malfitana et al. 2009. sicilia romana

FACTAA J OU RNAL OF RO MAN

MAT ERIAL C U LT U RE STUDIES

Direttori:Daniele Malfitana · Jeroen Poblome · John Lund

Comitato scientifico:S. E. Alcock (Brown University, R.I.) · P. M. Allison (University of Leicester) · D. Bernal(Universidad de Cadiz) · M. Bonifay (Centre Camille Jullian - UMR 6573, CNRS) · R. Brulet(Université Catholique de Louvain) · L. Chrzanovski (International Lychnological Associa-tion) · F. D’Andria (Uni versità di Lecce) · M. de Vos (Università di Trento) · K. Dunbabin(McMaster University, Ontario) · M. Feugère (Equipe TPC - UMR 5140, CNRS) · I. Free-stone (Cardiff University) · M. Fulford (University of Reading) · C. Gasparri (Università diNapoli “Federico II”) · E. Giannichedda · F. Giudice (Università di Catania) · A. Hochuli- Gysel (Fondation Pro Aventico, Avenches) · S. Ladstätter (Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften) · M. Lawall (University of Manitoba) · M. Mackensen (Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität, München) · D. Manacorda (Università di Roma Tre) · D. Mat-tingly (University of Leicester) · M. Mazza (Università di Roma “La Sapienza”) · D.Michaelides (University of Cyprus) · M. D. Nenna (Maison de l’Orient et de la Méditerra-née, Lyon) · M. O’Hea (University of Adelaide) · E. Papi (Università di Siena) · D. P. S. Pea-cock (University of Southampton) · N. Rauh (Purdue University) · P. Reynolds (Universityof Barcelona) · G. Sanders (The American School of Classical Studies at Athens) · F. Slavazzi(Università di Milano) · K. W. Slane (University of Missouri-Columbia) · N. Terrenato(University of Michigan) · M. Torelli (Università di Perugia) · H. von Hessberg (Universitätzu Köln) · A. Wilson (University of Oxford) · D. Yntema (Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam)

Consulente di redazione per la grafica e la fotografia:Giovanni Fragalà

*

«Facta» is a Peer Review Journal

FACTAA JOURNAL OF ROM AN

MATERIAL CULTU RE S TUD IES

edited by

daniele malfitana, jeroen poblome,

john lund

2 · 2008

PISA · ROMA

FABRIZIO SERRA · EDITORE

MMIX

Amministrazione e abbonamentiAccademia editoriale®

Casella postale n. 1, succursale n. 8, i 56123 PisaTel. +39 050542332 · Fax +39 050574888

Abbonamenti (2008):Italia: Euro 55,00 (privati) · Euro 85,00 (enti, con edizione Online)

Abroad: Euro 85,00 (Individuals) · Euro 115,00 (Institutions, with Online Edition)Prezzo del fascicolo singolo: Euro 140,00

I pagamenti possono essere effettuati tramite versamento su c.c.p. n. 17154550o tramite carta di credito (American Express, Visa, Eurocard, Mastercard)

Uffici di Pisa: Via Santa Bibbiana 28 · i 56127 PisaTel. +39 050542332 · Fax +39 050574888

E-mail: [email protected]

Uffici di Roma: Via Ruggiero Bonghi 11/b · i 00184 RomaTel. + 39 06 70493456 · Fax + 39 06 70476605

E-mail: [email protected]

Autorizzazione del Tribunale di Pisa n. 22 del 15-ix-2004Direttore responsabile: Fabrizio Serra

Sono rigorosamente vietati la riproduzione, la traduzione, l’adattamento, anche parziale o perestratti, per qualsiasi uso e con qualsiasi mezzo effettuati, compresi la copia fotostatica,

il microfilm, la memorizzazione elettronica, ecc., senza la preventiva autorizzazione scritta dellaFabrizio Serra · Editore®, Pisa · Roma, un marchio della Accademia editoriale®, Pisa · Roma.

Ogni abuso sarà perseguito a norma di legge.

Proprietà riservata · All rights reserved© Copyright 2009 by

Fabrizio Serra · Editore®, Pisa · Roma,un marchio della Accademia editoriale®, Pisa · Roma

Stampato in Italia · Printed in Italy

La Accademia editoriale®, Pisa · Roma, pubblica con il marchioFabrizio Serra · Editore®, Pisa · Roma, sia le proprie riviste precedentemente edite con

il marchio Istituti editoriali e poligrafici internazionali®, Pisa · Roma, che i volumidelle proprie collane precedentemente edite con i marchi Edizioni dell’Ateneo®, Roma,

Giardini editori e stampatori in Pisa®, Gruppo editoriale internazionale®, Pisa · Roma,e Istituti editoriali e poligrafici internazionali®, Pisa · Roma.

www.libraweb.net

issn 1971-9051

SOMMARIO

Editorial Preface 11

Kristine Bøggild Johannsen, Campanareliefs im Kontext. Ein Beitrag zur Neu-bewertung der Funktion und Bedeutung der Campanareliefs in römischen Villen 15

Eloisa Dodero, Il vetrocammeo nella prima età imperiale: una sintesi. Con brevenotizia di alcuni frammenti inediti del «Thorvaldsens Museum» di Copenhagen 39

Paul Reynolds, Linear typologies and ceramic evolution 61Jean Bussière, Nouveaux outils de potiers africains d’époque romaine (ive-vie s.) 89Ben Russell, The dynamics of stone transport between the Roman Mediterranean

and its hinterland 107Daniele Malfitana et al., Roman Sicily Project («rsp»): Ceramics and Trade.

A multidisciplinary approach to the study of material culture assemblages. Firstoverview: the transport amphorae evidence 127

Jeroen Poblome, Sherds and coins from a place under the sun. Further thoughtsfrom Sagalassos 193

discussion section: the «rhosica vasa» quest

John Lund, Daniele Malfitana, Jeroen Poblome, «Rhosica vasa»: the questcontinues 217

Christian Høgel, Cicero on Atticus serving from «Rhosica vasa» 221Luciana Romeri, Ateneo e il vasellame di Cleopatra (Ateneo, Deipn. vi 229 c1-d1) 225Kevin Greene, «Rhosica vasa» as metalwork rather than earthenware: an inter-

pretation reinforced by philological analysis 231

review section

John Lund, New corpus of terracotta lamps from Algeria. A review of Jean Bus-sière, Lampes antiques d’Algérie, and Lampes antiques d’Algérie ii: Lampes tar-dives et lampes chrétiennes 235

Books received 239

Instructions to authors 241

Addresses of contributors 243

ROMAN SICILY PROJECT («RSP») :CERAMICS AND TRADE

a multidisciplinary approachto the study of material culture assemblages.

first overview: the transport amphorae evidence

Daniele Malfitana

With contributions byEmmanuel Botte · Carmela Franco · Maria Giulia Morgano

Anna Lisa Palazzo

Thematic map by Giovanni Fragalà

Quapropter cognita tota re frumentaria, iudices, iam facillimeperspicere potestis amissam esse populo Romano Siciliam,fructuosissima atque opportunissima provincia,sini eam vos istius damnatione reciperatis.Quid est enim Sicilia, si agri cultionem sustuleriset si aratorum numerum ac nomen exstinxeris?1

Foreword

e quote this passage from the second book of the «Verrinae» by Cicero becauseit testifies to the beginning of that happy and calm period, after consul Marcel-

This work is the first overview of an encompassing research project in progress; its final results will bepublished as a Facta Supplementum containing more detailed information and all the analytical data (includ-ing gis and other databases, thematic maps and graphs) on local production and import of amphorae andtable wares in Roman Sicily. The contribution presents research results of the «Commessa di Ricerca»ibam - cnr (pc.p02.001 - ibam) directed by D. Malfitana and titled «Approcci multidisciplinari integrati perl’analisi dei manufatti: dalla produzione alla circolazione e all’uso» and was partially funded, in its first stage, bythe Department of Cultural Heritage of the Regione Sicilia (Dipartimento Beni Culturali dell’Assessoratoai Beni Culturali ed Ambientali della Regione Sicilia). E. Botte is a PhD student at the University of Lyonand Centre Jean Berard (Naples). C. Franco, M. G. Morgano and A. L. Palazzo are archaeologists of the Schoolof Advanced Study in Classical Archaeology of the University of Catania. G. Fragalà is responsible for theLaboratory of Archaeological Photography of ibam - cnr, Catania. A special thanks goes to Carmela Fran-co, who helped to coordinate and collate the data from the different sections of this work; she also trans-lated the original Italian and French texts into English. Are involved in the project: G. Cacciaguerra, M. G.Morgano, A. L. Palazzo (University of Catania), N. Alberti, A. Di Miceli, M. Spagnolo, V. Purpura, N. Trec-carichi (University of Palermo), and E. Botte (Centre Jean Berard of Naples). Also historians, archaeometrists,computer scientists, etc. are taking part in the project. The engineer A. Guglielmino is organising the web-site of the project (www.romansicilyproject.org), as well as creating the gis maps and the database that willbe made available on the intranet section of the website. The authors wish to thank Michel Bonifay for crit-ically reading the text and his many suggestions; Elizabeth Murphy for her great effort in improving thiscontribution, and not least its English. Obviously, the authors remain responsible for any mistake.

1 Cic., In Verr. ii. 3, 226 («Judge, now that you have known the entire issue of the wheat, you can easily under-stand that Sicily is the most productive and useful of our provinces and the Roman population will lose it if you don’t

W

128 daniele malfitana et alii

lus had received the island in 210 bc, being 27 years after the province had been con-stituted and after he had given it to his colleague Levinus, following the objections ofthe Syracusans.1 The calm period helped the Sicilian exiles and refugees return totheir homes and properties and rejuvinate agricultural production, especially ofwheat destined for Rome – the capital city. The two superlatives used by Cicero ex-plain very clearly and eloquently the status of Sicily, which, compared to other Ro-man provinces and domains, seems to offer competitive and varied economic oppor-tunities, at least during this period.2

Building on the contemporary political, social and economic situation of Sicily –which was particularly dynamic –,3 a multidisciplinary research project4 is in progress.Junior researchers specializing in the study of Roman artefacts are approaching thecultural, social and economic matrix of the first province of the Empire. Starting withthe testimonies of the material culture, they are studying not only the handcrafts, butprimarily the processes of social and ideological dynamics combined in the generalconcept of «culture» and the historical, socio-cultural context in which these dynam-ics were embedded.5

Despite the lack of relevant research and published material – and especially the«deliberate» lack of focus on Hellenistic and Roman aspects of Sicily6 – the past yearshave seen some attempts to draw a preliminary picture of the socio-economy and cul-ture of Roman Sicily.

This first attempt, however, was focused mostly on historical evidence and not somuch on the archaeological record. The essay by Mario Mazza7 is still the most com-plete report on Roman Sicily. Today we can combine, better than in the past, archae-ological materials with historical reconstructions, which can contribute to clarifyingthe numerous data that our team is collecting.

reconquer it by condemning this man. What will be Sicily after the destruction of the agriculture and the category ofthe farmers, till the disappearing of their name?»).

1 Liv. xxvi, 29, 1-9; xxvi, 32, 8; Val. Max iv, 1, 7; Plut. Marc. 23.2 There is a long bibliography on the political status of Sicily as quoted by Cicero. Lazzaretti 2006 and

Perkins 2007. Most recently, Prag 2007 discussed historical, political, social and legal aspects of Sicily dur-ing Cicero’s period. A very interesting overview is Dubouloz - Pittia 2007 (various papers). A milestonefor Sicily in the Roman Empire is Wilson 1990.

3 Lazzeretti 2006 made a recent and exhaustive re-examination of the fourth book of the «Verrinae»(De signis) with an archaeological and historical commentary.

4 The activities of this project are part of the research carried out by the Katholieke Universiteit Leuven(roct project led by Professors M. Waelkens and J. Poblome). The main author of the article is responsi-ble for the research unit titled «Regionalism and Internationality in Roman Sicily: a general overview of fine andcommon wares, amphorae and material culture assemblages» (2007-2013). The beginning of the project coincid-ed with the activities of the International Summer School 2007: Roman pottery. Methodologies for the study of pro-duction, circulation and use (Catania, October 2007).

5 On the concept of «material culture», its implications and its application see the editorial statement of«Facta», 1, 2007 (Poblome - Malfitana - Lund 2008). See also Roth 2007.

6 See also the recent words of M. Torelli in L. Fiorini - M. Torelli, La fusione, Afrodite, l’emporion,«Facta. A Journal of Roman material culture studies», 1, 2007, pp. 75-106; in particular p. 97 «… far conosceregli umili materiali ceramici romani in terre ideologicamente refrattarie alla romanità, come la grecità di Madrepatriae delle colonie d’Occidente». 7 Mazza 1980-1981.

roman sicily project: ceramics and trade 129

In April 2004, the scientific meeting «Old pottery in a new century. Innovating perspectiveson Roman pottery studies»1 took place in Sicily. It was organized to concentrate the at-tention of scholars – in particular of the Archaeological Superintendence, whichworks directly on the archaeological sites of the island2 – on the enormous potentialof the study of crafts to draw an up-to-date picture of the economy and culture ofRoman Sicily. This meeting showed the way to new areas of research.

Strong appeals were launched to encourage the development and the investmentin this research field.3 The most recent one was by C. Portale (in his essay concern-ing the province of Sicily):4 «gravosi limiti valgono per lo studio della cultura materiale,malgrado il recente interesse volto al tema delle manifatture ceramiche, sulla scia dei progres-si altrove registrati in questo campo. Anche qui i ritardi nell’edizione scientifica dei principalicomplessi, come il Ceramico di Siracusa condizionano la validità dei risultati, assolutamentepreliminari, raggiungibili in questa fase». On the one hand, there was the Catania work-shop capturing the need for investments in this field. On the other hand, there is theresearch carried out by the Research Unit within the international roct project – Ro-man Crafts and Trade – coordinated by the Katholieke Universiteit Leuven.5 Both sci-entific platforms convinced us to gather young researchers able to gain specific com-petences in order to realize the research project. In this contribution, we will presentthe preliminarily results of this project concerning the transport amphorae.

This work – even if it is still in progress – aims to give a first set of data to the scientific community directly obtained through the ceramic evidence, and in partic-ular amphorae, found in Sicily, trying to recognise both the specificity and the role ofthe island. In fact, Sicily can be considered as one big harbour opening like a fan, connecting anywhere in the Roman Empire.6 Surely, this is the particularity of the island and it is also the reason why it is a special observation place within the networkof international emporia that were distributed along the coasts of the Mediterraneanbasin. As a matter of fact, Cicero described the island as such. In the chapter of the«Verrinae», in which he discussed the deceptions of Verres in Syracusae, he refers tothe island as follows: «Cogitate nunc, cum illa Sicilia sit, hoc est insula quae undique exitusmaritimos habeat, quid ex ceteris locis exportatum putetis, quid Agrigento, quid Lilybaeo, quidPanhormo, quid Thermos, quid Halaesa, quid Catina, quid ex ceteris oppidis, quid vero Messana …».7

1 Malfitana - Poblome - Lund 2006.2 See the considerations of the main author on some important Sicilian archaeological contexts which,

even after many years, remain unpublished: Malfitana 2006 a, p. 414 and Malfitana 2006 b.3 See also the author’s considerations in Malfitana 2006 a, pp. 399-421.4 Portale 2005, p. 110.5 «Regionalism and Internationality in Roman Sicily: a general overview of fine and common wares, amphorae

and material culture assemblages» Unit (2007-2013). See also note 4 on p. 126.6 See also the recent paper presented at the international workshop organized by the British School

in Rome and by the University of Southampton, Ports Networks in the Roman Mediterranean (March, 7th and8th 2008).

7 «Sicily is an Island, having everywhere access to the sea. Think about what you suppose was exported from otherplaces, from Agrigento, from Marsala, from Palermo, from Terme, from Alesa, from Catania and from the other cities».


The project

In September 2002, during the workshop at the Danish Institute at Athens,1 I intro-duced the basis to redefine the presence of amphorae and table wares in late Hel-lenistic and Roman Sicily. On that occasion, I underlined the difficulties in the real-ization of this work because studies were slow and published evidence was scarce andheterogeneous. Nowadays, the reconstruction of the ancient picture is somewhat eas-ier, thanks to the more precise and numerous information available: at that time,however, based on a preliminary analysis of the available archaeological and histori-cal data, I could only propose a first outline of the presence and working of the com-mercial network on Sicily. The first data were partial, yet primarily quantitative, thusconsidered reliable and useful to develop alternative proposals, from a historical, eco-nomic and social point of view.

When talking about the relationship between East and West we quoted some ex-cerpta from the «Vita Hilarionis» by Saint Jerome, a Palestinian saint from Gaza whowrote around ad 380. The presence in that text of nautae and negotiatores raised manyquestions. When archaeologists understood the importance of the historical data,and not only of the material, the hagiographic testimony became an important start-ing point to scan the economy and the commercial exchanges of antiquity.

In any case, the use of written material – even extremely important sources, suchas the «Verrinae» – is not always a valid means by which archaeologists and historianscan find out precisely what they are looking for.2 This information has to be combinedwith other documentation, concerning, for example, the complex road infrastructurenetwork3 – on an island where portoria4 and markets were surely vital –, the differenttypes (and quantities) of goods were exchanged,5 the origin and role of the com-mercial operators – whose presence is epigraphically attested – as well as the eco-nomic and cultural role of each city, both coastal and inland.

As previously stated, the extraordinary testimony offered by the «Verrinae» was ex-tremely useful in finding information about the status of Sicily and its cities, but it didnot provide us with precise information about other aspects, such as economy, pro-duction, and, in particular, handcrafts, which were presumably important for the Si-cilian economy and society. Likewise, the available epigraphic documentation can notgive us information about other economic sectors, such as textile, wood or other ma-terials’ manufacturing. The research began some years ago, starting with these con-siderations and recalling the long and lively debate about the economy of Roman Sici-ly; maybe this debate was focused too much on the organization, and agriculturalproducts, relationship between rural settlements and cities, and on the provision and

1 Malfitana 2004 a, pp. 239-250.2 Marino 2006, p. 8: «In questo quadro storiografico il potenziamento del dialogo con i colleghi archeologi può ren-

dere la Sicilia ancora territorio di molte domande che devono ricevere risposte dalla sistemazione organica dei risultatidegli scavi e in una visione di sintesi sui contesti che concorrerebbe a superare i limiti della sclerotizzazione testuale».

3 On the fact that the Sicilian road network should be analysed in connection with the archaeologicaldocumentation, see Uggeri 2004 (with bibliography).

4 About the portoria, see De Salvo 1992.5 Nowadays, there is no reference study about the presence of Roman pottery in Sicily; this study is doc-

umented only for specific classes. For example, for the Italian stamped terra sigillata, see Malfitana 2004 b.

roman sicily project: ceramics and trade 131the monumentalization of some urban areas. Our research started with an analysis –in the strict sense – of archaeological documentation, more precisely, the local andimported table wares or transport amphorae; it aimed at defining and creating a clearand affordable overview – composed of concrete data – to be used in every kind ofresearch on Roman Sicily, not only specifically related to the material analysed, but also to discover contact areas, movements, peoples and ideas that circulated in theSicily province.

We are sure that by studying material culture we can obtain a large quantity of in-formation that, properly used, could help us not only to verify the presence or ab-sence of some types of Roman pottery (which is our primary aim), but also to startan investigation concerning the settlements, the role of producers and owners, andthe social position of the artisans. In recent years, these areas of research in Sicily arebecoming better understood, for istance thanks to the publications of Alcamo Marina, introduced by E. Botte, or the important case of Santa Venera al Pozzo1 inthe hinterland of Catina, which is not completely published. If to that data we add –even gradually – some other studies about important archaeological places in Sicily,which are presently unpublished, we will finally have important means by which toreconstruct more precisely the political and economic history (by putting together forthe first time all the available data as an organic whole).

The chronological period we analysed covered the period from the creation of theprovince to the beginning of the late Antiquity (i.e. since the Romanization process2of the island till the Vandal and Byzantine incursions).3

The main research aim is to collect all the available published material4 concerningtable wares and commercial amphorae. The unpublished data obtained by the SicilyArchaeological Superintendence or universities and research institutes studying ar-chaeology on the island are for the moment omitted.

The first and main difficulty is to systematise the information available, by puttingall the quantitative data in a computerized data management system that should nec-essarily take into account the potential differences between the published material.Information about the same find usually diverges, because some were published be-fore the establishment of typologies (e.g., some texts were published before the J. W.Hayes volume Late Roman Pottery, 1972, or before the Atlanti delle forme ceramiche del-l’Enciclopedia dell’arte antica, classica ed orientale, 1981 and 1985). Some work is beingdone to solve this problem and to create a common ‘language’ by translating the dif-ferent classification systems into an easier terminology that is comprehensible by the

1 Branciforti 2006.2 About the concept of Romanization, its significance and its application, see the recent considerations

of Malfitana 2006 b. In Perkins 2007, pp. 34-35 there are more precise observations. These investigationsaim to define whether the Roman conquest was a hegemonic process rather than an osmotic process.

3 Concerning the Late Roman, Vandal and Byzantine phase, the author of the article himself and M.Bonifay are carrying out a recent research project funded for the years, 2008-2009, within the Scientific Co-operation and Research Agreement between the Italian cnr and the French cnrs, titled: «Archaeological andarchaeometrical problems in the African ceramic imports in Roman, Vandal and Byzantine Sicily. Status quaestion-is, methods and investigation approaches». See, Malfitana - Bonifay - Capelli (in press).

4 The operation consists of the reading of journals, excavation news, reports, museum catalogues, ex-hibitions and other material connected to Sicilian archaeological contexts.


whole scientific community and that also reflects the latest developments in the field.Here we present the first table (Table 1: pp. 174-180) that redefines the main classifi-cations of amphora types according to the most updated typologies. This must bedone to prevent some new ‘temporary’ terms, which are often coined during excava-tions and then maintained and which create additional confusion.

The project is based first on the observation of the areas (i.e. the different com-mercialization areas and, if known, the production areas on the island) and second onthe known ceramic typologies. In other words, we want to first underline the microand macro levels of commercialization, then the different weight of every ceramictype and consequently the weight of the production regions outside Sicily, while con-sidering presences and absences within the more general and homogeneous contextof the Mediterranean basin.

By reading, evaluating and interpreting the data, we must use great caution, because data is always heterogeneous, due to differential rates of publication of theresults or, even more often, due to the fact that for too many years publications re-mained simply preliminary. For these reasons we will obtain a heterogeneous ‘com-mercial’ overview that will still be beneficial to our project. Nevertheless, we will haveto fill the gaps with additional information, drawn by other documented areas. It isnot possible to postpone the collection of information about the existence of production complexes, and in particular of kilns, which are extremely important forreconstructing economic and production patterns.

Questions and research aims

During the various meetings I have taken part in the past few years (where we alsodiscussed this project in advance or some specific topics), some recurrent questionswere posed to me. Here I am going to repeat them because they directly relate to ourmain research aims. These questions are: how many pottery classes are there on theisland? Which are currently identifiable imports? Which are the most importantstratigraphic contexts? Which pottery comes from the East, and which comes fromthe West? Which are the local products, and why are they called «local»? What is theratio between local and imported products? Which are the most strategically impor-tant towns in the Sicily province? Where are the production centres on the island?Which kind of archaeometric information about Sicily can provide clear guidelinesto recognize local products and imitations? How was the data collected? Does it comefrom excavations or from surveys? What are the patterns of consumption (civil, reli-gious and military) that can be reconstructed? In which contexts were amphorae andtable wares used?

This is an admittedly long list of questions, which are difficult to answer defini-tively, due to the current lack of tools and means. Regardless, these questions are theguidelines of the entire project, and only by answering them can we have a first large-scale view that is perhaps still vague, but at least utilizes some complex, yet relevant,evidence.

Here we chose to introduce the first general observations collected and to post-pone the detailed publication (currently in progress) of the existing testimonies andof the quantities found. Here we also decided to present one particular case study of

roman sicily project: ceramics and trade 133interest – that of the amphora type Dressel 21-22 of the Alcamo Marina complex,which is very important for the study of Roman Sicily production.

Daniele Malfitana

The data collectionIn order to collect useful data for a historical-commercial reconstruction, it is neces-sary to treat information objectively from the beginning, thereby leaving the previ-ous historical and archaeological information aside.

