Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
THE LIBONI AMPHORA COLLECTION Roman maritime trade and the changing socio-economic system of the
Pontine region
Part 1: text
Name: H.G. Pape
Student number: 1332961
E-mail: [email protected]
Date: May 2008
Research master Art History & Archaeology
Tutor: prof. dr. P.A.J. Attema
Second reader: dr. W.M. Jongman
- 1 -
“Quid te, Tucca, iuvat vetulo miscere Falerno
In Vaticanis condita musta cadis?
Quid tantum fecere boni tibi pessima vina?
Aut quid fecerunt optima vina mali?
De nobis facile est, scelus est iugulare Falernum
Et dare Campano toxica saeva mero.
Convivae meruere tui fortasse perire:
Amphora non meruit tam pretiosa mori.”
- M. Valerius Martialis, Epigr. XVIII Dist. -
•
“Inside the museums, infinity goes up on trial.
Voices echo, this is what salvation must be like after a while.”
- Bob Dylan, ‘Visions of Johanna’ -
•
“Caecubum et prelo domitam Caleno
tu bibes uvam; mea nec Falernae
temperant vites neque Formiani
pocula colles.”
- Q. Horatius Flaccus, Ode 1.20 -
- 2 -
CONTENTS
PART 1
Contents 2
Preface 5
Introduction 6
Prologue 6
Archaeological research in the Pontine region 7
The LAC and the integration of this thesis 9
Goals and structure of this thesis 9
1. Amphora studies and amphorae 11
1.1. Amphora studies 11
1.1.1. The use of amphora studies 11
1.1.2. Amphora studies: 1899 to 1970 12
1.1.3. Amphora studies: 1970 to present 13
1.2. Amphorae: theoretical aspects 14
1.2.1. Etymology and nomenclature 14
1.2.2. The problem of definition: morphological and functional criteria 15
1.2.3. The definition of amphora used in this thesis 17
1.3. Amphorae: technical aspects 19
1.3.1. Primary uses of amphorae: wine 19
1.3.2. Primary uses of amphorae: olive-oil 20
1.3.3. Primary uses of amphorae: fish sauce 20
1.3.4. Primary uses of amphorae: other commodities 22
1.3.5. Secondary uses of amphorae 23
1.3.6. Production of amphorae 24
1.3.7. Matters of epigraphy: stamps and tituli picti 26
1.4. Amphorae: historical aspects 27
1.4.1. Origins in the East and the Phoenician/Punic amphorae 27
1.4.2. Ancient Greek amphorae 28
1.4.3. The rise of the Italic tradition 29
1.4.4. The Roman era: Italian amphorae 31
1.4.5. The Roman era: Hispanic amphorae 33
1.4.6. The Roman era: Gallic amphorae 35
1.4.7. The Roman era: African amphorae 37
1.4.8. The Roman era: eastern Mediterranean amphorae 40
- 3 -
1.4.9 Amphorae in post-Antiquity 41
2. Roman maritime trade 43
2.1. Exchange mechanisms: three modes of trade 43
2.1.1. Reciprocity 43
2.1.2. Redistribution 44
2.1.3. Free market trading 44
2.2. Technical and logistical aspects of Roman trade 45
2.2.1. Ships 45
2.2.2. Ports 47
2.2.3. Trade routes 49
2.3. Organization of Roman seaborne trade 50
2.3.1. Maritime trade organization in the Republican era 50
2.3.2. Maritime trade organization in the Imperial era 50
2.4. The debate on the ancient economy 52
2.4.1. The modernist view 52
2.4.2. The primitivist view 54
2.4.3. The balanced view 56
3. The Pontine region 60
3.1. Categorization of the Pontine region 60
3.1.1. Geographical categorization 60
3.1.2. Geomorphological categorization 61
3.1.3. Socio-economic categorization and this thesis 61
3.2. Chronology of the Pontine region 62
3.2.1. Protohistory 62
3.2.2. The Archaic and post-Archaic period 64
3.2.3. The Roman period: the Republic 65
3.2.4. The Roman period: the Empire 67
3.3. Coastal area, hinterland and the socio-economic system 69
4. The Liboni Amphora Collection 72
4.1. Research history and methodology of the LAC 72
4.1.1. LAC research history 72
4.1.2. Origins and composition of the Liboni collection 73
4.1.3. Photographing and drawing the LAC 74
4.1.4. Describing the LAC 75
4.2. LAC 2006-2007 results 77
4.2.1. LAC summary table 78
4.2.2. LAC statistical composition chart 83
4.2.3. LAC date range chart 83
- 4 -
4.2.4. LAC contents charts 83
5. Interpretations 87
5.1. Observations 87
5.1.1. Amphora types and number of amphorae 87
5.1.2. Dating 88
5.1.3. Provenance 88
5.1.4. Distribution 90
5.1.5. Contents 90
5.2. Deductions 91
5.2.1. Comparing the LAC with the GIA Nettuno survey data 91
5.2.2. Comparing the LAC with the amphorae in the museum of Anzio 93
5.2.3. Issues of chronology 94
5.2.4. Ancient origins and destinations of the LAC amphorae: land-based finds 95
5.2.5. Ancient origins and destinations of the LAC amphorae: seaborne finds 96
5.3. The LAC study and beyond: law, trade and wine in Roman Latium 98
5.3.1. The lex Claudia and elite entrepreneurs 98
5.3.2. Amphorae, Astura and the Pontine wine trade 101
6. Conclusions 103
6.1. Summary 103
6.2. Future study 104
Bibliography 106
Literature 106
Websites 108
- 5 -
PREFACE
A thesis is never created by one person alone. Of course I have performed the greater part of the research and writing, but I
could not have done so were it not for a good deal of people to assist me.
First and foremost I would like to thank my tutor, prof. dr. P.A.J. Attema, for the opportunity to finish the study of the
Liboni Amphora Collection and transform it into a proper thesis. Our discussions during status update meetings often gave
me new angles for interpreting the LAC amphorae. Had this research ended in the summer of 2006 it would surely have
been a missed opportunity.
I essentially owe the continuance of the LAC study to drs. G.W. Tol. He was the one that inventoried the subterranean
corridors of Forte Sangallo, thereby discovering many more amphora fragments for me to catalogue. Gijs was also very
helpful along the way, assisting and tutoring in drawing and describing during both summers in Nettuno, as well as being a
good laugh during those campaigns.
My thanks also to drs. T.C.A. de Haas, who introduced me to the world of amphorae and set me on the road to
specialization. The catalogue at the back of this thesis would not have been as precise without Tymon’s own reviewing and
finetuning. His discovery of the USAP online database likewise brought the catalogue to new heights. His advice in drawing
and describing the LAC has also been greatly appreciated.
I want to express my sincere gratitude towards those intrepid men that keep the GIA drawing office alive: S.E. Boersma, S.
Tiebackx and E. Bolhuis. The fact that I could use digitized versions of my drawings is a result of the hard work put in by
Siebe and Sander for the Nettuno publication. I especially want to thank Siebe for digitizing both the majority of 2006
material, as well as my selection of that of 2007. The latter was entirely out of free will, at the coat of a mere apple pie.
Erwin brought me up to speed with CorelDraw and kept me company during the couple of days I endured the drawing
office for work on the Nettuno publication. I’ll be back whenever you guys need me there, in exchange for food and payment
of course.
Last but certainly not least I wish to thank M. Boonstra, my partner. Margriet has been instrumental in keeping me sane
during this research, as well as inspired at those times I failed to see the point of it all. Taking Munsell colors and precise
measurements at the rushed end of the 2006 campaign have also been a snap because of her. She is furthermore responsible
for sorting out the hundreds of photographs I made of the LAC amphorae, as well as proofreading all my texts.
Final honorable mentions go to the following people: dr. W.M. Jongman of the University of Groningen, for assessing this
thesis in the capacity of second reader; dr. S. Voutsaki of the GIA, for furthering my interest in archaeological theory and
the ancient economy; A. Berends, for assisting me in drawing and describing in 2006; prof. dr. J. Remesal Rodríguez of the
Univeristy of Barcelona, for admitting me to the CEIPAC online amphora epigraphy database and rerouting the case of the
MNK stamp to the expert; F. Laubenheimer, Directrice de Recherche at the CNRS, for studying the MNK stamp and
surprising me with her own surprise; H. Bultema, for proofreading my first theoretical chapter and taking my mind of
amphorae when I needed it. And of course direttore A. Liboni, for admitting me into the bowels of Forte Sangallo and
magically producing ever more amphora fragments on those shelves.
Thank you all,
Harry Pape
Winschoten, May 2008
- 6 -
INTRODUCTION
PROLOGUE
One might say it is easier to found an empire than to maintain it. An empire, defined here as a
supranational body of political, socio-economic and military stability, is by nature a cumbersome and
sluggish concept. As an empire grows, oversight decreases and with it control of the territories and
populace it encompasses. Most of these issues are of political or military nature and can be resolved
with correct application of those institutions’ power, but just as important is sustaining the empire’s
socio-economic network by production, trade and (re)distribution. The old Roman credo of ‘bread and
games’ is after all only part games: the bread has to come from somewhere as well. To feed the people
of the Roman Empire and the preceding Republic, agriculture and contributing industries used a
significant part of its labor potential. Raw resources had to be gathered, then processed into foodstuffs
and finally transported to their destination. The essentials of the Roman way of life, wine and olive oil,
constituted a major part of the end-products, together with fish derivates and fruit.
The most efficient way to haul these goods in bulk quantities over long distances was overseas by
ship, in dedicated containers. The singular most important earthenware vessel used for storing and
transporting (semi-)liquid commodities overseas in Antiquity was the amphora. Amphorae came in all
shapes and sizes and have become a mainstay of archaeological study by virtue of the information they
can provide about production, trade and other socio-economic aspects of ancient civilization.
Amphorae studies are part of an expanding field of research since the 1970s and their possibilities are
still far from exhausted.1
The beating heart of the Roman world was of course Rome itself, with its renowned port Ostia as a
major point of import, export and distribution. Ostia was however by no means the only harbor where
ships from all provinces under Roman control moored to unload their amphorae; dozens of harbors,
both small and large, lined the Latial coast and beyond. These sites are often overshadowed by the fame
of Ostia or their existence has not yet been proved archaeologically, but they were important in their
own right as locations of trade and (re)distribution on a more regional scale. Maritime trade
strengthened the structure of both the Roman Republic and Empire; it is what kept the system going.
And the amphorae were at the heart of it all.
1 Peacock & Williams 1991, 3
- 7 -
ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH IN THE PONTINE REGION
This thesis is not entirely a stand-alone product. Its conception is linked to several successive long-term
regional survey and excavation projects in Italy, encompassing the Agro Pontino and southern Latial
coastal area: the Pontine Region Project (PRP), Regional Pathways to Complexity (RPC), the Astura
Project and the Carta Archeologica del Comune di Nettuno. These projects are all initiatives of the
Groningen Institute of Archaeology (GIA), which is part of the Rijksuniversiteit Groningen (University
of Groningen, RuG).
Before the GIA started to do more specific research in the Pontine region, this area was already under
study by other archaeologists. This tradition started as early as the 19th century with topographical
studies aimed at understanding the fortified sites with polygonal wall structures. One of these sites,
Norba (near present-day Norma, in the Monti Lepini), was host to the first systematic excavation in the
area at the start of the 20th century, followed by small topographical studies in the immediate
surroundings at the sites Serrone di Bove and Caracupa Valvisciolo. During this century several sites in
the Agro Pontino were also researched within the framework of the Forma Italiae project, which goal
was to map all remaining archaeology in Italy on a scale of 1:25000. From the 1970s onward a slew of
regional studies has been publicized by researchers as Brandizzi Vitucci (1968, 1998) and Quilici &
Quilici-Gigli (1987, 1998).2
In 1977 the universities of Groningen and Amsterdam (RuG, UvA) started excavations at the site of
Satricum (present-day Borgo Le Ferriere), which lies approximately 10 kilometers upstream along the
Astura river. Here work was done at the acropolis (boasting a multi-period temple for Mater Matuta,
under study since the 19th century), the settlement and two necropoleis (one of the Latini, one of the
Volsci3). These Dutch excavations are among the most famous in the region and have been recorded in
detail by the researchers involved (Maaskant-Kleibrink et al. 1978 & 1992, Gnade 1992, Bouma 1996).
The UvA also initiated the first systematic surveys in the Agro Pontino, combined with palynological
research (Voorrips et al. 1991).
In 1987 the RuG started the Pontine Region Project (PRP): a survey project aimed primarily at
studying the changes and developments in the Agro Pontino in the 1st millennium BC, with an emphasis
on the impact made by Roman colonization on the protohistorical landscape. This project effectively
runs to this day. In 1997 the RuG and VU University Amsterdam joined forces to initiate Regional
Pathways to Complexity (RPC), which encompasses the study of three regions in Italy from the Late
Bronze Age to the Roman era. Emphasis lay on centralization, urbanization and colonization. GIA
2 Tol 2005, 1; Attema et al. 2005, 10-11 3 M. La Rosa, pers. comm. 2007
- 8 -
surveys were done in the three major geophysical units of the Pontine region; the Colli Albani
(Lanuvium area), Monti Lepini (Doganella di Ninfa area) and Agro Pontino (Fogliano area).
The Astura Project of the GIA began in 2001 and focused specifically on the coastal area between
Nettuno and Torre Astura. A trio of sites along the coastline was studied: a kiln site (P11), a Late
Bronze Age site (P13) and an amphora section hinting at local amphora production near the villa
known as Le Grottacce (P15). After excavations and section sampling of these sites a survey was
performed in the valley of the Astura river in 2003, which partly marks the eastern boundary of the
comune.
The resulting exhibition and presentation aroused the attention of the Assessorato alla Cultura del
Comune di Nettuno in such a fashion that, in reaction to the recently flared up ‘cultural consciousness’
in the region, the idea came to archaeologically map the entire comune. This marked the inception of
the Carta Archeologica del Comune di Nettuno, a joint venture of the GIA and several Latial
institutions concerned with the region’s archaeology, aimed towards mapping the archaeological remains
in the comune and gaining a better understanding of the socio-economic development and Roman
colonization in this region from the Archaic period onward.4
The Carta Archeologica is the most recent GIA undertaking in the Pontine region, and this thesis is a
direct and integral sidestep of the research performed within that framework. The main sources for the
Carta Archeologica are the so-called ‘Liboni Collection’ and material found during GIA surveys. The
Liboni Collection is named after Arnaldo Liboni, caretaker of the Antiquario di Nettuno (the local
museum, housed in Forte Sangallo) and in his spare time collector of archaeological material. By his
efforts a fair amount of material from the comune has found its way into the museum, but the majority
is still in crates stacked in the subterranean corridors of the fort.
The finds that constitute the Liboni Collection have been drawn and described the last few years by
several GIA postgraduates and students during the summer campaigns of the RuG in Nettuno, in order
to create part of the dataset for the Carta Archeologica. Material found during these campaigns by
surveying in (and sometimes a little outside) the comune were also drawn and described. The
preliminary results of this material, coupled with the mapping of known and new sites in the comune,
can be found in the thesis of G.W. Tol.5 GIA research in the Pontine region is at the time of writing,
now 2008, drawing to a close. G.W. Tol is currently working on his PhD thesis, encompassing among
others excavations at the Astura river. It is thought that these undertakings will once more increase our
knowledge about this important area of Roman history.
4 Tol 2005, 1-4 5 Tol 2005
- 9 -
THE LAC AND THE INTEGRATION OF THIS THESIS
Beside the material in Forte Sangallo’s magazzino, a part of the Liboni Collection was hidden behind a
closed door in the fort’s central building. Here a collection of over fifty intact amphorae was stored.
The assignment I was given in the summer of 2006 by prof. dr. P.A.J. Attema, head of the Classical
department of the GIA and initiator of most GIA projects in the Pontine region, was primarily to
fashion a catalogue of the complete amphorae kept in the storeroom as part of my Research Master. In
the course of four weeks I photographed, drew and described all amphorae in the storeroom, as well as a
lot of fragments found on the shelves of the magazzino and in the display cases of the museum. At the
end of the campaign it was obvious that there were many more amphora fragments in the magazzino,
but there was no time left to process them all.
The amphorae I studied and catalogued in the summer of 2006 were from that moment on known as
the Liboni Amphora Collection (LAC). The resulting report about the LAC was mostly technical, as
the catalogue had been the focal point and the amount of time remaining before the deadline back
home was insufficient to go into much depth with context and interpretation. Therefore the report was
somewhat lacking in that respect, which is a shame of course for a collection with that much potential.
In the beginning of 2007 it became clear that the LAC held much more promise and I decided to pick
up the research where I left off and expand it into the thesis that lies before you now. All remaining
amphorae (fragments) in Forte Sangallo were processed in the summer of 2007, and the interpretations
that had been left wanting in 2006 were fully addressed.
This thesis meshes with the existing GIA projects currently underway in the Agro Pontino (the PhD
research of GIA postgraduates G.W. Tol and T.C.A. de Haas, the Carta Archeologica del Comune di
Nettuno) in that the results will hopefully provide even more insight into the regional socio-economic
network of the southern Latial coastal zone and its hinterland.
GOALS AND STRUCTURE OF THIS THESIS
Aside from supporting and expanding on current GIA knowledge of the Pontine region, this thesis also
aims to contribute to the larger debate about maritime trade during the Roman period by focusing on
the regional socio-economic system of the Pontine region between the present-day city of Anzio and the
historical site of Torre Astura. This will be done principally by means of an extensive amphora study,
for which the Liboni Amphora Collection (LAC) will be the primary source of information. This
collection is located in the museum of the present-day city of Nettuno (RM, Lazio, Italia) and has been
- 10 -
studied by the author in the span of two consecutive summers (2006-2007). Furthermore the results of
surveys and excavations in the aforementioned region performed by the Groningen Institute of
Archaeology will be used to provide a diachronic insight into the history of the Pontine region and the
southern Latial coastal zone; the backdrop against which the amphorae will be studied and utilized to
increase our knowledge and understanding of the larger scope of Republican and Imperial maritime
trade.
Chapter I gives a concise introduction to amphorae and their study, followed by Chapter 2 which
provides a general explanation and outline of Roman maritime trade: organization, ports, transported
goods, ships and trade routes. Chapter 3 then relates the layout and (archaeological) history of the
Pontine region, together with information about settlements and ports in the region, amphora
production centers, maritime villae and their hinterland. Chapter 4 constitutes the core of my own
research; the Liboni Amphora Collection (LAC) with an explanation of the methodology used to create
the concordant catalogue, as well as the results in table and chart form. In Chapter 5 then I give an in-
depth analysis and interpretation of the acquired results from the two-year LAC study, together with a
correlation to the information gleaned about the regional socio-economic system. Chapter 6 ultimately
tries to answer the main question posed in this thesis: what can the LAC amphorae, combined with the
regional survey and excavation data, tell us about the socio-economic network of the Pontine region
during the Roman period from a maritime point of view?
- 11 -
1. AMPHORA STUDIES AND AMPHORAE
In this chapter the various aspects of amphorae and the history of their study are discussed. The
amphora was the number-one form of trade-packaging in the Roman world. While grain was arguably
the most essential subsistence product in those days, several other commodities that virtually defined the
Roman way of living were transported in bulk across the Mediterranean. Wine, olive oil and fish
derivates traveled across the seas in ships laden with amphorae, along with a fair number of less
encountered products. Amphorae are the most common type of pottery encountered in the Roman
Mediterranean, attesting to the scale of trade and transport during those times.
1.1. AMPHORA STUDIES
1.1.1. The use of amphora studies
The study of amphorae is nowadays a solid part of the debate concerning the ancient economy, for
these vessels offer an amazing wealth of potential information. Being the premier mode of trade
packaging in the ancient world, amphorae bear direct material witness to the movement of several
commodities that were essential to the people of Antiquity. This is especially the case in Roman times,
when the scale of maritime trade reached heights not seen before. The full appreciation of amphorae is a
relatively recent development though, as these vessels have often been neglected or even dismissed by
scholars and laymen alike in favor of ‘prettier’ fine ware like terra sigillata or items of gold and bronze.
By studying amphorae one can learn about several aspects of the ancient economy. First and foremost
the products in which a region traded can be deduced by noting the amphora types present, as certain
types are associated with certain products. This association is made possible because of the study of
painted inscriptions found on amphorae, which often relate the contents of the containers. This has led
to a continually growing list of amphora forms correlated with their principal contents.
The epigraphic evidence on amphorae, being generally painted inscriptions (tituli picti) and stamps,
give even more information than that however. This is discussed elsewhere in this thesis in more detail
(see 1.3.7), and it suffices to say here that the study of that epigraphy can shed light upon several
aspects connected to the shipping of the amphora in question as well as the rest of the cargo (port from
where the amphora was shipped, nature and weight of contents, names of ship or port personnel, etc.).
Finally the fabric of amphorae deserves special mention. Though often overshadowed by the
typological study of the vessel, fabric can give an indication of, or sometimes even pinpoint the location
- 12 -
where the amphora was made. This can be very important when the study of the form itself is
inconclusive as to the origin of the vessel, whether because the fragment is non-characteristic or because
of a hitherto unknown type. There are several very distinct fabrics that were used for certain amphorae,
presenting a first anchor line when finding amphorae fragments in the field.
Using amphorae as dating evidence is more difficult than it would seem at first glance. As M.H.
Callender demonstrated (see 1.3.5), many amphorae tended to have quite a long life in use after the
primary commodity was consumed or used up. Also the very nature of amphorae as vessels with purely
practical use (barring decorative Greek vessels) resulted in a relatively slow typological change of forms,
as the look of an amphora was subservient to its function. This change however is not as virtually non-
existent as Callender seemingly believed; a view which has been countered by specialists since
Callender’s work in 1965. Small changes over time in e.g. rim form can be observed with several forms,
such as the famous olive oil container Dressel 20.6
1.1.2. Amphora studies: 1899 to 1970
Heinrich Dressel was most probably the first scholar to acknowledge the importance of amphorae and
to make a systematic study of these vessels. The painted inscriptions on amphorae drew his attention,
and in 1899 he published his research in the Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum, together with Schoene
and Mau, who also published their epigraphic studies in those volumes. The location of Dressel’s study
was Rome, and more specifically Monte Testaccio: an artificial hill in Rome’s former dockland
consisting entirely of discarded amphora fragments. Dressel nearly lost his eyesight in reading all the
text present on that veritable mountain of knowledge, and it resulted in the first typology of amphorae.
While his scheme was clarified and improved upon in subsequent years, it has never been completely
surpassed or made obsolete, which is a clear testament to Dressel’s prowess as a dedicated scholar. His
name thus lives on in the classification of numerous amphorae, such as the ubiquitous Dressel 1 and 20.
While this was a prodigious start of a promising field of research, amphorae were mostly neglected
until the 1950s. The revival was the result of increasing interest in marine archaeology, as amphorae are
the primary material of the underwater archaeologist. A number of amphora-laden wrecks were
discovered in these years, prompting scholars such as Lamboglia (1950) and Benoit (1956) to
reappraise the study of amphorae. Another impulse for renewed study was the interest in amphorae in
Britain and other parts of northwestern Europe. M.H. Callender produced a comprehensive study and
catalogue of amphorae stamps in this period, which is unfortunately inherently flawed by its publication
date fifteen years later in 1965. This meant one and a half decade of amphora research was not taken
into account, resulting in views that were mostly outdated at publication and in a lack of stamps found
6 Peacock & Williams 1991, pp. 2-19
- 13 -
during that hiatus in time. However, while some of Callender’s views on typology and chronology are
thus outdated, a substantial part of his theoretical framework still applies now, as does his catalogue of
stamps.
Two other important names in this period are Tchernia and Zevi, whose articles on amphorae began
to appear in the late 1960s. Besides criticizing Callender’s work and a reappraisal of that of Dressel (by
Zevi), they initiated new research as well. André Tchernia became an expert on Roman wine and their
correspondent amphorae.
1.1.3. Amphora studies: 1970 to present
The 1970s proved to be an enormous boost to the study of amphorae in a multitude of countries.
Tchernia and Zevi continued with their research and publications, while other scholars joined in mostly
as a result of two conferences at the French School in Rome that had piqued or increased many a
scholar’s interest in amphorae: Beltrán published his research and typology of Hispanic amphorae;
Kuzmanov, Zemer and Kapitän focused on late eastern and Aegean vessels; Laubenheimer tackled
amphorae from Gaul; Will studied Greco-Italic amphorae; Ponsich those of the Iberian Peninsula; in
Italy meanwhile Panella, Manacorda and Carandini concentrated on Ostia and Pompeii, refining
amphora typologies as they went; and the list goes on. Breakthroughs were made in petrological,
chemical and quantitative analysis as well, rounding out or increasing the array of usable scientific
methods. Clearly the amount of research on amphorae in the 1970s and the subsequent publications
thereof consolidated the position of amphora studies in archaeology.
The trend was set and the 1980s only saw more research being done and published. A memorable
work saw the light in 1984, in the form of Simon Keay’s extensive treatise on Hispanic and African
amphorae. Particularly important is his exhaustive list and typology of late Roman African cylindrical
vessels. The typology of these so-called Keay types is still used today and Keay’s work remains the
ubiquitous source for those that specialize in African amphorae.
Perhaps the most influential publication of that decade however was Amphorae and the Roman
economy: an introductory guide by Peacock & Williams. By compiling amphora data from the
multitude of articles that had almost exponentially grown since the 1970s, adding new insights and
producing a fairly easy to use guide to recognize the most common Roman amphorae, the first standard
work for amphora studies was born in 1986. To this day it remains the foremost basic resource for
anyone that is interested in amphorae, being the starting point for this thesis as well.
From the 1990s to the time of writing this thesis (2007-2008) almost another two decades have
passed. Discoveries both underwater and on dry land have continued to be made, and two more
standard works have been published in 1991 and 1997 that complement that of Peacock & Williams:
- 14 -
Amphores: comment les identifier? by Sciallano and Sibella, and Anfore antiche: conoscerle e
identificarle by Caravale & Toffoletti. Both feature improved guides for recognizing amphorae, adding
new forms to the list of Peacock & Williams but also excluding some of them. Anfore antiche more or
less supersedes the work by Sciallano & Sibella (which I therefore have hardly used) as it contains extra
amphorae and uses a more user-friendly reference table. It is also even more of a handbook for use in
the field and contains less historical and theoretical background than Amphorae and the Roman
economy. All these works should thus best be used in conjunction with each other to compensate, as
has been done in this thesis. Together they form a solid core for every amphora study.7
The most recent compilation of amphora research makes full use of the possibilities of the Internet.
As of 2005, the University of Southampton hosts a database of Roman amphorae (hereafter USAP
2005) under the supervision of Keay and Williams.8 This database lists every Roman amphora
currently known, complete with petrological details, zoomable pictures/drawings and an integral multi-
stage search function that enables quick identification of most amphora types. Its major downside is the
exclusion of non-Roman era amphorae (e.g. Ancient Greek, Etruscan, etc.), but again it yields
impressive results when used together with the aforementioned literature. For the Roman amphorae the
USAP 2005 database is the most recent source of information and is therefore the primary contributor
of confronti in the catalogue of this thesis.
1.2. AMPHORAE: THEORETICAL ASPECTS
1.2.1. Etymology and nomenclature
The Latin word amphora comes from ancient Greek amphoreus (αµφορέας), and is a compound word
combining amphi- (on both sides) and phoreus (carrier), from pherein (to carry).9 These words thus
convey the essence of the concept amphora with both a morphological characteristic (double-handled)
and a functional one (carrier), but an actual definition based on a set of those characteristics is far more
difficult as is discussed in 1.2.2.
The word amphora was also used to denominate the chief Roman liquid measurement from the 1st
century BC onward. As such an amphora equaled a little less than 26 liters according to Hayes.10 This
volume was also known as a quadrantal and could be further subdivided in two urnae, eight congii, 48
sextarii and 96 heminae. These measurements were mostly used to indicate the yield of a vineyard, as
7 Peacock & Williams 1991, pp. 2-4 ; Caravale & Toffoletti 1997, 14-15 ; Paterson 1982, pp. 146-157 8 University of Southampton Amphora Project 2005 9 Hayes 1997, pp. 96, endnote 13 10 Id., endnote 14
- 15 -
examples from ancient literature show. The amphora was also used as a measure of length and of a
ship’s tonnage. The use of the word amphora as a measurement this way indicates an ‘ideal’ amphora in
a theoretical sense,11 and thus should not be equated with any real-life vessel (although one of the older
types might have had that particular capacity).
Callender comments upon the word cadus (pl. cadii), which in ancient literature is used in the same
way as the word amphora in the sense of a vessel for storage and transport of liquid goods. Callender
argues that both words were probably interchangeable in Roman times and designated vessels of
roughly the same size and appearance, as shown by his citations of Pliny, Columella and Martial. He
further speculates that the larger amphorae were perhaps first known as cadi (equaling 3 urnae rather
than 2), but that the distinction faded with the increasing variation of size and capacity through time.12
1.2.2. The problem of definition: morphological and functional criteria
Unlike other more obvious pottery classes like cups and plates, there is no universal definition of what
exactly constitutes an amphora. Although all specialists know some overlap in the way they describe
such a vessel, a general consensus remains to be achieved. This issue has plagued the study for years, but
the appearance of three standard works13 in the last two decades has brought some alleviation.
