LRCW 4 Late Roman Coarse Wares,

Cooking Wares and Amphorae in the Mediterranean Archaeology and archaeometry

The Mediterranean: a market without frontiers

Edited by

Natalia Poulou-Papadimitriou, Eleni Nodarou and Vassilis Kilikoglou

BAR International Series 2616 (I)2014

Volume I

Published by

ArchaeopressPublishers of British Archaeological ReportsGordon House276 Banbury RoadOxford OX2 7EDEnglandbar@archaeopress.comwww.archaeopress.com

BAR S2616 (I)

LRCW 4 Late Roman Coarse Wares, Cooking Wares and Amphorae in the Mediterranean: Archaeology and archaeometry. The Mediterranean: a market without frontiers. Volume I.

© Archaeopress and the individual authors 2014

Cover illustration: Early Byzantine amphora from Pseira, Crete (photo by C. Papanikolopoulos; graphic design by K. Peppas).

ISBN 978 1 4073 1251 4 (complete set of two volumes) 978 1 4073 1249 1 (this volume) 978 1 4073 1250 7 (volume II)

Printed in England by Information Press, Oxford

All BAR titles are available from:

Hadrian Books Ltd122 Banbury RoadOxfordOX2 7BPEnglandwww.hadrianbooks.co.uk

The current BAR catalogue with details of all titles in print, prices and means of payment is available free from Hadrian Books or may be downloaded from www.archaeopress.com

607

DEPICTIONS OF LATE ROMAN TRANSPORT AMPHORAE: A PRELIMINARY REPORT

DIMITRIOS ASIMAKOPOULOS,¹ ANASTASIOS OULKEROGLOU,² OLGA KATSAVELI³

Aristotle University of Thessaloniki

¹Kanari St. Triandria Thessaloniki 55337, Greece; giatroulis82@gmail.com

²Lefkados St. Sykies Thessaloniki 56626, Greece; tasoskomitis@yahoo.com

³Ioniou St. Evosmos Thessaloniki 56224, Greece; olga_katsaveli@hotmail.com

The progress of late Roman pottery research has decisively assisted in interpreting the archaeological material. However, in contrast to this advance in the archaeological-archaeometric position, the study of indirect sources concerning pottery products has not been given the attention required. In particular the examination of vessel depictions in the decorative arts has been greatly neglected. Their systematic study incorporating the context of each scene could help not only in the identification of the types represented, but also on matters of dating, provenance, distribution and content. The above perspective is here developed with regard to some “international” types of late Roman amphorae, whose depictions occur from the 3rd until the 7th centuries AD at the great centers of the empire, and also at provincial regions of eastern and western Mediterranean.

KEYWORDS: AMPHORAE, DEPICTIONS, POTTERY, CERAMICS, ICONOGRAPHY, MEDITERANNEAN, LATE ROMAN, BYZANTINE.

The study of late Roman amphorae has shown remarkable development over the last thirty years, offering solutions through scientific avenues to various problems. Specialized publications have led to the construction of solid typological series, while archaeometric inquiry has promoted knowledge in matters of origin and content. Although the study of the material itself saw progress made, unfortunately indirect sources of information have not been systematically studied. Though several scholars employed historical texts in treating issues of terminology, origin and function (Hilgers 1969, passim; Riley 1979, passim; Pieri 1998, 104, 2005, 69 ff; Peña 2007, 17-18 with references; about the Byzantine period, see Bakirtzis 1989, passim and 11-14 for a historic of research), this was not the case for depictions of amphorae in the decorative arts, barring the very occasional reference.

For example, J. Deneauve compared the two-handled vessel carried by a triclinarius from Carthage (Fig. 1) both with an amphora found at Trikdar Saniat and with the amphora on the mosaic at Dougga (Fig. 3) (Deneauve 1987, 217, 218 fig. 4, 5, 20- Tr 2. Note that Tr 3 holds a similar vessel, eg. 1987, 218 fig. 20, where these depictions are paralleled with the vessels represented on the lamps of Volubilis and Sabratha). Brun, on the other hand, identified the depiction at Dougga with a “Benghazi MRA 1”, reinforcing the theory of a north African origin for the type (Brun 2003, 25, fig. 7). This identification was adopted by C. Capelli and M. Bonifay, who nonetheless supported the probability of importation (Bonifay 2004, 148; Capelli and Bonifay 2007, 554).

The latter has also pointed out the depiction of a Kapitän II on a north African lamp (Fig. 2) and identified the vessel of the foresaid figurine with his jug Type 48 (Bonifay 2004, 148, fig. 178.11 and 285, fig. 157.7).

