Roman Pottery in Context: Fine and Coarse wares from five sites in north-eastern Greece 9781841717074, 9781407328195

Table of contents :
1386 verso.pdf
John and Erica Hedges Ltd.
British Archaeological Reports
Roman Pottery in Context: Fine and Coarse wares from five sites in north-eastern Greece
Front Cover
Title Page
Copyright
για να καμαρώνεις για μένα στα καφενεία του ουρανού …
ABSTRACT
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES
LIST OF FIGURES
ABBREVIATIONS
1 INTRODUCTION
2. OVERVIEW OF ROMAN POTTERY STUDIES
3 THE HISTORICAL EVIDENCE FOR MACEDONIA AND THRACE DURING THE ROMAN PERIOD
4 METHODOLOGY OF THE PRESENT STUDY
5 THE EXCAVATIONS AND THE DEPOSITS
6 ROMAN POTTERY FROM NORTH-EASTERN GREECE; THE FINE WARES
7 ROMAN POTTERY FROM NORTH-EASTERN GREECE; THE COARSE WARES
8 DISCUSSION
9 CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH
TABLES
FIGURES
APPENDIX A
APPENDIX B
APPENDIX C
BIBLIOGRAPHY

Citation preview

BAR S1386 2005  MALAMIDOU  ROMAN POTTERY IN CONTEXT

Roman Pottery in Context Fine and Coarse wares from five sites in north-eastern Greece

Vaitsa Malamidou

BAR International Series 1386 B A R

2005

Roman Pottery in Context

Roman Pottery in Context Fine and Coarse wares from five sites in north-eastern Greece

Vaitsa Malamidou

BAR International Series 1386 2005

Published in 2016 by BAR Publishing, Oxford BAR International Series 1386 Roman Pottery in Context © V Malamidou and the Publisher 2005 The author's moral rights under the 1988 UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act are hereby expressly asserted. All rights reserved. No part of this work may be copied, reproduced, stored, sold, distributed, scanned, saved in any form of digital format or transmitted in any form digitally, without the written permission of the Publisher.

ISBN 9781841717074 paperback ISBN 9781407328195 e-format DOI https://doi.org/10.30861/9781841717074 A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library BAR Publishing is the trading name of British Archaeological Reports (Oxford) Ltd. British Archaeological Reports was first incorporated in 1974 to publish the BAR Series, International and British. In 1992 Hadrian Books Ltd became part of the BAR group. This volume was originally published by John and Erica Hedges Ltd. in conjunction with British Archaeological Reports (Oxford) Ltd / Hadrian Books Ltd, the Series principal publisher, in 2005. This present volume is published by BAR Publishing, 2016.

BAR

PUBLISHING BAR titles are available from:

E MAIL P HONE F AX

BAR Publishing 122 Banbury Rd, Oxford, OX2 7BP, UK [email protected] +44 (0)1865 310431 +44 (0)1865 316916 www.barpublishing.com

για να καμαρώνεις για μένα στα καφενεία του ουρανού …

i

ii

ABSTRACT

This study focuses on the evidence for internal and external cultural influences in north-eastern Greece. These influences are examined through the study of ceramic assemblages of the Roman period found at five sites in the areas of: Amphipolis, Philippi, Kepia, Abdera and Thasos. This is the first presentation of these assemblages both within their contexts and as a large body of pottery from this period in eastern Macedonia. The importance of this study is enormous for a better understanding of the history, the culture, and the trade patterns in the area. Furthermore, it is also very important as an aid to further research. The typology of the pottery is based upon the analysis of the stratigraphy where the pottery was found, and on non-ceramic material, such as coins, inscriptions and architectural members. Its chronology is based on identifiable imported pottery found elsewhere, and on the non-ceramic material mentioned above. The fine pottery is arranged according to type: the Terra Sigillata wares are presented first; then we have the Red Slip wares followed by other minor groups such as Macedonia Grey and Glazed pottery. The coarse wares are classified, arranged according to their fabric, shape, and function: tableware, cooking ware, and storage ware. Along with the catalogue is a discussion of the ceramic types, their quantity and chronology. Finally, through the results of this study, the wider area of north-eastern Macedonia and Thrace is re-examined with much attention paid to the cultural influences during the Roman period. The evidence indicates that during this period, the direction of influence was always from the East. The majority of imported finds came from Asia Minor workshops. Together with these imported wares, much locally produced pottery was found. This is an indication of a flourishing economy in the area throughout the years of the Roman conquest.

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This thesis has been written under the supervision of Dr. J.W. Hayes and Dr. K.A. Wardle at the University of Birmingham. The former was an invaluable source of knowledge and has helped me in many archaeological matters. The latter was a source of encouragement and useful advice, an essential inspirer and a compassionate proof-reader. Without him this dissertation would not yet be complete. Also, his help in practical matters throughout the time I stayed in England was of major significance. I would like to thank the Onasis Foundation which provided two years of financial support which enabled me to carry out the necessary research in Greece between 1997 and 1999, the School of Historical Studies of the University of Birmingham who awarded a School bursary for the payment of my fees, and the BFWG Charitable Foundation for their financial help at the final stages of this study. I would like to thank many other archaeologists who have helped me in various ways: Dr Haido Koukouli-Chrysanthaki who introduced me to the Roman pottery and to the academic world in England. Dr. S. Drougou and Dr. M. Tiverios for their help in the first years of this research. Ms. K.Kallintzi, the excavator in Abdera, Dr. Koukouli-Chrysanthaki and Dimitra Malamidou, the excavators of the Sanctuary of Hero Avloneites, and Dr Marina Sgourou, the excavator in Limenas, for their significant contribution to this study and their information and scientific advice on the understanding of the contexts and date of the deposits and the general background to the research in this area. Dr Andrew Poulter for his help by giving me the permission to study his work before publication, and for all his theoretical remarks about aspects concerning pottery analysis processing. Ms P. Adam-Veleni for her co-operation and permission for me to examine a selection of the pottery from Thessaloniki. Many other people from the University of Birmingham have contributed to the completion of this study. I would like to thank first Dr. F. Balamoti for the κατάλυμα offered to me in my first night at Birmingham and her help on various occasions. Thanks are also due to Dr. A. Dunn for his endless information and advice, to Dr N. McKeown for his essential suggestions on the Historical chapter, to Dr. Mary Harlow and Dr. Gillian Shepherd for their general help, and to Ms S. Exon from the Field Archaeology Unit of Birmingham University for her advise on the necessary software for the creation of the Harris Matrixes. Henry Buglass has always been a good friend with endless useful advice for my drawings. I owe many thanks to my colleagues at the Museum of Abdera, where I spent the last four summers recording pottery, and especially to M. Chrysafi, E. Ioakimidou and M. Karapanagiotou for their help and for making this enormous task more pleasurable. I would like, also, to thank D. Papadimitriou for his excellent photographic contribution to this thesis. Many thanks to C. Halabaki, G. Forster, M. Kayafa and N. Papadimitriou for their friendship, advice and support throughout the difficult times. My family has been wonderful all these years and showed endless understanding and offered me financial help and psychological encouragement. I find it difficult to express the debt of gratitude owed especially to my sister, Ms D. Malamidou, for her part in the progress of my research at its every stage. Throughout the difficult and often frustrating period of research and during the final year of the writing up of this thesis, Jason offered me constant support, patience and essential advice on my English. I would like to thank him for everything he did for me.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Abstract Acknowledgements Table of contents List of tables List of figures Abbreviations

iii iv v ix x xiii

1

1

Introduction

2

Overview of Roman pottery studies 2.1 The development of Roman pottery studies 2.1.1 Ancient sources 2.1.2 Modern research 2.2 Production, distribution, and trade in Roman pottery

