Navigation – Plan du site

A group of transport amphorae from the territorium of Ceramus: typological observations

Abuzer Kızıl et Asil Yaman
p. 17-32

Texte intégral

1Ceramus is a coastal settlement located along with the northern part of the Ceramus gulf, to which it gave its name, within the border of the Caria region in the ancient periods.

  • 1 For the survey explorations in and nearby Ceramus, see Kızıl 2008: 357-374; Kızıl and Öztekin 2009: (...)

2The city located in the Ören town of Muğla province, 40 km far from Milas (Pl. 1: Fig. 1). During the archaeological surveys at the settlement in 2012, detailed researches were particularly made about public buildings like theater, bathhouse and temple of the city, and city walls, waterways and the conservation situations of the necropolis1. In addition to those endeavors, technical documentation, and researches of newly discovered architectural components were simultaneously carried out.

  • 2 It was not clearly reached from exactly which point of the sea such amphoras, which were probably t (...)
  • 3 Survey explorations in the region conducted by Assistant Prof. Dr. Abuzer Kızıl, were supported by (...)
  • 4 We thank Assistant Prof. Dr. Erkan Dündar for his suggestions and support during the typological re (...)

3Aforementioned artifacts were put under protection and delivered to the Milas museum. Among the artifacts put under protection, 13 amphoras taken out of sea were located within and nearby the Alnata Hotel2, which is situated on the western side of the Ören coast (Pl. 1: Fig. 2)3. As the probable production centers of amphoras were designated with reference to the typological characteristics of amphoras, date suggestions were presented by making analogical analysis, and forms were aligned in accordance with these suggestions4. The amphoras, which present a wide range from Tyrrhenian coasts in Italy, Levant in the Eastern Mediterranean to the Eastern Aegean settlements, reflect that Ceramus had effective overseas commercial relations during the Ancient periods.

Pl. 1.1

Pl. 1.1

Ancient Caria Region and the location of Ceramus (adapted from Henry 2008: 18, Fig. 1).

Pl. 1.2

Pl. 1.2

Aerial view of modern Ören settlement and findspot of the amphoras (adapted from Apple maps).

Type 1

4As a result of style critique studies, we made on amphoras that constitute our study subject, Type 1 represented by one sample was identified to be the Samian Amphora.

  • 5 Grace 1971: 74; Doğer 1991: 14; Dupont 1998: 165; Şenol 2003: 7; Greene et al. 2011: 63; Sezgin 201 (...)

5Samos Island is accepted as a center producing olive oil in the South Ionia with Miletos in the opposite coast and exporting its products mostly to the western Mediterranean settlements, particularly the Eastern Aegean coasts, between 7th century B.C. and 4th century A.D.5. A workshop producing amphora has yet not been identified on the island.

  • 6 Grace 1971: 52; mattingly 1981: 81.
  • 7 Zeest 1960: Pl. I.3; Dupont 1998: 164.
  • 8 Grace 1971: 52.
  • 9 Dupont 1998: 168; Carlson 2004: 26.

6The existence of the production is proved by the amphoras portrayed with the olive branch on the Samos coins dated 5th century B.C. and those amphora handles stamped with SA6. Zeest is the first person, who associated the island with amphora production, in literature7. The most comprehensive and well-accepted study on this issue was made by V. Grace in 19718. The earliest examples in terms of the form are identified as outflow rim, short-necked, arced connecting to out of shoulder from the middle of the neck, vertical short handles, and spherical body, shallow hollowed pedestal and with narrow ring base. molding on the shoulder pass of neck takes part as a characteristic feature. It is mentioned that the form lengthened and thinned in 5th century B.C. The handles diverged from being arced based on lengthening, and had ovoidal appearances sliding to the middle of the body from the shoulder level, which is the widest part of the body. The amphoras having aforementioned features are called as ‟late type” by P. Dupont9.

  • 10 M. Lawall 1995, identified three sub-categories, as he named S/1, S/2 and S/3 for the Samian amphor (...)

7The sample discovered on the Ceramus coast is rounded in the end, outflow lipped and short necked. It has vertical and thick handles connecting to shoulder from the upper part of the neck. Having an ovoidal structure, the body also has a carved ring pedestal inside (Pl. 2: 1). The aforementioned sample should be dated back to the second half of 5th century for the reasons like an ovoidal structure of the form more than spherical, the narrowness of pedestal, handles having baton characteristics more than an arch10.

Type 2

8It is possible to include Type 2, which is identified in surveys and represented with a sample, in the amphoras classification known as ‟mushroom type” in literature, based on the significant formal situation in its mouth structure.

  • 11 Zeest named the late samples, that the form dated to 2nd and 3rd centuries B.C., as Ust’-laba type.
  • 12 Zeest 1960: 150. V. Grace diverges from Zeest in his study about the Samian Amphoras in 1971, and m (...)

9Their predecessors were first found in the northern part of the Black Sea by I.B. Zeest and named as Solocha I11. Zeest identified seven different sub-categories over the samples found in the region12.

  • 13 Lewall 1995: 219.
  • 14 Norskov 2004: 287.
  • 15 For Athens, see lewall 1995: 220.
  • 16 For Paros, see Empereur and Picon 1986: 504; for Rhodos and Peraia, see Şenol 2015: 193; Şenot et a (...)
  • 17 For Klazomenai, see Doğer 1986: 469-471, fig. 18; 1991: 707-708, Pic. 13, type 6; for Knidos, see E (...)
  • 18 V. Grace argues that the form was first manufactured in Athens and spread over other centers in 4th (...)
  • 19 V. Gassner asserted that some of the mushroom-mouthed amphoras within the nikandros group might hav (...)
  • 20 Bezeczky 2013: 62.

10The earliest prototypes of the form were identified in a closed deposit, and were dated to the third quarter of 5th century B.C.13. M. Lawall identified eight sub-categories of them based on the foundlings of Athens14. The successors of mushroom type amphoras, which were manufactured by many different centers in the mainland Greece15, the Aegean islands16 and the Southeast Aegean coasts17 by becoming widespread during 4th century B.C.18, were used during the Hellenistic period19. The amphoras, which were thought to be carrying wine, spread over the Aegean coasts, the Black Sea, Egypt and the levant settlements during the Hellenistic period20.

  • 21 For Klazomenai, see Hasdağlı 2012: 163, Fig. 9, no 62. For Samos, see Grace 1971: Pl. 15.13; Doğer (...)

11The sample found in Ceramus is outwardly sloping and drooping brimmed, cylindrical neck, having oval-sectioned handles combining with the shoulder from just below the rim, a body widening to shoulders and narrowing to pedestal. Its pedestal was found broken (Pl. 2: 2). Generally, the form is easily identifiable with its significant outstretched triangle-mouthed structure and spherical body in terms of typology. In the Ceramus sample, it is observed that the body gets narrower from shoulders to pedestal in spandrel form. Although it poses a difficulty as the pedestal is broken, the form should be dated between the second half and the end of 4th century B.C. as a result of the analogical evaluation made with similar samples21.

Type 3

12Type 3 is represented with one sample and the style critique comparisons indicate that this type is a production of Chios.

  • 22 Şenol 2003: 51; Whitbread 1995: 135; Doğer 1988: 88; mattingly 1981: 78. Chios took side with mithr (...)
  • 23 It is narrated that three types of wine were used to be produced in the island and the sweet one wa (...)
  • 24 Şenol 2003: 53.
  • 25 It is thought that aforementioned amphoras even carry other products else than wine. As a result of (...)
  • 26 For the typological improvement, see Şenol 2003: 52, Whitbread 1995: 135.

13The wine production in the Chios island started in 7th century B.C. and continued until 1st century B.C.22. Well-known by many ancient writers for the quality of its wines23, the island exported its products to a wide area, from the Mediterranean and Aegean basin to the Black Sea. Known to be expensive, it is narrated that these wines were sold for middle class buyers in lagynoi24. The commercial amphoras used in the transportation of aforementioned wines25, have been showing a formal characteristic of outwardly sloping rimmed, short-thick necked, ovoidal body and elevated-pedestal in bracelet form since 7th century B.C. These characteristics started to change since the last quarter of 6th century B.C. and a bump was seen in the neck for a century. Beginning from the last quarter of 5th century B.C. in the new form named as ‟new style”, body structure was thinned and transformed to a triangular form. It was narrated that neck and handles got longer depending on the thinning. This elongation in the neck had almost become equal with the body length in the beginning of the 4th century B.C. Along with these characteristics it seemed that the thinning continued and plastic obstacles in pedestal were removed in 2nd century B.C.26.

