Pottery production and exchange in Late Antique Syria

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2013 DOI: 10.1163/22134522-12340042L. Lavan (ed.) Local Economies? Production and Exchange of Inland Regions in Late Antiquity (Late Antique Archaeology 10 – 2013) (Leiden 2013), pp. 567–606

POTTERY PRODUCTION AND EXCHANGE IN LATE ANTIQUE SYRIA (FOURTH-EIGHTH CENTURY A.D.).

A STUDY OF SOME IMPORTED AND LOCAL WARES

Agnès Vokaer

Abstract

This paper will examine regional and extra-regional trade through the study of the distribution of some categories of ceramics in Syria. It will present a review based on a selection of local and imported wares, from publications, as well as personal observations, including fabric analyses. From the 4th c. A.D. onwards all fine wares were imported. Two major Syrian classes were produced: ‘Brittle Ware’ (Syrian cooking ware) and ‘North Syrian Amphorae’. The distribution of the different vessel categories illustrates a clear distinction between the coast and the hinterland. It also reveals active regional trade, using both fluvial and terrestrial means of transport.

Introduction

This contribution will examine the relative importance of local ceramics in relation to imports in late antique Syria.1 It will attempt to provide a broad outline of the distribution of imported and regional productions in Syria, based on data accessible from publications and from a personal study of material in Apamea and some others sites in northern Syria.2 It will mainly focus on the imported fine wares and their local imitations; on a specific type of regional cooking ware (the so-called ‘Brittle Ware’); and on local amphorae known as ‘North Syrian Amphorae’.

Although ancient Syria is well-known from texts and archaeological excavations, ceramic studies remain a little behind in comparison to other Mediterranean regions. Only a few excavations have had their material

1 Ancient Syria corresponds more or less to the modern country with a part of south-ern Anatolia. The coastal land belonged to Syria Phoenice, while the south, the former Nabatean Kingdom, is the Provincia Arabia.

2 This article is based on an examination of the Brittle Ware from Apamea, Androna, Dibsi Faraj and Hadir, as well as from some contexts in Aleppo, and of the African Red Slip Ware from Apamea, Hama and Qal‘at Sem‘an.

568 agnès vokaer

thoroughly published. For Antioch, capital of the Provincia Syria Koele and, from the beginning of the 5th c. A.D., of the Provincia Syria Prima, we only know about the fine wares (fig. 1).3 In the Limestone Massif, whose villages were extensively studied by G. Tchalenko and then by J.-P. Sodini and G. Tate, only the material from Dehes was published.4 In the steppe area, we have the archaeological reports from Andarin, including ceramic descriptions and the detailed publications with quantified data from Resafa.5 For Hama (the ancient Epiphania), a selection of material was published in 1971 and the fine wares were re-examined by J. Lund.6 Several sites also yielded good archaeological contexts, with a terminus given by

3 Waagé (1948).4 Tchalenko (1953–58); Sodini et al. (1980) and Tate (1992). For the pottery from Dehes:

Orssaud (1980), Bavant and Orssaud (2001) and Orssaud and Sodini (2003).5 Andarin: Mundell Mango (2002) and Strube (2003). Resafa: Mackensen (1984); Konrad

(1992), (2001a), (2001b) and Knötzele (2006).6 Christensen and Johansen (1971); Lund (1995). The ARS was also re-examined by

myself: see n. 2.

Fig. 1. Map of the sites mentioned in the text.

pottery production and exchange in late antique syria 569

destruction layers related to the Sassanid attack of the mid 3rd c. A.D., these being: Zeugma, Qreiye/‘Ayyash and Dura-Europos on the Euphrates, as well as Ain Sinu in Iraq. Information regarding the pottery from those sites was partially published.7 But several sites were abandoned after the 3rd c. sack, and therefore we lack data for the later periods in the Euphra-tes area and in north-eastern Syria.

As for the coastal region, no detailed publications are available, except for Beirut.8 A selection of material from Apamea, currently under study by the author, will be included in this study. Apamea, the second most important city after Antioch, lies at the crossroads of commercial routes leading from Antioch to the Euphrates (and beyond) and to the south. Founded in ca. 300 B.C. by Seleucos Nicator I, Apamea remained a strate-gic military, administrative and economic centre until the end of the Byz-antine period. At the beginning of the 5th c., when Syria Koele was divided into two smaller provinces, Apamea became the capital of Syria Secunda. The city was directly connected to Antioch by land and by the Orontes river, and therefore to the sea. It is, thus, a key site for northern Syria as capital of a province, and provides evidence for the hinterland economy. Moreover, since only the fine ware was published for Antioch, the study of the maritime imports (e.g. amphorae) reaching Apamea can be used as direct evidence for what transited through the great capital.9

Syria, as opposed to other Levantine regions (Egypt, Cyprus, Asia Minor or Jordan), had no major local production of fine wares in Late Antiquity.10 Table vessels were all imported from western Asia Minor (Phocaean Red Slip), from Cyprus or south-western Asia Minor (Late Roman D) and from Tunisia (African Red Slip).11 The second category of imported pottery is

7 Zeugma: Abadie-Reynal (2004), (2005); Abadie-Reynal and Martz (2010); Gschwind (2006); Kenrick (2009); Martz (2007). Qreiye/‘Ayyash: see Gschwind and Hasan (2006). Dura-Europos: see Toll (1943); Cox (1949) and Dyson (1968). Ain Sinu: Oates and Oates (1959).

8 For Syria see: Ras Ibn Hani: Touma (1984), (2001). Ras al-Bassit: Mills and Beaudry (2007), (2010).

9 Questions remain open concerning the southern products (such as the Palestinian amphorae) which, as J.-P. Sodini already noted, could have reached Apamea directly from the south: Sodini (1990) 77.

10 In the Roman period, Eastern Sigillata A (ESA) was produced in the region of Antioch (see Schneider (1995) for chemical analysis and provenance hypothesis of ESA). Produc-tion ceased in the course of the 3rd c. A.D.

11 I will here refer to the typology established by J. Hayes (1972), (1980). For evidence for the mid 3rd c. continuity of ESA, see: Reynolds (2010b) 90 (BEY 006 5051). For a synthetic work presenting the workshops producing the African Red Slip Ware see, among others: Bonifay (2004); Mackensen (1993) as well as Mackensen and Schneider (2002) and (2006). For recent consideration on the origin of CRS/ LRD see Poblome and Firat (2011).

570 agnès vokaer

amphorae (generally as wine containers). According to the small amount of evidence that has been published, amphorae circulating in Syria during Late Antiquity, were mainly Late Roman 1, Gaza amphorae (LRA 4), bag-shaped amphorae (former LRA 5 and 6) from Palestine (and Egypt?) and Sinope amphorae from the Black Sea.12 Late Roman 3 from Asia Minor and Late Roman 7 from Egypt are also attested.13 LRA 1 seems to compose the majority of the imported amphorae.14 It is commonly found in Apamea, especially in 6th c. contexts. It is also known from Ras Ibn Hani—where it is said to be the most common amphora type—from Ras al-Bassit, from Dehes, from Andarin, as well as Resafa and Qusair al-Saile (Tetrapyrgium).15 Palestinian bag-shaped amphorae are not well-represented, according to J.-P. Sodini.16 On the other hand, amphorae from Sinope are commonly found in northern Syria (Seleucia, Serjila, Qal‘at Sem‘an and Apamea), on the coast at Ras Ibn Hani and in the Euphrates area.17 Finally, African amphorae, as well as African cooking wares, are notably absent.18

Local or regional pottery products compose the largest part of the ceramics assemblages on most consumption sites. These consist of com-mon wares, made primarily in buff or pale green, calcareous clay (for storing, serving or preparing food), and cooking wares in non-calcareous clay (often iron-rich). Although differences in the morphology and in the clay of the common wares indicate regional variations, and thus point towards the existence of several local sources, very little on pottery manu-facturing in Syria has hitherto been published. For the Roman period, a

12 The study of the amphorae from Apamea is still in progress. Those from Zeugma and Homs are in press: Reynolds (forthcoming a, b and c).

13 LRA 3: Apamea: (under study). Dehes: Sodini and Villeneuve (1992) 199. Qusair al-Saile: Konrad (2001a) 77. LRA 7: Apamea and Qusair al-Saile: Konrad (2001a) 77, pl. 87, 25.

14 Sodini (2000) 192; Pieri (2007) 299. Evidence for LR1 production has been found in Cilicia, Cyprus as well as Rhodes: Empereur and Picon (1989); Demesticha (2003); Demes-ticha and Michaelides (2001). The provenance of the LR1 found in Syria is generally not mentioned in the publications.

15 Ras Ibn Hani: Touma (2001) 50. Ras al-Bassit: Mills and Beaudry (2010) 857, fig. 4a. Dehes: Orssaud (1992) 221, fig. B. 12; Bavant and Orssaud (2001) 36–37, figs. 5, 24. Thin section analysis indicated that this example could come from Seleucia: Orssaud (1992) 227, n.17. Andarin: Mundell Mango (2002) 314. Resafa: Konrad (1992) 334, figs. 11, 9. Qusair al-Saile: Konrad (2001a) 76, pl. 85, 1.

16 Sodini and Villeneuve (1992) 197–98; Sodini (2000) 192.17 Seleucia: Reynolds (2005) 566. Serjila and Qal‘at Seman: Pieri (2005b) 586 and fig.

8 and (2007) 307–308. Apamea (in pink and buff fabrics): Viviers and Vokaer (2009) 113, material currently under study by the author. Ras Ibn Hani: Touma (2001) fig. 1b. Zeugma: Abadie-Reynal (2004) 20; Reynolds (forthcoming b) and Dibsi Faraj: Harper (1980) fig. E. 73.

18 Sodini (2000) 192; Bonifay (2005).


complex of five kilns dating to the end of the 2nd c. A.D. was excavated in Palmyra.19 These produced a wide range of ceramics: jugs, pilgrim flasks, cooking wares, lamps and tiles. The scale of distribution of these prod-ucts is unknown. On the coast, the area of Ras al-Bassit, produced and exported coarse wares, among them, the well-known stamped mortaria/ pelves, as well as dolia, basins and table amphorae.20 These products were mainly distributed to Levantine coastal sites (e.g. Beirut) and did not seem to have reached inner Syria.21 Finally, fabric studies and waster finds also revealed a local production in the Hauran region, in southern Syria.22 There, a large repertoire of forms, including also fine wares, was produced using local basaltic clay. But southern Syria, the ancient Provin-cia Arabia, is clearly distinguishable from northern Syria by its ceramic traditions, which are closer to those of northern Jordan.

Given the lack of known production sites in Syria, one must mainly rely on indirect evidence obtained through the study of the material on the consumption sites in order to define local and regional pottery produc-tion. Such evidence includes pottery morphology (although forms could have been shared by several producing workshops), and particularly prov-enance studies based on petrographic and chemical analyses of the clay fabrics. When fabric analyses of a large body of material are carried out, it is possible to establish the origin of production, with a degree of accuracy varying according to the local geology. Moreover, mapping the frequency of the various clay fabrics on the different consumption sites allows one to determine the distribution of different workshops through time and space, even if these cannot be precisely located.

Our goal is to bring out the different distribution patterns visible in inner Syria, to determine how these evolve up to the Islamic conquest, and to compare them with our knowledge of coastal sites, mainly Beirut.

19 Krogulska (1985), (1996); Daszkiewicz et al. (2000).20 For the mortaria see: Hayes (1967); Vallerin (1994) and Mills and Beaudry (2007),

(2010). See also Mills and Reynolds (2011): Amrit on the coast also produced and exported basins from the 5th to 7th c. A.D. Amrit basins, in contrast, are found inland, in the Homs region: Reynolds (forthcoming a and c).

21 Bassit products are found in Beirut between the 4th and 7th c. A.D.: Reynolds (2003a) 544; Mills and Reynolds (2011).

22 Barret et al. (1986) Group A.

572 agnès vokaer

Imported Fine Wares in Late antique Syria

The distribution of the main categories of red-slipped wares in the East has been the subject of several recent studies.23 From the 4th c. A.D. onwards, only imported fine wares were supplied to Syrian sites, there being no local production of table wares within Syria. The first imported product was African Red Slip ware (ARS), from central and northern Tuni-sia. Then came Phocaean Red Slip ware (PRS), which appeared in Syria in the course of the 5th c. A.D., followed by Late Roman D (LRD) distributed from the second half of the 5th c. onwards.

This contribution will essentially attempt to outline the main trends in the distribution of fine wares and the most frequent shapes found in Syria. Quantified data are indeed pretty scarce, and the nature of the data itself varies greatly, often old excavations with partly published material, survey material, and so on. In addition, few sites offer contemporaneous assem-blages (except for the 6th–7th c. that appear to be better documented), and when they do we often face a circular argument, since the assem-blages are dated by the fine wares.

