Lusitanian Amphorae: Production and Distribution 2016 Roman and Late Antique Mediterranean Pottery Archaeopress Series EDITORIAL BOARD (in alphabetical order) Series Editors Michel BONIFAY, Centre Camille Jullian, (Aix Marseille Univ, CNRS, MCC, CCJ, F-13000, Aix-en-Provence, France) Miguel Ángel CAU, Institució Catalana de Recerca i Estudis Avançats (ICREA)/Equip de Recerca Arqueològica i Arqueomètrica, Universitat de Barcelona (ERAAUB) Paul REYNOLDS, Institució Catalana de Recerca i Estudis Avançats (ICREA)/Equip de Recerca Arqueològica i Arqueomètrica, Universitat de Barcelona (ERAAUB) Honorary editor John HAYES, Institute of Archaeology, University of Oxford Associate editors Philip KENRICK, Institute of Archaeology, University of Oxford John LUND, The National Museum of Denmark, Denmark Scientific Committee for Pottery Xavier AQUILUÉ, Paul ARTHUR, Cécile BATIGNE, Moncef BEN MOUSSA, Darío BERNAL, Raymond BRULET, Claudio CAPELLI, Armand DESBAT, Nalan FIRAT, Michael G. FULFORD, Ioannis ILIOPOULOS, Sabine LADSTÄTTER, Fanette LAUBENHEIMER, Mark LAWALL, Sévérine LEMAÎTRE, Hassan LIMANE, Daniele MALFITANA, Archer MARTIN, Thierry MARTIN, Simonetta MENCHELLI, Henryk MEYZA, Giuseppe MONTANA, Rui MORAIS, Gloria OLCESE, Carlo PAVOLINI, Theodore PEÑA, Verena PERKO, Platon PETRIDIS, Dominique PIERI, Jeroen POBLOME, Natalia POULOU, Albert RIBERA, Lucien RIVET, Lucia SAGUI, Sara SANTORO, Anne SCHMITT, Gerwulf SCHNEIDER, Kathleen SLANE, Roberta TOMBER, Inês VAZ PINTO, Caterina VIEGAS, Yona WAKSMAN General advisors Richard HODGES, Richard REECE, Gisela RIPOLL, Bryan WARD-PERKINS, Chris WICKHAM, Enrico ZANINI   The International Congress in Tróia, Portugal ( - 3 October 2 3), from which this collective volume results, had the following organization and sponsors:   Organization       Sponsors      Lusitanian Amphorae: Production and Distribution edited by Inês Vaz Pinto,* Rui Roberto de Almeida** and Archer Martin*** * CEAACP – Centro de Estudos em Arqueologia, Artes e Ciências do Património / TROIA RESORT ** UNIARQ – Centro de Arqueologia da Universidade de Lisboa. Faculdade de Letras. Universidade de Lisboa. / FCT Doctoral Grant *** American Academy in Rome / Universität zu Köln Published on the occasion of the 30th Congress of the Rei Cretariae Romanae Fautores (Lisbon, 2016) Roman and Late An que Mediterranean Po ery Archaeopress Publishing Ltd Gordon House 276 Banbury Road Oxford OX2 7ED www.archaeopress.com ISBN 978 1 78491 427 1 ISBN 978 1 78491 428 8 (e-Pdf) © Archaeopress and the authors 2016 All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying or otherwise, without the prior written permission of the copyright owners. Printed in England by Short Run Press, Exeter This book is available direct from Archaeopress or from our website www.archaeopress.com Contents Foreword................................................................................................................................................................... v I - The Production of Lusitanian Amphorae Production during the Principate in Peniche (Portugal).Raw Materials, Kilns and Amphora Typology......................... 3 Guilherme Cardoso, Severino Rodrigues, Eurico de Sepúlveda and Inês Ribeiro Roman Pottery Workshop of Quinta do Rouxinol (Seixal): Quantification and Classification of Amphora Production ........................................................................................................................................... 19 Jorge Raposo, Cézer Santos and Olga Antunes The Roman Figlina at Garrocheira (Benavente, Portugal) in the Early Empire ........................................................... 47 Clementino Amaro and Cristina Gonçalves Roman Amphora Production in the Lower Sado Region ........................................................................................... 59 Françoise Mayet and Carlos Tavares da Silva The Roman Kilns at Estrada da Parvoíce, Alcácer do Sal (Portugal) ........................................................................... 73 João Pimenta, Marisol Ferreira and Ana Catarina Cabrita Roman Amphora Production in the Algarve (Southern Portugal) ............................................................................ 81 João Pedro Bernardes and Catarina Viegas II – Archaeometry, Contents and Quantification of Lusitanian Amphorae Geochemical Fingerprints of Lusitanian Amphora Production Centres: Tagus, Sado, Algarve and Peniche ................ 95 M. Isabel Dias and M. Isabel Prudêncio Lusitanian Amphorae of the Augustan Era and their Contents: Organic Residue Analysis ....................................... 105 Rui Morais, César Oliveira and Alfredo Araújo Fish Bones and Amphorae: New Evidence for the Production and Trade of Fish Products in Setúbal (Portugal) ...... 111 Sónia Gabriel and Carlos Tavares da Silva The Myth of ‘Laccatum:’ a Study Starting from a New Titulus on a Lusitanian Dressel David Djaoui ....................................... 117 Do We Have the Capacity to Understand the Economy of Lusitanian Commodities? Volumetric Calculations of Lusitanian Amphora Types..................................................................................................................................... 129 Victor Martínez III – The Distribution of Lusitanian Amphorae – Lusitanian Amphorae in Lusitania Amphorae at the Origins of Lusitania: Transport Pottery from Western Hispania Ulterior in Alto Alentejo ............. 139 Rui Mataloto, Joey Williams and Conceição Roque Julio-Claudian Lusitanian Amphorae: a Perspective on Selected Contexts from Olisipo (Lisbon, Portugal) .............. 