Peacock & Williams quote Virginia Grace (1961), who mentions a few distinguishing morphological
criteria for these transport containers: “[…] a mouth narrow enough to be corked, two opposite vertical
handles and at the bottom usually a tip or knob which serves as a third handle, below the weight,
needed when one inverts a heavy vessel to pour from it. A flat base big enough for the jar to stand on
would give no purchase for lifting.”14 Caravale & Toffoletti repeat these morphological and functional
characteristics and add a tapering body, an elongated neck and walls thick enough as to prevent
rupture.15 These criteria have been acknowledged by most scholars working with amphorae up until
now and with them all of the ‘traditional’ amphorae (such as Dressel 1) are covered.
A great number of what most specialists call amphorae fall outside of this traditional class. The body
of an amphora can actually differ wildly from the classical tapering form, as demonstrated by the
multitude of cylindrical, bulbous, tapering, piriform (pear-shaped) and even bag-like vessels. The
elongated neck mentioned by Carevale & Toffoletti is another such matter. While the major part of
known vessels displays such a distinct neck, making it again a characteristic of ‘traditional’ amphorae
11 Callender 1965, pp. 3 12 Id., pp. 2, footnote 3 13 Peacock & Williams 1991 ; Sciallano & Sibella 1994 ; Caravale & Toffoletti 1997 14 Grace 1961, quoted in Peacock & Williams 1991, pp. 5 15 Caravale & Toffoletti 1997, pp. 11
- 16 -
such as Dressel 1, there are enough types without it.16 The boundaries between these morphological
denominations can be hazy sometimes and composite forms exist as well.
Also, while amphorae with a tip or ‘spike’ are the most common and characteristic, vessels with a flat
base (-ring) are by no means an exception (the ancient Greek amphorae all had base-rings). Amphorae
with such a base are excluded by Grace’s definition given above though, as are all other shapes of base; a
flaw in her set of criteria as observed by Peacock & Williams as well. According to Grace, a spike
provided both a third handle for easily lifting the vessel by one person and a way to securely stack it
among other amphorae in the hold of a ship, 17 which a flat base did not. I disagree with this view; most
flat-bottomed amphorae are smaller and lighter (i.e. have thinner walls) than their spiked cousins,
greatly reducing the need for such a third handle, while they retain the tapering form that is required for
stacking them.
If one follows Grace’s reasoning, several vessels of major importance (that also feature prominently in
the Liboni Amphora Collection) could not be called amphorae and would not be taken into account in
this thesis. An example of this is the Gauloise 4 (mid 1st to mid 3rd century AD): a relatively small, thin-
walled vessel with a flat base-ring. This I would surely call an amphora, for it answers to all other
morphological criteria given above but the lack of a spike and having thinner walls than most amphorae.
Peacock & Williams quote Widemann et al. (1979), who states Gauloise 4 must have required a
protective casing of straw. This practice is actually shown on a relief from Neumagen, Germany. 18 It
also had the same function: the transport of liquid commodities (wine).
Callender argues that the vessels called amphorae from Antiquity onward vary so much in size, shape
and capacity, that the original definition must have become severely debased over time. Thus every two-
handled vessel that was reminiscent of the original Greek form and was meant for storage and transport
(principally the latter) would most probably have been designated amphora or cadus. He then proceeds
to give a tentative remark about amphora morphology: his (of course quite loose) definition does in fact
include vessels with a flat base (-ring). He actually does not use the word spike, and instead adds the
criterion to “[…] be unable to stand without support when loaded with their commodities.”19 In the
corresponding footnote he argues that vessels with small stand-rings could perhaps stand on their own
accord when empty, “[…] but which must have had some external means of support when loaded, if
only for safety’s sake, when full […].”20 This effectively evades the whole spike vs. flat base issue in a
rather elegant manner.
16 Id., pp. 4-5. Nr. 56 is the most eye-catching example without a neck 17 A spike might also have been used to roll an amphorae around its vertical axis (prof. dr. P.A.J. Attema, pers. comm. 2007) 18 Peacock & Williams 1991, pp. 51 ; Callender 1965, pp. 43 & plate Va/b 19 Callender 1965, pp. 3 20 Id., footnote 2
- 17 -
This view has much to commend it, as there are quite a few types almost every specialist calls
amphorae, which do not even have either a distinct spike or truly flat base. This is obvious at first
glance when looking at Carevale & Toffoletti’s Indice Grafico delle Anfore.21 Both Punic and Etruscan
amphorae have a variety of rounded, pointed and flattened bases.22 The ultimate irony then befalls the
globular Dressel 20 (and its smaller successor Dressel 23 as well): 23 this famous Baetican form, one of
the most common and widely distributed of all amphorae, has a diminutive basal knob that neither
aided lifting or stacking and was most probably nearly impossible to handle by just one person when
filled due to its size and weight. The Dressel 20 thus does not comply with the functional criteria tied
in with the tip/knob put forward by Grace and could therefore not be called an amphora.24 While the
amphora was surely developed at first to be a container requiring only one person to carry it, 25 the very
nature of development is dynamic instead of static; in the course of time larger and otherwise less
manageable amphorae came into use, sacrificing ease of handling somewhat for increased capacity.
Though Peacock & Williams point to the artificiality of morphological definition, they also
acknowledge the problem one encounters if the definition would be based solely on function (so
grouping together all containers of liquid goods). After all, amphorae were not the only trade-packaging
of liquid commodities available in Antiquity (also storage jars, flagons, etc. served that purpose).
Amphorae were also not used solely to transport liquid commodities, adding a new level of complexity
to such a purely functional definition. Better would be to define their function as storage and transport
of “[…] bulk commodities subject to spoilage […].”26 This would be the primary use of amphorae, as
these vessels more often than not displayed what Callender calls ‘secondary use survival’: having a
secondary function after its primary function had been fulfilled.27 These secondary uses are discussed in
more detail in 1.3.5.
1.2.3. The definition of amphora used in this thesis
In the light of the discussion above, I hereby present a definition of amphora based on a combination of
morphological and functional criteria, combining and adding to those mentioned in the previous
paragraph:
21 Carevale & Toffoletti 1997, pp. 4-5 22 Id., respectively nrs. 55-58 and 76-80 23 Id., nrs. 132-133 24 Callender 1965, plate VI. Thick-walled and heavy spike-less amphorae such as Dressel 20 were most probably suspended from a wooden rod carried by two people, as shown on the wall painting from Augst, Switzerland 25 Peacock & Williams 1991, pp. 21 26 Ibid. 27 Callender 1965, pp. 24, footnote 1
- 18 -
An amphora is an earthenware vessel designed specifically for storing and transporting bulk
commodities subject to spoilage. The vessel has to possess:
a) a mouth of small enough diameter to be sealed airtight;
b) two vertical handles opposite each other to facilitate handling;
c) a body designed for storing and viably transporting (liquid) foodstuffs;
d) a base rendering the vessel unable to safely stand unsupported when fully loaded
(e.g. flat base, ring-base) or at all (e.g. spike, rounded/pointed base), being generally
designed to facilitate handling and stacking.
Criteria a), b) and c) are based purely on function. The rims and handles encountered on amphorae
display a dizzying variation in size and appearance, and could therefore never be used as morphological
criteria to define if a vessel is an amphora or not. The same effectively goes for the bodies of amphorae,
which is also why I have dismissed having a distinct neck as part of the criterion. Rims, handles and
bodies are typologically distinct though and play an integral role in further classifying amphorae in
types, as well as aid in dating.
Moreover for criterion c), I have specifically kept the thickness of the walls out of the equation, which
varies significantly between types and periods. While amphora walls are notably thicker than those of
other pottery - something which is in itself quite useful during finds determination in surveys - it is
primarily the presence or additions of inclusions that strengthen those walls instead of their thickness
(and also further characterize a fragment as belonging to an amphora).28 Most containers were thus
strong enough to be stacked in a ship as such, due to a combination of wall thickness and inclusions in
the clay. Vessels with generally thinner walls and fewer inclusions then, like the Gauloise 4, would have
had need of a protective casing as is known to have existed.
Criterion d) integrates the musings of Callender to sidestep the spike vs. flat base issue by adding the
inability to safely stand unsupported at all, or at least when filled. This criterion does not focus on the
‘third handle’ function which the spike clearly had, but rather on the result of a morphological choice.
Be it spike or flat base, rounded or pointed; the vast majority of filled amphorae cannot be assumed to
stand without support, as it was either wholly impossible or the risk of falling over would have been too
great. Some might have been able to stand precariously, but one would most probably not have bet on
it.
28 Peacock & Williams 1991, pp. 45
- 19 -
1.3. AMPHORAE: TECHNICAL ASPECTS
1.3.1. Primary uses of amphorae: wine
Wine was a central focus of Greek life, and it therefore comes as no surprise that the majority of Greek
amphorae were meant for transporting this beverage. Greek wines were of such quality and regard that
they were still much appreciated in Roman times, especially Rhodian and Koan vintages. The latter’s
way of production, being with added seawater, is said to have been the direct cause of the transition
from Dressel 1 to Dressel 2-4 amphorae (see 1.4.4). In Late Roman times wine was still exported from
the Aegean, all the way up until the 7th century AD.
Italian wines were certainly at the top of the market as well, for wines as Falernian, Setine, Alban and
Caecuban belong to the most famed wines in history. Falernian was a sweet white wine with a high
alcoholic content (about 16%) that became better and more valuable as it aged, and was made in three
vineyards between Latium and Campania (ager Falernus). It would remain one of Italy’s prime export
products, even when large-scale wine export contracted severely in the 2nd century AD. Setine was made
near Setia in the Monti Lepini and Pliny states that it was the favorite wine of Augustus (one of the few
wines that did not give him indigestion), while Alban wine ranked high among the upper class of Rome.
Caecuban heralded from one vineyard near Fundi and Terracina, and was said to be the best wine of the
1st century BC, being smoother than Falernian and fuller than Alban. It was soon overshadowed by
Falernian and Setine though and Pliny states that Nero practically caused the already neglected wine’s
extinction by destroying the sole vineyard when digging a canal through the area near Baiae.29 All these
famed wines came from Latium or Campania and were the primary export products of those regions.
Wines from Spain were prized as well, especially those coming from Tarraconensis. These were
exported to France and Italy in great quantities, until the superior Gallic wines from Narbonensis
caused the contraction of Hispanic wine export. The Narbonese wines rose to prominence in the 2nd
century AD, overshadowing and out-competing both Italian and Spanish wine exports. Gallic wine
remained top tier for the rest of the Roman period, and its reputation is essentially still relatively
undiminished in modern times.
In the Late Roman period, wines from the East occupied a central position in the market. They had
always been exported, but from the 4th century AD onwards Palestine, Egyptian and Turkish wines
gained a great deal of popularity in the West. Large-scale trade however ceased in the 7th century AD
with the Arab conquests.
29 Tchernia 1986, pp. 201-202 ; Tchernia & Brun 1999, pp. 26-28, 133 ; Caravale & Toffoletti 1997, pp. 24-26
- 20 -
1.3.2. Primary uses of amphorae: olive oil
Olive oil was the second most important essential of Roman life. It was used in the preparation of food,
in oil-lamps, in medicine, etc. In the early days of the Republic, Italy seems to have been almost self-
sufficient with regards to olive oil, perhaps only receiving small supplies of Greek oil periodically. It
would not be until the Early Imperial period that the population of the country, and especially of Rome
itself, increased to such an amount that large-scale import of olive oil became a necessity.
From Augustan times to the 3rd century AD the massive amounts of olive oil needed by the Roman
heartland came from Spain. For three centuries straight, dozens of workshops along the Guadalquivir
river in Baetica (present-day Andalusia) produced millions of amphorae, of which Dressel 20 is the best
known (see 1.4.5), to transport the oil across the sea. For a long time Baetica had a virtual monopoly on
olive oil, until competition from the North African provinces increased dramatically under the rule of
Septimius Severus, who also confiscated most Baetican estates and placed them under imperial control.
In the Imperial period massive amounts of olive oil were distributed among the population of Rome
(and later on in the entire country) for free, which made it a matter of the state to produce enough of
the precious liquid.
Olive oil from Tripolitania and Africa Proconsularis would be dominant for the next three centuries,
carried abroad in distinct cylindrical amphorae. Many of these were destined for Rome itself, and there
are almost as many Tripolitanian 3 sherds in Monte Testaccio as there are of Dressel 20 (see 1.4.7). It
is wholly possible, although not yet proven, that the millions of vessels forming that hill in Rome are
specifically meant for the annona olearia (the aforementioned free distribution of olive oil) while the
vessels found elsewhere in the Mediterranean represent free market trading. This would then imply that
certain forms of amphorae could be tied to either one of these mechanisms (redistribution or free
market trade). This might not have been as much of an issue during the Baetican monopoly as Dressel
20 was at that point in time the most widely used amphora and the annona was not as developed back
then, but it is intriguing that nearly all Tripolitanian 3 vessels were destined for Rome and are hardly
found anywhere else in large amounts.30
1.3.3. Primary uses of amphorae: fish sauce
While both wine and olive oil were produced in the so-called villa system, the third of the most
important amphora-borne commodities was produced in dedicated coastal facilities. A taste for fish
sauce, prized as a condiment in various dishes instead of salt, would have been transferred to the
Romans by Phocaean Greeks and later on by the Carthaginians. It was at first essentially a by-product
from the facilities that caught, prepared and conserved fish, although a larger part of the industry
30 Caravale & Toffoletti 1997, pp. 28-30 ; Callender 1965, pp. 49-50
- 21 -
became dedicated to its manufacture as it rose in popularity. These installations were mostly located at
the seaboard, both out of obvious practical reasons and because later edicts forbade these facilities being
built anywhere near a population center (although often thought otherwise, fish sauce only seems to
have reeked during production).
Fish sauce was made by fermenting the intestines and waste parts of a variety of fish and afterwards
adding extra ingredients, which essentially resulted in a briny fluid which greatly enhanced the taste of
food. The brine is known as muria (presumably the Baetican word for fish sauce), while the sediment
remaining after the liquid has been drawn of is called allec/allex/hallex, which was used as a fish paste.
The generic term for fish sauces seems to have been liquamen. The most well-known fish sauce is
garum, the best of which was made with either mackerel or tuna, depending on the subjectivity of the
historical source (e.g. Martial states mackerel is best, and tuna is inferior). This garum sociorum was
made at Carthago Nova (Cartagena) in Baetica. However, many other types of garum are known
depending on their added/mixed ingredients, such as hydrogarum (with water), oenogarum (with wine),
oxygarum (with vinegar), and mellogarum (with honey). The differing forms of Baetican fish sauce
amphorae might well have been an indication to the buyer of its contents (i.e. the specific kind of
sauce).
Fish sauce was undoubtedly made in Italy as well, although fish were actually quite scarce along her
coasts (see also 3.2.3). An interesting speculation is made by Brandizzi Vittucci, who muses that
Antium might have produced liquamen. The base of that idea is an amphora found there with the
stamp liq(uamen) antia(tinum) exc(ellens). She also connects this production with the fish basins
located at every villa marittima between Antium and Torre Astura. Unfortunately she does not relay the
amphora type in question.31
The primary installations of fish sauce production were located along both sides of the Strait of
Gibraltar, in Baetica and Mauretania (roughly present-day Morocco). Other important facilities can be
found on the coasts of Lusitania (Portugal) and Gallia Narbonensis (southern France). Until the 3rd
century AD Baetica and Mauretania had a near monopoly on the export of fish sauce, transporting them
in dedicated and distinct amphorae (see 1.4.5). These containers were all supposed to have come from
Baetica, as up to the publication by Peacock & Williams in 1986 there seemed to be an almost
complete absence of amphora kilns in Morocco that produced amphorae dedicated to fish sauce.32
Recently however North African amphorae are being reappraised and it is quite possible that forms
classically associated with olive oil may have been carriers for fish products as well.33
31 Brandizzi Vittucci 2000, pp. 132, footnote 618 32 Peacock & Williams 1991, pp. 41 33 e.g. Gibbins 2001
- 22 -
In the 3rd century AD, together with the contraction of its olive oil export, Baetica lost ground in the
fish sauce trade. Mauretania remained producing, as did Lusitania (with its own line of amphorae now).
North Africa not only took over the olive oil export from Baetica, it also started to produce fish sauce
on a large scale until the 7th century AD.34
1.3.4. Primary uses of amphorae: other commodities
While the three aforementioned commodities were undoubtedly the most prevalent in amphorae, they
were definitely not the only possible contents. Other products that were transported in amphorae are
mentioned in both Peacock & Williams and Caravale & Toffoletti, but it is Callender that gives a more
extensive summary with the help of encountered amphora stamps.
Amphorae are most often seen as carriers of liquid goods, of which wine, olive oil and fish sauce were
the most important. Derivates of wine were also transported however, such as defrutum and caroenum.
The first was a sweet liquid acquired by boiling the must, while the latter required the boiling down of
wine to a third of its original volume and the subsequent addition of honey. Both products were
probably transported indiscriminately in standard wine amphorae most of the time, but we know of one
form that was renowned for transporting defrutum (Haltern 70) and one of which it is sure it carried
caroenum as well as ‘normal’ wine (Late Roman 3). Callender also mentions oliva nigra ex defruto as
amphora contents, as in black olives that had been soaked in defrutum to sweeten them.
Olives thus also were transported in amphorae, whether already processed in some way or normally.
The same can be said for grapes and fish. The raw resources of wine, olive oil and fish sauce were thus
also carried. Salted fish was the primary product of the coastal facilities that also yielded its byproduct
fish sauce, and it seems the same amphorae were used for both commodities. It is not known if grapes
and olives were perhaps transported in smaller amphorae than those used for their derived liquids, or if
the same amphorae were used. It is likely though, as smaller amphorae such as Dressel 21-22,
Camulodunum 189 and the Spatheion were used for transport of fruits. Dressel 21-22 was used
exclusively for the storage and transport of (dried) fruits, such as cherries and plums. Camulodunum
189 is said to have contained dates, while olives are mentioned as one of the many possible contents of
the Spatheion. Callender furthermore lists figs, damsons and peaches as fruits mentioned in historical
sources in relation to amphorae.
Examples of miscellaneous products archaeologically found in or attributed historically to amphorae,
as listed by Callender are: nuts, pepper, honey, unguents, herbs, water, milk (Greek amphorae), hair-
remover, medicines, vinegar (Egyptian amphorae), urine (see 1.3.5), flour and grain. Amphorae
containing grain was a - for long dismissed - suggestion by the historian Rostovtzeff (see 2.4), but
34 Id., pp. 35-38 ; Caravale & Toffoletti 1997, pp. 32-33
- 23 -
recent finds have proven him right nonetheless. Callender finally mentions the massive find of
1.350.000 amphorae in Turin, which were all found upside down and sealed tight. Each was filled with
very finely washed and levigated (potters’?) clay. Such products encountered sporadically in amphorae
might not be standard issue for these vessels as wine, olive oil and fish sauce were, but they do give a
good indication of the multifunctional nature of amphorae.35
1.3.5. Secondary uses of amphorae
The multifunctional nature of amphorae is both a boon and a curse, as these vessels were often used for
long periods after their original contents had been consumed or otherwise used. This of course made
them very practical for the people in Antiquity from a functional vantage point, but it also makes it very
difficult for scholars of modern day to use amphorae as accurate dating tools. While a great deal of
amphorae were broken and discarded after they had fulfilled their primary function, as happened with
the enormous amounts of Dressel 20 vessels in Rome, a lot of containers were surely reused. They
might have been refilled with local products, or even used in a wholly different fashion. Again it is
Callender who lists several examples of what he calls ‘secondary use survival’, i.e. the survival of
amphorae in other uses after the primary commodity has been used or consumed.
One of the most well known secondary uses is the amphora burial. Callender distinguishes four types
of amphora burials: a) Italian (Dressel 1) amphorae as grave gifts filled with imported Campanian wine
(upper elite); b) Italian (Dressel 1) amphora without wine, but with ashes and sometimes other grave
gifts inside (lower elite); c) Spanish globular (Dressel 20?) amphorae with ashes and often accompanied
by grave gifts (common people); d) amphorae as coffins (the poorest people). The first three types of
burials are also found in Britain; only the last type is limited to Italy. The practice of amphora burial
was brought to Britain by conquering Belgae from Gaul, where it was a widespread practice, in the 1st
century AD. The use of amphorae in this respect has symbolic as well as practical significance, as they
contained or represented wine and olive oil required by the dead in the afterlife. Amphorae thus
provided an easily obtainable container for the ashes or body, combined with rich symbolism.36
Amphorae were also used secondary as toilets. In Pompeii the lower halves of amphorae were placed
at street corners, and when filled with urine they were removed by the city’s fullers. Sometimes the
upper half of the amphora was used though and placed with the rim in the ground, the mouth acting as
drain. The lower halves of amphorae were also used in the turrets and mile castles of Hadrian’s Wall.
Callender lists several other secondary uses related to storage, such as hearth, water bucket, flower pot,
money chest and cupboard. Amphorae also seem to have been used as weapons in naval battles (being
35 Id., pp. 109 ; Id., pp. 32, 110, 134, 147, 163 ; Callender 1965, pp. 37-41 ; 36 Callender 1965, pp. 25-26
- 24 -
launched at enemy ships), boundary marks, acoustic amplifiers and in building construction. Some of
these uses are reaffirmed by Carevale & Toffoletti, who mention further the use of amphorae as water
ducts and lower halves as lights for ships making port (bound to the prow, with holes made in the walls
to let illumination from within get through). Obviously these widely varying examples of secondary use
survival show that amphorae were a solid part of every day Roman life, in more ways than one, and they
further exemplify the practical nature of the Romans themselves.
1.3.6. Production of amphorae
The bare production process of amphorae is in itself not a very controversial issue, although the exact
way they were manufactured is still unknown. All amphorae types were made on a pottery wheel, with
different forms often requiring different techniques. A Dressel 1 or 2-4 for example has a distinct
carinated shoulder, which is the result of the amphora having been thrown on the wheel in two phases
(body and neck separately, probably using the coiling technique). These parts would later on be
attached to each other, and the spike and handles would be added last. This three-stage throwing
process most probably applied to globular and cylindrical amphorae as well. Indirect proof of this can
be seen in the general tendency of an amphora breaking at the shoulder, where the joint is frailest. The
same holds true for handles and spike. This is why amphorae are so very often found in those specific
fragments: structural integrity is inherently weakest at the joints of different elements. This observation
was also made by Callender, who comments upon the breakage of amphorae at those distinct points
being either a natural occurrence (when falling or being thrown on a waste dump) or a purposeful act
(for secondary uses, as seen in 1.3.5).37
After an amphora had been made and filled, it required an airtight stopper. Most often a piece of cork
or clay was inserted into the mouth and then covered with pozzolana (sandy volcanic ash, mixed with
lime creates a mortar that has watertight properties), which was often stamped. Pitch, resin or lime was
used as sealant as well. A more primitive method of stopping was pushing a sufficiently large pineapple
down the mouth of the amphora, while a seemingly derivate method concerns the insertion of a so-
called anforiskos (a small earthenware flask) and sealing with pozzolana.
While the methods above sealed the amphora airtight, some commodities required the treatment of
the vessel’s interior as well. Amphorae were sometimes made watertight by being lined with resin (often
pine). Traces of this can be found under the right circumstances as a blackish layer on the inside of the
wall. Not all products required a resin lining however, such as in the case of olive oil amphorae where
the resin would actually contaminate the oil. Proof of this can be found in Newstead’s observation in
1939 of a fatty substance oozing out of the wall of an amphora when warmed, which would have been
37 Id., pp. 31 ; Peacock & Williams 1991, pp. 44-47 ; Caravale & Toffoletti 1997, pp. 12-13
- 25 -
olive oil. After all, when a resin lining is not applied the walls remain porous and liquids can enter the
wall structure.38
On the subject of amphora kilns, our knowledge stems mainly from Spain, Africa and France.
Research in these regions has yielded the locations of numerous kilns, although many of them have been
poorly excavated and/or published. All known amphora kilns were updraught kilns, and most of them
were round, but there is little standardization apart from that. Amphora kilns have been found single,
but also in pairs and batteries. The latter method has been encountered several times along the highly
productive Guadalquivir river in Baetica. Kilns in Italy are of relatively rarer number compared to the
aforementioned areas, but this is not to say they are not there. After all, Italy (and especially Campania
and Latium) has produced a range of immensely popular amphora types for centuries. The best known
lie in the former ager Falernus (two kilns) and ager Caecubus (three kilns; Canneto, Monte San Biagio,
Torre San Anastasia). Present-day Minturno also boasted two kilns. The kiln near Astura has been
known since the end of the 1970’s, and research by the Groningen Institute of Archaeology has resulted
in a lot more information concerning this amphora kiln in the ager Pontinus (see chapter 3).39 The
three kilns around the lake of Fundi, near Terracina, would have played a significant role in the region
as well in the 1st century BC.40 Amphora kilns are also found outside of the central Tyrrhenian area, at
for instance Cosa in Toscana (three kilns), Atri/Hadria in Abruzzo (one kiln) and probably Potenza
Picena in the Marche (one kiln).41
The larger debate in amphora production concerns who made the vessels. Peacock & Williams give
three different ways amphora provision could have been taken care of: a) they were produced on the
estate that needed them for transport; b) they were produced by specialized estates; c) they were
produced by independent potters. The first two ways fit amphora production in the villa system, and
examples of estate production can be found abound in North Africa and France. The Guadalquivir
region in Baetica then would have operated either with specialized estates or independent potters, as a
multitude of different stamps has often been found at a single estate. The virtually complete absence of
amphora kilns in Morocco however suggests production of amphorae abroad for its well developed fish
industry, perhaps around Cadiz where huge heaps of fish sauce amphorae have been found. These could
indicate independent amphora production for a large region, probably for fish installations on both
sides of the Gibraltar Strait.42
38 Id., pp. 12, 18, 49-51 ; Caravale & Toffoletti 1997, pp. 21-22 39 Piccareta 1977 ; Tchernia 1986, pp. 46 40 D’Arms 1981, pp. 36 ; Coarelli, pp. 53 41 Peacock & Williams 1991, pp. 47-48 ; Paterson 1985, pp. 150 ; Tchernia 1986, Carte 1 42 Id., pp. 39-43
- 26 -
1.3.7. Matters of epigraphy: stamps and tituli picti
One of the greatest repositories of knowledge concerning the ancient economy comes from the writings
on the amphorae themselves. A score of information was sometimes written on the outside of an
amphora in the form of tituli picti, or painted inscriptions, while many amphorae were also stamped
somewhere on the vessel itself or on the stopper. Tituli picti can give names, contents and shipping
locations. Although favorable conditions are required for the preservation of these painted inscriptions,
when they are found they are often of great value in a given research. The largest findspot of tituli picti
is Monte Testaccio in Rome, where Heinrich Dressel studied them on the millions of amphora sherds
there. His work has been reappraised and expanded upon by Rodriguez-Almeida, and has resulted in
extensive knowledge concerning the shipping of especially Dressel 20 olive oil amphorae (which make
up the bulk of Testaccio). The only thing reminiscent of a titulus pictus in the LAC is the marking on
LAC/X59. Unfortunately it could not be refernced in any way.
The stamps found beneath the rims, on the handles, or the spikes of amphorae can aid greatly in
dating a vessel and locating the estate/workshop where it was produced. However it is still unknown
what the name abbreviations on those stamps exactly mean, because contrary to what was thought in the
past these stamps do not always seem to indicate the same thing. Paterson suggests two probable
meanings of these stamps: either they were the mark of the estate/workshop or its owner where the
amphorae were made or filled, or they represent the individual potters of the amphorae. However, the
stamps on Dressel 20 amphorae represent the producers of the transported oil itself, which adds a third
option. Peacock & Williams state the prevalent opinion edged towards the stamps being representative
of estate/workshop owners, at the time of writing Amphorae and the Roman economy. This seems to
be the most common meaning of an amphora stamp today as well, but as has been shown it is not the
only possibility. The stamps on the stoppers inside the mouths of amphorae are different from those on
the vessels itself, and Paterson has mused that they are the mark of the negotiator (see 2.5) who bought
the amphorae from an estate and marketed them.43
One of the most recent and promising reference sources of epigraphic amphora information is the
database of the CEIPAC (Centro para el Estudio de la Interdependencia Provincial en la Antigüedad
Clasica), attached to the University of Barcelona.44 This database holds a catalogue of stamps, tituli picti
and graffiti from dozens of amphora types. Most of these catalogue entries have drawings and other
relevant data to accompany the epigraphic data. The five stamps encountered in the LAC have been
primarily referenced with aid of this database (see 5.2.5).
43 Paterson 1982, pp. 155 ; Callender 1965, pp. xxiii ; Peacock & Williams 1991, pp. 9-14 ; Caravale & Toffoletti 1997, pp. 16-20 44 http://ceipac.gh.ub.es/
- 27 -
1.4. AMPHORAE: HISTORICAL ASPECTS
1.4.1. Origins in the East and the Phoenician/Punic amphorae
While the amphora tradition really took flight in 7th century BC Greece, the beginnings of this
development lie elsewhere and in older times still. Peacock & Williams reflect on the Canaanite jar,
which can be called the earliest example of an amphora according to both my and the classical
definitions; being a thick-walled biconical vessel with a distinct neck, two vertical handles opposite each
other and a tapering body ending in a pointed or rounded base (no distinct spike or truly flat base is
present, but the vessels obviously could not stand on their own accord).45 The Canaanite jar is believed
to have evolved from rounded vessels with two handles centered on the body, in response to the need
for a transport container for bulk commodities that could be handled by one person. The tapering form
of the new vessel suited maritime transport much better.