A. Ben Abed Ben Khader, M. Bonifay and M. Griesheimer identified the stamped amphora on the mosaic of Station 48 in the Piazzale delle Corporazioni at Ostia (Fig. 7) - erroneously considered in the past as a Dressel 30 - with a Mauritanian type they noted in Pupput. The new type was named after its depiction: Station 48 de la Place des Corporations (Ben Abed Ben Khader, Bonifay and Griesheimer 1999, 169-180).

Moreover, F. Bisconti, in his publication of the relief with the wine trade scene from the catacomb of Saint Sebastian in Rome (Fig. 6), in making a typological analysis of the depicted amphorae recognized an eclectic selection of various types. According to the Italian researcher, the dating proposed for the vessels coincided with the stylistical analysis of the sculpture (Bisconti 2003, 15-44).

M. Decker approached through depictions in North Syria the ways in which amphorae were carried (2001, 77). He also recognized an LRA 5 on the mosaic floor of the ‘House of Kyrios Leontis’ from Scythopolis (Fig. 10), while P. Reynolds would later identify an Agora M334 on a mosaic floor in the Archaeological Museum of Apamea (Fig. 11) (Reynolds 2005, 572; another depiction of amphora (an LRA 7?) transportation, see in Pieri 2005, fig. 82). In a recent study, E. Zanini also set out from

LRCW4

608

pictorial evidence various methods of carrying amphorae (2010, 141 fig. 1).

J. Th. Peña examined some depictions for evidence of amphora reuse (2007, 18, 133-134 fig. 6.1, 134-135 fig. 6.2, 141-142 fig. 6.5). John Lund employed a scene in the mosaic of the Great Palace in Constantinople (Fig. 9) as an example of this phenomenon (2007, 783), while A. Opaiţ and D. Parrish identified the type portrayed as an LRA1 (Opaiţ 2004, 294; Parrish 2005, 1111-1112).

Recently, D. Papanikola-Bakirtzi discussed late Roman amphorae illustrated in Thessaloniki (Fig. 16). The Greek scholar proposed typological identifications, concluding that expensive products contained in specific amphora types were imported into the city’s market (Papanikola-Bakirtzi 2010, 274 fig. 4).

Sporadic though they may be, these observations indicate that the critical approach of representations could provide useful information about typology, origin, distribution, content and dating of transport vessels. Besides, it is implicit that an approach of this kind could at the same time assist in the settlement of iconographical problems.

These are the issues we will attempt to present here, utilizing images of some of the most widespread late antique amphora types. This preliminary report was based around a number of representative examples, identified through bibliographical research and selected with respect to three factors: geographical range, date range, and an array of as many types as possible.

Typology

Depictions of north African cylindrical amphorae are common in Italy. Apart from the ‘Station 48’ of Ostia (Fig. 7), another example is found in Rome, in the catacomb of Via Latina. In the fresco with Ceres as Abundance (Ferrua 1991, 142 fig. 131) two slender cylindrical amphorae are depicted at the left of the goddess (Fig. 8). Their form recalls some variations of Africana IID and Africana IIIA (Bonifay 2004, 115-119, especially Type 27 - fig. 63.1, 6, 11, 13) or the transition between Africana IID1 and Africana III (fig. 62b). More specifically, the elongated spikes, the rounded shoulders, the slightly tapering necks, the form of the ear-shaped handles, the everted rims and the bright red surface could all be compared to Africana IIIA, a type well known in Rome judging by the numerous examples found in the excavations of Ostia (Manacorda 1977, 263-265, Pl. LXXVIII, especially n. 585, amphora n. 6. The handles can also be compared to n. 581 -amphora 2 and n. 587 -amphora 8, but the rims are quite different. On the importation of North African cylindrical amphorae in Rome, see Bonifay 2003, 120-121; Carignani-Pacetti 1989, 6-10, fig. 1).

In North Africa proper, it seems that globular forms were quite popular. A well distributed amphora type of this kind was MRA 1, depicted on the mosaic at Dougga (Fig. 3). In a contemporary mosaic with xenia motifs from El Djem, dated in the mid-to-late 3rd century (Kondoleon

