Mark L. Lawall Consuming the West in the East: Amphoras of the Western Mediterranean in the Aegean Before 86 BC

Mark L. Lawall Consuming the West in the East: Amphoras of the western Mediterranean in the Aegean before 86 BC

Mark L. Lawall

Problems Underlying Roman ‘Economic exemplified by economic protectionism.4 If Supremacy’ we assume that the Hellenistic states shared this economic acumen, also aiming at profit The interpretation of Italian amphoras in the maximization, then how could Rome have Aegean does not suffer from lack of atten- so thoroughly taken over the Eastern econo- tion. Elizabeth Lyding Will, Nicholas Rauh, mies? Either the Hellenistic economies were and John Lund have all recently addressed producing and consuming at significantly this topic with broad, synthetic considera- below their capacities and hence Roman tions of the evidence.1 Will argued for a de- goods were easily absorbed, or there were liberate Roman economic domination of the fundamental differences between the two Aegean. Rauh proposed that the Italian jars systems that allowed the one to take over the supplied the Italian traders, that these prod- other. By either scenario, the search for evi- ucts did not flood the Aegean producers out dence of Roman dominance tends to obscure of the market, but that Roman economic practices and political policies had significant effects on the structure of Aegean trade. Lund notes the very uneven concentrations of the 1 WILL 1997; RAUH 1999 and R AUH 2003 (although I have seen Roman material; he advises that it is perhaps this book briefly, I have not been able to take full account of its “premature to conclude that Rome had contents in this paper); LUND 2000. T. Bezeczky’s various recent gained economic supremacy...”2 One major treatments of the evidence from Ephesos are related to this topic, but do not take up the broader evidence in the same fashion (e.g., point of difficulty, then, is the interpretation BEZECZKY 2004; there note that the discussions of stratigraphy at of the numbers of Italian jars found in east- Ephesos were based on a very preliminary, in-house report, never intended for wider circulation). I thank the organizers of the con- ern contexts. For Will that number is suffi- ference for the invitation to present this paper and for financial support for my attendance; discussions with John Lund, Jeroen cient to indicate deliberate Roman policy Poblome, Susan Alcock, John Bintliff, Gerald Finkielsztejn, nd from early in the 2 century; for Rauh and Kristina Winther-Jacobson, Gloria Olcese, and Tamás Bezeczky all greatly improved this revised version. I do not imply, how- Lund the Italian presence is less impressive. ever, that these colleagues agree with all (or any!) of the conclu- Rauh uses the perceived scarcity of Italian sions arrived at in what follows. The references to finds at various sites in the regions under discussion here are not compre- jars to explore other aspects of economic hensive; however, I have sought to include a sufficiently repre- change in the late Hellenistic Aegean (with sentative set of examples to indicate the general tendencies of the Italian merchants and Roman policy playing evidence. Unless otherwise noted, all drawings are by the author. 2 LUND 2000, 89. significant roles). 3 Without any specific documentation offered by Rauh, I am Rauh’s careful attention to broader social not certain that there is a rise in Chian and Koan exports as Rhodes declines (cf. RAUH 1999, 175). Any changes in Hellenistic Chian and political contexts highlights how per- exports should also take account of the 3rd century slave revolt on Chios (as a detriment to production) and the possible addition of ceived structures of ancient Mediterranean new mainland territory after Apamea (as a catalyst to produc- economies affect modern interpretations of tion), see BOARDMAN 1967, 255; FUKS 1968; BAUSLAUGH 1979; and the amphora sherds found on the ground.3 FUNKE 1999, 64. 4 W ILL 1997, esp. 121, with reference to Cicero, De republica Will proposes that Roman expansion was 3.16. For extensive discussion of this passage see GRUEN 1986, 313, note 127 concluding: “...chronological uncertainty and the absence driven in significant measure by an economic of known parallels forbid the building of any hypotheses about rationalism aimed at profit maximization, as Roman economic policy on the basis of this passage.”

265 Consuming the West in the East: Amphoras of the western Mediterranean in the Aegean before 86 BC significant features of the ‘dominated’ 3) dependence on long distance imports of Aegean and Eastern Mediterranean that amphoras from outside the given region. opened the way for economic change. The extrapolation from these variables to Searching for and documenting a flood of the more general characterization of regional Italian merchants to Delos in the late 2nd cen- economies requires the assertion that ampho- tury, a flood of Italian amphoras, or the over- ras were commonly shipped and marketed whelming arrival of merchants and jars to- for the agricultural products they contained. gether, raises important questions. How Since agriculture was a major, if not the domi- would newcomers successfully insert them- nant, sector of ancient Mediterranean econo- selves and their goods into the Aegean eco- mies, amphoras provide a reasonably reliable nomic systems? Why would the Aegean and index for scales of production, importance Eastern Mediterranean suddenly become of local circulation, and dependence on long willing and able to consume so much – or distance imports in the general economy. any – additional foreign wine, oil, and other These proxy data characterize the relative products? success of the given region in self-sufficiency and its connection to broader networks of commerce and exchange. This approach does Methodology not require that amphora shipping was the most significant, profitable, or socially ac- I propose a shift in focus, from a primary ceptable activity; all that is necessary is that interest in Roman impact to greater attention amphora shipping did occur often, as a nor- to Aegean context. This process involves a mal part of Aegean commerce, closely con- new starting point: a survey of where and nected to the agrarian economy. The precise how amphora production, distribution and articulation of these variables relative to one consumption tended to occur from the Ar- another will have depended on a wide range chaic through Hellenistic periods. Such a of determining factors (e.g., consumer per- process avoids assuming either that the di- ceptions of needs and wants, access to labor viding line in ancient economies fell some- and success in exploiting available land, pres- where between Greece and Italy, following ence of traders with access to distant ports, essentially political boundaries, or that some changing local tastes, etc.). It is not possible particular political or military event marks to define precisely how such factors defined the dividing line between the ‘Pre-Roman’ the three variables noted above. and the ‘Romanized’ Aegean economy.5 In Even so, changes observed in the three certain aspects this survey will be weighted variables help define the degree or nature of to the Aegean basin (largely due to the au- elasticity in the given regional economy. Was thor’s area of expertise); however, such a focus provides something of a corrective to the traditional approach limited to documenting Roman amphoras in the East. 5 Such an attempt to document the changing boundaries of Three variables can be traced through this regional economies across a relatively long span of time is very survey in order to explore the circumstances much in keeping with recommendations for research in recent accompanying the appearance of western discussions of the ancient economy. E.g., ANDREAU 1997, 959-960 advocating attention to broader chronological periods; CARTLEDGE Mediterranean amphoras in different Aegean 1998 highlighting the likely variability in Aegean economies; regions: HORDEN - PURCELL 2000 stress the importance of micro-regions; and earlier REGER 1994 and REGER 1997; LAWALL 1995; LAWALL 1997; 1) the relative scale and complexity of local and LAWALL 1998 a all emphasize the importance of regional econo- amphora production, mies; cf. earlier rejections of the ‘local history’ approach as observed by MORRIS 1999, xxvii. I use the problematic terms ‘pre- 2) the relative dependence on narrowly re- Roman’ and ‘Romanized’ (see note 6 below) as short-hand for ‘the Aegean before the widespread presence of Italian merchants gional circulation of amphoras, as com- and goods’ as opposed to the later period where such things are pared with present in greater quantity.

266 Mark L. Lawall the economy of the local region relatively ity of amphoras within the region as com- ‘closed’, rarely admitting long distance im- pared with adjacent areas), zones of local cir- ports, perhaps lacking the ability to consume culation (as defined by the presence of com- from new suppliers while maintaining local monly occurring amphora types from adja- production and local regional circulation of cent areas), and the relative importance of goods? Or was the region more ‘open’, able long-distance imports. or willing to accommodate new suppliers since consumers’ capacity or perceived ca- Late 6th and 5th centuries pacity had not been maximized? Did the consumers in the region over-estimate their abili- From ca. 525 to 400 BC, transport ampho- ties to consume eventually leading to a local ras from the western Mediterranean rarely glut of supply and economic crisis? appear in Athens. Fragments that do appear Once the variables of local production, include both Punic and Italian types. The ear- local circulation and long distance imports liest I have encountered so far is the rim of an are defined in different regions through time, Etruscan Py type 4 or 5 amphora of the late the regions can be described in terms of the 6th or early 5th century BC (fig. 1a).8 Persian relative elasticity of the local economy. Elas- destruction debris includes one fragment of ticity of Aegean economies can then be con- the top section of a Moroccan-Punic amphora sidered in terms of their reception of west- (Maña A4) and southern Italian “Ionian” am- ern Mediterranean amphoras. Different re- phoras (fig. 1b-c).9 Deposits continuing sponses to these newcomers in terms of lo- through the 5th century include further Punic cal conditions and then the effects of those fragments and occasional examples of the responses on local conditions or practices bulging neck Vandermersch type MGS II.10 create a specific framework for examining The situation in Corinth and western Roman commercial expansion into Aegean Greece is quite different. Corinth’s Punic economies. This process allows us to move Amphora building is famous for its fish en- away from implicit thresholds of the number crusted Maña A4 jars of the mid 5th century.11 of Roman amphoras in the east needed to signify ‘economic Romanization’.6 Such an approach does not deny the importance of changes, developments, perhaps even delib- 7 erate policy in the western Mediterranean, 6 Indeed the phrase itself, though often used, is poorly de- but it seeks to balance such studies of late fined and increasingly shown to be of problematic analytical value, see M ATTINGLY 2002. Republican Italian wine and oil exports with 7 The questionable presence of a deliberate Roman economic the perspective of the affected regions. policy towards the East should be considered in light of the de- bated existence of any consistent Roman political policy in the region (e.g., GRUEN 1986). 8 The fragment (P34483) appeared in mixed late Archaic/Clas- sical and mid-2nd century fill under the Stoa of Attalos. For this Western Amphoras in the Aegean and and all subsequent references to finds in the Athenian Agora, I Aegean Patterns of Production and Distri- thank John McK. Camp for permission to carry out a broad study bution of late Archaic through late Hellenistic amphora types found in the Agora excavations. For the typology, see PY 1985. 9 The Punic fragment is close to Ramon-Torres type 11.2.1.3; The following survey of Western Mediter- see L AWALL 2001. For recent studies of the southern Italian type, see G ASSNER 2000; GASSNER - SAUER 2002; and especially GASSNER ranean imports in Athens and the Aegean 2003, 110-135 and 173-219 on production at and around Velia and between ca. 525 and 86 BC summarizes the into Calabria; and SOURISSEAU 1998. 10 LAWALL 1995; ZIMMERMAN MUNN 2003, 213, n. 163 denies the presence of western imports in Athens and presence of Maña A4 amphoras in Athens proper, but see too GRACE 1953, nr. 170 and ROTROFF - OAKLEY 1992, nr. 355. For the the broader Aegean, as well as the general southern Italian and Sicilian amphora typology referred to here, state of Aegean amphora production and cir- see VANDERMERSCH 1994. culation. This survey defines regional zones 11 Most recently, see ZIMMERMAN M UNN 2003; earlier discussions, see WILLIAMS - FISHER 1976; WILLIAMS 1978 and WILLIAMS 1979; of production (as defined by greater similar- ZIMMERMAN-MUNN 1983.

