Hispania and the Roman Mediterranean ad 100–700: Ceramics and Trade 9781472540737, 9780715638620

Citation preview

For my mother Patricia, who introduced me to Archaeology

vii

Preface The seeds of this synthesis were presented at a Table Ronde on the transition from late Roman to early Medieval ceramics in the Mediterranean, held at Thessaloniki (Reynolds 2003a). I was then asked by Kim Bowes to prepare an expanded version as a chapter for a collection of essays on late Roman Spain, one of the aims being to provide an overview in English of the Spanish archaeological literature (Reynolds 2005a). A similar request had been made to me more than a decade earlier by the late and much missed Vivien Swan, mother-goddess of Roman pottery studies in Britain. The inadequacies of my Thessaloniki contribution made it imperative for me to catch up, as much as time allowed, on the vast literature that has emerged since my work in the field in south-eastern Spain in the early 1980s (Reynolds 1980; 1984; 1987; 1993; 1995). With funding most kindly granted by the British Academy I was able to stay and study at the Deutsches Archäologisches Institut in Madrid. I would particularly like to thank the then director of the Institute, Prof. Ulbert and his very kind staff for their welcome and assistance during my short sojourn there in December 2002. With the encouragement and guidance of Kim Bowes, the present text was formulated, written and edited in 2003. I am most grateful to her for persuading me to carry out this research and for the many hours she has spent correcting earlier drafts. I would also like to thank Kevin Butcher and Dominic Perring for reading and commenting on the final text of 2004. By its completion in 2004, however, it had become far too large a text for the purpose it was intended to serve. The time frame also overran the ‘late Roman’ theme of that book. Rightly, the 6th to 7th century sections were cut, as well as much of the detail. I am now therefore most grateful to Richard Hodges for inviting me to present the full original text in this book, for his comments on the text, and to Deborah Blake, of Duckworth, for accepting it for publication.1 I would also like to thank Dario Bernal Casasola for kindly providing me with the cover illustration at very short notice, and Piero Berni Millet for sending me a good copy of Fig. 3. My present position as ICREA researcher at the University of Barcelona has given me a special opportunity to continue on various paths of research and has allowed me the months necessary to revise, re-write and, I hope, improve the whole book. Richard Reece has offered invaluable help in his non-pottery biased comment and general support through the various drafts of this book. Special thanks are also due to Gisela Ripoll, who, at the last minute, when

ix

Preface asked to simply take a look at the final draft before its submission, spent a whole week going through it with the eye of a true editrix. I am also lucky to have had someone with her background in the Archaeology of late Antiquity to hand to comment on the content, from a non-ceramic perspective. She, like Richard Reece, represents my ‘other’ audience. During this lengthy process my mother has corrected the English of the entire text several times, the last being in February 2009. In this respect, I am truly blessed, and would like to thank her for all those hours of work on my behalf. This book is dedicated to her. Several major works form the core references for this book. My doctoral thesis had focused on 4th to 7th century settlement and trade in southeastern Spain and a comparison of regional coastal trade within the western Mediterranean. The first part of that work (Reynolds 1993) gives a detailed study of the pottery and settlement patterns of the Vinalopó Valley and region of Alicante and includes a pottery typology, site index and study of the road system through the Roman and Arab periods. Reynolds (1995) completed its publication with a detailed analysis of production and distribution trends of regional fine wares, amphorae and coarse wares in the western Mediterranean (Chapters 2-4). Possible shipping routes linking specific ports and regions are suggested (Chapter 5). Numerous appendices provide the data on which these observations were made. Keay (1984a), for his typology of amphorae supplied to north-east Spanish towns (primarily north African, Spanish and eastern Mediterranean forms), and Fulford and Peacock (1984; 1994) on ceramic trends at the British excavations at Carthage, provide fundamental data for this book. Space does not permit me to make constant references to these works, nor to Hayes (1972) for the African Red Slip (ARS) and other Mediterranean fine ware forms that pepper the text and notes. Only additional references will be given, especially for ground not covered in Reynolds (1995) and where new or overlooked data are available. The excavation report of Marseille is a major data set and is drawn on throughout (Bonifay, Carre and Rigoir 1998, especially the summary of ceramics trends presented on pp. 353-75). Major analyses and typologies of amphorae and common wares in Tarragona are now available for the late Roman to Visigothic periods (Remolà i Vallverdú 2000a; Macias i Solé 1999). Several recent conferences have served as valuable sources for new data on ceramics in the Iberian Peninsula and the Mediterranean in general and will be referred to throughout. The 2008 meeting of Rei Cretariae Romanae Fautores in Cádiz saw the launching of a major new synthesis of all aspects of pottery production within the Iberian Peninsula and the Balearics (Bernal Casasola and Ribera i Lacomba [eds] 2008). I have added a few important details derived from articles within this massive tome, particularly with respect to amphora production. This book is primarily addressed to archaeologists and historians alike who are engaged in research into the economy of the Roman Mediterra-

x

Preface nean and its outlying provinces. Many of us are seeking to understand not only the complex regional economies of specific provinces but also how the provinces interacted through trade and exchange, whether through private, state-driven or other types of exchange or redistribution. Pottery, not only amphorae carrying foodstuffs, but also table and cooking wares, helps to illustrate these processes. Hispania stands out as a key province engaged in all these diverse modes of agricultural (oil, fish and wine) and pottery production and exchange. The archaeological evidence – the excavated villa sites, urban rubbish deposits of ceramics, amphora production sites – illustrates Hispania’s changing role in the state supply systems of the Empire and the responses and varied fortunes of the regional industries that were directly or indirectly supported by them. Equally visible are the parallel trajectories of regional industries that operated outside the state redistribution network. The regionally selective pattern of distribution of local and imported products within the Iberian Peninsula is also clear. Market as well as political forces, most beyond its control, played a major part in shaping Hispania’s place in the economic arena. This book is my reading and interpretation of the ceramic evidence for Hispania’s complex internal economies and varied ties with the Roman Mediterranean and Atlantic provinces from the 1st to the 7th century AD. All the data that have guided these conclusions are presented in one form or another in order to allow readers to assess the evidence should they wish to do so. It is important that historians in particular be aware that the reading and interpretation of archaeological information is by no means a straightforward process. The dating and statistical analyses of ceramic deposits are sometimes fraught with difficulties, a problem when one is trying to establish ceramic trends and correlate these with historical events and processes. Some of these problems are noted and discussed in detail. Strong economic trends do nevertheless emerge from this mass of data that offer valuable insight into the economic and political forces that operated not only within the Iberian Peninsula but also across the Roman world. An equally detailed review of the archaeological, epigraphical and historical evidence for urban and rural development through the middle and late Roman periods within the Iberian Peninsula and across the provinces of the Roman Mediterranean is needed for comparison but is beyond the scope of this book. Paul Reynolds ICREA Research Professor, Universitat de Barcelona Honorary Research Associate of the Institute of Archaeology, University of London Barcelona, March 2009

xi

Introduction 1. Aims This book is offered as a synthesis and interpretation of recent research in ceramics within Spain, Portugal and the Balearic Islands, concentrating on the economic trends evident from the local production and importation of fine table wares, amphorae and kitchen wares. One aim is to establish the degree to which local and imported ceramics reflect the broader, complex phenomena of long-distance trade within the Mediterranean. Another is to identify what were markedly regional economic patterns and related micro/macro economic ‘environments’ within the Iberian Peninsula. Pottery production and distribution, when interpreted within the wider context of the geopolitical and social background, lend us a wealth of data with which we may reconstruct undoubtedly complex and changing economic patterns that are scarcely, if at all, perceptible in the historical record. An earlier study of the pottery distribution in the Iberian Peninsula provided a detailed analysis of ceramic trends on coastal sites and their comparison to exports and imports in ports and regions elsewhere in the western Mediterranean (Reynolds 1993; 1995). This book will seek to redress this littoral bias somewhat by investigating the inland distribution of ceramics. It will also integrate new data from the eastern Mediterranean, particularly from the Levant,2 and from Hispania and the western Mediterranean that offer new insight into the economic relationships of the Iberian Peninsula and the East. Though the evidence from the eastern Empire is still incomplete, it is now possible for the first time to begin to assess ceramic trends in production, imports and exports throughout the Mediterranean and beyond (the Black Sea and Atlantic), to see how the Mediterranean provinces developed as a whole and how sites from all corners of the Mediterranean related to each other economically. From this broader perspective, the exports of Hispania to the eastern Empire, and vice versa, take on a new meaning and context. 2. Recent research in late Roman ceramics This synthesis would not have been possible thirty or even twenty years ago. Archaeological excavation within Spain, as in other regions, follows trends, one could say fads of enquiry. The Iberians were ‘in’ and late Roman archaeology was scarcely acknowledged in the 1970s. There was

1

Introduction an interest in things ‘Alto Imperial’ but essays on the ‘Bajo Imperio’ were largely historical. Islamic and Medieval archaeology, appreciated in the late 19th and first half of the 20th centuries, received little attention under Franco. The excavations in Pollentia (Mallorca) in the 1960s were a step in the right direction. However, no one appreciated the vast quantities of pottery they were digging up (much was discarded), nor could they date them correctly, basing their analyses on associated residual coinage and on Nino Lamboglia’s far too early dating of 5th century and later forms of African Red Slip Ware (1958). Without doubt John Hayes’ Late Roman Pottery (1972) provided the key that brought the ‘Dark Ages’ that were the 5th to 7th centuries into the light. This new typology and redating of the principal traded Mediterranean late Roman fine wares (African Red Slip Ware [ARS]), Phocean Red Slip Ware [Late Roman C], Cypriot Red Slip Ware [Late Roman D]), triggered a new awareness of the potential of late Roman archaeology that could now document Peter Brown’s magisterial World of Late Antiquity (1971). Hayes was able to redate the 5th century and later sequence of table wares through the study of deposits excavated primarily in the eastern Mediterranean. Here, in contrast to the West, urban occupation, coin use and building activity continued unabated and provided a good sequence of dateable deposits. His work in Athens, Cyprus and Istanbul provided key groups for the 5th to 7th centuries. Hayes, furthermore, published entire deposits – table wares, amphorae, cooking pots. It had been common practice in Mediterranean excavations (and regrettably still is in some quarters) to select what seemed to be the ‘significant’ objects for publication and ignore or even discard the rest. One only needs to scan the tomes on the grand excavations of north African cities, where one is lucky to spot a scrap of pottery (Timgad is a prime example), to realise what has been lost and the marked differences of method in their excavation and publication. Hayes’ attention to detail and interest in all classes of pottery and the information to be gleaned from them, particularly the cooking wares and amphorae, was applied equally to his work on early and mid Imperial Roman material (notably at Knossos and Paphos: Hayes 1983 and 1991). The next arena and catalyst for Mediterranean classical archaeology and ceramics in particular was at Carthage. In the late 1970s the ancient metropolis was the focus of an unprecedented array of international teams funded by UNESCO to ‘Save Carthage!’. Hayes, working for the AmericanMichigan Mission, from 1976 onwards published a series of reports that constituted a landmark in providing the publication of complete assemblages, the fine wares following his now published Late Roman Pottery typology (1976, 1978; see also Riley 1981). The most common late Roman eastern Mediterranean amphora types were now classified as Late Roman Amphora 1-7, and this nomenclature has remained in use. Also new and particularly relevant for Spain was his typology of widely traded hand-

2

Introduction made cooking wares, Late Roman Cooking Wares I-VI. Finally, another novelty and perhaps the most significant was the presentation of assemblages in quantified form, by count and weight, the work largely of John Riley, who was John Hayes’ assistant at the time. Riley, earlier, had made his own major contribution to the classification and quantification of trends in the supply of Mediterranean pottery with his study of the amphorae and coarse wares of Benghazi (1979), notable for its detailed background summaries and bibliographies for the imported amphora and cooking ware forms of the Hellenistic to late Roman periods. Mike Fulford and David Peacock’s work on the British excavations at Carthage was published in 1984. Peacock’s thin section analysis of pottery fabrics and Fulford’s analytical approach and interpretation of ceramic deposits were a major breakthrough. Fulford combined the quantification of assemblages and their comparative analysis through ceramic sequences in order to identify and quantify economic ‘trends’ in local and imported forms. Fulford had already done this for his study of New Forest table wares (1975a) and for his report on the pottery excavated at Portchester Castle (1975b). The sheer volume of pottery recovered at Carthage (and on Mediterranean sites in general) had perhaps dissuaded others from fully cataloguing assemblages on this scale, despite the immense gain in data this provides. My own work in Alicante began in 1982 and benefited greatly from the Carthage publications, as many of the cooking wares, including handmade wares, as well as amphorae, closed plain wares and Vandal period ARS forms could be equated with published finds from Carthage. The next landmark, also of much relevance to my work, was Simon Keay’s thoughtful and thorough typology of largely 2nd to 6th century amphora types found in major ports of north-eastern Spain (Keay 1984). The nature of the amphora supply to these cities caused the typology to comprise primarily amphorae from Tunisian, Tripolitanian, Baetican and Tarraconensian sources, alongside the already known LRA 1-7 eastern Mediterranean series. Without doubt this work represents for amphorae what Late Roman Pottery was for table wares. For the first time the complex series of Tunisian amphorae, the object of very simple typologies by Zevi and Tchernia (1969) and Beltrán Lloris (1970), were organised into a typology by fabric and date. This had not really been possible in Carthage due to the rarity of diagnostic sherds. Keay’s typology of Spanish forms was also a major step forward as Beltrán Lloris’ seminal work on amphorae from Spanish sites (1970) had concentrated on the early Imperial types. Keay also benefited from Clementina Panella’s and Daniele Manacorda’s careful work on amphorae from 1st to 4th century contexts excavated at Ostia (Panella 1970 and 1973; Manacorda 1977). The attention paid in the late 1970s and 1980s to pottery other than fine wares has generated much greater care in the study of clays. This not only allows the separation of amphorae and cooking wares into their ‘correct’

3

Introduction regional groups and families but also provides a means to identify the sources of these goods. Again Peacock had led the way in his work on the fabrics of Italian, Portuguese and south Spanish amphorae (1974; 1977). He and David Williams, also a thin section expert, published Amphorae and the Roman Economy (1986), providing a guide to the main Roman amphora types for the first time. Peacock’s Pottery in the Roman World: an ethno-archaeological approach (1992) turned our attention to the modes of production of ceramics, particularly hand-made wares. My own contribution to the theme was a typology of hand-made and slow wheel-made pottery, local and imported, from sites in the Vinalopó Valley (1985). This in turn apparently generated the enthusiasm of Miguel Ángel Cau Ontiveros who, based in the Archaeometry unit of the University of Barcelona, has taken the analysis of cooking wares an important step further through the chemical analyses of their clays (2004). Under Andrea Carandini’s guidance Hayes’ late Roman table wares and the growing body of work on those of Spain, Portugal and southern Gaul (those found at Conimbriga; the t. s. hispánica and hispánica tardía series; t. s. lucente, t. s. paléochrétienne grise) could now be summarised in the Enciclopedia dell’Arte Antica, Atlante delle forme ceramiche romane, I and II (1981; 1985). The ARS was notably grouped according to regional sources (north, central, south Tunisian). A second phase of predominantly survey work in Tunisia has greatly improved our understanding of the production of ARS and amphorae (Peacock, Bejaoui and Ben Lazreg 1989 and 1990; Dietz et al.1995; de Vos 1992; Ben Lazreg et al. 1995, on garum production sites; the survey and excavations at Leptiminus: Ben Lazreg and Mattingly 1992; Stirling, Mattingly and Ben Lazreg 2001). Michel Mackensen has led the way in gathering data on ARS production sites, including notably that of El Mahrine (1993; 1998). Michel Bonifay has done the same for Tunisian amphorae and complemented this work with excavations in Nabeul, Pupput and Oudna (Bonifay 2004 and 2005a, with bibliography; Sidi Jdidi: Ben Abed et al. 1997; Slim et al. 1999; Barraud, Bonifay, Dridi and Pichonneau 1998). Amphora studies have indeed progressed apace during the 1980s and 1990s since the first two important conferences on amphorae, Recherches sur les amphores romaines (1972) (Collection de L’École Française de Rome 10) and Méthodes classiques et formelles dans l’étude des amphores (1977) (Collection de l’École Française de Rome 32). Notable are some of the recent international conferences on amphorae and trade, e.g. Producción y comercio del aceite en la antigüedad 2 (1983) (J.M. Blázquez and J. Remesal Rodríguez [eds]); Recherches sur les amphores grecques (1986) (Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique, Supplément 13); El vi a l’antiguitat. Economía, producció i comerç al Mediterrani occidental I and II (1985; 1998) (Monografies Badalonines 9; 14); Amphores romaines et histoire économique: dix ans de recherches (Collection de l’École Française de Rome

4

Introduction 114); ‘Ex Baetica amphorae’ Écija and Sevilla (2000); Transport Amphorae and Trade in the Eastern Mediterranean (Eiring and Lund [eds] 2004); LRCW 1. Late Roman Coarse Wares, Cooking Wares and Amphorae in the Mediterranean: archaeology and archaeometry (Gurt, Buxeda and Cau [eds] 2005); LRCW 2. Late Roman Coarse Wares, Cooking Wares and Amphorae in the Mediterranean: archaeology and archaeometry (M. Bonifay and J.C. Tréglia [eds] 2007). These, other conferences and particular monographs now document scores of excavations of amphora kiln sites located primarily along the coasts of Portugal, southern Spain and north-eastern Spain, e.g. the conferences on Lusitanian amphorae Les amphores lusitaniennes: typologie, production, commerce (A. Alarçao and F. Mayet [eds] 1990) and Ocupação romana dos estuários do Tejo e do Sado (Filipe and Raposo 1996); Mayet and Tavares da Silva (2002); Figlinae Malacitanae: la producción de cerámica romana en los territorios malacitanos (1997); Bernal Casasola (ed.) (1998a-b) on the production sites of Las Matagallares and Venta del Carmen (Cádiz); García Vargas (1998) on the amphorae of the Bay of Cádiz. The Spanish contribution to the epigraphic evidence for the Baetican oil trade, primarily based on their excavations of the Monte Testaccio in Rome, is particularly noteworthy (CEIPAC, based at the Universitat de Barcelona; Remesal Rodríguez 1983 and 1986; Blázquez Martínez and Remesal Rodríguez [eds] 1999, 2001 and 2003). Arriving too late for me to include in the general synthesis on Spanish amphorae is the collection of papers on late Republican and early Imperial Tarraconensian amphora production and exports just published, La producció i el comerç de les àmfores de la Provincia Hispania Tarraconensis, Homenatge a Richard Pascual i Guasch (López Mullor and Aquilué (i) Abadias (eds) [2008]). Since the mid 1980s important syntheses on Mediterranean pottery and trade have appeared. Le merci, gli insediamenti: società romana e impero tardoantico (A. Giardina [ed.] 1986) was the first to collect together largely Italian essays based on the new excavation data of the late 1970s and early 1980s. The massive conference in honour of John Hayes demonstrates how much has been learnt particularly in the western Mediterranean since the publication of Late Roman Pottery (Saguì [ed.] 1998b). The excavations of the Crypta Balbi in Rome, still to be fully published, have revolutionised our understanding of late 7th and 8th century trade in the Mediterranean. Since Ponsich’s monumental survey of sites, including pottery finds, in the Guadalquivir Valley (1974; 1979), there has been little methodological survey within the Iberian Peninsula. Important exceptions are those in the territory of Tarragona (Carreté, Keay and Millett 1995) and in Vera (Almería) (Menasanch de Tobaruela 2000; 2003). My own survey work in the Vinalopó Valley, with its emphasis on all classes of pottery and their distribution through the early Roman to Islamic periods, should also be mentioned (Reynolds 1993; 2005c, for a summary in Spanish). In Spain the

5

Introduction 1980s brought about important changes in the creation of urban archaeological units, those of Barcelona, Tarragona, Valencia, Dénia, Alicante and Cartagena being particularly familiar to me. This new urban work over the last two decades is now bearing fruit in articles and monographs: for Tarragona, for example, see the exemplary full publication of the Vila-roma deposit (TED’A 1989) and the recent studies of amphorae (Remolà i Vallverdú 2000a) and coarse wares (Macias i Solé 1999). These and syntheses on the fish industry (Lagóstena Barrios 2001) and the oil industry (Berni Millet 1998) have been major sources of data for this book. I should also mention the important conferences Contextos ceràmics d’época romana tardana i de l’alta edat mitjana (segles IV-X) (Comas i Solà et al. [eds] 1997) and Ceramica comuna romana d’època Alto-Imperial a la Península Ibèrica (1995), where much relevant pottery data for this book, both from excavations in town and rural sites, were presented. A recent evaluation of all aspects of Roman ceramics within the Iberian Peninsula and the Balearics has provided the opportunity, at the last minute, to revise and add data where necessary, particularly on amphorae (Bernal Casasola and Ribera i Lacomba (eds), Cerámicas hispanorromanas: un estado de la cuestión, Cádiz, 2008). The third, 2008 meeting of LRCW, still unpublished, has also provided important information that I felt necessary to include in this book (S. Menchelli, M. Pasquinucci and S. Santoro (eds), LRCW 3. Third International Conference on Late Roman Coarse Wares, Cooking Wares and Amphorae in the Mediterranean: archaeology and archaeometry [Parma-Pisa 26th-30th March 2008]). A new typology of Cypriot Red Slip Ware has recently appeared (Meyza 2007), including new forms, many of which provide the late 4th to early 6th century phases of some of the 6th to 7th century LRP forms, as well as other, parallel products probably produced to the north of Cyprus, in southern Anatolia. Finally, and with a view to the future and the manner in which the dating of Mediterranean ceramic assemblages will hopefully be improved and the interpretation of those already published better assessed, some thirty major specialists on late Roman fine wares, including John Hayes, Michel Bonifay, Michael Mackensen and Henryk Meyza, were brought together in Barcelona in November 2008 in order to discuss and clarify the now complex typology and chronology of the three major classes of late Roman fine wares (African Red Slip Ware, Phocean Red Slip Ware/Late Roman C and Cypriot Red Slip Ware/Late Roman D), as well as assess the dating of published ‘key contexts’, and suggest additional contexts that are relevant for the dating of fine wares (European Science Foundation/ICREA Exploratory Workshop on Late Roman Fine Wares: solving problems of typology and chronology). Richard Reece also played a key role in guiding us as to the use and misuse of coin data for the dating of assemblages. These themes, as well as unpublished contexts from Spanish and Gallic sites, were also presented and discussed by other invited

6

Introduction specialists in pre-workshop meetings held in Barcelona and Aix-enProvence. There is indeed much confusion in the current literature on the classification of forms and variants, the identification of regional products within these wares, the dating applied to forms and variants, and the usefulness of some well-known assemblages. It is essential to clarify these issues, as they are fundamental for the dating of Mediterranean sites and for the study of the economic history of the Roman world. They are complex matters indeed with which I have grappled throughout the writing of this book. The aim is to publish, in a series of volumes edited by the convenors of this workshop (Miguel Ángel Cau Ontiveros, Michel Bonifay and myself) a new revision of the typology and dating of these three fine ware classes, archaeometric analyses of these and related wares, as well as a presentation and discussion of key assemblages for the dating of late Roman table wares. 3. The geographical setting The Iberian Peninsula is unique in the Mediterranean in providing not only a gateway to the Atlantic but also a bridge to north Africa.3 The mountain barrier of the Pyrenees/Pyrenaei montes makes the coastal route the simplest and quickest means to access what was southern Gaul, although both the eastern, as well as the western passes have also served this purpose throughout history. Here we may recall the pass through the Sierra de La Albera (in the extreme west, where the present day La Junquera border crossing is located) that served as the route for the Via Domitia which linked Cádiz/Gades to Rome through the Via Herculea, later the Via Augusta, or the famous pass of Roncesvalles (Orreaga, Navarra), through which the Visigoths entered Spain and where Roland met his death, as we are told in La Chanson de Roland, after his defeat by the forces of Charlemagne, and the route taken through the Pyrenees by all the pilgrims en route for Santiago de Compostela. The Iberian Peninsula (580,160 sq. km) comprises a number of distinctive geographical regions that, as we shall see, are reflected in the distribution patterns of regional and imported ceramics within it: the Mediterranean and the Atlantic coast, the Ebro Valley, Andalucía, the northern and southern halves of the Meseta table-lands of central Spain, Galicia, Cantabria and Vasconia. A glance at a physical map of the region will illustrate another salient point, that large tracts of the peninsula comprise mountain ranges, some as high as 3500 m, or areas of highland (generally up to 1500 m). The physical barriers presented by these mountain ranges were a determining factor in the establishment of the administrative boundaries in Antiquity, these being transferred equally to the territorial organisation of the medieval Church and, still later, forming the boundaries of modern autonomous communities. So, for example, we can see that the territorial limits of ancient Baetica correspond grosso modo to what is now Andalucía, those of Gallaecia to

7

Introduction modern Galicia, and those of both Spanish and Portuguese Extremadura to Roman Lusitania.4 The same can be said for the rivers and their physical impact on the landscape and communications. Seven major rivers drain the landscape. Of these, the Ebro is the longest and, with its tributaries, provides the principal natural access route from the Mediterranean coast, inland into the furthest limits of the Roman province of Tarraconensis. The river is navigable as far as Logroño/Vareia. The Guadalquivir – the Baetis5 – in the Andalusian Plain, is the key point of access from the southern Atlantic coast into the interior of southern Spain, through the impenetrable cordilleras of the Sistema Bético, being navigable for much of its course through northern Andalucía. Indeed, its course is closely followed by the path of the Republican period Via Herculea that took a more direct inland route than did the later Via Augusta, crossing Albacete, thus reaching Castulo and then, parallel with the river, passing through Córdoba/Corduba and Sevilla/Hispalis to Cádiz/Gades.6 The wide expanse of the Guadalquivir valley floor, furthermore, as in Roman times, also provides rich agricultural land and dry farming is practised, olives being the staple crop. The valley also supports the raising of cattle, sheep, pigs and goats. This impressive river acted as the principal artery that served to connect both the agricultural municipia and colonia of the interior and their chequerboard centuriated landscapes, as well being the means by which their goods, notably the oil of the annona, could be transported hundreds of kilometres towards the coast and, arriving at Cadiz, out to sea.7 Nor should we forget the important marble quarries of Igabrum/Cabra and, in the extreme east, in the Upper Guadalquivir, Castulo/Linares and the famous silver mines of the imperial saltus castulonesis. Here too the horses were legendary, as also were those of the estuary of the Tejo, where, according to time-honoured tradition recorded by various Roman writers (Varro, the Cádiz-born Columella, Pliny the Younger), the fastest racehorses of the Empire were bred because the mares were sired by Favonius, one of the many winds.8 Three mountain ranges – the Sistema Central/the ancient Iuga Carpetana (up to 2600 m), including the Sierra de Guadarrama, that separates the two halves of the central Meseta, the Cordillera Cantábrica (up to 2500 m) that separates the north Meseta from the north coast, and the southern mountain block of the Sierra Morena – define the limits of the open plains of central Spain and the Meseta. Another range (the Montes de Toledo and the Sierra de Guadalupe) divides the south Meseta into two parts, but there are many passes through them. The Meseta is a vast region of plateaux, escarpments and rolling hills (ranging between 610 and 760 m above sea level), a dry and mostly treeless expanse that is most suitable for growing wheat. This, despite the common and mythical belief, not substantiated, that in ancient times a squirrel could cross the entire peninsula from the Pyrenees to the Straits of Gibraltar jumping from tree

8

Introduction to tree.9 The sheep and goats10 raised there are still driven along ancient transhumance routes to the south, into Andalucía. The lands of the northern Meseta, comprising part of what was the province of Carthaginensis, were the domain of vast latifundia where the aristocracy of late Roman Hispania built their extensive and richly decorated villae in which they spent their time in otium and negotium.11 The mountain ranges of central and northern Spain are the sources of the three principal rivers and their tributaries that cut deep rocky courses through the mountain valleys before draining into the Atlantic: the Tajo/Tejo/Tagus, ending its course at Lisbon/Olisipo (one of the best natural Atlantic ports of the peninsula), the Guadiana/Anas and the Duero/Douro/Durius. The latter is navigable by small vessels for its entire course through Portugal (barrels of port were transported down river to Porto in the recent past). Though the Tejo is Portugal’s longest river it is only navigable for 80 km. The rivers of the east coast, from the Ebro/Hiberus to the Júcar/Sucro, provide the principal access points from the coast into the interior. In the Roman period the Ebro provided the means to export Tarraconensian wines to Rome, linking the capital Tarraco/Tarragona to Lerida/Ilerda and the great Augustan colonia at Caesaraugusta/Zaragoza. These rivers cut through the inhospitable, barren highlands of the Sistema Ibérico, the cordillera system that covers 21,000 sq. km and runs south-eastwards from the Cantabrian Mountains right up to the Mediterranean seaboard. The Roman coastal route to Cartagena and the Sierra Morena, for instance, could only pass through the Vinalopó Valley, there being no means of crossing the uplands that divide Valencia from Alicante (Reynolds 1993, ch. 2). With much of the Mediterranean coast providing only a relatively narrow coastal strip, the flood plains of the Ebro Valley, and the rivers Llobregat, Turia, Júcar and the Segura, their waters now as in the Roman and Islamic periods being harnessed for irrigation,12 offer flat expanses of rich land for cultivation. In the case of the River Vinalopó, the wide flood plain that formed as the river exited from the far eastern extremities of the Sistema Ibérico provided the perfect opportunity for parcelling out the land to the Augustan settlers of the colonia Ilici; its gridded paths and fields still survive as one of the best examples of Roman centuriation in the western Empire.13 The centuriated coast to the north of Valencia, similarly well populated with Roman villas, was served by a complex irrigation system watered by several canal systems in the Roman period, as it was under the Arabs and till the present day. The modern huerta provides much of the irrigated produce, especially citrus fruits and melons, that reach the tables of northern Europe. Mixed, dry and irrigation farming is more typical further inland, as it must have been also in the Roman period. The courses of many other rivers, it should be noted, however, are cut too deep for the practice of irrigation.14 In the south the Sistema Penibético stretches north-east from the

9

Introduction southern tip of Spain, running parallel to the coast until it joins the Sistema Ibérico and the eastern section of the Sierra Morena. The extreme south of Portugal, the Algarve, is a warm, dry, windswept region not suitable for intensive agriculture. There are many fishing ports along the coast. Beyond the Algarve, and separated from it by the mountain ranges of the Serra de Monchique/the Iugum Cyneticum and the Serra de Caldeiro, lies the Alentejo, a land of rolling hills and plains that are farmed by large estates and where important Roman marble quarries were located. Central Portugal, between the Douro and the Tejo, with a mild climate, supports fishing along its narrow coast. It is no surprise to find that the major Roman Lusitanian industries for fish sauce/garum and salted fish for export were located here in the estuaries of the Tejo and Sado, at Troia, and also along the Algarve coast, at Lagos, for example, joining imperceptibly the production sites of Roman Baetica (with major centres in Huelva, Cádiz, Algeciras and Málaga). The Atlantic coastal strip from the Tejo to the river Minho offers even less area for cultivation and was scarcely populated in the Roman period. The east of central Portugal, the Beira Alta, forms a mountainous barrier across the centre of Portugal, but the Beira Baixa is dry and windswept, being an extension of the Spanish Meseta Central. Beyond it, northern Portugal is a desolate, rainy and, in the winter, very cold mountainous region. About one third of Portugal is covered by forests. Galicia, a plateau with its rocky coast pierced by tiny inlets (rías), and Cantabria, its narrow coastal plain contained by the Cantabrian mountains, share a similar range of industries based on fishing, the raising of sheep and cattle, and mining (the regions were major sources of gold in the Roman period: see below). The Via de la Plata, aptly named, linked the mines of Asturias in north-east central Spain, with Zamora on the Duero and Mérida/ Emerita Augusta on the Guadiana/Anas. A prehistoric route, it was one of the earliest roads to be built in Spain (139 BC), linking at first the Guadiana and Tajo, then as the conquest penetrated the north-east, it reached native Astorga, the latter being transformed to serve as the capital of Asturica.15 4. Late Republican and early Imperial Hispania (Maps 1-3) Having successfully ousted the Carthaginians from their hold on the southern and south-eastern sectors of the Iberian Peninsula in 206 BC, the Romans, formerly only nominally in control of the towns and ports of the north-east coast, made their intentions of dominion clear with the creation of the provinces of Hispania Citerior and Ulterior in 197 BC.16 The latter, roughly modern Andalucía to the east of the lower Guadalquivir, had its administrative base at Corduba. Citerior, corresponding to the east coast, probably had its administrative capital at Carthago Nova, Carthage’s and

10

Introduction now Rome’s foremost port in Hispania. These regions and their populations had been engaged in trade with Greeks, Phoenicians and Carthaginians for centuries. The Phoenicians had established major colonies along the south coast that served as important trading posts dealing with the indigenous Turdetani in metals, skins and other goods, as well as early centres for the production of fish sauce and wine. Cádiz, founded in the 8th century BC, was possibly the earliest of these settlements. Others of note were Onuba on the Rio Tinto, tapping its mineral resources, Málaga, Sexi and Toscanos. Greeks based at Massilia/Marseille, from the mid 6th century, later targeted the east coast with colonies at Mainaké (near Málaga), Hemeroskopeion/Dénia?, Emporion/Ampurias and Rhode/Rosas and had by the 5th and 4th centuries BC a profound classicising effect on the native populations of the east coast.17 Indigenous resistance to Roman rule in the interior, however, was stiff. It took campaigns in Portugal against the Lusitani led by Viriathus and the Celtiberian Wars of 155-133 BC, ending in the brutal siege of Numantia, to bring most of the centre of the Iberian Peninsula under control.18 Carthage, Rome’s only rival to imperial power in the western Mediterranean, had been definitively brought to her knees in 146 BC. By the late 2nd century BC the first coastal road through newly conquered southern Gaul, the Via Domitia (Narbo/Narbonne founded in 118 BC), joined the highway that served Citerior, running down the east coast of Spain to Carthago Nova. There was another section that cut across the mining region of Castulo and ended at Gades/Cádiz. Republican Rome had got a tight grip on its new western overseas conquests and had no intention of losing them. Apart from soldiers, officials and merchants there were, however, until the colonial settlements of the mid 1st century BC, few Italians or Roman citizens living in Hispania (a colony at Carteia had been founded in 171 BC, Corduba in 152 BC, Roman Emporion possibly 113 BC). Some new towns were founded by Rome in order to settle non-Romans (e.g. Gracchuris and Iliturgis in 180/179 BC, and Valentia and Brutobriga in 138-133 BC, the latter to re-locate former soldiers of Viriathus). Rome generally, however, controlled the existing indigenous communities through special treaties granting them varying degrees of autonomy and exemption from taxation (Saguntum and Malaca, for example, were so favoured). More common were the civitates stipendiariae who paid tribute, there being still 291 such towns by the early 1st century AD. There was little evidence for Roman-style buildings in the mass of indigenous communities during the Republican period (Keay 1988, 50-3). Still, a large part of Portugal and northern Spain was not under Roman control. A consequence of the civil war between Sulla and Marius, the tribes of the northern Meseta and upper Ebro had sided with Sertorius in his bid against Sulla, perhaps hoping for greater independence from Rome. They were, however, thoroughly punished, many of their towns being

11

Introduction sacked by Pompey, following Sertorius’ murder in 72 BC. The Lusitani in Portugal, north of the Tejo, and the tribes of Galicia and Cantabria, however, were still free from Roman rule. Despite Caesar’s successful campaigns against them in 61 BC, as governor of Ulterior, they were again in revolt as late as 35 BC. The second half of the 1st century BC saw an unprecedented increase in the settlement of Roman citizens in the province, concentrated in the south and east. With the end of the Civil War against Pompey, Caesar was quick to disband troops and reallocate them to new colonial foundations (Urso, for example). From his base in Tarraco, Augustus in 27-26 BC personally undertook the final military campaigns in Cantabria that eventually established Roman rule throughout the Iberian Peninsula by 19 BC. The colonising process, halted by Caesar’s death and the ensuing conflict, was largely completed by Augustus, who had similarly a multitude of veterans to disband. Veterans were given land within large blocks of chequer-board ‘centuriated’ land allocated to twenty-one new Roman coloniae (nine in Baetica, eight in Tarraconensis and four in Lusitania), fifteen of these being Augustan foundations (Blázquez 1986b, 39-55). Between 16 and 13 BC Augustus reorganised Ulterior, creating the new provinces of Baetica and Lusitania. The Guadiana defined the western limits of Baetica. Its capital, like that of the now defunct Ulterior, was still based at Corduba. Lusitania, the lands to the north and west of Baetica, included most of modern Portugal. Its capital was the new Augustan foundation of Emerita Augusta/Merida (25 BC). Citerior was now named Tarraconensis in reference to its new capital at the new colonia Tarraco. By 5 BC Tarraconensis included the newly acquired territories north of the Duero, in Gallaecia and Asturia (Keay 1988, 47, 49). The Roman provinces of Hispania were then further subdivided into judicial districts, conventus, with capitals assigned to each (Map 3: Keay 1988, 61). The process of Romanisation, urbanisation and participation in the running of Hispania was again further advanced by the granting of the status of municipium to certain civitates. Roman citizenship was the prize for those who, having the required capital, took up the vacant magistracies modelled on those of the coloniae. Indigenous highland oppida were largely abandoned for new sites in the lowlands that were better connected with the Roman road system. Vespasian completed the process by granting Latin status to all native communities in Hispania. The scramble for self advancement and prestige, as well as more everyday manifestations of adherence to Roman culture and religion are amply documented by the vast body of beautifully carved inscriptions and the many public monuments that have survived from this period.19 The municipia and coloniae, notably those of Baetica, were to provide a stream of Hispanic equestrians and senators in the course of the 1st century and early 2nd century AD, new provincial blood for the imperial administration and Roman senate. They, in turn, promoted and invested in their own Hispano-Roman com-

12

Introduction munities. It was these rich, landed Spanish aristocrats who invested in the production and trade of oil, fish and wine on their estates. By the early decades of the 2nd century Hispania, and notably the most Romanised of its provinces, Baetica, was ready to provide the first dynasty of Roman emperors of non-Italian stock, the Ulpii Traiani (Trajan and, later, Hadrian). Since the early days of the conquest Rome had been eager to exploit the rich mineral resources of the Iberian Peninsula. During the Republic, in the south the silver and lead of La Unión and Mazarrón were shipped to Rome from Carthago Nova, and those of the Sierra Morena and Castulo from Gades. As these became less profitable the Rio Tinto mines in Huelva were targeted from the mid 1st century AD onwards. From the 1st century BC mines established in the north-west following the conquest of Galicia and Asturias provided a staggering amount of gold and other metals. At least 231 gold mines have been identified in Asturias and León, and it is no coincidence that the Roman army in Hispania was concentrated there. One of the most important mines was at Las Médulas, lying between Asturica Augusta/Astorga and Legio/León, both cities being founded as legionary bases, the latter serving as the permanent base of the Legio VII Gemina, once Vespasian had reduced the legions of Hispania from three to one. The army’s presence in the north-west remained constant well into the 5th century (Díaz and Menéndez-Bueyes 2005). Indeed this region, with the exception of the military towns and administrative centres of Asturica Augusta/Astorga, Bracara Augusta/Braga and Lucus Augusti/ Lugo, unlike the well-Romanised south and east, retained much of its native organisation and character, settlement continuing to be based in the many highland castros. Maritime connections and the length of coastline dictated where the most thriving interactions with the rest of the Roman world would be located, at its ports. The abundance of marine life to be exploited along its shores also provided a means of sustenance and major secondary industries for the coastal population, the export of fish sauce and salted fish, industries already established by the Phoenicians in their south Spanish colonies. The Roman Mediterranean of the early Empire offered new markets for Baetican fish exports, from Rome and Luni, to the Roman colony established in Beirut, as well as the well organised annona supply routes to the armies of the Rhine and Britain (see below, Chapter 1.1-3). Workshops producing amphorae to carry the fish sauce mushroomed around the Bays of Algeciras and Cádiz and along the coasts of Baetica and southern Portugal by the mid 1st century AD.20 The garum of Carthago Nova was renowned and very expensive.21 Roman wine production in north-eastern Tarraconensis had already begun by the mid 1st century BC. However, local wine production on a larger scale, targeting the ports of the north-east as well as south-western Gaul and even Carthage and Rome, dates from the Augustan period

13

Introduction (carried in the Pascual 1 amphora type and later in its successor, the larger Dressel 2-4, as well as the Dressel 28 table amphora). Dénia and Sagunto were also major exporters during the 1st century AD (see below, Chapter 1.4). At the same time landowners with vast estates along the Guadalquivir turned to the mass production of olive oil for export to Rome and the northern armies, a lucrative business encouraged by the Roman state. Other rich Spanish families and their freedmen strategically located in the principal ports (Narbonne, Tarragona, and Ostia) also made fortunes as shippers (navicularii) or merchants (mercatores, difusores) in these and other goods.22 Major fine ware pottery centres were established, in some cases by Italian potters, in Andújar and Granada in the south, on the Rioja at Tricio and numerous other sites in central Spain (some in the upper Duero, upper Tajo and upper Ebro) (Map 1). These provided the new Hispano-Roman towns with locally made fine red gloss table wares (terra sigillata hispánica) and other fine wares (colour-coated thin-walled cups and mugs: Mayet 1984) that could compete with the Italian originals.23 A similar process of table ware production, in this case coupled with wine exports, was underway in southern Gaul. The economy of Africa Proconsularis was also undergoing a major transformation, its budding fine ware industries being linked to the production of wheat and olive oil. Baetica’s pre-eminence as oil exporter to Rome and the fate of its associated industries was about to be challenged.

14

1

The oil, fish and wine trade: Hispania and her competitors 1.1. Tunisia and other regional competitors, 1st to 3rd centuries During the 1st century AD the workshops of Baetica produced much of the region’s fine wares. The emergence of these table ware industries in the early 1st century AD was a response to the rising local urban markets provided by the multitude of new municipia and coloniae in Baetica. However, early Imperial Baetican production sites of Spanish red fine wares on the model of Italian terra sigillata – t. s. hispánica – in the workshops of Andújar/Isturgi on the Guadalquivir, and at Granada, were in decline during the 2nd century and were to cease production by the late Antonine period (Map 4). Baetican thin-walled wares, primarily cups and beakers, suffered a similar fate. During the 2nd century these wares came to be replaced by African Red Slip Ware (ARS), produced in what is roughly modern Tunisia. This was the dominant fine ware on coastal sites of southern and eastern Spain throughout the late 2nd to early 5th centuries, a market it had begun to capture during the Hadrianic period, though the earliest exports can be dated to the Flavian period.24 As such, ARS imports in Spain run parallel with those in Rome/Ostia. A similar shared pattern of supply can be observed in exports of Tunisian cooking wares to Spain and Rome/Ostia, these contacts with Tunisia beginning even earlier, in the late 1st century BC. Sequences excavated in Valencia provide valuable evidence for these successive phases in Tunisian exports of first, cooking wares and then, table wares, as they do also for the much later appearance of Tunisian amphorae in Valencia assemblages (see below). A similar pattern in the supply of Tunisian cooking wares and ARS has been proposed for the Ebro Valley, Tarragona and the sites on the Guadalquivir. All these sites and regions had long imported Italian Republican cooking wares, albeit on a relatively small scale, quantities increasing in the 1st century AD (notably of ‘Pompeian Red Ware’ baking dishes). The disastrous impact of the eruption of Vesuvius in AD 79 on Campanian industries provided Tunisia with further opportunities for expanding its market in cooking wares.25 The end of Baetican fine ware production has been equated with the increased exports of Tunisian fine wares to southern Spain.26 Though in part correct, it is too simplistic a view. Their demise was connected more with a general malaise affecting the agricultural economic bases of

15

Hispania and the Roman Mediterranean Baetica, particularly the contemporary drop in production and exports of Baetican fish products (salted fish and fish sauce) and olive oil. Baetican oil was produced on a vast scale along the Guadalquivir, primarily for the supply of Rome and military sites in Britain and on the Rhine frontier (Maps 5, 6; see below, Chapter 1.2; Mattingly 1988). This downward trend ran parallel with, and was directly related to the increased role of Tunisia as producer of oil for the annona of Rome, additional to its long-standing role in this respect as a major source of grain for the capital.27 Secondary industries that evolved in tandem with both the oil and grain exports, namely Tunisian fish sauce and ceramic production (fine wares and cooking wares), offered major competition to the industries of Baetica. These Tunisian exports, like their Baetican counterparts, were equally underpinned and subsidised, particularly with respect to their transport costs, by the state-run oil industry. Baetica in the 1st and 2nd centuries had achieved a monopoly on fish sauce and salted fish exports to Britain and Germany, particularly with respect to Lusitanian products. The latter are barely attested in the northern provinces, because Baetican fish products could be carried with annona cargoes at little cost, as the ships were contracted out by the state.28 These advantages were now equally a benefit and a catalyst for the secondary industries of Tunisia. This section will examine and compare trends in the role of Spanish, Tunisian and other regional amphora-borne exports over the 1st to early 3rd centuries in the supply to Rome and other markets. It is only by understanding these that we can place into context what were undoubtedly major changes in the oil, fish and wine industries of Hispania. These were the result of the imperial promotion of Tunisia as provider for the annona from the early 2nd century, and successive, divergent imperial policies with respect to Baetica under the Severi. These, in the late 2nd and early 3rd centuries, first constrained and then, in the mid 3rd century, liberated the production and sale of Baetican oil for the annona (Chapter 1.2). All this has to be seen against complex trends in the output and direction of exports from north Africa. We shall see that data from Rome and its port at Ostia are somewhat at odds with regard to the roles of Baetican, Tunisian and other regional imports, both in terms of sources and type of goods imported. Furthermore, in contrast to the shared supply of, first, Tunisian cooking wares, and, then, ARS to Spain and Ostia/Rome and Campania, Tunisian amphorae, and not solely those carrying oil, were directed almost exclusively at the Rome market during the 1st and 2nd centuries. Tunisian amphorae did not reach Spain and Gaul in any quantity until the mid 3rd century, or even later. In Spain one needs to take care in the dating of Tunisian amphorae where they occur without supporting dating evidence and even where accompanied by ARS and Tunisian cooking wares, as parallels made with dates furnished by deposits in Rome or Ostia may well be too early. This is certainly pertinent to our dating of unstratified survey finds. It will be argued here that Severan

16

1. The oil, fish and wine trade: Hispania and her competitors policies brought first decline and then adjustment and partial regeneration to the oil, fish and wine industries of Baetica and Lusitania, though they never attained their former heights. It is generally accepted that the steady growth of olive oil production in Africa Proconsularis, roughly modern Tunisia, encouraged by the Roman state from Trajan onwards for the supply of annona, competed with and eventually eclipsed exports of Baetican oil for the Rome market, at least, by the Antonine period (see Tables 1a, 2b for trends at Rome and Ostia). At Ostia though Baetican oil amphorae peaked in the Antonine period, they dropped in the late Severan period and were always outnumbered by Tunisian amphorae (classified as oil-bearing types) from the Flavian period onwards (Table 2b).29 Spanish amphorae at Ostia represent primarily fish sauce imports. The rise in Tunisian oil imports appears to start in the Hadrianic period (12.7%). Even taking the minimum figure for Tunisian oil amphorae from Severan and late 4th century contexts,30 Tunisia exported roughly at least triple the quantities of oil exported from Baetica in the late Severan period. The dominance of Tunisian oil over Baetican at Ostia from the Flavian period may come as a surprise. The well-known amphora finds from Monte Testaccio in the city of Rome are largely of Baetican origin. This was a dump primarily reserved for state-supplied Baetican oil amphorae until the latter decades of its history31 and may therefore not be a true guide to the relative roles of Spanish v. Tunisian oil imports in the capital. Well dated deposits excavated in Rome show, even so, that the role of Tunisian oil imports in Rome is less appreciable from contexts of AD 64 to 110 date, where Tunisian and Tripolitanian imports documented are largely wine and only rarely oil amphorae (Table 1a-b). The level of Spanish oil imports in these contexts is nevertheless notably greater than those registered at Ostia (generally around 12% of the total amphorae). This is surely because the intended and de facto primary market for Baetican oil was the capital, finds in Ostia being secondary sales of annona or even non annona oil surpluses (for the latter, see below, Chapter 2.1). A similar explanation was offered for the presence of unusually high percentages of Tunisian amphorae at Porto Torres, in Sardinia.32 Ostia and to a lesser extent, Porto Torres, unlike other ports, were well placed to benefit from the ongoing shipments of annona goods that passed through their ports. We should also bear in mind when reading figures for Baetican oil in Rome assemblages that Dressel 20 and their smaller successors (Dressel 20 parva), together with Tunisian and Tripolitanian oil amphorae, all three clearly identifiable in this case as annona goods, were discarded at the Testaccio.33 The oil was transferred to other containers for redistribution to annona ticket holders at designated places within the city. Annona oil distributed in this fashion will be ‘unrecognisable’ in the archaeological record. Baetican oil amphorae found in deposits elsewhere in Rome (such as those just discussed, Tables 1, 2) should represent, as they do at Ostia

17

Hispania and the Roman Mediterranean and Porto Torres, sales of oil and, to some extent, constitute a more ‘normal’ pattern of use and discard. This said, there would have been an inevitable, and incalculable bias in the supply of non-annona and annona oil surpluses to Roman households that will account for a similar bias in the record that archaeologists recover in excavations in Rome. The percentages for oil imports from Africa Proconsularis appear to be much lower in the capital than at Ostia for the late Neronian to Trajanic periods, but do rise in the Hadrianic/early Antonine period at a similar level to percentages recorded at Ostia.34 The dominance of north African, predominantly Tripolitanian, wine imports in the Rome assemblages, as opposed to oil, seems to account for the differences in the two sets of data.35 Another disparity in imports registered at Rome and her port at Ostia can be seen with respect to the relative quantities of Aegean wine, where the latter is considerably more common in Rome in the 1st century to AD 80/90 (Tables 1a-b, 2). Again this may simply reflect that the majority of Aegean wine reached Rome directly and was not offloaded for sale at Ostia. Gallic wine, when it came to dominate the supply of the capital from AD 80/90 onwards, was in this case equally sold and consumed at Ostia.36 It is likely, furthermore, that in the 1st and 2nd centuries grain was the primary commodity exported from Africa Proconsularis and Numidia. This, not carried in amphorae but stored in sacks or specially built containers in the hold, and not necessarily accompanied by other Tunisian amphora-borne goods, is a major element in the equation that will not have left a trace in the archaeological record.37 The export, therefore, of both grain and oil from Tunisia will have played a part in the development of associated pottery and fish sauce industries that took advantage of established shipping links and state subsidies for shipping carrying annona cargoes to Rome. The later regional expansion in production of Tunisian ARS was intimately linked to the contemporary regional expansion of olive cultivation for export in Africa Proconsularis.38 The growth of these industries was a reflection of several interactive dynamics: the initial demands for tax in kind (oil and wheat), the development of a special link between the region and Rome for the supply of the annona civica of the capital and the profits that could be made from exports of surpluses to the same market. These economic goals, furthermore, were both supported by and in turn helped further generate the expansion of urbanisation and territorial independence that is reflected in the spread of municipal and colonial status to the pagi and civitates of Africa Proconsularis and eastern Numidia from Hadrian to the Severi.39 ARS and oil production gained momentum and increased output first in northern Tunisia in the Trajanic and Hadrianic periods, when large-scale oil exports to Rome began, then expanded to central Tunisia from c. 200 (ARS A/C applied relief forms) and especially from c. 220/230 (ARS C dishes), and from c. 225 also included southern Tunisia.40 It was not until

18

1. The oil, fish and wine trade: Hispania and her competitors the late 2nd century that production and exports of Tunisian oil and fish sauce to Ostia increased to take over a substantial share of the market (Table 2a) and it has been assumed that this marks the period when Tunisian amphorae – Keay’s Period I forms – began to be exported more widely in the Mediterranean.41 The first exports of Tunisian amphorae to Britannia also date to the Antonine period, with finds in London, Caerleon and Exeter (and the dating of contexts in Britain for this period is fairly solid) (Carreras Monfort and Funari 1998, 64). However, the evidence for this early expansion is neither uniform nor clear cut, and thus the dating, particularly of Keay’s Period I amphorae and especially from the ‘late second century’ onwards, needs to be assessed with care. It is clear that Tunisian amphora imports became frequent in Britain only in the 3rd century (Carreras Monfort and Funari 1998), and this is the general trend in the Mediterranean also. In Spain, Tunisian Period I amphorae are attested primarily in the ports of north-eastern Tarraconensis and to a lesser extent in the southeast (Santa Pola, the port of the Roman colony of Ilici/La Alcudia de Elche; Mazarrón).42 In Cataluña contexts on villa sites that have been dated to the late 2nd and 3rd centuries indicate that this new phase of amphora exports was contemporary with that of north Tunisian fine wares and a new range of ARS cooking wares that are common on Baetican and Mediterranean sites in general (Fig. 1).43 The same Catalan sites had already, by the mid 2nd century, been amply supplied with north Tunisian ARS and cooking wares, but not Tunisian amphorae.44 At Valencia, however, Tunisian amphorae appeared demonstrably later, in the late 3rd century.45 The Valencian groups illustrate that the dating of Tunisian amphorae of Period I, like amphorae in general, cannot be done accurately without good stratigraphic contexts, and preferably sequences of quantifiable assemblages. For this reason, one cannot assume an early (late 2nd century) date for exports of Period I amphorae elsewhere: at Santa Pola, Mazarrón, on north-eastern villa sites, or on Baetican sites, for example. Indeed wrecks containing Period I amphorae have been largely dated to the early and mid 3rd century, rather than to the second century (see below). So, though exports of ARS and Tunisian cooking wares in the western Mediterranean, including Spanish sites, were already high from the Hadrianic period (see nn. 24 and 25), and exports of Tunisian oil amphorae rose in this period at Ostia (see Table 2a: from 4.3% to 12.7%), 2nd century Tunisian pottery exports were not generally accompanied by Tunisian amphorae elsewhere. This is clear in the case of Valencia and villa sites in Cataluña. Exports of Period I amphorae outside the Rome market to sites in Spain can date much later than those encountered at Ostia-Rome, the majority of forms dating as late as the late 3rd and 4th centuries. At the cemetery of Calle Prat de la Riba/Ramón y Cajal in Tarragona the likely dating of a large number of Period I amphorae Keay 4 to the 4th century

19

Hispania and the Roman Mediterranean and not earlier is provided by their use (43 examples) alongside Period II amphorae such as Keay 24 (Tripolitanian?), 25, 27 and 35 (Fig. 2).46 The same pattern is evident at smaller cemeteries excavated in Tarragona.47 A 4th century date can also be given to Period I amphorae that occur without Period II amphorae in a deposit of c. 300-350 in Calle Apodaca 7 (Tarragona).48 There are unfortunately, as far as I know, no ‘pure’ 3rd century deposits published from Tarragona that could parallel trends in Valencia. The ‘late 2nd to early 3rd century’ dating of Tunisian pottery and amphorae on villa sites in the Ampurdán needs also to be compared with 2nd to 3rd century deposits in ports such as Barcino and Rosas, as the villa finds may have been dated too early.49 Trends in local Spanish fine and cooking ware production also responded to the rising tide of Tunisian imports. Imitations of ARS cooking wares have been noted at Córdoba and at amphora workshops in Málaga (La Finca del Secretario) and Granada (Los Barreros and Los Matagallares, Salobreña).50 This is not a feature encountered in Alicante. In the Vinalopó Valley (Alicante), the north Tunisian ARS ‘black top-reduced band’ cooking ware series of the late 2nd to 4th centuries is abundant on both town and rural villa sites, but, as survey material, remains imprecisely dated in the case of the villa sites.51 A large rubbish deposit in Ibiza, located in the industrial-potters’ quarter of the town of Ebusus/Ibiza, demonstrates the dominance of ARS C, notably form 50, together with ARS cooking wares in supplies to the Balearics (González Villaescusa 1990). It is not clear if the coin of the 270s that occurred in the upper levels could allow us to date the deposit later than proposed (mid 3rd century). It is notable that there were only two amphora sherds present, both of these being Ibizan types (ibid., 46 and figs 37-8). We are also reminded here of another major dump of 3rd century pottery excavated at Ceuta (Fernández Sotelo 1994). The assemblage comprised substantial numbers of ARS C (ARS 50, 45A and 45B), Tunisian cooking wares, lamps, 48 bone hair pins, and coins, including one of Maximinus (235-236), but, it would seem, no amphorae. Though there are early to mid 3rd century examples of ARS C and A/D at La Alcudia/Ilici the supply of ARS of 3rd century date is notably low in the Vinalopó Valley (Alicante) and at Santa Pola.52 The 100 examples of ARS 45, predominantly the rouletted variant 45A, published from Belo/Baelo Claudia, just west of Cádiz, should perhaps be considered contemporary with the finds of 3rd century examples of ARS 48-50 in Ilici and Ampurias. The latter have been equated with the Germanic incursions of AD 264 (Hayes 1972). The fairly large numbers of ARS 45 and 50A at Conimbriga may also indicate a contemporary extension of the Belo supply route, but one cannot be sure given the manner in which this material was published.53 It is important to recognise that the dating of ARS 50, introduced c. 230/240, and one of the most common exports of central Tunisian ARS, is no easy matter. There is the possibility that the

20

1. The oil, fish and wine trade: Hispania and her competitors form may have been more commonly exported in the West only from the second half of the 3rd century or perhaps even later, associated with amphorae of Period I that continue into the mid 4th century.54 This is what seems to be the case at Vienne, where ARS C is absent in the AD 200-250 phase and is not registered until after AD 250.55 In Valencia, there are two deposits with ARS A and C dated broadly to the ‘third century’ without Tunisian amphorae that probably are to be dated to the mid 3rd century.56 Other deposits in Valencia dated to the period 250-270, 270-280 and 280-320 comprise finds of ARS A and C, and in two cases, ARS A/D datable to the early to mid 3rd century. Tunisian amphorae accompanied all these deposits.57 Sequences of deposits published from the Roman port of Sagunto/Saguntum (the Grau Vell)58 appear to illustrate the strength of 4th century imports of ARS A and C, as do 4th century deposits excavated at two villa sites in the Barcelona region. In the latter case the ARS is accompanied by finds of a fair number of Period I amphorae, including two stamped examples from Hadrumetum, as well as similar stamped vessels that were common finds in a 4th century warehouse at Porto Torres and occur earlier on the Cabrera III wreck of c. 257.59 One is always faced with problems in the interpretation and dating of deposits. The interpretation of vessels as being ‘residual’ earlier material rather than contemporary, late examples of a form is often difficult. What pottery specialists might consider ‘residual’, at one stage of research, may become acceptable as a ‘late product’ at a later stage if this is observed to be a widespread trend. The inconsistent and arbitrary typological development of ARS 50A over the period 230-360 offers particular dating problems in this respect.60 The same trends, namely the late appearance of Period 1 amphorae and its association with ARS imports, can be found in areas throughout the Mediterranean. At Lyon, again in contrast to Ostia, the combined figures for Tunisian imports for c. 190-250 are relatively low (Table 6a).61 North African amphorae (including the Mauretanian wine amphora Keay 1) only appear regularly c. 250-300 at Lyon and were not common until the 4th century (Table 18).62 The supply of Tunisian amphorae at Vienne is more extreme. Several quantified deposits through the late 2nd to 4th centuries show that in the late 2nd century Tunisian amphorae did not accompany some 239 sherds of ARS and Tunisian cooking wares (Table 6b).63 The latter appear, but are very rare, in the first half of the 3rd century and in a context dating to after AD 250,64 and are not common until the 4th century.65 At the Roman villa of La Ramière (Gard), on the Rhône, ‘north African’ amphora sherds are present from AD 25/75 onwards (Table 7). These are insignificant in AD 125/200 and 200/275 and only reach notable, increasing relative quantities in 275-350, 350-400 and 400-450. The situation in the East is somewhat more complex; certain sites seem to echo the same pattern of late-appearing Tunisian imports. ARS imports were not a regular feature until the early 3rd century and may have

21

Hispania and the Roman Mediterranean increased only in the second quarter of the century associated with the first exports of ARS C, c. 230-240.66 At the port of Dyrrhachium/Durres,67 on the southern Dalmatian coast, Tunisian amphorae, ARS and cooking wares were present in the mid and late 2nd century (cf. the villas of the Ampurdán?) but were clearly more common after c. 200, from the Severan period onwards (Table 3a-b: amphorae, mid 2nd century: 3.6%; [early-] mid 3rd century: 35.5%; ARS 38% of total FW RBHS for the [early-] mid 3rd century). In Butrint (Forum and Triconch Palace excavations) 2nd century contexts are few, but would indicate the absence (or rarity) of Tunisian amphorae in contrast to a small number of ARS and Tunisian cooking wares. There are a number of small early-mid 3rd century contexts where the same pattern occurs. However, in a large assemblage of mid 3rd century date excavated in the Forum (Context 26: 92.6 kg) Tunisian amphorae are represented, but comprise a mere 2.6% of the amphora imports, well outnumbered by Tunisian fine and cooking wares (ARS = 38.2% of the total FW; ARS cooking wares = 15.9% of all cooking wares, 28.9% of imported cooking wares) (Reynolds, Hernández and Çondi 2008, table 2). In Beirut the pattern is more extreme. Tunisian amphorae and ARS A fine wares appear in the early 3rd century after a long period of absence (Table 4: only cooking forms were occasionally imported in the late 1st to early 2nd centuries, perhaps arriving with Campanian or Baetican shipments; Tunisian amphorae were last seen in the late 2nd century BC). Quantities of ARS then increase in the mid 3rd century and are due to the first appearance of ARS C. This rise in fine wares is not matched by that of Tunisian amphorae, which may drop in quantity or at least remain at the same level (AD 200-230: 2.58 % of total imports; AD 225-250: 1.33%; mid 3rd century: 1.45%). Whereas Tunisian amphorae are more common than ARS in the early 3rd century, the reverse is the case with the advent of ARS C (Table 4: AD 200-230, 5 FW: 17 AMPH; AD 230-250, 50 FW: 6 AMPH68). The Tunisian supply of Benghazi is similar, but there is a far greater importation of ARS (including the north Tunisian ARS A/D forms, e.g. ARS 31-33, not marketed to Beirut, but typical products in Butrint).69 However, Tunisian amphorae in this period are even rarer, there being, as in Beirut, a possible drop in these imports in the mid 3rd century.70 There were notably no Tunisian amphora imports in deposits of the later 2nd century AD at Benghazi, perhaps due to the availability of Tripolitanian oil.71 The early to mid 3rd century Tunisian supply of Corinth is probably roughly parallel to that of Beirut. A major increase in Tunisian fine wares and ‘lesser’ amphorae then occurs in levels that have been dated to c. 310.72 Though there were exports of ARS up to the 260s in the East, it could well be that from c. 270-300/320 there was a break in the supply of ARS and Tunisian amphorae to the East, a period when construction in the cities of the region was minimal (e.g. Beirut, Corinth, Benghazi, Athens, Knossos, Ephesus).73 That a reduced range of amphorae from the Aegean

22

1. The oil, fish and wine trade: Hispania and her competitors and Asia Minor coast, nevertheless, continued to be imported to the West, notably to Rome, from c. 250-320 is an interesting phenomenon that will be discussed at a later stage (see below, Chapter 3.2). Overall then, Hispania’s relationship with north Africa vis-à-vis the importation of Tunisian amphora-borne commodities and fine wares was much the same as that of its Mediterranean neighbours: north African oil only reached the provinces in the early 3rd century, while its real effect would only be felt in the later 3rd or 4th centuries. Though it may not be widely recognised, the appearance of amphora-borne commodities, such as wine and oil, did not necessarily carry with it fine ware imports, and the appearance of one is not always matched by the appearance of the other in the archaeological record. This is certainly the case for the 1st and 2nd centuries in Hispania and illustrates that the marketing of Tunisian cooking and table wares followed an independent trajectory to that of Tunisian oil, wine and fish sauce in this period. This pattern of supply was to change to some extent in the 3rd century, not only with respect to Spain, but also throughout the Mediterranean. However the early and mid 3rd century deposits of Beirut demonstrate clearly that levels of imports of Tunisian table wares and amphorae did not follow the same trajectories. Complex mechanisms dictating the independent supply of Aegean cooking wares, table wares and amphorae are also likely in the late Roman period (see Chapters 3.4 and 4). The pattern observed for Tunisian exports to Hispania in the 1st and 2nd centuries, namely the appearance of abundant cooking wares and table wares but not amphorae, could be due simply to the marketing of these ceramics in their own right, these being primary cargoes. Though assuredly a well marketable commodity, another explanation may be given for these Tunisian exports – that they represent secondary cargoes with primary cargoes of Tunisian grain (or perhaps some other commodity). This model was proposed to explain the unusual supply of Constantinople in the 6th and 7th centuries, where abundant ARS and rare Tunisian amphorae are the norm. Here they may represent otherwise archaeologically unattested shipments of Tunisian grain for the annona civica of the eastern capital.74 Equally one is reminded of the pattern of predominantly ARS and not Tunisian amphorae that were supplied to Atlantic sites in the 3rd to 5th centuries (e.g. Conimbriga and Braga: see below, Chapter 3.4 and Table 19). Presumably connected with the Tunisia-Baetica supply in the early Empire is the presence of Baetican fish sauce amphorae and colour-coated thin walled wares in Carthage in the early Imperial period. These are never particularly common, however, and drop in quantity in the 2nd century.75 They did not represent primary cargoes, one would have thought, but more likely minor ad hoc supply returning with Tunisian ships (carrying what Spanish produce, in that case, one asks?). It would seem that the increase in Tunisian pottery exports to Baetica (and to sites

23

Hispania and the Roman Mediterranean on the north-east coast of Spain) did not lead to an increase in Baetican exports to Tunisian ports, rather the reverse. Imports of amphorae, cooking wares (Pompeian Red Ware) and fine wares from Italian sources or those on the route to and from Italy (Pantellerian Ware) in the early to mid 1st century are common at Carthage and mark the frequency of contacts with Naples and Puteoli, for example. One would have expected the same pattern from increased Tunisian contact with Baetica and Tarraconensis, perhaps leading to an increase in Tarraconensian wine in the 2nd century, but this is not the case. Nor are Gallic wine amphorae present in the late 1st and 2nd centuries as a possible indication of a circuitous route to Carthage for Baetican products through Gallic ports. A lack of Baetican oil amphorae is expected, given that Tunisian selfsufficiency, indeed massive surpluses in local oil would make purchases of non-annona Baetican oil surpluses unnecessary (these were sold to markets along the eastern and western coasts of Hispania: see below). It may be, however, that Spanish fish products had no major market in Tunisia either, as the region was itself always a massive producer and exporter of this commodity from the late Republic onwards (see below, Chapter 1.3). If Hispania did not import Tunisian oil during the 1st, 2nd and much of the 3rd century, one would have assumed that the population derived their oil supplies from local or Baetican sources. That this is indeed the case, though possibly on a limited scale, will be argued below. 1.2. Local production: the oil industry in Hispania from the Severi to the mid 5th century The advent of the Severan dynasty can be seen as a watershed in the evolution of the regional economies of the Iberian Peninsula, most notably in the south. It was a period that brought both a restructuring of the oil industry for the annona and, in the course of the 3rd century, the transformation of fish sauce production and, to some extent, the wine industry. Though the grain supply for the annona had long been harnessed from Baetica, Tripolitania and Africa Proconsularis and distributed free in Rome, this was not the case with olive oil. Oil derived from imperial estates, from the land tax, or bought on the open market was redistributed to the army as rations and could also be sold or, presumably, on occasions given free to the populace. But it was Septimius Severus who took the step to introduce the first regular free oil distributions in Rome (see n. 33). This surely was a major motive behind the expropriation of estates in Baetica and Tripolitania and the bringing under imperial control of production and redistribution that ensued following the civil war with Albinus. Severus and Caracalla took the oil supply of Baetica out of the hands of private merchants and instituted more direct state control through their own employees. Just as in Tripolitania, the dynasty’s home base, and in southern Gaul, many Baetican estates became the property of the Severi,

24

1. The oil, fish and wine trade: Hispania and her competitors administered by officials of the patrimonium.76 Dipinti mentioning acti, imperial slaves, and the well known stamps bearing the imperial titles DNAUGGGNNN, later AUGGNN now appeared on Baetican amphorae on the Monte Testaccio amphora mound by the imperial warehouses on the Tiber. Families long-established in the oil trade as both owners of the estates of the Guadalquivir and in Tripolitania or as negotiatores of both state and private cargoes were wiped out.77 The contemporary 3rd century decline in the fish-based industries of Baetica and Tingitana may also have been due, directly or indirectly, to the effects of Severan policy in the region (see Chapter 1.3; Blázquez Martínez and Remesal Rodríguez [eds] 1999, 2001 and 2003). One wonders to what extent Africa Proconsularis suffered the same imperial interference. Although to a lesser degree than during the late Antonine period, the focus of exports of Baetican oil under the Severan dynasty remained Rome. Over the same period, as we have seen, there was a corresponding rise in Tunisian imports to Rome. The drop in the relative quantities of Baetican oil exported to military sites on the Rhine frontier, as gauged by deposits at Augst (Switzerland), that was already apace in the Antonine period, continued unabated under Severus and into the mid 3rd century. The local production of imitations of Baetican oil amphorae in northern Gaul, Germania Superior (e.g. Mainz) and occasionally even Britain may reflect the need to supplement decreasing imports with local alternatives.78 Given that the olive cannot be grown in these northern regions, it is possible that nut oil may have been produced, as was indeed commonplace in northern France earlier this century, for both cooking and lighting. In Britannia there also was a notable drop in imports during the 3rd century with respect to levels in the 2nd century, the latter peaking in the Antonine period.79 In the legionary base at York, for example, Dressel 20 accounts for 52% by sherd count of the total amphora assemblage studied by Williams (1997, 967-9: total sherds 3726), illustrating the importance of Baetican oil. However some idea of the relative frequency of 2nd to 3rd century finds is indicated by the rarity of 3rd century diagnostics, one, a stamped handle dating to c. 250-280, well after the Severan period.80 There is a marked drop in the quantities of, one has to say, all amphorae on one of these York sites after the early 3rd century (Table 5: Wellington Row Trench 7). Dressel 23 amphorae (late 3rd to 5th centuries) are very rare in Britain, so far attested on only a few, major, sites (Winchester and Colchester in the south, and York in the north) and in small quantities (for York, see Table 5, Period 5).81 A drop in the supply of Spanish oil to Britain along the Atlantic route may also be reflected in the fall in Baetican exports (oil, wine and fish sauce) observed at Braga/Bracara Augusta, in Portugal (see Tables 11, 19).82 Though the army on the northern frontiers was clearly still a target for Baetican oil, exports were in decline. A similar pattern in reduced quantities of Baetican oil is evident in Noricum and Pannonia on the Danube frontier.83

25

Hispania and the Roman Mediterranean A 3rd century hiatus in Spanish products in general is also visible at Vienne, in the Rhône Valley, and should be seen in the context of the supply to northern Gaul and the Rhine frontier. Contexts in Vienne (Table 6b) show that whereas in the late 2nd century Hispanic amphorae (all classes) comprised 10.35% of the amphora sherds and were the only imports, they were absent in the period AD 200-250, when the first Tunisian and Italian sherds appeared in small quantities. Hispanic amphorae did not reappear until ‘after 250’ (9%), when they far outnumber African imports, and especially in the 4th century, when ‘African’ and eastern Mediterranean amphorae were roughly equal. At the villa of La Ramière (Gard) (Table 7), Hispanic imports (all classes) dropped throughout the 2nd century, were rare in 200-275, almost nil in 275/350, picked up slightly in 350-400, and were not common until 400-450. The major presence of Dressel 20 amphorae at Lyon in the early 3rd century is significant, then, given the evidence presented from Vienne (49%: Table 6a).84 The veteran colony and major river port of Lyon, a provincial capital and principal mint for Gaul in this period, had a primary role in the redistribution of both imported Spanish oil and fish sauce and south Gaulish terra sigillata to the troops in the north, including Britain. The discrepancies in the figures for Lyon and Vienne could be due to the dating that that has been ascribed to the Vienne assemblage. Perhaps this dates to the second, and not the first quarter of the 3rd century. In the case of Britannia, Carreras Monfort not only notes the drop in Spanish oil to the province, but also argues that all amphorae imported into Britain from the mid 3rd century onwards, including those from north Africa and Baetica, have distributions that indicate that they were supplied and marketed without the aid of state mechanisms. In other words, that they were sold on the open market and were not specifically supplied to the army or civil service. The distribution of Tunisian amphorae, like that of Gallic wine amphorae, he notes, had never been state-organised or subsidised (by being carried with annona cargoes) in Britain, as clearly were both Tunisian and Gallic amphorae in the case of Rome. The general assumption (Williams and Carreras Monfort1995; Carreras Monfort and Funari 1998; Carreras Monfort 2000) that the predominant content of Tunisian amphorae was oil needs to be questioned, particularly in the case of imports of Keay 4-7 and 25. In the latter cases they would normally have carried fish sauce. Only Keay 3 was exclusively for oil (see nn. 30, 33 and 41) (Bonifay 2004, 471-5). Where we have only sherds, of course, as is often the case with British assemblages, it is impossible to determine the form, hence likely content. Where the forms can be identified in Britain, whereas there are a few examples of Keay 3/Africana I amphorae dating to the middle and late 2nd century, the majority of finds date to the 3rd and 4th centuries, and comprise fish sauce amphorae (Africana IIA-D/Keay 4-7 and Keay 25) (Williams and Carreras Monfort 1995, 250-2). The trends in Britain, Germany and Gaul (Lyon-Vienne), however, also

26

1. The oil, fish and wine trade: Hispania and her competitors need to be seen in the context of the fall in the number of troops, including certainly those of Mediterranean origin, that is characteristic of the armies stationed in the northern provinces. Both trends – the drop in oil imports and the declining number of foreign troops – are equally pertinent to the 4th century.85 That it was the troops and not civilian markets that were targeted by Spanish oil is particularly clear in Britain, according to Carreras Monfort, and is also indicated by the supply of Dressel 20 imitations to military sites on the Rhine frontier. The recruitment of locals into the army in Britain and throughout the Roman provinces where they served on the frontiers, from the 3rd century onwards, would have made the supply of olive oil only necessary where it comprised part of the ‘normal’ diet-cuisine of the soldiers, in Syria for example (see below). The importation of olive oil was always anomalous to Britain, Spanish oil being merely to cater for a minor sector of the population in the 1st and 2nd centuries, who were no longer present as a consumer market in the 3rd century. That there was a drop in Vienne in Baetican imports in the mid 3rd century may also be connected with the parallel phenomenon in the phasing down c. 200 of the central Gaulish terra sigillata industry, based at Lezouz and marketed through Lyon. These workshops were superceded by new centres of east Gaulish sigillata which now took over as suppliers of table wares to the Rhine and, to a lesser extent, the British military and civilian markets.86 Further isolation in Britain from even these sources of fine wares may have provided a catalyst for the production of Oxford colour-coated wares by the late 3rd century.87 The trend in the northern provinces, perhaps from the mid 3rd century would seem to be one of increased marginalisation from Mediterranean sources to reliance on more local/close-regional alternatives (oil and table wares). This, and an ever shrinking military market, is perhaps at the root of the drop in imports of Spanish oil and related goods (fish: see Chapter 1.3) to Lyon/Vienne and beyond, at least for part of the 3rd century. The Levantine Near Eastern provinces (southern Anatolia, modern Syria and Lebanon, Palaestina) had their own resources of olive oil (for Cyprus: see n. 500). Egypt produced olive oil south of Lake Mareotis and in its western oases (Bagnall, 2006, 8, 196-9), but perhaps not enough, and this may explain the imports of Tripolitanian oil amphorae, with rarer Tunisian oil amphorae, in the 1st to 3rd centuries throughout the province (what was the role of other types of oil?: n. 272; Bonifay 2007; Marchand and Marangou (eds) [2007], passim). Though Alexandria was clearly a significant market for Spanish oil during the 2nd and 3rd centuries, and a trade connection between Cádiz and Egypt is duly noted in the sources,88 Baetican oil was rarely exported to Benghazi,89 not surprising given the availability of Tripolitanian olive oil, or to sites in the Aegean, Asia Minor and the Levant,90 Cyprus and Lebanon also being producers of this commodity. Baetican oil amphorae are rare indeed in Beirut, certainly in comparison to fish sauce amphorae, and comprise only a

27

Hispania and the Roman Mediterranean few examples of Dressel 20 so far.91 Baetican oil may have been a little more common at Caesarea and occurs also at other sites in Palestine (Dressel 20 and 23). Beth Sh’an/Scythiopolis is one site, for example, that must have received its supply through Caesarea.92 The city and military fort of Zeugma, on the Euphrates is another site where Dressel 20 amphorae are a regular, if always relatively scarce element in deposits of the Sassanian sack of AD 253, alongside ARS C.93 Other western imports in these contexts comprise Campanian Dressel 2-4 wine amphorae and a few unusually late examples of Pompeian Red Slip cooking wares.94 It would seem quite possible that these atypical and occasional imports of Dressel 20 and Campanian wine amphorae were connected with the annona system that supplied the military sites of inland, northern Syria.95 There may, then, be a case for arguing that Baetican oil carried in Dressel 20 and, later, Dressel 23, were supplied in small quantities to certain primarily military or administrative sites in Palestine and in Syria. If so, one would expect to find them also at the so far unexplored legionary camp of Raphanea, south of Apamea. The Asia Minor amphora Dressel 24 should also be mentioned, because there is some evidence that this carried oil and not wine, as is generally thought. Perhaps it carried both products. This was an important export to Beirut in the early 3rd century, but is absent by mid 3rd century (Table 4b). Dressel 24 reached Athens and Brindisi in similar quantities, and up the Adriatic to Trieste, where it is exceptionally common in a late 2nd to early 3rd century assemblage (Auriemma and Quiri 2004). Its micaceous, but well-fired fabric suggests an origin close to Ephesus and Samos, but elsewhere (Clazomenae?; Dyczek [2008] has recently suggested that Erythrai/Ildiri, located nearby, opposite Chios, was a producer of the type, given that a coin of this Erythrai was impressed pre-cocturam into one example). It is rare in Rome in the late Antonine period (Rizzo 2003, 180, table 30b: 1 example) and is attested at Ostia in the same period (Panella 1986, AD 160-180, fig. 3a: 7 examples, 0.83%). Later examples have been found at the Testaccio in Rome (between the years AD 246 and 254), but they are clear fairly rare. Their presence here would indicate that they clearly carried oil, not wine (n. 33; Marimon Ribas and Puig Palerm 2007, 351-2). Two wall fragments bearing dipinti mentioning oleum, in Latin, though one would have expected Greek, have also been identified as belonging to this form (Remesal Rodríguez and García Sánchez 2007, 178-9, dipinti 530 and 533). Dressel 24 is so far not attested in Spain, as far as I know. Given that it is known to have carried oil, might not the large numbers found at Trieste reflect a shift in the supply of olive oil for the annona in the northern Adriatic from Baetica to Asia Minor in the 3rd century? Should we also reinterpret the major supply of this type to forts on the Danube as evidence for the role of Asia Minor in the supply of oil for the annona militaris in the East?96 The destination and purpose of Spanish oil within Hispania in the 1st

28

1. The oil, fish and wine trade: Hispania and her competitors to 3rd centuries is a complex one. Finds of considerable numbers of Dressel 20 amphorae of 1st to early 3rd century date at Santa Pola, the port of Ilici in Alicante, may be contrasted with their rarity in Ilici/La Alcudia itself and in the Vinalopó Valley where they are notably present, but very scarce.97 They did not get much further than the port. Baetican oil was also supplied in small quantities to Dénia and Sagunto.98 That they are found at all underlines the dangers of assuming that Baetican oil was intended only for the annona. The rarity of Dressel 20 elsewhere in south-eastern Spain, most notably at Carthago Nova, may indicate that the port of Ilici served as a regular port-of-call for shipping engaged in the service of the annona, some surplus goods not ear-marked for the annona being offloaded for sale there.99 Furthermore, there is now abundant evidence for the supply of another non-annona market – urban and rural Cataluña – with Baetican oil from the 1st century to AD 250. This pattern is equally reflected in the 1st and 2nd centuries by the distribution of Baetican thin-walled pottery.100 The similar, linked distribution of Baetican colourcoated thin-walled wares and Dressel 20s is very clear in Gaul, Germany and Britain.101 The quantities of oil amphorae recovered so far in Cataluña, nevertheless, are not on a scale comparable with the supply noted on military sites in Gaul, Germany and Britain or sites in north-western and north-eastern Italy, such as Pisa, Aquileia and Verona,102 and could be used to demonstrate the differences in the scale of Baetican oil exports to military sites (annona) and urban (non-annona) sites. Finds in Portugal, particularly in the south, indicate that 1st to early 3rd century Dressel 20 amphorae were also marketed in the region, with Baetican fish sauce and wine amphorae.103 Given the supply to Cataluña, striking evidence for the highly regional targeting of even non-annona Baetican oil is clear from the rarity of Dressel 20 and other 3rd century Baetican oil amphorae at Valencia. Baetican oil does not appear until the late 4th century.104 Baetican oil amphorae are also apparently missing in contexts of the second half of the 3rd century in Tarragona and do not appear until the early 5th century, even though Baetican fish sauce amphorae are fairly common in 4th century contexts (Table 10). Nor do they appear at Valencia in 1st and 2nd century contexts where Spanish fish sauce amphorae are common, a pattern that is paralleled in Carthago Nova.105 The latter trend illustrates the existence of two separate production and distribution mechanisms in the early Empire: that of the state-driven production and export of oil produced on the estates of the Guadalquivir (with only small quantities sold to non-annona markets through private enterprise), on the one hand, and, on the other, that of the supply of fish products from Baetican ports through private enterprise. Unlike Valencia and Carthago Nova, Santa Pola and sites on the north-east coast received Baetican products from both sources in the early Empire.106 The irregular non-annona supply systems, and later, the 3rd century

29

Hispania and the Roman Mediterranean drop in Baetican oil imports may have inspired local oil production in north-eastern Tarraconensis beginning as early as the 1st century, and gaining momentum after the 3rd century, a pattern paralleled in the northern provinces of Germany and Gaul, as already noted. North-eastern Spain would thus have supplemented the dwindling supply of Baetican and the still-nascent Tunisian imports that, as we have seen, are not common perhaps until the late 3rd or early 4th centuries.107 Some local imitations of Dressel 20 found at Tarragona and Barcelona have been dated on typological grounds to the 1st and early 2nd centuries.108 A 1st century date is also likely for imitations at Oliva,109 and at L’Almadrava (Dénia),110 again likely evidence for the need to produce local oil for the local market. Murcia was another region where both oil, and possibly wine, presses are widespread and indicate the need to supplement a scarcity in oil (and wine). Presses are also known in the lower Vinalopó Valley (Alicante), that of the villa of Parque de las Naciones (La Albufereta) dating to the 2nd century.111 Later local production in Cataluña is indicated by the establishment of an oil press in the 3rd century at the coastal villa of Els Ametllers (Tossa de Mar). A shift from wine to oil production is evident at the villa of Sentromà (Teià) in the late 3rd or early 4th century, where Baetican oil was also imported.112 A similar combination of homepressed and imported oil is a feature of the villa site of Poble Sec (Sant Quirze de Vallès) in the 4th and 5th centuries. Some Baetican oil may have been supplied to north-eastern Spain through redistribution from southern Gaul. Narbonne and its hinterland acted as both consumer and redistribution centre of Baetican oil, towards Rome and possibly also Catalunya (Garrote Sayó 1996). Narbonnese navicularii had a place in the Portico of the Corporations or traders at Ostia, and were clearly involved in shipments of Spanish oil to Rome, as their names appear on Dressel 20 amphorae on the Testaccio. The shippers of Arles were similarly involved in the supply of the annona to Rome (according to the decretum navicularium of the Praefectus annonae Claudianus Iulianus of AD 201, addressed to the navicularii marini Arelatenses quinque corporum). The role of Gallic merchants in the redistribution of Tarraconensian wine, Baetican fish sauce and oil is also indicated in the early Empire by the cargo of the Pointe Debié A ship, which also carried a few Gauloise 4 wine amphorae.113 Berni Millet argues that Severus’ proscription of Gallic supporters of his opponent Albinus may have undermined the supply to Rome and other markets, such as north-eastern Spain, that had been established by these Gallic entrepreneurs.114 As the drop in Baetican exports to Rome demonstrates, the new staterun system apparently did not work effectively. Elagabulus (reigned 218-222), who inherited what was left of the patrimonium of Caracalla, may have allowed the supply of oil for the annona to run dangerously low. Severus Alexander (reigned 222-235), is said to have restored the supply of oil to its full capacity and did this by giving more freedom and incentives

30

1. The oil, fish and wine trade: Hispania and her competitors to negotiatores (e.g. the Iulii family) to re-engage in the supply of Baetican oil to Rome, in or shortly before 230.115 Dipinti on later Spanish oil amphorae found at the Testaccio indicate that the officials of the ratio patrimonii, still active under Philip (249-251), were no longer involved in Spanish oil exports in the following reigns of Valerian and Gallienus (AD 253-268).116 The latest stamp of the reign of Gallienus dates to between 261 and 266. That this break in direct imperial control coincides largely with the creation of the Gallic Empire (259-274), to which Hispania belonged and had presumably contractual obligations, may be no coincidence (Peña 1998, 170; also argued by Berni Millet 1998). However Hispania’s allegiance was transferred to Postumus, for only a short period, between 260 and 264 (even though the Gallic Empire continued till 274). And we should bear in mind that the end of activity of the Monte Testaccio in Rome was probably unconnected, being the direct result of the construction of the Aurelian Wall (see n. 31). This renaissance of privately-run trade is illustrated by a series of shipwrecks carrying not the homogeneous single-origin cargoes of the annona, but combined cargoes of Spanish, Portuguese and Tunisian products.117 The Cabrera III shipwreck, sunk off Mallorca sometime after 257, carried oil from the Guadalquivir Valley (solely from the estates of Arva and El Tejarillo) in large Dressel 20 amphorae and a small, new variant with piriform body produced at El Tejarillo (Tejarillo I), together with rarer numbers of a small module of Dressel 20 (Dressel 20 parva). Amphorae bearing Baetican and central Tunisian salted fish products accompanied the Spanish oil. The few examples of Beltrán 68 amphorae may have contained (south Spanish) fish sauce (or wine: see nn. 193 and 212).118 Another ship sunk nearby (Cabrera 1A) may have gone down with the Cabrera III, carrying a main cargo of similar Tunisian amphorae (mackerel still preserved in some), and lesser numbers of Almagro 50/Keay 16 and Keay 23, both carrying fish products.119 It is possible that mixed cargoes of Tunisian and Baetican amphorae became a feature after AD 225-250120 and are a reflection of the greater freedom of the negotiatores in shifting both state and private surpluses, even when engaged on state business.121 The numerous complaints in the Theodosian Code accused traders of digressing from their primary purpose, the delivery of annona supplies directly to their destination, in order to pick up and sell their private cargoes. The increased mixed cargoes of annona and non-annona goods and, perhaps, the greater laxity in the control of the sale of oil that previously, under Severus and Caracalla, had been primarily for the state annona help to explain many of the similarly ‘mixed’ assemblages found on sites that technically did not have access to them as annona beneficiaries. This trend seems to represent a return to the more free marketing of Baetican oil current in the early Empire (e.g. to Cataluña/Alicante, not just to Rome and the army). It would seem, therefore, that in the early Severan period controls over the sale and shipment of Baetican oil increased, while

31

Hispania and the Roman Mediterranean later, under Severus Alexander, the situation reverted to more free commercial practice. The middle to later 3rd century appearance of Period I Tunisian amphora exports to sites other than Rome can thus be seen to run parallel with this ‘free-er’ marketing from Severus Alexander onwards (both provincial goods sometimes being shipped together, as in the case of the Cabrera wrecks). If, furthermore, the ubiquitous 4th to early 5th century Tunisian amphora Keay 25 (e.g. Fig. 2c), such as examples carried on the Dramont E and F wrecks, was primarily a fish sauce amphora, then the quantities of ‘private’ stocks of fish sauce being carried on such ships represent private, not state trade.122 The mid 3rd century trend in the production of smaller modules of Baetican oil observable at the Testaccio and in the Cabrera III wreck (Dressel 20 parva; Tejarillo I: absent on the Testaccio) continued in the late 3rd century with the production of an even smaller version of the Dressel 20 than was the Dressel 20 parva, the Dressel 23a/Keay 13A. In contrast to the Dressel 20, with a capacity of c. 216 lb, the Dressel 23 carried c. 80 lb. The Dressel 20 parva, but not the Dressel 23, has been found on the Testaccio in Rome in levels dateable to Valerian and Gallienus (AD 253260), some bearing stamps linking them to the Tejarillo I. Berni Millet (1998) argues that the small stamped handles found on the Testaccio in late contexts belong not to Dressel 23, but to the Dressel 20 parva. The absence of Tejarillo I on the Testaccio, despite its contemporary production (by AD 257) and shipment to Rome, the likely destination of the Cabrera III, is curious and may be explained by the possibility that the small Tejarillo I was sold intact, with its oil contents, and not dispatched empty to the Testaccio (see n. 33). The same could be said for the Dressel 23, or, as Berni Millet suggests, the form emerged later than the final years of the Testaccio (terminated by the construction of the Aurelian Wall). Whatever the case, from Aurelian onwards, the small size of the Dressel 23 would have favoured its redistribution as carrier of annona oil in a system operative within the city walls, the amphora being transferred intact to the mensae oleariae. Baetican oil not earmarked for the annona would now have also been more easy to market than it had been previously, when carried in the cumbersome Dressel 20 (in contra, however, this factor seems not to have affected its sale on the open market in Cataluña). The Dressel 23 was to continue, evolving through time, until the 5th century (Berni Millet 1998, 47-62: Dressel 23a-d, according to his typology) (Figs 3, 5a). A further trend, the number of sites along the Guadalquivir involved in the production of oil amphorae was also drastically reduced with respect to the hundreds attested for the early Empire (Map 5). The direction of annona exports of Baetican oil in the late 3rd and early 4th centuries is difficult to understand from the documentary and archaeological evidence. Aurelian (AD 270-275) may have re-established the supply of Baetican oil to the capital following its possible diversion when Hispania technically fell under the command of the Gallic Empire (AD

32

1. The oil, fish and wine trade: Hispania and her competitors 259-274) (SHA, Aur., 48.1). By the mid 4th century, however, Hispania was (again) tied to the annona supply directed by the Praetorian Prefect of the Gauls, and not his counterpart in Italy. This suggests that Spain was still involved in the supply of the annona to the troops of the northern frontier provinces. Is there any archaeological evidence from the Baetican versus African distribution of oil for the Gallic versus Italian supply systems administered by the two prefectures in the 4th century? The later 3rd and 4th centuries may have brought about some degree of increase in the supply of Spanish and Tunisian imports to the northern provinces that is picked up in the figures for Vienne (Table 6b). But in Britain imports carried in Tunisian (fish or wine, but not oil) amphorae, were marketed in towns in southern Britain and were not directed primarily at military sites per se, though some cities such as Exeter had both military and civilian populations. At York it is possible that the Tunisian and Baetican imports in late 4th or early 5th century levels at Wellington Green are contemporary, rather than residual finds, perhaps related to the general increase in Baetican exports and Mediterranean trade in general that is characteristic of this period (see below: Arles, Tarragona, Beirut, etc.; Chapters 1.3 and 3.1) (Table 5, Period 5). But amphorae in the north of Britain were clearly very rare in late Roman contexts. That some major sites on the continent, such as Köln, were still able to command the supply of Baetican oil amphorae in the mid 4th century is indicated by their use for the vaulting of the Basilica of St Jerome. Trier, established as the late Roman Imperial capital of Gallia and major mint under the Tetrarchy, appears also to have been a major market for Baetican oil.123 As the sources indicate, Trier was able to access Mediterranean imports through the port of Arles and the Rhône Valley. Indeed Baetican oil and fish amphorae are well represented in mid to late 4th century contexts in Arles.124 Though African amphorae are the dominant imports in Arles at this time, oil amphorae are scarce, African imports comprising, as in Britain, almost entirely, fish and wine amphorae (Keay 25, Keay 1, MRA 1). The noted rise in both Tunisian and Spanish amphorae in 4th century Vienne is explained by similar finds at the port of Arles in the same period. But these inland sites, certainly Trier, would have been special urban markets. The trends on Germany and British military sites would indicate that the early 3rd century decline in Baetican oil imports to these sites did not reverse. In the case of Rome the late 3rd to early 4th century Palatine East deposit suggests that Rome was importing primarily Baetican-Lusitanian fish sauce, not Baetican oil in the early Dominate (there were no oil amphorae in that deposit) (Table 2c). Though figures for Ostia and Rome (Magna Mater) were high at the end of the 4th century (7.6%; 9%), these were clearly predominantly fish imports (oil: 1.9% at Ostia; 0% in MM 350-390, apparently). They follow the general phenomenon in rising late 4th century Hispanic fish exports and Mediterranean trade we have just noted. A slight increase in these at Rome in the early 5th century is

33

Hispania and the Roman Mediterranean matched by the presence of Baetican oil, though still only a small percentage (1%). That figures for Baetican-Lusitanian imports as a class appear to drop in the period 430-440, with oil still at 1%, is due to the rise in relative figures for eastern and Italian imports (of wine). It suggests that the absence of oil amphorae in the Palatine East deposits of c. 300+ marked a major drop in Spanish oil that continued through the 4th and early 5th centuries, to be contrasted with the massive importation of Tunisian oil (even if the high figures for these include Tunisian fish sauce amphorae). Indeed, this was a period marked by a major increase in Tunisian imports to Rome, a trend that continued through the 4th century, quantities in the early 5th century being the highest (Table 2c: from 25% to 58.2% over this period). Still, how does one reconcile the lower 4th century figures for Baetican oil, even absence, with the known presence of Baetican annona shipping at Ostia in 324 and 336 (CTh. 13.5.4 and 13.5.8)? These shipments indicate that Baetica supplied oil to Rome, if only on an ad hoc basis. Furthermore, an estimated 6,000 Baetican Dressel 23 amphorae were used to build the vaults of the Circus of Maxentius in Rome in 309, and these factors suggest that the various excavations on the Palatine Hill may not be representative of oil imports to the capital. The Testaccio, as well as the massive warehouses by the Tiber that were key to the state-organised supply of grain and oil to the city were abruptly put out of use with the construction of the Aurelian Wall. If Baetican oil continued to be redistributed by the state, the amphorae would have arrived elsewhere. If they were decanted, the empty amphorae would have been discarded at a site other than the Monte Testaccio, or at smaller dumps, or, as in the case of the Circus of Maxentius, notably an imperial project, could have been recycled as building material. The similar use of Dressel 23 at Köln in the mid 4th century has already been mentioned, evidence also for an amphora supply that is otherwise not attested. We are reminded here that in the 4th century wine for the canon vinarius that arrived from the Suburbicarian provinces in amphorae was decanted into barrels and would have left no archaeological trace.125 The annona oil, of course, was equally decanted (hence the empty amphorae on the Testaccio) into something, smaller amphorae or skins, presumably, that allowed its easier transfer to distribution points around the city. The smaller Dressel 23, with a capacity of c. 80 lb, also carried more than a single oil ration (see n. 33). The mensae oleariae that measured the oil, similar to those that were used to redistribute specific quantities of oil, suggest that ticket holders came with their own containers.126 Again, to what extent, in the case of Rome, do smaller, medium-sized wine amphorae (Local, Italian or from other sources) represent, first, the importation of wine and, secondly, their re-use as oil containers. Alternatively, the oil was redistributed or sold on in its amphora, as this was now the small Dressel 23. In this case, Baetican and Tunisian oil

34

1. The oil, fish and wine trade: Hispania and her competitors amphorae found in Rome assemblages of Aurelianic or later date could derive from the direct redistribution of annona imports, sales of annona surpluses or sales of non-annona oil. In reality these mechanisms of redistribution were always present, but previously only non-annona oil would have been identifiable in the archaeological record (these amphorae were not emptied and deposited on the Testaccio, the latter being specifically for the discard of state-owned annona goods). Under the state redistribution system, a site such as the Crypta San Bonaventura (Rome) could still register 17% for Baetican oil imports, c. 250 (with Spanish fish at only 3%). This would suggest that even with the state redistribution system at work, one would expect to find Spanish (and Tunisian) oil amphorae in deposits (as private sales of oil). The 1% figure for Baetican oil in the 4th to mid 5th centuries on Palatine Hill sites could therefore still be taken as evidence for a major drop in the supply during this period, even accounting for the re-use of amphorae. These low percentages need to be contrasted with the much higher figures for Baetican oil amphorae registered at the Crypta San Bonaventura. Overall, the role of Baetica in the supply of oil to Rome would seem to have been minimal from the late 4th century, the province being unable to challenge state-sponsored Tunisian competition for this market. Milan, itself a major imperial capital and residence in the 4th century, imported very few Spanish amphorae during the 3rd to 5th centuries. It certainly did not receive annona supplies of Spanish oil. Tunisian amphorae, in contrast, are common and would support the proposed model.127 The marked dominance of Tunisian amphorae at Aquileia from the late 3rd century, at the expense of other sources, including the annona supplies of Spanish oil we have noted, would also lend support to the administrative split in supply of Tunisian and Baetican annona goods.128 The question as to whether these include oil amphorae, and in quantity, does need to be addressed, nevertheless. A review of the evidence for the supply of Baetican oil within Spain in the 3rd and 4th centuries is hampered by the lack of deposits of this period, an interesting phenomenon in itself (see Chapter 5). At Tarragona for example the vast majority of deposits date to the early 5th century and later, there being only one of c. 350-400 date excavated in the lower town, marking, notably, the abandonment of a square and associated shops (Remolà i Vallverdú 2000, 23-6, 86-7: Gasòmetre; Macias i Solé et al. 1997). The same can be said for Marseille. Even at Carthage, though the Bir el Jebbana bathhouse excavations near the amphitheatre (for the site, see Rossiter 1998), when published, will provide a number of 3rd and 4th century deposits, very few mid 3rd to mid 4th century deposits have been published to date, the majority of 4th century levels dating to the late 4th century. In the case of Carthage, the sheer size of the metropolis may have led to a degree of chance in the recovery of 3rd and 4th century deposits, but this is in itself significant. This can be

35

Hispania and the Roman Mediterranean contrasted with the evidence for mid 4th century building in Beirut and other eastern cities. Though 4th century deposits in Tarragona show that south Spanish amphora imports appeared and gradually increased through the century, these, like trends at Rome, did not include oil amphorae (Table 10).129 3rd and 4th century deposits in Valencia suggest that there was a break in the supply of Baetican products that had included the occasional oil amphora, from the mid 3rd century until the late 4th century, when fish imports appear, but not Baetican oil. These, as at Tarragona, are only manifest in the first half of the 5th century. A 4th century deposit from the villa site of Darró in the Barcelona region, where Tunisian amphorae are common, comprised only two rims of Baetican/Lusitanian amphorae, both being fish sauce amphorae (Keay 16 and Keay 23).130 It would seem then that later 3rd and 4th century Baetican oil was not as a rule targeted at Spanish markets, even when they received supplies of Baetican fish. That Baetican oil was targeted not at Tarraco or Valencia in the 4th century, but at Arles and then shipped up to Trier is surely significant. However, the early 5th century brought about a marked change in the supply of Baetican oil to sites in the western Mediterranean, with an increase with respect to levels imported previously. It was exported in this period to ports in southern Gaul (Arles, Marseille), to Lyon, Rome and to coastal Tarraconensis (Tarragona, Barcelona) (Tables 17a, 18, 2c; for an early 5th century context in Lyon, see Batigne Vallet, Lemaître and Schmitt forthcoming). Baetican-Lusitanian oil and fish continued to be supplied to Arles (oil: 3.8%), Narbonne and Lyon (Dressel 23: common) in the early 5th century. Though Spanish oil, and Spanish products in general, did not feature greatly at Marseille in the second quarter of the 5th century (2.8%), this was not the case at Narbonne. The figures here for a deposit of the second quarter of the 5th century, at 68.1% for all Lusitanian and Baetican amphorae, are quite exceptional, surpassing those of the Vila-roma deposit (Tarragona), perhaps an indication of the latter’s later date (mid 5th century, not second quarter of the 5th).131 These at Narbonne include a minimum of 30 examples of Dressel 23 (22.8% of total min vessels) and a minimum 34 ‘Lusitanian’ and 5 ‘Baetican or Lusitanian’ Keay 23. The relatively low figure for LRA 1 and Gazan LRA 4 in this deposit is also significant (3.5%) and can be contrasted with their major presence in Marseille in the same period (c. 425-450: Table 18). At Marseille, in major contrast to Narbonne, Spanish oil, and Spanish products in general, were quite minor imports (2.8%). Narbonne and Arles, it would seem, still acted as supply ports for Baetican goods, whereas Marseille was to take on a major role as port for eastern imports. We should note here that both Narbonne and Arles were still in Roman hands at this time, the Visigoths based in Toulouse from 416 still not having managed to take Narbonne despite regular sieges from 425 to 436, their attempts to reach the sea being frustrated until the capture of Narbonne in 462 (see n. 330).

36

1. The oil, fish and wine trade: Hispania and her competitors Though Carthage received Baetican fish sauce, it may not have been a target for Spanish oil, which is hardly surprising.132 Figures for Hispanic imports at Ostia and Rome (Temple of Magna Mater) in the late 4th to mid 5th centuries, as we have seen, point to a minor importation of Baetican oil in this period (perhaps no more than 1% of the total amphorae). These figures, if they do represent Spanish oil imports (see above for reservations), demonstrate the extent to which the Rome oil market continued to be dominated by Tunisian imports. More 4th century deposits, and from other sectors of Rome, are needed to offer a balance to the Palatine assemblages. The 5th century brought about a major increase in exports of Baetican oil to sites on the north-east coast of Tarraconensis. Tarragona in the mid 5th century, with relative quantities up to c. 13%, registers the highest relative figures for Baetican oil, not only for Spain, but also in comparison to all Mediterranean sites, with the possible exception of Narbonne (depending on whether the Vila-roma deposit dates to a slightly later period or not).133 These were matched by those of Baetican and Lusitanian fish sauce (Table 17a). Oil imports in Valencia seem far lower than those supplied to the north-eastern ports. In Alicante, and perhaps Carthago Nova/Cartagena (e.g. Plaza de los Tres Reyes), in south-eastern Spain, Keay 13/Dressel 23 was notably rare, even in late 4th and early 5th century deposits.134 The marketing of Baetican oil in the first half of the 5th century thus tended to bypass its most immediate market, that of south-eastern Hispania, and focused on north-east Tarraconensian ports, and Tarragona, the provincial capital, in particular, as well as ports in southern Gaul. The supply to Spanish sites on the east coast was thus similar to that encountered in the early Empire, but shows a marked increase in quantities supplied to the region in the 5th century, with a special focus on the provincial capital Tarraco. North-western Spain, furthermore, was excluded from this Baetican oil trade. It is Tarragona also that may provide evidence for the continuity of exports of Keay 13/Dressel 23 oil amphorae into the second half of the 5th century (Torre de l’Audiència 1A-B), and perhaps to the end of the century. These, with Baetican fish sauce amphorae, comprise a major percentage of amphorae in late 5th century contexts, that, even given the residuality in these deposits (11% in the case of the fine wares), could be taken as evidence for their continuity (Table 18). A similar conclusion could be drawn from the Baetican amphorae in the mid 6th century Benalúa-Alicante deposit (see Chapter 3.4.2 and Table 22).135 More recently García Vargas and Bernal Casasola (2008, 676) have drawn our attention to finds of Dressel 23 oil amphorae in relative abundance in mid 6th century levels of the Plaza de la Pescadería (Sevilla). This could well indicate the continuity of olive oil production for the local market of the Guadalquivir at this late date. The moderate success of the later 4th to 5th century Baetican oil market in the West did not extend to the eastern Empire. Despite regular exports

37

Hispania and the Roman Mediterranean of Baetican and Lusitanian fish sauce to Beirut in the 4th to early 5th centuries (see Chapter 1.3), these were not accompanied by Baetican oil and only scarce fragments of Keay 13 have been noted in Caesarea and Haifa for this period.136 As already noted, the Levantine Near Eastern provinces had their own resources of olive oil. Whereas Egypt imported additional supplies of Tripolitanian and, to a lesser extent, Tunisian oil in the 2nd and 3rd centuries, north African imports shifted to Tunisian non-oil amphorae (primarily Keay 25) in the Byzantine period and Tripolitanian oil imports may have ceased (Bonifay 2007). Spanish amphorae, including fish sauce products, are notably absent in 4th to 6th century sequences excavated in Butrint (southern Albania). There is little data available for Alexandria, but it is likely that Baetican imports (of all classes) were scarce in the first half of the 5th century.137 It seems, then, that 5th century Baetican oil exports were targeted primarily at northwestern Mediterranean sites. In conclusion, the Spanish oil industry had a complex history and patterns of distribution. The production of oil in Baetica was wrested from private control and placed under state control in the early Severan period. The non-success of this venture may partially account for a general, albeit by no means universal, decline in the appearance of Baetican oil amphorae on sites throughout the western Empire during the early 3rd century. By the mid 3rd century these controls seem to have diminished and private traders distributed Baetican oil and fish sauce together with Tunisian products to both annona and non-annona consumers, as they had done before Severan intervention. Hispania’s own consumption of Baetican oil was patchy: production and export was directed principally towards the annona, and local needs often had to be met with local, rather than Baetican products. Production and export of oil continued, albeit on a smaller scale, through the late 3rd to 5th centuries. The archaeological evidence seems to illustrate the bipartite division of the annona supply under the two praefectures of the Gauls and Italy. The supply of oil to Arles and not Tarraco in the mid to late 4th century underscores the direct links between Baetica and southern Gaul. The high figures for Spanish oil at Narbonne in the second quarter of the 5th century would indicate that this trend may have continued and it is likely that some major centres such as Lyon, Trier and Köln received Baetican oil through these sources. Other former military markets in the northern provinces, however, bear witness to a major drop in supplies of Baetican oil by the mid 3rd century. The army may no longer have been consumers of olive oil, partly by choice. Diminishing military needs may have been supplied by the production of alternatives to olive oil when Baetican oil became scarce. There is both documentary and archaeological evidence that Baetican oil was supplied to Rome in the early 4th century, but quantities found at Ostia and on the Palatine would appear to indicate that Spanish oil imports were relatively scarce. Tunisia provided major competition, being

38

1. The oil, fish and wine trade: Hispania and her competitors the principal supplier of oil to Rome from the late Antonine period onwards. Tunisia actually increased exports to Rome significantly during the 4th century and particularly in the late 4th and first half of the 5th century. Though the relative quantities of fish sauce are difficult to gauge, they are likely to have comprised a major part of those Tunisian exports, as they did in Gaul and Britannia. In the case of Rome the absence of a Testaccio for the 4th and 5th centuries suggests that the annona (Tunisian oil, as well as perhaps ad hoc Spanish oil) was redistributed to the population in a manner that did not generate a ‘testaccio’. Exports of Baetican oil appear en masse for the first time since the late 2nd century, in the first half of the 5th century, focusing on the ports of the north-east coast of Spain and southern Gaul. Tarragona, the provincial capital, appears to have been the principal target in Spain, with a higher level of imports of oil in this period than at any other. The role of Baetican oil in Rome in this period is unclear, but it is possible that the majority of Hispanic consisted of fish, rather than oil. The same pattern is clearer at Carthage. Whereas the ports on the north-east coast of Spain were well supplied, the south-east, including Valencia, Alicante and Cartagena was largely bypassed. With the exception of Alexandria in the early Imperial period, Baetican oil was only rarely exported to the East and perhaps only to certain military or major administrative centres. Thus, by the 4th century, Hispania had assumed a modest, second-tier role in the Mediterranean oil market. Though clearly a major, well-organised industry, the role of the Baetican oil in the Roman economy has been somewhat exaggerated by modern scholarship in the sense that it, like its Tunisian oil-producing counterpart, was an anomaly in terms of the restricted markets it served, massive though these were. Large tracts of Hispania herself were unable to tap these resources. I would argue that the role and importance of fish-related industries (garum and salted fish) for the Roman economy and, of course, diet and culinary practices, was both primary and pan-Roman provincial. The majority of Tunisian amphorae traded throughout the Mediterranean and beyond carried fish rather than oil (in contra to Keay [1984a] who stressed their role in the annona oil trade). Hispania’s major role in exports of fish products is unquestionable but its fortunes were equally governed by both political events and market forces, as we shall see. 1.3. Fish sauce and salted fish The transformation of the fish-based industries in Baetica and Lusitania during the 3rd century, probably the direct result of Severan confiscations and interference that undermined the economic base of the region, was marked by three features, namely the evolution of new, smaller types of amphorae, a contraction in the number of sites producing for export, and the rise of new factories supplying local markets.

39

Hispania and the Roman Mediterranean As in the case of Baetican oil amphorae, late Roman fish sauce amphorae were of smaller size than their predecessors. Typical examples are the piriform Keay 23/Almagro 51C amphora,138 (Fig. 5b), the 3rd century wide-necked fish sauce amphora Beltrán 72 (a shorter version of the early Imperial class Beltrán II) (Fig. 4e) and the jar-like Lusitana 9 (Fig. 5e), the latter produced in the Sado Valley. The reasons for the decreased size of late Roman Baetican and Lusitanian amphorae are probably linked to changes in the fish industry itself and perhaps culinary practice. Whereas the fish industry of early Empire included the packaging of salted cuts of fish and whole fish as well as a range of fish sauce products, late Roman production concentrated on fish sauce and the salting of small-sized fish such as sardines.139 The nature of the product is reflected in the introduction in the 3rd and 4th centuries of small containers with narrow necks (Keay 23, and then Keay 19). These may be contrasted with the wide-necked, massive vessels that were so characteristic of Imperial fish sauce amphorae of Baetica and Lusitania (Peacock and Williams 1986, Classes 16-21). A related change in cooking practices may also account for the appearance during the 3rd to 6th centuries in eastern Spain and the Balearics of large, carinated bowls with handle and spout on the shoulder (Fig. 17ab).140 A similar form was made in t. s. paléochrétienne grise (Rigoir 29) in the 6th and 7th centuries and occurs in local cooking ware in late Roman assemblages in Butrint.141 It is possible that the use of these spouted vessels and the wide-spread use of small Tunisian mortaria with a pressed spout on the rim for the preparation of liquid-based food of some kind was connected with fish sauce based cooking in eastern Spain (Fig. 1f-g; Fig. 17c).142 Their appearance certainly requires some explanation. The second important trend to affect fish sauce production in Hispania was the concomitant decrease in the number of production sites in Baetica, Lusitania and Tingitana (Map 6).143 Few fish amphora production sites survived into the Severan period. The fortunes of some of the Tingitanian factories would have been directly tied to those operating on the Spanish side of the straits, as at least some of them bottled fish sauce in amphorae produced in Málaga, Algeciras and Cádiz. This trans-continental connection was to continue till the end of the 5th century with respect to the Keay 19 amphora (see below). In the Imperial period, dipinti on fish sauce amphorae are evidence for the same degree of organisation and product control that is found on Dressel 20 amphorae,144 but in this case presumably without state involvement in production and redistribution.145 As we have seen, the distribution of fish sauce was generally independent of that of oil exports throughout the Roman period, though Baetican, in contrast to Lusitanian, exports could take advantage of the redistribution networks and shipping at the service of the Baetican oil industry. We do not know who owned the vast number of fish-based industrial complexes of the Imperial period that were located along the coasts of Baetica, Lusitania and Tingitana, but it is

40

1. The oil, fish and wine trade: Hispania and her competitors possible that some local magnates involved in the fish industry, particularly those at Cádiz, also fell victim to Severus. All these industries, on both sides of the straits, suffered decline over the late 2nd to early 3rd centuries that ran parallel with the reduction of estates and output of the Baetican oil industry. Factories that did survive included some on the Tejo and Sado/Salacia estuaries.146 In the Algarve the fish factories of Quinta do Lago and Quinta da Marim survived, but others did not. Production in Cádiz ended, with the exception of Puente Melchor that, notably, continued to produce a wide variety of amphorae for both fish sauce and occasionally, possibly, wine (i.e. Beltrán 68).147 At Onuba/Huelva the factory of Calle Palos ended but others were remodelled.148 Little survived of the ancient industries of Baelo, Algeciras/Iulia Traducta and Suel. Lixus was abandoned in the late 2nd or 3rd centuries, as were the factories of Zhara and Alcázarseguer. There was recession in the Severan period at Tahadart and the ruin of the ports of Thamusida and Banasa is attested under Caracalla.149 Despite the bleak picture of upheaval just described, the first half of the 3rd century marked a significant increase in exports of Baetican and Lusitanian fish products by comparison with the second half of the 2nd century. These were now carried in two new, related amphora shapes with a short collar rim, the Keay 22 (with a narrow cylindrical body) and the Keay 16 (with a shorter, plumper body), both produced at Quinta do Rouxinol (Lower Tejo), whereas Keay 22 is more typical of other Portuguese sites (e.g. Porto do Cacos [Lower Tejo] and Lisbon) (Raposo et al. 2005). Some Keay 16 were perhaps produced in the Algarve, whereas others were certainly produced in the Bay of Cádiz (Puente Melchor) and in Granada (Lagóstena Barrios 2001; Bourgeois and Mayet 1991, 137-9). The Keay 16, Keay 23 and Lusitana 9 amphorae on the mid 3rd century Cabrera III wreck were perhaps predominantly from Lusitania and not Baetica.150 Perhaps here there is evidence for the resurgence of Lusitanian fish processing at the expense of older Baetican industries (notably that of the Bay of Cádiz) that were crippled by the Severan confiscations. Lusitanian, particularly Sado and Tejo Valley production sites regenerated in the 3rd century with a new set of forms: Keay 16 and 22, as we have seen, Keay 78/Diogo Lusitana 8, Keay 23 and the flat-based form Lusitana 9 (Fabião 2008, 736-40). Sites that were served by this early to mid third century phase of production included sites on the east coast of Hispania (e.g. Ilici, Tarragona, Barcelona, Ampurias; probably not Valencia), Vienne (Table 6b), Rome (Table 2c; cf. Table 2a for Ostia) and sites in the Levant (Beirut, Caesarea and Beth Sh’an).151 Indeed massive ceramic assemblages of early 3rd century and mid 3rd century date in Beirut offer valuable quantified data for Hispania’s fish exports during the early and later Severan periods (Table 4). Spanish exports, primarily fish products, echo those of the first half of the 2nd

41

Hispania and the Roman Mediterranean century in Beirut. Beirut, from the late 2nd century BC, but especially from the foundation of the Roman colony of veterans under Augustus, always had a preference for fish sauce and salted-fish.152 Keay 16 amphorae, as well as Baetican Beltrán 72 are relatively common, alongside rarer Sado products carried in Dressel 14 amphorae (Spanish exports comprise 6.2% of the total amphora imports for the early 3rd century). In the mid 3rd century (associated with the first imports of ARS C) Hispanic fish imports to Beirut continued at a similar level (5.1%; Keay 16 and Baetican products, including the new form Beltrán 68). Sado products are now absent. Tunisian fish imports are less common, possibly dropping slightly or remaining relatively stable (early 3rd century: 2.6%; mid 3rd century: 1.3%). As already noted, the increase in Tunisian table wares in the mid 3rd century corresponds to a slight, perhaps insignificant, drop in Tunisian amphorae, rather than to a corresponding rise. Throughout this period the major competitor with Spanish fish exports for the Beirut market was not Tunisia, but the Black Sea fish products exported in the large amphorae of Sinope and, to a lesser extent, those of sites in the Crimea (Zeest 72-73, in my fabric ‘FAM 93’; Reynolds forthcoming c; see n. 212). In the early 3rd century Sinope imports were as high as 15.9%. Figures do appear to drop, however, in the mid 3rd century (4.6%), being on a par with Spanish imports (5.1%). The Cabrera III wreck of c. 257 typifies the combination cargoes of Baetican oil and Baetican-Lusitanian fish sauce amphorae that were in circulation in the mid 3rd century (see above for their composition: Fig. 4). With the significant exception of Tunisian and Spanish oil amphorae, the range of Baetican and Lusitanian amphorae in the wreck, including examples of Beltrán 68, is similar to that encountered in Beirut. Perhaps paralleling Beirut, there are certainly a fair number of Keay 16 amphorae in the Athenian Agora, but quantities remain to be quantified (Reynolds in preparation c). The impression, in contrast, is that Spanish exports to Corinth and Crete (e.g. Knossos) were slight in this period, reflected also perhaps in their rarity in Butrint (only one Portuguese fish sauce amphora in c. 1 tonne of pottery of mid 3rd century date: Forum Context 98; no Keay 16) (Reynolds, Hernández and Çondi 2008). Spanish imports appear to be similarly rare in Durres (Table 3a-b).153 At Aquileia, formerly a major receiver of Baetican oil and fish sauce, levels of Spanish fish sauce drop and as such can be compared to trends in oil exports to other military redistribution centres in Gaul and the northern provinces. Unlike Beirut, exports to Aquileia were tied more to trends in the annona supply than to the independent activities of merchants. In the opposite direction, the wide range of Black Sea fish amphorae exported to Beirut reached Athens, Crete (Knossos) and Brindisi in the 3rd century (the large Zeest 80, perhaps containing wine, rarely encountered in Beirut, being an additional export to these sites), but did not reach Rome in any significant quantities. Nor were they exported to Benghazi (Reynolds forthcoming c).

42

1. The oil, fish and wine trade: Hispania and her competitors As we have seen with respect to ARS (Chapter 1.1), Hispanic fish exports, like western exports in general to the East, ceased from c. 270 to 320. Except the possible continuity of supply to Rome indicated by finds on the Palatine Hill, c. 300 (Table 2c), there is no firm evidence for exports anywhere, even within Spain, for the period c. 270-300+. The 4th century, however, witnessed the increase or remodelling of production sites, some in regions not formerly involved in production. This phase may be correlated with a general renewal of long-distance exports of Hispanic fish products in the mid 4th century to sites on the east coast of Spain, in the late 4th century including Valencia, to Arles, to Rome (if this had ceased), and to Levantine sites served in the 3rd century (e.g. Beirut and Caesarea). Many Lusitanian and Baetican fish sauce installations were remodelled in the course of the 4th century. Particularly interesting is the building of fish sauce and salting factories at Málaga inside the Roman theatre. A similar revival in the 4th century is evident in Tingitana, notably at Lixus, Kouass and Mogador.154 Fourth century production of the 3rd century form Keay 16 is known in the River Tinto and in the Bay of Algeciras, but not necessarily in the Bay of Cádiz in the two known remaining production sites of the 3rd century.155 However the absence of late examples of Keay 16 in Beirut mid 4th century contexts, where there are certainly other Baetican fish sauce amphorae (see below), could indicate that the type was not generally exported, or that it had ceased production by the second quarter of the 4th century. The small piriform amphora, Keay 23, was the most common 4th to 5th century container for Lusitanian and Baetican fish exports (e.g. in Beirut). The narrow necks of these vessels would suggest they contained fish sauce. The mid 4th century ‘renaissance’ of the industry was similarly marked by the introduction of a major new amphora class, the Keay 19 (Fig. 5c). Keay 78, the latter produced primarily in Lusitania, but also in Baetica, apparently introduced in the 3rd century, was also produced in the 4th.156 Keay 19, not a ‘classic’ Lusitanian or Baetican type, with its narrow neck, ring handles and long carrot/pear-shaped body, was produced in south-western Portugal (Sado, more rarely in the Tejo) (Keay 19C?: Fabião 2008, 740-3) and especially along the southern coast of Lusitania and Baetica (Keay 19A-B), there being a notable concentration of the type in the workshops around Málaga.157 It is probably the latter centre that was largely responsible for plentiful exports of Keay 19 dating from the late 4th to 5th centuries in Alicante and Tarragona (Table 10).158 Keay 19 amphorae from Málaga found in the early 5th century final phase of a fish sauce installation at Ceuta/Septem would indicate that the same ties between, in this case, Málaga and Ceuta, were operating in the late Roman period as were evident for Cádiz and Tingitana in the early Empire.159 The gradual increase in imports from Baetica at Tarragona from c. 250-400 was due to imports of Baetican fish products and not oil (Chapter 1.2). Baetican fish sauce (or wine) is only attested in one deposit of c.

