Roman Fine Ware Ceramics from Two Surface Scatters in Aegean Thrace

Home , Crete and Cyrenaica, Halmyris, Histria (ancient city), Noviodunum (castra), Odrysian kingdom, Strymon (theme)

Roman Fine Ware Ceramics from Two Surface Scatters in Aegean Thrace:

An Analysis of Distribution Patterns

A thesis submitted to the

Division of Graduate Studies and Advanced Research

Of the University of Cincinnati

in partial fulfillment of the

requirements for the degree of

Master of Arts

in the Department of Anthropology

of the McMicken College of Arts and Sciences

2020

Adam S. Hartman

B.A. Anthropology, University of North Carolina – Wilmington, 2016

Committee: Susan E. Allen (Chair)

Sarah E. Jackson

Nicholas F. Hudson

ABSTRACT

This thesis investigates Roman fine ware trade networks in Thrace and the northern Aegean, through an examination of its spatial and chronological distribution patterns in the region.

Specifically, I examined Roman fine ware ceramics recovered through surface survey from two countryside sites discovered by the Molyvoti, Thrace Archaeological Project (MTAP) in northern

Greece during 2015, and their relationship to distribution patterns represented by published assemblages from other archaeological sites in Thrace and the northern Aegean. The published assemblages were grouped into three different regions based upon their geographical proximity to each other. The analysis utilizes Bes’ (2015) nine phases of Roman fine ware distribution in the eastern Mediterranean, as outlined in Once Upon a Time in the East. For each phase, the wares and ceramic forms identified at each site are presented and discussed chronologically by region.

The new data from the two MTAP sites, Glyphada-Agkathies and Mitrikon-Metochi, indicates that

Roman period occupation of these sites began around the mid-1st century CE and continued into the mid-5th century CE. No Roman fine ware was identified at the MTAP sites dating to the 1st century BCE. However, other sites discussed in this thesis reveal a pattern in which pre-Hellenistic sites in Thrace have access to exchange networks that the two MTAP sites do not have. The two assemblages are primarily composed of Çandarlı, with forms corresponding to Loeschke’s and

Hayes’ typologies, dating from the mid-1st century CE to around CE 300. Phocaean Red Slip is the second most common ware, indicating the market dominance of Pergamene products.

Additional finds corresponding to forms of Italian Terra Sigillata, Eastern Sigillata B, African Red

Slip, and Late Roman Light Colored Ware were also identified, as well as possible imitations of

Çandarlı. The distribution patterns observed at the MTAP sites largely align with broader trends in the Aegean and eastern Mediterranean. However, the rural setting of the MTAP sites helps to

i provide a more holistic picture of fine ware distribution, due to the general paucity of published assemblages from non-urban contexts, while also demonstrating the potential utility of survey pottery to address question of trade networks and patterns of distribution.

iii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would first like to express my deepest appreciation to my committee, Susan Allen, Sarah

Jackson, and Nicholas Hudson. Without the support and encouragement that you all provided I would not have been able to complete this research, and I hope to be able to emulate the exemplary behavior that you three all demonstrated to me. Also, I would like to say thank you to rest of the faculty, graduate, and undergraduate students in the UC Department of Anthropology.

I’m also extremely grateful to Nathan Arrington, Domna Terzopoulou, Marina Tasaklaki,

Tom Tartaron, Eli Weaverdyck, Georgios Makris, Justin Mann, and the rest of the Molyvoti,

Thrace Archaeological Project, for the opportunities provided to me, and for their assistance and encouragement. I would also like to say thank you to Nicholas Hudson for your efforts and patience in training me to analyze pottery, and for the never ceasing encouragement.

I would also like to thank Rachel Satzman of Cape Fear Community College, for introducing me to archaeology and for the vital early support that she provided me. Additionally, thank you to Nicholas Hudson, Teddy Burgh, Michaela Howells, George Zervos, Scott Simmons,

David Hoot, Nora Reber, and the numerous faculty members from various departments at UNCW whom I had the privilege of learning from.

Above all, I would like to express my extreme gratitude to my family (Mom, Dad,

Gretchen, Trey, Eric, Megan, and Lendl) and my dear friends (Kevin, Hanna, Jerome, Jared, and

Ted). Thank you so much for being there every step of the way to provide me with support and encouragement. Without all of you, I would not be where or who I am today. Thank you.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT ...... i ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ...... iv TABLE OF CONTENTS ...... v LIST OF FIGURES ...... vii LIST OF TABLES ...... viii CHAPTER 1 – INTRODUCTION ...... 1 CHAPTER 2 – BACKGROUND ...... 4 The Development of Typo-Chronological Systems of Roman Fine Ware ...... 5 Beyond Typo-Chronological Uses of Roman Fine Ware ...... 8 The Molyvoti, Thrace, Archaeological Project (MTAP) ...... 10 Geographic and Environmental Setting of MTAP ...... 12 Geography of Thrace ...... 14 CHAPTER 3 – METHODOLOGY ...... 16 Surface Survey, Collection, and Initial Analysis ...... 16 Ceramic Identification and Analysis ...... 18 Comparative Dataset Compilation ...... 20 Quantification of Rome Fine Ware Sherds ...... 21 CHAPTER 4 – OVERVIEW OF ROMAN FINE WARE CERAMICS ...... 23 Eastern Sigillata A (ESA) ...... 24 Italian Terra Sigillata (ITS) ...... 26 Gaulish Terra Sigillata (GTS) ...... 28 Eastern Sigillata B (ESB) ...... 31 Çandarlı Ware (Çandarlı) ...... 34 Eastern Sigillata D (ESD) ...... 35 Pontic Sigillata (PS) ...... 36 African Red Slip (ARS) ...... 39 Phocaean Red Slip (PRS) ...... 43 Late Roman D (LRD) ...... 46 Late Roman Light Colored Ware (LRLCW) ...... 48 CHAPTER 5 - MTAP FINE WARE ASSEMBLAGES AND COMPARATIVE DATASET FOR THRACE ...... 49 Glyphada-Agkathies Roman Fine Ware ...... 49

Chronology of Glyphada-Agkathies Fine Ware ...... 50 Mitrikon-Metochi Roman Fine Ware ...... 52 Chronology of Mitrikon-Metochi Roman Fine Ware ...... 57 Distribution of Roman Fine Ware in Thrace ...... 59 Phase 1 – (150 BCE – 30 BCE) ...... 59 Phase 2 – (30 BCE – CE 25/30) ...... 62 Phase 3 – (CE 30 – CE 60/70) ...... 68 Phase 4 – (CE 70/75 – CE 200) ...... 77 Phase 5 – (CE 200/225 – CE 325) ...... 89 Phase 6 – (CE 325 – CE 400/425) ...... 93 Phase 7 – (CE 425/450 – 500/525) ...... 97 Phase 8 – (CE 500/525 – CE 575/600) ...... 101 Phase 9 – (CE 575 – CE 700) ...... 104 Summary ...... 106 CHAPTER 6 – DISTRIBUTION OF ROMAN FINE WARE IN THRACE ...... 108 Phase 1 Discussion ...... 108 Phase 2 Discussion ...... 110 Phase 3 Discussion ...... 111 Phase 4 Discussion ...... 114 Phase 5 Discussion ...... 118 Phase 6 Discussion ...... 119 Phase 7 Discussion ...... 121 Phase 8 Discussion ...... 125 Phase 9 Discussion ...... 126 Shifts in Roman Fine Ware Circulation in Thrace ...... 127 Fine Ware Distribution Patterns and Networks ...... 128 Dominance of Regional Wares at MTAP Sites...... 130 Sites with Pre-Hellenistic Foundations ...... 132 Effects of Supplying the Roman Military on Mitrikon-Metochi and Glyphada-Agkathies ...... 134 Conclusions and Further Research ...... 136 REFERENCES CITED ...... 138 Appendix A: Mitrikon-Metochi Survey Data ...... 147 Appendix B: Glyphada-Agkathies Survey Data ...... 154

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Map of Roman sites in Thrace (map by Adam Hartman)

Figure 2. Sites discussed in this thesis (map by Adam Hartman)

Figure 3. Map of MTAP study area (original map by Arrington et al. 2016; modified by Adam

Hartman)

Figure 4. Land Cover in MTAP research area

Figure 5. Glyphada-Agkathies Sherds per Ware

Figure 6. Glyphada-Agkathies Çandarlı Forms

Figure 7. Mitrikon-Metochi Sherds per Ware

Figure 8. Unclassified Çandarlı Plate

Figure 9. Unclassified Middle Roman Sigillata

Figure 10. Mitrikon-Metochi Ware (Imitation Çandarlı), Loeschke type 19/Hayes form 3

Figure 11. Mitrikon-Metochi Ware (Imitation Çandarlı), Hayes form 4

Figure 12. Mitrikon-Metochi Ware (Imitation Çandarlı), Loeschke type 26/Hayes form 2

Figure 13. Mitrikon-Metochi Çandarlı Forms

vii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Ware Presence per site

Table 2. Eastern Sigillata A vessel form typology, attributes, and chronology

Table 3. Italian Terra Sigillata vessel form typology, attributes, and chronology

Table 4. Gaulish Terra Sigillata vessel form typology, attributes, and chronology

Table 5. Eastern Sigillata B vessel form typology, attributes, and chronology

Table 6. Çandarlı Ware vessel form typology, attributes, and chronology

Table 7. Pontic Sigillata vessel form typology, attributes, and chronology

Table 8. African Red Slip vessel form typology, attributes, and chronology

Table 9. Phocaean Red Slip vessel form typology, attributes, and chronology

Table 10. Late Roman D vessel form typology, attributes, and chronology

Table 11. Glyphada-Agkathies sherd totals by ware

Table 12. Mitrikon-Metochi sherd totals by ware

Table 13. Aegean Thrace Phase 1 Forms

Table 14. Dobruja Phase 1 Forms

Table 15. Aegean Thrace Phase 2 Forms

Table 16. Thracian Interior Phase 2 Forms

Table 17. Dobruja Phase 2 Forms

Table 18. Aegean Thrace Phase 3 Forms

Table 19. Thracian Interior Phase 3 Forms

Table 20. Dobruja Phase 3 Forms

Table 21. Aegean Thrace Phase 4 Forms

Table 22. Thracian Interior Phase 4 Forms

viii

Table 23. Dobruja Phase 4 Forms

Table 24. Aegean Thrace Phase 5 Forms

Table 25. Thracian Interior Phase 5 Forms

Table 26. Dobruja Phase 5 Forms

Table 27. Aegean Thrace Phase 6 Forms

Table 28. Dobruja Phase 6 Forms

Table 29. Aegean Thrace Phase 7 Forms

Table 30. Dobruja Phase 7 Forms

Table 31. Aegean Thrace Phase 8 Forms

Table 32. Thracian Interior Phase 8 Forms

Table 33. Dobruja Phase 8 Forms

Table 34. Thracian Interior Phase 9 Forms

Table 35. Dobruja Phase 9 Forms

Table 36. Thrace Phase 1 Forms

Table 37. Thrace Phase 2 Forms

Table 38. Thrace Phase 3 Forms

Table 39. Thrace Phase 4 Forms

Table 40. Thrace Phase 5 Forms

Table 41. Thrace Phase 6 Forms

Table 42. Thrace Phase 7 Forms

Table 43. Thrace Phase 8 Forms

Table 44. Thrace Phase 9 Forms

Table 45. Mitrikon-Metochi and Glyphada-Agkathies sherd totals by ware

CHAPTER 1 – INTRODUCTION

This thesis examines the spatial and chronological distribution patterns of Roman fine ware ceramics recovered through surface survey from two countryside sites discovered by the Molyvoti,

Thrace Archaeological Project (MTAP) in northern Greece during 2015, and their relationship to distribution patterns represented by published assemblages from other archaeological sites in

Thrace and the northern Aegean (Fig. 1). First, I analyzed the fine ware assemblages from two

MTAP sites, Glyphada-Agkathies and Mitrikon-Metochi, and determined their ceramic ware groups and forms using existing typological classifications (e.g. Hayes 2008; Etlinger et al. 1990;

Hayes 1985; Kenrick 1985; Hayes 1980; Hayes 1972; Loeschke 1912; Dragendorf 1897). This primary dataset that I created forms the basis for the analysis and discussion in this thesis. Second,

I created a much-needed comparative dataset for the region, by compiling published assemblages of Roman fine ware from other sites in the region, which was then analyzed in relation to the data gathered from the MTAP ceramic material. This thesis uses a three-region framework for Thrace defined by geographic features that demarcate zones of interaction, as well the concentrations of sites themselves. The regions are Aegean Thrace, Dobruja, and the Thracian Interior. Combined, this newly created dataset encompasses nearly the entire span of Roman occupation of Thrace and helps to clarify the nature of ceramic distribution networks in the North Aegean and Thrace during the Roman period. Furthermore, as a comprehensive analysis of Roman fine ware in Thrace, this thesis provides a more holistic perspective concerning the distribution networks of ceramics during the Roman period than has typically been the case for Roman studies in northern Greece and

Thrace.

Figure 1. Map of Roman sites in Thrace

Chapter 1, this chapter, introduces the primary research questions analyzed in this thesis, and briefly describes what each chapter addresses. Chapter 2 provides an overview of the relevant background considerations. This includes previous research on Roman fine ware in the Eastern

Mediterranean, MTAP, and the geography of Thrace. Chapter 3 covers the methodologies that were used during this research. This includes the pedestrian surface survey, the collection methods, and the initial analysis. The chapter also describes the methods used for my own analysis of the finds, those used in creation of my comparative dataset, and the distribution analysis of the Roman

2 fine ware assemblages. Chapter 4 describes the different classes of Roman fine ware that were identified in the comparative dataset, as well as the individual forms were applicable. Chapter 5 presents an overview of the two MTAP assemblages and the comparative dataset that I compiled, as well as chronological associations of the MTAP assemblages and their fit within the comparative datatset. Chapter 6 places the MTAP datasets and the comparative dataset within a chronological, historical, and geographical context utilizing the nine phases of distribution identified by Bes (2015). The specific forms identified at each site within the research area are listed in a series of tables that are grouped together according to the phase of distribution and the region where the site is located. and are discussed in relation to patterns observed at other sites and regions in the study area, while also discussing important themes that are observed in the dataset.

Concluding remarks, as well as recommendations for further research are included at the end of the chapter.

CHAPTER 2 – BACKGROUND

This chapter provides the relevant background information concerning Roman fine ware ceramics, the Molyvoti, Thrace Archaeological Project (MTAP), and the history of Thrace. The first section summarizes the historical and contemporary trends in the study of Roman fine ware ceramics, with an emphasis on the eastern Meditteranean (Fig. 2). The next section provides an overview of the research carried out at Molyvoti, including both prior to and after MTAP. The third section describes the geographic environmental setting in the MTAP study area. The fourth covers the geography of the wider region of Thrace, as well as the regions of Aegean Thrace,

Dobruja, and the Thracian Interior.

Figure 2. Sites discussed in this thesis

The Development of Typo-Chronological Systems of Roman Fine Ware

The first attempt to conduct a structured analysis of Roman fine ware pottery was carried out by Dragendorff in the late 19th century when he recognized the presence of multiple production centers in the Mediterranean, morphological associations between eastern sigillatas and western sigillatas, and the fact that Greece was not a major producer of red slipped table vessels

(Dragendorff 1897). In Zahn’s (1904) discussion of the pottery excavated from Priene in southwest

Turkey two groups of red slip wares were identified, ‘Klasse A’ and ‘Klasse B.’ Stamps on some examples of Zahn’s ‘Klasse A,’ which were analogous Italian vessels, led Zahn to propose the concept that Italian producers had established branch workshops in Asia Minor. Zahn suggested

Samos as the place of production for his ‘Klasse A’ based upon a reference by Pliny helping give terra sigillata pottery the erroneous name of ‘Samian Ware.’ Zahn also suggested Pergamon as the location for the production of his ‘Klasse B’ also based on references by Pliny (Zahn 1904). The production of red slip table vessels at Pergamon had also been suggested by Conze (1903).

Loeschke’s work in 1911 with material excavated from Çandarlı (ancient Pitane) that included wasters led to the recognition of a third class of eastern terra sigillata produced at ancient Pitane

(Loeschke 1912).

Up to this point, little attention had been paid to the construction of chronologically-based typological classifications, but work carried out in the follow decades signaled a shift in research emphasis. Waagé constructed the first chronologically based typological classification based upon his study of the pottery excavated from Antioch (Waagé 1934). This work led to Waagé’s suggestion that the ‘Pergamene’ vessels corresponding to Zahn’s ‘Klasse B’ were not actually produced at Pergamon (Bes 2015: 11). Firm evidence for the production of fine ware vessels within the vicinity of Pergamon was recovered from excavations of pottery workshops to the east of

Pergamon (Poblome et al. 2001), although they do not align with Zahn’s ‘Klasse B.’

Moreover, Waagé was able to distinguish an earlier phase (Hellenistic) and a later phase

(early Roman) of the ‘Pergamene’ pottery and suggested an eastern production origin as opposed to one in Asia Minor (Bes 2015: 11). Significantly, Waagé also was among the first to take Late

Roman fine ware into account leading to his definitions of ‘Late Roman A’, ‘B’, ‘C’, ‘D’, and ‘E’

(Waagé 1948). Evidence concerning the distribution patterns of the so-called ‘Pergamene’ table

6 vessels was gathered shortly after Waagé’s publication of the finds from Antioch, most notably

Jones’ work with material from Tarsos which led to his suggestion that the region of Cilicia and the Hatay coast was involved in their production (Jones 1950), and Robinson’s work with the finds from the Athenian agora (Robinson 1959).

Kenyon’s system of classification for eastern sigillatas, published in 1957, was derived from finds from Samaria-Sebaste, and utilized an objective framework based upon macroscopic identification, without reference to production origin, resulting in the designation of three classes:

Eastern Sigillata A (ESA), Eastern Sigillata B (ESB), and Eastern Sigillata C (Çandarlı) (Kenyon

1957). In 1978 Eastern Sigillata D (ESD), a fourth class was added to Kenyon’s classificatory scheme after finds from Cyprus that Hayes identified and had dubbed ‘Cypriot Sigillata,’ but keeping with the more objective approach of Kenyon the adoption of ESD was recommended by

Rosenthal in 1978 (Rosenthal 1978: 18-19). Hayes published detailed typo-chronologies in 1985 for all four classes of eastern sigillata using both published and unpublished evidence available at the time (Hayes 1985). In the late 1980s, evidence for a fifth class of eastern sigillata was discovered at Sagalassos in southwest Asia Minor, now commonly referenced as Sagalassos Red

Slip Ware (Poblome 1999). In the case of fine ware from the late Roman period, Hayes’ seminal

1972 publication Late Roman Pottery (1972) and his follow-up supplement (1980) built upon the work of Waagé and Kenyon and provided a detailed discussion of his typological classification and the distribution of the specific wares and forms. The name African Red Slip (ARS) was given to the vessels that Hayes identified as having been produced largely within the confines of the

Province of Africa (primarily modern-day Tunisia), and forms the bulk of his catalogue. Hayes also analyzed Çandarlı, ESD, LRD, and LRC which would later be renamed Phocaean Red Slip

(PRS). Hayes’ (2008) publication of the Roman fine ware from the excavations at the Athenian

7 agora helped to update and further refine the typo-chronological classifications used in the eastern

Mediterranean. As we can see, scholarly interest has changed from the initial emphasis on simply cataloguing finds, to more objective systems of classifications using the typo-chronological system.

Beyond Typo-Chronological Uses of Roman Fine Ware

While the establishment of typological classifications and their use as chronological markers has certainly continued to be a major facet of studies of Roman fine ware, there has recently been a shift towards utilizing the material to understand the technical and social processes behind the production, distribution, and use of fine ware ceramic vessels in the Roman world (e.g.,

Bonifay 2018; Bes 2015; Hudson 2010; Peña 2007; Abadie-Reynal 2005). Much of this discussion has centered on dining customs and their relationships to the assemblages of vessels recovered from archaeological contexts, such as Hudson (2010). Examining the associations between dining and ceramic vessels has been a common feature of research on Classical Greek pottery but has received less attention in research on Roman period ceramics. Unlike Classical Greece, where the presence of high quality of ceramic vessels is often an indicator of social class or rank, Roman fine ware ceramics were manufactured in greater numbers and were more widely distributed, and therefore a poor indicator of status. Instead the types of vessels that are typically indicative of a higher status are metal and glass vessels, which at least in some instances likely provided the inspiration in the production of ceramic vessels1. The idea that Roman fine ware was produced across a large geographical region of the Roman world and exported throughout has been understood since the early part of the 20th century (e.g., Zahn 1904; Dragendorff 1897). While more recent work has documented the geographic distribution of the different wares, discussions

1 Imitations are more abundant and apparent on the earlier sigillatas. 8 of the exchange networks themselves and the effects that differential access to these networks had on people has in comparison been poorly examined.

It is generally accepted that Roman fine ware was not always transported for its own value, instead accompanying products such as grain, wine, and olive oil. As such, it is possible to invoke

Roman fine ware distribution patterns as proxies for the distribution of other goods, and larger patterns of social and economic exchange that occurred throughout the Roman world (Bonifay

2018). The ceramic distribution networks involving Roman Thrace have been understudied in comparison to the neighboring regions of Greece and Asia Minor, a shortcoming that this thesis aids in addressing through the contribution of the two MTAP datasets, as well as the newly compiled comparative dataset of the assemblages from other sites in Thrace.

The classes of fine ware examined in this thesis that correspond to already established typologies include: Eastern Sigillata A (ESA), Italian Terra Sigillata (ITS), Gaulish Terra Sigillata

(GTS), Eastern Sigillata B (ESB), Çandarlı Ware (Çandarlı)2, Eastern Sigillata D (ESD)3, Pontic

Sigillata (PS), African Red Slip (ARS), Phocaean Red Slip (PRS)4, and Late Roman D (LRD)5.

These wares and their identified forms are addressed in detail in Chapter 4. An additional ware,

Late Roman Light Colored Ware (LRLCW), is also examined in this thesis, although to a much lesser extent than the sigillatas and red-slip wares mentioned above. In the two MTAP datasets examples of Roman fine ware that do not align with pre-existing typologies were also identified.

One set of these is referred to in this work as Mitrikon-Metochi Ware (MMW), which both imitates the forms of Çandarlı Ware and demonstrates clear differences to Çandarlı with regard to its

2 Candarli Ware is named Eastern Sigillata C (ESC) under Kenyon’s typological scheme, but Loeschke’s analysis of wasters at ancient Pitane (modern-day Çandarli) and excavation of pottery workshops to the east of Pergamon in the Ketios Valley demonstrates that Çandarli/ESC was produced within the vicinity of the city (Poblome et al. 2001b). 3 Referenced as Cypriot Sigillata in Hayes’ classification (1967). 4 Referenced as Late Roman C in Kenyon’s classification (1957). 5 Referenced as Cypriot Red Slip in Hayes’ classification (1972). 9 surface treatment and production. The other examples of fine ware from the MTAP sites that do not align with existing typologies are restricted to samples of single sherds. Selected examples of

MMW and the unclassified sherds are examined in Chapter 5.

The Molyvoti, Thrace, Archaeological Project (MTAP)

The Molyvoti, Thrace, Archaeological Project (MTAP) began in 2013 in order to study and protect the remains of the largely Classical period settlement located on the Molyvoti

Peninsula (Fig. 3). The project is a “synergasia,” a joint venture between the Ephorate of

Antiquities of Rhodope, represented by Marina Tasaklaki, and the American School of Classical

Studies at Athens, represented by Nathan T. Arrington of Princeton University. The specific aims of MTAP were to investigate the identity and chronology of the settlement on the Molyvoti

Peninsula, its connections to regional networks, and how relationships with the landscape and local populations evolved over time. From 2013 – 2015 excavation was concentrated on the Molyvoti

Peninsula, tentatively identified as the Classical period site of Stryme. These excavations also revealed evidence of Roman and Byzantine reoccupation of the site beginning as early as the late

4th century C.E. (Arrington et al. 2015), although these later settlements seem to be smaller

(Arrington et al. 2016). In 2019, renewed excavations on the Molyvoti Peninsula revealed additional evidence of both the Classical period site, and the Late Roman and Byzantine reoccupation (Arrington et al. 2019).

Figure 3. Map of MTAP study area

In addition to excavation, intensive pedestrian surface survey took place in 2014, 2015, and 2019, concentrated in the area primarily composed of the site of the Classical city and the land to the southwest, north, and northwest. Limited quantities of post-Classical period material were recovered from the survey units lying within the city walls of Stryme. Most Roman material recovered during the 2014 survey was concentrated at a site to the southwest of the Molyvoti

Peninsula (Arrington et al. 2015). This large village, located on the headland beach of Molyvoti- 11

Therina Loutra, was initially occupied around 500 C.E. and represents the most significant settlement in the area for centuries (Kaye and Hudson 2015). In 2015 pedestrian survey shifted to the mainland lying to the north of the Molyvoti Peninsula, where evidence of Neolithic and Bronze

Age activity was recovered from the base of a flat-topped hill to the west of Lake Mitrikon, and

Classical-Hellenistic period material was well represented throughout much of the survey area.

Early, Middle, and Late Roman material was all identified at several locations throughout the survey area, and shows a significant increase from the Middle to Late Roman period; all locations with either Early Roman or Middle Roman material also had Late Roman. Only limited evidence from the Byzantine period was recovered from the 2015 survey (Arrington et al. 2015). In the area to the north and northeast of Stryme, little to no Roman material was found (only a single confirmed piece of Roman fine ware) (Arrington et al. 2019; personal observations).

Geographic and Environmental Setting of MTAP

The MTAP survey area is situated near two wetlands of international importance, Lake

Vistonida and Lake Mitirkon both of which were added to the Ramsar list of wetlands in 1990

(Fig. 4). In December of 1996, they were joined into a single protected area commonly referenced as ‘Lake Vistonida, Lake Mitrikon, and their adjoining lagoons.’ This landscape is a complex of different types of wetlands that function together as a part of a larger ecological system. The western edge of the protected area is defined by a coastal lake, Lake Vistonida. To the south of

Lake Vistonida is the Porto Lagos saltwater lagoon that functions as an intermediary between the

Aegean Sea and Lake Vistonida. From the Porto Lagos lagoon running to the east along the coast six relatively shallow lagoons that are separated from the sea and each other by thin sandy beaches are found. Immediately east of these lagoons is the mouth of a small river that flows from the north

12 through a shallow freshwater lake called Lake Mitrikon. Around Lake Mitrikon are a series of reedbeds and freshwater marshes. Farther to the east of the small river and Lake Mitrikon is the

Lissos River, which winds its way up towards the northeast into the Rhodope Mountains where the river originates and forms the eastern boundary of the protected Ramsar area. Between Lake

Mitrikon and the Lissos River lay extensive mudflats with fine alluvial deposits (Pavlikakis et al.

2006; Pavlikakis et al. 2003).

Figure 4. Land Cover in MTAP research area

The area between Lake Vistonida and Lake Mitrikon is primarily composed of rolling hills particularly in the south. Immediately to the west of Lake Mitrikon are a series of more prominent hills that give a good view of the wetlands stretching all the way to the Lissos River.

Moving north of Lake Mitrikon, the terrain generally becomes flatter, transitioning mostly to plains up until one reaches the foothills of the Rhodope Mountains. The Rhodopes form a chain around the wetlands of Lake Vistonida and Lake Mitrikon, as well as the Nestos River Delta which lays farther to the west. These factors, in combination with the differences between the climate of interior Bulgaria and the Mediterranean climate of the Aegean leads to the creation of

13 watersheds that feed into the north Aegean and allow for the formation of the wetlands as they are in the first place (Dimitrakopoulos et al. 2010).

Geography of Thrace

In its broadest sense the region of Thrace (Fig. 1) stretches across the modern-day countries of Greece, Turkey, Bulgaria, Romania, Moldova, Serbia, North Macedonia, and Ukraine. The

Aegean islands of Samothrace and Thasos, which were inhabited by Thracians during antiquity, are regularly considered a part of Thrace as well (Bouzek and Graninger 2015: 13-15). In this thesis, I applied a different definition of Thrace, one which largely corresponds the borders of the

Roman province of Thracia, but also includes the territory of the province of Moesia Inferior (Fig.

4). Geographically, this includes the territory from the Danube River to roughly the Strymon River in the west, the Aegean Sea to the south, and the Black Sea to the east. Across this broader landscape are a series of mountain ranges, major rivers, and coastal routes that all play significant roles in shaping the settlement patterns, exchange networks, and cultural makeup of those living in Thrace, as well as those who interact with populations in Thrace. This thesis uses a three-region framework for Thrace defined by geographic features that demarcate zones of interaction, as well the concentrations of sites themselves. The regions are Aegean Thrace, Dobruja, and the Thracian

Interior.

Aegean Thrace encompasses the lands to the east of the Strymon River, and south and west of the Rhodope Mountains. Additionally, due to their geographic proximity as well as their intimate connections with Aegean Thrace, the islands of Thasos and Samothrace are included in

Aegean Thrace for the purposes of this thesis. There are three major rivers that stretch through

Aegean Thrace, the Strymon River, the Nestos River, and the Lissos River. All three rivers empty into the Aegean, with the Nestos and Lissos forming a complex of wetlands that line the shore of

14 much of Aegean Thrace. Sites located in Aegean Thrace and discussed in this thesis are Arethousa

(Karivieri et al. 2010), Amphipolis (Malamidou 2005), Abdera (Malamidou 2005), Mitrikon-

Metochi, Glyphada-Agkathies, Maroneia (Kokkotaki and Tsoka 2010), and Thasos (Malamidou

2005).

Dobruja is centered on the coastal territories alongside the Black Sea and along the Danube

Delta. The western and northern ends of Dobruja are delineated by the Danube River. The southern limit can be assigned to the Kamchia River, and the eastern limit the Black Sea. Sites located in

Dobruja and discussed in this thesis are Halmyris (Topoleanu 2000a; Topoleanu 2000b), Histria

(Badescu 2016; Bajenaru 2014a; Bajenaru 2014b), Noviodunum (Topoleanu et al. 2014; Baumann

2008), Tropaensium (Gamureac 2009), Tomis (Bajenaru 2013), Aegyssus (Nutu et al. 2014), and

Durostorum (Musteanu and Elefterescu 1996).

The Thracian Interior includes the land to the north of the Rhodope Mountains, east of the

Strymon River, south of the Haemus Mountains, and west of the upland areas of Dobrudja and

Strandzha. The Thracian Interior is centered around the Hebros River, whose sources originate in the Haemus and Rhodope mountain ranges and flows to the east and southeast before turning south near the modern-day city of Edirne, where the Hebros merges with the Arda and the Tonzos Rivers.

Sites located in the Thracian Interior and discussed in this thesis are Nova Nadezhda (Harizanov

2020; Harizanov 2018), Serdica (Ivanov 2013), Philippopolis (Harizanov 2020; Harizanov 2018),

Sadovo (Harizanov 2020; Harizanov 2018), Georgi Dobrevo (Harizanov 2020; Harizanov 2018),

Mladinovo (Harizanov 2020; Harizanov 2018), Svilengrad (Harizanov 2020; Harizanov 2018),

Yurta (Tuslova 2020), and Dodoparon (Tuslova 2020).

CHAPTER 3 – METHODOLOGY

This chapter describes the methods of data collection and analysis, and is divided into four main sections. The first, ‘Surface Survey, Collection, and Initial Analysis’ details how the pedestrian surface survey was conducted at MTAP, the processes for the collection of artifacts, and the initial analysis by the survey team in 2015. The second section, ‘Ceramic Identification and Analysis’ discusses how the MTAP Roman fine ware was analyzed, classified, and recorded during the 2019 season. This primary dataset that I created forms the basis for the analysis and discussion in this thesis. The third section ‘Comparative Dataset Compilation’ explains how I developed a comparative dataset of Roman fine ware ceramics using existing publications, covering the region of Thrace and northern Aegean, for use in assessing the distribution networks in Thrace and their relationship to Roman Fine Ware in the MTAP study area. The final section

‘Distribution Analysis’ describes the processes by which spatial and chronological distributions were analyzed.

Surface Survey, Collection, and Initial Analysis

The Roman fine ware ceramics discussed in this thesis were collected through a systematic, intensive surface survey. The survey area extends from the countryside laying to the north of the

Classical Period site of Molyvoti, which has provisionally been identified as the Greek colony of

Stryme. The survey methodology protocols used by MTAP were designed by Tom Tartaron

(University of Pennsylvania) and follow pedestrian survey methods used elsewhere in the Aegean and broader Mediterranean, such as the Pylos Regional Archaeological Project (Davis et al. 1997), the Nemea Valley Archaeological Project (Wright et al. 1990; Cloke 2016), and the Eastern

Korinthia Archaeological Survey (Tartaron et al. 2006). The survey area, which is largely

16 composed of cotton fields, was divided into different tracts which roughly corresponded to the boundaries of individual fields, as established by the National Cadastral Service (EKXA). Survey tracts were further subdivided into individual units, with 40 x 100 meters being the ideal area for each ‘Standard Survey Unit’ (SU). For SUs that measured the full 40 x 100 meter size, four survey walkers, spaced 10 meters apart from one another walked a set compass bearing.

Each walker was tasked with traversing the field and counting all observed ceramic and tile fragments over a 3-meter span (1.5 meters in each direction) using two hand-held tally counters, one for tile and the other for pottery. All observed examples of fine ware or diagnostic sherds were collected, along with samples of different fabrics. When a unit was completed, walkers would return to the survey team leaders, record their ceramic and tile counts, and deposit their collected samples into one pile. These piles were roughly sorted according to functional categories.

All collected samples of fine ware were kept, along with representative samples of other fabrics, with preference given to diagnostic sherds such as rims and bases. The materials were then bagged and tagged with identifying information concerning the tract and unit of collection. Certain locations that were identified as being exceptionally promising sites were designated as ‘Place of

Special Interest Units’ (PU) and were divided into units that ideally measured 20 x 20 meters.

These units generally employed four walkers as well but were instead spaced out at 5 meter intervals.

The survey team analyzed the collected and washed material with the goal of identifying the chronological periods represented. Broad chronological periods were used during this stage of the analysis due to a lack of experts who were able to dedicate enough time to the survey material, as well as MTAP’s goals of identifying the general chronological makeup of the countryside.

Relevant to this thesis, these include Classical-Hellenistic; Roman; Late Roman; and Byzantine.

The precision of these designations was dependent upon a combination of the survey team’s confidence to accurately identify the period, as well as the information that could be gleaned from the ceramic material itself. Counts and weights of fine ware, cookware, coarse ware, and amphorae recorded. Once the sample from a unit was analyzed the presence or absence of material from each period was entered into an Access database. The material was then re-bagged and put back into storage (Tartaron 2015).

Ceramic Identification and Analysis

The second phase analysis of the Roman fine ware ceramics was conducted largely in accordance with the methods utilized by Hudson (2010), who supervised this analysis. However, due to restrictions on time, as well as the requirements for meeting the research goals, rim diameter was recorded for only a few select examples that were chosen on the basis of their comparatively exceptional preservation, or the fact that they were unclassified forms. No effort was made to determine vessel volume. All recovered Roman fine ware ceramics from two sites, Mitrikon-

Metochi and Glyphada-Agkathies, were examined for this thesis.6 The raw data, compiled according to site, ware, and form are included in Appendix A (Mitrikon-Metochi) and Appendix

B (Glyphada-Agkathies).