3 3 3 3 4

3

The historical evidence for Macedonia and thrace during the Roman period 3.1 Sources 3.1.1 Historians 3.1.2 Travellers 3.1.3 Numismatists; Epigraphists 3.1.4 Archaeological excavations and research 3.2 History of Macedonia and Thrace 3.2.1 History of Macedonia 3.2.1.1 3rd century B.C.-168 B.C. 3.2.1.2 168-31 B.C. 3.2.1.3 31 B.C.-A.D. 284 3.2.1.4 A.D. 2843.2.2 History of Thrace 3.2.2.1 168 B.C.-A.D. 46 3.2.2.2 A.D. 46-98 3.2.2.3 A.D. 98-Early Byzantine years 3.3 History of the sites selected for study 3.3.1 Amphipolis (Figure 7) 3.3.2 Philippi (Figure 13) 3.3.3 Kepia (Figure 20) 3.3.4 Abdera (Figure 22) 3.3.5 Thasos (Figure 28)

5 5 5 6 6 6 7 7 7 7 8 9 9 9 9 9 10 10 11 12 12 14

4

Methodology of the present study 4.1 Field methods and Excavation data 4.2 Background, Purpose and Methods used in this study

16 16 16

5

The excavations and the deposits 5.1 Amphipolis; the Roman Building 5.2 Philippi; the Roman Theatre 5.3 Kepia; the Hero Avloneites Sanctuary 5.4 Abdera; A Roman House 5.5 Thasos; a building in Limenas

18 18 20 21 22 24

6

Roman pottery from north-eastern Greece; the fine wares 6.1 Fine pottery 6.1.1 Terra Sigillata 6.1.1.1 Eastern Sigillata A ware or Pergamene 6.1.1.1.1 Hellenistic Series (Kenrick 1985, 225-231) Antioch Shape 151; Samaria Form 2a; Hayes (EAA) Form 5; Kenrick (1985) B315.

26 26 26 26 27 27

v

6.1.1.1.2 Early Roman Series (Kenrick 1985, 231-239) Hayes (EAA) Form 36; Kenrick (1985) B331 Hayes (EAA) Form 37; Kenrick (1985) B332 Antioch Shapes 453, 455; Hayes (EAA) Form 45; Kenrick (1985) B334. Antioch Shape 460; Samaria Form 23; Hayes (EAA) Form 47; Kenrick B335. Antioch Shape 670; Hayes (EAA) Form 51; Kenrick B337. Unknown form 6.1.1.2 Italian Sigillata ware Haltern type 2; Goudineau (1968) Type 26; Hayes (1973) Form 4; Kenrick (1985) B205 Unknown forms 6.1.1.3 Eastern Sigillata B or Samian ware 6.1.1.3.1 Eastern Sigilllata B1 Hayes (EAA) Form 8; Kenrick (1985) B345 Hayes (EAA) Form 15; Kenrick (1985) B346 Kenrick (1985) B348 Unknown form 6.1.1.3.2 Eastern Sigillata B2 Hayes (EAA) Form 60, Kenrick (1985) B352 Hayes (EAA) Form 63, Kenrick (1985) B356 Hayes (EAA) Form 70; Kenrick (1985) B359 Hayes (EAA) Form 71, Kenrick (1985) B360 Hayes (EAA) Form 76, Kenrick (1985) B361 Hayes (EAA) Form 80; Kenrick (1985) B362 Unknown forms 6.1.1.4 Çandarli ware Hayes (1972) Form 1 Hayes (1972) Form 2, Knipovich (1968) type 17(M)=18(T) Hayes (1972) Form 3, Knipovich type 13(M)=14(T) Hayes (1972) Form 4 Hayes (1972) Form 5 Loeschcke (1912) Type 28; Kenrick (1985) B369 Unknown shapes 6.1.1.5 Cypriot Sigillata Kenrick (1985) B377 6.1.1.6 Pontic Sigillata wares Olbia Type 21 and 21A; Hayes (EAA) category I; Kenrick( 1985) B386. Hayes (EAA) category V; Kenrick (1985) B388 Kenrick (1985) B389 Related to Olbia Type 30; Kenrick (1985) B390. Olbia Type 32; Kenrick (1985) B394 Unknown form 6.1.1.7 Tripolitanian Sigillata Kenrick (1985) B427 6.1.2 Red Slip Wares 6.1.2.1 African Red Slip Hayes (1972) Form 8; Lamboglia 1; Antioch 843. Hayes (1972) Form 27; Lamboglia 9a; Antioch 835. Hayes (1972) Form 50; Lamboglia 40; Antioch 836 p-x Hayes (1972) Form 67; Lamboglia 42; Antioch 869-873 6.1.2.2 Phocaean Red Slip ware Hayes Form 3; Kenrick (1985) B688 (Type C) 6.1.2.3 Cypriot Red Slip Kenrick (1985) B 712 6.1.3 Unidentified Terra Sigillata and Red Slip wares 6.1.4 Pompeian Red Ware Kenrick (1985) B479.1 6.1.5 Macedonian Grey Ware Anderson-Stojanović (1992) Form 1, Variant C

vi

27 27 27 27 28 28 28 28 28 29 29 29 29 29 30 30 30 30 30 31 31 32 32 32 32 33 33 37 42 44 45 45 45 46 46 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 48 48 48 49 49 49 49 49 50 50 51 51 51 51 52 53

7

6.1.6 Lead-Glazed Wares 6.1.7 Colour-slipped and plain pottery 6.1.7.1 Thin-Walled Ware Moevs (Cosa) Form XLII, Group A Moevs (Cosa) Form XXXVI, Group B Unidentified shapes 6.1.7.2 Open vessels Flanged bowls Hemispherical cups with incurved rim Hemispherical cups with everted rim Plate with deep groove at upper rim surface Plate with double convex wall Small bowl with flaring wall, rolled-rim and groove on the inside of rim Jug with everted rim and fine ring around lower part of the lip Jug with plain out-turned rim Pitcher with coloured decoration Jar with rounded base, flaring wall Jar with incurved, flat rim, and grooved wall Jar with everted rim, and grooves at the upper part of the body 6.1.7.3 Closed shapes 6.1.7.4 Bases Ring bases Flat bases

