB-ARS-2

Hayes 67B var. Hayes 67B var. Hayes 67B Hayes 67C Hayes 67C Hayes 67C Hayes 67C Hayes 67C Hayes 67C Hayes 67C Hayes 67C Hayes 67C Hayes 67C Hayes 67C Hayes 67C Hayes 73A, hooked rim Hayes 73A, hooked rim Hayes 73A, hooked rim Hayes 73B, hooked rim

rim rim rim rim rim rim rim rim rim rim rim rim rim rim rim rim

26 26 30 36 26 30 36 36 32 30 30 32 28 38 36 22

HB-ARS-2 HB-ARS-1 HB-ARS-1 HB-ARS-1 HB-ARS-1 HB-ARS-1 HB-ARS-3 HB-ARS-1 HB-ARS-1 HB-ARS-3 HB-ARS-1 HB-ARS-2 HB-ARS-1 HB-ARS-1 HB-ARS-3 HB-ARS-3

slight offset on the upper part of rim / / overfired / / / / / overfired / / / heavily rounded rim heavily rounded rim heavily rounded rim overfired

rim

20

HB-ARS-2

/

rim

20

HB-ARS-2

/

rim

20

HB-ARS-3

overfired

Hayes 73B, hooked rim Hayes 73A, barely hooked or rounded rim Hayes 73A, barely hooked or rounded rim Hayes 73A, knobbed rim

rim

18

HB-ARS-2

/

rim

20

HB-ARS-1

overfired

rim

22

HB-ARS-2

/

rim

20

HB-ARS-1

overfired

Hayes 73A, knobbed rim Hayes 73A, knobbed rim

rim

18

HB-ARS-3

/

rim

18

HB-ARS-2

/

Hayes 73A, knobbed rim with notches Hayes 73B, knobbed rim

rim

18

HB-ARS-3

/

rim

20

HB-ARS-1

/

95

Hb.032

8

Hb.033

9

HB-27 = HB-34 HB-28

Hb.034

9

HB-30

Hb.035

/

HB-31

Hb.036

9

HB-22

Hb.037 Hb.038 Hb.039 Hb.040 Hb.041 Hb.042 Hb.043

9 9 9 / / / /

Hb.044 Hb.045 Hb.046 Hb.047 Hb.048 Hb.049 Hb.050 Hb.051 Hb.052 Hb.053 Hb.054 Hb.055

9 9 9 / / 9 9 9 9 / / 9

HB-49 HB-50 HB-54 HB-51 HB-52 HB-53 HB-55 = HB-56 HB-41 HB-43 HB-45 HB-42 HB-47 HB-61 HB-46 HB-48 HB-57 HB-58 HB-59 HB-60

Hb.056

9

HB-64

Hb.057

9

HB-65

Hb.058

/

Hb.059

Ou.001 Ou.002 Ou.003 Ou.004 Ou.005 Ou.006 Ou.007 Ou.008

96

Hayes 73B, knobbed rim

rim

19

HB-ARS-1

overfired

Hayes 73B, knobbed rim Hayes 73B, knobbed rim Hayes 73B, knobbed rim Hayes 73B, knobbed rim, var. Hayes 73? Hayes 73? Hayes 73? Hayes 73? Hayes 73? Hayes 73? Hayes 73?

rim

18

HB-ARS-1

/

rim

18

HB-ARS-1

/

rim

20

HB-ARS-1

overfired

rim

20

HB-ARS-1

/

base base base base base base base

5 5 5 5 5 5 4

HB-ARS-1 HB-ARS-2 HB-ARS-1 HB-ARS-2 HB-ARS-2 HB-ARS-2 HB-ARS-1

/ / / / / / /

Hayes 76A Hayes 76B Hayes 76B Hayes 76 Hayes 76 Mackensen 11.1 Mackensen 10 Mackensen 10 non id. non id. non id. non id.

rim rim rim wall wall rim base base base base base wall/base

26 38 40 / / non id. 28 28 12 12 non id. /

HB-ARS-3 HB-ARS-2 HB-ARS-1 HB-ARS-1 HB-ARS-3 HB-ARS-3 HB-ARS-1 HB-ARS-1 HB-ARS-1 HB-ARS-3 HB-ARS-3 HB-ARS-2

HB-ARS-2

/

HB-ARS-2

/

HB-ARS-3

/

HB-63

non id.

/

HB-ARS-1

possibly Atlante VIII A or C

10 / 10 10 10 10 10 /

OU-28 OU-85 OU-48 OU-32 OU-27 OU-68 OU-56 OU-88

Hayes 61B Hayes 61B Hayes 61B Hayes 61 Hayes 67C Hayes 91B Hayes 91C Hayes 91C

rim and part of disc rim and part of disc nozzle, part of wick hole nozzle, part of wick hole rim rim rim rim rim rim rim base

/

HB-62

Atlante VIII A/C Atlante VIII A/C non id.

/ / / / / / overfired overfired / overfired, like Hb.052 / part of palm-branch with ribs turned upwards A(ii) = mid 4th-mid 5th c. AD A1a, A1b, C1a or C2a; whirl-fringe A1a, A1b, A1c, C1a, C1b, C1c, C2a or C2b; whirl-fringe possibly Atlante VIII A or C

32 24 36 38 34 28 14 6

Oudna? Oudna? Oudna? OU-ARS-1 Oudna? Oudna? OU-ARS-1 OU-ARS-2

/ / / / / / / /

Ou.009

10

OU-57

whole profile

OU-77 OU-26 OU-36

Hayes 91 Atlante XLIX, 10 Hayes 91 var. Hayes 95 Hayes 97

Ou.010 Ou.011 Ou.012

10 10 10

Ou.013 Ou.014 Ou.015 Ou.016 Ou.017

11 11 / / /

OU-38 OU-41 OU-37 OU-39 OU-40

Hayes Hayes Hayes Hayes Hayes

rim rim rim rim whole profile

Ou.018 Ou.019 Ou.020 Ou.021

/ / 11 11

OU-42 OU-43 OU-54 OU-72

Hayes 97 Hayes 97 Hayes 99A Hayes 99A

rim rim base base

Ou.022

11

OU-02

Hayes 99B

whole profile

Ou.023

11

OU-33

Hayes 99B

whole profile

Ou.024

/

OU-01

Hayes 99B

whole profile

Ou.025

/

OU-25

Hayes 99B

whole profile

Ou.026 Ou.027

/ 11

OU-55 OU-05

Hayes 99B Hayes 99B

Ou.028

11

OU-52

Ou.029

11

Ou.030

11

97 97 97 97 97

rim rim whole profile

rim: 17; base: 6.6; h. 5.2 16 14 rim: 14; base: 7; h. 5 15 16 14 10 rim: 14; base: 7; h. 5 14 14 11 12

