The first part of my Research Master thesis (text)

1. THE LIBONI AMPHORA COLLECTION
Roman maritime trade and the changing socio-economic system of the
Pontine region
Part 1: text
Name: H.G. Pape
Student number: 1332961
E-mail: ace_scarab@orange.nl
Date: May 2008
Research master Art History & Archaeology
Tutor: prof. dr. P.A.J. Attema
Second reader: dr. W.M. Jongman

2. “Quid te, Tucca, iuvat vetulo miscere Falerno
In Vaticanis condita musta cadis?
Quid tantum fecere boni tibi pessima vina?
Aut quid fecerunt optima vina mali?
De nobis facile est, scelus est iugulare Falernum
Et dare Campano toxica saeva mero.
Convivae meruere tui fortasse perire:
Amphora non meruit tam pretiosa mori.”
- M. Valerius Martialis, Epigr. XVIII Dist. -
•
“Inside the museums, infinity goes up on trial.
Voices echo, this is what salvation must be like after a while.”
- Bob Dylan, ‘Visions of Johanna’ -
•
“Caecubum et prelo domitam Caleno
tu bibes uvam; mea nec Falernae
temperant vites neque Formiani
pocula colles.”
- Q. Horatius Flaccus, Ode 1.20 -
-1-

3. CONTENTS
PART 1
Contents 2
Preface 5
Introduction 6
Prologue 6
Archaeological research in the Pontine region 7
The LAC and the integration of this thesis 9
Goals and structure of this thesis 9
1. Amphora studies and amphorae 11
1.1. Amphora studies 11
1.1.1. The use of amphora studies 11
1.1.2. Amphora studies: 1899 to 1970 12
1.1.3. Amphora studies: 1970 to present 13
1.2. Amphorae: theoretical aspects 14
1.2.1. Etymology and nomenclature 14
1.2.2. The problem of definition: morphological and functional criteria 15
1.2.3. The definition of amphora used in this thesis 17
1.3. Amphorae: technical aspects 19
1.3.1. Primary uses of amphorae: wine 19
1.3.2. Primary uses of amphorae: olive-oil 20
1.3.3. Primary uses of amphorae: fish sauce 20
1.3.4. Primary uses of amphorae: other commodities 22
1.3.5. Secondary uses of amphorae 23
1.3.6. Production of amphorae 24
1.3.7. Matters of epigraphy: stamps and tituli picti 26
1.4. Amphorae: historical aspects 27
1.4.1. Origins in the East and the Phoenician/Punic amphorae 27
1.4.2. Ancient Greek amphorae 28
1.4.3. The rise of the Italic tradition 29
1.4.4. The Roman era: Italian amphorae 31
1.4.5. The Roman era: Hispanic amphorae 33
1.4.6. The Roman era: Gallic amphorae 35
1.4.7. The Roman era: African amphorae 37
1.4.8. The Roman era: eastern Mediterranean amphorae 40
-2-

4. 1.4.9 Amphorae in post-Antiquity 41
2. Roman maritime trade 43
2.1. Exchange mechanisms: three modes of trade 43
2.1.1. Reciprocity 43
2.1.2. Redistribution 44
2.1.3. Free market trading 44
2.2. Technical and logistical aspects of Roman trade 45
2.2.1. Ships 45
2.2.2. Ports 47
2.2.3. Trade routes 49
2.3. Organization of Roman seaborne trade 50
2.3.1. Maritime trade organization in the Republican era 50
2.3.2. Maritime trade organization in the Imperial era 50
2.4. The debate on the ancient economy 52
2.4.1. The modernist view 52
2.4.2. The primitivist view 54
2.4.3. The balanced view 56
3. The Pontine region 60
3.1. Categorization of the Pontine region 60
3.1.1. Geographical categorization 60
3.1.2. Geomorphological categorization 61
3.1.3. Socio-economic categorization and this thesis 61
3.2. Chronology of the Pontine region 62
3.2.1. Protohistory 62
3.2.2. The Archaic and post-Archaic period 64
3.2.3. The Roman period: the Republic 65
3.2.4. The Roman period: the Empire 67
3.3. Coastal area, hinterland and the socio-economic system 69
4. The Liboni Amphora Collection 72
4.1. Research history and methodology of the LAC 72
4.1.1. LAC research history 72
4.1.2. Origins and composition of the Liboni collection 73
4.1.3. Photographing and drawing the LAC 74
4.1.4. Describing the LAC 75
4.2. LAC 2006-2007 results 77
4.2.1. LAC summary table 78
4.2.2. LAC statistical composition chart 83
4.2.3. LAC date range chart 83
-3-

5. 4.2.4. LAC contents charts 83
5. Interpretations 87
5.1. Observations 87
5.1.1. Amphora types and number of amphorae 87
5.1.2. Dating 88
5.1.3. Provenance 88
5.1.4. Distribution 90
5.1.5. Contents 90
5.2. Deductions 91
5.2.1. Comparing the LAC with the GIA Nettuno survey data 91
5.2.2. Comparing the LAC with the amphorae in the museum of Anzio 93
5.2.3. Issues of chronology 94
5.2.4. Ancient origins and destinations of the LAC amphorae: land-based finds 95
5.2.5. Ancient origins and destinations of the LAC amphorae: seaborne finds 96
5.3. The LAC study and beyond: law, trade and wine in Roman Latium 98
5.3.1. The lex Claudia and elite entrepreneurs 98
5.3.2. Amphorae, Astura and the Pontine wine trade 101
6. Conclusions 103
6.1. Summary 103
6.2. Future study 104
Bibliography 106
Literature 106
Websites 108
-4-

6. PREFACE
A thesis is never created by one person alone. Of course I have performed the greater part of the research and writing, but I
could not have done so were it not for a good deal of people to assist me.
First and foremost I would like to thank my tutor, prof. dr. P.A.J. Attema, for the opportunity to finish the study of the
Liboni Amphora Collection and transform it into a proper thesis. Our discussions during status update meetings often gave
me new angles for interpreting the LAC amphorae. Had this research ended in the summer of 2006 it would surely have
been a missed opportunity.
I essentially owe the continuance of the LAC study to drs. G.W. Tol. He was the one that inventoried the subterranean
corridors of Forte Sangallo, thereby discovering many more amphora fragments for me to catalogue. Gijs was also very
helpful along the way, assisting and tutoring in drawing and describing during both summers in Nettuno, as well as being a
good laugh during those campaigns.
My thanks also to drs. T.C.A. de Haas, who introduced me to the world of amphorae and set me on the road to
specialization. The catalogue at the back of this thesis would not have been as precise without Tymon’s own reviewing and
finetuning. His discovery of the USAP online database likewise brought the catalogue to new heights. His advice in drawing
and describing the LAC has also been greatly appreciated.
I want to express my sincere gratitude towards those intrepid men that keep the GIA drawing office alive: S.E. Boersma, S.
Tiebackx and E. Bolhuis. The fact that I could use digitized versions of my drawings is a result of the hard work put in by
Siebe and Sander for the Nettuno publication. I especially want to thank Siebe for digitizing both the majority of 2006
material, as well as my selection of that of 2007. The latter was entirely out of free will, at the coat of a mere apple pie.
Erwin brought me up to speed with CorelDraw and kept me company during the couple of days I endured the drawing
office for work on the Nettuno publication. I’ll be back whenever you guys need me there, in exchange for food and payment
of course.
Last but certainly not least I wish to thank M. Boonstra, my partner. Margriet has been instrumental in keeping me sane
during this research, as well as inspired at those times I failed to see the point of it all. Taking Munsell colors and precise
measurements at the rushed end of the 2006 campaign have also been a snap because of her. She is furthermore responsible
for sorting out the hundreds of photographs I made of the LAC amphorae, as well as proofreading all my texts.
Final honorable mentions go to the following people: dr. W.M. Jongman of the University of Groningen, for assessing this
thesis in the capacity of second reader; dr. S. Voutsaki of the GIA, for furthering my interest in archaeological theory and
the ancient economy; A. Berends, for assisting me in drawing and describing in 2006; prof. dr. J. Remesal Rodríguez of the
Univeristy of Barcelona, for admitting me to the CEIPAC online amphora epigraphy database and rerouting the case of the
MNK stamp to the expert; F. Laubenheimer, Directrice de Recherche at the CNRS, for studying the MNK stamp and
surprising me with her own surprise; H. Bultema, for proofreading my first theoretical chapter and taking my mind of
amphorae when I needed it. And of course direttore A. Liboni, for admitting me into the bowels of Forte Sangallo and
magically producing ever more amphora fragments on those shelves.
Thank you all,
Harry Pape
Winschoten, May 2008
-5-

7. INTRODUCTION
PROLOGUE
One might say it is easier to found an empire than to maintain it. An empire, defined here as a
supranational body of political, socio-economic and military stability, is by nature a cumbersome and
sluggish concept. As an empire grows, oversight decreases and with it control of the territories and
populace it encompasses. Most of these issues are of political or military nature and can be resolved
with correct application of those institutions’ power, but just as important is sustaining the empire’s
socio-economic network by production, trade and (re)distribution. The old Roman credo of ‘bread and
games’ is after all only part games: the bread has to come from somewhere as well. To feed the people
of the Roman Empire and the preceding Republic, agriculture and contributing industries used a
significant part of its labor potential. Raw resources had to be gathered, then processed into foodstuffs
and finally transported to their destination. The essentials of the Roman way of life, wine and olive oil,
constituted a major part of the end-products, together with fish derivates and fruit.
The most efficient way to haul these goods in bulk quantities over long distances was overseas by
ship, in dedicated containers. The singular most important earthenware vessel used for storing and
transporting (semi-)liquid commodities overseas in Antiquity was the amphora. Amphorae came in all
shapes and sizes and have become a mainstay of archaeological study by virtue of the information they
can provide about production, trade and other socio-economic aspects of ancient civilization.
Amphorae studies are part of an expanding field of research since the 1970s and their possibilities are
still far from exhausted.1
The beating heart of the Roman world was of course Rome itself, with its renowned port Ostia as a
major point of import, export and distribution. Ostia was however by no means the only harbor where
ships from all provinces under Roman control moored to unload their amphorae; dozens of harbors,
both small and large, lined the Latial coast and beyond. These sites are often overshadowed by the fame
of Ostia or their existence has not yet been proved archaeologically, but they were important in their
own right as locations of trade and (re)distribution on a more regional scale. Maritime trade
strengthened the structure of both the Roman Republic and Empire; it is what kept the system going.
And the amphorae were at the heart of it all.
1
Peacock & Williams 1991, 3
-6-

8. ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH IN THE PONTINE REGION
This thesis is not entirely a stand-alone product. Its conception is linked to several successive long-term
regional survey and excavation projects in Italy, encompassing the Agro Pontino and southern Latial
coastal area: the Pontine Region Project (PRP), Regional Pathways to Complexity (RPC), the Astura
Project and the Carta Archeologica del Comune di Nettuno. These projects are all initiatives of the
Groningen Institute of Archaeology (GIA), which is part of the Rijksuniversiteit Groningen (University
of Groningen, RuG).
Before the GIA started to do more specific research in the Pontine region, this area was already under
study by other archaeologists. This tradition started as early as the 19th century with topographical
studies aimed at understanding the fortified sites with polygonal wall structures. One of these sites,
Norba (near present-day Norma, in the Monti Lepini), was host to the first systematic excavation in the
area at the start of the 20th century, followed by small topographical studies in the immediate
surroundings at the sites Serrone di Bove and Caracupa Valvisciolo. During this century several sites in
the Agro Pontino were also researched within the framework of the Forma Italiae project, which goal
was to map all remaining archaeology in Italy on a scale of 1:25000. From the 1970s onward a slew of
regional studies has been publicized by researchers as Brandizzi Vitucci (1968, 1998) and Quilici &
Quilici-Gigli (1987, 1998).2
In 1977 the universities of Groningen and Amsterdam (RuG, UvA) started excavations at the site of
Satricum (present-day Borgo Le Ferriere), which lies approximately 10 kilometers upstream along the
Astura river. Here work was done at the acropolis (boasting a multi-period temple for Mater Matuta,
under study since the 19th century), the settlement and two necropoleis (one of the Latini, one of the
Volsci3). These Dutch excavations are among the most famous in the region and have been recorded in
detail by the researchers involved (Maaskant-Kleibrink et al. 1978 & 1992, Gnade 1992, Bouma 1996).
The UvA also initiated the first systematic surveys in the Agro Pontino, combined with palynological
research (Voorrips et al. 1991).
In 1987 the RuG started the Pontine Region Project (PRP): a survey project aimed primarily at
studying the changes and developments in the Agro Pontino in the 1st millennium BC, with an emphasis
on the impact made by Roman colonization on the protohistorical landscape. This project effectively
runs to this day. In 1997 the RuG and VU University Amsterdam joined forces to initiate Regional
Pathways to Complexity (RPC), which encompasses the study of three regions in Italy from the Late
Bronze Age to the Roman era. Emphasis lay on centralization, urbanization and colonization. GIA
2
Tol 2005, 1; Attema et al. 2005, 10-11
3
M. La Rosa, pers. comm. 2007
-7-

9. surveys were done in the three major geophysical units of the Pontine region; the Colli Albani
(Lanuvium area), Monti Lepini (Doganella di Ninfa area) and Agro Pontino (Fogliano area).
The Astura Project of the GIA began in 2001 and focused specifically on the coastal area between
Nettuno and Torre Astura. A trio of sites along the coastline was studied: a kiln site (P11), a Late
Bronze Age site (P13) and an amphora section hinting at local amphora production near the villa
known as Le Grottacce (P15). After excavations and section sampling of these sites a survey was
performed in the valley of the Astura river in 2003, which partly marks the eastern boundary of the
comune.
The resulting exhibition and presentation aroused the attention of the Assessorato alla Cultura del
Comune di Nettuno in such a fashion that, in reaction to the recently flared up ‘cultural consciousness’
in the region, the idea came to archaeologically map the entire comune. This marked the inception of
the Carta Archeologica del Comune di Nettuno, a joint venture of the GIA and several Latial
institutions concerned with the region’s archaeology, aimed towards mapping the archaeological remains
in the comune and gaining a better understanding of the socio-economic development and Roman
colonization in this region from the Archaic period onward.4
The Carta Archeologica is the most recent GIA undertaking in the Pontine region, and this thesis is a
direct and integral sidestep of the research performed within that framework. The main sources for the
Carta Archeologica are the so-called ‘Liboni Collection’ and material found during GIA surveys. The
Liboni Collection is named after Arnaldo Liboni, caretaker of the Antiquario di Nettuno (the local
museum, housed in Forte Sangallo) and in his spare time collector of archaeological material. By his
efforts a fair amount of material from the comune has found its way into the museum, but the majority
is still in crates stacked in the subterranean corridors of the fort.
The finds that constitute the Liboni Collection have been drawn and described the last few years by
several GIA postgraduates and students during the summer campaigns of the RuG in Nettuno, in order
to create part of the dataset for the Carta Archeologica. Material found during these campaigns by
surveying in (and sometimes a little outside) the comune were also drawn and described. The
preliminary results of this material, coupled with the mapping of known and new sites in the comune,
can be found in the thesis of G.W. Tol.5 GIA research in the Pontine region is at the time of writing,
now 2008, drawing to a close. G.W. Tol is currently working on his PhD thesis, encompassing among
others excavations at the Astura river. It is thought that these undertakings will once more increase our
knowledge about this important area of Roman history.
4
Tol 2005, 1-4
5
Tol 2005
-8-

10. THE LAC AND THE INTEGRATION OF THIS THESIS
Beside the material in Forte Sangallo’s magazzino, a part of the Liboni Collection was hidden behind a
closed door in the fort’s central building. Here a collection of over fifty intact amphorae was stored.
The assignment I was given in the summer of 2006 by prof. dr. P.A.J. Attema, head of the Classical
department of the GIA and initiator of most GIA projects in the Pontine region, was primarily to
fashion a catalogue of the complete amphorae kept in the storeroom as part of my Research Master. In
the course of four weeks I photographed, drew and described all amphorae in the storeroom, as well as a
lot of fragments found on the shelves of the magazzino and in the display cases of the museum. At the
end of the campaign it was obvious that there were many more amphora fragments in the magazzino,
but there was no time left to process them all.
The amphorae I studied and catalogued in the summer of 2006 were from that moment on known as
the Liboni Amphora Collection (LAC). The resulting report about the LAC was mostly technical, as
the catalogue had been the focal point and the amount of time remaining before the deadline back
home was insufficient to go into much depth with context and interpretation. Therefore the report was
somewhat lacking in that respect, which is a shame of course for a collection with that much potential.
In the beginning of 2007 it became clear that the LAC held much more promise and I decided to pick
up the research where I left off and expand it into the thesis that lies before you now. All remaining
amphorae (fragments) in Forte Sangallo were processed in the summer of 2007, and the interpretations
that had been left wanting in 2006 were fully addressed.
This thesis meshes with the existing GIA projects currently underway in the Agro Pontino (the PhD
research of GIA postgraduates G.W. Tol and T.C.A. de Haas, the Carta Archeologica del Comune di
Nettuno) in that the results will hopefully provide even more insight into the regional socio-economic
network of the southern Latial coastal zone and its hinterland.
GOALS AND STRUCTURE OF THIS THESIS
Aside from supporting and expanding on current GIA knowledge of the Pontine region, this thesis also
aims to contribute to the larger debate about maritime trade during the Roman period by focusing on
the regional socio-economic system of the Pontine region between the present-day city of Anzio and the
historical site of Torre Astura. This will be done principally by means of an extensive amphora study,
for which the Liboni Amphora Collection (LAC) will be the primary source of information. This
collection is located in the museum of the present-day city of Nettuno (RM, Lazio, Italia) and has been
-9-

11. studied by the author in the span of two consecutive summers (2006-2007). Furthermore the results of
surveys and excavations in the aforementioned region performed by the Groningen Institute of
Archaeology will be used to provide a diachronic insight into the history of the Pontine region and the
southern Latial coastal zone; the backdrop against which the amphorae will be studied and utilized to
increase our knowledge and understanding of the larger scope of Republican and Imperial maritime
trade.
Chapter I gives a concise introduction to amphorae and their study, followed by Chapter 2 which
provides a general explanation and outline of Roman maritime trade: organization, ports, transported
goods, ships and trade routes. Chapter 3 then relates the layout and (archaeological) history of the
Pontine region, together with information about settlements and ports in the region, amphora
production centers, maritime villae and their hinterland. Chapter 4 constitutes the core of my own
research; the Liboni Amphora Collection (LAC) with an explanation of the methodology used to create
the concordant catalogue, as well as the results in table and chart form. In Chapter 5 then I give an in-
depth analysis and interpretation of the acquired results from the two-year LAC study, together with a
correlation to the information gleaned about the regional socio-economic system. Chapter 6 ultimately
tries to answer the main question posed in this thesis: what can the LAC amphorae, combined with the
regional survey and excavation data, tell us about the socio-economic network of the Pontine region
during the Roman period from a maritime point of view?
- 10 -