For the investigative approach adopted, which underlies the observation and col-lection method, negative data is a key element, whereby, the absence of an amphoratype at a site has the same importance as its presence.

The presence or absence of a particular amphora type in an area makes it possibleto discover two important features of the general Roman economy:1) Productive specialisation: some sites based their economy on the production and exporta-

tion of one or two types of goods.2) Merchants used to prefer some commercial networks and routes, and they were part of a

big chain, which used to also connect very distant cities through an exchange system thatwas based on a common Roman hegemonic policy.

According to this view, it is imperative that the temporal area of interest be analysed.In fact, it will be useful to analyse the finds diachronically and synchronically. For thispurpose some distribution maps will be created using both temporal and typologicalperspectives. With these maps we can immediately make a comparison among thedata we have, which will form the basis of a precise and objective analysis of the dif-ferent contexts we were interested in. Only after this data observation – without pre-conceptions and with a readiness to accept all the information that the finds mightgive us – will it be possible to get specific understanding about the area, integratingthe data already known.

The tools used to observe the data will be:- Diachronic gis-based maps about the finds according to a chronological distinction of the

material found;- Distribution maps of chronological phases, for comparison of the presence and the types of

material in an area over different periods;- Distribution maps of some amphora and table ware types for identification of privilege dif-

fusion areas.

The final aim of data observation will make it possible to understand:- Distribution in larger and smaller geographic areas (starting with an observation of distri-

bution patterns in Sicily and then the observation of patterns throughout the Mediterraneanbasin);

- Presence of a specific pottery type at a site (discovered thanks to the data concerning the relationship between two sites) as the basis for understanding the commercial interests ofthe site;

- Types of goods and products exchanged in order to eventually find constant and planned exchange of raw material.

In this paper, we decide to present a preliminary distribution map of Sicily that showsall sites at which amphorae were founded. Map i (made by Giovanni Fragalà) and


built upon the Barrington Atlas map of ancient Sicily presents all known sites fromwhich data was included in the pottery database.

Consequently, we will discuss to the first data collected and its systematization; thenwe will analyse its economical implications.

Maria Giulia Morgano

The transport amphorae evidence

Eastern Sicily: a first overview

As it is not possible to focus on every single piece of data gathered from the surveysin eastern Sicily, we will set out to investigate and unravel aspects of greater impor-tance in order to classify the economic dynamics in the eastern part of province Sicilyduring the Imperial period. This will be performed through the analysis of the existing amphorae found in several urban and rural settlements.1

The territory of Messana and the Aeolian Islands had the most significant and di-versified role in this. In fact, recent archaeological studies in this area have tracedmore and more features of municipia characterized by a wide commercial movementand presence of different cultures. In this area the West and the East of the Empiremet, justifying the important description of the Island as a «concentrato di mediterra-neità».2

This area is better represented in the dataset in comparison to other Sicilian dis-tricts owing to constant surveying and rapid follow-up publications.

The published data underscores the presence of some amphorae production com-plexes. The most famous examples are the kilns that produced Richborough 527 am-phorae (Fig. 1), near the municipium of Lipara during the early Imperial period (Mapi, F2).3 The archaeometrical analyses have recognized the local origin of the vessels.It is possible that the amphorae transported alum rock,4 an important mineral for theeconomy of the Empire because of its numerous multi-functional uses across theeconomic spectrum (e.g. for tannery and medical use).

Our extensive knowledge on the municipium of Lipara, where the presence of east-ern amphorae (Cretan 1)5 is attested, is very insightful. In fact, sometimes these am-phorae were re-used in funeral contexts, suggesting an image of familiarity with thegoods from the eastern Mediterranean. In Lipara, we also found Gaulish amphorae(Gauloises 4), Iberian amphorae (Dressel 7/11) and African amphorae (African i-ii).6

1 The relationship of a city/hinterland, especially in the provinciae, plays a role of particular importanceas far as the phenomenon of production/consumption of goods is concerned, because every settlement isclosely linked to its hinterland, Arthur 2000, p. 68.

2 Pinzone 2002, pp. 111-125 and De Salvo 2002, p. 365.3 With regard to the kilns of the Early Imperial period found in Contrada Portinenti, see the study of

Ph. Bogard in Meligunìs x, pp. 255-344.4 On the alum rock from Lipari, Plin., Nat. Hist., xxxv 184. On the topic of alum, see Borgard - Ca-

pelli 2005.5 Village in Biviano’s property: Ancona 2000, pp. 99-112, Messina 2000, pp. 113-124; Roman Bath Complex,

Via Franza: Meligunìs x, pp. 226, 230; Funeral area, ex Terreno vescovile: Meligunìs xi, pp. 37, 41, 77, 199, 204, 288.6 Meligunìs ix, 2; pp. 355-377. For the Roman kiln and the dump attested in c.da Portinenti, see Meligunìs

x, p. 371.


The numerous underwater recoveries connected to wrecks (e. g. the Alberti wreck ofPanarea, wrecks a-c-m of Capo Graziano in Filicudi: Map i, F1)1 offer a vivid imageof a period of intense commercial activity related foremost to the African productsexported through the smaller Aeolian islands.

A prevalence of amphorae of presumed Sicilian origin is attested in Lipara duringthe late Roman period with the presence of Keay lii and, above all, the amphoraetype so-called Termini 151-354.2

Recently, new investigations have also revealed the presence of some amphoraekilns along the coast around the Aeolian Islands. Kilns have been discovered at Capod’Orlando, in the public Roman bath of the statio Agathyrnum3 situated along the an-cient Via Valeria (Map i, F2). These kilns produced the so-called Termini amphoratype 354-151.4 This type is oval in shape, and it seems to imitate Eastern amphorae pro-totypes5 and a type of wine amphora discovered in Naples and Rome (amphora cb2type)6 (Fig. 2). The production of this type of amphora is also attested in Caronia. Atthis coastal landing place, Calactae (Map i, E2), a statio along the Via Valeria in exis-

1 Alberti wreck: Cavalier - Livadie 1985, pp. 71-77; Parker 1992, p. 302, no. 784; Capo Graziano c wreck:Parker 1992, p. 118, no. 235. Capo Graziano m wreck: Parker 1992, p. 120, no. 242; about Filicudi see alsoSpigo 1996.

2 Messina 2000, pp. 113-124; Ancona 2000, pp. 99-112. 3 Spigo - Ollà - Capelli 2006.4 Two variants of this type of amphora have been recognised by the archaeologists: local amphora char-

acterised by an «orlo ingrossato con sezione più o meno triangolare», similar to amphora type Termini 354-151(iv-vth century ad) and a second variant with a «collo troncoconico, orlo svasato ed estremità arrotondata», seeN. Ollà in Spigo - Ollà - Capelli 2006, p. 455.

5 Local amphora with «orlo indistinto unito al collo troncoconico», considered as an imitation of a local glob-ular amphora produced in the Eastern Mediterranean (lr2 /Berenice 2), see Spigo - Ollà - Capelli 2006,pp. 444-455.

6 Local amphora with «orlo estroflesso con estremità rettilinea o lievemente scanalata», N. Ollà in Spigo - Ol-là - Capelli 2006, p. 455, can be compared to amphorae found in Naples (Carminiello type 17, see Arthur1998, p. 172, fig. 9) and Rome (cb2, see Saguì 1998, p. 321, fig. 10).

Fig. 1. Amphora Richborough 527 type from Lipari (after Meligunìs x, p. 289, fig. 1).


Fig. 2. A selection of amphorae from Capo d’Orlando(after Spigo - Ollà - Capelli 2006, p. 456, fig. 4).

roman sicily project: ceramics and trade 137tence from the Middle Imperial period, has been identified1 During the Early Imperi-al period the kilns produced amphorae Dressel 35 similis,2 while in the late Imperialtimes they produced amphorae cb2 type, characterized by a short, hollow base orstubby foot.3

Another workshop has been recognized in the territory of Furnari (Map i, G2),along the route of Via Valeria to Messana Diana.4 There, within a range of 80 km, threeamphorae ateliers are attested. Each produced vessels that were very similar in shapeand succesfully exported. It may be possible, if not highly probable, that the ampho-ra content may be connected with a story reported by Plinius Secundus in which hementioned the production of wine in this area at Haluntium.5 The Municipium ofHaluntium (Map i, F2) could be identified a few kilometres away from the moderncentre of Caronia.6 It may be that Caronia represented the commercial centre andwas an outlet in the wine trade. Plinius’s sources date this production to the Early Im-perial period; the archaeological evidence of the kilns would confirm this productionalso for the following periods.

In the coastal municipium of Mylae7 (Map i, G2), new surveys have attested the pres-ence of an important industrial complex for the production of foods made from fish.8The surveys have revealed an important group of transport amphorae and vesselswhich are currently being studied. Perhaps the data will turn at to correlate with da-ta connected to the probable presence of «vasche per pescicoltura»,9 found next to Riv-iera di Ponente (Capo S. Antonio). The presence of these vessels may signal that thisproduction had a particularly important role in the municipal economy.

In the municipium of Messana10 (Map i, H2) three important productive complexeswere in use during the Late Roman period. Each of these complexes has its special-ization. For instance, the village of Gazzi11 (Map i, H2) produced oil and wine, and itis probable that the wine was exported as far as Carthage.12

The village of Ganzirri was situated near the Traiectus (Map i, H2), as part of thewider suburban agglomerate of Pistunina13 (Map i, H2) within the boundaries ofMessana. Given its location, it was perhaps connected to rural activities.14 It is the lo-cation of the Valerii villa, which was inhabited by owners, Anicius Pinianus and Mela-nia Iunior, during the Vandal invasion of Rome, as well as the established site of thebig pars rustica. The excavation of those three sites produced Keay lii amphorae from

1 Uggeri 2004, p. 134. 2 Scibona 1969, p. 228; Wilson 1990, pp. 263 and 402, no. 127.3 Bonanno - Sudano 2007, p. 442.4 Bonanno - Sudano 2007, p. 442. In the locality of Tonnarella in 1994, archaeologists have found a kiln

dump in a context dating back to the iii-ivth century ad, with many amphora fragments similar to the onesfound in Caronia, see Bonanno - Sudano 2007, p. 442. About amphorae in Calacte see also Lentini - Gö-ransson - Lindhagen 2002. 5 Plin., Nat. Hist., xiv, 80.

6 The community of Haluntium, cited by Plinius, was among the municipia created with the Augustanreform. (Plin., Nat. Hist., iii 90) It is commonly identified with the modern centre of S. Marco d’ Alunzio,Wilson 1990, p. 149. 7 Mylae: Oppidum (Plin., Nat. Hist., 3, 90).

8 Tigano 2003, pp. 281-295. 9 Tigano 1997, pp. 19-20, no. 16.10 Messana: Oppidum Civium Romanorum (Plin., Nat. Hist., 3, 88).11 About Gazzi see Bonanno 2001, pp. 195-205.12 This production has been connected to a wine called Mamertinum produced in Messina and men-

tioned by Plinius: Plin., Nat. Hist., xiv, 66, 97; above the wine see also Portale 2006, p. 49.13 Bacci 2001, p. 217. 14 Tigano 1997-1998, pp. 487-506.


Naxos, lra and also African i, Tripoli-tanian ii and iii, Knossos 4/5 from theeastern Mediterranean.

The first phenomenon observed isthat each of these territorial entitiesseems to play an important role in thelocal micro-economy by placing at theforefront particular goods for trade. Li-para produced alum-rock during thefirst imperial period, Milazzo perhapsproduced salted fish, and the coastalcentres on the Tyrrhenian Sea pro-duced wine.

The situation of the coastal areas,which opened out to the Ionian Sea, isalso extremely complex. The coloniae of

Tauromenion, Catina and Syracusae were characterized by a harbour area projecting to-wards the Eastern Mediterranean and by a rural basin more or less placed immedi-ately behind them inland.

Some small coastal and subcoastal centres – a villa dated to the iiird century ad(Scifì-Forza d’Agrò)1 (Map i, G3), a late Roman settlement (Marina di Itala -MonteScuderi: Map i, G2)2 and a statio viaria (S. Alessio - Statio Palmae: Map i, G3)3 – haveoffered amphorae produced at Naxos (amphorae Spinella type (Fig. 3), Keay lii (Figs.4-5), Tripolitanian and in the eastern Mediterranean regions (Kapitaen ii, Agorà F65-F66, lra2).

The role of the Tauromenion colony (Map i, G3), which probably maintained a con-nection with the rural basin that produced wine, as remembered by Plinius Secundus(the Elder Pliny),4 must have been important, even if this relationship is still not suffi-ciently known and understood. In fact, only recently a relation has been proposed be-tween this rural basin and the amphorae attested at Naxos.5

The role of the port of Naxos (Map i, G3), known for its complex of Horrea, wherewine dolia have been found,6 is connected to the activities of local amphora kilns inuse from the Hellenistic to the late Roman period. They produced amphorae desig-nated for the transport of the local wine.7 The local production has been confirmedby archeometrical analysis.8 The local amphorae are of small dimension. In the ear-ly phases, the kilns produced amphorae similar to Dressel 2-4 (in the small and bigmodule) (Figs. 6-7), and later they produced a sort of Gauloises imitation (Figs. 8-9).9The production continued into the Early Imperial period with amphorae of the

1 Lentini - Ollà 2001 a, pp. 123-129. 2 Lentini - Ollà 2001 b, pp. 107-114.3 Statio Palmae sive Tamariciae, It. Ant., 87, 13. On the identification of the statio see, Lentini 1982, p. 163,

Lentini - Ollà 2001 c, pp. 115-121 and Portale 2005, p. 39; Sirena 2006, p. 3.4 Plin., Nat. Hist., xiv, 16; on the Naxian wine see Wilson 1999, p. 268.5 Statio Naxos, It. Ant., 87, 2, Uggeri 2004, pp. 206-207, Lentini 2001, pp. 26-29.6 Lentini 2001, p. 25. 7 Lentini 2001, pp. 20-21.8 Williams 2001, pp. 61-62. 9 Ollà 2001, p. 49.

Fig. 3. Spinella type amphora from Naxos(after Ollà 2001, p. 48, fig. 7).


Spello type. The Spello amphorae (Figs. 10-11) have some variants: the S. Alessio type(Fig. 12) which derive their S. Alessio type-name from the name of the wreck from

Figs. 4-5. Keay lii produced in Naxos (after Ollà 2001, p. 52, fig. 18 and p. 56, no. 16).

Figs. 6-7. Dressel 2/4 amphora from Naxos (after Ollà 2001, p. 48, fig. 2 and p. 54, no. 2).


which were first recovered, and the Spinella type.1 During the middle Imperial peri-od the kilns produced amphorae of the mra1 type,2 and in the late Roman period they

1 Ollà 2001, p. 49.2 On the production of amphorae type mra1 in Naxos, see Ollà 2001, p. 53, no. 16 and above all, Wil-

son 1990, p. 264, fig. 224 and p. 402 no. 128. Wilson confronts the amphorae found in Spinella property of

Figs. 8-9. Gauloises amphorae from Naxos (after Ollà 2001, p. 48, fig. 5 and p. 55, no. 5).

Figs. 10-11. Flattened wine amphora base from Naxos (after Ollà 2001, p. 49, fig. 7 and p. 54, no. 4).

roman sicily project: ceramics and trade 141produced Keay lii, which was consid-ered as an «estrema evoluzione»1 of thetypical flattened wine amphora baseproduced at Naxos

Naxos had to be, therefore, not onlya port, but a commercial settlement forexporting local wine.

The situation is different in relationto the southern region of Naxos, a ter-ritory characterized by small rural set-tlements located between Mt. Etna’sslopes and the Ionian Sea, and said to belocated along the inner road of Via Pom-peia.2 We know little about these places,in many cases only the names have beenattested (e.g., Calatabiano or c.da An-nunziata: Map i, G3), but they are im-portant because they suggest the pres-ence of settlements characterized bymono-cultivation – in this case probablywine, as suggested epigraphically in ref-erence to the production of woodenbarrels for wine and as attested from theliterary sources.3

Along Via Pompeia, near Santa Veneraal Pozzo – statio Acium – (Map i, G3), an-other complex of kilns for the produc-tion of wine amphorae has been identi-fied.4 This complex is dated to thebeginning of the ivth century ad, from the presence of coins dating to Constantionsthe Great. The kilns produced amphorae of the types Benghazi mr1,5 Keay liii andtheir variants (Late Roman Amphora 1), as well as building materials.6 The nearby

Naxos with some amphorae published by Riley 1981, pp. 177-179. Wilson finds the same amphorae in MonteCampanaio (Ag), in Marsala (Tp), in S. Vito Lo Capo (Tp), and in Isola della Femmine (Pa: Map i, C2). Heis decidedly leaning towards of a Sicilian origin of this type (contra Manacorda in Ostia iv, pp. 130-232:Tripolitania; Riley 1981, pp. 177-179: Tunisia). About these problems see also Bonifay 2004, pp. 147-148.

1 This particular type of amphora is characterized by a flat bottom and a small ring foot and had beenpreviously defined in many ways: Forlimpopoli type i-iii (Moschella 1994); mra1 type, (Bacci 2001, p. 27).This type has been defined also as amphora S. Alessio type by Lentini and Ollà. For this amphora see, Ol-là 2001, p. 118. 2 See, Uggeri 2004, pp. 205-206.

3 cil x, 2, 7040; Strab. Geog. vi, 2-3; Expos. lxv, ggm 126, 8-9.4 Statio Acium, It. Ant., 87, 3. See, Uggeri 2004, pp. 203-204 and Tortorici 2002, p. 321, see also the pre-

vious bibliography.5 Amphora Keay lii type by the author: see Amari 2006, pp. 143, n. 5; 144, n. 6. I thank D. Malfitana and

M. Bonifay for their remarks as mr1.6 Excavations carried out by the Superintendence of Catania; for a first edition of these types see Ama-

ri 2006, pp. 105-183 and Amari 2007, pp. 121-128.

Fig. 12. Amphora S. Alessio type fromCapo S. Alessio wreck

(after Ollà 2001, p. 118, fig. 3).


harbour of Capo Mulini (Map i, G3) may indicate the first step of a «vero e proprio sis-tema integrato per lo sbarco, lo stivaggio, il trasporto e la ridistribuzione delle merci», destinedup to the colony of Catina.1

We know very little about the presence of amphorae found in the urban excava-tions of Catina (Map i, G3) despite the importance of this great port city, which facedtowards the eastern Mediterranean and which the ruling class have been interested insince the Middle Imperial period.

We also have very little information about the amphorae of the middle Imperi-al date and that were found in the Roman quarter in the city near the hill of Mon-tevergine.2

The only exception to this poverty of knowledge is offered by recent underwatersurveys carried out close to the harbour.3

There is also insufficient information concerning the rural area of Catina mentionedin the ancient sources. This area had to be extended from the southern hinterland nearEtna to the Margi valley and was characterized by the existence of expansive and richprivate properties (e.g. praedia Afiniana,4 the rural estate of Vibius Severus,5 belongingto important members of the city elites (e.g. the property of Domitia Longina near toRamacca).6 The production was most probably grain and barley, perhaps alternatingwith pod or olive and grapewine.7 In the town of Rocchicella near Menai (Mineo) (Mapi, F4) Keay lxi amphorae have been discovered.8 This area made use of some zones,particularly, in the area between Agnone and Castelluccio (Map i, G4), for the trade ofgoods among which lra 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 10, African II and spatheia amphorae were present.The goods could have been transported via the S. Leonardo river.9

During the Imperial period Megara’s statio (Map i, G4) along the via Pompeia a Cati-na Syracusis was a centre for urban settlements that probably connected to the statio.10The discovery of Keay lxii and lra2, in a village in the same area allows us to dateback the village from the vth to the viith centuries ad.11

The situation of Syracusae (Map i, G4) is still undefined. From the surrounding ar-eas, the presence of amphorae has been confirmed at two late Roman contexts: a fu-neral hypogeum (Priolo Gargallo, c.da Spatinelli: Map i, G4) characterized by the useof spatheia as funeral equipment12 and a small rural village (Sortino, C.da Giarra-nauti: Map i, G4) which has given us above all North African cylindrical amphorae(Keay xxxiv type) and spatheia.13

With regard to the colony of Syracusae, a most important harbour city,14 we knowabout the existence of manufacturing industries since the Hellenistic period. They also had a significant production in the Early Imperial period. In the quarter of the

1 Tortorici 2003, p. 332.2 Branciforti - Amari 2005, pp. 48-77; for the history of the colonia, see Molè 1999.3 Landing site in Catania-Villa Pacini, Ognina, Acicastello, Acitrezza, Capo Mulini, Tortorici 2002, pp.

272-335. 4 cil, x, 2, 7041, i-iith century ad.5 cil x, 7022 b, Misterbianco, ii-iiith century ad.6 ae 1985, 483; about the settlements and findings from these sites see Bonacini 2007.7 Valenti 1997-1998. 8 Arcifa (in press).9 La Fauci 2004, pp. 21-26. 10 Sirena 2006.11 Cacciaguerra 2007. 12 Picone 1994, p. 141.13 Basile 1996. 14 Plin., Nat. Hist., 3, 89.

roman sicily project: ceramics and trade 143kerameikos there was production of a ceramic type called «a pasta grigia» (the so-calledCampana C), which was later replaced by the «ceramica di Sangiuliano» and by a ce-ramic «a pareti sottili» (thin-walled) in the ist century ad. Unfortunately, these classesof pottery are still generally unknown.1 However, published data from the excava-tions of the city are scarce. Our extensive knowledge on amphorae has been attainedfrom excavations carried out in the late Roman cemeteries; the cemetery found at Vil-la Maria,2 the hypogeum of Saint Giuliano,3 and a small amphora dump dating to theEarly Imperial period found near the necropolis of Saint Lucia (vi-viith century ad).4Other amphorae come from the so-called «Piccolo Porto» or Lakkios, a small repairedport, which is no longer accessible due to rising sea levels.5 We do have some infor-mation thanks to a published pottery catalogue that contains amphorae coming froman important Late Roman urban cemetery (Vigna Cassia cemetery and Vigna Cassiahypogeum).6

A large amount of information on amphorae produced in the Aegean area (Kapi-taen i and ii and lra 1 and 2) comes from underwater discoveries.7

Because of these attestations we have to reconsider the observations of J. Rougè,according to whom the presence of three great ports along the Ionian coast of Sicilywas considered excessive in relation to the geographical lenght of the coast.8 Despitethe fact that the coast was not very wide, the trade around this area was highly prof-itable as is becoming evident from the discoveries.

Few attestations of amphorae are noted from the immediate coastal enclaves southof the colony of Syracusae, which were connected with the surrounding areas via theDirillo River. This river represents the natural border of the Southern coast of Sicilyand a boundary of the territory of Agrigentum. Morphologically the coast of Syracusaeis characterized by a series of small natural landing sites active during the Imperial pe-riod and connected through the extension per maritima loca of the ancient Via Helori-na, that joined together the coastal area with Syracusae.9 The inner landscape is char-acterized by the Iblei plateau crossed by a Roman period road, the so-called ViaSelinuntina,10 which corresponded to an earlier, Hellenistic, route.

Compared to the few sites/settlements inhabited during the early centuries of theEmpire, we observe a growth in the number of small rural villages from the ivth cen-tury ad. They are often testified to by the presence of tombs and cemeteries.

Cities under a Roman administration and statute are few, for example Camarina11(Map i, E5) and Gela12 (Map i, E4), and both seem to fall into disuse since the Au-gustan period. Recent topographical surveys are more and more lending support to

1 About these problems see Malfitana 2006a, p. 408. 2 Fallico 1971, pp. 581-639.3 Gentili 1956, pp. 156-158. 4 Orsi 1925, p. 204.5 Kapitaen 1967-1968, pp. 167-180. 6 Ancona 1998.7 Recent research (La Fauci 2002) has taken care to organize the previous bibliography in order to offer

a new comprehension of many wrecks found in the area of Capo Ognina.8 Rougè 1966, p. 136. 9 It. Ant., p. 95. 10 Uggeri 2004, p. 183 sgg.11 The settlement is situated on the route of the ancient via Helorina per marittima loca, Uggeri 2004, p.

