LCRW I. Late Roman Coarse Wares, Cooking Wares and Amphorae in the Mediterranean: Archaeology and Archaeometry
FROM OPPIDVM TO DIVES BRACARA: THE CITY TRADE THROUGH THE AMPHORAE RUI MORAIS Unidade de Arqueologia, Universidade do Minho, Avenida Central, 39, 4710-228, Braga. Portugal (
[email protected]) My intention in this paper is to present, through the analysis of amphorae found in the city, some of the most striking aspects in the trade existent between the city and northern Africa and eastern Mediterranean at the time of the late Roman period and early Byzantine period. Other materials of the same origin will also be referred to better contextualize that trade and underline the long lasting insertion of Bracara Augusta in the context of the “Roman World”, probably, beyond the disappearance of the institutional bond to the Empire. KEYWORDS: AFRICAN COARSE WARE, AFRICAN RED-SLIP WARE, EASTERN MEDITERRANEAN, LATE ROMAN AMPHORAE, OIL-LAMPS, PORTUGAL, TRADE AMPHORAE. Ausonius (Ordo, XI-XIV) – “quaeque sinu pelagi iactat se Bracara diues” (“by the sea beaches Bracara takes pride in its richness)
BRIEF ACCOUNT OF THE CITY HISTORY
As it happened throughout the Roman world, in the city, the Antonine Age also marks the division between the period of greater expansion and economic growth, which, in general, characterized the Principate, and the period of invasions and economic recession that came afterwards. The economic change that these centuries brought about is, nonetheless, difficult to investigate and impossible to quantify since the decline was not a continuous and regular process.
What concerns the juridical contextualization of Bracara Augusta there is only a slight reference by Pliny who, in his Naturalis Historiae (4, 112), registers it in the list of the oppida. As far as its juridical promotion is concerned, there are not explicit evidences that refer to its condition as a municipality. In recent years Le Roux (1994; 1996), who wondered about the lack of direct or indirect reference to the category of municipality in the epigraphic data of Bracara Augusta, puts forward that it might have enjoyed the ius Latii since its foundation, and not the statute of a simple pilgrim city. This perspective gains some legitimacy if we accept as correct the position of some authors (Alföldy 1983; Dopico Caínzos 1986) who date the creation of the conuentus iuridici to the Augustan period. What we can certainly accept, regardless of the doubt about the date of consecration of Bracara Augusta as a centre of a juridical conuentus, is that such a statute implies not only the reception of judicial hearings by the governor, or his representative, as a juridical legacy, but also the performance of imperial cult celebrations that gathered the majority of the regional population.
In the 3rd century the Peninsular northwest achieved a relative political autonomy not only through the creation of Hispaniae nouae Citerioris of Caracalla but also through the division of Tarraconensis by Diocletian, who created the province of Gallaecia at the end of this century (between 284 and 288-9). On that occasion Bracara Augusta takes over the role of capital of the province in this new juridical and administrative conjuncture by joining the three northwest conuentus iuridici and part of that of Clunia. As a consequence the city benefited from the administrative reforms introduced by the Tetrarchy and subsequent reestablishment of the imperial unity under Constantine who, as a partisan of an administrative decentralization, opted for the creation of regional prefectures, developing, in this way, the administration functions carried out by the cities.
But it will definitely be Vespasian’s reforms the ones that will establish the specificness and expression of the imperial cult and will allow a better exercise of the imperial justice, through an administrative and judicial decentralization, in which the governor delegated his power to the juridical legacies of each conuentus (Tranoy 1985, 70).
Throughout the 4th century the adoption of Christianity as the official religion afforded Bracara Augusta, already an ecclesiastic province at the end of this century (coincident with the former division by Diocletian), the administration of an important territory and the direct control over the suffragan dioceses. This role taken over by the city gave it
1
Rui Morais
a superior category to that of Tarraco since its governor and the province itself, according to Notitia Dignitatum, were of consular category; this led Ausonius to grant the city the title of diues Bracara, which thus reveals the development of this urban centre.
The fabric characteristics and its homogeneity, indicate that the identified specimens are from the region of Antioch, Asia Minor and Gaza, respectively. 1.1. Dating essay The absence of datable deposits in the city associated with these fragments, together with the fact that the type of amphorae here represented embrace a vast chronology, led me to try to essay, as far as possible, the specific period of the import to the city.