The analysis of the Roman fine ware sherds consisted of qualitative evaluation and recording of three main criteria: 1) the ware groups to which the fragments belonged; 2) the part of the vessel; and 3) the parallel forms from existing typologies. Ware groups were determined by examining the ceramic fabrics and slips present on each fine ware sherd. By assessing the composition of the fabric, consisting of both the matrix, composed of clay minerals, as well as

6 An additional site, Molyvoti-Triaridi, was also examined but there were no Roman fine ware ceramics present in the assemblage. 18 inclusions, which are macroscopically observable particles, ware could be determined (Orton and

Hughes 2013: 71). Once the ware group was identified specific ware forms were determined by examining the shapes and decorative designs on the sherds. These observations were then compared to existing typological classifications. Vessel part was recorded using three different classifications of sherds: rim, body, and base. Body sherds were only classified as such if there was no remnant of either a rim or base. If the slightest portion of a rim or base was present then the whole sherd was classified as a rim or base respectively.7 The number of sherds in each ware and if discernible each ware-form combination were then counted and recorded.

The method of typological recording used in this thesis is a form of the type-variety method. Use of the type-variety method that was used for previously published Rome fine ware studies in Thrace and other regions allows for a comparative analysis of the Roman fine ware from the MTAP survey and that from other sites in the Roman world (Bes 2015). In the type-variety method a “type” refers to a broad class of ceramic vessels that are defined using a restricted number of diagnostic traits, such as body fabric, surface treatment, and surface decoration. In contrast,

“varieties” refer to differences in attributes such as vessel shape, although they cannot differ greatly the larger types in terms of decorative design, body fabric, and surface treatment (Sinopoli

1991: 52-53). Together types and varieties form what is referenced in this work as a ware group, such as ARS, Çandarlı, and PRS.

The typological classification standards utilized in this study were Hayes’ Late Roman

Pottery (1972; 1980), Etlinger et al.’s Conspectus (1990), and Hayes’ publication in Atlante II

(1985). This material, along with Hayes’ 2008 work on the Athenian Agora assemblage allowed

7 No sherds were identified that had both rim and base segments still present. 19 for the establishment of more precise chronologies for the various wares and forms (Hayes 2008) and informs this study.

A select few sherds, chosen due to their relatively high level of preservation, were photographed, and their diameters, preserved height, and Munsell readings were recorded.

Additionally, several sherds of Roman fine ware did not align with the established typological classifications, these sherds were photographed and their diameters, preserved heights, and

Munsell readings were recorded in the Excel database as well.

Comparative Dataset Compilation

The comparative dataset of Roman fine ware ceramics was constructed using published works on sites in Thrace. Many of these works do not include total counts of fine ware sherds for either ware-form or ware-form-vessel part combinations. Instead, most indicate only the presence of particular wares and ware-form combinations, with some publications providing representative samples of larger assemblages. Since all the sites in the comparative dataset at least indicate the presence of particular ware-form combinations, an analysis based on presence or absence of particular ware-form combinations was used as the basis for the comparative analysis of the

Roman fine ware. For each site in the comparative dataset, and the MTAP sites Glyphada-

Agkathies and Mitrikon-Metochi, the presence of each ware and each ware-form combination were recorded in an Excel database (Appendices A and B). This highlighted both similarities and differences with regards to the assemblages from the different sites under examination.

Quantification of Rome Fine Ware Sherds

For this study, the distributions of Roman fine ware ceramics at MTAP were analyzed at three different spatial scales: 1) the survey unit8; 2) the tract; and 3) the site. The assemblages of

Roman fine ware from individual units were analyzed and classified according to the three criteria outlined in the previous section (survey unit, tract, and site) and their counts for each ware-form- vessel part combinations were then recorded in an Excel database. It was then possible to determine the fine ware sherd frequency per unit for either the entire unit’s fine ware assemblage, or for particular wares or ware-form combinations. For tracts that had multiple units, sherd counts for each ware-form-vessel part combination were merged, allowing for an assessment of sherd frequency per tract for each combination. The sherd counts for all tracts from a single site were then combined in order to generate the sherd frequency per site for each ware-form-vessel part combination. Furthermore, the sherd count for each unit, tract and site was also collapsed down in order to provide counts for each ware-form combination and each ware. In total there were 22 specific ware-form combinations identified throughout the study area that align with the typological classifications outlined in the previous section. In addition to documenting the spatial distribution of the Roman fine ware, the chronological distribution was likewise documented by using comparanda that are recorded in the typological classifications. Drawing on the phases of

Bes (2015), these typologies were used to establish approximate date ranges for each individual ware-form combination found at MTAP were generated.

The MTAP datasets were then compared to published assemblages of Roman fine ware pottery from other sites in Thrace and the northern Aegean. For the distributional analysis, sites in

Thrace were divided into three regions based upon their geographic location. The regions include

8 Includes both SUs and PUs. 21

Aegean Thrace, the Thracian Interior, and Dobruja (Fig. 1). The presence of specific wares and ware-form combinations for each region were recorded and analyzed, allowing for comparisons between regions to be carried out, as well as between the MTAP sites and other regions. This regional approach helped to limit problems arising from chronological gaps resulting from the restricted contexts from which some of the published assemblages were recovered (e.g. the Early and Late Roman finds from Histria). Finally, I utilized the nine-phase chronological framework outlined by Bes (2015) to situate these datasets within a broader eastern Mediterranean context from the Late Hellenistic to Early Byzantine periods.

CHAPTER 4 – OVERVIEW OF ROMAN FINE WARE CERAMICS

This chapter details the wares and their corresponding forms that were identified at the two

MTAP sites, Mitrikon-Metochi and Glyphada-Agkathies, and in the comparative dataset for

Thrace that I compiled. Brief summaries are provided for each ware, with a focus on vessel shapes, surface treatments, ceramic fabrics, slips, production sites, association with other wares, and the general trends in their geographical and chronological distribution. Following each summary, tables list the specific forms included in the dataset, along with illustrations, morphology descriptions, approximate vessel diameters, notes on surface treatments, approximate date ranges, and the commonality and breadth of distribution (Tables 2-10).

Between the MTAP and regional datasets, a total of 11 different wares (Table 1) and 128 forms were identified. In cases where there were two forms to which a sherd could correspond, both possibilities were included in the table. The wares identified in the MTAP dataset that I created are Italian Terra Sigillata (ITS), Eastern Sigillata B (ESB), Çandarlı Ware (Çandarlı),

African Red Slip (ARS), Phocaean Red Slip (PRS), and Late Roman Light Colored Ware

(LRLCW). The wares that I identified in the regional dataset are Eastern Sigillata A (ESA), Italian

Terra Sigillata (ITS), Gaulish Terra Sigillata (GTS), Eastern Sigillata B (ESB), Çandarlı Ware

(Çandarlı), Eastern Sigillata D (ESD), Pontic Sigillata (PS), African Red Slip (ARS), Late Roman

D (LRD), and Phocaean Red Slip (PRS). For Eastern Sigillata D (ESD), and Late Roman Light

Colored Ware (LRLCW) no specific forms were identified, and as such tables are omitted for these two wares.

Table 1. Ware presence per site Site ESA ITS GTS ESB Çandarlı ESD PS ARS PRS LRD LRLCW Arethusa X X Amphipolis X X X X Abdera X X X X X X X Mitrikon-Metochi X X X X X Glyphada-Agkathies X X X X X Maroneia X X X X Thasos X X X X X X X Halmyris X X X Histria X X X X X Noviodunum X X X X Tropaensium X X Tomis X X Topolog X Aegyssus X1 X1 X X X Durostorum X Nova Nadezhda X Serdica X X Philippopolis X1 X X X Sadovo X1 X1 Preslavets X Georgi Dobrevo X X Mladinovo X Svilengrad X Yurta X Dodoparon X

1. Identification uncertain.

Eastern Sigillata A (ESA)

The majority of ESA forms that were manufactured were open shapes: plates, dishes, cups, and bowls (Table 2). Common surface decorations include incised grooves, rouletting, gouging, and molded reliefs. Stamps are also common and appear in the form of stamped rim-patterns, name or legend stamps, and device stamps (Hayes 2008: 16). ESA fabric is generally quite hard, the result of firing temperatures that were high even by ancient standards (Slane 1997: 405-406).

Observing the fabric at the break reveals slightly granular appearance with rough breaks, although some examples of ESA display sharper breaks and cleaner fabrics. The color of the clay varies with most examples ranging from yellow-cream to light pink to red. The slip generally ranges from red to reddish brown in color, with later examples displaying a duller finished than earlier pieces.

During the Early Roman period a bright red glossy slip with a light orange or light yellow-cream body clay is the most common combination. Some examples from the Imperial period have a duller appearance and exhibit flaking of the slip on the interior, as well as other defects such as accidental slip accumulation (Hayes 2008: 14).

Firm evidence of the location of kiln sites associated with ESA is still lacking, although work involving X-ray fluorescence suggests a production location in eastern coastal Cilicia or the

Hatay coast of Anatolia (Hayes 2008: 13). ESA is the earliest of the glossy red slipped sigillatas that are commonly associated with Roman ceramics, even though ESA began production sometime prior to 150 B.C.E., predating Roman control of the region. Even though examples of ESA dating to the mid-2nd century B.C.E. have been identified in the Aegean, ESA did not achieve widespread distribution until after 50 B.C.E. (Hayes 2008: 19). At its greatest extent, the geographic distribution of ESA encompassed the entirety of the Eastern and Central Mediterranean, including

Italy, Sicily, and North Africa, with more sporadic examples occurring farther to the north in modern Austria, Cisalpine Gaul, Southern Gaul, as well as to the west at Carthago Nova in Spain.

ESA was present in the Aegean in moderate quantities from Augustus (27 BCE – CE 14) until the time of Hadrian (CE 117 – CE 138), with more residual deposits occurring throughout the 2nd century C.E. (Hayes 2008: 18).

Table 2. Eastern Sigillata A vessel form typology, attributes, and chronology Form/Type Illustration Description Surface Treatment Approximate Date Distribution Large dish, with low heavy foot, flat or slightly Grooves around the 120 B.C.E. – C.E. 10/20 Very common curved floor, rim that is rounded on the exterior, and center of floor. throughout the tapered lip. An offset is present at the junction eastern Atlante II 3 between the rim and the wall. Moldings Mediterranean

Vessel Diameter: 24-50 cm (mostly 28-40 cm) Bowl or cup, with curved or straight walls, flat floor, Molded decorations 120 B.C.E. – C.E. 10/20 Very common low foot of large diameter, and straight or incurving on the floor. throughout the rim. eastern Atlante II 5 Grooves Mediterranean Vessel Diameter: 14-26 cm Bands of palmettes Large dish, with flat floor, shallow wall, and flaring, Grooves around the 120 B.C.E. – 50 B.C.E. Common in nearly horizontal rim. center of floor. eastern Atlante II 6 Mediterranean Vessel Diameter: 25-43 cm Molded decorations. Small dish, with slightly sloping floor, vertical wall, N/A C.E. 60 – 100 Common in small low foot, slightly incurving or plain rim, and eastern triangular protrusion on the exterior at the junction Mediterranean Atlante II 36 between the wall and floor.

Vessel Diameter: 14-16 cm Large plate, with slightly sloping floor, vertical wall, Potter Stamps C.E. 60 – 100 Common in high thin foot, plain rim, and triangular protrusion on eastern the exterior at the junction between the wall and floor. Molded decorations Mediterranean Atlante II 37 Vessel Diameter: 21-28 cm Rouletting on the exterior of the rim. Small bowl or cup, with carinated body, low foot, and Grooves on interior C.E. 1 – 50 Not common. slightly incurving rim. of the rim are attested Primarily Atlante II 44 on the earliest restricted to Vessel Diameter: 9.5-14 cm (mostly 9.5-10.5 cm) examples eastern Mediterranean Bowl or cup, with conical walls, carinated body, low Rouletting on the rim C.E. 1/10 – 50/60 Common in foot, excurving rim, and rounded lip. eastern Atlante II 45 Mediterranean Vessel Diameter: 7.5-9.5 cm and 11.5-13 cm

Small bowl or cup, with flaring walls, flat floor, Moldings C.E. 10 – 60/70 Very common in carinated body at junction between wall and rim, and eastern excurving molded rim. Rouletting Mediterranean Atlante II 47

Vessel Diameter: 7.5-9 cm and 11-16 cm Grooves on exterior of the rim Bowl or cup, with deep curving wall, nearly flat floor, N/A C.E. 60/70 – 120 Common in tall thin foot, incurving rim, and plain or tapered lip. eastern Mediterranean Atlante II 51 Vessel Diameter: 7.2-8.2 cm and 10-13.5 cm and also attested in the central Mediterranean Illustrations for forms Atlante II 5, 6, 45, 47, and 51 (Hayes 2008); Illustrations for forms Atlante II forms 3, 36, 37, and 44 (Hayes 1985).

Italian Terra Sigillata (ITS)

The vessel shapes produced by ITS workshops were varied, but included dishes, plates, cups, bowls, and basins (Table 3). Likewise, surface decorations also varied significantly, and included appliques, moldings, grooves, stamped motifs, and potter stamps. ITS fabric is in general

26 fine-grained and reddish in color, although there is variation from region to region throughout

Italy. The slip is also generally red in color, but as with the fabric it can vary across the larger production zone. Overall, ITS presents a picture of a diverse and rapidly changing design program, at least until around the middle of the 1st century C.E. (Hayes 2008: 41-42).

ITS was produced in at least 15 different places throughout the Italian peninsula (Olcese

2004), with Arretium, Pisa, Naples, and the lower and middle Tiber Valley being the most important with regards to the Mediterranean world (Hayes 2008: 42). The glossy red-slipped ITS first appears around 40 – 30 B.C.E. (Conspectus 1990: 39-43), and quickly attained widespread distribution with ITS’s first appearance in Gaul around 27 – 25 B.C.E. By around 15 – 10 B.C.E.

ITS was not uncommon in the Aegean, and appeared in the Levant and Egypt shortly thereafter.

The peak of ITS distribution in the Aegean and eastern Mediterranean occurred from ca. C.E. 10

– 50, and began to fade thereafter as ESB and Çandarlı became favored. Some examples of ITS in the Aegean have been dated to the end of the 1st century C.E., although they do not appear in significant quantities (Hayes 2008: 42-44).

Table 3. Italian Terra Sigillata vessel form typology, attributes, and chronology Form/Type Illustration Description Surface Treatment Approximate Date Distribution Conical cup with concave vertical rim which on the Rouletting frequently 20 B.C.E. – C.E. 37 Common exterior is bounded above and below with a series of on moldings above throughout convex moldings, flaring foot of varying height, and and below rim. Roman world Conspectus 22 curved, flat or biconical floor.

Vessel Diameter: 12-14 cm; 7.5-9 cm. Plate or platter with flat floor, tall flaring foot, and Applique, 20 B.C.E. – C.E. 80 Common smooth or finely molded vertical rim that is broad or Potter Stamps, throughout flat on the exterior. Grooves, Mediterranean Conspectus 20 Rouletting and Vessel Diameter: Not Available northeastern provinces Bowl or cup, with hemispherical body, flaring foot, Applique, 20 B.C.E. – C.E. 120 Not Available short vertical rim, lip offset by grooves, and flange on Spirals, the exterior of the wall. Potter Stamps Conspectus 34 Vessel Diameter: Not Available

Plate or platter with a generally flat floor, tall flaring Moldings. 10 B.C.E. – C.E. 25/35 Not Available foot, curving exterior profile, and vertical rim that is Grooves. Hayes 4 broad or flat on the exterior. Rouletting.

Vessel Diameter: ca. 30 cm Bowl or cup, with conical profile and vertical rim. Rouletting. C.E. 1 – 30 Not Available Grooves. Goudiineau 25 Vessel Diameter: Not Available Mouldings.

Deep bowl or basin, with high flaring wall, flaring foot Grooves C.E. 1 – 50 Not Available that is chamfered on the exterior, flat floor, and excurving rim that is rolled on the exterior. Goudineau 13 Vessel Diameter: Not Available

Dish, with low curving wall, flat floor, false foot and a N/A C.E. 1 – 50 Not Available short vertical rim.

Goudineau 8 Vessel Diameter: Not Available

Bowl or cup, with flaring wall, up-turned rim, and Potter Stamps C.E. 1 – 100 Not Available hollow base. Conspectus 49 Vessel Diameter: Not Available

Bowl or cup, with hemispherical body, flaring foot, N/A C.E. 20 – 50 Not Available and incurving rim that is thickened on the exterior. Goundineau 21 Vessel Diameter: Not Available

Conical cup with smooth vertical rim, low flaring foot, Applique C.E. 25 – 75 Common and flat or conical floor. throughout Mediterranean Conspectus 23 Vessel diameter: Not Available

Illustrations for forms Conspectus 22, 20, 34, 49, and 23 (Conspectus 1990); Illustrations for forms Goudineau 25, 13, 8, and 21 (Goudineay 1968); Illustration for form Hayes 4 (Hayes 1973).

Gaulish Terra Sigillata (GTS)

As with ITS, the vessel shapes belonging to GTS varied, but included dishes, plates, bowls, cups, and basins (Table 4). Surface decorations varied substantially as well, with appliqués,

28 molded reliefs, grooves, stamped motifs, and potter stamps all attested. GTS fabric is generally fine-grained and has a reddish appearance, but varies between production sites. GTS vessels were frequently made of clays that were specifically selected for their high calcareous content (Van

Oyen 2016: 14). The slip is red in color, and exhibits a metallic lustrous finish. The slip also possesses a soapy or greasy texture that helps to aid in the identification of GTS.

The earliest evidence of GTS production comes from Lyon dating to the end of the 1st century B.C.E., which may have been a branch of ITS workshops attempting to benefit from the needs to supply the Roman military in Gaul and the other western provinces. Production at Lyon was short-lived, and during the 1st century C.E. the most significant producers of GTS were located at the site of La Graufesenque in southern Gaul. During the following century, workshops in central Gaul, such as Lezoux, became the main suppliers of GTS. However during the course of the 2nd century C.E. there is fragmentation of GTS production into smaller more regional focused workshops. By the late 3rd century C.E. the traditional GTS ceased to be, but its influence remained in local red-slipped wares (Van Oyen 2016: 14).

Table 4. Gaulish Terra Sigillata vessel form typology, attributes, and chronology Form/Type Illustration Description Surface Treatment Approximate Date Distribution Bowl or cup, with hemispherical body profile, curving Rouletting. C.E. 1 – 100 Not Available floor, flaring foot, either vertical or small ledge rim, Applique. and a flange on the exterior at the junction between the wall and rim.

Dragendorff 24/25 Vessel Diameter: Not Available

Dish or bowl with slightly flaring walls, an inclined Grooves C.E. 30 – 115 Not Available floor, tall flaring foot, and slightly excuring rim.

Dragendorff 15/17 Vessel Diameter: Not Available

Bowl, with hemispherical body profile, flat floor, N/A C.E. 40 – 70 Not Available flaring foot, and vertical rim rim incorporting a flange on the exterior. Ritterling 12 Not Available Vessel Diameter: Not Available

Bowl or basin, with rounded floor, a covex wall, Rouletting. C.E. 50 – 75 Not Available vertical rim, and low foot. Dragendorff 29b Vessel Diameter: Not Available

Ritterling 14b Not Available Not Available Not Available C.E. 50 – 80 Not Available Cup or bowl, with a double convex body profile, flat N/A C.E. 50 – 125 Not Available floor, ledge rim with a partially rounded lup, and thin flaring foot that is thickened on the exterior. Dragendorff 27 Vessel Diameter: Not Available

Bowl or cup, with hemispherical body profile, flat Applique C.E. 60 – 80 Not Available floor, downturned rim, and flaring foot. Dragendorff 35 Vessel Diameter: Not Available

Bowl, with hemispherical body profile, high vertical Moulding C.E. 80 – 100 Not Available wall, flat floor, short rolled rim, and low foot.

Dragendorff 37 Vessel Diameter: Not Available

Hermet 23 Not Available Not Available Not Available C.E. 70 – 120 Not Available Hermet 28 Not Available Not Available Not Available C.E. 70 – 130 Not Available Bowl or cup, with hemispherical body profile, plain Moulding on flange vertical rim, flaring foot, and large flange just below Curle 11 the rim. C.E. 70 – 160 Not Available

Vessel Diameter: Not Available Bowl or basin, with straight flaring wall, plain rim that Grooves. continues angle of wall, and flaring foot. Dragendorff 33 C.E. 100 – 150 Not Available Vessel Diameter: Not Available

Illustrations for forms Dragendorff 24/25, 15/17, 29b, 27, 35, 37, and 33 (Dragendorff 1897); Illustration for forms Curle 11 (Curle 1909).

Table 4 cont. Gaulish Terra Sigillata vessel form typology, attributes, and chronology Form/Type Illustration Description Surface Treatment Approximate Date Distribution Dish or bowl, with low flaring walls, downturned rim, Mouldings on rim thin foot, and flat floor. Dragendorff 36 C.E. 100 – 200 Not Available

Vessel Diameter: Not Available Bowl or cup, vertical wall, short vertical rim that is Grooves ronded on exterior, flat floor, and low foot that sits directly below the wall. Curle 12 C.E. 100 – 200 Not Available Vessel Diamteter: Not Available

Bowl or cup, with high vertical wall, flat floor, false Moulded foot, and excurving rim with a tapered lip. decorations. Grooves. Dragendorff 41 C.E. 100 – 200 Not Available Vessel Diameter: Not Available

Bowl or cup, with hemispherical body profile, flat N/A floor, triangular rim that curves towards the exterior, and a flange at the junction between the floor and Dragendorff 44 C.E. 100 – 200 Not Available wall.

Vessel Diameter: Not Available Bowl or cup, with conical body profile, slanting floor, Ridges on exterior low foot, and an incurved rim incorporating a large Curle 21 Not Available down turned flange. C.E. 100 – 200 Not Available

Vessel Diameter: Not Available Dish or bowl, with low flaring wall, ledge rim, flaring N/A foot, and a mostly flat floor that is incliuned at the center. Dragendorff 18/31 C.E. 100 – 200 Not Available Vessel Diameter: Not Available

Bowl or cup, with flaring walls, nearly flat floor, flaring Grooves. foot, ledge rim with rounded lip, and an offset at the Curle 23 Not Available junction between the wall and floor. C.E. 150 – 200 Not Available

Vessel Diameter: Not Available Bowl or cup, with hemispherical body profile, flaring Grooves. foot, plain rim that continues the angle of the wall and incorporates a large downturned flange. Dragendorff 43 C.E. 180 – 200 Not Available Vessel Diameter: Not Available

Illustrations for Dragendorff 36, 41, 44, 18/31, and 43 (Dragendorff 1897); Illustration for form Curle 12 (Curle 1909).

Eastern Sigillata B (ESB)

Eastern Sigillata B is divided into two main groups: Eastern Sigillata B1 (ESB1) and Eastern

Sigillata B2 (ESB2). Nearly all ESB1 and ESB2 forms are open vessels, with plates, dishes, bowls, and cups the most common shapes (Hayes 2008: 37-40; Table 5). The fabric of ESB1 is rather hard and contains mica, whereas ESB2 is quite soft and contains even greater concentrations of mica. ESB in general has a clean fabric with sharp breaks. The color of the clay is generally light red to cinnamon-red in color, although some obtain a pink and white color as a result of firing

31 conditions. The slip is generally red in color and appears glossy, covering the entirety of the vessel.

ESB1 regularly exhibits a darker colored body clay than ESB2 and takes on a brown-red color.

The slip of ESB1 is also darker and glossier than that of ESB2, although some examples of ESB1 are quite dull in their appearance (Hayes 2008: 32-33). Common surface decorations include incised grooves, rouletting, appliqués, and rarely molded reliefs. Stamps are very common with nearly all ESB1 forms exhibiting them in some form (Hayes 2008: 34-35).

ESB was likely produced within the vicinity of the Meander Valley, possibly at Tralles which aligns with Pliny’s comments noting Tralles as a producer of fine pottery. ESB1 first appeared in the Aegean beginning around 25 – 20 B.C.E., when ITS and GTS began to be imported, and maintained a degree of prominence until ca. C.E. 40. A transitional period between

ESB1 and ESB2 occurred from ca. C.E. 45 – 70, with ESB2 fabrics first appearing in Athens ca.

C.E. 30 – 40. ESB2 does not however begin to appear in significant quantities until the end of the

1st century, and continued to be exported to Greece up until ca. C.E. 200 (Hayes 2008: 32). The geographic distribution of ESB1 was primarily restricted to the Aegean with western Asia Minor in particular being the epicenter, although moderate quantities make their way to Lower Egypt.

ESB1 is present in more sporadic quantities at sites in the northern Black Sea and along the

Danube, as well as in Sudan, Ethiopia, and India. For ESB2 the breadth of its distribution was wider than the earlier ESB1. ESB2 is not uncommon at sites throughout Greece, along the Adriatic, in southern Italy, and eastern Sicily. In contrast to ESB1, ESB2 is not present in Lower Egypt, but is infrequently attested at sites on Cyprus and at Rome (Hayes 2008: 36).

Table 5. Eastern Sigillata B vessel form typology, attributes, and chronology Form/Type Illustration Description Surface Treatment Approximate Date Distribution Dish with rounded wall, small ring foot, small ledge Wheel made C.E. 1- 100 Not common, rim, and triangular lip. decorative bands on and primarily Atlante II 15 the dorsal side of the restricted to Vessel Diameter: “solo di formato piccolo.” rim the Aegean

Dish with low wall featuring a pronounced flange on Grooves C.E. 25 – 50 Common in the exterior, flaring rim, and low foot with grooves on eastern Atlante II 6 interior. Mediterranean

Vessel Diameter: 14-20 cm

Bowl or cup, with conical profile, flat floor, low heavy Wheel-made C.E. 25 – 50 Common in foot, and flanged rim that is concave on top. decorations Aegean, Black Grooves Sea, and Atlante II 31 Not Available Vessel Diameter: 2.8-4.3 cm and 5-6.3 cm for the base, Engraved lines on eastern and 7-8 cm and 13 cm for the rim the rim Mediterranean

Dish with vertical walls, flat floor, rim with molded lip, Grooves on interior C.E. 30 – 70 Not common, low thin foot, and protrusion at the junction between of the lip and and primarily Atlante II 8 Not Available the floor and wall. underside of the floor restricted to the Aegean Vessel Diameter: 9-13 cm Dish with rounded walls, incurving rim, and low foot Moldings C.E. 30 – 70 Not Available with molding on interior. Atlante II 14 Vessel Diameter: 11-17 cm Cup, with hemispherical body, high walls, flaring Moldings C.E. 50 – 75 Not Available molded foot, and excurving rim. Kenrick B348 Vessel Diameter: Not Available

Bowl or cup, with high walls that curve outwards, flat Wheel bands C.E. 50 – 125 Very common floor, low foot, vertical rim with a beveled lip, and Grooves on the rim in Aegean, flange at the junction between the wall and rim. S-shaped spirals Black Sea, and Atlante II 70 eastern Vessel Diameter: 7.5-14 cm (mostly 7.5-9 cm and 10.5- Mediterranean 13 cm) Dish, with inclined floor, small foot, and vertical rim Grooves and wheel C.E. 50 – 125 Very common incorporating a small flange. bands on the rim and in Aegean, on the flange. Black Sea, and Atlante II 58 Vessel Diameter: 12-18 cm S-shaped spirals eastern Potter Stamps Mediterranean Rosettes Bowl or cup, with flat floor, curving wall, flases foot, Grooves on wall and C.E. 50 – 150 Very common and small ledge rim with plain or tapered lip. rm in Aegean, Palmettes (Type B) Black Sea, and Atlante II 76 Not Available Vessel Diameter: 7-16 cm (Type A), and 16-30 cm Potter Stamps eastern (Type B) Mediterranean

Dish with a double convex wall profile, small molded Moldings C.E. 60/70 – 120 Rare; attested foot, and small molded lip. Groove on interior at Corinth and Atlante II 51 Not Available edge of rim Antioch Vessel Diameter: 15-20 cm Dish, with flat floor, no foot, excurivng rim, and either Rosette Stamps C.E. 70/75 – 120 Common in a rolled or rounded lip. Potter Stamps Aegean and Atlante II 63 Grooves on the lip eastern Vessel Diameter: 15-18 cm Mediterranean

Bowl or cup, with flat floor, slightly rounded sloping Rosette stamps on C.E. 80 – 120 Very common wall, no foot, ad plain rim that continues the angle of center of floor in Aegean, the wall. Engraved line on Black Sea, and Atlante II 71 floor broader Vessel Diameter: 7.5-13.5 cm (mostly 9-9.5 cm and 10.8- eastern 13 cm) Mediterranean

Small cup, with hemispherical body, bead-rim, and Grooves on exterior C.E. 80 – 150 Not Available molded pedestal foot. and interior walls, Atlante II 80 and floor. Vessel Diameter: ca. 6.3 cm Dish with flat base, inclined walls with ridges running Grooves. C.E. 100 – 150 Very common along the interior at the junction between the body, in Aegean and Atlante II 60 and triangular rim. eastern Mediterranean Vessel Diameter: Not Available Illustrations for forms Atlante II 15 and 6 (Hayes 1985); Illustration for form Kenrick B348 (Kenrick 1985); Illustrations for forms Atlante II 14, 70, 58, 71, 80, 63, 60 (Hayes 2008).

Çandarlı Ware (Çandarlı)

During the early phase of Çandarlı Ware the range of shapes was more varied than the later series, which included only a fraction of the forms produced during the earlier part of the 1st century

C.E. The most common shapes of late Çandarlı produced were bowls, dishes, and basin (Hayes

2008: 51; Table 6). The clay of Çandarlı is fine and clean breaking, containing flakes of golden mica. The slip is similar to the body clay in regards to both the color and contents. Generally covering either the entirety or most of the vessel, the slip is glossy and thickly applied and relatively lustrous on the interior, with the exterior slip being comparatively thinner and dull in appearance (Hayes 2008: 50).

The development of Çandarlı evolved from a Hellenistic ceramic production program centered around the region of Pergamon. By the late 1st century C.E., potters producing Çandarlı adopted a harder firing technique. This shift in production methods marks the transition from the earlier to later series of Çandarlı (Hayes 2008: 51). Kiln sites have been identified at the site of ancient Pitane, with others likely present within the area of Pergamon (Hayes 2008: 49). The later series of Çandarlı was in production from roughly the late 1st century C.E. – beginning of the 4th century, when ARS had begun to arrive in the Aegean in significant quantities (Hayes 2008: 52).

The ware was primarily distributed to the Aegean and Pontic regions, and was especially common in western Asia Minor, although examples are observed from sites in the Adriatic and in North

Africa (Hayes 2008: 49).

Table 6. Çandarlı Ware vessel form typology, attributes, and chronology Form/Type Illustration Description Surface Treatment Approximate Date Distribution Bowl, with hemispherical body profile, flattened or N/A C.E. 50 - 100 Not Available beveled rim, and flaring foot. Loeschcke 20

Vessel Diameter: 8 cm; 12 cm Dish with flat floor, low heavy foot, low sloping walls, Potter Stamps C.E. 75 – 150 Not Available and rim that is either molded or slightly flaring. Grooves on floor Loeschcke 26 Vessel Diameter: 24-30 cm

Bowl, with hemispherical body profile, flange on N/A C.E. 80 – 150 Not Available exterior wall, plain rim, and flaring foot that gets Loeschcke 19 progressively heavier.

Vessel Diameter: 8-22 cm; mostly 8-13 cm Dish with flat floor, slightly flaring foot, and rounded Grooves on floor. C.E. 100 – 200 Not Available walls. Loeschcke 28 Vessel Diameter: Not Available Dish with flat floor, low walls, and flattened flaring Engraved lines C.E. 100 – 150 Not Available rim. Loeschcke 9

Vessel Diameter: 10-16 cm Bowl or basin, with straight flaring wall, low heavy N/A C.E. 150 – 220 Fairly foot, and heavy angular rim. Common Hayes 1 Vessel Diameter: 30-37 cm

Medium or small sized dish, with shallow flaring wall, N/A C.E. 180 – 250 Common low heavy foot, and thickened or plain rim. Hayes 2

Vessel Diameter: 20-25 cm (earlier); 18-20 cm (later) Bowl, with hemispherical profile, low heavy foot, and N/A C.E. 200 – 300 Common rim incorporating a flange. Hayes 3 Vessel Diameter: 6.5-22 cm; mostly 10-13 cm

Medium or large sized dish, with incurving wall, Slip is rather dull and C.E. 200 – 300 Common incurving plain rim, triangular tapering foot, and poorly finished shallow curving floor. Silver mica is observable in the Hayes 4 fabric.

Vessel Diameter: 17-38 cm Small bowl, with vertical wall, curving floor, triangular N/A C.E. 200 – 250 Rare tapering foot, and vertical tapering rim. Hayes 5 Vessel Diameter: 11.5 cm

Illustrations for forms Hayes 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and Loeschke 9 (Hayes 1972); Illustrations for forms Loeschke 20, 26, 19, and 28 (Hayes 2008).

Eastern Sigillata D (ESD)

The vessel shapes of ESD include dishes, plates, cups, and bowls. The body-clay is fine- grained and exhibits clean breaks, with occasional pieces of lime being the only visible inclusions.

There is a general trend of vessels becoming progressively thicker walled over time. Surface decorations are largely limited to grooves and mouldings. The slip is thinly applied to the entirety

35 of the vessel and can take on a metallic luster depending on the firing conditions. The slip is usually a shade darker than the body and can vary from brick-red, maroon, purple-red, or dark brown for well-fired examples, with more poorly fired vessels taking on an orange-red color (Hayes 1967:

66).

ESD was likely produced either on the island of Cyprus or nearby on the mainland in Cilicia or the Hatay coast. The earliest examples of ESD date to the end of the 2nd century B.C.E., and continued production into the second half of the 2nd century C.E. (Hayes 1991). The ware was largely an Eastern Mediterranean phenomenon, where it enjoyed the same general local distribution patterns as ESA. There are only sporadic examples identified in Aegean contexts

(Hayes 2008: 53 – 54).

No specific forms were identified in the compiled dataset corresponding to ESD and so no table is included for ESD, although unidentified body sherds were recorded.

Pontic Sigillata (PS)

The vessel forms and shapes produced by PS workshops encompass a wide range that includes bowls, dishes, cups, beaker and basins, many of which were influenced by the products of other sigillatas. Most examples are undecorated, but some dishes and bowl have decorations in the form of circular grooves or bands of rouletting on the floor. Appliqué decorations are also present on some vessel forms, with spiral designs and rosette like designs being the most common.

Stamped decorative motifs are also attested on the floor of some vessel. The fabric of PS is fine- grained and hard-fired, containing silvery mica and occasionally lumps of lime, which can erupt through the surface of the vessel. PS usually has clean breaks, although some are flakey. The color of the body-clay usually varies from pale orange to pinkish-brown. The slip mostly varies in color

36 form orange-red to dark brown, and is usually slightly lustrous or even has a metallic sheen

(Kenrick 1985: 271 – 272).

PS was likely produced at several sites around the Black Sea, with a concentration of producers in the Crimean peninsula seeming likely due to the ware’s abundance there (Hayes 2008:

54). Examples of PS first begin to appear in significant quantities at sites in the northern Black Sea from late 1st century B.C.E. By the second half of the 1st century C.E. PS is present at sites in

Africa and Asia Minor. During the 3rd century C.E. the concentrations of PS decline and cease soon thereafter. In general, the distribution of PS was geographically widespread, but was also in limited quantities (Kenrick 1985: 273-274).

Table 7. Pontic Sigillata vessel form typology, attributes, and chronology Form/Type Illustration Description Surface Treatment Approximate Date Distribution Bowl, with hemisperical body profile, vertical rim, and Grooves. Not Available flat floor. Krapivina 7b C.E. 1 – 150

Vessel Diameter: Not Available Dish with shallow curving floor, vertical or slightly Stamps C.E. 14/37 – 200 Very common concave wall, plain or beaded rim, and rounded ring Grooves in the Black foot. Rouletting in the Sea, more Kenrick B386 center of the floor sporadic Vessel Diameter: ca. 13-14 cm elsewhere.

