Fine wares from Beirut contexts, c. 450 to the early 7th century

207

Fine wares from Beirut contexts, c. 450 to c. 600

Paul Reynolds*

* Institució Catalana de Recerca i Estudis Avançats (ICREA)/University of Barcelona, Equip de Recerca Arqueològica i Arqueomètrica, Universitat de Barcelona (ERAAUB)

Montalegre 6-8, 08001 Barcelona, Spain<[email protected]>

Fine wares from 13 deposits excavated in the Beirut Souks (BEY 006) and ranging from c. 450 to the early 7th century are here discussed, quantified and illustrated (primarily ARS, LRC, LRD and ERS ‘A’). These contexts offer significant data on the typologies and dating of LRC and LRD in particular.

KEYWORDS: ARS, LRC, LRD, ERS ‘A’, TYPOLOGY, DATING, SITE FORMATION PROCESSES, BEIRUT, AD 551 EARTHQUAKE

Country Region City/civitas Site Locus UTMLebanon Beirut district Beirut/

BerytusSouks (BEY 006) various 36 S

730781 E3752610 N

Description: Various secondary and tertiary deposits in urban contexts (robber trench fills, dumps, clearance, pit fill, construction make up).

1. Introduction

In the following paper the complete range of fine wares from a selection of Beirut contexts from c. 450 to the early 7th century is reviewed, summarised (Appendix) and the majority illustrated. The contexts presented here are also intended to serve as reference material for the paper on LRD 2-9 (Reynolds, LRD, in this volume).

Classified and quantified pottery deposits and sequences excavated by the Anglo-Lebanese team in the Souks area of central Beirut allow us to trace fine ware trends from the 5th century BC to 8th century AD across what were essentially two Hellenistic, Roman and Byzantine insulae of the city (BEY 006 and 007 extension) and a section of the Imperial baths opposite (Site BEY 045) (Reynolds in preparation a; Reynolds 2006; Perring 2003, for a summary of the excavations).

It is possible to read typological change in fine wares, as well as their relative representation in deposits in roughly 20-25 year stages, though in fact, the complexity of the stratigraphic record, as well as the complex separate ‘histories’ of buildings over this large area could permit the documentation of even shorter time spans. Indeed, one should read the building history of each property, and the ceramics associated with each phase and sub-phase, as separate ceramic sequences. The 4th century phases of the ‘Peristyle House’ (BEY 006 Area 3), for example, should not necessarily, or are, in fact, unlikely, to correlate with the 4th century phases excavated in the nearby ‘House of the Fountains’ (BEY 006 Area 2 West).

Adding to the complexity, it is clear that there are many cases of pottery joins between contexts, either from

contemporary phases, or, more problematically, between successive, later phases due to redeposition. It would seem that whole assemblages could be ‘moved up’ the sequence as builders dug down into earlier levels and redeposited these, or parts of these ceramic assemblages, in later construction levels. This is particularly the case in the early to late 5th century sequence of the House of Fountains. Some of the best ceramic groups of the third quarter of the 5th century, a good number being presented in this paper, primarily from the Peristyle House, are found associated with small quantities of Medieval pottery, in ‘robber trenches’ dating to the Medieval salvage of stone from walls and consequent backfilling of these empty trenches with ceramics from adjacent in situ 5th century layers.

2. The fine ware contexts

The supply to this major Levantine port is such that it allows us to trace in detail the typological development of two major eastern Mediterranean wares, Phocean Red Slip Ware (alternatively known as ‘Late Roman C’, here abbreviated to LRC) and Cypriot Red Slip Ware (alternatively known as both ‘CRSW’ or ‘Late Roman D’, here abbreviated to LRD). The quantity and quality of early 5th century and third quarter of the 5th century deposits from BEY 006, as well as the possibility of the identification of deposits associated with the AD 551 earthquake and tsunami that hit and devastated Beirut, as well as Tyre, provide key groups that complete the schema of the typological development of LRC and LRD presented by John Hayes in Late Roman Pottery (1972: hence, LRP). In LRP 5th century forms and variants of LRD that were direct predecessors of certain late 6th to 7th century forms (LRD 7 and 11, for example) were either

208

LRFW I. Late Roman Fine Wares: Solving Problems of Typology and Chronology

scarce or not yet known, primarily because John Hayes had not yet worked on the Levantine coast or Cyprus, and based the typology of the earlier phases of production on the finds in the Athenian Agora, where Cypriot imports are relatively rare. Other, new LRD forms recently included in Henryk Meyza´s typology (2007) from excavations primarily in Cyprus and Alexandria, and represented in some of the Beirut contexts published here, are similarly absent in LRP.

The Agora fine ware assemblage is now published (Hayes 2008), a long-awaited work whose timely publication brings us up-to-date with John Hayes’ invaluable knowledge on the subject, and was of course of great use during the preparation of this text. Particularly helpful has been the illustration of variants of LRC that were not illustrated in LRP, notably LRC 3A and 3G, some examples of both appearing in these Beirut 006 assemblages. The Beirut sequences also document trends in imports of African Red Slip Ware (hence, ARS) and Egyptian Red Slip Ware ‘A’ (hence, ERS ‘A’) (Hayes 1972) and these deposits, I hope, will be useful additional dating evidence for those wares.

The possibility of the additional tools of LRC and LRD for establishing the chronology of ARS, and examining, perhaps, the typological connections between these three wares, is also a useful feature of Beirut assemblages.

My ongoing work on the ceramic sequences excavated on various sites in Butrint (Albania) (Reynolds in preparation b), some of which has been published in one form or another (Reynolds 2004, for Context 1152, of the second quarter of the 6th century; Reynolds 2010a, Table 25b, for a summary of the late 6th century context 1676), has also been of use, particularly for the dating and comparison of assemblages of ARS and LRC with those of Beirut.

The large number and complexity of deposition of the aforementioned early 5th century contexts of BEY 006 (primarily from the House of Fountains) has led to their exclusion from this paper for reasons of space. For this reason the sequence begins with contexts dating to after c. AD 450.

2.1. The third quarter of the 5th century (BEY 006 9023, 3761, 9402, 7477 and 3303) (figs 1-5, Appendix, nos. 1-5)

The deposits included, catalogued and illustrated here from this phase, most comprising material deposited in medieval robber trenches of the Area 3 Peristyle House (some with sherd links between contexts: 3761/3772), have a number of points in common and will be discussed together (for this ceramic phase, see Reynolds 2010b; for the mosaics, see Sheehan 1999: 163-164). None of these contexts have coins that are contemporary 5th century finds.