Canaanite jars have been found outside the Palestine region from Greece to Egypt, and are believed to
have transported wine as well as honey, incense and oil. This icon of Late Bronze Age maritime
transport seems to indicate a greatly underestimated trade network, but unfortunately the study of
coarse wares from this period still leaves much to be desired and so the picture remains hazy. Pictorial
evidence of trade utilizing the Canaanite jar dates to the 15th and 14th century BC, in the form of several
wall reliefs in Egypt. The Egyptians soon adopted this new form of transport as well, in favor of their
own handle-less containers. They pushed amphora evolution a little further towards the ‘traditional’
shape, creating a vessel based on the Canaanite jar but with a longer and slimmer body.46
The design of the Canaanite jar not only found following in Egypt, but was eventually adopted in the
western Mediterranean as well. The Phoenician and later Punic amphora tradition started in the 8th and
7th centuries BC in a form similar to the biconical Canaanite shape, but without the distinct neck
thereof. In the Orient its basic shape was retained the most, exemplified by the Anfore fenicie d’Oriente
with its tapering lower body and relatively small, high-placed ring-handles. It is dated to the 7th century
BC, and functioned presumably as a wine container.
In the Phoenician centers of the western and central Mediterranean several typical forms in succession
of each other are attested. The first is Forma A (Maña A): a slightly bulbous, bag-like vessel with the
characteristic small ring-handles high on the body. This wine amphora was in production from the mid
8th to start 6th century BC in the western Mediterranean, especially on the Iberian Peninsula. At the same
time another wine container was produced in the central Mediterranean: Forma B, a biconical amphora
more reminiscent of the Canaanite jar, but again without a distinct neck. It is found in great quantities
45 Peacock & Williams 1991, pp. 20 46 Id., pp. 21
- 28 -
in the Tyrrhenian area, testament to the intensive maritime trade already occurring in protohistory. This
form was joined halfway the 7th century BC by Forma D, which would continue to be produced at the
Phoenician/Punic center of Sardinia until the 2nd century BC. This type exemplifies the shift from bag-
shaped vessels, hallmark of the Palestine tradition, to the later Punic tradition of slimmer, almost
‘torpedo-shaped’ vessels.
In the west Forma A was apparently succeeded by Forma F in the 5th century BC. It is a long,
biconical vessel with a rilled body that seems more like a development of the Anfore fenicie d’Oriente
then a continuation of Forma A. The widely spread Forma D was used until the 1st century BC for the
transport of fish and its derivates and indicates an already high activity concerning fish production
along the Strait of Gibraltar, an industry that would remain to play an important part there well into
Roman times. The beginning of the 4th century BC sees the introduction of two African forms: Forma
E (Maña D) from the Tunisian region and Forma H (Maña C) from the greater North African area.
Both forms were widespread, torpedo-shaped wine containers that remained in production until at least
the start of the 2nd century BC, although it is speculated that production of Forma H (known in USAP
2005 as Van der Werff 1-3) might even have been continued until the 1st century AD. 47
1.4.2. Ancient Greek amphorae
Before Greece adopted the amphora shape, which was not until the 7th century BC, the transport
container of choice was the stirrup jar. This vessel was characterized by a ring-base, an ovoid body and
handles high on the neck. It was probably not as well suited to maritime transport as the tapering
Canaanite jar and does not seem to have survived past Mycenaean and Minoan times.
The origin of the first real Greek amphorae is not known, but it is thought the Greeks were
influenced by Phoenician or Egyptian prototypes. It is however not unthinkable that the stirrup jar
influenced their designs as well, seeing as the majority of older Greek amphorae is made up of relatively
small vessels characterized by their ring-bases and ovoid bodies. There is no distinct ‘Greek tradition’, as
the various regions and islands making up Greece each produced their own forms. The shapes
characterizing each production area possibly indicated their contents. Many Greek amphorae were
painted upon as well, which makes it difficult to distinguish between decorative and purely functional
amphorae (if there indeed was such a difference). The amphora tradition flourished as soon as it was
rooted in classical Greece.
Amphorae from Laconia, Attica, Chios and Samos display the characteristic stirrup jar-style ring-base,
ovoid body and handles high on the neck. A Corinthian amphora however was the first with a (small)
47 Id, pp. 22; Caravale & Toffoletti 1997, pp. 50-58 ; http://ads.ahds.ac.uk/catalogue/archive/amphora_ahrb_2005/details.cfm?id=367
- 29 -
spike and a more piriform body;Tipo B, attested from the end of the 6th to the 2nd century BC, was a
wine container as widely distributed as the other Greek forms. Its distinct shape seems to make it a very
likely precursor of the later Greco-Italic amphorae (see 1.4.3). From the 4th century BC the island of
Rhodes also produced amphorae of similar shape; piriform, tapering vessels with a long neck and ditto
band-handles. Rhodes would remain producing wine-carrying amphorae in great numbers until the 2nd
century AD.48
The extent of Greek trade and colonization also made sure the amphora tradition was established
beyond the Aegean. From the 6th to 2nd century BC amphorae were also made at the Greek colony of
Massilia, which is present-day Marseille. Massilia was a thriving colony on the French seaboard, and the
first Greek port in Western Europe. The colony was famed for the sweet wine it produced and which it
exported in its own line of amphorae. Massilian amphorae were generally piriform, spiked vessels with
handles high on the neck. They were relatively small (45-62 cm) and are subdivided in five types
succeeding each other in time. Tipo 1 (and to a lesser degree Tipo 5) shows a morphological
reminiscence to the aforementioned Corinthinan Tipo B and the later Greco-Italian amphorae. The
Massilian amphorae were mostly used for transporting the indicative wine, but fish sauce and olive oil
have also been attributed. Massilian amphorae were widely exported in the Iron Age, and the vessels
have been found far up north in France and Germany.49
Massilia was founded in 600 BC by Phocaeans: Ionian Greeks from the city of Phocaea (modern-day
Foça in Turkey). The Phocaeans were the first to make long voyages at sea, according to Herodotus,
and they have been credited with discovering Spain and both the Adriatic and Tyrrhenian coasts. They
would have helped settle several cities in Ionia, such as Lampsakos with the aid of Miletos, but their
own most important colonies were in the West: Massilia in southern France, Alalia on Corsica, Velia in
Italy (Campania) and Emporion in Spain. Some of them would become the largest and most thriving
port colonies in their respective regions of their day, further attesting to the Phocaean savvy in trading.
These enterprising people could very well have been an important link in the history of amphorae,
promoting both wine and olive oil as well as the means to store and transport them overseas.50
1.4.3. The rise of the Italic tradition
Although the amphora reinforced its foothold in the Mediterranean maritime trade due to the efforts of
the Greeks (and perhaps foremost due to the Phocaeans), there were already amphorae in use on the
central Italian mainland apart from the Greek tradition. The Etruscans produced their own transport
containers from the end of the 7th to the 3rd century BC, the first types of which show a strong similarity 48 Id., pp. 22-23 ; Id., pp. 59-69 49 Peacock & Williams 1991, pp. 23 50 Caravale & Toffoletti 1997, pp. 72-73
- 30 -
to the Phoenician Forma B (see 1.4.1). The Etruscan amphorae may well be successors to those vessels
in the Phoenician/Punic tradition, which were produced in great quantities also in the central
Tyrrhenian area. Like Forma B, Etruscan amphorae were generally piriform vessels lacking a neck, with
fairly thick ring-handles high on the body and a pointed/rounded base, They were primarily used for
exporting the wine from the region, but olives, fish and pine nuts might also have been transported.
Etruscan amphorae are found in tombs, coastal cities and a multitude of wrecks along the coast
stretching to France.51
The Greeks meanwhile founded several colonies on the southern Italian mainland. Southern Italy,
being mostly Apulia and Calabria (sometimes Sicily was added as well) was known by the Romans as
Magna Graecia. The trade with the settlements in this area caused the Greek amphora tradition to be
firmly established here, ultimately giving birth to the line of Greco-Italic amphorae that would directly
precede the Roman amphora tradition. Greco-Italic amphorae were both produced and distributed in
great quantities, being the primary container of those days. As such they are indicative for the
Republican period as far as amphorae are concerned, just as black gloss is indicative for that period in
the case of fine ware.
There are several typologies for the Greco-Italic amphorae, the best known of which are those of Will
and Vandermersch.52 As a full treatise of these forms falls outside the limits of this thesis, I present here
the summarized typology by Caravale & Toffoletti in which six types make up the line, namely MGS I-
VI. MGS stands for Magna Graecia and Sicily. The MGS amphorae are generally piriform with a high
neck, a distinct spike and long ring/band-handles from shoulder to neck. As said, the earliest MGS
types closely resemble the Corinthian Tipo B (see 1.4.2). MGS I-III were produced from the second
half of the 5th to the end of the 4th century BC and while MGS I-II were distributed mostly in that area,
MGS III has also been found in Campania. MGS III sports a distinct triangular rim, which was to
become the hallmark of the later MGS amphorae; MGS IV-VI (4th to 2nd century BC). These all have a
rim that is triangular in section, and they are the ones most commonly known in literature as ‘Greco-
Italic’ and more recently Greco-Italiche antiche. Greco-Italic amphorae were dominantly wine
containers, although MGS V has been attested to have carried olives and grapes as well. As the line
progressed, MGS amphorae became longer and less globular, resulting in the later Greco-Italiche tarde
amphorae (essentially the first Roman amphora, 3rd/2nd century BC) and ultimately the real dawn of
Roman amphora tradition: the Dressel 1.53
51 Caravale & Toffoletti 1997, pp. 74-80 52 http://ads.ahds.ac.uk/catalogue/archive/amphora_ahrb_2005/details.cfm?id=141 ; Will 1982 ; Vandermersch 1994 53 Id., pp. 82-89, 97 ; http://ads.ahds.ac.uk/catalogue/archive/amphora_ahrb_2005/details.cfm?id=324
- 31 -
1.4.4. The Roman era: Italian amphorae
In the mid 2nd century BC, more precisely around 130 BC, a new wine container hit the Republican
market in Italy. Dressel 1A was the direct successor of the Greco-Italic line of amphorae, having evolved
from the popular Greco-Italiche tarde. Dressel 1 denominates a group of thick-walled
piriform/cylindrical amphorae with a long conical neck, distinct spike, long band-handles from a
distinct (carinated) shoulder to neck, and a triangular or straight ‘collar’ rim. There are presently three
subtypes Dressel 1, being Tipo A-C. Tipo A and C resemble their Greco-Italic predecessors the most,
retaining their somewhat streamlined form. The heavy and sturdy Dressel 1B then has even thicker walls
and is generally the largest/bulkiest variant. The Dressel 1 was produced first and foremost in central
Italy, along the Tyrrhenian coast. It seems to have been used there especially for carrying the most
famous wines of Latium, such as Falernian and Caecuban vintages. Dressel 1 amphorae were used
throughout the western Mediterranean basin and central Europe, and shipwrecks containing up to 9000
vessels have been recorded (such as the Albenga wreck).54
Contemporary with the originally Tyrrhenian Dressel 1, another wine amphora was produced along
Italy’s opposite coast: Lamboglia 2. This Adriatic amphora, while clearly related to both the Greco-
Italic and Dressel 1 forms, would be the start of a distinct line of popular wine containers. It differs
from the aforementioned forms mostly in its straight or slightly spreading rim, and the much more
ovoid shape of its body. The Republican Lamboglia 2 and Dressel 1 are often found together in
shipwrecks in great quantities. Lamboglia 2 was superseded around the time of the Empire’s birth by
Dressel 6A; ovoid as well and with a distinct long spike. It was manufactured on both sides of the
Adriatic Sea and meant to transport the wines of that region. These wines, though not of such excellent
quality as the famous vintages of Campania and Latium, were widely marketed. Production of the
Dressel 6A came to an end in the 1st century AD.55
It is interesting to notice that up to now we only know of one confirmed type of Roman olive oil
amphora made on Italian soil, from end 2nd to end 1st century BC: the so-called Brindisi amphora. This
ovoid vessel with a short spike/knob was produced on the Adriatic coast, and more specifically north
of Brindisi, at the same time as Lamboglia 2 and is often found together with said form. GIA research
at the Piccareta 15 has indicated that local production of other small olive oil amphorae occurred here
as well, but the type has not been sufficiently studied yet. There would be no Italian successor to the
Brinidisi amphora; instead olive oil amphorae would be the sole province of Hispania and Africa in later
times.56
54 Peacock & Williams 1991, pp. 24 ; Caravale & Toffoletti 1997, pp. 91-92, 98-99 55 Id., pp. 25 ; Id., pp. 92-94, 104, 108 ; http://ads.ahds.ac.uk/catalogue/archive/amphora_ahrb_2005/details.cfm?id=113 and 229 56 Id., pp. 82-83 ; Id., pp. 93, 106 ; Attema et al. 2003, pp. 135
- 32 -
While Lamboglia 2 probably evolved quite naturally into Dressel 6A on the Adriatic coast, a much
more abrupt change took place in the second half of the 1st century BC along the Tyrrhenian coast.
Here Dressel 1 was quite suddenly replaced by Dressel 2-4, which would become the most important
wine amphora in the western Mediterranean during the early Empire. Dressel 2-4 has very distinct bifid
handles (resembling two joined ring-handles), a cylindrical/piriform body with carinated shoulder and
a simple outcurving rim. Why the workshops producing Dressel 1 replaced it by Dressel 2-4 so
abruptly is to date still not precisely known, but the general consensus claims the transition was a result
of changing drinking habits: the form of Dressel 2-4 was based upon ‘Koan’ prototypes from the Greek
island of Kos in the Aegean Sea, which was renowned for its medicinal wines. These wines were made
with sea water and would have been quite different from the known Italian vintages, as remarked by
Pliny. While such a historical statement cannot be proven archaeologically, it is clear that the thinner-
walled Dressel 2-4 meant an increase in capacity and ease of handling over the Dressel 1, making it even
more economically viable for maritime trade. In the one and a half century that Dressel 2-4 held
prominence in the Mediterranean market, the form was not only produced in Italy (Latium, Campania,
Etruria), but also in Spain (Catalonia, Baetica), Gallia and there is evidence for British manufacture as
well. All these production sites delivered similar amphorae, attesting to the popularity of this form (and
probably the importance of the archetypical Koan design in itself).57
Production of Dressel 2-4 seems to have declined in the 1st century AD together with its Adriatic
contemporary Dressel 6A, both coming to a complete stop at the end of that century as they were not
superseded by new Italian wine containers. Instead the end of the 1st century AD marks the rise of
Gallic amphora and wine as well as the height of competition from the Tarraconese wines. Both Italian
and Hispanic wine production though (together with the corresponding amphorae) would then be
pushed back from prominence in the Mediterranean market in favor of the massive influx of Gallic
wines in the 2nd century AD, which were said to be of superior quality in comparison with most
contemporary Italian and Tarraconese wines.58
As Italian wine amphorae stopped to be the most prominent on the Mediterranean market at the end
of the 1st century AD, regional and specialist production seemed to have tried to fill a niche and keep
Italian production going. From the 1st century BC to 3rd century AD the Forlimpopoli was produced on
the northern Adriatic coast; a relatively small piriform/ovoid vessel with a narrow mouth and small
base-ring. This amphora was distributed throughout Italy during the reign of Gallic wines, and might
have been an efficient competitor due to its size. Peacock points to the continued production of prized
Italian vintages (e.g. Falernian, Caecuban) on a much smaller scale, during the obvious decline of large- 57 Id., pp. 24-25, 105-106 ; Id., pp. 93-94, 107 ; http://ads.ahds.ac.uk/catalogue/archive/amphora_ahrb_2005/details.cfm?id=90, 91-92, 94-96, 101-102, 325-328 58 Caravale & Toffoletti 1997, pp. 94, 113, 119
- 33 -
scale export. The Forlimpopoli and other comparable regional amphorae, like the Empoli and Spello,
would have transported those famed Italian wines in a time of heavy competition. The same goes for.59
Examples of specialized amphorae then are the Campanian Dressel 21-22, which was used for
transporting fruit (i.e. cherries, plums), and the horizontally rilled Richborough 527 from the Lipari
Islands, supposedly a container for local alum (used among others in creating the purple of Roman
aristocratic robes).60
It would not be until the 4th century AD that a new type of Italian wine container would again be
produced in great quantities for export on the larger Mediterranean market. The Keay 52 was quite a
small ovoid vessel (ca. 40 cm) with relatively long band-handles from shoulder to neck and a simple
base-ring. It would be produced in Calabria and on Sicily (so the Italian tradition essentially went back
to its Magna Graecian roots) until the 7th century AD.61
1.4.5. The Roman era: Hispanic amphorae
In the Roman period the Iberian Peninsula was called Hispania, and it was divided into three provinces:
Tarraconensis, Baetica and Lusitania. The first Spanish (wine) amphorae emulated the most popular
amphora of the Republican period; Dressel 1. Imitations of this form were made in the Tarraconese
and Baetican provinces. These imitations soon led to a local Tarraconese type: Pascual 1, based upon
Dressel 1B but more rounded, most probably used for transporting the prized Tarraconese wines along
the Narbonne-Bordeaux route and also further into the Mediterranean. Contemporary wine amphorae
from Tarraconensis, Laetana 1 and Oberaden 74, had a more limited, local distribution and are mainly
found in France in context of the Narbonne-Bordeaux route. Oberaden 74 was furthermore imitated in
great quantities in France, and also found its way to central Europe and Italy. The final ‘Tarraconese’
amphora to be widely distributed in the Mediterranean and central Europe alike was Dressel 2-4
Catalan, which was also produced in Hispania and replaced mainly Pascual 1. The rise to dominance of
Narbonese wines from Gaul at the end of the 1st century AD would bring an end to large-scale wine
export from Hispania, in an economic decline similar to the situation in Italy.62
While Tarraconensis thus experienced an economic setback due to the decline and halt of major wine
export at the end of the Augustan period, Baetica became from that moment on the region that would
produce the most widely distributed amphorae of the early Empire. This was a result of the mass-
production of the famous Baetican olive oil, which would dominate the Roman market until the 3rd
59 Id., pp. 109 ; http://ads.ahds.ac.uk/catalogue/archive/amphora_ahrb_2005/details.cfm?id=129-130 and 290 60 Id., pp. 94, 111 ; Peacock & Williams 1991, pp. 27 ; http://ads.ahds.ac.uk/catalogue/archive/amphora_ahrb_2005/details.cfm?id=86 and 286 61 Id., pp. 94, 112 ; http://ads.ahds.ac.uk/catalogue/archive/amphora_ahrb_2005/details.cfm?id=161 62 Peacock & Williams 1991, pp. 24, 93-95 ; Caravale & Toffoletti 1997, pp. 118-120, 123-125 ; http://ads.ahds.ac.uk/catalogue/archive/amphora_ahrb_2005/details.cfm?id=268 and 94
- 34 -
century AD. This olive oil had been distributed from the beginning of the Augustan period onward
mainly to military sites along the limes of Germania, Rome and even pre-conquest Britain in Oberaden
83 (Haltern 71, Dressel 25), a piriform vessel with a stumpy spike. As the Empire grew and olive oil
was needed across Europe and the Mediterranean in greater quantities and not only on military sites, it
evolved into an amphora which could hold a great deal of the product while being sturdy enough to
survive transport when shipped in bulk: Dressel 20.
Dressel 20 is one of the most attested and studied amphorae in archaeology, principally because of
the millions of sherds of this type at Monte Testaccio in Rome. Dressel 20 is a globular form with very
thick walls, a short stumpy spike and often a distinct rim that is incurving inside. The rim variations
displayed by Dressel 20 amphorae over the course of its three-century production (perhaps even
somewhat longer) make it one of the few amphorae of which more precise datings can be given. The
very nature of amphorae makes it generally very difficult to date them in smaller intervals than half a
century. Dressel 20 has moreover been very important for the study because of the wealth of stamps and
written information found upon amphorae of this type (see 1.3.4). The entire production line of the
Baetican Dressel 20 resided along the Guadalquivir river in present-day Andalusia, between the cities of
Seville and Cordoba, and was exported throughout the Roman Empire from the 1st to 3rd century AD.63
Being a very heavy amphora, though arguably with great capacity, Dressel 20 ran into stiff
competition with the North African olive oil amphorae in the late 2nd century AD. Lighter but with
comparable capacity, the Africana and Tripolitana vessels were more efficient then the Baetican veteran.
Thus its smaller successor Dressel 23, a tuned-down piriform version of Dressel 20, was devised in the
3rd century AD as a Baetican countermeasure to the increased African competition. This form would be
produced well into the 6th century AD.64
Baetica not only thrived because of the olive oil, but was also practically market leader in the 1st and
2nd centuries AD when it came to fish products. The processing facilities along the Baetican southern
coast produced all kinds of fish sauce and fish conserves (see 1.3.1), and a distinct group of Baetican
amphorae was used to transport those commodities. They include Dressel 7-11, 14 and 17, Beltrán I,
IIA (Dressel 38) and IIB, and Pompei VII. Except for Dressel 17 these amphorae all tend to be fairly
large ovoid vessels with a long (often hollow) spike, a wide neck and long band-handles. The Beltrán
and Pompeii types display the most characteristic body, which widens towards the spike in a ‘sagging’
piriform manner. Dressel 17 on the other hand has a distinct narrow, tapering body. All of these
amphorae carried a variety of fish sauces, except Dressel 14 which transported fish conserves in general.
63 Id., pp. 26-28, 134-140 ; Id., pp. 120, 132 ; http://ads.ahds.ac.uk/catalogue/archive/amphora_ahrb_2005/details.cfm?id=83 and 258 64 Id., pp. 28, 141 ; Id., pp. 120, 133 ; http://ads.ahds.ac.uk/catalogue/archive/amphora_ahrb_2005/details.cfm?id=87
- 35 -
As they were all produced in the same period, being the 1st and 2nd centuries AD, it is quite possible that
these various discernable amphora types were linked to a particular sort of fish sauce (for there were
several, see 1.3.1) or perhaps represented distinct (groups of) processing facilities. After the 2nd century
AD Baetica lost its foothold in this industry, and Mauretania became the Empire’s premiere supplier of
fish products, while Lusitania seemed to take control of the corresponding amphorae manufacture.65
Two final Baetican amphorae worthy of note are Dressel 28 and Haltern 70. The first is reminiscent
of the successful Tarraconese Oberaden 74, and was seemingly used for the transport of fish conserves
or wine. If the form of Roman amphorae was indicative of its contents and/or location of the contents’
origin, which seems very much the case, emulating a popular wine amphora from a distinguished wine-
producing area can be speculated as a favorable selling strategy. It was produced from the 1st through 2nd
century AD, making it a contemporary of Baetican dedicated amphorae for fish products. Haltern 70
then was used solely for the transport of the prized defrutum (see 1.2.1), making it a unique specialized
local amphora as far as current archaeological research can attest. This type was produced from the 1st
century BC through 1st century AD and looks like it might be a predecessor of Dressel 7-11, at least
typologically speaking.66
On the Iberian Peninsula not only the Spanish provinces manufactured amphorae. Lusitania, which is
present-day Portugal, had a thriving fish industry from the 3rd to 5th century AD, having replaced that of
Baetica in the preceding centuries together with Mauretanian production. The earliest Lusitanian
amphora was Beltrán 4B of the 2nd century AD, reminiscent and perhaps a contemporary of the earliest
Baetican fish sauce amphorae. From the 3rd to 5th century AD four important Lusitanian amphorae were
manufactured. Beltrán 72 was a scaled-down version of the Baetican Beltrán 2A and 2B, while Almagro
50 still resembled those containers as well. Almagro 51 A-B and 51C then were probably vessels of
local origin (although Peacock mentions a possible relationship between the 51C and Gauloise 4, see
1.4.6). Almagro 50 had a long cylindrical body with short handles, while the 51A-B and 51C types
were more piriform.67
1.4.6. The Roman era: Gallic amphorae
Massalia, which had been one of the most important wine-exporting colonies in Magna Graecia from
the 6th to 2nd century BC, had sided with Rome against Carthage but ultimately lost its independence by
65 Id., pp. 117-127 ; Id., pp. 121-122, 126-131 ; http://ads.ahds.ac.uk/catalogue/archive/amphora_ahrb_2005/details.cfm?id=43-44, 47, 65-66, 77, 86, 115 and 119 66 Caravale & Toffoletti 1997, pp. 121, 134-135 ; http://ads.ahds.ac.uk/catalogue/archive/amphora_ahrb_2005/details.cfm?id=106 and 148 67 Peacock & Williams 1991, pp. 128-133 ; Caravale & Toffoletti 1997, pp. 122, 136-139 ; http://ads.ahds.ac.uk/catalogue/archive/amphora_ahrb_2005/details.cfm?id=11, 13, 15 and 42
- 36 -
joining sides with Pompeius during the Civil War. Julius Caesar took control of the former colony and
dubbed the new Roman city Massalia. The Greek Massalian wine and amphora monopoly was over.
During the Roman Republic, southern France had become a primary market for Italian wine, which
was exported to the new province of Gaul mainly in Dressel 1 amphorae. These containers, as well as
the Tarraconese imitation Pascual 1, would be imitated in Gaul at first as wine production in the
present-day Languedoc and Provence areas continued under Roman rule. In the Augustan period then
the Tarraconese wine amphora Oberaden 74 was imitated in great quantities in Gaul.
The improvements made in Gaul under Roman rule ameliorated the wine production and Gallic
wines experienced such a tremendous boost in popularity during the 1st entury AD that the roles were
reversed; Gaul became the exporter, Italy the importer. In the 2nd century AD, the export of Gallic wines
overshadowed both the hitherto most popular Italian as well as Tarraconese wines. This coincided with
the emergence of a local line of Gallic wine amphorae: Gauloise 1-16. These thin-walled, piriform, flat-
bottomed amphorae seem to have evolved from the Baetican Oberaden 74.
Of all the Gauloise amphorae, Gauloise 4 is without doubt the most important and well known,
having meant for Gallic wine what Dressel 20 had meant for Baetican olive oil. Gauloise 4 had such
thin walls that it needed to be wrapped in straw for protection (see 1.2.2), making it one of the lightest
and most fragile amphorae of all time. This did mean that it had a far greater relative capacity than the
larger, more thick-walled Dressel 1 and 2-4. Gauloise 4 would thus also have been one of the most
efficient amphorae ever with its outstanding volume-to-weight ratio, weighing a third of its contents
while a Dressel 1 weighed almost as much as the wine it carried. Gauloise 4 was produced from the 1st
to 3rd century AD. It displays similarities to the Lusitanian Almagro 51C, which might very well have
imitated the popular Gallic form, and even more to the Mauretanian Dressel 30 (Keay IA/B) by which
it was later copied (as happened often between French and Iberian amphorae, even when being used for
different products).
Although wine was arguably Gaul’s primary export product up to the 3rd century AD, the coastal zone
responsible for producing fish derivates also stretched to southern France. Pliny mentions popular fish
sauces being produced at Antibes and Fréjus. To transport these fish products, local imitations of
Baetican amphorae like Dressel 7-11 were used, as well as dedicated local types. The most important of
these were the fairly large, cylindrical Dressel 16 and the smaller, globular Anfore Fréjus Lenzbourg.
Both were produced at Fréjus, which had been founded by the same Phocaeans that had founded
Massilia/Massalia (Marseille). Like Marseille, Fréjus received a considerable boost during the Roman
period when it was known as Forum Iulii, and would grow out to be one of the most important ports
of the region. Production of these amphorae took place simultaneously between the 1st and 2nd century
AD, which again might indicate that the form was indicative for the contents (different fish sauce;
- 37 -
different amphora). Gallic amphora production, as well as export of the commodities transported
therein, declined together with the importance of the province in the 3rd century AD. Wine in the later
period was mostly produced in Italy, Greece and the Middle East, while North Africa became the sole
producer of fish products.68
1.4.7. The Roman era: African amphorae
In Augustan times Africa Proconsularis denoted merely a province comprising present-day Tunisia.
Tripolitania then roughly denoted Libya, while Mauretania Caesariensis corresponded roughly with
Algeria. Provincial division was later rearranged by Diocletian, but had no effect on amphora
production localities. The main commodity produced and exported from the African provinces was
olive oil, followed by fish sauce. Wine was hardly exported, save from Mauretania.
The Spanish olive oil export had never gained such a foothold in North Africa and the eastern
Mediterranean as it did in the west, as local supplies were readily available in Africa Proconsularis and
Tripolitania. Amphorae carrying olive oil from Tripolitania are already found in 1st century AD
contexts at Pompeii. All across Africa wine and olive oil amphorae were made and distributed locally
during the Late Republic and Early Empire, such as Beirut 3 and Leptiminius 1, but still the oil would
not be widely marketed abroad until the 3rd century AD, when production and corresponding export of
Baetican olive oil declined.69
Dressel 20 functioned as the primary container for olive oil until the 3rd century AD. At the beginning
of that century the Baetican production and export of that commodity experienced a contraction,
brought about at first by competition of the more efficient (lighter) African amphorae and later by
direct state intervention; Septimius Severus confiscated most Baetican estates during his rule in the first
half of the 3rd century AD. Although nowhere explicitly stated and nearly impossible to prove, the fact
that Severus was born in Leptis Magna (Tripolitania) could in my opinion very well have had
something to do with this action, as it essentially caused increased exports of products and amphorae of
his home country and North Africa in general. After all, the floruit of Baetican production and export
also surely did not coincidentally occur during the reign of the Baetican-born Trajan and his successor
Hadrian, who grew up in Baetica.