153 Rodrigo Banha da Silva, Victor Filipe and Rui Roberto de Almeida i Julio-Claudian Lusitanian Amphorae: a Perspective on Selected Contexts from Olisipo (Lisbon, Portugal) .............. 153 Rodrigo Banha da Silva, Victor Filipe and Rui Roberto de Almeida Lusitanian Amphorae and Transport Coarse Ware from the Roman Anchorage of Praça D. Luís I (Portugal) ........... 167 Jorge Parreira and Marta Macedo Lusitanian Amphorae at a Fish-Salting Production Centre: Tróia (Portugal) ............................................................ 173 Inês Vaz Pinto, Rui Roberto de Almeida, Ana Patrícia Magalhães and Patrícia Brum On the Way to Augusta Emerita. Historiographical Overview, Old and New Data on Fish-Product Amphorae and Commerce within the Trade to the Capital of Lusitania .......................................................................................... 195 Rui Roberto de Almeida Lusitanian and Imported Amphorae from the Roman Town of Ammaia (Portugal). A Short Overview .................... 219 Caterina P. Venditti Lusitanian Amphorae in the Roman City of Conimbriga ......................................................................................... 231 Ida Buraca A Multi-Disciplinary Approach to the Maritime Economy and Palaeo-Environment of Southern Roman Lusitania.......................................................................................... 241 Felix Teichner The Lusitanian Amphorae from the Roman Villa of Vale da Arrancada (Portimão, Algarve, Portugal) ..................... 257 Carlos Fabião, Catarina Viegas and Vera de Freitas 2 – Lusitanian Amphorae in Gallaecia, Baetica and Tarraconensis Lusitanian Amphorae in the Northwest of the Iberian Peninsula............................................................................ 273 Adolfo Fernández Fernández Amphora Circulation in the Lower Guadalquivir Valley in the Mid Imperial Period: the Lusitana 3 Type ................. 285 Enrique García Vargas Lusitanian Amphorae in the Strait of Gibraltar: Interprovincial Food Supply .......................................................... 299 Darío Bernal-Casasola Lusitanian Amphorae in Carthago Nova (Cartagena, Spain): Distribution and Research Questions ......................... 311 Alejandro Quevedo and Sónia Bombico Escolletes . Lusitanian Amphorae and Late Roman Maritime Trade in the Iberian Southeast ................................ 323 Felipe Cerezo Andreo Lusitanian Amphorae in Tarraco (3rd-5th Century AD) ........................................................................................... 333 Josep-Anton Remolà Vallverdú Early Imperial Lusitanian Amphorae from the Eastern Iberian Coast ...................................................................... 343 Ramón Járrega Domínguez and Horacio González Cesteros 3 – Lusitanian Amphorae Beyond Hispania Lusitanian Amphorae from the Dump Layer above the Arles-Rhône 3 Shipwreck ................................................... 357 David Djaoui and José Carlos Quaresma Lusitanian Amphorae in Germania Superior, Germania Inferior and Gallia Belgica. Scarcity, Identification Problems, Contexts and Interpretations ................................................................................................................................. 369 Patrick Monsieur ii Lusitanian Amphorae found on the Punta Sardegna A Shipwreck (Palau, Sardinia). A Preliminary Report on Typologies and Fabrics ........................................................................................................................................... 381 Alessandro Porqueddu, Claudia Giarrusso and Pier Giorgio Spanu Lusitanian Amphorae at Ostia and in the Vesuvian Region ..................................................................................... 389 Archer Martin Lusitanian Amphorae in Naples between the 3rd and the 5th Century AD ............................................................. 399 Luana Toniolo Lusitanian Amphorae in Rome ............................................................................................................................... 409 Giorgio Rizzo Lusitanian Amphorae in Adriatic Italy: Commercial Routes and Distribution .......................................................... 419 Rita Auriemma and Stefania Pesavento Mattioli (with an Appendix by Manuela Mongardi) Lusitanian Amphorae in the Northern Adriatic Region: the Western Part of the Decima Regio............................... 429 Silvia Cipriano and Stefania Mazzocchin Lusitanian Amphorae in Northern Adriatic Italy: the Eastern Part of Decima Regio ................................................ 437 Dario Gaddi and Valentina Degrassi Lusitanian Amphorae on Western Mediterranean Shipwrecks: Fragments of Economic History ............................. 