Ephemeris Napocensis

ACADEMIA ROMÂNĂ INSTITUTUL DE ARHEOLOGIE ŞI ISTORIA ARTEI

EPHEMERIS NAPOCENSIS

XXVI 2016

EDITURA ACADEMIEI ROMÂNE SUMAR – SOMMAIRE – CONTENTS – INHALT

STUDIES

VITALIE BÂRCĂ The Dating of the Sarmatian Grave at Sânnicolau Mare – Seliște (Timiș County, Romania) and the Problem of the Early Sarmatian Entry and Settlement of the Pannonian Plain �� 7

LAVINIA GRUMEZA Post Roman and Sarmatian Pottery Workshops in Banat, Between the End of the 3rd – Beginning of the 5th Century AD �� 67

C. H. OPREANU, V.-A. LĂZĂRESCU The Evolution of the Civilian Settlement at Porolissum in the Light of the New Research �� 107

IOAN STANCIU, CORNELIU BELDIMAN, DIANA-MARIA SZTANCS, CORALIA DORINA BONTA Economic and Everyday Life Facets in an Early Medieval Settlement from North-Western Transylvania, Reflected by the Bone Artefacts �� 121

ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND EPIGRAPHICAL NOTES

COSMIN ONOFREI Publius Aelius Theimes from Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa �� 201

CĂLIN COSMA Avar Warriors in North-West Romania during the 7th – 8th Centuries. Notes on the Political Status of North-West Romania during the 7th – 8th Centuries �� 205

IURIE STAMATI “Long Live Romanian Soviet Friendship!” An Exploration of the Relationship Between Archaeologists from USSR and the People’s/Socialist Republic of Romania �� 235

REVIEWS

Mugur Andronic, Istoria Bucovinei. Vol. II. În epoca marilor migraţii şi până la încheierea formării Moldovei medievale [The History of Bukovina. Vol. 2. In the Era of the Great Migrations and until the End of the Foundation of Medieval Moldavia]. Societatea Culturală “Ştefan cel Mare”. Pagini din Istoria şi Cultura Bucovinei XIII (Suceava 2014), 465 p. (Ioan Stanciu)...... 253 Coriolan Horaţiu Opreanu, Vlad Lăzărescu, A Roman frontier marketplace at Porolissum in the light of numismatic evidence. Contribution to the knowledge of the Roman limes economy. Corpus Limitis Imperii Romani. Dacia Porolissensis (I): Porolissum. Porolissum Monographs I). Editura mega-Editura Caiete Silvane (Cluj-Napoca/Zalău 2015), 178 p. + 32 pl. (Florin Fodorean)...... 261 Simona Scarcella (Ed.), Archaeological Ceramics: A Review of Current Research [BAR International Series 2193] (Oxford 2011), 175 pages and 144 figures (Vlad-Andrei Lăzărescu)...... 265 Florin Fodorean, The Topography and the Landscape of Roman Dacia, BAR International Series 2501, (Oxford, 2013), 147 p. (Dan Deac)...... 271 POST ROMAN AND SARMATIAN POTTERY WORKSHOPS IN BANAT, BETWEEN THE END OF THE 3RD – BEGINNING OF THE 5TH CENTURY AD*

Lavinia Grumeza1

Abstract: During the late-Roman and post-Roman periods the pottery assemblages from centres of the western limes display an extremely varied local production combined with a very low proportion of imports. The inhabitants of Tibiscum, Mehadia or Dierna, whether Roman or not, still engaged in a Roman lifestyle reflected by the material culture, namely the pottery. There is a clear preference on their side for high quality red ware, as opposed to their Sarmatians neighbours, who produced and used grey colored pottery with burnished decoration, adopting only the Roman shapes. In the period, the Barbarians also earned economic independence, many pottery workshops being known in east and south of Banat, at Vršac– Crvenka, Grădinari–Selişte, Timişoara–Freidorf, Pančevo, Dolovo, Timişoara–Dragaşina, Hodoni, Pančevo, Dolovo, Izvin and Jabuca. From then date also the most numerous and extended Sarmatian settlements in the area, such late habitat clustering especially in south Banat. Keywords: Sarmatian, Roman, pottery, workshop, Banat

1. State of research2 The problem of late-Roman (AD 225–271) and post-Roman (AD 271–375) pottery from Dacia was rarely addressed in the archaeological literature from Romania, studies emphasizing instead the pottery production centers situated along the Danube and the Black Sea coast still under direct Roman rule, such as: Dierna3, Mehadia4, Gornea5, Halmyris6, Sucidava, Troesmis and Noviodunum7. This shortcoming is partially the result of difficulties entailed in the dating of the late phases of Roman rule / Roman presence within the sites north of the Danube. On the other hand, the pottery from the “Sarmatian” Barbaricum in the Banat region during the same period was the subject of numerous studies, often driven by nationalistic

* Acknowledgements: This work was cofinaced from the European Social Fund through Sectoral Operational Programme Human Resources Development 2007 – 2013, project number POSDRU/159/1.5/S/140863, Competitive Researchers in Europe in the Field of Humanities and Socio-Economic Sciences. A Multi-regional Research Network (West University of Timișoara). 1 The West University of Timișoara, Blvd. V. Parvan 4, 300223, Timișoara, Timiș County, RO; email: lavinia_ [email protected]. 2 We are grateful to Prof. P. Kenrick, O. Bozu and R. Gindele for their observations and bibliographical suggestions. 3 BENEA 1976. 4 BENEA 2005. 5 GUDEA 1977. 6 TOPOLEANU 2000. 7 OPAIȚ 2004. Ephemeris Napocensis, XXVI, 2016, p. 67–106 68 Lavinia Grumeza ambitions, which set out to prove that the entire Banat region was an integral part of Roman Dacia during the 2nd and 3rd centuries AD. Furthermore, according to the same narrative, the region was maintained even in later periods within the sphere of influence of the Empire, as it was allegedly home to a consistent Romanized population. The region under scrutiny, known from the 18th century onward under the name of Banat, is today divided between three states: Romania, Serbia and Hungary. The geographical borders of the region are: the Mureș River in the north, the Tisa River in the west, the Danube in the south, and the Carpathian Mountains, between the Zam gorge and the springs of the Cerna River, to the east. The current administrative division has determined the ethnic ascription of archaeological finds from the period between the nd2 and 5th centuries AD in all three involved countries. Natalija Simovljević was the first to suggest that future archaeological interpretation should be based on the geographic aspects of the region. First of all the region as a whole should not be viewed as a single entity, a clear-cut distinction should be made between the lowlands, part of the Great Hungarian Plain and characterized by a steppe-like environment and the eastern mountainous woodland, constituent of the Carpathian mountain range. From an archaeological standpoint, the western part is dominated by Sarmatian sites (both settlements and cemeteries), while the eastern side shows signs of intense Roman habitation8. Starting with the 80’s the excavation and publication of the 3rd–4th centuries AD sites from the Banat Lowlands (Hodoni9, Timişoara–Freidorf10, Grădinari–Săliște11, Moldova Veche–Vinograda-Vlașkicrai12, Timișoara–Cioreni, Greoni, Gătaia13, Foeni–Săliște14 etc.) was commenced. As a result of the investigations, the sites were unanimously interpreted as rural settlements of the native Daco-Roman population. The so-called Daco-Roman environment is characterized by ‘a synthesis of the Roman material culture and specific elements adopted from the Dacian environment’15. The fact that primarily drew attention to the sites was the discovery in their vicinity of ‘characteristic archaeological material, especially fragments of grey pottery’16. To the present day over 400 spots with this sort of ‘Daco-Roman’ discoveries can be pinpointed throughout the Banat Lowlands17. The majority of these sites have not benefited from an objective assessment, moreover no attempt has been made to draw any parallels with the archaeological record of the western Banat area18. The main concept behind this interpretation was that the habitat of the Banat Lowlands is optimal for a settled indigenous population, and less suitable for nomadic Sarmatian commu‑ nities comprised of cattle and horses breeders. It is obvious that the passage from Ammianus Marcellinus, in which the Sarmatians were presented as a nomadic population, was adopted

8 ÐORDEVIĆ 1996, 42. The author presents a synthesis of the PhD thesis by Natalija Simovljević (Banat u doba rimskog Oastva), hitherto unpublished. N. Simovljević has published however the Sarmatian cemetery from Vršac–Crvenka along with other similar discoveries form this area, see SIMOVLJEVIĆ 1957. 9 BEJAN 1981A; BEJAN 1981B; BEJAN 1983; BEJAN 1995; BEJAN/BENEA 1985. 10 BENEA1996. 11 BOZU 1990. 12 BOZU/EL SUSI 1987. 13 BENEA 1996A, 121–122. 14 SZENTMIKLOSI/TIMOC 2005; TIMOC/SZENTMIKLOSI 2008. 15 BENEA1996A, 114. 16 BENEA 1996A, 114. 17 GUDEA/MOȚU 1983, 199–200; BEJAN 1995; BENEA 1996A; BEJAN 1998; MARE 2004; MICLE 2008 (selective bibliography). 18 D. Benea has pointed out that similar sites in Serbia and Hungary dated to the same period were ascribed to the Sarmatian population. According to the same author the difficulties of ethnic ascription in this case are due to the fact that no Sarmatian or indeed no Daco-Roman rural settlement has ever been completely researched, see BENEA 1996A, 115. Post Roman and Sarmatian Pottery Workshops in Banat 69 uncritically by Romanian researchers19. As late as 2009 the only Sarmatian settlement acknowl‑ edged in the Romanian part of the Banat is the one from Foeni–Selişte, in Timiș County, due to the presence of an unmistakable Sarmatian cemetery20.