Between the 3rd and 5th century AD North African amphorae were the most attested in the western
Mediterranean. The rise to dominance of African amphorae started rather inconspicuously with
Tripolitanian 1, an olive oil container which was evidently produced in Tripolitana. It displays the
68 Peacock & Williams 1991, pp. 27, 142-148 ; Caravale & Toffoletti 1997, pp. 113-117 ; http://ads.ahds.ac.uk/catalogue/archive/amphora_ahrb_2005/details.cfm?id=133, 13-138, 140, 273, 321-322, and 334-341 69 http://ads.ahds.ac.uk/catalogue/archive/amphora_ahrb_2005/details.cfm?id=38 and 352
- 38 -
dominant African (olive oil) amphora form: cylindrical, with small and thick ring- or band-handles on
the neck and a distinct spike. Tripolitanian amphorae moreover boast an indicative ‘stepped’ rim. These
morphological characteristics essentially represent the final evolution of the Punic tradition, which had
ended with the torpedo-shaped Forma E and H (Van der Werff 1-3) around the 2nd century BC.
This fact is even more evident in Tripolitanian 2 (transporting olive oil and fish sauce), basically a
larger version of Forma H, similar to it even up to the small handles on the body (atypical considering
the other African amphorae, which always have handles on the neck). The article by Gibbins concerning
the Plemmirio B wreck also hints upon the difficulty of distinguishing between these two forms based
only on seeing a hand-specimen. In the work of Peacock & Williams the striking reminiscence of
Tripolitanian 2 to Forma H was already mused upon as increasing the likelihood of the latter having
been in production for longer than was accepted up until then. This recently confirmed in the USAP
2005.70
The Libyan Tripolitanian 1 and 2 were produced from the 1st to 2nd century AD and distributed
mostly regionally, although small-scale exportation seems to have been commonplace. It would not be
until the end 2nd and start of the 3rd century AD that African amphorae acquired a solid foothold in the
greater Mediterranean market with the Tunisian Africana I and 2 models (respectively known by the
popular denominations piccolo and grande). These cylindrical forms, with their in general quite simple
outcurving or thickened rims, were distributed much more widely then Tripolitanian 1 and 2, which is
as much a testament to their great capacity and efficiency as well as a consequence of the diminishing
Baetican export of olive oil and fish products. It is now thought that the slim Africana I functioned
primarily as olive oil amphora, while certain types of the bulkier Africana 2 might have been reserved
specifically for fish derivates. This idea is based upon recent maritime finds and is already significantly
altering the established notion that African cylindrical amphorae were mainly used for the transport of
olive oil (see also 1.3.3).71
The Africana I and 2 were produced from end 2nd to the 4th century AD, with a peak in Severan times
at the beginning of the 3rd century AD. During this period, more specifically from the 3rd through 4th
century AD, Tripolitanian 3 was also in production. Having lost the initiative and most probably
acknowledging the success of the Tunisian models, the Libyan workshops came with their own new
cylindrical olive oil amphora, characterized by the ‘stepped’ Tripolianian rim and slightly concave body
walls. For all intents and purposes they succeeded: Tripolitanian 3 became widely distributed
throughout the Mediterranean and the form is represented in large numbers in Rome.72 Again this
70 Gibbins 2001, pp. 313 ; Peacock & Williams 1991, pp. 152 ; http://ads.ahds.ac.uk/catalogue/archive/amphora_ahrb_2005/details.cfm?id=304 and 305 71 Id., pp. 315-316 ; http://ads.ahds.ac.uk/catalogue/archive/amphora_ahrb_2005/details.cfm?id=1, 3-6 72 http://ads.ahds.ac.uk/catalogue/archive/amphora_ahrb_2005/details.cfm?id=306
- 39 -
evident popularity might very well have been stimulated by Severus, as during his rule olive oil was
distributed daily among Rome’s populace. These annona provisions had previously been fulfilled by
Dressel 20. It does not come as a surprise that Dressel 20 and Tripolitanian 3 fragments make up the
bulk of Monte Testaccio.
At the height of exports from Africa also wine was exported from that continent, which must have
competed heavily with the contemporary vintages from Gaul. A unique produce of Mauretania
Caesariensis (Algeria), Dressel 30 (Keay 1A/B) was manufactured from the 3rd to 4th century AD. The
form of this amphora is unmistakably similar to that of Gauloise 4, the reigning wine-container at that
time, and was surely a successful copy thereof. It was distributed mostly in the eastern Mediterranean, as
well as Switzerland and England.73
Africana I and 2 were succeeded in the 4th century AD by what are mostly called amfore cilindriche di
medie dimensioni (della tarda età imperiale): a loose group of about thirty similar amphora types
described by Keay in his 1984 work. These amphorae bear many similarities to and were mostly also
produced in the same workshops as the Africana models, albeit in somewhat smaller quantities. Their
contents seem to have been predominantly fish products, although olive oil has also been attested. They
seem to have gradually replaced the Africana 1 and 2, and are since recently known as Africana 3A-C.
Production of these middle-sized cylindricals ceased in the 5th century AD.74
In the 4th century AD another Tunisian amphora was developed: the Spatheion. These vessels (which
can be distinguished in three subtypes) are characteristically slender and small, although their height is
very variable. Apart from their long lifespan (to the 7th century AD), the most remarkable about these
vessels is the variability of contents: olive oil, olives, fish conserves, wine; they were all transported in the
Spatheion. Other than in Tunisia, this amphora-of-all-trades might also have been produced in
Cartagena (Spain).75
The Africana 3 types were succeeded in the 5th century AD by the amfore cilindriche di grandi
dimensioni (della tarda età imperiale). Again this term denotes several similar vessels, which were used
predominantly for the transport of olive oil. The distribution of these vessels extended mainly to the
eastern Mediterranean, up through the 7th century AD. In the USAP 2005 database this score of late
cylindricals can be found under their original Keay types.76
The study of African amphorae is booming as of late and new types are being discovered regularly. I
suspect that established typologies might change more in the coming years as new information becomes
available.
73 http://ads.ahds.ac.uk/catalogue/archive/amphora_ahrb_2005/details.cfm?id=108 and 329 74 http://ads.ahds.ac.uk/catalogue/archive/amphora_ahrb_2005/details.cfm?id=208, 309 and 310 75 http://ads.ahds.ac.uk/catalogue/archive/amphora_ahrb_2005/details.cfm?id=289, 363 and 364 76 Peacock & Williams 1991, pp. 28-29, 153-172, 202-203 ; Caravale & Toffoletti 1997, pp. 140-152
- 40 -
1.4.8. The Roman era: eastern Mediterranean amphorae
During the Roman era, Greece and the rest of the eastern Mediterranean continued to produce their
own lines of amphorae, which were all of fairly small size (50-100 cm) and almost exclusively used for
the transport of local, often prized wines. They are also more often then not horizontally rilled, which
is generally seen as a morphological characteristic of (late) eastern amphorae. The most widely
distributed of these date to the Late Empire, although a few less numerous forms were already in the
market during the Early and Middle Empire.
These early Roman eastern amphorae are predominantly of Aegean origin. The earliest of these is
known as tardo Rodie (Caulodunum 184) or simply Rhodian Type.77 These piriform vessels with their
characteristically pointed handles represent the culmination of Rhodian wine amphorae production. It
was produced and distributed throughout the Mediterranean and central Europe from the 1st century
BC to the 2nd century AD. Another early, most probably eastern amphora is Camulodunum 189, known
as the ‘carrot amphora’ for its tapering form and deep rilling. Although its origins are uncertain, the
fabric suggests a desert environment, which complements the characteristic rilling as hints to a
Palestinian origin. This form is said to have contained dates.78 Asia Minor produced the Agora F65-66
from the 1st century BC to 4th century AD. While its contents are still unknown, it has been established
that this form is the forerunner of the Late Roman 3.79
From the 1st to 4th century AD several Aegean, Turkish and Egyptian wine amphorae were marketed
in the Mediterranean. The island of Crete is now known for at least four types of smallish wine
container; Crétoise 1 (Agorà G197) to Crétoise 3 and Dressel 43, which is sometimes called the fourth
in that line. This latter is similar to the Rhodian Type with even more pronounced pointed handles. All
have a regional to central Mediterranean distribution from the 1st to 4th century AD.80 From the greater
Aegean came the Kapitän I and 2; ovoid/tapering wine containers with often long necks (rilled in the
case of type 2) and long handles. Kapitän I was distributed in the Mediterranean basin, principally in
Italy, Greece and Cyprus. The smaller Kapitän 2 is besides in the Mediterranean also found in Britannia
and Germania, as well as in Russia and Iraq. Both were produced from the 2nd to 4th century AD.81
Agorà M54, another wine amphora, was produced in Cilicia (Turkey) from the 1st to 3rd century AD
and distributed throughout the Mediterranean basin. It has a distinct semi-cylindrical form with
pronounced pointed handles, which might well be an emulation of that aspect on the aforementioned
Rhodian and Cretese amphorae. The Egyptian anfore bitroncoconiche then clearly has much older
77 http://ads.ahds.ac.uk/catalogue/archive/amphora_ahrb_2005/details.cfm?id=74 78 http://ads.ahds.ac.uk/catalogue/archive/amphora_ahrb_2005/details.cfm?id=56 79 http://ads.ahds.ac.uk/catalogue/archive/amphora_ahrb_2005/details.cfm?id=311 80 http://ads.ahds.ac.uk/catalogue/archive/amphora_ahrb_2005/details.cfm?id=60, 61, 111 and 323 81 http://ads.ahds.ac.uk/catalogue/archive/amphora_ahrb_2005/details.cfm?id=154 and 155
- 41 -
roots, dating back to the dawn of the entire amphora tradition itself with its similarity to the earliest
Canaanite biconical amphorae. It was produced from the 1st to 4th century AD and distributed mostly
regionally, although some have been found in Italy.
From the 4th century onward (wine) amphorae from the eastern Mediterranean became even more
widely distributed in the west, at a time when the heydays of Gallic wine are over and Italian wine
amphorae experience a rebirth. The Egyptian anfore bitroncoconiche was succeeded by Egloff 172 (4th
to 5th century AD), which has the same regional distribution but a somewhat greater occurrence in the
western Mediterranean. It was in turn succeeded by Late Roman 7 (Egloff 177) as the last Egyptian
wine amphora (5th to 7th century AD).82
Turkey and Asia Minor in general also came to experience a greater popularity in the Mediterranean
and the rest of Europe, as well as on the coasts of the Black Sea, from the 4th century onward. The small
Late Roman 1 is a prime example hereof, produced from Cilicia to Syria and Rhodes in massive
quantities from the 5th to 6th/7th century AD as a general purpose amphora (containing wine, olive oil,
etc.). Late Roman 3, a rilled ovoid/biconical vessel with distinct small handles and narrow mouth, was
produced in Asia Minor from the 4th to 7th century AD. Its contents are said to be wine or caroenum: a
sweet honey-wine as appreciated as the defrutum carried by the Baetican Haltern 70 in the days of the
Early Empire. Greece also produced a wine amphora with the same wide distribution in those final
halcyon days of the amphora tradition: the globular Late Roman 2 from the island of Chios. It as well
was produced from the 4th to 7th century AD.
Even farther east, back in the birth ground of the amphora, the classical Palestine tradition - bag-
shaped (rilled) vessels with small ring handles and no distinct neck - had endured for almost nineteen
centuries. These amphorae had continued to be popular in the Levant with a predominantly local
distribution. From the 4th to 6th century AD this tradition is represented in a state of market revival by
Late Roman 4, a widely distributed amphora used first and foremost for transporting the famed wine of
the Gaza region. Other prized wines from Palestine would be transported in the small, bag-shaped Late
Roman 5/6 from the 5th to 8th century AD.83
1.4.9. Amphorae in post-Antiquity
In the mid 7th century AD the large-scale export of eastern amphorae ceased with the Arab conquests.
Although amphorae were continued to be produced, it was mostly on a small and local scale. Around
the 8th century AD the bulk-shipping of wine and olive oil had stopped almost completely, and
amphorae are rare from that point in time onward. In Medieval times olive oil seems to have been 82 http://ads.ahds.ac.uk/catalogue/archive/amphora_ahrb_2005/details.cfm?id=126 and 243 83 Peacock & Williams 1991, pp. 28-29, 109, 173-209 ; Caravale & Toffoletti 1997, pp. 154-170 ; http://ads.ahds.ac.uk/catalogue/archive/amphora_ahrb_2005/details.cfm?id=236, 239-240, 267, 351
- 42 -
transported mostly in skins, while wooden casks were used for wine. After the Middle Ages olive oil is
also commonly transported in so-called olive jars, globular/tapering vessels with a rounded/pointed
base, which are remarkably similar to the original Canaanite jar, with the singular exception of not
having any handles. The olive jars can thus not be called amphorae, although they are surely a rudiment
of that tradition and were probably used in a similar way. Early forms of the olive jar have a fabric
which is almost indistinguishable from that of certain Dressel 20 amphorae, suggesting the same
Guadalquivir region of production which was responsible for so many amphorae during the Roman
Empire. The amphora tradition still lives on today in certain rural areas in the Mediterranean as well as
in North Africa and the Levant for the storage and transport of water and oil.84
84 Peacock & Williams 1991, pp. 29
- 43 -
2. ROMAN MARITIME TRADE
In this chapter the maritime component of Roman trade will be discussed. Aspects hereof are the three
exchange mechanisms, ships, ports, trade routes and the organization of trade. I will also review the
ongoing debate between historians and archaeologists concerning the ancient economy and that of the
Roman maritime trade in particular, as the Roman economy as a whole was a complex machine in
which amphorae functioned as essential gears. The study of amphorae is meant to further our
understanding of the ancient economy, which is why I feel it is imperative to summarize the theories
that have accompanied this subject in the past century.85
2.1. EXCHANGE MECHANISMS: THREE MODES OF TRADE
2.1.1. Reciprocity
The notion of trade in archaeology is somewhat different from the general idea, in that it does not only
apply to that nowadays most common form of exchange where making profit is the highest goal. This
particular mode of exchange, known as free market trading, is only one of three exchange systems used
in Antiquity. Each of these systems was in effect on different levels of and relations within society.
The most basic exchange system is reciprocity, which can often be equaled to gift giving. In an act of
reciprocity, one person (henceforth called A) gives another person (henceforth called B) an object or
commodity without requiring direct compensation. A essentially gives B a gift and it is assumed B will
in time return the favor, thus creating a personal obligation. When this mode of exchange takes place
amongst equals, it is called positive reciprocity (close kin or friends). It is called balanced when the
exchange occurs within a definite social context (between villages or tribes). Negative reciprocity then
takes place when A tries to outdo B, usually amongst strangers or over long social distances.
An example of reciprocity in the Roman period is a gift of amphorae with exotic contents from
aristocrat A to aristocrat B, or from A to his guests upon return from a long trip. Reciprocity was
probably more important than it seems at first glance, as it could be used to great political effect.
Reciprocal hospitality also played a large part in Roman life, exemplified by wealthy Roman A on the
road staying over at the villa of B. This hospitality would later be compensated by a banquet at A, for
example. Reciprocity is unfortunately rather hard to detect archaeologically, but there are cases that
85 Part of this chapter has appeared in an internal GIA article by my hand for dr. S. Voutsaki, concerning a theoretical treatise on the Roman maritime economy with an added amphora case study (Pape, 2006).
- 44 -
might register in a research, such as a few rare amphorae found at a villa well outside their normal
distribution area.86
2.1.2. Redistribution
The second mode of exchange is redistribution. In this system a central person or organization procures
relevant commodities from several areas (often as a tribute) and then redistributes them to those that
need them. That way geography is overcome and people can receive goods that are not normally
available to them in their own area. Redistribution is a feature of more complex, and centrally organized
societies. As this mode of exchange requires a coherent political organization (such as a nation or
empire), it is a form of internal exchange.
Redistribution was arguably the most important exchange system in the Roman world. During the
days of the Empire, essential foodstuffs were gathered from all provinces under Roman dominion and
redistributed amongst those who needed it. The annual grain redistribution, the tax in kind known as
the annona, was essential to feed the ever increasing population of Rome. As the citizens of Rome
eventually needed more foodstuffs than could be produced in the city’s hinterland, a lot had to be
imported. The annona brought grain in bulk from producing provinces to the capital (like from Egypt,
courtesy of the Puteoli-Alexandria route), where it was redistributed amongst the populace. As the
Empire endured, the state got ever more involved with this trade and its accordant legislation (see 2.6).
The grain at first was handed out in fixed rations at a subsidized price, but later on it became
completely free (although not everyone was entitled to it).
In the Late Empire at least amphora-borne commodities were part of a redistributive scheme
involving the capital city, known as the species annonariae, granting oil, wine and other commodities to
the needy people of Rome. Another scheme, the annona militaris, made sure that the soldiers guarding
the frontiers of the Empire received their daily subsistence. The produce of Baetican olive oil for
example accounted for a significant part of this tax in kind during the Early Empire. Both of these
schemes involved the transport of massive amounts of amphorae over time. The hardest part of
identifying redistribution in the archaeological record is distinguishing it from the third mode of
exchange: free market trading.87
2.1.3. Free market trading
Market trading was undoubtedly an aspect of the Roman economy, as it had been in ancient Greece.
Free market trading as a mode of exchange suggests a central location where exchange takes place, in
86 Renfrew & Bahn 2000, pp. 353-355 ; Polanyi et al. 1957, pp. 250-256 ; Peacock & Williams 1991, pp. 57-59 87 Id., pp. 354 ; Idem ; Id., pp. 56-57
- 45 -
general a monetary system, as well as the possibility of bargaining and other price negotiations. The
central location can be internal like a rural market, but also external like a port-of-trade in another
country. Market trading occurs primarily when exchange is brought outside close social circles and
making profit becomes the principal goal of the exchange.
As said in 2.1.2, market trading and redistribution are difficult to distinguish from each other in an
archaeological sense, at least in simpler societies. While it is certain that market trading existed in
Roman times it is difficult to judge in which quantities. Peacock & Williams argue that this distinction
is made easier when it comes to very large-scale exchange, as both modes would result in a different
distribution pattern (diffuse with market trading, geographically restricted with redistribution). To
make this distinction it is imperative that there is quantified data, and good knowledge concerning
function and chronology of find sites.
Amphorae can be used in this respect. One of the most famous examples is the pattern created by
Dressel 1 amphorae bearing the stamp of Sestius. These vessels originated from a single Late
Republican estate near Cosa and are found all over the southwestern Mediterranean (but not in Italy
south of Cosa, remarkably). The amphorae were found in shipwrecks and towns of differing size and
wealth level with no coherence in function, which makes the pattern a very probable creation of market
trading. The big question remaining however is how important free market trading was compared to the
tied trade of redistribution. Amphora studies might help sort out this problem, but it will require much
more statistical archaeological research (which is lacking when it comes to amphorae) as well as better
cooperation with historians (see 2.6).88
2.2. TECHNICAL AND LOGISTICAL ASPECTS OF ROMAN TRADE
2.2.1. Ships
To ferry the multitude of goods produced in the Roman heartland and provinces from one port to the
other, one had to have a decent ship at his disposal. In Roman times various freighters were in use, and
their size and tonnage steadily increased in time. The appearance of these ships varies wildly, but certain
patterns can be distinguished from ancient depictions of these ships. These depictions, being mostly
frescoes or mosaics, are almost always quite crude and not to scale, thus permitting us to only recognize
the most basic characteristics of a ship.
The shape of the prow for instance seems to have come in two distinct variations, thereby dividing
Roman ships in symmetrical and asymmetrical types: a) the common rounded prow as used for most
88 Id., pp. 354-355 ; Idem ; Id., pp. 59-63
- 46 -
sailing vessels in the past as well as the present, or b) a concave prow ending in a jutting, often
decorated cutwater at the waterline, similar to the rams of ancient warships.89 The most commonly
depicted asymmetrical type is the twin-masted ponto, while the most popular symmetrical one had stem
and stern equally high, creating a tub-like round ship called a corbita.90
Most ships were adorned with a sternpost, on either side of which the ship’s name appeared on a
carving. The deckhouse is almost always represented aft. Between deckhouse and sternpost the
helmsman controlled the movement of the ship. The aft section also housed the tutela, the image of the
ship’s guardian deity. The ship’s name and divine guardian (most popular were Isis, Asclepius and the
Dioscuri) were sometimes the same. A portable altar to seek protection before the onset of a long
journey or to pay homage after a safe voyage was carried on all ships as far as is known, which is a clear
reminder of how religion was interwoven with daily life in Antiquity.
The standard rig in Antiquity was a large, square sail amidships to provide most of the drive. This
mainsail was later joined by a foresail, which by the 1st century AD was either quite small or so large it
qualified as a second mainsail. Larger ships had a small topsail added to their mainsail for increased
drive on open water, while for even more drive the largest vessels were also equipped with a mizzen: a
smaller sail midway between mainsail and sternpost. Limited to these sails ancient freighters provided
safe but slow passage, as the use of multiple topsails did not catch on until the later ages (something
which almost tripled the speed of a ship).91
As the Republic turned into the Empire and demands for bulk products grew, the size and tonnage of
the ships needed to carry them increased accordingly. The smallest Roman freighters then had a
tonnage of 75 (1.500 amphorae), and the average type between 75 and 200 (2.000-3.000 amphorae).
The largest Roman ships were topped to the brim with amphorae. Examples of these large freighters are
the wrecks of La Madrague de Giens (off Toulon), Grand Congloué (off Marseille) and that of
Albenga (Liguria, Italy), which each had a tonnage of 250 or larger (more than 6.000 amphorae,
approx. 9.000 for the Albenga vessel). These wrecks are some of the best preserved, which is a boon
caused by the amphorae themselves; the heap of containers and sherds created after the ships had landed
on the seabed shielded the vulnerable wood of the hull. This is also why the hulls of warships and
merchant ships carrying grain are never found.92
The largest commonly used freighters in Antiquity (thus discounting the 2.000 ton super freighter
Syracosia of Hiero II of Syracuse, which was as unique as it was gargantuan93) were those vessels used in
89 Casson 1994, pp. 109-110 90 Rougé 1981, pp. 175-177 91 Casson 1994, pp. 111-115 92 Id., pp. 103-104 ; Carevale & Toffoletti 1997, pp. 34-38 93 Morrison 1980, pp. 53
- 47 -
the Alexandria-Rome annona run. Because of the relatively small window of sailing opportunity in the
ancient Mediterranean, preferably from April to October because of the dependable weather, as much
product as possible had to be hauled at once; oversized ships were the only answer. We know how big
these freighters could be, thanks to an accident in the 2nd century AD where one such freighter was
blown off course and ended up in Athens’ harbor, Piraeus. This ship, the Isis, would have been able to
carry 1.200-1.300 tons of cargo. Mighty ships indeed, and eighty of these in a ‘wheat fleet’ could easily
have carried the 135.000 tons of grain provided by Egypt to Rome each year.94
2.2.2. Ports
The Roman world was blessed with a remarkable number of ports, both small and large. These ports
operated under a certain hierarchy, both maritime (i.e. sea or river harbors) and economic (i.e.
international or national harbors). While most of these ports were continuations or improved version of
older ones, some were specifically redesigned or created completely new.
A small port, called a marina, was in general a natural harbor, like a protected cove with a sheltered
beach, well-suited for ships to drop anchor. Ports like this dotted the coast of Italy and the provinces,
being used for both fishing and trade. Traffic that hugged the coast thus had a large number of possible
stops available to them. Such ports could also be used a local points of distribution. The same
effectively goes for private ports servicing coastal estates, although these were most often man-made.95
The large Roman ports were always at least partially artificial, located on either the coast itself or the
mouth of a river, and with either one or more basins depending on its importance. A good example of a
large continuous port is that of Alexandria in Egypt, which did not change much from Hellenistic
through Roman times.
The case of Rome however was different from the beginning. At the time of the Republic, Ostia
served only as forward maritime colony that defended the entry of the Tiber from seaborne attacks. In
those days freighters sailed up the Tiber to Rome itself, where goods were unloaded at the foot of the
Aventine hill. During the Second Punic War a former Greek port on the Bay of Naples, Puteoli
(present-day Pozzuoli), became Rome’s main trade port. While Caesar and Augustus had plans for a
man-made port at Ostia, this project would not take effect until the reign of Claudius. Alongside Ostia
the harbor called Portus was created. Claudius’ circular basin was already a kilometer in diameter, but
due to vulnerability to the weather a slightly smaller hexagonal basin was added under Trajan. Being
94 Casson 1994, pp. 123-124 95 Rougé 1981, pp. 169-170
- 48 -
more landward, it was connected to Claudius’ basin that from then on served as outer harbor. All this
expansion resulted in the port at Puteoli losing considerable importance.96
While only the facilities of Portus and probably Arles were created wholly anew, all across the
Mediterranean ports were improved and enlarged during the Roman period. In Italy, ports like Ancona
and Centumcellai were renovated under Trajan, who completely rehashed the latter from a simple
marina to a well-protected port called Civitavecchia. The importance of less well-known ports all along
the Italian coast should not be dismissed, as they will have been integral links in the chain of
(re)distribution of goods. Between Rome/Ostia/Portus and Puteoli for instance lay a whole stretch of
coast which will have boasted several smaller ports, most of which would have been attended by ships
hugging the coast between the two large harbors, and some of them having sent out freighters
themselves. An important example of such a port is Tarracina/Anxur (present-day Terracina), which is
situated at the southeastern edge of the Pontine region near Circeo. The port at Terracina is now
thought to have been an intermediate way station between the two large Roman harbors, supplying the
Urbs with Sicilian grain in particular, but also exporting wine on a grand scale. 97 Terracina will return
later in this thesis in relation to the Latial wine trade in Roman times (see 5.2.6).
In Africa, under Septimius Severus, the old port of his hometown Leptis Magna in Tripolitania was
transformed into a monumental basin harbor, which was seen as one of the most beautiful of the
ancient world (in so far a port can be called aesthetically pleasing). The port was short-lived as it soon
silted over and was subsequently abandoned, but it had served its purpose of reminding the people
where that particular emperor of the Roman Empire hailed from. Other important harbors in Africa
were those of Carthage and other Punic cities, whose use was resumed after the wars and which were
incorporated into the Empire.
In Gaul, the ports of Marseille and Narbonne were the most important during the Early Empire.
While little is known about the continuity of Narbonne, Marseille severely declined in later centuries.
To keep Gaul economically running, a new harbor was created at Arles. This complex used two rivers,
the Rhône and Saône, through which products could be moved up to destinations along the Seine,
Meuse and Rhine.
On the Atlantic side of the provinces most harbors, except old Cádiz, had been built on river
estuaries. Ports like those of Bordeaux (Burdigala), Seville (Hispalis) and London (Londinium) were all
miles from the sea but still managed to become major economic centers.
96 Id., pp. 170-172 97 Coarelli 1990, pp. 55
- 49 -
In the East then a large complex already existed on the mouth of the Orontes, near Antioch. This
harbor bore similarities to Portus in functionality. Up until the Late Empire this port was improved and
remained essential.
2.2.3. Trade routes
The Roman trade routes have mostly been established by combining historical records from Antiquity
about maritime trade with material evidence supplied by underwater archaeology.98 The main trade hubs
in the Roman world were of course Rome (Puteoli/Portus/Ostia) and Alexandria, the greatest cities of
the Roman era. The annual annona trade between them caused entire ‘wheat fleets’ to make sail. The
route was complicated due to the summer winds (the so-called Etesians). During the winds the route
probably went along the African coast or hugging the land all the way to Rhodes.99
But there were more trade routes of course, many more, making the entire oikoumene a Roman
playground. The main African route went from Carthage past the eastern shores of Sardinia to the
Italian ports, while Spanish routes started at Cádiz, Cartagena, Malaga or Tarragona. When
commodities were coming in from the African west coast, the Straits of Gibraltar were used before
linking up with the African route. The Strait of Bonifacio, between Corsica and Sardinia were
frequented often as well, explaining the ships’ graveyard between those islands.
There were also two important routes coming from Gaul. The first started at Narbonne and went
through the already mentioned Straits of Bonafacio. The second originated at Marseilles or Arles, and
went past Corsica and Elba onwards to the Italian mainland. And these are only the routes that
primarily concern the Mediterranean. Trade ties also flourished between the Empire and the Eastern
World: Arabia, India, Malaysia, China… As can be seen, long-distance seaborne trade was
commonplace in the Roman world.100
It should not be forgotten that ships sailed on inland waterways as well, to further distribute
products. The Rhône-Rhine axis is a prime example of such a transport vein, and was used throughout
the Roman era to supply both the civilian and military presence in Gaul and Germania. Other
important rivers were the Danube and of course Rome’s own Tiber. In Latium at least two rivers, the
Loricina and Astura, combined with the Decennovium canal running alongside the Via Appia, would
have played an integral role in distributing goods from and to the coastal zone.101
98 Throckmorton 1987, pp. 61 99 Rougé 1981, pp. 190 100 Id., pp. 191-193 101 Prof. dr. P.A.J. Attema, pers. comm. 2008
- 50 -
2.3. ORGANIZATION OF ROMAN SEABORNE TRADE
2.3.1. Maritime trade organization in the Republican era
While the extrapolation of trade routes is essentially pretty straightforward, the question of who did the
trading in the Roman world remains a much debated issue. In the Classical period, before the rise of the
Empire, there are four important terms appearing in historical documents concerning maritime trade.