267 Consuming the West in the East: Amphoras of the western Mediterranean in the Aegean before 86 BC

There are also MGS II amphoras at Corinth.12 at least some of the Peloponnesos. On the At Olympia, too, there are 5th-century Punic west side it includes Adriatic Italy and amphoras.13 Near Elis, at Babes, there is a Apulia. Shared traditions of amphora pro- published rim of an MGS II amphora.14 Be- duction are widespread in this zone and ‘for- yond this area stretching from Corinth across eign’ amphoras are nearly nonexistent.23 I the northwestern Peloponnesos, however, shall refer to this as the Adriatic zone. I leave western imports are rare. One Py 4 Etruscan the definition of the western boundaries of amphora is published from Miletos.15 this zone to specialists in the region, but it Throughout this period, over much of the may be noted here that Aegean amphoras are Aegean, amphora shipping is largely a re- more common in areas further to the west.24 gional phenomenon. Northern Aegean jars The inclusion of Corinth in the Adriatic zone dominate assemblages in the north Aegean;16 southeastern jars dominate the southeast 17 Aegean. The dividing line is the region of 12 ZIMMERMAN MUNN 1983, figs. 22-23. Chios and the adjacent mainland. Here, too, 13 GAUER 1975, Taf. 22.3. 18 14 LANG 1992, 68-69, Abb. 13.1. the local jars predominate. Athens partakes 15 NASO 2000. of both northern and southern regions with 16 E.g., stratified finds at the Silen Gate, Thasos, GRANDJEAN the greater attention to the north for much 1992; Samothrace necropolis, DUSENBERRY 1998; a stratified series of deposits near the citadel wall at Ilion, LAWALL 2002 th th of the late 6 through 5 centuries, but Chian 17 Ephesos, GASSNER 1997; Halikarnassos, R ADT 1970; Didyma, amphoras are quite common throughout the SCHATTNER 1996; with Miletos showing somewhat more variation, see VOIGTLÄNDER 1982, NIEMEIER 1999 and KERSCHNER 1999. 19 period. A similar mix of imports exists at 18 Klazomenai, E RSOY 1993; Chios, A NDERSON 1954 19 both Corinth and Aegina, though at both of L AWALL 1995; see, too, for specific contexts, TALCOTT 1935; CORBETT 1949; GRACE 1953; ROBERTS 1986; ROTROFF - OAKLEY 1992. these sites there are far more Corinthian and 20 Corinth: in addition to works cited above, see PEASE 1937 and Adriatic/Ionian Sea amphoras.20 Athens, al- CAMPBELL 1938. Adriatic/Ionian Sea amphoras, here, refers to the Type B in Koehler’s studies (e.g., KOEHLER 1978); however, the most direct ready in the late 6th and 5th centuries, is some- evidence for production of this type continues to point to produc- thing of an anomaly in the overall tendency tion in the broader region of Corcyra (e.g., kilns reported by PREKA- ALEXANDRI 1992; petrographic discussions by WHITBREAD 1995). towards narrowly regional circulation. 21 For Klazomenai, see DOGˇER 1986; ERSOY 1993 and LAWALL In most areas of the Aegean, the produc- 1995; Chios, see LAWALL 1995 and LAWALL 1998 a; for Mende, see LAWALL 1998 b and LAWALL 1999 a, 230; KALLINTZI 1997, fig. 18. Late tion and distribution of amphoras does not Archaic pre-firing markings on Chian, Klazomenian, and other th seem to have required any special adminis- northern Ionian amphoras of the late 6 century are discussed by DUPONT 1999. tration. And yet, Klazomenai, Chios and 22 On the relationship between scale of activity and organiza- Mende at certain times engaged in moder- tion see JOHNSON 1978 and JOHNSON 1982; in terms of amphoras, this point is elaborated upon in LAWALL 1995 and LAWALL (in press) a. ately consistent amphora marking schemes.21 23 Useful groups of 6th and 5th century material from the Adri- The scale of their production or complexity atic and Ionian Sea coasts of Greece and Albania with a dominance of types from the local region include from Albania: Treportit, BERETI of their distribution necessitated simple 1992; and Margellici, CEKA 1986; from Skopje: Vardarski Rid - stamps and dipinti.22 Both Chian and HUSENOVSKI - DIMITRIOSKA 1996-1997; and Koresnica-Demirkapija, KARPUZOVA - PECOVSKA 1993-1994; from Adriatic Italy: Spina, DE LUCA Mendean jars – Klazomenian to a lesser ex- DE MARCO 1979; Messapia, SEMERARO 1997; and a similar ‘Adriatic zone’ group of amphoras is published from Metaponto (M ORTER - tent – more consistently break out of their th th LEONARD 1998). Earlier (late 7 -early 6 century) amphoras from respective regional circuits than is the case the Metaponto area show more varied Aegean imports, but even with their contemporaries. then Corinthian jars are quite common see PANZERI POZZETTI 1986 and STEA 1997. One Chian fragment is published from near Mantova The contrast between, on the one hand, by DE MARINIS 1999. Aegean imports are published from Locri, see BARRA-BAGNASCO 1992, pl. 64 nos. 218, 220, and 219. Corinth and western Greece, and on the other 24 For examples along the west coast of Italy, Sicily, Tunisia, hand, Athens and the Aegean, provides im- etc. see, for Carthage the synthesis by MOREL 1998, 31 and a spe- portant evidence for the route or zone of East- cific case by DOCTER 1995; for Sicily see ALBANESE PROCELLI 1997; ALBANESE P ROCELLI 2000; and ALBANESE P ROCELLI 2003; SPAGNOLO th West interaction. Late in the 6 century, a 2003; and the Gela wreck, see PANVINI 2001; the Porticello wreck, broad zone of shared amphora styles and cir- EISEMAN - RIDGEWAY 1987; GILL 1987; LAWALL 1998 b; GIBBINS 2000; for Lucania, G ASSNER 1999; for Campania, DI SANDRO 1981 and DI culation of goods emerges in the West. This SANDRO 1986; for Etruria see SLASKA 1978; SLASKA 1985; BOITANI 1985; zone includes ancient Illyria and Epirus MORSELLI - TORTORICI 1985; COLONNA 1985; RIZZO 1990; BOSS 1993; SCOTTI 1999. And for the late Archaic Pointe Lequin wreck, see reaching east as far as Corinth and south over LONG et al. 1992.

268 Mark L. Lawall results in the continuous presence of tury economic doldrums,33 this arrangement Corinthian amphoras in the west through the of the variables is not surprising. 5th century and the unusual amount of western material in Corinth. The rest of the Third Century Aegean seems to have received the ‘leftovers’ passing through Corinth. For much of the 3rd century, the western pres- In sum, in the late 6th- through 5th-century ence in Athens is as sporadic as it had been in Aegean, local production and local circulation the 5th. Again, both Italian and Punic ampho- tended to fill the needs and desires of local ras appear. While the Punic material, such as a consumers. External supplies are rarely en- fragment of a Maña G amphora (fig. 1d),34 re- countered. In certain areas (e.g., Mende and mains rare throughout the century, a wider Chios) there is a slight rise in production and range of Italian amphora fabrics and forms movement beyond regional circulation. On appears in the last decades. Campanian and the whole the system of overlapping regional Adriatic fabrics both appear as well as other economies seems very self-contained. fabrics whose origin I cannot place (fig. 1e-f).35

Fourth Century

The fourth century can be dealt with briefly. There are no western imports from fourth-century contexts in Athens, and they 25 E. Pemberton pers. comm. regarding a late 4th-century BC are nearly absent from the Aegean. The deposit at Corinth. 26 Ephesos (LAWALL (in press) b; Samos (ISLER 1978); unsurprising exception is Corinth, where Halikarnassos (VAAG et al. 2002). MGS II jars continue to appear.25 27 For the emergence of stamping at Thasos, see GARLAN 1999; Akanthos: GARLAN 1997; Ainos: KARADEMA 2004; and Samothrace: Amphora circulation within the Aegean ba- KARADEMA -MATSAS 1994. sin sees one major change. The earlier regional- 28 GARLAN 1999 discusses this orientation of Thasian production towards the Black Sea. Thasian amphoras are then found as ism breaks down with a strong presence of far west as modern Skopje (from Izar Marvichni, see SURBANOSKA northern Aegean amphoras found now in the 1981-1982), but very rarely in the Adriatic zone per se. The exception are a few examples (excluding misidentified pieces) at Taranto, 26 south. The widely distributed northern am- but these tend to date to the third century; see DESY 1993, 249, note phoras, such as those of Mende, Akanthos, 58; the only apparent Thasian stamps in the early publications are VIOLA 1884, nr. 26 Aisch[rion]; VIOLA 1885, nr. 140 seems to be the Thasos, Samothrace, and Ainos, adopt or con- same as the stamp published in 1884, nr. 141 with NA retrograde as tinue to use marking systems in this period.27 part of a longer name could be Thasian, nr. 143 Aristokles. 29 R OBINSON 1950; BLONDÉ et al. 1990; GRANDJEAN 1992; PEIRCE Much of this northern material is then found in 2001. the Black Sea region,28 but it is also surprisingly 30 MANO 1971; CEKA 1986; BERETI 1992; MORTER - LEONARD 1998; TONIOLO 2000; and for comments on amphora production in this common in the south. In the north Aegean, per area from the 4 th century and later, see D ESY 1988; DESY - DE PAEPE se, southern amphora types remain less com- 1990; ANDREOU 1990; JÖHRENS 1999, nrs. 22 and 23. 31 For the overall scarcity, see for example Tarquinia (SERRA 29 mon. The Adriatic zone continues quite RIDGWAY 1996 and VANONI 1996); Lilybaeum (BECHTOLD 1999); Lipari strongly, indeed more exclusively, in the 4th cen- (CAVALIER 1985; CAMPAGNA 2000); for El Sec, see ARRIBAS et al. 1987 and CERDÁ 1989; cf. the 4th-century Tour-Fondue wreck (JONCHERAY 30 tury. Even further to the west, Aegean imports 1989 b) with little if any Aegean amphora material. seem to decline significantly; the El Sec ship- 32 On southern Aegean production in the 4th century, see Erythrai: J ÖHRENS 1999, 169-170; Kos: KANTZIA 1994; Knidos area: 31 wreck is an exception to this trend. TUNA et al. 1991; and EMPEREUR 1988; Samos: GRACE 1971; The relative dependence on external sup- Klazomenai: D OGˇER 1986. 33 COOK 1961; STARR 1976 and STARR 1977; BRIANT 1981 and plies in the southern Aegean rose, while local BRIANT 1986; LAWALL 2002 and LAWALL (in press) b Classical production there remained largely constant.32 Ephesos; for the changing fortunes for neighboring Lycia, see CHILDS 1981. Southern consumer needs or desires were pre- 34 For frequent parallels for this example, see RIBERA LACOMBA sumably exceeding local production hence the 1982, figs. 11.2, 14.4, 15.2 and 23.1. 35 My own rudimentary knowledge of western Mediterranean possibility for higher level of external supply. fabrics owes much to advice from Tamás Bezeczky and to all too Bearing in mind that the 4th century saw the brief conversations with Paul Reynolds and Roald Docter. The third-century Greco-Italic material from Athens is rarely stamped th gradual rise of Asia Minor out of its 5 -cen- and has drawn little attention.