  • 27 In 2006, approximately 500 commercial amphoras were identified in the mazotos shipwreck found in th (...)

14The sample evaluated within the scope of the study is identified in form as outward-sloping rounded lip-edged, thin and long-necked, having oval sectional handles connecting to the shoulder from the upper part of the neck, a sharp shoulder-body pass and a triangular body. Pedestal-body pass is grooved (Pl. 2: 3). With the typological comparisons made by taking into consideration of present typological characteristics, the artifact can be dated to the third quarter of 4th century B.C.27.

Type 4

  • 28 H. Dressel was the first one identifying the form. See Dressel 1899. The form is also mentioned as (...)

15Type 4, which was found among the amphoras in Ceramus, is classified in the Dressel 1 amphora type28.

  • 29 Zevi 1966: 212, Peacock 1971: 162 sq.; Bezeczky 2013: 100.
  • 30 For the production centers, see Peacock 1971: 164; Peacock and Williams 1986: 69, 90.
  • 31 Şenol 2000: 116.
  • 32 Beltrán lloris 1970; Benoit 1962; Tchernia 1986.
  • 33 Lamboglia 1955: 246 sq.

16Dressel 1 amphoras, which were considered as the successive of the Greco-Italic amphoras29, carried the quality wines produced in the Campania, latium and Etruria regions in the Tyrrhen coasts of Italy30. They are the most common wine amphoras, which were seen in the Western Mediterranean in 1st century B.C.31. The distribution of this form in the Eastern Mediterranean is limited. It is also narrated that they also carried different products like seashells and resin, except wine32. N. Lamboglia identified three sub-categories based on the differences in the mouth structure of this form33.

  • 34 Bezeczky 2004: 89, no 4.

17The Ceramus sample has a formal characteristics of upright mouth side, thin and long neck, oval-sectioned, vertical handles connecting to shoulder, sharp shoulder-body pass, stuffed, flat base, long bottom. The whole form, except one of its handles, is reserved (Pl. 3: 4). Different than Dressel 1-A sub-type, the mouth structure of the present form has an upright appearance rather than the triangle. Besides, the pedestal was kept longer and the base was flattened. It is understood that the sample found in Keramos is Dressel 1-B type when these formal characteristics are taken into consideration. As a result of the comparisons made with similar samples, the artifact should be dated to 1st century B.C.34.

Type 5

  • 35 The other names identified for this form are; Augst 5, Peacock and Williams 10, Koan, Ostia 51, Cam (...)

18Type 5, which is among the amphoras evaluated within the scope of this study and represented with two samples, enters into the Dressel 2-4 amphoras classification35.

  • 36 Sealey 1985: 128; Bezeczky 2013: 130. For the corn production, see Empereur 1986: 599 sq.

19The form, which was produced in Kos in the Hellenistic period and was qualified as the successor of the type named as Koan Amphoras, was produced in many different centers, particularly in Campania region in Italy and Tarraconensis region in the northern part of the Spain36.

  • 37 Williams and Peacock 1986: 6, Fig. 1; Williams 2004: 444.
  • 38 Bezeczky 2005: 38; 2013: 129.
  • 39 Williams 2004: 441; Gupta et al. 2001: 7; Bezeczky 2013: 129; Şenol 2003: 49.
  • 40 Arthur and Williams 1992: 250. Bezeczky 2013: 131.
  • 41 Şenol 2004: 49.

20The DR 2-4 amphoras, which were seen lighter and more useful in terms of weight/capacity rate, as a result of its wall structure thinner than its predecessor DR1-B37, got into use until to the beginning of the 3rd century A.D. starting from the middle of 1st century B.C.38. The form has a very wide distribution area. Available data show that it was exported to a wide geography particularly in the Western Mediterranean settlements to the Britannia in north, from Egypt in the Eastern Mediterranean to India through the Red Sea39. As these types of amphoras were used in wine transportation40, it is also known that they carried products like olive oil, garum and dates41.

  • 42 For similar samples, see Ephesos Bezeczky 2004: 91, Kt.nr.13; for marmaris, see Şenol 2003: 48.

21Two samples which were evaluated within this group were found in Ceramus. The first sample has slightly outward and rounded mouth structure. The neck is long, cylindrical and narrow. Sharp grooves are observed in the neck-shoulder and shoulder-body passes. The handles are similar to right-angled spur. The body has a cylindrical form (Pl. 3: 5). The second sample has a similar mouth structure and right-angled handles, but the mouth diameter is wider and the neck is shorter (Pl. 3: 6). In the light of these typological data, as a result of the comparisons made with similar samples, the present samples can be dated to the first quarter and the end of 1st century A.D.42

Type 6

  • 43 Aforementioned form is also mentioned in literature as Gaza, Almagro 54, Kartaca LR4, Riley LR4, Ku (...)

22Type 6, which is discussed within the scope of this study, is represented by a sample and enters into the category of amphoras identified as LRA-443.

  • 44 For the petrographical analysis made on the samples found in Caesarea hippodrome and production cen (...)
  • 45 Şenol 2000: 246.
  • 46 Şenol 2009: 158 sq.
  • 47 majcherek 1995: 172; Şenol 2000: 244.

23It is thought that this form, which was thought to be produced in the Palestinian costs, in and around Gaza44, carried wine and sesame45. The aforementioned form was exported to a wide geography particularly to the Western Mediterranean, Italy in the west and to the south of France46. Four sub-categories are identified by observing the formal characteristics like out-stretching or flatness of mouth, length or shortness of neck, narrow-cylindrical or wide body47. It was determined that the early samples were short, wide-mouthed and bodied; the form was evolved to a more cylindrical structure as the mouth and the body narrowed in the improvement of the form.

  • 48 Pieri 2005: 105 sq.

24The form found in Ceramus has a structure of rounded mouth base and lightly out-stretched mouth side. The handles are vertical and oval sectioned connecting to the upper body from shoulder and the body can be identified as cylindrical (Pl. 3: 7). In the light of this typological data, the present sample should be evaluated within the sub-category of LR4-B1, when the classification of D. Pieri is taken into consideration. This sub-category must have been used in the third quarter of the 5th century and the middle of the 6th century A.D.48.

Type 7

  • 49 Aforementioned naming was made by J. Riley in 1979 and widely accepted in literature. See Riley 197 (...)

25Type 7, which was found in Ceramus and taken part in the amphoras of the late Roman period, takes place in LRA-1 amphoras group49.

  • 50 Şenol 2004: 12; lang 1976: 81; Demesticha 2003: 471; Empereur and Picon 1989: 239, fig. 18; Alkaç 2 (...)
  • 51 Şenol 2000: 200; 2000: 37 sq.; 1998: 93; Peacock and Williams 1989: 186.
  • 52 Bonifay and Pieri 1995: 108; Şenol 2009: 244 sq.

26The amphoras partaking in this group were produced in Cyprus, the Syrian coasts, Rhodes and Peraea and particularly in the Cilicia coasts; and were widely used in the Aegean and Mediterranean geographies50. As a result of the studies, it was understood that lRA-1 was used in wine and oil olive transportation51. Three sub-categories of the form were determined by M. Bonifay and D. Pieri, by observing the differences like neck thickness and height of the form52.

  • 53 For similar samples in terms of typology, see Ephesus. Bezeczky 2013: 159; for Kekova, see Aslan 20 (...)

27The sample found in Ceramus has a flat structure of rounded mouth base. It has a cylindrical neck, which is short and opening convex to the mouth. The oval sectional handles connect with the body starting from the side of the mouth. The body is narrowing to the pedestal under the shoulder, and grooves are there (Pl. 4: 8). In terms of typology, the present sample should be evaluated within the lRA1-b sub-category, when the structure of rightangled handles, the thickness of neck and the total height of 40 cm are taken into consideration. The artifact can be dated to the second half of 6th century A.D and the first quarter of 7th century A.D. within the scope of the analogical researches53.

Type 8

  • 54 It is also known as LRA-2 Amphoras, Carthage lRA-2, Benghazi LRA-2, Peacock-Williams 43, Beltran 71 (...)

28Type 8, which was taken into evaluation within the scope of this study, is represented by a sole sample. Aforementioned amphora is named as lRA-2 amphora in literature54.

