vessels - andrea's archaeology portal · pdf filethe rediscovery of antiquity. the role...

AC

TA

HY

PE

RB

OR

EA

13

VE

SSEL

S AN

D V

AR

IET

Y

Acta Hyperborea – Danish Studies in Classical Archaeology – a periodical edited and published by Collegium Hyperboreum, a group of scholars associated with Danish universities and museums: Mette Moltesen, Birte Poulsen, Annette Rathje, Eva Rystedt, and Knut Ødegård.

Editors of the present issue: Hanne Thomasen, Annette Rathje and Kristine Bøggild Johannsen.

acta hyperborea 1, 1988: East and West. Cultural Relations in the Ancient World, edited by Tobias Fischer-Hansen.acta hyperborea 2, 1990: The Classical Heritage in Nordic Art and Architecture, edited by Marjatta Nielsen.acta hyperborea 3, 1991: Recent Danish Research in Classical Archaeology: Tradition and Renewal, edited by Tobias Fischer-Hansen, Pia Guldager, John Lund, Marjatta Nielsen and Annette Rathje.acta hyperborea 4, 1992: Ancient Portraiture: Image and Message, edited by Tobias Fischer-Hansen, John Lund, Marjatta Nielsen and Annette Rathje.acta hyperborea 5, 1993: Aspects of Hellenism in Italy: Towards a Cultural Unity ? edited by Pia Guldager Bilde, Inge Nielsen and Marjatta Nielsen. acta hyperborea 6, 1995: Ancient Sicily, edited by Tobias Fischer-Hansen.acta hyperborea 7, 1997: Urbanization in the Mediterranean in the 9th to 6th Centuries B.C., edited by Helle Damgaard Andersen, Helle W. Horsnæs, Sanne Houby-Nielsen and Annette Rathje.acta hyperborea 8, 2001: Late Antiquity: Art in Context, edited by Jens Fleischer, Niels Hannestad, John Lund and Marjatta Nielsen. acta hyperborea 9, 2002: Pots for the Living – Pots for the Dead, edited by Annette Rathje, Marjatta Nielsen and Bodil Bundgaard Rasmussen.

MUSEUM TUSCULANUM PRESSUNIvERSITy oF CoPENHAGENISSN 0904-2067

acta hyperborea 10, 2003: The Rediscovery of Antiquity. The Role of the Artist, edited by Jane Fejfer, Tobias Fischer-Hansen and Annette Rathje.acta hyperborea 11, 2009:Johannes Wiedewelt. A Danish Artist in Search of the Past, Shaping the Future,edited by Marjatta Nielsen and Annette Rathje.acta hyperborea 12, 2009:From Artemis to Diana. The Goddess of Man and Beast.Edited by Tobias Fischer-Hansenand Birte Poulsen.

Editorial correspondence and books intended for reviews should be sent to collegium hyperboreum,c/o The Saxo Institute Section of Classical ArchaeologyUniversity of CopenhagenNjalsgade 80DK - 2300 Copenhagen S

Cover design: Thora Fisker.Cover illustration: Terracotta jug. Cypro-Archaic I, Bichrome Ware. Ca. 750–600 B.C., h. 23.7 cm. © Metropolitan Museum of Art.

VESSELS AND VARIETY

NEw ASPECTSOf ANCIENT POTTERY

13 AC TA HYPER BO R EA 2013

ISBN 978-87-635-3751-3

9 788763 537513

Acta Hyperborea can be obtained from Museum Tusculanum Press,University of Copenhagen,Birketinget 6DK - 2300 Copenhagen [email protected]

Vessels and Variety: New Aspects of Ancient Pottery. Hanne Thomasen, Annette Rathje and Kristine Bøggild Johannsen (eds.)

© Collegium Hyperboreum and Museum Tusculanum Press, 2013Layout and typesetting: Erling LynderCover design: Thora FiskerSet with Adobe GaramondPrinted in Denmark by Specialtrykkeriet ViborgISBN 978 87 635 3751 3ISSN 0904 2067

Danish Studies in Classical Archaeology. Acta Hyperborea, vol. 13

Collegium Hyperboreum:Mette Moltesen, Birte Poulsen, Annette Rathje, Eva Rystedt and Knut Ødegård c/o The Saxo InstituteSection of Classical ArchaeologyNjalsgade 80, DK-2300 Copenhagen S

Cover illustration: Terracotta jug. Cypriot. Cypro-Archaic I. Bichrome IV Ware. C. 750–600 B.C.E – Front. New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art. Terracotta, h. 9 5/16” (23.7 cm). The Cesnola Collection,Purchased by subscription, 1874–76 (74.51.508). © 2012. Image copyright The Metropolitan Museum of Art/Art Resource/Scala, Florence.

This book has been published with financial support fromThe Carlsberg FoundationThe New Carlsberg Foundation

Published and distributed byMuseum Tusculanum PressUniversity of CopenhagenBirketinget 6 DK-2300 Copenhagen STel. +0045 35329109Fax +0045 32329113www.mtp.dk

Museum Tusculanum Press - University of Copenhagen - www.mtp.dk - [email protected]

Danish Studies in Classical Archaeology

ACTA HYPERBOREA13

Vessels and VarietyNew Aspects of Ancient Pottery

Edited by Hanne Thomasen, Annette Rathje

and Kristine Bøggild Johannsen

Museum Tusculanum Press

University of Copenhagen

2013


Contents

Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xi

IProduction and Distributionjan Kindberg jacobsen: Consumption and Production of Greek Pottery in the sibaritide during the 8th Century BC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

hanne thomasen: A Reinterpretation of the early Protocorinthian Globular Aryballos . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

søren handberg, peter j. stone & jane hjarl petersen: Uncommon tastes: The Consumption of Campana A Pottery in the southern Levant and the Black sea Region . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

IIIconographysigne barfoed: The Mystery of the seated Goddess: Archaic terracotta Figurines of the northeastern Peloponnese . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85

annette rathje: The Ambiguous sex or embodied Divinity: A note on an Unusual Vessel in the ny Carlsberg Glyptotek . . . . . 107

helle salskov roberts: The Myth of Iphigenia in the Literary and Pictorial tradition of Greece and Magna Graecia . . . . . . . . . . . 123

lone wriedt sørensen: “Head Hunting” in Cyprus . . . . . . . . . . . 149


IIIRegional studiessine grove saxkjær: A Figure-Decorated Plate from the sanctuary on the timpone della Motta . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179

domenico marino, margherita corrado, francesco cristiano & gloria mittica: Materiali greci e coloniali della prima fase dell’antica Kroton dallo scavo 2009 nel quartiere settentrionale. osservazioni preliminari . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197

IVMuseum Collectionskristine bøggild johannsen: Bertel Thorvaldsen’s Collection of “so-called Arretine Vessels” Reconsidered . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 227

stine schierup: Al Mina Pottery in the national Museum of Denmark . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 251

Book Reviewshelle winge horsnæs: Review of søren Handberg & Jan Jacobsen (eds.): Excavations on the Timpone della Motta, Francavilla Marittima (1992-2004) vol. I. The Greek Pottery. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 301

line bjerg: Review of Helle W. Horsnæs: Crossing Boundaries – An analy-sis of Roman coins in Danish contexts, vol. 1: Finds from Sealand, Funen and Jutland. Publications of the National Museum, Studies in Archaeology and History Vol. 18. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 305

tobias fischer-hansen: Review of Marcella Pisani: Camarina. Le ter-recotte figurate e la ceramica da una fornace di V e VI secolo a.C. . . . 309

Tabula Gratulatoria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 319


51

UNCoMMoN TASTESTHE CoNSUMPTIoN oF CAMPANA A PoTTERY IN THE SoUTHERN LEVANT AND THE BLACK SEA REGIoN

s. handberg, p. j. stone & j. hjarl petersen

From the 4th to the 1st centuries BC, potters in the area around the Bay of Naples produced a wide range of shapes in an extremely fine and well-made tableware covered with a shiny metallic black slip. As the earliest in a series of Hellenistic black-slipped fine wares from this region, this ware was named Campana A and classified in detail by Jean-Paul Morel.1 By the beginning of the 2nd century BC, Campana A was being shipped from workshops in Naples to North Africa and the eastern Mediterranean. This export increased towards the middle of the 2nd century BC. But, as John Lund’s recent survey of its distribution shows, Campana A pottery is poorly represented numerically in ceramic assemblages outside the Tyrrhe-nian Sea and the western Mediterranean despite its wide distribution.2 The widespread circulation of Campana A pottery in the eastern Mediterra-nean is hardly surprising, as it was amongst the finest tablewares produced in the Mediterranean in the 2nd century BC. The small total quantity of vessels in the eastern Mediterranean, however, is a puzzlingly contradic-tory phenomenon. Explanations for this peculiar distribution pattern have included the emigration of individuals from Italy, occasional gift giving by visiting merchants, and as a by-product of a more organized trade of Italian wine or other commodities. The southern Levant and the Black Sea area are two regions that exhibit this broad, but thin, spread of Campana A ware. By considering the distribution of Campana A and its appearance in well-defined use contexts in these two regions together, we hope to elu-cidate the economic and social background behind this intriguing pattern of distribution.