43

Hispania and the Roman Mediterranean 300-350 (Calle Apodaca 7), an example of Beltrán 68. Oil imports at Tarragona are attested only from the late 4th century onwards. The large numbers of Almagro 51C/Keay 23 amphorae found at Santa Pola are so far not precisely dated, but do demonstrate major contact with the regions producing it (156 examples).160 In southern Gaul also, we now have evidence for major exports of Baetican and Lusitanian fish, alongside Baetican oil, to Arles from the mid 4th century onwards (note 124). At Rome Spanish fish represents as much as c. 7% of the imports in the second half of the 4th century, this trend continuing into the early 5th century (Table 2c). Quantification figures at Carthage for Baetican amphorae as a regional class were not presented from British excavations that cover the 1st to 3rd centuries and late 4th to 6th/7th centuries.161 This is not because Baetican (and Lusitanian) products were not recognised, but because they were scarce (fish sauce amphora forms are present). This is also my experience of assemblages in the metropolis (the Bir el Jebbana bathhouse excavations), where a total of 30 fragments of Tarraconensian, Baetican and Lusitanian (including Sado region) amphorae were present (in late 1st to 5th century contexts).162 There may be a slight increase in numbers in the late 3rd to early 5th centuries (see Table 8). They are absent in a Carthage deposit excavated at the Circus ranging in date from c. 175 to 240.163 Another Carthage deposit from the Circus, however, of, notably, late 4th or early 5th century date, does demonstrate a wide range and relatively high number of Baetican (and possibly Lusitanian) rims and bases, all of which carried fish products.164 It is possible that this deposit marks an increase in Baetican imports (of fish products) to Carthage in this period, a phenomenon equally common in Beirut and in the ports of southern Gaul (see below). Though Tarraconensian wine was a major import at Carthage in the 1st century (see below, Chapter 1.4), and Tunisian ARS and cooking wares were supplied in large numbers to Baetica, notably to sites on the Guadalquivir, representing regular, frequent contacts with Africa Proconsularis, the scarcity of a reciprocal exchange in the early Imperial period is striking (see above, Chapter 1.1). This may in part have been due to the major production of fish sauce at many centres along the northern and eastern coasts of Tunisia (e.g. Nabeul, associated with Keay 25 amphorae; Salakta).165 Some, such as those at Raf Raf, represented continuity of production since the Carthaginian period. Tunisian fish sauce was sent to Rome and central Italy, as we have seen.166 Though Carthage did import Baetican and Lusitanian fish sauce, most consumed at Carthage was locally produced. Turning to the Levant, it is from the mid 4th to early 5th centuries, furthermore, that, following a drop in imports of Baetican and Lusitanian fish sauce and salted-fish products to Berytus/Beirut, relatively plentiful in the early and mid 3rd century, amphorae from these sources become yet

44

1. The oil, fish and wine trade: Hispania and her competitors again important (Table 4: 3rd century; Table 9a-b: 4th century; Table 15: early 5th century).167 There is a clear peak in Hispanic and Tunisian imports in the late 4th century (cf. Carthage), Baetican fish sauce well-outnumbering Tunisian (Hispanic amphorae: over 7%; Tunisian amphorae: 2.2%; Tunisian ARS 38.7% of the fine wares).168 The absence of Baetican and Lusitanian amphorae in excavations at Butrint in Albania is significant, where 4th century and particularly 5th century contexts are plentiful and dominated by imports of Tunisian, Apulian and Aegean amphorae.169 The lacunae at Butrint may indicate, not surprisingly, that the ships that carried fish sauce to Beirut did not pass through the southern Adriatic. At Caesarea (and Beth Sh’an further inland), to the south, in Palestine, though unstratified finds in stores may parallel the Beirut supply of fish sauce in the 3rd and 4th centuries, a large late 4th century deposit excavated in the city harbour included no Spanish amphorae and markedly few Tunisian amphorae.170 The absence of both Spanish and Tunisian imports in 5th and 6th century contexts from Caesarea would suggest that these late 4th century trends continued.171 At Alexandria, an early 5th century deposit from the Serapeum also yielded no Baetican amphorae, but rather was dominated by Tunisian Keay 25 amphorae (fish sauce?) and Cypriot/Cilician Late Roman Amphora 1 (hence LRA 1: as Fig. 12a).172 The mid 4th to early 5th century supply of Hispanic (Baetican and Lusitanian) fish sauce documented in Beirut would therefore appear to demonstrate rather special mercantile links with southern Hispania. The early 5th century saw a general rise in exports and increased distribution of Spanish fish products in western ports, documented at Rome, Arles, Narbonne, Marseille, Lyon, Tarragona and, as we have seen, Carthage, carried primarily in Keay 19 and Keay 23 amphorae (Tables 2c, 17a, 18; for early 5th century Lyon, where these occur with Dressel 23 oil amphorae: Batigne Vallet, Lemaître and Schmitt [forthcoming]; for more recent data on Rome assemblages of 5th to 7th century date, see Panella, Saguì and Coletti [forthcoming] and Bertoldi, Ceci and Pacchi [forthcoming]). At Arles fish continued to be imported with Baetican oil (Table 18: 3.8%, oil; 3.5%, fish). The figures for Baetican amphorae (all classes), however, at Narbonne in the second quarter of the 5th century are quite exceptional, at c. 44%, being actually more numerous than Tunisian imports. At Marseille, in contrast, the quantities registered for Spanish amphorae, including those for fish sauce, for the period 425-450 are in comparison very low (at 2.8%), a point noted in the report, and comprise only body sherds for the period 450-500 (2% of the total sherds).173 At Rome there appears to be a slight drop in imports in the period 425-440, perhaps echoing the drop noted at Marseille. This, however, is more a reflection of the marked rise in other classes and sources of amphorae, notably those from the eastern Mediter-

45

Hispania and the Roman Mediterranean ranean and Italy, neither carrying fish sauce, and hence not of direct relevance, I would have thought. This case underlines one of the principal difficulties, perhaps flaws, in the use of comparative percentages.174 Hispanic fish imports may therefore have remained as high as they were in the late 4th and early 5th centuries. The relative quantities of imports of Baetican and Lusitanian fish sauce amphorae at Tarragona in the mid 5th century (STE/1: 10.8%; Vila-roma 2: 16.9%) are, however, exceptional for Spain, certainly in terms of actual numbers of vessels. To some extent they reflect the similar focus of Baetican oil amphorae on supplying the provincial capital (STE/1: 8.5%; 13%). These figures can certainly be contrasted with those encountered at Marseille in the same period. An important difference in the distribution of Baetican fish and oil on the east coast is that whereas Alicante and south-eastern Spain did not generally partake of the supply of Baetican oil, the Keay 19 amphora was well distributed on coastal sites. In the case of Alicante the supply of Malagueñan products penetrated deep into the interior (e.g. notably at El Monastil [Elda]: Reynolds 1993, Site 156). Tarragona, too, however, until the first half of the 4th century had also to contend with a dearth of Baetican and Lusitanian fish sauce exports (Table 10). To some degree, this would have been countered by imports of Tunisian fish sauce (carried in Keay Period I amphorae) to coastal ports such as Tarragona and Valencia. Perhaps it was fish sauce, rather than oil, that was the primary Tunisian export to Spain when these first appeared on Spanish sites (as we have also seen in the case of Britain and Arles). This drop in Spanish fish processing and the largely extra-Hispanic direction of exports (e.g. to Beirut; those on the Cabrera III wreck) that was a mark of the early to mid 3rd century, and which itself ended by c. 270, may have provided a catalyst for a new trend in the industry from the 3rd century onwards whereby new installations were constructed to serve local needs. While the Baetican and Lusitanian industries continued to produce for export throughout the Mediterranean, a new class of fish sauce factory developed in Hispania. These were sites constructed in areas without previous fish sauce industries, seemingly to supply local, rather than export markets. On the north coast, a fish sauce factory was constructed ex novo in Gijón (Cantabria) in the 3rd century. This factory is thought to continue through the mid 5th century, although this later activity is not associated with any amphorae. In Galicia, La Coruña (Brigantium/Portus Artaborum), another centre for the production of fish sauce in the Imperial period, may have also initiated late production at two villa-factory sites, at Noville (occupied AD 250-550) and Centroña, built in the 4th century. In the Rias Baixas of Galicia, at Adro-Vello (Pontevedra), another villa of 3rd to 4th century date, fish tanks were found still containing sardines and mackerel. Their products may have been marketed at the port of Vigo. All

46

1. The oil, fish and wine trade: Hispania and her competitors this points to investment in fish sauce production in north-eastern Spain in a period when long-standing fish sauce imports from Baetica had dropped by the mid 3rd century, as illustrated by the drop in Baetican products at Braga/Bracara Augusta (Table 11).175 Baetican imports at Braga may have been connected with the Baetican oil route through the Atlantic to the army in Britain, this supply to Britain being drastically reduced from the 3rd century and practically negligible from the 4th century onwards (Chapter 1.2). Most remarkable is the fact that Lusitanian fish sauce was only rarely exported to Britain, exports being directed to sites in the Mediterranean, such as Rome and even as far distant as Beirut, as we have seen. It appears that the Lusitanian, or at least Sado region, fish sauce industry did not attempt to compete in Britain with Baetican producers where the latter had the advantage of the state subsidy of their annona oil cargoes.176 The comparative roles of Lusitanian and Baetican fish exports illustrate how important the annona system was in the distribution of related secondary industries. The north-west of Hispania, with the exception of contacts with Baetica in the early Empire, was somewhat marginalised from the general Mediterranean market until the second half of the 5th century, when the appearance of eastern Mediterranean goods and a break in Tunisian exports following the Vandal conquest of Africa represented a new dynamic in Mediterranean trade (Chapter 3.3 and 3.4). During the 3rd century, perhaps, and certainly during the 4th to early 5th centuries only Roman Africa Proconsularis and Zeugitana exporting ARS and rarely Tunisian amphorae (see Tables 11, 19, with respect to Braga), appears to have had long-standing links with the north-west (as it did with cities such as Conimbriga and Troia further south, where ARS is very common over the same period). As in the case of Baetican imports at Braga, Tunisian imports may be an offshoot of more important ties with south-eastern Britain. The marketing of ARS in Lusitania for its own sake is however, perhaps more likely: 4th century ARS is far less common in Britain and abundant at both Conimbriga and Braga. Alternatively, the supply of table wares and rarely amphorae at Braga could be evidence that ships plying the Atlantic route carried cargoes of wheat or other non-amphoraborne goods. That they were transported with Baetican amphora cargoes is unlikely, as Baetican amphora imports in Braga were insignificant by the 4th century. The production of fish sauce in regions of Tarraconensis and Carthaginiensis without earlier fish sauce traditions was another 4th century trend, comparable with that encountered in Galicia. It was c. 325-350 that a set of baths at the port of Rosas were restructured in order to process fish sauce, the factory receiving further improvements in the late 4th century.177 However, there is no evidence of any associated local amphora type. The cluster around Aguilas and the port of Mazarrón

47

Hispania and the Roman Mediterranean (Murcia) of fish sauce factories and associated kilns producing small, thin amphorae commonly (called spatheia by modern scholars) was built in the mid 4th century (Fig. 5f).178 A major new factory and amphora production site at Mazarrón has been recently excavated. In addition to some likely 3rd century types, the 4th to 5th century amphorae produced were imitations of the Tunisian form Keay 25 (Berrocal Caporrós 2007). The imitation of Tunisian (fish) amphorae was a widespread phenomenon on coastal late Roman Spanish amphora production sites (e.g. Keay 5, Keay 7, Keay 25, Keay 32, Keay 41). These Murcian and other production sites closer to Cartagena (Isla Plana; Mar Menor) probably had Carthago Nova, the capital of Diocletian’s new province of Carthaginiensis, as their main target, together with Alicante.179 A fish factory in Santa Pola, the port of Ilici, was also established in the 4th century, but again there is no evidence for any associated amphorae, which would indicate production for export. Similar ‘spatheia’ to those of Mazarrón and Aguilas were probably produced at a fish sauce site in Benalúa-Alicante, and should date even later, to the late 5th or first half of the 6th century (Table 22).180 A number of fish factories along the coast of Alicante all have phases of 5th and early 6th century occupation, recalling the recent 6th century finds in the fish sauce factories at Lagos (Ramos et al. 2008) and in Algericas (Bernal Casasola 2007).181 It is probably correct to interpret these Alicante sites, including that of Benalúa, as small factory-settlements with baths and necropoleis, rather than villas.182 It is not known if the 4th to mid 5th century series of amphorae produced in the region of Barcelona were for wine, as has been suggested (Keay 68/91: see examples of Fig. 5d). It is perhaps more likely that they carried fish products, given that the rim types closely imitate the contemporary Baetican-Lusitanian fish amphora Keay 19 (Fig. 5c).183 Keay 68/91 appear to have been for the local market and are so far only attested as close-regional exports in Tarragona.184 This production in south-eastern Spain, that in the 6th century at Rosas, and the exports of Baetica (e.g. Málaga region) and Tingitana (e.g. Septem) to Alicante and Tarragona in the late 5th and first half of the 6th centuries represent the final phase of fish sauce production in the Iberian Peninsula. With the possible exception of Lagos (Algarve), the majority of Lusitanian production had ended far earlier, by c. 425/450, and may well be due to the effects of the barbarian migrations of the period (for this and a discussion of the end of the Spanish industries, see Chapter 3.4.2). Apart from finds in Alicante and Tarragona, Baetican fish sauce was not exported beyond c. 450 in any quantity. The supply of what would appear to be fish sauce from the Cádiz (or Algarve) region to Britain in the early/mid 6th century along the Atlantic route is a notable and interesting exception (Chapters 3.4.2 and 4.1.2).

48

1. The oil, fish and wine trade: Hispania and her competitors 1.4. Wine production and exports: 2nd to 4th centuries 1.4.1. Wine exports to Rome and regional production trends in the West Table 1b summarises the relative sources of wine from Italian and long-distance sources for Rome from AD 64 to 150.185 It is clear that during this period Italy, north Africa and the Aegean, particularly Crete, were the dominant sources of wine at the capital. Gallic wine peaked in the period 186 AD 90-110 (23.5%). Baetican wine imports are fairly constant at roughly 4%, and so took a minor share of the market through the 1st century and to c. 110, but are absent in the Meta Sudans assemblage of AD 130-150, a period marked by a rise in Italian products. Tarraconensian wine was a more significant export in the 1st century (as high as 7.1% under Nero), but was in decline by the 2nd century, probably due to the rise in Gallic imports. However, at some point between the late 2nd century (when Black Sea Kapitän 1 and 2 wine amphora imports began) and the mid 3rd century the Ostia-Rome wine market shifted from Gallic and Aegean, particularly Cretan, to Black Sea and alternative, close-regional sources of wine, a trend that was to become even more marked in the 4th century.187 Cretan wine, a major import in Pompeii in the 1st century and Ostia and Rome in the 1st and 2nd centuries, is common in Butrint in the 2nd, 3rd and 4th centuries (Reynolds 2004; Reynolds, Hernández and Çondi 2008) and in Brindisi in the mid 3rd century (Auriemma and Quiri 2004). Attested at Lyon in the early 3rd century (Table 6a), Cretan amphorae are notably absent at Ostia by the mid 3rd century (Panella 1986). From the late 2nd century Black Sea Kapitän 1 and 2 wine amphorae were supplied to Rome, the principal western market, via Brindisi, where they are common (Auriemma and Quiri 2004) and eastern Sicily (Malfitana, with reference to shipwrecks). Kapitän 2 is common in Athens, Corinth and Crete (Knossos).188 Kapitän 2 is present in Butrint in the mid 3rd century (Reynolds, Hernández and Çondi 2008, table 2, 3.4% minimum of total amphora imports), makes a scant appearance in Durres in the mid 3rd century, being absent in 2nd century deposits (Table 3a), but apparently did not reach Trieste, in the northern Adriatic (Auriemma and Quiri 2004; Reynolds forthcoming c). At Benghazi the peak in imports of Kapitän 2 is in the early 3rd century (c. 9%), whereas they drop to 1.5% in the mid 3rd century (Riley 1979, 189-93, MRA 7). Thus, there may be some correlation with their major marketing towards Ostia-Rome (via Athens, Crete and the straights of Messina) by the mid 3rd century. The quantities imported of one-handled, early versions of micaceous LRA 3 (Agora F 65-66), probably carrying the wine of the Meander Valley, and other close regional products related typologically to this shape, are far greater at Ostia in the late Antonine period (16.7%), than they are in

49

Hispania and the Roman Mediterranean Beirut. The supply to Beirut, however, changes markedly, as these become really common in both early and mid 3rd century contexts (in notable contrast to the mid 3rd century drop in Dressel 24 amphorae, carrying wine and/or oil, deriving from a nearby source to this class). Like Cretan amphorae, the proto LRA 3 wine amphorae appear to be absent (or at least minimal) in mid 3rd century contexts in Ostia. A marked shift in the supply of these products over the course of the early to mid 3rd century is therefore evident. It should be noted that wine was always the export par excellence of the Aegean and Asia Minor provinces to the West throughout the early and mid Imperial periods, and in the Byzantine period, when Levantine wines, barring those of northern Roman Phoenicia, were exported en masse for the first time (the Agora M 334 type was produced in southern Phoenicia from Akko to, probably, southern Lebanon). The majority of wines of the Levant, however, throughout the early to late Imperial periods were traded inter-regionally or, especially in the case of those of northern Phoenicia, only locally within Phoenicia (Reynolds 2000b, 2003d and 2005b; the amphorae of Tyre: production ends in the early 3rd century; the Beirut amphora: throughout this period; Amrit: 2nd to early 5th centuries). The evidence for Roman wine production in the non-coastal regions of Lebanon is growing.189 Levantine cities also imported huge quantities of eastern wines from an extremely varied selection of sources in the Aegean, Asia Minor and the Levant (Reynolds 1999; e.g. Tables 4, 9b, for Beirut). The precursors of the LRA 1 (the Pompeii 5 class), as well as large Koan-style amphorae, both produced in eastern Cilicia during the 1st and 2nd centuries, were traded to specific markets (Egypt, Beirut, Cyprus, Athens, Pompeii), but were not traded to Athens or the West in the 3rd century (Reynolds 2005b; forthcoming c). Over the late 2nd and 3rd centuries there was a transformation in the regional production of wine in the western Mediterranean. New regions engaged in wine production and there was a general adoption of a small module format based on the Gallic model (Fig. 6).190 The smaller size would certainly have enabled the easier pouring of (presumably unmixed or undiluted) wine at the table (well illustrated in a scene on a north African mosaic depicting a slave serving wine from a clearly identifiable MRA 1).191 The Gallic wine industry is often stated as having been in decline by the late 2nd century (Table 2a). This clearly does not take into account the huge market for local wine still commanded in Lyon, for example, where in contexts of the late 2nd century to AD 250 Gallic wine comprises 95% of the wine amphorae (Table 6a).192 This is equally the case at Vienne (Table 6b: 98.5% for the period 200-250; 56.7% for c. 250). Gallic wine production from the late 2nd century thus turned to its more local markets. Wine imports in early to mid 3rd century Rome now derived from Mauretania Caesariensis, perhaps from imperial estates, where wine (and maybe also fish sauce) was exported in a small amphora in two distinct

50

1. The oil, fish and wine trade: Hispania and her competitors variants, the former modelled on the Gauloise 4 wine amphora (Keay 1A and 1B; Fig. 6c).193 Northern Italy and Calabria also increased or commenced production (see amphora forms in Fig. 6). The drive to produce Italian wine may well have been given a boost by Aurelian’s introduction of cheap wine sales for the populace of Rome, just as he introduced the distribution of free pork to the metropolis. By the mid 4th century the Praetorian Prefect of Italy and the Urban Prefect of Rome organised the collection of Italian wines as tax (the canon vinarius) for redistribution in the city of Rome.194 A noted reduction in eastern wine imports to Rome both in quantities (from the late 3rd century: the Palatine East assemblage) and in range (a few Black Sea and Asia Minor forms only, from the mid 3rd century onwards) may be correlated with this phenomenon (Table 2c; see also Chapter 3.1-2). A correlation between the later fall in quantities of Mauretanian Keay 1 supplied to Rome and nearby markets and a corresponding rise in Riley’s Mid Roman Amphora 1 (of Sicilian, as well as Cyrenaican or Tripolitanian origin?)195 and Calabrian precursors of Keay 52 in the late 3rd century is possible (Table 2c).196 The rise in Italian and MRA 1 imports and the drop in those from Mauretania and the East may be the effects of a more highly structured supply system for Rome, served by the territorial boundaries of the new Diocletianic diocese of Italy and Africa.197 If the majority of MRA 1 is indeed from eastern Sicily, some being African, the increase in imports of the form, only present in small quantities in 1st and 2nd century levels at Rome and Pompeii, would, with a similar increase in the typologically related Calabrian amphora Keay 52, represent the capturing and promotion of two of these suburbicarian wine sources, regionally close to each other, in south-western Italy and eastern Sicily. This can be interpreted as evidence for the increased regionalision of production and supply that has its roots in the early or mid 3rd century. In a similar fashion, there is now evidence for a similar new phase of production of Baetican wine commencing in the early 3rd century, carried in Gallic-style amphorae, like those in vogue elsewhere (see below). However, trends in Spanish wine exports to Rome during the late 2nd to 4th centuries cannot yet be assessed, as possible examples have not been identified in publications. This could be due to several factors: the difficulty in the recognition of Spanish v. Gallic amphorae that share the same typological traits;198 the difficulties of distinguishing between Baetican wine v. fish sauce amphorae, where the rim types are similar (e.g. Beltrán 68); the only recent publication of more distinctive Baetican types that have still to be recognised as exports (e.g. the 3rd century Matagallares type, identified now for the first time at Arles and Lyon: see below); or by their real absence. The noted drop in Baetican wine exports to Rome in the early 2nd century may have continued through the 3rd and 4th centuries. It is perhaps worth noting in this respect that Beirut did not import Tarraconensian wine, except in one possible documented case, notably of

51

Hispania and the Roman Mediterranean early 3rd century date,199 imports from Hispania being otherwise largely restricted to fish sauce amphorae (see above, Chapter 1.3; the 3rd century imports of Baetican Beltrán 68 in Beirut [Table 4] could have carried fish sauce, not wine). 1.4.2. Spanish wine production The foci of wine production in Hispania in the early Empire lay along the east coast, particularly around Barcelona and in Dénia, in the Balearics/Ibiza, and in the Lower Guadalquivir.200 In the later Empire there may have been wine production in Barcelona, along the Ebro Valley, in the Balearics/Ibiza and on a number of new locations along the Baetican coast. 5th to 6th century wine production in the Balearics, and possibly in the Vinalopó Valley (Alicante) will be discussed at a later stage (Chapter 3.4 and 3.5). Wine had been exported from the eastern coast of Spain, notably from the region of Barcino/Barcelona, where some 60 kiln sites are known, from the late Augustan period to the first half of the 2nd century in local versions of the large Italian amphora Dressel 2-4, and from c. 10 BC to the mid 1st century AD in a small free-standing amphora, the Oberaden 74. Carthage was a major market for the Tarraconensian Dressel 2-4 (AD 30-70), as were Rome (Table 1b), Valencia and Portus Ilicitanus/Santa Pola.201 Unlike Baetican fish sauce amphorae, they did not reach Benghazi.202 The 1st century also marked the production of wine carried in variants of Oberaden 74 in the Middle and Lower Ebro Valley, the latter at the well-known kiln site of Tivissa.203 Several villa sites with possible wine production are known in the Ebro Valley, where the general pattern may be one of local self-sufficiency in wine production in the face of limited imports.204 3rd century and possible 4th century wine production in the Ampurdán is well attested at the villa of Puig Rodon (Corça, Lower Ampurdán). Here a version of the Gauloise 4 was produced on a large scale in the late 2nd/early 3rd centuries and possibly during part of the 4th century.205 The port of Saguntum, to the north of Valencia was also known for its wine in the early Empire (carried in a Dressel 2-4 amphora). On production sites in the territory of Dénia/Dianium, further to the south, wine was packaged in Dressel 2-4 and imitations of the Gauloise 4 (‘a base plana’) during the 1st and 2nd centuries. Production notably continued into the later 3rd century, the latter ‘flat-bottomed’ types being major imports at Portus Ilicitanus.206 Balearic wine had an unusually long and successful history of production from the early Imperial to Byzantine periods. In the 1st century AD wine was carried in a large amphora based on the Koan type. Production continued, carried in a similar, even more idiosyncratic type. A characteristic feature of Balearic amphorae is the well-cut ribbing on the body. The mid Roman type is relatively common in 3rd and 4th century contexts at Saguntum, and occurs also at Santa Pola.207

52

1. The oil, fish and wine trade: Hispania and her competitors Later Vandal and Byzantine production in the Balearics will be discussed below (Chapter 3.4.2 and 3.5). A post-250/300 ‘wine’ (or possibly oil) press and processing vats have been excavated just within the walls of Barcelona, part of an urban villa that was later the site of the bishop’s palace. There are no amphorae extant from these old excavations on the site.208 As already argued (previous section, Chapter 1.3), the 4th to mid 5th century Keay 68/91 series produced in the region of Barcelona is more likely to have contained local fish sauce, rather than wine. In the Ebro Valley, 4th century wine production is known at the villa site of Liédena. In the 1st century AD certain regions of Baetica specialised in exports of a special grape syrup (defructum), carried in Haltern 70 amphorae, in addition to perhaps rarer quantities of wine (carried in Dressel 2-4 and possibly also Haltern 70). Haltern 70 is common on urban sites in southern Lusitania, at Santarém and Conimbriga, for example, in northern Lusitania, at Bracara Augusta and in the north-west of Spain, where there was a concentration of the Roman army (Asturica Augusta and other sites: Table 11).209 The Rhine frontier camps, Britain and Rome were also major targets (Table 1b). A certain concentration of finds at Santa Pola, the port of Ilici, parallels that of imports there of Dressel 20s and Baetican fish sauce amphorae. In the 3rd century, however, there is evidence for a new, more concerted effort in Baetica to introduce wine production for export, also packaged in small amphorae ‘a base plana’. These amphorae were produced on several kiln sites along the Andalusian coast.210 Some products, those of Matagallares, have been identified as imports in Lyon, where they comprise a fair share of the imported wine market in an early 3rd century context (Table 6a: 8%; Lemaître [2000b]).211 These continue to be supplied to Arles in the 4th century (n. 124). Though the latter form is not yet attested beyond the 3rd century, the Beltrán 68 amphora, one of several forms apparently produced at Puente Melchor (Cádiz), present on the mid 3rd century Cabrera III wreck (heading for Rome?), and occasionally exported to the East (Caesarea and Beirut), may have continued into the 4th century. Though generally thought to have carried wine, this type could equally have carried fish sauce.212 It is not yet clear whether these limited finds indicate a relatively minor Baetican wine export market in the 3rd and 4th centuries, or whether the limited finds are due to the difficulties in their isolation and identification, particularly with respect to the similar rim forms of Keay 23 fish sauce amphorae and true Gallic amphorae (as discussed above). 1.4.3. Wine imports into Hispania Campanian wine is one of the more common, regular imports documented in sequences excavated in Valencia, during the 1st and 2nd centuries, and notably also the early to mid 3rd century.213 As we have seen, this post-AD 79 production of Campanian wine is attested also in Britain into the 3rd

53

Hispania and the Roman Mediterranean century, and at Zeugma, where they occur in the Sassanian sack deposits of 253 with occasional examples of Pompeian Red Ware.214 The same Campanian products were exported to Butrint in the mid 3rd century (Forum Context 98: Reynolds, Hernández and Çondi 2008, fig. 15.54-56). Late 1st and 2nd century Gallic wine amphorae are relatively rare finds in Spain, occurring primarily on north-eastern sites, and occasionally in the south-east, for example at Santa Pola.215 The primary export markets for Gallic wine were Rome and the northern provinces. In Britain, for example, Gaul was the most common source of wine, with a major distribution in civilian and especially urban sites in the south, as well as military targets in the north. In Britannia soldiers may have become accustomed to drinking beer, a more affordable beverage than wine, and the distribution of thin-walled cups (for wine) v. larger mugs (for beer) may illustrate this pattern.216 One might look for the same distribution pattern in Hispania. Wine imports into Hispania during the 3rd and 4th centuries were low generally, and the eastern imports are no exception.217 Even in the 2nd century when eastern imports (wine amphorae and Aegean cooking wares) reached Ostia, Rome, Lyon and Marseille, they are scarcely attested in Hispania. This can only be an indication of the specialised marketing and restricted shipping routes of ships carrying largely Aegean cargoes. These focused on the Adriatic, Campania and Rome (passing through the Straits of Messina, where ship wrecks are known,218 docking in Pozzuoli and Ostia) and on southern Gallic ports, but bypassed the ports of eastern Spain and the Atlantic. Cretan amphorae, as we have seen, significant wine imports to Pompeii and Rome in the 1st and 2nd centuries, were notably not supplied to the Iberian Peninsula. The absence of Cretan wine in Spain in the 3rd and 4th centuries, however, is not unexpected, given their absence even in Rome. They appear later, at Tarragona in the first half of the 5th century, when there was a notable increase in eastern wine imports. The 3rd and 4th century Kapitän 2 amphora was also rarely imported and again finds are concentrated in north-eastern Tarraconensis. Mauretanian Keay 1 amphorae were not common, even on the east coast, being concentrated at Tarragona and Valencia, with rarer finds in the south-east, such as the Vinalopó Valley.219 It may be that of the two variants of Keay 1, Keay 1A, closely resembling the contemporary Gauloise 4 amphora, was more rarely distributed to Hispania, in comparison to Keay 1B. Both types occur in Rome, Ostia, Porto Torres and Luni (Luni often following the Rome supply with regard to amphora imports).220 The distribution of Keay 1 may nevertheless be due not to direct importation from Algeria but redistribution from Ostia or Porto Torres/Sardinia or possibly from southern Gaul (they are common at Arles in the mid to late 4th century: n. 124). The east Sicilian (and Cyrenaican) amphora MRA 1 is only very rarely found on the east coast, the distribution being concentrated on Italy, southern Gaul (e.g. Arles), Cyrenaica and Tripolitania.

54

1. The oil, fish and wine trade: Hispania and her competitors The dearth of wine imports in the Iberian Peninsula during the 3rd and 4th centuries may be due to the preferential targeting of Rome and southern Gaul by north African and increasingly limited eastern exports. Mauretanian Keay 1 amphorae are the only regular, though still relatively rare, wine imports found on the east coast. This in turn may also account for the local production of wine in coastal regions of Hispania. It is always possible, too, that some local wine may have been carried in non-amphora containers, such as the painted forms shown in Fig. 10 (forms 21, 22 and 24), or in barrels, depicted on funerary monuments primarily in the western part of the Iberian Peninsula, notably in Lusitania.221 In conclusion, though Tarraconensian wine exports demonstrate that the region was a major player in the wine trade of the 1st century, targeting Rome, Carthage and southern Gaul, long-distance exports were minimal by the first half of the 2nd century, probably largely due to the strength of the Gallic wine industry and its primary location and capacity to supply the military markets of the northern frontier. There appears to have been a corresponding, perhaps related, rise in the supply of Tarraconensian wine to closer Spanish markets such as Valencia in the 2nd century, a supply that continued well into the 3rd century, but had ended by c. 270.222 Wine production in south-eastern Spain in the 1st and 2nd centuries, and possibly into the 3rd century, focused on Dénia, may have served only the immediate south-eastern market (e.g. Santa Pola/Ilici and Cartagena). Baetica, on the other hand, after a notable lapse in wine and related exports (defructum), did emerge as a wine producer and exporter, albeit (possibly only) on a small scale. These exports, like those of Baetican fish sauce, probably took advantage of the continued established links between Baetica and regions served by the annona. Wine production in Baetica must have also catered for a local market in a period when there were limited imported alternatives available, as these were directed elsewhere. Though the lack of imports to the Iberian Peninsula should have encouraged the production and distribution of local alternatives for consumption, one is left with a general lack of evidence for amphora-borne local wine industries elsewhere within Hispania during the mid Roman period. One exception may be the Ebro Valley, where a number of presses have been found on villa sites. If wine was produced and carried in local amphorae in Barcelona in the early to mid 5th centuries (cf. imports in Tarragona) and in Alicante in the 5th to 6th centuries (Chapter 3.4.2 and 3.5) these have a markedly local distribution. The use of painted small table amphorae for the distribution of local wine in parts of central Spain during the 3rd and 4th centuries is here also suggested.

55

2

Fine wares, 3rd to early 6th centuries We have already seen how Tunisia, with African Red Slip Ware, came to dominate the supply of table wares for much of the coastal regions of southern and eastern Hispania and contributed to the end of the production of fine wares in Baetica. The province’s alternative to Italian red gloss table wares made at Arezzo, Pisa, Naples and other centres – terra sigillata hispánica – comprising relief-decorated mould-made forms and plain forms, ended in the late 2nd century and, unlike the similar major centres of t. s. hispánica in the La Rioja Valley, in the north-east, did not resurface. This may have been due to the continued strength of Tunisian table ware imports, that had thriving and growing primary agricultural industries ‘under-writing’ what was a secondary industry. Pottery production in Tunisia followed paths of regional development parallel and intimately linked to those that developed and expanded agricultural production for export (primarily oil, fish sauce and grain), as well as those developed to serve the growing number of Roman cities across Numidia and Africa (see above, Chapter 1.1).223 Pottery production in Baetica, in contrast, ran parallel with a downward trend in oil and fish sauce production and exports. Coastal sites in north-eastern Spain, however, were able to tap not only imports of ARS on a grand scale, but also additional supplies of table wares, namely those from southern Gaul. The latter were mass-produced from the 3rd century onwards, those of the 4th and 5th centuries being strongly influenced by forms and decorative stamps that characterised ARS. This said, late Roman table wares produced in Gaul, Tunisia, Tripolitania, or, as we shall see, in central, northern and southern Spain and in Portugal, all shared traits in decoration, formal characteristics and function. They were all derived from prototypes in metal ware, either directly or indirectly.224 The detailed analysis of ARS distribution on coastal sites in Spain and Portugal was the subject of previous work (Reynolds 1993, for Alicante; 1995: ch. 2; see also Járrega Domínguez 1991 for a more comprehensive documentation of ARS and other fine ware imports, particularly in Baetica and the north-east). Those conclusions still hold and will not be repeated here. The following section will, in contrast, focus on trends in the import and production of table wares of inland Spain in order to provide a more balanced survey of the ceramic scene in the Iberian Peninsula. The role of the Ebro Valley, navigable as far as Logroño, is one key factor in the

56

2. Fine wares, 3rd to early 6th centuries distribution of imported table wares (and cooking wares) well inland in northern Tarraconensis, sites also supplied with products of a renascent late phase of t. s. hispánica, known as t. s. hispánica tardía (TSHT) (Chapter 2.2.1). The ready markets offered by towns and rural villa sites of central and north-eastern Spain and Portugal, cut off from the supply of imports, account for the diversity of table ware alternatives in these regions. These new Spanish wares clearly filled a gap in the market in regions where Mediterranean fine wares were unattainable. They included TSHT, where this was available, but comprised, in addition, a complex range of still poorly understood stamped, slipped, burnished, colour-coated and plain forms, the products of numerous regional industries with specific regional markets (Chapter 2.2.2). Painted wares, the ceramic output of several urban centres, also had a major role in urban and rural sites throughout inland Spain and Portugal on a scale not encountered on coastal sites of the east and south (Chapter 2.2.3). Sites in inland south-eastern Spain were similarly the target of a class of red slipped ware produced at several centres, one certainly being the mining town of Castulo (Chapter 2.3). Some sites of Portugal, Galicia and Asturias, located on the coast or more inland (e.g. Conimbriga, Bracara Augusta) were able in the 4th to 6th centuries to tap supplies of Tunisian and eastern Mediterranean fine wares carried in ships plying the Atlantic route to Britain or perhaps on the annona route to Bordeaux (Díaz and Menéndez-Bueyes 2005). This supply of western and eastern Mediterranean table wares (and associated goods) to Atlantic sites was the result of two main factors. One was related to general economic trends in supply affecting the entire Mediterranean following the Vandal conquest of north Africa that led to increased eastern exports flowing to the West. The Atlantic route was an extension of that supply. But equally important, and intimately related to the latter extension of eastern trade into the Atlantic, were what must have been specific ties, some known to have been ecclesiastical, established between these eastern sources and south-western Britain (Chapter 3.4.1 and 4.1.2). 2.1. Late Roman south Gaulish fine wares Centres in southern Gaul such as La Graufesenque had since the early 1st century AD been the major producers of a Gallic red gloss ware (south Gaulish terra sigillata) that rivalled the Italian products on which they were based (now more correctly termed terra sigillata italica, rather than ‘Arretine’). These south Gaulish workshops came soon to eclipse the latter as suppliers of table wares en masse to military markets in Gaul and to some extent, along the east coast of Spain. These were in turn supplanted by central Gaulish (notably Lezouz: from c. 100) and east Gaulish (notably Rheinzabern: from c. 200) centres that were closer to the urban and military markets of the Rhine and Britannia.225 The later output of Gallia

57

Hispania and the Roman Mediterranean Narbonensis of the 3rd century and particularly 4th to 6th centuries that concern us here comprised two regional products: ‘t. s. chiara B’ and its successors, prelucente and lucente produced in the Savoie and Rhône Valley and t. s. paléochrétienne grise and orangée produced over a wide area of the south-west, from Bordeaux to Marseille and the lower Rhône Valley.226 Sigillata chiara B, with a pale orange surface coat, had a fairly large repertoire of forms (44 are listed in the Atlante). The ware had little in common with African Red Slip Ware, though some forms were inspired by similar metal ware prototypes (large dishes that were similarly imitated in ARS for the first time in the mid 3rd century, ARS forms 49 and perhaps 50).227 At Ventimiglia chiara B is attested from the mid 2nd century to the second half of the 3rd century. Vessels with a more violet and iridescent surface coat, appeared in the Severan period (t. s. chiara prelucente) and were forerunners of more typically iridescent products known as t. s. chiara lucente. The latter, produced during the late 3rd and 5th centuries, comprised a reduced range of forms including the ubiquitous carinated bowl shape with convex ‘almond’ rim (Lamboglia 1/3). This was a form with a long history, as it was also produced in chiara B and was itself modelled on the classic south Gaulish shape Dragendorff 37. A carinated mortar with a lion’s head spout was another characteristic form (Lamboglia 45). There are no obvious links with the repertoire of ARS. T. s. paléochrétienne grise and orangée, produced from the late 4th to mid 6th centuries, had, in contrast, much more in common with the contemporary products of ARS, both with respect to the wide range of dish forms and the stamped decoration on the floor and, not paralleled in ARS, on the rim. The ware was produced in both an oxidised range, with a pale yellow-ochre fabric and yellow-orange slip (orangée), and, in marked contrast to Mediterranean fine wares of this period, a reduced-fired version with grey to black fabric and slip (grise). Three regions produced the ware, in successive periods, each with their distinctive decorative schemes. The Groupe Languedocienne, based at Narbonne, where 40-60% of products were oxidised, was active from the late 4th century to the mid 5th century. The Groupe Provençale in Provence and the Lower Rhône Valley, with its base at Marseille, was active from the early 5th to mid 6th centuries and produced primarily t. s. paléochrétienne grise. The production at Marseille is now particularly well documented and dated by the recent excavations. The Groupe Atlantique, on the Atlantic and in Aquitaine, with its base at Bordeaux, was active in the 6th century (hence termed ‘Visigothic’, by Hayes 1972). All examples of the ware are reduced and are decorated with particularly attractive designs including ‘original’, rather Celtic elements, notably animals, not encountered in ARS.228 As one would expect, the marketing of south Gaulish late Roman fine wares in the Iberian Peninsula concentrated on north-eastern Spain (Fig. 7). A study of the distribution in north-eastern Cataluña of the oxidised ware t. s. chiara lucente demonstrates an unusually wide range of forms,

58

2. Fine wares, 3rd to early 6th centuries particularly those produced at the 5th century workshop of Portout.229 The wide distribution of finds in the Lower Ampurdán of coastal Cataluña, particularly in the south, is also evident, notably on villa sites, though quantities are relatively low in most cases.230 Large numbers of Gallic fine wares datable to the period 350-450 have been recently published from a necropolis located some 500m from Ampurias (Table 12).231 In a late 5th century or later layer sealing the necropolis, the relative quantities of Gallic fine wares dropped, whereas there was a rise in ARS, but the high numbers present in the mid 6th century deposit overlying it surely cannot all be residual. Additional Gallic wares were excavated in 1994 at Ampurias in a deposit dated to the first half of the 5th century (Table 12).232 At the villa site of Darró (Garraf, Barcelona) Gallic fine wares in a small deposit of c. 425-450 are about equal to those of ARS.233 The villa of Vilauba (Gerona) represents the farthest inland of distribution of Gallic fine wares in the Ampurdán (c. 20 fragments). There was some penetration of the Ebro Valley (e.g. to Zaragoza) (see Table 13), but finds are relatively rare. T. s. paléochrétienne grise was not uncommon in Tarragona in the mid 5th century (Table 12), Sagunto (Grau-Vell) and nearby at Valencia (a possibly mid 4th century deposit).234 Finds of t. s. paléochrétienne grise in south-eastern Spain are in contrast relatively rare, certainly in comparison to those of ARS (Ilici and the Vinalopó Valley, Murcian sites and Cartagena).235 The rare finds of Gallic wares in Belo are perhaps typical of coastal sites in Baetica and a similar situation is attested at Conimbriga, both sites well outside the regular shipping routes of ships leaving Gallic ports.236 These sites were, in contrast, well supplied with ARS and, in the mid 5th to first half of the 6th centuries, with Phocean Late Roman C (see below, Chapter 3.4 and 3.5). Gijón, on the north coast of Spain, also on the shipping route to Britain, received imports of t. s. paléochrétienne grise atlantique from Bordeaux (which was also on the route) and occasional vessels of LRC and ARS.237 The wide distribution of Gallic wares (both lucente and paléochrétienne grise) in the Balearics, together with local imitations of their forms, illustrates a special link between the islands and presumably, Narbonne and Marseille.238 As at Rosas, some products in an early 5th century cistern deposit excavated at the villa site of Sa Mesquida (Calviá, Mallorca) are of late t. s. lucente from Portout. Vessels of t. s. paléochrétienne grise, orangée and lucente account for slightly more than a third of the fine wares in this deposit.239 2.2. Table wares in central and northern Spain and Portugal In central Spain and Cantabria the supply of fine wares from the 3rd to 5th centuries was markedly different to that of the sites of the east and south coasts. The wide range of classes and sources of table wares of a large rural villa such as that at Valdetorres de Jarama (Table 14) illustrates

59

Hispania and the Roman Mediterranean this most clearly. ARS, with the exception of the Ebro Valley (cf. Table 13), had never penetrated inland Spain to any notable degree in the 2nd century. Nor did it gain a foothold in the mid and late Roman periods (for finds, see Járrega Domínguez 1991, passim and 109, fig. 4). Rather, it was locally manufactured sigillata imitations that supplied the great villas of the interior (cf. Gorges 1979; Bowes 2005). The circulation of these wares was highly regionalised already by the 4th century and became more so over time. 2.2.1. Terra sigillata hispánica tardía (TSHT) Whereas production of t. s. hispánica in Baetica ended in the late 2nd century and was never revived, the major centres of the ware in the Imperial period focused on the La Rioja Valley in northern Tarraconensis, and, after a similar break in production, slowly re-emerged during the 3rd century. Some sites, notably Pamplona/Pompaelo, continued without a break in production but did not continue into the 4th (see Map 4 for the centres of the early Empire; Map 7 for the distribution of TSHT centres of 3rd to 5th century date). Output, however, was much reduced in the La Rioja Valley and later shifted to new centres. T. s. hispánica tardía is marked by both the gradual introduction of new forms, some, particularly dishes with stamped decoration following contemporary western Mediterranean fashion, and the development of a simplified and idiosyncratic form of moulded decorative ‘medallions’, derived from those of ‘classic’ t. s. hispánica. The chronological development of this output has been sub divided into five ‘decorative styles’. The classification of the typological repertoire of late t. s. hispánica has been enlarged and modified over the last decades. The dating of forms and variants has also undergone changes,240 and there is still uncertainty where this is based on associated coin finds and in regions where there are no independently dated imports such as ARS to aid the chronology. This is particularly problematical when trying to date the end of production of TSHT, and in fact all regional table wares, associated pottery and other finds in central Spain and Portugal.241 The forms of TSHT in part continued the Imperial repertoire (e.g. Ritterling 8) but new, often stamped, forms were also introduced. These followed the current late Roman (silver ware) repertoire of mainly dish shapes that were also the basis of 4th century ARS and south Gaulish t. s. paléochrétienne grise and orangée (see Fig. 8 for some examples). Formerly given a wide chronological range (4th and 5th centuries), the dating of TSHT has now been improved through excavations at sites such as La Serna, Relea (Saldaña) and Toledo, and with the help provided by the dating of ARS typological parallels.242 Paz Peralta has recently published a new review of the typology, dating and distribution of TSHT (2008, especially 523-8, table 1), where a large number of forms are assigned to the 5th century, with at least 12 regional

60

2. Fine wares, 3rd to early 6th centuries products dating to the second half of the 5th century. He argues that the ware ceased to be produced by c. AD 510. Following a first phase influenced by early north Tunisian ARS D forms in the early to mid 4th century, the late 4th century marked a radical change in the decoration, with an increase in the number of moulded decorated forms and a shift from oxidised (red) to reduced (grey-black) firing, following the Gallic model of t. s. paléochrétienne grise.243 In the La Rioja Valley, after a major break in production during the late 2nd to mid 3rd centuries, production gradually resurfaced in a few centres that were active during the late 3rd and 4th centuries. A few workshops continued without a break through the 3rd century, such as that of Villarroya de la Sierra (Zaragoza), which ended in the 4th century, Fuentecillas, in Arenzana de Abajo (La Rioja) that persisted until the end of the 3rd century and at the workshops of Belorado (Burgos) and Pla d’Abella (Navés, Lérida). Third century production at the urban centre of Pamplona/Pompaelo is also attested through finds of moulds. During the late 3rd and 4th centuries, new, regionally orientated workshops partially took the place of the defunct Imperial industries. At the most important production centre of the early Empire, Tricio/Tritium Magallum, where all production had ceased by the end of the 2nd century, one workshop is known to have begun ex novo (Salceda) at the end of the 3rd century. Other new regional workshops of TSHT are known notably outside the La Rioja Valley, in the Middle and Upper Arlanza Valley (Burgos), at centres such as Mambrillas de Lara, serving a cluster of villa sites, and at Villarejo de Salvanés (Madrid) located at a castro-highland site. Clunia (Coruña del Conde, Burgos), the centre of a major painted pottery industry in the 3rd and 4th centuries (see below, Chapter 2.2.3), and perhaps Tiermes were also production sites, though both for their own local markets. TSHT produced by these workshops enjoyed a wide distribution, particularly vessels decorated in the ‘3rd decorative style’ (complex interlocking hachured ‘wheels’, a typical motif of late Roman mosaics), used par excellence on the carinated bowl TSHT 37 tardía (Fig. 8). This decoration and form was characteristic of the centres of the Meseta, such as Covarrubias and Mecerreyes, which produced good quality vessels in a varied range of forms in the period c. 350-450. This renaissance in the industry may have provided the catalyst for the contemporary appearance of new workshops in the La Rioja Valley, such as Nájera and Villar de Torre, and others in the Cuenca del Nájerilla. Though TSHT is likely to have continued well into the 5th century, the evidence for its production in the second half of the century is sketchy. Some scholars, however, have claimed that the ware had already ceased circulation in the early 5th century, although this notion has not always been accepted. Indeed, the mid 5th century Tarragona finds are an indication to the contrary (Table 12).244 It is commonly, and not unreasonably,

61

Hispania and the Roman Mediterranean thought that its demise was the result of the general instability and disruption in the region caused by both the barbarian incursions and local conflicts during this period. As I have said, Paz Peralta’s recent synthesis argues for continuity of production until the end of the 5th century, if not a little later. It is still possible, however, that the reasoning behind this late dating is based on typological parallels (the date ranges of similar ARS forms) and not on other evidence. The distribution of TSHT during the 4th century took place on a large scale, but limited geographical range, focused on the northern Meseta, with some marketing farther afield (Map 8).245 In the upper Ebro Valley, during the second half of the 3rd century TSH was clearly the dominant table ware in the towns of Tarazona/Turiaso (a late 3rd century deposit) and nearby Borja/Bursao (a deposit of AD 250-300). Though Tunisian fine wares and cooking wares regularly reached Zaragoza/Caesaraugusta in the mid 4th to late 5th centuries, the predominant fine ware by far was TSHT (Table 13: note that the percentage calculations are based on the total pottery, not just the fine wares, so the relative percentage of TSHT as fine ware was greater than indicated). TSHT rarely reached the sites of the east coast (Valencia, Alicante) and there are only scattered finds in the south, Mérida being an exception. The north-east coast, down to Valencia, was well supplied with Gallic fine wares and ARS, as we have seen. The data from mid 5th century Tarragona clearly demonstrates the small contribution TSHT made to these Gallic and Tunisian-dominated, largely coastal markets (Table 12). TSHT could likewise make few inroads into ARS-dominated Baetica or south-eastern Spain. As Juan Tovar argues, in contrast to the major TSH fine ware business of 1st and 2nd centuries, the marketing of TSHT was no longer in the hands of negotiatores with the means to distribute wares over long distances.246 Production centres appear to have been no longer exclusively connected to towns. Clunia and Pompaelo continued as important urban production centres, the former also for painted wares, as we shall see. Many workshops, however, were in rural locations, closer, one suspects, to their principal market and source of capital, possibly the late Roman elite, living in the large late Roman villas that are so typical of the late Roman settlement pattern of central and northern Spain. Nor was the scale of production equivalent or the standards so rigorously set: there was much typological variation, though this may equally be due to the number of (disparate) workshops. For this reason there has been much confusion in the classification of these wares through the over-simplification of what were in reality regionally diverse typologies, all based on more widely-circulated late Roman prototypes. For example, late products of TSHT have been erroneously classified as Gallic imports or as simply ‘imitations of t. s. paléochrétienne grise’, as they appear to have followed Gallic taste, being reduce-fired dark grey-black and decorated with stamps of Gallic design.247 Dishes at La Olmeda, for example,

62

2. Fine wares, 3rd to early 6th centuries can be seen to be based on Gallic form Rigoir 1, rather than its counterpart in ARS (Hayes 59), as the La Olmeda vessels are not only reduced grey but also bear concentric circle stamps on the rim, as would never occur on ARS.248 TSHT, then, while producing a wide variety of forms of high quality during the later 3rd to mid 5th centuries, enjoyed a major, if relatively limited distribution, predominantly in central, northern Spain. Unlike its Imperial predecessor, its markets were local and regional, principally in areas where ARS and Gallic wares were rare. 2.2.2. Alternative regional table wares Following an early introductory phase from c. 375-400, and particularly from the early 5th century, possibly as a result of the barbarian incursions of 407-409 and the restricted distribution of TSHT, there was a trend towards the manufacture of a variety of local alternative table wares. They are characteristic of the eastern part of the north Meseta, but are rarer in Palencia, Burgos, Soria and the north Duero, and absent so far in Cantabria, the Basque region and Ebro Valley.249 This class of ‘coarse ware imitation of sigillata’ (cerámica común tardorromana, imitación de sigillata), though often stamped, was not slipped. Firing was irregular, vessels often being burnt by the flames, due to the draft kilns employed or firing in pits in the case of later products. Vessels were reduce-fired to black, as were some products of TSHT from c. 360/370. The fabrics could be rather coarse. The manufacturing and firing process, perhaps in the hands of itinerant potters, was closer to that of coarse wares than fine wares that required a distinct type of kiln and more careful preparation of specially chosen iron-rich clays. For a short period (c. 375-400), when they were in use together with TSHT, as in Segovia, vessels were of good quality. The typological range included open and closed forms. Dishes and plates were rare, in contrast to TSHT. Carinated bowls were common, as in TSHT and Gallic t. s. paléochrétienne. Also common was a bowl with spout, not found in TSHT, but commonly found in Spanish and Balearic coarse ware and in late t. s. paléochrétienne (see above, Chapter 1.3, cf. Fig. 17a). Closed forms included jugs and orzas (flat-based jars and/or cooking pots with a constricted neck). A wider range of closed and semi-closed forms marked a second, longer phase, from c. 400. Of these terra sigillata imitations, one major class, cerámica común bruñida (burnished common ware) was typical of the 5th century, particularly the first half, and had the widest distribution: centred on the provinces of Segovia and Ávila, south of Valladolid, east of Salamanca and Zamora and north of Madrid, its furthest limits being Conimbriga to the west, Iruña to the north (where TSHT still held a market: see below) and Pico de la Muela to the south-east (Map 9). Sites served by this ware were rarely villas, perhaps due to its introduction after their abandonment in the late 4th to early 5th

63

Hispania and the Roman Mediterranean centuries, particularly following the barbarian incursions of 407-409. Markets served instead were settlements that survived because they offered more security in this period: towns, highland castros and vici, equally formerly connected with the supply of TSHT.250 This class was burnished-polished (perhaps with wool) and, in some cases, then stamped, both occasionally on the floor of dishes (as ARS) and, more typically, as TSHT and Gallic wares, on the outer walls of closed and semi-closed forms (carinated bowls; large and small jars: Fig. 9). Later versions of the ware were more carelessly finished, being burnished after stamping, leading to the partial obliteration of the stamps. Other products have more the appearance of coarse wares but were also stamped or bore incised decoration. Like the polished ware, they were not slipped but the formal repertoire included typical table ware dishes. Finally another class, less well defined, comprises vessels with a wash or coat (engobe). Notably it was the closed and semi-closed forms in this coarse, pseudo table ware that continued in production into the Visigothic period, from the late 5th century. They are found in the ‘Visigothic’ cemeteries of Duratón, Castiltierra, Madrona, Espirdo, Aguilafuente and Estebanvela, all in Segovia, some demonstrating the continuity of burials from those of the late Roman period that contain TSHT (e.g. Madrona) and burnished products that were precursors to the Hispano-Visigothic series. Visigothic products have flat bases and not the ring foot bases of the late Roman series. They are burnished and hand-made or slow wheel-made. These characteristics help to distinguish Visigothic from late Roman versions of similar forms, such as bowls, two-handled jugs and single handled jugbowls.251 This said, there was already a late Roman tradition of slow-wheel made burnished flat based cooking dishes and deep cooking pots in northeastern Tarraconensis from the 4th century onwards (Fig. 19a-b, Reynolds 1993, Handmade Ware 7). In Murcia, where hand-made cooking ware forms were typical from the 5th century onwards (Fig. 19c-d, Reynolds 1993, Handmade Ware 8), flat-based forms close to those of northern Spain did not appear until the Visigothic occupation of the region in the late 6th to 7th centuries. The flat-based olla form with a narrow neck was a common shape (Reynolds 1993, HM 10.8, HM 11.4 and HM 12.1) (Fig. 28c). None of these Tarraconensian and Murcian parallels were stamped, however, and they cannot be classed as ‘table wares’. In east-central Spain, in the provinces of Madrid and Toledo (e.g. at excavations of the Roman circus of Toledo) yet another ware, t. s. hispánica brillante, provided an alternative to imported fine wares (Map 10).252 The ware was identified at Clunia as dorada Cluniense by Palol, though he did not publish any examples. The term brillante used here is in imitation of the lucente of the Gallic t. s. chiara B and t. s. lucente wares of the Rhône Valley and Savoie region, with their well-fired, often iridescent-metallic looking surfaces. T. s. hispánica brillante not only has a similar colour and

64

2. Fine wares, 3rd to early 6th centuries hardness but also imitates one of the most common forms in the repertoire of these Gallic wares, a carinated bowl with convex rim band and rouletted wall (Fig. 7a-b). The Spanish product may date from the end of the 2nd century or, more likely, early 3rd century and continued into the 5th century. The most common form in the 3rd and first half of the 4th centuries was a dish with a convex wall and wide floor, similar to chiara B form Lamboglia 9b, a shape that is rarely found in TSH. One 4th century site where this ware is found, along with others typical of the central region, was at Valdetorres de Jarama, a large octagonal structure, decorated with late 2nd and 3rd century pagan sculpture imported from Aphrodisias (Map 11, for the site’s location; for the fine wares, see Table 14).253 Amphorae are notably absent at the site. Imported fine wares of ARS and Gallic t. s. paléochrétienne grise are rare. Local-regional fine wares include TSH brillante, TSHT, the most common table ware (both plain and moulded: dishes, large and small bowls, flask and ink well), TSH meridional (see below, Chapter 2.3, c.f. Castulo) and ‘TSHT imitating Narbonnese’. Painted wares, which we will shortly turn to, are particularly common. Conimbriga, in northern Lusitania, exemplifies an inland town site with yet another range of stamped local-regional table wares that should date to the 4th to mid 5th centuries (the city was sacked by the Suevi in 468). Four classes of local-regional table wares were found at Conimbriga.254 These include cerámicas anaranjadas finas, a mixed group of burnished, plain and slipped forms with parallels in TSHT and ARS;255 cerámica de Avelar, closer to Segovia products, as they are burnished, coarse and in a range of colours;256 one group included under ARS D, similar to the ‘fine orange’ ware, but coarse and micaceous, fired red to grey, smoothed, some possibly thinly slipped, and decorated as ARS and TSHT of the 4th and mid 5th centuries;257 and, under the heading of ‘Late Roman grey wares’, plates and bowls paralleled in ARS, TSHT, and Gallic fine wares. Though a few are true Gallic products,258 the majority are notably not slipped and are plain or bear incised wavy lines or moulded-dot decoration on the rim, like late Roman silverware and ARS 76B. One group is ‘smoothed’ or lightly polished.259 At Conimbriga, which was supplied with ARS up to the early 5th century, one wonders to what extent the end of ARS exports to Atlantic sites following the Vandal conquest of Roman Africa Proconsularis (AD 429-439) stimulated the production of local-regional table wares that are found in the latest deposits.260 A similar trend in the imitation of ARS is also a feature of 5th century Italy and continued into the 6th century, evidence perhaps that the supply of ARS even in this period when Tunisian exports recommenced, was not sufficient to satisfy demand.261 The drop in ARS imports in both Portugal and southern Italy (e.g. S. Giovanni di Ruoti) clearly correlates with the influx of eastern LRC fine wares that date from c. 450 onwards (see below, Chapter 3.4-5, and the Atlantic trade route).262

65

Hispania and the Roman Mediterranean 2.2.3. Painted wares Painted wares, successors of those of the Imperial period in the northern and southern Meseta, with major urban production centres at, respectively, Alcalá de Henares/Complutum and Saelices/Segobriga (Cuenca), were still produced in the 3rd to 5th centuries (though most examples are dated by Abascal to the second half of the 4th century) (Map 11; Fig. 10).263 They comprised an important element of the repertoire found in towns, villa sites (see, for example, Table 14) and necropoleis (notably those on the Duero, such as Fuentespreadas).264 Forms in both regions were similar, primarily for carrying liquids: one and two-handled jugs, typical late Roman shapes, also found TSHT, ARS and t. s. paléochrétienne. One common shape could well be a painted transport amphora (Fig. 10, Form 24), and narrow-necked Form 21 (Fig. 10) could also have served as a means to market local wine (its shape recalls the Balearic wine amphora Keay 79). There were also a variety of jars and one or two-handled cups/bowls. Some decorative schemes paralleled those of TSHT of the late 4th century. Other local-regional painted wares are evident at Conimbriga and Mérida (for example Fig. 10, Form 41: its bands of painted dot decoration are distinctive) and in Galicia. The 1st to 2nd century early Roman painted wares of La Alcudia (Elche)/Ilici, with roots in a centuries-old tradition of Iberian painted wares, did not survive into the late Roman period. Though there are a few examples of late Roman painted jugs, the bowls and closed form repertoire of painted wares were provided by an undecorated local plain, buff ware, the only local late Roman pottery industry in the Vinalopó Valley (Reynolds 1993, Ware 1: over 90 forms in its repertoire). Of the similar Iberian-style early Imperial painted wares that were produced on the east coast of Spain (Liria/Edeta, an important centre; finds in Valentia and Ampurias), a late series is found only in Tarragona.265 Here, where there were alternative fine wares (ARS and Gallic), painted wares, though regularly present, are nevertheless quite rare (only 4 and 7 fragments respectively in the large mid 5th century Vila-roma 2 and STE/1 deposits: see Table 12). We should note that painted wares were to become from the 5th century onwards a notable component of pottery assemblages at Carthage, at Ostia, in Campania, and on southern Italian sites in general, a trend in Italy that was to continue into the early Medieval period. In Hispania, however, painted wares never dominated the tableware market as they did in Italy. Spanish painted wares, and also the local sigillata, does not seem to have outlived the mid 5th century. This trend in the disappearance of ‘fine’ pottery, painted wares being a specialised craft, should perhaps be seen in the context of the non-sustainability of relatively advanced technological crafts, particularly those based in urban production centres, as were painted wares. Clarification of the end-date of painted wares (most

66

2. Fine wares, 3rd to early 6th centuries are dated no later than the 4th century by Abascal) is needed to determine whether their disappearance coincided with the introduction of more crudely-produced table ware alternatives, particularly closed forms. Such a phase should perhaps be linked to the disruptions in ceramic production and markets served following the barbarian incursions of 407-409. 2.3. Local fine wares in south-eastern Spain: terra sigillata meridional Although, as we have seen, the terra sigillata industry of Baetica did not survive beyond the late 2nd century, one local class of table ware did emerge in southern Spain in the late Roman period, the so-called terra sigillata meridional.266 It is typical of the highlands of south-eastern Spain (Map 7) and was produced during the 4th and 5th centuries.267 One major centre of production was almost certainly at the Roman mining town of Cazlona/Castulo (Jaén). It is common, with notably rarer ARS, at Córdoba, in the fill marking the abandonment in the first half of the 5th century of the cryptoporticus of Cercadilla, as well as in a deposit of the same period excavated in Granada (Plaza de Santa Isabel la Real).268 Its thin slip, rather irregular firing (reduced streaks indicate use of a draft kiln, like the terra sigillata imitations in the north) and only occasional stamping are, according to Juan Tovar and García Moreno, characteristics closer to those of coarse wares than terra sigillata proper. However, the fine fabric, slip, fine rouletting and thin walls of at least some products would seem to me to be just as good as some examples of ARS.269 The finely notched rouletted bands on the outer walls of bowl forms and bands of rouletting on the floors of dishes are an idiosyncratic feature of t.s. meridional (Fig. 11), vessels being only rarely stamped (e.g. on a form close to ARS 67).270

67

3

Hispania and the Mediterranean: 3rd to mid 6th centuries In the previous sections we have examined Baetica’s role with respect to Tunisia and the annona in the course of the 1st to 3rd centuries. We then outlined in turn the histories of growth, decline and renewal for each of the principal agricultural industries of Hispania (oil, fish and wine). We then compared the relative roles of imported versus local-regional fine wares within Hispania. The marked divide between the economies and contacts of the coastal regions and those of the rest of the Iberian Peninsula were noted. The latter towns and villas found their own rich panorama of solutions to counter their isolation from supplies of the major Mediterranean fine ware industries that reached only coastal markets. The following chapters will shift our attention from Hispania to its place in the grander but complex trajectories of the economic and political development of the Roman world. Here we shall look more to the overall distribution of amphorae and other pottery within the whole Mediterranean during the 3rd to 7th centuries and the role that Hispania played in that trade as both producer and consumer. Shipping routes connecting ports and regions, including the cities of Hispania, will be examined from the ceramic evidence. We shall also trace how the supply of imports to Hispania and exports from the Iberian Peninsula were related to wider economic trends in the Mediterranean and the Atlantic provinces, some political, some economic, some cultural. It is important to step back and observe Hispania within the wider geographical context that was the Empire, from east to west, and the respective economic paths that the various regions within both sectors developed and followed in order to respond to the challenges that faced them. The trend towards increased regional Levantine production and supply, it should be stressed, was already in gear in the early 3rd century and became more marked by the mid 3rd century, as was also the division of the supply systems of the Mediterranean into their respective western and eastern halves (Reynolds forthcoming c). The Tetrarchic and later restructuring of the Roman economy in the 4th century affirmed and built on pre-existing regional economic blocks. In the 4th century the cities of the Byzantine East grew to meet the new demands that were imposed upon them, but also, in so doing, further generated their own inter-regional markets. By the early 5th century they were in a favourable position

68

3. Hispania and the Mediterranean: 3rd to mid 6th centuries to step in, when the western state lost its control over the Tunisian resources it had fostered, and capture the western market, including that of Spanish coastal towns. The expansion of the Church and Christianity was another factor that ran as an independent undercurrent and was also to have a major impact on the distribution of surpluses throughout the 4th to 7th centuries. Certain sites in north-western Spain from c. 450 onwards were able to tap specific, perhaps ecclesiastical, links between south-eastern Britain and Tunisian and eastern Mediterranean (Aegean and Levantine) sources. Other factors that affected the economy of Hispania were beyond its control: the loss of its Rome market, followed shortly by that of its military markets in the northern provinces, culminating with the end of Roman rule in Britannia in AD 410. Baetica was forced to concentrate its now diminished exports towards more close-regional targets on the east coast. The barbarian kingdoms provided a catalyst for a burst of trade in surpluses from both Vandal Tunisia and the Byzantine East that was only curtailed with the Byzantine reconquest of north Africa. A more dirigiste structure was then re-imposed, but by the late 6th century Tunisia and the East were again active in supplying Byzantine and non-Byzantine cities alike, though only in coastal regions. This was sea-borne commerce. Only north-eastern Spain took part in this final flourish that continued to some degree until the fall of Carthage. Whereas north-eastern Spain continued to benefit from the now more sporadic contacts between the Mediterranean and Anglo-Saxon Britain, south-eastern Spain and the rest of the Iberian Peninsula, not in Byzantine hands had, since c. 550/575, already become almost totally cut off from the Mediterranean world. 3.1. The 3rd century: a world in transition If we step back and observe the Mediterranean trade connections of the 3rd and 4th centuries it becomes apparent that the de facto divisions of the Roman Empire established in the early 4th century, both administrative and economic, had their roots in the Severan period. Under Septimius Severus the reorganisation of the army and frontiers and of the administration and geographical limits of the provinces themselves were radical initiatives by a ruler determined to take control of almost every aspect of the Empire, just as he was keen to promote his own legitimacy and the survival of his dynasty through various forms of propaganda. His reforms pre-empted those of Diocletian by a century. Some provinces were divided so as to become more manageable. His Tripolitanian urban roots and later experience in Syria, where he was to meet his wife Julia Domna, gave him, perhaps, a distinct appreciation of the possible positive dynamics of cities in the eastern Empire, with their long histories as independent economic units, even currencies. Under his rule, the towns of Africa Proconsularis and Numidia were encouraged to seek control of their immediate territories, some breaking away from the hold of mother Carthage.271

69

Hispania and the Roman Mediterranean The state control of the oil annona supply, somewhat lax in the 2nd century, was not left to chance in the early Severan period. A crucial question is the extent to which the Severans took over a dying Spanish industry, or caused its further demise. The production of Baetican and Tripolitanian oil was brought under direct imperial control in the early Severan period, in both cases partly through ruthless expropriation, with free oil rations being established in Rome for the first time. The state redistribution of these surpluses as annona goods needs to be set apart from ‘private’ trade, even though some private non-annona goods (fish and wine) were distributed with annona cargoes. There had always been these two mechanisms of supply in operation, but now the state and the army were directly in control of the annona from source to destination. Surpluses could also be sold for profit. From the mid 3rd century, annona goods appear more regularly alongside non-annona cargoes, but the quantities exported had dropped and the markets had become more diversified. The long-distance movement of goods between East and West, nevertheless, was a major feature of the early and mid 3rd century, more than has been supposed. It is possible, still, to identify marked changes in the character of this exchange, in quantities, sources, range of forms exported and the destinations served. There is, furthermore, a trend towards stronger regionalisation of production and supply between the ports of single regional blocks (‘close regional’ cities and provinces). This trend became more marked in the mid 3rd century, just as the divide between East and West became more evident. What survived were perhaps special links between the Black Sea and Rome, that were even more minor by c. 300. By the late 3rd century it is difficult to find evidence for even regional exchange, in as much as this is not evident in construction deposits in urban centres (see end of section 3.1). The distribution of Baetican oil remained a largely western phenomenon. This had and continued to be only rarely exported to the East, Alexandria being an important exception (see nn. 88-90; Bernal Casasola 2000b; Oren and Bernal Casasola 2000). In the case of the eastern front, against the Parthians and by the mid 3rd century, the Sassanians, the army was presumably supplied through local resources. This seems to have been the norm in the near eastern provinces in the Byzantine period (in Cyrenaica, Egypt, Palaestina, Syria, Mesopotamia).272 At Dura Europos, sacked and abandoned in AD 257, though there are telling finds of ARS C, the amphorae are of Syrian Euphrates type. The dominance of ARS versus Tunisian amphorae is equally evident in Beirut in the mid 3rd century. The distribution of goods, reaching the very limits of the eastern frontier, took advantage of the river and road system, but the supply itself was dictated by what arrived at Seleucia. Even though one could postulate that ARS was a secondary element to a major primary cargo, of grain, for example, that served the needs of the major ports on the eastern Mediterranean, these fine wares surely reached their distant markets because of

70

3. Hispania and the Mediterranean: 3rd to mid 6th centuries their intrinsic usefulness and elegance for the table. At the 3rd century fort of Ain Sinu in Iraq a Kapitän 2 can be observed as an import (Oates and Oates 1959, 233, plate 57.60). Other amphorae are local Syrian types, but one rim could be a Black Sea Zeest 72-73 type (ibid., 235, fig. 105). At Zeugma, in the Sassanian sack levels of 257, ARS C and Kapitän 2 are also present, and the occasional finds of Dressel 20s and Campanian wine amphorae could here be an indication of the presumed redistribution of annona goods to the imperial capital of Antioch, via its port at Seleucia (the lack of information on Antioch remains a great lacuna) (Reynolds forthcoming b; Abadie-Reynal [2004, 20], for Campanian and Forlimpopoli amphorae). The quantities of Spanish oil amphorae, however, are nothing in comparison to those of forts on the Rhine or at Aquileia in the Imperial period. Sites on the Danube seem to register a similar low number of Dressel 20, Dressel 23 and western imports in general (Bjelajac 1996; Opait, 1996; Dyczek 2001). The volume and range of predominantly Black Sea products, with Asia Minor and scarcer Aegean amphorae (Cretan amphorae are rare), make it clear that these troops derived their supplies primarily from relatively close-regional sources. Note that Kapitän 2 is one of the most common imports at Novae, alongside Crimean fish amphorae (Dyczek 2001; Klenina forthcoming). We may note here the shared distribution of Kapitän 2 and Crimean amphorae in the territory of HomsEmesa (Syria), as well as their aforementioned occurrence at Ain Sinu, that suggests they travelled and were redistributed together, from the Black Sea (Reynolds forthcoming c and d). The early 3rd century saw an unprecedented range of imports reaching Beirut (Table 4). The early and mid 3rd century, in short the major part of the century, can hardly be seen as suffering from an economic crisis, at least with respect to the level of merchandise reaching the port from long-distance eastern and western Mediterranean sources. The bulk of this very vibrant trade, however, was from the East. In Beirut, western Mediterranean sources comprised 11% of the total amphora imports, a fair figure, but clearly dwarfed by the wide range and large quantities imported from the eastern Mediterranean (Black Sea, Aegean, Asia Minor and Levantine sources). Crete was a notable exception throughout the early to late Imperial periods, not directing its goods towards the Levant (Reynolds forthcoming c). The range of western goods in early 3rd century Beirut, furthermore, was restricted to Baetican fish, north Italian wine, the latter also supplied to Athens and the Black Sea in this period (Robinson 1959; Paczynska and Naumenko 2004), and far rarer Tunisian fish sauce amphorae. Late Campanian wine, exported to Butrint and Zeugma, did not reach Beirut. Gallic wines could have been sent to the East but were not, in any significant scale at least (a few examples are present in Athens and Knossos in this period; insignificant Danubian and Black Sea finds). However, it could be said that Beirut levels of western imports in the early 3rd century were at least on a par with those of the

71

Hispania and the Roman Mediterranean first half of the 2nd century, perhaps even greater with respect to Spanish amphorae (Reynolds [1999], for a Beirut context of the first half of the 2nd century). They certainly mark an increase in levels of imports encountered in the second half of the 2nd century. Almost a third of Beirut imports in the early 3rd century, however, was close regional-Levantine (30%). The mid 3rd century, however, saw an even greater reliance on closer regional sources supplying Beirut, with Levantine imports comprising now over 55% (Reynolds forthcoming c), western imports dropping to c. 4.1%. Spanish amphorae form the bulk of these (5.1%), and in a more reduced range (Keay 16; Beltran 68 appears for the first time), whereas Sado-region Portuguese and north Italian amphorae are now absent (the latter are nevertheless present in the BEY 006.10625 deposit: Table 4). Tunisian amphorae remain relatively constant, and, significantly, certainly do not increase in scale with respect to the noted marked rise in ARS imports in the same phase: the supplies of Tunisian table wares and amphorae are thus not necessarily connected. None of the western imports could be said to have been generated by, or have travelled on the back of, annona shipments. The majority of the amphora forms present on the Cabrera III wreck are also found in Beirut in the mid 3rd century, with the important, telling exception of the oil amphorae. Just as we can detect increased regionalisation in the supply systems of the Levant by the mid 3rd century, the same can be seen for Italy, Gaul and Hispania. Furthermore, whereas eastern imports reached Rome in significant range and quantities in the late Antonine period, it seems that by the early or mid 3rd century well-established trade connections ceased (Cretan amphorae; Ephesian wine), were in some cases redirected (east Cilician Pompeii 5), or reached Brindisi, but no further (Crimean fish) (Reynolds forthcoming c). In contrast, from the late 2nd century, the trade (in wine?) carried in Kapitän 1 and 2 amphorae marks a new, longlasting connection between Rome and, in my opinion, the Black Sea, not the Aegean. If the eastern exports to the West of the Antonine period in Ostia-Rome are compared to those of the late Severan period – we regrettably lack evidence for the intervening early Severan period – as we have already noted, we see a major drop in Cretan amphorae, and Black Sea fish that reached Beirut, and, more significantly here, Brindisi, was not supplied to the capital. The supply of east Cilician wine (Pompeii 5) that reached Athens in the 2nd century, seems to end in the 3rd, and it seems that these and their mid 3rd century successors (proto-LRA 1) were directed towards both Beirut and Egypt. The range of eastern goods reaching Ostia-Rome by the mid 3rd century were reduced to Black Sea Kapitän 1 and 2 wine amphorae. Quite why these, and not the contemporary Crimean and Sinopean fish products, were marketed to Rome is perhaps crucial to our understanding of what linked Rome to the Black Sea, perhaps the northwest corner of the region?, in the 3rd, as well as 4th centuries (when Kapitän 1 and 2 imports to Rome continued, though on a reduced scale).

72

3. Hispania and the Mediterranean: 3rd to mid 6th centuries There is a correlation between the end of Cretan wine imports and the supply of Black Sea wine, but, given that Cretan wine production was not in any apparent crisis in the mid 3rd century (cf. their abundance in Butrint supply, for example), the supply to Rome of Kapitän 1 and 2 amphorae may be due to other factors. Was this in some way representative of special links between Byzantium, as it was still called, and Rome? Did these amphorae arrive with other more important goods not contained in amphorae? Levantine wines, with the exception of north Palestinian Kingsholm 117, found in Rome in the 1st century (Rizzo 2003: 15%, 65 examples, of a Forum Transitorium Flavian assemblage), in Lyon in the 1st and early 3rd centuries (Desbat and Picon, fig. 2.10; Lemaître 2000a), as well as in other Gallic assemblages (Lemaître et al. 2005), were not exported to the West. Phoenicia exported none of its own locally traded wines produced in Tartus-Amrit, Beirut and Tyre, but only its dried fruit – dates, figs and prunes – to Rome and notably military-orientated markets in Gaul, Germany, Britain and on the Danube. Phoenician (‘Syrian’ or ‘Damascene’ in the ancient texts) dried fruit was carried in the small ‘carrot’ amphora, known to have been produced in Beirut, as well as in larger amphorae, possibly from Akko on the basis of their fabric (Colchester 105). Perhaps the small Augst 46-47 type, related typologically and in fabric to Colchester 105, also carried dried fruit.273 By the mid 3rd century Gallic wine had ceased to be marketed to Rome and served more local markets. The trend now in Rome, as in the Levant, was to focus imports on more close regional, in this case, western sources (Italian and Algerian). There was little need to import oil from the eastern Mediterranean, given the supplies from Baetica and north Africa that were available and on which the state had a firm grip. What oil did arrive, attested on the Testaccio, is scarce (Dressel 24 and other forms known to have, or thought to have, carried wine: n. 33, for Cretan amphorae, for example). The late 250s and 260s saw a number of cities of the East literally under attack, some being sacked (Athens), some sacked and abandoned permanently (e.g. Zeugma, Dura). The Roman province of Dacia, overrun by Goths and other barbarians in 256, was abandoned under Aurelian. Large mid 3rd century assemblages mark both a final phase of activity in Beirut, Butrint (both inside the town and on the plain), Nicopolis (Epirus, Greece) and Benghazi prior to renewal of occupation in the 4th century. There may also be a similar gap in the sequence at Corinth. The forum of Pollentia (Mallorca) was destroyed by fire in the late 3rd century and was abandoned until the mid or later 4th century.274 Perhaps the large mid 3rd century deposits in Ceuta and Ibiza denote similar final phases of occupation within these two towns (see Chapter 1.1: Fernández Sotelo 1994; González Villaescusa 1990). The aristocratic ‘Hanghaus’ quarter of Ephesus was destroyed in the later mid 3rd century, perhaps by an earthquake,

73

Hispania and the Roman Mediterranean and was permanently abandoned, with its riches intact. The secession of Gaul, and for a short time Hispania (AD 260-264), from the central government of Rome itself under the Gallic Empire (AD 259-274) and the need for Rome to construct major new defences under Aurelian, do seem to mark a period of misfortune that heralded a marked drop in archaeologically tangible evidence for construction within many urban centres from c. 270 to c. 300/320. Ex novo urban building activity under the Tetrarchy and in the early Constantinian period may have been limited to large-scale, public projects. 3.2. The 4th century: Hispania, north Africa and the East Following a long building programme in Byzantium initiated by Constantine after the defeat of Licinius in 324 and ending in 330 with the refounding of the city as Constantinopolis, Constantine sought to secure the food supply for his ‘New Rome’ with the introduction in 332 of an annona civica that provided free distributions of bread similar to the system established at Rome. For this purpose Alexandria’s regular contribution was redirected from Rome to Constantinople by the navicularii Alexandriae. The metropolis was also served by the annona gathered as tax and transported by the navicularii Orientis. Coastal Oriens under Diocletian and Constantine comprised the provinces of Isauria, Cilicia, Syria Salutaris, Phoenicia and Palaestina, as well as Egypt and Cyrenaica, but under Valens (364-378) Egypt and Cyrenaica were separated from Oriens to form the diocese of Egypt.275 It is also important to recognise that there was apparently no state-organised supply of free olive oil for Constantinople as there was in Rome (Sirks 1991, Chapter 14). Roman Africa, comprising the provinces of Africa Proconsularis and Byzacena, Numidia and Tripolitania, in turn became the primary grain and oil sources for the annona of Rome. Laws giving special privileges to African navicularii serving Rome (privilegia africana) in 4th and early 5th century edicts of the Theodosian Code in 364 (CTh. 13.5.10), 395, (CTh. 13.5.24), 400 (CTh. 13.5.30) and 412 (CTh. 13.5.36) provide additional evidence for the state encouragement of north African suppliers to engage in annona shipments to Rome. The same encouragements were offered to the navicularii of Oriens. As the distribution of amphorae indicates, the annona militaris of the 4th and following centuries in the East could be served by close regional goods or long-distance imports deriving almost exclusively from the eastern Empire. This is particularly true for inland Syria and the eastern limes. The majority of the eastern armies were able to tap local or close regional resources of grain, oil and wine. They certainly had no need for Baetican oil (see n. 272). What one can see travelling long distances, however, whether from the coasts of Iberia, Tunisia or the Black Sea, are garum and other fish products. It was this that reached Beirut in

74

3. Hispania and the Mediterranean: 3rd to mid 6th centuries the 4th to mid 6th centuries, and Zeugma in the late 6th and early 7th centuries, the latter supplied solely from the Black Sea (Reynolds forthcoming b). Exports of western grain to the East, when it was required, whether for the annona or to supplement the local supplies of the coastal cities, that deriving from the north African provinces of Numidia and Africa being paramount, perhaps alongside Sicilian grain, is of course not detectable in the archaeological record; except by proxy, in the distribution of ARS and Tunisian amphorae, and, in the case of Sicilian grain, maybe, that of the Keay 52 wine amphorae (this phenomenon is more evident for Vandal and Byzantine period exports: Chapter 3.3.2ff. and Chapter 4). The 4th century administrative reforms would have major consequences for the distribution of goods across the Mediterranean, underlining economic divisions between East and West that were already in force from the Severan period. As we have seen, Baetica was from the mid 3rd century no longer the principal provider of oil for the annona civica of Rome. With Baetica in second place, Roman Africa, from the end of the 3rd century, and by the mid 4th century administered by the Praetorian Prefect of Italy, Africa and Illyricum, assumed the role of principal supplier of oil to the capital.276 Ostraka discovered at the Circular Harbour of Carthage provide valuable detailed evidence for the day-to-day weighing and processing of oil surpluses from the province of Zeugitana for the Praefectus Annonae Africae arriving from various sources, by boat and by land in amphorae, as well as skins, prior to their storage and eventual shipment to Rome in AD 373 (Peña 1998). The supply of Numidian and Tunisian grain to Rome also continued under his aegis. Tunisian oil, fish and fine ware industries expanded and increased exports accordingly during the course of the 4th century.277 In the case of Tripolitania, exports to Rome by the late 3rd to early 4th centuries were probably far less than those under the Severi (Table 2c: 1.3% in the Palatine East Deposit). Mattingly paints a picture of decline in Tripolitania following the fall of the Severan dynasty.278 This view may need to be reassessed if the large cylindrical amphora type Keay 24 is attributed to the province and represents a continuity of the Keay 11 form associated with Severan period exports.279 In the 4th to mid 5th centuries, Keay 24 was a major export to cities in north-eastern Spain, particularly Tarragona (see below, Chapter 3.3), with lesser numbers registered in Barcelona and Ampurias. Valencia shared the (?later 5th century) supply, but not sites to the south. Tripolitanian figures for Rome through the 4th to 5th centuries (Table 2c), as high as those for the 1st to 3rd centuries (c. 5%), are difficult to interpret because they are, I understand, based primarily on imports of the MRA 1 type, a wine amphora produced in both eastern Sicily as well as possibly Cyrenaica (see above, Chapter 1.4), and will certainly not include Keay 24. Keay observed that the latest examples of Keay 11/Tripolitana III found at Rome were in a post-Severan sector of Monte Testaccio. (For new evidence for Tripolitanian 3rd century finds on

75

Hispania and the Roman Mediterranean the Testaccio, see Blázquez Martínez and Remesal Rodríguez [eds] 2001, especially Revilla Calvo’s section, 367-90). Keay also noted some 4th century stratified examples at Ostia, Luni and Sabratha, the villa of Piazza Armerina (Sicily) and its rare presence in the Schola Praeconum I deposit in Rome (c. 430/440). Fourth century and later examples are also recorded at Tarragona.280 The definite Tripolitanian amphora Keay 10, late in the series (late 5th century), was very rarely exported, single examples only being identified at Tarragona and in Pisa. It was this type that was common in Lepcis Magna in the same period and was, it would seem, primarily for the local market.281 Tripolitania’s 1st to 3rd century AD connections with Egypt are also emerging from recent work on sites along the Nile and its tributaries, and in the less accessible oases, an indication of crossdesert inter-regional traffic (Bonifay 2004, fig. 256; Bonifay 2007; see Marchand and Marangou [eds] [2007], passim, for the widespread distribution of Tripolitanian, Tunisian, Hispanic and other imported amphorae). Bonifay (2007) concludes, however, that the distribution of Tripolitanian oil was minimal by the 4th century. One finds instead a marked rise in Tunisian non oil-bearing amphorae in the early Byzantine period. The distribution of Tunisian exports was not simply limited to annona targets. North African products now also reached coastal sites throughout the western Mediterranean, Hispania being a major market. For the first time since the mid 3rd century Tunisian exports (alongside amphorae from Baetica and Lusitania) were supplied regularly to sites in the eastern Mediterranean, Beirut being a well-documented case (Tables 4, 9). The mid 4th to early 5th centuries mark a return to the pan-Roman, multi-provincial export of ARS in the Mediterranean, perhaps being even wider in its reach than it had been in the mid 3rd century. Just as north African trade in the Mediterranean expanded, wine exports from the East declined, however, their export to Hispania being minimal and concentrated on the north-east coast. This decline, already evident in the mid 3rd century, may have increased and been further reinforced with the reorganisation of supply routes after the early 4th century reforms, focusing eastern products on Constantinople and the coastal cities of the East. The special ties between Rome and north Africa that were strengthened after the reforms resulted in a new, wider range of Tunisian amphora forms (Keay Period II amphorae) for the transport of both oil and fish sauce (the ubiquitous Keay 25 certainly carried the latter).282 Recent excavations in the Palatine Hill in Rome help to correlate the appearance of this type in the late 3rd and early 4th centuries with the provincial restructuring outlined.283 Recent survey work in the Medjerda Valley, around Dougga, has documented a major increase in oil press sites in the 4th century (De Vos 2002; De Vos and Polla 2005; Polla unpublished), perhaps to be correlated with the increase in north Tunisian exports. These new Tunisian amphorae were accompanied by a technical and typological revolution by the north Tunisian ARS factories, with the

76

3. Hispania and the Mediterranean: 3rd to mid 6th centuries production of vessels, mostly dishes, decorated with attractive stamped motifs, from c. 290 (ARS D ware: see n. 290). Factories in central Tunisia followed suit and new regional production began in both southern Tunisia (Carandini’s ARS E) and in Tripolitania (if not southern Tunisia) (Hayes’ ‘Tripolitanian Red Slip Ware’).284 Central Tunisia responded with bowls and dishes decorated with applied reliefs (a technique well established at El Djem since the early 3rd century).285 Amphora trends at Ostia provide clear evidence for the increase in Tunisian pottery in general (amphorae, cooking wares and ARS) through the 4th century (Tables 2a-b).286 The rise in Tunisian imports from the late 3rd to early 5th centuries is even clearer in the sequences excavated at sites in Rome, mostly on the Palatine, growing from roughly 25% to as high as c. 58% of the amphorae in deposits by the late 4th century (Table 2c). Survey work in the territory of Pisa and excavations in warehouses at the port of Volterra provide a rough indication of the high level of north African amphora imports in the 3rd (73%) and 4th centuries (65%), paralleling the Ostia-Rome supply, there being here an even greater reliance on Tunisian imports.287 Porto Torres, in northern Sardinia, also shared the Ostia supply of 4th century ARS and Tunisian amphorae, as it had done in the 3rd century. Excavations there have brought to light a warehouse deposit of Keay 6 and 7 amphorae, stamped examples indicating their source from central Tunisian ports. They appear to date to the early to mid 4th century, according to the ARS forms found with them.288 A similar, perhaps even more extreme switch to Tunisian imports with respect to eastern Mediterranean and Spanish sources can be noted at the northern Adriatic port of Aquileia at the end of the 3rd century, all the more significant given its role as a centre for the redistribution of annona goods (cf. the 2nd to 3rd century imports of Baetican Dressel 20 amphorae).289 In the mid 4th century ARS C again reached all corners of the Mediterranean, a mark of the general boom in north African long-distance trade at that time (cf. Chapter 1.1, on the dating of 3rd and 4th century Tunisian exports). In the mid 3rd century, Ostia being an obvious exception, Tunisian amphorae were relatively rare finds alongside these fine ware exports. From the mid 4th century we see a major increase in the export of both ARS and Tunisian amphorae throughout the Mediterranean and beyond (Britain, with respect to the amphorae).290 The peak of Tunisian 4th century amphora and fine ware exports, however, corresponds to the last quarter of the century. Tunisian products now also reached Hispania en masse. An overall rise in Tunisian amphora exports to both north-eastern and south-eastern Spain is likely. However, their distribution patterns are somewhat uneven. The case of Tarragona versus Ilici is illuminating. The wide range and large number of imports of Keay’s Period II Tunisian amphorae in Tarragona and ports of the north-eastern Tarraconensis as far as Valencia during the mid 4th to mid 5th centuries may be contrasted with the more

77

Hispania and the Roman Mediterranean reduced range and, though common, certainly more reduced numbers in Alicante, including Ilici.291 Interestingly, this divergence in north African supply echoes that of Baetican oil, which reached Tarragona in quantity, but bypassed its neighbours in south-eastern Hispania, including the capital of Diocletian’s new province of Carthaginiensis at Carthago Nova/Cartagena. Fish sauce, however, seems to have been a different matter. Alicante was well supplied with Baetican, primarily Malagueñan, fish sauce in the 5th century, as were the towns of northern Tarraconensis (Chapter 1.3). This would suggest that the distribution mechanisms of Baetican oil and fish sauce were not necessarily connected. This is not surprising, given that many fish sauce producers, including notably Málaga, lay outside the orbit of the Guadalquivir Valley, the source of Baetican oil. It was not simply this. The majority of the garum production sites of the 1st and 2nd centuries also lay outside the Guadalquivir (Map 6). One could argue that it was the annona-military supply system to Britain and other provinces that provided the support for the transport of certain, but perhaps not all, Baetican fish sauce in the early Empire. Just which of the fish processing sites were so favoured, and for what markets can, obviously enough, only be gauged through the study of the provenance of both ship cargoes and the amphora finds at their final destination (Britain, Gaul, Rome, Beirut, etc.), led of course by their definition at source (variants produced and fabrics, according to each production centre-atelier). The trend towards the private, and not state, marketing of Baetican oil, characteristic from the mid 3rd onwards, may have adversely affected some Baetican fish producers and the distribution of their products, but favoured others who were already accustomed to marketing their goods without the (regular) support of the annona traffic. Until shipwreck cargoes are studied and sourced we will not be able to determine the extent to which even these production sites were able to tap the undoubted port-hopping of some of this annona shipping, even when it was under stricter state control. We know from the Theodosian Code that the navicularii, at least those in the 4th century, were permitted to take as long as two years to deliver their goods (this taking into account the problems of bad weather and convenience, as well as port-hopping, even though the state was fully aware that the latter could attract additional non-annona goods, a practice considered to be illegal).292 The drop in demand for olive oil in Britain would have undermined the distribution of Baetican garum along the Atlantic route. The industries of the mid 3rd century onwards looked towards the Mediterranean and those of Málaga were well placed to take advantage of that market. The role of fish exports from Huelva in the 3rd century is another unknown quantity. This said, one must also ask why it was that the massive production in the Bay of Cádiz did not resuscitate in the 3rd and 4th centuries, as did those in Málaga, Torrox and Huelva, and market their products in a

78

3. Hispania and the Mediterranean: 3rd to mid 6th centuries similar way. To some extent they may have, with respect to Keay 16, but exports were limited in the 4th century and did not reach the East. The Baetican oil industry carried on, albeit with a reduced number of production sites, but seems not to have led to a similar scale of continuity for the Bay of Cádiz (the major centre of Puente Melchor is so far unique), despite the shipping advantages that the ongoing oil trade would have brought. The failure of the Cádiz industries to revive in the 3rd and 4th centuries is indeed puzzling and needs to be examined at a local level concentrating on the dynamics of the city itself and its elites. The bypassing of the south-east in the 4th and 5th centuries by Baetican oil exporters in favour of Tarragona and north-eastern Spanish ports follows the same pattern of distribution encountered since Baetican exports commenced. The high percentage of Baetican oil in the mid 5th century Vila-roma deposit indicates, however, that quantities supplied to the region and this city in particular were far greater and more regular than at any other period (Chapters 1.2 and 3.2). Though an increase in exports of fish sauce amphorae to Tarragona can be observed in the early-mid 5th century, more quantified 4th century contexts in Spain are needed to plot the growth of the industry and its exports to sites in Spain (cf. Santa Pola, with high figures for Keay 23) and to compare with known long-distance 4th century exports to the Levant (i.e. Beirut and probably also Caesarea). As we have seen (Chapter 1.2), though Hispania was tied to the provisioning of the Prefecture of the Gauls in the 4th century the evidence for Baetican oil exports in Britain and Germany is slight, suggesting that the drop in quantities exported in the 3rd century continued into the 4th century. Exports of Baetican oil are however attested at Arles in the mid to late 4th century and now provide an explanation for the presence of Dressel 23 in Trier and Köln. Baetican oil exports increased to a wider market only in the early 5th century and were directed primarily at coastal ports in north-eastern Spain and southern Gaul (Valencia, Tarragona, Arles, Marseille), as well as Lyon, but not Rome, in major quantities at least. York, in northern Britain, perhaps also renewed supplies in this period. A similar, though distinct, uneven distribution of north African wares is echoed on the other side of the Mediterranean, in the case of Beirut and Caesarea. In Beirut, north African amphorae and ARS (but not cooking wares) form a major component of assemblages throughout the mid 4th to early 5th centuries, for the first time since the mid 3rd century. ARS, from comprising 51.5% of the fine ware assemblage in the mid 3rd century rises to take as much as 91.3% of the market in the mid 4th century, this being predominantly central Tunisian ARS C. This trend is only reversed by the introduction of Cypriot table ware alternatives in the late 4th century (76%, with Cypriot fine wares at 18%) (Table 4: 3rd century; Table 9a: 4th century; Table 15: early 5th century). As in the 3rd century the

79

Hispania and the Roman Mediterranean comparative role of Tunisian amphorae does not match that of Tunisian table wares. Hispanic fish imports were more significant in the mid 4th century than their Tunisian rivals. It is only in the late 4th century that one can detect a significant rise in Tunisian amphorae in Beirut, all these probably transporting fish sauce. Baetican and Lusitanian fish products increase even more so and are still the dominant western import, easily outstripping Sinopean fish sauce in this period. The latter only gain the upper hand in the early 5th century (9.2%), with Tunisian amphorae in second place (2.4%; Baetican [not Lusitanian]: at only 0.66%). Late 4th and 5th century deposits excavated at Caesarea, however, are remarkable for the rarity of Tunisian amphora imports, which are, furthermore, outnumbered by finds of 4th and 5th century ARS.293 Excavations in two villages in northern Palestine, where imports of ARS and other fine wares abound (Cypriot LRD and Phocean LRC), demonstrate a similar scarcity of Tunisian and other western amphora imports, suggesting that this is a reflection of a general pattern of supply to Syria Palaestina.294 The different range of Tunisian imports in north-eastern Tarraconensian ports and Alicante is primarily due to a greater concentration and more frequent contacts (hence greater numbers and range of forms) in Tarragona and Barcelona in particular. In contrast, the differences in the Tunisian supply to Beirut/Syria Phoenice and Caesarea/Syria Palaestina appear to be due to an imbalance in the relative shipments of amphorae v. fine wares. In comparison to Beirut, there may be a scarcity of Hispanic amphora imports in Caesarea in the late 4th century. Indeed the major role of Hispanic fish imports in Beirut from the mid 4th to early 5th centuries seems to be exceptional for the region. The finds of Dressel 23 at Caesarea are clearly related to the Dressel 20 supply to the city that is atypical for the Levant and could be an example of a direct annona supply (Caesarea was the capital of Syria Palaestina I and annona goods would have entered the province there: see below). That these Dressel 23 can be dated as late as the 4th century or even 5th century, as is claimed, however, is not necessarily the case, on the evidence so far presented.295 The presence or absence of Baetican oil imports in provincial capitals such as Caesarea and Alexandria in 4th century Byzantine levels could clarify the extent to which there was a break in their supply and whether this was due to a greater separation of the eastern and western provinces into specific dioceses, with their respective annona supply networks. The presence of Tunisian (fish sauce) amphorae but not Baetican amphorae (see above, Chapter 1.3) in Alexandrian deposits of the late 4th to early 5th centuries could indicate that Baetican oil, and perhaps western oil in general, was not exported east in the Byzantine period. Only Tunisian non-annona goods (fish sauce, not oil) were supplied to certain, but not all, eastern ports (Beirut and Alexandria, but not Caesarea). This model, of course, rests on the identification of Keay 25 as being primarily a fish sauce, not oil amphora.

80

3. Hispania and the Mediterranean: 3rd to mid 6th centuries While north African imports did reach certain coastal cities of Hispania in the 4th century, they often failed to find their way inland. Keay’s claim that villa sites in north-eastern Tarraconensis were marginalised from the supply of urban-focused Tunisian products is not supported by finds on some coastal villa sites, where both 4th and 5th century ARS was plentiful and Tunisian amphorae were relatively common.296 Further inland, however, for example along the Ebro Valley, neither towns nor villas were well supplied with Tunisian imports upstream from Zaragoza/Caesaraugusta (see above, Chapter 2.2.1, Table 13). In the Vinalopó and Alcoy Valleys (Alicante) it is clear that quantities dropped on villa sites, but only at the very beginning of the 5th century. Here another distribution model may apply, as this trend corresponds to the movement of the population to defensible highland sites that, in the case of the Vinalopó Valley, attracted the majority of the imported, largely Tunisian, fine wares and amphorae, Baetican fish sauce and eastern Mediterranean amphorae from the late 4th to mid 6th centuries. A similar pattern of supply is evident in the region of Vera (Almería).297 The administrative reforms that brought about the rise in north African trade in the 4th century had other effects on trade between the eastern and western empires. With the further subdivision of the Severan provinces and the administrative reforms that began under the Tetrarchy and were consolidated by Constantine and his successors, the eastern cities assumed a key role in the new, increasingly eastern-focused economic plan, continuing the trend in the increased regionalisation of the marketing of Levantine goods that is already evident by the mid 3rd century. Beirut, like other major centres in the Levant, notably Antioch, metropolitan capital, mint and imperial residence for much of the 4th century, and Caesarea, capital of the new province of Caesarea Palaestina I, witnessed a building fever in the mid 4th century, after more than half a century of relative inactivity.298 The additional emerging role of cities as centres for the Christian church, and the wealth generated by the general climate, may all have encouraged and contributed to both private and public investment in building.299 The cities and the villages subordinate to them provided the state with the essential centres, elites, agents and machinery for the annual collection of resources needed to run the Empire: centres for collection of taxes, for the housing of the civil service and for the production of arms and textiles for the army and administration. In the East the censuses of population and land ownership and the land divisions carried out under the Tetrarchy for the capitatio-iugatio taxation system provided another major element with which to control and assess resources (Butcher 2003a, 192-3: cadastration boundary stones that have been found in Syria all date to AD 297). A further catalyst, the growing markets that the cities themselves provided, whether for the consumption of local or regional Levantine exports, may underlie an observable trend in the expansion of wine and oil

81

Hispania and the Roman Mediterranean production in city territoria in the Levant by the mid 4th century (evident in Beirut mid 4th century deposits; new wine press installations in southern Phoenicia and Gaza: Reynolds 2005b, 571; see also Frankel 1999; Kingsely 2001, 72-3: 88% of the pottery recovered from surveys of farms around the port of Dor/Dora was of 4th and 5th century date, associated with 30 wine presses and 2 oil presses). With the foundation of Constantinople and the need to supply its ever-growing population, the role of the Levantine cities in providing annona and other goods may have been enhanced further. That navicularii Orientis, not those of Alexandria and Egypt, were involved in supplying the annona civica of Constantinople in the 4th century is fairly explicit (n. 275). This was accompanied by the second quarter of the 4th century by the introduction of the Agora M 334 type in southern Phoenicia (from Akko to southern Lebanon), alongside existing forms (bag-shaped LRA 5 and Reynolds AM 14), and by the LRA 1 type, whose direct predecessors can be traced back to the mid 3rd century (deriving from Fig. 14d-f ), replacing the Pompeii 5 type as the wine container of eastern Cilicia. The LRA 1 of the 4th and later centuries was intimately linked to the oil or, perhaps more likely, wine production of eastern Cilicia (Fig. 14m-o, for later examples of the shape).300 An increase in the production areas of the Gazan-Ashkelon LRA 4 type is also likely (cf. Fig. 12d). As we have seen, amphora trends in Beirut indicate that by the mid 3rd century, well before their general appearance as exports to the West, forerunners of the city and regional/provincial amphora types of the Byzantine Levant, including early versions of LRA 1, were being traded between the coastal cities that produced them (Chapter 3.1). The degree to which these cities and regions additionally geared their production to supply the metropoleis of Antioch and Constantinople from the 4th century onwards is a key question that can only be answered through the excavation and quantification of ceramic sequences in these cities.301 Yet, in the mid to late 4th century, the very time when Levantine wine and oil production was expanding and new amphora forms were developed, and when there was a renewal in exports of western Mediterranean, particularly Tunisian and Hispanic goods to the Levant, the West received a reduction in both the range as well as the quantities of amphorae exported from the East. Furthermore, though large numbers of Aegean, particularly Phocean, cooking wares had been a feature of 2nd and early 3rd century contexts in southern Gaul,302 Naples, Durres/Dyrrhachium the latter probably on the supply route to Aquileia and other north Adriatic sites303 (Reynolds forthcoming c), significant exports to the West of Aegean cooking wares would not recommence till the 5th century. The percentages of Aegean/Asia Minor types recovered in a well-dated deposit of c. 290-312/315 excavated on the Palatine Hill in Rome demonstrate the rarity of eastern finds, though we should note that this deposit pre-dates the mid 4th century economic ‘renaissance’ by a decade or two

82

3. Hispania and the Mediterranean: 3rd to mid 6th centuries (Table 2c).304 Kapitän 1 and 2 imports, from the Black Sea, registered in the Palatine Hill sequence at Rome dropped further in quantity in the period 325-350.305 Figures for eastern imports at Ostia dropped sharply to 8% in the late 4th century. The scarcity of eastern amphorae in a late 4th century context in Lyon and in contexts of 250 to 4th century date at Vienne supports this evidence for a general decline in eastern imports to the West in the 4th century (Tables 18, 6b). The Asia Minor and Black Sea, rather than Levantine, sources of these early Byzantine eastern Mediterranean imports should also be stressed in the light of the economic revival that was in progress in the Levant. The geographically limited, regional sources of these Asia Minor amphorae, now focused almost exclusively on Ephesus and the Meander Valley, should also be recognised, particularly with respect to the much wider range of regional sources exporting Aegean/Asia Minor wines (including the source of Dressel 24, Crete and Cilicia) and (Phocean) cooking wares to the West in the 1st to 3rd centuries, as well as the much wider range of Aegean-Asia Minor amphorae supplied to Beirut in the 4th century (see Reynolds [forthcoming c], for the different marketing of eastern goods within the East – Beirut v. Athens, Corinth, Butrint – and to the West). Furthermore, as can be observed for the Levant, the supply of close regional fine wares and amphorae within the Aegean during the late 3rd to later 4th centuries may have become more marked, a ‘closed system’, with ARS circulating predominantly in the southern Aegean (Abadie-Reynal 1989, 148-9; cf. the map, fig. 7). Why, following the recommencement of the supply of ARS and western amphorae-borne exports to the Levant from c. 320 there was still no reciprocal exchange in Palestinian wine amphorae until the late 4th century, remains to be explained. As Diocletian’s Price Edict and other sources indicate, Levantine exports, particularly those in the north, certainly comprised primarily textiles, some in part being annona requisitions as tax, produced in state-controlled factories. The urban centres of Laodicea/Latakia, Byblos, Beirut, Sidon, Sarepta, Tyre, Beth Sh’an, Caesarea, Neapolis and Lyyda were all involved in the production of dyes and/or textiles (cf. Fig. 13).306 Though the wines of Palaestina were regarded by the West as prized imports in the 5th century and could have been regarded as such in the previous century, they were not.307 The other Levantine wines we have mentioned never, or only rarely, reached the West in the Byzantine period, as had also been the case in the early- and mid Empire (i.e. Amrit-Tartus: none so far; Beirut: Carthage, personal observation of a few 4th century examples; Acre/Akko: Arles and Marseille, see below for examples in 5th century contexts; Athens was perhaps the furthest west that Agora M 334 travelled with any frequency in the early Byzantine period). As Pieri (1998; 2005) and Kingsley (2000) have argued, the increased attention, from the 5th century onwards, focused on Palestine as the ‘Holy

83

Hispania and the Roman Mediterranean Land’ and a ‘must’ for Christian pilgrimage, liberally furnished with donations and church buildings (by clergy, lay persons and imperial patrons alike), could well be at the root of this trend in Palestinian wine exports. The ports of Caesarea, Gaza and Askalon, all cities being foci of wine production, that of Gaza actually expanding in the later 5th century, served as the primary ports of entry for the increasing numbers of pilgrims that were ultimately en route for Jerusalem.308 Efforts were made to obtain Palestinian wine for use in church services in the distant West. Despite their apparent high cost they were considered worthwhile given the kudos and ‘proximity’ to the original homeland of Christianity and the original Eucharist that these wines could represent.309 Caesarea, as provincial capital, would also have served as one of the major ports involved in the annona supply. The city, where the tax offices have been discovered, managed both incoming taxes in coin and in kind for redistribution in the province and the export of taxes in kind (including those for the annona of, say, Constantinople) collected from provincials at Caesarea, perhaps stored in some of the Byzantine period horrea that have been excavated (Patrich 1999; Kingsely 2001, 82). Gaza and Askalon would presumably also have served a similar purpose with respect to the annona and tax exports. It is possibly significant, given the increase in exports of LRA 5 and 6 from the late 5th century to the West, that the harbour of Caesarea received major repairs in this period.310 3.3. 5th century deposits in the West and a new dynamic: exports from the East 3.3.1. The late 4th century to 425/450 Many urban coastal sites such as Carthage and Marseille, and in Hispania at Tarragona, are subject to a hiatus of ceramic deposits during the early to mid 4th century. Important assemblages of the mid to late 4th century in Arles have yet to be published (but see Piton 2007). In contrast, the late 4th century, to some extent, and first half of the 5th century are particularly well represented at these sites. In Carthage and other major ports of the West, such as Marseille, Rome and Naples, and in Hispania, similar quantitative data on imports are now available, though for some only a partial account of trends has been published.311 Wrecks of the 4th century to 425/450, especially on the Gallic coast, provide important information on the composition of cargoes of primarily Tunisian, Baetican and Lusitanian goods.312 These finds point to the continuing presence of north African goods throughout the western Mediterranean in the early 5th century, but now sharing these markets with Levantine imports. The situation in Hispania is much the same. Unlike previous centuries in which eastern imports are rarely found in Spanish contexts, during the first half of the 5th century Levantine amphorae appeared in large num-

84

3. Hispania and the Mediterranean: 3rd to mid 6th centuries bers on some north-eastern coastal cities, Tarragona, the provincial capital, being a major focus of these exports. Also characteristic of deposits of this period is the wide range of additional amphora types from as yet unidentified sources, some perhaps being from southern Italy and the eastern Mediterranean, that are imports that particular sites have in common (those in the Vila-roma 2 deposit at Tarragona, for example, identifiable with examples published from Rome and Marseille).313 South-eastern Spain was excluded from the marketing of the latter products, as it was from that of possible Tripolitanian amphorae (Keay 24), well attested in north-eastern Tarraconensis. The early 5th century, perhaps more specifically the second and third decades of the century, prior to the disruption of the Vandal conquest of north Africa that was shortly to follow, marked a period of major exchange throughout the Mediterranean. Eastern goods appear in the West, notably in Tarragona, in quantity and from new sources (e.g. Palestine; Crete), and early 5th century deposits in Beirut attest to the wealth and range of western, particularly Tunisian and Baetican, and eastern (Levantine, Aegean, Black Sea) sources in this period (Table 15). Deposits of the late 4th and first half of the 5th centuries in Narbonne (Table 18: 400-425+, 34%; 425-450, 24.7%), Arles (Table 18: as high as 60%), Lyon (Table 18; Batigne Vallet, Lemaître and Schmitt [forthcoming]), Marseille (Tables 17a, 18) and Naples (Tables 2c, 17a; see also Carsana and Del Vecchio [forthcoming] for a late 4th century deposit in Naples) provide evidence for the major role of Tunisian imports (table wares, cooking pots, oil, fish sauce and probably grain) in cities other than Rome (Tables 2c, 17a). Just as in the previous century, imports to these cities fell outside the Rome-directed annona supply system and thus should represent private commercial activity. The extent to which this is the case needs to be gauged through observation of the nature of the Tunisian amphorae forms supplied (oil, fish or wine). One would expect to see a high percentage of oil amphorae, of course. The pre- or early Vandal period dating of Tunisian material in major Tarragona deposits (notably Vila-roma 2 and STE/1, both dated ‘425-450’) and in Rome (Schola Praeconum I, dated c. 430-440, according to the coin evidence) is critical for the interpretation of these deposits as evidence of pre-Vandal (i.e. Roman) or early Vandal exports that should be recognised at the outset of this discussion (Table 17a). The dating of these Tarragona deposits, in particular, is still open to debate and depends largely on the dating of certain ARS forms/variants and, to some extent, the presence and quantities of certain Tunisian amphora forms. It is possible that the Vila-roma 2 assemblage and the Schola Praeconum I deposit date to the first decades of the Vandal period.314 As we shall see, continuity of production in the Carthage region of ARS and amphorae and of Tunisian exports to Marseille does not suggest a major interruption of production and exports in the early Vandal period.

85

Hispania and the Roman Mediterranean Though there are many deposits pertaining to a ‘ceramic phase’ and period of activity datable to c. 425-450 in Tarragona, there are few that can be dated to the second half of the 5th century, and, more precisely, to the period c. 450-475, as in Marseille or Carthage. The Torre de l’Audiència 1A phase may date to this quarter century, as also part of the tower’s later fill (Audiència 1B) (see below, Chapter 3.2.2). If the Tarragona Vila-roma 2/STE 1 deposits contain early Vandal Tunisian goods, then one can interpret them as evidence for the continuity of pre-Vandal links with Tarragona, as could equally be argued for Rome and Marseille. There may have been no immediate break in the supply following the Vandal conquest in the case of Tarragona, but contacts seem to have lessened considerably shortly after 450, a phenomenon also evident in Marseille. That activity in Tarragona appears to start up again in the late 5th century is perhaps no coincidence – it corresponds both to the start of Visigothic rule in Spain and in the city itself, as well as a general rise in Vandal trade.315 Indeed, a real concerted effort in the Vandal period to develop Tunisian agriculture for export, particularly oil in this case, with the Keay 62 amphora, did not occur until the late 5th century (see below, Chapter 3.4.1). Levantine cities had been trading wine in their amphora types and importing Aegean and Asia Minor wine from the second century onwards. However, it was only from the late 4th and early 5th centuries that certain of the Byzantine forms of the Levant (Cilician LRA 1 and Gazan LRA 4 primarily; occasionally the Agora M 334 type of Akko/Acre and southern Lebanon) and Asia Minor (the small wine amphorae of the Ephesus region, LRA 3) were exported to the West, to Arles, Rome and Carthage (Table 17a-b; Fig. 12a, d, e; Reynolds 2005b, table 1).316 There was then, c. 425-450, a general increase in eastern amphora exports to Arles, Rome and Carthage and to other western ports (Table 17a-b). A rise in Eastern imports may be correlated with a drop in Tunisian amphorae at Rome (Tables 2c, 17b) and Carthage (Table 17a-b; Fig. 15).317 It could be said also that in the early to mid 5th century eastern imports in southern Gaul were generally equivalent to, or, in some cases, greater than those from Tunisia.318 If these ‘425-450’ assemblages were to date in fact from AD 430, then one could suggest that the marked increase in eastern amphorae to western sites corresponds to, and is actually directly related to the loss of Roman control over Carthage and Roman Africa to the Vandals. Perhaps all of the contexts that we are about to discuss can be dated to after AD 430. The degree to which the Vandals equally took advantage of the new economic potential of the provinces they had under their control by 439 and later by 442 through exports of Tunisian goods is clearer for the second half of the 5th century than it is in the period 430-450. There is scarce information on the comparative distribution of eastern Mediterranean amphorae on rural sites in the West. What little there is, is often imprecisely dated or dates to the mid 5th or late 5th/6th centuries, not earlier. The rural supply thus corresponds, as one would expect, only

86

3. Hispania and the Mediterranean: 3rd to mid 6th centuries to the major phases of eastern imports of the ports that served them. The distribution inland perhaps depended less on the actual needs or demand of rural sites than on the availability of surpluses of the goods at source (i.e. the ports) and ease of transport from the coast (an adequate road or river network). This is particularly clear in the case of the Vinalopó Valley (Alicante), with the Via Augusta and other secondary roads providing easy access into the interior from the coast (Reynolds 1993). At the villa of La Ramière (Gard), further inland on the Rhône, where imported amphorae are common, eastern amphorae were clearly very rare in this period (Table 7), actually marking a drop with respect to levels in the period 350-400. In north-eastern Spain few amphorae, none of eastern Mediterranean origin, were found in a small 5th century context at the villa of Darró. Other rural finds of eastern amphorae in north-eastern Spain seem to be mid 5th century, contemporary with the large scale importation documented by the Vila-roma deposit. Two examples of LRA 1 excavated at La Solana (Cubelles, Garraf) are 5th century, probably mid 5th century variants, like those in the Vila-roma deposit.319 At the villa of Casa Blanca (Tortosa) where Vandal 5th and 6th century ARS is relatively common with the occasional Keay 62 amphora, there are no eastern Mediterranean amphorae present. At the villa of Puig Rodon (Corça, Lower Ampurdán) there is an example of LRA 1 in a likely mid 5th century context.320 Again on this site, a major construction ‘make-up’ deposit is fairly rich in finds of LRA 1 (c. 10% of the amphorae) that should date to the mid 5th century.321 Note that Gazan amphorae, also common in Tarragona and Marseille in this period, are absent in this deposit. The finds of LRA 1 do demonstrate, in contrast, the significant redistribution of LRA 1 to this coastal villa site. The scale of production of LRA 1 and shipment to ports throughout the Mediterranean, the Aegean and Black Sea during the 5th and 6th centuries was truly massive. The exports of this amphora alone contradict the old notions of limited trade in the late Empire (e.g. Jones 1964). Though eastern amphorae could reach coastal sites in the north-east, it seems that this was not the case on villa sites in the Vinalopó Valley (Alicante), even though these forms penetrated and were quite common on some large highland settlements along the valley. Their absence in the region of Elda is particularly significant, given the good sample of villas surveyed there and the number of LRA 1 and LRA 4 found at the major highland settlement and mansio of the Via Augusta at El Monastil (Elda), later the Visigothic bishopric of Ello.322 It is probably safe to say that eastern amphorae of the 5th and 6th centuries, with the exception of some coastal sites in north-eastern Tarraconensis, were generally not a feature of villa sites in Hispania, certainly in comparison to their supply in relative abundance to ports. Mid 5th century deposits at Tarragona demonstrate the mixture of Tunisian and eastern Mediterranean products that is characteristic of major western ports. Tunisian and eastern Mediterranean amphorae

87

Hispania and the Roman Mediterranean comprise roughly 25% each of the market (Table 10). At Ampurias (Table 16) figures are even higher (45.4% for Tunisian; 30.9% for eastern Mediterranean). Both percentages are notably higher than on Gallic sites, and the relative percentage of Tunisian imports in Ampurias is closer to that of Rome or Naples, than Tarragona. Tarragona was also well supplied with imported cooking wares, some from the Aegean, but more common are those from Tunisia. ARS was clearly the dominant table ware (Table 12: 76.7% of the table wares; Gallic fine wares 17.05%). At the villa of Casa Blanca (Tortosa) in the late Roman period ARS was also clearly the dominant fine ware, with only 5 rims of LRC 3 (all dating to the first half of the 6th century) being recovered (Revilla Calvo 2003, 173-229, fig. 73.1-5). Perhaps the most significant trend at Tarragona is the high percentage of local, Spanish and Portuguese imports, of both oil and fish products, at levels equal to those of eastern Mediterranean or Tunisian imports. The late 4th century, we may recall, had seen a major rise in the scale of Hispanic exports, primarily fish products, to certain ports across the Mediterranean (Carthage, Rome, Arles, Narbonne, Beirut and to the home market of Tarragona). This was perhaps related to the general phenomenon of increased inter-provincial trade in the last decades of the century (cf. Tunisian ARS and amphorae; the first exports of Gazan LRA 4 to the West). Baetican oil amphorae are dominant in Tarragona, and amphora types Keay 68 and 91 are evidence for the consumption of local fish sauce (rather than wine?) on a more limited scale (Fig. 5d). From these data, Tarragona proves to have been a far greater target for Baetican-Lusitanian products than were Arles, Marseille or Rome. Narbonne, on the other hand registers a massive 68.1% for LusitanianBaetican oil and fish in a deposit dated to 425-450. The rarity of eastern Mediterranean amphorae in the Narbonne assemblage is also unusual for this period. Perhaps the Tarragona deposit dates a little later? The special regional marketing of Spanish goods at this time is even clearer in the case of the supply to Britain and Germany, though the withdrawal of the Roman army from Britain in 410 had already signalled its detachment from the Roman Empire. However, the contrasting figures for Baetican amphorae at Ampurias, only 3.1%, are more in line with the supply of Hispanic products to Gaul and Italy. One therefore wonders to what extent Tarragona’s role as provincial capital had a special draw on these sources that comprise, furthermore, the full range of foodstuffs, including Baetican oil. The wide range of Tunisian amphorae, cooking wares and plain wares, including closed forms, seems also exceptional among the north-eastern towns of Tarraconensis.323 Italian amphorae from various sources also appear in Tarragona (Fig. 6f, h, here from Empoli and Calabria), but are so far unattested elsewhere in Spain.324 These and other ‘unclassified’ amphora forms, perhaps south Italian and Cretan, link the Tarragona supply with Marseille and Rome, but not Alicante.