445 Sónia Bombico iii Lusitanian Amphorae in Rome Giorgio Rizzo* *Independent researcher, Rome giorgiorizzo.64@libero.it The present work focuses on the imports of Lusitanian amphorae through a synthesis based on a collection of data published in papers and reports on archaeological excavations carried out in Rome and dating as far back as the last two decades of the 20th century, from which a general assessment of their economic impact on the Roman market will be attempted. In 4th-5th-century contexts the historical-economic interpretation of these data is particularly problematic. It is primarily hindered by a flaw in the typologies for late antique south Spanish fish amphorae: the present typologies, in fact, cannot describe the peculiarities of their later production phase. A further obstacle is the paucity of Baetican-Lusitanian amphorae in late antique deposits of Rome, where it is often impossible to ascertain whether they are residual. KEYWORDS: ROME; 1ST-6TH CENTURY AD CONTEXTS; HISPANIC AND LUSITANIAN AMPHORAE; FISH; OIL; OSTIA; MEDITERRANEAN TRADE; LATE ANTIQUITY. Cádiz and Algeciras, as well as along the shore of Málaga. For this reason, in the present paper the fish amphorae of the middle and late imperial period will be called here generically ‘south Hispanic’ or ‘Baetican-Lusitanian’. Introduction A general overview of Roman food imports carried in amphorae from the Iberian Peninsula has already been outlined at the first international seminar Amphorae ex Hispania. Cuestiones Metodológicas, held in Tarragona in 2012 (Rizzo forthcoming). The present work will focus on the imports of Lusitanian amphorae through a synthesis based on a collection of data published in papers and reports on archaeological excavations dating as far back as the last two decades of the 20th century, from which we will attempt a general assessment of their economic impact on the Roman market. The outcome, therefore, will have to take into account the limits of the documentation itself as they were illustrated in Tarragona, and it may be useful to sum them up briefly. A particularly problematic issue, moreover, is how to interpret the presence of south Hispanic fish amphorae in Roman contexts dating from the beginning of the 5th century AD. The difficulty this time is also due to flaws in the typologies, which even today cannot distinguish the morphological peculiarities of some amphorae used to transport garum and salsamenta in the latest production period of south Hispanic fish amphorae. This last period has only recently been identified on the basis of evidence on production sites and, more importantly, of their distribution to some market centres of the western Mediterranean basin, so that it turns out to be impossible at present to establish with certainty whether they are in context in urban stratigraphies of Rome in the 5th century AD and later. Moreover, in the latest production and marketing period, which covers the 5th century AD and occasionally the 6th, the export of these foodstuffs is far below the levels reached between the 1st and 2nd century AD, and therefore particularly elusive and scarcely visible in late antique archaeological deposits in Rome, where it is always impossible to determine if the low percentage of south Hispanic amphorae can be explained by the phenomenon of residuality or if it points to continued trade ties between Rome and the diocesis Hispaniarum. Many publications of materials from excavations carried out in Rome, especially those of the 1980s and 1990s, tend to be extremely concise: they usually provide the number of amphora fragments divided according to their forms, mainly with the help of tables and/or graphics, without illustrations and descriptions of fabrics. In 1st and 2nd century AD contexts, Lusitanian amphorae – Dressel 14/ Lusitana 2 – are almost systematically distinguished from corresponding Baetican Dressel 14. This distinction is rarely made on the basis of typological criteria – through a comparison with materials from Lusitanian production sites or otherwise attributed to Lusitania – and/or according to the characteristics of the fabrics - which are not often described – but rather it appears to be the result of the empirical skills of researchers. In middle and late imperial contexts, on the other hand, the fish amphorae Almagro 50/ Keay XVI, Almagro 51 a-b/Keay XIX and Almagro 51c/ Keay XXIII were often automatically attributed only to Lusitania (e.g. Carignani and Pacetti 1989: 614-615, tab. II-III) and this attribution is not confirmed by the results of the latest researches carried out in Baetica, where these amphorae were regularly manufactured - together with the older Dressel 14 – in the regions of Huelva, the Bay of Early-Middle Imperial Period (1st-3rd century AD) In Rome, the first evidence of deliveries of amphorae containing foodstuffs is found in strata from the late Neronian period, after AD 64, in the area of the Meta Sudans in Coliseum Square. Here, the Dressel 14/Lusitana 2 (Figures 1-2) (Rizzo forthcoming) account for a nonnegligible share – about 5% of fish amphorae – but still definitely lower than Baetican amphorae, which account for more than 90% of the oil and fish amphorae of that 409 Lusitanian Amphorae: Production and Distribution Figure 1. Rome. Hispanic and Lusitanian amphorae (1st century BC– early 4th century AD). Figure 2. Rome. Wine, oil, fish amphorae from Hispania (Augustan period – early 4th century AD). 