African Red Slip Ware

With the exception of Antioch, where a few earlier shapes in fabric A or A/D are found, the first African Red Slip wares reached Syria in the course of the 3rd c. A.D.24 They originated from the central Tunisian workshops of Sidi Marzouk Tounsi and Djilma (fabric C).25 As in the whole Mediter-ranean, the dish Hayes 50 represents the most widely distributed shape.26 In Hama, it makes up 9.4% of the ARS corpus.27 In Apamea, among the 183 fragments I have examined, the Hayes 50 accounts for 31.8% (fig. 2: 1), while in Zeugma, it reaches 22% of the total of ARS.28 Although pres-ent in unknown proportions, the Hayes 50 is described as ‘exceedingly

23 Aegean: Abadie-Reynal (1989). Eastern Mediterranean: Bes and Poblome (2008); Bonifay (2005). Late Roman D in the East: Armstrong (2009). Syria: Abadie-Reynal (2005) for African Red Slip in Zeugma and Lund (1995) for the fine wares in Hama.

24 Waagé (1948) 48–50. The first forms mentioned at Antioch are ARS Hayes 3 (Antioch 847), Hayes 4 (Antioch 840), Hayes 5 (Antioch 841–842) and Hayes 8B (Antioch 843).

25 For a synthesis on the main ARS workshops, see: Bonifay (2004); Mackensen (1993); Mackensen and Schneider (2002), (2006).

26 Bonifay (2005) 566.27 Lund (1995) 139–40: 18 out of 192 fragments.28 Apamea: 61 diagnostic fragments out of 183. Zeugma: Abadie-Reynal (2005) 526–27.

In total, 23 diagnostic fragments out of 106.


Fig. 2. Selection of African Red Slip ware found in Apamea. 1: ARS Hayes 50 A (AP. 00. I. 23. 63); 2: ARS Hayes 67 (AP. 04. IV. 124. 49); 3: ARS Hayes 91 B (AP. 07.

II. 25. 50) and 4: ARS Hayes 104 C (AP. 08. I. 9. 17). Scale ¼.

popular in Antioch’.29 On the coast, it is found at Ras Ibn Hani.30 The dish Hayes 50 also reached the Euphrates region where it has been found at sites destroyed by the Sassanid attack of the mid-3rd c. In Qreiye/‘Ayyash and in Dura-Europos, a few pieces of Hayes 50 A/early production are mentioned.31

29 Waagé (1948) 49, no. 836, p-x. 30 Touma (1984) 93–94 and figs. 67–68.31 Qreiye: Gschwind and Hasan (2006) 331 and n.29. Dura-Europos: Cox (1949) 15 no. 90

and Hayes (1972) 69–70, fabric C1.

574 agnès vokaer

On the Euphrates sites and in eastern Syria, ARS competed with Green Glazed ware, a type of decorated glazed table ware frequent in Mesopo-tamia during the Parthian and the Sassanid periods. Although the ori-gin of the Green Glazed ware remains undetermined, it belongs clearly to a Mesopotamian tradition. The repertoire is characterised by bowls and ornamented jugs or amphorae with two or three handles. In Dura-Europos, the ware is said to be present ‘in great abundance’ and might have been locally produced.32 It is also found in Qreiye/‘Ayyash, but not in large quantities.33 It composes the majority of the table ware in Tell Sheih Hamad on the Khabur.34 The same abundance was noted at the site of the Roman garrison of Ain Sinu in Iraq, destroyed by the Sassanid attack of Ardashir I in A.D. 237.35

Glazed Ware is also said to be frequent in Umm el-Tlel in the El-Kowm Basin.36 It has also been found in Tell Barri in the Khabur region and on surveys in northern Jezireh in Iraq, and on the middle Euphrates in ‘Ana, in Bijan or in Kifrin.37 Further north, in Zeugma, Green Glazed ware is less frequent, according to M. Gschwind.38 Worth noting is that the ware is scarcely distributed west of the Euphrates, which seemed at that time to have acted as a border, as we know of only a few unstratified examples in Apamea and in Antioch, in the Hellenistic levels.39 For later periods, we know little of Green Glazed ware distribution, because most of the published Euphrates sites were not reoccupied after the mid-3rd c. Sas-sanid destruction.40

During the 4th and first half of the 5th c. A.D., African Red Slip ware became the principal table ware in Syria. The main forms distributed are Hayes 50 (A/B or B), 61 and 67. Hayes 67, from northern Tunisia, is the most frequent form on all Syrian sites (fig. 2: 2). In Apamea, it comprises the second most important type (15.6% of the corpus); in Hama it reaches

32 Toll (1943).33 Gschwind and Hasan (2006) 331.34 Römer-Strehl (2005) diagram 32a.35 Oates and Oates (1959) 224–25 and pl. 56.36 Majcherek and Taha (1993) 114, figs. 3, 38–40.37 Tell Barri: Ricciardi Venco (1982) 61–64. Northern Jezireh survey: Wilkinson and

Tucker (1995) 76, type 136 and fig. 77.20. ‘Ana: Northedge et al. (1988) 76–77. Bijan: Gaw-likowski (1986) 20–21. Kifrin: Invernizzi (1986) 26 and Valtz (1987) 81.

38 Gschwind (2006) 59 and Kenrick (2009) 266, fig. 18.2, PT 328–29.39 Apamea: personal observations, material unpublished. Antioch: Waagé (1948)

80–81.40 For the Sassanid period, F. Dorna Metzger notes that glazed wares are well-attested

in central Mesopotamia, but less frequent in northern Mesopotamia: Dorna-Metzger (2001) 16.


12% and in Zeugma 10%.41 It is also said to be common in Antioch.42 Hayes 67 is found in small quantities at: Ras Ibn Hani on the coast; in Homs; in Resafa; or in the Euphrates region at Dibsi Faraj; at Tell al-Rum; or Qusair al-Saile.43

Although Phocaean Slip ware and Late Roman D make their appear-ance in Syria in the second half of the 5th c. A.D., ARS remains neverthe-less present until the end of its production, with, as main types, Hayes 91, 99, 104, 105 and 109. Hayes 91 (A–C), for instance, is well-represented in: Zeugma (10% of the ARS corpus), in Hama (12%) and to a lesser degree in Apamea (5.2%) (fig. 2: 3).44 The form was apparently appreciated and dis-tributed up to the Khabur area. We find examples in: Antioch, in Dehes, in Qal‘at Sem‘an, in the River Qoueiq survey, in Andarin, in Resafa, in Qusair al-Saile, in Tell al-Rum, in the lower-Khabur region and in Tell Fakhariyah (fig. 1).45 When we have information about the fabric, one sees that both northern Tunisian workshops D1 (El-Mahrine region) and Oudhna (D2) exported the form.46

Syria also follows the same trend as the rest of the eastern Mediterra-nean, with a good distribution of the latest ARS productions, even in the

41 It was most probably imported from the D1 workshop in northern Tunisia (El-Mahrine region). Hama: Lund (1995) 140 (23 fragments). Zeugma: Abadie-Reynal (2005) 528 (11 fragments).

42 Waagé (1948) 49–50, Antioch nos. 869–73.43 Ras Ibn Hani: 3 fragments: Touma (1984). Homs: Reynolds (forthcoming a). Resafa:

1 decorated floor fragment of Hayes Style A (iii) in the Basilika B: Konrad (1992) figs. 5, 6. Dibsi Faraj: frequency unknown: 1 Hayes style A ii: Harper (1981) 332, figs. B. 26 and 27. Tell al-Rum: 3 fragments: Gschwind and Hasan (2006) 326, 374 and figs. 4, 6. Qusair al-Saile: 2 fragments: Konrad (2001a), 87, 142 and pl. 105, 7 and 69–70.

44 Zeugma: 11 fragments (production not mentioned): Abadie-Reynal (2005) 529–30. Hama: 23 fragments: Lund (1995) 140. Apamea: 10 fragments.

45 Antioch: Hayes 91B and C, Antioch type 883 m and p, said to be “one of the common-est shapes of ware (sic)”: Waagé (1948). Dehes: frequency and workshops unknown: Sodini (1990) 77. Qal‘at Sem‘an: personal observation, and see also the poster from N. Haidar Vela, “Contexte Byzantino-Omeyyade du sanctuaire de saint-Symeon en Syrie du Nord” presented at the LRCW 4. River Qoueiq: Kenrick (1981) 447 fig. 243.54. Andarin: Knötzele (2003) fig. 1.1. Resafa: 3 fragments (one 91A and two 91A/B) attributed to the D1 workshops: Konrad (1992) 326 and fig. 5.2–4. See also Knötzele (2006) 170 and fig. 1.1 for a Hayes 91A/B but without fabric identification. Surveyed site FP 132: 1 Hayes 91C, Mackensen (1984) pl. 22, 31. Qusair al-Saile: 1 rim sherd: Konrad (2001a) 85, 142 and pl. 105, 8. Tell al Rum: 1 rim sherd of 91A/B in D2 and one base with rouletting in D1: Gschwind and Hasan (2006) 327 and 374–75, figs. 4, 10–11. Lower Khabur survey: 1 Hayes 91A was recognised in Tell al-Sin: Römer (1995) fig. 6, a. Tell Fakhariyah: 1 Hayes 91B and 1 base of a 91C with feather-rouletting: Kantor (1957) nos. 69 and 70 pl. 32 and 42.

46 Tall al Rum: Gschwind and Hasan (2006) 374–75, nos. 10–11. Apamea and Hama: personal observations. On the other hand, I have noticed that the type 99 is always pro-duced in Oudhna.

576 agnès vokaer

hinterland.47 Later forms such as the dishes Hayes 104, 105 or 109, or frag-ments decorated in Hayes style E (ii) were found on several 6th and 7th c. sites. Hayes 104 is, for instance, present in: Antioch, in Zeugma (11% of the ARS corpus), in Apamea (7.1%), in Homs, in Qal‘at Sem‘an, in Dibsi Faraj, in Resafa, in Qusair al-Saile, in al-Hulla, in Halabiya, in Tall al-Rum and in Tell Sheikh Hamad (fig. 2: 4).48 Furthermore, my observations of the material from Apamea, Qal‘at Sem‘an and Hama indicated the presence in Syria of the late northern Tunisian workshop designated as D2/‘atelier x’, previously known from material found in Carthage. The imported products of this ‘atelier x’ in Syria are mainly restricted to the dishes Hayes 103 and 104 and decorated style Hayes E (ii), which fits the observations of M. Mackensen at Carthage.49 Finally, as we will see later in this arti-cle, the latest shapes (Hayes 104, 105 and 109) are also imitated in local Syrian fabrics.

Phocaean Red Slip Ware and Late Roman D

From the mid 5th/early 6th c. until the mid 7th c. A.D., Phocaean Red Slip ware was predominant in Syria, both inland and on the northern part of the coast.50 Late Roman D made its appearance around the mid-5th as well, but in smaller quantities. The few existing quantitative data indicate that, with the exception of Hama (see below), PRS composed more than three quarters of the fine ware assemblage (table 1). When no quantified data are given, the archaeologists mention, nevertheless, that PRS gener-ally prevails: as in Antioch, in the material from the survey of the River

47 For some examples in the eastern Mediterranean: Bonifay (2005) 570, see also Bes and Poblome (2008) 506, 508.

48 Antioch: Antioch nos. 803–805; Waagé (1948). Zeugma: Hayes 104 C, Kenrick (2009) fig. 18.3, PT 513. Homs: Reynolds (forthcoming a) SHR 1049. Qal‘at Sem‘an: personal obser-vations. Hans Curvers’ survey east of Aleppo: Reynolds, pers. comm. Dibsi Faraj: Hayes 104 B, Harper (1980) fig. B, 19. Resafa, Basilika B: one fragment of Hayes 104 C: Konrad (1992) fig. 5.5. Qusair al-Saile, Kastell: one fragment of Hayes 104 A and one 104 B: Konrad (2001a) 70, 121 and pl. 82, 2 and 3. Al-Holle: surface finds, one fragment of 104 A and two 104 C: Konrad (2001a) 19, 142 and pl. 116, 2–4. Halabiya: three complete Hayes 104B: Orssaud (1990) 261 and pl. 124, 68–70. Tell al-Rum: one bodysherd of form104 B/C in production D2: Gschwind and Hasan (2006) 327 and 375, no. 12. Tell Sheikh Hamad: decorated base of Hayes 103 or 104, Style E (ii), motif 226 g (Bacchus and a feline): Römer (1995) fig. 6, d.

49 Mackensen (1998) 33–37; Mackensen and Schneider (2002) 128; Bonifay (2004) 49.50 P. Reynolds, who saw some material from the Syrian coast (Ibn Hani, Amrit), notes

that PRS is also dominant there.