1994, 131 with references), one of the panels is occupied by two vessels with comparable characteristics: spherical bodies, tubular necks, vertical L-shaped handles and ringed bases (Fig. 4). Thus, one could suppose that they are inspired by MRA 1, which is furthermore represented by numerous actual examples in El Djem (Bonifay 2004, 148 fig. 80). However, the walls of the two vases show greater curvature and their shoulders are not carinated as in a real life MRA 1. In our opinion, these characteristics should rather be correlated to table vessels, such as the jug type 48 of Bonifay or Hayes Form 173, which were also distributed in El Djem (see Bonifay 2004, 285 fig. 157 and Hayes 1972, 17, 197, Pl. IXb respectively. This form was also fashioned in glass, Bonifay 2004, 285). In any case it is obvious that these globular forms were destined for expensive products, since they are the preferred shape in scenes of hospitality. Further, a much later example of a North African globular form is found on the Vandal sarcophagus of Tebessa (Wilpert 1934, 260 fig. 7) (Fig. 5). Wilpert adopted Gsell’s opinion, recognizing it as an amula, a small vase in which the wine for the communion was offered (1934, 264). Typologically, the distinctive feature of this depiction is its significantly high foot, which has nothing to do with an amphora. This kind of base probably belongs to a flagon or a jug, perhaps the type 49 of Bonifay, which has additionally been detected in a Vandal context (Bonifay 2004, 285 fig. 157).

In the Eastern Mediterranean, two representations of Levantine carrot-bodied amphorae are listed. As well as that on the mosaic of Apamea (Fig. 11), another example is met with on a mosaic floor of the late 2nd century in the house of Dionysus, in Paphos (Kondoleon 1994, 316-319) (Figs. 14-15). Ch. Kondoleon compared this depiction to Hayes Paphos Type 2, which is the most common type in the destruction deposits of the house (Kondoleon 1994, 129-130. For the type, see Hayes 1991, 91 Pl 24; Reynolds 2005, 569 Pl. 9 fig. 67). It is true that the sharply tapering body is quite similar. However, the form of the handles is closer to the Amrit type, which is also represented in a destruction deposit (Hayes 1991, 94, Pl. 25; Reynolds 2005, 567-568 Pl. 7 fig. 46). Consequently, a mingling between the two forms is highly possible.

Typical Palestinian forms are found in scenes of maritime trade. Apart from the bag-shaped amphorae in the mosaic of Scythopolis (Fig. 10) (about LRA5/6 and its origin, see Pieri 1998, 101-102; 2005, 114-127; Reynolds 2005, 573-574; Scythopolis - Beth She’an - was one of the production centers of the LRA 6 variant), a representation of an LRA 4 is detected on mount Nebo, in the temple of Lot and Procopius (Figs. 12-13). In the mosaic with the fisherman and the boatman the transport amphorae presents the characteristic loop handles and the cylindrical body ending directly in the rim, without a neck. Besides, the reddish tone of the depicted vessels’ surface could be compared to the pale red-orange fabric of certain LRA 4 examples (about LRA 4, see Pieri 2005, 101-114; Regev 2004, 337-352; Reynolds 2005, 574-575, Pl. 20. Note that Nebo lies very close to the production centers of the type).

ASIMAKOPOULOS-OULKEROGLOU-KATSAVELI

609

Forms common in the Aegean and West Asia Minor are met in a 4th-century tomb painting at Thessaloniki. In two of the tombs of Tellogleio (here: T1 and T2), now exhibited in the Museum of Byzantine Culture of Thessaloniki, hunting scenes contain vessel depictions (Figs. 16-17). E. Marki identified two metallic vessels (‘a one-handled hydria and a globular amphora’) and two ceramic amphorae, which terminate in spikes or elongated feet (2006, 166-168). In T1 the supposed metallic vases frame the ceramic amphorae, while in T2 they are placed in the second and fourth position from the left. Concerning T2, the identification of these vessels as metallic is strengthened by some details, such as the knob between the conical base and the body of the ‘hydria’ or the very thin section of the handles of the globular amphora. In T1, however, there are no such indications. D. Papanikola-Bakirtzi accurately identified the one-handled fusiform amphora (T1: second from the left. T2: third from the left) with the early form of LRA 3 (Papanikola-Bakirtzi 2010, 274; about LRA 3, see Pieri 1998, 100-101, 105 fig. 8; 2005, 94-101). However, her opinion that the globular amphora is imitating a LRA 2 (Papanikola-Bakirtzi 2010, 274) should probably be reconsidered. Although the conical neck and the spherical body could be related to the type, the ringed base, the carinated shoulder and the band rim are foreign to it (about LRA 2, see Pieri 2005, 85-93). If we accept Bakirtzi’s identification of it as a ceramic amphora, then an imitation of MRA 1 as suggested by M. Bonifay and J.-C. Tréglia (2010, 1036) is far more possible. On the other hand it is almost certain that the elongated amphora with the conical body, the high arch-shaped handles and the conical neck, which widens towards the shoulder (T1: third from the left. T2: first from the left), can be compared to Kapitän II (about Kapitän II, see Riley 1979, 189-192). The rendition of the shape is more successful than on the foresaid North African lamp (Fig. 2): however in the tombs of Tellogleio the ribbing of the neck is omitted.

