the ovoid amphorae in the central and western mediterranean · 2020. 1. 19. · the ovoid amphorae...

The Ovoid Amphorae in the Central and Western

MediterraneanBetween the last two centuries of

the Republic and the early days of the Roman Empire

Edited by

Enrique García VargasRui Roberto de Almeida

Horacio González Cesteros Antonio M. Sáez Romero

Roman and Late Antique Mediterranean Pottery 13

Archaeopress Publishing LtdSummertown Pavilion18-24 Middle WaySummertownOxford OX2 7LGwww.archaeopress.com

ISBN 978-1-78969-296-9ISBN 978-1-78969-297-6 (e-Pdf)

© Authors and Archaeopress 2019

Cover: ‘Mediterranean ovoid amphorae: a puzzling matter’. Author: Rui Roberto de Almeida

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, 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 Severn, Glocester

This book is available direct from Archaeopress or from our website www.archaeopress.com

i

Prologue

Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................xiii

Part I

Ovoid amphorae production in the Mediterranean

The ovoid amphorae from Aigion, in the north-west Peloponnese. The connections with Corinth and the Brindisi area ................................................................................................................................................. 3Konstantinos Filis

Produzioni di anfore ovoidi di area brindisina .......................................................................................................... 35Daniele Manacorda

Late Republican and Early Imperial ovoid amphorae: the African production ........................................................... 42Alessia Contino and Claudio Capelli

Ovoid amphorae as the first Roman provincial repertoire in Hispania Ulterior (the Guadalquivir valley) .................. 62Enrique García Vargas, Horacio González Cesteros and Rui Roberto de Almeida

Ovoid amphorae production in the Bay of Cadiz and the southern coast of the Ulterior/Baetica (Late Republican and Early Imperial periods) ......................................................................................................... 112Enrique García Vargas and Antonio M. Sáez Romero

Ánforas ovoides del noreste de la Hispania Citerior Tarraconensis en época tardorepublicana. Ensayo de síntesis . 148Jordi Miró Canals y Ramón Járrega Domínguez

The ‘early production’ of Roman amphorae in Lusitania. State of play of a universe (still) under construction ....... 175Rui Roberto de Almeida and Carlos Fabião

De la producción de ánforas Ovoide 1 gaditanas: aportaciones del alfar de Verinsur .............................................. 191Darío Bernal-Casasola, José J. Díaz Rodríguez, María Luisa Lavado-Florido y Rosario García-Giménez

Part II

Ovoid amphorae throughout the Mediterranean: Case studies, commercial routes, consumption contexts and contents

Ovoid Amphoras found in Hellenistic Southern Levant contexts: their chronology and need for proveniences ....... 215Gerald Finkielsztejn

Northern Peloponnesian amphorae with convex-concave rims from the Styra A shipwreck ................................... 228Lucie S. Vidličková

Ovoid African and Hispanic amphorae in Italy. Some examples from Ostia and Pompeii ........................................ 237Alessia Contino, Lucilla D’Alessandro, Guillermo Pascual Berlanga and Albert Ribera i Lacomba

The Italic ovoid amphorae in the Toulouse area at the end of the Iron Age (Midi-Pyrénées, France) ...................... 274Laurence Benquet

The diffusion of south-Hispanic ovoid amphorae in Gaul, between the Late Republican and Early Empire times .... 298Kevin Quillon and Max Luaces

Contents

ii

Distribution of ovoid amphorae in north-west Europe. Consumption contexts and main trade routes ................... 314Horacio González Cesteros

Amphorae of the Brindisi area in Gallia Belgica: The example of Titelberg (Luxembourg) ...................................... 337Debora C. Tretola Martinez

Ovoid amphorae in Hispania Citerior/Tarraconensis: consumption contexts and main trade areas ........................ 346Daniel Mateo Corredor and Jaime Molina Vidal

La importación de ánforas ovoides en la Tarraco republicana ................................................................................ 367Moisés Díaz García

Are you Local? Imported and locally produced amphorae in Alto Alentejo (Portugal) during the 1st century BC: three case studies at Soeiros, Rocha da Mina and Caladinho ................................................................................. 376Rui Mataloto, Joey Williams and Conceição Roque

Preliminary organic residue analysis of Ovoid 1 and Ovoid 5 amphorae from the Guadalquivir valley .................... 391Darío Bernal-Casasola, Alessandra Pecci and Antonio M. Sáez Romero

Epilogue

Ovoid amphorae in the Mediterranean (2nd century BC- early 1st century AD). State of the play and future research perspectives ............................................................................................................................................ 403The Editors

The Ovoid Amphorae in the Central and Western Mediterranean: 175–190

The ‘early production’ of Roman amphorae in Ulterior / Lusitania. State of play of a universe (still) under construction

Rui Roberto de AlmeidaUNIARQ – Centro de Arqueologia da Universidade de Lisboa. Faculdade de Letras

Câmara Municipal de Loulé, Museu Municipal de Loulé [email protected]

Carlos FabiãoUNIARQ – Centro de Arqueologia da Universidade de Lisboa. Faculdade de Letras

[email protected]

Abstract: The actual state of the knowledge concerning early types of Roman amphorae in the Atlantic Ulterior / Lusitania didn’t achieve such a level as other regions of Hispania. Nevertheless, in the last two decades the research developed in Portuguese territory started to demonstrate that also here, at the most Western area of the Roman Empire, the ‘ovoid amphorae’ represented the earliest forms of a regional/provincial repertoire of transport containers of Romanised morphology.

At the same time, it`s becoming now more clear than ever that the amphorae produced in Western Ulterior/Lusitania at this initial stage have a strong ‘connection’ with known amphorae from Southern Hispania (namely with ovoid types from the Guadalquivir valley and the Cadiz bay), but also with the later early Imperial Guadalquivir Haltern 70 type and the Dressel 7-11 ‘family’ from the Cadiz potteries, with which they are usually related in terms of shape.

With this paper we intend to present the main historiographic and background problematic, the main difficulties in dealing with the actual available fragmentary reality, the typological frame that can now be built and, above all, to where is the Lusitanian data and research leading us to.

Key words: Atlantic Hispania Ulterior / Lusitania; Late Republican / Early Empire; ‘early amphorae’ production; ovoid types.

Resumo: O estado atual do conhecimento acerca dos primeiros tipos de ânforas romanas produzidas na região da fachada atlântica da Hispania Ulterior / Lusitania, não atingiu ainda um nível comparável ao de outras regiões da Hispânia. No entanto, a investigação desenvolvida nas últimas duas décadas em território português tem vindo a demonstrar que também aqui, na região mais ocidental do Império Romano, as ‘ânforas ovoides’ representaram as formas mais antigas de um repertório regional / provincial de contentores de transporte de morfologia romanizada.

Ao mesmo tempo, é também cada vez mais evidente que as ânforas produzidas no Ocidente da Hispania Ulterior / Lusitania nesta etapa inicial têm uma forte ‘conexão’ com as ânforas conhecidas em outras áreas da Hispania meridional, designadamente com tipos ovóides tardo-republicanos do vale do Guadalquivir e da Baía de Cádis, mas também com tipos imediatamente posteriores, já dos primeiros momentos do Principado, como a Haltern 70 do vale do Guadalquivir e a ‘família’ das Dressel 7-11 das olarias de Cádis, com as quais são relacionados em termos formais.