Qoueiq, in Homs, in Dehes, in Qal‘at Sem‘an, in Andarin or in Dibsi Faraj.51 Moreover, the ware is mainly represented by Hayes Forms 3 and 10. Anti-och has a greater range of forms, but even there forms 3 and 10 remain the most common.52 For instance, PRS forms 3 (mainly the early to mid 6th c. types 3F and 3G) and 10 are known from: Zeugma, Dehes, Qal‘at Sem‘an, the River Qoueiq Survey, Hama, Homs, Andarin, Dibsi Faraj, Resafa, Qusair al-Saile, al-Hulla, Tell al-Rum, Nisibis and from surveys in north-eastern Syria and south-eastern Anatolia.53

Equally, Late Roman D is essentially represented by Hayes form 2 and, less frequently, by form 9. Worth noting is the presence at Apamea of later shapes, such as Hayes form 9C, which are said to be rare in Antioch. These are also imitated in local clay. On the coast, at Ras Ibn Hani, we do not have an accurate account of the proportions of each ware, but LRD seems better represented. M. Touma mentions a large variety of LRD, compris-ing forms 1, 2, 3, 7, 8 and 9.54 Finally, Hama stands out for its lower pro-portions of PRS (51.5%) and higher proportions of ARS (23.4%) and LRD (25.1%), although the diversity of the LRD shapes is not greater in Hama as compared to Apamea (LRD types 1, 2 and 3).55 Current research does not offer an explanation for the differences in percentages of Hama fine wares in comparison with the other sites. Moreover, Hama may be contrasted with the neighbouring Roman towns of Apamea (see table 1) and Homs,

51 Antioch: Waagé (1948). River Qoueiq: Kenrick (1981) 439. Homs: Reynolds (forthcom-ing a and c). Dehes: Orssaud (1980) 243. Qal‘at Sem‘an: personal observations. Andarin: Knötzele (2003) 96. For the material from the excavation of the Byzantine Baths in Anda-rin, N. Pollard mentions that PRS outnumbers ARS by about three to one: Mundell Mango (2002) 314. Dibsi Faraj: Harper (1980) 331.

52 In Antioch, one finds the PRS types 1–3, 5–6, 8: respectively, Waagé (1948) nos. 965; 910; 940–47; 913; 914 (?); 918 and 949.

53 Zeugma: Kenrick (2009), fig. 18. 3, PT 516–28. Dehes: Orssaud (1980) 243; Bavant and Orssaud (2001) fig. 4.23 and fig. 6.30; Orssaud and Sodini (2003) fig. 2 (PRS 10). Qal‘at Sem‘an: Haidar Vela, poster presented at the LRCW 4 (see above). River Qoueiq: Kenrick (1981) 447 fig. 243.42. Hama: Lund (1995) pl. 7 and pl. 8, 70–91. Homs: Reynolds (forthcom-ing a and c). Andarin: Mundell Mango (2002) 314 fig. 19.2 and Knötzele (2003) 96 and figs. 1, 8–12. Dibsi Faraj: PRS 3: Harper (1980) figs. B, 24–25. Resafa: Konrad (1992) 327–28, fig. 5.7–11 and fig. 6. Qusair al-Saile: Konrad (2001a) pl. 82. Al-Hulla: Konrad (2001a) pl. 116, 7–13 and pl. 17. Tell al-Rum: PRS 3 or 10: Gschwind and Hasan (2006) 327 and 375, 13. Nisibis: Dorna-Metzger (2001) 15. Balikh Survey: Bartl (1996) 334. Birecik dam: Algaze et al. (1994) 21, fig. 31 B; Wilkinson (1990) B. 15. 36–37.

54 Touma (2001) 51. But M. Touma notes that the LRD 2 is the most frequent form in Ras Ibn Hani: Touma (1984) 144.

55 Lund (1995) 142–43.

578 agnès vokaer

where P. Reynolds notes that the PRS represents, as in the rest of Syria, the dominant ware, and that LRD is very rare.56

By comparison, the situation in Beirut is quite similar to Syria in the 4th c. A.D. with ARS as the main table ware.57 But there, LRD already appeared in small amounts and increased towards the end of the 4th c.58 During the 5th c., PRS dominated in Beirut, closely followed by LRD―represented by a large range of forms―and then ARS.59 In the 6th c., LRD became the most frequent ware, followed by PRS. During the late 6th c. LRD still dominated, but ARS imports rose again and Egyptian Red Slip ware (ERS) made an appearance.60 In the 7th c. PRS and LRD were absent, while ARS was less frequent, with no Hayes 105 and 109.61 Finally, in the 8th c., ERS comprised the majority of the fines wares, while the other cat-egories present before the Umayyad period were absent. These Umayyad period Egyptian fine wares were associated with a wide range of Egyptian amphora imports.62

In contrast with Beirut in the 5th and 6th c. A.D., inner Syria thus illus-trates a clear predominance of PRS over LRD and ARS (table 1). It also seems that LRD becomes less represented to the east, although this needs to be confirmed by more quantified data. In Resafa and the neighbouring

56 Reynolds (forthcoming a and c).57 ARS accounts for 91.3 % of the fine wares in the mid 4th c. A.D.: Reynolds (2010b) 93.58 Reynolds (2010a) 79, (2010b) 93–94 and table 2a.59 Reynolds (2010b) 94 and table 3. Some of the LRD forms (fig. 4, q, r, s) are not in

Hayes (1972).60 Reynolds (2010b) 98, fig. 7 and table 6.61 Reynolds (2003a) 536–37 and 544.62 Reynolds (2003b) 726 and (2010a) 132.

Table 1: Frequencies of the different Red Slip wares in Zeugma, Apamea, Hama, Resafa and Qusair al-Saile. The percentages published here are calculated from: Apamea and Hama: personal observations (compared with Lund (1995) for Hama). Zeugma: Abadie-Reynal (2005). Resafa: Mackensen (1984); Konrad (1992), (2001a). Qusair al-Saile: Konrad (2001a). For all those sites, I did not include ARS types that predate the LRD and PRS, starting thus, generally, with the Hayes 91.

Sites ARS (%) PRS (%) LRD (%)

Zeugma (n= 755) 5 76.5 18.5Apamea (n= 468) 12.3 79.3 8.4Hama (n= 171) 23.4 51.5 25.1Resafa (n= 444) 10.6 88.7 0.7Qusair al-Saile (n= 80) 16.3 76.3 7.5


military sites, in north-eastern Syria and in the Tigris area, PRS is clearly dominant and LRD is almost absent.63 Antioch stands out, as a capital and with direct access to the sea; a greater variety of shapes is found for all wares (PRS, LRD and ARS) there. However, in terms of frequency, the most common shapes at Antioch are still the same as those distributed in the hinterland. In the case of ARS, western sites such as Apamea, capi-tal of Syria Secunda, or Hama, comprise a relatively large morphological assemblage, while the diversity of ARS seems more restricted further east, in Resafa or Qusair al-Saile for instance.

Finally, from a wider perspective, the situation in Syria corresponds to the pattern observed by J. Hayes, who saw a split after A.D. 550 between the north, where PRS remained predominant, and the south, where LRD re-emerged and took most of the market (with some ARS).64

Local production in Late Antique Syria

As mentioned earlier, a synthetic review of local ceramic production in Syria remains difficult to present, given the lack of production sites, of publications and of fabric studies. In this paper, I will focus on three cat-egories: Brittle Ware (the Syrian cooking ware)―with a short digression on an imported, competing, Levantine cooking ware―and two other cat-egories that are lesser known: local imitations of fine wares and North Syrian Amphorae.

Brittle Ware

Brittle Ware does not correspond to what we would imagine to be the typical type of utilitarian artefact that was locally produced and distrib-uted. Since the 3rd c. onward and maybe earlier, Brittle Ware is very stan-dardised and distributed on a large scale. Furthermore, from the Roman to the Umayyad periods, Brittle Ware is the only cooking ware produced in ancient Syria.

63 In the survey areas around Lidar Hoyük in Turkey, only PRS is mentioned: Gerber (1996) 306. Similarly, in the Upper Khabur survey in Syria, only PRS was collected: Dorna-Metzger (2001) 15 and fig. 5.27.

64 Hayes (2001) 279. On the differences of fine ware distribution between north and south see also: Sodini and Villeneuve (1992) 205–207; Bes and Poblome (2008).

580 agnès vokaer

The shapes manufactured in Brittle Ware are indeed rather stan-dardised. They comprise cooking sets including a globular cooking pot, a hemispherical casserole and a jug that could also have been used as a water kettle. From the 3rd c. to the 10th c. A.D. the set slowly evolved, but was always composed of these three complementary vessel types (figs. 3–5). Early Islamic Brittle Ware is characterised by a break in the tradition, with new forms appearing, the most distinctive one being the neckless cooking pot (fig. 5: 3–4).65 This shape copies soft-stone cooking pots, a type of vessel well-known in the southern regions since the 3rd millennium, but that only made its first appearance in Syria during the Umayyad period.66

The workshops producing Brittle Ware have yet to be discovered. How-ever fabric identification, using petrographic and chemical analyses, led to the recognition of several production centres. The term ‘workshop’ should therefore be understood with its broadest meaning. Brittle Ware could have been produced, most likely, by several production units settled in one village, or in a small region. A first study on survey material from eastern Syria, published in 1995, identified two important workshops (Workshops 1 and 3) and three smaller regional or local ones that seemed neither to produce for long nor to be largely distributed.67 My own study of western Syrian sites distinguished two more workshops beside the two main ones previously identified: Workshops 4 and 6.68 By combining a typological study with the mapping of the fabric distribution through time and space, it was possible to determine the broad location of the production centres and the timeframe of their activity.69

Workshop 3, located in the Euphrates region, dates only to the Roman period, with its wares being mainly distributed along the Euphrates. Fabric analyses indicated that Workshop 3 represents the majority of the Brittle Ware in Zeugma, in Dibsi Faraj, in Qreiye/‘Ayyash and in Ain Sinu.70 It was also frequent among the Roman material collected on sur-

65 See also Orssaud and Sodini (2003) 492.66 On softstone vessels in Syria: Konrad (2001b) 166 and fig. 12.67 Bartl et al. (1995); Schneider et al. (2007).68 Vokaer (2007), (2009), (2010a), (2011). I will not mention in this article the smaller

workshops identified by Bartl et al. (1995). These are related to survey material; they are not well-defined chronologically and might only be regional.

69 For a detailed analysis of the provenance of the different Brittle Ware workshops: Vokaer (2010a).

70 Zeugma: Abadie-Reynal and Martz (2010) 840. Dibsi Faraj: Vokaer (2010a) 613–14 and 621. Qreiye/‘Ayyash: Gschwind and Hasan (2006) 329–31. Ain Sinu: Schneider et al. (2007) 717.


Fig. 3. Selection of Roman Brittle Ware (ca. 3rd c. A.D.). 1: Cooking Pot from Ain Sinu (from Oates (1959) pl. 58, 81); 2: Casserole from Dibsi Faraj (DF 4306. 2 271)

and 3: jug from Ain Sinu (from Oates (1959), pl. 58, 85). Scale ¼.

582 agnès vokaer

Fig. 4. Selection of Byzantine Brittle Ware from Apamea (ca. 6th c. A.D.). 1: cook-ing pot (AP. 73. III. 44. 18); 2: casserole (AP. 86. I. 3. 1167) and 3: jug (AP. 76. II. 6.

146). Scale ¼.


Fig. 5. Selection of Early Islamic Brittle Ware (ca. 7th–10th c. A.D.). 1: cooking pot from Apamea; 2: casserole from Dibsi Faraj (DF. 1113. 34 264), 3: holemouth cook-ing pot from Apamea (AP. 82. II. 1. 37) 4: holemouth cooking pot from Aleppo

(AL. 4074-1) and 5: jug from Apamea (AP. 76. II. 6. 146). Scale ¼.

584 agnès vokaer

veys in the Euphrates area and in north-eastern Syria (fig. 6).71 Production clearly suffered due to the damaging Sassanid incursions of the mid-3rd c. A.D., but it may have survived nevertheless. Indeed at Dibsi Faraj, some shapes believed to date to the 4th c. were still manufactured by Workshop 3.72 The date of the disappearance of Workshop 3 thus remains unclear given the lack of 4th c. archaeological sites published in the Euphrates region. Then, at the turn of the 5th and, certainly by the 6th c., Workshop 3 was replaced by Workshop 1.73 The latter became the main Brittle Ware supplier, and it was possibly located in the region between Aleppo and Antioch, using terra rossa, a specific type of iron-rich clay.74 Workshop 1 was already active from the Roman period, but became predominant in the Byzantine period, up to the 10th c. A.D. at least (figs. 7–8). It distrib-uted its products across inner Syria, with the exception of Apamea, which was supplied by a third workshop, Workshop 4 (figs. 6–8).