221.12 In this area the existence of praedia and of the mansio Calvisana has been attested, cited by It. Ant.,

89, 6; 95, 7.


the image during the middle and late Roman periods of a territory characterized bymany productive small villages. These centres of rural aggregation, defined also ascentres of «mercati permanenti e mercati periodici»,1 played an important role within theeconomical dynamics of the Late Roman period. This phenomenon is becoming vis-ible thanks to recent surveys and some published data coming from excavations (e.g.,Cava d’Ispica (Map i, F5), Caucana-Punta Secca (Map i, F5), Pachino (Portus Pachinus:Map i, G5, see infra).

We can distinguish hill cities (e.g. Modica,2 Mutyce: Map i, F5 and Ragusa:3 HyblaHeraia: Map i, F5) that may have controlled the surrounding rural hinterland.4 Be-tween the Ippari and Dirillo rivers a rural hill area has been discovered that produceda local wine, perhaps the so-called Mesopotamium. The Mesopotamium, a famous winereported by painted inscriptions dating back to the Early Imperial period attested onamphorae, was exported to Pompeii, Carthage and Vindonissa.5

Villae, such as Tellaro’s villa, and the villas found at Falconara di Noto and in S.Teresa Longarini,6 represent important aspects of this territory in Sicily.7 Keay lii am-phorae have come from the late layers of the Roman villa in Borgellusa near Avola8(Map i, G5). The villa was productive from the beginning of the ist century ad untilthe vth century. It is possible to connect this villa to a little rural complex found notfar from S. Marco di Avola9 (Map i, G5), and it is characterized by the presence ofstructures for producing and storing wine, oil and cereals.

These small villae can be linked to coastal harbours that are characterized by smalllanding-stages, which have been flourishing since the Late Roman period. During theLate Roman time, it is possible to notice a phenomenon that characterizes this south-ern area of Sicily. There appears to have been a boom of small and medium-sized set-tlements (vici?) sited near ports and characterized by the presence of famous wrecks(Marzamemi’s wreck a, b, d f, k, j: Map i, G5).

All of these Roman wrecks suggest long-term use and the commercial importanceof the route of the Sicily channel, especially for ships coming from the EasternMediterranean (as attested by the discovery of many examples of Kapitän i-ii) andfrom Tunisia (African cylindrical amphorae).10

It emerges, therefore, the great potentiality of this geographical area, situated between the Sicily channel, the hinterland of Syracuse and the rural settlements ofsouthern Sicily. Unfortunately, however, the ancient condition of this area is still notwell known.

1 Cracco Ruggini 2000, p. 172.2 Modica/Mutyca: hill-top town along the via Helorina a Mesopotamium ad Hereum, see Portale 2006, p. 43.3 The condition of the city of Ragusa/Hybla has been considered as an example of a part of Sicily in

which «flourishing urban centres were not a major feature in the landscape», Wilson 2005, p. 228.4 Portale 2006, p. 43.5 cil iv, 2602; cil viii, 22640,8. Uggeri 2004, p. 221 considers the wide and fertile hinterland close to

the modern centre of Vittoria as the ancient statio Mesopotamia.6 On Tellaro villa, Wilson 2005, p. 234; on S. Teresa Longarini villa (iii ad?): Wilson 1990, pp. 211-212;

on Falconara villa: Wilson 1990, p. 389, no. 94.7 About the predominant rural importance of this geographical area, see Wilson 2005, p. 234.8 Basile 1994, p. 25, no. 20. 9 Wilson 1990, p. 192.10 On all of these wrecks see Parker 1992, pp. 267, no. 670; p. 267, no. 673; p. 268, no. 675; p. 269, no. 678;

p. 269, no. 679.

roman sicily project: ceramics and trade 145We can only report some exceptions, as in the case of the city of Modica and its

ager (studied by V. G. Rizzone and A. M. Sammito) and the cities of Vendicari1 (Mapi, G5), Castellazzo della Marza2 (Map i, F5), and Caucana3 (Map i, F5). At these sites,the recovery of African cylindrical amphorae testifies the important relations withAfrican provinces,4 and the discovery of amphorae from Egypt (lra7) and the East-ern Mediterranean (lra1, amphora “Samos cistern type”)5 also indicate broad ex-change networks.

The most relevant and important data for the purposes of this discussion concernsthe city of Pachino (Portus Pachyni: Map i, G5), where the presence of kilns for theproduction of amphorae has been attested. The kilns were sited close to an artisanalarea for the production of salted fish.6 In the same territory, also known in ancienttimes for the evidence of salt-mines,7 archaeologists have found another area for theproduction of salted fish sauce in Capo Passero.8 Also, in this case, the local produc-tion of amphorae could be correlated to the production of consumer goods. It is pos-sible to reconsider the role of Pachino-Capo Passero, at the most southern point ofSicily, as an important center for production and trade of goods along the Easternroute of the Mediterranean Sea.

Anna Lisa Palazzo

Western Sicily: a first overview

The data collected comes essentially from a range of systematic investigations andsurveys made in Sicily over the last 50 years.9

The published data10 gives us a heterogeneous view full of discontinuities and dif-ferences, which also concern the presence of amphoras on the island. This variegat-ed data – together with the natural geomorphological features of Sicily and its over-all geographic size – led to the application of a micro-areal study, based on theinvestigation of small areas. From the general data presentation we can obtain sum-marized reflections about amphorae imports and about local handcraft production,but these reflections may obviously be modified later in the course of the research.At the same time, it is possible to discover – on the basis of the archaeological evi-

1 Modica: Rizzone 1997 and Rizzone-Sammito 2001, pp. 5-141; Cittadella di Vendicari (Map i, G5): Ar-cifa 2000, pp. 234-241. 2 Uggeri 1997-1998, p. 326.

3 Pelagatti - Di Stefano 1999, pp. 9-11 and 21; De Romanis 2004, pp. 303-312 and Wilson 2005.4 Fallico 2005, pp. 201-222: African cylindrical amphorae. Wilson 1990, p. 231 and Wilson 2005, pp. 223-

237 proposed similarities with North-African villages inhabited in Tunisia and in Tripolitania during the ivth

century ad. About this see also Sgarlata 2005.5 See Pelagatti 1972, p. 100 and, for the type, Arthur 1985, p. 253, tav. 6.1 (Naples).6 Wilson 1990, p. 393, no. 177.7 Portus Pachyni, a town on the southern tip of eastern Sicily, was also the site of a cemetery, Agnello

1953, pp. 167-183. Bacci 1982-1983, pp. 345-347. On salt-mines near Pachino (Lacus Cocanicus: Plin., Nat. Hist.,xxxi, 73, 79) see Wilson 1990, p. 237 and Portale 2006, pp. 53-54.

8 Pachino: Bacci 1982-1983, pp. 345-347; Capo Passero: Bacci 1984-1985, Wilson 2005, p. 232.9 For a summary of the new historiographical approaches and of the most recent archaeological re-

search about Roman Sicily, see Campagna 2003. Exemplar is the critical approach of Portale 2006, al-though it concerns the Hellenistic-Roman periods.

10 The majority of the research was made on occasion and the results were edited in different publica-tions, or in mere preliminary reports.


dence – new information about the settlement dynamics through the Roman, LateRoman and Byzantine times.

Over the last twenty years the most important surveys in Western Sicily have beencarried out in areas close to the cities of the Classical period, the best known beingHeraclea Minoa1 (Map i, C4), Himera2 (Map i, D3) and Entella3 (Map i, C3). Otherprojects tried to determine the diachronic changes in Roman agricultural areas andvillages, including the quarters of Campanaio4 (Montallegro: Map i, C4), Castagna5(Map i, C4), Saraceno6 di Favara (Map i, D4) and Cignana7 (Map i, D4) in the area ofAgrigentum (Map i, C4). Few urban archaeology investigations were made systemati-cally, including Thermae Himeraeae8 (Termini Imerese: Map i, D3), Agrigentum9 (Mapi, C4), Ietas10 (Monte Iato: Map i, C3), Segesta11 (Map i, B3), Philosophiana12 (Map i,E4) and partially Panhormus13 (Map i, C2), Lilybaeum 14 (Marsala: Map i, A3), and inthe modern town of Milena15 (Map i, D4).

Information about the amphora production centres is available to us thanks to thearchaeometric investigations of the pottery of Thermae Himeraeae, Segesta, Agrigen-tum16 and more recently Alcamo Marina17 (Map i, B2) (in a quarter called Foggia).These investigations provide information about the origin of some transport am-phorae, considered to be local.

On the northwestern coast of Sicily there are still some aspects to clarify concern-ing amphorae presence and commercial exchanges during the Roman period. A re-cent fundamental advance in transport amphorae study was made thanks to somespecific surveys made by the Archaeological Superintendence of Palermo – started in1990 – in order to locate all Roman sites in the province. The previous documentationhas been deeply enriched by these. For example, in 1986 there were 63 known sites,and today there are 323. Some of them were systematically analysed, as we can seefrom different sources.18 However, there is little information about the transport con-tainers, their different types and their quantities.

Thanks to these recent investigations we were able to obtain some general infor-mation. First, the few identified towns were primarily situated along the coasts: Pan-

1 Wilson 1980-1981; Wilson 1981. 2 Himera iii 1, 2.3 Entella 1988, pp. 1478-1491; Canzanella 1988; Canzanella 1992; Canzanella 1993.4 Wilson 1982; Wilson 1990, Wilson 1996, Wilson 2000.5 Wilson 1985; Wilson 1993; Wilson 1996.6 Castellana-McConnell 1986; Castellana-McConnel 1990; Castellana 1992.7 Fiorentini 1993-1994, p. 729. 8 Termini Imerese.9 In particular, for the testimonies of Paleochristian Agrigentum, see Bonacasa Carra 1986; Bonacasa

Carra 1987; Bonacasa Carra 1990; Agrigento 1995; Bonacasa Carra 1996.10 Isler 1991.11 Camerata Scovazzo 1993-1994, p. 1452; Camerata Scovazzo 1996; Molinari 1997 and other

contributions in Atti delle Seconde Giornate internazionali di studi sull’area elima, Atti del Convegno (Gibellina,22-26 October 1994), Pisa-Gibellina, 1997 and Terze Giornate Internazionali di Studi sull’area Elima, Atti del convegno (Gibellina-Erice-Contessa Entellina 1997), Pisa-Gibellina, 2000.

12 The most recent are: La Torre 1993-1994; La Torre 1994; Bonacasa Carra 2002.13 The most recent are: Bonacasa Carra 2000; Di Stefano 2002, pp. 310-312; Spatafora 2003.14 Di Stefano 1980, pp. 14-17; Di Stefano 1980-1981; Di Stefano 1982-1983, pp. 355-358; Di Stefano

1984; Caruso 2000. 15 Arcifa - Tomasello 2005.16 Agrigento: Agrigento 1995; Agrigento and Termini Imerese: Belvedere et alii 1998 a; Belvedere et

alii 1998 b. 17 Giorgetti 2006.18 Vassallo - Greco 1992; Di Stefano 1997-1998; Di Stefano 2002.

roman sicily project: ceramics and trade 147hormus (Map i, C2), Soluntum (Map i, D2), Thermae Himeraeae (Map i, D3) andCephaloedium (Map i, E2) were located on the Via Valeria.1 The archaeological inves-tigation demonstrated that these cities were economically dynamic since the MiddleImperial period; this dynamism continued through time and increased in the ivth cen-tury. Next, the importance of the cities is very much connected to their topographi-cal positions and to the presence of their ports. During the Late Roman period, theseports were part of a commercial network, which was connected with the route of thegrain supply to the city of Rome.2 This is particularly the case after Constantinopleobtained the right to use Egyptian wheat resources in ad 332.3 It is for this reason thatSicily became important to the economic interests of the Empire by becoming a support for the wheat convoys coming from Africa. In fact, at certain times (famine,meteorological problems, etc.), the island was the supply base of extraordinary quan-tities of cereals to Rome.4

In northwestern Sicily, apart from Thermae Himeraeae, very few amphorae werefound in the urban contexts that were stratigraphically analysed.5

In Cephaloedium (Map i, E2) almost all the amphorae found were among the car-goes of wrecks (Capo Plaia, La Calduna). In the wreck found at La Calduna, at the footof the promontory on which the urban site is set, the majority of the material com-prised of amphorae (spatheia, lra3) and African red slip wares. The shipwreck is dat-ed at the vith century ad.6 The most recent amphora dated, from the period analysed,has aspects in common with both an amphora type having an umbo-shaped bottom– possibly produced in North Africa7 – and a type coming from the Black Sea and theAegean area (Kuzmanov xx type).8 Both types of containers are attested in Italy fromthe second half of the vith century to the viiith century, and they were found at somesites on the Black and Mediterranean Seas.9

The material of the «Mandralisca collection» at the archaeological museum of themodern city of Cefalù are few, but relevant. The collection is made up of differentmaterials, such us inscriptions, vessels, and stamped amphorae. Despite the impossi-bility of reconstructing their provenance, this collection is an important contributionto the circulation of stamped amphorae in Sicily, and it confirms the importance ofthe epigraphic data in reconstructing ancient routes. In the case of Almagro 50 ofBaetic origin, it was possible to make a precise comparison within other material forwhich the origin was known.10

One of the sites with the most relevant and largest presence of ceramic material isThermae Himeraeae (Termini Imerese: Map i, D3), with important findspots, such as

1 This road served the northern Sicily coast, and it is called «Valeria» in Strabo, Strab. vi 266. To re-construct its route, see Uggeri 2004, pp. 117-162.

2 A rich bibliography about this really discussed issue. In general, Vera 1997-1998.3 Cod. Iust. xi 2-4 (ed. Krueger, Berlin, 1877, p. 428 sgg.). For this issue, see Cracco Ruggini 1982-1983,

in partic. pp. 482-483, note 9. 4 Vera 1989, pp. 166-167.5 I am talking about the fragments of the cities of Panhormus and Soluntum. For the specific data, infra.6 Purpura 1983. The dating was made thanks the finding of some eastern amphorae of Byzantine

period, such as lra3 and some North African spatheia.7 Lusuardi Siena - Murialdo 1991, p. 138 and p. 136, tab. 9. 8 Kuzmanov 1973, p. 19, no. xx.9 For an up-to-date distribution map of these types, Lebole 1998, pp. 763-764, fig. 3.10 Garozzo 2003, p. 614, note 558. For a distribution map of these amphorae, see Denaro 1995, p. 192,

fig. 5.


the «Villa di Buonfornello»1 (Map i, D3), «Villa di Terre Bianche»2 and «Costa Schia-vo» centre.3 More precisely, the data about the amphorae4 supports the hypothesis ofa long occupation at these sites are.

«Villa di Terre Bianche» is an exemplifying case. Its most ancient amphorae dateback to the ist century ad (Dressel 21-22 types), and the majority of finds are AfricanImperial amphorae from the first half of the iiird century, while others date to the vth

century (types Keay xxvb) or between the first half of the vth and the beginning ofthe viith century (types Keay lxiia and g; xxxva, lxiv). The presence of the typesxxxv and lxii – both with their two variants, a and b – prove that the commercial relationship with North Africa (Tunisia) also continued after the Vandals incursionsin Sicily.

In the same area, important programmes of investigations – started over ten yearsago – began to define settlement modalities5 and the origin of the ceramic products.6

This happened with the small, spherical or ovoid amphorae with short and thinnecks that seem to be imitations of Eastern amphorae;7 in the publication of Ther-mae Himeraeae they are called «Termini Imerese Type 151-354» (Fig. 13). Their charac-teristic feature is that the handle on the neck of the container frequently has artisan’shandprints. These containers were found in strata of the ivth and vth centuries in thecity Thermae Himeraeae (Termini Imerese), in the Paleochristian necropolis of Agri-gentum and in Lipara.8 The investigations carried out on the fabric have revealed thattheir composition is very similar to the composition of types of pottery probably pro-duced in Sicily (eg. lamps and coarse wares, also produced in the Middle Imperial pe-riod). The amphorae were interpreted as wine containers.9 Their commerce wasprobably small-scale and within the regional context.

These types of amphora were recently compared to some transport containers(types 1 and 2) of the second phase of use in the public roman bath at Bagnoli – SanGregorio10 (Map i, F2), around 3 km away from Agathyrnum (Map i, F2, Capo d’Or-lando, in the Messina district), dated to between the middle of the vth century and thefirst decades of the vith century. The archaeometric analysis11 carried out on the types

1 The villa should have been a stopping place, as also G. Uggeri stated, Uggeri 2004, p. 84.2 Vassallo in Himera iii, 2, p. 354 sgg. 3 Vassallo in Himera iii, 2, pp. 349-354.4 For the catalogue of the material, Cucco 1995.5 «Carta Archeologica d’Italia Project» (1999-2001). This project has expanded the researches in the area

of Termini and in the area of the watershed of the river Northern Imera and Southern Imera, for the re-sults, see the volume no. 42 of the Forma Italiane, Burgio 2002.

6 Archeometrical researches on the pottery found in Termini Imerese, in collaboration with the Istitutodi Mineralogia e Petrografia dell’Università di Palermo. For their results, see Belvedere et alii 1998 A e B.

7 Termini Imerese, pp. 59-67 and pp. 223-225. The excavators think that the lra1 amphorae maybe havebeen a specimen for the production of the containers of Termini.

8 Messina 2000, pp. 113-124; Ancona 2000, pp. 99-112.9 It is desirable to identify the local amphora productions and to define the extension of the commerce

of Sicilian wines during the Imperial age. About this problem, see Panella 1993; Wilson 1990, p. 192.10 Spigo - Ollà - Capelli 2006, p. 455, note 35. In particular, fig. 4, no. 1, 4 (“type 1” with a thick edge

and triangular-sectional-shaped); nos. 6, 7 (‘type 2’ with a slightly bell-shaped edge and rounded ex-tremities).

11 See appendix by C. Capelli in Spigo - Ollà - Capelli 2005, pp. 460-462. In particular, the amphoraecompared with the types found in Thermae Himeraeae are of the group 1, probably of local production, asproven by the petrographic characteristics of the fabric.


Fig. 13. “Termini Imerese Type 151-354” (after Termini Imerese, nos. 177, 511, 512, 513, 850, 851).

(not in scale)


at Bagnoli confirmed a local production of small morphologically varying amphorae(Fig. 2).

In regards to the imports found in Thermae Himeraeae (Termini Imerese), a certainobservation emerges: in strata of the ivth and vth centuries there are almost exclusivelyAfrican containers, but of different types («Anfore cilindriche grandi» and spatheia). Inthe middle of the vth century we stress a slight contraction of imports, but in the ur-ban stratigraphies, the presence of the amphorae types Keay xxxv and lxii – bothwith their two variants, a and b – proves that the commercial relationship with NorthAfrica also continued after the Vandals invaded Sicily.1 The single eastern fragmentbelongs to the type lra4.2

Moving westward, by the western part of Sicily, the settlement modalities and thedata about the amphorae provide us with a different view. During the Middle Impe-rial period the occupied areas expanded over the region and were usually providedwith production establishments.3 In the countryside, villages flourished, showing alively economic activity, supported by the ceramic findings.

In Segesta (Map i, B3) there is an limited presence of Dressel 1 amphorae4 (withfew fragments represented) and a presence of some of the oldest types of Greco-Ital-ic wine amphorae, not from the Tyrrhenian in central Italy, but quite possibly fromSicily. This would confirm that, both for the city and its surrounding area, (a similarpattern is evidenced across all of Sicily) «un’ampia diffusione non solo del vino italico, maanche di quello di produzione locale»5 was common.

Type Dressel 21-22 amphorae complete the assemblage of amphorae at Segesta.The archaeometric analyses carried out on these have shown they were producedin western Sicily, probably in the area of Segesta, although apparently at a smallscale.6

Between the ist and the ivth centuries ad in the area of Segesta various otherwares arrived (particularly, type A of African red slip ware). The production of oil(an oil press was found in Segesta),7 wine and wheat has been documented for do-mestic consumption.8 From the middle Roman Imperial period until the ivth cen-tury in the area of Segesta there wasn’t any evidence of imported amphorae. Thisaspect marks the difference between the area of Segesta and the other contempo-rary cities in Sicily. According to I. Neri9 this data could indicate a complete self-suf-ficiency of the territory of Segesta. In fact, in its settlements the economy wasprobably based on polycultivation, which allowed its inhabitants to be economical-ly independent.

From the ivth century until the middle of the Byzantine period the economic situation seems to change: there is a switch from the monoculture of wheat to an ex-change economy. This hypothesis is confirmed by the presence of African Red Slip

1 Termini Imerese, p. 221. 2 Termini Imerese, p. 223, no. 176.3 Cambi 2005, p. 630, fig. 3.4 Cambi 2003, p. 152. A similar situation is attested in the area of Segesta.5 Cambi 2003, p. 151. 6 Denaro 1995, p. 199.7 Camerata Scovazzo 1993-1994, p. 1452; Bernardini et alii 2000, pp. 109-110.8 Proven by the finding of numerous fragments of mills made by lava stone at some inland sites in the

area of Segesta, Cambi 2003, p. 161. 9 Bernardini et alii 2000, p. 112.

roman sicily project: ceramics and trade 151wares – the latest forms of type d – and of North-African and Eastern amphorae (thelater being less numerous) in some Late Roman and Byzantine centres in the area ofSegesta. The need to import large quantities of oil from Africa could be a clue to theswitch to the latifundia, based on the monoculture of cereals.1

In the territory of Segesta there are several important examples of agricultural cen-tres with imported goods. For instance, the settlements in Ponte Bagni2 (Map i, B3),which correspond to the statio of Aquae Segestanae (Map i, B3) and are mentioned inthe Itinerarium Antonini as between Parthenicum and Drepanum, on the Via Valeria, haveyidded imported wares. In addition, Rosignolo,3 a mansio hypothetically identified asthe site ad Olivam (Map i, B3), which was the last destination cited in the ItinerariumAntonini along the way from Agrigentum and Lilybaeum,was also a source for import-ed ceramics.

From the ivth century until the first half of the vth century, there is an increase inthe import of amphorae, above all of «contenitori cilindrici di medie dimensioni» (Keayxxv), spatheia and other North-African amphorae (Keay xxxv, xxxvi, lxii).

After the second half of the vth century the numerous small-scale settlementsspread out over the area seem to contract significantly in size, and some are defini-tively and simultaneously abandoned. The most recent interpretations tend to ex-clude Vandal invasions as a possible cause.4 Nevertheless, the importance and the con-sequences of the Genseric’s invasion of Sicily are still discussed.5 Surely the island wasnot immune to barbarian invasions,6 as attested in the extract of the Codex Theo-dosianus, which refers to the trail of destruction the Vandals left behind them in theSicilian countryside.7

Since the middle of the viith century ad in the rural area surrounding Segesta, theimports of African Red Slip wares and Eastern amphorae decreased. By the end ofthat century life in the countryside of the western Sicily part «sembra languire»,8 andthe settlement modality is represented by the progressivel disappearing villages,which caused the area to loose its economic and cultural role.

Moving to the area of Drepanum (Trapani), important information comes from thequarter called Foggia in the modern city of Alcamo Marina9 (Map i, B2). Recently, thepresence of a local production of amphorae has been identified in the area. The kilnsdiscovered – dating between the end of the ist century bc and the beginning of the vth

century ad – have unusual architectonic and structural solutions that give us new in-formation about the production methods and about the types of material produced(Fig. 14).

1 Cambi 2005, p. 633. The new need is connected to the change in the political-economic situation onthe Island, after the Egyptian wheat supplies were directed to Constantinople, in ad 332. See the consider-ations in Neri and in Molinari - Neri 2004. 2 Neri, in Bernardini et alii 2000, pp. 117-121.

3 Neri, in Bernardini et alii 2000, p. 118. 4 Cambi 2005, p. 634.5 According to R. J. A. Wilson: only some cities would have consistent evidence of destruction due the

barbarian violence (e.g. Lilybaeum, and Agrigentum, which was already in decline); in spite of the decreaseof rural settlements, numerous Sicilian centres would have survived; see Wilson 1990, pp. 330-331.

6 About the effects of the Vandalic incursions in Sicily, see Vera 1997-1998, pp. 58-59.7 Codex Theodosianus, vii, 13, 20. The damage of the raids was so extensive that Valentinian III partially

exempted the landholders (having suffered the greatest loss) from taxes.8 Cambi 2005, p. 635. 9 Giorgetti 2006.


During the excavation campaigns (2003-2005) about 300 fragments of amphoraetype Dressel 21-22 were collected and analysed. On the basis of the traces of overfir-ing and rubefaction, all fragments were considered to be production wasters.