In this phase LRD 2 has replaced LRD 1, and this is regularly accompanied by LRC 3B and, especially LRC 3C. The examples of LRD 2 have double grooves on the

rim top and a band of rouletting of various styles, on the outer wall which is fairly steep (contrast with more open-walled examples of the next phase, below). There is quite a range of variation in the profiles here illustrated. Most are well-fired, fairly thin-walled, with a well-cut tall foot, close to that of ARS 84 (e.g. no. 9, 9023.36; nos. 43-44, 9402.4 and 5). The rather thick rim and thin walls of some examples are unusual (e.g. nos. 6-7, 9023.35 and 38 and no. 66, 3303.12). No. 65 (3303.8) is thick-walled, with a rim closer to the north Tunisian version ARS 86 than its central Tunisian counterpart ARS 84.

Context 7477, also a robbing fill, but from Area 2W (Phase 9c2), comprises both smaller versions of LRD 2, still carefully made (nos. 52-53, 7477.3 and 6) and much larger examples (nos. 54-55, 7477.4 and 5). These are accompanied by a wide range of LRC 3: an early LRC 3A (no. 46, 7477.14), LRC 3B (no. 47, 7477.13), LRC 3C (no. 48, 7477.15) and LRC 3E (nos. 49-50, 7477.16-17). A good profile of a rectangular-rimmed LRD bowl also occurs in this deposit (no. 51, 7477.1). Another similar piece was found in the joining Area 3 robber fills 3761/3332 (no. 33, 3761.23), so a date in the mid 5th or third quarter of the 5th century is likely for this form, which is unparalleled in both LRP and Meyza’s typology (2007).

There are many LRD basins of what I have called here ‘LRD 11A’, with a tall rectangular rim, hooked underneath, slightly or more notably smaller than those of the early 5th century (Phase 9a3) (e.g. nos. 71-73, 3303.17-19) (for an early 5th century example from 13017, see Reynolds 2010b: fig. 4s). A wider range of sizes is illustrated from 3761, comparable with the possible wider date range of the LRC 3 vessels: the thick square rims nos. 35-36 (3761.18 and 22) may be the earliest, cf. examples of the early 5th century; no. 37 (3761.15) is more normal for this phase; nos. 38-39, with a more elongated rim, well hooked-folded: an example of the end of the 5th century, Fig. 6, no. 92 (3019.3) is similar to no. 39, but is notably smaller.

The rarity of LRC 1 in deposits of this phase is to be expected (e.g. the thin-walled vessel no. 2, 9023.46). The Area 3 Peristyle House robber fills contain a similar wide range of LRC 3A-C and occasionally 3E (no. 24, 3761.2; no. 62 is another example from the Peristyle House dump 3303), and one cannot of course be sure of the date range of these fine wares (i.e. mid 5th or 3rd quarter of the 5th century, or even a little later for some pieces). Vessel no. 58 may well be LRC 3A (3303.2). Notable is the well-preserved, stamped LRC 3B, no. 21 (3761.1), presumably relatively early in the mid 5th century. It is well paralleled in Athenian contexts (e.g. Hayes 2008: 239, cat 1258, dated mid to third quarter of the 5th century, from a context of ‘c. 460-475?’). The presence of a few examples of LRC 8 in this phase is important for fixing their start date (confirming the LRP proposed dating of ‘second half of the fifth century, and possibly slightly later’: Hayes 1972: 342) (no. 29, 3761.9; no. 42, 9402.3).

209

P. Reynolds: Fine wares from Beirut contexts

9023.12

9023.569023.32

9023.35

9023.39

9023.36

9023.37

9023.41

9023.42

9023.449023.46 9023.47

9023.49/9015.3

9023.57

9023.33

9023.38

9023.40

9023.45

9023.48

9023.58

BEY 006 9023

1

2 3 4 5

6 9

7

8

1011

12

13

14

16

15

17

18 19

20

Fig. 1. Beirut. Deposit BEY 006 9023. ARS (no. 1). LRC (nos. 2-4). LRD (nos. 5-16). Cypriot (nos. 17-20) Fig. 1. Beirut. Deposit BEY 006 9023. ARS (no. 1). LRC (nos. 2-4). LRD (nos. 5-16). Cypriot (nos. 17-20)

210


Fig. 2. Beirut. Deposit BEY 006 3761. LRC (nos. 21-29). LRD (nos. 30-33). Cypriot? (no. 34).

3761.2

3761,3

3761.6

3761.8 3761.9

BEY 006 3761

3761.23 /3332

3761.5

3761.1

3761.7

3761.10

3761.113761.12

3761.24

3761.4

21

22 24

23 25

2627

28 29

30 31

32

33

34

Fig. 2. Beirut. Deposit BEY 006 3761. LRC (nos. 21-29). LRD (nos. 30-33). Cypriot? (no. 34).

2cm

211


Fig. 3. Beirut. Deposit BEY 006 3761 (continuation). LRD (nos. 35-39).Deposit BEY 006 9402 ARS (no. 40). LRC (nos. 41-42). LRD (nos. 43-44). Cypriot or Anatolian? (no. 45).

9402.1

9402.2 9402.3

9402.4

BEY 006 9402

9402.5

9402.35

40

42

43 44

45

Fig. 3. Beirut. Deposit BEY 006 3761 (continuation). LRD (nos. 35-39).Deposit BEY 006 9402 ARS (no. 40). LRC (nos. 41-42). LRD (nos. 43-44). Cypriot or Anatolian? (no. 45).

3761.15

3761.17

3761.18

3761.20

3761.22

BEY 006 3761

3536

37

38

39

41

212


Fig. 4. Beirut. Deposit BEY 006 7477. LRC (nos. 46-50). LRD (nos. 51-56).

7477.1

7477.3

7477.4

7477.15

7477.5?

7477.6

7477.13

7477.16

7477.17

BEY 006 7477

7477.14

7477.7

Fig. 4. Beirut. Deposit BEY 006 7477. LRC (nos. 46-50). LRD (nos. 51-56).

46

47

48

49

50

51

52 53

54

55

56

213


Fig. 5. Beirut. Deposit BEY 006 3303. ARS (no. 57). LRC (nos. 58-63). LRD (nos. 64-73). Cypriot (no. 74).

3303.2

3303.33303.4

3303.5

3303.6

3303.7

3303.8

3303.9

3303.10

3303.12

3303.13 3303.15

3303.18

3303.19

3303.22-23

3303.26

3303.25

BEY 006 3303

3303.17

58 60

6162

64

65 66

67

68

63

69

72

70

73

71

74

57

59

Fig. 5. Beirut. Deposit BEY 006 3303. ARS (no. 57). LRC (nos. 58-63). LRD (nos. 64-73). Cypriot (no. 74).

214


Fig. 6. Beirut. Deposit BEY 006 7685. LRC (nos. 75-76). LRD (nos. 77-83). Deposit BEY 006 3019. LRC (nos. 84-87). LRD (nos. 88-92).

7685.1

7685.2

7685.47685.5

7685.6

7685.7

7685.8

BEY 006 7685

7685.9

7685.34

3019.2

3019.1

3019.4

3019.5 3019-63019.16

3019.17

BEY 006 3019

3019.18

75

76

77 78

79

80

81

82

83

8485

86 8788

8990

91

923019.3

Fig. 6. Beirut. Deposit BEY 006 7685. LRC (nos. 75-76). LRD (nos. 77-83).Deposit BEY 006 3019. LRC (nos. 84-87). LRD (nos. 88-92).