Com este trabalho pretendemos apresentar as principais problemáticas historiográficas e de fundo inerentes, as principais dificuldades em lidar com a realidade fragmentária disponível, o quadro tipológico passível de ser actualmente construído e, acima de tudo, para onde os dados e investigação realizada na Lusitânia nos conduz no presente e futuro imediato.

Palavras chave: Fachada atlântica da Hispania Ulterior / Lusitania; República tardia / Principado; produção ‘Lusitana Antiga’; tipos ovóides.

Rui Roberto de Almeida and Carlos Fabião

1. Introduction

The actual state of play and studies on the origins of early types of Roman amphorae in the Atlantic Ulterior / Lusitania region – depending, of course, on the time frame of their production – cover a set of data considerably smaller when compared with other regions of Hispania.

Nevertheless, based on a significant group of solid indicators, gathered in recent decades (especially the

last), we can positively state that ovoid amphorae appear to have ranked among the earliest forms of a regional/provincial repertoire of food transport containers of Romanised morphology, also in the Western areas of the Roman Empire. They had characteristics of their own and shared no formal relationship with hypothetical scopes of production of former periods or pottery-making traditions.

The following statement, published in previous work, remain valid in essence:

176


‘(…) the gaps that can be currently felt in its study [that of the amphorae from an early production phase], remember enormously those of the research for the same period of the Guadalquivir valley. In fact, it seems that we are witnessing a dejá vu that lies in: absence of data regarding producing centres versus abundant data in consumption centres. Likewise, the panorama of the material evidence regarding the origin of transport container production changed radically in the last decade, having evolved from consolidated syntheses in which its clearly Roman and imperial era character was stressed (Fabião 2004b: 401) to the existence of productions with an uncertain origin, but surely attributable to the second half of the 1st century BC (Morais 2004; Morais and Fabião 2007) (…)’ (García Vargas, Almeida and González Cesteros 2011: 262).

2. Research synopsis. Interpreting data: production versus consumption

One major issue, which we have address in recent years and remains a key topic in our agenda regarding the production of amphorae, and its tradition in the Roman

province of Lusitania, is precisely its beginnings – in terms of time frame and context (Fabião 2008: 502).

The hypothetical existence of an initial phase of production of Roman-type amphorae dating from an ‘old’ period, relying on the manufacture of ‘ovoid amphorae’, had already been proposed in the end of last century. At that time A. Dias Diogo identified a typically ovoid amphora, bearing the number 12 in his ‘Typological table of Lusitanian amphorae’. He stated that it matched the ‘(…) a Lusitanian production of Dressel 7-11 / Beltrán l type (…)’ and stressed the fact that it presented ‘(…) a wide variety of rim shapes, but always in collar profile (…)’. He added that it ‘(…) appears to have been manufactured during a very short period, beginning its production in the late 1st century BC. It is a fish-products amphora, and [at that moment] only attested at the Sado workshops (Diogo 1987: 182).

However, there were no solid data that could be archaeologically confirmed, regarding the production and consumption of this type of amphora. This hypothesis, raised in the context of a proposed typology of provincial scope, was ambitious but very frail in

Figure 1. Map of Hispania, with emphasis on Lusitania, indicating the main geographical and/or pottery-making entities mentioned in the text: 1) Central Atlantic Coast; 2) Tagus valley; 3) Sado valley; 4) Central Alentejo; 5)

Augusta Emerita territory; 6) Algarve.

177

The ‘early production’ of Roman amphorae in Ulterior / Lusitania

Figure 2. a) Lusitana 12 on the typology of Dias Diogo (Diogo 1987); b) Lusitana 12 specimens and morphometric study of some examples at Troia (Diogo and Trindade 1998).

178


terms of chronology tenets. Therefore, both national and foreign researchers studying the production of ceramic containers in Lusitania generally dismissed it. In works published at a later stage (Diogo and Faria 1990; Diogo and Trindade 1998), the same author sought to strengthen the characterisation of his Lusitana 12 type, even attempting to define a typology based on volume and attributes. However, since it only used fragments collected on the surface, its acceptance by the scientific community was still not successful. Researchers remained highly sceptical, particularly due to the total absence of context / stratigraphic attributes enabling the recognition of a clear time frame of its production.

In the 1990s and in the early years of the 21st century, several fragments of amphorae from different pottery workshops were published: some from the Sado basin, and others from Peniche, in the Central Atlantic Coast; a few of them were clearly early ones. The former, from the Sado Valley, date from the time of Tiberius and were identified at the pottery of Largo da Misericórdia, in the urban area of Caetobriga / Setúbal (Silva 1996) and at the potteries of Herdade do Pinheiro and Abul (Mayet and Silva 1998; Mayet and Silva 2002). Although ovoid features could be discerned in some fragments from Largo da Misericórdia, most of the published artefacts from the remaining potteries showed plain stripe rims, together with long necks and large handles, more typical of the Dressel 14 form than the so-called ‘ovoid forms’, Lusitana 12, or any other … Such features led to their classification as Dressel 14, variant A (Mayet and Silva 1998; Mayet and Silva 2002). It should be noted that, albeit recent research efforts, a few authors still insist on this labelling – as found in a recent publication about an interesting archaeological intervention in the urban area of Setúbal (Silva 2018). In this case, the Julian-Claudian time frame of the production/dissemination of the containers with this morphology has been fully confirmed.

The pottery workshop of Morraçal da Ajuda, Peniche, located in the Central Atlantic Coast, is different in many aspects (Cardoso and Rodrigues 2005; Cardoso, Rodrigues and Sepúlveda 2006; Cardoso et al. 2016). This important site, the oldest manufacturing centre of Roman amphorae known in Lusitania, helped expand the geographical scope of Lusitanian production and added new data to this problematic. Production having started at the time of Augustus, the centre manufactured amphorae with a specific form that can be found in no other known manufacturing region. It shares common features with the morphology of amphorae from Baetica made for containing fish products, datable from the Period of the Principate, and with other forms – namely Haltern 70 from the Guadalquivir and the Dressel 7-11 ‘family’ from the Cadiz pottery workshops (Cardoso and Rodrigues 2005; Cardoso, Rodrigues and Sepúlveda 2006; Cardoso et al. 2016). Amphorae made at the Peniche pottery workshop, although from an early moment (in the context of the Lusitanian amphorae production), and compatible with the

production date proposed by A. Dias Diogo for his Lusitana 12 type, had little or nothing in common with the oldest amphorae found in the Sado pottery workshops, or with the materials found at consumption centres located in the Sado and Tagus valleys. Therefore, this oldest proof of a Lusitanian amphorae production could neither frame nor confirm a documented production of ‘ovoid’ amphorae. It could not also date its beginnings to a time before the Early Principate, with a significant increase after the time of Tiberius.

In addition to the aforementioned cases, there is also a possible (though not so well confirmed) production of ovoid models of amphorae at Porto de Sabugueiro, Muge, located in the lower section of River Tagus (Cardoso 1990: 156).