52 52 53 53 54 54 54 54 54 54 54 54 55 55 55 55 55 55 55 55 56 56 56

Roman pottery from north-eastern Greece; the coarse wares 7.1 Coarse wares 7.1.1 Tableware Italian Mugs Mugs Mica-Dusted ware Jug with grooved mouth Pitchers Bowls with in-turned rim Bowl with out-turned rim Phyale Stamped sherds 7.1.2 Cooking ware Large basin, similar to Anderson-Stojanović (1992), no. 1004, and Hayes (1983), Type 1, no. 183. Basin with waved, out-turned rim Large cooking-pots ‘Frying pans’, Type 1 ‘Frying pans’, Type 2 Stewpots or large jars (similar to Anderson-Stojanović, 1992, no. 1189) Stewpot (similar to Anderson-Stojanović, 1992, no. 1196) Dish with flanged rim (similar to Anderson-Stojanović, 1992, no. 1243) Strainer 7.1.3 Aegean Cooking ware Cooking-pots, Hayes (1983) Type 1, (triangular rim-profile) Cooking-pots, Hayes (1983) Type 2 (wide slopping rim) Small Cooking-pots, Hayes (1983) Type 4 Casserole, Hayes Type 2 Trefoil-mouthed jugs 7.1.4 Lids 7.1.5 Storage ware Pithoi Jars Jar with stamped decoration Amphorae

57 57 57 57 58 59 61 61 61 61 61 61 62 62 63 63 64 64 65 65 65 65 65 65 65 66 66 68 69 69 69 69 69 70

vii

8

Discussion 8.1 Fine ware found in the area 8.1.1 The presence of Terra Sigillata in the area 8.1.2 Red Slip ware found in north-eastern Greece 8.1.3 Miscellaneous fine ware; their contribution to the completion of the account of fine pottery found in the area 8.2 Coarse wares 8.3 The pottery as the main chronological evidence for the sites

76 76 77 78 79 79 81

9

Conclusions and suggestions for future research 9.1 Achievements of the present study 9.2 Future research

83 83 85

Tables Figures Appendix A Appendix B Appendix C Bibliography

87 113 229 233 235 238

viii

LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Example of the sheets used for the recording of fine and coarse pottery. Table 2. Example of the sheets used for the recording of fine and coarse pottery. Table 3. Example of the sheets used for the recording of the pottery at the site of Kepia. Table 4. Illustrated examples of some of the terms used in the study. Table 5. Illustrated examples of some the terms used in the study. Table 6. Harris Matrix for the excavated building at Amphipolis. Table 7. Harris Matrix for the excavated building at Abdera. Table 8. Examples of Eastern Sigillata A ware similar to those found in north-eastern Greece Table 9. Examples of Eastern Sigillata B ware similar to those found in north-eastern Greece Table 10. Examples of the typical forms of Çandarli ware and their characteristics throughout the ware’s production period. Similar shapes were found in north-eastern Greece Table 11. Examples of the typical forms of Çandarli ware and their characteristics throughout the ware’s production period. Similar shapes were found in north-eastern Greece Table 12. Examples of the typical forms of Pontic Sigillata ware and their characteristics throughout the ware’s production period. Similar shapes were found in north-eastern Greece. Table 13. Examples of the shapes of African Red Slip wares found in north-eastern Greece. Table 14. Examples of the shapes of African Red Slip wares found in north-eastern Greece. Table 15. Comparison of the total amount of coarse, fine pottery and amphorae found in north-eastern Greece. Table 16. This chart shows the relation between three groups of pottery found in north-eastern Greece: the group of Terra Sigillata compared to the group of Red Slip and the Pompeian-Red, Macedonian Grey, Glazed and Thin-walled wares. Table 17. Percentages of the total amount of the different groups of Terra Sigillata wares found in the area. Table 18. Groups of Terra Sigillata wares found in the sites of Abdera, Amphipolis and Thasos. Table 19. This histogram shows the numbers of the different groups of Eastern Sigillata A wares found in the area in relation with the time of their production and distribution. Table 20. This histogram shows the numbers of the different groups of Eastern Sigillata B wares found in the area in relation with the time of their production and distribution. Table 21. Çandarli ware Table 22. Pontic Sigillata ware. Table 23. Comparison between the total numbers found of Terra Sigillata and Red Slip ware Table 24. Groups of Red Slip wares found in the area. Table 25. This chart shows the forms of African Red Slip ware found in the area and their chronological distribution. Table 26. Kinds and percentages of Red Slip wares found at the two sites of Abdera and Thasos. Table 27. Percentages of the total RHB found in the five sites of Amphipolis, Philippi, Kepia, Abdera and Thasos. Table 28. Tableware percentages from all five sites. Table 29. Cooking ware percentages from all five sites. Table 30. Storage ware percentages from all five sites. Table 31. Percentages and chronological distribution of Terra Sigillata in North-eastern Greece, Stobi and Berenice. Table 32. Percentages and chronological distribution of the Red Slip wares found in North-eastern Greece, Stobi and Berenice.

ix

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. The Roman Empire in the 2nd century A.D. (after Burn 1991, p. 217). In the box the area studied in this dissertation. Figure 2. Map of Macedonia: a. division of modern Macedonia, and b. the five sites studied (excluding Thessaloniki). Figure 3. Macedonia: a. B.C. 168-148: Macedonia divided into four merides (districts). b. Detailed map of the four merides. Figure 4. Macedonia: a. 27 A.D.: the new division of Macedonia and Thrace under August, and b. 284 A.D.: the changes made by Diocletian in Macedonia. Figure 5. The territory of Philippi. (after Papazoglou 1982, p. 90) Figure 6. Pottery, upon whom the dating of the pottery from north-eastern Greece was based, was found in the sites illustrated here; the main ones were Stobi and Berenice. Figure 7. Amphipolis; the ancient city. (based on plan from the Museum of Amphipolis). The Roman building is no. 12b in red square. Figure 8. Amphipolis; the Roman building. Finds during the first excavation period in 1975. Figure 9. Amphipolis; the Roman building: a. Plan of the excavated part of the building b. Statue of Μένανδρος Νεικολάου Figure 10. Amphipolis; the Roman building: a. View of the front of the building from South; the two statues, and b. Female statue in situ Figure 11. Amphipolis; the Roman building: a. Layer of roof-tiles. b. Walls of the building; Room B, view from West. Figure 12. Amphipolis; the Roman building: a. Architectural elements found at the front of the main entrance of the building. b. Statue of Serapis, found in Room A. Figure 13. Philippi: plan of the ancient city Figure 14. Philippi; the Theatre: a. Photograph of the Theatre taken from North, b. Plan of the Theatre; in red box the area studied in the present volume. Figure 15. Philippi; the Theatre: a. Photograph of the door in Rooms C and D. b. Photograph of the staircase found in Room E. Figure 16. Philippi; the Theatre: a. Photograph of the Rooms E and F. b. Photograph of the drainage channel found in Room G and H. Figure 17. Kepia; Sanctuary of Hero Avloneites a. Finds from the area in 1985; in the middle we can see the bearded marble head. b. Architectural finds during the first systematic excavation at the site in 1985. Figure 18. Kepia; Sanctuary of Hero Avloneites: a. View of the Sanctuary from South. b. The western part of the Sanctuary; the three rooms and their couches are visible. Figure 19. Kepia; the Sanctuary of Hero Avloneites: a. The “altar”. b. Hellenistic relief of the Hero-rider bearing the inscription “ΗΡΩΣ ΕΠΗΚΟΟΣ”. Figure 20. Kepia; the Sanctuary of Hero Avloneites. Plan of the Sanctuary with its final form after the excavation of 1990. Figure 21. Kepia; the Sanctuary of Hero Avloneites: a. and b.: more inscriptions bearing the name of Hero Avloneites. Figure 22. Abdera; the ancient city (plan given to me by the archaeologist of the Museum of Abdera, Ms K. Kallintzi).