The political transformations resulting from the Suevic presence in the Peninsula, between the 5th and 6th centuries did not affect the survival of the city. The territory where the Suevic kingdom exercised its dominium, in the year AD 411, coincided with that of the province of Gallaecia. Bracara Augusta became then the political and administrative capital of that kingdom, enjoying a very active life, at least until the year AD 456, when Theodoric II invaded it. The dramatic picture of that invasion related by Idacius seems to be denied by the archaeological evidences that prove the survival of the city and the continuity of the urban life throughout the 5th / 6th centuries and even the 7th. In fact, the preservation of the city’s importance is obvious in the 1st Canon of the Council in AD 561, which took place in the city, with the participation of St. Martin of Dume as Abbot of that same Monastery.
As I previously mentioned, the fragments of African amphorae gathered in this study are not numerically significant. The specimen classified as Keay XXXV, variant A (no 1, Fig. 1), embraces a large chronology, being present in contexts dated from the late 4th century in Arles (Raynaud 1991, 240; CATHMA 1993, 7), or even the late 5th century (Murialdo 1993/94; Bonifay and Piéri 1995; Reynolds 1995). In the Peninsular context this amphora is, however, present in places dated as mid 5th century (Keay 1984, 233245; Reynolds 1995, 51, 509), an acceptable date for the fragment found in the city if we take as correct its special relation with Hayes 61 B (vid. Reynolds 1995, 51), one of the two best represented ARS forms in the city.
The Visigoths annexation of the present NW peninsular territory, which occurred in AD 585 with the defeat of the Suevi, after a series of campaigns led by King Leovigild, may have caused numerous baneful consequences in the administrative and economic life of the city that conditioned the trade and industries and, consequently, worsened the bad economic situation of the lower strata of the population.
The type attributed to Keay XXXVI, variant B (no 2, Fig. 1), finds few published parallels. However, and taking in account those known, its production probably started in mid 5th century (Bonifay and Piéri 1995, 98). Considering the presence of this type in the Peninsular context, namely in Catalonia (Keay 1984, 245; Remolá and Abelló 1989, 263), we can acknowledge that the specimen from Braga might have been imported at least until early 6th century.
THE MATERIAL CULTURE DATA 1. The amphorae
The latest example of African amphora is, as I previously mentioned, represented by the type Keay LXII (no 3, Fig 1), which dates from the mid 5th and 6th centuries and is well documented in the Peninsula, especially in Catalonia (Keay 1984, 306, 418) and Alicante (Reynolds 1995, 55, 57). Belonging to Keay LXII A variant, this specimen must date from the early / mid 6th century, which is the accepted date for this type of variants in the Peninsula (Reynolds 1995, 59).
The presence of African amphorae in the city is not very significant, counting only with 6 fragments (tables I and II). The number of specimens mentioned in this histogram and in the following ones refers to the amount of fragments (full specimen, rims, handles, bases and necks) so far found in Braga. Besides an unclassified handle fragment and a Type Dressel 30 from the Mauretania Caesarienses province, all the others, due to their formal characteristics and fabric, are from North Tunisia. Except for a late amphora included by Keay in Type LXII, all the others fit in “Africana Grande”: one in Type B, and the others in specific Types established by Keay, namely XXXV A and XXXVI B.
Out of this group stays the unclassified handle fragment (no 4, Fig. 1) and two other specimen identified as belonging to Dressel 30 (no 5, Fig 1) and to the general “Africana Grande” B (no 6, Fig. 1), dated from late 2nd century to late 4 th century (Riley 1979; Peacock and Williams 1991, 156), or even, in the case of the latter, to the beginnings of the next century.
The presence of late eastern amphorae is more significant (Tables I and II). They are represented by the LRA 1, 3 and 4. The LRA 1, one of the most common and scattered categories of amphorae of the late Roman -early Byzantine period, is present with eleven fragments, most of which are handles. The LRA 3, more common, includes thirteen fragments and an intact specimen, all of them corresponding to its late variant. The LRA 4, which is generally found all over the Mediterranean basin, is only represented in the city by four fragments.