When Morel created his typology of Campana A, he subdivided shape classes (e.g., plates, bowls) into types recognizable on the basis of distinct morphological characteristics, such as rim treatment. Because Morel paid


Vessels and Variety: New Aspects of Ancient Pottery ISBN 978 87 635 3751 3, Acta Hyperborea, vol. 13, ISSN 0904 2067

http://www.mtp.hum.ku.dk/details.asp?eln=203310

52


close attention to the date of comparable types in other wares, and the dated contexts in which different types occurred, he was able to assign reliable dates to them.3 In this respect, Campana A pottery is similar to the well studied Hellenistic pottery of Athens and it is possible to pin-point rather precisely when it first appeared in the two regions. The clearly defined Campana A types also allow us to speculate on whether this kind of pottery arrived from the same source and fulfilled the same function(s) in these two regions. Consideration of the types present in each region suggests that the island of Delos played a central role in its distribution. Furthermore, the sites and contexts in which it appears suggest that its spread in each region was not coincidental. The people who used Campana A were sophisticated consumers who had overseas contacts and a concern for entertaining in style.

Distribution of Campana A ware in the southern LevantCampana A pottery is spread rather broadly over the southern Levant (see Fig. 1). Despite the generally wide distribution of the ware, it does not occur in large quantities at any site. The minimum total of known vessels in the region is sixty-six, most of which are fragmentary.4 It is most com-mon at coastal sites such as Akko-Ptolemais and Keisan and at inland sites that were particularly well connected to trade routes from the coast, such as Tel Kedesh, Tel Anafa and Maresha. Several other sites, all near the coast or well connected to the coast, also received one or two stray pieces. Given the small quantities in which Campana A appears in the region, and the possibility that it was not recognized by some excavators in the past, its absence in any given publication cannot be seen as conclusive proof that it was not used at the site. Campana A is unattested at a number of pub-lished sites from all over the southern Levant,5 but it is clear that the ware is absent from all sites in the central hills (e.g., Jerusalem, Shechem, Mt. Gerizim, Tirat Yehuda) with the possible exception of the prosperous city of Samaria, the site of a Greco-Macedonian military colony established by Alexander the Great.6 Indeed, other 2nd-century imports are nearly absent at these same sites (again with the exception of Samaria), suggesting that their populations were not interested in the sorts of cuisine and varied table settings that were common throughout much of the eastern Mediter-ranean in the Hellenistic period.




53

Uncommon Tastes

Campana A types represented in the southern LevantAll the Campana A vessels attested in the southern Levant are bowls and plates. Within these two shape categories, a limited but consistent range of Campana A types is represented. At Keisan, a plate with drooping rim (see Fig. 2:1 for the type),7 a bowl with everted rim (see Fig. 2:6 for the type),8 and a bowl with in-curved rim9 are attested.10 At Akko-Ptolemais, two plates with drooping rim, one with a stylized stamped palmette,11 a bowl with everted rim12 and a hemispherical bowl (see Fig. 2:8 for the type)13 are represented. At Maresha, a plate with drooping rim,14 a plate with offset

Fig. 1. Map of the southern Levant.




54


Fig. 2. Campana A pottery from Kedesh (1–3, 5–8), and Anafa (after Slane 1997, pl. 28: FW457).




55

Uncommon Tastes

ledge rim (see Fig 2:4 for the type),15 a bowl with everted rim and a stylized stamped palmette motif, and a hemispherical bowl are published.16 Tikva Levine refers to “many more” examples of the ware at the site. At Anafa, at least thirty-three sherds of Campana A were discovered, representing an unknown quantity of vessels. The published vessels include one plate with drooping rim, two plates with offset ledge rim, at least one plate with upturned rim (see Fig. 2:5 for the type),17 and a bowl with everted rim.18 At present, Tel Kedesh is the only Levantine site from which total numbers of Campana A vessels by type are available (Table 1). of the forty-three fragmentary Campana A vessels identified at the site,19 most are of the same types seen at other Levantine sites: plates with drooping ledge rim, plates with upturned rim, hemispherical bowls, and bowls with everted rim. The types at Kedesh that are not known at any other Levantine site are the bowl with thickened rim (see Fig. 2:7),20 which is represented in several examples at the site, and a single plate with rolled rim (see Fig. 2:3).21 Few of the Kedesh vessels are decorated, though one plate with drooping rim has the stamped leaf motif that is common on Campana A vessels in the Black Sea region (see Fig. 6).

Plate, drooping rim 19

Plate, rolled rim 1

Plate, upturned rim 4

Bowl, everted rim 9

Bowl, thickened rim 5

Hemispherical bowl 5

Total 43

Table 1: Minimum counts of Campana A types at Kedesh.

Individual examples, or examples of vessels whose types cannot be identi-fied, are known from several other sites in the southern Levant. Sherds of Campana A are certainly attested at Dor,22 and a bowl with everted rim, probably in Campana A ware, has been published.23 At Jiyeh, a bowl with everted rim, a base with stamped palmettes and a base with stylized stamped leaves and rouletting are attested.24 At Sha’ar Ha’Amakim, anoth-er bowl with everted rim is attested.25 At Ashdod, a plate with upturned




56


rim, possibly in Campana A ware, has been published,26 as has a possible Campana A plate with offset ledge rim from Samaria.27 Excavators at Bei-rut mention finding Campana A but no vessels have been published.28An overview of the types represented in the southern Levant shows that several recur at multiple sites, namely plates with drooping rim, plates with offset ledge rim, plates with upturned rim, bowls with everted rim, and hemi-spherical bowls (see Table 2). The inland sites at which Campana A cer-tainly occurs – Kedesh, Anafa and Maresha – all have a remarkably broad range of types represented by regional standards, indicating that access to, and demand for, Campana A pottery was certainly not strictly limited to residents of the coast.

Plate, droop-ing rim

Plate, rolled rim

Plate, offset

ledge rim

Plate, upturned

rim

Bowl, everted

rim

Bowl, thickened

rim

Bowl, incurved

rim

Bowl, hemi-

spherical

Sites in the Coastal Plain

Jiyeh - - - - X - - -Keisan X - - - X - X -Akko-

Ptolemais X - - - X - - X

Sha’ar Ha’Amakim

- - - - X - - -

Inland Sites

Kedesh X X - X X X - X

Anafa X - X X X - - -

Maresha X - X - X - - X

Table 2: Campana A types represented at Levantine sites.29

The distribution of Campana A ware in the Black Sea regionThe Black Sea region offers a useful point of comparison to the southern Levant regarding the distribution of Campana A pottery. There are thirty-three known Campana A vessels from the Black Sea region, most of which, as in the Levant, are fragmentary. In the last couple of years, Campana A imports have been recognized at several sites in the Black Sea area, mostly in the northwestern part that comprises the modern countries of Romania and southern Ukraine (Fig. 3).30 Although the occurrence of Campana




57

Uncommon Tastes

A pottery in the Black Sea region is likely to have been more widespread than generally acknowledged, it appears that imports to sites in this area remained relatively limited and most pieces are found at sites situated along the coast.31 As in the southern Levant, Campana A pottery does not consti-tute a significant portion of any site’s tableware assemblage.32

Campana A types represented in the Black Sea region As in the southern Levant, the corpus of Campana A in the Black Sea region consists almost exclusively of bowls and plates (Table 3 and Fig. 4). Most of the Campana A fragments in the Black Sea area are bases with stamped decoration. The relative scarcity of complete shapes or even rims often makes ascriptions to specific types difficult. We will survey the distribution of Campana A pottery starting along the western coast of the Black Sea. Istros is the southernmost site in the region where Campana A pottery has been identified. Here, plates with rolled rim

Fig. 3. Map of the northwestern Black Sea area.




58


Fig. 4. Campana A pottery from olbia Pontica.




59

Uncommon Tastes

and bowls with everted rim have been found in the temenos area and in the tumulus necropolis situated immediately on the outskirts of the city. Two bowls and a plate have been published from the temenos, both of which are decorated with a characteristic stamped leaf motif.33 The same shapes occur in the graves at the site where the stamped leaf motif is found on a plate.34 A fragment of a Campana A bowl has been published from the Thracian site of Satu-Nou, and a plate with drooping rim from Sarichioi-Sărata in the hinterland of Istros as well as bowls with everted rim from Aegyssus, including one decorated with stamped leaves.35 Campana A pottery does not appear in the area between Istros and olbia situated on the Bug (the ancient Hypanis) river. No vessels have been recognized at Tyras or Nikonion in the Dniester estuary, for instance. Campana A imports appear again at olbia, which is at present the Black Sea site where the most Campana A imports have been recognized. The largest group of Campana A pottery from olbia comes from the lower city (sector NGS), where twenty-four houses of the Late Classical and Hellen-istic period have been excavated since the mid-1980s. Nine fragments from bowls with everted and plain rim,36 hemispherical bowls and plates with drooping rim, plates with rolled rim, and with plain rim,37 as well as the upper part of a Campana A jug (Fig. 5)38 were included in a recent exten-sive publication of the entire city quarter.39 Five examples of the bowls and plates carry stamped leaf motifs like those from Istros and Aegyssus (Fig. 4: 2–4, 7). Similar types are known from the excavations in the upper city of olbia where Campana A fragments with stamped leaves and palmettes have been found inside a cistern in the Agora.40 Although no Campana A pottery has been published from the chora of olbia, a single bowl from the settlement of Kozyrka 2 has been documented.41 Along the western coast of Crimea, Campana A bowls with everted rim and plates with rolled rim occur at Bol’shoj Kastel’,42 Kalos Limen43 and Čajka,44 and published as well as unpublished plates with rolled rim decorated with stamped leaves are known from Chersonesos.45 A single hemispherical bowl has been found during excavations inside Megaron N in the southern Palace at the Scythian capital of Neapolis (modern day Simferopol).46 Apart from a pos-sible single fragment from Nymphaion,47 Campana A pottery appears to be absent in the Bosporan area, at least as far as we may judge from available publications.48 Table 3 shows the distribution of Campana A types in the Black Sea region.




60


Plate, droop-ing rim

Plate, rolled rim

Plate, plain rim

Bowl, Morel series 260049

Bowl, everted

rim

Bowl, plain rim

Bowl, plain rim?