215


2.2. Late 5th century (+) (7685, 3019) (Fig. 6, Appendix, nos. 6-7)

Two similar fine ware assemblages from different parts of BEY 006 should date later, to the end of the 5th century (BEY 006 7685, Area 2W; BEY 006 3019, Area 3). Though the latest coin in 3019 is early 5th century (AD 408-423), the coin in 7685 is Anastasian (AD 498-507). Such coins appear regularly in contexts of the first half of the 6th century, up to the AD 551 earthquake (Butcher 2003). Two almost identical examples of LRC 3C present in both contexts (nos. 75 and 84) are unusual for their thin walls, tall rim and pronounced step on the inner transition from rim to upper wall and should be 5th century pieces. One example of LRC 3 has the offset typical of LRC 3F, but differs from the latter in having a smooth transition from wall to inner rim (no. 85) and is perhaps best classified as LRC 3E. Another (no. 76), in contrast, has a marked break on the inner face, but lacks the offset under the rim (the lower rim is squared off). Note that the variant classified as LRC 3C.10 in LRP has its inner face similarly well marked off from the wall, despite its date in the third quarter of the 5th century (Agora P 27027: Hayes 2008, 240-241, no. 1273). No. 76 would seem to be a LRC 3E, transitional to LRC 3F. These latter two examples seem to be the latest LRC vessels, perhaps dating to just before the start of LRC 3F (present in the early 6th century). A date of c. 500 (+, maximum 510?), contemporary with the coin of Anastasius is possible for these contexts, with the earliest material dating to the late 5th century.

The LRD 11A rims in both contexts are notably small (nos. 81 and 92). The most obvious difference with respect to the former phase is the character of vessels of LRD 2, with spaced, poor rouletting (wide long gashes, or spaced notches) on the outer wall and light grooving on the rim (e.g. nos. 77-78: 7685.4-5; no. 89: 3019.1; no. 90: 3019.17). The rather open walls of no. 78 (7685.4) are distinctive. The foot is a simple rectangular cut band at this stage. The general shape of no. 89 (3019.1) is similar but with thicker walls and deep grooves on the rim (so similar to LRD 2.3 and 2.11, Antioch 930f and k: see Reynolds LRD in this volume, fig. 2.25-26).

Finds of an early example of large bowl LRD 7 (no. 91, 3019.2), the rare form with punched rim, LRD 4 (no. 80, 7685.7) and a ring footed bowl base (not in LRP) (no. 79, 7685.6) provide some dating evidence for these forms.

2.3. BEY 006 11081: c. AD 530-540? (Fig. 7, Appendix, no. 8)

The date of the large deposit BEY 006 11081 (Area 2 West) (112040g), found in a stairwell between two properties is problematical. That this was deposited after the earthquake is clear: it was generated during the dismantling of structures, and is not necessarily levelling for construction (my thanks to Reuben Thorpe for this clarification). Some of the pottery is fairly well-preserved (though probably was not complete) (Appendix, for the fine wares: not all are

here illustrated; the amphorae are summarised in Reynolds 2010a, Table 24). The rather deep-walled, heavy-rimmed example of LRD 2.9 (no. 98, 11081.28) is unlike any other examples I have seen, including the AD 551 vessels (see below). As argued elsewhere in this volume (Reynolds, LRD), its recessed base and thin floor are equally unlike those of LRD 2.9 or LRD 9 proper.

It is therefore perhaps more likely that 11081 was dug out of a pre-AD 551 levelling fill (note that bone was common in this assemblage, so it was not simply the contents of an AD 551 storage room: at least part of it was derived from refuse). The latest associated coins are of AD 498-507 and AD 498-512, which, in the case of Beirut, are in keeping with a date in the first half of the 6th century (Butcher 2003).

The illustrated fine wares comprise two rather deep, small LRD 5 bowls (nos. 96-97), a LRC 3F (no. 93), a LRC 3F/G, here with a lightly concave, rather than convex face (no. 94: cf. Saraçhane Hayes 1992: 98, fig. 35, Deposit 22.1, classified as 3F/G) and a rim of LRC 8 (no. 95). There were in addition seven examples of LRC 3F. These examples of LRC 3 compare well with the range of variants in the Butrint 6th century context 1152, where typical ARS of the third quarter of the 6th century is absent (Reynolds 2004: 254, fig. 13). The number of both Gazan (49 RBH, 15.7% of imported amphorae) and Sinope amphorae (21 RBH, 8.2%) in 11081 is more typical of pre-AD 551 assemblages than those of the second half of the 6th century+, when imports dropped considerably: see the following two sections, 14050 and 5503. A date of 530-540 is proposed.

2.4. Redeposited AD 551 earthquake assemblages (BEY 006 20201/20202, 20239, Area 2 West, and 2528/2483, Area 2 East) (figs 7-8, Appendix, nos. 9-11)

In the early 6th century mosaics that decorated and named with Greek letters the shops of the portico in which they were located and which replaced those of the 4th century portico, were refurbished sometime in the second quarter of the 6th century (Area 2 West) (Perring 2003: 217-219). This was a few years before the AD 551 earthquake that devastated and caused the abandonment of much of the Souks area. I cannot at this stage, unfortunately, offer fine ware examples from these phases of the second quarter of the 6th century. Note the find of LRC 3G in a construction deposit that pre-dates AD 551, containing a coin of AD 539-40 in Area 2 West (South Shops: BEY 006 20214). The second quarter of the 6th century is a period amply covered in terms of fine ware typology (LRC, but not LRD) in Athens and Butrint, for example (Hayes 2008; Reynolds 2004: Context 1152).

After this disaster only specific areas or rooms of Area 2W were reoccupied and provide a sequence until the 7th century. Generally, the buildings were cleared and fixtures salvaged (Perring 2003: 220). The use of the empty rooms, as well as cisterns, for the dumping of both cleared AD 551

216


Fig. 7. Beirut. Deposit BEY 006 11081. LRC (nos. 93-95). LRD (nos. 96-98). Deposit BEY 006 20201/20202. LRC (nos. 99-109). LRD (nos. 110-116). Uncl. LRC or LRD (no. 117).

20201.21

20201.2

20201.3

20201.4 20201.5 20201.6

20201.720201.8 20201.9

20201.10 20201.11 20201.12

20201.17

20201.18

20201.20

20201.22

20201.23

20201.28

20201

BEY 006 20201/20202

11081.15

11081.20

11081.28

11081.25

11081.39

11081.40

BEY 006 11081

93

94

95

96

97

98

99 100

101 102 103

104105

106

107 108 109

110113

114111

112

115 116

117

Fig. 7. Beirut. Deposit BEY 006 11081. LRC (nos. 93-95). LRD (nos. 96-98).Deposit BEY 006 20201/20202. LRC (nos. 99-109). LRD (nos. 110-116). Uncl. LRC or LRD (no. 117).