As we have already seen, the presence of late amphorae from the eastern Mediterranean is better represented in the city (Tables I and II). Among the eleven fragments belonging to LRA 1, with a general chronology stretching from the 4th to the 7th century (Van Alfen 1996, 191), two deserve special attention because of the chronological considerations we can derive from them. The first (no 7; Fig. 2) fits in Keay LIII variant A (Keay 1984, 268-269,
2
From Oppidvm to Dives Bracara: The city trade through the amphorae
273-274 Figs. 116-117), documented in Vila-roma in contexts dating before the late 5th century (Remolà and Abelló 1989, 280-282), and in the group XL, form 2, from Macellum of Gerasa, proceeding from 6th century levels (Uscatescu 1996, 176, 294, Fig.2). The second (no 8; Fig. 2), belonging to Keay LIII variant B (Keay, 1984, 274, Fig. 117; 275, Fig.118), is documented in contexts from the late 5th century (Keay 1984, 278). The existence in Marseilles of identical examples to this one, which are attributed to a second variant, LRA 1b/sub-type 2, and considered as being from late 6th -early 7th century layers (context 7) – context in which they predominate (the same in Kellia; Cf. Bonifay and Piéri 1995, 108) –, force us to situate this fragment in a later date than the mid 6th century. The absence, however, of identical specimens in the different types found in the shipwreck of Yassi Ada (Van Alfen 1996, 189-213), dated from the 7th century, more precisely from the 3rd decade of the century (with a terminus post quem of 625/26), implies that the fragment in study belongs to an earlier period comparatively to the others.
who dates the import end of these amphorae to the midlate 6th century, we are before one of the latest variants found in the peninsular context. 2. The presence of other materials 2.1. African products The presence of few cylindrical amphorae of African origin leads us to the conclusion that the city stayed out of the large olive oil trade routes. The arrival, however, of African ware (ARS) until the late 7th century, together with other African ceramics, namely coarse wares and oil-lamps (Tables III and IV), prove that these products arrived by sea in the same boats that transported amphorae full of olive oil. The ARS of late period are well represented in Braga, with a predominance of fabric D over C (Tables V and VI). The peak of these imports dates back to the 4th century with the D fabric productions, namely between AD 290/ 300 to AD 400/420 (with about 256 fragments), being Hayes forms 59 and 61 the most numerous, with about 107 fragments each. These fabric productions dropped considerably in the 5th century (with only about 27 fragments) but increased again in the late 5th/early 6th -mid 7th century, with the presence of about 70 fragments. As I previously mentioned, the Central Tunisian C fabric, less abundant relatively to the North Tunisian D fabric, is better represented in its 2nd stage of late production, between c. AD 320/30 to 475, with about 52 fragments, than in its 1st stage, from c. AD 200 to 320/30, with only 22 fragments. The 3rd stage of production, dated between c. AD 430 to early 6th century, is even less represented than the latter one, with only one fragment Hayes 82. The presence of the South Tunisian E fabric is not significant (Tables V and VI), counting only with eleven fragments Hayes 70, datable from the 4th century AD to the 1st half of the 5th century, and one fragment Hayes 62, datable from c. 350 to 440. The small amount of specimens belonging to this fabric found in the city is strongly connected to the fact that there are very few registered imports of this ware.
Among the thirteen LRA 3 examples found in Braga (examples no 9 – 12 Fig 2), one whole specimen stands out (no 13, Fig 2), due to its morphological characteristics, which makes it the only one known in the Iberian Peninsula so far and from an inland region situated in the farthest Peninsular Northwest. It is a small specimen that fits in the sub-type 2, LRA 3 B2 established by Piéri (1998, 225, Fig. 44; 229-231; 241, Fig. 54, no 1 and 4), which has got less than a third or a fourth of the volume of a standard module. According to this author (Piéri 1998, 231), the imports of these series are residual since they are not to be found in the 2nd half of the 5th century contexts. These variants are documented in Arles (context 12) and Mandelieu (additional site 30) in the late 4th -early 5th century, in Marseille (contexts 25 and 26) in the 2nd quarter of the 5th century as well as in Port-Vendres, in the vast deposit of the harbour (AS 45) (Piéri 1998, 231). In other places, the distribution of this amphora is equally limited and is exclusively to be found in areas near the coast in contexts concerning the 5th century. In the Peninsular context this example thus represents the oldest version of this kind of amphorae since, according to Simon Keay (1984, 287), the earlier chronology for the LRA 3 (Layer VII from Palaiapolis of Empuries) dates back to the early 6th century.
In the context of the North African imports there are also in the city, besides a small fragment from a jug handle (no 18, Fig. 4) and a whole example of a small jug of coarse ware (no 19, Fig. 4), some late-ancient oil-lamp fragments (no 20-24, Fig. 4), surely linked to the presence of ARS production (fabric C and D) and connected to the African oil trade (Tables III and IV).