Workshop 4, which also used a local terra rossa (macroscopically quite similar to Workshop 1), was most probably situated in the environs of the city and was responsible for the supply of all the Brittle Ware to Apamea, from the Roman to the Mamluk period (14th c. A.D.). It also traded its products with the neighbouring region: with Andarin, Aleppo, Hadir and Dibsi Faraj, but was not as frequent as Workshop 1 products on those sites. The last production centre, Workshop 6, is Early Islamic. It may have appeared in the 6th c. but became more established in the market in the Umayyad period (figs. 7 and 8). The exact origin of the workshop still remains to be determined, but it also probably lies in north-western Syria.75

Finally, the combined study of shapes and fabrics and of their distri-bution provides us with information on the Brittle Ware market. First, all the workshops were producing the cooking set, which means they shared a common technological savoir-faire. Second, the Apamean work-shop (Workshop 4), besides this cooking set, produced other forms that have sometimes no parallels in Workshop 1.76 This could be explained by

71 Bartl et al. (1995); Vokaer (2010a) 621.72 A cooking pot with a carinated shoulder: Vokaer (2009) fig. 8.5a.73 This shift in the workshop supply was noted in Dibsi Faraj. On material studied form

a survey between Raqqa and Halabiyya: Vokaer (2007), (2010a) and (2010b); and Zeugma: Abadie-Reynal and Martz (2010) 840. Qreiye and Tall al-Rum: Gschwind and Hassan (2006) 329–31.

74 Vokaer (2010a) 611–13, 615–19.75 Vokaer (2010a) 615, 619.76 Vokaer (2009) fig. 8.6; Vokaer (2011).


Fig. 6. Distribution map of the Brittle Ware and of the different workshops during the Roman period.

the importance of Apamea, capital of the province, but also by the city’s proximity to the workshop. Indeed, concerning Workshops 1 and 4, the range of shapes decreases the further one moved eastwards, and the rep-ertoire becomes limited to the standard cooking set. Finally, most of the consumer sites (with the exception of Apamea) were supplied by several workshops. Consumers were thus buying similar vessels from different workshops, probably without being aware of it.

During the Roman and Byzantine periods, Brittle Ware was distributed eastwards as far as the limes, and also in small quantities into Persian ter-ritory (figs. 6 and 7).77 During the Abbasid period, Brittle Ware reached its largest scale of distribution: from Tarsus to almost the Persian Gulf (e.g. it has been found at Samarra, Tulul al-Uhaidir and Abu Sarifa), then

77 See, for instance, ‘Ana on the Euphrates which had Brittle Ware since the 3rd c. A.D., although it was located in Parthian and later Sassanid territory: Northedge et al. (1988).

586 agnès vokaer

Fig. 7. Distribution map of the Brittle Ware and of the different workshops during the Byzantine period.

under Abbasid control (fig. 8).78 Although we do not know how many centres of production were behind this distribution, on most of the sites the main forms comprising the cooking set are present. In the south, in the Hauran or in Damascus, one finds another cooking ware tradition that can be compared to those of northern Jordan and Galilee.79 There, cooking ware was also locally produced, for instance in Kefar Hananya, a village that specialised in cooking ware production and which was exten-sively studied by D. Adan-Bayewitz.80 Despite broad common morpho-logical features, Brittle Ware forms were not part of the repertoire of the different southern cooking ware traditions, especially during the Byzan-

78 Samarra: Northedge (1985) fig. 4. Tulul al-Uhaidir: Finster and Schmidt (1976) fig. 45. Abu Sarifa: Adams (1970) fig. 5.

79 See for instance the casserole and lid with a cut rim: Sodini and Villeneuve (1992) 204; Tréglia and Berthier (2010) 868 and fig. 6.24–34.

80 Adan-Bayewitz (1993).


Fig. 8. Distribution map of the Brittle Ware and of the different workshops during the Early Islamic period.

tine period. Conversely, the shapes produced in the south were slightly different from Brittle Ware.81 The distributional limit between the two ‘regions’ is unknown; it might be around Homs. Little is known concern-ing the Syrian coast; only the material from Ras Ibn Hani and Ras al-Bassit was published for the Byzantine period, and Brittle Ware seems absent on both sites.82 At Ras Ibn Hani, the cooking wares appear to be more like Beirut products or those from ‘Workshop X’ (see below).83 The results from the distribution study show that the Brittle Ware market was focused on the hinterland, and that the products travelled quite far downstream along the Euphrates.

81 For a short synthetic article on cooking ware traditions in the late antique Levant: Vokaer (2010b) 117–18. For the different pottery traditions in the north and south at the end of the Byzantine period and the Early Islamic period: Sodini and Villeneuve (1992).

82 Mills and Beaudry (2007) 746.83 Touma (1984).

588 agnès vokaer

Since the Hellenistic period, Beirut also had its local production of cook-ing ware manufactured in a clay similar to that of the Beirut amphora.84 In the course of the 5th c. local production was gradually replaced by an imported ware, the so-called ‘Workshop X’, which exported as far as Marseille.85 This ware shared common technological and morphologi-cal aspects with most of the Levantine cooking wares.86 Looking at the fabric, petrographically and chemically, Workshop X is nevertheless very characteristic.87 In Beirut it was present from the late 4th c., but became predominant after the A.D. 551 earthquake. P. Reynolds, taking into account typological data and the distribution of the ware, suggested that the workshop could lie at, or near, Tell Keisan.88 He also argues that the ware may have been exported further north from Akko and/or Caesarea. He associates those imports in Beirut with the high number of Robinson Agora M 334 (Pieri Late Roman Amphora 9) and with bag-shaped ampho-rae (LRA 5), both produced in the region of Akko.89 To explain this shift from local to imported supplies, P. Reynolds notes that, at the same time (post A.D. 551), the Beirut amphorae were produced in a new fabric (kao-linitic clay). He therefore sees the change in the amphorae production, and the disappearance of the local cooking ware, both as consequences of the earthquake.

Similarly, in the course of the 6th c. A.D., Workshop X’s imports pen-etrated Syria, but in smaller quantities and with a more reduced range of types in comparison to Beirut. Three shapes, primarily, are found in Syria, and also comprise a cooking set. The most common one is a jug with a three-holed strainer at the base of the neck, the two other forms being a cooking pot with a banded collar and a casserole with a cut or ‘sliced’ rim (fig. 9). These forms are present in: Ras Ibn Hani, Hama, Homs, Apamea, Andarin, Dibsi Faraj and Halabiyya.90 There are no quantified data about

84 Pellegrino (2007) 145–47; Reynolds and Waksman (2007). 85 This workshop is not be confused with M. Bonifay’s ‘atelier X’, which refers to north-

ern Tunisian ARS production (D2 potteries): see above. Levantine ‘workshop X’: Waksman et al. (2005); Reynolds and Waksman (2007) and Reynolds (forthcoming a and c). Mar-seille: C.A.T.H.M.A. (1991); Waksman et al. (2005) 311.

86 For the repertoire, see Reynolds and Waksman (2007) fig. 4.87 Waksman et al. (2005) 315–16; Schneider et al. (2007) 716.88 Waksman et al. (2005) 313; Reynolds and Waksman (2007) 61.89 Waksman et al. (2005) 314; Reynolds and Waksman (2007) 65. For the typological

development of ‘Agora M 334’ from the 3rd to 7th c.: Reynolds (2005), pls. 15–16 and Rey-nolds (2008) fig. 2.

90 Ras Ibn Hani: Touma (1984); Reynolds (2003) 542. Hama: Christensen and Johansen (1971) fig. 19.187 and personal observations in the National Museum in Copenhagen. Homs:


the frequency of Workshop X imports in Syria. From my personal observa-tions, Apamea seems to have a greater number and diversity of Workshop X products in comparison to the rest of Syria. Worth noting is that, at Apamea, one also finds the late 6th to 7th c. Beirut amphora (Type Pieri 2C or Reynolds 8.2), Pieri LRA 9, as well as the Akko bag-shaped amphora (Pieri 2A with a sandy fabric).91 Following P. Reynolds hypothesis, these amphorae could have taken the same coastal route as the Workshop X products, passing by Beirut.

Local Imitations of Imported Fine Wares

Copies of imported fine wares made in local Syrian fabrics are occasionally mentioned in publications. Some Brittle Ware imitations of PRS, LRD and ARS were published at Dehes.92 ARS imitations are mentioned at Antioch and among the material from the Lower-Khabur survey.93 I also recogn-ised some examples at Apamea, made in Brittle Ware and in a red-slipped calcareous clay. In Dehes and in Apamea, the Brittle Ware imitations are not frequent, but they consist of rather accurate copies of imported fine wares. In Apamea, one can find Brittle Ware copies of ARS Hayes 67 and of Hayes 91 (two forms that counted among the most frequent imported types during the 4th and 5th c. A.D.) and of a PRS Hayes form 10 (fig. 10). In Dehes, which mainly yielded later occupation levels, one finds imita-tions of PRS Hayes forms 3 and 10, of LRD forms 2 (?) and 9 and ARS forms 104/105.94 As for the rest of the Brittle Ware corpus in Dehes, the imitations were made by Workshop 1, while in Apamea they were manu-factured by Workshop 4.95 Once more, this shows that the two workshops followed common trends, here illustrated by the imitation of a popular table vessel. In Apamea, the second wave of imitations concerns the very last forms of ARS (forms 104C and 109) and LRD (form 9C), imported in Syria at a time when the Red Slip ware market dropped (fig. 10). These

Reynolds (forthcoming a and c). Apamea, Andarin and Dibsi Faraj: Vokaer (2007). Halabi-yya: Orssaud (1991) fig. 122.26–27.

91 Viviers and Vokaer (2009): Beirut amphora: pl. 8.8; Akko bag-shaped: pl. 10.3 and LRA 9: pl. 7.4.

92 Dehes: Orssaud and Sodini (2003) 500 and fig. 8.93 Antioch: Waagé (1948) ‘Imitation Late B’ 44–45 and pl. 8. 802u, 802x, 802z and 804u.

Lower-Khabur: two fragments imitating ARS 104 B, but without any clear fabric descrip-tion: Römer (1995) 354 and fig. 7, f–g.

94 Orssaud and Sodini (2003) 500 and fig. 8, types 10–12.95 Dehes: Orssaud and Sodini (2003) 491–92 and footnote 4. Apamea: personal

observations.

590 agnès vokaer

Fig. 9. Selection of forms from “Workshop X”. 1: Small cooking pot from Apamea (AP. 03. I. 142/ 144. 1), 2: cooking pot from Ibn Hani (from Touma (1984) fig. 28), 3 and 4 casseroles with a cut rim from Apamea (AP. 06. I. 31. 18 and AP. 07. V. 22. 5), 5: jug with a filter from Apamea (AP. 81. II. 1271) and 6: jug with a filter from

Tell Arqa (from Thalmann (1978) fig. 38, 7). Scale ¼.

were made in coarse, calcareous clay, rich in shells. The clay has a buff colour and is covered by a thick red slip. Plain wares (basins, jugs and lids) using the same clay were known in Apamea during the Umayyad period.96 It remains difficult to determine whether these imitations continued up to the time of the last RSW imports during the Umayyad period, and for how long.97

North Syrian Amphorae

A last category of material is the so-called ‘North Syrian Amphora’ (NSA).98 This type of vessel was first recognised in Qusair al-Saile and Resafa, where it was identified as a northern Syrian product.99 In the last decades,

96 Viviers and Vokaer (2009) 115–18 and pl. 8.10, pl. 9.5–6. This calcareous clay, rich in shells, differs from the usual calcareous clay in which the Roman and Byzantine common ware was made at Apamea. Its origin is unknown.

97 In Dehes, the fine ware imitations disappear in the 9th c. A.D. 98 Pieri (2005b). Also called ‘bemalte nordsyrische Amphore’: Konrad (1992) 334–35.99 Mackensen (1984) 50, pl. 28.1 and Konrad (2001a) 77–78, pls. 85–86; and for the

Umayyad types: Konrad (2001b) 164–65 and fig. 5.1–2.


Fig. 10. Imitations of fine wares from Apamea. 1: imitation of ARS 67 in Brittle Ware (AP. 81. II. 1. 940); 2: imitation of ARS 91 in Brittle Ware (AP. 04. IV. 174. 1); 3 and 4: imitations of ARS 104 C in calcareous, red-slipped ware (AP. 05. I. 31. 51 and AP. 04. IV. 194. 11); 5: imitation of ARS 103–105 in calcareous, red-slipped ware (AP. 04. IV. 194. 50/ 26) and 6: imitation of CRS 9C in calcareous, red-slipped ware

(AP. 03. I. 133. 6). Scale ¼.