These terms, which can be applied to both contemporary Greek and Roman seaborne trade, are
emporos, excercitor, naukleros and kubernetes.
The first term is emporos, which reminds one of the old Greek word for trading outpost: emporion.
This person would have been a trader, chartering a part or the whole of a ship to ferry his goods across
the sea, which he accompanied in person. The owner of the ship was called excercitor, that much is sure.
It was no oddity for the owner of a ship to sail onboard his possession, but it was also not a common
practice. Rougé makes this statement with regards to the naukleros, a term which frequently returns in
historical accounts for the captain of a ship, but it is still not clear as to what extent the naukleros
actually ‘owned’ a vessel. What is known, is that this person always sailed onboard the ship and can
therefore not be a synonym for excercitor, who did not always sail along (someone could be both of
course, but not necessarily).
Most scholars nowadays consider the naukleros the one who did the most of the trading, comparable
to a ‘merchant’. The excercitor then was the owner of the ship, while a third historically known term,
kubernetes or gubernator is seen as the sailing captain (the one that actually commandeered the vessel;
the word ‘governor’ stems from this). Rougé states that someone could have had all three
aforementioned terms/ranks (except emporos) applied to them, which complicates matters even
further.102
2.3.2. Maritime trade organization in the Imperial era
In the Roman Imperial period the term excercitor is replaced by the dominus navis, the owner of the
ship. The emporos, gubernator and naukleros keep their name and function for the larger part (so the
term naukleros remains troubling scholars for another four hundred years of Mediterranean history). A
new term, magister navis, accompanies the gubernator as someone who was in charge of the vessel when
it made port. The term seems to be connected with all kinds of economical activities onboard (as well
as passenger relations). Whether the gubernator was the superior of the magister navis and whether both
102 Id., pp. 159-161
- 51 -
men had the same function onboard the ship remains unclear, although Rougé disagrees which Casson
about the latter part (Rougé considers the two terms having two separate functions attached to them).103
Under the Roman Empire, maritime trade was carried out by several distinct people in several distinct
ways. The small-time traders and owners of a single ship did their trading with the use of maritime
loans, something which was already commonplace in Greece. The ‘bigger deals’ however were done by
the negotiatores and navicularii. The former were people that had set up or participated in specialized
commercial enterprises, trading goods all over the Roman sea lanes. Two of their associated terms,
negotiatores frumentarii (dealing solely in wheat), negotiatores vinarii (dealing solely in wine), show
that these people concentrated on a single commodity to trade. The navicularii (a term that was first
associated, but later on dissociated with naukleroi) on the other hand were owners of several dozens of
ships, which they operated through a series of middlemen. These persons did not concentrate on a
single commodity but instead ferried everything across the sea that was offered to their subordinates at
the big ports.
Navicularii are best known however for the exclusive grain deals that they made with Rome. Being the
owners of a lot of ships and a lot of money, they transported the huge amounts of grain needed by
Rome’s urban dwellers in return for certain legal favors (such as citizenship). At the time of Antoninus
Pius, navicularii were no longer independent but instead had organized themselves in companies.
Working for the state steadily changed the relationship between Rome and the negotiatores though,
with the advent of the tied annona trade. In this annual event, the negotiatores were obliged to ferry
enormous amounts of grain to Rome. They also had to be land owners, so the state could have a hold
on them and ‘motivate’ them to complete the task. As the years progressed, the negotiatores became less
and less independent, while the state’s influence on the grain dole grew correspondingly.104
During the Late Empire the involvement of the state in affairs of production and trade increased even
more. A prime example thereof is the confiscation of oil producing estates in Baetica by Septimius
Severus at the start of the 3rd century BC. While it cannot be sufficiently proven, it is suspected that the
balance of competition in oil export between Africa and Spain was thereby deliberately tipped in favor
of the former (see 1.4.7). Proof of imperial control over the Hispanic oil production is evident from
stamps bearing the imperial seal from this period onwards.
103 Id., pp. 184-185 104 Id., pp. 186-188
- 52 -
2.4. THE DEBATE ON THE ANCIENT ECONOMY
When someone wants to write about the Roman world, he or she cannot overlook economic behavior
and trade. To maintain a civilization as large and complex as the Roman Empire was to maintain supply
routes open and safe for passage. While transport overland was certainly not neglected, it was obscured
to a great extent by seaborne traffic, which was essentially cheaper, even across large distances. This is a
commonly accepted view, among all the participants in the debate. The question however, is exactly
how important seaborne trade in the Roman world really was.
Over the past decades, scholars have tried to make some sense of the vast historical and archaeological
resources available to them for use on the intellectual battlefield. With these epigraphic and material
weapons at their disposal, those same scholars devised theories about how the ancient economy had
functioned according to them. These theories range from a modernist to a primitivist view.105 The
current trend then is the ongoing search for a golden mean between those two extremes.
2.4.1. The modernist view
The first theories about the Roman economy to reach the battleground were spearheaded by M.I.
Rostovtzeff, who wrote an encompassing work about the subject called Social and economic history of
the Roman Empire.106 Publishing his book in 1926 in the post-WOI era, when systematic archaeology
was still in its infancy, Rostovtzeff writes as a pure historian. His ideas can be characterized as being
modernizing and modernist in nature. He emphasizes and glorifies the scale and magnitude of the
Roman economy, which he correctly describes as being primarily agricultural in nature. This
observation has withstood the test of time and is a recurring part of every theory about the ancient
economy that has been devised since.
As Rostovtzeff states it: “Though statistics are lacking, we may safely affirm that the largest part of
the population of the Empire was engaged in agriculture, either actually tilling the soil or living on an
income drawn from the land.”107 But unlike the primitivist Finley model which is discussed in more
detail hereafter, the modernist view credits the Romans with an advanced approach towards agriculture.
In other words, Rostovtzeff sees Roman agriculture as having a considerable technological level, with
developments and improvements being implemented over the years. He says: “Where agriculture was
introduced for the first time, it was introduced in its highly developed forms, chiefly in the form of a
capitalistic and more or less scientific tillage of the soil.”108 Note Rostovtzeff’s use of the word
105 Mattingly & Salmon 2001, pp. 5 106 Rostovtzeff 1926, rev. 1957 107 Id., pp. 343 108 Id., pp. 343-344
- 53 -
‘capitalistic’ in his description of Roman-style agriculture. Capitalism is a key concept in his views of
the economical behavior in the early Roman period, together with another word that is quite
compatible with it: bourgeoisie.
As Rostovtzeff states it, the Republic saw the rise of a new class of nobility next to that of the
senators. These were the equestrians, a new upper class of society that had made their money in the
Hellenistic East. There they had learned the capitalistic approach to economy and commerce, together
with a healthy longing for taking back the newly acquired comforts of city life back to their home
country.109 And so, Rostovtzeff says, new capital was brought back to Italy and the provinces to be
invested there. The new equestrian class became wealthy landowners, merchants and ship-owners. They
produced wine and olive oil in great quantities on their estates in Italy and sought to sell the goods on
the primary Western markets: Gaul, Spain, Africa, the North and the Danube provinces.110
The subsequent changes in Roman social life, brought about by the invested capital of the equestrians
and the by trade imported goods from abroad, increased the gap between the aristocracy and the
common people even more. While the top and middle classes of Roman society flourished, the peasant
population in Italy dwindled. Whole stretches of land found adequate for vineyards were put to good
use by the landowners, thereby removing the rural population or degrading them to mere tenants that
worked on the estates.111
As is common knowledge, this growing gap between the higher and lower classes led to the Civil War
and the end of the Roman Republic. While this ultimately brought great changes in organization,
bringing about the dawn of the Empire after the murder on Caesar, Rostovtzeff states that Italy as a
whole did not feel the changes on the economic level quite that serious at first. Sure, some landowners
were ruined after the wars and former tenants became estate dwellers, but generally speaking life
continued as it had before.112
In the Augustan age the equestrian class continued to exist as landowners, merchants and ship-owners.
Production increased dramatically, illustrated for example by Campania, which Rostovtzeff refers to as
‘one enormous vineyard’. Also, while the production of essential foodstuffs in Italy and the trade in it
reached its height, other industrial endeavors flourished as well: mass-produced red-glazed pottery from
Etruria, bronze and silver plates from Capua and a scale of hitherto non-existing activities in Campania,
to name but a few. In the latter the abundance of oil was beginning to be used for perfumes, while
decorated glass vessels and jewelry fetched high prices.113
109 Id., pp. 18-23 110 Id., pp. 19-20 111 Id., pp. 22-24 112 Id., pp. 30-31 113 Id., pp. 70-71
- 54 -
As the Imperial age progressed, the economical freedom of the equestrian class changed. While
Augustus did not interfere with the economy, the later emperors did so to a great extent. As Rome grew
larger and larger, the city’s population needed ever more food. As the hinterland could no longer
provide for all the necessary basic foodstuffs, there had to be found new means to procure grain for
Rome. This was provided via the annona (see 2.1.2).114 The state took increasingly more control in
trade and the equestrians became more and more bound to state service.
To carry their stock abroad, be it wine or wheat, the bourgeoisie used the shortest and most viable
means of transportation: the sea lanes. Sadly, Rostovtzeff omits to mention or discuss the ships and
trade routes associated with this outburst of commercial activity. This goes for the Republican period as
well as for the Imperial age, which is to be contributed to the lack of archaeological research involved
and to Rostovtzeff’s inclination to write as a historian, with only ancient and contemporary (being the
late 1920’s at the time) literature as sources. Though he mentions some archaeological research of his
own, this does not involve maritime archaeological finds.
To summarize, the cultural-historical ‘Rostovtzeffian’ view of the Roman ancient economy revolves
primarily around agriculture. Foodstuffs were produced on a large scale and they were traded in vast
quantities over long distances in ships owned by the wealthy equestrian class. Other products were
traded as well though, ranging from precious metals to mass-produced earthenware. The economy as a
whole operated primarily on capitalist principles, with free market trade being the most common form
of trade. The tied annona trade was an exception, at first. Later on the state became more and more
involved in trade as private enterprises were compromised.
2.4.2. The primitivist view
In the last quarter of the 20th century, the views about the trade and economy of the ancient world have
been dominated by a paradigm that has been constructed primarily around the theoretical framework
established in 1973 by historian Moses Finley in his book The ancient economy.115 This model has had
an enormous impact on our notion of ancient trade and made it the single most powerful method to
describe the features and importance of economic behavior in Antiquity.
The Finley model was a reaction on the first score of ideas about (Roman) ancient commerce,
spearheaded by Rostovtzeff. Before Finley, there was a widespread belief that trade and the economy as
a whole must have functioned similar to that of the modern world, with its emphasis on the free market
system and aim of ever more accumulation of wealth and money. Finley deemed these ideas inaccurate,
114 Rougé 1981, pp. 190 115 Finley 1973, rev. 1999
- 55 -
as they failed to give a comprehensive approach to the trade mechanisms of the ancient world.116
Finley’s basic idea was that the ancient economy had been quantitatively small in scale, with low levels
of capital investment, an equally low level of technology and poor technological development to match.
Furthermore, he dismisses the earlier beliefs that long-distance trade in bulk goods (such as foodstuffs)
and industrial specialization were part of economic behavior in Antiquity.
On the qualitative side, Finley also characterizes the ancient economy as being ‘primitive’, in that the
economic behavior of ancient civilizations and relations of commerce between them were only a sidestep
from the focal point: agriculture. According to Finley, agriculture (and the accumulation of land) was
the point around which all ancient civilizations revolved. To him trade and the greater economics
involved were nothing more than means to acquire land and use it to project an image of success and
wealth to the outside world, by spending the riches. Although agriculture was also the main concept in
Rostovtzeff’s cultural-historical view, those earlier ideas did leave sufficient scope for non-agricultural
trade.
At this point it is of vital importance to know where Finley got the inspiration for his ideas. Looking
at the general concept, one will observe that his model is strikingly Marxist in approach. We have a
society that is almost fully agricultural based and an economy that is regarded as so primitive that it
cannot even be called pre-capitalistic. The only deviation from the pure Marxist view is the emphasis
which Finley places on status.117 According to him status was shown by spending money. There were no
prestige points given to people that saved their earnings or invested them to expand production, as is
commonplace nowadays.
In Antiquity, when you had money, you had to show it. You did not put it away for safe keeping. As
Hopkins states while discussing the Finley model: “In sum, among the rich in ancient societies, greater
value was attached to conspicuous consumption than to increased production, or to the painful
acquisition of more wealth.”118 When he constructed his model, Finley was inspired for a great deal by
the famous economist Max Weber. The ideas of this man were primarily socialistic in nature, which is
the reason that the model leans towards an economical view that has those same ideological traits. One
might thus say that the primitivist approach has a socialistic-Marxist core, with some slight tweaks on
behalf of Finley’s emphasis on status.
A summary of Finley’s main views of the ancient economy is as follows: a) it was under-developed,
with a low level of capital investment in productivity; b) there was a notable lack of technological
development; c) there is minimal evidence for profit-directed growth or for surplus-orientated
agricultural or industrial specialization; d) there was little long-distance trade in non-luxury items 116 Hopkins 1983, pp. xi 117 Id., pp. xiii 118 Id., pp. xiii-xiv
- 56 -
(notwithstanding the extraordinary arrangements made by the state for the grain dole in Rome); e)
social factors were pre-eminent over economic rationality in defining economic relationships; f) the
relationship between the urban centers of the ancient world and their rural hinterlands was essentially
one of exploitation directed towards self-sufficiency, as exemplified by the ‘consumer city’ ideal type. 119
This primitivist approach to the ancient economy and trade is diametrically opposed to the modernist
theories advocated by Rostovtzeff. By studying the epigraphic and material remains of the Roman era
much more up close, Finley came up with several drastic revisions of the old theories, considering them
modernizing and anachronistic. Many of Finley’s arguments are backed up by archaeological data, much
more then was the case with Rostovtzeff. However both recent archaeological undertakings and fresh
historical insights have yielded even more information, contradicting Finley and in some cases even
proving him wrong about some points.
2.4.3. The balanced view
Finley’s model combined with his views took the world of economic history by storm, shoving aside the
cultural-historical approach to the ancient economy, which was outdated to him. For nearly two decades
Finley was God, ruling over ancient economical history as point man of a new paradigm. And for those
twenty-odd years the Finley model of ancient economy seemed irrefutable, indeed, definitive.
Slowly but surely though, scholars dealing with the subject started to question certain aspects of
Finley’s model and the accompanying viewpoints. The main issue that was addressed was Finley’s focus
on the agricultural aspect of the ancient economy. The primitivist approach saw the predominantly
agricultural economy of both Greek and Roman society as underdeveloped in terms of technological
advances (and more important: their applications), with non-agricultural production playing only a very
minor part in the greater scope of the economy.
This seeming lack of appreciation for other economic endeavors in the Roman world besides
agriculture inspired historians and archaeologists to join forces and look beyond the strongly settled
primitivist views. Mattingly et al. summarized the current state of affairs very clearly: “It is not that we
disagree with Finley - his work was after all a wonderful corrective to much careless modernizing
scholarship of the 1950s and 1960s - but so influential has he been that the debate has atrophied.”120
A prime example of a work that tries to get the debate going again and explore the non-agricultural
side of ancient economy with a combined archaeological-historical basis is Economies beyond
agriculture in the classical world, edited by Professor of Roman Archaeology, David J. Mattingly, and
Senior Lecturer in Classics, John Salmon. In this book Mattingly and Salmon, archaeologist and
119 Mattingly & Salmon 2001, pp. 3 120 Id., pp. 67
- 57 -
historian, bring together a score of articles about non-agricultural production and economical growth.
Although sadly enough none of those articles discusses seaborne trade in particular, it provides a good
summary and reappraisal of Finley’s ideas.
One of the points that are being re-evaluated is the following: “The relationship between the urban
centers of the ancient world and their rural hinterlands was essentially one of exploitation directed
towards self-sufficiency, as exemplified by the ‘consumer city’ ideal type.”121 The idea of an ideal type of
city comes from Max Weber, who defined multiple ideal types of which he found the consumer city to
be the most representative for describing the ancient city. The idea of a consumer city is “one where the
major income for the urban consumers came from rural rents, where the products of local rural labor
supplied the subsistence needs of the urban population and where manufacturing and inter-regional
commerce were essentially petty.”122
As can be read, this ideal type does not leave much scope for non-agricultural production. While
scholars of ancient history like this type because it corresponds with their literary sources about how the
urban-dwelling elite viewed the economy in ancient times, Finley does not mention or discuss deviations
from this ideal city type.123 Recent research has therefore been focused towards identifying these
deviations and perhaps to tag ancient cities with other ‘ideal type’-labels, such as the producer city,
commercial city and service city. As a matter of fact Weber also proposed these types in alternative
models for the ancient world, but scholars got stuck with the idea of the consumer city and Finley
himself rejected these other models on purpose.124
The obsession with Weber’s consumer city is just one of the primitivist concepts that are now being
reviewed by the adherents of the balanced view. Also other concepts in the ancient economy like
productivity, industrial specialization (i.e. workshops specialized in a certain type of pottery) and the
focus on creation of surplus products (foremost grain, wine and oil), which are considered by the
primitivist approach as being small in scale to non-existent, are once more under debate. This renewing
of the discussion relies for one part on the fresh ideas of those historians involved, and for the other
part on the material studies of archaeology.
The most recent archaeological achievements in the debate about the ancient economy have been
made by the use of new methods and advanced technologies. As for the latter, there is a ‘glory story’ in
the making for the emerging field of underwater archaeology, which will prove instrumental in
furthering research on the ancient economy in general and on seaborne trade in particular. This field is
still developing though, and is not yet fully integrated into the balanced view (adherents of the balanced
121 Id., pp. 3 122 Id., pp. 66 123 Id., pp. 66-67 124 Id., pp. 67
- 58 -
view mostly just use the results of underwater archaeology, rather than actually cooperating with those
specialists). On the other hand the ‘coming of age’ of survey methodology and the increasing number of
surveys featuring or starring in archaeological campaigns give ever more insight into the relation of
coastal zones and their hinterlands (see also 3.1).
In summary, the search for a golden mean between the primitivist and modernist views is one of the
most recent developments in theoretical economical archaeology. While Finley rightly accused
Rostovtzeff and his followers of overly modernizing the world of Antiquity, he himself overshot his
own target by making the ancient economy too primitive, thereby neglecting the crucial differences in
political unity and accompanying economic behavior between the Greek and Roman world. After all,
Finley specializes mainly in the Greek world, where his ideas can be far more appropriately and
consequently used. The Roman world is a whole other story, exemplified by the bulk trade in amphora-
borne commodities. Note that Rostovtzeff focused primarily on the Roman world instead of reviewing
the Greek world better as well, which has probably played a significant role in Finley’s polemic
tendencies towards the primitivist view.
Interestingly enough, one could actually say that both Rostovtzeff and Finley were in a sense right
when stating their wildly different views. When we look beyond the notion of trade for a moment and
view the Roman economy as a whole, it would indeed seem to have been a two-faced Janus. As W.M.
Jongman states it: “Ancient Rome presents us with two faces, one of extraordinary achievement, and
one of stagnation and underdevelopment. We need not be surprised that scholars have wildly different
views of this economy. I want to argue that current debate on the Roman economy is flawed because it
attempts to choose between these two faces of Rome, between ‘achievement’ and
‘underdevelopment’.”125
In other words, historians and archaeologists alike might be fundamentally wrong in their assumption
that such a choice even has to be made. The Roman world was both advanced, in terms of fargoing
urbanization and political/economic integration, and underdeveloped at the same time, never breaching
that threshold leading to an industrialized society. An increase in production does not necessarily equal
economic growth, especially when these processes occur in a society that has a great divide between the
poor and the rich. This divide was a reality in the Roman world, where life expectancy at birth was low
due to infectious diseases, and wealth accumulated in the hands of only a few. The acquisition of ever
more land was vital for the continued existence of the Roman Republic and Empire as a whole, as more
land equaled more production in a society where technologies could not advance any further. Conquest
125 Jongman 2003, pp. 309-310
- 59 -
was therefore an integral part of Antiquity: it was a not very efficient, but in the short term nonetheless
effective way to increase production capacity.126
The base assumption that the Roman world and its economy operated on a fundamentally different
level than ours or even that of the Middle Ages is most probably the core concept of a true balanced
view. The danger however seems to be the recent tendency of historians to focus solely on validation of
the balanced view by economic theorizing. They seem to be tired of the spotlight position still taken by
trade. However, I am of the distinct opinion that trade is the lifeline of any economy, no matter which
form it had. Bulk trade in the Roman period was a given, archaeologically confirmed by such things as
freighters capable of carrying over 8000 amphorae worth of cargo. This is no modernizing theory
anymore, nor ancient elite exaggeration: it is material fact. The same goes for the primitivist focus on
self-suffiency historians still seem to adhere to: when trade is ignored, there would hardly seem to be a
reason for the Rostovtzeffian idea of Italy as an enormous vineyard. Indeed, Rome and Italy as a whole
might have been supplied by about 5% of the available agricultural land. But that is discounting
producing surplus commodities for the market, among other variables (see note). Again, amphorae
prove the large-scale production and export of wine in the Late Republic and Early Empire. This will
be discussed in more detail in 5.3.127
Recognizing both the modernist and primitivist approaches as extremes on both ends of the
theoretical spectrum, the balanced view tries to level the scales. As to the extent to which this will be
successful remains to be seen.128 We can observe though that the fields of archaeology and ancient
history have a complicated love/hate relationship, which is responsible for much of the difficulties and
misunderstandings in the debate about ancient economy and trade. “This situation is negative on both
sides: archaeologists often ignore the complex and interesting discussions taking place in ancient history
and they think that ancient history has not moved on since Finley’s time; while historians do not follow
up on what is going on in terms of archaeological discoveries and they ignore the progress
archaeologists are making in interpreting (and not only revealing) past networks of trade.”129
126 Id., pp. 320 127 Id., pp. 313-314. The 5% would have produced a bottle of wine a day per Italian adult, according to Jongman. While this seems a logical way to calculate, one could argue that Romans were not that ‘efficient’ with wine, especially the elite. The nobility would have had stocks of wine in their villae or other storage facilities for abundant use at parties and as a matter of ‘conspicuous wealth’. What we see as typical Roman practicality and efficiency might not have pervaded all aspects of life. After all, the superfluous use of water (fountains, baths) and expensive adorning of public buildings in Roman construction activities were likewise neither practical nor efficient, but were nonetheless very powerful in a symbolic way. The high maintenance of fish basins at villae marittimae (see 3.2.3) likewise shows a Roman tendency to put status above efficiency in some cases. 128 Id., pp. 10-11 129 Dr. S. Voutsaki, pers. comm. 2006
- 60 -
3. THE PONTINE REGION
Now the theoretical framework of this thesis has been established in the past two chapters, this chapter
will introduce the region where the amphorae of the Liboni Amphora Collection were found and
studied: the Pontine region in southern Latium, Italy, and more specifically its coastal area. In this
region the GIA has performed substantial and varied archaeological research over the past decade, of
which this thesis is a recent iteration.
3.1. CATEGORIZATION OF THE PONTINE REGION
Fig. 1: the coastal stretch between Anzio and Torre Astura, in the Pontine region
3.1.1. Geographical categorization
The region under study in this thesis lies in the heartland of the Roman world: Latium Vetus. Old
Latium is bordered in the south by the Tyrrhenian Sea, in the west by the Tiber river and in the east by
the Sacco/Liri valley. Zooming in to the south of Rome, towards the sea, the Pontine region comes
- 61 -
into view. The limestone mountain ranges Monti Lepini, Monti Ausoni and Monti Aurunci line the
eastern border of the region, including Monte Circeo which marks the south-eastern edge of Latium
Vetus. The transitional zone between these mountains and the plain to the south is known as the
pedemontana (foothills) and is marginally used nowadays. The Colli Albani, from where the Via Appia
ran straight through the region to the south-west, make up the western border. These hills form a series
of ridges and valleys sloping down from the now dormant Vulcano Laziale, and consist of fertile tufa
soil well suited for agriculture. The crater of the volcano is now partially flooded, creating Lago di
Nemi and Lago Albano. Between the Tyrrhenian Sea and the former Pontine marshes lies the Pontine
plain: the Agro Pontino.130
3.1.2. Geomorphological categorization
The geomorphology of the Agro Pontino is characterized by the so-called horst and graben system.
Vertical tectonic movement along the NW-SO faults in the area during the Pliocene and Pleistocene
periods resulted in lower lying areas just below the Monti Lepini (the graben) and a higher part
stretching to the coast (the horst). The horst was formed as a sequence of four marine terraces. The
graben were in turn gradually filled with peat and clay sediments, thus creating a large part of the
Pontine marshes. These were drained in the 1930s during Mussolini’s Bonifica Integrale project.
The present-day cities of Nettuno and Anzio are situated next to each other on the Tyrrhenian
seaboard, upon the fourth horst terrace (known as the Terracina terrace). The landscape here consists
primarily of the remains of ancient dunes, formed by the wind in the Holocene era. There are also two
stretches of volcanic sediments visible on the surface, one of which lies along the coast of the Poligono
Militare (the military zone). These generally red sediments have been deposited in the Pliocene by the
Vulcano Laziale. Below the volcanic deposits also lie clayey and sandy deposits, but these never reach
the surface in the comune di Nettuno. Finally, several incisions in the landscape have been filled up with
sediments from the marshes.131
3.1.3. Socio-economic categorization and this thesis
The coastal area of the Pontine plain - the major socio-economic focus of this thesis - essentially runs
from Antium to Torre Astura, although Terracina is also sometimes taken as southeastern border of the
plain. 132 In this thesis I will refer to the coastal area as the stretch of beach between present-day Anzio
and Torre Astura. I also purposefully divide the Agro Pontino in: 1) coastal area; 2) (rest of the) plain;
and 3) foothills, thus creating three distinct units. This division has a socio-economic structure as it is 130 Tol 2005, pp. 5-6 ; Caneva & Travaglini, pp. 86-93 131 Idem ; Attema et al. 2005, pp. 10 132 Attema 2003, pp. 14-15
- 62 -
primarily based upon three different types of villae encountered in this area in Roman times: the villa
marittima in the coastal area; the villa rustica in the plain; and the ‘platform villa’ in the foothills (see
3.2.3, 3.2.4 and 3.3.1).
Each of these types of villa thus stands for a specific socio-economic unit. It is this division that
ultimately describes my research area best: the line between Antium and Torre Astura (more precisely
the mouth of the river Astura) from northwest to southeast on one hand, and between the beach and
Lepine foothills from southwest to northeast on the other. Of these two boundaries the NW-SE line of
the coastal area is most important in a practical sense, as it describes the extent of the stretch of beach
researched for this maritime inclined thesis. The SW-NE line is most important in a theoretical sense,
as it threads the socio-economic division of the Pontine region presented above; from SW to NE one
first traverses the coastal area, then the plain and finally the foothills. On a final note: there is no clearly
defined boundary, geographically speaking, between the coastal zone and the rest of the plain. I assume
in this thesis the coastal zone ends behind the ancient Roman seaboard villae.
3.2. CHRONOLOGY OF THE PONTINE REGION
3.2.1. Protohistory
While the chronological focus of this research is on the Roman Republican and Imperial Age, it is
impossible to view this period in a vacuum. Therefore an overview of the archaeological periods in the
Pontine region: the protohistorical era; Archaic period & post-Archaic period; Roman Republican and
Roman Imperial period, is now given. Important developments and changes in the socio-economic
system of the Pontine region (especially around present-day Nettuno and the coastal zone) throughout
the discussed periods are mentioned (settlement, agriculture, industry, trade), as that system is the focal
point of this thesis. The data and information presented are as up-to-date as possible, using the most
recent GIA survey and research results.
The protohistorical era is one of great interest in the GIA projects conducted in the Pontine region.
Our knowledge of this earliest phase of civilization stems primarily from studying the indicative
material of this period: lithic material for the Stone Age and handmade impasto pottery for the Bronze
Age and Early Iron Age. The first category is within the framework of GIA projects studied by
cooperating Italian archaeologist M. La Rosa. Impasto pottery is under study by several GIA students
and postgraduates.
The earliest use of the Pontine region has been confirmed by the Agro Pontino survey of the UvA in
1991 and more recent by GIA surveys in 2005 to have started in the Middle Paleolithic. The picture of
- 63 -
the Neolithic and Early Bronze Age is as of yet muddled, but the situation becomes clear again from the
Middle Bronze Age onward. Until the start of the 1990s it has always been assumed that the habitation
in the Middle and Late Bronze Age was seasonal, and was concentrated near ‘wet sites’ like the Pontine
coastal lakes and the crater lakes in the Colli Albani, with a subsistence economy based on hunting and
fishing. This view is now under reappraisal due to recent GIA surveys, suggesting a far more complex
socio-economic system.
