A Note on the Development of Cypriot Late Roman D Forms 2 and 9 Paul Reynolds*
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
LRFW 1. Late Roman Fine Wares. Solving problems of typology and chronology. A review of the evidence, debate and new contexts edited by Miguel Ángel Cau, Paul Reynolds and Michel Bonifay Archaeopress 2012, page 57-65 A note on the development of Cypriot Late Roman D forms 2 and 9 Paul Reynolds* * Institució Catalana de Recerca i Estudis Avançats (ICREA)/Equip de Recerca Arqueològica i Arqueomètrica, Universitat de Barcelona (ERAAUB) Montalegre 6-8, 08001 Barcelona, Spain <[email protected]> The development and evolution of LRD 2 into LRD 9 through the 5th to 7th centuries is traced and illustrated through a revision of the evidence presented in Late Roman Pottery (Hayes 1972) and finds from new contexts excavated in Beirut. KEYWORDS: LATE ROMAN D (LRD), FORM 2, FORM 9, BEIRUT, AD 551 1. Introduction see Jones Hall 2004). It is precisely the second quarter of the 6th century that the transition from LRD 2 to 9 can John Hayes, in his typology of Cypriot Red Slip Ware/Late be observed. This paper aims toAccess illustrate the development Roman D (hence LRD), proposed that dish form 9 (dated proposed by Hayes, now that more contexts of the mid c. 550 to the end of the 7th century) was the direct successor 6th century are available. Fine wares from Beirut contexts of form 2 (beginning ‘around 450’), the latter being that have been used as supporting evidence for this paper modelled on the African Red Slip form 84 (1972: 373-376, are presented elsewhere in this volume (Reynolds, Beirut 379-382). His research in the eastern Mediterranean at the contexts, in this volume). time, which focused on Athens and Aegean sites, did not provide him with the means to illustrate this development 2. The evolution of LRD 2 and 9 as fully as he may have wished, primarily because the ware is not particularly common in Athens and only the later Figs.Open 1-6 (nos. 1-65) offer a summary of the development series of forms reached sites in the Aegean in any quantity. of LRD 2 through to LRD 9, based, primarily, on the No additional vessels were illustrated in his supplement to examples of LRP and the finds from the British excavations Late Roman Pottery (1980). in Beirut (Site BEY 006). The typological development, well described by John Hayes (1972), can be summarised There was also a recent attempt, here firmly rejected, to and illustrated as follows from this new body of material. question the proposed derivation of LRD 9 from LRD 2, based on finds of a 5th century dish form, typologically The earliest versions of LRD 2 are close in shape to the similar to LRD 9, which was not included in LRP (Rowe central Tunisian ARS form 84 (Hayes 1972: 373), but, as 1999; 2004). This form, classified by Meyza as form Michel Bonifay has reminded me, a much closer parallel ‘K1’ (Meyza 2007: 50-51, Plate 7), is a common find at is central Tunisian ARS 83, with its curved wall and rather Paphos and Alexandria and occurs also in Beirut. In the flat, grooved rim (the rim of ARS 84 is triangular). A latter case, the form only occurs in contexts of the late 4th date for ARS 84 of c. 440-500 was given in LRP (Hayes (BEY 006 9430) and early 5th centuries (BEY 006 13017, 1972: 132-3), whereas ARS 83 appeared earlier (Hayes 13080), no later. That the shape may have continued later 1972, 131). Both ARS forms bore stamped decoration on into the 5th or even 6th century is discussed with regard the floor. ARS form 86 was the north Tunisian equivalent to Meyza’s type K1/3 (Meyza 2007: 65), but the evidence that appeared later, in the late 5th century (Hayes 1972: 133- for extending the form beyond the 5th century is meagre. 5). There are LRD 2 variants that follow all three of these Andrea Rowe’s arguments are, furthermore, countered by forms in shape, or perhaps their metal prototypes, though the late 6th to 7th century ceramic evidence she, herself, those close to the model of ARS 83 are the most common presents,Archaeopress but dates incorrectly to the 5th century (LRA 1, in the second half of the 5th century (cf. ARS 83: e.g. Fig. LRA 4, Palestinian ‘brittle wares’). 