592 agnès vokaer

examples have been published from the Limestone Massif (Dehes, Qal‘at Sem‘an and Serjila) and from Zeugma.100 More recently, D. Pieri divided the North Syrian Amphora into two types (NSA types 1 and 2). P. Reyn-olds offers a more complex typology in his forthcoming publication of the amphorae from Zeugma.101

Type 1 displays characteristic features that make it easy to recognise. It consists of a globular amphora with a rounded base. The shoulders are strongly carinated and bear painted decoration, either brown or red, comprising of lines and scrolls. The neck is cylindrical and the rim is often triangular or plain. The fabric is also quite characteristic and seems rather homogeneous on most of the sites. It has generally a buff or pinkish colour and contains various inclusions that are comparable to the Euphra-tes minerals. Therefore, this amphora is generally considered to have a Euphratean origin.102 C. Abadie-Reynal suggested that it was made in the chôra of Zeugma, based on the frequency of the ware and on a first set of chemical analyses.103 On this site, NSA 1 comprises the greater part of the corpus of the amphorae.

The chronology and the content are also a subject of debate. D. Pieri and P. Reynolds note that the amphora mainly occurs in 6th and 7th c. A.D. contexts.104 M. Konrad suggests that the production stretches between the 4th and the 8th c. A.D. A fragment of NSA 1 was indeed found at Qusair al-Saile in contexts dating to the foundation levels of the Kastell.105 C. Abadie-Reynal also considers that the amphora was produced from the 5th to at least the 8th c. A.D.106 She also notes that it is possible to determine an evolution in the typology and the decoration between the 5th and 6th/7th c.107 Regarding the content, the similarities between the decorated motifs of the NSA 1 and Palestinian wine bag-shaped amphorae (from Bei-

100 Limestone Massif: Sodini and Villeneuve (1992); Pieri (2005b). Dehes: Orssaud (1992) fig. B, 14. Zeugma: Abadie-Reynal (2004); Abadie-Reynal et al. (2007); Abadie-Reynal and Martz (2010); Reynolds (forthcoming b).

101 Reynolds (forthcoming b).102 Pieri (2005b) 583.103 Abadie-Reynal et al. (2007); Abadie-Reynal and Martz (2010) 841 (clay fabric 4).104 Pieri (2005b) 584; Reynolds (forthcoming b).105 Konrad (2001a) 77, fig. 85.12; Konrad (2001b) 164–65.106 Abadie-Reynal et al. (2007) 189; Abadie-Reynal and Martz (2010) 841.107 The shoulder is not carinated on the earlier examples; the neck diameter and the

general format tend to grow with time. The earlier examples are painted on the rim, while the later ones have an undecorated rim but more elaborated painted motifs: Abadie- Reynal et al. (2007) 189–90; Abadie-Reynal and Martz (2010) 841.


san, for instance) would, according to D. Pieri, point towards wine as the main content.108 But oil was also previously suggested.109

Its distribution on the Euphrates garrison sites could be a further argu-ment for wine as the main content, and also for the fact that NSA was somehow associated with the annona militaris.110 NSA 1 is indeed exten-sively distributed along the Euphrates: at Zeugma, Harabebezikan, Tell al-Sweyhat, Dibsi Faraj, Tall al-Rum and Halabiyya.111 It was also frequently found on numerous sites surveyed in south-eastern Anatolia (Birecik and Carchemish dams, Kurban Höyük areas) and in north-eastern Syria (for instance, in the Balikh area and along the Khabur).112 Finally, NSA 1 is also distributed in the Limestone Massif in Dehes, in the steppic area at Anda-rin, and at Resafa or Qusair al-Saile (distribution map: fig. 11).113 It has, so far, not been found on the coast. NSA 1 shows a distribution oriented towards the hinterland that matches that of the Brittle Ware during the Byzantine period.114 On all these sites, the amphora is associated with a conical lid, generally made in calcareous or Euphrates clay.

The second type, classified by D. Pieri as the North Syrian Amphora type 2 is characterised by less carinated shoulders and by a ring foot.115 The rim has various shapes: thick and plain, elongated or triangular. It is manu-factured in calcareous clay, which does not have the various Euphrates minerals in it (no mica for instance), and which is generally described as north Syrian clay.116 This second type of amphora is also associated with

108 Pieri (2005b) 584.109 Konrad (2001b) 164–65 considers it an oil amphora. Abadie-Reynal et al. (2007) 189

previously mentioned that it could have been used as water jar, but contra Abadie-Reynal and Martz (2010).

110 Pieri (2005b) 584–85 and 587; Reynolds (2010a) n.272, (forthcoming b); Vokaer (2011).

111 Zeugma: Abadie-Reynal et al. (2007); Abadie-Reynal and Martz (2010); Kenrick (2009); Reynolds (forthcoming b). Harabebezikan: Alp (2009). Tell al-Sweyhat: Holland (2006) fig. 244.6–8. Dibsi Faraj: Harper (1980) fig. E, 69–71. Halabiyya: Orssaud (1991) 267 and fig. 123.35. Tell al-Rum: Gschwind and Hasan (2006) 339, fig. 8.73–82 and fig. 9.

112 South-eastern Anatolia: Algaze et al. (1994) 21, fig. 31.A, E; Wilkinson (1990) 241, fig. B. 15, B. 19 and B. 25. Tell Sheikh Hassan: Holland (2006). Balikh Survey: Bartl (1996) 334 and fig. 2.2–6. Upper Khabur: Lyonnet (2001) 26–27 and fig. 5.

113 Dehes: Bavant and Orssaud (2001) fig. 5.25. Homs: Reynolds (forthcoming a and c). Andarin: Mundell Mango (2002) 314 and fig. 19.6; Knötzele (2003) 99, fig. 8.2. Resafa: Mack-ensen (1984) 50, 85–86 and pl. 28.1; Konrad (1992) 334–35 and figs. 10–11. Qusair al-Saile: Konrad (2001a) 77–78, pls. 86–87.

114 Vokaer (2009) 134–35 and fig. 8.10. After fabric analysis, the NSA present in Apamea belongs to the type 2 rather than type 1, as was illustrated in Vokaer (2009) fig. 8.10.

115 Pieri (2005b) 585.116 Pieri (2005b) 585; Viviers and Vokaer (2007) 153 and Reynolds (forthcoming a and b).

594 agnès vokaer

a conical lid, made in calcareous clay. In Apamea, it is mainly this (rarely painted) second type that occurs. There, the amphora could be local, since the fabric is extremely similar to the rest of the calcareous common ware.117 In Qal‘at Sem‘an, the calcareous clay of the NSA 2 differs slightly, microscopically, from that from Apamea.118 In Zeugma, an amphora with a ring-base and a plain rim, concave at the top, is also present. C. Abadie-Reynal classifies it as NSA type 2, but mentions that the vessel was made in Euphrates clay (Zeugma fabric 4) and, from the 6th c. onwards, in a more calcareous clay.119 Chemical analyses indicate that this calcareous clay is different from that of northern Syria, and not very distinct in com-position from the Euphrates clay fabric 4.120 It thus represents another workshop in addition to the northern Syrian ones.

In summary, if NSA 1 seems to be relatively homogeneous in terms of form and fabric, the typology of the NSA 2 remains to be better charac-terised. As noted by D. Pieri, more than one workshop produced NSA 2.121 As far as Apamea is concerned, some of the vessels, especially in the Umayyad period, are so large that they were probably used as storage jars rather than for transport. It is important to remember that the Limestone Massif was a great wine producer and had no local pottery production.

Summary

Besides the locally produced and distributed (primarily calcareous) plain wares (such as the jugs, basins or storage vessels) of which we know little, Syria had two important regional productions: Brittle Ware and North Syrian Amphorae (types 1 and 2). The first represented the main cooking ware used in ancient Syria (with the exception of the coast), NSA 1 was a container mainly distributed along the Euphrates and the limes, while NSA 2 seemed to be largely present in north-western Syria.

117 Viviers and Vokaer (2007) 152–53 and pl. 12. 8–9.118 Personal observations. I am most grateful to J.-L. Biscop, director of the Syro-French

excavation at Qal‘at Sem‘an and to D. Pieri and N. Haidar-Vela, in charge of the pot-tery study, for allowing me to work on the fabric and production of several categories of pottery.

119 Abadie-Reynal and Martz (2010) 841 and figs. 4–5 (fabric 5). 120 Fabric 5 at Zeugma could be made of calcareous clay, originating from the Euphra-

tes valley, like Fabric 4, the clay of the NSA type 1 in Zeugma. 121 Pieri (2005b) 585.


Fig. 11. Map of NSA 1 distribution in Syria.

Brittle Ware, produced in several regions, can be considered a major, regionally traded local product. Despite not having any connection with the sea (and therefore the rest of the Mediterranean basin), Brittle Ware was distributed wider than any other cooking ware in the Levant, with the exception of Workshop X. Furthermore, Brittle Ware was the cooking ware par excellence of inner Syria, enjoying a virtual monopoly, and being produced by a few centres, that were active from the 1st to the 10th c. A.D., and in the same limited range of shapes (the cooking set and the imita-tions of fine wares for Workshops 1 and 4). When the major Workshop 3, located along the Euphrates, declined, most probably weakened by the mid-3rd c. Sassanid attacks, Workshop 1, situated in north-western Syria (Antioch region?) and already active in the Roman period, took over the market and flooded the whole of inner Syria with its products. Another workshop (Workshop 4), located in the environs of Apamea, also com-peted with Workshop 1. Interestingly, both workshops were located in the same region, produced the same shapes, but had different patterns of

596 agnès vokaer

distribution: one focusing on a large city, the other supplying the rest of northern Syria.

One of the possible explanations for the wide and successful distri-bution of Workshop 1 rests on the existence of economic networks and secure trade routes, associated with the presence of the military garrisons on the limes. Once it reached the Euphrates, Brittle Ware could then be distributed large distances with reduced costs. This did not, however, prevent a wide distribution of Brittle Ware within areas only reachable by road transport: Limestone Massif, Andarin, Resafa, etc. The success of Workshop 4 could lie in the importance of Apamea itself, but was also due to its advantageous geographical situation, since Apamea is located in a terra rossa environment, the main raw material used for Brittle Ware.

The success of Brittle Ware did not prevent a small percentage of imported cooking wares to penetrate Syria, as illustrated by the so-called Levantine ‘Workshop X’. In the absence of quantitative studies, it is not possible to evaluate the importance of this import in Syria, but it seems relatively weak. The ware could be slightly more frequent in Apamea (and with a larger diversity of shapes), which, as a provincial capital, could have had stronger connections with maritime and southern markets, as the preliminary study of the amphorae also seems to indicate.

The North Syrian Amphora is also a typical Syrian vessel during the 5th to 7th c., distributed along the Euphrates and in northern Syria. As for Brittle Ware, it seems so far to be absent from the coast and from the south (Provincia Arabia). It is notably absent in Beirut and Phoenicia in general.122 Two main types have been identified: NSA types 1 and 2. NSA 1 represents a homogeneous category while NSA 2, as D. Pieri already noticed, needs to be further characterised and subdivided into more types or sub-types, as it was probably produced by several workshops.123 NSA 1 originated from the Euphrates region, and was most likely designed as a wine container, associated with the fertile agricultural land of the chôra of Zeugma. Its distribution along the garrison sites of the Euphrates seems to indicate that it was part of the annona system.

Though most local Syrian pottery did not seem to circulate outside of Syria―with the exception of the mortaria of Ras al- Basit, this pro-duction site being notably located on the coast―imports nevertheless

122 Reynolds (2010a) n.272.123 Pieri (2005b) 586.


reached inner Syria, and in some cases in large quantities. For its table wares Syria relied entirely on imports between the 3rd to the 7th c. These first comprised of African Red Slip ware but then, from the late 5th c. onwards, Phocaean Red Slip ware, which took over the market. The pre-liminary distribution study undertaken here confirms the predominance in the 5th to 7th c. of Phocaean Red Slip over Late Roman D, in marked contrast to the dominant LRD supply on the coast (Beirut, Ras Ibn Hani) and in the southern Levant. ARS and LRD were nevertheless present in Syria until the end of their production. LRD was never greatly distributed in inner Syria, and is mainly represented by two shapes (Forms 2 and 9). ARS is more frequent and is characterised by a more diverse morphologi-cal repertoire. On a larger scale, the ARS shapes found in Syria and the workshops exporting them follow a similar pattern to that in the rest of the eastern Mediterranean.