GIA excavations in the area, like the one at Piccareta 13 in 2001-2002, 133 have proven that a
considerable amount of (industrial) activity has taken place in the Pontine region since the Middle
Bronze Age. In the Late Bronze Age the habitation shifted from solely the shores of crater lakes to the
banks of the Astura (for example the settlement of Casale Nuovo) and the coastal strip as well. It is
highly probable that P13 (which was involved in salt production among other activities) and other
contemporary sites were accompanied by a settlement that boasted sedentary habitation. G.W. Tol
argues that dedicated production sites like P13 are an indication for a settlement pattern with some
degree of complexity, wherein commodity trade could take place. Within this socio-economic system a
network of smaller (rural) sites would have existed, supporting the industrial sites or acquiring goods
from them.134 Transhumance and animal husbandry would have played an integral part in this system.
The Early Iron Age saw a rise in the amount of sites, which were generally small and self-sufficient.
Activity spread through the entire Pontine region; the first signs of habitation in the Monti Lepini
could be dated to this period. These sites were, judging from our most recent information, assumed to
have been permanently inhabited. In the 8th century BC (Late Iron Age) sanctuaries arose on the
locations of later settlements as Satricum and Caracupa Valvisciolo and many of the smaller sites
clustered around them. There was an increase in interregional trade, with the Astura river functioning as
an important waterway (especially as main supply route for Satricum).
In the 7th century BC (Orientalizing period) Satricum and Caracupa Valvisciolo evolved into proto-
urban centers, a development paralleled at the colony of Antium. Along the shoreline of Nettuno several
sites from this period, like the substantial one called Depuratore, 135 are known to have boasted
considerable (industrial) activity in this period. The Monti Lepini possibly became controlled and
exploited by the site of Caracupa Valvisciolo as part of a system of hilltop sites. The Agro Pontino was
filled in rurally for the first time in this period after the example of the Colli Albani, and agriculture
flourished (probably mostly mixed farming, although the earlier transhumance and husbandry would
likely have remained as well). This trend would continue and expand in the Archaic period.136
133 Attema et al. 2003, pp. 111-123 134 Tol 2005, pp. 11 135 Attema et al. 2003, pp. 124-125 136 Tol 2005, pp. 11-12 ; Attema et al. 2005, pp. 12-13
- 64 -
3.2.2. The Archaic and post-Archaic period
In the Archaic period, the 6th century BC, several changes occurred in the settlement pattern of the
Pontine region. At many sites static defenses were erected, like ramparts (aggere) around the core of
Antium and terraces with polygonal walls at Caracupa Valvisciolo. Within the settlements themselves
monumental buildings with tiled roofs were being constructed out of stone, like the first phase of the
Mater Matuta temple in Satricum and reportedly the Fortuna temple in Antium. On the seaboard the
site Depuratore knew continuity in this period, and along the Astura there was activity on several sites
that were within the catchment (sphere of influence) of Satricum. The amount of farmsteads in the
region increased, especially in the north, and habitation clustered around the large urban centers. The
scale of mixed farming introduced in the Orientalizing period was intensified in the northwest, of which
the underground drainage canals (cuniculi) in the tuff are a testament. Along the coast isolated sites
appeared: probably small fishing communities combined with some small-scale farming.
The 5th century BC marks the first decline of the Pontine region. The major urban centers were
largely abandoned and the population spread across the area to live in small villages consisting of only a
few subsistence farms. Despite the emptying of the urban centers, the region thus knew continuity with
the increased amount of these self-sufficient farms. Historical sources indicated the first Roman
colonies (probably military strongholds instead of urban centers) were founded in this period: Cora
reportedly somewhere before 500 BC and Norba in 492 BC. The acropoleis of these sites are said to
date to the 5th century BC, although stratigraphical research has yet to confirm this hypothesis.
In these times, per GIA convention known as the post-Archaic period (5th century to 350 BC), the
Pontine region was the stage of continuous warfare. At the beginning of this century the Latin centers
were constantly at odds with the growing city of Rome; a struggle ultimately decided in favor of the
latter. In turn several ‘mountain-dwelling peoples’, of which the originally Apennine Volsci are the most
famous, raided and conquered these now Roman settlements in the later part of the century. Control of
important centers continually shifted between the Romans and Volsci, and both Satricum and Antium
have been noted in historical sources as Volscian bulwarks. Antium was highly valued by both factions
due to its strategic location at sea in terms of trade and warfare. An oppidum called Caenon would have
been the natural harbor of Antium in this period, but its exact location has never been attested
archaeologically (see 3.3 for a more elaborate overview of the discussion concerning Caenon).137 The
continuous state of turmoil and shifts in the balance of power might very well be the reason of the post-
Archaic decline of the Pontine region.
The early colonization of Cora and Norba by the Romans and the Volscian occupation of Antium
and Satricum are historical developments that can hardly be - and mostly not at all - confirmed by
137 Tol 2005, pp. 26
- 65 -
archaeological sources. The main problem herein lies with the Volsci, to whom no concrete material
culture can be attributed. The reported Volscian domination of critical sites in the Pontine region is
therefore almost impossible to detect in an archaeological sense. Satricum is one of the very few sites
where Volscian presence can be affirmed, courtesy of the cemetery there. Excavations on the other side
of the Monti Lepini in the Liri area are also slowly starting to yield more information about this
troublesome period.138
3.2.3. The Roman period: the Republic
It was not until around 350 BC that Rome finally managed to firmly assert her power in the Pontine
region (start of the Early Republic; 350-250 BC). In the course of the 4th and beginning of the 3rd
century BC a flurry of activity took place in the region, as the Romans colonized existing urban centers
and founded new colonies all over the area (e.g. Circeii in 393 BC, Satricum in 385 BC and Setia in
382 BC). These colonies differed from those founded a century before in that they were not meant to
be (solely) military strongpoints. The colonization process initiated by the Romans was much more a
planned affair this time, and the new colonies were incorporated into the Roman territory with quite a
degree of freedom from Rome itself. The own indigenous Latin culture was respected as much as
possible.139 Administrative systems were initiated to increase the level of control in the area; the tribus
Publia (northern area) and the tribus Pomptina (central area) in 358 BC. The tribus Oufentina
(southern area) was initiated in 318 BC after Privernum was taken in 329 BC, thus finally ending the
war with the Volsci.140
The city of Norba, in the Monti Lepini, seems to have been planned largely in the mid 4th century, as
indicated by topographical studies. The larger part of the city walls were erected and a regular city
layout was achieved. Likewise the city of Cora saw restorations of its walls and towers in this period,
and the first sanctuaries were erected here as well. At the end of the 4th century the Via Appia, the most
famous Roman road, was constructed. It ran all the way from Rome to Anxur/Terracina, parallel to the
coast, straight through the Pontine region. Other roads branched off from the Via Appia to the west,
one of them running through the present-day municipality of Nettuno and ending in Antium (the
Lanuvium-Antium track, which was either newly constructed or a hardened version of an earlier road).
The Via Appia and derivative roads complemented the earlier road in the pedemontana, resulting in a
dense pattern of rural activity in between (as shown by GIA surveys) and better communication
138 Id., pp. 12-13 ; Attema et al. 2005, pp. 12-13 139 The classic definition of the Romanization process on the contrary suggests that conquered peoples lost their own cultural identity and had it replaced by the Roman package of traditions and values. This belief is now under reappraisal. 140 Attema et al. 2005, pp. 14
- 66 -
between the plain and the foothills. As a result of these infrastructural improvements the habitation
shifted from the naturally favorable locations in the central (Fosso del Quinto), northern and
northeastern parts of the Nettuno municipality to the sides of the Lanuvium-Antium road, in light of
favorable infrastructure. These villae rusticae were found along the entire stretch of the road and the
agricultural products originating from there were most probably brought to the colonies, which also
functioned as regional markets. Several sites in the region from where the habitation shifted
(east/northeast) still knew continuity, but these show no signs of (villa) architecture and have a more
modest material assemblage. It seems as if these sites, deprived of the improved infrastructure to the
west, stuck to the old ways of agricultural self-sufficiency. Thus the region differentiated itself socio-
economically in a conglomerate of producing villae on the one hand, and a rural hinterland of
subsistence farms on the other.141
In the Middle Republican period (250-100 BC) the rural infill of the Pontine plain gradually
increased. The 2nd century BC saw a worsening of the already bad hydrology in the region (something
Latium Vetus has always suffered from), and new drainage works were ordered to halt the expanding
marshes and accordant outbreaks of malaria. Meanwhile a new class of larger farms arose in the foothills
(and probably highlands) of the Monti Lepini: the so-called ‘platform villae’, characterized by platforms
of polygonal masonry.142 These farms probably specialized in the production of olive oil for the market,
as indicated by surveys and palynological study. This was a distinct change from the earlier basis of
(mixed) subsistence farming.
In the days of the Late Republic (100-30 BC) the rest of Italy had been completely conquered by the
Romans. All this time Latium Vetus had played an important part in feeding the expansion campaigns.
At that point however, more adequate agricultural regions were available elsewhere in Roman territory,
and the export activity of inland habitation stalled. The amount of rural sites reached a peak in this
period, especially in the area called Campana (along the Loricina river). A network of roads in that area,
among which the Via Selciatella (leading to Antium), were paved in these days. In turn the coastal area
started to draw people again as well; several large villae were built along the strip between Antium and
Astura (e.g. La Banca, Le Grottacce, Saracca and Torre Astura). Several of these villae had an industrial
aspect to them, as attested by GIA fieldwork along the coast. The villa at Le Grottacce, also known as
Piccareta 15, had facilities for the production of amphorae. Most probably it also produced tiles and
must have played an important role in the region, taking part in a firm relationship between coastal
zone, inland rural habitation and Antium.143 The nine known villae marittimae (three near Anzio and at
least six near Nettuno) were all equipped with a basin, meant to catch and breed fish. The villa at Torre 141 Tol 2005, pp. 88 142 De Haas 2003 143 Attema et al. 2003, pp. 125, 127-136 ; Attema et al. forthcoming, chapter 12
- 67 -
Astura, by popular belief attributed to the famous orator Cicero (though this has never been proven),
even had the largest fish basin of its kind in Central Italy (22.000 m2).144
Whether these fish basins also contributed to the industrial aspect of these villae remains subject to
debate. It is known that fish was scarce along the Italian coast during the 2nd century AD, as stated by
Juvenal. Fish basins would have provided an eye catcher for the villae; a means to indulge the practice of
raising fish for fun and a ready source of food. These basins, especially large ones like those between
Antium and Astura, almost certainly cost more in maintenance then they produced. The
aforementioned fish scarcity led to fish basins being a way to control a rare and thus valuable
commodity. In result a fish basin was an important representative of conspicuous wealth, which was the
way Roman nobility tried to acquire social prestige, as Moses Finley rightly states (see 2.4.2). With fish
often being on the elite menu, the market value was decided by the demand of banquets and feasts. That
way a nobleman owning a fish basin could make some nice social profit out of bringing his own fish to
the party.145 Whether these basins were only a symbol of status or actual production facilities will
probably remain debatable for some time, but fact is that the coastal zone between Antium and Torre
Astura attracted some of the wealthiest Romans. The age of Empire dawned.
3.2.4. The Roman period: the Empire
Developments already underway in the Late Republican period continued and expanded in the Imperial
period. Elite residences dotted the landscape, while the amount of rural sites increased still (especially in
Campana). They seem to have had a close connection to the coastal villae, most probably one of
economic dependence as amphora imports on these sites attest. The importance of the Roman roads as
integral pieces of infrastructure in the Pontine plain increased even more. While the rural eastern part of
the Nettuno municipality is filled in even more, the villae along the road flourished between the mid 1st
and mid 3rd century AD. At the same time the colony Antium blossomed. Emperor Nero (54-68 AD),
reportedly born in this city himself, initiated a large-scale building program: the infrastructure was
improved, a huge imperial villa erected and the colony finally was once more outfitted with a harbor.
The port town had lacked a harbor since the supposed destruction of Caenon.146 Later emperors like
Caligula, Hadrian and Antonine would also have had a soft spot for Antium, according to literary
sources, resulting in several restorations or modifications of the imperial villa and the completion of
numerous public buildings. At the end of the 2nd century AD Antium had been equipped with a forum,
144 Tol 2005, pp. 15, 88 145 Higginbotham 1997, pp. 56-57 146 Brandizzi Vittuci 2000, 140-145: Caenon is the name of an alledged harbor somewhere between Anzio and Nettuno. The existence of Caenon has unfortunately never been adequately confirmed archaeologically.
- 68 -
a theatre, a commercial district, at least two aqueducts providing fresh water, a systematic road plan and
multiple baths. 147
From 100-250 AD the rural habitation in Campana still show indicators of luxury, and some
dwellings probably were even villae in their own right. The rural settlements in the Astura valley on the
other hand never have seemed to reach this level. The pattern of sites was less dense, with settlements on
the various hilltops in the area. An important settlement at the mouth of the Astura is now readily
attested. In general the amount of rural habitation in the Pontine region decreased once more, a trend
that would continue in the following periods.148
After the 2nd century AD no new buildings were erected in Antium and only some restoration took
place, the last of which dates to the 4th century AD. After this period of stability, Antium seems to have
depopulated slowly. This view is supported by the decline of the villae farthest away from the colony, in
the north, and the halt of many activities there at the end of the 3rd century AD. Some villae rusticae
show continuity after this period, but in an impoverished state. The villa closest to Antium, known as
Liboni 14, shows activity to at least the end of the 4th century AD. Being the most substantial villa
found to date during a GIA survey, it would make sense for smaller scale habitation in Antium during
the Late Empire (259-400 AD) to maintain productive use of at least this closest and largest villa
complex. It is certain though that the harbor of Antium remained a vital element in the area until well in
the 6th century (Procopius notes its use in 537 AD).
The villae marittimae on the coastline flourished in the same period as the inland villae rusticae along
the Roman road and shows continuity to the end of the 3rd century. The Via Severiana, a road dating
from this period according to historical sources but which has not been archaeologically proven yet,
might well have contributed to this success as it would have improved the infrastructure even more.
While Antium and the villae rusticae along the Roman road continued to be of importance at this time,
the simultaneous decline of the villae marittimae and continuing decrease in rural sites shows an
uniform regression of the Pontine region from the end of the 3rd century AD onward, probably as a
result of the decreasing economical role played in the Empire (perhaps especially as opposed to Rome
itself). At this point the Astura region seems to have become socio-economically disconnected from the
rest of the coastal strip, where the trading focus remained on Antium. The region shows continuity
though, as is demonstrated by the coastal villae of Saracca and Torre Astura.149
The villa of Torre Astura played an important part in the age of Empire. While it already was one of
the largest and richest villa sites in the Late Republican age, Torre Astura reached its peak during the
heydays of the Roman Empire. The enormous fish basin is testament of this, as is the construction of a 147 Id., pp. 21, 89 ; Attema et al. forthcoming, chapter 13 148 Attema et al. forthcoming, chapter 14 149 Attema et al. forthcoming, chapter 15
- 69 -
harbor in the 1st century AD. While the villa itself declined in the same period as the rest of its ilk (3rd
century AD), the entire site actually continues to the 16th century, most probably by grace of its
strategically located harbor. The harbor was for the larger part destroyed then, an act purportedly
related to the construction of a new harbor in Antium at that time. The activity on the cape of Astura
seems to have been supported by a modest settlement at the mouth of the Astura river well into the
Middle Ages, though the exact extent of this habitation cannot be ascertained at the moment, due to a
lack of knowledge concerning medieval pottery. In time Torre Astura itself became the location of a
medieval fort (torre), built upon the remains of the former villa and fish basin. This fort still stands
today.150
Until the 7th century AD the trend of rural decline which had already started in 250 AD continued,
although there is continuity in the Astura coastal zone and inland Campana. Our archaeological
knowledge of this region from the 4th to 7th century AD is limited however, and warrants further surveys
and additional research. The same goes for the subsequent Medieval period. While there are some
historical sources dealing with Antium and Nettuno in this period, there is hardly any archaeological
information concerning the rural infill of the landscape.151
3.3. COASTAL AREA, HINTERLAND AND THE SOCIO-ECONOMIC SYSTEM
As stressed before, this thesis focuses primarily on maritime trade by amphorae in the southern Latial
coastal area during the Roman period. A coastal area cannot be viewed as an isolated region, as in
Antiquity it always had an intricate socio-economic relationship with the hinterland. This relationship
cut both ways: a coastal area needed its hinterland to produce (exportable) agricultural and related
industrial goods, while the hinterland in turn relied on the coastal area to acquire imported foodstuffs
and other commodities. Thus a coastal area and hinterland worked to each other’s mutual benefit, and
events troubling one zone could be detrimental to the functioning of the other. This two-way
relationship is essentially true for all socio-economic systems, as a system already implies a more
complex situation than one isolated region, but it holds especially true in Antiquity where autarky was
virtually non-existent on levels higher than mere subsistence farming.
It must be borne in mind that the ‘hinterland’ of the Pontine region actually comprises two of the in
3.1.3 presented socio-economic units: the Pontine plain and the Lepine foothills. The chronology of
the region under Roman rule as sketched in 3.2.3 and 3.2.4 already showed the interdependency
150 Caneva & Travaglini 2003, pp. 343-345 151 Attema et al. forthcoming, chapter 16
- 70 -
between these different regions and types of habitation in the Pontine region. The Republican period
sees the appearance of reliable infrastructure, with the Via Appia running between Rome and Terracina,
as well as its multiple side roads like the Lanuvium-Antium track, all complementing the already
existing foothill road (the pedemontana). Inland waterways would have played a major role in the
exchange activities between coast and hinterland as well. Examples hereof are the Decennovium canal
along the Via Appia and the Astura and Loricina rivers.
These infrastructural improvements were the catalysts for change in the socio-economic system
throughout the three stages of the Republic; all along the roads in the plain villae rusticae sprang up or
developed from existing Archaic sites to take care of the production needed by the colonies in the
Monti Lepini (Setia, Norba, etc.) and those in the coastal area (Antium), while the area deprived of
proper infrastructure generally kept to subsistence farming. In the Early Republic both this area and the
foothills can thus be seen as the hinterland of the villae rusticae inland, while they in turn were the
hinterland of the coastal area (more specifically of Antium and perhaps in lesser measure of Satricum, as
the coastal villae would appear first in ca. 200 BC). During the Middle Republic the ‘platform villae’
appeared in the Lepine foothills, which were most probably large specialized farms producing olive oil
(for regional consumption and perhaps even export), mostly replacing the then predominant small
subsistence farms and giving that particular area its own ‘leverage’ in the socio-economic system. The
platform villae constitute a relative new phenomenon in the Pontine region research by GIA scholars,
and as such the results are somewhat preliminary.152 The main focus of production in the region though
was on viniculture. The large swaths of land belonging to the nobility gave birth to many vineyards, and
the resulting wines were exported all around the Mediterranean (see also 5.3).
One could argue that the classical idea of a hinterland, being a less developed area that is subservient
to the dominant (generally coastal) area, cannot be applied anymore to the socio-economic system in
place during the Middle Republic. Rather, the three socio-economic units that make up the region
(coast, plain, foothills) enjoy mutual support. This supportive network continued to evolve in the
following years, as in the Late Republic a renewed interest in the coastal area sparked the building of at
least nine large villae marittimae between Antium and Torre Astura. 153 These estates flourished during
the Early Empire and to a lesser degree during the Middle Empire, along with the villae rusticae along
the roads and the colony of Antium.
Surely, the period of Rome’s first emperors represents the prime of the Pontine region. During this
period the small-scale subsistence factor in the region was all but gone, leaving the rural settlements
dependant on the coastal and/or inland estates. All villae marittimae between Anzio and Astura were
152 De Haas 2003 153 Lafon 2001, pp. 361-368
- 71 -
equipped with a fish basin, and some of them also had a clear industrial aspect (see 3.2.3), which
affirms their status as lynchpins in the socio-economic system of the Pontine region during the Late
Republic to Middle Empire. When the socio-economic system in place is seen on a greater scale, it
becomes clear that the entire Pontine region in turn was the hinterland of Rome, supplying the Urbs
with locally produced olive oil and wine.
In the Late Empire a general decline set in across the Pontine region, affecting all types of habitation.
This was most probably the result of a change in the greater socio-economic system of the Empire; was
the Pontine region before instrumental for both the production and export of foodstuffs, now more
profitable agricultural regions (e.g. Africa) had been annexed and more suitable harbors (e.g. Portus)
were in use. The Pontine region’s economic value for the Empire essentially dropped together with the
Mediterranean market shares of Italian wine, a trend that had already started around the 2nd century
AD. While it can be expected that wine and perhaps olive oil continued to be produced in the Pontine
region and at least distributed locally or ferried to Rome and Antium, there would be no more large-
scale export. The ports of Antium and Terracina would maintain their viability in the Empire though,
importing olive-oil and other commodities for the villae marittimae, Antium, Terracina and Rome.
- 72 -
4. THE LIBONI AMPHORA COLLECTION
In this chapter the origins and composition of the Liboni Amphora Collection are discussed, as well as
the incentives and results of both the studies in 2006 and 2007. The results are presented mainly as
charts and a table and will be interpreted in the next chapter.
4.1. RESEARCH HISTORY AND METHODOLOGY OF THE LAC
4.1.1. LAC research history
The incentive for studying the LAC was a research master class I had to accomplish in the summer of
2006. Knowing my interest in maritime archaeology and experience with a previous GIA campaign in
Nettuno, prof. dr. P.A.J. Attema informed me about a collection of nearly intact amphorae which G.W.
Tol had discovered stashed away in Forte Sangallo. My assignment would be to catalogue these
complete vessels and write a report about them.
In Nettuno I was to work for three weeks on the amphora catalogue, after the completion of which I
would be relocated to a site near Rome for the remaining three weeks of the campaign. The latter was
not to be, as there proved to be a lot more amphorae in Forte Sangallo that needed to be catalogued.
Upon finishing my work in the storeroom with the intact vessels, I started processing the amphorae and
associated pottery on display in the museum (the latter of which was not taken up in the LAC
catalogue). Four weeks had already passed, and when director Liboni announced that the corridors
beneath the fort harbored a multitude of amphora fragments that had never been inventoried, it became
clear that I would not be able to finish cataloguing the entire amphora collection. I processed as many as
possible, in the final week being aided in drawing and describing by G.W. Tol and fellow students. In
the end 82 entries were made in the catalogue.
While the ensuing LAC 2006 report154 was satisfactory as far as the catalogue was concerned, proper
interpretation and detailed context of the LAC had to be sacrificed for a great deal in order to complete
the original assignment (the catalogue) in time. Although prof. dr. Attema knew it could not be finished
anymore in 2006, he also realized the further potential of the LAC. It was early in 2007 that G.W. Tol
(who was staying in Nettuno for a year to work on his PhD thesis) sent me an e-mail, stating that he
had inventoried over fifty more amphorae in Forte Sangallo’s magazzino. Two of these also bore a
154 Pape 2006b
- 73 -
stamp he said, which interested me greatly as none of the LAC amphorae I studied in the summer of
2006 had borne stamps. With so many extra amphorae available and stamps that could possibly also
give provenance information for the 2006 vessels, further study was deemed highly desirable. A few
months later my thesis proposal was approved. The LAC research of 2006 was to be taken as a starting
point and then expanded upon by studying all remaining amphorae in Forte Sangallo, which was done
in the summer of 2007.
4.1.2. Origins and composition of the Liboni collection
The Liboni Amphora Collection (LAC) at first only encompassed the forty-odd complete amphorae
stashed away in a storeroom of Forte Sangallo, the fort that houses the local museum of the city of
Nettuno (RM, Lazio, Italy). Due to additional research it now comprises every amphora (fragment)
present in the fort. Amphorae found during GIA surveys are not part of the LAC, though information
resulting from their study are used in this thesis. The LAC was studied in the course of two years, more
specifically the summers of 2006 and 2007. A total of eight weeks of photographing, drawing and
describing was used to process and study first-hand the 154 amphorae that ultimately ended up in the
catalogue.
The amphorae making up the LAC are all part of the archaeological collection known as the Liboni
Collection housed in Forte Sangallo, which has been undergoing systematic research and cataloguing for
the last few years. The collection is named after Arnaldo Liboni, antiquarian and collector of
archaeological material, who functions as overseer in Forte Sangallo. The collection features many kinds
of pottery (from Archaic tiles to Late Roman African Red Slip casseroles), metal objects, architectural
fragments, etc. Preliminary results following the study of this collection have been used in the thesis of
G.W. Tol and will be further expanded upon in his PhD project.155
The material comprising the entire Liboni Collection comes from two sources. The majority of it has
been collected by Liboni himself during fieldtrips in and partly outside the comune di Nettuno. A
smaller quantity was given to him by manner of gift. The amphorae of the LAC also originate from
both of these sources. The forty-odd complete vessels in the storeroom were brought to the museum as
a gift. About their original findspot(s) Liboni could only tell that they had been fished out of the sea by
a fisherman, after which the local police had confiscated the amphorae and taken them to Forte
Sangallo. Here they were placed behind lock and key in a storeroom not open to anyone but himself.
The amphorae (fragments) in the museum itself as well as those in the magazzino are mainly finds by
Liboni himself.
155 Tol 2005 ; Tol, forthcoming
- 74 -
While nearly all of the amphorae in the storeroom and museum display cases, as well as a few of the
fragments in the magazzino had already been labeled by the antiquarian, G.W. Tol and I had to take
care of tagging and inventorying the rest. This was a direct consequence of Liboni’s predilection for
‘prettier’ material like black glazed ware, terra sigillata and African Red Slip Ware (ARSW). As Tol
already stated in his thesis, Liboni is a collector first and foremost, and not a scientist. He has the
tendency to collect the best-looking material from sites of which he knows that they consistently yield
nice and plentiful finds. A prime example hereof is Torre Astura, which he has visited extensively several
times. It is because of that modus operandi that material from aforementioned villa site makes up a
significant part of the Liboni Collection, and that luxury pottery is overrepresented in that material set.
Consequentially more basic pottery, such as amphorae, ranks quite low on his interest scale so to say.156
When all this is taken into account, it is very difficult or even impossible to express the LAC as a
percentage of the entire Liboni Collection, seeing how the LAC is in all probability not representative
of the actual number of amphorae that could have been part of the Liboni Collection. I emphasize this
sentence strongly, as it is a vital consideration when it comes to interpreting the LAC.
4.1.3. Photographing and drawing the LAC
The path from amphora to catalogue entry encompasses several steps, which differed slightly from
2006 to 2007 due to the condition of the amphorae (mostly complete vessels in 2006, only fragments
in 2007) and the nature of the report. Inconsequential of the year, the amphora (fragment) was placed
against an evenly white background for contrasting purposes (A4 paper on the floor and against the
walls, which were mostly white themselves). A more professional setup would have been better, but was
sadly not available. Several photographs were shot of the vessels, using a five megapixel Kodak
DX7590.
In 2006 a full-frontal shot was made first, followed by a closer shot of the amphora from the
shoulder upwards. After this came two shots of the handle (front and side), a slightly panned shot of
the rim and a frontal shot of the spike/base. When possible, a close-up shot of the amphora’s fabric
was made as well with the help of the camera’s macro function. Depending on the condition of the
amphorae, each vessel in 2006 thus received a reference set of about 5-7 photographs.
In 2007, two shots were generally taken of each amphora (fragment): a full-frontal shot and a close-
up shot of the fabric. This was foremost because the 2007 part of the collection comprised only
fragments, thus boasting mostly only one or two of the characteristics that were consistently
photographed of the complete vessels in 2006 (rim, handle, spike). Secondly I deemed it somewhat
superfluous to take that many photographs of one fragment, especially as the drawings made in 2007
156 Tol 2005, pp. 44
- 75 -
did a better job in showing those same characteristics (see below). An amphora only received more than
two shots if a special feature required this (such as the stamp of LAC/Bol.820.04/01).
In some cases several fragments were photographed at once, like for instance those that belonged to
the same vessel. Also several spikes that were found together in find bags (2007) as well as the
amphorae X11-24 (2006) were photographed as multiple fragments in one shot. The latter were
photographed that way to speed up the cataloguing process, as they were found near the very end of the
2006 campaign. Those shots thus provide less consistency and sadly less detail than the others.
In 2006 an amphora’s entry in the catalogue was usually accompanied by one to three A4 drawings of
its distinctive typological recognition points (being rim, handle and spike/base), again depending on the
present condition of the vessel (e.g. an amphora with its spike missing would have two drawings: rim
and handle). These drawings were, together with the photographs, used as personal reference during the
descriptions of the amphorae.
In 2007 each amphora was drawn only once, as a discussion with G.W. Tol and T.C.A. de Haas
resulted in a more efficient format that was also better suited for their PhD projects. The larger part of
the 2007 amphorae consisted of the upper part (rim and one or both handles) or merely of
rims/handles. These were drawn as complete fragments on A4 or A3 (or on two A3’s even when
applicable). The drawings made in 2006 were ultimately inked and digitized by professionals of the
GIA drawing room for upcoming publication. That way I could also use them for my thesis. As the
2007 drawings were not scheduled for publication yet, a selection thereof was digitized on my own
request by S.E. Boersma of the drawing room. Due to his outstanding work this thesis boasts a digitized
drawing of every amphora type in the LAC, as well as of all stamps encountered.