12. 1. AMPHORA STUDIES AND AMPHORAE
In this chapter the various aspects of amphorae and the history of their study are discussed. The
amphora was the number-one form of trade-packaging in the Roman world. While grain was arguably
the most essential subsistence product in those days, several other commodities that virtually defined the
Roman way of living were transported in bulk across the Mediterranean. Wine, olive oil and fish
derivates traveled across the seas in ships laden with amphorae, along with a fair number of less
encountered products. Amphorae are the most common type of pottery encountered in the Roman
Mediterranean, attesting to the scale of trade and transport during those times.
1.1. AMPHORA STUDIES
1.1.1. The use of amphora studies
The study of amphorae is nowadays a solid part of the debate concerning the ancient economy, for
these vessels offer an amazing wealth of potential information. Being the premier mode of trade
packaging in the ancient world, amphorae bear direct material witness to the movement of several
commodities that were essential to the people of Antiquity. This is especially the case in Roman times,
when the scale of maritime trade reached heights not seen before. The full appreciation of amphorae is a
relatively recent development though, as these vessels have often been neglected or even dismissed by
scholars and laymen alike in favor of ‘prettier’ fine ware like terra sigillata or items of gold and bronze.
By studying amphorae one can learn about several aspects of the ancient economy. First and foremost
the products in which a region traded can be deduced by noting the amphora types present, as certain
types are associated with certain products. This association is made possible because of the study of
painted inscriptions found on amphorae, which often relate the contents of the containers. This has led
to a continually growing list of amphora forms correlated with their principal contents.
The epigraphic evidence on amphorae, being generally painted inscriptions (tituli picti) and stamps,
give even more information than that however. This is discussed elsewhere in this thesis in more detail
(see 1.3.7), and it suffices to say here that the study of that epigraphy can shed light upon several
aspects connected to the shipping of the amphora in question as well as the rest of the cargo (port from
where the amphora was shipped, nature and weight of contents, names of ship or port personnel, etc.).
Finally the fabric of amphorae deserves special mention. Though often overshadowed by the
typological study of the vessel, fabric can give an indication of, or sometimes even pinpoint the location
- 11 -

13. where the amphora was made. This can be very important when the study of the form itself is
inconclusive as to the origin of the vessel, whether because the fragment is non-characteristic or because
of a hitherto unknown type. There are several very distinct fabrics that were used for certain amphorae,
presenting a first anchor line when finding amphorae fragments in the field.
Using amphorae as dating evidence is more difficult than it would seem at first glance. As M.H.
Callender demonstrated (see 1.3.5), many amphorae tended to have quite a long life in use after the
primary commodity was consumed or used up. Also the very nature of amphorae as vessels with purely
practical use (barring decorative Greek vessels) resulted in a relatively slow typological change of forms,
as the look of an amphora was subservient to its function. This change however is not as virtually non-
existent as Callender seemingly believed; a view which has been countered by specialists since
Callender’s work in 1965. Small changes over time in e.g. rim form can be observed with several forms,
such as the famous olive oil container Dressel 20.6
1.1.2. Amphora studies: 1899 to 1970
Heinrich Dressel was most probably the first scholar to acknowledge the importance of amphorae and
to make a systematic study of these vessels. The painted inscriptions on amphorae drew his attention,
and in 1899 he published his research in the Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum, together with Schoene
and Mau, who also published their epigraphic studies in those volumes. The location of Dressel’s study
was Rome, and more specifically Monte Testaccio: an artificial hill in Rome’s former dockland
consisting entirely of discarded amphora fragments. Dressel nearly lost his eyesight in reading all the
text present on that veritable mountain of knowledge, and it resulted in the first typology of amphorae.
While his scheme was clarified and improved upon in subsequent years, it has never been completely
surpassed or made obsolete, which is a clear testament to Dressel’s prowess as a dedicated scholar. His
name thus lives on in the classification of numerous amphorae, such as the ubiquitous Dressel 1 and 20.
While this was a prodigious start of a promising field of research, amphorae were mostly neglected
until the 1950s. The revival was the result of increasing interest in marine archaeology, as amphorae are
the primary material of the underwater archaeologist. A number of amphora-laden wrecks were
discovered in these years, prompting scholars such as Lamboglia (1950) and Benoit (1956) to
reappraise the study of amphorae. Another impulse for renewed study was the interest in amphorae in
Britain and other parts of northwestern Europe. M.H. Callender produced a comprehensive study and
catalogue of amphorae stamps in this period, which is unfortunately inherently flawed by its publication
date fifteen years later in 1965. This meant one and a half decade of amphora research was not taken
into account, resulting in views that were mostly outdated at publication and in a lack of stamps found
6
Peacock & Williams 1991, pp. 2-19
- 12 -

14. during that hiatus in time. However, while some of Callender’s views on typology and chronology are
thus outdated, a substantial part of his theoretical framework still applies now, as does his catalogue of
stamps.
Two other important names in this period are Tchernia and Zevi, whose articles on amphorae began
to appear in the late 1960s. Besides criticizing Callender’s work and a reappraisal of that of Dressel (by
Zevi), they initiated new research as well. André Tchernia became an expert on Roman wine and their
correspondent amphorae.
1.1.3. Amphora studies: 1970 to present
The 1970s proved to be an enormous boost to the study of amphorae in a multitude of countries.
Tchernia and Zevi continued with their research and publications, while other scholars joined in mostly
as a result of two conferences at the French School in Rome that had piqued or increased many a
scholar’s interest in amphorae: Beltrán published his research and typology of Hispanic amphorae;
Kuzmanov, Zemer and Kapitän focused on late eastern and Aegean vessels; Laubenheimer tackled
amphorae from Gaul; Will studied Greco-Italic amphorae; Ponsich those of the Iberian Peninsula; in
Italy meanwhile Panella, Manacorda and Carandini concentrated on Ostia and Pompeii, refining
amphora typologies as they went; and the list goes on. Breakthroughs were made in petrological,
chemical and quantitative analysis as well, rounding out or increasing the array of usable scientific
methods. Clearly the amount of research on amphorae in the 1970s and the subsequent publications
thereof consolidated the position of amphora studies in archaeology.
The trend was set and the 1980s only saw more research being done and published. A memorable
work saw the light in 1984, in the form of Simon Keay’s extensive treatise on Hispanic and African
amphorae. Particularly important is his exhaustive list and typology of late Roman African cylindrical
vessels. The typology of these so-called Keay types is still used today and Keay’s work remains the
ubiquitous source for those that specialize in African amphorae.
Perhaps the most influential publication of that decade however was Amphorae and the Roman
economy: an introductory guide by Peacock & Williams. By compiling amphora data from the
multitude of articles that had almost exponentially grown since the 1970s, adding new insights and
producing a fairly easy to use guide to recognize the most common Roman amphorae, the first standard
work for amphora studies was born in 1986. To this day it remains the foremost basic resource for
anyone that is interested in amphorae, being the starting point for this thesis as well.
From the 1990s to the time of writing this thesis (2007-2008) almost another two decades have
passed. Discoveries both underwater and on dry land have continued to be made, and two more
standard works have been published in 1991 and 1997 that complement that of Peacock & Williams:
- 13 -

15. Amphores: comment les identifier? by Sciallano and Sibella, and Anfore antiche: conoscerle e
identificarle by Caravale & Toffoletti. Both feature improved guides for recognizing amphorae, adding
new forms to the list of Peacock & Williams but also excluding some of them. Anfore antiche more or
less supersedes the work by Sciallano & Sibella (which I therefore have hardly used) as it contains extra
amphorae and uses a more user-friendly reference table. It is also even more of a handbook for use in
the field and contains less historical and theoretical background than Amphorae and the Roman
economy. All these works should thus best be used in conjunction with each other to compensate, as
has been done in this thesis. Together they form a solid core for every amphora study.7
The most recent compilation of amphora research makes full use of the possibilities of the Internet.
As of 2005, the University of Southampton hosts a database of Roman amphorae (hereafter USAP
2005) under the supervision of Keay and Williams.8 This database lists every Roman amphora
currently known, complete with petrological details, zoomable pictures/drawings and an integral multi-
stage search function that enables quick identification of most amphora types. Its major downside is the
exclusion of non-Roman era amphorae (e.g. Ancient Greek, Etruscan, etc.), but again it yields
impressive results when used together with the aforementioned literature. For the Roman amphorae the
USAP 2005 database is the most recent source of information and is therefore the primary contributor
of confronti in the catalogue of this thesis.
1.2. AMPHORAE: THEORETICAL ASPECTS
1.2.1. Etymology and nomenclature
The Latin word amphora comes from ancient Greek amphoreus (αµφορέας), and is a compound word
combining amphi- (on both sides) and phoreus (carrier), from pherein (to carry).9 These words thus
convey the essence of the concept amphora with both a morphological characteristic (double-handled)
and a functional one (carrier), but an actual definition based on a set of those characteristics is far more
difficult as is discussed in 1.2.2.
The word amphora was also used to denominate the chief Roman liquid measurement from the 1st
century BC onward. As such an amphora equaled a little less than 26 liters according to Hayes.10 This
volume was also known as a quadrantal and could be further subdivided in two urnae, eight congii, 48
sextarii and 96 heminae. These measurements were mostly used to indicate the yield of a vineyard, as
7
Peacock & Williams 1991, pp. 2-4 ; Caravale & Toffoletti 1997, 14-15 ; Paterson 1982, pp. 146-157
8
University of Southampton Amphora Project 2005
9
Hayes 1997, pp. 96, endnote 13
10
Id., endnote 14
- 14 -