Of the four fragments found in Braga belonging to LRA 4 (no 14 –17, Fig. 3), one can be pointed out (no 14, Fig 3); it fits in variants established by different authors, namely Simon Keay’s Type LIV variant B (Keay 1984, 278-279; 282-283, Fig. 121-122), Majcherek’s form 2 (1995, 172, Plate 3, no 2; 174, Plate 5, no 1 to 5; 178, Plate 9, no 2) and Gerasa’s Macellum Group XXXIX form 5 A (Uscatescu 1996, 174, 294, Fig. 24). According to the chronological parallels established by the latter author (Uscatescu 1996, 174) this variant dates from the 6th –early 7th centuries. If we take as correct the chronology suggested by Simon Keay,
Despite its state of fragmentation, the handle fragment (no 18, Fig. 4) can, given its formal and fabric characteristics, be attributed to a jug Type 6 (CATHMA 1991, 32, Fig. 8; vid. Joncheray 1975, Plate III), dated (Fulford and Peacock 1984, Fig. 79, no 6) to the 1st half of the 6th century by Fulford. Similar examples were, however, dated differently. For example, a specimen from the Dramont E shipwreck was dated to the early 5th century while another one from the Saint-Blaise, was found in a context of the 2nd half of
3
Rui Morais
the 5th century (Fulford and Peacock 1984, 32). On the other hand, Claude Raynaud, in the “Dictionnaire des Céramiques Antiques en Méditerranée Nord-Occidentale” (Raynaud 1993), dates this form to AD 400 to 550.
these LRD fragments come from a hypocaust destruction layer, probably built during the 4th century, together with two other LRC form 3 fragments and many other fragments of vessels of local fabric that imitate the production known as grey DSP, or dérivées de sigillée paléochrétienne (vid. Delgado 1988, 43).
The small jug (no 19, Fig. 4), found in a context dated between the 2nd half of the 1st century and late 3rd century (Delgado 1996/97, 153), comes from a dumping ground next to an insula (hole 31 in the Carvalheiras area), as suggested by the 59 vessels of coarse ware found there. Identical forms were found in the Raqqada cemetery (Salomonson 1970, Plate XLV, grave B 47), in Carthage (Tomber 1986, 52, Fig. 2, no 45) and in the Lavezzi 1 shipwreck (Liou and Sciallano 1990, 145, Fig. 14, no 1). In the Docks Museum excavations (Varoqueaux 1968-70, 40, Fig. 11, no 3) these forms were found in late 2nd –early 3rd century, and in Marseilles (Pietropaolo 1998, 81-82, Fig. 61, no 74-75) they are considered to be from a shipwreck (context 34), dated between AD 190 and 220 (Carre 1998, 100-101). In the Iberian Peninsula, among other places (vid. Vegas 1973, 100, Fig. 35, Type 43, no 3; Casas et al. 1990, 44; Aquilué 1995, 61, 62, Fig. 1, no 489-490), these forms were found in Pollentia’s cemeteries (Almagro and Amorós 1953/54, 258, Fig. 16, no 3), dated from the 2nd half of the 1st century to the 2nd century.
FINAL REMARKS In conclusion, we can say that the presence of North African and Eastern Mediterranean products in coastal sites and inland cities, such as Conimbriga and Bracara Augusta, reveals that there was a distribution pattern through the Atlantic route. This one, established between mid 5th / 6th century, is surely linked to the supply of Southwest British sites. As I have previously mentioned, the rise of amphora imports from the Eastern Mediterranean from the mid / late 5th century AD onwards seems to be common in the Western Mediterranean. This evidence, however, does not contradict the fact that the majority of amphorae found throughout the Western Mediterranean is of African origin. Further proofs for this can be found in the studies conducted by Keay (1984, 422, Fig. 186; 428) in Catalonia where the average percentage of late eastern amphorae is of 20 % while the ones from African origin reach the 79%. Nonetheless, Bracara Augusta seems to be an exception in this context taking in account that the amphorae of eastern origin are best represented there. This is probably due to the fact that the Northwest Peninsular people did not consume much olive oil, preferring animal fat and its byproducts (Morais 1997/98, 178-181).
