Integrating an Empire: Maritime Trade and Agricultural Supply in Roman Cyprus

The wrecks and artifadiscovered in the excations indicate that the hbor began gathering silits western end soon athe mole was constructo form the harbor baIn time, as the silting pgressed eastward and

The wrecks and artifadiscovered in the excations indicate that the hbor began gathering silits western end soon athe mole was constructo form the harbor baIn time, as the silting pgressed eastward and

13. Jahrgang 2013 · Heft 1 1

Vorwort 3

Coastal and underwater Late Urnfield sites in South Etruria5Clarissa Belardelli

Ships of Aquileia18Underwater Archaeological Research on Marine and Inland Routes of the Upper Adriatic Sea

Massimo Capulli

Lead ingot cargoes from Carthago Nova to Rome24Some remarks on the presence of people from Campania in the exploitation of Iberian mines

Michele Stefanile

The shift of trade routes across the English Channel 32during the Roman expansion in western Europe

Jonas Enzmann

Britannisches Blei auf dem Weg nach Rom38Die Metallversorgung der Reichsmetropole am Beginn der Herrschaft des L. Septimius Severus

Nobert Hanel - Peter Rothenhöfer - Michael Bode - Andreas Hauptmann

A glimpse into the Early Imperial Roman Atlantic trade43Historical and marine context of a ceramic assemblage in a shipwreck at Cortiçais (Peniche, Portugal)

Jean-Yves Blot - Sonia Bombico

Caesarea Maritima and the Grand Strategy53Gil Gambash

Integrating an Empire59Maritime Trade and Agricultural Supply in Roman Cyprus

Justin Leidwanger

The Sutivan Shipwreck67A cargo of sarcophagi and stone of the Roman period

Igor Mihajlovic

Inhalt

2013-Skyllis-13-Heft-1-Quark8-.qxd 02.05.2014 23:20 Seite 1

73Food supply from Tauric ChersonesosProducts and TransportationMarina `Cechová

81Late Byzantine amphorae from eastern Adriatic underwater sitesVesna Zmaic

89Vom Seeungeheuer verfolgt?Zwischen Fiktion und Realität der Gefahr auf hoher SeeLeon Ziemer

99Die strategische Lage der Insel Rügen in Verbindung mit Stralsund und dem HinterlandThomas Förster

113 Das Bücherbrett

Titelmotiv

Historische Darstellung des Systems vonBefestigungswerken zwischen Usedomund der Südostküste Rügens, die derSperrung der Zufahrt nach Stralsunddienten, 1715.

Aus: Th. Förster,Die strategische Lage der Insel Rügen inVerbindung mit Stralsund und demHinterland, Abb. 8.


Scale in the Maritime Economy

Archaeologists investigating themaritime economy often take forgranted the presence of a Gaulishfine ware plate fragment in the shal-lows off Cyprus or a Lusitanianamphora sherd off the Turkishcoast. These far-flung imports maybe noticeable, but they onlyamount to a few percent – some-times even less – of ceramics con-sumed at a site, a tiny slice oncharts of quantified pottery. Thelong shift in archaeology towardfuller and more meaningful quan-tification has encouraged scholarsto emphasize the massive volumesof local products that bear witnessto how people traded, ate andlived. Such studies aim to recon-struct an „average“ life in the an-

cient world, at least with regard topatterns of consumption. But fromthe perspective of distribution, dothese local products belong to aseparate maritime economy thanthe more famous long-distancegoods? Did they share commonexchange mechanisms, or did theydepend on distinct systems withnot only different consumers butcontrasting models of trade?