2. The chronology The period between the end of the 3rd and middle of the 5th century AD (phases C2–D2 according to the Central European chronology) is divided into three phases according to the system devised by A. Vaday. The first two phases last until the arrival of the Huns and are charac‑ terized by the influx of new waves of Iranian and Germanic populations, while the third phase is marked by the Hun invasion and the shift in the balance of power which ensued, admittedly the Sarmatian population continuing to live under Hun sovereignty21. The current state of research indicates that the Sarmatian archaeological remains from Banat can only be ascribed to two chronologically distinct periods: III.1. Last quarter of the 3rd century – last third of the 4th century AD; III.2. Last third of the 4th century – beginning of the 5th century AD22. The advance of the Goths caused the dislocation of numerous Sarmatian tribes at the end of the 3rd century AD, the majority settling in Bačka and Banat23. These population movements were primarily triggered by the withdrawal of the Roman administration from Dacia and the reorganization of the South-Danubian provinces. These consistent groups of new arrivals often settled in strategic areas situated between the Mureș and Aranca Rivers, mainly in Southern Banat. Between the 1st and 3rd centuries AD this area was peripheral for the Sarmatian popula‑ tions, however from the end of the 3rd century AD onward it became densely populated. During this period the Sarmatian population achieved economic independence as suggested by the numerous pottery workshops from Southern and Eastern Banat: Vršac–Crvenka24, Grădinari–Selişte25, Timişoara– Freidorf26, Timişoara–Dragaşina, Hodoni27, Pančevo, Dolovo28, Izvin şi Jabuca29 (Pl. 1/1). This period can be associated with a general growth in the number and size of settlements in the area30, concentrated mainly in Southern Banat. The only site in the area integrated in the chronology of late-Roman or post-Roman Dacia is Tibiscum (Benea phase IV: mid – 3rd – 4th century AD = Ardeţ phase IV A: 211–271 and IV B: 271–335 AD)31. The former Roman centers benefited from an extensive tradition in pottery production, indeed workshops are known throughout the province in both rural and urban environments during the course of Roman rule32.

19 AMMIANUS MARCELLINUS XXVI, 2; see BENEA 2013, 114. 20 MUSCALU 2009, 103. The cited example by the author is not a suitable option considering that we are dealing with two different sites: Foeni–Selişte (a Sarmatian period settlement) and Foeni–Cimitirul Ortodox (Sarmatian period cemetery), the distance between the two sites is about 3 km, see GRUMEZA 2011, Pl. I/2. 21 VADAY 1989, 208–210; VADAY 1994, 105. 22 S. Trifunović identified two, approximately identical phases within the late Sarmatian settlements from the Serbian Banat: period I, end of the 3rd – mid 4th century AD; period II, mid/late 4th – early 5th century AD, see TRIFUNOVIĆ 2000, 82. 23 VADAY 2003, 266. 24 RAŠAJSKI 1957, 39. 25 BOZU 1990. 26 MARE/TĂNASE/DRAȘOVEAN/EL SUSI/GÁL 2011, 11, 48–49. 27 BENEA 1996A, 173–174. 28 RAŠAJSKI 1957, 43. 29 BENEA 1996A, 173–174. 30 IVANIŠEVIĆ/BUGARSKI 2008, 39. 31 BENEA 1996A, 126; BENEA 2000, 435; ARDEȚ 2009B, 22. 32 RUSU-BOLINDEȚ 2011. 70 Lavinia Grumeza

The arguments for the late dating of the pottery kilns (late – 3rd – 4th century AD) are manifold: the presence of Roman coins dated to the period between the end of the 3rd and the 4th century AD, furthermore the use of recycled building material for the construction of the kilns often placed within buildings originally in use during the 2nd and 3rd centuries AD. The pottery material is not suitable for absolute dating, displaying by and large the same formal, technological, functional and decorative features as regular Roman provincial wares.

3. Imports The imported pottery fine-wares are quite rare since the supply of Sarmatian sites was largely achieved through local production. One can also note the extreme paucity or complete absence of bronze and silver vessels, amphorae, terracotta objects and lamps33. Amphorae and pottery lamps have been reported within the Sarmatian Barbaricum, mostly in the vicinity of the main river crossings34. Unfortunately in most cases the archaeological context is unknown, therefore it is impossible to assess whether we are dealing with a Sarmatian site (settlement or cemetery) or simply with the lost belongings of Roman soldiers formerly stationed north of the Danube in the Barbaricum. Terra sigillata vessels make up the largest share of imports from the Roman Empire. Within the funerary finds from Banat a single complete vessel was reported along with a number of fragments (grave 2 from Újszentiván–Iván téglagyár, grave 72 from Kiszombor–B, grave 1 from Szeged–Szőreg – imitation of terra sigillata vessel, Pl. 2/6 – 12). Besides these vessels and vessel fragments from funerary contexts, further terra sigillata finds, consisting mostly from Drag. 37 fragments, are known from: Deta, Kovačica–Čapaš, Kuvin, Banatska Palanka, Pančevo, Vršac, Zrenjanin–Batka35, Dolovo, Delibata, Perlez, Aradac, Botoš, Bočar36. The abovementioned sites are all located in Banat and are dated to the Roman period, however the contexts of discovery are unknown37. Instances of terra sigillata are known in the Sarmatian settlements from Timișoara–Cioreni, Hodoni, Iecea Mică, Timișoara–Freidorf, Satchinez, Criciova, Becicherecul Mic38, Foeni– Seliște39, while amphorae fragments were reported in the case of: Timișoara–Cioreni, Iecea Mică, Timișoara–Freidorf, Satchinez, Biled40. Unfortunately, because of the fragmentary state of the material, especially in the case of the amphorae, a chronological classification is impossible at this stage, indeed the finds are most often elusively dated to the period encompassed by the st1 – 4th centuries AD41. The only available data in this regard is that the contexts containing terra sigillata finds from Timișoara–Freidorf, are dated between the rd3 and the 4th centuries AD42 (more likely in the 3rd century AD). In the case of Tibiscum, an important Roman and post-Roman centre, it was found that the proportion of pottery imports is extremely low. Indeed, only 7% of the total amount of 33 This is due to the fact that during the early period of the Principate, its commercial relations with the Sarmatians were very weak. The main target for Roman export at that time was the Germanic territory of Maroboduus and later that of Vannius, see GABLER 1968, 242; GABLER 1975, 92, 105. 34 VADAY 2005, 13. 35 GABLER/VADAY 1986, 14, 21, 23–24, 30–31. 36 GABLER 1975, Abb.1; BRUCKNER 1990, 203–205. 37 Further imports of Roman pottery goods are known from the Serbian side of the Banat (amphorae, jugs, beakers, brick-red bowls and terra sigillata imitations). In this case too, the discovery contexts are uncertain, see BRUCKNER 1990, T. 3–4. 7. 38 BENEA/BEJAN 1992, 253. 39 TIMOC/SZENTMIKLOSI 2008, 134, Pl. XV. 40 BENEA/BEJAN 1992, 253. 41 BENEA 1996A, 123. 42 MARE/TĂNASE/DRAȘOVEAN/EL SUSI/GÁL 2011, 52–53. Post Roman and Sarmatian Pottery Workshops in Banat 71 imports come from the late phase of the site, these consist of: terra sigillata, amphorae, glazed pottery and stamped white pottery (Pl. 2/1–5). The rest of the imports (93%) come from the early periods of the site (2nd century AD). Glazed pottery is almost absent from Tibiscum even during the earlier periods of the site, apart from a few fragments with barbotine decoration and a plate with the stamp: CRISPIN(us)43. Only a handful of glazed bowl fragments with relief decoration both on the inner and outer surface, are known from the late periods. The category of late amphorae is represented by the type Dressel 24 similis, in use starting with the mid - 3rd century AD44, but discovered in Tibiscum in a context dated to the 4th century AD45. According to A. Ardeţ an amphora fragment belonging to the type Carthage LRA 4, dated to the period of the 3rd–4th centuries AD, was discovered in Tibiscum-Iaz46. The type known as Dressel 24 or Dressel 24 similis is the most well represented in Tibiscum, the discoveries spanning from the rule of Hadrian, down to the post-Roman period47. Also worth mentioning is the discovery in a post- Roman context of an amphora belonging to the type Opaiţ 2, in Tibiscum–Jupa48. These discov‑ eries indicate vivid commercial activities oriented especially to the East which started from the Severan period and continued probably until the 4th century AD. In the case of further late-Roman / post-Roman centers considered here (Dierna, Mehadia) no late imports are known.