  • 55 Opait 2004: 295; 2007: 627 sq.
  • 56 For the chronological findings, see Şenol 2009: 149.
  • 57 Pieri 2005: 99.
  • 58 For Argos and its around, see Pieri 2005: 99; for Sikyon, see Tzavella et al. 2014: 93. For the oth (...)
  • 59 Şenol 2015: 248; 2009: 149; Aslan 2015: 338; Şenol 2000: 182.
  • 60 Şenol 2000: 187; 2003: 97.

29LRA-2 amphoras, which were thought to be the successor of Dressel Type 24 in terms of typology55, were used for a long period from the middle of the 4th century to 9th century56. LRA-2 amphoras are identified as Aegean origin, with reference to production centers57. Aforementioned centers are indicated as northeastern Peloponnessos, Chios, and Oltina in Romania58. These amphoras, which were thought to be used in mastic, myrtle resin, turpentine and olive oil in sweet wine transportation, particularly in wine and olive oil transportation, are mostly found in the Eastern Mediterranean and North Africa59. Three sub-types A, B and C are identified for the form60.

  • 61 Similar samples, for Gaul, see Pieri 1998: 100; for Ephesus, see Bezeczky 2013: 160; for Sycthia, s (...)

30The sample found in Ceramus has a sharp profile in the outer surface, triangle form, and a high mouth with a rounded lip. The handles with thick and rounded-sectioned structure starting from the neck, combine with the shoulder. The body of the form, which has a high, conical neck, has an ovoid structure; and is narrowed in a concave angle between the body-pedestal (Pl. 4: 9). When the long-necked structure, rising handles based on lengthening of the neck and ovoid structure of the body else than spherical, with reference to this definition, the present sample can be evaluated within the LRA-2-b subtype in terms of typology. When the aforementioned sub-type is evaluated in terms of analogical perspective, it should be dated to between the second quarter of the 6th century and 7th century A.D.61.

Type 9

  • 62 J. Riley identified this group that he discovered in Bingazi as LRA-13, and this definition was wid (...)
  • 63 Şenol 2015: 248.
  • 64 Diamanti 2010: 1 sq.; Didimou 2014: 170. It is thought that LRA-13 production was made in the works (...)

31The type 9 takes part in commercial amphoras of Aegean origin in the late Roman Period and enters into the LRA-13 amphora group62. The data obtained from the excavations of Benghazi, Yassıada shipwreck, and Saraçhane, indicates that type 9 was used as the late version of the LRA-2 in terms of chronology63. As a result of excavations made in the Halasarna settlement in Kos island, the production of LRA-13 amphoras was proved in the island64. These amphoras, which were used in oil olive/wine – or both – transportation, spread over Marmara, Cyprus and northern Africa, and particularly in Aegean coasts.

  • 65 Similar samples, for Kos, see Diamanti 2010: Fig. 1.b; for Yassıada, see Bass and van Doorninck 198 (...)

32The sample discovered in Ceramus has an outstretched rounded mouth, cylindrical and short neck, and oval-sectioned vertical handles connecting on the shoulder from the middle of the neck, in terms of typology. The body should be in spherical appearance (Pl. 4: 10). The aforementioned form should be dated to the first half of the 7th century A.D. with analogical evaluations, with reference to its characteristics65.

Type 10

  • 66 Form is also named as Agora m273, Keay lXVII and LRA-8. See Keay 1984: 358, Fig. 66; Pieri 2005: 13 (...)

33Type 10 partaking among late Roman amphoras discovered in Ceramus, is among amphoras of Samos-Cistern66.

  • 67 A large number of samples were discovered in a cistern excavations in Samos made by Hans-Peter Isle (...)
  • 68 Şenol 2009: 157; Bezeckzy 2013: 157; Arthur 1985: 252; 1990: 288; 1998: 167.
  • 69 Bezeczky indicates that the Meander Valley was one of the probable production centers. See Bezeczky (...)
  • 70 Bezeczky 2013: 157; Şenol and Kerem 2000: 100; Şenol 2000: 193; Sagui 1998: 167; Şenol 2009: 157; P (...)

34The amphoras partaking this group were discovered in Samos in large numbers and variety67. The data received from ceramic dumps supports that Samos was a production center68. Samos-cistern type was thought to be produced in many different centers like Meander Valley in the Western Anatolia, Halicarnassus, and Elaea, along with Samos69. The amphoras, which were spread to the Eastern Mediterranean, the east of Alps, Ampurias in the Western Mediterranean and the Black Sea, particularly in Aegean coasts, are thought to be used mostly in olive oil and wine transportation70.

  • 71 Similar samples, for Bodrum, see Baas and Doorninck 1971: Pl. 2, Fig. 8; for İçel, see Şenol and Ke (...)

35The sample discovered in Ceramus has a rounded and out-stretched mouth. The neck shows a structure widening to the shoulder. The handles are twinsectioned, and start from the neck and connect to the shoulder-body pass. The body in the cylindrical structure widens slightly to the bottom part like a bag. The form, whose bottom part is not preserved, should have a conical pedestal (Pl. 5: 11). The aforementioned sample can be dated to the interval of 6th-7th centuries, pursuant to the typological evaluations71.

Type 11

36Type 11 is outward slanting-mouthed, narrow and long-necked, and has oval-sectioned and vertical thin handles. Shoulder-body pass of the form is kept sharp and is triangle-bodied. The bottom part of the pedestal was found broken (Pl. 5: 12).

37In terms of typology, making the neck and the handles as long as almost the body, being the neck-body passes sharp and being the body triangle suggest that this amphora was manufactured in the Chios island in the Hellenistic period. Since the bottom part of the pedestal was broken, no any certain conclusion could be reached about its production center.

Type 12

38In terms of formal characteristics, another amphora, whose production center could not be identified, is defined as outward slanting mouthed, rounded flaring-rimmed, ovoidal bodied, having high-necked, oval-sectioned vertical handles, carved interior with high pedestal (Pl. 5: 13).

  • 72 Şenol 2004: 11.

39It is narrated that it was quite popular to use pedestals with carved interior in the Aegean and Mediterranean geographies, in the early Hellenistic period. The Cyprus productions have been high cylindrical-necked and have high pedestal with the carved interior in a similar way to Chios productions since 4th century B.C.72. When the formal characteristics are taken into consideration, the form, which is probably the productions of Cyprus, can be dated to the early Hellenistic period.

General Evaluation

  • 73 Varinlioğlu 1981: 52; Kızıl 2002: 134.

40Ceramus, which was located on the northern coasts of the Ceramus gulf, has been an important coastal settlement. It is proved that the city had a privileged position in the Caria region with the high tax to Delian League in 5th century B.C.73.

41During the 2012 survey, the commercial amphoras discovered in the city were classified in terms of typology, and totally 12 different types were identified. Although the category or production centers of 10 types out of aforementioned 12 types are certainly identified, the production centers of the remaining 2 samples could not exactly be identified.

42In the earliest amphora sample (Type 1, Samian amphora that was dated to third quarter of 5th century B.C.), which was taken to evaluation, it is possible to see the commercial relations the city established with the South Ionia. It is also proved with the amphora sample of the Mushroom Type amphora that these relations had been maintained during 4th century B.C.

43The Roman rule starting in 129 B.C. had reflections on the commercial relations of the region, and the West Mediterranean and Italian production wines were transported to Ceramus with Dressel Type-1 and later on with Dressel Type-2-4. By this way, the city, which was a frequent destination on the Aegean commercial route since the Archaic period, seems having been included in the Western route.

44The LRA-4 and LRA-1 amphoras discovered within the scope of the research, are important data reflecting the Ceramus’ commercial relations with Cilicia and the Levant coasts in the Eastern Mediterranean between 5th and 7th centuries A.D. Likewise, the existence of LRA-2 and LRA-13 and the Samos-Cistern Type amphoras, which were produced on the Eastern Aegean coasts, has been reflecting the continuance of the Ionian commerce existing since the Archaic period.

45As a conclusion, it can be said that Ceramus established uninterrupted commercial relations with the Cyprus, Cilicia and the Levant shores and Italy in west, and particularly in the Aegean settlements, from the Archaic period to the Early Byzantine period, with reference to present commercial amphora data.

Catalogue

1. Pl. 2: 1

46Type: Samian Amphora
Clay: 2.5 YR 5/6 Red
Surface: 2.5 YR 5/6 Red
Measurements: Rim Diam. 9.5 cm, H. 61 cm, Pedestal Diam. 3.5 cm
Dating: 2nd half of the 5th Century B.C. Parallel
Examples: Lawall 1995: 370, Fig. 70, Fig. 71.