269 Consuming the West in the East: Amphoras of the western Mediterranean in the Aegean before 86 BC

Alongside types identifiable with the Sanguinaires A, wreck with more than 50 western Mediterranean, there are also some Rhodian amphoras as opposed to roughly 40 amphoras of unknown origin whose fabrics Greco-Italic jars, is an exception43). and forms seem foreign to the Aegean. The With rising scales of production through- most striking of these shows a thick, everted out the southern Aegean in the 3rd century, rim and widely flaring neck (fig. 1g-h). The the earlier imbalance between, on the one fabric is quite pale and very coarse.36 side, local production and circulation and, The late 3rd-century arrival of a wider on the other, consumer needs or desires is range of Italian imports to Athens is preceded now corrected. The late 3rd-century changes by a similar phenomenon at Eretria, Kea and in Athens may indicate that earlier methods southern Attica in the 260s, all from contexts of consumption tapping into various differ- that can be associated with the ent regional circuits were no longer meeting Chremonidean war.37 John Lund has noted perceived needs. The more intensive imports this Ptolemaic connection in the 3rd-century from the south Aegean and moderately appearance of Greco-Italic amphoras in the greater attention to the Adriatic region pro- east and the coincidence deserves more at- vided a correction. tention. Not surprisingly, they are also common at Isthmia near Corinth.38 At Ephesos there are rare third-century Greco-Italic pieces.39 Production and circulation of amphoras in the Aegean, for much of the 3rd century, reverts to narrow regionalism. Amphoras 36 The type Sala I from Morocco may be similar, see IZQUIERDO PERAILE et al. 2001, fig. 3. from the area near Chios are found in both 37 LUND (LUND 2000, 79-80) notes the connection between these North and South, but further, consistent early Italian imports and areas under Ptolemaic control. Eretria: SCHMID 2000, nr. 70; Kea: unpublished examples from near Agia crossover is rare apart from the widely cir- Irini (?) and from the Ptolemaic campsite at Koressia; Koroni: culating and often published Rhodian am- VANDERPOOL et al. 1962; for other sites in Attica, see VAROUCHA - 40 CHRISTODOULOPOULOU 1961 and LOHMANN 1993. WILL 1982, 343 men- phoras. Aegean amphora producers re- tions unpublished examples from Karystos, Gythion and Athens. quired increased administration of their pro- 38 ANDERSON -STOJANOVIÇ 1996, 88-89, nrs. 32 and 40 publishes rd one but refers to five Greco-Italic jars in total from the deposit. duction through the 3 century, and a much 39 Do not believe everything you read or hear about Greco- wider range of amphora stamping emerges.41 Italic amphoras in the Aegean: many are simply from the south Aegean. Corinth: ZIMMERMAN-MUNN 1983, at least two of the three Against this backdrop of intensified she publishes are simply southern Aegean. Kenchreai: the pub- Aegean production and distribution, Athens lished piece (ADAMSHECK 1979, 41, nr. Gr 119, pl. 9) is likely south- rd ern Aegean to judge from the form of the rim and the smoothly is strikingly desolate. Few 3 -century types rounded shoulder. The Ephesian examples were found in the ex- are found with any frequency. Then very late cavations of the Tetragonos Agora. 40 Sites showing this regional divide include: Troy, LAWALL 1999 in the century, there is a striking shift towards b; Ephesos, GASSNER 1997; Samos, ISLER 1978; Thera, KOSE 1997 (note imports from Rhodes and, to a lesser extent, that much of the material identified here as Italic appears to be from southern Ionia or Caria); Metropolis, CANKARDAS -S‚ENOL 2001; Kos and Knidos. Kaunos, B ADER 1993. As seemed to be the case in the 5th cen- 41 Producers who arise on a noticeable scale eventually adopt- rd th rd ing stamping practices in the 3 century, or expanding on late 4 - tury, the sparse western 3 -century imports century practices, include the region of Ephesos (GASSNER 1997; found in the Aegean could have moved east LAWALL 2004); the region of Knidos (starting in the late 4th century, see E MPEREUR et al. 1999; DOGˇER 1994; MONAKHOV 2003, 101- as ‘leftovers’ from the Adriatic zone. Such a 110); the Troad (LAWALL 1999 b; PANAS - PONTES 1998); the process could explain the greater presence “Parmeniskos group” begins early in the 3rd century (AKAMATIS 2000) is now more likery from near Mende, not Pella, due to dis- of what appear to be Adriatic fabrics and the coveries announced in 2005. relative scarcity of Campanian fabrics in the 42 For the scarcity of 3rd-century Aegean imports in the west, including but not limited to the ‘Adriatic zone’, see DE LUCA DE Aegean region, and the concurrent rarity of MARCO 1979; R IAZA 1982; H IDRI 1986; P AOLI - P ARINI 1988; ARTHUR 42 Aegean amphoras in the west. Few west- 1990; BERETI 1992; LAHI 1993; VREKA 1993; BOSS 1993; VANONI 1996; SERRA-RIDGWAY 1996; STARAC 1998; BECHTOLD 1999; KATIC 1999-2000; ern sites, whether on land or underwater, CAMPAGNA 2000; for the Lazaret shipwreck see DE NICHOLAS 1973. show a significant Aegean presence (the 43 ALFONSI - GANDOLFO 1997.

270 Mark L. Lawall

Fig. 1 - Late 6th – 3 rd century western imports to Athens: a. Etruscan rim (P34483, drawing by A. Hooten); b. Punic rim (Deposit G6:3, context pottery); c. South Italian (G6:3, context pottery); d. Punic rim (Deposit H16:7, closed ca. 275, context pottery); e. Campanian fabric (Deposit N10:2, closed late 3rd century, context pottery); f. Adriatic fabric (?) Greco-Italic (N10:2, context pottery); g. unidentified rim (N10:2, context pottery); h. same fabric as previous (deposit B20:2 closed early 2nd century, P33314).

271 Consuming the West in the East: Amphoras of the western Mediterranean in the Aegean before 86 BC

Second century to 86 BC On the other hand, western material is rare at Rome’s purported mother city, Troy.49 At The western presence in Athens undeni- Ephesos, Italian material is also sparse until ably increases through the second century.44 very late in the 2nd century. Then, in the early The same combination of Campanian, Adri- 1st century, western material becomes notice- atic, and likely other Italian fabrics continues ably more common.50 from the late third century (Campanian fab- As noted already, the late third-century rics are quite rare). Lamboglia 2 amphoras in rise of western imports in the Aegean coin- particular can be very common in certain de- cides with the start of significant Rhodian, posits near or just after the time of the Sullan Koan and Knidian imports to Athens. sack (fig. 2c-d). Punic Maña C2 amphoras are Carolyn Koehler and colleagues have noted nearly as common as the Italian types particu- that fluctuations in Knidian production seem larly if one considers only standard fill depos- to be well matched by fluctuations in the its (i.e., not where robust Italian amphoras are Knidian presence in Athens thereby indicat- the construction material) (fig. 2a-b).45 This ing the intensity of that shipping.51 The pat- coexistence of Punic and Italian amphoras, un- tern continued throughout the 2nd century derestimated – if even mentioned – in previ- despite increased western imports. ous studies, problematizes the equation between Italian amphoras and Roman economi- cally-driven foreign policy or Roman economic ‘protectionism’. 44 This material has been presented by WILL 1997. Various types remain unidentified. First 45 For the Punic jars of this period in Athens, see GRACE 1956 is likely a North African type with a tall up- and WOLFF 2004; and G. D ONTAS in ADeltion, Chronika 1969, pl. 33 (Lamboglia 2 and Punic tubular jars); and idem, in ADeltion right rim around a wide mouth (fig. 2c). Chronika 1971 pl. 40 (Lamboglia 2). Most Lamboglia 2 amphoras While likely a ‘tubular’, shoulderless am- from the Athenian Agora survive by their use as packing behind a well-shaft (M18:1). Since Aegean and Punic jars lack such thick phora – I have note seen any fragments with walls, they are under-represented in such deposits. Another ma- a trace of the beginnings of a shoulder – it is jor well deposit for Italian amphoras in Athens comes from the National Gardens excavations, well 3, see PARLAMA - STAMPOLIDIS distinguished for its very sharply distinctive 2000, p. 143, cat. Nr. 125. lip around the top edge of the rim and the 46 For Delos, in addition to the very comprehensive bibliogra- phies provided in recent studies, see LE DINAHET -COUILLARD 1997. fabric closely resembling later Tripolitanian Beyond Delos, see late 2nd or early 1st century material from Pella, types. A second unknown group includes a AKAMATIS 1998, 35 and fig. 12. A series of tubular Punic amphoras was found arranged around a tomb near Ierissos (I thank Eleni series of very carefully modeled, tapering Trakosopoulou for this information). Another tubular amphora toes, with a quite fine, almost Rhodian-like top is published from Thera (KOSE 1997, fig. 38, nr. 229). Stobi offers an interesting case of a site which straddles the Adriatic fabric (fig. 2g). And third is an everted rim and northern Aegean zones (the overland route is easier from the in smooth brown fabric with streaks of dark east than from the west – I thank Carolyn Snively for this information), hence there are plentiful western amphora types, but grey (fig. 2f). Aegean types are also plentiful (see ANDERSON -STOJANOVIÇ 1992). For the second century outside Athens, 47 ROMANO 1994. 48 S IMOSSI 1995; An earlier second century wreck at Preveza too, the material becomes more plentiful and not far from Actium included only Greco-Italic amphoras (PARKER is well known.46 Note that at Corinth, from 1992, nr. 904). Rauh also refers to a wreck of Lamboglia 2 amphoras near Thasos (PARKER 1992, nr. 1147). I am unable to find any Romano’s ‘interim period’ deposit, the early reference to excavation or survey reports concerning this wreck. versions of Lamboglia 2 amphoras outnum- 49 Italian and Punic fragments appear only in the latest Hel- lenistic contexts before the sack of the city in 85 BC; even then ber the Aegean amphoras as fits the long- they are not common. That western Mediterranean amphoras – term importance of the Adriatic zone.47 A few Punic and Italian – passed by Ilion is clear from finds of Maña C, nd Campanian, and early Lamboglia 2 examples at Olbia (LEIPUNSKAYA points of evidence may be added. Late 2 or 1995, pl. 11; there are in fact far more Italian and Punic fragments st early 1 century wrecks near Siphnos and at Olbia than those published so far; LEIPUNSKAYA 1999). 50 LAWALL (in press) a; Bezeczky (BEZECZKY 2004 and this vol- Thasos, with cargoes of Lamboglia 2 ampho- ume) notes the relative scarcity of western amphoras in 1st-cen- ras and only a few Aegean fragments, pro- tury and later contexts; however, many of the contexts he uses as points of reference are heavily mixed with residual earlier Aegean vide rare evidence for full shipments of west- Hellenistic material. 48 51 ern amphoras reaching the central Aegean. KOEHLER - MATHESON 1990.

272 Mark L. Lawall

Fig. 2 - 2nd – early 1st century western imports to Athens: a. Punic rim (M20:1, Sullan sack, context pottery); b. Punic toe (Middle Stoa Building Fill, disturbed area, context pottery container K146, mid 2nd century); c. Lamboglia 2 rim (M20:1, context pottery); d. Lamboglia 2 toe (M20:1, context pottery); e. Tripolitanian? rim (Middle Stoa Building Fill, disturbed area, context pottery container K146, mid 2nd century); f. unknown rim type (Middle Stoa Building Fill, disturbed area, context pottery container K146, mid 2nd century); g. unknown toe type (Middle Stoa Building Fill, disturbed area, context pottery container K145, mid 2nd century).

273 Consuming the West in the East: Amphoras of the western Mediterranean in the Aegean before 86 BC

Elsewhere in the Aegean, various regions later in the 2nd century or even very early in increase or maintain high levels of organiza- the 1st century. Western imports are never tion in their local amphora production while very common in the northern, especially not still drawing in plenty of regional imports.52 the northeastern, Aegean. The northeastern Despite these increases in western imports Aegean, which was increasingly open to in the Aegean, the West shows a decline in southern imports through the Hellenistic Aegean imports especially late in the 2nd cen- period, generally maintained some degree of tury.53 While the old Adriatic zone is likely local production. Throughout the late Ar- still responsible for some western goods in chaic through Hellenistic periods, a clearly the Aegean, the Siphnos and Thasos wrecks defined region of amphora production and indicate that we are not simply seeing the circulation existed linking Corinth, at its east- leftovers entering the Aegean. Presumably, ern-most point, with the eastern and west- too, the Adriatic-to-Corinth entry-point for ern coasts of the Adriatic and Ionian Seas. western goods lost its attractiveness to traders once Corinth was sacked in 146 BC.54