The most common shapes to be imported first come from central Tuni-sian workshops (fabric C) then, from the mid 4th c. onwards, from the northern Tunisia workshops D1/El-Mahrine and D2/Oudhna. Finally, the latest imports originated from the D1 workshops and D2/Atelier X. ARS is of course present on western Syrian sites, such as Antioch, Apamea and Hama, but is also found inland, and eastwards as far as the Khabur. It is worth noting that, although the market from Antioch benefited from a wider range of forms, even there the most frequent forms were those which were distributed everywhere in Syria, up to the Euphrates (and equally for PRS and LRD). Questions remain, nevertheless, regarding the significance of the presence of only a few fragments of ARS (as in eastern Syria). Without more publications, more quantified data and contempo-raneous, good, stratigraphic information, it remains difficult to interpret the scattered distribution of ARS in central and north-eastern Syria in eco-nomic terms.

Although they never came to compete with the imported fine wares, it also worth noting the existence of local fine ware imitations, which cur-rently seem restricted to Apamea, Antioch, Dehes and a few examples in the Khabur. These imitations were produced under two different circum-stances: first, in order to imitate a very successful product e.g. ARS form 67 or PRS form 3, respectively at a ‘boom’ period for both productions; and second, they imitate the very late Red Slip forms (ARS 104 and 109, and even LRD 9C), at a time when their market is dropping. These local imitations stem from two Brittle Ware workshops: Workshop 1 in Dehes and Workshop 4 in Apamea and, for the later imitations, from a workshop

598 agnès vokaer

presumably located around Apamea. But, the fact that some imitations of ARS 104 were also found in the Khabur, could indicate that the phe-nomenon was more widespread than previously thought, it being simply under-represented in the publications.

Conclusion

In conclusion, this article has addressed a few vessel categories: imported fine wares, imported Levantine cooking wares, Syrian cooking ware (Brit-tle Ware) and North Syrian Amphorae. Although a complete picture is still lacking, especially concerning the amphorae, this research still high-lights some notable aspects of regional and interregional trade in Syria. First, as far as fine wares are concerned, the situation in Syria corresponds with general distribution and chronological patterns observed in the late antique eastern Mediterranean, and confirms the split between the north-ern and southern Levant. Although we still need data for the coastal sites, this paper also reveals a clear difference in the distribution of fine wares, cooking wares and amphorae between the coastal areas and sites inland. Not only did the coast seem to be supplied with a wider choice of prod-ucts distributed by sea, and which did not reach inner Syria (except for Antioch and to a certain extent Apamea), but the vessels produced inland, such as Brittle Ware or the NSA, were not supplied to coastal sites.

Furthermore, in terms of distribution, differences can also be noticed within inner Syria. Although the costs of land transport apparently did not prevent products from travelling long distances, some imported wares seem to be more frequently distributed in western rather than eastern Syria, for example LRD, and probably some types of amphorae, such as those from Palestine. In the case of the distribution of Brittle Ware, it was also observed that the range of shapes appears to decrease when one moves eastwards. Nevertheless, the main Brittle Ware cooking pot was distributed throughout the whole province, as also were the most fre-quent shapes of PRS, ARS and LRD.

Finally, much research remains to be done on amphorae and on com-mon wares, which are key to our understanding of regional trade net-works. For the latter, one should again stress the importance of fabric studies, since, as demonstrated by Brittle Ware, similar shapes can be pro-duced by different regional workshops.


Acknowledgments

I would like to warmly thank the excavators for giving me access to their material: J. C. Balty and D. Viviers at Apamea; J.-L. Biscop, D. Pieri and N. Haidar Vela at Qal‘at Sem‘an; M. Mundell Mango at Andarin; R. Harper at Dibsi Faraj; K. Kohlmeyer at Aleppo; as well as the Direction Générale des Antiquités et des Musées de Syrie. I am also grateful to B. Bundgaard Rasmussen and to J. Lund from the National Museum of Denmark for allowing me to examine the ARS from Hama, and to S. Simon for proof-reading this paper. Finally, many thanks go to P. Reynolds for his advice, as well as for copies of his papers in press, and for his proofreading of the final draft of this text.

Bibliography

Abadie-Reynal C. (2005) “Les sigillées africaines à Zeugma”, in Mélanges Jean-Pierre Sodini (Travaux et Mémoires 15) (Paris 2005) 523–46.

—— (2004) “Les amphores méditerranéennes d’importation trouvées à Zeugma: présenta-tion préliminaire”, in Transport Amphorae and Trade in the Eastern Mediterranean. Acts of the International Colloquium at the Danish Institute at Athens, September 26–29, 2002, edd. J. Eiring and J. Lund (Monographs of the Danish Institute at Athens 5) (Athens 2004) 15–21.

—— (1989) “Céramique et commerce dans le bassin égéen du IVe au VIIe siècle”, in Hom-mes et richesses dans l’empire byzantin, vol. 1: IVe–VIIe siècle, edd. J. Lefort and C. Mor-risson (Paris 1989) 143–62.

Abadie-Reynal C. and Martz A.-S. (2010) “La céramique commune de Zeugma et les problèmes de provenance (Ve–VIIe s.)”, in LRCW3. Late Roman Coarse Wares, Cooking Wares and Amphorae in the Mediterranean. Archaeology and Archaeometry. Compari-son between Western and Eastern Mediterranean, vol. 2, edd. S. Menchelli, S. Santoro, M. Pasquinucci and G. Guiducci (BAR-IS 2185) (Oxford 2010) 839–45.

Abadie-Reynal C., Martz A.-S. and Cador A. (2007) “Late Roman and Byzantine pottery in Zeugma: groups of the beginning of the 5th century”, in Çanak. Late Antique and Medieval Pottery and Tiles in Mediterranean Archaeological Contexts, edd. B. Böhlendorf-Arslan, A. Osman Uysal and J. Witte-Orr (Byzas 7) (Istanbul 2007) 181–94.

Adams R. McC. (1970) “Tell Abu Sarifa. A Sassanian-Islamic ceramic sequence from south central Iraq”, Ars Orientalis 8 (1970) 87–119.

Adan-Bayewitz D. (1993) Common Pottery in Galilee. A Study of Local Trade (Jerusalem 1993).

Algaze G., Breuninger R. and Knudstat J. (1994) “The Tigris-Euphrates archaeological reconnaissance project: final report on the Birecik and Carcemish Dam survey areas”, Anatolica 20 (1994) 1–96.

Alp Ö. (2009) “A group of Late Roman pottery from Harabebezikan Mound in Upper Euphrates (Turkey)”, in Anadolu University Journal of Social Sciences 9.1 (2009) 201–16.

Armstrong P. (2009) “Trade in the east Mediterranean in the 8th century”, in Byzantine Trade, 4th-12th centuries. The Archaeology of Local, Regional and International Exchange. Papers of the 38th Annual Spring Symposium of Byzantine Studies, ed. M. Mundell Mango

600 agnès vokaer

(Publications of the Society for the Promotion of Byzantine Studies 14) (Farnham 2009) 157–78.

Barret M., Courtois L., Orssaud D. and Villeneuve F. (1986) “Le matériau céramique”, in Hauran I. Recherches archéologiques sur la Syrie du sud à l’époque hellénistique et romaine, vol. 2, ed. J.-M. Dentzer (Paris 1986) 223–31.

Bartl K. (1996) “Balikh Valley survey. Settlements of the Late Roman/Early Byzantine and Islamic period” in Continuity and Change in Northern Mesopotamia from the Hellenistic to the Early Islamic Period, edd. K. Bartl and S. Hauser (Berliner Beiträge zum Vorderen Orient 17) (Berlin 1996) 333–48.

Bartl K., Schneider G. and Böhme S. (1995) “Notes on ‘Brittle Wares’ in north-eastern Syria”, Levant 25 (1995) 165–77.

Bavant B. and Orssaud D. (2001) “Stratigraphie et typologie. Problèmes posés par l’utilisation de la céramique comme critère de datation: l’exemple de la fouille de Déhès”, in La céramique byzantine et proto-islamique en Syrie-Jordanie (IVe–VIIIe siècles ap. J.-C.). Actes du colloque tenu à Amman les 3, 4 et 5 décembre 1994, edd. E. Villeneuve and P. Watson (Bibliothèque archéologique et historique 159) (Beirut 2001) 33–48.

Bes P. and Poblome J. (2008) “(Not) see the wood for the trees? 19700+ sherds of sigil-lata and what we can do with them . . .” in Rei Cretariae Romanane Fautorum 40 (2008) 505–14.

Bonifay M. (2005) “Observations sur la diffusion des céramiques africaines en Méditer-ranée orientale durant l’antiquité tardive”, in Mélanges Jean-Pierre Sodini (Travaux et Mémoires 15) (Paris 2005) 565–81.

—— (2004) Études sur la céramique romaine tardive d’Afrique (BAR-IS 1301) (Oxford 2004).

C.A.T.H.M.A. (1991) “Importations de céramiques communes méditerranéennes dans le midi de la Gaule (Ve–VIIe s.)”, in A cerâmica medieval no mediterrâneo occidental (Campo arqueológico de Mértola) (Lisbon 1991) 27–47.

Christensen A. and Johansen C. (1971) Hama. Fouilles et recherches de la Fondation Carl-sberg. 1931–1938. III, 2. Les poteries hellénistiques et les terres sigillées orientales (Copen-hagen 1971).

Cox D. H. (1949) The Excavation at Dura- Europos, Final Report IV, part I, fasc. 2: The Greek and Roman Pottery (New Haven, Connecticut 1949).

Daszkiewicz M., Krogulska M. and Bobryk E. (2000) “Composition and technology of Roman Brittle Ware pottery from a kiln site in Palmyra (Syria)”, Rei Cretariae Romanae Fautorum 36 (2000) 41–59.

Demesticha S. (2003) “Amphora production on Cyprus during the Late Roman period”, in De Rome à Byzance; de Fostat à Cordoue: évolution des faciès céramiques en Méditerranée (Ve–IXe siècles). VIIe Congrès international sur la céramique Médiévale en Méditerranée (Thessaloniki, 11–16 octobre 1999), ed. C. Bakirtzis (Athens 2003) 469–76.

Demesticha S. and Michaelides D. (2001) “The excavations of a Late Roman 1 amphora kiln in Paphos”, in La céramique byzantine et proto-islamique en Syrie-Jordanie (IVe–VIIIe siècles ap. J.-C.). Actes du colloque tenu à Amman les 3, 4 et 5 décembre 1994, edd. E. Villeneuve and P. Watson (Bibliothèque archéologique et historique 159) (Beirut 2001) 289–96.

Dorna-Metzger F. (2001) “Céramique byzantino-sassanide de Nisibe: étude préminaire”, in La céramique byzantine et proto-islamique en Syrie-Jordanie (IVe–VIIIe siècles ap. J.-C.). Actes du colloque tenu à Amman les 3, 4 et 5 décembre 1994, edd. E. Villeneuve and P. Watson (Bibliothèque archéologique et historique 159) (Beirut 2001) 13–23.

Dyson S. (1968) The Excavations at Dura-Europos, Final Report IV, Pt. I, Fasc. 3. The Com-monware Pottery. The Brittle Ware (New Haven, Connecticut 1968).

Empereur J.-Y. and Picon M. (1989) “Les régions de production d’amphores impériales en Méditerranée orientale” in Amphores romaines et histoire économique: dix ans de recher-che. (CEFR 114) (Rome 1989) 223–48.


Finster B. and Schmidt J. (1976) “Sasanidische und frühislamische Ruinen im Iraq”, BaM 8 (1976) 1–169.

Gawlikowski M. (1986) “Bijan in the Euphrates”, Sumer 42 (1986) 15–26.Gerber C. (1996) “Die Umgebung des Lidar Höyük von hellenistischer bis frühislamischer

Zeit. Interpretation der Ergebnisse einer Geländebegehung”, in Continuity and Change in Northern Mesopotamia from the Hellenistic to the Early Islamic Period, edd. K. Bartl and S. Hauser (Berlin 1996) 303–32.

Gschwind M. (2006) “Roman pottery from Zeugma: continuity, change and the central Euphrates perspective”, in International Symposium on Zeugma: From Past to Future, ed. R. Ergeç (Gaziantep 2006) 55–69.

Gschwind M. and Hasan H. (2006) “Die spätrömisch-frühislamische Zivilsiedlung Tall ar-Rum und die spätantike Besiedlung des Euphrattales zwischen Zenobia und Circesium”, DM 15 (2006) 321–82 and pls. 58–67.

Harper R. (1980) “Athis- Neocaesareia- Qasrin- Dibsi Faraj”, in Le Moyen-Euphrate. Zone de contacts et d’échanges. Actes du colloque de Strasbourg 10–12 mars 1977, ed. J.-C. Mar-gueron (Leiden 1980) 327–48.