Research conducted in the first decade of the 21st century reversed this trend and triggered what we might call a paradigm shift. The systematic study – with different natures and objectives, trying to address different sets of issues – of amphorae collections from the Western façade of Iberian Peninsula allowed, on one hand, to recognise and identify fragments of amphorae (many evidencing an ovoid shape) with petrographic characteristics surely attributable to the Lusitanian region and, on the other hand, place them in stratigraphic contexts presumably dated from the Late Republic, or Early Principate (generally, the second half of the 1st century BC). Researchers thus began to perceive that amphorae trade did exist, at least at the provincial level, since an ‘early’ period – that is to say, clearly before Tiberius. Until then, there was consensus that the manufacture and exportation of Lusitanian amphorae had begun only in that period.

This verification and remark, as well as new lines of research, began with the works of Rui Morais (2004). Special reference should be made to the publication of a series of amphorae fragments from several areas, distant from each other and different in political, social and economic terms, such as today’s Galicia and Northern Portugal – Castro de Panxón, Montecastro and Castro de Vigo, in Galicia; Castro de Santa Luzia and Castro de Terronho (in Viana do Castelo, between Douro and Minho rivers), Rua da Banharia and Aljube, in Oporto; and Castro de Fiães, in Santa Maria da Feira – and Portugal’s hinterland south of river Tagus, in the area currently known as Alentejo (namely Castelo da Lousa, in Mourão). The latter is a particularly interesting site due to its obvious military functions and remained exclusively occupied between the second half of the 1st century BC and the first decades of the Principate (Morais 2004: 36-40; Morais 2010: 181-218; Morais and Filipe 2016).

A careful petrographic examination of the above materials revealed the prevailing presence of artefacts attributable to pottery workshops from the Lower Tagus and the Lower Sado valleys. The presumably

179


Figure 3. Types of amphorae produced at Lusitanian workshops and attributable to the Early Principate: 1) Largo da Misericórdia (Silva 1996); 2) Abul (Mayet and Silva 2002); 3) Morraçal da Ajuda, Peniche (Cardoso et alii 2016).

180


most represented types (the majority of which were identified only by fragments of their rim, neck and handles) had morphological features with a clear ‘family look’, belonging to the group of ‘ovoid amphorae’, and could be related with the first Romanised forms of the neighbouring Ulterior Baetica (Morais 2004; Morais and Fabião 2007; Fabião 2008: 725-726). Also, recognising the obvious similarity between the shape of the mouth of many such fragments and the first Baetican Roman types, the work of R. Morais and C. Fabião established the bases for defining the existence of a production phase of ovoid amphorae, containers of undoubted Roman nature. Their work acknowledged both the absence of pre-Roman tradition in the design of those forms, and also that such amphorae were not reproductions of types previously known coming from Italy. Therefore, western ovoid amphorae are quite different from the known universe of ‘reproduction’ of the well-known ‘Greco-Italic’, ‘Dressel 1’ or ‘Dressel 2-4’, which can be found in other territories of the Iberian Peninsula. Thus a ‘family’ of types began to emerge, which has a significant variety of forms, at least regarding the mouth design (cf. Morais 2004 and particularly Morais and Fabião 2007, for a more detailed analysis).

As to the probable contents of such amphorae, it was assumed from day one, considering their geographical provenance and the subsequent trends of Lusitanian production, that these containers were used for transporting fish products (Morais and Fabião 2007: 132).

More and more specimen of this kind of amphorae which could be described as ‘ovoid amphorae’ made in Lusitania were found in the following years, in archaeological sites and contexts well known due to their antiquity and notoriety in the Romanisation process of Western Iberia. We must mention Scallabis / Santarém (Arruda, Viegas and Bargão 2006), Monte dos Castelinhos in Vila Franca de Xira (Pimenta, Mendes and Norton 2008; Pimenta and Mendes 2014; Pimenta 2015; Pimenta 2017), Olisipo / Lisboa (Morais and Fabião 2007; Filipe 2008a; Filipe 2008b; 2015), several settlements at Coruche area (Quaresma and Calais 2005), Salacia / Alcácer do Sal (Pimenta et al. 2006; Pimenta, Sepúlveda and Ferreira 2015), Pedrão (Mayet and Silva 2016), the site of Soeiros in Arraiolos (Calado, Deus and Mataloto 1999) and a few hillforts and similar buildings in Central Alentejo (Mataloto 2002; Mataloto 2008; Mataloto, Williams and Roque 2016) or in the region of Monforte (Boaventura and Banha 2006). These places appear to have been important for finalizing the conquest and consolidating control over the territory of the future province of Lusitania and its capital, Augusta Emerita.

Many fragments from these sites were either found in secondary contexts or constitute residual material, whose stratigraphy and chronology are not always accurate. But for certain contexts – Aljube, Porto (Morais 2004; Morais and Fabião, 2007), Castelo da Lousa, Mourão

(Morais 2004; 2010), Monte dos Castelinhos, Vila Franca de Xira (Pimenta, Mendes and Norton 2008; Pimenta and Mendes 2014; Pimenta 2015) and the forts of the Alentejo (Mataloto 2008) – the available data are relatively reliable and consistent, apparently pointing at a time frame between the third quarter of the 1st century BC and the Principate of Augustus.

Thus, a considerable amount of data and new contributions for defining an ‘early production’, with ovoid morphologies, was henceforth made available to research on Roman amphorae in Portugal. They resulted from recurrent identification of such materials in places of consumption, but their places of production remain unknown although the petrographic examination enables their connection with the lower courses of rivers Tagus and Sado due to their similarity with artefacts known to have been produced in pottery workshops already identified and studied in these geographies – albeit for a later chronology. As mentioned above, no evidence had been found of such forms either in the production of the pottery workshop documented at Largo da Misericórdia, in the urban area of Setúbal (Silva 1996), or at the pottery workshops of Pinheiro and Abul (Mayet and Silva 1998; 2002), in the inner region of the Lower Sado valley – all of them with an older phase dating at least from the period of Tiberius. The exception was an amphora identical to Dressel 14 that despite being smaller than the norm and presenting ‘collar rims’ – a feature considered typical of the early stages of production (Fabião 2004: 395; Fabião 2008; Mayet and Silva 2016) –, cannot be classified as an ovoid amphora.

Only recently did the matter make progress, after the publication of materials unearthed in 2008 at the Parvoíce kiln, in the urban area of Alcácer do Sal (Pimenta, Ferreira and Cabrita 2016) and at the pottery workshop recently excavated at Rua António Joaquim Granjo, also in the lower section of river Sado, once again in the urban area of Setúbal (Mayet and Silva 2016). In the case of the Parvoíce kiln, we can recognise a local manufacture of ovoid forms of the Lusitana 12 type, though unfortunately lacking solid chronological and stratigraphic data (Pimenta, Ferreira and Cabrita 2016: 75-75); in the case of Rua António Granjo, it was possible to date a phase of amphorae production of the same type from the period of Augustus and other ‘early Lusitanian’, some of which possibly having an ovoid shape – according to the authors relatable with the Dressel 7, 9 and 10 from Baetica (Mayet and Silva 2016: 64-65).

This information, though highly interesting, only provides partial clarification on the issue of ovoid amphorae production. In fact, in none of these pottery workshops, or others mentioned before, do we find any data on production (namely types and chronologies) compatible with the older consumption centres referred above, i.e. Santarém, Monte dos Castelinhos, Lisboa, Alcácer do Sal, Soeiros and Castelo da Lousa.

181


Figure 4. Several fragmented amphorae attributable to ‘ovoid Lusitanian’ amphorae from today’s Galicia and Northern Portugal settlements (according to Morais 2004).