2. Pl. 2: 2

47Type: Mushroom Type Amphora
Clay: 7.5 YR 6/4 Light Brown
Surface: 7.5 YR 6/4 Light Brown
Measurements: Rim Diam. 14 cm, H. 74 cm
Dating: 2nd half of the 4th Century B.C.-4th quarter of the 4th Century B.C.
Parallel Examples: Hasdağlı 2012: 163, Fig. 9, no 62; Grace 1971: Pl. 15.13; Doğer 1991: 99, R.101;
Monachov and Rogov 1990 : Table 6, no 38-39 ; Kac et al. 2002 : Pl. 48 AD 80, AD 90 ; Norskov 2004 : 288, Fig. 4, Halicarnassus. Type 3.

3. Pl. 2: 3

48Type: Chian Amphora
Clay: 5 Yr 7/6 reddish Yellow Surface: 5 Yr 7/6 reddish Yellow
Measurements: rim Diam. 10 cm, H. 98 cm Pedestal Diam. 3 cm
Dating: 3rd quarter of the 4th Century B.C.
Parallel examples: Demesticha 2011: 45, Fig. 5a, NM1; Foley et al. 2009: 288, Fig. 12; Grace 1979: Fig. 46.

4. Pl. 3: 4

49Type: Dressel Type-1b Clay: 2.5 Yr 5/6 red Surface: 2.5 Yr 5/6 red
Measurements: rim Diam. 15 cm, H. 104 cm Dating: 1st Century B.C.
Parallel examples : Bezeczky 2004 : 89, no 4.

5. Pl. 3: 5

50Type: Dressel Type-2-4
Clay: 5 Yr 6/6 reddish Yellow Surface: 5 Yr 6/6 reddish Yellow
Measurements: rim Diam. 10.4 cm, H. 81 cm Dating: 1st Century A.D.
Parallel examples: Bezeczky 2004: 91, Kt.nr.13; Şenol 2003: 48.

6. Pl. 3: 6

51Type: Dressel Type-2-4
Clay: 2.5 Yr 5/4 reddish brown Surface: 2.5 Yr 5/4 reddish brown
Measurements: rim Diam. 12 cm, H. 20.5 cm Dating: 1st Century B.C.
Parallel examples: Bezeczky 2004: 91, Kt.nr.13; Şenol 2003: 48.

7. Pl. 3: 7

52Type: lrA-4b
Clay: 2.5 Yr 5/6 red Surface: 2.5 Yr 5/6 red
Measurements: rim Diam. 9.6 cm, H. 69.8 cm, Pedestal Diam. 2.5 cm
Dating: 3rd quarter of the 5th Century-2nd half of the 6th Century
Parallel examples: Pieri 2005: 105 sq.

8. Pl. 4: 8

53Type: lrA-1b
Clay: 10 r 7/6 Yellow Surface: 10 r 7/6 Yellow
Measurements: rim Diam. 8.2 cm, H. 40.6 cm, Pedestal Diam. 2 cm
Dating: 3rd quarter of the 6th Century A.D.-1st quarter of the 6th Century A.D.
Parallel examples: Bezeczky 2013: 159; Aslan 2015: 365, Fig. 2.18; Dündar 2012: 46, Fig. 5; Alkaç 2013: 114, Fig. 9; 2012: 323; Şenol 2004: 13, res.8; 2000: lev. 31, Şek. 109; Pieri 1998: 89 sq.; Tekocak and Zoroğlu 2013: 121; leidwanger et al. 2015: 304, Fig. 5; Şenol and Kerem 2000: 95, Kt. nr.18; Bass and Doorninck 1982: 157, Fig. 8.3; lüdorf 2006: Taf. 16, A108.

9. Pl. 4: 9

54Type: lrA-2b
Clay: 2.5 Yr 5/6 red Surface: 2.5 Yr 5/6 red
Measurements: rim Diam. 6.4 cm, H. 60.2 cm, Pedestal Diam. 2 cm
Dating: 2nd half of the 6th Century A.D.-1st half of the 7th Century A.D.
Parallel examples: Pieri 1998: 100; Bezeczky 2013: 160; Opait 2004: 296, Fig. 10; Aslan 2015: 113, Fig. 22; Doorninck 1982: Fig. 1; 1989: 249, Fig. 1.

10. Pl. 4: 10

55Type: lrA-13
Clay: 5 Yr 5/3 reddish brown Surface: 5 Yr 5/3 reddish brown
Measurements: rim Diam. 8 cm, H. 17 cm Dating: 1st half of the 7th Century A.D.
Parallel examples: Diamanti 2010: Fig. 1.b; Bass and Van Doorninck 1982: 157, CA13; Riley 1977: Fig. 93, Kt.nr.373; Hayes 1992: Tip 29, Fig. 23.3.

11. Pl. 5: 11

56Type: Samos-Cistern Clay: 10 r 5/8 red Surface: 10 r 5/8 red
Measurements: rim Diam. 10.8 cm, H. 47 cm Dating: 1st half of the 6th Century A.D.-1st half of the 7th Century A.D.
Parallel examples: baas and Doorninck 1971: Pl. 2, Fig. 8; Şenol and Kerem 2000: 99, Kt.nr.25; Arthur 1989: Fig. 4; Dündar 2012: 54, Fig. 19; Reynolds and Pavlidis 2014: 462, Fig. 9, 1.

12. Pl. 5: 12

57Type: Chian (?)
Clay: 5 Yr 7/8 reddish Yellow Surface: 5 Yr 7/8 reddish Yellow
Measurements: rim Diam. 12 cm, H. 73.2 cm, Pedestal Diam. 3 cm
Dating: Hellenistic period (?) Parallel examples: -

13. Pl. 5: 13

58Type: Cyprus (?)
Clay: 7.5 Yr 6/6 reddish Yellow Yüzey: 7.5 Yr 6/6 reddish Yellow
Measurements: rim Diam. 10.2 cm, H. 68 cm, Pedestal Diam. 3.6 cm
Dating: early Hellenistic period (?)
Parallel examples: -

Haut de page

Bibliographie

Alkaç, E., 2012: “Korykos (Kilikia) Yüzey Araştırmalarında Bulunan LR1 Amphoraları”, Olba 20: 323-344.

Alkaç, E., 2013: “Silifke Müzesi’nden Doğu Akdeniz Üretimi Amphoralar”, Cedrus 1: 107-124.

Aslan, E., 2015: “Kekova Adası 2012-2013 Yılı Sualtı Araştırmalarında Bulunan Amphoraların Tipolojik Değerlendirmesi”, Olba 23: 321-369.

Arthur, P., 1998: “Eastern Mediterranean amphorae between 500 and 700: a view from Italy”, in Saguì, L. (ed.), Ceramica in Italia: VI-VII secolo. Atti del convegno in onore di John W. Hayes. Roma, 11-13 maggio 1995, Firenze: 157-184.

Arthur, P.,2005: “Samos Cistern Type”, in Keay, S. and Williams, D.F. (eds.), Roman Amphorae. A digital resource, Southampton.

Arthur, P. and Williams, D.F., 1992: “Campanian wine, Roman Britain and the Third century A.D.”, JRA 5: 250-260.

Bass, G.F. and Van Doorninck, F.H., 1982: Yassi Ada I. A Seventh Century Byzantine Shipwreck, Texas.

Benoit, F., 1962: “Relations commerciales entre le monde ibéro-punique et le Midi de la Gaule de l’époque archaïque à l’époque romaine”, REA 63: 321-330.

Beltrán Lloris, M., 1970: Las ánforas romanas en España, Zaragoza.

Bezeczky, T., 2004: “Early Roman Food Import in Ephesus: Amphorae from the Tetragonos Agora”, in Eiring, J. and Lund, J. (eds.), Transport Amphorae and Trade in the Eastern Mediterranean, Acts of the International Colloquium at the Danish Institute at Athens, September 26-29, 2002, Athens: 85-97.

Bezeczky, T., 2005: “Roman Amphorae from Vindobona”, in Krinzinger, F. (ed.), Vindobona-Beiträg zu ausgewählten Keramikgattungen in ihrem topographiscen Kontext: 35-109.

Bezeczky, T., 2013: The Amphorae of Roman Ephesus, Wien.