This paper aims to embrace bothends of this distribution spectrumat once – the exotic and the mun-dane – arguing that the two mustbe understood as part of a singleintegrated socioeconomic systemat the height of the Roman Em-pire’s prosperity. Local and region-al maritime exchange cannot beseparated from longer-distance

currents of trade, and likewiselong-distance exchange cannot beunderstood without the context ofsmaller-scale and short-haul ven-tures11. Analyzing supply in theRoman Empire must entail embrac-ing multiple scales of economicgeography even when focusing onone harbor, one ship, or even oneamphora. From the perspective ofmaritime archaeology, shipwrecksand ports offer evidence for inter-locking chains of distribution thatdelivered goods from near and far.The primary focus here is on arecently explored shipwreck andtwo minor ports along the southcoast of Cyprus (FFiigg.. 11). The smallship, while serving a more localrole in short-haul exchange, none-theless attests to wider economicnetworks and larger-scale currents


Integrating an Empire

Maritime Trade and Agricultural Supply in Roman Cyprus

Justin Leidwanger

Abstract – Archaeological surveys off Cyprus have brought to light evidence for complex seaborne exchange net-works during the Roman era. A shipwreck explored off the island’s southeast coast at Fig Tree Bay offers a profileof a commercial venture that may have been typical of one level of maritime economic integration: a small cargoof primarily Cilician and North Syrian amphoras, along with a handful of more exotic exports. The mixed assem-blage hints at broader patterns in the background distribution of agricultural goods between major imperial cen-ters, regional emporia, minor port towns, and outlying non-urban coastal areas. Viewed alongside local maritimeactivity at two small opportunistic ports, this material record provides a window into the dynamics of seaborneexchange and the intersection of small-scale and short-haul with larger-scale and longer-distance trade. The inter-play of these models of exchange bears directly on the role of markets that brought local and international goodsand information to a quiet Roman province, and in turn opened Cypriot agricultural produce for consumptionacross the Roman world. Together, these scattered remains help to fill out a picture of limited maritime economicintegration and market development in the northeast Mediterranean and beyond.

Inhalt – Archäologische Surveys vor Zypern haben Beweise für komplexe Geflechte des Warenaustauschs zur Römerzeit erge-ben. Ein vor der Südostküste der Insel in der Fig Tree Bay erforschtes Wrack lässt die Umrisse eines Handelsunternehmenserkennen, das für ein bestimmtes Niveau wirtschaftlicher Verbindungen über See typisch gewesen sein dürfte. Es enthielt einekleine Fracht meist kilikischer und nordsyrischer Amphoren und dazu eine Handvoll exotischerer Exporte. Diese Mischunglässt erkennen, dass dahinter ein breiteres Geflecht des Austauschs von Agrarprodukten zwischen größeren Reichszentren,regionalen Handelsplätzen, kleinen Hafenstädten und abgelegenen ländlichen Küstenstrichen steht. Betrachtet man diesesMaterial zusammen mit der örtlichen maritimen Tätigkeit in zwei kleinen „Gelegenheitshäfen“, dann öffnet sich ein Ausblickauf die Dynamik des Austauschs über See und darauf, wie sich Klein- und Kurzstreckenhandel mit Massen- und Fernhandelkreuzen. Das Zusammenspiel dieser beiden Arten des Austauschs prägt direkt die Rolle von Märkten, die örtliche und inter-nationale Waren und Kenntnisse in eine stille römische Provinz brachten und umgekehrt zyprischen Agrarprodukten den Wegzum Konsum quer durch die römische Welt öffneten. Gemeinsam betrachtet ergeben diese zerstreuten Reste ein Bild begrenz-ter ökonomischer Anbindung über See und Marktentwicklung im nordöstlichen Mittelmeer und darüber hinaus.


that linked Mediterranean ex-change across the Roman world.Simple port facilities speak to localcommunities’ engagement withthe maritime landscape and theirintegration into broader seabornetrade.

Case Study 1

Local & Long-Distance Trade inthe Fig Tree Bay Shipwreck Cargo

Archaeological survey conductedoff Cyprus in 2007 located theremains of a small shipwreck – bestdated to the 2nd century AD – off theisland’s southeast coast not farnorth of Cape Greco at Fig TreeBay (FFiiggss.. 11--22). Explored in moredetail intermittently during 2008and 2009, the site lies strewnamong the rocks and reefs off apromontory marked by strong cur-rents. Here it seems likely that thevessel struck the shallows andspilled its cargo, which the currentsand wave action scattered acrossthe seabed. Despite significantchallenges presented by this dy-namic environment, a preliminarymap was undertaken, along withfull counts and representative sam-pling of cargo amphoras, and doc-umentation of additional ceramicand non-ceramic finds22.