OU-ARS-2

/

OU-ARS-1 OU-ARS-2 OU-ARS-2

Hayes 1976, Fig.10,12 / /

OU-ARS-1 OU-ARS-1 OU-ARS-1 OU-ARS-1 OU-ARS-2

/ / / / /

OU-ARS-1 OU-ARS-1 OU-ARS-1 OU-ARS-1

rim: 19; base: 9; h. 5.2 rim: 19; base: 8.6; h. 5.2

OU-ARS-2

/ / part of a cross arm rosette similar Hayes 50 A(iii) ? surrounded by groove cross (h. 2.4 cm, w. 2 cm) similar Hayes 320n E(i) surrounded by groove = 6th c. AD cross (pres. h. 1.9 cm. w. 1.6 cm), one small circle in each arm and two concentric circles in centrum of cross; surrounded by groove = 6th c. AD stamp (very fragmented) non id.

OU-ARS-1

rim: 20; base: 9; h. 4.7 rim: 19; base: 9; h. 4

OU-ARS-1

rim base

18 9

OU-ARS-1 OU-ARS-1

Hayes 99B

base

9

OU-ARS-1

OU-13

Hayes 99B

base

9

OU-ARS-1

OU-10

Hayes 99B

base

8

OU-ARS-2

OU-ARS-2

cross (pres. h. 2 cm. w. 1.8 cm), one small circle in each arm and two concentric circles in centrum of cross = 6th c. AD / cross (pres. h. 1.8 cm. w. 2.5 cm), arms boxed off, two small circles and four dots in each arm and two concentric circles with dot fringe in centrum of cross, similar Hayes 319 E(i) = 6th c. AD cross (h. 2 cm. w. 1.3 cm) with circle in each arm and two concentric circles in centre of cross = 6th c. AD cross (pres. h. 2.5 cm. w. 2.2 cm) with trellis pattern, circle and dots at centre, similar Hayes 317 E(i); surrounded by groove = 6th c. AD cross (pres. h. 2.3 cm. w. 1.7 cm) with short straight arms divided into segments of varying size by several lines and two concentric circle with dot fringe in centre of cross; surrounded by groove = 6th c. AD

97

Ou.031

11

OU-14

Hayes 99B

base

9

OU-ARS-1

Ou.032

/

OU-03

Hayes 99B

base

9

OU-ARS-1

Ou.033

/

OU-04

Hayes 99B

base

8

OU-ARS-2

Ou.034

/

OU-07

Hayes 99B

base

8

OU-ARS-1

Ou.035

/

OU-08

Hayes 99B

base

8

OU-ARS-1

Ou.036

/

OU-09

Hayes 99B

base

9

OU-ARS-1

Ou.037

11

OU-50

Hayes 99B

base

9

OU-ARS-1

Ou.038

/

OU-12

Hayes 99B

base

9

OU-ARS-2

Ou.039

12

OU-34

Hayes 99B

base

9

misfired

Ou.040

12

OU-51

Hayes 99B

base

9

OU-ARS-1

Ou.041

12

OU-53

Hayes 99B

base

8

OU-ARS-2

Ou.042 Ou.043 Ou.044 Ou.045 Ou.046

/ / 12 12 12

OU-44 OU-70 OU-49 OU-82 OU-31+ OU-15

Hayes Hayes Hayes Hayes Hayes

base base rim rim rim (+base)

9 10 20 18 24

OU-ARS-1 OU-ARS-1 OU-ARS-1 misfired OU-ARS-1

98

99B 99B 99C 99 var. 99 var.

cross (h. 2.2 cm. w. 1.5 cm) Hayes 311 f E(i) = 6th c. AD; base looks more like H 99C cross (pres. h. 2 cm. w. 2.5 cm), arms boxed off, two small circles and four dots in each arm and two concentric circles in centrum of cross, similar Hayes 319 E(i) = 6th c. AD cross (h. 2 cm, w. 1.8 cm) similar Hayes 320n E(i) surrounded by groove 6th c. AD cross (pres. h. 1.8 cm. w. 1.3 cm), two small circles in each arm and two concentric circles in centre of cross = 6th c. AD cross (pres. h. 2.5 cm. w. 1.7 cm) with short straight arms divided into segments of varying size by several lines and circle with dot fringe in centre of cross = 6th c. AD cross (pres. h. 1.7 cm. w. 1.3 cm) with circle in each arm and two concentric circles in centre of cross; surrounded by two grooves = 6th c. AD palmette (h. 2.3 cm, w. 1.2 cm) composed of double volute and seven leaves, similar Hayes 119 A(iii); surrounded by groove = end of 5th/beginning of 6th c. AD palmette (h. 2.3 cm, w. 1.2 cm) composed of double volute and seven leaves, similar Hayes 119 A(iii) = end of 5th/beginning of 6th c. AD chevron (h. 2.3 cm, w. 1.5 cm) formed of strokes pointing diagonally upwards, similar Mackensen 1993, 189.1 A(iii) = end of 5th/beginning of 6th c. AD slightly heart-shaped stamp (h. 1.8 cm, w. 1.5 cm) with hearts and dots in centre, similar Hayes 134 E(i); surrounded by groove = 6th c. AD almond-shaped (h. 2.1 cm. w. 1.3 cm), three enlarging almonds with lines in centre, similar Hayes 130 E(i); surrounded by groove = 6th c. AD / / / very curved wall feather-rouletting

Ou.047

/

OU-75

Hayes 99 B/C?

base

9

OU-ARS-1

/

Ou.048 Ou.049 Ou.050 Ou.051 Ou.052 Ou.053

/ 12 12 / 12 12

OU-83 OU-78 OU-86 OU-80 OU-76 OU-06

Hayes 99 B/C? Hayes 101 Hayes 104A1 Hayes 104A Hayes 12/110 non id.

base rim rim rim rim base

9 20 34 30 19 11

OU-ARS-2 OU-ARS-1 IG-ARS-3 Oudna? OU-ARS-1 Oudna?

Ou.054 Ou.055 Ou.056 Ou.057 Ou.058 Ou.059 Ou.060 Ou.061 Ou.062 Ou.063

/ 13 / / / / / / 13 13

OU-71 OU-69 OU-90 OU-79 OU-89 OU-84 OU-17 OU-29 OU-11 OU-30

base base base base base base handle knob rim /

10 22 5 non id. 10 8 / / 15-24 11; h. 7

OU-ARS-1 OU-ARS-1 OU-ARS-1 OU-ARS-1 misfired misfired OU-ARS-1 misfired Oudna Oudna

Ou.064

13

OU-59

non id. non id. non id. non id. non id. non id. non id. lid saggar mushroomshaped tool Atlante X, D2

/ / / / / plain cross monogram (h. 2.8 cm, w. 1.3 cm) with short arms, rho attached to side, similar Hayes 304 = end of 5th/beginning of 6th c. AD / / / / feather-rouletting / / / / /

c. 8.5

OU-ARS-2

non id.