x

Figure 23. Abdera: the area of the western city walls; the western gate; in square the Roman house (the plan was made by using plan of the city walls, drowned by H. Kirimlidou and A. Koundouras, and plan of the Roman house given to me by K. Kallintzi). Figure 24. Abdera: the Roman house (with yellow the early phase, with green a middle phase, and with blue its late phase). Figure 25. Abdera: a. Room 3; 7th layer; photograph taken from South, b. Room 3; 10th layer; photograph taken from South, and c. Room 3; 10th layer; we can see the sand layer. Figure 26. Abdera: a. Photograph taken from Southeast; we can see Rooms 3 and 4 and the layer of roof-tiles found at the area outside the house to the East, and b. The rooms next to the paved courtyard; we can see the destruction layer with roof tiles. Figure 27. Abdera: a. The same rooms after the removal of the destruction layer; we can see the floor. b. Floor made from plaster. Figure 28. Thasos; the Ancient city (in square the Roman house, studied in the present volume). Figure 29. Thasos. The old Museum and the new Museum; the excavation that gave the pottery studied in the present volume. Figure 30. Thasos; the Roman House: a. Photograph showing the excavation trench, and b. Photograph showing the nature of the discovered wall Figure 31. Thasos; the Roman House: a. Detail of the discovered walls, and b. Detail of the drainage channel. Figure 32. Eastern Sigillata A ware. Figure 33. Eastern Sigillata A ware. Figure 34. Italian Sigillata ware. Figure 35. Eastern Sigillata B1 and B2 ware. Figure 36. Eastern Sigillata B1 and B2 ware. Figure 37. Eastern Sigillata B1 and B2 ware. Figure 38. Eastern Sigillata B1 and B2 ware. Figure 39. Eastern Sigillata B1 and B2 ware. Figure 40. Çandarli ware. Figure 41. Çandarli ware. Figure 42. Çandarli ware. Figure 43. Çandarli ware. Figure 44. Çandarli ware. Figure 45. Çandarli ware. Figure 46. Çandarli ware. Figure 47. Çandarli ware. Figure 48. Çandarli ware. Figure 49. Çandarli ware. Figure 50. Çandarli ware. Figure 51. Çandarli ware. Figure 52. Çandarli ware. Figure 53. Çandarli ware. Figure 54. Çandarli ware. Figure 55. Çandarli ware. Figure 56. Çandarli ware. Figure 57. Çandarli ware. Figure 58. Çandarli ware. Figure 59. Çandarli ware. Figure 60. Çandarli ware. Figure 61. Çandarli ware.

xi

Figure 62. Çandarli ware. Figure 63. Çandarli ware. Figure 64. Çandarli ware. Figure 65. Cypriot and Pontic Sigillata ware. Figure 66. Pontic Sigillata ware. Figure 67. Pontic Sigillata ware. Figure 68. Pontic Sigillata ware. Figure 69. Tripolitanian Sigillata ware. Figure 70. African Red Slip ware. Figure 71. Phocaean and Cypriot Red Slip ware Figure 72. Unidentified Terra Sigillata and Red Slip wares Figure 73. Lead-Glazed and Thin-Walled ware. Figure 74. Thin-Walled ware. Figure 75. Miscellaneous fine ware. Figure 76. Miscellaneous fine ware. Figure 77. Miscellaneous fine ware. Figure 78. Miscellaneous fine ware. Figure 79. Italian mugs. Figure 80. Italian mugs. Figure 81. Mugs and Mica-Dusted ware. Figure 82. Jugs. Figure 83. Jugs with grooved mouth Figure 84. Pitchers. Figure 85. Bowls with in-turned and out-turned rim Figure 86. Phyale. Figure 87. Stamped sherds from Kepia. Figure 88. Stamped sherds from Kepia. Figure 89. Cooking ware. Figure 90. Cooking ware. Figure 91. Cooking ware. Figure 92. Cooking ware. Figure 93. Cooking ware. Figure 94. Cooking ware. Figure 95. Cooking ware. Figure 96. Cooking ware. Figure 97. Cooking ware. Figure 98. Cooking ware. Figure 99. Aegean Cooking ware. Figure 100. Aegean Cooking ware Figure 101. Aegean Cooking ware. Figure 102. Aegean Cooking ware. Figure 103. Aegean Cooking ware. Figure 104. Aegean Cooking ware. Figure 105. Trefoil-mouthed jug. Figure 106. Trefoil-mouthed jug and lid. Figure 107. Large jars. Figure 108. Amphorae. Figure 109. Amphorae. Figure 110. Amphorae. Figure 111. Amphorae. Figure 112. Amphorae. Figure 113. Amphorae. Figure 114. Amphorae.

xii

ABBREVIATIONS AΔ

Αρχαιολογικό Δελτίο.

AEMΘ

Το Αρχαιολογικό Έργο στη Μακεδονία και Θράκη.

Antioch-on-the-Torontes

Waagé, F.O., “Hellenistic and Roman tableware of North Syria”, Antioch-on-the-Torontes 4, Part 1. Ceramics and Islamic Coins (Princeton 1948) 1-60.

Athenian Agora

Robinson, H.S., “Pottery of the Roman Period, Chronology”, The Athenian Agora, V (American School of Classical Studies at Athens, Princeton 1959).

BAR

British Archaeological Reports.

BCH

Bulletin de Correspondance Héllenique.

Benghazi

Kenrick, P.M., “The fine pottery”, Excavations at Sidi Khrebish Benghazi (Berenice) 3, Supplement to Libya Antiqua 5 (Tripoli 1985).

Benghazi

Riley, J.A., “Coarse Pottery”, Excavations at Sidi Khrebish, Benghazi (Berenice) 2 (Supplement to Libya Antiqua 5) (Tripoli 1983) 91-466.

BSA

The Annual of the British School at Athens.