16. examples from ancient literature show. The amphora was also used as a measure of length and of a
ship’s tonnage. The use of the word amphora as a measurement this way indicates an ‘ideal’ amphora in
a theoretical sense,11 and thus should not be equated with any real-life vessel (although one of the older
types might have had that particular capacity).
Callender comments upon the word cadus (pl. cadii), which in ancient literature is used in the same
way as the word amphora in the sense of a vessel for storage and transport of liquid goods. Callender
argues that both words were probably interchangeable in Roman times and designated vessels of
roughly the same size and appearance, as shown by his citations of Pliny, Columella and Martial. He
further speculates that the larger amphorae were perhaps first known as cadi (equaling 3 urnae rather
than 2), but that the distinction faded with the increasing variation of size and capacity through time.12
1.2.2. The problem of definition: morphological and functional criteria
Unlike other more obvious pottery classes like cups and plates, there is no universal definition of what
exactly constitutes an amphora. Although all specialists know some overlap in the way they describe
such a vessel, a general consensus remains to be achieved. This issue has plagued the study for years, but
the appearance of three standard works13 in the last two decades has brought some alleviation.
Peacock & Williams quote Virginia Grace (1961), who mentions a few distinguishing morphological
criteria for these transport containers: “[…] a mouth narrow enough to be corked, two opposite vertical
handles and at the bottom usually a tip or knob which serves as a third handle, below the weight,
needed when one inverts a heavy vessel to pour from it. A flat base big enough for the jar to stand on
would give no purchase for lifting.”14 Caravale & Toffoletti repeat these morphological and functional
characteristics and add a tapering body, an elongated neck and walls thick enough as to prevent
rupture.15 These criteria have been acknowledged by most scholars working with amphorae up until
now and with them all of the ‘traditional’ amphorae (such as Dressel 1) are covered.
A great number of what most specialists call amphorae fall outside of this traditional class. The body
of an amphora can actually differ wildly from the classical tapering form, as demonstrated by the
multitude of cylindrical, bulbous, tapering, piriform (pear-shaped) and even bag-like vessels. The
elongated neck mentioned by Carevale & Toffoletti is another such matter. While the major part of
known vessels displays such a distinct neck, making it again a characteristic of ‘traditional’ amphorae
11
Callender 1965, pp. 3
12
Id., pp. 2, footnote 3
13
Peacock & Williams 1991 ; Sciallano & Sibella 1994 ; Caravale & Toffoletti 1997
14
Grace 1961, quoted in Peacock & Williams 1991, pp. 5
15
Caravale & Toffoletti 1997, pp. 11
- 15 -

17. such as Dressel 1, there are enough types without it.16 The boundaries between these morphological
denominations can be hazy sometimes and composite forms exist as well.
Also, while amphorae with a tip or ‘spike’ are the most common and characteristic, vessels with a flat
base (-ring) are by no means an exception (the ancient Greek amphorae all had base-rings). Amphorae
with such a base are excluded by Grace’s definition given above though, as are all other shapes of base; a
flaw in her set of criteria as observed by Peacock & Williams as well. According to Grace, a spike
provided both a third handle for easily lifting the vessel by one person and a way to securely stack it
among other amphorae in the hold of a ship, 17 which a flat base did not. I disagree with this view; most
flat-bottomed amphorae are smaller and lighter (i.e. have thinner walls) than their spiked cousins,
greatly reducing the need for such a third handle, while they retain the tapering form that is required for
stacking them.
If one follows Grace’s reasoning, several vessels of major importance (that also feature prominently in
the Liboni Amphora Collection) could not be called amphorae and would not be taken into account in
this thesis. An example of this is the Gauloise 4 (mid 1st to mid 3rd century AD): a relatively small, thin-
walled vessel with a flat base-ring. This I would surely call an amphora, for it answers to all other
morphological criteria given above but the lack of a spike and having thinner walls than most amphorae.
Peacock & Williams quote Widemann et al. (1979), who states Gauloise 4 must have required a
protective casing of straw. This practice is actually shown on a relief from Neumagen, Germany. 18 It
also had the same function: the transport of liquid commodities (wine).
Callender argues that the vessels called amphorae from Antiquity onward vary so much in size, shape
and capacity, that the original definition must have become severely debased over time. Thus every two-
handled vessel that was reminiscent of the original Greek form and was meant for storage and transport
(principally the latter) would most probably have been designated amphora or cadus. He then proceeds
to give a tentative remark about amphora morphology: his (of course quite loose) definition does in fact
include vessels with a flat base (-ring). He actually does not use the word spike, and instead adds the
criterion to “[…] be unable to stand without support when loaded with their commodities.”19 In the
corresponding footnote he argues that vessels with small stand-rings could perhaps stand on their own
accord when empty, “[…] but which must have had some external means of support when loaded, if
only for safety’s sake, when full […].”20 This effectively evades the whole spike vs. flat base issue in a
rather elegant manner.
16
Id., pp. 4-5. Nr. 56 is the most eye-catching example without a neck
17
A spike might also have been used to roll an amphorae around its vertical axis (prof. dr. P.A.J. Attema, pers.
comm. 2007)
18
Peacock & Williams 1991, pp. 51 ; Callender 1965, pp. 43 & plate Va/b
19
Callender 1965, pp. 3
20
Id., footnote 2
- 16 -

18. This view has much to commend it, as there are quite a few types almost every specialist calls
amphorae, which do not even have either a distinct spike or truly flat base. This is obvious at first
glance when looking at Carevale & Toffoletti’s Indice Grafico delle Anfore.21 Both Punic and Etruscan
amphorae have a variety of rounded, pointed and flattened bases.22 The ultimate irony then befalls the
globular Dressel 20 (and its smaller successor Dressel 23 as well): 23 this famous Baetican form, one of
the most common and widely distributed of all amphorae, has a diminutive basal knob that neither
aided lifting or stacking and was most probably nearly impossible to handle by just one person when
filled due to its size and weight. The Dressel 20 thus does not comply with the functional criteria tied
in with the tip/knob put forward by Grace and could therefore not be called an amphora.24 While the
amphora was surely developed at first to be a container requiring only one person to carry it, 25 the very
nature of development is dynamic instead of static; in the course of time larger and otherwise less
manageable amphorae came into use, sacrificing ease of handling somewhat for increased capacity.
Though Peacock & Williams point to the artificiality of morphological definition, they also
acknowledge the problem one encounters if the definition would be based solely on function (so
grouping together all containers of liquid goods). After all, amphorae were not the only trade-packaging
of liquid commodities available in Antiquity (also storage jars, flagons, etc. served that purpose).
Amphorae were also not used solely to transport liquid commodities, adding a new level of complexity
to such a purely functional definition. Better would be to define their function as storage and transport
of “[…] bulk commodities subject to spoilage […].”26 This would be the primary use of amphorae, as
these vessels more often than not displayed what Callender calls ‘secondary use survival’: having a
secondary function after its primary function had been fulfilled.27 These secondary uses are discussed in
more detail in 1.3.5.
1.2.3. The definition of amphora used in this thesis
In the light of the discussion above, I hereby present a definition of amphora based on a combination of
morphological and functional criteria, combining and adding to those mentioned in the previous
paragraph:
21
Carevale & Toffoletti 1997, pp. 4-5
22
Id., respectively nrs. 55-58 and 76-80
23
Id., nrs. 132-133
24
Callender 1965, plate VI. Thick-walled and heavy spike-less amphorae such as Dressel 20 were most probably
suspended from a wooden rod carried by two people, as shown on the wall painting from Augst, Switzerland
25
Peacock & Williams 1991, pp. 21
26
Ibid.
27
Callender 1965, pp. 24, footnote 1
- 17 -

19. An amphora is an earthenware vessel designed specifically for storing and transporting bulk
commodities subject to spoilage. The vessel has to possess:
a) a mouth of small enough diameter to be sealed airtight;
b) two vertical handles opposite each other to facilitate handling;
c) a body designed for storing and viably transporting (liquid) foodstuffs;
d) a base rendering the vessel unable to safely stand unsupported when fully loaded
(e.g. flat base, ring-base) or at all (e.g. spike, rounded/pointed base), being generally
designed to facilitate handling and stacking.
Criteria a), b) and c) are based purely on function. The rims and handles encountered on amphorae
display a dizzying variation in size and appearance, and could therefore never be used as morphological
criteria to define if a vessel is an amphora or not. The same effectively goes for the bodies of amphorae,
which is also why I have dismissed having a distinct neck as part of the criterion. Rims, handles and
bodies are typologically distinct though and play an integral role in further classifying amphorae in
types, as well as aid in dating.
Moreover for criterion c), I have specifically kept the thickness of the walls out of the equation, which
varies significantly between types and periods. While amphora walls are notably thicker than those of
other pottery - something which is in itself quite useful during finds determination in surveys - it is
primarily the presence or additions of inclusions that strengthen those walls instead of their thickness
(and also further characterize a fragment as belonging to an amphora).28 Most containers were thus
strong enough to be stacked in a ship as such, due to a combination of wall thickness and inclusions in
the clay. Vessels with generally thinner walls and fewer inclusions then, like the Gauloise 4, would have
had need of a protective casing as is known to have existed.
Criterion d) integrates the musings of Callender to sidestep the spike vs. flat base issue by adding the
inability to safely stand unsupported at all, or at least when filled. This criterion does not focus on the
‘third handle’ function which the spike clearly had, but rather on the result of a morphological choice.
Be it spike or flat base, rounded or pointed; the vast majority of filled amphorae cannot be assumed to
stand without support, as it was either wholly impossible or the risk of falling over would have been too
great. Some might have been able to stand precariously, but one would most probably not have bet on
it.
28
Peacock & Williams 1991, pp. 45
- 18 -