Ou.065

13

OU-60

Atlante X, D2

c. 8.5; h. 3.5

misfired

on rim: 3x Ennabli 1976 R2, 1x similar Ennabli 1976 K1 with dots inside, 2x ähnlich Ennabli 1976 I4; discus: similar Ennabli Q1 with 3x similar Ennabli 1976 C5 with part of cross-monogram? inside

Ou.066

14

OU-61

Atlante X, D2

c. 8.5

OU-ARS-1

on rim: 3x similar Ennabli 1976 A1/2/3, 2x similar Ennabli 1976 W7, 1x similar Ennabli 1976 J1 (more leafs)

Ou.067

14

OU-62

Atlante X, D2

c. 8.5

misfired

on rim: 2x similar Ennabli 1976 R2, 2x circle?, discus: cross-monogram

Ou.068

14

OU-63

Atlante X, D2

handle, rim and part of discus frag. body with handle, rim and part of discus with one filling-hole part of handle, rim and discus with central filling-hole part of handle, rim and discus with two symmetrical filling holes frag. body with handle, rim and part of channel

c. 8.5; h. 3.5

OU-ARS-1

on rim: 4x Ennabli L4 with line of dots in centre, 3x similar Ennabli 1976 F5 with dots, 1 semicircle ending in volutes and with dots in centre

99

Ou.069

14

OU-64

Atlante X, D2

Ou.070

/

OU-65

Atlante X, D2

Ou.071

/

OU-66

Atlante X, D2

Ou.072 Ph.001 Ph.002 Ph.003 Ph.004 Ph.005

/ 15 15 15 15 15

OU-67 PH-34 PH-105 PH-31 PH-110 PH-32

Ph.006 Ph.007 Ph.008 Ph.009

15 15 / 15

PH-129 PH-08 PH-109 PH-123

Ph.010

15

PH-125

Ph.011

16

PH-128

Ph.012

16

PH-126

Ph.013

/

PH-121

Ph.014

/

PH-122

Ph.015

/

PH-124

Ph.016

/

PH-127

Ph.017

/

PH-144

Ph.018 Ph.019

16 16

PH-49 PH-51

Ph.020

/

PH-23

Ph.021 Ph.022 Ph.023 Ph.024 Ph.025 Ph.026 Ph.027

16 16 / / / 16 16

PH-22 PH-26 PH-24 PH-25 PH-27 PH-106 PH-47

Atlante X, D2? Hayes 27 Hayes 50B.60 Hayes 58B Hayes 58B similar Hayes 58B Hayes 61B2 Hayes 61B3 Hayes 61B3 Hayes 61B3 tardive Hayes 61B3 tardive Hayes 61B3 tardive Hayes 61B3 tardive Hayes 61B3 tardive Hayes 61B3 tardive Hayes 61B3 tardive Hayes 61B3 tardive Hayes 61B3 tardive non id. non id. (Hayes 67 var.?) non id. (Hayes 67 var.?) Hayes 68 Hayes 68 Hayes 68 Hayes 68 Hayes 68 Hayes 79 Hayes 81B

100

part of handle, rim and discus with two symmetrical filling holes handle and small part of rim handle and part of rim handle rim rim rim rim rim

c. 7.8

OU-ARS-1

on rim: 2x similar Ennabli M5/6, 2x similar Ennabli 1976 R2, discus: grazing deer? See: Ennabli 1976, cat. 376.

/

misfired

8-shaped motif?

c. 8

OU-ARS-1

/ 26 22 26 26 30

OU-ARS-1 IG-ARS-3 PH-ARS-4 IG-ARS-3 IG-ARS-3 PH-ARS-1

on rim: 4x similar Ennabli 1976 F5 with dots, 4x similar Ennabli / / / / / /

rim rim rim rim

30 32 30 30

PH-ARS-4 PH-ARS-1 misfired PH-ARS-4

/ / / /

rim

34

PH-ARS-4

/

rim

40

PH-ARS-4

/

rim

36

PH-ARS-4

/

rim

34

PH-ARS-4

/

rim

34

PH-ARS-4

/

rim

32

PH-ARS-3

/

rim

38

PH-ARS-4

/

rim

32

PH-ARS-4

/

rim rim

34 28

PH-ARS-3 PH-ARS-4

/ /

rim

28

PH-ARS-4

/

rim rim rim rim rim rim rim

32 36 30 32 34 26 30

PH-ARS-4 PH-ARS-2 PH-ARS-4 PH-ARS-4 PH-ARS-4 PH-ARS-2 PH-ARS-1

/ / / / / / /

Ph.028

16

PH-131

Ph.029

/

PH-07

Ph.030

/

PH-132

Ph.031

16

PH-20

Ph.032 Ph.033 Ph.034 Ph.035 Ph.036 Ph.037 Ph.038 Ph.039

17 17 17 / / / / /

Ph.040 Ph.041 Ph.042 Ph.043 Ph.044 Ph.045 Ph.046 Ph.047 Ph.048 Ph.049 Ph.050 Ph.051 Ph.052

/ 17 17 17 17 17 / / / / / / 17

PH-143 PH-145 PH-146 PH-136 PH-139 PH-147 PH-148 PH-151 = PH-152 PH-153 PH-06 PH-84 PH-134 PH-137 PH-191 PH-135 PH-138 PH-140 PH-141 PH-142 PH-150 PH-133

Ph.053

17

PH-165

Ph.054

17

Ph.055

/

PH-212 = PH-216 PH-155

Ph.056

/

PH-188

Ph.057

/

PH-203

Ph.058

18

Ph.059

18

Ph.060

18

PH-154 = PH-169 PH-158 = PH-198 PH-159

Hayes 86, var. Pheradi Maius 27.1 Hayes 86, var. Pheradi Maius 27.1 Hayes 86, var. Pheradi Maius 27.1 Hayes 86/ Fulford 27 Hayes 87A Hayes 87A Hayes 87A Hayes 87A Hayes 87A Hayes 87A Hayes 87A Hayes 87A

rim

30

PH-ARS-1

/

rim

30

PH-ARS-3

/

rim

24

PH-ARS-3

/

rim

28

PH-ARS-3

/

rim rim rim rim rim rim rim rim

40 42 42 40 44 40 40 40

PH-ARS-4 PH-ARS-3 PH-ARS-3 PH-ARS-4 PH-ARS-4 PH-ARS-4 PH-ARS-3 PH-ARS-1/2

/ / / / / / / /

Hayes 87A Hayes 87A/88 Hayes 87A/88 Hayes 87A/88 Hayes 87A/88 Hayes 87A/88 Hayes 87A/88 Hayes 87A/88 Hayes 87A/88 Hayes 87A/88 Hayes 87A/88 Hayes 87A/88 Hayes 87A/88 var. Hayes 87A/88 var. Hayes 87A/88 var.