The investigation showed the existence of a local production chain of Dressel 21-22 amphorae over the ist century. At least two variants were distinguished: Alcamo A(Fig. 15) and Alcamo B1 (Fig. 16), which differ with regard to the dimensions of theirmouths and total heights. The fabric is coarse and greyish-red on the exterior; insidethe colour is reddish-brown2 (see, the following contribution by E. Botte).

Moving to the area of the province of Agrigentum (Map i, C4), some surveys havediscovered which seem to have been used for a long time, from the Hellenisticphase of Roman domination until the Late Roman time. Among these are the ruralsettlements found in the quarters of Paradiso,3 Miccina,4 Bonera,5 Cugna6 andNarasette7 (Map i, C3) (to mention only a few). In particular, the farm of Narasette

1 Gonzales Muro 2006.2 For these considerations, the most recent publication is Botte 2007.3 Town of Naro (Map i, D4), farm constructed during the Roman Imperial time, La Lomia 1986; Be-

jor 1986, p. 482.4 Town of Sambuca di Sicilia (Map i, C3), farm used since the Hellenistic Age till the Late Antiquity, De

Miro 1967, p. 183; Bejor 1974, p. 1299.5 Town of Menfi (Map i, B3), Hellenistic-Roman farm, used till the Late Imperial time, Castellana 1991.6 Town of Palma di Montechiaro (Map i, D4), Castellana 1983, p. 124; Bejor 1986, pp. 472, 483.7 Town of Palma di Montechiaro (Map i, D4), Bove 1994, p. 81.

Fig. 14. Plan of the kiln discovered in Alcamo marina (after Giorgetti 2006, fig. 3).


offers a deep stratification, being used until the vith century, as indicated by theceramic evidence.1

Other long-lived farms were discov-ered in the background of Thermae Selinuntinae (Sciacca, Map i, C3): in the quartersof Gaddimi,2 in the locality of Montagnola3 and Scunchipani,4 in the quarter of CaseAntogna,5 in Case Galati6 and in Case Saraceno.7 These sites are full of fragments ofred slip ware and coarse ware, which confirm that the farms were used until theByzantine period.

1 Castellana 1983, pp. 136-140; Bejor 1986, pp. 471, 482; Uggeri 2004, p. 218.2 The farm was used from the ivth century bc until the Roman Imperial period, Tirnetta 1978, pp. 158-

164; Bejor 1986, p. 483; Wilson 1988, p. 213.3 A Rural settlement occupied during the v-ivth centuries bc and flourished again during the Roman and

Late Roman periods, Tirnetta 1978, pp. 170-171; Giustolisi 1981, p. 119; Bejor 1986, p. 483.4 A Rural settlement, Ciaccio 1900-1904, pp. 413-414; Tirnetta 1978, pp. 169-170; Giustolisi 1981, p. 120;

Bejor 1986, p. 483.5 A Rural settlement used since the Roman period untill the Byzantine period, Giustolisi 1981, p. 107.6 A Late Roman farm, Bejor 1986, p. 483.7 A Rural settlement used since the Roman age untill the Byzantine period, Giustolisi 1981, p. 107.

Fig. 15. Dressel 21-22, Alcamo A(after Giorgetti 2006, tav. 32).

Fig. 16. Dressel 21-22, Alcamo B(after Giorgetti 2006, tav. 33).


In other cases, such as the quarters ofGuardabasso1 and Locogrande, farmswere abandoned between the late Re-publican period and the beginning ofthe Imperial time, but they restartedtheir activity from the iind till the vth

centuries.2Between the ivth and the vth centuries

some rural complexes were construct-ed to exploit the area (e.g., Saraceno diFavara3 (Map i, D4) and Cignana4 (Mapi, D4) near Naro (Map i, D4), whichseem to overlap with older villae.

In the same period settlements a fewmiles away from each other were constructed in the quarter of Verdura5(Map i, C4) and in the quarter ofCarabollace6 (Map i, C4), in Sciacca. Inthe area where they are located thereare two larger settlements – Verdura7and Carabollace – around which thereused to be numerous agricultural settlements.8

Some African i (Keay xxv, xxxv) and Eastern (lra1 and lra2) were discovered inthe village in the quarter of Verdura,9 in the area of the homonym river.

The complexes found in the quarter of Carabollace were probably part of a villageof sailors and merchants. These complexes were probably used to store food and im-ported goods. This site was presumably a coastal fort constructed in such a mannerthat it was possible to moor and to load people and goods. Ceramics were probablyused by the inhabitants of the settlements, but also distributed to nearby centres inthe region. The commercialization of goods towards the interior was surely sup-ported by the nearby presence of the Carabollace river. The analysis of the amphorae

1 Bejor 1974, pp. 1297-1298; Tirnetta 1978, pp. 165-167.2 The settlement seems to have been populated untill the vth century, Bejor 1974, pp. 1294-1295; Tir-

netta 1978, pp. 167-169; Giustolisi 1981, p. 120; Bejor 1986, p. 483.3 Castellana-McConnell 1986; Castellana-McConnel 1990; Castellana 1992.4 Fiorentini 1993-1994, p. 729. For a first edition of the amphorae, Rizzo-Zambito (in press). Around

50 amphorae of different provenience (African and Eastern Aegean) were studied. They were dated be-tween the last quarter of the vth century and the end of the vith century.

5 Parello-Amico-D’Angelo (in press).6 For the first data concerning the presences of the pottery, see Caminneci-Franco-Galioto (in

press).7 The area surrounding the outfall of the river Verdura has been hypothetically identified with the sta-

tio of Allava (It. Ant. 88, 6), Bejor 1974, p. 1279. The statio was set 12 miles away from Sciacca and from Cena,present on the Itinerarium from Syracusae to Lilybeum. For the last publication, see Uggeri 2004, pp. 170-171.

8 For example, the Roman rural settlement at the outfall of the Carboj river, Polito 2001.9 Parello-D’amico-D’angelo (in press).

Fig. 17. Spatheia type Bonifay 3from Carabollace

(courtesy Soprintendenza bb.cc.aa. Agrigento).


imported in this settlement1 demon-strates that the site was economicallypluridirectional. Between the end of theivth and the beginning of the viith century there were different commercial flows fromnorthern Africa:2 Tripolitanian iii; African ii b, iic, iid, Keay xxv, Spatheia type Boni-fay 1, 2, 3 (Fig. 17); Keay xxxv var. B; Keay lv; Keay lvii; Keay viii b; Keay lxii a; Keaylxii q and R/Bonifay amphora 45 var.A and B, Hammamet iii (Fig. 18), from the east-ern Mediterranean (lra1, lra2, lra3), the Iberian peninsula (Almagro 50), and insmaller measure from the Italian peninsula (Calabria) (Keay lii: Fig. 19)).3 This lasttype is extremely important because, before discovering it, the presence of this typeof amphora was attested only on the eastern part of the island.4 The North Africanamphorae found were produced in Byzacena (the atelier of Sullechtum), in the Sahelregion, in Zeugitana (the ateliers of Neapolis and Sidi-Zahruni) and also in the atelier ofLeptis Magna, in Tripolitania. Among the Eastern amphorae there are fragments oflra1 produced in Cilicia and Cyprus, lra2 fragments produced in Greece – more pre-cisely in Boeotia,5 and, which single fragment of lra3 seems to be produced in Eph-esus, because of the macroscopic character of its fabric.

In the area of Agrigentum, the settlement in the town of Montallegro (Map i, C4)– near the quarter of Campanaio6 – deserves mention. It is not only a small rural site,but a large farm specialized in a wide range of activities related to agriculture. In thissettlement there were both residential buildings and places to work agricultural products, such as a tank for oil. The area controlled by the centre used to produce a surplus that apparently could also enable the export of oil – although on a small scale.According to the excavator, the oil was stored in either locally produced amphorae7or amphorae coming from different parts of the Mediterranean sea. This seems to be

1 For the study of amphorae, see C. Franco, in Caminneci - Franco - Galioto (in press).2 Some samples produced in Byzacena (atelier of Sullechtum), in the Sahel region, in the ateliers of Zeugi-

tana (atelier of Neapolis, atelier of Sidi-Zahruni) and in atelier of Leptis Magna in Tripolitania were found.3 This fragment seems to have Brutian origin – on the basis of the characteristics of the fabric – is mor-

phologically connected to some specimens found in the strata of abandonment of the Basilica Hilariana,dated back to the vith century, Pacetti 1998, p. 200, fig. 9, no. 2.

4 For the attestation of the Keay lii type in Eastern Sicily, see Palazzo, supra, pp. 134-145.5 Production in Tanagra or Thebes.6 Wilson 1982; Wilson 1990, Wilson 1996, Wilson 2000.7 «Market centre for the sale of oil of different provenience and qualities», Wilson 1996, p. 30.

Fig. 18. Hammamet iii from Carabollace(courtesy Soprintendenza bb.cc.aa. Agrigento).

Fig. 19. Keay lii from Carabollace(courtesy Soprintendenza bb.cc.aa. Agrigento).


confirmed by the 16 amphorae found,some of which belong to the Keay xxv,xxxiii and xxxv types. The majority ofthem were produced in Africa, butthere is also a lra1 and an amphorawhich is interpreted as a Sicilian imita-tion of an Eastern type (Fig. 20).

The most important case of am-phorae finds coming from urban contexts is presented at the city of Agri-gentum (Map i, C4). Almost all the pub-lished data concern a catacomb com-plex, composed of the Giambertoninecropolis, the cave of Fragapane andthe sub divo necropolis, all set behindthe Hill of Temples.1 In strata of theiiird-vth century ad some Italic,2 Iber-ian,3 North African4 and Eastern5 am-phorae were discovered, but the major-ity were produced in Tunisia.

In the area of the Sanctuary of As-clepius – where archaeological investi-gations were carried out between 1982

and 1989 and completed in 20006 – there are few amphora fragments from the LateRepublican and Late Roman periods. The African amphorae (African ii and Keayxxv)7 were found in a rectangular cistern, north of the temple of Asclepius.

Moving to South-Central Sicily, the region presents different geological characteris-tics – there are fertile plains with rivers, such as the Gela, the Maroglio and the Salso,and high and moderate hills. These favourable conditions have always encouraged thelong-term presence of urban and rural agglomerates. From the Roman Age onwardsthey were located in particular along the ways pointed out by the Itinerarium Antoni-ni and by the Tabula Peutingeriana.8 Throughout the Roman period, rural settlementswere prevalent: latifundia were typically composed of the villa (pars dominica), a largeor moderate number of praedia and a vast quantity of farms controlled by the villaand run by conductores, as corroborated by the stamp impressions put on bricks.9

1 Bonacasa Carra 1986; Bonacasa Carra 1987; Bonacasa Carra 1990; Agrigento 1995, BonacasaCarra 1996.

2 Types Dressel 1B and fragments of amphorae that could be dated back to between the ist and the iindcenturies that can be compared with some amphorae found in the area of Ostia.

3 Dressel 9 and Dressel 20, Keay xxiii/Almagro 51 C, Keay xix/Almagro 51 A-B (Lusitania).4 Types: African i and ii, Keay xxv, Keay xxvi (spatheia); Keay xxxiv; Keay xxv y; Keay xlii.5 Keay liii/lra1, Keay lxv/lra2, Keay liv/lra4 types.6 For the edition of the excavations, see De Miro 2003. 7 De Miro 2003, p. 157, no. 202.8 These are the internal routes from Thermae to Catina (for the reconstrucion of the route, see Uggeri

1969, pp. 162-164) and the internal routes from Catina to Agrigentum (the last publication is Uggeri 2004,pp. 251-272). 9 Fiorilla 1997.

Fig. 20. lra 1 from Montallegro (Campanaio),Sicilian imitation (after Wilson 1996, fig. 5.12).

roman sicily project: ceramics and trade 157The number, the topographical distribution and the evolution of the majority of

the villages are still uncertain, but some recent investigations made by the Superin-tendence of Caltanissetta1 on some of these villages – almost totally unpublished –have provided important information about their history and their relationships withthe surrounding area. The investigation in the site of Sophiana2 (Map i, E4), startedduring the 1960s, attempted to clarify the relationship between the spaces of the set-tlement and its surrounding area.3 The ancient centre – used since the beginning ofthe Imperial period untill the viith century – had thermae, Christian places of worship,and an extensive necropolis. It appears to correspond to the statio Philosophiana on theroad from Catina to Agrigentum.4 The excavation campaigns carried out in 1988 and1990 have made it possible to appreciate the importance of the village during the firstImperial period. Since its earliest occupation, some table wares produced in Africaand amphorae (in particular, Dressel 2-4) were imported. They attest to the existenceof important commercial flows in the Mediterranean basin.5 During the late iiird cen-tury ad the village was downgraded to the status of subsidiary village (emporium),connected to the villa of Piazza Armerina (Map i, E4). It is likely that Philosophianawas the exit route for the latifundium surrounding the villa, and also the place in whichthe agricultural labourers lived. One Keay lxii variant A amphora,6 a spatheion,7 anamphora with a decoration “a pettine” on the shoulder8 and two amphorae – still par-tially unpublished – were uncovered in the Byzantine strata.9 During the Late Romanperiod, the role of this village was surely connected to the needs of the surroundingarea. The village was one of the centres of the urban life in this part of Sicily, wherethe main economic activity was the cultivation of cereals.

Not far from Sophiana, in the modern town of Mazzarino (in the province of Cal-tanissetta) there is a site in the quarter of Minnelli (Map i, E4). At this location, sometraces of a rural settlement were recently found, and the ceramics unearthed revealthat it was populated from the iind to the vth centuries.10 Thanks to the pottery found,excavators also dated a small artisan workshop to the vi-viith centuries ad. Thesefinds include fragments of African red slip wares (Hayes 94, 104, 105)11 and «anfore conanse a profilo ad orecchia» attributed to a local production. These fragments were com-pared with the globular amphora having an umbo-shaped bottom and a decoration«a pettine» on the shoulder, found in the public bath of Sophiana.12 Archaeologists

1 For a recent data presentation about this research, see Panvini 2002.2 Founded by August, it is set 8 km away from the modern town of Mazzarino and 5 km away from the

«villa del Casale» close to the modern Piazza Armerina. About Sofiana, see Adamesteanu 1962, Bonomi1964; Fiorilla 1990, pp. 158-166; La Torre 1993-1994; La Torre 1994; Bonacasa Carra 2002.

3 The last one publication is Bonacasa Carra 2002, pp. 101-111.4 To the extraordinary persistence of the toponym, see Uggeri 2004, pp. 251, 253.5 La torre 1993-1994, p. 767.6 Unpublished. Preliminary news are edited in Panvini 2002, p. 195.7 Lauricella 2002, p. 126, no. 36, fig. 14; Panvini 2002, p. 195, note 23 with the quoted comparison. This

specimen has a slender body.8 Amphora with a decoration «a pettine» between the neck and the shoulder, Lauricella 2002, p. 126,

no. 37, fig. 15. 9 Panvini 2002, p. 195, note 22 e 23.10 African Red slip wares A and D and amphorae, Panvini 2002, p. 196, note 28 and 29.11 Panvini 2002, p. 197, fig. 14.12 The fragment number 12918, coming from the room xi of the therma, Panvini 2002, p. 197, note 33.


claim that these specimens are imitations of other amphorae from Chios, and thesedata would indicate the beginning of a commercial relationship with the Aegean area,in addition to the continual relationship with Africa – represented also by the Late Ro-man presence of African red slip wares.

As regards the Aegadian islands, there is a complete lack of historic and archaeo-logical documentation: the information about Roman and Byzantine complexescomes primarily from surveys and wrecks. Typological and quantitative informationabout amphorae is almost absent. Therefore, any conclusion about them is tentative– even reckless. The most remarkable observation – at least at present – is the fact thatin spite of the geographical position of the islands, there are no late antique am-phorae coming from North Africa, which one would expect to be the types most com-monly imported.1 Another notable feature is the absence of Eastern amphorae(Aegean Syro-Palestinian production), yet this seems to be connected to the lack ofpublished data rather than an actual archaeological absence. Also remarkable are thefew (but not absent) amphorae from Spain (Dressel 7-9; Dressel 20) and Italic am-phorae (Dressel 2-4).

The data concerning the island of Cossyra (Pantelleria: Map i, A4) are a relevant exception to the absence just described. There, systematic surveys (1996-2001) definedthe area populated throughout antiquity and found thousands of ceramic fragments.2The publication of these data enriched our knowledge about the production/expor-tation/importation of ceramic artefacts,3 and drew a picture of the commercial rela-tionships of the island within the commercial system of the Mediterranean basin.Concerning amphorae, the great majority also here were produced in North Africa.Less frequent, but not inexistent, are the Palestinian (lra4 and lra5/6) and Aegean-Eastern amphorae (lra1 and lra2). Up to now, studies have shown a long-range com-mercial exchange network, and as part of this network, Pantelleria is an extremelyimportant source of information about the history of Mediterranean commerce dur-ing Antiquity. The high frequency of finds is additional evidence of the fundamentalrole of Pantelleria, which was an intermediate storage port set on trans-mediter-ranean routes.

This is the summarized overview of the data about amphorae found in the west-ern part of Sicily. Obviously, new research and analyses of the published data can clar-ify whether the differences found are real or caused by different field methods and adifferent depth of the investigation.

To solve this problem, and therefore to analyse microregions, systematic excava-tion campaigns and precise publications and catalogues about the material are need-ed. But the typological-quantitative approach is not enough to define the complicat-ed economic and production phenomena, much less the social behaviour and theideologies of communities. Therefore, a historic-economic approach should be ap-

1 The piece of evidence appears even more strange when compared with the Island of Pantelleria.There, investigations based on modern scientific-archaeological criterion have shown the absolute prepon-derance of the North African amphorae (see infra).

2 «Carta Archeologica di Pantelleria» («Archaeological map of Pantelleria») project. The investigation isthe result of a collaboration between the University of Bologna and the Superintendence of Trapani.

3 Cattani - Tosi 1997; Massa 2002; Sami 2002.

roman sicily project: ceramics and trade 159plied to the study of ceramics – an approach, which enhances the complexity and diversity of these phenomena, rather than levels them out.

Carmela Franco

A case-study.The amphorae Dressel 21 and the trade of the Sicilian

salted fish in the Early Empire

The production of salted fish and fish sauces in Sicily during Antiquity is a subjectwhich has been largely overlooked. The majority of the bibliography on this topic isattributed to Gianfranco Purpura, who published a series of articles during the Eight-ies.

The graduate thesis that I undertook in this subject enabled me to explore ingreater depth the question of the vessels used for transport of food products.1

In this section, I will not deal with the punic amphorae, but only Dressel 21, whichhas been considered, since their first denomination by H. Dressel in 1899, as contain-ers of fruit produced in Latium and Campania. Actually, the work that I have under-taken on this type of amphora, enabled me to re-examine not only the contents (i.e.salted fish), but also their Sicilian origin.2

Identification and names of vessels

During excavations of Pompeii, which was buried during autumn 79 ad,3 RobertSchoene drew up a typological table of the amphorae most frequently discovered andpublished it in cil iv.4

The type I will dealing with is his form iv. In the two typological tables publishedby Albert Mau in 1909,5 the same types carry numbers xliii and xliv (Fig. 21).

Forty specimens discovered in Pompeii carried painted inscriptions by approxi-mately eighty individuals. Nearly all of them are classified under type iv, and only afew as type xliii-xliv according to Mau’s typological table. Our difficulty is being ableto distinguish the Sicilian product, because nearly all of the amphorae were classifiedtogether under the same type.

We owe the true «baptism» of these amphorae to Heinrich Dressel. At the end ofthe xixth century, he studied the painted inscriptions and the marks on the amphoraedated to the second quarter of the ist century ad, which had been discovered duringthe construction of a new district of Rome, the Castro Pretorio.6

In a table presenting the various types of exhumed amphorae, the specimen thatinterests us is labelled number 15.7 Twenty years later, at the time of the edition of

1 E. Botte, Salaisons et sauces de poissons en Italie méridionale et en Sicile durant l’Antiquité, PhD under thedirection of J.-Y. Empereur, defended the 2nd of July 2008 in the University of Lyon 2.

2 For studies dedicated to Dressel 21 and 22 Amphorae, see Botte 2007; Botte (in press) and Botte -Capelli (in press).

3 On the date of eruption: Stefani - Borgongino 2001-2002; Stefani 2006.4 cil iv, s. v. Vasorum Formae. 5 cil iv, pl. ii-iii.6 Dressel 1879, pp. 164-175 and 194-195 for the dating of the context.7 Dressel 1879, pl. vii-viii.


cil xv, Dressel presents his general inventory of ceramics brought to light in Romewith painted inscriptions and/or stamps.

He then published the final version of his amphorae typological table,1 in whichhe assigned the type number 21. This is the designation by which they are today gen-erally referred (Fig. 22).

Form 21 has a profile similar to a shell, and the absence of a neck is its principalcharacteristic. The mouth is broad with a thick lip. A projection (approximately 1-2cm) is marked directly under the lip. The handles are attached directly under the lipand quickly join the body. The foot is thin and pointed.

After Dressel’s publication in 1899, research on this type of container was not veryintensive. N. Lamboglia joined together the types 212 and 22 under the type 21. He in-cluded it in the category of the amphorae produced after the iiird century ad (for rea-sons only known to him) in contradiction with the discoveries at Castro Pretorio andPompeii.

Callender, in Roman Amphorae, which appeared in 1965,3 lumped the two types to-gether, as Lamboglia. He referred to them as «form 4» without facing the question ofchronology and being limited to the painted inscriptions of Pompeii and Rome.

1 cil xv, 2, Amphorarum Formae. 2 Lamboglia 1955, fig. 2 and p. 243.3 Callender 1965, pp. 13-14.

Fig. 21. Amphorae of types iv, xliii and xliv from Pompeii, according to Schoene (type iv)and Mau’s drawings (types xliii and xliv) (cil iv, pl. i-iii).

roman sicily project: ceramics and trade 161It is necessary to await the study of F. Zevi in 19661

to obtain an analysis of the whole of Dressel’s typol-ogy, but the article doesn’t bring to light any new ele-ments on the type we are considering. Zevi acceptsthe painted inscriptions and the previous interpreta-tions by Dressel without criticism.

The issue of Dressel 21-22 is even more summarilyapproached in the work of D. Peacock and D.Williams,2 who arrange the type within their newclassification under «class 7», following Zevi’s article.

The recent article of C. Panella on the amphoraeproduced in the West during the Roman imperialtime3 handles the problem of Dressel 21 and 22. How-ever she presents only a brief summary of the ideasand problems discussed in the past.

Painted inscriptions

In cil xv, H. Dressel listed eleven painted inscriptionson amphorae of type 21.4 In Pompeii, only one am-phora of this type preserved an inscription referringto its contents (inventory no: 43091). The other in-scriptions from Pompei are extracted from cil iv.

The five inscriptions read by Dressel (from no. 4787to 4791) are classified in following way (Fig. 23):

Letters from A to G correspond to the classification established by S. Martin-Kilcher for the amphora inscriptions,5 but there is also another system used by R.Etienne and Fr. Mayet.6

According to this classification, the inscriptions maybe grouped as follows:

A A shortened word of two letters, which Dressel read as ceB No inscription B has been found (until now) on Dressel 21.C A number ranging between lxxviii- and xxcv-.D A name.E On the side, between the number C and the name D, another name is registered.F Along the handle, a figure and/or a name sometimes appear (for type 1, only in the in-

scription no. 4788 in cil xv: ciix)G A figure is also registered on the other side of the amphora, between the handles, often

under the projection characteristic of this type. This one is included between xxxi andxxxiix.

1 Zevi 1966, p. 222. 2 Peacock - Williams 1986, pp. 96-97.3 Panella 2001, p. 194. 4 cil xv, nos. 4787-4793, 4795-4796, 4800-4801.5 Martin-Kilcher 2002, pp. 344-346. 6 Etienne - Mayet 2002, p. 212.

Fig. 22. Amphora of type 21according to H. Dressel’s table.