88

3. Hispania and the Mediterranean: 3rd to mid 6th centuries Exports of the Calabrian-east Sicilian Keay 52 amphora also demonstrate a distinctive regional distribution in the West. The type is common only from the late 4th century onwards and the form, some examples bearing menorah stamps, may have been produced by and for Jewish communities (Fig. 6g).325 Apart from significant exports to Athens (hence its original classification as an Aegean import, by Keay [1984a]), it is not common in the East (e.g. occasional finds in Beirut, and Argos: AbadieReynal 2007, 245-6, Planche 69.445.1; more common in Butrint in various fabrics). It is practically absent in Alicante and the south-east and is rare even in Valencia. Its primary markets in the West were clearly Arles (n. 124 and Table 18), Marseille, where it was the third most common form from 425-450 (see Table 18, cf. Italian amphorae at 12%), and major centres on the western coast of Italy (Luni, Rome and Naples). Though not common in Tarragona, it is found with other Calabrian or Sicilian types, some of which are notably paralleled in Marseille (the ‘sloping handle forms’ that we have noted). It was rare at Carthage, occurring in a late 5th century Vandal deposit, and occurs, with other Calabrian variants-sources of the class, at Lepcis Magna, the latter linked to the general strong connection of Lepcis to the Rome market.326 South-eastern Spain and probably the Balearics were usually bypassed.327 That there have been three examples recovered from Sevilla, two of them of likely AD 450-500 date, as well as an earlier example of MRA 1, could just possibly be an indication of the very special connections of the port of Hispalis with eastern Sicily and southern Italy (Amores Carredano et al. 2007: Keay 52, fig. 4.23, and fig. 5.38-9; MRA 1: fig. 2.1; note the presence also of an Empoli wine amphora, fig. 5.37, with these two Keay 52 amphorae). Alternatively, the Keay 52 and Empoli amphorae were redistributed from Tarragona. Another case of specific marketing, in this case to north-eastern Tarraconensis (Tarragona, Barcelona, Iluro), again primarily to Tarraco, with occasional finds in Valencia, but quite clearly not exported to south-eastern Spain, is that of the amphora Keay 24, for which a Tripolitanian origin has been suggested (see above, Chapter 3.2). It has yet to be recognised in Italy or Marseille, and did not occur at Lepcis Magna. If Tripolitanian, its targeting of Tarragona and north-eastern Spain is puzzling.328 Overall, and with the exception of Keay 24, there is a general pattern here that is emerging, one that links Tarragona and the cities of northeastern Spain, with Marseille, Rome, Naples and Carthage, but which excludes Alicante and south-eastern Spain. If one adds to it the distribution of Balearic amphorae and cooking wares that originated in the south-western sector of the Mediterranean (hand-made LRCW II, possibly from Sardinia;329 Pantellerian Ware; Reynolds Murcian HM Ware 8), the Balearics seem to play a supportive role in the distribution of Tunisian goods to Tarragona, but only up to c. 440/450. After that date, certainly from the late 5th century, in the later Vandal period, as we shall see,

89

Hispania and the Roman Mediterranean Tarragona’s supply of Tunisian goods was restricted to amphorae and ARS, and was not accompanied by imported cooking wares and plain wares, forms that it replaced by its own home-produced repertoire. For Beirut, in the eastern Empire, the early 5th century was a period of major exchange, on a par with the decades of the late 4th century, but with certain significant changes in the source and quantities of both western and eastern imports (Tables 9, 15). An extraordinarily large and rich phase of ‘make-up’ deposits dating to c. 410 marks the aggrandisement of a large private house, the House of the Fountains (Perring 2003). In this period Portuguese amphorae, present in the late 4th century, are now absent, and there appears to have been a major drop in Baetican imports (as usual, fish sauce amphorae) (late 4th century: 7.3% total RBH imports; c. 410: 0.6% total RBH imports). Sinopean (with some Crimean) fish sauce amphorae, in contrast, are considerably more common by c. 410 (late 4th century: 1 Sinopean and 4 Crimean RBH, c. 1% total RBH imports; c. 410, 69 RBH; 9.2% of total RBH imports). This rise in Black Sea, particularly Sinopean imports of fish sauce by comparison with Spanish may not be coincidental. From this period through to the mid 6th century, Sinopean imports were the fish sauce par excellence consumed in Beirut (Table 24: 8.7% total RBH imports, AD 551). Only Tunisian, not south Spanish, fish sauce offered some competition in the early 5th century (2.4% total RBH imports). South Italian wine, represented by Keay 52, was rare (17 RBH; 2.27% of total RBH imports), on a par with Tunisian amphorae. Asia Minor/Aegean amphorae comprise a major slice of the Beirut (wine) market, at 17% of the total RBH imports (127 RBH). These mark an increase with respect to levels of the mid to late 4th century (primarily LRA 3 and Agora M 273: Kapitän 2 not being included here; mid 4th century: 11.3%; late 4th century: 9.8%) (for the distinct supply networks and forms supplied to Beirut v. Butrint, see Reynolds forthcoming c). The most important source of wine, apart from that of Beirut itself, however, was closer to home, in northern Palestine-southern Phoenicia (245 RBH; 32.7% total RBH imports), with Gazan LRA 4 in second place (74 RBH; 9.9% total RBH imports). The figures for north Palestinian-southern Phoenician amphorae are similar to those of the late 4th century (Table 9b: 31.4% total RBH imports), whereas Gazan amphorae were definitely more significant in the late 4th century (28.6% total RBH imports). LRA 1, well-established by the mid 4th century (Table 9b: 8.3% total RBH), maintained a high profile through the late 4th century (6% total RBH imports) and c. 410 (9.3% total RBH). The impression is that LRA 1 became the most significant amphora import thereafter (mid 5th to late 6th century assemblages: for the 6th century see Table 24). North Syrian (Amrit, Ras al Basit) (wine) amphorae may have dropped in numbers (late 4th century: 5.5% total RBH imports; c. 410: 3.7% total RBH imports). They are notably absent from the mid 5th century onwards. An important trend is the rise in Egyptian wine imports c. 410, in this period carried

90

3. Hispania and the Mediterranean: 3rd to mid 6th centuries solely in Nile silt, brown fabric amphorae (mid 4th century: absent; late 4th century: 0.25% total RBH; c. 410: 28 RBH, 3.7% total RBH). From the late 5th century onwards the sources of Egyptian wine increased, I suspect, shifting to the monasteries north-east and north-west of the Nile delta (see below, Chapter 4: LRA 5/Pieri Type 3). Overall, for c. 410, one can observe in Beirut a greater concentration in amphora imports from the eastern Empire, with important increases in imports from the Black Sea and the Levant. Egypt commanded a greater share of the wine market than it did in the late 4th century. Whereas Baetican fish sauce imports dropped significantly, Portuguese imports ceased and south Italian wine played a new, if short, role in the supply of western wine to a market dominated by local (Beiruti), Aegean and a wide range of Levantine wines. This trend towards closer regional imports is even stronger in the late 5th to early 7th centuries and needs to be gauged, equally, with the relative strength in local (wine) production (Beirut amphorae: mid 4th century: 50.1% total RBH; late 4th century: 38.1% total RBH; c. 410: 41.5%; c. 460-475: c. 23%; c. 475-500: c. 37%; late 6th century: 66.7% total RBH) (the Beirut amphora figure for the quantified AD 551 cistern fill on Table 24, at 5.1%, seems far too low, and is probably due to the peculiarities of the source of this deposit) (for trends in Beirut v. imported amphorae from the 2nd to late 5th centuries, see Reynolds 2005b, 609, graphs 1 and 2). Whereas Beirut amphorae were far more significant from the 1st to early 3rd centuries (op. cit; and for AD 200-230, here Table 4: 70.3%) the shift towards greater eastern, and predominantly Levantine imports began in the mid 3rd century (Table 4, local, at 39.3%, drop with respect to the increase in Levantine sources: these data for the mid 3rd century were not available for Reynolds 2005b, where this shift to greater Levantine sources was identified as beginning in the early or mid 4th century). Fine ware trends indicate that the hold that ARS had gained in the region during the mid 4th century lessened during the late 4th century, with the advent of Cypriot Red Slip Ware/LRD. By the early 5th century ARS had only 17% of the market, competing not only with CRSW (32.3%), but also an increase in Late Çandarli/Phocean Red Slip Ware/LRC (33.3%). From 450, as we shall see, the fine ware supply of Beirut, and the eastern Mediterranean in general (e.g. Butrint: Table 25) was dominated by LRC, and in the case of the Levant, the additional supply of Cypriot fine wares (Table 24). 3.3.2. The barbarian kingdoms: early and mid Vandal period exports, 439-500 In Hispania and southern Gaul the turmoil of the first decades of the 5th century, the arrival of the barbarians, in-fighting between various imperial factions and local Bagaudic unrest in northern Spain, would seem to describe a world whose economy and relationships with the greater Medi-

91

Hispania and the Roman Mediterranean terranean must have changed completely from the later 4th century (Keay 1988, Chapter 9; see now Kulikowski 2004).330 However, the archaeological evidence points to continuity in the major supply of imports to coastal areas in Hispania up to 425/450, as we have seen, and again in the early to mid 6th century. Some regions, furthermore, were well supplied with Tunisian Vandal 5th century imports: those under the control of the Vandals (the Balearics, Sardinia and Sicily; Malta?), and regions outside the Vandal regnum, notably in southern Spain (Alicante, Murcia, Belo), southern Gaul (Marseille), Ravenna, some sites in the north-eastern Adriatic and certain ports in the East located close to Italy and north Africa (Butrint, Durres; to some extent Athens and Corinth), but, with the exception of Alexandria, not further afield (not Beirut and other Levantine cities or Constantinople). From the mid 5th century there was an increase in eastern Mediterranean amphorae and, notably, the appearance in the West and even on sites on the Atlantic as far north as southern Britain, of Phocean Late Roman C table wares. From the late, or perhaps end of the 5th century, there was a further increase in these goods, in some cases accompanied by eastern Mediterranean cooking wares. There was now the opportunity to exploit the available western markets offered by the new barbarian kingdoms in Gaul and Hispania, markets that eastern merchants had already captured in the early 5th century, prior to the barbarian unrest. As discussed, the Vila-roma mid 5th century deposit seems to document the strength of eastern Mediterranean and Vandal Tunisian trade in the first decades following the fall of Africa to the Vandals. The first imports of eastern amphorae to rural sites probably coincided with this phase and not earlier (see the previous section). The Torre de l’Audiència 1A-B deposits, some recently excavated in Sevilla, like those in Marseille and Rome, may be evidence for the continuity of contacts with both Tunisian and eastern Mediterranean sources during the third quarter of the 5th century, on a more reduced scale (because the number of deposits of this period are relatively rare). Major communication and exchange existed between the barbarian kingdoms themselves, with the Vandals acting as dominant producers and suppliers of fine wares and amphora-borne commodities, as well as, presumably, grain. We should be aware, however, that the western Mediterranean territories and ports that were largely served by these contacts with Vandal Africa (as also with the eastern Roman Empire) were none of them in barbarian hands until the 460s and 470s (n. 330). Tarraco and the rest of north-eastern Tarraconensis, were Roman, with a strong Roman aristocracy still wielding power, and, with the exception of Barcelona/Barcino, not receptive to the incoming Visigothic population (Ripoll 2003). Carthaginiensis (including Alicante, where Vandal imports are common) was technically no longer in Roman hands, though there is no evidence, as far as I know, of a Visigothic population there till the end of the 6th century. Marseille and the lands of south-eastern Gaul were

92

3. Hispania and the Mediterranean: 3rd to mid 6th centuries technically still ‘Roman’. From 497, even Ostrogothic Italy, and southeastern Gaul remained ‘Roman’ when Theoderic was recognised by Byzantium as legitimate emperor of the Roman West and it is this that explains his legitimacy over south-eastern Gaul (Wolfram 1988, Chapter 5). Equally significant were contacts of the West with lands in the eastern Byzantine provinces, particularly those of the Levant and Asia Minor, that through the mid to late 5th centuries supplied major ports in these western kingdoms with commodities on a major scale. The Vandal conquest and gradual dominance of the western seaways by their fleet brought a significant change in the production and distribution of Tunisian amphorae and ARS in the Mediterranean. The established link between Tunisia and the annona supply of Rome was broken. The Vandals could now sell any surplus they produced to their barbarian allies and to the Byzantine East alike. Rather than allow the existing agricultural system to fall into ruin, the Vandals, or at least those under Vandal rule, set about transforming the oil, fish sauce and pottery industries. In contrast to previous periods, oil was more clearly marketed outside the areas formerly supplied by the annona.331 Excavations at Carthage demonstrate that although there must have been a break in the production of ARS, this was short, as the early Vandal levels of c. 450 are marked by a new range of north Tunisian forms that characterise the second half of the 5th century (e.g. Fig. 16a, ARS 86).332 A new series of rouletted forms introduced in west-central Tunisia (at Sidi Marzouk Tounsi) probably prior to the Vandal presence (ARS 82-85) continued in production (e.g. Fig. 16a, ARS 84), forms ARS 61B and 87 were produced at Sidi Khalifa (north of the Gulf of Hammamet), and in the Nabeul region fine wares were produced (notably ARS 50.61), as well as the amphora Keay 35 (a pre-Vandal 5th century form) and a range of new amphora types (Keay 56, 57 and 59, for example: Bonifay 2005c, 88; Bonifay 2004, 480-1). The south also took on a greater role with the production and export of Keay 8B. In the north, ARS and amphora exports may have shifted in importance from Carthage and the Medjerda Valley to Nabeul and the Gulf of Hammamet.333 Exports of north-western (Carthage) ARS during the early-mid Vandal period (450-500) were nevertheless significant (more so than Bonifay suggests, perhaps), being directed at specific Vandal territories and eastern Spain, but, with the exception of the dish ARS 61B, less at southern Gaul, with its special links with Nabeul and central Tunisian ports (see below). Overall, one can observe a transformation in the production of fine wares and amphorae (oil, fish, perhaps wine) that seems directly related to the location of new Vandal landlords in the territorium of Carthage (land expropriation) and the investment (by non-Vandals, perhaps) in ports and estates that lay outside their orbit. Although, with the exception of finds of central Tunisian ARS 82-85 in Egypt, it was initially thought that Vandal forms of this period, particu-

93

Hispania and the Roman Mediterranean larly the new products of Carthage and north-eastern Tunisia, were not exported, there is now evidence for their presence at sites in south-eastern Hispania and in their island empire of the Balearics (most clearly at Es Castell, Ibiza),334 Sardinia and Sicily.335 Marseille was also a primary target, still ‘Roman’ during the 5th century, and, later, under Frankish control. Tunisian table wares, amphorae and coarse wares in the city’s deposit sequences of the second half of the 5th century demonstrate links of the port with both north and central Tunisia. Context 12 of Les Puits du Bon Jésus is a good assemblage of c. 450-475, where a drop in quantities of imported table wares can be nevertheless noted, as can the continued presence of Baetican fish amphorae, alongside Tunisian and eastern Mediterranean amphorae and fine wares (Table 18).336 The settlement of Saint Blaise was also well supplied with Vandal ARS in both the 5th and early 6th centuries.337 Shipwrecks off the coast of Gaul also bear testimony to cargoes of Vandal exports that are equally to be found in Alicante.338 Evidence for the continued supply of Tunisian surpluses to Italy, and to Rome in particular, is more difficult to interpret. Ventimiglia, in northwestern Italy, received 5th century Vandal ARS. There is as yet little information on Rome, but recent work shows us that 5th century Vandal ARS and amphorae are present in one assemblage of the third, perhaps, rather than fourth, quarter of the 5th century excavated on the Palatine (Panella, Saguì and Coletti forthcoming). ARS finds in the Schola Praeconum II deposit of c. 500 are very low for an assemblage of this size. Tunisian oil and fish, however, comprise c. 40% of the market and quantities are thus similar to the high levels imported in the mid 5th century. Two other Rome deposits may reflect trends in exports during the second half of the 5th century and comprise relative Tunisian amphora imports at 30.5% and as much as 52.2% (Table 2c, Magna Mater, dated 440-480; Crypta Balbi, dated 410-480). Naples was a major target of ARS in this period, with central Tunisian exports being particularly prominent, recalling the supply of Marseille.339 However, it seems that though certain major ports received ARS from 450-530, overall quantities dropped, with central Italy remaining fairly barren.340 In the Vinalopó Valley (Alicante) north Tunisian ARS primarily, including the new forms that were introduced at Carthage in the Vandal period, was found as survey material (Fig. 16a) with Tunisian Keay 62 amphorae (Fig. 16b) on highland sites located on the Via Augusta, as it passes through the valley en route for Carthago Nova.341 The quantities of Vandal 5th century ARS found in the valley are considerable, especially when, with the exception of El Monastil, most of the material is the result of a few days survey by one person on each site. Excavation at a site such as the highland settlement of La Moleta (Elche) would provide massive quantities of ARS and other imports, one suspects. Vandal 5th century ARS was also found on the coastal, defended, highland-promontory site of Peñon de Ifach (Calpe), on the northern Alicante coast342 and occurs on a coastal

94

3. Hispania and the Mediterranean: 3rd to mid 6th centuries settlement, perhaps port, at Garganes (Altea), also on the northern coast of the province.343 Another highland site, in this case located further inland, at El Castellar, in the Alcoy Valley, is evidence for the same pattern of highland, defensive sites supplied with late 5th to 6th century ARS that is typical of the Vinalopó Valley. A detailed comparison of the range (forms and variants) and quantities of Vandal fine wares in the western Mediterranean suggested some major regional differences in the supply.344 Alicante Vandal ARS is closest to that of north-eastern Sicily and the Balearics.345 In contrast to Marseille and Naples, in Alicante central Tunisian ARS C is rare.346 Alicante, however, shares the supply in quantity at Marseille of some north Tunisian forms.347 Other north Tunisian forms are more common in Alicante.348 In many respects the supply of Alicante is paralleled closely both at Ventimiglia and Belo/Baelo Claudia. Many of the north Tunisian forms of ARS that are common in both Alicante and Marseille are rare at Carthage itself, and are also rare at Belo, despite similarities with Alicante in other respects. The form Fulford 27, a north-east Tunisian (Nabeul) version of the central Tunisian form ARS 84, is a common element in the Vinalopó Valley supply but is surprisingly rare at Carthage. It is fairly rare in Marseille (a large dish version of it did occur on the Dramont E wreck at Port-Miou), and is attested in north-east Tarraconensis (see below), though perhaps in lesser numbers than in Alicante. These factors, as well as the peculiar distribution of ARS 87 and the bowl Hayes 98, suggest that the products of different regional centres, even in northern Tunisia, as well as those of central and southern Tunisia, were distributed by different mechanisms, some quite independent of Carthage. That the latter is the case should come as no surprise. Central Tunisian ports such as Leptiminus and Sullecthum aimed their amphorae at Marseille and Rome, or their fine wares in the direction of Marseille and also eastern sites (Butrint and Athens), but not Alicante. The port of Carthage served as the base for the grain fleet established under Commodus (the ‘Classis Africana’) and was rebuilt, but notably not until Justinian, following the Byzantine reconquest.349 The role of the ports of Utica and Hippo Regius, to the west, in the distribution and marketing of north Tunisian goods, particularly towards Spain, should therefore not be underestimated.350 There is perhaps greater variety in regional distributions in the Vandal period than in the 4th century, when most sites received the same products (from a limited number of large production centres, such as El Mahrine) and differed only in the quantities supplied. Alicante was well supplied with everything but east-central Tunisian products (‘classic’ forms of ARS 82-84). In Tarragona, as we have seen, there are a few deposits of the second half of the 5th century that attest to contacts with both Vandal Tunisia and the eastern Mediterranean. A similar range of ARS forms to those found in Marseille, perhaps, rather than Alicante, is encountered in these

95

Hispania and the Roman Mediterranean Tarragona deposits and as residual material in the 6th century Torre de l’Audiència sequence.351 The villa or possible sanctuary site at Can Modolell, near Mataró/Iluro, is one site that did import 5th century Vandal ARS, as is the villa of Caputxins (Mataró).352 At the villa of Casa Blanca (Tortosa) Vandal 5th to early century ARS imports are relatively common (Revilla Calvo 2003, figs 66-71: including ARS 63, Fulford 50.61 and a rouletted variant of ARS 86). The necropolis site of La Solana (Cubelles, Garraf) has also yielded some examples of late 5th century Vandal ARS. There are references to finds of one of the 5th century Vandal forms that occurs there (Fulford 27) and central Tunisian ARS 84, which it copies, on several other rural sites in the region.353 So far, however, much of the published assemblages for north-eastern Spain can be ascribed to the first half of the 5th century, or to the first half of the 6th century, when late Vandal exports were traded more generally (see below). The data on Vandal-period amphorae is slightly better. The ratios of fine wares to coarse wares to amphorae published from Tarragona through the 5th to 6th centuries would indicate that amphorae drop in relative proportion to other ceramics after 450.354 Deposits dating from 450-500, where Vandal ARS is attested, document the dominance of Tunisian amphorae over other products. Tunisian amphorae were also at least as common in Tarragona as they had been in the mid 5th century, perhaps more so, though this rise is connected with a drop in Spanish sources and a corresponding rise in eastern Mediterranean and Tunisian sources (Table 18). At Ampurias some 5th century late Vandal ARS and associated Tunisian amphorae (91% of the total amphorae) are present in a late 5th or very early 6th century deposit. It is possible that these may be due in part to redistribution from Gallic ports that supplied t. s. paléochrétienne grise and t. s. lucente, also present on this site (see above, Chapter 2.1).355 Though the quantities of 5th and 6th century Tunisian ARS and amphora imports at the fish sauce factory site of Rosas, well to the north, could indicate that the site was well-connected with Tunisia throughout this period, the absence of the Vandal forms found in Alicante and Marseille could be evidence that products of c. 450-500 were not supplied.356 Well illustrated by the Es Castell assemblage (Ibiza), the Balearics in the period 450-500 indicate strong links both with Tunisia (common ARS, but amphorae rarer) and with Alicante and/or Murcia through the presence of imports of hand-made cooking pots from Murcia that are typical finds in the Vinalopó Valley. A reciprocal exchange with Alicante is evident from imports of Balearic wine amphorae and plain wares (Figs 17a, 21a-b).357 These links with Alicante could well be evidence for the central role of the Balearics in the redistribution of Vandal Tunisian products.358 A similar role with respect to Marseille could also be indicated by the unusual quantities of Gallic fine wares and their imitation in the Balearics (Chapter 2.1). Surprising is the absence so far of ARS and Balearic products of 450-500 in Carthago Nova, to the south. There is some

96

3. Hispania and the Mediterranean: 3rd to mid 6th centuries evidence instead for distinct mechanisms of supply of Tunisian and other products to Cartagena and Alicante generally in the 5th and 6th centuries, prior to the Byzantine reconquest of 551.359 Just as Vandal products were reaching various ports in the western Mediterranean, there is now substantial evidence that Vandal Africa, as well as its trading partners, enjoyed an increase in eastern imports. A rise in eastern Mediterranean amphorae c. 450 has been documented at Carthage (Fig. 15), one which certainly corresponds to the Vandal period. This is one of the rare sites where pre-Vandal and Vandal deposits can be identified and it is likely that there was an increase in eastern imports in the years following the Vandal conquest.360 Marseille also offers the same opportunity to gauge the rise in eastern imports during the second half of the 5th century (Table 18: 42% for the late 5th century at Marseille-La Bourse and as high as 45.7% at Marseille-Puits du Bon Jésus). The same rise in eastern imports in the later Vandal period, now including LRC and cooking wares, together with that of Tunisian ARS and amphorae, can also be detected on sites, both towns and in some cases rural sites also, along the eastern coast of Spain (see Chapter 3.4). Though the substantial imports of eastern Mediterranean amphorae to the ports of Gaul, eastern Spain and Carthage are testimony to the strength of contacts in the first half of the 5th century, exports of fine wares from Asia Minor (Phocean Late Roman C ware) are notably not encountered generally in the western Mediterranean until after 450, forms being those current in the period 450-550 (see below).361 The range of LRC forms furthermore indicates that the majority date from the late 5th century onwards, and so may be correlated with the general rise in eastern Mediterranean amphorae and the appearance of eastern cooking wares in the same period (see below: notable at Carthage). Finds of the earlier, late 4th to early 5th century, bowl LRC 1 and dish LRC 2 in a cistern deposit at Sa Mesquida (Mallorca) are quite atypical for the West.362 It is a supply paralleled in Butrint. The distribution of LRC and eastern amphorae on sites on the Atlantic route to south-western Britain can be compared with the clear drop in imports of ARS over the same period363 (Map 12). The south-eastern Italian villa of S. Giovanni di Ruoti, however, well supplied with Tunisian and eastern Mediterranean amphorae in the first half of the 5th century (Table 2c), continued to tap the flow of eastern Mediterranean fine wares and amphorae travelling westwards.364 Here Tunisian ARS of 450-500 is present, but outnumbered by LRC and in clearly reduced quantities to numbers imported in the first half of the 5th century. Butrint received huge numbers of 5th to 6th century LRC and eastern Mediterranean amphorae. The extent to which these eastern imports were connected with or reflect the supply to southern Italy and beyond, as well as the supply of LRC to Ravenna, or whether Butrint received these cargoes as part of separate mechanisms, will be discussed

97

Hispania and the Roman Mediterranean shortly. Cooking ware imports there could indicate strong ties with eastern Sicily (see below, Chapter 3.4.1: Ware 6). These trends in exports to western sites from the mid 5th century onwards have generally been taken to be evidence for the gradual extension of influence by eastern Mediterranean entrepreneurs in the West and beyond, following the break and shift in supplies that marked the first decades of the Vandal occupation of Africa. Eastern exports filled a gap in the market. Though eastern merchants had already a major hold on urban markets in the West by the second quarter of the 5th century, it is significant that LRC was not exported to the West and into the Atlantic until ARS had ceased to be available as competition. LRC, however, though evenly scattered along the coasts of the western Mediterranean, can nevertheless be seen to be more concentrated in some regions: notably in south-eastern Spain, rather than north-eastern Spain, though this is perhaps clearer in the 6th century (see Chapter 3.4). We may note here the presence of six examples of LRC 3 of the third quarter of the 5th century in Torre de l’Audiència 1A-B, indicating that Tarragona was exceptionally targeted in this period (Aquilué 1993, nos 90-5). In Marseille, as in Tarragona, the earliest post-450 finds of LRC are of form 3C. However, the rarity of LRC at Marseille and, even more so, Naples throughout 5th to 7th century levels365 is strong evidence for separate distribution patterns for these table wares (quite different, say, to Butrint, Ravenna, S. Giovanni, Alicante and Britain) and, presumably, the primary cargoes that were carried with them. As sites such as El Monastil (Elda) in the Vinalopó Valley suggest, eastern amphorae were a regular item supplied to southeastern Hispania in the second half of the 5th century. These may, with the supply of LRC to Alicante, Belo, Troia and Conimbriga, reflect that of 5th century LRA 1 amphorae and LRC to Braga, and Britain along a south Mediterranean shipping route passing, perhaps, through Syracuse. Butrint may have captured some of this trade. Its supply of Tunisian amphorae and ARS, all found in Ravenna in the late 5th/early 6th centuries might also be connected with shipments travelling from Africa Proconsularis and Zeugitana to Ravenna (Tables 24, 26a) (see Chapter 3.4). The separate supply mechanisms – goods carried in Tunisian and eastern Mediterranean ships – to Ravenna seems very likely, recalling the supply to the Atlantic and Britain from c. 450 onwards (see below). It is impossible to discern whether the finds of mid 5th century LRA 1 in Septem/Ceuta, Málaga, Sexi (Bernal Casasola 2007, figs 4.7, 5.9-10), and those of Sevilla (Amores Carredano et al. 2007, figs 3.12, 6.43) date to the third, rather than the second quarter of the 5th century. They are similar to examples found in the Vila-roma assemblage. They do not date later. Other finds of LRA 1 in Iulia Traducta date to the third quarter of the 5th century or to the late 5th century (Bernal Casasola 2007, fig. 5.8), as perhaps does an example from Carteia (ibid., fig. 4.6). Other LRA 1s from Cádiz are datable to the late 5th or early 6th century (ibid., fig. 2.1-2) and

98

3. Hispania and the Mediterranean: 3rd to mid 6th centuries to the first half of the 6th century (ibid., fig. 3.1), whereas another example could date to the late 6th century, resembling the examples of Beirut context BEY 006.5503 (Table 24) (ibid., fig. 4.5). In major contrast to the early 5th century, western goods are so far not apparent in the East as evidence for any returning cargoes, though, to examine this possibility, we should look to the regions or cities that were in contact with the West at this time (i.e. the sources of LRA 1 in Cilicia or perhaps Cyprus; the Ephesus region, cf. LRA 3; the islands of Samos and Ikaria and environs;366 Chios and Kos, known sources for LRA 2: for recent excavations of a production site on Kos, see Poulou-Papadimitriou and Didioumi [forthcoming]; Gaza, cf. LRA 4; in the case of Carthage in this period, Caesarea, perhaps, for LRA 5). Regions that were not directly involved in eastern exports, however, such as Benghazi (Kenrick 1985), Butrint, Durres and possibly Shkodra (Hoxha 2003), were able to tap Tunisian exports because of their proximity to Vandal Africa and/or their location on the major shipping route to Ravenna. Certain sites in the north-eastern Adriatic also received Vandal imports of ARS and amphorae, either direct from Tunisia or via Ravenna (for the ARS, Pröttel [1996]: Hrušica (Taf. 16.6-13), Concordia Sagittaria, Piazzale (Taf. 39.4-6, 7-10, Taf. 40, Taf. 42.13-16) and Veliki Brioni; for amphorae, Vidrih Perko and v v v Zupancic [2005] and Cunja [1996]). It would seem that, despite what one might have inferred from the finds so far published from Corinth (Slane and Sanders 2005, fig. 5.6-7: north Tunisian ‘late ARS 61B’), the city received very little ARS after the early 5th century, the shift to LRC being well established by the early 5th century.367 To some extent this is true also for Athens, though ARS 61B and ARS 82-85 are still well illustrated by John Hayes (1972; in press). The rarity in Athens of north Tunisian ARS 91B is, however, rather significant and seems to underscore the role of specific regional contacts in this period and the eclipse of ARS by LRC from the early 5th century, as in Corinth.368 Whereas ARS seems rather abundant in levels of the first quarter of the 5th century at Argos (as high as 50%, the rest being Phocean), ARS is relatively scarce in the second half of the 5th century (Abadie-Reynal 1989, 150 and fig. 16: c. 75-80% is LRC: c. 85 fragments noted; c. 18 ARS fragments noted for the period 450-500, versus c. 63 for 400-450; LRC). Alexandria’s supply of ARS 82-85 may be evidence for the reciprocal supply of Egyptian grain (Hayes 1972; Bonifay 2004, 454-6, fig. 256). That the range of central Tunisian ARS is paralleled in Athens may indicate that Athens was in some way connected with the Alexandria supply route, or, simply, that both were separately served by the same central Tunisian ports. The penetration of ARS 82-85 along the Nile, as far south as Aswan, in some cases alongside finds of Tripolitanian oil amphorae, has led Michel Bonifay to argue that the distribution of both is connected (Bonifay 2005, 454-6, fig. 256).

99

Hispania and the Roman Mediterranean Beirut only occasionally received Vandal ARS (and solely ARS 63) during this period (deposits of c. 450-475+, associated with LRD 2 and LRC 3C), and as far as I know, Aegean and Asia Minor sites, as well as the Byzantine capital of Constantinople did not usually receive Vandal exports at this time. Caution here is advised, however, given the presence of a few Vandal Tunisian amphorae amidst a mass of eastern Mediterranean amphorae in the food stores of the military fort of Dichin (central Bulgaria), in a destruction deposit of c. 476-480 (Dichin was founded c. 400 and is located 11km west of the major Roman town of Nicopolis ad Istrum; Swan 2004, especially 475: four Tunisian amphorae, figs 17-20, but no ARS. They comprise the only western imports; Swan 2007). Exports to the east of Tunisian ARS, but only rare amphorae, probably evidence for otherwise unattested exports of Vandal grain, however, recommenced in the late Vandal period, from c. 500, as we shall see, and continued with even greater vigour to Constantinople and certain major eastern Mediterranean ports, following the Byzantine reconquest of Roman north Africa (Chapter 4). Baetican exports to the Levant, in contrast, were not resumed after the break in supply following the Vandal conquest (see below, Chapter 3.4). 3.4. The late 5th to mid 6th centuries: late Vandal and eastern Mediterranean trade The late 5th century and first half of the 6th century witnessed a general boom in trade, from both Tunisian and eastern Mediterranean sources. The scale of commerce and geographical range covered, encompassing the Mediterranean and Atlantic as far as Britain, recalled the world of the late 4th and early 5th centuries, when the Mediterranean was still in Roman hands. The political landscape was now far more complex and fragmented, however. It is important to recognise that this recovery in confidence and economic initiative was in full swing prior to the Byzantine reconquests of 533 onwards. The Vandal and other barbarian kings always considered themselves to be legitimate Caesars, in the Tetrarchic model, rather than the usurpers that the eastern emperors preferred to depict them as (the tremisses minted by the Visigoths, for example, followed Roman standards and iconography, the Vandal elites behaved like Roman aristocrats, the court and building programme of Theodoric at Ravenna were an equal match for his Byzantine counterparts). The driving force for such interaction was, doubtless, the ever present need to feed the hungry populaces of the cities under Roman and barbarian rule: grain shipments surely underwrote the secondary trade of other staples, and even more so, ceramics. It was this need that was first on the agenda when Justinian finally managed to recover Roman north Africa.

100

3. Hispania and the Mediterranean: 3rd to mid 6th centuries 3.4.1. The general distribution in the western Mediterranean and the Atlantic Tunisian exports The late Vandal late 5th to early 6th century occupation of Tunisia marked an increase in production and exports of ARS and amphorae on a scale not encountered since the early 5th century. It was probably from c. 475/500 that the Vandals started to export a new range of north Tunisian ARS and, perhaps predominantly oil, carried in a new Vandal amphora type, Keay 62 (Fig. 16b).369 The range of ARS was further extended in the period 500-530 and it is probably in this period that ARS exports to some degree regained their former market throughout the Mediterranean.370 One can detect that in many cities in the western Mediterranean Vandal Tunisian amphora exports reached their peak in the early 6th century (Tables 2c, 16, 18). The supply of late Vandal Tunisian products to the eastern Mediterranean, beyond the Adriatic coast, however, was largely restricted to ARS (e.g. Alexandria, Beirut, and Shaveii Zeion: see Bonifay 2005b). The distribution and quantities exported of Keay 62 amphorae demonstrate the extent to which the Vandals set to marketing of their surpluses, oil certainly, to both former annona and non-annona regions alike. The primary regions served, and these did not extend to the eastern Mediterranean, were now barbarian successor states (in Spain, southern Gaul and Italy), as well as the Vandal insular territories (Balearics, Sicily, Sardinia). Other markets cannot be classified as such, Butrint/Epirus for example. Butrint was another site, like Marseille, that had never ceased to be supplied with Tunisian imports during the second half of the 5th century. Marseille, indeed, shows a marked rise in Tunisian amphorae from the late 5th century, a trend that continued into the mid 6th century (Table 18: late 5th century, generally around 50-60% of the total amphorae; mid 5th century, 32-36%). Tunisian ARS accompanied these, but quantities of Tunisian cooking wares were in contrast relatively rare.371 In the case of Marseille, the relative quantities of both Tunisian ARS and amphorae are considerably higher than those in Naples and Capua, and closer to those of Rome and Ampurias, in the case of the amphorae. The highland settlement of Saint-Propice, just to the north-west of Marseille, is notable for the imports of late Vandal ARS that, doubtless, were marketed from Marseille.372 The settlement did not, however, tap the port’s supply of Tunisian and eastern Mediterranean amphorae. With the exception of Ravenna, as we shall see, the situation in Ostrogothic Italy differed, perhaps, in that the supply was more specifically based on foodstuffs rather than table wares (Table 2c). Nor were the quantities of Tunisian amphorae evenly distributed. Ventimiglia continued to be well supplied with Vandal ARS and later, Byzantine ARS and amphorae. Rome, gauged by the Schola Praeconum II deposit, was the

101

Hispania and the Roman Mediterranean principal market for Tunisian amphora-borne goods (c. 40%), with Capua (c. 30%) and particularly Naples even lower (21-22%) down the scale. However at the Domus of Gaudentius, another site in Rome, Tunisian amphora imports are at 31.7%, similar to the figures at Capua.373 In the case of Naples the supply was more evenly shared between eastern and south Italian sources: in both cases these would have represented wine, rather than oil, and it is likely that Naples still derived most of its oil supply from Tunisia. At Naples this represents a definite drop with respect to imports of c. 430-450 (44.4%), and may be correlated with a rise in eastern imports and ‘unclassified’ amphorae (Italian; and additional eastern Mediterranean?: the rise in Italian imports during the 6th century can also be gauged from Carsana, D’Amico and Del Vecchio [2007]). The low number of 6th century ARS finds at Carminiello ai Mannesi (Soricelli [1994], summarised in Reynolds [1995]), may not be representative of the supply to Naples, given the quantities of mid and late 6th century ARS, notably ARS 99B and 99C, found in more recent excavations (Carsana, D’Amico and Del Vecchio [2007, 432, fig. 4]). At Capua, there was a similar reliance on Tunisian oil, but the city depended far more heavily, on ‘unclassified’ sources (wherever they may have come from: local or perhaps eastern Mediterranean, following trends at Naples?) (Arthur and King 1987). Naples, nevertheless would seem to demonstrate a major difference in its Tunisian amphora supply with the quantities exported to north-eastern Spanish sites, such as Ampurias and even the fish sauce factory at Rosas, inundated with both Tunisian amphorae and ARS in the first half of the 6th century. Overall, however, Rome primarily, but also other western Italian cities, such as Naples and Ventimiglia, still commanded a major slice of Tunisian agricultural exports.374 Ravenna would appear to be exceptional. Recent excavations of a warehouse and related structures at Classe, the port of Ravenna, offer important evidence for the major role of the imperial and, later, Ostrogothic capital in the importation of primarily Vandal Tunisian, as well as eastern Mediterranean amphorae, fine wares and cooking wares during the mid 5th to mid 6th centuries (Table 23) (Augenti et al. 2007).375 The huge number of vessels of Vandal ARS (particularly central Tunisian lamps and cup ARS 85) and Tunisian amphorae (primarily Keay 26 and variants of Keay 35), reflect their unusual survival as in situ (later, redeposited) goods that were stored in one of the warehouses prior to its destruction by fire, perhaps in the last decade of the 5th century. The number of vessels – surely the total cargo of at least one ship recently arrived from Tunisia – offers a reminder of the minuscule percentage of the actual volume of trade that archaeological deposits usually render. In this sense one can only register that Ravenna was indeed a major node in the supply network of Tunisian goods to the northern Adriatic. The redistribution of Tunisian products from this point westwards along the Po Valley has recently been studied.376 Equally significant is Ravenna’s

102

3. Hispania and the Mediterranean: 3rd to mid 6th centuries role as importer of Phocean Late Roman C table wares at the end of the 5th or early 6th centuries. These and the presence of LRA 1 and Aegean LRA 2, alongside Aegean and north Palestinian cooking wares, demonstrate that eastern Mediterranean imports were on a par with Tunisian imports (see Table 23, where eastern Mediterranean percentages are always higher, though one must use these figures with caution). The overall supply of Ravenna can be paralleled with that of contemporary Tunisian and eastern Mediterranean imports in Butrint (Table 25a). These, up till now appeared to stand alone as the far western projection of a south-west Mediterranean trade route with the East. In fact, Butrint may have captured both the Carthage-Ravenna/north Adriatic supply route and the supply route to southern Italy. Ravenna’s supply of north Palestinian brittle ware (Workshop X: Waksman et al. 2005a; Reynolds and Waksman 2007) is notable for the quantities recovered and the uniformity of their production (notably thick-walled variants). They presumably accompanied the somewhat rarer Palestinian LR 5 amphorae found in Classe (perhaps from Caesarea). Though present, Reynolds Ware 6 (Sicilian?) cooking ware is notably quite rare in these Ravenna deposits, certainly rarer than the numbers encountered in Carthage and Alicante. Butrint appears to have had more frequent contact with this cooking ware source than did Ravenna (one would certainly have expected scores of Ware 6 at Ravenna if the supply had been in any way significant). Perhaps one can infer from this that Tunisian goods arrived direct to Ravenna and did not pick up Sicilian cargoes en route. The supply of Palestinian cooking pots strongly argues for their distribution, with Palestinian amphorae, direct to Ravenna from the Levant (from Caesarea?) and not via Carthage. If there had been cabotage by ships carrying Gazan-Caesarean products, along the coasts of Lebanon, Syria and southern Anatolia, as can be inferred from the Iskandil-Burnu 7th century shipwreck (see n. 400), this would have resulted, surely, in the redistribution of products of these regions to Ravenna (e.g. Beirut amphorae; the Lycian cooking wares that reach Alicante in the 6th century). We see, instead, only LRA 1 in Ravenna. The rarity of LRC (at all periods) in Carthage would argue the same in the case of Aegean cargoes. In fact the major role of LRC in Butrint, in comparison to Carthage, Naples, Rome and Marseille is strong evidence for Butrint’s links with the Aegean supply to Ravenna. The towns of Hispania’s east coast, from 476 under Visigothic rule, seem to have been one of the major markets for late Vandal foodstuffs (oil and fish sauce) and table wares. At Ampurias, for example, we have figures for Tunisian amphorae at 59.53% (Plaza Petita) and as much as 90.99% at the Necropolis of Sant Martí (Table 16).377 ARS comprised as much as 81% and 73% of the fine wares at the latter sites, respectively (Table 12). The huge quantities of Tunisian amphorae and fine wares that mark the end of use of the fish sauce factory at Rosas point to strong contacts with Tunisia in the early to mid 6th century (see n. 356). The

103

Hispania and the Roman Mediterranean rarity of Gallic fine wares in these levels suggests that Tunisian imports were not redistributed from Gallic ports in this period.378 The port of Iluro/Mataró is another example of Tunisian-dominated supply during the late 5th and first half of the 6th centuries (e.g. UE 1027, early 6th century: 65.6% of the amphorae; UE 1038, first half 6th century: 49.3%; ARS common, but no LRC; Tunisian mortars and jugs, but rare eastern Mediterranean cooking wares).379 Tarraco, under Visigothic rule, maintained its primacy as an ecclesiastical centre and attests certain regeneration in this period. Reliable quantifiable material is lacking, however, as we have seen, but would attest to a major supply of ARS and dominance of Tunisian amphorae (75.6%) during the early to mid 6th century (Tables 18 and 21: AUD 2). ARS datable to the first half of the 6th century is common at Pollentia (Mallorca).380 Though the quantities at Tarragona, for the second half of the 5th century are similar to those for the late 5th century in Naples, Capua and the Domus of Gaudentius (Rome) (Table 21: AUD 1A-B, 28.3%), they more than doubled by the mid to late 6th century at Tarragona (75.6%). The absence of good early to mid 6th century contexts in Tarragona is quite surprising and of course hampers a direct comparison with other sites in this period. That there was a substantial rise in the course of the 6th century is undeniable, however, though this cannot be tied to either the Tunisian late Vandal or early Byzantine periods. It can however be more legitimately compared with the supply encountered further south in Alicante-Benalúa (Chapter 3.5). The same can be said for the dating of the assemblage of the Ampurias necropolis of the Carretera de S. Martín, with its record levels of Tunisian imports. Are these Spanish contexts evidence for late Vandal or early Byzantine phases of Tunisian exports, or both, if they are mixed? (Table 16) In south-eastern Spain, the highland settlements of the Vinalopó Valley and other highland sites in the region continued to receive imports of ARS and Tunisian amphorae in the late 5th to mid 6th centuries, though it is clear that the coastal settlement at Benalúa-Alicante received a far greater share of all imports.381 Here the quantities of Tunisian fine wares, amphorae, cooking wares and plain wares, central Mediterranean cooking wares and eastern Mediterranean fine wares, notably LRC, Aegean cooking wares and Aegean and Levantine amphorae seem quite extraordinary for the region and Hispania in general. These will be outlined and discussed at a later stage (Chapter 3.5). The mid 6th century deposit of Benalúa-Alicante, contemporary with the Tarragona AUD/2 deposit, was far richer in quantities of ARS and comprises, in major contrast to Tarragona, an extremely wide range and large number of coarse ware imports, including predominantly Tunisian cooking wares and plain wares. It is nevertheless significant that Tunisian amphorae, though clearly very common, make up a far smaller percentage of the amphorae than they do at Tarragona (Tables 21, 22: 29.7%). The assemblage demonstrates that Spanish, Balearic, and notably local, Lower Vinalopó amphorae (34%), were far more dominant on the site. The settlement probably also pro-

104

3. Hispania and the Mediterranean: 3rd to mid 6th centuries duced its own fish sauce in this period. It was also self-sufficient in glass, there being a factory at the site.382 Eastern amphorae, perhaps not surprisingly, given the extraordinary number of eastern fine wares and coarse wares, comprise a greater relative percentage of the assemblage than they do in Tarragona or sites in the north-east in general (Table 21: Benalúa, 22.6%; AUD/2: 11.6%). Excavations at the coastal highland site of Garganes (Altea), to the north, show the site to have been well supplied with Tunisian imports in the 6th century, in a similar range to that of Benalúa and highland sites along the Vinalopó Valley.383 Though ARS of this period is found on many of the fish sauce factory sites located along the south-east coast, it is not common.384 Sites on the Atlantic coast not served by Tunisian exports in the second half of the 5th century, now received them, along with south-western Britain. Finds at Braga/Bracara Augusta (Table 19), the capital of the Suevic kingdom until the Visigothic King Leovigild brought it under his control (AD 575-586), bear testimony to the strength of the ARS supply (and associated cargoes, perhaps) from c. 500-550 on this Atlantic route. Some 70 vessels of 6th century ARS have appeared in Braga deposits and far outnumber examples found at Gijón. In contrast to the ARS supply, very few Tunisian amphora fragments were found in these Braga contexts.385 We may find, however, that the greatest concentration of Tunisian and eastern Mediterranean imports of the late 5th, 6th and even 7th centuries, was at the port of Vigo (Galicia), some 100 km to the north of Braga (Adolfo Domínguez, pers. comm.). It seems that Tunisian amphorae are present but far rarer than those of the eastern Mediterranean, whereas ARS is common, with finds including the latest series (ARS 106, 107, 108 and 109). T. s. paléochrétienne grise atlantique is also common, an indication of Vigo’s direct connections with Bordeaux. Vigo, and not La Coruña, would have been the point where ships broke their journey en route for Britain. Indeed, sites in south-eastern Britain attest the arrival of ARS in quantity, over the late 5th to mid 6th centuries, and these may have appeared without Tunisian amphorae. This similar pattern of supply to north-western Spain and Portugal could indicate that they benefited from the same organised shipments (i.e. the same merchants or perhaps ecclesiastical bodies being involved at the Tunisian end). The absence of amphorae in contrast to fine wares may be evidence in proxy for cargoes of non-amphora borne goods, perhaps Tunisian grain. The ships could have returned with cargoes such as metals, hides, or wool, all products common to both north-western Hispania and south-eastern Britain. East Mediterranean exports The late 5th century marked both an increase in the general level of eastern exports and a greater role in western trade of regions in north Palestine and in the Aegean only rarely integrated into the western supply

105

Hispania and the Roman Mediterranean in the first half of the 5th century. In the latter cases the trends in regional sources of amphorae are to some extent matched by the addition of cooking wares from the same regions (e.g. Aegean Fulford Casserole 35 and Dish 5; Palestinian sliced rim casseroles). Eastern amphora imports to many western ports, such as Carthage, Marseille, Rome, Naples and Benalúa-Alicante, like those from Vandal Tunisia, increased from the late 5th century (Tables 17, 18, 20, 21; Fig. 15). These imports were accompanied by fine wares and in some cases, cooking wares (notably at Carthage, Ravenna, Marseille, and Benalúa-Alicante). In fact, it is likely that the early 6th century marked another phase of development in the production of regional amphora types in the Levant.386 This is the period when the LRA 1 was transformed into a more cylindrical container and may now have been produced in Cyprus for the first time (Fig. 14). The supply of Tarragona in this period differs, however, as imported coarse wares from both eastern and Tunisian sources are rare and replaced by local-regional products, this despite the quantity of imported eastern Mediterranean and Tunisian amphorae. As we shall see (in Chapter 4), a general rise in eastern Mediterranean amphorae and coarse wares was to occur later, in the late 6th to 7th centuries, in many major western ports, including Tarragona. The first exports of Palestinian LRA 5 and 6 reached Marseille and other Gallic sites in this period (see Pieri 2005, 118-22 for finds in Gaul; also Reynolds 2005b, table 1). One has to wonder why these Palestinian amphorae, unlike their Cilician, Ephesian and Gazan cousins, did not appear in the West until as late as the late 5th or 6th centuries. Given the source of LRA 6, in Beth Sh’an and the likely Caesarean source of many of the Gallic imports of LRA 5, this trend may be evidence for the increased role of Caesarea, the provincial capital of Palaestina I, in trade with the West in this period, perhaps to be correlated with the rebuilding of its port and its increased use as point of entry for pilgrims visiting the Holy Land387 (see above, Chapter 3.2). Perhaps from around 500 north Egyptian (Abu Mena-Kellia) and both north and south Palestinian LRA 5 become more globular in their body shape, with a shorter thicker rim (Pieri’s Type 3: 2005, 119-21; Reynolds 2005b, 573-4). In Hispania, as in the 5th century, LRC continued to be exported to north-eastern and eastern coastal sites (Map 12) in the first half of the 6th century, accompanied by a plentiful supply of eastern Mediterranean amphorae. At Ampurias, eastern amphorae dropped with respect to rising Tunisian imports, but were still high (Table 16: 21.4%). Cilician-Cypriot LRA 1 and Gazan LRA 4, with the Ephesian wine amphora LRA 3, now together with north Palestinian examples of LRA 5 (perhaps also some Egyptian examples from Abu Mena), reached western ports, including Tarragona (Table 20). LRA 1 was always the most common eastern amphora import on sites in the West, including Hispania, with the notable exception of Tintagel (south-western Britain and British sites in general),

106

3. Hispania and the Mediterranean: 3rd to mid 6th centuries where it took second place to Aegean LRA 2. Gazan LRA 4 is usually the second most popular type on western sites (see Pieri 2005, 105-7, for finds in Gaul). However, it should be noted that the figures for LRA 4 at Marseille are lower than they had been in the first half of the 5th century (Table 17b, AD 425-450: 6.7%; Table 20, AD 500 to mid 6th: c. 1-1.5%). The low figures for LRA 4 at Marseille are quite surprising particularly given that Gazan amphorae were major imports at Tarragona (18.8%), Rome (9.5%), and Naples (6.9%) in the late 5th century. Carthage, even more surprisingly, follows Marseille in this respect and one has to ask if the supply of Gazan amphorae to Tarragona was not connected in some way to the flow of eastern ships to western Italy. The Michigan Carthage site (Table 20) has rather peculiar, anomalous figures, in this case high for LRA 4, throughout its sequences, whereas those from the British and Italian excavations correlate more closely and may therefore be less site specific and more indicative of general trends at Carthage (Fig. 15). The Aegean globular wine amphora LRA 2, with production known at Kos and Chios, was never a major or regular export to sites in the West in the 5th century and first half of the 6th century, with the exception, perhaps, of Carthage and Ravenna (Tables 20, 23; Fig. 15; for Gaul, see Pieri 2005, 86-91). It had only occasionally been imported in the early to mid 5th century (e.g. to Carthage, Rome, Tarragona, Alicante-El Monastil, but notably not Marseille or Naples) (Table 17b). In Keay’s study of the amphorae of north-eastern Tarraconensian ports, almost all the finds of LRA 2 are from the upper fill of the Torre de l’Audiència (Tarragona), suggesting a mid to late 6th century date for them (9 vessels; 1 was from the Palaiopolis of Ampurias), perhaps reflecting also the general rise in eastern imports at that time on western sites (see Chapter 4.1).388 Several examples occurred in the mid 6th century deposit at Benalúa (Alicante) (1%) and at the Portus Ilicitanus. Sherds of LRA 2 found on several highland sites in the Vinalopó Valley, as far inland as El Monastil, the latter examples perhaps dating to the 5th century, may indicate that the supply was more regular than the quantities at Benalúa suggest.389 The form is, nevertheless, far more common (certainly in terms of relative percentages) at Tintagel than on most western sites in the period c. 475-550, the period to which most of the imported table wares correspond (see Tables 20, 21, 22 for the relative quantities of eastern Mediterranean amphorae on western Mediterranean and Atlantic sites). At Vigo quantities of LRA 1, LRA 2, Lycian unguentaria, alongside LRC, more common than ARS, and even some examples of (7th century?) Egyptian Red Slip Ware, affirm the port’s connection with this Atlantic-British trade (Adolfo Domínguez, pers. com.). The supply of eastern Mediterranean amphorae to north-eastern Spain in this period was not restricted to major ports. Single examples of LRA 1 and LRA 4 found on the rural necropolis excavated at La Solana (Cubelles, Garraf) seem to date to the late 5th and first half of the 6th centuries (see

107

Hispania and the Roman Mediterranean n. 319). Few imported amphorae, including a Tunisian Keay 62, but no eastern Mediterranean forms, were found on the villa of Casa Blanca (Tortosa) (Calvo Revilla 2003). Indeed, no LRA 1 amphorae or eastern amphorae in general were recovered in the ager Tarraconensis survey, and would indicate that the vast majority of eastern amphorae were supplied to ports, where they remained, recalling the supply to the highland settlement of Saint-Propice with respect to Marseille.390 No eastern Mediterranean amphorae were found on lowland villa sites in the Vinalopó Valley, the supply, like that of amphorae in general in the 6th century, being directed to highland sites located along the Via Augusta. The possible monastic site of Punta de L’Illa (Cullera), on the southern Valencian coast is perhaps a special case, remarkable both for the supply of primarily Tunisian amphorae, and in clearly smaller quantities, a full range of eastern Mediterranean amphora types, including Palestinian forms (LRA 1-5) and Lycian unguentaria.391 An important trend associated with this eastern Mediterranean-Spanish trade, already mentioned, is the appearance of eastern products in south-western Britain, Wales, Ireland and even Scotland in this period, at sites such as Tintagel, Bantham, Cadbury and Dinas Powys.392 If the panorama of LRC finds is broken down into periods, the greatest concentration dates to the period 460 to 550 (LRC 3B-F), with a few finds of LRC 10C being datable to the 7th century. It is striking that ARS imports date solely from the late 5th century, with most corresponding to the first half of the 6th century. There are a few examples of ARS 104B or C that may date to the mid or second half of the 6th century. At Tintagel the presence of a good number of likely Baetican (Cádiz) imports (55 fragments, 7% of the assemblage) plus a few possible Portuguese sherds adds a surprising twist to the known pattern of Baetican exports that would indicate their absence on Mediterranean sites, including possibly even eastern Tarraconensian ports.393 As was discussed previously, Britain was ‘linked’ to sites on the northwest coast of Spain via the Atlantic trade route and the same chronology of ARS and LRC supply, as well as low Tunisian amphora imports, is encountered at Braga, though LRC is less dominant than it is in Britain. In fact, the British supply of Tunisian and eastern imports (including 7th century LRC) is more closely paralleled by that of Vigo. As it will be argued shortly that Tunisian and eastern ships delivered their own products independently, the observed ratios of LRC to ARS are irrelevant, but their correlation in date is more significant. It remains to be seen whether Braga and Vigo, and in the 5th century, Conimbriga and Troia, were able simply to take advantage of the shipping going further north, or whether they were able to attract a market in their own right. In the early Imperial period I have argued that the latter was possible (Chapter 1.3). But in the mid 5th and 6th centuries the targeting of Atlantic sites, not just to the relatively safe waters of the Tejo but as far north as both Vigo and of course

108

3. Hispania and the Mediterranean: 3rd to mid 6th centuries Britain, would have signified a new venture for eastern merchants (or the Church) that had not tackled these waters since the 3rd or 4th centuries, and perhaps only rarely (the Kapitän 2 amphora, from the Black Sea: Reynolds forthcoming c and here, nn. 187 and 212). Tunisian sailors had been more used to this route, supplying Tunisian amphorae, including Keay 25 and ARS to Exeter and other sites in western Britain during the 2nd to 4th centuries.394 It would therefore seem more likely that in the mid 5th and 6th centuries, and even more so in the 7th century, that it was the British market and the goods it had to offer in exchange that drew these ships as far as the shores of Britain, now no longer a Roman province. Bordeaux t. s. paléochrétienne grise atlantique was also supplied to Britain, together with quite large numbers of cooking wares thought to derive from the same region (‘E Ware’). These suggest the role of Bordeaux as an entrepôt on the northern Atlantic route to Britain. Alternatively or additionally these may have been picked up from ports such as Vigo and Gijón that were linked to Bordeaux (presence of t. s. paléochrétienne grise atlantique) and both Tunisian and eastern shipping.395 LRA 2 dominates the Tintagel assemblage, with LRA 1, followed by Cádiz (or Algarve) amphorae (fish?). The Ephesus region amphora LRA 3 is relatively rare, as is Gazan LRA 4 (the same can be observed for Vigo, restricted to LRA 1 and LRA 2). A single sherd of the Samos amphora class was noted, a form that occurs occasionally on some sites in the western Mediterranean from the late 5th century onwards and will have travelled with LRA 3 and LRA 2 (Fig. 12g for the ‘Samos cistern’ late 6th century type; Table 20; e.g. Naples, Carthage, Tarragona, Marseille, Benalúa; Butrint [Table 26a-b]; also Ravenna and Koper-Capodistria). Though Chian LRA 2 is present, another source, perhaps nearer Samos, is more common. A dump of amphorae at Bantham comprises primarily LRA 1, some of similar source (Cypriot?) to those at Tintagel, with a few Gazan amphorae and LRC of mid 6th century date. That LRA 2 was absent in this particular deposit suggests that LRA 2 did not necessarily travel with LRA 1, a point we shall discuss shortly. No Tunisian sherds were present in either assemblage. Though Thomas identified only a few sherds of his published sample as Tunisian, the vast majority being eastern Mediterranean amphorae, there is, I understand, a generallyheld belief that Tunisian amphorae are common on British sites of this period, probably based on the identification of possible Cádiz (or Algarve) amphorae as Tunisian (British ‘Bv’ ware, still classified as such in Barrowman et al. 2007). How does the regional supply and distribution of eastern Mediterranean goods compare throughout the western Mediterranean, particularly with respect to the shipping route to Britain and the supply of Tunisian goods? (Tables 20, 21 for amphora details; Map 12 for LRC). Whereas LRA 2 is rare on western Mediterranean sites in the late 5th to mid 6th centuries, it is the most common amphora on most British sites. The

109

Hispania and the Roman Mediterranean supply at Tintagel of two major sources of LRA 2, the micaceous fabric not being that generally encountered in the West, is intriguing. The absence of LRA 2 at Braga would also suggest that there was not always a correlation between its eastern supply and that of Britain, whereas this is not the case at Vigo, where LRA 1, LRA 2, LRC and ARS are common, with lesser quantities of Tunisian amphorae. That the Bantham deposit does not contain LRA 2 may demonstrate that cargoes of LRA 1 and LRC could arrive without LRA 2. The supply of LRA 1 to Britain, Braga and Vigo is echoed on all sites in the western Mediterranean and can be seen as an extension of that market. The supply of LRA 2 to Britain was exceptional in this period and can only be interpreted as evidence for the development of special ties between Britain and specific sources in the Aegean (Chios/Samos region). These amphorae probably represent the final stage of a long, direct journey from the Aegean. Interestingly, the Church was one producer of Samos LRA 2 amphorae396 and given the testimony for a church-owned grain shipment that travelled directly from Alexandria to Brittany to alleviate famine, it may be that the Church was one of the sources of highly directed trade between the Aegean and Britain.397 That LRA 2 was not redistributed from Alexandria is indicated by the rarity of the type there.398 The relative rarity of LRA 2 also in Beirut suggests that the shipping routes it took out of the Aegean ran directly westwards and did not serve Levantine markets.399 Even though Beirut was exceptionally well supplied with Phocean LRC, produced close to the sources of LRA 2, the distribution mechanisms for both products appear to have been separate to those serving the West (it being not unreasonable to assume that LRC and LRA 2 travelled together to Britain). This is also reflected in the rarity of Samos amphorae in Beirut. The supply of LRC, LRA 1, LRA 2 and Samos amphorae to Butrint during the 6th century could be an indication of its location on the route to both southern Italy and south-eastern Sicily, and beyond to Britain. As already argued, the supply of LRC to Butrint may equally reflect its location on the Aegean supply route to Ravenna (see above, Chapter 3.3.1), as well as, possibly, its own special connection to an Aegean military supply system (see below, Chapter 4.1.2). Of the Palestinian amphorae, it was only those from Gaza that reached the shores of Britain in the 5th and 6th centuries. They comprise only a small element of the sample at Tintagel, and are rare elsewhere, but the couple of fragments in what was a relatively small deposit at Bantham may statistically provide an exception. Overall, we may also note that some of the sources of eastern amphorae supplied to Tintagel and Bantham are somewhat abnormal when compared to the usual sources that supplied those particular amphorae (LRA 2, the micaceous fabric; LRA 1, the Yumurtalik/Aegiae fabric?; the Gazan amphorae in a rare fabric, also encountered in Beirut). The rarity of Gazan amphorae in Britain, absent or rare also at Vigo, may be contrasted with

110

3. Hispania and the Mediterranean: 3rd to mid 6th centuries their more common distribution in this period to ports in the western Mediterranean (Table 20), and again suggest that their supply to Britain was part of a separate mechanism. Quite how the Gazan amphorae came to be included in the British supply, given the absence of LRA 5, is perhaps due to their redistribution from the port(s) that supplied LRA 1 (in Cilicia or perhaps Cyprus), there being plenty of movement of Gazan amphorae in the Levantine region.400 Alternatively, these, as well as LRA 1 may have been redistributed from Alexandria: the port’s relationship with Cyprus is well attested (LRA 1 and Cypriot Red Slip Ware/LRD imports, with reciprocal Egyptian finds in Cyprus) (see also below, Chapter 4.2).401 The exceptional finds of both LRD and Egyptian Red Slip Ware in Vigo may here be relevant. The dominance of Tunisian fine wares and rarity of Tunisian amphorae in Braga, Vigo and on British sites could be evidence that both regions were being supplied with Tunisian grain (suggested above, final comments of Chapter 1.1).402 Furthermore, that eastern goods were imported to these Atlantic sites almost exclusively through the period 450-500, followed by an influx of Tunisian exports after c. 500, is strong evidence that Tunisian and eastern goods were carried to Vigo and Britain in ships originating from these respective regions and were not redistributed, say, from Carthage.403 The special sources of LRA 2, as well as their quantities, argue against redistribution from a western port in this period. Though BenalúaAlicante in the mid 6th century (so contemporary with some of the eastern supply to Britain) could have received eastern amphorae goods redistributed from Carthage (or even via the Balearics), it will be argued that the range of other eastern products (LRC, lamps, cooking wares, unguentaria), some found in eastern Sicily, but not Carthage, provides evidence to the contrary. The supply of LRA 1 to Alicante, on the other hand, could have been redistributed from Carthage, as the metropolis was a major importer of these goods. A clear example of the redistribution of notably only a minor number of eastern amphorae on a ship laden with Byzantine Tunisian amphorae, probably dateable to the second quarter of the 6th century, in this case to the coast of Gaul, is the La Palud 1 Wreck, off Port-Cros (LRA 1: 2; LRA 2: 2 or 3 examples; LRA 4: 1; LRA 5, probably Caesarean: 2-4 examples; and only 3 ARS vessels: ARS 78?; ARS 88 and 104A).404 These are perhaps the sort of quantities that might account for the presence of some rare eastern types on western sites in the first half of the 6th century (notably LRA 2 and 5, LRA 4 in some cases). But one would have required greater cargoes to account for the generally higher numbers of LRA 1 on sites such as Benalúa, Vigo, Bantham and Tintagel, I would have thought. The quantities of Gazan and even LRA 5 amphorae encountered in Gaul in the late 6th century seem definitely too large for their redistribution by Tunisian ships. A scenario comprising their distribution direct on eastern ships, or the same passing through Carthage, is more likely in this later period.

111

Hispania and the Roman Mediterranean While eastern goods may have made their way as far afield as Tintagel, western exports to the eastern Mediterranean did not fare so well. In Beirut in the early 6th century Tunisian ARS, though rare, appeared regularly for the first time since the early 5th century. In numerous contexts of the second half of the 5th century in Beirut, neither Tunisian, nor, even less, Baetican/Lusitanian amphorae are found in quantities that suggest their export in the period 425/450-500.405 In the case of Spanish amphorae, the flow of exports was broken permanently, from c. 425/450 (see following section). As in Beirut and Caesarea, imports from Hispania were absent in Alexandria during the 6th century and are not attested in Constantinople.406 Tunisian amphora exports to Beirut did not resume either, despite the imports of ARS that continue in regular, if moderate, quantities into the late 6th or 7th centuries (see n. 475; Table 24). Presumably the ARS in the 6th to 7th centuries accompanied other goods as Levantine ships returned from the West (carrying Tunisian grain, as argued for Constantinople?).407 Similarly, at Alexandria it would seem that imports of Tunisian amphorae dropped by c. 450 with respect to the early 5th century quantities registered at the Serapeum.408 This trend in low numbers of imports of Tunisian amphorae, now primarily spatheia (carrying fish sauce? Or olives?), continued throughout the 6th to early 7th century in Alexandria. 3.4.2. The end of Spanish, Portuguese and Balearic amphora exports Tarraconensian fish sauce (rather than wine) amphorae Keay 68 and 91, though present in small quantities in the mid 5th century deposit of Vila-roma 2, are not so far attested in later contexts in the city.409 There is little evidence that Baetican and Lusitanian amphorae (oil, fish sauce and wine) were exported, even to their former major markets on the east coast, beyond c. 500. In the case of Lusitanian and Baetican fish processing, let us first consider the evidence for their latest exports. Like Tunisian amphorae, Spanish and Portuguese amphorae were not exported to Beirut beyond c. 425/450, this despite a renewal in Tunisian ARS exports from c. 500. Quantities in deposits of 450-500 in the West could be evidence for continuity of production, with exports on a much-reduced scale. Though these could be residual, only sherds and rarely diagnostics (RBH) are found in Marseille in this period.410 At Tarragona, however, the Torre de l’Audiència 1A-B deposits of the second half of the 5th century, with a predominance of material of the third quarter of the century, the quantities of Baetican amphorae are substantial (Table 18: 24.5%) and Remolà i Vallverdú cautiously suggests that they may in fact be contemporary (Keay 13/Dressel 23, 16, 19 and 23). Finds of Spanish fish amphorae in a Rome context of the third quarter of the 5th century are also significant here: Panella, Saguì and Coletti forthcoming)

112

3. Hispania and the Mediterranean: 3rd to mid 6th centuries Recent excavations in Sevilla seem to confirm these observations, at least for the second half of the 5th century (Amores Carredano et al. 2007). Finds of Keay 19 and Dressel 23, alongside Tunisian forms Keay 35B and 36B, and a LRA 1 could well date to the third quarter of the 5th century (the LRA 1 cannot date later than that, I would have thought) (ibid., 135, §3.2, robbing phase of the Casa de la Columna). Again, a late 5th century/c. AD 500 deposit from the Casa de las Basas (Sevilla) contained a large piece of a fish sauce amphora related to Keay 19, well-paralleled at the kiln site of La Orden (Huelva) (Amores Carredano et al. 2007, 135, §3.3, fig. 3.19-20). A later phase of disuse of the Casa de Basas, has been dated to the first quarter of the 6th century, though the ARS comprises forms that need not date later than the late 5th century or indicate a wider date range of the 5th to early 6th centuries (ARS 91B, 99A and 104A, with an ARS 67). There were several Baetican amphorae (two examples of Keay 19C, a Keay 23 and a Dressel 23/Keay 13C-D, and a Balearic Keay 79 amphora, here an indication, at least, of its pre-Byzantine date, a LRA 1 of the second half of the 5th century (Amores Carredano et al. 2007, fig. 4.29), and a large piece of a Sicilian-Calabrian Keay 52 (ibid., 135-6, §3.4). This, the ARS and the range of Tunisian amphorae (Keay 27B, 36B and 57B) do not help us to tie down the dating of the Spanish amphorae as precisely as one would wish. Another assemblage is more promising (ibid., 136-7, §3.5), with finds of Keay 13C-D, Keay 19 and Keay 23, two narrow-necked Keay 52 amphorae and Tunisian forms Keay 35B, 57 and, residual, Keay 6, a mid 5th century LRA 1/Egloff 169 and an example of the second half of the 5th century (Amores Carredano et al. 2007, fig. 6.45). Another deposit has too wide a chronology to be useful (ibid., 137, §3.6). A similar acceptance that the Baetican amphorae found in the (predominantly) mid 6th century Benalúa deposit are either contemporary or correspond to the date of the late 5th or early 6th century ARS in the assemblage does need to be considered (fish: Keay 19, Keay 23 [two large pieces]; oil: Keay 30 bis, perhaps for oil, and Keay 13/Dressel 23; as well as a number of unclassified types).411 The dating of these amphorae to the late 5th century, at least, is supported by the ARS in the deposit. Finds of Keay 19 and Keay 30Bis from the same, likely Malagueñan, source, occurred at both Benalúa and at El Monastil (Elda), suggesting possible continuity of production in Málaga into the late 5th century. As we have seen, there is the possibility that in the first half of the 6th century some Cádiz (or Algarve) amphorae, perhaps variants of Keay 16, were regularly shipped to south-western Britain, on the Atlantic trade route, where they comprised a major part of the supply of imports, dating anywhere between c. 450 and the mid 6th century.412 With respect to the fish processing sites themselves, the evidence for their final phases of activity is difficult to interpret. We have already mentioned that the early 5th century final phase of the garum factory at Ceuta contained examples of Keay 19, very likely produced in Málaga.

113

Hispania and the Roman Mediterranean These clearly pre-date the latest known exports of Malagueñan Keay 19 (see above). Ponsich in his excavation of the garum factory at Lixus argued for a late phase dating to the 6th century.413 Now recent excavations in Ceuta demonstrate the presence of ARS and LRC of the second half of the 5th century (+) in the abandoned fish processing tanks (Bernal Casasola 2007, 111). In Algeciras, fish preparation tanks contained material dating to the second quarter of the 6th century (ibid., 111, fig. 3). We may also recall the quite considerable quantities of late 5th to mid 6th century ARS, some Byzantine period late 6th or 7th century ARS, as well as an exceptional quantity of LRC (158 examples), found in excavations at Belo (Reynolds 1995, 270-1, appendix D.1; Bourgeois et Mayet 1991). Belo was certainly occupied and active as a port, but was it still producing fish sauce? The demise of the majority of Portuguese fish sauce production sites is perhaps more clearly datable to the early 5th century, in view of the evidence of final use in the factories themselves.414 In Lagos (Algarve), however, though some fish preparation tanks were sealed by the mid Imperial period, Tanks 1, 3 and 5 may have contained to function and were not filled in until the mid 6th century (Ramos et al. 2007), by ARS and other pottery, including amphorae related to Keay 19 and 23, variants similar to those produced in SW Portugal. We may note in this respect, the finds of some amphorae in likely Sado region fabric in the Benalúa deposit (see Chapter 1.3). Bernal Casasola’s tentative suggestion of the continuity of some Baetican fish processing into the 6th century (2000a) on the basis of exports of often single finds in late contexts, some where residuality is evident, has now become assured fact (Bernal Casasola 2007; García Vargas and Bernal Casasola 2008). Though the continued production of Spanish oil for the immediate local market up to the mid 6th century seems quite reasonable (García Vargas and Bernal Casasola 2008: Plaza de la Pescadería, Sevilla; cf. finds of several Keay 13 amphorae in Benalúa), the limited continuity of fish production along the southern coast of the Iberian Peninsula is equally plausible, but, it is fair to say, not yet proven. In the case of the fish processing sites, do fills of the later 5th or 6th centuries represent the end of production or the end of occupation in the area? The same could equally be said for the fish processing site at Rosas, where there are no local amphorae, but instead massive quantities of imported Tunisian amphorae and ARS. Though other evidence from Sevilla (Amores Carredano et al. 2007) does seem to support the continuity of both fish sauce (Keay 19, including perhaps production at Huelva, Keay 23) and olive oil (Dressel 23) into the second half of the 5th century, the later assemblages presented are too mixed to allow us to confirm production into the 6th century with certainty. At least we know what we are looking for (the continuity of Dressel 23, Keay 19, Keay 16/Keay 22, Keay 23 and local spatheia, for example).

114

3. Hispania and the Mediterranean: 3rd to mid 6th centuries The Benalúa deposit provides one of the rare instances of the local production of amphorae in the first half of the 6th century in Spain. This is based on a reinterpretation of the globular two-handled ‘flagon’ forms Reynolds Ware 1.53-60 and others that comprise 18% of the amphorae in the deposit (51 examples) (Fig. 20). Some of these local forms were found in 5th century contexts (Ware 1.55-56). Like the 5th century Balearic form Ware 4.1 (Fig. 21a), they are small transport amphorae with a domed base. Though their appearance is close to that of the Byzantine period globular ‘ombelicato’ amphorae typical of the late 6th and especially 7th centuries (see Chapter 4.2), they are definitely not as late in date, though may have performed a similar purpose, to carry wine.415 Some amphorae produced in the Balearics, found in a 6th century deposit in Iluro (with Balearic Keay 79 and carinated bowls with spout, like those found in the Benalúa deposit and in Byzantine Cartagena: Murcia Muñoz and Martínez 2003, fig. 5), are similar in shape, also having a domed base.416 We should also note here the various types of globular amphorae with wavy line decoration on the shoulder that occur in late 6th/7th century levels in Valencia, and whose origins are unclear.417 Two other local amphora types at Benalúa may imitate Tunisian cylindrical amphorae, with rim types close to Keay 35 and 25 (Fig. 20, Ware 1.48-49: 22 examples, 22%). If so, then a 5th, presumably late 5th century, date would explain their presence in the deposit. These two forms have a limited and rare distribution in the lower Vinalopó Valley, whereas the 5th century Ware 1.55-56 forms have a wider distribution throughout the valley. The likely contemporary production of spatheia in the fish sauce installation at Benalúa has already been mentioned (3 rims, were present in the deposit). The Keay 25 imitation may equally have served as a container for local fish sauce, like its Tunisian counterpart? In the Vandal period production of Ibizan wine continued (see Chapter 1.4), and was carried in a large table amphora shape, bearing the well-cut ribbing of early to mid Roman Balearic amphorae. It is found in a Vandal context of 450-500 in Ibiza (Fig. 7a) (Reynolds 1993, Ware 4.1).418 This form occurs in Alicante (it is evidence for late Roman occupation on the Tossal de Manises)419 and is found on several sites along the Vinalopó Valley, including the villa site of Vizcarra (Elche), and on sites in Calpe. By the mid 6th century and during the Byzantine occupation of the Balearics (from AD 534) a small bottle-like shape, similarly ribbed and in the same fabric, with a narrow neck, single handle, and incised ‘palmette’ decoration on the shoulder is an easily recognisable type (Keay 79/Reynolds Ware 4.3.1/Vegas 42.1) (Fig. 7b). Unless there is evidence from the Balearics to the contrary, it would seem to be an exclusively Byzantine period export. Continuity of the larger ‘flagon’ shape into the late 6th and 7th centuries has also been suggested (see below).420 Another related class, but in a buff fabric, also decorated with incised palmettes, is probably from another, presumably Balearic source (Keay

115

Hispania and the Roman Mediterranean 70). This product was exported to Alicante and is not uncommon at Tarragona and Barcelona.421 The late Balearic 6th century amphora Keay 79 is common in Benalúa-Alicante (see following section) and in La Alcudia/Ilici. An example was found in the Middle Vinalopó Valley (the villa site of Arco Sempere, Elda) and the form occurs along the Alicante coast at the fish sauce factory site of Baños de la Reina, Calpe. Other examples have been found at Punta de l’Illa (Cullera), Valencia (rare?: notably not illustrated in Pascual Pacheco et al. 2003), Tarragona, Mataró/Iluro, and Barcelona and further afield at Luni, Carthage and Sétif (Algeria).422 Keay 79 occurs sporadically in 6th and early 7th century levels in Cartagena. Perhaps more common in Cartagena are other Balearic incised amphorae that are buff, but not in the fabric of Keay 70 (personal observation). Alongside these products, but in another, fine, buff fabric are the large cylindrical amphorae, copies of Tunisian form Keay 31 (as is also the Malagueñan form Keay 30bis, previously noted), found in 6th to early 7th century Byzantine contexts in Cartagena (see below, Chapter 4.1.1; Fig. 23b). These have now identified as Ibizan in origin (Ramón 2008). 3.5. The mid 6th century Benalúa deposit (Alicante): a late Vandal to early Byzantine assemblage A very large deposit of pottery, one of several dumped into a ravine in Benalúa-Alicante,423 provides important information on trade between Hispania, Byzantine Carthage and the East in the mid 6th century. The unusual composition of the deposit attests to shipping routes, possibly directly connecting southern Hispania with the East. Substantial contacts with Byzantine Carthage are indicated, probably in the period prior to the Byzantine presence in southern Spain in 551 but contemporary with the period following the Byzantine reconquest of the Balearics (534). Though a small quantity of ARS and cooking wares can be dated to 550-575/580, and some late 5th century ARS is also present, the bulk of the deposit should date to central years of the 6th century (c. 540/550) and corresponds to the earliest decades of Byzantine rule in Carthage and the Balearics.424 Two other dumps with similar characteristics excavated nearby in the Barrio of Benalúa included Vandal coins of 495-530 (37 examples) and many Justinianic coins of c. 534-541 (27 examples).425 As we have already seen, the relative quantities of Tunisian amphorae in the large Benalúa deposit are high (29.7%) but are far lower than the levels present at Tarragona (Torre de l’Audiència 2: 75.6%) or other north-eastern towns (Tables 18, 22). The relative quantities of eastern amphorae in both Tarragona and Alicante are similar, however, and it is the abundance of local or close-regional amphorae in Benalúa that seems to account for the difference in the Tunisian figures. The Lower Vinalopó, in other words, relied on, or positively put, had the advantage of its own local and regional (Murcian) sources of foodstuffs in the (early to) mid 6th

116

3. Hispania and the Mediterranean: 3rd to mid 6th centuries century. These were in addition to plentiful supplies of Tunisian and eastern Mediterranean goods, quite unprecedented in the region prior to the 6th century. The local amphorae would suggest that wine (domed bases), fish sauce and possibly oil were locally produced. The bulk of this local production was for the settlement at Benalúa itself, with most other finds spots being concentrated in the Lower Vinalopó, including Ilici. Few of these local amphorae reached highland settlements sites along the valley. These, as for example Castillo del Rio (Aspe), received a fair amount of ARS and amphora imports in the first half of the 6th century, but in lesser quantities perhaps than they had been in the 5th century. The number of imports is certainly far less than is to be found at the settlement and likely port at Benalúa. Imports of amphorae, fine wares and cooking wares from the eastern Mediterranean comprise a major element of the Benalúa assemblage (Table 22) (Fig. 18a-h); see below, Chapter 4.1, for further discussion).426 Finds of unguentaria from Lycia-Pamphilia (Fig. 18h)427 are paralleled at the monastic site on Punta de L’Illa (Cullera), associated with 6th century Vandal coins and late Vandal-Byzantine Tunisian amphorae and fine wares.428 These unguentaria are also particularly common in levels corresponding to the Byzantine period of occupation in Carthago Nova and Málaga, from 551 to the early 7th century (see below, Chapter 4.1). Their presence in Benalúa is surely connected with the major supply to the site of cooking wares and jugs that are products of Limyra in Lycia (Fig. 18c-d), a region where such unguentaria are very common, and whose possible association with the cult of St Nicholas has here been suggested (see n. 427). We may add to this range of Lycian imports those of Bailey Lamp Q 3339, also Lycian, whose presence in Benalúa is not only extraordinary, but relatively common (8 examples in the deposit, with additional finds occurring elsewhere in Benalúa: Reynolds 1993, MISC 9Bis; Reynolds 1995, figure 136). Quantities of 6th century LRC at Benalúa are matched nowhere in Hispania, except, perhaps, at Belo (Bourgeois and Mayet 1991; Reynolds 1995, Appendix D.1). The supply of LRC in the western Mediterranean in the 6th century was generally coastal and, with the notable exception of Ravenna (Table 23), finds so far are limited to several vessels per site, even in the case of towns (Map 12).429 This can also be said for Marseille, where LRC is a regular but relatively rare find in 5th and 6th century deposits.430 The large quantities of LRC and eastern imports in Benalúa, contrasted with those in the north-western Mediterranean, could be evidence for a major shipping route from the East, perhaps via Sicily.431 A logical route for these eastern imports to follow would have been via the Balearics and/or via Carthage, possible also in the case of Byzantine Carthago Nova (see below).432 However, the rarity of LRC in Mallorca and the absence of LRC from a large 5th century Vandal period deposit excavated in Ibiza (Es Castell) are very striking, given the quantities of

117

Hispania and the Roman Mediterranean both ARS and Gallic fine wares, and the presence of early LRC in the early 5th century at Sa Mesquida.433 Aegean coarse wares present in Benalúa have so far not been published from the Balearics but do occur in Byzantine Cartagena (see Murcia Muñoz and Martínez 2003, figs 63-8; 70?). The absence of Limyra cooking wares and LRC at both Carthage and in the Balearics suggests that these particular goods were supplied direct from the southern Anatolian coast. As Ware 6 (east Sicilian?) is common at Carthage, it could have travelled to Alicante with Tunisian goods, but not via the Balearics, as Ware 6 is absent. Alternatively, eastern ships in Sicily could also have picked up Ware 6. The wide range of forms of Reynolds Ware 6 that both Alicante and Carthage share suggests, however, that Tunisian ships may have redistributed the ware to Alicante with all the other south-central Mediterranean hand-made wares that are abundant at Carthage (more common and with a wider formal range than in Alicante). The argument against an Aegean source for Ware 6 (reasonable in the case of its fabric) is further supported by its absence in Marseille and southern France, despite the relative abundance of contemporary Aegean (and Levantine) cooking wares (Pasqualini and Tréglia 2003; Tréglia 2005a). While no connection linking the Balearics and the south-east coast is visible through eastern cooking wares, a connection between the two is clear however from imports of Keay 79 (Fig. 21d) and Keay 70 amphorae (with palmettes). Benalúa and the Balearics both shared the supply of (Aeolian Islands) LRCW II (Fig. 19g), cooking ware LRCW III (Calabrian?) (Fig. 19h), Sardinian (Fig. 19k) and Pantellerian ware (Fig. 19f) and Carthage hand-made products Hayes (1976) LRCW IV-VI (Fig. 19i-j), as also the Murcian cooking wares that are supplied in quantity to the Vinalopó Valley.434 As all these wares were equally imported to Carthage, the Balearics may have played a part in the redistribution of all the latter cooking wares, but not Ware 6. It would be helpful if Ware 6 were to turn up in the Balearics, as this would suggest that the islands were a possible entrepôt for all of the south-central Mediterranean wares (of which Ware 6 is one) and Tunisian amphora cargoes that travelled in Tunisian ships heading west. The role of Carthage in the redistribution of eastern amphorae, particularly LRA 1, is possible, given the quantities imported into Carthage. Against this, perhaps, is the absence at Carthage of Limyra cooking wares and lamp Bailey Q 3339 that were perhaps picked up by ships sailing with LRA 1 cargoes. Some Aegean cooking wares, in contrast, notably Fulford Dish 5 and Aegean casseroles were supplied both to Carthage and to Alicante. It is only these forms that were more widely traded in the western Mediterranean, reaching also Marseille and Naples. The distribution mechanisms of Aegean cooking wares could have differed from those of other eastern products (i.e. those of south-east Turkey). That LRA 2 was supplied to Britain quite independently of its distribution to western sites, including Carthage and Alicante has already been argued (above, Chapter 3.4.1).

118

3. Hispania and the Mediterranean: 3rd to mid 6th centuries Finally, despite their geographical proximity, there are many differences in the supply of both Balearic goods, LRC, and eastern and central Mediterranean coarse wares, and even sources of Tunisian spatheia, to Alicante-Benalúa and Cartagena in the 5th and 6th centuries that point to surprising, quite separate mechanisms of supply in the case of imports. Some eastern products are absent (Limyra ware; lamps Bailey Q 3339). The closer-regional Ware 6 (Sicilian?) is very rare and Aegean Fulford Casserole 35 is perhaps less common (in the case of late 6th-7th century deposits this may be due to the later date of these exports). Imported hand-made wares are not particularly common (see Chapter 4.1). If eastern ships stopped anywhere in south-eastern Hispania en route to the Atlantic, nevertheless, one would have thought Cartagena to have been a more likely port than Santa Pola/Portus Ilicitanus in the 5th century or, from the late 5th to mid 6th centuries, Benalúa. The reasons behind the extraordinary supply of eastern imports, in fact the masses of imported pottery in general at Benalúa, are still unknown and perplexing. A detailed study of the range of eastern cooking wares at Málaga and particularly Belo, where ARS and LRC are recorded for the 6th century, in quantities comparable to those in Alicante, would be useful to determine how far west certain categories of eastern cargoes travelled. Were the Lycian unguentaria found in Vigo, with their religious association, the only eastern non-amphora/fine ware products to travel beyond Alicante and Cartagena?

119

4

Later 6th and 7th century trade: fragmentation and regionalisation 4.1. The Byzantine ‘reconquest’ of southern Spain, 551 to c. 621/625: ceramic trends and supply systems 4.1.1. Byzantine Hispania, Carthage and the Balearics Justinian’s attempt to reconquer Hispania from the Visigoths wrested from them some of the major ports of the southern coast. Málaga/Malaca, Algeciras/Iulia Traducta, and especially Cartagena/Carthago Nova, have yielded evidence of the Byzantine occupation in the form of buildings, inscriptions, coins and pottery. The active presence at Cartagena in the early 7th century of the magister militum, commander-in-chief of the Byzantine army, who was also appointed governor (rector) of the province, and, presumably, the location of a garrison at Cartagena, would surely account for the Byzantine Tunisian and other long-distance imports in the city. These goods demonstrate a special connection between Carthago Nova and Byzantine Carthage. Their range and quantity is so far unparalleled in the Iberian Peninsula, though finds in Málaga/Malaca may perhaps one day demonstrate this port’s equally major role.435 The northern limits of the Byzantine territories, or rather the general area under their control, have been much disputed.436 On the south-east coast of Spain, north of Carthago Nova, Byzantine period ARS of AD 550-600 are not found in quantities indicative of a substantial connection with the Byzantines and even less, the presence of Byzantine troops.437 The Vinalopó Valley probably marked the border or buffer zone between the Byzantine and Visigothic states. It is possible that Byzantium held the entire valley at least up to Elda. It has been suggested that they held Játiva/Saetabis, located at the key river crossing of the Júcar/Sucro, but there is no archaeological evidence to prove this. Further inland to the west, at the Visigothic period settlement of El Tolmo de Minateda (Hellín, Albacete) the range of Tunisian finds, though small, is ‘classic’ for Byzantine period sites.438 El Tolmo de Minateda should be contemporary with the late 6th century Visigothic period occupation of another similar defended highland settlement, that of Bigastro/Bigastrum (Cehegín, Murcia), where no true Byzantine finds occur, as far as I know. Less convincing is the identification of ‘Byzantine’ occupation at Lorca/Eliocroca.439 Lands further north into the lowlands of Valencia would have been

120

4. Later 6th and 7th century trade: fragmentation and regionalisation more difficult for the Byzantines to hold. Pottery finds at Denia/Dianium do not yet provide evidence that this important port was held by Byzantine forces. Pottery finds on sites along the coast of Alicante, and even on the Castillo de Santa Bárbara, overlooking the modern and later Arab port of Alicante, do not indicate a Byzantine presence either. The steady advance of bishoprics from Játiva and then along the Vinalopó Valley, to El Monastil/Elda/Elo and Ilici suggest that the Visigoths reconquered, or rather ‘conquered’ the region in stages, culminating in the sack of Carthago Nova by Suinthila around 621/625.440 In the Vinalopó Valley, Visigothic period ecclesiastical architecture, notably that of the bishoprics of Elo and Ilici, the distribution of Visigothic period pottery dateable to after c. 580, necropoleis, and other factors, suggest that Visigothic ‘culture’ did not have an impact on the region until the early 7th century (Figs 28, 29).441 The evident destruction and non-reoccupation by the Visigoths of both Byzantine Cartagena and Málaga provides a valuable sealing date for Byzantine imports of c. 621-625. On both sites a thick layer of burning covered objects was found still in situ when excavated and, in the case of Cartagena, there was a deep sterile layer separating this occupation from the following 9th century phase on the site.442 Though we know that the important strategical site of Septem/Ceuta was in Byzantine hands until its fall to the Arabs in 709 (Ripoll 1996; 2001, 102), the archaeological evidence for Byzantine-period occupation presented by Bernal Casasola is so far quite minimal in comparison (Bernal Casasola 2007, 112: with reference to Bernal Casasola and Pérez 1996). Based on purely ceramic data, Belo/Baelo Claudia has stronger evidence for Byzantine-period occupation, but I would not suggest that it was occupied by Byzantine troops. Sequences of Byzantine levels in Carthago Nova are characterised by the latest series of ARS (Fig. 22), Tunisian amphorae, particularly tiny spatheia (Fig. 23a, top: Keay 26G),443 and eastern Mediterranean amphorae, predominantly from Cilicia-Cyprus (LRA 1: Fig. 23a, bottom), with lesser Aegean LRA 2 and Palestinian amphorae (LRA 5; LRA 4) (Tables 20, 21). Tunisian imports dominate Byzantine 7th century assemblages at Cartagena, though this is clearer in the excavations of the Roman theatre that represent the final phase of the site, with much being left in situ (the rubbish pit of Calle Soledad: 34.1%; theatre: 60.5%). Eastern Mediterranean amphorae comprise c. 22% for both sets of data. Buff-coloured spatheia identical to those exported to the Lower Danube, in the diocese of Thrace (e.g. Golemanovo Kale and Dichin), and to sites in southern Italy are north-east Tunisian (included in the latter percentages), like those produced in the latest phase of the Nabeul fish sauce factory (Fig. 23a, middle: Bonifay 2004, 39-41, 127-9, 523, figs 19 and 69, Planche 1.22, Type 33D).444 Both buff and more typical north Tunisian spatheia are common to other Byzantine enclaves,445 and can be said to be characteristic finds on Byzantine sites that were supplied directly from

121

Hispania and the Roman Mediterranean Byzantine Tunisia. The absence of the buff spatheia in Alicante is significant for two reasons. Finds of buff spatheia at Dichin provide a fairly secure date for their presence by c. 580 (Swan 2007, 836, fig. 3.22-31). Their general late 6th to 7th century date strengthens the fine ware evidence for the suggested earlier end-date of the deposit (c. 570/580). Their absence also demonstrates further the special distribution these amphorae have to Byzantine sites, Benalúa/Alicante clearly not being one of these. As proposed here, these and the ‘normal’ Tunisian spatheia may have contained fish sauce (or possibly olives). One class of amphora, now identified as Ibizan in origin (Fig. 23b), is common in Byzantine levels in Cartagena, particularly those of the 7th century. There were no fewer than 17 examples in the Roman theatre (24.4%) and examples occurred at both Calle Soledad and at Plaza de los Tres Reyes.446 Imported cooking wares comprise a fair number of Aegean Fulford Casserole 35 (Fig. 18a: for these, see especially Murcia Muñoz and Martínez 2003), Aegean Fulford Dish 5 (Fig. 18b) and Tunisian forms,447 and there are unguentaria from Lycia-Pamphylia, there being so far some 40 examples found in Cartagena (Fig. 18h).448 Though from the same region as these unguentaria, Limyran cooking wares are absent. The dominant cooking wares were in the local Murcian wheel-made series that supplied Alicante up to the mid 6th century.449 These were all typical finds at Calle Soledad (Cartagena), in an early 7th century rubbish pit, one of several in use in the late Roman and Byzantine quarter that took over the Roman theatre (Figs 22, 23).450 A single fragment of an Egyptian amphora was also identified. Globular amphorae bearing combed bands decoration on the neck, found in the Cartagena Roman theatre excavations may be Balearic.451 The Balearic form Keay 79 occurs in these latest levels.452 Similar late Byzantine Tunisian fine wares and amphorae were found as survey material on the strategic highland site on the Cerro de San Miguel (Orihuela), some 50 km north of Cartagena.453 Málaga too has yielded similar finds, also found in late occupation of the Roman theatre and elsewhere in the city.454 In Málaga the Balearic Ibizan amphora Keay 79 (Fig. 21c) is also present in the latest levels of c. 621/625. Its presence on sites such as the small port and monastery of Punta de L’Illa (Cullera), at Baños de la Reina (Calpe), at Valencia, and, as we have seen, at Benalúa in the mid 6th century, may be dated to the late Vandal or early Byzantine periods (pre-550). The Balearics were in Byzantine hands from 534 and so, technically, the Benalúa imports may be Byzantine products. It is very interesting to see that Keay 79 now reached as far west as Byzantine Málaga. If these finds in Málaga represent the first occurrence of the form there, they could be seen, like the examples in Cartagena, to be the direct result of Byzantine shipping routes from the Balearics or their redistribution from Carthago Nova.

122

4. Later 6th and 7th century trade: fragmentation and regionalisation That the Balearics, fortified by the Byzantines and not taken by the Arabs until 902,455 played an important role in the redistribution of Tunisian and eastern Mediterranean goods to the Byzantine south-east has already been argued (Chapter 3.4). Despite the long excavation campaigns in Pollentia, there has been scarcely any pottery that would suggest a Byzantine presence on the site.456 However, finds of late 6th to 7th century Byzantine ARS and amphorae at the basilica of Fornells (Menorca),457 and finds of Tunisian amphorae and some unusual eastern Mediterranean amphorae related to the late 7th century type Riley LRA 13 (cf. Fig. 26), the successor of LRA 2, at the site of Sanitja (Menorca), offer tantalising glimpses of what might be found elsewhere in the Balearics.458 In Cartagena LRC of late 6th to 7th century date is absent, even though the ware was very common in the mid 6th century Benalúa deposit. The quantities of LRC registered at Ravenna in this period, on a par with, and actually greater than the number of vessels of ARS, are so far unparalleled in the West (Table 23). The drop in LRC exports to the West and to the Atlantic from the second half of the 6th century by comparison with the period 475 to 550 is more typical and may account for the quantities in Byzantine Cartagena, though it has to be said that LRC was never common there. With the exception of Ravenna, there seems to have been no drive to market the ware beyond the eastern Mediterranean after c. 575, Butrint and sites in Cyrenaica being the most western locations of its distribution, still in low quantities, during the late 6th and 7th centuries.459 Even Marseille and Naples, with their strong connections with the Aegean in the 7th century, did not import LRC (Bien 2007; Carsana, D’Amico and Del Vecchio 2007). The finds of 7th century examples of LRC 10 in Vigo and south-western Britain, scarce though they are, are therefore quite significant. The relatively low numbers of Aegean cooking wares in Cartagena could also be due to their redistribution via Carthage. One would have expected quantities akin to those in Benalúa or Marseille (see below) if they had been carried to Cartagena directly by eastern ships. Other major differences in the range and quantities of amphora imports supplied to Cartagena and Benalúa, including that of Balearic amphorae have already been mentioned (Chapter 3.5; see also Chapter 1.4). The supply of Byzantine products at Cartagena suggests direct links with Carthage, perhaps even in the case of eastern imports, though this is not necessarily the case. LRA 1 is common at Cartagena and it could have been redistributed via Carthage. Other eastern amphorae at Cartagena were rare, Gazan amphorae being the second most common class, though not very common (4.3% in the upper levels of the Roman theatre; but absent in the Calle Soledad pit deposit). This mirrors the Carthage pattern of supply and again redistribution from Carthage is possible, rather than a direct supply from Levantine or other eastern ports.

123

Hispania and the Roman Mediterranean 4.1.2. General trends in the western Mediterranean: Byzantine and non-Byzantine sites Similar strong links with Carthage sources are indicated by Tunisian exports to late 6th and 7th century Byzantine strongholds, at San Antonino di Perti (Liguria), Luni, Vibo Valentia and Koper-Capodistria.460 The range of Tunisian amphorae (Keay 61, 62, spatheia) and ARS found in Cartagena and Málaga can thus be said to be characteristic of Byzantine sites in the West, as well as non-Byzantine sites, such as Marseille, that imported Tunisian goods on a major scale in the late 6th to 7th centuries.461 An important point to note is that the late 6th and early 7th centuries were marked by a general rise in eastern Mediterranean amphorae that can be observed at Marseille, Naples, Carthage and to some extent Tarragona. The figures at Cartagena, at c. 22%, are relatively high, similar to those of Benalúa in the mid 6th century, but not as high as those in Marseille or Naples. It is impossible to say whether this corresponds to a similar rise, as published Cartagena deposits of the first half of the 6th century are too minor to make a comparison, but what may be significant is that the quantities for the Byzantine phases are much the same as they were at Benalúa (Tables 20, 21; for Cartagena contexts assigned to AD 475-550, see Ramallo Asensio, Ruiz Valderas and Berrocal Caparrós [1997]: Phase 9.2 (with two ARS 104C), dated 525-535, and Phase 9.1, dated 535-550, seem to be dated far too early by the authors, and surely represent the first phases of Byzantine activity). Marseille (La Bourse), under Frankish rule, also continued its strong ties with Tunisian sources of ARS and amphora imports well into the 7th century (Tables 18, 20, 21), contemporary with similar, high numbers of eastern Mediterranean amphorae. This is a pattern equally borne out by the excavations at the El Alcazar site, also in Marseille, which produced an impressive supply of ARS and Tunisian amphorae throughout the 7th century.462 Eastern imports at Marseille in the late 6th and early 7th centuries, nevertheless, were always lower than those from Tunisia, a trend that continued through the 7th century (see below, Chapter 4.2). Nor was LRC included in these Aegean cargoes. Though there were apparently ‘regular’ shipments from Spain to Marseille, at least in 588, attested by the sources, this trade is so far not apparent in the archaeological record.463 Imports of Tunisian amphorae at the Byzantine Duchy of Naples, c. 600 (Carminiello, at 18.8%; Carsana, D’Amico and Del Vecchio 2007, fig. 3) were also clearly still a major factor of the supply. The rarity of late 6th to 7th century ARS noted at Naples-Carminiello (Reynolds 1995, 33), is offset somewhat now by more recent excavations where the full range of late ARS is present and in fair number (Carsana, D’Amico and Del Vecchio 2007, 423-4, fig. 4, with 6th to 7th century ARS comprising over 3,000 sherds), perhaps on the same lines as the supply of ARS to Byzantine military sites such as S. Antonino, Cartagena, Koper, and to Rome and

124

4. Later 6th and 7th century trade: fragmentation and regionalisation Marseille. Whereas at Carminiello eastern Mediterranean amphorae were dominant in the late 6th to early 7th centuries, their role is significant, but rather more variable in the recent excavations in Naples (Carsana, D’Amico and Del Vecchio 2007, fig. 3). The overall supply recalls that of Ravenna. Eastern amphorae (Aegean and Levantine) are always dominant in Ravenna throughout 5th to 7th century sequences, though only marginally with respect to Tunisian amphorae (Table 23). The impression is that Ravenna received ample quantities from both Tunisia and the East. There is, nevertheless, an important difference in the Aegean exports to Ravenna and Naples: LRC is common at Ravenna, but is absent in Naples. Indeed, Marseille too received ample supplies of Aegean amphorae in the 7th century, but no LRC. This is surely significant. It demonstrates that fine wares could be marketed separately, as has been well illustrated for ARS, that LRC did not normally travel beyond the Adriatic in this period (cf. Butrint) and, by inference, that their presence in Ravenna is due to their being accompanied by other primary cargoes that were not being supplied to Naples or Marseille. As has been argued in the case of ARS finds in Constantinople, this could be grain (or possibly also marble).464 The tapping of some of the Tunisia-Sicily-SE Italy-Ravenna trade, possibly via the Byzantine enclave of Otranto, is perhaps evident in Butrint during the mid and later 6th century.465 Though Ravenna, like Butrint, also received imports of Ware 6, theoretically east Sicilian in origin, the quantities recovered so far are too low to indicate that Tunisian goods were usually redistributed from Sicily. The direct supply of Tunisian amphorae, table wares and cooking wares to Ravenna would seem the most likely, alongside more sporadic contacts with eastern Sicily. Gazan wine exports to both Naples and Marseille were particularly high (both around 13-14%) and it is clear that these cities were major targets in this period. The rarity of LRA 4 in Byzantine Cartagena is a good indication of the different marketing of Gazan wine in the western Mediterranean after the Byzantine reconquest. We should note here that Gazan, and Palestinian exports in general, to Butrint increase slightly after 550 (Table 25a-b: 5.3% to 8%), but are lower than those encountered in late 6th century levels at Ravenna (Table 23: Gazan 21%; north Palestinian, 8% maximum, some examples of LRA 5 possibly being Egyptian). However, Marseille, unlike Naples, also had strong links with various sources of LRA 5, one being Caesarea, others being (north-western) Egyptian (Abu Mena). In 7th century contexts at Marseille (L’Alcazar) Gazan and Egyptian Abu Mena LRA 5 are typical in the first half of the 7th century.466 In the case of the Caesarean examples, these must have travelled with ‘brittle ware’ cooking pots and other forms from a nearby north Palestinian source, perhaps located at or near Tel Keisan (Workshop X), that shows a notable increase in quantity in this period at MarseilleL’Alcazar (Fig. 24b). In Beirut the ware, already dominant in the first half

125

Hispania and the Roman Mediterranean of the 6th century, totally eclipses the century-old production of Beirut cooking wares, perhaps as a consequence of the AD 551 earthquake (Waksman et al. 2005a; Reynolds and Waksman 2007). Cartagena, in contrast to both Marseille and Naples, did not share these strong connections with southern Levant. It was bypassed by this source, which seems to have sought a direct route to Marseille. In the case of Naples these and other Levantine goods may equally have passed through Carthage, where the Workshop X ware is found and may have been copied by local potters.467 In Beirut, whereas LRA 5 (Pieri Type 3) is a constant feature of 6th and 7th century deposits that continues into the Umayyad period (650-750), Gazan LRA 4 is a less common import after 551 (Table 24: 551: 40 RBH, 16.5%; late 6th century: 23 RBH, 8.7% of the imported amphorae), even when the later assemblage is double the size of the 551 deposit.468 It is striking that Beirut, a major market for Gazan amphorae from the mid 4th century, was not similarly supplied after 551, even though the port was clearly closer to Gaza than was Marseille: it could be said that the quantities found in Marseille now matched those in Beirut. The continued supply of Akko-southern Phoenician Agora M 334 amphorae to Beirut in the late 6th/early 7th centuries, alongside Caesarean LRA 5 and Workshop X ware and lesser numbers of Gazan amphorae provides evidence for Beirut’s stronger connections with closer, north Palestinian, rather than south Palestinian sources in this period. This, it should be said, was also the case in the early 5th century. The peak in Gazan imports corresponds to the late 4th century and c. 550-551. At S. Antonino, AD 600-650, the supply to the fortress was clearly dominated by Tunisian amphorae (76.5%) and ARS. Though eastern Mediterranean amphorae comprise 30% of the amphorae, quite a high figure, this was not due to LRA 1, as this appears to have been very rare in this period and was absent in the second half of the 7th century (Tables 20, 21, 22).469 Yet again we have a very unusual supply. The number of Tunisian goods could indicate that they were exported direct from Carthage, or semi-direct with the Balearics acting as an entrepôt (a Balearic amphora is illustrated from S. Antonino, recalling the Luni supply noted above).470 However, if redistribution within Italy occurred, Rome is a possible candidate, given the high percentage of Tunisian imports registered (see below, Chapter 4.2, for the Crypta Balbi deposit, supplied with the same imports). The rather low quantities of late 6th and 7th century ARS found in Byzantine Naples (though normal for a Byzantine military site) would argue against redistribution from there (Carsana, D’Amico and Del Vecchio 2007: c. 15 examples of ARS 109, in line with Cartagena, perhaps). Whereas Constantinople in the 7th century received only ARS (surely associated with the annona grain supply), Rome, Naples, S. Antonino, Koper-Capodistria and Cartagena received both Tunisian ARS and amphorae, and, with the exception of Rome at the end of the 7th century, ARS in far modest quantities.

126

4. Later 6th and 7th century trade: fragmentation and regionalisation The case of Koper, in the northern Adriatic, differs, however, from the latter western Byzantine sites, including Cartagena, in several important details.471 Here LRA 2 are very rare, despite their abundance at sites such as Dyrrhachium/Durres and Butrint (Table 25b), to the south and, perhaps more importantly, their presence at Ravenna in no small number during the mid 6th to 7th centuries (Table 23). Even more striking, as in S. Antonino, LRA 1 is either very rare or absent, whereas it is undoubtedly a major import at Ravenna. The ‘Samos cistern’ amphora is notably present, though rare. Palestinian amphorae (late Gazan variants identical to those in contemporary Marseille) are not uncommon and LRA 5 is present (here closer to the Ravenna supply). Tunisian, in fact predominantly central Tunisian, ARS and amphorae were supplied to the site in large numbers, perhaps indirectly via Ravenna, or directly from Leptiminus or Sullecthum.472 Other coastal sites in western Slovenia share the v v v supply of Tunisian amphorae (Vidrih Perko and Zupancic 2005). Here, I believe one can see the mechanisms of the Praetorian Prefecture and the annona system which the Prefect managed at work. As Prefect of Africa, Italy and Illyricum he would have commandeered supplies from Carthage to Koper. These Tunisian products would almost certainly have passed through Ravenna, the capital of the diocese of Venetia et Histria to which Koper belonged. Tunisian imports at Ravenna represent, with Calabrian Keay 52 that may have been picked up en route, the only (or at least the most important) western Mediterranean imports. What is interesting is that the supply of provinces outside the prefect’s orbit, to the south, in Epirus (e.g. Butrint) and technically within the Byzantine eastern Empire, ceased to receive large quantities of Tunisian amphorae and ARS after 550, and shifted to an eastern-based supply dominated by LRA 1, LRA 2 (cf. Lower Danube sites) and LRC.473 Whereas the fortress of Shkodra, at the very north of Albania, and still within the command of the Praetorian Prefect of Africa, Italy and Illyricum, appears to have always had a supply dominated by Tunisian imports (i.e. linked to RavennaAfrica, like Koper), Dyrrhachium/Durres, to the south, still lay within Epirus and received a supply identical to that of Butrint.474 Koper’s supply of eastern Mediterranean amphorae is clearly not that of Epirus, particularly with respect to the Aegean forms. Its supply of Palestinian amphorae is closer to that of Epirus and Ravenna, but again, the rarity of LRA 1 clearly distinguishes its supply from that of Epirus and military Aegean sites (i.e. LRA 1 and LRA 2 dominant), as well as Ravenna. The imperial capital is remarkable and somewhat unusual for its major supply of Tunisian, Aegean and Levantine amphorae of all sources, as well as ARS and LRC. Corinth and Beirut in the late 6th to 7th centuries shared the supply of fair numbers of ARS that were, significantly, not accompanied by Tunisian amphorae (Table 24).475 This mirrors the fine ware-dominated Tunisian supply of Constantinople. In significant contrast to Beirut and, even more surprisingly, Constantinople, there is some evidence for the regular export

127

Hispania and the Roman Mediterranean after the Byzantine reconquest of Africa of Tunisian amphorae (Keay 55-57, 59/8B, Keay 62 and spatheia), though the relative quantities are difficult to assess, to a scatter of (primarily military?) sites in the lower Danube, Aegean and Black Sea, again perhaps connected with the supply of grain to the Byzantine troops and to Constantinople. At Dichin (Bulgaria) in the final destruction deposit of c. 580 the number of tiny Tunisian spatheia is remarkably high and offers one of the earliest dated contexts for exports of this north-east Tunisian product (Swan 2007, 836, fig. 3.22-31). Late spatheia are common at Golemanovo Kale, also in Bulgaria (Mackensen 1992), and occur on numerous sites within Roman Scythia and Lower Moesia, as well as at Chersonesos (Paraschiv 2006, 167). The presence of Vandal Tunisian amphora imports at Dichin c. 476/480 has already been noted. The finds of Tunisian amphorae and ARS, as in situ material in the mid 7th century destruction deposits of the Byzantine fortress at Emporio (Chios) are also particularly striking.476 Such finds are not generally a feature of 6th and 7th century Egypt, except in Alexandria, as far as I know.477 Cartagena and Málaga, then, had similar ties with Byzantine Carthage as the Byzantine military site of S. Antonino, being supplied with almost entirely north Tunisian products (with rare central Tunisian amphorae). The Tunisian amphora supply of Koper was quite the opposite to that of these two ‘western’ sites, being composed largely of central Tunisian products, accompanied by central Tunisian ARS, and more rarely north Tunisian amphorae and ARS (though these are present: ARS 108, 109). The central Tunisian products may have been supplied from Hadrumetum or Sullecthum, passing via Carthage (not unloading) and then on to Ravenna, before being sent to Koper. The Tunisian supply of Cartagena and S. Antonino sailed from Carthage, and/or perhaps Neapolis/Nabeul, where in both cases a few central Tunisian products may have been included in predominantly north Tunisian cargoes. The unusual thinwalled variants of ARS 105 found at Cartagena (Fig. 22, bottom left) also point to sources that were peculiar to the Cartagena supply and may help to provide a clue as to the port(s) that served it. The important role of LRA 1 at Cartagena can be contrasted with its rarity at both S. Antonino and Koper. That S. Antonino did not receive LRA 1 in any quantity suggests that these were not true ‘rations’. Even if they were redistributed to S. Antonino from Carthage, this would have to have been to an intermediary port either nearby (Ventimiglia or most likely Luni) or Rome, and they were not passed on. The finds of Balearic vessels at S. Antonino and Luni are evidence that the Balearics may have served as an entrepôt for some north Tunisian shipments. The case of Cartagena may have been different if it was the first port of call: LRA 1 could have been redistributed from Carthage. If shipments passed through the Balearics, some LRA 1 could still have made it to Cartagena. Alternatively LRA 1 was supplied directly to Cartagena by eastern ships.