410 G. Rizzo: Lusitanian Amphorae in Rome of various conditions that can also help us to understand the arrival of Lusitanian foodstuffs: the availability of mineral resources – documented for the Lusitanian territory as well (Saquete Chamizo 2010) – but above all the high demand for foodstuffs that characterized the Roman market and had dramatically increased since the Augustan period, following an impressive series of events that ensured a higher standard of living for the plebs. A. Tchernia (2011: 165-166) has recently stated that from around the mid 1st century BC free grain distributions and money donations took place repeatedly in Rome, determining the rejection of mere survival prospects, population growth and a richer and more varied diet, which included wine, oil and products of the fish industry, that is all the essential prerequisites – as well as consequences – of a better quality of life and life expectancy, besides an increase in the demographic rate. This demand was met with annona imports of Baetican oil transported in Dressel 20 amphorae and with deliveries of large amounts of fish amphorae, as documented by Roman finds from stratigraphic sequences dating to the 1st and 2nd century AD, where they reach very high proportions. period. There is still no evidence about the supply of other amphorae – and thus about the supply of wine – from Lusitania. In Rome wine arrived from a variety of Italian centres - the Tyrrhenian and Adriatic areas, the Tiber Valley – but also from the provinces – Gallia Narbonensis, Tarraconensis, Baetica, Northern Africa, the Aegean and Asia Minor and the Syrian-Palestinian area – in ways and proportions that varied constantly over time. The same complexity characterizes Roman imports of oil, salsamenta and fish sauces carried in amphorae, which are also influenced by the activity of the annona, aimed at ensuring the continuity of the supply of Baetican oil transported in Dressel 20 amphorae. Over time, the fragments of these containers piled up until they formed Monte Testaccio, located near the river harbour at the Emporium (Blázquez Martínez, Remesal Rodríguez and Rodríguez Almeida 1994; Blázquez Martínez and Remesal Rodríguez 1999; Blázquez Martínez and Remesal Rodríguez 2001; Blázquez Martínez and Remesal Rodríguez 2003; Blázquez Martínez and Remesal Rodríguez 2007; Blázquez Martínez and Remesal Rodríguez 2010). The flow of foodstuffs carried in amphorae from modern Spain and Portugal to Rome is therefore determined both by the supply of annona supplies – embodied in the fragments of Monte Testaccio – and by the wine, oil and fish amphorae arriving through the circuit of the free market. But it is only through the analysis of the amphorae found in contexts in different locations on the territory of the ancient city, which reflect the consumptions of the inhabitants, that we manage to reconstruct the history of changing Italic and provincial supplies of wine, oil and fish by-products. Studies carried out by G. Boetto and, more recently, S. Bombico, C. Nervi, E. Piccardi and F. Allégrini-Simonetti have confirmed the diverse imports from Lusitania, Baetica and Tarraconensis by reviewing and analysing the cargoes of wrecks sunk along the northern coast of Corsica and Sardinia and off the fretum Gallicum – the Strait of Bonifacio – that is, the areas covered by the routes to the harbours of Rome (Boetto 2012: fig. 8.15; Bombico et al. 2014). Shipwrecks and salvages dating back to the 1st and mid 2nd century AD demonstrated the presence of Dressel 14/Lusitana 2 amphorae, as well as Baetican oil and fish amphorae, Tarraconensis wine containers, lead and copper bars. Unfortunately, underwater finds are often the result of sporadic salvages or excavations that were not carried out systematically or only partially, and therefore they hardly ever allow the composition of cargos to be assessed precisely, and consequently the percentage relationship between Lusitanian amphorae and other Hispanic amphorae stowed on the ships and sent to Rome to be calculated. Furthermore, establishing the exact chronology of the wrecks, the provenance of the ships and their destinations sometimes turns out to be impossible, and all these factors, in turn, preclude the possibility of reconstructing an accurate chronological seriation of the findings and a sufficient documentary basis for the amphorae that were assuredly or probably heading from the Iberian Peninsula to Rome. Data from land archaeology, on the other hand, allow many gaps from maritime archaeology to be filled, since they offer not only a richer documentary basis but one that is related to contexts with much more precise dating. And yet even these data often have to cope with the ambiguous distinction between Lusitanian and Baetican amphorae. Only subsequently do Lusitanian amphorae join the flow of oil, salsamenta, fish sauces and, in lesser degree, wine coming from Baetica and Tarraconensis, already available on the Roman market at the time of Sulla and Caesar, especially in the 30s of the 1st century BC and - in still larger amounts and for the first time together with amphorae from Tarraconensis – in the late Augustan period. The same chronological seriation of food imports transported in amphorae from the Iberian Peninsula – Baetica-Tarraconensis-Lusitania – is also confirmed by the finds in Ostia, one of Rome’s harbours (Rizzo 2014). The main reason for the delay in Lusitanian imports is in all likelihood to be found in the belated development of surplus produce in the fish industry destined for extraprovincial markets. The first floruit of these markets, indeed, roughly coincided with the first morphologically standardized production of Lusitanian containers – the Dressel 14/Lusitana 2 form – massively produced in the workshops of the Tagus and Sado Valleys from the JulioClaudian period, but also in Morraçal da Ajuda (Peniche) and in Manta Rota (Algarve) (Fabião 2008: 729-733; Fabião 2009a: 571, 575-576). Rome was not only the centre of consumption of Lusitanian fish-derived products: it also played a role of redistribution to the inner regions of central Italy, especially through the Tiber River. Fragments of Dressel The beginning of imports of fish sauce and salsamenta from Lusitania, then, is part of a flow of goods to Rome from western Hispania, which was determined by the interaction 411 Lusitanian Amphorae: Production and Distribution Figures 3-6. Scoppieto (Terni). Dressel 14/Lusitana 2 (nos. 1-3) and Almagro 51c/Keay XXIII (no. 4) (Speranza 2011: fig. 13, nos. 1-4). 