The Hellenistic Harbour of Amathus. Underwater Excavations, 1984-1986. Volume 2: Artefacts Found during Excavation 9782869583085, 2869583087

Citation preview

’

ETUDES CHYPRIOTES

XX

THE HELLENISTIC HARBOUR OF AMATHUS UNDERWATER EXCAVATIONS, 1984-1986 VOLUME 2. ARTEFACTS FOUND DURING EXCAVATION Jean-Yves EMPEREUR (ed.) with Françoise ALABE, Angelos HADJIKOUMIS, Cécile HARLAUT, Brita LORENTZEN, Sturt W. MANNING, Maria MICHAEL, and May TOUMA É

C

O

L

E

F

R

A

N

Ç

A

I

S

E

D

’

A

T

H

È

N

E

S

VERKA RK

40

OQ

KAMBOS

PK

OR

PL

Aqueduct North N orth G Gate e QE

Sakieh Well 3

H House

QF

50

88.60

Well 1

B silica Basilica

40

Well 2 Agio gios gios os Tychonas ycho s

Temple Tem Te emp em ple lle e off A Aphro Aphrodite hrrrodit h Theatre atre 80

Sondage 8

Sondage 10

Tunnel Tun un u

ole

Mo

Sondage 5

is Salam o t e t Rou

50

le

Agoraa Agora

Sondage A

Ayia Varva Sondage 16 Sondage 17 Sondage 2

20

Sondage 6 Sondage 4

Basilica B Bas Ba asilica licaa

IInterior Basin In

Sondage 7

a Are d e lor xp e Un

We W West Wes estt G Gate ate

st

Kallinikos Ka lin ko oss

QY Q

th M

ole

Basilica lic iica ca

Z

Ha

Sou

rbo

ur

East Tower

En

tra

South Tower N PK

100

200 m

PL

PU

PV

QE

QF

N

nc

Sondage 15 Sondage 18

e

Sondage 12 Sondage 14

Sondage 3 Sondage 13 Sondage 1

Hellenistic Harbour

0

QP

Ea

Palace

East Gate

30

60

Postern Gate

QO

West M

70

0

QO

10

QP

50

100 m

QY

QZ

THE HELLENISTIC HARBOUR OF AMATHUS

É

C

O

L

E

F

R

A

N

Ç

A

Directeur des publications :

Alexandre Farnoux

Responsable des publications :

Bertrand Grandsagne

I

S

E

D

’

A

T

Ouvrage publié avec le concours du Centre d'Études Alexandrines

Révision et mise au point des textes : Colin Clement, Victoria Leicht Réalisation : Fatiha Bouzidi Conception graphique de la couverture : EFA, Guillaume Fuchs Photogravure, impression et reliure : n.v. PEETERS s.a. Dépositaire : De Boccard Édition-Diffusion – 4, rue de Lanneau, F – 75005 Paris, www.deboccard.com © École française d’Athènes, 2018 – 6, rue Didotou, GR – 10680 Athènes, www.efa.gr

ISBN 978-2-86958-308-5 Reproduction et traduction, même partielles, interdites sans l’autorisation de l’éditeur pour tous pays, y compris les États-Unis.

H

È

N

E

S

’

ETUDES CHYPRIOTES

THE HELLENISTIC HARBOUR OF AMATHUS UNDERWATER EXCAVATIONS, 1984-1986 VOLUME 2. ARTEFACTS FOUND DURING EXCAVATION Jean-Yves EMPEREUR (ed.) with Françoise ALABE, Angelos HADJIKOUMIS, Cécile HARLAUT, Brita LORENTZEN, Sturt W. MANNING, Maria MICHAEL, and May TOUMA

XX

Table of contents

PART I. THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL MATERIAL OF THE HELLENISTIC HARBOUR OF AMATHUS

7

The publication of objects found during the underwater excavations of the Hellenistic harbour of Amathus (Jean-Yves Empereur)

9

The Hellenistic pottery found in Amathus harbour (Françoise Alabe)

11

Some remarks concerning the “Persian bowls” found in Amathus harbour (Cécile Harlaut)

67

The Hellenistic amphorae found in Amathus harbour (Jean-Yves Empereur)

73

The Hellenistic metallic artefacts found in Amathus harbour (Maria Michael)

79

PART II. THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL MATERIAL FOUND IN THE LATE ROMAN WELLS

119

The publication of objects found during the underwater excavation of the Late Roman wells of Amathus harbour (Jean-Yves Empereur)

121

The Late Roman pottery found in Amathus harbour (May Touma)

125

The Late Roman amphorae found in Amathus harbour (Jean-Yves Empereur)

181

The Late Roman metallic artefacts found in Amathus harbour (Maria Michael)

191

6

THE HELLENISTIC HARBOUR OF AMATHUS

A Late Roman faunal assemblage found in Amathus harbour (Angelos Hadjikoumis)

197

Analysis and 14C dating of wood remains found in Amathus harbour (Brita Lorentzen, Sturt W. Manning)

211

Conclusion (Jean-Yves Empereur)

217

Part 1 The archaeological material of the Hellenistic harbour of Amathus

The publication of objects found during the underwater excavations of the Hellenistic harbour of Amathus Jean-Yves Empereur

We have included in this publication studies of the archaeological material discovered during the underwater excavations because they shed vital light on the history of the harbour. We can cite, for example, the coins studied by Olivier Picard: the presence of six coins of Antigonus Monophthalmus and of his son Demetrius Poliorcetes found near the entrance channel enlighten us as to the authority behind the construction of this monument and of the date1. Françoise Alabe studied the pottery, which she has dated to the same period as the Antigonid coins: end of the 4th and beginning of the 3rd century bc. She expresses her surprise that such a vast quantity of vases2 have been dumped into the harbour basin, which under normal conditions would have been well maintained and regularly cleaned of any refuse. This observation is all the more relevant in that this was not ware brought by boats moored in the harbour and thrown overboard by careless crew members wanting to get easily rid of broken vases, but rather local pottery manufactured in a nearby workshop, as is shown by the recurring shapes as well as by over-fired and kiln-damaged examples3. Alabe states, “The harbour fill is constituted, for a large part, of material coming directly from one or several workshop dumps”, and she continues, “that the potters took it upon themselves to dump their rejects into the harbour, would imply such a scandalous negligence on the part of the authorities as to be rather improbable.” This, however, is the conclusion that we must come to: the maintenance of the harbour basin was neglected and no dredging or cleaning operations were performed, as is demonstrated by the mass of pottery and amphorae discovered in every sondage that we opened. The homogeneity of the material suggests a rapid operation that can most likely be translated into a deliberate desire to render the harbour unusable in a short space of time. Alabe wrote her study in 1995 and, considering that she arrived at the expected results, she did not wish to rework her text as it forms an organised ensemble with previously unpublished observations, especially concerning the local pottery production of Amathus. Exports of this latter to the Levant and Egypt now require further examination. Cécile Harlaut has generously accepted to present certain observations on the importance of Alabe’s contribution, particularly as regards the 1.

See volume I, p. 154-155.

2.

“The total number of shards taken from the harbour, apart from the late period wells, is in the neighbourhood of 18,000, of which roughly two thirds are from amphorae”, see infra, p. 11.

3.

We have chosen to present the drawings of the pottery in 1:2 scale, in order to illustrate better this important workshop material.

10

THE HELLENISTIC HARBOUR OF AMATHUS

“Persian bowls”. Alabe writes, “The presence and the particular profile of the foot make it impossible to use these vases as mortars, even if only for light crushing”; meanwhile, over the past two decades, a wide debate about mortaria in the eastern Mediterranean has developed. Cécile Harlaut contributes to the discussion, presenting a typological distinction, which shows that one of the two types (Type B) could have had a function other than for grinding, perhaps for measuring grain. My own study on amphorae corroborates Alabe’s analysis of the pottery: for the chronology – early Hellenistic period; for the homogeneity – rarely exported Cypriot production; for the abundance – more than 12,000 shards in some 20 sondages spread over all areas of the harbour, suggesting huge numbers of amphorae thrown into every corner of the harbour basin. In 2014, Yiannis Violaris, Archaeological Officer of the Department of Antiquities, head of the museum and district of Limassol, was kind enough to put me in contact with Maria Michael, who accepted to undertake the study of metallic objects discovered during the excavation of the harbour. Athanassis Athanassiou, the museum’s photographer took care of photographic coverage and Clara Vasitek was our illustrator. We thank them all once again. Thanks also to Victoria Leicht, ceramologist, who kindly reviewed and corrected the English technical terms of the articles by Françoise Alabe and May Touma. This study successfully encompasses a very varied collection in a systematic manner and

sheds a particular light on material that is, in general, poorly studied and rarely published, thus providing an interesting picture of metallic objects of everyday use that were current in a harbour context at the end of the 4th and beginning of the 3rd century bc. Nota bene: In the catalogues, the Hellenistic pottery is numbered from A1 to A96; the amphorae from B1 to B8, the coins from C1 to C43 (cf. volume I, p.151-160) and the metallic objects from D1 to D110. All measurements are in centimetres and the following abbreviations used: approx.: Approximately diam.: Diameter Ht.: Height L.: Length m.: Metre Max.: Maximum Min.: Minimum Th.: Thickness W.: Width Wt.: Weight “Sondage 1-3” means that the artefact was found at the junction of the two neighbouring sondages.

The Hellenistic pottery found in Amathus harbour Françoise Alabe

EXCAVATION CONTEXTS The pottery studied here is divided into three sub-assemblages according to their topographic provenance: – interior of the harbour basin (1984 excavation); – exterior of the harbour basin (1985 excavation); – entrance channel (1985 and 1986 excavation). The bag numbers directly refer to the individual campaigns: in 1984, numbers 3501 to 3512 and 3529 were reserved for material from the wells: ceramic material from soundings inside the harbour basin bore numbers like 84.3513.xx or 84.3528.xx, and material from soundings along the south mole had numbers 84.3530.xx and so on, with only a few exceptions due to handling errors1. Material from soundings outside the basin (West mole and south-west corner) bear the numbers 85.1001.xx and so on. Finally, the bags numbered 85.1.xx to 85.999.xx and all the material from 1986 come from the south-east sector (entrance channel). The total number of sherds taken from the harbour, apart from the late Roman wells, is around 18,000, of which roughly two thirds are from amphorae. Of the 5,000 or so other sherds, about three quarters either have no obvious form and are so badly deteriorated that it is not possible to properly study them, other than to identify the clay fabric, or are featureless parts of closed vases (jug body sherds with or without slip) and are included in the study only when they are part of joins. What we might call “useful sherds”, that is those that allow for an identification of the type of vessel from which they came, number something just over 1000. It does not follow, however, that those sherds which do not fulfil these two criteria above have no significance. They constitute a precious reserve for complementing the types and extending our technological observations, in addition to their pure statistical value. As for the “utility criteria”, these were clearly defined according to the aims of the study, which were to specify the circumstances of the formation of the ceramic deposit in the harbour and to propose a chronological sequence related to the history of the harbour (foundation/use/abandonment). Initial observations then led to a more detailed ceramic study, 1.

In fact, a bag of ceramics from the soundings (probably number 3554) was accidentally mixed with Bag no. 3529 from the wells. The error was only noticed after recording when clearly intrusive sherds were seen in a homogeneous group, several of which matched sherds from the soundings. Rather than re-recording these, I chose to pick out the non-Late Roman material from Bag no. 3529, since the provenance was certain, check on the Bag File the objects from the soundings and integrate the recovered material into my study.

12

THE HELLENISTIC HARBOUR OF AMATHUS

using the finds in the harbour to precisely identify a local production of pottery, certain aspects of which had until now been unknown.

A HOMOGENEOUS ASSEMBLAGE As indicated in the introduction, the precision of the recording method adopted was limited: except for the objects from 1986, indications of provenance refer to a rather wide field. From the very beginnings of the excavation, the fill appeared to be homogeneous, and looking at a single layer, the recording of the finds followed the chronological order of the excavation. Each bag number is related to one dive, that is, to the material collected by one person over a period of two hours spent at the bottom of the well. Thus, the bag numbering reflects a progression in depth, which given the instability of the marine environment with frequent shifting and slipping of the sandy bottom, is not regular. I thought it necessary to verify the degree of coherence of the material, firstly by internal (the search for joins) and external (allocation according to categories and types) criteria for each of the three previously defined sub-assemblages, and subsequently between these three sub-assemblages (by a single external criterion). A study of the joins provided conclusive results for each sub-assemblage. For the fragments recovered along the South Mole in 1984, 41% of the vessels, whole or fragmentary, included in the study were the object of at least one join. There were 75 joins for 183 objects, of which 36 involved sherds from different bags, and among which 12 joins involved sherds from bags more than 20 numbers apart. The maximum difference of bag numbering for this sounding is 64. One vase, jug A59 (fig. 1 and pl. 12), was reassembled from sherds from five different bags between the numbers 84.3557 and 84.3593, that is a spread of 37 numbers. The large proportion of joins indicates the fragmentary state and vertical dispersion of the material. At the same time, the large proportion of joins between bags of distant numbers confirms that one should not attach strict stratigraphic significance to the succession of bag numbers, nor any chronological significance to the depth of the individual finds. The conclusion that can be drawn from these observations is that the material found in 1984 along the West Mole is that of a fill that can be considered as a single layer. The rest of the material, looked at sector by sector, gives a more or less identical ratio of number of objects/number of joins and, taking into consideration a more extended horizontal spread, leads to the same conclusions. Neither in the breakwater sector nor in that of the entrance channel can one isolate a group or groups of bags that came from separate layers. The simple fact that each of the sub-groups comes from a single layer fill suggests an overall consistency for the material found in the harbour. Given that the excavations went as far as the seabed each time, it is extremely unlikely that the single layer of fill inside the south quai, the single layer of fill outside the south-west corner and the single layer of fill in the entrance channel were created at different moments. So, the ceramic elements of these fills provide a degree of similarity that removes any doubt about this question. Indeed, in the three sub-assemblages under consideration, the same categories of material are represented, and in similar proportions to the total, for both the number of sherds and individuals vessels. Thus, it seems pointless to maintain the separation of the sub-assemblages and the study was conducted by considering the material as a whole. The identification and presentation of the most important series (by number and/or by historical significance) are thus generalised and the conclusions involve the entire assemblage.

THE HELLENISTIC POTTERY FOUND IN AMATHUS HARBOUR

13

A1 A5

A28

A38

A47.1 A59

A50

A55.2

A56.1

A56.2

A76.1

0

5 cm

Fig. 1 — Local pottery forms: palmiped bowls A1 and A5, bowl A28; bowls A38, A50 and A47.1; saucers A55.2, A56.1, A56.2; jug A59; lamp A76.1. Scale 1:4. Photos Ph. Collet, EFA Archives

14

THE HELLENISTIC HARBOUR OF AMATHUS

GENERAL CHARACTER The dominance of local productions Following the chronological perspective adopted at the beginning, the general physical appearance of the material appeared confusing: – 90% of the “useful” sherds, and almost all of those not used in the study are local pottery and almost entirely coarse ware; – most of the main Hellenistic series are absent (lagynoi, relief bowls, pseudo-sigillata and sigillata) or scarcely represented (barbotine pottery: two vessels); – the main classic series and Cypriot decorated pottery are completely absent; – imported pottery is very fragmentary, barely represented and very few (10% of “useful” sherds, of which half are or seem to be Attic, though it should be mentioned that all the fineware sherds, notably the Attic ones, were considered “useful”, while other series comprise a large number of atypical sherds.) Thus it seemed important to focus on the sherds thought to be local, to identify their origins and establish their typology, without totally ignoring the information to be drawn from the Attic wares, a well-dated series from outside of Amathus.

The clay fabric of Amathus This fabric has been described by L. Courtois2 for Cypro-Geometric and Archaic ceramics. The definition of “dominant microfacies (…) with grainy clay” includes the identification of the temper (“dark coloured sandy content, visible to the naked eye”) particularly abundant in this production, as “a strong proportion of coastal sand” (presence of minerals from the Kellaki mountains and sandstone from Parekklisha). The petrographic character of the base of this fabric is related to “quaternary colluvial clay loams produced by the erosion of ‘green rocks’ and the formations of Lefkara and Pakhna”. This examination thus confirms the local particularity of the pottery, since several of the components are present in the nearby Amathus or directly upstream. The technical features of manufacture revealed by Courtois are the addition of a temper, a firing temperature of 850/900° C, and the characterisation of the risks of certain types of accident, such as cracks from shrinkage when drying or at the beginning of firing, the endothermic peak being fixed at roughly 200° C. The decorated pottery thought to be from Amathus for stylistic reasons3 forms the reference corpus for establishing the petrographic microfacies of the local production. The vast majority of the pottery found in the harbour fits the description of the local clay as given by Courtois, and comparisons with Geometric, Archaic and Classical sherds from Amathus that I was able to examine in the reserves of the site storehouse, confirmed the identity of the clay from the harbour sherds, bearing in mind the limits of comparing sherds with written descriptions and assessing with the naked eye the degree of resemblance between two clays. Courtois’ conclusions are valuable in as much as they confirm and clarify the hypothesis proposed at the beginning of the study that the largest group of sherds found in the harbour that were not amphorae were of local provenance.

2.

Courtois 1979, p. 750-751.

3.

Cf. Fr. Vandenabeele, “Un dépôt de céramique archaïque chypriote dans un silo à Amathonte”, BCH 109 (1985), p. 630-655, with previous bibliography.

THE HELLENISTIC POTTERY FOUND IN AMATHUS HARBOUR

A (A1)

A’ (A5)

B (A24.2)

C (A15)

D (A6)

E (A20.2)

15

Fig. 2 — The six fabric types of Hellenistic pottery from the Amathus workshop. Photos Ph. Collet, EFA Archives

Local manufacture The premise about the provenance of pottery from the harbour is based on additional observations to those mentioned above, more specific to the corpus under examination, such as: – the very fact that a large number of vessels were made from the same clay fits well with the idea of a local production; – the rather restricted variety of types (fig. 1), limited to three repetitive forms (bowls, jugs, other forms appear only occasionally), one of which (jugs) turns out to be very regular in its dimensions and proportions;

16

THE HELLENISTIC HARBOUR OF AMATHUS

– the different appearances of the fabric itself which, in the harbour, displays considerable variations in colour, hardness, and even in visible granulometry, all lead one to think of different firing methods and temperatures. The closer one is to a production centre, the greater the chances of finding its productions exhibiting a range of technical aspects. This rule, used when trying to locate workshops4, is well known and would indicate that the pottery found in the harbour was manufactured nearby. – The fabric from the pottery from the harbour is in general light-coloured (low iron oxide and high limestone content) and always contains a large proportion of sandy temper, the irregular grains of which are visible to the naked eye and are dark, almost black, in colour. Leaving aside atypical examples, the fabric tends to vary according to the following descriptions (fig. 2): – A: hard, beige-pink to beige-orange; – A’: identical features, but a uniform grey colour, more or less dark, throughout the thickness of the fabric; – B: light, porous, softer, suggestive of pumice stone, with a pale grey core, more or less distinct from an overall body colour of very pale greenish; – C: light, harder, vitrified surface with a core riddled with regular bubbles like a sponge; – D: hard, more compact, susceptible to erosion, anthracite grey sometimes mixed with beige pink “clouds”; – E: very soft, crumbly, slightly soapy, very eroded, pale beige in colour.

The harbour workshop The finds from the consumption sites (town and necropolis) have a fabric whose appearance is much more regular. There are differences between the examples and the green and vitrified aspects seem more often to be accidental exceptions. The clear majority of these fabrics are either hard, beige-pink to beige-orange (Archaic and Classical period), or hard to very hard, pale beige with a greenish tint (later periods). This latter variant is not represented in the harbour. In order to better understand the harbour material in relation to the Amathus production, I carried out a quick examination of the pottery found in soundings conducted on a terrace of the acropolis, some 60 metres north of the rampart, in the annexes of a large building believed to have been a palace in the Persian period5. Most of the forms from the local pottery are common to the two assemblages; the fabric from the palace is most often hard and beige-pink to pink-orange, corresponding to variant A from the harbour. I thus considered that this variant represented the normal firing of the clay, and that the other aspects represented, as in the case of B and C, different degrees of over-firing, and for D (700/750° C) and E (550° C), insufficient firing6. The variants B and C are simply due to excessively high firing temperatures (C is more fired than B), while variant D, whose firing temperature was slightly lower than normal, results from a smoky environment or an accidental reduction in the final phase of firing. Lastly, variant A, showing a perfectly normal appearance in every respect (hardness, granulometry) except for the colour, must be the result of a firing called “B form” (firing in two 4.

Conferences given by M. Picon at EFA in November 1985, and lectures at the 1984 colloquium, BCH Suppl. XIII, passim.

5.

Cf. BCH 100 (1976), p.927-933; 101 (1977), p.790-798; 102 (1978), p.946-959. My warmest thanks go to Patrick Marchetti for the generosity with which he allowed me access his material and for the precious advice and guidance that I gained from our conversations.

6.

This was also indicated by experimental refiring conducted at my request by Mme M. Enjouvin, of the École d’Art de Marseille-Luminy, with thanks to the Antiquities Service of Cyprus, which in spring 1988 authorised the exportation of a certain number of samples, and to Mr G. Touzenis, then director of the École d’Art.

THE HELLENISTIC POTTERY FOUND IN AMATHUS HARBOUR

17

0

5 cm

Fig. 3 — Left, workshop refuse A6. Right, palmiped bowls fused together from over-firing. Scale 1:4. Photos Ph. Collet, EFA Archives

reduction phases). In variant C, I found several completely deformed sherds (fig. 3: rims and bases of several jugs on top of each other, fused together by over-firing) characteristic of workshop rejects. The presence of these wasters takes on a particular significance in view of the frequency of fragments showing abnormal firing: variants A’ and B are by far the most numerous, followed by variants D and C, with variant A (normal firing) in a clear minority. Variant E, because of its poor mechanical resistance, appears more rarely among published objects, but many atypical sherds are associated with this variant. Such a situation, quite different from the rest of the site, can only be explained if the harbour fill constituted, largely, of material coming directly from one or several workshop dumps. This partial conclusion is of particular interest to the typological and technological observations regarding the local pottery of the harbour, and raises the question as to whether or not the creation of this fill was deliberate. A workshop dump would be ideal for anyone needing a large amount of filling material quickly and easily available without much cost and without having to use agricultural land. The other hypothesis, that the potters took it upon themselves to dump their rejects into the harbour, would imply such a scandalous negligence on the part of the authorities that is seems rather improbable. Nevertheless, just a few dozen metres to the east of the ancient harbour, beneath the modern road running along the coast, the action of the waves cut into the beach and the remains of a kiln are visible. It cannot be excluded that a very powerful storm might have swept up and scattered far and wide (to the entrance channel and perhaps beyond) one or more refuse dumps of this “harbour workshop”. Whatever the precise circumstances of the sinking of this mass of ceramic wasters, the very fact that it happened at one particular moment is well established and results in a rather interesting technical study.

Initial technical observations The common wares of the harbour drew my attention to the phenomenon of pseudo-slip. It is often noticeable that the surface of the common wares of Amathus are lighter than the core of the fabric and form an apparently independent film. This film is often designated, at Amathus as elsewhere, as a slip, while the difficulty of distinguishing between a slip and a pseudo-slip is underlined in many publications, which opt in general for the common label of slip7. At Amathus harbour we can be 7.

Cf. Yon 1981, p. 83 and p. 207.

18

THE HELLENISTIC HARBOUR OF AMATHUS

0

A33

5 cm

A34.1

Fig. 4 — “Local fine” pottery: bowls A33 and A34.1. Scale 1:4. Photos Ph. Collet, EFA Archives

certain that it is a pseudo-slip in a large number of cases. The surface of many sherds, especially the variants A’ and D, can be classified as running from white to greenish cream passing through a pale yellow. This superficial colouring often extends over ancient breaks and in such cases is clearly a sign of changes caused by time spent in a marine environment. When the whitish surface does not extend to the breaks, it remains identical to that of previous cases and thus it would seem to me that this colouring is attributable to a salt wash, a process that was well known in antiquity and is still used today in traditional societies. In the adjoining catalogue, I reserve the term slip for cases where the application of a coat of clay primer, before or after drying, is certain. Practically speaking, certainty can only be assured if the surface is of a different colour to the clay and darker than it. In the other cases, I do not distinguish between pseudo-slip (accidental or deliberate) and a deposit due to the circumstances of preservation. I limit myself to noting the colour and the appearance of the surface, and underlining if this colour and this appearance also concern the surfaces of any ancient breaks, which would implicitly suggest whether or not it was an incidental deposit. I have also tried to reserve the word “glaze” for slips that have undergone at least a partial sintering.

Another local production Alongside this massive production of common wares, there are also some examples like A33 to A37 (fig. 4; pl. 9) made in a fine fabric, which has (on a much smaller scale since we are dealing with a small number of individuals) a range of characteristics that recall what was observed in the coarse fabric8. The vessels in this category in the harbour are all small bowls, often carinated, that copy metal models. Some similar bowls and a series of closed form vessels found in the palace show a fine regular fabric with a porous and powdery surface, a hard core and pinky to pale yellow tending occasionally towards the greenish colouring. The forms of these closed vessels (we have no complete profile) derive without any doubt from metal wares: trefoil mouths, arched handles, often attached to the mouth with figurative elements (female protomes, roundels of clay imitating rivets), carinated bodies, moulded feet with complex profiles. The presence in the harbour of examples with abnormal firing would suggest a local manufacture. At the same time, the mediocre quality of the finishing on certain examples might lead one to see in this material as a cheap substitute for luxury products that could have been produced on the site copying imported models.

8.

We find the same fine fabric alternately soft and pale yellow, hard and beige grey, hard and grey with micro-geodes lined with calcite crystals identical to those described by L. Courtois (Courtois 1979, p.751).

THE HELLENISTIC POTTERY FOUND IN AMATHUS HARBOUR

19

During a brief stay at Amathus in 1987 with J.-Y. Empereur, M. Picon was keen to examine these objects and let me know that the idea of recognising in them a “local fine fabric” was not absurd at all. Since 1989, analyses have been conducted in the ceramic Laboratory at Lyon on batches of sherds from several sites on Cyprus (Amathus, Kition, Paphos, Salamis) in order to clarify the features of Cypriot fabrics and, eventually, to establish the foundations for understanding the networks of exchange within the island. Some samples of this category (“palace” closed vessels) were taken and analysed, but the archaeological study has not advanced sufficiently and there are not enough analyses to allow for a meaningful interpretation.

Types and chronological markers Two series will be highlighted: small bowls with a flared ring-foot, the type appearing in Cyprus in quite precisely dated contexts, and Attic pottery, whose well known chronology allows for interpretation even given the rather scanty material from the harbour.

Small bowls with flared ring foot: Palmiped bowls (or “Persian bowls”) This type is represented by almost 400 sherds, that is, nearly 40% of the “useful” sherds. This is a staggering proportion9. The type was not unknown at Amathus, where a large number have been found in the “palace”10. J.-F. Salles published a dozen identical vessels found in the sewers of the Classical period town at Kition11, and the presentation of some examples, “residual evidence of no chronological significance”, found in Hellenistic levels at Kition have led to a revision of this type12. Very few other Cypriot parallels have been published. As J.-F. Salles notes, the type does not feature in the SCE. In addition to the examples cited by him13, I would add the finds at the Amathus “palace” and those of the port, which nonetheless represent a noticeable increase in the series and allow for the fact that at least some of these bowls were produced on Cyprus itself and notably at Amathus. Among the difficulties in finding parallels, aside from the rather heavy and coarse look of these objects that does little to ensure them a place in the publications, one must mention the lexical confusion over their designation. J.-F. Salles calls them “cuvettes” (basins) and classes them after bowls in a separate entry; in the excavation report of the Amathus “palace”, this vessel is labelled as “plat à côtelures” (ribbed dish); and in Palestinian contexts where they appear, at least in the publications14 the two names most regularly used are “mortaria” and “Persian bowls”. The term “mortaria” must be rejected absolutely. The presence and the particular profile of the foot make it impossible to use these vessels as mortars, even if only for light crushing15, the base being, as shown by the numerous circular breaks and cracks revealed on the examples from the harbour, the least resistant part of this vessel16. The foot can actually be snapped off without much 9.

Cf. the examples of this form in the catalogue below, nos. A1 to A27.

10.

Cf. BCH 101 (1977), p. 792-794 and fig. 25, where a complete example is illustrated.

11.

KB II, p. 71, fig. 28, nos. 233-241 p. 72-74, 15; other examples mentioned in Table VI p. 78; conclusions p. 93-97.

12.

KB IV, nos. 186, 241, 277, 302, 429, 525-527; discussion p. 237-239.

13.

Idalion, pl. II no. 16; Ayios Philon, fig. 22 no. 215.

14.

Samaria-Sebaste, p. 129-132 and fig. 12 no. 13; Qedem 9, p. 30-31, fig. 4 nos. 13-14, pl. 22 no. 8; Stern 1982, p. 96-98, with a bibliography that has since been completed by Salles 1985, p. 200 note 1.

15.

KB IV, p. 238-239 (“herbs, olives, chickpeas, lentils, garlic, etc.”). At most, one might imagine light mixing of mushy vegetables.

16.

I have not been able to verify in detail the soundness of the objection against this designation formulated by J.-F. Salles, who notes: “no pestle has ever been discovered in association with these vessels, the insides of which do

20

THE HELLENISTIC HARBOUR OF AMATHUS

A6 0

5 cm

Fig. 5 — Discarded palmiped bowls: left, A6; right circular, clockwise, A23, A20.2, A26.3, A24.2, A25.2, A22.2. Scale 1:4. Photos Ph. Collet, EFA Archives

damage to the bowl itself or the base (fig. 5 left), but much more frequently the base has become detached following the interior contours of the foot (fig. 5 right). Given that most languages have plenty of words without any precise meaning, the choice of a name that has such a straightforward functional connotation should surely be reserved for objects that can actually perform that function. The term “Persian bowls” seems to have been chosen for stratigraphic reasons that are not without value, since these vessels are considered as a “fossil guide” in layers of the Persian period17. However, it seems that they are in fact known from the 7th century bc18, and the absence of parallels or possible antecedents in the Iranian world makes this designation ambiguous and a source of error19. Given their spread in time and space (see the map published by J.-F. Salles20), the hypothesis that links these objects to Phoenician networks of exchange21 appears to be the most convincing and thus there is no reason to refer to the Persian empire.

not show that they were used for crushing foodstuffs “ (Salles 1985, p. 199). The interior surfaces of the bowls found in the harbour, always carefully wiped out with a damp sponge (pseudo-slip sometimes eroded), show no evidence of any practice of any sort of grinding. I would add that the foot/base fractures are not only very numerous but also frequently more eroded than those affecting the rest of the profile. The turning of the foot must have caused a weakening of the base, the thinning of which was a result of the rising and spiralling centrifugal force applied by the hands of the potter on the clay molecules already strengthened in a position resulting from the symmetrical pull created during the turning of the bowl (the bowl was fashioned open-end up, and the bottom by re-centring the vessel with the rim downwards). 17.

A definition of the type, and its chronology in relation to the series of analogous flat-based vessels (whose form would not exclude use as a mortar) has been given by Stern (1982) p. 96-98. Some flat-based “mortars”, similar to Stern’s Type 5a, are illustrated in the SCE IV,2, fig. lvi 23 (Class v).

18.

Salles 1985, p. 203-204.

19.

The expression “Persian bowls” has also been used for very thin-walled beakers of the Achaemenid period (Samaria-Sebaste, p. 216, fig. 36).

20.

Salles 1985, p. 211. Palmiped bowls (“typically Cypriot mortars”) are numerous on the site of Tell el-Herr: cf. P. De Paepe, B. Gratien, “Petrographical and Chemical Analysis of Pottery from Tell el-Herr (Egypt): Nile Mud and Marl Wares”, in NIEBOROW 1995, p. 61-81.

21.

Salles 1985, p. 208-210.

THE HELLENISTIC POTTERY FOUND IN AMATHUS HARBOUR

21

Marchetti’s descriptive name, “plats à côtelures” (ribbed dishes) does not properly take into account the proportions of these vessels, since their height (between 10 and 15 cm) is easily greater than a fifth22 of their maximum diameter (28 to 34 cm). The name “cuvette” (basin) in current usage is not designed for food purposes, as must surely have been these receptacles which do not seem large enough or deep enough for this name that is a little too “broad”. I have thus tried to find a term that is neither too precise nor too general that contains the lexical significance of “bowl” (open vessel), but adding what seems to me to be the morphological signature of the type, i.e. the presence of a foot which, being turned separately on an up-turned vessel, can quite rightly be precisely described with precision by borrowing the recognised terminology for the rim. The specific profile of a duck- or goose-foot encourages me to use the adjective “palmiped” as a short-cut for the descriptive expression “flared ring-foot”. The Palestinian contexts range, as seen, between the second half of the 7th and the end of the 4th century bc. The chronology of Kition does not contradict that of the Syro-Palestinian sites23. In the Amathus “palace”, the “plats à côtelures” (ribbed dishes) are very frequent in the destruction levels of the building and are notably found associated with Antigonid coins that go back to the conflict between the Diadochi and the attempts of Demetrios Poliorcetes to avoid Ptolemaic control of Cyprus in the first years of the 4th century bc. None of the publications that I have managed to read and quote make any reference to the evolution of these vessels over the two and half or three centuries that this type existed, either because the type did not evolve (which is always possible), or because the contexts did not allow a chronological classification of the series. It is still difficult to know if the different production centres were distinct in any way other than the fabric. It is certain that there were several production sites. The illustrated example in the publication of Tel Mevorakh24 is so visibly warped during firing that it would be hard to imagine it as imported. All the known examples at Amathus are local, and for Kition-Bamboula, J.-F. Salles25 distinguishes a coarser fabric verging on green from the normal Plain-White fabric of Larnaca, the description of which would apply to the fabric of Amathus. A direct comparison of the objects confirms that the two fabrics are very similar. As part of the programme to characterise Cypriot fabrics mentioned above, three samples26 of palmiped bowls found in the excavations of Kition-Bamboula have been shown to belong to Amathusian productions. In the Hellenistic layers of Kition “fragments nos. 429 and 527 could be of Amathusian origin…. This demonstrates the regional circulation of extremely common vessels”27. When comparing the measurements I took with those of J.-F. Salles, it appears that the bowls from Amathus harbour are slightly less tall (9 to 11cm instead of 12 to 14.5cm) and the rims are slightly wider (31 to 34cm instead of 28 to 31cm) than those of Kition. As for discovering whether these more flared proportions correspond to a chronological difference, to local peculiarities, or even to accidental variations of no historical significance, we still do not have sufficient numerical data 22.

On the standardisation of these measurements, cf. Yon 1981, p. 191.

23.

Salles 1985, p. 204.

24.

Qedem 9, pl. 22 no. 8.

25.

KB II, p. 73-74.

26.

The analysis reference numbers of the samples from Lyon Ceramology Laboratory are MTH 94, MTH 96, MTH 97. I would like to thank M. Picon for the information he kindly passed on while the results were still not complete (the continuation of this programme of analyses is planned for the coming years); the dynamism demonstrated by the French Mission at Kition-Bamboula in developing exchanges between researchers working on Cyprus has been essential to setting up this programme, and I am extremely grateful for the warm welcome me and my sherds have received at Kition, especially from J.-F. Salles and M. Yon.

27.

KB IV, p. 237.

22

THE HELLENISTIC HARBOUR OF AMATHUS

to talk about standardisation. Moreover, we cannot say whether the fill in the harbour, made up of workshop waste (cf. supra, p. 16), contains only non-standard or standard examples. Sagging, the result of clumsy throwing on the wheel or as an accident of drying or firing could easily have been a reason for rejection just as much as the anomalies of firing previously mentioned. It will be interesting in this respect to see if the palmiped bowls found in the destruction levels of Amathus “palace”28 have a general profile that differs from those presented here. No matter how tedious the measuring of sherds may be, it is nonetheless a necessary precondition for any progress in this field (necessary but not inevitably sufficient). This approach might help reinforce and clarify J.-F. Salles’29 rather intellectually and historically seductive hypothesis which would see these palmiped bowls, and the parallel series of flat-based bowls with a similar body profile and dimensions, as utensils for measuring the volume of common foodstuffs, such as “grains of wheat, flour?”. The day may come when we will speak of a “bowls-issaron (palmiped or flat-based)30 instead of “mortars” or “Persian bowls”. Whatever the case, the impressive number of these bowls in the harbour fill, which, as we have seen, should be considered as homogeneous, means that we cannot push the date of this fill any further than the very beginning of the 3rd century, and thus they provide a terminus ante quem.

Imported Attic pottery For both formal parallels and for chronological markers, I gave priority to the publications of Salamis and Kition and only referred to studies conducted outside Cyprus for the few vessels that are not attested at either Kition or Salamis. Given the very small number of sherds in this category, it was not really a question of studying them as such, but rather of finding any complementary chronological indications. The Attic vessels, complete or fragmentary, all representative of open-form tableware (fig. 6), stand out from the rest of the material by the quite considerable time scale they follow. The complete small bowl A78 has its closest parallels towards the very end of the 5th century. The calyx krater body fragment A77 is dated to around 375. The skyphos with thumb-grip A83 could be from the end of the 3rd century, or even the beginning of the 2nd if we stick to the standard chronology31: I note further on (infra, p. 41) reasons that could put that date back by almost a century. While these three examples appear as extremes over a long period of slightly more than 100 years (from the end of the 5th to the beginning of the 3rd century), the other bowls and plates appear to be grouped around the second half of the 4th century, with perhaps a slight preference for the third quarter of that same century. Considering the plausible life-span of an Attic drinking vessel, this date fits quite well with the indications provided by the characteristic material of the Amathus workshop, and would place the palmiped bowls at the end of the series. As for the other isolated examples, which may be much earlier (A93 and A94) or indeed much later, they remind us that sandy sea beds and shifting coastlines, as at Amathus, are not ideal environments for a fixed archaeological layer, and thus these elements should be considered as intrusive.

28.

After a sounding to verify stratigraphy in 1987, work on this site resumed in 1988: cf. Fr. Alabe, P. Marchetti, Th. Petit, BCH 112 (1988), p. 873-876; Fr. Alabe, Th. Petit, BCH 113 (1989), p. 899-910; Fr. Alabe, Th. Petit, BCH 114 (1990), p. 995-1023; Th. Petit, BCH 115 (1991), p. 766; A. Marangou, Th. Petit, BCH 116 (1992), p. 760-762; Th. Petit, BCH 117 (1993), p. 696-707.

29.

Salles 1985, p. 208-210; cf. KB IV, p. 238-239.

30.

Dry measure of about 2.3 litres.

31.

Salamine, p. 74.

THE HELLENISTIC POTTERY FOUND IN AMATHUS HARBOUR

23

A78

A82.1

A82.2 A83

0

5 cm

A88

Fig. 6 — Pottery of Attic origin or tradition: A78, A82.1-2, A83, A88. Scale 1:2. Photos Ph. Collet, EFA Archives

CATALOGUE This catalogue presents a representative sampling of the non-amphora pottery found during the three excavation campaigns at the harbour of Amathus, with the exception of cooking ware. This latter category was represented by about 100 sherds, but their fragility and the particular conditions of the excavation (hostility of the marine environment) meant that they cannot be characterised despite all efforts at restoration. From the material of 1986, this sampling contains only: – archaeologically complete forms, – new types (not appearing in the material of 1984-1985), – new variants of already attested types. As regards the presentation of the material, I have adopted a reverse order to that followed in the publications of other sites, such as Kition and Salamis32, where the local pottery is treated as a supplement after Attic and other imports. In Amathus harbour, unlike Salamis and Kition, it appears that the local undecorated ware is not only more abundant and more varied, but also provides more

32.

For Salamis, only the Attic ware was presented for obvious circumstantial reasons; in the volume published by J.-F. Salles on finds from the sewers of Kition-Bamboula, black glaze Attic ware occupied the first half – but the publication of Cypriot ceramics is one of the best documented for undecorated ware.

24

THE HELLENISTIC HARBOUR OF AMATHUS

solid information for both absolute and relative chronology than the imported fine ware, which is too sparsely represented to allow for a sensible interpretation. For both categories, I have classified the vessels by type, going from most open to most closed. The entry for each vessel includes the following information: – catalogue number; – excavation inventory number: two figures for the year (84, 85 or 86), bag number (cf. supra p. 11) and object number in the bag; for restored vessels, I note the sherd numbers from different bags (if several fragments of the same object are registered in the same bag under different numbers, I give only the first object number); – state, complete or fragmentary, of the object; – dimensions, in centimetres; – technical description: fabric (granulometry, hardness, aspect, colour), firing, slip and any decoration; – form description and parallels if any. Some entries have several vessels under the same catalogue number: after the entry of “leading piece” like A2.1, its “brothers” have a catalogue number like A2.2, A2.3, etc.

CATALOGUE OF LOCAL WARE 1. Palmiped bowls (bowls with flared ring-foot or ‘persian bowls’) (pl. 1-7) This series of vessels is particularly large, with more than 175 fragments of rims and more than 180 fragments of feet. Certainly, any interpretation of these figures must take into account the fact that this form produces very few “atypical sherds”. The foot profile on the one hand, and the ribbing of the wall and shape of the rim on the other, are almost always recognisable. This is not the case for closed vessels, which can shatter into several dozens of sherds, very few of which are identifiable. Nevertheless, it would appear that there can be little doubt that the bowl-issaron, in its “palmiped” form, was adopted and manufactured in huge numbers by the potters of Amathus.

1.1. Series with slight ribbing A1 85. 1116.1 fig. 1, fig. 2-A (macrophoto) and pl. 1 Profile complete. Diam. of rim 33; Diam. of foot 16.5; Ht. 9; Diam. at top of foot 14; Ht. foot 2.5 Fabric, local and hard, is pink, grey-beige in the core, surface cream (related to variant A). Outer rim thick and rolled has a sort of throat, the body then curves regularly down to start of foot. Cf. KB IV, no. 186, no. 525. A2.1 85.1085.3 pl. 1 Diam. of rim 32; Diam. where break 20; Ht. preserved 5 Fabric probably over-fired (variant B), appearance recalls pumice stone; colour homogeneous greenish. Cf. KB IV, no. 186. A2.2 85.1085.5 Diam. of rim 33; Diam. min. preserved 20; Ht. preserved 5 Same features as previous entry A2.1 (variant B).

pl. 1

THE HELLENISTIC POTTERY FOUND IN AMATHUS HARBOUR

25

A2.3 85.1341.50 Diam. of rim 31; Diam. min. preserved 19.5; Ht. preserved 5.5 Same features as A2.1 (variant B).

pl. 1

A2.4 85.1355.6 Diam. of rim 32; Diam. min. preserved 16.5; Ht. preserved 7 Same features as A2.1 (variant B). Cf. KB II, no. 236, KB IV, no. 186.

pl. 1

A2.5 85.1363.2 Diam. of rim 30; Diam. min. preserved 21; Ht. preserved 5.5 Same features as A2.1 (variant B). Cf. KB IV, no. 186.

pl. 2

A3 85.1361.6 Diam. of rim 32; Diam. min. preserved 20; Ht. preserved 5.5 Same features as A2.1 (variant B). Pronounced rolled moulding above angular profiled throat.

pl. 2

A4 85.1332.10 Diam. of rim 33; Diam. min. preserved 15.5; Ht. preserved 6.5 Same features as A2.1 (variant B). The rolled rim is barely distinguished, not thick, three slight bulges on upper body.

pl. 2

1.2 Series with ribbing A5 85.83.1 fig. 1, fig. 2-A’ (macrophoto) and pl. 2 Profile almost complete (missing mid-section of base). Diam. of rim 32; Diam. foot 15; Ht. 9.7; Diam. at top of foot 13; Ht. foot 2.5 Fabric largely grey (variant A’). Exterior rolled rim appears as the culminating element of a series of four ridges, which in the upper two thirds of the body alternate with flat bands that are themselves inset in relation to the ideal curve joining the exterior rim and the lower third of the body. Cf. KB II, no. 241, KB IV, no. 277. A6 85.1035.1 + 85.1060.1 + 85.1085.1 fig. 2-D (macrophoto ), fig. 5 left and pl. 2 Rim and body of analogous bowl, whose foot has snapped off. Diam. of rim 31; Diam. min. preserved 17.5; Ht. preserved 5.5 Fabric local, hard, of very irregular colour, pink dominant on surface and grey in the core (variant D). Exterior rolled rim ends in a horizontal step, then four ribs also form steps outlining the straight profile segments of unequal length. A7 84.3531.1 Diam. of rim 32; Diam. min. preserved 19; Ht. preserved 4 Same fabric as A6, softer, greyish beige, surface beige (variant E).

pl. 3

26

THE HELLENISTIC HARBOUR OF AMATHUS

A8 84.3537.1 + 84.3551.2 pl. 3 Diam. of rim 32; Diam. min. preserved 12; Ht. preserved 4 Same fabric as A6, grey, surface cream tending to greenish (variant B). Three inset ridges in the profile, decreasing regularly in size from bottom to top, ending in a slightly rolled rim. A9.1 85.3550.2 pl. 3 Diam. of rim 32; Diam. min. preserved 15.5; Ht. preserved 5 Same fabric as A6, slate grey, surface beige (variant A’). A pronounced projection at two thirds of the height meets the thickening of the outside rim; between these two projections, two open insets are separated by a flat inset band (cf. A5), itself hollowed in the middle, all together making a “wavy” profile. A9.2 84.3550.3 Diam. of rim 30; Diam. min. preserved 18; Ht. preserved 4 Same fabric as A6, fired slightly less that the previous (variant A’). Same characteristics as previous, A9.1.

pl. 3

A10 84.3556.1 + 84.3557.2 Diam. of rim 32; Diam. min. preserved 13; Ht. preserved 4 Same fabric as A6, greyish-beige, surface cream (variant D). The profile follows the same lines as A9, but less pronounced.

pl. 3

A11 84.3582.16 pl. 3 Diam. of rim 30; Diam. min. preserved 13; Ht. preserved 6 Same fabric as A6, slate grey, surface cream, including fracture surfaces (variant D). Very eroded example. Between the rolled rim and the lower part of the body (of which we have only the start), four insets of very smooth profile separate three equally soft projections which are inset from the curve joining the rim with the lower section. Cf. KB II, no. 237. A12 84.3597.2 Diam. of rim 31; Diam. min. preserved 21; Ht. preserved 3.5 Same fabric as A6, greyish (variant A’). The upper roll is mirrored by a very slight projection, followed by at least one other and larger rib.

pl. 4

A13 85.1064.3 Diam. of rim 32; Diam. min. preserved 18; Ht. preserved 5.5 Same fabric as A6, over-fired, appearance recalls pumice stone, colour tending to green (variant B). Thickening of the outer rim very noticeable in relation to the other irregularities of profile. Cf. KB II, no. 241, KB IV, nos. 277, 302, 429.

pl. 4

A14 85.1280.1 pl. 4 Diam. of rim 35; Diam. min. preserved 20; Ht. preserved 4 Same appearance of the fabric as A6, with ash grey core (variant B). Rolled rim, very abrupt, seems at odds with rest of profile, where the other projections and insets are regular and graded. Cf. KB IV, no. 527.

THE HELLENISTIC POTTERY FOUND IN AMATHUS HARBOUR

27

A15 85.1283.2 fig. 2-C (macrophoto) and pl. 4 Diam. of rim 28; Diam. min. preserved 20; Ht. preserved 5 Same fabric as A6, over-fired, greenish, light, with start of vitrification on surface (variant C). Upper roll and associated inset are sizeable, while the four slight projections that follow are very close to one another. Cf. KB IV, no. 241. A16 85.1314.5 Diam. of rim 33; Diam. min. preserved 18; Ht. preserved 3.5 Same fabric as A6, more normal firing, core pinkish-brown, surface pale pinkish-beige (variant A). Beneath the outer rim, three projections regularly alternate with three insets in step form.

pl. 4

A17 85.1349.8 Diam. of rim 35; Diam. min. preserved 13; Ht. preserved 5.5 Same fabric as A6, light orange beige, greyish core (variant A). A sharp ridge interrupts the undulating projections/insets from the second step after the roll. Cf. KB II, no. 241, KB IV, no. 429.

pl. 4

A18 85.1355.7 pl. 4 Diam. of rim 32, Diam. min. preserved 12; Ht. preserved 4.5 Same fabric as A6, greyish beige (variant B). The thickness of the outer roll seems all the larger as it is pinched, and thus the rim overhangs the rest of the body. The next projection is also abrupt, but is followed by a step of normal size, whilst the two undulations of the preserved part of the lower body are barely noticeable. Cf. KB II, no. 237.

1.3 Flared ring-feet A19 84.3551.6 pl. 5 Diam. foot 17; Ht. preserved 6; Diam. at top of foot 14.5; Ht. foot 2.5 Example badly eroded; fabric quite soft, irregular colour, clouds of dark grey and salmon pink. Surface cream, tending to greenish (variant D). A lower rib (inset in profile) is preserved. A20.1 84.3563.4 pl. 5 Diam. foot 18; Ht. preserved 5; Diam. at top of foot 14; Ht. foot 3 Fabric slightly harder than previous example, which has meant less erosion; same colours as previous, slightly lighter (variant D). Cf. KB IV, no. 526. A20.2 85.1033.10 fig. 2-E (macrophoto), fig. 5 right Diam. foot 17: Ht. preserved 3.5; Diam. at top of foot 13.5; Ht. foot 2.5 Fabric softer, greyish monochrome, covered with a beige crust including the fractures which are so eroded that the small preserved segment of the interior surface (above the foot) can barely be made out (variant E).

28

THE HELLENISTIC HARBOUR OF AMATHUS

A21.1 84.3583.1 pl. 5 Base complete. Diam. foot 14.5; Ht. preserved 4; Diam. at top of foot 11.5; Ht. foot 2.5 Fabric hard, uniformly greyish beige, exterior surface is lighter, interior surface forms a blackish crust (variant A’). A21.2 84.3576.7 Diam. foot 15; Ht. preserved 4; Diam. at top of foot 12; Ht. foot 2 Fabric hard, uniformly mouse grey, surface beige (variant A’). Cf. KB II, no. 236.

pl. 5

A22.1 85.1033.8 Diam. foot 17; Ht. preserved 4; Diam. at top of foot 14.5; Ht. foot 2,5 Fabric very hard, over-fired, greenish beige, core light grey (variant B). Cf. KB II, no. 241.

pl. 5

A22.2 84.3529.38 Diam. foot 16.5; Ht. preserved 4.5; Diam. at top of foot 14; Ht. foot 2.5 Fabric quite hard, porous, very susceptible to erosion, medium grey (variant D).

fig. 5 right

A23 85.1033.9 fig. 5 right and pl. 6 Diam. foot 17.5; Ht. preserved 5; Diam. at top of foot 15; Ht. foot 2.5 Example eroded. Fabric quite hard, porous, very irregular colour, cloudy medium grey, greenish beige, pink (variant D). A24.1 85.1138.17 pl. 6 Diam. foot 17; Ht. preserved 4.5; Diam. at top of foot 13: Ht. foot 2 Fabric very hard, light beige, greyish tending to green; exterior surface very clear greenish, showing beginnings of vitrification, while interior surface riddled with tiny regular bubbles like a sponge (variant C). The over-firing, evident in the features of the fabric, has also affected the shape: the foot has begun to flatten upon itself under the weight of the vessel33. A24.2 85.1270.1 fig. 2-B (macrophoto), fig. 5 right and pl. 6 Diam. foot 17; Ht. preserved 5; Diam. at top of foot 14; Ht. foot 2.5 Fabric hard, light beige, porous light grey core (variant B). Cf. KB IV, no. 526. A25.1 85.1265.7 pl. 6 Diam. foot 15; Ht. preserved 4.5; Diam. at top of foot 13; Ht. foot 3 Fabric hard and porous, irregular colour (cloudy beige orange), ash grey core and surface light greyish beige tending to green. Core riddled with bubbles, same as mentioned for A24.1 (variant C). A25.2 85.1138.18 Diam. foot 16; Ht. preserved 5; Diam. at top of foot 13; Ht. foot 2.5 33.

fig. 5 right and pl. 6

If such an accident had happened during drying, the vessel would have cracked, or would at least have broken along a circular line, either at the join of body and foot or foot and base. This cannot be seen here. The deformations have not affected the cohesion of the clay molecules, which indicates that they occurred when the firing threshold had already been reached.