128

4. Later 6th and 7th century trade: fragmentation and regionalisation Following the S. Antonino argument just outlined, these LRA 1 were not state cargoes or ‘rations’. Standard army rations from the eastern Mediterranean would have comprised LRA 1 and LRA 2 (cf. Butrint and the Lower Danube sites) and, in any case, would not have applied to the western-administrated military. Yet again, quantification of deposits in the Balearics is crucial to determine their possible intermediary role in both eastern and Tunisian shipments. The Palestinian amphorae at Koper may have been redistributed from Ravenna where they are in fact always more dominant than Tunisian imports. That some of the Tunisian foodstuffs, clearly not the Tunisian table and kitchen wares, were supplied to Cartagena and Málaga as free rations for the Byzantine army and civil service is likely. The same flanged-bowl/mortars (Fulford Mortar 3) also occur at Rome and S. Antonino. The supply of Tunisian amphorae and associated goods (ARS) to Marseille, on the other hand, was not due to state redistribution but to sales of agricultural surpluses. The special status of the Duchy of Naples as a Byzantine enclave should have given it extra ‘weight’, in line with Cartagena. Paul Arthur, particularly in view of the unusual quantities of Samos amphorae and (rare) presence of Constantinopolitan cooking pots, sees the supply as evidence for direct ties with Constantinople.478 We may note that though present, Samos amphorae are not particularly common in Ravenna. Butrint’s supply of Samos region amphorae is notably more significant than that encountered in both Ravenna and Naples. As much as one can gauge from the Torre de l’Audiència 2 deposit (Tables 20, 21) it was well-supplied with Tunisian amphorae and ARS in the mid to late 6th century, perhaps abnormally high for a non-Byzantine site.479 Mid 6th to ?early 7th century assemblages from Valencia, again in Visigothic hands, document finds of the Byzantine form Fulford Casserole 12, like examples in Benalúa. More surprising, however, is the presence of large numbers of ‘Tunisian’ mortars and plain wares (many decorated with a scored single, not combed band, wavy line) and Tunisian amphorae (Keay 61A, B, and C; Keay 62). That these are not accompanied by ARS is troubling. Cooking pots with an everted rim, a cooking pot with tab handles, its body also decorated with a scored wavy line and some of the globular, domed base amphorae have all been classified as Tunisian imports. If these amphorae and kitchen wares are indeed Tunisian, the quantity and range of forms imported is quite extraordinary and is unparalleled in Tarragona, Barcelona or elsewhere in Spain, including Byzantine Cartagena. Some of the latter amphorae, however, are perhaps more likely to derive from north-eastern Spain (Tarragona or Barcelona) or the Balearics.480 The absence of many of these cooking ware forms in Michel Bonifay’s typology of African wares (2004), as well as chemical analyses of some of them, would suggest, in contra, that the bulk of these ‘Tunisian’ products have been incorrectly sourced, in fact, and derive from more local Valencian and/or more close regional sources.481

129

Hispania and the Roman Mediterranean Trade between Visigothic Spain and Byzantine Carthage, therefore, continued and did so well into the 7th century (Chapter 4.2). Tarragona, Valencia (certainly in the case of Fulford Casserole 12 and some of its amphorae), like Frankish Marseille, were, at least in this period, actively engaged in the purchasing of Byzantine food surpluses and table wares from Byzantine Carthage (and/or the Balearics). That Tarragona and Marseille were not supplied with Tunisian cooking wares, however, is one detail of the Tunisian supply that differs with respect to Byzantine military sites (e.g. Cartagena, Málaga and S. Antonino di Perti). 4.2. The second half of the 7th century Very few contexts in Hispania can be dated to the second half of the 7th century, a period that was marked by the loss of most of Oriens and north Africa to the Arabs by the 640s. The latter, fortunately for the Byzantines in Carthage, halted their advance into northern Tunisia, that is until 698, when the final death blow to Carthage brought an end to this valuable bread basket for both Rome and Constantinople. In addition to the Tunisian amphora Keay 61A that may have emerged in the mid 7th century, successor to earlier variants of the same type (Keay 61B and D) and miniature spatheia (Bonifay Type 33), the second half of the century saw the appearance of new Tunisian amphora forms that were exported overseas: Keay 8A/Bonifay Type 50, Keay 50/Bonifay Type 51, Bonifay Type 52 (band rim), and various globular amphorae with a domed base, a fondo ombelicato (Bonifay 2004, 151-3, Type Globulaire 1-4) (Fig. 25a-b).482 All are typical finds on Byzantine sites such as S. Antonino di Perti and Rome that continued to receive large quantities of Tunisian goods, but also occur at non-Byzantine sites such as Marseille and Tarragona (Fig. 25, right).483 At Rome in the 690s, the Crypta Balbi deposit, a refuse dump almost certainly associated with the adjacent monastery of San Lorenzo, comprises, alongside the same range of Tunisian amphorae, an astronomical quantity of Tunisian ARS, and in this respect mirrors the supply of Constantinople, with one important difference – Constantinople did not receive the amphorae, only the fine wares (Table 20).484 The extraordinary abundance of ARS in Rome and Constantinople suggests that they may represent Tunisian grain exports in both cases. The ecclesiastical character of S. Lorenzo, however, suggests that this supply was not state-organised, but due to redistribution by the Church. The primary source of the Saraçhane pottery, re-used as building material at the Church of S. Polieuktos, is not as clear as that of the Crypta Balbi but the over 500 unguentaria found there suggest that an ecclesiastical source is possible (see n. 427). Also present in the Crypta Balbi, and equally characteristic of the period in Byzantine-western Italy, are large numbers of south-western Italian wine amphorae, from Calabria and possibly Sicily, again possible evidence for redistribution from Church estates. Tunisian

130

4. Later 6th and 7th century trade: fragmentation and regionalisation imports at Rome, especially the ARS, seem to mark a notable increase in comparison to the early 6th century (the Schola Praeconum II deposit: we have no published information for the intervening period, though some data on 6th and 7th centuries will appear shortly: Bertoldi, Ceci and Pacetti [forthcoming]). In Tarragona in the second half of the 7th century the community down at the port shared some of the exotic eastern imports, notably cooking wares, from north Palestine (Workshop X/Tell Keisan?) and an unusual number of Constantinopolitan cooking pots (Figs 24a, 25b) that were also supplied to Marseille (both wares), Naples (Constantinopolitan sources, but not Workshop X: note the low numbers of LRA 5), Rome and Carthage (both products, with imitations being made of each).485 At Tarragona there are also thick-walled ‘sliced-rim’ casseroles, perhaps Egyptian,486 as well as some peculiar pale greenish amphorae that are probably north Syrian.487 These have not yet been discovered at Marseille, for example, but this may be fortuitous, given the port’s strong connections with the Levant. Though there is no reason why Tarragona could not have received these products direct from the Levant, they may have been redistributed from Marseille, or equally represent the activities of eastern ships port-hopping along the north Spanish and south-Gallic coast. One important trend that can be noted for the 7th century at both Tarragona and Barcelona is the possible local production or at least importation of glazed cooking wares in fair numbers. A wide range of vessels, mostly casseroles with tab handles, has been found. The same products, far rarer, however, are attested in Valencia, at the monastic site of Punta de l’Illa (Cullera) and in Byzantine early 7th century levels at Cartagena. Glazed wares were probably made at the Visigothic period settlement of Tolmo de Minateda (Hellín, Albacete), that comprised, with Bigastrum (Cehegín) and El Monastil (Elda), the earliest Visigothic ‘presence’ in the south-east.488 Quite how these glazed wares, with possible production-distribution clearly concentrated in urban sites of north-eastern Spain, are related to finds of glazed wares in southern Gaul and the major production of glazed wares in 6th and 7th century northern Italy and, of course, Constantinople has not been explored, as far as I know.489 Tarragona continued to receive imports of eastern amphorae, namely LRA 1, 2, 4 and 5, a supply that is paralleled in Marseille. A single find so far at Tarragona is also known of the Samos cistern amphora type, a typical find in small quantities on western Byzantine sites and at Marseille. As we have seen, Samos amphorae were more common in Naples in the earlier 7th century (and probably continued to be so later in the century?). The L’Alcazar site at Marseille (Bien 2005 and 2007) provides us with major evidence for the city’s connections with the Levant and Egypt in the second half of the 7th century in the case of its amphoraborne imports (LRA 1, LRA 4, LRA 5: Egyptian only?; Egyptian Red Slip

131

Hispania and the Roman Mediterranean Ware). Eastern cooking pots from Constantinople, rare in the first half the 7th century, are now quite common, together with Aegean and Italian forms. Given the quantities and range of Constantinopolitan cooking pots, appreciably greater than those encountered in Naples or Carthage, the arrival of ships direct from Constantinople is likely. A significant feature that is surely indicative of a more Alexandrian-Gazan shift in the source of Levantine exports is that the north Palestinian ‘brittle’ ware that dominated imports at Marseille/L’Alcazar in the early/first half of the 7th century is now absent. The Place Jules-Verne site, still unpublished, provides similar evidence for Tunisian finds but perhaps not the same range of eastern products? In this case, the globular late LRA 2/’LRA 13’ style amphora is present (cf. Fig. 26). Some of these are possibly eastern in origin (Egyptian, as well as Cypriot?, as exports to Beirut, 700-750: Reynolds 2003c: n. 493),490 some are Tunisian, whereas others may well derive from southern Italy, as was certainly the case in contemporary Rome (Crypta Balbi).491 That no other eastern forms, such as LRA 1, 2 and 4 are noted would certainly contrast with the assemblages of L’Alcazar and perhaps indicate a later date for the Place Jules-Verne material (especially if the LRA 13 derive from Cyprus: a coin of 668-685 provides a post quem date for the latest phase of L’Alcazar). From 650, it should be remembered, the Levant from Egypt to Antioch was in Umayyad Arab hands. Cyprus, invaded in 654, was held by the Arabs, but in 686 there was an agreement by the two super-powers to share its produce (contained in LRA 1 and by the late 7th century, in the Aegean style shape LRA 13) (Treadgold 1997, 332-3). Western Cilicia (cf. also LRA 1) in this period was a war zone and it is difficult to imagine the region being involved in continued production for export much beyond c. 650. Cyprus, with the headquarters of the dux Orientis, from the fall of Antioch, being relocated to the port of Salamis, archaeologically well attested to be active in this period, would have taken over that role.492 That exports from Cyprus were still of a regular nature at the end of the 7th century, is indicated in Rome in the Crypta Balbi where LRA 1 comprise 3% of the RBHS (= 450 fragments). Beirut demonstrates that the Arabs brought about both the end of its local amphora/wine production and a major increased tie with the Egyptian sources of table wares and wine, that continued, even flourished, in this period. Egyptian Red Slip Ware represents the only fine ware, alongside sandy LRA 5s from Caesarea and a host of Egyptian amphorae, including small Abu Mena buff amphorae and north-eastern Egyptian versions of the Aegean-Cypriot Byzantine amphora LRA 13 (Egloff 167), all in an Umayyad deposit of c. 700-750.493 Indeed, recent work at Alexandria, provides us with a valuable guide to trends in local and imported amphorae in the first half (late Byzantine) and second half (Umayyad) of the 7th century. These indicate that, at least for some time after 650, LRA 1 (presumably Cypriot) continued to be supplied to the port (13%), at a

132

4. Later 6th and 7th century trade: fragmentation and regionalisation similar level to 600-650 (10%). Gazan amphorae were still a major factor (28%), but had dropped in relative quantity (from a massive 72%), due, clearly, to the increase in local wine production (LRA 5 and 7: 26% and 15%, respectively). The shift here was in the form of an increase in local Mareotis and lower Nile LRA 5 production, the figures for LRA 7, produced further up the Nile, remaining stable. Some of this Egyptian wine, much produced in the monastic establishments not too distant from Alexandria, if dateable to post-640/650, is therefore ‘Umayyad’ or at least was exported to Marseille and Rome under their control. The notable difference between the supply of al-Fostat, the Umayyad capital (LRA 1 and LRA 4 absent, from 650) and Alexandria would suggest that the port consumed most Levantine imports that entered the port and exported the rest and its own monastic wines (to Beirut and to the West, to Rome, Marseille and Tarragona, for example). The Arabs did not attempt to interfere in the status quo, whether in staunchly Greek Alexandria or in the busy monasteries, allowing them to continue ‘business as usual’. The Arabs, as was often the case (e.g. Arab Tunis v. abandoned Byzantine Carthage), preferred to establish their own new settlements away from previous classical centres (al-Fostat/Cairo). In the case of western supplies, the role of Alexandria in the redistribution of Levantine goods, including LRA 1 and LRA 4, in the second half of the 7th century to western ports does need to be borne in mind. LRA 1 otherwise may have travelled direct from Cyprus. Perhaps we should also be looking for Egyptian and Cypriot examples of LRA 13 (both found in Beirut) in western contexts. Continuity of direct contacts with Caesarea and/or Akko/Ptolemais is not only possible but highly likely, given the supply of north Palestinian examples of LRA 5 at Marseille and, in Rome, the major presence of LRA 5 (13%), including late versions of the Akko/Acre amphora Agora M 334.494 We might note here that at Rome (Crypta Balbi) figures for Gazan amphorae, in contrast, drop at this point though are still significant (5% of RBHS = 818 fragments). The rise in LRA 5 at Rome is also followed at S. Antonino di Perti, where the figure increases from 3% to 13.3%, c. 650-700 (Tables 20, 21). Gazan amphorae were now absent at S. Antonino di Perti, and there is the possibility that a drop in Gazan imports to western Italy was a general phenomenon in the second half of the 7th century: the continued relative importance of Gazan wine, with other Palestinian amphorae, at S. Lorenzo is surely a reflection of their use in the Liturgy or as valued status goods. As we have seen, a drop in LRA 4 occurs even in Alexandria after the Umayyad conquest, though the city clearly remained, as it had always been, its major target. Umayyad Beirut also, c. 700-750, despite its strong connections with northern Palestine and Egypt, did not import Gazan amphorae. Gazan production (of wine and oil) may not have lasted much beyond 700, and may, from the evidence of Beirut, Rome and Alexandria, have

133

Hispania and the Roman Mediterranean followed a course of declining long-distance exports from the Umayyad period onwards. That LRA 5 (and not LRA 4) were redistributed to S. Antonino, c. 650-700, from Rome, together with Calabrian imports, and what might in fact be Calabrian, rather than Aegean, versions of LRA 13 and ‘anfore a fondo ombelicato’ needs to be borne in mind (see above). S. Antonino in this period had a supply much more strongly focused on both Tunisian and south Italian sources. Tarragona, in the case of its eastern and Tunisian amphora supply followed Marseille and Rome. Finds in the Balearics of peculiar late Byzantine globular amphorae, some, perhaps eastern Mediterranean, some local or south Italian, have already been mentioned. They illustrate that much is yet to be learned of the role of the Balearics in trade and redistribution, even during this late period. In fact, it should be remembered that the islands remained in Byzantine hands until as late as 902, when they fell to the Arabs, now empowered with a busy and active fleet that was to wrest Sicily and its valuable produce from Byzantium in the same year. In south-eastern Spain, after the fall of Cartagena to the Visigoths, the city was abandoned for that of Orihuela, located inland and on the Via Augusta, that now bypassed the defunct ancient port. Favoured by the Byzantine presence in the early 7th century, Murcia, Alicante and the rest of southern Spain had, unlike Tarragona and the Balearics, no apparent contact with the rest of the Mediterranean, or even with its neighbours on the north-east coast. The south-east, in isolation, engaged instead in the production and trading of local hand-made wares, successors of the Murcian products that circulated in the 5th and 6th centuries. This was a pattern that was to continue on the same highland settlements in the Vinalopó Valley into the successive phases of Arab occupation that can be traced through the 8th to 10th centuries.495 The continuity of production of amphorae, in the hand-made ware of the Lower Segura, of a form based on the wheel-made buff ware ‘flagon-amphora’ types of the 5th to mid 6th centuries is a notable feature of the Visigothic period of occupation (Fig. 28d). These amphorae were eventually replaced by slow-wheel made forms, some bearing painted decoration, in the Arab 8th/9th to 11th centuries (Fig. 30). The identification of these Visigothic and Arab forms as transport amphorae has not been generally recognised. Hence, neither has the obvious importance that they represent for the local economy of the region, as containers for regionally-produced surpluses (wine, or oil?), nor the evidence they represent for close-regional trade. These are yet again a demonstration of the self-sufficiency of the region, still largely marginalised from the Mediterranean world, at least during the Visigothic and early Arab periods. The early or mid 8th century brought with it a major drop in longdistance trade everywhere in the western Mediterranean, at Marseille,

134

4. Later 6th and 7th century trade: fragmentation and regionalisation Naples, and even Rome, where the city looked for its supplies to closer resources in the immediacy of the capital.496 Tarragona, following its capture by the Arabs in 713-714, was abandoned, suffering the same fate that had befallen Cartagena, the other former provincial capital, a century earlier, and remained deserted until the end of the 11th century.497

135

5

Conclusions 1. Methodological problems and challenges The dating of ceramics and hence their use in the reconstruction of economic trends, in some periods identified with geo-political and historical events, is fraught with difficulties and ambiguities. Historians should be aware that though the archaeological evidence is extremely rich, putting a precise date on ceramic assemblages is difficult and needs to take into consideration the complex routes by which the deposits came to be formed prior to excavation and the possibility of the region-specific dating for the appearance of individual forms. The dating of Keay’s Tunisian Period I amphorae with which we began this book illustrates the lag, sometimes by a century, between the initial production of a form and its appearance in markets such as those in Hispania. The major time span between the distribution of LRA 1-5 to sites in the West and to those in the Levant is another good example. The supply of fine wares can also be regional and affect the way we date assemblages. The absence of the regional ARS A/D ware in Beirut, as opposed to its regular marketing and presence in say, Benghazi or Butrint, can affect the dating one may attribute to a 3rd century assemblage in Beirut, as these forms are key dating markers. Still more problematical is the use, or rather mis-use of coinage in the dating of deposits. The comparison and interpretation of percentages of assemblages also brings important information on economic trends but it, too, is far from straightforward. How does one compare a 5% figure for say Gazan amphorae in Carthage with the same figure in Beirut, Alicante or Marseille or with a villa site? Gazan amphorae comprise the same 5% role in relative terms to their overall supply, and are in that sense equal, but the actual volume of amphorae imported depended both on the nature and on the location of the site. The norm should be that the closer to the regional source, the greater the contact and the greater the volume imported. Equally, or alternatively, more frequent contacts (in other words, regular, well-established shipping routes) will lead to an increase in quantities imported (Reynolds 1995, 126-30, cargoes and shipping routes). Special long-distance connections between sites existed, perhaps for very different reasons, that could promote a volume of imports that one would not have expected (the clearest example here being the supply of eastern goods to south-west Britain in the 5th to early 7th centuries; the special draw of

136

5. Conclusions Gazan and LRA 1 amphorae to Rome in the 690s is another). I have indicated the size of assemblages in tables where possible, to act as a guide to actual quantities.498 This is a more recognised problem, but we do the best we can. We have already discussed the possible pitfalls in the very nature of comparative percentages. Observing trends for, say, Gazan amphorae in a chronological sequence of deposits, a rise in percentage for one or several other products in each assemblage will also affect the percentage figure for Gazan amphorae. But are trends in imports of Gazan v. African or LRA 1 amphorae, for example, actually related? Just as the importation of ARS and Tunisian amphorae can be seen to be separate mechanisms with their own dynamics (Chapter 1.1), the importation of regional amphorae would also have had their own independent dynamics. The comparison of trends of one class of goods, garum for example (comparing Black Sea v. Hispanic and Tunisian garum in Beirut, for example), is more meaningful than comparing percentages of quite disparate products. However, it is possible that in addition to trends based on the type of goods, one might also be able to detect parallel trends in imports of a whole range of goods from one general region (e.g. the Black Sea) (see n. 174). Peña (1999) has also drawn our attention to the different vessel capacities of amphorae and their corresponding lack of ‘weighting’ when attributing equal values to figures for specific amphorae, never mind entire regional classes (e.g. LRA 3 versus a Tunisian cylindrical amphora; or a narrow Tunisian Keay 25 v. a wide bodied Keay 62). This is further complicated by the fact that some amphorae have the same-size rim and handles but appear in different capacities (e.g. Agora M 273), or, even more problematical, that some amphora types did not have a constant size (the Beirut amphora, for example: Reynolds 2000 and 2008; the LRA 1, another good example, becoming progressively larger through the mid 4th to early 6th centuries). In other words the percentages we have been using to measure and compare regional roles in Mediterranean trade are invalid; they need readjusting. What we can still do with the figures we have been using, to some degree, is to compare like with like and plot trends in growth and decline, peaks and troughs, in the supply of, say Baetican oil or fish amphorae, simply based on counts of vessels. 2. An interpretation of the ceramic evidence In the 1st and 2nd centuries, with state support, Baetica gained the prime role as suppler of oil to Rome and her armies on the northern frontiers. As Carreras Monfort has argued, the Baetican fish industry was able to take advantage of these state subsidised routes in order to market its salted fish and fish sauce. The fish industry of Lusitania, in contrast, could not capitalise on the Atlantic route to Britain in the same way and it is striking that in Britain Lusitanian products are absent and the dominance of

137

Hispania and the Roman Mediterranean Baetican products is absolute. The provincial capital of Braga in northern Portugal, imported a large number of Baetican oil, fish and wine amphorae, but rarely Lusitanian products. But we do find Lusitanian garum, alongside Baetican fish products in Beirut in the first half of the 2nd century, and in quantity. Baetican oil is very rare in Beirut and in the East in general: Alexandria and perhaps Caesarea and other major military centres such as Zeugma on the Euphrates were the exception to the rule. The rarity of Spanish oil in the East was a trend that was constant, due to the availability of local or close regional resources of olives, whether for the military annona or for the civilian population (Chapter 3.1). The cargoes of Hispanic amphorae, primarily fish, arriving in the East are evidence for the private, rather than state organised marketing of Baetican and Lusitanian goods. State and private shipping can, I think in this case, be distinguished. We now know also that not all Baetican oil was supplied to state markets abroad. Specific ports and regions were targeted within Hispania, namely north-eastern Tarraconensis, the north-west and Santa Pola, the port of Ilici in Alicante. Nearby Carthago Nova was not supplied with oil, nor Valencia, even though the latter was a major importer of Baetican fish sauce. The merchants of Narbonne, key to the redistribution of annona oil to the military markets on the Rhône and Rhine, and to the sale or marketing of Baetican oil to Rome (oil was not freely distributed as were wheat and bread, until Severus), also offloaded and sold surpluses of Baetican oil in Narbonne and in Narbonensis. Baetican oil, or some of it, found in north-eastern Tarraconensis, could equally have derived from Narbonne. That Narbonne may have played a similar role in the redistribution of Spanish amphorae in the first half of the 5th century is also possible given the quantities found there. The emerging role of Africa Proconsularis as Baetica’s major competitor for the Rome oil market through the 2nd century is well established from sequences excavated in Rome and Ostia. Following an initial phase of Tunisian amphora exports to Rome in the 1st century, the 2nd century expanse of agricultural production and exports from Tunisia marked by the introduction of Keay’s Period I amphorae (Keay 3-7) can be separated into two phases. As in the 1st century AD, the earliest exports of these amphorae were directed at Ostia-Rome from the late 2nd century, with main exports elsewhere dating from the 3rd century and, in the case of north-eastern Tarraconensis, primarily from the late 3rd century onwards. It is possible that some finds of ARS 50 are generally dated too early, the main exports being contemporaneous with the late 3rd and 4th century supply of Tunisian amphorae. A common trend throughout the Empire is that African Red Slip Ware (ARS) and cooking ware exports did not go hand in hand with Tunisian amphora-borne exports in the late 1st to 2nd centuries, a trend that

138

5. Conclusions continued in the 3rd century, even with the notable increase in ARS C exports in the mid 3rd century. Tunisian pottery and amphora-borne commodities were distributed separately (e.g. Beirut, Table 4: where increase in mid 3rdC ARS C is not paralleled by an increase in amphorae, rather the opposite, as percentages of amphorae drop). Given that surveys in Tunisia indicate that the production of table wares and amphorae do not occur at the same centres it is possible that fine wares were the secondary industries of estates exporting grain and were for this reason carried along with grain cargoes. This is a complex issue that needs considerable careful work both in the production centres (survey and the recording of estates, agricultural and ceramic production) and in the study of wreck cargoes and the distribution of exports of regional ARS according to its specific ateliers. The advent of the Severan dynasty and the subsequent decades of the early to mid 3rd century brought about a complex transformation of the production and marketing of agricultural surpluses and secondary table ware industries of the western Mediterranean provinces. Septimius Severus, perhaps in response to a dangerous deficit in oil at the capital and for the army, brought about by maladministration under Commodus, instituted the first permanent distributions of free oil in Rome and imposed direct control of the Baetican and Tripolitanian oil supply in order to achieve this. It could be argued that the resulting confiscations and administrative controls might have brought about the decline of the Baetican oil and fish, and Lusitanian fish industries. A crucial question is the degree to which Severus took over a dying oil industry or caused its demise. The degree to which the oil and fish industries were linked in terms of those who owned, ran or were involved in exports of both during the crucial Antonine to Severan periods has not been sufficiently explored, nor have the personal histories or careers of these individuals been traced, as far as I know. Severus certainly did not help to revive Spanish industries, first through the decimation of the propertied families that were accustomed to running them, both in Hispania and in Narbonensis, then by curtailing the free marketing of oil and other goods that could travel with annona shipments (e.g. fish). Some oil and fish processing sites ceased production altogether. The garum factories of Cádiz, Tingitana and southern Lusitania were the hardest hit. The number of oil production sites on the Guadalquivir was drastically reduced. One can detect a drop in the scale of exports of oil to Rome and sites in southern Gaul and the northern provinces through the mid 3rd century. Exports of Baetican fish products to north-western Spain and Portugal that ceased by the 3rd century are to be correlated with the end of regular annona oil traffic to Britain that both carried and subsidised additional cargoes of Baetican fish sauce. The relaxation of state controls on the private trading of Tunisian and Baetican oil for the annona under Severus Alexander, apparently in

139

Hispania and the Roman Mediterranean response to yet another deficit, this time created during the reign of Caracalla, marked a major change to what were anomalous state controls imposed by Septimius Severus and Caracalla. The return to the joint carrying of private and state cargoes may explain the mixed Tunisian, Lusitanian and Baetican cargoes of wrecks such as the AD 257 Cabrera III, sunk off Mallorca, probably on its way to Ostia as it was carrying Baetican and Tunisian oil alongside fish sauce and wine. The mid or late 4th century Femmina Morta Wreck has a similarly mixed Tunisian and Baetican cargo (Parker 1976-7). It is perhaps no coincidence that the mass production of central Tunisian ARS C corresponds to the same period of transition in the mid 3rd century. It may also reflect the changing political fortunes of African families associated with the subsequent Gordian dynasty. What is clearer is that the birth and success of these central Tunisian fine ware, secondary industries, was related to an increase in settlement and oil (and wheat) production, the primary industries, in the same regions. The marketing of central Tunisian goods (clearly identifiable in the case of the 3rd and 4th century amphorae bearing the names of the coastal ports that exported them) also followed its own dynamics, operating from its own ports, quite distinct to the north Tunisian pottery and foodstuffs that were exported from Carthage. For the Vandal and Byzantine periods, there is also clear evidence for the separate marketing of Nabeul v. Carthage-region products (e.g. the small bowl ARS 50.61; amphorae in the La Palud 1 shipwreck: Long and Volpe 1998), as well as the separate distribution of central Tunisian amphorae and ARS (the latter exported almost exclusively to Koper, for example). We should also note here the specific distribution of 3rd century ARS A/D ware(s) whose source is still unclear. Though the Severan take-over of the oil industry may have directly affected the production also of Baetican fish sauce – and there is certainly a reduction in the numbers of factories operating not just in the Bay of Cádiz, but right across the production zone in Lusitania, Baetica and Tingitana – early 3rd century assemblages in Beirut attest the vitality of exports crossing the Mediterranean from Lusitania and Baetica, exports on a scale not seen since the second quarter of the 2nd century. These were accompanied by north Italian wine amphorae. Athens, like Beirut, seems to have imported a fair number of Keay 16 fish amphorae. North Italian wine also reached Athens and the Black Sea in this period. As none of these exports were accompanied by Baetican oil amphorae, this should be, in theory, private shipping. These western exports counted for c. 10% of the imported amphorae in Beirut. The rest, that is 90% of the imports, derived from close regional (Levantine) and long-distance eastern Mediterranean sources, comprising primarily Black Sea fish and wine amphorae, as well as a wide range of Asia Minor, Aegean and southern Anatolian wines. The contribution of western imports is clearly minor in comparison. Gallic wines were only rarely exported to the East, and are equally rare on the

140

5. Conclusions east coast of Spain, even though Gallic wine production was thriving and now concentrated on supplying its own Gallic market (see below). Although Phoenicia did not engage in exports of its wines throughout the 1st to 3rd centuries, as (only southern) Phoenicia was to do in later periods (namely Agora M 334 and probably some LRA 5), Beirut, as well as Akko did return some products to the West, as well as to the Black Sea, their dried fruit (e.g. to Lyon in the early 3rd century and to sites along the Danube). In the mid 3rd century Beirut continued to import Spanish, but not Lusitanian, fish, and these now appear with a large number of ARS C, central Tunisian fine wares (Table 4a-b). The mid 3rd century is the point when ARS really attained a ‘global’ market. Given the low numbers of Tunisian amphorae (all for fish), were these fine wares accompanied by primary exports of grain? Was this what was carried to Seleucia and on to Antioch, the ARS being marketed further East, by road and along the Euphrates and south along the Orontes? In Beirut, the Italian amphorae are now absent. We can also detect in Beirut assemblages a scaling down of the eastern supply, and significantly, a trend towards a greater reliance on closer regional sources. Black Sea Sinopean amphorae are present, but dropped in relative numbers (Kapitän 2 wine amphorae, to which I assign a Black Sea, not Aegean origin, remained high, however, perhaps a special case given their continued marketing to Rome?, see below). This is also the phase when the earliest amphorae closely resembling the LRA 1 amphora appear. It is interesting that this typological phenomenon should happen at this point, but I have equally stressed that these products, in size-module and sources, represent the continuation of the Cilician wine amphora Pompeii 5. That there was some reorganisation of production within Cilicia at this time is possible, however. As we have seen, the small Augst 46-47, perhaps carrying dried fruit from Akko/Ptolomais, also makes its first appearance in this phase, and in considerable numbers. Overall, close regional north Palestinian/south Phoenician amphorae increase substantially from c. 10% to c. 35%. Syrian Amrit amphorae, on the other hand, drop in number quite markedly, and north Lebanese amphorae increase in number. What is striking, nevertheless, throughout the early to mid 3rd century is the variety and vitality of trade operating between the eastern provinces. This has not the characteristics of an age of crisis. However, the trend towards an increase in close regional contacts in Phoenicia is, in my view, an overiding phenomenon that is equally detectable in other sectors of the Mediterranean (the Aegean: see Abadie-Reynal 1989 for an overview; Gaul, Italy and, as we shall discuss shortly, Hispania). I have also argued that it is in the mid, or possibly the early 3rd century, that well-established, long term connections were severed between Rome and Crete. Nor did Rome tap the early to mid 3rd century westward distribution of Black Sea fish, that passed through Athens and Crete, but ended

141

Hispania and the Roman Mediterranean at Brindisi. The only eastern product to continue to be supplied to Rome in the mid 3rd century, and to do so, though in reduced scale also in the 4th century, was the Black Sea wine carried in Kapitän 2. We then see, from roughly the reign of Aurelian, several important phenomena across the Roman Mediterranean: a large number of mid 3rd century assemblages, often dumps of pottery, often well-preserved, followed by a great scarcity of ceramic assemblages and, inherently linked to that, an absence of evidence for private urban building for the period c. 270-320/330. It is difficult to avoid equating these phenomena with the true ‘crises’ of the chaotic later 3rd century, not only with respect to the barbarian threat and migrations, but also the disunity (notably, the Gallic Empire) and civil wars of the later Tetrarchy that gripped the Roman world. Though Diocletian imposed radical reforms of the administration and economy, and there was much public building in some of the major cities, tangible propaganda for the New Order, the civil wars that followed seem to have undermined the confidence of those involved in long-distance trade. Diocletian’s attempts to stabilise the economy (notably in the Price Edict, coinage reforms and new mints across the Empire) and impose the means to manage and transfer resources (for the army in particular) through taxation, state factories and an order of command to redistribute these goods, as well as new roads and fortresses to halt the barbarian advance, all reflect the need to respond to a veritable crisis. The radical separation of the Empire into two administrative units, however, reinforced, in my view, the division of the eastern and western economies and supply networks that had already undergone a process of increased regionality by the mid 3rd century, a period when one can also detect a significant break in established long-distance trade between the two halves of the Empire (Reynolds forthcoming c). The regional ‘blocks’ of ports and their communites that were always present, engaged in ‘closeregional’ trade, now became more dominant. To some degree the Palatine East deposit of c. 300 bears witness to this phenomenon. During the 4th century there were only increasingly rare imports of a few amphora forms from the Aegean and coastal Asia Minor reaching Rome, with no contribution from the Levant, and no evidence so far for exports in the opposite direction (i.e. ARS). We must now return to the 3rd century in the West and to Hispania. Here we can identify a similar trend in the greater regionalisation of production, regional solutions or, in a more positive sense, exploitations of local markets, in response to a scarcity, or irregular or declining quantities of imports of Spanish, as well as imported, wine, fish, oil and table wares. In the case of wine, with the exception of Mauretanian products (Keay 1), the Iberian Peninsula was not in the 3rd and 4th centuries targeted, as was Italy, by eastern and, later, Italian and Sicilian exports. Having lost their Italian market to Gallic competition during the 2nd century, Tarraconensian wine continued to supply close-regional sites in north-eastern

142

5. Conclusions Spain and as far south as Valencia, as did the long-lived and successful wine industry of Ibiza. Production of wine for export also commenced in the 3rd century in Baetica for the first time since the 1st century exports of Haltern 70. The regions of central and north-eastern Hispania may well have found their own solutions to absent wine by trading their own produce (wine or beer perhaps) in painted amphorae and perhaps in barrels. This pattern of regional self-sufficiency in wine was equally true for the Gallic wine industry. Though much has been said about declining Gallic wine exports to Rome, it is clear that the industry remained very much alive through the 3rd and 4th centuries, supplying its local markets such as Lyon and Vienne with as much as 93-98% respectively in the first half of the 3rd century, and comprising still 67% at Vienne in the second half of the 3rd century. Gaul not surprisingly was another region that was not a major target of the wine producers that supplied Rome. That is until the massive flow of wine exports from the Aegean, coastal Asia Minor and particularly the Levant to the western Mediterranean, including eastern Spain, commenced around 400. A similar pattern can be observed for the fish industry. Exports of Baetican fish products to north-western Spain and Portugal that ceased by the 3rd century are to be correlated with the end of regular annona oil traffic to Britain that both carried and subsidised additional cargoes of Baetican fish sauce. During the early to mid 3rd century, Lusitanian and Baetican fish products were being shipped to Rome, and even Beirut and Caesarea, but not to Valencia, Tarragona or Galicia. In response to this absence, we now see sites in Galicia and Asturias (Gijón) engaged in the production of local fish sauce for the first time, in the 3rd and 4th centuries. The 4th century brought new opportunities and a boost to the fish industries of Lusitania, Baetica and the related factories of Tingitana, but also to regions or sites that had not previously been engaged in the industry, notably in Murcia, Alicante, and Rosas. We also now see BaeticaLusitania exporting fish to Tarragona, Valencia, and probably Santa Pola (Keay 23), and exports to Rome and Ostia increased considerably during the course of the 4th to early 5th centuries. Tarragona, Narbonne, Arles, Lyon and Rome were the principal markets, with exports also reaching Beirut and probably also Caesarea, regularly and in fair numbers. Murcian fish sauce production also began in the 4th century, possibly in response to the opportunities that Carthago Nova, as the new Diocletianic provincial capital, may have offered. Excavations at a newly discovered kiln site near Mazarrón provide evidence for the production of imitations of Tunisian Keay 25 amphorae (amongst other forms). This trend in local production of fish sauce was followed by sites located along the Alicante coast and in north-eastern Spain (Rosas: production starts 325-350; Barcelona, in the early to mid 5th century: Keay 68/91), and many may have been operating in the first half of the 6th century (e.g. Rosas, Benalúa).

143

Hispania and the Roman Mediterranean The lower Vinalopó Valley in the 5th and 6th centuries was to see a far greater reliance on local sources of wine, garum and possibly oil, than did Tarragona, even though Benalúa was exceptionally well supplied with other long-distance imports of the same. Regions in Spain outside the main target of Baetican oil exports for the annona, though receiving sales of non-annona stocks (notably north-eastern Tarraconensis, Portugal, Galicia and Asturias; Santa Pola was an exception for the south-east), were accustomed to finding their own alternative sources of oil (e.g. the presses in Murcia and Alicante), even in the early Imperial period, when Baetican oil was more regularly supplied. Other regions that were not favourable for olive cultivation, the colder north-east for example, would always have sought other vegetable oil or animal fat alternatives. Despite regeneration, Baetican oil exports never recovered anywhere near the levels attained even in the mid 3rd century, as the continued state-sponsorship of Tunisian oil exports to Rome offered too much competition. Baetica’s other major market, the army in the northern provinces, scaled down and more locally recruited in the course of the 3rd century, comprised a fraction of what it had been by the 4th century. Native soldiers rather than Mediterranean Romans did not miss olive oil in their diet: in this sense the state provision of olive oil was always an artificial market operation in these northern lands. There were now, furthermore, alternatives to Spanish olive oil, such as nut oil, being produced in northern Gaul and Germany, some specifically targeting military sites and packaging this oil in copies of the Dressel 20. These trends and a possible breakdown in the supply system during the Gallic Empire, would have led to a considerable drop in demand for olive oil. The state distribution mechanisms that engaged in the complex supply of Spanish oil to Britain were no longer operative, but relied more on private enterprise, with different goals (southern towns; ports of entry, such as Exeter) and tastes to cater for. In Britannia in the 4th century both Baetican and Tunisian garum, as well as Gallic wine were all bought and sold just like any other commodity. I would argue here (in contra to the general assumption by Carreras Monfort et al., that Tunisian amphorae imported into Britain were oil amphorae) that Keay 25, the most commonly exported amphora type in the 4th to early 5th centuries, in Beirut and Alexandria for example, was a carrier of fish products and not oil. Hence it is evidence for private and not state-controlled trade. It is possible also that in the course of the 3rd century there also came about a north-south divide within Gaul that was de facto acknowledged by the Diocletianic provinces (Gallia to the north, with Trier as it capital, and the Septimania, to the south). This may also be observed, perhaps, in the shift towards two economic blocks, one comprised of eastern Gaul, Germany and Britain (focused on Trier), versus another in southern Gaul, with its eye on the Mediterranean. This was a barrier that the Baetican

144

5. Conclusions oil and fish sauce industries were not able to penetrate, being content with supplying south Gallic ports in the late 4th to early 5th centuries. Only important large towns further inland, located on riverine routes (Vienne; presumably Lyon and the imperial capital of Trier), would have attracted Spanish imports in the 4th century in any quantity. To some extent the supply of Spanish exports in the 4th to early 5th centuries follows the administrative divisions of the praetorian praefectures: Spanish oil was directed to the praefecture of the Gauls, to which Hispania belonged (Narbonne, Arles, Lyon), and was not supplied in quantity to Italy. This is clear from the scarce finds of Spanish oil amphorae in Milan, Aquileia and northern Italy in general, Rome and Naples. Tunisian amphorae exported to Britain and Arles in the 4th century were notably almost entirely for transporting fish (and perhaps wine), not oil. In Rome, the construction of the Aurelian Wall had cut off access to the emporium, state warehouses and Monte Testaccio, where the annona oil amphorae were disposed of after being emptied prior to redistribution from the warehouses. The trend in the production of smaller modules of Baetican oil amphorae alongside larger Dressel 20s that had begun in the mid 3rd century continued with a shift to solely small containers, the Dressel 23 by the end of the 3rd century. This amphora, like its small-module precursors, was more portable and may have aided the transfer of annona supplies to the redistribution points, the c. 2300 mensae oleariae that existed in the 14 regiones of Rome by the mid 4th century. From Aurelian onwards the population of Rome also benefited from discount prices on wine and pork supplied from the Italian suburbicarian provinces. We see with this a concomitant increase in the production and distribution of Italian wines, the local wines of Rome and notably those carried in the east Sicilian MRA 1, and later, the east Sicilian-Calabrian Keay 52 that achieved a particularly wide distribution by the 5th century. This trend towards regional self-sufficiency is equally marked by the drop in Mauretanian Keay 1, Black Sea and Asia Minor wine imports to Rome during the 4th century. Both Keay 1 and MRA 1 were supplied to Arles during the mid to late 4th century, as well as the early 5th century (n. 124, for the 4th century; Table 18: as high as c. 5% each in the early 5th century). In the mid to late 4th century it was Arles, not Tarragona, that received Spanish oil, the former being the port of entry for shipments up to the provincial capital of Trier. The late 4th to mid 5th centuries, when Valencia and southern Gaul in general were targeted, marked the final flourish of the Baetican oil industry. The market was quite specific, being especially focused on the provincial capital of Tarragona, with lesser, though important quantities going to other north-eastern Tarraconensian ports and those in southern Gaul, Narbonne still being an important target in the second quarter of the 5th century. Rome, on the other hand, was only a minor target and south-eastern Spain was practically bypassed. We may note that the targeting of north-eastern Tarraconensis by traders in

145

Hispania and the Roman Mediterranean Baetican oil in the 3rd to mid 5th centuries followed the same pattern established in the 2nd century with Dressel 20 amphorae. But it could be said that the focus on the region was even greater in the late Roman period, although it was not common to all of coastal Tarraconensis (i.e. including Valencia) until the late 4th century. As in previous centuries, oil exports to the eastern Mediterranean were very scarce, even in Alexandria, the only major market in the Imperial period. Future work in Antioch is needed to establish whether the metropolis was targeted in the same fashion in the 3rd century, given the finds of Dressel 20s in Zeugma. In the 4th century this scarcity applied equally, however, to Tunisian oil, and, notably to Tripolitanian oil that had a role, if only minor, in supplying Roman Egypt in the Imperial period, primarily due to its proximity to the Egyptian market. Tunisian amphoraborne exports to the East from the 4th to early/mid 5th centuries were primarily, perhaps almost exclusively, of fish products. From the mid 4th to early 5th centuries the regeneration of Tunisian and Hispanic industries led to the direction of some of their surpluses (fish sauce, ARS) to Levantine, Egyptian (Sinai)499 and other eastern sites (e.g. Athens, Corinth, Butrint and presumably Constantinople). These supplied the cities that provided the economic infrastructure of the post-Diocletianic Byzantine East. However there was no reciprocal exchange (at least of pottery and amphora-borne commodities) until the early 5th century, particularly the second quarter of that century, decades after Levantine cities had been engaged in a widespread regeneration of their economies and close inter-regional exchange. Exports to the West of Ephesian wine similarly did not recommence, in LRA 3, until the late 4th or early 5th century. Exports to the West of LRA 2 (from Chios and Kos) did not begin in earnest until the late 5th century. Levantine contacts were wider in source and more common than those from Asia Minor. Whereas the supply of Black Sea fish sauce recommenced with vigour in Beirut after a break that had lasted from c. 260 to 400, this did not reach the West, as it had reached Rome in the 1st and 2nd centuries, and Brindisi, via Athens and Crete, in the early 3rd century. A host of other Black Sea amphorae that supplied the military sites of the Danube from the mid 4th to 6th centuries are scarcely encountered in the southern Aegean and Mediterranean, even in Beirut, a further example of the compartmentalisation of the supply systems of the Roman East we have already discussed. The second and third decades of the 5th century brought unexpected changes to the Roman world when the western Empire lost control over Carthage in 429 and the resources of both Africa, formally ceded in 442, and most of Spain, holding on to Tarraco and north-eastern Spain only until 475. The renewal of exports of eastern goods to western ports that took its roots in the early 5th century can be seen to have taken an increasingly large share of the western Mediterranean and Atlantic markets from the mid 5th century onwards.

146

5. Conclusions This does appear to reflect the exploitation of major urban sites by Aegean and now primarily Levantine merchants, some of whom are known to have populated the same western ports. Deposits in Rome, Naples, Marseille and Tarragona could indicate that the merchants (as well as agents of the Church, possibly) of eastern cities were very quick to increase exports of their agricultural surpluses to western ports following the loss of Carthage to the Vandals in 439. Or perhaps this trend began earlier, when the Vandals crossed over to north Africa in 429. One cannot, unfortunately, date these assemblages so precisely. Tarragona’s role as a provincial capital in the 4th to mid 5th centuries was a major draw to Lusitanian and Baetican exports. In the mid 5th century this supply to Tarraco increased to an exceptional level for Spanish sites and can be contrasted with the minor quantities exported to south-eastern Spain. These imports in Tarragona were matched by a myriad of eastern Mediterranean, Tunisian, south Italian and ‘unknown’ sources that were equally a feature of the period in Rome, Marseille and Carthage, but again bypassed south-eastern Spain. In the case of Tunisian exports, these mid 5th century deposits could indicate that Tunisia continued to export its agricultural surpluses and associated pottery even in the early years of Vandal rule. What is clearer is that during the second half of the 5th century the Vandals, and/or other landowners expanded ARS and agricultural production in regions beyond the orbit of Carthage, in the north-eastern and central regions of Tunisia. They focused especially on the export of olive oil. From c. 450 they continued to supply Marseille, Rome, Naples and the ports of northeastern Spain (cf. Keay 1984), south-eastern Spain (Valencia, Cullera, Alicante), Hispalis/Sevilla, as well as islands in the Vandal Empire, the Ostrogothic capital of Ravenna, and their own market (Carthage) with both ARS and amphorae. Egypt, Benghazi, Athens and Butrint, the latter perhaps connected with the supply to both Athens and Ravenna, were the only significant eastern target for Vandal exports in this period, as indicated by the distribution of the rouletted central ARS forms 82-85. Their absence in Beirut is very clear (ARS imports comprise solely examples of ARS 63, c. 460-470). The fort at Dichin (Bulgaria) offers rare well-dated evidence for imports of Vandal Tunisian amphorae (arriving without ARS) in the years 476/480. These Tunisian exports increased in the late 5th to early 6th centuries, in the late Vandal period, marked by the creation of a new, widely produced amphora type to contain the oil for export (Keay 62), appearing for the first time at Marseille c. 500. Sites along the eastern coast of Spain (Tarragona, Barcelona, Ampurias, Rosas, as well as Valencia, Alicante and Cartagena) all attest to the flood of Keay 62 amphorae, though the range and quantities of Vandal amphorae were always greater in northeastern Spain (Reynolds 1995). In the case of Marseille and Tarragona, the Vandal, rather than (possible) early Byzantine date of the amphorae is

147

Hispania and the Roman Mediterranean clear. It was not until the late Vandal period, from c. 500, that Tunisian exports were supplied to the East, reciprocating to a small degree exports from the Levant. In this late Vandal phase of exports, ARS attained a geographical distribution it had not seen since the early 5th century, and now reached even the shores of north-western Spain and Portugal, as well as Britain. The Atlantic Tunisian supply, unlike that of the western Mediterranean, did not generally comprise Tunisian amphora-borne commodities. Perhaps these Tunisian ships carried grain? Eastern cities continued and increased their exports to western ports over the same period, from 450, adding LRC to the range of Aegean goods. Fifth century LRC, though present in small quantities on many coastal sites across the western Mediterranean, shows a marked concentration in south-eastern Italy and Ravenna. It is present in Marseille and Naples, but is always rare. Tarragona was perhaps unusually targeted by LRC of the third quarter of the 5th century. The late 5th and early 6th centuries saw equally an increase in the routine supply of eastern exports to the West and to Atlantic sites, as well as an increase in the Cilician, Palestinian and Egyptian (but rarely Syrian or Phoenician) sources involved in this trade (Ephesian: LRA 3; Aegean: LRA 2; Levantine: LRA 1, LRA 4-6; Egyptian: LRA 7; buff LRA 5/globular Pieri 3, some of which derived from the Byzantine monasteries of northern Egypt: Pieri 2005, 120-1). It is possible that it was then that Cyprus joined Cilicia as a producer and exporter of both wine and, perhaps now, oil.500 It also marked the inclusion of Aegean (Phocean?) and north Palestinian cooking wares in the eastern repertoire that, with LRC and other goods (south-east Mediterranean cooking wares) help us trace in more detail the specific routes taken by eastern ships. It is possible that Caesarea and Askalon-Gaza gained extra prestige and commercial links with the West, as both ports of entry to the Holy Land and sources of wine grown in the homeland of Christianity itself. It is also from c. 500 that we see the monasteries of northern Egypt busy in exports of their own wine and offering similar attractions to devotees and pilgrims (cf. Abu Mena flasks). Perhaps the Church itself was involved in these wine exports to the western markets. The Church’s role in the distribution of goods, particularly wine, oil and grain, cannot be easily calculated or, more importantly, distinguished, from that of private or state cargoes. This was an especially favoured economy (the Church did not pay tax), with its own agents and shipping that acted alongside the other two principal economic supply systems, those generated by the State and private individuals (Whittaker 1983). That the Church had also a role providing for the annona is also possible but equally difficult to prove archaeologically. Baetican and Lusitanian exports to Levantine sites, however, ceased, or were certainly negligible, after c. 425/450 and did not recommence c. 500, as did those of Vandal, and later Byzantine Africa. Despite their success in the 4th and early 5th centuries, the majority of Lusitanian fish factories

148

5. Conclusions ceased production around 425, and it is difficult not to equate this with the effects of the barbarian migrations. Production in the Algarve at Lagos may have continued into the 6th century. Similarly, the fish industries of Baetica and possibly also Tingitana, as we have seen, survived, but directed exports in the period 450-500 to markets on the east coast of Spain, as well as Sevilla and Rome (perhaps only in quantity during c. 450-475?: Panella, Saguì and Coletti forthcoming), but not Gaul, the products of Baetica, it seems, reaching Britain after 450 (late examples of Dressel 23?, hence oil; or more likely Keay 16, hence fish sauce). Finds of Dressel 23 in Sevillan contexts of the 6th century and in Benalúa, for example, could be an indication of the continuity of oil production into the mid 6th century. Baetican oil exports then stopped definitively. Continuity of Baetican fish processing into the first half or mid 6th century is equally possible (cf. finds in Benalúa and the 6th century occupation of fish processing sites in southern and eastern Spain), but the evidence is so far inconclusive. The dark days of the Severan period thus emerge as a turning point in the fate of the industries of the Iberian Peninsula, followed by a gradual and only partial renaissance from early 3rd to mid 5th centuries. The Baetican fish industry was more successful than was its oil industry in regaining its former ground. Both Baetica and Lusitania targeted their former markets in the western and eastern Mediterranean successfully, even managing to compete with Tunisian fish sauce in Rome. But Baetican oil was a lost cause. The transformation in the management of resources in the western Empire brought about by the barbarian migrations had a profound effect on Hispania, though this by the late 5th century could be said to have been positive in the sense that Vandal exports were targeted at north-eastern Tarraconensian ports. The latter, though under Visigothic control, did not undergo any significant change in the composition of the population, at least in this period. Tarragona, Barcelona and Valencia were not ‘Visigothic’ cities in this sense. These ports now continued (or perhaps recommenced) in major contacts with not only these Vandal Tunisian resources, as did Ostrogothic Italy and Visigothic-Ostrogothic and later Frankish southern Gaul, but also partook of the flood of imports now emanating from the Byzantine East. Clearly, the possible conflicting political status of the western regions under barbarian sovereignty with the eastern administration had no effect on trade between them. Even the Baetican oil industry may have been able to survive till the mid 6th century, supplying local or close regional markets. Its long-distance market in the second half of the 5th century, restricted to eastern Spain, did represent a contraction (Gallic finds 450-500 could well be residual). Its decline, however, was a trend out of its control that was already evident even before the Vandals arrived. But the supply of imports to Hispania was not uniform. The troubles of

149

Hispania and the Roman Mediterranean the invasions left an indelible mark on what was most of the Iberian Peninsula that lay out of reach of coastal trade. The interior continued on a path of increasing self-sufficiency and regionality. The fine ware production of the interior that had begun a slow recovery from the later 3rd century was particularly affected by the change of circumstances and, from the late 4th century, the abandonment of the prosperous but vulnerable villa estates for the security of walled towns or highland castros. The decline in TSHT production led to the widespread regional production of ‘coarse’ table ware alternatives. This was yet another facet of the fragmentation, regionalisation, and self-sufficiency of the pottery industry, processes, it should be noted, that were already in progress in Hispania by the mid 3rd century. The distribution of painted wares and even TSHT in the 4th and 5th centuries was constrained by the inability of the traders to move their wares long distances. These were not the major sigillata industries of the Imperial period, nor was security the same as it had been. Many of the markets of the interior in the 5th century were located in less accessible or highland sites, a feature too of settlement in south-eastern Spain, in the Vinalopó Valley, Murcia and Almería (Vera). The more fragmented markets of the interior demanded smaller-scale and more localised solutions for their ceramic needs The quality of table wares varied from quite poor in some areas (cerámica bruñida) to rather good imitations of ARS and metal ware (Conimbriga wares; cerámica brillante; t. s. meridional). The settlement and port at Benalúa-Alicante is an unexplained exception in the mid 6th century, with its major supply of eastern pottery and foodstuffs. The coins and ceramic range demonstrate the site’s connections with early Byzantine Carthage and the Balearics, possibly prior to the reconquests in Spain, given its distinct supply of Tunisian goods with respect to Byzantine Cartagena. By the early 6th century the coastal parts of north-eastern Spain, by contrast, were engaged in acquiring supplies of amphora-borne imports (mostly wine from the East and oil and fish products from Tunisia and Baetica), but not cooking wares. These they provided for themselves. One can also detect an increase in inter-regional contacts between ports of the east coast of Spain during the 5th to mid 6th centuries, but from c. 500 the separation of north and south-eastern Spain was marked and remained so even through the first centuries of Arab rule. The Balearics could well have played a central role as an entrepôt for Tunisian goods (Vandal-Byzantine) to Alicante, north-eastern Spain and southern Gaul, as well as facilitating the reciprocal flow of Murcian and north-eastern Tarraconensian cooking wares. The Balearics also took the opportunity to distribute their own wine in the process, along the east coast, from Cartagena to Barcelona and, under Byzantine occupation, to Málaga and Luni, equal evidence in the latter case, perhaps, for its role in the redistribution of Tunisian resources to Byzantine enclaves in north-eastern Italy.

150

5. Conclusions The distribution of imported cooking wares is important evidence, however, for the marked split in the supply systems operating in the western Mediterranean that had come about by the early or mid 5th century and was even more marked in the late 5th century. Though Tarragona, under Visigothic rule, clearly continued to receive Tunisian amphorae and ARS in the early to mid 6th century in large quantities, the shift from c. 475 towards the local production of cooking pots and plain wares that were formerly well-supplied from long-distance sources (Balearics and Tunisia and south-central Mediterranean/Aeolian Isles primarily, with lesser eastern Mediterranean products) may be contrasted with the opposite trend in increased imports encountered in Benalúa-Alicante over the same period. Valencia, to some degree, followed Alicante with respect to its continued sources of south-western cooking wares, perhaps distributed via the Balearics. They may both have had links with Naples, but Valencia could equally have imported these goods via Rome. Marseille had always had stronger contact with Palestinian cooking ware sources and did not import the south-western cooking wares or LRC. A rough division of the western Mediterranean into two separate sectors or patterns of supply is envisaged. One in the extreme south-west Mediterranean, in part connected with the distribution of eastern primary cargoes of foodstuffs, the other comprising an arc running from Tarragona to Marseille and down to Rome and Naples, served by another link to eastern sources that were not the same in composition or quantity as those encountered to the south (Marseille and Naples for example, with rare LRC and LRCW II; Ware 6 very rare in Naples, absent in Marseille and southern France). This ‘arc’ of supply, was the same group of ports that experienced imports of eastern and ‘unclassified’ amphorae in the period 425/450 that bypassed south-eastern Spain. So the same division was always present in the 5th century. The south-eastern and north-eastern coasts of Spain, as we have seen, also received Tunisian goods in differing quantities and range in the early to mid 5th century. North-eastern towns continued to import Tunisian amphorae, and on an even greater scale than in the late 5th century, maintaining this partiality. Alicante/Benalúa nevertheless received imports of a very wide range of Tunisian cooking wares, mortars and even closed forms, as well as central Mediterranean handmade wares (LRCW II-III) that never reached Tarragona and demonstrate Benalúa’s strong links with Carthage in its early Byzantine phase (533-550). It is quite possible that some of these goods (notably LRCW II-III; Tunisian amphorae), but not eastern imports (e.g. LRC, Aegean cooking wares, rare in the Balearics) arrived via the Balearics, brought under Byzantine control in 534. Whereas Alicante in the mid 6th century was favoured by imports along the south-west Mediterranean route, it was to be bypassed by this supply following the Byzantine reconquests in Spain in the 550s. Eastern exports to Britain also ceased by the mid 6th century, except for the occasional

151

Hispania and the Roman Mediterranean cargo. In southern Spain only Byzantine-held sites received eastern imports. By the late 6th century the two sectors of the western Mediterranean were even more polarised, with Marseille, Naples, Carthage, and to some extent Tarragona (and one must assume Rome also) benefiting from special ties (some individual) with specific eastern sources. Those of Marseille were primarily Palestinian (north and south) and north Egyptian (Pieri 3/LRA 5), whereas those of Naples were primarily Aegean and south Palestinian (Samos and Gaza). Both cities, and even Tarragona, had ties directly or indirectly with goods travelling from Constantinople. The supply of Gazan wine to Carthage and ports on the ‘arc’ is quite illuminating. Exports of LRA 4 were not constant over the early to late 6th century. These were very high in Tarragona, Naples and Rome in the late 5th century (as they had been in the mid 5th century), but they only became common in Marseille and Carthage in the late 6th century, a period when they drop markedly in Tarragona, but not in Naples. We have no figures for Rome, until the 690s, when LRA 1 amphorae are still relatively high and there is a definite strong link with northern and southern Palestine (Agora M 334 and Gazan LRA 4), as well as, perhaps, Egypt (LRA 13/Egloff 167). The role of Alexandria in exports of Gazan amphorae and LRA 1 to the West, alongside its own LR 5/Pieri 3 wine amphorae needs to be considered, particularly for the late 6th and 7th centuries. Byzantium in the 6th to early 7th centuries looked after its own in the West (Carthago Nova, Malaca, the Balearics, Luni, S. Antonino di Perti, Koper and Ravenna) distributing its goods through the various ports at its disposal. The ports of central Tunisia played a major role in the supply of eastern Italy, whereas Byzantine Carthage concentrated on western Italy, the Balearics and Spain. Carthage also marketed its goods in non-Byzantine ports, notably ‘Visigothic’ Tarraco and ‘Frankish’ Marseille. Michel Bonifay has traced special links between Marseille and the port of Nabeul in the case of mid 6th century, early Byzantine exports (the wreck of La Palud 1). In the East, Phoenicia and Syria carried on the trend of increased regionality, becoming more and more reliant on close regional trade: the differences between Beirut assemblages of c. 410 and c. 551 could not be clearer (Tables 15, 24). Trends in imports in Caesarea for the 5th to 7th centuries, theoretically, once published, may paint a quite different picture. LRA 1 may be far rarer there than in Beirut (cf. Riley 1975). For the period 500 to 551, when Beirut as well as Tyre, was devastated by an earthquake, the supply of Black Sea, Sinopean fish sauce to Beirut represented the only major long-distance traded commodity, alongside LRC fine wares. After the earthquake Beirut did not receive even Sinopean amphorae, these goods being directed towards Antioch and on to Zeugma. One sees, instead, not only a major rise in quantities of ARS, but also the appearance of Egyptian fine wares for the first time

152

5. Conclusions since the mid 4th century, alongside an increase in Cypriot fine wares and a marked drop in Phocean LRC (from c. 37.2% to 10.8%: Table 24). There were notably no Egyptian or Tunisian amphorae accompanying these fine wares. Is this evidence for Beirut receiving both Tunisian and Egyptian grain, in its period of recovery? It is possible that Beirut, as well as other Levantine cities that did not export their wine and oil, such as Tyre, Byblos and Laodicea, traded their precious textiles, valuable silk and dyed cloth in return for grain in the first half of the 6th century. It is not known if Beirut and Tyre, following the 551 earthquake, recovered sufficiently to recommence production in the late 6th century, a period when some degree of urban normality had been re-established (see n. 306). The annona in the East, both civica and militaris, generated another superimposed long-distance ‘track’ onto essentially several, relatively closed, regional trade networks. The distribution and quantities of Byzantine Tunisian exports to the East may indicate that eastern ships were returning with cargoes of Tunisian grain and fine wares. Direct contact between Constantinople and Rome, as well as Carthage, Tarragona and Marseille is indicated by finds of Constantinopolitan cooking wares at these western ports in the 7th century. The distribution of Tunisian ARS and amphorae from Byzantine Africa to the Aegean and Danube troops, as well as to grain-hungry Constantinople indicates the extent to which the Byzantine state felt the need to draw on its newly reconquered western assets. This western supply became all the more necessary after the loss of the Levantine provinces, as well as Egypt, to the Arabs. This is surely the reason why one can detect an increase in Constantinopolitan cooking wares and a drop in north Palestinian ones in Marseille in the second half of the 7th century. The Tunisian amphorae in these Aegean, Black Sea-Danubian, as well as Constantinopolitan contexts are always scarce, the tiny spatheia carrying fish products or perhaps olives, being the most common finds. The notable quantities of ARS, but not Tunisian amphorae in Constantinople may be proxy evidence for shipments of African grain. As regards Beirut one wonders to what extent the continuity of the supply of Sinopean, but no other Black Sea and Aegean amphora-borne goods (LRA 2 and Samian amphorae are scarce indeed in Beirut), was connected with the annona supply system, as returning cargoes on Levantine ships that had carried LRA 1s and Palestinian goods to the Aegean and the Black Sea (LRA 1 is particularly common both in Constantinople and on Black Sea, including Crimean, sites: Hayes 1992; Sasanov 1997 and 2007). Antioch, or rather the port of Seleucia, was clearly one of the main points of entry of Sinopean amphorae prior to their shipment south to Beirut. And Antioch throughout the 6th century was, of course, a key nodal point in the annona supply systems, both civica and militaris, until it fell to the Arabs and operations were transferred to Salamis.

153

Hispania and the Roman Mediterranean The Danube frontier was directly plugged into Levantine supplies transported by a body of navicularii who were coordinated by first the Praetorian Prefect of the East and, later, the quaestor exercitus. Butrint, with its shift after c. 550 to an eastern, particularly AegeanAsia Minor and Cretan, supply of imports (amphorae as well as LRC) also underscores its place in an eastern, not western, supply network in the period following the Byzantine reconquest. It is notable that here quantities of both LRA 1 and Palestinian amphorae drop after 550 (Table 25a-b; LRA 1, from 34.6 to 4.8%). The supply of an unusual range of Aegean-Asia Minor amphorae to Butrint from the 5th to late 6th centuries that only partly and in smaller numbers reached certain ports in the West is a phenomenon that demonstrates Butrint’s special connections with the Aegean, as well as indicating the port’s location on the Aegean supply route to Ravenna, southern Italy and southern Gaul (Reynolds forthcoming c, fig. 6). That the Cretan amphorae of the mid 5th century reached Butrint and certain major western ports (Marseille, Tarragona) whereas those of c. 450 to 600 were supplied in quantity to Butrint, but went no further west, is further indication of the closed regionalisation of commercial contacts we have been discussing (Reynolds forthcoming c). Butrint in the mid 3rd century, we may also note, had some contact with the Black Sea, or at least with the trafficking of goods from the Black Sea, but only Kapitän 2, not the fish amphorae of Sinope or the Crimea that reached Brindisi. However, from the 4th century onwards Butrint was not in contact with the Black Sea, apart from the odd Chersonesos amphora, Sinopean goods, as we have seen, being marketed within the Danube, perhaps less in the Aegean, but reaching the Levant in quantity. The Aegean contacts based on Phocea and sites in the orbit of Samos, quite possibly direct ones established with Butrint, did not lead to the additional on-loading of Black Sea goods and their redistribution to Butrint. The Sinopean ‘argile claire’ amphorae have yet to be attested anywhere in the West, even at Carthage, whereas this is not so in the case of Samian or ‘Ikarian’ amphorae or, of course, LRC. In other words, unlike the ships sailing from Constantinople, the Aegean or Asia Minor, Black Sea ships did not travel out of the Aegean and westwards, at least with amphoraborne cargoes. Benghazi and Tocra, within the diocese of Egypt and Byzantine strongholds during the late 6th up to the 640s, were major importers of LRC, LRA 1 and LRA 2, as well as ARS, but rarely Tunisian amphorae. The range of imports would suggest that they were, to some extent, served by the Aegean-Levantine military supply system. However, they, like Butrint, lack the Black Sea imports that dominate the military supply of the Danube forts. There are some parallels with the post-550 supply of Butrint (LRC, LRA 1, LRA 2), but we may note the lack of the possible Cretan LRA 2 variants, as well as Samian and related products that are characteristic of Butrint. Quantities of Aegean imports in Alexandria seem too low (3%

154

5. Conclusions in the late 6th century, dropping further in the 7th) to suggest that they were redistributed from there to Cyrenaica (Majcherek 2004, 233-4; Marchand and Marangou [eds] 2007). These eastern (annona) supply networks should be distinguished from the Tunisian-dominated supply of Koper and other sites in the northeastern Adriatic, the latter falling under the praetorian praefecture of Italy. The Byzantine capital of Ravenna, however, continued to be wellconnected to both western and eastern sources (Table 23, Phase 4), as was Rome (i.e. the Crypta Balbi) in the second half of the 7th century. The Umayyad Caliphate, in the decades following the conquests of the Levant and Egypt, actually at war with Byzantium on a yearly basis, allowed its Christian subjects to continue wine production in their monasteries and the Church to collect its rents in wheat and send these goods to western ports, notably to Rome, Marseille, Carthage and even Tarragona. No doubt the Umayyads benefited from these exports by imposing taxes as they left the port of Alexandria. The major role of the Church in this enterprise, as well as in exports of similar products to Beirut in the later Umayyad period should not be underestimated. Whereas the mid 6th century saw Benalúa flooded with an exceptionally wide range of long-distance imports, the Vinalopó Valley, a buffer zone between the areas under Visigothic and Byzantine control, was left to its own devices following the Byzantine reconquests and remained isolated throughout the 7th century. Carthago Nova, like Malaca, was abandoned by the Visigoths after its sack in 621/625 in favour of a more defensive inland site, at Orihuela (Reynolds 1993). The Visigoths in the south-east were not interested in maintaining trade connections with the Mediterranean or even with the cities of north-eastern Spain. The same can be said for the rest of what was once Byzantine-held Hispania. The Arabs, a decade or so following the sack of Carthage, quickly overran southern Spain, including Murcia and Alicante, and moved northwards, by 714 reaching Tarragona, which they sacked and abandoned. The south-east was again left to obscurity and to fend for itself for several more centuries. The scarcity of settlement that can be identified and dated to the 8th century in the Vinalopó Valley could indicate that the valley was largely abandoned at this time. Settlement only gradually reappeared, and always on easily defensible hill top sites, in the course of the 9th century. But it was not until the 10th century that the Vinalopó Valley and south-eastern Spain in general (Almería, Murcia, Alicante, Valencia), demonstrate both a major increase in large, defended, hilltop settlements cultivating their immediate territories and the establishment of new, major lowland centres with their economies focused on irrigation agriculture (the huerta cities of Murcia and Elche). The hand-made and slow wheelmade cooking pots, amphorae and painted wares that were to emerge in the course of the 8th to 10th centuries in the south-east formed a

155

Hispania and the Roman Mediterranean distinctive regional assemblage that traces its roots back to some of the underlying economies that were a feature of the late Roman and Visigothic periods. As in the Visigothic 7th century, and in contrast to the late Roman period, this was a self-sufficient world that survived without imports.

156

Appendix Pottery noted in the text and/or illustrations (plates 1-148) of Reynolds (1993) The Pottery Catalogue for my study of the Vinalopó Valley (Alicante) (Reynolds 1993) was published only in microfiche form, thus rendering the pottery plates practically unusable (my intention had been for the Pottery Catalogue, Typology and Site Index to be available for cross-referencing). The reader (including myself) has no means of identifying the sites from which the pottery on the plates derive. So that this large body of pottery data may be, in part, more accessible, I thought it might be useful to list below the pottery noted in the text and/or illustrations of that volume (plates 1-148). The sites, but for a few noted examples, are described in the Site Index. There is still a large amount of listed pottery not illustrated (and without a Catalogue number). The reader will still have to read the microfiches for the full Catalogue until I find a means to publish this material in another format (for example, none of the pottery catalogued under the Villa of Vizcarra 2 [Site 95] was illustrated or received Catalogue numbers). The Catalogue entries (mostly illustrated) are in bold. Note also that the Site Index contains summaries of the pottery found on each site and pottery and general information that is not covered in the Catalogue. La Isleta (Campello) Site 2: 1-3; Tossal de Manises, Site 25: 4-21; Site 2 or 25: 22-7; Parque de la Naciones, Site 21: 28-50; Necrópolis (La Albufera), Site 28: 51-3; Necrópolis (La Albufera), Site 19: 54; Monte Benacantil, Site 37: 55-116; Benalúa, Site 42.4: 117-835 (for the full catalogue and illustration of the fine wares, see Reynolds 1987; for full catalogue of other pottery, see Reynolds 1995, appendix C.1); Benalúa, Pablo Rosser Limiñana excavations: 836; Benalúa ‘D. Soler’: 837; Benalúa unprovenanced, material collected by Padre Belda: 838-9 and white marble dish, 841; Benalúa, Calle Doctor Soler/Calle Guardiola: 842; Santa Pola Cisterns, Site 47.1: 843-71; Ermita de Fontcalent, Site 50: 872-962; Cerro de San Miguel, Site 63: 963-85; Motor de la Hoya (Cox), Site 59: 986-94; Sierra del Cristo

157

Appendix (Arneva), Site 67: 995-1011; Cabezicos Verdes (Arneva), Site 65: 1012-18; Cabezo de la Fuente, Site 66: 1019-28; Necrópolis de la Molineta (Puerto de Mazarrón, 1982 excavations: not in Site Index): 1029-32; Ventorillo de Carabases, Site 76: 1033-44; Villa of Irles, Site 82: 1044a-b; La Alcudia/Ilici, Museum cabinets (and some in Palacio de Altamira store): 1045-91, 1092 (complete Keay 1, not illustrated = Ramos Fernández 1975, 215, Lám CXXXII.6), 1093-227; La Alcudia, Ramos Fernández 1980 excavations: 1228-37; La Alcudia, 1981 excavations, Site 92.G (appendix E for details): 1238-316; La Alcudia, 1984 excavations: 1317-35; unprovenanced, Ibarra Ruiz Collection, Palacio de Altamira (probably at or near La Alcudia): 1336-45; La Moleta (Elche), Site 130: 1346-37, 1437bis; El Castellar de la Morera (Elche), Site 131: 1438-78; Castillo del Rio (Apse), Site 133: 1478a-b, 1479-551, 1551bis; Necrópolis de Vistalegre, Site 134: 1553-7; El Sambo, Site 139: 1558-20; Monte Bolón (Elda: not in Site Index): 1621; Los Sifones (Elda: not in Site Index): 1622-3; Monte Cámara, Site 153: 1624-36; El Monastil (Elda), Site 156: 1637-897; El Castillarets (Petrel), Site 161: 1898-912; La Torre (Sax), Site 167: 1913-15; Candela (Villena), Site 175: 1916-21; Casas del Campo (Villena), Site 181: 1922-7; Denia, Sant Telm, 1987 excavations, Site 203: 1928, 1929, 1931; Denia, Hort de Morand, 1987 excavations, Site 203: 1930; Necrópolis del El Enginent (Baños de la Reina, Calpe), Site 213: 1932; Necrópolis de El Albir (Villajoyosa), Site 215: 1933; Torre la Cruz (Villajoyosa), Site 216: 1934-9; Castillarets de Busot, Site 219: 1940-5; El Castellar (Alcoy), Site 221: 1946-59; Benalúa Site 42.3 (appendix D for details of my 1983 excavations on Calle Castellar: plates 99-102): 1960-2079.

158

Maps

159

Map 1. The Iberian Peninsula and Balearic Islands: principal sites mentioned in the text.

160

161

Map 2. Principal sites mentioned in the text.

Map 3. The Augustan provinces of Hispania, showing conventus divisions and capitals, with the road network (from Keay 1988, 61).

162

Map 4. Distribution of terra sigillata hispánica production sites (from Saenz Preciado and Saenz Preciado 1999, fig. 2).

Map 5. Distribution of Dressel 20 and Dressel 23 kiln sites on the Guadalquivir and tributaries (from Remesal 1983, fig. 1).

163

Map 6. Fish sauce and coastal amphora production sites.

164

Map 7. The distribution of TSH and TSHT production centres, 3rd century to 5th century (from Juan Tovar 1997, fig. 1) and the distribution of terra sigillata meridional (from Orfila Pons 1995, fig. 4).

165

Map 8. Distribution of terra sigillata hispánica tardía (Mayet 1984, fig. 16).

166

Map 9. Distribution of burnished imitations of terra sigillata (‘cerámica bruñida de imitación de terra sigillata’) (from Juan Tovar and Blanco García 1997, figs 1 and 11).

167

Map 10. Distribution of terra sigillata hispánica brillante (from Caballero Zoreda and Juan Tovar 1987).

168

Map 11. Distribution of painted wares (from Abascal Palazón 1986).

169

170

Map 12. Distribution of Late Roman C in the western Mediterranean (top, LRC 3 from Valencia: Pascual et al. 1997, fig. 7).

Figures

171

Fig. 1. Tunisian cooking ware imports in Hispania, 3rd century, mid 5th century and mid 6th century examples (Casas and Nolla 1993; Macias 1999; Reynolds 1993).

172

Fig. 2. 3rd and 4th century Tunisian amphorae: Keay 3, 7, 25 and 27 (from Remolà i Vallverdú 2000a).

173

174

Fig. 3. Typological development of Baetican oil amphorae Dressel 20 to Dressel 23/Keay 13 (Berni Millet 1998, fig. 3).

Fig. 4. The Cabrera III wreck, c. 257. Baetican, Lusitanian and Tunisian amphorae. a: Dressel 20 (Guadalquivir); b: Tejarillo I (Guadalquivir); c: Keay 16 (Algarve? or Cádiz); d: Keay 23/Almagro 51C (Baetican or Lusitanian); e: Beltrán 72 (Baetican); f: Beltrán 68 (Baetican); g: Keay 6 (Tunisian) (Tunisian Keay 7 present on wreck, not illustrated) (from Bost et al. 1992, fig. 16).

175

Fig. 5. Late Imperial amphorae of Lusitania, Baetica, Tarraconensis (Remolà i Vallverdú 2000a; Étienne and Mayet 2002, fig. 46: Lusitana 9) and Murcia (Ramallo Asensio 1985, fig. 2).

176

Fig. 6. Western Mediterranean Mid and Late Imperial wine amphorae (from Remolà i Vallverdú 2000a, except where indicated).

177

Fig. 7. South Gaulish Late Roman table wares (Rigoir 1968, 178).

Fig. 8. Terra sigillata hispánica tardía (TSHT) decorated and plain forms (Roca Roumens and Fernández Garcia 1999).

178

Fig. 9. Coarse burnished imitation of sigillata. Small and large jar forms (Juan Tovar 1997, fig. 5.36 and 41).

Fig. 10. Painted Wares (Abascal Palazón 1986): Segobriga Ware, Forms 21, 22 and 24; Mérida Ware, Form 41.

Fig. 11. Terra sigillata meridional (Orfila Pons 1995).

179

Fig. 12. Eastern Mediterranean amphorae. Late Roman Amphora 1-5, and the ‘Samos cistern’ amphora type.

180

Fig. 13. Regional(/provincial) amphorae of the Levantine provinces, 2nd to 6th centuries (from Reynolds 2005b, map 2).

181

Fig. 14. The origins and development of the Late Roman Amphora 1 type from the 1st to 7th centuries AD (from Reynolds 2008).

182

Fig. 15. Relative percentages of principal eastern Mediterranean amphora forms in the British (Habib Bourghiba site) and Italian excavations at Carthage (from Reynolds 1995, fig. 158).

183

Fig. 16a. First phase of Vandal exports, 430/400-500, typical forms (examples from the Vinalopó Valley, Alicante).

Fig. 16b. Second phase of Vandal exports, c. 500-533, typical forms.

184

Fig. 17. Buff ware bowls with spout, 5th and 6th century examples from Tarragona and Benalúa (Alicante).

185

Fig. 18i. Tarragona. Macias Olla 17.3 (end of 5th century+). Local globular cooking pot of Aegean type. Fig. 18a-h. Benalúa (Alicante), mid 6th century. Wheelmade cooking ware imports and Lycian unguentarium (from Reynolds 1993 and 1995).

186

Fig. 19. Imported handmade and slow-wheelmade kitchen wares in the Vinalopó Valley, from the 4th to mid 6th centuries (from Reynolds 1993, typology). a-e: from Murcia, Barcelona and Tarragona; f-k: From south-central Mediterranean workshops

187

Fig. 20. Local amphora forms of the Vinalopó Valley (Alicante), from the 5th to mid 6th centuries (Reynolds 1993)

188

Fig. 21. Late Imperial and Byzantine Balearic (Ibizan) wine amphora forms. a: L’Illa de Cullera, Reynolds 1993, Ware 4.1 (García Villanueva and Roselló Mesquida 1993); b: Tossal de Manises (La Albufera de Alicante), Reynolds 1993 Ware 4.1 (Reynolds 1993, plate 52.592bis); c: Ibiza, Keay 79 (Ramón 1986, fig. 10); d: Benalúa (Alicante), Keay 79 (Reynolds 1993, plate 52, figs 1154, 1156 and 1157); e: Carthage, Keay 79 (Riley 1981, fig. 7.6); f: Luni, Keay 79 (Lusuardi Siena and Murialdo 1991, fig. 2).

189

Fig. 22. Cartagena (C. Soledad). Byzantine African Red Slip Ware (ARS) from the early 7th century well deposit.

Fig. 23b. Cartagena. (Ramallo et al. 1996, fig. 5.222). Ibizan amphora in buff ware. Fig. 23a. Cartagena (C. Soledad). Byzantine period amphorae from the early 7th century well deposit.

190

Fig. 24a. Seventh century Constantinopolitan cooking pots: a: Saraçhane. Macias Olla 62 (Hayes 1992, Deposit 30); b: Tarragona. Macias Olla 66.2 (Macias 1999, Fig. 56); c: Rome, Crypta Balbi (Saguì, Ricci and Romei 1997, fig. 4.14).

Fig. 24b. North Palestinian cooking ware (‘brittle ware’) (‘Workshop X’ ware/Tell Keisan?), late 6th to 7th century forms (Lebanese examples).

Fig. 24. Eastern Mediterranean wheelmade cooking ware exports to the West.

191

Fig. 25. Amphorae of the final Byzantine phase, 650-700. a: S. Antonino di Perti. ‘Anfora globulare a fondo ombelicato’/Bonifay 2004 Type 65 (Murialdo 1988); b: Crypta Balbi, Rome. ‘Anfora globulare a fondo ombelicato’/Bonifay 2004 Type 65 (from Saguí, Ricci and Romei 1997, fig. 2.4); c: Tarragona. Spatheia (1-2), globular Tunisian amphorae (3; 4?), Riley LRA 13? (5) and Fulford and Peacock Carthage Form 58 (6) (Remola i Vallverdú 2000, fig. 46.1-6); d: Marseille. Keay 62Q /Bonifay 2004 Type 47 ; e: S. Antonino di Perti. Keay 8A/Bonifay Type 50 (Murialdo 1988); f: Tarragona. Keay 50 (Keay fig. 115.1). Fig. 26. Crypta Balbi, Rome. South(-west) Italian imitation of Riley LRA 13, 8th century (from Saguí, Ricci and Romei 1997, fig. 6.2).

192

Fig. 27. Umayyad Beirut, c. 700-750. Imports of Egyptian Red Slip Ware (a), Palestinian amphorae, from Caesarea, (b: LRA 5) and Beth Sh’an (c: LRA 6), and Egyptian amphorae, from the Lower Nile (d: LRA 7), Lake Mariout (e: LRA 5 imitation), Abu Mena (f: LRA 5 imitation) and north-eastern Egypt (g: Egloff 167, imitation of Aegean LRA 13).

193

Fig. 28. Vinalopó Valley (Alicante). 7th century local and close regional handmade wares (cooking pot and amphora). Fig. 29. Visigothic period bottles and jugs from sites in the Vinalopó Valley (Alicante) and Málaga.

194

Fig. 30. El Zambo (Vinalopó Valley, Alicante). 9th century amphorae; c: with painted bands (Gutierrez 1996, Forms T10 and 11).

195

Tables

197

198

199

200

201

202

203

204

205

206

207

208

209

210

211

212

213

214

215

216

217

218

219

220

221

222

223

224

225

226

227

228

229

230

231

232

Notes 1. For a summary of the principal themes of this book in Spanish, see Reynolds (2007). The final draft was completed in March 2009. I have tried to update the original version (written in 2004) as much as possible. In a recent paper (Reynolds forthcoming c) the supply systems of the Mediterranean were presented from a more eastern Mediterranean perspective, leading to a somewhat different evaluation of the development of the Mediterranean economy to that of Reynolds (2005a). 2. Reynolds (e.g. 2003d and 2005b). As the reader will gather, my ongoing work on the Anglo-Lebanese excavations in the port of Beirut (in preparation a), as well as data gathered on Butrint (Reynolds 2002 and 2004; in preparation b) and, more recently, in Athens (Reynolds in preparation c) are drawn on heavily throughout this book. My general observations based on these and other eastern Mediterranean ports are now presented in Reynolds (forthcoming c). The past and ongoing work of John Hayes is of course always fundamental and guides us all (Paphos, Knossos, Athens, Beirut, and much more: just take a look at Hayes [1997 and 2000] for an idea of his scope). The careful, ongoing work of Kathleen Slane in Corinth (notably recently the publication of an important series of 5th to 7th century deposits: Slane and Sanders [2005]) and Majcherek in Alexandria (2004) are major contributions in this field. Dominique Pieri’s work on amphorae in the East is a major step forward (2005), particularly for his novel definition of amphora capacities. The bibliography on eastern Mediterranean ceramics is continuing to expand (see Eiring and Lund [eds] 2004). Roberta Tomber has been documenting Roman trade with India (Tomber 2004). A recent Round Table on the production and trade of amphorae in the Black Sea held at Batumi and Trabzon promises to be extremely useful, and an important series of papers focusing on Egypt has recently been published (Marchand and Marangou 2007). We will hopefully see the final publication of the American excavations in Caesarea, where quantified deposits have so far offered tantalising data (Blakely 1996). 3. For the ancient sources useful key books still are García y Bellido (1953/1985) and Schulten (1955). A major resource also are the various Spanish volumes of the Tabula Imperii Romani, coordinated by G. Fatás, of the Unión Académica Internacional (CSIC, Instituto Geográfico Nacional, Ministerio de Cultura). 4. For the administration and organisation of the Spanish provinces, see Marghetti (1917) and Albertini (1923). For late Antiquity and the Arab period, see Vallvé (1986). For the road and communications systems, see Roldán Hervás (1973) and Sillières (1990). 5. Abad (1975). 6. Sillières (1990), for the most thorough study of the Roman road system. The route of the Via Augusta in the south-east followed that of another Repubican road that ran through the Vinalopó Valley to the port of Cartagena/Carthago Nova, passing through the new Augustan colony of Ilici/La Alcudia de Elche and

233

Notes to pages 8-9 Carthago Nova, but adding a new stretch to the west (in 8 BC) that took in the Augustan colonies of Basti/Baza, Eliocroca/Lorca, Acci/Guadix and Mentesa/La Guardia, before meeting the Herculea again, at Castulo/Cazlona (Reynolds 1993, 4-5, figs 11-12; Sillières 1977). Though Sillières (1988) has argued that the Augustan section that linked Carthago Nova to Castulo via Basti was shortlived, it is clear that this road was important in the mid and later Roman periods from its rebuilding and use under Caracalla (211-217), Numerian (283-284) and Constantius I (293-306). Nor should we underestimate the significance of this route following the creation of the new Diocletianic province of Carthaginiensis, its capital being Carthago Nova. 7. See Ponsich (1974; 1979) for his extensive survey of the Guadalquivir and the associated centuriation network(s). For the centuriation of Mérida, see Gorges (1983). For studies of Roman settlement and landscape, see Ariño, Gurt and Palet (2004). For Roman agriculture in Baetica, see Sáez Fernández (1987). For the annona and the Baetican oil industry, see Remesal Rodríguez (1986) and Blázquez and Remesal Rodríguez (eds) (1983). 8. Blázquez (1975; 1978). For horses and associated metalwork, Ripoll (1994; 1998). 9. Even though this seems a fabulous creation of the collective mind, it is nonetheless interesting bearing in mind the important of wood in both ship building and mining (for the latter, Pliny, Natural History 33.67). For the possible impact of ship-building on the landscape, note that, for a later period, it is thought that large tracts of forest in Spain were irrevocably stripped bare in order provide the timber needed to construct the Great Armada of 1588. 10. Blázquez (1957). 11. For late Roman villas and culture in Hispania, see Arce (1997); the Actas del Congreso Internacional La Hispania de Teodosio, Segovia-Coca 1995. Segovia, 1997; Gorges (1979); Arce and Ripoll (2001); Bowes (2005); and, most recently, Fernández Ochoa, García-Entero and Gil Sendino (eds) (2008). 12. For Arab and Medieval irrigation systems in Valencia, see Glick (1970; 2007). For Arab irrigation in the Balearics, see Barceló (1986). For Roman irrigation in Valencia, see here, n. 14. 13. Gozálvez Pérez (1974). See Reynolds (1993, esp. fig. 15), for the possible extension of this system, or the existence of other systems further inland, beyond Monforte del Cid. Known villa sites within the centuriation system are also located here and in ibid. (fig. 6). 14. Reynolds (unpublished). In the Roman period there were two systems of canals running from the left and right banks of the River Turia. On the left bank, large-scale aqueducts, large canals, smaller channels, both rock-cut and built in cement, as well as castella and smaller tanks have survived, at least until recently when I saw they them in 1978. The pioneer work on these Roman irrigation systems, clearly similar to those of Roman north Africa, was done in the 1950s and 1960s by Nicolau-Primitiu Gómez Serrano. It was his grandson Lluís Zalbidea Gómez who continued to gather data on the Roman irrigation works, generously shared the documentation with me, and sent me on my way to ‘rediscover’ the system. My own minor contribution was to provide a guide to the dating of the villa sites on the coast and elsewhere and to suggest that the Roman colony of Valentia, its centuriation, irrigation systems and villa sites in the region should be treated as a single unit, functioning just as the medieval city and its modern successor. For a Hadrianic inscription on the lex rivi hiberiensis found in Ebro Valley that confirms that such Roman irrigation systems in Spain are not a figment of our

234

Notes to pages 10-17 imagination, see F. Beltrán Lloris (2006: my thanks to Andrew Wilson for informing of this). 15. The route beginning in Mérida, passes through Cáceres, Plasencia, Béjar, Salamanca, Zamora, Benavente and Astorga. 16. For a very readable and informative book on all aspects of Roman Spain, the source of much of this short section, see Keay (1988). See above, n. 4, for more on the provincial administration. 17. Keay (1988, 12-16). For the general theme of early colonisation in the West, see Cunliffe (1988). Phoenician settlement and archaeology is admirably presented by Aubet (2001). 18. For maps illustrating the gradual expansion of the two provinces from 197 to 133 BC, see Keay (1988, 26). 19. Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum II; see also Alföldy’s masterful works on the subject, e.g. on the Baebii of Saguntum/Sagunto (1977); for Roman urbanism in Hispania, see Cunliffe and Keay (eds) (1995), Bendala Galán (ed.) (1993), and an excellent bibliographical summary offered by Abascal Palazón (1995). 20. See García Vargas (1998) for the kiln sites of the Bay of Cádiz. 21. For written sources referring to the Spanish fish sauce industries, see Curtis (1991, 46-64). 22. See Keay (1988, ch. 5) and Haley (2003) for some of the personalities involved and the range of goods traded. The majority of shipwrecks summarised by Parker (1995) are early Imperial and illustrate the complex cargoes that were carried. For the Roman wine trade, see Tchernia (1986). 23. The fundamental work on the t. s. hispánica industries are those of Mezquíriz (1961); Roca Roumens (1976), on Andújar; Garabito Gómez (1978), on the La Rioja workshops; Mayet (1984), on thin-walled wares. 24. Hayes (1972; 1980). Notably ARS forms 8A, 9A, popular from c. 120-180: e.g. at Ampurias, Badalona, Valencia. For Spanish finds, see Hayes (1972); Aquilué i Abadias (1987); Reynolds (1995, ch. 2). See also Alonso de la Sierra Fernández (1998), for finds in Orippo, Italica, Munigua and Corduba, though this is not accompanied by stratigraphic data; for Valencia, see Reynolds (1984) and the summary of ceramic finds on tables in Pascual Berlanga and Ribera i Lacomba (2000). 25. For studies of Tunisian and Italian cooking wares, see for Valencia: Marín Jordá (1995); for the Ebro Valley: Aguarod Otal (1995); for Tarragona: Aquilué (i Abadias) (1995); for the Guadalquivir Valley: Sánchez (1995) and Alonso de la Sierra Fernández (1998). See also Járrega Domínguez (1991) for a general survey of the ARS distribution. For the effects of the eruption of Vesuvius on Campanian production, see Williams (2004) and Arthur and Williams (1992). 26. Alonso de la Sierra (1998). 27. See Reynolds (1995, 41-2, 45), for evidence for the organisation of grain exports to Rome from Numidia and Africa Proconsularis. 28. See Carreras Monfort (2000). 29. Panella (1983, 238). 30. Keay 3/Africana I (Fig. 2a), the most common Tunisian amphora on Monte Testaccio, certainly carried oil, while other Tunisian forms carried fish and possibly also oil. Finds of Tunisian amphorae in the harbour of Marseille also clearly indicate that oil was not always carried in many of the forms of this and later periods (Bonifay and Pieri 1995; Bonifay 2004, 471-5); See Keay (1984a), for his comment on contents in each case; see also Gibbins and Parker (1986) for comments on the cargo of the Plemmirio Wreck. For Tunisian fish amphorae, see also below, n. 41.

235

Notes to page 17 31. For a detailed analysis of the history of the Testaccio within the context of the food supply of Rome and the various massive warehouses built for the purpose from the 2nd century BC onwards (for grain, and later oil), together with the history of the archaeological work carried out there, see Aguilera Martín (2002). That the last documented activity dates to the reign of Gallienus is no coincidence. It would seem that the vast complex of warehouses and the Testaccio that had so long served the city went out of use with the construction of the Aurelian Wall, there being no gates provided to allow access to the city. In further support of this argument, the last platform that served as access to the Testaccio during the 3rd century is at a much lower level than the older platforms that had become impractical. Even though the Testaccio could therefore have continued in use for several more decades, this was not the case (Aguilera Martín 2002: 203, 212-18; see also Aguilera Martín and Revilla Calvo 2005, for a more recent summary). 32. Reynolds (1995, appendix D.14). 33. The Testaccio comprises almost exclusively Baetican oil amphorae (from c. 80-85% of contexts), with varying numbers of Tunisian (Africana IA/Keay 3A, Africana 1B/Keay 3B, Africana II; Ostia XXIII and LIX) and Tripolitanian (Tripolitana I-III) amphorae (Aguilera Martín and Revilla Calvo 2005, fig. 2; African amphora comprise from c. 15-19% of the total amphorae in some contexts excavated in the Testaccio). Note that the fish sauce amphora Africana IIA/Keay 4 was relatively rare, though notably present (so it could carry oil, but was normally for fish sauce: Bonifay 2004, 471-5). These represent only state oil-annona imports. Other amphorae, some usually used for transporting wine, not oil, such as western amphorae Gauloise 4, Italian Dressel 2-4, Lusitanian Keay 16 or 22/Almagro 50, Beltrán IIA and eastern Mediterranean forms Crétoise 1 (Agora G 197) and Asia Minor Dressel 24/Knossos 18, are rare, but significant finds. For the latter, see now Blázquez Martínez and Remesal Rodríguez (eds) (2007). Peña (2007, 299-306) makes the interesting point that it is possible that the high percentage of Baetican amphorae with respect to Tunisian and Tripolitanian sources on the Testaccio may be due to the more recyclable nature of the latter two with respect to the Dressel 20. The thinner African containers seem to have been processed in a different manner, some off-site (perhaps in the horrea), whereas the Dressel 20s were carried up the hill and systematically broken. That this did not happen always is evident in the finds of Tunisian and Tripolitanian oil amphora rims on the Testaccio (e.g. Revilla Calvo 2001; Aguilera Martín and Revilla Calvo 2005). Berni Millet (1998) may well be right in suggesting that the diminutive Tejarillo I Baetican oil amphora, as well as, I would add, the similar Dressel 23, the late 3rd to 5th century successor to the Dressel 20 parva, were both similarly favoured. From Aurelian onwards, if not before his reign, they were transported direct, intact with their oil, to the redistribution points within the city (the mensae oleariae) (or to shops that sold Baetican oil, whether from annona or non-annona sources). I would also point out that the free distribution of oil, Baetican, Tunisian and Tripolitanian, following the mode of the well-established corn dole, did not commence regularly until Severus (SHA, Sev., 18.3 and 23.2: populo romano diurno oleum gratuitum et fecundissimum in aeternam donavit; see also Sirks (1991, 390) and Berni Millet (1998, 47ff). The Scriptores Historiae Augustorum claim that this was done to make up for the oil deficit created by the excesses of Commodus (SHA., Com., 14) and that Severus, at his death, had enough oil in the state warehouses to supply Rome and all Italy for 5 years (olei verum tantum ut per quinqennium non solum urbis usibus sed et totius Italiae, quae oleo egebat, sufficeret). The supply

236

Notes to page 18 of Tripolitanian oil (and grain) under Severus was largely from imperial estates, expanded through confiscations (Reynolds 1995, 42-5, 85, n. 1). The canon olearius instituted under Severus was surely one of the principal catalysts behind the similar confiscations in Baetica and the reorganisation of the Baetican oil supply to the capital. One wonders to what extent the Tunisian estates were similarly affected. This is not to say that Rome did not acquire Tunisian, Tripolitanian and of course Baetican oil (and grain) as annona goods previously: this was done as tax in kind (on imperial and private estates) or was bought on the open market, but was not distributed free. It belonged to the state to dispose of as needed. Secure supplies of grain were more important. It was this, not oil, that provided the catalyst that led to the building of the rapid succession of state warehouses by the Tiber during the 2nd century BC, as Rome acquired its new dominions and the city populace expanded. With this came the attention (by the state and certain individuals) to the organisation of the grain supply, through the praefectus annonae, as well as ad hoc free corn distributions. With the institution of a permanent corn dole under Caesar, the system continued under Augustus and Claudius saw the need to improve facilities, through the building of a new harbour closer to Rome at Ostia (than Puteoli) (Garnsey 1983 and 1988; Rickman 1980a). Oil was not considered a staple worth public concern until 74 BC (Aguilera Martín 2002, 94-5, with reference to the construction of the Horrea Seiana and the trade in Brindisian oil). But this, nevertheless, did not lead to regular free distributions, even of Spanish oil it would seem, until Severus. Though officials in charge of Tripolitanian oil distribution duly appear in the Severan period, the officers in charge of acquiring Tunisian oil existed already under Marcus Aurelius (the famous inscription referring to Sextus Iulius Possessor who was the assistant to the Praefectus Annonae for both shipments of ‘Spanish and African’ oil (adiutor praef(ecti) annonae ad oleum Afrum et Hispanum recensendum item solamina transferenda item vecturas naviculariis exsolvendas). There are thus different kinds of possible bias in the archaeological data of sites excavated in Rome (see also n. 125, for wine transferred to barrels, and the same paragraph, Text, for the possible re-use of smaller wine amphorae as oil containers for annona oil). Free Baetican oil and perhaps to a lesser extent Tunisian and Tripolitanian oil, all distributed under the annona, will not be represented (as oil was transferred to other containers). Dressel 20s when found in contexts in Rome should in theory only represent annona oil surpluses that were sold off, via merchants (like those found in Tarraconensis). The same case applies to Africana 1 and Tripolitana II-III. Given the size of oil rations, the African amphorae would surely, eventually, also have been decanted (at the horrea by the Tiber or in the various distribution points, at the mensae oleariae in the regiones: see n. 126). The same should apply to the Dressel 23 over the late 3rd to 5th centuries, as these small amphorae, though easily transportable, still carried more than a single oil ration and would also have been decanted at the mensae oleariae. 34. AD 64-68, 0.4% and 0.3%; AD 80/90, 1.35%; AD 90-110, 1.4%; AD 130-150, 15.2%. 35. The Tripolitanian source of the small bifid handle amphora Mau 35, which account for the ‘Tripolitanian wine’ figures at Ostia is now confirmed by the discovery of a group of massive kilns in the outskirts of modern Tripoli/Oea, which I was fortunate to see in 1997. The fairly clean, buff fabric of these amphorae is quite distinct to that of the typical lime-rich products of the Tripolitanian Gebel south of Lepcis Magna (Tripolitana I-III). 36. See Panella (1992; 1993, 696, fig. 15) and Ciotola et al. (1989) for import

237

Notes to page 18 figures for these contexts in Rome (Table 1a-b): wine amphorae of ‘Africa Proconsularis’ include figures for the table amphora Schöne-Mau 35, produced in Tripoli/Oea (see n. 35). For Tripolitanian oil, see Reynolds (1995, 45), Keay (1984a) and Mattingly (1995). Panella provides figures for oil imports at Ostia (1983: here reproduced as Table 2b). However her figures for Tripolitanian imports differ from those given by Anselmino et al. (1986). This may be due, in the latter case, to the inclusion of Schöne-Mau 35 under Tripolitania. It should be noted that Panella (1986, 229-31), states that the number of rims recovered at Ostia of the earliest Tunisian amphorae, Ostia LIX and XXIII, dating from c. 50-200, are as high as 140 and 103 respectively. The percentages given by Panella for contexts at Rome (1992: here Table 1a) are for the full range of imports (oil, fish sauce, wine, fruit, etc.). 37. For the storage of grain on ships and the grain supply in general, see Garnsey (1983; 1988) and Rickman (1980a and b). 38. Reynolds (1995, 12-14, 45-7, 106-11); Keay (1984a, 408-31). 39. For taxation in money and in kind, see Duncan-Jones (1990). Reynolds (1995, 45-6); Gascou (1982). It is probable that Severus granted Carthage ius italicum, immunity from the payment of state land tax, in recognition of Carthage’s loss of city revenues due to the recent allocation of colonial rights to many of her former subjects. 40. Hayes (1972, 453-4, map 2: ARS 3B-C, 4A, 5A, 6A; map 3, Forms 8A, 9A); Reynolds (1995, 12-14). Hayes (1980, 514-15), argued that, though he upheld a Flavian date for the first, early exports of the ware (cf. presence at Pompeii), his Trajanic dating for the first major exports of the common 2nd century ARS forms 8A, 9A, etc., proposed in Late Roman Pottery (Hayes 1972, 33-7: ARS 8A, c. 80/90-160+; ARS 9A, c. 100-160+) was too early and should be allocated to the Hadrianic period (to c. 110-120, rather than c. 90-100). He also noted that a fragment of ARS 9A was present in a wreck accompanied by a coin of Commodus and argued that the latest versions of rouletted ARS 8A and 9A should be extended to at least the 180s. The later, plain, versions such as 8B and 9B should continue ‘at least into the first two decades or so of the 3rd century’, and ‘the date-spans of the related late 2nd/early 3rd century forms (in Carandini’s A2 ware) should be extended accordingly’. For these, see Hayes (1972), 289: i.e. ARS 14-16, 17?, 27, 31, 44. For a good assemblage of Hadrianic-Antonine date at Pozzuoli/Puteoli, see Garcea, Miraglia and Soricelli (1983-4). The Barcelona ESF/ICREA exploratory workshop on late Roman fine wares (November 2008) has upheld the late dating of ARS 8B and 9B and in fact suggested that the dating be extended to encompass the first half of the 3rd century. Note the presence of ARS 17 and several examples of ARS 15 on the Cabrera III wreck (c. AD 257) and the presence of 8B and ARS 14C in the Beirut deposit BEY 006.5051, and an ARS 17 in BEY 006.10625, both of which I have dated to the mid 3rd century (Table 4a). For possible 3rd or even 4th century examples of ARS A forms at Sagunto, see Aranegui Gascó (1982) (see here n. 58). See Bonifay (2004, 156-9) for evidence presented for the 3rd and 4th century dating of forms 14C, 15 and 17, ARS 15 being one of the latest ARS A forms (c. 250-4th century). Note in particular the large example of ARS 15 from the 4th century necropolis of Draria el-Achour (Camps 1955; Bonifay 2004, 158, Type 8) and the 4th century example of ARS 14, with a grooved rim, found with several examples of ARS 44 and 58 and a cargo of primarily Tunisian (include Keay 6 with a tall neck, Keay 7 and rarer Keay 25) and Spanish amphorae (include Dressel 23, Keay 23) in the Femmina Morta wreck (Parker 1976-7). Alongside this late production we should place the late 4th century examples of the undecorated form ARS 10B found in Carthage

238

Notes to pages 19-20 (Tomber 1989; Hayes 1976, fig. 8.17), Sagunto (Aranegui Gascó 1982, fig. 12.22 and fig. 18.27-30; Aranegui Gascó et al.1988), Pollentia (Reynolds 1995, appendix D.9) and Porto Torres (Villedieu 1984; Reynolds 1995, appendix D.14) (see comments on this form in Reynolds 1995, 14-15). Fourth, including late 4th century finds of large examples of ARS 23B are also known (Bonifay 2004, 211; I would add here also the large examples in Sagunto-Grau Vell). 41. See Keay (1984a), 408-31, Period I amphorae, Keay forms 3-7. Keay’s emphasis on the use of Tunisian amphorae for the export of oil would seem to have underestimated their major role in the transport of fish sauce. Keay 4-7 generally carried fish products, as examples of some of these were found on the Plemmirio wreck (Parker and Gibbins 1986). Keay 4 could occasionally carry oil (see n. 33, for its presence on the Testaccio); for the Tunisian fish sauce industry see Ben Lazreg et al. (1995). Indeed, many of the Tunisian forms found in the harbour of Marseille were ‘lined’ and hence did not carry oil (Bonifay and Pieri 1995). For the excavation of a fish sauce factory on the north-east Tunisian coast at Nabeul/Neapolis see Slim et al. (1999). At this site in the 3rd century phase (Period 4C) fish sauce was bottled in Keay 5bis with a stepped rim ‘a doppio gradino’ (a regular exported form, to Beirut, for example, though in this case usually in the lime-rich fabric of Salakta/Sullecthum). In the 4th to early 5th century, pre Vandal phase (Period 5) at the Nabeul factory Keay 25 was used for this purpose, and in the Byzantine period, Keay 8A and small spatheia (Keay 26). 42. For Tarraconensis, see Keay (1984a), summarised in Reynolds (1995, appendix D.8). For new data on Santa Pola, see Márquez Villora (1999): Period I amphorae at Santa Pola comprise 7.4% of total amphorae, 53.1% of total NA, and 23.9% of total Late Roman amphorae. Forms of Period I are Keay 3A-B (40% of NA) and Keay 4-7; Keay 5 is high (21.4% of NA). For Mazarrón, see Pérez Bonet (1988). 43. For example, the villas of Puig Rodon and Tolegassos, with casseroles ARS 23B and 197. For the eastern Mediterranean, see Sackett (1992), for important sequences of 1st to 3rd century deposits at Knossos, where Tunisian amphorae are absent despite the large quantities of Tunisian fine ware and cooking ware imports. 44. Tarraconensian urban and rural sites with African cooking wares are too numerous to mention. See, for example, Valencia: Reynolds (1984); Grau-Vell, Sagunto: Aranegui Gascó (1992) and Reynolds (1995, 278-9, appendix D.5); the villa of Tolegassos, for a major early 3rd century deposit of ARS fine and cooking wares: Casas and Nolla (1993, 212), includes a useful summary of other similar material in the north-east and shipwrecks of the late 2nd to early 3rd centuries containing Tunisian cooking wares; the villa of Puig Rodon (Corçà, Lower Ampordán): Nolla and Casas (1990); at Baetulo/Badalona: Aquilué i Abadias (1987). 45. Pascual et al. (1997). 46. Remolà i Vallverdú (2000a, 105-7): site NEF/5. 47. Remolà i Vallverdú (2000a, 102-9): sites NEF/2, NEF/4 and NES/1. 48. Macias i Solé et al. (1997). One has to say that there is an appreciable number of possible 3rd century ARS, notably ARS A and C, in this assemblage (a drain deposit), though it definitely dates to the 4th century. Amphorae (33 vessels): Keay 3A (2), 3B, Keay 6 (3), Keay 7 (8), Mauretanian Keay 1B (4), unclassified African (2); Spanish: Keay 16, Keay 23 (3), Beltrán 68; Empoli (2) and unclassified (6). Fine wares (65 total) = ARS A: ARS 27 (6), 31 (11); ARS C: 41 (2), 45A (3), 48 (2), 49, 50A (35); 58B (4), 61. Another deposit from the Villa dels Hospitals (M1), dated 325-350, offers a very similar profile with regard to the fine ware and cooking ware imports. Of the few identified amphorae, one is Keay 7, another ‘Keay 35’ (though as there is no 5th century material this may be misidentified?).

239

Notes to pages 20-21 49. The sequences excavated at Valencia that illustrate the development of Tunisian coarse ware forms and variants, meticulously observed by Marín Jordá (1995), together with observation of the same from the excavations at Carthage itself, may help to clarify the dating of Spanish levels (and those of other regions where Tunisian imports were supplied) through the mid 2nd to 3rd centuries. 50. For Córdoba, see Moreno Almenara and Alarcón (1996). The 3rd and 4th century ARS form 50 may also have been copied, see Moreno Almenara and Alarcón (1994). For a recent summary of the evidence, see Aquilué (i Abadias) (2008). For early Roman kitchen wares in Spain, in general, see Cerámica comuna romana d’època Alto-Imperial a la Península Ibèrica. Estat de la questió. (Monografies Emporitanes 8). Museu d’Arqueología de Catalunya-Empúries. 51. For example, ARS 23, 196, 197: Reynolds (1993). Such villas include the villa of Fontcalent, villas in the centuriated territorium of Ilici and further inland, at Elda and Villena. 52. Reynolds (1993, plates 109.1052 and 1057), for early ARS C and A/D forms found at La Alcudia. Ramos Folques (1953) and Ramos Fernández (1975) for finds of ARS 48 and 50 found in well deposits (the ARS 49 is Reynolds [1993, Plate 109.1056]. Some of these were included and dated by Hayes to the 260s (1972: though as Ramos Folques ‘1963’), as ARS 48B.6 and ARS 50A.30-31. The latter ARS 49B, dated from 260-320, would have to be a very early example of Type B, as it is shallow and small in diameter, as Type A. For more information on both these 3rd century wells (and drains), see Reynolds (1993, Site 92, Site I.2-3). 53. As is regrettably frequently encountered, the fine wares of Conimbriga were published devoid of stratigraphic information, re-grouped according to wares and forms, and not presented as the discrete assemblages in which (one assumes) they were found. Another method of the analysis and presentation of the data, perhaps also taking root, could be quite misleading. In a recent article on the pottery of Corinth, trends in the supply of table wares, including ARS, were presented through time, 1st to 7th centuries, by quarter centuries (Slane 2000, figs 9-11). This was done not by presenting assemblages but by calculating values based on the quantities of forms spread over the full date range that can be attributed to them, dividing the figure into 25 year segments. The pottery of Olympia has received similar treatment (Martin 2004). At Corinth, even though there are, I understand, no deposits of 250-300, table wares for that period are interpolated into the graph. This assumes not only the continuity of supply (unproven) but also distorts the figures to the extent that they cannot be taken as credible evidence. As we have seen with respect to the dating of ARS exports in the West, and we shall see in the case of eastern Mediterranean Late Roman Amphorae 1-7 (LRA 1-7), one cannot assume that the date range encountered at one site is applicable to another. 54. Notably Keay 5 and 7, for example, in 4th century levels at Ostia and Porto Torres (Reynolds 1995, 47-50, appendix D.14, for Porto Torres). We have already commented on similar 4th century contexts in Tarragona, and similar late ARS C occurs in 4th century contexts in Valencia: see n. 57, and Pascual et al. (1997); for ARS at Sagunto-Grau Vell, see n. 58; See Table 9a for mid 4th century ARS C in Beirut. 55. Godard (1995, 296). 56. Pascual Berlanga and Ribera i Lacomba (2000, 568): Plaza Zaragoza Sector A, and Sector B-C. Notably these contain t. s. hispánica, south Gaulish terra sigillata and several Tarraconensian Dressel 2-4 amphorae and in the case of Sector B-C, Dressel 20 that suggest that they date earlier, rather than later in the

240

Notes to pages 21-22 3rd century. I have not been able to consult the reference given for these deposits: Escrivà (1989). 57. Pascual Berlanga and Ribera i Lacomba (2000, 569): Calle del Mar 19, dated 250-270, with ARS A, C, A/D, t. s. lucente and Tunisian cooking wares; Cortes Valencianas, dated 270-280, with ARS A, C, A/D and Tunisian cooking wares, and Tunisian Period I amphorae Keay 3 and 4; Plaza de la Almoina, dated 270-280, with ARS A and C, Tunisian cooking wares, and Tunisian Period I amphorae Keay 3 and 4, Dressel 30 and a mid Roman Ephesian LRA 3; Calle del Mar, dated 280-320, with ARS A, C, D, Tunisian cooking wares and Tunisian Period II amphorae Keay 25 and 41?, and Mauretanian Keay 1. See also Pascual et al. (1997) for a similar table, with some additional details, notably on the coins. 58. For a summary of 3rd to 4th century deposits with ARS at the port of Sagunto (Grau Vell), see Aranegui Gascó (1982), summarised in Reynolds (1995, 278-9, appendix D.5). Nivel 1 (400-450): ARS D (15), 21.4%, ARS C (12), 17.1%; ARS A (12), 17.1%; Lucente (15), 21.4%; Nivel 1B (mid 5th present, but most is probably late 4th century): ARS D (35), 26.7%; ARS C (34), 26.9%; ARS A (28), 22.2%; Lucente (11), 8.7%; Grise (4), 3.1%; TSH (7, 5.5%); Nivel II (coins from Philip to AD 408; 4th century ARS, up to 375, residuality depending on dates for TSH): ARS D (7), 32.7%; ARS C (36), 32.7%; ARS A (30), 27.2%; Lucente (2) (1.8%); TSH (23), 20.9%; south Gaulish t. s. (9), 8%; Nivel III (1st to 2nd century): Italian t. s.(19), 12.6%; south Gaulish t. s (26), 17.3%; TSH (15), 10%; ARS A (5), 3.3%. For Ostia, see comments in Reynolds (1995, 15). 59. López Mullor, Fierro Macia and Caixal Mata (1997) 60. For comments on mixed assemblages of amphorae and their dubious use as type deposits, see n. 377. 61. Lemaître (2000a, fig. 1): 31 minimum number of vessels, 3% of total amphorae. 62. Becker, Constantin and Villedieu (1989, 658, 659). 63. The same pattern can be observed with the contents of an early 3rd century shipwreck excavated in the harbour of Marseille, where Tunisian cooking wares and ARS table wares are common and Tunisian amphorae rare. See Bonifay, Carre and Rigoir (1998, 68-101, 382-5, tables VII-X). This is a fairly mixed cargo, as Aegean cooking pots and Pompeian Red Ware are also common and eastern Mediterranean amphorae were also carried. Gallic amphorae comprised the principal amphora cargo. For early to mid Roman eastern Mediterranean cooking ware imports in Provence, in general, see Pasqualini (1998). 64. 2 sherds, 0.16% and 1 sherd, 0.5% of the total amphorae, respectively. 65. 147 sherds, 11.99%. See Godard (1995, 296). 66. Found in contexts of the Herulian sack of 267 at Athens (Hayes 1972); the Sassanian sack of 253 at Zeugma: Philip Kenrick (forthcoming). A large deposit with ARS 50 in Beirut appears to date to the mid 3rd century, rather than 4th century, on the basis of amphorae and cooking wares, more indicative of date than the examples of ARS 50 (BEY 006.5051) (Table 4). Tunisian amphorae are present, but rare. Tunisian amphorae are rare in the early 3rd century also, but with equally rare Tunisian cooking ware and even rarer ARS. Quantities of ARS certainly increase in mid 3rd century (+) contexts in Beirut. Mid 3rd century ARS also occurs in Butrint and Durres/Dyrrhachium, in Albania (Reynolds, Hernández and Çondi 2008; Reynolds 2003e), and is common in early 3rd century deposits at Knossos (Sackett 1992). The rarity of Tunisian amphorae in these Knossos contexts parallels the Tunisian supply of Benghazi, Beirut and perhaps Athens (notably few illustrated by Robinson [1959]).

241

Notes to pages 22-25 67. Reynolds (2003e). 68. BEY 006.10625, unlike the others included in this table, is essentially an amphora deposit, with very few fine wares and coarse wares. Its composition differs with respect to the more numerous north-west Syrian amphorae present and lower percentage of north Palestinian amphorae. In other respects it is similar to the early 3rd century 045 deposits. The presence of a single example of ARS 50, however, rules out a contemporaneous date with them. To some extent 10625 may represent the quirks of the clearance of a particular amphora warehouse or the like, just as the individual tips represented by 5046-5051, when catalogued separately also offered distinct ‘economic profiles’, but are in fact contemporary, with many ceramic joins existing between them. Assessed as a single deposit, BEY 006.5046-5051 is a truer guide to the economic profile of its period than is BEY 006.10625, one suspects. 69. Kenrick (1985, 457-71). 70. Riley (1979, 200-4, fig. 38, MRA 16): 433-5, table as fig. 7: early 3rd century, 12 Rims/Bases/Handles, 1% of the total amphora RBH; 436-8, table 82, mid 3rd century, only 2 RBH, 0.3% of the total amphora RBH; see also ibid., fig. 145. 71. Riley (1979, fig. 6, 431-2). 72. Slane (1994) and (2000, 203). 73. For Ephesus, see the Hanghaus 2: the abandonment of this rich residential quarter in the mid 3rd century has been attributed to an earthquake sometime between 250 and 275 (Kritzinger [ed.] 2002). 74. Reynolds (1995, 120, 121, 129), with reference to Hayes (1992, 67), Hayes Type 14 = spatheion Keay 26G, Deposit 30, fig. 49.186-7, ‘found in small numbers in 7th century layers’; cf. also the single Tunisian rim Deposit 30.199; Hayes Type 13, is probably the earlier form Keay 25, and is rare. See also Fulford (1987), with respect to pottery and grain for the annona at Rome, as gauged by the supply of fine wares and amphorae at Ostia (with comment in Reynolds [1995, 107-8]). 75. Fulford and Peacock (1994). For another set of data illustrating trends in the supply of Campanian, Baetican and Tarraconensian imports, see Freed (1998). Also the important paper on an ‘amphora wall’ excavated on the Byrsa hill that documents the major involvement of Augustus’ close friends (amici Caesaris) in the trade between Rome and the early Augustan colony of Carthage (Freed and Moore 1995). 76. Many private estates in Tripolitania, following the confiscations under Severus, became in essence a vast imperial estate. These also continued to be tied to the supply of Rome, but were under the Severi part of the imperial patrimony, administered, from 217, after the death of Caracalla, by the ratio privata, as were those confiscated in Baetica. For a lengthy discussion of the ratio privata see Veyne (1990, 324-34) and for the date of its introduction based on the Testaccio evidence see Berni Millet (1998, 50). Prior to the dynasty’s rise to power Tripolitanian elites sold oil surpluses for profit, primarily to Rome (Table 2a-b, for Ostia), though some was sent to Rome as tax (as was the case also in Africa Proconsularis) (Reynolds 1995, 42-5; Mattingly 1995; Keay 1984a, Keay forms 9-11). Keay 11/’Tripolitana III’ was the form that was stamped with the names of the local magnates, many of senatorial rank, promoted in Rome by their association with the ruling clan, many of whom were eventually executed. It also bears stamps referring to the imperial family at various stages of their diminishing numbers: see Mattingly (1995, 154, table 7.1), for a summary of this important documentary evidence. 77. Reynolds (1995, 106-7); Berni Millet (1998, especially 47-62), with references to the crucial new work at the Monte Testaccio; Keay (1988, 99-101).

242

Notes to pages 25-27 78. Martin-Kilcher (1983; 2000); Laubenheimer (2000), with the evidence for nut oil production in northern France. Chemical analysis of the inner wall of an imitation Dressel 20 produced evidence for saturated fatty acids, ruling out animal/fish products, suggesting a vegetable oil of some kind, though in this case the pattern did not match that of nuts; for the large-scale imitation of Dressel 20 amphorae in the region of Mainz, where some 7 kiln sites have been located, see Ehmig (1998; 2000; 2003). This phenomenon did not occur in Augst/Augusta Rauricum (Ehmig 2003, 24-6, table 4). Note that Ehmig does not record finds of Dressel 23 in Mainz. 79. Carreras Monfort (2000); Williams and Peacock (1983); Williams (1997). 80. Williams (1997, 969, table 175); of the 37 Dressel 20 rims recovered, 6 date to the later 1st century, 10 to the first half of the 2nd century, 17 to the second half of the 2nd century, and 2 to the 3rd century. Three of the stamped handles could also be dated to the 2nd century, with one to the 3rd century, c. 250-280. 81. Carreras Monfort and Funari (1998, 63-4); Carreras Monfort (2000, ch. 4.1). Note their apparent absence in London and Exeter. 82. Morais (2000a-b). Rui Morais here documents not only the strength of imports of Haltern 70 amphorae in the 1st century AD, but also that Baetican amphorae were accompanied by Baetican kitchen wares. See also Arruda and de Almeida (2000) for similar Baetican imports at the Roman colony of Scallabis/ Santarém in southern Portugal. For Baetican imports in Lusitania, see also Mayet (2000), discussed further below (see n. 103). Remesal Rodríguez has stressed the importance of the Atlantic route in the supply of Baetican oil to Germania (2002, 298-300). 83. Bezeczky (2000). See also Bjelajac (33-36, Types VIII-IX) for finds of Dressel 20 on the Danube at Singidunum/Beograd, Viminacium/Kostalac, Noljetin and Trandierna/Tekija, and Dressel 23/Keay 13, the latter in small quantities, at Singidunum and Viminacium. 84. Lemaître (2000b, fig. 5): 49% of the total amphorae. 85. I am most grateful to Richard Reece and to Simon James for offering me this plausible explanation for the drop in Baetican oil imports to Britain (and hence also Germany). Oil lamps were also phased out from the late 2nd century in Britain and could be connected with the same rarity of olive oil (Richard Reece, pers. comm., with respect to the work of Hella Eckardt [2002]). In this case, nut oil could equally have been used for lighting (not only based on the modern Gallic evidence, but also the fact that Romano-British lamps have traces of walnut and hazel oil). Were the imitations of Dressel 20 found in Britain and in very small numbers (at Brockley Hill) imports of Gallic-Germanic copies carrying nut oil? Though there could be a flaw in the absent lamp argument, Dressel 20 imitations in Britain were hardly as common or widespread as they were on the continent, so the lamp argument could still hold. Tunisian amphorae imported during the 3rd and 4th centuries did not necessarily contain oil, and could equally represent fish imports, as we have said. They would have replaced the diminishing numbers of Spanish fish imports that accompanied primary cargoes of Baetican oil for the annona. 86. Greene (1986, 161). 87. Greene (1986, 161). 88. Will (1983; 2004). Bernal Casasola (2000b, 962), with 71 different stamps noted. Aelius Aristides (Orationes, 36.91), writing in the early 2nd century, mentions commercial relations between Gades and Egypt. Note also that Lucian (Navig., 22) mentions exports of Spanish garum and oil to Athens (Riley 1979, 157).

243

Notes to pages 27-29 89. Riley (1979, 157-64): fish sauce amphorae of the usual 1st to 2nd century forms. A single late Dressel 20 or Dressel 23/Keay 13 (Riley Early Roman Amphora 9) and a late 1st to early 2nd century Dressel 20 handle were recovered. The later (3rd century) fish sauce amphora Keay 16 is present, as well as Sado region Dressel 14. There were 3 Beltrán IIb amphorae in Flavian deposits. Spanish amphorae never comprise more than 1% of the total amphorae in assemblages. 90. For a survey of the distribution of (rare) published Baetican and Lusitanian amphora finds in Greece, Asia Minor and the Levant, see Bernal Casasola (2000b). For finds of Dressel 20 and Spanish fish sauce amphorae at Corinth, c. 125, see Slane (2000, 300-1). Slane suggests that the few finds of the same c. 200-225/250 may be residual (ibid., 301). In contrast to numerous examples of the fish sauce amphora Keay 16, there are no complete or fragmentary examples of Dressel 20 on view in the stores of the Athenian Agora (personal observation). Elizabeth Will’s imminent publication of the stamped amphora types of the late Republican and early Imperial periods for the Athenian Agora series will undoubtedly shed some light on this matter. 91. A vessel shared between three contexts (BEY 006.13095.33/13402.14 /13577.15): residual, as these were deposited in the early 5th century. Likely associated residual material is 2nd century; a rim (BEY 006.12561.9): probably AD 125-150; a handle fragment (BEY 006.11629.89): AD 125-150 [Reynolds, 1999, fig. 89, cat. 65]; six wall fragments (BEY 006.11192.78): AD 125-150 (same building phase as context BEY 006.11629). With the exception of one vessel (a handle fragment in Context BEY 045.1600), there were notably no Dressel 20 amphorae accompanying the numerous Hispanic imports in large early and mid 3rd century contexts in Beirut (BEY 006.5051 and 006.10625; and deposits used to fill the natatio of the Imperial Baths, e.g. BEY 045.1215, 1242, 1502, 1503, 1510 and 1660; 1600 is part of this natatio fill) (some illustrated in Reynolds [2000a]) (see Table 4). 92. Oren-Pascal and Bernal Casasola (2000); Bernal Casasola (2000b). 93. Reynolds, (forthcoming b) for amphorae; Kenrick (forthcoming), for fine wares. 94. Philip Kenrick (forthcoming). 95. For the primarily military character of sites in Germany and Britain importing Campanian Dressel 2-4 in the 2nd and 3rd centuries, see Arthur and Williams (1992). But see also Carreras Monfort (2000) for a contrasting view. 96. For this suggestion, and a distribution map, to which we should add Beirut, see Marimon Ribas and Puig Palerm (2007, 355, fig. 78). 97. Márquez Villora (1999) and Márquez Villora and Molina Vidal (2000 and 2001): a total of 187 rims, demonstrating peaks in the periods AD 30-50 (when they are most common) and AD 50-110, the lowest periods corresponding to 150-280 (Dressel 20A, 10 BC-AD 30: 21; Dressel 20B, AD 30-50: 47; Dressel 20C, AD 50-70: 28; Dressel 20D, AD 70-110: 28; Dressel 20E, AD 110-150: 16; Dressel 20F, AD 150-210: 5; Dressel 20G, AD 210-280: 9; unclassified Dressel 20: 33). Dressel 23/Keay 13, of AD 250-450 is present, but not common (Dressel 23A: 8; Dressel 23C, 5th century: 5). 98. Márquez Villora (1999). 99. Though it has been suggested that the army veterans, settled at the colony since its foundation under Augustus, may offer another explanation for the draw on Baetican oil (Márquez Villora and Molina Vidal 2000), the veterans and their families would surely not have had rights to such ‘rations’. Furthermore, if this were the case, the distribution of Spanish oil in south-eastern Spain would be far

244

Notes to pages 29-30 greater, given the many military coloniae in the region, also Augustan foundations. The strategic port of Carthago Nova would have been another obvious target for ‘official’ supplies of the annona civica or militaris, but this does not seem to have been the case: Antolinos Marín and Soler Huertas (2000). 100. Beltrán Lloris (2000); Berni Millet (1998, ch. 2.5). Notably at towns such as Barcino and Iluro/Mataró, and on many villa sites. Shipwrecks containing Dressel 20 amphorae are also noted; Beltrán Lloris (2000), see especially distribution maps 22-5, for Oberaden 83 and their successors Dressel 20 and 23. See also his map 28 for the distribution of Baetican thin-walled wares that, we may note, are unusually common at Ilici. 101. Greene (1986, 162-3, fig. 72), a map that demonstrates this relationship very clearly. 102. Pasquinucci, Del Rio and Menchelli (2000), for Pisa/Volterra. There was an important focus on the supply of Dressel 20 and Spanish garum to Pisa-Volterra (20.5% of the Horrea Volterrana were Dressel 20s; of the 1st to 2nd century supply in the Pisa-Volterra region, Baetican amphorae comprise 30%, Tarraconensian, 22% and Lusitanian 1.1%; Tunisian, 10%, Gaul, 6%, eastern Mediterranean, 2%, with central Italy, 27% and the Adriatic, 2%). They note also the Punta Ala shipwreck, c. 250, in the Tyrrhenian Sea, with a cargo of Dressel 20 and Tunisian amphorae. For imports of Spanish garum and oil in the early Empire to Aquileia, Verona, Milan and other sites across northern Italy, see González et al. (2000). 103. Mayet (2000, 648, with distribution map, fig. 1): 48 fragments on the villa site of Sao Cucufate (Vila de Frades, Vidigueira, Beja) is a fair number for a villa site, that contrasts markedly with the rarity of amphorae found at the nearby villa of Cegonha (Selmes, Vidigueira). Though the distribution map, from Fabião (19934), documents 39 sites with Baetican oil amphorae within Lusitania, Mayet considers the quantities found, a few fragments per site in most cases, particularly in the north, to be relatively scarce. They were certainly so at Conimbriga. Quantities recovered at Braga/Bracara Augusta, so far only 14 vessels, are important for their documentation of the northern distribution of Dressel 20 and do not differ markedly from the numbers found in southern Lusitania. Beltrán Lloris’ distribution map for Dressel 20, however, is not so barren, in the case of the north-western sites of Tarraconensis (his paper is concerned solely with that province), with Bracara, Legio and Asturica clearly being preferentially targeted, as they, and a number of other, mostly coastal sites, were also, by Baetican fish sauce (Mayet 2000, fig. 23, for Dressel 20). 104. Pascual Berlanga and Ribera i Lacomba (2000); Pascual et al. (1997). 105. Antolinos Marín and Soler Huertas (2000). 106. One could perhaps look for the tied distribution of Baetican fish sauce from some production sites and not others. Those closer to the Guadalquivir, notably the vast number in the Bay of Cádiz, had more opportunity, through their closer location, to be placed on annona oil shipments. Others beyond the straits of Gibraltar, notably those of Málaga, may have travelled independently. 107. For non-Baetican oil production sites, see Beltrán Lloris (2000, 484ff. and fig. 26). North-eastern Tarraconensian sites in Gerona (Els Ametllers, Tossa de Mar; Vilauba: established in the 5th century, continuing into the 7th century), Barcelona (Sentromà: end of the 3rd century; Can Sans, Sant Andreu de Llavaneres) and Tarragona (Vilarenc, Calafell, Mas de Valls, Reus), and Corbins (Segrià) (Lérida), end of the 2nd century. At Liédena (4th century: the villa of Las Musas de Arellano); La Rioja Alta, in the Ebro Valley (La Morlaca, Villa Mediana de Iregua: 3rd and 4th centuries; Camino del Pago Medrano; Turrios Berceo;

245

Notes to pages 30-31 Murillo de Rio Leza; Eras de San Martin, 1st century); Zaragoza (Cabezuelo de Gallur); Cabezo de Alcala de Azaila; Alicante town (Parque de las Naciones); Murcia: Villaricos, Mula, La Alberca de los Roman, Jumilla; Molinete (Cartagena); Santa Cruz de Moya (Cuenca); Tolmo de Minateda (Albacete); north Portugal: villa of Fontao (Lavra) and Fonto do Milho (Porto), 2nd to 4th centuries. 108. Berni Millet (2000). 109. Southern Valencia: Enguix Alemany and Aranegui Gascó (1977); Gisbert (1987, 106-7). The ‘Oliva 3’, a shape close to that of Dressel 26 and Dressel 20. 110. Gisbert (1987); Berni Millet (2000, 1160). 111. Reynolds (1993, 48, Site 23 and fig. 28); see also Rosser Limiñana (1991 and 1994): two oil presses. 112. Wine in Pascual 1 and Dressel 2-4. 113. Another 1st century parallel is the Flavian wreck Culip IV, off Cadaqués. This, bearing a cargo of south Gaulish fine wares from La Graufesenque, was also carrying a large cargo of Dressel 20 amphorae and Baetican thin-walled fine wares and could only have been sailing from a Gallic port, possibly Narbonne. 114. Berni Millet (1998, ch. 2.4). 115. SHA, Sev. Alex., 22: oleum quod Severus populo dederat, quodque Heliogabalus inminuerat turpissimis hominibus praefecturam annonae tribuendo, integrum restituit and negotiatoribus ut Romam volentes concurrent maximam inmunitatem dedit. Berni Millet (1998, 47ff.); Peña (1998, 170). We may note that, perhaps connected with this interest in the food supply of the Rome, Severus Alexander, ‘built public warehouses (horrea publica) in the different regiones of the city, so that those who had no private stores could deposit their goods (bona) there’. Aguilera points out that public stores such as the horrea Galbana (originally, before Galba became emperor, and later) could store mixed private (e.g. fish) and public goods (Aguilera Martín 2002, n. 257). 116. Berni Millet (1998); Remesal Rodríguez (1983); Keay (1988, 99-101). 117. Berni Millet (1998, Chapter 1 and Chapter 2.4); Bost et al. (1992). 118. Dressel 20 (32 examples recovered, five examples stamped). Smaller Dressel 20 forms are ‘Dressel 20 parva’ (2 examples); the Dressel 23/Tejarillo I type (16 examples). For fish sauce, Almagro 50/Keay 16 (19 examples, three stamped: ANNGENIALIS; IUNIOR[UM]; ANGE: for the Algarve/Lusitanian v. Baetican origin of this stamp and Keay 16, see n. 150. In the publication (Bost et al. 1992, 127-32, an origin in the Algarve is suggested; Keay 23 (16 examples) and Beltrán 72 (7 examples, 3 bearing the same ANGE stamp of Keay 16) for wine or fish, Beltrán 68 (3 examples); 4 unclassified amphorae; central Tunisian amphorae (32 examples, 13 bearing 13 different stamps), comprising Africana IIC/Keay 6 and Africana IID/Keay 7, both for salted fish and fish sauce, not necessarily oil (Bonifay 2004, 471-5). These Tunisian amphorae were possibly picked up in the Balearics, rather than onloaded at, say, Carthage or Leptiminus? The Punta Ala B wreck (Castiglione della Pecaia), in this case well-dated to the reign of Severus Alexander, was carrying a cargo of Dressel 20s and Tunisian Period I amphorae (Liou 2000, no. 72; Parker 1992, no. 912). Did this ship also pick up its Tunisian cargo in the Balearics? Were the majority of Tunisian amphorae accompanying Dressel 20 and Dressel 23 amphorae central Tunisian, rather than Carthage-region products, as in the case of the Cabrera III? Central Tunisian amphorae are not common at Carthage. Given that it would be peculiar for Baetican ships to travel south to pick up Hadrumetum or Salakta amphorae, these must have been loaded on Baetican ships at Carthage or the two cargoes were put together at the Balearics. A more detailed study of the composition of the cargoes

246

Notes to pages 31-34 of shipwrecks catalogued by Parker (1992) is one obvious method of tracing the paths of shipping, their origins and destinations. 119. Cerdà (1992). 120. Berni Millett (1998, chs 1 and 2.4). 121. The Port-Vendres I wreck carried a cargo of Baetican Dressel 23 oil amphorae, Almagro 50 (Keay 16) (fish) and Keay 23 (fish) (Parker 1992, no. 874). There were still cargoes of almost exclusively Spanish (Liou 2000; Parker 1992, passim) or Tunisian amphorae (e.g. the 6th century La Palud 1 (Port-Cros) wreck: Long and Volpe 1998, 317-42; Parker 1992, passim). For late Roman wrecks with mixed cargoes see Parker (1992, passim). 122. One amphora on the Dramont E wreck contained olives, as did an example of Africana 2C/Keay 6 on the Cabrera III and an Africana I/Keay 3 on the Plemmirio wreck. The trade in olives would clearly have been ‘private’. For both these wrecks, see Bonifay (2004), passim. 123. Greene (1986). 124. The Expositio Totius Mundi (LVIII), probably written during the reign of Constantius II, perhaps in 359 (Rougé 1966, 15-19) refers explicitly to the link between the port of Arles and Trier: quae accipiens omnia mundi negotia supradictae civitati emittit; see also McCormick (2001, 77). For mid to late 4th century deposits at Arles (Esplanade), some associated with a major fire, see Piton (2007; pers. comm.). The summary of the finds states that Gallic Narbonnese wine is still very well represented in the mid and late 4th century, production ending probably at the end of the 4th century. Baetican oil in Dressel 23B and C, rare in late 3rd century contexts, is in contrast well represented in the mid 4th century. These amphorae are present until the early 5th century (see here Table 18, for the later figures). Baetican and Lusitanian fish amphorae are well represented in the mid 4th century: Keay 19 (Almagro 51A/B: 22 examples) and Keay 23 (Almagro 51C: 13 examples). There are 3 wine amphorae from Matagallares (Granada) (it is not stated when in the 4th century these occur). Italian amphorae, particularly those from eastern Sicily, are well represented in both the mid and late 4th century phases (Keay 52: 9 examples; Agora M 254: 27 examples, though he states some are likely to be north African). These Italian and African wines are present until the first decade of the 5th century. In the mid 4th century Tunisian amphorae are abundant and the most common imports (146 examples, with Keay 25 comprising the vast majority, with 130 vessels: Bonifay [2004] sub types 1 and 3). There are only 4 examples of Keay 27, and 3 examples of the Africana IIC-D (Keay 6-7). Mauretanian (wine/fish) amphorae Keay 1B are still well represented in the mid 4th century and in the second half of the 4th century, though Piton suggests that they originate in Tunisia on the basis of their fabric. Finally, eastern Mediterranean amphorae are rare, comprising solely 8 examples of LRA 3 in the mid and third quarter of the 4th century. The absence of Gazan LRA 4 and LRA 1 in this period is fairly clear. 125. An inscription found in the Campus Martius dating to 365, setting down the pay to be given to state officials responsible for the tasting of wine collected as tax and being transferred de ampullis (presumably amphorae) into barrels (cupae). For the location of this activity, the inscription refers to a temple, presumably Aurelian’s Temple of the Sun. It would seem likely, therefore, that Aurelian’s scheme to offer free or cheap wine to the populace in Rome was carried out. The canon vinarius was levied throughout most of Italys provinces, being noted in Campania, Etruria, Bruttii and Lucania. The Urban Prefect had a rationalis vinorum to organise the imports from the Suburbicarian provinces, whereas

247

Notes to pages 34-36 imports from the rest of Italy were handled by the Praetorian Prefect of Italy. From 364 the levy had to be paid in kind, and so is evidence for true imports of Italian wines into the capital, but previously it could be commuted to cash payments. (Sirks 1991, 391-4, n. 27; Peña 2007, 114-17). As Peña argues, these ampullae were presumably medium capacity amphorae, such as the MRA 1 or the Keay 52, rather than small flasks. It seems that the praefectus annonae was interested in making sure that the disposal of the empty amphorae, and there would have been hundreds, was the responsibility of the landowners. The amphorae could have been brought back to their respective estates, for re-use, discarded or sold for recycling. For an earlier period Peña (2007, 115-16, and 375 n. 48) refers to an inscription dating to between AD 50 and 150, naming a negotians Porto Vinario lagonaris, said to have been found outside the Porta Salaria. He gives convincing textual and epigraphic evidence (dipinti on a Dressel 2 amphora and on a Dressel 30) that the words lagona as well as lacona were acceptable terms for what we would call an ‘amphora’. He further argues, perhaps less convincingly, that the said negotiator was a dealer in empty amphorae, brokering these to those who needed them, as wine arrived, was stored (in the cellae vinariae) and was then sold. However, I do not see why he could not have been a straight forward dealer in [wine] amphorae at the Porto Vinario. See also Peña (2007, 375, n. 52) for dipinti on a group of 40 LRA 3 found at the Athenian Agora that denote their use as containers for wine collected as tax (with reference to Lang 1976, no. 827). 126. We know that in 354 there were 2,300 mensae oleariae, located in the 14 regiones of the city (Curiosum and Notitia Urbis Romae in H. Jordan (ed.) Topographie der Stadt Rom in Alterthum II [1871]: 543-71). For a reference to the right to own these ‘tables’, see the Theodosian Code (CTh.14.17.24, dated 328). 127. I am grateful to Dominic Perring for the use of his copy of the excavations at Milan. For the Spanish amphorae, see Bruno and Bocchio (1991, 276-7). For Tunisian amphorae, see ibid. (277-80). The Spanish finds are mostly early Imperial. They comprise Dressel 7/11 (10 RBH), dating from the Augustan period to the early 2nd century and finds in residual contexts; Pelichet 46 (3 RBH), 1st or 2nd century?; Dressel 14 (Sado Estuary?); 2 bases and 10 handles of early Imperial Spanish forms; Dressel 20 is rare in Milan and in Lombardia, there being only one example noted for Milan (Augustan); Dressel 23/Keay 13: one example of Keay 13A/Dressel 23A from a post-4th century context. Two other Dressel 23 were found at the basilica of S. Lorenzo, Milan. Another rim was found at Angera. Tunisian amphorae: forms of the 2nd or 3rd century are not common, Keay 3A-B, one example each, and several handles. 4th century Keay 25 and early 5th century Keay 25/26 (not as late as they suggest?), with Vandal 5th century forms 35, 36?, 61 and 62. Tunisian amphorae seem to be not common until the 4th or 5th centuries. 128. By the ‘end of the 3rd century’ there is a marked shift to Tunisian imports of table wares and amphorae at the expense of eastern Mediterranean amphorae, previously well supplied in the early-mid 3rd century (cf. Lyon and Beirut range of eastern Mediterranean forms). 129. For the deposits on which these figures are based, see Macias i Solé et al. (1997). 130. López Mullor, Fierro Macia and Caixal Mata (1997, 60-3). 131. Piton (1998, 112-13), ‘in numerous variants’. For more details of the important 5th century deposit (puits 2336) excavated at R. de l’Hôtel-Dieu (Narbonne), see Ginouvez (ed.) 1996-7). V. Belbenoit, who worked on the pottery, provides a full list of the forms by RBH.