14/Lusitana 2 amphorae have been found in the ceramic production site of Scoppieto (Terni), not far from the river, in contexts dating to the Hadrianic period and the 3rd century AD, while an Almagro 51c has been recovered in post-antique levels (Figures 3-6, after Speranza 2011: 309). Further finds have been reported at S. Potito di Ovindoli (L’Aquila) during the excavations of a villa that probably belonged to an aristocratic family from Alba Fucens or Marruvium and was occupied from the Tiberian period to the last quarter of the 3rd century AD: on this site archaeologists found fragments of Dressel 14/ Lusitana 2 hypothetically attributed to production centres in the Sado Valley, including a neck with a handle with a stamp C.LH at the base of the handle (Hárshegyi 2008: 136-138). In Rome the finds are much more frequent. The table and the graph (see Figures 1-2) show the data concerning Hispanic amphorae in stratigraphic sequences dating between the late Neronian period and the period of Diocletian and Constantine: data are expressed as a percentage of the total amount of wine, oil and fish amphorae recovered in chronologically different contexts. The statistics concerning Lusitanian amphorae follow a pattern that can be partially identified with a sinusoidal curve in which peaks occur in correspondence with the Flavian and Severan periods: after that, Lusitanian amphorae can no longer be distinguished from Baetican. From the beginning of the 3rd century, the Roman market shows the presence of Almagro 50, Almagro 51c and Figure 7. Ostia (Rome). Fish amphorae in the Flavian – late Antonine period (from Rizzo 2014: 431, graph. 19). 412 G. Rizzo: Lusitanian Amphorae in Rome the Terme and in the main Ostian contexts dating between the Flavian period and the end of the 2nd century AD (Figure 7: data expressed as a percentage of the total amount of fish amphorae recovered in chronologically different contexts). In this chronological span, the presence of Lusitanian amphorae does not appear to be as erratic as in coeval stratigraphic sequences of Rome, with a percentage variation slightly under or over 20% and a peak in the first half of the 2nd century AD: their rise in Flavian-Hadrianic period actually coincides with a minor, progressive contraction of Baetican fish amphorae, but later even Lusitanian amphorae, like Baetican ones, show a slight decrease. Almagro 51a-b amphorae, which have been included in the more general category of ‘Baetican-Lusitanian fish amphorae’ because of the impossibility of distinguishing between those regional productions. We do not know to what extent the above illustrated curve actually represents an erratic pattern of imports of Lusitanian amphorae, because it could partly depend on the different criteria of identification adopted by Italian researchers. Peaks and falls, however, are apparently related to alternating increases and decreases in imports of Baetican fish amphorae, which may have been complemented by Lusitanian amphorae. This hypothesis seems partially confirmed by the behaviour of Lusitanian amphorae on the market of Ostia, where they partly play the same function. The publication of the amphorae found in the NE Area at the Terme del Nuotatore (Rizzo 2014) was the starting point for an investigation of data concerning amphorae that were recovered in previous excavations of Between the late Neronian period and the late Antonine period, Roman stratigraphic sequences document only the presence of Dressel 14/Lusitana 2 (Figures 8-10): particularly frequent is a type with an indistinct, thickened and rounded rim that has been found both in the Domitianic Figures 8-10. Rome. Dressel 14/Lusitana 2 from Vigna Barberini (no. 8) and Trajan’s Market (nos. 9-10) (Rizzo 2003: tab. XXXVII, no. 189; Bertoldi 2008: tab. II, nos. 12-13). Figure 11. Rome. Oil and fish amphorae from the Neronian period to the early 4th century AD. 413 Lusitanian Amphorae: Production and Distribution as a source of primary foodstuffs for the people in Rome, whose grain requirements brought about a privileged relationship – an ‘axis’ according to the definition of Ch. Wickham (1988: 191) – between the northern provinces of Africa and central Italy, especially Rome. The new logistics of the supply chain, moreover, are reflected and institutionalized in Diocletian’s administrative division of the Empire, under which Hispania was united to the prefecture of the Gauls, while Africa was associated with Italy, so that Rome could make use of African annona supplies, while Iberian products – released from the requirements of the civic annona – could meet the demands of border regions and troops arrayed in the pars Occidentalis. This, according to J. Remesal Rodríguez, is the explanation for the halt in Baetican imports on the Italic market – and therefore on Ostian and Roman markets as well – which is supposed to reflect a policy of progressive and organic segmentation of the Empire (Remesal Rodríguez 1977-78: 119-120; Remesal Rodríguez 1991: 360-361; Panella and Saguì 2001: 770). Figure 12. Rome. Dressel 14/Lusitana 2 from S. Stefano Rotondo (Martin, Palazzo and Cook 2008: fig. 89). contexts of the Vigna Barberini, on the Palatine, and in Trajan’s Market in the period of Trajan. Given the paucity of documentation, it is hardly ever possible to establish the provenance of Lusitanian amphorae in Rome: the only exception is a fragment from Trajan’s Market, with the stamp MO, which unambiguously points to a production site in the Sado Valley (Fabião and Guerra 2004: 232). Starting from the Severan period (church of S. Stefano Rotondo), statistics show a sharp decrease in Baetican oil amphorae (Figure 11): if Dressel 20 amphorae account for 40-50% of all oil amphorae in the second half of the 2nd century AD, in the Severan period these percentages fall dramatically and settle at a level slightly over a tenth of oil amphorae of the period, only to disappear almost completely in the Diocletianic-Constantinian period. From the Severan period to the beginning of the 4th century AD, a similar collapse in fish-amphora imports occurred: in Severan layers, Baetican and Lusitanian amphorae for salsamenta and garum still represent all the fish amphorae of the time; between the end of the 3rd and the beginning of the 4th century AD, they account for only 45% of the fish containers circulating and are replaced by African amphorae. Archaeological evidence recovered in late antique layers in Rome and dating from the beginning of the 4th century AD through the 5th confirms the historical-economic picture we have just outlined. An overview of the imports of wine, oil and fish amphorae in Late Antiquity has been presented on several occasions by C. Panella, after collecting evidence from excavations in urban contexts, in which archaeological information once more turned out to be quite discordant in quality but, as a rule, extremely concise.1 Despite the paucity of data, however, we often find containers from the Iberian Peninsula, particularly Dressel 23/Keay XIII, Almagro 51a-b/Keay XIX; Almagro 51c/Keay XXIII, and their frequency does not differ too much from the low percentages that characterize the urban deposits of the beginning of the 4th century AD. From a typological point of view, we can document the supply of Almagro 51c, besides the usual presence of Dressel 14/Lusitana 2 (Figures 12) and Almagro 50, for the first time in Roman layers of the Severan period (church of S. Stefano Rotondo) (Martin, Palazzo and Cook 2008: 258-259, figs 88-89, 93). According to C. Panella, therefore, the presence of Baetican oil amphorae (Dressel 23) and south Spanish fish amphorae until the first quarter of the 5th century AD is the consequence of continuing commercial ties between Rome and the Iberian Peninsula, although on a much lower scale compared to the 1st and 2nd century AD. In fact, percentage values of Dressel 23/Keay XIII and other similar forms range between 1-2% and 5%, while south Hispanic fish amphorae have values within 4% for Almagro 51a-b/Keay XIX and within 7% for Almagro 51c/Keay XXIII.2 Therefore, after the first quarter of the 5th century AD, the presence of Hispanic amphorae in urban stratigraphic sequences should be interpreted solely as a phenomenon of residuality. Late Antiquity: 4th-5th century AD Roman contexts of the Diocletianic-Constantinian period reflect meaningful changes in supply to the Roman market, with the Iberian Peninsula apparently almost removed from the circuit of annona supplies (oil) and seriously penalized in the imports of fish-derived products. This new trend is clearly shown by the discontinuation of dumping Baetican oil amphorae on Monte Testaccio (between AD 250260), corresponding to the dramatic fall in the imports of Baetican oil and fish-derived products that is documented by Roman contexts dating between the end of the 3rd and the beginning of the 4th century AD, and the simultaneous notable increase in foodstuffs carried in amphorae from North Africa. These concomitant phenomena, therefore, mirror the choice to gradually replace Baetica with Africa Panella and Tchernia 1994; Panella 1999: 183-184, notes 13-14, with bibliography; Panella and Saguì 2001: 762-784 (4th-5th century AD). 2 The highest percentage value of Almagro 51a-b is 4% (Area A in the temple of Magna Mater on the Palatine hill, AD 390-420); Almagro 51c, on the other hand, range between 4 and 7%: domus on the northeastern slopes of the Palatine (beginning of the 4th century AD); Areas O and A in the temple of Magna Mater, AD 350-390 and 390-420 respectively: Panella 1999: 193-194, notes 49 and 52. 1 414 G. Rizzo: Lusitanian Amphorae in Rome Figure 13. Rome. Amphorae from Hispania in 5th - 6th-century AD contexts. A set of recently published contexts has considerably enriched the picture of the presence of south Spanish amphorae on the Roman late antique market (Figure 13).3 We refer to a nucleus of materials that is not particularly sizable but not entirely negligible either, at least in the case of a context dated AD 470-480 on the Palatine (temple of Magna Mater; the data from the context of S. Stefano Rotondo, with a massive presence of residual material dating to the 3rd century AD, are not meaningful). In this context, south Spanish amphorae reach the not inconsiderable share of 18.8%, a higher percentage than those that characterize the contexts of the early years of the century, when the flow of foodstuffs carried in amphorae from the diocesis Hispaniarum is supposed to have stopped. South Hispanic amphorae are also present in other contexts dated from the mid to late 5th century, especially Almagro 51a-b and 51c, while their presence in deposits of the 6th century is much more sporadic and can probably be interpreted as residual. Among south Hispanic amphorae found in Rome and probably still circulating in the 5th century AD, we can include two fragments published by R. Auriemma