THE HELLENISTIC POTTERY FOUND IN AMATHUS HARBOUR

29

Fabric shows the same characteristics, but vitrification is less pronounced (variant C). A25.3 85.1138.19 Diam. foot 16; Ht. preserved 5.5; Diam. at top of foot 13; Ht. foot 2.5 Fabric hard, irregular colour, cloudy dark grey/pinkish beige (variant D). Only fractures eroded.

pl. 7

A26.1 85.1364.1 pl. 7 Base complete. Diam. foot 17; Ht. preserved 6.5; Diam. at top of foot 14.5; Ht. foot 2.5 Fabric hard, anthracite grey, core pinkish brown, surface light beige (variant A’). Circular fissure at the join of foot to base. A26.2 85.1300.4 pl. 7 Diam. foot 15; Ht. preserved 6.5; Diam. at top of foot 12.5; Ht. foot 2.5 Fabric very hard, cloudy light grey/pinkish beige, surface cream (variant B). The first rib (inset in profile) is partially preserved. Cf. KB II, nos. 233, 238, KB IV, no. 525. A26.3 84.3542.6 fig. 5 right Diam. foot 16; Ht. preserved 4.5; Diam. at top of foot 13.5; Ht. foot 2.5 Fabric very hard, very eroded, light green, core ash grey, very light and riddled with bubbles looking like pumice stone. Surface, today eroded, shows beginnings of vitrification (variant C). A27 86.14.84.3 pl. 7 Base complete. Diam. foot 16; Ht. preserved 5; Diam. at top of foot 12; Ht. foot 4 Fabric hard, pinky orange, core beige and surface cream (variant A). The large vertical development of the foot itself, marked by a projecting rib three quarters up its height, sets this example apart from the rest of the series.

2. Flat-based, flared-rimmed bowls (pl. 7-8) This form is much less widespread than the palmiped bowls and has no parallels in the SCE. One has to associate them with the “cuvettes moyennement profondes à profil caréné” (medium-deep carinated dishes) of Kition (KB II, p. 75-76, nos. 250-254 and fig. 29), which also sometimes have a horizontal handle, but whose diameter of rim is noticeably greater. Despite the small number of examples, even across the variety of models, one is struck at Amathus by the uniformity of the type, much more so than at Kition. The height here is always equal to a third of the diameter of the rim and very slightly greater than the diameter of the base, while the rim profile, straight or barely curved and then barely flared, is always similar. A28 85.217.1 + 85.263.2 fig. 1 and pl. 7 Diam. of rim 20.5; Diam. foot 7; Ht. 7.5; Sections of the handle 1.7 / 0.8 Fabric local, very hard, core soft and surface powdery, core dark grey, surface lighter tending to beige, even on one of the fragments (variant D). Object is very eroded and ancient fractures thinned down to such an extent that restoration impossible. Convex wall runs with no break in the curve into a short flared rim, corresponding to a thickened lip bevelled to the interior. Two horizontal strap handles attached just below the rim. Base flat, slightly concave, widened by an extending torus.

30

THE HELLENISTIC HARBOUR OF AMATHUS

A29 85.242.2 + 85.246.5 + 85.288.1 pl. 8 Diam. of rim 30; Diam. foot 10; Ht. 11; Sections of the handle 2.4 / 1.7 Fabric hard, rugged aspect with large grains of sand, very visible, uniform anthracite grey including the ancient fractures, very eroded (restoration joins weak). A fresh break shows a compact fabric, red-orange to red brick, with beginnings of vitrification, crusted with black while the core remains beige. Thus, it seems that accidental overheating of the kiln caused the first breaks, and the blackening indicates that this accident happened during the reduction phase. Marine erosion then attacked the clay and exposed the more resistant grains of the sandy temper (variant D). The flat, slightly convex base, widened by an extending torus, could have been damaged in the same accident, when one considers that all the other flat bases with tori are concave: the concave movement is the normal result of upside-down drying, just as it is natural that the vessel, placed in the kiln, began to slump into its centre when the overheating occurred. The thick lip is angled to the inside, and the rim flares (without a break in the curve) to the exterior. A30 85.1110.1 pl. 8 Diam. of rim 26.5; Diam. foot 9.5; Ht. 11 Fabric local, hard, greyish beige, surface beige-orange (variant A). Rim slightly thickened, with almost vertical bevelled edge to the interior, and very slightly flared on the exterior. Base flat, slightly concave, widened by an extending torus. A31 86.13.46.1 Base and lower part of body missing. Diam. of rim 21; Diam. min. preserved 15; Ht. preserved 4; Sections of the handle 1.9 / 1 Fabric local, quite hard, beige-orange (variant A). Horizontal strap handle attached to rounded rim bevelled to the interior, and flared to the exterior.

pl. 8

3. Cooking pot? (pl. 9) The form has no precise parallel in the SCE IV. The arrangement of the decoration is related to Bichrome Red III (VI) or IV (VII), SCE IV,2, fig. LX 7 to 10, LX 19, LXVI 3. A32 86.14.56.2 pl. 9 Base missing. Diam. of rim 23; Diam. max. 31; Diam. min. preserved 14; Ht. preserved 25; Sections of the strap handle 4 / 1.3 Fabric quite hard, grey-brown, with quite fine sandy temper, regular and very dense. Vessel covered with a pinky orange slip, with an almost erased decoration of white bands. Interior entirely covered with a thick deposit of decomposed lead. The precise use and date pose a problem. The lead deposit might indicate that it was used to melt slingshot, or the metal may have been used for sealing blocks of the jetty34, but the presence of the decoration makes such a hypothesis doubtful.

4. Local undecorated fineware: carinated bowls (pl. 9) I have already touched upon the general characterisation of these few vessels (cf. supra p. 18) and the reasons that cause me to see them as “another local production”, subject to the results of analyses conducted by the ceramic Laboratory in Lyon. 34.

Voir Volume 1, p. 79 and BCH 110 (1986), p. 904-905

THE HELLENISTIC POTTERY FOUND IN AMATHUS HARBOUR

31

A33 85.1075.1 fig. 4 left and pl. 9 Profile complete. Diam. of rim 12.8; Diam. base 5.8; Ht 6.3; Ht. carination 1.3; Diam. at carination 10.6 Fabric quite fine, hard and powdery surface, small irregular inclusions with bigger sporadic inclusions in very light beige tending to greenish (perhaps a more purified version of the clay used for coarse ware in the local workshop). Interior has a brownish deposit, perhaps the faint remains of a brown slip. Base flat, very thin “coupé à la ficelle” (string cut). Outer wall, at first very flared, straightens into a sharp carination at 1.8 cm above the base. Edge straight, slightly inset, lip clearly thinning. The care shown in the working of the clay and the finesse of the form is undone by numerous fingerprints, dribbles of slip and the lack of finishing on the foot. A34.1 86.19.12.3 Profile complete. Diam. of rim 12; Diam. base 4; Ht. 5; Ht. of carination 1.5; Diam. at carination 8.5 Same fabric as above, quite fine, light, porous, hard, pale yellow all over. Base flat, very thin, barely projecting.

fig. 4 right

A34.2 85.94.1 pl. 9 Lower part of a similar vessel. Diam. at carination 8.6; Ht. of carination 1.1; Diam. base 4; Ht. preserved 1.9 Fabric quite fine, very light, very porous, quite soft, greyish, exterior surface cream (interior surface totally eroded). Base flat, “string cut” as with previous, is slightly concave.

5. Local undecorated fineware: other bowls (pl. 9) A35 85.1081.1 pl. 9 Form complete. Diam. of rim 12.8; Diam. max. 13.2; Diam. base 4; Ht. 3.3 Fabric quite fine, very hard, granulometry similar to preceding, light brown, core mouse grey, surface light beige. Interior covered by a very dull diluted slip, spilling over to the outside until half-way down the wall. A bubble, probably made from the bursting of a large inclusion, is set in the thickness of the wall and looks like a geode with flaky crystals (visible at the break). The same fabric as the previous example, but over-fired, which would back up the hypothesis of a local production. Base flat, “string cut” in a rather untidy way. The steep flaring body ends in a slightly inset and very thick rim via a sharp angle at 2.2 cm above the base. Same “dirty” aspect (fingerprints in the slip-trails) as the previous. A36 86.14.50.2 pl. 9 Miniature bowl complete. Diam. of rim 9.2; Diam. max. 10; Diam. base 3.6; Ht. 3.8 Fabric quite fine, very hard, identical to previous example, surface light greyish beige, no trace of slip. Base flat, “twine cut”, very thin; body flares regularly, rim inset to very thickened and rounded rim, shaping an internal carination.

32

THE HELLENISTIC HARBOUR OF AMATHUS

A37 85.106.1 pl. 9 Base centre missing. Diam. of rim 12.5; Diam. max. 13; Diam. base 4.8; Ht. 2.9 Fabric fine, quite soft, porous, beginnings of vitrification giving look of pumice stone. Colour uniform medium grey, surface cream very affected by erosion. Steep flaring ends in rounded inset thickened rim. Base was flat. It would be interesting to be able to associate with this “local fine ware” the fragments that were found at Kition-Bamboula and classified as “sans origine déterminée” (no definite origin) (KB II, nos. 365 and 366, p. 103, and fig. 38 p. 101). The description of the fabric, the carinated profile and the thin walls all match the characteristics of this series.

6. Coarseware bowls - complex forms (pl. 10) 6.1 Ring-foot and flat triangular rim A38 84.3529.33 fig. 1 and pl. 10 Bowl complete. Diam. of rim 17; Diam. foot 7; Ht. 7.5 Fabric quite fine, compact, hard, orangey-red, contains very fine sandy temper and sporadic nodules of lime, some of which have burst on a surface that is otherwise carefully smoothed with a sponge. The interior surface may have had a pinky orange slip, and outside surface a beige slip, both very dull and powdery. Above a globular body, the horizontal flattened lip shapes a flared external bevelled rim and slightly inset internal rim. The ring foot corresponds to the form B of the 2nd century (Salamine, fig. 9). The form recalls a bowl found at Kition (KB II, no. 216, fig. 25 and p. 68-69).

6.2 Deep bowls (skyphoi) with horizontal handles A39 85.1350.2 pl. 10 Base and lower part missing. Diam. of rim 9.5; Diam. min. preserved 5; Ht. preserved 6; Sections of the handle 1 / 1.3 Fabric local, hard, porous, similar to that used for coarser productions, bowls (flat-bottomed and flared ringfoot) and jugs, with numerous sandy inclusions, crystalline flakes both white (rare) and black (more numerous), colour greenish typical of Amathus’s microfacies. The general colour for the example is light grey-brown, surface pinky cream (variant A’). Rounded body with straight rim (continuous curve), lip thinned, flattened rolled horizontal handle attached at the rim. A40 85.1348.2 Rim and upper section, with horizontal handle. Diam. of rim 18; Diam. min. preserved 17; Ht. preserved 5.3; Sections of the handle 1.4 / 1.7 Fabric local, hard, pink-brown, surface very eroded, salmon (variant A). Straight rounded body, rim barely straightened; rolled handle, horizontal, attached at rim.

pl. 10

A41 84.3542.1 pl. 10 Fragment of bowl with horizontal handles. Diam. of rim 13; Diam. min. preserved 7.5; Ht. preserved 7; Section of the handle 1.3 Fabric local, quite hard, medium grey tending to greenish white on surface including breaks, thus no slip (variant B).

THE HELLENISTIC POTTERY FOUND IN AMATHUS HARBOUR

33

The angle of the curve at the handles, towards a lightly flared rounded rim, might just as easily derive from the Attic skyphos as from the Cypriot tradition of flared-rim bowls (SCE IV,2, fig. LXVII 16). An imitation of the Attic skyphos does indeed appear in Cypriot pottery of Class VII (ibid., 5, Stroke Polished II manufacture).

7. Coarse manufacture bowls - simple forms (pl. 10-13) 7.1. Hemispherical bowls 7.1A Hemispherical bowl with disk base A42 85.265.6 Profile complete. Diam. of rim 10.5; Diam. base 4.5; Ht. 5.2 Same fabric as above, pinky beige, surface lighter (variant A). Rounded body, straight rim with slight interior thickening, slightly concave projecting flat base.

pl. 10

7.1B Hemispherical bowl with wide opening A43 85.55.3 Upper part of body. Diam. of rim 15.5; Diam. min. preserved 13; Ht. preserved 6 Same fabric as A41, hard, grey (variant B), with traces of a brownish-red slip inside. Flared to rounded rim makes a subtle S-shaped profile

pl. 10

7.2. Flared bowls with straight wall (“conical”) 7.2A “Conical” bowls with no curve A44 85.57.1 Profile complete. Diam. of rim 7.5; Diam. max. 8.5; Diam. base 3.5; Ht. 3.8 Same fabric as A41, quite soft, greyish beige (variant E). Base flat, clearly projecting and “string cut”, rim barely thickened.

pl. 11

A45 85.1162.1 Base and lower part missing. Diam. of rim 11; Diam. min. preserved 6; Ht. preserved 3.5 Same fabric as A41, quite hard, grey-beige. “Conical” body, rim barely thickened.

pl. 11

7.2B “Conical” bowl with flared rim A46 85.1321.16 Profile complete. Diam. of rim 12.5; Diam. base 5.8; Ht. 6 Same fabric as A41, very porous, orangey pink tending to beige inside (variant A). “Conical” body, rim slightly flared, flat concave base.

pl. 11

34

THE HELLENISTIC HARBOUR OF AMATHUS

7.2C “Conical” bowls with inset rim A47.1 86.19.9.1 Complete example. Diam. of rim 9; Diam. max. 10.5; Diam. base 4; Ht. 5.3 Fabric local, hard, greyish fawn, surface pinky cream eroded. Straight “conical” body, rounded inset rim, base flat “string cut”.

fig. 1

A47.2 85.1358.2 pl. 11 Complete profile. Diam. of rim 9.5; Diam. max. 10.5; Diam. base 4.5; Ht. 4 Same fabric as A47.1, same features as the previous; pink deposit on surface also in ancient fractures. Straight “conical” body, rounded inset rim, thickened without break in curve. Base flat, barely projecting, “string cut”. A48 85.1129.2 Base and lower part missing. Diam. of rim 8.5; Ht. preserved 2.5; Diam. max. 9.5; Diam. min. preserved 5.5 Same fabric as A47.1 quite hard, greyish beige (variant B). Straight “conical” body, thickened inset rim.

pl. 11

A49 85.1137.1 pl. 11 Base and lower part missing. Diam. of rim 9.5; Ht. preserved 4; Diam. max. 11; Diam. min. preserved 8 Same fabric as A47.1, slightly softer. Straight “conical” body, short rounded rim, clearly inset without breaking the curve. This bowl is clearly deeper than all previous.

7.3. Flared bowls (with rounded body) 7.3A Flared bowls A50 84.3529.8 Profile complete. Diam. of rim 10.2; Diam. base 3.8; Ht. 4.3 Same fabric as A47.1 ash grey (variant B). Base thick and flat, “string cut”, straight thinned rim. A51 85.1300.7 Base missing. Diam. of rim 11; Diam. max. 12; Diam. base 4.8; Ht. 4 Same fabric as A47.1, quite soft, light greyish-beige (variant D). Wall very thick. Rim thickened, square profile, pronounced. Base flat, projecting.

fig. 1 and pl. 11

pl. 11

7.3B Flared bowls with straight rim A52 86.14.48.1 Complete example.

pl. 11

THE HELLENISTIC POTTERY FOUND IN AMATHUS HARBOUR

35

Diam. of rim 13.5; Diam. base 4.5; Ht. 6.5 Same fabric as A47.1, quite soft, orangey beige, surface lighter (variant A). With its curved body and straight rim, this flat-bottomed bowl quite clearly recalls some examples half the size from Bamboula (KB II, nos. 204-205), but the interior profile here does not display any break in the curve. A53 84.3596.1 pl. 11 Lower part and base missing. Diam. of rim 13; Diam. min. preserved 8.5; Ht. preserved 4.5 Same fabric as A47.1, quite hard, slate grey with many white patches, interior and exterior surfaces beige. Curved body, straight rounded rim. A54 84.3544.2 pl. 11 Lower part and base missing. Diam. of rim 11; Diam. min. preserved 7.3; Ht. preserved 3.3 Same fabric as A47.1, dominant slate grey, interior surface light brown, exterior shows whitish patches (variant A’). Curved body, straight, thinning rim.

7.4. Saucers/shallow bowls (curved bowls with inset rim) These saucers/shallow bowls all have “string cut” flat bases A 55.1 85.196.2 Complete profile. Diam. of rim 7.5; Diam. max. 8; Diam. base 3.5; Ht. 2.5 Same fabric as A47.1, quite friable, grey, surface well smoothed, salmon pink. Rounded inset rim without breaking curve, flat base slightly thickened in centre.

pl. 12

A55.2 85.1110.2 Complete profile. Diam. of rim 7.5; Diam. max. 9; Diam. base 5; Ht 3 Same fabric as A47.1, cloudy from slate grey to pinky beige, exterior surface very eroded (variant D).

fig. 1

A56.1 85.1120.1 Complete profile. Diam. of rim 10; Diam. max. 11; Diam. base 5.4; Ht. 3.8 Fabric friable, cloudy grey dominant, very eroded (variant E). Curved body, rim very thick, sharp inset.

fig. 1 and pl. 12

A56.2 85.1153.1 pl. 12 Form complete. Diam. of rim 9.8; Diam. max. 11; Diam. base 5.5; Ht. 4 Fabric similar to A56.1. Rounded body, rim slightly thickened and rounded with short inset and, pronounced break in curve. Base flat, “string cut”.

36

THE HELLENISTIC HARBOUR OF AMATHUS

A57 85.1105.1 Base missing. Diam. of rim 10; Diam. max. 11; Diam. base 5.8; Ht. 4 Same fabric as A56.1, quite hard, greyish-beige with pink hints (variant B). Rounded body, inset thickened rounded rim, base flat, projecting.

pl. 12

A58 84.3535.4 pl. 12 Lower part and base missing. Diam. of rim 12; Ht. preserved 3; Diam. max. 13.5; Diam. min. preserved 6.5 Same fabric as A56.1, soft, light beige, exterior surface cream and interior surface pinkish (variant E). Shallow curving body, inset rim slightly thickened.

8. Pouring vessels: jugs (pl. 12-13) The identification of the largest of these vases (A59) as a jug and not an amphora, even though two thirds of the mouth and neck and half of the shoulder are missing, is based on two facts. On the one hand, the mouth is slightly off-centre as regards the axis of the foot and the body in the direction of the handle. This is the result of traction exercised on the still malleable neck in one single direction (thus by one single handle). On the other hand, among the many shards from vessels of the same type as this example, which is the most complete, there are no two handles that resemble one another sufficiently to have been capable of being a pair belonging to the same vessel, as is the case for other categories (amphorae and other vessels) where the handles come in pairs that are often easy to match. Form criterion are not sufficient for typologising types like this, since low wide necks, ovoid bodies, ring bases or flat bases with projecting torus are all common to jugs and amphorae in the Classical to Hellenistic periods (SCE IV,2, fig. LXVIII, 16-19 and LXX, 20-24 / SCE IV,3, fig. 23,18-23 and 26,4-5). At the end of the Hellenistic period, at the same time as the necks of “jugs of local common slipped ware” begin to stretch and the bodies shorten, the model seems to shrink: cf. C. Abadie-Reynal, “Céramique romaine”, in Amathonte 1987, p. 46-58 (especially p. 54-55), pl. XXVII-XXXIII, where all the jugs of this category have a globular and no longer ovoid body, and dimensions half the size of A59 and even smaller than the other examples from the harbour A60 to A70. A59 84.3557.4 + 84.3569.1 + 84.3578.9 + 84.3580.6 + 84.3593.3 + fig. 1 and pl. 12 Large jug almost complete. Diam. mouth 15; Diam. foot 12; Ht. 37; Diam. max. body 26; Sections of the bifid handle 3.8 / 1.8 Fabric very hard, certainly the same as A56.1,above, with the same inclusions. General colour pale ashy beige tending to greenish (variant B ). Brown-black slip applied by brush or sponge (and not by dipping), very worn in some areas, and fire-reddened (“burn marks”) in patches. Slip covers the entire exterior and interior of the neck. Base, slightly convex, sits on a ring foot. A60 84.3558.3 pl. 12 Base, body and shoulder of a smaller jug. Ht. preserved 15.5; Diam. max. 18; Diam. foot 9 Fabric hard, grey. Powdery black deposit covers interior. Exterior has a dull orangey slip, with big grey-black spots (“burn marks”). Base flat, slightly concave, with torus. The curve on lower part of body more drawn out than on the previous example.

THE HELLENISTIC POTTERY FOUND IN AMATHUS HARBOUR

A61 85.186.2 Shoulder and lower part of neck. Diam. neck 10; Diam. max. 23; Ht. preserved 11 Same fabric as A60, quite hard, pink. Orangey slip of exterior spreads onto inside of neck.

37

pl. 13

Similar vessel bases A62 84.3529.30 pl. 13 Diam. base 8.5; Diam. max. preserved 12; Ht. preserved 3.5 Same fabric as A60, quite hard, grey with orangey core, surface interior orangey beige, exterior cream. Bottom flat, slightly concave, with torus. The beginning of the body very curved. A63 84.3529.37 Diam. base 9; Diam. max. preserved 12; Ht. preserved 4 Same fabric as A60, hard, light grey, interior surface beige, exterior with dull black slip. Base flat, very thick, barely concave, with torus.

pl. 13

A64 84.3581.6 pl. 13 Diam. base 10; Diam. max. preserved 12.5; Ht. preserved 3 Same fabric as A60, very eroded, melted appearance, anthracite grey, exterior surface cream (variant E). Interior contains a rust-coloured powdery deposit. Low ring foot. A65 85.118.1 pl. 13 Diam. base 7; Diam. max. preserved 15; Ht. preserved 7.5 Same fabric as A60, hard, very light, very porous, showing beginnings of vitrification (appearance of pumice stone). Light grey, interior surface yellowish. Base flat, slightly concave, with torus. A66 84.3583.2 pl. 13 Diam. base 7.5; Diam. max. preserved 14;Ht. preserved 5.5 Same fabric as A60, quite hard, grey, very eroded, traces of cream colour on interior and exterior surfaces. A67 84.3515.1 Diam. base 9.5; Diam. max. preserved 11; Ht. preserved 3.5 Same fabric as A60, hard, slightly finer than the previous examples, pinkish-beige. Base, slightly convex, supported by a ring foot.

pl. 13

A68 84.3580.20 pl. 13 Diam. foot 11; Diam. max. preserved 15; Ht. preserved 5 Same fabric as A60, coarser, quite hard, medium grey, exterior surface irregular colour (dark grey/orangey) and interior surface light pinky beige. Base slightly convex supported by a ring foot. A69 85.57.4 Diam. foot 11; Diam. max. preserved 12.5; Ht. preserved 3.5

pl. 13

38

THE HELLENISTIC HARBOUR OF AMATHUS

Same fabric as A60, quite hard, very eroded, brown-grey, surface damanged by erosion, was cream. Base convex supported by a ring foot. A70 85.73.2 pl. 13 Diam. foot 9; Diam. max. preserved 11; Ht. preserved 3 Fabric rough and porous, but more compact, more homogeneous and less hard than the previous examples, uniform grey, surface light orange. Could be a different workshop35. Base convex supported by a ring foot.

9. Miniature bottles and jugs (pl. 14) 9.1 Pot-bellied juglet with ring foot A71 85.288.2 pl. 14 Fragment of foot, body and shoulder of a small jug or unguentarium. Diam. foot 3.6; Diam. max. 7; Ht. preserved 7.5 Fabric porous, crumbly, almost fine, fine sandy temper, colour ash grey, surface tending to cream. The same ovoid body is found at beginning of the Hellenistic period on small one-handled jugs (SCE IV, 3 fig. 22.1 and p. 59) as well as on vessels without handles that continue Classical bottles and began the unguentaria series (ibid. Fig. 24.20 - 24.21 and p. 61). The ring foot shattered at its thickest part.

9.2 Thin-walled fusiform juglets A72.1 85.106.3 pl. 14 Fragment of body, mouth and handle of a small jug. Diam. mouth 3.2; Diam. max. 5.5; Ht. preserved 10 Fabric quite hard, quite fine, very porous, light orange, core dark red, exterior surface and interior of rim covered with powdery cream slip. These very elongated pear-shaped jugs with round rim underwent few changes from the Classical period (SCE IV, 2, fig. LXII.11) to the middle of the Hellenistic era (SCE IV, 3, fig. 24.19). A72.2 84.3580.17 pl. 14 Fragment (bottom and body) of similar vessel. Diam. base 3; Diam. max. 5; Ht. preserved 6 Fabric quite fine and hard, fine temper, general colour ash grey, with rusty brown interior deposit in the grooves from wheelwork, probable sign of use as perfume bottle.

35.

I mean by this that the fabric seems a little different from the standard identified as certainly from Amathus. This difference observable in the finished product may be attributed to the clay itself or to the methods of preparation before wheelwork (purifying, settling, eventual addition of temper) or to a combination of these two factors. The features of this clay are somewhat vague and can be expressed above all in negatives – not coarse, not fine, not light, not dark, not hard, not soft etc. – thus preventing one from defining its production process. Given the present state of research, we cannot decide whether we are dealing with a workshop (or group of workshops) located at Amathus using a different clay or using the same clay differently, or whether these are imports. Scientific analysis would be necessary to confirm this.

THE HELLENISTIC POTTERY FOUND IN AMATHUS HARBOUR

39

A72.3 85.242.5 pl. 14 Similar fragment. Diam. bottom 2.5; Diam. max. preserved 5.5; Ht. preserved 3.5 Fabric quite soft, crumbly, porous, anthracite grey with fine sandy temper; surface aspect (interior and exterior) cream. Base flat.

9.3 Miniature coarse jugs A73.1 86.13.48.1 pl. 14 Small complete jug. Diam. mouth 4.5; Diam. base 3.7; Ht. 7.5; Diam. max. 5; Diam. min. (neck) 3.5; Section of the twisted handle 1 Fabric local, hard, full of temper, grey. Base flat, “string cut”, sturdy pear-shaped walls, wide neck, pinched spout. A73.2 85.1081.4 Handle and wall fragment of similar vessel. Diam. min. neck 3.8; Diam. max. preserved 5; Ht. preserved 5; Section of the handle 1 Same features as A73.1.

pl. 14

A73.3 86.13.17.1 Fragment (handle) of similar vessel. Ht. preserved 4.5; Section of the twisted handle 1

pl. 14

A73.4 86.13.49.1 pl. 14 Similar vessel to previous (missing the front part of the spout). Diam. base 4.2; Diam. min. (neck) 3; Ht. preserved 5.5; Diam. max. 4.8; Section of the twisted handle 1 Same technical features as the previous three. Walls even more sturdy, work more hurried than the other examples.

10. Lamps (pl. 15) 10.1. Closed wheel-turned lamps A74 84.3529.16 pl. 15 Raised handle and rear part. Diam. of rim 4; Diam. estimated at the carination 7; Diam. min. preserved 6; Ht. of body preserved 2.5; Ht. of the handle 4.5 Fabric local, hard, light grey-beige. Biconical body topped with straight neck. A75 85.97.1 Upper part of Attic type lamp. Diam. of rim 3; Diam. max. 8; Diam. min. preserved 6.4; Ht. preserved 2.5

pl. 15

40

THE HELLENISTIC HARBOUR OF AMATHUS

Fabric local, hard, light pinkish beige. Wide body, inset flattened rim with no break in the curve.

10.2. Saucer lamps A76.1 86.2.2.4 Example intact. Diam. ext. rim 8.2; Diam. int. rim 6; Ht. 2.5 Fabric local quite hard, “cloudy” from pale beige to greyish fawn, very eroded (variant D). Example hand-modelled, base flattened, rim flared horizontally.

fig. 1

A76.2 84.3582.3 pl. 15 The front and almost entire spout missing. Diam. ext. rim 9.5; Diam. int. rim 8.5; Ht. 2.5 Fabric local, quite hard, slate grey, interior surface and fracture surfaces light beige (variant A’). Example hand-modelled, base flattened, rim flared horizontally: one can make out beginning of pinched spout. The material includes 14 more or less fragmentary lamps of this type, eight of which were wheelmade, with flat projecting “string cut” base. All were made from the same local coarse clay, except two where the clay was finer, softer and orangey beige in colour.

CATALOGUE OF IMPORTED SERIES Glazed pottery of attic origin or tradition (pl. 15-16) Red figure A 77 84.3588.4 pl. 15 Fragment of body of a large open vessel with almost vertical walls, probably a calyx krater. Diam. approx. 22 cm Fabric very fine, hard, orangey beige turning to beige on the surface. Gloss is hard, regular, shiny black in interior, slightly duller shading to brown on exterior. Decoration, scarcely legible because of small size of fragment, might represent a draped bust with arm extending from cloak: both theme and execution (hurried brush strokes, imprecise lines, total absence of relief ) evoke the series of “conversation scenes” which were so common, especially on the backs of kraters, from the end of the 5th century. Cf. KB II, no. 108 (skyphos), 113 (krater), Blondé 1985, no. 18 (before 350).

Black slipped vases A78 85.1135.1 fig. 6 and pl. 15 Complete miniature bowl. Diam. of rim 5.2; Diam. bottom 3.2; Ht. 2.5 Fabric very fine, very hard, orangey beige, very regular black gloss also covering the underside of the base, of good quality but distorted with whitish metallic sheen. Base flat concave, forming a slight dimple on interior. Flat-bottomed “salt cellars” of similar dimensions and profile found in the Athenian Agora from the end of the 5th century (Corbett 1949, nos. 69-70).

THE HELLENISTIC POTTERY FOUND IN AMATHUS HARBOUR

41

A79 84.3530.1 pl. 15 Base and foot of a cup, perhaps belonging to one of the two types, F 21 or F 22, close to examples dated to second and third quarters of the 4th century (Salamine, nos. 214, 230 and 323). Diam. foot 8.2; Ht. preserved 2.3 Fabric very fine, soft, powdery, beige, very eroded. Black gloss of excellent quality. Worn by erosion, decoration shows eight palmettes (with seven branches?) set in a circle and linked with foliage scrolls. A80 86.15.10.1 pl. 15 Bolsal (handles broken), type F 42. Diam. of rim 11.8; Diam. foot 8.5; Ht. 6.6 Fabric very fine, very soft, light pinky grey, very eroded. Slip is dull, flaking in areas, no trace of decoration. A81 86.14.25.1 pl. 15 Base and foot of bolsal, type F 42 (cf. Blondé 1985, no. 82). Diam. foot 9; Ht. preserved 2 Fabric fine, very hard, red beige, very resistant and shiny black gloss, underside of foot, purplish red (deliberate effect or from the kiln?) with guilloche line. A82.1 86.17.1.2 fig. 6 and pl. 15 Base and foot of a kantharos, type F 40. Diam. foot 5.2; Ht. preserved 2.5 Fabric very fine, quite hard, orangey pink; black gloss of good quality, thick, regular, matt. Four palmettes, set in a cross, in the middle of a guilloche circle. A82.2 85.1354.1 fig. 6 Rim of a kantharos? Diam. of rim 7; Diam. max. rim 8.5; Diam. min. preserved 6; Ht. preserved 3.5 Same fabric as A82.1, glaze slightly more shiny. Too eroded to be drawn, this fragment was probably part of kantharoid krateriskos and its folded rim would seem to associate it with an example (Salamine, no. 369) dated to the 4th century. A83 85.35.5 fig. 6 and pl. 16 Rim, wall and handle of a skyphos with thumb-grip (F 43 C). Diam. of rim 17; Length of thumb-grip 3.2; Ht. preserved 6.5; Ht. handle 3.8; Sections of the handle (pseudo-bifid) 1.5 / 0.9 Fabric very fine, soft, powdery, pinkish beige. Exterior slip completely erased by erosion, interior slip quite thick, flaking, dull brown. Thumb-grip curvy trapezium in shape. The form seems to be Hellenistic: it is not present in the Classical ceramic deposits of Kition, but many were found at Salamis (Salamine, nos. 725 to 761, all dated to the 3rd-2nd century). Nevertheless, there are indications in favour of a production from the very beginning of the Hellenistic period: skyphoi with thumb-grip are present in the Amathus “palace” in a layer where the material, essentially sub-Classical, appears homogeneous (Th. Petit, “Remarques sur la céramique ‘subclassique’ et hellénistique, à vernis noir et à engobe, du ‘palais’ d’Amathonte”, in NIEBOROW 1995, p. 277-298) and in the oldest Hellenistic levels of Kition (KB IV, no. 268, no. 364). Th. Petit (loc. cit.) and J.-F. Salles (KB IV, p. 192) both recall, quite pertinently, that the hemispherical body with vertical handles flattened on a level with the rim is to be found in the oldest “Hellenistic” deposits of the Athenian Agora studied by H. A. Thompson (TCHP, A 32); in addition, the relationship with the “Ionian” bowls from the sewers of Kition in the Classical period (KB II, nos. 121-124) can hardly

42

THE HELLENISTIC HARBOUR OF AMATHUS

be challenged. The smooth and what would appear to be perfectly hemispherical curve of the example from Amathus harbour could connect it to a form which appeared at Athens (in isolation), from the third quarter of the 4th century (Agora XII, no. 722), even though the fragility of the clay and the poor quality of the slip would not suggest pushing the date back much beyond the beginning of the 3rd century. A84 86.14.15.1 pl. 16 Fragment of plate rim (between F 116 and F 55 ?). Diam. of rim 14.8; Ht. preserved 1.8 Fabric very fine, hard, orangey beige, black gloss has held well, thick, regular, shiny. Rim, thickened inside and out, is horizontal, the curvature of the body very shallow. From the care applied to the manufacture, this example must be earlier than those of Salamis classified F 55 (nos. 27 to 35); the profile is not so different from that of a plate from the Athenian Agora (TCHP, B 5, p. 335, fig. 15 and p. 433, fig. 116) dated to the last years of the 4th century (TCHP, p. 330-332). A85 86.14.38.2 pl. 16 Rim of plate. Diam. of rim 20; Diam. min. preserved 14; Ht. preserved 2.5 Fabric very fine, hard, orangey pink, black glaze, hard, quite shiny, with slight metallic sheen. Carinated, thinned rim. A86 85.1313.1 pl. 16 Base, foot and beginning of body of fish plate. Diam. base 6.2; Ht. preserved 2 Fabric orangey pink, very soft, powdery, very eroded. Traces of red slip, deteriorated, in bottom of central hollow. A87 85.1206.20 pl. 16 Base of bowl. Diam. bottom 6.1; Diam. max. preserved 11.8; Ht. preserved 2.4 Fabric very hard, very fine, pink with grey clouds. Good black gloss, very regular and brilliant, covers interior and exterior of body and base. Wall very thin. A88 86.14.38.1 fig. 6 and pl. 16 Bowl with inset rim (F 21). Form complete (a third missing). Diam. of rim 11; Diam. max. 12.5; Ht. 4.5; Diam. foot 8; Ht. foot 0.9 Fabric fine, quite soft and powdery, orangey pink, surface beige. The slip, quite irregular, matt and brownish, was applied by immersion, including foot and sitting surface, leaving only the external base on which the drips were not wiped off. The slip seems thin, leaving the clay bare; and erosion has worn into half its thickness. A grey “cloud” has been revealed by this accident. On the part corresponding to the inside of the body, the slip is orangey beige. The thinness of the walls, the absence of decoration and the defective slip might suggest a later date for this vessel, but the foot marked with a ridge and the general form are still very close to examples dated to the 4th century (KB II, no. 20; Salamine, no. 273). The still “full” profile is an intermediary between two bowls from the Agora (TCHP, A 14 and A 20), both well dated to the beginning of the 3rd century. From the second quarter of the 3rd century, the profiles are more rectilinear (cf. Agora XII, nos. 826 to 832).

THE HELLENISTIC POTTERY FOUND IN AMATHUS HARBOUR

43

Ionian pottery (pl. 16-17) A89 85.1189.1 pl. 16 Small complete bowl. Diam. of rim 8.3; Diam. base 5; Ht. 3.3 Fabric very fine, soft, pinky beige. Decoration of alternate bands of diluted black and brown slip: exterior base black, except resting surface, exterior of foot diluted brown, diluted brown band on lower outer part of body, rest of the exterior surface worn by erosion. Interior decoration: small diluted brown central circle, then black slip. The slip is of quite good quality though in a poor state of preservation. Straight thickened rim, dimpled base, ring foot. A90 85.13.23.36 pl. 16 Form complete. Diam. of rim 15.4; Diam. base 6.3; Ht. 5.2 Fabric quite fine, quite soft, large sporadic inclusions of lime, uniform orangey beige colour. External surface, lighter beige, may have received a slip. Brown slip, quite dull, covers the upper inside part of the body until mid-height, emphasised by a concentric line of the same colour. Straight rim, angled inwards, false foot-ring, slightly concave underneath. A91 84.3540.2 pl. 16 Base and lower part missing. Diam. of rim 17.6; Diam. min. preserved 10.4; Ht. preserved 4.5 Fabric fine, quite hard, well smoothed, dotted with sporadic inclusions (some nodules of lime), general colour pinky beige. Erosion has lifted large flakes from the surface, indicating a tendency to flaking not seen on the structure of the clay at the fractures. Decoration of orange and brown bands and lines: an orange band beneath the rim underlined by an orange line, a blackish brown line across the top, and an orange band at mid-height on the exterior. Vertical rim, thickened and bevelled to the inside creating a throat. Quite a number of parallels from the “palace”: these objects associated with the series of Samian bevelled-rim bowls from Histria. The presence of Ionian vessels both at Kition (cf. KB II, nos. 355 to 359, KB IV, no. 292) and Amathus in contexts at least one century later than the decline of the Ionian workshops (traditionally towards 450) makes one think that these workshops survived longer than imagined, “but the history of these manufacturing centres is still to be written” (KB IV, p. 195). A92 84.3552.3 pl. 17 Rim of a cup. Diam. of rim 13.2; Diam. min. preserved 10; Ht. preserved 2.7 Fabric fine, comparable to the previous A91 though slightly more crumbly, pinky beige. Interior decoration: brown line across the rim, reserved line, thick orange line, wide brown band, thin reserved line, fine orange line. Straight rim slightly thickened. A93 85.1143.1 pl. 17 Fragmentary Ionian cup. Diam. of rim 12; Diam. min. preserved 5.9; Ht. preserved 6 Diam. at narrowing: 10.5; Section of the handle 0.6 Fabric very fine, very soft, homogeneous, grey-pinkish beige, irregular black slip with brownish sheen interior and exterior, applied with a brush all around (traces of fingers and brush); a quite irregular reserved band at the level of the handle. Thin wall, everted rim with thinned rim.

44

THE HELLENISTIC HARBOUR OF AMATHUS

A94 85.1348.1 pl. 17 Comparable vessel. Diam. of rim 12; Diam. min. preserved 4; Ht. preserved 4.5; Diam. at narrowing: 11.5 Fabric quite hard, very fine, pinkish with light grey core, with fine abundant temper and lots of coarse inclusions. Slip very dull and eroded, rust-coloured on inside and outside of rim, applied irregularly. Body less deep, convex vertical, rounded rim. A95 85.1138.2 pl. 17 Fragmentary cup. Diam. of rim 19; Diam. min. preserved 16.5; Ht. preserved 5.2; Diam. max. 19.8; Section of the handle 0.7 Fabric fine, hard, pink, surface cream. Diluted black slip on interior and exterior has deteriorated down to a light rust colour; interior more regular with only traces of brush: on exterior, the slip dribbled to the joins of the handle, where an irregular band is reserved. Wall thin, slight vertical rim forming barely thickened S. A96 85.1350.1 pl. 17 Fragment of a cup. Diam. of rim 11.2; Diam. min. preserved 10; Ht. preserved 3; Diam. max. 12; Section of the handle 0.6 Fabric fine and very soft, grey-pinkish beige. Black slip quite irregularly applied with brush, reddish sheen with numerous fingerprints: perhaps a reserved area beneath the handle (but the absence of slip here could be due to erosion, as is the case with other parts of the sherd). Inset rim without breaking the curve, rounded. These forms of cups are identified in the south-east and south-west necropoleis of Amathus as imports from Eastern Greece and are dated to the 6th century (cf. J.N. Coldstream, “The Greek Geometric and Archaic imports”, in Amathonte 1987, p. 30, pl. IX 26, pl. X 34 and 35, Lim. 566/1).

THE HELLENISTIC POTTERY FOUND IN AMATHUS HARBOUR

45

BIBLIOGRAPHY Agora XII B. A. Sparkes, L. Talcott, Black and plain pottery of the 6th, 5th and 4th centuries B.C., The Athenian Agora, Results of the Excavations conducted by the American School of Classical Studies at Athens, XII (1970). Amathonte 1987 V. Karageorghis, O. Picard, Chr. Tytgat (ed.), La nécropole d’Amathonte, tombes 113-367, II. Céramiques non chypriotes (1987). Ayios Philon J. Du Plat Taylor, “Excavations at Ayios Philon”, RDAC 1980, p. 152-216. BCH Suppl. XIII Recherches sur les amphores grecques, Actes du colloque international tenu à Athènes (10-12 septembre 1984), J.-Y. Empereur et Y. Garlan (éd.), (1986). Blondé 1985 F. Blondé, “Un remblai thasien du ive siècle avant notre ère. A. La céramique”, BCH 109 (1985), p. 289312. Corbett 1949 P. Corbett, “Attic pottery of the late fifth century from the Athenian Agora”, Hesperia 18 (1949), p. 298-351. Courtois 1979 L. Courtois, “Examen microscopique de la céramique et premières recherches”, in P. Aupert, “Rapport sur les travaux de la Mission de l’École Française à Amathonte en 1978”, BCH 103 (1979), p. 750-754. Idalion L.E. Stager, A. Walker, G.E. Wright, American Expedition to Idalion, Cyprus, Seasons of 1971 and 1972, Suppl. BASOR 18 (1974). KB II J.-Fr. Salles, Kition-Bamboula II, Les égouts de la ville classique, ADPF Mémoire 27 (1983). KB IV J.-Fr. Salles, Kition-Bamboula IV, Les niveaux hellénistiques (1993). NIEBOROW 1995 Hellenistic and Roman Pottery in the Eastern Mediterranean. Advances in Scientific Studies, The Second Workshop at Nieborow (1995). QEDEM 9 E. Stern, Excavations at Tel Mevorakh (1973-1976), Qedem 9 (1978). Salamine L. Jehasse, Salamine de Chypre, VIII. La céramique à vernis noir du rempart méridional (1978).

46

THE HELLENISTIC HARBOUR OF AMATHUS

Salles 1985 J.-Fr. Salles, “Cuvettes et ‘mortiers’ du Levant au 1er millénaire avant J.-C.”, in De l’Indus aux Balkans, Recueil à la mémoire de Jean Deshayes (1985), p. 199-212. Samaria-Sebaste J. W. Crowfoot, G. M. Crowfoot, K. M. Kenyon, Samaria-Sebaste. Reports of the work of the Joint Expedition in 1931-1933, and of the British Expedition in 1935, III, The objects from Samaria (1957). SCE IV,2 E. Gjerstad, The Swedish Cyprus Expedition, IV,2. The Cypro-Geometric, Cypro-Archaic and Cypro-Classical periods (1948). SCE IV,3 O. Vessberg, A. Westholm, The Swedish Cyprus Expedition, IV,3. The Hellenistic and Roman periods in Cyprus (1956). Stern 1982 E. Stern, Material Culture of the land of the Bible in the Persian Period (538-332) (1982). TCHP H.A. Thompson, ‘Two centuries of Hellenistic pottery”, Hesperia 3 (1934), p. 311-477. Yon 1981 M. Yon (ed.), Dictionnaire illustré multilingue de la céramique du Proche Orient ancien (1981).

THE HELLENISTIC POTTERY FOUND IN AMATHUS HARBOUR

47

A1

A2.1

A2.2

A2.3

A2.4

0

Plate 1 — Palmiped bowls A1 to A2.4. Scale 1:2. Drawings S. Hartmann, EFA Archives

5 cm

48

THE HELLENISTIC HARBOUR OF AMATHUS

A2.5

A3

A4

A5

A6

0

Plate 2 — Palmiped bowls A2.5 to A6. Scale 1:2. Drawings S. Hartmann, EFA Archives

5 cm

THE HELLENISTIC POTTERY FOUND IN AMATHUS HARBOUR

49

A7

Α8

Α9.1

Α9.2

Α10

A11

0

Plate 3 — Palmiped bowls A7 to A11. Scale 1:2. Drawings S. Hartmann, EFA Archives

5 cm

50

THE HELLENISTIC HARBOUR OF AMATHUS

A12

A13

A14

A15

A16

A17

0

A18

Plate 4 — Palmiped bowls A12 to A18. Scale 1:2. Drawings S. Hartmann, EFA Archives

5 cm

THE HELLENISTIC POTTERY FOUND IN AMATHUS HARBOUR

51

A19

A20.1

A21.1

A21.2

A22.1 0

Plate 5 — Bases of palmiped bowls A19 to A22.1. Scale 1:2. Drawings S. Hartmann, EFA Archives

5 cm

52

THE HELLENISTIC HARBOUR OF AMATHUS

A23

A24.1

A24.2

A25.1

A25.2 0

5 cm

Plate 6 — Bases of palmiped bowls A23 to A25.2. Scale 1:2. Drawings S. Hartmann, EFA Archives

THE HELLENISTIC POTTERY FOUND IN AMATHUS HARBOUR

53

A25.3

A26.1

A26.2

A27

A28

0

5 cm

Plate 7 — Bases of palmiped bowls A25.3 to A27. Flat-bottomed bowl A28. Scale 1:2. Drawings S. Hartmann, EFA Archives

54

THE HELLENISTIC HARBOUR OF AMATHUS

A29

A30

A31

0

Plate 8 — Flat-bottomed bowls A29 to A31.1. Scale 1:2. Drawings S. Hartmann, EFA Archives

5 cm

THE HELLENISTIC POTTERY FOUND IN AMATHUS HARBOUR

55

0

5 cm

A32

A33

A34.2

A35

A36

A37

0

5 cm

Plate 9 — Cooking pot A32. Scale 1:3. Fine local ware: bowls A33 to A37. Scale 1:2. Drawings S. Hartmann, EFA Archives

56

THE HELLENISTIC HARBOUR OF AMATHUS

A38

A39

A40

A41

A42

A43

0

Plate 10 — Coarse local ware: bowls A38 to A43. Scale 1:2. Drawings S. Hartmann, EFA Archives

5 cm

THE HELLENISTIC POTTERY FOUND IN AMATHUS HARBOUR

A44

57

A45

A47.2

A46

A49

A51

A48

A50

A52

A54 A53

0

5 cm

Plate 11 — Coarse local ware: bowls A44 to A54. Scale 1:2. Drawings S. Hartmann, EFA Archives

58

THE HELLENISTIC HARBOUR OF AMATHUS

A55.1

A56.1

A56.2

A58

A57

0

A59

5 cm

A60 0

5 cm

Plate 12 — Coarse local ware: saucers A55.1 to A58. Scale 1:2. Jugs A59 and A60 Scale 1:3. Drawings S. Hartmann, EFA Archives

THE HELLENISTIC POTTERY FOUND IN AMATHUS HARBOUR

A61

A62

A63

A64

A65

A66

A67

A68

A69

A70

59

0

5 cm

Plate 13 — Coarse local ware: jugs A61 to A70. Scale 1:3. Drawings S. Hartmann, EFA Archives

60

THE HELLENISTIC HARBOUR OF AMATHUS

A72.2

A71

A72.1

A73.2

A72.3

A73.1

A73.3

A73.4 0

5 cm

Plate 14 — Coarse local ware: juglets A71 to A73.4. Scale 1:2. Drawings S. Hartmann, EFA Archives

THE HELLENISTIC POTTERY FOUND IN AMATHUS HARBOUR

61

A75

A74

A77

A76.2

A79

A78

A80

A81

A82.1

0

5 cm

Plate 15 — Lamps A74 to A76.2; glazed vases of Attic tradition A77 to A82.1. Scale 1:2. Drawings S. Hartmann, EFA Archives

62

THE HELLENISTIC HARBOUR OF AMATHUS

A83

A86

A84

A85

A87

A88

A89

A90

A91

0

5 cm

Plate 16 — Glazed vases of Attic tradition A83 to A88; bowls and Ionian cups A89 to A91. Scale 1:2. Drawings S. Hartmann, EFA Archives

THE HELLENISTIC POTTERY FOUND IN AMATHUS HARBOUR

63

A92

A93

A94

A95

A96 0

Plate 17 — Bowls and Ionian cups A92 to A96. Scale 1:2. Drawings S. Hartmann, EFA Archives

5 cm

64

THE HELLENISTIC HARBOUR OF AMATHUS

Cat. no.

Inv. no.

Cat. no.

Inv. no.

Cat. no. Inv. no.