4.1.4. Describing the LAC
When an amphora had been photographed and drawn, the catalogue entry was made. Each vessel
received an inventory number (inv.nr.), which is LAC/[number]. In most cases in 2006 there was
already such a number present on the amphora. If not, the vessel became LAC X/[number]. These
inventory numbers follow standard GIA conventions for catalogued special finds, being the abbreviation
of the find site followed by a slash and a follow-up number. LAC and X are no sites per se, but seeing
as only two amphorae in 2006 could be attributed to a specific land based find site (Torre Astura) and
the rest either has an unknown origin or was simply labeled ‘maritime find’, the abbreviation of the
collection was used. The 2007 amphorae were labeled either LAC/X[number] or LAC/[site inv.nr.], as
several of the studied fragments were from distinct sites or locations (e.g. Torre Astura, Poligono
Militare, Cretarossa).
- 76 -
Next, the ware was determined. Although most of the larger amphorae have a distinct coarse fabric
(i.e. having >2mm inclusions of quartz, limestone, feldspar, etc.) for strengthening the structural
integrity of the vessel,157 some smaller specimens would be considered by many scholars to be of
depurated ware. Seeing as these amphorae practically always contain fairly large inclusions (1-2mm) as
well, that reasoning tends to get paradoxical. The fabric of amphorae is highly variable, and it is
therefore perhaps not representative and differentiating enough to label an amphora’s fabric either as
being coarse or depurated, as each excludes the other and amphorae tend to display both rough and
finer fabric in between the two extremes. Thus the catalogue in this report uses the standard GIA
convention for coding material remains, wherein amphorae are classified as a different fabric altogether.
This is coded fabric ‘IVc amphora’ (IV being miscellaneous earthenware, c the subdivision amphora).
After ware had been determined, the shape of the amphora (fragment) was noted. This can range
from ‘complete amphora’ (restored or intact) to i.e. ‘neck and rim of an amphora’. This way the reader
can see at once if the entry concerns a complete form or just a fragment.
Following on shape is the description. Here the amphora’s form and typological characteristics were
described from the bottom to the top of the vessel if applicable. Different entries can thus be compared
with each other based on both general form and subtle details. Though two amphorae may be called
Dressel 1A, they can still differ enormously. Together with the photographs and drawings, the
descriptions are the key elements of the collection’s dataset.
Next are two more or less technical aspects of the amphora: colors and measurements. The first were
determined with the Munsell soil color charts158 for the exterior, interior and core (fabric) of the vessel.
Color and fabric can be an important factor when trying to determine the provenance of a certain
amphora, since particular soils yield particular colors of fabric. This is especially useful when stamps or
tituli picti (painted inscriptions) are absent on the amphorae. The use of fabric - and indirectly its color
- is illustrated well in the work of Peacock & Williams.159 The measurements of the amphora are quite
straightforward, giving the height, greatest width, thickness of the wall, thickness of the lip and diameter
of lip and/or base/spike depending on the state of the vessel. Measurements were taken with a 20
centimeter-long ruler, a sliding gauge, a gradient triangle and a craniometer (for measuring the thickness
of the wall).
When the amphora was fully described technically, comments were made. These include unusual
characteristics and extra information about the vessel, such as the condition the amphora was in and the
number of marine encrustations (which severely obscured detail on some vessels). The comments are an
extension of the amphora’s description, complementing its information with observations that can lead 157 Peacock & Williams 1991, pp. 45 158 Munsell 1975, rev. 1994 159 Peacock & Williams 1991, pp. 15
- 77 -
to further differentiation within an amphora type. Standard works cover most of the widely spread and
well-known types, but as I cannot stress enough, amphorae do not always ‘work by the book’ and
include everything from slight local deviations to apparent hybrid forms.
With the photographs, drawings and description as reference at hand, confronti were searched in the
standard works. For the 2006 part of the collection this was first done with the book of Peacock &
Williams, while some types not found there were traced after the campaign in the work of Caravale &
Toffoletti. Since the types mentioned in Amphorae and the Roman economy: an introductory guide are
also to be found in Anfore antiche: conoscerle e identificarle, the confronti were in 2007 taken from the
latter for streamlining purposes (and because it was the most recent standard work available to me at the
time). When T.C.A. de Haas discovered the existence of the USAP 2005 database in late 2007, all
possible confronti were once more replaced with use of this most recent source of references. As a few
of the LAC amphorae were considered locally manufactured and/or could not be found in the standard
works, extra literature about local amphora production and/or finds was used (including sites as Torre
Astura, Piccareta 15, Cosa, Ostia, etc.). When a confronto was found, the amphora could be given a
place in time as well as in space in some instances (the latter when provenance was known for a
particular type, sometimes even more specific for a subtype due to knowledge of a characteristic fabric
or by exact referencing of a stamp). Not every amphora in the LAC could be assigned a confronto, but
over two-thirds could. Perhaps follow-up research in the future can enhance this even more.
The last note in the catalogue an amphora received was the mention if it was drawn or not, and in the
case of the 2006 vessels, which part of it (rim, handle, base). In some cases an amphora was not drawn,
when it had no typological elements to make even the most basic identification possible. These
fragments were only photographed.
4.2. LAC 2006-2007 RESULTS
In the course of two consecutive summers I studied the Liboni Amphora Collection, in the hope that I
could shed some light on the socio-economic system of our research area from a maritime point of view.
This was my premise already from the onset of the 2006 report and it has not changed in this thesis. I
will now display the results of my study with use of a table and several charts.
As they do not include all amphorae that make up the LAC (those which could not be referenced
with amphora literature or online database are omitted), the table and charts are per definition not
complete and thus not fully representative of the entire collection. When reviewing the table and charts
hereafter, one has to realize that every data entry is relevant only for those amphorae that comprise the
- 78 -
first group in the catalogue (amphorae with confronti). Also the table and charts merely present the
factual results of my study, not their interpretation. The latter is done in the next chapter.
4.2.1. LAC summary table
Table 1 on the following four pages summarizes the facts and details of the 110 amphorae in the LAC
that could be referenced. Most of the information comes from the USAP 2005 online database,160 while
the work of Caravale & Toffoletti161 covers the two Etruscan amphorae and expands the entries on
Dressel 1 as well as Greco-Italic amphorae. The entries on Type 3 Unknown rim ‘Type A’, Type 4
Unknown rim ‘Type B’ and Type 8 Unknown base ‘Type B’ are taken from the GIA interim report of
the 2000-2001 Astura Project.162 The entries are arranged according to chronology; with the oldest
amphora type first and the youngest last.
The table contains the following aspects:
a) amphora type: the denomination of the amphora type as it appears in the aforementioned
literature/database;
b) dating: the dating of the amphora type as stated in the aforementioned literature/database;
c) number found: the number of the amphora type encountered in the LAC;
d) provenance: the origin of the amphora type as stated in the aforementioned literature/database;
e) distribution: the distribution of the amphora type as stated in the aforementioned
literature/database;
f) contents: the contents of the amphora type as stated in the aforementioned literature/database.
160 University of Southampton Amphora Project 2005 161 Caravale & Toffoletti 1997 162 Attema, De Haas & Nijboer 2003
- 79 -
- 80 -
- 81 -
- 82 -
- 83 -
4.2.2. LAC statistical composition chart
Chart 1 maps the statistical composition of the 110 referenced LAC amphorae. The names of the
amphora types line the Y-axis, while the X-axis shows the number of amphorae for a quick comparative
glance. The bars themselves also have the exact number of amphorae behind them, as well as that
number’s percentage of the whole referenced LAC. The chart follows the same chronological
arrangement as the table; with the oldest amphora type first and the youngest last.
4.2.3. LAC date range chart
Chart 2 shows the date ranges of the various amphora types that make up the LAC. It is a simplified
graphical visualization of the date ranges found in the table. It is simplified as the date ranges are
rounded on whole centuries, rather than on half centuries or even more precise intervals. I have chosen
this approach considering Callender’s statements concerning the remarkable longevity of most amphora
types (leading to indistinct starting/ending dates). Especially for a chart that is to provide quick
comparisons and a general overview of amphora lifespan, I felt this method was better suited and
perhaps even more true to fact.
4.2.4. LAC contents charts
Charts 3a and 3b show the contents of the 110 referenced LAC amphorae. Chart 3a is based on the
number of individual amphorae, Chart 3b on the number of amphora types (hence also the difference in
X-axis scale). Both charts follow the same principle: five contents each in two categories. Wine, olive oil
and fish sauce are the main contents. The numbers listed in those three bars concern amphorae which
transported solely the stated product, which is why the bar ‘multiproduct’ is there to complement. That
bar concerns amphorae which are known to have transported various commodities. The two categories
making up each bar, ‘Certain’ and ‘Maybe’, define whether it is known for a fact that said contents were
transported or that it remains speculation/extrapolation. For the wine/olive oil/fish sauce bars these
categories thus give added information (e.g. the majority of individual LAC amphorae certainly
transported solely wine). The multiproduct and unknown bars are only ‘Maybe’, as it would be either
too complex or simply impossible to add ‘Certain’ to them. This will be further clarified in Chapter 5.
- 84 -
- 85 -
- 86 -
Chart 3a: LAC contents chart
Chart 3b: LAC contents chart
- 87 -
5. INTERPRETATIONS
In this chapter the results of the LAC study, which were presented on the previous pages, are
interpreted to try and answer the questions posed in the prologue of this thesis. How can the
information gained from studying the Liboni Amphora Collection be interpreted, and what does it say
about the changing socio-economic system of the Pontine region in Roman times? It is to be kept in
mind that these interpretations concern only the referenced part of the LAC. Those amphorae that
could not be referenced were not taken into account. Also, due to the nature of the way the LAC was
compiled by director Liboni, the observations and deductions below are not fully representative of the
situation in Antiquity. After all, there could have been a lot more amphorae present in the overall
Liboni Collection (see 4.1.2).
5.1. OBSERVATIONS
5.1.1. Amphora types and number of amphorae
The first outshoot one will notice when looking at the table and/or statistical composition chart is the
large number of Africana 2A Grande cylindrical amphorae. This subtype represents the continued
success of Tunisian workshops on the greater Mediterranean market, and is the first pointer to the
LAC’s chronological peak being in the Early Imperial period (0-200 AD). Tripolitanian 2 and Africana
3A types are the only other African amphora types with a decent share in the LAC of respectively 3 and
5 specimens. Sixteen of the forty-four (sub) types listed in Chart 1 (see 4.2.2) are African of origin, and
the majority of those date from the 2nd century AD onwards.
Ten Gauloise 4 amphorae comprise the second outshoot. This 9% share in the referenced LAC is
the only contribution from Gaul in the collection, but it makes for quite an impression. The popularity
of these lightweight containers and their contents is undeniable. The third outshoot, Type 8 Unknown
base ‘type B’, comes in nine specimens. Not much is known about this type, other than that it was of
local manufacturing at the Piccareta 15 site near Torre Astura and was in all probability meant to
store/transport olive oil. As this number is tied to production instead of import, it probably says little
about elite preferences (other than Gauloise 4), but all the more about olive oil storage/transport in the
direct surroundings.
The other amphora types with a significant share (five specimens or more) are all Italian wine
containers, except Africana 3A. Dressel 1 actually has 11 specimens in total, but this adds the subtypes
- 88 -
1A and 1B as well. Dressel 1 thus does not produce an outshoot in the chart like the amphora types
mentioned above, as the number is spread across subtypes. Still, the high share of Dressel 1 in the LAC
is evidential.
5.1.2. Dating
The referenced LAC spans a timeframe from roughly 600 BC to 800 AD, a span of 1400 years, as can
bee seen in Chart 2 (see 4.2.3). The oldest amphora types in the collection are the two Etruscan
containers, followed by the three Republican Greco-Italic amphorae. From around 200 BC a number of
types appeared, most of them of Italian origin except the African Van der Werff 2 and Pompeii 38.
The largest shares of these are Dressel 1 and Type 8 Unknown base ‘type B’. Most of these reflect local
or at least regional production, also Dressel 1 which was at first predominantly made all along the
Tyrrhenian coast. It is interesting to note that all of these types, except Pompeii 38, were off the market
around 200 AD.
Another three types appeared around 100 BC: Dressel 2-4 Cos and Agora F65-66, which were both
foreign wine containers, and the Forlimpopoli. The latter would become one of the few Italian-born
wine amphorae after the home market collapsed with, among others, the introduction of Gauloise 4.
The most amphora types to simultaneously appear did so around the 1st century AD. Thirteen types in
total hit the market, several of which would be produced for another 4-5 centuries. Three of the most
broadly distributed amphorae types in history were introduced in this period: Dressel 2-4 Italian,
Dressel 20 and Gauloise 4.
Around 100 AD the share of African amphorae started to get larger with the introduction of Africana
1 Piccolo and 2A Grande. The Italian wine market began to disintegrate, leaving only Empoli and the
Campanian almond-rim type (a local variant of Dressel 2-4) with the still produced Forlimpopoli and
some later Dressel 2-4 to fill the regional market. From 200 AD onward the African amphora types
dominated the market, with only Keay 52 marking the resurgence of the Italian wine market around
300 AD.
5.1.3. Provenance
The flow of amphora types through time as shown in the charts and previous paragraphs is essentially a
visualization of shifting markets. By observing how and when amphora types of different origins appear
and again disappear on the Mediterranean market, coupled with the number of amphorae per type in
the LAC, one can get a pretty clear picture of the way import/export patterns changed over the
centuries.
- 89 -
When looking at the provenance column of Table 1, it becomes immediately clear that Italy (18
types, 49 amphorae) ranks highest when it comes to most amphora types produced as well as number of
amphorae, followed by Tunisia (10 types, 30 amphorae). France (1 type, 10 amphorae) ranks third
position. Spain, Libya, Algeria, the Aegean and Asia Minor all have smaller shares in the LAC. The
observation of Italian dominance could cause one to believe that the LAC is more a result of export as
opposed to import, but it has to be remembered that a substantial number of Italian amphorae was
probably manufactured for the local market; not every amphora was meant for overseas transport.
While not every Italian amphora in the LAC necessarily has to be the result of export, every
completely foreign (not copied on Italian soil) amphora was imported. This line of reasoning arguably
gives a larger emphasis on imported amphorae in the LAC. This ties in directly with the visualization of
two important shifting markets:
a) The Gallic wine production/trade established a major foothold in the Mediterranean market in
the 1st century AD, and consequently pushed the then dominant Italian wine trade aside in the
2nd century AD. This is clearly visible in the LAC with the substantial share of Gauloise 4
amphorae and disappearance of Italian wine amphorae.
b) The Baetican monopoly on the olive oil trade comes to an end in the 3rd century AD, becoming
slowly overshadowed by the African competition. Both the greater efficiency of the African
amphorae and (most probably) direct intervention by Septimius Severus shift focus to the
North African market for the export of olive oil and later fish sauce as well. The LAC also
shows this development clearly in the large shares of Africana 2A and 3A. A great variety of
later African cylindricals exists in the LAC, reflecting African dominance in the Late Empire.
Expanding upon the first point, the LAC does not clearly show the downfall of that other substantial
wine market: that of Tarraconensis. The Spanish wine trade, whilst always having had a smaller share on
the Mediterranean market than that of Italy, was famed nonetheless. The LAC contains only one
dedicated Hispanic wine amphora, a Dressel 2-4 Catalan, which is insufficient to map the process.
Expanding upon the second point, the LAC interestingly enough has only two specimens of Baetica’s
greatest success, the Dressel 20. During GIA surveys near the Roman road outside Nettuno, a far larger
share of encountered amphorae sherds were classified as Dressel 20. This, in my opinion significant,
difference with the (coastal) LAC is further discussed in 5.2.1.
- 90 -
5.1.4. Distribution
While some amphora types were locally produced and distributed, most had a very wide distribution.
The most successful types, like Dressel 2-4, can be found all over the Mediterranean, inland Europe and
as far away as India. The distribution column of Table 1 shows this variety of destinations.
Unfortunately there are no amphora types in the LAC that have peculiar distribution patterns, as in
types that might normally not be found in Italy. Such aberrant patterns might indicate gifts, as an
amphora that is an unusual or rare find in a certain country might very well have been a present. After
all some of the Roman elite traveled a lot, and an amphora filled with foreign wine would have made a
suitable gift for a visiting nobleman to take home. While it is still wholly possible that some of the
amphorae in the collection are the result of gift exchange, they can not be spotted as such.
With amphorae it is much harder to use distribution information as opposed to other forms of
earthenware, like terra sigillata and ARSW. Because most amphora types can be found everywhere in
the ancient world, a distribution map only makes sense when it concerns a single amphora type. As that
would imply making some forty-odd distribution maps, I have opted to not add these to my thesis.
Anyone interested in such maps would do best to consult specialist literature covering but a few types in
detail. The work by Peacock & Williams includes several of such maps, complete with references to
other publications.163
5.1.5. Contents
The primary commodity transported in the LAC amphorae is undoubtedly wine, as can be clearly seen
in Charts 3a and 3b. Chart 3a shows that 51 of the 110 referenced amphorae, around 46%, were meant
to transport/store solely wine. Chart 3b then translates this into 18 of the 45 types, being about 40%
of the referenced LAC. These figures do not take into account the amphorae that were probably used
solely for wine, or even the various multiproduct types (some of which were surely used for wine on
occasion). The majority of these wine containers is Italian (Dressel 1, Dressel 2-4 variants,
Forlimpopoli, Keay 52), followed by the French share (Gauloise 4). This would mean the greater part
of these wine amphorae was either meant for export abroad or for the local market. There is also a
variety of eastern Mediterranean wine containers present in the LAC, notably the Rhodian Type and
the Dressel 30/Keay 1B. These represent among others the shift of large-scale wine production to that
region during the Late Empire.
While olive oil and fish sauce have dedicated amphorae as well, their number is nowhere near that of
the wine containers in the LAC. This is especially true for fish sauce, for which the LAC only has one
dedicated amphora type (Leptiminius 1). The assertion by Brandizzi Vittuci that garum might have
163 Peacock & Williams 1991
- 91 -
been made in Antium thus cannot be proven by the LAC (see 1.3.3). Olive oil ranks higher with seven
confirmed amphorae, but it remains obscured by the major share of dedicated wine containers.
However, this certainly does not mean these products were not traded. After all the status of dedicated
container is still debated for some types, and Charts 3a and 3b also show that a good number of
amphora types transported two or more commodities, which were mostly olive oil and/or fish sauce
according to the literature.
This shows the biggest downside of portraying amphora contents in charts; it is impossible to take
into account the multiproduct amphora types when trying to graphically show the number of
types/amphorae that were used to transport a given commodity. To do so would mean these types are
counted twice or even more often with each commodity that is attributed to them, which in turn would
result in the numbers and percentages given in the chart exceeding the maximum of amphorae/types
and the 100% limit. Charts 3a and 3b are the closest to accurately visualizing these results as I could
achieve, while still maintaining enough information to even warrant a chart.
5.2. DEDUCTIONS
5.2.1. Comparing the LAC with the GIA Nettuno survey data
A hurdle that keeps me from making a systematical comparison between the LAC and survey amphorae
is the unfortunate lack of solid publication concerning the latter. In past GIA campaigns there was less
knowledge available concerning amphorae, as well as an overabundance of non-concordant literature.
The result of this is that, while I do have a list of encountered amphora types in various GIA surveys in
the Nettuno area, there is little statistical information about them beside the site ID. There has not been
an up-to-date publication concerning the survey amphorae yet, only the informal type list and table
were available for me to use at the moment.164 This problem will be addressed in a future dedicated GIA
publication, aimed at revisiting older survey data. For the time being however the comparisons made
below are preliminary, and can only serve to indicate general differences or commonalities between the
two sets.
It would seem that, while there is a good overlap in amphora types, the LAC and the set of Nettuno
survey amphorae have different chronological heights and peaks. The types most frequently encountered
during GIA surveys in the Nettuno region are Dressel 2-4 Italian, Dressel 1, Dressel 20, Haltern 70,
Greco-Italic and local P15 olive oil amphorae (subtypes unknown). This marks the Late Republic-Early
Empire period as the peak of this amphora set. Other common, though less attested types are
164 T.C.A. de Haas & G.W. Tol, pers.com.
- 92 -
Tripolitanian (subtypes unknown) and Africana (subtypes unknown). Even more scarcely encountered
types are Beltrán 1, Gauloise 4 and Dressel 30. This list is, as explained above, however by no means
complete or exhaustive.
Comparing the above to the LAC, there are both types in common with the survey set and distinctly
different specimens. Dressel 2-4 Italian was a very popular type and it appears relatively often in both
sets, but there are far more of these among the survey amphorae, which in my opinion hints at local
production inland near the roads. Dressel 1 was likewise a quintessential amphora type and occurs in
relatively the same amounts in both sets. Haltern 70 is encountered quite a lot more in the surveys than
in the LAC, in which there is only one specimen. Greco-Italic amphorae also make up for a fairly large
part of the survey set, and again their share is a lot smaller in the LAC. Dressel 20 is a common type in
the survey set, but there are only fragments of two such vessels in the LAC.
The other way around then we have Gauloise 4, which has a large share in the LAC but only occurs
once in the survey set (and even then it is not a certainty). The amphorae produced at P15 (e.g. Type 8
Unknown base ‘type B’) appear quite often in the survey set, but their share is perhaps even larger in the
LAC. The lack of proper referencing concerning the African types sadly prevents a decent comparison.
This is a shame really, as the African amphora types are so prevalent and varied in the LAC. It can only
be observed that the type variation of African amphorae in the survey set is a lot smaller than in the
LAC, as is the number of vessels. The survey set also does not seem to contain any Near Eastern or
Aegean types.
One possible explanation for the discrepancies noted above is the nature of their buyer. The Near
Eastern, Aegean and Gallic amphora types were all wine containers, and some of them will have
contained fine foreign vintages. That these types appear in the coastal area with its elite residents rather
than at the more rural villae along the Roman road thus makes a good deal of sense. Conversely, Dressel
20 was imported in bulk by the city of Rome to provide for its population. The route from Spain also
did not pass Antium or beyond, which meant Dressel 20 vessels found in the surveys will most
probably have come from Rome. The Dressel 20 amphorae in the LAC did not have marine
encrustations, which makes it more probable that those fragments in the LAC and surveys are the result
of redistribution by road (again enforced by the greater quantity near the Roman road inland).
As the population of Rome during the Middle Imperial period exceeded the production capacity of
Latium, it seems logical for the hinterland to supply itself with locally produced olive oil (the amount
of P15 amphorae in both sets also hints at this, although they have not been dated AD so far) while
Rome technically monopolized the output of Baetican production. This concept seems to repeat itself
in later years, when Tripolitanian 3 supplants Dressel 20 as chief olive oil container for Rome (as
- 93 -
demonstrated by Monte Testaccio). This type has no references in the LAC at all, Dressel 20 merely
has two.
As for the rest of the survey data, which was instrumental in sketching the changing socio-economic
environment of the Pontine region through the ages (see chapter 3), the LAC also supports that to a
certain extent. The general trend in the Roman period of rural habitation was one of infill and
expansion of the various river valleys (e.g. Loricina, Astura, Moscarella, with emphasis on the former),
from the Early Republic until it reached a peak in the Early Empire, after which decline set in. The
trend for the coastal villae started in the Middle Republic, experienced a peak in the Early Empire as
well, and began to decline in the Late Empire. This latter trend is fully supported by the LAC data,
which shows exactly those proceedings in the export/import relation of the various amphora types. The
general habitation peak in the Early Imperial period is also mirrored in the amphora collection. The
rural habitation trend is far more difficult to corroborate by the LAC, as it essentially deals with the
coastal stretch only. It also has different chronological peaks than the set of survey amphorae, which
itself has not been systematically studied yet (see above), adding to the discrepancy. I am certain that a
similar study as this thesis concerning the inland survey amphora would support the trend in rural
habitation much better.
5.2.2. Comparing the LAC with the amphorae in the museum of Anzio
Just to be thorough I would like to do a quick comparison between the LAC amphorae and those
displayed in the archaeological museum of Anzio (the former Roman colony Antium). In the booklet
published about and by the museum in 2006, Il museo racconta. Percorso ragionato die luoghi e delle
cose, the four amphora types on display in the museum are mentioned: Lamboglia 2, Dressel 17,
Dressel 1 and Tripolitanian 2.165 While the latter two types occur in the LAC as well, the former two
do not.
Lamboglia 2, a wine container produced from the 3rd to 1st century BC, has its origins on the Adriatic
coast. While it was an amphora type with a wide distribution across the Mediterranean, the only
Adriatic type present in the LAC is the much later Forlimpopoli. Dressel 17 transported fish sauce
probably, and was produced in the 1st century AD in Spain. We know this type primarily from those
production sites in Baetica (mostly around Cádiz) and encounters in Rome, which suggests a similar
trade arrangement as with Dressel 20. This type was probably delivered straight to Ostia or Antium at
the most, again much like Dressel 20. 166
165 Franco (ed.) 2006, pp. 51-54 166 http://ads.ahds.ac.uk/catalogue/archive/amphora_ahrb_2005/details.cfm?id=229 and 77
- 94 -
In so far as a pattern can be deduced, I would say that Dressel 17 is not in the LAC because of its
origin and distribution standard (Rome). Lamboglia 2 could have been in the LAC; there is to me no
obvious reason why it is not present in the collection. With Antium having been a fairly important
harbor in Roman times, it makes sense though that some differing amphora types can be encountered
there.
5.2.3. Issues of chronology
To elaborate on the difference between those amphorae found in the coastal area (LAC) and those
encountered in the Pontine plain (surveys); the biggest difference is in the chronology. Where most of
the LAC amphorae date from the Early and Middle Imperial period, the types found during surveys are
mostly Republican. Greco-Italic amphorae were encountered the most, followed by Dressel 1 and
Dressel 20. This in contrast to the LAC, where there are only three Greco-Italic amphorae, two Dressel
20 fragments and a lot of types never encountered during a survey.
The different sets of amphora types encountered in the plain and coastal area essentially reflect two
chronological stages of change in the Pontine region’s socio-economic system. The amphorae found
during GIA surveys represent the rise and expansion of the villae rusticae along the Roman road, while
the LAC amphorae represent the rise and expansion of the villae marittimae along the coastal strip. The
Republican amphora set is hardly as varied as that of the Empire. Of course this is mainly the result of
the opening up of new markets during the Empire, but it can be readily assumed that there was quite a
bit of trade during the Republic as well: Dressel 1 and 2-4 amphorae in particular were produced in and
exported from Latium in great quantities, something which continued into the Early Empire.
While the LAC has some definite Republican amphorae (it is almost impossible to allocate Dressel 1
vessels to either Republic or Empire without a dedicated study though), the majority stems from
Imperial times. The LAC shows the rise, peak, decline and late revival of the Italian wine market. It
shows the rise of the Gallic wine market. It shows the rise and peak of the African olive oil market. The
LAC shows Latium as an area that started out producing and exporting both amphorae and wine on a
large scale, but which gradually lost its own economic potential to foreign markets during the Middle
and Late Empire. Export became import, production became consumption. The LAC shows the classic
setting of a nation’s heartland whose needs outgrow the capacity of its hinterland over time, instead
becoming reliant on specialized and dedicated production areas elsewhere and thereby causing the socio-
economic decline of the hinterland.
The number of types and individual vessels observed when seen in relation to each other, together
with their dating, provenance, distribution and contents, clearly show the make-up and details of the
LAC. All these aspects combined obviously make this amphora collection a material documentary of
- 95 -
seaborne trade in the Pontine region, but what kind of picture does that documentary exactly draw of
the area through the centuries?
Chronologically speaking, the peak of amphora trade in the coastal area of the Pontine region lies in
the Early and Middle Imperial period, more specifically between 0-200 AD. This is evident when
comparing the number of types and individual amphorae from that time to the other periods. Roughly
between 0-100 AD the largest number of amphora types are available on the market, as Chart 2 shows.
23 LAC amphora types were available in that century, reflecting the enormous economic growth
experienced by the emerging Roman Empire in those days.
Around the middle of the 1st century AD the amphora production in Italy itself is taken down a
notch, while that in other Mediterranean provinces takes off. The best reflection of this is seen in the
ten Gauloise 4 and fourteen Africana 2A vessels. Basically almost every large shift in the greater
Mediterranean market is reflected in the Liboni Amphora Collection, by grace of the variety in amphora
types therein. The rise to dominance of the African market, the impact of Gallic wine trade, the decline
of the Italian (wine) market and amphora production; all are visible in the table and charts.
5.2.4. Ancient origins and destinations of the LAC amphorae: land-based finds
As far as land-based find locations are concerned, a number of them can be more or less pinpointed:
Torre Astura, Poligono (Militare) and Cretarossa. These are all local find locations along the coastal
stretch between Nettuno and Torre Astura. Torre Astura is the fort/Roman villa itself and its
immediate surroundings, the Poligono is the military zone that spans almost the entire coastal stretch
nowadays, and Cretarossa is most probably A. Liboni’s toponym for the area where Nettuno’s public
beach turns into the Poligono. This area is otherwise known to the GIA as Depuratore.
a) the types encountered at Torre Astura are: Campanian almond-rim type, Pompeii 38, Dressel
2-4 Cos, Dressel 2-4 Italian, Tripolitanian 2, Gauloise 4, Africana 1 Piccolo, Africana 2A
Grande, Africana 3B and Africana 3C;
b) the types encountered at the Poligono (Militare) are: Dressel 2-4 Catalan, Type 8 Unknown
base ‘type B’, Gauloise 4, Dressel 30 - Keay 1A and Africana 3A;
c) the types encountered at Cretarossa are: Type 3 Unknown rim ‘type A’ and Type 8 Unknown
base ‘type B’.