20. 1.3. AMPHORAE: TECHNICAL ASPECTS
1.3.1. Primary uses of amphorae: wine
Wine was a central focus of Greek life, and it therefore comes as no surprise that the majority of Greek
amphorae were meant for transporting this beverage. Greek wines were of such quality and regard that
they were still much appreciated in Roman times, especially Rhodian and Koan vintages. The latter’s
way of production, being with added seawater, is said to have been the direct cause of the transition
from Dressel 1 to Dressel 2-4 amphorae (see 1.4.4). In Late Roman times wine was still exported from
the Aegean, all the way up until the 7th century AD.
Italian wines were certainly at the top of the market as well, for wines as Falernian, Setine, Alban and
Caecuban belong to the most famed wines in history. Falernian was a sweet white wine with a high
alcoholic content (about 16%) that became better and more valuable as it aged, and was made in three
vineyards between Latium and Campania (ager Falernus). It would remain one of Italy’s prime export
products, even when large-scale wine export contracted severely in the 2nd century AD. Setine was made
near Setia in the Monti Lepini and Pliny states that it was the favorite wine of Augustus (one of the few
wines that did not give him indigestion), while Alban wine ranked high among the upper class of Rome.
Caecuban heralded from one vineyard near Fundi and Terracina, and was said to be the best wine of the
1st century BC, being smoother than Falernian and fuller than Alban. It was soon overshadowed by
Falernian and Setine though and Pliny states that Nero practically caused the already neglected wine’s
extinction by destroying the sole vineyard when digging a canal through the area near Baiae.29 All these
famed wines came from Latium or Campania and were the primary export products of those regions.
Wines from Spain were prized as well, especially those coming from Tarraconensis. These were
exported to France and Italy in great quantities, until the superior Gallic wines from Narbonensis
caused the contraction of Hispanic wine export. The Narbonese wines rose to prominence in the 2nd
century AD, overshadowing and out-competing both Italian and Spanish wine exports. Gallic wine
remained top tier for the rest of the Roman period, and its reputation is essentially still relatively
undiminished in modern times.
In the Late Roman period, wines from the East occupied a central position in the market. They had
always been exported, but from the 4th century AD onwards Palestine, Egyptian and Turkish wines
gained a great deal of popularity in the West. Large-scale trade however ceased in the 7th century AD
with the Arab conquests.
29
Tchernia 1986, pp. 201-202 ; Tchernia & Brun 1999, pp. 26-28, 133 ; Caravale & Toffoletti 1997, pp. 24-26
- 19 -

21. 1.3.2. Primary uses of amphorae: olive oil
Olive oil was the second most important essential of Roman life. It was used in the preparation of food,
in oil-lamps, in medicine, etc. In the early days of the Republic, Italy seems to have been almost self-
sufficient with regards to olive oil, perhaps only receiving small supplies of Greek oil periodically. It
would not be until the Early Imperial period that the population of the country, and especially of Rome
itself, increased to such an amount that large-scale import of olive oil became a necessity.
From Augustan times to the 3rd century AD the massive amounts of olive oil needed by the Roman
heartland came from Spain. For three centuries straight, dozens of workshops along the Guadalquivir
river in Baetica (present-day Andalusia) produced millions of amphorae, of which Dressel 20 is the best
known (see 1.4.5), to transport the oil across the sea. For a long time Baetica had a virtual monopoly on
olive oil, until competition from the North African provinces increased dramatically under the rule of
Septimius Severus, who also confiscated most Baetican estates and placed them under imperial control.
In the Imperial period massive amounts of olive oil were distributed among the population of Rome
(and later on in the entire country) for free, which made it a matter of the state to produce enough of
the precious liquid.
Olive oil from Tripolitania and Africa Proconsularis would be dominant for the next three centuries,
carried abroad in distinct cylindrical amphorae. Many of these were destined for Rome itself, and there
are almost as many Tripolitanian 3 sherds in Monte Testaccio as there are of Dressel 20 (see 1.4.7). It
is wholly possible, although not yet proven, that the millions of vessels forming that hill in Rome are
specifically meant for the annona olearia (the aforementioned free distribution of olive oil) while the
vessels found elsewhere in the Mediterranean represent free market trading. This would then imply that
certain forms of amphorae could be tied to either one of these mechanisms (redistribution or free
market trade). This might not have been as much of an issue during the Baetican monopoly as Dressel
20 was at that point in time the most widely used amphora and the annona was not as developed back
then, but it is intriguing that nearly all Tripolitanian 3 vessels were destined for Rome and are hardly
found anywhere else in large amounts.30
1.3.3. Primary uses of amphorae: fish sauce
While both wine and olive oil were produced in the so-called villa system, the third of the most
important amphora-borne commodities was produced in dedicated coastal facilities. A taste for fish
sauce, prized as a condiment in various dishes instead of salt, would have been transferred to the
Romans by Phocaean Greeks and later on by the Carthaginians. It was at first essentially a by-product
from the facilities that caught, prepared and conserved fish, although a larger part of the industry
30
Caravale & Toffoletti 1997, pp. 28-30 ; Callender 1965, pp. 49-50
- 20 -

22. became dedicated to its manufacture as it rose in popularity. These installations were mostly located at
the seaboard, both out of obvious practical reasons and because later edicts forbade these facilities being
built anywhere near a population center (although often thought otherwise, fish sauce only seems to
have reeked during production).
Fish sauce was made by fermenting the intestines and waste parts of a variety of fish and afterwards
adding extra ingredients, which essentially resulted in a briny fluid which greatly enhanced the taste of
food. The brine is known as muria (presumably the Baetican word for fish sauce), while the sediment
remaining after the liquid has been drawn of is called allec/allex/hallex, which was used as a fish paste.
The generic term for fish sauces seems to have been liquamen. The most well-known fish sauce is
garum, the best of which was made with either mackerel or tuna, depending on the subjectivity of the
historical source (e.g. Martial states mackerel is best, and tuna is inferior). This garum sociorum was
made at Carthago Nova (Cartagena) in Baetica. However, many other types of garum are known
depending on their added/mixed ingredients, such as hydrogarum (with water), oenogarum (with wine),
oxygarum (with vinegar), and mellogarum (with honey). The differing forms of Baetican fish sauce
amphorae might well have been an indication to the buyer of its contents (i.e. the specific kind of
sauce).
Fish sauce was undoubtedly made in Italy as well, although fish were actually quite scarce along her
coasts (see also 3.2.3). An interesting speculation is made by Brandizzi Vittucci, who muses that
Antium might have produced liquamen. The base of that idea is an amphora found there with the
stamp liq(uamen) antia(tinum) exc(ellens). She also connects this production with the fish basins
located at every villa marittima between Antium and Torre Astura. Unfortunately she does not relay the
amphora type in question.31
The primary installations of fish sauce production were located along both sides of the Strait of
Gibraltar, in Baetica and Mauretania (roughly present-day Morocco). Other important facilities can be
found on the coasts of Lusitania (Portugal) and Gallia Narbonensis (southern France). Until the 3rd
century AD Baetica and Mauretania had a near monopoly on the export of fish sauce, transporting them
in dedicated and distinct amphorae (see 1.4.5). These containers were all supposed to have come from
Baetica, as up to the publication by Peacock & Williams in 1986 there seemed to be an almost
complete absence of amphora kilns in Morocco that produced amphorae dedicated to fish sauce.32
Recently however North African amphorae are being reappraised and it is quite possible that forms
classically associated with olive oil may have been carriers for fish products as well.33
31
Brandizzi Vittucci 2000, pp. 132, footnote 618
32
Peacock & Williams 1991, pp. 41
33
e.g. Gibbins 2001
- 21 -

23. In the 3rd century AD, together with the contraction of its olive oil export, Baetica lost ground in the
fish sauce trade. Mauretania remained producing, as did Lusitania (with its own line of amphorae now).
North Africa not only took over the olive oil export from Baetica, it also started to produce fish sauce
on a large scale until the 7th century AD.34
1.3.4. Primary uses of amphorae: other commodities
While the three aforementioned commodities were undoubtedly the most prevalent in amphorae, they
were definitely not the only possible contents. Other products that were transported in amphorae are
mentioned in both Peacock & Williams and Caravale & Toffoletti, but it is Callender that gives a more
extensive summary with the help of encountered amphora stamps.
Amphorae are most often seen as carriers of liquid goods, of which wine, olive oil and fish sauce were
the most important. Derivates of wine were also transported however, such as defrutum and caroenum.
The first was a sweet liquid acquired by boiling the must, while the latter required the boiling down of
wine to a third of its original volume and the subsequent addition of honey. Both products were
probably transported indiscriminately in standard wine amphorae most of the time, but we know of one
form that was renowned for transporting defrutum (Haltern 70) and one of which it is sure it carried
caroenum as well as ‘normal’ wine (Late Roman 3). Callender also mentions oliva nigra ex defruto as
amphora contents, as in black olives that had been soaked in defrutum to sweeten them.
Olives thus also were transported in amphorae, whether already processed in some way or normally.
The same can be said for grapes and fish. The raw resources of wine, olive oil and fish sauce were thus
also carried. Salted fish was the primary product of the coastal facilities that also yielded its byproduct
fish sauce, and it seems the same amphorae were used for both commodities. It is not known if grapes
and olives were perhaps transported in smaller amphorae than those used for their derived liquids, or if
the same amphorae were used. It is likely though, as smaller amphorae such as Dressel 21-22,
Camulodunum 189 and the Spatheion were used for transport of fruits. Dressel 21-22 was used
exclusively for the storage and transport of (dried) fruits, such as cherries and plums. Camulodunum
189 is said to have contained dates, while olives are mentioned as one of the many possible contents of
the Spatheion. Callender furthermore lists figs, damsons and peaches as fruits mentioned in historical
sources in relation to amphorae.
Examples of miscellaneous products archaeologically found in or attributed historically to amphorae,
as listed by Callender are: nuts, pepper, honey, unguents, herbs, water, milk (Greek amphorae), hair-
remover, medicines, vinegar (Egyptian amphorae), urine (see 1.3.5), flour and grain. Amphorae
containing grain was a - for long dismissed - suggestion by the historian Rostovtzeff (see 2.4), but
34
Id., pp. 35-38 ; Caravale & Toffoletti 1997, pp. 32-33
- 22 -