182


Figure 5. Several fragmented amphorae attributable to ‘ovoid Lusitanian’ amphorae from: 1) Santarém/Scallabis (Arruda, Veigas and Bargão 2006); 2) Castelo da Lousa (Morais and Fabião 2007; Morais 2010); 3) Monte dos

Castelinhos (Pimenta and Mendes 2014); 4) Lisbon, Rua dos Bacalhoeiros (Filipe 2008b); 5) Lisbon, Roman theatre (Filipe 2015).

183


Figure 6. Amphorae produced in the kilns of: 1) Parvoíce, Alcácer do Sal (Pimenta, Ferreira and Cabrita 2016); 2) Rua António Granjo, Setúbal (Mayet and Silva 2016: 64-65).

Once again, and in contrast with the picture found at production sites, the systematic excavations and continued studies made over the last five years in different consumption sites, currently deemed relevant for perceiving the process of the conquest and Romanisation of Lusitania – namely Monte dos Castelinhos (Lower Tagus valley), Pedrão (Lower Sado valley), Caladinho and Rocha da Mina (Central Alentejo) –, have enabled the collection of new data with sound stratigraphic meaning regarding the dissemination of the first Lusitanian productions. They revealed solid reliable information on the represented types, the quantity and time frame of such productions – especially the first site, which yielded the largest collection.

A high number of examples (sites and materials) is known today, namely those listed above. Still, we need to be careful when approaching the subject-matters of chronology and context of the early production and circulation of these Lusitanian containers.

A detailed analysis of the data from Monte dos Castelinhos (Vila Franca de Xira), relevant to understand the Lower Tagus valley region, and the interpretation of its stratigraphic sequence, makes clear that ovoid Lusitanian amphorae were already present in the occupation levels of the site’s first phase – more precisely at the moment of its destruction, around 50-30 BC (Pimenta and Mendes 2014: 131; Pimenta 2017). Their presence is documented in contexts where Italic amphorae are clearly scarce (or even absent) and containers made in Hispania prevailed, namely from the Guadalquivir valley and the Cadiz Bay. The so-called ‘Late Punic’ Cadiz forms are none the less absent, namely the Mañá C2b/T-7.4.3.3. (Pimenta and Mendes 2014: 131), which are extremely abundant in Santarém phase I - roughly dated around 60-30 BC (Arruda and Almeida 1998; Almeida 2008; Arruda and Viegas 2014). This could mean that the time frame of the final moment of occupation of the area excavated at Monte dos Castelinhos is closer to the 40-30 BC bracket, than to the middle of the century. We should also remember

184


that Hispanic imports also prevailed over Italic imports in another site of military occupation, i.e. Lomba do Canho (Arganil), where no ‘Lusitanian’ productions were documented (Fabião 1989).

An identical situation apparently existed at the sites of Pedrão, in the Lower Sado region (Mayet and Silva 2016), Castelo da Lousa, in Mourão (Morais 2010) and Caladinho and Rocha da Mina, in Central Alentejo (Mataloto, Williams and Roque 2016). Although data from the first are still recent, scarce and preliminary, and those from the second lack quantification, according to the stratigraphic sequence of the site, these last two sites corroborate our interpretation (Mataloto, Williams and Roque 2016: 142-148).

We must however abstain from categorically dating the production and circulation of what we call ‘Early Lusitanian’ amphorae, many of which with ovoid morphology, from the mid-1st century BC – contrary to what has been proposed (Morais 2004: 40; Morais and Fabião 2007; Morais and Filipe 2016; Mataloto, Williams and Roque 2016; Silva and Mayet 2016: 62-63, Fig. 5). Quoting from a recent publication: ‘(…) it is precisely from this moment when takes place the increasing of the Guadalquivir valley exports into the territory of the future Lusitania, coinciding with the process of late conquest of part of that territory; its absence [the Lusitanian ovoid amphorae], for example, in the late-republican contexts of Santarém (Arruda, Viegas and Bargão 2006; Almeida 2008: Chapter 7), or Lisbon (Filipe 2008a), and its very significant presence at Castelo da Lousa (Morais 2010) or in other castella and forts of the central Alentejo, from the surrounding area of the city of Ebora (Évora) to the Guadiana basin, the latter seemingly somewhat later chronology (Mataloto 2008: 139ss), leads to consider that it is in a moment something more advanced (...)’ (García Vargas, Almeida and González Cesteros 2011: 262-263).

In line with the above data, we find it acceptable to date from the initial period of the second half of the 1st century BC the beginnings of production and circulation of the first ovoid-shaped amphorae in Western Iberia. To be more precise, they reproduced and reinterpreted the Ovoid 1 amphora type from the Guadalquivir valley. Their quantitative expansion however came at a later stage, with an apparent diversity of morphologies / types (?), at times datable from the last tier of the century.

3. Shapes, types and time frames: a few issues related with form diversity

We shall now focus on aspects directly related with the shape of these amphorae. If we check the long list of published works reporting their discovery / identification, we find that, in most cases, the authors unanimously rate these types as older than Dressel 14, ‘typical’ of the Imperial period. But we find no agreement as to specific labels for defining their shape, mainly because many of them are known only through fragments.

Meanwhile the label ‘Lusitanian ovoid’ has been chosen and exclusively used (Morais 2004; Morais and Fabião 2007; Fabião 2008; Morais 2010) to refer to all forms datable from the early times of local production, between the Late Republic and the Early Principate. This label has turned out to be functional, but also, to some extent, oversimplifying and deceiving. The first types produced in Lusitania (possibly the origin of the later forms of the Imperial era) can be traced back to the first Romanised amphorae from Baetica. Although they have a truly ovoid shape, they can also present elongated or fusiform shapes, more similar to the Haltern 70 types and the extended family commonly called Dressel 7-11, or to others that are currently unknown (Morais and Fabião 2007; Fabião 2008). In other words, these early Lusitanian types may, or may not, be ovoid.

The key obstacle preventing an accurate identification of the form is the highly fragmented status of most known / published materials.

No complete amphorae were found, and work focussed only on fragments of the rim and of the upper tier (rim, neck, handles). Thus, on one hand, we could recurrently identify the existence of short necks and handles crowned by mouths with ‘moulded’ rims, frequent in ovoid types; on the other hand, we found rims with plain or marked ‘collar’, frequent in both ovoid and other types of amphorae. In truth it is the neck / handle combination that suggests the identification / classification. When both are short, we infer that the general morphology of the container is ovoid, in view of the general picture of the shapes of known Roman amphorae.

Accordingly, if ‘moulded’ rims, similar to others found in different Hispanic types of ovoid form, enable us to state, with relative certainty, that these are Lusitanian ovoid morphologies (bearing in mind all chronological and other implications inherent to this label), the same cannot be said by simply verifying the presence of ‘plain collar’ rims. We can assume, with minimal risk, that ‘plain collar’ rims also are an indication of relatively old age in the framework of Lusitanian production, which can be dated from a time before the widespread production / dissemination of the ‘standard’ Dressel 14 type. In objective terms, however, many of these ‘plain collar’ rims may not at all belong to ovoid morphologies.

These aspects, especially the latter, have prevented – and still do – a better definition of these amphorae’s types, despite many efforts developed so far (Morais and Filipe 2016, for the most recent ‘state-of-the-art’).