Carthage

Fulford, M.G., Peacock, D.P.S., “The Avenue of the President Habib Bourguiba, Salammbo: The pottery and other ceramic objects from the site”, Excavations at Carthage: The British Mission, Vol. I, 2 (Published for the British Academy from the University of Sheffield, Department of Prehistory and Archaeology: Sheffield 1984).

Chiron

Mitteilungen der Komission für alte Geschichte und Epigraphik des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts.

CIF

Corpus Inscriptionum Graecarum.

CIL

Corpus Inscriptionum Latinum.

Cosa

Marabini Moevs, Maria Teresa, “Cosa: The Thin-Walled Pottery (1948-1954)”, Memoirs of the American Academy in Rome 32 (1973).

EAA

Enciclopedia dell'arte antica, classica e orientale

IG

Inscriptiones Graecae.

JFA

Journal of Field Archaeology.

JHS

Journal of Hellenic Studies.

Nicopolis ad Istrum

Poulter, A., et al. “Nicopolis ad Istrum: The finds”, Volume I (forthcoming).

Olbia

Knipowitsch, T.N., “Untersuchungen zur Keramik römischer Zeit aus den Griechenstädten an der Nordkuste des Schwarzen Meeres i, die Keramik römischer Zeit aus Olbia in der Sammlung der Eremitage” (Frankfurt 1929)., Bonn 1968.

ΠΑΕ

Πρακτικά της Αρχαιολογικής Εταιρείας.

Pergamon

Schäfer, J., “Terra Sigillata Keramik aus Pergamon”, Archäologische Anzeiger (1962) 777-802. xiii

RHB or rhb

Rim, handle, base (term used mainly in Chapters 8 and 9).

Samaria-Sebaste

Crowfoot, J.W., and Kenyon, K., “The Objects from Samaria”, Samaria-Sebaste 3 (Palestine Exploration Fund, London 1957).

SIG

Dittenberger, Sylloge Inscriptionum Graecarum, 3 ed. by Hiller von Gaertringen and others.

Stobi

Anderson-Stojanovič, V.R., “Stobi: The Hellenistic and Roman pottery” (Princeton University Press: Princeton 1992).

Tarsus

Jones, F.F., “The Pottery”, in: H. Goldman, ed., Excavations at Gözlu Kule, Tarsus I. The Hellenistic and Roman Periods, Section. VI (Princeton University Press, Princeton 1950) 149-296.

Tschandarli

S. Loeschcke, Sigillata-Töpfereien in Tschandarli, in: Athenische Mitteilungen XXXVII, 1912, pp. 344-407.

xiv

1

recently, the remains of the Roman occupation were considered as devastating elements of the Classical and Hellenistic greatness and the beginning of the end for the glamorous Hellenic civilisation. Consequently, they were ignored by the archaeologists and rapidly removed in order to reveal the “real stuff” that lay underneath.

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this study is to examine and present five Roman pottery assemblages from north-eastern Greece (Figure 1). These five assemblages have been chosen for study because first of all they consist of material well-documented by the excavators. Secondly, they were found in a variety of sites: during the Roman occupation, three of the five studied here remained free cities, one was a pure Roman colony and the last was a local sanctuary with its own individual characteristics. So, because of their individual nature and the importance of the stratigraphic layers in which they were found, these assemblages, through careful analysis, can reveal essential information about perplexing aspects of north-eastern Greece. Most importantly of all, these ceramic assemblages come from an area neglected so far for its ceramic products and its trading relationships during the Roman period.

In the same way as in Western Europe, things have gradually changed in Greece and the importance of Roman pottery for the archaeological research is now recognised widely. The need for a study like the present has become more than necessary for the archaeological exploration of Roman northeastern Greece. This study should help to fill all the gaps in our knowledge by offering important information about the fine and coarse pottery found in the area. Patterns of fine pottery manufacture and trade will be discussed. A typological and dating map will be created in order to serve as the basis for the analysis of the so far unclassified coarse wares in the wider area of northern Greece.

It is generally accepted that the study of pottery is an essential part of the investigation of archaeological sites by excavation. Vessels of fired clay are the commonest kind of finds during excavation in any site and the material with the highest survival rate. Thus, they constitute a very rich material, concidering the information they can offer to the researchers. They reveal details of technology and methods of manufacture and they give information about the patterns of production and distribution. Archaeologists can explore many broad aspects of economy and society of the ancient world based on information drawn from the study of pottery.

The chronological framework of the pottery presented here lies between the 1st century B.C. and the 5th century A.D. The majority dates to between the 1st and the 4th centuries A.D. During the initial stages of this research, the starting point of the dating evidence has been suggested by the excavators and combined with the principle dateable objects: the coins. Later, the identification of the imported wares became the main chronological criteria for both the dating of the associated coarse wares and, in the final stage, the verification of the stratigraphic layers and the dating of the buildings.

In Roman times, as in the previous and following periods, pottery was used for a wide range of purposes, such as cooking and serving, storing and transporting goods. Consequently, during the excavation of Roman sites, archaeologists collect large quantities of pottery-sherds, which are objects of a remarkably varying degree of attention. This abundance of pottery found during excavation has mainly positive results. One of them is the vast range of information that we can obtain from its study. Of course, the large quantity of the pottery sherds found during excavation makes the adequate and accurate study of the total of the ceramic finds a very difficult task. Sometimes, the unfortunate lack of sufficient funding and time imposes the neglect of a big part of the pottery, which generally happens to be the coarse pottery, and the study of a limited number of sherds, which usually are sherds of the fine wares.

From the geographical point of view, the study focuses exclusively on north-eastern Greece. Modern north-eastern Greece is divided into two large districts: eastern Macedonia and Thrace (Figure 2a). These two districts are further divided into six counties: eastern Macedonia is divided into the counties of Drama, Serres and Kavala, and Thrace is divided into the counties of Xanthi, Rodopi and Evros. This geographical distinction is accepted here as a logical way to subdivide the ceramic material and refer it back to its source. The site of Amphipolis is located in the Strymon River Valley in the modern county of Serres. Kepia and Philippi are located in the county of Kavala. Limenas is the capital of the island of Thasos, which belongs to the county of Kavala. Abdera is located in the county of Xanthi (Figure 2b). The dissertation is organised and presented in a way that follows the steps of the practical work that preceded it. Before I could start studying Roman pottery found in the five sites situated in north-eastern Greece, I had to collect the existing information and review the work that had been done on the subject by other scholars. With the completion of the overview of Roman pottery studies (Chapter 2), the collection of all relevant historical information about the area of eastern Macedonia and Thrace formed the background to the study of pottery from the region. In Chapter 3, all the information about the historical events is gathered in an

In the early years of the archaeological research, the detailed analysis of the whole range of Roman wares, from the fine vessels to coarse vessels, was a very rare concept. In the course of the first twenty years of the 20th century, this situation started to change in Western Europe, particularly through the study of well-dated contexts from military installations in Britain, France and Germany. Unlike Western Europe, it was only in recent years that the excavators of sites around the Mediterranean Sea began to keep all the potsherds and to study them in detail. In Greece, until very