No traces of the ship itself can beexpected on this inhospitable shal-low seabed of reefs and rocks.Fragments of roof tiles were locat-ed in the northern part of the site,where they may hint at a ship’scabin or galley. The pottery assem-blage revealed what were probablygalley and dining wares, includingnotably the rim of a juglet and atleast one mortarium fragment. Alate Rhodian-style amphora handle– a lone find representing a smallvariant of the common transportjar – most likely points to crewprovisions (FFiigg.. 33).

Cargo amphoras comprise by farthe greatest component of the FigTree Bay assemblage. Close in-spection of these jars aimed notonly to provide detailed counts forindividual types, but to detect any

possibly intrusive material andevaluate the hypothesis that the siterepresents a shipwreck. The lack ofsignificant intrusive material andcoherence of the cargo, togetherwith its isolation from other ar-chaeological material in the area,suggests that the site should be ap-proached as a shipwreck. In all,some 133 amphoras were counted,falling into four groups discussedhere in turn.

Nearly two-thirds (86 examples,64.7%) are Agora M54 jars, a typelong identified as a Cilician variantof the popular bifid-handle am-phoras derived originally fromHellenistic Koan prototypes andmanufactured throughout theMediterranean during the earlyRoman era (FFiigg.. 44)33. These jars wereproduced just across from Cyprusin coastal eastern Cilicia, where avariety of production centers havebeen suggested44. No pitch was re-corded lining any of the jars, andCilicia was known not only forwine but oil and other products.Even so, the contents remain un-known and the various jars may infact have contained several differ-ent products: fruit, fish, and othergoods are all possibilities55. What-ever their contents, they were evi-dently popular throughout theeastern Mediterranean, Aegean,and beyond from the latter half ofthe 1st century into the mid-2nd

century. Late variants are alsoknown, but this form is best datedin the 2nd century66.

60 Integrating an Empire · J. Leidwanger

Fig. 2: Recording ceramics against thereef in one area of the Fig Tree Bay ship-wreck site.

Fig. 1: Map of the northeast Mediterranean and Cyprus, with inset of the EpiskopiBay area, showing sites of interest and places mentioned in the text.

Fig. 3: Small Rhodian-style amphorahandle from the Fig Tree Bay shipwreck,probably serving as provisions for thecrew (scale 1:5).


The second largest group of am-phoras (38 examples, 28.6%)includes two types that were re-corded together due to their mor-phological similarity. Closer in-

spection of forms and fabrics re-vealed two rather different origins.The larger proportion belongs to afamily of amphoras – Gauloise 4 –manufactured along the Mediter-

ranean coast of France from the 1st

century into at least the 3rd (FFiigg.. 55)77.This region was known for its wineproduction in antiquity, and thebases of Gaulish jars from the ship-


Fig. 5: Gauloise 4 amphoras from the cargo of the Fig Tree Bay shipwreck (scale 1:5).

Fig. 4: Agora M54 amphoras from the cargo of the Fig Tree Bay shipwreck (scale 1:5).


wreck assemblage are often linedwith pitch. While they rarely regis-ter in large numbers in the easternMediterranean, Gaulish amphorasappear in small quantities at sitesthroughout the region and beyond,suggesting not only a widespreadavailability, but some significantappreciation for the region’s wine88.