rim rim rim rim rim rim rim rim rim rim rim rim rim

36 40 44 42 42 40 42 38 42 40 34 40 42

PH-ARS-3 PH-ARS-3 misfired PH-ARS-3 PH-ARS-1 PH-ARS-3 PH-ARS-3 PH-ARS-3 PH-ARS-1 PH-ARS-3 PH-ARS-4 PH-ARS-3 PH-ARS-3

/ / / / / black top / / / black top / / /

rim

38

PH-ARS-3

/

rim

42

PH-ARS-3

/

Hayes 87A/88 var. Hayes 87A/88 var. Hayes 87A/88 var. Hayes 88A

rim

42

PH-ARS-3

/

rim

36

PH-ARS-1

/

rim

34

PH-ARS-1

/

rim

42

PH-ARS-3

black top

Hayes 88A

rim

42

PH-ARS-1/2

/

Hayes 88A

rim

40

PH-ARS-3

/

101

Ph.061 Ph.062 Ph.063

18 18 /

Ph.064 Ph.065 Ph.066 Ph.067 Ph.068 Ph.069 Ph.070 Ph.071 Ph.072 Ph.073 Ph.074 Ph.075 Ph.076 Ph.077 Ph.078 Ph.079 Ph.080 Ph.081 Ph.082 Ph.083 Ph.084 Ph.085 Ph.086 Ph.087 Ph.088 Ph.089 Ph.090 Ph.091 Ph.092 Ph.093 Ph.094 Ph.095 Ph.096

/ / / / / / / / / / / 18 18 18 / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / 18

PH-161 PH-168 PH-01 = PH-02 PH-162 PH-170 PH-172 PH-176 PH-182 PH-185 PH-189 PH-197 PH-209 PH-211 PH-213 PH-05 PH-180 PH-200 PH-157 PH-160 PH-163 PH-177 PH-184 PH-186 PH-187 PH-199 PH-204 PH-208 PH-214 PH-217 PH-218 PH-222 PH-224 PH-227 PH-229 PH-231 PH-03

Ph.097

18

PH-108

Ph.098

18

PH-167

Ph.099

19

PH-179

Ph.100

19

PH-183

Ph.101

19

PH-202

102

Hayes 88A Hayes 88A Hayes 88A

rim rim rim

40 40 40

PH-ARS-1/2 PH-ARS-1/2 PH-ARS-3

black top / black top

Hayes 88A Hayes 88A Hayes 88A Hayes 88A Hayes 88A Hayes 88A Hayes 88A Hayes 88A Hayes 88A Hayes 88A Hayes 88A Hayes 88B Hayes 88B Hayes 88B Hayes 88B Hayes 88B Hayes 88B Hayes 88B Hayes 88B Hayes 88B Hayes 88B Hayes 88B Hayes 88B Hayes 88B Hayes 88B Hayes 88B Hayes 88B Hayes 88B Hayes 88B Hayes 88B Hayes 88B Hayes 88B Hayes 88B concave Hayes 88B concave Hayes 88B concave Hayes 88B concave Hayes 88B concave Hayes 88B concave

rim rim rim rim rim rim rim rim rim rim rim rim rim rim rim rim rim rim rim rim rim rim rim rim rim rim rim rim rim rim rim wall rim

40 38 38 36 40 38 36 38 36 38 40 42 40 42 38 38 32 42 40 38 36 40 36 36 42 42 40 34 42 38 38 / 34

PH-ARS-4 PH-ARS-3 PH-ARS-3 PH-ARS-3 PH-ARS-1/2 PH-ARS-3 PH-ARS-3 PH-ARS-3 PH-ARS-3 PH-ARS-1 PH-ARS-1 PH-ARS-4 PH-ARS-1 PH-ARS-1/2 PH-ARS-1/2 PH-ARS-1/2 PH-ARS-3 PH-ARS-1 PH-ARS-1 PH-ARS-1 PH-ARS-2 PH-ARS-1 PH-ARS-1/2 PH-ARS-3 PH-ARS-3 PH-ARS-3 PH-ARS-2 misfired PH-ARS-1/2 PH-ARS-1 PH-ARS-1 PH-ARS-3 PH-ARS-3

/ / / / / / / black top / / / / / / / / / / black top / / / / / misfired / / / / / / / /

rim

40

PH-ARS-1

black top

rim

42

PH-ARS-1

/

rim

42

PH-ARS-1

/

rim

42

PH-ARS-1

/

rim

40

misfired

/

Ph.102

19

PH-223

Ph.103

18

PH-04

Ph.104

/

PH-171

Ph.105

/

PH-175

Ph.106

/

PH-193

Ph.107

/

PH-195

Ph.108

/

PH-196

Ph.109

/

PH-206

Ph.110

/

PH-215

Ph.111

/

PH-219

Ph.112

/

PH-220

Ph.113

/

PH-228

Ph.114

19

PH-173

Ph.115

/

PH-174

Ph.116

19

PH-178

Ph.117

/

PH-181

Ph.118

/

PH-221

Ph.119

/

PH-230

Ph.120 Ph.121 Ph.122 Ph.123 Ph.124

19 / / / 19

PH-201 PH-166 PH-207 PH-210 PH-226

Ph.125

/

PH-190

Ph.126

19

PH-164

Ph.127

/

PH-194

Hayes 88B concave Hayes 88B concave Hayes 88B concave Hayes 88B concave Hayes 88B concave Hayes 88B concave Hayes 88B concave Hayes 88B concave Hayes 88B concave Hayes 88B concave Hayes 88B concave Hayes 88B concave Hayes 88B s-shaped wall Hayes 88B s-shaped wall Hayes 88B var. groove Hayes 88B var. groove Hayes 88B var. groove Hayes 88B var. groove Hayes 88C Hayes 88C Hayes 88C Hayes 88C Hayes 88 Pheradi Maius 34.8 Hayes 88 Pheradi Maius 34.8 Hayes 88 Pheradi Maius 34.8 hooked rim Hayes 88 Pheradi Maius 34.8 hooked rim