Hayes J. W. (2001) “Late Roman fine wares and their successors: a mediterranean Byzantine perspective (with reference to the Syro-Jordanian situation)”, in La céramique byzan-tine et proto-islamique en Syrie-Jordanie (IVe–VIIIe siècles ap. J.-C.). Actes du colloque tenu à Amman les 3, 4 et 5 décembre 1994, edd. E. Villeneuve and P. Watson (Bibliothèque archéologique et historique 159) (Beirut 2001) 275–82.

—— (1980) Supplement to Late Roman Pottery (London 1980). —— (1972) Late Roman Pottery (London 1972).—— (1967) “North Syrian mortaria”, Hesperia 36.4 (1967) 337–47.Holland T. (2006) Archaeology of the Bronze Age, Hellenistic and Roman Remains at an

Ancient Town on the Euphrates River (Oriental Institute Publications 125) (Chicago 2006).

Invernizzi A. (1986) “Researches in Kifrin—Al Qadissiya dam project”, Sumer 42 (1986) 22–26.

Kantor H. (1957) “The pottery”, in Soundings at Tell Fakhariyah, edd. C. McEwan et al. (The University of Chicago Oriental Institute Publications 79) (Chicago 1957) 21–41.

Kenrick P. (2009) “On the silk route: imported and regional pottery at Zeugma”, in Byzantine Trade, 4th–12th centuries. The Archaeology of Local, Regional and Interna-tional Exchange. Papers of the 38th annual Spring Symposium of Byzantine Studies, ed. M. Mundell Mango (Publications of the Society for the Promotion of Byzantine Studies 14) (Oxford 2009) 263–72.

—— (1981) “Fine wares of the Hellenistic and Roman periods”, in The River Qoueiq, North-ern Syria and its Catchment. Studies Arising from the Tell Rifa’at Survey 1977–7, ed. J. Mat-thers (BAR-IS 98) (Oxford 1981) 459–71.

Knötzele P. (2006) “Resafa. Die Gefässkeramik der Stadtgrabung 1997–1999”, in Studien zur spätantiken und islamischen Keramik: Hirbat al-Minya- Baalbek- Resafa, edd. F. Bloch, V. Daiber and P. Knötzele (Orient-Archäologie18) (2006) 167–208, pls. 1–60.

—— (2003) “Die Kleinfunde aus Androna/ al Andarin- ein Vorbericht über die Jahre 1997 bis 2001”, in “Androna / al Andarin. Vorbericht über die Grabungskampagnen in den Jahren 1997–2001 (J. Strube)”, AA (2003) 95–111.

Konrad M. (2001a) Der spätrömische Limes in Syrien. Archäologische Untersuchungen an den Grenzkastellen von Sura, Tetrapyrgium, Cholle und in Resafa (Deutsches Archäolo-gisches Institut: Resafa 5) (Mainz 2001).

—— (2001b) “Umayyad pottery from Tetrapyrgium (Qseir es-Seileh), north Syria”, in La céramique byzantine et proto-islamique en Syrie-Jordanie (IVe–VIIIe siècles ap. J.-C.). Actes du colloque tenu à Amman les 3, 4 et 5 décembre 1994, edd. E. Villeneuve and P. Watson (Bibliothèque archéologique et historique 159) (Beirut 2001) 163–92.

—— (1992) “Flavische und spätantike Bebauung unter der Basilika B von Resafa-Sergiu-polis”, DM 6 (1992) 313–402.

602 agnès vokaer

Krogulska M. (1996) “Palmyrenian pottery of the second century A.D.”, Les Annales Archéologiques Arabes Syriennes 42 (1996) 340–53.

—— (1985) “A ceramic workshop in the western quarter of Palmyra”, Studia Palmyrenskie 8 (1985) 43–68.

Lund J. (1995) “A fresh look at the Roman and Late Roman fine wares from the Danish excavations at Hama, Syria”, in Hellenistic and Roman Pottery in the Eastern Mediter-ranean. Advances in Scientific Studies: Acts of the II Nieborów Pottery Workshop, edd. H. Meyza and J. Mlynarczyk (Warsaw 1995) 134–61.

Lyonnet B. (2001) “Prospection archéologique du Haut-Khabour (Syrie du nord-est). Pro-blématique, méthodologie et application à la période byzantine-sassanide”, in La céra-mique byzantine et proto-islamique en Syrie-Jordanie (IVe–VIIIe siècles ap. J.-C.). Actes du colloque tenu à Amman les 3, 4 et 5 décembre 1994, edd. E. Villeneuve and P. Watson (Bibliothèque archéologique et historique 159) (Beirut 2001) 23–32.

Mackensen M. (1998) “Centres of African Red Slip ware production in Tunisia from the late 5th to the 7th century”, in Ceramica in Italia: VI–VII secolo. Atti del Convegno in onore di John W. Hayes, Roma, 11–13 maggio 1995 (Florence) 23–39.

—— (1993) Die spätantiken sigillata- und Lampentöpfereien von el Mahrine (Nordtunesien): Studien zur nordafrikanischen Feinkeramik des 4. bis 7. Jahrhunderts (Münchner Beiträge zur Vor- und Frühgeschichte 50) (Munich 1993).

—— (1984) Resafa I. Eine befestigte spätantike Anlage vor den Stadtmauern von Resafa. Ausgrabungen und spätantike Kleinfunde eines Surveys im Unland von Resafa-Sergiupolis (Mainz 1984).

Mackensen M. and Schneider G. (2006) “Production centres of African Red Slip ware (2nd-3rd c.) in northern and central Tunisia: archaeological provenance and reference groups based on chemical analysis”, JRA 19 (2006) 163–90.

—— (2002) “Production centres of African Red Slip ware (3rd–7th c.) in northern and central Tunisia: archaeological provenance and reference groups based on chemical analysis”, JRA 15 (2002) 121–58.

Majcherek G. and Taha A. (1993) “A selection of Roman and Byzantine pottery from Umm el Tlel”, Cahiers de l’Euphrate 7 (1993) 107–17.

Mango M. M. (2002), “Excavations and survey at Androna, Syria: the Oxford team 1999”, DOP 56 (2002) 307–15.

Martz A.-S. (2007) “Les vases à cuire de Zeugma du IIIe au VIIe siècle”, in LRCW2. Late Roman Coarse Wares, Cooking Wares and Amphorae in the Mediterranean. Archaeology and Archaeometry, vol. 2, edd. M. Bonifay and J.-C. Tréglia (BAR-IS 1662) (Oxford 2007) 739–44.

Mills P. J. E. and Beaudry N. (2010) “Pottery from Late Roman Ras el-Bassit, Syria”, in LRCW3. Late Roman Coarse Wares, Cooking Wares and Amphorae in the Mediterranean. Archaeology and Archaeometry. Comparison between Western and Eastern Mediterra-nean, vol. 2, edd. S. Menchelli, S. Santoro, M. Pasquinucci and G. Guiducci (BAR-IS 2185) (Oxford 2010) 857–66.

—— (2007) “The ceramic coarse wares from the basilica excavations at Ras el-Bassit, Syria: a preliminary assessment”, in LRCW2. Late Roman Coarse Wares, Cooking Wares and Amphorae in the Mediterranean. Archaeology and Archaeometry, vol. 2, edd. M. Bonifay and J.-C. Tréglia (BAR-IS 1662) (Oxford 2007) 745–54.

Mills P. J. E. and Reynolds P. (2011) “Functional and supply trends in the Late Roman coarseware of Ras al-Bassit, Syria”, a paper presented at the 4th Conference on Late Roman Coarse Wares, Cooking Wares and Amphorae in the Mediterranean. Archaeology and Archaeometry. A Market without Frontiers, Thessaloniki, 7–10 April 2011.

Northedge A. (1985) “Planning Samarra: a report for 1983–4”, Iraq 47 (1985) 109–28.Northedge A., Bamber A. and Roaf M. (1988) Excavations at ‘Ana. Qal‘a Island (Iraq Archae-

ological Reports 1) (Warminster 1988).Oates D. and Oates J. (1959) “Ain Sinu : a Roman frontier post in northern Iraq”, Iraq 21

(1959) 207–36.


Orssaud D. (1992) “Le passage de la céramique byzantine à la céramique islamique”, in La Syrie de Byzance à l’Islam: VIIe–VIIIe siècles. Actes du colloque international Lyon- Maison de l’orient Méditerranéen, Paris- Institut du Monde Arabe, edd. P. Canivet and J.-P. Rey-Coquais (Damascus 1992) 219–28.

—— (1991) “La céramique”, in Halabiyya-Zenobia, place forte du limes oriental et la Haute-Mésopotamie au VIe siècle, vol. 2, ed. J. Lauffray (Paris 1991) 260–75.

—— (1986) “La céramique du sondage D”, in Hauran I. Recherches archéologiques sur la Syrie du sud à l’époque hellénistique et romaine, vol. 2, ed. J.-M. Dentzer (Paris 1986) 235–48.

—— (1980) “La céramique”, in “Déhès (Syrie du nord). Campagnes I–III (1976–1978): recherches sur l’habitat rural (J-P. Sodini et al)”, Syria 57 (1980) 234–64.

Orssaud D. and Sodini J.-P. (2003) “Le ‘Brittle Ware’ dans le Massif Calcaire (Syrie du nord)”, in De Rome à Byzance ; de Fostat à Cordoue : évolution des faciès céramiques en Méditer-ranée (Ve–IXe siècles). Actes du VIIe congrès international sur la céramique médiévale en Méditerranée (Thessalonique, 11–16 octobre 1999), ed. C. Bakirtzis (Athens 2003) 491–504.

Pellegrino E. (2007) “Les céramiques communes de Beyrouth au début de l’époque romaine”, Syria 84 (2007) 143–68.

Pieri D. (2007) “Béryte dans le grand commerce méditerranéen. Production et importation d’amphores dans le Levant protobyzantin (Ve–VIIe s. ap. J.-C.)”, in Productions et échan-ges dans la Syrie grecque et romaine (Actes du colloque de Tours, juin 2003), ed. M. Sartre (Topoi supplément 8) (Paris 2007) 297–327.

—— (2005a) Le commerce du vin oriental: à l’époque byzantine (Ve–VIIe siècles). Le témoi-gnage des amphores en Gaule (Bibliothèque Archéologique et Historique 174) (Beirut 2005).

—— (2005b) “Nouvelles productions d’amphores de Syrie du nord aux époques protoby-zantine et omeyyade”, in Mélanges Jean-Pierre Sodini (Travaux et Mémoires 15) (Paris 2005) 583–96.

Poblome J. and Firat N. (2011) “Late Roman D. A matter of open(ing) or closed horizons?”, in LRFW1. Late Roman Fine Wares. Solving Problems of Typology and Chronology. A Review of the Evidence, Debate and New contexts, edd. M. Angel Cau, P. Reynolds and M. Bonifay (Roman and Late Antique Mediterranean Pottery 1) (Oxford 2011) 49–56.

Reynolds P. (2010a) Hispania and the Roman Mediterranean, AD 100–700: Ceramics and Trade (London 2010).

—— (2010b) “Trade networks of the East, 3rd to 7th centuries: the view from Beirut (Leba-non) and Butrint (Albania) (fine wares, amphorae and kitchen wares)”, in LRCW 3: Late Roman Coarse Wares, Cooking Wares and Amphorae in the Mediterranean; Archaeology and Archaeometry: Comparison between Western and Eastern Mediterranean, vol. 1, edd. S. Menchelli, S. Santoro, M. Pasquinucci and G. Guiducci (BAR-IS 2185) (Oxford 2010) 89–114.

—— (2005) “Levantine amphorae from Cilicia to Gaza: a typology and analysis of regional productions trends from the 1st to the 7th centuries”, in LRCW 1. Late Roman Coarse Wares, Cooking Wares and Amphorae in the Mediterranean: Archaeology and Archaeom-etry, edd. J. Gurt i Esparraguera, M. Buxeda i Garrigós and M. A. Cau Ontiveros (BAR-IS 1340) (Oxford 2005) 563–611.

—— (2003a) “Lebanon”, in “Discussion- table ronde”, in De Rome à Byzance ; de Fostat à Cordoue : évolution des faciès céramiques en Méditerranée (Ve–IXe siècles). Actes du VIIe congrès international sur la céramique médiévale en Méditerranée (Thessalonique, 11–16 octobre 1999), ed. C. Bakirtzis (Athens 2003) 536–46.

—— (2003b) “Pottery and the economy in 8th century Beirut: an Umayyad assemblage from the Roman imperial baths (BEY 045)”, in De Rome à Byzance ; de Fostat à Cordoue : évolution des faciès céramiques en Méditerranée (Ve–IXe siècles). Actes du VIIe congrès international sur la céramique médiévale en Méditerranée (Thessalonique, 11–16 octobre 1999), ed. C. Bakirtzis (Athens 2003) 725–34.