Among the five late ancient oil-lamp fragments of African origin found in the city (no 20-24; Fig. 4), two can fit in a typology (no 20-21; Fig. 4) while the other three are unclassified (22-24; Fig 4) due to their fragmentation state. One of the types (no 20; Fig. 4), of unknown date, belongs to Series 5 [5.1.1.1.3] established by Barbera (1993, 137-138, no 109, Inv. 189499) and finds typological parallels in oillamps published by Alvarez (1942, 285, no 13-13.892, Fig. 5) and Bailey (1980, Q1735). The other type (no 21; Fig. 4), probably from the 5th century, fits, according to the typology presented by the same author (Barbera 1993, 329, no 287), in a “colateral” production to the ARS, probably from central Tunisia. According to this specialist (Barbera 1993, 329, no 287), these oil-lamps are related to Denauve’s Type XI B (Denauve 1969, nº 293), even though they were produced in coarse ware and are frequently associated to the NVNDINI stamp (Denauve 1969, 222, no 1126-1128).
The significant presence of ARS in the city throughout the 5th century finds parallels in other contexts known in the Peninsula which are also included in the shipping route of the Atlantic; examples of this are the sites of Conimbriga (Delgado 1975a, 261-266; Delgado 1975b, 71-72) or the ones of the Cantabric region, namely Gijón and Iruña (Jarrega 1991, 92; Fernández et al. 1992, 105-149). The rarity of ARS during the 1st half of the 5th century can probably be explained by the arrival of Barbarian forces, which in the case of the city of Braga dates back to 409. However, in the late 5th -early 6th century the number of this ware rises slightly again in several Peninsular contexts, due to a wider range of types (Jarrega 1991, 93). The disappearance of ARS from overseas markets throughout the Peninsular context takes place from the second quarter of the 6th century onwards because of decline in imports of African products, consequence of the poor relations between the Visigoths and the Byzantines.
2. 2. Estearn products The rise of amphora imports from the Eastern Mediterranean from the mid / late 5th century AD onwards seems to be common in the Western Mediterranean. This situation may explain the presence of other materials of the same origin, surely distributed in the same range (Tables III and IV). We are dealing with c. twenty five LRC examples, belonging to different variants of form 3, most of which are dated from AD 450 to 475. Among these we can point out three fragments (probably of same vessel) of an unusual variant (no 25, Fig. 4). Even though they are residual, two LRD fragments published by Delgado (1988, 35-49, Est. III, no 2-3) should also be mentioned, together with some LCR fragments. Produced in the mid 6th century,
The supremacy of the late eastern amphorae over the African ones suggests that there must have been enough richness in the city to buy such luxury products, even though that richness was in the hands of the Suevi, or of those affluent Romans that surely still lived in the city. Actually, the eastern amphorae were considered more as luxury items than essential nourishing goods. Their presence thus reveals
4
From Oppidvm to Dives Bracara: The city trade through the amphorae
a new manifestation of sumptuary consumption among the Roman elites, which had to adapt themselves to a new social and cultural context. The dominance of LRA 3 over all the other eastern amphorae causes, nonetheless, some wonder since they are not so commonly found in the British Isles or in shipwrecks contexts; this suggests that the LRA 3 was not shipped in such large amounts as other amphorae (Parker 1992, 210-211, no 499; Tyers 1996, 103-104).
