Roman Amphora Contents: Reflecting on the Maritime Trade of Foodstuffs in Antiquity (In Honour of Miguel Beltrán Lloris) : Proceedings of the Roman Amphora Contents International Interactive Conference (RACIIC) (Cadiz, 5-7 October 2015)

'Roman Amphora Contents: Reflecting on the Maritime Trade of Foodstuffs in Antiquity' gathers together the results of the RACIIC International Congress (Roman Amphora Contents International Interactive Conference, Cádiz, 2015), dedicated to the distinguished Spanish amphorologist Miguel Beltrán Lloris. The aim is to reflect on the current state of knowledge about the palaeocontents of Roman amphorae. With over 30 specialists from different countries, the text examines four elements diachronically throughout the Roman period up to the 7th century, with some insights on pre-Roman times: 1) the intimate relationships between amphorae and their contents, from an interdisciplinary perspective (from tituli picti to the evidence from underwater sites, including the problems of reuse); 2) the contribution and current state of knowledge concerning archaeometric approaches (especially organic residue analysis); 3) the evidence at regional / provincial level (from Lusitania to Egypt); and 4) recent case studies, from Corinth, Pompeii and Arles to the Fretum Gaditanum, which allow us to illustrate the different and combined study methods, necessarily interdisciplinary (archaeological, archaeobotanical, archaeozoological, epigraphic, palynological or biomolecular), in order to advance in this transcendental theme and its significance for the economic history and maritime traffic of the Ancient World. Roman Amphora Contents; Maritime Trade of Foodstuff Cover 1 EDITORIAL BOARD 3 Organizers 4 Title Page 5 Copyright Page 6 Contents Page 7 Preface 11 Ánforas romanas y contenidos. Notas istoriográficas 17 Miguel Beltrán Lloris 17 Figura 1. Ánfora grecoitálica de las Alhambras, Teruel. Museo de Zaragoza, 96.28.1. Donativo de Antonio Beltrán Martínez. Fotografía: Museo de Zaragoza, J. Garrido Lapeña. 17 Figura 2. Tituli picti sobre ánforas hispánicas de Castro Pretorio, Roma (Dressel 1879: láminas XIII-XIV). 20 Figura 4. Ánforas ampuritanas de ANTH (Tremoleda 2000: figura 101). 24 Figura 5. Ánforas de forma Haltern 70 de producciónlocal emeritense (Bustamante 2011: figura 16). 24 Historical and archaeological indicators 39 Amphorae: typology and contents 41 Stefanie Martin‐Kilcher 41 André Tchernia 41 Figure 1. Ostia. Forum delle corporazioni, statio 51. Although the inscription of the navicularii is not preserved, the ship carrying olive oil amphorae Dr 20 must hail from Baetica (Italica or Gades). 42 Figure 2. Marbella. Mosaic in the porticus of a villa depicting (amongst other things): kitchen implements, food, ingredients (including an amphora Beltran IIb) and prepared food. 42 Figure 3. Dougga. Section of a mosaic: A slave is pouring wine from an amphora MR1 into a drinking cup. 42 Figure 4. Neumagen. Funeral monument of a wine trader with a wine ship, laden with barrels probably containing wine from the Moselle region and straw-wrapped amphorae from southern Gaul. Rheinisches Landesmuseum Trier, Foto Th. Zümer. 43 Figure 5. Palamós (Illes Formigues I). Two of the ovoid amphorae (ovoides gaditanas) from the shipwreck, around 50 BC. Martín Menéndez 2008: Fig. 4. 43 Figure 6. Belo. The only completely reconstructed amphora ‘Dr 1C’. Mayet 1999: Fig. 1,1. 44 Figure 7. Amphora Dr 24 and the rim of a Knossos 18. Rizzo 2014: fig. 42a and 43b. 45 Figure 8. Ostia. Painted inscription acetum lauronense, vinegar from Lauro on a Dr 2-4 from Tarraconensis. Panella 1970: 131 and Tav. 36, no.561. 46 Figure 9. Vindonissa (1) and Mainz (2). The two massive amphorae with primary painted inscription with large letters show MVR(ia) as their content. The amphorae are probably not Ha 70, but early forms of Dr 14. Photos and Drawings: Vindonissa Museum and S 47 1 47 2 47 Shipwrecks, amphorae and contents 51 Franca Cibecchini 51 Figure 1. Sud-Caveaux 1 shipwreck (France). Sampling of a Lamboglia 2 amphora full of pitch (©F. Bassemayousse). 