Still in Thessaloniki, in the tomb n. 57 of the West Cemetery, five amphorae are depicted in a line (Marki 2006, 165-167) (Fig. 18). The first from the left cannot be easily identified due to its partial preservation. The body is slightly elongated, but the combination of rim, neck and handles possibly follows the MRA 1 plan. In the second one we recognize another depiction of a Kapitän II. The next couple of images probably reflect the two variations of the two-handled version of LRA 3, with curved and sloping shoulder. It is highly possible too that the last, carelessly rendered, vessel belongs to the same type.

It should be noted that all securely recognizable types in the frescoes of Thessaloniki were widely distributed in Greece and many examples are found in Macedonia proper. The two-handled variations of LRA 3 are very common in Northern Greece from the 4th to the 6th centuries, with examples in Thessaloniki, Torone, Thasos, and Philippi (Trivyzadaki 2005, 58 with references). On the contrary, the one-handled variant of LRA 3, very common in Southern Greece (Abadie 1989, 48-49), seems to be extremely rare in Macedonia or, at

least, we do not know of any published examples. We could say the same about Kapitän II: nevertheless amphorae of this type are exhibited in the Archaeological Museum of Dion in Pieria. It should also be noted that Kapitän II and LRA 3 are often detected in common contexts, as it is observed in the Athenian Agora (Robinson 1959, 103-106, Pl. 28, 109-110, Pl. 29, 111-112, Pl. 31).

Depictions showing a mingling of shapes form a particular group of evidence. In these cases more than one type are used as models for a single image: peculiar combinations of characteristics result. As well as the San Sebastiano relief (Fig. 6) and the Paphos Mosaic (Fig. 15), perhaps we could explain in this way some morphological particulars observed on the Great Palace amphora (Fig. 9), which has been identified as an LRA 1. The ribbed cylindrical body, the rounded base and the orange-brown surface certainly recall an LRA 1, but the elegant S-shaped handles and the significantly widened rim do not. Therefore, we cannot exclude the possibility that these specific details are inspired by some other type: compare it, for example, to the upper part of the amphora P81 found on the 7th century shipwreck of Yassi-Ada (Bass and Van Doornick 1982, 186, 187 fig. 8-22).

Origin / Distribution

Artists drew both local and imported types. Locally produced specimens are to be expected and usually do not offer valuable conclusions; however, in scenes of trade they do reflect the importance of certain exports for the local economy. In Palestine, this practice is met with in religious buildings (Figs. 10, 12-13).

Imported types of established origin, such as North African amphorae in Italy (Figs. 7-8) or LRA 3 in Thessaloniki (Figs. 16-18), can be used as evidence of trade relations (about the origin of LRA 3, see Abadie-Reynal 2004, 17; Pieri 2005, 100). These external products, obviously far more expensive than local ones, are usually detected in works of importance such as mosaic floors and burial frescoes. As a result, we can assume that they were aimed at the higher classes, who showed off their wealth through such portrayals (Bonifay 2004, 148). However, it is observed that western types are not common in the Levant – with the possible exception of MRA1 in Thessaloniki (Figs. 16-18) (about the origin and imitations of MRA1, see Bonifay 2004, 147-148; Bonifay and Tréglia 2010, 1036), and vice versa, except for the depiction of a Kapitän II in North Africa (Fig. 2) (about the origin of Kapitän II, see Panella 1973, 598-599; Riley 1979, 192; Peacock-Williams 1986, 193-195; Abadie-Reynal 2004, 16) or a Camulodunum 184 in Rome (Fig. 6) (Bisconti 2003, 34 note 72; about the type, see Panella 1973, 555-559, 631 fig. 37; Peacock-Williams 1986, 102-104). The depiction at Paphos (Fig. 15) is of particular interest, since it probably represents a cross between a local and an imported form.

LRCW4

610

Content

The contents of the amphora types are often postulated from the context of the compositions where they are depicted. For example, in the mosaic at Dougga (Fig. 3) it is evident from the action and the inscriptions that the amphorae contained wine (Dunbabin 1978, 123 note 50). We can assume the same for the examples seen at Paphos (Fig. 14) and the tombs of Tellogleio in Thessaloniki (Figs. 16-17), where the amphorae are surrounded by other vessels, probably destined for serving (in that case, the one-handled metallic vessel of T2 should be identified as an oinochoe and not as a hydria. However, it must be noted that similar forms of vases of the 4th–5th centuries were also used for washing or bathing, Mundell Mango and Bennett 1994, 241 ff., nos. 6-7, 10-12). All told there are reliable indications that the depicted types - MRA 1, LRA 3, Kapitän II, Hayes Paphos Type II and the Amrit Amphora - were used as wine containers (all these types have been related to wine trade; about MRA 1, see Bonifay 2004, 148; Capelli and Bonifay 2007, 554; Bonifay and Tréglia 2010, 1036; about LRA 3, see Abadie-Reynal 2004, 17; Pieri 2005, 100-101; about Kapitän II, see Panella 1973, 598-599; Abadie-Reynal 2004, 16; about Hayes Paphos Type II, see Kondoleon 1994, 130 note 34; about the Amrit Type, see Reynolds 2005, 568).