rim

40

PH-ARS-1

/

rim

38

PH-ARS-1/2

/

rim

40

PH-ARS-3

/

rim

38

PH-ARS-3

/

rim

30

PH-ARS-1

/

rim

38

misfired

/

rim

40

PH-ARS-1

/

rim

40

PH-ARS-1

/

rim

34

misfired

/

rim

38

PH-ARS-1/2

/

rim

40

PH-ARS-1

/

rim

36

PH-ARS-4

/

rim

40

PH-ARS-3

/

rim

40

PH-ARS-1

/

rim

36

PH-ARS-3

/

rim

40

PH-ARS-1

/

rim

34

PH-ARS-1

/

rim

30

PH-ARS-1

/

rim rim rim rim rim

42 40 34 38 40

PH-ARS-2 PH-ARS-3 PH-ARS-4 PH-ARS-1/2 PH-ARS-3

/ / / black top /

rim

38

PH-ARS-1

/

rim

42

PH-ARS-1

/

rim

42

PH-ARS-3

/

103

Ph.128

19

PH-156

Ph.129

/

PH-205

Ph.130

20

PH-71

Ph.131

20

PH-225

Ph.132

/

PH-192

Ph.133

20

Ph.134

20

PH-45 = PH-43 PH-41

Ph.135

20

PH-44

Ph.136 Ph.137

20 20

PH-130 PH-252

Ph.138

20

PH-259

Ph.139

/

PH-272

Ph.140

/

PH-289

Ph.141

/

PH-277

Ph.142

20

PH-264

Ph.143

20

PH-269

Ph.144

/

PH-10

Ph.145

/

PH-74

Ph.146

/

PH-255

Ph.147

/

PH-256

Ph.148

/

PH-263

104

Hayes 88 Pheradi Maius 34.11 Hayes 88 Pheradi Maius 34.11 Hayes 88 convexe Hayes 88 chamfered rim Hayes 88 chamfered rim Hayes 91A Pheradi Maius 38.2 Hayes 91, variant Sidi Khalifa Hayes 91, variant Sidi Khalifa Hayes 103 Hayes 103 Pheradi Maius 52.1 Hayes 103 Pheradi Maius 52.1 Hayes 103 Pheradi Maius 52.1 Hayes 103 Pheradi Maius 52.1 Hayes 103 Pheradi Maius 52.1 Hayes 103 Pheradi Maius 52.5 Hayes 103 Pheradi Maius 52.5 Hayes 103 Pheradi Maius 52.5 Hayes 103 Pheradi Maius 52.5 Hayes 103 Pheradi Maius 52.5 Hayes 103 Pheradi Maius 52.5 Hayes 103 Pheradi Maius 52.5

rim

42

PH-ARS-3

/

rim

40

PH-ARS-1

/

rim

40

misfired

/

42

PH-ARS-1/2

/

38

PH-ARS-3

/

rim

32

PH-ARS-4

/

rim

26

PH-ARS-1/2

/

rim

31

PH-ARS-4

/

rim rim

32 30

PH-ARS-1/2 PH-ARS-1

/ /

rim

30

PH-ARS-1

/

rim

28

PH-ARS-3

/

rim

30

PH-ARS-3

/

rim

26

PH-ARS-3

/

rim

26

PH-ARS-3

/

rim

26

PH-ARS-3

black top

rim

30

PH-ARS-1

/

rim

26

misfired

/

rim

24

PH-ARS-3

misfired

rim

24

PH-ARS-1

/

rim

30

PH-ARS-3

/

Ph.149

/

PH-265

Ph.150

/

PH-278

Ph.151

/

PH-280

Ph.152

/

PH-285

Ph.153

21

PH-254

Ph.154

21

PH-266

Ph.155

21

PH-268

Ph.156

/

PH-257

Ph.157

/

PH-258

Ph.158

/

PH-260

Ph.159

/

PH-261

Ph.160

/

PH-267

Ph.161

/

PH-270

Ph.162

/

PH-273

Ph.163

/

PH-274

Ph.164

/

PH-279

Ph.165

/

PH-281

Ph.166

/

PH-283

Ph.167

/

PH-284

Ph.168

/

PH-286

Hayes 103 Pheradi Maius 52.5 Hayes 103 Pheradi Maius 52.5 Hayes 103 Pheradi Maius 52.5 Hayes 103 Pheradi Maius 52.5 Hayes 103 variant Sidi Khalifa Hayes 103 variant Sidi Khalifa Hayes 103 variant Sidi Khalifa Hayes 103 variant Sidi Khalifa Hayes 103 variant Sidi Khalifa Hayes 103 variant Sidi Khalifa Hayes 103 variant Sidi Khalifa Hayes 103 variant Sidi Khalifa Hayes 103 variant Sidi Khalifa Hayes 103 variant Sidi Khalifa Hayes 103 variant Sidi Khalifa Hayes 103 variant Sidi Khalifa Hayes 103 variant Sidi Khalifa Hayes 103 variant Sidi Khalifa Hayes 103 variant Sidi Khalifa Hayes 103 variant Sidi Khalifa

rim

32

PH-ARS-1

/

rim

30

PH-ARS-3

/

rim

30

PH-ARS-3

/

rim

32

PH-ARS-3

/

rim

28

PH-ARS-3

/

rim

30

PH-ARS-1

/

rim

28

PH-ARS-3

/

rim

33

PH-ARS-3

/

rim

30

PH-ARS-3

/

rim

32

PH-ARS-1/2

/

rim

32

PH-ARS-3

/

rim

34

PH-ARS-3

/

rim

32

PH-ARS-1

/

rim

30

PH-ARS-1

/

rim

32

PH-ARS-1

/

rim

30

PH-ARS-2

/

rim

32

PH-ARS-3

/

rim

30

PH-ARS-3

/

rim

30

PH-ARS-2

/

rim

32

PH-ARS-1

/

105

Ph.169

/

PH-288

Ph.170

21

PH-253

Ph.171

21

PH-276

Ph.172

/

PH-275

Ph.173

/

PH-282

Ph.174

/

PH-287

Ph.175

21

PH-262

Ph.176

21

PH-271

Ph.177

21

PH-102

Ph.178

21

PH-101

Ph.179

21

PH-37

Ph.180

/

PH-40

Ph.181

22

PH-09

Ph.182

22

PH-42

Ph.183

22

PH-100

Ph.184

22

PH-291

Ph.185

22

PH-290

Ph.186 Ph.187 Ph.188 Ph.189 Ph.190

22 22 / / /

PH-11 PH-234 PH-12 PH-14 PH-235

106

Hayes 103 variant Sidi Khalifa Hayes 103 variant Sidi Khalifa var. Hayes 103 variant Sidi Khalifa var. Hayes 103 variant Sidi Khalifa var. Hayes 103 variant Sidi Khalifa var. Hayes 103 variant Sidi Khalifa var. Hayes 103 similar Pheradi Maius 55 Hayes 103 similar Pheradi Maius 55 Hayes 104 Pheradi Maius 57.4 Hayes 104/ Hayes 105 Hayes 105 Pheradi Maius 63 Hayes 105 Pheradi Maius 63 similar Pheradi Maius 61 non id. rounded/ knobbed rim with grooves non id. rounded/ knobbed rim with grooves Pheradi Maius 76 Pheradi Maius 77 non id. non id. non id. non id. non id.