Cup, with conical body, steep flaring wall, either flat Grooves on exterior C.E. 14/37 – 200 Largely base or low ring foot, and vertical rim. of rim limited to the Black Sea, Kenrick B388 Vessel Diameter: ca. 10-11 cm more sporadic elsewhere. Bowl or cup, with flat or slightly rounded floor, low Rouletting on floor C.E. 25 – 75 Not Available wall, flaring foot, and incurving rim with a plain lip. Groves on interior Kuhnelt S-1d wall Vessel Diameter: 14.3-23.1 cm Cup or bowl, with hemispherical body, molded flange Applique motifs C.E. 50 – 100 Rare on the exterior, and groove on the rim. Rosettes Kenrick B389 Grooves Vessel Diameter: ca. 9.5 cm

Bowl, with rounded walls, incurving rim, flat floor, and Grooves on floor C.E. 50 – 100 Not Available low thing foot. Zhuravlev 12

Vessel Diameter: Not Available Dish or plate, with flat floor, flaring foot, and ledge Potter Stamps C.E. 50 – 150 Not Available rim. Kuhnelt T-2b

Vessel Diameter: 19.6-21.6 cm Bowl or cup, with flat or slightly raised floor, high Molding on the rim C.E. 75 – 150 Not Available wall, rim that is either straight or concave on the Grooves on the wall exterior, and a flange at the junction between the rim Spiral designs on the Kuhnelt N-1a and wall. exterior of the rim

Vessel Diameter: 10.1-12.1 cm Bowl or dish, with flat floor meeting a straight vertical N/A C.E. 80 – 150 Not Available wall, excurving rim, and high foot. Zhuravlev 1-4

Vessel Diameter: Not Available Bowl or cup, with mostly flat floor, high wall, excuring N/A C.E. 80 – 150 Not Available rim that is slighty concave on the exterior, and a Zhuravlev 30.2 flange at the junction between the rim and wall.

Vessel Diameter: Not Available

Bowl, with hemispherical body profile, flat floor, and N/A C.E. 80 – 200 Common in incurving rim with thickened lip. the Black Sea, with sporadic Kenrick B394 Vessel Diameter: ca. 21 cm examples in Italy and the Aegean.

Illustrations for forms Kenrick B386, B388, B389, and B394 (Kenrick 1985); Illustrations for forms Krapivina 7b, Kuhnelt S-1d, Kuhnelt N-1a, and Zhuravlev 12 (Bajenaru 2014b); Illustration for forms Zhuravlev 1-4 and 30.2 (Zhuravlev 2009).

Table 7 cont. Pontic Sigillata vessel form typology, attributes, and chronology Form/Type Illustration Description Surface Treatment Approximate Date Distribution Bowl or cup, with vertical wall, vertical rim, and Moulded C.E. 100 – 200 Not Available slightly thickened lip. decorations Knipovic 19M

Vessel Diameter: Not Available Bowl, with rounded walls, rim that is concave on the N/A C.E. 100 – 240/250 Not Available exterior, rounded lip, and a protrusion at the junction Zhuravlev 4.2 between the wall and rim.

Vessel Diameter: Not Available Bowl, with high wall, large ledge rim with an upturned Grooves C.E. 150 – 250 Not Available lip, and flat floor. Suceveanu 15

Vessel Diameter: Not Available Dish or plate, with flat or slightly raised floor, flaring Rouletting on the C.E. 170 – 250 Not Available foot, and ledge rim. There is an offset at the junction floor Kuhnelt T-2c between the floor and wall. Grooves on interior wall Vessel Diameter: 20.5-24.7 cm Bowl or cup, with rounded wall, vertical rim, and Moulded C.E. 190 – 210 Not Available slightly thickeend lip. decorations Krapivinia 5 Vessel Diameter: Not Available

Illustrations for forms Knipovic 19M, Suceveanu 15, and Krapivinia 5 (Baumann 2008); Illustrations for forms Zhuravlev 4.2 and Kuhnelt T-2c (Bajenaru 2014b).

African Red Slip (ARS)

Most of the ARS forms produced and exported from north Africa were open vessels including dishes, plates, bowls, and cups (Table 8). Surface decoration is usually not present on earlier examples of ARS and is restricted to occasionally instances of rouletting. Additional surface decorations in the form of appliqués are attested on some examples from the 3rd and 4th century

C.E., and in the early 4th century stamped decorations become a common feature on the floor of vessels that continued until the late 6th century (Hayes 2008: 69 – 70). The body-clay ranges from orange-red to brick-red in color, and can vary from coarse to fine-grained. Slips cover either the entirety or interior of vessels, and are similar in color to the body-clay, appearing either dull or polished. Within the broader range of ARS several fabrics can be distinguished, the most common aligning with Waagé’s (1948) Late Roman A and Late Roman B ware designations. Waagé’s

(1948) Late Roman B is associated with products produced within the vicinity of Carthage and the

Medjerda Valley (Hayes 2008: 68). These products possess coarse-grained body-clays and slightly

39 lustrous slips. Earlier examples features slips that cover the entirety of vessels, while products of the 4th and 5th century C.E. frequently have thinner slips that only cover the interior of the vessel and exterior side of the rim (Hayes 2008: 69). Later examples see the reemergence of a thicker more polished slip, although it is only applied to the interior and the exterior of the rim. Waagé’s

(1948) Late Roman A is associated with products produced in central Tunisia that were common from the 3rd – 5th century (Hayes 2008: 69). Comparable to Late Roman B the body-clay is finer, exhibiting clean breaks, and has a thin smooth slip that binds with the body-clay covering only the interior and exterior of the rim (Hayes 2008: 69).

ARS was produced at a number of locations in the Roman province of Africa, which largely corresponds to modern-day Tunisia (Hayes 2008: 68). The large-scale production of ARS seems to have been aided by the fact that comparable to the earlier sigillata wares ARS required less precise temperature controls (Schuring 1988). From the 2nd – 7th century C.E. ARS was the most successful Mediterranean wide class of fine ware (Hayes 2008: 71). ARS does not begin to become common in the eastern Mediterranean until middle of the 3rd century C.E (Bes 2015: 28, 90; Hayes

2008: 71). Around the beginning of the 5th century until ca. 530 C.E. there is a significant drop in the frequency of ARS in the deposits from the Athenian Agora, which aligns with both Vandal control of North Africa and administrative changes carried out during the late Roman period

(Hayes 2008: 72 – 73). The ware was common throughout the Roman world and is even attested at sites in Britain and Ethiopia (Hayes 2008: 71).

Table 8. African Red Slip vessel form typology, attributes, and chronology Form/Type Illustration Description Surface Treatment Approximate Date Distribution Bowl, with a carinated flaring wall, sloping floor, and Convex moldings C.E. 80/90 – 150 Very common. small foot. below rim Hayes 8 Ridge below rim Vessel Diameter: 12.5-33 cm (Type A), and 19-27 cm Grooves on interior (Type B)

Dish with shallow slightly carinated curving body, N/A C.E. 150 – 190 Common. broad flat rim, and small low foot.

Hayes 6B Vessel Diameter: 19-22 cm, and 11-12 cm

Bowl, with curved body, small foot, and plain rim with Grooves C.E. 150 – 200 Very common. two grooves on the exterior. Hayes 9B Vessel Diameter: 13-17 cm

Small bowl with curved wall, low foot, and plain rim. N/A C.E. 150 – 200 Not very Hayes 17 common. Vessel Diameter: 10-13 cm

Bowl, with either a straight or vertical wall, small low N/A C.E. 150 – 220 Common foot, and sloping floor. Hayes 14

Vessel Diameter: 16-20 cm Dish, with flaring wall that curves upwards to a nearly Grooves on interior C.E. 160 – 220 Common vertical rim, broad flat floor, and low foot. of rim Hayes 27 Double set of Vessel Diameter: 20-28 cm (some occasionally larger) grooves on floor

Large dish with steep straight wall, plain rim, flat floor, Occasional grooves C.E. 180 – 220 Fairly and small foot that has a relatively large diameter. on floor. common Hayes 31 Vessel Diameter: 20-34 cm

Plate, with low curved wall, flat floor, and incurved N/A C.E. 230/240 – 300 Uncommon rim. Hayes 49 Vessel Diameter: 23-40 cm

Large dish, with steep thin wall, broad floor, plain rim, N/A C.E. 230/240 – 360 Very common and small beveled foot. Finely grained fabric, and thin and achieves smooth slip that binds with body clay. widespread Hayes 50A distribution Vessel Diameter: 20-40 cm throughout the Roman world. Large dish, with high straight walls, broad flat floor, N/A C.E. 230/240 – 400 Very common plain rim, and small beveled foot under the edge of and achieves the floor. widespread Hayes 50 distribution Vessel Diameter: 20-40 cm throughout the Roman world. Large bowl, with shallow curved body, flat base, and N/A C.E. 320 – 350 Common shallow triangular foot marked off by a slight inset, and a drooping rim that gives it a hooked appearance. Hayes 45C

Vessel Diameter: 21-40 cm

Dish with flat floor, either vertical or incurving rim N/A C.E. 325 – 450 Very Common that is flattened on the exterior, which gives the rim a and achieves triangular profile. widespread Hayes 61 distribution Vessel Diameter: 22-41 cm throughout the Roman world. Illustrations for all forms (Hayes 1972).

Table 8 cont. African Red Slip vessel form typology, attributes, and chronology Form/Type Illustration Description Surface Treatment Approximate Date Distribution Flat-based dish, with curved wall and plain rim. Stamps on floor C.E. 350 – 425 Fairly common Hayes 62 Grooves Vessel Diameter: 28-40 cm (mostly 32-35 cm)

Large dish, with flaring wall, broad flat floor, plain rim, N/A C.E. 350 – 400 Very common and either a small foot or no foot. and achieves widespread Hayes 50B Vessel Diameter: 20-40 cm distribution throughout the Roman world Bowl, with curved body, flat base, and plain but Rouletting on interior C.E. 350 – 430 Common slightly flaring rim. A sagging profile is not irregular, floor Hayes 53 with slight carinations present in some cases. Two grooves on interior below rim Vessel Diameter: 17-21 cm Large bowl, with curving and slightly sagging body, Grooves are common C.E. 360 – 420 Very common flat base, small false foot, and double flaring rim on the floor featuring a lip that is either hooked or rolled. Stamps (usually Hayes 67 omitted on smaller Vessel Diameter: 20-45 cm and later examples of the form) Rectangular dish, with flat floor, low straight walls Applique on rim C.E. 360 – 430 Common. that rise at a steep angle, broad flat horizontal rim that Mold-impressed features raised molding at the lip, and tapering foot. decorations on rim The form was produced using molds. Mold-impressed Hayes 56 decorations on the Vessel Diameter: N/A floor that on occasion include inscriptions

Shallow bowl, with straight flaring walls that curve Grooves on C.E. 450 – 480 Uncommon inwards meeting a flat base that is of a relatively small underside of floor. Hayes 80 diameter. Stamps.

Vessel Diameter: 17.7-20.9 cm Dish, with shallow floor, low heavy foot, and either a Fabric is thick and C.E. 450 – 520 Rather hooked or knobbed rim that is flattened on either the granular, with a thick uncommon Hayes 87 interior or on the top. slip on the vessel interior and the rim. Vessel Diameter: 25-38 cm Burnishing. Bowl, with an open curving body, either a broad SometimesLight stamps. a groove C.E. 480 – 520 Uncommon downturned rm or flattened and rolled rim, as well as a on the wall. high flaring foot. The floor is delineated from the wall Hayes 94 by a small offset over the foot.

Vessel Diameter: 16-18.5 cm Bowl, with shallow curved body, curved floor, Rouletting on the rim. C.E. 490 – 540 Uncommon tapering flaring foot, and broad slightly downturned Stamps. Hayes 96 and concave rim that is covered in rouletting.

Vessel Diameter: 18-24.5 cm Large dish or bowl, with broad shallow floor that is Fabric is thick and C.E. 500 – 575 Rather slightly offset from the wall, straight sloping walls, granular, with a semi- uncommon and either a hooked or rolled rim. lustrous slip that covers the interior of Hayes 103 Vessel Diameter: 26-35.5 cm the vessel and the rim. Stamps. Rouletting. Grooves. Nearly hemispherical shaped bowl, with heavy rolled Stamps. C.E. 510 – 620 Common rim, sloping floor offset at the edge, and low flaring Grooves. Hayes 99 tapering foot.

Vessel Diameter: 14.5-21 cm (mostly 17-20 cm) Large dish, with either sloping or curving floor that Fabric is thick and C.E. 530 – 625 Common ends in a heavily knobbed rim, with a foot of varying granular, with a semi- height. lustrous slip that cover the interior the Hayes 104 Vessel Diameter: 29-50.5 cm (mostly 32-45 cm) vessel and the rim.

Stamps. Grooves. Illustrations for all forms (Hayes 1972). 42

Phocaean Red Slip (PRS)

The range of shapes that PRS produced was small, limited to dishes and bowls (Table 9).

The body clay is red in color and fine grained, frequently featuring large concentrations of lime particles, with the only other notable impurity being small amounts of mica (Bes 2015: 42; Hayes

1972: 323). The slip is also red and applied to entirety of the vessel thinly enough that it binds with the body clay, and regularly has rather dull or slightly metallic appearance. The hard firing of PRS resulted in brown-red, purple-red, or maroon colored tints to the slip, although some earlier pieces exhibit orange colored tones as a result of lower firing temperatures (Hayes 1972: 323).

Discoloration is frequent on the exterior surfaces of rims, giving them black and white tones, which is due to stacking the vessels during firing. Surface decorations include rouletting, which is common on forms of the 5th and early 6th centuries C.E., incised grooves, as well as stamped motifs

(Hayes 1972: 323).

PRS was produced within the vicinity of Phocaea in Asia Minor, with chemical analysis revealing that Phocaea itself was the center of production for the great bulk of the ware. Çandarlı can be viewed as a direct precursor to the development of the ware (Hayes 2008:83). PRS was in production primarily from the 4th century to the mid-7th century, although there are some earlier examples dating to ca. CE 300 (Hayes 2008: 87, cat. 1230). The distribution pattern of the ware largely corresponds to the coastal extent of the Eastern Roman Empire in the 5th and 6th centuries, although some limited amounts found their way into the interior; PRS is rare in the western

Mediterranean (Hayes 2008: 83). PRS is especially common in the Eastern Mediterranean and the

Aegean from around 400 C.E. to the middle of the 6th century (Hayes 2008: 83 – 88).

Table 9. Phocaean Red Slip vessel form typology, attributes, and chronology Form/Type Illustration Description Surface Treatment Approximate Date Distribution Dish with incurving rim, shallow curved floor, and N/A C.E. 380 – 350 Aegean and foot that is often tapered but which varies in height. eastern Hayes 1 Mediterranean Vessel Diameter: 20-32 cm

Dish with fairly high vertical rim that curves inwards, N/A C.E. 380 – 420 Not shallow curved floor, tapering foot that has been uncommon chamfered on the exterior, and a slight carination that Hayes 1A is present at the junction between the floor and the wall.

Vessel Diameter: 20-32 cm Dish with curved wall, shallow curved body, and Rouletting C.E. 400 – 450 Rare plain but slightly thickened rim. Hayes 1C

Vessel Diameter: 20-32 cm Dish with vertical curved rim that can on occasion be N/A C.E. 420 – 475 Not rather low, shallow curved body, and low tapering uncommon Hayes 1B Not Available foot.

Vessel Diameter: 20-32 cm Dish with shallow curved wall, shallow curved body, N/A C.E. 420 – 475 Not low foot, and plain rounded rim. uncommon Hayes 1D Vessel Diameter: 10-18 cm Dish with curved shallow body, flat base, false foot, Frequently underfired C.E. 400/410 – 450 Very common and broad flattened flaring rim. giving an orange colored Hayes 2 tone, with discoloration Vessel Diameter: 27-39 cm (type A), 16-24 cm or 11-14 present on the edge of cm (type B) some rims.

Medium or small-sized dish, with shallow curved Frequently underfired C.E. 425 – 450 Very common body, flat base, false foot, and flaring rim that is often giving an orange colored slightly convex. tone, with discoloration Hayes 2B present on the edge of Vessel Diameter: 16-24 cm some rims. Occasional groove on lip. Dish with curving floor, thickened rim incorporating a Stamps. C.E. 425 – 450 Rare small flange, and false foot. Hayes 4 Vessel Diameter: ca. 29.8 cm

Dish or bowl with flaring wall, low or false foot, and Exterior of the rim is C.E. 425 – 560 Common in vertical thickened rim that is merged with a flange and frequently discolored to a Aegean and Hayes 3 Not Available is usually concave on the exterior. black or brown as a result eastern of stacking in the kiln Mediterranean Vessel Diameter: 19-36 cm during firing. . Dish or bowl, with flaring wall that is either curved, Rouletting on the rims of C.E. 425 – 450 Not very slightly angled or nearly straight, low or false foot, larger versions. common and tapering rim that forms a carination or lip on the Hayes 3A Not Available exterior at the junction between the rim and wall.

Vessel Diameter: 19-36 cm (large versions), and 10-18 cm (smaller versions) Dish or bowl featuring a vertical rim that is thickened Triple row of rouletting on C.E. 450 – 475 Common in on the exterior forming a flange which is usually either the exterior of the rim. Aegean and beveled or concave on top. Rouletting on the floor. eastern Hayes 3B Mediterranean Vessel Diameter: 19-36 cm (large versions), and 10-18 . cm (smaller versions) Dish or bowl, with flaring wall that is either curved, N/A C.E. 450 – 475 Common slightly angled or nearly straight, low or false foot, and tall vertical rim that is thickened on the exterior Hayes 3C forming a narrow flange.

Vessel Diameter: 19-36 cm (large versions), and 10-18 cm (smaller versions) Illustrations for all forms (Hayes 1972).

Table 9 cont. Phocaean Red Slip vessel form typology, attributes, and chronology Form/Type Illustration Description Surface Treatment Approximate Date Distribution Bowl, with carinated body, small foot, and broad Interior surface is notably C.E. 450 – 500 Rather downturned tapering rim that is concave on top. quite rough in comparison uncommon to earlier forms of PRS. Hayes 8 Vessel Diameter: 12-20 cm Ridges or grooves on top of rim.

Dish, with curved body, low foot, broad horizontal rim Rouletting C.E. 460 – 550 Rather that is slightly concave on top that ends in a uncommon thickened beveled lip. Hayes 5

Vessel Diameter: 23-38 cm (large versions), and 15-20 cm (smaller versions) Dish or bowl, with flaring wall that is either curved, Rouletting C.E. 480 – 500 Not common slightly angled or nearly straight, low or false foot, and thickly rolled rim that bulges outwards. Hayes 3D Vessel Diameter: 19-36 cm (large versions), and 10-18 cm (smaller versions) Dish or bowl, with flaring wall that is either curved, Rouletting C.E. 480 – 520 Common slightly angled or nearly straight, low false foot, and Grooves tall vertical rim that is thickened on the exterior forming a flange. The vertical side of the rim is either flat or concave, and features a slight offset at the Hayes 3E junction with the vessel wall. The exterior side of the rim is either flat and slightly concave, and the dorsal side is either flattened or slightly convex.

Vessel Diameter: 19-36 cm (large versions), and 10-18 cm (smaller versions) Deep dish or shallow bowl, with curved body, low Rouletting. C.E. 510 – 530 Rare foot, heavy knobbed rim that is flattened on top and Grooves. chamfered on the ventral side. A small offset is detectable at the junction between the rim and body. Hayes 6

Vessel diameter: ca. 28.8 cm (large versions), and 15.1 cm (smaller versions)

Dish or bowl, with flaring wall that is either curved, Deeply impressed C.E. 500 – 550 Common slightly angled or nearly straight, low or false foot, rouletting on exterior. Hayes 3F and lower rim when compared to the earlier examples Stamped motifs on floor. of Hayes Form 3. The exterior of the rim is either concave or rolled, and the underside is broad and flat, with an offset at the junction with the wall. Dish or bowl, with flaring wall that is either curved, Stamps on floor. C.E. 500 – 550 Not common slightly angled or nearly straight, low or false foot, and rim that is similar to Hayes Form 3F, but which is Hayes 3G Not Available flat or convex on the exterior.

Vessel Diameter: 19-36 cm (large versions), and 10-18 cm (smaller versions) Dish or bowl, with thick flaring wall that is either N/A C.E. 540 – 560 curved, slightly angled or nearly straight, low or false foot, and heavy triangular rim, with or without an Hayes 3H offset on the ventral side of the rim.

Vessel Diameter: 19-36 cm (large versions), and 10-18 cm (smaller versions) Dish or bowl, with sloping wall that can either be Stamps are present on C.E. 550 – 650 Very common curved or straight, low foot, and either a knobbed or some early examples. flattened rim that is rounded on the exterior and concave on the ventral side. A small offset is present Hayes 10 Not Available at the junction between the wall and rim.

Vessel Diameter: 20-30 cm (large versions), and 15-20 cm (smaller versions) Illustrations for all forms (Hayes 1972).

Table 9 cont. Phocaean Red Slip vessel form typology, attributes, and chronology Form/Type Illustration Description Surface Treatment Approximate Date Distribution Dish or bowl, with sloping wall that can either be Stamps in the center of C.E. 550 – 620 Very common curved or straight, low foot, and heavy rim that is the floor. either knobbed or has a square-like profile. Hayes 10A Vessel Diameter: 20-30 cm (large versions), and 15-20 cm (smaller versions)

Dish or bowl, with sloping wall that can either be Stamps in the center of C.E. 550 – 620 Very common curved or straight, low foot, and slightly elongated the floor rim that is rounded on the dorsal side and is on Hayes 10B occasion slightly hooked.

Vessel Diameter: 20-30 cm (large versions), and 15-20 cm (smaller versions) Dish or bowl, with sloping wall that can either be N/A C.E. 620 – 650 Very common curved or straight, low foot, and everted elongated rim that is either flattened or concave on the dorsal Hayes 10C side.

Vessel Diameter: 20-30 cm (large versions), and 15-20 cm (smaller versions) Illustrations for all forms (Hayes 1972).

Late Roman D (LRD)

The repertoire of LRD is largely composed of three general shapes: medium-sized dishes, small bowls, and large basins (Table 10). The most commonly attested form of surface decoration consists of rouletting either as large strokes that cover the entirety of the wall, or as narrow bands which are applied in an inconsistent manner (Hayes 2008: 89; Hayes 1972: 372). Additional surface decorations include grooves on rims, and stamped decorations on the floor of dishes (Hayes

1972: 372). One type of surface decoration unique to LRD is the presence of single short wavy incised lines on the rims of many of the later dishes (Hayes 1972: 372). The fabric is very fine, smooth, and clean breaking, usually with no visible grains or inclusions. One of the only impurities in the fabric is the infrequent presence of large particles of lime that have a tendency to rupture through the surface of the vessel (Bes 2015: 40). The color of the fabric varies significantly, ranging from yellow, orange brown, red, maroon, or purple color; pink or maroon are the most common. Discoloration appearing in shades of black and white is frequent, a result of stacking during firing. The slip is thinly applied to all of a vessel, although the slip is only partially applied

46 to some forms and shapes. The composition of the slip is very similar to that of the body clay, although the color of the slip tends to be a shade or two darker, and tend to bind with one another when applied. More poorly finished examples have a matte appearance, but hard-fired examples can take on a metallic sheen (Hayes 1972: 371).

Likely produced on the island of Cyprus, LRD is most common at sites in Cyprus, Syria,

Palestine, coastal Asia Minor, and the Nile Delta, although the ware is rare in the Western

Mediterranean, Greece, and the broader Aegean (Hayes 2008: 89). CRS appears to have been first produced near the end of the 4th century C.E., or possibly early (Hayes 1972: 371). Evidence of early exports is most clearly observed at Abu Mena in the Nile Delta where CRS appears in particularly abundant quantities from the late 5th century – early 6th century C.E. During the 6th and 7th centuries CRS war regularly exported to Cyrenaica and the eastern Aegean, with only a few pieces from Athens and Thessaloniki dating to this time. The peak of CRS distribution coincides with Vandal rule in the province of Africa, where ARS was produced, which suggests that CRS became an alternative source of fine ware as a result of these alterations to the distribution networks (Hayes 1972: 385 – 386).

Table 10. Late Roman D vessel form typology, attributes, and chronology Form/Type Illustration Description Surface Treatment Approximate Date Distribution Dish, with flat floor, sloping wall, low foot, and plain N/A C.E. 380 – 475 Not very thickened rim that is either rounded or beveled on the common Hayes 1 exterior.

Vessel Diameter: 21-28 cm Dish, with straight sloping wall and plain rounded rim. Broad band of C.E. 390 – 500 Not very rouletting on exterior common Kenrick B715 Vessel Diameter: ca. 27 cm wall.

Small bowl, with curved wall, foot of varying height, One or two lines of C.E. 450 – 525 Fairly and either a thickened or knobbed rim. rouletting on exterior. uncommon Hayes 3 Grooves on the rim. Vessel Diameter: 14.5-19 cm Illustration for form Kenrick B715 (Kenrick 1985); Illustrations for forms Hayes 1 and 3 (Hayes 1972).

Late Roman Light Colored Ware (LRLCW)

The production center was likely somewhere in the Eastern Aegean, possibly in the region of Knidos. The dating of LRLCW is poorly understood but stretches from the 5th century C.E. through to the beginning of the 7th century C.E. Examples of the ware have been attested at sites throughout the Aegean as well as in Syria, although wherever the ware does occur it is only in small numbers (Hayes 2008: 91 – 92).

CHAPTER 5 - MTAP FINE WARE ASSEMBLAGES AND COMPARATIVE DATASET

FOR THRACE

This chapter presents the Roman fine ware assemblages from Mitrikon-Metochi and

Glyphada-Agkathies, and discusses the composition, chronology, and relationship to distribution patterns that emerge from the comparative dataset and that are further explored in Chapter 6.

Following the presentation of the two MTAP assemblages, significant patterns and trends are discussed and placed within broader spatial and temporal contexts. At both site the chronological peak in Roman fine ware lasts from the mid-1st century CE – ca. CE 300, marked by assemblages almost entirely composed of Çandarlı.

Glyphada-Agkathies Roman Fine Ware

A total of 104 Roman fine ware sherds were recovered during survey at Glyphada-

Agkathies. Five ware groups corresponding with established typologies were identified: ITS, ESB,

Candarli, ARS, and PRS (Table 11; Fig. 5). An additional sherd lacking typological parallels was also recorded9. As shown in Table 11 and Figure 5, the Glyphada-Agkathies assemblage is dominated by Çandarlı Ware (n=76). Çandarlı forms at Glyphada-Agkathies include Loeschke 9

(n=2), Loeschke 19 (n=8), Loeschke 20 (n=1), Loeschke 26 (n=7), Loeschke 19/Hayes 3 (n=4),

Loeschke 19/Hayes 2 (n=6), Hayes 1 (n=6), Hayes 1/Hayes 2 (n=3), Hayes 2 (n=6), Hayes 3 (n=4), and Hayes 4 (n=6). After Çandarlı, PRS is the second most common ware (n=21), represented by forms Hayes 1 (n=3), Hayes 2 (n=5), Hayes 3 (n=5), Hayes 3B (n=2), and small variants of Hayes

3 (n=2). ARS (n=3) is represented by forms Hayes 50A (n=1) and Hayes 50B (n=1). ESB (n=2) is represented by Atlante II 14 (n=1). ITS (n=1) is represented by Conspectus 22/23 (n=1). The size of the sherds from Glyphada-Agkathies is generally small and they are in poor condition.

9 Catalogued as “Other” in tables and figures. 49

Table 11. Glyphada-Agkathies sherd totals by ware and vessel part Part ITS ESB Çandarlı MMW ARS PRS LRLCW Other Total Rim 1 2 32 0 1 15 0 0 51 Body 0 0 30 0 2 3 0 1 36 Base 0 0 14 0 0 3 0 0 17 Total 1 2 76 0 3 21 0 1 104

Figure 5. Glyphada-Agkathies number of sherds per ware

Chronology of Glyphada-Agkathies Fine Ware

The uncertainty in the identification of the single ITS conical cup sherd as either

Conspectus 22 or 23, makes it necessary to propose two possible dates for the beginning of Roman period occupation at Glyphada-Agkathies. If we accept the identification of the find as Conspectus

22 then a date for initial Roman occupation can be placed as early as 20 BCE and possibly up to

CE 37. By contrast, identifying the find as Conspectus 23 would shift the evidence towards supporting an initial Roman occupation as early as CE 25. The presence of ESB Atlante II 14, a low dish form dating from ca. CE 30 to 70, allows us to establish a narrower range for the initial occupation of the site if we accept the identified ITS conical cup as Conspectus 23; ca. CE 25 –

CE 70. Further possible chronological compression for the beginnings of occupation can be

50 garnered from the presence of a hemispherical bowl consistent with Çandarlı Loeschke 20 (CE 50

– 100). The production overlaps of these three forms range chronologically from ca. CE 50 – CE

70, suggesting a date around the mid-1st century CE or slightly earlier.

Finds that must date from ca. CE 75 – CE 300 account for approximately 72% (n=75) of the entire site assemblage. All finds dating strictly to this time period were identified as Çandarlı.

Parallels were identified for 52 out of the 75 finds. Out of the identified forms, 33% (n=17) correspond to Loeschke’s typology, 48% (n=25) correspond to Hayes’, and 19% (n=10) could not be determined (Fig. 6). The high concentration of Çandarlı forms dating from the mid-2nd through

3rd centuries CE suggest that activity at Glyphada-Agkathies reached its peak during this time.

Figure 6. Glyphada-Agkathies, number of sherds per Çandarlı form

The total number of finds that can be dated to later than CE 300 encompasses 23%

(n=24) of the site assemblage10. The end date for Roman period occupation of the site can be

10 Limited to 3 ARS finds and 21 PRS. 51 placed as late as CE 560 based upon the presence of the generalized flaring dish form known as

PRS Hayes 3, however this form can be dated as early as CE 425. The only recorded type of PRS

Hayes 3 at Glyphada-Agkathies is PRS Hayes 3B, which provides a date of CE 450 – 475.

Considering that there are no finds which must date to before CE 475, we can place the end of

Roman occupation to around CE 450 – CE 475 with the caveat that it could have continued into the mid-6th century CE.

Mitrikon-Metochi Roman Fine Ware

Five ware groups corresponding to established typologies were identified at Mitrikon-

Metochi: ESB, Çandarlı, ARS, PRS, and LRLCW (Table 12; Fig. 7). An additional two sherds lacking typological parallels were also recorded11. One of these sherds is an unclassified Çandarlı plate (Fig. 9), and the other is an unclassified Middle Roman sigillata (Fig. 10). Çandarlı is overwhelmingly dominant in the assemblage, represented by forms Loeschke 9 (n=1), Loeschke

19 (n=9), Loeschke 26 (n=3), Loeschke 19/Hayes 3 (n=6), Loeschke 19/Hayes 2 (n=6), Loeschke

29/Hayes 1 (n=1), Hayes 1 (n=9), Hayes 1/Hayes 2 (n=3), Hayes 2 (n=3), Hayes 3 (n=4), and

Hayes 4 (n=15).

Six sherds that appear to imitate Çandarlı forms were identified in the assemblage (Fig. 11

– 13). These include forms Loeschke 26 (n=1), Loeschke 19/Hayes 3 (n=3), Hayes 1/Hayes 2

(n=1), and Hayes 4 (n=1). While these sherds imitate the shapes of some Çandarlı forms, there are noticeable differences with respect to both the slip and fabric of the sherds. The slips are almost entirely absent on the exterior of the sherds, contrasting with the canonical Çandarlı, wherein a

11 Catalogued as “Other” in tables and figures 52 slip is present on the exterior as well as the interior. This absence of a slip on a vessel’s exterior is a feature observed on examples of PRS, and therefore a connection between these sherds and PRS may also be a possibility. The fabrics of the imitations range in color from reddish grey (2.5YR6/1) to light reddish brown (2.5YR7/3), while Çandarlı fabrics are frequently red, orange, or brown in color. The production site(s) for these possible imitations is unknown, with the only known examples recovered at Mitrikon-Metochi. These differences in slip and fabric may indeed indicate that these sherds are imitations, however, these differences could instead be the result of the firing processes used at a particular kiln site, or even the nature of their deposition and subsequent preservation. In this light I refer to these imitations as ‘Mitrikon-Metochi Ware’ (MMW).

ARS (n=6) is represented by forms Hayes 50A (n=1), Hayes 50B (n=1), and Hayes 61

(n=1). PRS (n=4) is represented by forms Hayes 1 (n=3) and Hayes 2 (n=1). ESB (n=2) is represented by Atlante II 6 (n=1) and Atlante II 60 (n=1). In total, parallels were identified for ca.

59% (n=75) of the finds, while an additional 3% (n=4) were recorded as unclassified forms.

Table 12. Mitrikon-Metochi sherd totals by ware and vessel part Part ITS ESB Çandarlı MMW ARS PRS LRLCW Other Total Rim 0 0 39 3 2 2 1 0 47 Body 0 2 45 0 4 0 0 0 51 Base 0 0 22 3 0 2 1 2 30 Total 0 2 106 6 6 4 2 2 128

Figure 7. Mitrikon-Metochi, number of sherds per ware

Figure 8. Unclassified Çandarlı Plate

P 1430 SU15-005-5898 Unclassified Çandarlı plate, rim fragment PH: 0.1198 Çandarlı fabric, pale red (2.5YR6/6), red slip on interior and exterior, with rouletting on top of rim fragment.

Figure 9. Unclassified Middle Roman Sigillata

P 1434 SU15-005-5898 Unclassified Middle Roman Sigillata, base fragment D: estimate 0.36 PH: 0.1825 Relatively coarse fabric, with some gold flakes of mica, reddish yellow fabric (5YR6/6), with light red slip on interior, and red slip on exterior (10R4/8)

Figure 10. Mitrikon-Metochi Ware – Imitation Çandarlı, Loeschke type 19/Hayes form 3

P 1431 SU15-001-5899 Imitation Çandarlı, Loeschke type 19/Hayes form 3, base fragment D: estimate 0.04 PH: 0.1410 Light reddish brown fabric (2.5YR7/3), with red slip (10R5/6) on interior and exterior.

Figure 11. Mitrikon-Metochi Ware – Imitation Çandarlı, Hayes form 4

P 1432 SU15-003-5899 Imitation Çandarlı, Hayes form 4, rim fragment D: estimate 0.29 PH: 0.3136 Reddish grey fabric (2.5YR6/1), with red slip (10R4/6) on interior, slip is absent from exterior.

Figure 12. Mitrikon-Metochi Ware – Imitation Çandarlı, Loeschke type 26/Hayes form 2

P 1433 S15-003-5899 Imitation Çandarlı, Loeschke type 26/Hayes form 2, rim fragment D: estimate 0.18 PH: 0.2002 Reddish grey fabric (2.5YR6/1), with red slip (10R4/6) on interior, slip is absent from exterior, except for a groove under the lip which is red (10R4/6) although duller in appearance than the interior.

Chronology of Mitrikon-Metochi Roman Fine Ware

Based upon the fine ware typo-chronologies, the evidence suggests that Roman period occupation at the site first occurred between CE 25 – CE 50. This date is derived from a single find corresponding to ESB Atlante II 6. Following this there are no finds that must date before CE

75/8012, and there are no identified forms with upper dates ending prior to CE 150.