248

Notes to pages 37-40 132. See Tomber (1989), for an important late 4th/early 5th century deposit from the Circus. The absence of Baetican oil amphorae is also my experience of 4th and 5th century deposits excavated at Carthage at the bathhouse of Bir al Jebbana (by the Odeon) (for the site, see Rossiter 1998). 133. In the Tarragona Vila-roma 2 deposit, for example: 60 RBH, 13.04%; Tarragona site STE/1 = 25 RBH, 8.50%. 134. For the Vinalopó Valley, see Reynolds (1993, appendix G.4; 1995, appendix B.3, under ‘ALI’ (for Alicante) and the summary of amphora finds on town and highland sites in the valley, in appendix C.5). Two bases occurred in the 6th century Benalúa deposit (see here Chapter 3.5). Note the find of a possible Keay 13C on the villa site of Carabases (Elche) (Reynolds 1993, Site 76). See now Márquez Villora and Molina Vidal (2001) 25), for finds of Dressel 23 at Ilici (3 rims) and Santa Pola/Portus Ilicitanus (Dressel 23A: 8; Dressel 23C: 5). For other finds in Santa Pola/Portus Ilicitanus see Márquez Villora and Molina Vidal (2000, table 1): Dressel 23A (8 examples) and Dressel 23C (5 examples), with respect to the 187 rims of Dressel 20. For comments on the supply of Cartagena, see Comas and Padrós (1997, 323). 135. A Keay 13 base is illustrated: Reynolds (1993, plate 94.213); the thick walls and heavy handles of ibid., plate 94.208, could also indicate that this is a variant of Keay 13, despite my identification of it as Keay 23. Plate 94.207 does seem to be Keay 23, not Keay 13, given the position of the handles. 136. Oren-Pascal and Bernal Casasola (2000). 137. Baetican amphorae are absent in a possibly early 5th century deposit at the Serapeum, in contrast to very common Tunisian imports: Bonifay and Leffy (2002); For the Polish excavations at Alexandria, Spanish imports noted as rare and comprising Keay 19 in a context of ‘c. 450 to early 6th century’ date, where Tunisian amphorae comprise but 3% of the total: Majcherek (2004, 231, fig. 2). The publication of whole sequences of quantified deposits from excavations at Kom el Dikka, Alexandria, by the Polish team, is eagerly awaited. 138. A narrower, longer shape was more typical of the kiln sites of southern Lusitania. 139. Lagóstena Barrios (2001, 257-61); Bernal Casasola (2000a, 275), for types of fish. For a good summary of the fish industry, production sites and amphorae in Portugal and Baetica, see Étienne and Mayet (2002). 140. Vegas (1973, Type 9); Reynolds (1993, Ware 1.10, Ware 1.18 and Ware 3.5), with reference to finds in Ilici, Alicante-Benalúa, Santa Pola, Tarragona; For the Vila-roma 2 deposit see Macias i Solé (1999, 53-6, 287); for the several variants produced in the Balearics, decorated with wavy lines on the upper wall, see examples in a 5th century deposit published by Ramón and Cau (1997). It is found as an import at Tarragona and Valencia (see Macias i Solé 1999). This is equivalent to my Ware 4. The form is also found, locally made, in Byzantine levels in Cartagena (Ramallo, Ruiz, and Berrocal [1997, fig. 11.1]). 141. Bonifay and Rigoir (1986); Bonifay (1983, 332, 334, fig. 36.255-9). 142. For comment on similar finds in 6th century levels of the fish processing site at Lagos, see Ramos et al. 2008). The Nabeul product, Fulford ‘Bowl’ 22 was well traded in the period 400-450. See Reynolds (1993): W11.4b; Hayes Class 1 and 2 flanged bowls/Fulford Flanged Bowls 1-3, 10-14; Hayes (1997), 81, plate 31: though these do not have spouts. For Alicante flanged bowl production, see Reynolds (1993), Ware 1.19 flanged bowls, typical of the 5th and 6th centuries. Similar vessels were produced in Tarragona and were typical in 5th century contexts. See Macias i Solé (1999). Flanged bowls are typical finds in Byzantine

249

Notes to pages 40-41 levels at Cartagena. See Ramallo, Ruiz, and Berrocal (1997, 211-12); one example of Fulford Mortar 3 and two Byzantine casseroles from Carthage (LRCW VI and Fulford HM form 18), and an example of the Aegean casserole Fulford Dish 5, all found at Calle Soledad, are illustrated in Reynolds (2003b, fig. 7.21-3). The use of mortars for the mixing of ingredients, fish sauce being a regular component, is a well-known feature of Roman cooking (see Apicius), vessels in the early Imperial period being much larger, thick-walled, with massive spouts, for example Hayes (1997, 80-2, fig. 34). This type was exported to both Paphos (Cyprus) and Beirut, where imported fish sauce was regularly consumed throughout the Classical period. Similar large vessels were also produced at Ras al Basit, on the north coast of Syria and were marketed to Beirut in the early to mid 3rd century. 143. Lagóstena Barrios has recently provided a comprehensive, detailed analysis of the location and dating of fish sauce production sites in the Iberian Peninsula (2001, with full bibliography). His table (p. 379) summarises trends in the number of fish sauce installations through time and the relative proportion of Baetican to Lusitanian factories. Additional study (not noted by Lagóstena Barrios) of those in the Alicante region can be found in Reynolds (1993, Site Index). A survey of the amphorae associated with fish sauce production sites in the late Empire is offered by Bernal Casasola (2000a), with references. For Tingitana and similar evidence for abandonment of factories and decline in production in the 3rd century, see Villaverde Vega (2000). 144. Martínez Maganto (2000). 145. A growing number of fish sauce amphorae bearing dipinti that identify them as products sent to military commanders and occasionally governors of provinces, is evidence for some state-organised redistribution to the army, but perhaps this was due to the high status of the beneficiaries (Martínez Maganto 2000; Ehmig [1996], for a remarkably well-preserved example from Mainz). The distribution of fish sauce amphorae on military sites, in Britain, for example, could be the result of state redistribution or private sales. Merchants, nevertheless, could still have taken advantage of shipping transporting annona goods (oil) from, say, London to York and Hadrian’s Wall. Urban, non-military markets, were perhaps the major target of merchants dealing in wine and fish-based products (see Carreras Monfort [2000] and Carreras Monfort and Funari [1998], for analysis of the distribution trends of oil, wine and fish sauce amphorae in Britain). The latter authors, throughout, tend to identify Tunisian amphorae as oil amphorae (e.g. Carreras and Funari [1998, 65-6]), and have probably underestimated their role as fish sauce containers. 146. For example, on the Tejo: Porto do Cacos and Quinta do Rouxinol; on the Sado: Abul Kiln A and Pinheiro; at Troia some ended in the late 2nd or early 3rd century, whereas others survived. 147. Puente Melchor (Cádiz): late 2nd to early 3rd centuries: Dressel 12, Dressel 14 (fish), Dressel 20 (oil), Gauloise 4 imitation (wine), Puerto Real I, Puerto Real II (= Keay 16 variant) (fish), Keay 16 (fish), Keay 23 (fish); imitations of Tunisian Keay 4 and 5; mid 3rd to mid 4th centuries: Keay 23 (fish), Beltrán 68 (wine or fish), Keay 6 imitation. See Bernal Casasola (2000a). 148. Note the production of Keay 16A-C and Keay 23 at Jimenos en Moguer, on the Tinto, and Keay 16 and Keay 23 at El Torrón (Lepe), between the Tinto and Guadiana (García Vargas and Bernal Casasola 2008, 672, 674). 149. Villaverde Vega (2000, 910-12). 150. It is possible that most of the Hispanic fish source amphorae in the Cabrera

250

Notes to pages 41-42 III wreck are from south-western Portugal, not Baetica (Almagro 50/Keay 16 and Lusitana 9: Bost et al. [1992]). The same can be said for the cargo of the Randello wreck with a large cargo of Keay 22 amphorae (Parker 1992, no. 975). There is still confusion about the Baetican v. Lusitanian sourcing of the, often stamped, fish sauce amphora Keay 16, also present on the Cabrera III (Keay 1984a, 149-55). The stamped Cabrera III Keay 16s bear ANNGENIALIS, IUNIOR[UM] and ANGE, the latter also occurring on 3 examples of Beltrán 72. Bernal Casasola (2000a, 281; 2000b; Oren and Bernal Casasola 2000) attaches a Baetican origin to the ANNGENIALIS stamped examples found in Caesarea and Beth Sh’an (ibid.; Étienne and Mayet 2002, 139). Étienne and Mayet (2002, 137-9), on the basis of the analysis of their buff fabric, locate the production of the same stamps, as well as those of the Cabrera III, to production sites in the Bay of Cádiz, noting the Keay 16s produced at Puente Melchor (Puerto Real, Cádiz). They suggest the form derives from late versions of Beltrán IIB, the Puerto Real 1 and 2 types. The fabrics of many of the Keay 16 amphorae in Beirut do seem to be close to those of true Bay of Cádiz products (based on samples kindly given to me by Enrique García Vargas). On the other hand, Lagóstena Barrios (2001, 86-90, map as fig. 10) provides evidence that the Lusitanian Algarve factories of the port of Balsa/Quinta de Torres de Ares produced some of the stamped Keay 16s (those stamped LEV.GEN. and OLYNT.AEMHEL). The GEN[ialis] here is presumably the same or related to the person of the Cabrera III Keay 16s. In contrast, none of the long list of stamps found at Puente Melchor correspond to those of the Keay 16s of Balsa or Cabrera III (Lagóstena Barrios 2001, 118 n. 563). But what is the fabric of the Balsa vessels? Does it correspond to that of the Cabrera III pieces? Étienne and Mayet seem to suggest that all the Keay 16 stamps listed (p. 139) are Baetican. The Keay 16 rim Reynolds (2000a, fig. 2.12) and a handle (not Keay 16: ibid., fig. 2.19) share a rather dark, rough, micaceous fabric that is not normal for the Bay of Cádiz. The formal characteristics of the rim, rather concave top, and short neck seem close to that of the Cabrera III Keay 16 (reproduced here as Fig. 4d: but, better, see Bost et al. 1992, figs 25-7 for 1/3 drawings of the examples found on the wreck). It may be that this fabric and rim derive from the Algarve (it is not from a Sado/Lisbon source). If so, is the latter the fabric and source of the ANNGENIALIS Keay 16s on the Cabrera wreck? The fabrics of the Caesarean (hence also Beth Sh’an) examples provided by Oren and Bernal Casasola (2000, 1006-7, 1014, nos 12-13) are ‘sandy’ and seem to lack the fine iron oxide that is the main ingredient of Cádiz fabrics. We should note that Keay 16 known production sites elsewhere in Baetica are few, at Baesippo (Lagóstena Barrios 2001, 121), and far to the east, at Matagallares (Granada) (ibid., 156-9, fig. 24, middle; Bernal Casasola 1998a). The Cabrera III stamps are not noted as being found on these more eastern production centres. This would place the sourcing of the Cabrera III vessels either in the orbit of Cádiz, or, I would suggest, at Balsa. That buff examples of Keay 16 (as I say, often indistinguishable from early Imperial Cádiz amphorae) derive from the Bay of Cádiz seems likely. A stamped handle found in Beirut, in a buff, micaceous fabric (M.A.: Reynolds 200a, no. 13; see Étienne and Mayet 2001, fig. 39. 9) may be a stamped Cádiz product, but this of course needs to be confirmed. The sourcing of the stamped Keay 16s discussed here do need to be clarified, given the obvious importance of the production and long-distance trade that these products represent. 151. For finds of stamped Keay 16 at Beth Sh’an, see Étienne and Mayet (2002, 139). 152. Reynolds (2000a) and (2003d). Late Hellenistic period (late 2nd century BC)

251

Notes to page 42 imports comprise two Tunisian forms, from quite distinct sources. The same two forms occur elsewhere in Beirut (site BEY 126, perhaps also part of the Roman Imperial Baths: personal observation, with thanks to Hans Curvers) and one of these, the narrow-bodied (torpedo jar) form, occurs at Paphos (Hayes 1991, fig. 38.1; also present at Corinth: Wolff 2004, fig. 4). It was not until the Augustan colonial foundation that Spanish fish sauce amphorae made their appearance in Beirut, and a link with the influx of Roman citizens to the city is quite likely. In Augustan levels there are only amphorae from Baetica (fish sauce amphorae as well as Haltern 70). Cádiz and Sado estuary amphorae joined them in the first half of the 2nd century. I have suggested that one of the amphorae produced in Beirut during the late 1st to early 3rd century AD was for fish sauce (Reynolds 2005b, 568, ‘AM 72’). There is perhaps only a single Sinope amphora fragment in the first half of the 2nd century (Reynolds 1999). The early 3rd century marked a major increase in imports of Sinope (and/or Heracleia Minor), amphorae that surely carried the fish products for which these cities were renowned (Curtis 1991, 118-19; ch. 5, for production sites in the eastern Mediterranean). The early Imperial small module table amphora types of these cities (with narrow neck and two handles, argile claire amphorae: Šelov [1986]; see now Vnukov [2004, fig. 7], identified as products of Heracleia Minor) are not encountered in Beirut, but they did they reach Athens (personal observation, Athenian Agora), Knossos (Hayes 1983, 147, fig. 21.32, Type 14) and Pompeii. They perhaps also contained fish sauce given their similarity to the local Pompeian form illustrated on a mosaic in the house of the Pompeian garum dealer A. Umbricius Scaurus (Curtis 1991, 91-6, 167-8, plate 7a). Kilns of the mid and late Roman Black Sea amphora types found in Beirut have now been excavated in Sinope (Garlan and Kassab Tezgör 1996; Kassab Tezgör and Tatlican 1998). Sinope-Heracleia Minor large amphorae, such as those in early 3rd century contexts in Beirut (most common in the BEY 045 Imperial Baths: see also the Beirut example published by Hayes [2000, fig. 14]), occur regularly in 2nd to mid 3rd century/267 contexts in Athens (personal observation, Athenian Agora). Other examples occur in Corinth (Slane 2000, 303, fig. 14g, dated 200-225/250) and Knossos (Hayes 1983, 151, fig. 24.67-8, Types 26 and 27; ibid., 155, fig. 25, A 80, Type 36: all 2nd century finds). That they reached southern Italy is clear from the large number of 3rd century examples found in Brindisi (Auriemma and Quiri 2004, 53-4). I have not yet seen any other published examples of these Black Sea amphorae from sites in Spain or elsewhere in the western Empire. Early 3rd century Hispanic amphorae in Beirut comprise Algarve or Baetican Keay 16 and Baetican Beltrán 72, with occasional Portuguese (Sado Estuary) Dressel 14 and some possible rare Tarraconensian products (Table 4). Only one Dressel 20 occurred in the early 3rd century Beirut BEY 045 deposits (n. 91). The other numerous imports in the early-mid 3rd century Beirut assemblages comprised a wide array of Aegean, Asia Minor and southern Anatolian wine amphorae, including examples from Crete, Knidos, the Ephesus region (one-handled precursors to LRA 3 in two principal fabrics), Rhodes, western and eastern Cilicia (including early versions of LRA 1), coastal Syria (from Amrit to Ras al Basit), northern Palestine (Akko region Augst 47, and Beth Sh’an amphorae) and southern Palestine (Gazan amphorae). It is possible that one local amphora type of 2nd to early 3rd century date made in Beirut could have carried local fish sauce, rather than wine, given its similarity to Dressel 14 (Reynolds 2005b, fig. 59a, AM 72). North Lebanese amphorae, quite common in these deposits, may have carried oil (or wine) (Reynolds 2005b, figs 63-6).

252

Notes to pages 42-44 153. Butrint may reflect trade routes both eastwards to Greece and northwards to Aquileia (see Mandruzzato et al. 2000). Good late 2nd to mid 3rd century deposits excavated in the port of Durres (ancient Dyrrhachium) demonstrate not only its strong connections with northern Italy (e.g. Forlimpopoli and Empoli type amphorae in abundance) but also the rarity of Spanish imports: of 425 fragments only one was identifiable, a rim of a Dressel 20 (personal observation; Reynolds 2003e). No Hispanic amphorae occurred in a large mid 3rd century deposit excavated in the macellum of Durres (Reynolds in preparation d). However several fine fabric 5th century Dressel 23D were found in the excavations of a Roman public latrine in Durres (my thanks to Eduard Shehi for showing me this material). 154. Villaverde Vega (2000, 912-13). At Lixus production began again in the 4th century and continued into the early 5th, though with fewer installations in comparison to the early Imperial period. At Mogador late production has been dated to the mid 3rd to late 4th centuries. 155. García Vargas and Bernal Casasola (2008, 668, 670, 672): El Eucaliptal de Punta Umbría (Río Tinto); Los Barrios-Ringo Rango (Algeciras): Keay 16C and the related wide-necked Majuelo I, with an imitation of the north African form Keay 6; García Vargas (1998, 122-4): Puerto Real 1 (Cádiz) and Puente Melchor (Cádiz). 156. The form Keay 78 occurred in the mid 5th century deposit of Vila-roma 2. It was produced in the third phase at Troia. Here Tank 19 had a make-up level containing ARS 52, 63 and 71, and Almagro 50, Keay 23 and Keay 78. Though the tank is dated to the period 300-350, ARS forms would suggest that it was built in the late 4th or early 5th century. Though Portuguese production of Keay 78 is clear from the evidence of the kiln sites, an example of Keay 78 found in Beirut has a typical Guadalquivir fabric (i.e. as Dressel 20). 157. For Huerto del Rincón, see Baldomero et al. (1997); for Torrox, Rodríguez Oliva (1997). 158. For Alicante, see Reynolds (1993, Catalogue, Site 156, El Monastil), for a site where Baetican Keay 19 are particularly common, together with wide-bodied cylindrical amphorae in the same fabric (Keay 30Bis) and 5th century Vandal period ARS; Reynolds (1995, 64-6), for the distribution of Baetican amphorae, including fish sauce amphorae. These Keay 19 and 30bis amphorae have a distinctive ‘plastic’ clay with multi-coloured inclusions, identical it would seem to that of examples of Keay 19 found at Ceuta, but possibly produced near Málaga (see the following note). 159. Villaverde Vega (2000, 914-15). As noted in Reynolds (2000a, 1044, 1055), the fabric of El Monastil (Elda) examples of Keay 19 compared well with photographs of fabrics of Keay 19 found at Ceuta and said to have been produced there (Bernal Casasola 1997; 2000c). The forms however suggested parallels with Huerto del Rincón and especially Torrox, both in the province of Málaga. Though Bernal Casasola stated that Villaverde Vega had reported that these amphorae were produced at Ceuta, the latter in his paper (op. cit.) clarifies that he said no such thing and, coincidentally, also compares the Ceuta pieces with those of Huerto del Rincón (Málaga). 160. Márquez Villora and Molina Vidal (2001, 32). Other Baetican-Lusitanian fish sauce amphorae comprise Almagro 50 (4), Almagro 51A-B/Keay 19 (10). It should be borne in mind that the comparatively low figures for Keay 19 may reflect the rarity of 5th century material in the sample. 161. Fulford and Peacock (1994, ch. 3, especially the table as fig. 3.3, for all imports v. local amphorae; ch. 6, for largely early to mid Imperial levels; ch. 5, for largely late Roman-Byzantine deposits). Few Lusitanian-Baetican amphorae are

253

Notes to pages 44-45 recognisable in the deposits from Carthage published by Hayes (1976; 1978) and Riley (1980), or in the several 2nd to late 4th/5th century groups presented by Tomber (1986). 162. Note that in my experience the fabrics of Sado region and Tarraconensian amphorae are very difficult to distinguish: both are orange/red brown, quartz rich with gold mica flakes, e.g. the Beirut finds Reynolds (2000, no. 17, figs 17-18, for the same problem; see here Table 4). The complete list of Hispanic amphorae at Bir el Jebbana comprises the following sherds: BED 1105, 2 SSP walls (Flavian?); BED 196.1: Dressel 2-4 handle, Tarraconensian or Sado? (this vessel 1st or 2nd century likely, with late 4th to early 5th century and 525-550 material); 1333.8 (Dressel 7/11) (most dates to 150-200); BED 41.5, Dressel 2-4, SSP (2nd to 6th century material); Portuguese or Tarraconensian 1333.9, wall (most dates to 150-200); BED 1381.4, garum amphora handle (late 2nd or 3rd centuries); 1419.9? (Hfr) (early to mid 3rd century?); 1419.22, Portuguese wall (early to mid 3rd century?); BED 1430.4, Keay 16 (mid 3rd century: good ARS 45A); BED 1420.1, buff Keay 16, BED 1420.6, Baetican round handle, BED 1420.11, Portuguese or Baetican handle, and BED 1420.18, SSP/Lusitanian buff handle (late 3rd to early 4th centuries?); BED 104.9, Sado handle, cf. Keay 23 size (3rd? or early 4th century maximum: with large ARS 23B); BED 1311.35, wall, Portuguese (mixed to 6th century: most is late 3rd century); 1425.9 (wall) (3rd and 4th centuries); BED 83.9, Tarraconensian?, rather than Sado (late 3rd or early 4th? and mid 4th century+); BED 134.10, R/N/H of Sado Keay 23 (early 3rd and 4th centuries); BED 81.15, neck of Baetican Keay 19? (325-400); BED 421.9, Lusitanian wall (320-400); BED 86.16bis, Sado, or Tarraconensian, handle (early to mid 3rd century and 340-400); BED 431, Lusitanian wall (late 4th century); BED 171 (late 4th century): Spanish? Hfr/N; BED 24.26, Keay 23? (late 4th century, with 1st to 3rd centuries); 1362.4 (Keay 30bis? rim) (5th century?); BED 136.50, Portuguese Keay 23, R/N/Hfr and BED136.60, Baetican foot (early 5th century, or later, cf. ARS 76); BED 108, 2 x walls SSP/Lusitanian (3rd to 5th centuries); BED 1342.1, Keay 19 rim (5th or 6th century); 833.9, foot, SSP? (500-550/575). 163. Tomber (1986), 25-36. 164. Tomber (1989), 502, all on fig. 20. Include Keay 16, 19 and 23. 165. For Tunisian garum production sites, see Ben Lazreg et al.(1995) and Slim et al. (2004); Slim et al. (1999), for Nabeul. 166. See also Lusuardi Siena (1977), for late Republican and early Imperial Tunisian fish sauce exports to Luni; see Boersma, Yntema and van der Werff (1986) for similar finds at Ostia; see also Reynolds (2000a), for comment on these. For an assessment of fish sauce production in Roman Tunisia, see Ben Lazreg et al. (1995). There is (personal observation) a major, extensive fish sauce production centre at Raf Raf, running along the coast. This, from the amphorae present, was active in the late Punic or early Republican period, in the 1st to 2nd centuries, and in the 4th century (Keay 25). 167. Reynolds (2000a). Note that the BEY 006/007/045 sites in Beirut have yielded a total number of 778 RBHS of amphorae from the Iberian Peninsula. These are, with a few exceptions, from Baetica and Lusitania. A few are of the late 1st century BC, but the rest are of 1st to 5th century AD date. As noted, Dressel 20 fragments are rare in Beirut (see n. 91), the vast majority of these amphorae being for the transport of fish products. The number of Tunisian fragments registered is similar (754 RBHS). There are 20 Tripolitanian sherds. 168. Whereas some Keay 23 are in Sado-Tejo or related fabrics, there are no Lusitanian examples of Keay 19. I am at present unable to source the remaining

254

Notes to pages 45-46 examples of Keay 23 and Keay 19 in Beirut contexts. They all have similar fabrics with varying degrees of quartz and micaceous plated inclusions. They are often fired pale greenish (this may be due to the use of salt water in the production process?). These are not really the same as the well-fired, likely Malagueñan, versions of Keay 19 and 30bis found at El Monastil (Elda). Though not from Cádiz or from the Algarve, it would be unwise to allocate them to any particular production site in Baetica at this stage, but the variabiity of these fabrics suggests a range of production sites from Huelva to Málaga. 169. Reynolds (2004). 170. Bernal Casasola (2000b): Spanish finds comprised oil amphorae (Dressel 20), wine/defrutum amphorae (Haltern 70), wine amphorae (Dressel 30; Beltrán 68?) and fish sauce amphorae (Dressel 7/11, Beltrán 2A-B, Venta del Carmen 1, Almagro 50, Keay 16, Keay 19, Keay 23, Keay 84 and Majuelo I; Beltrán 68?). One complete amphora similar to Beltrán 68 in Beirut is not in Baetican or Tunisian fabric (BEY006.7313.1: unstratified, but associated with 3rd century, as well as Byzantine and Medieval pottery). Its fabric suggests a Black Sea source (see n. 212). A largely complete amphora and a rim, both from the mid 3rd century context BEY 006.5051 (5051.239 and 325; see Table 4), have a south Spanish fabric and shape that are well-paralleled by the three Beltrán 68 amphorae found on the Cabrera III wreck (Bost et al. 1992, 144-6). Many of these 3rd century and later garum amphora forms were present in Beirut in early 3rd century levels, so Caesarean examples need not date to as late as the late 4th century, as Bernal Casasola suggests. Keay 19 and 23 are found in 4th to early 5th century contexts in Beirut. Keay 16 is notably absent in these later contexts and is confined to the early to mid 3rd century. Tomber (1999) dated the harbour deposit to the ‘late 4th or early 5th century’, but several features suggest the pottery does not enter the 5th century: the Beirut amphora fig. 6.100 is 4th century; the LRA 1 variants with a long narrow neck and characteristic grooved handles are typical 4th century types, not found in well-dated early 5th century deposits in Beirut. There were 19 ARS sherds v. 15 amphora sherds, a certain imbalance of supply, given that the ratio of fine wares to amphorae is 7-8%: 45-55%. This suggests that though the supply of ARS was ‘normal’ for the quantity of fine wares (75.4% of the fine wares are LRD from Cyprus; ARS comprises 5.4%), the number of Tunisian amphorae was very low. It may be that Tunisian amphorae imports to the East, notably fish sauce amphorae, increased in the early 5th century. This is likely to be the case in Beirut in contexts of c. 410. 171. Riley (1975). 172. Bonifay and Leffy (2002). 173. Bonifay, Carre and Rigoir (1998). For Marseille-La Bourse, Period 1A, AD 425-450, only a few sherds were noted: of Dressel 23, and the fish sauce amphora Keay 19; for the similarly dated Context 12 of Les Puits du Bon Jésus there were 3 rims of Dressel 23 oil amphorae, a handle of Keay 19 and a base section of Keay 23, probably from Sado/Portugal. From Marseille-Bourse, Period 2, AD 450-500, Spanish sherds of Keay 19 (fabric) were ‘very rare’ throughout. 174. Though I hesitate to point this out, interpreters of data such as these should bear in mind what the figures represent. That they represent relative ‘dependency’ on local and imported goods has been argued elsewhere (Reynolds 1995, ch. 5.2, based primarily on Fulford [1987]). One has the impression that cities could never import enough! Secondly, and what concerns me in this case (Rome trends), is that, if eastern amphorae exported to the West contained primarily wine, as is very likely, they

255

Notes to pages 47-48 could not have affected the separate distribution mechanism supplying BaeticanLusitanian products, principally oil and fish sauce. There is, furthermore, a basic flaw in the use of relative percentages in that a rise, large in this case, or small, will cause other values to drop, even though, in reality, they may have remained constant, or even increased. The supply of, say, Baetican fish sauce, though in some cases tied to the supply of other goods (shared cargoes with Baetican oil; shared cargoes with Lusitanian fish sauce, as in the supply to Beirut), followed a trajectory of its own making (starting from the producer, ending at the consumer, with the merchant, operating at either end or both ends). It followed its own independent trends in imports. In Beirut, a Syrian merchant was not affected by the supply of wine imports from Ephesus. He might be aware of imports of Sinopean fish sauce, perhaps be involved in both sources if he was a dealer-negotiator in fish sauce, but would not have needed to keep an eye on wine imports. A model often proposed is that one can read the strength of a city’s economy through the comparison of local v. imported amphorae (at Carthage, for example: Panella [1983]; Fulford in Fulford and Peacock [1984, final chapter]). Low imports = low economic strength, high imports = high economic strength. Alternatively one could say quite the opposite: the city imported more of a particular product because it doesn’t produce sufficient quantities of it. However, trends in Beirut would indicate that Beirut’s production of wine was always high, and has little to do with the quantities it imported of wine from other sources (Reynolds 2005b: 609-10, graphs 1-3). One is safer, at least, if comparing percentage values and trends for the same class of product, e.g. oil amphorae, wine amphorae. Ideally, we need to find a means to plot and compare individual paths of regional imports, say Baetican fish sauce or LRA 1, but how can one establish these trends without making a comparison against the whole amphora assemblage? I still cannot find a solution to this problem, one that involves the calculation of figures for an amphora class that are independent and not affected by the figures and trends of other amphorae in the data set. 175. Morais (2005). 176. A point well argued by Carreras Monfort (2000). 177. Nieto Prieto (1993). 178. Ramallo Asensio (1984a) and (1985). 179. Finds in La Alcudia, for example, see Reynolds (1993). 180. Reynolds (1993, Site Index, 42.3-4); the amphora Reynolds (1993, Ware 1.52). 181. Reynolds (1993). Such as Campello (Site 2); Punta de l’Arenal (Jávea) (Site 205); Baños de la Reina, Calpe (Site 212 and its necropolis Site 213); Torre la Cruz, Villajoyosa (Site 216). 182. See Lagóstena Barrios (2001, 261-9). Though it has been stated that there was no settlement at Benalúa (Lagóstena Barrios [2001, 179-82, referring to Gutiérrez Lloret [1988]]), analyses of flotated seeds and other environment material collected in excavations provides clear evidence to the contrary (Reynolds [1993], Site 42.3). The site was involved in the manufacture of glass vessels, that, in contrary to Lagóstena Barrios (op. cit.), were not closed forms that possibly contained fish sauce, but standard late Roman open bowls and cups, some with white trail decoration (Reynolds [1993], plate 102). This would perhaps be an appropriate point to state that, though the title of my catalogue of fine wares for Benalúa gave the latter the identification of ‘Lucentum (Benalúa-Alicante)’, this was not the title submitted for publication, but that provided later, without my knowledge (Reynolds [1987]). My views on Benalúa,

256

Notes to pages 48-50 that this was a villa-fish sauce factory with port facilities, and that Lucentum was at the town site of Tossal de Manises, to the north of Alicante, in La Albufereta, were clearly expressed in this publication and in my summary of the data on regional sites (Reynolds [1993, 49-50, 53-4, Site Index, Site 25, for the Tossal, and Site 42, for Benalúa]). Though it is possible that the name ‘Lucentum’ was transferred from the Tossal (where the harbour there may have silted up by the 3rd century), to Benalúa, as it was later to Lacant/Alicante in the early Medieval period, there is no evidence for this having occurred. It was proposed that Benalúa, given the huge quantities of imports there, replaced the harbour of Tossal or more likely, Santa Pola, which declined as a port by the 5th century, but was not identified as Lucentum. 183. Carreras Monfort and Berni i Millet (1998). 184. Remolà i Vallverdú (2000a, 196-200, figs 68-70). Note that Keay attributed a local origin to an example of Keay 16C, from the rural site of La Salut (Sabadell) (3rd century?: Keay 1984, 150-1, fig. 60.4). 185. See Panella (1992). 186. It should be noted that the figures for Ostia (Table 2a) are markedly different to those of Rome (Table 1a) with respect to Gallic and Aegean imports (all wine amphorae). There are much higher percentages for the Gallic wine in the Flavian period at Ostia (25.4%) and much higher percentages for eastern wines in the Rome assemblages. 187. Kapitän 1 and 2 amphorae, related in fabric, are generally thought to originate in the Aegean. However, on the basis of the similarity of their fabric(s) to certain amphorae of the Crimea, I have recently proposed that they are Black Sea amphorae (west of the Crimea?) (Reynolds forthcoming c). This, of course, affects our assessment of the ‘Aegean’ contribution to Roman trade. 188. Hayes (1991, 155, Type 37): Villa Dionysos excavations. John Hayes states they are ‘common: a fair number of pieces in destruction fills (mainly in the upper layers) and in later levels: further finds from the 1935 season’. The type is present in the Severan phase of the Unexplored Mansion (Sackett 1992). 189. Wine production during the (early?) Roman period is now attested at Kamed al Loz, close to the source of one of the two principal current Lebanese vintages, Château Kefraya. Not too far distant, some 175 presses, identified as being for wine, rather than oil, with concentrations in Mtein, Michikha and Baskinta, have been located in north Mtein (Mount Lebanon), in the highlands to the north-east of Beirut (many thanks to Zeina Gabriel for sharing this information on her current survey work). My impression of the pottery from these sites is that they are predominantly early Roman (1st to 2nd centuries AD) and Medieval. Given that the Baalbek ‘table amphora’ of the early Imperial period bears a grooved handle, this may also have carried wine (Hamel unpublished, fig. 2: its shape and size resembles that of the Imperial Ras al Basit type, both forms having a ring-foot, free standing base). The amphorae of north Lebanon first appear in Beirut contexts in the late 1st century AD and are typical in 2nd to mid 3rd century contexts (for some of the forms, ranging from large to small containers, see Reynolds [2003d; 2005b]). There is certainly modern-day production of olives in the mountains of north Lebanon, and it is possible that some of these Roman amphora types carried oil. The production of olive oil in southern Lebanon in the Byzantine period is attested well within the mountains, at Chhîm, a site dominated by its Roman temple and later Christian basilica (for the Lebanese-Polish excavations there, see Waliszewski [1999 and subsequent reports in this series]; Waliszewski and Ortali-Tarazi 2002). That this production was in the hands of the Church is possible.

257

Notes to pages 50-51 190. I should say that the Gallic amphora series was not the only wine container sharing these characteristics in the early Empire. The Tarraconensian Oberaden 74 (see the following section) is equally a free-standing medium size container. The Dressel 28 is a similar form, produced in Baetica (Miro 1988, 91-4; Izquierdo i Tugas, ‘Un nou centre productor d’amfores a la Vall de l’Ebre: el Mas del Catxorro de Benifallet’: on the Internet). The ‘ánforas de base plana’ produced in Denia and other locations on the east coast of Spain in the early Empire more closely imitate the Gallic shape. The ‘Pompeii 5’, produced in the 1st and 2nd centuries AD, is another free-standing wine container, in this case from the eastern Mediterranean (eastern Cilicia: Figs 13, 14). In Butrint close-regional, imported buff flagon-amphorae of the 1st to 3rd centuries, and other small, some not free-standing, 2nd to mid 3rd century buff amphorae, some of them being lined, would probably have carried wine (Reynolds, Hernández and Çondi 2008, figs 10.33-5, 16.61-2 and 17.67-70). 191. Yacoub (1988), figs 6 and 7, for two similar scenes on mosaics, one from Oudna, the other from Dougga, depicting MRA 1 in use as wine containers: two slaves each pour wine into glass cups from MR 1 amphorae balanced on their left and right shoulders, respectively. The Dougga mosaic is also illustrated by Rostovtzeff (1971, plate 62.1). Another mosaic from El Djem depicts what may be two MR 1 amphorae (or glass vessels of similar shape) (Yacoub1988, fig. 8). 192. Lemaître (2000b). 193. The Keay 1/Peacock and Williams Class 38/Dressel 30 amphora is often stamped, a rare feature in this period, indicating its origin in the ‘province of Mauretania’, and in some cases more specifically ‘from Tubusuctu’, modern Tiklat. Wine presses have been identified at Kabilia and in the territory of Cherchel. Fish sauce installations are also known between Cherchel/Iol Caesarea and Tipasa. A ‘negotians salsamentarius et vinarius maurarius’ is known from an inscription found in Rome (CIL 6.9676), and so the export to Rome and elsewhere of Mauretanian fish sauce needs to be borne in mind. Another stamped and distinctive Mauretanian type, pitched, so containing wine or fish sauce, but not oil, is depicted in a mosaic in the Portico of the Corporations at Ostia. The amphora had been generally erroneously interpreted as a Keay 1. This amphora also dates to the late 2nd and 3rd centuries (Ben Abed-Ben Kader, Bonifay and Gresheimer [1999]: with references to oil and wine production sites in Mauretania). Though the whole shape (base rim and handles) of Keay 1A is a straight copy of the Gallic wine amphora Gauloise 4, the hollow foot and other features of some examples of Keay 1B (notably Keay’s actual type piece) are closer to Keay 23, the Spanish and Portuguese fish sauce amphora. The wide band rim type could also link the form (and content) to Beltrán 68 (Fig. 4f). Others, but for the rim, have the same base, body and handles as Keay 1A (for illustration of complete examples of Keay 1, see Scalliano and Sibella [1994]). Yet again, one should be perhaps cautious in assuming that all Keay 1 amphorae, particularly Keay 1B, carried wine. The same argument applies to Beltrán 68, generally stated as being a wine transport amphora (Bernal Casasola 2000a): see n. 212 for more problems on the south Spanish and possible Black Sea origin of this type/variant. In conclusion, I would suggest that Keay 1A contained wine and that Keay 1B and Beltrán 68 (some of Baetican origin, others not), carried fish sauce. (cf. the ‘trader in Mauretanian fish sauce and wine’ noted above). 194. Peña (1999; 2007, 114-17) and Sirks (1991, 391-4). Under Aurelian, wine collected as tax was sold at the Temple of the Sun, as well as other locations in the capital. It seems that the same temple served as a collection point (and outlet) for wine of the canon vinarius in the 4th century. For more details see n. 125.

258

Notes to pages 51-52 195. Said to be a product of Naxos, north-eastern Sicily (Wilson 1990, 264, fig. 224), MRA 1 was originally thought to have packaged exports of Cyrenaican or Tripolitanian wine (Peacock and Williams [1986], 175-6, Class 40). Riley (1979, 195-6), does not actually state that the amphora was local to Benghazi and infers that it is not particularly common, especially when compared to Cretan amphorae. The amphora was discussed as a Sicilian type in Reynolds (1995, 67-70), though its fabric is so different to that of Keay 52, produced across the water in Calabria, that I have always had doubts about an origin in Naxos. I had also seen a large number of these in the store-room at Lepcis Magna. The form did not occur, however, in deposits I studied that were excavated in Lepcis Magna, primarily dating to the 1st and 4th to 5th centuries (cf. Reynolds 1997). Peña (1999, 74-6, Class 4) has conducted detailed research on the amphora type, including thin sections of fabrics. With his geological expertise he has suggested MRA 1 and earlier examples of the form derived from sources in north-eastern Sicily, such as Naxos, and as far south as Taormina. Others in his Roman sample (Variant 1), with a more sedimentary clay, he argues, are more likely to derive from a source in Tunisia or central or western Sicily. Peña proposes that the north-east Sicilian variants of MRA 1 would have carried the wines of Messina (Mamertinum), another variant of that wine also from Messina (Potitianum) and from Tauromenium (Tauromenitanum), all wines mentioned by Pliny (NH 14.66). He suggests an origin in the region of Mount Etna, known to have produced a major wine in the 4th century (Expositio Totius Mundi, 65.14-15) for Variant 1, with its sedimentary fabric, suggesting that the workshops lay on the margins of this volcanic tract. 196. Note that MRA 1 was quite common in an early 5th century deposit at Arles. See Piton (1998, 109, fig. 6.36-41). 197. See Peña (1999, particularly 10-20, 173-82, §1.2 and appendix 1), for a detailed analysis of the wine supply of Rome in this period. 198. For this theme see Aranegui Gascó and Gisbert (1992, discussion section). It may be that the 1st to 2nd century (+) wine amphorae of Denia have been misidentified as ‘Gallic’ in publications of both site finds and shipwreck cargoes. 199. Reynolds (2000a, 1052, 1053, fig. 2.17-18). 200. For a more detailed summary of trends in wine production within Hispania in the late Republican and Imperial periods, see Beltrán Lloris (2000). For Catalunya in particular, see Miró (1988). I have not mentioned here the major production of wine from the 1st century BC in imitations of the Italian amphora Dressel 1, the ‘Tarraconense 1’, in both the Barcelona region and, to a lesser extent, in the Lower Ebro Valley (Más de Aragó). We should also note the local production of the late Republican type Lamboglia 2 amphora/Peacock and Williams Class 8 in the territory of Iluro/Mataró. In Badalona in the late Republic the Tarraconense I was produced, and, from 40-30 BC, its successor, the Pascual 1 type/Peacock and Williams Class 6. The Augustan period brought about an increase in wine production and the range of forms carrying wine. The Dressel 2-4 gradually replaced the Pascual 1 type, a major product in the Barcelona region. 201. For Carthage, see Freed (1998), Freed and Moore (1996) and the amphorae from the German excavations (Martin-Kilcher 1998). For Santa Pola, see Márquez Villora (1999, especially tables 5 and 6), for Tarraconensian and Ibizan amphora forms found at Santa Pola; for Valencia, see Pascual Berlanga and Ribera i Lacomba (2000). 202. Riley (1979, 157-64). 203. Miró (1988, 54-6, Site 49), for Tivissa; Beltrán Lloris (2000, 453-4), with

259

Notes to pages 52-53 reference to the stamped products of the Figlina duorum Gallorum found at Calahorra. 204. Beltrán Lloris (2000, 454), with references to the villa sites of Musas de Arellano (1st to 3rd centuries), a press and fumarium at Falces (2nd to 4th centuries), a press at Funes (2nd to 3rd centuries) and finds at Liédena (4th century). 205. See Nolla and Casas (1990). Whether these Gauloise 4 can be dated as late as 375/400 is more doubtful, given that much of the ‘ARS A’ found with them in Phase IIIb may be residual material from Phase IIIa. 206. Fernández Izquierdo (1994); Pascual Berlanga and Ribera i Lacomba (2000); Márquez Villora (1999); Aranegui Gascó and Mantilla (1987); e.g. at Oliva and the villa of L’Almadrava: Aranegui Gascó and Gisbert (1992); Gisbert (1987, for various wine production sites in the region). At L’Almadrava Dressel 2-4 comprised 56% and ‘Dressel 30’/Gauloise 4 imitations 40% of the amphorae in one dump. Gisbert’s (1987) dating of the ‘Dressel 30’ amphorae follows that proposed at Ostia, Flavian to late Antonine, with the observation that ‘late 2nd to 3rd century’ levels nearby at the Hort de Morand (Denia) comprised Keay 1 Mauretanian and (Keay Period I) Tunisian amphorae, but no local types (op. cit., 112). It would seem that this dating for the local production of Gauloise 4 imitations at L’Almadrava was later corrected: the earliest 2nd century (Trajanic and later) phase of production (Phase 2) continued up to c. 275 (Phase 3) (Aranegui Gascó and Gisbert 1992). 207. Ramón (1986); Aranegui Gascó (1982); Aranegui Gascó et al. (1998); Márquez Villora (1999, table 5). See Reynolds (1995, fig. 75.1) for the 3rd to 4th century amphora. 208. Beltrán de Heredia Bercero (1998). 209. Recent work based on the reading of dipinti and study of residues in Haltern 70 suggests that though the amphora could carry wine and fish sauce, its principal contents comprised whole olives in sugar-rich defrutum (grape syrup), or defrutum alone (Beltrán Lloris [2000, 445-6]; Carreras Monfort [2000]). The varied agricultural industries of the Las Marismas of the Lower Guadalquivir offered the possibility of packaging all these products in the Haltern 70 amphora made there. Haltern 70 was also a product of kiln sites in the Bay of Cádiz, Algeciras and the Guadalquivir Valley. For the distribution of Haltern 70 in Portugal/Lusitania see Mayet (2000, 649-50): Haltern 70, at 58 fragments, and Oberaden 81, a related type, at 28 fragments, were more common than Dressel 20, at Conimbriga. See also Beltrán (2000, map/fig. 18) for the quantified distribution of Haltern 70 within Hispania Citerior. This shows quite clearly the concentration of finds in Braga/Bracara Augusta (see here Table 11; Morais 2000a), where they are the most common, Astorga/Asturica Augusta, near Legio, the legionary fortress, and on the Cantabrian coast at Campa de Torres. The map also demonstrates a certain concentration of Haltern 70 finds at Cartagena and Ilici, with the greatest numbers occurring at Santa Pola/Portus Ilicitanus. Haltern 70 was well distributed, but perhaps not common, on sites in north-eastern Tarraconensis. 210. See Bernal Casasola (2000a, 287-90, 298, 299, 302-5, 309), for Baetican wine amphorae. Sites include Matagallares (Granada) (early to late 3rd century) and Loma de Ceres (Granada). Baetican forms include ‘Dressel 30/Keay 1’ and Gauloise imitations (at Matagallares); ‘Dressel 30’ also most important at La Finca del Secretario (Málaga); Loma de Ceres (Granada) (‘Dressel 30’ and Gauloise imitations, with Beltrán 72); the type ‘Baelo I’ may be a wine amphora (also on the

260

Notes to pages 53-55 Cabrera III wreck); the type ‘Carteia I’ may also be a wine amphora (at Septem/Ceuta in a context of the late 3rd or early 4th century; 4th century elsewhere). 211. Lemaître (2000b). 212. For the relationship between this form and Mauretanian Keay 1B, see n. 193. The origin of Beltrán 68 is problematical. The shape is related to the Mauretanian amphora Keay 1B. See n. 170 for two south Spanish amphorae close to the Cabrera III wreck examples of Beltrán 68 found in Beirut (BEY 006.5051.239 and 325). These are from two distinct sources, neither of which could be said to be typical Cádiz fabrics. Several other, morphologically identical examples of the ‘Beltrán 68’ type found in Beirut, with a cream surface coat, have a hard red fabric with iron pellets (BEY 006.7313.1 is a complete example). The fabric is macroscopically close to that of Kapitän 2 amphorae, Zeest 80 and especially another, large amphora, series (Zeest 72-73), produced in the Crimea that is common in 3rd century Beirut contexts (fabric FAM 93) and bears the same cream coat and body ribbing (for Zeest 72-73, see Knossos, Sackett et al. 1992, Deposit U, Upper levels, Plate 198.133; Knossos, Hayes 1983, fig. 25.A79, his Type 35; Salamis: Diederichs 1980, 48, no. 174, fig. 7, dipinto Neikêphorou, with note on same dipinto for no. 216; see also Reynolds forthcoming c, for more comment). The well known type Robinson Agora K 109-110 is surely from the same source as Zeest 72-73 (personal observation of the Agora type pieces) and is therefore Crimean in origin. Another variant with a rounded rim closer to Gauloise 4 or Mauretanian Keay 1A found at Knossos was also thought to be similar to the Black Sea-Crimean series (Hayes 1983, 153, fig. 24.A77, with reference to his Types 34-35). Yet another shape closely imitating Gallic amphorae, but in Cilician fabric, is Robinson Agora P 11936 (Fig. 14q) (fabric and form identical to the Beirut early 3rd century vessel Reynolds 2005b, Plate 3, fig. 23: Fig. 14p). In short, there are apparently eastern Mediterranean (Crimean as well as Cilician) versions of Gallic/Mauretanian amphorae, one of these being close to the shape of Beltrán 68. Furthermore, the fabrics of the two Spanish examples of Beltrán 68 in BEY 006.5051 are from different, probably non-Cádiz, sources. 213. Pascual et al. (1997); Pascual Berlanga and Ribera i Lacomba (2000). 214. Reynolds (forthcoming b); Arthur and Williams (1992) and Carreras Monfort (2000), for the supply to the northern provinces. Examples in a deposit at Carthage of c. 175-240 may therefore also be contemporary imports, though they were classified as residual finds (Tomber 1986, 35-6: 9.5% of the total amphorae). 215. Márquez Villora (1999). 216. Carreras Monfort (2000). 217. North-eastern Tarraconensis: Keay (1984a), for Kapitän 2, under Keay 12. A single example of Kapitän 2 in Tarragona noted by Remolà i Vallverdú (2000a, 93). Very rare in south-eastern Spain: e.g. a single example of Kapitän 2 in Santa Pola (Villora 1999, 1499) and absent elsewhere in the Vinalopó Valley (Reynolds 1993). 218. For shipwrecks and eastern Mediterranean merchants in eastern Sicily, see Parker (1992) and Malfitana (2004). 219. Remolà i Vallverdú (2000a); Keay (1984a); Pascual et al. (1997); Reynolds (1995, 40-2). 220. Reynolds (1995, 40-2), but see now see Peña (1999) and Meylan Krauze (2002), for more evidence of Keay 1B at Rome. 221. Beltrán Lloris (2000, 448, and nn. 44 and 45), with reference also to the use of animal skins and to barrels for both wine and beer in Gaul and Germany. He also discusses evidence, from Oberaden, that Tarraconensis and perhaps Baetica exported wine in barrels. For similar evidence from north Africa, see Marlière and Torres Costa (2007).

261

Notes to pages 55-60 222. Pascual Berlanga and Ribera i Lacomba (2000). 223. See Gascou (1982) for the gradual increase in the municipal and colonial status of pagi and civitates in Africa Proconsularis and Numidia during the reigns of Hadrian, Marcus Aurelius and Septimius Severus. See also Reynolds (1995, 45-6). 224. For the relationship of ARS forms to metal ware forms and decoration, see Hayes (1972, 281-7). For a very readable and well-illustrated account of Roman Mediterranean fine wares, see Hayes (1997, 37-84). 225. Greene (1986, 160-1); Tyres (1996). I am here with these dates indicating the periods when each industry took over the supply to the northern provinces, not the date ranges of each industry. 226. For a guide to the typologies of late Roman Gallic wares see Atlante (1981), with bibliography. The pioneer work on t. s. chiara B and t. s. lucente was done by Lamboglia (1958) and Darton (1972), later enriched by the work of Desbat (1988), with references; see also relevant sections in Bonifay, Carre and Rigoir (1998). The study of the various regional branches of t. s. paléochrétienne grise and orangée was led by Rigoir (1968) and Rigoir and Rigoir (1971). For early work on finds of the latter wares in Spain, see Rigoir and Meffre (1973). See also Rigoir (1998) and, for a more recent summary, Tréglia (2005b). 227. Chiara B is so termed because it was originally classified by Lamboglia alongside what John Hayes was to later term ‘African Red Slip Ware’ (= chiara A, C and D, in Lamboglia’s terminology, A and D representing, respectively, north Tunisian and C, central Tunisian, products). Carandini was later to add (chiara) E ware to describe the products of southern Tunisia (Atlante 1981). 228. Hayes (1972, 402-4); Bonifay, Carre and Rigoir (1998), with references. 229. Aicart i Hereu, Llinàs i Pol and Sagrera i Aradilla (1991), with reference to Desbat and Picon’s work on the chemical differentiation of t. s. chiara B and t. s. chiara lucente. Production at Portout has been dated to 400-450. See Pernon (1990). 230. One exception is the villa of Pla de Palol (Platja d’Aró), where there are over 100 fragments (from excavations). The villa of Vilablareix (Gerona), ending in the 4th or early 5th century is another site with a relatively plentiful supply of t. s. lucente (66 fragments). 231. Llinàs i Pol (1997). 232. Aquilué i Abadias (1997). 233. López Mullor, Fierro Macia and Caixal Mata (1997, 64-5). 234. Sagunto: Aranegui Gascó (1982). See n. 58 and Reynolds (1995, 278-9, appendix D.5); for Valencia: Burriel Alberich and Rosselló Mesquida (2000). 235. See Reynolds (1995, Appendix B.2) for a guide to the distribution and bibliography. 236. Only 14 vessels were found at Belo. See Bourgeois and Mayet (1991). 237. Uscatescu Barrón et al. (1993); (1994); Fernández Ochoa, García Díaz and Uscatescu Barrón (1992). For thoughts on the administrative, military and economic role of Cantabria in the late Roman period, see Díaz and Menéndez-Bueyes (2005). 238. De Nicolás i Mascaró (1994); Buxeda i Garrigós, Cau Ontiveros and Tuset i Bertrán (1997): at least 45 Gallic imports and 262 imitations v. 167 vessels of ARS. 239. Orfila Pons and Cau Ontiveros (1994): 43 sherds, 34.95% of the total FW = 123. 240. For example Paz Peralta (1991), with comments on the re-dating of ‘late

262

Notes to pages 60-64 3rd century’ levels of Pompaelo proposed by Mezquíriz (1958; 1978), to the second half of the 4th century. 241. Compare the dating of late TSHT by Paz Peralta (1991) and Juan Tovar (1997). The continued use of 4th century coinage into the 5th century and even into the 6th century is being recognised in Britain (Richard Reece, pers. comm.) and in the Mediterranean, for example in Beirut (Butcher 2004) and in Butrint (Sam Moorehead, pers. comm.). Contemporary struck coins of the 6th century, tiny nummi, are often missed (if layers are not sieved) or unclassified, or classified incorrectly as late 4th/early 5th century pieces. One still sees a strict adherence to coin dates as firm evidence for the dating of deposits when associated with pottery. However coins, being more often than not thrown away because they were worthless and out of date, are more often than not ‘residual’ in the contexts in which they are found, They are deposited generally up to 50 years or more from the date when they were in use. This is clear in the case of Beirut, when compared with the pottery dates of the same contexts (Butcher 2001-2; 2004). For comments on problems in the dating and interpretation of pottery assemblages resulting from ‘site formation processes’ (re-dumping of material; ‘truncation’ of deposits, etc.) and inadequate sample sizes being studied, see Reynolds (1999, 57-8). 242. Juan Tovar (1997). For example, ARS 58, introduced c. 290/300; ARS 59, from c. 320; ARS 61B, from c. 400/420. The following outline and interpretation of the production and development of TSHT is based on this important article. All references to sites mentioned in this section are to be found in his comprehensive bibliography and are therefore not given here. 243. Juan Tovar has dated this first phase to c. 360-370, basing the reduced firing at least on the date of the introduction of t. s. paléochrétienne grise. But if the date of the introduction of the latter was in the late 4th century one would have to raise the reduced TSHT starting date, presumably. The copying of ARS D forms in a red fabric would make equal sense if this carried on throughout the mid 4th century, when the ware was actually more commonly exported. 244. Juan Tovar and Blanco García (1997). For an opposing view, see Paz Peralta (1991), for proposed dating from sites in the Ebro Valley, notably Zaragoza (Table 13). 245. Many of the late forms were first recognised in the necropoleis of the Duero, such as San Miguel del Arroyo and Fuentespreadas, and in Palencia, at the villa of La Olmeda (Pedrosa la Vega). See Palol and Cortés (1974). 246. Juan Tovar and Blanco García (1997). 247. For example, the wares found at Gijón: Uscatescu et al. (1993); (1994). Spanish grey ware imitations at the mid 4th to late 5th century opulent villa of La Olmeda (Palencia), have recently been published: Nozal Calvo and Puertas Gutiérrez (1995); vessels at the necropolis of Fuentespreadas (Zamora): Caballero Zoreda (1974); and at the villa of Baños de Valdearados (Burgos): Caballero Zoreda and Argente Oliver (1975). 248. Nozal Calvo and Puertas Gutiérrez (1995). The 85 vessels of grey TSHT recorded at La Olmeda comprised a range of open and closed forms: dishes (16.6%), bowls (24.7%), ‘ollas’/jars (15.3%), lids (10.6%), ‘jarras’/handled bowls/cups (9.4%) and bottles (15.3%). 249. The following account and interpretation of this complex range of ‘imitations’ is taken from Juan Tovar and Blanco García (1997). This major article also provides the reader with a comprehensive list of sites, with a corresponding bibliography. 250. See Diaz (1992-3).

263

Notes to pages 64-67 251. Juan Tovar and Blanco García (1997, fig. 13), for forms in the Visigothic repertoire, with reference to Casa Herrera: Caballero and Ulbert (1976, fig. 37, S.6.C.2; fig. 55, S.47.C.1; fig. 61.VII-1); Fresneda de Cuéllar: Caballero Zoreda (1989, 78-82, fig. 6.1); Camino de los Afligidos: Fernández-Galiano (1976, fig. 33.1/3, 1.13, 1/17, 1/20-21). 252. See Caballero Zoreda and Juan Tovar (1987), with references. The inclusion of a cluster of sites on the Duero and its tributaries suggests that there may be some confusion with Juan Tovar’s burnished-polished table ware category. 253. Arce, Caballero and Elvira (1997). The interpretation of this structure is problematical. Javier Arce has argued that this is not a villa, rather a market building or nundina, like the macella found in north Africa (Arce 1993: my thanks to Gisela Ripoll for providing me with this and other information). 254. Juan Tovar (1997, 201-2). 255. See Alarçao (1975, 93ff.). 256. Alarçao (1975, 99-100). 257. Delgado (1975a), 271, 282-4, plate 79.158-174). 258. Delgado (1976, 65). 259. Delgado (1976, 66-7, plate 15.3-4, 6-21; plate 16.23, 26-38). 260. However, Juan Tovar and Blanco García (1997, 201) would date their initial production to the 4th century. See Delgado (1975c). 261. Reynolds (1995, 28); This phenomenon occurred in Campania during the 5th and 6th centuries (Arthur 1998b, 494-5), in the Val Pescara (Abruzzo) in the 5th or 6th centuries (ARS 91 imitations are difficult to classify) (Siena, Troiano and Verrocchio [1998, 680-3]), at the villa site of S. Giovanni di Ruoti by late 5th to early 6th centuries (Freed 1983), at Ventimiglia and Rome by the early 6th century and, notably later, c. 550 in Ravenna (according to Tortorella, 1998, 53). For Italy in general, see also Paroli (2003, 590-1): local production of ARS forms of the 4th to early 5th centuries (ARS 50, 58, 61, 67) and mid to late 5th century (75, 83, 85 and 91A). Then a later 6th century phase with ARS 99, 80/99, 97, 91D, 102, 103B and more rarely 104. In the late 6th-7th centuries ARS 105, and 106. LRC was also copied. 262. Delgado (1975b). 263. Abascal Palazón (1986). See now Abascal Palazón (2008). 264. Caballero Zoreda (1974). 265. Abascal Palazón (1986) forms 38-40. 266. Orfila Pons (1993); (1995), with references. See now her most recent synthesis of the evidence (2008). 267. Orfila’s dating is partly based on parallels with ARS and TSHT. The best evidence for its popularity in the first half of the 5th century is its presence in a deposit excavated in the Cryptoporticus of Cercadilla (Moreno Almenara and Alarcón [1996]). In a similar period assemblage in Granada (Plaza de la Santa Isabel la Real) the ware is also common (Orfila Pons 2008, 548). The ware also occurs further east, as residual material in early medieval contexts of Tolmo de Minateda (Albacete) and at Begastrum/Cehegín (Murcia), for example, where it is quite common and again could be an indication of a late 4th/5th century date, not necessarily later (Ramallo Asensio 1984b; Orfila Pons suggests this to be evidence for a 6th century date). It is occasionally found in the Vinalopó Valley (Reynolds 1993, plate 110.1077, from La Alcudia de Elche/Ilici). 268. Moreno Almenara and Alarcón (1996). 269. Juan Tovar and García Moreno (1997, 202). Orfila (1995) also describes the vessels as coarse. However examples of the ware I have handled in Murcia and

264

Notes to pages 67-70 Alicante were so strongly reminiscent of ARS, in slip colour and texture, particularly the pimply slipped ware of south Tunisia (e.g. ARS 50.61), that I wondered if the ware was not a north African fine ware. The fine rouletting of these examples is carefully executed and vessel walls are notably thin (e.g. the example of Form 1 found at La Alcudia de Elche: Reynolds 1993, plate 110.1077). 270. The most common forms are a small bowl with incurving sides (Fig. 11, Form 1: possibly related to TSH Ritterling 8) and a dish shape close to that of ARS 61B (Fig. 11, Form 9: equally typical of all of the Spanish-Portuguese table wares we have discussed). Other forms can be paralleled with the classic carinated bowl shape TSHT 37B (Fig. 8) (Fig. 12, Form 2: a shape also found in the Gallic repertoires of t. s. lucente and t. s. paléochrétienne grise and orangée: Fig. 7c), dishes ARS 50, 59 and 67 and bowl ARS 73, ARS forms of the 4th to 5th centuries. 271. For Severus and his dynasty, see Birley (1999) and Daguet-Gagey (2000), as well as the excellent book on Julia Domna (Levick 2007). Gascou (1982) admirably describes the steady rise in numbers of municipia and independant cities in north Africa from Trajan to Severus. Some obvious examples of Severan propaganda are the portraits of the dynasty erected in the theatres of Carthage, Lepcis Magna, Sabratha and Hierapolis (Swain, Harrison and Elsner [eds] 2007) and in the nymphaeum at Perge (Lusnia 2004), the Arch of Septimius Severus in his own Lepcis, of course, the imagery and grand scale of the Septizodium in Rome (Lusnia 2004), as well as the marble map of Rome (the Forma Urbis Romae erected in the Forum Pacis: see Rodriguez Almeida [1981] and now on the web, the Stanford Digital Forma Urbis Romae Project). For the ‘cellular’ and very specific distribution of the city coinages of the Roman East, see Butcher (2003b). 272. The supply of foodstuffs to the army in the provinces of the eastern Empire is a vast subject that requires a rigorous analysis of finds in military sites across the eastern provinces, as well as study of the documentary evidence (papyri, ancient literary texts, the Theodosian Code). Indeed, there is considerable helpful documentary evidence for the organisation of the annona in the East in the Byzantine period (for edicts in the Theodosian Code referring specifically to the supply of the annona militaris, see CTh. 7.4.1-36; some of these are noted in the following paragraphs; see also nn. 275 and 292, on the navicularii, and nn. 298 and 310, on the rebuilding of the harbours at Seleucia and, later, Caesarea; and Isaac [1990], 285 n. 106, for some of the bibliography; see also McCormick 2001, 87-92). But we are here considering the supply of the armies in the East in the 3rd century, prior to the Diocletianic and later reorganisation of the provinces, and the creation and evolution of the military command and career structures that were in charge of the annona by the mid 4th century (Chapter 3.2). The military foundations of Severus, the mid and later 3rd century destruction of forts and cities on the eastern front, such as Ain Sinu, Zeugma and Dura, and the forts within Dacia abandoned during the reign of Aurelian, should eventually offer valuable data as to the character of military supply in the 3rd century, but at present, as far as I know, they have not been systematically explored. I certainly cannot do justice to this major theme here. However, I feel that the discussion of the supply of the annona, as well as other goods in the western Mediterranean that has been so far offered here (Chapter 1), and will continue (Chapters 3 and 4), needs to be offset by a brief consideration of the eastern Mediterranean, its supply systems and military markets, particularly given the way in which the surpluses of the eastern Mediterranean were to become integral for both sectors of the Byzantine Empire and beyond. An evaluation of the annona supply of the East is problematic, however, for

265

Notes to page 70 several reasons, the quality of the data available from military sites and in Constantinople itself being paramount. The ceramic data has to be in some quantifiable form to be of any real use, and this in itself is part of the problem we face at present in the evaluation of trends in supply in the eastern Mediterranean as a whole, never mind the specific case of military sites. We have good data from Nicopolis ad Istrum and Dichin, and quantified data is also emerging from the fortress of Novae, but these are at present exceptions to the rule. A recent book (Paraschiv 2006) offers quite useful summaries of some of the evidence on amphorae from the lower Danube, primarily for the Byzantine period, but the unquantified summaries offered by Opait, (1996; 2004), Bjelajac (1996), Sazanov (1997; 2007) and Dyczek (2001) for the Black Sea-Danube region are typical. It is also difficult to gauge quantities of imports from publications on Roman Egypt given past and present trends in publication (e.g. Marchand and Marangou [eds] 2007), the quantified data from Alexandria and Mons Claudianus being most welcome (Majcherek 2004; Tomber 2005). Scores of fortresses, whether in the Danube, Egypt or the Middle East, some presumably datable to specific periods, such as Ain Sinu (Iraq), offer an invaluable opportunity to track and quantify economic and regional trends in military supply in some detail. The same is equally possible for military sites of the African limes (e.g. the Severan fort of Bu Njem in Tripolitania). In the case of the eastern limes systems, the road network and the ‘highways’ offered by the Euphrates and the Orontes linked the coastal city-ports on the Mediterranean with the interior, its inland cities (some part-military, such as Apamea and Damascus) and the troops on the frontier. In this way ARS; LRC, as well as Black Sea amphorae were able to reach the furthest eastern locations (see below for some examples). In the latter case, we should note that, as the Homs survey indicates, there was practically no communication between the Phoenician coast and the Syrian interior (Reynolds forthcoming d). Homs and its villages received their long-distance imports by means of the Orontes and to some extent along the Beqaa Valley (early Roman mortaria, Baalbek amphorae, Palestinian brittle wares, for example). The absence of Amrit amphorae would indicate that there was no connection with that port or region during the 1st to late 4th centuries. That contacts began later, however, during the 5th and 6th centuries, is evident from the supply of the large basins and dolia in Amrit-Tartus fabrics.The supply of LRC via Amrit, where the ware is as common as it is elsewhere in northern Syria, is therefore also possible. The distribution of LRA 1 and LRA 2 (and other, Black Sea amphorae; as well as rarer Aegean [Samian-Agora M 273 related forms and the later ‘Samos cistern type’], Palestinian and Tunisian amphorae) in the Danube provinces (Karagiorgou 2000), or the mid 7th century finds at the Byzantine fortress at Chios (Ballance et al. 1989), are strong evidence for the existence of a military supply system in the Byzantine period, discussed below (Chapter 4), the burnt storeroom and other deposits at Dichin being spectacular examples of what was supplied to a fortress on the Danube in the 480s and 570s (Swan 2004; 2007). The range of Black Sea and Palestinian forms on Danubian sites is rather similar, at first glance (comparing Dichin, Iatrus and Novae, for example: the small cylindrical amphora Opait, Type B-1c stands out amongst the Black Sea imports: Opait, 1996, 71; Swan 2004, fig. 26). The command structure supplying the Lower Danube provinces part explains the range of goods, LRA 1 and those of the Aegean in particular, that one encounters on military sites in the region: the provinces of Moesia II, Scythia, the Cycladic Islands, Caria, and Cyprus were all under one command, until AD 536,

266

Notes to page 70 that of the Prefect of the East, whose vast command covered the dioceses of Pontus, Thrace, Asia, Oriens and Aegyptus, and after that date, by the quaestor exercitus, who was more logistically based at Odessus/Varna, on the Danube estuary. The quaestor, as his location and Justinian’s directive indicate (Nov. 51), was concerned specifically with the supply of Moesia II and Scythia, through the means of the fleets operating between the Aegean Islands, the south-western Asia Minor province of Caria (Halicarnassus/Bodrum was its principal port) and Cyprus (see the useful Wikipedia article, with references). The major distinction between East and West was the minimal role of Spanish oil, Tripolitanian oil, and Tunisian oil (and grain) in the military annona of the East, except, perhaps, after the Byzantine Reconquest of north Africa when Tunisian goods were directed towards Constantinople, the Danube and the Black Sea (see Chapter 3.2 and 3.4.1, especially n. 476). A principal difference we have already seen with respect to the role of Spanish oil in the military supply of the West, was that it served armies located in zones that did not generate olive oil, a market that became unnecessary by the 3rd century, once the soldiers themselves had ceased to be recruited from Mediterranean regions where they had become accustomed to the use of olive oil (Chapter 1.2). The provinces and islands of the East where the military were stationed were oil producers, whether in Syria, Palaestina, Asia Minor or Greece. For local oil production and African imports in Egypt, see Chapter 1.2. For the production of many types of oil (particularly for perfumes and medicines; linum and sesame oil for cooking and lighting; poppy seed oil for cooking; olive oil) in Ancient as well as Ptolemaic Egypt, see Díaz-Iglesias and Galán (2007). In Pharaonic Egypt olive oil was not commonly produced and was imported from Palestine (and Cyprus), but production increased in the Ptolemaic and Roman periods (ibid., 568-70). If Egypt imported some oil in the early Empire, from Baetica and Tripolitania, primarily, it is significant that Byzantine imports comprised not Tripolitanian oil, but Tunisian non-oil amphorae (Bonifay 2007). Presumably Egypt drew now even more heavily on its own resources. See n. 500 for oil production in Cyprus in the Hellenistic and late Roman periods, and n. 189, for Roman Lebanon. The local production of oil by the multitude of cities and their villages could be harnessed directly, as tax, for the purposes of the army, transported by river or by means of the Roman road network. The late 3rd century Strata Diocletiana connecting Bostra and the oil producing villages of the Hauran with the Euphrates, via the military camp established at Palmyra following Aurelian’s campaign against Zenobia, is a prime example: Butcher 2003a, 158, 416 and fig. 191; Gregory 1996, 202, for the forts located on this route). Zeugma too, received Mediterranean goods that arrived at Seleucia, then travelled along the Orontes to Antioch, and by road, north-east, direct to the Euphrates. In the 1st century AD the same handleless ‘torpedo’ amphorae that are typical of Dura, and in the late Byzantine period, Syrian painted amphorae and ‘brittle’ cooking wares, all reached Zeugma, as well as Black Sea Sinopean fish sauce amphorae, by means of the River Euphrates (the same products are found downstream at Resafa and Qusair-es-Saila: Reynolds forthcoming b). The fort of Ain Sinu, where the same Kapitän 2 amphorae traced at Zeugma, can be found and are contemporary, is located some 350 km to the east, on one of the roads leading from this bridgehead to the Tigris. The penetration of ARS C as far east as Dura, presumably also by means of the Euphrates, is equally remarkable. The great city and territory of Apamea, as well as Hama/Epiphaneia and Homs/Emesa were equally served by the Orontes that linked them to each

267

Notes to page 70 other and to Antioch itself. We are reminded here of several mosaics from Apamea illustrating the transport of small numbers of very accurately depicted 4th or early 5th century Beirut or Agora M 334 amphorae in small boats along the River Orontes (Kingsley and Decker 2000, cover picture). The distribution of Roman military sites and roads connecting them in the Near East, as well as the eastern Black Sea and Cappadocia (towers, forts, legionary bases) can be gauged from the useful maps presented by Gregory (1996, 198-203), as well as maps summarising their proposed chronologies from ‘before 200’ to ‘350-500’ (ibid., 204-7). For Jordan, see Kennedy (2004). In Syria five cities, the majority of them of Hellenistic in origin, served as legionary bases (Raphanea, a Roman foundation of the 1st century, the rest being Zeugma, Cyrrhus, Apamea-onthe-Orontes and Samosata) (Pollard 2000, ch. 1). In Palaestina, Jerusalem and, in Arabia, Bostra were legionary bases. All of these sites offer or have offered (Zeugma) the opportunity to examine evidence for the military annona. Apart from the network of fortresses, whose military status is clear, it was also the practice in the Near Eastern provinces to station troops within established cities. The city of Dibsi Faraj on the Euphrates, is typical of ‘garrisoned cities’. Identified as mid Imperial Athis and late Imperial Neocaesarea, it received its town wall circuit in the Tetrarchic period and was garrisoned, in the 4th century perhaps by the equites Mauri Illyriciani mentioned in the Notitia Dignitatum (Pollard, 2000, 75-8). Excavations here may allow us to document the transition from civilian to military occupation, however, like many cities that served as bases for the Roman army in the East, and Dura is another that is even better preserved and is currently being excavated by several teams, it will be difficult to separate military from civilian supply, except where these are excavated in known military buildings. In the case of Roman Berytus and Damascus, for example, such associations will be well nigh impossible (Pollard, 2000, ch. 2; this is certainly so far the case in Beirut: though some early buildings on site BEY 006 are clearly Roman ‘colonial’ in date, it is impossible to say that they were for the Roman veterans settled in Berytus). Teall (1959) and Sirks (1991) (see here n. 275) provide some of the documentary evidence for the annona civica of Byzantine Constantinople. Isaac (1990, 282-304) and Butcher (2003, 400, 403) summarise some of the evidence for the role of the local population of Syria, Palaestina and Aegyptus in the supplying, as well as billeting of the army, especially when on campaign. The army in the Byzantine period was largely supplied by the provinces where they were stationed, particularly the frontier troops, through taxes in kind or in cash (see Chapter 3.2; e.g. this case in Lower Moesia (modern Bulgaria): CTh. 7.4.15, issued at Marcianopolis (Devnya, just to the west of Varna/Odessus), AD 369, to the Praetorian Prefect Auxonius. ‘Just as we … have commanded to be done throughout all frontiers, you shall order supplies of subsistence allowances to be brought to the camps by the provincials nearest to the borders’). It is clear that the military often took advantage of the local population for transporting annona supplies, this being illegal when goods were not for the limitanei (CTh. 11.1.21, issued by Valentinian, Theodosius and Arcadius, at Constantinople, AD 385: ‘Except in the case of taxes in kind for the border militia, no landholder shall be assigned to furnish post stations or to deliver payments in kind at a considerable distance, but reasonable consideration shall be taken of the entire journey and the necessity involved’). This passage, we should note, is from the chapter on ‘Taxes in kind and tribute’ and highlights the fact that the annona militaris was derived from taxation (and not just in the East).

268

Notes to page 73 Military campaigns and crises were a special case. These could require ad hoc supplies, from local, as well as unaccustomed sources. Libanius tells us of the citizens and city councillors of Antioch who at times, perhaps times of crises, were ordered by the consular governor of Syria to pay for the sea transport of (local) annona corn (Butcher 2003a, 403; Liebeschuetz 1990, for details). The transport of goods from Syria to the garrison at Callinacum on the Euphrates in AD 358 may be one such case, and we know that the councillors of Antioch had similarly to supply goods to the army on the Tigris during the campaigns of Constantius (Libeschuetz 1990, 249). The preparations for the arrival of Diocletian in Egypt in AD 298 are known to us from documentary evidence (Isaac, 1990, 290: many classes of food, wine and a bakery, as well as craftsmen to manufacture armour, for example). It is noted that Egypt in the mid 4th century supplied the eastern provinces with grain for the imperial campaigns against the Persians (‘propter exercitum imperatoris et bellum persarum’: Expositio Totius Mundi, 36; Isaac 1990, 145). For AD 505-506, with respect to preparations for an expedition setting out from Edessa, we have information that ‘… the dux Romanus gives orders (as to what) each of these Goths should receive by the month: a spatheion of oil per month, 200 lb of wood, a bed and bedding between each two of them …’ (Isaac 1990, 301 and n. 205: from The Chronicle of Joshua the Stylite, dated to 507). We shall see that in the 6th and early 7th centuries Syria was largely self-contained and supplied its own needs, evident in the widespread distribution of its own calcareous, often painted, amphorae, as well as its local ‘brittle’ kitchen wares (Chapter 4). Several regional groups of these amphorae and brittle wares can be distinguished, as well as related regional patterns in their distribution (ApameaEmesa/Homs; villages of the north Syrian Limestone Massif; sites connected by the Euphrates; Bartl, Schneider and Böhme 1995; Vokaer 2005; Reynolds and Waksman 2007, for north Palestinian ‘brittle ware’ and their relation to HomsApamean cooking wares). Quantities of amphora imports in inland Syria and Mesopotamia, beyond the coastal cities of the Mediterranean (e.g. Tyre, Beirut, Amrit, Ras al Basit) seem generally low and inconsequential, even though they could penetrate as far as furthest eastern frontier posts. For the Byzantine period in Palestine, Uscatescu Barrón (2003) offers a useful summary of the range and distribution of imports, particularly for Jordan. The evidence for Antioch in the 4th century, provided by Libanius who actually lived there, is quite clear in that he states that the metropolis was supplied locally, through its vast territory, by means of the Orontes (In Praise of Antioch, 260). Libanius states that local goods, wine, but particularly oil, were also shipped abroad from Seleucia (In Praise of Antioch, 20; Casana 2004, 114-15). That the villages to the east, the so-called ‘dead cities’ of the limestone massif of northern Syria, with their numerous oil presses (Tchalenko 1953; Tate 1992; Decker 2000), produced more than they needed and were instrumental in feeding both Antioch, as well as their own populations, and perhaps the standing army, is very likely, but still needs to be proven archaeologically. For excavations in one of these villages, see Sodini et al. (1980). The absence of real data from Antioch itself, despite the large scale excavations carried out in the 1930s, is truly frustrating. The ongoing work on the Amuq Valley Survey (Oriental Institute, University of Chicago) will hopefully provide us with the some of the information we need, though, clearly, new excavations in Antioch should be the ultimate goal (Casana 2004; Butcher, 2003, 153). 273. Apart from a single example of a Tyrian amphora found in Pompeii, I know of no others found in the West (Timby 2004, 388, fig. 7). The small ‘carrot’ amphora (Peacock and Williams Class 12/Camulodunum 189/Schöne-Mau 15), some cer-

269

Notes to pages 73-74 tainly produced in Beirut, other examples and a related form (‘Kingsholm 117’/Peacock and Williams Class 65), perhaps being exported from other sources in northern Palestine. These reached primarily military but also civilian urban markets in Britain, Germany and Gaul, as well as Ostia and Rome in the 1st to early 3rd centuries (see Vipard 1995 and Carreras Monfort and Williams 2002, for a detailed analysis of this type; see also Carreras Monfort 2000, §§ 3.2.5 and 4.4.1). For imports in Lyon of ‘carrot’ amphorae, Kingsholm 117 and another Palestinian amphora from a different source, but also known to have carried dates – Colchester 105/Peacock and Williams Class 65 and Augst 47 – see Lemaître (2000a), Lemaître et al. (2005) and Carreras Monfort (op. cit.). Given the small size of the early-mid 3rd century Augst 46-47 type, also produced in the Akko region perhaps (a similar lime-rich fabric to that of Medieval Akko amphorae, and similar also to the few examples of Colchester 105 I have seen), did this also carry dried fruit? (for more comment on this form, see Reynolds 2008). Chemical analyses of ‘carrot’ amphorae from a kiln site in Beirut prove that the type was made there (Reynolds 2003d; 2005b, 568; Waksman et al. 2005b; Roumié et al. 2004; Kouwatli et al. 2006; Reynolds et al. forthcoming), and that examples found in Lyon derive from that source (Lemaître et al. 2005). 274. Several shops were burnt and contents left in situ. For finds of glazed cups from this deposit, as well as other stratigraphic details, see Chávez Álvarez, Orfila Pons and Cau Ontiveros (2008). My thanks to Miguel Ángel Cau Ontiveros for this information. When subsequent reoccupation occurred the character was very different 275. See n. 272 for the largely self-sufficient military supply of the East from the 3rd century onwards. For the changing provinces and dioceses of the later Roman Empire, see Jones (1964; 1966). For the annona civica of Constantinople, primarily supplied from Egypt after 332, see Sirks (1991, especially ch. 6) and Teall (1959). Sirks (1991,199-201) argues that Rome had already ceased to be supplied from Egypt by 308 and that a system to supply grain to Rome from Gaul, Spain, Africa and Italy was already the norm under Diocletian. Also Kingsley and Decker (2000). McCormick (2001, 104), reminds us of the occasion in 608, when Heraclius prevented the African grain fleet from reaching Constantinople. Under Justinian Alexandria supplied Constantinople with a yearly quota of 160000 tonnes of grain (Edict 13.8.783.10) (McCormick 2001, 97). The role of the ‘guild of shipmasters within the Oriental provinces (intra orientales provincias)’, in the Orient, as in the districts of Egypt (tam intra orientem quam intra aegyptiacas partes)’ in the supply of grain to Constantinople is indicated in the Theodosian Code (CTh. 13.5.14, issued at Constantinople in 371, and directed to the Praetorian Prefect Modestus: the purpose of this edict was to order that the guild be filled. In other words there was a shortage of navicularii serving the annona). In an earlier decree ‘to the shipmasters of the Orient’, they are exempt from all compulsory municipal services, burdens and duties’, as well as other privileges (CTh. 13.5.7, issued by Constantine in 334). Here too it is also stated that ‘According to the precedent established in the case of the Alexandrian fleet, they (i.e. the shipmasters of the Orient) shall obtain 4% of the grain in their cargo, and besides for each 1,000 measures they shall receive one solidus. Thus encouraged by all these benefits and expending almost nothing from their own property they will, on their own initiative, frequently engage in maritime expeditions’. These texts imply, surely, that there was more than Egypt and Alexandria involved in the supply of grain to Constantinople. If this is referring to the diocese

270

Notes to page 74 of Oriens, then up to the reign of Valens (364-378) this comprised the provinces of the entire Levantine region, including Egypt and Cyrenaica. Under Valens Egypt and Cyrenaica became the separate diocese of Aegyptus. The seat of the comes Orientis was at Antioch. The navicularii of Caesarea, Berytus and of course Antioch (fiscal goods certainly arrived there), for example, as well as ports in Isauria and Cilicia would therefore have been involved in the supply of the annona to Constantinople from the 4th century onwards. If the navicularii of Oriens refers to those under the Praetorian Prefect of the East, and the reference in CTh. 13.5.32 (AD 409) to the role of the Carpathian fleet in the supply of the annona civica may be an indication of this, this could indicate that the navicularii of the entire Roman East were engaged in shipments of the annona civica. For Liebeschuetz (1990, 248), in contrast, reading the same edicts I have mentioned, the navicularii Alexandriae and navicularii Orientis were involved in the transportation of the annona, but specifically from Alexandria to Constantinople. However, it is more likely, in my view, that the 371 edict (CTh. 13.5.14) issued under Valens is making the distinction that at that time existed between the diocese of Oriens and its ‘fleet of the Oriental provinces’, on the one hand, and the diocese of Aegyptus and its ‘Alexandrian fleet’, on the other. The distribution of LRA 1 to forts on the Danube and to Constantinople could be, and often is, interpreted as evidence for the role of Syria, though I would argue only eastern Cilicia, and from the late 5th century, Cyprus, in the supply of both the annona civica of Constantinople and the annona militaris (Decker 2000; Kingsley and Decker 2000). Though Antioch, as seat of the comes Orientis, would have had a primary role in the gathering of annona goods from the entire region (Cilicia, Syria and Cyprus), I would restrict the production of LRA 1 to eastern Cilicia and Cyprus (Reynolds 2005; we shall see if the Amuq Valley Survey turns up evidence to the contrary from the villages within the immediate territory of Antioch). This is not to say that, as Libanius states (see above, n. 272), the products of the territory of Antioch and, we may add, the tax in kind from other cities such as Apamea, were not exported, some for the annona, from Seleucia. That we do not find the calcareous amphorae of Apamea, Homs, the villages of the Limestone Massif, and central Syria in Beirut or almost anywhere outside of Syria, is strong evidence that exported goods were either not contained in amphorae, or were repackaged in LRA 1 at the coast (where the few definite production sites we know of are located: Ferrazzoli and Ricci 2007: Elaiussa Sebaste; Empereur and Picon [1989], with comment on this article in Reynolds [2005b]). Justinian’s decision in 536 to remove the provinces of Moesia II, Scythia, Caria, the Aegean Islands and, notably, Cyprus from the control of the Prefect of the East and into the hands of a new official, the quaestor exercitus, does indeed seem to illustrate the inclusion of Cyprus into the annona supply network provisioning the armies of the lower Danube at this time (Jones 1966, 142). That the supply of LRA 1 to Constantinople was primarily due to state or ecclesiastical redistribution (or sales), rather than private trade, despite the large numbers of LRA 1 found there (Hayes 1992) is surely unlikely. Note here that it has been suggested that the 7th century Yassi Ada ship and its cargo of LRA 1 and LRA 2 was owned by the Church and was on Church business. It is frequently forgotten that, unlike Rome (and only from Severus onwards), it was grain, not oil that was supplied free by the state to the populace of Constantinople. Therefore, though the redistribution of LRA 1 to the army as part of the annona is likely (both wine and oil were included in military rations and either, or both, were carried in LRA 1), we may not assume the same for other exports of LRA 1 (e.g. to Constantinople, or Beirut, where they are just

271

Notes to page 75 as common). For documentation dated to c. 533/534-539 of the annona calculated for Antaeopolis in the Thebaid (Egypt), see Gascou 1989: the yearly annona militaris (for three companies of soldiers: wheat, wine, meat, fodder) and annona civica (wheat only) is given, including the transport costs, as well as the costs for running the prison. Private trade or Church redistribution are more likely to be the main agents involved in the mass exports of LRA 1 throughout the Mediterranean and beyond (Chapters 3 and 4). The payment of civil servants in kind, particularly common in the 4th century, but not later, is another matter (Jones 1964 and 1966; Duncan-Jones 1990; Reynolds 1995; Liebeschuetz 1990, 255: the salary of the sophist Elusa at Constantinople in 377/378, for example, comprised oil, pork and wine; one of Libanius’ salaries derived from the governor of Phoenicia and, being in wheat and barley, was for convenience, given the distance involved and, in well-accepted practice, regularly received in gold, not in kind; there are many edicts in the Theodosian Code referring to payments in kind and the possibilty of their transmutation into cash). 276. The command structures and administration of the praetorian prefectures were slow to emerge over the course of the 3rd and 4th centuries (for up to Diocletian, see Howe [1966]; for the praetorian prefectures of the later Roman Empire, in general, see A.H.M. Jones’ still fundamental work [1964]). These, as well as the accepted responsibilities of the prefectures, such as the organisation of the annona system with its subordinate offices and personnel (e.g. the praefectus annonae africae), and the set career paths within the various offices of the prefectures, appear to have been only fully evolved by the reign of Constantius II (350-361). Over this period the office and duties of the Praetorian Prefect that were essentially military in character (the provisioning of food and goods for the troops under his command: the annona militaris) were transformed to take on more civil responsibilities, such as the organisation of the food supply for Rome (the annona civica). Thus, the needs (food, equipment, pay) of the army and civil service came to be integrated into the overall administrative and taxation structure of the Roman provinces, with the various praetorian prefects at the head of a complex civil and military bureaucracy that acted through the provincial governors and city elites of each region. The indiction (indictio), the yearly economic plan worked out by each prefect, based on the economic data for productivity available, and enforced through ad hoc edicts (as recorded in the Theodosian Code), was the driving force of the system that was in turn rooted in the tax in kind or coin imposed on each province and its citizens. For an example of the system fully evolved and at work in the late 4th century, see Peña (1998) on the collection of state oil revenues in Carthage for shipment to Rome in the year 373. (I would like here to thank Prof. Werner Eck for his enlightening thoughts on the formation processes and military aspects of the annona system). 277. See Fulford (1987) and Reynolds (1995, 107-8), for quantitative evidence for the bias in the Tunisian supply of amphorae and pottery to Ostia-Rome due to the annona. 278. The new province of Tripolitania created under Diocletian, probably in 303, received scant attention in comparison to Africa Byzacena during the course of the 4th century and until it was ceded to the Vandals in 455. Devastating earthquakes c. 310 and especially in 365, also archaeologically attested at Kourion (Cyprus), destroying large tracts of Sabratha and Lepcis Magna, together with major devastation by marauding local tribes, did not help (Mattingly 1995). The advent of ‘Tripolitanian Red Slip Ware’ in the mid 4th century (Hayes 1972), certainly well attested at Lepcis Magna, comes as a surprise in such an

272

Notes to pages 75-77 economic climate. ‘Tripolitanian Red Slip’ was, clearly in the case of the examples I studied at Lepcis, a ware with its own special characteristics. However it was not deliberately included within ‘ARS’ in the Sabratha fine ware report, because of the uncertainty of its source, so it is impossible to gauge the relative importance of the ware at Sabratha (Fulford and Tomber [eds]). At Lepcis it was certainly far more common than Tunisian ARS from northern and central Tunisian sources. Its appearance in 4th to 5th century levels suggests stronger close-regional (or perhaps Tripolitanian) sources for table wares, perhaps a reflection of the relative isolation of the province in these centuries. 279. The 4th to 5th century figures for ‘Tripolitania’ in Rome depend on the attribution of MRA 1 to Tripolitania, when this amphora may well be east Sicilian (see above, Chapter 1.4 and n. 195). The strength of Tripolitanian exports, particularly in the case of Spain, may also be affected if it is found that the type Keay 24 is Tripolitanian, as has been proposed by Remolà i Vallverdú (2000a, 168-73 and 297, n. 471; see here n. 328). This type is common in north-eastern Spain in 4th to mid 5th century contexts, particularly in Tarragona (Tarragona, Barcelona, Ampurias), is present in Valencia (Pascual et al. 1997), but notably absent in the south-east (see Keay [1984a], 179-84, for his comments on the form and its distribution in Spain, summarised in Reynolds [1995], appendix D.8). Not present in the Santa Pola sample (Márquez Villora and Molina Vidal 2001). 280. Keay (1984a, 136): two likely 4th century examples in Tarragona, with two examples being residual in a 6th century context in Ampurias. Though Remolà i Vallverdú (2000a, 292-3) includes ‘Tripolitana II-III’, i.e. Keay 9 and 11, in a table for the 4th century deposits published by Macias i Solé et al. (1997), these are not listed in Macias’s summary of amphora finds for these sites (2000a), nor do they appear in the original publication. 281. My work on the amphorae from the British excavations directed by Hafed Walda. If the case, then the local oil of Lepcis may have been primarily for local consumption. 282. For the increase in typological development, see Reynolds (1995, 49, table 4). Period I amphorae comprise 7 forms (10 variants); Period II amphorae, 28-30 forms (61-63 variants), equivalent to a 4-4.2% increase in the range/number of forms produced. See also Keay (1998) for a more recent summary of phases of Tunisian amphora output. Keay 25 appears in the phase of 4th to early 5th century date at the fish sauce installation excavated at Nabeul/Neapolis (Slim et al. [1999], 160-1). Note that there was no Vandal period of occupation/production on this site and that production resumed in the later 6th century. 283. Peña (1999, 88): the earliest, rare, examples date to the last decade of the 3rd century, the form (Keay 25B) becoming common in the early 4th century. This confirms Keay’s proposed dating in the late 3rd or early 4th century for this form (1984a, 193-212). 284. On Tunisia, see Atlante (1981). On Tripolitania, see Hayes (1972, 304-9). See above n. 278, for comments on ‘Tripolitanian Red Slip’. 285. Hayes (1972, 289-91). 286. Fulford (1989a). 287. Pasquinucci, Del Rio and Menchelli (2000): with a reference to the Punta Ala ship wreck, c. 250, in the Tyrrhenian Sea, with a mixed Baetican (Dressel 20) and Tunisian amphora cargo. 288. Villedieu (1984), summarised in Reynolds (1995, appendix D.14). 289. Mandruzzato et al. (2000, 362-3). Aquileia thus follows the pattern of Tunisian supply noted for Rome (the Palatine East), but in a more extreme fashion.

273

Notes to pages 77-78 290. ARS 58 was one of the earliest of the 4th century ARS dishes to be produced, dating from c. 290/300 (as found in Tetrarchic levels in Athens and Corinth: Hayes [1972, 93-6]; Slane [1994]). ARS forms 57, 59 and 61A emerged slightly later, c. 320/325, whereas ARS 67 did not appear until c. 360 (Hayes 1972). It is possible that Athens and Corinth, with their Tetrarchic building phases, are atypical, and that, as in Beirut, examples of ARS 57-59 normally date from the mid 4th century onwards (John Hayes dated my Beirut examples of ARS 50 and 58 to the mid 4th century). Stratigraphic sequences are needed in each case to ‘place’ these forms correctly in the 4th century (or later, in the case of ARS 59 and 67, regularly found in early 5th century deposits). The dating of ARS 50 to the 4th century, rather than earlier, is not straightforward, even with stratified deposits, as argued above (Chapter 1.1, Tunisian exports; cf. the aforementioned Beirut pieces dated by John Hayes). ARS 58 is fairly common in Beirut (BEY 006: 36 examples+). Some 7 examples occur at Butrint. ARS 58 is rare in survey material in Mallorca (Mas unpublished), with other possible Balearic examples noted by Járrega Domínguez (1991, 17). ARS 58 seems relatively common in south-eastern Spain (Reynolds 1993, 1995), Catalunya and Andalucía (Járrega Domínguez 1991, 15-17). 291. For a summary of the range of Tunisian amphorae in Keay’s sample from sites on the north-east coast, see Reynolds (1995, appendix D.8). See Reynolds (1995, 51-3, and appendices B.3 and C.5), for the distribution of Tunisian amphorae; Reynolds (1995, 14-16, appendices B.1 and C.4), for the distribution of ARS. However, see in addition Márquez Villora (1999) and Márquez Villora and Molina Vidal (2001), who have now quantified the hitherto unknown quantities of amphorae at Santa Pola/Portus Ilicitanus. There are greater numbers of Period I amphorae than I anticipated: Keay 5, not noted previously is as common as Keay 3 (15 examples each). Keay 6 (31) and Keay 7 (28) are the most common. Though these are Period I types, some, notably Keay 6 and 7, date into the 4th century, as we have seen (Chapter 1.1, Tunisian exports). Quantities of Period II Keay 25 are much greater than recorded previously (61 examples) and would seem to indicate a marked rise in Tunisian imports in the 4th century, particularly if some Keay 6 and 7 are to be dated to this century, rather than to the 3rd century. For an even more recent review of the evidence for Tunisian amphorae in the south-east, see Molina Vidal (2007). Also on the same volume, we have a review of the supply to coastal sites in Baetica (Lagóstena Barrios 2007). 292. CTh. 13.5.21, issued at Constantinople in 392 to the Praetorian Prefect of Illyricum and Africa: ‘Every shipmaster shall know that within two years he shall either deliver the receipt for the cargo which he has accepted, or he shall prove the vicissitudes of his perils’. A few years later another edict (CTh. 13.5.26, issued in 396), as far as I understand, reduced the time allowed for the delivery of the goods to one year, but allowed the shipmasters two years to hand in the receipts. There is also explicit mention of the navicularii selling annona cargoes at their own profit. This is considered acceptable, but not if it causes a delay in the delivery of receipts later than two years. ‘We learn that shipmasters are converting into profits in business the produce which they have received and thereby they are abusing the indulgence granted them in the law of Constantine, which permitted them to deliver the receipts for such produce at the end of two years from the day when they received it. This practice We do not prohibit, but We add a well considered limitation to his opinion, namely, that within a year from the time they receive such produce, they shall deliver it and shall produce receipts dated from the same consulship, and that these receipts shall show the day of delivery.’

274

Notes to pages 80-81 This implies, surely, that annona goods due for redistribution by the state were sold (to whom? To the state? ) and, more significant, that such goods were not owned by the state (i.e. they did not derive from imperial estates or from tax in kind). That the state always bought additional annona supplies when needed is known, and this had always been the practice since Republican times, but I find the unqualified nature of this edict (no specific source of the annona cargo is mentioned) quite significant, if troubling. 293. Tomber (1999). 294. Sumaqa, in the Carmel Hills (Kingsley 1999) and the settlement and glass factory of Jalame, to the south-east (Johnson 1988). 295. Oren and Bernal Casasola (2000); Bernal Casasola (2000b). 296. Keay (1984b). For example, the villa of Caputxins (Mataró): 4th to 6th century ARS and Tunisian amphorae (Járrega Domínguez and Clariana i Roig [1995]); villa of Puig Rodon, 15 km from the sea: Nolla and Casas (1990), with 4th and early to mid 5th century ARS and amphorae, and eastern Mediterranean LRA 1; well illustrated by the villa of Casa Blanca, a few km to the north of the port of Tortosa, in the lower Ebro Valley, notable for the quantities of 2nd/early 3rd to 5th century ARS and cooking wares (Revilla Calvo 2003); the coastal settlement and likely port at Garganes (Altea): Moltó Poveda (1996) and (2000), with 4th to 6th century ARS, 5th century LRC, Tunisian amphorae (55 vessels, 72.3%, in a range similar to that of Alicante sites). 297. Reynolds (1993, ch. 3.1-2; Site Index); Menasanch de Tobaruela (2000; 2003). 298. See Perring (2003), with respect to 4th century building in Beirut. For Antioch, the splendid mosaic pavements and other 4th century buildings excavated in the 1930s are evidence enough (Levi 1971); see also Downey (1961), Liebeschuetz (1972), and Poccardi (2001). For Byzantine settlement and canal systems in the territory of Antioch, see Casana (2004). For a review of Constantinian and other 4th century urban public building projects in the Empire, see Lewin (2001). The marked increase in incriptions in Aphrodisias in the 4th century is also indicative of the pace of city life and investment, one would have thought (see the Aphrodisias in Late Antiquity, ALA online catalogue and study under the care of Charlotte Roueché). Antioch, linked to its port at Seleucia, was an imperial residence under Diocletian (AD 290, 297-301: with Galerius in 297) and he built a palace, five baths and restored the stadium for the Olympic games that were traditionally held there (Downey, 1961, 317-27). Under Diocletian, in view of the importance of Antioch in the scheme of things, the port of Seleucia was dredged (Downey 1961, 361 n. 198: in AD 303; Seyrig 1939; Sartre 2001, 827). There was also major building in Antioch under Constantine (Downey, 1961, 342-50) and the city continued to serve as imperial residence until Valens, who was the last Emperor to reside there (364378). It was also the seat of the comes Orientis and magister militum per Orientem, serving as the logistical centre for military operations in the eastern frontier, under Constantius (337-361) and Julian (361-363) (Downey, 1961, 354ff.; ch. 13; Jones 1966; Morrisson and Sodini 2002; Butcher 2003a, 132-3). The harbour at Seleucia was rebuilt in 346 for one of Constantius’ campaigns and in order to receive fiscal cargoes (Downey, 1961, 361; Expositio Totius Mundi, 28.160; McCormick 2001, 91). The harbour was dredged again in 369/370, by the ‘Fleet of Seleucia’, when Valens was resident at Antioch (CTh.10.23; Downey 1961, 399413). Valens also built a new forum in Antioch. 299. Trends indicated by inscriptions for the construction of public buildings,

275

Notes to pages 82-83 temples and churches in Syria Palaestina and Arabia have been analysed by Di Segni (1999: summarised in tables 4 and 5). This evidence, of course quite incomplete, particularly in the case of public buildings, does suggest that church building was more characteristic of the 6th century, rather than earlier, when public building was more common. 300. For LRA 1, see Reynolds 2005b (565-7 and discussion, 575-8) and now, for its early origins, Reynolds (2008). For the fabrics of LRA 1, see Williams (2005). Evidence presented from personal observation of the Limestone Massif sites of northern Syria suggests that LRA 1 contained the produce of the villages of eastern Cilicia and not those east of Antioch (ibid., 566). The definition of what LRA 1 amphorae carried is still much debated. Van Alfen (1996) argued that wine and oil were both primary contents. The majority of the LRA 1 vessels found in the harbour of Marseille were lined and therefore did not carry oil. Some 6th century variants, however, were not lined. (Bonifay and Pieri [1995]). We should note in this respect that a good number of the Gazan amphorae at Marseille were not lined, and bore traces of oil residues, as did an example from the Schola Praeconum, in this case, possibly sesame oil (Bonifay and Pieri [1995]). As Dominique Pieri would argue, the wines of the East were the export of the Aegean and Levant par excellence and were very costly (Pieri 2005). As we have seen (Chapter 1.4.1), amphorae that were precursors to LRA 1 in size and fabric, Pompeii 5, as well as copies of the Koan amphora type in the same fabrics, carried the wines of eastern Cilicia. The sweet wine (passum) of western, Rough Cilicia, carried in the ‘pinched handle Agora G 199 and its derivatives, was equally well-traded in the late 1st to 4th centuries (Rauh and Slane 2000; Reynolds 2005b, 564-5). 301. For the logistical role of Antioch and maintenance of the harbour at Seleucia in the 4th century, see nn. 272, 275 and 298. An inscription found at Seleucia provides evidence for the tax levied on imports from Phoenicia, Cyprus, Cilicia, Palestine and Egypt c. 530 (Dagron 1985; Morrisson and Sodini 2002, 208; McCormick 2001, 104). The relatively close regional-Levantine range of these imports is interesting, as this is paralleled in Beirut contexts during the 6th and early 7th centuries (imports up to the mid 5th century were from a far wider range of long-distance Mediterranean and Black Sea sources: Reynolds 2003a; compare Tables 15, 25). Excavation would establish the extent to which Antioch derived additional resources from sites in the Plain of Antioch (cf. Libanius, In Praise of Antioch 260; Casana 2004) and the villages in the uplands to the east (the ‘Dead Cities’), as well as major cities such as Beroea/Aleppo and Chalcis/Qinnersin and, further east, those on the Euphrates, connected to the capital through an excellent road network. That Zeugma, to the north-east, received LRA 1, Sinopean amphorae and Phocean Red Slip Ware/LRC through the port of Seleucia is clear (Reynolds forthcoming b). The River Orontes also served as a means of transport for local and imported goods from as far as Epiphanea/Hama, Apamea and Emesa/Homs. 302. See n. 63 for a shipwreck in the port of Marseille. See also Bonifay, Carre and Rigoir (1998) and Tréglia (2005a). 303. For Durres, see Reynolds (2003e). For Aegean cooking wares in Aquileia and the northern Adriatic, see Istenic and Schneider (2000, with references to shipwrecks in the north-eastern Adriatic carrying the same cooking wares: particularly carinated casseroles, Phocean frying and baking pans and trilobate-rim kettles) and Mandruzzato et al. (2000: a similar range as the aforementioned wrecks). 304. See also Carignani and Pacetti (1989b).