In order to appropriately group the innumerable fragments of rims currently known, we can only rely on two specimen with a complete profile, kept at the museums of Vila Franca de Xira and Beja: the first, apparently from the Principate period, is a Lusitanian Haltern 70 (Quaresma 2005; Filipe 2016); the second is the type that has been associated with

185


Dressel 7 (Morais and Fabião 2007: 128) and was identified as Lusitana 12 by A. Dias Diogo (Diogo 1987). But, as we can confirm, these types not only do not represent the ‘most typical’ and older forms, but they also do not contain the entire diversity that existed in the early times of Lusitanian production (cf. Figs. 4-5). As a result, we can conclude that since most times there are no formal parameters of comparison, the lack of enough data frequently leads to generalist erroneous labels, or mere misunderstandings and confusions with other types and forms.

For the above reasons, a number of authors have used the label ‘Old Lusitanian’ / ‘Early Lusitanian’ to avoid the risk of calling ovoid to artefacts that possibly are not ovoid (also avoiding the strong connotation and chronological identification inherent to the term ‘ovoid’) until a better characterisation of this large ‘family’ of forms is achieved (Almeida and Filipe 2013; Almeida et al. 2014; Silva, Filipe and Almeida 2016; Pinto et al. 2016). They use the specific label only in those cases where they can identify some differences in the shape and its probable time frame.

We shall now consider morphological details, observed in fragmented amphorae, that allow for a better understanding of what we propose.

Morphologically speaking, most of the large number of pieces reported over the last two decades are small fragments of rims, presenting a wide variety of diameters and recurrently associated with equally short necks and handles. They are sometimes associated with ovoid bodies and short hollow peaks (sporadically filled with clay), or with small fusiform-shaped bodies with the peak filled with clay – but larger than the former.

Regarding the rims, which have been used as diagnostic for establishing classifications, we can group them into three main categories, according to their common features:

I thickened sub-rectangular profiles, with a projection in their lower section, at the point rim-to-neck transition;

II plain sub-rectangular profiles, forming ‘collar’ shaped rims;

III profiles with complex outlines.

The first type of rim – i.e. having a sub-rectangular profile, with projection in the lower section of rim-to-neck transition — includes shapes that replicate (or at least are directly inspired by) the Guadalquivir Ovoid type 1 (= Class 67 / Lomba do Canho 67) (Morais and Filipe 2016).

This type was found in Santarém, Alcácer do Sal, Caladinho (Redondo), Rocha da Mina (Alandroal) and Castelo da Lousa (Mourão), among other sites. Data from Monte dos Castelinhos (Vila Franca de Xira) are particularly important. It has been determined, by interpreting the stratigraphic sequence of this site, that Lusitanian amphorae with these typical rims are present in the destruction layers of the first phase of occupation, dated from 50-30 BE (Pimenta and Mendes 2014: 131; Pimenta 2017). It was even possible to collect a piece with a well-preserved upper section which quite similarly reproduces the model of the Guadalquivir Ovoid type 1 amphora (Pimenta 2015: 154). Taking this piece into account, we can now reassess a large set of published materials and prove the existence, in Western Baetica Ulterior, of a production that reproduced the form of Guadalquivir valley Ovoid 1 type / Class 67, or something quite similar.

The second rim type consists of plain sub-rectangular profiles, defining ‘collar’ shaped rims. Their hypothetical origins, form affiliation, scope of production and time frame are much more complex and raise many more problems. Albeit the efforts made in a recent synthesis (Morais and Filipe 2016), they still require a more accurate systematisation.

The shape of the rim, directly combined with the necks, handles and bodies, also allows for an association with other ovoid-shaped containers from Baetica Ulterior – i.e. Guadalquivir Ovoid type 4, or ‘Gaditan Ovoid’ type. They can be linked to one special form, so far called Lusitana 12 (Diogo 1987: fig. 7), or to other forms yet to be typified.

On the other hand, they may also be rims from Lusitanian productions replicating the Haltern 70 type, which are documented beyond doubt (Quaresma 2005; Fabião 2008;

Figure 7. Synthesis of the main rim categories: I) thickened sub-rectangular profiles, with a projection in their lower section, at the point rim-to-neck transition; II) plain sub-rectangular profiles, forming ‘collar’ shaped

rims; III) profiles with complex outlines.

186


Filipe 2015; 2016). Or they may also be the first examples of the Dressel 14 type produced at the Tagus and Sado valleys potteries – namely those located at the second river, where they have received the classification of Dressel 14 var. A – at a time datable from the second quarter of the 1st century AD, more concretely after the Principate of Tiberius (Mayet and Silva 1998; 2002; 2016).

It should be noted that this type (or types) of obvious local Western production prevailed in the contexts of the first half of the 1st century AD, more precisely up to the time of Claudius. Amphorae with these characteristics were found in contexts dug in different locations of the city of Lisboa – Praça da Figueira (Silva, Filipe and Almeida 2016); Phases I-II of the Roman theatre (Filipe 2015; Silva, Filipe and Almeida 2016); Rua dos Bacalhoeiros (Filipe 2008b); Rua dos Remédios (Silva, Filipe and Almeida 2016) – where no amphorae of the ‘standard’ Dressel 14 type were found. It was precisely in contexts of that time that we find the first evidence of exportation / reception of Lusitanian amphorae of this type. In Lyon, an ‘Early Lusitanian’ amphora was found at Rue Victor Hugo / Place Ampère (Bertrand et al. 2014), which can generally be classified as ovoid amphora of the Lusitana 12 type, virtually complete, in a context of local Phase 1, dated 40-50 AD (Bertrand et al. 2014: 64). This information is extremely important because it is the first proof of

exportation of this type of amphorae to areas outside the Iberian Peninsula. Its presence is highly suggestive and underlines the need for carefully observing and classifying the amphorae found in these contexts, since they may be mistakenly identified as other peninsular productions if one considers only morphology without paying proper attention to their fabric.

Lastly, the third type comprises morphologies which, due to their more complex outward profiles and a greater difficulty in including them in a specific type, have been considered as ascribable to the poorly defined universe of shapes usually called ‘Dressel 7-11’ (Morais 2004; Morais and Fabião 2007; Fabião 2008).

Taking into account the best preserved fragments and other known cases – Santarém (Arruda, Viegas and Bargão 2006), Lisboa-Roman Theatre (Filipe 2008a; 2015), Lisbon-Rua dos Bacalhoeiros (Filipe 2008b) –, where they were found in contexts dated from the last quarter of the 1st century BC and the first half of the 1st century AD, they have been included in a diversified group of shapes inspired by / related with Dressel 7, 9 or 10 from the Southwest coast of Ulterior / Baetica (Morais 2004; Arruda, Viegas and Bargão 2006; Morais and Fabião 2007; Morais and Filipe 2016).

Figure 8. Comparison between Lusitana 12 (a), Lusitanian ‘Haltern 70’ (b) and the so-called Dressel 14 var. A from the Sado valley (c).

187


Regardless the peculiar rim profile of each hypothetical type, their handles, necks and the morphologies observable at the ‘micro-detail’ level, the important issue to remember is the obvious relationship between this ‘early phase’ of Lusitanian production and the contemporary forms of ‘Romanised’ amphorae from Ulterior Baetica – more specifically the so-called Guadalquivir Ovoid types 1 and 4, but also the ovoid morphologies from Cadiz, and also with forms attributable to the first phases of the ‘family’ usually called Dressel 7-11 (Morais 2004; Arruda, Viegas and Bargão 2006; Morais and Fabião 2007; Fabião 2008; García Vargas, Almeida and González Cesteros 2011: 262-263; Morais and Filipe 2016).