Consuming the West: Elasticity of Aegean Markets? 52 For the development of amphora production and marking at Ephesos, see GASSNER 1997 and LAWALL 2004; for production sites at Halikarnassos especially active in the 2nd century, see BERG- The foregoing survey may be summarized BRIESE 2004 and BERG-BRIESE 2005; for developing marking systems as follows. Fairly discrete, closed zones of cir- in the region of the Troad, and extending north into eastern Thrace, see PANAS - PONTES 1998 and LAWALL 1999 b. For the continued culation characterize the north and south importance of regional circulation, see the 2nd century material th th from Metropolis published by CANKARDAS-S‚ENOL 2001. Publications Aegean in the late 6 and 5 centuries, while exclusively of stamped material in this period tends to over em- Athens appears to be a quite open system phasize southern presence in the north since most of the north- drawing imports from both directions. In the ern region types were not being stamped (or not with such con- sistency) in this period, see BÖRKER - BUROW 1998; KRAMER 1993. 4th century, the scale of production in the This impression of continuing agricultural prosperity from the north increases with at least some of the ad- evidence of the amphoras may be somewhat at odds with Susan Alcock’s observations (A LCOCK 1994, 177-179) for the mainland in ditional surplus being consumed in the more particular on the basis of field survey evidence. 53 The drop in Aegean presence in the west, which had never ‘open’ southern Aegean. Athens continues as been especially significant, is clear in the Rhodian stamp graphs a more open system. Scale of production as presented by ETIENNE 1990 and LUND 1993. While Aegean material does appear in early 2nd-century shipwrecks (e.g., Grand well as some degree of openness (i.e., imports Congloué A and Lazaret), it is nearly absent from the much greater from the north) continues in the southern number of published wrecks dating to the late 2nd and early 1st rd centuries (e.g., Saturo B wreck, Apollonia B, and La Chrétienne Aegean until the latter half of the 3 century, C; for these and the many more later Hellenistic wrecks without by which time southern production complex- any Aegean amphoras, see PARKER 1992, passim.; and see for specific examples JONCHERAY 1989 a; LONG 1988; and LONG - XIMÉNÉS ity seems quite high, and there is less indica- 1988). The region of Apulia sees somewhat more later-Hellenis- tion of more distant imports. Indeed south- tic, Aegean material than elsewhere (VOLPE 1990 and VOLPE 1995). ern Aegean exports comprise an increasingly In the Adriatic zone, the scarcity of Aegean imports is illustrated by TONIOLO 2000, fig. 420 as the only Rhodian and only Hellenis- large portion of amphora finds particularly tic Aegean jar he publishes (his fig. 421 is probably from the 4th c. in Athens but also in the north Aegean over BC); RIAZA 1982; LAHI 1992; LAHI 1993; MIHOVILICˇ 1984-1985; H IDRI 1986; And further to the west, see BERTUCCHI - MARANGOU 1989; rd nd the late 3 through the 2 centuries. The BOSS 1993; CAMPAGNA 2000. MCCANN - WILL 1987, MC 1 is the only published Aegean fragment, with the suggestion of Knidian ori- dominant presence of southern amphoras in gin; and this scarcity at Cosa can be compared with the numer- Athens at this time might give the impres- ous western jars published by CARANDINI - RICCI 1985; W ILL 1987; CAMPUS 1994; SANCIU 1997; GIANNATTASIO 2000, pl. 7. The somewhat sion of an increasingly closed Athenian im- later House of the Porch assemblage at Ostia (third quarter 1st port economy were it not for the concurrent century BC) continues to show the scarcity of Aegean imports (BOERSMA et al. 1986, nrs. 36 and 68, but the latter is not Knidian increase in imports from the western Medi- and not even definitely Aegean). terranean. Significant increases in western 54 For Corinth’s after-life after 146, see GEBHARD - DICKIE 2003 amphora imports to the southeastern with references to the vast earlier bibliography on this topic; for some implications of this after-life for amphora studies, see LAWALL Aegean, however, do not appear until much 2004.

274 Mark L. Lawall

This zone (apart from Corinth itself – some- ciers, and merchants presumably benefited thing of a transitional area) showed relatively from a generally advantageous political situ- little interest in more eastern trading circuits ation (especially in terms of Rhodian mari- until late in the 3rd century. By the time a time policies55), and the resulting wealth fed greater amount of western material begins an ever-increasing sense of local prosperity. to appear in the Aegean late in the 2nd cen- Over the second half of the 2nd century (and tury, this Adriatic zone seems to be more perhaps starting even earlier), however, the closed again to imports from the East. extra-Aegean markets began to lose interest The pattern of reception of western am- in southern Aegean goods. While Rhodian phoras in the Aegean basin can be simpli- production dropped somewhat from its ca. fied even further. First, Athens is a site out- 200 BC peak, there was neither a sharp de- side (but admittedly close to) the ‘Adriatic cline in Rhodian production over the subse- zone’ that always showed a quite open and quent decades of the 2nd century nor any in- elastic economy, and this is the site of rela- dication from other southern Aegean produc- tively early, if sporadic presence of western ers of a drop in scale or organization of pro- imports. Second, the southeastern Aegean duction. Therefore, production levels do not shows signs of stable and often increasing appear to have declined to take account of amphora production through the 3rd and 2nd the drop in western markets’ imports of centuries, but only takes in western imports southern Aegean goods. The very late 2nd to any significant degree very late in the century addition of western merchants and Hellenistic period. And finally, the north their amphoras into this southern Aegean Aegean, which often seems quite self-suffi- context is understandable in terms of the lo- cient, though increasingly open to southern cal perception of prosperity – a perception imports in the Hellenistic period, showed lit- that should have been increasingly far from tle indication of significant western imports. reality given the continued levels of production but the reduction in external markets.56 Rapid systemic collapse: the southeastern Aegean The western merchants and their goods also added two new elements to the southern Of these three regions with differing rela- Aegean: 1) the longstanding lack of interest tionships to amphoras of the western Medi- in external imports was challenged, and 2) terranean, the southern Aegean seems least an increasingly large segment of the shipping likely from its particular economic context community was no longer ‘local’ in terms of or situation to need or want Italian imports. where its resulting wealth might be in- And yet the history of amphora-borne com- vested.57 Against the backdrop sketched here merce involving this region can highlight important factors for considering the impact of western amphoras and merchants on the East. In the southern Aegean the high levels, perhaps even increasing levels, of local pro- 55 GABRIELSEN 1997. 56 duction required consumers. Especially in The relatively late attestation of Italians in large numbers in Aegean regions is discussed in various papers in MÜLLER - rd st nd the later 3 and 1 half of the 2 centuries, HASENOHR 2002, e.g., FOLLET 2002, MÜLLER 2002, and R IZAKIS 2002. These authors also note that not all the Italians were in the region Aegean markets such as Athens and various for commercial purposes. extra-Aegean markets including the western 57 Similar comments on the economic impact of ‘foreign’ merchants appear in REGER 1994 and SALLER 2002, 263; by contrast note Mediterranean provided these consumers. the importance of local merchant and local ‘associations’ for Hence, even though southern Aegean am- Rhodes (GABRIELSEN 2001). See too HOPKINS 1980 and HOPKINS 1995- 1996, though Hopkins’ model includes wealth necessarily work- phora (agricultural) production was likely ing its way back to the peripheral regions in order to provide the outstripping local consumer demand, the money needed for payments of rents and taxes. Before the establishment of extensive Italian ownership of land in the Aegean extensive export activity prevented any lo- basin coupled with the establishment of tax systems, Hopkins’ cal over-supply. The local producers, finan- catalysts for economic development seem more likely to be detri-

275 Consuming the West in the East: Amphoras of the western Mediterranean in the Aegean before 86 BC

– a false sense of prosperity, overproduction, tion itself was sufficiently ingrained that new imported goods, and new merchants Athenians thought they could absorb both with their own, non-local interests – a fairly the goods offered from the southern Aegean rapid local systemic collapse after the appear- (as had become the norm) and the increas- ance of western amphoras in the south ing quantities of new supplies offered by the Aegean begins to seem inevitable. Italian pro- western Mediterranean. duction had increased at unforeseeable lev- The fairly open and elastic system just de- els thanks to unprecedented revenues of cash scribed for Athens may be summarized as and slaves; Italian physical presence in the follows. Perceived ability to consume (i.e., East could extract revenues from Aegean prosperity) rose and then stayed above local shipping also at unprecedented levels. And and regional supplies allowing an increas- yet, initial increases in Aegean consumer ing amount of western imports. Eventually perceptions allowed the western trade to the supply exceeded inflated perceptions, arise in the first place. Early in the 1st cen- and the perceived ability to consume tury, the bubble burst. The massacres of 88 dropped. In comparison with the southern BC are surely related.58 Aegean, there is a relatively longer lag-time between arrival of the new goods and the col- More elastic system: Athens lapse in Athens. In the southern Aegean zone, in a less elastic system, the collapse happened Athens seems to have absorbed more very soon after the supply had exceeded the western goods, for perhaps a longer period real limit of the region’s consumption. Reac- in the later 2nd century, than was the case in tions to new sources of imports clearly var- the southern Aegean. Just as the relative de- ied among the different economic zones that gree of openness to external supplies (or lack comprised the Aegean. of openness) seemed relevant to the south- The dominant approach in the study of ern Aegean difficulties with western imports, Italians and the Aegean economy has been so too Athenian long-term openness pro- to count Italian jars and decide whether the vides an important context for interpreting the more positive reception of western goods in late 2nd century Athens. Since the Athenian economy had worked with non-local merchants for many centuries (drawing goods from the north and south Aegean regions in mental to local economies. Rauh (RAUH 1999, 172) cites evidence for Italian land ownership on Chios by 88 BC and the possibility the Archaic and Classical periods, and from of tithe payments by Asian cities by 123 BC, but these points alone the south in the later Hellenistic period),59 the do not securely demonstrate that Hopkins’ proposed system had begun operating by that point. BRESSON 2002 argues that Italian fact that increasing numbers of these outsid- involvement in trade between Kaunos and the interior displaced ers were from the western Mediterranean local merchants with negative consequences. 60 58 While some concern was expressed (by S. Alcock) that might have made little difference. Even changes in the archaeological record not be too quickly or sim- though it is impossible to study Athenian plistically associated with historical events, the violent attacks on Italians purportedly at the encouragement of Mithradates VI amphora production in this period (lacking are difficult to disassociate from some growing unease with Ital- any evidence for Athenian amphora produc- ians in the Aegean. Whether that unease had economic roots then tion after ca. 480 or 450 BC), Athens, like the becomes the issue. In favor, see BRESSON 2002 and FERRARY 2002; and see more generally KALLET -MARX 1995, 153-158 on the massa- southern Aegean, seems to have experienced cre. a high level of perceived prosperity through 59 On the importance of foreigners in Athenian banking (and hence commerce more generally), see COHEN 1992 and SHIPTON the 2nd century. This perception in the case of 1997. 60 On Italians in Athens, see FOLLET 2002. Athens is manifest in the dramatic increase 61 Construction projects in this period include four Hellenis- in building projects in the city after the strik- tic stoas (Stoa of Eumenes, Stoa of Attalos, Middle Stoa, South rd Stoa II), the new Metroon, work on the Temple of Olympian Zeus, ing drought of such activity in the 3 cen- and – perhaps only a minor ornament but such trivialities could tury.61 Regardless of its accuracy, the percep- now draw Athenian attention – the Tower of the Winds.

276 Mark L. Lawall numbers are sufficient to pronounce the ex- ALFONSI – GANDOLFO 1997 istence of a “Romanized” Aegean economy.62 H. ALFONSI – P. GANDOLFO, L’épave Sanguinaires A, in CahASubaqu, 13, 1997, 35-74. If the numbers do not seem sufficient, other manifestations of Romanization might be ANDERSON 1954 sought. This paper has taken a different ap- J. ANDERSON, Excavations on the Kofiná Ridge, Chios, in proach first documenting patterns of produc- ABSA, 49, 1954, 123-172. tion, distribution and consumption preced- ANDERSON-STOJANOVIÇ 1992 ing the period of greater Italian presence in V. ANDERSON-STOJANOVIÇ, The Hellenistic and Roman Pot- the Aegean and then considering different tery, Stobi I, Princeton 1992. local reactions to the Italian presence. A further step towards understanding the effects ANDERSON-STOJANOVIÇ 1996 of the greater Italian presence in the late Hel- V. ANDERSON-STOJANOVIÇ, The University of Chicago excavations in the Rachi settlement at Isthmia, 1989, in lenistic Aegean would be to continue the Hesperia, 69, 1996, 57-98. present study further into the 1st century BC and the early Empire while maintaining at- ANDREAU 1995 tention to both western imports (a common J. ANDREAU, Vingt ans d’après L’économie antique de enough approach) and Aegean amphora pro- Moses I. Finley, in AnnHistScSoc50, 1995, 947-960. duction, distribution and consumption in ANDREOU 1990 this period (a largely ignored problem). In I. ANDREOU, Ellhnistikø keramikø Leukßdoj, in short, the innovation in Roman pottery stud- B’ Episthmonikø sunßnthsh giß thn ies offered here is to study non-Roman and ellhnistikø keramikø. Praktikß, R’doj 1989, ‘pre-Roman’ pottery in combination with Athens 1990, 54-57. Roman pottery. ARRIBAS et al. 1987 A. A RRIBAS – G. TRIAS – D. CERDÁ – J. DE LA H OZ, El Barco de el Sec (Calvià, Mallorca). Estudio de los materi- Bibliography als, Mallorca 1987.