276

Notes to page 83 305. Peña (1999, 154). 306. That these were a major industry and an expensive commodity, particularly those dyed in purple, is indicated by the section on Levantine textiles, including notably silk (from the imported raw material), in Diocletian’s Price Edict (cf. Erin and Reynolds 1970) and in the Expositio Totius Mundi, 31), with specific reference to the textile industries of Phoenicia, Palestine and Cilicia. The region would have paid tax in kind with textiles produced in the state-owned and private weaving establishments of silk (Beirut and Tyre) and linen (Laodicea/Latakia, Byblos, Beirut, and Scythiopolis/Beth Sh’an). The Expositio specifically states that the former cities ‘export linen cloth to all over the world and are outstanding in every kind of wealth’. Likewise the Expositio says that ‘Sarepta (just north of Tyre), Caesarea, Neapolis and also Lyyda (export) genuine purple.’ These cities, and notably Tyre, were engaged in the production of purple dye, a state monopoly in the Byzantine period. They also dyed cloth in other legally permitted shades of purple and even more exotic finishes (e.g. ‘golden-purple’). The weaving of linen and silk in state and private factories, as well as in the home, was a major industry at Tyre and Beirut. Over 20% of the inscriptions in the cemetery of Tyre are those of dye workers. The textile industry, like the state arms factories at Antioch, contributed to the provision of equipment for the Roman army (e.g. tunics: cf. CTh. 7.6.1-5, De militari veste). (Jones 1966; 1974). See Hall (1996, 38-46, 262-303) and Hall (2004, 224-36), for a special study of documentary evidence for these industries in Beirut and the region. In contrast to the free marketing of Levantine textiles that is documented by Diocletian’s Price Edict in the early 4th century, production by the imperial weaving and dying factories, and that of silk in particular, was very strictly controlled even by the late 4th century. Illegal production and sales of textiles, occurred nevertheless (e.g. CTh.10.20.6-9, where imperial weavers have illegally been put to work in private weaving establishments; CTh. 10.21.1-3, where purple and gold-decorated garments, strictly for the use of the state are being illegally produced for the private market). The increasing role and freedom of the Church to commission and circulate silk and other textiles for ecclesiastical robes and hangings is equally evident. Salvian, Jerome, Gregory of Tours all refer to Syrian merchants in Italy selling garments woven in Beirut and Tyre (Hall 1996, 270-1). For the later Byzantine trade in linen and silk garments, see McCormick (2001). Justinian scored a major success in 553/554 in securing silkworms that allowed him to bypass China and produce the raw silk in imperial silk factories in Constantinople (Procopius, Wars, 8.17.1-8). Production in Beirut, Tyre and Antioch, mentioned by Procopius (The Secret History, 25) must surely have ceased, at least for several decades, following the 551 earthquake. Perhaps it was this, apart from the obvious savings in costs, that led Justinian to seek another means of more direct, local production. It is not known if Beirut, partially rebuilt at its commercial centre only, by the late 6th century, was able to re-establish silk and other textile production (one of the principal colonnaded streets, with shops rebuilt, but encroaching well into the former road space, was excavated in 2006, personal observation; ‘BEY 006’ was practically abandoned after 551). This was certainly a major industry in the Medieval period. The former residential quarter, beyond the archaeological sites ‘BEY 006’ and ‘007’, in the north-western sector of the Roman city, was by the Medieval period planted with mulberry trees (Perring 2003; Davie 1987). We may note that the Expositio in the same section also states that Beth Sh’an, Byblos, Tyre, Beirut, Sarepta, Caesarea, Neapolis and Lydda, all cities in Phoenicia and Palestine, were ‘producers of wheat, wine and oil’. The archaeological

277

Notes to pages 83-85 evidence for these industries and exports from some of these cities is now being recognised (Reynolds 2005b). For some documentary evidence for a shipment of ‘draperies and other textiles, with African silver litters and camels’!, from Alexandria to Athens, see McCormick (2001, 97). 307. For the written late Roman-Byzantine sources that mention the wines of Gaza and Askalon, see Riley (1979, 220-1), Pieri (2005) and Kingsley (2000). 308. For pilgrims and other travellers crossing the Mediterranean, see McCormick (2001). For epigraphic evidence for trends in church building in Palestine that indicate a notable increase in the 6th century, see di Segni (1999). For an overview of the Palestinian wine trade and pilgrimage see Kingsley (2000). 309. See Pieri (1998 and forthcoming); Kingsley (2000). 310. For Caesarea, as seat of the governor and his administration, and for the tax office, see Holum (1995). The harbour of Caesarea that in the late 5th century had been in bad repair and unusable, perhaps due to some natural disaster, perhaps an earthquake,, was renovated by Anastasius I in the late 5th or early 6th century (Hohlfelder 2000: with reference to a panegyric offered to the emperor by Procopius of Gaza, a descriptive account that is supported to some degree by archaeological evidence for these harbour works). Caesarea’s role as a point of entry into Palestine for those on pilgrimages to the Holy Land has also been stressed (e.g. Hohlfelder 2000; McCormick 2001, 86). 311. E.g. those of Carminiello ai Mannesi (Naples) (Arthur 1985) and from the Italian excavations at Carthage. For the comparative range of imports in the 5th century, see Reynolds (1995, appendices B.4-6), for amphora trends; Reynolds (1995, appendices D.6, 11-13, 19, 21, 25, 27, 30-4), for important sites. 312. Parker (1992). 313. The present trend in the publication of whole assemblages, including rarer amphorae that are ‘unclassified’ is slowly reaping its rewards, as they are recognised by specialists working on other sites where the forms are perhaps equally rare, or perhaps more common. The amphora Vila-roma 8.198/Remolà Tipo Tardío A is a case in point, first published as a single find in Marseille (Bonifay 1986, 284, fig. 9.35), then discovered in Tarragona (Remolà i Vallverdú 2000a, 234, figs 87-8: over 20 examples from various sites), and identified also by Remolà i Vallverdú at the villa of Puig Rodon (Lower Ampurdán) (Nolla and Casas 1990, 208-9, fig. 17). Remolà (i) Vallverdú (1993a; 2000a), has suggested an Aegean origin for the amphora. Though kiln sites, and hence a definitive origin cannot yet be given, this would seem likely. The type is close in form (rim, handles, body, base) and fabric to late Cretan amphorae that are common as a class in Butrint (there was major contact between Butrint and Crete) and in Athens (personal observation of the Athenian Agora stores). 314. For the Vila-roma 2 deposit, see TEDA (1989), Remolà i Vallverdú (2000a) and Macias i Solé (1999). The ceramic finds are summarised in Reynolds (1995, appendix D.6). Clear Vandal forms of the second half of the 5th century, ARS 12/102, 79 and 84 are absent. A single vessel of ARS 87A could be a product of the second half of the 5th century or slightly earlier. A single example of ARS 87B and three of ARS 99 are the latest finds that could be interpreted as intrusive material, as suggested by the excavators. The amphorae, notably the finds of Keay 35, could be an indication of Vandal date, but even Keay 35 may have appeared prior to the Vandal conquest (see Reynolds 1995, 49-51, for a discussion of the gradual introduction of Vandal amphora forms; this now needs to be re-evaluated with the Marseille evidence and Bonifay [2004]). The finds of Keay 62, similar to those in levels of the late 5th century in Marseille (called ‘Albenga 11/12’: Bonifay, Carre

278

Notes to page 86 and Rigoir 1998, 163, fig. 134.224-7) may go with the late ARS sherds and be intrusive later Vandal material in the Vila-roma 2 deposit. The majority of the deposit could, on the basis of the fine wares date to the pre-Vandal period. The problem of the dating of these deposits and their interpretation as Vandal period trade, or not, does not seem to have been an issue for Macias i Solé (1999) or Remolà i Vallverdú (2002, e.g. 294-300), neither of whom discuss these matters in their respective works on the coarse wares and amphorae. One has to ask why there is a scarcity of deposits in Tarragona for the period 450-500 and if this is in any way connected with a break in the flow of goods from regions that were affected by barbarian disruption in both Baetica and Tunisia, prior to the resumption of exports of both regions in the late 5th century. Though the Vandals entered Tingitana in 429, they did not take Carthage until 439 and it was only in 455 that Genseric formally took control of all the Roman African provinces, including Tripolitania (see n. 330). Again we return to Vila-roma 2 and STE/1 et al. and their dating is quite critical for the dating of the end of both Baetican and Tunisian exports in the wake of the Vandal invasions. As before (Reynolds 1995, 28, 148 and appendix A), I have to return to the dating of the dish form ARS 61B, and a late version of the form (my ‘late 61B’: Fig. 16a, top). This is indeed characteristic of the second half of the 5th century (as shown in Marseille: Bonifay 1998; 2004), but, nevertheless, may pre-date the Vandal occupation of Carthage. This variant is a regular feature of STE/1 and occurs in Vila-roma 2, but without the Vandal 5th century ARS series that characterises deposits in Marseille that include ‘late 61B’. The same pattern is repeated in the range of ARS forms in the fish sauce factory at Rosas (see below, n. 356). It was found as part of the cargo of ARS and lamps on the Port-Miou wreck (Deneauve 1972) and on the Dramont E wreck (Santamaria 1995). The only other early Vandal form consistently found in these deposits, but notably rare, is ARS 87A, a form that is also present in the Schola Praeconum I deposit, dated to c. 430-440 on the basis of the coins (see Reynolds 1995, appendix A.1, 149-51, for discussion of the dating of this variant; and now Bonifay 2004). Note that the ‘classic’ Vandal form ARS 12/102 was also present in the Schola Praeconum I deposit, a form that was characteristic of the second half of the 5th century (as at Marseille). The form was not present in the Vila-roma deposit, though it was supplied to the city (it appears in late 5th century contexts). Though decorated versions of 12/102 are of Vandal, c. 450-500, date at Carthage, the undecorated 12/102/Fulford 29, the type found in the Schola Praeconum I assemblage, appeared as early as 400, if not before that (Fulford and Peacock [1984], 59-61). The form as a whole was most popular from 450. Another ARS form, with a fluted outer wall found in the Schola Praeconum I (Whitehouse et al. 1982, fig. 2.9) is similar to Vandal products such as Fulford 16, dated c. 425/450-500/525. The Rome deposit, could, like those in Tarragona lie in the first decade of the Vandal occupation or equally just prior to it, but in this case the combined evidence suggests an early Vandal period date for Schola Praeconum I. The coin finds are inconclusive. Unfortunately Vandal issues did not begin until the end of the 5th century, and cannot help us (as they do in the case of Punta de l’Illa de Cullera: Mateu y Llopis 1972; Reynolds 1995, Site 195). In the ESF/ICREA exploratory workshop on late Roman fine wares (Barcelona, November 2008) there was a consensus that the Vila-roma assemblage corresponds to the early Vandal period. 315. For a very useful outline (in English) of the 5th century Roman and later 5th to 7th century occupation in Tarragona, its status as military headquarters for the Roman army in Spain until 410, and its role as the metropolitan capital of the

279

Notes to pages 86-87 ecclesiastical see of Tarraconensis, see Macias i Solé (1999, 426-38). For the location of the Visigothic kings and their courts in Hispania over the 5th to 7th centuries, see Ripoll (2003). 316. For the supply of eastern amphorae to Gaul, see Pieri (2005). For 4th to early 5th century imports of LRA 4, see ibid., 104-5. At Arles, Gazan amphorae were the most common. See Piton (1998). 317. Although the increase in the relative number of ‘unclassified’ amphorae may also be a factor. 318. This was true at Arles and Marseille, but notably not at Lyon. This discrepancy may be explained if what excavators have labelled ‘late 4th to early 5th’ amphorae are actually late 4th century specimens, prior to the first wave of Byzantine eastern exports. 319. Barrasetas i Dunjó and Járrega i Domínguez (1997). As far as I understand, this is a necropolis, but the fragmentary pottery published (fine wares, amphorae and kitchen wares) is part of a much larger assemblage excavated and does not derive from tombs, but from levels associated with building on the site: ‘numerous strata that comprise the fill (farciment) of more than 80 pits (sitges) and half a dozen little ditches (fosses)’. They are presented in rough chronological groups: one group, dated to the 5th and 6th centuries, included fig. 1.3-4, two mid or late 5th century examples of LRA 1 (fig. 1.304) and a handle of LRA 4, together with examples of Keay 16 and 19; another group is dated to the second half of the 5th century and 6th century: it includes Keay 62A, a handle of LRA 1, a stamped base of LRC 3, that should date to the late 5th or first half of the 6th century, and a base possibly of ARS 86 (not ‘ARS 95, 96 or 99’) of similar date range; An example of the Vandal form Fulford 27 is dated to the 6th century (fig. 10.5), as it occurred with a late variant of Gazan LRA 4 (fig. 10.6), though both could be ascribed a late 5th century date. Sixth century ARS forms include ARS 87C (fig.12.1) and ARS 103 (fig. 8.6), the latter occurring with a Keay 62Q amphora rim (fig. 8.9) and a stamped ARS base. The latter should date to the second half of the 5th century (fig. 8.10). 320. Nolla and Casas (1990, 206, UE. 2013, fig. 15.6). It compares well with examples of that date in the Vila-roma deposit (Tarragona). It occurs with a rim of Tunisian form Keay 35, also present at Vila-roma, and ARS 91B and ARS 61A/B (early 5th century). Fig. 15.2 is not the late 6th century form ARS 91D, as they state. Fig. 15.2 however may be ARS 91C (c. 500-550), though 5th century regional versions of this variant are numerous and can be confused with ARS 91C. A date for the group in the early Vandal period, i.e. early in the second half of the 5th century is also possible. 321. Nolla and Casas (1990, 207-9, UE 2021). The rim types illustrated, fig. 17.1, 3 and 4, are well paralleled at Vila-roma 2 (Remolà i Vallverdú 2000a), Marseille (Bonifay, Carre and Rigoir 1998), Beirut and Alexandria (Bonifay and Leffy 2002). Other amphorae illustrated include Baetican oil amphorae Dressel 23/Keay 13A and C, Keay 16B or C (fish sauce) and ‘rarer’ Tunisian amphorae such as Keay 36. LRA 1 represents 10.3% of the amphorae. 322. It should be stressed that the El Monastil pottery derives from clandestine excavations in the settlement and that the pottery I studied in 1982 was thus unstratified. It is not a deposit. There were ,however, many complete or near complete 5th century vessels, probably found inside rooms. The ARS and the LRA 1 amphorae, furthermore, also suggested a fairly close date range that did not appear to extend into the 6th century. All of the eastern amphorae at El Monastil are illustrated in Reynolds (1993): plate 137.1761, a complete LRA 1, mid or late

280

Notes to page 88 5th century?; plate 138.1765: similar, with a dipinto of a cross on the neck and a large dipinto on the shoulder and upper wall; plate 138.1762-1767, all LRA 1. These all appear to be 5th century variants. Their not particularly tronco-conical necks suggest a date in the second half of the century. Those in the Serapeum of Alexandria and in the Vila-roma 2 deposit are more tronco-conical. The more vertical-cylindrical and wider the neck, the later the date in the 5th century. It should be possible to be more precise with the date of these examples once the typology of LRA 1 in the Beirut sequences is fully established (see Reynolds 2005b, plate 4, for some examples); plate 1767bis: LRA 2; plate 139.1768: an almost complete LRA 4, again 5th century in date. The distribution on villa sites in the Vinalopó Valley is given in Reynolds (1993, 11-14, appendix G.5). As the latter table is short, due to the rarity of amphora finds on villa sites, and can only be only be accessed on microfiche, it would be useful to summarise the table here. A summary of the pottery finds on sites in the region, with an assessment of the dating and occupation, is given in the Site Index. All are single finds: Parque de las Naciones (La Albufera) (Site 21), Tunisian forms Keay 3A, Keay 7, Keay 25C/G, Keay 25S, Keay 27B?, Keay 40?, Keay 40/41, and an unclassified Tunisian rim; Villa of Vizcarra 2 (Elche) (Site 95), Tunisian sherds present; Villa of Fontcalent (Site 50), Tunisian Keay 31/32 (this vessel bore a post-cocturam graffito of some note), Ware 1.54, Ware 4.1 (Balearic: 5th century likely) and local amphorae Ware 1.48 and Ware 1.49; Villa of Carabases (Elche) (Site 76), Tunisian Keay 6, Baetican oil amphora Keay 13C?; Villa of Irles (Elche) (Site 82), a late Roman, local combed Ware 1 amphora sherd, 5th or 6th centuries; Arco Sempere (Elda), Balearic Ware 4.3/Keay 79 (6th century likely, common at Benalúa); Villa of Candela (Villena) (Site 175), Tunisian Keay 25(B?). 323. Frequency of contact rather than closeness to source could be the deciding factor in the range and quantities of long-distance imports on sites. Alicante received a wider range of imports than other sites that are closer to the same sources (Reynolds 1995, ch. 5.2 and 5.3: an argument taken from Fulford 1983 and 1987). He based this conclusion on the abnormally large quantities of Tunisian products (fine wares, amphorae and coarse wares) at Ostia, due to the constant targeting of the port by annona shipments. This ‘tripartite’ supply is paralleled at Tarragona in the early and mid 5th century and Benalúa in the mid 6th century, but is not encountered generally. Even if observed on sites together, they, as shipwrecks prove, did not arrive together, in the same shipments: e.g. the table wares in Baetica and Dyrrhachium in the 2nd century, and in 7th century Constantinople (Hayes 1992), both possibly arriving with grain. The separate supply of fine wares and amphorae (coarse wares were tertiary items that accompanied these or other goods) explains why it is possible to have some sites supplied with fine wares in quantity but not amphorae and vice versa. The chance location on or close to a major shipping route would be another obvious factor governing the range and quantities of imports. 324. For the amphorae of Empoli and Forlimpopoli, see Pasquinucci, Del Rio and Menchelli (1998); Manacorda (1987). For Tarragona examples from Empoli, see Remolà i Vallverdú (2000a, 238 and 241). Amphorae from Empoli have a longer history of importation in Tarragona. They occur in late 3rd/early 4th, late 4th/early 5th and mid 5th century contexts. Tarragona’s long term contact with this Italian source is striking given its absence elsewhere in the Iberian Peninsula (notably absent in the south-east). I would ascribe a Calabrian origin to Remolà’s Tipo Tardío C, with their characteristic sloping handles and short necks: Remolà i Vallverdú (2000a, 238). His Tipo Tardío D may be related to the latter and

281

Notes to pages 89-92 Calabrian type Keay 52 (Remolà i Vallverdú (2000a, 241). A similar variant, typologically related to Keay 52, is found in 5th century contexts in Lepcis Magna, in a micaceous red brown fabric (close to that of the Calabrian form Crypta Balbi 2: Saguì, Ricci and Romeo 1997: 38, fig. 2.9; Arthur 1998a: 172, fig. 9.4-5, Carminiello type 17). Similar forms with sloping handles are also attested in Marseille, c. 425-450 (Bonifay 1986, fig. 9.39 and 41; see Reynolds 1995, 84, Section 2a, figs 83-86, for illustrations of both Marseille and Tarragona examples. 325. Arthur (1989a), who has suggested that it was produced by and for Jewish communities; Reynolds (1995, 67-70); Pacetti (1998). 326. Carthage: Neuru (1980); For the strong links between Lepcis and Campania, see Reynolds (1997). 327. Tarragona: Remolà i Vallverdú (2000a, 241) and Keay (1984a, 267-8). One was noted at Santa Pola/Portus Ilicitanus, see Márquez Villora (1999); absent in Benalúa and in the Vinalopó Valley; none noted in Cartagena and other coastal sites; Valencia: Pascual et al. (1997, fig. 4.23). 328. That Lea Jones’ thin section work on these amphorae for Simon Keay established that Keay 24 belonged to a class of its own (Fabric 8) should advise caution in a Tripolitanian attribution, despite the reasonable typological grounds for its development or relationship to Keay 11/Tripolitana III. Keay states that the fabric was close to that of Baetican amphorae (hence my suggestion, purely hypothetically) of a Moroccan source. I could equally have suggested Algerian. However, I did not recognise, as has Remolà i Vallverdú, its affinities with the Tripolitanian series. It should be pointed out that we know next to nothing of the nature of amphorae in southern Tunisia, sites that might have a fabric similar to Tripolitanian amphorae. The latter also, we must remember, can differ considerably in their fabrics: cf. Peacock’s ‘fine hard Tripolitanian’ fabric and the ‘classic’ lime rich fabric (of Lepcis Magna and sites of the Tripolitanian Gebel to the south): Fulford and Peacock 1984, Fabrics; the fine buff fabric of Oea/Tripoli (Mau 35 amphorae); the small reduction-fired amphorae in the Lepcis 187 deposit that are typical finds in Misurata (Reynolds 1997). I have had experience of all of these, but none so far in a fabric that I would compare with Spanish Baetican amphorae. 329. The origin of what was one of the most commonly traded handmade ware in the western Mediterranean, LRCW II, in Sardinia, rather than the Aeolian Islands (Fulford and Peacock 1984, 10-11, 159, 161, Forms 8-12: Handmade Fabric 1.2) has been recently argued on the basis of fabric analysis and comparative work in Sardinia (Buxeda i Garrigós et al. 2005, 226-7). 330. It would be useful here to remind ourselves of some of the major events and complex changes to the political map, namely the evolution of the Barbarian successor states in the West, that present a background to trade in the 5th century. From 407 to 409 the Vandals, Alans and Suevi swept into Hispania causing great alarm. In response, Honorius sent into the peninsula Visigothic troops as foederati, who managed to restrict the Suevi to Gallaecia and push the Vandals to the south. The Visigoths arrived in Gaul in 412, were present at Narbonne in 413, but moved on to establish a court at Barcelona/Barcino in 414-415. However, in 416 they moved to Aquitania, establishing a court at Toulouse/Tolosa. These lands in Aquitania formed the basis of their kingdom until they entered Hispania again in 455 and began to expand their dominion. They besieged Roman-held Narbonne regularly from 425-436, but did not take control of the port until 462, when the city was ceded to them by the local comes. King Euric then established a court (sedes regia) in various locations over the years 466-484 (Narbonne/Narbo, Bordeaux/Burdigala and Toulouse/Tolosa), but

282

Notes to page 92 Toulouse was the main base throughout the Visigothic occupation of south-western Gaul. (Wolfram 1988, ch. 5). In Hispania the Barbarians who entered the province in 409, some 200,000, settled throughout the Iberian Peninsula, with the exception of Tarraconensis that remained under Roman control. The Vandals occupied Baetica until their passage to Africa in 429. The Suevi remained in Gallaecia and established the capital of their kingdom first at Braga/Bracara Augusta and, later, expanding into former Vandal territory and into western Carthaginiensis under Rechila (438-448), at Mérida/Emerita Augusta, capital of both Lusitania and seat of the vicarius of the diocese of Hispania. In 446, the Romans signed a treaty with the Suevi and recovered Carthaginiensis for a short while. Continued Roman control of Tarraconensis during this period is illustrated at Tarragona by inscriptions set up to the Roman emperors until as late as 468-472. The Emperor Majorian set off from Zaragoza in his disastrous campaign against the Vandals that ended in the Bay of Ilici (Ripoll 2003,130; Reynolds 1993, 10, 30, n. 4). In the Ebro Valley in the 440s the rebellion of the bagaudae, probably coloni of the great Roman estates in the region, caused major unrest, particularly when they joined forces with the Suevi in 449 and pillaged as far east as Lérida/Ilerda. The emperor Avitus in 455 sent in the Visigoths, who this time succeeded in not only defeating the Suevi, but also sacked Braga and took Mérida. The campaign ended with the sacking of Asturica and Pallantia. Rome, through these Visigothic troops, now controlled all of Hispania (457-466) except Gallaecia (still Suevic). The Suevic sack of Conimbriga in 468 followed the alliance of the emperor Anthemius (467-472) with the Suevi, an attempt to break the Visigothic hold on the provinces. Now Euric (466-484), acting general of the Roman army, captured Mérida, expelled the Suevi from Lusitania and attacked Tarraconensis (470-475), taking Pamplona, Zaragoza in the Ebro Valley, and Tarragona and other cities on the coast. The Visigoths, as foederati, now controlled all of Hispania, with the exception of Gallaecia. The following year, 476, Roman Italy technically ceased to exist with the establishment of the Ostrogothic kingdom, following the deposition of Romulus Augustulus. From 507, with the loss of the regnum Tolosanum in Gaul to the Franks (noted in the Consularia Caesaraugustana [88a, for 507]: regnum Tolosanum destructum est), the Visigoths were confined to Hispania. Baetica was ruled from Sevilla/Hispalis. The Visigoths under Leovigild (573-586) finally annexed the Suevic kingdom and definitively established their capital at Toledo/Toletum (Barcelona, Sevilla and Mérida had served as royal seats at various times) (Keay 1988, ch. 9, 202-8; Ripoll 2003). Following the Vandal invasion of north Africa in 429 (crossing the fretum gaditanum, from Algeciras) and the capture of Carthage in 439, Roman Africa was not fully Vandal until 442. In that year, in exchange for the return of the Mauretanias and Numidia, Genseric was formally ceded the Roman provinces of Africa Proconsularis and Byzacena. In 455, with the murder of Valentinian III, Genseric took back the rest of north Africa and was ceded also Tripolitania (Jones [1966], 79, 89, 90, 92, 93; Mattingly 1995). In command of the seaways, the Vandals expanded their ‘empire’ with the capture in 455 of the islands of the Balearics, Sardinia and Corsica. That of Sicily followed (467), although the latter was later ceded to Odoacer, the Ostrogothic ruler of Italy from 476. In 455 the Vandals were confident enough to even strike and sack Rome herself. Though the successive emperors of the Roman East longed to recover the former Roman provinces of the Roman West and attempted to do so (Majorian in 461; Leo

283

Notes to page 93 in 467), the rulers of the Barbarian kingdoms sought and received their formal approval to govern these provinces (though never under the title of Emperor, in the case of the Ostrogoths in Italy). From mints at Narbonne and Arles, the Visigoths issued gold coins in the name of Anastasius (in 507), and later, gold tremisses from mints at Barcino and elsewhere in Tarraconensis, Baetica and Lusitania. The Vandals, Visigoths and Ostrogoths, furthermore, maintained the Roman administrative, legal and taxation systems of their territories. Theodoric, a Visigoth educated in Greek at the court of Constantinople, and ruler of Italy from 493 at Ravenna, positively went out of his way to respect Roman traditions. Whereas the Visigoths and Ostrogoths took one or two thirds of the land, the Vandals expropriated all Roman land (Jones [1966], 95-102: in Africa, lands given to Vandal tribesmen were tax free, the rest became royal estates. Both classes of lands could have gained revenues through rents. In Hispania the law codes issued by Euric (466-484) and Alaric II (in 506), catered for the Gothic and HispanoRoman populations respectively. The emerging bishoprics of the 5th and 6th centuries served as focal points for existing major late Roman centres. They also helped to re-establish the prominence of towns that had fallen into obscurity, whereas others, prominent in the early Empire, did not receive this status (e.g. Sagunto, Cádiz, Carteia and Huelva) (Keay 1988, 209-11). 331. Michel Bonifay (2004, 463-75; see also Bonifay and Pieri 1995) now places in doubt that the sole or primary content of the most commonly exported Vandal and Byzantine amphora, Keay 62, was oil. That analyses indicate that many were lined (with pitch), would theoretically indicate that the form carried another product, perhaps wine (or even fish sauce). The only African amphorae analysed that were not lined, and hence should be oil amphorae are in fact few: The Africana I (Keay 3), Tripolitana I and III, Africana IIB variant (Keay 5bis/Bonifay Type 24), Keay 35 probably (this was a 5th century pre-Vandal and Vandal form: Keay 35B was lined), Keay 59 and Keay 8B (both 5th century forms), Keay 34 (may have contained oil and other products). Keay 61C is the only later Byzantine form specifically for oil (central Tunisian, commonly exported in the late 6th century, cf. Koper). Keay 3 similis, Keay 27 and Keay 36 were not systematically lined and could have carried oil as well as other goods. Bonifay argues that Keay 25 and their smaller successors (spatheia Keay 26 et al.) contained wine and olives primarily, not fish sauce (in contra to my suggestion that that carried primarily fish products) (Bonifay 2004, 473-5). We at least agree that they did not normally carry oil (and hence were not amphorae carrying annona goods). 332. Fulford, in Fulford and Peacock (1984, ch. 4, esp. 108-14); see Reynolds (1995, 154-7, appendices A.2-3), for analysis of trends in typological innovation in the Carthage region in the Vandal period. An important new series of rouletted forms (ARS 82-85) was introduced just before the Vandal conquest by the workshops in east-central Tunisia. See Hayes (1972). Form 84 was copied by north Tunisian workshops (Nabeul-Sidi Zahruni: Bonifay 2004) and was exported to Alicante and Sicily in the Vandal period (the form Fulford 27.1-2) (Fig. 16a, bottom left). ARS 84 also provided the model for the classic Phocean Late Roman C ware form 3 from c. 450. 333. Bonifay (2005c, 88; 2004, 454), with respect to ARS production at El Mahrine v. Nabeul and Sidi Khalifa, and in west-central Tunisia at Sidi Marzouk Tounsi, the latter producing ARS 82-85: Mackensen (1993 and 1998). For Nabeul ARS, the rouletted variant Fulford 27 is an important export (for this variant, identified as Nabeul in origin by Bonifay, see comment here, n. 339). Similar arguments on the displacement of production from north to central

284

Notes to page 94 Tunisia were offered in Reynolds (1995, Chapters 2 and 3), but with certain errors in the attribution of sources for some ARS and amphorae (Keay 57, I thought to be north Tunisian, and ARS Fulford 27, I thought to be southern Tunisian. ARS 105 is still thought to be a north Tunisian form (as stated in Reynolds 1995; Bonifay 2004), but its abundance in the survey material of Leptiminus (personal observation, with thanks to John Hayes and Lea Stirling), as well as its exceptional distribution with other coastal central Tunisian products at Koper could be an indication that it was (also?) produced on the coast. 334. See Ramón and Cau (1997); Reynolds (1995, appendix D.9).The Ibizan deposit should date to the end of the 5th century. Common ARS 12/102; ‘Late 61B’ (typical on highland sites in the Vinalopó Valley: Reynolds (1995, 19, 148, e.g. figs 22-3); ARS 64 (very common: again typical in Alicante); ARS forms 67, 73, 80, 80B, 81, 87A, 91A/B, 104A and Fulford 14. Examples of ‘99’ are in fact, as their shallow body indicates, Fulford’s Vandal forms 39 or 41. The presence of ARS 104A is important supportive evidence for the likely late 5th century introduction of this classic 6th century form. This had already been proposed in Reynolds (1995, 378-9), with regard to the joint appearance of forms 99 and 104 on amphora production sites of Vandal date, notably of Keay 62. See below, n. 336, for the evidence from Marseille. 335. For the distribution of Vandal ARS, see Reynolds (1995, 17-31) and (2004), with reference to Tortorella (1998, 51, appendix 1), which includes finds of ARS 82-85 in Corsica and Sardinia. 336. The publication of material of 450-500 and much else now provides a continuous record for the early 5th to 7th centuries in the city (Bonifay, Carre and Rigoir, 1998). Sondage 10 provides a valuable, good sequence through the first and second halves of the 5th century: notably Period 3 = ‘late 5th’century; Period 4 = ‘very end of 5th’century’. These contexts illustrate the Vandal date and export of north Tunisian late variants of ARS 61B (Fig. 16a, top), ARS 12/102, Fulford 35/Hayes 79, ARS 86/Fulford 37 (Fig. 16a, bottom right), ARS 62/Fulford 2 and central Tunisian ARS 74, 84 and 85. Note that ARS 84 was found in contexts with coins of 457-474 (Hayes 1972, 133) and occurred with coins of 455 at Sétif (Hayes 1972, 201, with references). A rim of ARS 104A in the upper layers of Marseille Period 4 confirms its introduction at the end of the century (Reynolds 1995, 152-3; Mackensen 1993, 412), contra the 530 date proposed by Hayes (1972). Other 5th century ARS forms present in Periods 3 and 4 were already exported from the early 5th century (e.g. ARS 73, 80, 81 and 91B) and cannot therefore provide secure evidence for a Vandal period date. The cup 12/102, common in the Sa Mesquida Ibizan Vandal deposit, is a key indicator. This form is an imitation of a silver shape that comprised part of a silver hoard of the Cresconi family, discovered at Carthage itself (Kent and Painter 1977, fig. 101). It is not unreasonable to suggest, as do the authors, that this hoard was deposited in the wake of the Vandal invasion and that the metalware version of the form was thus already in vogue prior to the Vandal conquest. The following phase, Marseille Period 5, contains ARS 99 and 103, with LRC 3F and dates to the 6th century. Indeed Bonifay, on this evidence, argues for the later, 6th century, introduction of the important and widely distributed form ARS 99, with respect to ARS 104A (Bonifay, Carre and Rigoir 1998, 364). The excavation of a well in Rue du Bon Jésus, Context 12, is also dateable to 450-500 (Bonifay, Carre and Rigoir 1998, 197-251, especially 200-5; 401-7, tables LVIIILXXI) and contains a similar range of ARS forms: north Tunisian ARS 61B, ARS 81A, 91B, 12/102 and Fulford 2; central Tunisian ARS 74, 82, 84. Notably ARS 50B.61, with its typical stamped rosettes, is present (Bonifay, Carre and Rigoir

285

Notes to pages 94-95 1998, 201, 203, fig. 171.14), a common find in the Vinalopó Valley and also present on the Dramont E wreck dated to c. 425-455 (Santamaria 1995). 337. The rare north Tunisian form Hayes 98 is unusually common; Démians d’Archimbaud and Vallauri (1994, fig. 47.29-32; fig. 48.41-6; fig. 54.72-85; fig. 57.103-5; fig. 59.117, 118, 121, 125-6). It is common in Marseille (and Ventimiglia). The form occurs at the settlement of Saint-Propice, just north-west of Marseille (Boixadera 1987). No examples were found in Alicante. 338. The Dramont E wreck is one case, see above; the wreck of Port-Miou, with a cargo of Tunisian ARS and lamps, but perhaps few amphorae, is another good example (Deneauve 1972; Bonifay 1998; Parker 1992, no. 873.5, though dated here to c. 400-425). The cargo contained examples of the ARS ‘late 61B’ form that we have been discussing with regard to the date of the Vila-roma 2 and STE/1 deposits (see above n. 314). 339. Soricelli (1994). ARS 82-84, with ARS 84 being especially common in its classic form. Fulford 27.2/ARS 84 imitation is present (but perhaps more common in Alicante), but the thin variant of the shape Fulford 27.1 is rarer than in Alicante. The petal-stamped form 50.61 is not uncommon, as it is in Alicante. ARS 80-81 are very common. See Bonifay (2004, 49, 57, fig. 26) for the north-east Tunisian origins of Fulford 27 (Workshop at Nabeul-Sidi Zahruni): not south Tunisian as I had suggested (Reynolds 1995). Given its origin, its rarity in Carthage is indeed surprising. 340. For Italy, Sardinia and Sicily see Tortorella (1998, 51-4, fig. 7). See also Reynolds (1995, appendices D.15 (Ventimiglia), D.18 (Luni), D.19-20 (Schola Praeconum I and II), D.21 (Rome-Temple of Magna Mater), D.22 (Sperlonga), D.23 (Capua), D.24 (villa of S. Giovanni di Ruoti)). For Naples, Carminiello ai Mannesi, see Soricelli (1994). For south-eastern Italy, where ARS and LRC are widespread, but in small quantities, see Arthur, De Mitri and Lapadula (2007) and Volpe et al. (2007). For LRC in Italy, see Martin (1998) and Gandolfi (1997-8). See also Reynolds (2004) with a discussion of this theme, together with reservations as to the conclusions of Martin and Soricelli, also presented here (n. 429). 341. Reynolds (1995, 19-20), for 5th century ARS in Alicante and ibid. (appendix C.4) for all fine wares in the Vinalopó Valley. For maps showing location of sites and the road systems of the Roman and Arab periods in the south-east, see Reynolds (1993, figs 5, 12 and 14). For a breakdown of the distribution of sites in the Vinalopó Valley, through time, see Reynolds (1993, figs 108-13). Changes in the road system due to shifts in the focus and nature of settlements, e.g. the abandonment of Carthago Nova for Orihuela in the early Arab period, are outlined and discussed in Reynolds (1993, ch. 2). The Via Augusta played an essential role in the distribution of ceramics and imported foodstuffs and in the determination of the late Roman settlement pattern focused on large highland, defensive settlements, some of them road stations (e.g. El Monastil, where Baetican fish sauce amphorae are common). 342. Reynolds (1993, 86, Site 211). 343. Moltó Poveda (1996) and (2000), with 4th to 6th century ARS, 5th century LRC and many Tunisian amphorae (55 vessels, 72.3% of the total), in a range similar to that of Alicante sites. 344. Reynolds (1995, 25-31). 345. Reynolds (1995, 24). 346. E.g. the flanged bowl ARS 74 and larger dish form 84. 347. The dish ‘late 61B’ (Fig. 16a, top), the dish ARS 64.4 (Fig. 16a, middle) and its companion bowl types 80 and 81; the footed cup ARS 12/102: the full

286

Notes to pages 95-96 publication of finds in Marseille must correct my previous conclusion that the form was rare at Marseille (Reynolds 1995, 21). 348. E.g. the flanged bowl ARS 73, the north Tunisian counterpart of ARS 74. The larger north Tunisian version of the shape, ARS 76, seems also to be rarer in Marseille than it is in Alicante, and this taken with the high numbers of ARS 73 in Alicante could well signify Alicante’s stronger links with that particular supply source. 349. Reynolds (1995, 45, 107, and 109); Hurst (1994, ch. 2.1, 114-15): the building of a massive portico on the Circular Harbour could well date to the reign of Justinian. A mole in the harbour has been tentatively dated to the late 2nd to 3rd centuries (Hurst 1993). Another period one might expect to find work on the harbour would be the 4th century, when exports to Rome increased. For epigraphic evidence for the possible involvement in annona exports of the ports of Utica, Hippo Regius and Rusicade (in the Imperial period, see Reynolds 1995, 41-2). Whether Carthage’s role in this respect grew, as that of Utica declined in the course of the 3rd and 4th centuries, needs to be explored through the archaeological excavation of their harbours (not yet resolved in the case of Carthage). In the case of Utica, the dating of the eventual silting up of the harbour and its possible contribution to the decline of the port with respect to continued activity of the port of Carthage also need to be examined. 350. Note the voyage from Alexandria to Utica, dated to the second half of the 3rd century (Reynolds, 1995, 127). 351. Remolà i Vallverdú (2000, 54-8, 69-71, 80-1 and 298-300). For the original report on the fine wares, see Aquilué (1993). The Vandal ARS in these two successive phases is associated with LRC 3C, of the third quarter of the 5th century, as well as Gazan amphorae of the same date (note that the distinctive bevelled-rim Gazan variant AUD 1B-29 is certainly present in numerous Beirut contexts of the third quarter of the 5th century (with LRC 3C), even though the variant continues into the last quarter of the century). In AUD 1B there are amphorae and fine wares that could date to the late 5th century (notably ARS 86), as well as a few of the first half of the 6th century (ARS 87B and Keay 55A, for example). Bonifay’s late 5th century variant ARS 61C is present (Bonifay 2005, with a triangular rim). Note the presence of undoubtedly 6th century ARS 102 in AUD 1A, though the majority of the material could date to the third quarter of the 5th century. There is a well preserved example of ARS 67. The predominant character of these levels is clearly 5th century Vandal, at least (ARS 12/102, ARS 61C, ARS 87B). The 6th century Torre de l’Audiència 2 fill includes residual examples of 5th century Vandal forms 84, 85 and 87A. ARS 82 and 85 are present, as they are in Marseille but not in Alicante. 352. Járrega i Domínguez and Clariana i Roig (1996, fig. 5), for ARS ‘late 61B’ and 84; fig. 6, for ARS 87A; fig. 8.3-8 for 12/102. Note also the rare find of a c. 450-500 example of Cypriot LRD Form 2: fig. 11.1. 353. Barrasetas i Dunjó and Járrega i Domínguez (1997, fig. 10.5m) for a Fulford 27 identical to examples in Alicante. The stamped ARS base illustrated as fig. 8.10 may date to the second half of the 5th century. See above n. 319 for a summary of finds on the site. Some indication of the supply of ARS and fine wares generally is given in the discussion in this article (ibid., 133-5). This states that Fulford 27 was found at Zaragoza (Beltrán Lloris, Paz Peralta and Lasheras Corruchaga [1985, 122, fig. 1.2, though classified as ARS 84]) and in sites in Catalunya: at Can Modolell (Cabrera del Mar, Maresme) in a context of AD 460-520 (Clariana and Járrega 1990, 335, fig. 4.2); Barcelona, Tarragona, Tortosa, Mas del

287

Notes to pages 96-97 Catxorro (Benifallet), Barrugat (Bítem) and La Fontjoana (Ribera d’Ebre), with reference to Aquilué (i Abadias) (1993, 137-8, fig. 98.86-87), and to Járrega Domínguez (1993, 1336). Whereas in Alicante the central Tunisian ‘classic’ ARS 84 is rare and these north Tunisian variants are more common, both variants are to be found in the north-east in roughly equal numbers. Apparently ARS 84 has been found on 5 sites and Fulford 27 on 6 or 7 sites. My omission to consult in detail Járrega Domínguez’s study of the distribution of fine wares in the Iberian Peninsula (1991) when at the DAI (Madrid) is most regrettable. For the villa of Caputxins (Mataró), with 4th to 6th century ARS and Tunisian amphorae, see Járrega Domínguez and Clariana i Roig (1995). 354. Remolà i Vallverdú (2000b, 289-307). Deposits that may be dated to the period ‘475-500’ and have generated amphora data are the sites TRI (RBH for total ceramics, 974, comprising 65 amphora RBH), SCR (126 RBH, comprising 41 amphora RBH). Those of the Torre de l’Audiència, AUD/1A (176 RBH, with 19 amphora RBH) and AUD/1B (558 RBH, comprising 34 amphora RBH), (Remolà i Vallverdú 2000a, 54-8, 69-71, 80-1 and 298-300), comprise material ranging 450500 (see above, n. 351). These Tarragona deposits include Vandal ARS forms 12/110, 79, 84, 86, 87A-B and fair numbers of Vandal amphorae Keay 35, 36 and 62. Spanish amphorae, such as Keay 13/Dressel 23, Keay 23 and Keay 19 are present in all of these contexts. Tunisian amphorae dominate those from the eastern Mediterranean by far. 355. Llinàs i Pol (1997, Phase IVb, fig. 4.4 and 10). 356. Nieto Prieto (1993). The baths of a town house were transformed into a fish sauce factory c. 325-350, and then remodelled in the late 4th or early 5th century. The pottery found in the last fills of the tanks comprises large quantities of Tunisian amphorae and mid 6th century ARS (as the most common finds in the Benalúa deposit: ARS 91C, 93B, 94, 97, 99A-B and 104; single examples of LRC 3E, late 5th century and 3F.25, c. 525-550). The latest, 6th century fill of the rectangular tank Deposit 29 comprised 7398 pottery fragments, of which 6060 were amphorae, particularly Keay 62. Fourth and 5th century ARS is common on the site. Fifth century forms include ARS late 61B, 73, 76, 80, 81, 91B, but notably not the post-450 Vandal-Carthage range, nor the central Tunisian forms 82-84, found in Alicante, Marseille and the Balearics, for example. 357. See Ramón and Cau (1997), for deposits excavated at Es Castell (Ibiza). Vandal ARS is common, but Tunisian amphorae are quite rare in these deposits. Amphorae are the large flagon-type Reynolds (1993, Ware 4.1). The plain wares are two carinated bowl forms with spout. 358. In the early Empire the Balearics served as a similar crossing point for Tarraconensian wine going to Italy and to Carthage (Strabo 3.4.7) (Berni Millet 1998, 74). 359. Outlined in Reynolds (1995, 54, 66-7, 79-80, 89, 130-1). See also here Chapter 3.5, last paragraph. 360. Fulford and Peacock (1984, 258-9). 361. For LRC in the Iberian Peninsula see Reynolds (1995, 162-4, appendix B.2). For Málaga and other sites, see Serrano Ramos (1997-8). These are mostly 5th century finds (LRC 3B, 3C; 3E: late 5th century+), some of 500-550 (LRC 3F; LRC 5). Málaga Roman theatre (23 vessels): LRC 3B (5); 3C x 1, 3C? (2), LRC 3D, 3E (2), LRC 3F, 3H (3); LRC 4, LRC 5, LRC 6, LRC 10A (from 550-600), LRC 10B (7th century). Occasional finds elsewhere, at Cártama (LRC 3E and 3F; LRC 4: first half of the 5th century), Torreblanca del Sol (Fuengirola) (LRC 3F?). For the

288

Notes to pages 97-101 LRC in the Guadalquivir Valley and Gibraltar, see Alonso de la Sierra Fernández (1994): Carteia: LRC 3C (2); Belo (LRC 3D: 3; base of LRC 3), Sevilla (LRC 3E, 3F), Italica (LRC 3E x 3), Cádiz (LRC 3E) and Alcalá de Guadaira (LRC 3E, 3F). For Italy see now Martin (1998) and Gandolfi (1997-8), with comments in contra in Reynolds (2004, Roman pottery, Conclusions) and here n. 429. 362. Orfila Pons and Cau Ontiveros (1994); Cau Ontiveros (2003). Both forms, particularly the latter, are found in Butrint, opposite the heel of Italy, and so not too distant perhaps from the route that served Mallorca in this case (Reynolds 2002). 363. The trend is very clear at Conimbriga, see Delgado (1975b). Sites other than Conimbriga where LRC is present include Belo, Troia, Setúbal, Braga/ Bracara Augusta, Vigo and Gijón. The amphorae from Conimbriga are still unpublished, but eastern Mediterranean amphorae occur in notable quantities in Braga (Morais 2005) and Vigo (Adolfo Domínguez, pers. comm.). In the British Isles, in contrast to 5th and 6th century LRC finds, ARS appears only in the later 5th and 6th centuries. 364. Reynolds (1995, appendix D.24). See Freed (1983). 365. My observations (1995) regarding Marseille are still fortunately confirmed by Bonifay (2005c, 89), who states that LRC is present (in southern Gaul) partout mais en petites quantités. He contrasts this with the ‘vast’ distribution of Aegean and Levantine cooking wares (see below, for more details). Though present in most contexts of the second half of the 5th century, it is rare. In the case of Naples, my tentative suggestion that LRC is rare (1995) seems to have been confirmed by Carsana (2007), who, presenting contexts of the mid 6th to 7th centuries, provides evidence for ARS imports in quantity (over 3000 fragments) but makes no mention of LRC, despite the evidence also presented for the considerable strength of eastern Mediterranean amphora imports. 366. Reynolds (2002, 221). 367. As reported by Kathleen Slane in the ESF/ICREA exploratory workshop on late Roman fine wares, held in Barcelona, November 2008. 368. ARS 91B in Athens: ‘almost none’, as reported by John Hayes in the same ESF/ICREA Barcelona workshop. 369. The major late 5th century introduction to the Vandal range was ARS 99; this was followed, perhaps c. 500, by the dish 104A; a wider range of forms by the early 6th century included ARS 87B, 90, 91C, 93, 94B, 96, 97, 99, 103, 104A, 104B. For the breakdown of Vandal and Byzantine forms within Keay’s Period III Tunisian amphora production (late 5th to 7th centuries) and an overview of their distribution, see Reynolds (1995, 53-60) and now Bonifay (2004). As already noted (n. 333), the regional sources for ARS and amphorae given in Reynolds (1995) are largely correct, but need to be checked against Bonifay (2004). For deposits with material of early to mid 6th century date, see also finds in Barcelona: Járrega Domínguez (2005) and Carreras Monfort and Berni Millet (2005); Rosas fish sauce factory: Nieto Prieto (1993); Carretera de S. Martín de Ampurias (Gerona): Phase V (Llinàs i Pol 1997). For Tarragona we have the late 5th century deposits already discussed (n. 351): TRA, SCR, AUD/1A and B) and for the 6th century, the rather mixed upper deposits of the Torre de l’Audiència, AUD/ 2, other deposits not being quantitatively useful or being burials, rather than deposits (Remolà i Vallverdú 2000a, 58-60, 300-3). 370. A certain amount of caution, however, is necessary. As in the case of pre-Vandal and early Vandal Tunisian production, it is not easy to distinguish between exports of the late Vandal and early Byzantine periods, the latter following Justinian’s reconquest of north Africa and the capture of Carthage in 533, as the same forms are found in both periods. Additional indicators, such as coins, new

289

Notes to pages 101-103 forms or uninterrupted sequences, are needed in order to interpret pottery as evidence for either late Vandal or early Byzantine exports. 371. Note also the now published mid 6th century ‘Épave 1 de La Palud’ (Port-Cros, Var) shipwreck with a cargo of Tunisian, mainly Keay 55 and 62 amphorae (Long and Volpe 1998, 317-42). 372. Boixadera et al. (1987). ARS 87B (very common), 12/102 (common), ARS 64, ARS 91, ARS 10B, Fulford 52, ARS 104A and Hayes 98, a rare form elsewhere in the Mediterranean but encountered regularly in Marseille and Liguria (Reynolds 1995, 29-30). Cooking ware imports include two examples of Aegean Fulford Casserole 35. The absence of LRC and absence of Tunisian cooking wares, follows the Marseille supply (Tunisian cooking wares are relatively rare). In contrast to Marseille, there is a notable rarity of amphorae in the assemblage (c. 20 sherds, not catalogued), suggesting that imported amphorae were not usually marketed inland, beyond Marseille. The pre-Byzantine introduction of Fulford 52 is also suggested by its presence in a likely Belisarian ditch fill (i.e. of 533) in Carthage excavated by Gary Evans (personal observation, with thanks). 373. The remainder at the Domus of Gaudentius (Rome) was shared by imports from the Levant, 24.26%, Asia Minor, 9.19%, and Italy, primarily Calabria, 20.58%: Remolà i Vallverdú (2000a, 281, appendix III.7.6). 374. It should also be remembered that the population of Rome dropped considerably in the course of the 4th to mid 6th centuries, whatever the variability in calculations offered by scholars. Estimates for the 4th century are high, varying from c. 800,000 to c. 700,000. By 452 they comprise c. 350,000, and c. 500 c. 100,000, and dropped to as little as c. 60,000 by 530. The city’s population in the 7th century could have been as little as 25,000-30,000 (McCormick 2001, 101 n. 71; Morrisson and Sodini 2002, 172); see also Santangeli Valenzani (forthcoming). 375. See also Augenti (2006). For amphorae previously published from Ravenna-Classe, see Stoppioni Piccoli (1983) and Maioli and Stoppioni Piccoli (1989). For coarse wares, including Reynolds Ware 6 (east Sicilian?) and Aegean Fulford Casserole 35, see Fiumi and Prati (1983). I am most grateful to Andrea Augenti and Enrico Cirelli for showing me the spectacular finds from Classe. I would also like to take the opportunity to thank Andrea Augenti and his wife for their kind hospitality during my stay in Ravenna. 376. For Verona: Bruno (2007) and other sites (Corti [2007]). The similarity in the range of Tunisian and eastern Mediterranean products for these sites and Ravenna is notable: e.g. LRA 1, LRA 2, LRA 3, LRA 4, LRA 5, ‘Samos cistern’ amphora, Ikaria amphora (Adamscheck 1979, RC 22), Keay 25, Keay 8, Keay 62, Keay 61, Tunisian spatheia (buff and red fabrics), Vandal period ARS, ARS 105, ARS 109, LRC, as well as large numbers of Calabrian-Sicilian Keay 52. 377. See Keay (1984a) for Tunisian amphorae in north-east Spanish towns, summarised in Reynolds (1995, 286-90, appendix D.8). For Tarragona, see now Remolà i Vallverdú (2000a). Cela Espín and Revilla Calvo (2005) recently presented material from a context at Mataró/Iluro with a major element of AD 500-550 ARS (85% of the fine wares), Tunisian amphorae, and Balearic amphorae and plain wares (carinated bowls with handle and/or spout). However this (or another deposit?: Cardo Maximus) is often used as quantitative evidence for the 6th century, particularly for the strength of Baetican exports after 450, for example: Revilla Calvo et al. (1997); Pérez Suñé and Revilla Calvo (2000), with Tunisian amphorae at c. 49% of the total amphorae, and Baetican, as much as 25% (of total 90). However the range of ARS and Tunisian amphorae, primarily Keay 25 and 27, with only 2 examples of Keay 62 and 1 of Keay 61, indicates that the assemblage

290

Notes to pages 104-105 comprises a vast majority of pre-450 material. The same is true of a much ‘quoted’ deposit excavated at Baetulo/Badalona (6th century, with rather too much residual 5th century ARS and amphorae, again Keay 25 and 27, to be useful: Comas i Solà and Padrós 1997). There are unfortunately no percentage figures for the sequences excavated at Valencia. 378. In contrast perhaps to Ampurias in the 5th century, where this may have been the case. 379. Cela Espín and Revilla Calvo (2004). My impression is that these and other 6th century contexts have been dated far too late, usually to the late 6th/early 7th centuries. There are no examples of ARS 99C or 105 or clear examples of ARS 91D in any of the published contexts. Calle La Palma (2004), UE 1006 (op. cit., Láminas 139-49), with 99A (5 examples, one complete) and 94B (complete), Hayes 110 with rouletting, is probably early 6th century in date. The complete vessel UE 1006, Lám. 139.8, classified as ARS 91D and the primary ‘late’ dating evidence, is surely too large for this: it is probably the ARS 91 variant occasionally found in Butrint contexts of the first half of the 6th century (Reynolds 2004, Context 1152, fig. 121). Calle La Palma 15 (2000), UE 1038 (op. cit., Láminas 118-30) seems to date to the second quarter of the 6th century. The latest fine ware piece resembles examples of ARS 87B/109 found in the Benalúa deposit, rather than a 109 proper (Lám. 118.4) (Reynolds 1984); other fine wares in UE 1038 include ARS 99A (one complete) and a complete Fulford 37/ARS 86 (Lám. 118.15: late Vandal), 87B.4, ARS 91C (2 complete), ARS 94B and 104A. Tunisian Hayes Class 1B mortars are present, not the Byzantine Hayes Class 2. It is the absence of the latter mortars, as well as ARS 104B, that suggest that UE 1038, though similar to the Benalúa deposit (cf. shared presence of Tunisian amphorae Keay 62 and 55), is in fact a little earlier: second quarter of the 6th century?. One would also point out the absence of Keay 79 in UE 1038, a major component in the Benalúa deposit (Reynolds 1995, appendix C.1). Calle La Palma, 15 (2000), UE 1039/1051seems to date to the late 5th century (the thick-rimmed early Keay 62, Lám. 131.10, is paralleled in a Butrint assemblage of clear 5th century Vandal period date, here supported by the presence of ARS ‘Late 61B’, 63 and 91B. The presence of 99A and 104A suggests the end of the 5th century. The only problem piece is the apparent ARS 91C rim (Lám. 131.6) that should date to the 6th century. The published Badalona deposits of 5th and 6th century date are also striking for the absence of LRC, as well as rarity of eastern Mediterranean cooking wares (Comas i Solà and Padrós 1997: one example of Fulford Dish 5, from UE 1006, Lám. 141.51, early 6th century), both playing an important role in the Alicante supply in the 6th century. 380. For the distribution and quantities of 6th century ARS in the West, still valid for some sites, see Reynolds (1995, appendix B.1). For Pollentia in particular, see (ibid., appendix D.9), and Gumà, Riera and Torres (1997). For Badalona, see Comas i Solà and Padrós (1997). 381. Reynolds (1993); (1995, appendices C.4-5); El Castellar (Alcoy) is a highland site in the Alcoy Valley with 5th and 6th century ARS (Reynolds 1993, Site 221). 382. Reynolds (1993, Site 42.3, appendix D and fig. 44, for a section cut through the glass dump, and plates 101bis and 102 for pottery and glass finds); Reynolds (1995, appendix C.2). See nn. 181, 423 and 425 for other details on finds in Benalúa, including coins. 383. Moltó Poveda (2000), for Garganes.

291

Notes to pages 105-108 384. For instance, at Torre la Cruz (Villajoyosa), Baños de la Reina (Calpe) and Punta de l’Arenal. See Reynolds (1993, Site Index); Reynolds (1995, appendices C.4-5). 385. For Gijón, see Fernández Ochoa, García Díaz and Uscatescu Barrón (1992). 386. Reynolds (2005b, 573-4, with respect to LRA 5; 577, with respect to LRA 1). 387. Hohlfelder (2000); McCormick (2001, 86); Kingsley (2000). 388. Keay (1984a, 352-7: Keay 65). 389. See Reynolds (1995, appendix C.5), for the distribution of amphorae in the Vinalopó Valley. LRA 2 occurred at Benalúa/Alicante, Castillo de Santa Bárbara (Reynolds [1993, Site 37: in Alicante itself, the highland rock and site of the Medieval castle, overlooking the port), Ilici, and the highland sites of La Moleta (Elche) (Site 131), Castillo del Río (Aspe) (133) and El Monastil (Elda) (Site 156). Recent studies at the Portus Ilicitanus/Santa Pola have located two finds of LRA 2, as well as five examples of LRA 4 and one example of LRA 3 (Márquez Villora and Molina Vidal 2000, 32). 390. Carreté, Keay and Millet (1995). Saint-Propice (Boixadera 1987). 391. García Villanueva and Rosselló Mesquida (1993; 1995). 392. Reynolds (2003b) for finds of LRC and LRA 1 in Vigo and Bracara Augusta/Braga. See Morais (2005) for details on the finds at Braga. I am grateful to Rui Morais for showing me some of these finds and for the information that they are even more common at Vigo. For the supply of imports to post-Roman Britain see Thomas (1981) and my summary of these in Reynolds (1995, 135, 273-4, appendix D.3). See also Fulford (1989b) and now Campbell (2007). I am very grateful to Richard Jones and Carl Thorpe (Tintagel) and Paul Bidwell (Bantham) for allowing me to examine the imported fine wares and amphorae from the sites of Tintagel (excavations of the University of Glasgow) and Bantham. This meeting took place at the home of Vivien Swan (December 2002). The pottery of Tintagel has since been published (Barrowman et al. 2007). The reader should look there for more accurate figures and percentages than have been presented here. At Bantham, on the south coast, a deposit has been excavated comprising largely LRA 1 amphorae (predominantly lime-rich examples, a fabric that is very common at Butrint) but also two examples of a variant I have not encountered previously (in Beirut, for example), perhaps products of Yumurtalik/Aegiae, in the Bay of Iskanderun, north of Antioch, on the basis of the fabric. There were a few Gazan amphorae (not typical products). LRC fine wares (LRC 3F and 6), suggest a date in the mid 6th century. The range at Tintagel was dominated by Aegean LRA 2 (61%) and to a lesser extent LRA 1 (some in the same lime-rich fabric found at Bantham; LRA 1, 16%). Though LRA 2 were present (in the ‘classic’ [Chian?] lime and gold mica rich fabric), I noted that the majority of LRA 2 were in an unusual softer, micaceous fabric, with less lime. This recalls the fabric of occasional examples of LRA 2 at Butrint (usually the ‘Chian’ fabric is dominant) and perhaps a rare variant of the Agora M 273, a form related to the Samos amphora class, and also present at Butrint. At Tintagel, and in contrast to Bantham, a major component was thick-walled buff coloured amphora sherds in a fine fabric with scattered iron oxide inclusions, which would seem to be south Spanish in origin, probably from Cádiz (a total of 55 sherds, at 7% of the total late assemblage: Richard Jones, pers. comm. for all these percentages). The fabric suggests a source in the Bay of Cádiz or perhaps, further along the Algarve coast, but not on the west coast of Portugal. The only rim in the

292

Notes to pages 108-111 sample, bell-shaped, with a fairly tall cylindrical neck is not paralleled in either Keay (1984a) or Remolà i Vallverdú (2000a). One form that comes to mind, particularly because it has the same fabric, is the fish sauce amphora Keay 16. That the amphorae are late examples of the Baetican oil amphora Dressel 23 is also possible, but less likely given the somewhat large, straight body sherds, in some cases. This latter category had been classified as Tunisian (‘Bv’), which is clearly an erroneous attribution. In fact there were no Tunisian imports in the sample of material that was shown to me. The absence of Tunisian amphorae was noted equally at Cadbury by David Williams (Williams and Carreras [Monfort] (1995, 240-1), as was the general rarity of Tunisian amphorae in post-Roman contexts in Britain. Presumably their acceptance (ibid., 251) of the high numbers of ‘Tunisian’ amphora finds at Tintagel was not based on their having handled the material. We may note also the presence of one body sherd of the ‘Samos Cistern’ amphora type, and several walls of LRA 3. As at Bantham, LRA 4 is rare at Tintagel. 393. For Richard Hodges’ interpretation of this evidence, see Hodges (2004). 394. A point noted by Carreras Monfort (2000). I would also like to thank Paul Bidwell for this information on Exeter. 395. Fernández Ochoa, García Díaz, and Uscatescu Barrón (1992); Uscatescu et al. (1994). 396. Steckner (1989). 397. Reynolds (1995, 135). A cargo of 20000 modii of grain, sent by the Patriarch of Alexandria, to alleviate famine in the region (Rougé 1966, 103; Whittaker [1983], 168). McCormick (2001) has amassed a wealth of documentary evidence demonstrating that long-distance trips, from, say Constantinople to Marseille, were far more common than we might suppose in late Antiquity and, his principal period of investigation, the Carolingian and early and middle Byzantine periods of the eastern Empire: embassies, pilgrims, traders, hunters of relics. 398. See Majcherek (2004) for information on quantified deposits excavated by the Polish team in Alexandria. The supply of LRA 2 from Gaza is equally unlikely. In contrast to LRA 1 (the most common Byzantine amphora), LRA 2 is only rarely found in Beirut. There is notably a more regular presence of the form after 550, which though significant, I think, has no obvious bearing on the supply to the West. One would need to see how LRA 2 imports compare at Antioch. 399. There are only 45 sherds of LRA 2 recorded for BEY 006, 045 and 007, in both contemporary and Medieval assemblages. These occur sporadically, more than I imagined, but only rarely in each case, in 5th and 6th century deposits. They occur predominantly in contexts of the early 5th and mid 6th centuries. 400. The 7th century Iskandil Burnu wreck, off Bodrum, contained an Aqaba amphora (on show in the garden of the Bodrum Nautical Museum), as well as an Egyptian Lower Nile silt fabric small LRA 5 (similar to an example found in Beirut: Reynolds 2003c, fig. 1.16), Gazan amphorae (common), LRA 5 (common?; from Caesarea?) and a Beirut amphora (my type Beirut 8.2: Reynolds 2000b; 2005b). My thanks to George Bass for showing me this important unpublished report. 401. See for example Majcherek (1992) on Cypriot fine wares and Tomber (2005) on the Egypt-India distribution of LRA 1. 402. We have now for the first time archaeological evidence for such a ship, though it is not clear if it was a Tunisian or eastern-Aegean ship (Jézégou 1998). It appears to have been in touch with both Carthage and Asia Minor prior to sinking off Fos-sur-Mer. The ship, the Saint-Gervais 2 wreck, was carrying a large cargo of grain, perhaps 3,000 modii. The capacity of this ship is estimated at 40-50

293

Notes to pages 111-113 tonnes. There were a few amphorae on board, but these were clearly in use in the ship’s kitchen. These and a coin of Heraclius minted at Carthage, note, were found completely steeped in pitch or resin (that must have been carried by at least some of the amphorae). The amphorae included Tunisian Keay 8A, such as those at S. Antonino di Perti (see Chapter 4.1.2): this was the type found in use in the Byzantine period at the fish sauce factory excavated at Nabeul: Slim et al. 1999; a base of a Keay 61A?; 3 other Tunisian large amphorae; 2 Tunisian spatheia; and a LRA 6 wine amphora from Beth Sh’an. Also belonging to the crew were two ARS vessels (ARS 108 and 109) and a lamp, several north Tunisian jugs and a mortar, the latter perhaps Tunisian. They also owned two south Gaulish cooking pots and two fine wares, possibly Asia Minor in source (but not LRC), one of them paralleled in the Yassi Ada wreck and at Constantinople. The latter and one of the African jugs bore post-cocturam graffiti: ‘k’ and ‘kaw’: the latter is not illustrated. That the ship docked in Carthage is possible (the coin, jugs and amphorae), that the crew were Greek is possible, but not necessarily the case as alpha-omega was used by Latin-speaking Christians also. The possible eastern table wares provide some evidence for an eastern connection, however. 403. See below, for a similar conclusion regarding the 6th century sources of imports to Alicante. 404. Long and Volpe (1998). 405. Single or rare Tunisian amphora wall sherds and no ARS occur in contexts BEY 006.3761, 3768, 7525, 9279, 13093; single or rare Baetican fragments occur in BEY 006.3768?, 3303 (foot), 9079 (Keay 23, but late 4th century also present). 406. Majcherek (2004, fig. 3). 407. A view also held by Panella (1993) and Bonifay (2004, 480, 488; 2005). For an excellent review of the varied regional sources that Constantinople sought to feed itself, and how the capital adapted to the progressive loss of its eastern provinces through the 7th century by importing from Africa and Sicily, see Teall (1959). 408. For Alexandria, see Majcherek (2004, fig. 2). For the Serapeum, see Bonifay and Leffy (2002) and above, n. 137. Keay 25/26 was the dominant import. 409. Remolà i Vallverdú (2000a, 196-8 and figs 68-9). He thinks that the type did not survive the mid 5th century, the Torre de l’Audiència 2 example possibly being residual; Carreras Monfort and Berni i Millet (1998). 410. For problems regarding the quality of contexts from Mataró and Badalona, see n. 377. 411. Reynolds (1993, plate 94.229, 230, 231; plate 95.232-3 and 235). No. 233 seems related to Keay 62 and had a rather peculiar fabric with plates of mica. The rim no. 230 could possibly be a variant of Keay 13. Note the local spatheion rims, plate 29.223-4 and one not illustrated, and plate 94.228, a Murcian example? Examples of Keay 19 present no problems: plate 94.214-16; Keay 23: plate 94.20710; plate 94.208 may be Keay 13, not Keay 23; plate 94.213, and another non-illustrated piece, are bases of Keay 13; plate 94.229 seems to be a spatheion in a Guadalquivir-type fabric; the strange piece plate 95.234 is not necessarily Spanish. I recall that its fabric and reduced surfaces were similar to those of Limyra cooking ware present in the deposit (Reynolds Ware 11g), but that is just a suggestion. I note here, in contrast, the similarity of this shape to an unclassified example published from Tarragona, Remolà’s Tipo Tardío F, dated to the mid 5th century, described as having a fabric similar to that of Lusitanian amphorae (Remolà i Vallverdú 2000a, 241, fig. 91.1-2). 412. In the sample from Tintagel that I examined, the only rim fragment, a

294

Notes to pages 114-116 triangular rim, in ‘Bv ware’, resembled Keay 16/Keay 22 or Keay 13/Dressel 23. This piece is now illustrated in Barrowman et al. (2007). The fine, buff fabric suggests a source in Cádiz, or in the Algarve (cf. Keay 16). The body sherds suggest these are Keay 16, not Dressel 23. See n. 392. 413. Villaverde Vega (2000, 913), with reference to Ponsich (1988, 104-29). 414. Raposo et al. (2005). Rua dos Correiros: Almagro 50, Almagro 51C and the small jar form Lusitana 9, with ARS 61B, ARS 67 x 3 (usually not later than c. 450: Hayes now ignores the latest dating, from Athens, proposed in Late Roman Pottery, pers. comm.), ARS 73 x 4; Quinta do Rouxinol: Keay 16, 23 and Lusitana 9, associated with ARS 52B x 2 and ARS 67, both suggesting an end date no later than the early 5th century; at Sado, an ARS 61A (does not enter the 5th century) was found in the base of the kiln, and other latest finds were ARS 67 and 73. In general the pattern suggests an end date for all of these sites in the early 5th century. 415. Hence the domed base, also found on wine amphorae such as the Calabrian type Keay 52. 416. Cela Espín and Revilla Calvo (2005). 417. Pascual Pacheco et al. (2003, 75-6, fig. 5: dated late 6th/7th century, though associated material is earlier); 91-2, fig. 16: late 6th century or 7th century, associated with Keay 61A, B and C and Keay 62, and Byzantine Tunisian Fulford Casserole 12 and other Tunisian products). 418. Ramón and Cau (1997). 419. The Municipium Lucentum (Reynolds 1993, Site 25). This amphora is illustrated in Reynolds (1993, plate 52.592bis, Ware 4.1). For the form, see Reynolds (1993, 129-30). Apart from three examples at Benalúa (no. 592bis; plate 52.593 and 2076), a handle of this form was found at the villa of Vizcarra 2 (Elche) (Site 95). It also occurs on the coast to the north, at Baños de la Reina (Calpe) and its necropolis (Sites 212-13). 420. Ramón Torres (1986, fig. 8). This form was exported to Iluro/Mataró in the 6th century. See Cela Espín and Revilla Calvo (2005). 421. Keay (1984a, 362, Form 70); Reynolds (1993, Ware 4.3.2). 422. Keay (1984a, 369-74, Form 79). For sites in Alicante, see Reynolds (1993, 130-1, Ware 4.3). Tarragona: Remolà i Vallverdú (2000a, 201) and Keay (1984a, 369-70); Mataró/Iluro: Cela Espín and Revilla Calvo (2005); Barcelona: Keay (1984a, 370); Cartagena: Murcia Muñoz and Martínez (2003, fig. 5.31, 34, 36, 37), alongside other Balearic products; Luni: Lusuardi Siena and Murialdo (1991, 124 and fig. 2.2-6); Carthage: Hayes (1978, 80, plate III, D70); Riley (1981, Cistern Deposit XXXIX, lower levels, fig. 7.64); Fulford and Peacock (1984, fig. 86.32); Sétif: Février, Gaspary and Guéry (1970, 130, fig. 31.75 and 82). 423. For other dumps in the area, see n. 182; illustrations in Reynolds (1993) and reprinted in Reynolds (1995, 194-246, Appendix C.1). One should bear in mind that this huge ‘deposit’ is in fact a series of tips within a ravine and not a single dump. A burial was cut into part of it. I excavated and recorded a similar sequence of fills in the same ravine in 1983 and found that the pottery was of similar date or character throughout the sequence (Reynolds 1993, Site 42.3; fig. 44, for the section). The records pertaining to Enrique Llobregat’s excavations in 1971, that comprise the material I studied (Site 42.4), are lost, but would not have clarified the details of the distribution of the ceramics by date or the presence of major early and later dumps, in any case. So one can only be guided by excavations of similar material, in what is the same site. The coins that were found in 1971 could not unfortunately be located for inclusion for study by Marot, Llorens and Sala Sellés (2000).

295

Notes to pages 116-117 424. Note that Sardinia was also recuperated by Justinian at this early stage, in 534 (Jones 1966, 106), as were also the Balearics. Sicily was taken in 535. He took Naples and Rome by 536 and Ravenna by 540, though there were numerous reverses in Italy until 552. 425. Marot, Llorens and Sala Sellés (2000). Calle Catedrático Soler: Calle Alona: Pérez Medina:

5 coins = 4th century 88 coins 53 coins

Vandal 495-530 Byzantine c. 534-541 Cospel sin acuñar (a blank) Illegible AE

Calle Alona 35 11 9 27

Calle Pérez Medina 2 16 – 33

Note: cospel, I understand, is Spanish for an unstruck, blank coin. Calle Alona: 534-537 = 8, including 1 identifiable nummus of Carthage Calle Pérez Medina: 534-537 = 12, of which 3 are identifiable nummi of Carthage; 539-540 = 2; 540-541= 2.

426. The fine wares included LRC and some LRD from Cyprus. For the cooking pots, see Limyra/Reynolds (1995, Ware 11g) (Fig. 18c-d). This ware is not north African, as I originally thought. Also, south-eastern Aegean cooking pot/Fulford Casserole 35 (Fig. 18a) and Fulford Dish 5 (Fig. 18b). 427. A host of unguentaria of different origins may be testimony to either pilgrimage to martyria of particular saints, holy oil being bought by devotees at source, or to the existence of martyria to the same saints in other centres. Finds of the same types of unguentaria at, say Beirut, the Monastery of L’Illa de Cullera, or at the basilicas of Khalde (Lebanon: see Duval and Caillet 1982), may represent evidence for the devotion to the same saints, with the holy oil associated with each cult being imported and sold on the premises. We are reminded of the vast number of unguentaria found at the Church of St Polyeuktos at Saraçhane (Istanbul) (Hayes 1971; 1992, 8-9: 504+ fragments). These are residual by the 8th century. The class found at Cartagena and at L’llla de Cullera was first identified by Hayes (1971), from the numerous finds at Saraçhane. These particular hard-fired, fine fabric vessels with a partial red-brown coat are sometimes stamped. I am grateful to Jean-Pierre Sodini for suggesting to me that their source is likely to lie in Lycia-Pamphilia and not in Palestine or Syria, as has been generally thought (myself included: Reynolds [1993], MISC 7; [1995, distribution map, fig. 172, which does not include all the Cartagena finds]). They are likely to be associated with the cult of Saint Nicholas at Myra (my thanks to Joanita Vroom, for suggesting this as a possible site in Lycia for them). Their massive presence as imported items at St Polyeuktos should surely reflect the trade in the holy oil of S. Nicolas (associated with a shrine to him) in the same church? Note the finds of possibly the same (stamped) unguentaria at Seleukeia Sidera (Pisidia) (Lafli 2005). A similar religious cult association is likely for the unguentaria of Ephesus, in the same soapy micaceous red brown fabric of LRA 3 amphorae. These amphorae were produced in the lands of the former Temple of Artemis (Sabine Ladstätter, pers. comm.), and later cult centre of St John: for relics of St John of Ephesus imported into Gaul, see McCormick (2001, ch. 10). It therefore seems likely that the unguentaria are to be associated with the cult of the saint. They, in contrast to the Lycian products, are very common in Beirut and at the mansio and

296

Notes to pages 117-120 ecclesiastical centre at Khalde, some 15 km to the south (the site of two large basilicas and a guest house). Another unguentarium is certainly connected with a cult centre, in this case the martyrion of S. Philip at Hierapolis/Pammukale (Cottica 2000), and is also found in quite large numbers, in fact quite a concentration of finds, in the mid to late 5th century ‘robber trenches’ of a 4th century house in Beirut (BEY 006, Area 3), suggesting perhaps that we should look for some devotional centre there or nearby. 428. García Villanueva and Rosselló Mesquida (1993). 429. For the distribution of LRC in Spain see Nieto Prieto (1984) and Járrega Domínguez (1991). As in the case of Archer Martin’s study of LRC in Italy (1998), though the distribution of LRC in the western Mediterranean is widespread, it is largely coastal and restricted to a few, even single, vessels per site. The two single finds of LRC noted by Martin in the north-western sector of Italy are not evidence for the distribution of the ware ‘along the whole Tyrrhenian coast’, in my opinion (even adding those classified by Gandolfi (1997-8, who provides a total of 11 vessels for Liguria). They therefore do not provide, as he argues, (Martin 1998, 117) contrary evidence for the distribution model proposed (Reynolds 1995) for a major SW/NW Mediterranean divide in the supply of LRC. More significant than this blanket distribution, is the location of sites where LRC is more common, and in the case of some sites such as the small port and settlement of Alicante-Benalúa, far more common than usual. Should a large quantity of LRC turn up in Marseille or Ventimiglia, then Martin might have a case. This said, it is Ravenna that provides the exception to the rule (Table 23), notable for its high numbers of eastern products in general. The contrast between the supply of LRC to Ravenna with respect to Naples or Rome could not be more evident. It is clear from the rarity of LRC in Carthage that LRC arrived direct to Ravenna. The not uncommon finds of late 6th and 7th century LRC in Butrint may be a reflection of this shipping route. As in previous periods, it may be also an offshoot of the route that connected eastern Sicily to Ravenna, Syracuse being one site where LRC is apparently more common than usual. 430. Bonifay, Carre and Rigoir (1998, 365). 431. Reynolds (1995, 126ff., especially 133: ch. 5.3, for cargoes and shipping routes). 432. For LRC in the Iberian Peninsula see n. 429. 433. Mallorca: Gumà, Riera and Torres (1997, 251, 252). For Pollentia see Reynolds (1995, appendix D.9). For late 5th century Ibiza: Ramón and Cau (1997). Survey work in eastern Mallorca has produced a mere 2 examples of LRC, against 120 fragments of ARS. Only a few examples of LRC have been found in other areas of the island that have been surveyed (Soller, and the south) (Mas [unpublished]: my thanks to Cati Mas for this unpublished information. I would like here to thank Cati Mas and Miguel Ángel Cau Ontiveros for sharing ideas and information on the archaeology of the Balearics). 434. See Cau (2003) on the subject of coarse wares and particularly hand-made wares in the Balearics. He has carried out detailed analysis of the fabrics by chemical and other analyses. Also Buxeda i Garrigós et al. (2005). 435. Cartagena: Ramallo, Ruiz and Berrocal (1996); (1997); Laiz Reverte, Pérez Adán and Ruiz Valderas (1987); Reynolds (1995, 31-4, 57-60, 79-80, 98-101, 105, 121-2 and appendix C.6); Málaga: Navarro Luengo, Fernández Rodríguez and Suárez Padilla (1997) and Navarro Luengo et al. (2000); Algeciras: Navarro Luengo, Torremocha Silva and Salado Escaño (2000).

297

Notes to page 120 That we should regard the Byzantine holdings in Spain as a ‘province’ with a ‘governor’, based at Carthago Nova are points of great contention (see Ripoll 1996; 2001). The well-known inscription found in Cartagena (CIL 3420; Martínez Andreu 1985) refers to Comenciolus as magister mil(itum) Spaniae, sent by Maurice ‘against the barbarian enemy’ (contra hoste(s) barbaro(s)). He was not only in command of the Byzantine army, the highest charge for a military officer of the period, but was also the governor of the Byzantine province (rector), combining both the highest civil and military functions. Hispania, mentioned immediately following, is the Roman province that will benefit from his activities (in this case the rebuilding of a gate at Carthago Spartaria, as it was called at the time). Whether Justinian, and in this case, Maurice, regarded the whole of former Hispania, both the Byzantine territories and the lands occupied by the Visigoths to be the said Spania-Hispania is a matter of interpretation and more related to understanding of the psyche of the Byzantine emperors in the East, perhaps. Justinian’s goal was the restoration of the western Empire (restauratio), no longer accepting the political compromise that permitted ‘barbarians’ such as Theodoric to rule as co-emperors in the West. For him, and now Maurice and the commissioner of the inscription, Comenciolus himself, Hispania was, surely, what had been Roman Hispania in the early 5th century and not just the lands at that time ‘recovered’ and held by the eastern emperor. Should one therefore even expect there to be a ‘capital’? No capital was ever referred to in the ancient texts. The inscription reads as follows: quisquis ardua turrium miraris culmina/vestibulumq(ue) urbis duplici porta firmatum/dextra levaq(ue) binos porticos arcos/quibus superum ponitur camera curva convexaq(ue)/Comenciolus sic haec iussit patricius/missus a Mauricio Aug contra hoste(s) barbaro(s)/ magnus virtute magister mil(itum) spaniae/ sic semper hispania tali rectore laetetur/dum poli rotantur dumq(ue) sol circuit orbem/ann. VIII Aug ind. VIII. Whoever you may be, you will admire the high vaults of the towers and the entrance of the city defended by double gate, on right and left, with porticoes of double arcade covered by a convex vault. Its construction was ordered by the patrician Comenciolus, magister militum of Spania, of great valour, sent by Maurice Augustus against the barbarians, his enemies. Thus Hispania, whilst the poles turn and the sun goes around the earth, shall always rejoice in such a governor. Eighth year of the Augustus. Eighth indiction. 436. See Thompson (1969) and González Blanco (1988, with references), for example. The Byzantines held certain towns on the coast, as well as inland. Two major ports we know they controlled and, surely, actually occupied were Cartagena and Málaga. There was a lot of ‘space’ in between that may have had no garrisons or Byzantine presence as such. One cannot join up the dots and create a single Byzantine ‘province’ or territory. An investigation into whether lands held or, rather, under Byzantine control after c. 552 could be differentiated from those outside Byzantine Hispania, in other words lands technically under the control of the Visigoths, was one of the primary aims of my doctoral thesis (Reynolds 1993 and 1995). Furthermore, my work concentrated on the Vinalopó Valley precisely to investigate whether it could have

298

Notes to page 120 served as a sort of frontier or buffer-zone/no-man’s land between known Byzantine territory (Carthago Nova) and lands to the north. The massive strategic highland settlement of El Castellar de la Morera (Elche), guarding the access through the mountains just to the north of modern Elche, is one site that could have been occupied in this period (Reynolds 1993, Site 131). The lands under Byzantine control could have included Játiva/Saetabis, on the River Júcar, as the town appeared for the first time as a bishopric in 589 (see Reynolds 1993, figs 18-19, for a map of the bishoprics of Hispania [from Collins 1983 and for a table summarising the dating of bishoprics in Hispania [from Guillén Pérez and González Blanco 1985]), but there is so far no archaeological evidence for such a hypothesis. The rationale here is that the bishopric marks the earliest phase of the Visigothic ‘reconquest’ of the region that was not completed until the final expulsion of the Byzantines from Cartagena in 621/625. That the earliest reference to the bishops of Begastrum/Cehegín and Elo/El Monastil is the Decree of Gundemar of 610 suggests that the Visigoths had reached the Middle Vinalopó by that date. But the presence of the ‘Visigothic’ bishop of Ilici in the 4th Council of Toledo, in 633, but not earlier, can be taken as evidence that the Byzantines continued to hold the Lower Vinalopó Valley until a final Visigothic advance on Carthago Nova (see now Poveda Navarro 2000a-b). Here we should note that the long-standing identification by Antonio Poveda of the bishopric of Elo as the site of El Monastil (Elda) (particularly with reference to the road station of the same name located on the Via Augusta that we know ran through the Vinalopó Valley to Ilici) has been contested by Sonia Gutiérrez et al. who affirm that the real Elo was at the (contemporary) site of El Tolmo de Minateda (e.g. Gutiérrez Lloret 1996, 2003). Notwithstanding the importance of El Tolmo de Minateda as one of the major, key settlements connected with the initial Visigothic ‘settlement’ of the south-east, I still find the arguments in favour of El Monastil far more convincing. That the port Dénia was held by the Byzantines is not proven, though this has been suggested (González Blanco 1988: see Reynolds 1993, fig. 17, for a reproduction of his map of the limits of the Byzantine province; see also Ripoll 1996 and 2001, for maps and comment). My study of late 6th to 7th century pottery at Dénia, from the Temple Sant Telm site, courtesy of Pepe Gisbert, did not suggest any special ties either (Reynolds 1993, 83-4, Site 203: presence of ARS 104C, 105 and 109 and a Keay 61 amphora; a Murcian Ware 2 cooking pot was also found). The quantities are still too low for a Byzantine site. It nevertheless remains a good candidate. Quantities of Byzantine ceramics on the highland coastal promontory of Ifach (Calpe) are not indicative of any special ties with Byzantine Cartagena or Byzantine Africa, or for the location of a garrison there (Reynolds 1993, 86, Site 211). Was the supply of Byzantine Carthago Nova atypical of sites elsewhere, such as the sites in the Vinalopó Valley or on the coast of Alicante? The conclusions of my work were that the supply of Carthago Nova and some sites nearby, notably the strategic highland site of Cerro de San Miguel (Orihuela), was distinctive and unlike that encountered elsewhere within Hispania (see especially Reynolds 1993, ch. 3.3, where the archaeological and documentary evidence is presented). To these can now be added the supply of Málaga, also a Byzantine-held city. The investigation also concentrated on highland sites in the Vinalopó Valley to identify any possible strategic sites and the possibility of a Byzantine limes, given that this may be the case in northern Italy (Christie 1989). Indeed, Ramallo Asensio had suggested that there was a defensive system comprising a number of highland sites in Murcia (1988: his map of these was reproduced as Reynolds

299

Notes to page 120 [1993, fig. 23]). This led to my survey collection of pottery on sites in the Vinalopó Valley in order to date their periods of occupation. This in turn led to the realisation that a scheme for the dating of local/regional hand-made pottery was needed in order to distinguish between late Roman, Byzantine, Visigothic and Arab periods of occupation on these sites. Such a typology was successfully worked out (Reynolds [1993, Typology, Hand-made Wares]), as were others, such as that of 5th to 7th century Murcian wheel-made Ware 2. This ware aided the identification of pre-Byzantine and Byzantine forms of Ware 2 outside Cartagena, where it is the dominant cooking ware. This was helped by my own, only partly published, work on 5th to 7th century pottery found in Cartagena, including the full cataloguing of an early 7th century pit fill excavated in Calle Soledad (summarised in Reynolds 1995, appendix C.6, with that of C.7 for comparative finds in Plaza de los Tres Reyes, Cartagena). The Visigoths, it should be remembered, were rather thinly spread at the time of Justinian’s attempt to re-establish direct Roman authority in Hispania. For a guide to the archaeology of the Visigoths of this early period in Spain and Gaul, see Ripoll (1989, 1992, 1998). At this time their settlements were concentrated in the central part of Hispania, the king, the court, and the Church finally by the late 6th century marking Toledo as their royal (sedes regia) and Metropolitan capital, though it had served as royal seat at various stages. Emerita Augusta/Mérida, capital of the Roman province of Lusitania, where King Agila was in residence when Athanagild invited the Byzantines to come to his aid, as well as Hispalis/Sevilla and Barcino/Barcelona were also major royal seats in the late 5th and 6th centuries. The Visigothic king and his retinue acted rather like the peripatetic Roman emperors of the 3rd to early 5th centuries, setting up court wherever was suitable. Indeed, the Visigoths at the outset of their presence in Hispania in the later 5th century were not particularly welcome in some of the major centres, such as Tarraco (otherwise the obvious capital to choose), Caesaraugusta/Zaragoza, or Emerita Augusta, where the Roman aristocracy resented their presence, and chose to settle on lands away from trouble and that no one was particularly interested in, occupying agri deserti in the Meseta. Here too they could control the Suevi to the north-west and had relatively easy access to their other home base in Toulouse and Narbonensis (until 507 when they lost their Gallic possessions to the Franks) (Ripoll 2003). Care should also be taken in attributing Visigothic origins to settlements, or more common, actual Visigothic occupation on existing sites. Actually, we know of only four, or possibly five, definite Visigothic foundations, that of Reccopolis, to the east of Madrid, being one founded in 578 by King Leovigild. That cemeteries and basilicas are ‘Visigothic’, with Visigoths ‘populating’ them, rather than being of the ‘Visigothic period’, which certainly has a recognisable cultural ‘facies’, is more difficult to establish. 437. At Alicante (Monte Benacantil) and in the Vinalopó Valley (e.g. El Castellar de la Morera, Reynolds 1993, Site 131, and Castillo del Río (Aspe), Site 133: though 6th century pottery and their strategic locations made them strong candidates as Byzantine defensive sites, there were no finds of the prerequisite late 6th to 7th century ARS or amphorae), at Dénia (Temple Sant Telm: Reynolds 1993, 83-4, Site 203); Valencia and Valencia la Vella: Pascual et al. (1997). Nevertheless, excavation of El Castellar de la Morera, a major Caliphate walled defended settlement, where the River Vinalopó enters the highlands to the north of the Plain of Elche, is still needed to clarify the character of the late Roman occupation of the site. Extensive excavations carried out at Castillo del Río (Aspe) have not yielded

300

Notes to pages 120-121 any evidence of 5th to 6th century structures to match those of the ARS and other ceramic finds of that date. These levels were obliterated by later Arab occupation. 438. Gutiérrez Lloret et al. (2003): ARS 99C (fig. 9.1), Keay 61 (fig. 9.2), Tunisian late spatheia (fig. 9.7-8); ARS 91D variants (fig. 8.4-5) and Fulford Mortar 3 (fig. 9.5). All these finds could date to the Visigothic 7th century phase of building and occupation. Considered to be residual re-used material: Tunisian Keay 61 and base, and a spatheion base (fig. 5.3, 5 and 7). 439. Martínez Rodríguez and Ponce García (2000). 440. See n. 436; Reynolds (1993, 19-25, for the Byzantine ‘reconquest’; 25-9, for the chronology and archaeology of the Visigothic ‘reconquest’); for the bishoprics of Elo and Ilici, see now Poveda Navarro (2000a-b). 441. Whether this influx of culture was accompanied, and even more polemical, was in part due to the presence of a new Visigothic population in the region has not been researched in enough depth. The study of skeletons of known ‘Germanic’ individuals datable to Late Antiquity indicate that it is not possible to generalise about ethnicity and, especially, large stature when attempting to identify the Visigothic population (my thanks to Gisela Ripoll for guidance on this matter). Here I am thinking of the very tall individuals that occupied graves associated with typical Visigothic period handmade pottery in La Alcudia de Elche/Ilici (on display in the museum). One way forward, one would have thought, would be to attempt to trace the geneological links across cemeteries in the Meseta, and work out from there. 442. Acién Almansa et al. (2003); Ramallo Asensio (2005). For the new evidence for the 9th century occupation of the Roman theatre, see Murcia Muñoz and Martínez (2003). Cartagena and Málaga, in this and other cases, provide very useful fossil guides for products in circulation up to 621/625 that have not received the attention from Mediterranean pottery specialists that they deserve. They illustrate, for example that the thin-walled, late variant of the bowl ARS 109 (Fig. 22, bottom right), one of the rare, well-distributed forms of ARS in the 7th century, need not date solely to the second half of the 7th century, as proposed by Bonifay at Marseille (Bonifay 1998). Such a late date is often assumed from finds of ARS 109 (e.g. at Carminiello ai Mannesi, Naples: Soricelli 1994; Murialdo 2007) and this is becoming a trend, particularly given their abundance in the Crypta Balbi and at Constantinople in legitimate later 7th century contexts. The same can be said for the examples of ARS 99C, another type that is typical at the Crypta Balbi (see here Fig. 22, for a Cartagena example of these particular variants, from Calle Soledad). Michel Bonifay has been more sceptical of the assumed 621/625 date of these levels in Cartagena, arguing that the destruction dates not to the Visigothic sack but to that of the Arabs in the early 8th century (pers. comm.). Indeed, there are some similarities between these assemblages and later 7th century deposits in Tarragona (e.g. glazed wares). These are points not unrecognised by Ramallo Asensio, who still holds firm to the Visigothic destruction dating (2000, 595-6 n. 45). Surely one would have expected Visigothic coinage in the in situ deposits, if they date to the second half of the 7th century, and that this would have already been noted by Ramallo Asensio. Bonifay‘s principal objection has been that the existence of the ‘latest’ thinwalled variants of ARS 109 in Cartagena by as early as c. 621/625 would allow for no typological development during the second half of the 7th century when they appear as such in the Crypta Balbi deposit. However, in the European Science Foundation Exploratory Workshop on late Roman Fine Wares, held in Barcelona

301

Notes to page 121 (November 2008), John Hayes helped clarify what he sees as the development of ARS 109. It is indeed likely that the Cartagena examples, with their small bases, are earlier than those of the second half of the 7th century. The latter, like those of the Crypta Balbi and some Carthage examples (e.g. Hayes, 1978: Deposit XXV, fig. 14.7; Deposit XXI, fig. 8.1), though also thin-walled, have wider bases. In conclusion, I see no reason not to accept that the in situ destruction levels in the Roman theatre, like those in Málaga, date to 621/625. As such, they offer us an exceptional reference point for the ceramic range of the early 7th century. 443. Keay 61C, 61D, 62, 61/62 variants and spatheia Keay 26G. 444. I have recalculated the figures for amphorae in the ‘Well deposit’ published in Reynolds (1993 and 1995). The context is not a well fill, but a deeply cut rubbish pit and its fill. The summary published referred to minimum vessels, not the total RBH. For buff spatheia in Bulgaria, see Mackensen (1992). These were also common in the Crypta Balbi (Rome), more examples in more ‘classic’ north Tunisian fabrics (Saguì [1998a]) and thin-section analysis of the buff spatheia was carried out in a somewhat inconclusive attempt to source them. Both types may also have been supplied to S. Antonino di Perti (Murialdo et al. 1992, tav. X). Two examples were found on the early 7th century Yassi Ada shipwreck (Bass and Van Doorninck [1982, P 66-7]). Mackensen (1992) had suggested an eastern Mediterranean origin for them, based on the finds in Bulgaria and the Yassi Ada examples. However, 7th century production of both ‘classic’ red fabric and buff fabric spatheia is now attested at Nabeul (Slim et al. 1999; Bonifay 2004; 2005a) and so the north-east Tunisian source of the buff spatheia has now been established. We may note here that, in contrast to Cartagena, the dominant spatheia found in the mid 6th century Benalúa deposit are not Nabeul products (a few ‘classic’ red fabric examples were present) but spatheia almost certainly from the massive fish sauce factory site at Raf Raf, Bizerte, at the very northern extremity of Tunisia (personal observation of this site and its typical pottery fabric: Fulford and Peacock 1984 Fabric 2.5, a fabric with a break rather like nougat in appearance, fired pale green or red). That spatheia carried primarily fish sauce seems the most likely (like the examples found at the kilns at Mazarrón and Aguilas, Murcia: Ramallo Asensio 1984 and 1985) and those that are probably to be associated with local production at Benalúa (see above, Chapters 1.3 and 3.5). That there was garum production at the Nabeul site supports the argument, as does the form’s clear derivation from the narrow-bodied but larger Tunisian amphora Keay 25, also present at the Nabeul factory. Examples of Keay 25 still containing fish remains have been found in wrecks (Parker 1992). Keay 25 was gradually reduced in size and capacity from large examples in 4th century, to the medium-sized vessels in the early to mid 5th century, ‘Keay 25/26’ in Reynolds (1995: figs 41-2). The series ended with the much smaller variants that are typical of the mid 6th century (Benalúa: Reynolds 1995, fig. 43), early 7th century (Cartagena) and the second half of the 7th century (Crypta Balbi). Michel Bonifay has suggested that the late 6th to 7th century Nabeul spatheia, as well as the mid 4th to mid 5th century Keay 25, could have, in addition, carried wine (2004, 473). He offers perhaps better evidence for the use of other Tunisian-north African amphorae as wine containers (2004, passim; 473-5). That spatheia carried olives is another strong possibility: examples of their larger 5th century antecedent Keay 25/26 on the Dramont E wreck carried olives (Bonifay 2004, 472).

302

Notes to pages 121-122 445. Málaga (Navarro Luengo et al. 2000), Rome (Crypta Balbi), S. Antonino di Perti, Vibo Valentia (1989b, 82 n. 1 and figs 2-3), Capodistria and Sadovec v v v (Mackensen 1992; Cunja 1996; Vidrih Perko and Zupancic 2005; Vidrih Perko (2005, figs 9-12, an impressive array of complete Keay 26(G) Tunisian spatheia, and Fig. 16.5, a complete spatheion, probably the buff variant; Butrint, in Salakta fabric, from a late 6th century (+) context: But. 1416.2, as well as a complete buff example found in Albanian excavations of the 1980s; they are found also at El Tolmo de Minateda (Gutiérrez Lloret et al. 2003). 446. For its identification as Ibizan, see Ramón (2008, 574, fig. 7.1-3, RE103a-b). It has a hard buff fabric, rather than the reddish fabric of Keay 79. The form is a close copy of the Tunisian cylindrical-bodied amphora Keay 32. The toe is a solid ‘mushroom’. The form is unusually common at Cartagena (Reynolds 1995, appendix C.6, ‘Unclassified forms 2-3’). It was classified as Tunisian and equivalent to Keay 32 in the case of the examples found in the Cartagena theatre excavations (Ramallo Asensio, Ruiz Valderas and Berrocal Caparrós 1996, 172, figs 12.221 and 15.222; 1997, fig. 5.1), though for typological reasons, not for reasons of fabric. One example, from the Plaza de los Tres Reyes site, bore a graffito ‘MEN’. 447. See Reynolds (2003b), for illustrations of finds at Calle Soledad of Fulford Casserole 15; hand-made Fulford Casserole 18; Fulford Mortar 3. See now Murcia Muñoz and Martínez (2003, fig. 8.63-8), for examples of Fulford Casserole 35 from Byzantine levels, as well as two unsourced imported cooking pots (ibid., fig. 8.69-70), the first possibly north Palestinian, the second possibly Aegean. It is interesting that Fulford Dish 5 was not illustrated. Only one Tunisian Byzantine period Calcitic Ware cooking pot was found, in the early 7th century abandonment phase (ibid., 181). Some Tunisian Byzantine period wheelmade imports, including Fulford Casseroles 12 and 15 (ibid., fig. 7.5; fig. 7.51-3), can be added to the finds already published, notably flanged bowls (Ramallo Asensio, Ruiz Valderas and Berrocal Caparrós 1996 and 1997). 448. Such as those in Alicante: see Hayes (1971); Berrocal Caparrós (1996: 38 examples). 449. Reynolds (1993), Ware 2; Laiz Reverte and Ruiz Valderas (1988). 450. This site in Calle Soledad was interpreted until recently as part of the Byzantine wall circuit built by the magister militum Spaniae, Comenciolus, as described in the inscription he erected in 589/590. It has now been reinterpreted as part of the portico of the Roman theatre. See Ramallo Asensio and Ruiz Valderas (2000); Ramallo Asensio (2000). My thanks to Sebastián Ramallo Asensio for sending me his recent publications on these and other excavations in Cartagena. The digging of pits to dispose of rubbish, as on urban sites in Medieval Britain, is a feature of Byzantine Cartagena and was also characteristic of late Roman Tarragona, the result of a non-functioning drain system and the lack of an urban waste disposal-recycling system. (Macias et al.1999, 435-6). The Vila-roma 2 deposit was the fill of a large pit dug into the square of the Concilium Provinciae in the upper town. 451. Ramallo Asensio, Ruiz Valderas and Berrocal Caparrós 1997, figs 9.1 and 10.1: they are unlikely to be eastern Mediterranean, or variants of LRA 1 as suggested in the report. 452. Murcia Muñoz and Martínez (2003, fig. 5.31, 34, 36, 37). 453. Reynolds (1995, fig. 56). 454. See Navarro Luengo et al. (2000). The latest levels of what was probably a warehouse comprised almost entirely amphorae and a dolium. Tunisian ampho-

303

Notes to pages 123-124 rae, especially Keay 61, were very common; Tunisian spatheia in ‘classic’ and buff fabrics are present; Balearic Keay 79 amphorae present; common LRA 1; lesser Aegean LRA 2 and Ephesian region LRA 3; 12 x Lycian-Pamphylian unguentaria; ARS 90, 99, 101, 104, 105 and lamps; a few LRC, including LRC 10A; as in Cartagena abundant mortars with gritted floors, hand-made and slow wheel made pottery. For a more recent summary of finds from Málaga, see Acién Almansa et al. (2003, especially figs 1-3). 455. See Reynolds (1993, 21 and fig. 24) and Ramón (1986), for the Byzantine fortress on the island of Formentera. The fort is well paralleled by Justinianic forts on the north African limes, including that of Gadiaufala dated by an inscription to the period 539-544. 456. Reynolds (1995, appendix D.9). A recent evaluation of the evidence has still not altered this impression (Gumà, Riera and Torres (1997). Pottery that is technically ‘mid 6th’ century could equally correspond to the late Vandal period. Where are the imports of Fulford Casserole 12, for example, or other definite late 6th to 7th century Tunisian forms? For a more pro-Byzantine interpretation of the archaeological evidence in the Balearics, including the survey material, see Cau Ontiveros (forthcoming). The Byzantines were able to hold onto the islands until the Arab conquest in the early 9th century. A most remarkable site with certain potential for late Byzantine and early Arab occupation is the highland settlement of Sanitja (Rita 1994): see n. 457. 457. Palol (1982) (summarised in Reynolds [1995, appendix D.10]). The latest ARS comprises six examples of the large dish ARS 105, perhaps due to the ecclesiastical nature of the site (i.e. for use during services, for the Eucharist, for example). Tunisian amphorae illustrated comprise Keay 3A similis (Fig. 22), Keay 56B (here probably Byzantine) and two unusual amphorae, one globular (Fig. 24), that may relate to amphorae found in Sanitja (Rita 1994). 458. Rita (1994). Cf. The globular amphorae at Cartagena noted above, for which I have suggested a Balearic source. 459. See Hayes (1972) for the eastern distribution. Athens continued to be a market. Some 10 examples of LRC 10B-C have been recovered in excavations in Butrint that mark a definite drop with respect to LRC quantities in the mid 6th century. The numbers could nevertheless indicate a higher frequency of contact with Phocea in the 7th century than is evident for western Mediterranean sites. Constantinople was clearly the biggest market in the late 6th and 7th centuries (Hayes 1992). Post-550-575 LRC is not uncommon in Beirut, though one can definitely appreciate Cypriot LRD taking over. Late 6th/7th century LRC occurs occasionally in the West at Marseille (Carre, Bonifay and Rigoir, 1998, 365), in Italy (Martin 1998, 116: Mattinata, Otranto, Portus/Ostia and Albenga) and in Britain. Only the earliest version of LRC 10, Type A, is occasionally found at Cartagena and in Benalúa, not the 7th century examples. This would suggest that the merchants of LRC in the late 6th and 7th centuries, the period that concerns us here, did not venture too far out of the Aegean (cf. Chios-Emporio where it is common: Balance et al. 1989). Tocra in the 7th century received fair numbers of LRC, but the site lies in the eastern Mediterranean (Hayes 1973; Reynolds 1995, appendix D.37). 460. For S. Antonino di Perti, see Murialdo et al. (1988 and 1992) and Lusuardi Siena and Murialdo (1991); for northern Italy in this period, see Murialdo (2007); for Luni, see Lusuardi Siena and Murialdo (1991); for Vibo Valentia, see Arthur (1989b, 82 n. 1 and figs 2-3), for spatheia: Tunisian amphorae, spatheia being the

304

Notes to pages 124-126 most common, comprise 84% of the total, with finds of ARS 99C, 107 and 109; for Koper/Capodistria, see Cunja (1996). 461. Bien (2005 and 2007). The reduced range of Byzantine Tunisian forms for the period 550-650, with respect to the wider range of the Vandal period, which included the same shapes, but more besides, was presented in Reynolds (1995, 57-9), in an attempt to identify Vandal, as opposed to Byzantine forms and ‘variants’. However I did not appreciate the significance of the latest series, Keay 50, etc. 462. Bien (2005 and 2007). 463. Bonifay (2005c, 89), with reference to Gregory of Tours, Historia Francorum (IX, 22). Were these ‘regular’ shipments from north-eastern Spain, Tarragona for example? 464. For the marble trade, see Sodini (1989) and Ward-Perkins (1951; 1981). 465. For 6th century, including Byzantine, Tunisian and eastern Mediterranean imports and local Byzantine amphorae in Otranto, see Di Mitri (2005), Arthur et al. (1992) and now Arthur, Di Mitri and Lapadula (2007). For the continuity of production at Otranto during the second half of the 7th and 8th centuries (imitations of LRA 13), see Leo Imperiale (2004). 466. Abu Mena LRA 5 from late 6th to 7th century contexts has been identified at Marseille by Pascale Ballet (Bonifay and Pieri 1995). Indeed, Bien (2005) identifies the source of the illustrated examples of 7th century LRA 5 as EgyptianAbu Mena. If so, the north Palestinian Workshop X brittle ware in this case was not accompanied by Caesarean LRA 5, as elsewhere in Marseille? (Waksman et al. 2005a). 467. See Hayes (1978, fig. 15.50, from 7th century Deposit XXV) (reproduced as Reynolds 1995, fig. 132). I wonder if the Carthage local ‘copies’ are not a thickerwalled product of Workshop X found at Khalde (south of Beirut) that, contrary to my expectations, still fit the chemical profile of the ware (Waksman et al. 2005a; Reynolds and Waksman 2007, Cooking Pot 4). In contrast to the earlier, 5th to mid 6th century, Workshop X predecessor to Form 4, with ring-handles on the shoulder (ibid., Cooking Pot 3), the latter form has strap handles attached to the rim. As such, and with its concave rim, it represents a radical change for Workshop X. Was this modelled on the Carthage form Fulford Casserole 20? An Egyptian cooking pot found in Beirut may suggest another solution, as it has the concave rim of the Workshop X Form 4 but recalls equally the contemporary Aegean cooking pot Fulford Casserole 35 (my thanks to Hans Curvers for allowing me to draw this important piece from a cistern in BEY 117). Are all based on a general metal prototype in vogue in the Mediterranean, particularly the eastern half, in the 6th and 7th centuries? See also Fulford and Peacock (1984, 189, fig. 70.38): Casserole 38, from a context of ‘about the mid 6th century’. This ‘sliced rim casserole’, in a ‘hard-fired fabric with purplish buff surface’, is probably a Workshop X, rather than Caesarea, product. Note also that Fulford’s Casserole 37 (ibid., 189, fig. 70.37), also from a mid 6th century context, is typical at both Tarsus (Toskay Evrin 2005, Type 1) and Elaiussa Sebaste and is surely a local Cilician product (these, as well as north Palestinian Workshop X products have been classified as ‘Cypriot’ by the authors: Ferrazzoli and Ricci 2007, 673-4, figs 5-8). I found a good number of Fulford Casserole 37 on the shore at Arsuz, south of Iskanderun. It is so far absent in Beirut, so did not circulate southwards, but did travel west to Carthage, presumably with LRA 1 amphorae made in Cilicia. Two examples have been found at Butrint. The form may also have been occasionally distributed to Alicante.

305

Notes to pages 126-127 468. Reynolds (2003a and c). 469. LRA 1 was very rare, or, as I believe, absent: Murialdo’s ‘LRA 1’ (Murialdo et al. 1992, tav. 12.2) described as having fine fabric and abundant mica simply cannot be a LRA 1, at least from Cilicia or Cyprus. It is perhaps something Calabrian or a variant of the Samos family of amphorae. The south Italian, rather than Aegean, source of many of his LRA 13 amphorae is also possible, given the trends at the Crypta Balbi (Rome), where many derive from the Naples region. See Arthur (1985; 1989a-b), for the production of globular LRA 13 at Miseno, north of Pozzuoli and Leo Imperiale (2004) for similar forms produced in Otranto. Amphorae identified as LRA 2 at S. Antonino were rare, in any case (Table 20). Fragments of LRA 3 or unguentaria in this fabric are also present, as Egyptian LRA 7, but both are rare (Murialdo et al. 1992, 364). 470. Murialdo et al. (1992, tav. 12.12), with impressed dots and combed bands on the shoulder. 471. Cunja (1996). LRA 2: fig. 26.294 and 296; Gazan: fig. 25.287-8, fig. 26.28993; LRA 5: ‘Pieri Type 3’: fig. 27.297-8; Samos: fig. 27.299; central Tunisian Keay 61C/B.6: fig. 21.244-56; Keay 61D: fig. 22.259-62, fig. 23.264-6; Keay 62: fig. 23.267-9; Keay 61/62 bases: fig. 270-2, fig. 24.273-80; complete medium to small Tunisian fish sauce amphorae with Keay 61 type rims: fig. 25.283-6; small Tunisian and (buff?) spatheia: fig. 28.301-28; a LRA 13: fig. 26.295; see figs 9-17.123-206, for ARS 91D, 99B-C, 101, 105, 106, 108, 109 and a lid form; ARS lamps are also common. If fig. 27.300 is a LRA 1, it is a rather unusual one (from eastern Cyprus?). 472. I.e. Keay 61C/61B.6 (Fig. 23a, top left), found on the kilns of the Sullecthum region (see Reynolds 1995, appendix D.35, with references, for a summary of the finds; the type is also illustrated: fig. 56, 58, 59, examples from Cerro de S. Miguel, north of Cartagena). See Cunja (1996) and note above for an unprecedented number of examples of this variant at Koper. Cartagena also occasionally received it, as did Tarragona and Marseille. 473. Epirus lay in the eastern Empire, within the diocese of Macedonia, and under the command of the Praetorian Prefect of the East, based in Constantinople. Vast numbers of LRA 2 are found at Butrint in mid to late 6th century contexts, many probably being Chian in source, others deriving from a perhaps closer source, perhaps in Greece or, more likely, Crete. The latter are not encountered in the West (see Reynolds 2003, Context 1676). Cooking wares (Reynolds Ware 6: possibly east Sicilian), like those found in Alicante in the Benalúa deposit, are quite common in late 5th to 6th century contexts. Large numbers of Samian (and Samian-related, e.g. the Ikaria Adamscheck 1979, RC 22 type) amphorae occur in 5th to late 6th century contexts in Butrint, as do Samian amphorae in small numbers at Marseille, Naples and other southern Italian sites, Koper and Carthage at this time (Reynolds 2002, 221, with references; also Pieri 2005). LRA 1 amphorae are also very common, but drop in numbers after c. 550. The second half of the 6th century also saw a major drop in numbers of Tunisian imports (ARS and amphorae), though the city still received a fair number of Tunisian imports, predominantly ARS, rather than amphorae. A significant point is that despite the special connections with Tunisian sources, through the 5th and 6th centuries, very few Tunisian kitchen wares were imported (quite distinct to Benalúa, for example, even though Butrint is considerably closer to Carthage). LRC, very common, with ARS in the 5th century to 550, was the dominant fine ware after that date. It is still unclear if the major supply of LRA 2, and possibly Samos amphorae, represent a ‘normal’ range and quantities for a site in Epirus-

306

Notes to pages 127-128 northern Greece or if the supply is evidence for an organised, state redistribution, as is almost certainly the case on military sites on the Lower Danube, combined in this case with the supply of LRA 1: see here n. 272 for the inclusion of Cyprus within the command of the quaestor exercitus, responsible for the annona supply of the Lower Danube provinces of Moesia II and Scythia; Karagiorgou (2000); see also Reynolds (2005b, 576-8) for a discussion of this theme. 474. For finds at Shkodra, see Hoxha (2003). 475. In Beirut a major deposit of late 6th or early 7th century date (BEY 006.5503) (Table 24), and others in BEY 006, indicate that imports of ARS, but not Tunisian amphorae, were a regular feature of this period (ARS 99C, 99C, 107, 108, 109), alongside imports of Egyptian fine wares, LRC and LRD. The quantity of ARS appears to indicate a rise with respect to levels imported in the first half of the 6th century. A deposit dating perhaps to c. 740-750 from another Beirut site includes several ARS and Egyptian vessels (Hayes and ‘Ala’ Eddine 1998-9). The latest series of ARS is also present in the excavations of the French mission (Jullien unpublished, 9 and fig. 4: for ARS 105, 107 and 109). ARS 99C and 104C were present in post-earthquake deposits excavated by Hans Curvers (Faraldo Victórica unpublished, 52). I am most grateful to both authors for their kindness in supplying me with copies of their unpublished work. Late 6th century and 7th century deposits with ARS have recently been published from Corinth (Assemblage 3 and Assemblage 4: the latter is dated to the ‘middle or third quarter of the 7th century, though an early 7th century date is possible, in my view, given ARS parallels with Byzantine Cartagena deposits) (Slane and Sanders 2005). There are no Tunisian amphorae in either deposit. 476. For a survey of Tunisian exports to the East, see Bonifay (2005b; see also Opait, 1996 [78-89], Bjelajac 1996 and Paraschiv [2006, 123-35, 164-7]). Finds are usually rare, but the distribution is fairly widespread. The late 6th to 7th century spatheia are generally the most common finds (cf. Dichin and Golemanovo Kale, both in Bulgaria). Paraschiv (2006, 133-5, 216, tables 16-17) has summarised quantities of Tunisian and other imports at both Tomis and Halmyris. At Halmyris, located in the Danube estuary, spatheia comprise 15 examples (1.9% of the entire 4th to 7th century assemblage), two occurring in the first half of the 6th century (so presumably these are Keay 26), with 13 late spatheia 1 occurring in levels of c. 550 to the early 7th century. No other late Tunisian forms are noted. For Tomis only two spatheia are recorded, there being 38 Tunisian amphorae listed. Note also the numerous Tunisian amphorae, notably Keay 8 and Keay 62, in the necropolis at Tomis (Bucovala and Pasca 1988-9). Two late spatheia, probably belonging to the crew, were found on the early 7th century Yassi Ada I shipwreck (off Bodrum) among a cargo of eastern Mediterranean amphorae, primarily LRA 13, with lesser LRA 1 (Bass and Van Doorninck 1982, P66-7). The supply to the north-eastern Adriatic was another matter: see here my comments on Koper and Butrint. 477. For Alexandria, see Majcherek (2004, especially 234), where for the late 6th to early 7th centuries Tunisian spatheia are noted as being ‘a small number’ (c. 2%, on fig. 3) and represented the only western amphorae. For the period c. 500-650, western imports drop from c. 3% to 1% (ibid., fig. 6). For the rest of Egypt, see Marchand and Marangou (eds) (2007) and Bonifay (2005b, 574 n. 66: with reference to a single find of Keay 59 or 8B at El-Ashmunein). Arthur and Oren (1998, 210), however, have commented on the significance of the presence of 230 Tunisian amphora toes in the c. 680 destruction deposit of the church at Ostrakine, in the Sinai. The peculiar nature of this deposit – these are

307

Notes to pages 129-131 toes deliberately broken off vessels – is an indication of their residuality, and the authors suggest that they date prior to 680, but are still 7th century imports. This of course depends on what amphora toes are here represented. However, this possible evidence of strong contact between Byzantine Africa, the ecclesiastical character of the location, as well as the contrast of these finds with respect to the evidence from Alexandria, are all duly noted. 478. Arthur (1994, 436). 479. For the amphora and fine wares, see Remolà i Vallverdú (2000a, 58-60). 480. Pascual Pacheco et al. (2003, passim). Fulford Casserole 12 is illustrated on (ibid., figs 9 and 21). That products identified as Balearic and Tunisian share the incised single wavy feature (the domed base amphorae, for example) could perhaps indicate their shared source. No parallels are given for the ‘Tunisian’ cooking pots with everted rim (e.g. on ibid., fig. 10). 481. Chemical analysis of some of the ‘African’ cooking pots, including rims close in shape to Fulford Casseroles 12 and 15, would indicate that they are not African, despite their appearance (Cau Ontiveros 2003). 482. See Keay (1998), for a summary of these forms and their distribution; equally Arthur (1998a) and now Bonifay (2004). These new Tunisian forms, such as Keay 50 and vessels with a domed, ombelicato base, are well represented at S. Antonino de Perti (Murialdo et al. 1985, 1988 and 1992) and in the Crypta Balbi (Saguì, Ricci and Romei 1997; Saguì 1998a). 483. For Marseille, see La Bourse Period 3: Bonifay, Carre and Rigoir (1998, 358ff. and passim); Tréglia (2005a), and now, especially, Bien (2005 and 2007), for the first and second half of the 7th century sequences excavated at L’Alcazar; for southern Gaul in general, in this period of transition, see Bonifay and Vallauri (2003). For a summary of finds of this period at Tarragona, see Remolà i Vallverdú (2000a, 304-7). These include finds at COM/1, FOR/2 and 3 and, with reservations, the mixed early to late 6th century upper fill of the Torre de l’Audiència, AUD/2; the best deposits of 7th century, and probably second half of the 7th, are those excavated at the port: PERI 2 (Remolà i Vallverdú 2000a, 96-7), with finds of Tunisian globular amphorae similar to those found at Carthage (Hayes 1976, 118-20, fig. 21.11-12). 484. For a summary of the fine wares and amphorae in the Crypta Balbi in the later 7th century, see Saguì, Ricci and Romei (1997) and Saguì (1998a); for Constantinople, see Hayes (1968; 1992). 485. For the Workshop X ware late 6th to 7th century cooking pot at Tarragona, see Macias i Solé 1999, Lám. 56, Olla 59; for eastern cooking wares at Tarragona in general, see Macias i Solé (1999) and Macias i Solé and Remolà i Vallverdú (2000; 2005); for these and other exotic eastern imports of 650 to 700 date in Rome, see Ricci (1998, fig. 4); for Marseille, see Tréglia (2005a), Bien (2005 and 2007) and Bonifay, Carre and Rigoir (1998): there were four types of Constantinople products identified at Marseille; for Naples (Arthur 1985; Carsana 1994). 486. Macias i Solé (1999, 81, Cb/Or?/6-7: Lám. 17.6, Lám. 18.6.2 and 7). Personal examination of these was possible at the Barcelona conference in 2000 (Gurt, Buxeda and Cau [eds]). The sliced-rim casseroles are most likely to be Egyptian, like the examples from the Lower Delta of Egypt that occur in Beirut in an Umayyad context, with parallels at Abu Mena (Reynolds 2003c, fig. 3.7-8, for examples of both). These are typical finds on 7th century late Byzantine and Arab sites in Jordan (Uscatescu 2003, fig. 4.40-5). See also Ballet (1995) and Ballet and Dixneuf (2004). 487. Personal observation of these examples on display at the Barcelona confer-

308

Notes to pages 131-137 ence in 2000 (Gurt, Buxeda and Cau [eds]). These are not Euphrates region amphorae, also fired pale green, but may be amphorae from Apamea, or are something on the lines of an amphora type at Déhès, to the north (Bavant and Orssaud 2001, fig. 7.1). 488. For Tarragona, see Macias i Solé (1999, 286, 288, 289, 353]: Forms B/Gvi/7, Ca/Gvi/37.3, Cb/Gvi/8, Cb/Gvi/31, Cb/Gvi/46, Cb/Gvi/47 and Cb Gvi/49. Macias i Solé states that some vessels appeared to be misfired and could be local. He also refers to another series of likely local glazed wares at Barcelona and finds of glazed pottery at Valencia (for latter, see Blasco et al. [1994] and now Pascual Pacheco et al. [2003, 99, fig. 22]); for reference to finds of glazed wares at Punta de l’Illa (Cullera), see Pascual Pacheco et al. 2003, 99; for Cartagena, see Ramallo Asensio 2005; the Visigothic period settlement of Tolmo de Minateda (Albacete) may have produced glazed cooking pots (Gutiérrez Lloret 1996, 67; Gutiérrez Lloret et al. 2003, 134). 489. For Italy, see Paroli (2003); for southern Gaul, see Bonifay and Vallauri (2003). For Constantinople (Hayes 1992). The presence of such glazed wares could add weight to the post- 621/625 dating of Cartagena’s final phase, as argued by Michel Bonifay? (See n. 442). 490. Perhaps it is one of these amphorae that Michel Bonifay showed me several years ago in Marseille (the depôt where the L’Alcazar material is stored). This is perhaps from Cyprus, with clay similar to that of the dolia found at Kalavassos and the LRA 1 (and LRA 13?) kiln site at Zygi (Demesticha 2003). I have a LRA 13 in this fabric from an Umayyad deposit in Beirut (BEY 045.503). 491. I am basing this interpretation on the summary provided by Bonifay, Carre and Rigoir (1998), 358, where no other amphorae were mentioned, such as LRA 1, 2 and 4; see also Bonifay and Pieri (1995). 492. For excavations of 7th century occupation at Salamis, see Argoud et al. (1980) and Diederichs (1980). In 691 Justinian II undertook the evacuation of much of the non-Arab population of Cyprus, settling them near Cyzicus. They were returned to the island in 698 (Treadgold 1997, 334, 338). 493. Reynolds (2003c). LRA 5 paralleled at Abu Mena and the Kellia, as well as Nile Valley products (LRA 7 and small LRA 5); Aswan Egyptian Red Slip Ware is common. Variants of LRA 13 are common. Most are Egyptian (‘Egloff 167’, Ballet and Dixneuf 2004, as fig. 9), but a few Cypriot (coarse fabric products similar to those of the Zygi kiln site: Demesticha 2003) and Aegean examples (like those in the Yassi Ada shipwreck) are also present. 494. Saguì (1998a), fig. 10.1. See Reynolds (2005b, 571-572) for discussion of this form and these late examples. 495. For the Visigothic 7th century and later Arab occupation in the Vinalopó Valley, see Reynolds (1993, ch. 2, Roads, and ch. 3.4-7, Pottery and Settlement; appendix B, 151-71, for a typology of the Visigothic and Arab pottery); see also Gutiérrez Lloret (1996), for the same transitional period in the south-east. 496. Arthur (1994), for comments on Naples; Saguì, Ricci and Romei (1997), for Rome; Bonifay and Vallauri (2003) for Marseille and southern Gaul. 497. Macias i Solé (1999, 437-8). 498. It would seem perverse to state that Benalúa received similar quantities of LRA 4 to Carthage in the mid 6th century, despite the similar percentages. For another comparison the actual weight of Gazan imports in the British excavations for the entire quantified sequence is as low as 9.37 kg! (Fulford and Peacock 1984, 117, table 1). The total weight of Tunisian sherds in the same contexts is 617.73 kg and the total amphora weight is ‘over 1500 kg’. For a further comparison from

309

Notes to pages 146-148 an eastern Mediterranean Levantine city, the minimum total weight of Gazan amphorae in Beirut deposits adds up to 239.60 kg, where the total amphorae catalogued is a minimum of 6613.19 kg. Though a very rough estimate, about 90% of these Beirut Gazan imports are 4th to 6th century in date. 499. Arthur and Oren (1998). 500. Oil-pressing installations are well attested all over Cyprus. These indicate a long history of oil production from the Hellenistic to Byzantine periods but the sites remain for the most part rather imprecisely dated. The Cypriot ‘basket handle’ amphora was certainly for carrying oil: it has been found in situ by Hellenistic presses (Hadjisavvas 1992). Note that the major oil processing installations excavated at Salamis date to the 7th century (Argoud et al. 1980; Diederichs 1980; Hadjisavvas 1992, 45). It is in late 5th to 6th century contexts that some LRA 1 in Marseille appear without an interior lining, denoting that they did not carry wine (Bonifay and Pieri 1995).

310

Bibliography Ancient sources CTh. = The Theodosian Code and Novels and the Sirmondian Constitutions, tr. C. Pharr (1952) Princeton. SHA = Scriptores Historiae Augustorum, tr. D. Magie (1953) Loeb Classical Library. Expositio Totius Mundi et Gentium, tr. J. Rougé (1966) (Sources Chrétiennes 124) Paris. Modern sources Abad, L. (1975) El Guadalquivir, vía fluvial romana, Sevilla. Abadie-Reynal, C. (1989) ‘Céramique et commerce dans le bassin égéen du IVe au VIIe siècle’, in J. Lefort and C. Morrisson (eds), Hommes et richesses dans l’Empire byzantin, IVe-VIIe siècle, Paris: 143-59. Abadie-Reynal, C. (2007) La céramique romaine d’Argos (fin du IIe siècle avant J.-C. – fin du IVe siècle après J.-C.) (Études Péloponnésiennes 13) Paris. Abascal Palazón, J.M. (1986), La cerámica romana pintada de tradición indígena en la Península Ibérica, Madrid. Abascal Palazón, J.M. (1995). ‘Veinticinco años de estudios sobre la ciudad hispano-romana’, Tempus 10: 19-84 (also published on the Internet). Abascal Palazón, J.M. (2008), ‘Las cerámicas “Tipo Clunia” y otras producciones pintadas hispanorromanas’, in D. Bernal Casasola and A. Ribera i Lacomba (eds), Cerámicas hispanorromanas: un estado de la cuestión, Cádiz: 429-43. Acién Almansa et al. (2003), M. Acién Almansa, J.M. Castaño Aguilar, I. Navarro Luengo, J.B. Salado Escaño and M. Vera Reina, ‘Cerámicas tardorromanas y altomedievales en Málaga, Ronda y Morón’, in L. Caballero, P. Mateos and M. Retuerce (eds), Cerámicas tardorromanas y altomedievales en la Península Ibérica: ruptura y continuidad (II Simposio de Arqueología. Mérida 2001) (Anejos de Archivo Español de Arqueología 28), Madrid: 411-54. Adamscheck, B. (1979), Kenchreai, Eastern Port of Corinth, IV: the pottery, Leiden. Aguarod Otal, C. (1995), ‘La cerámica común de producción local/regional e importada. Estado de la cuestión en el Valle del Ebro’, in Cerámica comuna romana d’època Alto-Imperial a la Península Ibèrica: estat de la qüestió (Monografies Emporitanes 8), Museu d’Arqueología de Catalunya-Empúries: 129-53. Aguilera Martín, A. (2002), El Monte Testaccio y la llanura subaventina: topografía extra protam Trigeminam (Escuela Española de Historia y Arqueología en Roma, Serie Arqueológica 6), Rome. Aguilera Martín, A. and V. Revilla Calvo (2004), ‘Novedades de epigrafía anfórica norteafricana en el Monte Testaccio (Roma)’, in M. Khanoussi, P. Ruggeri and C. Vismara (eds), L’Africa romana 15 (Tozeur, 11-15 December 2002), Rome: 1445-72. Aicart i Hereu, F., J. Llinàs i Pol and J. Sagrera i Aradilla (1991), ‘Primera

311

Bibliography aproximació a la disfusió de la Terra Sigillata Lucente al nord-est de Catalunya’, Cypsela 9: 197-207. Alarçao, J. (1975), La céramique commune locale et régionale (Fouilles de Conimbriga V), Paris. Albertini, E. (1923), Les divisions administratives de l’Espagne romaine, Paris. Alfen, P.G. van (1996), ‘New light on the 7th century Yassi Ada shipwreck: capacities and standard sizes of LRA 1 amphoras’, Journal of Roman Archaeology 9: 189-213. Alföldy, G. (1977), Los Baebii de Sagunto (Serie de Trabajos Varios del S.I.P. 56), Valencia. Alonso de la Sierra Fernández, J.A. (1994), ‘Cerámicas foceas de barniz rojo (Late Roman C) en el Valle del Guadalquivir y Estrecho de Gibraltar’, in III Reunió d’Arqueologia Cristiana Hispànica, Mahón: 391-5. Alonso de la Sierra Fernández, J.A. (1998), ‘Cerámicas africanas en Munigua y el Valle del Guadalquivir’, Madrider Mitteilungen 39: 238-97. Amores Carredano et al. (2007), F. Amores Carredano, E. García Vargas and D. González Acuña, ‘Ánforas tardoantiguas en Hispalis (Sevilla, España) y el comercio mediterráneo’, in M. Bonifay and J.C. Tréglia (eds), LRCW 2. Late Roman Coarse Wares, Cooking Wares and Amphorae in the Mediterranean: archaeology and archaeometry (Aix-en-Provence, April 2005) (British Archaeological Reports, International Series 1662), Oxford: 133-46. Anselmino, L. et al. (1986), L. Anselmino, C.M. Coletti, M.L. Ferrantini and C. Panella, ‘Ostia. Terme del Nuotatore’, in A. Giardina (ed.), Le merci, gli insediamenti. Società Romana e Impero Tardoantico, vol. 3, Rome: 45-81. Antolinos Marín, J.A. and B. Soler Huertas (2000), ‘Nuevos testimonios arqueológicos sobre la industria del aceite en los alrededores de Carthago Nova. Las ánforas olearias de la Bética en la ciudad portuaria’, in Congreso Internacional ‘Ex Baetica Amphorae’ (Sevilla-Écija, December 1998), Écija: 537-55. Aquilué i Abadias, X. (1987), Las cerámicas africanas de la ciudad romana de Baetulo (Hispania Tarraconensis) (British Archaeological Reports, International Series 337), Oxford. Aquilué (i Abadias), X. (1993), ‘Las ceramicas finas de los niveles tardo-romanos’, in X. Dupré i Raventós and J.M. Carreté i Nadal (eds), La ‘Antiga Audiència’. Un accesso al foro provincial de Tarraco (Excavaciones Arqueológicas en España 163), Madrid: 117-50. Aquilué (i Abadias), X. (1995), ‘La cerámica comúna africana’, in Cerámica comuna romana d’època Alto-Imperial a la Península Ibèrica. Estat de la qüestió (Monografies Emporitanes 8), Museu d’Arqueología de Catalunya-Empúries: 61-74. Aquilué i Abadias, X. (1997), ‘Anàlisi comparativa de contextos ceràmics d’época tardo-romana (segles V-VI)’, in Comas i Solà et al. (eds), Barcelona: 83-100. Aquilué (i Abadias), X. (2008), ‘Las imitaciones de cerámica africana en Hispania’, in D. Bernal Casasola and A. Ribera i Lacomba (eds), Cerámicas hispanorromanas: un estado de la cuestión, Cádiz: 553-61. Aranegui Gascó, C. (1982), Excavaciones en el Grau-Vell (Sagunto, Valencia) (S.I.P. Serie de Trabajos Varios 72), Valencia. Aranegui Gascó, C. et al. (1998), ‘El Grau Vell (Sagunto, Valencia), últimas campañas de excavación’, Saguntum 31: 205-12. Aranegui Gascó, C. and A. Gisbert (1992), ‘Les amphores à fond plat de la Péninsule ibérique’, in F. Laubenheimer (ed.), Les amphores en Gaule: produc-

312

Bibliography tion et circulation (Table Ronde Internationale, Metz, 4-6 octobre 1990) (Centre de Recherches d’Histoire Ancienne 116), Université de Besançon: 101-11. Aranegui Gascó, C. and A. Mantilla (1985), ‘La producción de ánforas Dr. 2-4 de Sagunto’, in El vi a l’antiguitat. Economia, producció i comerç al Mediterrani occidental. Actes I. Col.loqui International d’Arqueologia Romana (Monografies Badalonines 9), Badalona: 100-3. Arce, J. (1993), ‘Mercados rurales (nundinae) en la España romana tardía’, Homenatge a Miquel Tarradell, Barcelona, 1993: 867-71. Arce, J. (1997), ‘Otium et negotium: the great estates, 4th-7th century’, in L. Webster and M. Brown (eds), The Transformation of the Roman World, AD 400-900, London: 19-32. Arce, J., L. Caballero and M.A. Elvira (1997), ‘El edificio octogonal de Valedetorres de Jarama (Madrid)’, in R. Teja and C. Pérez (eds), Congreso Internacional ‘La Hispania de Teodosio’, Segovia-Coca: 321-37. Arce, J. and Ripoll, G. (2001), ‘Transformación y final de las “villae” en Occidente (siglos IV-VII): Problemas y perperctivas’, Arqueología y Territorio Medieval, 8: 21-54. Argoud et al. (1980), G. Argoud, O. Callot and B. Helly, Salamine de Chypre, vol. IX: Une Résidence Byzantine, ‘L’Huilerie’, Paris. Ariño, E., J.M. Gurt and J.M. Palet (2004), El pasado presente: arqueología de los paisajes en la Hispania romana, Universidad de Salamanca-Universidad de Barcelona. Arruda, A.M. and R.R. de Almeida (2000), ‘Importação e consumo de vinho bético na colónia romana de Scallabis (Santarém, Portugal)’, in Congreso Internacional ‘Ex Baetica Amphorae’ (Sevilla-Écija, December 1998), Écija: 703-15. Arthur, P. (1985), ‘Naples: notes on the economy of a Dark Age city’, in C. Malone and S. Stoddart (eds), Papers in Italian Archaeology IV (British Archaeological Reports, International Series 246), Oxford: 247-60. Arthur, P. (1989a), ‘Some observations on the economy of Bruttium under the later Roman Empire’, Journal of Roman Archaeology 2: 133-42. Arthur, P. (1989b), ‘Aspects of Byzantine economy: an evaluation of amphora evidence from Italy’, in V. Déroche and J.M. Spieser (eds), Recherches sur la céramique Byzantine (Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique, Supplément 18), École Française d’Athènes: 79-93. Arthur, P. (1994), ‘6.1. Conclusioni’, in P. Arthur (ed.), Il complesso archeológico di Carminiello ai Mannesi, Napoli (Scavi 1983-1984) (Collana del Dipartimento [di Beni Culturali, settore Storico-Arqueológico], Università di Lecce, 7), Galatina: 431-8. Arthur, P. (1998a), ‘Eastern Mediterranean amphorae between 500 and 700: a view from Italy’, in Saguì (1998b): 157-83. Arthur, P. (1998b), ‘Local pottery in Naples and northern Campania in the sixth and seventh centuries’, in Saguì (1998b): 491-510. Arthur, P. et al. (1992), ‘Fornaci altomedievali ad Otranto. Nota preliminare’, Archeologia Medievale 19: 91-122. Arthur, P., C. De Mitri and E. Lapadula (2007), ‘Nuovi appunti sulla circolazione della ceramica nella Puglia meridionale tra Tardoantichità ed Altomedioevo’, in S. Gelichi and C. Negrelli (eds), La circolazione delle ceramiche nell’Adriatico tra tarda antichità e altomedioevo, Mantova: 331-51. Arthur, P. and A. King (1987), ‘Scavo in proprietá Carrillo, S.M.C.V.: contributo per una conoscenza di Capua tardo-antica’, Archeologia Medievale 14: 517-35.