4. The pottery production of the late-Roman / post-Roman centers of Banat The late Roman pottery production centers situated in the western part of the former Dacian province: Dierna, Mehadia and Tibiscum, are known for their mostly high quality red pottery produced according to the tradition of the 2nd and 3rd century provincial wares49. The auxiliary fort from Mehadia (Ad Mediam? Praetorium?), during the late Roman period exhibits a number of specific constructions situated in the central area of the fort, among which there is also a pottery workshop dated to the 4th century AD50. The workshops consisted of two kilns and a levigation basin. The basin was produced from recycled Roman building material while the kilns belong to the type with a central pillar and additional rectangular bricks placed on the floor between the pillar and the walls of the kiln (type Henning A, Pl. 3/1)51. The kilns were constructed with reused Roman building material. D. Benea provided numerous analogies for these types of kilns from Moesia Inferior (during the 2nd – 3rd centuries AD) and Dacia Ripensis (during the 4th century AD)52. The products of the centre at Mehadia consisted mostly of fine and semi-fine wheel-thrown red wares, occasionally color-coated, with abundant mica in the composition and occasional cut-glass decoration. The proportion of grey wares within the assemblages is quite low, while the handmade pottery is entirely absent53. From a functional point of view the material is composed of: dolia, of quite considerable dimensions (H = 90 cm, D = 50–60 cm), flagons with trefoil mouth, pots belonging to four distinct types characteristic for the Lower Danube area, as well

43 BENEA1996A, 133. 44 OPAIȚ 2007, 630–632. 45 ARDEȚ 2009A, 200. 46 ARDEȚ 2009B, 137, 342, pl. XXXIV. 47 BENEA 2000, 437–438. 48 BENEA 2000, 437, Fig. 1/5. 49 BENEA 2007, 818. 50 BENEA 2005, 307. 51 The kiln typology employed was adopted fromHENNING 1977. 52 BENEA 2005, 308. 53 BENEA 2005, 309, 313. 72 Lavinia Grumeza as platters displaying typical 2nd–3rd century AD forms. Consequently it can be said that the local pottery production is based exclusively on Roman types, although the typological variety is lower (Pl. 3/2 – 12)54. The site of Tibiscum is located today on the territory of two villages, Jupa and Iaz (both in Caraş-Severin County) separated by the Timiș River. The military forts and urban settlement of Tibiscum was situated on the western border of Roman Dacia, being an important defensive and commercial centre of the province. The withdrawal of the Roman administration during the reign of Aurelian did not put an end to the urban life of the settlement as there are practi‑ cally no archaeological traces of destruction, the Roman buildings were still inhabited (either by Romans or by another population) while new ones were still being built. Archaeological research has led to the discovery of pottery workshops in addition to workshops producing glass beads, in use during the 3rd and 4th centuries AD55. Hitherto a total of eight public buildings were excavated in Tibiscum–Iaz, all of which having a late phase as well (Benea phase IV: mid -3rd – 4th century AD = Ardeţ phase IV A: AD 211–271 and IV B: AD 271–335)56. A total number of 2354 pottery vessel fragments belonging to the latter phase (IV) were registered from the site (Pl. 4/2). Even though, out of this impressive number only 384 fragments could be classified from a functional and typological point of view, the image conveyed was that of considerable variety. The majority consists of cooking ware (pots, cooking bowls, lids,mortaria ), transport and storage vessels (jugs, amphorae, dolia) followed by tableware, which was separated in the analysis into food serving vessels (plates, bowls) and drinking vessels (cups)57. There is a striking variety of cooking pots within the assemblage, consisting of both wheel-thrown types (85%) and handmade variants (15%) and even pots with handles (Pl. 4/1; Pl. 6/1). The cooking bowls display a great variety as well, while the lids exhibit the same typological uniformity as during the 2nd and early – 3rd centuries AD (Pl. 5/2; Pl. 6/3). A similar degree of diversity can be seen in the case of the tableware (bowls and plates). The diameter of the plates increases (26–30 cm on average), their base is straight, the vessel’s bodies incorporate sharp corners, while the rims are somewhat thickened, rounded and reverted (Pl. 5/3). The bowls are mostly of brick-red color and sometimes display rosette-shaped stamped decoration58, painted decoration or color-coating (Pl. 5/1). The proportion of drinking vessels is conspicuously low (18 instances). The number of flagons is similarly low (21 instances) the types belonging to this category are identical with the ones from the previous phase of the site (2nd – early 3rd century AD). With regard to the cultic vessels, even though their numbers are low (10 turibula), their proportion is still higher than during the previous periods, also exhibiting a more complex decoration (Pl. 4/3). A likely change in the rituals involving these vessels might have triggered modifications in their functionality as well. The fabrics of the vessels are mostly either fine or semi-fine, the majority were fired in oxidizing environments and some display red color-coating (Pl. 4/2). Coarse fabrics were overwhelmingly employed in the case of handmade vessels (74%) but are also encountered within the category of wheel-thrown vessel (23%), in both cases one can note the nearly total absence of decoration. The coarse fabrics display different colors and shades, mostly brick-red and grey, and their temper includes quartz particles of different sizes and mica. Similar observations and statistics were made by D. Benea with regard to the late Roman pottery from the opposite side of the Timiş River, at Tibiscum–Jupa. In this case too, the vessel

54 BENEA 2005, 312. 55 BENEA 2004, BENEA 2007. 56 BENEA 1996A, 126; BENEA 2000, 435; ARDEȚ 2009B, 22. 57 For a more detailed version of this analysis, see GRUMEZA 2014. 58 ARDEȚ 2009B, 28. Post Roman and Sarmatian Pottery Workshops in Banat 73 shapes and their fabrics display marked similarities with production of the previous period. The main differences comprise of a somewhat lower quality standard in the production of the vessels, as well as higher quantity of temper (especially mica) incorporated into the fabrics. Surprisingly, there is only a small quantity of handmade pottery of La Tène type as opposed to a high proportion of red handmade ware. Reduced wares represent 31%, consisting mostly of dolia and large pots59. In similar fashion, at Porolissum, a settlement analogous to Tibiscum: the red wares are more common than the grey wares. Moreover, the native handmade pottery represents about 1% of the local assemblages60. Within building VIII from the municipium in Tibiscum–Jupa, a late-Roman pottery workshop was discovered (late 3rd – early 4th century AD), consisting of a platform for clay processing (300 × 90 cm), two levigation basins with brick walls (D = 50 cm) and a kiln of Henning type A built on a clay base, having a central pillar (H = 35 cm, D = 90 cm) (Pl. 8/1–2). The firing chamber is entirely built from recycled bricks and roof tiles61. The products of this workshop consisted mostly of wheel-thrown brick-red color-coated ware (98.2%) with semi-fine fabrics analogous to the 2nd–3rd century provincial wares62. Even so, some aspects of the material are typical for late-Roman pottery. In some cases the fabrics are coarsely tempered, their finish is mediocre, a high proportion of simple-shaped, mostly undecorated bowls, the sole decorative elements being the straight or wavy incised lines on the vessels’ surface63. The most characteristic vessel categories within the workshop-assemblage are the pots, bowls and to a lower extent the jugs (Pl. 8/3–8). The pots are mostly of small and medium size, wheel-thrown, having globular shapes, occasionally decorated with incisions similar with ones recorded at Tibiscum–Iaz, Dierna and Gornea in the 3rd–4th centuries AD64. In conclusion one can assert that the pottery discovered in the late phases of the afore‑ mentioned sites does not differ radically from the production of earlier periods, neither from the point of view of the firing (overwhelmingly oxidised) nor from that of the employed vessel shapes. Based on these observations it seems that even in this period a Roman lifestyle was still perpetuated, at least in the sense of the food and drink preparation and consumption, furthermore the pottery supply was based on the local production, just as in previous times.