A1

85.1116.1

A29

85.242.2+246.5+288.1

A65

85.118.1

A2.1

85.1085.3

A30

85.1110.1

A66

84.3583.2

A2.2

85.1085.5

A31

86.13.46.1

A67

84.3515.1

A2.3

85.1341.50

A32

86.14.56.2

A68

84.3580.20

A2.4

85.1355.6

A33

85.1075.1

A69

85.57.4

A2.5

85.1363.2

A34.1

86.19.12.3

A70

85.73.2

A3

85.1361.6

A34.2

85.94.1

A71

85.288.2

A4

85.1332.10

A35

85.1081.1

A72.1

85.106.3

A5

85.83.1

A36

86.14.50.2

A72.2

84.3580.17

A6

85.1035.1+1060.1+1085.1

A37

85.106.1

A72.3

85.242.5

A7

84.3531.1

A38

84.3529.33

A73.1

86.13.48.1

A8

84.3537.1+3551.2

A39

85.1350.2

A73.2

85.1081.4

A9.1

84.3550.2

A40

85.1348.2

A73.3

86.13.17.1

A9.2

84.3550.3

A41

84.3542.1

A73.4

86.13.49.1

A10

84.3556.1+3557.2

A42

85.265.6

A74

84.3529.16

A11

84.3582.16

A43

85.55.3

A75

85.97.1

A12

84.3597.2

A44

85.57.1

A76.1

86.2.2.4

A13

85.1064.3

A45

85.1162.1

A76.2

84.3582.3

A14

85.1280.1

A46

85.1321.6

A77

84.3588.4

A15

85.1283.2

A47.1

86.19.9.1

A78

85.1135.1

A16

85.1314.5

A47.2

85.1358.2

A79

84.3530.1

A17

85.1349.8

A48

85.1129.2

A80

86.15.10.1

A18

85.1355.7

A49

85.1137.1

A81

86.14.25.1

A19

84.3551.6

A50

84.3529.8

A82.1

86.17.1.2

A20.1

84.3563.4

A51

85.1300.7

A82.2

85.1354.1

A20.2

85.1033.10

A52

86.14.48.1

A83

85.35.5

A21.1

84.3583.1

A53

84.3596.1

A84

86.14.15.1

A21.2

84.3576.7

A54

84.3544.2

A85

86.14.38.2

A22.1

85.1033.8

A55.1

85.196.2

A86

85.1313.1

A22.2

84.3529.38

A55.2

85.1110.2

A87

85.1206.20

A23

85.1033.9

A56.1

85.1120.1

A88

86.14.38.1

A24.1

85.1138.17

A56.2

85.1153.1

A89

85.1189.1

A24.2

85.1270.1

A57

85.1105.1

A90

85.13.23.36

A25.1

85.1265.7

A58

84.3535.4

A91

84.3540.2

A25.2

85.1138.18

84.3557.4+3569.1+3578.9

A92

84.3522.3

A25.3

85.1138.19

+3580.6+3593.3

A93

85.1143.1

A26.1

85.1364.1

A60

84.3558.3

A94

85.1348.1

A26.2

85.1300.4

A61

85.186.2

A95

85.1138.2

A26.3

84.3542.6

A62

84.3529.30

A96

85.1350.1

A27

86.14.84.3

A63

84.3529.37

A28

85.217.1+85.263.2

A64

84.3581.6

A59

Concordance table 1 — Cat. no. / excavation inv. no.

THE HELLENISTIC POTTERY FOUND IN AMATHUS HARBOUR

65

Inv. no.

Cat. no.

Inv. no.

Cat. no.

Inv. no.

Cat. no.

84.3515.1

A67

85.83.1

A5

85.1270.1

A24.2

84.3522.3

A92

85.94.1

A34.2

85.1280.1

A14

84.3529.8

A50

85.97.1

A75

85.1283.2

A15

84.3529.16

A74

85.106.1

A37

85.1300.4

A26.2

84.3529.30

A62

85.106.3

A72.1

85.1300.7

A51

84.3529.33

A38

85.118.1

A65

85.1313.1

A86

84.3529.37

A63

85.186.2

A61

85.1314.5

A16

84.3529.38

A22.2

85.196.2

A55.1

85.1321.6

A46

84.3530.1

A79

85.217.1+85.263.2

A28

85.1332.10

A4

84.3531.1

A7

85.242.2+246.5+288.1

A29

85.1341.50

A2.3

84.3535.4

A58

85.242.5

A72.3

85.1348.1

A94

84.3537.1+3551.2

A8

85.265.6

A42

85.1348.2

A40

84.3540.2

A91

85.288.2

A71

85.1349.8

A17

84.3542.1

A41

85.1033.10

A20.2

85.1350.1

A96

84.3542.6

A26.3

85.1033.8

A22.1

85.1350.2

A39

84.3544.2

A54

85.1033.9

A23

85.1354.1

A82.2

84.3550.2

A9.1

85.1035.1+1060.1+1085.1

A6

85.1355.6

A2.4

84.3550.3

A9.2

85.1064.3

A13

85.1355.7

A18

84.3551.6

A19

85.1075.1

A33

85.1358.2

A47.2

84.3556.1+3557.2

A10

85.1081.1

A35

85.1361.6

A3

84.3557.4+3569.1+3578.9

A59

85.1081.4

A73.2

85.1363.2

A2.5

85.1085.3

A2.1

85.1364.1

A26.1

84.3558.3

A60

85.1085.5

A2.2

86.2.2.4

A76.1

84.3563.4

A20.1

85.1110.1

A30

86.13.17.1

A.73.3

84.3576.7

A21.2

85.1110.2

A55.2

86.13.46.1

A31

84.3580.17

A72.2

85.1116.1

A1

86.13.48.1

A73.1

84.3580.20

A68

85.1120.1

A56.1

86.13.49.1

A73.4

84.3581.6

A64

85.1129.2

A48

86.14.15.1

A84

84.3582.3

A76.2

85.1135.1

A78

86.14.25.1

A81

84.3582.16

A11

85.1137.1

A49

86.14.38.1

A88

84.3583.1

A21.1

85.1138.2

A95

86.14.38.2

A85

84.3583.2

A66

85.1138.17

A24.1

86.14.48.1

A52

84.3588.4

A77

85.1138.18

A25.2

86.14.50.2

A36

84.3596.1

A53

85.1138.19

A25.3

86.14.56.2

A32

84.3597.2

A12

85.1143.1

A93

86.14.84.3

A27

85.13.23.36

A90

85.1153.1

A56.2

86.15.10.1

A80

85.35.5

A83

85.1162.1

A45

86.17.1.2

A82.1

85.55.3

A43

85.1189.1

A89

86.19.12.3

A34.1

85.57.1

A44

85.1105.1

A57

86.19.9.1

A47.1

85.57.4

A69

85.1206.20

A87

85.73.2

A70

85.1265.7

A25.1

3580.6 + 3593.3

Concordance table 2 — Excavation inv. no. / cat. no.

Some remarks concerning the “Persian bowls” found in Amathus harbour Cécile Harlaut

From the 1980s until today, the receptacles that are commonly grouped under the name of “mortars”, also known as “cuvettes” in French archaeological literature or “Persian bowls” in the English, and which Fr. Alabe prefers to call “bowls with a flared ring foot” have, along with their flat-bottomed counterparts, been the subject of many studies. This is as much because these two types of dish were part of a widespread trade that touched all of the eastern Mediterranean from the 8th-7th centuries bc, as it is because of the role they are presumed to have fulfilled, which has been a topic of fruitful studies in the written sources on ancient eating and culinary habits. Following the many discoveries of such objects made on archaeological sites in Palestine1, which demonstrated clear similarities with the Cypriot material, J.-Fr. Salles examined the chronology and provenance of these objects on Cyprus as part of the publication of the Classical and Hellenistic material of Kition2, but also within studies that were more specifically dedicated to their function3. From a typological point of view, he considered this ring-based receptacle (his Type B, which is also the “bowl with a flared ring foot” described by Alabe) as a product deriving from a flat-bottom tronconic vase (his Type A) that is well attested on Cyprus, in Lower Egypt and in the Levant. However, while Type B remained essentially limited to this eastern part of the Mediterranean, Type A, on the other hand, experienced a much wider distribution. Indeed, within the studies undertaken by A. Villing on material from Naucratis, she observed that Type A, which she calls a Cypro-Phoenician type, is also well attested on several sites of the Ionian coast, as well as at Miletus where it appears to have been locally imitated4. And it was through the intermediary of Corinth, which had close trading contacts with Eastern Greece in the Archaic era, that these objects would have arrived in continental Greece5. Corinth was inspired by these pieces to give birth to its own production, created with “tile fabric”, and would thereafter distribute both its products and the very morphological model throughout the rest of the Greek world and even beyond into the West (Punic Sardinia, Etruria, Spain etc.) in the Classical, Hellenistic and Roman periods.

1.

Stern 1982.

2.

Salles 1983 and 1993.

3.

Salles 1985, 1991 and 1994.

4.

Villing 2006, p. 37-38, Spataro, Villing 2009, p. 95.

5.

Pemberton, Villing 2010.

68

THE HELLENISTIC HARBOUR OF AMATHUS

Nonetheless, the question regarding the production site of these Archaic and Classic receptacles – and particularly that of the “bowl with a flared ring foot” – has never been completely answered, although there are strong presumptions, based mostly on archaeometric analyses6 that would propose Cyprus as one of the main production centres. Thus, one can understand the interest in publishing Alabe’s study, since she provides tangible and illustrated proof of the existence of a production workshop attested by its rejects that was most probably located close to the harbour of Amathus. Actually, Salles had already mentioned the work of Alabe in the publication of Hellenistic material from Kition7, and in a relatively detailed fashion as regards the description of the workshop and the presence of misfired pieces. Thus, it is surprising that this information has hardly had any effect on more recent publications. For example, Zukerman and Ben-Shlomo8 makes no mention; Villing does report Salles’ remarks in her study of the mortars of Naucratis but apparently without understanding that the backfill of the harbour comes from workshop refuse, since she indicates that bowls of Amathus are from a domestic context9, and she does not mention the data in her archaeometric study of the mortars of the eastern Mediterranean10. The homogeneous features of the harbour fill and the association of Attic pottery allowed Alabe to date the ensemble reasonably precisely to the end of the 4th century or perhaps the very beginning of the 3rd century bc. This is rarely possible when these receptacles are considered in isolation because they change very little and are, as a consequence, difficult to date11. Alabe’s study has also provided useful precision regarding this point. But, above all, Alabe makes very interesting remarks as regards the function of this type of bowl. In her study of the material from Amathus harbour she has benefited from the direct experience of her father’s skill as a potter and from other potter and ceramicist colleagues, and this expresses itself in her descriptions and technical observations of these bowls. The fact that these bowls were workshop rejects quite clearly reveals what was an inherent weakness of the object. Without getting into a detailed rehearsal of the various interpretations of these receptacles’ function, one can simply recall that the most widespread hypothesis, which has them as mortars, that is, bowls for crushing or grinding, had also been doubted by Salles, and for several reasons. Aside from the two major arguments, the lack of stability and the fragility of the object – and he did not miss Alabe’s observations mentioned above12 – he highlighted the lack of pestles, which would have been associated with such vases, as well as the absence of signs of wear on the surfaces that would have resulted from the action of grinding and crushing. He also noted the diversity of archaeological contexts in which these objects have been found: farms in Palestine, port sites in the Levant, tombs on Cyprus etc. In order to explain such a wide spread, which goes beyond the purely domestic, he proposed that these bowls may have been linked to agricultural and/or commercial activities and he saw them as measures for grain, flour or semolina13. This interpretation, however, did not convince J. Sapin who had observed capacity variations in the bowls found at Tell Keisan that seemed incompatible with a measuring vase function. He preferred to see them as an object used in food preparation involving groats14. 6.

Spataro, Villing 2009, Zukerman 2011.

7.

Salles 1993, p. 237.

8.

Zukerman, Ben-Shlomo 2011.

9.

Villing 2006, p. 37.

10.

Spataro, Villing 2009.

11.

See, for example, the two Persian levels at Tell el-Herr, Egypt, in Defernez 2001, p. 402.

12.

Salles 1993, p. 238.

13.

Salles 1985.

14.

Sapin 1998, p. 113.

SOME REMARKS CONCERNING THE “PERSIAN BOWLS” FOUND IN AMATHUS HARBOUR

69

Due to a lack of other research and a satisfactory consensus, the different interpretations of the use of these receptacles have regularly cropped up in various publications15. Villing, who has given lots of attention to this category of object over the last ten years, appears firm in her wish to emphasise the function as a mortar on the basis of distinct traces of abrasion that she herself observed on the material of Naucratis and on those mentioned from other finds in Egyptian sites16. These traces of abrasion contrast with the observations previously made by Salles. However, regarding the Naucratis material, these marks were only noted on Type A receptacles (that is, flat bottomed, which are indeed more solid and more stable), as well as in Archaic contexts of Miletus17. This might lead one to separate the two types, though Salles considers them to be inseparable on the basis of the similarity in the treatment of the walls, the dimensions, and especially the manufacturing technique. Nevertheless, it might perhaps be more apt to attribute distinct functions to these two series, A and B. Alabe’s study has, in any case, clearly demonstrated that one can no longer consider Type B as mortars. These technical considerations come on top of the doubts already expressed by Salles as to the suitability of directly transposing interpretations of the usage of Greek mortars onto the Type A and B receptacles, these latter not having always been found in the same contexts of use18. As a result, it appears difficult to accept unreservedly Villing’s interpretation, which would place Cypro-Phoenician receptacles of Types A and B, and the Greek type mortars of Asia Minor, of Greece and of the Italian peninsula into a single corpus by assigning them a common function. The very distribution of the Type B vases in Egypt might perhaps provide an extra indication that they did not fulfil the function of mortars, and thus it is worthwhile to come back to this, even if it is only to propose a simple working theory. Apart from Tell el-Herr in northern Sinai, where this form is well attested, the only occurrences mentioned by Defernez in comparison with her material are located in the eastern Delta, at Tell el-Maskhuta and Tanis19. While writing these few notes, I have only managed an extremely swift glance through the bibliography, but for the Delta (eastern, that is) it appears to me that only the site of Thmuis/Tell Timai has recently provided additional evidence of the presence of this type of bowl20. As regards the western Delta, what seems to me to be an important point, but about which Villing provides no comment, is the apparent absence of Type B receptacles in the material of Naucratis, both for the Saite and Persian periods, even though trade relations between Naucratis and the rest of the Mediterranean continued in the 5th century bc (Cypriot figurines of the Classical period are attested, for example: nonetheless, the analysis and interpretation of archaeological material from Petrie’s excavations require great caution). On the other hand, some imported Corinthian mortars of the Classical period have been identified there. Apparently there is no trace of these objects has been found on the sites of Middle and Upper Egypt. The only site along the length of the Mediterranean coastline where Type B vases are identified seems to be that of Heraklion21. Heraklion was the main port of Egypt on the Mediterranean before the creation of Alexandria and thus is indeed the kind of place where one might expect to find them.

15.

For example, Gantès 2002, Greene, Lawall, Polzer 2008: measuring vase; Zukerman, Ben-Shlomo 2011: mortar.

16.

Villing 2006, Spataro, Villing 2009.

17.

Villing 2006, p. 38, and Spataro, Villing 2009.

18.

Salles 1993, p. 239.

19.

Defernez 2001, p. 403 and 410.

20.

Hudson 2016, p. 75 and fig. 2.A, p. 96; other “mortars of the Persian period” are mentioned on page 83 but are not illustrated.

21.

Grataloup 2015, p. 151, and fig.7.11.9 p. 153, and Grataloup 2006, p. 228, no. 394, where the same object is dated to between the beginning of the 5th century and the beginning of the 4th century bc without any greater precision.

70

THE HELLENISTIC HARBOUR OF AMATHUS

In contrast, however, no fragments of this type of bowl have been identified among the archaeological material of the excavations conducted in the centre of Alexandria by the CEAlex. The ceramic material in the oldest levels of the capital, which are datable to the last quarter of the 4th century bc, shows that the first Alexandrians still had to obtain part of their domestic ware from outside of Egypt. Cyprus seems understandably to have been one of the main suppliers at this period22, just around the time, more or less, when the Amathus workshop was active. Nevertheless, the only two fragments of mortars found in the ancient contexts of the capital are imports of a Greek type (Cricket Ground site, CEAlex excavations, unpublished material). Moreover, there is no any trace of Type B receptacles in the contexts of Nelson’s Island, even though it sits just opposite Heraklion in Abukir Bay. The material from this colony, established at the beginning of the 3rd century bc, illustrates the beginnings of local pottery production in the Alexandria region23, and where the mortar was one of the standard pieces of household equipment, the varied ware testifies to borrowing from the repertoire of the end of the Pharaonic era for obvious practical reasons. The first settlers adopted small storage jars of local type. It could have been the same for Type B receptacles, if they had been locally available and if they had really performed the function of a mortar. But the type of mortar in use within the colony of Nelson’s Island is of an exclusively Greek model, comparable to that known from Athens and Corinth of the same period, and of exclusively local manufacture. As for the more ancient terraced levels, on which the settlement was built and in which some fragments of torpedo amphorae have been attested, they have provided no evidence of these bowls. Therefore, it appears, given the present state of documentation, that Type A, the only one to have truly been used as a mortar in Egypt, is noticeably distributed in the eastern part of the Delta and in northern Sinai, as well as in Naucratis and Heraklion, with an additional few examples in Heliopolis, Gourna and Karnak. On the other hand, the presence of the Type B receptacle on sites of Egypt from the Persian period onwards does not seem to be as common as Villing writes24. Rather, it appears restricted to a few rare sites of the eastern Delta and northern Sinai, and thus solely in the regions with the closest cultural and trading contacts with the Levant. At Naucratis, the inhabitants seem to have preferred importing Greek type mortars from Corinth, as soon as these products were available on a wide market, and the situation was probably not so different thereafter for the first inhabitants of the Alexandria region, at a period when the Amathus workshop was active.

22.

Harlaut 2018.

23.

Harlaut 2018.

24.

Villing 2006, p. 37.

SOME REMARKS CONCERNING THE “PERSIAN BOWLS” FOUND IN AMATHUS HARBOUR

71

BIBLIOGRAPHY Defernez 2001 C. Defernez, “La céramique d’époque perse à Tell el-Herr”, CRIPEL Supplément 5 (2001), p. 402-411. Gantès 2002 L.-F. Gantès, “Note sur les cuvettes ou mortiers du Levant trouvés à Marseille ou en Provence”, Cahiers du Centre d’Études Chypriotes 32 (2002), p. 387-396. Grataloup 2006 C. Grataloup, “La céramique: témoin de la vie quotidienne dans la région canopique”, in Trésors engloutis d’Egypte, catalogue of the exhibition held in the Grand Palais, December 2006-March 2007, p. 220-225, and p. 228, no. 394. Grataloup 2015 C. Grataloup, “Thonis-Herakleion Pottery of the Late Period: Tradition and Influences”, in D. Robinson and F. Goddio (eds.), Thonis-Herakleion in Context, OCMA Monographs 8 (2015), p. 137-160. Greene, Lawall and Polzer 2008 E.S. Greene, M.L. Lawall and M.E. Polzer, “Inconspicuous Consumption: The Sixth-Century B.C.E. Shipwreck at Pabuç Burnu, Turkey”, AJA 112 (2008), p. 685-711. Harlaut 2018 C. Harlaut, “Aux origines d’Alexandrie et de sa production céramique – Céramiques de contextes hellénistiques anciens, provenant d’Alexandrie, de Nelson Island (région de Canope) et de Plinthine (chôra occidentale): 331 – c.250 av. J.-C.”, in C. Harlaut, J.W. Hayes (ed.), Pottery in Hellenistic Alexandria, Études Alexandrines, 45 (2018), p. 11-159. Hudson 2016 N. Hudson, “Late Persian and Early Hellenistic Pottery at Tell Timai”, Bulletin de Liaison de la Céramique Égyptienne 26 (2016), p. 75-108. Pemberton, Villing 2010 E. Pemberton, A. Villing, “Mortaria from Ancient Corinth: Form and Function”, Hesperia 79 (2010), p. 555–638. Salles 1983 J.F. Salles, Kition-Bamboula II, Les égouts de la ville classique, ADPF Mémoire 27 (1983). Salles 1985 J.-F. Salles, “Cuvettes et mortiers du Levant au 1er millénaire av. J.-C.”, in De l’Indus aux Balkans, Recueil à la mémoire de Jean Deshayes (1985), p. 199-212. Salles 1993 J.-F. Salles, Kition-Bamboula IV, Les niveaux hellénistiques (1993).

72

THE HELLENISTIC HARBOUR OF AMATHUS

Salles 1994 J.-F. Salles, “Du blé, de l’huile et du vin… (notes sur les échanges commerciaux en Méditerranée orientale vers le milieu du Ier millénaire av. J.-C.)”, in H. Sancisi-Weerdenburg, A. Kuhrt, Achaemenid History VIII. Continuity and Change (1994), p. 191-215. Sapin 1998 J. Sapin, “Mortaria. Un lot inédit de Tell Keisan. Essai d’interprétation fonctionnelle”, Transeuphratène 16 (1998), p. 87-120. Spataro, Villing 2009 M. Spataro, A. Villing, “Scientific Investigation of Pottery Grinding Bowls from the Archaic and Classical Eastern Mediterranean”, The British Museum Technical Research Bulletin 3 (2009). Stern 1982 E. Stern, Material Culture of the Land of the Bible in the Persian Period, 538-332 BC (1982). Villing 2006 A. Villing, “ ‘Drab Bowls’ for Apollo: The Mortaria of Naukratis and Exchange in the Archaic Eastern Mediterranean”, in A. Villing, U. Schlotzhauer, Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt. Studies on Greek Pottery and Exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean, British Museum Research Publication 162, London (2006), p. 31-46. Zukerman, Ben-Schlomo 2011 A. Zukerman, D. Ben-Schlomo, “Mortaria as a Foreign Element in the Material Culture of the Southern Levant during the 8th-7th centuries bc”, Palestine Exploration Quarterly 143/2 (2011), p. 87-105.

The Hellenistic amphorae found in Amathus harbour Jean-Yves Empereur

The sondages conducted along the moles produced thousands of amphora fragments: roughly 12,000 in total though mostly body shards, badly deteriorated with no obvious form and often eroded by the long time spent in a marine environment. Unlike the pottery within the wells, where we were able to restore and reconstitute a certain number of amphorae1, in this case very few fragments retain an identifiable shape. The sole clue is the fabric itself and this allows one to recognise Aegean clay and to separate it from Cypriot clay within the limits of our present knowledge. Few Classical and Hellenistic amphorae manufactured on the island have been published to date and, until A. Marangou’s examination of the amphorae of Amathus’ palace appears, the best source remained the publications by the Swedish Cyprus Expedition, J. Deshayes’ study of the necropolis of Ktima2 and the recent collective book published (2013) by M.L. Lawall and John Lund3. Given the state of our documentation, it is difficult to analyse the amphora material from the harbour sondages. Nevertheless, since all the shards are held in the storehouse of the French mission of Amathus and in Limassol Museum, it will be possible in the future to resume the study, applying archaeometric techniques such as chemical and petrographic analyses, in order to establish a more accurate typology of these amphorae. For the moment one can only say, as regards the innumerable amphora body fragments, that it appears that Cypriot sherds are more widely represented in the harbour sondages, as opposed to imports coming principally from the south-east Aegean. I shall confine myself here to presenting the few preserved amphora forms: Cypriot amphorae of two types and amphorae of Aegean provenance, called “proto-Rhodian”. B1 Sondage 19 86.19.12.10 fig. 1 Ht. circa 18.2. Amathus clay, beige with black inclusions 10YR8/1 Fragment of a basket handle amphora in light-coloured clay of Amathus, variant b, from reductive oxidising firing. Sixteen examples of handles belonging to same type: 1.

See infra, p. 181.

2.

J. Deshayes, La Nécropole de Ktima (1963).

3.

M.L. Lawall, J. Lund (ed.), The Transport Amphorae and Trade of Cyprus (2013).

74

THE HELLENISTIC HARBOUR OF AMATHUS

Sondage 1-3: 85.265.2 and 4; 85.281.1; Sondage 4: 85.1030.1; Sondage 5: 85.1073.9; Sondage 7: 85.1291.1; Sondage 8: 85.1338.1; 85.1844.4; 85.1348.3 and 4; 85.1364.2; 85.1366.1; 85.1370.8; 85.1374.1 and 2; Sondage 16: 86.16.10.1; 86.16.17.11; The topographic distribution covers the entirety of the harbour basin: Nine shards along the West Mole (Sondage 8); three along South Mole (Sondages 4, 5, 7) and six on the two sides of the harbour entrance (Sondages 1-3, 16 and 19). The number of handles from basket-handle amphorae, as well as body fragments, show that these are not just residuals. This local manufacture is clearly still alive and well at the end of the 4th century bc. The disappearance of this type has for long been dated around 350 bc4, but recent studies have shown that it was still being made into the 3rd century bc5 and even, presumably, the 2ndcentury6. As regards Amathus, the excavation of the harbour demonstrates that production remained active at the beginning of the Hellenistic period. As well as these basket-handle amphorae, a type that we can qualify as Cypriot even if they were thereafter imitated elsewhere, at least in the Levant and in Egypt, other amphorae of Greek type were also found in Amathus harbour. B2 Sondage 6 85.1207.2 fig. 1 Neck with two handles: preserved Ht. 20.5; int. diam. of mouth 8.3 to 8.7; ext. diam. 11 to 11.7. Clay beige to grey with numerous inclusions of mica, as well as grains of chalk. Triangular lip, marked with one groove. Strap handles with thumbprint on lower join; mouth oval but this time the larger diameter is in line with the handles. Traces of resin inside. B3 AM3268 Sondage 19 84.3545.1 fig. 1 Neck with two handles: preserved Ht. 27; int. diam. of mouth 8.3 to 9.8; ext. diam. 12.5 to 13.4. Clay anthracite grey, probably from accidental second firing or from firing mode no. 2. Flared lip with two grooves below; a groove at mid-neck; oval handles almost strap shaped. Note the flattened mouth, distinctly oval from upper join of the handles. Fingerprint at the base of the handles. Traces of resin inside. B4 Sondage 19 col 86.19.12.9 fig. 1 Neck with one handle: preserved Ht. 13.7; int. diam. of mouth 8,3 to 8,7; ext. diam. 11,1 to 11,7. Clay light coloured, pink to beige on surface, pink in section, 2.5YR6/8 Triangular lip, marked with one groove. Strap handle with thumbprint at base. It resembles previous example but with a shorter neck. Another example: Sondage 8

85.1341.4

B2 to B4 are local amphorae. See parallels in O. Vessberg, A. Westholm, The Hellenistic and Roman Period in Cyprus, The Swedish Cyprus Expedition, vol. IV, part 3, Stockholm/Lund, 1956, p. 62 and 4 amphorae,

4.

J.-Fr. Salles, in J. Briend and J.B. Humbert, Tell Keisan (1971-1976) (1980), p.143-146.

5.

A. Göransson, “Cypriot Basket-handle Amphorae in Hellenistic Cyrenaica”, in M.L. Lawall, J. Lund (ed.), The Transport Amphorae and Trade of Cyprus (2013), p. 48 with amphorae of the 3rd bc.

6.

A forthcoming study by E. Alkaç will present examples from the acropolis of Olba produced at the end of the 2nd century bc.

THE HELLENISTIC AMPHORAE FOUND IN AMATHUS HARBOUR

75

B1

B2

B3

B4 0

5 cm

Fig. 1. — Hellenistic amphorae. Local production: B1 to B4. Scale 1:4. Drawings Cl. Vasitsek (B1, B2, B4) and S. Hartmann (B3)

76

THE HELLENISTIC HARBOUR OF AMATHUS

B5

B6

0

5 cm

Fig. 2 — Hellenistic amphorae. Imported: B5 and B6. Scale 1:4. Drawing Cl. Vasitsek, photos J-Y. Empereur, EFA archives.

fig. 25, 10 à 13; amphorae known at Ktima7 and also Marion, and called “Aegeanising” by M.L. Lawal8, dated to the end of the 4th century bc. They are scarcely found outside of Cyprus, with a few examples attested in Alexandria9.

7.

J. Deshayes, La Nécropole de Ktima (1963), p.173-179, pl. 20 and LXV-LXVI. The closest parallel is on pl. LXV, no. 10.

8.

M.L. Lawall, “Two Amphorae from the Swedish Cyprus Expedition in the National Museum of Denmark: Late Archaic Through Late Classical Cypriot Trade”, in M.L. Lawall, J. Lund (ed.), The Transport Amphorae and Trade of Cyprus (2013), p. 54-55.

9.

G. Cankardeş-Şenol, A.K. Şenol, “Preliminary Remarks on Cypriot Amphorae and Stamps from Alexandria”, in ibidem, p. 64-66.

THE HELLENISTIC AMPHORAE FOUND IN AMATHUS HARBOUR

77

B5 Sondage 14 86.14.56.1 fig. 2 Neck with two handles: preserved ht. 23.5; int. diam. of mouth 9.5; ext. diam. 14.5. Clay light red with numerous dots of black temper and chalk on surface and in section; many bubbles inside. Oval lip of the early tradition. Strap handle with fingerprints at base. The amphora looks like an Archaic model, but this does not exclude a later date. No traces of resin. Unknown origin. B6 AM3268 Sondage 19 86.19.12.7 fig. 2 Ht. 28; int. diam. of mouth 8.5; ext. diam. 15. Reddish yellow 8/5YR7/4, section reddish yellow 7/5YR7/8 Neck with one handle: preserved stub of other handle. Mushroom lip. Clay beige to pink on surface and pinky-orange in section, fine mica temper and small black grains. Mushroom-shaped lip and neck slightly swollen at upper join of the handles. Wide strong, oval-sectioned handles. Traces of resin inside. Excellent example of a proto-Rhodian amphora, evidence of importation from the south-east Aegean (region of Rhodes, Kos, Knidos) before stamping, i.e. at the end of the 4th century bc. Another example of a neck with mushroom lip. Probably Rhodian. The term “proto-Rhodian” covers a regional product with a mushroom lip and is not solely attributable to the island of Rhodes alone. Excavations on the workshop sites of Knidos104 demand a certain caution regarding the exact provenance of these amphorae. They were manufactured on Rhodes, but also at Knidos, Kos and on the coast of Caria in general, and a good number of amphorae considered as Rhodian have recently been attributed to Knidos115. On the other hand, the most significant aspect of the harbour finds is the absence of any stamped amphora, even though they can be counted in thousands on the Hellenistic sites of the island. This absence allows us to fix a terminus ante quem towards the end of the 4th century, as is also demonstrated by the fragments of mushroom lip amphorae.

10.

N. Tuna and J.-Y. Empereur, “Datça/Resadiye, Knidos Seramik Atölyerleri Kazisi, 1992”, Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı XV-II (1993), p.149-160.

11.

N. Tuna et alii, “Rapport sur la première campagne de la fouille franco-turque de Resadiye (péninsule de Cnide)”, De Anatolia Antiqua I (1988), p. 43.

The Hellenistic metallic artefacts found in Amathus harbour Maria Michael

During the underwater excavation of the Hellenistic harbour of Amathus, 110 metallic artefacts were recovered and they will be presented in the following catalogue. Among this ensemble, the following categories were identified: – One golden palmette – One lead wreath – Two weapons – Twenty three finds of fishing gear – three rings of different uses – Twenty six nails – Three cylindrical rods The artifacts are mainly made of lead, but they can be also of iron, bronze and two of gold. The metallic finds underwent preliminary identification. Since there were no chemical analyses during their study, only a preliminary macroscopic analysis was applied. In this chapter, each metallic find is presented independently, but it appears in the context of its chronology. The finds were recovered from the Sondages 1 to 19 and are dated in the end of the 4th century bc. Each catalogue entry includes the name or the type of the find, the dimensions of the find, a concise description and explanation of usage. The inventory number comprises the following elements: Exemple: D1. AM1497 Sondage 12 inv. 86.12.8.1 Catalogue number from D1 to D110 AM(athus) followed by 4 numbers: number given to the artefacts delivered to the Limassol Museum Number of the sondage in which the artefact was discovered Excavation number of the artefact with the year, the sondage number, the Stratigraphic Unit, the Isolation number of the artefact: here (19)86, Sondage 12, Stratigraphical Unit 8, Isolation 1.

Abbreviations used in this catalogue and in the catalogue devoted to the Late Roman artefacts in the second part of this volume are: approx.: Approximately diam.: Diameter

80

THE HELLENISTIC HARBOUR OF AMATHUS

Ht.: Height L.: Length m.: Metre Max.: Maximum Min.: Minimum Th.: Thickness W.: Width Wt.: Weight

CATALOGUE Nota bene: All measurements are in centimetres

GOLDEN PALMETTE D1 AM1479 Sondage 19 inv. 86.19.12.1 fig. 1 L. approx. 0.7; W. approx. 0.5 Golden palmette Palmette carved on a delicate sheet of gold. This decorative motif consists of a fan of seven graded lobes supported by spirals. Central lobe larger than the others, which surround the central one. Surface of reverse smooth and undecorated. Usage: Probably ornamentation of a dress.

BRONZE WREATH D2 AM1425 Sondage 4 inv. 85.1060 fig. 2 Diam. approx. 12; Th. approx. of main cylindrical stem 0.7; L. of the two central sheets 6.5; W. of the two central sheets 2; Wt. 173g Bronze wreath Bronze crown broken in two pieces. Eight groups of leaves or flowers are affixed to a main cylindrical stem. Some are broken or corroded, and covered by a green-grey layer. In the middle of the main cylindrical stem, two oblong sheets are shaped. They are slightly bent into a wavy shape. The ends not attached to the main cylindrical stem are round in shape. Nothing engraved on surface, which is slightly rough. Usage: Crowns were used for a variety of ceremonial purposes by priests or members of dramatic choruses1. Metal crowns served also as prizes at games, while others were reserved for distinguished conduct and inserted in stelae with honorific inscriptions2.

WEAPONS Sling bullet D3 AM1468 L. 13.25; W. 7 Sling bullet.

Sondage 14

86.14.53.1

1.

Manfred et al. Brill’s Encyclopedia of the Ancient World (2008), p. 1077-1079.

2.

S. Hornblower and A. Spawforth, The Oxford Classical Dictionary (2012), p. 411.

fig. 2

THE HELLENISTIC METALLIC ARTEFACTS FOUND IN AMATHUS HARBOUR

81

Bronze. Perhaps some unreadable traces of letters on one side. Usage: It is not surprising to find a sling bullet in a naval harbour. It was discovered near the entrance of the port.

Arrow D4 AM1402 Sondage A inv. 84.3559.3 fig. 3 and pl. 1 L. approx. 5 (L. of its head 4; L. of its shaft 1); Wt. 8g Probable bronze object; perhaps an arrowhead. Oblong object probably made of bronze. Broad, flat, bladed head attached to a straight, stiff and light shaft. Surface rough, covered by a green-grey layer. Usage: According to excavation records and comparison with other similar objects3, it seems to be a small arrowhead.

FISHING GEAR Hooks D5 AM1427 Sondage 5 inv. 85.1073 fig. 3 and pl. 1 L. approx. 6.7; Max. span: 3; Min. span: 1.5; Max. Th. 0.6; Wt. 29g Lead hook A lead hook shaped like a miniature anchor. It consists of a central shank, slightly squared in section. A small eye at the upper end where the fishing line was attached. The diameter of the eye is 0.5cm. Two arms on lower part of the shank point in different directions. The hook is undecorated. Usage: The hook was used for line fishing. The small eye in upper part of the shank was used for attaching the fishing line with a sinker. D6 AM1497 Sondage 12 inv. 86.12.8.1 fig. 3 and pl. 1 L. approx. 3; span approx. 2.5; Wt. 1g Lead hook. A lead rod, rounded in section, with a sharpened point bent into a hook. Strongly curved shaft, very delicate and surface damaged: typical J-shape, which is the shape of contemporary hooks. Usage: The hook was used for line fishing. The upper part of its shaft was lashed to the fishing line with a sinker.

Lead fishing sinkers for line and hook D7 AM1407 Sondage 3 inv. 85.242 fig. 3 and pl. 1 Ht. approx. 0.5; Diam. 1.7; Wt. 10g Lead fishing sinker A hook sinker characterised by a hemispherical solid body formed from a lead mass, with flat base. Slightly elongated with central, narrow hole, 0.5cm in diameter. Surface damaged and eroded. Usage: This lead fishing sinker could have been used for line fishing. The hole could possibly have been used for threading the sinker onto the end of the fishing line.

3.

R. Gonen, Weapons of the ancient world (1975); W.M. Flinders Petrie, Tools and weapons illustrated by the Egyptian collection in University College (1917), p. 33-35.

82

THE HELLENISTIC HARBOUR OF AMATHUS

D8 AM1415 Sondage 3 inv. 85.228 fig. 3 and pl. 1 Ht. approx. 3.5; Max. W. 1.2; Min. W. 0.9; Th. approx. 0.3; Wt. 16g Lead fishing sinker A thick sheet of lead characterised by a cylindrical solid body formed from a lead mass. It can be also characterised as perforated, because, on its upper end there is a central, narrow hole 0.3cm in diameter. It also has very thin walls at least as thick as the diameter of the hole. Very thin walls and damaged surface caused by erosion of the outer surface during use. Usage: This lead fishing sinker could have been used for line fishing. The hole could possibly have been used for threading the sinker onto the end of the fishing line. D9 AM1433 Sondage 5 inv. 85.1155 fig. 3 and pl. 1 Ht. approx. 3.7; Max. W. 1; Min. W. 0.4; Diam. 1.7; Wt. 23g Lead fishing sinker A hook sinker characterised by pyramidal solid body formed from a lead mass. It is a four-sided pyramid with a flat, square base. There is no central, narrow hole near its peak, however, there are some soft lines near its peak and three deep notches along its surface, which were probably produced by erosion of the outer surface during use. Usage: This lead fishing sinker could possibly have been used for threading the sinker onto the free end of the fishing line. D10 AM1505 Sondage 12 inv. 86.12.10.1 fig. 3 and pl. 1 Ht. approx. 5; Max. W. 2; Th. approx. 15; Wt. 120g. Flat, rectangular base, length 3 and width 15 Lead fishing sinker A fishing sinker characterised by a solid body formed from a lead mass. It has an irregular cone shape, probably created by erosion of the damaged outer surface. Slightly elongated with central, narrow and closed hole 0.5cm in diameter at upper part. Undecorated, most of surface covered with grey and brownish deposits. Usage: Probably a lead sinker, which could have been used for line fishing. The hole could possibly have been used for threading the sinker onto the free end of the fishing line. D11 AM1518 Sondage 14 inv. 86.14.64.1 fig. 3 and pl. 1 Ht. approx. 2; Max. W. at peak 0.5; Max. W. at base 1; Wt. 12g; length of base 1; length of base of the opening 0.8, length of sides 1 Possible lead fishing sinker A possible fishing sinker characterised by solid body formed from a lead mass. Four-sided pyramidal shape with flat square base. On one side, a small irregular conical opening. Undecorated, most of surface rough and damaged by corrosion. Usage: Probably a lead sinker, which could have been used for line fishing. The opening could possibly have been used for attaching a line, which encircles the sinker. D12 AM1528 Sondage 14 inv. 86.14.73.6 fig. 3 and pl. 1 Ht. approx. 2,7; Max. W. at peak 0.5; Max. W. at base 1; Wt. 26g; maximum length of the cavity 0.6, maximum width 0.4 Possible lead fishing sinker A possible fishing sinker characterised by solid body formed from a lead mass. Cylindrical shape with irregular, rectangular base. Small, irregular rectangular closed cavity in centre of base. Two faces of peak pierced by a string hole. Diameter of the two holes 0.3cm approximately, both closed, probably by corrosion. Undecorated, surface smooth without marks of corrosion. Usage: Probably a lead sinker, which could have been used for line fishing. The holes could possibly have been used for threading the sinker onto the free end of the fishing line.

THE HELLENISTIC METALLIC ARTEFACTS FOUND IN AMATHUS HARBOUR

83

Lead fishing sinkers for nets D13 AM1410 Sondage 1 inv. 85.28 fig. 3 Ht. 2; Max. W. 1.3; Th. approx. 0.5; Wt. 29g Lead fishing sinker A lead net sinker, formed of rectangular strip folded on one plane. This type of net sinker is a sheet of lead folded into a tube, open on one of its sides, length/diameter of the opening 1.5cm. It seems like an arc and is undecorated with a plain surface. Usage: This lead sinker was probably given its final shape by a fisherman or net maker. It may have been directly attached to the footrope or the lead line of the net, to help in stabilising the net in the correct position and shape. D14 AM1414 Sondage 1 inv. 85.71 fig. 3 Three lead fishing sinkers Max. W. 1.5; Th. approx. 0.2; Wt. 40g A lead net sinker formed from a rectangular strip, folded on one plane. This type of net sinker is a sheet of lead bent into tube, open on one side, length/diameter of the opening 1.3cm. It seems like an arc. Undecorated, plain surface. Max. W. 1.5; Th. approx. 0.2; Wt. 30g A lead net sinker formed from a rectangular strip, folded on one plane. This type of net sinker is a sheet of lead bent into tube, open on one side, length/diameter of the opening 3cm, because one of its edges is shorter than the other. It seems like an arc. Undecorated, plain surface. L. 5.2; Max. W. 1; Th. approx. 0.2; Wt. 21g A plain rectangular strip of lead, curved at one end. Probably a lead net sinker, given its final form by bending or reforming. This type of net sinker seems to be a sheet of lead bent into a tube. Perhaps broken during use thus acquiring this unusual shape for a lead sinker. Usage: See above D13. D15 AM1416 Sondage 3 inv. 85.223 fig. 3 and pl. 2 Max. W. 1.6; Max. diam. 2; Wt. 47g Lead fishing sinker A lead net sinker formed from a rectangular strip folded on one plane. One edge folds into the other forming a closed cylinder. This type of net sinker is a sheet of lead bent into a tube. Undecorated, plain surface. Usage: See above D13. D16 AM1419 Sondage 2 inv. 85.35 fig. 3 Max. L.2.6; Max. W. 1.5; Th. approx. 0.1; Wt. 9g Lead fishing sinker Plain, rectangular strip of lead, slightly folded in one plane. It is probably a lead net sinker, which was given its final form by mechanically bending or reforming. This type of net sinker seems to be a sheet of lead bent into a tube, open on one side. The opening is wide, length/diameter 2.2cm. It seems like an arch. Undecorated, plain surface. Usage: See above D13. D17 AM1420 Sondage 1 inv. 85.38 Max. W. 1.5; Max. diam. 3.2; Th. approx. 0.3; Wt. 40g Lead fishing sinker

fig. 4

84

THE HELLENISTIC HARBOUR OF AMATHUS

Rectangular strip, folded along one plane. This type of net sinker is a sheet of lead bent into a tube, but open on one side, approximate length/diameter of the opening is 0.8cm. One end shorter than the other, but it seems like an arch. Undecorated, plain surface. Usage: See above D13. D18 AM1421 Sondage 1 inv. 85.74 fig. 4 Max. W. 1.7; Max. diam. 2; Wt. 28g Lead fishing sinker Rectangular strip, folded along one plane. This type of net sinker is a sheet of lead bent into a tube, but open on one side, approximate length/diameter of the opening is 0.6cm. One edge shorter than the other and it is also slightly curved. Undecorated, plain surface. Usage: See above D13. D19 AM1430 Sondage 6 inv. 85.1107 fig. 4 and pl. 2 Wt. 95g Probable lead fishing sinker Coiled strip, probably a lead fishing sinker. A long, narrow coiled strip of lead sheeting. Irregular shape and folded in some places, badly eroded. Surface smooth, covered by a yellow layer. In the middle, some pebbles are incorporated, creating a compact mass. Usage: It was probably used as a lead fishing sinker consisting of a thin, narrow strip originally coiled around the rope. D20 AM1431 Sondage 2 inv. 85.1120 fig. 4 Max. W. 1.5; Max. diam. 2; Wt. 22g Lead fishing sinker Rectangular strip, folded along one plane. One edge touches on the other forming a closed cylinder. It is still pliable, its form can be changed by bending or reshaping. This type of net sinker is a sheet of lead folded into a tube. Undecorated, surface plain. Usage: See above D13. D21 AM1503 Sondage 3 inv. 86.3.1.1 fig. 4 Max. W. 1.5; Max. diam. 0.5; Th. approx. 0.3; Wt. 25g Lead fishing sinker Rectangular strip, folded along one plane. This type of net sinker is a sheet of lead folded into a tube, slightly open on one side and the approximate length/diameter of the opening is 0.5cm. Its ends almost close. Undecorated, surface plain. Usage: See above D13. D22 AM1504 Sondage 3 inv. 86.3.1.2 fig. 4 Max. W. 2; Wt. 30g Lead fishing sinker Rectangular strip folded along one plain. It seems that the lead fishing sinker was broken in two pieces and these two pieces combined. This type of net sinker is a sheet of lead folded into a tube, open on one side and the approximate length/diameter of the opening is 0.019 m. It seems like an arch. Undecorated, surface plain. Usage: See above D13. D23 AM1510 Sondage 14 inv. 86.14.64.1 Max. W. 1.7; Max. diam. 2; Wt. 19g

fig. 4

THE HELLENISTIC METALLIC ARTEFACTS FOUND IN AMATHUS HARBOUR

85

Lead fishing sinker Rectangular strip folded along one plain. This type of net sinker is a sheet of lead folded into a tube, open on one side and the approximate length/diameter of the opening is 0.01m. It seems like an arch. Undecorated, surface plain. Usage: See above D13. D24 AM1511 Sondage 14 inv. 86.14.79.1 fig. 4 and pl. 2 Max. W. 1.5; Max. diam. 3.2; Wt. 44g Lead fishing sinker Rectangular strip folded along one plain. This type of net sinker is a sheet of lead folded into a tube, open on one side and the approximate length/diameter of the opening is 0.023m. It seems like an arch. Undecorated, surface plain. Usage: See above D13. D25 AM1513 Sondage 14 inv. 86.14.50.1 fig. 4 Max. L. 2.8; Max. W.8; Wt. 6g Lead fishing sinker Small lead net sinker folded along one plane. This type of net sinker is a double folded rectangular sheet. Almost rectangular shape with convex ends and folded over the lead line, along the middle of the rectangle forming a rough tube. It is open on one side and the maximum length of the opening is 0.005m. The inner sides of the opening are thick. Undecorated, surface plain. Usage: See above D13. D26 AM1514 Sondage 14 inv. 86.14.55.2 fig. 4 Max. W. 1; Max. diam. 0.6; Wt. 5g Lead fishing sinker Rectangular strip, folded along one plane. This type of net sinker is a sheet of lead folded into a tube, open on one side and the approximate length/diameter of the opening is 0.006m. Its ends are thick. It seems like an arch. Surface very damaged and undecorated. Usage: See above D13. D27 AM1537 Sondage 14 inv. 86.14.17.1 fig. 4 Max. L. 1.8; Max. W. 0.6; Wt. 6g Lead fishing sinker A small lead net sinker folded along one plane. This type of net sinker is a double folded rectangular sheet. Almost rectangular shape with convex ends and folded over the lead line, along the middle of the rectangle forming a rough tube. It is open on one side and it has a V-shaped section. The inner sides of the opening are very thick. Undecorated sinker, surface very damaged. Usage: See above D13.

RINGS D28 AM1424 Sondage 5 inv. 85.1058 fig. 4 and pl. 2 Max. W. 1; Max. diam. 5.5; Min. diam. 4; Th. approx. 0.5; Wt. 50g Lead ring Plano-convex cast ring, used in this shape and form without further modifications after manufacture. No holes for sewing it to a sail or foot of a net. Undecorated, plain surface.

86

THE HELLENISTIC HARBOUR OF AMATHUS

Usage: The function of this ring is uncertain. According to its diameter, it can be interpreted as a brailing ring because rings with a diameter of 4 to 5cm were usually associated with ship’s ropes or with hoisting and lowering sails. Compared with lead rings recovered along the coast of Israel4, it appears like a lead net sinker. It may have been directly attached to the footrope or the lead line of the net, to help in stabilising the net in the correct position and shape. Ring-shaped sinkers were easily attached and removed from a long line without having to disassemble the net. D29 AM1507 Sondage 1 and 3 inv. 86.1 + 86.3.16.1 fig. 4 and pl. 2 Max. diam. 3; inside diam. 2.5; Wt. 14g Iron ring An iron ring, used in this shape and form without further modifications after its manufacture. There are no holes for sewing it to a sail or edge of a net. Undecorated, plain surface. Usage: The function of this ring is uncertain, as brailing rings and ring-shaped fishing sinkers were mostly made from lead. Furthermore, it was found in the harbour basin, which is not the exact place where it would have been used. D30 AM1508 Sondage 14 inv. 86.14.45.1 fig. 4 and pl. 3 Ht. 7; Max. diam. 6.3; inside diam. 4; Max. W. 1; Wt. 89g Lead Ring Large, flat lead brail ring with projection. Maximum length of projection 0.03m and width 0.01m. Two holes on the projection for sewing the ring to the sail. Diameter of the holes 0.005m. Another unfinished hole beside the left hole. Undecorated, plain surface. Usage: According to its diameter, it can be interpreted as a brailing ring: rings with a diameter of 4 to 5cm are usually associated with ropes for hoisting and lowering the sails. Compared with lead rings recovered from the Kyrenia shipwreck5, it appears similar.

NAILS D31 AM1400 Sondage A inv. 84.3559.1 fig. 5 and pl. 3 L. approx. 7.5; diam. of head 2; Max. Th. of shank 0.8; Wt. 28g Bronze nail A thick bronze nail broken in two pieces (L. of big piece 4.5cm; L. of small piece 3cm). Incomplete, sharp tip of shank missing. Spherical head rounded on top. Shank cylindrical in section. Surface rough, covered by a green-grey layer. The metal seems to be reduced to a powdery dark grey dust. Usage: According to dimensions, it was used as a “fastener” in ship construction. Nails used to fasten planking to frames normally had shanks 8-12cm long. Based on its shape, it might have been a bolt used to fasten the keelson to the keel. However, its original position within the structure is unknown, as it was found in the harbour basin and not in a shipwreck D32 AM1401 Sondage A inv. 84.3559.2 L. approx. 2.5; Max. Th. of shank 0.7; Wt. 2g

fig. 5

4.

E. Galili, B. Rosen and J. Sharvit, “Fishing-Gear Sinkers Recovered from an Underwater Wreckage Site, off the Carmel Coast, Israel”, International Journal of Nautical Archaeology 31 (2002), p. 183, 187, 199; E. Galili, B. Rosen, “Fishing Gear from a 7th‐Century Shipwreck off Dor, Israel”, International Journal of Nautical Archaeology 37 (2008), p. 69.

5.

G.A. Cariolou, KYRENIA II, The return from Cyprus to Greece of the Replica of a Hellenistic Merchant Ship, in D. Swiny, R.L. Hohldelder, W. Swiny (ed.), Res Maritimae: Cyprus and the Eastern Mediterranean from Prehistory ro Late Antiquity, Proceedings od the Second International Symposium, ‘Cities in the Sea”, Nicosias, Cyprus, Octobrer 18-22, 1994 (1997), p. 87.