ADAMSHECK 1979 ARTHUR 1990 B. ADAMSHECK, Kenchreai: Eastern port of Corinth, vol. P. ARTHUR, Amphorae, in M. GUALTIERI – H. FRACCHIA IV. The Pottery, Leiden 1979. (eds.), Roccagloriosa I. L’abitato: Scavo e ricognizione topografia (1976-1986), Napoli 1990, 278-289. AKAMATIS 1998 I. AKAMATIS, Prwte›ousa Maked’nwn Pûlla. BADER 1993 Emp’rio krasio›, in Ampelooinikø istoràa sto H.-D. BADER, Mengenanalyse der hellenistischen Keramik cÎro thj Makedonàaj kai thj Qrßkhj, Athens der sog. Tempelterrasse, Kaunos, Südwest-Türkei, Ph.D. 1998, 31-45. dissertation Philipps-Universität, Marburg 1993.

AKAMATIS 2000 BARRA BAGNASCO 1992 I. AKAMATIS, Ensfßgistej labûj amforûwn apo thn M. BARRA BAGNASCO, Le anfore, in M. BARRA BAGNASCO, Agorß thj Pûllaj. Anaskafø 1980-1987. Oi omßdej Locri Epizefiri IV. Lo scavo di Marasà sud. Il sacello tardo Parmenàskou kai R’dou, Athens 2000. arcaico e la ‘casa di Leoni’, Firenze 1992, 205-240.

ALBANESE PROCELLI 2003 BAUSLAUGH 1979 R. M. ALBANESE PROCELLI, Anfore commerciali dal centro R. BAUSLAUGH , The posthumous Alexander coinage of indigeni della montagna di Ramacca (Catania), in G. Chios, in American Numismatic Society Museum Notes FIORENTINI – M. CALTABIANO – A. CALDERONE (eds.), 24, 1979, 1-45. Archeologia del Mediterraneo. Studi in onore di Ernesto De Miro, Roma 2003, 37-50.

ALCOCK 1994 62 S. ALCOCK, Breaking up the Hellenistic world: survey and I use the term ‘Romanized’ only because that is the paradigm within which the debate has proceeded until very recently society, in I. MORRIS (ed.), Classical Greece: Ancient His- (as most explicitly stated in WILL 1997). I have attempted in this tories and modern archaeologies, Cambridge 1994, 171- paper to avoid both this terminology and its methodological im- 190. plications.

277 Consuming the West in the East: Amphoras of the western Mediterranean in the Aegean before 86 BC

BECHTOLD 1999 in M. CRISTOFANI – P. MOSCATI – G. NARDI – M. B. BECHTOLD, La necropolis di Lilybaeum, Rome 1999. PANDOLFINI (edd.), Il commercio etrusco arcaico, Atti dell’incontro di studio 5-7 dicembre 1983, Rome 1985, BERETI 1992 23-26. V. BERETI, Amfora transporti te zbuluara ne vendbanimin e Treportit, in Iliria, 22, 1992, 129-147. BOSS 1993 M. BOSS, Die Transportamphoren, in M. CRISTOFANI (ed.), BERG-BRIESE 2004 Caere 3.2. Lo scarico arcaico della vigna parrocchiale, parte M. BERG-BRIESE, Hellenistic and early Roman pottery from II, Rome 1993, 319-349. Halikarnassos, in S. ISAGER – P. PEDERSEN (eds.), The Salmakis inscription and Hellenistic Halikarnassos. BRESSON 2002 Halikarnassian Studies 4, Odense 2004, 177-189. A. BRESSON, Italiens et Romains à Rhodes et à Caunos, in CHR. MÜLLER – C. HASENOHR (eds.), Les Italiens dans le e er BERG-BRIESE 2005 Monde Grec. II s. av. J-C – I s. ap. J-C. Circulation, M. BERG-BRIESE, Halikarnassian wine-production? The activités, integration. BCH Supplement 41, Paris 2002, evidence from two households, in M. BERG BRIESE – L. E. 147-162. VAAG (eds), Trade Relations in the Eastern Mediterranean from Late Hellenistic Period to Late Antiquity: the Ceramic BRIANT 1981 Evidence. Ph. D.-seminar for young scholars, Sandbjerg, P. BRIANT, Appareils d’état et developpement des forces Manorhouse (Denmark), 12-15 February 1998. productives au Moyen-Orient ancien: Le cas de l’empire Halicarnassian Studies 3, Odense 2005, 184-201. achéménide, in La Pensée 217-218, 1981, 9-23.

BERTUCCHI – MARANGOU 1989 BRIANT 1986 G. BERTUCCHI – A. MARANGOU, Le remblai hellénistique P. BRIANT, Guerre, tribut et forces productives dans l’empire de la Bourse à Marseille. Résultats d’un sondage, in achéménide, in DialHistAnc, 12, 1986, 33-48. RANarb, 22, 1989, 47-87. CAMPAGNA 2000 BEZECZKY 2004 L. CAMPAGNA, Le anfore della necropolis in contrada T. BEZECZKY, Early Roman food import in Ephesus: Am- Portinenti (proprietà Leone), in L. BERNABÒ BREA – M. phorae from the Tetragonos Agora, in J. EIRING – J. LUND CAVALIER (edd.), Scoperte e scavi archeologici nell’area (eds.), Transport Amphorae and Trade in the Eastern urbana e suburbana di Lipari, Rome 2000, 443-482. Mediterranean, Acts of the International Colloquium at the Danish Institute at Athens, September 26-29, 2002. CAMPBELL 1938 Monographs of the Danish Institute at Athens, Volume M. T. CAMPBELL, A well of the black-figure period at Cor- 5, Aarhus 2004, 85-97. inth, in Hesperia 7, 1938, 557-611.

BLONDÉ – MÜLLER – MULLIEZ 1991 CAMPUS 1994 F. BLONDÉ – A. MÜLLER – D. MULLIEZ, Le comblement A. CAMPUS, Padria I, Rome 1994. d’un puits public à Thasos 5. Le materiel amphorique, in BCH 115, 1991, 213-242. CANKARDAS S‚ENOL 2001 G. CANKARDAS S‚ENOL, Metropolis’den hellenistik döneme BOARDMAN 1967 ait bir grup amphora mühürü, in Olbia, 4, 2001, 101-115. J. BOARDMAN, Excavations in Chios 1952-55: Greek Emporio. ABSA Supplement 6, Oxford 1967. CARANDINI – RICCI 1985 A. CARANDINI – A. RICCI, Settefinestre. Una villa BOERSMA – YNTEMA – VAN DER WERFF 1986 schiavistica nell’Etruria romana, vol. 3, Modena 1985. J. BOERSMA – D. YNTEMA – J. H. VAN DER WERFF, Excava- tions in the House of the Porch (V, II, 4-5) at Ostia, in CARTLEDGE 1998 BABesch 61, 1986, 77-137. P. CARTLEDGE, The economy (economies) of Ancient Greece, in Dialogos, 5, 1998, 4-24. BÖRKER – BUROW 1998 C. BÖRKER – J. BUROW, Die hellenistischen CAVALIER 1985 Amphorenstempel aus Pergamon. Pergamenische M. CAVALIER, Les amphores du VIe au IVe siècle dans les Forschungen 11, Berlin 1998. fouilles de Lipari. Cahiers des amphores archaïques et classiques 1, Naples 1985. BOITANI 1985 F. BOITANI , Cenni sulla distribuzione delle anfore da CEKA 1986 trasporto arcaiche nelle necropoli dell’Etruria meridionale, N. CEKA, Amfora antike nga Margëlliçi, in Iliria, 1986, 71-98.

278 Mark L. Lawall

CERDÁ 1989 commerciali greche in Campania tra l’VIII sec. e il 273 D. CERDÁ, El Sec: La ceramica atica de barniz negro y las a.c., in AION, 3, 1981, 1-14. anforas, in P. ROUILLARD – M.-C. VILLANUEVA-PUIG (eds.), Grecs et Ibères au IVe siècle av. J.C. Commerce et DI SANDRO 1986 iconographie (REA 89), Paris 1987 [1989], 51-92. N. DI S ANDRO, Le anfore arcaiche dallo Scarico Gosetti, Pithecusa, Cahiers des amphores archaïques et classiques CHILDS 1981 2, Naples 1986. W.A.P. CHILDS, Lycian relations with Persians and Greeks in the fifth and fourth centuries re-examined, in AnatSt, DOCTER 1995 31, 1981, 55-80. R. DOCTER, Anhang 3. Zwei Amphoren von Mende aus Raum E, in H. G. NEIMEYER – R.F. DOCTER – A. RINDELAUB, COHEN 1992 Die Grabung unter dem Decumanus Maximus von E.E. COHEN, Athenian economy and society, a banking Karthago. Zweiter Vorbericht, in RM 102, 1995, 499-502. perspective, Princeton 1992. DOGˇER 1986 E. DOGˇER, Prèmieres remarques sur les amphores de COLONNA 1985 Clazomènes, in J.-Y. EMPEREUR – Y. GARLAN (eds.), G. COLONNA, Anfore da trasporto arcaiche: Il contributo di Recherches sur les amphores grecque, BCH Supplement Pyrgi, in M. CRISTOFANI – P. MOSCATI – G. NARDI – M. 13, Athens 1986, 461-471. PANDOLFINI (eds.), Il commercio etrusco arcaico, Atti dell’incontro di studio 5-7 dicembre 1983, Rome 1985, 5-18. DOGˇER 1994 E. DOGˇER, Rodoslu çömlekçi Hieroteles, in ADerg, 2, 1994, COOK 1961 195-218. J. M. COOK, The problem of Classical Ionia, in ProcCambrPhilSoc, 7, 1961, 9-18. DUPONT 1999 P. DUPONT, Marques signaletiques avant-cuisson sur les CORBETT 1949 amphores ioniennes archaïques – circles et croix, in Pontica P. E. CORBETT, Attic Pottery of the Later Fifth Century from 32, 1999, 9-18. the Athenian Agora, in Hesperia 18, 1949, 298–351.

DUSENBERY 1998 DE LUCA DE MARCO 1979 E. B. DUSENBERY, Samothrace vol. 11, The Necropoleis, S. DE LUCA DE MARCO, Le anfore commerciali delle ne- Princeton 1998. cropolis di Spina, in MEFRA, 91, 1979, 571-600.

EISEMAN – RIDGWAY 1987 DE MARINIS 1999 C. J. EISEMAN – B. S. RIDGWAY. The Porticello Shipwreck: R. C. DE MARINIS, Anfore chiote dal Forcello di Bagnolo S. Vito A Mediterranean Merchant Vessel of 415-385 B.C., Col- (Mantova), in M. CASTOLDI (ed.), KOINA. Miscellanea di lege Station 1987. studi in onore di Piero Orlandini, Milan 1999, 255-278. EMPEREUR 1988 DE NICOLAS 1973 J.-Y. EMPEREUR, Producteurs d’amphores dans les ateliers J. C. DE NICOLAS, État actuel de l’archéologie sous-marine de Resadiye (péninsule de Datça), in Arastırma Sonucları a Minorque (Baléares), in CahASubaqu, 2, 1973, 167-174. Toplantısı, 6, 1988, 159-163.