The popularity of Gaulish winemight help to explain the presenceof a few amphoras that could notalways be distinguished in frag-mentary form in situ, and so wererecorded together with the Gaulishjars: a variant of Dressel 30, itselforiginally imitating aspects ofGaulish production, but producedin Cilicia (FFiigg.. 66)99. They share cer-tain morphological similarities,but exhibit a more cylindrical neck,thicker triangular rim, and multi-ple grooves on the handle section.Their fabrics are readily distin-guished by eye, with the Dressel30’s appearing quite close to otherCilician jars (Agora M54 above,later LR1, etc.). The extent of Ci-

lician Dressel 30 production andcirculation is unclear, as are thejar’s contents. Various Dressel 30and other related types, like theirGauloise 4 relative, have often beenassociated with wine. Generallysimilar jars have been recorded atseveral sites, particularly in thiscorner of the Mediterranean, butother examples may have escapednotice since the type is not wellknown1100. The few contexts identi-fied thus far suggest a date for theform in the 2nd or even the early 3rd

century1111.

The third group of amphoras, thesmallest by number (9 examples,6.8%), is best associated withnorthwest Syria, in particular thearea of Ras al Bassit (FFiigg.. 77)1122. Theform has only recently been identi-fied, and is thus far known almostexclusively along this narrow east-ern Mediterranean corridor fromSyria and Cyprus through thesouthern Levant. At perhapsaround 100 liters in volume, itsimmense size points to a more spe-

cialized transport function – po-tentially something closer to thedolia that briefly filled the holds ofcertain dedicated western Mediter-ranean ships1133. Although most con-texts in which the Ras al Bassit jarsappear are undated, the bifid han-dles would seem appropriate forthe 1st to 3rd centuries. If these charac-teristic handles are meant to recallKoan jars, then wine in the Koanstyle again seems likely.

The Fig Tree Bay shipwreck hasonly been preliminarily surveyed,but initial results point to a modestcargo, perhaps only 4-5 tons1144.Given the prevalence of Cilicianand northwest Syrian materials,the shipment must have originatedsomewhere in this coastal zone,perhaps one of the more interna-tional ports like Seleucia Pieria –the port of Antioch – where a fewcomparatively exotic Gaulish am-phoras would have been morereadily available. Whatever the ship’sprecise origin, the predominantlocal winds and currents suggest


Fig. 6: Cilician Dressel 30 amphora top from the cargo

of the Fig Tree Bay shipwreck (scale 1:5).

Fig. 7: Ras al Bassit amphoras from the cargo of theFig Tree Bay shipwreck (scale 1:5).


that it was almost certainly boundfor south or southwest Cyprus.Whether it represents a direct ship-ment or one of cabotage, the vesselcertainly sank within just a fewdays of its departure, and even around trip for such a short-haulmariner could have been accom-plished in anywhere between a fewdays and a week to 10 days. Theeconomic geography is one ofsmall ships and short hauls be-tween the larger harbors and smal-ler outlying ports and anchoragesdotting the coastlines of the easternMediterranean.

Case Study 2

Small Ports and Anchorages asEconomic Agents

If the Fig Tree Bay merchant in-tended one or more stops along thesouth coast of Cyprus, what type ofmarket might have been its desti-nation? There are ample reasons tolook beyond Paphos, Amathus andthe island’s other largest cities andbiggest harbors. A small vesselwould have had a minimal draughtand required only the most basicinfrastructure to load and unload:no more than calm weather foranchoring, or a simple beach onwhich to land. Even if these smallports have left few archaeologicaltraces that can be unequivocallyattributed to exchange – that is,weights, coins, etc. – scattered pot-tery onshore and in the shallows


Fig. 8: View of the beach and cove at Avdimou Bay from the east.

Fig. 9: Selection of stone anchors

attesting to maritime activity in the shallows of Avdimou Bay.

may point to opportunistic activityoutside the major urban centers.