Casas, J. et alii, 1990, Ceràmiques comunes i de producció local d‘época romana, Girona. Delgado, M., 1975a, Les Sigillées Claires, in Fouilles de Conimbriga IV. Les Sigillées (eds. M. Delgado, F. Mayet, A. Moutinho De Alarçao, and R. Etienne), 247313, Mission Archéologique Française au Portugal, Musée Monographique de Conimbriga, Diffusion E. de Boccard, Paris. Delgado, M., 1975b, A propos des céramiques de Conimbriga, Conimbriga, XIV, 55-87. Delgado, M., 1988, Contribuição para o estudo das cerâmicas romanas tardias do Médio Oriente encontradas em Portugal, Cadernos de Arqueologia, série II, vol. 5, 35-49. Delgado, M., 1996/1997, Potes Meleiros de Bracara Augusta, Portugalia, Nova Série, Vols. XVII-XVIII, 149-165. Deneauve, J. 1969 – Lampes de Carthage, Paris. Dopico Caínzos, M. D., 1986, Los conventus iuridici. Origen, cronologia y natureza histórica, Geríon, 4, 265283. Fernández Ochoa, C., García Díaz, P., Uscatescu Barrón, A., 1992, Gijón en el período Tardoantiguo: cerámicas importadas de las excavaciones de Cimadevilla, Archivo Español de Arqueología, 65, Separata, nº 165166, 105-149. Fulford, M. G., and Peacock, D. P. S., 1984, The Avenue du président Habib Bourguiba, Salambo: the pottery and others ceramic objects from the site, Excavations at Carthage: The British Mission, vol. 1, 2, Sheffield. Járrega Domínguez, R., 1991, Cerámicas Finas Tardorromanas y del Mediterráneo Oriental en España. Estado de la Cuestión, Anejos de Archivo Español de Arqueología, XI, Madrid. Joncheray, J. P., 1975, L’épave E du Cap Dramont, sigillée claire D et amphores rescapées du pillage, Cahiers d’Archéologie subaquatique, 4, 141-146. Keay, S., 1984, Late Roman Amphorae in the Western Mediterranean. A typology and economic study: the Catalan evidence, Part (i/ii), Tempvs Reparatvm, BAR International Series, 196, Oxford. Le Roux, P., 1994, Bracara Augusta, Ville Latine, in 1º Congresso de Arqueologia Peninsular. Actas, vol. VI, Braga, 1994, Trabalhos de Antropologia e Etnografia, XXXIV (fasc. 3-4), 229-241, Porto. Le Roux, P., 1996 Las ciudades de la Callaecia romana durante el Alto Imperio, Gérion, 14, 363-379. Liou, B., and Sciallano, M., 1990, Le trafic de Fos dans l’Antiquité : essai d’évaluation à partir des amphores, S.F.E.C.A.G., Actes du Congrès de Lezoux (4-7 mai 1989), 153-167, Marseille. Majcherek, G., 1995, Gazan Amphorae: Typologie Reconsidered, in Hellenistic and Roman Pottery in the Eastern Mediterranean – Advances in Scientific Studies, Acts of II Nieborów Pottery Workshop (1820 December 1993) (eds. H. Meyza and J. Mlynarczyk), 163-178, Warsaw.
The presence of LRC in the city, surely distributed in the same patterns, seems to suggest that the eastern products were able to compete with the ARS in its own territory, the West and the Atlantic, after the Vandal conquest. The presence of LRD fragments, however residual, seems to stress this situation. REFERENCES Alföldy, G., 1983, Epigraphica Hispanica IV – Voconia Pax, ein Storenfried in der Romischen Epigraphik Hispaniens, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik, 53, 103-111. Almagro, M., and Amorós, L. R., 1953-1954, Excavaciones en la necrópolis romana de can Fanals de Pollentia (Alcudia, Mallorca), Ampurias, XV-XVI, 237-275. Alvarez Ossorio, F., 1942, Lucernas o lámparas antiguas de barro cocido del Museo Arqueológico Nacional, Archivo Español de Arqueología, XV, Madrid. Ausonius (4th century), D. Magni Ausoni Burdigalensis Opera (ed. Juliano Carnet), Paris, 1730. Aquilué, X., 1995, La Cerámica Común Africana, in Cerámica comuna romana d’época Alto-Imperial a la Península Ibérica. Estat de la qüestió (coord. X. Aquilué and M. Roca), 61-74, Monografies Emporitanes, VIII, Museu D’Arqueologia de Catalunya, Empúries. Bailey, D. M., 1980, A Catalogue of the lamps in the British Museum, 2, Roman Lamps in Italy, British Museum, London. Barbera, M., 1993, Le Lucerne Tardo-Antiche di Produzione Africana, Cataloghi dei Musei e Gallerie d’Italia, Museo Nazionale Romano, Istituto Poligrafico e Zecca dello Stato, Roma. Bonifay, M., and Piéry, D., 1995, Amphores du Ve au VIIe. s. à Marseille : nouvelles données sur la typologie et le contenu, Journal of Roman Archaeology, 8, 94-120. C.A.T.H.M.A., 1991, Importations de céramiques communes méditerranéennes dans le midi de la Gaule (Ve – VIIe s.), in Actas do IV Congresso Internacional A cerâmica medieval no Mediterrâneo Ocidental, Lisboa 16-22 Novembro 1987, Campo Arqueológico de Mértola, 27-47, Mértola. C.A.T.H.M.A., 1993, Journée d’étude sur les amphores tardives, Compte-rendu de la réunion tenue le 16 février 1993 à Arles, Arles. Carre, M. B., 1998, Conclusion, in Les Fouilles de la Bourse (1967-1984), in Fouilles à Marseille. Les mobiliers (Ier – VIIe s. ap. J.-C.), 100-101, Collection études massaliètes, vol. 5, Paris.