No. of Clay Site Type Wells Annexes Technique/Firing kilns pits Mehadia 2 Henning A – Levigation basin – Wheel-thrown, oxidised Clay processing plat‑ Tibiscum–Jupa 1 Henning A – – Wheel-thrown, oxidised form and two basins Grădinari–Seliște 4 Henning B – – – Wheel-thrown, reduced Vršac–Crvenka 1 Henning C 1 Pottery storage 4 Wheel-thrown, reduced Dragşina 1 Henning B – – – Wheel-thrown, reduced Hodoni 1 Henning B – – – Wheel-thrown, reduced Timișoara–Freidorf 2 Local (?) – – – Wheel-thrown, reduced Pančevo 1 ? – – – Wheel-thrown, reduced

59 BENEA 1996A, 132, 138. 60 DE SENA 2010, 966. 61 The construction technique (especially the use of recycled material), its peculiar shape, the stratigraphy, the altering of the building’s functionality with the construction of the kiln within its precinct and the pottery material found in the 2nd chamber of the workshop are all indicative of a late dating, see BENEA 2007, 818. 62 BENEA 1996A, 138; BENEA 2007, 818. 63 BENEA 2007, 820. 64 BENEA 2007, 818–820. 74 Lavinia Grumeza

5. The pottery production from the “Sarmatian” Barbaricum in Banat Three pottery kilns belonging to Henning type B were researched at Grădinari–Seliște along with households and rubbish pits65. These type of kilns are known for their central walls and flue. Their body is conical with a circular raised oven-floor, except for kiln no. 2, which has an oval plan, somewhat resembling a horseshoe (Pl. 9; Pl. 10/1–3)66. Adjacent to kiln no. 3 is the furnace chamber, as well as a short portion of the flue belonging to another kiln, abandoned before the building of kiln no. 367. The dating of the contexts starts with the first half of the 3rd – first half of the 4th century AD, based on the coins of Gordian III, Claudius II Goticus and Constantius II68. The pottery from the area of the kilns is overwhelmingly wheel-thrown (95%), only a small portion is handmade (5%). The material from the households as well as the stoke-pits consists predominantly of good quality reduced wares, mainly: cooking bowls of different sizes, pots, jugs, to a lesser extent flagons, most of them displaying burnished or incised decoration (Pl. 11–13)69. The handmade pottery displays usually a blackish-brown color, the character‑ istic decorative element in this case being the alveolar cordon placed either on the maximum diameter of the vessel, or on the vessels’ rim (Pl. 10/4)70. The settlement is situated in the vicinity of the Lederata-Arcidava (Vărădia)-Berzobis- Tibiscum road, at only 3 km from the fort and civilian settlement from Vărădia71. Taking into account the position of the site as well as the number of kilns analyzed, one can presume that the workshop was of considerable dimensions. A similar settlement, although much larger, was researched at Üllő, southwest from Budapest, also in the immediate vicinity of the limes, where approximately 50 kilns were excavated72. The special feature of most kilns from Üllő is the total lack of support of the raised oven- floor. Based on our knowledge73 of kiln technology in this region one can assume that most Roman period kilns in the Barbaricum belong to the La Tène type with a so-called tongue support dividing the fire box and the flue. Another widely spread method of supporting the raised oven-floor is a central pillar built of different materials (daub, either pure or mixed with pottery and bricks or roof tiles). This sort of construction is common in Roman period pottery manufacturing centers all over Europe. None of these examples characterize a particular period. It seems that each pottery workshop – whether Roman or Barbarian – has many special, local features and Üllő is no exception74. Similar kilns to the ones from Üllő, which cannot be classified based on Henning’s typology, were recorded within the settlement of Timișoara–Freidorf, dating from the period between the 3rd century and the last third of the 4th century AD75. One of the kilns had an oval shape, its diameter varying between 60 and 70 cm; the superstructure was not preserved, the walls had clay lining on the interior, their preserved height being 24 cm. The kiln had a cross- like daub structure composed of four arms (Pl. 14/1–2). The second kiln was similar, the only major difference was the presence of six arms instead of four76.

65 BOZU 1990. 66 BOZU 1990, 149. 67 BOZU 1990, 150. 68 BOZU 1990, 157. 69 BOZU 1990, 151. 70 BOZU 1990, 152. 71 BOZU 1990, 158. 72 KULCSÁR/MERAI 2011. 73 KULCSÁR/MERAI 2011. 74 KULCSÁR/MERAI 2011, 66. 75 MARE/TĂNASE/DRAȘOVEAN/EL SUSI/GÁL 2011, 49, 52. 76 MARE/TĂNASE/DRAȘOVEAN/EL SUSI/GÁL 2011, 11. Post Roman and Sarmatian Pottery Workshops in Banat 75

Inside kiln no. 1 from Timișoara–Freidorf, reduced wheel-thrown fragments of pots and cooking bowls were found made from fine fabrics; inside the stoke-pit reduced wheel-thrown pottery fragments, along with fragments of handmade pots made with yellowish-red coarse fabrics, decorated with alveolar cordons were found77. Within the assemblages from the settlement, the wheel-thrown fine reduced ware has the highest proportion, followed by the brownish color handmade coarse ware. A low number of fragments belonging to oxidized color-coated Roman provincial wares, as well as amphorae and terra sigillata fragments were also discovered78. The local pottery thrown on the slow wheel is also present in significant numbers79, and dated between the second third of the 4th century and beginning of the 5th century AD80. The decoration of the vessels is quite varied, the techniques employed consist of stamping, rouletting and comb decoration. This local production has both oxidized and reduced variants and consists mainly of medium and large pots, lids and strainers (Pl. 15/1–15)81. The local handmade pottery was produced from grog-tempered coarse fabrics employed for the production of pots, lids and rectangular vessels82. The wheel-thrown, reduced fine grey, mostly burnished ware is present in significant amounts and great variety within the considered assemblages (Pl. 15/16–17). This category consists mainly of tableware (bowls, flagons, beakers and cups) but also small-sized storage vessels, such as jars, two-handle jars and dolia 83. A late Sarmatian-period pottery workshop was discovered at Vršac–Crvenka, which was only partially researched with the excavation of its western side84. According to the results of the investigation, the sunken kiln has a stepped section and rectangular plan (370 × 226 cm), belonging to Henning type C (Pl. 16/1)85. At a distance of 6 m east of the kiln a well was discovered (D = 112 cm, H = 480 cm), probably part of the workshop, given that the water source is a prerequisite of pottery production (Pl. 16/2). In addition, four clay extraction pits were found nearby, their depths varying between 280 and 340 cm (Pl. 16/3)86. The products of the workshop consist predominantly of fine reduced pottery decorated with a wide range of burnished motifs such as sharp triangles and wavy lines (Pl. 16/4)87. It is interesting to note that in the vicinity of the workshop a sunken pottery storage deposit was identified with a daub roof. The material of the deposit consists of flagons, globular vessels, storage vessels and bowls made of a reduced fine grey fabric (Pl. 17). The storage deposit was dated to the second half of the 4th century AD, in similar fashion to Vršac–Crvenka workshop88. In Dragşina, on the left bank of the Timiș River a large pottery kiln of Henning type B, with central wall, was discovered89. The products linked to the kiln consist of storage vessels (11.82%) with bi-conical bodies, pots as well as bowls with either foot-ring or raised platform (Pl. 18), produced mostly of semi-fine fabrics90. The majority of the vessels consists of grey

77 MARE/TĂNASE/DRAȘOVEAN/EL SUSI/GÁL 2011, 28. 78 MARE/TĂNASE/DRAȘOVEAN/EL SUSI/GÁL 2011, 12. 79 The proportions are not specified. 80 MARE/TĂNASE/DRAȘOVEAN/EL SUSI/GÁL 2011, 44. 81 MARE/TĂNASE/DRAȘOVEAN/EL SUSI/GÁL 2011, 43. 82 MARE/TĂNASE/DRAȘOVEAN/EL SUSI/GÁL 2011, 48. 83 MARE/TĂNASE/DRAȘOVEAN/EL SUSI/GÁL 2011, 45. 84 RAŠAJSKI 1957, 55. 85 RAŠAJSKI 1957, 55. 86 RAŠAJSKI 1957, 55. 87 RAŠAJSKI 1957, 56. 88 SIMOVLEVIĆ 1957, 60–62. 89 MICLE 1997, 77. 90 MICLE 1997, 78. 76 Lavinia Grumeza reduced ware, tempered with sand and mica (91.6 %). The presence of flagons is rather low, these belonging to two different types based on the diameter of their mouth opening (Pl. 18/3–4)91. The decoration consists of a relief cordon sometimes with incised thin chases92. There is only one instance of handmade pottery within this category, namely a fragment of a bi-conical pot made from a black coarse fabric (Pl. 18/1)93. In the settlement from Hodoni dated to the 3rd – 4th centuries AD, a circular pottery kiln was discovered (type Henning B?) with the diameter of 1.7 m, its raised oven floor destroyed probably already in Antiquity. The stoke-pit widens towards the west and is 140 cm deep. Very few pottery fragments were found in the fill of the kiln94. The pottery from the settlement consists of handmade and wheel-thrown vessels. The former, amounting to 10% of the assemblage, is made up of coarse brownish-grey pots, while the latter (Pl. 19) consists mostly of reduced fine-ware (70%) in addition to some oxidized fine-ware (30%)95. From a typological point of view, no major differences could be established between the reduced and the oxidized ware. The most common category is that of the pots96. The bowls are either burnished or decorated with horizontal incised lines, both wavy and straight. The number of flagons and jugs are much lower97. The existence of further production centers is presumed in the Serbian Banat at Baranda– Ciglana, Padej–Ciglana, Banatski Karlovac–Ciglana and Alibunar–Male livade (Pl. 1/2). The activity of these centers is dated to the 4th century AD, and their production included a wide range of pots, lids, bowls, cooking bowls, and barrel-shaped vessels. The vessels, fired in a reducing atmosphere are mostly wheel-thrown, some of them produced on the slow wheel98. No further pottery workshops are known in the area. The Sarmatian pottery from the Carpathian Basin appears thus as the combination between technical and stylistic elements adopted from the Dacian, Celtic and especially the Roman pottery production traditions.99 Within the settlements from the Great Hungarian Plain the categories which make up the majority of the assemblages belong to storage vessels, followed by the pots, bowls, globular vessels and flagons, mostly fired in a reducing atmosphere (Pl. 4/4–5)100. The burnished grey storage vessels are characteristic for the th4 century as well as the first decades of the 5th century AD101, after which there is a shift in the culinary practices throughout the Great Hungarian Plain102. These vessels are produced in multiple series in the local workshops103, in similar fashion to the so-called globular/spherical vessels. There is also an increase in the capacity of the aforementioned vessel categories during this period104. The burnished wheel-thrown vessels are characteristic especially to the late Sarmatian period. The burnished decoration consisting of geometrical motifs is gradually introduced starting from the 2nd century AD and is constantly in use until the late Sarmatian – Hun period105.