Finds with production periods ranging from ca. CE 75 – CE 300 account for 88% (n=113) of the entire assemblage. Out of this selection only seven sherds were not identified as Çandarlı, with one catalogued as ESB13 and the additional six as MMW. Out of the identified Çandarlı forms ca. 22% (n=13) of finds correspond to forms in Loeschke’s typology, ca. 52% (n=31) correspond to Hayes’ typology, and ca. 27% (n=16) could not be determined (Fig. 8). Form Hayes 4, a medium or large sized dish, is the most commonly identified form at the site, accounting for 25% (n=15) of the identified Çandarlı forms at the site, and 19.5% of the site’s entire fine ware assemblage.

This all suggests a peak in activity at the site from the mid-2nd century CE up to as late as the end of the 3rd century CE.

12 Based on the presence of Çandarlı Loeschke 26 (CE 75 – CE 150), and Çandarlı Loeschke 19 (CE 80 – CE 150). 13 ESB Atlante II 60 (CE 100 – CE 150). 57

Figure 13. Mitrikon-Metochi, number of sherds per Çandarlı form

The proportion of the assemblage dating after CE 30014 is limited to ca. 6% (n=7) of the corpus. No material post-dates the early-third quarter of the fifth century CE. Considering the rather extensive chronological range of the generalized PRS Hayes 1, which provides us with the terminus ante quem of ca. 475, it is important to take into account the presence of the other recorded late forms, such as the large shallow dish form known as PRS Hayes 2, and the similar form known as ARS Hayes 61, which both ceased production around CE 450. While further refinement of the chronology is not achievable with the available data, a more thorough analysis of the PRS forms may aid in fine-tuning Mitrikon-Metochi’s later chronology. Regardless, it can be reasonably argued based upon the fine ware that Roman period occupation of the site ceased around the middle of the 5th century CE.

14 With the exception of ARS H50A, which has a chronological range of CE 230/240 – 360. 58

Distribution of Roman Fine Ware in Thrace

This section presents the comparative dataset of published reports of Roman fine ware, compiled in tabular form. This newly compiled dataset facilitates examination of the distribution patterns of Roman fine ware ceramics in the region of Thrace. The data from Glyphada-Agkathies and Mitrikon-Metochi are included in the dataset. The nine phases of distribution identified by Bes

(2015) act as a framework for the presentation and analysis of this compilation of published data in conjunction with my new data from Mitrikon-Metochi and Glyphada-Agkathies. The discussion is arranged chronologically from earliest to latest according to the dating criteria of Bes’ phases,

One to Nine, with the regions of Aegean Thrace, Dobruja, and the Thracian interior discussed separately. At the beginning of each section, Bes’ criteria for the phase under discussion is summarized. Following the descriptions of Bes’ criteria, the identified ceramic forms are presented and placed within their respective regional and chronological context.

Phase 1 – (150 BCE – 30 BCE)

This phase marks the beginning of production of terra sigillata pottery in the Eastern

Mediterranean, characterized most significantly by the appearance of ESA around 150BCE, as well as the initial development of Çandarlı and ESD (Bes 2015: 43). Bes further subdivides this phase into two parts, Phase 1a and Phase 1b. Phase 1a lasts from ca. 150 BCE – 75 BCE, and Phase

1b stretches from ca. 125/100 BCE – 30/25 BCE (Bes 2015: 77). During Phase 1a the distribution of ESA is primarily restricted to the Levant and Cyprus, which arrived at these locations in considerable quantities.

By late 2nd c. BCE and early 1st c. BCE, ESA was not uncommon in the Levant and

Cyprus, with sporadic examples identified on Crete, Corinth, Berenice, Samos, and the Troad

59 that also date to this time (Bes 2015: 61-63). Throughout Phase 1a, Çandarlı and ESD are relatively rare, with Çandarlı mostly limited to the territory around Pergamon and ESD attested on Cyprus and to a lesser extent the Levant (Bes 2015: 61). Phase 1b is marked by a shift in the production of ESA with workshops manufacturing several new forms that quickly gained popularity in the Eastern Mediterranean.

By the early 1st century BCE, ESA was appearing with some regularity in the Aegean.

This expansion in the distribution of ESA, while including forms that were also present in Phase

1a, is for the most part characterized by the forms Atlante II 3, 4A, and 22 (Table 2). The distribution of Çandarlı in the eastern Aegean increased during this time, as seen from evidence at Sardis (Rotroff and Oliver 2003), with more sporadic finds identified at Athens, Delos, Samos,

Ephesus, Knidos, and Tel Anafa. ESD remained relatively rare during Phase 1b, and the distribution was restricted to Cyprus and the Levant (Bes 2015: 61 – 64).

Aegean Thrace Phase 1

During Phase 1 in Aegean Thrace the only ware present is ESA (Table 13), with all finds being examples of Atlante II form 5 (Table 2). Finds were recovered from Amphipolis (Malamidou

2005), Abdera (Kallintzi and Chryssaphi 2010; Malamidou 2005), and Thasos (Gros 2012;

Malamidou 2005), and were all likely residual material.

Table 13. Aegean Thrace Phase 1 Forms Form ArethusaAmphipolis Thasos AbderaMitrikon-MetochiGlyphada-Agkathies Maroneia ESA Atlante II 5 X X X (120 BCE - CE 10/20)

The date range for ESA Atlante II form 5 could push the period of distribution into Phase

2, but regardless, the total quantity of finds is small, amounting to a total of four sherds across the three sites (Malamidou 2005), indicating that this region was neither a major recipient of imported

60 table vessels during this time, nor connected in a substantial way to the early ESA distribution networks. Parallels recorded in Athens range in date from ca. 50 BCE to the Augustan period (27

BCE – CE 14) (Hayes 2008: 132, 84-86).

Thracian Interior Phase 1

In the region of the Thracian Interior, no Roman fine ware dating to Phase 1 was identified.

Dobruja Phase 1

In the Dobruja region of the lower Danube, the only site with fine ware dating to Phase 1 is Histria, with ESA Atlante II form 6 and ESA Atlante II form 3 (Table 2) the only two forms assignable to the phase (Table 14).

Table 14. Dobruja Phase 1 Forms Form Halmyris Histria NoviodunumTropaensiumTomis TopologAegyssusDurostorum ESA Atlante II 6 X (120 BCE - 50 BCE) ESA Atlante II 3 X (120 BCE - CE 10/20)

Both finds were recovered from a context that is most likely the result of leveling and construction fill that began to accumulate during the Augustan period. Even though it is more than likely residual, the presence of Atlante II form 6 is particularly illuminating as the entire production period of the form precedes direct Roman control over the region. However, the production period of Atlante II form 6 also aligns chronologically with increasing levels of Roman military and political activity along the Pontic coast, such as the punitive expedition launched by Gaius

Scribonius Curios between 75 BCE and 73 BCE that reached the Danube (T. Liv. Per. 92, 95), or

Antonius Hybrida’s campaign that took place sometime between 63 BCE and 60 BCE (C. Dio.

Hist. XXXVIII, 10; Lozanov 2015: 76-77). Bajenaru (2015) identifies parallels at Berenice

(Kenrick 1985) and Athens (Robinson 1959), with the former dating to the late 2nd century BCE –

1st century BCE and the latter to the last three quarters of the 1st century BCE (Bajenaru 2015:

106). For the example of ESA form 3, Bajenaru cites finds from Knossos (Sackett 1992) and

Sabratha (Hayes 1994) as the closest parallels, both of which date to the Augustan period (BCE

27 – CE 14). In this light the find ought to be placed within Phase 2 as opposed to Phase 1.

Additional fragments of ESA dating to the 1st century BCE, both red-slipped and black-slipped, were recorded in the Histrian Sacred Area, further attesting to the inclusion of Histria in pre-Roman supra-regional fine ware distribution networks (Bajenaru 2015: 106; Alexandrescu 2005: 373-

375).

Phase 2 – (30 BCE – CE 25/30)

This phase, as determined by Bes, continues the quantitative and geographic expansion of

ESA, Çandarlı, and ESD that occurred during the 1st century BCE, and also features the introduction of ITS and ESB. ESA continues to have a wide zone of distribution and the ware reached its quantitative and geographic peak during this time period. A number of new ESA forms

(Atlante II forms 28, 29, 30, 42, 46, etc.), which were morphologically distinct from the forms of

ESA that were popular during phase 1b, began to be manufactured around 10 BCE. Although these new forms of ESA show strong similarities with several ITS forms, it is not possible to establish a linear connection between the developments of these wares and forms due to the fact that most examples of ITS arrived in the east after these new ESA forms were already being produced.

Overall, ESA largely continued to be distributed according the patterns outlined in Phase 1b. The

Levant formed the core area of distribution, followed by Cyprus, and the Aegean, to which ESA still arrived in significant numbers (Bes 2015 64 – 66).

The distribution of Çandarlı increased both quantitively and geographically during this phase, possibly as a result of the establishment of production sites near the coast of ancient Pitane

(modern-day Çandarlı) around this time (Loeschke 1912). While it continued to be the dominant fine ware in the area around Pergamon, imported Çandarlı also begin to arrive in Greece and Crete in significant numbers, with less frequent finds recorded at sites such as Amorion, Paphos, Tarsos,

Alexandria, and Tel Anada. (Bes 2015: 68).

ESD also expanded in distribution during Phase 2, especially during the late 1st century

BCE, with material identified in the Levant at Petra and to the west at Corinth, Knossos, Gortyna,

Tenos, and Berenice in small numbers (Bes 2015: 66).

ITS likely began to arrive in the Eastern Mediterranean in moderate quantities by ca. CE

1, as evidenced by the presence of forms and stamps with a terminus ante quem of ca. CE 1. These products are mostly attested at larger urban sites that had easy access to the Mediterranean, and these distribution patterns may reflect the major coastal trade routes in the Eastern Mediterranean.

ITS achieved its greatest breadth of distribution during the latter part of Phase 2 and moving into the beginning of Phase 3. (Bes 2015: 66 – 68).

ESB production begins during Phase 2, either directly or indirectly influenced by Italian potters and workshops, although at this time ESB was largely confined to Ephesus and the surrounding area, with fewer finds recorded in Crete and Central Greece, and mostly single examples identified at Alexandria, Petra, Tel Anafa, Antioch, and Tarsus (Bes 2015: 68).

Aegean Thrace Phase 2

Like the preceding phase, finds from Phase 2 are relatively scarce, restricted to just three possible wares from three sites (Table 15). The only find with a date range that places it entirely

63 within Phase 2 is an example of ITS Hayes form 4 (Table 3) recovered from Amphipolis. An example of Conspectus ITS form 22 (Table 3) from Glyphada-Agkathies was possibly identified, but it was not possible to discern between form 22 and the later Conspectus form 23 (Table 3) due to the quality of preservation; if the find is an example of form 23 then it would correspond to phase 3. ESA form 5 (Table 2) has parallels from Athens that date to Augustan period (Hayes

2008: 132, 85-86), indicating that small quantities of ESA were reaching Aegean Thrace by Phase

2. Besides the examples of Atlante II ESA form 5 mentioned above, Atlante II ESA form 45 (Table

2) was also recovered from Abdera (Kallintzi and Chryssaphi 2010; Malamidou 2005). However, the upper date for this form is 50/60 CE (nearly the end of Phase 3), making an association with one phase or the other uncertain. Atlante II ESB form 15 (Table 5) was identified at Abdera, and may indicate the beginning of ESB imports into Thrace; however the relatively long date range of the form (CE 1-100), coupled with the presence of other early 1st century CE forms that have upper dates that end prior to CE 100, makes this inference uncertain.

Table 15. Aegean Thrace Phase 2 Forms Form ArethusaAmphipolis Thasos AbderaMitrikon-MetochiGlyphada-Agkathies Maroneia ESA Atlante II 5 X X X (120 BCE - CE 10/20) ITS Conspectus 22 X1 (CE 20 BCE - CE 37) ITS Hayes 4 X (10 BCE - CE 25/35) ESA Atlante II 45 X (CE 1/10 - 50/60) ESB Atlante II 15 X (CE 1 - 100) 1. Identified as either ITS Conspectus 22 or ITS Conspectus 23.

During Phase 2 the available evidence suggests that supra-regional fine ware distribution networks increased in Aegean Thrace during this time, although these connections were still ephemeral. By CE 10/20 at the latest ESA was being imported into the region, although the total

64 quantity of material seems to have remained low. The earliest evidence for ITS in Aegean Thrace dates to this phase, with five sherds from Amphipolis identified by Malamidou as Hayes form 4

(2005: 28-29). Amphipolis, a pre-Roman urban settlement situated directly on the route of the Via

Egnatia had been an important economic center during the Hellenistic period (Papazoglou 1988:

392), and under the Roman Republic had a seemingly large number of Roman citizens (Malamidou

2005: 10). This matches Bes’ suggestion that the initial spread of ITS followed major pre-existing trade routes that connected important coastal sites to one another (Bes 2015: 67). The identification of ITS Conspectus 22 at Glyphada-Agkathies is in dispute, and due to the lack of other material dating to this phase from either of the two rural MTAP sites, identifying the find as Conspectus 23 seems more appropriate. However, after ca. CE 1 ITS begins to reach secondary market sites and smaller settlements, so perhaps this is merely a reflection of this pattern observed by Bes (2015:

67). Imports of ESB remained minimal, if they even occurred at all during this phase, as only a single sherd from Abdera with an upper date of ca. CE 100 was identified. During Phase 2, ESB remained largely confined to Ephesus and the surrounding region (Bes 2015: 68). As such, the lack of evidence firmly supporting the presence of ESB in Aegean Thrace during this phase aligns with the expectations of Bes’ phasing (Bes 2015: 68).

Thracian Interior Phase 2

Finds from the Thracian Interior dating to Phase 2 are restricted to ESA (Table 17) Atlante

II 26 and a possible example of ESA Atlante II 44 (Table 2), both identified at Philippopolis.

Parallels for ESA form 26 are recorded at Athens that seem to date to the Augustan – Tiberian periods (Hayes 2008: 135, 122-123). For the latter form of ESA, the identification of this ware and form is not certain however, with Harizanov (2018) recording the find as either the aforementioned

ESA Atlante II 44 or as a western sigillata type concordant with either Conspectus 31 or

Conspectus 3215 (Table 3). In general, ESA is rare in the northern Aegean at this time (Bes 2015:

65, Fig. 52), and form 44 itself is especially uncommon (Atlante II 1985: 33). Conspectus 31, with a date range falling entirely within this phase, is most common in the northern parts of the Roman

Empire (Conspectus 1990: 106). The other possible classification for this find, Conspectus 32, has the greatest chronological overlap with Phase 3, although the “frühtiberisch” end date for the form could place it at the end of phase 2. This form is most common in the Mediterranean, with subforms

32.1 and 32.3 recorded at Corinth (Conspectus 1990: 108).

Table 16. Thracian Interior Phase 2 Forms Form Nova NadezhdaSerdica Philippopolis Sadovo PreslavetsGeorgi DobrevoMladinovo Svilengrad Yurta Dodoparon ESA Atlante II 26 X (20 BCE - CE 37) ESA Atlante II 44 X1 (CE 1 - CE 50)

The available evidence thus presents a murky picture of fine ware imports into the Thracian

Interior during Phase 2. What evidence there is all comes from Philippopolis, which at this time was still under the control of the Roman allied Odrysian Kingdom. The relatively narrow chronological range provided by the finds from Athens for ESA Atlante II 26 (Hayes 2008: 135, cat. 122-123) places the earliest evidence for ESA imports into the Thracian Interior to this period16, even with the uncertainty regarding the presence of ESA Atlante II 44. If instead the find is a western sigillata with the shape of Dragendorff 27 (Table 4) then the find can be placed in either Phase 2 or 3, and would represent the earliest evidence for ITS imports in the region. Limited imports of ESA and the possible presence of ITS at Philippopolis, a major urban site, broadly fits

Bes’ criteria for Phase 2, even though the scale of exchange seems limited.

15 Identified by Harizanov as Dragendorff 27. 16 Hayes (2008: 135) suggests an Augustan or Tiberian period date for the two finds. 66

Dobruja Phase 2

Evidence for fine ware imports in Dobruja during this phase is restricted to two sites,

Histria and Noviodunum (Table 17). At Histria the only identified fine ware possibly dating to this phase is PS, with Krapivina 7b (Table 7) the only recorded form. The form’s extensive chronological range negates the possibility of firmly associating the form with this particular phase. The evidence from Noviodunum assigned to this phase are western sigillatas, including both ITS and GTS. One recorded form of ITS dates entirely to this phase, Goudineau 25 while three additional ITS forms, Goudineau 13/8, Goudineau 21, and Conspectus 49 (see Table 3 for

ITS forms) have dates that extend into Phase 3, or in the case of Conspectus 49 into Phase 4. By

CE 30 ITS is making its way to Noviodunum, and by CE 50 Italian we see an increase in the number of forms. The Phase 2 GTS finds from Noviodunum are limited to Dragendorf 24/25

(Table 4).

Table 17. Dobruja Phase 2 Forms Form Halmyris Histria NoviodunumTropaensiumTomis TopologAegyssusDurostorum ESA Atlante II 3 X (120 BCE - CE 10/20) ITS Goudineau 25 X (CE 1 - CE 30) ITS Goudineau 13/8 X (CE 1 - CE 50) ITS Conspectus 49 X (CE 1 - CE 100) GTS Dragendorf 24/25 X (CE 1 - CE 100) PS Krapivina 7b X (CE 1 - CE 150) ITS Goudineau 21 X (CE 20 - CE 50)

During Phase 2, Dobruja witnessed a shift in its connection to fine ware distribution networks. ESA imports, which first began during the Hellenistic period, appear to have ceased

67 around the beginning of the 1st century CE, as supported by the upper date of Atlante II form 3. In contrast, this period is the peak for ESA in most regions of the Eastern Mediterranean (Bes 2015:

64-65). The earliest evidence for imports of ITS is derived from form Goudineau 25 (Table 3) recorded at Noviodunum. Therefore by the end of this phase, ca. CE 30, ITS was beginning to be imported into Dobruja. The latter half of Phase 2, moving into Phase 3 is the peak for ITS (Bes

2015: 66-67), matching trends in the Dobruja Phase 2 dataset. GTS imports cannot be firmly assigned to this phase due to the extended chronological range for Dragendorff 24/25. The earliest possible date based upon the typo-chronology places it around CE 1, however the terminus ante quem is ca. CE 70, based upon the presence of GTS Ritterling 12 (see Table 4 for GTS forms) at

Noviodunum (discussed in the section ‘Dobruja Phase 3’). The situation is similar to the one identified example of PS, which has a chronological range that stretches to CE 150. The lower date for PS imports can also be placed ca. CE 1, but the terminus ante quem for the region is ca. CE 75.

Phase 3 – (CE 30 – CE 60/70)

This phase is marked by the general contraction of ESA and ITS, a quantitative decrease of Çandarlı, an increase in the geographic scope of ESB, and ESD’s continuation of the same distribution pattern as for the previous phase. While increasingly smaller quantities of ESA are attested in Crete, the Aegean, Africa, Cyrenaica, and Egypt during Phase 3, ESA remained common in the Levant, Cilicia, and eastern Cyprus. By the middle of the 1st century CE, ESA distribution shrinks and it is only marginally attested in deposits dating to this time (Bes 2015: 68

– 70).

Çandarlı largely continued the patterns observed in Phase 2, remaining a dominant fine ware in the Northern and Eastern Aegean, with the Troad and the region around Pergamon forming

68 the core market zone for the ware. Çandarlı achieved a relatively widespread distribution as attested at Ephesos (Meric 2002), Athens (Robinson 1959), and Corinth (Slane 1990) in deposits dating to around CE 50, only in moderate quantities. (Bes 2015: 71 – 72).

ESD continues the geographic and quantitative distribution patterns observed during Phase

2. The ware plays a significant role only in Cyprus, Cilicia (especially Cilicia Tracheia), the

Levant, and western Cyprus, with sporadic finds consisting of singular or a few sherds also appearing in the Aegean and Cyrenaica (Bes 2015: 70).

The distribution of ITS geographically mirrors the pattern observed during Phase 2, although the total quantity of material declined following the late Augustan-Tiberian period.

However, based upon a study of the material excavated from Olympia, ITS distribution peaks around CE 50 (Martin 2004; Martin 1997). Likewise, ITS reaches its peak around the mid-1st century CE at Argos (Abadie-Reynal 2007: 41; Abadie-Reynal 2005: 41).

ESB experienced a significant geographic and quantitative expansion during Phase 3. In contrast to ESA, ITS, Çandarlı, and ESD, ESB played an especially important role in parts of the

Aegean and on Crete, but is only marginally attested in other regions. At Athens ESB became the major fine ware around CE 75 (Bes 2015: 71), although at Corinth ITS continued to dominate

(Abadie-Reynal 2007: 112). Not insignificantly however, ESB has been identified at sites in

Ethiopia, along the Red Sea, the Arabian Peninsula, and India. The appearance of ESB in significant quantities is also attested at non-urban coastal sites by Phase 3 (Bes 2015: 71)

Aegean Thrace Phase 3

During Phase 3, the number of wares and forms increases as compared to earlier phases.

As does the number of sites with imported fine ware (Table 18). ESA continued to be imported

69 during this time, as seen with Atlante II form 47, present at Amphipolis and Abdera, and possibly

Atlante II form 45 (see Table 2 for ESA forms) present at Abdera.

Imported ESB forms are present at Abdera, Mitrikon-Metochi, and Glyphada-Agkathies during this phase (see Table 5 for ESB forms). At Abdera, the Atlante II form 8 falls entirely within

Phase 3, while Kenrick type B348 and Atlante II form 15 have chronological ranges that stretch into other phases. At Mitrikon-Metochi, I identified one sherd of ESB corresponding to Atlante II form 6, with parallels recorded at Corinth and Ephesos (Hayes 1985: 54). At Glyphada-Agkathies

I identified one sherd as Atlante II form 14, with a parallel from Athens found in a mid-1st century context (Hayes 2008: 142, cat. 197).

One single find of ITS identified as possibly Conspectus form 2317 was recorded from

Glyphada-Agkathies. The presence of additional finds of fine ware from Glyphada-Agkathies and nearby Mitrikon-Metochi dating either partly or entirely to Phase 3 would suggest that the sherd is more likely form 23 than form 22 (see Table 3 for ITS forms). A parallel for Conspectus 23 is recorded at Athens in a context dating CE 20 – 40+18 (Hayes 2008: 175, cat. 557).

Seen from evidence from Abdera and Thasos, imports of PS possibly began during this phase. However, the long chronological ranges for many PS forms make associations with particular phases difficult. Kenrick PS form B386 is present at Abdera and Thasos, while Kenrick

PS form B388 and form B389 (see Table 7 for PS forms) are present only at Abdera. These three forms all have date ranges which either reach into phase 4 or stretch back into phase 2, as is the case for forms B386 and B388.

17 As discussed in the section on phase 2 of Aegean Thrace, due to the find’s state of preservation it was not possible to discern between Conspectus form 22 and Conspectus form 23. 18 The chronological range of CE 20 – 40+ indicates that the find could date later than CE 40. 70

The single find of Çandarlı Loeschke type 20 (Table 6), recovered from Glyphada-

Agkathies, is the earliest example of the ware identified in Aegean Thrace. The typo-chronology places Loeschke type 20 in the second half of phase 3 or in the beginning of phase 4. No additional examples of Loeschke type 20 were identified in Thrace. However, Hayes records a parallel at

Athens in a context dating to ca. CE 40 – 60 (Hayes 2008: 198, cat. 779).

Table 18. Aegean Thrace Phase 3 Forms Form ArethusaAmphipolis Thasos AbderaGlyphada-AgkathiesMitrikon-MetochiMaroneia ESA Atlante II 45 X (CE 1/10 - 50/60) ESB Atlante II 15 X (CE 1 - 100) ESA Atlante II 47 X X (CE 10 - 60/70) PS Kenrick B386 X X (CE 14/37 - 200) PS Kenrick B388 X (CE 14/37 - 200) ESB Atlante II 6 X (CE 25 - 50) ITS Conspectus 23 X1 (CE 25 - 75) ESB Atlante II 8 X (CE 30 - 70) ESB Atlante II 14 X (CE 30 - 70) ESB Kenrick B348 X (CE 50 - 75) PS Kenrick B389 X (CE 50 - 100) Çandarlı Loeschcke 20 X (CE 50 - 100) 1. Identification of form is uncertain.

The available evidence from Aegean Thrace compiled in this research, thus suggests that

ESA imports had ceased by the third quarter of the 1st century CE or earlier. This generally aligns with Bes’ description of ESA’s distribution during phase 3, when the ware is “considerably less common than previously” following the Tiberian period (Bes 2015: 68).

The changing distribution patterns of ESB during Phase 3 conform closely to Bes’ criteria, which include substantial quantitative and geographic increases in the distribution of ESB, notably including non-urban and non-coastal sites (Bes 2015: 71). ESB is attested at both urban (e.g.,

Abdera) and non-urban (e.g., Glyphada-Agkatheis and Mitrikon-Metochi) sites in Aegean Thrace.

Based upon the presence of Atlante II ESB form 6 at Mitrikon-Metochi, I propose that ESB was imported to Aegean Thrace by CE 50, if not earlier, and that Roman period occupation of the site also occurred by CE 50. The nearby site of Glyphada-Agkathies was also most likely occupied around this time or shortly thereafter. ITS Conspectus form 23, ESB Atlante II form 14, and

Çandarlı Loeschke type 20 provide a terminus ante quem of ca. 70 CE. A parallel for ESB Atlante

II 14 was identified at Athens in a context dating to the mid-1st century CE (Hayes 2008: 142).

The increase in ESB imports during this phase corresponds to increases in Roman activity in the region during the middle to late 1st century CE, such as the creation of the Province of Thracia by

Claudius in 46 CE.

The single find of ITS, identified tentatively as Conspectus 23, is the latest form of ITS recorded in the region, signaling an apparent decline and cessation of ITS imports in the region during Phase 3. This configures well with the observation that by the mid-1st century CE some region were already beyond their peak of ITS, while others continued to Phase 4 (Bes 2015: 71), with Aegean Thrace seemingly being a region that had already experienced its peak.

The evidence for PS imports supports a date belonging to either Phase 3 or Phase 4, based upon the presence of Kenrick B389. PS is identified at Athens in contexts dating variably from last quarter of the 1st century CE to the “Late Roman” period, although a number of these finds may be early forms; mid-1st century forms are recorded but appear in later context (Hayes 2008:

203).

The presence of Çandarlı dating Phase 3 indicates the initiation of a new and important network connection for Aegean Thrace and Thrace as a whole. The fact that the earliest example of Çandarlı was recovered from a rural site raises significant questions concerning the development and distribution of the ware in this region. It is highly likely that other sites in Aegean Thrace, such as Abdera or Thasos, were recipients of Çandarlı prior to rural Glyphada-Agkathies. The lack of recorded evidence in earlier publications may be the result of the limited number of assemblages from early contexts in the region, or even a lack of familiarity with Loeschke’s Çandarlı series, as well as Meyer-Schlichtmann’s, both of which are recorded in not insignificant numbers at Athens

(Hayes 2008: 195-199). The evidence from Athens shows that Çandarlı had already achieved a degree of circulation in the Aegean by the beginning of Phase 3 (Hayes 2008: 195-199), even if the scale and intensity was rather limited (Bes 2015: 71-72).

Thracian Interior Phase 3

Finds from the Thracian Interior dating to this phase include forms corresponding to ITS,

ESB, GTS, and possibly ESA (Table 19). The form of ESA is identified as a possible example of

Atlante II 44 (Table 2), although the find may in fact be a western sigillata concordant with either

Conspectus 31 or Conspectus 32 (Table 3). ESA form 44, with an end date of ca. CE 50 can be assigned to either this or the preceding phase, while Conspectus 32 (Conspectus 31 has no chronological overlap with Phase 2) dates from ca. CE 20 – CE 50, with later examples from the second half of the 1st century, and so could date to phases 2, 3 or 4, although the dating mostly aligns with phase 3. Conspectus 31 is most common in the Mediterranean, and subforms 32.1 and

32.3 are both recorded at Corinth (Conspectus 1990: 108). Two additional ITS forms, Conspectus

20.4 and Conspectus 34.1 (Table 3), are recorded at Serdica. Subform 20.4 is the most common

ITS plate in Mediterranean contexts dating to the mid-1st century CE with finds attested up until

73 the time of Domitian. The form is very common and is recorded at Corinth (Conspectus 1990: 86).

Parallels are also recorded at Athens in contexts dating from the mid-1st century CE – first half of the 2nd century CE (Hayes 2008: 168-169, cat. 487, 488, 490, 504). Conspectus 34.1 is very common from the late Tiberian to Flavian periods (ca. CE 30 – 70) throughout the Mediterranean and especially so along the Danube (Conspectus 1990: 112). A parallel is recorded at Athens in a late 1st century CE context (Hayes 2008: 183, cat. 631). ESB Atlante II form 31 (Table 5) was recorded at Philippopolis and represents the earliest evidence for its import into the Thracian

Interior. The form’s chronological range (CE 25 – CD 50) places it almost entirely within Phase

3. The one example of GTS recorded at Serdica corresponds to Dragendorff 35 (CE 60 – 80) (Table

4) and so has a date range that chronologically straddles the transition from Phase 3 to Phase 4.

Figure 19. Thracian Interior Phase 3 Forms Form Nova NadezhdaSerdica Philippopolis Sadovo PreslavetsGeorgi DobrevoMladinovo Svilengrad Yurta Dodoparon ESA Atlante II 44 X1 (CE 1 - CE 50) ESB Atlante II 31 X (CE 25 - CE 50) ITS Conspectus 34.1 X (CE 30 - CE 70) ITS Conspectus 20.4 X (CE 50 - CE 80) GTS Dragendorf 35 X (CE 60 - CE 80) 1. Identified as either ESA Atlante II 44 or a terra sigillata with the shape of Dragendorff form 27.

The available evidence from the Thracian Interior largely aligns with Bes’ observations for

ESA, ESB, and ITS during Phase 3. The latest evidence for ESA dates to this phase, which coincides with the general contraction in ESA distribution that occurs in the Eastern Mediterranean at this time (Bes 2015: 68-69). The entire body of evidence for ITS dates to this phase. The lack of earlier ITS forms may simply be the result of the limited dataset and chronologically restricted contexts, however its paucity prior to this phase would not be entirely unexpected, as the Thracian

Interior was under the control of the Odrysian Kingdom until Claudius’ creation of the province

74 of Thracia in CE 46. Alongside the changing administration of the region, it is likely that shifts in the networks associated with the distribution of fine ware vessels also occurred. The consolidation of the Danube frontier during the second half of the 1st century CE likely aided in the economic development of the interior, and the presence of GTS Dragendorff 35 at Serdica may speak to this effect. The relatively abundant number of GTS finds recorded at Noviodunum in Dobruja, combined with the general rarity of GTS in the Aegean, suggests that GTS was being transported to Thrace through a non-Aegean route, perhaps via the Danube. The ESB find recorded at

Philippopolis is the earliest evidence for ESB imports into the Thracian Interior, which fits with

Bes’ observations about the distribution of the ware during Phase 3 (Bes 2015: 71).

Dobruja Phase 3

Like Phase 2, the entire body of evidence for fine ware imports comes from Histria and

Noviodunum and is restricted to PS at Histria, and ITS and GTS at Noviodunum (Table 20). The

PS forms identified at Histria include the previously mentioned Krapivina 7b, Zhuravlev 12, and

Kuhnelt S-1d (Table 7). The presence of Kuhnelt S-1d, with a chronological range (CE 25 – CE

75) that almost perfectly aligns with Phase 3, suggests that by the end of Phase 3 and the beginning of Phase 4 PS products are being shipped to Dobruja.

The ITS forms at Noviodunum are Goudineau 13/8 (CE 1 – 50), Goudineau 21 (CE 20 –

50), and Conspectus 49 (CE 1 – 100) (Table 3) which cannot be assigned to a particular phase.

However, the presence of Goundineau 21, which largely conforms to the time frame of Phase 3, makes associating ITS imports to Noviodunum with this phase an attractive proposition. At the very least we can safely say that ITS was being imported to Dobruja by at least CE 50, and possibly earlier. The GTS forms at Noviodunum that date to this period are Dragendorf 24/25 (CE 1 – 100),

Dragendorf 15/17 (CE 30 – 115), Ritterling 12 (CE 40 – 70), Dragendorf 29b (CE 50 – 75),

Ritterling 14b (CE 50 – 80), Dragendorf 27 (CE 50 – 80), and Dragendorf 35 (CE 60 – 80) (Table

4). The form Ritterling 12 is the only one that must be assigned to this phase, and provides a date of CE 70 for GTS imports to Noviodunum. All of the GTS forms listed above chronologically overlap between CE 60 – CE 70, and may indicate a more limited period of acquisition than implied by the dates in the typologies.

Table 20. Dobruja Phase 3 Forms Form Halmyris Histria NoviodunumTropaensiumTomis TopologAegyssusDurostorum ITS Goudineau 13/8 X (CE 1 - CE 50) ITS Conspectus 49 X (CE 1 - CE 100) GTS Dragendorf 24/25 X (CE 1 - CE 100) PS Krapivina 7b X (CE 1 - CE 150) ITS Goudineau 21 X (CE 20 - CE 50) PS Kuhnelt S-1d X (CE 25 - CE 75) GTS Dragendorf 15/17 X (CE 30 - 115) GTS Ritterling 12 X (CE 40 - CE 70) GTS Dragendorf 29b X (CE 50 - CE 75) GTS Ritterling 14b X (CE 50 - CE 80) PS Zhuravlev 12 X (CE 50 - CE 100) GTS Dragendorf 27 X (CE 50 - CE 125) GTS Dragendorf 35 X (CE 60 - CE 80)

No examples of ESA were identified dating to this phase, which matches the ware’s trend during Phase 3 when ESA experienced a geographic and quantitative contraction (Bes 2015: 68-

69). The possible cessation of ESA around the beginning of the 1st century CE coincides with the

76 earlier dates for some of the identified ITS, GTS, and PS forms. The upper dates suggest that ITS imports were arriving by CE 50, GTS by CE 70, and PS by 75. In this sense, Phase 3 in Dobruja is a period of transition from earlier networks that appear to have their roots in the Hellenistic period, to networks that are now more clearly Roman. Noviodunum’s position as the headquarters for the Classis Moesica (Webster and Elton 1998: 162-165) made the site an important node in the networks that supplied the Roman military, helping to explain the relatively high numbers of imported western sigillatas recovered from the site. The typo-chronologies for PS do not allow for a clear association with this phase, however by the beginning of Phase 4 PS was reaching Histria as indicated by the presence of Kuhnelt S-1d at Histria. With regards to Bes’ criteria, an important aspect to note is the total absence of ESB in Dobruja, which contrasts with the expansion of distribution during Phase 3 (Bes 2015: 71). Likewise, no evidence for Çandarlı is recorded in

Dobruja dating to this phase.

Phase 4 – (CE 70/75 – CE 200)

The interregional distribution of all fine wares, with the exception of Çandarlı and the emerging ARS, largely ceased during the second half of the 2nd century CE. The limited amount of ESA identified outside of Cilicia, Cyprus, and the Levant dating after CE 100 suggests that the distribution had contracted by this time. Only small quantities of ESA managed to reach the

Aegean and Cyrenaica during this phase, with many of the identified Aegean forms corresponding to Atlante II 36 (ca. CE 60 – 100) (Table 2). ESA forms post-dating CE 150 are very rarely identified outside of the core ESA zone, and so by CE 150 ESA is existing on a local – regional scale of distribution (Bes 2015: 72).

Çandarlı remained the most important fine ware in Pergamon and the surrounding regions.