Nevertheless, the context is not always helpful. For example, the amphorae depicted in the Catacomb of Via Latina (Fig. 8) could contain any agricultural product blessed by Ceres, since in the scenes of the entrance and vault of Cubiculum O corn and wine are portrayed as well in a ‘single concept of agricultural abundance’ (Ferrua 1991, 142-144, figs 131-133). As a result, the problem of the content of these cylindrical amphorae remains unsolved (Bonifay 2003, 120-121, where wine is suggested).

Conversely, when the possible contents of a type are known, it is easier to comprehend the scenes in which this is depicted. A good example is provided by the mosaic of Nebo (Fig. 12). It has repeatedly been claimed that the two parts of the scene are not connected (Piccirillo 1993, 37; Asimakopoulou-Atzaka 2003, fig. 118a-caption), yet we should keep in mind that LRA 4 was used, among several purposes, for fish exportation (Riley 1979, 222; Abadie-Reynal 2004, 19 note 33; Pieri 2005, 110). Consequently, it would be logical to suppose that the whole scene refers to the fish trade, being set forth in three interrelated levels: the fishing, the transport and the destination of the product (indicated by the building in the background).

Moreover, when identifying contents, the prospect of reuse should always be taken into consideration. The Great Palace mosaic (Fig. 9) provides a typical example of a transport vessel reused for livestock (about depictions of amphorae reused as water-jars or mortar containers, see Peña 2007, 18, 133-134 fig. 6.1, 134-135 fig. 6.2, 141-142 fig. 6.5).

Chronology

It should immediately be noted that the dating of a depiction can seldom serve to date an amphora type and vice versa, due to the extensive periods of production of late Roman amphorae. However, depictions in well-dated scenes can offer precise indications about the circulation of types. For example, it is a common place that Gazan amphorae were widely distributed during the 6th century, but the dedicatory inscription in the church of Lot and Procopius (Fig. 12) specifically mentions the year AD 557 (Piccirillo 1993, 164). In the same way, the presence of Africana IIIA in the fresco of Via Latina (Fig. 8) shows that between AD 320 and AD 350 Rome sustained its trade relations with the cities of Tunisia (about the dating of the frescoes, see Ferrua 1991, 153-158). Moreover, in cases of eclectic representations, we can be sure that for a certain period the component types co-existed, for example Hayes Paphos Type II and the Amrit Amphora in Cyprus of the late 2nd century (Fig. 15) (Kondoleon 1994, 316-319). In a similar way, when amphorae depictions adorn ceramic products we can assume that the depicted type of amphora and the vase carrying the scene were distributed in parallel, for example Kapitän II and Deneauve VII1b (Fig. 2). Riley underlined the lack of evidence to show that the Kapitän II type was imported into North Africa before the early 3rd century (1979, 191), while Deneauve VII1b is dated there in the late 2nd century (Bonifay 2004, 321-322). Accordingly, it is possible that this depiction reflects the first imports of Kapitän II in North Africa.

Then again, depictions of types of a sure identification can be used in the relative dating of the scenes in which they are found. This option proves extremely helpful in the case of the tombs of Thessaloniki (Fig. 16-18), which are almost similar in style and iconography. E. Pelekanidou dated the tombs of the Tellogleio in the first half of the 4th century (1994, 530). Concerning the date of tomb n. 57, E. Marki proposed either the third quarter of the 4th or the first years of the 5th century (2006, 223-224 and 238-239) suggesting that its décor is influenced by that of the Tombs of Tellogleio. But these datings are not supported by the finds from the tombs. A single coin of Honorius found in tomb n. 57 (Marki 2006, 224) could have well come from a second use of the monument. However a chronological ordering based on the depictions of the LRA 3 would be much more secure. As it has already been noted, the one-handled variation in the tombs of Tellogleio (Figs. 16-17) is replaced by the two-handled one in tomb n. 57 (Fig. 18). Since the transition from the first form to the second took place in the late 4th century (Riley 1979, 229; Pieri 2005, 95-96), the frescoes must be dated around this period, with the tombs of Tellogleio being slightly earlier. Of course we cannot exclude the possibility that for a very short span, just before 400 AD, the two variations of LRA 3 could have circulated simultaneously.