91 MICLE 1997, 80. 92 MICLE 1997, 79. 93 MICLE 1997, 80. 94 BEJAN 1981A, 154. 95 BEJAN 1995, 376. 96 BEJAN 1995, 376. 97 BEJAN 1995, 377. 98 TRIFUNOVIĆ 2000. 99 VADAY/JANKOVICH/KOVÁCS 2011, 232. 100 VADAY 1999, fig. 6; VADAY/JANKOVICH/KOVÁCS 2011, 210. Unfortunately, no other sites in Banat have similar statistical data, apart from Arad-Barieră, see GRUMEZA/URSUȚIU/COPOS 2013. 101 MARE/TĂNASE/DRAȘOVEAN/EL SUSI/GÁL 2011, 48. 102 VADAY 1989, 177. 103 VADAY 1989, 137–138; Abb. 33–34. 104 VADAY 1989, 153. 105 VADAY/MEDGYESI 1993, 63. Post Roman and Sarmatian Pottery Workshops in Banat 77

The geometrical motifs employed consist overwhelmingly of wavy line compositions, while the figural motifs appear less often and are characteristic for the late Sarmatian – Hun period106. The pottery decorated with floral motifs and elaborate figural compositions makes its appearance during the latter half of the 4th century AD, partially as a result of the influence exerted by the Cernjachov culture and the arrival of new populations in the Great Hungarian Plain. The vessels exhibiting a combination of burnished geometrical and animal motifs known from the late period consist mostly of flagons, various vessels with one or two handles as well as bowls with high foot-stands107. These finds are characteristic for the Middle Tisa Basin, the southern part of the Great Hungarian Plain, western Banat and Bačka108. The finds consisting of vessels decorated with burnished figural and elaborate geometrical motifs are quite common in the Banat region. K. Sóskuti and G. Sz. Wilhelm distinguished four different types of figural ornaments typical for the Great Hungarian Plain109, three of these can also be encountered within the Sarmatian pottery from the Banat: 1. Figural decoration consisting of two or more twisting lines rendering the figure of a snake (Drachendarstellung/Sárkányábrázolás), known from the settlements of Deszk, Szőreg– Homokbánya, Szőreg–Iván-téglagyár and Foeni–Seliște (Pl. 20/1–4). The vessels consist entirely of grey or blackish grey bowls fired in a reducing atmosphere and produced from a fine fabric. 2. Spiral and meander-like figural motifs, present on vessels discovered in Lenauheim and Jebel (Pl. 20/5–6). According to K. Sóskuti and G. Sz. Wilhelm these ornaments appear exclusively on pots and on flagons110. In 1960, in the village of Lenauheim numerous vessels dated to the 3rd–4th centuries AD (based on a current assessment the dating of the finds to the th4 and early 5th centuries AD is more realistic) were discovered111. According to the only information regarding the context of discovery the vessels were found together in a single feature. The material consists of wheel-thrown, grey colored reduced wares. In two instances burnished decoration can be observed, one of these vessels is a bi-conical container with two handles (16 × 10 × 26.5 cm), its upper part decorated with a register consisting of the succession of an animal motif repeated six times and displayed around the pot112. Almost identical vessels were discovered in Szabadka–Subotica, Mácskovics–Ziegelei, produced probably by the same workshop113. During a survey in the township of Jebel, numerous wheel-thrown and handmade vessels were discovered. The upper part of one of the pots (H = 30 cm) is decorated with a composition consisting of a group of wavy and straight lines, rendering the figure of a snake114. Unfortunately little is known concerning the archaeological contexts of these finds. 3. Figurative decoration consisting of realistically rendered animal motifs (birds, in our case). Vessels (bowls) exhibiting this kind of decoration were only reported from Orlovat and Farkaždin (Pl. 20/7), but can also be found in a collection (J. Bajalov) preserved in the museum from Zrenjanin115. The vessels, known only from the Banat and Bačka116, were produced from fine fabrics and decorated with geometrical and animal motifs consisting of bird-figures. 106 VADAY/JANKOVICH/KOVÁCS 2011, 229–230. 107 VADAY 1982, 121, 128. 108 VADAY/MEDGYESI 1993, 63. 109 SÓSKUTI/WILHELM 2005; SÓSKUTI/WILHELM 2006. 110 SÓSKUTI/WILHELM 2005, 54. 111 BEJAN 1981B, 21. 112 BEJAN 1995, 388. 113 The same is true for the examples from Békés and Szőreg, see VADAY 1982, T. 5/1a–b, 3a–b. 114 BEJAN 1995, 388. 115 BARAČKI 2004, 134. 116 BARAČKI 2004, 134. 78 Lavinia Grumeza

These vessels, displaying individually unique decoration117, are the products of pottery workshops which functioned in the southern part of the Hungarian Plain during the 4th century AD118. In addition to the material of the settlements, similar complex and varied decoration can also be found on the funerary and ritual pottery. In these cases however the decorative motifs are not burnished, but incised on small prismatic vessels. The funerary pottery of the Banat region consists also of small-sized handmade vessels, either prismatic or with rectangular bases and reverted walls. Often consistent deposits of soot and dark stains were noted in the interior of the vessels, the remains probably of different substances, perhaps resins which were deposited or burnt within these containers. A part of these vessels display decoration. Two ritual vessels with almost identical decoration, consisting of double or triple incised circles, were documented at Újszentiván within an unknown funerary context (probably from the spot known as Téglagyár)119 as well as grave no. 1 from Vršac–Crvenka (Pl. 21/3–4). It is possible that the aforementioned decorative elements on the prismatic vessels from Újszentiván and Vršac are symbolic replacements for the perforations found on early Sarmatian incense burners from the east120. A further decorated ritual vessel comes from Kovačica, from an unknown archaeo‑ logical context (Pl. 21/1). The small-sized vessel121 displays a horizontal stylized human figure surrounded by zigzag lines. A radial solar disc is featured on another side of the vessels, while the third side is decorated with xidized ‘pine branch’ composition. Ritual vessels with complex decorations, such as the one from Kovačica, or adorned with tamga signs are extremely rare within the grave-finds from the Hungarian Plain and are known only from Gyula–Szeregyháza, Sarkad, Kőrös-hát122 and Şiria (Pl. 21/5)123. Thetamga signs appear only rarely in the Carpathian Basin and are probably restricted to the local handmade pottery belonging to a newly arrived population. This category of vessels had a clearly cultic function124. A further small-sized, handmade prismatic vessel with incised decoration was discovered during a field-walking at Timişoara–Cioreni (Pl. 21/2). The small (6 × 6 cm) blackish grey vessel, decorated with incised motifs (ante cocturam) consisting of: swastika, horse (?), bird (?), snake, rooster (?), human representation (a procession directed towards the left) as well as further images in connection with a solar cult125. Similar motifs (a stylized snake, an unknown animal, a bird and a human figure) can be found on a miniature rectangular vessel discovered at Sarkad–Kőröshát126. These types of ritual vessels are not found throughout the entire Hungarian Plain, the reason for this may be that not all of the local groups and population practiced such rituals127. These finds which are extremely rare in the central and northern parts of the Hungarian Plain, are on the other hand very common in the cemeteries from Banat şi Bačka, along with the pottery decorated with elaborate figural ornaments, and the practice of placing multiple vessels inside the grave128. According to A. Vaday and P. Medgyesi these funerary features are dated to the late 4th – early 5th centuries AD129.