Bonifay, M. and Piéri, D., 1995: “Amphores du Ve au VIIe s. à Marseille: nouvelles données sur la typologie et le contenu”, JRA 8: 94-120.

Bonifay, M. and Villedieu, F., 1989: “Importations d’amphores orientales en Gaule (Ve-VIIe siècle)”, in Déroche, V. and Speiser, J.M. (eds.), Recherches sur la céramique byzantine, Actes du colloque EFA-Université de Strasbourg Athènes 8-10 avril 1987, BCH Suppl. 18: 17-46.

Cankardeş Şenol, G., Şenol, A.K. and Doğer, E., 2004: “Amphora Production in the Rhodian Peraea in the Hellenistic Period”, in Eiring, J. and Lund, J. (eds.), Transport Amphorae and Trade in the Eastern Mediterranean, Acts of the International Colloquium at the Danish Institute at Athens, September 26-29, 2002, Athens: 353-360.

Carlson, N.D., 2004: Cargo in context: The morphology, stamping, and origins of the amphoras from a fifth-century B.C. Ionian shipwreck, Unpublished PhD Thesis (The University of Texas), Austin.

Carlson, N.D. and Lawall, M.L., 2005/2006: “Towards a Typology of Erythraian Amphoras”, Skyllis 7: 33-40.

Demesticha, S., 2003: “Amphora Production on Cyprus during the Late Roman Period”, in Bakirtzis, Ch. (ed.), Actes de VIIe Congrès international sur la céramique médievale en Méditerranée, Thessaloniki, 11-16 Octobre 1999, Athens: 469-476.

Demesticha, S., 2005: “Some thoughts on the production and presence of the Late Roman Amphora 13 on Cyprus”, Halicarnassian Studies 3: 169-178.

Demesticha, S., 2011: “The 4th Century-BC Mazotos Shipwreck, Cyprus: a Preliminary Report”, IntJNautA 40.1: 39-59.

Diamanti, C., 2010: “Stamped Late Roman/Proto-Byzantine amphoras from Halasarna of Cos, ReiCretActa 41: 1-8.

Didimou, S., 2014: “Local Pottery Production in the Island of Cos, Greece from the early Byzantine Period”, LRCW 4: 169-180.

Doğer E., 1986: “Premières remarques sur les amphores de Clazomènes”, in Empereur, J.-Y. and Garlan, Y. (eds.), Recherches sur les amphores grecques, BCH Suppl. 13: 461-471.

Doğer E., 1988: Klazomenai Kazısındaki Arkaik Dönem Ticari Amphoraları, Unpublished PhD Thesis (Ege University), İzmir.

Doğer E., 1991: Antik Çağda Amphoralar, İzmir.

Dressel, H., 1899: Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum, Berlin.

Dupont, P., 1998: ‟Archaic East Greek Trade Amphoras”, in Cook, R.M. and Dupont, P., East Greek Pottery, New York.

Dündar, E., 2012: “A Group of Amphorae from Side Museum and a New Type of Amphora: The Lycian Amphora?”, AA 2012/1: 43-61.

Empereur, J.-Y., 1986: “Un atelier de Dressel 2–4 en Égypte au IIIe siècle de notre ère”, in Empereur, J.Y. and Garlan, Y. (eds.), Recherches sur les amphores grecques, BCH Suppl. 13: 599-608.

Empereur, J.-Y. and Picon, M., 1986: “Premières remarques sur les amphores de Clazomènes”, in Empereur, J.-Y. and Garlan, Y. (eds.), Recherches sur les amphores grecques, BCH Suppl. 13: 461-471. 1986: “Des ateliers d’amphores à Paros et à Naxos”, BCH 110: 495-511.

Empereur, J.-Y. and Picon, M., 1989: ‟Les régions de production d’amphores impériales en Méditerranée orientale”, CEFR 114: 223-248.

Empereur, J.-Y., Hesse, A. and Tuna, N., 1999: “Les Ateliers d’Amphores de Datça, Péninsule de Cnide”, in Garlan, Y. (ed.), Production et commerce des amphores anciennes en mer Noire, Aix-en-Provence: 105-115.

Ferrazzoli, A.F., 2010: “Economy of Roman Eastern Rough Cilicia: Some Archaeological Indicators”, Bolletino di Archeologia Speciale: 39-50.

Ferrazzoli, A.F. and Ricci, M., 2007: “Elaiussa Sebaste: Produzionie consumi di una città della Cilicia tra V e VII secolo”, LRCW 2: 671-688.

Foley, B.P., DellaPorta, K., Sakellarious, D., Bingham, B.S., Camilli, R., Eustice, R.M., Evagelistis, D., Ferrini, V.l., Katsaros, K., Kourkoumelis, D., mallios, A., micha, P., mindell, D.A., Roman, C., Singh, H., Switzer, D.S. and Theodoulou, T., 2009: “The 2005 Chios Ancient Shipwreck Survey”, Hesperia 78: 269-305.

Grace, V.R., 1971: “Samian Amphoras”, AJA 40.1: 52-95.

Grace, V.R., 1986: “Premières remarques sur les amphores de Clazomènes”, in Empereur, J.-Y. and Garlan, Y. (eds.), Recherches sur les amphores grecques, BCH Suppl. 13: 461-471. 1979: Amphoras and The Ancient Wine Trade, Athens.

Greene, E.S., Leidwanger, J. and Özdaş, H.A., 2011: “Two Early Archaic Shipwrecks at Kekova Adası and Kepçe Burnu, Turkey”, IntJNautA 40.1: 60-68.

Gupta, S., Willams, D. and Peacock, D., 2001: “Dressel 2–4 Amphorae and Roman Trade with India: the evidence from nevasa”, South Asian Studies 17.1: 7-18.

Hansson, M.C. and Foley, B.P., 2008: “Ancient DnA Fragments Inside Classical Greek Amphoras reveal Cargo of 2400-year-old shipwreck”, JASc 35: 1169-1176.

Hasdağlı, İ., 2012: “The Assessment of the 4th Century B.C. Finds from Three Wells Uncovered at Clazomenae HBT (Hamdi Balaban Tarlası) Sector”, Olba 20: 119-164.

Hayes, J.W., 1992: Excavations at Sarachane in Istanbul, Volume 2: The Pottery, Princeton.

Isler, H.P., 1969: “Heraion von Samos. Eine früh-byzantinische Zisterne”, AM 84: 202-230.

Jacobsen, K.W., 2004: “Regional Distribution of Transport Amphorae in Cyprus in the late roman Period”, in Eiring, J. and Lund, J. (eds.), Transport Amphorae and Trade in the Eastern Mediterranean, Acts of the International Colloquium at the Danish Institute at Athens, September 26-29, 2002, Athens: 143-148.

Kac, V.I., Monachov, S.Y., Stolba, V.F. and Sceglov, A.N., 2002: “Tiles and Ceramic Containers”, Panskoye I: 101-126.

Kızıl, A., 1986: “Premieres remarques sur les amphores de Clazomènes”, in Empereur, J.-Y. and Garlan, Y. (eds.), Recherches sur les amphores grecques, BCH Suppl. 13: 461-471. 2008: 2006 Yılı muğla ili, Milas İlçesi ile Ören ve Selimiye Beldelerinde Arkeolojik Yüzey Araştırmaları”, AST 25-3: 357-374.

Kızıl, A., 2002: Uygarlıkların Başkenti Mylasa ve Çevresi, İzmir.

Kızıl, A., 2012: “2010 Yılı muğla ili, Milas İlçesi ile Ören ve Selimiye Beldelerinde Arkeolojik Yüzey Araştırmaları”, AST 29-3: 423-438.

Kızıl, A. and Öztekin, I.E., 2009: ‟2007 Yılı muğla ili, Milas İlçesi ile Ören ve Selimiye Beldelerinde Arkeolojik Yüzey Araştırmaları”, AST 26-3: 293-310.

Kızıl, A., 2010: ‟2008 Yılı muğla ili, Milas İlçesi ile Ören ve Selimiye Beldelerinde Arkeolojik Yüzey Araştırmaları”, AST 27-3: 359-384.

Kızıl, A., 2011: “2009 Yılı muğla ili, Milas İlçesi ile Ören ve Selimiye Beldelerinde Arkeolojik Yüzey Araştırmaları”, AST 28-1: 401-416.

Karagiorgou, O., 2000: “LRA2: a container from the military annona on the Danubian border?”, in Kingsley, S.A. and Decker, M. (eds.), Economy and exchange in the East Mediterranean during Late Antiquity, Oxford: 129-166.