According to Dressel, the word registered on the first line, ce, indicated a fruit, buthe did not know which. He proposed, without certainty, ce(rasa) as cherries.1

I think instead that ce has to be read as cet, with the E and T bound. In this case,the word cet should be translated as cetus, which in Latin means «large sea fish» andalso indicates a tuna of big size. To the specimens discovered in Rome and Pompeii,it is possible to add a fragment with the inscription cet discovered in the agora ofEphesus and whose petrographic analysis has revealed a probable Sicilian origin.2

1 Dressel 1879, p. 172. 2 I thank T. Bezeczky for the information.

Fig. 23. Inscriptions 4787 to 4791 of cil xv.

roman sicily project: ceramics and trade 163I propose to interpret the inscriptions C and G like weights in librae, as like the in-

scriptions on the amphorae Dressel 20. On these last, the inscription · indicates theweight of the empty amphora and the inscription Á its contents (i.e. oil).1 In this case,the inscription G would correspond to the tare, and the inscription C would corre-spond to the weight of its contents (i.e. salted tuna).

Thus, the amphorae Dressel 21, when they are empty, according to inscription G,weigh between 10,13,7 and 12,43 kg (respectively xxxi and xxxiix librae, that it is nec-essary to multiply by the value of the libra, 0,327 kg), and their contents, according toinscription C, between 25,67 and 27,96 kg (either lxxviii- and xxcv- librae). We havejoined together in the following table the various inscriptions C and G.

Nº Inscr. G Weight (kg) Inscr. C Weight (kg)

cil xv, 4787 xxxi? 10,137? lxxx- 26,323cil xv, 4788 xxxii- 10,627 lxxxii- 26,977cil xv, 4789 xxxiii 10,791 lxxviii- 25,67cil xv, 4790 xxxiv 11,118 lxxxi 26,487cil xv, 4791 xxxii? 10,464? lxxx- 26,323cil xv, 4793 xxxiix? 12,43? xxcv- 27,96

In the process of weighing the amphorae at Pompeii, I became aware about the cor-respondence between these inscriptions and the actual weight of the amphoraewhich did not preserve painted inscription G. The following table presents theweights of the amphorae I analyzed in Cumae and Pompeii.

Nº Inscription G Weight (kg) observations

Cumae - 19,2 Handle missing14195 - 19,925435 - 17,726005 - 19,529294 - 18,9 Handle missing43036 - 11,143167 - 1826026 - 11,833186 - 13,8 Handle missing

The inscription D preserves the name of the exporter of the product contained in theamphorae, which S. Martin Kilcher calls negotiator2 and which R. Etienne prefers tocall mercator.3 However, it is rather difficult to identify this person because we haveonly one name available.

In the inscriptions of Rome and Pompeii, we find frequent names, some of whichcan qualify as either nomen or cognomen (e.g. Salvius (cil xv, nº 4787) or Zoticio, a nameof Greek origin (cil xv nº 4789).

1 Liou - Gassend 1990, pp. 201-204 for tables gathering all the known inscriptions · and Á on Dressel 20amphorae.

2 Martin-Kilcher 2002, p. 345. 3 Etienne - Mayet 2002, p. 214.


It is possible to correlate Siculus. Lec F (cil xv nº 4793) to the inscription Favor. Lec. ona type Dressel 22 amphora (cil xv, nº 4786). These inscriptions imply a correctionsbetween the two. The inscriptions D of Pompeii published in cil iv, because of in-accuracy of typology, could belong as well to the Dressel type 22. We gathered themin the summary table.

On the side, often between the inscriptions C and D, another name (E) is registered,which remains enigmatic. It could be an intermediate merchant between the negotia-tor and the consumer, or the purchaser/owner of the amphora. S. Martin-Kilcher in-terpret the name as a representative of the negotiator who was in charge of the con-trol of the goods before their transport.1

The names that appear in cil xv are in the form of cognomina isolated or of trianomina not developed: l.o.p. (nº 4787 and perhaps 4791), Secundio (nº 4788 but posi-tioned at a place which could also correspond to the inscription D), sol (nº 4789 and4790); Panh (nº 4791) yet the transcription is not ensured, and it is perhaps writtenPanth, which could be of Greek origin).

The inscription F presents a number or a name. S. Martin Kilcher interprets thisgroup A the signature of a merchant and as the number of amphorae, which aretransported between the port of arrival of the containers and the consumption sites.In opposition to this idea, R. Etienne and F. Mayet consider it the name of the pro-ducer and the number of amphorae leaving the workshop of production.2 Within ourstudy, only one amphora preserved an inscription: «ciix» which is not sufficient to de-termine which of the two assumptions is the best.

In short, these inscriptions refer to fish (A), probably tuna, its quantity in librae (C),the names of negotiator/mercator and the producer (D-E), and the weight of the emptyamphora (G), also indicated in librae. This information is gathered in the table below.

Line Type 1

A cet3C lxxviii- ≤ x ≤ xxcv-D Salvius; Zoticio; Ce[…]s; Siculus. Lec FE l.o.p.; Secundio; sol; PanhF ciixG xxxi ≤ x ≤ xxxiix

The origin of the container

The determination of an amphora’s area of production is carried by considering itsfabric, its distribution and possibly the known workshop of production.

1 Martin-Kilcher 2002, p. 345. 2 Etienne - Mayet 2002, pp. 213-214.3 Are gathered in this column the inscriptions in cil xv: from no. 4787 to no. 4791 and no. 4793.


Dressel 21 fabric

The fabric of the amphorae contains eolic quartz and angular limestone, as well as agreat quantity of micro-fossils.1

For some of the specimens, their orange color remains identical on the surface andin their cross-section (Munsel Code: between 5 yr 7/2 and 5 yr 5/2). For others, thesurface appears grey in color (Munsel code: between 5 yr 4/1 and 5 yr 5/4), while theinterior is red (Munsel code: 10 r 5/8).

The petrographic analyses have already illustrated that at least part of the produc-tion was located in western Sicily.2 Analysis carried out by C. Capelli on samples fromCumae and Pompeii show that the major part of the production, if not all, is Sicilian.

The results of the archaeometric analyses were recently supported by the discov-ery of a pottery workshop in Alcamo Marina, close to Castellamare del Golfo.3 Thisworkshop was discovered during excavations carried out since 2003 by the Universityof Bologna.

The excavations showed that there was an area with potters active from the Au-gustan period until the vth century. In one of the two excavated kilns, many fragmentsof Dressel 21 amphorae were discovered. It is possible to establish that these amphoraewere produced there from the end of the ist century bc into the ist century ad.

The specimens discovered in the workshop of Alcamo present a fabric with pri-marily angular quartz grains and microfossil limestones.4 Clay was extracted frombeds dated to the Pleistocen, known in the zone of Castellamare del Golfo to be richin quartz. The paste is characterized by the presence of round quartz coming from aFlysch numidic.5 This last element is present in Tunisia and Sicily and explains thesimilarity between fabrics from Sicily and North Africa.

Another workshop is without doubt located in Soluntum. We know the zone of SanCristoforo was very active in the manufacture of amphorae from the viith century bc.However, in this same area, a concentration of amphorae fragments related to theDressel 21 type was discovered. In 1990 P. Lo Cascio published the finding, but in hisarticle he did not recognize the amphora type, relating them instead to a late pro-duction.6

The site, a hundred meters from the sea, is set between the railway and the mod-ern road (ss 113), approximately one kilometer from the tonnara of Soluntus. A visitto the area in 2005 ensured us that there were fragments belonging to this type of am-phora, but we could not carry the investigation further because the owner of the

1 The analyses were carried out by C. Capelli, for the results see Botte - Capelli (in press).2 Denaro 1995, p. 199; Alaimo et alii 1997, p. 60.3 For the results of studies on this atelier and its production, see: Giorgetti - Gonzalez Muro - Bot-

te 2006, pp. 505-516; Gonzalez Muro 2006.4 The petrographic analyses were carried out by C. Capelli, for the first results: Capelli - Piazza 2006,

pp. 171-173 and pl. v-vi.5 Flysch is a type of formation consisted in a monotonous repetition of sequences of metric and deca-

metric thickness. They begin at the base by level with big grain and finish at the top by levels with fine grain.Typically a flysch consisted in an alternation of sandstone benches, finishing to the top with argillaceousschists.

6 Lo Cascio 1990, pp. 33-39, and particularly pp. 35-38 for the amphorae, which concern us.


property, in spite of an authorization of the Archaeological Superintendence of Paler-mo, did not permit us to collect them.1

Chronology of the production and diffusion area

The oldest specimen comes from La Longarina in Ostia, but the publication by A.Hesnard did not present any drawing. The context, a drain made up of two lines ofamphorae laid out horizontally, was dated to the first years of the ist century ad.2

It is also necessary to mention the specimen found in an underfloor space discov-ered under the «rue de la Favorite» in Lyon, in a context from the end of the Augus-tan period.3 The latest specimens are those from Pompeii and Cumae (Flaviaen dumpprior to 95 ad). A rim fragment discovered in Settefinestre in the layers dated betweenTrajan and Antonine periods seems to be residual.4

The published specimens show a primarily diffusion towards the western Mediter-ranean, with occasional discoveries in the east. Sicily, more precisely the northwest-ern region of the island, is the zone where amphorae of type Dressel 21 are most fre-quent. In the second place, we find them in some cities of peninsular Italy, includingPompeii, Cumae, Ostia, Rome, Settefinestre and Luni.

In Gaul several specimens are also known at Fréjus and Lyon. Specimens discov-ered at Alexandria, Ephesus, Jerusalem and Bodrum in Turkey (an underwater dis-covery) show that the distribution has also affected the eastern basin of the Mediter-ranean (Fig. 24)

Lastly, it is necessary to underline the recent discovery of a wreck in Capri, ofwhich the cargo was made up entirely of Dressel 21 amphorae. It was the subject ofa prospection campaign using an underwater robot. The visible dimensions of theship are 16 m in length and 8 m wide, lie at a depth of 130 m. Three levels of amphoraeare visible, but none of them, due to technical malfunction of the robot, could bebought up to the surface.

Proposal for a new typology

In the new typology of Dressel 21-22 that I have proposed, Dressel 21 correspond totype 1, which I divided into two variants based on the dimension of the vessel, nar-rower for type 1a and more pot-bellied for type 1b (Fig. 25)

The average height of amphorae of type 1a is 88 cm, with a range between 84.5 cmand 94 cm. The maximum diameter of the belly measures approximately 22 cm. Thebelly is marked by of a groave, placed on average at 1/5 of its height (i.e. approxi-mately 16-18 cm from the mouth).

The maximum capacity of the amphorae is between 15 and 18 liters for the major-ity of the measured specimens found at Cumae and Pompeii. There is not a separa-tion between the belly and the mouth of the amphora. Only the above mentionedcan be used as a reference point. The wall is on average 1 cm thick.

1 The fragments we could see were found below the ground, along the road (ss 113). The ground, re-cently cleaned by rain, contained many fragments, always related to the type Dressel 21.

2 Hesnard 1980, p. 141. 3 Desbat et alii 1986, p. 67.4 Volpe - Cambi 1985, pp. 75-76 and pl. 20.12.


Fig. 24. Distribution area of Dressel 21.


The external diameter, taken at thelip, measures between 16 and 17.5 cm.,while the internal diameter measureson average 12 cm., with a range be-tween 11.5 and 13 cm.

The lip is 2 cm. thick sometimes witha rolled rim. It measures between 1.5and 2.3 cm. in height. Approximately 1cm. under the lip, the potter marked aprojection, which does not exceed 0.5cm. in height. The handles have an al-mond-shaped section and a central veinon their outside. They are 11 to 13 cm.high, attach under (and sometimes on)the above mentioned projection, andthey join the belly at the level of the fur-row. The bottom of the 1a type ampho-ra finishes at a point; this one is full, andits height varies between 9 and 12 cm.Its profile is concave. The end of thepoint is widened, and slightly concaveon the lower face.

The average height of the amphoraeof type 1b the is 88 cm., with a range between 86 cm. for the smallest speci-mens and 92 cm. for the largest. Themaximum diameter of the belly meas-

ures approximately 26 cm. The characteristic groove, which probably marks the lim-it of the handles, is placed at approximately 18-19 cm. from the mouth. The maximumcapacity of the amphorae is about 28 litres.

The external diameter measures between 19 and 20.5 cm., while the internal di-ameter measures on average 15 to 17 cm. The lip has an average thickness of 2 cm. Itsheight is between 1.7 and 2.5 cm. As on the amphorae of the type 1a, a ridge is markedapproximately 1 cm under the lip. The handles are almond-shaped in section, and theirexternal face is marked by a central rib. They are attached directly under the projec-tion, sometimes rise above this and are stuck to the belly at the level of the groove.Their length varies between 14.4 and 15.5 cm.

The bases of the 1b type amphorae are small in size. They are solid and the aver-age height is approximately 5 cm. The profile of the toe is concave, and its lower faceis slightly convex.

Synthesis

The notions we have had for more than one hundred years about the trade of fruitsin Latium and Campania within Dressel 21-22 amphorae has to be completely rewrit-ten. Dressel 21 amphorae are actually containers produced in Sicily and intended forthe transport of salted fish, primarily tuna.

Fig. 25. Variantes 1a and 1b of our new typologyof the Dressel amphorae 21.


The reason for the errors is a general lack of interest in the subject until now.Additions to this, it is important to comment on the frequent re-use of these am-

phorae as pipes. In fact, it is common to find examples in the drains of Pompeii (Fig.26). This resuse was, indeed, quite simple as it was only necessary to cut off the lowerpart in order to obtain an object ready for re-employment (e.g. in a latrine of Pompeii)(Fig. 27).

Considering these data, it is still too early to evaluate the economic role of the Si-cilian salted fish industry during the Early Empire within the broader Mediterraneantrade. However, in the future, it is a point that will be impossible to neglect, and it willbe necessary to consider the Dressel 21 as Sicilian amphorae intended for transport oftuna products.

Emmanuel Botte

Fig. 26. Illustration of the re-employment of amphorae Dressel 21 in drains of Pompeii.


Preliminary conclusionsand future aims

To draw conclusions from this first datapresentation – even if they are not ana-lytical – allows us most importantly todelineate the next steps of our work. Inthe next phases, besides the data aboutthe amphorae preliminarily presentedhere, we shall information add aboutthe tablewares.

This work is currently being under-taken by our team of researchers and itsresults will provide us with a better un-derstanding of the social and economicdynamics of Sicily during the Romanperiod, and equally importantly, it willmake the computerized database avail-able to the entire scientific community.This database will be extremely usefulto anyone working on the political, so-cial and economic history of Sicily(from various points of view), but start-ing from the material culture evidence.

By means of the initial thematic map (presented here for the first time) and an up-dated (2007) bibliography, it is possible to draw certain preliminary observations. Ourinitial research confirms an image of Sicily as an active and major island receiving sig-nificant amounts of goods from all over the Mediterranean basin.

The diffusion of amphorae affects mainly the coastal parts of Sicily. As regards in-land settlements, most of which were located along river routes that facilitated trans-fer of goods. Just to mention some particular cases, the Arena River, for istance, linkedthe coast and inland places, such as Salemi, Timpone Rasta and Logonuovo; the BeliceRiver used to connect Campobello di Mazara, Monte Vago and Entella; the Plataniriver linked the hinterland of Agrigentum. The Irmino River, in western Sicily, was afundamental transport link for the big agricultural sites in the area of Ragusa (Mod-ica, Ispica and Ragusa). The inland sites of Piazza Armerina and Sophiana are excep-tions. Both Villa del Casale and the settlement of Sophiana, apart from being close tothe river Gela, were also along the road that connected Catina and Gela. Sophiana, fora brief period, was a statio of this long itinerary.

In the second phase of this project, when data about fine tablewares will also be-came available, other maps will be added to this first thematic map (Map i), as wellas some specific gis maps. They will help us to understand attitudes, diversities andanalogies of the supply systems of the Sicilian market over a specific chronologicalperiod. To simplify the analysis of the data, eastern and western Sicily will be analysedseparately, over a chronological period composed of four phases (Late Hellenistic:

Fig. 27. Amphora Dressel 21 employed as latrinein Pompei (Reg. i, Ins. 14, 2).

roman sicily project: ceramics and trade 171200-30 bc; early Imperial: 30-100 ad; middle Imperial: 100-300 ad; late Imperial: 300-450-475 ad; early Byzantine: 450/475-640-650 ad).

Without going into details, even before a specific thematic map has been defined,the amphorae are mostly found on the Aeolian Islands and on the Ionian Coast –more precisely in the ports of Messana, Catina, Syracusae and along the Southern coastof Sicily (around Punta Secca). During the Middle Imperial period there was a slightexpansion towards the northern coast, but the situation on the southeastern coastseems to have remained the same. In the Late Roman period everything seems to bemore complex: particularly in the area between Ragusa and Gela, the sites where am-phorae were found are in much higher frequency. This phenomenon has to be con-sidered carefully, and the direct relationship with Africa seems to have played a deci-sive role. It is also important to note that the rate of publication of excavationmaterial is critical to the expansion of this project.

In western Sicily, the presence of amphorae is quite widespread, both on the coastsand inland. In contrast to what seems to be happening in eastern Sicily, the westernSicilian villages do not seem to revolve around bigger and more important centres.Instead, they maintain a dynamic commercial independence. During the late Romanperiod there was a big decrease in the distribution of amphorae with a limited pres-ence at mainly coastal sites. During the Late Roman and Early Byzantine periods, theinland sites appear to be again active, and important new sites, such as Piazza Arme-rina and Sophiana, were founded.

In analysing all of Sicily, we can see that in eastern regions there were fewer smallsettlements the economies of which revolved around the important centres, at leastuntil the ivth century ad. It is their importance as ports and, consequently, their roleas gathering places that makes these sites a necessary focal point for commercial dis-tribution. Towns, such as Messana, Catina and Syracusae, boast ancient and well-testi-fied histories as ports, and throughout the Roman period they continued to maintaintheir previous roles as merchant cities. In western Sicily this concentration is not pres-ent. In fact, amphorae are spread throughout this region suggesting a fragmentationof settlements and their more elaborate commercial dynamics.

Starting from the ivth century onwards, the concentration around the most im-portant towns seems to have been abandoned in favour of a more capillary occupa-tion of the area. This tendency is also reflected in the distribution of amphorae, whichseems to cover more sites. This is especially the case in the area between Gela, Sophi-ana and Piazza Armerina, as these sites are part of the route from central Sicily to theharbour area of Catina. All this shows that the inland sites and their resources partic-ipated more actively in wide-ranging commerce; in other words, they were directlyinterested not only in the production, but also in the exchange of people, goods and,of course, ideas.

I think that in the future it will be useful to carry out study of the production sitescurrently known in Sicily, together with the parallel study of ceramics and amphoraedistribution. It is also necessary to focus on the social organisation analysis of the domini and officiatores already known, but little studied. In addition, it is important topursue the study of the onomastics and toponymy of sites and the distribution areasin relation to Roman ceramic studies. The beginning of a vast process of archaeo-


metric analysis is invaluable as it has enabled to identify what can surely be consid-ered ‘Sicilian’ and what is not ‘Sicilian’.1

Daniele Malfitana

1 On this topic, see the suggestions from a historical point of view by Perkins 2007, pp. 49-51.


APPENDIX

Map i.

An update to the map of ancient Sicily of the Barrington Atlas.The new sites after the start of the «Roman Sicily Project»

Giovanni Fragalà

The realization of an integrated system of thematic and gis maps that will allow a fast visu-alization of the many information collected, historical as well as archaeological has also beeninitiated in parallel to the activity of collection and acquisitions of the data.1

The main objective is to elaborate a series of thematic maps of Sicily during the Roman pe-riod that will be constantly updated. In parallel it will visualise the data, the information aboutthe various typologies of vessels and amphorae, and about the contexts of province fromwhich the data come.

To achieve this aim, it seemed more opportune to rearrange the already existing instrumentof «Barrington Atlas of the Greek and Roman world»,2 than to create a new map, as this is unan-imously accepted by the scientific community as an indispensable and complete cartographi-cal instrument, useful for understanding the historical, geographic and archaeological organ-ization of the ancient world.3

Map 47 of the Atlas, edited by R. J. A. Wilson,4 allows to visualize data, published and unpub-lished, collected during many years he engaged in studies of Roman Sicily.5 Therefore, start-ing from this map, and using the same symbols, we are inserting new data (and, therefore, newsites) derived from a complex bibliographic research. We have marked in yellow the new siteswhere archaeologists have found Roman pottery or amphorae, that will be added to a data-base. The first data have been presented in the section of the article edited by C. Franco andA. L. Palazzo (see infra).

The map, presented here for the first time,6 constitutes an instrument of great significanceand absolute innovation. Allows us to visualize the importance of the new data and we havealready begun to realize specific thematic maps that will allow us to explore in greater depththe information. Moreover, the new maps will allow us to determine the specificity of everycity observed from the point of view of the presence of ceramics and amphorae through achronological approach.

The last phase previews thematic papers that will help us to define the chronological de-velopment of each archaeological evidence. It highlights, using various colours and the samesymbols adopted by the Barrington Atlas and allows us to layer, one on top of the other (alsousable in the web version), many papers which will make it easy to read “in transparency” for-

1 A part from the map edited in this article, all the other thematic maps and gis maps will be publishedin the monographic work which is being undertaken at present by D. Malfitana as mentioned at the be-ginning of this article.

2 Barrington Atlas of the Greek and Roman World, ed. R. J. A. Talbert, Princeton, 2000.3 See S. Alcock, H. W. Dey, G. Parker, Sitting down with the Barrington Atlas, «Journal of Roman Ar-

chaeology», 14, 2001, pp. 451-461. 4 Barrington Atlas of the Greek and Roman World, pp. 709-735.5 Map 47 can rely on a rich series of information that Wilson has collected in many years of study on

the Roman Sicily. A large part of this information is taken from Wilson 1990 the remainder is yet unpub-lished. 6 Map 47 has been published to scale 1.500.000 in The Barrington Atlas.


mat and in total image format, the chronological development of a specific context or arealcomplex, from the Late Hellenistic to Late Roman period.

Therefore it will be also possible to locate the main concentrations of ceramics and am-phorae that will in turn contribute to the chronology. New sites and settlements are shown inyellow colour, as are the ones in the Barrington Atlas.1 The symbols used for indicating the ty-pology of the settlements (small farm, villae, thermal bath etc.) are the same used by the Bar-rington Atlas, in order to facilitate the reading of the map.

The majority of the archaeological research carried out in the latter years are focused onthe study of rural areas or on small quarters (Contrade), usually connected to modern city cen-tres. In this case, when we are unable to precisely locate the «contrade» in the Map, we havechosen to connect the area to the closest city centre.

Table 1.

General overview of transport amphoraein Roman Sicily mentioned in the text

Carmela Franco

This table aims at showing the main transport amphorae types attested in Sicily in the Romanperiod and cited in the text. However, it excludes any quantitative data, that will be presentedin a future volume as mentioned in the foreword. The table is divided into three columns rep-resenting form, source and places respectively.

Under the column «Form» is inserted the reference to the typological abbreviations of theamphorae that are currently used, according to the most updated typologies. I have tried,where it is possible, to conform all the denominations, creating a “common language” and aneasier terminology in order to avoid the often confusing amphorae name systems.2

Under the column «Source» is inserted the region of production of a specific amphora typeas known and updated to 2007. In some cases the source of amphorae has already been citedby the editors, for example after the discovery of kilns (i. e. the case of Alcamo Marina in West-ern Sicily or Santa Venera al Pozzo, Acium, in Eastern Sicily).

Under the column «Place» I have listed the sites in which a specific amphora type has beendiscovered, in relation to the various cases cited in text (see supra, the sections by C. Francoand A. L. Palazzo). The sites are indicated with the modern and ancient name where possible,followed, between brackets, with a reference to the updated Sicily Map I published here.

1 Map i also shows evidence of settlements not mentioned in the text, because the data collected is lim-ited. However they have been included in order to give to the reader more in-depth and updated picture ofRoman pottery in Sicily. The settlements are: San Biagio (Terme Vigliatore), Acate, Palma di Montechiaro,Cattolica Eraclea, Sambuca di Sicilia, Montevago, Monte Pellegrino (Heirkte Mons), Isola delle Femmine,Punta Raisi, Punta Molinazzo, Terrasini, Menfi, Sant’Agata di Campobello di Mazara, Mazara, TimponeRasta, Logonovo, Eryx.

2 Some of amphorae names are, in fact, ‘temporary’, because usually coined during excavations andpublished in books and journals, that are often difficult to locate even for the specialists.