117 SÓSKUTI/WILHELM 2006, 29. 118 VADAY 1982, 127–128. 119 The dimensions of the vessel are: Db = 6.4/5 cm, Df = 5.6/4.5 cm, H = 3.6 cm (VADAY/MEDGYESI 1993, 83). 120 VADAY 2002, 218. 121 The dimensions of the vessel are: Db = 7 cm, Df = 5.5 cm, H = 7.2 cm; VADAY/MEDGYESI 1993, 83. 122 VADAY/MEDGYESI 1993, fig. 2.1,3, 4. 123 BERZOVAN/PĂDUREANU 2010, Fig. 2. 124 VADAY/MEDGYESI 1993, 87. 125 BENEA 1996B, 376. 126 VADAY/MEDGYESI 1993, Fig. 4/1–3. 127 VADAY/MEDGYESI 1993, 87. 128 VADAY/MEDGYESI 1993, 83. 129 VADAY/MEDGYESI 1993, 83; VADAY 2002, 218. Post Roman and Sarmatian Pottery Workshops in Banat 79

A further category typical for the late period consists of the so-called barrel-shaped vessels. These vessels, as opposed to their Roman counterparts, have neither handles nor foot-stands and are often asymmetrical with on or three openings, serving probably as containers for butter or other dairy products130, or even alcohol products131. Their asymmetrical shape indicates the fact that these vessels were usually suspended132. This category is usually found in the settle‑ ments from the central and southern parts of the Hungarian Plain133, while the only funerary contexts associated with these finds come from the cemeteries at Deszk–Újmajor and Saravale (Pl. 22/1–2). The origin as well as the functionality of these vessels was intensively debated in the archaeological literature. It is a known fact however that they were produced in the southern Banat during the 4th century AD, examples are known from Baranda–Ciglana and Banatski Karlovac–Ciglana (Pl. 22/3–5)134.

5. Conclusions During the late-Roman and post-Roman periods the pottery assemblages from centers of the western limes display an extremely varied local production combined with a very low proportion of imports. The case of Tibiscum is revealing in this respect, the locally produced common pottery is present during this late period (phase IV) in quantities paralleled only during the settlement’s economic peak between 118 and 170 AD (phase II). Moreover, the material from the late period speaks of a considerable technological progress in pottery production135. From a functional standpoint, the highest proportion within the assemblages is represented by the cooking wares followed by the storage and transport vessels and by the tableware, excluding the drinking vessels which are present in extremely low proportions. The flagons and the lids are also quite rare, the latter are identical with their counterparts from the previous period (2nd – early 3rd century AD). The inhabitants of Tibiscum, Mehadia or Dierna, whether Roman or not, still engaged in a Roman lifestyle reflected by the material culture, namely the pottery. There is a clear preference on their side for high quality oxidized ware, as opposed to their Sarmatians neighbours, who produced and used grey colored reduced pottery with burnished decoration, adopting only the Roman shapes. The kilns are almost identical to the ones known from the provincial environment of Dacia during the 2nd and 3rd centuries AD, the sole considerable differences lie in the choice of construction materials, the late period kilns incorporating reused and recycled building materials and the fact that they were often placed within disaffected structures such as houses and forts. According to the standard interpretations these small production centers with Roman tradition also supplied the settlements from the Sarmatian Barbaricum136. Nevertheless in the settlements of the Banat Lowlands the predominating material is considerably different and can be linked to much more extensive production centers.

130 VADAY1989, 159. 131 TRIFUNOVIĆ 2000, 89; MUSCALU 2012, 221. 132 MUSCALU 2012, 221. 133 For a complete list of the finds from the settlements see VADAY 1989, 159–160 and MUSCALU 2012, 221–222. 134 TRIFUNOVIĆ 2000, 86. 135 ARDEȚ 2009B, 183; see also the case of the workshop from Mehadia (BENEA 2005, 314). 136 RUSU-BOLINDEŢ 2011, 115 with bibliography. 80 Lavinia Grumeza

Post-Roman centres The “Sarmatian” Barbaricum on the Western Limes Shapes Pots, bowls, storage vessels, flagons, jugs Storage vessels, pots, globular vessels, bowls, (in lower numbers) flagons (in lower numbers), barrel-shaped vessels Firing Oxidised16 Reduced Decoration Red colour-coating, incised decoration Burnishing, geometrical and elaborate figural motifs Quality High quality pottery from fine and semifine fabrics Coarsewares Technology Wheel-thrown Slow wheel, handmade Imports Local pottery production, very few, or no imports Pottery Small-sized (consisting of 1–2 kilns), Larger workshops, produced for both local and workshops produced for local supply regional supply (see the distribution of burnished pottery with figural and geometrical ornaments) Placed within 2nd and 3rd century AD New pottery production tradition disaffected Roman buildings Types of Type Henning A Type Henning B and C kilns Roman provincial kilns also known from New types also emerge (e.g. Timișoara–Freidorf) previous periods but constructed with reused building material

137Translated by David Petruț

BIBLIOGRAPHY

ARDEȚ 2009A A. ARDEȚ, A New Type of Amphora discovered in Dacia. Histria Antiqua 18/1, 2009, 197–202. ARDEȚ 2009B A. ARDEȚ, Ceramica romană descoperită la Iaz “Traianu” (Cluj‑Napoca 2009). BARAČKI 2004 S. BARAČKI, Cakyпљa ctapинa y Ъанату–Рeч две o сaрматским зделама (Two interesting fragmentary Sarmatian dishes. Also a word or two on collectors of antiquities). Rad muzeja Vojvodine 41–42, 2004, 129–134. BEJAN 1981A A. BEJAN, Contribuţii arheologice la cunoaşterea aşezărilor rurale daco-romane din Banat în lumina descoperirilor de la Hodoni (jud. Timiş). Banatica 6, 1981, 153–169. BEJAN 1981B A. BEJAN, Aşezări rurale daco-romane din Banat din secolele III–IV e.n. în lumina unor recente cercetări arheologice. Analele Banatului (S.N.) 1, 1981, 21–25. BEJAN 1983 A. BEJAN, Elemente de continuitate daco-romană în aşezarea de la Hodoni (jud. Timiş) sec. III–IV e.n. Tipologia gropilor de provizii. Studii de Istorie a Banatului IX, 1983, 13–22. BEJAN 1995 A. BEJAN, Ceramica romană târzie din aşezarea de la Hodoni (jud. Timiş). Analele Banatului (S.N.) 4, 1995, 376–392.

137 Only the dominant figures within the workshops were illustrated in the table. Post Roman and Sarmatian Pottery Workshops in Banat 81

BEJAN 1998 A. BEJAN, Dacia Felix. Istoria Daciei romane (Timişoara 1998). BEJAN/BENEA 1985 A. BEJAN/D. BENEA, Şantierul arheologic Hodoni Pusta. Raport preliminar 1979 – 1984. Banatica 8, 1985, 187–199. BENEA 1976 D. BENEA, Oficina militară de la Dierna (sec. III–IV e. n.). Acta Musei Napocensis 13, 1976, 203–214. BENEA 1996A D. BENEA, Dacia sud-vestică în secolele III – IV (Timişoara 1996). BENEA 1996B D. BENEA, Interferenţe spirituale în aşezările daco-romane din sud-vestul Daciei în secolele III–IV. Sargeţia 26/1, 1995 – 1996 (1996), 371–381. BENEA 2000 D. BENEA, Les amphores de Tibiscum. Les relations commerciales entre la Dacie et les territoires de la Méditerranée orientale, Rei Cretariae Romanae Fautorum. Acta 36, 2000, 435–439. BENEA 2004 D. BENEA, Atelierele romane de mărgele de la Tibiscum (Timişoara 2004). BENEA 2005 D. BENEA La céramique romaine tardive de Praetorium (Mehadia, département de Caraş- Severin, Roumanie), Rei Cretariae Romanae Fautorum. Acta 39, 2005, 307–317. BENEA 2007 D. BENEA, Tibiscum, Centre de poterie romaine tardive dans le sud-ouest de la Dacie LRCW 2. Late Roman Coarse Wares, Cooking Wares and Amphorae in the Mediterranean: Archaeology and Archaeometry 2, 2007, 817–826. BENEA 2013 D. BENEA, Istoria Banatului în antichitate (Timişoara 2013). BENEA/BEJAN 1992 D. BENEA/A. BEJAN, Viața rurală în sud-vestul Daciei în secolele II – IV (I), Acta Musei Napocensis 24 – 25, 1992, 247–260. BOZU 1990 O. BOZU, Aşezarea daco-romană de la Grădinari-“Sălişte” (jud. Caraş-Severin). Banatica 10, 1990, 147–186. BOZU/EL SUSI 1987 O. BOZU/G. EL SUSI, Aşezarea romană târzie de la Moldova Veche Punctul „Vinograda- Vlaşkicrai” (judeţul Caraş-Severin). Banatica 9, 1987, 239–270. BRUCKNER 1990 O. BRUCKNER, Rimski nalazi u Jugoslovenskom delu Barbarikuma – Bačka i Banat, Arheološki Vestnik 41, 1990, 199–216. BERZOVAN/PĂDUREANU 2010 A. BERZOVAN/E. D. PĂDUREANU, A clay pot with tamga signs discovered in Şiria (Arad County). Annales d’Université Valahia Targoviste, Section d’Archéologie et d’Histoire 12/2, 2010, 57–66. DE SENA 2010 E. C. DE SENA, Porolissum and the Late Roman and Immediate post-Roman Economy of Dacia (AD 225 – 375): Pottery Evidence. LRCW 3. Late Roman Coarse Wares, Cooking Wares 82 Lavinia Grumeza