1. nos. 3-4 and 10; cf. ARS 84, in fact quite rare: Fig. 2, no. 22; cf. ARS 86: Fig. 2, no. 17). Some, like Fig. 1, no. The port of Beirut, located on the Levantine coast opposite 5, are a cross between all three ARS forms. Cyprus, was a major market for Cypriot wares from the late 4th century onwards. The British excavations in Beirut Hayes provided two examples of the earliest version of provide sequences of ceramic contexts through the 5th to LRD 2 (Fig. 1). The LRD 2.1 type piece (no. 1), thick- 7th centuries, as well assemblages that can be identified walled, with a double groove on the rim was dated c. with the historically attested earthquake and tsunami 450 on the basis of the similarity of its stamped radiating that struck Beirut and the Levantine coast in AD 551 palmette decoration to ARS Styles A-C. Note that this piece (Reynolds in preparation; for the documentary evidence, and the later (late 5th-early 6th century?) LRD 2.10 (no. 57 Copyright Archaeopress and the Author 2012 LRFW 1. Late Roman Fine Wares. Solving problems of typology and chronology. A review of the evidence, debate and new contexts edited by Miguel Ángel Cau, Paul Reynolds and Michel Bonifay Archaeopress 2012, page 57-65 LRFW 1. Late Roman Fine Wares. Solving problems of typology and chronology Abu Mena Early LRD 2 LRP LRD 2.1 'c.c. 450' 1 Athens LRP LRD 2.2 'early' 2 BEY 006 9279 3rd quarter Area 3. Pit fill 5th century 9279.6 3 Access 9023.36 4 9023.35 5 BEY 006 9023 Area 3. Pit fill Area 3 Peristyle House Openrobber fill Peristyle House 9402.4 6 robber fill 3761.12 7 3761.11 8 7477.3 9 7477.6 10 BEY 006 7477 Area 2 west Robbing 7477.4 Archaeopress11 7477.5? 12 Fig. 1. Development of Cypriot Late Roman D form 2. Early (nos. 1-2). 3rd quarter 5th c. (nos. 3-12). Fig. 1. Development of Cypriot Late Roman D form 2. Early (nos. 1-2). 3rd quarter 5th century (nos. 3-12). 58 Copyright Archaeopress and the Author 2012 LRFW 1. Late Roman Fine Wares. Solving problems of typology and chronology. A review of the evidence, debate and new contexts edited by Miguel Ángel Cau, Paul Reynolds and Michel Bonifay Archaeopress 2012, page 57-65 P. Reynolds: A note on the development of Cypriot Late Roman D forms 2 and 9 AD 450-500? 3303.9 13 BEY 006 3303: 3303.12 Demolition over 16 triclinium mosaic 3303.10 14 3303.8 17 3303.13 15 3303.7 18 Accessc. 500 Beirut. Hayes 2000, fig.31.1 19 Late 5th century Open7685.5 21 7685.4 20 3019.16 22 3019.1 23 3019.17 24 Late 5th (-early 6th) century Antioch 930f Antioch 930k LRPLRP LRD 2.3 (stamped) 25 26 LRPLRP LRD 2.11 Archaeopress Early 6th century Xanthos Abu Mena Cistern Xanthos LRPLRP LRD 2.9 27 LRPLRP LRD 2.10 28 LRPLRP LRD 2.13 29 Fig. 2. Development of Cypriot Late Roman D form 2. AD 450-500? (nos. 13-18). c. 500 (no. 19). Late 5th century (nos. 20-24). Late 5th ( -early 6th) century (nos. 25-26). Early 6th century (nos. 27-29). Fig. 2. Development of Cypriot Late Roman D form 2. AD 450-500? (nos. 13-18). c. 500 (no. 19). Late 5th century (nos. 20-24). Late 5th ( -early 6th) century (nos. 25-26). Early 6th century (nos. 27-29). 59 Copyright Archaeopress and the Author 2012 LRFW 1. Late Roman Fine Wares. Solving problems of typology and chronology. A review of the evidence, debate and new contexts edited by Miguel Ángel Cau, Paul Reynolds and Michel Bonifay Archaeopress 2012, page 57-65 LRFW 1. Late Roman Fine Wares. Solving problems of typology and chronology 28) were found in the same cistern group at Abu Mena, so The deposits included in this section all share several this assemblage has quite a wide date range. LRD 2.2 (no. features with respect to the examples of LRD 2 (Fig. 1, 2, Agora P 27051) (perhaps stamped) ‘with its unusually nos. 3-12): double grooves on the rim, careful rouletting high foot, is another early version’, was found in the Agora on the wall, a pronounced, if short, foot. No. 3 (9279.6), deposits of c. 460-75 (i.e. with the type pieces of LRC with a well articulated steep wall and triple fine grooves 3B and 3C) (Hayes 1972: 337; Hayes 2008: 249 and fig. on the rim and No. 4 (9023.36), with its delicate rim, are 42.1422). close to the type piece LRD 2.2 (context 9023, as I have said, may date close to AD 450). No. 5 (9023.35) with its In Beirut a number of related deposits are associated with wide rim does occur more than once (e.g. no. 6: 9402.4). the fill of robber trenches of one of the peristyle houses of the most eastern of the two insulae excavated in BEY 3. The late 5th century 006 (in Area 3) (see Perring 2003, for a recent summary of the British excavations; for the final report, see Thorpe Hayes (1972: 375-376) then goes on to describe what he forthcoming.