217


Fig. 8. Beirut. Deposit BEY 006 2528/2483. ARS (nos. 118-119). LRC (nos. 120-121). LRD (nos. 122-124). Deposit BEY 006 20216 . LRC (no. 125). LRD (nos. 126-129). Deposit BEY 006 20239. LRC (nos. 130-132).

LRD (nos.133-137).

BEY 006 2528/2483

2483.3

2528.1

2528.4

2528.4

2528.2

2483.2

2528.3

20216.120216.3

20216.4 20216.5

20216.6

20239.1

20239.220239.3

20239.4 20239.5

20239.6

20239.820239.7

BEY 006 20239

BEY 006 20216

118 119

120

121

123122

124

125 126

127 128

129

130

131 132

133 134

135 136

137

Fig. 8. Beirut. Deposit BEY 006 2528/2483. ARS (nos. 118-119). LRC (nos. 120-121). LRD (nos. 122-124).Deposit BEY 006 20216 . LRC (no. 125). LRD (nos. 126-129).

Deposit BEY 006 20239. LRC (nos. 130-132). LRD (nos.133-137).

218


Fig. 9. Beirut. Deposit BEY 006 14050. ARS (nos. 138-139). LRD (nos. 140-144).

14050.114050.2

14050.3

14050.4

14050.6

14050.142

BEY 006 14050

14050.5

138 139

140

141 142

144 143

Fig. 9. Beirut. Deposit BEY 006 14050. ARS (nos. 138-139). LRD (nos. 140-144).

material or post-551 assemblages is typical. The difficulties of distinguishing in this scenario between contemporary deposits of the third quarter of the 6th century and those which are actually AD 551 material has posed problems. In some cases, the presence of burnt, sometimes vitrified finds in some deposits supports their association with the inferno that seems to have overcome some areas of the site: see, for example, contexts 20239 and 20201/20202. The vessels are always redeposited and broken, though 20201/20202 comprises a fair number of well-preserved examples (see Appendix).

As already noted, these deposits are similar and appear to be post-551 deposition of AD 551 material, some with burnt perfume bottles deriving from the clearance of a shop in Area 2 West (South Shops). They provide evidence for the transition of LRD 2 into LRD 9, examples here all having now a plain rim and a simple single line of rouletting on the upper wall (see Reynolds LRD, this

volume). As to be expected, LRC 3F, and LRC 3G/Antioch 947a (now more clearly 3G, with a convex face, some larger examples approaching LRC 10A) are the norm for this period (as proposed in LRP; cf. Butrint deposit 1152: Reynolds 2004, fig. 13). Like the contemporary Athenian and Butrint examples, the inner face of LRC 3F and G can be well marked off from the inner wall, and the rim is usually undecorated. An offset (due to ‘turning off the outer surfaces) separating the underside of the rim from the upper outer wall is standard.

The small LRC bowl no. 99 (20201.28) is unusual, perhaps a variant of LRC 6, rather than something residual (i.e. a small LRC 2)? A large piece of LRD 8, bearing typical rouletting on the wall, as well as its possible ring foot base, occurred in 20201/20202 (nos. 113-114).

ARS is quite rare. Examples of ARS 93 and 99B were found in 2528/2483 (nos. 118-119), but no ARS occurred

219


in the others, where the dominance of LRC and LRD is absolute. ARS will become common again in Beirut only in the late 6th and early 7th century (see below, BEY 006 5503). For the glass that accompanied some of this pottery, see Jennings (2006: 274-6, Group 18, contexts 20201/20202).

2.5. Late 6th century (BEY 006 14050, Area 3) (Fig. 9, Appendix, no. 12)

Given the post-551 history of BEY 006 it is indeed fortunate that there is a single, large deposit to illustrate this phase, though fine wares are scarce: BEY 006 14050. This was a large deposit (nearly 540 kg of diagnostics, only these having been collected from what was ‘watching brief’ rescue archaeology, in Area 3). Its post-AD 551, late 6th century character is suggested primarily by the presence of ARS 91D (no. 138), as well as a rather open version of ARS 99B/C, with a large diameter (no. 139). Note that both ARS 91D and 105 were absent in the Benalúa-Alicante assemblage, where an end date of c. 575/580 is argued (Reynolds 1987). A large piece of a LRD 11 is, furthermore, close to that of the type piece LRD 11.2, though, perhaps significant in terms of its date, it has a carinated body (no. 144). There are examples of LRD 10 (no. 142), a classic example, and a LRD 7, also with a straight, well-flared wall (no. 141). A thick-walled base in LRD could be that of the LRD 7, but this is only a suggestion (no. 143). A shallow, open version of LRD 2.9 was covered in lime-scale, but seems to have a plain rim and undecorated wall (no. 140). If so, it differs from the AD 551 vessels presented in the last section. It is nevertheless not the deeper, more typical examples of LRD 9.2ff illustrated in LRP.

In contrast to Beirut deposits of the first half of the 6th century, the amphorae in this deposit demonstrate a marked shift to a predominant supply of LRA 1 and local Beirut 8.2 (with a small diameter base) and a significant drop in Gazan and especially Sinopean imports) (for the Beirut amphora, see Reynolds 2005: figs 68-83; Reynolds 2008: fig. 1). For the glass of 14050, see Jennings (2006: 276-8, Group 19).

2.6. Early 7th century (BEY 006 5503 Area 5) (Fig. 10-12, Appendix, no. 13)

BEY 006 5503 comprises a particularly large assemblage of fine wares (177 RBHS, 97-111 MNV), amphorae and cooking wares. All the ARS, most of the LRC, and a selection of the LRD and ERS ‘A’ fine wares are illustrated. As noted in the Introduction, there are many well preserved examples (as also is the case of other ceramics in the assemblage) and it is clear that once deposited, the group remained relatively intact. The amphorae, which are similar in range to those of late 6th century 14050, but with a notable increase in late versions of Agora M 334, are quantified and discussed in Reynolds 2010a (126-7, Table 24), as well as Reynolds (2010b). The dominance of Atelier X ‘brittle’ wares in this deposit, already a feature of

the first half of the 6th century, is now absolute (Reynolds and Waksman 2008). For the glass, see Jennings (2006: 278-280, Group 20).

ARS is common (nos. 145-162; 30 RBHS, 18 MNV, 18.5% MNV), particularly vessels with poor, thick, pinkish slip and a rather pale fabric. ARS forms comprise predominantly 99C (nos. 145-149) and 104C (nos. 150-151; 153?: this may also be ERS ‘A’), with 108 (2 examples: nos. 156-157), particularly thick, early versions of 109 (Bonifay 2004: Type A/B) (nos. 158-161: 4 examples, only one bearing spiral burnishing) and two examples of 105 (no. 154, Bonifay 2004: Type A; no. 155: a variant with well-bevelled features). The ARS suggests a date range of the late 6th to early 7th century. As a point of comparison, the ARS 109s must slightly predate the largely complete thinner examples in the Cartagena C. Soledad assemblage (see Reynolds Cartagena, this volume: fig. 5.59-60 and fig. 10; note that there was at least one thick ARS 109A present, fig. 5.63). The ARS 99C vessels in C. Soledad also tend to have steeper walls (Ibid.: fig. 4.32-41 and fig. 8.179-180).