In the period roughly dated from the third quarter of the 1st century BC, that is to say, the last days of the Republic, the diversity of shapes of ovoid amphorae from Baetica Ulterior and Lusitania is seemingly restricted to the production of shapes similar to Guadalquivir Ovoid 1 and 4. As from the last quarter of the 1st century BC, down to the first third of the 1st century AD, however, the diversity of shapes increased, with a considerable increment of variations, thus rendering the typological classification immensely difficult. This difficulty becomes more obvious in certain types of rims, more specifically those that we call plain ‘collar’ rims (the most commonly found), because they are present in all ovoid shapes, like the so-called Lusitana 12, the Haltern 70 and the early stage of the Dressel 14 form – not to mention other shapes, as those manufactured at the pottery of Morraçal da Ajuda (Peniche) (Cardoso and Rodrigues 2005: 83-102; Cardoso, Rodrigues and Sepúlveda 2006: 253-278; Cardoso et al. 2016).

4. Concluding remarks

There is virtually no evidence currently available for studying the initial phase of Roman-morphology amphorae production in Western Ulterior / Lusitania. This sharply contrasts with data from many other archaeological sites and amphorae collections, which have been reported over the last two decades, proving their existence (cf. the examples commented above). We only have data for a slightly later period – never earlier than the Principates of Augustus and Tiberius – collected at the lower section of river Sado valley, more specifically at the pottery of Largo da Misericórdia (Silva 1996) and of Rua António Granjo (Mayet and Silva 2016), both located in the urban (or peri-urban) area of Caetobriga / Setúbal; at Parvoíce, Alcácer do Sal / Salacia (Pimenta, Ferreira and Cabrita 2016); and at the pottery workshops of Pinheiro and Abul, both in the area of Alcácer do Sal (Mayet and Silva 1998; 2002), in addition to Morraçal da Ajuda, Peniche (Cardoso and Rodrigues 2005; Cardoso, Rodrigues and Sepúlveda 2006; Cardoso et al. 2016).

This relatively ‘late’ picture clearly contrasts with data from archaeological sites of contexts and chronologies which, although not always clear, can be safely dated

from the second half of the 1st century BC. They revealed a significant presence of fragments from amphorae bearing the typical petrography of the geological complex / pottery workshops from the lower sections of rivers Tagus and Sado valleys (Fabião 2008: 725-726). Therefore, they are clear indications that ceramic containers were produced at least for short-to-medium distance food transportation (perhaps the geographical scope was larger). The pottery workshops where they were manufactured are still ‘archaeologically invisible’.

Today knowledge of Roman amphorae production in Western Ulterior / Lusitania has changed. Once a supposedly well-proven story, starting in the early 1st century AD (Fabião 2004: 401), its kick-off is now firmly dated at an earlier (still poorly defined and characterised) stage – certainly datable from the second half of the 1st century BC, and even more certainly from the last third of this century (Morais 2004; Morais and Fabião, 2007; García Vargas, Almeida and González Cesteros 2011: 264; Morais and Filipe 2016; Pimenta 2017).

Amphorae produced in Western Ulterior / Lusitania at this initial stage – still requiring, as stated above, better characterisation and systematisation – have strong affinities with known amphorae from Southern Hispania (namely the ovoid types from the Guadalquivir valley and the Cadiz bay), but also with the later Guadalquivir Haltern 70 type and the Dressel 7-11 ‘family’ from the Cadiz potteries, with which they are usually connected in terms of shape.

In fact, there seems to be a close connection between the initial repertoires of the future provinces of Baetica and Lusitania – to be carefully considered, given the different time frames of the beginning of production in each of them. Due precisely to this time gap, we can state that more Western productions seem to replicate models invented in Southern contexts. We could even consider the possible existence of migrations of potters from the future area of Baetica Ulterior to more Western regions, as already proposed (Morais and Fabião 2007: 132).

This initial phase is associated with the valleys of river Tagus and Sado, in which similar processes could have developed, having both longstanding connections with more Southern regions – i.e. the future province of Baetica Ulterior, with special emphasis on the Cadiz area, because these areas entered the sphere of Roman influence at an earlier stage (earlier by comparison with other regions of future Lusitania Ulterior). It seems to have resulted from a wave of growth in the manufacturing of food products, related with the demand of institutional supplies in the framework of the conquest and consolidation of the new land-use planning promoted by Rome. Interestingly these ‘early’ amphorae were found in places that played military (or other similar) functions, as well as in areas where new Roman cities were founded. The presence of these early (ovoid or non-ovoid) amphorae is highly

188


significant in Olisipo, as it is the robust presence of amphorae manufactured at Peniche at Conimbriga (Buraca 2016) or Bracara Augusta (Morais 2009).

It is also interesting to analyse the currently known distribution of these amphorae (either ovoid, or of other ‘early’ types difficult to characterise) in essentially three main areas: the banks of the lower course of river Tagus; the region between rivers Tagus and Guadiana, particularly strong in Ebora / Évora and Guadiana; and Galicia. The analysis of such distribution seemingly suggests a preponderant role played by the Atlantic coastal area, regarding both dissemination along the coast and inland distribution, through the main waterways.

One should stress the important absence, in the current state-of-the-art, of these types of amphorae in the Southern coast of the future province of Ulterior Lusitania, the area corresponding to the Portuguese Algarve. It should be said that such absence is not due to lack of research (Viegas 2011), but to other causes / reasons difficult to explain.

The Algarve, let there be no doubt, also entered Rome’s sphere of influence at an early stage and the presence of imports from the Cadiz region and the Guadalquivir valley are important in its territory (Viegas 2011). This means that it meets all the requirements enounced as explanation for the presence of these early productions in other known areas of the West. It does not however show the same presence pattern of the Western productions, nor do we find any pottery workshops that could have been involved in the first stage of production of Western Roman amphorae.

Bibliography

Almeida, R.R. de 2008. Las Ánforas del Gualdalquivir en Scallabis (Santarém, Portugal). Aportación al Conocimiento de Los Tipos Minoritarios (Col.leció Instrumenta 8). Barcelona: Publications i Edicions Universitat de Barcelona.

Almeida, R.R. de and Filipe, V. 2013. 50 anos depois. As ânforas romanas da Praça da Figueira, in Arqueologia em Portugal. 150 anos (Congresso Comemorativo dos 150 anos da Associacão dos Arqueólogos Portugueses): 737-745. Lisboa: Associação dos Arqueólogos Portugueses.

Almeida, R.R. de, Pinto, I.V., Magalhães, A.P. and Brum, P. 2014. Ânforas piscícolas de Tróia: contextos de consumo versus contextos de produção como base para algumas precisões crono-tipológicas, in R. Morais, A. Fernández Fernández and M.J. Sousa (eds) As producões cerâmicas de imitacão na Hispania - II Congresso Internacional da Secah, Ex Officina Hispana (Braga 2013): 405-423. San Martín de Valdeiglesias (Madrid) / Porto: Sociedad de Estudios de la Cerámica Antigua en Hispania / Faculdade de Letras Universidade do Porto.