52 A 53 Figure 2. The Roman Bou-Ferrer wreck (Spain). A perfectly preserved amphorae ‘in situ’ during the excavation of the deeper layers in 2013 (2a); one of the amphorae bearing traces of labels for tituli picti (2b) (©J. A. Moya). 53 B 53 Figure 3. The Cap Bear 3 shipwreck (France). An octopus nesting in an amphora (©P. Foliot, CNRS). 54 Figure 4. The Capo Sagro 2 shipwreck (Corsica). The filter jug containing ‘a family’ of at least a dozen crabs of different sizes. 54 Figure 5. Alistro 1 shipwreck (Corsica). Detail of the tubular amphora. (©DRASSM). 55 Figure 6. Pisa-San Rossore (Italy). One of the specimens similar to the so-called ‘pot du Latium’, full of fish bones (©F. Cibecchini, DRASSM). 57 Figure 7. Aleria 1 shipwreck (Corsica). A two-handled pot of glazed pottery production (©S. Cavillon, DRASSM). 57 Amphora contents as commodities: the structure and function oftituli picti in the western Mediterranean in the 1st century AD 61 Enrique García Vargas 61 Figure 1. Inscription CIL XV 3657 from the Castra Praetoria (Rome), displaying the typical titulus structure found on early Spanish oil amphorae (in this case on a Tarraconensis Oliva 3 type amphora). 63 Figure 2. Inscription structure of Dressel 21-22 Italian amphorae as shown on a specimen from the Garum shop in Pompeii (after García Vargas et al. 2020). 65 Figure 3. Epigraphic formula of Baetican salted fish amphorae found north of the Alps and example of a titulus from Mainz (after Martin-Kilcher 1994). 66 Figure 4. Entries D, E and F of tituli picti on Baetican salt-fish amphorae from Mainz (after Martin-Kilcher 2002), Augst (after Martin‐KIlcher 1994), Cologne (after Ehmig 2007) and Rome (after CIL XV). 67 Figure 5. Titulus Pictus on a Dressel 8 amphora from Mantua (after Mongardi 2018: 132–133, no.17). 68 Figure 6. Titulus mentioning olivae ex defrutum on a Haltern 70 sherd from the outkirts of Mainz (after Ehmig 2007). 69 How late antique dipinti contribute to a better knowledge of amphora contents 73 Jean-Luc Fournet 73 The reuse of transport amphorae as packaging containersin the Roman world: an overview 87 J. Theodore Peña 87 Figure 1: Upper part of Dressel 2-4 from the Casa del Menandro at Pompeii bearing three tituli picti (two visible) indicating that it was filled at least twice (Maiuri 1933, Figure 187). 89 Figure 2: Neck of Dressel 2-4 of non-Egyptian origin from Quseir al’Qadim with stopper made of plaster and potsherds of Egyptian origin. Left: photo of upper surface of stopper; centre: view of stopper from underside showing sherds; right: profile drawing 90 Figure 3: Volumetric data and content information for the four sets of amphorae from the Grado shipwreck. The mean capacity figures presented in Column 2 (on which the figures presented in Columns 3-6 are based) are presumably rounded and approximate. 92 Figure 4: Data for sets of African 2, Almagro 50, and Beltrán 72 amphorae from the Cabrera 3 shipwreck. * Same die/stamping entity as one of those attested for Almagro 50s. 93 Archaeometric indicators: generalities and case studies 103 Amphorae and residue analysis: theorical considerations 105 Nicolas Garnier 105 Figure 1. Main chemical families of biomarkers preserved in archaeological samples and their correspondant biological materials. 106 Figure 2. IRTF spectra of the residue preserved in an amphora from the shipwreck la Madrague de Giens, with a residue of actual red wine Medoc (Garnier 2003). 110 A 111 B 111 Figure 3. DIMS spectra of an actual raw olive oil (a) in electronic impact mode (EI 70 eV), and (b) in chemical ionization with ammonia (PCI NH3, 70 eV, Jeol mass spectrometer) (Garnier 2003). 