That 5503 dates to the early 7th century is more clearly indicated by the range of LRC (nos. 179-191: 22 RBHS, 14-18 MNV, 14.4% MNV) and by the presence of at least 6 examples of what are probably transitional examples of LRC 10B to 10C (nos. 181-186, for the rims). The variants present all share a rather thick rounded rectangular rim with a convex end and, in the case of nos. 181-182, a rather sinuous rim-body profile. Following John Hayes’ careful description, though the rims in 5503 seem to conform to all three Antioch 949p, s and u (Waagé 1948: PL XI), which are included within both LRC 10B and C, the body profiles of nos. 181-182, as well as their rather curved rim, correspond to LRC 10B. The example Hayes chose to illustrate of LRC 10B is perhaps rather extreme in its markedly convex rim profile (Hayes 1972: 344, fig. 71, LRC 10B.7). With the exception of no. 183, the rim tops are slightly convex, the latter vessel rim, however, being clearly flat on top. LRC 10C proper has either a flat or, more typically, a lightly concave rim top (good examples in Saraçhane Deposit 30, deposited c. 655-670: Hayes 1992: fig. 41.62-63). I would suggest we are at the very start of the transition to LRC 10C here (in fact, in LRP Type B and C ‘overlap’ in the early 7th century). One perhaps cannot be more precise than that.

Egyptian Red Slip Ware ‘A’ is now also common (nos. 192-198; 32 RBHS, 12 MNV, 12.3% MNV), for the first time since the early 5th century, and in quantities that will be continued in Umayyad levels in Beirut (Reynolds 2003; 2010b). The ERS ‘A’ comprises vessels related in shape to ARS 84 (Gempeler T344) (nos. 192-194), as well as other forms, including some painted vessels (Gempeler T343 and T353).

LRD is, however, the most common fine ware in 5503, comprising more than half of the imports (nos. 163-178; 92 RBHS, 52(-62) vessels, 53.6% MNV). LRD 5 is on

220


Fig. 10. Beirut. Deposit BEY 006 5503. ARS (nos. 145-162).

BEY 006 5503

5503.1

5503.3

5503.5

5503.12

5503.16

5503.2

5503.65503.7

5503.8

5503.10

5503.13

5503.14

5503.15

5503.321

5503.3225503.323

5503.324

5503.647

145

147

146

148

149

150

151

152

153

154

155

156

157

158

160159

161162

Fig. 10. Beirut. Deposit BEY 006 5503. ARS (nos. 145-162).

221


Fig. 11. Beirut. Deposit BEY 006 5503 (continuation). LRD (nos. 163-178).

222


Fig. 12. Beirut. Deposit BEY 006 5503 (continued). LRC (nos. 179-191) and Egyptian Red Slip Ware ‘A’ (nos. 192-198).

5503.17

5503.20

5503.31

5503.38

5503.27 5503.28

5503.29

5503.34

5503.26

5503.326

5503.19

5503.21

5503.18

5503.30

5503.32

5503.36

5503.39

5503.23

5503.25

BEY 006 5503

179 180

181

182

184 185

186

187 188 189

191190

192

193

194

195

196

197 198

5503.22 183

Fig. 12. Beirut. Deposit BEY 006 5503 (continued).LRC (nos. 179-191) and Egyptian Red Slip Ware ‘A’ (nos. 192-198).

223


the way out (4-5 vessels: nos. 163-166), in comparison to LRD 9 (26 MNV: nos. 168-174. For more on these, see Reynolds LRD, this volume). A variety of LRD basins variants of LRD 11.1-2 are present (17 MNV: only two examples are illustrated here, nos. 177-178). There are well preserved examples of LRD 9C and LRD 10, both with their distinctive grooved band on the rim (nos. 175-176), the former, a shallow dish, illustrating why John Hayes classified the shape as a variant of Form 9 and not within the deep basin Form 10.

It should also be remembered that in contrast to ARS, LRC and ERS ‘A’, a large percentage of the Cypriot exports in this period, as also from the 5th century onwards, comprised forms that were not for the table, namely basins (LRD 11), though these are technically fine wares due to manufacture and brushed slip-paint decoration. One should really perhaps class these as kitchen wares, like the plain buff ware counterparts elsewhere in the eastern Mediterranean, or the pale buff coarse wares of Tunisia.

Finally, BEY 006 5503, like many in these Beirut assemblages, illustrates just how useful the combination of ARS, LRC and LRD (typical on Levantine coastal sites, Cyrenaica, and to some extent, 7th century sites in the Aegean, such as Emporio in Chios) can be for providing the opportunity for tighter dating than is sometimes possible on sites in the West.

Bibliography

Bonifay, M. (2004), Etudes sur la céramique romaine tardive d’Afrique, BAR Int. Ser. 1301, Archaeopress, Oxford.

Butcher, K. (2003), Small change in ancient Beirut, Coins from BEY006 and 04, Archaeology of the Beirut Souks 1, Berytus: 45-46 [2001-2002: published 2003].

Gempeler, R.D. (1992), Elephantine X, Die Keramik römischer bis früharabischer Zeit, Archäologische Veröffentlichungen 43, von Zabern, Mainz-am-Rhein.

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

Hayes, J.W. (1992), Excavations at Saraçhane in Istanbul, Vol. 2, The Pottery, Princeton University Press, Princeton.

Hayes, J. W. (2008), The Athenian Agora, Volume XXXII, Roman Pottery, Fine-wares imports, The American School of Classical Studies at Athens, Princeton.

Jennings, S. (2006), Vessel glass from Beirut. BEY 006, 007 and 045, Archaeology of the Beirut Souks 2, Berytus 48-49 [2004-2005: published 2006].

Meyza, H. (2007), Nea Paphos V, Cypriot Red Slip Ware: studies on a Late Roman Levantine fine ware, Polish Academy of Science, Warsaw.

Perring, D. (2003), The archaeology of Beirut: A report on work in the insula of the House of the Fountains, The Antiquaries Journal 83: 195-229.

Reynolds, P. (1987), El yacimiento tardorromano de Lucentum (Benalúa-Alicante): las cerámicas finas, Catálogo de fondos del Museo Arqueológico 2, Diputación Provincial de Alicante, Alicante.

Reynolds, P. (2003), Pottery and the economy in 8th century Beirut: An Umayyad pottery assemblage from the Roman Imperial baths (BEY 045), in VIIème Congrès International sur la Céramique Médiévale en Méditerranée (Thessaloniki, 11-16th October 1999), Thessaloniki: 725-734.