Beginning around the middle of the 2nd century CE and lasting until ca. CE 200, Çandarlı became

77 the dominant fine ware throughout the Aegean. For example, at Argos Çandarlı comprised approximately nine to 15% of the fine ware up to ca. CE 150, and between approximately 91 to

96% of the fine from ca. CE 150 – 200 (Abadie-Reynal 2007: 129). Significant quantities of

Çandarlı material were identified at Knossos, Berenice, Ephesos, and along the coast of Aegean

Thrace. Outside of the Aegean Çandarlı remained sparse. Bes suggests that the quantities of

Çandarlı and ESB identified at Knossos and Berenice indicate a north-south distribution axis, and proposes that the two wares were shipped as joint cargo until the contraction of ESB around CE

150 (Bes 2015: 75).

ESD largely continued the patterns that were described in Phase 3, except for higher concentrations of material recorded across Cyprus, in Cilicia, and Alexandria, and to a lesser extent the Levant than for Phase 3. Outside of this core distribution area, ESD remained rare with the number of finds limited to singular examples or a few sherds at the most. Bes notes that the first half of the 2nd century CE is the quantitative peak of ESD (Bes 2015: 72).

During phase 4 ITS continued to be imported into the Eastern Mediterranean, although the distributional patterns of ITS changed significantly in the late 1st century CE and the first half of the 2nd century CE, and by the end of the phase imports of ITS ceased. ITS is recorded less frequently at sites in the Eastern Mediterranean during Phase 4. Not insignificant quantities of ITS have been recorded in Greece, Crete, and Cyrenaica however, with singular or a few finds recorded at sites through the east including Tarsus, Antioch, Petra, and Stobi (Bes 2015: 72-74).

This phase also features the end of the supra-regional distribution of ESB. The ware continued to be common within the vicinity of Ephesus during this phase. Higher concentrations of ESB dating to this phase are recorded at some sites in the northern and eastern Aegean. Some deposits of ESB from Ephesus (Meriç 2002) and Athens (Robinson 1959) dating to the late 1st –

78 early 2nd century CE feature relatively high rates of ESB in context alongside Çandarlı, helping to illustrate a possible relationship with regards to their distributional patterns. The high concentrations of ESB recorded at Athens, Knossos, and Ephesus may “represent some of ESB’s cornerstones during this phase” (Bes 2015:74) The distributional pattern of ESB is complicated however by the fact that ESB overall declined in quantity in the eastern Aegean, where the production centers of ESB were located, while at the same time rates of ESB actually increased in most other regions of the Eastern Mediterranean. As Bes notes, further study of this pattern is required in order to form a solid interpretation. (Bes 2015: 74).

ARS forms dating to before CE 200 are generally rare in the Eastern Mediterranean, and when they do appear, it is only in small quantities. The greatest concentration of material comes from Berenice, which may primarily be a result of Berenice’s close proximity to the North African workshops producing ARS. Besides Berenice, ARS also appears in small quantities at major harbors and urban settlements, such as Knossos (Sackett 1992), Antioch (Waagé 1948), and

Paphos (Lund 1993), which as Bes points out are sites that have strong preexisting connections to supra-regional exchange routes. This “skeletal framework” is according to Bes akin to the framework that helped to enable the distribution of ITS that occurred prior to the beginning of the

1st century CE (Bes 2015: 75-76).

Aegean Thrace Phase 4

For Aegean Thrace, this phase features the greatest variety of wares and forms, with five out the seven sites in the region recording Roman fine ware as present (Table 21). At the beginning of Phase 4 ESA imports into Aegean Thrace disappear, Atlante form 51 (Table 2) is the latest ESA form identified in the region, recorded at Amphipolis, Abdera, and Thasos (Malamidou 2005).

ESB played a more significant role in the region compared to earlier phases, but the increased success of the ware in the region does not stretch into Phase 5. Four forms of ESB,

Atlante II form 63, Atlante II form 80, Atlante II form 71, and Atlante II form 60 all have chronological ranges that fall entirely within phase 4, while forms Atlante II 70, Atlante II 15,

Atlante II 76, and Atlante 51 (see Table 5 for ESB forms) have significant overlaps with phase 3, or in the case of form 15 also phase 2. ESB Atlante II form 60 (CE 100 – 150) is recorded at both

Abdera and Mitrikon-Metochi, while Atlante II form 80 (CE 80 – 150) is recorded at Amphipolis.

Significant quantities of Çandarlı were first imported into Aegean Thrace during Phase 4.

The distribution of Çandarlı during Phase 4 can be further divided into two subphases, one centered around Loeschke’s typology and dating from ca. CE 75 – CE 150, and another mostly using Hayes’ typology that dates from ca. CE 150 to the end phase, and continuing into Phase 5. Taking into account the example of Çandarlı Loeschke type 20 (Table 6) from Glyphada-Agkathies that was discussed in the previous phase we know that Çandarlı was imported to Aegean Thrace by CE 100, if not earlier.

Imports of PS into the region possibly began as early as Phase 2 or 3, but as noted the extensive chronological ranges of some PS forms makes more narrow associations with particular phases difficult. Nonetheless, by CE 100 PS vessels are making their way into Aegean Thrace, as indicated by the presence of Kenrick form B389 (CE 50 – 100) (Table 7) at Abdera (Malamidou

2005).

ARS was first introduced to Aegean Thrace during this phase based upon the presence of

ARS Hayes form 8 (CE 80/90 – 150) (Table 8) at Thasos (Malamidou 2005). The only other form

ARS from the region that can be largely assigned to this phase is Hayes form 27 (CE 160 – 220)

(Table 8), which was recorded at Abdera and Thasos (Malamidou 2005).

Table 21. Aegean Thrace Phase 4 Forms Form ArethusaAmphipolis Thasos AbderaMitrikon-MetochiGlyphada-Agkathies Maroneia ESB Atlante II 15 X (CE 1 - CE 100) PS Kenrick B386 X X (CE 14/37 - CE 200) PS Kenrick B388 X (CE 14/37 - CE 200) PS Kenrick B389 X (CE 50 - CE 100) Çandarlı Loeschcke 20 X (CE 50 - CE 100) ESB Atlante II 70 X X (CE 50 - CE 125) ESB Atlante II 76 X (CE 50 - CE 150) ESA Atlante II 36 X (CE 60 - CE 100) ESA Atlante II 37 X X (CE 60 - CE 100) ESA Atlante II 51 X X (CE 60/70 - CE 120) ESB Atlante II 51 X (CE 60/70 - CE 120) ESB Atlante II 63 X X (CE 70/75 - CE 120) Çandarlı Loeschcke 26 X X (CE 75 - CE 150) ESB Atlante II 71 X (CE 80 - CE 120) ESB Atlante II 80 X (CE 80 - CE 150) Çandarlı Loeschcke 19 X X (CE 80 - CE 150) ARS Hayes 8 X (CE 80/90 - CE 150) PS Kenrick B394 X (CE 80 - CE 200) ESB Atlante II 60 X X (CE 100 - CE 150) Çandarlı Loeschcke 9 X X (CE 100 - CE 150) Çandarlı Loeschcke 28 X X X X (CE 100 - CE 200) Çandarlı Hayes 1 X X X X X (CE 150 - CE 220) ARS Hayes 27 X X (CE 150 - CE 220) Çandarlı Hayes 2 X X X X X (CE 180 - CE 250) 81

ESA form 51 (Table 2), with a chronological range of CE 60/70 – 120 suggests that the networks connected with the distribution of ESA in the northern Aegean had disappeared by early second quarter of the 2nd century CE. This disruption in ESA imports to Aegean Thrace aligns with

Bes’ more general criteria for ESA during Phase 4, wherein ESA occurs only sporadically in the

Aegean after ca. CE 100 (Bes 2015: 72).

The increasing number of sites reporting an increasing number of ESB forms shows that the ware increased in popularity during this phase, although all forms dated to this phase cease production ca. CE 150. This expansion of ESB from ca. CE 70 – 150, followed by a cessation of imports aligns with Bes’ observations for the northern and eastern Aegean (Bes 2015: 90). The arrival of Çandarlı with some regularity during the mid to late 2nd century may have a role in the decline of ESB.

The fact that the only sites to record the presence of four of Loeschke’s Çandarlı forms were the two rural MTAP sites is surprising, considering the fact that the relatively nearby sites of

Thasos and Abdera both recorded material that was contemporary with Loeschke forms 20, 26,

19, and 9 (see Table 6 for Çandarlı forms), as well as examples of Hayes’ related but later forms of Çandarlı. It seems highly unlikely that these two rural sites would have access to networks that nearby urban centers did not have. This raises some questions then about the recording of Çandarlı forms, with likely misidentification of some examples of Loeschke’s forms as Hayes’ forms, which are after all quite similar in terms of vessel morphology. However, Loeschke type 28 (Table 6) was recorded at Abdera, Mitrikon-Metochi, Glyphada-Agkatheis, and Thasos, the largest number of sites recorded for any of Loeschke’s forms, with a chronological range from CE 100 – 200, and thus does complicate the proposed subdivision of phase 4. Forms corresponding to Hayes’

Çandarlı series and that date to this phase are Hayes form 1 and Hayes form 2 (Table 6). Both

82 forms were recorded at Amphipolis, Abdera, Mitrikon-Metochi, Glyphada-Agkathies, and Thasos.

Even with the concerns regarding possible misidentification of some forms of Çandarlı we can safely conclude that by around CE 200, the end of Phase 4 and beginning of Phase 5, Çandarlı is beginning to achieve deep and widespread penetration into the markets of Aegean Thrace. This fits with the broader trends for the ware during Phase 4, when the ware experienced considerable expansion, with substantial quantities found throughout the Aegean (Bes 2015: 75)

While the beginning of PS imports to the region can be most firmly assigned to Phase 4, the end of PS imports into Aegean Thrace also belongs to Phase 4. Kenrick’s forms B386, B388, and B394 all have terminal dates ending in CE 200, and there are no other examples of PS in the region that date later than the start of the 3rd century CE.

The presence of the early form of ARS Hayes 8 in the Aegean is not common and may reflect the prominent position of Thasos with respect to Mediterranean wide networks and markets.

Thasos’ role as an important source of marble for Rome during the 2nd century CE (Hermann 1999) may be a contributing factor in forging this early, albeit limited connection with the fine ware distribution networks originating in North Africa. Depending upon where one wants to place

Hayes form 27 (Table 8), either the end of Phase 4 or the beginning of Phase 5, the presence of the form could be the result of different factors. If arriving at Thasos and Abdera near the beginning of the form’s period of production then the mechanisms behind their distribution may be more associated with those centered around ARS Hayes form 8. In this case, the resources available on

Thasos helped to draw in the fine ware network originating in North Africa, and the fine ware was then redistributed to nearby Abdera. However, if placed in the beginning of the next phase then the form may be a precursor to the supra-regional distribution that ARS begins to achieve during

Phase 5. According to Bes, ARS remains relatively rare in the eastern Mediterranean at this time,

83 with most finds recovered from major urban and harbor sites that were well connected to long- distance exchange routes, mirroring the early distributional pattern of ITS (Bes 2015: 75-76).

Thasos and Abdera, both urban sites with coastal access, fit this pattern.

Thracian Interior Phase 4

The identified wares dating to this phase are GTS, ESB, Çandarlı, ARS, and possibly PS

(Table 22). Finds of GTS were only recorded at Serdica, identified as Dragendorff forms 36 and

37 (Table 4).

ESB remains present in the region up until CE 100/150 based upon the presence of Atlante

II 60 (CE 100 – 150) at Philippopolis (see Table 5 for ESB forms). Two additional earlier forms,

Atlante II 70 and 58 (both CE 50 – 125) may also be present, although Harizanov (2018) was unable to discern whether these were ESB or PS; form 70 is identified at both Philippopolis and

Sadovo, while form 58 is only at Sadovo. If these are in fact PS then ESB 70 should actually be

PS Zhuravlev 30.2 (CE 80 – 150) , and ESB 58 should be PS Zhuravlev 1-4 (CE 80 – 150) (Table

7). If this interpretation is correct, these PS forms would represent the earliest evidence of imports of the ware into the Thracian Interior. Çandarlı forms that must date to this phase include Loeschke

19 (CE 75 – 150) and Loeschke 26 (CE 80 – 150), while Hayes 1 (CE 150 – 220) and Hayes 2 (CE

180 – 250) (see Table 6 for Çandarlı forms) have significant overlap with Phase 4, but also stretch into phase 5. The distribution of Çandarlı forms dating to this phase is widespread throughout the

Thracian Interior, with finds recorded at urban sites (e.g., Philippopolis), rural settlements (e.g.,

Preslavets), and in funerary contexts (e.g., Svilengrad), speaking to the apparent regional domination of the ware during this time. Therefore by ca. CE 150 Çandarlı was being imported to the Thracian Interior, with the presence of Hayes 1 and Hayes 2 showing that these imports continued during the second half of the 2nd century, and continued into the 3rd century. A number

84 of ARS forms were recorded at the rural complex of Georgi Dobrevo, the earliest evidence for the ware in this region. Based upon Harizanov’s identification, only one form of ARS, Hayes 6B (CE

150 – 190), must date to this phase, with Hayes 9B (CE 150 – 220) exhibiting significant overlap between phases 4 and 5 (see Table 8 for ARS forms). Another find of ARS, recorded as Hayes

14/17 would entirely correspond to this phase if the form is Hayes 17 (CE 150 – 200), but even if the find is form 14 (CE 150 – 220) then the form still has significant overlap with Phase 4.

Table 22. Thracian Interior Phase 4 Forms Form Nova NadezhdaSerdica Philippopolis Sadovo PreslavetsGeorgi DobrevoMladinovo Svilengrad Yurta Dodoparon ESB Atlante II 58 X1 (CE 50 - CE 125) ESB Atlante II 70 X2 X2 (CE 50 - CE 125) Çandarlı Loeschcke 26 X X X X (CE 75 - CE 150) GTS Dragendorf 37 X (CE 80 - CE 100) Çandarlı Loeschcke 19 X X X X (CE 80 - CE 150) PS Zhuravlev 30.2 X2 X2 (CE 80 - CE 150) PS Zhuravlev 1-4 X1 (CE 80 - CE 150) ESB Atlante II 60 X3 (CE 100 - CE 150) GTS Dragendorf 36 X (CE 100 - CE 200) ARS Hayes 6B X (CE 150 - CE 190) ARS Hayes 9B X (CE 150 - CE 200) ARS Hayes 17 X4 (CE 150 - CE 200) Çandarlı Hayes 1 X X X X (CE 150 - CE 220) ARS Hayes 27 X (CE 160 - CE 220) ARS Hayes 31 X (CE 180 - CE 220) Çandarlı Hayes 2 X X X X X X (CE 180 - CE 250) 1. Identified as either ESB Atlante II 58 or PS Zhuravlev 1-4. 3. Identification uncertain 2. Identified as either ESB Atlante II 70 or PS Zhuravlev 30.2. 4. Catalogued as ARS Hayes 14/17.

Dobruja Phase 4

The wares identified in Dobruja dating to Phase 4 are PS, ITS, GTS, Çandarlı, and ARS

(Table 23). Evidence for PS imports into Dobruja continues during Phase 4, as observed from finds at Histria and Tomis. Forms only recorded at Histria are Krapivina 7b (CE 1 – 150), Zhuravlev 12

(CE 50 – 100), Kuhnelt N-1a (CE 75 – 150), and Zhuravlev 4.2 (CE 100 – 240/250), while at both

Histria and Tomis, Kuhnelt T-2b (CE 50 – 150) and Kuhnelt T-2c (CE 170 – 250) were recorded

(see Table 7 for PS forms). At Noviodunum PS forms Knipovic 19M (CE 100 – 200), Suceveanu

15 (CE 150 – 250), and Krapivina 5 (CE 190 – 210) were also identified. Kunhelt N-1a and

Knipovic 19M are the only forms of PS that must be assigned to this phase, along with Krapivina

5 being a contender equally for phases 4 or 5. PS products thus seemed to have experienced general success in the markets of Dobruja from approximately CE 70 – CE 200.

The presence of Conspectus 49 (Table 3) suggest that ITS products may have been imported to Dobruja as late as CE 100. However, the bulk of ITS forms identified in the region correspond more closely to last decade of Phase 3 (as was discussed in the previous section).

The GTS forms dating to Phase 4 were again all recorded at Noviodunum. In addition to the previously mentioned Dragendorf 24/25 (CE 1 – 100), Dragendorf 15/17 (CE 30 – 115),

Dragendorf 27 (CE 50 – 80), and Dragendorf 35 (CE 60 – 80) (see Table 4 for GTS forms) that could also date to an earlier phase, there are thirteen forms of GTS that must date to this phase.

Three of these forms, Dragendorf 37 (CE 80 – 100), Dragendorf 33 (CE 100 – 150), and

Dragendorf 43 (CE 180 – 200) demonstrate the longevity of GTS imports to the region. Because there is no chronological overlap between their production periods, these three forms must have been acquired through entirely separate acquisition events.

The earliest evidence for Çandarlı dates to this phase, with evidence from Halmyris,

Histria, Tomis, and Aegyssus. Only Histria and Tomis identified finds corresponding to

Loeschke’s Çandarlı series. Forms identified at both sites are Loeschke 26 (CE 75 – 150) and

Loeschke 19 (CE 80 – 150) (see Table 6 for Çandarlı forms). Histria also recorded the presence of

Loeschke 9 (CE 100 – 150). Forms corresponding to Hayes’ later series of Çandarlı are Hayes 1

(CE 150 – 220) recorded at Halmyris and Aegyssus, and Hayes 2 (CE 180 – 250) recorded at

Histira and Tomis. Therefore, by CE 150 Çandarlı imports managed to reach Histria and Tomis, sites in Dobruja that lay along the Pontic coast. In the following decades, Çandarlı imports continued to flow to the Pontic coastal cities and reached the Danube sites of Halmyris and

Aegyssus.

The earliest dated form of ARS identified in Dobruja and recorded at Halmyris is Hayes

27 (Table 8) dating from CE 160 – 220. Because the main period for this form is restricted to the

2nd century (Hayes 1972: 51), it can be reasonably associated with this phase.

Table 23. Dobruja Phase 4 Forms Form Halmyris Histria NoviodunumTropaensiumTomis TopologAegyssusDurostorum ITS Conspectus 49 X (CE 1 - CE 100) GTS Dragendorf 24/25 X (CE 1 - CE 100) PS Krapivina 7b X (CE 1 - CE 150) GTS Dragendorf 15/17 X (CE 30 - CE 115) PS Zhuravlev 12 X (CE 50 - CE 100) GTS Dragendorf 27 X (CE 50 - CE 125) PS Kuhnelt T-2b X X (CE 50 - CE 150) GTS Dragendorf 35 X (CE 60 - CE 80) GTS Hermet 23 X (CE 70 - CE 120) GTS Hermet 28 X (CE 70 - CE 130) GTS Curle 11 X (CE 70 - CE 160) Çandarlı Loeschcke 26 X X (CE 75 - CE 150) PS Kuhnelt N-1a X (CE 75 - CE 150) GTS Dragendorf 37 X (CE 80 - CE 100) Çandarlı Loeschcke 19 X X (CE 80 - CE 150) GTS Dragendorf 33 X (CE 100 - CE 150) Çandarlı Loeschcke 9 X (CE 100 - CE 150) GTS Dragendorf 36 X (CE 100 - CE 200) GTS Curle 12 X (CE 100 - CE 200) GTS Dragendorf 41 X (CE 100 - CE 200) GTS Dragendorf 44 X (CE 100 - CE 200) GTS Curle 21 X (CE 100 - CE 200) GTS Dragendorf 18/31 X (CE 100 - CE 200) PS Knipovic 19M X (CE 100 - CE 200) PS Zhuravlev 4.2 X (CE 100 - CE 240/250) GTS Curle 23 X (CE 150 - CE 200) Çandarlı Hayes 1 X X (CE 150 - CE 220) PS Suceveanu 15 X (CE 150 - CE 250) ARS Hayes 27 X (CE 160 - CE 220) PS Kuhnelt T-2c X X (CE 170 - CE 250) GTS Dragendorf 43 X (CE 180 - CE 200) Çandarlı Hayes 2 X X (CE 180 - CE 250) PS Krapivina 5 X (CE 190 - CE 210) 88

Phase 5 – (CE 200/225 – CE 325)

Generally speaking, Çandarlı and ARS were the only two wares distributed throughout the

Eastern Mediterranean during Phase 5, although ESA and ESB likely continued to circulate on a more local-regional level. The distribution of Çandarlı is mostly limited to Aegean contexts, more sporadic finds identified along Levantine coast, the coast of southern Asia Minor, Italy, along the

Black Sea, and in Cyrenaica (Bes 2015: 122-124). This phase also features the end of the regional, and more limited supra-regional distribution of Çandarlı, with the ware largely disappearing by the middle of the 3rd century CE. However, a deposit from Mytilene in the Pergamon region, dated to ca. CE 320 – 340 based upon numismatic evidence, includes fragments of all the standard

Çandarlı forms corresponding to Hayes typology, demonstrating that Çandarlı continued to be produced on a more reduced scale, and seemingly restricted to a more localized zone of distribution

(Hayes 1972: 316-317).

ARS enjoyed widespread distribution during Phase 5, with not insignificant quantities recorded in Cyrenaica, Egypt, the Levant, and the Aegean. Due to the extensive chronological ranges of some popular ARS forms (notably 45A, 45B, and 50A) it is difficult to establish a precise dating scheme for the widespread distribution for the ware. However, by the middle of the 3rd century CE at Ephesus ESB had been replaced by both Çandarlı and ARS (Ladstätter 2008: 97).

This mid-3rd century dates serves as the upper end of Bes’ chronology for his Phase 5a (ca. CE

175/200 – CE 225/250), during which time ARS began to be distributed widely but thinly throughout the east, although to a lesser extent in the Aegean, likely due to the regional domination of Çandarlı. During Phase 5b (ca. CE 225/250 – CE 325) the ARS forms that appear were more widely distributed than those pre-date ca. 250, demonstrating a shift in the distributional patterns

89 of the ware, which also coincides with morphological changes that included the emergence of new popular shapes, such as Hayes 50A (Bes 2015: 122-124).

Aegean Thrace Phase 5

According to Bes’ criteria, this phase is characterized by the supra-regional distribution of two classes of fine ware, Çandarlı and ARS. Indeed, this is what the evidence from Aegean Thrace reflects where ARS and Çandarlı are the only two recorded wares in the region (Table 24). During

Phase 5, finds of Çandarlı are recorded at Amphipolis, Abdera, Mitrikon-Metochi, Glyphada-

Agkathies, Maroneia, and Thasos. The aforementioned Çandarlı Hayes forms 1 and 2 (see Table

6 for Çandarlı forms) have chronological ranges that cross over from Phase 4 to Phase 5, however the presence of Çandarlı Hayes forms 3 (CE 200 – 300), 4 (CE 200 – 300), and 5 (CE 200 – 250) allows us to securely associate this phase with imports of Çandarlı into Aegean Thrace.

The ARS in the region is limited to Hayes form 27 (discussed above in Phase 4), Hayes form 50 and one the form’s types, Hayes form 50A (see Table 8 for ARS forms). The more generalized form, Hayes 50, was recorded at Thasos and was in production from CE 230/240 –

400. Examples of Hayes form 50A were recorded at the two MTAP sites, Glyphada-Agkathies and Mitrikon-Metochi, with a chronological range of CE 230/240 – 360 the tail-end of the form’s period of production extends into Phase 6. However, it can be reasonably said that by the end of

Phase 5 imports of ARS into Aegean Thrace had begun, although the total quantity of material appears to have been rather low and possibly restricted to only a few acquisition events. If some of the examples of ARS Hayes form 50 from Thasos are actually ARS Hayes form 50A, then the examples of Hayes 50A from Glyphada-Agkathies and Mitrikon-Metochi may have been acquired through Thasian markets as opposed to directly acquiring the pottery from merchants associated

90 with the North African networks carrying ARS. Even if the finds from Thasos are all examples of

ARS Hayes 50B then it is still the case that Glyphada-Agkathies and Mitrikon-Metochi likely did not have direct access to the North African markets and networks, which again raises the question of where the people living within the MTAP research area were acquiring their imported table vessels from.

Table 24. Aegean Thrace Phase 5 Forms Form ArethusaAmphipolis Thasos AbderaMitrikon-MetochiGlyphada-Agkathies Maroneia Çandarlı Hayes 2 X X X X X (CE 180 - CE 250) Candarli Hayes 5 X X X (CE 200 - CE 250) Çandarlı Hayes 3 X X X X X X (CE 200 - CE 300) Çandarlı Hayes 4 X X X X X (CE 200 - CE 300) ARS Hayes 50A X X X (CE 230/240 - CE 360)

Thracian Interior Phase 5

Phase 5 finds from the Thracian Interior are limited to Çandarlı and ARS (Table 25).

Çandarlı forms dating to this phase were recorded at seven out of ten sites in the region, the highest rate for any ware in any phase of the Thracian Interior. In this region, Çandarlı is present in urban

(e.g., Philippopolis), rural (e.g., Preslavets), and funerary contexts (e.g., Svilengrad). The occurrence of Hayes forms 3 and 4 (both CE 200 – 300) (see Table 6 for Çandarlı forms) demonstrates that Çandarlı imports continued into the 3rd century CE, although establishing a more precise end date is not possible with the current dataset. The only forms of ARS identified in the region that may date to Phase 5 were all recorded at Georgi Dobrevo (Harizanov 2018). These forms, ARS Hayes 14 (CE 150 – 220), 27 (CE 160 – 220), and 31 (CE 180 – 220) are all late 2nd

CE – early 3rd CE forms (Table 8), and so would all be better placed at the end of Phase 4.

Table 25. Thracian Interior Phase 5 Forms Form Nova NadezhdaSerdica Philippopolis Sadovo PreslavetsGeorgi DobrevoMladinovo Svilengrad Yurta Dodoparon ARS Hayes 31 X (CE 180 - CE 220) Çandarlı Hayes 2 X X X X X X (CE 180 - CE 250) Çandarlı Hayes 5 X X X X1 (CE 200 - CE 250) Çandarlı Hayes 3 X X X X X X (CE 200 - CE 300) Çandarlı Hayes 4 X X X X1 X (CE 200 - CE 300) 1. Identification is uncertain.

Dobruja Phase 5

The wares identified in Dobruja with corresponding forms dating to phase 5 are Çandarlı,

PS, and ARS (Table 26). Çandarlı forms (Table 6) encompassing a chronological range from CE

200 – CE 300 were recorded at Halmyris, Histria, Tomis, and Aegyssus. In particular, Çandarlı

Hayes 3 (CE 200 – 300) was identified at all four of these sites. The two PS forms (Table 7) correspond to Kuhnelt T-2c (CE 170 – 250), recorded at Histria and Tomis, and Krapivina 5 (CE

190 – 210) identified at Noviodunum. These two forms, especially Krapivina 5 could be placed in phase 4, either way they both suggest a cessation of PS imports around the beginning to the middle of the 3rd century CE. The only form of ARS identified was Hayes 49 (CE 230/240 – 300), recovered at Halmyris (Topoleanu 2001a).

Table 26. Dobruja Phase 5 Forms Form Halmyris Histria NoviodunumTropaensiumTomis TopologAegyssusDurostorum PS Kuhnelt T-2c X X (CE 170 - CE 250) Çandarlı Hayes 2 X X (CE 180 - CE 250) PS Krapivina 5 X (CE 190 - CE 210) Çandarlı Hayes 3 X X X X (CE 200 - CE 300) Çandarlı Hayes 4 X (CE 200 - CE 300) ARS Hayes 49 X (CE 230/240 - CE 300)

Phase 6 – (CE 325 – CE 400/425)

ARS was widely distributed throughout the eastern Mediterranean from the 4th to early 5th century CE, which largely coincides with Bes’ chronology for Phase 6. During the first half of the

4th century CE ARS was the only fine ware that achieved supra-regional distribution. The quantitative peak of ARS distribution seems to have occurred from ca. CE 350 – CE 400, with the quantity of finds more than doubling during this time. Throughout Phase 6 ARS is increasingly found at inland sites. ARS was now common in the southwest Aegean, Crete, Cyprus, Alexandria, the Levant, and Cilicia, but rare in the eastern and northern Aegean, where PRS was more dominant (Bes 2015: 125-126).

A significant number of early PRS forms are identified at Assos and Ephesus, with smaller quantities at other sites in the eastern Aegean. Early PRS was also common in mainland Greece,

Constantinople, and Gortyna on Crete, and to a lesser extent the sites in the eastern Aegean. By the early 5th century CE, PRS achieved a relatively widespread distribution that encompassed ther territory stretching from western Asia Minor to the Levant (Bes 2015: 126-127).

The core of the LRD distribution zone primarily encompassed Cyprus, Cilicia, the Levant, and the coast of Egypt, with quite considerable quantities of LRD in the southern Levant. For example, LRD was the most common fine ware at Caesarea Maritima in three loci dating to the end of the 4th to early 5th century CE, but was found in association with ARS and early PRS forms.

(Bes 2015: 126).

Aegean Thrace Phase 6

Finds dating to this phase attest to the continued presence of ARS, as well as the possible arrival of two new wares, PRS and LRD (Table 27). There are two forms of ARS identified in the region that solely belong to Phase 6: Hayes form 67 (CE 360 – 420), recorded at Abdera and

Thasos, and Hayes form 50B (CE 350 – 400), recorded at the MTAP sites Mitirkon-Metochi and

Glyphada-Agkathies (see Table 8 for ARS forms). Other forms of ARS partly dating to this phase include the general Hayes form 50 recovered from Thasos (Malamidou 2005), also discussed above in Phase 5, as well as the finds of ARS Hayes form 61 (CE 325 – 450) recorded at Arethusa,

Mitrikon-Metochi, and Maroneia. The presence of ARS forms such as Hayes 50B at the rural sites

Mitrikon-Metochi and Glyphada-Agkathies, and Hayes 61 at Arethusa and Mitrikon-Metochi again raises the question of the origin of these imported African tablewares. In the case of ARS

Hayes form 61, Maroneia can be suggested as a possible node from which the people living at

Mitrikon-Metochi would have access. For Arethusa, Amphipolis would be a favorable candidate, although the lack of published evidence for post-CE 300 fine ware imports at Amphipolis makes this conclusion speculative, at least for the time being.

Imports of PRS into Aegean Thrace likely were initiated during this phase. The PRS forms partly dating to this time are Hayes 1 (CE 380 – 450) and Hayes 2 (CE 400/410 – 450) (see Table

9 for PRS forms). Both forms were recorded only at the rural MTAP sites, Mitrikon-Metochi and

Glyphada-Agkathies. Taking into account the forms’ significant overlap with Phases 6 and 7 it is not possible to distinguish between these two phases when it comes to these particular forms of

PRS. Despite this ambiguity, the upper date for the beginning of Phase 7 (CE 450) suggests that

PRS vessels were making their way to the two rural MTAP sites, thereby reestablishing fine ware trade networks between the Pergamene region and Aegean Thrace that were observable earlier in the distribution patterns of Çandarlı.

There are two recorded forms of LRD in Aegean Thrace that date either to Phase 6 or Phase

7 (see Table 10 for LRD forms). Both recorded at Maroneia, LRD Hayes form 1 (CE 380 – 475) and LRD Kenrick B715 (CE 390 – 500) have extensive chronological ranges that preclude situating them squarely within a specific phase. The geographic distance and the general paucity of LRD in the Aegean, as well as the earlier ESD, may support a Phase 7, or end of Phase 6 date.

Regardless of their specific chronology, imports of LRD are extremely rare in Aegean Thrace, and are not attested in the other regions of Thrace examined in this thesis.

Table 27. Aegean Thrace Phase 6 Forms Form ArethusaAmphipolis Thasos AbderaMitrikon-MetochiGlyphada-Agkathies Maroneia ARS Hayes 50 X (CE 230/240 - CE 360) ARS Hayes 61 X X X X (CE 325 - CE 450) ARS Hayes 50B X X (CE 350 - CE 400) ARS Hayes 67 X (CE 360 - CE 420) PRS Hayes 1 X X (CE 380 - CE 475) LRD Hayes 1 X (CE 380 - CE 475) LRD Kenrick B715 X (CE 390 - CE 500) PRS Hayes 2 X X (CE 400/410 - CE 450)

Thracian Interior Phase 6

No wares or forms were identified from the Thracian Interior dataset during Phase 6.

Dobruja Phase 6

The only two wares identified in Dobruja during phase 6 are ARS and PRS (Table 30). Six forms of ARS were identified in the region (see Table 8 for ARS forms); ARS Hayes 45C (CE 320

– 350), 61 (CE 325 – 450), 62 (CE 350 – 425), 53 (CE 350 – 430), 67 (CE 360 – 420), and 56 (CE

360 – 430). With the exception of Hayes 45C, all of the above forms are attested from the middle of the 4th century CE to at least the second quarter of the 5th century. Based upon the typo- chronology, ARS was being imported into the region throughout Phase 6. The earliest evidence for PRS in this region was recovered from Histria, and corresponds to Hayes form 1A (CE 380 –

420) (see Table 9 for PRS forms). Additionally, Hayes 1, 1C, and 2 were also identified, although these forms have substantial overlap with Phase 7.

Table 30. Dobruja Phase 6 Forms Form Halmyris Histria NoviodunumTropaensiumTomis TopologAegyssusDurostorum ARS Hayes 45C X (CE 320 - CE 350) ARS Hayes 61 X X (CE 325 - CE 450) ARS Hayes 62 X (CE 350 - CE 425) ARS Hayes 53 X (CE 350 - CE 430) ARS Hayes 67 X (CE 360 - CE 420) ARS Hayes 56 X (CE 360 - CE 430) PRS Hayes 1A X (CE 380 - 420) PRS Hayes 1 X (CE 380 - CE 475) PRS Hayes 1C X (CE 400 - CE 450) PRS Hayes 2 X (CE 400/410 - CE 450)

Phase 7 – (CE 425/450 – 500/525)

During Phase 7, ARS remained present throughout much of the eastern Mediterranean, but became more quantitatively and geographically restricted. Despite this contraction, ARS still managed to reach inland sites. The reduced number and geographic breadth of ARS finds continued into the early 6th century CE. The decreasing prominence of ARS during this phase occurred simultaneously with the expansion of PRS and LRD. In the northern and eastern Aegean

ARS was quickly replaced by PRS, with examples of ARS in these regions limited to mostly sporadic finds. (Bes 2015: 127)

The distribution of PRS expanded significantly during this phase, with the ware continuing to remain dominant in the eastern Aegean. PRS is much more common in Greece, most notably at

Athens where it accounted for 80-90% of imported fine wares during the late 5th century CE. PRS 97 is also reported for sites on Cyprus and in the Levant, with increased quantities of material than in earlier phases. Evidence from the Keos, Methana, and Pylos surveys demonstrate that PRS was managing to reach rural sites during phase 7 (Bes 2015: 127).

LRD increased in quantity throughout its zone of distribution, centered on Cyprus, Cilicia, and the Levant. Even though the ware was not uncommon in the Levant, its distribution was largely confined to coastal areas. More sporadic finds are recorded at Gortyna and Knossos on Crete, at

Berenice and Tocra in Cyrenaica, and at Argos, Corinth, Athens, and Halieis on the Greek mainland (Bes 2015: 127). In the northern and eastern Aegean LRD is almost entirely absent, represented by only a handful of finds.

Aegean Thrace Phase 7

The same three wares present during Phase 6, ARS, PRS and LRD are the only fine wares present in Aegean Thrace during this phase (Table 29). Many of the forms dating to the timeframe of this phase have chronological ranges which stretch across multiple phases. As such, many of the forms discussed in Phase 6 will also be discussed for Phase 7.

There is only one recorded form of ARS in Aegean Thrace that may date to this phase,

Hayes 96 (CE 490 – 540) (Table 8), which was identified at Maroneia. This is the latest evidence of ARS recorded in the Aegean Thrace dataset. The dating for this form suggests its placement at the end of Phase 7 or the beginning of Phase 8.