ASIMAKOPOULOS-OULKEROGLOU-KATSAVELI

611

Conclusions

The fundamental conclusion deriving from this preliminary report is that depictions can provide valuable information about late Roman amphorae and their social-economic framework. At the same time, it has shown that archaeological evidence coming from the study of pottery can be used in resolving iconographic problems. Consequently, a combined approach could reveal a fuller image of late Roman civilization. One hopes that specialized research so oriented may take place in the future. In addition, the identification of the depicted vessels with known amphora types, supported by study of origin, distribution, content and chronology, indicates that the problem of anachronistic models in Byzantine art (Mango 1981, 50-51) should be reconsidered, at least for its earliest period.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Abadie, C. 1989. Les amphores protobyzantines d’Argos (IVe-VIe siècles). In V. Déroche and J.-M. Spieser (eds.), Recherches sur la céramique byzantine, Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique, Supplément 18, 47-56.

Abadie-Reynal, C. 2004. Les amphores méditerranéennes d’importation trouvées à Zeugma: présentation préliminaire. In J. Eiring and J. Lund (eds.), Transport Amphorae and Trade in the Eastern Mediterranean. Acts of the International Colloquium at the Danish Institute at Athens, September 26-29, 2002, Monographs of the Danish Institute at Athens, 5, 15-21. Aarhus, Aarhus University Press.

Asimakopoulou-Atzaka, P. 2003. Ψηφιδωτά δάπεδα. Προσέγγιση στην τέχνη του αρχαίου ψηφιδωτού. Thessaloniki, University Studio Press.

Bakirtzis, Ch. 1989. Βυζαντινά τσουκαλολάγηνα: συμβολή στη μελέτη ονομασιών, σχημάτων και χρήσεων πυρίμαχων μαγειρικών σκευών, μεταφορικών και αποθηκευτικών δοχείων. Athens, Archaeological Receipts Fund.

Bass, G. F. and Van Doorninck, F. H. 1982. Yassi-Ada, I: a seventh century shipwreck. Texas, A&M University Press.

Ben Abed Ben Khader, A. Bonifay, M. and Griesheimer, M. 1999. L’amphore maurétanienne de la Station 48 de la Place des Corporations, identifiée à Pupput (Hammamet, Tunisie). Antiquités Africaines 35, 169-180.

Bisconti, F. 2003. Scena di commercio del vino in un rilievoinedito della regione d’ex Vigna Chiaraviglio in San Sebastiano. Rivista di Archeologia Cristiana 79, 15-44.

Bonifay, M. 2003. La céramique africaine, un indice du développement économique? Antiquité Tardive 11, 113-128.

Bonifay, M. 2004. Études sur la céramique romaine tardive d’Afrique. British Archaeological Reports, International Series 1301. Oxford, Archaeopress.

Bonifay, M. and Tréglia, J.-C. 2010. De Vigo à Voitenki, en passant par Pise et Parme, In S. Menchelli, S. Santorio, M. Pasquinucci and G. Guiducci (eds.), LRCW3. Late Roman Coarse Wares, Cooking Wares and Amphorae in the Mediterranean. Archaeology and Archaeometry. British Archaeological Reports, International Series 2185, 1033-1039. Oxford, Archaeopress.

Brun, J. P. 2003. Les pressoirs à vin d’Afrique et de Maurétanie à l’époque romaine. Africa, Série Séances Scientifiques 1, 7-30.

Capelli, C. and Bonifay, M. 2007. Archéométrie et archéologie des céramiques africaines: une approche pluridisciplinaire. In M. Bonifay and J.-Ch. Tréglia (eds.), LRCW2. Late Roman Coarse Wares, Cooking Wares and Amphorae in the Mediterranean. Archaeology and Archaeometry. British Archaeological Reports, International Series 1662, 551-567. Oxford, Archaeopress.

Carignani, A. and Pacetti, F. 1989. Importazione di anfore bizantine a Roma. In V. Déroche and J.-M. Spieser (eds.), Recherches sur la céramique byzantine, Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique, Supplément 18, 5-16.

Decker, M. 2001. Food for an Empire: Wine and Oil Production in North Syria. In S. Kingsley, and M. Decker (eds.), Economy and Exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean during Late Antiquity, Proceedings of a Conference at Somerville College, Oxford 29th May, 1999, 69-86. Oxford, Oxbow.

Deneauve, J. 1987. Figurines et lampes africaines. Antiquités Africaines 23, 197-251.