111 Figure 4. MALDI spectra of actual beeswax using (a) the 2-NPOE matrix without cationization, (b) the classical DHB matrix without cationization, and (c) the combination of the 2-NPOE matrix and cationization by silver (I) ions. Insert: detail of the Ag+-c 112 Figure 5. (a) ESI-MS spectrum of actual raw olive oil after cationization by lithium ion. (b) Li+-ESI-MS/MS of triolein, main triacylglycerol from olive oil (Garnier 2003). 113 Figure 6. THM-GC-MS chromatogram of the residue preserved in an amphora from the shipwreck la Madrague de Giens (Garnier 2003). 114 Figure 7. GC-MS chromatogram of the second extract obtained by transbutylation in anhydrous medium of the residue preserved in an amphora from the shipwreck la Madrague de Giens. Markers of dark grape and of alcoholic fermentation are easily detected with 116 Figure 8. Principal component analysis treatment of the aldaric and phenolic acid concentrations obtained from actual reference fruit and from Gallo-Roman ceramics from Annecy (red circle). 117 Amphorae and residue analysis: content of amphorae and organic coatings 123 Nicolas Garnier 123 Alessandra Pecci 123 Figure 1. Example of identification of olive oil in a Graeco-italic amphora from the Pisa San Rossore harbour (PISA‐12, Garnier 2003: 305). (a) Detection of the native triacylglycerols in the 1st lipid extract by MALDI-TOF. (b) After an adapted purificati 128 Figure 2. Lipid and polyphenol analyses of 22 Roman amphorae from the Pisa San Rossore harbour (Garnier 2003). 128 Figure 3. Synthesis of the results of the analysis of 65 amphorae from the DRASSM reserves(synthesis from Garnier 2003). 129 Figure 4. Assessment of identification of the lipid contents in amphorae typologically defined as oil amphorae. 129 Figure 5. Model for the correlation between typology and first content (without considering the re-use hypothesis). 130 Figure 6. African amphorae from the Impianto Elettrico in Pompeii (Pecci and Giorgi 2019). 131 GC-MS analysis of pitch from Roman amphorae from Cosa in Etruria (Italy) 137 Hitomi Fujii 137 Carole Mathe 137 Fabienne Olmer 137 Cathy Vieillescazes 137 Figure 1. Wavenumbers of the characteristic bands of Grand Congloué 2 (sample: GC.2SN.6). 139 Figure 2. FT-IR spectrum of sample referred GC.2SN.6. 139 Figure 3. GC-MS chromatogram of sample referred GC2SN6 with extraction mode A(after trimethylsilylation). 140 Figure 4. Identification of all samples by GC-MS with extraction mode A. 141 Residue analysis by GC-MS and FT-IR Spectroscopy on Roman amphorae from the archaeological site ‘Nuovo Mercato Testaccio’ (Rome) 143 Florinda Notarstefano 143 Mariateresa Lettieri 143 Figure 1. Samples analysed. 145 Figure 2. Chromatogram of the total lipid extract of sample 5a. IS=Internal Standard (nonadecane). 146 Figure 3. FT-IR spectra of sample 5: (a) in transmission mode on solid residue preserved inside the amphora; (b) in μ-ATR mode on the inner wall of the ceramic potsherd. 146 Figure 4. Chromatogram of the total lipid extract of sample 9. IS=Internal Standard (nonadecane). 147 Figure 5. Chromatogram of the total lipid extract of sample 16. IS=Internal Standard (nonadecane). 148 The contents of ancient Graeco-Italic amphorae.First analyses on the amphorae of the Filicudi F andSecca di Capistello wrecks (Aeolian Islands, Sicily) 151 Nicolas Garnier 151 Gloria Olcese 151 Figure 1. Location of the Filicudi F and Secca di Capistello wrecks (Map Immensa Aequora project). 151 Figure 2. Graeco-Italic amphorae van der Mersch type IV from Filicudi F wreck in Archaeological Museum of Lipari (Olcese 2010, Immensa Aequora project). 153 Figure 3. Graeco-Italic amphorae van der Mersch type V from Secca di Capistello wreck in Archaeological Museum of Lipari (Olcese 2010, Immensa Aequora project). 153 Figure 4. Table of some of the analysed amphorae from the wrecks Filicudi F and Secca di Capistello(photo Immensa Aequora project). 155 Figure 5. Chromatogram of the first lipid extract obtained from the actual ‘content’ of the amphora no.17693, trimethylsilylated (column ZB5-MSi 20m × 0.18mm, EIMS detection at 70 eV). 