THE HELLENISTIC METALLIC ARTEFACTS FOUND IN AMATHUS HARBOUR

87

Probably a part of a nail A small conical shaped bronze object. Part of a nail, specifically from the mid-shaft of a nail. Covered in some spots by a green-grey layer. Usage: Probably a nail used as a “fastener” in ship construction. Its original position within the structure is unknown, as it was found in the harbour basin and not in a shipwreck. Object broken. D33 AM1409 Sondage 1 inv. 85.28 fig. 5 and pl. 3 L. approx. 5.6; Wt. 5g An oblong object Oblong object, slightly bent at mid-shaft. Simple squared rod, thicker in middle and tapering to a point at both ends. Ends are not sharp, but rounded. Surface black, but colour beneath black layer appears silvery: this object is probably made of iron. Usage: Original function uncertain. According to excavation records, it is a nail. It does not, however, have the same structure as the other nails: no circular head. Based on its shape, it seems to be an iron reefing tool, which can be pushed or dragged along a seam to clean out old caulking and scrape the edges down to clean wood. D34 AM1413 Sondage 2 inv. 85.66 fig. 5 and pl. 3 L. approx. 7.8; diam. of head 1.5; Max. Th. of shank 0.5; Wt. 13g Nail Bronze nail, entirely preserved. Hemispherical head convex at on top. Shank cylindrical in section, tapering to a more circular section towards its end. Surface is rough, covered by a green-grey layer. The metal seems to be converted to a powdery dark grey dust. Usage: According to its dimensions, it was used as a “fastener” in ship construction. Nails used to fasten planking to frames normally had shanks 8-12cm long. Its original position within the structure is, however, unknown, as it was found in the harbour basin and not in a shipwreck. D35 AM1480 Sondage 13 inv. 86.13.1.1 fig. 5 L. approx. 3.8; diam. of head 0.3; Wt. 1g Nail A delicate, probably iron nail, entirely preserved. Circular head flat on top, merging into an elegant shank. Shank round in section, tapering to a point. Surface smooth with surface lustre. Usage: Its original function is uncertain. D36 AM1481 Sondage 13 inv. 86.13.1.2 fig. 5 L. approx. 5.8; Wt. 3g An oblong object An oblong, probably iron object, slightly curved. Simple squared rod, thicker in upper part tapering to a point towards the end. Surface extensively corroded and covered by a reddish-brown layer. Usage: Original function uncertain. According to the excavation records, it is a squared nail. It might be a broken nail shank without circular head. However, it is not clear if the upper, rounded end was attached to a circular head. Based on its shape, it seems to be an iron reefing tool, to be pushed or dragged along a seam to clean out old caulking and scrape the edges down to clean wood. D37 AM1482 Sondage 13 inv. 86.13.2.1 fig. 5 L. approx. 8; Max. diam. of head 1.5; Max. Th. of shank 0.5; Wt. 12g Nail Iron nail wholly preserved. Circular head. Shank, square in section, tapering to a point. Surface extensively corroded, slightly rough and covered by a reddish-brown layer.

88

THE HELLENISTIC HARBOUR OF AMATHUS

Usage: According to its dimensions, it was used as a “fastener” in ship construction. Nails used to fasten planking to frames normally had shanks 8 to 12cm long. Its original position within the structure is, however, unknown, as it was found in the harbour basin and not in a shipwreck. D38 AM1483 Sondage 13 inv. 86.13.2.2 fig. 5 L. approx. 6.5; Max. diam. of head 1; Max. Th. of shank 0.3; Wt. 6g Nail Iron nail, wholly preserved. Circular head irregular from erosion. Head flat on top and merged into shank. Shank square in section, tapering to a point. Surface extensively corroded, slightly rough and covered by a reddish-brown layer. Usage: It was probably used as a “fastener” in ship construction. Its original position within the structure is, however, unknown, as it was found in the harbour basin and not in a shipwreck. D39 AM1484 Sondage 13 inv. 86.13.3.1 fig. 5 L. approx. 8.5cm; Max. diam. of head 1.3cm; Max. Th. of shank 0.3cm; Wt. 11g Nail Iron nail, wholly preserved. Circular head irregular from erosion. Head flat on top and merged into shank. Shank square in section tapering to a point. Slightly bent at end. Surface extensively corroded, slightly rough and covered by a reddish-brown layer. Usage: It was used as a “fastener” in ship construction. According to its length, perhaps used to fasten planking to frames, because such nails normally had shanks of 8-12cm. Its original position within the structure is, however, unknown, as it was found in the harbour basin and not in a shipwreck. D40 AM1485 Sondage 13 inv. 86.13.4.1 fig. 5 L. approx. 8; Max. diam. of head 1.3; Max. Th. of shank 0.5; Wt. 13g Nail Iron nail, wholly preserved. Circular head rounded on top. Shank square in section, tapering to a slightly bent point. Surface extensively corroded, slightly rough and covered by a reddish-brown layer. Usage: Used as a “fastener” in ship construction. According to its length, perhaps used to fasten planking to frames, because such nails normally had shanks of 0.08-0.12m. Its original position within the structure is, however, unknown, as it was found in the harbour basin and not in a shipwreck. D41 AM1486 Sondage 13 inv. 86.13.13.1 fig. 5 L. approx. 5; Max. diam. of head 0.7; Wt. 3g Nail Copper alloy nail, wholly preserved. Square head merging into its shank. Shank bent with an irregular, wavy shape. Shank square in section, tapering to a point. Surface extensively corroded, slightly rough and covered by a reddish-brown layer. A formation of expanding green-blue stains visible in some areas. Usage: It was used as a “fastener” in ship construction. Its original position within the structure is, however, unknown, as it was found in the harbour basin and not in a shipwreck. D42 AM1487 Sondage 13 inv. 86.13.32.1 fig. 5 L. approx. 6; Max. diam. of head 0.8; Wt. 7g Nail Iron nail, wholly preserved. Circular head merging into the shank. Erosion damage. Shank square in section, slightly bent, tapering to a point. Surface extensively corroded, slightly rough and covered by a reddish-brown layer. Usage: See above D41.

THE HELLENISTIC METALLIC ARTEFACTS FOUND IN AMATHUS HARBOUR

89

D43 AM1488 Sondage 13 inv. 86.13.32.2 fig. 5 L. approx. 5.7; Max. diam. of head 1; Wt. 3g Nail Iron nail, wholly preserved. Circular head merging into the shank. Shank square in section, tapering to a point. Surface extensively corroded, slightly rough and covered by a reddish-brown layer. Usage: See above D41. D44 AM1489 Sondage 13 inv. 86.13.32.3 fig. 5 L. approx. 6; Max. diam. of head 1; Wt. 3g Nail Delicate iron nail, wholly preserved. Circular head merging into the shank. Shank square in section, slightly bent, tapering to a point. Surface extensively corroded, slightly rough and covered by a reddish-brown layer. Usage: See above D41. D45 AM1490 Sondage 13 inv. 86.13.32.4 fig. 5 L. approx. 6; Max. diam. of head 0.6; Wt. 6g Nail An iron nail, wholly preserved. Square head merging into the shank. Shank square in section, slightly bent, tapering to a point. Surface extensively corroded, slightly rough and covered by a reddish-brown layer. Usage: See above D41. D46 AM1491 Sondage 13 inv. 86.13.32.5 fig. 5 L. approx. 6.6; Max. diam. of head 1.2; Max. Th. of shank 0.5; Wt. 13g Nail Iron nail, wholly preserved. Circular head merging into the shank. Head badly damaged from erosion. Shank square in section, tapering to a point. Surface extensively corroded, slightly rough and covered by a reddish-brown layer. Usage: See above D41. D47 AM1492 Sondage 13 inv. 86.13.32.6 fig. 5 and pl. 3 L. approx. 6.5; Max. diam. of head 0.8; Wt. 5g Nail Iron nail, wholly preserved. Circular head merging into the shank. Shallow, rectangular cavity on the surface of head. Shank square in section, tapering to a point. Surface extensively corroded, slightly rough and covered by a reddish-brown layer. Usage: See above D41. D48 AM1493 Sondage 13 inv. 86.13.46.1 fig. 5 L. approx. 6; Max. diam. of head 0.8; Wt. 3g Nail Iron nail, wholly preserved. Circular head merging into the shank. Shank square in section, tapering to a point. Mid-shaft very delicate because of erosion. Surface extensively corroded, slightly rough and covered by a reddish-brown layer. Usage: See above D41. D49 AM1494 Sondage 13 inv. 86.13.48.1 L. approx. 4.6m; Max. Th. 0.3; Wt. 4g

fig. 5

90

THE HELLENISTIC HARBOUR OF AMATHUS

An oblong object Slightly curved oblong object. Simple squared rod, thicker in middle part and tapering to a more circular section towards the ends. Ends slightly flattened in one side. Surface black but it appears silvery beneath the black layer: object probably made of iron. Usage: Original function uncertain. According to excavation records, it is a nail. It does not, however, have the same structure as the other nails: no circular head. Based on its shape, it appears to be an iron reefing tool, which can be pushed or dragged along a seam to clean out old caulking and scrape the edges down to clean wood. D50 AM1495 Sondage 13 inv. 86.13.52.1 fig. 5 and pl. 3 L. approx. 17; Max. diam. of head 2.5; Max. Th. of shank 1; Wt. 74g Nail Huge, thick iron nail, wholly preserved. Circular head, slightly rounded on top. Shank, bent slightly, square in section, tapering to a point. Surface extensively corroded, slightly rough and covered by a reddish-brown layer. Usage: It was used as a “fastener” in ship construction. It was probably used to fasten half timber ceiling strakes to frames, as nails with shanks about 14 to 16cm long were used for this. Furthermore, some of the largest nails, with round heads, 2 to 3cm in diameter, and shanks 0.5 to 1cm square in section, were employed in fastening frames to the keel. Its original position within the structure is, however, unknown, as it was found in the harbour basin and not in a shipwreck. D51 AM1496 Sondage 1 and 3 inv. 86.1 + 86.3.33.1 fig. 5 L. approx. 6; Max. diam. of head 0.7; Wt. 5g Nail Delicate, iron nail, wholly preserved. Square head merging into the shank. Shank square in section, tapering to a point, is bent into an irregular, wavy shape. Surface extensively corroded, slightly rough and covered by a reddish-brown layer. Usage: See above D41. D52 AM1498 Sondage 18 inv. 86.18.11.1 fig. 5 L. approx. 5m; Max. diam. of head 7; Wt. 4g Nail Delicate, iron nail, wholly preserved. Circular head merging into the shank. Head badly damaged by erosion. Shank square in section, tapering to a point. Surface extensively corroded, slightly rough and covered by a reddish-brown layer. Usage: See above D41. D53 AM1501 Sondage 14 inv. 86.14.74.1 fig. 5 and pl. 3 L. approx. 9.8; Max. diam. of head 1.2; Max. Th. of shank 0.5; Wt. 8g Nail Delicate iron nail, wholly preserved. Circular head flat on top. Head badly damaged by erosion. Shank square in section, tapering to a point. Surface extensively corroded, slightly rough and covered by a reddish-brown layer. Usage: It was used as a “fastener” in ship construction. It was probably used in fastening planking to frames, as nails with shafts about 8 to 12cm long were used for this. Its original position within the structure is, however, unknown, as it was found in the harbour basin and not in a shipwreck. D54 AM1523 Sondage 14 Diam. of head 2; Wt. 2g Head of a nail

inv. 86.14.65.2

fig. 5

THE HELLENISTIC METALLIC ARTEFACTS FOUND IN AMATHUS HARBOUR

91

Bronze nail head. Circular in shape. Small part of bent shank is preserved. Surface rough from erosion. Usage: Part of a broken nail. It was used as a “fastener” in ship construction. Its original shape and position within the structure are, however, unknown, because it is incomplete and it was found in the harbour basin and not in a shipwreck. D55 AM1538 Sondage 14 inv. 86.14.85.1 fig. 5 Diam. of head 1.2; Wt. 1g Head of a nail Bronze nail head. Circular in shape, with small hole at start of shank. Surface rough from erosion and covered by a yellowish-brown layer. Usage: See above D55. D56 AM1544 Sondage 19 inv. 86.19.14.2 fig. 5 Diam. of head 1.5; Wt. 2g Head of a nail Bronze nail head, broken in two pieces. Circular in shape, with small part of shank preserved 9cm in length. Surface rough from erosion with white and brown stains. Usage: See above D55.

CYLINDRICAL RODS D57 AM1519 Sondage 14 inv. 86.14.64.2 fig. 6 L. approx. 3.2; diam. approx. 0.3; Wt. 1g Three pieces of a cylindrical bronze rod A bronze rod broken in three small pieces. Surface smooth, covered by a gold-coloured layer with surface lustre. Usage: Function unknown. No convincing parallels have been found for comparison and thus to understand usage. D58 AM1529 Sondage 14 inv. 86.14.73.7 fig. 6 L. approx. 2 (Max. L. of larger piece 1.6; Max. L. of smaller piece 1); Diam. approx. 0.7; Wt. 3g Two pieces of a cylindrical bronze rod A bronze rod broken in two small pieces. Surface slightly smooth, black in colour with some brown stains in places. The metal seems to be converted to a powdery dark grey dust. The closed end of the larger piece is rounded. Usage: See above D57. D59 AM1530 Sondage 14 inv. 86.14.73.8 L. approx. 1.3; Th. approx. 0.1; Wt. 1g 1 piece of a cylindrical bronze rod Deformed, broken bronze rod. Surface smooth, black in colour with some brown stains in places. Usage: See above D57.

fig. 6

92

THE HELLENISTIC HARBOUR OF AMATHUS

DEFORMED AND CORRODED METALLIC OBJECTS D60 AM1408 Sondage 1 inv. 85.20 fig. 6 L. approx. 10.5; Wt. 57g Two pieces of a deformed and corroded iron object (conglomerate) A thick layer of concretions made up mainly of corrosion products, biological elements (seashells) and sediments covers and deforms the iron object, which is broken in two pieces. This thick layer is called “gangue” and it acts as a barrier to the expansion of the dissolved species towards the metal surface and slows down the ionic transport through the corrosion products onto the metal surface: as a result, the corrosion rate reduces. The colour of this layer is grey with some brownish marks of the oxidation of the iron object. This formation has an irregular shape, consisting of a shank that is curved at its edges. A triangular form, which looks like the fluke of an anchor, is attached on the mid-shaft of the shank. Usage: The appearance and the function of this iron object are uncertain because it is deformed and it is unclear if the attached triangular shape is or is not a part of the object. D61 AM1411 Sondage 1 inv. 85.36 fig. 6 L. approx. 9.5; Max. W. 2.5; Min. W. 1.5; Wt. 23g Deformed and corroded iron object (conglomerate) A thick layer of concretions made up mainly of corrosion products, biological elements (seashells) and sediments covers and deforms the iron object. This thick layer is called “gangue” and it acts as a barrier to the expansion of the dissolved species towards the metal surface and slows down the ionic transport through the corrosion products onto the metal surface: as a result, the corrosion rate reduces. The colour of this layer is grey with some brownish marks of the oxidation of the iron object. This formation has an irregular, elongated shape. Usage: See above D60. D62 AM1499 Sondage 18 inv. 86.18.11.2 fig. 6 Wt. of the 6 pieces 3g 6 pieces of a deformed and corroded iron object (conglomerate) Small mass of an iron object covered by a thick layer of concretions made up mainly of corrosion products, biological elements and sediments. This thick layer is called “gangue” and it acts as a barrier to the expansion of the dissolved species towards the metal surface and slows down the ionic transport through the corrosion products onto the metal surface: as a result, the corrosion rate reduces. The colour of this formation is dark grey with some brownish marks of the oxidation of the iron object. This formation gives an irregular shape to the iron object. Surface is rough. Four small fragments of a broken mass of an iron object. One face of these fragments is covered by the thick, rough layer called “gangue”, while the other one is covered by a thinner layer, which is yellowish-brown and reddish-brown in colour. It is obvious that the outer thick formation covers an iron object and acts as a protective mould. Oblong, cylindrical piece of an iron object. Surface is dark grey or black, covered by a thin reddish-brown layer with a powdery texture. Length 1.4cm. Usage: The appearance and the function of this iron object are uncertain, because it has been deformed. Based on the oblong, cylindrical piece, it seems that it was an elongated object. According to the excavation records, it is a broken iron nail covered by concretions. D63 AM1502 Sondage 14 inv. 86.14.63.2 L. of oblong piece 2; Wt. 2g Two pieces of a deformed and corroded bronze object

fig. 6

THE HELLENISTIC METALLIC ARTEFACTS FOUND IN AMATHUS HARBOUR

93

A layer of concretions made up mainly of corrosion products, biological elements and sediments, covers and deforms the bronze object. The colour of this formation is reddish-brown, purple and dark grey with white marks on it. It is porous. This object is broken in two pieces and its shape has been modified. If the two pieces are joined, it seems to be a rod, slightly rounded in section, with a sharpened point bent into a hook. Usage: The exact appearance and the function of this bronze object are uncertain, because it has been deformed. However, it looks like a hook used for line fishing. D64 AM1524 Sondage 14 inv. 86.14.65.3 fig. 6 Three pieces of a deformed and corroded bronze object L. approx. 4; Wt. 2g A layer of concretions made up mainly of corrosion products, biological elements and sediments, covers and deforms the bronze object. The colour of this formation is reddish-brown and grey. Surface rough and porous. It seems to be a rod, slightly squared in section, with one end curved. Usage: The exact appearance and the function of this bronze object are uncertain, because it has been deformed and it is not obvious if it was associated with the other two pieces. However, according to its present shape, it may be a reefing tool, because it seems to be a simple squared rod bent into an approximate S-shape. L. approx. 2; Max. W. 0.6; Wt. 2g A layer of concretions made up mainly of corrosion products, biological elements and sediments, covers and deforms the bronze object. The colour of this formation is yellowish-brown and dark grey. Surface is rough. Conical in shape. Usage: The exact appearance and the function of this bronze object are uncertain, because it has been deformed. Furthermore, it is not obvious if it was associated with the other two pieces. L. approx. 1.2; Diam. at the peak 0.3; Wt. 1g A thin white layer covers the small bronze or lead object. Surface is rough, probably from erosion. Cylindrical in shape. Usage: The exact appearance and the function of this small bronze or lead object are uncertain, because it has been deformed. Furthermore, it is not obvious if it was associated with the other two pieces. D65 AM1535 Sondage 14 inv. 86.14.76.4 fig. 5 L. of thick piece 0.9; L. of small piece 0.6; Max. W. 0.3 Two pieces of a deformed and corroded bronze object A layer of concretions made up mainly of corrosion products, biological elements and sediments, covers and deforms the small bronze object. The colour of this formation is dark grey and yellowish-brown with white marks on it. Surface is porous and rough. This object is broken in two pieces and its shape has been modified. However, if the two pieces are joined, it seems to be a slim, elongated sheet of bronze. Usage: The exact appearance and the function of this bronze object are uncertain, because it has been deformed. D66 AM1541 Sondage 14 inv. 86.14.95.2 fig. 6 L of thick piece 1.8; diam. of thick piece 0.3; L. of small oblong piece 1; diam. of small oblong piece 0.2; Wt. 1g Two pieces of a deformed and corroded bronze object A layer of concretions made up mainly of corrosion products, biological elements and sediments, covers and deforms the bronze object. The colour of this formation is light grey and yellowish. Surface is porous and rough. This object is broken in two pieces and its shape has been modified. However, if the two pieces are joined, it seems to be a rod, slightly rounded in section, with both ends curved Usage: See above D65.

94

THE HELLENISTIC HARBOUR OF AMATHUS

D67 AM1542 Sondage 14 inv. 86.14.95.3 fig. 6 Max. L. 1.8; diam. at solid end 0.5; diam. at broken end 0.4; Wt. 1g Small deformed and corroded bronze object A layer of concretions made up mainly of corrosion products, biological elements and sediments, covers and deforms the small, broken bronze object. The colour of this formation is yellowish-brown, purple and grey with white marks on it. Surface is porous. Usage: See above D65.

Sheets and scraps D68 AM1399 Sondage A inv. 84.3566.4 fig. 7 and pl. 3 Sheet: L. approx. 4.5; Max. W. 2.5; Min. W. 1; Wt. 5g Tack: L. approx. 2.2; diam. of head 1; Max. Th. of shank 0.3; Wt. 1g Lead sheet and a tack Sheet: Folded and wrinkled sheet made of lead. Shape irregular and surface rough. Tack: Probable lead tack, wholly preserved. Spherical head rounded on top. Shank slightly bent, cylindrical in section, tapering to a point. Usage: Function uncertain. It is not obvious if the lead sheet and the tack are related to each other, as there is no hole on the sheet. However, they may be interrelated, because they could be part of lead sheathing, which appears from the mid-4th century bc through the 2nd century ad. Lead sheathing refers to a thin layer of lead that was affixed to the outer surface of wooden hulled ships and was usually attached with small copper tacks. On the other hand, if they cannot be associated, the lead sheet may be scrap, which was probably used for the production of lead fishing weights, and the tack may have been used in ship construction. D69 AM1412 Sondage 1 inv. 85.46 fig. 7 Max. L. 2; W. 1.2; Wt. 2g Lead sheet Small lead sheet, trapezium in shape. Surface slightly wrinkled. One side folded over. Length of folded side 1.5cm, width 0.3cm. Usage: Function uncertain. Possibly scrap used for the production of lead fishing weights. Possibly intended to be melted down and cast as a fishing weight. D70 AM1422 Sondage 4 inv. 85.1040 fig. 7 Max. L. 4; Max. W. 0.9; Wt. 3g Oblong lead sheet Small lead sheet, rectangular in shape. Bent over the lead line, along the middle of the lead sheet. Surface slightly rough. One side broken, part of surface missing. Usage: Function uncertain. Possibly a scrap of sheet lead used for the production of a folded lead fishing weight. Based on its shape, it seems like the folded rectangular net fishing sinkers, which were rectangular sheets bent over the lead line forming a double folded rectangular sheet. D71 AM1423 Sondage 5 inv. 85.1058 fig. 7 Max. L. 4; Max. W. 2; Wt. 10g A lead sheet Small lead sheet, rectangular in shape. Bent over the lead line, along the middle of the lead sheet. Surface slightly rough. One side broken, part of surface missing. Usage: See above D70.

THE HELLENISTIC METALLIC ARTEFACTS FOUND IN AMATHUS HARBOUR

D72 AM1436 Sondage 8 inv. 85.1346 Max. L. 3.2; Max. W. 2; Th. approx. 0.3; Wt. 26g A lead sheet Small lead sheet, rectangular in shape. Surface rough. Usage: Function unknown. Possibly scrap used for the production of folded lead fishing weights.

95

fig. 7

D73 AM1506 Sondage 13 inv. 86.13.52.2 fig. 7 Max. L. 7.3; Max. W. 2.5; Wt. 43g Lead sheet Lead sheet of irregular shape. One side smooth, the other rough with protuberance in middle. Small cavity in rectangular edge, while other edge has a sharp, triangular shape. Usage: See above D72. D74 AM1509 Sondage 14 86.14.45.2 fig. 7 Large piece: L. approx. 3; W. approx. 2; Wt. 6g Small piece: L. approx. 1.5; W. approx. 1.4; Wt. 3g Two pieces of a lead sheet Two pieces of a lead sheet of irregular shape. Folded and wrinkled. Surface slightly rough. Usage: Function uncertain. Possibly scrap used for the production of lead fishing weights. Possibly intended to be melted down and cast as fishing weight. D75 AM1516 Sondage 14 inv. 86.14.61.3 fig. 7 Large piece: Max. L. 2.2; min. L. 1.8m; Max. W. 1.2; Th. approx. 0.3; Wt. 4g Small piece: L. approx. 1; W. approx. 0.8 Two pieces of a lead sheet Large piece: Rectangular shape with one corner cut. Surface slightly rough, with a small cavity, like a small, closed hole, on the side that is not broken. Small piece: Irregular shape and surface slightly rough. There is also a small cavity, like a small, closed hole in the middle. Usage: Function uncertain. Possibly scrap used for the production of lead fishing weights. Possibly intended to be melted down and cast as fishing weights. However, the appearance of the two small, closed holes may suggest lead sheathing, which appears from the mid-4th century bc through to the 2nd century ad. Lead sheathing refers to a thin layer of lead that was affixed to the outer surface of wooden-hulled ships and was usually attached with small copper tacks. D76 AM1520 Sondage 14 inv. 86.14.64.3 fig. 7 L. approx. 2; W. approx. 1; Wt. 2g Lead sheet Folded, wrinkled lead sheet. Shape irregular and surface rough. Usage: Function uncertain. Possibly scrap used for the production of lead fishing weights. Possibly intended to be melted down and cast as fishing weights. D77 AM1521 Sondage 14 inv. 86.14.64.4 fig. 7 Max. L. 1.4; Max. W. 1; Wt. 2g Probable lead sheet Small lead sheet. Bent over the lead line, along the middle of the sheet. Surface slightly rough, one edge broken, the other slightly rounded.

96

THE HELLENISTIC HARBOUR OF AMATHUS

Usage: See above D76. D78 AM1527 Sondage 14 inv. 86.14.73.5 fig. 7 Max. L. 2.7; Max. W. 1.5; Wt. 10g A lead sheet Small lead sheet. Irregular shape. One side smooth, the other wrinkled and rough. It is folded in some parts of one of its sides. Usage: See above D76. D79 AM1536 Sondage 14 inv. 86.14.76.5 fig. 7 Max. L. 2; Max. W. 0.7; Th. approx. 0.1; Wt. 2g Lead sheet Small lead sheet shaped like a copper ingot, oblong with two projections at either end. One projection broken. Surface smooth. Usage: See above D76. D80 AM1543 Sondage 19 86.19.14.1 Max. L. 3.5; Max. W. 1; Th. approx. 0.2; Wt. 5g Lead sheet Small, thick lead sheet, trapezium in shape. One side smooth, the other wrinkled and rough. Usage: See above D76.

fig. 7

METALLIC MASSES D81 AM1437 Sondage 8 inv. 85.1358 fig. 7 Wt. 113g Iron slag A thick iron slag, probably from metal smelting or melting. Dark grey/black colour with yellowish-brown and reddish-brown marks on surface. Surface porous. Usage: Function unknown. Slag is difficult classify, while they vary in appearance, texture, colour, resistance, porosity etc. D82 AM1439 Sondage 8 inv. 85.1361 fig. 7 Wt. 2g Two small pieces of a mass of bronze A deformed mass of bronze, broken in two small pieces. Mostly grey and white colour, with visible loss of surface lustre as a result of metal sensitivity to temperature. Pebbles incorporated on surface. A green-blue layer covers parts of them, probably copper carbonate. Some yellowish-brown marks visible on surface. Usage: Function uncertain. Maybe piece of ore or slag. According to excavation records, head and part of shaft of a bronze nail. D83 AM1522 Sondage 14 inv. 86.14.57.1 fig. 7 Wt. 2g Small mass of bronze Small deformed mass of bronze, spherical in shape. Dark grey, mostly covered by a green-blue layer, probably copper carbonate. Some brown marks visible on surface. Surface slightly rough. Usage: Function unknown.

THE HELLENISTIC METALLIC ARTEFACTS FOUND IN AMATHUS HARBOUR

97

D84 AM1525 Sondage 14 inv. 86.14.73.3 fig. 7 Wt. 1g Small mass of bronze Small deformed mass of bronze, spherical in shape. Dark grey, mostly covered by a green-blue layer. Surface slightly rough. Usage: Function unknown. D85 AM1526 Sondage 14 inv. 86.14.73.4 fig. 7 Wt. 2g Small mass of bronze Small deformed mass of bronze, spherical in shape. Dark grey, mostly covered by a green-blue layer. Purple in places and some white-grey stains on surface. Pebbles incorporated into surface. Surface slightly rough and porous. Usage: Function unknown. D86 AM1531 Sondage 14 inv. 86.14.73.10 fig. 7 Wt. 5g Small mass of bronze or tin Small deformed mass of bronze or tin, irregular in shape. Dark grey mostly covered by a formation of expanding white-grey stains. Brown in places. Surface rough and porous. Usage: Function unknown. D87 AM1532 Sondage 14 inv. 86.14.73.10 fig. 7 Wt. 2g Small mass of bronze Small deformed mass of bronze, irregular in shape. Dark grey, mostly covered by a green-brown layer. Whitegrey stains on parts of surface. Pebbles incorporated into surface. Surface rough and porous. Usage: Function unknown. D88 AM1533 Sondage 14 inv. 86.14.76.2 fig. 7 Wt. 2g Small mass of bronze Small deformed mass of bronze, irregular in shape. Dark grey, mostly covered by a green-brown layer. Whitegrey marks on parts of surface. Pebbles incorporated into surface. Surface rough and porous. Usage: Function unknown. D89 AM1534 Sondage 14 inv. 86.14.76.3 fig. 7 Wt. 1g Small mass of bronze Small deformed mass of bronze, irregular in shape. Dark grey-blue. Yellowish-gold layer on parts of surface. Surface rough and porous. Usage: Function unknown. D90 AM1539 Sondage 14 inv. 86.14.88.3 Wt. 1g Two small pieces of a mass of bronze

fig. 7

98

THE HELLENISTIC HARBOUR OF AMATHUS

Small deformed mass of bronze broken in two pieces, irregular in shape. Dark grey, mostly covered by greenbrown and purple layer. White-grey stains on parts of surface. Pebbles incorporated into surface. Surface slightly rough and porous. Usage: Function unknown. D91 AM1540 Sondage 14 inv. 86.14.91.2 fig. 7 Wt. 2g A small mass of bronze Small deformed mass of bronze, irregular in shape. Dark grey-blue. Yellowish-gold layer on parts of surface. Surface rough and porous. Usage: Function unknown. D92 AM1545 Sondage 19 inv. 86.19.14.3 fig. 7 Wt. 2g Small mass of bronze Small deformed mass of bronze, irregular in shape. Dark grey-blue, covered by a thin white-grey layer with powdery texture. Yellowish-gold layer on parts of surface. Surface slightly rough. Usage: Function unknown. D93 AM1546 Sondage 19 inv. 86.19.14.4 fig. 7 Wt. 1g A small mass of bronze Small deformed mass of bronze, irregular in shape. Dark grey-black, some parts covered by a green-brown and purple layer. A formation of expanding white-grey stains also covers a part of surface. Pebbles incorporated into surface. Surface rough and porous. Usage: Function unknown. D94 AM1547 Sondage 14 inv. 86.14.89.3 fig. 8 Wt. 2g A small mass of bronze Small deformed mass of bronze, irregular in shape. Dark grey, covered by a thin white-grey layer with powdery texture. Reddish-brown layer covers parts of surface. Pebbles incorporated into surface. Surface rough and porous. Usage: Function unknown. D95 AM1548 Sondage 19 inv. 86.14.89.3 fig. 8 Wt. 2g Small mass of bronze Small deformed mass of bronze, irregular in shape. Dark grey-black, some parts covered by a light brown layer. Surface rough and porous. Usage: Function unknown. D96 AM1549 Sondage 14 inv. 86.14.89.3 fig. 8 Wt. 1g A small mass of bronze Small deformed mass of bronze, irregular in shape. Dark grey-black, mostly covered by a green-brown layer. A deep, dark grey cavity on one face. Pebbles incorporated into surface. Surface rough and porous. Usage: Function unknown.

THE HELLENISTIC METALLIC ARTEFACTS FOUND IN AMATHUS HARBOUR

99

D97 AM1550 Sondage 14 inv. 86.14.89.3 fig. 8 Wt. 2g Small mass of bronze Small deformed mass of bronze, irregular in shape. Dark grey, mostly covered by a green-brown layer. A formation of expanding white-grey stains also covers a part of surface. Pebbles incorporated into surface. Surface rough and porous. Usage: Function unknown. D98 AM1551 Sondage 14 inv. 86.14.89.3 fig. 8 L. approx. 1 A small mass of bronze Small deformed mass of bronze of elongated, cylindrical shape. Dark grey-blue, some parts covered by a green-brown and purple layer. A formation of expanding white-grey stains also covers a part of surface. Pebbles incorporated into surface. Surface rough and porous. Usage: Function unknown. D99 AM1552 Sondage 14 inv. 86.14.89.3 fig. 8 Wt. 1g Small mass of bronze Small deformed mass of bronze, irregular in shape. Dark grey, some parts covered by a green-brown and purple layer. Pebbles incorporated into surface. Surface rough and porous. Usage: Function unknown. D100 AM1553 Sondage 14 inv. 86.14.89.9 fig. 8 Wt. 1g Small mass of bronze Small deformed mass of bronze, irregular in shape. Black, some parts covered by a green-brown and purple layer. A formation of expanding white-grey stains also covers a part of surface. Pebbles incorporated into surface. Surface rough. Usage: Function unknown.

Miscellaneous finds D101 AM1426 Sondage 5 inv. 85.1064 fig. 8 and pl. 4 Diam. of the rim 2; Wt. 16g. Lead Pipe Fragment of lead pipe. Pipe is broken and bent to a wide and open angle, with one end flaring and turning outward to form a rim. Wall of rim thicker than wall of elongated, cylindrical shaft. Surface smooth and undecorated. Usage: Function uncertain, however, bilge pumps and pipes have been found in many wrecks and harbours in the Mediterranean. This fragment of lead pipe probably served as part of a hydraulic system for water collection and distribution or as a part of pumps used for discharging rainwater collected in the hull6. D102 AM1428 Sondage 5 inv. 85.1073 Folded Sheet: diam. approx. 3.2; W. approx. 4; Wt. 12g 6.

fig. 8 and pl. 4

N. Kaltsas, E. Vlachogianni and P. Bouyia, The Antikythera Shipwreck. The Ship, The Treasures, The Mechanism. National Archaeological Museum, April 2012 – April 2013 (2012), p. 44-45.

100

THE HELLENISTIC HARBOUR OF AMATHUS

Oblong Sheet: L. 4.8; Th. approx. 1; Wt. 99g Two lead sheets Rectangular strip, folded on one plane. Slightly bent into a tube, but open on one side, length/diameter of opening is 3.2cm. It seems like an arch. On back, there is an embossed inscription. The inscription is not clear, because the surface is slightly rough and corroded but it seems to consist of three symbols/letters: ȜȪV. Thick oblong sheet, rectangular in shape. Surface slightly rough and undecorated. Usage: Function unknown, and not clear if the two lead sheets are related to each other. No convincing parallels have been found for comparison and to establish exact function. However, the shape of the folded lead sheet seems to be a bent plate for a tube, which was probably used as a fishing net sinker. Numerous lead sinkers of this type were decorated with geometrical patterns, letters or more elaborate designs. The inscription on this lead object must have had some significance for its creator, but its meaning remains enigmatic. D103 AM1432 Sondage 5 inv. 85.1146 fig. 8 and pl. 4 Max. diam. 14; Min. diam. 6m; Wt. 7g. Rope Small and frail segment of rope, broken in three pieces. Made by twisting together natural fibres. The fibres were first twisted into yarn, then the yarn twisted into strands and finally the strands twisted into the finished rope. It seems that the finished rope has been twisted to the left and it presents a “Z” twist. The rope seems to consist of two cords connected at one of its sides, making an oval shape -like an eye -that is opened at the other side. It is not obvious if the ends of these cords were attached and created this oval shape. Surface badly damaged, covered by a brownish layer. This brown colour is probably a result of the rope’s attachment to a metallic object (chiefly iron) or iron sheathing. Usage: Function unknown. No convincing parallels have been found for comparison and to establish exact function. D104 AM1434 Sondage 6 inv. 85.1249 fig. 8 Three pieces of an iron object Small, deformed piece of iron. Surface of front is fairly smooth, covered by a yellowish-brown layer. A line is marked on front, probably a decoration. Length of line 3cm, width 0.3cm. Surface of back porous and slightly rough, yellowish-brown and reddish-black in some areas. Pebbles incorporated into surface. Weight 9g. Small, deformed piece of iron. Surface of front is fairly smooth, covered by a yellowish-brown layer. Surface of back porous and slightly rough, yellowish-brown and reddish-black in some areas. A white layer also covers part of back. Pebbles incorporated into surface. Weight 14g. Small, deformed piece of iron. Surface of front is fairly smooth, covered by a yellowish-brown layer. A white layer also covers a part front. Surface of back porous and slightly rough, reddish-black. Pebbles incorporated into surface. An oblong rod is embedded in it. Length of rod 1.2cm. Weight of the piece 10g. Usage: Function unknown. No convincing parallels have been found for comparison and to establish exact function. According to excavation records, they are pieces of an iron scoria/slag. However, it seems that they were parts of a bigger, iron object or vessel, which was broken and modified by corrosion. D105 AM1435 Sondage 2 inv. 85.1435 fig. 8 and pl. 4 L. approx. 7.7; Max. Th. 1; Wt. 69g Lead object Corroded and broken lead object consisting of a central, rectangular part and two rectangular arms attached on both sides of the central part. The length of these two arms is 2.5cm for the larger and 1.5cm for the smaller one, while their width is 1.5cm and 0.8cm respectively. Surface covered by white and brown concretions. Usage: Function uncertain. According to excavation records, it is a lead object used for sealing or bedding. It may be a thick lead sheet that covered the surface of an object. For example, the wooden stock of a one-armed wood anchor was covered with a thick lead sheet, especially during the Hellenistic period. However, this lead

THE HELLENISTIC METALLIC ARTEFACTS FOUND IN AMATHUS HARBOUR

101

object is too small to be used for an anchor. According to its shape, it may also be a part of a metal tool, such as an axe. D106 AM1438 Sondage 2 inv. 85.1360 fig. 8 and pl. 4 Max. Th. 1; Wt. 406g Lead object Lead object, probably part of a bigger object. Irregular shape deformed by corrosion. It consists of two lead sheets, which are connected forming an object, such as an anchor arm with fluke. One sheet thicker than the other. Maximum lengths 9.2cm and 9cm and maximum widths 3cm and 4cm respectively. Surface slightly rough and covered by concretions and a formation of expanding white stains in some places. Usage: Function unknown. According to excavation records, it is a thick lead object. It seems that it was part of a bigger object. No convincing parallels have been found for comparison and to establish exact function. D107 Ȝȧ1500 Sondage 18 inv. 86.18.11.3 fig. 8 and pl. 4 Dimensions: Ht. approx. 3; W. approx. 2; Th. approx. 0.5; Wt. 6g. Lead object Probable hanging device made of lead. Formed of a slightly square-sectioned rod, tapered towards both ends, with an opening of 0.015m. Usage: Function uncertain. According to excavation records, it is a lead hook. However, no convincing parallels have been found for comparison or to prove that it was used as a hook. Compared with other objects found along the Mediterranean coastline, it could be a small handle of a delicate vessel, such as a situla, which is a bucket-shaped vessel7. D108 Ȝȧ1512 Sondage 14 inv. 86.14.2.1 fig. 8 and pl. 4 Ht. approx. 3; diam. of the head approx. 1; Wt. 25g. A lead object Cylindrical object characterised by solid body formed from a lead mass. It has a rounded end with a small, irregular closed cavity in its centre. At the opposite end, a small, triangular opening is shaped. Length of the base of this opening 0.8cm, length of its sides approximately 1cmm. Undecorated, most of surface smooth. Usage: Function unknown. According to excavation records, it is a fragment of a curved lead rod. No convincing parallels have been found for comparison and to establish exact function. According to its structure, it could be a lead hook sinker used for line fishing. The opening could possibly have been used for attaching a line, which runs completely around the sinker. D109 Ȝȧ1515 Sondage 14 inv. 86.14.60.1 fig. 8 Large piece: L. approx. 3.7; Max. diam. of head 1; Wt. 23g Small piece: L. approx. 1.8; Wt. 2g Two pieces of a lead object Cylindrical object characterised by solid body formed from a lead mass. Irregular, conical end, while opposite end is round, with a small, straight line in its centre. This straight line was probably an opening, like the one of AM1512, and it was probably closed by corrosion. Undecorated, most of the surface slightly rough. A small, deformed lead fragment. Irregular shape and surface rough. Usage: Function unknown, while it is not obvious if the two pieces are related to each other. According to excavation records, they are fragments of a lead sheet. It does not seem that they are fragments of lead sheet, however, no convincing parallels have been found for comparison and to establish exact function. Too badly damaged for identification. 7.

M. Katzev, “Miscellaneous Finds”, in G. Bass, F.H. Van Doorninck, Yassi Ada, A SeventhCentury Byzantine Shipwreck, vol. 1 (1982), p. 285-288..

102

THE HELLENISTIC HARBOUR OF AMATHUS

D110 AM1517 Sondage 14 inv. 86.14.62.2 fig. 8 L. approx. 3.4; Max. diam. of the head 1.1; Wt. 28g Piece of a lead object Cylindrical object characterised by solid body formed from a lead mass. It appears to have an irregular, conical end, while the opposite end is rounded. Slight crack in its walls. This crack was probably an opening, like the one of D108, and was probably closed by corrosion. Undecorated, most of the surface slightly rough and deformed. Usage: Function unknown. According to excavation records, it is a fragment of a lead rod. However, no convincing parallels have been found for comparison and to establish exact function. Too badly damaged for identification.

D26

AM1514

Sondage 14

86.14.55.2

D27

AM1537

Sondage 14

86.14.17.1

D28

AM1424

Sondage 5

85.1058

D29

AM1507

Sondage 1 and 3

86.1 + 86.3.16.1

84.3559.3

D30

AM1508

Sondage 14

86.14.45.1

Sondage 5

85.1073

D31

AM1400

Sondage A

84.3559.1

AM1497

Sondage 12

86.12.8.1

D32

AM1401

Sondage A

84.3559.2

D7

AM1407

Sondage 3

85.0242

D33

AM1409

Sondage 1

85.0028

D8

AM1415

Sondage 3

85.0228

D34

AM1413

Sondage 2

85.0066

D9

AM1433

Sondage 5

85.1155

D35

AM1480

Sondage 13

86.13.1.1

D10

AM1505

Sondage 12

86.12.10.1

D36

AM1481

Sondage 13

86.13.1.2

D11

AM1518

Sondage 14

86.14.64.1

D37

AM1482

Sondage 13

86.13.2.1

D12

AM1528

Sondage 14

86.14.73.6

D38

AM1483

Sondage 13

86.13.2.2

D13

AM1410

Sondage 1

85.0028

D39

AM1484

Sondage 13

86.13.3.1

D14

AM1414

Sondage 1

85.0071

D40

AM1485

Sondage 13

86.13.4.1

D15

AM1416

Sondage 3

85.0223

D41

AM1486

Sondage 13

86.13.13.1

D16

AM1419

Sondage 2

85.0035

D42

AM1487

Sondage 13

86.13.32.1

D17

AM1420

Sondage 1

85.0038

D43

AM1488

Sondage 13

86.13.32.2

D18

AM1421

Sondage 1

85.0074

D44

AM1489

Sondage 13

86.13.32.3

D19

AM1430

Sondage 6

85.1107

D45

AM1490

Sondage 13

86.13.32.4

D20

AM1431

Sondage 2

85.0112

D46

AM1491

Sondage 13

86.13.32.5

D21

AM1503

Sondage 3

86.03.1.1

D47

AM1492

Sondage 13

86.13.32.6

D22

AM1504

Sondage 3

86.03.1.2

D48

AM1493

Sondage 13

86.13.46.1

D23

AM1510

Sondage 14

86.14.64.1

D49

AM1494

Sondage 13

86.13.48.1

D24

AM1511

Sondage 14

86.14.79.1

D50

AM1495

Sondage 13

86.13.52.1

D25

AM1513

Sondage 14

86.14.50.1

D51

AM1496

Sondage 1 and 3

86.1 + 86.3.33.1

Cat. no.

Museum no.

Context

Exc. inv. no.

D1

AM1479

Sondage 19

86.19.12.1

D2

AM1425

Sondage 4

85.1060

D3

AM1468

Sondage 14

86.14.53.1

D4

AM1402

Sondage A

D5

AM1427

D6

THE HELLENISTIC METALLIC ARTEFACTS FOUND IN AMATHUS HARBOUR

Cat. no.

Museum no.

Context

Exc. inv. no.

D52

AM1498

Sondage 18

86.18.11.1

D53

AM1501

Sondage 14

86.14.74.1

D54

AM1523

Sondage 14

86.14.65.2

D55

AM1538

Sondage 14

86.14.85.1

D56

AM1544

Sondage 19

86.19.14.2

D57

AM1519

Sondage 14

86.14.64.2

D58

AM1529

Sondage 14

86.14.73.7

D59

AM1530

Sondage 14

86.14.73.8

D60

AM1408

Sondage 1

85.0002

D61

AM1411

Sondage 1

85.0036

D62

AM1499

Sondage 18

86.18.11.2

D63

AM1502

Sondage 40

86.14.63.2

D64

AM1524

Sondage 14

86.14.65.3

D65

AM1535

Sondage 14

86.14.76.4

D66

AM1541

Sondage 14

86.14.95.2

D67

AM1542

Sondage 14

86.14.95.3

D68

AM1399

Sondage A

84.3566.4

D69

AM1412

Sondage 1

85.0046

D70

AM1422

Sondage 4

85.1040

D71

AM1423

Sondage 5

85.1058

D72

AM1436

Sondage 8

85.1346

D73

AM1506

Sondage 13

86.13.52.2

D74

AM1509

Sondage 14

86.14.45.2

D75

AM1516

Sondage 14

86.14.61.3

D76

AM1520

Sondage 14

86.14.64.3

D77

AM1521

Sondage 14

86.14.64.4

D78

AM1527

Sondage 14

86.14.73.5

D79

AM1536

Sondage 14

86.14.76.5

D80

AM1543

Sondage 19

86.19.14.1

Concordance table 1 — Cat. no. / excavation inv. no.

103

D81

AM1437

Sondage 8

85.1358

D82

AM1439

Sondage 8

85.1361

D83

AM1522

Sondage 14

86.14.57.1

D84

AM1525

Sondage 14

86.14.73.3

D85

AM1526

Sondage 14

86.14.73.4

D86

AM1531

Sondage 14

86.14.73.10

D87

AM1532

Sondage 14

86.14.73.10

D88

AM1533

Sondage 14

86.14.76.2

D89

AM1534

Sondage 14

86.14.76.3

D90

AM1539

Sondage 14

86.14.88.3

D91

AM1540

Sondage 14

86.14.91.2

D92

AM1545

Sondage 19

86.19.14.3

D93

AM1546

Sondage 19

86.19.14.4

D94

AM1547

Sondage 14

86.14.89.3

D95

AM1548

Sondage 14

86.14.89.3

D96

AM1549

Sondage 14

86.14.89.3

D97

AM1550

Sondage 14

86.14.89.3

D98

AM1551

Sondage 14

86.14.89.3

D99

AM1552

Sondage 14

86.14.89.3

D100

AM1553

Sondage 14

86.14.89.9

D101

AM1426

Sondage 5

85.1064

D102

AM1428

Sondage 5

85.1073

D103

AM1432

Sondage 5

85.1146

D104

AM1434

Sondage 6

85.1249

D105

AM1435

Sondage 2

85.1435

D106

AM1438

Sondage 2

85.0136

D107

AM1500

Sondage 18

86.18.11.3

D108

AM1512

Sondage 14

86.14.2.1

D109

AM1515

Sondage 14

86.14.60.1

D110

AM1517

Sondage 14

86.14.62.2

104

THE HELLENISTIC HARBOUR OF AMATHUS

Context

Exc. inv. no.

Cat. no.

Museum no.

Sondage A

84.3559.1

D31

AM1400

Sondage A

84.3559.2

D32

AM1401

Sondage A

84.3559.3

D4

AM1402

Sondage A

84.3566.4

D68

AM1399

Sondage 1

85.2

D60

AM1408

Sondage 1

85.28

D13

AM1410

Sondage 1

85.28

D33

AM1409

Sondage 1

85.36

D61

AM1411

Sondage 1

85.38

D17

AM1420

Sondage 1

85.46

D69

AM1412

Sondage 1

85.71

D14

AM1414

Sondage 1

85.74

D18

AM1421

Sondage 1 and 3

86.1 + 86.3.16.1

D29

AM1507

Sondage 1 and 3

86.1 + 86.3.33.1

D51

AM1496

Sondage 5

85.1064

D101

AM1426

Sondage 5

85.1073

D5

AM1427

Sondage 5

85.1073

D102

AM1428

Sondage 5

85.1146

D103

AM1432

Sondage 5

85.1155

D9

AM1433

Sondage 6

85.1107

D19

AM1430

Sondage 6

85.1249

D104

AM1434

Sondage 8

85.1346

D72

AM1436

Sondage 8

85.1358

D81

AM1437

Sondage 8

85.1361

D82

AM1439

Sondage 12

86.12.8.1

D6

AM1497

Sondage 12

86.12.10.1

D10

AM1505

Sondage 13

86.13.1.1

D35

AM1480

Sondage 13

86.13.1.2

D36

AM1481

Sondage 13

86.13.2.1

D37

AM1482

Sondage 2

85.35

D16

AM1419

Sondage 13

86.13.2.2

D38

AM1483

Sondage 2

85.66

D34

AM1413

Sondage 13

86.13.3.1

D39

AM1484

Sondage 2

85.112

D20

AM1431

Sondage 13

86.13.4.1

D40

AM1485

Sondage 2

85.136

D106

AM1438

Sondage 13

86.13.13.1

D41

AM1486

Sondage 2

85.1435

D105

AM1435

Sondage 13

86.13.32.1

D42

AM1487

Sondage 13

86.13.32.2

D43

AM1488

Sondage 3

85.223

D15

AM1416

Sondage 13

86.13.32.3

D44

AM1489

Sondage 3

85.228

D8

AM1415

Sondage 13

86.13.32.4

D45

AM1490

Sondage 3

85.242

D7

AM1407

Sondage 13

86.13.32.5

D46

AM1491

Sondage 3

86.3.1.1

D21

AM1503

Sondage 13

86.13.32.6

D47

AM1492

Sondage 3

86.3.1.2

D22

AM1504

Sondage 13

86.13.46.1

D48

AM1493

Sondage 13

86.13.48.1

D49

AM1494

Sondage 4

85.1040

D70

AM1422

Sondage 13

86.13.52.1

D50

AM1495

Sondage 4

85.1060

D2

AM1425

Sondage 13

86.13.52.2

D73

AM1506

Sondage 5

85.1058

D28

AM1424

Sondage 14

86.14.2.1

D108

AM1512

Sondage 5

85.1058

D71

AM1423

Sondage 14

86.14.17.1

D27

AM1537

THE HELLENISTIC METALLIC ARTEFACTS FOUND IN AMATHUS HARBOUR

Context

Exc. inv. no.

Cat. no.

Museum no.

Sondage 14

86.14.45.1

D30

AM1508

Sondage 14

86.14.45.2

D74

AM1509

Sondage 14

86.14.50.1

D25

AM1513

Sondage 14

86.14.53.1

D3

AM1468

Sondage 14

86.14.55.2

D26

AM1514

Sondage 14

86.14.57.1

D83

AM1522

Sondage 14

86.14.60.1

D109

AM1515

Sondage 14

86.14.61.3

D75

AM1516

Sondage 14

86.14.62.2

D110

AM1517

Sondage 14

86.14.63.2

D63

AM1502

Sondage 14

86.14.64.1

D11

AM1518

Sondage 14

86.14.64.1

D23

AM1510

Sondage 14

86.14.64.2

D57

AM1519

Sondage 14

86.14.64.3

D76

AM1520

Sondage 14

86.14.64.4

D77

AM1521

Sondage 14

86.14.65.2

D54

AM1523

Sondage 14

86.14.65.3

D64

AM1524

Sondage 14

86.14.73.10

D86

AM1531

Sondage 14

86.14.73.10

D87

AM1532

Sondage 14

86.14.73.3

D84

AM1525

Sondage 14

86.14.73.4

D85

AM1526

Sondage 14

86.14.73.5

D78

AM1527

Sondage 14

86.14.73.6

D12

AM1528

Sondage 14

86.14.73.7

D58

AM1529

Sondage 14

86.14.73.8

D59

AM1530

Sondage 14

86.14.74.1

D53

AM1501

Concordance table 2 — Excavation inv. no. / cat. no.