5
Rui Morais
Morais, R., 1997-98, Sobre a hegemonia do vinho e a escassez do azeite no Noroeste Peninsular nos inícios da romanização, Cadernos de Arqueologia, série II, 14-15, 175-182. Murialdo, G., 1993/1994, Anfore tardoantiche nel Finale (VI-VII secolo), Rivista di Studi Liguri, LIX-LX, 213246. Parker, A. J., 1992, Ancient Shipwrecks of the Mediterranean & the Roman Provinces, Tempvs Reparatvm, BAR International Series, 580, Oxford. Peacock, D. P. S., and Williams, D. F., 1991, Amphorae and the Roman economy. An introductory guide, Longman Archaeology Series, London/New York. Piéri, D., 1998, Les Amphores Orientales en Gaule dans l’Antiqueté Tardive (Ive – VIIe siècles apr. J.-C.). Typologie, Chronologie, Contenu et Circulation, vol. 2, Aix-En-Provence. Pietropaolo, L., 1998, Les céramiques communes importées, in Les Fouilles de la Bourse (1967-1984), in Fouilles à Marseille. Les mobiliers (Ier – VIIe s. ap. J.-C.), (eds. M. Bonifay, M-B. Carre and Y. Rigoir), 81-82, Collection études massaliètes, vol. 5, Paris. Raynaud, C., 1991, Les amphores, in La basilique paléochrétienne du Clos de la Lombarde à Narbonne (ed. Y. Solier), 235-253, Revue Archéologique Narbonnaise, Supplément, 23, CNRS, Paris. Raynaud, C., 1993, Céramique commune méditerranéenne tardo-romaine, in Dictionnaire des Céramiques Antiques (VIIème s. av. n. è. – VIIème s. de n. è.) en Méditerranée nord-occidentale (Provence, Languedoc, Ampurdan), Lattara, 6, 364. Remolà i Vallverdú, J. A., and Abelló i Riley, A., 1989, Les Àmfores, in TED’A, Un Abocador del segle V D. C.
en el Fòrum Provincial de Tàrraco, 249-328, Tarragona. Reynolds, P., 1995, Trade in the Western Mediterranean, AD 400-700: The ceramic evidence, Tempvs Reparatvm, BAR International Series, 604, Oxford. Riley J. A., 1979, The coarse pottery from Benghazi, in Excavations at Sidi Khrebish Benghazi (Berenice) (ed. J. A. Lloyd), 91-497, Supplements to Libya Antiqua V, vol. II, Tripoli. Salomonson, J. W., 1970, La céramique, in La nécropole romaine de Raqqada (eds. A. Ennabli, A. Mahjoubi and J. W. Salomonson), 23-81, Notes et Documents, VIII, 1, Tunis. Tomber, R., 1986, Pottery from the south side of the circular harbour, in Carthage Bulletin, 34-58, Centre d’Études et de Documentation Archéologique de la Conservation (CEDAC), 7, Tunis. Tranoy, A., 1985, Centralisme, Decentralisation ou Provincialisation? L’exemple de deux régions atlantiques d’Auguste à Constantin: l’Aquitaine et la Galice, 51-75, Madrid. Tyers, P. A., 1996, Roman Pottery in Britain, B. T. Batsford Ltd, London. Uscatescu, A., 1996, La cerámica del Macellum de Gerasa (Yaras, Jordania), Informes Arqueológicos, Madrid. Van Alfen, P. G., 1996, New light on the 7th-c. Yassi Ada shipwreck: capacities and standard sizes of LRA 1 amphoras, Journal of Roman Archaeology, vol. 9, 189213. Varoqueaux, C., 1968-70, L’épave du Musée des Docks à Marseille, Les Études Classiques, III, 25-50. Vegas, M., 1973, Cerámica común romana del Mediterráneo occidental, Barcelona.
6
From Oppidvm to Dives Bracara: The city trade through the amphorae
6 African Eastern 28 Table 1. Amount of specimens by production.
Amphorae
Dressel 30
“Africana Grande” Type B
Keay XXXV A
Keay XXXVI B
Keay LXII A
Ind.
African
1
1
1
1
1
1
LRA 1
LRA 3
11
13
Table 2.