rim

32

PH-ARS-1

/

rim

28

PH-ARS-3

/

rim

26

PH-ARS-1/2

/

rim

30

PH-ARS-1

/

rim

32

PH-ARS-1

/

rim

30

PH-ARS-3

/

rim

28

PH-ARS-3

/

rim

30

PH-ARS-2

/

rim

28

PH-ARS-3

see also Fernandez 2014, 212 (forma 3 tardía de Sidi Kalifa)

rim

32

PH-ARS-4

rim

34

PH-ARS-1/2

see also Fernandez 2014, 212 (forma 4 tardía de Sidi Kalifa) /

rim

30

PH-ARS-3

/

rim

30

PH-ARS-1/2

/

rim

34

PH-ARS-1/2

/

rim

36

PH-ARS-3

/

rim

24

PH-ARS-1

/

rim

34

PH-ARS-1

/

base base base base base

12 11 7 18 12

PH-ARS-4 PH-ARS-3 PH-ARS-2 misfired PH-ARS-3

foot of medium foot of medium foot of medium foot of medium foot of medium

height height height height height

Ph.191 Ph.192 Ph.193 Ph.194 PH.195 Ph.196 Ph.197 Ph.198 Ph.199 Ph.200 Ph.201 Ph.202 Ph.203 Ph.204 Ph.205 Ph.206 Ph.207 Ph.208 Ph.209 Ph.210 Ph.211 Ph.212 Ph.213 Ph.214

/ / 22 22 / / / / / / / 22 / / 22 22 / / / / / / 23 23

PH-240 PH-244 PH-232 PH-247 PH-103 PH-233 PH-238 PH-239 PH-241 PH-243 PH-246 PH-19 PH-18 PH-111 PH-237 PH-249 PH-236 PH-242 PH-245 PH-248 PH-250 PH-251 PH-15 PH-16

non id. non id. non id. non id. non id. non id. non id. non id. non id. non id. non id. non id. non id. non id. non id. non id. non id. non id. non id. non id. non id. non id. non id. non id.

base base base base base base base base base base base base base base base base base base base base base base base base

16 18 14 10 8 14 14 14 16 14 14 12 12 10 12 12 16 14 12 14 12 12 16 14

PH-ARS-3 PH-ARS-1/2 PH-ARS-1 PH-ARS-1 misfired PH-ARS-3 PH-ARS-1 PH-ARS-1 PH-ARS-1 PH-ARS-1 PH-ARS-2 misfired misfired misfired PH-ARS-1 PH-ARS-1 PH-ARS-1 PH-ARS-1 PH-ARS-1 PH-ARS-1 misfired misfired PH-ARS-3 PH-ARS-4

Ph.215

23

PH-17

non id.

wall/base

/

PH-ARS-4

Ph.216 Sr.001 Sr.002 Sr.003 Sr.004 Sr.005 Sr.006 Sr.007 Sr.008 Sr.009

23 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24

PH-81 SR-01 SR-02 SR-03 SR-30 SR-05 SR-27 SR-28 SR-63 SR-04

rim rim rim rim rim rim base base base rim

30 38 34 34 32 30 26 24 22 34

/ SR-ARS-1 SR-ARS-1 SR-ARS-1 SR-ARS-1 SR-ARS-1 SR-ARS-1 SR-ARS-1 SR-ARS-1 SR-ARS-1

Sr.010 Sr.011 Sr.012 Sr.013

25 / / / 25

SR-33 SR-06 SR-29 SR-31 /

saggar Hayes 62/64 Hayes 62/64 Hayes 62/64 Hayes 62/64 Hayes 62/64 Hayes 62/64? Hayes 62/64? Hayes 62/64? Hayes 82/87A or lid? saggar non id. non id. non id. non id.

foot of medium height foot of medium height low foot low foot low foot low foot low foot low foot low foot low foot low foot very low foot; feather-rouletting very low foot; feather-rouletting very low foot; feather-rouletting very low foot very low foot very low foot very low foot very low foot very low foot very low foot very low foot flat base palm branch (pres. h. 1.2 cm; w. 0.8 cm) with all ribs turned upwards, parts of another palm branch A(i)-A(iii) = beginning of 4th-mid 5th c. AD three concentric circles with whirl-fringe, grille pattern A(i)A(iii)-; surrounded by three grooves = beginning of 4th-mid 5th c. AD black; coarse / / / / / / / / /