156 Figure 6. Chromatogramms (above) of the first lipid extract from absorbed residues from the inner walls of the amphora F-53, (below) of the second lipid extract and the detail of aldaric acids (column ZB5-MSi 20m × 0.18mm, EIMS detection at 70 eV). 156 Inland trade and consumption in context. A case study on the organic residue analysis of transport amphorae from the Balkan Peninsula (Yambol District, South-eastern Bulgaria) 159 Silvia Polla 159 Andreas Springer 159 Birte Gruber 159 Petra Tušlová 159 Barbora Weissová 159 Figure 1. Map of Bulgaria, Yambol District and Roman Thrace at the end of the 3rd century AD with the sites of Dodoparon and Yurta-Stroyno in the context of the province. Important Roman roads and rivers for our area are marked on the map, as well as sele 160 Figure 2. The amphorae drawings, 1–4 LRA 2 from Dodoparon, 5–6 Kuzmanov XIV sub-variant I from Dodoparon, 7–8 Kapitän II from Yurta-Stroyno, 9 Dressel 24 Family from Yurta Stroyno. 162 Figure 3. GC-MS chromatograms of the sample belonging to the sample F41_08, LRA 2 from Dodoparon. 164 Figure 4. GC-MS chromatograms of the sample belonging to the sample F39,LRA 2 from Dodoparon. 164 Figure 5. GC-MS chromatograms of the sample belonging to the sample SY14_069, amphora belonging to the Dressel 24 Family from Yurta-Stroyno. 165 Figure 6. Overview of the results of the GC-MS analyses. * Low abundant species, mass spectra close to noise, but RT and significant peaks match well to standard compounds. 166 The Beirut amphora: residue analysis and contents 171 Marshall Woodworth 171 Paul Reynolds 171 Figure 1. Typological evolution of the Beirut amphora. 173 Figure 2. Photographs of the Beirut amphorae sampled for analysis. 175 Figure 3. Sample 019 (BEY 045.1242.x1) illustrating the base’s modification with a hole. 176 Figure 4a-c. Mass spectra of the peak identified as tartaric acid (as its trimethylsiyl ester) in Sample 004 (BEY006.12237.x2) (top) compared against the mass spectra of tartaric acid (as its trimethylsilyl ester) from the prepared analytical sample (midd 176 Figure 5. Partial total ion chromatogram of the wine biomarker extraction of Sample 026 (BEY006.9429.201). 177 Figure 7. List of Samples. Excavation area number BEY 006 indicates the excavations in the Beirut Souks, BEY 045 indicates the excavations of the Roman Imperial Baths. 177 Figure 6. Partial total ion chromatograph of the total lipid extraction (TLE) of Sample 009 (BEY 006.12389.79). 177 Figure 8. Principal compounds observed in the wine biomarker extractions. 178 Making Garum. Experimental archaeology methods 181 Álvaro Rodríguez-Alcántara 181 Ana Roldán-Gómez 181 Enrique García Vargas 181 Darío Bernal-Casasola 181 Víctor Manuel Palacios-Macías 181 Figure 1. Pompeian samples. 182 Figure 2. Chemical composition. 183 Figure 3. Fatty Acids composition. 183 Figure 4. Mineral profile. 184 Figure 5. Fresh anchovy (a) and spices (b). 185 Figure 6. Raw materials (a) and fermentation (b) during static maceration. 185 Figure 7. Final stage of static maceration (a) and first day of dynamic maceration phase (b). 186 Figure 8. Final steps (a), filter and garum samples (b). 186 Regional and provincial syntheses 189 West 191 Lusitanian Amphora Contents 193 Inês Vaz Pinto 193 Rui Morais 193 Carlos Fabião 193 César Oliveira 193 Sónia Gabriel 193 Figure 1. Distribution of amphora kilns and cetariae. 1: Morraçal da Ajuda, Peniche; 2: Cascais; 3: Lisboa (several); 4: Garrocheira; 5: Porto dos Cacos; 6: Cacilhas and Porto Brandão; 7: Quinta do Rouxinol; 8: Sesimbra; 9: Creiro; 10: Rasca and Comenda; 195 Figure 2. Shipwrecks with Lusitanian amphorae with content remains (based on Bombico 2017: Anexo II): 1: San Antonio Abad / Grum de Sal (Ibiza); 2: Cabrera III; 3: Port-Vendres I; 4: Dump above Arles-Rhône 3; 5: Anse Saint-Gervais (Fos-sur-Mer); 6: Punta 196 Figure 3. Tituli picti with a reference to content in Lusitanian amphorae. 