Reynolds, P. (2004), The Roman pottery from the Triconch Palace; The Medieval amphorae; Appendix 1, Catalogue of Roman ceramics and selected medieval pottery from Butrint 1994-99, in R. Hodges, W. Bowden and K. Lako (eds.), Byzantine Butrint, Excavations and Surveys 1994-99, Oxbow, Oxford: 224-269; 270-277; 327-395.

Reynolds, P. (2005), Levantine amphorae from Cilicia to Gaza: a typology and analysis of regional production trends from the 1st to 7th centuries, in J.M. Gurt i Esparraguerra, J. Buxeda i Garrigós, and M.A. Cau Ontiveros (eds.), LRCWI. Late Roman Coarse Wares, Cooking Wares and Amphorae in the Mediterranean: Archaeology and Archaeometry, BAR Int. Ser. 1340, Archaeopress, Oxford: 563-611.

Reynolds, P. (2006), Appendix 2, The classification of the Persian and classical pottery. Methods and Ceramic Phasing (CP dates), in S. Jennings, Vessel Glass from Beirut. BEY 006, 007 and 045, Archaeology of the Beirut Souks 2, Berytus 48-49 [2004-2005: published 2006]: 295-298.

Reynolds, P. (2008), Linear typologies and ceramic evolution, Facta 2: 61-87.

Reynolds, P. (2010a), Hispania and the Roman Mediterranean, AD 100-700: ceramics and trade, Duckworth, London.

Reynolds, P. (2010b), Trade networks of the East, 3rd to 7th centuries: the view from Beirut (Lebanon) and Butrint (Albania) (fine wares, amphorae and kitchen wares), in S. Menchelli, S. Santoro, M. Pasquinucci and G. Guiducci (eds.), LRCW 3, Late Roman Coarse Wares, Cooking Wares and Amphorae in the Mediterranean, Archaeology and archaeometry, Comparison between western and eastern Mediterranean, BAR Int. Ser. 2185, Archaeopress, Oxford: 89-114.

Reynolds, P. (in preparation a), The Classical Pottery, The Archaeology of the Beirut Souks, Berytus.

Reynolds, P. (in preparation b), The Classical pottery, in R. Hodges et al., Excavations in the Triconch Palace, Butrint (Albania).

Reynolds, P. and Waksman, S.Y. (2008), Beirut cooking wares, 2nd to 7th centuries: local forms and north Palestinian imports, Berytus 50 [2006: published 2008]: 59-81.

Sheehan, P. (1999), Mosaics from BEY 006. An introductory guide, Berytus 43 [1997-1998: published 1999]: 147-166.

224


Thorpe, R. (forthcoming), Excavations of the Insula of the House of Fountains in Beirut, Lebanon, The Archaeology of the Beirut Souks 3, Berytus.

Appendix. Summary of fine wares per deposit (BEY 006)

This Appendix provides a short summary of the forms and quantities of fine wares, together with the weight of the pottery, a brief indication of the nature of the deposit, its place in the phasing of the site, an indication of ceramic joins between contexts (and the phasing of each), and finally, a summary of the coins found in each.

Some indication of the fragmentation of the fine ware vessels, as the number of fragments per vessel is also given (e.g. Appendix, no. 13, 006 5503, ARS 99C: 4 = 1, i.e. 4 fragments of a single vessel). The majority of vessels are represented by one or two fragments, and so the presence of vessels comprising more fragments than usual is likely evidence that the assemblage is relatively intact from its primary deposition and has not been divided and redeposited several times (for relatively well-preserved assemblages, see below the late 6th/early 7th century deposit BEY 006 5503. The tables also provide an indication of the estimated —and this can only be so— minimum number of vessels (MNV).

In the case of the House of the Fountains fine wares, these are presented in phase order.

The phasing is the work of my colleague Reuben Thorpe, with whom I have worked closely and in tandem on the processing for publication of the Beirut sequences (Thorpe forthcoming). I would like to thank him for both commenting on this paper and, over the years, his insight and the exchange of ideas on the complex site formation processes of the Souks Excavations.

1. BEY 006 9023: Area 3 Peristyle House. Pit fill. Weight: 29410gNo coinsSuggested pottery date: third quarter 5th century, closer to 450?

9023 No. of fragments Single walls MNVResidual ESA: 2

ARS C, 4thC: 2ARS 58: 1

5 (2 = ER; 3 = 4thC)

ARS ARS 63: 1 (no. 1)ARS D dishes bases: 4

5

LRC LRC 1B: 1 (no. 2)LRC 2?: 1 (no. 3: or LRD 1)LRC 3?: 1 (no. 4)

3

LRD LRD 1 base: 1 (no. 5)LRD 2: 2 = 1 (no. 8)LRD 2: 10 (illustrated: nos. 6-7, 9-14) LRD stamped base: 1 (no. 15)LRD stamped base: 1LRD 11, thick: 1 (no. 16)

15

(Cypriot Lid rim and handle: 2 = 1 (no. 17-18). Same ware as jar no. 74 (3303.26)Lid handle?: 1 (no. 19)

2)

(Cypriot? Closed base: 1)Total non-residual FW 24 RBHS: 23 vessels 23

Waagé, F.O. (1948), Hellenistic and Roman tableware of North Syria, in F.O. Waagé (ed.), Ceramics and Islamic coins, Antioch-on-the-Orontes 4, 1, Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1-60.

225


2. BEY 006 3761: Area 3 Peristyle House. Medieval robber fill. Weight: 27260g. Coins: Mid-late 4th century coins and AD 404-406 x 1Suggested pottery date: third quarter of the 5th century

3761 No. of fragments Single walls MNVLRC LRC 1?: 1 (no. 27)

LRC 2 base?: 1 (no. 28)LRC 3B: 4=1 (no. 21)LRC 3C: 2 (nos. 22 and 23)LRC 3E: 1 (no. 24)LRC 3 bases: 2 (nos. 25-6)LRC 8 : 1 (no. 29)

9

LRD LRD 2 : 2 (nos. 30-31)LRD 2 bases: 2LRD 2 base?: 1 (no. 32)LRD 11: 8 (illustrated: nos. 35-39)LRD 11: 1HUncl. LRD Bowl: 1 (no. 33)Large lid :1

16

(Cypriot ? Contemporary ?