Dunbabin, K. M. D. 1978. The Mosaics of Roman North Africa: Studies in Iconography and Patronage. Oxford, Clarendon.

Ferrua, A. 1991. The Unknown Catacomb: a unique discovery of Early Christian Art. New Lanark, Geddes and Grosset.

Hayes, J. W. 1972. Late Roman Pottery. London, The British School at Rome.

Hayes, J. W. 1991. The Hellenistic and Roman Pottery, Paphos 3. Nicosia, Department of Antiquities, Cyprus.

Hilgers, W. 1969. Lateinische Gefässnamen. Bezeichnungen, Funktion und Form römischer Gefässenach den antiken Schriftquellen. Bonner Jahrbücher Beihefte, Bd 31, Düsseldorf.

Kingsley, S. and Decker, M. (eds.) 2001. Economy and Exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean during Late Antiquity, Proceedings of a Conference at Somerville College, Oxford 29th May, 1999. Oxford, Oxbow.

LRCW4

612

Kondoleon, Ch. 1994. Domestic and Divine: Roman Mosaics in the House of Dionysus. Ithaca, Cornell University Press.

Lund, J. 2007. Transport Amphorae as a Possible Source for the Land Use and Economic History of the Akamas Peninsula, Western Cyprus. In LRCW2, 781-790.

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, 117-285. Studi Miscellanei 23. Rome, De Luca.

Mango, C. 1981. Discontinuity with the Classical Past in Byzantium. In M. Mullet and R. Scott (eds.), Byzantium and the Classical Tradition. Thirteenth Spring Symposium of Byzantine Studies 1979, 48-57. Centre for Byzantine Studies, University of Birmingham.

Marki, E. 2006. Η Νεκρόπολη της Θεσσαλονίκης κατά τους υστερορωμαϊκούς και παλαιοχριστιανικούς χρόνους (μέσα του 3ου–μέσα του 8ου αιώνα μ.Χ.). Athens, Archaeological Receipts Fund.

Mundell Mango, M. and Bennett, A. 1994. The Sevso Treasure. Journal of Roman Archaeology, Supplement 12.1, 11-480.

Opaiţ, A. 2004. The Eastern Mediterranean Amphorae in the Province of Scythia, In J. Eiring and J. Lund (eds.), Transport amphorae and Trade in the Eastern Mediterranean. Acts of the International Colloquium at the Danish Institute at Athens, September 26-29, 2002, 293-308. Monographs of the Danish Institute at Athens 5. Aarhus, Aarhus University Press.

Panella, C. 1973. Le anfore. In A. Carandini and C. Panella (eds.), Ostia III. Le terme del Nuotatore. Scavo dell’ ambiente V e di un saggionell’area SO, Studi Miscellanei 21, 463-633. Rome, De Luca.

Papanikola-Bakirtzi, D. 2010. Ceramics in Late Antique Thessaloniki. In L. Nasrallah, Ch. Bakirtzis and S. J. Friesen (eds.), From Roman to Early Christian Thessaloniki. Studies in Religion and Archaeology. 263-297. Harvard University Press.

Parrish, D. C. 2005. The Art - Historical Context of the Great Palace Mosaic at Constantinople. In H. Morlier (ed), La mosaïque gréco - romaine 9.2, Actes du 9ème Colloque International pour l’étude de la mosaïque antique et médiévale organisé à Rome, 5-10 Novembre 2001, 1103-1117. École Française de Rome.

Peacock, D. P. S. and Williams, D. F. 1986. Amphorae and the Roman economy. An introductory guide. London and New York, Longman.

Pelekanidou, E. 1994. Ανασκαφή Τελλόγλειου ιδρύματος ΑΠΘ (ανατολικό νεκροταφείο Θεσσαλονίκης).

Archaiologikon Deltion 49, (1994), Chronika Β2, 529-530.

Peña, Th. J. 2007. Roman Pottery in the Archaeological Record. Cambridge University Press.

Piccirillo, M. 1993. The Mosaics of Jordan. Amman. American Center of Oriental Research.

Pieri, D. 1998. Les importations d’amphores orientales en Gaule méridionale durant l’Antiquité Tardive et le Haut Moyen-Age (IVe-VIIe s. apr. J.-C.). Typologie, chronologie et contenu. In L. Rivet and S. Saulnier (eds.), Importations d’amphores en Gaule du Sud, du règne d’ Auguste à l’ Antiquité Tardive, Actes du Congrès d’ Istres, 21-24 Mai 1998, SFECAG, 97-106. Marseille.