1

attempt to identify the changes in the area throughout the centuries that could affected the societies and therefore help to explain changes in the manufacture and distribution of the pottery. The methodology followed for the accomplishment of the pottery study is explained in Chapter 4. In this chapter, a detailed account of the methods and principles adopted is given in order to explain how the research was carried out, what needs arose during its course and how the difficulties that I came across were solved. With the background of the area and the principles of the research all established in the first four chapters, Chapter 5 aims to give the basic information about each of the five sites and the excavation data are presented in detail. It was necessary for me to collect and examine the primary reports from the five sites, which has not as far been undertaken, and the excavation process reconstructed in order to understand the architecture and the finds in their contexts. The stratigraphy was then comprehensible in detail and the pottery ready to be related back to its original context and an accurate story to be compiled. Chapters 6 and Chapter 7 give, respectively, information about the fine and coarse pottery found in the five sites. In these chapters I have provided detailed information about the kind of vessels produced during the Roman period in the eastern Mediterranean, their characteristics in fabric and shape, where they were produced and to where they were transported, all with detailed references to the scholars who created typologies and identified them for the first time. In these chapters I have included the exact quotes from the relevant publications in order to make this study a complete companion for future researchers of Roman pottery from the area. The information about the different kinds of Roman pottery that is expected to be found in northern Greece is included in this study with detailed descriptions and representative illustrations. Chapter 6 begins with the imported fine pottery and follows with the locally made wares. In Chapter 7, the coarse pottery is catalogued; the imported wares are identified and the local products classified according to their fabric and shape. Both chapters are supported by my own drawings of the profiles of representative examples of the studied pottery. In Chapters 8 and 9, I have brought together the archaeological evidence discussed in the previous sections. Here the pottery is studied as a whole, the assemblages from each site composed and general observations drawn. Chapter 9 is devoted to conclusions in relation to the broader history of pottery manufacture and trade in the Mediterranean area, and to the evidence this study has provided for the date and relations of each site. It summarises the achievements of the present study and gives a brief outline of future work that needs to be done in this field.

2

2 2.1

Mediterranean Roman Pottery”.

OVERVIEW OF ROMAN POTTERY STUDIES

M. Vegas with his “Cerámica común romana del Mediterraneo occidental”, published in 1973, gave us a general picture of the situation in the west part of the Mediterranean. M.H. Callender published in 1965 the “Roman Amphorae”, which with D.P.S. Peacock and D.F. Williams’ “Amphorae and the Roman Economy. An Introductory Guide”, published in 1986, are the most efficient guides for the identification of Roman amphorae. J. Perlzweig gave us in 1961 a similar guide for “Lamps of the Roman Period”, a compilation which forms part of the series of The Athenian Agora. And finally, K. Greene offered us a short but very consistent book with the title “Roman Pottery”, published in 1992.

The development of Roman pottery studies

2.1.1 Ancient sources Our knowledge of Roman pottery derives mainly from the pottery itself. References to Roman pottery in literary texts and documents are very scarce, incomplete and inaccurate. Hayes has mentioned in his “Late Roman Pottery” (1972, 425) that, “after the time of Juvenal and Martial our (literary) sources are silent regarding pottery and potters alike”. Some information derives from inscriptions on marble tablets, from documents written on wooden writing-tablets and papyri. In addition, important information about the so-called Samian pottery is present in compilations of Plautus and Pliny the Elder.

However, in Mediterranean lands the research did not begin until the early 1970s. Since then, a large number of publications of Roman sites and their pottery in several parts of the Mediterranean world were published and they were taken into account during the preparation of this study. Thus, the identification of the fine imports, which helped a great deal in dating the five sites in north-eastern Greece, as well as efficient comparisons between groups of coarse pottery, which led to identification of the imports and the pottery of local manufacture, were based on the following compilations. One of the publications I studied first was the H.S. Robinson’s publication of the Roman pottery from The Athenian Agora (Robinson 1959). That gave me the first impression of the situation in the world of ceramics in Roman times in the Hellenic region. Next to this, an important guide for my research has been the publication of the Roman pottery from Corinth by K.W. Slane (Slane 1986) and K.S. Wright (Wright 1980). As I was advancing with the pottery recording, the need for expanding the frontiers of the material for comparisons arose. Thus, publications like the Benghazi, Antioch-on-the-Torontes, Tarsus, Olbia, Tschandarli, Cosa, Pergamon, Samaria-Sebaste and Carthage offered the frame from where I could gain information about different kinds of pottery in order to identify wares and start realising what was happening in the area of north-eastern Greece during the Roman period, regarding the pottery manufacture and its trade.

2.1.2 Modern research H. Dragendorff was one of the first archaeologists who, in 1895, created a typology for Roman pottery. His work remains until today an example of well-organised work and his typology constitutes the basis for advanced studies of pottery. Walters’ Catalogue is of similar importance and has been the main source for researchers of Roman pottery during the first half of the 20th century (Walters 1908). Since then, the study of the Roman culture in the area of western Europe has made great progress. Some of the main works used in this study are those of F. Oswald and T.D. Pryce (Oswald and Pryce 1920), who wrote an introduction to the study of Terra Sigillata, published in 1920, and of R.J. Charleston (Charleston 1955), who wrote a general book giving the main characteristics of known, until his era, groups of Roman pottery, published in 1955. C. Goudineau and his “La céramique arétine lisse” (Goudineau 1968), as well as H. Comfort and his “Terra Sigillata” (Comfort 1973) complete the list of these early publications of Roman pottery. Recently, the development of archaeology as a whole, with the contribution of laboratory science, anthropology, and computer technology, has resulted in the greater appreciation of the potential of pottery as an advantageous material for research. According to the new approach of modern stratigraphic excavations, the full range of pottery, fine and coarse, is collected and retained for detailed analysis to obtain information about the organisation of the Roman cities, as a source of information about significant cultural and economic aspects of the Roman world.