294350Hemispheri-

cal bowl

Istros - X - X - - -

Satu-Nou - - - X - - - -

Sarichioi-Sărata X - - - - - - -

Aegyssus - - - - X - - -

olbia X X X - X X - X (2952)

Western Crimea - X - - X - X X

Table 3. Campana A types represented at Black Sea sites.

There is some overlap in the range of types attested in the southern Levant and the Black Sea region (Table 4). Bowls with everted rim were wide-spread in each region, and examples of plates with drooping rim, plates with rolled rim, and hemispherical bowls occur in both regions. How-ever, there are some important differences. Plates with offset ledge rim and upturned rim, both present at several sites in the southern Levant, are not attested at all in the Black Sea region; neither are the thickened rim and incurved rim bowls, both of which are attested at one site (Kedesh) in the southern Levant. Likewise, plates and bowls with plain rim of the sort attested at olbia are not represented in the southern Levant. These discrep-ancies could reflect a different date range of importation, different sources for the ware, or the different preferences of the people in the two regions.

Southern Levant Black Sea

Plate, drooping rim X XPlate, rolled rim X XPlate, offset ledge rim X -Plate, upturned rim X -Plate, plain rim - XBowl, everted rim X XBowl, thickened rim X -Bowl, plain rim - -Bowl, incurved rim X -Hemispherical bowl X X

Table 4: Campana A types reported in the southern Levant and the Black Sea region.




61

Uncommon Tastes

The chronology of Campana A Types in the southern Levant and the Black Sea regionAs mentioned above, thanks to Morel’s detailed and closely dated typol-ogy, we have a good sense of the date range of Campana A vessels. In addi-tion, contextual evidence from both the southern Levant and the Black Sea furnishes further evidence for dating the ware’s appearance in these regions. It seems that Campana A did not arrive in either region prior to the 2nd century BC. Types such as fishplates with hanging rim that are dated primarily to the 3rd and early 2nd century BC,51 and which were exported at that early date to central and western Mediterranean sites such as Benghazi,52 do not appear in either region. The absence of such a popu-lar and widespread form as this suggests that the exchange networks that brought Campana A to the southern Levant and the Black Sea region were not yet in place in the 3rd or early 2nd century BC. Likewise, common Campana A forms of the 1st century BC, such as plates with angled wall53 and bowls with grooved rim,54 are not attested at all in the southern Levant or the Black Sea region, suggesting that import to both regions had ceased by the 1st century BC.

Dated parallels in Morel’s corpus place all of the types attested in both the southern Levant and the Black Sea region in the 3rd or 2nd century BC, and vessels most often fall into the second or third quarter of the 2nd century BC. of the seventeen examples of plates with drooping rim in Campana A ware published by Morel, only one example is dated to the 3rd or 2nd century BC;55 the rest are dated to the 2nd century BC. Three out of four closely datable examples cluster in the decades from 170–130 BC,56

Fig. 5. Campana A jug from the lower city in olbia Pontica.




62


and the final closely dated example is dated c. 120/100 BC.57 Plates with rolled rim in Campana A are dated to the middle or third quarter of the 2nd century BC,58 and plates with offset ledge rim are dated from the first half or middle of the 2nd century BC to the turn of the 1st century BC.59 Morel dates plates with upturned rim in Campana A to the third quarter of the 2nd century, or perhaps a little later.60 The plate with plain rim that most closely matches the example from olbia is dated broadly to the 2nd century BC.61 Bowls with everted rim in Campana A and other wares are dated to the 3rd and 2nd centuries BC, and none of Morel’s examples are more closely datable.62 Morel dates bowls with thickened rim (which occur only in Campana A) exclusively to the middle or third quarter of the 2nd century BC.63 of the two varieties of bowls with plain rim, one (type 2855) is dated to c. 140/130 BC64 while the other variety is assigned dates ranging from c. 140/130 BC down to c. 100 BC or perhaps as late as the first quar-ter of the 1st century BC.65 Bowls with incurved rim, especially if the form is not fully preserved, could date anywhere from the 4th to the 1st century BC. Morel places the hemispherical bowls in Campana A in the middle to third quarter of the 2nd century BC.66 The best available evidence for the chronology of Campana A imports in the southern Levant comes from Tel Kedesh, Tel Anafa and Maresha. Kedesh was the site of a large administrative centre-cum-palace under the Ptolemies in the 3rd century BC and the Seleucids in the first half of the 2nd century. The site was abandoned abruptly in 144/143 BC after the Hasmonean army of Jonathan the Maccabee routed the Seleucid army in a battle fought on the nearby plain of Hazor (the Hula Valley).67 At Kedesh, Campana A vessels appear in contexts dated from the beginning of the 2nd century BC down to the abandonment of the site in 144/143 BC, the terminus ante quem for the forty-three Campana A vessels from the site. Three well-preserved plates with drooping rim are attested in the pri-mary deposits associated with the abandonment of the site, indicating that Campana A was in use when the site was abandoned.68 It may be signifi-cant given the quantity of Campana A recovered from Kedesh that there are no plates with offset ledge rim at the site. Perhaps this type, which is generally given a later date by Morel, did not occur in the Levant by the time the site was abandoned. It is also interesting that several bowls with thickened rim, a form that Morel dates to the middle or third quarter of the 2nd century BC, are attested at Kedesh and not reported from any




63

Uncommon Tastes

other Southern Levantine site. Since all other types reported in the Levant have a potentially later span than bowls with thickened rim, their presence at Kedesh may indicate that the arrival of Campana A already in the mid-dle of the 2nd century BC is remarkably early in the region. Kedesh is also the only site in the Southern Levant at which the early stamped leaf motif occurs, a motif generally assigned to the 140s BC, or earlier, on the basis of finds from other sites (see below). The terminus ante quem of 144/143 BC at Kedesh represents the earliest stratigraphic occurrence of Campana A in the Southern Levant. Furthermore, the quantity of the ware and range of types strongly suggests that it was present already in the second quarter of the 2nd century BC.

Tel Anafa and Maresha provide stratigraphic evidence for continued use of the ware in the southern Levant in the second half of the 2nd century. Anafa is a site just to the east of Kedesh in the Hula Valley that was a farmstead or small village in the orbit of Kedesh in the 3rd and first half of the 2nd century BC. A large villa was built at the site in c. 125 BC that was used through the first quarter of the 1st century BC. Campana A may have appeared at the site shortly before the erection of the villa, but the stratigraphic evidence is uncertain.69 Plates with offset ledge rim occur at Anafa, perhaps indicating that the form began to be imported to the region between the abandonment of Kedesh in 144/143 BC and the erec-tion of the villa at Anafa in c. 125 BC.

Maresha was a prosperous town throughout the Hellenistic period. Extensive deposits of material dating primarily from the 2nd century BC have been published from subterranean complexes that formed the base-ments of at least two houses. The material at Maresha is unstratified, but the site was destroyed by the army of John Hyrcanus in c. 112/111 BC, meaning that all Campana A vessels at the site must have been brought there before that date.70 As at Anafa, plates with offset ledge rim are present at Maresha, thus it seems likely that this form arrived in the region at some point after the abandonment of Kedesh. Given the date ranges assigned to Campana A types in the southern Levant and the contextual evidence described above, it seems likely that the ware was no longer being imported to the region by c. 100 BC.71 The evidence from the Black Sea region supports a contemporary date for the import of Campana A pottery. The stamped leaf motif, which is found on more than half (eighteen out of thirty-three) of all the Campana




64


A vessels currently known from the Black Sea region,72 is well-attested on Campana A pottery from western Mediterranean sites. on the basis of finds from Sardinia, Morel has shown that this specific motif underwent a development from clearly marked and separated leaves to stereotyped and rudimentary treatment in later examples (Fig. 6).73 Given the regularity with which this motif occurs in the Black Sea region, it can be an impor-tant indicator of the chronological range of the ware in the region. on contextual grounds, the chronological limits of the leaf motif can be fairly well established. Bowls with the stamped leaf motif were recovered from the Punta Scaletta wreck near the island of Gianutri off the coast of Tuscany, dated c. 150–130 BC.74 The motif also occurs on vessels found at Corinth in the lower fill beneath the Southeast Building. This fill is dated to shortly before the destruction of the city by the Romans in 146 BC, but perhaps deposited in the interim period between the destruction and the refounding of the city in 44 BC.75 However, since the motif is present at Carthage it was certainly employed prior to the destruction of the city in 146 BC.76 The early variant of the leaf stamp was, as mentioned above, found at Tel Kedesh before the site was abandoned in 144/143 BC (Fig. 2:2). Two closed contexts from the Black Sea area corroborate the original date between 150–130 BC proposed by Lamboglia. The leaf motif occurs on the Campana A pottery from the deposit in the cistern in the Agora at olbia. Elena I. Levi, who published some of the finds from the cistern, dat-ed the assemblage on the basis of the large amount of amphora stamps that it contained.77 According to the revised chronology of both the Rhodian

Fig. 6. Leaf stamp motifs found on Campana A from olbia Pontica in the Black Sea region.