Pieri, D. 2005. Le commerce du vin à l’époque Byzantine (IVe-VIIe siècles). Les témoignages des amphores en Gaule. Bibliothèque archéologique et historique 174. Beyrouth, Institut Français du Proche-Orient.

Regev, D. 2004. The Phoenician Trade Amphora, In J. Eiring and J. Lund (eds.), Transport amphorae and Trade in the Eastern Mediterranean, Acts of the International Colloquium at the Danish Institute at Athens, September 26-29, 2002. Monographs of the Danish Institute at Athens, 5, 337-352. Aarhus, Aarhus University Press.

Reynolds, P. 2005. Levantine Amphorae from Cilicia to Gaza: a Typology and Analysis of Regional Production Trends from the 1st to 7th centuries, In J. M. Gurt I Esparaguera, J. Buxeda I Garrigos and M. A. Cau Ontiveros (eds.), LRCW1. Late Roman Coarse Wares, Cooking Wares and Amphorae in the Mediterranean. Archaeology and Archaeometry. British Archaeological Reports, International Series 1340, 563-611. Oxford, Archaeopress.

Riley, J. A. 1979. The coarse pottery from Berenice. In J. A. Lloyd (ed.), Excavations at Sidi Khrebish Benghazi (Berenice), vol. II, Supplement to Libya Antiqua V-2, 91-449. Tripoli, Department of Antiquities.

Robinson, H. S. 1959. , The Athenian Agora V. Pottery of the Roman Period. Princeton N.J., The American School of Classical Studies at Athens.

Trivyzadaki, A. 2005. Η κεραμική της οικοδομικής νησίδας 4 της παλαιοχριστιανικής πόλεως των Φιλίππων. Unpublished PhD Thesis, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki.

Wilpert, G. 1934. La chiesa romana sul sarcofago di Tebessa. Rivista di Archeologia Cristiana 11, 249-264.

Zanini, E. 2010. Forma delle anfore e forme del commercio tardoantico: spunti per una riflessione, In LRCW3, 139-148.

ASIMAKOPOULOS-OULKEROGLOU-KATSAVELI

613

1. 2.

3.

4. 5.

Fig. 1. Carthage. National Museum. Inv. 63.3.1. Terracota figurine of Triclinarius (Deneauve 1987, fig. 20 / Tr 2).

Fig. 2. Pupput. Terracota Lamp from Tomb 408 (Bonifay 2004, fig. 178.11). Fig. 3. Dougga. Mosaic of Cupbearers. Detail (Dunbabin, 1978, Pl. 45.114).

Fig. 4. El Djem. Mosaic of Dice-players. Detail (Asimakopoulou-Atzaka 2003, fig. 146). Fig. 5. Tebessa. Vandal Sarcophagus (Wilpert 1934, fig. 7).

LRCW4

614

6.

7. 8.

9.

Fig. 6. Rome. Catacomb of San Sebastiano. Relief with wine trade scene (Bisconti 2003, fig. 1). Fig. 7. Ostia. Station 48 de la Place des Corporations. Mosaic. Detail (Ben Abed – Ben Khader, Bonifay, Griesheimer

1999, fig. 1). Fig. 8. Rome. Catacomb of Via Latina. Ceres as Abundance (Ferrua 1991, fig. 131).

Fig. 9. Constantinople. Great Palace. Mosaic. Detail (Parrish 2005, fig. 8).

ASIMAKOPOULOS-OULKEROGLOU-KATSAVELI

615

10. 11.

12. 13.

Fig. 10. Beth Shean. “House of Kyrios Leontis” (Synagogue). Mosaic. Detail (Kingsley-Decker 2001, frontispiece). Fig. 11. Apamea Archaeological Museum. Mosaic depicting a boat carrying amphorae. Detail (Decker 2001, fig. 4.5). Figs. 12-13. Mount Nebo. Church of Lot and Procopius. Mosaic with fisherman and boatman. Detail (Asimakopoulou-

Atzaka 2003, fig. 118α).

14. 15.

Figs. 14-15. Paphos. House of Dionysus. Room 9. Mosaic. Details (Kondoleon 1994, fig. 76).

LRCW4

616

16.

17.

18.

Fig. 16. Thessaloniki. Museum of Byzantine Culture. Barrel-vaulted tomb from Tellogleio (T1). Fresco (Papanikola-

Bakirtzi 2010, fig. 4). Fig. 17. Thessaloniki. Museum of Byzantine Culture. Barrel-vaulted tomb from Tellogleio (T2). Fresco (Marki 2006,

fig. 114). Fig. 18. Thessaloniki. West Cemetery. 115, Ampelonon St. Tomb n. 57. Fresco (Marki, 2006, fig. 112).