The only recorded form of PRS in the region that must date to Phase 7 is Hayes 3B (CE

450 – 475), identified at Glyphada-Agkathies (see Table 9 for PRS forms). Examples of PRS

Hayes forms 1 (CE 380 – 450) and 2 (CE 400/410 – 450) were recorded at Mitrikon-Metochi and

Glyphada-Agkathies, while the general Hayes form 3 (CE 425 – 560) was recorded at Arethusa,

Glyphada-Agkathies, Maroneia, and Thasos. While there is uncertainty in assigning the initiation of PRS imports to Phase 6 due the chronological ranges of particular forms, by the middle of the

5th century CE, PRS products reached the rural sites of Glyphada-Agkathies and Mitrikon-

Metochi. The presence of PRS Hayes form 3B at Glyphada-Agkathies provides evidence that these networks of exchange were not restricted to singular acquisition events.

Imports of LRD during this phase include Hayes form 3 (CE 450 – 525) at Thasos, as well as the two forms from Maroneia, Hayes 1 (CE 380 – 475) and Kenrick B715 (CE 390 – 500) (see

Table 10 for LRD forms), that were discussed in Phase 6. LRD Hayes form 3 is the only form belonging securely to this phase, with the other have dates that span almost the entirety of Phase

Table 29. Aegean Thrace Phase 7 Forms Form ArethusaAmphipolis Thasos AbderaMitrikon-MetochiGlyphada-Agkathies Maroneia LRD Hayes 1 X (CE 380 - CE 475) LRD Kenrick B715 X (CE 390 - CE 500) PRS Hayes 2 X X (CE 400/410 - CE 450) PRS Hayes 3 X X X X (CE 425 - CE 560) PRS Hayes 3B X (CE 450 - CE 475) LRD Hayes 3 X (CE 450 - CE 525) ARS Hayes 96 X (CE 490 - CE 540)

Thracian Interior Phase 7

No wares or forms were identified from the Thracian Interior dataset during phase 7.

Dobruja Phase 7

As with phase 6, there are only two wares identified in Dobruja dating phase 7, ARS and

PRS (Table 30). The identified ARS forms are Hayes 80 (CE 450 – 480), 87 (CE 450 – 520), and

94 (CE 480 – 520) (Table 8).The presence of both ARS Hayes form 80 and 94 strongly suggests that Dobruja had access to ARS distribution networks before and after CE 480. Beyond that, however, a more precise chronology or an understanding of the intensity of these exchanges cannot be established with the available evidence. For PRS, this phase witnesses a substantial increase in the number of identified forms. In fact, nearly every form in Hayes’ PRS series that dates to Phase

7 is recorded at either Halmyris or Histria (see Table 9 for PRS forms). Both sites also featured

PRS forms in their respective assemblages that date to the preceding phase, demonstrating a continuation of exchange patterns that began during the end of the 4th to the early 5th century CE.

Taking these earlier forms, PRS forms continued to be imported into the region throughout the entirety of Phase 7, and continued to be so into Phase 8.

100

Table 30. Dobruja Phase 7 Forms Form Halmyris Histria NoviodunumTropaensiumTomis TopologAegyssusDurostorum PRS Hayes 1C X (CE 400 - CE 450) PRS Hayes 2 X (CE 400/410 - CE 450) PRS Hayes 1B X (CE 420 - CE 475) PRS Hayes 1D X (CE 420 - CE 475) PRS Hayes 2B X (CE 425 - CE 450) PRS Hayes 3A X X (CE 425 - CE 450) PRS Hayes 4 X (CE 425 - CE 450) PRS Hayes 3B X (CE 450 - CE 475) PRS Hayes 3C X X X (CE 450 - CE 475) ARS Hayes 80 X (CE 450 - CE 480) PRS Hayes 8 X X (CE 450 - CE 500) ARS Hayes 87 X (CE 450 - CE 520) PRS Hayes 5 X (CE 460 - 550) PRS Hayes 3D X (CE 480 - CE 500) ARS Hayes 94 X X (CE 480 - CE 520) PRS Hayes 3E X X X (CE 480 - CE 520) PRS Hayes 6 X X X (CE 510 - CE 530) Phase 8 – (CE 500/525 – CE 575/600)

After experiencing a contraction in the quantitative and geographic distribution of ARS during phase 7, ARS undergoes another period of growth during the second and third quarters of the 6th century CE. ARS is still found throughout the eastern Mediterranean, with the ware being common in Cyrenaica and Crete, as well as Athens where ARS became common again following 101 he middle of the 6th century CE. While ARS experienced growth in the Aegean during this phase, the ware still remained second tier behind PRS in the eastern and northern Aegean. ARS was not common on Cyprus and the northern Levant, where LRD was the dominant ware (Bes 2015: 130).

The distribution of PRS increased quantitatively and geographically during the first half of the 6th century CE, but then experienced a decline during the third quarter of the 6th century, which was in turn followed a swift and substantial increase during the final quarter of the century. The expansion that occurred during the first half of the 6th century is characterized primarily by the presence of Hayes 3E and 3F. PRS remained dominant in the eastern and northern Aegean, and was common on Crete and the southwestern Aegean, where at Athens PRS remained “the commonest fine ware” in contexts dating to the 6th and early 7th century (Hayes 2008: 85). Outside of the Aegean PRS is also not uncommon on Cyprus and the Levant. PRS even manages to reach inland sites the Levant such as Philadelphia and Upper Zohar (Bes 2015: 129-130).

LRD once again largely continued the distribution patterns observed in phase 7, with the ware remaining dominant on Cyprus, as well as the coastal zone of Cilicia Tracheia. In comparison to PRS, LRD declined along the coast of the southern Levant. LRD underwent a “temporary relapse” from ca. CE 500 – 550 (Hayes 2008: 86). By the late 6th century CE LRD is the most common imported fine ware at Beirut in the northern Levant (Reynolds 2010: 114). Outside of this core zone LRD is only attested sporadically at sites in the Aegean and Cyrenaica (Bes 2015:

129).

Aegean Thrace Phase 8

In Aegean Thrace there is no evidence of fine ware imports that must date to Phase 8.

The only possible evidence for imports during this time are the examples of the general PRS

102

Hayes form 3 (CE 425 – 560) (Table 9) from Arethusa, Glyphada-Agkathies, Maroneia, and

Thasos, as well as ARS Hayes form 96 (CE 490 – 540) (Table 8) recorded at Maroneia.

Table 31. Aegean Thrace Phase 8 Forms

Form ArethusaAmphipolis Thasos AbderaMitrikon-MetochiGlyphada-Agkathies Maroneia PRS Hayes 3 X X X X (CE 425 - CE 560) ARS Hayes 96 X (CE 490 - CE 540)

Thracian Interior Phase 8

The Phase 8 dataset for the Thracian Interior is limited to one ware, PRS, recorded only at

Dodoparon (Table 32). Only one form was recorded, PRS Hayes 10 (CE 550 – 650+) (Table 9).

The general PRS Hayes 10 could date to either this phase, if the subform is 10A or 10B (both CE

550 – 620), or to Phase 9 if the subform is 10C (CE 620 – 650+), but no distinction can be made on the basis of published evidence.

Table 32. Thracian Interior Phase 8 Forms Form Nova NadezhdaSerdica Philippopolis Sadovo PreslavetsGeorgi DobrevoMladinovo Svilengrad Yurta Dodoparon PRS Hayes 10 X (CE 550 - CE 650)

Dobruja Phase 8

The Roman fine ware assemblage for Dobruja during this phase continues to consist of only ARS and PRS (Table 33). Three forms of ARS were identified, two of which, Hayes 103 and

99, were recorded at both Halmyris and Tropaensium, while the other, Hayes 103, was recorded only at Halmyris (see Table 8 for ARS forms). These forms could have all been acquired in single events, dating from CE 530 – 575 at Halmyris, and CE 510 – 575 at Tropaensium. However, the presence of PRS forms (Table 9) at both sites that could date to the first quarter of the 7th century, and in the case of Tropaensium a PRS form (Hayes 10C) that must date to after CE 620 demonstrates that fine ware imports continued to reach Dobruja in some form, although by CE 625

103

North African products were no longer being imported. PRS forms are attested at Halmyris,

Histria, and Tropaensium encompassing the entire span of phase 8, with all three sites also recording the presence of PRS Hayes 6, a rare form of the ware dating to the early 6th century CE.

Table 33. Dobruja Phase 8 Forms Form Halmyris Histria NoviodunumTropaensiumTomis TopologAegyssusDurostorum PRS Hayes 3F X X (CE 500 - CE 550) PRS Hayes 3G X X (CE 500 - CE 550) ARS Hayes 103 X X (CE 500 - CE 575) ARS Hayes 99 X X (CE 510 - CE 620) PRS Hayes 6 X X X (CE 510 - CE 530) ARS Hayes 104 X (CE 530 - CE 625) PRS Hayes 3H X X (CE 540 - 560) PRS Hayes 10A X (CE 550 - CE 620) PRS Hayes 10B X X (CE 550 - CE 620) PRS Hayes 10 X (CE 550 - CE 650) Phase 9 – (CE 575 – CE 700)

By the late 6th century, the morphological repertoire of ARS, PRS, and LRD workshops had contracted, with only a limited number of shapes in production. All three wares also simultaneously experienced growth during the late 6th – early 7th century, and all reached a peak around CE 600 (Bes 2015: 130). Throughout the course of the 7th century ARS gradually disappeared from supra-regional distribution, and by the early 8th century was possibly confined to North Africa (Bonifay 2003: 128; Bonifay 2005: 570). ARS is the dominate fine ware in

Cyrenaica and at Gortyna on Cyprus, and is not uncommon at sites in southern Greece. In the rest

104 of the eastern Mediterranean the ware exhibits a broad but generally thin distribution pattern, with only a few finds regularly recorded at sites (Bes 2015: 131).

The geographic distribution of PRS expanded during this phase, but the total quantity of material decreased. PRS continued to dominate assemblages in the eastern Aegean, but experienced a quantitative decline in the southwestern Aegean. Moderate quantities of PRS are also recorded for sites on Crete and in the Levant. Outside of the eastern and northern Aegean,

PRS seems to have been replaced firstly by ARS, and less frequently by LRD (Bes 2015: 130-

131).

LRD remained mostly confined to Cyprus, Cilicia, and the Levantine coast, although high quantities are recorded at some sites in the Aegean, notably Constantinople (Bes 2015: 130).

Aegean Thrace Phase 9

No material was recorded from any site in Aegean Thrace dating to this phase. Rather than demons rationing the total cessation of ARS and PRS imports into the region by CE 575, this lack of data is instead more likely the result of the paucity of publications and excavated contexts dating to this time period. Soon to be published evidence by Hudson (in press) from the promontory survey at Molyvoti-Thernia Loutra demonstrates that fine ware imports continued to Aegean

Thrace until the end of Phase 9, based upon the presence of PRS Hayes form 10A and PRS Hayes form 10C (see Table 9 for PRS forms).

Thracian Interior Phase 9

Phase 9 finds from the Thracian Interior include only PRS Hayes 10, recorded at

Dodoparon (Table 34). As mentioned in the discussion of Phase 8, the cited form cannot be placed securely in Phase 8 or Phase 9.

105

Table 34. Thracian Interior Phase 9 Forms Form Nova NadezhdaSerdica Philippopolis Sadovo PreslavetsGeorgi DobrevoMladinovo Svilengrad Yurta Dodoparon PRS Hayes 10 X (CE 550 - CE 650)

Dobruja Phase 9

The only ware-form combination identified in Dobruja that must date to Phase 9 is PRS

Hayes 10C (CE 620 – 650+) (Table 9), recorded at Histria and Tropaensium; the general PRS

Hayes 10 was identified at Halmyris. This form, Hayes 10C, is the latest example of Roman fine ware identified in Dobruja and Tropaensium represents the end of the red-slipped ware production program and Roman fine ware table vessels more generally.

Table 35. Dobruja Phase 9 Forms Form Halmyris Histria NoviodunumTropaensiumTomis TopologAegyssusDurostorum PRS Hayes 10 X (CE 550 - CE 650) PRS Hayes 10C X X (CE 620 - CE 650+)

Summary

Based upon the Roman fine ware assemblages, Roman period occupation at Glyphada-

Agkathies began around the mid-1st century CE based upon the presence of ESB Atlante II 14, ITS

Conspectus 23, and Çandarlı Loeschke 20. At Mitrikon-Metochi initial Roman occupation occurred between CE 25 and CE 50, as indicated by the presence of the ESB form Atlante II 6.

For both MTAP sites, Roman occupation first occured during Bes’ Phase 3. Overall, the Roman fine ware assemblages from the two MTAP sites are largely dominated by Çandarlı forms dating from ca. CE 75 – CE 300. This time period largely corresponds to phases 4 and 5 of Bes’ chronology of distribution patterns. By the end of Phase 4, Çandarlı is attested in all three regions of Thrace, and the ware remains in distribution during Phase 5. After the 3rd century CE, Çandarlı

106 stops being imported to the MTAP sites, and also the rest of Thrace. By the mid-4th century CE, if not earlier, ARS arrives at Glyphada-Agkathies and Mitrikon-Metochi in limited quantities, largely corresponding to Bes’ Phase 6. However, ARS forms which date earlier than those recorded at two the MTAP sites are present in all three regions of Thrace. The end of Roman occupation at both

Glyphada-Agkathies and Mitrikon-Metochi can be placed around the mid-5th century CE. This is based upon the presence of ARS Hayes 61, PRS Hayes 1, and PRS Hayes 2 at Mitrikon-Metochi, and PRS Hayes 3 and PRS Hayes 3B at Glyphada-Agkathies. Despite this, imports of Roman fine ware continued to arrive in all three regions of Thrace until at least the beginning of the 6th century

CE.

107

CHAPTER 6 – DISTRIBUTION OF ROMAN FINE WARE IN THRACE

This chapter discusses the composition and chronology of Roman fine ware distribution patterns in Thrace, utilizing the two MTAP datasets from Glyphada-Agkathies and Mitrikon-

Metochi, as well as the compiled comparative dataset of published assemblages from other sites in Thrace. First, the patterns observed for each of Bes’ (2015) nine phases of distribution are discussed according to the phase and the region. The available evidence for each phase is presented, and observations are discussed and placed within their respective chronological context.

Following this, there is a discussion concerning significant observations and trends found in the assemblages of the two MTAP sites and their relation to larger distribution patterns of Roman fine ware. The chapter then concludes with a summarization of this thesis, as well as recommendations for further research.

Phase 1 Discussion

Evidence for Roman fine wares was found for two out of three regions, Aegean Thrace and

Dobruja (Table 36). One ware, ESA, was identified in the available published literature in both of these regions, consisting of three forms, although as stated above the example of ESA Atlante II 3

(Table 2) is best discussed in Phase 2 due to the particular context of the find in a deposit that post- dates its production.

Table 36. Thrace Phase 1 Forms Form Aegean ThraceThracian Interior Dobruja ESA Atlante II 6 X (120 BCE - 50 BCE) ESA Atlante II 3 X (120 BCE - CE 10/20) ESA Atlante II 5 X (120 BCE - CE 10/20)

108

Based upon the typo-chronology, the only identified form that must date to this phase is

ESA Atlante II 6, identified at Histira in Dobruja (see Table 2 for ESA forms). Examples of ESA form 6 are recorded at Athens, and date to the early 1st century BCE (Hayes 2008: 130, 67-70).

The presence of this form, combined with the known presence of other 1st century BCE ESA finds from Histria, including black-slipped examples, may suggest that the distribution networks that brought ESA to Dobruja during the 1st century BCE were established during the Hellenistic period

(or perhaps earlier), prior to direct Roman control over the region. In Aegean Thrace, ESA Atlante

II 5 is recorded at Abdera, Amphipolis, and Thasos, with parallels recorded in Athens dating between ca. 50 BCE and the Augustan period (27 BCE – CE 14) (Hayes 2008: 132, 84-86). Taking into account the chronology of the form 5 finds from Athens, these finds from Aegean Thrace can be tentatively assigned a lower date of ca. 50 BCE; further investigation is needed to confirm this proposal. This possibility combined with finds of form 5 from Athens dating to the Augustan period, warrants further discussion of this form during Phase 2.

Thrace broadly aligns with Bes’ observations for Phase 1, although the total body of evidence is small. ESA imports into Thrace likely began around or prior to the beginning of the 1st century BCE based upon the evidence from Dobruja, specifically Histria. However, available evidence suggests that the three regions of Thrace experienced these connections to fine ware distribution networks differently, with Aegean Thrace not importing ESA until the middle of the

1st century BCE, and the Thracian Interior not showing any evidence for imported ESA until Phase

2. An important factor for the presence of Phase 1 ESA forms in Thrace seems to center around pre-Roman urban sites and their already extant network connections, as seen with the early ESA finds recorded at Histria. No early examples of Çandarlı dating to this phase were recorded, which contrasts sharply with the trends that occur during Phases 3-5 when the ware becomes dominant.

109

This is in line with Bes’ observations, with Çandarlı primarily attested in western Asia Minor within the core area of the ware’s production sites, with more sporadic finds in southwestern Asia

Minor and at Athens. Thus during Phase 1 Thrace is only ephemerally connected to fine ware distribution networks.

Phase 2 Discussion

In Thrace during Phase 2 (Table 37), ESA imports expanded, as shown by finds of the ware identified in Aegean Thrace, the Thracian Interior, and Dobruja. ESA reaches peak of distribution during this phase, in parallel with general trends in the eastern Mediterranean (Bes 2015: 64-66)

The peak for ITS in the eastern Mediterranean occurs during the second half of Phase 2 into Phase

3 (Bes 2015: 66-68). The survey of published reports from Thrace shows that this trend, noted by

Bes, is also reflected in the data from Thrace, with a number of forms that have lower dates of CE

1 and upper dates that stretch into Phase 3. The total body of evidence for ESB is limited to one form recovered from Aegean Thrace. This pattern is expected based upon Bes’ description of the ware during phase 2, when ESB was largely confined to Ephesus and the surrounding area, with limited finds at other sites in the Aegean (Bes 2015: 68). Based upon the typo-chronology, GTS imports may have begun as early as phase 2, however the extended chronological range of

Drangendorff 24/25 (Table 4) makes this uncertain. Instead GTS imports can be most firmly situated during phase 3, around the year CE 70. No evidence for Çandarlı dating to phase 2 was identified, and the ware remained primarily confined to the region around Pergamon, with more sporadic finds identified in Greece and on Crete (Bes 2015: 68).

110

Table 37. Thrace Phase 2 Forms Form Aegean ThraceThracian Interior Dobruja ESA Atlante II 26 X (20 BCE - CE 37) ITS Conspectus 22 X1 (CE 20 BCE - CE 37) ITS Hayes 4 X (10 BCE - CE 25/35) ESA Atlante II 45 X (CE 1/10 - 50/60) ITS Goudineau 25 X (CE 1 - CE 30) ESA Atlante II 44 X2 (CE 1 - CE 50) ITS Goudineau 13/8 X (CE 1 - CE 50) ITS Conspectus 49 X (CE 1 - CE 100) GTS Dragendorf 24/25 X (CE 1 - CE 100) ESB Atlante II 15 X (CE 1 - 100) PS Krapivina 7b X (CE 1 - CE 150) ITS Goudineau 21 X (CE 20 - CE 50)

1. Identified as either ITS Conspectus 22 or ITS Conspectus 23 2. Identified as either ESA Atlante II 44 or terra sigillata with the shape of Dragendorff 27.

Phase 3 Discussion

By the end of Phase 3 (Table 38), ESA disappears from circulation in Thrace except for

Aegean Thrace. The evidence for ESA from this phase comes from Amphipolis and Abdera in

Aegean Thrace with an upper date of ca. CE 60/70. According to Bes (2015: 33, 40), ESA continues to experience a geographic and quantitative contraction in the Aegean during this time, which is also reflected in the data for the broader region of Thrace. Finds of ITS were identified in previously published reports for all three regions of Thrace during Phase 3, with the Thracian

111

Interior showing evidence of imports dating to ca. CE 30 – 7019 and CE 50 – 80.20 Part of Bes’ characterization of ITS during Phase 3 includes the notion that the distribution pattern of the ware remained geographically consistent from Phase 2, but the arrival of ITS in Thracian Interior during the mid-1st century CE suggests that Thrace experienced a different trend. Evidence from Olympia

(Martin 2004; Martin 1997) and Argos (Abadie-Reynal 2007: 41; Abadie-Reynal 2005: 41) shows that ITS reached its peak around the mid-1st century, so perhaps this quantitative increase in Greece is associated with the geographic expansion of ITS seen in Thrace. The earliest evidence for the presence of Çandarlı in Thrace dates to the end of this phase or beginning of Phase 421 and the total number of finds is limited to a single sherd. Despite the fact that Çandarlı was the dominant ware around Pergamon and would become dominant in Thrace during Phase 4, there is limited evidence for the existence of these exchange networks in the mid-1st century CE. By CE 50, ESB is present in Aegean Thrace22 and the Thracian Interior23, but notably not found at all in Dobruja.

PS evidence dating to this phase (or the beginning of Phase 4) is identified only in Dobruja, although forms that date to Phase 4 are also recorded in Aegean Thrace. Imports of GTS to

Noviodunum may have occurred as early as ca. CE 124, but by CE 7025 at the latest, GTS began to arrive in Dobruja. Likewise, the evidence shows that GTS reached Serdica in the Thracian Interior by between CE 60 – 8026. Changes in the distribution networks that occur between Phases 3 and 4 suggest that these networks originated through and were shaped by events that occurred in the second half of the 1st century CE after Thrace was annexed into the Roman Empire.

19 ITS Conspectus 34.1 identified at Serdica. 20 ITS Conspectus 20.4 identified at Serdica. 21 Candarli Loeschke 20 identified at Glyphada-Agkathies. 22 ESB Atlante II 6 identified at Mitirkon-Metochi. 23 ESB Atlante II 31 identified at Philippopolis. 24 GTS Dragendorf 24/25 identified at Noviodunum. 25 GTS Ritterling 12 identifed at Noviodunum 26 GTS Dragendorf 35 identified at Serdica. 112

Table 38. Thrace Phase 3 Forms Form Aegean ThraceThracian Interior Dobruja ESA Atlante II 44 X1 (CE 1 - CE 50) ITS Goudineau 13/8 X (CE 1 - CE 50) ESA Atlante II 45 X (CE 1/10 - 50/60) ESB Atlante II 15 X (CE 1 - 100) ITS Conspectus 49 X (CE 1 - CE 100) GTS Dragendorf 24/25 X (CE 1 - CE 100) PS Krapivina 7b X (CE 1 - CE 150) ESA Atlante II 47 X (CE 10 - 60/70) PS Kenrick B386 X (CE 14/37 - 200) PS Kenrick B388 X (CE 14/37 - 200) ITS Goudineau 21 X (CE 20 - CE 50) ESB Atlante II 31 X (CE 25 - CE 50) ESB Atlante II 6 X (CE 25 - 50) ITS Conspectus 23 X2 (CE 25 - 75) PS Kuhnelt S-1d X (CE 25 - CE 75) ITS Conspectus 34.1 X (CE 30 - CE 70) ESB Atlante II 8 X (CE 30 - 70) ESB Atlante II 14 X (CE 30 - 70) GTS Dragendorf 15/17 X (CE 30 - 115) GTS Ritterling 12 X (CE 40 - CE 70) GTS Dragendorf 29b X (CE 50 - CE 75) ESB Kenrick B348 X (CE 50 - 75) ITS Conspectus 20.4 X (CE 50 - CE 80) GTS Ritterling 14b X (CE 50 - CE 80) PS Zhuravlev 12 X (CE 50 - CE 100) PS Kenrick B389 X (CE 50 - 100) Çandarlı Loeschcke 20 X (CE 50 - 100) GTS Dragendorf 27 X (CE 50 - CE 125) GTS Dragendorf 35 X X (CE 60 - CE 80) 1. Identified as either ESA Atlante II 44 or terra sigillata with the shape of Dragendorff 27. 2. Identified as either ITS Conspectus 22 or ITS Conspectus 23. 113

Phase 4 Discussion

The wares identified in Thrace dating to Phase 4 are ESA, Çandarlı, PS, GTS, and ARS

(Table 39). Having already disappeared from Dobruja and the Thracian Interior, ESA also ceased to circulate in Aegean Thrace between CE 60 – 120. The presence of Atlante II forms 36, 37, and

5127 (see Table 2 for ESA forms) provides a date of CE 60/70 – CE 100/120, which supports a cessation of imported ESA during Phase 4. By this time only small quantities of ESA managed to reach the Aegean, and it largely transitioned to a more local scale of distribution by the mid-2nd century CE. ESA likely persisted longer in Aegean Thrace due to the regions direct access to the

Aegean Sea.

Imports of Çandarlı to Thrace can be mostly firmly situated to this phase. It was imported to some sites in Aegean Thrace by CE 100 at the latest28, and found in all three regions of Thrace by CE 75/80 – 150, as indicated by the presence of Loeschke 2629 and 1930 (see Table 6 for

Çandarlı forms). With the exception of the single find of Loeschke 20 recorded at the MTAP site

Glyphada-Agkathies, there are no other identified forms of Çandarlı that must be dated to before

CE 100. ESB remained in circulation throughout Thrace during the first half of Phase 4 but disappears from all three regions by CE 150. ESB was most prevalent in Aegean Thrace, likely as a result of the region’s close geographic proximity to production centers in southwestern Asia

Minor. Taken together, the decline of ESB in Thrace by the mid-2nd century CE, alongside the

27 Atlante II 36 identified at Abdera; forms 37 and 51 identified at Abdera and Amphipolis. 28 Based upon the presence of Çandarlı Loeschke 20 identified at Glyphada-Agkathies. 29 Identified at Nova Nadezhda, Philippopolis, Preslavets, and Svilengrad in the Thracian Interior; Mitrikon-Metochi and Glyphada-Agkathies in Aegean Thrace; Histria and Tomis in Dobruja. 30 Identified at Nova Nadezhda, Philippopolis, Preslavets, and Svilengrad in the Thracian Interior; Mitrikon-Metochi and Glyphada-Agkathies in Aegean Thrace; Histria and Dobruja in Dobruja. 114 increase of Çandarlı during the same period, aligns with the significant increases in Çandarlı following ca. CE 150 seen at other sites in the Aegean (Bes 2015: 75; Abadie-Reynal 2007: 129).

The distribution of PS is largely confined to the chronological range of Phase 4. By CE

100 PS is present in Aegean Thrace31 and Dobruja32. Based upon the typo-chronology PS could have continued to be imported to Aegean Thrace up until CE 20033. However, all recorded PS forms in Aegean Thrace chronologically overlap from ca. CE 80 – 10034. In Dobruja PS remained in circulation until as late as CE 25035, but disappeared no earlier than CE 19036. The identification of PS in the Thracian Interior is not certain.

By CE 100 if not earlier, ITS is no longer in circulation throughout all of Thrace. GTS however continues to be imported to Dobruja until at least CE 18037, and possibly up to CE 20038.

Based upon evidence from Serdica, the ware is also present in the Thracian Interior as early CE

8039 and possibly as late as CE 20040. The disappearance of GTS from Thrace largely coincides with the increasing prominence of Çandarlı that is observed in the Thracian Interior and Dobruja during the latter half of the 2nd century CE.

The initial appearance of ARS in Thrace occurs during Phase 4. The earliest evidence for

ARS comes from Thasos in Aegean Thrace, with the typo-chronology providing a date range from

31 PS Kenrick B389 identified at Abdera. 32 PS Zhuravlev 12 identified at Histria. 33 Upper dates based on the presence of PS Kenrick B386, B388, and B394. 34 PS Kenrick B386, B388, B389, and B394 identified at Abdera; PS Kenrick B386 identified at Thasos. 35 PS Kuhnelt T-2c, Zhuravlev 4.2 identified at Histria; PS Kuhnelt T-2cidentified at Tomis; PS Suceveanu 15 identified at Noviodunum. 36 PS Krapivina 5 identified at Noviodunum. 37 GTS Dragendorf 43 identified at Noviodunum. 38 GTS Dragendorf 18/31, Dragendorf 36, Dragendorf 41, Dragendorf 44, Curle 12, Curle 21, and Curle 23 identified at Noviodunum. 39 GTS Dragendorf 37 identified at Serdica. 40 GTS Dragendorf 36 identified at Serdica. 115

CE 80/90 – CE 15041. The earliest example of the ware from the Thracian Interior dates to CE

150 – CE 19042. For Dobruja, the initial imports date from CE 150 – CE 220, based upon the presence of ARS Hayes 27 (Table 8) recorded at Halmyris. ARS Hayes 27 is recorded in all three regions showing a shift in the scale of ARS distribution following the mid-2nd century CE.

41 ARS Hayes 8 identified at Thasos. 42 ARS Hayes 14/17 identified at Georgi Dobrevo. 116

Table 39. Thrace Phase 4 Forms Form Aegean ThraceThracian Interior Dobruja Form Aegean Thrace Thracian Interior Dobruja ITS Conspectus 49 Çandarlı Loeschcke 19 X X X X (CE 1 - CE 100) (CE 80 - CE 150) GTS Dragendorf 24/25 PS Zhuravlev 30.2 X X2 (CE 1 - CE 100) (CE 80 - CE 150) ESB Atlante II 15 PS Zhuravlev 1-4 X X1 (CE 1 - CE 100) (CE 80 - CE 150) PS Krapivina 7b ARS Hayes 8 X X (CE 1 - CE 150) (CE 80/90 - CE 150) PS Kenrick B386 PS Kenrick B394 X X (CE 14/37 - CE 200) (CE 80 - CE 200) PS Kenrick B388 GTS Dragendorf 33 X X (CE 14/37 - CE 200) (CE 100 - CE 150) GTS Dragendorf 15/17 ESB Atlante II 60 X X X3 X (CE 30 - CE 115) (CE 100 - CE 150) PS Kenrick B389 Çandarlı Loeschcke 9 X X X (CE 50 - CE 100) (CE 100 - CE 150) Çandarlı Loeschcke 20 Çandarlı Loeschcke 28 X X (CE 50 - CE 100) (CE 100 - CE 200) PS Zhuravlev 12 GTS Dragendorf 36 X X X (CE 50 - CE 100) (CE 100 - CE 200) GTS Dragendorf 27 GTS Curle 12 X X (CE 50 - CE 125) (CE 100 - CE 200) ESB Atlante II 58 GTS Dragendorf 41 X1 X (CE 50 - CE 125) (CE 100 - CE 200) ESB Atlante II 70 GTS Dragendorf 44 X X2 X (CE 50 - CE 125) (CE 100 - CE 200) ESB Atlante II 76 GTS Curle 21 X X (CE 50 - CE 150) (CE 100 - CE 200) PS Kuhnelt T-2b GTS Dragendorf 18/31 X X (CE 50 - CE 150) (CE 100 - CE 200) GTS Dragendorf 35 PS Knipovic 19M X X (CE 60 - CE 80) (CE 100 - CE 200) ESA Atlante II 36 PS Zhuravlev 4.2 X X (CE 60 - CE 100) (CE 100 - CE 240/250) ESA Atlante II 37 ARS Hayes 6B X X (CE 60 - CE 100) (CE 150 - CE 190) ESA Atlante II 51 GTS Curle 23 X X (CE 60/70 - CE 120) (CE 150 - CE 200) ESB Atlante II 51 ARS Hayes 9B X X (CE 60/70 - CE 120) (CE 150 - CE 200) GTS Hermet 23 ARS Hayes 17 X X4 (CE 70 - CE 120) (CE 150 - CE 200) ESB Atlante II 63 Çandarlı Hayes 1 X X X X (CE 70/75 - CE 120) (CE 150 - CE 220) GTS Hermet 28 ARS Hayes 27 X X X X (CE 70 - CE 130) (CE 150 - CE 220) GTS Curle 11 PS Suceveanu 15 X X (CE 70 - CE 160) (CE 150 - CE 250) Çandarlı Loeschcke 26 PS Kuhnelt T-2c X X X X (CE 75 - CE 150) (CE 170 - CE 250) PS Kuhnelt N-1a GTS Dragendorf 43 X X (CE 75 - CE 150) (CE 180 - CE 200) GTS Dragendorf 37 ARS Hayes 31 X X X (CE 80 - CE 100) (CE 180 - CE 220) ESB Atlante II 71 Çandarlı Hayes 2 X X X X (CE 80 - CE 120) (CE 180 - CE 250) ESB Atlante II 80 PS Krapivina 5 X X (CE 80 - CE 150) (CE 190 - CE 210) 1. Identified as either ESB Atlante II 58 or PS Zhuravlev 1-4. 3. Identification is uncertain. 2. Identified as either ESB Atlante II 70 or PS Zhuravlev 30.2 4. Catalogued as ARS Hayes 14/17.

117

Phase 5 Discussion

The wares identified in Thrace during Phase 5 are PS, Çandarlı, and ARS (Table 40).

Whereas evidence of PS was recorded in all three regions of Thrace during the previous phases, the distribution of PS is now confined to Dobruja, where the ware disappears from circulation by

CE 25043. Çandarlı continued to achieve distribution throughout Thrace, with the four most common forms in Hayes’ series44 being attested in all three regions. Çandarlı Hayes form 3 (Table

6) was the most commonly identified form in the entire dataset with 16 out 26 sites recording finds.

Similar trends are observed with the other common forms of Hayes’ Çandarlı series. By the beginning of the 4th century CE Çandarlı ceases to achieve distribution in Thrace. Evidence for

ARS imports are also identified in all three regions, although no two regions record the same forms. The latest evidence for ARS in the Thracian Interior dates to as late as CE 22045, but this may reflect the paucity of data on sites in the region with contexts dating to the middle and late

Roman periods. In Aegean Thrace and Dobruja imports of ARS may have occurred as early as CE

230/240, but as late as CE 30046 in the case of Dobruja, and CE 36047 in Aegean Thrace.

43 PS Kuhnelt T-2c identified at Histria and Tomis. 44 Çandarlı Hayes forms 1, 2, 3, and 4. 45 ARS Hayes 31 identified at Georgi Dobrevo. 46 ARS Hayes 49 identified at Halmyris. 47 ARS Hayes 50A identified at Thasos, Mitrikon-Metochi, and Glyphada-Agkathies. 118

Table 40. Thrace Phase 5 Forms Form Aegean ThraceThracian Interior Dobruja PS Kuhnelt T-2c X (CE 170 - CE 250) ARS Hayes 31 X (CE 180 - CE 220) Çandarlı Hayes 2 X X X (CE 180 - CE 250) PS Krapivina 5 X (CE 190 - CE 210) Candarli Hayes 5 X X (CE 200 - CE 250) Çandarlı Hayes 3 X X X (CE 200 - CE 300) Çandarlı Hayes 4 X X X (CE 200 - CE 300) ARS Hayes 49 X (CE 230/240 - CE 300) ARS Hayes 50A X (CE 230/240 - CE 360)

Phase 6 Discussion

The wars identified in Thrace dating to Phase 6 are ARS, PRS, and LRD (Table 41). The importation of ARS into Thrace continued and accelerated during phase 6. ARS Hayes 61 (Table

8) was the most identified form, recorded at four sites in Aegean Thrace48 and two sites in

Dobruja49. In Aegean Thrace there are no identified forms that must date before CE 325 and which also post-date CE 220 (the terminal date for ARS Hayes 2750). There is also a chronological gap in Dobruja, although it is more restricted falling from CE 300 – CE 320. Therefore in both regions

48 Arthusa, Thasos, Mitrikon-Metochi, and Maroneia. 49 Halmyris and Tropaensium. 50 Identified at Thasos and Abdera. 119 the main phase of ARS imports occurred as early CE 320/325, following disruptions in the fine ware distribution networks that had been in place during the previous phase.