The most important guides throughout my research were the publications of J.W. Hayes: “Notes on Roman Pottery in Greece and the Aegean” (1963/64), “Cypriot Sigillata”, (1967), “Four Early Roman Groups from Knossos” (1971), “Roman Pottery from the South Stoa at Corinth” (1973), “Early Roman Wares from the House of Dionysos, Paphos” (1977), “The Villa Dionysos Excavations, Knossos: The Pottery” (1983), “Paphos; The Hellenistic and Roman Pottery” (1991), and “An Early Roman Well Group from the Troia Excavations, 1992 (Quadrat D8)”(1995). Finally, the publication of the pottery from Stobi and the recently published Roman pottery from Nicopolis ad Istrum (Poulter 1999) were the closest examples to my pottery. Hopefully, the comparisons between the pottery of this study and that of

Consequently, numerous compilations of Roman pottery have been published in many languages. We own a great part of our knowledge on aspects of Roman pottery to a prolific writer: J.W. Hayes. In 1972 he wrote the “Late Roman pottery” (completed by its Supplement in 1980), which is the “bible” for new researches of Roman pottery from the Mediterranean world. In 1976 he published a group of “Roman Pottery in the Royal Ontario Museum”, in 1981 the “Sigillata Orientali” and in 1997 his “Handbook of

3

between the two.

the previous works will help to give a general impression of the pottery found in the Balkans. Until very recently, the presence of Roman pottery in excavations in Greece used to signify the end of the glorious Classical and Hellenistic period that gave turn into the culture of the Roman conqueror, when Hellenism fell into decline. It is only in the very recent years that the full analysis of the ceramic material found during excavations of Roman sites in Greece has become a significant factor in archaeological research. Unfortunately, until the day of the completion of the present study, no material from any of the important sites from Northern Greece was published. The only information offered to me came from general publications such as the Αρχαιολογικό Δελτίο and the Αρχαιολογικό Έργο στη Μακεδονία και Θράκη. Despite its shortness, the article of Adam-Veleni for the Agora of Thessaloniki (Adam-Veleni 1996) was especially useful, as it gave my information about the kinds of pottery produced and imported in capital of the Roman province of Macedonia. 2.2 Production, distribution, and trade in Roman pottery From the fifth century B.C., Roman power began to expand, first in Italy, then around the Mediterranean, and finally towards north-western Europe. In all of these places, the existing centres of culture, art, and architecture, such as Celtic civilisations in the north around the Alps, Etruscan in central Italy, and Greek in the south, had to offer strong and well-established influences to the newly developed Roman spirit. By the time that the ‘Roman Empire’ began under Augustus, Roman art, heavily influenced by Greece and Asia, had been developed and obtained its distinctive characteristics. The military character of the Roman Empire, the extensive exchanges of population, and the long-distance transport of goods required the production of a comprehensive range of vessels, of varying quality, for kitchen and table functions, and for use in storage or in transport and trade. The great demand for vessels imposed mass production and industrialisation of pottery manufacture. In the new world, the craft workers had to establish their industries by producing vessels according to general demand, by improving their techniques for fast and faultless pottery manufacture, in quantities sufficient to satisfy the fast growing demand. Some pottery workshops, especially those of the finest class of red-slip wares, came to dominate this intensive and competitive trade, and their products can be found and identified throughout the empire. At the same time, most of the coarse, unspecialised kitchen and domestic wares were produced in local workshops, which might have only supplied a single town and its surrounding area; however, some of these wares were also traded. For the intelligent and fruitful study of Roman pottery, apart from the obligatory division between the fine and the coarse ware, division into eastern and western products is essential. Italy seems to be both the separating, and the linking axis

4

3

expansion to the East. Most of the historians continued to narrate Macedonia’s glory from the past and put emphasis on its differences between Hellenistic and Roman periods (Pliny, IV, 39). Historically, it is one of the most neglected areas of the Roman Empire (Papazoglou 1988, 2).

THE HISTORICAL EVIDENCE FOR MACEDONIA

AND THRACE DURING THE ROMAN PERIOD

In this chapter, I have placed the area of the present study in its historical frame by presenting information collected during this research from all available literary sources, both old and modern. Unfortunately I did not have the time (or courage) to take a closer look at the original work of the ancient historians. Consequently, information presented here derived mainly from modern historical compilations referring to both the ancient authors who mentioned Macedonia and directly to the area of Macedonia and Thrace. However, this chapter will give us a hopefully sufficient idea about the political and economic situation in the area during the Roman period. Thus, we may be able later to comprehend the factors that affected the pottery production and trade and the reasons why the inhabitants developed their economy the way they did.

Other contemporary historians who mentioned Macedonia and Thrace in their compilations were Strabo, Livy, Appian, Diodorus Siculus, Antipatros, Memnon, Caesar, Hierocles, Dio Cassius. As mentioned before, I did not have the opportunity to study the original work of these historians. Nevertheless, the information that follows comes from modern compilations that were based on the ancient historians. Unfortunately, this lack of relevant historical works continues until the present day. Modern historians have paid less attention to Macedonia during Roman times than during any other period. Papazoglou (1988, 3-4) listed the modern historians who have written about Roman Macedonia and offered us an important starting point bibliographically.

During the Roman period this was a very important area, the link between Europe and Asia. Despite its significance, the historical sources about this area during the Roman times are rather silent, and give very limited information. Moreover, archaeological research, concentrating on the “glorious” Hellenic cultural products of the Archaic, Classical, and Hellenistic times, has always neglected the finds of the Roman period, especially the artefacts. As a result, the Roman Eastern Macedonia is still in our days a relatively unknown part of the Roman Empire full of mysteries. Our knowledge is very limited on topics such as the administrative and financial organisation, the distribution of the population, the trade routes and patterns.

The compilations of both Finlay (1844) and Hertzberg (1866 and 1868) are among the first historical works that included Roman Macedonia. Bengtson (1969) has highlighted the lack of any pre-existing research concentrating on Macedonia as part of the Roman Empire. Thus, in his handbook of Greek History, he could only present a rather brief account of Roman Macedonia. Mommsen’s (1894, 274-277) and Marquardt’s (1881, 316-321) analyses go further, and describe the development of the political and administrative sections of the Province of Macedonia. Keil (1936) gave us a very informative chapter on Macedonia’s situation during Imperial times in the Cambridge Ancient History. Rostovtzeff (1926, 233-234) dedicated a very short part of his work to Macedonia. Larsen (1938), who based his work on an exhaustive list of ancient sources, wrote one of the most detailed studies of Roman Macedonia. The municipal organisation of the province was the basic focus of Kuhn’s book (Kuhn 1864). Information relating to the municipal institutions of Macedonia was also given by the important surveys by Liebenam (1900), and by Abbot and Johnson (1968). We owe to Geyer (1928, 638-711) an incomplete but essential alphabetical list of cities and institutions of Roman Macedonia. Hammond and Griffith’s (1972) work is an essential guide to the researcher of the history of Macedonia for its richness in information. Kanatsoulis (1955; 1964; 1967), Sarikakis (1971; 1977), Sakellariou (1982), Papazoglou (1982, 192-207, 537-541), Pandermalis (1982, 208-221, 541-542), and Tsitouridou (1982, 224-249, 542545), have also recently published studies on the same subject. And, finally, periodicals such as Αρχαία Μακεδονία, Μακεδονικά, and the great series of Ιστορία του Ελληνικού Έθνους are some of the general compilations from where we could collect information about Roman Macedonia and Thrace.