65

Uncommon Tastes

and the Sinopean stamps by Gerald Finkielsztejn and Nikolay F. Fedoseev, the closing of the cistern can probably be precisely dated to the 140s BC.78 At Neapolis, excavations inside Megaron N in the southern palace area have revealed a succession of stratified floors. one layer in particular, layer E1, is associated with a fire that occurred in 135/131 BC, and contained a Campana A bowl with the leaf motif.79 Campana A vessels with stamped leaf motif of the sort common in the Black Sea region can therefore be placed within the third quarter of the 2nd century BC. In sum, the range of forms attested and the contextual evidence suggests that the import of Campana A to the southern Levant and the Black Sea area was very limited in the first half of the 2nd century BC, but intensi-fied towards the middle of the century before ceasing altogether by its end. What is the best way to account for this limited chronological range? Trade between the southern Levant and the rest of the Mediterranean was certainly curtailed while the region was under Ptolemaic rule in the 3rd century BC. Despite this, coastal sites had at least some regular access to Aegean and Cypriote imports, and there is no reason to assume that Ital-ian products could not have made it to the Levant in the 3rd or early 2nd century BC had there been a means of supply.80 It seems that merchants, settlers or travellers bearing Campana A pottery did not travel east towards Levantine ports in the 3rd or early 2nd century BC. The absence of Cam-pana A in the Black Sea region in the 3rd century BC is even more striking since the region was well connected with the Aegean.

The closest match for the range of Campana A types attested in both the southern Levant and the Black Sea can be found on Delos. The Campana A types published from Delos include plates with drooping rim, plates with offset ledge rim, plates with upturned rim, bowls with everted rim, bowls with incurved rim, and hemispherical bowls. Almost all of the shape series Morel refers to from the island are represented in both regions.81 Indeed there is only one type attested at Delos – the bowl with grooved rim (series 2300) – that is not represented in the Levant or the Black Sea area, and it is dated to the 1st century BC by which time Campana A imports had stopped arriving in either region. Further evidence for connections between Delos and the Black Sea region is furnished by proxeny decrees on Delos honouring Diodoros and Posideos, son of Dionysios, both residents of olbia in the Black Sea.82 In his article on the Campana A pottery from Delos, Morel suggested that the island had a role in supplying ports in




66


the eastern Mediterranean with Campana A pottery, among other goods.83 After the Romans granted Athens control of Delos in 166 BC and made it a free port, groups of Phoenician and Italian merchants settled there in order to take advantage of its new status and its position in the southern Aegean.84 The timing of this change in the island’s status corresponds well with the first appearance of Campana A pottery at Delos, in Cyprus,85 and in the Black Sea and the Levant regions.

Distribution mechanismsEven if we grant that Delos had a role in the limited spread of Campana A pottery in Cyprus, the Levant and the Black Sea region in the mid 2nd century BC, the mechanism by which this was done is still uncertain. The quantities of Campana A attested at Levantine sites pale in comparison to northern Levantine coastal fine ware,86 the black slipped predecessor of Eastern Sigillata A, and Eastern Sigillata A itself.87 Campana A is also less common than colour coated ware A (probably Rhodian),88 and wares from western Asia Minor and the Aegean.89 Likewise, in the Black Sea region Campana A is much less common than fine wares from Pergamon, Ephe-sian mould-made bowls and, to a certain extent, the colour coated ware A of Rhodes.90 Thus, the presence of Campana A was probably not the result of the same sort of regular trade and marketing that brought these wares to either region. A number of suggestions have been made to account for the relatively limited spread of the ware. Chief among these is the possibil-ity that Campana A vessels were the personal possessions of individuals or small groups who moved from Italy to the eastern Mediterranean.91 Such an explanation strains plausibility in the case of the southern Levant or the Black Sea region, since it would suggest that quite small enclaves of people from Italy settled at many sites, both inland and on the coast.

The similarities in the chronological range and the thin spread of Cam-pana A ware in the southern Levant and the Black Sea region suggest that it arrived in each region through similar channels. The possibilities left to us, if we rule out mass marketing or Italic settlers, are occasional trade, visitors from Delos bearing Campana A as gifts, or, conversely, people from the southern Levant and the Black Sea who visited Delos and purchased Campana A vessels to bring home. of course, none of these explanations are mutually exclusive. The appearance of Campana A in small quantities at coastal sites could have resulted from any of these three possibilities.




67

Uncommon Tastes

one can imagine people in a port town occasionally acquiring vessels of an unusual ware from passing ships, or sailors and merchants occasionally leaving some dishes behind when visiting a port.

Merchants themselves who lived in the coastal towns of both regions would have been well travelled and would have had the option to acquire goods that were not regularly imported. The presence of a similar range (and an even greater variety) of Campana A vessels at Levantine inland sites as on the coast (see Table 2), however, suggests that its appearance was not entirely coincidental. The people who brought these vessels to the region had a consistent source, and it was clearly not just acquired by resi-dents or merchants in coastal towns. Either visitors to certain inland sites travelled with the same range of dishes as possessions or gifts; merchants catered to inland residents who had rather specific, perhaps even refined, tastes; or well-travelled individuals from the region purchased Campana A vessels while they were abroad.

The evidence from the Black Sea region also suggests that Campana A was marketed to, or chosen by, specific individuals. Campana A pot-tery was not distributed to the western coast of Asia Minor. The ware is absent from major cities along the coast such as Ilion,92 Pergamon,93 Ephe-sos,94 Miletus95 and Halikarnassos,96 where we might have expected to find Campana A pottery. Campana A has been reported from Priene, but as far as the authors are aware no vessels have been published.97 In light of the occurrence of Campana A pottery in the Black Sea, its near absence along the western coast of Asia Minor is even more surprising since there was a large export of Ephesian mould-made bowls as well as some Pergamene West-Slope pottery to the Black Sea area.98 Ships setting out from Delos and heading towards the Black Sea would probably have travelled along the western coast of Asia Minor, although apparently they did not offload any Campana A pottery at sites along the coast but retained them for the Black Sea market. If Delian or other visitors or merchants brought Cam-pana A to the Black Sea region, it was with the knowledge that some people in the region had an appreciation for the ware. Alternatively, the scarcity of Campana A at sites between Delos and the Black Sea region may indicate that Campana A vessels were the property of people from the Black Sea area who had purchased them for their own use. In either case, it seems that a taste for Campana A pottery was not shared by people in western Asia Minor.




68


The contextual setting of Campana A in the Black Sea and the southern LevantA consideration of the economic and cultural affiliations of the sites where Campana A has been found in the Black Sea region and the southern Levant may shed some additional light on how the ware came to these regions and how it was used by the locals. Unfortunately, most of the Cam-pana A recovered at sites in both regions has been found not only in small quantities but also in secondary or tertiary deposition, rendering it difficult to determine what its original use context may have been. Fortunately, there is at least one functional context in each region that Campana A ves-sels can be directly associated with: House III-3 at olbia, and the palatial administrative centre at Tel Kedesh. The best contextual information for the use of Campana A in the Black Sea area comes from the lower city of olbia. Here, a clear contextual asso-ciation of Campana A and Greco-Italic amphoras is obvious. Basement 253 in House IV-1 was one of the few rooms in the lower city that remained preserved and relatively undisturbed. In this basement, two almost com-plete Greco-Italic amphoras of the second half of the 2nd century BC were found still standing up against a wall.99 A Campana A plate was found in the same basement (Fig. 4:1).100 In House III-3, situated at a distance less than ten metres from House IV-1 in the western house block, five Cam-pana A vessels were found in Room 278 and its associated Basement 368. Another was found in the courtyard of the house (Fig. 4:3, 5 –7). The base-ment also contained a Greco-Italic and many Rhodian amphoras.101 Room 359, belonging to House III-3, was the andron of the house and furnished with a raised platform for klinai. House III-3 is the only residence out of twenty-four in the northern quarter of the lower city to have an andron. The house is also exceptional in having two courtyards, rather than the one found in other houses. The inhabitants of House III-3 were apparently rather wealthy, and accustomed to dine in a formal setting. In addition to the Campana A vessels, the owners of the house had other imported pottery, including Ephesian mould-made bowls, Pergamene West-Slope pottery and some of the finest local tablewares. For all these reasons, it is tempting to view the Campana A pottery from House III-3 as part of the tableware used during dining in the andron in the third quarter of the 2nd century BC. Campana A was also used in well-appointed residences in the south-ern Levant. At least forty-three Campana A vessels were found in deposits




69

Uncommon Tastes

associated with the large 2nd century BC palace and administrative centre at Kedesh (see Fig. 2:1–3, 5–8).102 As at other sites in the region, most of the Campana A vessels were very fragmentary and found in fills separated from their use context. However, since they were found in the course of the excavation of a single large Hellenistic building, with relatively little later disturbance, we can be confident that they were used there. only three vessels were found in primary deposition, two in a large storeroom and one in a probable pantry near an entrance to the building. The building featured an elaborate complex of two reception rooms and a dining room (unfortunately disturbed) with tessellated floors and moulded and painted plaster wall decoration.103 This décor is comparable to that employed in many of the houses at Delos in the 2nd century BC and represents the best in 2nd-century interior design.104 It is quite likely that the Campana A vessels were part of the equipment used for entertaining in the dining room, either as matched sets or blended with the wide array of local and imported tablewares used at the site in the middle of the 2nd century BC. Kedesh received imported tablewares from the northern Levant, Cyprus, the Aegean and western Asia Minor, and even Mesopotamia.105 In addi-tion to the lavish architectural setting and the variety of tablewares, the residents of Kedesh regularly received wine in imported Aegean amphoras, although no Italic amphoras are represented at the site. They also used cooking pots, casseroles and pans for preparing food in the local and Greek culinary traditions.106 Thus, in the one well-preserved and thoroughly exca-vated Levantine building in which we can be certain Campana A vessels were used regularly people were accustomed to dine in a formal setting, decorated and equipped in the latest fashion. The people living at Kedesh in the middle of the 2nd century BC had quite cosmopolitan tastes, which included a predilection for Campana A pottery. Although we cannot be sure of the specific contexts of most of the Cam-pana A vessels recovered elsewhere in the southern Levant, all examples come from areas of probable domestic use.107 Despite the ambiguity of specific use contexts, it is clear that all of the sites at which Campana A is attested had populations with eclectic tastes similar to the residents of Kedesh. Both coastal and inland sites at which Campana A vessels are attested received a variety of other ceramic imports from the northern Levant and the Aegean, as well as a range of cooking vessels for preparing local Levantine, Greek and possibly Italic-style cuisine.108 Likewise, Aegean




70


amphoras are common at these sites, though Italic amphoras are reported only in small quantities. Campana A pottery was quite probably used in the late Hellenistic stuccoed building at Anafa, which featured a peristyle courtyard, rooms decorated with drafted and painted wall plaster (like Kedesh) comparable to Hellenistic Delos, and even a bath complex with a mosaic floor.109 Moulded and painted wall decoration like that found at Kedesh and Anafa has been unearthed at Akko-Ptolemais as well.110 Sev-eral of the tombs in the necropolis of Maresha feature painted decora-tion. one particularly elaborate tomb features motifs such as Panathenaic amphoras, kantharoi, loutrophoroi and an array of exotic animals, many labelled in Greek.111 It is worth noting that at the one clear cluster of pub-lished sites where Campana A is not reported – the towns of the central hills – imported pottery is scarce, and Mediterranean style interior décor is completely unattested.