DESY 1988 EMPEREUR – HESSE – TUNA 1999 P. DESY, Il dibattito, in Magna Grecia, Epiro, e Macedo- J.-Y. EMPEREUR – A. HESSE – N. TUNA , Les ateliers nia. Atti del ventiquattresimo Convegno di studi sulla d’amphores de Datça, péninsule de Cnide, in Y. GARLAN Magna Grecia, Taranto, Taranto 1988, 413-416. (ed.), Production et commerce des amphores anciennes en Mer Noire. Colloque international organisé à Istanbul, 25- DESY 1993 28 mai 1994, Aix-en-Provence 1999, 105-115. P. DESY, Recherches sur l’économie apulienne au IIe et au Ier siècle avant notre ère, Brussels 1993. ERSOY 1993 Y. E. ERSOY, Clazomenae: The Archaic Settlement (Ph.D. DESY – DEPAEPE 1990 diss. Bryn Mawr College), Ann Arbor 1993. P. DESY – P. DEPAEPE, Torre San Giovani (Ugento): les amphores commerciales hellénistiques et républicaines, in ETIENNE 1990 StAnt, 6, 1990, 187-234. R. ETIENNE, Ténos II. Ténos et les Cyclades du milieu du IV e siècle av. J.C. au milieu du IIIe siècle ap. J.C. DI SANDRO 1981 Bibliothèque des Écoles françaises d’Athènes et de Rome N. DI SANDRO, Appunti sulla distribuzione delle anfore 263 bis, Athens and Paris 1990.

279 Consuming the West in the East: Amphoras of the western Mediterranean in the Aegean before 86 BC

FERRARY 2002 GASSNER 2003 J.-L. FERRARY, La creation de la province d’Asie et la pres- V. GASSNER, Materielle Kultur und kulturelle Identität in ence italienne en Asie Mineure, in Chr. MÜLLER – Elea in spätarchaisch-frühklassischer Zeit. Untersuchungen HASENOHR (eds.), Les Italiens dans le Monde Grec. IIe s. zur Gefäß- und Baukeramik aus der Unterstadt (Grabungen av. J-C – Ier s. ap. J-C. Circulation, activités, integration. 1987-1994). Velia Studien 2, Wien 2003. BCH Supplement 41, Paris 2002, 133-146. GASSNER – SAUER 2002 FOLLET 2002 V. GASSNER – R. SAUER, Archaeometrical characterization S. FOLLET, Les Italiens à Athènes (IIe s. av. J.-C. – Ier s. ap. J- and provenance studies on pottery found at Velia (South- C), in Chr. MÜLLER – HASENOHR (eds.), Les Italiens dans le ern Italy), in E. JEREM – K.T. BIRÓ (eds.), Archaeometry Monde Grec. IIe s. av. J-C – Ier s. ap. J-C. Circulation, activités, 98, Proceedings of the 31st symposium Budapest, April 26 integration. BCH Supplement 41, Paris 2002, 79-88. – May 3 1998, vol. 2. BAR International series 1043, Oxford 2002, 547-554. FUKS 1968 A. FUKS, Slave war and slave troubles in Chios in the third GAUER 1975 century BC, in Athenaeum 46, 1968, 102-111. W. G AUER, Die Tongefasse aus dem Brunnen unterm Stadion-nordwall und im sud-ost Gebiet. Olympische FUNKE 1999 Forschungen 8, Berlin 1975. P. FUNKE, Peraia: Einige Überlegungen zum Festlandbesitz griechischer Inselstaaten, in V. GABRIELSEN – P. BILDE – T. GEBHARD – DICKIE 2003 ENGBERG-PEDERSEN – L. HANNESTAD – J. ZAHLE (eds.), E. GEBHARD – M.W. DICKIE, The view from the Isthmus,ca. Hellenistic Rhodes: Politics, culture, and society. Studies 200 to 44 BC, in C. K. WILLIAMS – N. BOOKIDIS (eds.), in Hellenistic Civilization 9, Aarhus 1999, 55-75. Corinth. The centenary 1896-1996. Corinth, results of excavations conducted by the American School of Classical GABRIELSEN 1997 Studies XX, Athens 2003, 261-278. V. GABRIELSEN, The naval aristocracy of hellenistic Rhodes. Studies in Hellenistic Civilization 6, Aarhus 1997. GIANNATTASIO 2000 B.M. GIANNATTASIO, L’area C di Nora. Ovvero uno spazio GABRIELSEN 2001 aperto, in C. TRONCHETTI (ed.), Richerche su Nora – I, V. GABRIELSEN, The Rhodian associations and economic Cagliari 2000, 77-84. activity, in Z. ARCHIBALD – J.K. DAVIES – V. GABRIELSEN – G. J. OLIVER (eds.), Hellenistic Economies, London and GIBBINS 2001 New York 2001, 215-244. D. GIBBINS, Shipwrecks and Hellenistic trade, in Z. ARCHIBALD – J. K. DAVIES – V. GABRIELSEN – G. J. OLIVER GARLAN 1997 (eds.), Hellenistic Economies, London and New York Y. GARLAN, Un nouveau centre de timbrage amphorique: 2001, 273-312. Ouranopolis, in To arcaiologik’ ûrgo sth Makedonàa kai Qrßkh 10A, 1996, Thessaloniki 1997, GILL 1987 347-351. D.W.J. GILL, The date of the Porticello shipwreck: some observations on the Attic Bolsals, in IntJNautA 16, 1987, 31-33. GARLAN 1999 Y. GARLAN, Les timbres amphoriques de Thasos. 1 Tim- GRACE 1953 bres protothasiens et thasiens anciens. Études Thasiennes V. R. GRACE, Wine Jars, in C. BOULTER, Pottery from the 18, Athens and Paris 1999. mid-fifth century from a well in the Athenian Agora, in Hesperia, 22, 1953, 101-110. GASSNER 1997 V. GASSNER, Das Südtor der Tetragonos-Agora: Keramik GRACE 1971 und Kleinfunde. Forschungen in Ephesos XIII 1/1, Wien V. R. GRACE, The Canaanite Jar, in S. S. WEINBERG (ed.), 1997. The Aegean and the Near East. Studies presented to Hetty Goldman on the occasion of her seventy-fifth birthday, GASSNER 1999 New York 1956, 80-109. V. GASSNER, Zur Chronologie der Lehmziegelhäuser in der Unterstadt von Velia, in F. KRINZINGER – G. TOCCO (eds.), GRACE 1971 Neue Forschungen in Velia. Akten des Kongresses “La V. R. GRACE, Samian amphoras, in Hesperia, 40, 1971, 52-95. ricerca archeologica a Velia,”, Wien 1999, 109-115. GRANDJEAN 1992 GASSNER 2000 Y. GRANDJEAN, Contribution à l’etablisement d’une typologie V. GASSNER, Produktionsstaätten westmediterraner Amphoren des amphores thasiennes, le material amphorique du quartier im 6. und 5. Jh. V. Chr., in Laverna, 11, 2000, 106-137. de la porte du Silene, in BCH ,116, 1992, 541-584.

280 Mark L. Lawall

GRUEN 1986 JONCHERAY 1989 b E. S. GRUEN, The Hellenistic World and the Coming of J.-P. JONCHERAY, L’épave grecque de la Tour-Fondue, in Rome, Berkeley 1986. CahASubaqu, 8, 1989, 135-148.

HIDRI 1968 KALLET MARX 1995 H. HIDRI, Nekropoli antik i Dyrrahut, in Iliria, 1986, 99-128. R. M. KALLET MARX, Hegemony to empire. The development of the Roman imperium in the East from 148 to 62 HOPKINS 1980 BC, Berkeley 1995. K. HOPKINS, Taxes and trade in the Roman Empire, 200 BC – AD 400, in JRS, 70, 1980, 101-125. KALLINTZI 1997 D. K ALLINTZI, Arcaiologikûj ûreunej sth Mßkrh HOPKINS 1995-1996 >Ebrou. Ektimøseij kai problømata. Mûroj B, in K. HOPKINS, Rome, taxes, rents, and trade, in Kodai 6/7, To arcaiologik’ ûrgo sth Makedonàa kai Qrßkh 1995-1996, 41-75. 10B, 1996, Thessaloniki 1997, 895-916.

HORDEN – PURCELL 2000 KANTZIA 1994 P. HORDEN – N. PURCELL, The Corrupting Sea. A study of Ch. KANTZIA, /Ena keramik’ ergastørio amforûwn Mediterranean history, Oxford 2000. tou prÎtou miso› tou 4ou ai. p.C. sthn Kw, in G/ episthmonikø sunßnthsh gia thn ellhnistikø HUSENOVSKI – DIMITRIOSKA 1996-1997 keramikø, 1991, Athens 1994, 323-354. B. HUSENOVSKI – G. S. DIMITRIOSKA, Vardarski Rid – Gevelija – achievements from the 1994 researches, in KARADIMA 2004 MacActaA, 15, 1996-1997, 157-182. CHR. K ARADIMA, Ainos: An unknown amphora production centre in the Evros delta, in J. EIRING – J. LUND (eds.), ISLER 1978 Transport Amphorae and Trade in the Eastern Mediterra- H.-P. ISLER, Das archaische Nordtor und seine Umgebung nean, Acts of the International Colloquium at the Danish im Heraion von Samos. Samos IV, Bonn 1978. Institute at Athens, September 26-29, 2002. Monographs of the Danish Institute at Athens, Volume 5, Aarhus IZQUIERDO PERAILE et al. 2001 2004, 155-161. I. IZQUIERDO PERAILE – M. KBIRI A LAOUI – H. BONET ROSADO – B. MILOU, Las fases púnico-mauritanas I (175/ KARADEMA-MATSAS 1994 150 a 80/50 a.C.) y II (80/50 a.C. – 15 d.C.), in C. CHR. KARADEMA -MATSAS, Ergastørio paragwgøj ARANEGUI GASCÓ (ed.), Lixus. Colonia fenicia y ciudad amforûwn sth Samoqrßkh, in G/ episthmonikø púnico-mauritana. Anotaciones sobre su ocupación medi- sunßnthsh gia thn ellhnistikø keramikø, 1991, eval, Valencia 2001, 141-168. Athens 1994, 355-362.

JOHNSON 1978 KARPUZOVA – PECOVSKA 1993-1994 G. A. JOHNSON, Information sources and the development S. KARPUZOVA – N. P. PECOVSKA, Excavations in the vil- of decision-making organizations, in C. L. REDMAN – M. lage of Koresnica – Demirkapija, in MacActaA, 14, 1993- J. BERMAN – E.V. CURTIN – W.T. LANGHORNE JR. – N.M. 1994, 77-89. VERSAGGI – J.C. WANSER (eds.), Social Archaeology. Be- yond Subsistence and Dating, New York 1978, 87-112. KATIC’ 1999-2000 M. KATIC’, Uvod u prouC’avanje keramickih radionica Farosa, JOHNSON 1982 in Opuscula Archaeologica, 23-24, 1999-2000, 49-58. G. A. JOHNSON, Organizational structure and scalar stress, in C. RENFREW – M. J. ROWLANDS – B.A. SEGRAVES (eds.), KERSCHNER 1999 Theory and Explanation in Archaeology. The M. KERSCHNER, Das Artemisheiligtum auf der Oststrasse Southhampton conference, New York 1982, 389-421. des Kalabaktepe in Milet. Stratigraphie und Kersmikfunde der Sondagen des Jahres 1995, in AA, 1999, 7-51. JÖHRENS 1999 G. JÖHRENS, Kerameikos: Griechische Amphorenstempel KOEHLER 1978 spätklassischer und hellenistischer Zeit, in AM, 114, 1999, C. G. KOEHLER, Corinthian A and B Transport Amphoras. 157-170. Ph.D. dissertation, Princeton University, Princenton 1978.

JONCHERAY 1989 a KOEHLER – WALLACE MATHESON 1991 J. P. JONCHERAY, L’épave de Cap Gros – Matériel du Ier s. C. G. KOEHLER – P. M. WALLACE MATHESON, Imports of av. J.C., pompe de cale en bois, in CahASubaqu, 8, 1989, Knidian wine at Athens and Corinth, Paper delivered 57-84. at the General Meeting of the Archaeological Institute of

281 Consuming the West in the East: Amphoras of the western Mediterranean in the Aegean before 86 BC

America, December 1990. Abstract in AJA 95, 1991, 336, LAWALL 1999 b complete paper at http:// M. L. LAWALL, Studies in Hellenistic Ilion: The Lower City. www.chass.utoronto.ca:8080/amphoras/aia90.htm. The transport amphoras, in StTroica, 9, 1999, 187-224.