313

Bibliography Arthur, P. and E.R. Oren (1998), ‘The North Sinai survey and the evidence of transport amphorae for Roman and Byzantine trading patterns’, Journal of Roman Archaeology 11: 193-212. Arthur, P. and D. Williams (1992), ‘Campanian wine, Roman Britain, and the 3rd century AD’, Journal of Roman Archaeology 5: 250-60. Atlante (1981) and (1985) Enciclopedia dell’Arte Antica, Atlante delle forme ceramiche romane, I and II, Rome. Aubet, M.E. (2001), The Phoenicians and the West: politics, colonies and trade, Cambridge. Augenti, A. (2006), ‘Ravenna e Classe: archeologia di due città tra la tarda Antichità e l’alto Medieovo’, in A. Augenti (ed.), Le città italiane tra la tarda Antichità e l’alto Medieovo, Atti del convegno (Ravenna, 26-28 febbraio 2004): 185-217. Augenti, A. et al. (2007), A. Augenti, E. Cirelli, M.C. Nannetti, T. Sabetta, E. Savini and E. Zantetedeschi, ‘Nuovi dati archeologici dallo scavo di Classe’, in S. Gelichi and C. Negrelli (eds), La circolazione delle ceramiche nell’Adriatico tra tarda antichità e altomedioevo, Mantova: 257-95. Auriemma, R. and E. Quiri (2004), ‘Importazioni di anfore orientali nell’Adriatico tra primo e medio impero’, in Eiring and Lund (eds): 43-55. Bagnall, R.S. (2006), Hellenistic and Roman Egypt: sources and approaches, Aldershot. Baldomero, A. et al. (1997), A. Baldomero, P. Corrales, M.M. Escalanate, E. Serrano and J. Suárez, ‘El alfar romano de la Huerta del Rincón: síntesis tipológica y momentos de producción’, in Figlinae Malacitanae: la producción de cerámica romana en los territorios malacitanos, Málaga: 147-73. Ballance, M. et al. (1989), M. Ballance, J. Boardman, S. Corbett and S. Hood, Excavations in Chios, 1952-1955: Byzantine Emporio (British School at Athens, supplementary vol. 20), Oxford. Ballet, P. (1995), ‘De l’empire romain à la conquête arabe: les productions céramiques égyptiennes’, in G. Démians d’Archimbaud (ed.), La céramique médiévale en Méditerranée, Actes du 6e congrès de l’AIECM2 (Aix-en-Provence, November 1995), Aix-en-Provence: 53-61. Ballet, P. and D. Dixneuf (2004). ‘Ateliers d’amphores de la chôra égyptienne aux époques romaine et byzantine’, in Eiring and Lund (eds): 67-72. Barberan, S. (1998). ‘Importations d’amphores en Languedoc oriental: première approche fondée sur les données récentes issues du site de La Ramière (Roquemaure, Gard)’, Actes du Congrès d’Istres (21-24 mai 1998) (Société Française d’Étude de la Céramique Antique en Gaule): 69-82. Barceló, A.M. (1986), ‘La qüestió de l’hidraulisme andalusí’, in M. Barceló et al., Les aigües cercades: els qanat(s) de l’illa de Mallorca, Mallorca: 9-36. Barraud, D., M. Bonifay, F. Dridi and J.F. Pichonneau (1998), ‘L’industrie céramique de l’Antiquité tardive’, in H. Ben Hassen and L. Maurin (eds), Oudhna (Uthina): la redécouverte d’une ville antique de Tunisie, Ausonius-Institut de Recherche sur l’Antiquité et le Moyen Age (CNRS-UMR 5607) (Ausonius Mémoires 2), Bordeaux/Paris/Tunis: 139-67. Barrowman et al. (2007), R.C. Barrowman, C.E. Batey and C.D. Morris, Excavations at Tintagel Castle, Cornwall, 1990-1999 (Reports of the Research Committee of the Society of Antiquaries of London 74), London. Bartl, K., G. Schneider and S. Böhme (1995), ‘Notes on “Brittle Wares” in northeastern Syria’, Levant 27: 165-77. Basa Faure, C. and M. Unzueta Portilla (1994), ‘Terra sigillata tardía en el País

314

Bibliography Vasco, tipos y distribucción’, III Reunió d’Arqueologia Cristiana Hispànica, Mahón: 423-34. Bass, G.F. and F.H. Van Doorninck (1982), Yassi Ada, vol. I: A Seventh Century Byzantine Shipwreck, College Station. Batigne Vallet, C., S. Lemaître and A. Schmitt (forthcoming), ‘Common wares and amphorae coming from a Late Roman settlement in Lyon (France)’, in S. Menchelli, M. Pasquinucci and S. Santoro (eds), LRCW 3. Third International Conference on Late Roman Coarse Wares, Cooking Wares and Amphorae in the Mediterranean: archaeology and archaeometry (Parma-Pisa 26-30 March 2008). Bavant, B. and D. Orssaud (2001), ‘Stratigraphie et typologie. Problèmes posés par l’utilisation de la céramique comme critère de datation: l’exemple de la fouille de Déhès’, in E. Villeneuve and P.M. Watson (eds), La céramique byzantine et proto-islamique en Syrie-Jordanie (IVe-VIIIe siècles apr. J.-C.), Actes du colloque tenu à Amman les 3, 4 et 5 décembre 1994 (Institut Français d’Archéologie du Proche-Orient, Bibliothèque Archéologique et Historique 159), Beirut: 33-48. Becker, C., C. Constantin and F. Villedieu (1989). ‘Types d’amphores en usage a Lugdunum du 1er au VIe siècle’, in Amphores romaines et histoire économique: dix ans de recherches (Siena 1986) (Collection de l’École Française de Rome 114), Paris: 656-9. Beltrán de Heredia Bercero, J. (1998), ‘La elaboración del vino en el mundo romano: una instalación urbana de producción de vino en Barcino’, in El vi a l’antiguitat. Economia, producció i comerç al Mediterrani occidental. Actes II. Col.loqui International d’Arqueologia Romana (Monografies Badalonines, 14), Badalona: 277-82. Beltrán de Heredia Bercero, J. (2005), ‘La cerámica común del yacimiento de la Plaza del Rei (siglos VI-VII): aportación al estudio de la cerámica común tardoantigua de Barcelona (España)’, in Gurt, Buxeda and Cau (eds): 137-49. Beltrán Lloris, F. (2006), ‘An irrigation decree from Roman Spain: the lex rivi hiberiensis’, Journal of Roman Studies 19: 147-97. Beltrán Lloris, M. (1970), Las ánforas romanas en España, Zaragoza. Beltrán Lloris, M. (2000), ‘Ánforas béticas en la Tarraconense: bases para una síntesis’, in Congreso Internacional ‘Ex Baetica Amphorae’ (Sevilla-Écija, December 1998), Écija: 441-535. Beltrán Lloris, M., J.A. Paz Peralta and Lasheras Corruchaga, J.A. (1985), ‘El teatro de Caesaraugusta: Estado actual de las excavaciones’, Boletín del Museo de Zaragoza 4: 95-130. Ben Abed-Ben Kader, A., M. Bonifay and M. Gresheimer (1999 [2001]), ‘L’amphore maurétanienne de la station 48 de la Place des Corporations, indentifiée à Pupput (Hammamet, Tunisie)’, Antiquités Africaines 34 (2001): 169-80. Ben Abed et al. (1997), Ben Abed, A., M. Bonifay and M. Fixot, ‘Note préliminaire sur la céramique de la basilique orientale de Sidi Jdidi (Tunisie) (Ve-VIIe s.)’, in G. Démians d’Archimbaud (ed.), La céramique médiévale en Méditerranée, Actes du 6e congrès de l’AIECM2 (Aix-en-Provence, November 1995), Aix-enProvence: 13-25. Ben Lazreg, N. and D.J. Mattingly (1992), Leptiminus (Lamta): a Roman port city in Tunisia. Report no. 1 (Journal of Roman Archaeology, Supplement 4). Ben Lazreg, N. et al. (1995), N. Ben Lazreg, M. Bonifay, A. Drine and P. Trousset, ‘Production et commercialisation des salsamenta de l’Afrique ancienne’, Actes du VIe Colloque d’Histoire et d’Archéologie de l’Afrique, Pau: 103-42. Bendala Galán, M. (ed.) (1993), La ciudad hispanorromana, Tarragona. Berchem, D. van (1937), ‘L’annone militaire dans l’Empire Romaine au IIIe siècle’,

315

Bibliography Mémoires de la Societé Nationale des Antiquaires de France, 8me série, 10: 117-202. Bernal Casasola, D. (ed.) (1998a), Los Matagallares (Salobreña, Granada): un centro romano de producción alfarera en el siglo III d.C, Salobreña. Bernal Casasola, D. (ed.) (1998b), Excavaciones arqueológicas en el alfar romano de la Venta del Carmen, Los Barrios (Cádiz): una aproximación a la producción de ánforas en la Bahía de Algeciras en época altoimperial, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Madrid. Bernal Casasola, D. (2000a), ‘La producción de ánforas en la Bética en el s. III y durante el Bajo Imperio romano’, in Congreso Internacional ‘Ex Baetica Amphorae’ (Sevilla-Écija, December 1998), Écija: 239-372. Bernal Casasola, D. (2000b), ‘Las ánforas béticas en los confines del imperio: primera aproximación a las exportaciones a la Pars Orientalis’, in Congreso Internacional ‘Ex Baetica Amphorae’ (Sevilla-Écija, December 1998), Écija: 935-88. Bernal Casasola, D. (2000c), ‘Las ánforas de Septem Fratres en los ss. II y III d.C.: un modelo de suministro de envases gaditanos a las factorías de salazones de la costa tingitana’, in Congreso Internacional ‘Ex Baetica Amphorae’ (SevillaÉcija, December 1998), Écija: 861-85. Bernal Casasola, D. and J.M. Pérez (1996), ‘Nuevos datos sobre la presencia bizantina en Septem: avance preliminar de la excavación arqueológica en el Paseo de las Palmeras no. 16-24’, Caetaria, Revista del Museo de Algeciras 1: 19-32. Bernal Casasola, D. and A. Ribera i Lacomba (eds) (2008), Cerámicas hispanorromanas: un estado de la cuestión, Cádiz. Berni Millet, P. (1998), Las ánforas de aceite de la Bética y su presencia en la Cataluña romana (Col.lecció Instrumenta 4, Universitat de Barcelona), Barcelona. Berni Millet, P. (2000), ‘Amphorae Dressel 20 similis’, in Congreso Internacional ‘Ex Baetica Amphorae’ (Sevilla-Écija, December 1998), Écija: 1159-67. Berni Millet, P. (2008), Epigrafía anfórica de la Bética. Nuevas formas de análisis (Col.lecció instrumenta 29, Universitat de Barcelona), Barcelona. Berrocal Caparrós, M.C. (1996), ‘Late Roman unguentarium en Carthago-Nova’, Congreso Arqueológico Nacional 23: 119-28. Berrocal Caparrós, M.C. (2007), ‘Nuevas aportaciones sobre cerámicas tardías producidas en el área Carthago Spartaria: el alfar de El Mojón’, in Estudios de cerámica tardorromana y altomedieval (Primer Taller de Cerámica de Granada, ‘La cerámica tardorromana y altomedieval’, 28 March-1 April 2005), Universidad de Granada: 291-318. Bertoldi, T., M. Ceci and F. Pacetti (forthcoming), ‘Roma: Note su alcuni contesti ceramici tardo antichi nel centro urbano. Celio e Fori Imperiali’, in S. Menchelli, M. Pasquinucci and S. Santoro (eds), LRCW 3. Third International Conference on Late Roman Coarse Wares, Cooking Wares and Amphorae in the Mediterranean: archaeology and archaeometry (Parma-Pisa 26-30 March 2008). Bezeczky, T. (2000), ‘Baetican amphorae from the north-eastern provinces of the Roman Empire’, in Congreso Internacional ‘Ex Baetica Amphorae’ (SevillaÉcija, December 1998), Écija: 1359-69. Bien, S. (2005), ‘Des niveaux du VIIe siècle sous le Music-hall de l’Alcazar à Marseille’, in Gurt, Buxeda and Cau (eds): 285-98. Bien, S. (2007), ‘La vaisselle et les amphores en usage à Marseille au VIIe siècle et au début du VIIIe siècle: première ébauche de typologie évolutive’, in M. Bonifay

316

Bibliography and J.C. Tréglia (eds), LRCW 2. Late Roman Coarse Wares, Cooking Wares and Amphorae in the Mediterranean: archaeology and archaeometry (Aix-enProvence, April 2005) (British Archaeological Reports, International Series 1662), Oxford: 263-74. Birley, A.R. (1999), The African Emperor: Septimius Severus, London. Bjelajac, L. (1996), Amfore gornjomezijskog Podunavlja (summary in English: Ljiljana Bjelajac, Amphorae of the Danubian Basin in Upper Moesia) (Posebna Izdanja Monographs 30), Belgrade. Blakely, J.A. (1996), ‘Toward the study of economics at Caesarea Maritima’, in A. Raban and K.G. Holum (eds), Caesarea Maritima: a retrospective after two millennia (Documenta et Monumenta Orientis Antiqui 21), Leiden: 327-45. Blázquez (Martínez), J.M. (1957), ‘La economía ganadera de la España antigua a la luz de las fuentes literarias griegas y romanas’, Emerita 25-1: 159-84. Blázquez (Martínez), J.M. (1975), Historia social y económica de la España romana, Siglos III-V, Madrid. Blázquez (Martínez), J.M. (1986a), ‘La Bética en el Bajo Imperio’, Latomus 37: 445-83. Blázquez (Martínez), J.M. (1986b), Ciclos y temas de la Historia de España: la Romanización, Madrid. Blázquez Martínez, J.M. and J. Remesal Rodríguez (eds) (1983), Producción y comercio del aceite en la antigüedad 2 (Sevilla, 24-28 febrero 1982) Universidad Complutense de Madrid. Blázquez Martínez, J.M. and J. Remesal Rodríguez (eds) (1999), Estudios sobre el Monte Testaccio (Roma) I (Col.lecció Instrumenta 6, Universitat de Barcelona), Barcelona. Blázquez Martínez, J.M. and J. Remesal Rodríguez (eds) (2001), Estudios sobre el Monte Testaccio (Roma) II (Col.lecció Instrumenta 10, Universitat de Barcelona), Barcelona. Blázquez Martínez, J.M. and Remesal Rodríguez, J. (eds) (2003), Estudios sobre el Monte Testaccio (Roma) III (Col.lecció Instrumenta 14, Universitat de Barcelona), Barcelona. Blázquez Martínez, J.M. and Remesal Rodríguez, J. (eds) (2007), Estudios sobre el Monte Testaccio (Roma) IV (Col.lecció Instrumenta 24, Universitat de Barcelona), Barcelona. Boersma, J., D. Yntema and J. van der Werff (1986), ‘Excavations in the House of the Porch (V.ii.4-5) at Ostia’, Bulletin Antieke Beschaving 61: 77-137. Boixadera et al. (1987), M. Boixadera, M. Bonifay, J.P. Pelletier, J. Rigoir, Y. Rigoir and L. Rivet, ‘L’habitat de hauteur de Saint-Propice (Velaux, B. d. Rh.): l’occupation de l’antiquité tardive’, Documents d’Archéologie Méridionale 10: 91-113. Bonifay, M. (1986), ‘Observations sur les amphores tardives à Marseille d’après les fouilles de la Bourse (1980-84)’, Revue Archéologique de Narbonnaise 19: 269306. Bonifay, M. (1998), ‘Sur quelques problèmes de datation des sigillées africaines à Marseille’, in Saguì (1998b): 71-81. Bonifay, M. (2002), ‘Les ultimes niveaux d’occupation de Sidi Jdidi, Pupput et Neapolis: difficultés de datation par la céramique’, in L’Afrique vandale et byzantine, Actes du colloque international (Tunis, 5-8 octobre 2000), Antiquité Tardive 10: 182-90. Bonifay, M. (2004), Études sur la céramique romaine tardive d’Afrique (British Archaeological Reports, Supplementary Series 1301), Oxford. Bonifay, M. (2005a), ‘Observations sur la typologie des amphores africaines de l’Antiquité Tardive’, in Gurt, Buxeda and Cau (eds): 451-72.

317

Bibliography Bonifay, M. (2005b), ‘Observations sur la diffusion des céramiques africaines en Méditerranée orientale durant l’Antiquité Tardive’, in Mélanges Jean-Pierre Sodini, Travaux et Mémoires 15: 565-81. Bonifay, M. (2005c), ‘La céramique en Provence à l’époque mérovingienne: un faciès résolument méditerranéen’, in X. Delestre, P. Périn and M. Kazanski (eds), La Méditerranée et le monde mérovingien: témoins archéologiques, Actes des XXIIIe Journées Internationales d’Archéologie Mérovingienne (Arles, 11-13 octobre 2002) (Bulletin Archéologique de Provence, Suppl. 3), Aix-en-Provence: 85-97. Bonifay, M. (2007), ‘Observations préliminaires sur les amphores africaines de l’oasis de Bahariya’, in S. Marchand and A. Marangou (eds), Amphores d’Égypte de la Basse Époque à l’époque arabe (Cahiers de la Céramique Égyptienne 8, Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale), Cairo: 451-62. Bonifay, M., M.B. Carre and Y. Rigoir (eds) (1998), Fouilles à Marseille: les mobiliers (Ier-VIIe siècles ap. J.C.) (Études Massaliètes 5), París. Bonifay, M., G. Congés and M. Leguilloux (1989), ‘Amphores tardives (Ve-VIIe siècles) à Arles et à Marseille’, in Amphores romaines et histoire économique: dix ans de recherches (Siena 1986) (Collection de l’École Française de Rome 114), Rome: 660-3. Bonifay, M. and R. Leffy (2002), ‘Les céramiques du remplissage de la citerne du Sérapéum à Alexandrie’ (Alexandrina 2), Études Alexandrines 6: 39-84. Bonifay, M. and D. Pieri (1995), ‘Amphores du Ve au VIIe à Marseille: nouvelles données sur la tipologie et le contenu’, Journal of Roman Archaeology 8: 94-120. Bonifay, M. and Y. Rigoir (1986), ‘Les formes de dérivées des sigillées paléochretiennes à bec tubulaire’, Documents d’Archéologie Méridionale 9: 216-19. Bonifay, M. and J.C. Tréglia (eds) (2007), LRCW 2. Late Roman Coarse Wares, Cooking Wares and Amphorae in the Mediterranean: archaeology and archaeometry (Aix-en-Provence, April 2005) (British Archaeological Reports, International Series 1662), Oxford. Bonifay, M. and L. Vallauri (2003), ‘France méditerranéenne’, in the table-ronde ‘De Rome à Byzance; de Fostat à Cordoue. Evolution des faciès céramiques en Méditerranée, Ve-IXe siècles’, in VIIème Congrès International sur la Céramique Médiévale en Méditerranée (Thessaloniki, 11-16 October 1999), Thessaloniki: 585-90. Bost, J.P. et al. (1992), J.P. Bost, M. Campo, D. Colls, V. Guerrero and F. Mayet, L’Épave Cabrera III (Majorque): échanges commerciaux et circuits monétaires au milieu du IIIe siècle après Jésus-Christ (Publications du Centre Pierre Paris 23), Paris. Bourgeois, A. and F. Mayet (1991), Belo VI. Les Sigillées (Collection de la Casa de Velasquez. Archéologie 14), Madrid. Bowes, K. (2005). ‘ “Une coterie espagnole pieuse”: Christian archaeology and Christian communities in fourth- and fifth-century Hispania’, in K. Bowes and M. Kulikowski (eds), Hispania in Late Antiquity: twenty-first century approaches, Leiden: 189-258. Brogiolo, G.P. and S. Gelichi. (1998), ‘La ceramica in Italia settentrionale tra IV e VII secolo’, in Saguì (1998b): 209-26. Brown, P. (1971), The World of Late Antiquity, AD 150-750, London. Bruno, B. (2007), ‘Ceramiche da alcuni contesti tardoantichi e altomedievali di Verona’, in S. Gelichi and C. Negrelli (eds), La circolazione delle ceramiche nell’Adriatico tra tarda antichità e altomedioevo, Mantua: 157-82. Bruno, B. and S. Bocchio (1991), ‘Anfore’, in D. Caporusso (ed.), Scavi MM3. Ricerce di archeologia urbana a Milano durante la costruzione della linea 3 della metropolitana 1982-1990, 3.1, I Reperti, Milan: 259-98, tav. CXII-CXXXII.

318

Bibliography Bucovala, M. and C. Pasca (1988-9), ‘Descoperiri recente în necropolele de epoca romana si romano-bizantina la Tomis’, Pontica 21-2: 123-60. Burriel Alberich, J.M. and M. Rosselló Mesquida (2000), ‘Un vertedero bajoimperial en la C/ Conde de Trénor, 13-14 (Valencia). Estudio de sus materiales’, Lucentum 32: 169-84. Butcher, K. (2001-2), ‘The coin assemblages from BEY 006 and BEY 045’, in Beirut: history and archaeology (ARAM 12th International Conference, American University of Beirut, 13-16 April 1999), ARAM 13-14 (2001-2): 227-36. Butcher, K. (2003a), Roman Syria and the Near East, London. Butcher, K. (2003b). ‘Circulation of bronze coinage in the Orontes Valley in the late Hellenistic and early Roman periods’, in C. Augé and F. Duyrat (eds), Les monnayages syriens – quel apport pour l’histoire du Proche-Orient hellénistique et romain? (Actes de la table ronde à Damas, 10-12 novembre 1999) (Bibliothèque Archéologique et Historique 162), IFAPO, Beirut: 145-52. Butcher, K. (2004), Small Change from Ancient Beirut, Berytus 45-6 (2001-2). Buxeda i Garrigós, J., M.A. Cau Ontiveros and F. Tuset i Bertrán (1997), ‘Las cerámicas de la Habitación 39 de la basílica de Es Cap des Port (Fornells, Menorca): primeros resultados’, in Comas i Solà et al. (eds): 229-68. Buxeda i Garrigós et al. (2005), J. Buxeda i Garrigós, M.A. Cau Ontiveros, J.M. Gurt i Esparraguera, E. Tsantini and A.M. Rauret i Dalmau, ‘Late Roman coarse and cooking wares from the Balearic islands in Late Antiquity’, in Gurt, Buxeda and Cau (eds): 223-54. Caballero, L., P. Mateos and M. Retuerce (eds) (2003), Cerámicas tardorromanas y altomedievales en la Península Ibérica. Ruptura y continuidad. (II Simposio de Arqueología. Mérida 2001) (Anejos de Archivo Español de Arqueología 28), Madrid. Caballero Zoreda, L. (1974), La necrópolis tardorromana de Fuentespreadas (Zamora) (Excavaciones Arqueológicas en España 80), Madrid. Caballero Zoreda, L. and J.L. Argente Oliver (1975), ‘Cerámica paleocristiana gris y anaranjada, producida en España. Cerámicas tardorromanas de la villa de Baños de Valdearados (Burgos)’, Trabajos de Prehistoria 32: 113-50. Caballero Zoreda, L. and L.C. Juan Tovar (1987). ‘Terra sigillata hispánica brillante’, Ampurias 45-6 (1983-4): 154-93. Caballero Zoreda, L. and T. Ulbert (1976), La basílica paleocristiana de Casa Herrera en las cercanías de Mérida (Badajoz) (Excavaciones Arqueológicas en España 89), Madrid. Campbell, E. (2007), Continental and Mediterranean Imports to Atlantic Britain and Ireland, AD 400-800 (CBA Research Report 157), York. Camps, G. (1955), ‘La nécropole de Draria-El-Achour’, Libyca 3: 225-64. Carignani A. and F. Pacetti (1989a). ‘Anfore tardo-antiche dagli scavi del Palatino’, in Amphores romaines et histoire économique: dix ans de recherches (Siena 1986) (Collection de l’École Française de Rome 114), Paris: 610-15. Carignani A. and F. Pacetti (1989b), ‘Le importazioni di anfore bizantine a Roma fra IV e V secolo: Le evidenze di alcuni contesti urbani’, in V. Déroche and J. M. Spieser (eds), Recherches sur la céramique byzantine (Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique, Supplément 18), Paris: 5-16. Carignani et al. (1986), ‘Roma. Il contesto del Tempio della Magna Mater sul Palatino’, in A. Giardina (ed.), Le merci, gli insediamenti: società romana e impero tardoantico, III, Rome: 27-43. Carreras Monfort, C. (2000), Economía de la Britannia romana: la importación de alimentos (Col.lecció Instrumenta 8, Universitat de Barcelona), Barcelona.

319

Bibliography Carreras Monfort, C. and P. Berni i Millet (1998), ‘Producció de vi i àmfores tardanes del NE de la Tarraconense’, in El vi a l’antiguitat. Economia, producció i comerç al Mediterrani occidental. Actes II. Col.loqui International d’Arqueologia Romana (Monografies Badalonines 14), Badalona: 270-5. Carreras Monfort, C. and P. Berni i Millett (2005), ‘Late Roman amphorae in the city of Barcino (Barcelona)’, in Gurt, Buxeda and Cau (eds): 165-78. Carreras Monfort, C. and P.P.A. Funari (1998), Britannia y el Mediterráneo: Estudios sobre el abastacimiento de aceite bético y africano en Britannia (Col.lecció Instrumenta 5, Universitat de Barcelona), Barcelona. Carreté, J.M., S.J. Keay and M. Millet (1995), A Roman Provincial Capital and its Hinterland: the survey of the territory of Tarragona, Spain, 1985-1990 (Journal of Roman Archaeology, Supplement 15), Ann Arbor. Carsana, V. (1994), ‘Ceramica da cucina tardo-antica e alto-medievale’, in P. Arthur (ed.), Il complesso archeologico di Carminiello ai Mannesi, Napoli (Scavi 1983-1984) (Collana del Dipartimento [di Beni Culturali, settore Storico-Arqueológico], Università di Lecce 7), Galatina: 221-58. Carsana, V. , V. D’Amico and F. Del Vecchio (2007), ‘Nuovi dati ceramologici per la storia economica di Napoli tra tarda antichità ed altomedioevo’, in M. Bonifay and J.C. Tréglia (eds), LRCW 2. Late Roman Coarse Wares, Cooking Wares and Amphorae in the Mediterranean: archaeology and archaeometry (Aix-enProvence, April 2005) (British Archaeological Reports, International Series 1662), Oxford: 423-37. Carsana, V. and F. Del Vecchio (forthcoming), ‘Il porto di Neapolis (Napoli-Italia) in età tardo antica: il contesto di IV secolo D.C.’, in S. Menchelli, M. Pasquinucci and S. Santoro (eds), LRCW 3. Third International Conference on Late Roman Coarse Wares, Cooking Wares and Amphorae in the Mediterranean: archaeology and archaeometry (Parma-Pisa 26-30 March 2008). Casana, J. (2004), ‘The archaeological landscape of late Roman Antioch’, in I. Sandwell and J. Huskinson (eds), Culture and Society in Later Roman Antioch (Papers from a colloquium, London, 15 December 2001), Oxford: 102-25. Casas, J. and J.M. Nolla (1993), ‘Un conjunt tancat amb ceràmica africana a la vil.la romana dels Tolegassos (Viladamat, Alt Empordà)’, Empúries 48-50 (1986-9): 202-13. C.A.T.H.M.A. (various writers) (1991), ‘Importations de céramiques communes méditerranées dans le midi de la Gaule (Ve-VIIe s.)’, in A cerâmica medieval no Mediterrâneo Ocidental (Lisbon, November 1987), Lisbon: 27-47. Cau Ontiveros, M.A. (2003), Cerámica tardorromana de cocina de las Islas Baleares: Estudio arqueométrico (British Archaeological Reports, International Series 1182), Oxford. Cau (Ontiveros), M.A. et al. (1995), M.A. Cau (Ontiveros), J. Giralt, J.M. Macias, J.I. Padilla and F. Tuset, ‘La cerámica del nordeste peninsular y las Baleares entre los siglos V-X’, in G. Démians d’Archimbaud (ed.), La céramique médiévale en Méditerranée. Actes du 6e congrès de l’AIECM2 (Aix-en-Provence November 1995), Aix-en-Provence: 173-92. Cela Espín, X. and V. Revilla Calvo (2004), La transició del municipium d’Iluro a Alarona (Mataró). Cultura material i transformacions d’un espai urbà entre els segles V i VII dC. (Laietània 15), Museu de Mataró. Cela Espín, X. and V. Revilla Calvo (2005), ‘Contextos cerámicos de los siglos V a VII del municipium de Iluro (Mataró, Barcelona). Evidencia material, hábitat y dinámica económica de una ciudad del litoral hispano’, in Gurt, Buxeda and Cau (eds): 203-21.

320

Bibliography Cerdà, D. (1992), ‘La crisi del segle III a Pollentia i a dues naus de Cabrera’, III Reunió d’Arqueologia Cristiana Hispànica, Mahón: 289-309. Chávez Álvarez, M.E., M. Orfila Pons and M.A. Cau Ontiveros (2008), ‘Cerámicas vidriadas en la ciudad romana de Pollentia (Alcudia, Mallorca, España)’, in Actes du Congrès de L’Escala-Empúries (1-4 mai 2008) (Société Française d’Étude de la Céramique Antique en Gaule): 153-8. Christie, N.J. (1989), ‘The archaeology of Byzantine Italy: a synthesis of recent research’, Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology II.2: 249-93. Ciarrocchi, B. et al. (1998), ‘Ceramica comune tardoantica da Ostia e Porto (V-VII secolo)’, in Saguì (1998b): 383-420. Ciotola , A. et al. (1989). ‘Roma: Tre contesti. 1. Via Nova-Clivo Palatino. 2. Crypta Balbi. 3. Via Sacra-Via Nova’, in Amphores romaines et histoire économique: dix ans de recherches (Siena 1986) (Collection de l’École Française de Rome 114), Paris: 604-9. Cipriano, M.T. et al. (1991), ‘La documentazione ceramica dell’Italia centromeridionale nell’alto medioevo: quadri regionali e contesti campione’, in L. Alves da Silva and R. Mateus (eds), A cerâmica medieval no Mediterrâneo Ocidental (Lisbon, November 1987), Lisbon: 99-122. Clariana i Roig, J.F. and R. Járrega Domínguez (1990), ‘Aportación al conocimiento de unas estructuras arquitectónicas tardorromanas del yacimiento arqueológico de Can Modellel (Cabrera de Mar, Barcelona)’, Archivo Español de Arqueología 63: 330-44. Coll Riera, J.M., J. Roig Buxó and J.A. Molina Vallmitjana (1997), ‘Contextos ceràmics de l’antiguitat tardana del Vallès’, in Comas i Solà et al. (eds), Barcelona: 37-57. Collins, R. (1983), Early Medieval Spain: unity in diversity, 400-1000, Hong Kong. Comas i Solà, M. and P. Padrós (1997), ‘Un context ceràmic del segle VI a Baetulo’, in Comas i Solà et al. (eds), Barcelona: 121-30. Comas i Solà, M. et al. (eds) (1997), Contextos ceràmics d’época romana tardana i de l’alta edat mitjana (segles IV-X), Badalona, 6-8 November 1996 (Arqueo Mediterrània 2), Barcelona. Corti, C. (2007), ‘Importazioni e circolazione lungo il corso del Po tra IV/V e VII/VIII secolo’, in S. Gelichi and C. Negrello (eds), La circolazione delle ceramiche nell’Adriatico tra tarda antichità e altomedioevo, Mantua: 237-56. Cottica, D. (2000), ‘Unguentari tardo antichi dal martyrion di Hierapolis, Turchia’, Mélanges de l’École Française de Rome, Antiquité 112: 999-1021. Cubberley, A.L. et al. (1988), ‘Testa and clibani: the baking covers of classical Italy’, Papers of the British School at Rome 56: 98-119. Cunja, R. (1996), Capodistria Tardoromana e Altomedievali. Lo scavo archeologico nell’ex Orto dei Cappuccini negli anni 1986-1987 all luce dei reperti dal V al IX secolo D.C. Koper/Capodistria. Cunliffe, B. (1988), Greeks, Romans and Barbarians: spheres of interaction, London. Cunliffe, B. and S. Keay (eds) (1995), Social Complexity and the Development of Towns in Iberia, From the Copper Age to the Second Century AD (Proceedings of the British Academy 86), Oxford. Curtis, R.I. (1991), Garum and Salsamenta: production and commerce in materia medica (Studies in Ancient Medicine 3), Leiden and New York. Dagron, G. (1985), ‘Un tarif de sportules à payer au curiosi du port de Séleucie de Piérie (VIe siècle)’, Travaux et Mémoires 9: 435-55. Daguet-Gagey, A. (2000), Septime Sévère: Rome, l’Afrique et l’Orient, Paris. Darton, A. (1972), ‘Sigillée claire B de la Vallée du Rhône’, Rivista di Studi Liguri 38.2: 137-89.

321

Bibliography Davie, M. (1987), ‘Maps and the historical topography of Beirut’, Berytus 53: 141-64. Decker, M. (2000), ‘Food for an Empire: wine and oil production in North Syria’, in S. Kingsley and M. Decker (eds), Economy and Exchange in the East Mediterranean during Late Antiquity (Proceedings of a conference at Somerville College, Oxford, 29 May 1999), Oxford: 69-86. Delgado, M. (1975a), ‘Les Sigillées Claires’, in J. Alarçao and R. Etienne (eds), Fouilles de Conimbriga IV, Paris: 249-313. Delgado, M. (1975b), ‘Sigillée Late Roman C’, in J. Alarçao and R. Etienne (eds), Fouilles de Conimbriga IV, Paris: 285-191. Delgado, M. (1975c), ‘Une sigillée tardive régionale’, in J. Alarçao and R. Etienne (eds), Fouilles de Conimbriga IV, Paris: 317-35. Delgado, M. (1976), ‘Céramiques grises du Bas-Empire’, in J. Alarçao and R. Etienne (eds), Fouilles de Conimbriga VI: céramiques diverses et verres, Paris: 65-9. Delgado, M. (1988), ‘Contribuição para o estudo das cerâmicas romanas tardias do Médio Oriente encontradas em Portugal’, Cadernos de Arqueologia (série II) 5: 35-49. Démains d’Archimbaud, G. and L. Vallauri (eds) (1994), L’oppidum de Saint-Blaise du Ve au VIIème s. (Documents d’Archéologie Française 45), Paris. Demesticha, S. (2003), ‘Amphora production on Cyprus during the Late Roman period’, in VIIème Congrès International sur la Céramique Médiévale en Méditerranée (Thessaloniki, 11-16 October 1999), Thessaloniki: 469-76. Deneauve, J. (1972), ‘Céramiques et lampes africaines sur le côte de Provence’, Antiquités Africaines 6: 219-40. De Nicolás i Mascaró, J.C. (1994), ‘Sigillates paleocristianes ataronjades i grises a l’illa de Menorca (Balears)’, III Reunió d’Arqueologia Cristiana Hispànica, Mahón: 311-20. Desbat, A. (1988), ‘La sigillée claire B: état de la question’, in Actes du Congrès d’Orange (12-15 mai 1988) (Société Française d’Étude de la Céramique Antique en Gaule), Marseille: 91-9. Desbat, A. and Picon, M. (1986), ‘Les importations d’amphores de Méditerranée orientale à Lyon (fin de 1er siècle avant J.C. et 1er siècle après)’, in J.Y. Empereur and Y. Garlan (eds), Recherches sur les amphores grecques. Actes du Colloque International organisé par le Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, L’Université de Rennes II et L’École Française d’Athènes (Athènes, 10-12 septembre 1984) (Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique, Supplément 13), L’École Française d’Athènes: 637-48. De Vos, M. (ed.) (1992), Rus Africanum. Terra acqua olio nell’Africa settentrionale. Scavo e ricognizione nei dintorni di Dougga (Alto Tell tunisino) (Exhibition at Trento, 23 November 2000-7 January 2001) (Università degli Studi di Trento, Labirinti 50), Trento. De Vos M. and S. Polla (2005), ‘Pottery from rural settlements around Dougga (Northern Tunisia)’, in Gurt, Buxeda and Cau (eds): 481- 93. Díaz, P.C. (1992-3), ‘Propriedad y explotación de la tierra en la Lusitania tardoantigua’, in J.G. Gorges, and M. Salinas (eds), Actas de la Mesa Redonda Internacional. El medio rural en Lusitania romana. Formas de hábitat y ocupación del suelo (Studia Historica. Historia Antigua 10-11), Salamanca: 297-309. Díaz, P.C. and R. Menéndez-Bueyes (2005), ‘The Cantabrian Basin in the fourth and fifth centuries: from Imperial province to periphery’, in K. Bowes and M. Kulikowski (eds), Hispania in Late Antiquity: twenty-first century approaches, Leiden: 265-97.

322

Bibliography Díaz-Iglesis, L. and J.M. Galán (2007), ‘El aceite en el Antiguo Egipto’, in J.M. Blázquez Martínez and J. Remesal Rodríguez (eds), Estudios sobre el Monte Testaccio (Roma) IV (Col.lecció Instrumenta 24), Barcelona: 553-87. Diederichs, C. (1980), Salamine de Chypre, vol. IX: Céramiques Hellenistiques, Romaines et Byzantines, Paris. Dietz et al. (1995), S. Dietz, L. Ladjimi Sebai and H. Ben Hassen (eds), Africa Proconsularis: regional studies in the Segermes Valley of northern Tunisia, Copenhagen. Di Mitri, C. (2005), ‘Otranto. Anfore da transporto di età tardoromana (IV-VI sec. d.c.)’, in Gurt, Buxeda and Cau (eds): 413-24. Di Segni, L. (1999), ‘Epigraphic documentation on building in the provinces of Palaestina and Arabia, 4th-7th centuries’, in J.H. Humphrey (ed.), The Roman and Byzantine Near East, vol. 2: Some Recent Archaeological Research (Journal of Roman Archaeology, Supplementary Series 31). Portsmouth: 149-78. Dore, J. (1989), ‘Part II: The Coarse Pottery’, in Excavations at Sabratha 19481951, vol. II: The Finds, part I: The Amphorae, Coarse Wares and Building Materials (Society for Libyan Studies, Monograph 1), London: 87-248. Downey, G. (1961), A History of Antioch in Syria from Seleucus to the Arab Conquest, Princeton. Duncan-Jones, R. (1990), Structure and Scale in the Roman Economy, Cambridge. Duval, N. and J. Caillet (1982), ‘Khan Khalde (ou Khalde III). Les fouilles de Roger Saidah dans les églises, mises en oeuvre d’après les documents de l’auteur’, in Archéologie au Levant, Recueil R. Saidah, Lyon: 311-94. Dyczek, P. (2008), ‘On the origins of amphora Zeest 90/Dyczek 25 – ultimate solution?’, in Rei Cretariae Fautores Acta 40 (Durres, September 2006): 515-21. Eckardt, H. (2002), Illuminating Roman Britain (Monographies Instrumentum 23), Mergoil. Ehmig, U. (1996), ‘Garum für den Statthalter – Eine Saucenamphore mit Besitzeraufschrift aus Mainz’, Mainzer Archäologische Zeitschrift 3: 25-56. Ehmig, U. (2000), ‘Dressel 20/30: ex Baetica originalis – imitatio ex Germania Superiore’, in Congreso Internacional ‘Ex Baetica Amphorae’ (Sevilla-Écija, December 1998), Écija: 1143-52. Ehmig, U. (2003), Die Römischen Amphoren aus Mainz, Frankfurter Archäologische Schriften 4, Hemsbach. Eiring, J. and J. Lund (eds) (2004), Transport Amphorae and Trade in the Eastern Mediterranean, International Colloquium at the Danish School at Athens, Monographs of the Danish Institute at Athens 5), Athens. Empereur, J.Y. and M. Picon (1989), ‘Les régions de production d’amphores impériales en Méditerranée orientale’, in Amphores romaines et histoire économique: dix ans de recherches, Actes du colloque de Sienne (22-24 mai 1986) (Collection de l’École Française de Rome 114), Rome: 223-48. Enguix Alemany, R. and C. Aranegui Gascó (1977), Taller de ánforas romanas de Oliva (S.I.P. Serie de Trabajos Varios 54), Valencia. Ern, K. and J. Reynolds (1970), ‘The copy of Diocletian’s Edict on Maximum Prices from Aphrodisias in Caria’, Journal of Roman Studies 60: 120-40. Étienne, R. and F. Mayet (2002), Salaison et sauces de poisson hispaniques, Paris. Fabião, C. (1993-4), ‘O azeite da Baetica na Lusitania’, Conimbriga 32-3: 219-45. Fabião, C. (2008), ‘Las ánforas de Lusitania’ in D. Bernal Casasola and A. Ribera i Lacomba (eds), Cerámicas hispanorromanas: un estado de la cuestión, Cádiz: 725-45. Fernández Ochoa, C., P. García Díaz and A. Uscatescu Barrón (1992), ‘Gijón en el

323

Bibliography período tardoantiguo: cerámicas importadas de las excavaciones de Cimadevilla’, Archivo Español de Arqueología 65: 105-49. Fernández Ochoa, C., V. García-Entero and F. Gil Sendino (eds) (2008), Las ‘villae’ tardorromanas en el occidente del Imperio: arquitectura y función, IV Coloquio internacional de arqueología en Gijón, Gijón. Fernández Sotelo, E.A. (1994), Un vertedero del siglo III en Ceuta (Monografias Transfretana, 1), Ceuta. Ferrazzoli, A.F. and M. Ricci (2007), ‘Elaiussa Sebaste: produzioni e consumi di una città della Cilicia tra V e VII secolo’, in M. Bonifay and J.C. Tréglia (eds), LRCW 2. Late Roman Coarse Wares, Cooking Wares and Amphorae in the Mediterranean: archaeology and archaeometry (Aix-en-Provence, April 2005) (British Archaeological Reports, International Series 1662), Oxford: 671-88. Février, P.A., A. Gaspary and R. Guéry (1970), Fouilles de Sétif (1959-1966). Quartier Nord-Ouest. Rempart et Cirque (Supplément au Bulletin d’Archéologie Algérienne I), Algiers. Fiumi, F. and L. Prati (1983), ‘Note sulla ceramica commune’, in G. Bermond Montanari (ed.), Ravenna e il porto di Classe, Bologna University Press: 118-26. Frankel, R. (1999), Wine and Oil Production in Antiquity in Israel and Other Mediterranean Countries (JSOT/ASOR Monograph Series 10), Sheffield. Freed, J. (1983), ‘Pottery from the late middens at San Giovanni’, in M. Gualtieri, M. Salvatore and A. Small (eds), Lo scavo di S. Giovanni di Ruoti ed il periodo tardoantico in Basilicata, Bari: 91-106. Freed, J. (1998), ‘Pottery report’ (C. Wells et al. ‘The construction of decumanus VI N and the economy of the early colony of Carthage’), in Carthage Papers: the early colony’s economy, water supply, a public bath, and the mobilization of state olive oil (Journal of Roman Archaeology, Supplementary Series 28), 18-63. Freed, J. and J. Moore (1996), ‘New observations on the earliest Roman amphoras from Carthage: Delattre’s first amphora wall’, CEDAC 15: 19-28. Fulford, M.G. (1975a), New Forest Roman Pottery (British Archaeological Reports, British Series 17), Oxford. Fulford, M.G. (1975b), ‘The pottery’, in B.W. Cunfliffe, Excavations at Portchester Castle, I: Roman (Society of Antiquaries Research Report 32), London: 270-367. Fulford, M.G. (1987), ‘Economic interdependence among urban communities of the Roman Mediterranean’, World Archaeology 19.1: 58-75. Fulford, M.G. (1989a), ‘To East and West: the Mediterranean trade of Cyrenaica and Tripolitania in Antiquity’, Libyan Studies 20: 169-91. Fulford, M.G. (1989b), ‘Byzantium and Britain: a Mediterranean perspective on post-Roman Mediterranean imports in Western Britain and Ireland’, Medieval Archaeology 33: 1-6. Fulford, M.G. and D.P.S. Peacock (1984), Excavations at Carthage: The British Mission, vol. I (ii): The Avenue du President Habib Bourguiba, Salammbo: the pottery and other ceramic objects from the site, Sheffield. Fulford, M.G. and D.P.S. Peacock (1994), Excavations at Carthage: The British Mission, vol. II (ii): The Circular Harbour, North Side: the pottery (British Academy Monographs in Archaeology 5), Oxford. Fulford, M. and R. Tomber (eds) (1994), Excavations at Sabratha, vol. II: The Finds, part 2: The Fine Wares and Lamps (Society for Libyan Studies, Monograph 3), Whitstable. Gandolfi, D. (1997-8), ‘Sigillata focese in Liguria’, Rivista di Studi Liguri, Anno 63-4 (1997-8): 421-42.

324

Bibliography Garabito Gómez, T. (1978), Los alfares romanos riojanos: producción y comercialización (Bibliotheca Praehistorica Hispana 16), Madrid. Garcea, F., G. Miraglia and G. Soricelli (1983-4), ‘Uno scarico di materiale ceramico di età Adriano-Antonina da Cratere Senga (Pozzuoli)’, Puteoli. Studi di Storia Antica 7-8 (1983-4): 245-85. García y Bellido, A. (1953/85), La Península Ibérica en los comienzos de su historia. Una invitación al estudio de nuestra Edad Antigua, Instituto Rodrigo Caro, CSIC, Madrid, 1953 (reprinted by Ediciones Istmo, Madrid, 1985). García Vargas, E. (1998), La producción de ánforas en la Bahía de Cádiz en época romana (siglos II a.C.-IV d.C.), Écija. García Vargas, E. and D. Bernal Casasola (2008), ‘Ánforas de la Bética’, in D. Bernal Casasola and A. Ribera i Lacomba (eds), Cerámicas hispanorromanas: un estado de la cuestión, Cádiz: 661-87. García Villanueva, I. and M. Rosselló Mesquida (1992), ‘Las ánforas tardorromanas de Punta de l’Illa de Cullera’, in Estudios de Arqueología Ibérica y Romana. Homenaje a Enrique Plà Ballester (S.I.P. Serie de Trabajos Varios 89), Valencia: 639-61. García Villanueva, I. and M. Rosselló Mesquida (1995), ‘Punta de l’Illa de Cullera (Valencia): un posible establecimiento monástico del s. VI d.C.’, IV Reunió d’Arqueologia Cristiana Hispànica (Lisbon 1992), Lisbon: 151-61. García Villanueva, U. and M. Roselló Mesquida (1993), ‘Late Roman unguentarium: ungüentarios cristianos de la antigüedad tardía procedentes de Punta de l’Illa de Cullera, Valencia’, Archivo Español de Arqueología 66: 294-300. Garlan, Y. and D. Kassab Tezgör (1996), ‘Prospection d’ateliers d’amphores et de céramiques de Sinope’, Anatolia Antiqua 4: 325-34. Garnsey, P. (1983), ‘Grain for Rome’, in P. Garnsey, K. Hopkins and C.R. Whittaker (eds), Trade in the Ancient Economy, London: 118-30. Garnsey, P. (1988), Famine and Food Supply in the Graeco-Roman World: responses to risk and crisis, Cambridge. Garrote Sayó, E. (1996), ‘L’oli bètic de la Gallia Narbonensis a tres departaments de l’estat francès: als Pyrenées-Orientales, a L’Aude i a L’Hérault’, Pyrenae 27: 193-213. Gascou, J. (1982), ‘La politique municipale de Rome en Afrique du Nord, I. De la mort d’Auguste au début du IIIe siécle’, Aufstieg und Niedergang der Römischen Welt II.10.2: 136-229. Gascou, J. (1989), ‘La table budgétaire d’Antaeopolis (P. Freer 08.45 c-d)’, in J. Lefort and C. Morrisson (eds), Hommes et richesses dans l’Empire byzantin, IVe-VIIe siècles, Paris: 279-313. Gayraud, R.P. (2003), ‘La transition céramique en Egypte, VIIe-IXe siècles’, in the table-ronde ‘De Rome à Byzance; de Fostat à Cordoue. Evolution des faciès céramiques en Méditerranée, Ve-IXe siècles’, in VIIème Congrès International sur la Céramique Médiévale en Méditerranée (Thessaloniki, 11-16 October 1999), Thessaloniki: 558-62. Gibbins, D.J.L. and A.J. Parker (1986), ‘The Roman wreck of c. AD 200 at Plemmirio, near Siracusa (Sicily): interim report’, International Journal of Nautical and Underwater Archaeology 15.4: 267-304. Ginouvez, O. (ed.) (1996-7), ‘Les fouilles de l’Hôtel-Dieu de Narbonne’, Bulletin de la Commission Archéologique de Narbonne 47-8: 115-86. Gisbert, J.A. (1985), ‘La producció de vi al territori de Dianium durant l’Alt Imperi: el taller d’amfores de la vil.la romana de l’Almadrava (Setla-MirarrosaMiraflor)’, in El vi a l’antiguitat. Economia, producció i comerç al Mediterrani

325

Bibliography occidental. Actes I. Col.loqui International d’Arqueologia Romana (Monografies Badalonines 9), Badalona: 104-18. Giuseppe, H. di (1998), ‘La fornace di Calle di Tricarico: produzione e diffusione’, in Saguì (1998b): 735-52. Glick, T.F. (1970), Irrigation and Society in Medieval Valencia, Cambridge, MA. Glick, T.F. (2007), ‘Chapter 4: Sistemas de riego en Al-Andalus: una revisión’ , in Paisajes de conquista. Cambio cultural y geográfico en la España medieval, Universitat de Valencia, Valencia. Godard, C. (1995), ‘Quatre niveaux d’abandon de la ville de Vienne (Isère): éléments pour la chronologie des céramiques de la fin du IIe siècle et du IIIe siècle après J.-C.’, in L. Rivet (ed.), Actes du Congrès de Rouen (1995) (Société Française d’Étude de la Céramique Antique en Gaule): 285-322. González, C. et al. (2000), ‘L’importazione del garum ibérico a Verona’, in Congreso Internacional ‘Ex Baetica Amphorae’ (Sevilla-Écija, December 1998), Écija: 837-52. González Blanco, A. (1988), ‘La provincia bizantina de Hispania. Carthago Spartaria, capital administrativa’, in Historia de Cartagena, V, Murcia: 41-67. González Villaescusa, R. (1990), El vertedero de la Avenida España, 3, y el siglo III d.C. en Ebusus (Trabajos del Museo Arqueológico de Ibiza y Formentera 22): 1-160. Gorges, J.G. (1979), Les villas Hispano-Romaines: inventaire et problématique archéologiques (Publications du Centre Pierre Paris 4), Paris. Gorges, J.G. (1983), ‘Remarques sur la détection des cadastres antiques en Péninsule Ibérique: à propos d’Elche et de Mérida’, in M. Clavel-Lévêque (ed.), Cadastres et espace rural. Table Ronde de Besançon, mai, 1980, Paris: 199-206. Gozálvez Pérez, V. (1974), ‘La centuriatio de Ilici’, in Estudios sobre las centuriaciones romanas en España, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Madrid: 101-13. Greene, K. (1986), The Archaeology of the Roman Economy, London. Gregory, S. (1996), ‘Was there an eastern origin for the design of late Roman fortifications? Some problems for research on forts of Rome’s eastern frontier’, in D.L. Kennedy (ed.), The Roman Army in the East (Journal of Roman Archaeology, Supplementary Series 18), Ann Arbor: 169-209. Guillen Pérez, G. and A. González Blanco (1985), ‘Perspectivas de la geografía del S.E. peninsular’, in Del Conventus Carthaginiensis a la Chora de Tudmir. Perspectivas de la historia de Murcia entre los siglos III-VIII (Antigüedad y Cristianismo. Monografías sobre la Antigüedad Tardía II), Universidad de Murcia: 107-17. Gumà, M.M., M.M. Riera and F. Torres (1997), ‘Contextos ceràmics dels segles IV-X a l’Illa de Mallorca’, in Comas i Solà et al. (eds): 249-68. Gurt, J.M., J. Buxeda and M.A. Cau (eds) (2005), LRCW I. Late Roman Coarse Wares, Cooking Wares and Amphorae in the Mediterranean: archaeology and archaeometry (Conference held at Barcelona, March 2002) (British Archaeological Reports, International Series 1340), Oxford. Gutiérrez Lloret, S. (1988), ‘El poblamiento tardorromano en Alicante a través de los testimonios materiales: estado de la cuestión y perspectives’, in Arte y poblamiento en el SE peninsular durante los últimos siglos de civilización romana (Antigüedad y Cristianismo, Monografías sobre la Antigüedad Tardía V), Universidad de Murcia: 323-38. Gutiérrez Lloret, S. (1990-1), ‘Panes, hogazas y fogones portátiles. Dos formas cerámicas destinadas a la cocción del pan en el-Andalus: el hornillo (tannur) y el plato (tabag)’, Lucentum 9-11: 161-75.

326

Bibliography Gutiérrez Lloret, S. (1996), La Cora de Tudmir de la Antigüedad tardía al mundo islámico. Poblamiento y cultura material (Collection de la Casa de Velázquez 57), Madrid. Gutiérrez Lloret et al. (2003), S. Gutiérrez Lloret, B. Gamo Parras and V. Amorós Ruiz, ‘Los contextos cerámicos altomedievales del Tolmo de Minateda y la cerámica altomedieval en el sudeste de la Península Ibérica’, in L. Caballero, P. Mateos and M. Retuerce (eds), Cerámicas tardorromanas y altomedievales en la Península Ibérica: ruptura y continuidad (II Simposio de Arqueología, Mérida 2001) (Anejos de Archivo Español de Arqueología 28), Madrid: 119-68. Hadjisavvas, S. (1992), Olive Oil Processing in Cyprus from the Bronze Age to the Byzantine Period (Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology 99), Nicosia. Haley, E.W. (2003), Baetica Felix: people and prosperity in southern Spain from Caesar to Severus, Austin, TX. Hall, L.J. (1996), Berytus, ‘Mother of Laws’: studies in the social history of Beirut from the third to sixth centuries AD, PhD Dissertation, Ohio State University. Hall, L.J. (2004), Roman Berytus: Beirut in Late Antiquity, London and New York. Hamel, H. (unpublished), Die Reste der Feste: Datierung und Funktion eines spätantiken Fundkomplexes aus Baalbek (Lebanon), MA Thesis, Institut für Klassische Archäologie, Freie Universität Berlin, 2008. Hayes, J.W. (1968), ‘A seventh century pottery group’, in R.M. Harrison and N. Firatli, ‘Excavations at Saraçhane in Istanbul: Fifth Preliminary Report’, Dumbarton Oaks Papers 22: 203-16. Hayes, J.W. (1971), ‘A new type of early Christian ampulla’, Annual of the British School at Athens 66: 243-8. Hayes, J.W. (1972), Late Roman Pottery, London. Hayes, J.W. (1973), ‘The Roman deposits’, in J. Boardman and J.W. Hayes, Excavations at Tocra, 1963-1965, The Archaic Deposits II and Later Deposits, London: 107-19. Hayes, J.W. (1976), ‘Pottery: stratified groups and typology’, in J.H. Humphrey (ed.), Excavations at Carthage Conducted by the University of Michigan, I, Tunis: 47-123. Hayes, J.W. (1978), ‘Pottery Report, 1976’, in J.H. Humphrey (ed.), Excavations at Carthage, 1976, Conducted by the University of Michigan, IV, Ann Arbor: 23-98. Hayes, J.W. (1983), ‘The Villa Dionysos excavations, Knossos: the pottery’, Annual of the British School at Athens 78: 97-169. Hayes, J.W. (1991), Paphos, vol. III: The Hellenistic and Roman Pottery, Nicosia. Hayes, J.W. (1992), Excavations at Saraçhane in Istanbul, vol. 2: The Pottery, Princeton. Hayes, J.W. (1997), Handbook of Mediterranean Roman Pottery, London. Hayes, J.W. (2000), ‘From Rome to Beirut and beyond: Asia Minor and eastern Mediterranean trade connections’, in Acta Rei Cretariae Romanae Fautores 36: 285-97. Hayes, J.W. and A. ‘Ala’ Eddine (1998-9), ‘A transitional Byzantine-Umayyad pottery group’, Bulletin d’Archéologie et d’Architecture Libanaises 3: 127-37. Hodges, R. (2004), ‘The shaping of Medieval north-western Europe’, Antiquity 78: 723-7. Hohlfelder, R.L. (2000), ‘Anastasius I, mud and foraminera: conflicting views of Caesarea Maritima’s harbour in Late Antiquity’, Bulletin of the American School of Oriental Research 317: 41-62. Holum, K.G. (1995), ‘Inscriptions from the imperial revenue office of Byzantine Caesarea Palaestinae’, in J.H. Humphrey (ed.), The Roman and Byzantine Near

327

Bibliography East: some recent archaeological research (Journal of Roman Archaeology, Supplement 14): 333-45. Howe, L. (1966), The Praetorian Prefect from Commodus to Diocletian, AD 180-304 (Studia Storica 31), Roma. Hoxha, G. (2003), Scodra dhe Praevalis në antiketetin e vonë, Shkodra. Hübener, W. (1965), ‘Zur chronologischen gliederung des Gräberfeldes von San Pedro de Alcántara, Vega del Mar (Prov. Málaga)’, Madrider Mitteilungen 6: 195-214. Hurst, H. (1993), ‘Excavations in the southern part of the Carthage harbours, 1992-1993’, CEDAC Bulletin 13: 10-18. Hurst, H. (1994), Excavations at Carthage: The British Mission, vol. II (i): The Circular Harbour, North Side: the site and finds other than pottery (British Academy Monographs in Archaeology 4). Isaac, B. (1990), The Limits of Empire: the Roman army in the East, Oxford. Istenic, J. and G. Schneider (2000), ‘Aegean cooking wares in the eastern Adriatic’, in Rei Cretariae Romanae Fautorum Acta 36 (Selçuk-Ephesus, 1998), Abingdon: 341-48. Járrega Domínguez, R. (1991), Cerámicas finas tardoromanas y del Mediterráneo oriental en España (Anejos de Archivo Español de Arqueología 11), Madrid. Járrega Domínguez, R. (2000), ‘La difusión de la producción anfórica bética en el área catalana durante el periodo bajoimperial. Las ánforas Dressel 23’, in Congreso Internacional ‘Ex Baetica Amphorae’ (Sevilla-Écija, December 1998), Écija: 605-20. Járrega Domínguez, R. (2005), ‘Ánforas tardorromanas halladas en las recientes excavaciones estratigráficas efectuadas en el subsuelo de la Plaza del Rey en Barcelona’, in Gurt, Buxeda and Cau (eds): 151-63. Járrega Domínguez, R. and J.F. Clariana i Roig (1995), ‘Aportaciones al conocimiento de la fase tardoantigua de la villa romana de Caputxins (Mataró)’, IV Reunió d’Arqueologia Cristiana Hispànica (Lisbon, 1992), Lisbon: 113-20. Járrega Domínguez, R. and J.F. Clariana i Roig (1996), ‘El jaciment arqueològic de Can Modolell (Cabrera de Mar, Maresme) durant l’Antiguitat tardana. Estudi de les ceràmiques d’importació’, Cypsela 11: 125-52. Jézégou, M.P. (1998), ‘Le mobilier de l’épave Saint-Gervais 2 (VIIe s.) à Fos-surMer (B.-du-Rh.)’, in Bonifay, Carre and Rigoir (eds): 343-51. Johnson, B.L. (1988), ‘The pottery’, in G.D. Weinburg (ed.), Excavations at Jalame, Site of a Glass Factory in Late Roman Palestine, Columbia: 137-226. Jones, A.H.M. (1964), The Later Roman Empire, 284-602: a social, economic and administrative survey, Oxford. Jones, A.H.M. (1966), The Decline of the Ancient World, London. Jones, A.H.M. (1974), The Roman Economy: studies in ancient economic and administrative history, Oxford. Juan Tovar, L.C. (1997), ‘Las industrias cerámicas hispanas en el Bajo Imperio. Hacia una sistematización de la Sigillata Hispánica Tardía’, in R. Teja and C. Pérez (eds), Congreso Internacional La Hispania de Teodosio, Segovia-Coca: 543-68. Juan Tovar, L.C. and J.F. Blanco García (1997), ‘Cerámica común tardorromana, imitación de sigillata, en la Provincia de Segovia. Aproximación al estudio de las producciones cerámicas del siglo V en la Meseta Norte y su transición al mundo hispano-visigodo’, Archivo Español de Arqueología 70: 171-219. Jullien, T. (unpublished), Les sigillées paléochrétiennes de la Place des Martyrs à Beyrouth, Mémoire de D.E.A. Université de Provence, U.F.R., Département d’Histoire de l’Art et d’Archéologie, 1997-8.

328

Bibliography Karagiorgou, O. (2000), ‘LRA2: a container for the military annona on the Danubian border?’, in S. Kingsley and M. Decker (eds), Economy and Exchange in the East Mediterranean During Late Antiquity (Proceedings of a conference at Somerville College, Oxford, 29 May 1999): 129-66. Kassab Tezgör, D. and I. Tatlican (1998), ‘Fouilles des ateliers d’amphores à Demirçi, près de Sinope en 1996 et 1997’, Anatolia Antiqua 6: 423-42. Keay, S.J. (1984a), Late Roman Amphorae in the Western Mediterranean: a typology and economic study: the Catalan evidence (British Archaeological Reports, International Series 196), Oxford. Keay, S.J. (1984b). ‘Decline or continuity? The Conventus Tarraconensis from the fourth to seventh centuries AD’, in T. Blagg, R. Jones, and S. Keay (eds), Papers in Iberian Archaeology (British Archaeological Reports, International Series 193), Oxford: 552-69. Keay, S.J. (1988), Roman Spain, London. Keay, S.J. (1998), ‘Tunisian amphorae’, in Saguì (1998b): 141-55. Kennedy, D. (2004), The Roman Army in Jordan, London. Kent, J.P.C. and K.S. Painter (eds) (1977), Wealth of the Roman World, AD 300-700 (British Museum exhibition catalogue), London. Kenrick, P.M. (1985), Excavations at Sidi Khrebish, Benghazi (Berenice), vol. III, part 1: The Fine Pottery (Supplements to Libya Antiqua 5), Tripoli. Kenrick, P. (forthcoming), ‘ Pottery other than transport amphorae’, in W. Aylward (ed.), Zeugma 2000: rescue excavations (Packard Humanities Institute, Los Altos, California). Kingsley, S. (1999), ‘The Sumaqa pottery assemblage: classification and quantification’, in S. Dar (ed.), Sumaqa: a Roman and Byzantine Jewish village on Mount Carmel, Israel (British Archaeological Reports, International Series 815), Oxford: 263-330. Kingsley, S. (2000), ‘The economic impact of the Palestinian wine trade in Late Antiquity’, in S. Kingsley and M. Decker (eds), Economy and Exchange in the East Mediterranean During Late Antiquity (Proceedings of a conference at Somerville College, Oxford, 29 May 1999): 44-68. Kingsley, S. (2001), ‘ “Decline” in the ports of Palestine in Late Antiquity’, in L. Lavan (ed.), Recent Research in Late Antique Urbanism (Journal of Roman Archaeology, Supplementary Series 42), Ann-Arbor: 69-87. Kingsley, S. and M. Decker (2000), ‘New Rome, new theories on inter-regional exchange: an introduction to the East Mediterranean economy in Late Antiquity’, in S. Kingsley and M. Decker (eds), Economy and Exchange in the East Mediterranean During Late Antiquity (Proceedings of a conference at Somerville College, Oxford, 29 May 1999): 1-27. Klenina, E. (forthcoming), ‘Trade relations between the Mediterranean and the Black Sea region in the 3rd-6th centuries AD in the light of ceramic artifacts’, in S. Menchelli, M. Pasquinucci and S. Santoro (eds), LRCW 3. Third International Conference on Late Roman Coarse Wares, Cooking Wares and Amphorae in the Mediterranean: archaeology and archaeometry (Parma-Pisa 26-30 March 2008). Kouwatli et al. (2006, published 2008), I. Kouwatli, H.H. Curvers, B. Stuart, Y. Sablerolles, J. Henderson and P. Reynolds, ‘A pottery and glass production site in Beirut (BEY 015)’, Bulletin d’Archéologie et d’Architecture Libanaises 10: 103-29. Kritzinger, F. (ed.) (2002), Das Hanghaus 2 von Ephesus: Studien zu Baugeschichte und Chronologie (Archaeologische Forschungen 7), Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Vienna.

329

Bibliography Kulikowski, M. (2004), Late Roman Spain and its Cities, Baltimore. Lafli, E. (2005). ‘Spätantik-Frühbyzantinische tonunguentarien aus Seleukeia Sidera in Pisidien (südwest Türkei)’, in Gurt, Buxeda and Cau (eds): 667-79. Lagóstena Barrios, L. (2001), La producción de salsas y conservas de pescado en la Hispania romana (II a.C.-VI d.C.) (Coll.ecció Instrumenta 11, Universitat de Barcelona), Barcelona. Lagóstena Barrios, L. (2007), ‘Huile africaine sur la côte bétique pendant l’Antiquité tardive’, in A. Mrabet and J. Remesal Rodríguez (eds) (2007), In Africa et in Hispania: études sur l’huile africaine (Col.lecció Instrumenta 25, Universitat de Barcelona), Barcelona: 185-204. Laiz Reverte, M.D., L.M. Pérez Adán and E. Ruiz Valderas (1987), ‘Nuevos hallazgos bizantinos en Cartagena’, Archivo Español de Arqueología 60: 281-5. Laiz Reverte, M.D. and E. Ruiz Valderas (1988), ‘Cerámicas de cocina de los siglos V-VII en Cartagena (C. Orcel-D. Gil)’, in Arte y poblamiento en el SE peninsular durante durante los últimos siglos de civilización romana (Antigüedad y Cristianismo, Monografías sobre la Antigüedad Tardía V), Universidad de Murcia: 265-301. Lamboglia, N. (1958), ‘Nuove osservazioni sulla “terra sigillata chiara” ’, Rivista di Studi Liguri 24: 257-330. Lang, M. (1976), Graffiti and Dipinti (The Athenian Agora 21), Princeton. Laubenheimer, F. (2000). ‘Imitations d’amphores à huile de Bétique dans l’est et le nord des Gaules et en Germanie Supérieure’, in Congreso Internacional ‘Ex Baetica Amphorae’ (Sevilla-Écija, December 1998), Écija: 1121-42. Lemaître S. (2000a), ‘Les importations d’amphores de Méditerranée orientale à Lyon au IIIe siècle ap. J.-C.’, in Rei Cretariae Fautorum Acta 36 (SelçukEphesus 1998), Abingdon: 467-76. Lemaître S. (2000b), ‘Des amphores de type Matagallares I importées à Lyon?’, in Congreso Internacional ‘Ex Baetica Amphorae’ (Sevilla-Écija, December 1998), Écija: 817-24. Lemaître et al. (2005), S. Lemaître, S.Y. Waksman, P. Reynolds, M. Roumié and B. Nsouli, ‘A propos de l’origine levantine de plusieurs types d’amphores importés en Gaule à l’époque impériale’, Actes du Congrès de Blois (5-8 mai 2005) (Société Française d’Étude de la Céramique Antique en Gaule): 515-28. Leo Imperiale, M. (2004), ‘Otranto, cantiere Mitello: un centro produttivo nel Mediterraneo bizantino: note attorno ad alcune forme ceramiche di fabbricazione locale’, in S. Patitucci Uggeri (ed.), La ceramica altomedievale in Italia (Quaderni di Archeologia Medievale 6), Florence: 327-42. Levi, D. (1971), Antioch Mosaic Pavements, Princeton. Levick, B. (2007), Julia Domna, Syrian Empress, Abingdon and New York. Lewin, A. (2001), ‘Urban public building from Constantine to Julian: the epigraphic evidence’, in L. Lavan (ed.), Recent Research in Late Antique Urbanism (Journal of Roman Archaeology Supplementary Series 42), Ann Arbor: 27-37. Liebeschuetz, J.H.W.G. (1972), Antioch: city and imperial administration in the Later Roman Empire, Oxford. Liebeschuetz, J.H.W.G. (1990), ‘Money economy and taxation in kind in Syria in the fourth century AD’, in id. (ed.), From Diocletian to the Arab Conquest, Aldershot: 242-6. Liou, B. (2000), ‘Las ánforas béticas en el mar’, in Congreso Internacional ‘Ex Baetica Amphorae’ (Sevilla-Écija, December 1998), Écija: 1061-110. Llinàs i Pol, J. (1997), ‘La excavación de la Carretera de San Martín de Ampurias (Gerona): un ejemplo de la evolución de los contextos cerámicos durante la

330

Bibliography Antigüedad Tardía en el litoral catalán’, Archivo Español de Arqueología 70: 149-69. Long, L. and G. Volpe (1998). ‘Le chargement de l’épave 1 de La Palud (VIe s.) à Port-Cros (Var): note préliminaire’, in Bonifay, Carre and Rigoir (eds): 317-42. López Mullor, A., X. Fierro Macia and À. Caixal Mata (1997), ‘Ceràmica dels segles IV al X procedent de les comarques de Barcelona’, in Comas i Solà et al. (eds): 59-82. López Mullor, A. and X. Aquilué (i) Abadias (eds) (2008), La producció i el comerç de les àmfores de la Provincia Hispania Tarraconensis, Homenatge a Richard Pascual i Guasch (Monografies 8, Museu d’Arqueologia de Catalunya), Barcelona. Lusnia, S. (2004), ‘Urban planning and sculptural display in Severan Rome: reconstructing the Septizodium and its role in dynastic politics’, American Journal of Archaeology 108.4: 517-44. Lusuardi Siena, S. (1977), ‘Appunti su alcuni tipi di anfore Lunense’, in Méthodes classiques et méthodes formelles dans l’étude des amphores (Collection de l’École Française de Rome 32): 207-30. Lusuardi Siena, S. and G. Murialdo (1991), ‘La ceramiche mediterranee in Liguria durante il periodo bizantino VI-VII secolo)’, in L. Alves da Silva and R. Mateus (eds), A cerâmica medieval no Mediterrâneo ocidental (Lisbon, November 1987), Lisbon: 123-46. Macias i Solé, J.M. (1999), La ceràmica comuna tardoantigua a Tàrraco: anàlisi tipològica i històrica (segles V-VII) (TULCIS, Monografies Tarraconenses 1), Tarragona. Macias (i Solé), J.M. et al. (1997), J.M. Macias, J.J. Menchón, J.M. Puche and J.A. Remolà, ‘Nous contextos ceràmics del segle IV i inicis del V en la província de Tarragona’, in Comas i Solà et al. (eds): 153-77. Macias i Solé, J.M. and J.A. Remolà i Vallverdú (2000), ‘Tarraco visigoda: caracterización del material cerámico del siglo VII d.C.’, V Reunió d’Arqueologia Cristiana Hispànica, Cartagena: 485-97. Macias (i) Solé, J.M. and J.A. Remolà (i) Vallverdú (2005), ‘La cultura material de Tarraco – Tarracona (Hispania Tarraconensis-Regnum Visigothorum): cerámica común y ánforas’, in Gurt, Buxeda and Cau (eds): 125-35. Mackensen, M. (1992), ‘Amphoren und Spatheia von Golemanovo Kale’, in S. Uenze, Die Spätantiken befestigungen von Sadovec (Bulgarien) Ergebnisse der Deutsch-Bulgarisch-Österreichischen Ausgrabungen 1934-1937 (Münchner Beiträge zur Vor- und Fruhgeschichte 43), Munich: 239-54. Mackensen, M. (1993), Die spätantiken Sigillata und Lampentöpfereien von El Mahrine (Nortunesien): Studien zur nordafrikanischen Feinkeramik des 4. bis 7. Jahrhunderts, Munich. Mackensen, M. (1998). ‘Centres of African red slip ware production in Tunisia from the late 5th to the 7th century’, in Saguì (1998b): 41-70. Maioli, M.G. and M.L. Stoppioni Piccoli (1989), ‘Ravenna, loc. Classe. La fornace per ceramica nel podere Chiavichetta’, in Amphores romaines et histoire économique: dix ans de recherches (Siena 1986) (Collection de l’École Française de Rome 114), Paris: 568-9. Majcherek, G. (1992). ‘The late Roman ceramics from sector “G” (Alexandria 1986-1987)’, Études et Travaux 16, Warsaw: 81-117. Majcherek, G. (1995), ‘Gazan amphorae: typology reconsidered’, in H. Meyza and J. Mlynarczyk, Hellenistic and Roman Pottery in the Eastern Mediterranean: advances in scientific studies, Nieborów: 163-78.

331

Bibliography Majcherek, G. (2004), ‘Alexandria’s long distance trade in Late Antiquity – the amphora evidence’, in Eiring and Lund (eds): 229-37. Malfitana, D. (2004), ‘Anfore e ceramiche fini da mensa orientali nella Sicilia tardo-ellenistica e romana: merci e genti tra Oriente ed Occidente’, in Eiring and Lund (eds): 239-50. Manacorda, D. (1977), ‘Le anfore’, in A. Carandini and C. Panella (eds), Ostia IV: Le Terme del Nuotatore, scavo dell’ambiente XVI e dell’area XXV (Studi Miscellanei 23), Rome: 116-383. Manacorda, D. (1987), ‘Il vino dell’Etruria romana: L’anfora di Empoli’, in El vi a l’antiguitat. Economia, producció i comerç al Mediterrani occidental, II (Monografies Badalonines 9), Badalona: 43-8. Mandruzzato et al. (2000), L. Mandruzzato, C. Tiussi and V. Degrassi, ‘Appunti sull’instrumentum d’importazione greca ed orientale ad Aquileia’, in Rei Cretariae Romanae Fautorum Acta 36 (Selçuk-Ephesus, 1998), Abingdon: 359-64. Marchand, S. and A. Marangou (eds) (2007), Amphores d’Égypte de la Basse Époque à l’époque arabe (Cahiers de la Céramique Égyptienne 8. Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale), Cairo. Marghetti, M. (1917), ‘Le provincie romane della Spagna’, in E. De Ruggiero (ed.), Dizionario Epigrafico di Antichità Romane, vol. 3, Rome: 754-941. Marín Jordá, C. (1995), ‘La cerámica de cocina africana: consideraciones en torno a la evidencia valenciana’, in Cerámica comuna romana d’època Alto-Imperial a la Península Ibèrica: estat de la questió (Monografies Emporitanes 8), Museu d’Arqueología de Catalunya-Empúries, Ampurias: 155-65. Marlière, E. and J. Torres Costa (2007), ‘Transport et stockage des denrées dans l’Afrique romaine: le rôle de l’outre et du tonneau’, in A. Mrabet and J. Remesal Rodríguez (eds), In Africa et in Hispania: études sur l’huile africaine (Col.lecció Instrumenta 25): 85-106. Marot, T., M.M. Llorens and F. Sala Sellés (2000), ‘Contextos monetarios del siglo VI: las monedas procedentes de los vertederos del Barrio de Benalúa (Alicante)’, V Reunió d’Arqueologia Cristiana Hispànica, Cartagena: 507-17. Márquez Villora, J.C. (1999), El comercio romano en el Portus Illicitanus: el abastacimiento exterior de productos alimentarios (siglos 1 a.C.-V d.C.), Alicante. Márquez Villora, J.C. and J. Molina Vidal (2000), ‘El aceite bético en el sur de la Tarraconense: distribución en el territorium de Ilici’, in Congreso Internacional ‘Ex Baetica Amphorae’ (Sevilla-Écija, December 1998), Écija: 557-64. Márquez Villora, J.C. and J. Molina Vidal (2001), El comercio en el territorio de Ilici: epigrafía, importación de alimentos y relación con los mercados mediterráneos, Alicante. Martin, A. (1998), ‘La sigillata focese (Phocean Red-Slip/Late Roman C Ware)’, in Saguì (1998b): 109-22. Martin, A. (2004), ‘Italian sigillata in the East. Olympia: a case study’, in J. Poblome, P. Talloen, R. Brulet and M. Waelkens (eds), Early Italian Sigillata: the chronological framework and trade patterns, International ROCT Conference (Catholic University of Leuven, 7-8 May 1999) (Babesch Supplement 10): 67-70. Martin-Kilcher, S. (1983), ‘Les amphores romaines à l’huile de Bétique (Dressel 20 et 25) d’Augst (Colonia Augusta Rauricorum) et Kaiseraugst (Castrum Rauracense): un rapport préliminaire’, in J.M. Blázquez Martínez and J. Remesal Rodríguez (eds), Producción y comercio del aceite en la Antigüedad 2 (Sevilla), Universidad Complutense de Madrid: 337-47.

332

Bibliography Martin-Kilcher, S. (1998), ‘Le vin dans la Colonia Iulia Karthago’, in El vi a l’antiguitat. Economia, producció i comerç al Mediterrani occidental, II (Monografies Badalonines 14), Badalona 2: 511-29. Martin-Kilcher, S. (2000), ‘Amphores à sauces de poissons du sud de la péninsule ibérique dans les provinces septentrionales’, in Congreso Internacional ‘Ex Baetica Amphorae’ (Sevilla-Écija, December 1998), Écija: 759-86. Martínez Andreu, M. (1985), ‘La muralla bizantina de Carthago Nova’, in Del Conventus Carthaginiensis a la Chora de Tudmir: perspectivas de la historia de Murcia entre los siglos III-VIII (Antigüedad y Cristianismo. Monografías sobre la Antigüedad Tardía II), Universidad de Murcia: 129-51. Martínez Maganto, J. (2000), ‘Inscripciones sobre ánforas de salazón: interpretación sobre la estructura y significación comercial de los tituli picti’, in Congreso Internacional ‘Ex Baetica Amphorae’ (Sevilla-Écija, December 1998), Écija: 1206-19. Martínez Rodríguez, A. and J. Ponce García (2000), ‘Lorca como centro territorial durante los siglos V-VII d.C.’, V Reunió d’Arqueologia Cristiana Hispànica, Cartagena: 199-209. Mas, C. (unpublished), Cerámica y poblamiento durante la Antigüedad tardía (ss. IV-X) en la isla de Mallorca: la zona este (Manacor y Sant Llorenç), Diploma de Estudios Avanzados (2006) (Universitat de Barcelona). Mateu y Llopis, F. (1972), ‘Bronces romanos imperiales y vándalos en l’Illa de Cullera’, Archivo de Prehistoria Levantina 13: 241-56. Mattingly, D.J. (1988), ‘Oil for export: a comparison of Libyan, Spanish and Tunisian olive oil production in the Roman Empire’, Journal of Roman Archaeology 1: 33-56. Mattingly, D.J. (1995), Tripolitania, London. Mayet, F. (1975), Les céramiques à parois fines dans la Péninsule Ibérique, Paris. Mayet, F. (1984), Les céramiques sigillées hispaniques: contribution à l’histoire économique de la Péninsule Ibérique sous l’Empire Romain, Paris. Mayet, F. (2000), ‘Amphores de Bétique en Lusitanie’, in Congreso Internacional ‘Ex Baetica Amphorae’ (Sevilla-Écija, December 1998), Écija: 647-54. Mayet, F. and C. Tavares da Silva (2002), L’Atelier d’amphores d’Abul, Paris. McCormick, M. (2001), Origins of the European Economy: communications and commerce, AD 300-900, Cambridge, MA. Menasanch de Tobaruela, M. (2000), ‘Un espacio rural en territorio bizantino: análisis arqueológico de la depresión de Vera (Almería) entre los siglos V y VII’, V Reunió d’Arqueologia Cristiana Hispànica, Cartagena: 211-22. Menasanch de Tobaruela, M. (2003), Secuencias de cambio social en una región mediterránea: analisis arqueológico de la depresión de Vera (Almería) entre los siglos V y XI (British Archaeological Reports, International Series 1132), Oxford. Mezquíriz, M. (1961), Terra Sigillata Hispánica, Valencia. Mezquíriz, M. (1978), Pompaelo, II, Pamplona. Meylan Krause, M.F. (2002), Domus Tiberiana (The Palatine, Rome): analyses stratigraphiques et céramologiques (British Archaeological Reports, International Series 1058), Oxford. Meyza, H. (2007), Nea Paphos V, Cypriot Red Slip Ware: studies on a Late Roman Levantine fine ware, Warsaw. Miró, J. (1988), La producción de ánforas romanas en Catalunya: un estudio sobre el comercio del vino de la Tarraconense (siglos I a.C.-I d.C.) (British Archaeologial Reports, International Series 473), Oxford.

333

Bibliography Molina Vidal, J. (2007), ‘Commerce romain et amphores nord-africaines sur la côte sud-orientale d’Hispanie’, in A. Mrabet and J. Remesal Rodríguez (eds) (2007), In Africa et in Hispania: études sur l’huile africaine (Col.lecció Instrumenta 25, Universitat de Barcelona), Barcelona: 205-43. Moltó Poveda, F.J. (1996), ‘Las cerámicas africanas con decoración estampada procedentes de Garganes (Altea, Alicante)’, in Congreso Arqueológico Nacional 23: 225-34. Moltó Poveda, F.J. (2000), ‘Cerámicas de importación del yacimiento tardorromano de Garganes’, in V Reunió d’Arqueologia Cristiana Hispànica, Cartagena: 529-40. Monaghan, J. (1997), The Archaeology of York, 16: The Pottery, Fasc. 8: Roman pottery from York (Council for British Archaeology), York. Morais, R. (1998), As ânforas da zona das Carvalheiras: contribuição para o estudo das ânforas romanas de Bracara Augusta (Universidade do Minho), Braga. Morais, R. (2000a), ‘As ânforas béticas em Bracara Augusta’, in Congreso Internacional ‘Ex Baetica Amphorae’ (Sevilla-Écija, December 1998), Écija: 683-96. Morais, R. (2000b), Poster, in Congreso Internacional ‘Ex Baetica Amphorae’ (Sevilla-Écija, December 1998), Écija: 697-9. Morais, R. (2005), ‘From oppidum to Dives Bracara: the city trade through the amphorae’, in Gurt, Buxeda and Cau (eds): 55-67. Moreno Almenara, M. and F.J. Alarcón Castellano (1996), ‘Materiales de época romana: la cerámica’, in R. Hidalgo, F. Alarcón Castellano and M. del Camino Fuentes, El criptopórtico de Cercadilla: análisis arquitectónico y secuencia estratigráfica, Sevilla: 69-112. Morrisson, C. and J.P. Sodini (2002). ‘The sixth-century economy’, in A.C. Laiou (ed.), The Economic History of Byzantium: from the seventh through fifteenth century (Dumbarton Oaks Studies 39), 171-220. Murcia Muñoz, A.J. and M.G. Martínez (2003), ‘Cerámicas tardorromanas y altomedievales procedentes del teatro romano de Cartagena’, in L. Caballero, P. Mateos and M. Retuerce (eds), Cerámicas tardorromanas y altomedievales en la Península Ibérica: ruptura y continuidad (II Simposio de Arqueología. Mérida 2001) (Anejos de Archivo Español de Arqueología 28), Madrid: 169-223. Murialdo, G. et al. (1988), ‘Il “castrum” tardo-antico di S. Antonino di Perti, Finale Ligure (Savone)’, Archeologia Medievale 15: 335-96. Murialdo, G. et al. (1992), ‘Il “castrum” tardo-antico di S. Antonino di Perti, Finale Ligure (Savona): terze notizie preliminari sulle campagne di scavo 1982-1991’, Archeologia Medievale 19: 279-368. Murialdo, G. (2007), ‘Alto-Adriatico e Alto-Tirreno nel mondo Mediterraneo: due mari a confronto tra VI e X secolo’, in S. Gelichi and C. Negrelli (eds), La circolazione delle ceramiche nell’Adriatico tra tarda antichità e altomedioevo: 9-30. Navarro Luengo, I. et al. (2000). ‘Malaca bizantina: primeros datos arqueológicos’, in V Reunió d’Arqueologia Cristiana Hispànica, Cartagena: 271-8. Navarro Luengo, I., L.E. Fernández Rodríguez and J. Suárez Padilla (1997), ‘Cerámicas comunes de época tardorromana y bizantina en Málaga’, in Figlinae Malacitanae: la producción de cerámica romana en los territorios malacitanos, Málaga: 79-93. Navarro Luengo, I., A. Torremocha Silva and J.B. Salado Escaño (2000), ‘Primeros testiminios arqueológicos sobre Algeciras en época bizantina’, in V Reunió d’Arqueologia Cristiana Hispànica, Cartagena: 223-7. Neuru, L. (1980), ‘Late Roman pottery: a fifth century deposit from Carthage’, Antiquités Africaines 16: 195-211.

334

Bibliography Nieto Prieto, J. (1993). El edificio ‘A’ de la Ciudadela de Roses: la terra sigillata africana) (Centre d’Investigacions Arqueològiques, Girona. Sèrie Monogràfica 14), Gerona. Nolla, J.M. and J. Casas (1990), ‘El material ceràmic d’importació de la vi.la romana de Puig Rodon (Corçà, Baix Empordà), d’època severiana a la Baixa Antiquitat’, Cypsela 8: 193-218. Nozal Calvo, M. and F. Puertas Gutiérrez (1995), La terra sigillata paleocristiana gris en la villa romana de La Olmeda (Studia Archaeologica 83), Salamanca. Opait, , A. (1996), Aspecte ale vietii economice din Provincia Scythia (secolele IV-VI p. Ch): productia ceramicii locale si de import (Institutul Român de Tracologie. Bibliotheca Tracologica 16), Bucharest. Opait, , A. (2004), ‘The Eastern Mediterranean amphorae in the province of Scythia’, in Eiring and Lund (eds): 293-308. Oren-Pascal, M. and D. Bernal Casasola (2000), ‘Ánforas sudhispánicas en Caesarea Maritima: un ejemplo de importación de vino, aceite y conservas de pescado béticas en Iudaea’, in Congreso Internacional ‘Ex Baetica Amphorae’ (Sevilla-Écija, December 1998), Écija: 989-1033. Orfila Pons, M. (1993), ‘Terra Sigillata Hispánica Tardía Meridional’, Archivo Español de Arqueología 66: 125-48. Orfila Pons, M. (1995), ‘Producciones de sigillata no clásica en la Bética?: las llamadas sigillatas paleocristianas de Cástulo’, IV Reunió dArqueologia Cristiana Hispànica (Lisbon,1992), Lisbon: 193-202. Orfila Pons, M. (2008), ‘La vajilla Terra Sigillata Hispánica Tardía Meridional’, in D. Bernal Casasola and A. Ribera i Lacomba (eds), Cerámicas hispanorromanas: un estado de la cuestión, Cádiz: 541-51. Orfila Pons, M. and M.A. Cau Ontiveros (1994), ‘Las cerámicas finas procedentes de la cisterna de Sa Mesquida, Calvià (Mallorca)’, in III Reunió d’Arqueologia Cristiana Hispànica, Mahón: 257-88. Pacetti, F. (1998), ‘La questione della Keay LII nell’ambito della produzione anforica in Italia’, in Saguì (1998b): 185-207. Paczynska, K. and S.A. Naumenko (2004), ‘Forlimpopoli amphorae at Tanais in the second and third centuries AD’, in Eiring and Lund (eds): 309-12. Palol, P. de (1982), ‘Les excavacions de l’Institut d’Arqueologia i Prehistoria a la basilica de Fornells, Menorca’, in II Reunió d’Arqueologia Paleocristiana Hispànica. IX Symposium de Prehistoria i Arqueologia Peninsular, Barcelona: 353-404. Palol, P. de and J. Cortés (1974), La villa romana de La Olmeda, Pedrosa de la Vega (Palencia), Excavaciones de 1969 y 1970 (Acta Arqueológica Hispánica 7), Madrid. Panella, C. (1970), ‘Anfore’, in A. Carandini et al. (eds), Ostia II, Le Terme del Nuotatore: scavo dell’ambiente I (Studi Miscellanei 16), Rome: 102-56. Panella, C. (1973), ‘Appunti su un gruppo di anfore della prima, media e tarda età imperiale’, in A. Carandini and C. Panella (eds), Ostia III, Le Terme del Nuotatore: scavo degli ambienti III, VI, VII; scavo dell’ambiente V e di un saggio nell’area SO (Studi Miscellanei 21), Rome: 460-633. Panella, C. (1983), ‘Le anfore di Cartagine: nuovi elementi per la ricostruzione dei flussi commerciali del Mediterraneo in età imperiale romana’, Opus 2, Fascicule 1: 53-73. Panella, C. (1986), ‘Oriente ed Occidente: considerazioni su alcune anfore “egee” di età imperiale a Ostia’, in J.Y. Empereur and Y. Garlan (eds), Recherches sur les amphores grecques (Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique, Supplement 13), Athens: 609-36.

335

Bibliography Panella, C. (1992), ‘Mercato di Roma e anfore galliche nella prima età imperiale’, in Les amphores en Gaule: production et circulation (Table Ronde Internationale. Metz, 4-6 octobre 1990) (Centre de Recherches d’Histoire Ancienne 116), Université de Besançon: 185-206. Panella, C. (1993), ‘Merci e scambi nel Mediterraneo tardoantico’, in Storia di Roma, III, 2, Turin: 613-97. Panella, C., L. Saguì and F. Coletti (forthcoming), ‘Contesti tardoantichi di Roma: una rilettura alla luce di nuovi dati’, in S. Menchelli, M. Pasquinucci and S. Santoro (eds), LRCW 3. Third International Conference on Late Roman Coarse Wares, Cooking Wares and Amphorae in the Mediterranean: archaeology and archaeometry (Parma-Pisa 26-30 March 2008). Parker, A.J. (1992), Ancient Shipwrecks of the Mediterranean and Roman Provinces (British Archaeological Reports, International Series 580), Oxford. Parker, A.J. (1976-7), ‘Sicilia e Malta nel commercio marittimo dell’Antichità’, Kokalos II.1: 622-31. Paroli, L. (2003), ‘Italia’, in the table-ronde ‘De Rome à Byzance; de Fostat à Cordoue. Evolution des faciès céramiques en Méditerranée, Ve-IXe siècles’, in VIIème Congrès International sur la Céramique Médiévale en Méditerranée (Thessaloniki, 11-16 October 1999), Thessaloniki: 590-4. Pascual et al. (1997), P. Pascual, A.V. Ribera, M. Roselló and T. Marot, ‘València i el seu territori: contextos ceràmics de la fi de la romanitat a la fi del califat (270-1031)’, in Comas i Solà et al.(eds): 179-202. Pascual Berlanga, G. and A. Ribera Lacomba (2000), ‘El consumo de productos béticos en Valentia y su entorno: la continuidad de una larga tradición’, in Congreso Internacional ‘Ex Baetica Amphorae’ (Sevilla-Écija, December 1998), Écija: 565-76. Pascual Pacheco et al. (2003), J. Pascual Pacheco, A. Ribera i Lacomba and M. Rosselló Mesquida, ‘Cerámicas de la ciudad de Valencia entre la época visigoda y omeya’, in L. Caballero, P. Mateos and M. Retuerce (eds), Cerámicas tardorromanas y altomedievales en la Península Ibérica: ruptura y continuidad (II Simposio de Arqueología. Mérida 2001).(Anejos de Archivo Español de Arqueología 28), Madrid: 67-117. Pasqualini, M. (1998), ‘Les céramiques communes en basse Provence (Ier-IIIe siècles): essai de classification’, in Bonifay, Carre and Rigoir (eds): 293-308. Pasqualini, M. and J.C. Tréglia (2003), ‘La céramique commune du gisement sous-marin de l’anse Gerbal (Port-Vendres 1), Port-Vendres (66)’, Archéologie du Midi Médiéval 21: 3-32. Pasquinucci, M., A. Del Rio, and S. Menchelli (1998), ‘Produzioni di vino nell’Etruria settentrionale costiera’, in El vi a l’antiguitat. Economia, producció i comerç al Mediterrani occidental, II (Monografies Badalonines 14), Badalona: 357-63. Pasquinucci, M., A. Del Rio, and S. Menchelli (2000), ‘Dalla Baetica all’Etruria settentrionale costiera: le dinamiche commerciali dall’età augustea al tardoantico’, in Congreso Internacional ‘Ex Baetica Amphorae’ (Sevilla-Écija, December 1998), Écija: 853-9. Patrich, J. (1999), ‘Warehouses and granaries in Caesarea Maritima’, in K.G. Holum, A. Raban and J. Patrich (eds), Caesarea Papers 2: Herod’s temple, the provincial governor’s praetorium and granaries, the later harbor, a gold coin hoard and other studies (Journal of Roman Archaeology, Supplementary Series 35), Portsmouth: 146-76. Paz Peralta, J.A. (1991), Cerámica de mesa romana de los siglos III al VI d.C. en

336

Bibliography la Provincia de Zaragoza (Terra sigillata hispánica tardía, African red slip ware, sigillata gálica tardía y Phocean red slip ware), Zaragoza. Paz Peralta, J.A. (2008), ‘Las producciones de terra sigillata hispánica intermedia y tardía’, in D. Bernal Casasola and A. Ribera i Lacomba (eds), Cerámicas hispanorromanas: un estado de la cuestión, Cádiz: 497-539. Peacock, D.P.S. (1974), ‘Amphorae and the Baetican fish industry’, Antiquaries Journal 54: 232-43. Peacock, D.P.S. (1977), ‘Roman amphorae: typology, fabric and origin’, in Méthodes classiques et formelles dans l’étude des amphores (Collection de l’École Française de Rome 32): 261-78. Peacock, D.P.S. (1982), Pottery in the Roman World: an ethnoarchaeological approach, Singapore. Peacock, D.P.S., F. Bejaoui and N. Ben Lazreg (1989), ‘Roman amphora production in the Sahel region of Tunisia’, in Amphores romaines et histoire économique: dix ans de recherches (Siena 1986) (Collection de l’École Française de Rome 114), Paris: 179-222. Peacock, D.P.S., F. Bejaoui, and N. Ben Lazreg (1990), ‘Roman pottery production in central Tunisia’, Journal of Roman Archaeology 3: 59-84. Peacock, D.P.S. and D.F. Williams (1986), Amphorae and the Roman Economy: an introductory guide, Avon. Peña, J.T. (1998), ‘The mobilization of state olive oil in Roman Africa: the evidence of late 4th-c. ostraca from Carthage’, in Carthage Papers: the early colony’s economy, water supply, a public bath, and the mobilization of state olive oil (Journal of Roman Archaeology, Supplementary Series 28): 116 (map), 117-238. Peña, J.T. (1999), The Urban Economy During the Early Dominate: pottery evidence from the Palatine Hill (British Archaeological Reports, International Series 784), Oxford. Peña, J.T. (2007), Roman Pottery in the Archaeological Record, Cambridge. Pérez Bonet, M.A. (1988), ‘La economía tardorromana del Sureste Peninsular: el ejemplo del Puerto de Mazarrón (Murcia)’, in Arte y poblamiento en el SE peninsular durante durante los últimos siglos de civilización romana (Antigüedad y Cristianismo, Monografías sobre la Antigüedad Tardía V), Universidad de Murcia: 471-501. Pérez Suñé, J.M. and V. Revilla Calvo (2000), ‘Las producciones béticas y el consumo urbano: Iluro y su territorio’, in Congreso Internacional ‘Ex Baetica Amphorae’ (Sevilla-Écija, December 1998), Écija: 593-604. Pernon, J. and C. Pernon (1990), Les potiers de Portout (Revue Archéologique de Narbonnaise, Supplément 20), Paris. Perring, D. (2003), ‘The archaeology of Beirut: a report on work in the insula of the House of the Fountains’, Antiquaries Journal 83: 195-229. Pieri, D. (1998), ‘Les importations d’amphores orientales en Gaule méridionale durant l’Antiquité Tardive et le Haut-Moyen Age (IVe-VIIe siècles après J.-C.): typologie, chronologie et contenu’, in L. Rivet (ed.), Actes du Congrès d’Istres (21-24 mai 1998) (Société Française d’Étude de la Céramique Antique en Gaule): 97-106. Pieri, D. (2005), Le commerce du vin oriental à l’époque byzantine (Ve-VIIe siècles): le témoignage des amphores en Gaule (Institut Français du Proche-Orient, Bibliothèque Archéologique et Historique 174), Beirut. Piton, J. (1998), ‘Contexte amphorique du début du Ve siècle à Arles (Bouches-duRhône)’, in L. Rivet (ed.), Actes du Congrès d’Istres (21-24 mai 1998) (Société Française d’Étude de la Céramique Antique en Gaule): 107-15.

337

Bibliography Piton, J. (2007), ‘Notice 4. Les amphores à Arles au IVe s.’, in M. Heijmans and J. Guyon (eds), ‘Antiquité tardive, haut Moyen Âge et premiers temps chrétiens en Gaule méridionale. Seconde partie: monde rural, échanges et consommation’, Gallia 64: 155. Poccardi, G. (2001), ‘L’île d’Antioche à la fin de l’Antiquité: histoire et problème de topographie urbaine’, in L. Lavan (ed.), Recent Research in Late-Antique Urbanism (Journal of Roman Archaeology, Supplementary Series 42), Ann Arbor: 155-72. Polla, S. (unpublished), Dai cocci al paessagio: ceramica e territorio nella regione di Dougga (Alto Tell tunisino), PhD Thesis (2005), Università di Trento. Pollard, N. (2000), Soldiers,Cities and Civilians in Roman Syria, Ann Arbor. Ponsich, M. (1974), Implantation rurale antique sur le Bas-Guadalquivir, I, Paris. Ponsich, M. (1979), Implantation rurale antique sur le Bas-Guadalquivir, II, Paris. Ponsich, M. (1988), Aceite de oliva y salazónes de pescado: factores geo-económicos de Bética y Tingitana (Universidad Complutense), Madrid. Poulou-Papadimitriou, N. and S. Didioumi (forthcoming), ‘Nouvelles données sur la production de l’atelier céramique protobyzantin à Kardamaina (Cos-Grèce)’, in S. Menchelli, M. Pasquinucci and S. Santoro (eds), LRCW 3. Third International Conference on Late Roman Coarse Wares, Cooking Wares and Amphorae in the Mediterranean: archaeology and archaeometry (Parma-Pisa 26-30 March 2008). Poveda Navarro, A. (2000a), ‘El obispado de Ilici’, in Los orígenes del cristianismo en Valencia y su entorno (Grandes temas arqueológicos 2),Valencia: 85-92. Poveda Navarro, A. (2000b), ‘El obispado de Elo’, in Los orígenes del cristianismo en Valencia y su entorno (Grandes temas arqueológicos, 2), Valencia: 93-9. Pröttel, P. M. (1996), Mediterrane Feinkeramikimporte des 2. bis 7. Jahrhunderts n. Chr. im oberen Adriaraum und in Slowenien, Espelkamp (Kölner Studien zur Archäologie der römischen Provinzen 2). Ramallo Asensio, S.F. (1984a), ‘Algunas consideraciones sobre el Bajo Imperio en el litoral murciano: los hallazgos romanos en Águilas’, Anales de la Universidad de Murcia 42, 3-4: 97-127. Ramallo Asensio, S.F. (1984b), ‘Datos preliminares para el estudio de las cerámicas tardías de Begastri: consideraciones generales’, in Begastri: imagen y problemas de su historia (Antigüedad y Cristianismo, Monografías sobre la Antigüedad Tardía I), Universidad de Murcia: 71-84. Ramallo Asensio, S.F. (1985), ‘Envases para salazón en el Bajo Imperio (I)’, in VI Congreso Internacional de Arqueología Submarina, Cartagena: 435-42. Ramallo Asensio, S.F. (1988), ‘Fortificaciones tardoromanas y de época bizantina’, in Historia de Cartagena, V, Murcia: 81-98. Ramallo Asensio, S.F. (2000), ‘Carthago Spartaria, un núcleo bizantino en Hispania’, in G. Ripoll and J.M. Gurt (eds), Sedes regiae (ann. 400-800) (Reial Academia de Bones Lletres), Barcelona: 579-611. Ramallo Asensio, S.F. et al. (2005), A.J. Murcia Muñoz, J. Vizcaíno Sánchez, S. García Lorca and S. Ramallo Asensio, ‘Conjuntos cerámicos tardíos de las excavaciones en el teatro romano de Cartagena’, in Gurt, Buxeda and Cau (eds): 1-36. Ramallo Asensio, S.F. and E. Ruiz Valderas (2000), ‘Cartagena en la arqueología bizantina en Hispania: estado de la question’, V Reunió d’Arqueologia Cristiana Hispànica, Cartagena: 305-322. Ramallo Asensio, S.F., E. Ruiz Valderas and M.C. Berrocal Caparrós (1996), ‘Contextos cerámicos de los siglos V-VII en Cartagena’, Archivo Español de Arqueología 69: 135-90.

338

Bibliography Ramallo Asensio, S.F., E. Ruiz Valderas and M.C. Berrocal Caparrós (1997), ‘Un contexto del primer cuarto del siglo VII en Cartagena’, in Comas i Solà et al. (eds): 203-28. Ramón, J. (1986), El Baix Imperi i l’epoca bizantina a les Illes Pitiüses, Ibiza. Ramón, J. (2008), ‘La cerámica ebusitana en la Antigüedad Tardía’, in D. Bernal Casasola and A. Ribera i Lacomba (eds), Cerámicas hispanorromanas: un estado de la cuestión, Cádiz: 563-83. Ramón, J. and M.A. Cau (1997), ‘Niveles de época vandala de Es Castell (Eivissa)’, in Comas i Solà et al. (eds): 269-311. Ramos Fernández, R. (1975), La ciudad romana de Illici, Alicante. Ramos Folques, A. (1958), ‘Unos pozos manantiales de época romana en La Alcudia de Elche’, Archivo Español de Arqueología 36: 234-49. Raposo et al. (2005), J. Raposo, C. Fabião, A. Guerra, J. Bugalhão, A.L. Duarte, A. Sabrosa, M.I. Dias, M.I. Prudêncio and M.A. Gouveia, ‘OREsT Project: Late Roman pottery productions from the Lower Tejo’, in Gurt, Buxeda and Cau (eds): 37-54. Rauh, N.K. and K.W. Slane (2000), ‘Possible amphora kiln sites in W Rough Cilicia’, Journal of Roman Archaeology 13: 319-30. Remesal Rodríguez, J. (1983), ‘Transformaciones en la exportación del aceite bético a mediados del siglo III d.C.’, in J.M. Blázquez and J. Remesal Rodríguez (eds), Producción y comercio del aceite en la antigüedad 2 (Sevilla, 24-28 febrero 1982) Universidad Complutense de Madrid: 115-31. Remesal Rodríguez, J. (1986), La annona militaris y la exportación de aceite bético a Germania, Madrid. Remesal Rodríguez, J. (2002), ‘Baetica and Germania: notes on the concept of “provincial interdependence” in the Roman Empire’, in Erdkamp, P. (ed.), The Roman Army and the Economy, Amsterdam: 293-308. Remesal Rodríguez, J. and M. García Sánchez (2007), ‘Los tituli picti sobre ánforas olearias orientales’, in J.M. Blázquez Martínez and J. Remesal Rodríguez (eds), Estudios sobre el Monte Testaccio (Roma) IV (Col.lecció Instrumenta 24, Universitat de Barcelona), Barcelona:173-82. Remolà i Vallverdú, J.A. (1993a), ‘Un tipo de ánfora tardo-romana poco conocido (VLR 8.198)’, Archivo Español de Arqueología 66: 300-10. Remolà i Vallverdú, J.A. (1993b), ‘Las ánforas de los niveles tardo-romanos’, in X. Dupré i Raventos and J.M. Carreté i Nadal (eds), La ‘Antiga Audiència’: un accesso al foro provincial de Tarraco (Excavaciones Arqueológicas en España 163), Madrid. Remolà i Vallverdú, J.A. (2000a), Las ánforas tardo-antiguas en Tarraco (Hispania Tarraconensis) (Col.lecció Instrumenta 7, Universitat de Barcelona), Barcelona. Remolà i Vallverdú, J.A. (2000b), ‘La presencia de ánforas sud-hispánicas en Tarraco durante la Antigüedad tardía’, in Congreso Internacional ‘Ex Baetica Amphorae’ (Sevilla-Écija, December 1998), Écija: 577-92. Revilla Calvo, V. (2001), ‘Las ánforas tunecinas y tripolitanas de los siglos II y III d.C: tipologías y circulación’, in J.M. Blázquez Martínez and J. Remesal Rodríguez (eds), Estudios sobre el Monte Testaccio (Roma) II (Col.lecció Instrumenta 10, Universitat de Barcelona), Barcelona: 367-90. Revilla Calvo, V. (2003), Economia i poblament romà al curs inferior de l’Ebre: la villa de Casa Blanca (Tortosa), Diputació de Tarragona. Revilla Calvo, V. et al. (1997), V. Revilla Calvo, C. Martí García, J. García Roselló, J. Pera Isern, J.A. Cerdà Mellado and J. Pujol Del Horno, ‘El nivell d’armortizació del Cardo Maximus d’Iluro’, in Comas i Solà et al. (eds): 101-19, Barcelona.

339

Bibliography Reynolds, P. (1984), ‘African Red Slip and late Roman imports in Valencia’, in T. Blagg, R. Jones, and S. Keay (eds), Papers in Iberian Archaeology (British Archaeological Reports, International Series 193), Oxford: 474-539. Reynolds, P. (1985), ‘Cerámica tardorromana modelada a mano, de caracter local, regional y de importación en la Provincia de Alicante’, Lucentum 4: 245-67. Reynolds, P. (1987), El yacimiento tardorromano de Lucentum (Benalúa-Alicante): las cerámicas finas (Catálogo de fondos del Museo Arqueológico 2), Alicante. Reynolds, P. (1993), Settlement and Pottery in the Vinalopó Valley (Alicante, Spain): AD 400-700 (British Archaeological Reports, International Series 588), Oxford. Reynolds, P. (1995), Trade in the Western Mediterranean, AD 400-700: the ceramic evidence (British Archaeological Reports, International Series 604), Oxford. Reynolds, P. (1997), ‘A 1st century AD pottery assemblage from Lepcis Magna’, in H. Walda et al., ‘The 1996 excavations at Lepcis Magna’, Libyan Studies 28: 49-63. Reynolds, P. (1999), ‘Pottery production and economic exchange in 2nd century Berytus: some preliminary observations of ceramic trends from quantified ceramic deposits from the Anglo-Lebanese excavations in Beirut’, Berytus 43 (1997-8): 35-110. Reynolds, P. (2000a), ‘Baetican, Lusitanian and Tarraconensian amphorae in classical Beirut: some preliminary observations of trends in amphora imports from the western Mediterranean in the Anglo-Lebanese excavations in Beirut (BEY 006, 007 and 045)’, in Congreso Internacional ‘Ex Baetica Amphorae’ (Sevilla-Écija, December 1998), Écija: 1035-65. Reynolds, P. (2000b), ‘The Beirut amphora type, 1st century BC-7th century AD: an outline of its formal development and some preliminary observations of regional economic trends’, in Rei Cretariae Romanae Fautorum Acta 36 (SelçukEphesus, 1998), Abingdon: 387-95. Reynolds, P. (2002), ‘The pottery’, in W. Bowden, R. Hodges, and K. Lako, ‘Roman and late-antique Butrint: excavations and survey 2000-2001’, Journal of Roman Archaeology 15: 199-229. Reynolds, P. (2003a), ‘Lebanon’, in the table-ronde ‘De Rome à Byzance; de Fostat à Cordoue. Evolution des faciès céramiques en Méditerranée, Ve-IXe siècles’, in VIIème Congrès International sur la Céramique Médiévale en Méditerranée (Thessaloniki, 11-16 October 1999), Thessaloniki: 536-46. Reynolds, P. (2003b), ‘Spain, Portugal and the Balearics: 4th-7th century (Late Roman, Byzantine and Visigothic)’, in the table-ronde ‘De Rome à Byzance; de Fostat à Cordoue. Evolution des faciès céramiques en Méditerranée, Ve-IXe siècles’, in VIIème Congrès International sur la Céramique Médiévale en Méditerranée (Thessaloniki, 11-16 October 1999), Thessaloniki: 571-85. Reynolds, P. (2003c), ‘Pottery and the economy in 8th century Beirut: an Umayyad pottery assemblage from the Roman Imperial baths (BEY 045)’, in VIIème Congrès International sur la Céramique Médiévale en Méditerranée (Thessaloniki, 11-16 October 1999), Thessaloniki: 725-34. Reynolds, P. (2003d), ‘Amphorae in Roman Lebanon: 50 BC to AD 250’, Archaeology and History in Lebanon (formerly National Museum News) 17 (Spring 2003): 120-30. Reynolds, P. (2003e), ‘The pottery’ in A. Gutteridge and A. Hoti, ‘The walled town of Dyrrachium (Durres): new light on the early defences’, Journal of Roman Archaeology 16: 367-79. Reynolds, P. (2004). ‘The Roman pottery from the Triconch Palace’, ‘The Medie-

340

Bibliography val amphorae’ and ‘Appendix 1. Catalogue of Roman ceramics and selected medieval pottery from Butrint 1994-99’, in R. Hodges, W. Bowden and K. Lako, Byzantine Butrint: excavations and surveys 1994-99, Oxford: 224-77, 327-95. Reynolds, P. (2005a), ‘Hispania in the late Roman Mediterranean: ceramics and trade’, in K. Bowes and M. Kulikowski (eds), Hispania in Late Antiquity: current perspectives, Brill, Leiden and Boston: 369-486. Reynolds, P. (2005b), ‘Levantine amphorae from Cilicia to Gaza: a typology and analysis of regional production trends from the 1st to 7th centuries’, in Gurt, Buxeda and Cau (eds): 563-611. Reynolds, P. (2005c), ‘Cerámicas de carácter local, regional y de importación en el Valle del Vinalopó (Alicante): contribución al estudio del comercio en la tardoantigüedad en la zona sureste de España durante los siglos V a VII’, in A.M. Poveda Navarro and J.C. Márquez Villlora (eds), El espacio religioso y profano en los territorios urbanos de occidente (siglos V-VII) (Elda, April 1991), Alebus 6 (1996): 217-52. Reynolds, P. (2007), ‘Cerámica, comercio y el Imperio Romano (100-700 d.C.): perspectivas desde Hispania, África y el Mediterráneo oriental’, in Estudios de cerámica tardorromana y altomedieval (Primer Taller de Cerámica de Granada, ‘La cerámica tardorromana y altomedieval’, 28 March-1 April 2005), Universidad de Granada: 13-82. Reynolds, P. (2008), ‘Linear typologies and ceramic evolution’, FACTA, 2: 61-87. Reynolds, P. (forthcoming a), ‘A late Fatimid, early Zirid pottery assemblage’, in J. Rossiter et al. ‘Excavations at Bir Ftouha, Carthage’, Karthago. Reynolds, P. (forthcoming b), ‘Transport amphorae of the 1st to 7th centuries: early Roman to Byzantine periods’, in W. Aylward (ed.), Zeugma 2000: rescue excavations (Packard Humanities Institute, Los Altos, California). Reynolds, P. (forthcoming c), ‘Trade networks of the East, 3rd to 7th centuries: the view from Beirut (Lebanon) and Butrint (Butrint) (fine wares, amphorae and kitchen wares)’, in S. Menchelli, M. Pasquinucci and S. Santoro (eds), LRCW 3. Third International Conference on Late Roman Coarse Wares, Cooking Wares and Amphorae in the Mediterranean: archaeology and archaeometry (ParmaPisa 26-30 March 2008). Reynolds, P. (forthcoming d), ‘The Classical and early Islamic pottery’, for the final publication of the project ‘Settlement and landscape development in the Homs region’ (Durham University: Director, Graham Philip). Reynolds, P. (in preparation a), The Classical Pottery (the archaeology of the Beirut souks) (Berytus). Reynolds, P. (in preparation b), The Classical Pottery of the Triconch Palace, Butrint: a typology and catalogue. Reynolds, P. (in preparation c), The Roman Amphorae of the Athenian Agora: 1st century BC to 3rd century AD (Athenian Agora series), Princeton. Reynolds, P. (in preparation d), ‘The pottery’, in Excavations in the ‘Macellum’ of Durres, 2004-2005 (dir. J.J. Wilkes and A. Hoti). Reynolds, P. (unpublished), Aspects of the Roman Occupation of Valencia. BA Dissertation (1978), University of London. Reynolds, Hernández and Çondi (2008), P. Reynolds, D. Hernández and D. Çondi, ‘Excavations in the Roman Forum of Buthrotum (Butrint): first to third century pottery assemblages and trade’, in Rei Cretariae Fautores Acta 40 (Durres, September 2006): 71-88. Reynolds, P. and S.Y. Waksman (2007), ‘Beirut cooking wares, 2nd to 7th centuries: local forms and north Palestinian imports’, Berytus 50: 59-81.

341

Bibliography Reynolds et al. forthcoming: P. Reynolds, S.Y. Waksman, S. Lemaître, H. Curvers, M. Roumié and B. Nsouli, ‘An early Imperial Roman pottery production site in Beirut (BEY 015): chemical analyses and a ceramic typology’, Berytus 51 (2008, to be published 2010). Ricci, M. (1998), ‘La ceramica comune dal contesto di VII secolo della Crypta Balbi’, in Saguì (1998b): 351-82. Rickman, G. (1980a), The Corn Supply of Ancient Rome, Oxford. Rickman, G. (1980b), ‘The grain trade under the Roman Empire’, in J.H. D’Arms and E.C. Kopff (eds), The Seaborne Commerce of Ancient Rome: studies in archaeology and history (Memoirs of the American Academy in Rome 36), Rome: 261-75. Rigoir, J. (1968), ‘Les sigillées paléochrétiennes grises et orangées’, Gallia 26: 177-243. Rigoir, J. and J.F. Meffre (1973), ‘Les dérivées des sigillées paléochrétiennes du Groupe Atlantique’, Gallia 31: 207-63. Rigoir, J. and Y. Rigoir (1971), ‘Les dérivées des sigillées paléochrétiennes en Espagne’, Rivista di Studi Liguri 37: 33-68. Rigoir, Y. (1998), ‘Les dérivées des sigillées paléochrétiennes’, in Saguì (1998b): 101-7. Riley, J.A. (1975), ‘The pottery from the first session of excavation in the Caesarea Hippodrome’, Bulletin of the American School of Oriental Research 218: 25-63. Riley, J.A. (1979). ‘The coarse pottery from Berenice’, in J.A. Lloyd (ed.), Excavations at Sidi Khrebish, Benghazi (Berenice), 2. (Supplements to Libya Antiqua 5). Tripoli: 91-467. Riley, J.A. (1981), ‘The pottery from Cisterns 1977.1, 1977.2 and 1977.3’, in J.H. Humphrey (ed.), Excavations at Carthage 1977 Conducted by the University of Michigan, VI: 85-124, Ann Arbor. Ripoll, G. (1989), ‘Características generales del poblamiento y arqueología funeraria visigoda de Hispania’, Espacio, tiempo y forma (Serie I, Prehistoria y Arqueologia 2): 389-418. Ripoll, G. (1992), ‘Las relaciones entre la Península Ibérica y la Septimania entre los siglos V y VIII, según los hallazgos arqueológicos’, in L’Europe héritière de l’Espagne wisigothique (CCV 35), Madrid: 285-301. Ripoll, G. (1994), ‘Frena equorum: Guarniciones de frenos de caballos en la Antigüedad tardía hispánica’, Espacio, tiempo y forma (Serie I, Prehistoria y Arqueologia 7): 277-356. Ripoll, G. (1996), ‘Acerca la supuesta frontera entre el Regnum Visigothorum y la Hispania bizantina’, Pyrenae 27: 251-67. Ripoll, G. (1998), Toréutica de la bética (siglos VI y VII D.C.), Reial Acadèmia de Bones Lletres, Barcelona. Ripoll, G. (2001), ‘On the supposed frontier between the Regnum Visigothorum and Byzantine Hispania’, in W. Pohl, I. Wood and H. Reimitz (eds), The Transformation of Frontiers: From Late Antiquity to the Carolingians, Leiden, Boston and Köln: 95-115. Ripoll, G. (2003), ‘Changes to the topography of power: from civitates to urbes regiae in Hispania’, in R. Corradini, M. Diesenberger and H. Reimitz (eds), The Construction of Communities in the Early Middle Ages: texts, resources and artefacts, Leiden and Boston: 123-52. Rita, M.C. (1994), ‘Ánforas africanas del Bajo Imperio romano en el yacimiento arqueológico de Sanitja (Menorca)’, III Reunió d’Arqueologia Cristiana Hispànica, Mahón: 321-32. Rizzo, G. (2003), Instrumenta Urbis 1: ceramiche fini da mensa, lucerne ed anfore

342

Bibliography a Roma nei primi due secoli dellImpero (Collection de l’ École Française de Rome 307), Rome. Robinson, H.S. (1959), The Athenian Agora, V: pottery of the Roman period, Princeton. Roca Roumens, M. (1976), Sigillata Hispánica producida en Andújar, Jaén. Roca Roumens, M. and M.I. Fernández García (eds) (1999), Terra Sigillata Hispánica: centros de fabricación y producciones altoimperiales. Homenaje a Maria Ángeles Mezquíriz, Málaga: 269-88. Rodríguez Almeida, E. (1981), Forma Urbis Marmorea: Aggiornamento Generale 1980, Rome. Rodríguez Oliva, P. (1997), ‘Los hornos cerámicos del Faro de Torrox (Málaga)’, in Figlinae Malacitanae: la producción de cerámica romana en los territorios malacitanos, Málaga: 271-303. Roffia, E. (1991), ‘Cerámica africana’, in D. Caporusso (ed.), Scavi MM3. Ricerce di archeologia urbana a Milano durante la costruzione della linea 3 della metropolitana 1982-1990, 3.1, I Reperti, Milan: 89-105. Roldán Hervás, J.M. (1973), Itineraria Hispana. Fuentes Antiguas para el estudio de las vías romanas en la Península Ibérica, Valladolid and Granada. Rosser Limiñana, P. (1991), ‘La necrópolis romana alto-imperial del “Parque de las Naciones” (Albufereta, Alicante): estudio de alguno de sus materiales’, Lucentum 9-10: 85-102. Rosser Limiñana, P. (1994), ‘Nuevas aportaciones a la problemática de la antigüedad tardía en Alicante’, Laqt 2: 69-110. Rossiter, J.J. (1998), ‘A Roman bath-house at Bir el Jebbana, Carthage’, in J.H. Humphrey (ed.), Carthage Papers (Journal of Roman Archaeology Supplement 28): 103-14. Rostovtseff, M. (1971), The Social and Economic History of the Roman Empire, Oxford. Rougé, J. (1966), Recherches sur l’organisation du commerce maritime en Méditerranée sous l’Empire romain, Paris. Roumié, M. et al. (2004), M. Roumié, S.Y. Waksman, B. Nsouli, P. Reynolds and S. Lemaître, ‘Use of PIXE Analysis technique for the study of Beirut amphora production at the Roman Period’, Nuclear Instruments in Physics Methods B, 215: 196-202. Sackett, L.H. (1992), ‘Roman pottery’, in L.H. Sackett et al., Knossos, from Greek City to Roman Colony: Excavations at the Unexplored Mansion, II (British School at Athens Supplement 21), Oxford: 147-256. Sáenz Preciado, M.P. and C.S. Sáenz Preciado (1999), ‘Estado de la cuestión de los alfares riojanos: la terra sigillata hispánica altoimperial’, in Roca Roumens and Fernández García (eds): 61-136. Sáez Fernández, P. (1987), Agricultura romana de la Bética, I, Sevilla. Saguì, L. (1998a), ‘Il deposito della Crypta Balbi: una testimonianza imprevedibile sulla Roma del VII secolo?’, in Saguì (1998b): 305-33. Saguì, L. (ed.) (1998b), Ceramica in Italia: VI-VII secolo, Atti del Convegno in onore de John W. Hayes, Florence. Saguì, L., R. Ricci and D. Romei (1997), ‘Nuovi dati ceramologici per la storia economica di Roma tra VII e VIII secolo’, in G. Démians d’Archimbaud (ed.), La céramique médiévale en Méditerranée, Actes du 6e congrès de l’AIECM2 (Aixen-Provence, November 1998), Aix-en-Provence: 35-48. Sánchez Sánchez, M.A. (1995), ‘Producciones en la vajilla culinaria romana del Bajo Guadalquivir’, in Cerámica comuna romana d’època Alto-Imperial a la

343

Bibliography Península Ibèrica: estat de la questió (Monografies Emporitanes 8), Museu d’Arqueología de Catalunya-Empúries: 251-79. Santamaria, C. (1995), L’épave Dramont ‘E’ à Saint-Raphaël (Veme siècle ap. J.-C.) (Archaeonautica 13), Paris. Santangeli Valenzani (forthcoming), ‘Economia, società e paesaggio urbano a Roma tra V e VIII secolo’, in M. de Vos (ed.), Economic Landscape: modern methods for ancient productions (Convegno Internazionale, Trento, 29-30 aprile 2005) (British Archaeological Reports). Sazanov, A. (1997), ‘Les amphores de l’Antiquité tardive et du Haut Moyen-Age: continuité ou rupture? Le cas de la Mer Noire’, G. Démians d’Archimbaud (ed.), La céramique médiévale en Méditerranée, Actes du 6e congrès de l’AIECM2 (Aix-en-Provence, November 1998), Aix-en-Provence: 87-102. Sazanov, A. (2007), ‘Les amphores orientales d’époque protobyzantine au nord de la Mer Noire: chronologie et typologie’, in M. Bonifay and J.C. Tréglia (eds), LRCW 2. Late Roman Coarse Wares, Cooking Wares and Amphorae in the Mediterranean: archaeology and archaeometry (Aix-en-Provence, April 2005) (British Archaeological Reports, International Series 1662), Oxford: 803-15. Schulten, A. (1955), Iberische Landeskunde, vol. I, Strasbourg. Šelov, D.B. (1986), ‘Les amphores d’argile claire des premiers siècles de notre ère en mer Noire’, in J.Y. Empereur and Y. Garlan (eds), Recherches sur les amphores Grecques (Bulletin de Correspondance Hellenique, Supplément 13): 395-400. Serrano Ramos, E. (1997-8), ‘Hallazgos de terra sigillata focense tardía en territorio malacitano’, Mainake 19-20: 171-83. Seyrig, H. (1939), ‘Le cimitière des marins de Séleucie de Piérie’, in Mélanges Syriens offerts à R. Dussaud: 451-9. Siena, E., D. Troiano and V. Verrocchio (1998), ‘Ceramiche dalla Val Pescara’, in Saguì (1998b): 665-704. Sillières, P. (1977), ‘Le “Camino de Anibal”, itinéraire de gobelets de Vicarello de Castulo à Saetabis’, Mélanges de la Casa Velasquez, 13: 31-83. Sillières, P. (1988), ‘La Via Augusta de Carthago-Nova à Accis’ in A. González Blanco (ed.), Las vías romanas del Sureste (Symposium, Universidad de Murcia, October 1986), Murcia: 17-22. Sillières, P. (1990), Les voies de communication de l’Hispanie méridionale (Publications du Centre Pierre Paris 20), Paris. Sirks, B. (1991), Food for Rome: the legal structure of the transportation and processing of supplies for the Imperial distributions in Rome and Constantinople, Amsterdam. Slane, K.W. (1994), ‘Tetrarchic recovery in Corinth: pottery, lamps and other finds from the Peribolos of Apollo’, Hesperia 63 (2): 127-68. Slane, K.W. (2000), ‘East-West trade in fine wares and commodities: the view from Corinth’, in Rei Cretariae Romanae Fautorum Acta 36 (Selçuk-Ephesus, 1998), Abingdon: 299-312. Slane, K.W. (2004), ‘Amphoras – used and reused – at Corinth’, in Eiring and Lund (eds): 361-9. Slane, K.W. and G.D.R. Sanders (2005), ‘Corinth: Late Roman horizons’, Hesperia 74.2: 243-97. Slim, L. et al. (1999). L. Slim, M. Bonifay and P. Trousset, ‘L’usine de salaison de Neapolis (Nabeul). Premiers résultats des fouilles, 1995-1998’, Africa 17: 15397. Slim et al. (2004). H. Slim, P. Trousset, R. Paskoff and A. Oueslati, Le littoral de

344

Bibliography la Tunisie: étude géoarchéologique et historique (Études dAntiquités Africaines), Paris. Sodini, J.P. et al. (1980), ‘Déhès (Syrie du Nord), Campagnes I-III (1976-1978): recherches sur lhabitat rurale’, Syria 57: 1-302. Sodini, J.P. (1989), ‘Le commerce des marbres à l’époque protobyzantine’, in J. Lefort and C. Morrisson (eds), Hommes et richesses dans l’Empire byzantin, IVe-VIIe siécle, Paris: 163-86. Soricelli, G.L. (1994), ‘Terra sigillata della prima, media e tarda età imperiale’, in P. Arthur (ed.), Il complesso archeologico di Carminiello ai Mannesi, Napoli (Scavi 1983-1984) (Collana del Dipartimento [di Beni Culturali, settore StoricoArqueológico], Università di Lecce 7), Galatina: 110-68. Steckner, C. (1989), ‘Les amphores LR 1 et LR 2 en relation avec le pressoir du complexe ecclésiastique des thermes de Samos’, in Recherches sur la céramique Byzantine (Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique, Supplément 18), École Française d’Athènes: 57-71. Stirling, L., D.J. Mattingly and N. Ben Lazreg (2001), Leptiminus (Lamta), Report 2 (Journal of Roman Archaeology, Supplement 41). Stoppioni Piccoli, M.L. (1983), ‘Le anfore’, in G. Bermond Montanari, (ed.), Ravenna e il porto di Classe, Bologna University Press: 130-46. Swain, S., S. Harrison and J. Elsner (eds) (2007), Severan Culture, Cambridge and New York. Swan, V. (2004), ‘Dichin (Bulgaria) and the supply of amphorae to the Lower Danube in the late Roman-early Byzantine period’, in Eiring and Lund (eds): 371-82. Swan, V. (2007), ‘Dichin (Bulgaria): the fifth- and sixth-century destruction deposits, and their implications for ceramic chronology’, in M. Bonifay and J.C. Tréglia (eds), LRCW 2. Late Roman Coarse Wares, Cooking Wares and Amphorae in the Mediterranean: archaeology and archaeometry (Aix-en-Provence, April 2005) (British Archaeological Reports, International Series 1662), Oxford: 835-44. Tate, G. (1992), Les campagnes de la Syrie du Nord du IIe au VIIe siècle: un exemple d’expansion démographique et économique dans les campagnes à la fin de l’Antiquité, Paris. Teall, J.L. (1959), ‘The grain supply of the Byzantine Empire, 330-1025’, Dumbarton Oaks Papers 13: 87-139. Tchalenko, G. (1953), Villages antiques de la Syrie du Nord. Le Massif du Bélus à l’époque romaine (Institut Français d’Archéologie de Beyrouth. Bibliothèque Arquéologique et Historique 50), Paris. Tchernia, A. (1986), Le vin de l’Italie romaine: essai d’histoire économique d’après les amphores (Bibliothèques des Écoles Françaises d’Athènes et de Rome 261), Rome. TED’A (Taller-Escola d’Arqueologia) (1989), Un abocador del segle V d.C. en el forum provincial de Tarraco (Memòries d’excavació 2), Tarragona. Thomas, C. (1981), A Provisional List of Imported Pottery in Post-Roman Western Britain and Ireland, Redruth. Thompson, E.A. (1969), The Goths in Spain, Oxford. Timby, J. (2004), ‘Amphorae from excavations at Pompeii by the University of Reading’, in Eiring and Lund (eds): 383-92. Tomber, R. (1986), ‘Pottery from the south side of the circular Harbour’, Bulletin du Centre de Documentation Archéologique de la Conservation de Carthage 7: 34-58. Tomber, R. (1989). ‘Pottery from the 1982-1983 excavations’, in J.H. Humphrey, (ed.), The Circus and a Byzantine Cemetery at Carthage, I, Ann Arbor: 437-528.