and attributed to Almagro 51c (or related late Lusitanian forms…), from a context of the first half of the 5th century AD at Santa Cecilia in Trastevere, that in one case the scholar compares with a rim from the Enchurrasqueira I kiln, in the Sado Valley (Figures 14-15). Nevertheless, we can accept the hypothesis that south Hispanic fish amphorae recovered in Rome are in context, at least in the second quarter of the 5th century AD, or even in the second half of the same century, if the data of 5th century Roman contexts are considered in the wider picture of the history of Spanish manufacture of fish-derived products and trading in the late antique Mediterranean. Some recent considerations, more specifically focused on reconstructing the chronology of the activity of Spanish cetariae and the trade flows in the late antique Mediterranean, tend to emphasize the importance of data related to the presence of south Hispanic oil and fish amphorae in contexts dating to the second half of the 5th century – Tarragona and Seville – and in some cases to the 6th century AD, despite accounting, quite often, for much In the introduction, we have already emphasized why the historical-economic interpretation of these data is particularly problematic: it is primarily hindered by a flaw in the typologies for late antique south Spanish fish amphorae, that is the Almagro 51a-b/Keay XIX, Almagro 51c/Keay XXIII forms. The typologies, in fact, cannot describe the peculiarities of a later production phase that has been recently identified on the basis of evidence from kilns (Fabião 2009b: 29-31) and considering the diffusion of such amphorae in some market-places in the western Mediterranean. A further obstacle is the paucity – compared to the levels reached in the 1st and 2nd century AD - of the finds in late antique deposits, where it is often impossible to ascertain whether they are residual. Data from Rizzo forthcoming: fig. 9, with bibliography: N.= number of amphorae or fragments of amphorae. X = not specified data. X+ (n.) = not specified number of fragments or amphorae, but roughly calculated by percentages. Figures 14-15. Rome. Almagro 51 c/Keay XXXIII from S. Cecilia in Trastevere (Auriemma 2004: tav. IV, nos. 20-21). 3 415 Lusitanian Amphorae: Production and Distribution lower percentages than in the previous period (Bernal Casasola 2008; Reynolds 2010: 112-119). campaña 1989. Madrid, Ministerio de Cultura, Instituto de Conservación y Restauración de Bienes Culturales. Boetto, G. 2012. Les épaves comme sources pour l’étude de la navigation et des routes commerciales: une approche méthodologique. In S. Keay (ed.), Rome, Portus and the Mediterranean: 153-173. London, The British School at Rome. Bombico, S., Nervi, C., Piccardi, E. and AllegriniSimonetti et al. 2014. A caminho de Roma? A Sardenha e a Córsega nos fluxos de circulação das ânforas lusitanas no Mediterrâneo ocidental. In Morais, R., Fernández, A. and Sousa, M. J. (eds), As produções cerâmicas de imitação na Hispania. Monografias Ex Officina Hispana II (Actas do II Congresso da Sociedade de Estudos da Cerâmica Antiga da Hispânia (SECAH) (Braga, 4-6 April 2013)) I: 361-377. Porto, Faculdade de Letras da Universidade do Porto (FLUP) and Sociedad de Estudios de Cerámica Antigua en Hispania (SECAH). Carignani, A. and Pacetti, F. 1989. Anfore tardo-antiche da contesti del Palatino. In Amphores romaines et histoire économique: dix ans de recherches. Actes du colloque de Sienne (22-24 mai 1986): 612-615. Rome, École française de Rome. Fabião, C. 2008. Las ánforas de Lusitania. In D. Bernal Casasola and A. Ribera i Lacomba (eds), Cerámicas hispanorromanas. Un estado de la cuestión: 725-745. Cádiz, Universidad de Cádiz. Fabião, C. 2009a. Cetárias, ânforas e sal: a exploração de recursos marinhos na Lusitania. Estudos Arqueológicos de Oeiras 17: 555-594. Fabião, C. 2009b. O Ocidente da península Ibérica no século VI: sobre o pentanummium de Justiniano I encontrado na unidade de produção de preparados de peixe da Casa do Governador da Torre de Belém, Lisboa. Apontamentos de Arqueologia e Património 4: 25-50. Fabião, C. and Guerra, A. 2004. Epigrafia anfórica lusitana: uma perspectiva. In J. Remesal Rodríguez (ed.), Epigrafía anfórica. Workshop (Barcelona, 9-10 mayo 2003): 221-243. Barcelona, Universitat de Barcelona. Ferrandes, A. 2008. I contenitori da trasporto. In F. Filippi (ed.), Horti et sordes: uno scavo alle falde del Gianicolo: 247-283. Roma, Quasar. Hárshegyi, P. 2008. Le anfore della villa romana di San Potito. In D. Gabler and F. Redö (eds), Ricerche archeologiche a San Potito di Ovindoli e le aree limitrofe nell’antichità e nell’alto medioevo: 123-166. L’Aquila, REA edizioni. Keay, S. (ed.) 2012. Rome, Portus and the Mediterranean. London, The British School at Rome. Martin, A., Palazzo, P. and Cook, J. 2008. A Third-Century Context from S. Stefano Rotondo (Rome). Memoirs of the American Academy in Rome. LIII: 215-270. Panella, C. 1999. Rifornimenti urbani e cultura materiale tra Aureliano e Alarico. In W. V. Harris (ed.), The Transformations of Urbs Roma in late Antiquity. Journal of Roman Archaeology, Suppl. Ser. 33: 183215. Portsmouth, Rhode Island, J. H. Humphrey. As regards the territory of the ancient province of Lusitania more specifically, the analysis of several archaeological finds recovered from the remains of a fish-processing plant in the Casa do Governador da Torre de Belém (Lisbon) points to the integration of this region at the western edge of the Iberian Peninsula into the Mediterranean trading networks