Keay, S.J., 1984: Late Roman amphorae in the Western Mediterranean. A typology and economic study: the Catalan evidence, Oxford.

Lamboglia, N., 1955: “Sulla cronologia delle anfore romane de età republicana”, Rivista di studi Liguri 21: 252-260.

Lang, M., 1976: The Athenian Agora 21. Grafiti and Dipinti, Athens.

Lawall, M.L., 1995: Transport amphoras and trademarks: Imports to Athens and economic diversity in the fifth century B.C., Unpublished PhD Thesis (The University of Michigan), Michigan.

Lawall, M.L., 2004: “Archaeological context and Aegean amphora chronologies. A case study of Hellenistic Ephesos”, in Eiring, J. and Lund, J. (eds.), Transport Amphorae and trade in the Eastern Mediterranean, Acts of the International Colloquium at the Danish Institute at Athens, September 26-29, 2002, Athens: 171-188.

Lawall, M.L., 2007: “Hellenistic stamped amphora handles”, in Mitsopoulos-Leon, V. and Lang-Auinger, C. (eds.), Die Basilika am Staatsmarkt in Ephesos, 2. Teil. Funde der klassischen bis römischen Zeit, FiE 9, Wien: 28-60.

Leidwanger, J., Greene, E.S. and Tuna, N., 2015: “A late Antique Ceramic Assemblage at Burgaz, Datça Peninsula, South-West Turkey, and the ‘normality of the mixed Cargo’ in the Ancient Mediterranean”, IntJNautA 44.2: 300-311.

Lüdorf, G., 2006: Römische und frühbyzantinische Gebrauchskeramik im Westlichen Kleinasien: Typologie und Chronologie, Rahden.

Majcherek, G., 1995: “Gazan amphorae: Typology reconsidered. Hellenistic and Roman pottery in the Eastern Mediterranean”, in meyza, H. and mlynarczyk, J. (eds.), Advances in scientific studies, Acts of the II Nieborów Pottery Workshop, Warsaw: 163-178.

Mattingly, H.B., 1981: “Coins and amphoras-Chios, Samos and Thasos in the fifth century B.C.”, JHS 101: 78-86.

Michaelides, D., 1996: “The Economy of Cyprus during the Hellenistic and Roman periods”, in Karageorghis, V. and Michaelides, D. (eds.), The Development of the Cypriot Economy from the Prehistoric Period to the Present Day, Nicosia: 139-52.

Monakhov, S.Iu. and Rogov, E.Ia., 1990: “Amphoras of the Panskoe I necropolis”, AMA 7: 128-153.

Moore, J., 1995: A Survey of the Italian Dressel 2-4 Wine Amphora, Unpublished mA Thesis (McMaster University), Hamilton.

Norskov, V., 2004: “Amphorae from three Wells at the maussolleion of Halikarnassos: Something to Add to the Typology of Mushroom Rims?”, in Eiring, J. and Lund, J. (eds.), Transport Amphorae and Trade in the Eastern Mediterranean, Acts of the International Colloquium at the Danish Institute at Athens, September 26-29, 2002, Athens: 285-292.

Opait, A., 2004: Local and Imported Ceramics in the Roman Province of Scythia (4th-6th centuries AD), Oxford.

Opait, A., 2007: “From DR 24 to LR 2?”, in Bonifay, M. and Tréglia, J.C. (eds.), LRCW 2: 627-642.

Ozanic I., 2005: “Tipovi amfora iz Cibala”, VAPD 98: 133-148.

Peacock, D.P.S., 1971: ‟Roman Amphorae in Pre-Roman Britain”, in Jesson, M. and Hill, D. (eds.), The Iron Age and its Hill Forts. Papers Presented to Sir Mortimer Wheeler, Southampton: 161-188.

Peacock, D.P.S., 1984: “Petrology and Origins. The Avenue du Président Habib Bourguiba, Salammbô: The pottery and other ceramic objects from the site”, Excavations at Carthage: The British Mission 1-2: 6-28.

Piéri, 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 Rivet, L. et Saulnier, S., Importations d’amphores en Gaule du Sud, du règne d’Auguste à l’Antiquité tardive, Jun 1998, Istres: 97-106.

Piéri, D., 2005: Le commerce du vin oriental à l’époque byzantine (Ve-VIIe siècles), Beyrouth.

Peacock, D.P.S. and Williams, D.F., 1986: Amphorae and the Roman Economy, London.

Regev, D., 2004: “The Phoenician Transport Amphora”, in Eiring, J. and Lund, J. (eds.), Transport Amphorae and Trade in the Eastern Mediterranean, Acts of the International Colloquium at the Danish Institute at Athens, September 26-29, 2002, Athens: 337-352.

Reynolds, P. and Pavlidis, E., 2014: “Nikopolis (Epirus Vetus): an early 7th century pottery assemblage from the ‘Bishop’s house’ (Greece)”, LRCW 1-2: 451-168.

Riley, J.A., 1979: “The coarse pottery from Berenice. Excavations at Sidi Khrebish Benghazi (Berenice). Vol. II”, LibyaAnt Suppl. 5: 91-467.

Saguì, L., 1998: “La ceramica in Italia: secoli VI e VII”, in Sagui, L. (ed.), Ceramica in Italia: VI-VII secolo. Atti del Convegno in onore di J.W. Hayes, Roma 11-13 maggio 1995, Firenze: 305-330.

Şenol, A.K., 2015: “Smyrna Kazılarında 2007-2011 Yılları Arasında Bulunan Ticari Amphoralar”, in Ersoy, A. and Şakar, G. (eds.), Smyrna/İzmir Kazı ve Araştırmaları I. Çalıştay Bildirileri, İstanbul: 243-256.

Sealey, P.R., 1985: “Amphoras from the 1970 Excavations at Colchester Sheepen”, BARIntSer 142.

Sezgin, Y., 2000: İskenderiye Kazılarında Ele Geçen Amphoralar Işığında Kentin Roma Dönemi Şarap, Zeytinyağı, Salamura Balık ve Sos Ticareti, Unpublished PhD Thesis (Ege University), İzmir.

Sezgin, Y., 2003: Marmaris Müzesi Ticari Amphoraları, Ankara.

Sezgin, Y., 2004: “Kıbrıs’ta Amphora Üretimi”, İdol 23: 10-17.

Sezgin, Y., 2008: “Cilician Commercial Relations with Egypt due to the New Evidence of Amphora Finds”, Olba 16: 109-132.

Sezgin, Y., 2009: Arslan Eyce Taşucu Amphora Müzesi’nde Bulunan Ticari Amphoralar ve Akdeniz’de Ticaret İzleri, Silifke.

Sezgin, Y., 2012: Arkaik Dönem Ionia Üretimi Ticari Amphoralar, Istanbul.

Şenol, A.K., 2015: “New Evidences on the Amphora Production in the Rhodian Peraea during the Early Hellenistic Period”, in Laflı, E. and Patacı, S. (eds), Recent Studies on the Archaeology of Anatolia, BAR 2750: 193-202.

Şenol, A.K. and Kerem, F., 2000: “İçel Müzesinde Bulunan Bir Grup Amphora”, Olba 3: 81-114.

Tchernia, A., 1986: Le vin de l’Italie romaine, Rome.

Tekocak, M. and Zoroğlu, K.L., 2013: “Kelenderis’te Bulunan Bir Grup Roma Dönemi Ticari Amphorası ve Düsündürdükleri”, Olba 21: 109-140.

Tzavella, E., Trainor, C. and Maher, M., 2014: “Late Roman Pottery from the Sikyon Survey Project: Local production, imports, and the urban evolution (4th-7th c. AD) (Greece)”, LRCW 4: 91-102.

Varinlioğlu, E., 1981: “Two Inscriptions from Ceramus”, ZPE 44: 51-66.

Whitbread, I.K., 1995: Greek Transport Amphorae: a petrological and archaeological study, London.

Williams, D.F., 1990: “A Note on the Petrology of a Samos Cistern Type Amphora from Excavations at the Castello di Udine”, AquilNost 61: 281-296.

Williams, D.F., 2004: “Dressel 2-4 and the eruption of Vesuvius. Transport Amphorae and Trade in the Eastern Mediterranean”, in Eiring, J. and Lund, J. (eds.), Transport Amphorae and Trade in the Eastern Mediterranean, Acts of the International Colloquium at the Danish Institute at Athens, September 26-29, 2002, Athens: 441-450.