198 Figure 4. Titulus pictus on a Dressel 14 amphora from Anse de Saint-Gervais: LIQ(uamen)/EXC(ellens)/SABINI ET AVITI (Liou and Marichal 1978: fig.16, n. 32 apud Bombico 2017: fig. 75). 198 Figure 5. Neck of a Dressel 14 parva amphora with the titulus pictus LAC[--] (photograph L. Roux/CG13; drawing A. Veleva; vectorized by D. Djaoui) (Djaoui 2016: fig. 1). 198 Figure 6. Fish remains from Lusitanian amphorae. 199 Figure 7. Physical appearance of the fish bone samples recovered at Rua Francisco Augusto Flamengo (RFAF10‐12) and Rua António Joaquim Granjo (RAJG-19), Setúbal (Gabriel and Tavares da Silva 2016: fig. 3). Photographic credits: José Paulo Ruas – DGPC. 200 Figure 8. Lusitanian amphorae studied by chemical analysis: a) ovoid amphora from Castro de Vigo, Pontevedra, Spain; b) amphora from Peniche, Peniche type 1 (Braga, Cavalariças, no. 1997-1031); c) Dressel 14 parva amphora from Albergue Distrital at Braga 201 Figure 9. Results of chemical analyses on Lusitanian amphorae performed at the Chemistry Centre of Minho University (Braga, Portugal). 202 Figure 10. Doliola from Boca do Rio (Budens) whose content was subject to DNA-based analyses. 203 Figure 11. Identification of fish production remains from Lusitanian cetariae. 204 Figure 12. 1: ‘Early Lusitanian’ ovoid type (hypothetical reconstruction by Rui R. de Almeida) (Western Lusitania); 2: ‘Early Lusitanian’ ovoid type (Diogo and Trindade 1988: fig. 13) (Western Lusitania); 3: Haltern 70 (Quaresma 2005) (Western Lusitania); 207 The Iberian and Roman amphorae of Hispania Citerior 215 Ramón Járrega Domínguez 215 Albert Ribera i Lacomba 215 Figure 1. Iberian Amphorae probably used for transport. 1: Burriac. 2: type I-3. Bay of Palma. 3: type I-3. Wreck of Binisafuller. End of 4th-beginning of 3th Century B.C. 4: type I-3: Wreck of Binisafuller. 5: Type I-5?. Wreck of Binisafuller. 6: Alorda 217 Figure 2. Iberian and Roman Amphorae from the warehouse of the site of Libisosa (Lezuza, Albacete). 80-75 B.C. 218 Figure 3. Two standard Roman Amphorae from Tarraconensis, forms Dressel 2 and Dressel 3. 219 Figure 4. Amphora from Tarraconensis, form Dressel 2, found in Zaragoza, with a titulus pictus on the shoulder: AMI(neum) or ...] ANT[... /] AVR(onense) III (annorum) / P??? ?N?E (según Carreras, Escudero and Galve 2016). 220 Amphora contents in Baetica: from thePunic tradition to Late Roman times 225 Darío Bernal-Casasola 225 Enrique García Vargas 225 Antonio M. Sáez Romero 225 Horacio González Cesteros 225 Figure 1. Key amphorae types produced along the coasts and inland areas of the southwest of the Iberian Peninsula between the 7th and 1st centuries BC.: 1) T-10121; 2) ‘Ionian’ and other Greek imitations; 3) Pellicer B-C; 4) Florido V-2; 5) Pellicer D; 6) 226 Figure 2. Stamps on amphorae produced in Cadiz Bay since the 4th to the 2nd centuries BC, showing icons and figures related to fishing, the production of salted fish and its packaging within amphorae (tuna, dolphins, and artisans working). 227 Figure 3. Main amphora types produced in the Guadalquivir Valley region organized by palaeocontents. 230 Figure 4. Ovoid amphorae types produced in the Guadalquivir Valley during the 1st century BC(García Vargas, González Cesteros and Almeida 2019: 100, fig. 22). 231 Figure 5. Urceus amphora type (Morais 2008: 268, fig. 2). 232 Figure 6. Evolution of the olive oil amphorae from Baetica (Berni 2008: 64, fig. 11). 233 Figure 7. Main garum amphora types produced in Baetica in early imperial times (García Vargas andBernal-Casasola 2008: 666, figure 3; 1-5. Dressel 7-11; 6. Dressel 12; 7. Dressel 14; 8. Beltrán IIA; 9. Beltrán II B; 10. Venta del Carmen/ VC I). 235 Figure 8. Wine amphora types produced in Baetica in early imperial times (García Vargas and Bernal‐Casasola 2008: 667, figure 4; 1. Dressel 28; 2. Dressel 2-4; 3. ‘Urceus’ amphora). 236 Figure 9. Augustan (left) and Claudian- Flavian (center and right) Haltern 70 amphorae from Baetica(Almeida 2008: 295, fig. 145). 