The absence of Campana A in the central hills makes the relatively wide range of types of Campana A at the inland sites of Kedesh, Ana-fa and Maresha all the more interesting (Table 2). In the Hellenistic period, just as in the Iron Age and the Persian period, the coastal cit-ies of the central and southern Levant were largely populated by Phoe-nicians. The Phoenicians were famous in antiquity for their mercantile exploits and cosmopolitan outlook, an impression that the archaeologi-cal record supports.112 It is intriguing, then, that there is evidence for Phoenician habitation at all three inland sites where Campana A pottery is attested in quantity. In the eastern necropolis of Maresha, the elabo-rately decorated tomb mentioned above features a dedicatory inscription to Apollophanes who is named as the head of the Sidonian colony at the site.113 At least some of the residents of this prosperous inland town were Phoenicians from Sidon. Both the palatial administrative centre at Kedesh and the late 2nd century villa at Tel Anafa were built using a Phoenician construction technique termed “pier and rubble” construc-tion.114 The ceramic assemblages of both sites also feature a very large quantity and wide range of vessels in a ware termed “Phoenician semi fine” by Andrea Berlin because of its production on the coast at Tyre and Akko-Ptolemais and its concentration at sites in traditional Phoenician territory.115 In addition, among the archive of bullae found at Kedesh are several bearing an image of Tanit that read, in Phoenician script, “he who is over the land”.116 The combined evidence from coastal and inland




71

Uncommon Tastes

sites suggests that Campana A pottery was most popular in the Levant among Phoenicians.

The close correspondence between the assemblages of Campana A attest-ed at Delos and the southern Levant also makes better sense in this light. Like all of the Levantine sites at which Campana A has been recovered in quantity, the residents of Delos in the mid to late 2nd century BC lived in nicely decorated houses, many featuring dining rooms, and enjoyed a wide range of imported goods from Italy, the Aegean and the Levant.117 Moreo-ver, Greek, Italic and Phoenician merchants settled at Delos, interacted and presumably took advantage of their connections back home to estab-lish business contacts.118 Campana A pottery, as a discrete, easily recogniz-able Italic product, seems a likely vestige of such intimate economic and social connections between Delos and the Levant. Perhaps Phoenicians liv-ing on Delos kept contact with people from their homeland, disseminating to a small set of businessmen and/or prominent locals a taste for an exotic and especially nice ceramic product from the west. The large quantity (by regional standards) in which the ware is attested at Kedesh may be an indi-cation that the administrators stationed at the site regularly travelled across the eastern Mediterranean, or the frequency with which this important nodal point received visitors from abroad.

ConclusionsIt is evident from the discussion above that Campana A was surprisingly widespread, albeit in small quantities, in both the southern Levant and the Black Sea region during a brief window (probably less than fifty years) in the mid to late 2nd century BC. Regular, sustained trade on a substantial scale was clearly not how these vessels arrived in either region. It also seems that Campana A vessels did not arrive as a by-product of trade in Italic wine, since the sites at which Campana A vessels have been recovered in both regions do not have an obvious abundance of Italic amphoras.119 The broad spread of a limited range of types, and the modest concentrations of the ware, suggest that Campana A vessels did not arrive in either region as the possessions of Italic settlers. Rather, the Campana A assemblage attested in both regions corresponds closely with the assemblage of 2nd-century BC Campana A attested at Delos, and the appearance of the ware was probably the result of some sort of regular communication between Delos and these two regions. Delos became a commercial hub between




72


Italy, the Aegean and the eastern Mediterranean in the middle of the 2nd century BC, with substantial communities of Greek, Italic and Phoeni-cian merchants. The thin spread of Campana A in both of the regions considered here seems likely to be the result of “specialized” export or gift giving on the part of Delian merchants or travellers, or the acquisition of particularly nice vessels by merchants or officials, or simply well-travelled people from the southern Levant and the Black Sea area. In the case of the Levant, it seems that a preponderance of the people who acquired and used Campana A vessels were Phoenicians, who were perhaps maintaining contacts with their countrymen on Delos. The differences in the range of types and decoration attested in each region may be an indication that the people (be they Delians or the locals of each area) who brought Campana A to the Black Sea region and the southern Levant drew on different Deli-an sources. These differences may in turn be a reflection of distinct social networks or business relationships.

Despite the differences in their assemblages of Campana A, the peo-ple who used Campana A in both regions discussed here were part of a sophisticated cultural milieu. The appearance of Campana A pottery at sites that were particularly well supplied with other imports in both regions suggests that the people who had access to Campana A had eclectic tastes. Further support for this can be garnered if we reflect on the architectural contexts in which the ware has been recovered: the administrative build-ing at Kedesh, and House III-3 in the lower city of olbia. Both of these buildings were lavish by regional standards. The administrative building at Kedesh was vast in scale and featured elaborately decorated formal dining and reception rooms comparable in their flooring and wall decoration to the elaborate houses at Delos. Such facilities were not the norm for south-ern Levantine sites, especially those situated at a distance from the coast. House III-3 at olbia, although much more modest in overall scale than Kedesh, is the only house out of twenty-four in the lower city that featured an actual dining room. In both cases, Campana A occurred in buildings whose residents were accustomed to entertain with some degree of for-mality and style. Despite their infrequent appearance, Campana A vessels were not distributed at random; they were acquired by limited groups of particularly urbane and well-connected people. Since Campana A was not marketed in these regions on the scale of other finewares, such as East-ern Sigillata A in the Levant, or Pergamene and Ephesian wares in the




73

Uncommon Tastes

Black Sea region – not just anyone could choose to acquire it. only people who could travel, who knew Delian merchants or who received visitors from abroad had the option to acquire these fine tablewares. As such, the appearance of Campana A pottery in the southern Levant and the Black Sea area may be representative of intimate business or social networks and the tastes of the elite.

notes 1 Morel 1981; see also Morel 1988, 335–351. 2 Lund 2004. 3 Morel 1981, 52–65. 4 Quantities of Campana A are unavailable

from most sites, but the scarcity of examples in publications and the highly fragmentary nature of most published vessels suggest that they were generally infrequent.

5 E.g. Beth Yerah-Philoteira (Ben Nahum & Getzov 2006), Beth Shean (Johnson 2007), Gezer (Gitin 1990), Pella (Tidmarsh 2000), Shiqmona (Elgavish 1974), Tel Michal (Fischer 1989) and Yoqne’am (Avissar 1996).

6 For Jerusalem, see Geva 2003 and especially Hayes 1985; for Mt. Gerizim, see Magen 2008; for Shechem, see Lapp 2009; for Tirat Yehuda, see Yeivin & Edelstein 1970; for Samaria, see Crowfoot, Crowfoot & Kenyon 1957.

7 Morel types 1312–1314. See Morel 1981, 103–104, pls. 11–13.

8 Morel types 2645–2648. See Morel 1981, 199–200, pl. 63. Fragmentary examples of these types cannot be distinguished from each other.

9 Morel series 2700. See Morel 1981, 206–226, pls. 66–74. The example from Keisan is too fragmentary to determine the precise type.

10 Mlynarczyk 2002, 119, fig. 2:23–25. Quanti-ties are not available from Keisan.

11 Vitto 2005, 159, fig. 9:1–2. 12 Berlin & Stone (forthcoming), fig. 3.27:1.

Quantities are not available from Akko. 13 Berlin & Stone (forthcoming), fig. 3.18:9.

Morel types 2951/2952/2954. See Morel 1981, 238, pl. 81. Fragmentary examples of these types cannot be distinguished from each other.

14 Levine 2003, 79, fig. 6.1:16. The author pub-lished this vessel as an example of series 1400, but the size of the vessel and its profile accords better with type 1312 or 1314.

15 Morel type 1443. See Morel 1981, 114–115, pl. 18.

16 Levine 2003, 79–80, fig. 6.1:17–19. 17 Morel type 2252. See Morel 1981, 153–154, pl.

39. 18 Slane 1997, 347–349, pls. 28, 52: FW455–459. 19 Personal study, P.J. Stone. Fifty-four uniden-

tified and undiagnostic Campana A body sherds are also attested at Kedesh.

20 Morel type 2825. See Morel 1981, 229, pl. 76. 21 Morel types 2233–2234. See Morel 1981, 150–

151, pls. 36–37. 22 Monnikindem-Givon, personal communica-

tion. 23 Guz-Zilberstein 1995, 291, 293–294, fig.