604 agnès vokaer

—— (1995) Trade in the Western Mediterranean, AD 400–700: the Ceramic Evidence (BAR-IS 605) (Oxford 1995).

—— (forthcoming a) “The Classical and Early Islamic pottery”, in Settlement and Land-scape in the Homs region, Syria, edd. G. Philip et al. (forthcoming).

—— (forthcoming b) “Transport amphorae of the 1st to 7th centuries: Early Roman to Byz-antine periods”, in Zeugma 2000: Rescue Excavations, ed. W. Aylward (forthcoming).

—— (forthcoming c) “The Homs survey: contrasting Levantine trends in the regional sup-ply of fine wares, amphorae and kitchen wares (Hellenistic to Early Arab periods)”, in Roman pottery in the Levant: Local production and Regional Trade. Round Table, Deut-sches Archäologisches Institut, Berlin (19–20th February 2010) (BAR-IS) (forthcoming).

Reynolds P. and Waksman Y. (2007) “Beirut cooking wares, 2nd to 7th centuries: local forms and north Palestinian imports”, Berytus 50 (2007) 59–81.

Ricciardi Venco R. (1982) “La ceramica partica”, in Tell Barri/ Kahat 1. Relazione preliminare sulle Campagne 1980 e 1981 a Tell Barri/ Kahat nel Becino del Habur, edd. P. Pecorella and M. Salvini (Rome 1982) 55–75.

Römer C. (1995) “Die rot engobierte Keramik im Unteren Habur-Gebiet”, in Hellenistic and Roman Pottery in the Eastern Mediterranean. Advances in Scientific Studies, Acts of the II Nieborów Pottery Workshop, edd. H. Meyza and J. Mlynarczyk (Warsaw 1995) 351–63.

Römer-Strehl C. (2005) “Untersuchungen zur Keramik der seleukidischen und partisch-römischen Zeit vom Tall Seh Hamad”, in Magdalu/ Magdala. Tall Šeh Hamad von der postassyrischen Zeit bis zur römischen Kaiserzeit, ed. H. Kühne (Dietrich Reimer Verlag 2.1–2) (Berlin 2005) 197–312.

Schneider G. (1995) “Roman Red and Black Slipped pottery in NE-Syria and Jordan. First results of chemical analysis”, in Hellenistic and Roman Pottery in the Eastern Mediter-ranean. Advances in Scientific Studies, Acts of the II Nieborów Pottery Workshop, edd. H. Meyza and J. Mlynarczyk (Warsaw 1995) 415–22.

Schneider G., Vokaer A., Bartl K. and Daszkiewicz M. (2007) “Some new results of archaeo-metric analysis of Brittle Wares”, in LRCW2. Late Roman Coarse Wares, Cooking Wares and Amphorae in the Mediterranean. Archaeology and Archaeometry, vol. 2, edd. M. Bonifay and J.-C. Tréglia (BAR-IS 1662) (Oxford 2007) 715–30.

Sodini J.-P. (2000) “Productions et échanges dans le monde proto-byzantin (IVe–VIIe s.): le cas de la céramique”, in Byzanz als Raum: zu Methoden und Inhalten der historischen Geographie des östlichen Mittelmeeraumes (Verlag des Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften), edd. K. Belke et al. (Vienna 2000) 181–208, pls. I–XI.

—— (1990) “Villes et campagnes en Syrie du nord : échanges et diffusion des produits d’après les témoignages archéologiques”, in Models of Regional Economies in Antiquity and the Middle Ages to the 11th Century. Proceedings of Tenth International Economy Con-gress, edd. E. Aerts et al. (Leuven 1990) 72–83.

Sodini J.-P. et al. (1980) “Déhès (Syrie du nord). Campagnes I–III (1976–1978): recherches sur l’habitat rural”, Syria 57 (1980) 1–304.

Sodini J.-P. and Villeneuve E. (1992) “Le passage de la céramique byzantine à la céramique omeyyade en Syrie du nord, en Palestine et en Transjordanie”, in La Syrie de Byzance à l’Islam: VIIe–VIIIe siècles: actes du colloque international Lyon- Maison de l’Orient méditer-ranéen, Paris- Institut du monde arabe (Institut français de Damas), edd. P. Canivet and J.-P. Rey-Coquais (Damascus 1992) 195–218.

Strube C. (2003) “Androna/ al Andarin. Vorbericht über die Grabungskampagnen in den Jahren 1997–2001”, AA (2003) 25–115.

Tate G. (1992) Les campagnes de Syrie du Nord du IIe au VIIe siècle. Un exemple d’expansion démographique à la fin de l’Antiquité (Paris 1992).

Tchalenko G. (1953–58) Villages antiques de la Syrie du Nord: le massif du Bélus à l’époque romaine, 3 vols. (Bibliothèque Archéologique et Historique 50) (Paris 1953–58).

Thalmann J.-P. (1978) “Tell Arqa (Liban Nord). Campagnes I–III (1972–1974)”, Syria 55 (1978) 1–151.


Toll B. (1943) The Excavations at Dura-Europos. Final Report IV. I, 1. The Green Glazed Pot-tery. (New Haven, Connecticut 1943).

Touma M. (2001) “Quelques témoignages de la céramique sur les échanges syro-chypriotes à la période byzantine”, in La céramique byzantine et proto-islamique en Syrie-Jordanie (IVe–VIIIe siècles ap. J.-C.). Actes du colloque tenu à Amman les 3, 4 et 5 décembre 1994, edd. E. Villeneuve and P. Watson (Bibliothèque archéologique et historique 159) (Beirut 2001) 49–58.

—— (1984) La céramique byzantine de la Syrie du nord du IV au VI siècle (Ph.D. diss., Univ. of Paris I-Sorbonne 1984).

Tréglia J.-C. and Berthier S. (2010) “Amphores, céramiques communes et céramiques culinaires byzantines de la citadelle de Damas (Syrie)”, in LRCW3. Late Roman Coarse Wares, Cooking Wares and Amphorae in the Mediterranean. Archaeology and Archaeom-etry. Comparison between Western and Eastern Mediterranean, vol. 2, edd. S. Menchelli, S. Santoro, M. Pasquinucci and G. Guiducci (BAR-IS 2185) (Oxford 2010) 867–76.

Vallerin M. (1994) “Pelves estampillés de Bassit”, Syria 71 (1994) 121–204.Valtz E. (1987) “Kifrin, a fortress of the limes on the Euphrates”, Mesopotamia 22 (1987)

81–89.Viviers D. and Vokaer A. (2009) “Travaux de la mission archéologique belge à Apamée de

Syrie. XLIIe campagne (2008)”, in RBPhil 87 (2009) 105–44.—— (2007) “Travaux de la mission archéologique belge à Apamée de Syrie. XLe campagne

(2006)”, in RBPhil 85 (2007) 93–124, pls. I–XIV.Vokaer A. (2011) La Brittle Ware en Syrie. Production et diffusion d’une céramique culinaire

de l’époque hellénistique à l’époque omeyyade (Mémoires de la Classe des Lettres (Fouilles d’Apamée 2)) (Brussels 2011).

—— (2010a) “Cooking wares in ancient Syria (first to 10th centuries A.D.). Reconstruct-ing the production contexts from the consumption sites”, Archaeometry 52.4 (2010) 605–27.

—— (2010b) “Cooking in a perfect pot. Shapes, fabric and function of cooking ware in late antique Syria”, in LRCW3. Late Roman Coarse Wares, Cooking Wares and Amphorae in the Mediterranean. Archaeology and Archaeometry. Comparison between Western and Eastern Mediterranean, vol. 1, edd. S. Menchelli, S. Santoro, M. Pasquinucci and G. Gui-ducci (BAR-IS 2185) (Oxford 2010) 115–29.

—— (2009) “Brittle Ware trade in Syria between the 5th and the 8th centuries”, in Byz-antine Trade, 4th–12th centuries. The Archaeology of Local, Regional and International Exchange. Papers of the Thirty-Eighth Spring Symposium of Byzantine Studies, St John’s College, University of Oxford, March 2004, ed. M. Mundell Mango (Society for the Promo-tion of Byzantine Studies 14) (Farnham 2009) 121–36.

—— (2007) “La Brittle Ware byzantine et omeyyade en Syrie du nord”, in LRCW2. Late Roman Coarse Wares, Cooking Wares and Amphorae in the Mediterranean. Archaeology and Archaeometry, vol. 2, edd. M. Bonifay and J.-C. Tréglia (BAR-IS 1662) (Oxford 2007) 701–14.

Waagé F. (1948) Hellenistic and Roman Tableware of North Syria, Antioch-on-the Orontes IV, 1: Ceramics and Islamic Coins (Princeton 1948).

Waksman Y., Reynolds P., Bien S. and Tréglia J.-C. (2005) “A major production of Late Roman ‘Levantine’ and Cypriot common wares”, in LRCW 1. Late Roman Coarse Wares, Cooking Wares and Amphorae in the Mediterranean: Archaeology and Archaeometry, edd. J. M. Gurt i Esparraguera, J. Buxeda i Garrigós and M. A. Cau Ontiveros (BAR-IS 1340) (Oxford 2005) 311–25.

Wilkinson T. (1990) Town and Country in Southeastern Anatolia, vol. 1: Settlement and Land Use at Kurban Höyük and other Sites in the Lower Karababa Basin (The University of Chicago Oriental Institute Publications 109) (Chicago 1990).

Wilkinson T. and Tucker D. (1995) Settlement Development in the North Jezirah, Iraq. A Study of the Archaeological Landscape (Iraq Archaeological Reports 3) (Warminster 1990).

606 agnès vokaer

List of Figures

Fig. 1. Map of the sites mentioned in the text.Fig. 2. Selection of African Red Slip ware found in Apamea. 1: ARS Hayes 50 A (AP. 00. I.

23. 63); 2: ARS Hayes 67 (AP. 04. IV. 124. 49); 3: ARS Hayes 91 B (AP. 07. II. 25. 50) and 4: ARS Hayes 104 C (AP. 08. I. 9. 17). Scale ¼.

Fig. 3. Selection of Roman Brittle Ware (ca. 3rd c. A.D.). 1: Cooking Pot from Ain Sinu (from Oates (1959) pl. 58, 81); 2: Casserole from Dibsi Faraj (DF 4306. 2 271) and 3: jug from Ain Sinu (from Oates (1959), pl. 58, 85). Scale ¼.

Fig. 4. Selection of Byzantine Brittle Ware from Apamea (ca. 6th c. A.D.). 1: cooking pot (AP. 73. III. 44. 18); 2: casserole (AP. 86. I. 3. 1167) and 3: jug (AP. 76. II. 6. 146). Scale ¼.

Fig. 5. Selection of Early Islamic Brittle Ware (ca. 7th–10th c. A.D.). 1: cooking pot from Apamea; 2: casserole from Dibsi Faraj (DF. 1113. 34 264), 3: holemouth cooking pot from Apamea (AP. 82. II. 1. 37) 4: holemouth cooking pot from Aleppo (AL. 4074-1) and 5: jug from Apamea (AP. 76. II. 6. 146). Scale ¼.

Fig. 6. Distribution map of the Brittle Ware and of the different workshops during the Roman period.

Fig. 7. Distribution map of the Brittle Ware and of the different workshops during the Byzantine period.

Fig. 8. Distribution map of the Brittle Ware and of the different workshops during the Early Islamic period.

Fig. 9. Selection of forms from “Workshop X”. 1: Small cooking pot from Apamea (AP. 03. I. 142/ 144. 1), 2: cooking pot from Ibn Hani (from Touma (1984) fig. 28), 3 and 4 casseroles with a cut rim from Apamea (AP. 06. I. 31. 18 and AP. 07. V. 22. 5), 5: jug with a filter from Apamea (AP. 81. II. 1271) and 6: jug with a filter from Tell Arqa (from Thalmann (1978) fig. 38, 7). Scale ¼.

Fig. 10. Imitations of fine wares from Apamea. 1: imitation of ARS 67 in Brittle Ware (AP. 81. II. 1. 940); 2: imitation of ARS 91 in Brittle Ware (AP. 04. IV. 174. 1); 3 and 4: imitations of ARS 104 C in calcareous, red-slipped ware (AP. 05. I. 31. 51 and AP. 04. IV. 194. 11); 5: imitation of ARS 103–105 in calcareous, red-slipped ware (AP. 04. IV. 194. 50/ 26) and 6: imitation of CRS 9C in calcareous, red-slipped ware (AP. 03. I. 133. 6). Scale ¼.

Fig. 11. Map of NSA 1 distribution in Syria.

Pottery production and exchange in Late Antique Syria

Documents

Transcript of Pottery production and exchange in Late Antique Syria