The evidence suggests that PRS first began to arrive in Thrace during the last decades of the 4th century CE. In Dobruja the ware is in circulation by CE 42051 and possibly as early as CE

38052, while in Aegean Thrace the ware is present by CE 45053 at the latest and as early as CE

38054.

LRD is only identified in Aegean Thrace, and within that region only at the site of

Maroneia. The initial importation of LRD can be placed near the end of Phase 6 (ca. CE

38055/39056), or slightly later, since the typo-chronologies mostly align with the dates of Phase 7.

51 PRS Hayes 1A identified at Histria. 52 PRS Hayes 1 identified at Halmyris; PRS Hayes 1A identified at Histria. 53 PRS Hayes 2 identified at Mitrikon-Metochi and Glyphada-Agkathies. 54 PRS Hayes 1 identified at Mitrikon-Metochi and Glyphada-Agkathies. 55 LRD Hayes 1 identified at Maroneia. 56 LRD Kenrick B715 identified at Maroneia. 120

Table 41. Thrace Phase 6 Forms Form Aegean Thrace Thracian Interior Dobruja ARS Hayes 50 X (CE 230/240 - CE 360) ARS Hayes 45C X (CE 320 - CE 350) ARS Hayes 61 X X (CE 325 - CE 450) ARS Hayes 50B X (CE 350 - CE 400) ARS Hayes 62 X (CE 350 - CE 425) ARS Hayes 53 X (CE 350 - CE 430) ARS Hayes 67 X X (CE 360 - CE 420) ARS Hayes 56 X (CE 360 - CE 430) PRS Hayes 1A X (CE 380 - 420) PRS Hayes 1 X X (CE 380 - CE 475) LRD Hayes 1 X (CE 380 - CE 475) LRD Kenrick B715 X (CE 390 - CE 500) PRS Hayes 1C X (CE 400 - CE 450) PRS Hayes 2 X X (CE 400/410 - CE 450) Phase 7 Discussion

Three total wares were recorded in Thrace dating to the Phase 7: LRD, PRS, and ARS

(Table 42). LRD was recorded only in Aegean Thrace, while PRS and ARS were recorded in

Aegean Thrace and Dobruja; no finds from the Thracian Interior dating to Phase 7 were identified.

Finds of LRD are recorded sporadically on the Greek mainland and on Crete, and in the northern and eastern Aegean the ware is represented by only a handful of finds (Bes 2015:127). The LRD

121 finds from Aegean Thrace chronologically range from CE 38057 – CE 52558. The overall small quantity of LRD finds in Aegean Thrace shows the limited connection between networks associated with Aegean Thrace and those around southeastern Asia Minor, Cyprus, and Syria where LRD was likely produced. Instead of arriving at Thasos or Maroneia directly from their place of production farther to the east in the Mediterranean, the material was likely imported to a major imperial administrative center such as the relatively recently established capital of

Constantinople to the east or the increasingly important administrative center of Thessaloniki to the west. Between these two cities a maritime route important to the administrative apparatus of the Eastern Roman/Byzantine Empire developed, with Thasos and Maroneia sitting along the middle of the route. This may be what explains the very limited distribution of LRD in Aegean

Thrace. Shipments of LRD products were sold and divided on multiple occasions on their way to

Maroneia and Thasos thus decreasing the overall quantity that arrived there.

PRS is the most common ware across Thrace during Phase 7. In Dobruja the bulk of available evidence comes from Halmyris and Histria, and to a lesser extent Tropaensium.

Chronologically, the identified forms cover the entirety of the phase. Three PRS forms were identified at all three sites: Hayes 3C, Hayes 3E, and Hayes 6 (see Table 9 for PRS forms). These forms date from ca. CE 450 – CE 530, suggesting a geographic expansion in the distribution networks associated with PRS in Dobruja, likely occurring in the second half of the 5th century

CE. However, in Aegean Thrace the available evidence suggests a different pattern than the one observed in Dobruja. In Aegean Thrace there are no identified PRS finds that must post-date ca.

CE 47559, whereas in Dobruja clear evidence of PRS imports continues into phases 8 and 9. The

57 LRD Hayes 1 identified at Maroneia. 58 LRD Hayes 3 identified at Thasos. 59 PRS Hayes 3B identified at Glyphada-Agkathies. 122 generalized PRS Hayes 3 was identified at Glyphada-Agkathies and Maroneia, which could push the date up to CE 560 depending upon the specific type, although the paucity of other finds dating after CE 475 supports a late 5th century CE decline as opposed to a later one during the 6th century.

Alternatively, this apparent decline in PRS imports may instead reflect the relative lack of data on

Late Roman and Early Byzantine fine ware assemblages in the northern Aegean.

Examples of ARS dating to this phase were recorded in Dobruja and Aegean Thrace. The only identified ARS form in Aegean Thrace was recorded at Maroneia as ARS Hayes 96 (Table

8), which dates to the end of Phase 7 and the beginning of Phase 8. This matches Bes’ observations for ARS during Phase 7 when the ware became more quantitatively and geographically restricted in the northern and eastern Aegean (Bes 2015: 128). Three forms of ARS were recorded in

Dobruja, a decline in number from Phase 6. Two forms, Hayes 80 and Hayes 87 were identified only at Halmyris, while Hayes 94 was recorded at Halymris and Tropaensium (see Table 8 for

ARS forms). Like in Aegean Thrace, these three forms date from the mid-5th century CE to the early 6th century. This quantitative and geographic decline in both regions coincides with the increasing success of PRS in the Aegean during this time.

123

Table 42. Thrace Phase 7 Forms Form Aegean Thrace Thracian Interior Dobruja LRD Hayes 1 X (CE 380 - CE 475) LRD Kenrick B715 X (CE 390 - CE 500) PRS Hayes 1C X (CE 400 - CE 450) PRS Hayes 2 X X (CE 400/410 - CE 450) PRS Hayes 1B X (CE 420 - CE 475) PRS Hayes 1D X (CE 420 - CE 475) PRS Hayes 2B X (CE 425 - CE 450) PRS Hayes 3A X (CE 425 - CE 450) PRS Hayes 4 X (CE 425 - CE 450) PRS Hayes 3 X (CE 425 - CE 560) PRS Hayes 3B X X (CE 450 - CE 475) PRS Hayes 3C X (CE 450 - CE 475) ARS Hayes 80 X (CE 450 - CE 480) PRS Hayes 8 X (CE 450 - CE 500) ARS Hayes 87 X (CE 450 - CE 520) LRD Hayes 3 X (CE 450 - CE 525) PRS Hayes 5 X (CE 460 - 550) PRS Hayes 3D X (CE 480 - CE 500) ARS Hayes 94 X (CE 480 - CE 520) PRS Hayes 3E X (CE 480 - CE 520) ARS Hayes 96 X (CE 490 - CE 540) PRS Hayes 6 X (CE 510 - CE 530)

124

Phase 8 Discussion

In this phase there are two identified wares, ARS and PRS (Table 43). All finds except for two were recorded in Dobruja. The single find from Aegean Thrace corresponds to ARS Hayes 96

(Table 8) and was identified at Maroneia. ARS was also recorded at Halmyris and Tropaenisum in Dobruja. Forms Hayes 103 and Hayes 99 were recorded at both sites, while Hayes 104 was recorded at just Halymris (see Table 8 for ARS forms). After the contraction of ARS in Phase 7, the ware experienced a period of growth in Greece and on Crete during the second half of the 6th century CE, when the ware became common again in Athens. This pattern, though, is not observed in Thrace, where ARS remained second to PRS. We do not have published evidence for PRS in

Aegean Thrace during this or the following phase. However, in Dobruja there are recorded PRS forms that span the entirety of Phase 8. A single find of PRS dating to Phases 8 – 9 was recorded at Dodoparon in the Thracian Interior. It is difficult to determine the degree to which Phase 8 of

Thrace aligns more wholly with Bes’ general observations for the phase. The general lack of data on later contexts from Aegean Thrace and the Thracian Interior makes it difficult to reach any conclusions regarding the distribution of the ware during this time. In the case of Dobruja, the number of sites attesting PRS did not change, therefore there is not evidence for a geographic expansion of the ware, on a regional scale at least, during Phase 8 as observed by Bes (2015: 129-

130).

125

Table 43. Thrace Phase 8 Forms Form Aegean Thrace Thracian Interior Dobruja ARS Hayes 96 X (CE 490 - CE 540) PRS Hayes 3F X (CE 500 - CE 550) PRS Hayes 3G X (CE 500 - CE 550) ARS Hayes 103 X (CE 500 - CE 575) ARS Hayes 99 X (CE 510 - CE 620) PRS Hayes 6 X (CE 510 - CE 530) ARS Hayes 104 X (CE 530 - CE 625) PRS Hayes 3H X (CE 540 - 560) PRS Hayes 10A X (CE 550 - CE 620) PRS Hayes 10B X (CE 550 - CE 620) PRS Hayes 10 X X (CE 550 - CE 650) Phase 9 Discussion

The only identified ware in Thrace dating to Phase 9 is PRS, recorded in the Thracian

Interior and Dobruja (Table 44). The generalized PRS Hayes 10 (Table 9) was identified in both region; at Dodoparon in the Thracian Interior, and Halmyris in Dobruja. The presence of PRS in the Thracian Interior is of note due to the fact that the ware was primarily restricted to coastal sites, and the fact that the ware underwent a general geographic expansion during the beginning of the

7th century CE. The importation of PRS dating to around the 7th century CE comports well with

Bes’ observations for the ware’s distribution during Phase 9. Additional evidence of PRS from

126

Histria and Tropaensium in Dobruja presents us with the latest evidence for Roman fine ware imports to Thrace, dating from CE 620 – CE 650+60.

Table 44. Thrace Phase 9 Forms Form Aegean Thrace Thracian Interior Dobruja PRS Hayes 10 X X (CE 550 - CE 650) PRS Hayes 10C X (CE 620 - CE 650+)

Shifts in Roman Fine Ware Circulation in Thrace

Chronologically, the greatest bulk of Roman fine ware from Glyphada-Agkathies (Fig. 5) and Mitrikon-Metochi (Fig. 7), and Aegean Thrace more generally (Tables 18, 21, and 24), dates from the second half of the 1st century CE up to possibly the end of the 3rd century CE. Over this period, with the important exception of the second and third quarters of the 3rd century BCE, is a time when the Roman Empire, and Thrace in particular experienced a general trend of relative prosperity. Beginning around the mid-1st century CE permanent military forts were established along the Danube frontier, a pattern which continued throughout the 1st century CE (Lozanov 2015:

80). The Via Diagonalis running along the Hebrus River appears to have been finished by 61 CE, and would become the principle route for overland communication, trade, and transport in the

Thracian Interior for the next few centuries (Lozanov 2015: 83). Urbanization increased substantially in Thrace during this period, wherein new civic bodies were created, and Thrace underwent large-scale administrative reforms under Trajan and then continuing through the 2nd century CE (Gerov 1988: 44-45, 59, 180-181). These new urban sites were strengthened by immigrants from western Asia Minor (Lozanov 2015: 82). The Thracian Interior in particular

60 PRS Hayes 10C. 127 appears to have undergone an urbanization program at this time, and the Thracian Koinon was established at Philippopolis, possibly during the time of Trajan (Lozanov 2015: 82; Burrell 2004).

Economic development continued into the late 2nd and early 3rd centuries CE, notably seen with the foundation of emporia throughout the region in order to facilitate the logistical demands of the

Roman military situated along the Danube and within Thrace. From the time of Severus and throughout most of the 3rd century CE Thrace became a major theatre in both internal and foreign military conflicts (Lozanov 2015: 84-85). Beginning in the late 230s CE a series of incursions by tribal groups from north of the Danube lead to destruction and plundering of cities and their territories (Lozanov 2015: 87). By the end of Aurelian’s reign, the tribal incursions had been pushed back and the Danube strengthened. During the last quarter of the 3rd century evidence of economic and social recovery is primarily observed in the countryside where large estates were able to take advantage of the centralized systems of supply for grain and metal ores (Dinchev

1997).

Fine Ware Distribution Patterns and Networks

As discussed previously, during this time period from the mid-1st century CE – ca. CE 300 there was an increase in the wares and ware-form combinations being imported, as well as an increase in the total number of finds. Most of the fine ware is reflective of a primarily regional pattern of exchange, exemplified by the high rates of Çandarlı recorded at both MTAP sites (see

Fig. 5 and 7). However, this regional exchange also included other wares with production centers further afield; ITS and ESB61. Despite the presence of fine ware imports at Mitrikon-Metochi and

Glyphada-Agkathies that post-date CE 300 the total quantity is significantly lower than what is

61 While the centers of production for ESB are situated near the Aegean, in southwestern Asia Minor, the total number of finds is low compared to other Aegean regions and did not enjoy the general market dominance in Aegean Thrace when compared to these other regions. 128 recorded from the mid-1st century CE – ca. CE 300. While we cannot establish a direct cause-and- effect relationship between specific historical events and the composition of the fine ware imports at the MTAP sites, an association between the two is likely. The annexation of the Odrysian

Kingdom by Claudius in CE 43 and the establishment of Thracia in CE 45/46 (Lozanov 2015: 76) brought more direct Roman control to the region. This pattern accelerated further with Domitian’s decision to move additional forces to the Danube in CE 85/86, and later with Trajan’s successes against the Dacians at the beginning of the 2nd century (Lozanov 2015: 81-82). This period of consolidation of Roman control encompasses the period of time when Mitrikon-Metochi and

Glyphada-Agkathies show higher quantities of imported fine ware62. However, by CE 150, it is clear that fine ware was managing to reach the two MTAP sites in ever greater quantities, as indicated by the presence of a number of ceramic forms that correspond to Loeschke’s Çandarlı series (see Table 6 for Çandarlı forms; Fig. 5 – 8).

The importation of fine ware continued into the 3rd century CE with likely increased intensity, based upon the high rates of forms that correspond to Hayes’ Çandarlı series. Over the course of this time, from the early 2nd century into the 3rd century, many new urban and military sites were founded in Thrace (Lozanov 2015: 84), often aiding in the supply networks of the

Roman military that were stationed along the Danube (Lozanov 2015: 86). The chronological end of the peak in fine ware imports is difficult to place due to the origin of the MTAP material being from surface survey rather than excavation, but the incursions by tribes into Thrace during the second and third quarters of the 3rd century CE (Lozanov 2015: 87) serve as useful corollaries that need to be examined further, but fall outside the scope of this thesis.

62 Based upon the presence of Çandarli Loeschke 26 and 19 at Mitrikon-Metochi, and Candarli Loeschke 20, 26, and 19 at Glyphada-Agkathies. 129

Dominance of Regional Wares at MTAP Sites

The fine ware assemblages from Glyphada-Agkathies and Mitrikon-Metochi (along with

Aegean Thrace more generally) are dominated by Çandarlı and to a lesser extent PRS (Table 45), both of which are produced in the region around Pergamon. Between the two assemblages,

Çandarlı and PRS account for 89% (n=207) of all identified material. At just Mitrikon-Metochi,

86% (n=110) of all identified material was identified as Çandarlı or PRS, and at Glyphada-

Agkathies63 the two wares together comprise 93% (n=97) of the site’s fine ware assemblage.

Çandarlı is especially prevalent, accounting for 79% (n=182) of all finds; 83% (n=106) at

Mitrikon-Metochi and 73% (n=76) at Glyphada-Agkathies. While PRS is overall the second most prevalent ware, comprising 11% (n=25) of the entire assemblage there are significant differences between the two sites. At Glyphada-Agkathies 20% (n=21) of the assemblage is composed of PRS, while at Mitrikon-Metochi PRS is the fourth most prevalent ware at 3% (n=4) of the site’s assemblage.

Table 45. Mitrikon-Metochi and Glyphada-Agkatheis sherd totals by ware Site ITS ESB Çandarlı MMW ARS PRS LRLCW Other Site Total Mitrikon-Metochi 0 2 106 6 6 4 2 2 128 Glyphada-Agkatheis 1 2 76 0 3 21 0 1 104 Ware Total 1 4 182 6 9 25 2 3 232

The general dominance of Çandarlı and PRS observed at the two MTAP sites is also found at other sites in Aegean Thrace (Bes 2015: 36-38, 100-102; Malamidou 2005: 7864), suggesting that this pattern is not merely the result of selection bias or sample size. The close geographic proximity between Aegean Thrace and the Pergamon region is likely one of the major factors that

63 MMW is omitted due to the uncertainty regarding the ware’s production origins. 64 Malamidou (2005) identified only one example of PRS in their study; a singular find of PRS Hayes 3 recorded at Thasos. 130 lead to dominance of Çandarlı and PRS in the region from the Middle Roman to the Early

Byzantine period. Evidence for economic and social connections between Aegean Thrace and Asia

Minor goes back to at least the early Iron Age (Tzochev 2015: 412). Important colonies along the coast, such as Thasos, acted as major centers of commerce in the North Aegean beginning in the

Archaic Period and continuing into the Classical and Hellenistic periods (Zahrnt 2015: 35-37). The construction of the Via Egnatia and the consolidation of the surrounding territory by the Romans during the 1st century BCE and 1st century CE strengthened the economic infrastructure of the region (Delev 2015: 69), while colonies such as Philippi were founded (Gerov 1988: 43-49). Initial imports of ITS into the eastern Mediterranean occur around this time, and likely influenced the design repertoire of Pergamon potters who appear to have deliberately copied imported Italian vessels (Hayes 2008: 50). No evidence of the ITS and ESA-influenced early Çandarlı series (Hayes

2008: 49-51) is recorded at either of the MTAP sites, or elsewhere in Aegean Thrace. However, examples of the later Çandarlı series of Loeschke (forms 26 and 19) and Hayes (forms 1, 2, 3, and

4) are recorded in all three regions of Thrace, and these forms still exhibit strong ITS influences65

(Hayes 2008: 52). Over the course of the 2nd and 3rd centuries, the ware became dominant in

Aegean Thrace (Bes 2015: 75, 122-123). After the decline in Çandarlı by CE 300, PRS began to appear near the end of the 4th century CE (Bes 2015: 125-127; Hayes 2008: 85), with some forms showing evidence of being influenced by mid to late 4th century ARS forms66 (Hayes 1972: 328), while others show influence from Çandarlı forms (Hayes 1972: 325-327; 329-338), and therefore also ITS forms.

65 E.g., Conspectus 34 as a forerunner to Loeschke 19 and Hayes 3. 66 PRS Hayes 2 and ARS Hayes 59. 131

The dominant positions of Çandarlı and later PRS in Aegean Thrace, and at Mitrikon-

Metochi and Glyphada-Agkathies more specifically, is best understood as the result of the following: 1) the close geographical proximity between the Pergamon region and Aegean Thrace;

2) the increased stability brought about by the consolidation of Roman authority over the eastern

Meditteranean during the 1st century BCE and 1st century CE; 3) the widespread success of ITS,

ESA, and ARS in the Mediterranean; and 4) the influence of ITS, ESA, and ARS on the design repertoire of potters around Pergamon, wherein they imitated vessel shapes and design elements found in some popular forms of these two wares, likely increasing their chances of success in the fine ware markets of the northern Aegean during the Roman period.

Sites with Pre-Hellenistic Foundations

Well-established urban sites seem to have played a central role in fine ware distribution networks during the Late Hellenistic and Early Roman periods of Thrace. Roman fine ware ceramics dating from ca. 150 BCE – 30 BCE were only identified at sites with foundations predating the Hellenistic period. For example, the only class of fine ware attested in Thrace during this time, ESA, is attested at Histria in Dobruja and at Amphipolis, Thasos, and Abdera in Aegean

Thrace. Histria, Thasos and Abdera were all founded during the Archaic period, while Amphipolis was established during the early Classical period. All four sites are urban centers situated near the coast with access to harbors, helping to facilitate their connections to wider distribution networks.

The lack of ESA finds at Mitrikon-Metochi and Glyphada-Agkathies, located just to the east of

Thasos and Abdera, suggests that the two rural MTAP sites were unoccupied, or that their occupants did not have access to the markets of Abdera and Thasos during the 1st century BCE.

Despite evidence of a Classical period city at Molyvoti (tentatively identified with ancient Stryme) there is so far no data suggesting that the urban center continued to exist into the Hellenistic period.

132

New evidence gathered during the MTAP 2019 Field Season does suggest that rural habitation continued into the Hellenistic period (Arrington et al. 2019), although no ESA or other traditional class of Roman fine ware has been recovered from this site.

Across Thrace, from ca. 30 BCE – CE 30 the number of sites with finds of Roman fine ware and the number of wares and ware form combinations increased significantly. In addition to the pre-Hellenistic urban coastal sites mentioned above, during this time Roman fine ware is also attested at more recently founded sites, such as Philippopolis in the Thracian Interior and at

Noviodunum in Dobruja. Both sites, while situated along major rivers, do not have direct access to the sea, marking a shift in the observed distributional patterns of fine ware during this time. The fact that Roman fine ware reached these sites by CE 30 might best be understood within their contexts as important military or administrative centers. Noviodunum was an early castra along the Danube whose river port later functioned as the base for the Classis Moesica following Trajan’s conquest of Dacia (Webster and Elton 1998: 162-165). The military role of the site helps to explain the composition of the fine ware assemblage dating to this period, which includes ITS and possibly

GTS as well as PS. Philippopolis, while not explicitly a military site did however sit directly on the so-called Via Diagnonalis, which functioned as an important conduit in the “trans-provincial distribution of goods” (Harizanov 2020: 102), including military sites. Philippopolis was also a major urban site in the Thracian Interior at the time and functioned as the center for the Koinon of

Thrace (Burrell 2004). In contrast, neither Glyphada-Agkathies nor Mitrikon-Metochi fits either of these site categories.

Given this close association of Roman fine ware with well-established urban centers, military, and important transportation routes, the lack of early Roman fine ware at the two MTAP sites should not come as a surprise. Both sites are rural and lack direct access to urban sites, and

133 more specifically their ports and markets. Likewise, due to their more peripheral status, Glyphada-

Agkathies and Mitrikon-Metochi likely did not function as important social centers, such as with

Philippopolis, or as military sites in the case of Noviodunum. While ESA is classed as the earliest of the Roman fine wares, the early phase of ESA is best understood as a phenomenon with roots based in the Hellenistic period (Hayes 2008: 16). The presence of early ESA forms at Histria suggests that the city had access to distribution networks that were connected to the eastern

Meditteranean. The site’s position as an important Archaic, Classical, and Hellenistic port may explain the relatively high concentrations of early ESA forms observed at the site. The subduing of the Cilician pirates (Oktan 2011) and the gradual consolidation of Roman control over the whole of the eastern Meditteranean throughout the 1st century BCE resulted in the strengthening of existing exchange networks, as well as the creation of new ones as seen with the introduction ITS,

GTS, and PS to the region by ca. CE 30, although seemingly limited in the intensity and scale of distribution.

Effects of Supplying the Roman Military on Mitrikon-Metochi and Glyphada-Agkathies

Much of the literature discussing the distribution patterns of Roman fine ware in the

Meditteranean centers on the needs of the Roman administration to supply the military and the city of Rome (and later also Constantinople) with supplies, namely foodstuffs. The distribution of

Roman fine wares, particularly ARS, are frequently discussed within this military supply context, wherein ceramic vessels are shipped alongside other primary goods such as grain or olive oil

(Bonifay 2018). Within the specific regional context of Thrace, another ware, GTS can be examined from this supply framework, since nearly every recorded example of GTS in the region was recorded at the castra of Noviodunum.

134

The number of sites with GTS is limited to just two, the castra of Noviodunum along the

Danube in Dobruja and the city of Serdica in the Thracian Interior. Since GTS is entirely absent from the Mitrikon-Metochi and Glyphada-Agkathies datasets, along with the entirety of Aegean

Thrace, this pattern of GTS distribution suggests that Noviodunum, and thus the larger region of

Dobruja, had access to different exchange networks than the MTAP sites. The general rarity of

GTS in the Aegean (Hayes 2008: 47), further suggests the presence of fine ware exchange networks that had limited overlap between the regions of Aegean Thrace and Dobruja. In other words, the general lack of GTS in the Aegean suggests that it was not being transported along

Aegean-based exchange networks, but instead via a route through the Danube.

Similarly, the evidence for ARS at Mitrikon-Metochi and Glyphada-Agakthies is limited to just 12 finds corresponding to three forms: Hayes 50A, Hayes 50B, and Hayes 61, all large dishes. Combined, their chronological range stretches from CE 230/240 – CE 450. Most of this time period is preceded by the peak in imported fine ware in Thrace, from ca. the mid-1st century

CE up to as late as CE 300. Because none of these forms must date before CE 300, it is possible that Thracian imports of ARS and Çandarlı occurred during separate periods, as a result of the shifts in fine ware distribution networks which occurred during the 3rd century (Bes 2015: 75-76,

122-124). The presence of all three forms in Thrace largely aligns with Bes’ observations that ARS achieved supra-regional distribution by CE 350, with the peak in ARS distribution occurring from ca. CE 350 – CE 400/425, after which its presence in the Eastern Mediterranean declined (Bes

2015: 125-127). Despite a revival in the distribution of ARS during the 6th century CE, there is no evidence of ARS from either Mitrikon-Metochi or Glyphada-Agkathies dating to this time.

135

Conclusions and Further Research

The Roman fine ware assemblages from Mitrikon-Metochi and Glyphada-Agkathies largely conform to the patterns observed elsewhere in Aegean Thrace, with the peak in fine ware imports occurring from roughly the mid-1st century CE up to the end of the 3rd century CE.

However, unlike other sites in Aegean Thrace, the two MTAP sites are rural, and therefore help to provide a more holistic perspective for the distribution of Roman fine ware in Aegean Thrace and between site types more generally. Significantly, the identification of a number of ceramic forms corresponding to Loeschke’s Çandarlı series, dating between CE 50 and CE 150, provides important data for Çandarlı in Aegean Thrace. This new evidence helps to refine our understanding of fine ware distribution in the northern Aegean during this time period, specifically the mid-1st century CE to the mid-4th century CE, by demonstrating the dominant role that Çandarlı played during this time, as well as the region’s connections to more far-flung fine ware production centers, such as in the cases of ARS and ITS.

Roman ceramics recovered via pedestrian surface survey rarely receive the same level of analysis that is standard for excavated material (Hayes 2000). This study demonstrates the potential utility of survey pottery to address question of trade networks and distribution patterns.

In addition to being important for the study of Roman fine ware in Thrace and the northern Aegean, this study also enhances our understanding of the economic relationships between rural sites and larger urban centers. The socio-economic changes brought about by Rome’s consolidation of

Thrace is also informative for other contexts, such as when rural populations become subjects of another state.

Future studies of these finds in detail, most notably examples of Çandarlı Loeschke 19, may allow for a further refinement of the chronology of the site based upon changes in the

136 morphologies of the finds. The high concentrations of forms corresponding to Hayes’ Çandarlı series suggests a mid-2nd to end of 3rd century peak in imports, although establishing the upper date is not possible with the available evidence. The occurrence of MMW finds which likely align with the typo-chronologies of Çandarlı warrants further study, with a full catalogue of the six finds serving as a good starting point. Further examination of the relationship between the tribal incursions and civil wars of the 3rd century CE and the decline in fine ware imports attested at the

MTAP sites thereafter is also warranted due to the apparent correlation between the two. The limited number of finds post-dating CE 300, limited to three ARS forms that achieve widespread distribution during the ware’s first period of supra-regional distribution, and two earlier forms of

PRS, suggests a decline in the scale of imports relative to earlier periods. A reanalysis of finds recorded as PRS Hayes 1 and 3 may allow for the identification of each form’s specific type, and thus help to refine the upper dates for the Roman occupation of these two sites.

137

REFERENCES CITED

Abadie-Reynal, Catherine 2007 La ceramique romaine d’Argos (fin de II siècle avant J.-C.-fin du IV siècle après J.-C.). Etudes Peloponnesiennes 13. De Boccard. Paris.

2005 Trade Relations in the Aegean Sea: the ceramic evidence from Argos between the 1st century BC and the 2nd century AD. In Trade Relations in the Eastern Meditterranean from the Late Hellenistic period to Late Antiquity: the ceramic evidence. Acts from a Ph.D.-seminar for young scholars, Sandbjerg Manorhouse, 12-15 February 1998. Halicarnassian Studies 3: 37-49.

Arrington, Nathan T., Domna Terzopoulou, Marina Tasaklaki, Eli Weaverdyck, Georgios Makris 2019 The Molyvoti, Thrace, Archaeological Project: 2019. Archaiologikon Deltion, in press.

Arrington, Nathan T., Domna Terzopoulou, Marina Tasaklaki, Mark L. Lawall, Demetrios J. Brellas, and Chantel E. White. 2016 Molyvoti, thrace, archaeological project: 2013 preliminary report. Hesperia: The Journal of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens 85 (1): 1-64.

Arrington, Nathan T., Domna Terzopoulou, Marina Tasaklaki, Thomas F. Tartaron 2015 Molyvoti, Thrace, Archaeologyical Project (MTAP): “Ancient Stryme” 2015 Preliminary Report. Archaiologikon Deltion.

Bădescu, Alexandru and Iulia Iliesu 2016 Late Roman Pottery Discovered at Histria in the Acropolis Centre-South Sector (2015). Vasa Escaria – Late Roman C Wares. Materiale Şi Cercetări Arhelogice 12: 141-157.

Băjenaru, Constantin 2014a Early Roman Pottery Groups from the Central Sector of the Late Roman City at Histria. Materiale Şi Cercetări Arhelogice 10: 105-131.

2014b Some Rare Late Roman Fine Wares Discovered in the Central Sector of the Late Roman City at Histria. Pontica 47: 239-247.

2013 Contextes Ceramiques de Tomis. (I). Un ensemble de la fin du II – debut du III s. ap. J.- C. Pontica 46: 41-110.

Bakalakis, Georgios 1967 Ἀνασκαφὴ Στρύμης, Thessaloniki.

Baumann, Victor H. 2008 Ceramica Terra Sigillata de la Noviodunum. Peuce S.N. 6: 207-250.

138

Bes, Philip 2015 Once upon a Time in the East: The Chronological and Geographical Distribution of Terra Sigillata and Red Slip Ware in the Roman East. Roman and Late Antique Mediterranean Pottery Vol. 6. Archaeopress, Oxford.

Bonifay, Michel 2018 The Distribution of African Pottery under the Roman Empire. In Trade, Commerce, and the State in the Roman World, 327-352. Oxford University Press, Oxford, United Kingdom.

2005 Observations sur la diffusion des céramiques africanes en Méditerrannée orientale Durant l’Antiquité tardive. In Mélanges Jean-Pierre Sodini, edited by F. Baratte, V. Déroche, C. Jolivet-Lévy and B. Pitarakis. Travaux et Mémoires 15: 565-581. Association des amis du Centre d’Histoire et Civilisation de Byzance, Paris.

2003 La céramique africaine, un indice du dévloppement économique? Antiqité Tardive 11: 113-128.

Bouzek, Jan and Denver Graninger 2015 Geography. In A Companion to Ancient Thrace, edited by Julia Valeva, Emil Nankov, and Dever Graninger, 12-21. John Wiley & Sons Inc., Malden, Massachusetts.

Burrel, Barbara 2004 Neokoroi. Greek Cities and Roman Emperors. Brill, Leiden.

Carratelli, Giovanni Pugliese 1985 Atlante delle Forme Ceramiche II: Ceramice Fine Romana nel Bacino Mediterraneao (Tardo Ellenismo e Primo Impero). Roma Istituto della Enciclopedia Italiana, Rome.

Cloke, Christian 2016 The Landscape of the Lion: Economies of Relgion and Politics in the Nemean Countryside (800 B.C. – A.D. 700). Electronic Thesis or Dissertation. University of Cincinnati. https://etd.ohiolink.edu/.

Conze, Alexander 1903 Die Kleinfunde aus Pergamon. Verlag der Koniglichen Preussichen Akademie der Wissenchaften, Berlin.

Curle, James 1911 A Roman Frontier Post and its People: The Fort of Newstead in the Parish of Melrose. J. Maclehose, Glasgow.

Davis, Jack L., Susan E. Alcock, John Bennet, Tannos G. Lolos, and Cynthia W. Shelmerdine 1997 The Pylos Regional Archaeological Project Part I: Overview and the Archaeological Survey. Hesperia: The Journal of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens 66 (3): 391-494.

139

Delev, Peter 2015a Thrace from the Assassination of Kotys I to Koroupedion (360-281 BCE). In A Companion to Ancient Thrace, edited by Julia Valeva, Emil Nankov, and Dever Graninger, 48-58. John Wiley & Sons Inc., Malden, Massachusetts.

2015b From Kouropedion to the Beginning of the Third Mithridatic War (281-73 BCE). In A Companion to Ancient Thrace, edited by Julia Valeva, Emil Nankov, and Dever Graninger, 59-74. John Wiley & Sons Inc., Malden, Massachusetts.

2004 Lizimah. Sofia University Press, Sofia.

Dimitrakopoulos, Panayiotis G., Nikoleta Jones, Theodoros Iosifides, Ioanna Florokapi, Ourania Lasda, Foivos Paliouras, and Konstantinos I. Evangelinos 2010 Local Attitudes on Protected Areas: Evidence from Three Natura 2000 Wetland Sites in Greece. Journal of Environemntal Management 91 (9), 1847-1854.

Diodorus Siculus 1957 Library of History, Volume XI: Fragments of Books 21-32. Translated by Francis R. Walton. Loeb Classical Library 409. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA

1947 Library of History, Volume IX: Books 18-19.65. Translated by Russel M. Geer. Loeb Classical Library 377. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA

Dragendorff, Hans 1897 Zur Terrasillataindustrie in Griechenland, Kleinasien, Südrussland und Aegypten. Bonner Jahrbücher des Rheinischen Landesmuseums in Bonn 101, pp. 140-152.

Dumanov, Boyan 2015 Thrace in Late Antiquity. In A Companion to Ancient Thrace, edited by Julia Valeva, Emil Nankov, and Dever Graninger, 91-106. John Wiley & Sons Inc., Malden, Massachusetts.

Etlinger, Elisabeth, Deutsches Archäologisches Institut, and Römisch-Germanische Kommission 1990 Conspectus Formarum Terrae Sigillatae Italico Modo Confectae. R. Habelt, Bonn.

Gămureac, Ştefan-Emilian 2009 Edificiul B1 din Sectorul B al Cetăţii Tropaeum Traiani. Consideraţii Preliminare Privind Cercetările din 2005-2008. Pontica 42: 243-299.

Gerov, Boris 1988 Landownership in Roman Thracia and Moesia (1st-3rd century). Adolf M. Hakkert, Amsterdam.

Graninger, Denver 2015 Ethnicity and Ethne. In A Companion to Ancient Thrace, edited by Julia Valeva, Emil Nankov, and Dever Graninger, 22-32. John Wiley & Sons Inc., Malden, Massachusetts.

140

Harizanov, A. 2020 Supply of imported fineware along the Central road in Roman Thrace. Bulgarian e- Journal of Archaeology 10: 75-110.

2018 Production and Distribution of Pottery Along the Via Diagonalis in the Roman Province of Thrace. Roads, Communication & Mobility. 3rd International Roman and Late Antique Thrace (RaLATh) Conference. 18 – 21 October 2018, Komotini, Greece.

Hayes, John W. 2008 Roman Pottery: Fine-Ware Imports. The Athenian Agora Vol. 32. American School of Classical Studies at Athens, Princeton, N.J.

2000 The current state of Roman ceramic studies in Mediterranean survey, or handling pottery from surveys. In Extracting Meaning from Ploughsoil Assemblages, 105-109.

1997 Handbook of Mediterranean Roman Pottery. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman.

1991 Paphos III The Hellenistic and Roman Pottery. The Department of Antiquities, Nicosia.

1985 Sigillate orientale. In Atlante della forme ceramiche II: ceramica fine romana nel bacino mediterraneo (tardo ellenismo e primo imperio). Enciclopedia dell’arte antica. Classica e orietnale, edited by Giovanni Pugliese Carratelli, 1-96. Istituto della Enciclopedia Italiana, Rome.