and Amphorae in the Mediterranean: Archaeology and Archaeometry. Comparison between western and eastern Mediterranean 2, 2010, 963–972. ÐORDEVIĆ 1996 M. ÐORDEVIĆ, Archaeological Sites of the Roman Period in Yugoslav Banat. Studii de Istorie a Banatului 17 – 18 (1993 – 1994), 1996, 23–43. GABLER 1968 D. GABLER, Terra sigillaták a kelet-Pannóniával szomszédos Barbaricumban. A barbaricum importjának néhány kérdése. ArchÉrt 95, 1968, 211–242. GABLER 1975 D. GABLER, Zu Frage der Handelsbeziehungen zwischen den Römer und den „Barbaren” im Gebiet östlich von Pannonien. In: Römer und Germanen in Mitteleuropa. Hist. Ges. d. DDR (Berlin 1975), 87–121. GABLER/VADAY 1986 D. GABLER/A. VADAY, Terra Sigillata in Barbaricum zwischen Pannonien und Dazien (Budapest 1986). GĂVAN 2007 R. GĂVAN, Ridicarea in situ, restaurarea și conservarea unui cuptor de olar din secolele III–IV, Analele Banatului (S. N.) 15, 2007, 349–353. GRUMEZA 2011 L. GRUMEZA, The Sarmatian necropolis from Foeni (Timiş County), Analele Banatului (S.N.) 19, 2011, 181–205. GRUMEZA 2014 L. GRUMEZA, Late Roman pottery discovered at Tibiscum-Iaz, Dacia province (middle of the 3rd–4th century AD), Rei Cretariae Romanae Fautorum. Acta 44, 2014, forthcoming. GRUMEZA/URSUȚIU/COPOS 2013 L. GRUMEZA/A. URSUȚIU/G. COPOS, Arad “Barieră”. Cercetări arheologice preventive într-un sit de epocă sarmatică/ Arad “Barieră”. Rescue excavation in a Sarmatian period site (Cluj‑Napoca 2013). GUDEA 1977 N. GUDEA, Gornea. Așezări din epoca romană și romană târzie (Reșița 1977). GUDEA/MOȚU 1983 N. GUDEA/I. MOȚU, Observaţii în legătură cu istoria Banatului în epoca romană. Banatica 7, 1983, 151–202. HENNING 1977 J. HENNING, Entwicklungstendenzen der Keramikproduktion an der mittleren und unteren Donau im 1. Jahrtausend u. Z. Zeitschrift für Archäologie 11/2, 1977, 181–206. IVANIŠEVIĆ/BUGARSKI 2008 V. IVANIŠEVIĆ/I. BUGARSKI, Western Banat during the Great Migration Period. In: B. Niezabitowska-Wiśniewska, M. Juściński, P. Łuczkiewicz, S. Sadowski (Eds.), The Turbulent Epoch, II (Lublin 2008), 39–61. KULCSÁR/MERAI 2011 V. KULCSÁR/D. MERAI, Roman or Barbarian? Provincial models in a Sarmatian Pottery center in the Danube frontier. In: E C. De Sena, H. Dobrzanska (Eds.), The Roman Empire and Beyond: Archaeological and Historical Research on the Romans and Native Cultures in Central Europe (Oxford 2011), 61–80. Post Roman and Sarmatian Pottery Workshops in Banat 83

MARE 2004 M. MARE, Banatul între secolele IV – IX (Timişoara 2004). MARE/TĂNASE/DRAȘOVEAN/EL SUSI/GÁL 2011 M. MARE/D. TĂNASE/F. DRAȘOVEAN/G. EL SUSI/S. S. GÁL, Timişoara–Freidorf. Cercetări arheologice preventive din anul 2006 (Cluj‑Napoca 2011). MICLE 1996 D. MICLE, Mormântul sarmatic de la Saravale, judeţul Timiş. ARHE, Buletin de Studii şi cercetări studenţeşti de istorie veche, arheologie şi epigrafie I,1996, 68–74. MICLE 1997 D. MICLE, Un centre de poterie dans l’agglomération daco-romaine de Dragșina (Département de Timiș). Bibliotheca Historica et Archaeologica I, 1997, 77–81. MICLE 2008 D. MICLE, Elemente de cartografiere digitală şi analiză spaţială a habitatului rural daco-roman din Dacia de sud-vest în sec. II–V d. H. (PhD Diss Sibiu 2008). MUSCALU 2009 B. MUSCALU, Cultura materială şi spirituală în teritoriul dintre Dunăre şi Tisa. Sarmaţii iazygi şi relaţiile cu Imperiul Roman (PhD Diss., Timişoara 2009). MUSCALU 2012 B. MUSCALU, Views concerning barrel-shaped vessels in the Sarmatian Iazyges environment Acta Musei Napocensis 47 – 48, 2010–2011 (2012), 219–228. OPAIȚ 2004 A. OPAIȚ, Local and Imported Ceramics in the Roman Province of Scythia (4th – 6th centuries AD) (Oxford 2004). OPAIȚ 2007 A. OPAIȚ, From DR 4 to LR 2. LRCW 2, Late Roman Coarse Wares, Cooking Wares and Amphorae in the Mediterranean: Archaeology and Archaeometry II, 2007, 627–644. RAŠAJSKI 1957 R. RAŠAJSKI, Sarmatska lončarska radionica iz Crvenke kod Vršca. Rad Vojvodjanskih Muzeja 6, 1957, 39–55. PÁRDUCZ 1945 M. PÁRDUCZ, Deszk-Újmajori szarmatakori temető. Folia Archeologica 5, 1945, 74–94. REIZNER 1903 J. REIZNER, Sasüllési és szöreghi leletekröl. ArchÉrt 23, 1903, 43–50. RUSU-BOLINDEȚ 2011 V. RUSU-BOLINDEȚ, Pottery workshops from Roman Dacia. In: J. Bemmann, U. Brosseder, H. E. Joachim (Eds.), Drehscheibentöpferei im Barbaricum Technologietransfer und Professionalisierung eines Handwerks am Rande des Römischen Imperiums, Akten der Internationalen Tagung in Bonn vom 11. bis 14. Juni 2009 (Bonn 2011), 91–115. SIMOVLJEVIĆ 1957 N. SIMOVLJEVIĆ, Sarmatski stratum na Crvenki kraj Vršca. Rad muzeja Vojvodine 6, 1957, 57–65. SÓSKUTI/WILHELM 2005 K. SÓSKUTI/SZ. G. WILHELM, „Sárkányok az Alföldön” II. Meanderes-spirális díszítésű edények a Kárpát-medencei Szarmata Barbaricumban. In: A Népvándorláskor Fiatal Kutatóinak XVI. konferenciáján elhangzott előadás. Nagykovácsi, 2005. szeptember 26–28 (Nagykovácsi 2005), 53–83. 84 Lavinia Grumeza

SÓSKUTI/WILHELM 2006 K. SÓSKUTI/SZ. G. WILHELM, „Sárkányok az Alföldön” I. Besimított szalagos testű figurális motívumok Szarmata edényeken (tipológia és elterjedés). Tatabányai Múzeum Tudományos Füzetek 8, 2006, 11–54. SZENTMIKLOSI/TIMOC 2005 A. SZENTMIKLOSI/C. TIMOC, Die ersten Archäologische Ausgrabungen von Foeni, Ort “Seliște”. Banatica 17, 2005, 59–73. TOPOLEANU 2000 F. TOPOLEANU, Ceramica romană si romano-bizantină de la Halmyris, sec. I–VII d. Chr. (Tulcea 2000). TIMOC/SZENTMIKLOSI 2008 C. TIMOC/A. SZENTMIKLOSI, Câteva date despre ceramica descoperită la Foeni–Seliște (jud. Timiș). Analele Banatului S.N. 16, 2008, 113–134. TRIFUNOVIĆ 2000 S. TRIFUNOVIĆ, Naselja Limiganta i Slovena u Banatu i Bačkoj (Settlements of Limigantes and Slavs in Banat and Bačka). Journal of the Serbian Archaeological Society 15 – 16, 1999 – 2000 (2000), 43–106. VADAY 1982 A. VADAY, Bemerkungen zur Frage der eigeglätteten Keramik mit figuraler Verzierung, MittArchInst 10/11, 1980/81 (1982), 121–130, 385–392. VADAY 1989 A. VADAY, Die sarmatischen Denkmäler des Komitats Szolnok. Antaeus 17 – 18, 1988 – 1989 (Budapest 1989). VADAY 1994 A. VADAY, Late Sarmatian graves and their connections within the Great Hungarian Plain. Slovenska Archeologia 42/1, 1994, 105–124. VADAY 1999 A. VADAY, Sarmatian Settlements in the Great Hungarian Plain. In: A. Vaday (Ed.), Pannonia and Beyond (Studies in Honour of L. Barkóczi) (=Antaeus 24, 1997–1998) (Budapest 1999), 547–562. VADAY 2002 A. VADAY, The World of Beliefs of the Sarmatians. Specimina Nova 16, (2000) 2002, 215–226. VADAY 2003 A. VADAY, Historical Overview. The peoples of the Barbaricum during the Roman Period. In: Zs. Visy (Ed.), Hungarian archaeology at the turn of the millennium (Budapest 2003), 265–271. VADAY 2005 A. VADAY, Corpus der römischen Funde im Barbaricum, Ungarn Band 1. Komitat Szolnok (Budapest 2005). VADAY/MEDGYESI 1993 A. VADAY/P. MEDGYESI, Rectangular Vessels in the Sarmatian Barbaricum in the Carpathian Basin. Communicationes Archaeologicae Hungariae 1993, 63–90. VADAY/JANKOVICH/KOVÁCS 2011 A. VADAY/D. B. JANKOVICH/L. KOVÁCS, Archaeological Investigations in County Békés 1986–1992 (Budapest 2011). Post Roman and Sarmatian Pottery Workshops in Banat 85