237 Figure 10. Dendrogram with the main amphora types produced in Baetica in Late Roman times (Bernal-Casasola 2019: 583, fig. 14). 240 Tituli picti on Spanish amphorae 251 Piero Berni 251 Emmanuel Botte 251 Figure 1. Function and meaning of the epigraphy in the life cycle of the Roman amphora. 251 Figure 2. Dressel 20 amphora epigraphic system in the middle of the 2nd century AD. 252 Figure 3. Post cocturam graffiti from military context from Nijmegen. 253 Figure 4. Cursive titulus δ from Testaccio with action from the ponderatores. [1] ‘pensit Fe[---]’ (Rodríguez Almeida 1994: 62, no.63). [2] ‘p(ondo) CCXV’ (CIL XV 4392). 254 Figure 5. Two cursive tituli picti from Testaccio with the indication of the bottling location in the valley of the Guadalquivir (CIL XV 4350 and 4371). 255 Figure 6. Organization of the tituli picti on fish amphorae (Martin-Kilcher 2002). 257 The contents of amphorae produced in Gaul in the Imperial period 259 Fanette Laubenheimer 259 Figure 1. Contents of Gaulish fish amphorae: Dr 16, Augst 33, Lyon 3, Lyon 4. 263 Figure 2. Different contents of Lyon 3 and Lyon 4 amphorae. 264 Figure 3. Mead Lyon 3 amphora discovered in Bonn (Ehmig 2008). 265 Figure 4. Painted inscription indicating Muria Stillicidi on the neck of a Lyon 3 amphora from the Musée des Beaux Arts et d’Archéologie of Besançon(picture J.-L. Daisson). 265 Figure 5. Gauloise 16 amphora from Meaux, detail of the foot (picture Véronique Brunet). 265 Italian and Sicilian amphorae and their contents: a general overview 269 Simonetta Menchelli 269 Figure 1. (1) Tubular amphora (Botte 2012: fig. 4.2); (2) Botte 1a amphora (Botte 2009a: fig. 4, 43167); (3) Botte 2 amphora (Botte 2009a: fig. 7, 41418); (4) Botte 3 amphora (Botte 2009a: fig. 8 , 25430); (5) Grado type amphora (Carre, Pesavento and Belo 270 Figure 2. Funerary stele of argentarius L. Calpurnius Daphnus(Marzano 2013: fig. 42). 271 Figure 3. Dressel 1 C amphorae from the Albinia Workshop (Laubenheimer 2007: 77). 272 Figure 4. Campanian urcei and pots. (1-4) urcei (Cappelletto et al. 2013: fig.10); (5) : Schöne Mau 1 pot(De Caro 1987: fig.48, 72); (6-9) Gasperetti 1996 1213a-d pots (Gasperetti 1996: fig. 2, 15-18). 273 Figure 5. Small Dressel 6b amphorae from Loron (Marion 2009: fig.2). 275 Figure 6. (1) Ovoid amphora from the Giancola Workshop (Manacorda 2019: fig.1, 3); (2) Dressel 6b amphora (Panella 2001: 17); (3). Funnel-shaped neck amphora (Panella 2001: 19); (4) Flat-bottomed amphora, Type 3,1 from the Vingone Workshop (Martelli 2008: 276 Figure 7. (1) Spello type amphora (Panella 2001: 12); (2) Forlimpopoli type amphora (Panella 2001: 21); (3) Empoli type amphora (Panella 2001: 22); (4) Keay 52 amphora (Keay 1984: forma LII). 278 The content of amphorae from Adriatic Italy 283 Marie Brigitte Carre 283 Stefania Pesavento Mattioli 283 Figure 1. Main types of Italic Adriatic Amphoras (sc. approx 1:20). Wine amphoras: a. Greco-Italic; b. Lamboglia 2; c. Dressel 6A (Picenum); d. Dressel 6A (Cisalpina); e. Flat-bottomed amphora (San’Arcangelo di Romagna); f. Flat-bottomed amphora (Forlimpo 285 Figure 2. Amphora Dressel 6A from Salzburg with titulus pictus FLOS/VET/X (Heger 1986: 133–137). 286 Figure 3. Amphora Dressel 6A from Vicenza with contents (Mazzocchin and Wilkens 2013: 106). 286 Figure 4. Small fish amphora from Aquileia – Canale Anfora with titulus pictus LIQ/AQUIL/XVIII(Gaddi and Maggi 2017: 323). 287 Figure 5. Funnel-shape amphora from Aquileia – Canale anfora with stamp C.IVLI MARCELLI(Gaddi and Maggi 2017: 312.) 287 African amphora contents: an update 291 Michel Bonifay 291 Figure 1. African amphora contents. Summary of hypotheses. 293 Figure 2. African amphora contents. 1: Van der Werff 1 (Ramon 1995: T7421); 2: Van der Werff 2 (Ramon 1995: T7422); 3: Van der Werff 3 (Ramon 1995: T7411); 4: Schöne-Mau 40 (Panella 2001; Pompeii); 5: Hammamet 1 (Bonifay 2004; Pupput); 6: Hammamet 1D (Bon 294 Figure 3. African amphora contents. 