rim wall wall wall /

31 / / / /

SR-ARS-1 SR-ARS-1 SR-ARS-1 SR-ARS-1 /

/ / / / misfired and fused vessels

107

PLATE 1 Bordj el Djerbi

Bd.001

Bd.002

Bd.003

Bd.004

Bd.005

Bd.009

Bd.012

Bd.013

Bd.014

Bd.016

108

3 cm

PLATE 2 Bordj el Djerbi

Bd.017

Bd.019

Bd.021

Bd.022

Bd.023

Bd.025

Bd.026

Bd.027

Bd.029

3 cm

109

PLATE 3 Bordj el Djerbi

Bd.030

Bd.032

Bd.033

Bd.034

Bd.035

Bd.040

Bd.041

Bd.042

Bd.043

Bd.044

110

3 cm

PLATE 4 Bordj el Djerbi

Bd.044

Bd.055

Bd.056

Bd.057

Bd.058

Bd.066

Bd.067

Bd.068

Bd.069

3 cm

111

PLATE 5 Bordj el Djerbi

Bd.070

Bd.071

Bd.073

Bd.075

Bd.076

Bd.078

3 cm

Bd.079

112

1 cm

1 cm

Bd.080

Bd.081

PLATE 6 Bordj el Djerbi

Bd.083 Bd.082

Bd.086

Bd.084

Bd.085

Bd.087

Bd.088

Bd.089

Bd.090

1 cm

113

PLATE 7 Henchir el Biar

Hb.001

Hb.002

Hb.003

Hb.004

Hb.005

Hb.006

Hb.008

Hb.009

Hb.010

Hb.011

114

3 cm

PLATE 8 Henchir el Biar

Hb.012

Hb.013

Hb.014

Hb.015

Hb.017

Hb.018

Hb.021 Hb.020

Hb.022

Hb.025

Hb.026

Hb.023

Hb.027

Hb.030

Hb.032 Hb.031

3 cm

115

PLATE 9 Henchir el Biar

Hb.034 Hb.033

Hb.036

Hb.037

Hb.038

Hb.039

Hb.044

Hb.045

Hb.046

Hb.049

Hb.050

Hb.051

3 cm

Hb.052

116

1 cm

1 cm

1 cm

Hb.055

Hb.056

Hb.057

PLATE 10 Oudna

Ou.001

Ou.003

Ou.004

Ou.005

Ou.006

Ou.007 Ou.009

Ou.011 Ou.010

Ou.012

3 cm

117

PLATE 11 Oudna

Ou.013

118

Ou.014

Ou.020

Ou.021

Ou.022

Ou.023

Ou.027

Ou.028

Ou.029

Ou.030

Ou.031

Ou.037

3 cm

PLATE 12 Oudna

Ou.040

Ou.039

Ou.041

Ou.045

Ou.044

Ou.046

Ou.049

Ou.050

Ou.052

Ou.053

3 cm

119

PLATE 13 Oudna

Ou.055

Ou.062

Ou.063

2 cm

Ou.064

2 cm

Ou.065

120

3 cm

PLATE 14 Oudna

Ou.066

Ou.067

Ou.068

Ou.069

2 cm

121

PLATE 15 Pheradi Maius

Ph.001

Ph.002

Ph.003

Ph.004

Ph.005

Ph.006

Ph.007

Ph.009

Ph.010

122

3 cm

PLATE 16 Pheradi Maius

Ph.011

Ph.012

Ph.018

Ph.019

Ph.021

Ph.022

Ph.026

Ph.027

Ph.028

Ph.031

3 cm

123

PLATE 17 Pheradi Maius

Ph.032

Ph.033

Ph.034

Ph.041

Ph.042

Ph.043

Ph.044

Ph.045

Ph.052

Ph.053

Ph.054

124

3 cm

PLATE 18 Pheradi Maius

Ph.058

Ph.059

Ph.060

Ph.061

Ph.062

Ph.075

Ph.076

Ph.077

Ph.096

Ph.097

Ph.098

3 cm

125

PLATE 19 Pheradi Maius

Ph.099

Ph.100

Ph.101

Ph.102

Ph.103

Ph.114

Ph.116

Ph.120

Ph.124

Ph.126

Ph.128

126

3 cm

PLATE 20 Pheradi Maius

Ph.130

Ph.131

Ph.133

Ph.134

Ph.135

Ph.136

Ph.137

Ph.138

Ph.142

Ph.143

3 cm

127

PLATE 21 Pheradi Maius

Ph.153

Ph.154

Ph.155

Ph.170

Ph.171

Ph.175

Ph.176

Ph.177

Ph.178

Ph.179

128

3 cm

PLATE 22 Pheradi Maius

Ph.181

Ph.182

Ph.183

Ph.184

Ph.185

Ph.186 Ph.187

Ph.193

Ph.194

Ph.205

Ph.202

Ph.206

3 cm

129

PLATE 23 Pheradi Maius

Ph.213

Ph.216

1 cm

Ph.214

1 cm

130

3 cm

PLATE 24 Sidi Rherib

Sr.001

Sr.002

Sr.003

Sr.004

Sr.005

Sr.006

Sr.007

Sr.008

Sr.009

3 cm

131

PLATE 25 Sidi Rherib

Sr.010

SR misfired fragments

BD-ARS-1 at magnification 16 (photo Hasenzagl).

132

3 cm

PLATE 26

BD-ARS-2 at magnification 16 (photo Hasenzagl).

BD-ARS-3 at magnification 16 (photo Hasenzagl).

133

Plate 27

IG-ARS-1 at magnification 16 (photo Hasenzagl).

IG-ARS-2 at magnification 16 (photo Hasenzagl).

134

PLATE 28

HB-ARS-1 at magnification 16 (photo Hasenzagl).

HB-ARS-2 at magnification 16 (photo Hasenzagl).

135

Plate 29

HB-ARS-3 at magnification 16 (photo Hasenzagl).

OU-ARS-1 at magnification 16 (photo Hasenzagl).

136

PLATE 30

OU-ARS-2 at magnification 16 (photo Hasenzagl).

PH-ARS-1 at magnification 16 (photo Hasenzagl).

137

Plate 31

PH-ARS-2 at magnification 16 (photo Hasenzagl).

PH-ARS-1/2 at magnification 16 (photo Hasenzagl).

138

PLATE 32

PH-ARS-3 at magnification 16 (photo Hasenzagl).

PH-ARS-4 at magnification 16 (photo Hasenzagl).

139

PLATE 33

IG-ARS-3 at magnification 16 (photo Hasenzagl).

SR-ARS-1 at magnification 16 (photo Hasenzagl).

140

Figure, table and plate captions Fig. 1. Fig. 2. Fig. 3. Fig. 4. Fig. 5. Fig. 6. Fig. 7. Fig. 8. Fig. 9. Fig. 10. Fig. 11. Fig. 12. Fig. 13. Fig. 14. Fig. 15. Fig. 16. Fig. 17. Fig. 18. Fig. 19. Fig. 20. Fig. 21. Fig. 22. Fig. 23. Fig. 24. Fig. 25. Fig. 26. Fig. 27. Fig. 28. Fig. 29. Fig. 30. Fig. 31. Fig. 32. Fig. 33. Fig. 34. Fig. 35. Fig. 36. Fig. 37. Fig. 38. Fig. 39. Fig. 40.