345

Bibliography Tomber, R. (1998), ‘ “Laodicean” wine containers in Roman Egypt’, in O.E. Kaper (ed.), Life on the Fringe: living in the Southern Egyptian deserts during the Roman and early-Byzantine periods, Leiden: 213-20. Tomber, R. (1999), ‘Pottery from the sediments of the Inner Harbour (area 114)’, in K.G. Holum, A. Raban and J. Patrich (eds), Caesarea Papers 2: Herod’s temple, the provincial governor’s praetorium and granaries, the later harbor, a gold coin hoard and other studies (Journal of Roman Archaeology, Supplementary Series 35), Portsmouth: 295-322. Tomber, R. (2004), ‘Amphorae from the Red Sea and their contribution to the interpretation of Late Roman trade beyond the Empire’, in Eiring and Lund (eds): 393-402. Tomber, R. (2005), ‘The pottery’, in V.A. Maxfield and D.P.S. Peacock (eds), Survey and Excavations: Mons Claudianus 1987-1993, vol. III: Ceramic Vessels and Related Objects from Mons Claudianus (Fouilles de l’IFAO 54), Cairo: 1-236. Tortorella, S. (1998), ‘La sigillata africana in Italia nel VI e nel VII secolo d.C.: problemi di cronologia e distribuzione’, in Saguì (1998b): 41-69. Toskay Evrin, Ç. (2005), ‘The cooking wares of the Romans discovered during the excavations at the Republic Square in Tarsus, Cilicia’, in Gurt, Buxeda and Cau (eds): 681-9. Treadgold, W. (1997), A History of the Byzantine State and Society, Stanford. Tréglia, J.C. (2005a), ‘Importations de céramiques communes de Mer Egée et de Constantinople en Gaule méridionale durant l’Antiquité tardive (IVe-VIIe S.)’, in Gurt, Buxeda and Cau (eds): 299-310. Tréglia, J.C. (2005b), ‘Le produzioni galliche di media e tarda etá imperiale: sigillata chiara B, lucente, e ceramica grigia-arancione (dérivées des sigillées paléochrétiennes)’, in D. Gandolfi (ed.), La ceramica e i materiali di età romana: classi, produzioni, commerci e consumi (Quaderni della Scuola Interdisciplinare delle Metodologie Archeologiche 2), Bordighera: 251-8. Tyers, P. (1996), Roman Pottery in Britain, London. Uscatescu Barrón, A. (2003), ‘Report on the Levant pottery (5th-9th century AD)’, in the table-ronde ‘De Rome à Byzance; de Fostat à Cordoue. Evolution des faciès céramiques en Méditerranée, Ve-IXe siècles’, in VIIème Congrès International sur la Céramique Médiévale en Méditerranée (Thessaloniki, 11-16 October 1999), Thessaloniki: 546-58. Uscatescu Barrón, A. et al. (1993), ‘Nuevas aportaciones sobre producciones regionales de la Antigüedad Tardía procedentes de Gijón (Asturias)’, in Congreso Nacional de Arqueología 22: 111-18. Uscatescu (Barrón), A. et al. (1994), A. Uscatescu, C. Fernández Ochoa and P. García Díaz, ‘Producciones atlánticas de terra sigillata gálica tardía en la costa cantábrica de Hispania’, Cuadernos de Prehistoria y Arqueología 21: 183-233. Vallvé, J. (1986), La división territorial de la España musulmana, Instituto de Filología, CSIC. Madrid. Vegas, M. (1973), La cerámica común romana del Mediterráneo occidental (Instituto de Arqueología y Prehistoria. Publicaciones Eventuales 22), Barcelona. Veyne, P. (1976), Bread and Circuses: historical sociology and political pluralism (English translation 1990, London). Vidrih Perko, V. (2005), ‘Seaborne trade routes in the north-east Adriatic and their connections to the hinterland in Late Antiquity’, in G. Brogiolo and P. Delogu (eds), L’Adriatico dalla Tarda Antichità all’ età Carolingia (Atti del convegno di studio, Brescia 11-13 ottobre 2001), Florence: 49-73.

346

Bibliography v

v

v

Vidrih Perko, V. and M. Zupancic (2005), ‘Amphorae in western Slovenia and in northern Istra’, in Gurt, Buxeda and Cau (eds): 521-36. Villaverde Vega, N. (2000). ‘Ánforas para salazones de Mauretania Tingitana’, in Congreso Internacional ‘Ex Baetica Amphorae’ (Sevilla-Écija, December 1998), Écija: 901-24. Villedieu, F. (1984), Turris Libisonis (British Archaeological Reports, International Series 224), Oxford. Vipard, P. (1995), ‘Les amphores “carottes” (Forme Schöne-Mau XV): état de la question’, Actes du Congrès de Rouen (1995) (Société Française d’Étude de la Céramique Antique en Gaule), Marseille: 51-77. Vnukov, S.Y. (2004), ‘Pan-Roman amphora types produced in the Black Sea region’, in Eiring and Lund (eds): 407-15. Vokaer, A. (2005), ‘Typological and technological study of brittle ware in Syria’, in Gurt, Buxeda and Cau (eds): 697-709. Volpe, G. et al. (2007), G. Volpe, C. Annese, G. Disantarosa and D. Leone, ‘Ceramiche e circolazione delle merci in Apulia fra Tardoanticho e Altomedioevo’, in S. Gelichi and C. Negrelli (eds), La circolazione delle ceramiche nell’Adriatico tra tarda antichità e altomedioevo, Mantua, 353-74. Waksman, Y. et al. (2005a), Y. Waksman, P. Reynolds, J.C. Tréglia and S. Bien, ‘A major production of late Roman “Levantine” and “Cypriot” common wares’, in Gurt, Buxeda and Cau (eds): 311-25. Waksman, Y. et al. (2005b), Y. Waksman, M. Roumié, S. Lemaître, B. Nsouli and P. Reynolds, ‘Une production d’amphores “carottes” à Beyrouth à l’époque romaine?’, La Revue d’Archéométrie 27 (2003: published 2005), 95-102. Waliszewski, T. (1999), ‘Chhîm. Explorations, 1998’, in Polish Archaeology in the Mediterranean 10, Reports 1998, Polish Centre of Mediterranean Archaeology, Warsaw University: 177-85. Waliszewski, T. and R. Ortali-Tarazi (2002), ‘Village romain et byzantin à ChhîmMarjiyat: rapport préliminaire (1996-2002)’, Bulletin d’Archéologie et d’Architecture Libanaises 6: 5-105. Ward-Perkins, J.B. (1951), ‘Tripolitania and the marble trade’, Journal of Roman Studies 41: 89-104. Ward-Perkins, J.B. (1980), ‘Nicomedia and the marble trade’, Papers of the British School at Rome 43: 23-69. Whitehouse, D. et al. (1982), D. Whitehouse, G. Barker, R. Reece and D. Reese, ‘The Schola Praeconum I: the coins, pottery, lamps and fauna’, Papers of the British School at Rome 50: 53-101. Whittaker, C.R. (1983), ‘Late Roman trade and traders’, in P. Garnsey, K. Hopkins and C.R. Whittaker, Trade in the Ancient Economy, London: 163-80. Will, E.L. (1983), ‘Exportation of olive oil from Baetica to the eastern Mediterranean’, in J.M. Blázquez and J. Remesal Rodríguez (eds), Producción y comercio del aceite en la antigüedad 2 (Sevilla), Universidad Complutense de Madrid: 391-440. Will, E.L. (2004), ‘Mediterranean amphorae in India’, in Eiring and Lund (eds): 433-40. Williams, D.F. (1997), ‘Amphorae’, in J. Monaghan, The Archaeology of York, 16. The Pottery, Fasc. 8: Roman pottery from York (Council for British Archaeology), York: 967-75. Williams, D.F. (2004), ‘The eruption of Vesuvius and its implications for the early Roman amphora trade with India’, in Eiring and Lund (eds): 441-50. Williams, D.F. (2005), ‘An integrated archaeometric approach to ceramic fabric

347

Bibliography recognition: a case study on Late Roman Amphora 1 from the eastern Mediterranean’, in Gurt, Buxeda and Cau (eds): 613-24. Williams, D.F. and C. Carreras [Monfort] (1995), ’North African amphorae in Roman Britain a reappraisal’, Britannia 26: 231-52. Williams, D.F. and D.P.S. Peacock (1983), ‘The importation of olive-oil into Roman Britain’, in J.M. Blazquez and J. Remesal Rodríguez (eds), Producción y comercio del aceite en la antigüedad 2 (Sevilla), Universidad Complutense de Madrid: 263-80. Wilson, R.J.A. (1990), Sicily under the Roman Empire: the archaeology of a Roman province, 36 BC-AD 535, Warminster. Wolff, S.R. (2004), ‘Punic amphoras in the eastern Mediterranean’, in Eiring and Lund (eds): 451-57. Wolfram, H. (1988), History of the Goths, Berkeley, CA; translation from original German version. Yacoub, M (1988), ‘Verres romains representés sur mosaïques et fresques de Tunisie’, Africa 10: 254-92. Zevi, F. and A. Tchernia (1969), ‘Amphores de Byzacene au Bas-Empire’, Antiquités Africaines 3: 173-214.

348

Index This index is divided into two parts, the first covering principal subjects and wider themes, as well as people and provinces. The second part comprises solely places (not provinces). References in bold type to Figures, Maps and Tables are given to help the reader find key illustrations and locate data in the tables for specific sites, in the latter case often spread across several tables. As some notes are quite lengthy, the page number (in brackets) is included for some entries. 1. Subjects, themes and people Africa Proconsularis: economic development, 14, 17, 18, 24, 69, 74, 138; see also annona civica; fine wares, ARS; fish and fish sauce: Tunisia African Red Slip ware: see fine wares Albinus: 24, 30 amphora forms: ‘A base plana’: 52-3, n.190 Adamscheck RC-22/‘Ikarian’: 99, 154, n.376, n.473 ‘A fondo ombelicato’/Bonifay Type Globulaire 1-4: 130, 134, n.482, Fig. 25; SE Spanish-Balearic, 115, n.417; Hispanic?, in Valencia, 129, n.480; Hispanic, in Benalúa, 115, 117; in the Balearics, n.457, n.458 Agora F 65/66/‘early-proto LRA 3’: 49, 50, n.57, n.125 (Athens), n.152 (Beirut) Agora K 109: n.212 Agora M 334: 50, 82, 83, 86, 141, n.494 (typology); latest exports of, 126, 133, 152, n.273 (depicted on mosaic?) Apulian: 45 Aqaba: n.400 (Iskandil Burnu wreck) Augst 46-47: 73, 141, n.152, n.273 Beirut amphora: 50, 90-1, 103, 137, n.170, n.400 Beirut ‘carrot’ amphora/Schöne-Mau 15; 73, n.273 Beltrán II: 40, n.33, n.89, n.150, n.170 Beltrán 68: 41 and n.147 (production at Puente Melchor); 42, 44, 51, 52, 72, n.48, n.170; on the Cabrera III wreck, 31, 42, 53, n.118; sources and

349

contents, 53, n.170, n.193, n.212; Fig. 4f, Fig. 6d Beltrán 72: 40, 42, n.152, n.210, Fig. 4e; on the Cabrera III wreck, n.118, n.150 Bonifay Type 52: 130 Calabrian: 51, 88-9, 130, 134, n.324, n.469; see also (in this entry) Keay 52 Carteia I: n.210 Chersonesos: 128, 154 Colchester 105: 73, n.273 Cretan: 49-50, 54, 71-3, 83, 85, 88, 141, 154, n.33, n.152, n.195, n.313, n.473 Dressel 2-4: Hispanic, 14, 52-3, n.56, n.112, n.162, n.200, n.206; Campanian, 28, n.33, n.95 Dressel 20: 32, 40, 77, 145, n.33, n.56, n.100, n.113 (Culip IV), n.117 (Milan), n.147 (Puente Melchor), n.153 (Butrint); in York, 25, n.80; in NE Spain, n.100; in the East, 27-8, 71 (Danube), 80 (Caesarea), n.83 (Danube), n.90, n.170; in Beirut, 27-8, n.91; in Santa Pola, 29, 53, n.97, n.134; in Pisa, n.102; in Portugal, 29, n.103, n.209; n.113; on the Cabrera III wreck, 31-2, n.118; Benghazi, 89; Punta Ala B, n.118; Map 5, Fig. 3, Fig. 4a; see also olive oil; Monte Testaccio Dressel 20 imitations: 30, 144, n.78, n.85, n.109 Dressel 20 parva: 17, 31-2, n.33, n.118, Fig. 3 Dressel 23/Keay 13: 32, 34, 45, 79, 114, n.33 (Rome); in Gaul, 36, n.124

Index amphora forms (contd) (Arles), n.173 (Marseille); in Spain, 37, 112-14, 149, n.97, n.134, n.135, n.321, n.354; Britannia, 25, 149, n.80, n.81; Tintagel, nn.392 and 412; the East, 28, 80 (Caesarea); the Danube, 71, n.83; Mainz, n.78; Benghazi, n.89; Femmina Morta, n.40; Cabrera III, n.118; Punta Ala B, n.118; Port-Vendres I, n.121; Milan, n.127; Albania, n.153; Map 5, Fig. 3, Fig. 5a Dressel 24/Knossos 18: 28, 50, 83; as an oil container, 28, 73, n.33, n.96 Dressel 28: 14, n.190 Empoli: 88-9, n.48, n.153, n.324; Fig. 6f Forlimpopuli/N Italian: 71-2, 140, n.153, n.324; Fig. 6e Gauloise 4: 30, n.33 (oil container), n.205; as a typological model, 51-2, 54, n.147, n.193, n.206, n.212; Fig. 6b Haltern 70: 53, 143, n.209 (contents); in Portugal, 53, n.82, n.209; in Spain, n.209; in the East, n.152, n.170 Kapitän 1: 49, 72-3, 83, n.187 Kapitän 2: 49, 54, 71-3, 83, 90, 109, 141-2, 154, n.217, n.272 (p.267); Black Sea, not Aegean origin suggested, n.187, n.212 Keay 1 (Mauretanian): 21, 33, 51, 54-5, 142, 145, 158, n.48, n.57, n.124, n.206, n.220; production and contents, n.193, n.212; Fig. 6c Keay 3: n.30, n.33, n.42, n.48, n.57, n.122, n.291, n.322; contents, n.41, n.331; Fig. 2a Keay 4-7: 26, 48 (imitations), n.41, n.42; 4th c. dating, 77, n.54 (Ostia and Porto Torres), n.124 (Arles) Keay 4: 19, 26, n.33, n.42; contents, n.41, n.331; imitations of, n.147 Keay 5bis: as fish container, n.41; as oil container, n.331 Keay 6: 77, 113, n.48, n.124, n.291, n.322; the Femmina Morta, n.40; the Cabrera III, n.118, n.122; imitation of, n.147, n.155; Fig. 4g Keay 7: 48 (imitations), 77, n.48, n.124, n.291, n.322; on the Femmina Morta, n.40; on the Cabrera III, n.118, n.122; Fig. 2b Keay 8A/Bonifay 50: 130, n.41, n.376, n.402; Fig. 25e Keay 8B: 93, 128, n.331, n.476, n.477

350

Keay 10: 76 Keay 11: 75, n.76, n.328 Keay 16: 36, 41-3, 72, 79, 113-14, 140, 149, n.33, n.48, n.89, n.90, n.147, n.148, n.151, n.152, n.155, n.162, n.164, n.170, n.184, n.319, n.321, n.414; 43 (4th c. dating, absent in Beirut); on the Cabrera III wreck, 31, n.118, n.150; on the Port-Vendres I wreck, n.121; stamps and production sites, n.150; Tintagel, related form?, n.392, n.412; Fig. 4c Keay 19: 40, 43, 45-6, 48, 113-14, n.124, n.137, n.158; n.160, n.162, n.168, n.170, n.173, n.354, n.411; sources, 43, n.158, n.159; Fig. 5c Keay 22: 41, 114, n.33, n.150, n.412 Keay 23/Almagro 51C: 36, 40, 41, 43-5, 53, 79, 113-14, 143, n.40, n.48, n.124, n.135, n.147, n.148, n.146, n.162, n.168, n.170, n.173, n.193, n.354, n.405, n.411; on the Cabrera III wreck, 23, 41, n.118; on the Port-Vendres I wreck, n.121; Fig. 4d, Fig. 5b Keay 24: 20, 75, 85, 89, n.279; fabric, n.328 Keay 25: 20, 26, 32, 33, 38, 44-5, 48, 76, 78, 109, 115, 137, 144, n.40 (Femmina Morta), n.41, n.57, n.74, n.124 (Arles), n.127, n.166, n.282, n.283 (start date), n.291, n.322, n.376, n.377, n.408; imitations of, 48, 115, 143; contents, n.331, n.444. Fig. 2c, Fig. 20b-c Keay 25/26: 127, n.408, contents, n.331, n.444 Keay 27: 20, 113, n.124, n.322, n.331 (contents); Fig. 2d Keay 30bis: 113, 116, n.158, n.162, n.168 Keay 31: 116, n.323 Keay 35: 20, 93, 102, 113, 115, n.48, n.127, n.314, n.320, n.354, Fig. 16a; contents, n.331; imitation of?, Fig. 20a Keay 36: 113, n.127, n.321, n.331 (contents), n.354 Keay 40: n.322 Keay 40/41: n.322 Keay 41: 48, n.57 (contents) Keay 50/Bonifay 51: 130, n.461, n.482; Fig. 25f Keay 52: 51, 75, 89, 90-1, 113, 127,

Index amphora forms (contd) 145, n.124, n.125, n.195, n.324, n.325, n.326, n.327, n.376, n.415; precursors, 51; Fig. 6g Keay 55: 128, n.351, n.371, n.379 Keay 56: 93, 128, n.457 Keay 57: 93, 113, 128, n.333 Keay 59: 93, 128, 331 (contents), n.477 Keay 61: 124, 129, 130, n.127, n.331 (contents), n.376, n.377, n.402, n.417, n.436 (p.299), n.438, n.443, n.454, n.471, n.472. Fig. 23a (Keay 61D) Keay 62: 86-7, 94, 101, 108, 124, 128-9, 137, 147, n.127, n.314, n.319, n.331 (contents), n.334, n.354, n.356, n.371, n.376, n.377, n.379, n.411, n.417, n.443, n.471, n.476; Fig. 16b, Fig. 23a, Fig. 25d Keay 68/91: 48, 53, 88, 112, 143, n.409; Fig. 5d Keay 70/Balearic: 115-16, 118, n.421 Keay 78: 41, 43, n.156 Keay 79/Balearic: 66, 113, 115-16, 118, 122, n.322, n.379, n.446, n.454; distribution, 116, n.422; Fig. 21c-f Keay Period I amphora forms (Keay 3-7): 19, 20-1, 32, 46, 136, 138, n.41, n.42, n.57, n.118, n.206, n.282, n.291; Fig. 2 Keay Period II amphora forms: 20, 76-7, n.57, n.282, n.291 Keay Period III amphora forms: n.369 Kingsholm 117: 73, n.273 Late Roman Amphora (LRA) 1-7 in general: 2-3, 108, 136, n.53, Fig. 12; Vinalopó Valley, n.389; NW Hispania, n.392; post-Roman, British Isles, Table 20, Table 21 (Tintagel); n.392 LRA 1: 36, 45, 50 (Pompeii 5), 72 (proto-LRA 1), 82, 86-7, 90, 98, 99, 103, 106-11, 113, 118, 121, 123, 126-9, 131-3, 137, 141, 148, 152-4, n.125, n.152 (p.252), n.170, n.174, n.272 (p.266), n.275, n.296, n.301, n.319, n.321, n.322, n.386, n.392, n.398, n.401, n.451, n.454, n.467, n.469, n.471, n.473, n.476, n.490, n.491, n.500; development, origins and contents, 82, n.300, Fig. 14; and LRA 2, as annona goods in the East, n.275, n.473 (Butrint); redistribution via Alexandria?, 398 LRA 2: 99 (production sites), 103, 107, 109-11, 118, 121, 123, 127, 128,

131-2, 146, 148, 153, 154, n.272 (p.266), n.275 (p.271), n.322, n.376, n.389, n.392, n.398, n.399, n.454, n.469, n.471, 473, n.491; and LRA 1, as annona goods in the East, n.275, n.473; in Beirut, n.399 LRA 3: 86, 90, 99, 106, 109, 137, 146, 148, n.124, n.125, n.152, n.376, n.389, n.392, n.427, n.454, n.469; containing wine as tax in Athens, n.125; see also (in this entry) Agora F 65/66 (proto LRA 3) LRA 4, Gazan: 36, 82, 86-8, 90, 99, 106-7, 109, 111, 121, 125-6, 131-4, 138, 148, 152, n.124, n.316, n.319, n.322, n.376, n.349, n.392, n.491 (literary references to wine), n.307 LRA 5, ‘bag-shaped’, Pieri 3: 82, 84, 91, 99, 106, 111, 121, 125-7, 131-4, 141, 148, 152, n.376, n.386, n.400, n.466, n.471, n.493; Fig. 12, Fig. 27b and e (Umayyad) LRA 6, ‘Black Beth Shan’: 106, 148, n.402, Fig. 27c (Umayyad) LRA 13: 123, 132-4, 152, n.465, n.469, n.471, n.476 (Yassi Ada), n.490 (Cypriot), n.493 (Beirut); Fig. 26, Fig. 27g (Egyptian) Lusitana 9: 40-1, n.150 (Cabrera III), n.414, Fig. 5e Matagallares I: 20, 51, 53, n.124 (Arles); in Lyon, Table 6a Mid Roman Amphora 1 (MRA 1): 33, 51, 54, 75, 89, 145, n.70, n.125, n.196, n.279; depicted on mosaics, 50, n.191; production sites, n.195; Fig. 6a North Lebanese: 141, n.152, n.189 Oberaden 74: 52, n.190 Oliva 3: 30, n.109 Opait, Type B: n.272 (p.266) Ostia XXIII: n.33; n.36 Ostia LIX: n.33; n.36 Pascual 1: 14, n.112, n.200 Pelichet 46: n.127 Pompeii 5 (Schöne-Mau 5): 50, 72, 82, 141, n.190, n.300 Remolà Tipo Tardío A (Late Cretan): n.313 Remolà Tipo Tardío C (Calabrian?): n.324, Fig. 6h Remolà Tipo Tardío D (related to Keay 52): n.324 Remolà Tipo Tardío F (Lusitanian?): n.411

351

Index amphora forms (contd) Reynolds AM 14: 82 Reynolds Ware 4.1 (Ibizan): 115, n.322, n.357, n.419; Fig. 21a-b Samian: 99, 109, 112, 129, 153, 154, n.272 (p.266), n.469, n.473; in Butrint, 154, n.473 Samos cistern type: 109, 127, 129, 131, 152, n.272 (p.266), n.376, n.392, n.471, n.473; Fig. 12; Samian LRA 2, 110, n.392 Schöne-Mau 35 (Tripoli, Libya): 18, n.35, n.36, n.328 Spatheia/Bonifay Types 31-33/Keay 26: Tunisian, 112, 119, 121-2, 124, 128, 130, 153, n.41, n.376, n.402, n.438, n.443, n.444, n.445, n.454, n.460, n.471, 476, 477; contents, n.331, n.444; fabrics, n.444; Spanish, 48, 114, 115 Syrian calcareous amphorae: 131, n.272 (p.269), n.275 (p.271), n.487 Tarraconensian (wine): 3, 5, 9, 24, 30, 44, 49, 51, 52, 55, 142, n.56, n.75, n.102, n.152, n.162, n.190, n.201, n.358; see also (in this entry) Keay 89/91 Tejarillo I: 31-2, n.33, n.118, Fig. 4b Tripolitanian: 99, n.33; n.35; n.76, n.167; fabrics, n.328; contents, n.331; see also (in this entry) Schöne-Mau 35, Keay 10, Keay 11, Keay 24; and olive oil: Tripolitanian unclassified types: 88, 102, 113, 151, n.118, n.313, n.317, n.411 Visigothic and Arab period amphorae in SE Spain: 134, 155, n.495, Fig. 28d, Fig. 30 Zeest 72-73; 42, 71, n.212 Zeest 80: 42, n.212 amphorae, reused: n.33 amphora stamps: on Tunisian, 21, 77, n.151; on Mauretanian Keay 1, n.193; on Tripolitanian, n.76; on Baetican oil amphorae, 25, 31, 32, n.80, n.88, n.90, n.118; on Keay 16, n.118, n.150, n.151; on Oberaden 74, n.203; on Keay 52, 89 annona civica: of Rome, 18, 74-5, 153, n.31, n.33, n.99, n.275, n.276; of Constantinople, 23, 74-5, 82, n.272, n.275 annona militaris: in the West and decline as a market, 24-7, 144, n.85;

in the East, 83 (Aegean), 153-5, especially n.272, see also nn.275, 292 (navicularii), n.298 (Syria), dux Orientis relocated to Salamis, 132 annona sales to the State, n.292; annona surpluses sold off, 17-18, 24, 31, 34-5, 70, 138, n.33 Augustus: 12 (and Spain), 42, 75, n.33 (Rome grain supply), n.99 Aurelian: and the annona, 32-5, n.31, n.33, n.272 (Palmyra); and wine, 51, 145, n.125, n.194; and Dacia, 73, 265, n.272, Aurelian Wall: 31-2, 34, 74, 145, n.31 Balearic Islands: Map 1; fine wares, 20 (Ibiza), 59 and 96 (Gallic), n.290, n.356, n.433 (LRC); Vandal imports, 92, 94-6, 101; Byzantine imports, 152, n.456; amphora imports, 89, 123 (Sanitja); cooking ware imports, 118, 151, n.434; wine production and distribution, 52, 89, 96, 104, 113, 115-16, 118-19, 122-3, 126, 128-9, 134, 150, n.377, n.419 (Alicante); n.445, n.446, n.458; local plain wares, 40, 63, 104, 115, 151, nn.140, 377, 480; central role in redistribution, 89-90 (to Tarragona), 96, 111, 117-18, 123, 126, 128-30, 134, 150-1, n.118 (Cabrera III, Punta Ala B), n.358 (Tarraconensian wine), n.424; Vandal conquest, n.330; Byzantine conquest of, 116, 122-3, n.424, n.455; Arab conquest, 123, 134, n.456; Arab irrigation, n.12; see also amphora forms: Keay 70, Keay 79, Reynolds Ware 4.1; Fig. 21, Fig 23b; Pollentia Barbarian kingdoms: 92; see Iberian Peninsula: Hispania; Ostrogoths; Vandals; Visigoths beer: 54, 143, n.221 bishoprics: 87, 121, n.330, n.436, n.440 Britain/Britannia: military and urban markets: 13, 16, 19, 25-7, 29, 33, 47, 53, 54, 73, 77-9, 88, 137, 139, 143-5, n.85, n.95, n.145, n.273 (carrot amphorae, et al.); abandonment of Roman province, 69, 88; post-Roman trade, 48, 57, 59, 69, 88, 92, 97-8, 100, 105-11, 113, 118, 123, 136, 148-9, 151-2, n.363, n.392, n.459 Byzantine reconquests (in the West): 95, 100, n.424; in Hispania, 116, 120-3,

352

Index 155, n.435, n.455; Byzantine ‘territories’ in Hispania, n.436, n.437, n.438 (Tolmo de Minateda), n.440; in the Balearics, 123, nn.424, 455, 456; Byzantine pottery distribution in Hispania (116-19, 120-3), in general (69, 124-30, n.424); late Vandal v. Byzantine forms, 104, 122, n.370; Byzantine ship (La Palud), 111; amphora forms, 115-16 (Balearic); Spanish assemblages of c. 621/625, n.442; see also annona; pottery; trade and redistribution; Cartagena; Luni; Málaga; Naples; San Antonino di Perti Caesar: 12, n.33 Caracalla: 24, 30-1, 41, 140, n.6, n.76 Caria: n.272, n.275 Carpathian fleet: n.275 Carthaginiensis: 47-8, 78, 92, n.6, n.330 centuriation: 8-9, 12, n.7, n.13, n.14, n.51 cerámica anaranjada fina: 65 cerámica común bruñida: 63, 150, Map 9 cerámica de Avelar: 65 cerámica dorada Cluniense: 64 cerámica engobada: 64 Church: see trade Claudius: n.33 Comenciolus (magister militum Spaniae): n.435, n.450 comes Orientis, at Antioch: n.275 (p.271), n.298 Commodus: 95, 139, n.33, n.40 Constantine I: 74, 81, n.275, n.292, n.298 Constantius: n.6, n.124, n.272, n.276, n.298 cooking wares (handmade and slow wheelmade): in the Balearics: n.434 Late Roman Cooking Ware II (LRCW II): 89, 118, 151, origins, n.329, n.424, Fig. 19g Late Roman Cooking Ware III (LRCW III): 118, 151, n.424, Fig. 19h Late Roman Cooking Ware IV, V and VI: 118, n.142, Fig. 19i-k Pantellerian Ware: 24, 89, 118, Fig. 19f Reynolds Handmade Ware 7: 64, Fig. 19a-b Reynolds Handmade Ware 8 (Murcian): 64, Fig. 19c-d cooking wares (wheelmade): Aegean-Phocean: 23, 54, 82, 88, 92, 97,

102, 104, 106, 111, 117-19, 122-3, 148, 151, n.142, n.303, n.365, n.372, n.379, n.426, n.447, n.467, n.485 (Tarragona); Ravenna, 103, n.375; Marseille harbour shipwreck, n.63; Durres finds, and Adriatic shipwrecks carrying cargoes of, n.303 Campanian: n.25; Marseille harbour shipwreck, n.63; see also (in this entry) Pompeian Red Ware ‘E Ware’ (Bordeaux): 109 Egyptian: n.467, n.486 Levantine ‘brittle’ wares; Workshop X (North Palestinian brittle ware): 103, 118, 125-6, 131-2, 148, n.272 (p.266), n.447, n.466, n.467, n.485, Fig. 24b; Syrian brittle wares, n.272 (pp.267, 269) mortaria/flanged bowls: n.142, n.272 (266), n.455; Tunisian, 40, 104, 129, 151, n.142, n.379, n.402, n.438, n.447; Gallic fine ware, 58 Pompeian Red Ware: 15, 24, 28, 54, n.25, n.63 Republican: 15, n.25 Reynolds Ware 2 (Murcia-Cartagena): 122, n.436, n.449, Table 22 Reynolds Ware 5/Tarraconensian: 150, Table 22, Fig. 19e Reynolds Ware 6: 98, 103, 118-19, 125, 151, n.375, n.434, n.473; Table 22, Fig. 18e-g Reynolds Ware 11g/Limyran/Lycian: 103, 117-19, 122, n.411, n.426, Fig. 18c-d Tunisian: 15-16, 19, 20-3, 44, 56-7, 62, 77, 79, 85, 88, 90, 101-2, 104, 106, 122, 125, 129, 130, 138-9, 150-1, n.25; n.43; n.44; n.49; n.51, n.57, n.66, n.296, n.372, n.447, n.480, n.481; in Marseille shipwreck, n.63; imitations of ARS cooking wares, 20, n.50; Fig. 1; see also (in this entry) mortaria: Tunisian cooking wares, specific forms: Constantinopolitan/Saraçhane: 129, 131-2, 153, n.485, Fig. 24a-c Fulford Bowl 35: Fig. 18g; see also cooking wares (wheelmade): Reynolds Ware 6 Fulford Casserole 12: 129, 130, n.417, n.456, n.480 Fulford Casserole 35/Reynolds Ware

353

Index 7-8: 106, 119, 122, n.372, n.375, n.426, n.447, n.467, Fig. 18a Fulford Casserole 37: n.467 Fulford Dish 5: 118, 122, n.142, n.379, n.426, n.447, Fig. 18b Fulford Mortar 3: 129, n.142, n.438, n.447 sliced-rim casseroles: N. Palestinian, 106, n.467, Fig. 24b; Egyptian, 131, n.486 Corsica: n.330, n.335 Crimea/Crimean amphorae: 42, 71-3, 90, 153-4, n.187, n.212; see also Black Sea Dacia: 73 Diocletian: 142; visit to Egypt, n.272; Carthaginiensis, 48, 78, 143, n.6; 51 (Diocese of Italy), 74 (Oriens), 144 (Gaul), n.278 (Tripolitania); Price Edict, 83, n.306; 275 (p.270) (annona civica); army command structure, 276; n.298 (Antioch) dried fruit: from Phoenicia, 73, 141, n.273; see also amphora forms: Augst 46-47, Beirut ‘carrot’ amphora, Colchester 105 dux Orientis: 132 Elagabulus: 30-1, n.115 Epirus: 73, 101, 127, n.473 Euric: n.330 Expositio Totius Mundi: n.124, n.195, n.272 (p.269), n.298, n.306 fine wares (table-wares), specific wares: African Red Slip Ware (ARS): ARS and metal ware, 56, 58, 60, 65, 150, n.224, n.336; and dating of t. s. hispánica tardía, 60-3, n.242-3; and Conimbriga wares, 65 ARS dating problems: 3rd and 4th c., n.48, n.52, n.54, n.58, n.290; pre-Vandal v. Vandal, 85-6, n.314, n.332-3, n.335; n.338, n.351 (Tarragona); Vandal v. Byzantine, n.369, n.370 ARS A: n.24; later end dates for ARS A forms, n.40; n.48, n.57, n.58 ARS A/D, 20-2, 136, 140, n.52, n.57 ARS C, 18, 20-2, 28, 42, 58, 70-1, 77, 79, 85, 139-41, n.48, n.52, n.54, n.58, n.272 (p.267) ARS forms: ARS 50, 20, 58, 138, n.66, n.68; ARS 50.61, n.339; ARS 57,

354

n.290; ARS 58, n.290; ARS 59, n.290; ARS 61A, n.290; ARS 61B: 93, n.314; late 61B: 99, nn.314, 334, 336, 338 (Dramont E), 347, 352, 356; ARS 64: nn.334, 347, 372; ARS 67, n.290, n.414 (end-date); ARS forms 68, 73 and 76, n.348; ARS 78: 111; ARS 80 and 81, n.339, n.347; ARS 82-85 series, n.332, n.333, n.339; ARS 87A, nn.314, 334, 351, 352, 354; ARS 87B: nn.314, 351, 354, 369, 372, 379; ARS 87C: n.319; ARS 88: 111; ARS 91B: 99, 113, n. 320, n.336, n.356, n.368, n.379; ARS 91C: n.320, n.356, n.369, n.379; ARS 91D: n.261, n.320, n.379, n.438, n.471; ARS 94B: n.369, n.379; ARS 98: n.337, n.372; ARS 99A: 113, n.356, n.379; ARS 99B: 102, n.356, n.471; ARS 99C: 102, n.442, n.460, n.471, n.475; ARS 101: n.471; ARS 102: nn.454, 471; ARS 12/102: nn.314, 334, 336, 347, 351, 352, 372; ARS 103: nn.261, 319, 336, 369; ARS 104A: 111, 113, n.334, n.336. n.369, n.372; ARS 104B: 108, n.369, n.379; ARS 104C: 108, 124, n.436, n.475; ARS 105: 128, nn.261, 333, 376, 435; ARS 106: 105, n.261, n.471; ARS 107: 105, n.460, n.475; ARS 108: 105, 128, n.402, n.471, n.475; ARS 109: 105, 126, 128, nn.379, 402, 436 (p.299), 442, 460, 471, 475; Fulford 27, n.333, n.339; Fulford 52, n.372 ARS imitations, n.50, n.261 ARS production and exports: 2nd to 3rd c., 15-6, 18-23, 28, 42-4, 60, 70-2, 138-41, n.24, n.25, n.40, n.44, n.52, n.57, n.58, n.66, n.272; 4th to early 5th c., 43, 45, 47, 56, 59, 60, 65, 67, 76-7, 79, 81, 83 (Aegean), 88, 91, 142, 146, n.54 (ARS C), n.58, n.290, n.290 (forms), n.332; early-mid Vandal, 56, 65, 85-6, 93-100, 140, 147, n.332, n.333, n.335, n.336, n.339, n.340, n.347, n.348, n.352, n.353; in Tarragona, 85-8, n.351, n.354; n.352 (villa sites); n.353 (in NE Spain); late Vandal, 95, 101-5, 108, 112, 148, 151, n.336, n.357, n.369 (forms), n.372 (Saint-Propice); 6th c., 108-10, 112, 116-17 (Benalúa), 151, n.356 (Rosas), n.377, n.379, n.380; late 6th and 7th c., 108, 120-1, 123-31, n.436, n.437, n.442 (Cartagena, Málaga), n.471

Index (Koper), exports to the East (112, 127-8, 130, 152-4, n.473, n.475, n.476); Fig. 22 ARS typologies, x, 2-4, 6 ARS v. Tunisian amphorae, separate supply: 22-3, 70, 72, 137-9, n.66 ‘coarse ware imitation of sigillata’: 60, 63-5, 67, 150, Map 9, Map 10, Fig. 9 Cypriot Red Slip Ware (CRSW/LRD): 2, 6, 79, 80, 91, 100, 111, 153, n.170, n.352, n.401, n.426, n.459, n.475 Egyptian Red Slip Ware (EGRS): 107, 111, 131-2; in Beirut, 132, 152-3, n.475, n.493, Fig. 27a (Umayyad) Gaulish terra sigillata: 26-7, 57-8, n.56, n.58, n.113, n.225 Late Roman C (LRC/Phocean Red Slip Ware): distribution, 59, 65, 80, 88, 91, 97-9, 103-4, 106, 111, 114, 117-19, 123-5, 127, 148, 151, 154, n.272 (p.266), n.290, n.291, n.296, n.301 (Seleucia, Zeugma), n.319, n.336, n.340 (Italy), n.343, n.351, n.356, n.361 (Iberian Peninsula), n.365 (Naples), n.372, n.426, n.429 (shipping routes), n.454; Balearics, 97, 117-18, n.433; Beirut, 100, 110, 152-3, n.459, n.475; British Isles, 108-10, n.392; Butrint, 97-8, 103, 110, 127, 154, n.362, n.459, n.473; Marseille, 98, n.365, n.372; NW Hispania, 107-8, 110, 123, n.363, n.392; Ravenna, 123, 125, 148, n.429 (not via Carthage); post-550 finds, n.459; imitations of, n.261; Map 12 t. s. chiara B: 58, 64-5, n.226, n.227, n.229 t. s. hispánica (TSH): 4, 14-15, 56-7, 60, 62, n.23, n.56, Map 4 t. s. hispánica brillante: 65, Map 10 t. s. hispánica tardía (TSHT): 4, 57, 60-3 (especially), 64-6, 150, n.242, n.248, n.267, n.270; dating problems, n.241, n.242, n.243, n.244; Map 7, Map 8, Fig. 8 t. s. lucente: typologies, 4, n.226, n.229; 58-9, 64, 96, n.57, n.58 (Sagunto), n.230, n.270 t. s. meridional: 65, 67, 150, n.266, n.267, n.269, n.270, Map 7, Fig. 11 t. s. paléochrétienne grise: typology and production, 4, 58-9, n.226; distribution, 59 (Ampurias), 60-2, 65, 88, 96, 104, 118, n.58 (Sagunto),

nn.234-9; Atlantique, 59, 105, 109; ‘imitations’ of, 62-3, 65, 96, n.247 t. s. paléochrétienne orangée: 58-60, n.226, n.270 t. s. prelucente: 58, n.226 thin-walled wares: 14-5, 54 (wine v. beer), n.23; Baetican, and oil trade, 29, n.100, n.101, n.113 (Culip IV wreck) Tripolitanian Red Slip Ware: 77, n.278 fish and fish sauce: Black Sea: exports, 42, 71-2, 74-5, 80, 141-2, 154, n.272 (p.267); to Beirut, 90, 140, 146, 152, n.152 Hispanic: xi, 10, 39-48 (Section 1.3), n.145 (dipinti and the army), n.175; Map 6; pre-Roman industry, 11, 13; written sources, n.21; identification of specific sources, 78; processing sites, n.143, n.147 (Puente Melchor), n.148, n.155, n.156 (Troia), n.181-2, n.356 (Rosas), n.384 (6th c., SE Spain); 1st and 2nd c., 10, 13, 16-7, 23 (and thin-walled wares), 24, 29, 52-3, 78, 137-8, n.89 (Benghazi), n.90 (Corinth), n.152 (Beirut), n.172 (Levantine finds), n.209 (Haltern 70); 3rd c. transformation and exports, 24-7, 38-42, 51, 55-6, 71,78, 139-41, 143, n.85, n.90 (Corinth), n.139, n.143, n.146 (Lusitanian), n.147, n.172 (Levantine finds); Cabrera III, 36-7, n.118, n.150; late Roman forms, 53, n.139, nn.155-60; exports with Baetican oil, n.106; 4th c. regeneration, 43, 143; factories ex novo, 46-8, 53, 143, n.356; 6th c. factories, 105, 115, 117; 4th and 5th c., 33-4, 36-9, 43-6, 78-80, 88, 90-1, 94, 143-4, 146, 148-9, n.85, n.121 (Port-Vendres I), n.124 (Arles), n.143, n.146 (Lusitanian), n.158 (Alicante), n.160 (Santa Pola), n.173 (Marseille); late 5th and 6th c., 37, 48, 112-15 (Section 3.4.2), 117, 144, 148-9, n.411 (amphora finds in Benalúa), n.414 (Lusitanian); late Spanish amphorae at Tintagel, 109, nn.392, 412; see also amphora forms: Keay 16, Keay 19, Keay 23 Levantine (Beirut), n.152 Mauretania: 50, n.124, n.193 (production sites) Tingitana: 25, 40-1, 43, 48, 113-14,

355

Index 139-40, 143, 149, n.143, n.154, n.314 (Vandals); Map 6 Tunisia: 16, 18, 56; amphora forms, 26, n.30, n.33, n.41, n.331, n.444; production sites, n.165, n.166 (Republican-early Imperial), nn.282 and 402 (Nabeul), n.444 (Raf Raf); 2nd c. exports, 18-19; 3rd c. exports, 23, 71, 140-1; 4th and 5th c. exports, 33, 34, 39, 44-5, 75-6, 80, 85, 90, 93 (Vandal), 144, 146, 149, n.85, n.282; 6th c. exports, 94, 103, 150; spatheia, 112, 121-2, 153, n.444, n.471 Franks: 94, 124, 130, 149, 152, n.330, n.436

colonies, 11, n.17; early Roman conquest and colonies, 10-13, n.18; conventus, 12, Map 3; early Roman provinces, n.4, n.16; Vandals, 91-2, n.314, n.330; Visigoths, n.330, n.435, n.436, n.440; Barbarians, effect on fish industry, 48, 148-9; fine ware alternatives, 61-3; painted wares, 66-7; Vandal trade, 92-3, 148; E. Mediterranean trade, 92; see also Byzantine reconquests; Ostrogoths; Vandals; Visigoths irrigation, in Spain: Roman, 9, n.12, n.14; Arab-Medieval, 9, 155, n.12

Gallaecia/Galicia: 2-3, 7, 8, 10, 12-13, 46-7, 57, 66, 143-4, n.330; see also La Coruña; Vigo Gallic Empire: 31-3, 74, 142, 144 Gallienus: 31-2, n.31 garum: see fish and fish sauce Genseric: n.314, n.330 glazed wares: 131, n.274, n.442, n.488, n.489 gold coins: n.275, n.330 gold mines, in Hispania: 10, 13 Goths: 73, n.272 (p.269) grain: 18, 23, 56, 70, 74, 75, 85, 92, 99, 100, 110, 148, 153, n.37, n.272, n.397, n.402 (Saint-Gervais 2 grain ship); Rome grain supply and warehouses, 16, 18, 24, 34, 75, 95 (grain fleet), n.27, n.31, n.33, n.37, n.74; grain supply to Constantinople, 153, n.275, n.292; travelling with fine wares?, 23, 100-12, 125-6, 130 (Rome), 139, 141 (Beirut, Antioch), 148, 153 (Beirut), n.323; grain and amphorae on the Danube?, 128 handmade and slow wheelmade wares: see cooking wares harbour: of Caesarea, 84, n.272, n.310; of Seleucia, n.272, n.298, n.301; of Carthage and Utica,75, n.349 Hispania: see Iberian Peninsula horses: 8, n.8 huerta cities: 9, 155 Iberian Peninsula and Hispania: physical geography, 7-10, Map 1; road system, x, 7, 8, 10-12, 87, 134, n.4, n.6, n.341, n.495, Map 3; Carthaginians, 10-11, 44; Phoenicians, 11, 13, n.17; Greek

Jewish community: n.325 (Keay 52) Julia Domna: 69, n.271 Julian: n.298 lamps: 20, 85; Tunisian, 102, n.314, n.338, n.402, n.454, n.471; Bailey Q 3339, 111, 117-19 Leo: n.330 Levantine cities: imports, 50, 71-2, 91, 140; early Imperial exports, 50, 73; 3rd c. wine production, 68, 71-2, 91; 4th c. building and revival, 35-6, 81-2, n.298; supplying western markets, 82-3, 84ff., 146-8; supplying the annona and state factories, annona (n.275), arms (n.306), textiles (linen, silk) and dye-works (83, 153, n.306); Fig. 13; for 4th c. and later exports, see amphora forms: LRA 1, LRA 4, LRA 5; see also cooking wares: Levantine ‘brittle wares’; pilgrims to the Holy Land; wine: production and exports (Beirut, Levantine); Antioch; Beirut; Caesarea Lusitania: n.330 (p.283-4), n.436 (p.300) Majorian: 283, n.330 marble trade: 8, 10, 125, n.464 Marcus Aurelius: n.33, n.223 mensae oleariae, in Rome: 32, 34, 145, n.33, n.126 metalwork: n.8 mining (Hispania): 8, 10, 11, 13 Moesia: 128, n.272 (pp.266-8), n.275, n.473 Monte Testaccio (Rome): 5, 17, 25, 28, 30-2, 34-5, 39, 73, 75-6, 145, n.30, n.31, n.33, n.41, n.76, n.77; see also annona civica (of Rome)

356

Index municipia: in Spain, 8, 12-13, 15; and coloniae, in N. Africa, 18, n.223, n.271 Narbonensis: 138-9, n.436 navicularii: 14, 30, 78, n.292; in the East, 154, n.272, n.275, n.292; navicularii Alexandriae, navicularii Orientis, 74, 82, n.275; navicularii of Africa, 74 New Forest Pottery (Oxford): 3, 87 Numidia: 18, 56, 69, 74-5, n.27, n.223, n.330 (and the Vandals) olive oil: Baetican: 24-39 (Section 1.2), n.33; oil annona subsidising Baetican exports, 16, 47, 70, 78, 139, 143, n.85, n.174; 3rd c. drop in Baetican oil exports, in Britannia (25-7, 144, n.79, n.80, n.81, n.85), in Germania (25, n.78), on the Danube (25, n.83), in Gaul (26-7); in Lusitania/Portugal, 25, n.82, n.103; in the East, 27-8, 74-5, 89, nn.88-90, n.272; supplied to SE Spain, 29-30, n.97, n.99; supplied to NE Spain, 29-30, n.100; 3rd c. drop in exports related to army composition and numbers, 26-7, 144, n.85; mixed cargoes, 31, 40, 42, 70, 139-40, n.117, n.118, n.121; the end of Baetican oil exports, 112-16; see also amphora types: Dressel 20, Dressel 23; Monte Testaccio Brindisian: n.33 (p.237) Cypriot, n.500 non-Baetican, Hispanic oil production: 29-30, n.107; n.111 Tripolitanian: supply to Rome and Ostia, 17, 75-6, n.33; n.36; supply to Hispania, 76; supply in Tripolitania, 22, 27, 76, n.281; supply to Egypt, 27, 38, 76, 99 (with ARS?), 146, n.272; to Beirut, n.167; to the East in general, n.272; Severan confiscations of estates and free oil distribution, 25, 70, 139, n.33, n.76; see also amphora forms: Keay 24; Schöne-Mau 35 Tunisian: 16-19, 23-4, 34-5, 37-9, 75-7, 85-6, 93-4, 101-3, 128, 138-40, 144, n.33, n.36, n.272 (p.267), n.323; fish, not oil, 26, 33, 46, 74-5, 80, 144-5, 147-8, 150, n.85, n.145; 27, 38, 146 (Egypt), n.33; forms, n.30, n.33, n.36, n.41, n.331; and secondary

industries, 18, 56; see also amphora forms: Keay 27, Keay 61, Keay 62 non-olive oil production: in N. Gaul (nut oil), 25, 144, n.78, n.85; in Egypt, 27, n.272; E. Mediterranean sources of oil, 27-8, n.272 olives, amphorae carrying: 112, 122, 153, n.122, n.209 (Haltern 70), n.331, n.444 Ostrogoths: 93, 101-2, 147, 149, n.330 painted wares: in Hispania (Section 2.2.3), 55, 57, 61-2, 65-7, 143,150, 155 (Arab), Map 11, Fig. 10; in Italy, 66 Parthians: 70 pilgrims to the Holy Land: 83-4, 106, 148, n.308; to Egypt, 148; and Caesarea, n.310; early Medieval, n.308, n.397 Philip (emperor): 31, n.58 (coins) Phoenicia (Roman province): 50, 73-4, 82, 90, 126, 141, 148, 152, n.172, n.174, n.189, n.272, n.273, n.276 (governor), n.301 (tax), n.306 (textiles); see also amphora forms: Agora M 334, Augst 47-48, Beirut amphora; Akko; Amrit; Beirut; Chhîm; Tyre plain wares: Vinalopó Valley, 3; Tunisian, 88, 90, 104, 129; Balearic, 96, 377; Tarraconensian, 151; see also Balearic imports (under Benalúa; Cartagena; Valencia); spouted bowls, 40, 63, 115, n.140, n.142, n.357, n.377, Fig. 17a-b Pompey: 12 pork: 51, 145, n.275 (p.272) Postumus: 31; see also Gallic Empire pottery: conferences, ix-x, 4-7, n.1; problems of quantification and interpretation, xi, 6-7, 21, 136-7, n.53, n.174, n.241 (coins), n.272 (p.266, paucity of quantified data for the East), n. 498; deposits of wide date range, n.377, n.410; of ship’s crew, n.402, n.476; classes of pottery: see amphora forms; fine wares; cooking wares; plain wares; unguentaria Praefectus annonae: 30, 75, n.33, n.125, n.276 Praetorian Prefects: 33, 145, n.276; of Italy, Africa and Illyricum, 33, 38, 51, 75, 127, 155, n.125, n.292; of the

357

Index Gauls, 33, 38; of the East, 154, n.272, n.275, n.473 (Butrint); ceramics and diocesan supply systems (Gaul, Hispania v. Italy, Africa, Illyricum, 32-8, 75-7, 79, 145; Koper v. Shkodra, Butrint, 33, 127, 145, n.473); of Italy (Suburbicarian provinces and Sicily), 50-1, 73; see also trade: economic divisions of East v. West Pyrenees: 7, 8 quaestor exercitus: 154, n.272 (p.267), n.275 (p.271) ratio patrimonii: 31 ratio privata: n.76 Romulus Augustulus: n.330 rubbish disposal: n.450 Sardinia: handmade pottery, 89, n.329, Fig. 19k; pottery and Vandal conquest, 92, 94, 101, n.330, n.335, n.340; Byzantine reconquest, n.424; see also Porto Torres Sassanians: 28, 54, 70-1 Scythia: 128, n.272 (p.266-7), n.275 (p.271), n.474 sedes regiae, under the Visigoths: n.330, n.436 Septimius Severus: early life, general policies, 69, n.271; eastern frontier, n.272 (p.265); confiscations in Baetica and Tripolitania, 24-5, 30, 31, 41, 70, 139, n.33, n.76, n.133; institution of free oil in Rome, 138-9, n.33, n.115, n.275 (p.270); ius Italicum, municipia and coloniae in Africa-Numidia, n.39, n.223 Severus Alexander: and the annona civica, 30-2, 139, 140, n.115; 246 shipping routes and redistribution: range of pottery forms and frequency of contact, 24, 88, n.277, n.323; Atlantic route, 7, 13, 25, 47-8, 57, 65, 78, 92, 97-8, 100, 105-13, 119, 123, 137, 146, 148, n.82, n.392, n.397; East to West, 49 (from Black Sea and Aegean), 54, 82, 103 (Butrint), 117-19 (Benalúa), 125-6 (Caesarea to Marseille: cf. brittle ware), 153; Constantinople to West, 129, 131-2, 153, n.397 (Marseille), nn.478 and 485 (7th c. cooking wares); East to Adriatic, 49, 54, 82, 97-8, 103

358

(Butrint, Caesarea-Ravenna), 154 (Aegean-Butrint), n.303 (cooking wares); Aegean-Beirut v. Butrint, 83; Aegean-Cyrenaica, 154; Carthage-Baetica, 99 (returning cargoes); Carthage/Africa to Adriatic, 99, 101-3, 125, 155; Carthage/Africa to Aegean, Constantinople, Black Sea, 153, 127-8, n.476; Carthage-Athens-Alexandria connection?, 99; West to East, 27 (Cádiz-Alexandria), 45, 46 (Beirut), 99; eastern ships returning (with grain?), 122 and 153 (from West), 153 (from Black Sea); Alexandria, Antioch, Caesarea to Constantinople, 84, n.275; Alexandria to Ravenna and Marseille, 126 and 132-3 (redistribution of Gazan and LRA 1?), n.397; Umayyad Egypt to Beirut, to the West (especially Marseille), 131-3, n.466 (Marseille), n.493 (Beirut); Cyprus-Egypt, 111; Narbonne to Rome-NW Tarraconensis, 14, 30; Rhône-Rhine, 13, 26-7, 33, 57, 138 redistribution mechanisms (suggested): xi, 24, 30, 35, 40, 42, 51, 54, 70-1, 77 (Aquileia), 84, 87; Ravenna to Adriatic and Po Valley, 99, 102, 127, 129 (Ravenna to Koper?); 103 (Caesarea-Ravenna); 122 (to Málaga, via Balearics/Cartagena); 126 (Tunisian to S. Antonino, direct or via Balearics, or via Rome?); 126 and 132-3 (Alexandria: Gazan and LRA 1 to Ravenna and Marseille?); n.292 (navicularii and annona sales), n.473 (Butrint: annona?); Narbonne and Lyon, 26, 30, 138; Narbonne to Tarraconensis, Baetican oil, 145-6; Balearics, 89-90, 96, 111, 117-18, 123, 126, 128-30, 134, 150-1, n.118 (Cabrera III, Punta Ala B); Carthage, 111, 117-18, 123, 126, 128-9, n.118 (Cabrera III, Punta Ala B), n.402 (Saint Gervais 2); Seleucia-Antioch, inland, road and Euphrates, 152-3, n.301, n.272, n.298, n.301; the Church, 130, n.275 (p.271); Tunisian v. eastern ships, 111, n.63, nn.121 and 371 (La Palud 1), n.402 (see also shipwrecks: specific); see also annona

Index civica; annona militaris; Monte Testaccio shipwrecks: n.22; in the Adriatic, n.303; eastern ships, n.63 (in Marseille), n.400 (in Bodrum), n.402 (Saint-Gervais 2) specific shipwrecks: Cabrera III, 21, 31-2, 41-2, 46, 53, 72, 140, n.40 (ARS), n.118, n.122, n.150 (Keay 16), n.170, n.210, n.212 (Baetican Beltrán 68), Fig. 4; Culip IV, n.113; Dramont E (Port-Miou), 32, 95, n.122, n.336, n.338, n.444 (carrying olives); Dramont F (Port-Miou), 32, n.122; Femmina Morta, 140, late ARS A, n.40; Iskandil Burnu, 103, n.400; La Palud 1 (Port Cros), 111, 140, 152, n.121, n.371; Marseille, early 3rd c. wreck, n.63; Plemmirio, n.30, n.41, n.122; Pointe Debié A, 30; Port-Miou, n.314, n.338; Port-Vendres I, n.121; Punta Ala B, n.102, n.118, n.287; Randello, n.150; Saint-Gervais 2, n.402 (grain cargo); Yassi Ada 1, n.275 (p.271), n.402, n.444, n.476, n.493 Sicily: shipping routes to the West and Adriatic, 49, 97-8, 110-11, 117-18, 125, n.218, n.429; Vandal conquest and pottery, 92, 94-5, 101, n.330, n.332, n.340; Church trade, 130; Arab conquest, 134; wines, 51, 75, 89, n.124, n.195; supplying Constantinople, n.407; Byzantine reconquest, n.424 silk production in the Levant: 153, n.306 Slovenia: 127; see also Koper Strata Diocletiana and the eastern limes: n.272 (p.267) Suburbicarian provinces: 34, 51, 145, n.125 Suevi: 65, 105, n.330, n.436 (p.300) Tarraconensis: 8, 12, passim with respect to imports; wine, 13, 14; oil production, 30; fish processing, 47-8; TSH production, 60-3; cooking wares, 64; imports on villas, 81, 87; and the Visigoths, 92, n.330; survey, 108; supply of Baetican oil, 138, 144-6, n.103; see also amphora forms: Keay 89/91; Tarragona and other listed sites taxes and taxation: early Empire, 11, 18,

24, 51, 76, n.33, n.39; Byzantine period, 74, 81, 83, 84, 142, 148, n.272, n.275, n.276, n.292, n.301 (Seleucia customs), n.306 (state factories), n.310 (Caesarea); Umayyad Egypt, 155; ius Italicum, 39; Barbarian kingdoms, n.330; see also wine: imports to Rome (canon vinarius) tetrarchy: Trier, 33; reorganisation of provinces, 68, 69 (roots in Severan period), 81; taxation, 74, 81, 83, 142, n.39, cf. nn.272, 276 and 306; building, 74, n.290; civil war, 142 Theoderic: n.298, n.330 (p.284) Theodosian Code (CTh.): 31, 34, 74, 78, n.126, n.272 (pp.265, 268), n.275 (passim), n.276, n.298, n.306 Thrace: 21, n.272 (p.267) trade, in general (see also shipping routes and redistribution): Church: role in annona supply, 69, n.275; and LRA 2 on Samos, 110; silks and textiles, n.306; Alexandrian grain to Britain, 110, n.397; Marseille, n.463; see also Umayyad Egypt; Rome: Crypta Balbi early to mid 3rd c., 69-74; late 3rd c. to early 4th c. break in, 22, 35-6, 73-4, 83, 142; mid 4th to early 5th c. revival, 35-6 (Carthage), 74-91, n.298 (Levantine cities); early to mid Vandal period, 91-100; late Vandal period, 100-12; late Byzantine period-Byzantine reconquests, 116-19 (Benalúa), 120-135; late 6th c. increase in trade, 106, 124 economic divisions of East v. West: Baetican oil supply, a western phenomenon (70-1, 74-5, n.272), 50-1 (wine), 68, 70-1, 72-3 (from early or mid 3rd c.), 75, 82-3 (drop in eastern exports to West), 141-2, 146, 154-5; the eastern network, 154-5, n.272, n.275 increased regionality of economic supply: within Hispania, 149-50; of Gaul, 144-5; of Italy (Suburbicarian provinces and Sicily), 50-1, 73; of Aegean and Black Sea in 3rd c., 83; of Black Sea in Byzantine period, 146, 154, n.272 (pp.266-7, Danubian army); Levantine provinces, 72, 91, 152; due to 551 earthquake, 152-3

359

Index western Mediterranean, distinct supply to north and south: 89, 151-2 Tripolitania: 24; and annona, 24-5 and n.76 (Severus); 74-5, n.272 (p.266, quantifying supply to forts); Diocletianic and later history, 75, n.278; MRA 1, 54; 76, exports to Egypt, n.272 (p.267); Vandal conquest, n.314, n.330; see also amphora forms: MRA 1, Keay 24, Tripolitanian amphorae; fine ware: Tripolitanian Red Slip Ware Turdetani: 11 Umayyad Egypt; exports to Umayyad Beirut, 126, 132-3, n.475, n.493; exports to the West, 131-3, 155, n.483 (Marseille), n.486; monastic wine, 155; import trends at Alexandria, 132-3; Fig. 27 unguentaria: 107-8, 111, 117, 119, 122, 130, n.427, n.469; Fig. 19h Valens: 74, n.275 (p.271), n.298 Valerian: 31-2 Vandals: Vandal period ARS and amphorae, 3, 85, 91-7, 100-5, 116-17, 122, 128 (Dichin), 140, 147-8, 150 (Balearics as entrepôt), n.41 (Nabeul), n.127 (Milan), n.158 (Alicante), n.282, n.314, n.331 (amphora contents), n.332, n.334 (Es Castell), n.335, n.336 (ARS forms and Marseille sequence), n.351 (Vila-roma), n.354 (Tarragona), n.357 (Ibiza), n.369 (late Vandal forms); dating of Vandal v. non Vandal period exports, 85-6, n.314, n.370, n.456, n.461; Roman status of regions receiving Vandal imports, 92-3, 149; migrations to Hispania, rule in Africa, 100, n.330, n.455; in Tripolitania, n.278; Majorian’s campaign against, n.300; fleet, 93; eastern imports, 97; exports to East, 99-100, 148; Balearic wine under, 115; consequences of Vandal conquests to trade, 65, 69, 85, 93, 98, 147, 149, n.332 (ARS development); Vandal coins, 116-17, n.279, n.425; Fig. 16a-b Varna/Odessus: n.272 (pp.267-8) (quaestor exercitus) Venetia et Histria, diocese of: 127

Vesuvius (Mount): 15, n.25 Via Augusta: 7-8, 87, 94, 108, 134, n.6, n.341, n.436 (Byzantine, Visigothic conquests) Via de la Plata: 10, n.15 Via Domitia: 7, 11 Via Herculea: 7-8 villa and rural sites in Hispania, supply of imports: 81, 87, n.322, n.352; see also individual sites; Valdetorres de Jarama (Table 14) Visigoths: Visigothic period pottery: x (typologies), 7, 58, 64, 121, 129 (Valencia), 134 (SE Spain), n.251, n.436, n.438, n.442 (Cartagena), n.488 (glazed wares), n.495; Visigothic period trade, 86, 103ff., 129-31, 149, 151-2, 155-6; in S. Gaul and Hispania, 36, 92-3, 94, 100, 105, 120-1, 134, 155, n.315, especially n.330 (history of settlement), n.435 and n.436 (Byzantine v. Visigothic territory), n.440, n.495; mints, n.330; cemeteries, 64, 121; problems in identifying the Visigothic population, n.436, n.441; Visigoths and Cartagena-Málaga, n.442; Vinalopó Valley, 87, n.495; Figs 28-29; see also Sedes regiae wine: imports to Rome and Ostia, 49-51; Aurelian, canon vinarius (Rome), 34, 51, 145, n.125, n.194; see also Rome: wine imports production and exports, 49-55 (Section 1.4), n.22, n.124; smaller modules, 50; Hispanic, in general, 24, 52-3 (Section 1.4.2), 55, 68, nn.200-6, n.210; eastern, in general, 76, 102, 150, n.174, n.300 production and exports, regional sources: Aegean, 18, 49-50, 83, 86, 90-1, 107, 140, 146, n.152 (Beirut), n.186; Alicante wine, 55, 112, 117, 144; Asia Minor wine, 28, 49-51, 72-3, 83, 86, 90, 106, 140, 145-6, n.33 (used for oil), n.125, n.152 (Beirut); Baetican wine, 13, 17, 25, 29, 31, 41, 43, 49, 51, 53, 55, 112, 138, 140, 143, n.118, n.147, n.172, n.209 (Haltern 70), n.210; Murcia, 30 (presses), 134 (Visigothic-Arab); Balearic, 52, 96,

360

Index 115, 150, Fig. 21; Black Sea (see also amphora forms: Kapitän 1-2), 42, 49, 51, 54, 72-3, 140-2, 145; Calabrian wine, n.324, Fig. 6h; Campanian wine, 3rd c. exports, 28, 53-4, 71, n.95; Cretan wine, 49, 54, 72-3, n.33 (used for oil); Egyptian wine, 90-1, 132-3, 148, 152, 155; Gallic wine, 14, 18, 24, 26, 30, 49-51, 54-5, 71, 73, 140-3, 148, n.124, n.186, n.190; Italian wine, 34, 49, 51, 73, 89, 91, 102, 130, 145, n.124, n.125; N. Italian wine, 71, 140; Levantine, 50, 72-3, 81-4 (4th c.), 86, 90-1, 106, 110, 125-6, 132-4, 104-11, 146, 148, 152-3 (6th c.), n.152, n.174 (Lebanese), n.189 (production in Lebanon), n.275 (p.271-2, LRA 1), n.300 (and LRA 1), nn.307-8: see also amphora forms:

Pompeii 5, LRA 1, LRA 4, LRA 5, LRA 6; Cilicia; Mauretanian wine, 21, 33, 50-1, 54-5, 73, 142, n.124, n.193; Sicilian wine, n.195; Syrian (central) wine, 74, n.272; Tarraconensian wine, 9, 13-4, 24, 30, 43, 48-9, 51-3, 55, 86, 112, 142, 148, n.112, n.190, n.198, nn.200-6, n.358; Balearics as transhipment point, n.358; Tripolitanian wine, 17-18, n.35; n.36; Tunisian wine, 33, 85, 93, n.331, n.444; for Calabrian/E. Sicilian wine, see also amphora forms: Keay 52 transferred from amphorae to other containers: 34, n.33, n.125; in barrels and skins, n.33, 55, n.125, n.221; painted amphorae, 66, 143, cf. Fig. 10; as tax, in Athens, n.125; and annona militaris, n.272 (p.269), n.275

2. Places (for countries and provinces, see the Index above): Abu Mena: 106, 125, 132, 148, n.466, n.486, n.493, Fig. 27f Adriatic: 28, 45, 49, 54, 77, 82, 92, 99, 101-3, 125, 127, 155, n.102, n.303, n.476; see also shipping routes and redistribution; shipwrecks; Aquileia; Butrint; Durres; Epirus; Koper; Ravenna; Trieste Aguilas: 47-8, n.444 Ain Sinu: 71, n.272 (pp.265-7) Akko (Ptolemais): 50, 73, 82-3, 86, 126, 133, 141, n.152, n.273; see also amphora forms: Agora M 334, Augst 46-47, Colchester 105 Alcalá de Henares (Complutum): 66 Alcázaseguer: 41 Alcoy, Valley (Alicante): 81 Alexandria: excavations, n.2; imports of Baetican oil, 27, 39, 70, 80, 138, 146, n.88; Hispanic and Tunisian amphorae, 38, 45, 80, 92, 112, 128, 144, n.137, n.408, n.477; ARS, 99, 101; and annona, 74, 82, n.272, n.275; late Byzantine and Umayyad imports and exports, 132-4, 155, n.477; the Church, 110, 155, n.397; exports from (or not), 110, 111, 132, 152, 154-5, n.398; textiles, camels, n.306; n.321, n.322, n.350 (to Utica) Al-Fostat: 133 Algarve: 10, 41, 48,109, 113, n.118,

n.150 (Keay 16), n.168, n.392, n.412; see also Lagos Algeciras: 10, 13, 40-1, 43, 114, 120, n.155, n.209, n.330 (Vandals), n.435 (Byzantines) Alicante (port): archaeology at, x, 6; 39, see also Benalúa; Castillo de Santa Bárbara Alicante (province-region): road system, 9, 87 (distribution of goods), n.341; Tunisian cooking ware, 20; ARS, 20, 56, 81, 92, 94-5 and 147 (Vandal), 104-5, 116, 151 (contrast with Tarragona), nn.332, 337, 339, 341, 348, 351 and 353 (for Vandal); Tunisian amphorae, 78, 80-1, 92, 104 (Vandal), n.134 (villas); LRC, 98, 117-19, 150; eastern amphorae, 81, 87, 104-7, 111, 150, n.134 (villas), n.389; TSHT, 62; Baetican oil, 29, 31, 37, 39, 46, 138, n.134 (villas); Baetican fish, 43, 46, 78, 81, 116, n.134 (villas), n.158; local-regional fish processing, 48, 115, 143; oil presses, 30, 144; wine production?, 55; Italian amphorae, rare, 88-9; cooking ware imports, 89, 96, 103, 117-19, 151, n.467 (Fulford Casserole 37), n.473 (Ware 6); Balearic imports, 96, 115-16, n.422; local-regional plain wares, n.140, n.142; under Byzantine reconquest, 121-2, n.436, n.437;

361

Index Visigothic period, n.436; Arabs, 155, n.437; 157-8, Appendix, pottery per site; villas, n.134; tripartite supply to Benalúa, no. 323; compared to Badalona, n.379; Balearics and redistribution to, 96-7, 150-1; see also Barbarian kingdoms; Byzantine reconquest; Benalúa; Castillo de Santa Bárbara; Ilici; Lucentum; Santa Pola; Vinalopó Valley Ampurias: 11, 20, 41, 59, 66, 75, 88, 96, 101-3, 106, 107, 147, n.24, n.279, n.280, Table 12, Table 16 Ampurias-Necropolis Carretera S. Martín: 59, 104, n.369, n.378; Table 12, Table 16 Amrit/Tartus products: 50, 73, 83, 90, 141, n.152; in inland Syria, n.272 (pp.266, 269) Andújar: 14-15, n.23, Map 4 Antioch: 81, 141, 146, 152-3; the annona, 71, 82, 132, 153, n.272 (p.269), n.298, n.306 (arms factories, silk); feeding the city, n.272 (p.267-8), n.275, n.300, n.301; 4th c. imperial and military capital, 81, n.298; n.398 (role in redistribution); see also Seleucia Apamea (on-the-Orontes): 28, n.272 (pp.266-9), n.275 (p.271), n.301, n.487 Aquileia: 29, 35, 42, 71, 77, 82, 145, n.102, n.153, n.289, n.303 Arenzana de Abajo (La Rioja) (TSHT): 61 Argos: 89, 99 Arlanza (Valley): 61 Arles: imports, 33, 36, 38, 43-6, 51, 53-4, 79, n.124 (4th c. fire, imports), n.196, n.316, n.318; navicularii, 30; and Trier, 33, 36, 79, 83-6, 88-9, 143, 145, n.124; n.300, Visigothic mint; Table 18 Arsuz: n.467 Arva: 31 Astorga/Asturica: 10, 13, n.15; Spanish amphorae, n.103, n.209 (Haltern 70) Aswan: 99, n.493; see also fine wares: Egyptian Red Slip Ware Athens: Herulian sack deposits, n.66; ARS, 99, 147 (Vandal), n.290 (Tetrarchic deposits), n.368 (ARS 91B), n.414 (dating); LRC, 99 (5th c.), n.459; Hispanic amphorae, 140, 146, n.88, n.90 (oil amphorae rare?); Italian amphorae, 140; Black Sea amphorae, 141, 146, n.152; Agora P

65-66 (proto LRA 3), n.125; n.313 (late Cretan amphorae); n.306 (Alexandria-Athens shipping route) Augst: 25, n.78 Ávila: 63 Baalbek: n.189, n.272 (p.266) Badalona/Baetulo: n.24, n.44, n.200, n.377, n.379, n.380 Banasa: 41 Bantham: 108-11, n.392 Baños de la Reina (Calpe): 116, 122, 158, n.181, n.384, n.419 Barcelona (Barcino): archaeological work at, 4-7; 21, 30, 36, 41, 48, 52-3, 55, 75, 80, 89, 116, 129, 143, 147, 150, n.279, n.353, n.369, n.422; glazed wares, n.131, n.488; and Visigoths, 92, 149, n.330, n.436 Beaucaire-Château (Gard): Table 18 Beirut: Table 4a-b (3rd c.); Table 9a-b (4th c.); Table 15 (early 5th c.); Table 24 (6th c.); n.2 (pottery work-publications); Roman colony, 42 (demand for fish sauce), n.272 (p.268, identifying deposits) Aegean-Asia Minor amphorae, 28, 49, 50, 71-2, 83, 90-1, 110 (LRA 2), 140, n.172, n.398 (LRA 2); Cypriot LRA 13, n.90 exports: Beirut wine, 83, 90-1, 103, 132, 137, 153, n.174, n.272 (p.268, Apamea mosaics), n.400 (Iskandil Burnu); Lebanese wine and oil, n.152, n.172, n.174, n.189; dried fruit exports, 73, 141, n.273 (‘carrot’ amphora, Beirut amphora kiln); possible local fish processing, n.152 fine ware imports: ARS, 22-3, 42, 70, 79, 100-1 (Vandal), 112, 127, 136 (ARS A/D), 139, 141, 147 (Vandal), 152 (post-551), n.40 (3rd c. ARS A), n.54 (mid 4th c.), n.66 (mid 3rd c.), n.290 (4th c.), n.475 (late 6th and 7th c.); CRSW, 79, 100, 153, n.459, n.475; LRC, 91, 100, 110, 153, n.459, n.475; Egyptian Red Slip Ware, 132, 152-3, n.475 western imports in general: 71-2, 85, 112, 140; Tunisian amphorae, 22-3, 45, 70, 72, 75, 79, 80, 90, 112, 139, 141, 144 (Keay 25), n.41 (Keay 5bis), n.66 (mid 3rd c.), n.152 (late Republican), n.167 (total quantity);

362

Index Tripolitanian, n.167; Hispanic imports in general, 71-2 (mid 3rd c.), 88, 90-1, 112, 140, n.152 (1st to 3rd c.), n.167, n.168; Hispanic fish, 27, 37-8, 41-5, 47, 71-2, 74-5, 79, 80, 90-1, 112, 138, 140-1, 143, n.150 (Keay 16), n.152 (1st to 3rd c.), n.156 (Keay 78), n.162 (fabrics), n.168, n.170 (Beltrán 68); Baetican oil, 13, 27-8, 37-8, 80, 138, 140, n.91 (examples); fish and wine imports in general, n.152; Hispanic wine, 51, 53 Italian imports: 22 (Pompeian Red Ware), 96 (Campanian wine), 71-2 (N. Italian wine), 89-91 (Keay 52); 140-1; Egyptian wine, 90-1, n.400; Fig. 27; Black Sea imports, 42, 71-2, 75, 80, 90-1, 140, 146, 152, 153 (and the annona?), n.152, n.170, n.212 (forms and fabrics) pottery trends: 1st c., n.152, n.172; 2nd c., 49, 71-2, 138, n.152, n.174 (Lebanese amphorae); 3rd c., 22-3, 28, 41-2, 50, 51, 53, 71-2, 72, 140-1, n.30 (ARS A), n.41, n.66, n.73; n.91, n.96, n.142 (mortaria), n.152, n.172 (Lebanese amphorae); 4th c., 33, 37-8, 43-4, 75, 79, 80, 88, 143, 146; early 5th c., 44-5, 79, 80, 85, 90-1, 146; mid to late 5th c., 147, 152, n.405 (rarity of western exports); first half of 6th c., 112, 152; late 6th to 7th c., 112, 126-7, 132, 152-3, n.459 (fine wares), n.475 (fine wares); Umayyad, 132-3, 155, n.475, n.486, n.490 (LRA 13), n.493, Fig. 27 late 3rd c. break in supply/construction: 22, 73; 4th c. building, 35-6, 81, n.298; early 5th c., 90; late 4th c. increase in trade, 33, 44-5, 88; earthquake of AD 551, 152, n.306; separate supply of amphorae and fine wares, 22-3, 42, 72, 79, 80, 110 (LRC), 139; separate marketing of imported goods, n.174; increased regional supply in mid 3rd c., 72, 141; from mid 5th c. onwards, 91, 152; due to 551 earthquake, 152-3; n.301 (reflected in Seleucia inscription); grain with fine wares?, 141 (3rd c., Tunisian), 153 (Tunisian, Egyptian); Beirut v. Caesarea supply, 80 (4th c.); problems of interpreting data, 136-7, n.498; coins and pottery dating, n.241

unguentaria, n.427; Aegean cooking wares, 23; imported mortaria, 142 (Italian, Syrian) Palestinian brittle ware, 125-6; Egyptian cooking ware, n.467, n.486 (Umayyad) textile industry, 83, n.306 Belo/Baelo Claudia: ARS, 20, 92, 95, 114, 119; LRC, 98, 114, 117, 119, n.361, n.363; t. s. paléochrétienne grise, 59, n.236; 121 (not a Byzantine site?) Belorado (Burgos) (TSHT): 61 Benalúa: see especially 116-19 (Section 3.5) and Tables 20-22; the site, 157-8, n.182 (suggested identification as Lucentum), n.382, n.423; coin finds, 116, n.425; fish processing site, local spatheia, 48, 105, 115, 143, n.180; Benalúa Site 42.3, 6th c. glass production waste, 105, n.382; Tunisian imports, 104-6, 116, 122 (absence of late spatheia), 129, n.356, n.379. n.444; eastern imports, 105-6, 107 (LRA 2), 109, 111, 116-18, 124, 150, n.327, n.389; Hispanic amphorae, 37, 104, 113-14, 115 (local), 116, 122, 149, n.134, n.135, n.322, n.411, n.419; LRC, 117-18, 123, n.429, n.459; cooking wares, 117-19 (eastern, south-central Mediterranean), n.473 (Ware 6; Tunisian supply distinct to Butrint); plain wares, 115, n.140; unguentaria, 117; contrasting supply to Cartagena, 119, 123; contact with Byzantine Balearics, 150-1, n.424; imports, contrast with Tarragona, 151; ‘tripartite’ supply of imports, n.323 Benghazi: typology, 3; 3rd c. deposits and Tunisian imports, 22, 73, 136, n.66, n.69; Spanish oil and fish, 20, 52, n.89; Black Sea, 42, 49; Vandal imports, 99, 147; late Byzantine imports, 154; MRA 1, n.195 Beqaa (Valley) (Lebanon): 272 (p.266); see also Baalbek Beth Sh’an/Scythiopolis/Beisan: LRA 6, 45, 105, n.152, n.402, Fig. 27c (Umayyad LRA 6); Spanish amphorae, 28, 41, 150, n.151; textile production, 83, n.306 Bigastro/Bigastrum: 120, 131 Black Sea, amphorae and exports: 1, 42,

363

Index 49, 51, 70-5, 83, 85, 87, 90-1, 109, 128, 137, 140-2, 145-6, 152, 154 (6th c., restricted eastern routes), n.2, n.152, n.170, n.187, n.212 (fabrics and related forms), n.272, n.301; imports, 153-4, n.272 (Danube); see also amphora forms: Agora K 109, Chersonesos, Kapitän 1-2, Opait, Type B, Sinope, Zeest 72-3, Zeest 80 Bordeaux: 57-9, 105, 109, n.330 Borja/Bursao: 62, Table 13 Bostra: n.272 Braga (Bracara Augusta): 13, 23, 25, 47, 53, 98, 105, 108, 110, 111, 138, n.103, n.209, n.330, n.363, n.392, Table 11, Table 19 Brindisi: 28, 42, 49, 72, 142, 146, 154, n.152; Brindisian oil, n.33 Bulgaria: 100, 121, 128, 147, n.272 (p.268), n.444, n.476; see also Dichin, Golemanovo Kale Bu Njem (Libya): 266 Butrint: n.2; Table 25a-b; Tunisian imports, 22, 127, 146, n.66, n.290, n.379 (ARS 91 variant), n.445 (spatheia), n.476; Tunisian Vandal imports, 92, 95, 99, 101, 147; Hispanic imports, 38, 42, 45; Cretan imports, 49, 73, 154, n.313, n.473; Black Sea imports, 49, 154; Italian imports, 45, 54, 71, 89; eastern amphorae, cooking wares, 109, 125 (Gazan), 127 (LRA 2), 129, 154, n.392 (LRA 1, LRA 2 fabrics), n.473; LRC, 87, 97-8, 103, 123, 125, 154 (Aegean), n.362, n.429, n.459; bowl with spout, 40; 3rd c. pottery, 73, n.66; shipping routes (Adriatic, Sicily, Atlantic), 97-9, 103, 109, 125, n.429; n.153; imported ‘table amphorae’, n.190; Ware 6, 103; post-550, ‘eastern’, possible military supply, 127, 129, 154, n.473; see also amphora forms: Samian; Praetorian Prefects Cadbury: 108, n.392 Cádiz: Via Herculea, 7-8, 11; annona, 10, 27 (shipping route to Alexandria); fish processing, 5, 10, 13, 40-1, 43, 48, 53, 78-9, 139, 140, n.20, n.106, n.147 (Puente Melchor), n.150 (Keay 16), 152 (exports to Beirut), n.155, n.209 (Haltern 70), n.212 (Beltrán 68); imports, 98-9; Tintagel, 108-9, 113,

n.392, n.412; decline, n.330; n.361 (LRC) Caerleon: 19 Caesarea Palaestina: n.2; Hispanic amphora imports (annona and non-annona products), 28, 38, 41, 43, 45, 53, 79, 80, 112, 138, 143, n.150, n.170; Tunisian imports, 45, 79, 80; LRA 1, 152; administrative seat, annona, harbour, pilgrims, 81, 84, 106, 148, n.272, n.275 (p.271), n.310; textile production, 83, n.306; LRA 5 and returning cargoes, 99; exports (brittle wares, LRA 5, Agora M 334), 103 (to Ravenna), to Gaul, 106, 111, 125, n.466; 126 (to Beirut.); Fig. 27a (Umayyad LRA 5), n.400 (Iskandil Burnu wreck) Calpe: 115; see also Baños de la Reina; Peñon de Ifach Capua: 101-2, n.340; Table 2c, Table 20, Table 21 Cartagena (Carthago Nova): archaeology at, 6; roads, 9, n.6; local fish industry, 48; Calle Soledad excavations, 121-3, n.142, n.436 (p.300), n.442, n.444, n.447, n.450, Fig. 22, Fig. 23; Roman theatre excavations, 121-3, n.442, n.446, n.450; Plaza de los Tres Reyes excavations, 37, 122, n.436 (p.300), n.446; pottery imports: Table 20; Table 21; Gallic fine wares, 59; Spanish wine, 55; Spanish oil, 37, 39, 78, n.99, n.134; distinct supply system to Alicante, n.359, n.444 (spatheia); Balearic imports, 115-16, 118, 122, 150, n.422, n.446, n.458; Haltern 70, n.209; Tunisian imports, 77-8, 119, 121, 124, 126-30, 147, 150, n.142 (mortaria), n.444, n.472; ARS, 124-6; LRC, 123, n.459; eastern amphorae, 123-5, 128-9 (LRA 1), n.327 (likely absence of Keay 52); Aegean cooking wares, 118; Levantine cooking wares, lack of, 126; unguentaria, 122, n.427; local kitchen wares, n.140; see also cooking wares: Reynolds Ware 2; glazed wares, 131, n.442, n.488, n.489 Byzantine occupation: 120-1, especially nn.435-6; Byzantine reconquest pottery and imports, 116, 118, especially 120-3 and nn.435-6; key to ARS, etc. of c. 621/625, 121, n.442,

364

Index n.475; army rations?, 129; redistribution (from Carthage, Balearics), 123, 128; versus direct supply from the East?, 123, 128-9; supply, in comparison elsewhere after the Byzantine reconquest, 124-30 (passim); compared with Benalúa (119, 123, 150), with Naples (126), with Koper (127), with San Antonino di Perti (128), with Marseille (130, Tunisian cooking wares), Málaga (n.454) under the Visigoths and Arabs: 134-5 Carteia: 11, n.210 (‘Carteia I’ amphora), 98; decline, n.330 Carthage: Table 8, Table 17a-b, Table 20, Table 21; excavations, x, 2-3, 35; Punic, 11; Severus breaks up territory, 69, n.39; Severan theatre, n.271; imports: Tarraconensian wine, 13, 44, 52, 55, n.75, n.201, n.358 (via the Balearics); Baetican amphorae and thin-walled wares, 23-4, 44; Hispanic imports, 35-7, 39, 44-5, 88, 116 and n.422 (Balearic), n.132, nn.161-4, n.214; 1st c. Italian imports, 24; wines of Phoenicia, 83; local, Tunisian fish dominant, 44; late 4th c. revival, building and deposits, 35-6, 84, 86, 88; early 5th c. imports, 84, 86; Vandal period imports, 86; eastern amphorae, 86, 97, 99, 106, 107, 152, 153 (absence of late Sinopean amphorae, presence of Aegean types), n.473 (Samos cistern and RC 22 amphorae), Fig. 15; LRC rare, 97, 103, 106, 117-18, n.429; Keay 52, 88 port of Carthage and the annona, 75, 95 (classis africana), 127, n.276 (4th c. ostraka), n.349; Vandal conquest, 93, 146-7, n.314, n.330; Vandal ARS and ‘Carthage’ products, 93, 140, 147 (supply Carthage), n.314, n.332, n.336 (the ‘Carthage Treasure’); late ARS A, n.40; Carthage’s restricted supply, 95, 140 (regional ARS exports), n.339 (Fulford 27 rare), n.442 (ARS 109) Byzantine Carthage: 116, n.370; and Benalúa (pre 550?),150-1; and Byzantine Balearics, 116-18; and Byzantine Carthago Nova, 120, 123,

128; and Byzantine Málaga, 128; and other Byzantine sites, 124, 126-8, 152; with Constantinople, 130, 132, 153; with non-Byzantine Spain and Gaul, 129, 130, 152; and Umayyad Egypt, 155; local 7th c. globular amphorae, n.483; late 6th c. rise in trade, 124; grain exports, n.402 (to Marseille); Arab conquest, 69, 130, 133 (Tunis), n.442 local late Roman painted wares, 66 imported cooking wares: 89 and 118 (SW Mediterranean); 103 (Ware 6, Palestinian), 106 (eastern), 118, 123 (Aegean), 132 and 153 (Constantinopolitan); n.467 (Levantine) comparison of percentages: 136, n.498; see also shipping routes and redistribution (e.g. routes to Marseille, Adriatic) Castillo del Río (Aspe): 117, 158, n.389, n.437 Castillo de Santa Bárbara (Alicante): 121, n.389 Castulo (Cazlona): 8, 11, 13, 57, 65, 67, n.6 Cerro de San Miguel (Orihuela): 122, n.453, n.472 Ceuta/Septem: 20, 43, 73, 98, 113-14, n.158, n.159, n.210; Byzantine, 121 Chhîm (Lebanon): 257 Chios: 28; Chian LRA 2, 99, 107, 110, 146; annona supply, 128, n.272 (p.266); LRC, n.459 Cilicia (eastern): 74, 83, 86, 99, 106, 111, 121, 141, 148, n.152, n.190, n.212, n.275, n.300, n.301, n.306 (textile industry), n.467 (cooking ware), Fig. 13; see Pompeii 5, LRA 1, Elaiussa Sebaste Cilicia (western): 132, n.152, n.300 (pinched handle amphorae), Fig. 13 Classe: see Ravenna Clazomenae: 28 (Dressel 24) Clunia: 61-2, 64 Conimbriga: method of publication of finds, 4, n.53; ARS, 20, 23, 47, 65; LRC, 98, n.363; Gallic fine wares, 59; t. s. sigillata imitations, 63, 65, 150; amphorae, 53 (Haltern 70), 57, n.103 (Baetican oil), n.363; painted wares, 66; eastern imports and Atlantic

365

Index route, 98, 108, n.363 (v. drop in ARS); n.330 (Suevi) Constantinople/Byzantium: foundation, 74, 82; annona civica, 76, 82, 84 (Caesarea), 146, 153, n.272, n.275; Tunisian imports, 100; Hispanic imports, lack of, 112; grain supply, 125-8, 130, 153, n.323 (with ARS), n.407; ARS 109 etc, n.442; LRC, n.459; glazed wares, 131, n.489; LRA 1, 153; cooking pots exports to West, 128, 131-2, 152-3, n.478, n.485; silk production, n.306; Theodoric at, n.330; see also cooking wares, specific forms: Constantinopolitan; shipping routes and redistribution; Istanbul-Saraçhane Cordoba: 8, 20, 67, n.50 Corinth: 22, 42, 49, 73, 83, 92, 99, 127, 146; interpretation of fine ware data, n.2, n.53; n.90, n.152, n.290, n.475 Covarrubias: 61 Crimea: exports, 42, 71-2, 90, 154, n.187, n.212; imports, 153; see also Black Sea Cyprus: 2 (John Hayes); oil, 27, n.272 (p.267), n.500; 50 (Pompeii 5), 79 (introduction of LRD), 99 (returning cargoes), 106, 148 (LRA 1 introduction), n.275 (annona civica), n.301 (Seleucia import duties); redistribution mechanisms, 111, 133; LRA 13, Arab conquest, Salamis, exports to Rome, 132, n.490, n.492, n.493; see also amphora forms: LRA 1; fine wares: Cypriot Red Slip Ware (LRD); quaestor exercitus Cyrrhus: 268 Dénia: archaeology at, 6; 11, 29 (Baetican oil), 158; wine and oil production, 14, 30, 52, 55, n.190, n.198, n.206; not Byzantine?, 121, n.436 (p.299), n.437 Dibsi Faraj: n.272 (p.268) Dichin (Bulgaria): 100, 121-2, 128, 147, n.272, n.476 Dinas Powys: 108, n.392 Dor (Tell): 82 Dougga: 76, n.191 (MRA 1 mosaic) Draria el-Achour: n.40 (Late ARS A) Duero/Douro (River): 9, 12, 14, 63, 66, n.245, n.252 Dura Europos: 70, 73, n.272 (pp.265, 267, 268)

Duratón (River):64, Map 9 Durres/Dyrrhachium: mid Imperial imports, 22, 49, n.66, n.153; rare Hispanic imports, 42, n.153; Vandal imports, 92, 99; eastern supply system, 127; Aegean cooking wares, 82, n.303; Table 3a-b Ebro (River): 7-9, 11; imports, 15, 56-7, 59-60, 81, n.25; n.245, oil production, n.245; fine ware production, 14; wine industry, 52-3, 55; navigability, 56-7; TSH and TSHT, 62; sigillata imitations, absent, 63; Table 13; see also fine wares: TSH, TSHT Egypt: oil, 27, 38, 70, 76, 146, n.272 (p.267, local oil production); Pompeii 5, 50, 72; annona,74, 82, n.272 (pp.268-9), n.275, n.301; exports, 90-1, 106, 125, 131-3 (7th c.: Marseille, Beirut, Umayyad trade), 148, 152, 153 (Egyptian grain to Beirut?), 155 (Umayyad trade), n.469, n.475 (to Beirut, late 6th c.), n.493 (to Beirut, Umayyad period); casseroles, 131, n.466, n.486; Tunisian imports, 93, 99 (ARS-grain relationship?), 128, 146-7, n.477; Hispanic imports, 146, n.88; Cyprus-Egypt route, 111; scarcity of quantified data, n.272 (p.265); import duty at Seleucia, n.301; LRA 1 supply route, n.401; see also fine wares: Egyptian Red Slip Ware; shipping routes: redistribution mechanisms; Alexandria Elaiussa Sebaste: n.275 (p.271), n.467 El Castellar (Alcoy): 95, 158, n.381 El Castellar de la Morera (Elche): 158, n.436 (p.299), n.437 El Mahrine: 4, 95, n.333 El Monastil/Elo (Elda): pottery imports, 46, 87, 94, 98, 107, 113, 158, n.158, n.159, n.168, n.322, n.341, n.389; Visigothic advance, bishopric, 87, 121, 131, n.436, n.440 El Tolmo de Minateda (Hellín): 120, 131, n.107, n.267, n.436, n.438, n.445, n.488 (glazed wares) Elda: villa sites, n.51 Emporio (Chios): 128, n.459, n.476 (i.e. Bonifay 2005b) Ephesus: 22, 28, 83, 86, 99, n.174, n.427 (unguentaria); 3rd c. earthquake,

366

Index 73-4, n.73; see also amphora forms: Agora F 65-66, LRA 3 Erythrai/Ildiri: 28 (Dressel 24) Es Castell (Ibiza): Vandal assemblage, 94, 96, 117, n.334, n.357 Euphrates (River): 28, 70, 141, n.272, n.301, n.477; see also amphora forms: Syrian calcareous amphorae; cooking wares: Syrian brittle wares; Dura Europos; Zeugma Exeter: 19, 33, 109, 144, n.81, n.394

graves, n.441; Appendix, 158; see also Santa Pola/Portus Ilicitanus Iruña: 63 Istanbul-Saraçhane: 2 (John Hayes); pottery, 130; unguentaria, 130, n.427; rarity of Tunisian amphorae, n.74; Fig. 24a; see also Constantinople Iulia Traducta/Algeciras: 41, 98, 120 Jaca: Table 13 Játiva/Saetabis: 120-1, n.436 Jerusalem: pilgrimage, 84; legionary camp, n.272 (p.268) Júcar (River): 9, 120, n.436

Formentera, Byzantine fort: n.455 Fornells, basilica of (Menorca): 123, n.457 Fuentecillas (TSHT): 61 Fuentespreadas: 66, n.245, n.247

Kellia: 106, n.493 Knossos: John Hayes, 2, n.2; imports, 22 (late 3rd c. break in supply?); Black Sea imports, 42, 49, n.152, n.212; Hispanic imports, 42; Gallic wine, 71; Tunisian imports, n.43, n.66 Köln (Cologne): Baetican oil, 33-4, 38, 79 Koper: Tunisian imports, 124, 126-8, 140, 152, n.331, n.333, n.460, n.471, n.472; eastern imports, 127-8, 129 (Palestinian), n.473; Koper v. Butrint, annona, praetorian praefectures, 127, 152, 155, n.476 Kos: LRA 2 production, 99, 107, 146 Kouass (Morocco): 43

Garganes (Altea): 95, 105, n.296, n.343, n.383 Gijón: 46, 59, 105, 109, 143, n.237, n.247, n.363 Golemanovo Kale (Bulgaria): 121, 128, n.476 Granada: 14-15, 20, 41, 67, n.210, n.267 Guadalquivir (River): survey and centuriation, 5, n.7; 8, 10, 14-16, 25, 29, 31-2, 37, 44, 52, 78, 139, n.25, n.106, n.156, n.209 (Haltern 70), n.362 (LRC), Map 5; see also amphora forms: Dressel 20, Dressel 23; olive oil: Baetican Guadiana (River): 9, 10, 12, n.148 Hadrumetum/Sousse: 21, 128, n.118 Halmyris: n.476 Hippo Regius: 95, n.349 Homs/Emesa: n.272 Huelva: fish processing: 10, 41, 78-9, 113-14, n.155, n.168; Rio Tinto mines, 13; decline, n.330 Iatrus: n.272 (p.266) Ilici/La Alcudia de Elche: colony, centuriation, 9; Via Augusta, n.6; 3rd c. ARS, 20, n.52; villa sites, n.51; amphorae: Baetican (29, 41, nn.97, 99, 100, 134, 209), Tunisian (77-8), Balearic (116), local (117), eastern (n.389); Gallic fine wares, 59; local painted wares, 66; t. s. meridional, n.267; carinated bowls, n.140; Visigothic advance, bishopric, 121, n.436, n.440; Visigothic period

L’ Almadrava (Dénia): 30, n.206 La Coruña: 46, 105 La Finca del Secretario (Málaga): 20, n.210 La Graufesenque: 57, n.113 La Moleta (Elche): 94, 158, n.389 La Orden (Huelva): 113 La Rioja (Valley): 14, 56, 60-1, n.23; oil production, n.107; see also fine wares: TSH and TSHT La Serna (TSHT): 60 La Solana (Cubelles): 87, 96, 107-8, n.319; 5th c. ARS, n.353 Lagos: fish processing, 10, 48, 114, 149, n.142 Lebanon: see Phoenicia; Beirut; Beqaa Valley; Chhîm; Tyre León/Legio: mines and legionary camp, 13; Spanish amphorae, n.103, n.209 Lepcis Magna: and the Severans, n.271; pottery in, 76, 89, n.195 (MRA 1), n.196, n.278 (Tripolitanian Red Slip),

367

Index n.281, n.324, n.326, n.328; earthquake, n.278 Leptiminus: 4, 95, 127, n.118, n.333 (ARS in the survey) Liria/Edeta: 66 Lixus: 41, 43, 114, n.143, n.154, n.413 Logroño: 8, 56-7 Loma de Ceres (Granada): n.210 London: 19, n.81, n.145 Lucentum: n.182, n.419 Lugo/Lucus Augusti: 13 Luni: 13, 54, 76, 89, 116, 124, 126, 128, 150, 152; n.166, n.340, n.422, n.469; Fig. 121f Lydda (Palestine): 277 Lyon: 21, 26-7, 36, 38, 45, 49, 50-1, 53-4, 73, 79, 83, 85, 141, 143, 145, n.128, n.273, n.318; Table 6a, Table 18 Madrid: 61, 63-4, n.436 Málaga: 10-11; fish processing and exports, 20, 40, 43, 48, 78-9, 113, n.106, n.158, n.159, n.168; imports, 98, 119, n.361 (LRC); Byzantine occupation and pottery, 117 (unguentaria), 120-2, 124, 128-9, 130, 150, n.435, n.436, n.442, n.445, n.454; key to ARS, etc. of c. 621/625, 121, n.442, n.475 Mallorca: excavations, 2; 117, n.290, n.362, n.433; see also Balearic Islands; Es Castell; Pollentia Marseille: Table 17a-b, Table 18, Table 20, Table 21; Greek Massilia, 11; lack of 4th c. deposits, 84; Hispanic imports, 36, 45-6, 79, 88, 112, n.173; Levantine wine (Phoenicia), 83; early 5th c. imports, 84-5; 5th c. unclassified forms, 85, 88, 147, 154 (Cretan), n.313, n.324; Italian, 89, n.324 (Keay 52 and others); Tunisian amphorae: 85-6, Vandal (94, 101, 147, n.314, n.351, n.356), Byzantine (124, 130, 152, n.473 [Keay 61C]); ARS: Vandal (84-6, 92, 94-5, 101, 147, n.314, n.347, n.348), late Vandal (n.336, n.337, n.372); Byzantine ARS, 124-5, n.442 (ARS 109 dating); Marseille supply v. Saint-Propice, 101, 108; Tunisian cooking wares, 94, 101, 129-30 (Byzantine), n.372; Ware 6 absent, 118; Gallic fine wares, 58-9, 96 (Balearics); eastern amphorae, 54, 87,

94, 97, 106, 107 (Gazan, LRA 2), Samian (108, n.473), 124, 125 (Gazan, Egyptian), 126 (Gazan; Gazan supply v. Beirut), 132-3 and n.490 (Egyptian and Caesarean LRA 5); 147 (eastern merchants, 5th c.), n.466 (Egyptian LRA 5); LRC not common, 98, 101, 117, 123-5, 148, n.365, n.372, n.429, n.459; eastern cooking wares, 101, 118, 123 (v. Cartagena), N. Palestinian (125-6, 132, 151-3, n.485), Constantinopolitan (131-2, 152-3, n.485); Byzantine period imports (550-650), 124-6 , 129-30, 152, n.463, n.483, n.485 (cooking wares), n.490 (Cypriot LRA 13); rise in trade, late 6th c., 124; 650-700 trade, n.483, with Umayyad Egypt (131-3, 155, n.466), with Constantinople and Aegean (132, 153); Alexandria-Marseille route, n.397; 5th c. Marseille as ‘non-Barbarian’ port, 92-3; Tarragona, Rome, Naples linked by supply, 89, 151, 152 (more marked in 7th c.); ship found in harbour, n.63; Tunisian amphorae, LRA 1, contents analysis, nn.30, 41, 300, 500 Matagallares (Granada): 5, 20, 51, 53, n.124, n.150, n.210 Mataró/Iluro: 96, 104, 116, n.100, n.200, n.377, n.379, n.420, n.422 Mazarrón: mines, 13; imports, 19; fish processing, amphora kilns, 47-8, 143, n.42, n.444; Fig. 5f Mecerreyes: 61 Medjerda Valley: 76, 93 Mérida: Via de la Plata, 10, n.15; 12, 62, n.7 (centuriation); painted wares, 66, Fig. 10; Suevic and Visigothic capital, n.330, n.436 Milan: 35, Spanish imports, 35, 145, n.102, n.127; Tunisian imports, 35, n.127 Miseno (Naples): n.469 Mogador: 43, n.154 Murcia: wine, fish, oil production, 30, 47-8, 143-4, n.107, n.444; fine wares, 59, 92 (Vandal), 150, n.269; local cooking wares, 64, 89, 96, 116-17, 118, 122, 134 (Arab), 150; Byzantine reconquest, n.436; Arab, 134, 155; see also cooking wares: Reynolds Handmade Ware 8, Reynolds Ware 2

368

Index Nabeul/Neapolis: excavations, 4; pottery production, fish processing, 44, 93, 95, 121, n.141, n.165, n.282, n.332, n.333, n.442, n.444 (Keay 25, spatheia); role as port-exports, 128, 140, 152, n.41, n.249 (Fulford Bowl 22), nn.332 and 339 (ARS 84 variants) Nájera (TSHT): 61 Naples: 24 (early Imperial trade), 56 (sigillata production); imports, 2nd to early 6th c., 82, 84-5, 88, 89, 94-5, 98, 101-4, 106-7, 109, 118, 145, 147-8; 151, n.311, n.340, n.365, n.429; Byzantine, 123-6, 129, 131-2, 135, 152, n.424 (reconquest), n.442, n.469, n.473, n.485, n.496; Table 2c, Table 17a-b, Table 20, Table 21 Narbonne: Via Domitia, 11; navicularii and annona, 14, 30, 138-9, 143, 145; Hispanic amphorae, 36, 38, 45, 88, 145, n.131; Tunisian imports, 85, n.131; eastern imports, 88; t. s. paléochrétienne grise production and exports, 58-9; n.113 (Culip IV wreck, sailing from Narbonne?); and the Visigoths, n.330, n.436; Table 18 Neapolis (Palestine): 83, n.306 Nicopolis (Epirus, Greece): 73 Nicopolis ad Istrum (Bulgaria): 100, n.272 Nile (River), products: 76, 91, 99, 133, n.400, n.493; Fig. 27 Novae: 71, n.272 (p.266) Numantia: 11 Oliva: 30, n.109, n.206 Olympia: n.53 Onuba: 11, 41 Orihuela: 122, 134, 155, n.341, n.436 Orontes (River): 141, n.272 (p.266-9), n.301 Ostia: 3, 14-19, 21, 28, 30, 33, 34, 37-8, 41, 49, 50, 54, 66, 72-3, 76-7, 83, 138, 140, 143, n.33, n.35, n.36, n.54, n.58, n.74, n.76, n.166, n.166, n.186, n.193, n.206, n.273, n.277, n.323, n.459, Table 2a-c; see also annona civica (of Rome) Ostrakine: n.477 Otranto: 125, n.459, n.465, n.469 Oudna: 4, n.191 Pamplona (Pompaelo): 60-2, n.240, n.330

Paphos: 2, n.2, n.142, n.152 Peñon de Ifach (Calpe): 94, 299, n.342, n.436 Pico de la Muela: 63 Pisa: 29, 56, 76-7, n.102 Pla d’Abella (Lérida) (TSHT): 61 Pollentia: 2, 73 (3rd c. fire), 104, 123 (Byzantine absence), n.40 (late ARS A), n.380 (ARS), n.433 (LRC) Porto do Cacos: 41, n.146 Porto Torres (Sardinia): 17-18, 54; late ARS A and Period I amphorae, 21, 77, n.40, n.54 Portout: 59, n.229 Puente Melchor (Cádiz): 41, 53, 79, n.147, n.150, n.155 Punta de l’Illa (Cullera): 108, 116, 117, 122, n.314 (coins); glazed wares, 131, n.488 Pupput: 4 Puteoli/Pozzuoli: 24, n.33; Hadrianic-Antonine deposit, n.40 Quinta da Marim: 41 Quinta do Lago: 41 Quinta do Rouxinol: 41, n.146, n.414 Raf Raf (Tunisia), fish processing site, 44, n.166, n.444 Raphanea (legionary camp, Syria): 28, n.272 (p.268) Ras al Basit: 90, n.143, n.152, n.189, n.272 Ravenna/Classe: Table 23; Tunisian imports, 92, 98-9, 102, 125, 127, 147, 155, n.375, n.376 (cf. Verona); LRC, 97-8, 102-3, 110, 117, 123, 125, 148, n.429 (not supplied via Carthage); eastern amphorae, 103, 107 (LRA 2), 109, 125, 127, 129, 155, n.376 (cf. Verona); imported cooking wares, 103, 106, 125, n.375; painted wares, n.261; shipping routes to, 97-9, 102-3, 125, 127-9 (cf. Koper, Shkodra), 154-5; Theodoric at, 100, n.330; Byzantine reconquest, n.424 Relea (Saldaña) (TSHT), 60 Rheinzabern: 57, n.225 Rhône (Valley): 21, 26, 33, 58, 64, 87, 138; see also Lyon; Vienne; villa sites: La Ramière Rome: wine imports, 9, 13, 18, 26, 49-55, 72-3, 75, 82-3, 89 (Keay 52), 133 and 155 (Umayyad Egypt), 143, 145, n.33,

369

Index n.125, n.197; ARS, 15-16, 124, 126, 130-1; Tunisian cooking wares, 15-16, 129; grain, 16, 18, 24, 74, n.27; Tunisian amphorae, 16-19, 25-6, 34, 38-9, 44, 74-7, 85-6, 92, 94, 101-2, 126, 130, 138, 147, 149, Fig. 25b; Tripolitanian imports, 75-6, n.36, n.76; different supply to Ostia and Rome, 16-18, n.186; Baetican oil, 14, 16-18, 24-5, 30-9, 138-9, 145; Hispanic fish, 33-4, 39, 43-5, 88, 102, 143, 149; eastern imports, 28, 49-51, 54, 72-3, 82-3, 86, 92, 106-7, 132-3, 137-8, 141-2, 145, 147, 152, n.273, Fig. 26; Black Sea imports, 42, 49, 51, 70, 72-3, 83, 141-2, 145; LRC, 102, n.429; eastern cooking wares, 131, 153, n.485, Fig. 24c; unclassified amphorae, 85, 88, 147; 8th c. Rome, 134-5; Severan buildings, n.271; drop in population in the late Roman period, n.374; Byzantine conquest, n.424; see also annona civica (of Rome); Rome, sites (especially nn.31, 33, 76, 115, 125, 276); Monte Testaccio Rome, sites: Circus of Maxentius, 34; Crypta Balbi, 5, 94, 126, 130-2, 155, n.325, n.442 (ARS 109), nn.444 and 445 (spatheia), n.469 (LRA 13); n.482, n.484, n.485 (imported cooking pots), Table 1a-b, Table 17a-b, Table 20, Fig. 24c, Fig. 25b, Fig. 26; Crypta San Bonaventura, 35, Table 2c; Curia, Forum Transitorium and Basilica Aemilia, 17, n.36, n.186, Table 1a-b; Domus de Gaudentius, 102, 104, n.373, Table 2c; House of Livia, Table 2c, Table 17a-b; Meta Sudans, 49, Table 1a-b; Palatine East, 33-4, 51, 75, 142, 289, Table 2c; Schola Praeconum I, 76, 85, n.314, n.340, Table 2c, Table 17a-b; Schola Praeconum II, 94, 101-2, 131, n.340, Table 2c, Table 20, Table 21;Temple of Magna Mater, 33-4, 37, 94, n.340, Table 2c, Table 17a-b; Via Nova, 17, n.36, n.186, Table 1a-b; Via Sacra, 17, n.36, n.186, Table 1a-b Rosas: 11, 20, 47, 48, 59, 96, 102, 104, 114, 143, 147, n.314, n.356 Rusicade: and the annona, n.349

Sado (River): fish processing industry and exports, 10, 40-4, 47, 72, 114, n.89 (Benghazi), n.248 (Milan), n.146, n.151, n.152 (Beirut), nn.162 and 168 (Carthage), n.173 (Marseille), n.414 (production sites, end of production) Sadovec: n.445 Sagunto/Saguntum: 14, 29, n.19, n.44 (Tunisian cooking wares), n.330; for late dating of ARS A and C, 21, n.40, n.54, n.58; Gallic fine wares, 59, n.234 Saint Blaise: 94, n.337 Saint-Propice: 101, 108, n.337, n.372 (late Vandal pottery), n.390 Salakta/Sullecthum: 44, 95, 127-8, n.41, n.118, n.472, n.445 Salamanca: 63, n.15 Salamis: 132, 153, n.212, n.492, n.500 Salceda (TSHT): 61 Samosata: n.272 (p.268) San Antonino di Perti: 124, 126-30, 133-4, 152, n.402, n.444 (spatheia), n.445, n.460, n.469, n.482; Fig. 25 a and e, Table 20, Table 21 San Giovanni di Ruoti: 65, 97, 98, n.261, n.340, Table 2c, Table 20, Table 21 Sanitja (Menorca): Byzantine amphorae, 123, n.456, n.457, n.458 Santa Pola (Portus Ilicitanus): 19, 20, 29, 44, 48 (fish processing), 52-5, 79, 119, 138, 143-4, 157, n.42, n.97, n.134, n.140, n.182, n.201, n.207 (Ibizan amphora), n.209, n.215 (Gallic amphorae), n.217, n.279, n.291, n.327 (Keay 52), n.389 (eastern amphorae) Santarém/Scallabis: 53, n.82 Segobriga/Saelices: 66, Fig. 10 (Segobriga Ware) Segovia: 63-5, Map 9 Seleucia ad Orontes: imports, annona goods, 70-1, 141, 153, n.272, n.275, n.298; taxes on imports at, n.301 Sevilla/Hispalis: Via Herculea and Via Augusta, 8; late Hispanic amphorae at, 37, 112, 114, 149; Keay 52 and Baetican oil exports, 89; eastern imports, 92, 98, n.361 (LRC); Vandal Tunisian imports, 147; Visigothic capital, n.330, n.436 Sexi: 11, 98 Shkodra (Albania): 99, 127 Sidi Khalifa: ARS production, 93, n.333 Sidon: textiles, 83, n.306

370

Index Sinope, exports: to Beirut, 42, 80, 90, 141, 152-3, n.152; to Rome, 72; to Antioch and Zeugma, 72, 153, n.272 (p.267), n.301; connected with annona shipments?, 153; to Butrint and Brindisi, 154; to Athens, Crete, Corinth, Brindisi, n.152; see also Black Sea: amphorae Shaveii Zeion: Vandal ARS, 101 Soria: 63 Suel: 41 Syracuse: 98, n.429

Tyre: Tyrian amphorae, wine, 50, 73, n.272 (p.269); purple dye, textile industries, 83, 153, n.306; earthquake of AD 551, 152-3 Utica: and the annona, 95, n.349; and Alexandria, n.350

Tahardart: 41 Tarazona/Turiaso: TSH, 62, Table 13 Tarragona/Tarraco: Table 10; Table 12; Table 17a-b; Table 18; Table 20; Table 21; later history, n.315; Vila-roma, range of forms and dating problems, n.314; Torre de l’Audiència, n.351, n.354; 4th c. deposits, n.48; 7th c. imported cooking wares, n.485, n.486; Syrian calcareous amphorae, n.487; glazed wares, n.488 Tarsus: local cooking wares, n.467 Tejo/Tajo (River): 8 (horses), 9, 10, 14; fish processing, 10, 41, 43, n.146, n.168; 5th and 6th c. ships travelling to, 108-9 Thamusida: 41 Tiermes: 61 Timgad: lack of published pottery, 2 Tintagel: 106-12, n.392, n.412, Table 20, Table 21 Tinto (River): mines, fish processing, 11, 13, 43, n.148 Tivissa: 52, n.203 Toledo: TSHT, 60; t. s. hispánica brillante, 64; Visigothic, n.330, 436 Tomis: n.476 Torrox: 78-9, n.157, n.159 Toscanos: 11 Tossal de Manises (Lucentum): 115, 157, n.182, Fig. 21b Toulouse: Roman, 36; Visigothic capital, n.330 Tricio (Tritium Magallum): 11, 61, Map 4 Trier: 33, 38, 144-5; and Arles, 33, 36, 145, n.124 Tripoli/Oea (Libya): n.35; see also amphora forms: Schöne-Mau 35 Troia: ARS, 47; LRC, 98, 108, n.363; fish processing, 10, n.146, n.156

Valdetorres de Jarama: 59, 60, 65, n.253, Table 14 Valencia/Valentia: archaeology at, 6; centuriation and irrigation, 9, n.12, n.14; Tunisian and Campanian cooking wares, 15, n.25, n.44, n.49; late Roman cooking wares, 151; 3rd and 4th c. deposits, late arrival of Tunisian amphorae, 19, 21, n.54, n.56, n.57; Tunisian amphorae, 77-8, 147, 149, n.377; Baetican oil and fish, 29, 36-7, 39, 41, 43, 46, 79, 138, 143, 145-6; Campanian and Tarraconensian wine, 52-3, 55, 142; Keay 1, 54; Keay 52 rare, 89; t. s. paléochrétienne grise, 59, 62; TSHT rare, 62; ARS, 21, 62, n.24; Keay 24 and Tripolitanian imports, 75, n.279; Tunisian amphorae, n.234, n.437; Balearic imports, 116, 122, n.140; late unclassified globular amphorae, cooking wares, 115, 129, n.480, n.481; Byzantine imports, 130, n.437; glazed wares, n.488; under the Arabs, 155 Valencia la Vella: n.437 Valladolid: 63 Velejo de S. Pez (Maria de Huerva): Table 13 Ventimiglia: t. s. chiara B, 58; ARS, 94-5; 101; Tunisian imports, 101-2, n.337, n.340; eastern imports, 128, n.340, n.429; ARS imitations, n.261 Verona: Spanish imports, 29, n.102; late Roman amphorae and Ravenna supply, n.376 Vibo Valentia: Tunisian amphorae, 124, n.445, n.460 Vienne: Tunisian imports, 21, 26, 33; Hispanic imports, 26-7, 33, 41, 145; Gallic wine, 50, 143; eastern amphorae, 83; Table 6b Vigo: market for Galician fish, 46; on the Atlantic route, Tunisian and eastern imports, 105, 107-11, 123 (7th c. LRC), n.363, n.392; Bordeaux fine wares, 105, 109; Tunisian grain?,

371

Index 111; ships direct from Tunisia and the East?, 111; unguentaria, 119 villa sites: Adro-Vello (Pontevedra), 46; Arco Sempere (Elda), 116, n.322; Can Modolell (Mataró), 96, n.353; Caputxins (Mataró), 96, n.296, n.353; Casa Blanca (Tortosa), 87-8, 96, 108, n.296; Cegonha (Vidigueira), n.103; Centroña (Galicia), 46; Darró (Garraf), 36, 59, 87; Els Ametllers (Tossa de Mar), 30, n.107; Fontcalent (Alicante), 157, n.51, n.322; La Estanca (Layana), Table 13; La Olmeda, 62-3, n.245, n.247, n.248; La Ramière (Gard), 21, 26, 87, Table 7; Liédena, 52, n.107, n.204; Noville, 46; Parque de las Naciones (La Albufereta, Alicante), 30, 157, n.107, n.322; Piazza Armerina, 76; Pla de Palol, n.230; Poble Sec (Sant Quirze de Vallès), 30; Puig Rodon (Corça): wine production (52), LRA 1 (87, n.296, n.320, n.321), Tunisian imports (n.43, n.44, n.296, n.320, n.321), Cretan amphorae (n.313), Baetican amphorae (n.321); Sa Mesquida (Mallorca), Gallic fine wares (59), LRC (97), Vandal ARS (117-18, n.336); Sao Cucufate (Beja), n.103; Sentromà (Teià), wine and oil production, 30, n.107; Tolegassos, n.43, n.44; Vilablareix (Girona), t. s. chiara lucente, n.230; Vilauba, 59, n.107; Villarroya de la Sierra (Zaragoza), 61; Villena, villa sites, 158, n.51; Vinalopó Valley, villa sites, 157-8, 20, 81, 87, 108, 115-16, n.134, especially n.322, n.341, n.389; Vizcarra (Elche): 157, Balearic wine (115, n.419), Tunisian imports (n.322) Villar de Torre (TSHT): 61 Vinalopó Valley (Alicante): research on sites, typology and trade, x, 4-5, n.436; road system, 9, 87 and n.341 (role in distribution), n.6, n.495; centuriation, 9; Tunisian cooking wares, 20; ARS, 20, 59, 81, 94-5 and n.334 (Vandal), 105 (on fish processing sites), 118, n.336 (ARS 50.61), n.341; Tunisian amphorae, 81,

118, n.322, n.437; general imports, villas and highland sites, 81, 104-5, 118, 150, n.322, n.341; imports at Benalúa, 104-5, 116-18; Gallic fine wares, 59; Hispanic oil, 29, n.134, n.135; Hispanic fish, n.134; Balearic imports, 96, 115-16; Keay 1, 54; Keay 52, n.327; eastern amphorae, 81, 87 (villas), 98, 107-8, n.217, n.322, n.389; LRC, 98; t. s. meridional, n.267; presses, 30; local wine, fish and amphorae, 52, 104-5, 115-18, 144; local plain wares, 66; local painted wares, 66; imported cooking wares, 20 (Tunisian), 96, 118; within Byzantine territories, 120-1, 155, n.436, n.437; Visigothic period sites and pottery, 121, 134, 155, n.436, n.495; Arab sites, pottery, amphorae, 134 , 155, n.436, n.437; Appendix, 157-8; Figs 16a, 19, 20, 28-30; see also Via Augusta; Alicante (port); Alicante (province-region); Benalúa; Ilici; Santa Pola; villa sites Volterra: amphora imports, 77, n.102 York: Baetican oil, 25, 33, 79; Tunisian amphorae, 33; n.145; Table 5 Yumurtalik/Aegiae: 110, n.392 Zamora: Via de la Plata, 10, n.15; cerámica común bruñida, 63 Zaragoza (Caesaraugusta): 9; Gallic fine wares, 59; ARS, Tunisian cooking wares, TSHT, 62, 81, n.353; dating of TSHT, n.244; Majorian’s Vandal campaign, n.330; Suevi and Visigoths, n.330; resistance to Visigoths, n.436; oil production, n.107; Table 13 Zeugma: legionary camp, n.272 (p.266); annona supply, 28, 71, n.272 (p.265, 268), n.301; Spanish oil, 28, 71, 138; Campanian imports, 28, 53-4, 71; ARS, 28, 71, n.66; LRC, n.301; Kapitän 2, 71; Syrian calcareous amphorae; 73, n.272 (p.267); late Sinopean amphorae, 75, 152, n.262 (p.267); see also Seleucia ad Orontes Zhara: 41

372