Avdimou Bay may be one such site.Located just 10 km west of the larg-er harbor city of Kourion, thissmall natural south-facing bay issheltered from predominant wester-ly winds and provides one of thefirst accessible sandy beaches afterKourion where ships traveling thiscoast could have sought shelter(FFiiggss.. 11 and 88). No port structuresare preserved in the area, but mari-ners may have simply anchored in

the shallows or pulled their vesselsdirectly onto the beach for loadingor unloading. Underwater surveyin 2004 brought to light a variety ofstone anchors appropriate for useby small boats (FFiigg.. 99). Pottery onthe headland to the west includedworn sherds pointing to local eco-nomic activity from at least theHellenistic era into late antiquity.Significant quantities of late Ro-man pottery have been noted onshore, and a ship of this date seemsto have sunk here or at least dumpeda cargo that included primarily


LR4 jars from the southern Levantalong with a handful of LR1 jarsfrom Cyprus or the neighboringmainland1155. Farther to the east arewarehouses that stored carobs forexport via small boats perhapsaround the early 20th century1166. Asimple rubble breakwater, nowfully submerged, may likewise pointto later economic activity in thismore open part of the bay. Al-together, the anchors, ceramicfinds, and local topography suggestthat Avdimou Bay functioned as asimple port for agricultural com-munities and farmsteads scatteredthroughout the adjacent river val-leys.

Not all opportunistic ports were sowell sheltered. A second candidatelies in the small open bays alongthe southwest shore of the AkrotiriPeninsula, only 10 km southeast ofKourion (FFiiggss.. 11 and 1100). The shore-line here is open to the westerlywinds, and a high coastal scarpseparates the narrow beach frominland, implying that transpor-tation to the interior of the penin-sula must have been routedthrough the low-lying beach im-mediately to the north. Investi-gations in these West Akrotiri baysin 2003-2004 brought to light adense scatter of ceramic materialindicative of economic activityfrom the Hellenistic period throughthe Roman era and into late anti-quity1177. The widespread scatter offinds here would seem to point tooccasional disposal of ceramicsand other materials broken at seaor during the loading and unload-ing of ships. The late Roman peri-od is the busiest recorded in theunderwater assemblage, when avariety of LR1 amphoras attest tomaritime connections primarilycentered on the island and the ad-jacent mainland. While nearbysites throughout the southern partof the Akrotiri Peninsula wereoccupied from the pre-Roman era,it is clear that the Roman and espe-cially the late Roman eras saw thedensest settlement and economicexploitation, closely mirroring theunderwater material record1188.Along with the port of Dreamer’sBay farther east along the south

coast of the peninsula, these WestAkrotiri bays may have served as anexpedient port for vessels loadingand unloading agricultural pro-duce for small nearby sites.

These two examples are represen-tative of many such opportunisticports utilized around the islandand identified through maritimesurvey1199. Collectively, they depict abustling – if simple – maritimelandscape during the Roman eraand into late antiquity.

Identifying Economic Integrationin the Roman Empire

The Roman Empire produced on amassive scale, consumed on anequally massive scale, and shippedgoods on a massive scale. Where inthis massive scale of economic ac-tivity can we situate a small region-al shipwreck or the opportunisticfacilities used by minor villagesand rural populations? One wreckand a few beach sites can provideonly a limited view from one cor-ner of the Mediterranean, buttogether they hint at the inte-gration of several concurrent mech-anisms of exchange. These mech-anisms operated on contrastinggeographical scales and likely alsoinvolved different actors. Theirinterplay bears directly on the roleof complex market networks thatbrought local and internationalgoods and information to a quiet Ro-man province, and in turn opened

Cypriot agricultural produce forconsumption across the Romanworld.

The vessel that sank at Fig Tree Bayspeaks to routine short-haul sup-ply of primarily regional productsaround the northeast Mediterra-nean. Such journeys were easilyaccomplished in a matter of a fewdays, and ships of this size and eco-nomic geography may have been acommon feature of Roman trade,at least in this corner of the empire.Lionel Casson, A.J. Parker, andothers have long emphasized thesmall size of the typical ancientmerchant vessel2200, but recent schol-arship by Andrei Tchernia andothers has reminded scholars ofprecisely how small these „small“vessels could be2211. Carrying just 60amphoras for a total of 2.5 tons,the Culip VIII assemblage is morethan an order of magnitude small-er than many vessels deemed smallby Casson and Parker at 70-80tons2222. At perhaps 4-5 tons ofgoods, the Fig Tree Bay cargo fitswell within this truly „small“ cate-gory. An important distinctionmust also be made between themaximum tonnage of a vessel andits cargo burden on a given jour-ney. For evaluating the structureand scale of Roman supply net-works, average cargos may be moremeaningful than vessel sizes.