6.2:9. 24 Waliszewski et al. 2006, 48–49, pl. 6.1–3 25 Mlynarczyk 2009, 101–102, fig. 4:8. 26 Kee 1971, 47, fig. 9:11, pl. 14:3. 27 Crowfoot, 1957, fig. 55:12. 28 Arnaud et al. 1996, 118. 29 Dor, Ashdod and Samaria have been omitted

because the published vessels cannot positive-ly be identified as Campana A.

30 For recent overviews, see Lungu 2009, 142–146, and Handberg & Hjarl Petersen 2010, 195, 248–249.

31 obtaining reliable quantifications of pottery from Black Sea sites remains notoriously dif-ficult.

32 Compared to other areas, Campana A pot-tery remains numerically limited in the Black Sea region. More Campana A pottery has, for instance, been identified at Tel Kedesh alone than has been identified in the entire Black Sea area.

33 Dimitriu, Zirra & Condurachi 1954, 442, fig. 354; Lungu 2009, 156, fig. 13; Alexandrescu 2005, 369 cat. no. 208, 399 fig. 52; Lungu 2009, 156 fig. 12; Alexandrescu 2005, 371 cat. no. 217, 400 fig. 53; Lungu 2009, 157, fig. 16.

34 Alexandrescu 1966, 524, pl. 52. XXXIV,




74


18; Alexandrescu 1966, 527, pl. 95, XXX-VII, 19–20; Coja & Gheorghiţă 1983, 57 nos. 96-97, pl. 41; Lungu 2009, 156, figs. 14–15.

35 For Satu-Nou, see Lungu 2009, 144, 158, fig. 19; for Sarichioi-Sărata, see Lungu 2009, 144, n. 111; for Aegyssus, see Lungu 2009, 144 n. 110, 157, figs. 17–18.

36 Morel type 2855a1. See Morel 1981, 233, pl. 78.

37 Morel type 2811a1. See Morel 1981, 227, pl. 74:2811a1. See Handberg & Hjarl Petersen 2010, cat. nos. Da-473, Da-570–Da-578.

38 Handberg & Hjarl Petersen 2010, 229, cat. no. Da-343. Morel type 5362. See Morel 1981, 356, pl. 165.

39 Lejpunskaja et al. 2010. 40 Levi 1964, fig 5 (originally published as Per-

gamene imports). 41 The piece remains unpublished, but it is illus-

trated in the original photographic documen-tation of the excavations currently kept at the Institute for the History of Material Culture of the Russian Academy of Sciences in St. Petersburg.

42 The finds from the fortified farmhouse at Bol’shoj Kastel’ remain almost entirely unpublished, see Bogoljubova 1988 and Ščeglov 1988. The Campana A pottery was observed by one of the authors in the store-rooms of the archaeological museum in Černomorskoe in 2007.

43 Užencev 2006, figs. 72.1–3, 77.1–3. 44 Egorova 2005, 234, fig. 2.19. 45 Borisova 1956, 15–16, fig. 63 (from grave 5);

Stojanov 2005, fig. 4.14. 46 Zaytsev 2004, pl. 349.1; Zajcev 2005, figs.

3.25, 4.24. 47 Sokolova 2004, 106. 48 Unpublished fragments of Campana A ware

from Myrmekion are stored at the Institute for the History of Material Culture in St. Petersburg, Russia. Personal study (S. Hand-berg).

49 Morel 1981, 189–205, pls. 59–66. 50 Morel 1981, 237, pl. 80. 51 Morel forms 1121/1122. See Morel 1981,

84–85, pls. 1–2. 52 Kenrick 1985, 11, 13, fig. 2:B3.1–2. 53 Morel types 2270–2277. See Morel 1981,

158–160, pls. 42–44. 54 Morel types 2321–2323. See Morel 1981, 164–

165, pl. 47. 55 Morel 1981, 103, pl. 11:1312c. 56 Morel 1981, 103, pl. 11:1312d–f. 57 Morel 1981, 103, pl. 12:1312j. 58 Morel 1981, 150–151, pls. 36:2233a; 37:2234b,

e–g.

59 Morel 1981, 114–115. 60 Morel 1981, 153, pl. 39:2252b–d. 61 Morel 1981, 227, pl. 74:2811a1 62 Morel 1981, 199–201. 63 Morel 1981, 229. 64 Morel 1981, 233, pl. 78:2855a. 65 Morel 1981, 237, pl. 80:2943a–c. 66 Morel 1981, 238, pl. 81:2952a, 2954a–b. 67 For discussion of the date and circumstances

of the abandonment of Kedesh, see Herbert and Berlin 2003, 23–24, 54–55.

68 Personal study (P. J. Stone). 69 Slane 1997, 347. 70 Levine 2003, 73. 71 It has been suggested (e.g. Hayes 1991, 8)

that Campana A was replaced in ceramic assemblages by vessels in Eastern Sigillata A (ESA). Such an explanation does not suffice in the Levant, where fine wares from the same northern Levantine region as Eastern Sigillata A were widespread already in the first half of the 2nd century BC (Berlin et al., forthcom-ing). Furthermore, ESA and its northern Levantine predecessors occurred in much greater quantity in the region than Campana A ever had.

72 By comparison, only five out of sixty-six known vessels from the southern Levant have stamped decoration.

73 Morel 1963. 74 Lamboglia 1964, 248; Benoit 1961. 75 Romano 1994, 30–31, fig. 5. 76 Morel 1990, 19–20, pl. 1. 77 Levi 1964. 78 Finkielsztejn 2001; Fedoseev 1999. This date

is further supported by Mark Lawall’s recent re-dating of the large amphora deposit on the slope of the acropolis of Pergamon since, as Levi noted, the assemblages from both places seem to correspond well chronologically (see Lawall 2002).

79 Zaytsev 2004, pl. 349.1; Zajcev 2005, figs. 3.25, 4.24.

80 For a general discussion of market routes in the southern Levant in the 3rd century BC, see Berlin 1997a, 6–14.

81 For the Delian assemblage of Campana A, see Morel 1986, 463–469.

82 Fougères 1889, 235–238, no. 8; but see also Reger 2007, 278–279. The Posideos honoured on Delos is probably the same person who dedicated part of the city wall of olbia to the Eleusinian deities and the demos in the 2nd century BC (see Križic’kyj, Krapivina & Lejpuns’ka 1994, 29, fig. 15).

83 Morel 1986, 487. 84 For a discussion of this, see Laidlaw 1933,

201–226.




75

Uncommon Tastes

85 Hayes 1991, 8. 86 See Berlin et al. (forthcoming). 87 E.g. Slane 1997, 257. 88 See Hayes 1991, 23–24, for a description of

this ware; Mlynarczyk 2009, 102–103. 89 E.g. Rosenthal-Heginbottom 1995, 209–212,

figs. 5.3–4 90 See note 98. For colour coated ware A pot-

tery in the Black Sea area, see especially Domżalski 2007.

91 See discussion in Lund 2004, 11–12, with fur-ther references.

92 Lund 2004, 11, n. 157, with reference to Ber-lin 1999, 147, n. 76.

93 Schäfer 1968; Sarah Japp, personal communi-cation.

94 With one exception, see Mitsopoulos-Leon 1991, FiE IX 2/2; see also Krinzinger 2001. We are grateful to Sabine Ladstätter and her collaborators for informing us about the near absence of Campana A pottery in Ephesos.

95 See Pfrommer 1985. 96 Vaag 2002; Berg Briese 2004. 97 Lungu 2009, n.105. 98 Guldager Bilde 2010, 271–272, Table 1.

Ephesian mould-made bowls contemporary to Campana A pottery are also well repre-sented on Delos and it is possible that the large amount of Ephesian mould-made bowls known from olbia (almost 60% of all the mould-made bowls) could have derived from Delos and not Ephesos.

99 Lawall et al. 2010, cat. nos. L-368, L-370. Another Italian amphora was also found in Basement 253, Lawall et al. 2010, cat. no. L-315. For the complete inventoried assem-blage from House IV-1, see Lejpunskaja et al. 2010, 550 –555, contexts 133–159.

100 Handberg & Hjarl Petersen 2010, cat. no. Da-473.

101 Handberg & Hjarl Petersen 2010, 196; Lawall et al. 2010, cat. no. L-369. For the complete inventoried assemblage from House III-3, see Lejpunskja et al. 2010, 543–550, contexts 89–132.

102 The Campana A vessels account for approxi-mately 1 per cent of the tablewares assigned to this phase of the building at Kedesh. For a preliminary discussion of the building, see Herbert & Berlin 2003, 48–54.

103 For discussion of the dining room and 2nd century BC tablewares from Kedesh, see Ber-lin et al. (forthcoming).

104 E.g. Tang 2005, 44–48.105 Most of the Campana A fragments were

found in the debris that filled the reception rooms or in the nearby courtyard and kitch-en/service areas.

106 Personal study (P. J. Stone).107 At Keisan, Campana A vessels were found in

disturbed fills above poorly preserved Helle-nistic house walls, see Briend and Humbert 1980, 105. At Akko-Ptolemais, Campana A vessels were also found near the disturbed remains of Hellenistic houses, see Vitto 2005, 154-155; Hartal (forthcoming). At Maresha, Campana A vessels were recovered from the subterranean chambers that formed the base-ments of houses, see Levine 2003, 73.

108 For Keisan, see Briend and Humbert 1980; Mlynarczyk 2002; for Akko-Ptolemais, see Vitto 2005; Berlin and Stone (forthcoming); Finkielsztejn (forthcoming); for Dor, see Guz-Zilberstein 1995; Rosenthal-Hegginbot-tom 1995; for Anafa, see Berlin 1997b; Slane 1997; for Maresha, see Levine 2003. We have limited this list to sites with multiple exam-ples of Campana A, and substantial quantities of published pottery.