24. recent finds have proven him right nonetheless. Callender finally mentions the massive find of
1.350.000 amphorae in Turin, which were all found upside down and sealed tight. Each was filled with
very finely washed and levigated (potters’?) clay. Such products encountered sporadically in amphorae
might not be standard issue for these vessels as wine, olive oil and fish sauce were, but they do give a
good indication of the multifunctional nature of amphorae.35
1.3.5. Secondary uses of amphorae
The multifunctional nature of amphorae is both a boon and a curse, as these vessels were often used for
long periods after their original contents had been consumed or otherwise used. This of course made
them very practical for the people in Antiquity from a functional vantage point, but it also makes it very
difficult for scholars of modern day to use amphorae as accurate dating tools. While a great deal of
amphorae were broken and discarded after they had fulfilled their primary function, as happened with
the enormous amounts of Dressel 20 vessels in Rome, a lot of containers were surely reused. They
might have been refilled with local products, or even used in a wholly different fashion. Again it is
Callender who lists several examples of what he calls ‘secondary use survival’, i.e. the survival of
amphorae in other uses after the primary commodity has been used or consumed.
One of the most well known secondary uses is the amphora burial. Callender distinguishes four types
of amphora burials: a) Italian (Dressel 1) amphorae as grave gifts filled with imported Campanian wine
(upper elite); b) Italian (Dressel 1) amphora without wine, but with ashes and sometimes other grave
gifts inside (lower elite); c) Spanish globular (Dressel 20?) amphorae with ashes and often accompanied
by grave gifts (common people); d) amphorae as coffins (the poorest people). The first three types of
burials are also found in Britain; only the last type is limited to Italy. The practice of amphora burial
was brought to Britain by conquering Belgae from Gaul, where it was a widespread practice, in the 1st
century AD. The use of amphorae in this respect has symbolic as well as practical significance, as they
contained or represented wine and olive oil required by the dead in the afterlife. Amphorae thus
provided an easily obtainable container for the ashes or body, combined with rich symbolism.36
Amphorae were also used secondary as toilets. In Pompeii the lower halves of amphorae were placed
at street corners, and when filled with urine they were removed by the city’s fullers. Sometimes the
upper half of the amphora was used though and placed with the rim in the ground, the mouth acting as
drain. The lower halves of amphorae were also used in the turrets and mile castles of Hadrian’s Wall.
Callender lists several other secondary uses related to storage, such as hearth, water bucket, flower pot,
money chest and cupboard. Amphorae also seem to have been used as weapons in naval battles (being
35
Id., pp. 109 ; Id., pp. 32, 110, 134, 147, 163 ; Callender 1965, pp. 37-41 ;
36
Callender 1965, pp. 25-26
- 23 -

25. launched at enemy ships), boundary marks, acoustic amplifiers and in building construction. Some of
these uses are reaffirmed by Carevale & Toffoletti, who mention further the use of amphorae as water
ducts and lower halves as lights for ships making port (bound to the prow, with holes made in the walls
to let illumination from within get through). Obviously these widely varying examples of secondary use
survival show that amphorae were a solid part of every day Roman life, in more ways than one, and they
further exemplify the practical nature of the Romans themselves.
1.3.6. Production of amphorae
The bare production process of amphorae is in itself not a very controversial issue, although the exact
way they were manufactured is still unknown. All amphorae types were made on a pottery wheel, with
different forms often requiring different techniques. A Dressel 1 or 2-4 for example has a distinct
carinated shoulder, which is the result of the amphora having been thrown on the wheel in two phases
(body and neck separately, probably using the coiling technique). These parts would later on be
attached to each other, and the spike and handles would be added last. This three-stage throwing
process most probably applied to globular and cylindrical amphorae as well. Indirect proof of this can
be seen in the general tendency of an amphora breaking at the shoulder, where the joint is frailest. The
same holds true for handles and spike. This is why amphorae are so very often found in those specific
fragments: structural integrity is inherently weakest at the joints of different elements. This observation
was also made by Callender, who comments upon the breakage of amphorae at those distinct points
being either a natural occurrence (when falling or being thrown on a waste dump) or a purposeful act
(for secondary uses, as seen in 1.3.5).37
After an amphora had been made and filled, it required an airtight stopper. Most often a piece of cork
or clay was inserted into the mouth and then covered with pozzolana (sandy volcanic ash, mixed with
lime creates a mortar that has watertight properties), which was often stamped. Pitch, resin or lime was
used as sealant as well. A more primitive method of stopping was pushing a sufficiently large pineapple
down the mouth of the amphora, while a seemingly derivate method concerns the insertion of a so-
called anforiskos (a small earthenware flask) and sealing with pozzolana.
While the methods above sealed the amphora airtight, some commodities required the treatment of
the vessel’s interior as well. Amphorae were sometimes made watertight by being lined with resin (often
pine). Traces of this can be found under the right circumstances as a blackish layer on the inside of the
wall. Not all products required a resin lining however, such as in the case of olive oil amphorae where
the resin would actually contaminate the oil. Proof of this can be found in Newstead’s observation in
1939 of a fatty substance oozing out of the wall of an amphora when warmed, which would have been
37
Id., pp. 31 ; Peacock & Williams 1991, pp. 44-47 ; Caravale & Toffoletti 1997, pp. 12-13
- 24 -

26. olive oil. After all, when a resin lining is not applied the walls remain porous and liquids can enter the
wall structure.38
On the subject of amphora kilns, our knowledge stems mainly from Spain, Africa and France.
Research in these regions has yielded the locations of numerous kilns, although many of them have been
poorly excavated and/or published. All known amphora kilns were updraught kilns, and most of them
were round, but there is little standardization apart from that. Amphora kilns have been found single,
but also in pairs and batteries. The latter method has been encountered several times along the highly
productive Guadalquivir river in Baetica. Kilns in Italy are of relatively rarer number compared to the
aforementioned areas, but this is not to say they are not there. After all, Italy (and especially Campania
and Latium) has produced a range of immensely popular amphora types for centuries. The best known
lie in the former ager Falernus (two kilns) and ager Caecubus (three kilns; Canneto, Monte San Biagio,
Torre San Anastasia). Present-day Minturno also boasted two kilns. The kiln near Astura has been
known since the end of the 1970’s, and research by the Groningen Institute of Archaeology has resulted
in a lot more information concerning this amphora kiln in the ager Pontinus (see chapter 3).39 The
three kilns around the lake of Fundi, near Terracina, would have played a significant role in the region
as well in the 1st century BC.40 Amphora kilns are also found outside of the central Tyrrhenian area, at
for instance Cosa in Toscana (three kilns), Atri/Hadria in Abruzzo (one kiln) and probably Potenza
Picena in the Marche (one kiln).41
The larger debate in amphora production concerns who made the vessels. Peacock & Williams give
three different ways amphora provision could have been taken care of: a) they were produced on the
estate that needed them for transport; b) they were produced by specialized estates; c) they were
produced by independent potters. The first two ways fit amphora production in the villa system, and
examples of estate production can be found abound in North Africa and France. The Guadalquivir
region in Baetica then would have operated either with specialized estates or independent potters, as a
multitude of different stamps has often been found at a single estate. The virtually complete absence of
amphora kilns in Morocco however suggests production of amphorae abroad for its well developed fish
industry, perhaps around Cadiz where huge heaps of fish sauce amphorae have been found. These could
indicate independent amphora production for a large region, probably for fish installations on both
sides of the Gibraltar Strait.42
38
Id., pp. 12, 18, 49-51 ; Caravale & Toffoletti 1997, pp. 21-22
39
Piccareta 1977 ; Tchernia 1986, pp. 46
40
D’Arms 1981, pp. 36 ; Coarelli, pp. 53
41
Peacock & Williams 1991, pp. 47-48 ; Paterson 1985, pp. 150 ; Tchernia 1986, Carte 1
42
Id., pp. 39-43
- 25 -

27. 1.3.7. Matters of epigraphy: stamps and tituli picti
One of the greatest repositories of knowledge concerning the ancient economy comes from the writings
on the amphorae themselves. A score of information was sometimes written on the outside of an
amphora in the form of tituli picti, or painted inscriptions, while many amphorae were also stamped
somewhere on the vessel itself or on the stopper. Tituli picti can give names, contents and shipping
locations. Although favorable conditions are required for the preservation of these painted inscriptions,
when they are found they are often of great value in a given research. The largest findspot of tituli picti
is Monte Testaccio in Rome, where Heinrich Dressel studied them on the millions of amphora sherds
there. His work has been reappraised and expanded upon by Rodriguez-Almeida, and has resulted in
extensive knowledge concerning the shipping of especially Dressel 20 olive oil amphorae (which make
up the bulk of Testaccio). The only thing reminiscent of a titulus pictus in the LAC is the marking on
LAC/X59. Unfortunately it could not be refernced in any way.
The stamps found beneath the rims, on the handles, or the spikes of amphorae can aid greatly in
dating a vessel and locating the estate/workshop where it was produced. However it is still unknown
what the name abbreviations on those stamps exactly mean, because contrary to what was thought in the
past these stamps do not always seem to indicate the same thing. Paterson suggests two probable
meanings of these stamps: either they were the mark of the estate/workshop or its owner where the
amphorae were made or filled, or they represent the individual potters of the amphorae. However, the
stamps on Dressel 20 amphorae represent the producers of the transported oil itself, which adds a third
option. Peacock & Williams state the prevalent opinion edged towards the stamps being representative
of estate/workshop owners, at the time of writing Amphorae and the Roman economy. This seems to
be the most common meaning of an amphora stamp today as well, but as has been shown it is not the
only possibility. The stamps on the stoppers inside the mouths of amphorae are different from those on
the vessels itself, and Paterson has mused that they are the mark of the negotiator (see 2.5) who bought
the amphorae from an estate and marketed them.43
One of the most recent and promising reference sources of epigraphic amphora information is the
database of the CEIPAC (Centro para el Estudio de la Interdependencia Provincial en la Antigüedad
Clasica), attached to the University of Barcelona.44 This database holds a catalogue of stamps, tituli picti
and graffiti from dozens of amphora types. Most of these catalogue entries have drawings and other
relevant data to accompany the epigraphic data. The five stamps encountered in the LAC have been
primarily referenced with aid of this database (see 5.2.5).
43
Paterson 1982, pp. 155 ; Callender 1965, pp. xxiii ; Peacock & Williams 1991, pp. 9-14 ;
Caravale & Toffoletti 1997, pp. 16-20
44
http://ceipac.gh.ub.es/
- 26 -