Arruda, A.M. and Almeida, R.R. de 1998: As ânforas da Classe 32 da Alcáçova de Santarém. Conímbriga 37: 201-231.

Arruda, A.M. and Viegas, C. 2014. Santarém durante a época romano-republicana, in Atas do Congresso Internacional de Arqueologia Conquista e Romanizacão do Vale do Tejo (Vila Franca de Xira, 2013) (Cira Arqueologia 3): 242-255. Vila Franca de Xira: Museu Municipal de Vila Franca de Xira.

Arruda, A.M., Viegas, C. and Bargão, P. 2006. Ânforas lusitanas da Alcáçova de Santarém, in Simpósio Internacional Producão e Comércio de Preparados Piscícolas durante a Proto-História e a Época Romana no Ocidente da Península Ibérica - Homenagem a Francoise Mayet (Setúbal, Maio 2004) (Setúbal Arqueológica 13): 233-252. Setúbal: Museu de Arqueología e Etnografía do Distrito de Setúbal.

Boaventura, R. and Banha, C. 2006. Ânforas da região de Monforte: contributo para o conhecimento do comércio rural romano. O Arqueólogo Português Série IV, nº 24: 360-399.

Bertrand, E, Bernot, E, Carrara, S, Chavagnac, L, Gaillot, S, Le Mer, A.-C., Leroy, E, Robin, L, Roux, A., Torgue, J. and Tronchère, H. 2014. 46, Rue Victor Hugo/Place Ampère, 69002 Lyon. Unpublished, Rapport de fouille d’archéologie préventive. Lyon, Ville de Lyon / Ministère de la Culture et de la Communication.

Buraca, I. 2016. Lusitanian Amphorae in the Roman City of Conimbriga, in I.V. Pinto, R.R. de Almeida and A. Martin (eds) Lusitanian Amphorae. Production and Distribution (Roman and Late Antique Mediterranean Pottery 10): 231-240. Oxford: Archaeopress.

Calado, M., Deus, M. and Mataloto, R. 1999. O sítio dos Soeiros (Arraiolos): uma abordagem preliminar, in Actas do Congresso de Proto-História Europeia – Centenário da morte de Martins Sarmento (Revista de Guimarães - nº especial): 759-774. Guimarães: Sociedade Martins Sarmento.

Cardoso, G. 1990. O forno de ânforas de Muge, in A. Alarcão and F. Mayet (eds) As ânforas lusitanas. Tipologia, producão, comércio (actas da mesa-redonda de Conímbriga, 1988): 153-165. Coimbra/ Paris: Museu Monográfico de Conimbriga / Diffusion E. de Boccard.

Cardoso, G. and Rodrigues, S. 2005. Olaria romana do Morraçal da Ajuda (Peniche-Portugal), in Presenca Romana na Região Oeste: 83-102. Bombarral: Câmara Municipal do Bombarral / Museu Municipal de Bombarral.

Cardoso, G., Rodrigues, S. and Sepúlveda, E. 2006. A olaria romana de Peniche, in Simpósio Internacional Producão e Comércio de Preparados Piscícolas durante a Proto-História e a Época Romana no Ocidente da Península Ibérica - Homenagem a Françoise Mayet (Setúbal, Maio 2004) (Setúbal Arqueológica 13): 253-278. Setúbal: Museu de Arqueología e Etnografía do Distrito de Setúbal.

Cardoso, G., Rodrigues, S., Sepúlveda, E. and Ribeiro, I. 2016. Production during the Principate in Peniche (Portugal). Raw materials, kilns and amphora typology, in I.V. Pinto, R.R. de Almeida and A. Martin (eds) Lusitanian Amphorae. Production and Distribution (Roman and Late Antique Mediterranean Pottery 10): 3-17. Oxford: Archaeopress.

189


Diogo, A.M.D. 1987. Quadro tipológico das ânforas de fabrico lusitano. O Arqueólogo Português Série IV, nº 5: 179-191.

Diogo, A.M.D. and Faria, J.C. 1990. Fornos de cerâmica romana no vale do Sado. Alguns elementos, in A. Alarcão and F. Mayet (eds) As ânforas lusitanas. Tipologia, producão, comércio (actas da mesa-redonda de Conímbriga, 1988): 173-186. Coimbra/ Paris: Museu Monográfico de Conimbriga / Diffusion E. de Boccard.

Diogo, A.M.D. and Trindade, L. 1998. Uma perspectiva sobre Tróia a partir das ânforas. Contribuição para o estudo da produção e circulação das ânforas romanas em território português. O Arqueólogo Português Série IV, nº 16: 187-220.

Fabião, C. 1989. Sobre as ânforas do acampamento Romano da Lomba do Canho (Arganil) (Cadernos da UNIARQ 1). Lisboa: UNIARQ / Instituto Nacional de Investigação Cientifica.

Fabião, C. 2004. Centros oleiros da Lusitânia: balanço dos conhecimentos e perspectivas de investigação, in D. Bernal Casasola and L. Lagóstena Barrios (eds) Figlinae Baeticae: Talleres alfareros y producciones cerámicas en la Bética romana (ss. II a.C.-VII d.C.). Actas del Congreso internacional (Cádiz, 12-14 de noviembre de 2003) (British Archaeological Reports, International Series 1266): 379-410. Oxford: J. and E. Hedges Ldt. / Universidad de Cádiz.

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: Servicio de Publicaciones de la Universidad de Cádiz.

Filipe, V. 2008a. As ânforas do teatro romano de Lisboa. Unpublished Master dissertation, Lisboa, Faculdade de Letras da Universidade de Lisboa <http://repositorio.ul.pt/handle/10451/471>.

Filipe, V. 2008b. Importação e exportação de produtos alimentares em Olisipo: as ânforas romanas da Rua dos Bacalhoeiros. Revista Portuguesa de Arqueologia 11.2: 301-324.

Filipe, V. 2015. As ânforas do teatro romano de Olisipo (Lisboa, Portugal): campanhas 2001-2006. Spal 24: 129-163.

Filipe, V. 2016. Haltern 70 (Lusitania Occidental), in Amphorae ex Hispania. Paisajes de producción y de consumo, viewed 15-11-2017, <http://amphorae.icac.cat/amphora/haltern-70-western-lusitania>,

García Vargas, E., Almeida, R.R. de and González Cesteros, H. 2011. Los tipos anfóricos del Guadalquivir en el marco de los envases hispanos del siglo I a.C. Un universo heterogéneo entre la imitación y la estandarización. Spal 20: 185–284.

Mataloto, R. 2002. Fortins e recintos-torre do Alto Alentejo: antecâmara da romanização dos campos. Revista Portuguesa de Arqueología 5.1: 161-220.

Mataloto, R. 2008. O Castelo dos Mouros (Graça do Divor, Évora): a arquitectura ‘ciclópica’ romana e a romanização dos campos de Liberalitas Iulia Ebora. Revista Portuguesa de Arqueologia 9.2: 299-316.

Mataloto, R., Williams, J. and Roque, C. 2016. Amphorae at the Origins of Lusitania: Transport Pottery from Western Hispania Ulterior in Alto Alentejo, in I.V. Pinto, R.R. de Almeida and A. Martin (eds) Lusitanian Amphorae. Production and Distribution (Roman and Late Antique Mediterranean Pottery 10): 139-151. Oxford: Archaeopress.