Liboni has walked the coastal stretch between Nettuno and Torre Astura several times (something
which is technically forbidden as it is military property) and the finds he describes as coming from the
Poligono are most probably random samples from (in between) the various villae along this coast. The
- 96 -
Torre Astura finds come from the Roman villa there, as Liboni has told us. This location has yielded
large quantities of material and resultant information in the past few years, and is arguably the single
most important Roman site on the local coastal stretch.
When looking at the amphora types listed above, a couple of things can be deduced:
a) African cylindricals dominate in number of types, especially at Torre Astura;
b) local amphorae, most probably made at Astura/P15, dominate in number of vessels along the
entire coastal stretch;
c) the idea that a substantial part of the (foreign) LAC wine containers was meant for the coastal
villae is reinforced; Gauloise 4, Dressel 2-4 Cos and Pompeii 38 all occur at Torre Astura, with
another Gauloise 4, a Dressel 2-4 Catalan and a Dressel 30 - Keay 1A somewhere in the
Poligono.
All non-imported amphorae listed above are in my opinion vessels that were either produced along or
successfully exported (i.e. not found in the sea) to the coastal stretch between present-day Fiumicino
and Naples. While Tchernia insists that the Astura kiln produced only Greco-Italic and Dressel 1 for
wine containers, the recent find of a Dressel 2-4 Italian in situ in what seems to have been a kiln at
Colle Falcone (just a little land inwards from Astura) makes local production of that type in my
research area a distinct possibility as well, even if it was not made at Astura. The P15 types, Dressel 2-4
Italian and Campanian almond-rim type were most likely distributed across the region and to Rome,
while the foreign wine containers were imported/brought home from Gaul, the Aegean, etc. by the
owners of Torre Astura and most probably several neighboring villae for own consumption. Some of
these amphorae would also have come through the port at Terracina. The African cylindrical types are
somewhat of a mixed batch, and it is hard to say if they were meant specifically for the coastal villae
(more likely in the Late Empire) or if they were distributed throughout the hinterland as well. A
combination of these assumptions would probably hold the most truth.
5.2.5. Ancient origins and destinations of the LAC amphorae: seaborne finds
The origins and destinations of LAC amphorae found in the sea are a lot harder to determine. Without
specific information concerning the seaborne find locations of the various amphorae making up the
LAC, it is impossible to state where these amphorae exactly came from. The amphora types with marine
encrustations, thus originating from either a shipwreck or an underwater waste heap (not very likely
considering the tendency of using and reusing amphorae for many years, but still a possibility that has
to be taken into account), can be both the result of import and export. The Dressel 2-4 Italian type for
- 97 -
example was produced all over the Tyrrhenian area. While it is very probable that several specimens of
this type in the LAC were produced locally (Latium and Campania are known production regions, and
P15 produced Dressel 1 and probably 2-4 as well) and were thus exported, they might just as well have
been imported from elsewhere.
Without stamps the above is impossible to ascertain. Luckily the 2007 research yielded several stamps
on amphora fragments, including one on the sole Dressel 2-4 Catalan (LAC/X56). The stamp on this
fragment was referenced with aid of both Callender 1965 and the online CEIPAC amphora epigraphy
catalogue of the University of Barcelona (registration required).167 The stamp reads [CELS], short for
Celsus. This would have been the name of a vilicus (workman) working in a southern Spanish figlina
(workshop) called Scalensia, a producer of both Pascual 1 and Dressel 2-4 amphorae. Callender dates
this stamp and its variants at 80-120 AD.168 If not for the stamp, this fragment would probably have
been classified as a Dressel 1 (or perhaps even 2-4 Italian, even though the fabric is in hindsight quite
obviously Catalan, which is orange clay with large white inclusions).
The other stamps in the LAC are found on a Gauloise 4 (LAC/Bol.820.04/01), both Dressel 20
vessels (LAC/Bol.820.02/01 and LAC/X59) and an Africana 2A Grande (LAC/Bol.820.01/01).
These stamps cannot be used to distinguish between import and export, as those vessels are all
positively imports. The stamp on the best-preserved Dressel 20, reading [SAENICHE], again pinpoints
the location of a southern Spanish figlina with the presumable name of Saenianenses. This workshop
was probably situated near present-day Las Huertas del Rio along the Guadalquivir river in Andalusia.
An identical stamp has been published by Callender, found in Leicester, which would mean that this
particular workshop distributed olive oil from Britain to Italy. He dates this stamp and its variants at
80/90-130/140 AD.169 The second Dressel 20 stamp reads [AITA], which the CEIPAC database
links to [ATITTAE].
The stamps on the Gauloise 4 and Africana 2A Grande, reading respectively [MNK] and [MIVP]
could unfortunately not be referenced in any way. After failing to find it in her own publication, the
stamp on the Gauloise 4 was on my request relayed through the University of Barcelona and summarily
studied by Fanette Laubenheimer, the leading expert on Gauloise amphorae, at the Centre National de
la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS). Surprisingly she had never seen this particular stamp before, and
even its position on the shoulder of the amphora seems to be quite unique as Gauloise 4 stamps occur
generally on the handle and sporadically on the neck.170
167 http://ceipac.gh.ub.es/ 168 Callender 1965, pp. 242-243 ; entry 19112 at http://ceipac.gh.ub.es/ 169 Callender 1965, pp. 238-240, 310-311 ; entry 16815 at http://ceipac.gh.ub.es/ 170 F. Laubenheimer, pers. comm. 2007: “[…] Le col de l'amphore ressemble parfaitement à une Gauloise 4, encore que je ne vois pas la pâte. Le timbre semble se trouver sur le col ce qui est inhabituel pour les G. 4. Je n'ai jamais vu cette estampille!” ; Laubenheimer 1992
- 98 -
It is quite unfortunate that the LAC contains far less amphorae with stamps than the average
collection. This is principally because of the particular seaborne nature of the majority of LAC
amphorae: most of them are covered in marine encrustations, making critical parts of an amphora
unavailable for study. Africana 2A Grande amphorae for example were often stamped just below the
rim, which was more often then not exactly the part covered in encrustations, making it impossible to
tell if a stamp was present. To give an idea of the extent of obscuration those encrustations can achieve:
several times I had to scrape or chip away the crust on a handle or rim just to make it possible to gain
the true outline for a drawing. Of course erosion by water has compounded with the encrustations to
deteriorate the state of some amphorae.
Interestingly enough it is generally the case that seaborne amphora finds are very well conserved,
because of the tendency of amphora cargo to end up on the sea floor in a heap, safeguarding the vessels
at the bottom from erosion and encrustation. Therefore it can be speculated that the amount of marine
encrustations on various LAC amphorae is an indicator of their position on the sea floor; amphorae
with hardly any crust will have been deeper in the heap, those with only a particular part encrusted will
have had only that part exposed (e.g. side of the heap, half-buried on the sea floor), and amphorae with
a lot of encrustation would have been at the top of the heap or fully exposed elsewhere (e.g. standing
against a rock or wreck fragment).
Still, how telling these encrustations and their number/position may be, they do not provide us with a
satisfactory answer concerning the question where the seaborne LAC amphorae all originated from. For
now the matter will remain unresolved to a great extent. Without more stamps, and especially without
clear information on where the amphorae themselves were found, little more can be definitively said
concerning the seaborne LAC vessels’ exact provenance. A detailed fabric study would in my opinion
yield very useful extra information, but such an undertaking unfortunately falls outside the scope of this
thesis. If at all possible I would suggest following up this thesis by such a study, which could very well
indicate production areas or even pinpoint a good number of amphora kilns. Especially the African
cylindricals hold much potential, seeing as how their study and that of their fabrics has recently spurred
new interest among scholars like D.P.S. Peacock, N. Ben Lazreg and M. Bonifay.
5.3. THE LAC STUDY AND BEYOND: LAW, TRADE AND WINE IN ROMAN LATIUM
5.3.1. The lex Claudia and elite entrepreneurs
As can be gleaned from 4.2.4 and 5.1.5, wine was the most transported commodity in the LAC
amphorae. While independently carried out, my study ties in with and reinforces the research of several
- 99 -
scholars like F. Coarelli, Professor of Greek and Roman Antiquities at the University of Perugia, and A.
Tchernia, expert on Roman wine and their correspondent amphorae. Coarelli’s study of economic
change in the Middle and Late Republican period deals for a substantial part with the Pontine
viniculture and the Terracina situation (see also 2.2.2). He subscribes a large role in the area to Roman
noble families producing and trading wine from the Pontine region, with the port of Terracina as main
export hub. Tchernia’s research likewise shows the enormous ‘buzz’ of activity concerning wine trade in
the Pontine region. Still, all this commercial enterprising should essentially have been only a shadow of
that encountered, as it was in direct conflict with the Roman law.171
The largest theoretical obstacle dealing with Roman (wine) trade until the 1980s had been Roman
legislation. The lex Claudia or plebiscitum Claudianum of 219-218 BC forbade a senator or senator’s
son to own and employ an ocean-going ship (marittimam navem), defined by law as a vessel with a
tonnage of 300 amphorae. It was however legitimate for an estate owner to ship surplus produce along
rivers to the coast. Cato even went so far as to recommend building one’s estate near a river to facilitate
this shipping, thereby easing marketing of the commodities. This latter qualification of course provides
the beginnings of a legal loophole, which would be exploited by the elite in later years. The lex Claudia
was essentially meant to strengthen the ties between the elite and the people, thereby bringing more
cohesion to the Republic as a whole. The result of the legislation however was that senators started
large-scale farming (e.g. viniculture) and thereby acquiring ever more land, while the equestrians
(second-tier nobility as it were) were free to pursue shipping. This would engender mainly friction
between the two tiers of nobility, although collaboration between the two was not uncommon either.172
In 70 AD, Cicero’s letters prove that the lex Claudia was still formally binding. However, this
formality seemed to be all that was left of it. In that year’s famous prosecution by Cicero of Gaius
Verres, a magistrate accused of the gross misgovernment of Sicily, the lex Claudia came up several times.
Verres had been found owning quite a large cargo ship, of substantial greater tonnage than the law
deemed legal for a Roman nobleman. However, Cicero’s objection to this matter did not stem from the
lex Claudia. On the contrary, Cicero acknowledged that he found nothing wrong with Verres owning
the ship as long as he had paid for its construction himself. If Verres needed the ship to transport goods
produced on a fundus maritimus (a tract of productive land on the sea), Cicero would not think less of
him at all. Both Cicero and Verres’ counsellor, Q. Hortensius Hortalus, seemed to understand that it
was of little use to uphold the ancient law in a court filled with commercially inclined equestrians and
171 Coarelli 1990 ; Tchernia 1986 172 D’Arms 1981, pp. 5
- 100 -
senators of a modern day. “Antiquae sunt istae leges et mortuae,” Cicero said: “Those laws are ancient
and dead.”173
Two comparable cases, which seem to tie in nicely with the LAC, are that of M. Aemilius Lepidus
and the Sulpiciae Galbae family. Aemilius Lepidus was a distinguished noble of the 2nd century BC,
having been both censor and aedile. He owned praedia (land) near Terracina and his commercial
inclination was obvious from his construction activities: work on both the porticus Aemilia and the
Tiber emporium in Rome had started in his aedileship. When he constructed a breakwater near his
praedia in 179 BC, there was a public outcry at this blatant expression of seeking profit. After all, the
new harbour and docking facilities made it all the more easier for Lepidus to transport his goods
(especially wine) to Rome where it could be marketed through his own emporium, and not much later
wine from Terracina started to reach Gaul. It is not known if and how Lepidus reacted to the public
outburst.
The Sulpiciae Galbae were an influential family, of which the emperor Galba was a member as well.
Consul Sulpicius Galba, contemporary of Aemilius Lepidus, owned a villa at Terracina and had
contributed to the acropolis of the colony as well. He is best known however for his construction of the
horrea Galbana, the immense warehouses of Rome near Monte Testaccio. It is believed that this was the
place where the millions of Baetican olive oil amphorae were emptied before being smashed at
Testaccio. The most interesting aspect perhaps of these horrea, apart from their size, is that they
remained private property until the end of emperor Galba’s reign (69 AD). Coarelli argues that the
wines from Fundi and Terracina, in a time before they were nearly all exported to Gallia Narbonensis,
were transported to and stored in the horrea Galbana prior to delivery in Rome. While some of these
local wines, such as the robust vennuncula, might have been of less quality than the Caecuban vintage,
they would have had a ready market in the Urbs.174
The case of Lepidus and the Sulpiciae Galbae clearly shows that the lex Claudia, while formally
binding, was never adhered to as strictly as was once thought. While it would be a fallacy to think that
commercial enterprising in the Roman period is completely comparable with the way we do business
today, it now seems clear to me that the stigma of being a ‘petty trader’ seeking profit solely for the sake
of profit was hardly as powerful a deterrent in the Late Republican and Imperial era as it had been in
the dawn of that age.175
173 Coarelli 1991, pp. 54 ; D’Arms 1981, pp. 37 174 Id., pp. 53 ; Id., pp. 157 ; Tchernia 1986, pp. 187 175 Ibid. ; Id., pp. 36-37
- 101 -
5.3.2. Amphorae, Astura and the Pontine wine trade
Archaeological evidence for extensive wine export and commercial enterprising in the Pontine region is
strengthened by two linked finds: the amphora kiln at Canale Canneto (amphorae carrying Caecuban
wine have been attested there) and the Madrague de Giens shipwreck (see also 2.2.1). The latter is the
wreck of the largest Roman freighter after that of Albenga, with a tonnage of around 8000 amphorae. It
floundered in 75-60 BC near Toulon.176 The 600 Dressel 1 amphorae found onboard were all stamped
and the vast majority could be traced back to the Canale Canneto workshop near Terracina, one of
three kiln sites located around the lake of Fundi. The name on the stamps was P. Veveius Papus, who
owned the workshop and exported Caecuban wine to Gaul. The incredible size of the freighter’s cargo
bay shows yet again the ‘worth’ that the lex Claudia must have had in the eyes of enterprising nobles.177
A few interesting points concerning the Astura/P15 kiln are made by Tchernia. Firstly he believes
that this particular kiln did not partake in the succession of Dressel 1 by Dressel 2-4 Italian. Secondly,
Astura/P15 would have made mainly amphorae for the local wines and probably for the vintages from
Velletri as well. There were seemingly no amphorae made in either Velletri or the Monte Albani,
relying instead on vessels made at Astura or customers bringing their own amphorae. Thirdly, Astura
would have ceased to sell on the provincial export market at the time of Augustus, limiting its sales to
Rome. This would have been a result of the short distance by sea from Astura to Rome, which was
hardly as profitable as it had been when supplying an overseas market. Thus the reason for an amphora
kiln on the seaboard that close to the Urbs disappeared, thereby explaining the absence of Dressel 2-4
at Astura.178
These musings by Tchernia led me to speculate about the possible kiln at Colle Falcone. It is highly
probable in my opinion that this site, situated further inland as it is, took over the local role of amphora
production from the Astura kiln. Dressel 2-4 vessels would have been made there, and transported to
Rome by use of the nearby roads. LAC/X27 is a possible example of such a local Dressel 2-4, being
very reminiscent of the vessel found in situ at Colle Falcone. Further research at this site would
undoubtedly lead to more information, but unfortunately it is situated upon private property that is not
readily available for study in the foreseeable future.
Considering the historical sources and the material foundation given to them by, among others, the
LAC amphorae, it is clear now that the local viniculture played an integral part in the socio-economic
system of the Roman Republic. It would be the expansion of Rome’s territories and the subsequent rise
176 http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1310/is_1987_Nov/ai_6180816: There were only about 600 amphorae found aboard the wreck out of the possible 8000, as the ship had both not been fully loaded when it set sail and a substantial amount of the cargo had been spirited away by professional (local) divers. 177 Paterson 1982, pp. 152 ; Coarelli 1991, pp. 54 178 Tchernia 1986, pp. 108-109, 194
- 102 -
of the Empire that ended the large-scale production and exportation of wine in Latium and Campania,
as the wine trade between Italy and Gaul reversed; the importer became the exporter, taking over the
lucrative wine market almost entirely. While it is known that production of famous Italian wines like
Falernian and perhaps even Caecuban endured, Italy’s days as the prime supplier of wine to the
Mediterranean market were over. Undoubtedly the amphora kiln at Astura and others of its ilk in the
Tyrrhenian coastal area ceased to sell abroad in large numbers with the decline of the Italian wine
market at the end of the 1st century AD. It is still possible that these kilns remained functional on a
smaller scale in some instances, but their integral role in the expansion of Rome’s interests had been
played out as they essentially became victims of the Empire’s success (especially those on the seaboard
near Rome, like Astura). Wine amphorae in later centuries would come from Umbria, Tuscany, Emilia-
Romagna and ultimately Calabria and Sicily.
- 103 -
6. CONCLUSIONS
In this final chapter I will summarize the outcomes of the Liboni Amphora Collection research, and
present a few angles for future study in light of the work done on these containers.
6.1. SUMMARY
When keeping the maritime landscape of the southern Latial coastal zone in mind, being several (large)
ports spaced out somewhat equidistantly (Ostia, Antium, Terracina, Caieta, Puteoli) and intermittently
villae marittimae with fishponds and the occasional small harbor, it is hard not to imagine the hustle
and bustle of commercial life in the Roman Republican and Imperial era. The way Romans thought
about trading and seeking profit would seem hypocritical to most people in our day and age. After all,
while ‘petty trading’ (sordida merces) was looked down upon, it was considered a worthy endeavor
when done on a grand scale (magna et copiosa). Interestingly enough such large-scale enterprising was
not viewed as connected to the ‘trader’s mentality’, which was “[…] avid of profits, mean-spirited and
acquisitive.” One wonders then how the average Roman citizen would call the sale of 8000 wine
amphorae to Gaul, like the Madrague de Giens freighter was capable of?
The concept of conspicuous wealth, of showing off what you have, surely played an important part in
Roman society. When you ‘had it made’, you had to show it. A villa or two, one in the city and
preferably another in the country, was only the beginning. For first-tier nobility, being senators and the
like, large-scale agricultural activities were a worthy pursuit. For this one required land, and lots of it. As
they were officially forbidden by law to pursue a career in shipping, the acquisition of land was exactly
what senators and consuls were forced to accomplish. On these praedia arose villae controlling the
agricultural endeavors, of which viniculture was the most important. Amphorae to store the wine in
were frequently made at workshops which were situated on the estates themselves or on a strategic
location nearby. Astura, on the seaboard, was a prime example of such a latter workshop. The surplus of
the estate production was then ferried to Rome or to a suitable harbor to be exported.
The variety of amphora types in the LAC mirrors the socio-economic changes in southern Latium in
the Roman period to a great extent. Especially the major shifts in the Mediterranean wine trade are
represented clearly due to the high amount of wine amphorae in the collection. They also support the
work done by Coarelli and Tchernia, placing an undeniable emphasis on large-scale wine production
and export in the Pontine region up to the Early Empire. The trends concerning the other classic villa
- 104 -
commodity, olive oil, as well as fish sauce, are a lot harder to distinguish in the LAC however. This is
primarily caused by the large amount of multiproduct amphorae, which distort the otherwise concise
picture that could have been drawn when every amphora type carried only one specific product. As the
research stands now the seven certain olive oil-only amphorae, as well as the certain single fish sauce-
only amphora, hardly convey the same detailed image as the wine amphorae do.
All in all the changes in the socio-economic system of the Pontine region during the Roman period,
from a maritime point of view, are to a great extent mirrored by the Liboni Amphora Collection,
especially when it entails the wine trade. This reflection would only be enhanced with further research.
6.2. FUTURE STUDY
At the end of my study of this amphora collection there are a number of remaining issues I would have
liked to expand upon, but could not because of mostly practical reasons. Perhaps the most important
issue is that of the exact find spots of the LAC amphorae which were hauled out of the sea. Without
that information it is impossible to determine the way they ended up on the sea floor. Although I favor
the idea of multiple shipwrecks, this theory would have to be proven by tracking back the journey of
these amphorae from sea to the museum. This would entail discussing the issue at length with director
Liboni, in the hope that he will remember something more than he has previously disclosed. Perhaps the
fisher(s) that originally ‘caught’ the containers could then be identified, theoretically leading to the
locations I seek. The police, which confiscated the amphorae from the fisher(s), could help with this as
well. Unfortunately bureaucracy is notoriously slow, and the issue of a few amphorae would probably
rank quite low on the priority list. Inquiring Liboni about it has the greatest chance of success in my
opinion.
We do have to keep in mind that pillage and looting of underwater archaeological sites have reached
unprecedented heights these days, as the aggressive pricing of auction houses and greed of private buyers
disturbs many shipwrecks before they can be systematically studied. In southern France they call this the
Amphora War, and both customs officers and special taskforces fight a losing battle against pirates and
other looters bent on seizing archaeological material for the black market. It is thus altogether quite
probable that the wreck(s) originally harboring the LAC amphorae have been plundered or disturbed in
such a matter that very little information could be gleaned from a systematic study. After all the LAC
itself is for the larger part the result of unlawful action (one does not catch that many amphorae during
- 105 -
fishing by accident). I fear that most details and pointers concerning the origins of the seaborne LAC
amphorae have been obscured or even wiped clean because of this.179
The LAC as it exists today could yield even more information than I have distilled from it in this
thesis. An extensive fabric research for example should give far more information concerning the
production sites of these amphorae, while as a side effect also possibly telling more about the original
contents by examining residual matter within amphora walls (those that do not have an interior resin
coating). The latter potential would in turn help to further distinguish variants (and again origins) of
the various multiproduct amphorae (e.g. Africana Grande 2A), thereby fine-tuning all charts presented
in this thesis. This would require both more thematic literature research as well as professional study by
amphora fabric specialists, the latter of which would have to be done outside the GIA. The University
of Southampton is an ideal candidate for fabric research, which has the required expertise in D.P.S.
Peacock and D.F. Williams. An expanded study of the encountered stamps in the LAC is desirable as
well, especially concerning those stamps I could not reference myself.
The nature of the relation between the coastal LAC and the amphorae found more inland during
various GIA surveys has so far in my opinion not been satisfactory described. The main issue
prohibiting this is the lack of systematic data concerning these survey finds. Those amphorae found
during the earliest GIA campaigns in the region have generally not been drawn or described correctly,
which is the result of both insufficient knowledge of amphorae and less easily accessible literature
dealing with the subject at the time. Luckily a restudy of the survey material is in preparation, which
would make the survey amphorae data current and up to date. I would advise doing revisits of sites that
have yielded amphorae in the past, especially those where director Liboni has collected material. As
stressed before, amphora material has ranked low on his list of interests when collecting, and it is quite
possible that he has overlooked or ignored some amphora fragments (especially body sherds).
As for the coastal stretch, it would be interesting to discover if the Astura/P15 kiln was part of a
privately owned fundus maritimus, or if it was an independent workshop producing for various
customers in the surrounding area. At this moment I cannot see a way to do this, other than hoping that
the GIA 2008 excavation at the mouth of the Astura reveals stamps or tituli picti referring to a local
estate (which would provide a basis for the former hypothesis). Another excavation at Piccareta 15 itself
would most probably not be feasible, nor desirable at this point. On a second note I would not be
surprised at all if the sea along the coastal stretch harbored a great many more amphora fragments. At a
small-scale survey at Torre Astura I found several body fragments in the water, with more having been
found in the GIA 2007 excavation at a nearby location. It is my hope that our 2008 campaign will
expand the knowledge we have now concerning maritime trade in the Pontine region. 179 http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1310/is_1987_Nov/ai_6181570
- 106 -
BIBLIOGRAPHY
LITERATURE
Attema, P.A.J. (1993), An archaeological survey in the Pontine Region: a contribution to the early
settlement history of South Lazio 900-1000 BC, PhD thesis RuG, Groningen
Attema, P.A.J., De Haas T.C.A. & Nijboer, A.J. (2003), The Astura project, interim report of the
2001 and 2002 campaigns of the Groningen Institute of Archaeology along the coast between
Nettuno and Torre Astura (Lazio, Italy), in: BAbesch 78, p. 107-140, Groningen
Callender, M.H. (1965), Roman amphorae: with index of stamps, London
Caneva, G. & Travaglini, C.M. (2003), Atlante storico-ambientale Anzio en Nettuno, Roma
Caravale, A. & Toffoletti, I. (1997), Anfore antiche: conoscerle e identificarle, IRECO
Casson, L. (1994), Ships and seafaring in ancient times, London
Charlesworth, M.P. (1926), Trade-routes and commerce of the Roman Empire, Cambridge
Coarelli, F. (1990), Mutamenti economici e sociali nella valle Pontina tra media e tarda repubblica, in:
La valle Pontina nell'antichità. Atti del convegno di Cori, 13-14 aprile 1985, Roma
D’Arms, J.H. & Kopff, E.C. (eds.) (1980), The seaborne commerce of ancient Rome: studies in
archaeology and history, Roma
De Haas, T. (2003), De platformvilla in Midden-Italië: een case study in het Pontijnse
gebied, in: Tijdschrift voor Mediterrane Archeologie 29, pp. 3-10, Groningen
Finley, M.I. (1973, rev. Morris, I., 1999), The ancient economy, Berkeley
Gibbins, D. (2001). A Roman shipwreck of c. AD 200 at Plemmirio, Sicily: evidence for North
African amphora production during the Severan period, in: World Archaeology 32.3, pp. 311-
334
Hayes, J.W. (1997), Handbook of Mediterranean Roman pottery, London
Higginbotham, J. (1997), Piscinae: artificial fishponds in Roman Italy, London
Jongman, W.M. (2003), Rome: the political economy of a world-empire, in: The Medieval History
Journal 2003, 6, pp. 303-326
Keay, S.J. (1984), Late Roman amphorae in the western Mediterranean. A typology and economic
study: the Catalan evidence, BAR International Series 196 (i/ii), Oxford
Lafon, X. (2001), Villa Maritima: recherches sur les villas littorales de l’Ítalie romaine (IIIe
siècle av. J.-C./IIIe siècle ap. J.-C.), Roma
Laubenheimer, F. (ed.) (1992), Les amphores en Gaule: production et circulation, Besançon
- 107 -
Mattingly, D.J. & Salmon, J. (eds.) (2001), Economies beyond agriculture in the classical world,
London
Morrison, J.S. (1980), The ship; [2:] Long ships and round ships: warfare and trade in the
Mediterranean, 3000 BC-500 AD, London
Pape, H.G. (2006a), Maintaining a civilization: seaborne trade mechanisms in the Roman world,
internal report GIA, Groningen
Pape, H.G. (2006b), The Liboni Amphora Collection: catalogue and preliminary findings, internal
report GIA, Groningen
Paterson, J. (1982), Salvation from the sea: amphorae and trade in the Roman West, in: The Journal
of Roman Studies, Vol. 72 (1982), pp. 146-157
Peacock, D.P.S. & Williams, D.F. (1986, rev. 1991), Amphorae and the Roman economy: an
introductory guide, London/New York
Polanyi, K., Arensberg, C.M. & Pearson, H.W. (eds.) (cop. 1957), Trade and market in the early
empires : economies in history and theory, London/New York
Rostovtzeff, M.I. (rev. Fraser, P.M., 1957), The social and economic history of the Roman Empire,
Oxford
Rougé, J. (1966), Recherches sur l’organisation du commerce maritime en Méditerranée sous l’Empire
Romain, Paris
Rougé, J. (transl. Frazer, S., 1981), Ships and fleets of the ancient Mediterranean, Middletown
Sciallano, M. & Sibella, P. (1991, rev. 1994), Amphores: comment les identifier?, Aix-en-Provence
Tchernia, A. (1986), Le vin de l'Italie romaine: essai d'histoire économique d'après les amphores, Roma
Tchernia, A. & Brun, J.P. (1999), Le vin romain anique, Grenoble
Tol, G.W. (2005), Carta Archeologica di Comune di Nettuno. Een tussentijds verslag van de
archeologische kartering van de gemeente Nettuno (Lazio, Italië) aan de hand van de
veldwerkcampagne van de zomer van 2004, Volume I: tekst, thesis RuG, Groningen
Vandermersch, C. (1994), Vins et amphores de grande Grèce et de Sicile, IVe-IIIe s. avant J.-C.,
Napoli
Brandizzi Vittucci, P. (cop. 2000), Antium: Anzio e Nettuno in epoca romana, Roma
Williams, D.F. & Carreras, C. (1995), North African amphorae in Roman Britain: A re-appraisal, in:
Britannia, Vol. 26 (1995), pp. 231-252
- 108 -
WEBSITES
Google Maps, the coastal stretch between Anzio and Torre Astura, in the Pontine region (Fig. 1),
http://maps.google.com
Tchernia, A. (1987), The Madrague de Giens wreck; a Roman freighter yields its secrets, in: UNESCO
Courier, Nov. 1987,
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1310/is_1987_Nov/ai_6180816
University of Southampton Amphora Project (2005),
http://ads.ahds.ac.uk/catalogue/archive/amphora_ahrb_2005/index.cfm
Various authors (eds.) (1987), The amphora war; looting of ancient shipwrecks is widespread - extract
from the script of the video program, in: UNESCO Courier, Nov. 1987,
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1310/is_1987_Nov/ai_6181570