109 Herbert 1994, 14–19, 66-69, fig. 2.14.110 Sharif (forthcoming).111 For an overview of the tombs, see Kloner

2003, 23–30. For the painted decoration, see Peters & Thiersch 1905; Jacobson 2007.

112 Grainger 1991, 11–12; Berlin 1997c, 75–76, fig. 1; Jigoulov 2010, 192–201. For discussion of the cosmopolitan outlook of Phoenicians in the Hellenistic period, see Herbert 2003; Nitschke 2007.

113 Peters & Thiersch 1905, 37–38.114 Herbert 2003, 324–325.115 Berlin 1997c, 77, 79–85, figs. 11 –13. For the

production of Phoenician semi fine at Akko-Ptolemais in addition to Tyre, see Berlin & Stone (forthcoming).

116 Herbert and Berlin 2003, 53.117 Elaigne 2007, 517–526.118 E.g. Herbert 2003, 322–323; Tang 2005, 14.

Delos was the scene of cultural interchange in addition to commercial relations, as is nicely encapsulated by a 2nd century BC Greek epi-gram composed by the Phoenician Antipater of Sidon and inscribed on a base in the Agora of the Italians. Roussel & Launey 1937, 351, no. 2549. We thank Charles Campbell of the University of Cincinnati for bringing this epi-gram to our attention.

119 Contra e.g., Sanmartí 2009, 72




76


BibliographyAlexandrescu, P. 1966Necropola tumulară; Săpături 1955–1961, in: E. Condurachi (ed.), Histria II. Monografie arheologică, Bucharest, 133–294.

Alexandrescu, P. 2005IV. La Céramique, in: P. Alexandrescu (ed.), His-tria VII. La Zone Sacée d’Époque Greque (Fouilles 1915-1989), Bucharest, 329–411.

Arnaud, P. et al. 1996 Rapport préliminaire, BAAL 1, 98–134.

Avissar, M. 1996The Hellenistic Pottery, in: A. Ben-Tor, M. Avissar & Y. Portugali (eds.), Yoqneam I: The Late Periods, Qedem Reports 3, Jerusalem, 48–59.

Ben-Nahum, H. & N. Getzov 2006Stratum I. The Hellenistic Period, in: N. Getzov (ed.), The Tel Bet Yerah Excavations, 1994-1995. IAA Reports 28, Jerusalem, 133–150.

Benoit, F. 1961L’ épave du Grand Congloué du Marseille, Gallia suppl. XIV, Paris.

Berg Briese, M. 2004Hellenistic and Early Roman Pottery from Halikarnassos, in: S. Isager & P. Pedersen (eds.), The Salmakis Inscription and Hellenistic Halikar-nassos, odense, 177–189.

Berlin, A. M. 1997aArchaeological Sources for the History of Pales-tine. Between Large Forces: Palestine in the Hel-lenistic Period, BibAR 60, 2–51.

Berlin, A. M. 1997bThe Plain Wares, in: Herbert, S.C. (ed.). Tel Anafa II: The Hellenistic and Roman Pottery, JRA Supple-mentary Series 10, Ann Arbor, MI, 1–211.

Berlin, A. M. 1997cFrom Monarchy to Markets: The Phoenicians in Hellenistic Palestine, BASOR 206, 75–88.

Berlin, A. M. 1999Studies in Hellenistic Ilion. The Lower City. Stratified Assemblages and Chronology, StTroica 9, 73–157.

Berlin, A. M. & P. J. Stone (forthcoming) Hellenistic and Early Roman Pottery from the

Hospitaller Compound and Courthouse Site, Akko, in: E. Stern, M. Hartal & D. Syon (eds.), Akko, the Excavations of 1991–1998, I: The Hellenis-tic Period, IAA Reports, Jerusalem.

Berlin, A. M., S. C. Herbert & P. J. Stone (forth-coming)Dining in State: The Tablewares from the Per-sian-Hellenistic Administrative Building at Tel Kedesh, in: P. Bilde & M. Lawall (eds.), Pottery, Peoples, and Places: The Late Hellenistic Period, c. 200–50 BC Between the Mediterranean and the Black Sea, Aarhus.

Bogoljubova, o. J. 1988 Keramičeskij kompleks poselenija Bol’šoj Kastel’, in: Problemy issledovanija antičnogo i sredneveko-vogo Chersonesa. 1888-1988. Tezisy dokladov, Sebas-topol, 11–14.

Borisova, V. V. 1956otčet o raskopkach gončarnych masterskich I nekropol’ja Chersonesa v 1956 g. Al’bom 1-2. Unpublished report; Archives of The National Pre-serve of Tauric Chersonesos, file no. 730 /1-2.

Briend, J. & J.-B. Humbert 1980Tell Keisan (1971–1976): Une cité phénicienne en Galilée, Fribourg.

Coja, M. & M. Gheorghiţă, 1983Vase greceşti în Muzeul Naţional Bucureşti, Bucha-rest.

Crowfoot, G. M. 1957Hellenistic Pottery, General List, in: Crowfoot, Crowfoot & Kenyon 1957, 235–272.

Crowfoot, J. W., G. M. Crowfoot & K. M. Kenyon 1957The Objects from Samaria, London.

Dimitriu, S., V. Zirra & E. Condurachi 1954Ceramica (archaică, clasică, elenistică, romană târzie), in: E. Condurachi (ed.), Histria I. Mono-grafie arheoloica, Bucharest.

Domżalski, K. 2007Changes in Late Classical and Hellenistic Fine Pottery Production in the Eastern Mediterranean as Reflected by Imports in the Pontic Area, in: V. Gabrielsen & J. Lund (eds.), The Black Sea in Antiquity. Regional and Interregional Economic Exchanges, Black Sea Studies 6, Aarhus, 161–182.




77

Uncommon Tastes

Egorova, V. 2005Černolokovaja stolovaja posuda s gorodišča ’Čajka’ bliz g. Evpatorii. Miski i solonki, Bospor-skij Issledovanija 8, 218–237.

Elaigne, S. 2007La circulation des céramiques fines hellénis-tiques dans la région égéene: un aperçu à partir du mobilier de Délos et de Thasos, BCH 131.1, 515–557.

Elgavish, J. 1974Archaeological Excavations at Shikmona. Report 2. The Level of the Hellenistic Period. Seasons 1963-1965, Haifa.

Fedoseev, N. F. 1999Classification des timbres astynomiques de Sin-ope, in: Y. Garlan (ed.), Production et commerce des amphores ancienne en Mer Noire, Aix-en-Provence, 27−48.

Finkielsztejn, G. 2001Chronologie détaillée et révisée des éponymes amphoriques rhodiens, de 270 à 108 av. J.C. envi-ron. Premier bilan, BAR international series 990, oxford.

Finkielsztejn, G. (forthcoming)Stamped Handles from Akko-Ptolemais (Court-house Excavations – A1763/91), in: E. Stern, M. Hartal & D. Syon (eds.), Akko, the Excavations of 1991–1998, I: The Hellenistic Period, IAA Reports, Jerusalem.

Fischer, M. 1989Hellenistic Pottery (Strata V–III), in: Z. Herzog, G. Rapp Jr. & o. Nebgi (eds.), The Excavations at Tel Michal, Israel, Minneapolis, MN, 177–187.

Fougères, G. 1889Fouilles de Délos, BCH 13, 229–252.

Geva, H. 2003Hellenistic Pottery from Areas W and X-2, in: H. Geva (ed.), Jewish Quarter Excavations in the Old City of Jerusalem II: The Finds from Areas A, W and X-2, Jerusalem, 113–175.

Gitin, S. 1990Gezer III: A Ceramic Typology of the Late Iron II, Persian and Hellenistic Periods at Tell Gezer, Jeru-salem.

Grainger, J. D. 1991Hellenistic Phoenicia, oxford.

Guldager Bilde, P. 2010Mould-made bowls, in: Lejpunskaja et al. 2010, 269–288.

Guz-Zilberstein, B. 1995The Typology of the Hellenistic Coarse Ware and Selected Loci of the Hellenistic and Roman Peri-ods, in: E. Stern (ed.), Excavations at Dor, Final Report IB. Areas A and C: the Finds, Qedem Reports 2, Jerusalem, 289–433.

Handberg, S. & J. Hjarl Petersen 2010Glossed Pottery, in: Lejpunskaja et al. 2010, 185–260.

Hartal, M. (forthcoming)The Excavations in the Courthouse site of Akko: Areas TB and TC, in: E. Stern, M. Hartal & D. Syon (eds.), Akko, the Excavations of 1991–1998, I: The Hellenistic Period, IAA Reports, Jerusalem.

Hayes, J. W. 1985 Hellenistic to Byzantine Fine Wares and Deriva-tives in the Jerusalem Corpus, in: A.D. Tushing-ham (ed.), Excavations in Jerusalem, 1961–1967, I, Toronto, 181–194.

Hayes, J. W. 1991Paphos III: The Hellenistic and Roman Pottery, Nicosia.

Herbert, S. C. 1994 Tel Anafa I: Final Report on Ten Years of Excavation at a Hellenistic and Roman Settlement in Northern Israel, JRA Supplementary Series 10, Ann Arbor, MI.

Herbert, S. C. 2003Excavating Ethnic Strata: The Search for Hellen-istic Phoenicians in the Upper Galilee of Israel, in: D. R. Clark & V. H. Matthews (eds.), One Hun-dred Years of American Archaeology in the Middle East: Proceedings of the American Schools of Orien-tal Research Centennial Celebration, Washington DC April 2000, Boston, MA, 319–330.

Herbert, S. C. & A. M. Berlin 2003A New Administrative Center for Persian and Hellenistic Galilee: Preliminary Report of the University of Michigan/University of Minne-sota Excavations at Tel Kedesh, BASOR 329, 13–59.