105

Sondage 14

86.14.76.2

D88

AM1533

Sondage 14

86.14.76.3

D89

AM1534

Sondage 14

86.14.76.4

D65

AM1535

Sondage 14

86.14.76.5

D79

AM1536

Sondage 14

86.14.79.1

D24

AM1511

Sondage 14

86.14.85.1

D55

AM1538

Sondage 14

86.14.88.3

D90

AM1539

Sondage 14

86.14.89.3

D94

AM1547

Sondage 14

86.14.89.3

D96

AM1549

Sondage 14

86.14.89.3

D97

AM1550

Sondage 14

86.14.89.3

D98

AM1551

Sondage 14

86.14.89.3

D99

AM1552

Sondage 14

86.14.89.3

D95

AM1548

Sondage 14

86.14.89.9

D100

AM1553

Sondage 14

86.14.91.2

D91

AM1540

Sondage 14

86.14.95.2

D66

AM1541

Sondage 14

86.14.95.3

D67

AM1542

Sondage 18

86.18.11.1

D52

AM1498

Sondage 18

86.18.11.2

D62

AM1499

Sondage 18

86.18.11.3

D107

AM1500

Sondage 19

86.19.12.1

D1

AM1479

Sondage 19

86.19.14.1

D80

AM1543

Sondage 19

86.19.14.2

D56

AM1544

Sondage 19

86.19.14.3

D92

AM1545

Sondage 19

86.19.14.4

D93

AM1546

106

THE HELLENISTIC HARBOUR OF AMATHUS

AM1468

D3

Sondage 14

86.14.53.1

AM1479

D1

Sondage 19

86.19.12.1

AM1480

D35

Sondage 13

86.13.1.1

AM1481

D36

Sondage 13

86.13.1.2

AM1482

D37

Sondage 13

86.13.2.1

AM1483

D38

Sondage 13

86.13.2.2

AM1484

D39

Sondage 13

86.13.3.1

AM1485

D40

Sondage 13

86.13.4.1

AM1486

D41

Sondage 13

86.13.13.1

AM1487

D42

Sondage 13

86.13.32.1

AM1488

D43

Sondage 13

86.13.32.2

AM1489

D44

Sondage 13

86.13.32.3

AM1490

D45

Sondage 13

86.13.32.4

AM1491

D46

Sondage 13

86.13.32.5

AM1492

D47

Sondage 13

86.13.32.6

AM1493

D48

Sondage 13

86.13.46.1

AM1494

D49

Sondage 13

86.13.48.1

AM1495

D50

Sondage 13

86.13.52.1

AM1496

D51

Sondage 1 and 3

86.1 + 86.3.33.1

85.1058

AM1497

D6

Sondage 12

86.12.8.1

Sondage 5

85.1058

AM1498

D52

Sondage 18

86.18.11.1

D2

Sondage 4

85.1060

AM1499

D62

Sondage 18

86.18.11.2

AM1426

D101

Sondage 5

85.1064

AM1500

D107

Sondage 18

86.18.11.3

AM1427

D5

Sondage 5

85.1073

AM1501

D53

Sondage 14

86.14.74.1

AM1428

D102

Sondage 5

85.1073

AM1502

D63

Sondage 40

86.14.63.2

AM1430

D19

Sondage 6

85.1107

AM1503

D21

Sondage 3

86.03.1.1

AM1431

D20

Sondage 2

85.0112

AM1504

D22

Sondage 3

86.03.1.2

AM1432

D103

Sondage 5

85.1146

AM1505

D10

Sondage 12

86.12.10.1

AM1433

D9

Sondage 5

85.1155

AM1506

D73

Sondage 13

86.13.52.2

AM1434

D104

Sondage 6

85.1249

AM1507

D29

AM1435

D105

Sondage 2

85.1435

Sondage 1 and 3

86.1 + 86.3.16.1

AM1436

D72

Sondage 8

85.1346

AM1508

D30

Sondage 14

86.14.45.1

AM1437

D81

Sondage 8

85.1358

AM1509

D74

Sondage 14

86.14.45.2

AM1438

D106

Sondage 2

85.0136

AM1510

D23

Sondage 14

86.14.64.1

AM1439

D82

Sondage 8

85.1361

AM1511

D24

Sondage 14

86.14.79.1

AM1512

D108

Sondage 14

86.14.2.1

Museum no.

Cat. no.

Context

Exc. inv. no.

AM1399

D68

Sondage A

84.3566.4

AM1400

D31

Sondage A

84.3559.1

AM1401

D32

Sondage A

84.3559.2

AM1402

D4

Sondage A

84.3559.3

AM1407

D7

Sondage 3

85.0242

AM1408

D60

Sondage 1

85.0002

AM1409

D33

Sondage 1

85.0028

AM1410

D13

Sondage 1

85.0028

AM1411

D61

Sondage 1

85.0036

AM1412

D69

Sondage 1

85.0046

AM1413

D34

Sondage 2

85.0066

AM1414

D14

Sondage 1

85.0071

AM1415

D8

Sondage 3

85.0228

AM1416

D15

Sondage 3

85.0223

AM1419

D16

Sondage 2

85.0035

AM1420

D17

Sondage 1

85.0038

AM1421

D18

Sondage 1

85.0074

AM1422

D70

Sondage 4

85.1040

AM1423

D71

Sondage 5

AM1424

D28

AM1425

THE HELLENISTIC METALLIC ARTEFACTS FOUND IN AMATHUS HARBOUR

Museum no.

Cat. no.

Context

Exc. inv. no.

AM1513

D25

Sondage 14

86.14.50.1

AM1514

D26

Sondage 14

86.14.55.2

AM1515

D109

Sondage 14

86.14.60.1

AM1516

D75

Sondage 14

86.14.61.3

AM1517

D110

Sondage 14

86.14.62.2

AM1518

D11

Sondage 14

86.14.64.1

AM1519

D57

Sondage 14

86.14.64.2

AM1520

D76

Sondage 14

86.14.64.3

AM1521

D77

Sondage 14

86.14.64.4

AM1522

D83

Sondage 14

86.14.57.1

AM1523

D54

Sondage 14

86.14.65.2

AM1524

D64

Sondage 14

86.14.65.3

AM1525

D84

Sondage 14

86.14.73.3

AM1526

D85

Sondage 14

86.14.73.4

AM1527

D78

Sondage 14

86.14.73.5

AM1528

D12

Sondage 14

86.14.73.6

AM1529

D58

Sondage 14

86.14.73.7

AM1530

D59

Sondage 14

86.14.73.8

AM1531

D86

Sondage 14

86.14.73.10

AM1532

D87

Sondage 14

86.14.73.10

Concordance table 3 — Museum inv. no. / cat. no.

107

AM1533

D88

Sondage 14

86.14.76.2

AM1534

D89

Sondage 14

86.14.76.3

AM1535

D65

Sondage 14

86.14.76.4

AM1536

D79

Sondage 14

86.14.76.5

AM1537

D27

Sondage 14

86.14.17.1

AM1538

D55

Sondage 14

86.14.85.1

AM1539

D90

Sondage 14

86.14.88.3

AM1540

D91

Sondage 14

86.14.91.2

AM1541

D66

Sondage 14

86.14.95.2

AM1542

D67

Sondage 14

86.14.95.3

AM1543

D80

Sondage 19

86.19.14.1

AM1544

D56

Sondage 19

86.19.14.2

AM1545

D92

Sondage 19

86.19.14.3

AM1546

D93

Sondage 19

86.19.14.4

AM1547

D94

Sondage 14

86.14.89.3

AM1548

D95

Sondage 14

86.14.89.3

AM1549

D96

Sondage 14

86.14.89.3

AM1550

D97

Sondage 14

86.14.89.3

AM1551

D98

Sondage 14

86.14.89.3

AM1552

D99

Sondage 14

86.14.89.3

AM1553

D100

Sondage 14

86.14.89.9

108

THE HELLENISTIC HARBOUR OF AMATHUS

D1

0

0,5 cm

Fig. 1 — A gold jewel in shape of palmette, D1, scale 2:1. Drawing Cl. Vasitsek, Photo A. Athanasiou, EFA Archives

D2

0

5 cm

D3

Fig. 2 — A bronze crown, D2; a sling bullet, D3 scale 1:2. Drawing Cl. Vasitsek, Photos A. Athanasiou, EFA Archives

THE HELLENISTIC METALLIC ARTEFACTS FOUND IN AMATHUS HARBOUR

109

D4

D6

D5

D7

D8

D13

D9

D14

D10

D15 0

D11

D12

D16 5 cm

Fig. 3 — Arrow, D4; Hooks, D5-D6; Fishing sinkers for line and hook, D7-D12; Fishing sinkers for nets, D13-D16. Scale 1:1. Photos A. Athanasiou, EFA Archives

110

THE HELLENISTIC HARBOUR OF AMATHUS

D17

D20

D18

D19 D23 D21

D22

D25

D26

D27 D24

D28

D30

D29

0

5 cm

Fig. 4 — Fishing sinkers for nets, D17-D27; Rings, D28-D30. Scale 1:1. Photos A. Athanasiou, EFA Archives

THE HELLENISTIC METALLIC ARTEFACTS FOUND IN AMATHUS HARBOUR

111

D38

D31 D34

D33

D35

D36

D37

D39

D53

D40

D41

D42

D43

D44

D45

D46

D47

D48

D49 D51

D52 D50

D55 D54 D32

D56

0

Fig. 5 — Nails, D31-D56. Scale 1:1. Photos A. Athanasiou, EFA Archives

5 cm

112

THE HELLENISTIC HARBOUR OF AMATHUS

D57

D58

D59

D60

D61

D62

D63

D65

D64

D66

D67 0

5 cm

Fig. 6 — Cylindrical rods, D57-D59; Deformed and corroded objects, D60-D67. Scale 1:1. Photos A. Athanasiou, EFA Archives

THE HELLENISTIC METALLIC ARTEFACTS FOUND IN AMATHUS HARBOUR

D68

D73

D72

D75

D74

D77

D70

D69

D71

D78

D76

D80

D79

D82

D86

113

D83

D84

D85

D87

D88

D89

D93

D94

D81

D90

D91

D92 0

5 cm

Fig. 7 — Sheets and scraps, D68-D80; Metallic masses, D81-D94. Scale 1:1. Photos A. Athanasiou, EFA Archives

114

THE HELLENISTIC HARBOUR OF AMATHUS

D95

D96

D97

D98

D99

D100

D105

D102.1-2

D107

D104 0

D108

D109 5 cm

D110

D106 D103 0

5 cm

Fig. 8 — Metallic masses, D95-D100; Miscellaneous finds, D101-110. Scale 1:1 except D103 and D106 Scale 1:2. Photos A. Athanasiou, EFA Archives

THE HELLENISTIC METALLIC ARTEFACTS FOUND IN AMATHUS HARBOUR

115

D6 D4

D5

D7 D9

D8

D11

D10 D12 0

5 cm

Plate 1 — Arrow, D4; Hooks, D5-D6; Fishing sinkers for line and hook, D7-D12. Scale 1:1. Drawings Cl. Vasitsek, EFA Archives

116

THE HELLENISTIC HARBOUR OF AMATHUS

D15

D19 D24

D28 D29 0

5 cm

Plate 2 — Fishing sinkers for nets, D15, D19, D24; Rings: lead D28, iron D29. Scale 1:1. Drawings Cl. Vasitsek, EFA Archives

THE HELLENISTIC METALLIC ARTEFACTS FOUND IN AMATHUS HARBOUR

117

D30

D31

D33

D34

D50

D47 D68

0

D53 5 cm

Plate 3 — Fishing gear D30; Nails D31, D33, D34, D47, D50, D53; Tack, D68. Scale 1:1. Drawings Cl. Vasitsek, EFA Archives

118

THE HELLENISTIC HARBOUR OF AMATHUS

D103

0

5 cm

D106

D101

D102.2

D102.1

D107

D105

0

D108

5 cm

Plate 4 — Lead pipe D101; Lead sheet D102; Rope D103; Lead sheet D105; Anchor (?) D106; Handle D107; Lead rod D108. Scale 1:1, except D103 and D106, scale 1:2. Drawings Cl. Vasitsek, EFA Archives

Part 11 The archaeological material found in the Late Roman wells

The publication of objects found during the underwater excavation of the Late Roman wells of Amathus harbour Jean-Yves Empereur

The five articles that follow gather together studies of the objects discovered during the underwater excavations of wells dug into the harbour basin of Amathus. As we have seen in the first volume, two quadrangular wells and the tank of a sakieh were explored, revealing a wealth of archaeological material that had been used to fill the wells at the moment in history when they began to be contaminated by an inflow of salt water. They were blocked up very quickly, as is demonstrated by the chronological connections between the fragments of pottery vases spread throughout the depths of the wells and tank. The study by May Touma presents an interesting pottery ensemble dated to the end of the 6th and beginning of the 7th century ad. The significance lies in the abundance of this batch – more than 1,000 vase fragments; the homogeneity – presence of connecting fragments; and the chronology – “filling an archaeological gap for one of the sites on the south coast of the island௘” by the fact that this material comes from a local workshop that we have located on the slopes above the harbour wells, just a few dozen metres distant௘. These artefacts are also of great intrinsic interest: the excavation of the harbour revealed many misshapen vases and firing rejects, testifying to the presence of the production workshop in the immediate vicinity. Also noteworthy were the numerous sakieh pots, which were used as part of the water-hoisting device that we excavated, as well as in other sakiehs found in the agora of the town. Having identified the production as Amathusian, Touma follows exports to Paphos, Carthage and Egypt: this investigation should be continued and expanded, notably into Syria. A re-examination of Cypriot LRD sigillata should be extended since she notes that there are arguments to suggest that there was a local production here. The modern methods of physico-chemical analysis would certainly contribute to any verification. The excavation of the harbour has revealed two phases when potters were active: firstly, the Early Hellenistic period, end of the 4th to beginning of the 3rd century bc; and secondly, the Late Roman era, end of the 6th to beginning of the 7th century ad. This does not mean that production stopped between these two dates, but merely that we do not have the archaeological layers corresponding to 1.

See infra, p. 125.

2.

J.-Y. Empereur and M. Picon, “Les régions de production d’amphores impériales en Méditerrannée Orientale”, in Amphores romaines et histoire économique: dix ans de recherches (Actes du colloque de Sienne, 22-24 mai 1986) (1989), p. 242

122

THE HELLENISTIC HARBOUR OF AMATHUS

the Late Hellenistic or earlier Roman periods. So, while it is unknown whether workshop activity was continuous during the millennium between the 3rd century bc and the 6th ad, it is nonetheless striking, as Touma points out, to notice the similarity in the very fabric and in the way this pottery was formed in both the Early Hellenistic and the Late Roman periods. May Touma has been unable to review her text as she has apparently not been able to leave her hometown of Aleppo since 2012 because of the Syrian civil war, and we have not been able to establish any communication with her. Although her study dates back to the 1990s, I have chosen to publish it here because she presents an ensemble that is remarkable for all the features that I have pointed out. In her words, “Thanks to the finds in the wells, both rejects and other vases, the site of Amathus (the basilica and ensemble) takes on a new interest, given the small number of excavated sites on Cyprus, for the Late Roman period3”. In the next article, I present the amphorae from the wells and, aside from a few imported examples, the large majority (over 87%) are local amphorae of two types (LRA1, variants a and b) and LRA13. Stella Demesticha has already presented amphorae of these types, thanks to examples found in excavations at Limassol, and she has been able to follow their distribution. These vases come from the coastal workshop of Amathus, and we might question the concurrent manufacture of two different forms: were they designed to contain different goods? Thereafter, Maria Michael presents the metallic objects found in the wells. The ensemble is mainly connected to fishing and this rarely published material displays a strong chronological homogeneity. The final two studies could barely have been imagined at the time of the excavation itself; however, our care and attention in gathering all the archaeological material has made them possible. These are examinations of the fauna and of the wood, even though in the 1980s archaeozoology and 14 C analysis were not yet well developed specialities Thanks to Jean-Denis Vigne, I was lucky enough to meet Angelos Hadjikoumis, who studied the animal bones that were found within the wells’ backfill. Despite the inexperience of the excavators in collecting this type of material, and notwithstanding the small number of samples, Hadjikoumis concludes “This study, despite the limitations of the sample on which it is based, contributes valuable information on the human-animal relationship for a period that was little known previously.4” As we have mentioned, several wells have been located along the beach at Amathus, to the west of the Hellenistic harbour, and they await future excavation. It might seem paradoxical that our knowledge of Cypriot fauna is the result of underwater excavations and that we have not been able to conduct such analyses based on land excavations, particularly from the excavations of the wells in the agora of Amathus. We can only go along with Hadjikoumis when he writes, “Currently, everyday life in Late Roman Cyprus is poorly understood. It is anticipated that this study will not remain an exception but will promote further research leading to a thorough understanding of the period5.” It was through a fortunate introduction by Yiannis Violaris that I came into contact with Sturt W. Manning of the Cornell Tree-Ring Laboratory, who, in collaboration with Brita Lorentzen, set about sampling and analysing the wood collected during the excavations. The endeavour was begun without too many illusions as to whatever results might be reached: as with the animal bones, our excavators were not trained to extract such samples, which were in addition attempted in the particularly difficult conditions of an amphibious excavation. The wood had been treated according to the local means of the period: a simple gradual desalinisation procedure followed by natural drying. In spite of this rather unfavourable starting point, coupled with the fact that 30 years had passed between excavation and analysis, the results are absolutely astonishing. Our colleagues from Cornell, 3.

See infra, p. 139.

4.

See infra, p. 205.

5.

See infra, p. 205.

THE PUBLICATION OF OBJECTS FOUND DURING THE UNDERWATER EXCAVATION OF THE LATE ROMAN WELLS

123

Lorentzen and Manning, have not only identified the tree species but also specified a narrow chronological range thanks to 14C. We now know that the sakieh of Well 3 was made from local Cyprus wood in that the construction and repair date to between 620 and 649 ad. One should probably retain an early date within this range since activity had ended before the arrival of the Arabs. We can justifiably be surprised by the wealth of results obtained from these last two studies, on the fauna and the wood, in that the archaeological material had to wait patiently for three decades for specialists who were able to interpret it. Nota bene: In the catalogues, the Late Roman pottery is numbered from E1 to E132; the amphorae from F1 to F8 and the metallic artefacts from G1 to G8. All measurements are in centimetres and the following abbreviations used: approx.: Approximately diam.: Diameter Ht.: Height L.: Length m.: Metre Max.: Maximum Min.: Minimum Th.: Thickness W.: Width Wt.: Weight

The Late Roman pottery found in Amathus harbour May Touma

The port of Amathus was excavated over three campaigns from 1984 to 1986 under the direction of J.-Y. Empereur and C. Verlinden1. During these excavations, six wells2 were recorded which are today under the sea but during the Late Roman period were located on the shore. Three of them were excavated. Well 3 provided a water supply for a waterwheel, a sakieh – the oldest on Cyprus – as was shown by the pottery jars and the remains of wooden beams that were recovered from it3. The three wells were filled at a single moment in time to block them and put them out of use. Well 1 contained very little ceramic material, while Well 2 contained a medium amount and No. 3 a large quantity. The infill to block these wells was done quickly. The water must have become brackish.

THE POTTERY FROM THE WELLS The material was abundant but varied little. It provided a large assemblages of local4 and imported forms that produced an interesting study regarding the site of Amathus and its port during the Late Roman period (5th-7th century), thus filling an archaeological gap for one of the sites on the south coast of the Island.

Issues with the material study The poor state of preservation of the material after having spent more than a millennium under water did not make the study easy and caused problems regarding the identification of certain ceramic fabrics, especially the lighter clays, which were very abundant (Category A)5. The sherds of this category were covered with concretions due to the long period of time spent in a marine environment, which 1.

See the list of reports Volume 1, p.165-166.

2.

J.-Y. Empereur, C. Verlinden, “The underwater excavation at the ancient port of Amathus in Cyprus”, IJNA 16-1 (1987), p. 7-18, fig. 1.

3.

BCH 111 (1987), p. 759.

4.

The large number of local forms is clear. The wells contained pottery wasters from the Amathus workshop and, in Wells 2 and 3, mainly sakieh pots, complete and fragmentary, that had been locally produced.

5.

This same fabric, also very abundant in the finds of the basilica, was used to manufacture numerous vessels of various forms, as well as lamps; the temper was made of little grains of greyish sand. The considerable variations in the appearance of this fabric and the treatment of the surfaces with “white milk” have led me to think that this is a local

126

THE HELLENISTIC HARBOUR OF AMATHUS

had almost caused a change in their texture. At the same time, the blackish or greyish colour of the sherds meant that study with the naked eye was not easy. Nevertheless, we undertook an analysis of the fabric and located a workshop and potters’ kilns6 on the slopes of the acropolis. Moreover, an examination with the naked eye of productions from sites such as Kourion, Paphos and Dhiorios 7 suggested that their fabric is different from that of Amathus 8.

Classification of the pottery The classification adopted here for the pottery from the three wells uses categories based on the texture and colour of the fabric9. I will describe the fineness, hardness, the “sand” or temper content as well as the grain size and the nature of this latter. Types are distinguished within these categories according to the form of the vessel. I will describe the treatment of the surface and the decoration technique(s). Dimensions are given where possible. Two conditions allow us to recognise the categories of important ceramics: their quality and their provenance when imported. This latter condition calls for detailed verifications on other sites, in museum reserves and publications.

The use of the catalogue Numbering: each specimen bears an ‘E’ number, to the left in the catalogue, used as a short form on the illustrations and photos (eg E12). In the catalogue, this is followed by the well number (1, 2 or 3). Following this, is a number which represents the year of discovery eg ‘85’, and this is followed by a context number, so in full, this would be 85.3529. All together this reads as: E1 Well 2 inv. 84.3529. For the ware categories, eg Aa I 1: ‘A’ is the category, ‘a’ is the type and ‘I’ represents a sub-type. The number 1 corresponds to an order of classification in sub-type Aa I, for example Aa I 1, Aa I 2, Aa I 3 etc. The types of Category C (Sigillata) are distinguished by Hayes’ form numbers (Hayes 104C = Hayes form 104, Type C). At the end of certain categories, there is a list of rare or unique fragments or those without form, which were found in the wells. For the colour, see p. 15 of this volume. I use the word “sand” to designate the temper and the grains of the temper.

production. The same abundance of this pottery that I call Category A, infra p. 128, is to be found in the excavations of the “Palace” (material seen by myself in the storehouse) and in the excavations of the temple and the basilica. 6.

J.-Y. Empereur, M. Picon, “Les régions de production d’amphores impériales en Méditerrannée Orientale”, in Amphores romaines et histoire économique: dix ans de recherches (Actes du colloque de Sienne, 22-24 mai 1986) (1989), p. 242.

7.

Thanks to the two visits authorised by M. Papaghiorghiou to the stores at Nicosia Museum where excavated material from the Dhiorios potter’s kiln is held.

8.

L. Courtois has studied the pottery fabric of Amathus (see L. Courtois, Br. Velde, “Techniques de la céramique et de la verrerie amathousienne, examen microscopique de la céramique et premières recherches”, BCH 103 (1979), p. 750-755). J.-Y. Empereur and M. Picon located the local ceramic manufacturing centre thanks to field survey and to analyses conducted by the ceramics lab at Lyon. I, however, have relied on examination with the naked eye (sometimes with a small magnifying glass) to describe the fabric and its texture.

9.

I have used the Code des couleurs des sols by A. Cailleux (ed. Boubée), where on p. 7-14 one finds the equivalents of the Munsell system, see p. 6.

THE LATE ROMAN POTTERY FOUND IN AMATHUS HARBOUR

127

Statistics The material from the wells of the port includes more than 1000 fragments: 661 have been chosen for study and counted in the statistics. I have excluded non-Late Roman sherds, which are rare (roughly 50). The number of fragments or fragmentary vessels is given at the beginning of each category. Classified objects are the best-preserved objects. Fragments labelled “no form” are fragments recorded in the statistics and sometimes in the descriptive study when their fabric has appeared to provide their identity or type or category. Fragments that have been eroded or blackened by the marine environment or by over-firing are also included in the statistics when they possess features that allow for their characterisation. The statistical study is divided into five tables: Table 1 presents all studied fragments (661) by category for each well. Table 2 presents vessels and lamps recorded individually, plus the jars, fragments of jars and tiles described or simply listed from Category A (local pottery), distinguished by type (Aa-Ag) from each well. Table 3 shows the number of cooking pots, casseroles and cooking pot lids of Category B from each well. Table 4 includes the North African, Phocaean and Cypriot red slip ware in each well. And lastly, Table 5 presents the fragments of all the lamps classified by type from each well. Category

A

B

C

Lamps

Tiles in red clay

Total

Well 1

10

1

0

0

3

14

Well 2

47

6

2

2

182

239

Well 3

297

67

37

6

1

408

Total

354

74

39

8

186

661

Table 1 — Number of fragments by well and by category

Types

Aa

Ab

Ac

Ad

Ae

Af

Ag

Variants

Lamps

Tiles

Total

Well 1

0

2

3

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

5

Well 2

1

6

1

1

1

0

6

2

1

10

29

Well 3

3

11

0

1

3

8

251

16

4

0

297

Total

4

19

4

2

4

8

257

18

5

10

331

Table 2 — Category A: Recorded vessels and lamps

Types

Ba

Lid

Bb

Bc

Total

Well 1

0

0

0

0

0

Well 2

0

1

0

0

1

Well 3

8

5

11

2

26

Total

8

6

11

2

27

Table 3 — Category B: Recorded vessels

128

THE HELLENISTIC HARBOUR OF AMATHUS

ARS

LRC

LRD

Total

Well 1

0

0

0

0

Well 2

1 (ARS104.C29)

0

1 (no form, overfired)

2

Well 3

1 ( ARS 67.1) 6 (no form)

1 ( LRC3.C7) 1 (LRC3.H31) 4 (no form) 1 Imitation

3 (LRD2) 2 (LRD3.2) 8 (LRD9.7) (LRD9.5 Type B) (LRD9.13 Type C) 1 (LRD10.1) bases + 3 with no form

37

Total

8

7

24

39

Date

550-625 4th-5th

460-475 6th

mid 6th third quarter 5th-second quarter 6th 580-600 - end 7th 600-650

Table 4 — Category C Types

I

II

III

IV

Total

Well 1

0

0

0

0

0

Well 2

0

1

0

1

2

Well 3

1

0

1

4

6

Total

1

1

1

5

8

Date

End 4th-beginning 5th

End 4th-6th

6th-8th

7th

Table 5 — Lamps

THE CATEGORIES OF POTTERY Category A, Light fabric Category A is the largest in number in the wells of the port, especially in Well 3. It includes various vessels of different forms and functions and comprises the majority of practical pottery forms: large and small jugs, amphora lids/stoppers, mortars, dolia, and sakieh jars. The fabric of this category is light, from pink to yellowish red to pale yellow, when not blackish or greyish. It is quite coarse, hard and sandy. The temper is commonly in the form of fine to medium black grains. One can sometimes note the presence of grains of lime, particularly in the large storage vessels and basins (pelves) of Types Ae and Af. In the fabric of these latter, the tempering grains are large and white, probably flakes of lime or chips of limestone. The surface treatment of this category can only be seen on a few complete jars (Type Ag). Elsewhere, it can scarcely be discerned, either because the other fragments were found to be blackened or grey in colour, or because the surfaces were not carefully treated by the potter. The treatment consisted of covering the exterior of the vessel with a “white milk” and it was then smoothed. This “white milk” would have been made from fine clay diluted in seawater 10. 10.

Cf. BCH 113 (1989), p. 872, note 19.

THE LATE ROMAN POTTERY FOUND IN AMATHUS HARBOUR

129

Category A covers more than 55% of the pottery from the wells. It is represented here by 73 recorded and catalogued sherds and 35 sherds that were not fully recorded but were inventoried. Of these 35, five came from Well 1, eight from Well 2 and twenty-two from Well 3, without counting the sherds of sakieh jars11, amphorae12 and tiles13 (see above Table 2). The rather plain decoration is confined to a few grooves on the exterior surfaces of the necks of some jugs. A basin shows some incisions on the rim, a dolium has been “scalloped” by hand and the handles of some closed forms have been fluted using fingers.

Category A types Type Aa: Flat-based stemmed jug Type Ab: Dimple-based jug Sub-types Ab I: Small dimple-based jug Ab II: Large dimple-based jug Type Ac: Wide-mouth jar with two close-set handles Type Ad: Lid (amphora?) with thick squared edge and central knob Type Ae: Flat-based basin with wide flared walls Type Af: Dolium Type Ag: Sakieh jar Sub-types Ag I: Cylindrical jar, carinated with out-turned ridged rim Ag II: Piriform jar with out-turned rim, no ridge

Distribution of the category/types, and comparative study Category A, of local manufacture, has few parallels either in Cyprus or outside the island. The everyday use ceramics include jugs, jars with two close-set handles, previously unknown, and other types. Type Aa (fig. 1, E1 and pl. 1) has no parallels anywhere, and has a plain form. It bears no slip or particular decoration. Because of its very plainness, I could not find any true parallels. However, for Types Ab I (pl. 2) and II and even Ac, I was able to find parallels because of the shape of the base and from the same period, 6th-7th century. This “fashion” for dimpled bases lasted on Cyprus notably from the Hellenistic-Roman period in the four tombs of Kambi Vasa14. The excavation of the basilica of Amathus revealed similar jugs. Comparable vessels in light clay15 from the cave of Kornos are certainly not exact equivalents, but the idea is the same. The fragments of Type Ab II (pl. 2-3) E8 and E20, recall finds in this same cave, as do our fragments E10, E11, E12

11.

Sakieh jars made from the same fabric constitute the main material from Well 3.

12.

The amphorae, studied by J.-Y. Empereur, are published infra p. 181-190.

13.

Cf. supra Tables 1 and 2.

14.

J. Du Plat Taylor, “Roman tombs at Kambi Vasa”, RDAC 1940-1948, p. 45.

15.

Catling, Dikigoropoulos, Kornos, p. 47-48, fig. 3, no. 5, 6, 9 and 10.

130

THE HELLENISTIC HARBOUR OF AMATHUS

and E13. Their necks and rims are close to No. 5 of that same site16. Type Ab I is also attested at Salamis17. A final Cypriot parallel comes to us from Kourion, dated to the 6th-7th century18. Outside Cyprus, Types Ab I and II have few comparanda. Nevertheless, the shape of the base allows for certain parallels with other regions. There are three examples from the Yassi Ada shipwreck19. Further south, in Jordan, recent excavations at Jerash20 have revealed jugs with dimpled bases. Fragments E10, E11, E12 and (less probably) E13 (see above) have a good parallel from Carthage21. It is possible that this fragment of neck from a jug is of Amathus type: it might even have been imported from Cyprus since a cooking pot of Dhiorios22 type was found in the same excavation, also dated to the 7th century. The fabric of the Carthaginian specimen is close to the local fabric of Amathus, as is the decoration on the neck. Type Ac is rare because of the positioning of the handles. It is represented here by the examples E22 to E25 (fig. 1, E22 and pl. 4). Its function is unexplained: for cooking or tableware? Did it perform the same function as the jars? The two close-set handles could be attached to a water wheel by rope or string. Its wide opening with no spout (which excludes its use as a jug) would also mean it could be used as a qadus. Type Ad (fig. 1 and pl. 5) is classified with caution as a lid/stopper (for an amphora?). What indeed was its function? For cooking? In any case, as a lid, it has a single parallel on Cyprus, from Salamis 23. Further to the west, at Argos, two other specimens can be added to the list of parallels, both dated to the 5th-6th century 24. A close example comes from Shavei Zion in Palestine and is dated according to the author to the 5th-6th century 25. Types Ae (pl. 5) and Af (pl. 6), coarse domestic ceramics of very large dimension, such as basins and pelves (Ae) and the huge storage jars, dolia (Af ), have parallels at Dhiorios. The example E31 resembles a basin also on account of its decoration 26. Fragment E36, representative of Type Af, has a comparable decoration to that seen on the rim of two basins, and strangely cannot be compared with the decoration of the dolia (scalloping). These parallels from Dhiorios are dated to the 7th-8th century 27. The examples of similar dolia come from the East, notably Pella in Jordan 28.

16.

Ibid. p. 47-48, fig. 3, no. 5 and 6.

17.

For Ab I, E6 and E7, see Diederichs, Salamine IX, pl. 18 no. 198, 199 and 200 and pl. 19 no. 198, 200 (type dated to 7th century p. 54); for Ab II, E8 and E9, cf. no. 200, pl. 18 and 19.

18.

J. Hayes, An Archaeological Guide, Ancient Kourion Area (1982), p. 184.

19.

Bass, Yassi Ada I, fig. 8-12, 8-14, P 24-P 27, P 32.

20.

A.M. Rasson, “Matériel céramique de la deuxième moitié du iiie siècle ap. J.-C.”, in Jerash Archaeological Project 1981-1983 (1986), p. 67-69 (dimple-based jug), fig. 17.1 and fig. 18.4; Montlivaut, Jerash, p. 71-73.

21.

Hayes, Riley, Carthage, p. 88, fig. 29 F32.

22.

Ibid. p. 43, p. 58 and fig. 8, XXI 13; 15, XXV 50; Hayes, Problèmes, p. 378 and fig. 6.

23.

Diederichs, Salamine IX, pl. 24 and 25 no. 305, its height: 13.5 cm (p. 62) is the same as the well lids, but the diam. of ours is larger (24 cm).

24.

P. Aupert, “Objets de la vie quotidienne à Argos en 585 ap. J.-C.”, Études Argiennes, BCH Suppl. VI (1980), fig. 44, no. 307 (the nearest) and 309, p. 436-437, dated to 5th century, p. 453-457.

25.

Prausnitz, Shavei Zion, pl. XXV a, p. 39-46 and p. 71-72, but later J. Hayes in Suppl. to LRP p. 528 rectifies this date because of LRD present in the site and gives a date of 575-625 ad.

26.

Catling, Dhioros, v. fig. 37, P443 and the decoration fig. 38 P580.

27.

Ibid. fig. 38 P581 and fig. 39 P577 for the decoration. Date, p. 79-80.

28.

Smith, Pella, pl. 44.1301, 1243.

THE LATE ROMAN POTTERY FOUND IN AMATHUS HARBOUR

131

A single example is attested on Cyprus for Type Ag (sakieh pot). It comes from Ayios Philon 29 and is dated to the 7th century. Sakieh pots are more numerous in Egypt 30. The Royal Ontario Museum 31 holds a sakieh pot of Egyptian origin. A pot was unearthed in the excavations of Carthage and was called a “crucible” because traces of bronze 32 were found inside. Lastly, in Syria, salvage excavations on the Euphrates provided a parallel 33. Sakieh pots, our Type Ag (pl. 7), were very numerous in Well 3 (251 fragments, compared with only six in Well 2) and they constitute 35% of the material from all the wells. After sorting and restoration, these 257 fragments gave us only a few, very incomplete fragmentary vessels, but they did enrich the statistical study. Nevertheless, two sakieh jars were retrieved intact from Well 3 (E43 and E47, see fig. 1) and, with some significant fragments, make up the sub-types of Ag. Thanks to these two complete sakieh jars, I was able to measure the volume of liquid they could hold: up to 2 litres each. Seventeen fragments (pl. 8), one from Well 2 and the others from Well 3, were difficult to integrate into the typology of Category A by their form. In effect, the state of these examples, either blackened or completely burnt, covered in concretions or eroded, meant that they could not be classified, and their rare forms in the wells did not correspond to any type of our classification.

Category B, brownish red fabric with a dark core Category B is a category of pottery sometimes called “terre à feu /fired clay”, that is terracotta vessels placed in the fire to cook food. They made up a good number of both open and closed forms in the wells and especially in Well 3. Cooking pots, lids, and casseroles in a variety of forms represented 11% of the material in the wells. This category of pottery is distinguished by a clay fabric that is light brownish red with a darker core (grey or dark grey). It is quite coarse, hard to very hard, sandy to quite sandy. The sand or temper is limestone of medium and large white grains. The surface has been smoothed but is rough to the touch, and the exterior surface has a smoky aspect, often giving it a dark colour. The high firing temperature gives all of these cooking vessels a “metallic” sound. Decoration is functional: closely spaced, fine grooves over the entire exterior surface, helping to distribute the heat over the pot during cooking. The category is represented by 27 recorded and catalogued vessels and fragments, and 47 with no form which were not fully recorded. One of these latter comes from Well 1, five from Well 2 and 41 from Well 3.

Category B types Type Ba: spherical cooking pot ‘en calotte’ (skull cap) Ba I: spherical cooking pot ‘en calotte’ with two horizontal handles Ba II: spherical cooking pot ‘en calotte’ with two horizontal handles, topped with a hollow handle Ba lids 29.

Du Plat Taylor, Megaw, Ayios Philon, fig. 56.429, p. 240, period VIII = 7th century; or is it a lid?

30.

Egloff, Kellia, pl. 35.10. Dated to 550-650, see list given by this author for Egyptian sites.

31.

Hayes, ROMP, pl. 23 no. 224, date 3rd-4th century, p. 43, clay originally from Upper Egypt.

32.

Hayes, Riley, Carthage, fig. 31 H10 and p. 95.

33.

A. Bounni et al., “Rapport préliminaire sur les fouilles à Tell al Abd et Annabas -Safinah (Euphrate) 1971-1972”, AAAS 24 (1974) (in Arabic), p. 73 top.

132

THE HELLENISTIC HARBOUR OF AMATHUS

Type Bb: globular cooking pot with two vertical handles Bb I: thin rimmed globular cooking pot with two vertical handles Bb II: thick rimmed globular cooking pot with two vertical handles Type Bc: casserole with solid pan handle

Distribution of the category/type, and comparative study This category has more true parallels on Cyprus and elsewhere in the Mediterranean basin than Category A. On Cyprus, the sub-type Ba I (E74 to E77, pl. 9) is found at Salamis34, but with a different rim shape and with a spout for pouring. This type is also well known in Egypt, Palestine, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon35. The sub-type Ba II (E78, pl. 9) is present but in lesser quantities in the same Mediterranean sites36 and is absent on Cyprus. Lids from cooking pots of types BaI and II (E82 to E85, pl. 10) have parallels on Cyprus at Ayios Philon37 and outside Cyprus38. Examples E79, E80 and E81 (pl. 9), varia of sub-types Ba I and II, show different rims on openform cooking pots that are characteristic of Cyprus. These examples only have parallels on Cyprus, at Dhiorios 39 and Ayios Philon 40. This form has already been attested at Amathus in the excavations of the basilica where it was relatively frequent, but its complete profile only appeared in 1990 41. Were these cooking pots manufactured at Dhiorios? Analyses of fragments found at Amathus (port, basilica and agora) and of those from the kilns of Dhiorios will provide us with a definitive answer. Closed-form cooking pots of types Bb I and Bb II: E88, E89 and E93 (see pl. 11-12) only have close parallels on Cyprus. They exist at Dhiorios 42, are present of course at Paphos 43 dated to the 7th century, as well as in the gymnasium of Salamis 44 This same type was exported to Carthage 45 and that is the one and only time it is attested outside the island. Forms close to types Bb I and II are numerous at Salamis, in the Kornos cave and at Dhiorios 46, but they were certainly not all produced in the same workshop.

34.

Diederichs, Salamine IX, pl. 16 and 17 no. 178, 179 dated to Romano-Byzantine periods, p. 49.

35.

Egloff, Kellia pl. 47 no. 4 and 6 (very good parallels) and the rest of the figure, as well as pl. 48 for regional varieties of the type. Prausnitz, Shavei Zion, in Palestine, fig. 15.9, pl. XXV b and (less close) fig. 15 no. 5, pl. XXV d (Palestinian variety). Y. Aharoni, Excavations at Ramat Rahel, seasons 1961-1962 (1964), fig. 8 no. 1, 3 to 8. Smith, Pella, pl. 30, 1328, 1186 and pl. 69, 481 (regional varieties). Montlivaut, Jerash, fig. 19.2. M. Touma (forthcoming thesis) and for a greater list of parallels. Thalmann, Arqa, fig. 39.9.

36.

Egloff, Kellia, pl. 54 no. 6, p. 106 list of parallels of this author and M. Touma (forthcoming thesis). R.W. Hamilton, fig. 7 no. 7, J.L. Kelso, D. Baramki, “Excavations at New Testament Jericho and Khirbet en-Nitla”, AASOR 19491951, type 28, fig. 29 Y40, p. 37.

37.

Du Plat Taylor, Megaw, Ayios Philon, fig. 44, 379 and p. 221.

38.

Egloff, Kellia, pl. 55.7 and p. 180. Praunitz, Shavei Zion, pl. XXV, c, fig. 15.4, Smith, Pella, pl. 30, 1125. Thalmann, Arqa, fig. 39.7.

39.

Catling, Dhioros, period II, kiln II, area III, fig. 24 P416.

40.

Du Plat Taylor, Megaw, Ayios Philon, fig. 60, no. 468, p. 245 between periods IV-VII.

41.

We encountered it during the visit kindly authorised by M. Louloupis in 1987 to the excavations of the Amathus agora.

42.

Catling, Dhiorios, fig. 27, P185, period III, p. 45-46.

43.

Hayes, Problèmes, fig. 5, from Saranda Kolones.

44.

Catling, Dikigoropoulos, Kornos, fig. 7.7.

45.

Ibid. fig. 6. Hayes, Riley, Carthage, fig. 8 XXI, 13; fig. 15 XXV 50, 51, p. 58, examples imported from Cyprus.

46.

Diederichs, Salamine IX, pl. 24, 25.304, p. 62, Catling, Dikigoropoulos, Kornos, and Salamis gymnasium respectively, fig. 3.14 and fig. 7.8. Catling, Dhiorios, fig. 28 P184.

THE LATE ROMAN POTTERY FOUND IN AMATHUS HARBOUR

133

The Bb II sub-type, well attested on the island, is not found outside of Cypriot sites. The spread of the manufacture of closed-form cooking pots with thin walls and ribbed exteriors was very wide and took in the entire Mediterranean basin 47 from the Roman period. The fragments of type Bb II, E94 to E96 (pl. 12), constitute one of the Cypriot varieties from the Late Roman era. The casseroles of type Bc, E99 and E100 (pl. 12), are very fragmentary and have no parallels.

Category c, red fabric Red Slip Ware48 Category C constitutes 5.9% of the assemblage. Well 1 contained no fragments of Red Slip Ware (RSW), while Well 2 had one blackened and formless fragment of RSW and one fragment of a plate imported from North Africa. This was a rim fragment of Form 104 49, dated to 550-650. The example from the harbour would likely be Type C of this form, and No. 29 is the best parallel to example E101 from the port (pl. 13). Well 3 contained more material including 34 fragments of RSW, 21 recorded and illustrated. One fragment of a bowl rim of African Red Slip ware (ARS) is attested (E102, pl. 13). It belongs to Form 67 dated to the 4th-5th century 50. Late Roman C (LRC) Phocaean RSW is attested by two fragments that both belong to Form 3. The first fragment, E103 (pl. 13), is of Type C of Form 3, while the second, E104 (pl. 13), is of Type H 51. Hayes No. 7 is dated to 460-475 52 or a little later (towards 490), his No. 31 is a late production of the form dated to the 6th century. Cypriot RSW (LRD) is attested by 17 fragments (pl. 13-14). Four Cypriot forms were well represented in Well 3. These fragments give dates between the mid-5th and the end of the 7th centuries. The high percentage (49%) of LRD Form 9 from the RSW sherds found in the wells allows these latter to be dated to between 580/600 and the end of the 7th century. The two fragments E105 and E106 belong to Form 2 53: the rim fragment E105 is very close to No. 13 of Hayes Form 2. Examples 12 and 13 of this form appeared in the mid-6th century. Fragment E107 could well belong to this form.

47.

Egloff, Kellia, pl. 17, 18 of 102-106, pl. 50-53. Prausnitz, Shavei Zion, fig. 15.1, 2 and especially 3. For the characteristics of Syria/Palestine see also the example of Hayes, ROMP, fig. 12.286 and pl. 34.286, 287 dated to 1st-2nd century, p. 55-56, Palestinian clay. A.G. Walmsley et al., “The North Decumanus and North Tetrapylon at Jerash: An Archaeological and Architectural Project” in Jerash Archaeological Project 1981-1983 (1986), fig. 3.3 phase 2 dated 107- 3rd century, p. 385. Thalmann, Arqa,fig. 38.2-4 ; in Syria, for Ras Ibn Hani, M. Touma (forthcoming thesis). Bass, Yassi Ada fig. 8-15. p. 53 and 8-16. p. 55, p. 175-181.

48.

In this paragraph I shall not describe either the fabric or forms of this category (this will be found in the detailed entries of the catalogue), because these are the same RSW productions detailed by Hayes (LRP and Suppl.) in 1972. The “Form” numbers correspond to the “Forms” of that author. Moreover, all the Cypriot parallels can be found in the two works of J.W. Hayes.

49.

Hayes, LRP, p. 160-166, fig. 30, no. 29. More recently, Fulford has proposed a date of 530-625, see M.G. Fulford, D.S. Peacock, Excavations at Carthage: The British Mission I, 2: The Avenue of President Bourghiba, Salammbo (1984), p. 73-74 and 109-110.

50.

Hayes, LRP, p. 112-116, fig. 19 no. 9, the first group is dated to 360-470.

51.

Ibid. p. 329-338, fig. 69 Nos. 17 and 31.

52.

Fulford, Peacock (op. cit. p. 87) proposes 450-550 for Hayes Form 3, with less frequency towards 500, p. 87.

53.

Hayes, LRP, p. 373-376, fig. 80.

134

THE HELLENISTIC HARBOUR OF AMATHUS

Form 3 54 is represented by the two rim fragments, E108 and E109, but their diameter (28.6 cm) is greater that that given by Hayes (14-19 cm). This form is dated to the third quarter of the 5th to second quarter of the 6th century. The great majority of LRD is represented by Form 9 55: four rim fragments, E110 to E113, and four fragments of plate bases and feet, E114 to E117. These rim fragments correspond respectively to No. 7 of Form 9 (E110), No. 5 of Type B (E111), and to No. 13 of Type C (E112 and E113). Types B and C, which are the best parallels to the examples from the port of Amathus, are dated from 580-600 to the end of the 7th century. Form 10 is represented by the rim fragment E118 (pl. 14). This form is dated 56 towards the beginning of the 7th century and up until the middle of the same century. Three other LRD fragments, E119, E120 and E121, are difficult to classify within Hayes’ typology, in particular E119 (pl. 14), which is a base fragment with a decoration on the external surface. This decoration is not noted by Hayes, but parallels to this decoration appear on complete plates found in Syria 57. The base fragment with thick walls E120 (pl. 14) and the fragment of a basin E121 decorated with guilloche notches (pl. 14), which might belong to Form 9 because of the thinness of its wall, were also found in Well 3.

Lamps The wells of the port produced fragments of eight lamps (pl. 15): no example is complete. Two came from Well 2 and six from Well 3, while no fragments were found in Well 1. These eight lamps comprise four types that are very important for the information they provide.

The types Type I: Elongated mould-made lamp Type II: Ovoid mould-made lamp Type III: Round mould-made lamp Type IV: Round wheel-made lamp A fragment of Type II, so-called “Syro-Palestinian”, and a fragment of Type 4, so-called “saucer lamp”, were collected from Well 2. A fragment of Type 1, known as “candlestick” or “slipper lamp”, a fragment of Type III called “pebble” and four fragments of Type 4 were collected from Well 3.

54.

Ibid. p. 376, fig. 80.

55.

Ibid. p 379-382, fig. 81, 82.

56.

Ibid. p. 382-383, fig. 82.

57.

M. Touma (forthcoming thesis): these Form 9 bases have a rare, previously unrecorded decoration, which I noticed during a stay at Apamea at the invitation of M. J.-Ch. Balty. Similar examples come from the excavations of Ras Ibn Hani.

THE LATE ROMAN POTTERY FOUND IN AMATHUS HARBOUR

135

Type I E123 (pl. 15) The Type I lamp, known as a “candlestick” 58 or “slipper lamp” 59, is originally from Palestine. They are oval, mould-made with a large filling hole surrounded by a ridge. The moulded decoration shows a palm 60 near the spout and stylised branches radiating out from around the filling hole. Some lamps bear an inscription. In 1933, J.H. Iliffe 61 dated this type precisely to 396 thanks to finds in the El-Bassa tomb on the Syro-Palestinian border. In 1942, F. Day 62 preferred, from typological and chronological reasons, to date the “slipper lamp” to the 7th-8th centuries (Islamic period). Meanwhile, Kennedy proposed two dates for this type of lamp in his collection 63, 361-363 and 490-518. He notes that certain examples bearing an inscription in Greek can be precisely dated to the 6th century because of mention of tês theotôkou 64, a term employed during the Monophysite controversy in Palestine and Syria. Aside from Greek inscriptions, one also finds inscriptions in various Semitic languages on this type of lamp 65. Recent excavations in Jordan have also revealed similar lamps in levels from the end of the 6th and the first half of the 7th century, but absent from those of the 4th-5th century and the second half of the 7th century 66. Thus, the example E123 from Well 3 is difficult to date. I have considered it as the oldest because of the precise date given by the coins from El-Bassa, which cannot be ignored, and because of Kennedy and Day’s 67 conclusions regarding the absence of Arabic inscription. To my knowledge, the type is not attested on Cyprus and its presence in the wells of the port prove at least that Amathus had imported it from Palestine. It is, of course, widespread in Palestine, especially in Judea 68 and Samaria, in Jordan 69 and in southern Syria 70.

Type II: E124 Well 2 (Pl. 15) This fragment belongs to a group of lamps traditionally called “Syro-Palestinian”. These are mouldmade, ovoid and with a pointed spout and indented canal, with a knob and a low, oval or rounded foot. Decoration is floral, geometric or faunal with occasional Christian symbols. The term

58.

R.A.S. Macalister, The Excavations at Gezer 1902-1905 and 1907-1909 (1912), p. 227.

59.

C.A. Kennedy, “The development of the lamp in Palestine”, Berytus 14 (1963), p. 67-115 especially p. 82-85, type 17, pl. XXV and p. 83-87, type 19, pl. XXVI.

60.

This decoration has sometimes been interpreted as a seven-branched candlestick (menorah), hence the name “candlestick” attributed to the group by Macalister (op. cit. p. 227). But Kennedy (op. cit. p. 83-84) prefers to see a simple palm frond.

61.

Iliffe, El-Bassa, p. 84 and fig. 12.

62.

F. Day, “Early Islamic and Christian Lamps”, Berytus 7 (1942), p. 65-79, pl. IX-XIX, from a study of Islamic lamps.

63.

Kennedy, op. cit. p. 85, group A. On p. 86 he notes (cf. supra note 60) that the problem is far from being solved.

64.

Ibid. p. 86, given that the Council of Chalcedon was in 451.

65.

J. Naveh, “Lamp Inscriptions and Inverted Writing”, IEJ 38 (1988), p. 36-43, pl. 8-9, pl. 9 D-E.

66.

Scholl, Jerash, group I, p. 163 and fig. 1 no. 1.

67.

F. Day, op. cit., p. 77. In any case, the longevity of this type from 4th to 7th century should not affect the date of El-Bassa tomb.