Jug: 1 (3761.151)Jug: 1 (no. 34)

2

Total non-residual FW 28 RBHS: 25 vessels 27

3. BEY 006 9402: Area 3 Peristyle House. Medieval robber fill. Weight: 6820g. 4th century coins and AD 498-512 x 1Suggested pottery date: third quarter of the 5th century

9402 No. of fragments Single walls MNVARS ARS 63: 2 = 1 (no. 40) 1LRC LRC 3C.7: 1 (no. 41)

LRC 8: 1 (no. 42)2

LRD LRD 2: 2 (nos. 43-44) 2Cypriot ? Anatolian? Bowl or lid: 1 (no. 45) 1 (9402.35)Total non-residual FW 7 RBHS : 6 vessels 6

4. BEY 006 7477: Area 2 West. Robbing. Weight: 57745gCoins: 4th Century, with AD 406-408 x 1Suggested pottery date: 3rd quarter of 5th centuryStratigraphic Phase 9c2

7477 No. of fragments Single walls MNVResidual ARS D base : 1 1 (4th-5thC)

LRC LRC 3C: 2 (nos. 47-48)LRC 3E: 2 (nos. 49-50) LRC 3A or 3H?: 1 (no. 46)LRC 3 bases: 3

1W 8-9

LRD LRD 2: 4 = 1 (no. 53)LRD 2: 3 (nos. 52, 54-55)Uncl .LRD Bowl 1: 2 (one illustrated, no. 51)LRD Meyza K1: 1Early LRD 7: 2 = 1 (no. 56)LRD 11: 1 LRD 11: 2HLRD 11 variant.: 1

12

Total non-residual FW 24 RBHS: 20 vessels 1? 20-21

226


5. BEY 006 3303: Area 3 Peristyle House. (Medieval) demolition over triclinium mosaic 3046. Weight: 37510g. 4th century coins and AD 615-616 x 1.Suggested pottery date: 450-500? Some late 5th century pieces?

3303 No. of fragments Single walls MNVResidual 1 1W 2 (Hellenistic)

ARS ARS 63 likely: 1 (no. 57) 1LRC LRC 3A?: 1 (no. 58)

LRC 3B: 1 (no. 59)LRC 3C: 2 (nos. 60-61)LRC 3E?: 1 (no. 62)Small LRC 3: 2 = 1 (no. 63)

6

LRD LRD 2: 2 = 1 (no. 64)LRD 2: 2 = 1LRD 2: 4 (nos. 65-68)LRD 2 base: 1 (no. 69)LRD 2: 2 (Rim and floor)LRD 11: 3 (nos. 71-73)LRD 11: 1HLarge Bowl base: 1 (no. 70)

LRD 2: 1WLRD: 7W

15 min-22 max

(Cypriot Small Jar: 1 (no. 74: ware like lid no. 17-18, 9023.49 and 56)

1)

Total non-residual FW 24 RBHS: 21 vessels 8 vessels 22 min-29 max

6. BEY 006 7685: Area 2W. Floor construction. Weight: 7980gCoin: AD 498-507 Suggested pottery date: Late 5th century (+)Stratigraphic Phase 9c2.

7685 No. of fragments Single walls MNVLRC LRC 3C: 1 (no. 75)

LRC 3C.31: 1LRC 3E: 1 (no. 76)

3

LRD LRD 2: 1 (no. 77)Late LRD 2: 1 (no. 78)LRD 2 floor?: 1Meyza ‘LRD 1/3’ rouletted base: 1 (no. 79)LRD 4: 1 (no. 80)LRD 11: 1 (no. 81)Bowl/basin ring-footbase: 1 (no. 82)Uncl .Basin: 1 (no. 83)

Moulded closed shoulder: 1

9

Total non-residual FW 11 RBHS: 11 vessels 1 12

7. BEY 006 3019: Area 3. Redeposited as Medieval wall foundation cut fill? Weight: 1575g. Coin: AD 408-423Suggested pottery date: late 5th century (+)

3019 No. of fragments Single walls MNVResidual ESA 7 1

LRC LRC 3C: 1 (no. 84)LRC 3E: 2 = 1 (no. 85)LRC 3: 2 bases

4

LRD LRD 2: 1 (no. 88)Late LRD 2: 1 (no. 89)Late LRD 2: 1 (no. 90)Early LRD 7: 1 (no. 91)LRD 11: 1 (no. 92)

5


227


8. BEY 006 11081: Area 2W. Weight: 112040g. In a stairwell between properties. Post-building disuse, dismantling or demolition. Bone common. Coins: AD 395-40l; AD 498-507; AD 498-512Suggested pottery date: Second quarter 6th century, AD 530-540?, deposited post AD 551Most of residual sherds are from deposit below (11038), in some cases with sherd links (so the excavation of 11081 probably penetrated 11038 a little, by mistake)

11081 No. of fragments Single walls MNVResidual ESA 35-36: 1

ESA cup: 1ARS 67: 2 LRC 1B: 2 = 1 (from 11038)LRC 1B: 2 = 1 (from 11038)LRC 1 base: 1LRD 11A: 1 (from 11038)Sagalassos Warelike ARS 84: 1

ESA closedLRD 11 thick walled

11 (3 residual MNV derive from layer below: 11038)

ARS ARS 99B: 1 ARS 103/104 floor 2LRC LRC 3F: 6 (one illustrated: no. 93)

LRC 3F/G: 1 (no. 94)LRC 3G: 2 = 1LRC 3 base: 4 = 1LRC 3: 1LRC 8.2: 2 (1 illustrated: no. 95)

LRC 3: 4 walls 12

LRD LRD 2.13 var.: 3 = 1 (no. 98)LRD 2.13 var.: 1LRD 2.13: 1Small LRD 2.13: 1LRD 2: 3LRD 2: 3 basesLRD 5: 4 (one illustrated: no. 96)LRD 5: 2 = 1 (no. 97)LRD bowl: 1 (11081.42)LRD 11.2: 2 = 1LRD 11: 2 rim

LRD 2: 1 wallLRD 11: 1 wall

19

(LRD? Lantern? Handle) 1)(Tyrian moulded ware Lantern: 1

Closed: 1)2)

Total non-residual FW 40 RBHS: 32 vessels 7 walls = 7 vessels 33

9. BEY 006 20201/20202: Area 2W (South Shops). Redeposited AD 551 debris?.Weight: 28275g (20201) and 7625g (20202) Coins: latest (and only contemporary coin) is of Ostrogothic King Baudila, AD 541-552Suggested pottery date: AD 551

20201 coins

Pontius Pilate 29 29350 400

Julian Lugdunum 360 363Valentinian I 364 375Valentinian I 364 375

364 378378 392383 388404 406425 435425 435425 435

Marcian 450 457Anastasius I Constantinople 498 507Anastasius I Constantinople 498 507

20202 coins

-300 200Gallienus 2nd Eastern Mint 253 260

350 400383 395425 435

Theodosius II 406 408450 550

Anastasius I 491 498380 500

Baudila 541 552

228


20201/20202 No. of fragments Single walls MNVResidual Hell/ER: 2 ARS 67?: 1W 3

LRC LRC 3F.25: 1 (no. 100)LRC 3F var. : 2 (nos. 101-102)LRC 3F var.: 2 = 1 (no. 108)LRC 3G: 5 (nos. 103-107)LRC 3 base: 3 = 1 (no. 109)LRC stamp: 1Uncl. LRC: 1 (no. 99)Uncl. LRC 10A?: 1 (no. 117: or is LRD)