Form

Sour

cePl

ace

Afr

ican

iN

orth

ern

Afr

ica:

mai

nly

Tuni

siaLi

para

(Map

i, F2

); G

azzi

, Gan

zirr

i and

Pist

u-ni

na(M

api,

H2)

; Agr

igen

tum

(Map

i, C

4)

Afr

ican

iiN

orth

ern

Afr

ica:

mai

nly

Tuni

siaLi

para

(Map

i, F2

); ar

ea b

etw

een

Agn

one

and

Cas

tellu

ccio

(Map

i, G

4); C

arab

olla

ce (M

api,

C4)

;Agr

igen

tum

(Map

i, C

4)

Alm

agro

50Po

rtug

al a

nd S

pain

Ceph

aloe

dium

(Map

i, E2

); C

arab

olla

ce (M

api,

C4)

Alm

agro

51 A

-BPo

rtug

al (L

usita

nia)

and

Spa

in (B

aetic

a)Ag

rige

ntum

(Map

i, C

4)

Alm

agro

51 C

Port

ugal

(Lus

itani

a) a

nd S

pain

(Bae

tica)

Agri

gent

um(M

api,

C4)

Am

phor

as si

mila

r to

“Car

min

iello

type

17”,

or “

cb2

type

”Ea

ster

n Si

cily

: Cap

o d’

Orla

ndo

(sta

tioAg

athy

rnum

); C

aron

ia (C

alac

tae)

, Fur

nari.

Agat

hyrn

um(M

api,

F2);

Cala

ctae

(Map

i, E2

);Fu

rnar

i (M

api,

G2)

Cre

tan

1C

rete

Lipa

ra(M

api,

F2)

Dre

ssel

1Si

cily

Sege

sta

(Map

i, B3

)

Dre

ssel

1BTy

rrhe

nian

coa

stal

are

a of

Ital

y fr

omEt

ruri

ato

Cam

pani

a.Ag

rige

ntum

(Map

i, C

4)

Dre

ssel

2-4

Italy

Philo

soph

iana

(Map

i, E4

)

Imita

tion

of D

ress

el 2

-4 ty

pe (b

ig a

nd sm

all

mod

ule)

Sici

ly: N

axos

Nax

os (M

api,

G3)

Dre

ssel

7/1

1Sp

ain

Lipa

ra(M

api,

F2)

Dre

ssel

9Sp

ain

Agri

gent

um(M

api,

C4)

Dre

ssel

20

Spai

nAg

rige

ntum

(Map

i, C

4)


Form

Sour

cePl

ace

Dre

ssel

21-2

2W

este

rn S

icily

(Seg

esta

?)V

illa

di T

erre

Bia

nche

(M

api,

D3)

, Se

gest

a(M

api,

B3)

Dre

ssel

21-2

2: A

lcam

o A

and

B ty

pes

Wes

tern

Sic

ily: A

lcam

o M

arin

aA

lcam

o M

arin

a-qu

arte

r Fog

gia

(Map

i, B2

)

Dre

ssel

35 si

mili

sEa

ster

n Si

cily

: Car

onia

(Cal

acta

e)Ca

lact

ae (M

api,

E2)

Gau

lois

es4

Fran

ceLi

para

(Map

i, F2

)

Gau

loise

s (si

mili

s)Ea

ster

n Si

cily

: Nax

osN

axos

(Map

i, G

3)

Ham

mam

et ii

iN

orth

ern

Afr

ica:

Tun

isia

(Nor

ther

nH

amm

amet

Gul

f)C

arab

olla

ce (M

api,

C4)

Kap

itaen

iEa

ster

n M

edite

rran

ean:

the

Aeg

ean

Syra

cusa

e(un

derw

ater

disc

over

ies)

; Mar

zam

e-m

i’s w

reck

a, b

, d f

, k, j

(Map

i, G

5)

Kap

itaen

iiEa

ster

n M

edite

rran

ean:

the

Aeg

ean,

Sam

os a

nd th

e re

gion

aro

und

Ephe

sus.

Scifì

-For

za d

’Agr

ò (M

api,

G3)

; M

arin

a di

Itala

-Mon

te S

cude

ri (M

api,

G2)

; S. A

less

io -

Stat

io P

alm

ae (

Map

i, G

3);

Syra

cusa

e(u

nder

-w

ater

disc

over

ies)

, Mar

zam

emi’s

wre

ck a

, b,

d f,

k, j

(Map

i, G

5)

Kea

y vi

ii b

Nor

ther

n A

fric

a: S

outh

ern

Byza

cena

Car

abol

lace

(Map

i, C

4)

Kea

y xx

vN

orth

ern

Afr

ica

«Vill

a di

Ter

re B

ianc

he»

(Map

i, D

3);

Aqua

eSe

gest

anae

(Map

i, B3

);M

ansi

oad

Oliv

am (M

api,

B3);

Verd

ura

and

Car

abol

lace

(M

api,

C4)

;M

onta

llegr

o-C

ampa

naio

(Map

i, C

4);A

grig

en-

tum

(Map

i, C

4)

Kea

y xx

xiii

Nor

then

Afr

ica:

Tuni

siaM

onta

llegr

o-C

ampa

naio

(Map

i, C

4)

Kea

y xx

xiv

Nor

then

Afr

ica:

Byza

cena

(?)

Agri

gent

um(M

api,

C4)

roman sicily project: ceramics and trade 177Fo

rmSo

urce

Plac

e

Kea

y xx

xvN

orth

ern

Afr

ica:

mai

nly

Nab

eul(

Zeug

itana

)

Vill

a di

Ter

re B

ianc

he»

(Map

i, D

3);T

herm

aeH

imer

aeae

(Map

i, D

3);A

quae

Seg

esta

nae(

Map

i, B3

); M

ansi

oad

Oliv

am (M

api,

B3);

Verd

ura

and

Car

abol

lace

(M

api,

C4)

; M

onta

llegr

o-C

ampa

naio

(Map

i, C

4)

Kea

y xx

xvi

Nor

ther

n A

fric

a: T

unisi

a (N

orth

-Wes

tern

regi

on?)

Aqua

e Seg

esta

nae(

Map

i, B3

);M

ansi

oad

Oliv

am(M

api,

B3)

Kea

y xl

iiN

orth

ern

Afr

ica:

Nor

th W

este

rn T

unisi

a?Ag

rige

ntum

(Map

i, C

4)

Kea

y li

iEa

ster

n Si

cily

: Nax

os

Lipa

ra(M

api,

F1);

Gaz

zi, G

anzi

rri a

nd P

istu-

nina

(Map

i, H

2); S

cifì-

Forz

a d’

Agr

ò (M

api,

G3)

; Mar

ina

di I

tala

- Mon

te S

cude

ri (M

api,

G2)

; S. A

less

io-S

tatio

Pal

mae

(Map

i, G

3);N

ax-

os (M

api,

G3)

; Aqu

ae S

eges

tana

e(M

api,

B3);

Man

sio

ad O

livam

(Map

i, B3

)

Beng

hazi

mr1

East

ern

Sici

ly: S

anta

Ven

era

al P

ozzo

- sta

tioAc

ium

Stat

io A

cium

(Map

i, G

3)

Kea

y li

iSo

uthe

rn C

alab

riaCa

rabo

llace

(Map

i, C

4)

Kea

y li

iN

ot sp

ecifi

ed b

y th

e ed

itors

Rom

an v

illa

in B

orge

llusa

(Map

i, G

5)

Kea

y lv

Nor

ther

n A

fric

a:m

ainl

yN

abeu

l(Ze

ugita

na)

Cara

bolla

ce(M

api,

C4)

Kea

y lx

iN

orth

ern

Afr

ica:

Sahe

l reg

ion

of T

unisi

aR

occh

icel

la n

ear M

enai

(Map

i, F4

)

Kea

y lx

iiN

orth

ern

Afr

ica:

Byza

cena

and

Zeug

itana

Are

a co

nnec

ted

to M

egar

a’s

stat

io(M

api,

G4)

, Vill

a di

Ter

re B

ianc

he (M

api,

D3)

,The

r-m

ae H

imer

aeae

,Car

abol

lace

(Map

i, C

4);P

hilo

-so

phia

na (M

api,

E4)


Form

Sour

cePl

ace

Kea

y lx

ivN

orth

ern

Afr

ica

Vill

a di

Ter

re B

ianc

he (M

api,

D3)

Kno

ssos

4/5

East

ern

Med

iterr

anea

nG

azzi

, Gan

zirr

i and

Pist

unin

a (M

api,

H2)

Kuz

man

ov 2

0Bl

ack

sea -

Aeg

ean

area

Ceph

aloe

dium

(Map

i, E2

)

lra1

East

ern

Med

iterr

anea

n: C

ilici

aan

d Cy

prus

Gaz

zi, G

anzi

rri a

nd P

istun

ina (

Map

i, H

2); a

rea

betw

een

Agn

one a

nd C

aste

llucc

io (M

api,

G4)

,Sy

racu

sae

(und

erw

ater

disc

over

ies)

, Ven

dica

ri(M

api,

G5)

, Cas

tella

zzo

della

Mar

za (M

api,

F5),

Cau

cana

(Map

i, F5

), qu

arte

rs o

fVer

dura

and

Cara

bolla

ce(M

api,

C4)

; Mon

talle

gro-

quar

-te

r cam

pana

io(M

api,

C4)

,Cos

syra

(Pan

telle

ria:

Map

i, A

4);A

grig

entu

m(M

api,

C4)

Imita

tion

of l

ra1 a

nd v

aria

nts

East

ern

Sici

ly: S

anta

Ven

era

al P

ozzo

- sta

tioAc

ium

Stat

io A

cium

(Map

i, G

3)

Imita

tion

of l

ra1

Wes

tern

Sic

ily?

Mon

talle

gro-

Cam

pana

io (M

api,

C4)

lra2

Gre

ece

(Arg

olid

), C

hios

and

Cni

dos

Scifì

-For

za d

’Agr

ò (M

api,

G3)

; Mar

ina

di It

a-la

-Mon

te S

cude

ri (M

api,

G2)

; S. A

less

io-S

ta-

tio P

alm

ae (M

api,

G3)

;are

a be

twee

n A

gnon

ean

d C

aste

llucc

io (M

api,

G4)

, Are

a co

nnec

ted

to M

egar

a’ss

tatio

(Map

i, G

4), S

yrac

usae

(un-

derw

ater

disc

over

ies)

, qu

arte

rs o

fVe

rdur

aan

d C

arab

olla

ce (M

api,

C4)

;Agr

igen

tum

(Map

i, C

4); C

ossy

ra(P

ante

lleria

: Map

i, A

4)

lra3

East

ern

Med

iterr

anea

n: W

este

rn A

sia M

inor

,in

clud

ing

Ephe

sus,

the

Mea

nder

Val

ley,

Mile

tos

and

Perg

amon

Are

a be

twee

n A

gnon

e an

d C

aste

llucc

io (M

api,

G4)

,Cep

halo

ediu

m(M

api,

E2),

Cara

bolla

ce(M

api,

C4)

roman sicily project: ceramics and trade 179Fo

rmSo

urce

Plac

e

Ago

rà F

65-

F 66

“co

nten

itori

mon

oans

ati”

Coa

stal

are

as o

f A

sia M

inor

, inc

ludi

ng th

ere

gion

of

Ephe

sus

Scifì

-For

za d

’Agr

ò (M

api,

G3)

; Mar

ina

di It

a-la

-Mon

te S

cude

ri (M

api,

G2)

; S. A

less

io-S

ta-

tio P

alm

ae (M

api,

G3)

lra4

East

ern

Med

iterr

anea

n: P

ales

tine-

Gaz

aA

rea

betw

een

Agn

one

and

Cas

tellu

ccio

(Map

i, G

4),T

herm

ae H

imer

aeae

, Cos

syra

(Map

i, A

4)Ag

rige

ntum

(Map

i, C

4)

lra5

Pale

stin

e an

d N

orth

ern

Egyp

t (fr

om th

ela

te fi

fth c

entu

ry a

d)Co

ssyr

a(P

ante

lleria

: Map

i, A

4)

lra6

East

ern

Med

iterr

anea

n: p

roba

bly

Pale

stin

eA

rea

betw

een

Agn

one

and

Cas

tellu

ccio

(Map

i, G

4),C

ossy

ra(P

ante

lleria

: Map

i, A

4)

lra7

Nor

ther

n A

fric

a: E

gypt

Vend

icar

i (M

api,

G5)

, C

aste

llazz

o de

llaM

arza

(Map

i, F5

), C

auca

na (M

api,

F5)

lra1

0Ea

ster

n M

edite

rran

ean

Are

a be

twee

n A

gnon

e an

d C

aste

llucc

io (M

api,

G4)

Mid

Rom

an A

mph

ora

1Ea

ster

n Si

cily

: Nax

osN

axos

(Map

i, G

3)

Ric

hbor

ough

527

Aeo

lian

Isla

nds:

Lipa

raLi

para

(Map

i, F1

)

“S. A

less

io ty

pe”

and

varia

nts

East

ern

Sici

ly: N

axos

Nax

os (M

api,

G3)

; S. A

less

io w

reck

“Sam

os ci

ster

n ty

pe”

Gre

ek Is

land

(Sam

os) a

nd W

este

rn A

sia M

inor

Vend

icar

i (M

api,

G5)

, C

aste

llazz

o de

llaM

arza

(Map

i, F5

), C

auca

na (M

api,

F5)

Spat

heia

Nor

ther

n A

fric

a

Are

a be

twee

n A

gnon

e an

d C

aste

llucc

io (M

api,

G4)

,Syr

acus

ae(M

api,

G4)

, (So

rtin

o, C

.da

Gia

rran

auti:

Map

i, G

4),C

epha

loed

ium

(Map

i, E2

),T

herm

ae H

imer

aeae

(Te

rmin

i Im

eres

e:


Form

Sour

cePl

ace

Spat

heia

Nor

ther

n A

fric

aM

api,

D3)

,Aqu

ae S

eges

tana

e(M

api,

B3),

Man

-si

oad

Oliv

am (M

api,

B3),

Philo

soph

iana

(Map

i, E4

),Ag

rige

ntum

(Map

i, C

4)

“Spe

lloty

pe”

East

ern

Sici

ly: N

axos

Nax

os (M

api,

G3)

“Spi

nella

type

”Ea

ster

n Si

cily

: Nax

osSc

ifì - F

orza

d’A

grò

(Map

i, G

3); M

arin

a di

Ita-

la - M

onte

Scu

deri

(Map

i, G

2); S

. Ale

ssio

- Sta

-tio

Pal

mae

(Map

i, G

3)

“Ter

min

i Im

eres

e 151

-354

” ty

peN

orth

ern

Sici

ly: T

erm

ini I

mer

ese

The

rmae

Him

erae

ae (T

erm

ini I

mer

ese:

Map

i,D

3); A

grig

entu

m(M

api,

C4)

Sim

ilar t

o “T

erm

ini I

mer

ese 1

51-3

54”

Type

Nor

ther

n Si

cily

:Cap

o d’

Orla

ndo

(sta

tioAg

a thy

rnum

)Ag

athy

rnum

(Map

i, F2

);Li

para

(Map

i, F1

)

Trip

olita

nian

iiN

orth

ern

Afr

ica:

Lib

ya (T

ripo

litan

ia)

Gaz

zi,

Gan

zirr

i an

d Pi

stun

ina

(Map

i, H

2);

Scifì

-For

za d

’Agr

ò (M

api,

G3)

; Mar

ina

di It

a-la

-Mon

te S

cude

ri (M

api,

G2)

; S. A

less

io-S

ta-

tio P

alm

ae (M

api,

G3)

Trip

olita

nian

iii

Nor

ther

n A

fric

a: W

este

rn L

ibya

and

Sout

h-ea

ster

n Tu

nisia

(Tri

polit

ania

)

Gaz

zi,

Gan

zirr

i an

d Pi

stun

ina

(Map

i, H

2);

Scifì

-For

za d

’Agr

ò (M

api,

G3)

; Mar

ina d

i Ita

la-

Mon

te S

cude

ri (M

api,

G2)

; S. A

less

io - S

tatio

Palm

ae (

Map

i, G

3);C

arab

olla

ce(M

api,

C4)

Afr

ican

cyl

indr

ical

am

phor

ae o

fun

dete

rmin

ed ty

polo

gyN

orth

en A

fric

a

Mar

zam

emi’s

wre

ck A

, B, D

F, K

, J: (

Map

i,G

5); V

endi

cari

(Map

i, G

5), C

aste

llazz

o de

llaM

arza

((M

api,

G5)

, C

auca

na (

Map

i, F5

),T

herm

ae H

imer

aeae

(Map

i, D

3);C

ossy

ra(P

an-

telle

ria: M

ap i,

A4)

Anf

ora

with

“an

sa a

pro

filo

a or

ecch

ia”

Cen

tral

Sic

ily?

Maz

zarin

o-qu

arte

r of

Min

nelli

(Map

i, E4

)


BibliographyAdamesteanu 1962 = D. Adamesteanu, Primi documenti paleocristiani della Sicilia centro -

meridionale e la scoperta della Basilica di Sofiana, in Atti dei Congressi internazionali di Archeolo-gia Classica, vi, Ravenna, 1962, pp. 295-297.

Agnello 1953 = S. L. Agnello, Scoperta di una piccola catacomba a Portopalo (Pachino), «Rivistadi Archeologia Cristiana», xxix, 1953, pp. 167-183

Agrigento 1995 = Agrigento. La necropoli paleocristiana sub divo (Studi e Materiali), ed. R. M. Bo-nacasa Carra, Roma, 1995.

Alaimo et alii 1997= R. Alaimo et alii, Le ceramiche comuni di Agrigento, Segesta e Termini Ime-rese: risultati archemetrici e problemi archeologici, in Il contributo delle analisi archeometriche allo studio delle ceramiche grezze e comuni. Il rapporto forma/ funzione/ impasto, Atti della Prima Giornata di archeometria della ceramica (Bologna, 28 febbraio 1997), eds. S. Santoro Bian-chi, B. Fabbri, Bologna, 1997, pp. 46-69.

Alliata et alii 1988 = V. Alliata et alii, Himera iii. 1. Prospezione archeologica nel territorio, Roma, 1988.

Amari 2006 = S. Amari, I materiali in esposizione nell’Antiquarium. Sale i-ii-iii, in Branci-forti 2006, pp. 105-183.

Amari 2007 = S. Amari, A Late Roman Factory and a Brick Pottery in Sicily (Santa Venera al Pozzo), in Archaeometric and Archaeological Approaches to Ceramics. Papers presented at emac ’05,8th European Meeting on Ancient Ceramics, Lyon 2005, bar International Series 1691, ed. S. Y.Waksman, Oxford, 2007, pp. 121-128.

Ancona 1998 = G. Ancona, Testimonianze di cultura materiale dai cimiteri tardoantichi di Syra-cusae, in Et lux fuit. Le catacombe e il sarcofago di Adelfia. Catalogo della Mostra, Siracusa 1998,pp. 55-68.

Ancona 2000 = G. Ancona, Contenitori da trasporto cretesi della prima età imperiale a Lipari. Alcune considerazioni, in Nuovi studi di archeologia eoliana, eds. M. C. Martinelli, U. Spigo, Pa-lermo, 2000, pp. 99-112.

Arcifa 2000 = L. Arcifa, Per una geografia amministrativa dell’Altomedioevo in Sicilia. Nuove ipotesi di ricerca per un sito “bizantino”: Cittadella di Vindicari (Sr), in ii Congresso Nazionale DiArcheologia Medievale. Musei Civici, Chiesa Di Santa Giulia (Brescia, 28 Settembre-1 Ottobre 2000),Ed. G. P. Brogiolo, Firenze 2000, pp. 234-241.

Arcifa (in press) = L. Arcifa, La cristianizzazione nella Piana del Margi. Le basilichette di Rocchicella e Favarotta presso Mineo, in Atti ix Convegno di Archeologia Cristiana, Agrigento, Novembre 2004, in press.

Arcifa - Tomasello 2005 = L. Arcifa, F. Tomasello, Dinamiche insediative tra tardoantico edaltomedioevo. Il caso di Milocca, in Paesaggi ed insediamenti rurali in Italia meridionale tra tardo-antico ed altomedioevo, Atti del primo seminario sul tardoantico ed altomedioevo in Italia meridionale (Foggia 12-14 Febbraio 2004), eds. G. Volpe, M. Turchiano, staim i, Bari, 2005,pp. 649-666.

Arthur 1985 = P. Arthur, Naples: notes on the economy of a Dark Age city, in Papers in ItalianArchaeology IV, BAR, International Series 246, eds. C. Malone, S. Stoddart, Oxford, 1985,pp. 247-259.

Arthur 1998 = P. Arthur, Eastern Mediterranean amphorae between 500 and 700: a view from Italy,in Ceramica in Italia: vi-vii secolo. Atti del Convegno in onore di John W. Hayes (Rome, 11-13 mai1995), ed. L. Saguì, Firenze, 1998, pp. 305-330.

Arthur 2000 = P. Arthur, s.v. Archeologia del Commercio, in Dizionario di Archeologia, R. Fran-covich-D. Manacorda eds., Roma-Bari, 2000, pp. 65-75.

Bacci 1982-1983 = G. M. Bacci, Antico stabilimento per la pesca e la lavorazione del tonno pressoPortopalo, «Kokalos», 28-29, 1982-1983, pp. 345-347.


Bacci 1984-1985 = G. M. Bacci, Scavi e ricerche a Avola, Grammichele, Portopalo, Taormina, «Ko-kalos», 30-31, 1984-1985, pp. 711-725.

Bacci 2001 = G. Bacci, Archeologia subacquea sul versante siciliano dello stretto di Messina, in DaZancle a Messina. Un percorso archeologico attraverso gli scavi, ii, G. M. Bacci, G. Tigano eds.,Messina 2001, pp. 271-272.

Basile 1994 = B. Basile, Ricognizioni subacquee lungo la costa Siracusana nell’ultimo quinquennio,in Dioniso e il mare. Atti della vi Rassegna di archeologia subacquea (Giardini Naxos 25-27 ottobre1991), ed. M. C. Lentini, Villa San Giovanni, 1994, pp. 11-29.

Basile 1996 = B. Basile, Giarranauti: un insediamento tardo-antico in territorio di Sortino, «Aitna. Quaderni di Topografia Antica. Atti delle Giornate di Studio sugli insediamenti ru-rali della Sicilia Antica organizzate dal ce.si.t.a. e dal ce.u.t.a. (Caltagirone, 29-30 Giugno1992)», ii, 1996, pp. 141-150.

Bejor 1974 = G. Bejor, Ricerche di topografia e di archeologia romana nella Sicilia sud-occidenta-le, «Annali della Scuola Normale Superiore di Pisa», iii, iv, 1974, pp. 1275-1303.

Bejor 1986 = G. Bejor, Gli insediamenti della Sicilia romana: distribuzione, tipologie e sviluppo daun primo inventario dei dati archeologici, in Società romana e impero tardo-antico, iii, Bari, 1986,pp. 463-519.

Belvedere et alii 1998 a = O. Belvedere et alii, Le ceramiche comuni di Agrigento, Segesta e Termini Imerese: risultati archeometrici e problemi archeologici. iv: Anfore e ceramiche comuni diTermini Imerese, in Il contributo delle analisi archeometriche allo studio delle ceramiche grezze e comuni: il rapporto forma/funzione/impasto, Atti della prima giornata di archeometria dellaceramica, eds. S. Santoro Bianchi, B. Fabbri, Bologna, 1998, pp. 60-67.

Belvedere et alii 1998 b = O. Belvedere et alii, Indagini archeometriche di ceramiche antiche emedievali provenienti da Termini Imerese (Sicilia), in Proceedings of 1st International Congress on:“Science and Technology for the Saveguard of Cultural Heritage in the Mediterranean Basin” (Ca-tina 1995), Palermo, 1998, pp. 501-520.

Bernardini et alii 2000 = S. Bernardini et alii, Il territorio di Segesta fra l’età arcaica e il Medioevo. Nuovi dati dalla Carta Archeologica di Calatafimi, in Atti delle Terze Giornate Inter-nazionali di Studi sull’area Elima, (Gibellina-Erice-Contessa Entellina, 23-26 ottobre 1997),Pisa-Gibellina, 2000, pp. 91-133.

Bonacasa Carra 1986 = R. M. Bonacasa Carra, Nuove indagini nella necropoli paleocristia-na di Agrigento (Scavi 1985), «Kokalos», xxxii, 1986, pp. 305-331.