Van Doorninck, F.H. Jr., 1989: “The Cargo Amphoras on the Seventh Century Yassı Ada and the Eleventh Century Serçe Limanı Shipwrecks: Two Examples of a Reuse of Byzantine Amphoras as Transport Jars”, in Déroche, V. and Speiser, J.M. (eds.), Recherches sur la céramique byzantine, Actes du colloque EFA-Université de Strasbourg Athènes 8-10 avril 1987, BCH Suppl. 18: 247-57.

Zeest, I.B., 1960: Keramicheskaya Tara Bospora, Moscow.

Zevi, F., 1966: “Appunti sulle anfore romane. La tavola tipologica del Dressel”, Archaeologia Classica 18: 208-247.

Haut de page

Notes

1 For the survey explorations in and nearby Ceramus, see Kızıl 2008: 357-374; Kızıl and Öztekin 2009: 293-310; 2010: 359-384; 2011: 401-416; Kızıl 2012: 423-438.

2 It was not clearly reached from exactly which point of the sea such amphoras, which were probably taken out by fishermen, were taken out.

3 Survey explorations in the region conducted by Assistant Prof. Dr. Abuzer Kızıl, were supported by Muğla Sıtkı Koçman University, within the scope of the Scientific Research Project named “Keramos (Ören) Antik Kenti’ndeki Taşınır ve Taşınmaz Kültür Varlıklarını Belgeleme Çalışmaları (2011/34)”.

4 We thank Assistant Prof. Dr. Erkan Dündar for his suggestions and support during the typological researches, and the research assistant Taylan Doğan for dealing with technical documentations like drawings and taking photos of the amphoras.

5 Grace 1971: 74; Doğer 1991: 14; Dupont 1998: 165; Şenol 2003: 7; Greene et al. 2011: 63; Sezgin 2012: 175-199; Aslan 2015: 325.

6 Grace 1971: 52; mattingly 1981: 81.

7 Zeest 1960: Pl. I.3; Dupont 1998: 164.

8 Grace 1971: 52.

9 Dupont 1998: 168; Carlson 2004: 26.

10 M. Lawall 1995, identified three sub-categories, as he named S/1, S/2 and S/3 for the Samian amphoras, based on the foundlings in Athens. The Ceramus sample is similar to the lewall’s S/2 type. See Lewall 1995: 370, Fig. 70, Fig. 71.

11 Zeest named the late samples, that the form dated to 2nd and 3rd centuries B.C., as Ust’-laba type.

12 Zeest 1960: 150. V. Grace diverges from Zeest in his study about the Samian Amphoras in 1971, and mentions that aforementioned amphoras are more than only one type. See Grace 1971: 79.

13 Lewall 1995: 219.

14 Norskov 2004: 287.

15 For Athens, see lewall 1995: 220.

16 For Paros, see Empereur and Picon 1986: 504; for Rhodos and Peraia, see Şenol 2015: 193; Şenot et al. 2004: 357; for Samos, see Grace 1971: 67.

17 For Klazomenai, see Doğer 1986: 469-471, fig. 18; 1991: 707-708, Pic. 13, type 6; for Knidos, see Empereur et al. 1999: 109; for Halicarnassus, see norskov 2004: 289; for Erythrae, see Carlson and lawall 2005/2006: 35.

18 V. Grace argues that the form was first manufactured in Athens and spread over other centers in 4th century B.C. Unlike Grace, on the contrary, m. lawall thinks that there were many manufacturers of the form even in the 5th century B.C. See lewall 1995: 223.

19 V. Gassner asserted that some of the mushroom-mouthed amphoras within the nikandros group might have been manufactured in Ephesos. See Gassner 1997: 105 sq. m. lawall reached the conclusion that mushroom-mouthed amphoras were manufactured in Ephesos, too. Aforementioned standpoints were proved by petrographical analysis. See lawall 2004, 177; 2007: 48; Bezeczky 2013: 61.

20 Bezeczky 2013: 62.

21 For Klazomenai, see Hasdağlı 2012: 163, Fig. 9, no 62. For Samos, see Grace 1971: Pl. 15.13; Doğer 1991: 99, R.101. For Panskoe I necropolis, see monochof and Rogov 1990: Table 6, no 38-39; Kac et al. 2002: Pl.48 AD 80, AD 90. For Halicarnassus, see norskov 2004: 288, Fig. 4, Halicarnassus Type 3.

22 Şenol 2003: 51; Whitbread 1995: 135; Doğer 1988: 88; mattingly 1981: 78. Chios took side with mithridates VI in 1st century B.C. against Rome and the wine production of Chios was restricted by Rome along with many punishments later on. See lagos 1998: 36.

23 It is narrated that three types of wine were used to be produced in the island and the sweet one was famous. See Athenaeus I, 32. Strabo narrates that the best wines in the Hellenic world were produced in Ariusia situated on the mountainous northwestern part of the island. See Strabo. 14.1.35. As a reflection of its popularity, The Old Plinius states that Julius Ceasar used to prefer Chios wine in his victory feasts. See HN.14.16.97.

24 Şenol 2003: 53.

25 It is thought that aforementioned amphoras even carry other products else than wine. As a result of DnA analysis on a Chian amphora found in the Oinousses shipwreck, residues of olive oil and tyme were encountered in the amphora by m.C. Hansson and F. Foley. See Hannson and Foley 2008: 1169; Demesticha 2011: 48.

26 For the typological improvement, see Şenol 2003: 52, Whitbread 1995: 135.

27 In 2006, approximately 500 commercial amphoras were identified in the mazotos shipwreck found in the southern coasts of Cyprus. Chian amphoras consist of the majority of the amphoras dated to the third quarter of 4th century B.C. The sample named as nm1 found in the cargo of the ship is quite similar to the Ceramus sample in form. See Demesticha 2011: 45, Fig. 5a, nm1. Another comparison sample used in date comes from the Chios-Oinousses shipwreck found in the northeastern coast of the Chios island in 2005. 350 commercial amphoras were found in the shipwreck dated to middle and third quarter of 4th century B.C. For a similar sample, see Foley et al. 2009: 288, Fig. 12. For a similar sample dated to 4th century B.C. in Athens, see Grace 1979: Fig. 46.

28 H. Dressel was the first one identifying the form. See Dressel 1899. The form is also mentioned as Peacock and Williams 4. See Peacock and Williams 1986: 89.

29 Zevi 1966: 212, Peacock 1971: 162 sq.; Bezeczky 2013: 100.

30 For the production centers, see Peacock 1971: 164; Peacock and Williams 1986: 69, 90.

31 Şenol 2000: 116.

32 Beltrán lloris 1970; Benoit 1962; Tchernia 1986.

33 Lamboglia 1955: 246 sq.

34 Bezeczky 2004: 89, no 4.

35 The other names identified for this form are; Augst 5, Peacock and Williams 10, Koan, Ostia 51, Camulodunum 182-183, Callender 2, Benghazi ER4, Brukner Type-6, Lamboglia 5, Pompeii 3-8. See Şenol 2000: 128; 2003: 46; Ozanic 2005: 139; Bezeckzy 2005: 36; 2013: 129; Peacock and Williams 1986: 105. The form takes its name from the classification made by H. Dressel. See Dressel 1899, Şenol 2009: 136; moore 1995: 1 sq.

36 Sealey 1985: 128; Bezeczky 2013: 130. For the corn production, see Empereur 1986: 599 sq.

37 Williams and Peacock 1986: 6, Fig. 1; Williams 2004: 444.

38 Bezeczky 2005: 38; 2013: 129.

39 Williams 2004: 441; Gupta et al. 2001: 7; Bezeczky 2013: 129; Şenol 2003: 49.

40 Arthur and Williams 1992: 250. Bezeczky 2013: 131.

41 Şenol 2004: 49.

42 For similar samples, see Ephesos Bezeczky 2004: 91, Kt.nr.13; for marmaris, see Şenol 2003: 48.

43 Aforementioned form is also mentioned in literature as Gaza, Almagro 54, Kartaca LR4, Riley LR4, Kuzmanov 14, Augst 60, Keay 54, Peacock-Williams 49, Egloff 182. See Şenol 2000: 244, Keay 1984: 278; Riley 1979: 223 sq.; Peacock and Williams 1986: 198.