22: Africaine I (Bonifay 2004; Pupput); 23: Africaine II A (Bonifay 2004; Pupput); 24: Africaine II B (Bonifay 2004; Pupput); 25: Africaine II C (Panella 1973; Ostia); 26: Africaine II D (Bonifay 2004; Planier VII wreck 296 Figure 4. African amphora contents. 47: Keay 64 (Wilson 1996; Campanaio); 48: Keay 3/5 (Bonifay 2016; Rome); 49: Keay 40 (Bonifay 2016; Cartagena); 50: Keay 41 (Remolà 2000; Tarragona); 51: Keay 62R (Freed 1995; Carthage); 52: Albenga 11/12 (Pallarès 1987 298 Amphorae from the Byzacene coast: what did they contain? 309 Jihen Nacef† 309 Figure 1. Location map of the sites. 310 Figure 2. Nos1-2: Types Van der Werff 3 and Van der Werff 2 (El Jem museum: Nacef 2001). 310 Figure 3. 3: No.4: Early Roman derivative from type Van der Werff 2 (Thapsus workshop). Nos5-6: types Sullecthum 1 and 8 (Sullecthum workshops:Nacef 2015a). 310 Figure 4. No.6: type Africana I (Sullecthum museum: Nacef 2015a). Nos7-8: types Africana 2A and 2D (Sullecthum workshops: Nacef 2015a). 311 Figure 5. No.9: types Sullecthum 6. No.10: Sullecthum 2/Uzita Pl. 52, 10. No.11: Sullecthum 11/Keay 25. No.12: Sullecthum 12/Dressel 30 (Sullecthum workshops: Nacef 2015a). 311 Figure 6. Nos13-15: types Keay 62A, 61C, Bonifay 47 (Henchir Chekaf workshop: Nacef 2015a). No.16: type spatheion 3D (Moknine 2 workshop: Nacef 2017). No.17: type Henchir Chekaf IV (Henchir Chekaf workshop: Nacef 2015a). No.18: type Castrum Perti (Moknine 312 East 315 The oil supply in the Roman East: identifying modes of production, containers and contents in the eastern Empire 317 Paul Reynolds 317 Figure 1a. Location of principal sites mentioned in the text. 318 Figure 1b. Location of principal Levantine sites. 318 Figure 2. Regions producing olive oil in 1936 (from Bull 1936: fig. 5). 319 Figure 3. Wide-neck amphorae. a. Agora G 198, b. Agora M 54 and c-d. Dressel 21-22. 321 Figure 4. Amphorae for dried fruit from Roman Phoenicia. a-c. ‘Carrot’ amphorae, d-f. Célestins 1A/Colchester 105 and related small containers, g. Augst 46, h-i) Célestins 2A. 322 Figure 5. a-e. ‘Pamphylian’ amphorae, finds in Athens and Arles, f. Knossos Type 41. 323 Figure 6. a-w. Amphorae of Agora M 273 type and derivatives, 4th to 7th century. 324 Figure 7. a-d. Zeugma. Syrian painted amphora forms AM 15, 16 and 17 (from Reynolds 2013). 326 Figure 8a-b. Roman relief of two ships carrying separate cargoes of barrels and amphorae (Allard Pierson Museum, Amsterdam). 327 Figure 9. a. Kition. Marquié 2003: Type III, Pl. 28.1. b. An example of Hayes 1991, Paphos Type II (Cesnola Collection, Semitic Museum, Harvard University,inv. No.1995.10.95). 327 Figure 10. 16th century engraving by J. Della Strada depicting activities in an oil press (from Brun 2003: 149). 328 Figure 11. a-d. San Lorenzo 7, e-h. Ostia I 568/Alba 41 and related forms, i. Peacock and WilliamsClass 50 ‘Chalk’ amphora. 329 Figure 12. Black Sea amphora types: a-b. Zeest 72, c. Zeest 73, d. Zeest 75, e-f. Zeest 80. 330 Figure 13. a-d. Sinopean forms, 3rd to 7th century. 332 Figure 14. a. Homs survey Baalbek amphorae, b. Homs Survey Roman storage jars, c. Beirut. Late 1st century small amphora (for oil?), North Lebanese fabric. 333 Figure 15. a. Olive oil production in Modern Lebanon. Map of modern production area, taken from www.lebaneseoliveoil.com, b. Beit Shebab jar (Mtein).After Hankey 1968: fig. 2: the scale is 10cm. 334 Figure 16. North Lebanese amphorae. a. Yanouh (Gatier et al. 2001: Pl. 1.1), b-d. Beirut, Reynolds AM 202, e. Port of Toulon, US 303, Reynolds AM 52 (Brun and Pasqualini forthcoming), f-l. Beirut, AM 52, 2nd to 5th century examples. 335 Figure 17. Chhim oil amphora (from Reynolds 2004b). 336 Figure 19. Koroneika storage jars (from Blitzer 1990: 687, fig. 2). 336 Figure 18. Khirbet Zemel. Roman Golan storage jars (from Hartal 2002: fig. 24). The scale is 10cm. 336 Figure 20. a-j. Dressel 24 and related forms (Dressel 24 similis, Agora M 177, Knossos 18, Knossos 15). 