Bonacasa Carra 1987 = Agrigento Paleocristiana: zona archeologica ed Antiquarium, ed. R. M.Bonacasa Carra, Palermo 1987.

Bonacasa Carra 1990 = R. M. Bonacasa Carra, La necropoli paleocristiana di Agrigento:aspetti e problemi, in Atti del iv Convegno sull’archeologia tardo-romana e medievale (Cuglieri 27-28 giugno 1987), «Mediterraneo tardoantico e medievale. Scavi e ricerche», 8, Oristano,1990, pp. 391-412.

Bonacasa Carra 1996 = R. M. Bonacasa Carra, Agrigento paleocristiana, in Da Akragas adAgrigentum, «Kokalos», xlii, 1996, pp. 59-74.

Bonacasa Carra 2000 = R. M. Bonacasa Carra, Palermo paleocristiana e bizantina, in Storiadi Palermo ii. Dal tardo antico all’Islam, ed. R. La Duca, Palermo, 2000, pp. 32-50.

Bonacasa Carra 2002 = R. M. Bonacasa Carra, Sofiana, in La Sicilia centro meridionale trail ii e il vi sec. d.C. Catalogo della mostra (Caltanissetta-Gela, aprile-dicembre 1997), eds. R. M.Bonacasa Carra, R. Panvini, Palermo 2002, pp. 103-114.

Bonacini 2007 = E. Bonacini, Il territorio calatino nella Sicilia imperiale e tardoromana, bar,International Series 1694, Oxford, 2007.

Bonanno 2001 = C. Bonanno, L’insediamento rurale suburbano nei pressi della via per Catina, inDa Zancle a Messina. Un percorso archeologico attraverso gli scavi, ii, eds. G. M. Bacci, G. Tiga-no, Messina, 2001, 195-205.

roman sicily project: ceramics and trade 183Bonanno - Sudano 2007 = C. Bonanno, F. Sudano, Kale Akte. L’insediamento in Contrada

Pantano a Caronia Marina, in Malfitana - Poblome - Lund 2006, pp. 435-448.Bonifay 2004 = M. Bonifay, Etudes sur la céramique romaine tardive d’Afrique, bar, Interna-

tional Series 1301, Oxford, 2004.Bonomi 1964 = L. Bonomi, Cimiteri paleocristiani di Sofiana, «Rivista di archeologia cristiana»,

xl, 1964, pp. 169-220.Borgard-Capelli 2005 = P. Borgard, C. Capelli, Origine et typologie des amphores à alun de

Lipari, in L’alun de Méditerranée. Colloqui international, Naples, 4-5-6 juin 2003, Lipari, 7-8 juin2003, eds P. Borgard, J.-P. Brun, M. Picon, Centre Jean Bérard/Centre Camille Jullian, Na-ples-Aix en Provence, 2005, pp. 211-213.

Botte 2007 = E. Botte, Les amphores Dressel 21-22 de Pompéi, «Quaderni di Studi Pompeiani»,1, 2007, pp. 169-186.

Botte in press = E. Botte, Les salaisons de poissons de Cumes (Italie) au ier siècle de notre ère. Unenouvelle inscription peinte sur amphore Dressel 21/22, dans Ressources et activités maritimes despeuples de l’Antiquité, Colloque international de Boulogne-sur-mer (12-14 mai 2005).

Botte - Capelli (in press) = E. Botte, C. Capelli, Le Dressel 21-22: anfore da pesce tirrenichedell’Alto Impero, in Olio e pesce in epoca romana produzione e commercio nelle regioni dell’AltoAdriatico. Atti del convegno internazionale di Padova (16 feb. 2007), eds. S. Pesavento Mattioli,M.-B. Carre.

Bove 1994 = A. Bove, La tipologia strutturale dell’insediamento agricolo presente nella Sicilia cen-tro-occidentaledurante gli anni della dominazione rurale, «Sicilia Archeologica», xxvii, 84, 1994,pp. 79-111.

Branciforti-Amari 2005 = M. G. Branciforti, S. Amari, Gli scavi archeologici nell’ex Re-clusorio della Purità a Catina, in Megalai Nesoi. Studi dedicati a Giovanni Rizza per il suo ottan-tesimo compleanno, ii, ed. R. Gigli, Catania, 2005, pp. 47-78.

Branciforti 2006 = L’Area archeologica di S. Venera al Pozzo-Acium, ed. M. G. Branciforti, Palermo, 2006.

Burgio 2002 = Burgio, Resuttano. IGM 259 III SO, Forma Italiae 42, Firenze, 2002.Cacciaguerra 2007 = G. Cacciaguerra, Megara Hyblaea (Augusta, SR) tra l’età tardo impe-

riale ed il bassomedioevo, «Archeologia Medievale», 34, 2007, pp. 269-281.Callender 1965 = M. H. Callender, Roman Amphorae, London, Oxford, 1965.Cambi 2003 = F. Cambi, Insediamenti ellenistici nella Sicilia occidentale. Il caso segestano, in Atti

delle Quarte Giornate Internazionali di Studi sull’Area Elima (Erice, 1-4 dicembre 2000), Pisa, 2004, pp. 135-169.

Cambi 2005 = F. Cambi, Segesta. I villaggi di età imperiale, in Paesaggi e insediamenti rurali in ItaliaMeridionale fra tardoantico e altomedioevo (Foggia 12-14 Febbraio 2004), Atti del Primo semi-nario sul Tardoantico e l’altomedioevo in Italia meridionale, Bari, 2005, pp. 623-640.

Camerata Scovazzo 1993-1994 = R. Camerata Scovazzo, Soprintendenza Beni Culturali eAmbientali – sezione per i Beni archeologici. Trapani, «Kokalos», xxxix-xl, ii, 2, 1993-1994, pp.1423-1456.

Camerata Scovazzo 1996 = R. Camerata Scovazzo, Segesta. La carta archeologica, Palermo,1996.

Caminneci - Franco - Galioto (in press) = V. Caminneci, C. Franco, G. Galioto, L’in-sediamento tardoantico di contrada Carabollace (Sciacca-Agrigento, Sicilia, Italia): primi dati suirinvenimenti ceramici, in lrcw iii, Pisa-Parma, 2008 (in press).

Campagna 2003 = L. Campagna, La Sicilia di età repubblicana nella storiografia degli ultimi cinquant’anni, «Ostraka», xii, 1, 2003, pp. 7-31.

Canzanella 1988 = M. G. Canzanella, Ricognizioni nella regione di Entella (1986-1987), in Entella 1988, pp. 1479-1491.


Canzanella 1992 = M. G. Canzanella, L’insediamento rurale nella regione di Entella, in Attidelle Prime Giornate internazionali di Studi sull’Area Elima (Gibellina, 19-22 settembre 1991), Pisa-Gibellina, 1992, pp. 151-172.

Canzanella 1993 = M. G. Canzanella, L’insediamento rurale nella regione di Entella dall’etàarcaica al vii sec. d.C. Materiali e contributi, in Alla ricerca di Entella, ed. G. Nenci, Pisa, 1993,pp. 197-338.

Capelli - Piazza 2006 = C. Capelli, M. Piazza, Analisi mineropetrografiche sulle Anfore Dres-sel 21-22 provenienti da Alcamo Marina, in Le fornaci romane di Alcamo. Rassegna, ricerche e scavi2003-2005, ed. D. Giorgetti, Roma, 2006, pp. 171-173.

Caruso 2000 = E. Caruso, Documenti e problemi di topografia storica delle città fenicie e punichedella Sicilia Occidentale: la necropoli ed il tofet di Lilibeo (Marsala), in Atti delle Terze Internazio-nali di Studi sull’area Elima, (Gibellina-Erice-Contessa Entellina, 23-26 ottobre 1997), Pisa-Gibelli-na, 2000, pp. 217-262.

Castellana 1983 = G. Castellana, Nuove ricognizioni nel territorio di Palma di Montechiaro(Agrigento), «Sicilia Archeologica», xvi, 52-53, 1983, pp. 119-146.

Castellana 1991 = G. Castellana, s.v. Menfi, in Bibliografia topografica della colonizzazionegreca in Italia e nelle isole tirreniche, ix, 1991, eds. G. Nenci, G. Vallet, Pisa-Roma, 1991.

Castellana 1992 = G. Castellana, La sigillata africana dell’insediamento di età imperiale e bizantina del Saraceno di Favara presso Agrigento, «Sicilia Archeologica», xxv, 78-79, 1992, pp.45-70.

Castellana - Mc Connell 1986 = G. Castellana, B. E. Mc Connell, Notizia prelimina-re sullo scavo della villa romana in contrada Saraceno nel territorio di Agrigento, «Sicilia Archeo-logica», 60-61, 1986, pp. 97-108.

Castellana - Mc Connell 1990 = G. Castellana, B. E. Mc Connell, A rural settlementof imperial and byzantine date in Contrada Saraceno near Agrigento, Sicily, «American Journalof Archaeology», 94, 1, 1990, pp. 25-44.

Cattani - Tosi 1997 = M. Cattani - M. Tosi, La carta archeologica di Pantelleria, «Ocnus», 5,1997, pp. 243-248.

Cavalier - Livadie 1985 = M. Cavalier, C. A. Livadie, Panarea. Il relitto Alberti, «Bollettinodi Archeologia», 1985, Suppl., pp. 71-77.

Ciaccio 1900-1904 = M. Ciaccio, Sciacca, notizie storiche e documenti, Sciacca, 1900-1904.Cracco Ruggini 1982-1983 = L. Cracco Ruggini, Sicilia iii-iv secolo: il volto della non-città,

«Kokalos», 28-29, 1982-1983, pp. 477-515.Cracco Ruggini 2000 = L. Cracco Ruggini, Plinio il Giovane, in Mercati permanenti e mer-

cati periodici nel mondo romano. Atti Incontri capresi di storia dell’Economia antica (Capri 1997),ed. E. Lo Cascio, Bari, 2000, pp. 172-173.

Cucco 1995 = R. M. Cucco, Due insediamenti di età romana nel territorio ad E del fiume Imera,«Kokalos», xli, 1995, pp. 139-182.

De miro 1967 = E. De Miro, Monte Adranone, antico centro di età greca, «Kokalos», xiii, 1967,pp. 180-185.

De Miro 2003 = E. De Miro, Agrigento ii-i santuari extraurbani. L’Asklepieion, Agrigento, 2003.Denaro 1995 = M. Denaro, La distribuzione delle anfore ellenistico-romane in Sicilia (iii sec. a.C.-

iii sec. d.C.), «Kokalos», xli, 1995, pp. 183-207.De Romanis 2004 = De Romanis, Il porto di Caucana: prospettive annonarie, «Rendiconti della

Classe di Scienze morali, storiche e filologiche dell’Accademia dei Lincei», 2004, pp. 303-312.De Salvo 1992 = L. De Salvo, Economia privata e pubblici servizi nell’impero romano. I corpora

naviculariorum, Messina, 1992.De Salvo 2002 = L. De Salvo, Traffici marittimi nello Stretto di Messina, in Messina e Reggio nel-

l’antichità: storia, società, cultura. Atti del Convegno della s.i.s.a.c. (Messina-Reggio Calabria 24-26 Maggio 1999), eds. B. Gentili, A. Pinzone, Messina, 2002, pp. 365-377.

roman sicily project: ceramics and trade 185Desbat et alii = A. Desbat et alii, Le dépôt d’amphores augustéen de la rue de la Favorite à Lyon,

«Figlina», 7, 1986, pp. 65-89.Di Stefano 1980 = C. A. Di Stefano, Lilibeo alla luce delle nuove scoperte archeologiche, «Sici-

lia Archeologica», xii, 43, pp. 7-20.Di Stefano 1980-1981 = C. A. Di Stefano, Marsala: ricerche archeologiche nell’ultimo quadrien-

nio, «Kokalos», xxvi-xxvii, ii, 2, 1980-1981, pp. 870 –876.Di Stefano 1982-1983 = C. A. Di Stefano, La documentazione archeologica del iii e iv d.C. nel-

la provincia di Trapani, pp. 350-367, in Città e contado nella Sicilia centro-meridionale nel iii e ivd.C., «Kokalos», xxv-xxvi, 1982 –1983, pp. 319-529.

Di Stefano 1984 = C. A. Di Stefano, Lilibeo. Testimonianze archeologiche dal iv sec. a.C. al vsec. d.C., «Bollettino dei Beni culturali e ambientali Sicilia», 5, 1984, pp. 123-126.

Di Stefano 1997-1998 = C. A. Di Stefano, Testimonianze archeologiche della tarda età romananella provincia di Palermo, in Atti del ix Congresso internazionale di Studi sulla Sicilia antica, «Kokalos», xliii-xliv, 1, 1997-1998, pp. 453-462.

Di Stefano 2002 = C. A. Di Stefano, Il territorio della Provincia di Palermo tra la tarda età romana e l’età bizantina. Problemi aperti e nuove acquisizioni, in Byzantino-Sicula iv, Atti del icongresso internazionale di archeologia della Sicilia Bizantina (Corleone, 28 Luglio-2 Agosto 1998),Palermo, 2002, pp. 307-326.

Dressel 1879 = H. Dressel, Di un grande deposito di anfore rinvenuto nel nuovo quartiere del Castro Pretorio, «Bullettino della commissione archeologica communale di Roma», 7, 1879,pp. 36-112; 143-195, tav. vii-xviii.

Dubouloz - Pittia 2007 = La Sicile de Cicéron. Lectures des Verrines. Actes du colloque de Paris,19-20 mai 2006, eds. J. Dubouloz, S. Pittia, Besançon, 2007.

Entella 1988 = Entella ricognizioni topografiche e scavi 1987, «Annali della Scuola Normale Supe-riore di Pisa», Pisa, 1988.

Etienne - Mayet 2002 = R. Etienne, F. Mayet, Salaisons et sauces de poisson hispaniques, Troisclés pour l’économie de l’Hispanie romaine, ii, Paris, 2002.

Fallico 1971 = A. M. Fallico, Saggi di scavo nell’area della villa Maria, «Notizie degli Scavi diAntichità», 1971, pp. 581-639.

Fallico 2005 = A. M. Fallico, Caucana. Manufatti dall’insediamento, in Di abitato in abitato. Initinere fra le più antiche testimonianze cristiane degli Iblei. Atti del Convegno Internazionale di studi(Ragusa-Catina, 3-5 aprile 2003), ed. F. P. Rizzo, Pisa-Roma, 2005, pp. 201-222.

Fiorentini 1993-1994 = G. Fiorentini, Attività di indagini archeologiche della Soprintendenzabeni culturali e ambientali di Agrigento, «Kokalos», xxxix-xl, 1994-1994, pp. 717-733.

Fiorilla 1990 = S. Fiorilla, Schede, in S. Scuto, Fornaci, Castelli e Pozzi dell’età di mezzo. Primi contributi di archeologia medievale nella Sicilia centro-meridionale (Mostra del Museo diArcheologico di Gela, 9 Giugno-31 Dicembre 1990), Agrigento, 1990.

Fiorilla 1997 = S. Fiorilla, Butera e il suo territorio tra tardoantico e tardomedioevo, «Sicilia Archeologica», xxx, 94, 1997, pp. 167-177.

Garozzo 2003 = B. Garozzo, Nuovi dati sull’instrumentum domesticum bollato - anfore e laterizi- dal palermitano, in Atti delle Quarte Giornate Internazionali di Studi sull’Area Elima (Erice 1-4dicembre 2000), Pisa, 2003, pp. 557-683.

Gentili 1956 = G. V. Gentili, Siracusa, «Notizie degli Scavi di Antichità» 81,1956, pp. 99-107.Giordano - Casale 1991= C. Giordano, A. Casale, Iscrizioni pompeiane inedite scoperte tra

gli anni 1954-1978, «Atti della Accademia Ponteniana», n.s., 39, 1991, pp. 273-378.Giorgetti 2006 = Le fornaci romane di Alcamo. Rassegna, ricerche e scavi 2003-2005, ed. D. Gior-

getti, Roma, 2006.Giorgetti - Gonzalez Muro - Botte 2006 = D. Giorgetti, X. Gonzalez Muro, E. Bot-

te, Nouvelles considérations sur la production d’amphores Dressel 21-22, L’atelier d’Alcamo Mari-na (Trapani, Sicile), sfecag, Actes du Congrès de Pézenas, 27-29 mai 2006, 2006, pp. 505-516.


Giustolisi 1981 = V. Giustolisi, Camico, Triocala, Caltabellotta, Palermo, 1981.Gonzalez Muro 2006 = X. Gonzalez Muro, Lo scavo archeologico: prime considerazioni sul-

le strutture e il materiale rinvenuto, in Le fornaci romane di Alcamo, Rassegna ricerche e scavo2003/2005, ed. D. Giorgetti, Roma, 2006, pp. 35-97.

Hesnard 1980= A. Hesnard, Un dépôt augustéen d’amphores à la Longarina, Ostie, in The Seaborne Commerce of Ancient Rome: Studies in Archaeology and History, eds. J. H. D’Arms, E.C. Kopff, «Memoirs of the American Academy in Rome», xxxvi, 1980, pp. 141-156.

Himera iii.1 = Himera iii.1. Prospezione archeologica nel territorio, Roma, 1988.Himera iii.2 = Himera iii.2. Prospezione archeologica nel territorio, Roma, 2002.Isler 1991 = H. P. Isler, Monte Iato. Guida archeologica, Palermo, 1991.Johns 1992 = J. Johns, Monreale Survey. L’insediamento nell’Alto Belice dall’età paleolitica al 1250

d.C., in Atti delle Prime Giornate Internazionali di Studi sull’Area Elima (Gibellina, 19-22 settem-bre 1991), ii, Pisa-Gibellina, 1992, pp. 407-420.

Kajanto 1965 = I. Kajanto, The Latin cognomina, «Commentationes humanarum littera-rum», xxxvi, 2, Helsinki, 1965.

Kapitaen 1967-1968= G. Kapitaen, Sul Lakkios, porto piccolo di Siracusa del periodo greco. Ricerche di topografia sottomarina, «Archivio Storico di Siracusa», 13-14, 1967-68, pp. 167-180.

Kuzmanov 1973 = G. Kuzmanov, Typologie et chronologie des amphores de la haute époque byzantine (ive-vie s.), «Archeologija», xv, 1973, pp. 14-21.

La Fauci 2002 = F. La Fauci, Nuove osservazioni sui relitti di Capo Ognina (Siracusa), «Archeo-logia Subacquea», 3, 2002, pp. 335-352.

La Fauci 2004 = F. La Fauci, Rinvenimenti archeologici sottomarini ad Agnone e Punta Castelluc-cio, in Leontini. Il mare, il fiume, la città. Atti della giornata di studio (Lentini, 4 maggio 2002), ed.M. Frasca, Siracusa, 2004, pp. 21-26.

La Lomia 1986 = M. R. La Lomia, Ricerche archeologiche nel territorio di Naro (Ag). Esplorazionee scavo di ipogei paleocristiani in C.da Canale e saggio di scavo in C.da Paradiso, «Kokalos», xxxii,1968, pp. 333 –361.

Lamboglia 1955 = N. Lamboglia, Sulla cronologia delle anfore romane di etá repubblicana (ii-i secolo a.C.), «Rivista di Studi Liguri», xxi, 1955, pp. 241-270.

La Torre 1993-1994 = G. F. La Torre, Mazzarino (Cl)-Contrada Sofiana. Scavi 1988-1990, «Kokalos», xxxix-xl, 1993-1994, pp. 765-768.

La Torre 1994 = G. F. La Torre, Gela sive Philosophianis (It. Antonini, 88, 2): contributo per lastoria di un centro interno della Sicilia Romana, «Quaderni dell’Istituto di Archeologia della Facoltà di Lettere e Filosofia dell’Università di Messina», 9, 1994, pp. 99-139.

Lauricella 2002 = M. Lauricella, in La Sicilia centro meridionale tra il ii e il vi sec. d.C. Cata-logo della mostra (Caltanissetta-Gela/aprile-dicembre 1997), eds. R. M. Bonacasa Carra, R.Panvini, Palermo, 2002, pp. 117-218.

Lazzaretti 2006 = A. Lazzeretti, M. Tulli Ciceronis, In C. Verrem actionis secundae. LiberQuartus (De signis). Commento storico e archeologico, Pisa, 2006.

Lebole 1998 = C. M. Lebole, Anfore Keay lii ed altri materiali ceramici da contesti di scavo dellaCalabria centro-meridionale (v-viii secolo), in Ceramica in Italia: vi-vii secolo (Atti del Conve-gno in onore di J. W. Hayes, Roma 11-13 Maggio 1995), ed. L. Saguì, Firenze, 1998, pp. 761-768.

Lentini 1982 = M. C. Lentini, Scavi in Contrada Nunziata, «Bollettino dei Beni culturali e ambientali Sicilia», 1982, p. 72.

Lentini 2001 = M. C. Lentini, Naxos di Sicilia dall’età ellenistica all’età bizantina, in Naxos diSicilia 2001, pp. 13-39.

Lentini - Göransson - Lindhagen 2002 = M. C. Lentini, K. Göransson, A. Lindhagen,Excavation at Sicilian Caronia, Ancient Kale Akte 1999-2001, «Opuscula Romana: acta Inst.Rom. Regni Sueciae», 27, 2002, pp. 79-108.

roman sicily project: ceramics and trade 187Lentini - Ollà 2001 a = M. C. Lentini, A. Ollà, Esplorazioni a Scifì (Comune di Forza d’Agrò).

Catalogo, in Naxos di Sicilia 2001, pp. 123-127.Lentini - Ollà 2001 b = M. C. Lentini, A. Ollà, Una villa marittima a Marina di Itala. Cata-

logo, in Naxos di Sicilia 2001, pp. 107-114.Lentini - Ollà 2001 c = M. C. Lentini, A. Ollà, Scavi a Capo S. Alessio - Catalogo, in Naxos di

Sicilia 2001, pp. 115-122.Liou - Gassend 1990 = B. Liou, J.-M. Gassend, L’épave Saint-Gervais 3 à Fos-sur-Mer, «Archa-

eonautica», 10, 1990, pp. 157-264.Lo Cascio 1990 = P. Lo Cascio, Solanto: nuove scoperte archeologiche, «Sicilia Archeologica»,

73, 1990, pp. 33-39.lrcw iii = Late Roman Coarse Wares, Cooking Wares and Amphora in the Mediterranean. Archeao-

logy and Archeaometry, Pisa-Parma 2008 (in press).Lusuardi Siena - Murialdo 1991 = S. Lusuardi Siena - G. Murialdo, Le ceramiche

mediterranee in Liguria durante il periodo bizantino (vi-vii secolo), in A ceramica medieval no Mediterraneo Ocidental (Lisboa 1987), Mértola, 1991, pp. 123-146.

Malfitana 2004 a = D. Malfitana, Anfore e ceramiche fini da mensa orientali nella Sicilia tar-do-ellenistica e romana: merci e genti tra Oriente ed Occidente, in Transport Amphorae and Tradein the Eastern Mediterranean. International Colloquium at the Danish Institute at Athens, 26-29September 2002. Monographs of the Danish Institute at Athens, 5, eds. J. Lund, J. Eiring, Copen-hagen, 2004, pp. 239-250.

Malfitana 2004 b = D. Malfitana, Italian Sigillata Imported in Sicily: the evidence of stamps,in Early Italian Sigillata. The chronological framework and trade patterns. Catholic University ofLeuven. First International roct conference, 7-8 maggio 1999. BABesch. Supplement, 10, eds, J.Poblome et al., Leuven-Paris, 2004, pp. 295-323.

Malfitana 2006 a = D. Malfitana, Metodologie, problemi e prospettive di ricerca negli studi diceramologia ellenistica e romana in Sicilia. Un planning per future ricerche tra archeologia e archeometria, in Malfitana - Poblome - Lund 2006, pp. 399-420.

Malfitana 2006 b = D. Malfitana, Economia, territorio ed officine ceramiche nella Sicilia tardoellenistica. Alcune riflessioni su identità, integrazione ed innovazione, in Territorio e produzioni ce-ramiche. Paesaggi, economia e società in età romana, Atti dell’incontro internazionale, Pisa 20-22ottobre 2005, a cura di S. Menchelli, M. Pasquinucci, Pisa, 2006, pp. 153-164.