Even with such a limited size andrestricted zone of operation, theFig Tree Bay cargo assemblage


Fig. 10: View of the West Akrotiri bays looking south toward Cape Zevgari.


reflects the involvement of a num-ber of producers around Ciliciaand northwest Syria. The presenceof comparatively exotic Gaulishwine suggests that this merchanthad stopped previously at a largerlocal entrepôt like Seleukia. Theassemblage thus reflects not onlyits own local network, but the in-tersection of regional exchange withlarger-scale, longer-distance mech-anisms that brought Gaulish winefrom west to east. Situated withinthis context, the presence of locallymade Dressel 30 jars – probablycontaining „imitation“ Gaulishwine or at least wine produced in aGaulish style – may point to thestability and routine nature of thisregional commercial market. Solong as a merchant knew Gaulishwine was popular in Cyprus, hewas well served to offer his cus-tomers not only true Gaulish wine,but a Cilician alternative that wasalmost certainly cheaper.

To some extent, the growth of sim-ple ports reflects a natural outcomeof expanding rural settlement andincreasing agricultural produc-tivity and consumption throughoutCyprus’ Roman and late Romancountryside2233. More villages, farm-steads, and other sites of economicactivity increased the potentialimportance of maritime facilitiesoutside major harbors. But asidefrom offering a cheaper way of mov-ing bulk commodities to the near-est city markets, these opportuni-stic ports would have also providedoccasion for new and direct mari-time connections beyond the lim-ited core-periphery relations thathad dominated earlier models ofcity-country exchange. Rural pop-ulations could now engage with abroader maritime landscape, open-ing up to them the immense agri-cultural production from aroundthe shores of the Roman Mediter-ranean and in turn allowing theirown goods to travel throughouttheir immediate region and be-yond.

The ceramic record of consump-tion at a number of smaller sitesacross Cyprus bears witness tothese expanding economic hori-

zons and indicates active participa-tion in larger-scale networks by aconsiderable segment of the Ro-man population, far larger than thefew urban percent who dwelled inthe largest cities. Considerable schol-arly attention has been devoted tothe annona, and certainly this well-known mechanism was an impor-tant backbone and occasional eco-nomic driver for maritime trade incertain parts of the Roman Em-pire2244. But in a quiet backwater likeCyprus, the stability and security ofRome yielded more substantialeconomic benefits than any piggy-backing on state-subsidized trade.The annona supported a few searoutes, but for interregional tradein this corner of the Mediterra-nean, it was the safety of naviga-tion, the dependable currency, andthe legal enforcement of contractsthat the distant Roman state of-fered to the merchants2255.

On the other hand, for small-scaleentrepreneurs who were probablythe most frequent visitors at theseminor ports and outlying commu-nities, staying away from thewatchful eye, the shipping bottle-necks, and the prying tax collectorsin the larger harbors would havemade good economic sense. Epi-graphic evidence from Seleukiasuggests that regional merchantswith vessels under about 7-8 tonswere largely beyond the reach ofthe late Roman state2266. The second-and third-tier sites and rural farm-steads throughout the hinterlandsof these simple ports were not onlyproducers, but consumers too.Even if the actual number of exoticfinds at such sites – or in the FigTree Bay cargo – remains smallcompared to the regional Cilicianor local Cypriot produce, theseceramics reveal how broaderrhythms of exchange were felt on alocal level, and in turn how localcommunities supplied a largerRoman economy.

Acknowledgements

Thanks are due to DEGUWA andthe participants at its 2013 annualconference at Manching, as well as

the editor of Skyllis. Commentsand suggestions by Patrick Mon-sieur, Andrei Opait, Nicholas Rauh,and Paul Reynolds regarding theceramics proved an immense help,as did observations by Elizabeth S.Greene on the text.