KOSE 1997 LAWALL 2001 A. KOSE, Die Höhle Pilarou beim Felsheiligtum Christos, M. L. LAWALL, A Late Archaic Punic Amphora, in M. in W. HOEPFNER (ed.), Das dorische Thera V, LAWALL – K.M. LYNCH – J. K. PAPADOPOULOS – S. I. ROTROFF Stadgeschichte und Kultstätten am nördlichen Stadrand, – B. TSAKIRGIS, Notes from the Tins: Research in the Stoa of Berlin 1997, 73-150. Attalos, summer 1999, in Hesperia, 70, 2001, 169-171.

KRAMER 1993 LAWALL 2002 N. KRAMER, Amphorenstempel, in Ü. SERDAROGLOU – R. M. L. LAWALL, Ilion before Alexander: Amphoras and eco- STUPPERICH (eds.), Ausgrabungen in Assos 1991. Asia nomic archaeology, in StTroica, 12, 2002, 197-244. Minor Studien 10, 1993, 187-198. LAWALL 2004 M. L. LAWALL, Archaeological context and Aegean am- LAHI 1992 phora chronologies: A case study of Hellenistic Ephesos, B. LAHI, Amfora transporti të shek. II-I p.e. sonë të zbuluara në qytetin e Shkodrës, in Iliria, 22, 1992, 97-128. in J. EIRING – J. LUND (eds.), Transport Amphorae and Trade in the Eastern Mediterranean, Acts of the Interna- tional Colloquium at the Danish Institute at Athens, Sep- LAHI 1993 tember 26-29,2002. Monographs of the Danish Institute B. LAHI, Kalaja e Ganjollës, in Iliria, 23, 1993, 201-218. at Athens, Volume 5, Aarhus 2004, 171-188.

LANG 1992 LAWALL (in press) a F. LANG, Die Keramik von Babes in der Landschaft Elis, M. L. LAWALL, Amphoras and Hellenistic economies: Ad- in 107, 1992, 43-105. AM, dressing the (over)emphasis on stamped amphora handles, in Z. ARCHIBALD – J. K. DAVIES – V. GABRIELSEN (eds.), LAWALL 1995 Hellenistic Economies 2 – making, moving, and manag- M. L. LAWALL, Transport amphoras and trademarks: Im- ing, Oxford (in press.). ports to Athens and economic diversity in the 5th c. BC, Ph.D. dissertation University of Michigan, Ann Ar- LAWALL (in press) b bor: UMI 1995. M. L. LAWALL, Transport amphoras, in P. SCHERRER (ed.), Die Ausgrabungen in der Tetragonos Agora 1977-2001, LAWALL 1997 Band 1, Wien (in press). M. L. LAWALL, Shape and symbol: Regionalism in 5th century transport amphora production in northeastern Greece, LE DINAHET-COUILLARD 1997 in C. GILLIS – C. RISBERG – B. SJÖBERG (eds.), Trade and M.-T. L E DINAHET-COUILLARD, Une famille de notables production in premonetary Greece: Production and crafts- tyriens à Délos, in BCH, 121, 1997, 617-666. men: Proceedings of the 4th and 5th International work- shops, Athens 1994 and 1995. Studies in Mediterranean LEIPUNSKAYA 1995 Archaeology Pocket-Book 143, Jonsered 1997, 113-130. N. A. LEIPUNSKAYA, Excavations in the Lower City of Olbia, 1985-1992: Preliminary results, in EchosCl, 39, 1995, 23-44. LAWALL 1998 a M. L. LAWALL, Ceramics and Positivism Revisited: Greek LEIPUNSKAYA 1999 transport amphoras and history, in H. PARKINS – C. SMITH N. A. LEIPUNSKAYA, Quelques problèmes amphoriques à (eds.), Trade, Traders and the Greek City, London 1998, Olbia Pontique aux VIe – Ier s. av. n. è, in Y. GARLAN (ed.), 75-101. Production et commerce des amphores anciennes en Mer Noire. Colloque international organisé à Istanbul, 25-28 LAWALL 1998 b mai 1994, Aix-en-Provence 1999, 231-239. M. L. LAWALL, Bolsals, Mendean amphoras and the date of the Porticello shipwreck, in IntJNautA, 27, 1998, 16-23. LOHMANN 1993 H. LOHMANN, Atene: Forschungen zu Siedlungs- und LAWALL 1999 a Wirtschaftsstruktur des klassischen Attika, pt. II M. L. LAWALL, Amphoras and Aegean trade: structure and Fundstellenkatalog, Köln 1993. goals for future research, in R. F. DOCTER – E. M. MOORMAN (eds.), Proceedings of the XVth International LONG 1988 Congress of Classical Archaeology, Amsterdam, July 12- L. LONG , L’épave antique des Basses de Can (Var). 17, 1998. Allard Pierson Series 12, Amsterdam 1999, Nouvelle expertise archéologique à l’aide d’un sous-marin, 229-232. in CahASubaqu, 7, 1988, 5-19.

282 Mark L. Lawall

LONG – XIMÉNÉS 1988 MORSELLI – TORTORICI 1985 L. LONG – S. XIMÉNÉS, L’épave Riou 3 à Marseille. Un C. MORSELLI – E. TORTORICI, La situazione di Regisvilla, chargement d’amphores Dressel 1 estampillées en grec et in M. CRISTOFANI – P. MOSCATI – G. NARDI – M. de céramique campanienne A tardive, in CahASubaqu PANDOLFINI (edd.), Il commercio etrusco arcaico, Atti 7, 1988, 159-183. dell’incontro di studio 5-7 dicembre 1983, Roma 1985, 27-40. LONG – MIRO – VOLPE 1992 L. LONG – J. MIRO – G. VOLPE, Les épaves archaïques de la MORTER – LEONARD 1998 Pointe Lequin, in M. BATS – G. BERTUCCHI – G. CONGES – J. MORTER and J. R. LEONARD, Storage Amphorae, in J. C. H. TREZINY (eds.), Marseille grecque et la Gaule. Études CARTER (ed.), The Chora of Metaponto. The Necropoleis, Massaliètes 3, Aix-en-Provence 1992, 199-234. vol. 2, Austin 1998, 731-755.

LUND 1993 MÜLLER 2002 e J. LUND, Rhodian amphorae as evidence for the relations Chr. MÜLLER, Les Italiens en Béotie du II s. av. J-C au 1er between late Punic Carthage and Rhodes, in P. GULDAGER s. ap. J.-C., in Chr. MÜLLER – C. HASENOHR (eds.), Les e er BILDE – I. NIELSEN – M. NIELSEN (eds.), Aspects of Hel- Italiens dans le Monde Grec. II s. av. J-C – I s. ap. J-C. lenism in Italy: Towards a cultural unity? Acta Hyperborea Circulation, activités, integration. BCH Supplement 41, 5, Copenhagen 1993, 359-375. Paris 2002, 89-100.

NASO 2000 LUND 2000 A. NASO, Appendice: Materiali etruschi e italici J. LUND, Transport amphorae as evidence of exportation of Italian wine and oil to the eastern Mediterranean in the nell’Oriente Mediterraneo, in Magna Grecia e oriente Mediterraneo prima dell’eta ellenistica, Atti del Hellenistic period, in J. LUND – P. PENTZ (eds.), Between Orient and Occident: Studies in honor of P. J. Riis, Co- trentanovesimo Convegno di studi sulla Magna Grecia, penhagen 2000, 77-99. Taranto 1 – 5 ottobre 1999, Taranto 2000, 165-185.

NIEMEIER 1999 MANO 1971 W.-D. NIEMEIER, ‘Die Zierde Ioniens.’ Ein archaischer A. MANO, Nekropoli i Apollonisë – Tuma I, in Iliria, 1971, 103-208. Brunnen, der jüngere Athenatempel und Milet vor der Perserzerstörung, in AA, 1999, 373-413. MATTINGLY 2002 D. J. MATTINGLY, Vulgar and weak ‘Romanization’, or time PANAS – PONTES 1998 for a paradigm shift? in JRA, 15, 2002, 536-540. C. PANAS – H. PONTES, Stamped Amphora and Lagynos Handles from the 1989-1995 Seasons, in StTroica, 8, 1998, MCCANN – WILL 1987 223-262. A. M. MCCANN – E. L. WILL, Miscellaneous ceramics, in A. M. MCCANN – J. BOURGEOIS – E. K. GAZDA – J. P. PANVINI 2001 OLESON – E. L. WILL (eds.), The Roman port and fishery R. PANVINI, La nave greca arcaica di Gela e primi dati sul of Cosa. A center of ancient trade, Princeton 1987, 265. secondo relitto greco, Palermo 2001.

MIHOVILIC’ 1984-1985 PAOLI – PARINI 1988 K. MIHOVILIC’, Rezultati sondazˇnog istrazˇivanija u L. PAOLI – A. PARINI , Corredi di età ellenistica dalla svejernoj basilici u Nezakciju (1977. godine) in HistriaA, necropoli di Spina, Ferrara 1988. 15-16, 1984-1985, 5-29. PARKER 1992 MONAKHOV 2003 A. PARKER, Ancient shipwrecks of the Mediterranean and S. Yu. MONAKHOV, Grecheskiye amfory v the Roman provinces, BAR– International Series 580, preichernomor’ye: Tipologiya amfor veduzhikh tsentrov- Oxford 1992. eksporterov tovarov v keramicheskoy tare, katalog- opredelitel’, Moscow and Saratov 2003. PARLAMA – STAMPOLIDIS 2000 L. PARLAMA – N.Chr. STAMPOLIDIS, The City Beneath the MOREL 1998 City, Athens 2000. J.-P. MOREL, Que buvaient les Carthaginois? in El vi a l’antiguitat. Economia, producció i commerç al PEASE 1937 Mediterrani occidental, Badalona 1998, 29-38. M. PEASE, A well of the late fifth century at Corinth, in Hesperia, 6, 1937, 257-316. MORRIS 1999 I. MORRIS, Forward, in M. I. FINLEY, The Ancient Economy, PEIRCE 2001 3rd edition, Berkeley 1999, ix-xxxvi. S. PEIRCE, The Greek transport amphorae, in A.

283 Consuming the West in the East: Amphoras of the western Mediterranean in the Aegean before 86 BC

CAMBITOGLOU – J. K. PAPADOPOULOS – O. TUDOR J ONES RIBERA LACOMBA 1982 (eds.), Torone I, the excavations of 1975, 1976, and 1978, A. RIBERA L ACOMBA, Las anforas preromanas Valencias Athens 2001, 495-513. (fenicas, ibericas y punicas), Valencia 1982.