68.

R. Rosenthal, R. Sivan, Qedem 8 (1978), p. 112 and 116, slipper lamps B. Large lamps.

69.

Smith, Pella, Pl. 66.311, 368, 369, pl. 84.311, 368 and 219-220.

70.

B. Zoudhi, “Aspect des lampes antiques du musée de Damas”, AAAS 24 (1974), p. 161-175, pl. 1-12 (in Arabic), pl. 10, no. 59. Abou Assaf, Taïba, p. 189-214 (in Arabic), pl. 4 no. 57. J. Wilson, M. Saad, “The Domestic Material Culture of Nabataean to Umayyad Period Busra”, Berytus 32 (1984), p. 35-147, fig. 1-27, fig. 18, pl. 4 no. 57 and p. 86-87.

136

THE HELLENISTIC HARBOUR OF AMATHUS

“Syro-Palestinian” was introduced by F.O. Waagé in 194171, and several forms of lamp are gathered under this name. Thus, there is a certain confusion around the name and date of this type. This confusion has continued since 194272, when F. Day modified the date of the El-Bassa73 tomb finds (excavated by Iliffe and dated to 396), as well as those of a burial at Sidon74, up until the recent excavations of Pella75 and the even more recent digs at Jerash76. Furthermore, we still do not know the production centre or the origin of these lamps and yet we unfortunately have been calling them Syro-Palestinian since 1941. And so, when looking for a good parallel in the publications, I have come across a multitude of lamps made from different fabrics and in different moulds77. All the same, since they have a round or oval foot, a knob and are neither varnished or slipped, they are called Syro-Palestinian and are dated to the 6th-7th-8th century or they are transitionary or they are Islamic. I propose to regroup lamps of this type that are more carefully decorated, have a very small non-functional pyramidal knob, and a small filling hole around a prolonged discus near the wick hole. The type matching these criteria can be dated to the 4th or 5th century. In this group, I have chosen those that are closest to each other and I have discarded unhelpful parallels. Site

Date

References

El-Bassa

396 ad

Iliffe, El Bassa, fig. 3, 5-10,5

Shavei Zion

Prausnitz, Shavei Zion, fig. 15.14, 16-17

Pella

Smith, Pella, pl. 67 et 87, no. 190

Sidon

396 ad

Meurdrac, pl. XXV-XXVI, 3-4,6,8; pl. XXVII, 3,5,9; pl. XXIX, 1-5,7-9

Tyr

Christian

Rey Coquais, pl. IX, 38-39

Khalde

2nd quarter of 6th century

Saidah, fig. 4

Damascus Museum

Christian (mould)

Touma (thesis)

Cilicia

2nd half of 7th century

Williams, Taylor, form II, fig. 3-4, 5 (very close in decoration), 6

Cyprus

end 3rd-end 5th century

Oziol, Salamine I, pl. X et XIX, 466

Having thus delineated this group from the vast family of “Syro-Palestinian” lamps, can we work out a more accurate date and place of manufacture? The fragment from the port is of a variety that

71.

F.O. Waagé, Antioch on the Orontes, IV, type 56, p. 67-68 and fig. 81, no. 174.

72.

F. Day, loc. cit.

73.

Iliffe, El-Bassa, p. 81-91, fig. 1-27, v. fig. 3-10, 13, 15.

74.

In 1937, M. Meurdrac adopted this date for the lamps of this tomb: M. Meurdrac, “Une sépulture chrétienne à Sidon”, Berytus 4 (1937), p. 130-143, pl. XXIV-XXX, especially p. 141.

75.

Smith, Pella, p. 217, 219-222, pl. 67 and 84, no. 190.

76.

Scholl, Jerash, p. 163-166, fig. 1, group V and VI: 1, 2, p. 165 and fig. 1, no. 8-11.

77.

This is not surprising when one considers that out of 63 lamps of this type from the site of Dibsi Faraj there were no two from the same mould, cf. Dobbins, Terracotta Lamps, p. 149-152.

THE LATE ROMAN POTTERY FOUND IN AMATHUS HARBOUR

137

is earlier than the 7th century and might be the first production of this type. J.J. Dobbins 78, without focusing on the study of this type, notes that it seems to have been produced from the 4th to 6th century. One should perhaps take into consideration the earlier evolution of the type itself. Among those who have disputed Iliffe’s dates, R.H. Smith published a tomb in which he found a collection of lamps including a Syro-Palestinian and some “slipper lamps”. The last date of use of the tomb is, according to him, before the end of the 7th century (around 650). Therefore, his Lamp No. 190 79, which is being compared here, has, according to the author, more ancient features (see table above) contemporary with the first productions of Sidon “slipper lamps” (supra), the sole difference being a very large filling hole. Although the proposed date for the abandonment and filling of the wells at the port is in the 7th century, one cannot, in my opinion, exclude an earlier date, perhaps at the end of the 4th century or a little later for our lamp fragment. And if the contexts from which these lamps were retrieved are generally not earlier than the 6th century, it is probable, as we have seen, that manufacture of the type began before this date. One can then understand better the dates proposed by Dobbins for Types 24 to 27 (supra). According to the table, the distribution zone of these lamps includes Syria 80, Palestine 81, southern Lebanon 82, and also Cilicia 83 and Cyprus 84. Should one therefore search for the production centres in southern Syria, northern Palestine or southern Lebanon? They are numerous at Sidon (supra), and at Khalde, 30 km from Beirut, where a mould of the group in question has been found 85. (The finds of this excavation are later than the second half of the 6th century, as dated by the mosaic pavements and coins.)

Type III: E125 (pl. 15) These are round mould-made lamps with hollow-mould decoration, small central hole and wick hole incorporated in the lamp. Type III “en Galet”86 is dated to the 6th century. It is a type of mouldmade lamp imported from Syria, or to be precise Antioch 87. Some lamps and fragments of lamps have been retrieved from excavations 88 on Cyprus, while many others are to be found in the reserves

78.

Ibidem, p. 149-152, types 24-27, p. 140-148, vol. I.

79.

Smith, Pella, Tombe 7, p. 219-220.

80.

Distribution of the type in Syria: M. Touma (thesis), mould of Damascus Museum; cf. H. Lammens “Les chrétiens à la Mecque à la veille de l’Hégire”, BIFAO 14 (1918), p. 191-230, see p. 208, note 6 “Le syrien Tamim ad-daiî vend de l’huile et des lampes”, Abou Assaf, Taïba, pl. 4, no. 24.

81.

Palestine: Iliffe, El-Bassa; Smith, Pella; R. Rosenthal, R. Sivan, op. cit., p. 123-124, no. 510-511; Prausnitz, Shavei Zion, fig. 15.14, 7 and 16 with a large filling hole.

82.

Lebanon, Tyr, J.-P. Rey Coquais, “Lampes antiques de Syrie et du Liban”, Mélanges de l’université Saint-Joseph 39 (1963), p. 147-165, pl. IX no. 38, 39, p. 159-160; Sidon: M. Meurdrac, op. cit.

83.

Cilicia: H. Williams, P. Taylor, “A Byzantine Hoard from Anamur (Cilicia)”, AS 25 (1975), p. 77-84, fig. 3-6.

84.

Cyprus: Oziol, Salamine I, pl. X and XIX, 466, pl. 44, 798-800.

85.

R. Saidah, “Porphyréon du Liban: une Pompéï byzantine enfouie sous le sable”, Archéologia 104 (1977), p. 38-43, v. fig. 4, p. 41.

86.

Oziol, Salamine VII, p. 279-286: 36 examples of this type in the Cyprus Museum in Nicosia.

87.

Dobbins, Terracotta Lamps, p. 62-71.

88.

V. Karageorghis, Excavations in the Necropolis of Salamis I (1967), p. 112 and pl. CVI, CL, no. 187. Oziol, Salamine, I, no. 472-474, three mentioned, but at the Salamis conference Th. Oziol notes (on p. 398) “une dizaine”. S. Symeonoglou, “Observations on the Archaeological Survey in the Area of Phlamoudi, Cyprus: A reply”, RDAC 1975, pl. IV, fig. 1 bottom right. J. Du Plat Taylor, “Excavations at Ayios Philon. The Ancient Carpassia. Part I”,

138

THE HELLENISTIC HARBOUR OF AMATHUS

and display cases of Nicosia museum 89, and yet more are in other museums and collections 90. A new reference to a lamp of Cypriot provenance comes to us from Ontario (St Catherine) 91. Outside of Cyprus, this type is only known in Syria 92 (Antioch, Ras el-Bassit, Ras Ibn Hani on the coast, and Dibsi Faraj on the banks of the Euphrates). However, four other examples are known: one from Cilicia 93, one from Rhodes 94, one of unknown provenance held in the Byzantine Museum of Athens 95, and one from Jerusalem 96. While unique and very small, the fragment, E125, proves the presence at Amathus of a type of lamp imported from Syria. For a long time these lamps were considered to be of Cypriot manufacture (see above) but research and fabric analyses conducted by J.J. Dobbins97 on 100 lamps and fragments of lamps of this type from the excavations of Antioch have proved that they were most likely manufactured at Antioch itself. Furthermore, the preponderance of this type in the Syrian coastal sites mentioned above, with a much larger variety of decoration than the single moulded motif on the majority of lamps found on Cyprus, leads us to believe that the type is of Syrian origin and confirms the results of Dobbins’ research. Hayes 98 also questions the Cypriot origin of some of these lamps, which he considers to be of Syrian manufacture.

Type IV: E126 to E130 (pl. 15) Type IV is a late period type. These are wheel-made lamps. The five examples found in the wells are probably the first productions of the type (that is to say from the 7th-8th century)99 which continued until the beginning of the 10th century100 and beyond the 13th century101. RDAC 1980, pl. XXVII, 6, no. 13, and Du Plat Taylor, Megaw, Ayios Philon, p. 221, 225. Catling, Dhiorios, p. 78 and fig. 5. 89.

L.P. di Cesnola, A descriptive Atlas of the Cypriote Antiquities in the Metropolitan Museum of Art II, no. 1012, pl. CXXXVIII. Oziol, Salamine VII, no. 842-877.

90.

O. Vessberg, Hellenistic and Roman Lamps in Cyprus I (1953), type 20, fig. 39 no. 25 and p. 127, 192-193. D. Bailey, Greek and Roman Pottery Lamps (1963), pl. 14. C.H. Menzel, Antike Lampen im Römisch-Germanischen Zentral Museum zu Mainz (1954), Abb. 82 no. 10, 12. Hayes, ROML, p. 84, pl. 41, no. 347, 348.

91.

Lamp no. L-73-9-113, Museum of the Dept. of Classics, Brook University, St. Catherine, Ontario, Canada, personal communication with M. J.-P. Sodini.

92.

O. Waagé, “Lamps”, in Antioch on the Orontes, I, The Excavations of 1932 (1934), pl. X no. 12, and id. “Lamps” in Antioch on the Orontes III, The excavations of 1937-1939 (1941) p. 66, fig. 79. M. Touma, “Quatrième campagne d’Ibn Hani, 1978, Étude d’un lot de céramique byzantine (citerne 3)”, Syria 58 (1981), p. 222-229, fig. 6-10, see p. 229.

93.

Dobbins, Terracotta Lamps, no. 144 (example from Misis).

94.

D. Kassab, T. Sezer, “Présentation de la collection des lampes en terre cuite du Musée Archéologique d’Istanbul”, Varia Anatolica 1 (1987), fig. 13.

95.

“Donated by a Greek”, lamp no. 353 in central building of the museum, 1st floor (lamp case), seen and studied in 1986: the fabric is pink, the upper part is decorated with a four-legged animal. Animal decoration is very rare on lamps of this type, only four are known: one at Ras Ibn Hani also on its upper part (Touma, forthcoming thesis), one in the Ontario collection (J. Hayes), one in a tomb at Salamis (see supra V. Karageorghis) and one in the museum at Nicosia (Oziol, Salamine VII). These latter two are decorated on the lower part.

96.

Hayes, ROML, no. 348, p. 84.

97.

Dobbins, Terracotta Lamps, p. 62-71.

98.

Hayes, ROML, p. 84.

99.

F.O. Waagé, Antioch, III, p. 68, type 60 a; Oziol, Colloque, p. 399, J. Hayes, ROML, p. 85 probably 7th c.

100.

O. Broneer, Corinth, vol. IV, 2: Terracotta Lamps (1934), p. 292, pl. XXIV, type XXXV, no. 1518 unglazed, close to our examples by the shape of the “ruffled” rim and of the handle; a very late period lamp, p. 126.

101.

A. Amr, “Some Ayyubid Pottery Lamps from Rujm el-Kursi and other related Mamluke Examples”, Berytus 32 (1984), p. 201, lamps 1, 2, 3 close to the Amathus type dated to 608 Hijri, 1211 (Ayyubid).

THE LATE ROMAN POTTERY FOUND IN AMATHUS HARBOUR

139

These lamps are very widespread throughout the region both on the coast and in the interior (Lebanon, Syria) 102. On Cyprus, they are attested at Salamis-Constantia 103, as well as in the basilica of Amathus 104. Their presence on the island has also been recorded through private collections and those of Cypriot 105 and other museums. The manufacturing centre of this type has not been located 106, due to a lack of research into kilns and the lack of moulds, since these lamps are wheel-made. It is probable that our examples were manufactured at Amathus, but we do not know the original place of production. This does not prevent us from suggesting that these lamps are local, since we have located a pottery workshop on one of the slopes of the acropolis of Amathus 107. The fabric is light reddish brown and is the same as that used in the manufacture of Category A vessels, which constitute a large part of the pottery from the wells. This fabric is distinct from the red fabric of the wheel-made lamps of Salamis 108 and that of the Cypriot lamp mentioned by Hayes 109.

Tiles Ten fragments of tiles in a light fabric, exactly the same as Category A, were found in Well 2. The two other wells did not have similar sherds. The small number of tiles for a large site like Amathus and its harbour might seem surprising, especially given the presence of a workshop at the site, however, another very abundant category of tile (186 fragments, 28% of the assemblage) makes up for this lack. This category of tile and joint cover is made from a red and not very sandy clay. I recognised the features of this fabric as being very close to Cypriot LRD sigillata 110 from my first examinations of the pottery at Amathus. It is Type IV from the basilica of the site 111. Three of these tile fragments come from Well 1 and 182 from Well 2. A single fragment comes from Well 3. It was catalogued (E132) as very representative because of its clay fabric and slip. Parallels 112 can be found at Paphos. Can we suggest a second local ceramic production at Amathus?

102.

Thalmann, Arqa, p. 46-48 and fig. 40 nos. 2,9. D. Orsaud et al., “Débès (Syrie du Nord) campagnes I-III (19761978)”, Syria 57 (1980), p. 258 and fig. 318 type 5. B. Zouhdi, op. cit. pl. 1, fig. 1 top left. A. Bounni, N. Saliby, “Les catacombes d’Emèse (Homs)”, AAAS 11-12 (1961-62), Pl. 7, top of lower photo.

103.

Oziol, Salamine I, p. 25, “dans les couches tardives”, VI-XIe s. and fig. 19, p. 115-116 and pl. XI, nos. 476, 477.

104.

M. Touma, BCH 113 (1989), p. 875.

105.

L.P. di Cesnola, Descriptive Atlas of the Cypriote Antiquities in the Metropolitan Museum of Art, Part 5, (1894), pl. CXXXIX, no. 1018.

106.

They are called Syrian or Cypriot, but for several centuries they were manufactured and used all over: in Egypt and Palestine, in Syria and on Cyprus. One might look for a local manufacture for each site through an examination of the clay fabric.

107.

J.-Y. Empereur, M. Picon, supra note 6.

108.

Oziol, Salamine, I, pl. XI, nos. 476, 477, pl. XX no. 479 (not illustrated); Oziol, Salamine VII, p. 287-289, pl. 48 nos. 880-882; Oziol, Colloque, fig. 6.

109.

Hayes, ROML, pl. 41, no. 349.

110.

BCH 113, p. 872 (1989), note 32.

111.

F. Hadjichristophi, BCH 113 (1989), p. 878.

112.

Personal communication with D. Michaelides.

140

THE HELLENISTIC HARBOUR OF AMATHUS

CONCLUSION The study of this material sheds light on the identity of the late Roman ceramics of Amathus and especially its local production (Category A) and its various forms (Types Aa-Ag). Thanks to the finds in the wells, both wasters and other vessels, the site of Amathus (excavation of both the basilica and the wells) takes on a new importance, given the small number of excavated sites on Cyprus for the Early Christian period. Some researchers limit themselves to mentioning objects from the Late Roman period without offering typological or chronological reference points. The detailed catalogues of Oziol (lamps) and Diederichs (pottery) for the site of Salamis are very rich, but look at only one site on Cyprus, and the lamps are of uncertain provenance. Catling, in his study of Dhiorios, only covers the potters’ kilns that were in use during a limited period (7th and 8th centuries). On the other hand, at Ayios Philon, the ceramic material offers excellent parallels for Amathus: the Christian period is represented by two phases, one from the 4th century (395-408) (Phase VI), and the other from 5th-6th century (Phase VII) with a batch belonging entirely to the 7th century (House D). The assemblage thus provides certain chronological points of reference. D.F. Williams’ publication of five types of amphorae from Kourion also provides us with information regarding the 4th century, for both local and imported material. For the excavators of Soli, due to the political turmoil of 1974, only one type of amphorae has been published, based on the few documents saved during the last excavation campaign before the island partition. With such a limited field of comparison, the conclusions will be based on the material from the wells, which demonstrates that significant activity took, place on the site of Amathus between the 6th and 7th centuries – in particular the local production of various ceramic vessel types (Aa-Ag). The vessels could have been exported to other cities on the island, at least to Paphos, where sherds have been found whose clay fabric is close to that of Amathus113. The Amathus pottery was also exported to Carthage114, and is certainly attested in Egypt where it is represented by fragments of amphorae. Without further in-depth research, comparisons and fabric analyses, we cannot for the moment say which regions of the Mediterranean imported the pottery produced in Amathus. Such research has been initiated in Egypt by Picon and Empereur and needs to be continued. At the same time, analyses of LRD clay fabric should be encouraged, due to the large number (186) of tiles and tile fragments in red clay whose fabric and surface treatment appear related to LRD, as well as the presence of an over fired LRD fragment (E117) among the kiln wasters, and a second unclassified fragment found in Well 2. Even if two over-fired fragments are not enough to prove the existence of an RS production centre at Amathus, their association with firing rejects suggest the possibility of their production in the same workshops. Despite its abundant local production, the site of Amathus imported cooking pots (Type Bb) from Dhiorios in the north of the island, and also a lamp (Type III) from Antioch in Syria and other lamps (Types I and II) from Palestine. Type I is attested for the first time on Cyprus. Amathus imported sigillata from Asia Minor (Phocaea) as well as from North Africa. The largest quantity of material in the wells, Category A, of local production, cannot yet, unfortunately, be used to provide a date for the filling of the wells, as its chronology is not sufficiently established. However, the chronological table (see below), based upon comparisons from the publications, suggests a date around the 7th century, especially if one looks at the Type IV lamps, made from the same clay fabric. 113.

Rescue excavation of the Hotel Annabelle. Access to this material was kindly permitted by D. Michaelides.

114.

See p. 139 in this volume.

THE LATE ROMAN POTTERY FOUND IN AMATHUS HARBOUR

141

Pottery such as the RSW, which is well dated elsewhere, also gives a date in the 7th century, since the majority of Cypriot sigillata can be dated to this period (Form 9). On the other hand, the imported lamps appear to be older, and much older for Types I and II (end of 4th-5th century), though slightly later for Type III (6th century).

CATALOGUE Nota bene: All measurements are in centimetres

CATEGORY A: EVERYDAY WARE (LOCAL) Aa: Flat-based stemmed jug E1 Well 2 inv. 84.3529.1 fig. 1 and pl. 1 Incomplete jug, small part of spout missing, profile complete. Ht. 24.8; Max. W. 16.5; Diam. of foot 10. Grey fabric (M73), quite coarse to quite fine, hard, quite sandy (medium and fine sand). Surfaces: ext. smoothed grey (N73), int. grey (M73). Not easy to distinguish the clay fabric colour, or the exterior surface, probably “white milk”? Traces of marine deposits. Form: foot and base flat with central button, wide body, wide convex shoulder, narrow slightly flared neck, trefoil opening with pinched spout, simple rim with rounded edge, one fine round handle, oblong in section, attached at shoulder and rim. Two pre-firing perforations on opposite sides of rim. E2 Well 3 inv. 85.3010 + 85.3012 pl. 1 Incomplete jug handle attachment missing. Ht. 24.3. Same as E1. Pink and grey fabric (L47 and P31), quite coarse, very hard, sandy (medium and fine sand). Surfaces: ext. smoothed pale yellow and light grey (L91 and M91), int. grey (M71). A circular incision at junction of shoulder to neck. Grooves on bottom, on lower body and neck. N.B. Dark brownish yellow marine deposits (R77). E3 Well 3 inv. 85.3013 pl. 1 Fragment of neck and rim with beginning of spout of a jug. Same as E1. Pink fabric (M70), quite coarse, quite hard, sandy (medium and large sand). Surfaces: ext. smoothed, pale yellow (M90), int. pale olive and pale yellow (P20 and M90). E4 Well 3 inv. 85.3012 pl. 1 Fragment of neck of jug. Same as E1. Grey fabric (N92), quite coarse, very hard, sandy (fine and medium sand). Surfaces: ext. smoothed, grey (P92), int. (P92) with marine deposits like E2.

Ab Dimple-based jug AbI Small dimple-based jug E5 Well 2 inv. 85.3529.5 Complete jug. Ht. 8,5; Diam. Rim 5,5.

fig. 1 and pl. 2

142

THE HELLENISTIC HARBOUR OF AMATHUS

Grey clay (P73), quite coarse, quite hard, sandy (medium to large sand) grains visible on surface. Surfaces: ext. brown (P30) and light grey (M91), int. (M91). Form: slightly rounded base with flattened button, hemispherical body, thick rolled rim, ridge under the rim. Round handle, oval in section, attached to body and rim E6 Well 2 inv. 85.3529.3 fig. 1 and pl. 2 Complete jug. Ht.14; Max. W. 12.5. Very pale brown fabric (M75), quite coarse to quite fine, hard, quite sandy (fine to medium sand). Surfaces: ext. smoothed, white (L73), int. very pale brown (M75). Form: the bottom has interior dimple and exterior central button, convex body narrowing to form slightly carinated shoulder, wide and medium short neck, rim with rounded edge, trilobe opening with pinched spout, round handle, oval in section, attached at shoulder and rim. Decoration: five thin grooves on neck. E7 Well 2 inv. 85.3529.2 fig. 1 and pl. 2 Incomplete jug. Ht. 16.5; Diam. rim 6.8. Same as E6. Grey fabric (R73), quite coarse to quite fine, quite hard, quite sandy (fine to medium). Surfaces: ext. smoothed, grey (P73), int. grey (R73), residue on ext. Form: rounded shoulder.

Ab II Large dimple-based jug E8 Well 2 inv. 85.3529 pl. 2 Fragment of shoulder, neck and handle of a jug. Diam. rim 12. Grey fabric (N92), quite coarse, quite soft, sandy (medium and fine sand). Surfaces: ext. grey (R73), int. not visible, remains of a yellowish powdery substance deposited on darkish remains (pitch?) Form: rounded shoulder, convex, straight narrow neck, round handle, round in section. Decoration: grooved neck. E9 Well 2 inv. 85.3529 pl. 2 Neck, rim and handle of a jug. Diam. rim 11.3. Pink fabric (L29), quite coarse, hard, quite sandy to sandy (medium and fine sand). Surfaces: ext. “white milk” (pink L70), int. covered with a greasy substance? brownish grey (P51). E10 Well 1 inv. 85.3507 pl. 2 Neck and rim of a jug. Diam. rim 13.3. Grey fabric (P73), quite coarse, quite hard, sandy (medium and fine sand, sometimes big). Surfaces: grey (P73) ext. covered with “white milk”? darkened. E11 Well 3 inv. 84 Neck and rim of a jug. Diam. rim 12.8. Grey fabric (P73), quite coarse, hard, sandy, (medium and fine sand). Surfaces: grey (N73).

pl. 2

E12 Well 3 inv. 85 Neck and rim of a jug. Diam. rim 12.5. Dark grey fabric (S73), quite coarse, very hard, sandy (fine and medium sand). Surfaces: grey (P73).

pl. 3

E13 Well 3 inv. 85.3010 Neck and rim of a jug. Diam. rim 11.8.

pl. 3

THE LATE ROMAN POTTERY FOUND IN AMATHUS HARBOUR

143

Dark grey fabric (S73), quite coarse to quite fine, very hard, sandy (fine and medium sand). Surfaces: ext. grey (P73) smoothed, int. grey (P73). E14 Well 3 inv. 84 pl. 3 Neck and rim of jug? restored. Diam. rim 12.5. Brownish red fabric (R53), quite coarse, quite hard, quite sandy to sandy (sand medium and fine, sometimes big with lime). Surfaces: smoothed, reddish grey (P53). E15 Well 3 inv. 85.3010 pl. 3 Rim of a jug. Diam.11.2. Pink fabric (L49), quite coarse, quite hard, quite sandy (fine and medium sand). Surfaces: ext. grey (N31), int. grey (N73). E16 Well 2 inv. 84.3529 pl. 2 Fragment of base of jug. Diam. of base 12.5. Grey fabric (M31), quite coarse, hard, quite sandy (sand medium and fine, sometimes big). Surfaces: grey (M31). Large pellets of clay stuck to the surfaces, especially interior. E17 Well 3 inv. 85 pl. 3 Base of a jug. Diam. of base c. 6. Grey fabric (R73), quite coarse, very hard, quite sandy to sandy (fine and medium sand). Surfaces: smoothed, ext. grey (P73), int. grey (M92). E18 Well 1 inv. 84.3509 pl. 3 Fragment of base of a jug. Diam. of base 7.5. Grey fabric (P73), quite coarse, hard, quite sandy (fine and medium sand). Surfaces: bad finishing, ext. light grey (M73), int. grey (M31). Variants of bases of Ab II E19 Well 3 inv. 85 pl. 3 Body elongated, small handle attached low on body of jug. Grey fabric (T31), quite coarse, hard, sandy (fine and medium sand). Surfaces: ext. smoothed, grey (P73), int. light grey (M92) Form: rare, the body is elongated, the handle small, attached low on the body of the jug. E20 Well 3 inv. 85 pl. 3 Base and lower body of a jug. Diam. of base 6.8. Light brownish red fabric (N49), quite coarse, hard, sandy (fine and medium sand). Surfaces: ext. smoothed, greyish pink (M31 et N73), int. light brownish red (N35). E21 Well 3 inv. 85 pl. 3 Base and hemisphere of a jug. Diam. of base 5. Grey fabric (R73), quite coarse, very hard, quite sandy (fine and medium sand). Surfaces: ext. smoothed, grey (P73), int. (M92).

144

THE HELLENISTIC HARBOUR OF AMATHUS

Ac Wide-mouthed jar with two close-set handles E22 Well 2 inv. 84.3510.2 fig. 1 and pl. 4 Incomplete vessel but complete profile. Ht. 20, Diam. rim13.02. Grey clay (P73), quite coarse, hard, quite sandy (fine and medium sand). Surfaces: ext. smoothed, grey (R73). Form: dimple-bottomed jug with two close-set handles. E23 Well 1 inv. 84.3506.2 pl. 4 Incomplete vase but complete profile. Entirely restored. Ht. 19, Diam. rim 13.7, space between handles 8.5. Same as E22. Grey fabric (P73), quite coarse, hard, quite sandy (fine and medium sand). Surfaces: ext. smoothed, very burnt, colour cannot be found in chart, int. grey (R73). E24 Well 1 inv. 84.3511 pl. 4 Body, shoulder and rim of a jar. Diam. rim 14. Same as E22. Grey fabric (P73), quite coarse, hard, sandy (medium and fine sand). Surfaces: ext. well smoothed, grey (N73), int. grey (P73). E25 Well 1 inv. 84.3501 pl. 4 Fragment of body of a jar. Restored. Grey fabric (P73), coarse to quite coarse, hard, sandy, (medium and fine sand). Surfaces: ext. grey (P73), int. grey (N73). Closed vessels other than jugs, thick walls, large dimensions. E26 Well 3 inv. 85.3012 pl. 4 Shoulder and rim (broken) of a jug? Grey clay (P31), quite coarse, very hard, sandy (medium and big sand). Surfaces: ext. smoothed, grey (R73), int. grey (N73). E27 Well 3 inv. 85 pl. 4 Shoulder and neck of a jug? Grey fabric pink (M51), quite coarse, hard, quite sandy (fine and medium sand). Surfaces: smoothed, grey (M31), int. dark grey (S73). E28 Well 3 inv. 85.3010 pl. 4 Junction of shoulder/neck. Grey fabric, quite coarse, hard, quite sandy (fine and medium sand). Surfaces smoothed, ext. pale brown (M75) traces of “white milk” int. pale brown (M77), rough to touch.

Ad Lids (of amphorae?) with thick squared edge and central knob E29 Well 2 inv. 84.3529.10 fig. 1 and pl. 5 Complete lid. Diam. rim 24; Ht. 13.5; Diam. of knob 5.5. “Sandwich” fabric: red (R19) with brown core (P30), quite coarse, hard, sandy (medium and coarse sand) with flakes of lime. Surfaces: poor finishing, rough, ext. light brownish red (N 30), int. pinkish grey (M29). Form: convex body with straight edge rounded at base, round hollow central knob: interior dimple and exterior knob. The handle knob, added to top of lid.

THE LATE ROMAN POTTERY FOUND IN AMATHUS HARBOUR

145

E30 Well 3 inv. 85 pl. 5 Half lid, profile incomplete. Diam. rim 24. Light brownish red fabric (N55), coarse to quite coarse, sandy (medium and fine sand). Surfaces: well smoothed, smooth to touch, ext. light brownish red (N29), traces of sea residue, int. light brownish red (N50).

Ae Flat-based basin with wide flared walls E31 Well 3 inv. 85 pl. 5 Part of a basin and rim. Very fragmentary pelvis. Diam. rim 52. Light grey clay (M73), quite coarse, hard, sandy (coarse to medium sand). Surfaces: covered with sea residue, “white milk” can be distinguished but poor finishing; white (L73). Form: large basin, thick out-turned rim with flat top. Decoration: circular incisions on rim between hollowed zigzags. E32 Well 3 inv. 85.3001 pl. 5 Part of a basin, rim of a pelvis. Diam. rim 28.5. Yellowish red fabric (M59), quite coarse, very hard, very sandy (fine and sometimes coarse sand, with limestone). Surfaces: yellowish red (N65). Form: large basin, thick rolled rim. E33 Well 3 inv. 85 pl. 5 Base and junction of basin. Diam. rim 16.5. Pink fabric (M55), coarse, hard, sandy to very sandy (medium and coarse sand). Surfaces: light brownish red (N55) bad finishing. Shape: flat thick bottom. E34 Well 2 inv. 84 pl. 5 Base and part of a vessel and handle. Diam. rim 20. “Sandwich” fabric, light brownish red and greyish pink (M47 et N51), quite coarse, quite hard to hard, sandy (sand medium and fine, sometimes coarse). Surfaces: covered with “white milk”, ext. very pale brown (M71), int. grey (N92). Form: flat base.

Af Dolium E35 Well 3 inv. 85.3008 pl. 6 Rim of a dolium. Diam. rim 44. Pink fabric (M49), coarse, hard, very sandy (coarse and medium sand, coarse flakes of lime). Surfaces: covered with “white milk”, ext. white (L92), int. pink (L49). Form: thick triangular rim, groove under the rim, moulded. E36 Well 3 inv. 85.3013 pl. 6 Rim of dolium. Diam. rim 34. Dark brown fabric (R70), coarse to quite coarse, sandy to very sandy (medium to coarse sand). Surfaces: ext. reddish yellow “milk” (P59), int. brown (P70). Form: thick rim, hooked at edge. Decoration: scalloped edge done with fingers. E37 Well 3 inv. 85 Rim of dolium. Diam. rim 34.4 cm.

pl. 6

146

THE HELLENISTIC HARBOUR OF AMATHUS

Red fabric (R39), coarse, hard, very sandy (coarse , medium and fine sand). Surfaces: ext. light brownish red (N49), int. brownish red (P49). Form: thick, square rim. E38 Well 3 inv. 85.3013 pl. 6 Rim of dolium. Diam. rim 44. Grey fabric (P73), coarse, very hard, very sandy (sand coarse and medium, sometimes fine). Surfaces: ext. grey (N92), int. covered with “milk”, pink (M49). E39 Well 3 inv. 85 Fragment of broken eroded rim of dolium, traces of incised decoration? Greyish pink clay (M51), quite coarse, very hard, quite sandy (medium and fine sand). Surfaces: grey (P73). Form: square sectioned rim. E40 Well 3 inv. 85.3006 pl. 6 Base of dolium. Diam. rim 16. Light red and greyish pink “sandwich” fabric (M37 and M51), very coarse, hard, sandy to very sandy (very coarse and medium sand). Surfaces: ext. greyish pink “milk” (L30), int. grey (N73) Form: modelled base, flat with rounded junction of base to body, eroded. E41 Well 3 inv. 85.3013 pl. 6 Large fragment of shoulder of dolium. Grey fabric (P31), coarse, very hard, sandy to very sandy. Surfaces: ext. dark grey “milk” (S73), smoothed grey (n71), int. light grey (L31), with charcoal and sea residue? Large vessel: E42 Well 3 inv. 85.3008 pl. 6 Neck and rim with beginnings of handle of a large vessel. Diam. rim 9.5. Pink fabric (L49), coarse, very hard, sandy (fine and medium sand, sometimes coarse). Surfaces: ext. very pale brown “milk” (M71) and grey (N71), int. light brownish red (N49). Form: straight neck, thick rolled rim, bevelled, Decoration: two spaced grooves on the neck.

Ag sakieh pot Ag I cylindrical jar, carinated with out-turned ridged rim E43 Well 3 inv. 85 fig. 1 and pl. 7 Complete sakieh pot. Ht. 24; Max. L. 13.8; Diam. rim 13. Light grey fabric (M73), quite coarse, quite hard, sandy (medium and fine sand). Surfaces: ext. colour not visible because of marine concretions, pale yellow (L91). Badly finished, firing reject, swollen, bulging, light grey (M73) Form: round wheel-made knob added by hand after manufacture of the pot. Lower body carinated, body cylindrical slightly narrowing towards the rim and forming a ridge, rim out-turned. E44 Well 3 inv. 85.3009 (3) pl. 7 Fragment of rim with small part of body of a sakieh pot. Diam. rim 12. Pinkish grey fabric (M33), quite coarse, quite hard, sandy (medium and fine sand). Surfaces: good finishing, ext. grey (P73), int. grey (N92). Decoration: light grooves under rim.

THE LATE ROMAN POTTERY FOUND IN AMATHUS HARBOUR

147

E45 Well 3 inv. 85 pl. 7 Fragment of body and rim of a sakieh pot. Diam. rim 10.5. White fabric (L73), quite coarse, quite hard, sandy to quite sandy (medium and fine sand). Surfaces: ext. light grey (M73), int. grey (R73). E46 Well 3 inv. 85 Fragment of rim of a sakieh pot. Diam. ? (broken) White fabric (L92), quite coarse to quite fine, hard, quite sandy to sandy (medium and fine sand). Surfaces: white “milk” (L92). Shape same as E43 but the ridge is deeper.

Ag II: Piriform jar with out-turned rim, no ridge E47 Well 3 inv. 85 fig. 1 and pl. 7 Complete sakieh pot. Ht. 25.5; Diam. rim 11. Light brownish red fabric (N53), quite coarse, quite hard to hard, sandy (medium and fine sand). Surfaces: ext. very varied colours because of deposits: light brownish red (N53), grey (N31) and white white (K31), int. similar, with pellets of clay. Form: same as E43 but body pot-bellied, rim out-turned with no ridge. E48 Well 3 inv. 85.3009 (3) pl. 7 Knob and body of a sakieh pot. Diam. knob 4.5; Ht. (known) 17.8. Colour of fabric difficult to distinguish, quite coarse, hard, sandy (medium and fine sand). Surfaces: same problem as E47. E49 Well 3 inv. 85.3009 (3) pl. 7 Knob and body of a sakieh pot. Diam. knob 4.4; Ht. (known) 15.6. Very pale brown fabric (M71), quite coarse, hard, sandy (medium and fine sand). Surfaces: ext. light grey (M73), int. pale yellow (M77). N.B. E48 and E49 bear traces of a manufacturing technique not found on the other sakieh pots, as it appears as if the lower part of the body was wheel-made and then added by hand. Might one suppose that this lower section was moulded? The surfaces of the two examples are badly finished. E50 Well 3 inv. 85 Knob and a small part of the body of a sakieh pot. Diam. knob 4.5. Pink fabric (M49), quite coarse, quite fine, sandy to very sandy (medium sand, black and red grains). Surfaces: very pale brown (L75). N.B. One might think that at least the knob of the sakieh pot. was moulded. Proof that the lower part was added by hand can be seen in the presence of finger prints, the pellets of clay that run around the bottom of the body at the join with the rest of the vase, and in the fact that the diameter of the knobs is often the same. E51 Well 3 inv. 85 Lower part of body, junction of bottom/body and body of a sakieh pot. Ht. (known) 2.2. Light brownish red fabric (M47), quite coarse, quite fine, hard to very hard, sandy (fine sand, white grains). Surfaces: ext. pink (L49), int. light brownish red (M47). Good finishing.

148

THE HELLENISTIC HARBOUR OF AMATHUS

Various jar knobs E52 Well 2 inv. 85.3529.31 pl. 7 Knob. Diam. knob 4.5. Greyish pink fabric (N53), quite coarse, quite hard, sandy (medium to big sand, black grains). Surfaces: ext. very pale brown (M75), int. pink (M55). E53 Well 2 inv. 85.3529.32 pl. 7 Knob. Diam. knob 5.3. Light grey and light brownish red fabric (M73 et M47), quite coarse, quite hard, sandy to very sandy (medium and fine sand). Surfaces: ext. white (L92), int. light brownish red (M47). Form: knob hollow inside, dimpled, very narrow at junction of base/body (3.6 cm). E54 Well 3 inv. 85 Knob. Diam. knob 5.5. Light grey fabric (M73), quite coarse, hard, sandy (fine and medium sand, black grains). Surfaces: light grey (M73). E55 Well 3 inv. 85 Knob. Diam. knob 4.6 cm. Very narrow at junction of base/body (3,1). Pink fabric (M35), quite coarse to quite fine, quite hard, quite sandy (medium sand, grey and black grains). Surfaces: pink (M69).

Amphora lid knob E56 Well 2 inv. 85.3529.26 pl. 7 Central knob of amphora lid. Ht. (known) 3.2; W. 2.5. White fabric (L92), quite coarse, hard, sandy to very sandy (fine and medium sand, black grains). Surfaces: white “milk” (L92). Form: cylindrical knob, flat on top and slightly waisted for grasping.

Variants of category A E57 Well 3 inv. 85.3010 pl. 8 Rim and handle of open-form vessel? Pink fabric (N53), quite coarse, hard, quite sandy (medium to coarse sand, large grains on surface). Surfaces: covered with “milk”, ext. white (L92), int. very pale brown (M75). E58 Well 3 inv. 85.3010 pl. 8 Rim and handle of flagon? Brownish grey fabric (P51), quite coarse, hard, sandy (fine and medium sand). Surfaces: very pale brown (M71). E59 Well 3 inv. 85 Neck and rim of small flagon. Pink clay (L29), quite coarse, very hard, sandy (fin, medium and coarse sand). Surfaces: grey (P73).

pl. 8

THE LATE ROMAN POTTERY FOUND IN AMATHUS HARBOUR

149

E60 Well 3 inv. 85 pl. 8 Preserved parts: neck and rim of bell-mouth vessel. Very dark grey fabric (T73), fine, hard, very slightly sandy (very fine sand). Surfaces: very dark grey (T73) fabric and surfaces burnt. E61 Well 3 inv. 85.3008 pl. 8 Rim of a vessel. Grey fabric (N71), quite coarse, hard, sandy (medium to coarse sand). Surfaces: smoothed, covered with “milk”, ext. light grey (M91), int. pale yellow (N90). E62 Well 3 inv. 85.3008 pl. 8 Rim of a small amphora? Pink fabric (M70), quite coarse, quite hard, quite sandy (fine and medium sand). Surfaces: covered with “milk”, ext. yellow pale (M77), int. pink (M70). E63 Well 3 inv. 85 pl. 8 Rim of a flagon. Greyish pink fabric (M53), quite coarse, hard, sandy (medium to big sand visible on surface). Surfaces: ext. light grey (M73), int. very pale brown “milk” (M71). E64 Well 3 inv. 85 pl. 8 Rim of a vessel/jug? Grey fabric (R73), quite fine, very hard, quite sandy (fine sand). Surfaces: covered with marine deposits, light grey (M73). E65 Well 3 inv. 85 Neck, rim and handle of a vessel. Pale yellow fabric (L91), quite coarse to quite fine, quite hard, quite sandy (fine sand). Surface: pale yellow (T85). E66 Well 2 inv. 85.3029 pl. 8 Base and body of a vessel. Diam. Bottom 6,5. Grey fabric (R73), quite coarse, very hard, quite sandy to sandy (medium and fine sand). Surfaces: rough, badly finished, pellets of clay, and marine deposits, ext. grey (R31), int. very pale brown (M71). E67 Well 3 inv. 85.3010 Base of a small vessel, very eroded, damaged by the sea and also by firing. Grey fabric (P73), quite coarse, hard, sandy (medium, coarse and fine sand). Surfaces: grey (P73).

pl. 8

E68 Well 3 inv. 85 pl. 8 Body and rim of open-form vessel, grooved. Diam. rim 18.2. Light red fabric (M39), quite coarse, hard, quite sandy (fine and medium sand). Surface: covered with “milk”, yellow (K77). E69 Well 3 inv. 85 Body and rim of open-form vessel. Diam. rim 10.5.

pl. 8

150

THE HELLENISTIC HARBOUR OF AMATHUS

Light grey fabric (M73), quite coarse, hard, sandy (medium to coarse sand, visible on surface). Surface: ext. grey (M31), smoothed, int. greyish pink (M53). E70 Well 3 inv. 85 pl. 8 Base of a small vessel (?) very eroded, flaked. Diam. base 3.8. Brownish grey fabric (P51), quite coarse, quite sandy (medium sand). Surfaces: ext. greyish pink (N51), int. brownish grey (P51). E71 Well 3 inv. 85 pl. 8 Base of a small vessel. Diam. base 3. Some traces on this fragment suggest moulding. Greyish pink fabric (N53), quite coarse, hard, quite sandy (fine and medium sand). Surfaces: ext. grey (R73), smoothed, int. grey (N92). E72 Well 3 inv. 85 pl. 8 Broken handle. Greyish pink fabric (R73) grey core (N70), quite coarse, hard sandy (medium to coarse sand). Surfaces: ext. light brownish red (N50), smoothed, int. light grey (M73). E73 Well 3 inv. 85 pl. 8 Rim of a lid? Diam. rim 13.4. Grey fabric (N73), quite coarse, hard, sandy (medium to coarse sand). Surfaces: smoothed, ext. light grey (M92), int. grey (N73).

CATEGORY B: KITCHEN WARE Ba: spherical cooking pot en calotte (skull cap-shaped) Ba I: Spherical cooking pot ‘en calotte’ with two horizontal handles E74 Well 3 inv. 85 pl. 9 Body, rim and handle of a cooking pot. Diam. rim 21. Grey and yellowish red fabric (N72 et N57), quite coarse, very hard, very sandy (fine and medium sand). Surfaces: burnt, grey (N92) and very dark grey (T73). Form: wide body, convex, rim flattened on top, handle attached horizontally under rim, oblong in section. Decoration: groves on exterior of body, handle grooved by hand. E75 Well 3 inv. 85 pl. 9 Body and (broken) rim of a cooking pot. Diam. (broken) rim 23? Grey fabric (R73), burnt, quite coarse, hard, sandy (medium to coarse sand). Surfaces: very dark grey (T73) ext. very burnt. Rim thickens to the exterior. E76 Well 3 inv. 85 pl. 9 Handle of cooking pot. Same as E74. Reddish yellow fabric (P45), quite coarse to quite fine, very hard, slightly sandy (fine and medium sand). Surfaces: ext. dark brown (S30), int. dark grey (T31) burnt, evidence of use, very dark on lower part.

THE LATE ROMAN POTTERY FOUND IN AMATHUS HARBOUR

151

E77 Well 3 inv. 85 pl. 9 Handle of cooking pot. Same as E74. Grey fabric (N92), quite fine, very hard, quite sandy (fine sand). Surfaces: ext. rare matt slip?, grey and light brownish red (R31 et N50), for slip cf. E36 and E37, int. well smoothed, grey (N92).

Ba II Spherical cooking pot ‘en calotte’ with horizontal handles E78 Well 3 inv. 85.3011 pl. 9 Handle of a cooking pot. Light brownish red fabric (N35), quite coarse, hard, sandy (medium sand). Surfaces: poor finishing, light red (N37). Form: solid horizontal handle; m a i n h a n d l e covered with thin l a ye r o f clay (0.4 cm.) with a hollow section (broken at this place), for holding the pot with a stick during cooking.

Variant of Ba (open forms) E79 Well 3 inv. 85.3006 pl. 9 Rims and trace of handle joins? of cooking pot. Diam. rim 19. Dark red fabric (T39) quite coarse to quite fine, hard, quite sandy (fine sand). Surfaces: ext. very well smoothed like a slip, light red (N39), int. brownish red (P29). Form: triangular sectioned rim, thick,; carinated under rim on the exterior; handle on external side of rim. Decoration: two incised grooves on top of rim. E80 Well 3 inv. 85.3009 pl. 9 Rim of a cooking pot. Same as E79. Light brownish red fabric (N35), quite coarse to quite fine, very hard, quite sandy (fine and medium sand). Surfaces: ext. grey (N92) slip or result of smoke? int. light brownish red (N35). E81 Well 3 inv. 85.3012 pl. 9 Small fragment of body and rim of a cooking pot. Diam. rim 19.5. Greyish pink fabric (N51), quite coarse, very hard, sandy (fine and coarse sand, big white grains of limestone). Surfaces: well smoothed, but grains of greyish pink limestone visible (N51). Form: rim horizontally flared to exterior.

Cooking pot lids (Ba) E82 Well 3 inv. 85.3012 pl. 10 Incomplete lid. Profile and dimensions known, restored. Diam. rim 21; Ht. with ring 7.8. Reddish yellow and grey “sandwich” fabric (P45 et P71), quite coarse, hard, sandy (medium to coarse sand). Surfaces: well finished, smoothed, smoked, ext. light brownish red (N49), int. grey (P71). Form: concave body with dimple, plain rim almost square in section, slightly bevelled to fit rim of cooking pot. Rounded handle, round in section attached to top of lid. Colour of surfaces and traces of wheel very visible, proving that this lid was not used. Decoration: narrow closely spaced grooves on exterior. E83 Well 3 inv. 85.3012 pl. 10 Fragmentary lid. Diam. rim 20.3. Greyish pink fabric (N70), quite coarse, hard, quite sandy to sandy (fine and medium sand). Surfaces: ext. grey (N71), int. brownish grey (P51). This lid is blackish grey (marine deposits ? firing ? use ?) The rim forms a ridge to the inside.

152

THE HELLENISTIC HARBOUR OF AMATHUS

E84 Well 3 inv. 85 pl. 10 Rim and body of a lid. Diam. rim 21.2. Red and brownish grey “sandwich” fabric (P40 et P51), quite coarse, hard, very sandy (medium to coarse sand). Surfaces: ext. smoked, greyish pink (M51), int. burnt, dark brown (S51). E85 Well 3 inv. 85.3010 pl. 10 Fragment of rim of a lid. Diam. rim 16.4. Red fabric (S39), quite coarse, quite hard, quite sandy (fine and medium sand). Surfaces: smoothed, ext. red (R20), int. red (P37). Decoration: well executed widely-spaced grooves, probably done with a bladed tool. E86 Well 3 inv. 85.3012 pl. 10 Small fragment of rim of a lid. Diam. rim 19.4. Light brownish red fabric (N35), quite fine to quite coarse, hard, quite sandy (medium and fine sand). Surfaces: ext. light brownish red (N33), int. grey (R73). E87 Well 2 inv. 85.3529.28 pl. 10 Knob of lid. Light brownish red fabric (N55), quite coarse, quite hard, quite sandy (medium to coarse sand). Surfaces: grey (N71). Form: hollow knob, square in section, “button” on top.

Bb: globular cooking pots with two vertical handles Bb I: Globular cooking pot with two vertical handles and thin rim E88 Well 3 inv. 85.3013 fig. 1 and pl. 11 Incomplete cooking pot, profile complete (only base missing). Diam. 12; Ht. (known) 17.7. Brownish red and red “sandwich” fabric (R29, R50 et P20), quite coarse to quite fine, very hard, sandy (medium to coarse sand). Surfaces: ext. smoked, dark grey (S et T73) and burnt with brownish red zones (P55), int. very dark grey (T90 et T70), marine deposits in interior. Faults are visible on interior and exterior below handle (pellets of clay, grooves): the potter had probably attached the handle at this place and then changed its position. Form: globular body narrowing under the rim, which is thin and straight, slightly inclined to the interior, handle(s) flattened oblong in section attached to the body on the rim. Decoration: closely-spaced narrow grooves near base and under rim, wider spaced on lower part of body; handle grooved by hand. E89 Well 3 inv. 85.3010 pl. 11 Fragment of handle and rim of a cooking pot. Diam. rim 14.5. Red fabric (P39), quite coarse, hard, sandy to very sandy (fine, medium and coarse sand). Surfaces: ext. light red (N35), int. light red (N37). E90 Well 3 inv. 85 pl. 11 Fragment of body and handle of a cooking pot. Dark grey fabric (S73), quite coarse, very hard, sandy (fine and medium sand). Surfaces: slipped, brownish red (P55). E91 Well 3 inv. 85 pl. 11 Fragment of body and handle of a cooking pot. Grey fabric (R73), quite coarse, very hard, quite sandy (medium to coarse sand). Surfaces: dark grey (S73).

THE LATE ROMAN POTTERY FOUND IN AMATHUS HARBOUR

153

E92 Well 3 inv. 85 pl. 11 Fragment of handle of a cooking pot. Grey and yellowish red “sandwich” fabric (P92 and N45) quite coarse, hard, sandy (medium to coarse sand). Surface pale yellow (M77). E93 Well 3 inv. 85 pl. 12 Fragment of body and handles of a cooking pot. Dark grey and brownish red “sandwich” fabric (S73 et P35), quite coarse, hard, sandy (medium sand). Surfaces: smoked, ext. dark grey (S73), int. dark greyish red (R30) with traces of marine deposits.