Notes

11 See particularly Horden – Purcell 2000.

22 Leidwanger 2013.

33 Robinson 1959, 89, pl. 19.

44 Empereur – Picon 1989, 231-232;

Autret 2012, 256-257.

55 Reynolds 2003, 127; Opait 2007, 104.

66 Thanks to Paul Reynolds for helpful

discussion of these finds.

77 Laubenheimer 1985, 261-293.

88 Laubenheimer 2001, 57-60.

99 On Dressel 30, see generally Bonifay

2004, 148-151.

1100 E.g. Reynolds 2008, 71 fig. 3p-q and 72;

Tomber 2009, 154 fig. 2.6; Opait 2010, 1016

and 1018 fig. 4a-b.

1111 Thanks to Andrei Opait, Nicholas Rauh

and Paul Reynolds for comments and sug-

gestions regarding this type.

1122 Mills – Reynolds Forthcoming.

1133 Heslin 2011.

1144 See calculations in Leidwanger 2013.

1155 Leidwanger 2007, 311-313.

1166 On this more recent carob trade, see

Leonard 2005, 635ff.

1177 Leidwanger 2009, 25-27.

1188 Heywood 1982.

1199 See generally Leonard 2005.

2200 Parker 1992, 26; Casson 1995, 171-172.

2211 Tchernia 2011, 201-205.

2222 Carreras et al. 2004, 154-156.

2233 E.g. Rautman 2000.

2244 See generally Rickman 1980; Stecher, W.

2009: Annona. A maritime logistic system

of the Roman principate. The sea – the

ships – the men (Doctoral thesis, Greifs-

wald).

2255 Scheidel 2011.

2266 Dagron 1985.



References

Autret, C. 2012: Cyprus and Cilicia:

amphora production, trade and relations

in the early Roman era, in: Georgiou, A.

(ed.), Cyprus, an island culture: society

and social relations from the Bronze Age to

the Venetian period (Oxford) 251-267.

Bonifay, M. 2004: Etudes sur la céramique

romaine tardive d’Afrique. BAR S130

(Oxford).

Carreras, C. et al. 2004: Culip VIII i les

àmphores Haltern 70. Monografies del

CASC 5 (Girona).

Casson, L. 1995: Ships and seamanship in

the ancient world (Revised edition, Bal-

timore).

Dagron, G. 1985: Un tarif des sportules à

payer ‘curiosi’ du port de Séleucie de Piérie.

Travaux et mémoires 9, 435-455.

Empereur, J.-Y. – Picon, M. 1989: Les

régions de production d’amphores impéri-

ales en Méditerranée orientale, in: Am-

phores romaines et histoire économique:

dix ans de recherche. Collection de l’École

Française de Rome 114 (Rome) 223-248.

Heslin, K. 2011: Dolia shipwrecks and the

wine trade in the Roman Mediterranean,

in: Robinson, D. – Wilson, A.I. (edd.),

Maritime archaeology and ancient trade in

the Mediterranean. Oxford Centre for Ma-

ritime Archaeology 6 (Oxford) 157-168.

Heywood, H. 1982: The archaeological

remains of the Akrotiri Peninsula, in:

Swiny, H.W. (ed.), An archaeological guide

to the ancient Kourion area and the

Akrotiri Peninsula (Nicosia) 162-175.

Horden, P. – Purcell, N. 2000: The cor-

rupting sea: a study of Mediterranean his-

tory (Oxford).

Laubenheimer, F. 1985 : La production des

amphores en Gaule Narbonnaise. Centre de

Recherches d’Histoire Ancienne 66 (Paris).

Laubenheimer, F. 2001: Le vin gaulois de

Narbonnaise exporté dans le monde ro-

main sous le Haut-Empire, in: Lauben-

heimer, F. (ed.), 20 ans de recherches à Sal-

lèles d’Aude (Besançon) 51-65.

Leidwanger, J. 2007: Two late Roman

wrecks from southern Cyprus, Inter-

national Journal of Nautical Archaeology

36.2, 308-316.

Leidwanger, J. 2009: Archaeology and

data management in the surf zone: on the

recovery and interpretation of cultural

material in near shore waters, SKYLLIS 9.1,

22-28.