Malfitana - Bonifay - Capelli (in press) = D. Malfitana, M. Bonifay, C. Capelli, Unprogetto italo francese (cnr-cnrs) per lo studio delle importazioni di ceramiche africane nella Sici-lia romana, vandala, ostrogota e bizantina. Problemi archeologici e archeometrici. Status quae-stionis, metodologie e percorsi di indagine, in «Rivista di Archeologia», 2007 (in press).

Malfitana - Poblome - Lund 2006 = Old Pottery in a New Century. Innovative Perspectives onRoman Pottery Studies, Atti del convegno internazionale di Studi, Catania, 22-24 Aprile 2004, Mo-nografie dell’Istituto per i beni archeologici e Monumentali, 1, eds. D. Malfitana, J. Poblo-me, J. Lund, Catania, 2006.

Marino 2006 = R. Marino, Centralità e/o marginalità della Sicilia tra la crisi dell ares publica ei primi anni dell’impero, in La Sicilia romana tra Repubblica e Alto impero. Atti del convegno di stu-di, Caltanissetta 20-21 maggio 2006, a cura di C. Miccichè, S. Modeo, L. Santagati, Caltanis-setta, 2006, pp. 8-13.

Martin-Kilcher 2002 = S. Martin-Kilcher, Lucius Urittius Verecundus, négociant à la fin duier siècle, et sa marchandise découverte à Mayence, in L. Rivet, M. Sciallano, Vivre, produire etéchanger: reflets méditerranéens, Mélanges offerts à Bernard Liou, «Archéologie et Histoire ro-maine», 8, Montagnac, ed. Monique Mergoil, 2002, pp. 343-353.

Massa 2002 = S. Massa, Le importazioni di merci nordafricane in età tardo antica e bizantina: letestimonianze di Pantelleria, in Byzantino-Sicula iv, in Atti del i congresso internazionale di ar-cheologia della Sicilia Bizantina (Corleone, 28 Luglio-2 Agosto 1998), Palermo, 2002, pp. 385-394.


Mazza 1980-1981 = M. Mazza, Economia e società nella Sicilia romana, «Kokalos» 26-27, 1980-1981, pp. 292-353

Meligunìs ix = Meligunìs Lipàra, ix, Topografia in età greca e Romana, ii, eds. L. Bernabò Brea, M.Cavalier, F. Villard, appendici di M. A. Mastelloni, E. Messina, G. Ancona, A. Ollà, L. Cam-pagna, U. Spigo, Palermo, 1998.

Meligunìs x = Meligunìs Lipàra, x, Scoperte e scavi archeologici nell’area urbana e suburbana. eds. L.Bernabò Brea, M. Cavalier, studi monografici di A. Sardella, M. G. Vanaria, Ph. Bogard, A.De Filippis, L. M. Rendina, contributi di G. Ancona, E. Messina, M. Denaro, Roma, 2000.

Meligunìs xi = Meligunìs Lipára, xi. Gli scavi nella necropoli greca e romana di Lipari nell’area delterreno vescovile, eds. L. Bernabò Brea, M. Cavalier, F. Villard, Lipari, 2001.

Messina 2000 = E. Messina, Alcune anfore tardoromane di Lipari, in Nuovi studi di archeologia eo-liana, eds. U. Spigo, M. C. Martinelli, Messina, 2000, pp. 113-124.

Molè 1999 = C. Molè Ventura, Dinamiche di acculturazione in epoca augustea, in Magna Gre-cia e Sicilia. Stato degli studi e prospettive di ricerca, eds. M. Barra Bagnasco, E. De Miro, A.Pinzone, Messina, 1999, pp. 415-438.

Molinari 1997 = A. Molinari, Segesta II. Il Castello e la moschea (scavi 1989-1995), Palermo, 1997.Molinari - Neri 2004 = A. Molinari, I. Neri, Dall’età tardo-imperiale al xii secolo, in La Sici-

lia islamica, Atti del Convegno (Roma 2001), ed. A. Molinari, «Mélanges de l’Ecole française deRome», 116, 1, pp. 109-127.

Moschella 1994 = G. Moschella, Campagna di documentazione promossa dall’Archeoclubd’Italia in collaborazione con il Comune di S. Alessio Siculo, in Dioniso e il mare. Atti della vi Ras-segna di archeologia subacqua (Giardini Naxos 25-27 ottobre 1991), ed. M. C. Lentini, Villa SanGiovanni, 1994, pp. 127-128.

Naxos di Sicilia 2001 = Naxos di Sicilia in età romana e bizantina ed evidenze dai Peloritani. Catalo-go Mostra Archeologica Museo di Naxos (3 dicembre 1999-3 gennaio 2000), ed. M. C. Lentini, Bari,2001.

Ollà 2001 = A. Ollà, La produzione di anfore vinarie a Naxos (iii a.C.-v d.C.), in Naxos di Sici-lia 2001, pp. 47-60.

Orsi 1925 = P. Orsi, Siracusa. Nuova necropoli greca dei sec. vii-vi, «Notizie degli Scavi di Anti-chità», 1925, pp. 176-204.

Ostia iv = Ostia iv. Le Terme del Nuotatore. Scavo dell’ambiente xvi e dell’area xxv, Studi Miscel-lanei, 23, eds. A. Carandini, C. Panella, Roma, 1977.

Pacetti 1998 = F. Pacetti, La questione delle Keay lii nell’ambito della produzione anforica in Ita-lia, in Ceramica in Italia: vi-vii secolo (Atti del Convegno in onore di J. W. Hayes, Roma 11-13Maggio 1995), ed. L. Saguì, Firenze, 1998, pp. 185-208.

Panella 1993 = C. Panella, Merci e scambi nel mediterraneo tardoantico, in Storia di Roma, iii,2, Torino, 1993, pp. 613-697.

Panella 2001 = C. Panella, Le anfore di età imperiale del Mediterraneo occidentale, in Cérami-ques hellénistiques et romaines, iii, Paris, 2001, pp. 177-275.

Panvini 2002 = R. Panvini, Insediamenti bizantini nella Sicilia centro-meridionale, in Byzantino -Sicula iv, Atti del i congresso internazionale di archeologia della Sicilia Bizantina (Corleone, 28 Luglio-2 Agosto 1998), Palermo, 2002, pp. 191-214.

Parello - D’Amico - D’Angelo (in press) = M. C. Parello, A. D’Amico, F. D’Angelo,L’insediamento alla foce del Verdura in territorio di Sciacca Agrigento - Sicilia - Italia). I Materiali,in lrcw iii, (in press).

Parker 1992 = A. J. Parker, Ancient Shipwreck of the Mediterranean and the Roman Provinces, inbar, International Series 580, Oxford, 1992.

Peacock - Williams 1986 = D. Peacock, D. Williams, Amphorae and the roman economy, anintroductory guide, London, 1986.

roman sicily project: ceramics and trade 189Pelagatti 1972 = P. Pelagatti, Archeologia nel ragusano, Kaukana: un ancoraggio bizantino,

«Sicilia Archeologica», 18-20, 1972, pp. 89-117.Pelagatti - Di Stefano 1999 = P. Pelagatti, G. Di Stefano, Kaukana. Il chorion bizanti-

no, Palermo, 1999.Perkins 2007 = P. Perkins, Aliud in Sicilia? Cultural development in Rome’s first province, in

Articulating Local Cultures: power and identity under the expanding Roman Repubblic, eds. P. vanDommelen, N. Terrenato, «Journal of Roman Archaeology. Supplementary Series, 63»,Portsmouth, Rhode Island, 2007, pp. 33-54.

Picone 1994 = E. Picone, L’ipogeo Manomozza iii presso Priolo Gargallo, «Quaderni di studiodella Facoltà di Lettere e Filosofia dell’Università di Messina», 1994, pp.141-167.

Pinzone 2002 = A. Pinzone, Elementi di novità e legami con la tradizione a Messana tra tarda re-pubblica e inizi Impero, in Messina e Reggio nell’antichità: storia, società, cultura. Atti del Conve-gno della s.i.s.a.c. (Messina-Reggio Calabria 24-26 Maggio 1999), eds. B. Gentili, A. Pinzone,Messina, 2002, pp. 111-125.

Poblome - Malfitana - Lund 2008 = J. Poblome, D. Malfitana, J. Lund, Tempus fugit,«Facta» manent. Editorial statement, in «Facta. A Journal of Roman material culture studies»,1, 2007, pp. 13-20.

Polito 2001 = A. Polito, Resti di un insediamento rurale in contrada Carboj nel territorio di Sciac-ca, «Quaderni di Archeologia», 1, 2000, Messina, pp. 103-123.

Portale 2005 = E.C. Portale, Sicilia, in E.C. Portale, S. Angiolillo, C. Vismara, Legrandi isole del Mediterraneo Occidentale. Sicilia, Sardinia, Corsica, Roma, 2005, pp. 17-139.

Portale 2006 = E.C. Portale, Problemi dell’archeologia della Sicilia ellenistico-romana, Il casodi Solunto, «Archeologia Classica» lvii, 7, 2006, pp. 50-114.

Prag 2007 = Sicilia nutrix plebis romanae. Rhetoric, law and taxations in Cicero’s Verrines, ed. J.R. W. Prag, «Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies, Supplement 97», London, 2007.

Purpura 1983 = G. Purpura, Il relitto bizantino di Cefalù, «Sicilia Archeologica», 51, 1983, pp.93-105.

Riley 1981 = J. A. Riley, The coarse pottery from Benghazi, in Excavations at Sidi Khrebish, Ben-ghazi (Berenice). ii., «Libya Antiqua», Suppl., 5, ed. J. A. Lloyd, Tripoli, 1979, pp. 91-497.

Rizzo - Zambito (in press) = M. S. Rizzo, L. Zambito, Ceramiche comuni ed anfore al villaggiotardoantico di Cignana (Naro-Ag), lrcw iii, (in press).

Rizzone 1997 = V. G. Rizzone, Le anfore da trasporto del museo civico di Modica, «Sicilia Ar-cheologica», xxx, 1997, pp. 111-120.

Rizzone - Sammito 2001 = V. Rizzone, A. M. Sammito, Modica ed il suo territorio nella tardaantichità, «Archivum Historicum Mothycenses», 7, 2001, pp. 5-141.

Roth 2007 = R. Roth, Roman culture between homogeneity and integration, in Roman by inte-gration; dimension of group identiy in material culture and text, eds. by R. Roth, J. Keller, «Jour-nal of Roman Archaeology, Supplementary Series, 66», Portsmouth, Rhode Island, 2007, pp.7-10.

Rougè 1966 = J. Rougè, Recherches sur l’organitation du commerce martitime en Méditerranée sousl’empire romain, Paris, 1966.

Saguì 1998 = L. Saguì, Il deposito della Crypta Balbi: una testimonianza imprevidibile sulla Romadel vii secolo?, in Ceramica in Italia: vi-vii secolo. Atti del Convegno in onore di John W. Hayes (Ro-me, 11-13 mai 1995), ed. L. Saguì, Firenze, 1998, pp. 305-330.

Sami 2002 = D. Sami, Pantelleria in epoca bizantina. Resoconto preliminare del progetto “Carta ar-cheologica dell’isola di Pantelleria 1998”, in Byzantino-Sicula iv, Atti del i congresso internaziona-le di archeologia della Sicilia Bizantina (Corleone, 28 Luglio-2 Agosto 1998), Palermo, 2002, pp. 395-412.

Schulze 1966 = Schulze, Zur Geschichte Lateinischer Eigennamen, 2. Unveränderte Auflage,Berlin, Zürich, Dublin, Weidmann, 1966.


Scibona 1969 = G. Scibona, Messina. Ritrovamenti archeologici in via F. Faranda, «Notizie Scavidi Antichità», s. viii, xxiii, 1969, pp. 198-209.

Sgarlata 2005 = M. Sgarlata, L’architettura sacra e funeraria tra città e territorio nella Siciliasud-orientale, in Di abitato in abitato. In itinere fra le più antiche testimonianze cristiane degli Iblei.Atti del Convegno Internazionale di studi (Ragusa-Catina, 3-5 aprile 2003), ed. F. P. Rizzo, Pisa- Roma, 2005, pp. 63-96.

Sirena 2006 = G. Sirena, La viabilità costiera della Sicilia orientale in età romana: la cosiddettaVia Pompeia, in Atti del Convegno di Studi “La Sicilia romana tra repubblica e alto impero” (Cal-tanissetta 20-21 maggio 2006), Caltanissetta, 2007, pp. 91-109.

Solin - Salomies 1988 = H. Solin, O. Salomies, Repertorium nominum gentilium et cognomi-num Latinorum, Hildesheim, Olms-Weidemann, 1988.

Spatafora 2003 = F. Spatafora, Nuovi dati sulla topografia di Palermo, in Atti delle Quarte Gior-nate Internazionali di Studi sull’Area Elima (Erice 1-4 dicembre 2000), Pisa, 2003, pp. 1175-1188.

Spigo 1996 = U. Spigo, Recenti prospezioni subacquee nell’area della Secca di Capo Graziano di Filicudi (estate 1993), in Ricerche e studi. Dieci anni al Museo eoliano (1987-1996). Quaderni del Mu-seo archeologico regionale eoliano, eds. M.C. Martinelli, U. Spigo, Messina, 1996, pp. 143-152.

Spigo - Ollà - Capelli 2006 = U. Spigo, A. Ollà, C. Capelli, La ceramica di produzione locale dalle terme di Bagnoli-S. Gregorio a Capo d’Orlando (ME), in Malfitana - Poblome -Lund 2006, pp. 451-463.

Stefani 2006 = G. Stefani, La vera data dell’eruzione, «Archeo», 260, ottobre 2006, pp. 10-13.Stefani - Borgongino 2001-2002 = G. Stefani, M. Borgongino, Intorno alla data dell’eru-

zione del 79 d.C., «Rivista di Studi Pompeiani», xii-xiii, 2001-2002, pp. 177-215.Termini Imerese = Termini Imerese. Ricerche di topografia e di archeologia urbana, Palermo, 1993.Tigano 1997 = Rinvenimenti subacquei a Milazzo e il relitto di Punta Mazza. Mostra di archeologia

(Castello di Milazzo 12 Luglio-30 Settembre 1997), ed. G. Tigano, Milazzo, 1997, pp. 9-22.Tigano 1997-1998 = G. Tigano, Messina. Interventi di scavo lungo la via C. Battisti, «Kokalos»,

xliii-xliv, ii.1, 1997-1998, pp. 487-506.Tigano 2001 = G. Tigano, Insediamento tardoromano protobizantino, in Da Zancle a Messina. Un

percorso archeologico attraverso gli scavi, ii, ed. G. M. Bacci, G. Tigano, Messina, 2001, pp. 247-255.

Tigano 2003 = G. Tigano, Milazzo: per la topografia del centro antico, in Studi classici in onore diL. Bernabò Brea. Quaderni del Museo Archeologico Eoliano “Luigi Bernabò Brea”, Suppl. 2, eds.G. M. Bacci, M. C. Martinelli, Palermo, 2003, pp. 281-295.

Tirnetta 1978 = P. Tirnetta, Sciacca. Insediamenti rurali di età greca e romana nel territorio,«Kokalos», xxiv, 1978, pp. 156-174.

Tortorici 2002 = E. Tortorici, Contributi per una carta archeologica subacquea della costa di Catania, «Archeologia Subacquea», III, 2002, pp. 275-335.

Uggeri 1969 = G. Uggeri, La Sicilia nella «Tabula Peutingeriana», «Vichiana», vi, 2, Napoli,1969, pp. 127-171.

Uggeri 1997-1998 = G. Uggeri, Itinerari e strade, rotte, porti e scali nella Sicilia tardoantica, «Kokalos», xliii-xliv, 1997-1998, pp. 299-364.

Uggeri 2004 = G. Uggeri, La viabilità della Sicilia in età romana, Galatina, 2004.Valenti 1997-1998 = F. Valenti, Note preliminari per lo studio degli insediamenti romani a sud

della piana di Catina, «Kokalos», xliii-xliv, 1997-1998, pp. 233-274.Vassallo 1990 = S. Vassallo, S. Caterina Villarmosa, Forma Italiae 34, Firenze, 1990.Vassallo - Greco 1992 = S. Vassallo, C. Greco, Testimonianze di età romana nel territorio

della provincia di Palermo, in Atti delle Prime Giornate Internazionali di Studi sull’Area Elima (Gibellina, 19-22 settembre 1991), ii, Pisa-Gibellina, 1992, pp. 703-722.

Vera 1989 = D. Vera, Aristocrazie romana ed economie provinciali nell’Italia tardoantica: il casosiciliano, «Quaderni catanesi di studi classici e medievali», x, 1989, pp. 115-172.

roman sicily project: ceramics and trade 191Vera 1997-1998 = D. Vera, Fra Egitto e Africa, fra Roma e Costantinopoli, fra annona e commercio:

la Sicilia nel Mediterraneo Tardo Antico, in Atti del ix Congresso internazionale di Studi sulla Sicilia antica, «Kokalos», xliii-xliv, i, 1, 1997-1998, pp. 33-73.

Volpe - Cambi 1985= G. Volpe, F. Cambi, Anfore, in A. Carandini, Settefinestre, Una villaschiavistica nell’Etruria romana, Modena, 1985, pp. 72-92.

Williams 2001 = D. Williams, Appendice. A Petrological Note on Roman Pottery from Naxos, Sicily, in Naxos di Sicilia 2001, pp. 61-62.

Wilson 1980-1981 = R. J. A. Wilson, Eraclea Minoa. Ricerche nel territorio, «Kokalos», xxvi-xxvii, ii.1, 1980-1981, pp. 656-667.

Wilson 1981 = R. J. A. Wilson, The hinterland of Heraclea Minoa (Sicily) in Classical Antiquity,in Archaeology and Italian Society, Papers in Italian Archaeology, 2, eds. G. W. Barker, R. Hod-ges, bar, Oxford, 1981, pp. 249-260.

Wilson 1982 = R. J. A. Wilson, Una villa romana a Montallegro (Agrigento), «Sicilia Archeolo-gica», xv, 48, 1982, pp. 7-20.

Wilson 1985 = R. J. A. Wilson, Un insediamento agricolo romano a Castagna (Comune di Catto-lica Eraclea, Ag), «Sicilia Archeologica», xviii, 57-58, 1985, pp. 11-35.

Wilson 1988 = R. J. A. Wilson, Towns of Sicily under the Roman Empire, «Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt: Geschichte und Kultur Roms im Spiegel der neueren Forschung», ii, 11.1, Berlin, 1988, pp. 90-305.

Wilson 1990 = R. J. A. Wilson, Sicily under the Roman Empire: the archaeology of a Roman province, 36 bc-ad 535, Warminster, 1990.

Wilson 1993 = R. J. A. Wilson, Nuovi scavi dell’insediamento agricolo ellenistico-romano di Castagna (Ag), «Quaderni dell’Istituto di Archeologia della Facolta’ di Lettere e Filosofia dell’Università di Messina», 8, 1993, pp. 29-49.

Wilson 1996 = R. J. A Wilson, Rural life in Roman Sicily: excavations at Castagna and Campanio,in From River Trent to Raqqa (Nottingham University archaeological fieldwork in Britain, Europeand Middle East, 1991-1995), ed. R. J. A. Wilson, Nottingham, 1996, pp. 24-41.

Wilson 1999 = R. J. A. Wilson, Naxian Wine Amphoras: a new look at Wine in North Africa,«American Journal of Archaeology», 103, 1999, pp. 268-285.

Wilson 2000 = R. J. A Wilson, Rural Settlement in Hellenistic and Roman Sicily: Excavations atCampanaio (Ag), 1994-1998, «Papers of the British School at Rome», lxviii, 2000, pp. 337-369.

Wilson 2005 = R. J. A. Wilson, Settlement Patterns in South-East Sicily in Roman and Late Ro-man Times, in Di abitato in abitato. In itinere fra le più antiche testimonianze cristiane degli Iblei.Atti del Convegno Internazionale di studi (Ragusa-Catania, 3-5 aprile 2003), ed. F. P. Rizzo, Pisa-Roma, 2005, pp. 223-238.

Zevi 1966 = F. Zevi, Appunti sulle anfore romane. La tavola tipologica del Dressel, «ArcheologiaClassica», xviii, 1966, pp. 208-247.

AbstractThe paper presents an first general overview and some preliminary considerations of the «Roman Sicily Project», an ongoing multidisciplinary research project led by the Italian Nation-al Research Council. Its main objective is to concentrate on the economic trends evident fromthe production and importation of transport amphorae (in a first stage) found in Roman Sici-ly. Its other aim is to establish the degree to which local and imported ceramics reflect thebroader, complex phenomena of long-distance trade within the Mediterranean basin. Fromthis first overview starts to emerge some regional economic patterns and concepts of microand macroeconomic aspects which existed in the context of the Sicilian province. The gener-al background is the wider context of geopolitical and social context to which will be added arich series of data. This data will be available as soon on the website of the project www.ro-mansicilyproject.org.


Il contributo presenta un primo inquadramento ed alcune preliminari considerazioni di unprogetto di ricerca multidisciplinare avviato dal Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche. Esso hal’obiettivo di indagare gli aspetti economici ed il fenomeno di produzione e importazione dianfore da trasporto ritrovate nella Sicilia romana. A questo obiettivo generale si affianca poiuna prima serie di riflessioni sul fenomeno del commercio a lunga distanza che univa la Sici-lia ad altre realtà del Mediterraneo. Cominciano così a delinearsi primi modelli di economiaregionale che contraddistingue la realtà isolana. Tutte queste osservazioni verranno poi collocate in un più ampio contesto geopolitico e sociale costruito su una infinità di dati cheverranno presto inseriti all’interno del sito web del progetto (www.romansicilyproject.org.)attualmente in via di costruzione.

Facta 2 2008:Piantina 17/02/09 12:43 Pagina 1

Map key

Acate E4

Acium G3

Ad Olivam B3

Agathyrnum F2

Agnone G4

Akragas/Agrigentum C4

Alcamo Marina B2

Annunziata di Mascali G3

Aquae Lordes C4

Aquae Segestane B3

Bagnoli di S. Gregorio F2

Borgellusa di Avola G5

Buonfornello D3

Caddeddi G5

Calactae E2

Calatabiano G3

Camarina E5

Campanaio di Montallegro C4

Capo Graziano F1

Capo Mulini G3

Carabollace c.da C4

Castagna C4

Castellazzo della Marza F5

Cattolica Eraclea C4

Caucana F5

Cava d’Ispica F5

Cephaloedium E2

Cignana D4

Cittadella G5

Cossyra A4

Drepanum A2

Entella C3

Eryx B2

Falconara di Noto G5

Forza d’Agrò G3

Furnari G2

Gazzi H2

Gela E4

Halicyae B3

Haluntium F2

Heirkte? Mons C2

Heraclea Minoa C4

Himera D3

Hybla Heraia F5

Ietas C3

Isola delle Femmine C2

Katane/Catina G3

Lilybeum A3

Lipara F2

Logonuovo B3

Marina d’Itala G2

Marzamemi G5

Mazara B3

Mazzarino E4

Megara Hyblaia G4

Menai F4

Menfi B3

Messana H2

Milena D4

Montagna della Borrania B3

Montevago C3

Mutyce F5

Mylae G2

Naro D4

Naxos G3

Pachino G5

Palma di Montechiaro D4

Pan(h)ormus C2

Philosophiana E4

Piazza Armerina E4

Pistunina H2

Ponte Bagni B3

Portus Pachyni G5

Priolo Gargallo G4

Punta Castelluzzo G4

Punta Molinazzo C2

Punta Raisi C2

Punta Secca F5

S. Agata di Campobello di Mazara B3

S. Alessio G3

S. Marco G5

S. Teresa di Longarini G4

S. Venera al Pozzo G3

Sambuca di Sicilia C3

San Biagio G2

Saraceno di Favara D4

Scifì G3

Segesta B3

Selinus B3

Soluntum D2

Sortino G4

Syracusae G4

Tauromenium G3

Terrasini C2

Thermae Himeraeae D3

Thermae Selinutinae C3

Timpone Rasta B3

Traiectus H2

Vendicari G5

Verdura c.da C4

List of sites

Facta 2 2008:Piantina 17/02/09 12:43 Pagina 2

composto in carattere dante monotype dallaaccademia editoriale, pisa · roma.

stampato e rilegato nellatipografia di agnano, agnano pisano (pisa) .

*

Marzo 2009(cz 2 · fg 21)

malfitana et al. 2009. sicilia romana

Documents