Jacobson, D. M. 2007The Hellenistic Paintings of Marisa, Leeds.




78


Jigoulov, V. S. 2010The Social History of Achaemenid Phoenicia, Lon-don.

Johnson, B. L. 2007 The Hellenistic to Early Islamic Pottery, in: A. Mazar (ed.). Excavations At Tel Beth Shean 1989-1996, I: From the Late Bronze Age to the Medieval Period, Jerusalem, 523–589.

Kee, H. C. 1971The Pottery, in: M. Dothan (ed.), Atiqot IX-X: Ash-dod II-III, The Second and Third Seasons of Exca-vations, 1963, 1965, soundings in 1967, Jerusalem, 44–64.

Kenrick, P. M. 1985Excavations at Sidi Khrebish Benghazi (Berenice) III.1: The Fine Pottery, Tripoli.

Kloner, A. 2003Maresha Excavations Final Report I: Subterranean Complexes 21, 44, 70, Jerusalem.

Krinzinger, F. 2001Studien zur hellenistichen Keramik in Ephesos, ÖJh Ergänzungsheft 2, Vienna.

Kryžic’kyj, S. D, V. V. Krapivina & N. o. Lejpuns’ka 1994Golovni etapi istoričnogo rozvytku ol’vii, Arche-ologijaKiiv 2, 18−44.

Lapp, N. 2009Shechem IV: The Persian and Hellenistic Pottery of Shechem/Tell Balatah, AASoR 11, Boston, MA.

Lawall, M. 2002Early Excavations at Pergamon and the Chronol-ogy of the Rhodian Amphora Stamps, Hesperia 71.3, 295–324.

Lawall, M . L. et al 2010Transport Amphoras, in: Lejpunskaja et al. 2010, 355–406.

Lamboglia, N. 1964La Campagna 1963 sul relitto di Punta Scaletta all’ Isola di Gianutri. Relazione preliminare, RStLig 30, 229–257.

Laidlaw, W. A. 1933A History of Delos, oxford.

Lejpunskja, N. A. et al. 2010The Lower City of Olbia (Sector NGS) in the 6th

Century BC to the 4th Century AD, Black Sea Stud-ies 13, Aarhus.

Levi, E. I. 1964Keramičeskii kompleks III-II vv. Do n. e. Iz raskopok ol’vinskoj agory, in: V.F. Gajdukevič (ed.), Ol’bija. Temenos i Agora, Moscow & Len-ingrad, 225–280.

Levine, T. 2003Pottery and Small Finds from Subterranean Com-plexes 21 and 70, in: Kloner 2003, 73–130.

Lund, J. 2004 Italian-made Fine Wares and Cooking Wares in the Eastern Mediterranean before the Time of Augustus, in: J. Poblome et al. (eds.), Early Italian Sigillata: The Chronological Framework and Trade Patterns. Proceedings of the First International ROCT-Congress (Leuven, May 7 and 8, 1999), Leu-ven, Paris & Dudley, MA, 3–15.

Lungu, V. 2009Italie – Mer Noire: Céramiques occidentals décorées sur les Côtes Pontiques a l’époque Hellé-nistique, MarNero VI, 2004/2006, 127–158.

Magen, Y. 2008Mount Gerizim Excavations, 2: A Temple City, Jerusalem.

Mitsopoulos-Leon, V. 1991Die Basilika am Staatsmarkt in Ephesos. Klein-funde. 1. Teil: Keramik hellenistischer und römischer Zeit, Forschungen in Ephesos IX 2/2, Vienna.

Mlynarczyk, J. 2002Hellenistic Finewares at Tell Keisan: A Pattern of Importations, in: F. Blonde et al. (eds.), Ceram-iques hellenistiques et romaines: Productions et dif-fusion en Mediterranee orientale (Chypre, Egypte, et cote syro-palestinienne), Paris, 117–132.

Mlynarczyk, J. 2009Hellenistic and Roman-period Pottery from Sha’ar Ha’amakim, in: A. Segal et al. (eds.), Excavations of the Hellenistic Site in Sha’ar Ha’Amakim (Gaba), 1984–1998, Haifa, 97–119.

Morel, J.-P. 1963Notes sur la céramique Étrusco-Campanienne. Vases À Vernis noir de Sardaigne etd’Arezzo, MEFRA 75, 7–58.

Morel, J.-P. 1981Céramique Campanienne: Les Formes, Rome.




79

Uncommon Tastes

Morel, J.-P. 1986Céramiques à vernis noir d’Italie trouvées à Delos, BCH 110, 461–493.

Morel, J.-P. 1988Remarques sur l’artisanat de Naples antique, Atti del Convegno di Studi sulla Magna Grecia 25, 305–356.

Morel, J.-P. 1990L’apport des fouilles de Carthage à la chronologie des céramiques hellénistiques, in: B’ Epistemonike Synantese gia ten Ellenistike Kerameike, Praktika, 17–30.

Nitschke, J. L. 2007Perceptions of Culture: Interpreting Greco-Near Eastern Hybridity in the Phoenician Homeland, Ph.D. thesis, University of California at Berkeley.

Peters, J. P. & H. Thiersch 1905Painted Tombs in the Necropolis of Marissa, Lon-don.

Pfrommer, M. 1985Milet 1983–1984. Klassische und hellenistiche Keramik aus dem Heroon III, IstMitt 35, 39–58.

Reger, G. 2007Traders and Travelers in the Black and Aegean Seas, in: V. Gabrielsen & J. Lund (eds.), The Black Sea in Antiquity. Regional and Interregional Eco-nomic Exchanges, Black Sea Studies 6, Aarhus, 273–285.

Romano, I.B. 1994A Hellenistic Deposit from Corinth: Evidence for Interim Period Activity (146–44 B.C.), Hesperia 63.1, 57–104.

Rosenthal-Hegginbottom, R. 1995Imported Hellenistic and Roman Pottery, in: E. Stern (ed.), Excavations at Dor, Final Report Volume IB: Areas A and C: The Finds, Jerusalem, 183–288.

Roussel, P. & M. Launey 1937Inscriptions de Delos: Dedicaces posterieures a 166 av. J.-C, Paris.

Sanmartí, J. 2009Colonial Relations and Social Change in Iberia, in: M. Dietler & M. López-Ruiz (eds.), Colonial Encounters in the Ancient Iberia. Phoenician, Greek and Indigenous Relations, Chicago, IL, 49–90.

Ščeglov, A. N. 1988Bol’šoj Kastel’ i svjatilišče II v. do n.e. v uročišče

Džangul’, in: Problemy antičnoj Kul’tura. Tezisy dokladov naučnoj konferencii, Simferopol, 273–275.

Shäfer, J. 1968Hellenistische Keramik aus Pergamon, Pergamenis-che Forschungen 2, Berlin.

Sharif, S. (forthcoming)Hellenistic Wall Paintings from Akko, in: E. Stern, M. Hartal, & D. Syon (eds.), Akko, the Excavations of 1991–1998, I: The Hellenistic Period, IAA Reports, Jerusalem.

Slane, K. 1997The Fine Wares, in: S.C. Herbert (ed.), Tel Anafa II.1: The Hellenistic and Roman Pottery, JRA Sup-plementary Series 10, Ann Arbor, MI, 247–393.

Sokolova, o. Y. 2004Nymphaion, in: E. Samaritaki & E. A. Katjušin (eds.), Antičnye pamjatniki Kryma [Ancient Greek Sites in the Crimea], Kiev, 89–112.

Stojanov, R. V. 2005Raspisnaja cernolakovaja Stolovaja Keramika iz Nekropolja Chersonesa Tavriceskogo V-I vv. do n.e., Bosporskie issledovanija 8, 39–53.

Tang, B. 2005Delos, Carthage, Ampurias: The Housing of Three Mediterranean Trading Centers, ARID Suppl 36, Rome.

Tidmarsh, J. C. 2000The Hellenistic and Early Roman Pottery from Pella in Jordan, Ph.D. thesis, University of Sydney.

Užencev, V. B. 2006Elleni i vavary Prekrasnoj Gavani (Kalos Limen v IV n.e. – II v. n.e.), Simferopol.

Vaag, L. E. 2002Black and Red Plain Pottery, in: L. E. Vaag, V. Nørskov & J. Lund (eds.), The Maussolleion at Halikarnassos, 7: The Pottery. Ceramic Material and Other Finds from Selected Contexts, Aarhus, 28–38.

Vitto, F. 2005Hellenistic and Crusader Remains at Mont-musard, Acre (‘Akko), ‘Atiqot 50, 153–179.

Waliszewski et al. 2006Jiyeh (Porphyreon), Hellenistic, Roman and Byz-antine Settlement on the Southern coast of Leba-non: Preliminary Report on the 1997 and 2003–2005 seasons, BAAL 10, 5–84.




80


Yeivin, Z. & G. Edelstein 1970Excavations at Tirat Yehuda, ‘Atiqot 6, 56–69. (Hebrew)

Zaytsev, Y. 2004The Ceramic Complex of Neapolis Scythian (Crimea, Northern Black Sea), in: S. Drougou et al. (eds.), ST’ Epistêmonikê synantêsê ellênistikê keramikê. Problêmata chronologêsês kleista synola-

ergastêria, Bolos 17–23 aprilou 2000, Athens, 751–758.

Zajcev, J. P. 2005Absolute and Relative Chronology of Scythian Neapolis in the 2nd Century BC, in: Stolba, V. F. & L. Hannestad (eds.), Chronologies of the Black Sea Area in the Period c. 400–100 BC, Black Sea Studies 2, Aarhus, 259–274.




vessels - andrea's archaeology portal · pdf filethe rediscovery of antiquity. the role...

Documents