Leidwanger, J. 2013: Between local and

long-distance: a Roman shipwreck at Fig

Tree Bay off SE Cyprus, Journal of Roman

Archaeology 26, 191-208.

Leonard, J.R. 2005: Roman Cyprus: har-

bors, hinterlands, and hidden powers

(Ph.D. diss., Univ. at Buffalo).

Mills, P.J.E. – Reynolds, P. Forthcoming:

Amphorae and specialized coarsewares of

Ras al Bassit, Syria: local products and

exports, in: Poulou-Papadimitriou, N. et

al. (edd.), LRCW 4. Late Roman coarse

wares, cooking wares and amphorae in the

Mediterranean, archaeology and archaeo-

metry (BAR, Oxford).

Opait, A. 2007: A weighty matter: Pontic

fish amphorae, in: Gabrielsen, V. – Lund, J.

(edd.), The Black Sea in antiquity: regional

and interregional economic exchanges.

Black Sea Studies 6 (Aarhus) 101-121.

Opait, A. 2010: On the origin of the LR

Amphora 1, in: Menchelli, S. – Santoro, S.

– Pasquinucci, M. – Guiducci, G. (edd.),

LRCW 3. Third international conference

on Late Roman coarse wares, cooking

wares and amphorae in the Mediterranean,

archaeology and archaeometry. BAR S2185

(Oxford) 1015-1022.

Parker, A. J. 1992: Ancient shipwrecks of

the Mediterranean & the Roman provin-

ces. BAR S580 (Oxford).

Rautman, M. L. 2000: The busy country-

side of Late Roman Cyprus, Report of the

Department of Antiquities Cyprus 317-331.

Reynolds, P. 2003: Amphorae in Roman

Lebanon: 50 BC to AD 250, Archaeology

and History in Lebanon 17, 120-130.

Reynolds, P. 2005: Levantine amphorae

from Cilicia to Gaza: a typology and analy-

sis of regional production trends from the

1st to 7th centuries, in: Gurt i Esparraguera,

J.Ma. – Buxeda i Garrigós, J. – Cau Onti-

veros, M.A. (edd.), LRCW I. Late Roman

coarse wares, cooking wares and amphorae

in the Mediterranean, archaeology and ar-

chaeometry. BAR S1340 (Oxford) 563-611.

Reynolds, P. 2008: Linear typologies and

ceramic evolution, Facta: A Journal of

Roman Material Culture Studies 2, 61-87.

Rickman, G.E. 1980: The grain trade under

the Roman Empire, in: D’Arms, J.H. –

Kopf, E.C. (edd.), The seaborne commerce

of ancient Rome: studies in archaeology

and history. Memoirs of the American

Academy in Rome 36 (Ann Arbor) 261-

275.

Robinson, H.S. 1959: Pottery of the

Roman period: chronology. The Athenian

Agora Excavations 5 (Princeton).

Scheidel, W. 2011: A comparative perspec-

tive on the determinants of scale and pro-

ductivity of Roman maritime trade in the

Mediterranean, in: Harris, W.V. – Iara, K.

(edd.), Maritime technology in the ancient

economy: ship-design and navigation.

Journal of Roman Archaeology Suppl. 84

(Portsmouth) 21-38.

Tchernia, A. 2011: Les Romains et le com-

merce (Naples).

Tomber, R. 2009: Imitation and diffusion:

the case of Dressel 30 in Egypt, in:

Humphrey, J.H. (ed.), Studies on Roman

pottery of the provinces of Africa Procon-

sularis and Byzacena (Tunisia), Hommage

à Michel Bonifay. Journal of Roman Ar-

chaeology Suppl. 76 (Portsmouth) 151-156.

Address

Justin Leidwanger

Department of Classics

Stanford University

450 Serra Mall, Main Quad

Building 110

Stanford, California 94305-2145

USA

[email protected]



Documents

Integrating an Empire: Maritime Trade and Agricultural Supply in Roman Cyprus