Bb II: Globular cooking pot with two vertical handles and thickened rim E94 Well 3 inv. 85 pl. 12 Body, rim and handle of a cooking pot. Diam. rim 13.3; Ht. (known) 7. Light red and grey “sandwich” fabric (N39 et N31), quite coarse, hard, sandy (fine, coarse and medium sand). Grains of lime and crushed seashells visible in the fabric. Surfaces: smoothed, ext. greyish pink (N51), int. pink (M35). Form: same as BbI but rim is thicker and less high, walls thicker. E95 Well 3 inv. 85.3012 pl. 12 Upper body and rim of a cooking pot. Diam. rim 13. Same as E94. Grey fabric (P73), quite coarse, hard, sandy (fine medium and coarse sand). Surfaces: burnt, especially exterior, grey (R73), int. grey (P71). E96 Well 3 inv. 85 pl. 12 Fragment of base of a cooking pot. Dark grey fabric (S31) quite coarse to quite fine, very hard, sandy (fine and medium sand). Surfaces: ext. smoked, very burnt with traces marine deposits, grey (P71), int. dark brownish red (T30). Decoration: thin grooves on exterior. Circle of clay, wheel-made separately then added to the pot.

Variant of Bb E97 Well 3 inv. 85.3006 pl. 12 Rim of a cooking pot. Diam. rim 14.8. Light brownish red fabric (N35), quite coarse, hard, sandy (fine, medium and coarse sand). Surfaces: light brownish red (N35). Form: more or less vertical body, rim thickened into a little roll. E98 Well 3 inv. 85.3006 pl. 12 Rim of a cooking pot. Diam. rim 16.2. Light brownish red fabric (N35), quite fine, hard, quite sandy (medium and fine sand). Surface: very good finish, light brownish red (N27). Form: rim thin and rounded, everted.

Bc: casserole with solid pan-handle E99 Well 3 inv. 85.3010 Fragment of handle and rim of a casserole. Diam. ?.

pl. 12

154

THE HELLENISTIC HARBOUR OF AMATHUS

Yellowish red clay (M20), quite fine, very hard, very slightly sandy (fine sand). Surfaces: matt slip, ext. greyish red (P53), int. light brownish red (N30). Form: pan-handle attached to broken rim. E100 Well 3 inv. 85 pl. 12 Part of a flared basin with sharply interned rim Diam. rim 16; Ht. (known) 4. Grey and yellowish brown “sandwich” fabric (P92 and N77), quite fine, very hard, very slightly sandy (fine sand). Surfaces: very good finish, smooth to touch, firing has given varied colours to exterior surface, grey (N71), brownish red (R53), grey (R73); int. thick matt slip, dark brown (S30).

CATEGORY C: TABLEWARE: LATE ROMAN SIGILLATA (LRP) North african red slip ware (ARS) E101 Well 2 inv. 85.3529 pl. 13 Part of body and rim of a plate. Diam. rim 19.5. Light red fabric (N39), quite fine to quite coarse, quite hard, very slightly sandy (fine and medium sand). Surfaces slipped, ext. light red (N37) and light brownish red (N49), colour acquired from time spent in sea; int. light red (N37). Form: flared body, rolled rim (ARS 104C). E102 Well 3 inv. 85.3008 pl. 13 Rim of a plate. Diam. rim 29.5. Yellowish red fabric (M20), quite fine, quite hard, very slightly sandy (sand fine). Surfaces: slipped, yellowish red (M45). Form: out-turned rim, thickened (ARS 67.1).

Asia Minor red slip ware (Phocaea) (LRC) E103 Well 3 inv. 85 pl. 13 Rim of a plate. Diam. rim 24.5. Light red fabric (M39), quite fine, hard, quite sandy to very slightly sandy (quite fine sand). Surfaces: slipped, ext. red (P39), int. light red (N39). Form: curving rim with no lower part, thickened, flat on external surface, top rounded (LRC 3C). E104 Well 3 inv. 85.3008 pl. 13 Fragment of body and rim of a plate. Diam. rim 24.2. Pink fabric (M49), quite fine to fine, hard, very slightly sandy (fine sand). Surfaces: slipped, red (P19). Form: curving rim with no lower part, concave external surface (LRC 3H).

Cypriot red slip ware (lrd) E105 Well 3 inv. 85.3011 pl. 13 Rim of plate. Diam. rim 23.5. Light red fabric (N19), quite fine to quite coarse, quite hard, very slightly sandy (fine sand, flakes of lime). Surfaces: slipped, red (R19); ext. of rim (burnt) unslipped, brownish red (R33). Form: rim turning out to exterior forming a roll with rounded top (LRD2).

THE LATE ROMAN POTTERY FOUND IN AMATHUS HARBOUR

155

E106 Well 3 inv. 85 pl. 13 Base and foot of a plate. Diam. of foot 11.7. Pinkish grey fabric (M33), quite fine to fine, hard, very slightly sandy (fine sand). Surfaces: slipped, ext. dark brownish red (T20), int. light brownish red (N35). Form: flat base, square sectioned foot, flared body (LRD2). Decoration: guilloche notches on exterior and two grooves. E107 Well 3 inv. 85.3013 pl. 13 Fragment of body and rim of a bowl. Diam. rim 28, 8. Pinkish grey fabric (M29), quite fine, very slightly sandy (fine sand). Surfaces: slipped, brownish red (P35), rim appears burnt on ext. and int., dark brownish grey (R51). Form: thick rolled rim, spread at an angle (LRD3.2). Decoration: notches on rim and on basin. NB: E107 and E108 might belong to the same vessel. E108 Well 3 inv. 85.3011 pl. 13 Foot and base of a plate. Faded red fabric (N11), quite fine to fine, hard, very slightly sandy (fine sand and flakes of lime). Surfaces: slipped, ext. faded red (P11); int. faded red (N11). Form: flat base, very slightly marked foot, square in section, body flares outwards (LRD2). E109 Well 3 inv. 85.3013 pl. 13 Rim of a plate. Diam. rim 28.8. Pink fabric (M49), fine to very fine, very hard, slightly sandy (very fine sand and fines flakes of lime). Surfaces: slipped, ext. brownish red (N45), int. red (S39). Form: LRD 3.2. E110 Well 3 inv. 85.3010 pl. 13 Rim of a plate. Diam. rim 25.5. The eruption of a flake of lime has created a lump inside the rim. Pink fabric (L29), fine, hard, very slightly sandy (fine sand and lime). Surfaces: slipped, ext. faded red (P25); dark red rim (T37); firing effect, unslipped zones: pink (M35); int. brownish red (R35). Form: thick rolled rim, pointed top (LRD9.7B). Decoration: notches on rim. E111 Well 3 inv. 85.3009 pl. 13 Fragment of body and rim of a plate. Diam. rim 27.5. Pink fabric (L45), fine, very hard, very slightly sandy (fine sand and lime). Surfaces: slipped, ext. yellowish red (M20), pink rim (L33); int. pink (L47). Form: flared body, thick rolled rim, hooked in lower part (LRD9. 5B). E112 Well 3 inv. 85.3012 pl. 14 Fragment of body and rim of a plate. Diam. rim 26.7. Brownish red fabric (N29), quite fine to fine, hard, very slightly sandy (fine sand). Surfaces: slipped, ext. brownish red (P27), unslipped rim “colourless” light brownish red (N30); int. faded red (P25). Form: same as E110 (LRD9.13C). Decoration: four notches on body, two circular incisions around exterior of rim, wavy line on rim, the “trade-mark” of the LRD. E113 Well 3 inv. 85.3012 pl. 14 Fragment of body and rim of a plate. Diam. rim 14 Grey fabric (N31), quite fine to fine, very hard (over-fired?), very slightly sandy (fine sand and lime). Surfaces: slipped, ext. brownish red (P29), int. faded red (P25). Form: LRD9.13C.

156

THE HELLENISTIC HARBOUR OF AMATHUS

E114 Well 3 inv. 85 pl. 14 Base, foot and part of body of a plate. Diam. of foot 15. Pink-grey fabric (M33), quite fine to fine, hard, very slightly sandy (fine sand and lime). Surfaces: slipped, ext. light brownish red (N35), int. light red (N39). Form: flat base, but presence of tiny foot, just discernable; flared body, widened (LRD9). Decoration: parallel notches on lower part of body, two incisions decorate the exterior body. E115 Well 3 inv. 85.3010 pl. 14 Base and foot of a plate. Diam. of foot 10. Pinkish grey fabric (M29), quite fine to fine, hard, very slightly sandy (fine sand and lime). Surfaces: slipped, ext. light brownish red (M25), int. pale red (N25). Form: LRD9. E116 Well 3 inv. 85.3011 pl. 14 Base and foot of a plate. Diam. of foot 13.2. Pale red fabric (M11), quite fine to fine, hard, very slightly sandy (fine sand and lime). Surfaces: slipped, faded red (N11), over-fired zones; faded red (P11). Form: LRD9. E117 Well 3 inv. 85 pl. 14 Base, foot and part of body. Diam. of foot 14. Grey fabric (M31), quite fine, hard, very slightly sandy (sand not visible). Surfaces: slipped, grey (P31) due to over-firing or time spent in sea. Form: LRD9. E118 Well 3 inv. 85.3013 pl. 14 Rim of basin. Diam. c. 18. Light brownish red fabric (N29), quite fine to fine, very hard, very slightly sandy (fine sand and lime). Surfaces: slipped, ext. red (R19), red rim (P15); int. faded red (P25). Form: heavy rim, thickened, slightly inclined at top to exterior (broken) (LRD10.1). Decoration: three incisions on external surface of rim, notches and wavy line. E119 Well 3 inv. 85.3010 pl. 14 Fragment of base of a plate. Diam. rim 10. Light brownish red fabric (M25), quite fine, hard, very slightly sandy (fine sand). Surfaces: slipped, ext. faded red (N11); int. pale red (N13). Form: flat base. Decoration: radiating guilloche notches on external surface of base. E120 Well 3 inv. 85 pl. 14 Base, foot and part of body of a plate. Diam. rim 13.2. Grey and greyish pink “sandwich” fabric (N71 et N53), quite fine, hard, very slightly sandy (fine sand and lime). Surfaces: slipped, pink (M35). Form: thick flat base, wide body. E121 Well 3 inv. 85 pl. 14 Preserved parts: lower part of a body. Pinkish grey fabric (M29), quite fine, hard, very slightly sandy (fine sand and lime). Surfaces: slipped, ext. brownish red (P27), int. red (R20). Decoration: two rows of notches repeated on lower part.

Imitation LRC E122 Well 3 inv. 85 Base and foot of a plate. Diam. of foot 19.2.

pl. 14

THE LATE ROMAN POTTERY FOUND IN AMATHUS HARBOUR

157

Grey fabric (R73), quite coarse, very hard, quite sandy (medium to big sand). Surfaces: ext. slipped, dark grey (S73); int. grey (P73). Form: wide body, thickened rolled rim with bulge to exterior (LRC1.6). Decoration: circular incision on rim.

LAMPS Type I: Elongated moulded lamp E123 Well 3 inv. 85.3010 pl. 15 Ht. 3.5; W. 6,8; Diam. of foot 3.5; L. (known) 6.3. Decoration: stylised floral decoration of medallion, palms around central hole. Light brownish red fabric (N35), very fine, very slightly sandy, burnt in section. Fabric and surfaces damaged by seawater, ext. very pale brown (M71), lower part light grey (M73). Form: bulging upper part, rounded, wide filling hole, surrounded by beading, circular foot.

Type II: ovoid moulded lamp E124 Well 2 inv. 84.3529 pl. 15 L. 6; W. 2.8. Grey fabric (P73), quite fine, quite hard, very slightly sandy. Surfaces: light grey (M73). Form: bulging upper part, rounded to pyramidal knob, round filling hole. Decoration: floral and geometric.

Type III: round moulded lamp E125 Well 3 inv. 85 pl. 15 Diam. of crown 9.1; L. 2.8; W. 1.7. Pink fabric (L25), very fine, very slightly sandy, fabric and surfaces damaged by seawater. Form: flattened crown. Decoration: a row of hollowed dots surrounded by a circular incision marking the crown.

Type IV: round wheel-made lamp E126 Well 2 inv. 84.3529 fig. 1 and pl. 15 Ht. 4.5 cm; L. without handle 8.2; W. 7.5. Light grey fabric(M92), coarse, sandy. Surfaces: light grey (M73), burnt zone on lower part: grey (N73). Poor finishing, especially on lower part, traces of finger marks and pellets of clay. Form: round lamp with handle (broken); opposite the handle, a pointed spout, wick hole, very small, pierced after manufacture. Filling hole raised on a straight ridge, bevelled; flat base. E127 Well 3 inv. 85 L. 7 cm, W. 3.8 cm. Grey fabric (R73), quite coarse, quite sandy. Surfaces; grey (P73).

pl. 15

E128 Well 3 inv. 85 pl. 15 Diam. of handle 1.3; Ht. of handle 3.2. Greyish pink fabric (M30), burnt zones in section, grey (P31), quite coarse, quite sandy. Surfaces: greyish pink (M30) and grey (P31). Form: same as E126 and E127, but with handle, which is round, raised, attached to carinated shoulder of lamp at ridge.

158

THE HELLENISTIC HARBOUR OF AMATHUS

E129 Well 3 inv. 85 Ht. 2.8; Diam. of base 7. Very pale brown (M71) and grey (P73) fabric, quite coarse, quite sandy. Surfaces: grey (M31).

pl. 15

E130 Well 3 inv. 85 L. 2; W. 2.8. Grey fabric (N73), quite coarse, quite sandy. Surfaces: light grey (M73).

pl. 15

SMALL VESSEL E131 Well 3 inv. 85.3013 pl. 15 Ht. 6.5 cm; Diam. of bottom 3.5; Diam. of rim 2.8. Grey fabric (N73), quite coarse, quite sandy. Surfaces: grey (M31). Form: flat base, junction of base/ body forms a small foot, body carinated, nipped, thin neck, out-turned rim with rounded edge.

TILE E132 Well 3 Fragment of a tile. Thickness of wall 1.1-1.3. Light brownish red fabric (N35), quite fine to fine, very hard, very slightly sandy (medium sand). Surfaces: slipped, pale yellow (N35), irregular traces of badly executed smoothing; thick matt “white milk”; slip recalls LRD. Form: exterior flat, interior curved.

BIBLIOGRAPHY Abou Assaf, Taïba A. Abou Assaf, “Tombeau romano-byzantin à Taiba”, AAA 24 (1974), p. 189-214, pl. 1-6 (texte en arabe). Bass, Yassi Ada I G. Bass, Yassi Ada I. A Seventh-Century Byzantine Shipwreck (1981). Catling, Dikigoropoulos, Kornos H. W. Catling, A. I. Dikigoropoulos, “The Kornos Cave: An Early Byzantine Site in Cyprus”, Levant 2 (1970), p. 37-62, pl. XXVIII-XXXII. Catling, Dhiorios H. W. Catling, “An Early Byzantine Pottery Factory at Dhiorios in Cyprus”, Levant 4 (1972), p. 1-82, pl. I-VIII. Diedrichs, Salamine IX C. Diedrichs, Salamine de Chypre IX. Céramiques hellénistiques, romaines et byzantines (1980). Dobbins, Terracotta Lamps J.J. Dobbins, Terracotta Lamps of the Roman Province of Syria, Ph.D. Univ. of Mich. (1983).

THE LATE ROMAN POTTERY FOUND IN AMATHUS HARBOUR

159

Du Plat Taylor, Megaw, Ayios Philon J. Du Plat Taylor, A. S. Megaw, “Excavations at Ayios Philon, the Ancient Carpassia, part II: The Early Christian Buildings”, RDAC 1981, p. 209-250. Egloff, Kellia M. Egloff, Kellia. Recherches Suisses d’Archéologie Copte, III, tomes 1 et 2, La poterie copte (1977). Hayes, LRP J. W. Hayes, Late Roman Pottery, A Catalogue of Roman Fine Wares (1972). Hayes, Suppl. to LRP J. W. Hayes, Supplement to Late Roman Pottery (1980). Hayes, ROMP J. W. Hayes, Roman Pottery in the Royal Ontario Museum. A Catalogue (1976). HAYES, ROML J. W. Hayes, Ancient Lamps in the Royal Ontario Museum I. Greek and Roman Clay Lamps (1980). HAYES, Problèmes J. W. Hayes, “Problèmes de la céramique des viie-ixe siècles à Salamine et à Chypre”, in Colloque Salamine de Chypre. Histoire et Archéologie (1980), p. 375-387. Hayes, Riley, Carthage J. W. Hayes, J. A. Riley, “Pottery Report 1976”, in Excavations at Carthage IV (1978), p. 23-98. Iliffe, el-Bassa J. H. Iliffe, “A tomb at el-Bassa of c. AD 396”, QDAP 3 (1934), p. 81-91. Montlivaud, Jerash E. de Montlivaud, “Remarques sur un lot de céramique d’époque byzantine”, in Jerash Excavation Project 1981-1983 (1986), p. 71-73. Oziol, Salamine I Th. Oziol, Salamine de Chypre I. Les lampes (1969). Oziol, Salamine VII Th. Oziol, Salamine de Chypre VII. Les lampes du Musée de Chypre (1977). Oziol, Colloque Th. Oziol, “Quelques lampes de Constantia”, in Colloque Salamine de Chypre, Histoire et Archéologie (1980), p. 395-400. Prausnitz, Shavei Zion M. W. Prausnitz et al., Excavations at Shavei Zion: The Early Christian Church (1967).

160

THE HELLENISTIC HARBOUR OF AMATHUS

Scholl, Jerash T. Scholl, “The Chronology of Jerash Lamps: A Preliminary Report”, in Jerash Archaeological Project, 19811983 (1986), p. 163-166. Smith, Pella R. H. Smith et al., Pella of the Decapolis I (1977). Thalmann, Arqa J.-P. Thalmann, “Tell ‘Arqa (Liban Nord), Campagnes I-III (1972-74)”, Syria 55 (1978), p. 1-52.

Cat. no.

Well

Exc. inv. no.

Cat. no.

Well

Exc. inv. no.

Cat. no.

Well

Exc. inv. no.

E1

Well 2

84.3529.1

E51

Well 3

85

E101

Well 2

84.3529

E2

Well 3

85.3010 + 3012

E52

Well 2

84.3529.31

E102

Well 3

85.3008

E3

Well 3

85.3013

E53

Well 2

84.3529.32

E103

Well 3

85

E4

Well 3

85.3012

E54

Well 3

85

E104

Well 3

85.3008

E5

Well 2

84.3529.5

E55

Well 3

85

E105

Well 3

85.3011

E6

Well 2

84.3529.3

E56

Well 2

84.3529.26

E106

Well 3

85

E7

Well 2

84.3529.2

E57

Well 3

85.3010

E107

Well 3

85.3013

E8

Well 2

84.3529

E58

Well 3

85.3010

E108

Well 3

85.3011

E9

Well 2

84.3529

E59

Well 3

85

E109

Well 3

85.3013

E10

Well 1

84.3507

E60

Well 3

85

E110

Well 3

85.3010

E11

Well 3

84

E61

Well 3

85.3008

E111

Well 3

85.3009

E12

Well 3

85

E62

Well 3

85.3008

E112

Well 3

85.3012

E13

Well 3

85.3010

E63

Well 3

85

E113

Well 3

85.3012

E14

Well 3

84

E64

Well 3

85

E114

Well 3

85

E15

Well 3

85.3010

E65

Well 3

85

E115

Well 3

85.3010

E16

Well 2

84.3529

E66

Well 2

84.3529

E116

Well 3

85.3011

E17

Well 3

85

E67

Well 3

85.3010

E117

Well 3

85

E18

Well 1

84.3509

E68

Well 3

85

E118

Well 3

85.3013

E19

Well 3

85

E69

Well 3

85

E119

Well 3

85.3010

E20

Well 3

85

E70

Well 3

85

E120

Well 3

85

E21

Well 3

85

E71

Well 3

85

E121

Well 3

85

E22

Well 2

84.3510.2

E72

Well 3

85

E122

Well 3

85

E23

Well 1

84.3506.2

E73

Well 3

85

E123

Well 3

85.3010

E24

Well 1

84.3511

E74

Well 3

85

E124

Well 2

84.3529

E25

Well 1

84.3501

E75

Well 3

85

E125

Well 3

85

THE LATE ROMAN POTTERY FOUND IN AMATHUS HARBOUR

161

Cat. no.

Well

Exc. inv. no.

Cat. no.

Well

Exc. inv. no.

Cat. no.

Well

Exc. inv. no.

E26

Well 3

85.3012

E76

Well 3

85

E126

Well 2

84.3529

E27

Well 3

85

E77

Well 3

85

E127

Well 3

85

E28

Well 3

85.3010

E78

Well 3

85.3011

E128

Well 3

85

E29

Well 2

84.3529.10

E79

Well 3

85.3006

E129

Well 3

85

E30

Well 3

85

E80

Well 3

85.3009

E130

Well 3

85

E31

Well 3

85

E81

Well 3

85.3012

E131

Well 3

85.3013

E32

Well 3

85.3001

E82

Well 3

85.3012

E132

Well 3

85

E33

Well 3

85

E83

Well 3

85.3012

E34

Well 2

84

E84

Well 3

85

E35

Well 3

85.3008

E85

Well 3

85.3010.

E36

Well 3

85.3013

E86

Well 3

85.3012

E37

Well 3

85

E87

Well 2

84.3529.28

E38

Well 3

85.3013

E88

Well 3

85.3013

E39

Well 3

85

E89

Well 3

85.3010

E40

Well 3

85.3006

E90

Well 3

85

E41

Well 3

85.3013

E91

Well 3

85

E42

Well 3

85.3008

E92

Well 3

85

E43

Well 3

85

E93

Well 3

85

E44

Well 3

85.3009 (3)

E94

Well 3

85

E45

Well 3

85

E95

Well 3

85.3012

E46

Well 3

85

E96

Well 3

85

E47

Well 3

85

E97

Well 3

85.3006

E48

Well 3

85.3009 (3)

E98

Well 3

85.3006

E49

Well 3

85.3009 (3)

E99

Well 3

85.3010

E50

Well 3

85

E100

Well 3

85

Concordance table 1 — Cat. no. / excavation inv. no.

162

THE HELLENISTIC HARBOUR OF AMATHUS

Well

Exc. inv. no.

Cat. no.

Well

Exc. inv. no.

Cat. no.

Well

Exc. inv. no.

Cat. no.

Well 1

84.3501

E25

Well 3

85

E55

Well 3

85.3008

E62

Well 1

84.3506.2

E23

Well 3

85

E59

Well 3

85.3008

E102

Well 1

84.3507

E10

Well 3

85

E60

Well 3

85.3008

E104

Well 1

84.3509

E18

Well 3

85

E63

Well 3

85.3009

E80

Well 1

84.3511

E24

Well 3

85

E64

Well 3

85.3009

E111

Well 3

85

E65

Well 3

85.3009 (3)

E44

Well 2

84

E34

Well 3

85

E68

Well 3

85.3009 (3)

E48

Well 2

84.3510.2

E22

Well 3

85

E69

Well 3

85.3009 (3)

E49

Well 2

84.3529

E8

Well 3

85

E70

Well 3

85.3010

E13

Well 2

84.3529

E9

Well 3

85

E71

Well 3

85.3010

E15

Well 2

84.3529

E16

Well 3

85

E72

Well 3

85.3010

E28

Well 2

84.3529

E66

Well 3

85

E73

Well 3

85.3010

E57

Well 2

84.3529

E101

Well 3

85

E74

Well 3

85.3010

E58

Well 2

84.3529

E124

Well 3

85

E75

Well 3

85.3010

E67

Well 2

84.3529

E126

Well 3

85

E76

Well 3

85.3010

E89

Well 2

84.3529.1

E1

Well 3

85

E77

Well 3

85.3010

E99

Well 2

84.3529.2

E7

Well 3

85

E84

Well 3

85.3010

E110

Well 2

84.3529.3

E6

Well 3

85

E90

Well 3

85.3010

E115

Well 2

84.3529.5

E5

Well 3

85

E91

Well 3

85.3010

E119

Well 2

84.3529.10

E29

Well 3

85

E92

Well 3

85.3010

E123

Well 2

84.3529.26

E56

Well 3

85

E93

Well 3

85.3010 + 3012

E2

Well 2

84.3529.28

E87

Well 3

85

E94

Well 3

85.3010.

E85

Well 2

84.3529.31

E52

Well 3

85

E96

Well 3

85.3011

E78

Well 2

84.3529.32

E53

Well 3

85

E100

Well 3

85.3011

E105

Well 3

85

E103

Well 3

85.3011

E108

Well 3

84

E11

Well 3

85

E106

Well 3

85.3011

E116

Well 3

84

E14

Well 3

85

E114

Well 3

85.3012

E4

Well 3

85

E12

Well 3

85

E117

Well 3

85.3012

E26

Well 3

85

E17

Well 3

85

E120

Well 3

85.3012

E81

Well 3

85

E19

Well 3

85

E121

Well 3

85.3012

E82

Well 3

85

E20

Well 3

85

E122

Well 3

85.3012

E83

Well 3

85

E21

Well 3

85

E125

Well 3

85.3012

E86

Well 3

85

E27

Well 3

85

E127

Well 3

85.3012

E95

THE LATE ROMAN POTTERY FOUND IN AMATHUS HARBOUR

163

Well

Exc. inv. no.

Cat. no.

Well

Exc. inv. no.

Cat. no.

Well

Exc. inv. no.

Cat. no.

Well 3

85

E30

Well 3

85

E128

Well 3

85.3012

E112

Well 3

85

E31

Well 3

85

E129

Well 3

85.3012

E113

Well 3

85

E33

Well 3

85

E130

Well 3

85.3013

E3

Well 3

85

E37

Well 3

85

E132

Well 3

85.3013

E36

Well 3

85

E39

Well 3

85.3001

E32

Well 3

85.3013

E38

Well 3

85

E43

Well 3

85.3006

E40

Well 3

85.3013

E41

Well 3

85

E45

Well 3

85.3006

E79

Well 3

85.3013

E88

Well 3

85

E46

Well 3

85.3006

E97

Well 3

85.3013

E107

Well 3

85

E47

Well 3

85.3006

E98

Well 3

85.3013

E109

Well 3

85

E50

Well 3

85.3008

E35

Well 3

85.3013

E118

Well 3

85

E51

Well 3

85.3008

E42

Well 3

85.3013

E131

Well 3

85

E54

Well 3

85.3008

E61

Concordance table 2 — Excavation inv. no. / cat. no.

164

THE HELLENISTIC HARBOUR OF AMATHUS

E5

E7

E1

E6

E22

E29

E88

E 43

E47

E126 0

5 cm

Fig. 1 — Category A: local pottery jugs, E1, E5, E6, E7 and E22; amphora (?) lid E29; sakieh pots E43 and E47. Category B: cooking pot E88. Local round wheel-made lamp E126. Scale 1:4. Photos Ph. Collet, EFA Archives

THE LATE ROMAN POTTERY FOUND IN AMATHUS HARBOUR

E1

E3

165

E2

E4

0

5 cm

Plate 1 — Category A, type Aa: local pottery jugs E1, E2, E3, E4. Scale 1:3. Drawings S. Hartmann, EFA Archives

166

THE HELLENISTIC HARBOUR OF AMATHUS

E5

E6

E7

E9

E8

E10

E16

E11

0

5 cm

Plate 2 — Category A, type Ab: local pottery jugs E5 to E11. Scale 1:3. Drawings S. Hartmann, EFA Archives

THE LATE ROMAN POTTERY FOUND IN AMATHUS HARBOUR

E12

167

E13

E14

E15

E17

E18

E19

E20

E21

0

5 cm

Plate 3 — Category A, type Ab: local pottery jugs E12 to E21. Scale 1:3. Drawings S. Hartmann, EFA Archives

168

THE HELLENISTIC HARBOUR OF AMATHUS

E22

E23

E24

E26

E25

E27

E28 0

5 cm

Plate 4 — Category A, type Ac: local pottery closed vases with handles E22 to E28. Scale 1:3. Drawings S. Hartmann, EFA Archives

THE LATE ROMAN POTTERY FOUND IN AMATHUS HARBOUR

169

E29

E30

E31

E32

E33

0

5 cm

E34

Plate 5 — Category A, type Ad: local amphora (?) lids E29 and E30. Category A , type Ae: local basins E31 to E34. Scale 1:3. Drawings S. Hartmann, EFA Archives

170

THE HELLENISTIC HARBOUR OF AMATHUS

E35

E36

E37

E38

E40

E41

E42 0

5 cm

Plate 6 — Category A, type Af: local Dolia E35 to E41; large vase E42. Scale 1:3. Drawings S. Hartmann, EFA Archives

THE LATE ROMAN POTTERY FOUND IN AMATHUS HARBOUR

E43

E44

E48

E47

E52

171

E45

E49

E53

0

5 cm

E56

Plate 7 — Category A, type Af: local Sakieh pots E43 to E55; Amphora lid knob E56. Scale 1:3. Drawings S. Hartmann, EFA Archives

172

THE HELLENISTIC HARBOUR OF AMATHUS

E58

E57

E59 E61 E60

E63 E64

E62

E66

E67

E69 E68

E70

E71

E72

E73 0

Plate 8 — Category A: local various forms E57 to E73. Scale 1:2. Drawings S. Hartmann, EFA Archives

5 cm

THE LATE ROMAN POTTERY FOUND IN AMATHUS HARBOUR

173

E74

E75

E76

E77

E78

E79

E80

E81

0

5 cm

Plate 9 — Category B, type Ba: cooking pots E74 to E81. Scale 1:2. Drawings S. Hartmann, EFA Archives

174

THE HELLENISTIC HARBOUR OF AMATHUS

A

B

E82

E83

E84

E85

E86

E87 0

5 cm

Plate 10 — Category B, type Ba: cooking pot lids E82 to E87. Scale 1:2. Drawings S. Hartmann, EFA Archives

THE LATE ROMAN POTTERY FOUND IN AMATHUS HARBOUR

175

E88

E89

E90

E91

E92

0

5 cm

Plate 11 — Category B, type Bb: cooking pots from Dhioros E88 to E92. Scale 1:2. Drawings S. Hartmann, EFA Archives

176

THE HELLENISTIC HARBOUR OF AMATHUS

E93

E94

E95

E96

E97

E98

E99

E100

0

5 cm

Plate 12 — Category B, type Bb: cooking pots from Dhioros E93 to E98. Category B, type Bc: casseroles E99 and E100. Scale 1:2. Drawings S. Hartmann, EFA Archives

THE LATE ROMAN POTTERY FOUND IN AMATHUS HARBOUR

177

E101

E102

E103

E104

E105

E106

E107

E108

E109

E110

E111

0

5 cm

Plate 13 — Category C: North African Red Sigillata (ARS) E101 and E102; Phocaean (LRC) E103 and E104; Cypriot Terra Sigillata (LRD) E105 to E111. Scale 1:2. Drawings S. Hartmann, EFA Archives

178

THE HELLENISTIC HARBOUR OF AMATHUS

E112

E113

E114

E115

E116

E117

E118

E120 E119

E121

E122

0

5 cm

Plate 14 — Category C: Cypriot Terra Sigillata E112 to E121; Imitation of LRC E122. Scale 1:2. Drawings S. Hartmann, EFA Archives

THE LATE ROMAN POTTERY FOUND IN AMATHUS HARBOUR

A

C

179

C

A

B

D

E123

E124

E125

B

D

E126

E127

E129

E128

E130

E131

0

5 cm

Plate 15 — Lamps, types I to IV, E123 to E130; Small vase E131. Scale 1:2. Drawings S. Hartmann, EFA Archives

The Late Roman amphorae found in Amathus harbour Jean-Yves Empereur

The late period amphora sherds found during the excavation of Wells 1 and 2, and especially in the sakieh (Well 3) can be counted in the thousands1. The proportions hardly appear to vary from one well to the other and so, in order to avoid tedious repetition of exactly where each came from, I prefer to simplify matters somewhat and consider all together. The ensemble of this material is held in the storehouses of the French mission to Amathus at Ayios Tychonas and, the complete amphorae, in Limassol museum. In order to establish proportions between them, I have taken into account, aside from a dozen complete amphorae, the identifiable and countable fragments. Given the mass of body shards, I retained only fragments of lips, of handles — with upper, middle and lower attachments — and of bottoms. Adding in the complete examples, one can thus obtain a minimal number of examples for each type. Experience has shown that whatever the counting method, if this is conducted in a systematic manner, one ends up with relatively reliable results. After sorting and restoration2, we were able to reveal the Amathus local LRA 1B1, LRA 1B2, LRA 1C and LRA 13 (fig. 1) as predominant. Then come the smaller imported groups, red LRA 1B, alluvial and limestone LRA 4, and LRA 5/6. Table 1 shows the proportion of these amphorae, the greatest majority being local, with almost 90% of the total found in the wells. Aside from the 15 or so LRA1 production workshops located by M. Picon and myself3 along the southern coast of Turkey, from Antalya to the level of Rhodes, it is also known that such workshops existed on Cyprus itself. A refuse dump and a kiln were unearthed at Paphos by D. Michaelides and Stella Demesticha4, and we have found remains on the beach at Kourion and Pissouri5. With Amathus, we can now add a fourth Cypriot workshop to the list.

1.

For the well excavations, see Volume I.

2.

I wish to thank here Sylvie Hartmann and Shareen Taylor for their remarkable restoration of these sherds, which were so difficult to treat after such a long time in a marine environment. The drawings are by S. Hartmann and Cl. Vasitsek.

3.

J.-Y. Empereur and M. Picon “Les régions de production d’amphores impériales”, in Amphores romaines et Histoire économique: dix ans de recherches (Sienna 1986) (1989), p. 236-243.

4.

See Demesticha, Michaelides 2001.

5.

Cf. Empereur, Picon (op. cit.), p. 242. See also Williams 2005.

1

Amathus LRA 1B1

2

Amathus LRA 1B2

3

Amathus LRA 1C

4

Amathus LRA 13

5

LRA 2C

6

LRA 4 greenish

7

LRA 4 beige 1

8

LRA 5/6 alluvial

9

LRA 5/6 limestone

4

23

125

7

1

Percentage

8

4

5

5

3.87%

35

57

24

97

101

78.29%

2

1.55%

7

5.42%

1

0.77%

6

4.65%

4

3,10%

2

1.55%

1

0.77%

14

2 14

14

4

shoulder 2

Minimum number of vases

Bottoms

2

2 1

Lower part of handles

Mid-part of handles

Upper part of handles

Lip Fragments

Complete necks

Type of amphora

Complete examples

THE HELLENISTIC HARBOUR OF AMATHUS

Index

182

7

8

7

6 2

2

1

1 Total

129

Amathus LRA 1B1 Amathus LRA 1B2 Amathus LRA 1C Amathus LRA 13 LRA 2C LRA 4 greenish LRA 4 beige LRA 5/6 alluvial LRA 5/6 limestone

Table 1 — This table shows that the vast majority of amphorae are local (90%), which can only be surprising. The discarded shards show that the workshops seem to be close to the shore of Amathus harbour. As regards imports, only the Gaza amphorae appear significant, while the others are simply represented by a few individuals.

THE LATE ROMAN AMPHORAE FOUND IN AMATHUS HARBOUR

183

The wells of the harbour gave up a considerable quantity of Amathus LRA 1B2 sherds, some over-fired, some deformed, some from spiral amphora etc. Moreover, the clay closely recalls that of both Hellenistic and Roman pottery considered as local by Fr. Alabe and M. Touma6. Lastly, it also resembles that of the Amathus LRA 13, described below, which also includes misfired examples. One can conclude that Amathus produced two types of amphora, in different modules. As we noted in Empereur 1985, p. 989, fig. 36, at least the small model Amathus LRA 1B2 was designed for the transportation of wine, as is demonstrated by the numerous fragments of body and bottom bearing pitch. For the two other amphorae, the large Amathus LRA 1B1 and Amathus LRA 13, there is no such evidence but the transportation of wine is not excluded. Lastly, one should note the great difference in volume between these different containers, from 5.51 litres for an Amathus LRA 1B2 to 30.32 litres for an Amathus LRA 13.

AMATHUS LOCAL AMPHORAE Before launching into the catalogue, we must recognise that our work was greatly helped by the studies conducted by Stella Demesticha on Late Roman amphorae of Cyprus and mainly on LRA 1 and LRA 13. She has published examples found by the Cyprus Department of Antiquities during excavations at Limassol as well as in the agora of Amathus7. The LRA amphorae can be separated into several variants according to the typology of Dominique Pieri8. From the middle of the 6th century until the middle of the 7th century, the LRA 1B1 module corresponds to our Amathus amphorae, with a smaller sub-module that I have called Amathus LRA 1B29. These two sub-variants are either centred at the level of the body or, for the thin ones, concave. This trait, however, changes nothing with regard to other aspects like the fabric and one might merely see in this the hand of a potter rather than a relevant indication of chronology or the identification of workshop. We will add a third local variant, called here Amathus LRA 1C.

Amathus LRA 1B1 F1 AM3271 fig. 1 Ht. 58.45; diam. of body 26. Grey as a result of time spent underwater: Munsell 2.5YR6/0 Fragmentary Amathus LRA 1B1 amphora, reassembled from a dozen pieces, body complete, fragment of neck and one handle not joined to shoulder. Slight narrowing a little below mid-body. F2 AM3283 fig. 3 Preserved Ht. 49; diam. of body 27.3 Amathus LRA 1B1, body with narrowing at mid-height, black inclusions. Reassembled fragments different colours of grey as a result of time spent underwater and in mud, and thus difficult to give Munsell reference. At least three other examples of this type of LRA 1B1 come from the wells of Amathus harbour.

6.

F. Alabe supra p. 11-65 and M. Touma, infra, p. 125-179.

7.

Demesticha 2005 (LRA 13) and Demesticha 2013 (LRA 1).

8.

See Pieri 2005, p. 75-77.

9.

Ibidem, p. 71, fig. 25.

184

THE HELLENISTIC HARBOUR OF AMATHUS

LRA 1C (F5)

LRA 1B1 (F1)

LRA 1B2 (F3)

0

5 cm

LRA 13 (F6.1)

Fig. 1 — Late Roman amphorae. Local production: Amathus LRA 1B1, Amathus LRA 1B2, Amathus LRA 1C and Amathus LRA 13: F1, F3, F5, F6.1. Scale 1:10. Drawings S. Hartmann (F3, F5, F6.1) and Cl. Vasitsek (F1), Photo J.-Y. Empereur, EFA Archives

Amathus LRA 1B2 F3 AM3289 fig. 1 and fig. 3 Ht. 47.4; int. diam. of lip 5.2, ext. 6.2; Diam body 19.6; Capacity: 5.51 l The clay is grey to beige, sometimes tending to greenish, with bubbles; black temper often visible to the naked eye. Reddish yellow 7.5YR7/6. Complete amphora Amathus LRA 1B2. Pear shaped. The rounded lip ends at a ridge, the top of a concave band that descends to a pronounced ledge about 2 cm below the mouth, level with the upper handle junction. The handles are oval in section, with two projections at each extremity of the outer surface and a ledge more or less in the centre marking out two concave bands often of unequal width. The neck is attached by a curve to the shoulder, itself rounded with no clear ridge and the body ends with an eggshell base. The neck and body of the amphora are worked with horizontal bands, wider around the belly, separated by projections: the potter disliked smooth surfaces and has almost created the look of a bandage wound around the entire body of the amphora. The eggshell base ends with a button set within ten concentric circles. Aside from the clearly apparent handle joins, one can easily see the join of the lower neck to the shoulder and especially that of the lower body to the foot (fig. 2). The bottom is carpeted with organic remains, probably pitch. Fig. 2 — LRA 1B2 amphora. Detail of the lower part of the amphora with a layer of clay over the juncture of the body and the rounded bottom showing that this was added by the potter after the vase had been formed. Photo J.-Y. Empereur, EFA Archives

THE LATE ROMAN AMPHORAE FOUND IN AMATHUS HARBOUR

F4

F3

F2

185

F6.1

F6.2 0

5 cm

F6.3

F6.3

Fig. 3 — Local amphorae: F2 to F6.3. Scale 1:10. Drawings S. Hartmann, Photos Ph. Collet, EFA Archives

F4 AM3290 fig. 3 Ht. 47.7; int. diam. of lip 5, ext. 7.4; Diam body 20.4. Capacity: 5.5 l Complete LRA 1B2, exactly the same as F3, same join above curve of the base with a change in the rhythm of the bands; pronounced ledge on the neck level with the upper edges of the handles; symmetrical finger pinch marks on each side of the handles with three grooves; black inclusions In this category we can classify four complete examples, 23 complete necks and 97 bottoms, giving us a total of at least 101 individuals (see table 1). This is the largest class of amphora found in the harbour wells.

Amathus LRA 1C F5 fig. 1 Preserved Ht. 31, int. diam. of mouth 8.2, ext. 10.4. Clay grey to greenish with black grains visible to the naked eye. Local amphora coated with pitch. Preserved to mid-belly: flared lip, beaded neck, shoulder and belly smooth; a black coating on the neck; the shoulder ends with wide smudges on the belly; handles oval in section with three slight ridges. This amphora is a late form of LRA group, end of 6th and 7th century; I have given it the variant number 1C. For parallels discovered in the region of Silifke, see Şenol 2009, p. 244-245, nos.77-79

186

THE HELLENISTIC HARBOUR OF AMATHUS

Amathus LRA 13 This type belongs to a widespread type in the eastern Mediterranean: several examples of this large production, notably from the 7th century Yassi-Ada shipwreck, whose sinking was dated to circa 625/626 ad10. There one can see the variety of these “subtypes” transported in the same boat. The place of manufacture is unknown and so the certainty of production at Amathus would take on a particular significance. The wells of the harbour held at least seven examples (table 1): F6.1 fig. 1 and fig. 3 Ht. 48; int. diam. rim: 7; diam. of body 35 Complete Amathus LRA 13 amphora. Clay is hard, greenish with numerous black inclusions. Lip resembles LR7 type, but shoulder widens to a much wider body; the foot is also eggshell and very flared. The decoration is original, showing a series of grooves made using an eight-toothed comb repeated three or four times on the shoulder and upper body. Six similar examples have been found in the basilica of Amathus and are dated to 7th-8th centuries ad11 F6.2 Preserved H. 30; diam of body 38 fig. 3 Clay greenish with numerous black inclusions. Wide shoulder and body; grooves made using an eight-toothed comb repeated eigt times on the shoulder and upper body. F6.3 Preserved Ht. 38; diam. of body 38

fig. 3

IMPORTED AMPHORAE The imported amphorae belong to several types: regional types from Cypriot production sites, such as Paphos for the LRA 1 and 13, or even neighbouring Cilicia. Archaeometric, physio-chemical and petrographic analyses will help our identification. They may also come from further afield, such as the LRA 4, originally from Gaza, as well as the bag-shaped amphorae produced in the Levant.

Imported LRA 1B1 amphorae with light red clay F7 fig. 5 Preserved Ht. 25; diam. of body 28 Aside from the local productions of LRA 1B1 (see above), we also have a shoulder with beginnings of two handles, as well as the two upper handle joints in an entirely different fabric. They are light red in colour with numerous black inclusions, most probably of Aegean rather than Cypriot production. The shards are too fragmentary for dimensions to be given: the size must have been close to the LRA 1B1 variant.

10.

Cf. F.H. Van Doorninck Jr. “The Cargo Amphoras on the 7th century Yassi Ada and 11th century Serçe Limani Shipwrecks”, BCH Suppl. 18 (1989), p.249 fig.9.

11.

M. Touma, “La céramique protobyzantine d’Amathonte: remarque sur le matériel trouvé en 1988”, BCH 113 (1989), p. 871-875 ; fig. 28-29 p. 872,

THE LATE ROMAN AMPHORAE FOUND IN AMATHUS HARBOUR

187

Imported LRA 2C Amphorae with light red clay F8 fig. 5 Preserved Ht. 33; diam. of body 44 Shoulder and belly of an amphora comparable by its shape to LRA 2C of Pieri typology12 with the decoration made of continuous and deep grooves – not by an eight-toothed comb – and the red clay with black inclusions is not Cypriot but imported, most probably from the Aegean. The wall are thicker than in the LRA13 and the neck is more conical. The distinction between LRA 2 and LRA 13 is sometime uneasy, as seen in Şenol 2009, p. 248-250.

Gaza LR4 amphorae I will not go into a description here of the amphorae from Gaza, numerous examples of which have been published elsewhere. This amphora has a long history, appearing from the 2nd century ad137 and disappearing after the Arab conquest. We can distinguish two sorts of clay here. A detailed typology of these amphorae developed by A. Sazanov has just appeared, but we have not had the time to use it14. Among other classifications, we shall employ that of G. Majcherek15. The only interest of the examples from Amathus harbour lies in the context of the wells, for the chronology and for the proportion as regards the other amphorae groups.

LR4 amphorae with greenish clay F9 AM3288 fig. 5 Preserved Ht. 61.4; diam. of rim 11 LR4 amphora, Gaza type. Almost complete amphora, foot missing. Clay is greenish tending to grey. It can also be dark brick, with anthracite interior. The shape is well known, with noticeable shapeless bits of clay stuck to the neck; their presence can be explained by the desire to ease the fixing of plaster to hold the bung (fig. 4). This amphora belongs to Form 4 of Majcherek 1995, p. 168 and pl. 7 p. 175. We count at least six examples of this type with greenish clay.

Fig. 4 — Gaza LRA 4 amphora. Detail of the daubs on the neck to help attach the plaster of the stopper. Photo J.-Y.Empereur, EFA Archives

12.

Pieri 2005, p. 87, fig. 45 and text, p.88: from the last third of 6th c. to the middle of 7th c. ad.

13.

Cf. G. Majcherek, “Roman Amphorae from Marina-el-Alamein”, MDAIK 49 (1993), p.217.

14.

Sazanov 2017

15.

Majcherek 1995.

188

THE HELLENISTIC HARBOUR OF AMATHUS

F7

F8

F9

F10

F12

0

5 cm

Fig. 5 — Imported amphorae. Scale 1:10. Drawings S. Hartmann (F7) and Cl. Vasitsek (F9, F12), Photos Ph. Collet, EFA Archives

THE LATE ROMAN AMPHORAE FOUND IN AMATHUS HARBOUR

189

LR4 amphorae with beige clay F10 fig. 5 Preserved Ht. 66.6; diam. of body 20 LRA 4 amphora preserved from foot to shoulder: of the same shape as F9, this variant is evidence of another production workshop. The clay is beige with chalk inclusions and a black temper. The foot surrounded with small beads is hollow, as with the first variant. We count at least four individuals of this sub-group.

Palestinian LRA 5/6 amphorae These small amphorae were manufactured in Palestine. Three examples preserved in the harbour wells show two types of clay. As far as we can identify their shape, they belong to Pieri “Bag-Shaped Amphora Type 2 (6th c. ad)16.

LR5/6 amphorae with alluvial clay F11 Two individuals, too fragmentary to be represented. The clay is yellow-beige tending to green. One of the two is burnt, probably during its last use, and the interior is anthracite.

LR5/6 amphorae with limestone clay F12 Preserved Ht. 36.6; int. diam. rim 9.5; diam. of body 40 Same shape as the previous, but the clay is light red with black inclusions.

16.

Pieri 2005, p. 131, fig. 77.

fig. 5

190

THE HELLENISTIC HARBOUR OF AMATHUS

BIBLIOGRAPHY Demesticha 2005 S. Demesticha, “Some Thoughts on the Production and Presence of the Late Roman Amphora 13 on Cyprus”, in M. B. Briese, L. E. Vaag (ed.), Trade Relations in the Eastern Mediterranean from the Late Hellenistic Period to Late Antiquity: The Ceramic Evidence (2005), p. 169-178. Demesticha 2013 S. Demesticha, “Amphora Typologies, Distribution and Trade Patterns: The Case of the Cypriot LR 1 Amphorae”, in J. Lund, M. Lawall (ed.), The Transport Amphorae and Trade of Cyprus, Gosta Enbom Monographs 3 (2013), p. 169-178. Demesticha 2014 S. Demesticha, “Typology in the Context: The Case of Late Roman Amphorae”, in N. Poulou-Papadimitriou, E. Nodarou, V. Kilikoglou (ed.), LRCW 4. Late Roman Coarse Wares, Cooking Wares and Amphorae in the Mediterranean: Archaeology and Archaeometry. The Mediterranean: a market without frontiers, BAR-IS 2616 (2014), vol. 1, p. 599-606. Demesticha, Michaelides 2001 S. Demesticha, D. Michaelides, “The Excavation of a Late Roman 1 Amphora Kiln in Paphos”, in E. Villeneuve, P. M. Watson (ed.), La céramique byzantine et proto-islamique en Syrie-Jordanie (ive-viiie siècles apr. J.-C.) (2001), p. 290-296. Majcherek 1995 G. Majcherek, “Gazan Amphorae: Typology Reconsidered”, in H. Meyza, J. Mlynarczyk (ed.), Hellenistic and Roman Pottery in the Eastern Mediterranean. Advances in Scientific Studies, Acts of the II Nieborow Pottery Workshop (1995), p. 163-178. Pieri 2005 D. Pieri, Le commerce du vin oriental à l’époque byzantine (ve-viie siècles) (2005). Sazanov 2017 A. Sazanov, “Les amphores LRA 4: problèmes de typologie et de chronologie”, in D. Dixneuf (ed.), LRCW 5. Late Roman Coarse Wares, Cooking Wares and Amphorae in the Mediterranean: Archaeology and Archaeometry, Études Alexandrines 43 (2017), vol. 2, p. 619-650. Şenol 2009 A. K. Şenol (ed.), Taşucu Arslan Eyce Amphora Muխzesi,Taşucu Arslan Eyce Amphora Muխzesi’nde Bulunan Ticari Amphoralar ve Akdeniz’de Ticaretin İzleri, Silifke, 2009. Şenol, Alkac 2017 A. K. Şenol, E. Alkac, “A Re-discovery of an LR 1 Workshop in Cilicia and the Existence of LR 1 in Alexandria due to the New Evidence”, in D. Dixneuf (ed.), LRCW 5. Late Roman Coarse Wares, Cooking Wares and Amphorae in the Mediterranean: Archaeology and Archaeometry, Études Alexandrines 43 (2017), vol. 2, p. 831-843. Williams 2005 D. Williams, “Late Roman Amphora 1: A Study of Diversification”, in M. B. Briese, L. E. Vaag (ed.), Trade Relations in the Eastern Mediterranean from the Late Hellenistic Period to Late Antiquity: The Ceramic Evidence (2005), p. 157-168.

The Late Roman metallic artefacts found in Amathus harbour Maria Michael

During the underwater excavation of the Late Roman wells in the northern part of the harbour of Amathus, 8 metallic artefacts were recovered and they will be presented in the following catalogue. This modest ensemble consists of the following categories: 1. Four finds of fishing gear 2. One ring 3. Two sheets and scraps 4. One piece of lead of uncertain use The metallic finds underwent preliminary identification. As it was not proceeded to chemical analyses during their study, a preliminary, macroscopic analysis was applied for their study. In this chapter, each metallic find is presented independently, but it appears in the context of its chronology. The finds were recovered for six of them from the filling of Well 2 and two from sakieh well 3 and are dated in the end of the 6th century ad-beginning of the 7th century ad. Each catalogue entry includes the dimensions of the find (in cm), the name or the type of the find, its concise description and the explanation of its usage. The inventory number comprises the following elements: Exemple: G1

AM1393

Well 2

inv. 84.3529

1. Catalogue number from G1 to G8 2. AM(athus) followed by 4 numbers: number given to the artefacts delivered to the Limassol Museum 3. Number of the well in which the artefact was discovered 4. Excavation number of the artefact with the year, the sondage number, the Stratigraphic Unit: here (19)84, Stratigraphical Unit 3529. There was no number of Isolation, the material being to abundant.