44 For the petrographical analysis made on the samples found in Caesarea hippodrome and production center suggestion, see Riley 1975: 30; 1979: 220; Peacock 1984: 24; Bezeczky 2013: 171. For the production wastes found in the northern part of negev, see Regev 2004: 348.

45 Şenol 2000: 246.

46 Şenol 2009: 158 sq.

47 majcherek 1995: 172; Şenol 2000: 244.

48 Pieri 2005: 105 sq.

49 Aforementioned naming was made by J. Riley in 1979 and widely accepted in literature. See Riley 1979: 212 sq. These amphoras also take part in the literature as Agora m333, Ballana Type 6, Benghazi lR1, Kartaca lR1, Keay 18, Keay 53, Peacock-Williams 44, Scorpan 8B, Kuzmanov 13, British Bii. See Peacock and Williams 1986: 185-187.

50 Şenol 2004: 12; lang 1976: 81; Demesticha 2003: 471; Empereur and Picon 1989: 239, fig. 18; Alkaç 2012: 325; Ferrazzoli 2010: 46; Aslan 2015: 336 sq.; Alkaç 2012: 325; 2013: 114; Jacobsen 2004: 145; Ferrazzoli-Ricci 2007: 690; michaelides 1996: 149; Empereur and Picon 1989: 237 sq.; Tekocak and Zoroğlu 2013: 44; Şenol 2008: 115 sq.

51 Şenol 2000: 200; 2000: 37 sq.; 1998: 93; Peacock and Williams 1989: 186.

52 Bonifay and Pieri 1995: 108; Şenol 2009: 244 sq.

53 For similar samples in terms of typology, see Ephesus. Bezeczky 2013: 159; for Kekova, see Aslan 2015: 365, Fig. 2.18; for Side, see Dündar 2012: 46, Fig. 5; for Silifke, see Alkaç 2013: 114, Fig. 9; for Korykos, see Alkaç 2012: 323; for Taşucu, see Şenol 2004: 13, Pic. 8; for Alexandria, see Şenol 2000: lev. 31, Fig. 109; for South Gaul, see Pieri 1998: 89 sq.; for Kelenderis, see Tekocak and Zoroğlu 2013: 121; for Burgaz, see Leidwanger et al. 2015: 304, Fig. 5; for İçel, see Şenol and Kerem 2000: 95, Kt. nr.18; for Yassıada, see Bass and Doorninck 1982: 157, Fig. 8.3; for Miletos, see lüdorf 2006: Taf. 16, A108.

54 It is also known as LRA-2 Amphoras, Carthage lRA-2, Benghazi LRA-2, Peacock-Williams 43, Beltran 71, Scorpan 7A, British B1, Keay 65, Kuzmanov 19, Sabratha Type 25. See Şenol 2000: 179; Bezeczky 2013: 160; Peacock and Williams 1986: 182-184.

55 Opait 2004: 295; 2007: 627 sq.

56 For the chronological findings, see Şenol 2009: 149.

57 Pieri 2005: 99.

58 For Argos and its around, see Pieri 2005: 99; for Sikyon, see Tzavella et al. 2014: 93. For the other producton centers, see Şenol 2003: 97; Riley 1979: 219; Bonifay and Villedieu 1989: 25 sq.; Karagiorgou 2000: 129 sq.; Bezeczky 2013: 161.

59 Şenol 2015: 248; 2009: 149; Aslan 2015: 338; Şenol 2000: 182.

60 Şenol 2000: 187; 2003: 97.

61 Similar samples, for Gaul, see Pieri 1998: 100; for Ephesus, see Bezeczky 2013: 160; for Sycthia, see Opait 2004: 296, Fig. 10; for Knidos, see Aslan 2015: 113, Fig. 22; for Yassıada, see Doorninck 1982: Fig. 1; 1989: 249, Fig. 1.

62 J. Riley identified this group that he discovered in Bingazi as LRA-13, and this definition was widely accepted in literature. The other names of the form are in the literature as; Kuzmanov Type 20, Scorpan Type 7-A3, Peacock and Williams Class 54, Hayes Type 29. See Kuzmanov 1973; Scorpan 1977; Riley 1979; Peacock and Williams 1986; Hayes 1992.

63 Şenol 2015: 248.

64 Diamanti 2010: 1 sq.; Didimou 2014: 170. It is thought that LRA-13 production was made in the workshops in Cyprus. See Demesticha 2005: 169.

65 Similar samples, for Kos, see Diamanti 2010: Fig. 1.b; for Yassıada, see Bass and van Doorninck 1982: 157, CA13; for Bingazi, Riley 1977: Fig.93, Kt.nr.373; for Saraçhane, see Hayes 1992: Type 29, Fig. 23.3.

66 Form is also named as Agora m273, Keay lXVII and LRA-8. See Keay 1984: 358, Fig. 66; Pieri 2005: 132.

67 A large number of samples were discovered in a cistern excavations in Samos made by Hans-Peter Isler. See Isler 1969: 202. See also Arthur 1990: 282.

68 Şenol 2009: 157; Bezeckzy 2013: 157; Arthur 1985: 252; 1990: 288; 1998: 167.

69 Bezeczky indicates that the Meander Valley was one of the probable production centers. See Bezeczky 2013: 157. For Halicarnassus see, Williams 1990: 296. J.-Y. Empereur and m. Picon found a workshop in Elaea, that the precesors of the form were produced. See Emperreur and Picon 1986: 143; Bezeczky 2013: 157; Arthur 2005: Samos Cistern Type.

70 Bezeczky 2013: 157; Şenol and Kerem 2000: 100; Şenol 2000: 193; Sagui 1998: 167; Şenol 2009: 157; Pieri 2005: 136.

71 Similar samples, for Bodrum, see Baas and Doorninck 1971: Pl. 2, Fig. 8; for İçel, see Şenol and Kerem 2000: 99, Kt.nr.25; for napoli, see Arthur 1989: Fig. 4; for Side, see Dündar 2012: 54, Fig. 19; for nicopolis, see Reynolds and Pavlidis 2014: 462, Fig. 9, 1.

72 Şenol 2004: 11.

73 Varinlioğlu 1981: 52; Kızıl 2002: 134.

Haut de page

Table des illustrations

Titre Pl. 1.1
Légende Ancient Caria Region and the location of Ceramus (adapted from Henry 2008: 18, Fig. 1).
URL http://journals.openedition.org/anatoliaantiqua/docannexe/image/435/img-1.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 76k
Titre Pl. 1.2
Légende Aerial view of modern Ören settlement and findspot of the amphoras (adapted from Apple maps).
URL http://journals.openedition.org/anatoliaantiqua/docannexe/image/435/img-2.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 92k
Titre PLATE 2
URL http://journals.openedition.org/anatoliaantiqua/docannexe/image/435/img-3.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 60k
Titre PLATE 3
URL http://journals.openedition.org/anatoliaantiqua/docannexe/image/435/img-4.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 216k
Titre PLATE 4
URL http://journals.openedition.org/anatoliaantiqua/docannexe/image/435/img-5.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 48k
Titre PLATE 5
URL http://journals.openedition.org/anatoliaantiqua/docannexe/image/435/img-6.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 59k
Haut de page

Pour citer cet article

Référence papier

Abuzer Kızıl et Asil Yaman, « A group of transport amphorae from the territorium of Ceramus: typological observations », Anatolia Antiqua, XXV | 2017, 17-32.

Référence électronique

Abuzer Kızıl et Asil Yaman, « A group of transport amphorae from the territorium of Ceramus: typological observations », Anatolia Antiqua [En ligne], XXV | 2017, mis en ligne le 01 mai 2019, consulté le 14 octobre 2019. URL : http://journals.openedition.org/anatoliaantiqua/435

Haut de page

Auteurs

Abuzer Kızıl

Assistant Prof. Dr. Abuzer Kızıl, Muğla Sıtkı Koçman University, Faculty of letters and Humanities, Department of Archaeology, 48000 Kötekli-Muğla, Turkey
akizil@mu.edu.tr

Articles du même auteur

Asil Yaman

Research Scholar Asil Yaman, University of Pennsylvania, museum of Archaeology and Anthropology, Philadelphia, USA,
ayaman@upenn.edu

Haut de page

Droits d’auteur

Anatolia Antiqua

Haut de page
  • Logo Institut français d'études anatoliennes
  • Logo CNRS - Institut des sciences humaines et sociales
  • Logo Ministère de l’Europe et des affaires étrangères
  • OpenEdition Journals