13

LRD LRD 5: 4 = 1 (no. 110)LRD 5: 2 = 1 (no. 112)LRD 5: 1 (no. 111)LRD 8.2: 4 = 1 (nos. 113-114)LRD 9A: 3 = 1 (no. 115)LRD 9A base: 6 = 1 (no. 116)

LRD 7: 1WLRD 9: 1WBasin: 1W

9

(Cypriot? Moulded water flask: 3 = 1 1)ERS ‘A’ Like ARS 109: 1 1Total non-residual FW 37 RBHS: 20 vessels 3 23

10. BEY 006 2528 and 2483: Area 2E. Two separate deposits, with sherd links. Collapse under lead pipe (2528) and cleaning over paved surface 11797 (2483). Weight: 4175g (2528) and 5045g (2483) Redeposited AD 551 debris? 2528: No coins; 2483: Coin of AD 383-392Suggested pottery date: AD 551

2528/2483 No. of fragments Single walls MNVARS ARS 93: 1 (no. 118)

ARS 99B: 1 (no. 119)2

LRC LRC 3D: 1 (no. 120)LRC 3F/G: 1 (no. 121)

2

LRD LRD 5: 1 (no. 122)LRD 5: 1LRD 9A: 2 (nos. 123-124)

LRD 5: 1W 5

Total non-residual FW 8 RBHS : 8 vessels 1 9

11. BEY 006 20216 and 20239: Area 2W (South Shops). Wall collapse (20216) and demolition debris (20239).Weight: 8125g (20216) and 3095g (20239). Redeposited AD 551 debris? Coins: 20216: no coins; 20239: illegibleSuggested pottery date: AD 551

20216/20239 No. of fragments Single walls MNVARS 6thC bowl/dish: 1W 1LRC LRC 3F: 1 (no. 131)

LRC 3F/G concave face: 4 (three illustrated: nos. 125, 130, 132)LRC 3 base: 1

1W 6

LRD LRD 5: 4 = 1 (no. 134)LRD 5: 1 (no. 133)LRD 5: 1 baseLRD 9A: 5 (nos. 126-128; nos. 135-136)LRD 9 base?: 2 (no. 129 and 137)

LRD 5: 1WLRD 9: 2WLRD: 4 walls

14-17

Total non-residual FW 19 RBHS: 16 vessels 6-9 21-24

229


12. BEY 006 14050: Area 3. Dump. Only diagnostics collected. Weight: 53890gCoin: AD 526-534Suggested pottery date: late 6th century (cf. ARS 91D present).

14050 No. of fragments Single walls MNVARS ARS 91D: 2 = 1 (no. 138)

ARS 99B/C: 1 (no. 139)2

LRD 7.1: 1 (no. 141)LRD 9A: 1 (no. 140)LRD 10: 2 = 1 (no. 142)Uncl. base: 1 (no. 143)LRD 11.2: 3 = 1 (no. 144)

5


13. BEY 006 5503: BEY 006 Area 5. Dump. Weight: 357811g. Coin: AD 583-584 Suggested pottery date: Early 7th century

5503 No. of fragments Single walls MNVResidual ARS 62: 1

ARS 93 base: 1ARS 94: 1 (no. 162)LRD 2: 25thC LRD 11: 3Total RBHS: 8 vessels

LRD 2: 1W 9

ARS ARS 99C: 4 = 1 (no. 146)ARS 99C: 3 = 1 (no. 145)ARS 99C: 2 = 1 (no. 147)ARS 99C: 2 (nos. 148-149)ARS 104C: 4 = 1 (no. 150)ARS 104C: 1 (no. 152)ARS 104C base: 1 (no. 151)ARS 104C base (stamped): 1 ARS 104C?: 1 (no. 153)ARS 105A: 1 (no. 154)ARS 105A var. : 1 (no. 155)ARS 108: 4 = 1 (no. 156)ARS 108: 1 (Fig. 10.13)ARS 109A/B: 3 (nos. 158-160)ARS 109C? (bevelled rim and burnished): 1 (no. 161)30 RBHS: 18 vessels

ARS 99: 2WARS 104/105: 2WARS: 2W

18 (-24): 18.5% MNV

Ephesian FW ARS 104C imitation: 11 RBHS : 1 vessel

1: 1% MNV

LRC Small LRC 10?: 1LRC 10B: 2 (no. 179-180)LRC 10B/C: 4 = 1 (no. 185)LRC 10B/C: 4 (nos. 181, 182, 184 and 186)LRC 10C: 2 = 1 (no. 183)LRC 10 bases?: 2 (nos. 187-188)LRC 3 or 10 bases: 4LRC bowl bases: 3 (nos. 189-191)22 RBHS: 14-18 vessels

14(-18): 14.4% MNV

230


LRD LRD 5: 2 = 1 (no. 165)LRD 5: 3 (nos. 163, 164 and 166)LRD 5: 1 baseLRD 8: 1 (no. 167)LRD 8: 1 (rouletted)LRD 8 ?: 2 = 1 baseLRD 9A: 22 (5 illustrated: nos. 168, 169, 171, 172 and 174)LRD 9A: 3 = 1 (no. 170) 9A: 2 = 1 (no. 173)9A: 2 = 19A: 2 = 1LRD 9A base: 3LRD 9C: 3 = 1 (no. 175)LRD 10: 2 = 1 (no. 176)LRD 10: 2 = 1LRD 11.1: 10 = 1 (no. 177)LRD 11.1: 6 = 1LRD 11.1/2: 2 = 1 (no. 178)LRD 11.1/2: 2 = 1LRD 11.2.: 2 = 1LRD 11.1: 6LRD 11.1: 1HLRD 11: 1HLRD 11.1/2: 2 = 1LRD 11.1/2: 2 = 1LRD 11 (5503.335): 1LRD 11 (5503.86): 1LRD 11 bases: 3LRD 11: 2 base fr92 RBHS : 52-62 vessels

LRD 11: 20W 52(-62): 53.6% MNV

(Cypriot Lid: 1 1)ERS ‘A’ Gempeler T344b: 4 = 1 (no. 192)

Gempeler T344b: 3 = 1 (no. 193)Gempeler T344b? base: 7 = 1 (no. 194 = base of 12,15 likely)Gempeler T344b?: 1 base (5503.35)Gempeler T344a?: 3 = 1 (no. 195)Uncl. Bowl: 1 (no. 196)Bowl: 1 (5503.37)Basin: 2 = 1 (5503.41)Basin: 3 = 1 (5503.40)Gempeler T343? (painted): 4 = 1 (no. 197)Painted large flanged bowl (dots) Gempeler T353: 2 = 1 (no. 198)Small bowl base: 1 (5503.33)Total 32 RBHS: 12 MNV

12 : 12.3% MNV

Total non-residual FW

177 RBHS: 97-111 vessels 26 walls 97(-117)

Fine wares from Beirut contexts, c. 450 to the early 7th century

Documents

Transcript of Fine wares from Beirut contexts, c. 450 to the early 7th century