192

THE HELLENISTIC HARBOUR OF AMATHUS

CATALOGUE Nota bene: All measurements are in centimetres

FISHING GEAR Hooks G1 AM1393 Well 2 inv. 84.3529 fig. 1 and pl. 1 L. approx. 3.5; span approx. 1.5; Max. Th. 0.6; Wt. 9g Lead hook A lead rod, slightly rounded in section, with a sharpened point bent into a hook. It displays the typical J-form, the shape of contemporary hooks. The upper part of the strongly curved shaft is thicker (Th. 0.6cm) than the lower end (Th. 0.3cm). Surface badly damaged. Usage: The hook was used for line fishing. The upper part of its shaft was lashed to the fishing line with a sinker. G2 AM1429 Well 2 inv. 84.3529 fig. 1 L. approx. 3.3; span approx. 1; Max. Th. 0.6; Wt. 6g Lead hook A lead rod, slightly rounded in section, with a sharpened point bent into a hook. Typical J shape, surface badly damaged, almost broken at the point of its strongly curved shaft. Usage: See above G1.

Lead fishing sinkers for line and hook G3 AM1398 Well 2 inv. 84.3529 fig. 1 Max. diam. 3; Th. approx. 0.1; Wt. 44g Possible lead fishing sinker A deformed lead mass characterised by a spherical or hemispherical solid body. It was probably a slightly flattened sphere with a narrow hole along its short axis. This hole is closed, probably from corrosion. Surface rough and damaged. Usage: This deformed lead mass was probably a fishing sinker, which could have been used for line fishing. The hole could possibly have been used for threading the sinker onto the end of the fishing line.

Lead fishing sinkers for net G4 AM1397 Well 2 inv. 84.3529 fig. 1 and pl. 1 L. 4; Max. W. 1; Th. approx. 0.3; Wt. 23g Lead fishing sinker A small lead net sinker folded along one plane. This type of sinker is a double folded rectangular sheet, almost rectangular in shape with convex ends and folded over the lead line, along the middle of the rectangle, forming a tube. Open on one side and V-shaped in section. Maximum length of the opening 0.5cm. Undecorated with plain surface, except for a mark, 0.6cm, long like a line along the fold. Usage: This lead sinker was probably given its final shape by a fisherman or net maker. It may have been directly attached to the footrope or the lead line of the net, to help in stabilising the net in the correct position and shape.

THE LATE ROMAN METALLIC ARTEFACTS FOUND IN AMATHUS HARBOUR

193

Rings G5 AM1392 Well 2 inv. 84.3548 fig. 1 Max. diam. 0.5; inside diam. 0.4 ring Very small, circular gold ring without decoration. Usage: The function of this ring is uncertain. It was probably a part of a bigger object. It might also be a piece of jewellery or decoration of another object.

SHEETS AND SCRAPS G6 AM1417 Well 3 inv. 85.3013 fig. 1 Max. L. 3; Max. W. 1.8; Wt. 4g Iron sheet Small iron sheet, irregular trapezium in shape. Thick with rough surface. Surface corroded, some parts covered by reddish-brown layer. Usage: Function unknown. G7 AM1418 Well 3 inv. 85.3100 fig. 1 Max. L. 4; Max. W. 2.5; Wt. 8g An iron sheet Small iron sheet, irregular trapezium in shape. Thick with rough surface. Surface corroded, some parts covered by reddish-brown layer. Usage: Function unknown.

MISCELLANEOUS FINDS G8 Ȝȧ1394 Well 2 inv. 84.3529 fig. 1 and pl. 1 L. approx. 3; W. approx. 3; interior diam. approx. 0.7; exterior diam. approx. 1.2; Wt. 28g Lead object Corroded and deformed lead object consisting of a probable pin with hooked end, which penetrates a deformed object probably circular in shape. At the opposite end, a ring is shaped. Surface of both objects rough and it seems that the metal has been melted. Usage: Function uncertain. According to excavation records, it is a lead object used as tenon. No convincing parallels have been found for comparison and to establish exact function. Based on its structure, it may be a cotter applied to a bigger lead object.

194

THE HELLENISTIC HARBOUR OF AMATHUS

Cat. no.

Museum no.

Context

Exc. inv. no.

G1

AM1393

Well 2

84.3529

G2

AM1429

Well 2

84.3529

G3

AM1398

Well 2

84.3529

G4

AM1397

Well 2

84.3529

G5

AM1392

Well 2

84.3548

G6

AM1417

Well 3

85.3013

G7

AM1418

Well 3

85.0031

G8

AM1394

Well 2

84.3529

Concordance table 1 — Cat. no. / excavation inv. no.

Context

Exc. inv. no.

Cat. no.

Museum no.

Well 2

84.3529

G1

AM1393

Well 2

84.3529

G2

AM1429

Well 2

84.3529

G3

AM1398

Well 2

84.3529

G4

AM1397

Well 2

84.3529

G8

AM1394

Well 2

84.3548

G5

AM1392

Well 3

85.0031

G7

AM1418

Well 3

85.3013

G6

AM1417

Concordance table 2 — Excavation inv. no. / cat. no.

Museum no.

Cat. no.

Context

Exc. inv. no.

AM1392

G5

Well 2

84.3548

AM1393

G1

Well 2

84.3529

AM1394

G8

Well 2

84.3529

AM1397

G4

Well 2

84.3529

AM1398

G3

Well 2

84.3529

AM1417

G6

Well 3

85.3013

AM1418

G7

Well 3

85.0031

AM1429

G2

Well 2

84.3529

Concordance table 3 — Museum inv. no. / cat. no.

THE LATE ROMAN METALLIC ARTEFACTS FOUND IN AMATHUS HARBOUR

G1

G2

195

G3

G5

0

1 cm

G4

G6

G7

G8 0

5 cm

Fig. 1 — Hook, G1-G2; Lead fishing sinker for line and hook, G3; Lead fishing sinker for net, G4; Gold ring, G5; Sheets and scraps, G6-G7; tenon, G8. Scale 1:1 except G5 scale 2:1. Photos A. Athanasiou, EFA Archives

196

THE HELLENISTIC HARBOUR OF AMATHUS

G1

G4

G8

0

5 cm

Plate 1 — Hook, G1; Lead fishing sinker for net, G4; tenon, G8. Scale 1:1. Drawings Cl. Vasitsek, EFA Archives

A Late Roman faunal assemblage found in Amathus harbour Angelos Hadjikoumis

INTRODUCTION The study of faunal remains from submerged archaeological sites has been practically non-existent in Cyprus. Several practical reasons hinder such studies but the primary ones are the relatively low number of underwater excavations conducted in Cyprus and the attrition of faunal material in marine littoral environments. As an island in an area with intense seismic activity, Cyprus has experienced significant changes in sea levels along its coastline. This has caused the submersion of archaeological sites originally formed on dry land and with them, different types of installations and infrastructure that were constructed on ancient coastlines such as ports, jetties and related structures. The ancient town of Amathus (fig. 1) with its port on the south coast of Cyprus (modern town of Lemesos) is a characteristic example of such a case. Three seasons of underwater excavations at the ancient port of Amathus were carried out by the French School at Athens under the direction of prof. Jean-Yves Empereur from 1984 to 1986 (Empereur and Verlinden 1987). The excavations produced important finds and information that shed light on the construction, use and abandonment of the port. The finds helped definitively date the port’s construction in the late 4th/early 3rd century bc and its abandonment shortly after, if it had ever been completed. Following the abandonment of the port, the sea level dropped considerably (e.g. Hermary 1993) thus converting what was the port into dry land, which is today reclaimed by the sea. This hypothesis has been proven by the excavation of three of a series of six wells, which were dug inside what previously was the port. Wells 1 and 2 were excavated underwater in 1984 and Well 3 was excavated partly above and partly below sea level in 1985 (Empereur and Verlinden 1987). The finds suggest that the three wells were filled in and fell in disuse by late 6th/early 7th century ad (Late Roman period). Among the findings were faunal remains, which are the object of this study.

AIMS The main aim of this study is to describe and interpret the faunal assemblage from the Late Roman wells at the port of Amathus. To achieve this main aim it is necessary to address a series of questions such as which processes led to its formation and what it can reveal about everyday life in Late

198

THE HELLENISTIC HARBOUR OF AMATHUS

Fig. 1 — Map of Cyprus with the location of Amathus (background map M. Sauvage, CNRS)

Roman Amathus around the end of the 6th century ad. More specifically, the species composition of the assemblage is discussed as well as data, albeit limited, concerning the preservation, anatomical representation, age-at-death, pathology, biometry and butchery marks.

MATERIAL The faunal assemblage has been recovered through underwater excavations without sieving. This probably causes an under-representation of small-sized species (vs large-sized), small anatomical elements (vs large ones) and young animals (vs adult animals). In addition to recovery, other processes have obviously affected the assemblage such as hydraulic attrition and changes of the water-table through time. However, overall the material is considered well-preserved, if we exclude some hydraulic attrition due to the proximity of the wells to the current surf zone.

METHODS For mammals, the anatomical units selected for systematic recording were: horncore base, mandible/loose cheek teeth, atlas, axis, scapula, proximal and distal halves of humerus, radius, femur, tibia, metapodia, proximal half of ulna, pelvis, astragalus, calcaneum and phalanges 1-3. No attempt has been made to distinguish phalanges into fore- and hind-limb. These anatomical elements have been selected for their durability, identifiability and potential to yield information on aspects that illuminate the human-animal relationship. Due to the small size of the assemblage, other noteworthy parts (e.g. complete/almost complete skulls) were also recorded and are commented but do not contribute to the quantification of the assemblage. In addition to mammals, a few remains of birds and fish have also been recorded. During the recording of the assemblage, the author’s per-

A LATE ROMAN FAUNAL ASSEMBLAGE FOUND IN AMATHUS HARBOUR

199

sonal faunal reference collection was used, as well as standard osteological atlases (Barone 1976; Bocheński and Tomek 2009; Pales and Garcia 1981; Schmidt 1972). Quantification of anatomical elements, taxa, age and sex follows the minimum numbers of anatomical units (MinAU) as in Halstead (2011). Age-at-death was determined based both on dental eruption/wear and postcranial epiphyseal fusion. Eruption and wear for sheep and goat follows Payne (1973; 1987), Grigson (1982) and Halstead’s (1985) adaptation of Payne for cattle, and Grant (1982) and Bull and Payne (1982) for pig. Epiphyseal fusion was recorded following Silver (1969). Pelves of sheep and goat were sexed whenever possible based on their morphology following Boessneck et al. (1964) and those of cattle following Grigson (1982). Fragmentation, taphonomy and butchery were recorded as described in Halstead (2011) and biometric measurements were taken following von den Driesch (1976) with the addition of the measurements in table 1. Element

Name

Description

Reference

Scapula

ASG

Shortest distance from base of spine to edge of glenoid

Boessneck et al. 1964

Humerus

HTC

Minimum diameter of trochlea

Payne, Bull 1988

HT

Greatest height of trochlea

Boessneck et al. 1964

Pelvis

MRDA

Depth of medial rim of acetabulum

Davis 1996

Calcaneus

GD

Greatest depth

Albarella, Payne 2005

Metacarpus/ Metatarsus

WCM

Medio-lateral width of medial condyle

Payne 1969

WCL

Medio-lateral width of lateral condyle

DVM

Antero-posterior diameter of medial verticillus

DVL

Antero-posterior diameter of lateral verticillus

DEM

Antero-posterior diameter of medial external trochlea

DEL

Antero-posterior diameter of lateral external trochlea

BFp

Greatest breadth of proximal articular surface

BFd

Greatest width of the distal articulation

Boessneck et al. 1964

Davis 1996

Table 1 — Additional biometric measurements taken during recording RESULTS Anatomical representation The assemblage is too small to allow reliable analysis of the anatomical representation of the identified faunal remains. However, taking into account all available indications, it is more probable that the assemblage has not been shaped by any strong pre-depositional selection of anatomical elements.

Species composition The mammal species composition of the faunal assemblage from the wells in the ancient port of Amathus based on the minimum anatomical units (MinAU) is presented in fig. 2. In absolute numbers the assemblage is dominated by sheep and goat (56.3%) followed by cattle (21.4%) and pig

200

THE HELLENISTIC HARBOUR OF AMATHUS

(13.5%). If we take into account the body size of cattle in relation to that of sheep and goat, it is clear that cattle was economically the most important domestic taxon followed by sheep/goat while pig was the third most important species. Between sheep and goat, the latter were slightly more abundant but their percentages are overall balanced. Species composition based on the maximum anatomical units (MaxAU) is almost identical to that based on MinAU and thus, is not presented here as MinAU is considered a more reliable quantification method. Beyond the common species, additional mammals are represented by a few remains. A lagomorph, unknown whether rabbit or hare, is represented by a single pelvis fragment and equids are also represented by eight MinAU. From the equid remains, a loose mandibular cheek tooth has been

Fig. 2 — Species composition from late 6th/early 7th century ad wells at Amathus, based on MinAU

identified as a donkey (fig. 3) mainly by using the criteria of Davis (1980), although this identification should be considered as tentative because it cannot be entirely excluded that it is a premolar. Most postcranial equid remains, especially those of the lower limbs such as the phalanges, are quite large and robust, thus more compatible with horse or mule rather than donkey (cf. Johnstone 2004, p. 184). Specifically for mule, there is additional morphological evidence of its presence (fig. 4), in the form of a metacarpus with a depression on the palmar area of the distal shaft (Peters 1998). Moreover, 11 canid remains were identified, most of which represent what could be considered as a large dog, while some belonged to either a small breed of ‘toy’ dog or fox. The former scenario is further supported by the presence of a small dog skull with occipital dysplasia. This pathological condition is relatively common in small brachycephalic breeds of dog (e.g. Morandi 2011; Watson et al. 1989) and results in a keyhole-shaped foramen magnum (fig. 5). However, the presence of this skull does not exclude the possibility of some of the postcranial bones belonging to fox.

A LATE ROMAN FAUNAL ASSEMBLAGE FOUND IN AMATHUS HARBOUR

201

1 cm

Fig. 3 — Equid loose mandibular molar tentatively identified as donkey based on the absence of penetration of the buccal fold (1) into the ‘neck’ above and the shape of the lingual fold (2) that is more V-shaped than U-shaped

1 cm

Fig. 4 — Possible mule metacarpus based on the depression on the palmar area of distal shaft (see arrows)

2 cm

Fig. 5 — Skull of a canid (possibly a ‘toy’ dog) with occipital dysplasia resulting in a keyhole-shaped foramen magnum

In addition to mammals, nine bird remains were identified, eight of which belonged to chicken (probably same individual) and one to an anseriform (possibly a duck). Moreover, six fish remains were also recorded, although only one has been identified to species (Argyrosomus regius) due to the limited experience of the author in the study of fish remains. The remaining five bones also belonged to species of large fish.

Ageing The small size of the assemblage restricts significantly the potential of age-at-death data to reveal management practices for the three commonest taxa (i.e. sheep/goat, cattle and pig). Only 11 sheep/ goat mandibles or loose mandibular teeth can be assigned age-at-death (table 2), which reveal the presence of animals as young as 2-6 months old (9%) and as old as 4-6 years (18%), but the majority fall in the age intervals of 6-12 months (23%), 1-2 years (23%) and 3-4 years (27%). The sample of pig mandibles and mandibular teeth is even smaller than that of sheep/goat. Two pig mandibles / loose mandibular teeth have been aged at 2-6 months, one between 6 months and 2 years, one older than 2 years and one at 3 years. Concerning cattle, only three mandibular teeth have

202

THE HELLENISTIC HARBOUR OF AMATHUS

Payne stage

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

I

Age

0-2 months

2-6 months

6-12 months

1-2 years

2-3 years

3-4 years

4-6 years

6-8 years

8-10 years

Total

MinAU

0

1

2.5

2.5

0

3

2

0

0

11

%

0%

9%

23%

23%

0%

27%

18%

0%

0%

100%

Table 2 — Mortality data for sheep/goat based on dental eruption and wear

been assigned age-at-death. A third molar belonged to an old adult and two lower first or second molars (no separation was attempted) to animals older than a year old. The only equid cheek tooth recorded was a mandibular molar (possibly a first one) in wear, which suggests an age of older than 1-2 years (Levine 1982). The only canid (fox or small dog) mandible recorded had a second molar in light wear (Horard-Herbin 2000) which suggests a subadult or adult animal. As with dental eruption and wear, data on epiphyseal fusion are also scarce and can only offer tentative indications on age-at-death. The results of the epiphyseal fusion data for sheep/goat (fig. 6) are compatible with those of dental eruption and wear. Mortality approaches 30% in the first 10 months, sharply increases to 67% by 28 months and reaches 81% by 42 months. Only 21 cattle remains were amenable to analysis of their epiphyseal fusion state (fig. 7). No early-fusing remains were recorded and the first indication on mortality is 27% by 18 months. In the 24-36 months interval, mortality rises to 50% and by 36-48 months to 75%. Concerning pig, the sample is too small (MinAU= 12) for further analysis. It can only be noted that all postcranial bones were fusing, but none fully fused. In contrast, the few equid bones were all fully fused as were those of canids.

Fig. 6 — Mortality data for sheep/goat based on epiphyseal fusion

A LATE ROMAN FAUNAL ASSEMBLAGE FOUND IN AMATHUS HARBOUR

203

Fig. 7 — Mortality data for cattle based on epiphyseal fusion

Sexing Due to the small size of the assemblage it is difficult to approach the sex ratios of any taxon. The only available indications are two female pig mandibles and the presence of sheep/goat metapodia that differ significantly in size thus suggestive of the presence of both male and female animals in the assemblage.

Butchery As far as butchery marks are concerned, the small size of the assemblage and the fact that most remains bear signs of hydraulic attrition do not allow detailed analyses. All types of butchery (i.e. chopping, percussion, disarticulation, filleting) marks are present on the remains of sheep/goat, cattle and pig. Moreover, a chicken tibiotarsus bears disarticulation marks on its distal articular surface, as well as the vertebra of a large fish. No butchery marks have been recorded on equid or canid remains. In all cases that butchery marks are preserved, it is obvious that they were inflicted with the use of metal tools (fig. 8).

DISCUSSION It is clear that the potential of this faunal assemblage to inform us in detail on different aspects of the human-animal relationship in late 6th/early 7th centuries ad Amathus is limited, primarily due to its small sample size, the attrition of material and the recovery limitations of underwater excavation. Given that the entire assemblage was deposited in the late 6th-early 7th century ad and assuming that it constitutes a random sample of refuse from the town of Amathus, there is potential to contribute the first glimpses into human-animal relationships in Late Roman Cyprus.

204

THE HELLENISTIC HARBOUR OF AMATHUS

Fig. 8 — Examples of butchery marks inflicted by metal tools

A fundamental aspect of every faunal assemblage is its taxonomic composition. The discussion that follows is based on the assumption that the sample is representative of the animal species present at and around the site. Another drawback in the attempt to reach valid zooarchaeological interpretations is the absence of other chronologically relevant faunal assemblages from Cyprus. With all the above in mind it is clear that wild animals, except perhaps the occasional hare or fox, are absent from the assemblage, thus indicating a heavily domestic economy. The most abundant domestic taxon is sheep/ goat (56.3%), with goat being slightly more abundant than sheep. Cattle (21.4%) follow sheep/goat in absolute numbers but probably exceeded them in economic importance if we take body size into account. The pig (13.5%) contributed a significant amount of meat but was of secondary economic importance when compared to sheep/goat or cattle. If more faunal samples combined with spatial data were available from the site, it would be interesting to address the question of the different roles that each taxon played in the economy. Besides the animals of direct economic importance, the presence of remains of rarer animals is also intriguing. If not intrusive, the small canid skull with a ‘key-hole’-shaped foramen magnum (fig. 5) strongly suggests presence of a breed of ‘toy’ dog in Late Roman Amathus. This can be read as evidence for individuals of high status who could afford such ‘accessories’. Medium/large-sized dog remains were also identified and possibly represent shepherd or guard dogs. Moreover, the probable presence of a donkey (fig. 3) adds another component in the picture of the urban and agricultural environment at Amathus. Beyond the donkey, mules (fig. 4) and possibly horses were also present. The presence of several species of equids at Amathus contributes evidence for extensive use of draught animals and possibly specialisation of each species in different tasks (e.g. agricultural work, transportation and construction). Moreover, the presence of chicken and possibly duck at the site suggests that these two species were reared in or near Amathus. The few remains of large fish are rather expected at a site that is intricately connected with the sea. Even in the absence of relevant contemporary assemblages for comparison, the taxonomic composition at Amathus is not surprising as since the Bronze Age in Cyprus, sheep and goat have usually been the most abundant species. Despite the fact that the faunal material from the preceding Roman and Hellenistic periods at Amathus mostly derives from the sanctuary of Aphrodite, species composition appears to have been similar with a predominance of sheep/goat (also with a tendency for more goats) followed by cattle and absence (or low numbers) of pig (Columeau 1996). The slight goat majority observed in the Amathus port assemblage may have been the result of a gradual increase in goat at the expense of sheep numbers in Hellenistic and Roman periods (Columeau 1996: 784). Even in recent periods, sheep and goat constituted the main sources of meat, dairy, hides and other products for Cypriots (e.g. Christodoulou 1959; Hadjikoumis 2017; Rizopoulou-Egoumenidou 2012). This pattern is in accordance with the climatic and environmental characteristics of Cyprus and it is well integrated with the system of cereal cultivation on the

A LATE ROMAN FAUNAL ASSEMBLAGE FOUND IN AMATHUS HARBOUR

205

coastal plains (e.g. Christodoulou 1959). However, in contrast to more recent periods in Cyprus, cattle were more important in ancient Amathus and contributed large amounts of meat, hides and possibly milk. Despite the absence of strong evidence for the production of hides, possibly due to the small size of the sample involved, this possibility deserves consideration due to the presence of contemporary installations that strongly suggest the production of hides. The scarcity of age-at-death data and the absence of data on male:female ratios, makes it difficult to approach the management practices at Late Roman Amathus. The limited evidence on the ageat-death of sheep/goat (table 2; fig. 6) is compatible with, at least some, milk exploitation (i.e. some mortality in the 2-6 months interval) as well as the consumption of tender meat (i.e. mortality in 6-12 months and 1-2 year intervals). Concerning cattle, the scarce evidence suggests the consumption of 2-3 year-olds but also the survival of at least a quarter of the population beyond 4 years of age (fig. 7). For pigs the data is even scarcer but the fact that all postcranial bones with age-at-death information are not fully fused suggests the consumption of young pigs, many within their first year of age or shortly after. Based on the presence of butchery marks on sheep/goat, cattle, pig, chicken and fish remains, it is suggested that those animals were regularly consumed (especially the former three taxa), in contrast to the equids and canids that yielded no signs of butchery, although their remains are too scarce to support a definitive interpretation. Beyond butchery, no modifications (e.g. burning) could be reliably recorded, possibly due to hydraulic attrition by sea currents and sand (hence the ‘pebble-like’ appearance of most faunal remains from the site).

CONCLUSION This study, despite the limitations of the sample on which it is based, contributes valuable information on the human-animal relationship for a period that was little known previously. The small sample analysed cannot support many definitive conclusions but nevertheless, several issues can be addressed. The taxonomic composition constitutes a rare glimpse into late 6th/early 7th century ad Amathus and shows that the animal economy was heavily domestic. It was based on two main pylons, sheep/goat and cattle husbandry, mainly for meat and dairy products but other uses (e.g. production of hides or wool) cannot be excluded, given the evidence of installations for hide processing nearby. Beyond these, the presence of a variety of other animals opens up a window into everyday life in Late Roman Amathus. It is clear that the inhabitants made use of the draught power of donkey, mule and possibly horse and cattle for transportation, construction and potentially agricultural tasks. Moreover, the identification of remains of a ‘toy’ breed of dog suggests that subsistence was not the only concern of at least some of the inhabitants who sought after the company of such dogs for various social reasons. The presence of shepherd or guard dogs, chicken and marine fish remains offers additional insights into everyday life in an urban environment during late 6th/ early 7th centuries ad Cyprus. Beyond the novel archaeological knowledge produced by this study, it has also been productive in generating new questions and working hypotheses to be addressed whenever new relevant faunal assemblages become available. For example, the question of the relationship between the urban centre and the agricultural hinterland surrounding Amathus should be addressed with more adequate samples. Moreover, a more precise estimation of the economic significance of different components of animal economy (e.g. domestic mammals, bird husbandry, hunting, fishing, and secondary products) is highly desirable. Currently, everyday life in Late Roman Cyprus is poorly understood. It is anticipated that this study will not remain an exception and will promote further research leading to a thorough understanding of the period.

206

THE HELLENISTIC HARBOUR OF AMATHUS

APPENDIX I: BIOMETRIC MEASUREMENTS FROM THE AMATHUS PORT FAUNAL ASSEMBLAGE Scapula

Fusion

Measurements

Species

proximal

SLC1

OC

Fused

19.1

Goat

Fused

18.6

Humerus

Fusion

Species

proximal

distal

Cattle

Absent

Fusing

Sheep

Indeterminate

Fused

Goat

Absent

Fused

Goat

Absent

Fused

Dog

Fused

Fused

Dog

Fusing

Absent

Radius

Fusion

Species

proximal

distal

Goat

Absent

Fused

Goat

Fused

Absent

Metacarpus

Fusion

Measurements

Species

distal

Sheep Sheep

GLP1

BG1

LG1

20.3 30.7

20.1

ASG2 20.3

25.1

23.4

Measurements Bd1

BT1

HTC3 HT2

SD1

Bp1

GL1

WH7

174.4

572.0

26.3

31.7

32.2

27.2

13.4

30.2

14.8

34.8

15.5

20.6

13.1

22.7

15.5

13.1 18.7

13.3

Meaasurements Bp1

BFp1

Bd1 27.2

35.9

34.9

Bp1

Dp1

GL1

SD1

Bd1

BFd4

WCM5 DVM2

DVL2

DEM4

DEL4

WH8

Absent

25.1

17.5

Fused

21.1

15.8

115.6

10.8

20.6

22.5

10.7

16.0

15.1

10.8

10.1

565.0

SD

WH

Species

distal

Bp

Dp

GL

Equid

Fused

41.7

28.1

203.1

Pelvis

Fusion

Measurements

Species

proximal

LA1

Goat

Fused

23.8

1

1

1

Goat

Fused

26.1

Lagomorph

Fused

10.3

Femur

Fusion

Species

proximal

distal

OC

Absent

Fusing

OC

Fusing

Absent

21.1

Sheep

Fused

Absent

22.3

Goat

Fused

Absent

18.9

Goat

Fusing

Fusing

Tibia

Fusion

Species

proximal

distal

Bd1

SD1

OC

Indeterminate

Fused

27.8

15.1

Sheep

Absent

Fusing

27.0

Sheep

Absent

Fusing

25.4

Goat

Absent

Fused

24.2

Goat

Absent

Fused

27.9

Metatarsus

Fusion

Measurements

Bd

BFd

Ll

26.5

36.7

38.3

2001

SD1

Bp1

GLC1

1

1

4

Measurements DC1

Bd1 39.7

18.2

48.8

32.9

Measurements

14.6

36.1

161.2

1

9

1302.0

A LATE ROMAN FAUNAL ASSEMBLAGE FOUND IN AMATHUS HARBOUR

Species

distal

Dog Fused (5th Metatarsus)

GL1

Bd1

6.7

8.0

Calcaneus

Fusion

Measurements

Species

proximal

GL1

GB1

Goat

Fused

Dog

Fused

46.2

17.8

Astragalus

Fusion GLl1

GLm1

Species

GD6

WH10

19.5 564.0

Bd1

Dl1

WH8

Pig

Indeterminate

OC

Indeterminate

26.8

25.0

15.2

14.2

608.0

Sheep

Indeterminate

26.0

25.0

16.8

14.2

590.0

Goat

Indeterminate

24.2

22.1

Goat

Indeterminate

27.2

25.2

16.7

14.9

Goat

Indeterminate

29.2

26.8

18.6

15.3

39.6

Dog

Indeterminate

28.1

Equid

Indeterminate

38.9

35.4

30.0

36.5

1st Phalanx

Fusion

Species

proximal

GLpe1

Bp1

SD1

Bd1

Cattle

Fused

55.0

31.4

25.7

29.1

Cattle

Fused

OC

Fused

Goat

Fused

2nd Phalanx

Fusion

Species

207

21.8 12.5 34.2

12.6

10.3

11.6

proximal

GLpe1

Bp1

SD1

Bd1

Cattle

Fused

34.9

19.4

18.8

Cattle

Fusing

47.1

22.7

Equid

Fused

52.4

30.2

45.5

49.0

Equid

Fused

58.5

34.1

47.2

50.9

3rd Phalanx

Fusion

Species

proximal

DLS1

Ld1

MBS1

Cattle

Fused

55.6

44.5

18.2

Atlas

Fusion

Species

proximal

BFcr1

BFcd1

H1

Pig

Fused

OC

Fused

Axis

Fusion

Species

proximal

BFcr1

SBV1

Pig

Fused

57.1

34.4

Species

HBC

GDB

LDB

7 = Harcourt 1974

Goat

67.9

24.9

15.4

8 = Teichert 1975

50.2 45.2

41.6

30.9

2 = Boessneck et al. 1964 3 = Payne, Bull 1988 4 = Davis 1996 5 = Payne 2005

Horncore

6 = Albarella, Payne 2005 1

1

Goat Goat

1 = von den Driesch 1976

1

18.7 65.0

22.8

9 = Kiesewalter 1888 10 = Koudelka 1884

208

THE HELLENISTIC HARBOUR OF AMATHUS

BIBLIOGRAPHY Albarella, Payne 2005 U. Albarella, S. Payne (2005) Neolithic pigs from Durrington Walls, Wiltshire, England: a biometrical database. Journal of Archaeological Science 32: 589-599. Barone 1976 R. Barone (1976) Anatomie comparée des mammifères domestiques. Paris: Vigot Frères. Bocheński, Tomek 2009 Z. M. Bocheński, T. Tomek (2009) A key for the identification of domestic bird bones in Europe: preliminary determination. Kraków: Institute of Systematics and Evolution of Animals. Boessneck, Müller, Teichert 1964 J. Boessneck, H.-H. Müller, M. Teichert (1964) Osteologische Unterscheidungmerkmale zwischen Schaf (Ovis aries Linné) und Zeige (Capra hircus Linné). Kühn-Archiv 78 (1-2): 1-129. Bull, Payne 1982 G. Bull, S. Payne (1982) Tooth eruption and epiphysial fusion in pigs and wild boar. In B. Wilson, C. Grigson, S. Payne (eds.), Ageing and sexing animal bones from archaeological sites, 55-71. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports. Christodoulou 1959 D. Christodoulou (1959) The evolution of the rural land use pattern in Cyprus. Bude, Cornwall: Geographical Publications. Columeau 1996 P. Columeau (1996) Les restes de faune du sanctuaire d’Aphrodite à Amathonte. BCH 120(2): 779–797. Davis 1980 S. J. Davis (1980) Late Pleistocene and Holocene equid remains from Israel. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 70: 289-312. Davis 1996 S. J. M. Davis (1996) Measurements of a group of adult female Shetland sheep skeletons from a single flock: a baseline for zooarchaeologists. Journal of Archaeological Science 23: 593-612. Empereur, Verlinden 1987 J.-Y. Empereur, C. Verlinden (1987) The underwater excavation at the ancient port of Amathus in Cyprus. IJNA 16-1: 7-18. Grant 1982 A. Grant (1982) The use of tooth wear as a guide to the age of domestic ungulates. In B. Wilson, C. Grigson, S. Payne (eds.), Ageing and sexing animal bones from archaeological sites, 91-108. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports. Grigson 1982 C. Grigson (1982) Sex and age determination of some bones and teeth of domestic cattle: a review of the

A LATE ROMAN FAUNAL ASSEMBLAGE FOUND IN AMATHUS HARBOUR

209

literature. In B. Wilson, C. Grigson, S. Payne (eds), Ageing and sexing animal bones from archaeological sites, 7-23. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports. Hadjikoumis 2017 A. Hadjikoumis (2017) Age-at-death in Cypriot traditional sheep and goat husbandry: the implications for zooarchaeology. In P. Rowley-Conwy, P. Halstead, D. Serjeantson (eds.), Economic zooarchaeology: studies in hunting, herding and early agriculture. Oxford: Oxbow. Halstead 1985 P. Halstead (1985) A study of mandibular teeth from Romano-British contexts at Maxey. In F. Pryor, C. French, D. Crowther, D. Guerney, G. Simpson, M. Taylor (eds.), The Fenland Project: Archaeology and Environment in the Lower Welland Valley, Volume 1. East Anglian Archaeology Report 27: 219-224. The Fenland Project Committee, Cambridgeshire Archaeological Committee. Halstead 2011 Halstead, P. (2011) Faunal remains from FN-EH Nemea Tsoungiza: husbandry, butchery, consumption and discard of animals. In D. J. Pullen (ed.), Nemea Valley Archaeological Project I: The Early Bronze Age Village on Tsoungiza Hill, 741-800. Princeton: American School of Classical Studies at Athens. Harcourt 1974 R.A. Harcourt (1974) The dog in prehistoric and early historic Britain. Journal of Archaeological Science 1: 151-175. Hermary 1993 A. Hermary (1993) Les fouilles françaises d’Amathonte. In M. Yon (ed.), Kinyras: L’Archéologie française à Chypre, 167-93. Travaux de la Maison de l’Orient et de la Méditerranée. Paris: De Boccard. Horard-Herbin 2000 M-P. Horard-Herbin (2000) Dog management and use in the late Iron Age: the evidence from the Gallic site of Levroux (France). In S. J. Crockford (ed.), Dogs through time: an archaeological perspective, 115-121. Oxford: BAR International Series. Johnstone 2004 C. Johnstone (2004) A biometric study of equids in the Roman world. York: University of York, Department of Archaeology. Kiesewalter 1888 L. Kiesewalter (1888) Skelettmessungen an Pferden als Beitrag zur theoretischen Grundlage der Beurteilungslehre des Pferdes. Dissertation, Leipzig. Koudelka 1884 F. Koudelka (1884) Das Verhaltnis der Ossa longa zur Skeletthöhe bei den Säugetieren. Verhandlung des Naturforschung-Vereines in Brünn 24: 127-153. Levine 1982 M. Levine (1982) The use of crown height measurements and eruption-wear sequences to age horse teeth. In B. Wilson, C. Grigson, S. Payne (eds.), Ageing and sexing animal bones from archaeological sites, 223-250. Oxford: BAR British Series.

210

THE HELLENISTIC HARBOUR OF AMATHUS

Morandi 2011 F. Morandi (2011) Chapter 16: Calvarium and zygomatic arch. In T. Schwartz, J. Saunders (eds.), Veterinary Computed Tomography, 161-170. Ames, Iowa: Wiley-Blackwell. Pales, Garcia 1981 L. Pales, M. Garcia (1981) Atlas ostéologique pour servir à l’identification des mammifères du Quaternaire, II. Les membres Herbivores. Paris: CNRS. Payne 1973 S. Payne (1973) Kill-off patterns in sheep and goats: the mandibles from Aşvan Kale. Anatolian Studies 23: 281-303. Payne 1987 S. Payne (1987) Reference codes for wear states in the mandibular cheek teeth of sheep and goats. Journal of Archaeological Science 14: 609-614. Payne, Bull 1988 S. Payne, G. Bull (1988) Components of variation in measurements of pig bones and teeth, and the use of measurements to distinguish wild from domestic pig remains. Archaeozoologia 2: 27-66. Peters 1998 J. Peters (1998) Römische Tierhaltung und Tierzucht: eine Synthese aus archäozoologischer Untersuchung und schriftlich-bildlicher Überlieferung. Passauer Universitätsschriften zu Archäologie Band 5. Rahden/Westfalen: Verlag Marie Leidorf. Rizopoulou-Egoumenidou 2012 E. Rizopoulou-Egoumenidou (2012) Aspects de la vie pastorale traditionnelle à Chypre In J. Bonnet-Carbonell (ed.), Des bergers en Europe: pratiques, rites, représentations. Paris: L’Harmattan. Schmid 1972 E. Schmid (1972) Atlas of animal bones. New York: Elsevier. Silver 1969 I. A. Silver (1969) The ageing of domestic animals. In D. Brothwell, E. Higgs (eds.), Science in Archaeology, 283-302. London: Thames and Hudson. Teichert 1975 M. Teichert (1975) Osteometrische Untersuchungen zur Berechnung der Widderisthöhe bei Schafen In A. T. Clason (ed.) Archaeozoological Studies, 51-69. New York: American Elsevier. Von den Driesch 1976 A. Von den Driesch (1976) A guide to the measurement of animal bones from archaeological sites. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, Peabody Museum. Watson, De Lahunta, Evans 1989 A.G. Watson, A. De Lahunta, H.E. Evans (1989) Dorsal notch of foramen magnum due to incomplete ossc[?]ification of supraoccipital bone in dogs. Journal of Small Animal Practice 30: 666-673.

Analysis and 14C dating of wood remains found in Amathus harbour Brita Lorentzen, Sturt W. Manning

Seven wood samples recovered from wells at Amathus were collected in autumn of 2014 and sent to the Cornell Tree-Ring Laboratory for wood species identification and potential sampling for dendrochronology and 14C dating. Thin transverse, radial, and tangential sections of each sample were made with a razor blade and examined under a Motic K-400P stereo microscope at magnifications up to x50 and an Olympus Bx41 microscope at magnifications up to x1000. Diagnostic anatomical features were photographed, recorded, and compared with reference collection materials in the Cornell Tree-Ring Laboratory and standard wood anatomical reference texts.1,2,3

WOOD SPECIES IDENTIFICATION AND ANATOMICAL ANALYSIS The samples are assigned a laboratory site code (AMAT) and number (1–7) based on the order in which each sample was analyzed. The wood from the Amathus wells had previously been waterlogged and then subsequently dried prior to analysis. While preservation of the samples is generally excellent, the desiccation process caused wood cells in which there had been considerable decay (and loss of cellulose) to collapse, resulting in distortion of the wood cellular structure, especially along the outer edges of samples AMAT-1, 2, and 5 (an example is shown in Figure 1). The wood species identification, dimensions, and a description of each sample are given in table 1. Five of the seven samples are Mediterranean cypress (Cupressus sempervirens L.) (fig. 2). The remaining samples are sumac (Rhus coriaria L.) and Calabrian pine (Pinus brutia Ten.) (fig. 3). Sample AMAT-1 is an entire cross-section. The section’s small diameter (with relatively few treerings) and presence of multiple branchlets growing out of the main stem indicate that AMAT-1 was cut from a relatively young, small-diameter tree, and the wood received minimal shaping after it was cut. Samples AMAT-3, 4, and 5 are small-diameter branches. Both samples AMAT-6 and 7 are small fragments of wood. Based on the tree-ring curvature, the wood of sample AMAT-6 is from the center of the tree’s stem (juvenile wood). 1.

Akkemik, Ü. and Yaman, B., 2012. Wood Anatomy of Eastern Mediterranean Species. Remagen-Oberwinter: Verlag Kessel.

2.

Crivellaro, A. and Schweingruber, F.H., 2013. Atlas of Wood, Bark and Pith Anatomy of Eastern Mediterranean Trees and Shrubs with a Special Focus on Cyprus. New York: Springer.

3.

Schweingruber, F.H., 1990. Anatomy of European Woods. Stuttgart: Verlag Paul Haupt.

212

THE HELLENISTIC HARBOUR OF AMATHUS

Sample #

Dimensions (cm)

Species

Description

AMAT-1

9.4 (maximum diameter)

Cupressus sempervirens

entire stem section

AMAT-2

6.0 x 2.2 (length x width)

Cupressus sempervirens

small fragment with heavy desiccation

AMAT-3

1.8 (maximum diameter)

Cupressus sempervirens

entire stem section

AMAT-4

2.2 (maximum diameter)

Rhus coriaria

entire stem section

AMAT-5

3.1 (maximum diameter)

Cupressus sempervirens

entire stem section

AMAT-6

5.9 (maximum radius)

Pinus brutia

large fragment of juvenile wood

AMAT-7

5.5 x 2.2 (length x width)

Cupressus sempervirens

small fragment from indeterminate location on the stem

Table 1 — Species identifications, dimensions, and descriptions of the sampled timbers from the Amathus wells

Fig. 1 — Transverse section of AMAT-2 (25x magnification). Note how desiccation has caused the wood cells to collapse and distort the structure of the wood

Fig. 2 — AMAT-7 (Cupressus sempervirens L.) (12x magnification). Note the presence of density fluctuations (‘DF’) in the tree-ring

ANALYSIS AND 14C DATING OF WOOD REMAINS FOUND IN AMATHUS HARBOUR

213

Fig. 3 — Transverse section of AMAT-6 (Pinus brutia Ten.) (12x magnification)

All three species are native components of the Mediterranean vegetation zones on Cyprus, which grow particularly in low-altitude areas. Pinus brutia grows throughout Cyprus and is the dominant tree species on the island at elevations from 0–1400 meters.4 Cupressus sempervirens variety horizontalis grows naturally at elevations from 0–1400 meters on calcareous cliffs and slopes, either in pure stands or mixed with Pinus brutia. Rhus coriaria is a common shrub that can be found on rocky mountainsides, in Pinus brutia forests, maquis, garigue, and vineyards at elevations from 600–1600 meters.5 All three species grow near Amathus in isolated stands and as part of more substantial populations in the nearby Limassol Forest area, so it is possible (and indeed likely) that the Amathus wood was obtained from local trees.

4.

Ciesla, W.M., 2004. Forests and forest protection in Cyprus. Forestry Chronicle 80 (1): 107–113.

5.

Tsintides, T.C., Hadjikyriakou, G.N., Christodoulou, C.S. (eds.), 2002. Trees and Shrubs in Cyprus. Lefkosia: Anastasios G. Leventis Foundation, Cyprus Forest Association.

214

THE HELLENISTIC HARBOUR OF AMATHUS

Pinus brutia wood is a very common building timber and fuel wood in archaeological and historical sites on Cyprus.6,7,8 In comparison, Rhus coriaria and Cupressus sempervirens are rare in charcoal, uncharred, and waterlogged wood assemblages from Cypriot historical and archaeological sites analyzed thus far. However, Cupressus sempervirens wood is extremely durable, relatively easy to work, and resistant to decay, and has been used as a structural timber in buildings and for decorative wooden panels and small objects at historical and archaeological sites elsewhere in the Aegean (especially Crete) and the Levant.

DENDROCHRONOLOGICAL AND RADIOCARBON (14C) DATING ASSESSMENT The wood samples from Amathus examined here are not suitable for dendrochronology, because they either are unsuitable species, or lack a sufficient number of tree-rings (>50– 100 tree-rings are required). When it is growing at low altitudes or in environments with favorable growth conditions, Cupressus sempervirens can grow multiple tree-rings in a given year (“false rings”), which may be difficult to differentiate from the actual annual tree-ring boundary. This is the case with the Amathus cypress samples, in which multiple false rings and density fluctuations are present, making these samples unsuitable for dendrochronology. There are multiple Pinus brutia tree-ring chronologies built from forest and historical sites in Cyprus and the East Mediterranean,9,10 but the longest continuous Pinus brutia chronology built so far extends back only to ad 1555 (Cornell Tree-Ring Laboratory, B. Lorentzen, unpublished data). Unfortunately, the Pinus brutia sample AMAT-6 has only 13 rings and therefore cannot be dated using dendrochronology. Since it was not possible to date the samples dendrochronologically, it was necessary to select a sample for 14C dating, although there are also caveats in 14C dating the Amathus well timbers. Bark is absent from all of the Amathus samples (which – if it had been present – would indicate that the tree’s last extant ring is preserved on the sampled timber), so 14C dates on the outermost rings of the samples give only a terminus post quem for the tree’s cutting date and the timber’s use. Samples AMAT-3 to AMAT-5 are short-lived branches that have not been heavily shaped (meaning that multiple outer rings have likely not been removed from the sample), and therefore their outermost tree-rings would date very close to or at the year in which the branches were cut. However, it should be noted that these materials could be small, discarded branches that were cast into the well during or after its main period of use, and would therefore give only a terminus ante quem for the well’s construction. Ultimately, sample AMAT-1 was chosen as the best candidate for a 14C date, and the section’s outermost tree-ring was sampled for dating. This was because AMAT-1 has been minimally shaped, with very few of the tree’s outermost rings likely removed, so that a date on the final extant ring of AMAT-1 should give a date close to or at the year in which the tree was cut. Since AMAT-1 is from 6.

Shaar, R., Tauxe, L., Ben-Yosef, E., Kassianidou, V., Lorentzen, B., Feinberg, J.M., Levy, T.E., 2015. Decadal-scale variations in geomagnetic field intensity from ancient Cypriot slag mounds. Geochemistry, Geophysics, Geosystems 16 (1): 195–214.

7.

Socratous, M.A., Kassianidou, V., Di Pasquale, G., 2015. Ancient slag heaps in Cyprus: the contribution of charcoal analysis to the study of ancient copper industry. In: Hauptmann, A. and Modarressi-Tehrani, D. (eds.), Archaeometallurgy in Europe III: Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference, June 29–July 1, 2011. Bochum: Deutsches Bergbau-Museum, pp. 377–384.

8.

Additional unpublished wood species data are available from the Cornell Tree-Ring Laboratory.

9.

Griggs, C.B., Pearson, C.L., Manning, S.W., Lorentzen, B., 2014. A 250-year annual precipitation reconstruction and drought assessment for Cyprus from Pinus brutia Ten. tree-rings. International Journal of Climatology 34: 2702–2714.

10.

Touchan, R., Christou, A.K., Meko, D.M., 2014. Six centuries of May–July precipitation in Cyprus from tree rings. Climate Dynamics 43: 3281–3292.

ANALYSIS AND 14C DATING OF WOOD REMAINS FOUND IN AMATHUS HARBOUR

215

a larger, more substantial timber than AMAT-3, 4, and 5, it is also more likely that AMAT-1 was installed either during the well’s construction or use period. A 14C date was run on the AMAT-1 sample at the Vienna Environmental Research Accelerator (lab sample number: VERA-6296), producing an uncalibrated date of 1398±28 14C years BP (į13C = -28.7 ±0.8). This gives a terminus post quem (TPQ) date for when the tree was cut, and the wood used, in the 7th century ad, most likely around 623–660 cal ad at the 68.2% probability most likely calibrated age range (ad 603–667 at 95.4% probability) (fig. 4). The excavators suggest the wells from which this wood came were constructed in the 5th century ad, or perhaps even the end of the 4th century ad. They believe that the abandonment of the wells precedes the Arab invasion of ad 649. The 14C date on AMAT-1 would indicate, in this case, either construction or renewal of the facility (or a part thereof ) in the earlier to mid-7th century ad, in the decades immediately before the Arab invasion. Fig. 5 shows the VERA-6296 14C date re-considered with an ad 649 terminus ante quem applied. In this model, the most likely date is ad 620-649 at 68.2% probability.

Fig. 4 — Calibrated calendar age probability distribution for the 14C age measurement VERA-6296 on the outer ring of AMAT-1. The Gaussian 14C age estimate (left, on y-axis) is transformed via the radiocarbon calibration curve, IntCal1311 (the current best record of northern hemisphere atmospheric radiocarbon levels), employing the OxCal software12 into a calendar dating probability distribution on the x-axis. The 68.2% and 95.4% most likely age ranges are indicated

11.

Reimer, P.J., Bard, E., Bayliss, A., Beck, J.W., Blackwell, P.G., Bronk Ramsey, C., Buck, C.E., Cheng, H., Edwards, R.L., Friedrich, M., Grootes, P.M., Guilderson, T.P., Haflidason, H., Hajdas, I., Hatté, C., Heaton, T.J., Hoffmann, D.L., Hogg, A.G., Hughen, K.A., Kaiser, K.F., Kromer, B., Manning, S.W., Niu, M., Reimer, R.W., Richards, D.A., Scott, E.M., Southon, J.R., Staff, R.A., Turney, C.S.M. and van der Plicht, J., 2013. IntCal13 and Marine13 Radiocarbon Age Calibration Curves 0-50,000 Years Cal BP. Radiocarbon 55:1869–1887.

12.

Bronk Ramsey, C., 2009. Bayesian Analysis of Radiocarbon Dates. Radiocarbon 51: 337–360.

216

THE HELLENISTIC HARBOUR OF AMATHUS

Fig. 5 — Data as figure 4 but applying a terminus ante quem (TAQ) of ad 649 in a sequence in OxCal. The original non-modeled calibrated probability distribution is in light grey (as shown in fig. 4), with the modified modeled probability distribution given the Arab invasion TAQ shown by the dark probability distribution. The 68.2% and 95.4% most likely (highest posterior density) ranges of this modeled distribution are indicated

Conclusion Jean-Yves Empereur

As a conclusion to this second volume on the port of Amathus, we can only highlight the evidence provided by the study of the material discovered during the underwater research. The pottery and amphorae found in the harbour basin date back to the Early Hellenistic period, while those from the wells date back to the late Roman period. Between the two, a gap that shows an abandonment of the place. As we wrote at the end of the first volume, it should be remembered that the sites of the

Fig. 1 — Amathus, a view of the 2018 excavation in the lower part of the city, South-West of the Agora. Photo L. Thély, Archives Efa

218

THE HELLENISTIC HARBOUR OF AMATHUS

Archaic and Classical Harbor must be sought elsewhere: “Perhaps it was situated east of the ancient port, directly south of the agora”1. It seems that the new archaeological discoveries provide us with a solution: in his last campaign near the Agora in the summer of 2018, the archaeologist Ludovic Thély, leading a team of excavations on behalf of the French School at Athens has produced some remarkable structures2. They consist of a stone monument of great apparatus perfectly jointed, each row recessed over the lower one, without any block reused. The excavator evokes a harbour structure, a kind of neorion, a dry dock, used for the repair of ships. Ceramic is homogeneous of archaic and classical date and, as Ludovic Thély says, “It seems now accepted that this part of the site was active at least since the eighth century”. It is to be hoped that the excavation will continue and expand, in order to shed more light on the facilities of this archaic port, the presence of which could be presumed only by the existence at Amathus of numerous models of war and merchants boats whose images we gave in volume I3. As for the Hellenistic and Roman port, it seems that it should be sought elsewhere, perhaps in an area further east, south-south/east of the Agora. Let us hope that one day archeology will give us the solution.

1.

Volume 1, p. 164.

2.

See the website of Efa, with the notice published on August 10, 2018:

3.

I would like to thank Ludovic Thély for his obliging availability of the report on his excavation of 2018 as well as for the photography of his discoveries.

Cet ouvrage a été imprimé et relié en quatre cents exemplaires par l’imprimerie N.V. Peeters S.A. à Hérent (Belgique) ISBN 978-2-86958-308-5 Imprimé en Belgique