PANZERI POZZETTI 1986 RIZAKIS 2002 P. PANZERI POZZETTI, Anfore commerciali, in P. ORLANDINI A. RIZAKIS, L’émigration romaine en Macédoine et la (ed.), I greci sul Basento. Mostra degli scavi archeologici communauté marchande de Thessalonique: perspec- all’Incoronata di Metaponto, 1971-1984, Como 1986, 134- tives économiques et socials, in Chr. MÜLLER – C. 141. HASENOHR (eds.), Les Italiens dans le Monde Grec. IIe s. av. J-C – 1er s. ap. J-C. Circulation, activités, PREKA-ALEXANDRI 1992 integration. BCH Supplement 41, Paris 2002, 109- K. PREKA-ALEXANDRI, A ceramic workshop in Figareto, 132. Corfu, in F. BLONDÉ – J.-Y. PERRAULT (eds), Les ateliers de potiers dans le monde grec aux époques géometrique, RIZZO 1990 archaïque et classique. BCH Supplement 23, Paris 1992, M. A. RIZZO, Le anfore da trasporto e il commercio etrusco 41-52. arcaico. 1. Complessi tombali dall’Etruria meridionale, Rome 1990. PY 1985 M. PY, Les amphores étrusques de Gaule méridionale, in ROBERTS 1986 M. CRISTOFANI – P. MOSCATI – G. NARDI – M. PANDOLFINI S. R. ROBERTS, The Stoa Gutter Well. A late archaic de- (eds.), Il commercio etrusco arcaico, Atti dell’incontro di posit in the Athenian Agora, in Hesperia 55, 1986, 1-74. studio 5-7 dicembre 1983, Rome 1985, 73-94. ROBINSON 1950 RADT 1970 D. M. ROBINSON, Excavations at Olynthos. Part XIII. W. RADT, Siedlungen und Bauten auf der Halbinsel von Vases found in 1934 and 1938, Baltimore 1950. Halikarnassos unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der archaischen Epoche. IstMitt Beiheft 3, Tübingen 1970. ROMANO 1994 I. B. ROMANO, A Hellenistic deposit from Corinth, evi- RAMON-TORRES 1995 dence for interim period activity, in Hesperia 63, 1994, J. RAMON-T ORRES, Las ánforas fenico-púnicas del 57–104. Mediterránea central y occidental, Barcelona 1995. ROTROFF – OAKLEY 1992 RAUH 1999 S. I. ROTROFF – J. OAKLEY, Debris from a public dining N. K. RAUH, Rhodes, Rome, and the Eastern Mediterra- place in the Athenian Agora. Hesperia Supplement 25, nean wine trade, 166-88 BC, in V. GABRIELSEN – P. BILDE Princeton 1992. – T. ENGBERG-PEDERSEN – L. HANNESTAD – J. ZAHLE (eds.), Hellenistic Rhodes: Politics, culture, and society. Studies SALLER 2002 in Hellenistic Civilization 9, Aarhus 1999, 162-186. R. SALLER, Framing the debate over growth in the ancient economy, in W. SCHEIDEL – S. VON REDEN (eds.), The An- RAUH 2003 cient Economy, New York 2002, 251-269. N. K. RAUH, Merchants, sailors and pirates in the Roman world, Charleston SC 2003. SANCIU 1997 A. SANCIU, Una fattoria d’età romana nell’agro di Olbia, REGER 1994 Sassari 1997. G. REGER, Regionalism and Change in the Economy of Independent Delos, 314-167 B.C. Hellenistic Culture and SCHATTNER 1996 Society 14, Berkeley 1994. T. G. SCHATTNER, Die Fundkeramik, in K. TUCHELT (ed.), Ein Kultbezirk an der Heiligen Straße von Milet nach REGER 1997 Didyma. Didyma III.1 Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen und G. REGER, The price histories of some imported goods on Untersuchungen seit dem Jahre 1962, Mainz am Rhein independent Delos, in J. ANDREAU – P. BRIANT – R. DESCAT 1996, 163-216. (eds.) Économie antique: Prix et formation des prix dans les economies antiques. Entretiens d’archéologie et d’histoire, SCHMIDT 2000 Saint-Bertrand – de – Comminges 1997, 53-72. S. G. SCHMID , A group of early Hellenistic pottery from a well in Eretria, in E/ Episthmonikø sunßnthsh RIAZA 1982 gia thn ellhnistikø Keramikø. Cronologikß A. R. RIAZA, Anforas, in M. ALMAGRO-GORBEA (ed.), El problømata kleistß s›nola ergastøria, santuario de Juno en Gabii, Rome 1982, 525-556. Caniß 1997, Athens 2000, 361-372.

284 Mark L. Lawall

SCOTTI 1999 STEA 1997 C. SCOTTI, Le anfore, in C. CHIARAMONTE TRERÉ (ed.), G. STEA, Anfore commerciali, in Richerche archeologiche Tarquinia. Scavi sistematici nell’abitato campagne 1982- all’Incoronata di Metaponto. Scavi dell’Università degli 1988. I materiali, I, Rome 1999, 261-278. Studi di Milano Instituto di Archeologia, 5. L’oikos greco del saggio H. Lo scavo e i reperti, Milan 1997, 35-51. SEMERARO 1997 G. S EMERARO, Ceramica greca e società nel SURBANOSKA 1981-1982 Salento arcaico, Bari 1997. M. SURBANOSKA, Izar-Marvichni. A contribution to the research of the Hellenistic amphoras in Macedonia, in SERRA RIDGWAY 1996 MacActaA, 7-8, 1981-1982, 65-70. F. R. SERRA RIDGWAY, I corredi del fondo Scataglini a Tarquinia, Milan 1996. TALCOTT 1935 L. TALCOTT, Attic Black Glazed Stamped Ware and other pot- SIMOSSI 1995 tery from a fifth century well, in Hesperia, 4, 1935, 477-523. A. SIMOSSI, Sàfnoj. Naußgio ’yimhj ellhnistikøj peri’dou, in ADeltion 45 B2 Chronika, 1990, [1995], TONIOLO 2000 527-529. A. TONIOLO, Le anfore di Adria (IV – II secolo a.C.), Sottomarina 2000. SHIPTON 1997 K. M. W. SHIPTON, The private banks in fourth-century TUNA et al. 1991 BC Athens: A reappraisal, in ClQ, 47, 1997, 396-422. N. TUNA – J.-Y. EMPEREUR – E. DOGER – A. DESBAT, Rap- port sur la première campagne de la fouille franco-turque SLASKA 1978 de Resadiye (péninsule de Cnide) – juillet 1988, in De M. SLASKA, Gravisca – Le ceramiche comuni di produzione Anatolia Antiqua 1, 1991, 38-49. greco-orientale, in Les céramiques de la Grèce de l’Est et leur diffusion en Occident, Naples 1978, 223-230. VAAG et al. 2002 L.E. VAAG – V. NØRSKOV – J. LUND with M. K. SLASKA 1985 SCHALDEMOSE, The Maussolleion at Halikarnassos, Reports M. SLASKA , Le anfore da trasporto a Gravisca, in M. of the Danish Archaeological Expedition to Bodrum. Vol. CRISTOFANI – P. MOSCATI – G. NARDI – M. PANDOLFINI 7. The Pottery, Ceramic material and other finds from se- (eds.), Il commercio etrusco arcaico, Atti dell’incontro di lected contexts, Aarhus 2002. studio 5-7 dicembre 1983, Rome 1985, 19-21. VANDERMERSCH 1994 SOURISSEAU 1998 Chr. VANDERMERSCH, Vins et amphores de Grande Grèce J.-Chr. SOURISSEAU, Marseille et la production d’amphores et de Sicile, IVe-IIIe s. avant J.-C., Naples 1994. ‘ionio-massaliètes’ en occident: les problèmes de fabrication, in M.-Cl. AMOURETTI – G. COMET (eds.), Artisanat et matériaux, VANDERPOOL – MCCREDIE – STEINBERG 1962 Cahiers d’histoire des techniques 4, 1998, 127-152. E. VANDERPOOL – J. R. MCCREDIE – A. STEINBERG, Koroni: A Ptolemaic Camp on the East Coast of Attica, in Hesperia, SPAGNOLO 2003 31, 1962, 26-61. G. SPAGNOLO, Anfore da trasporto Nord-Egee in occidente nel periodo arcaico e classico: l’esempio di Gela, in G. VANONI 1996 FIORENTINI – M. CALTABIANO – A. CALDERONE (edd.), L. C. VANONI, Tombe tarquiniesi di età ellenistica. Catalogo Archeologia del Mediterraneo: Studi in onore di Ernesto di ventisei tombe a camera scoperte dalla Fondazione Lerici De Miro, Rome 2003, 619-641. in località Calvarro, Rome 1996.

STARAC 1998 VAROUCHA-CHRISTODOULOPOULOU 1961 A. STARAC, Pula – Herkulova vrata 1997-1998 Sitni nalazi, E. VAROUCHA-CHRISTODOULOPOULOU, Sumbolø eij t’n in HistriaA 29, 1998, 49-101. Cremwnàdeion p’lemon 266/5-263/2 p. C., in AEphem, 1953-1954, 1961, 321-349. STARR 1976 C. G. STARR, Greeks and Persians in the fourth century VIOLA 1884 B.C. A Study in cultural contacts before Alexander, Part L. VIOLA, Note sopra nuove scoperte epigrafiche in Taranto, 1, in IranAnt, 11, 1976, 39-99. e sopra iscrizioni messapiche inedite, o malamente divulgate, in NSc, 1884, 117-133. STARR 1977 C. G. STARR, Greeks and Persians in the fourth century B.C. VIOLA 1885 A Study in cultural contacts before Alexander, Part 2, The L. VIOLA, Note sopra nuove scoperte epigrafiche avvenute meeting of two cultures, in IranAnt, 12, 1977, 49-113. in Taranto e nel suo territorio, in NSc, 1885, 258-288.

285 Consuming the West in the East: Amphoras of the western Mediterranean in the Aegean before 86 BC

VOIGTLÄNDER 1982 (eds.), The Romanization of Athens: proceedings of an W. V OIGTLÄNDER, Funde aus der Insula westlich des international conference held at Lincoln, Nebraska (April Buleuterion in Milet, in IstMitt, 32, 1982, 30-173. 1996), Oxford 1997, 117-133.

VOLPE 1990 WILLIAMS – FISHER 1976 G. VOLPE , La Daunia nell’età della romanizzazione. C. K. WILLIAMS – J. FISHER, Corinth 1975: Forum South- Paesaggio agrario, produzione, scambi, Bari 1990. west, in Hesperia, 45, 1976, 99-162.

VOLPE 1995 WILLIAMS 1978 G. VOLPE, Contenitori da trasporto, in M. MAZZEI (ed.), C. K. WILLIAMS, Corinth 1977: Forum Southwest, in Arpi. L’ipogeo della Medusa e la necropoli, Bari 1995, 231- Hesperia, 47, 1978, 1-39. 140. WILLIAMS 1979 VREKA 1993 C. K. WILLIAMS, Corinth 1978, Forum Southwest, in B. VREKA, Katalog amforash të gjetura në Apoloni, shek. Hesperia, 48, 1979, 105-144. III p.e.s. – shek. III e.s., in Iliria, 23, 1993, 161-199. WOLFF 2004 WHITBREAD 1995 S. R. WOLFF, Punic amphoras in the eastern Mediterra- I. K. WHITBREAD, Greek transport amphorae: A petrologi- nean, in J. EIRING – J. LUND (eds.), Transport Amphorae cal and archaeological study. Fitch Laboratory Occasional and Trade in the Eastern Mediterranean, Acts of the In- Papers 4, Athens 1995. ternational Colloquium at the Danish Institute at Ath- ens, September 26-29, 2002. Monographs of the Danish WILL 1982 Institute at Athens, Volume 5, Aarhus 2004, 451- 457. E. L. WILL, Greco-Italic Amphoras, in Hesperia, 51, 1982, 338-356. ZIMMERMAN MUNN 1993 M. L. ZIMMERMAN MUNN, Corinthian trade with the West WILL 1987 in the Classical Period, Ph.D. dissertation Bryn Mawr E. L. WILL, The Roman Amphoras, in A. M. MCCANN – College, Ann Arbor 1993. J. BOURGEOIS – E. K. GAZDA – J. P. OLESON – E. L. WILL (eds.), The Roman port and fishery of Cosa. A center of ZIMMERMAN MUNN 2003 ancient trade, Princeton 1987, 170-220. M. L. ZIMMERMAN MUNN, Corinthian trade with the Pu- nic west in the Classical period, in C. K. WILLIAMS – N. WILL 1997 BOOKIDIS (eds.), Corinth. The centenary 1896-1996. Cor- E. L. WILL, Shipping amphoras as indicators of economic inth, results of excavations conducted by the American romanization in Athens, in M. C. HOFF – S. I. ROTROFF School of Classical Studies, XX, Athens 2003, 195-218.

Abstract - Studies of Roman amphoras in the Aegean and hence the economic impact of Roman imperialism on the Aegean have tended to start from counts of Roman amphoras at Aegean sites. The present study places these new arrivals in the broader historical context of trends in amphora production and circulation within the Aegean basin per se. These trends are described by a general survey of the evidence from the late Archaic through the late Hellenistic periods. Certain regions in the Aegean, by the late 2nd century, seem more open to imported goods and more elastic in their ability to consume new products. Elsewhere, the new imports caused immediate problems, but these problems are best understood with reference to Aegean economic history alongside documentation of the arrival of Roman amphoras.

286