28. 1.4. AMPHORAE: HISTORICAL ASPECTS
1.4.1. Origins in the East and the Phoenician/Punic amphorae
While the amphora tradition really took flight in 7th century BC Greece, the beginnings of this
development lie elsewhere and in older times still. Peacock & Williams reflect on the Canaanite jar,
which can be called the earliest example of an amphora according to both my and the classical
definitions; being a thick-walled biconical vessel with a distinct neck, two vertical handles opposite each
other and a tapering body ending in a pointed or rounded base (no distinct spike or truly flat base is
present, but the vessels obviously could not stand on their own accord).45 The Canaanite jar is believed
to have evolved from rounded vessels with two handles centered on the body, in response to the need
for a transport container for bulk commodities that could be handled by one person. The tapering form
of the new vessel suited maritime transport much better.
Canaanite jars have been found outside the Palestine region from Greece to Egypt, and are believed to
have transported wine as well as honey, incense and oil. This icon of Late Bronze Age maritime
transport seems to indicate a greatly underestimated trade network, but unfortunately the study of
coarse wares from this period still leaves much to be desired and so the picture remains hazy. Pictorial
evidence of trade utilizing the Canaanite jar dates to the 15th and 14th century BC, in the form of several
wall reliefs in Egypt. The Egyptians soon adopted this new form of transport as well, in favor of their
own handle-less containers. They pushed amphora evolution a little further towards the ‘traditional’
shape, creating a vessel based on the Canaanite jar but with a longer and slimmer body.46
The design of the Canaanite jar not only found following in Egypt, but was eventually adopted in the
western Mediterranean as well. The Phoenician and later Punic amphora tradition started in the 8th and
7th centuries BC in a form similar to the biconical Canaanite shape, but without the distinct neck
thereof. In the Orient its basic shape was retained the most, exemplified by the Anfore fenicie d’Oriente
with its tapering lower body and relatively small, high-placed ring-handles. It is dated to the 7th century
BC, and functioned presumably as a wine container.
In the Phoenician centers of the western and central Mediterranean several typical forms in succession
of each other are attested. The first is Forma A (Maña A): a slightly bulbous, bag-like vessel with the
characteristic small ring-handles high on the body. This wine amphora was in production from the mid
8th to start 6th century BC in the western Mediterranean, especially on the Iberian Peninsula. At the same
time another wine container was produced in the central Mediterranean: Forma B, a biconical amphora
more reminiscent of the Canaanite jar, but again without a distinct neck. It is found in great quantities
45
Peacock & Williams 1991, pp. 20
46
Id., pp. 21
- 27 -

29. in the Tyrrhenian area, testament to the intensive maritime trade already occurring in protohistory. This
form was joined halfway the 7th century BC by Forma D, which would continue to be produced at the
Phoenician/Punic center of Sardinia until the 2nd century BC. This type exemplifies the shift from bag-
shaped vessels, hallmark of the Palestine tradition, to the later Punic tradition of slimmer, almost
‘torpedo-shaped’ vessels.
In the west Forma A was apparently succeeded by Forma F in the 5th century BC. It is a long,
biconical vessel with a rilled body that seems more like a development of the Anfore fenicie d’Oriente
then a continuation of Forma A. The widely spread Forma D was used until the 1st century BC for the
transport of fish and its derivates and indicates an already high activity concerning fish production
along the Strait of Gibraltar, an industry that would remain to play an important part there well into
Roman times. The beginning of the 4th century BC sees the introduction of two African forms: Forma
E (Maña D) from the Tunisian region and Forma H (Maña C) from the greater North African area.
Both forms were widespread, torpedo-shaped wine containers that remained in production until at least
the start of the 2nd century BC, although it is speculated that production of Forma H (known in USAP
2005 as Van der Werff 1-3) might even have been continued until the 1st century AD. 47
1.4.2. Ancient Greek amphorae
Before Greece adopted the amphora shape, which was not until the 7th century BC, the transport
container of choice was the stirrup jar. This vessel was characterized by a ring-base, an ovoid body and
handles high on the neck. It was probably not as well suited to maritime transport as the tapering
Canaanite jar and does not seem to have survived past Mycenaean and Minoan times.
The origin of the first real Greek amphorae is not known, but it is thought the Greeks were
influenced by Phoenician or Egyptian prototypes. It is however not unthinkable that the stirrup jar
influenced their designs as well, seeing as the majority of older Greek amphorae is made up of relatively
small vessels characterized by their ring-bases and ovoid bodies. There is no distinct ‘Greek tradition’, as
the various regions and islands making up Greece each produced their own forms. The shapes
characterizing each production area possibly indicated their contents. Many Greek amphorae were
painted upon as well, which makes it difficult to distinguish between decorative and purely functional
amphorae (if there indeed was such a difference). The amphora tradition flourished as soon as it was
rooted in classical Greece.
Amphorae from Laconia, Attica, Chios and Samos display the characteristic stirrup jar-style ring-base,
ovoid body and handles high on the neck. A Corinthian amphora however was the first with a (small)
47
Id, pp. 22; Caravale & Toffoletti 1997, pp. 50-58 ;
http://ads.ahds.ac.uk/catalogue/archive/amphora_ahrb_2005/details.cfm?id=367
- 28 -

30. spike and a more piriform body;Tipo B, attested from the end of the 6th to the 2nd century BC, was a
wine container as widely distributed as the other Greek forms. Its distinct shape seems to make it a very
likely precursor of the later Greco-Italic amphorae (see 1.4.3). From the 4th century BC the island of
Rhodes also produced amphorae of similar shape; piriform, tapering vessels with a long neck and ditto
band-handles. Rhodes would remain producing wine-carrying amphorae in great numbers until the 2nd
century AD.48
The extent of Greek trade and colonization also made sure the amphora tradition was established
beyond the Aegean. From the 6th to 2nd century BC amphorae were also made at the Greek colony of
Massilia, which is present-day Marseille. Massilia was a thriving colony on the French seaboard, and the
first Greek port in Western Europe. The colony was famed for the sweet wine it produced and which it
exported in its own line of amphorae. Massilian amphorae were generally piriform, spiked vessels with
handles high on the neck. They were relatively small (45-62 cm) and are subdivided in five types
succeeding each other in time. Tipo 1 (and to a lesser degree Tipo 5) shows a morphological
reminiscence to the aforementioned Corinthinan Tipo B and the later Greco-Italian amphorae. The
Massilian amphorae were mostly used for transporting the indicative wine, but fish sauce and olive oil
have also been attributed. Massilian amphorae were widely exported in the Iron Age, and the vessels
have been found far up north in France and Germany.49
Massilia was founded in 600 BC by Phocaeans: Ionian Greeks from the city of Phocaea (modern-day
Foça in Turkey). The Phocaeans were the first to make long voyages at sea, according to Herodotus,
and they have been credited with discovering Spain and both the Adriatic and Tyrrhenian coasts. They
would have helped settle several cities in Ionia, such as Lampsakos with the aid of Miletos, but their
own most important colonies were in the West: Massilia in southern France, Alalia on Corsica, Velia in
Italy (Campania) and Emporion in Spain. Some of them would become the largest and most thriving
port colonies in their respective regions of their day, further attesting to the Phocaean savvy in trading.
These enterprising people could very well have been an important link in the history of amphorae,
promoting both wine and olive oil as well as the means to store and transport them overseas.50
1.4.3. The rise of the Italic tradition
Although the amphora reinforced its foothold in the Mediterranean maritime trade due to the efforts of
the Greeks (and perhaps foremost due to the Phocaeans), there were already amphorae in use on the
central Italian mainland apart from the Greek tradition. The Etruscans produced their own transport
containers from the end of the 7th to the 3rd century BC, the first types of which show a strong similarity
48
Id., pp. 22-23 ; Id., pp. 59-69
49
Peacock & Williams 1991, pp. 23
50
Caravale & Toffoletti 1997, pp. 72-73
- 29 -

31. to the Phoenician Forma B (see 1.4.1). The Etruscan amphorae may well be successors to those vessels
in the Phoenician/Punic tradition, which were produced in great quantities also in the central
Tyrrhenian area. Like Forma B, Etruscan amphorae were generally piriform vessels lacking a neck, with
fairly thick ring-handles high on the body and a pointed/rounded base, They were primarily used for
exporting the wine from the region, but olives, fish and pine nuts might also have been transported.
Etruscan amphorae are found in tombs, coastal cities and a multitude of wrecks along the coast
stretching to France.51
The Greeks meanwhile founded several colonies on the southern Italian mainland. Southern Italy,
being mostly Apulia and Calabria (sometimes Sicily was added as well) was known by the Romans as
Magna Graecia. The trade with the settlements in this area caused the Greek amphora tradition to be
firmly established here, ultimately giving birth to the line of Greco-Italic amphorae that would directly
precede the Roman amphora tradition. Greco-Italic amphorae were both produced and distributed in
great quantities, being the primary container of those days. As such they are indicative for the
Republican period as far as amphorae are concerned, just as black gloss is indicative for that period in
the case of fine ware.
There are several typologies for the Greco-Italic amphorae, the best known of which are those of Will
and Vandermersch.52 As a full treatise of these forms falls outside the limits of this thesis, I present here
the summarized typology by Caravale & Toffoletti in which six types make up the line, namely MGS I-
VI. MGS stands for Magna Graecia and Sicily. The MGS amphorae are generally piriform with a high
neck, a distinct spike and long ring/band-handles from shoulder to neck. As said, the earliest MGS
types closely resemble the Corinthian Tipo B (see 1.4.2). MGS I-III were produced from the second
half of the 5th to the end of the 4th century BC and while MGS I-II were distributed mostly in that area,
MGS III has also been found in Campania. MGS III sports a distinct triangular rim, which was to
become the hallmark of the later MGS amphorae; MGS IV-VI (4th to 2nd century BC). These all have a
rim that is triangular in section, and they are the ones most commonly known in literature as ‘Greco-
Italic’ and more recently Greco-Italiche antiche. Greco-Italic amphorae were dominantly wine
containers, although MGS V has been attested to have carried olives and grapes as well. As the line
progressed, MGS amphorae became longer and less globular, resulting in the later Greco-Italiche tarde
amphorae (essentially the first Roman amphora, 3rd/2nd century BC) and ultimately the real dawn of
Roman amphora tradition: the Dressel 1.53
51
Caravale & Toffoletti 1997, pp. 74-80
52
http://ads.ahds.ac.uk/catalogue/archive/amphora_ahrb_2005/details.cfm?id=141 ; Will 1982 ; Vandermersch
1994
53
Id., pp. 82-89, 97 ; http://ads.ahds.ac.uk/catalogue/archive/amphora_ahrb_2005/details.cfm?id=324
- 30 -