African 450
Eastern
400 350 300 250 200 150 100 Eastern African
0 ARS Amphorae
Lamps
LRC
LRD
Coarse ware
Table 3. Amount of specimens.
Amphorae
ARS
Coarse Ware
Lamps
African Eastern
6 28
440
2
5
Total
34
440
2
5
Table 4. Amount of specimens by Production/Origin.
7
Total 6
Eastern
50
LRA 4
LRC
LRD
Total
25
2
453 55
25
2
508
4
28
Rui Morais
Fabric C Fabric D Fabric E
300 250 200 150 100
Fabric E Fabric D
50
Fabric C
0 A
B
C
D
E
F
G
Table 5. Amount of specimens.
AFRICAN Fabric C Fabric D Fabric E
A 22
B 52
C 1
D
E
F
256
27
70
G
12
Table 6. Amount of specimens bu Production/Period.
8
Total 75 353 12
From Oppidvm to Dives Bracara: The city trade through the amphorae
CATALOGUE No
FIGURES
FABRIC
TYPE
FORM
DIMENSIONS
AMPHORAE 1
Fig. 1
Northern Tunisian
Keay XXXV A
Rim / Neck
Rim Diam: 6 cm
2
Fig. 1
Northern Tunisian
Keay XXXVI B
Rim / Neck / Junction of
Rim Diam :10.8 cm
handles 3
Fig. 1
Northern Tunisian
Keay LXII
Semi-complete example
Rim Diam: 14.7 cm
4
Fig. 1
Northern Tunisian
Ind.
Handle
Width: 3.5 cm
5
Fig. 1
Algerian (Mauretania
Dressel 30
Neck / Handles / shoulder
Neck Min Diam: 7.1 cm
6
Fig. 1
Northern Tunisian
ìAfricana Grandeî B
Upper Part
Rim Diam: 10.2 cm
7
Fig. 2
Antioch
LRA 1
Rim / Neck / Handles
Rim Diam: 6.4 cm
8
Fig. 2
Antioch
LRA 1
Rim / Neck / Handles
Rim Diam: 9.2 cm
9
Fig. 2
Asian Minor
LRA 3
Neck / Handles
Neck Min Diam: 4 cm
10
Fig. 2
Asian Minor
LRA 3
Foot
Width: 2 cm
11
Fig. 2
Asian Minor
LRA 3
Foot
Width: 1.5 cm
12
Fig. 2
Asian Minor
LRA 3
Foot
_
13
Fig. 2
Asian Minor
LRA 3
Complete example
Height: 32.5 cm
Height: c. 103 cm
Caesariensis )
Foot width: 2.8 cm 14
Fig. 3
Palestinian (Gaza)
LRA 4
Rim / Shoulder
Rim Diam: 9.2 cm
15
Fig. 3
Palestinian (Gaza)
LRA 4
Handle
Width: 3.3 cm
16
Fig. 3
Palestinian (Gaza)
LRA 4
Handle
Width: 4 cm
17
Fig. 3
Palestinian (Gaza)
LRA 4
Body / Handles / Neck
Neck Diam: 6.4 cm Body Max Diam: 11 cm
COARSE WARES 18
Fig. 4
North African
Jug Type 6
Handle
Width: 2.1 cm
19
Fig. 4
North African
Small Jug
Complete example
Rim Max Diam: 6 cm Height: 15.9 cm
OIL-LAMPS Neckplace Pattern Max 20
Fig. 4
Tunisian
Barbera ìSerie 5î
Handle / Neckplace pattern /
Width : c. 8.5 cm
[5.1.1.1.3]
Discus
Discus: c. 7 cm
Barbera ìColateralî ARS
Broken Handle / Neckplace
Width : 9 cm
pattern / Discus
Discus: 2.5 cm
Neckplace Pattern Max 21
Fig. 4
Central Tunisian
22
Fig. 4
Tunisian
Ind.
Neckplace pattern / Discus
_
23
Fig. 4
Tunisian
Ind.
Neckplace pattern / Discus
_
24
Fig. 4
Tunisian
Ind.
Neckplace pattern
_
LRC 3
Rim Variant Unparalleled
Rim Diam: 28.2 cm
FINE-WARE 25
Fig. 4
Phocis
9
Rui Morais
Fig. 1.
10
From Oppidvm to Dives Bracara: The city trade through the amphorae
Fig. 2.
11
Rui Morais
Fig. 3.
12
From Oppidvm to Dives Bracara: The city trade through the amphorae
Fig. 4.
13