Mayet, F. and Silva, C.T. da 1998. L’Atelier d’amphores de Pinheiro (Portugal). Paris: Diffusion E. de Boccard.

Mayet, F. and Silva, C.T. da 2002. L’Atelier d’amphores de Abul (Portugal). Paris: Diffusion E. de Boccard.

Mayet, F. and Silva, C.T. da 2006. Roman Amphora Production in the Lower Sado Region, in I.V. Pinto, R.R. de Almeida and A. Martin (eds) Lusitanian Amphorae. Production and Distribution (Roman and Late Antique Mediterranean Pottery 10): 59-71. Oxford: Archaeopress.

Morais, R. 2004. Tipologia de les Àmfores Haltern 70 i Produccions Similars, Problemàtiques i Noves Perspectives sobre les Àmfores Ovoides Tardo-Republicanes. Les Àmfores Ovoides de Producció Lusitana, in Culip VIII i les Àmfores, Haltern 70 (Monografies del Casc 5): 36-41. Girona: Museu d’Arqueologia de Catalunya / Centre d’Arqueologia Subaquàtica de Catalunya.

Morais, R. 2009. Self-Sufficiency and Trade in Bracara Augusta during the Early Empire: A contribution to the economic study of the city (British Archaeological Reports, International Series 1973). Oxford: Archaeopress.

Morais, R. and Fabião, C. 2007. Novas produções de fabrico lusitano: problemáticas e importância económica, in L. Lagóstena Barrios, D. Bernal Casasola and A. Arévalo González (eds) CETARIAE 2005. Salsas y salazones de pescado en occidente durante la Antiguëdad (Cádiz, 7-9 de noviembre del 2005) (British Archaeological Reports, International Series 1686): 127-133. Oxford: John and Erica Hedges Ltd.

Morais, R. 2010. Capítulo 7.5: Ânforas, in J. Alarcão, P. Carvalho and A. Gonçalves (coord) Castelo da Lousa–Intervencões Arqueológicas de 1997 a 2002 (Stvdia Lvsitana 5): 181-218. Mérida: Museo Nacional de Arte Romano / Edia.

Morais, R. and Filipe, V. 2016. Ovoide Lusitana (Lusitania Occidental), in Amphorae ex Hispania. Paisajes de producción y de consumo, viewed 5-10-2017, < http://amphorae.icac.cat/amphora/ovoid-lusitan-western-lusitania>

Pimenta, J. (coord.) 2015. O sítio arqueológico de Monte dos Castelinhos. Em busca de Ierabriga (Catálogo da Exposição). Vila Franca de Xira: Museu Municipal de Vila Franca de Xira.

Pimenta, J. 2017. Em torno dos mais antigos modelos de ânfora de produção lusitana. Os dados do monte dos castelinhos – Vila Franca de Xira, in C. Fabião, J.M.C. Raposo, A. Guerra and F. Silva (eds), Actas Seminário Internacional e Ateliê de Arqueologia Experimental. A Olaria Romana (Seixal, 17-20 fevereiro 2010): 195-205. Lisboa: UNIARQ – Centro de Arqueologia da Universidade de Lisboa / Câmara Municipal do Seixal.

190


Pimenta, J., Ferreira, M. and Cabrita, C. 2016. The Roman Kilns at Estrada da Parvoíce, Alcáçer do Sal (Portugal), in I.V. Pinto, R.R. de Almeida and A. Martin (eds) Lusitanian Amphorae. Production and Distribution (Roman and Late Antique Mediterranean Pottery 10): 73-79. Oxford: Archaeopress.

Pimenta, J. and Mendes, H. 2014. Monte dos Castelinhos – Vila Franca de Xira. Um sítio singular para o estudo da romanizaçāo do vale do Tejo, in E. Salas Tovar (dir), R. Mataloto, V. Mayoral Herrera and C. Roque (eds), La gestación de los paisajes rurales entre la protohistoria y el período romano. Formas de asentamiento y procesos de implantación (Anejos de Archivo Español de Arqueología LXX): 125-142. Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas.

Pimenta, J., Mendes, H. and Norton, J. 2008. O Povoado Tardo-Republicano do Monte dos Castelinhos, Vila Franca De Xira. Al-Madan II Série, nº 16: 26-37.

Pimenta, J., Sepúlveda, E., Faria, J. C. and Ferreira, M. 2006. Cerâmicas romanas do lado ocidental do castelo de Alcácer do Sal, 4: ânforas de importação e de produção lusitana. Revista Portuguesa de Arqueologia 9.2: 299–316.

Pimenta, J., Sepúlveda, E. and Ferreira, M. 2006. Acerca da dinâmica económica do porto de Urbs Imperatoria Salacia: o estudo das ânforas. Cira Arqueologia 4: 151-170.

Pinto, I.V., Almeida, R.R. de, Magalhães, A.P. and Brum, P. 2016. Lusitanian Amphorae at a Fish-salting Production Centre: Tróia (Portugal), in I.V. Pinto, R.R. de Almeida and A. Martin (eds) Lusitanian Amphorae. Production and Distribution (Roman and Late Antique Mediterranean Pottery 10): 173-194. Oxford: Archaeopress.

Quaresma, J.C. 2005. Ânforas romanas provenientes da pesca de arrasto no Tejo, depositadas no Museu Municipal de Vila Franca de Xira. Revista Portuguesa de Arqueologia 8.2: 403-428.

Quaresma, J.C. and Calais, C. 2005. S. Pedro (Coruche): novos dados para o processo de romanização do Vale do Sorraia na época augustana e júlio-cláudia. Revista Portuguesa de Arqueologia 8.2: 429-447.

Silva, C.T. da 1996. Produção de ânforas na área urbana de Setúbal: a oficina romana do Largo da Misericórdia, in G. Filipe and J. M. C. Raposo (eds) Ocupacão romana dos estuários do Tejo e do Sado. Actas das primeiras jornadas sobre romanizacão dos estuários do Tejo e do Sado (Seixal 1991): 43-54. Lisboa: Publicações Dom Quixote.

Silva, C.T. da 2018. As ânforas, in C.T. da Silva (coord.) Caetobriga. O sítio arqueológico da Casa dos Mosaicos (Setúbal Arqueológica 17): 161-174. Setúbal: Associação de Municípios da Região de Setúbal / Museu de Arqueologia e Etnografia do Distrito de Setúbal.

Silva, R.B., Filipe, V. and Almeida, R.R. de 2016. Julio-Claudian Lusitanian Amphorae: a Perspective on Selected Contexts from Olisipo (Lisbon, Portugal), in I.V. Pinto, R.R. de Almeida and A. Martin (eds) Lusitanian Amphorae. Production and Distribution (Roman and Late Antique Mediterranean Pottery 10): 153-166. Oxford: Archaeopress.

Viegas, C. 2011. A ocupacão romana do Algarve. Estudo do povoamento e economia do Algarve central e oriental no período romano (Estudos and Memórias 3). Lisboa: Centro de Arquologia da Universidade de Lisboa / FCT.

Vasconcellos, J. L. 1898. Olaria luso-romana em S. Bartolomeu de Castro Marim. O Archeólogo Português 4: 329-336.

the ovoid amphorae in the central and western mediterranean · 2020. 1. 19. · the ovoid amphorae...

Documents