1980 A Supplement to Late Roman Pottery. British School at Rome, London.

1972 Late Roman Pottery. British School at Rome, London.

1967 Cypriot Sigillata. Report of the Department of Antiquities, Cyprus, pp. 65-77.

Hermann, John 1999 The Exportation of dolomitic marble from Thasos, a short overview. Thasos, Matères premières et technologie de la préhistoire à nos jours. Actes du Colloque International 26 – 29/9/1995 Thasos, Liménaria, 57-74.

Hudson, Nicholas F. 2010 The Dining Assemblage Unpacked. American Journal of Archaeology, an appendix to “Changing Places: The archaeology of the Roman Convivium,” 114: 1-15.

Ivanov, Mario 2013 Terra sigillata от Сердика. In Bulletin of the National Institute of Archaeology 41: 147- 160.

141

Jones, F.F. 1950 The pottery. In Excavations at Gözlü Kule, Tarsus. Volume I text and plates. The Hellenistic and Roman periods, edited by H. Goldman, 149-296. Princeton University Press, Princeton.

Karivieri, Arja, Renée Forsell, and Caritá Tulkki 2010 Late Roman and Early Byzantine pottery from Arethousa. ΚΕΡΑΜΙΚΗ ΤΗΣ ΥΣΤΕΡΗΣ ΑΡΧΑΙΟΤΗΤΑΣ ΑΠΟΤΟΝ ΕΛΛΑΔΙΚΟ ΧΩΡΟ (3ος-7 ος αι. μ.Χ.). Επιστημονική Συνάντηση Θεσσαλονίκη , 12-16 Νοεμβρίου 2006. Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, 421-428.

Kenrick, Philip M. 1985 Excavations at Sidi Khrebish Benghazi (Berenice) 3, 1. The fine pottery. Supplements to Libya Antiqua 5. Society for Libyan Studies, Tripoli.

Kenyon, Kathleen 1957 Roman and later wares. 1. Terra sigillata, 2. Stratified groups. In The Objects from Samaria. Samaria-Sebase 3, edited by J.W. Crowfoot, G.M. Crowfoot, and K.M. Kenyon, pp. 281-306. Palestine Exploration Fund, London.

Kokkotaki, Nikolitsa and Athanasia Tsoka 2010 Maroneia: Functional pottery of the 3rd – 7th c. AD from the excavation in the Roman agora. A first approach. ΚΕΡΑΜΙΚΗ ΤΗΣ ΥΣΤΕΡΗΣ ΑΡΧΑΙΟΤΗΤΑΣ ΑΠΟΤΟΝ ΕΛΛΑΔΙΚΟ ΧΩΡΟ (3ος-7 ος αι. μ.Χ.). Επιστημονική Συνάντηση Θεσσαλονίκη , 12-16 Νοεμβρίου 2006. Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, 367-385.

Loeschke, Siegfried 1912 Sigillata-Töpfereien in Tschandarli. Athenischen Mitteilungen 37: 344-407.

Loukopoulou, Louisa D. 1987 Provinciae Macedoniae finis orientalis: The Establishment of the Easter Frontier. In Two Studies In Ancient Macedonian Topography (Meletemata 3), edited by M. B. Hatzopoulos and L.D. Loukopoulou, pp. 61-100. Research Centre for Greek and Roman Antiquity, Athens.

Lozanov, Ivalyo 2015 Roman Thrace. In A Companion to Ancient Thrace, edited by Julia Valeva, Emil Nankov, and Dever Graninger, 75-90. John Wiley & Sons Inc., Malden, Massachusetts.

Malamidou, Vaitsa 2005 Roman Pottery in Context: Fine and Coarse Wares from Five Sites in North-Eastern Greece. John and Erica Hedges, Oxford.

142

Martin, Archer 2004 Italian Sigillata in the East. Olympia: a case study. Early Italian Sigillata. The Chronological Framework and Trade Patterns. Proceedings of the first international ROCT-congress. Leuven, May 7 and May 8, 1999, 67-70.

1997 Roman and Late Anqiue Fine Wares from Olympia. Rei Cretariae Romanae Fautorum Acta 35: 211-216.

Muşeţeanu, C. and D. Elefterescu 1996 Ceramic Africană cu décor în relief de la Durostorum. Studii şi Cercetări de Istorie Veche şi Arheologie 47 (4): 395-399.

Nuţu, George, Lucreţiu Mihailescu-Bîrliba, and Iuliana Costea 2014 Roman Pottery from Aegyssus: The tabeleware. Rei Cretariæ Romanæ Favtorvm Acta 43: 133-138.

Oktan, Mehmet 2011 The Route Taken by Cilicia to Provincial Status. When and Why. Olba 19, 267-286.

Orton, Clive and Mike Hughes 2013 Pottery in Archaeology. Cambridge University Press, New York.

Oswald, Felix, and Thomas D. Pryce 1920 An Introduction to the Study of Terra Sigillata Treated from a Chronological Standpoint. Longmans, Green and Co., United Kingdom.

Papazoglou, Fanoula 1988 Les Villes de Macédoine à l’époque romaine. Bulletin de Correspondance Héllenique, Supplement 16.

Pavlikakis, Georgios E. and Vassilios A. Tsihrintzis 2006 Perceptions and Preferences of the Local Population in Eastern Macedonia and Thrace National Park in Greece. Landscape and Urban Planning 77 (1), 1-16.

2003 A Quantitative Method for Accounting Human Opinion, Preferences and Perceptions in Ecosystem Management. Journal of Environmental Management 68 (2), 193-205.

Peña, J. Theodore 2007 Roman Pottery in the Archaeological Record. Cambridge University Press, New York.

Poblome, Jeroen 1999 Sagalassos Red Slip Ware. Typology and chronology. Studies in Eastern Mediterranean Archaeology 2. Turnhout, Brepols.

Poblome, Jeroen, Patrick Degryse, Daniela Cottica, and Nalan Fırat

143

2001a A new Early Byzantine production centre in western Asia Minor. A petrographical and geochemical study of Red Slip Ware from Hierapolis, Perge and Sagalassos. Rei Cretariae Romanae Fautroum Acta 37, pp. 119-126. Rei Cretariae Romanae Fautores, Abingdon.

Poblome Jeroen, Octavian Bounegru, Patrick Degryse, Willy Viaene, Marc Waelkens and Selahattin Erdemgil 2001b The sigillata manufactories of Pergamon and Sagalassos. Journal of Roman Archaeology 14: 143-165.

Robinson, Henry S. 1959 Pottery of the Roman Period. The Athenian Agora 5. The American School of Classical Studies at Athens, Princeton.

Rosenthal, Renate 1978 The Roman and Byzantine pottery. In Excavations at Tel Mevorakh (1973-1976). Part 1: From the Iron Age to the Roman period, edited by E. Stern, Qedem 9: 14-19. Hebrew University of Jerusalem – Institute of Archaeology, Jerusalem.

Rotroff, Susan I. and Andrew Oliver Jr. 2003 The Hellenistic Pottery from Sardis: the finds through 1994. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Schuring, Josine M. 1988 Terra Sigillata Africana from the San Sisto Vecchio in Rome. Bulletin antieke beschaving. Annual Papers on Classical Archaeology 63: 1-48.

Sinopoli, Carla M. 1991 Approaches to Archaeological Ceramics. Plenum Press, New York.

Slane, Kathleen W. 1997 The Fine Wares. In Tel Anafa II: The Hellenistic and Roman Pottery, edited by Sharon Herbert and Leslie Cornell, 247-406. Kelsey Museum of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan.

Tartaron, Tom 2015 Molyvoti, Thrace Archaeological Project (MTAP) Surface Survey 2015 Season Report. Manuscript on file, University of Pennsylvania. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

Tartaron, Tom, Timothy E. Gregory, Daniel J. Pullen, Jay S. Noller, Richard M. Rothaus, Jospeh L. Rife, Lita Tzortzopoulou-Gregory, et al. 2006 The Eastern Korinthia Archaeological Survey: Integrated Methods for a Dynamic Landscape. Hesperia: The Journal of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens 75 (4): 453-523.

144

Thucydides 1919 History of the Peloponnesian War, Volume I: Books 1-2. Translated by C. F. Smith. Loeb Classical Library 108. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Titus Livy 1959 History of Rome, Volume XIV: Summaries. Fragments. Julius Obsequens. General Index. Translated by Alfred C. Schlesinger. Index by Russel M. Geer. Loeb Classical Library 404. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

1951 History of Rome, Volume XIII: Books 43-45. Translated by Alfred C. Schlesinger. Loeb Classical Library 396. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Topoleanu Florin G. 2001 Roman and Roman-Byzantine Pottery from Halmyris. North-Africa Importations and Local Imitations. Istro-Pontica Muzeul Tulcean la a 50-a Aniversare, 257-294.

2000a Ceramic Romană şi Romano-Bizantină de la Halmyris (sec. I – VII d.Ch.). Tulcea.

2000b Roman and Roman-Byzantine Pottery from Halmyris. North-Africa Importations and Local Imitations. Istro-Pontica. Extrase. Muzeul Tulcean la a 50-A Aniversare 1950- 2000. Tulcea, 257-297.

Topoleanu, Florin G., Ştefan-Emilian Gămureac, and Aurel-Daniel Stănică 2014 Preliminary Consideration on the Roman Pottery from a Rescue Archaeological Excavation at Noviodunum. Peuce 12: 115-146.

Tušlová, Petra 2020 Roman and Late Antique Pottery from Ancient Thrace, Selected Assemblages from the Yambol District. PhD dissertation, Institute of Classical Archaeology, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic.

Tzochev, Chavdar 2015 Early Iron Age Contact. In A Companion to Ancient Thrace, edited by Julia Valeva, Emil Nankov, and Dever Graninger, pp. 412-425. John Wiley & Sons Inc., Malden, Massachusetts.

Van Oyen, Astrid 2016 How Things Make History: The Roman Empire and its Terra Sigillata Pottery. Amsterdam University Press, Amsterdam.

Waagé, Federick O. 1933 The American Excavations in the Athenian Agora, First Report: The Roman and Byzantine Pottery. Hesperia 2: 279-328.

145

1934 The pottery. In Antioch-on-the-Orontes 1: The Excavations of 1932, edited by G.W. Elderkin, 67-73. Princeton University Press, Princeton.

1948 Hellenistic and Roman Tableware of North Syria. Antioch IV.1:1-60.

Webster, Graham and Hugh Elton 1998 The Roman Imperial Army of the first and Second Centuries A.D. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman, Oklahoma.

Wright, James C., John F. Cherry, Jack L. Davis, Eleni Mantzourani, Susan B. Sutton, and Robert F. Sutton Jr. 1990 The Nemea Valley Archaeological Project: A Preliminary Report. Hesperia 59: 579- 659.

Yordanov, Kiril 1994 Stratezite na Alexander Veliki v Trakiya. Istoriya 4-5, 1-12.

Zahn, Robert 1904 Thongeschirr. In Priene: Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen und Untersuchungen in den Jahren 1895-1898, edited by T. Wiegand and H. Schrader, 394-468. Berlin.

Zahrnt, Michael 2015 Early History of Thrace to the Murder of Kotys I (360 BCE). In A Companion to Ancient Thrace, edited by Julia Valeva, Emil Nankov, and Dever Graninger, 35-47. John Wiley & Sons Inc., Malden, Massachusetts.

Zhuravlev, Denis V. 2009 Pontic Sigillata Plates with a Vertical Rim from the Belbek IV Necropolis in South- Western Crimea. Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 15: 25-94.

2002 Terra Sigillata and Red Slip Pottery in the North Pontic Region (A Short Bibliographical Survey). Ancient Civilizations 8: 237-309.

146

Appendix A: Mitrikon-Metochi Survey Data

Mitrikon-Metochi ITS sherds per unit Unit ID Tract Conspectus 22/23 Total SU15-001-5898 5898 0 0 SU15-002-5898 5898 0 0 SU15-004-5898 5898 0 0 SU15-005-5898 5898 0 0 SU15-001-5899 5899 0 0 SU15-002-5899 5899 0 0 SU15-003-5899 5899 0 0 SU15-002-5906 5906 0 0 SU15-001-5975 5975 0 0 SU15-002-5975 5975 0 0 SU15-004-5982 5982 0 0 SU15-002-6024 6024 0 0 SU15-002-6028 6028 0 0 SU15-001-6039 6039 0 0 SU15-001-6043 6043 0 0 SU15-002-6043 6043 0 0 SU15-003-6043 6043 0 0 SU15-002-6044 6044 0 0 SU15-003-6053 6053 0 0 SU15-002-6062 6062 0 0 SU15-002-6063 6063 0 0 SU15-002-6064 6064 0 0 SU15-001-6111 6111 0 0 SU15-002-6112 6112 0 0 SU15-001-6114 6114 0 0 SU15-002-6114 6114 0 0 SU15-001-6115 6115 0 0 SU15-002-6115 6115 0 0 SU15-001-6116 6116 0 0 SU15-002-6116 6116 0 0 SU15-001-6127 6127 0 0 SU15-002-6129 6129 0 0 PU15-001-001 6062/6063 0 0 PU15-002-001 6062/6063 0 0 PU15-003-001 6062/6063 0 0 PU15-004-001 6062/6063 0 0 PU15-005-001 6062/6063 0 0 PU15-006-001 6062/6063 0 0 PU15-008-001 6062/6063 0 0 PU15-009-001 6062/6063 0 0 PU15-010-001 6062/6063 0 0 PU15-011-001 6063 0 0 PU15-012-001 6063 0 0 PU15-013-001 6063 0 0 PU15-014-001 6063 0 0 PU15-015-001 6062/6063 0 0 PU15-016-001 6062/6063 0 0 PU15-017-001 6062/6063 0 0 PU15-018-001 6062/6063 0 0 PU15-019-001 6062/6063 0 0 PU15-020-001 6062/6063 0 0 PU15-024-001 6063 0 0 PU15-025-001 6063 0 0 PU15-026-001 6063 0 0 PU15-027-001 6063 0 0 PU15-028-001 6063 0 0 PU15-029-001 6063 0 0 PU15-030-001 6063 0 0 Form Total - 0 0

147

Mitrikon-Metochi ESB sherds per unit Unit ID Tract Atalante II 6 Atalante II 14 Atalante II 60 UnIdentified Total SU15-001-5898 5898 1 0 0 0 1 SU15-002-5898 5898 0 0 0 0 0 SU15-004-5898 5898 0 0 0 0 0 SU15-005-5898 5898 0 0 0 0 0 SU15-001-5899 5899 0 0 0 0 0 SU15-002-5899 5899 0 0 1 0 1 SU15-003-5899 5899 0 0 0 0 0 SU15-002-5906 5906 0 0 0 0 0 SU15-001-5975 5975 0 0 0 0 0 SU15-002-5975 5975 0 0 0 0 0 SU15-004-5982 5982 0 0 0 0 0 SU15-002-6024 6024 0 0 0 0 0 SU15-002-6028 6028 0 0 0 0 0 SU15-001-6039 6039 0 0 0 0 0 SU15-001-6043 6043 0 0 0 0 0 SU15-002-6043 6043 0 0 0 0 0 SU15-003-6043 6043 0 0 0 0 0 SU15-002-6044 6044 0 0 0 0 0 SU15-003-6053 6053 0 0 0 0 0 SU15-002-6062 6062 0 0 0 0 0 SU15-002-6063 6063 0 0 0 0 0 SU15-002-6064 6064 0 0 0 0 0 SU15-001-6111 6111 0 0 0 0 0 SU15-002-6112 6112 0 0 0 0 0 SU15-001-6114 6114 0 0 0 0 0 SU15-002-6114 6114 0 0 0 0 0 SU15-001-6115 6115 0 0 0 0 0 SU15-002-6115 6115 0 0 0 0 0 SU15-001-6116 6116 0 0 0 0 0 SU15-002-6116 6116 0 0 0 0 0 SU15-001-6127 6127 0 0 0 0 0 SU15-002-6129 6129 0 0 0 0 0 PU15-001-001 6062/6063 0 0 0 0 0 PU15-002-001 6062/6063 0 0 0 0 0 PU15-003-001 6062/6063 0 0 0 0 0 PU15-004-001 6062/6063 0 0 0 0 0 PU15-005-001 6062/6063 0 0 0 0 0 PU15-006-001 6062/6063 0 0 0 0 0 PU15-008-001 6062/6063 0 0 0 0 0 PU15-009-001 6062/6063 0 0 0 0 0 PU15-010-001 6062/6063 0 0 0 0 0 PU15-011-001 6063 0 0 0 0 0 PU15-012-001 6063 0 0 0 0 0 PU15-013-001 6063 0 0 0 0 0 PU15-014-001 6063 0 0 0 0 0 PU15-015-001 6062/6063 0 0 0 0 0 PU15-016-001 6062/6063 0 0 0 0 0 PU15-017-001 6062/6063 0 0 0 0 0 PU15-018-001 6062/6063 0 0 0 0 0 PU15-019-001 6062/6063 0 0 0 0 0 PU15-020-001 6062/6063 0 0 0 0 0 PU15-024-001 6063 0 0 0 0 0 PU15-025-001 6063 0 0 0 0 0 PU15-026-001 6063 0 0 0 0 0 PU15-027-001 6063 0 0 0 0 0 PU15-028-001 6063 0 0 0 0 0 PU15-029-001 6063 0 0 0 0 0 PU15-030-001 6063 0 0 0 0 0 Form Total - 1 0 1 0 2 148

Mitrikon-Metochi Çandarlı sherds per unit Unit ID Tract L9 L19 L20 L26 L19/H3 L19/H2 L29/H1 H1 H1/H2 H2 H3 H4 UnID UnCl Totals SU15-001-5898 5898 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 SU15-002-5898 5898 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SU15-004-5898 5898 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SU15-005-5898 5898 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 5 SU15-001-5899 5899 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 5 1 12 SU15-002-5899 5899 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 SU15-003-5899 5899 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 5 0 0 8 SU15-002-5906 5906 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 SU15-001-5975 5975 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 SU15-002-5975 5975 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 SU15-004-5982 5982 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 SU15-002-6024 6024 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 SU15-002-6028 6028 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 SU15-001-6039 6039 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 SU15-001-6043 6043 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 SU15-002-6043 6043 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 4 SU15-003-6043 6043 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 SU15-002-6044 6044 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 SU15-003-6053 6053 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 SU15-002-6062 6062 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 SU15-002-6063 6063 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 SU15-002-6064 6064 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 SU15-001-6111 6111 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 SU15-002-6112 6112 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 SU15-001-6114 6114 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 4 SU15-002-6114 6114 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 SU15-001-6115 6115 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 SU15-002-6115 6115 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 SU15-001-6116 6116 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 SU15-002-6116 6116 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 SU15-001-6127 6127 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 SU15-002-6129 6129 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 PU15-001-001 6062/6063 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PU15-002-001 6062/6063 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PU15-003-001 6062/6063 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PU15-004-001 6062/6063 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PU15-005-001 6062/6063 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PU15-006-001 6062/6063 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 PU15-008-001 6062/6063 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PU15-009-001 6062/6063 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 PU15-010-001 6062/6063 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PU15-011-001 6063 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 PU15-012-001 6063 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 3 0 4 PU15-013-001 6063 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 PU15-014-001 6063 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 3 PU15-015-001 6062/6063 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 0 5 PU15-016-001 6062/6063 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 2 0 2 0 6 PU15-017-001 6062/6063 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 PU15-018-001 6062/6063 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 PU15-019-001 6062/6063 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 PU15-020-001 6062/6063 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PU15-024-001 6063 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 PU15-025-001 6063 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 PU15-026-001 6063 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 PU15-027-001 6063 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 3 PU15-028-001 6063 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PU15-029-001 6063 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PU15-030-001 6063 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Form Total - 1 9 0 3 6 6 1 9 3 3 4 15 45 1 106

149

Mitrikon-Metochi MMW sherds per unit Unit ID Tract H1/H2 L19/H3 L26 H4 Totals SU15-001-5898 5898 0 1 0 0 1 SU15-002-5898 5898 0 0 0 0 0 SU15-004-5898 5898 0 0 0 0 0 SU15-005-5898 5898 0 0 0 0 0 SU15-001-5899 5899 0 1 0 0 1 SU15-002-5899 5899 0 0 0 0 0 SU15-003-5899 5899 0 0 1 1 2 SU15-002-5906 5906 0 0 0 0 0 SU15-001-5975 5975 0 0 0 0 0 SU15-002-5975 5975 0 0 0 0 0 SU15-004-5982 5982 0 0 0 0 0 SU15-002-6024 6024 0 0 0 0 0 SU15-002-6028 6028 0 0 0 0 0 SU15-001-6039 6039 0 0 0 0 0 SU15-001-6043 6043 0 0 0 0 0 SU15-002-6043 6043 0 0 0 0 0 SU15-003-6043 6043 0 0 0 0 0 SU15-002-6044 6044 0 0 0 0 0 SU15-003-6053 6053 0 0 0 0 0 SU15-002-6062 6062 0 0 0 0 0 SU15-002-6063 6063 0 0 0 0 0 SU15-002-6064 6064 0 0 0 0 0 SU15-001-6111 6111 0 0 0 0 0 SU15-002-6112 6112 0 0 0 0 0 SU15-001-6114 6114 0 0 0 0 0 SU15-002-6114 6114 0 0 0 0 0 SU15-001-6115 6115 0 0 0 0 0 SU15-002-6115 6115 0 0 0 0 0 SU15-001-6116 6116 0 0 0 0 0 SU15-002-6116 6116 0 0 0 0 0 SU15-001-6127 6127 0 0 0 0 0 SU15-002-6129 6129 0 0 0 0 0 PU15-001-001 6062/6063 0 0 0 0 0 PU15-002-001 6062/6063 0 0 0 0 0 PU15-003-001 6062/6063 0 0 0 0 0 PU15-004-001 6062/6063 0 0 0 0 0 PU15-005-001 6062/6063 0 0 0 0 0 PU15-006-001 6062/6063 0 0 0 0 0 PU15-008-001 6062/6063 0 0 0 0 0 PU15-009-001 6062/6063 0 0 0 0 0 PU15-010-001 6062/6063 0 0 0 0 0 PU15-011-001 6063 0 1 0 0 1 PU15-012-001 6063 0 0 0 0 0 PU15-013-001 6063 0 0 0 0 0 PU15-014-001 6063 0 0 0 0 0 PU15-015-001 6062/6063 0 0 0 0 0 PU15-016-001 6062/6063 0 0 0 0 0 PU15-017-001 6062/6063 0 0 0 0 0 PU15-018-001 6062/6063 0 0 0 0 0 PU15-019-001 6062/6063 0 0 0 0 0 PU15-020-001 6062/6063 0 0 0 0 0 PU15-024-001 6063 0 0 0 0 0 PU15-025-001 6063 1 0 0 0 1 PU15-026-001 6063 0 0 0 0 0 PU15-027-001 6063 0 0 0 0 0 PU15-028-001 6063 0 0 0 0 0 PU15-029-001 6063 0 0 0 0 0 PU15-030-001 6063 0 0 0 0 0 Form Total - 1 3 1 1 6

150

Mitrikon-Metochi ARS sherds per unit Unit ID Tract H50A H50B H61 UnID Total SU15-001-5898 5898 0 0 0 1 1 SU15-002-5898 5898 0 0 0 0 0 SU15-004-5898 5898 0 0 0 0 0 SU15-005-5898 5898 0 0 1 0 1 SU15-001-5899 5899 0 0 0 0 0 SU15-002-5899 5899 0 1 0 0 1 SU15-003-5899 5899 1 0 0 2 3 SU15-002-5906 5906 0 0 0 0 0 SU15-001-5975 5975 0 0 0 0 0 SU15-002-5975 5975 0 0 0 0 0 SU15-004-5982 5982 0 0 0 0 0 SU15-002-6024 6024 0 0 0 0 0 SU15-002-6028 6028 0 0 0 0 0 SU15-001-6039 6039 0 0 0 0 0 SU15-001-6043 6043 0 0 0 0 0 SU15-002-6043 6043 0 0 0 0 0 SU15-003-6043 6043 0 0 0 0 0 SU15-002-6044 6044 0 0 0 0 0 SU15-003-6053 6053 0 0 0 0 0 SU15-002-6062 6062 0 0 0 0 0 SU15-002-6063 6063 0 0 0 0 0 SU15-002-6064 6064 0 0 0 0 0 SU15-001-6111 6111 0 0 0 0 0 SU15-002-6112 6112 0 0 0 0 0 SU15-001-6114 6114 0 0 0 0 0 SU15-002-6114 6114 0 0 0 0 0 SU15-001-6115 6115 0 0 0 0 0 SU15-002-6115 6115 0 0 0 0 0 SU15-001-6116 6116 0 0 0 0 0 SU15-002-6116 6116 0 0 0 0 0 SU15-001-6127 6127 0 0 0 0 0 SU15-002-6129 6129 0 0 0 0 0 PU15-001-001 6062/6063 0 0 0 0 0 PU15-002-001 6062/6063 0 0 0 0 0 PU15-003-001 6062/6063 0 0 0 0 0 PU15-004-001 6062/6063 0 0 0 0 0 PU15-005-001 6062/6063 0 0 0 0 0 PU15-006-001 6062/6063 0 0 0 0 0 PU15-008-001 6062/6063 0 0 0 0 0 PU15-009-001 6062/6063 0 0 0 0 0 PU15-010-001 6062/6063 0 0 0 0 0 PU15-011-001 6063 0 0 0 0 0 PU15-012-001 6063 0 0 0 0 0 PU15-013-001 6063 0 0 0 0 0 PU15-014-001 6063 0 0 0 0 0 PU15-015-001 6062/6063 0 0 0 0 0 PU15-016-001 6062/6063 0 0 0 0 0 PU15-017-001 6062/6063 0 0 0 0 0 PU15-018-001 6062/6063 0 0 0 0 0 PU15-019-001 6062/6063 0 0 0 0 0 PU15-020-001 6062/6063 0 0 0 0 0 PU15-024-001 6063 0 0 0 0 0 PU15-025-001 6063 0 0 0 0 0 PU15-026-001 6063 0 0 0 0 0 PU15-027-001 6063 0 0 0 0 0 PU15-028-001 6063 0 0 0 0 0 PU15-029-001 6063 0 0 0 0 0 PU15-030-001 6063 0 0 0 0 0 Form Total - 1 1 1 3 6

151

Mitrikon-Metochi PRS sherds per unit Unit ID Tract H1 H2 H3 H3B H3C H3 Small UnID Total SU15-001-5898 5898 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SU15-002-5898 5898 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 SU15-004-5898 5898 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 SU15-005-5898 5898 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SU15-001-5899 5899 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SU15-002-5899 5899 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SU15-003-5899 5899 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 SU15-002-5906 5906 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SU15-001-5975 5975 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SU15-002-5975 5975 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SU15-004-5982 5982 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SU15-002-6024 6024 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SU15-002-6028 6028 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SU15-001-6039 6039 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SU15-001-6043 6043 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SU15-002-6043 6043 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SU15-003-6043 6043 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SU15-002-6044 6044 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SU15-003-6053 6053 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SU15-002-6062 6062 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SU15-002-6063 6063 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SU15-002-6064 6064 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SU15-001-6111 6111 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SU15-002-6112 6112 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SU15-001-6114 6114 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SU15-002-6114 6114 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SU15-001-6115 6115 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SU15-002-6115 6115 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SU15-001-6116 6116 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SU15-002-6116 6116 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SU15-001-6127 6127 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SU15-002-6129 6129 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PU15-001-001 6062/6063 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PU15-002-001 6062/6063 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PU15-003-001 6062/6063 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PU15-004-001 6062/6063 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PU15-005-001 6062/6063 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PU15-006-001 6062/6063 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PU15-008-001 6062/6063 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PU15-009-001 6062/6063 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PU15-010-001 6062/6063 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PU15-011-001 6063 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PU15-012-001 6063 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PU15-013-001 6063 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PU15-014-001 6063 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PU15-015-001 6062/6063 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PU15-016-001 6062/6063 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PU15-017-001 6062/6063 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PU15-018-001 6062/6063 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PU15-019-001 6062/6063 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PU15-020-001 6062/6063 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PU15-024-001 6063 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PU15-025-001 6063 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PU15-026-001 6063 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PU15-027-001 6063 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PU15-028-001 6063 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PU15-029-001 6063 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PU15-030-001 6063 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Form Total - 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 4

152

Mitrikon-Metochi LRLCW sherds per unit Unit ID Tract Unclassified Total SU15-001-5898 5898 0 0 SU15-002-5898 5898 0 0 SU15-004-5898 5898 0 0 SU15-005-5898 5898 0 0 SU15-001-5899 5899 0 0 SU15-002-5899 5899 0 0 SU15-003-5899 5899 2 2 SU15-002-5906 5906 0 0 SU15-001-5975 5975 0 0 SU15-002-5975 5975 0 0 SU15-004-5982 5982 0 0 SU15-002-6024 6024 0 0 SU15-002-6028 6028 0 0 SU15-001-6039 6039 0 0 SU15-001-6043 6043 0 0 SU15-002-6043 6043 0 0 SU15-003-6043 6043 0 0 SU15-002-6044 6044 0 0 SU15-003-6053 6053 0 0 SU15-002-6062 6062 0 0 SU15-002-6063 6063 0 0 SU15-002-6064 6064 0 0 SU15-001-6111 6111 0 0 SU15-002-6112 6112 0 0 SU15-001-6114 6114 0 0 SU15-002-6114 6114 0 0 SU15-001-6115 6115 0 0 SU15-002-6115 6115 0 0 SU15-001-6116 6116 0 0 SU15-002-6116 6116 0 0 SU15-001-6127 6127 0 0 SU15-002-6129 6129 0 0 PU15-001-001 6062/6063 0 0 PU15-002-001 6062/6063 0 0 PU15-003-001 6062/6063 0 0 PU15-004-001 6062/6063 0 0 PU15-005-001 6062/6063 0 0 PU15-006-001 6062/6063 0 0 PU15-008-001 6062/6063 0 0 PU15-009-001 6062/6063 0 0 PU15-010-001 6062/6063 0 0 PU15-011-001 6063 0 0 PU15-012-001 6063 0 0 PU15-013-001 6063 0 0 PU15-014-001 6063 0 0 PU15-015-001 6062/6063 0 0 PU15-016-001 6062/6063 0 0 PU15-017-001 6062/6063 0 0 PU15-018-001 6062/6063 0 0 PU15-019-001 6062/6063 0 0 PU15-020-001 6062/6063 0 0 PU15-024-001 6063 0 0 PU15-025-001 6063 0 0 PU15-026-001 6063 0 0 PU15-027-001 6063 0 0 PU15-028-001 6063 0 0 PU15-029-001 6063 0 0 PU15-030-001 6063 0 0 Form Total - 2 2

153

Appendix B: Glyphada-Agkathies Survey Data

Glyphada-Agkathies ITS sherds per unit Unit ID Tract Conspectus 22/23 Total SU15-009-5613 5613 0 0 SU15-010-5623 5623 0 0 SU15-001-5625 5625 0 0 SU15-003-5625 5625 1 1 SU15-002-5625 5625 0 0 SU15-002-5626 5626 0 0 SU15-002-5628 5628 0 0 SU15-001-5631 5631 0 0 SU15-004-5647 5647 0 0 SU15-003-5647 5647 0 0 SU15-004-6522 6522 0 0 SU15-002-6522 6522 0 0 Form Total - 1 1

Glyphada-Agkathies ESB sherds per unit Unit ID Tract Atalante II 6 Atalante II 14 Atalante II 60 Unidentified Total SU15-009-5613 5613 0 0 0 0 0 SU15-010-5623 5623 0 0 0 0 0 SU15-001-5625 5625 0 1 0 0 1 SU15-003-5625 5625 0 0 0 1 1 SU15-002-5625 5625 0 0 0 0 0 SU15-002-5626 5626 0 0 0 0 0 SU15-002-5628 5628 0 0 0 0 0 SU15-001-5631 5631 0 0 0 0 0 SU15-004-5647 5647 0 0 0 0 0 SU15-003-5647 5647 0 0 0 0 0 SU15-004-6522 6522 0 0 0 0 0 SU15-002-6522 6522 0 0 0 0 0 Form Total - 0 1 0 1 2

154

Glyphada-Agkathies Çandarlı sherds per unit

Totals

UnCl

UnID

H1/H2

L29/H1

L19/H2

L19/H3

L26

L20

L19

6522

5647

5631

5628

5626

5625

5623

5613

Tract

Unit ID Unit

Form Total Form

SU15-002-6522

SU15-004-6522

SU15-003-5647

SU15-004-5647

SU15-001-5631

SU15-002-5628

SU15-002-5626

SU15-002-5625

SU15-003-5625

SU15-001-5625 SU15-010-5623 SU15-009-5613

155

Glyphada-Agkathies MMW sherds per unit Unit ID Tract H1/H2 L19/H3 L26 H4 Totals SU15-009-5613 5613 0 0 0 0 0 SU15-010-5623 5623 0 0 0 0 0 SU15-001-5625 5625 0 0 0 0 0 SU15-003-5625 5625 0 0 0 0 0 SU15-002-5625 5625 0 0 0 0 0 SU15-002-5626 5626 0 0 0 0 0 SU15-002-5628 5628 0 0 0 0 0 SU15-001-5631 5631 0 0 0 0 0 SU15-004-5647 5647 0 0 0 0 0 SU15-003-5647 5647 0 0 0 0 0 SU15-004-6522 6522 0 0 0 0 0 SU15-002-6522 6522 0 0 0 0 0 Form Total - 0 0 0 0 0

Glyphada-Agkathies ARS sherds per unit Unit ID Tract H50A H50B H61 UnID Total SU15-009-5613 5613 1 0 0 0 1 SU15-010-5623 5623 0 0 0 0 0 SU15-001-5625 5625 0 0 0 0 0 SU15-003-5625 5625 0 1 0 0 1 SU15-002-5625 5625 0 0 0 0 0 SU15-002-5626 5626 0 0 0 0 0 SU15-002-5628 5628 0 0 0 0 0 SU15-001-5631 5631 0 0 0 0 0 SU15-004-5647 5647 0 0 0 0 0 SU15-003-5647 5647 0 0 0 1 1 SU15-004-6522 6522 0 0 0 0 0 SU15-002-6522 6522 0 0 0 0 0 Form Total - 1 1 0 1 3

156

Glyphada-Agkathies PRS sherds per unit Unit ID Tract H1 H2 H3 H3B H3 Small UnID Total SU15-009-5613 5613 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SU15-010-5623 5623 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SU15-001-5625 5625 2 3 2 2 1 2 12 SU15-003-5625 5625 0 2 2 0 0 2 6 SU15-002-5625 5625 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SU15-002-5626 5626 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SU15-002-5628 5628 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SU15-001-5631 5631 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 SU15-004-5647 5647 1 0 1 0 0 0 2 SU15-003-5647 5647 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SU15-004-6522 6522 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SU15-002-6522 6522 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Form Total - 3 5 5 2 2 4 21

Glyphada-Agkathies LRLCW sherds per unit Unit ID Tract Unclassified Total SU15-009-5613 5613 0 0 SU15-010-5623 5623 0 0 SU15-001-5625 5625 0 0 SU15-003-5625 5625 0 0 SU15-002-5625 5625 0 0 SU15-002-5626 5626 0 0 SU15-002-5628 5628 0 0 SU15-001-5631 5631 0 0 SU15-004-5647 5647 0 0 SU15-003-5647 5647 0 0 SU15-004-6522 6522 0 0 SU15-002-6522 6522 0 0 Form Total - 0 0

157