338 Figure 21. a-f. Dressel 25 and related forms. 340 Figure 22. a-k, p-r. The development of the Agora M 235 type, early 1st century AD to c. AD 500, l. Agora P 12468, related to TRC 2, m-o. 6th century TRC 2 and lid in likely Peloponnesian fabrics. 341 Figure 23. a-i. Early versions of LRA 2, 3rd to 4th century. 343 Figure 24. a-o. LRA 2 and later versions (Argolid and other sources). 344 Figure 25. Various Peloponnesian types, 5th to 7th century, a-c. Agora M 325, d. ‘Lakonian’ Agora 315,e-f. Corinth, Slane and Sanders 2005: fig. 8, 3-24 and fig. 11, 4-14, g. Pagasitikos Gulf Wreck, Form 1,h-k. Corinthian-Argolid ‘fruit’ amphorae (wine?). 347 Figure 26. a. Map of the Dioceses of the East, c. AD 400 (from Wikimedia: Cplakidas 2007),b. Map of the provinces and Praetorian Prefectures of the East, c. 400 (from Wikimedia). 349 Feeding the Lower Danube and Pontic areas with local wine and fish products (1st century BC‐3rd century AD) 365 Andrei Opaiţ 365 Figure 1. Map-Romanian vineyards areas. 368 Figure 2. (1) Stamped Getic amphorae, after Vulpe 1965: fig. 3. 369 Figure 3. (2) Pseudo Coan-Heraclea. (3) Pseudo Rhodian-Heraclea. (4) Pseudo Coan-Sinope. (5) Sinopean amphora. (6) Sinopean amphora. (7) Table amphora-Heraclea. (8) Table amphora-Sinope. (9) Colchian amphora-after Kovalevskaja and Sarnowski 2003: fig.3.2. 370 Figure 4. (11) Heraclean amphora-Noviodunum, courtesy of Archaeological museum, Tulcea. (12) Heraclean amphora-Noviodunum, courtesy of Archaeological museum, Tulcea. (13) Heraclean amphora-Gura Portiţa, courtesy of Archaeological museum, Tulcea. (14) Sino 371 Figure 5. (15) Amastris (?), courtesy of T. M. Arsen’eva and S. A. Naumenko. 372 Figure 6. (18) Pontic amphora, after Strjeletskiiy et al. 2005: 69, pl.VII.1. (19) Pontic amphora, after Strjeletskiiy et al. 2005: pl.37.urn 4. (20) Pontic amphora-Zeest 72, after Strjeletskiiy et al. 2005: pl. V.2, urn 96. (21) Pontic amphora-Zeest 73, 374 Figure 7. (26) Table amphora-Troesmis, after Opaiţ 1980: pl. 1.4. (27) Table amphora-Callatis, after Opaiţ and Ionescu 2016: pl. VIII.46. (28) Table pitcher-Callatis, after Opaiţ and Ionescu 2016: pl. IX.48. (29) Table amphora-Mid Danube-Pojejena, after A 375 Figure 8. (32) Sinopean fish amphora, after Ardeţ 2006: pl. XXIX.163. 375 Figure 9. (33) Zeest 75-Greci, after Opaiţ 1980: pl. X.3. (34) Sovhoz 10, after Strjeletskiiy et al. 2005: pl. VII.2. (35) Miniature Zeest 75-courtesy of Chişinău archaeological museum. 376 Figure 10. (36) Zeest 75-Tomis, courtesy of Muzeul de Istorie Naţională Constanţa. (37) Zeest 75-Kalos Limen, courtesy of Evpatoria archaeological museum. (38) Zeest 75-Sovhoz 10, after Strjeletskiiy et al. 2005: pl. V.6. 377 Figure 11. (39) Zeest 75-Histria, after Zeest 1960: pl. XXXI. 75б. 377 Figure 12. (40) Zeest 76 & similis-Sovhoz 10, after Strjeletskiiy et al. 2005: pl. VII.4. (41) Zeest 83-Gorgipija, after Alexeeva 997: pl.149.2. (42) Sovhoz 10, after Strjeletskiiy et al. 2005: pl.VII.3; 24.184; urn 237, pl. 49.237. (43) Sovhoz 10, after 379 Figure 13. (44) Table amphora-Sovhoz 10, after Strjeletskiiy et al. 2005: pl. VI.6. (45) Table amphora-Olbia, after Krapivina 1993: fig. 30. 25. (46) Table amphora-Pompeiopolis. (47) Table amphora-Tanais, after Arsen’eva and Naumenko 1992: fig. 73.6. 380 Figure 14. (48) Histrian amphora stamp-Noviodunum, courtesy of Tulcea archaeological museum. 380 Figure 15. (49) Pruteni amphora-after Vornic et al. 2007: pl. 33-36. 380 Ephesus wines 387 Tamás Bezeczky† 387 Figure 1. Geological survey in Asia Minor(after Sauer 1995). 388 Figure 2. Amphora types produced in the Ephesus region (Bezeczky 2013). 389 Figure 3. Dipinti, graffiti and stamps of the Ephesian jars and amphorae. 391 Figure 4. Amphorae from other production sites (Bezeczky 2013). 394 Egyptian amphorae from the Hellenistic to the Late Roman periods 399 Delphine Dixneuf 399 Figure 1. Hellenistic amphorae AE 1 and AE 2 (Empereur and Picon 1998: 77, fig. 2-3). 399 Fig