32. 1.4.4. The Roman era: Italian amphorae
In the mid 2nd century BC, more precisely around 130 BC, a new wine container hit the Republican
market in Italy. Dressel 1A was the direct successor of the Greco-Italic line of amphorae, having evolved
from the popular Greco-Italiche tarde. Dressel 1 denominates a group of thick-walled
piriform/cylindrical amphorae with a long conical neck, distinct spike, long band-handles from a
distinct (carinated) shoulder to neck, and a triangular or straight ‘collar’ rim. There are presently three
subtypes Dressel 1, being Tipo A-C. Tipo A and C resemble their Greco-Italic predecessors the most,
retaining their somewhat streamlined form. The heavy and sturdy Dressel 1B then has even thicker walls
and is generally the largest/bulkiest variant. The Dressel 1 was produced first and foremost in central
Italy, along the Tyrrhenian coast. It seems to have been used there especially for carrying the most
famous wines of Latium, such as Falernian and Caecuban vintages. Dressel 1 amphorae were used
throughout the western Mediterranean basin and central Europe, and shipwrecks containing up to 9000
vessels have been recorded (such as the Albenga wreck).54
Contemporary with the originally Tyrrhenian Dressel 1, another wine amphora was produced along
Italy’s opposite coast: Lamboglia 2. This Adriatic amphora, while clearly related to both the Greco-
Italic and Dressel 1 forms, would be the start of a distinct line of popular wine containers. It differs
from the aforementioned forms mostly in its straight or slightly spreading rim, and the much more
ovoid shape of its body. The Republican Lamboglia 2 and Dressel 1 are often found together in
shipwrecks in great quantities. Lamboglia 2 was superseded around the time of the Empire’s birth by
Dressel 6A; ovoid as well and with a distinct long spike. It was manufactured on both sides of the
Adriatic Sea and meant to transport the wines of that region. These wines, though not of such excellent
quality as the famous vintages of Campania and Latium, were widely marketed. Production of the
Dressel 6A came to an end in the 1st century AD.55
It is interesting to notice that up to now we only know of one confirmed type of Roman olive oil
amphora made on Italian soil, from end 2nd to end 1st century BC: the so-called Brindisi amphora. This
ovoid vessel with a short spike/knob was produced on the Adriatic coast, and more specifically north
of Brindisi, at the same time as Lamboglia 2 and is often found together with said form. GIA research
at the Piccareta 15 has indicated that local production of other small olive oil amphorae occurred here
as well, but the type has not been sufficiently studied yet. There would be no Italian successor to the
Brinidisi amphora; instead olive oil amphorae would be the sole province of Hispania and Africa in later
times.56
54
Peacock & Williams 1991, pp. 24 ; Caravale & Toffoletti 1997, pp. 91-92, 98-99
55
Id., pp. 25 ; Id., pp. 92-94, 104, 108 ;
http://ads.ahds.ac.uk/catalogue/archive/amphora_ahrb_2005/details.cfm?id=113 and 229
56
Id., pp. 82-83 ; Id., pp. 93, 106 ; Attema et al. 2003, pp. 135
- 31 -

33. While Lamboglia 2 probably evolved quite naturally into Dressel 6A on the Adriatic coast, a much
more abrupt change took place in the second half of the 1st century BC along the Tyrrhenian coast.
Here Dressel 1 was quite suddenly replaced by Dressel 2-4, which would become the most important
wine amphora in the western Mediterranean during the early Empire. Dressel 2-4 has very distinct bifid
handles (resembling two joined ring-handles), a cylindrical/piriform body with carinated shoulder and
a simple outcurving rim. Why the workshops producing Dressel 1 replaced it by Dressel 2-4 so
abruptly is to date still not precisely known, but the general consensus claims the transition was a result
of changing drinking habits: the form of Dressel 2-4 was based upon ‘Koan’ prototypes from the Greek
island of Kos in the Aegean Sea, which was renowned for its medicinal wines. These wines were made
with sea water and would have been quite different from the known Italian vintages, as remarked by
Pliny. While such a historical statement cannot be proven archaeologically, it is clear that the thinner-
walled Dressel 2-4 meant an increase in capacity and ease of handling over the Dressel 1, making it even
more economically viable for maritime trade. In the one and a half century that Dressel 2-4 held
prominence in the Mediterranean market, the form was not only produced in Italy (Latium, Campania,
Etruria), but also in Spain (Catalonia, Baetica), Gallia and there is evidence for British manufacture as
well. All these production sites delivered similar amphorae, attesting to the popularity of this form (and
probably the importance of the archetypical Koan design in itself).57
Production of Dressel 2-4 seems to have declined in the 1st century AD together with its Adriatic
contemporary Dressel 6A, both coming to a complete stop at the end of that century as they were not
superseded by new Italian wine containers. Instead the end of the 1st century AD marks the rise of
Gallic amphora and wine as well as the height of competition from the Tarraconese wines. Both Italian
and Hispanic wine production though (together with the corresponding amphorae) would then be
pushed back from prominence in the Mediterranean market in favor of the massive influx of Gallic
wines in the 2nd century AD, which were said to be of superior quality in comparison with most
contemporary Italian and Tarraconese wines.58
As Italian wine amphorae stopped to be the most prominent on the Mediterranean market at the end
of the 1st century AD, regional and specialist production seemed to have tried to fill a niche and keep
Italian production going. From the 1st century BC to 3rd century AD the Forlimpopoli was produced on
the northern Adriatic coast; a relatively small piriform/ovoid vessel with a narrow mouth and small
base-ring. This amphora was distributed throughout Italy during the reign of Gallic wines, and might
have been an efficient competitor due to its size. Peacock points to the continued production of prized
Italian vintages (e.g. Falernian, Caecuban) on a much smaller scale, during the obvious decline of large-
57
Id., pp. 24-25, 105-106 ; Id., pp. 93-94, 107 ;
http://ads.ahds.ac.uk/catalogue/archive/amphora_ahrb_2005/details.cfm?id=90, 91-92, 94-96, 101-102, 325-328
58
Caravale & Toffoletti 1997, pp. 94, 113, 119
- 32 -

34. scale export. The Forlimpopoli and other comparable regional amphorae, like the Empoli and Spello,
would have transported those famed Italian wines in a time of heavy competition. The same goes for.59
Examples of specialized amphorae then are the Campanian Dressel 21-22, which was used for
transporting fruit (i.e. cherries, plums), and the horizontally rilled Richborough 527 from the Lipari
Islands, supposedly a container for local alum (used among others in creating the purple of Roman
aristocratic robes).60
It would not be until the 4th century AD that a new type of Italian wine container would again be
produced in great quantities for export on the larger Mediterranean market. The Keay 52 was quite a
small ovoid vessel (ca. 40 cm) with relatively long band-handles from shoulder to neck and a simple
base-ring. It would be produced in Calabria and on Sicily (so the Italian tradition essentially went back
to its Magna Graecian roots) until the 7th century AD.61
1.4.5. The Roman era: Hispanic amphorae
In the Roman period the Iberian Peninsula was called Hispania, and it was divided into three provinces:
Tarraconensis, Baetica and Lusitania. The first Spanish (wine) amphorae emulated the most popular
amphora of the Republican period; Dressel 1. Imitations of this form were made in the Tarraconese
and Baetican provinces. These imitations soon led to a local Tarraconese type: Pascual 1, based upon
Dressel 1B but more rounded, most probably used for transporting the prized Tarraconese wines along
the Narbonne-Bordeaux route and also further into the Mediterranean. Contemporary wine amphorae
from Tarraconensis, Laetana 1 and Oberaden 74, had a more limited, local distribution and are mainly
found in France in context of the Narbonne-Bordeaux route. Oberaden 74 was furthermore imitated in
great quantities in France, and also found its way to central Europe and Italy. The final ‘Tarraconese’
amphora to be widely distributed in the Mediterranean and central Europe alike was Dressel 2-4
Catalan, which was also produced in Hispania and replaced mainly Pascual 1. The rise to dominance of
Narbonese wines from Gaul at the end of the 1st century AD would bring an end to large-scale wine
export from Hispania, in an economic decline similar to the situation in Italy.62
While Tarraconensis thus experienced an economic setback due to the decline and halt of major wine
export at the end of the Augustan period, Baetica became from that moment on the region that would
produce the most widely distributed amphorae of the early Empire. This was a result of the mass-
production of the famous Baetican olive oil, which would dominate the Roman market until the 3rd
59
Id., pp. 109 ; http://ads.ahds.ac.uk/catalogue/archive/amphora_ahrb_2005/details.cfm?id=129-130 and 290
60
Id., pp. 94, 111 ; Peacock & Williams 1991, pp. 27 ;
http://ads.ahds.ac.uk/catalogue/archive/amphora_ahrb_2005/details.cfm?id=86 and 286
61
Id., pp. 94, 112 ; http://ads.ahds.ac.uk/catalogue/archive/amphora_ahrb_2005/details.cfm?id=161
62
Peacock & Williams 1991, pp. 24, 93-95 ; Caravale & Toffoletti 1997, pp. 118-120, 123-125 ;
http://ads.ahds.ac.uk/catalogue/archive/amphora_ahrb_2005/details.cfm?id=268 and 94
- 33 -