Main area of production of African tableware (illustration Hasenzagl). Schematic map of Tunisian ARS-workshops and productions (based on Bonifay 2004, 46, Fig. 22; adapted by Hasenzagl). Possible (dark gray) and presumed (light gray) location of ARS A-workshops (after Ben Moussa 2007a, 40, fig. 3; adapted by Hasenzagl). Absolute value and percentage of the ceramic wares in total stock (n=2000) of survey material. Schematic map of Salomonson’s survey and excavation sites (illustration Hasenzagl). Sketch plan of the surveyed area in Sidi Aïch (photo Hasenzagl). Original labeling of the Salomonson’s survey finds (photo Hasenzagl). Region of Bordj el Djerbi (overview) (after Cintas/Duval 1976, 854, fig. 1; adapted by Hasenzagl). Region of Bordj el Djerbi (detail) (after Ben Moussa 2007a, 79, fig. 11; adapted by Hasenzagl). Percentages of vessel types from Bordj el Djerbi (n=94). Geological area of Bordj el Djerbi, Henchir el Biar, Oudna and Pheradi Maius (overview) (after Baklouti et al. 2014, 525, fig. 1,a; adapted by Hasenzagl). BD-ARS-1 and BD-ARS-2 at magnification 8 - 40 (photos Hasenzagl). BD-ARS-3 and IG-ARS-1 at magnification 8 - 40 (photos Hasenzagl). IG-ARS-2 at magnification 8 - 40 (photos Hasenzagl). Absolute values and percentages of the fabric types in Bordj el Djerbi (n=94). Percentages of vessel types from Henchir el Biar (n=65). HB-ARS-1 and HB-ARS-2 at magnification 8 - 40 (photos Hasenzagl). HB-ARS-3 at magnification 8 - 40 (photos Hasenzagl). Absolute values and percentages of the fabric types in Henchir el Biar (n=65). Geographic location of Oudna (after Bourgou 2004, 259, fig. 1). Schematic map of Oudna: Located late antique potteries (gray) in the North of the city (after Jacob/Massy 2004, 64, fig. 4; adapted by Hasenzagl). Percentages of vessel types from Oudna (n=73). Stamp motifs of Salomonson’s survey material (1:1) (illustrations Hasenzagl; photographs Stefan Diesner). Geological landscape of Oudna (detail) (after Baklouti et al. 2014, 525, fig. 1,c; adapted by Hasenzagl). OU-ARS-1 and OU-ARS-2 at magnifications 8 - 40 (photos Hasenzagl). Absolute values and percentages of fabric types in Oudna (n=73).Fig. 27. Geographic position of Pheradi Maius (after Ben Moussa 2007a, 110, fig. 22; adapted by Hasenzagl). Geographic position of Pheradi Maius (after Ben Moussa 2007a, 110, fig. 22; adapted by Hasenzagl). Area around forum with late antique craft quarter (after Ben Moussa 2007a, 112, fig. 24 (adapted by Hasenzagl). Percentages of vessel types from Pheradi Maius (n=216). Morphological evolution from H 87A to H 88 (illustrations Hasenzagl). Possible function of Hayes 87/88A, Hayes 88 and Hayes 103 as lids (illustrations Hasenzagl). Ph.018 and its typologically most similar form (after Ikäheimo 2003, Plate 5,18) Geological landscape of Pheradi Maius (detail) (after Baklouti et al. 2014, 525, Fig. 1,b; adapted by Hasenzagl). PH-ARS-1 and PH-ARS-2 at magnifications 8 - 40 (photos Hasenzagl). PH-ARS-1/2 and PH-ARS-3 at magnifications 8 - 40 (photos Hasenzagl). PH-ARS-4 and IG-ARS-3 at magnifications 8 - 40 (photos Hasenzagl). Absolute value and percentages of the fabric types in Pheradi Maius (n=216). Percentages of different ceramic wares collected in Sidi Rherib (n=66). SR-ARS-1 at magnifications 8 - 40 (photos Hasenzagl). Selected ARS fragments of Salomonson’s collection (detail of clean breaks).

141

Table Table Table Table Table Table

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

PLATE 1 PLATE 2 PLATE 3 PLATE 4 PLATE 5 PLATE 6 PLATE 7 PLATE 8 PLATE 9 PLATE 10 PLATE 11 PLATE 12 PLATE 13 PLATE 14 PLATE 15 PLATE 16 PLATE 17 PLATE 18 PLATE 19 PLATE 20 PLATE 21 PLATE 22 PLATE 23 PLATE 24 PLATE 25 PLATE 25 PLATE 26 PLATE 26 PLATE 27 PLATE 27 PLATE 28 PLATE 28 PLATE 29 PLATE 29 PLATE 30 PLATE 30 PLATE 31 PLATE 31 PLATE 32 PLATE 32 PLATE 33 PLATE 33

Classification of African tableware until 1981. Algerian and Tunisian survey sites visited by J.W. Salomonson. Absolute numbers of the survey finds from Bordj el Djerbi. Absolute numbers of the survey finds from Henchir el Biar. Absolute numbers of vessel types from Oudna. Absolute numbers of pieces from Pheradi Maius. Bordj el Djerbi, Bd. 001- 016 Bordj el Djerbi, Bd. 017-029 Bordj el Djerbi, Bd. 030-044 Bordj el Djerbi, Bd. 044-069 Bordj el Djerbi, Bd. 070-081 Bordj el Djerbi, Bd. 082-090 Henchir el Biar, Hb. 001-011 Henchir el Biar, Hb. 012-032 Henchir el Biar, Hb. 033-057 Oudna, Ou. 001-012 Oudna, Ou. 013-037 Oudna, Ou. 039-053 Oudna, Ou. 055-065 Oudna, Ou. 066-069 Pheradi Maius, Ph. 001-010 Pheradi Maius, Ph. 011-031 Pheradi Maius, Ph. 032-054 Pheradi Maius, Ph. 058-098 Pheradi Maius, Ph. 099-128 Pheradi Maius, Ph. 130-143 Pheradi Maius, Ph. 153-179 Pheradi Maius, Ph. 181-206 Pheradi Maius, Ph. 213-215 Sidi Rherib, Sr. 001-009 Sidi Rherib, Sr. 010-misfired fragments BD-ARS-1 at magnification 16 (photo Hasenzagl). BD-ARS-2 at magnification 16 (photo Hasenzagl) BD-ARS-3 at magnification 16 (photo Hasenzagl). IG-ARS-1 at magnification 16 (photo Hasenzagl). IG-ARS-2 at magnification 16 (photo Hasenzagl). HB-ARS-1 at magnification 16 (photo Hasenzagl). HB-ARS-2 at magnification 16 (photo Hasenzagl). HB-ARS-3 at magnification 16 (photo Hasenzagl). OU-ARS-1 at magnification 16 (photo Hasenzagl). OU-ARS-2 at magnification 16 (photo Hasenzagl). PH-ARS-1 at magnification 16 (photo Hasenzagl). PH-ARS-2 at magnification 16 (photo Hasenzagl). PH-ARS-1/2 at magnification 16 (photo Hasenzagl). PH-ARS-3 at magnification 16 (photo Hasenzagl). PH-ARS-4 at magnification 16 (photo Hasenzagl). IG-ARS-3 at magnification 16 (photo Hasenzagl). SR-ARS-1 at magnification 16 (photo Hasenzagl).

Cover image, fig. 40 and photos on plates by Stefan Diesner

142