Mureş

Hodoni Timișoara-Freidorf Izvin Dragșina

Tibiscum

Vršac-Crvenka

Grădinari-Seliște Jabuca Mehadia Pančevo Dolovo

Drobeta Danube

0 1:600.000 100 km 1

Tisz

a Padej

LIMIGANTE Timiş

AMICENSES S PICENSES Alibunar Pannonia II Baranda Bantski Karlovac

Danube Moesia I 2

Pl. 1. 1. Pottery workshops in Banat; 2. South of Banat in the Late period according to ancient sources, the finds from settlements and pottery workshops (redrawn after TRIFUNOVIĆ 2000). 86 Lavinia Grumeza

2 4 5

9 6 7 8

10 11 12

0 4 cm

Pl. 2. Late Roman imports in Banat: 1. White stamped pottery from Tibiscum–Iaz (ARDEȚ 2009B); 2. Glazed pottery form Tibiscum–Iaz (GRUMEZA 2014); 3. Dressel 24 similis type amphora from Tibiscum–Iaz; 4 – 5. Dressel 24 type amphorae from Tibiscum–Jupa (BENEA 2000, ARDEȚ 2009B); 6. Terra sigillata from Újszentiván–Iván téglagyár (REIZNER 1903); 7 – 10. Terra sigillata from Kiszombor–B, not to scale; 11 – 12. Terra sigillata (copies) from Szeged–Szőreg (GABLER/VADAY 1986). Post Roman and Sarmatian Pottery Workshops in Banat 87

0 1 m

12 8

Pl. 3. 1. Pottery workshop from Mehadia; 2 – 4. Pots from the civilian settlement; 5 – 6. Plates from the North sector of the vicus; 7 – 10. Pots from the kiln 2; 11 – 12. Jugs (BENEA 2005). 88 Lavinia Grumeza

32% 28% vessels used food serving for transport vessels and food Fine Semifine Coarse storage Wheel-thrown, oxidized 145 678 83 Wheel-thrown, 5% reduced 13 739 83 drinking vessels Handmade, oxidized 0 95 73 Handmade, 35% reduced 0 101 87 1 cooking ware 2

Type I

Type II

Type III

Type IV

3 4

Pl. 4. 1. Common (utilitarian) pottery from Tibiscum–Iaz. Functionality; 2. Common (utilitarian) pottery from Tibiscum–Iaz. Quality and mode of firing (number of samples); 3.Turribula from Tibiscum–Iaz (GRUMEZA 2014); 4. Functions of vessels in the Sarmatian site Arad–Barieră (GRUMEZA/URSUȚIU/ COPOS 2013); 5. Vessel shape ratios of sites in Great Hungarian Plain (VADAY 1999). Post Roman and Sarmatian Pottery Workshops in Banat 89

Type I Type I

Type II Type II

Type III

2 Type IV

Type I

Type II

Type V Type III

1 3

Pl. 5. Tibiscum–Iaz; 1. Bowls; 2. Terrines; 3. Plates (GRUMEZA 2014). 90 Lavinia Grumeza

Type I Type I

Type II

Type III

Type IV

Type V

1 3

Pl. 6. Tibiscum–Iaz; 1. Wheel-thrown cooking pots/ vessels used for cooking; 2. Handmade cooking pots; 3. Lids (GRUMEZA 2014). Post Roman and Sarmatian Pottery Workshops in Banat 91

Type III Type I

Type II

Type I

Type II

Pl. 7. Tibiscum–Iaz; 1. Cups; 2. Jugs (GRUMEZA 2014). 92 Lavinia Grumeza

3 pottery kiln

Roman road 4 1

5 6

7 8 0 10 cm

Pl. 8. Tibiscum–Jupa; 1 – 2. Pottery kiln; 3, 7 – 8. Types of pots discovered in building VIII; 4. Jug from building VIII; 5 – 6. Bowls from building VIII (BENEA 2007). Post Roman and Sarmatian Pottery Workshops in Banat 93

Pl. 9. Pottery kilns from Grădinari–Săliște (photos: O. Bozu). 94 Lavinia Grumeza

- 90 cm

-75 cm

-135 cm

-155 cm

-75 cm 3 N

6 4

Pl. 10. 1 – 3. Pottery kilns from Grădinari–Săliște; 4 – 6. Handmade semifine pottery from the kilns area (BOZU 1990). Post Roman and Sarmatian Pottery Workshops in Banat 95

Pl. 11. Grădinari–Săliște; 1 – 3. Semifine gray pottery (jugs, cups and globular vessels) from the kilns area; 4. Coarse, gray pots from the kilns area (BOZU 1990). 96 Lavinia Grumeza

Pl. 12. Grădinari–Săliște; 1. Fine, gray storage vessels; 2. Fine, red storage vessels (BOZU 1990). Post Roman and Sarmatian Pottery Workshops in Banat 97

3 2

Pl. 13. Grădinari–Săliște; 1 – 2. Fine, red plates and bowls; 3. Coarse gray bowls; 4. Fine, gray bowls (BOZU 1990). 98 Lavinia Grumeza

4 5 6

7 8

Pl. 14. Timișoara–Freidorf; 1 – 2. Pottery kiln; 3 – 8. Pottery from the kiln (GĂVAN 2007; MARE/TĂNASE/DRAȘOVEAN/EL SUSI/GÁL 2011). Post Roman and Sarmatian Pottery Workshops in Banat 99

1 2 3 4 5

9 13

14 11

Pl. 15. Timișoara–Freidorf; 1 – 15. Slow wheel-thrown pottery; 16 – 17. Fine, gray-burnished vessels (MARE/TĂNASE/DRAȘOVEAN/EL SUSI/GÁL 2011). 100 Lavinia Grumeza

0 1 m

1 3

Pl. 16. Vršac–Crvenka; 1. Pottery workshop; 2. Well; 3. Clay extracting pits; 4. Burnished decorations on the vessels found in Vršac–Crvenka (RAŠAJSKI 1957). Post Roman and Sarmatian Pottery Workshops in Banat 101

1 2

5 6 7

0 10 cm 0 20 cm

Pl. 17. Vršac–Crvenka, pottery storage deposit (SIMLOVEVIĆ 1957). 102 Lavinia Grumeza

1 2

3 5

6 4

Pl. 18. Dragșina; 1. Handmade pot, made of coarse fabric; 2 – 8. Fine and semi fine vessels (bowls, jugs and pots) (MICLE 1997). Post Roman and Sarmatian Pottery Workshops in Banat 103

3 4

5 7

6 8

Pl. 19. Hodoni; 1 – 8. Semifine gray pottery (globular vessels, pots and bowls) (BEJAN 1995). 104 Lavinia Grumeza

3 1

4 2

5 6

Pl. 20. Vessels with figural burnish decoration; 1. Szőreg–Homokbánya; 2. Szőreg–Iván–téglagyár (SÓSKUTI/WILHELM 2006); 3. Foeni–Seliște (TIMOC/SZENTMIKLOSI 2008); 4. Deszk (VADAY 1982); 5. Lenauheim (BEJAN 1981B); 6. Jebel (BEJAN 1995); 7. Farkaždin (BARAČKI 2004). Post Roman and Sarmatian Pottery Workshops in Banat 105

1 2

Pl. 21. Decorated censers/ ritual vessels from Banat and north Mureş river: 1. Kovačika (VADAY/ MEDGYESI 1993); 2. Timişoara–Cioreni (BENEA 1996B); 3. Újszentiván; 4. Vršac–Crvenka (VADAY/MEDGYESI 1993); 5. Şiria (BERZOVAN/PĂDUREANU 2010). 106 Lavinia Grumeza

0 5 cm

3 0 5 cm

Pl. 22. Barrel-vessels recorded on the territory of Banat; 1. Saravale (MICLE 1996); 2. Deszk–Újmajor (PÁRDUCZ 1945, not to scale), 3. Banatski Karlovac–Ciglana stari iskop, 4 – 5. Baranda–Ciglana (TRIFUNOVIĆ 2000).