of the 5th and 6th century AD. These finds correspond to traces of productive continuity detected in fish-processing plants in the Sado estuary and, on a smaller scale, in the Tagus estuary (Fabião 2009b). The same scenario can be seen in the industries of southern Lusitania (Algarve). Here, at the fish products factory of Rua Silva Lopes at Lagos solid evidence for the continuity of the production and exportation of Lusitanian products during the first half of the 6th century AD was documented and recovered (Ramos, Almeida and Laço 2005; Ramos et al. 2007). Even in this case, however, in terms of quantity the production is much lower than in the first two centuries of the Empire, but it can open up the prospect that at least a part of the Baetican-Lusitanian amphorae found in Rome and dating to the 5th century AD may be in context. Bibliographical references Auriemma, R. 2004. La ceramica della fase del battistero paleocristiano. In N. Parmegiani, A. Pronti (eds), Santa Cecilia in Trastevere. Nuovi scavi e ricerche. Monumenti di antichità cristiana, II serie XVI: 197-230. Città del Vaticano, Pontificio Istituto di Archeologia Cristiana. Bernal Casasola, D. 2008. El final de la industria pesquero-conservera en Hispania (ss. V-VII d.C.). Entre obispos, Bizancio y la evidencia arqueológica. In J. Napoli (ed.), Ressources et activités maritimes des peuples de l’Antiquité. Actes du colloque international de Boulogne-sur-Mer (12-14 mai 2005): 31-57. Boulogne-sur-Mer, Université du Littoral Côte d’Opale. Blázquez Martínez, J. M. and Remesal Rodríguez, J. (eds) 1999. Estudios sobre el Monte Testaccio (Roma) I. Barcelona, Universitat de Barcelona. Blázquez Martínez, J. M. and J. Remesal Rodríguez, J. (eds) 2001. Estudios sobre el Monte Testaccio (Roma) II. Barcelona, Universitat de Barcelona. Blázquez Martínez, J. M. and Remesal Rodríguez, J. (eds) 2003. Estudios sobre el Monte Testaccio (Roma) III. Barcelona, Universitat de Barcelona. Blázquez Martínez, J. M. and Remesal Rodríguez, J. (eds) 2007. Estudios sobre el Monte Testaccio (Roma) IV. Barcelona, Universitat de Barcelona. Blázquez Martínez, J. M. and Remesal Rodríguez, J. (eds) 2010. Estudios sobre el Monte Testaccio (Roma) V. Barcelona, Universitat de Barcelona. Blázquez Martínez, J. M., Remesal Rodríguez, J. and Rodríguez Almeida, E. 1994. Excavaciones arqueológicas en el Monte Testaccio (Roma). Memoria 416 G. Rizzo: Lusitanian Amphorae in Rome Panella, C. and Saguì, L. 2001. Consumo e produzione a Roma tra tardoantico e altomedioevo: le merci, i contesti. In Roma nell’alto Medioevo, settimane di studio del C.I.S.A.M. XLVIII: 757-820. Spoleto, Centro italiano di studi sull’alto Medioevo. Panella, C. and Tchernia, A. 1994. Produits agricoles transportés en amphores: l’huile et surtout le vin. In C. Nicolet (ed.), L’Italie d’Auguste à Dioclétien. Actes du colloque international (Rome, 25-28 mars 1992): 145165. Rome, École française de Rome. Ramos, A. C., Almeida, R. and Laço, T. 2006. O Complexo Industrial da Rua Silva Lopes (Lagos). Uma primeira leitura do sítio e análise das suas problemáticas no quadro da indústria conserveira da Lusitânia meridional. In Simpósio Internacional Produção e comércio de preparados piscícolas durante a protohistória e a época romana no Ocidente da Península Ibérica. Homenagem a Françoise Mayet (Setúbal, 7-9 Maio 2004). Setúbal Arqueológica 13: 83-100. Setúbal, Museu de Etnografia and Arqueologia do Distrito de Setúbal/Assembleia Distrital de Setúbal. Ramos, A. C., Laço, T., Almeida, R. and Viegas, C. 2007. Les Céramiques communes du VIe s. du complexe industriel de salaisons de poisson de Lagos (Portugal). In M. Bonifay and J.-C. Tréglia (eds), LRCW 2. Late Roman Coarse Wares, Cooking Wares and Amphorae in the Mediterranean: Archaeology and archaeometry. British Archaeological Reports International Series 1662 I: 85–97. Oxford, Archaeopress. Remesal Rodríguez, J. 1977-78. Economía oleícola bética: nuevas formas de análisis. Archivo Español de Arqueología 50: 87-142. Remesal Rodríguez, J. 1991. El aceite bético durante el Bajo Imperio. In A. González Blanco et al. (eds), Arte, sociedad, economía y religión durante el Bajo Imperio y la Antigüedad Tardía: Homenaje al Prof. Dr. D. José María Blázquez Martínez al cumplir 65 años: 355361. Murcia, Universidad di Murcia, Area di Historia Antigua. Reynolds, P. 2010. Hispania and the Roman Mediterranean, AD 100-700: ceramics and trade. London, Duckworth and Company. Rizzo, G. 2014. Le anfore, Ostia e i commerci mediterranei. In C. Panella and G. Rizzo, Ostia VI. Le Terme del Nuotatore: 64-481. Roma, “L’Erma” di Bretschneider. Rizzo, G. forthcoming. Flussi commerciali, rifornimenti annonari e storia economica: amphorae ex Hispania a Roma (I sec. a.C. - VI sec. d.C.). In Amphorae ex Hispania. Cuestiones metodológicas. I seminario Internacional (Tarragona, 7-8 noviembre 2012). Saquete Chamizo, J. C. 2010. La Génesis de Lusitania y los Intereses económicos del Emperador. In J. G. Gorges and T. Nogales Basarrate (eds), Naissance de la Lusitanie Romaine (Ier av. - Ier ap. J.-C.). VIIe table ronde internationale sur la Lusitania Romana, Toulouse, 8-9 novembre 2007: 391-403. Toulouse and Mérida. Museo Nacional de Arte Romano and Université de Toulouse Le Mirail. Speranza, S. 2011. Anfore. In M. Bergamini (ed.), Scoppieto II. I materiali: 283-341. Borgo San Lorenzo, All’insegna del Giglio. Tchernia, A. 2011. Les romains et le commerce. Naples, Centre J. Bérard. Wickham, C. 1988. Marx, Sherlock Holmes and Late Roman commerce. Journal of Roman Studies 78: 183193. 417