3.1 Sources Obtaining information about Macedonia and Thrace during the Roman era is a difficult task due to lack of appropriate sources. The contemporary historians were particularly silent about this area, and so direct information is missing. Papazoglou (1988, 2-11) has presented a comprehensive study of Macedonia as a whole, collating much of the previously published information. This work listed authors and books about history, inscriptions, and coins, and, based on her work, I have set out here a brief account of these sources of information. 3.1.1 Historians The researcher who is interested in Macedonian history during the Roman period will ascertain from the very first steps of his research a remarkable lack of historical sources that cannot be anything else but a proof of the decay suffered after its conquest by P. Aemilius Paulus in contrast to its prominence under the Macedonian Kings. None of the contemporary historians of the period wrote any specific passages about this area. They referred to it as a destroyed region, which had nothing in common with the Macedonia of Philip II or Alexander the Great. This was, of course, a common characteristic for Greece, as a whole, which, cut into pieces by Αντιγονίδες, could not react to the Roman

5

earliest epigraphists were Kubitschek (1890), and Tod (19181919, 206,217; 1919-1920, 54-67; 1953, 382-397). From the early years of the 20th century we can observe expansion in the epigraphic science: P. Papageorgiou (1913) with inscriptions from Thessaloniki, N. Pappadakis from Upper Macedonia, G. Oikonomos (1915) from Pieria, A. Orlandos (1933) from Veroia, G. Kazarov from Mariovo, B. Saria from Pelagonia, and N. Vulić from the Yugoslavian part of Macedonia were only the first experts in this field.

3.1.2 Travellers Papazoglou complemented the list of sources that provide us with important information about ancient Macedonia with the work of some travellers, who visited the area and described their observations. Here again her material has been used to present a brief list of the relevant sources. In the 19th century, Cousinéry (1831)was one of the first travellers who visited the area of Macedonia. His interest in geography, in ancient monuments, and especially in coins proved to be very informative for us, as he gave us a full list of material and sites known at that time. In 1841, Leake’s “Travels in Northern Greece” was published. Leake was an English officer, very interested in geography and ancient history. He visited Greece, recorded remains of ancient sites and he was one of the first geographers who tried to identify them with known ancient cities, obtained from literary sources. Our knowledge about geography is enriched by Tafel’s (1841-42) study of the Via Egnatia. Delacoulonche (1858) wrote not only about geography and topography of Macedonia, but combined the literary sources with archaeological finds and published some inscriptions for the first time. Desdevises-du-Dézert (1862) composed the first historical geography for the whole area of Macedonia. However, the novelty in archaeological research came with the work of Heuzey and Daumet (1876). They were the first ones to undertake some archaeological excavations in Macedonia, whilst other travellers were only recording their observations. Heuzey was the first to study his material in any great detail. He investigated several important sites in Macedonia and adjacent regions, such as Philippi, Palatitza, Stobi, Dyrrachium and Apollonia. Demitsas (1870; 1896; 1988) completed the geographical publications with his “Ancient Geography of Macedonia”. He was neither a geographer nor epigraphist, but his contribution was remarkable as he cited the entire epigraphic corpus known in his era. Perdrizet (1894, 416-445; 1895, 109-112, 532; 1897, 514-543; 1898, 335-353; 1899; 1900, 304-323, 542-552; 1905; 1910, 1-103) wrote in the same detail about archaeological and epigraphic material from the area of Macedonia. One of the last of these early travellers who wrote about Macedonia was Struck (1907; 1908).

Epigraphy in this area made remarkable progress during the last three decades of our century (Papazoglou 1988, 9). In 1966, Mihailov (231-282) published inscriptions from the area of the river Strymon, and in 1972, Edson published several inscriptions concerning Macedonian topography, history, and cults. In 1983, Feissel published Paleochristian inscriptions from Macedonia, and in 1985, Touratsoglou and Rizakis published inscriptions from the Greek part of Upper Macedonia. The list of published inscriptions is very long, and we could only suggestively add here the names of C. Makaronas, D. Lazaridis, V. Kallipolitis, P. Petsas, M. Andronikos, D. Pandermalis, M. Hatzopoulos, C. KoukouliChrysanthaki, D. Triantaphyllos, and the titles of Το Αρχαιολογικό Δελτίο, Το Αρχαιολογικό Έργο στη Μακεδονία και Θράκη, Αρχαιολογικά Ανάλεκτα εξ Αθηνών, Τα Πρακτικά της Αρχαιολογικής Υπηρεσίας, Bulletin de Correspondance Héllenique, and The Annual of the British School at Athens as a short account of authors and publications that refer to the newly discovered inscriptions from the Macedonia and Thracian regions. Unfortunately, these publications cover inscriptions outside the area of my study and they were not of much help for my research. 3.1.4 Archaeological excavations and research As we have said before, direct ancient sources about Macedonia and Thrace during the Roman period are very rare, and they do not cover all our questions for the past. Consequently, the most efficient way to discover Macedonia and Thrace’s history at this time is through the study of the archaeological finds. The information that arises from the archaeological excavations is usually very complex, as it is the result of a combination of several heterogeneous types of data. While excavating sites of archaeological interest, architectural structures in different layers come to light, which reveal their history. The associated objects, such as coins, tools, weapons, utensils, and any other trace of everyday life, help the researcher to decipher the actual nature of the space and the needs that it has been serving. By collecting information about these finds and comprehending their function, the researcher can piece together the “puzzle” and arrive at a conclusion that contributes to the general study of the area. Careful analysis and correlation of found inscriptions, coins, pottery, along with the architectural and other remains of the Roman culture, could enrich our knowledge and answer our questions.

3.1.3 Numismatists; Epigraphists Essential information about Macedonian history and topography can be obtained from the work of numismatists who have studied the coins found in Macedonian sites throughout the years. Coin collection and identification works by numismatists are very important for the comprehension of Macedonian history, since the ancient sources are so deficient. Gaebler (1897; 1906a and b; 1936) was such a numismatist, whose work on coins from Macedonia and Paionia was useful in answering questions about topography. Epigraphy, one of the most important tools for the understanding of Roman history, was appreciated as such from the early years of Greek Independence. Some of the

Archaeological excavations, mainly amateur ones, in Macedonia and Thrace began in the early years of our

6

involved in Greek activities. Then, during the First Macedonian War (215-205 B.C.), the Romans allied themselves with the Aetolian League, Sparta, Messene, Elis, and the King of Pergamon, Attalus, against the King of Macedon, Philip V. Following this and with strong and effective diplomacy, the Romans acted in like manner in the Second Macedonian War (200-197 B.C.), the war that “constituted the first important step in the establishment of Roman supremacy in the eastern Mediterranean area” (Larsen 1938, 266). They appeared as the “defenders” of the freedom of Pergamon, Rhodes, and Byzantium, as well as the freedom of the Aetolian and Achaean Leagues that was endangered by Philip V. This interference was effective, since the Romans instead of the Macedonians came to dominate southern Greece. Greece seemed to be free again, “though this involved a detailed settlement of many Greek affairs by Roman officials” (Larsen 1938, 266). Finally, in the Third Macedonian War (171-168 B.C.), and after the victory of L. Aemilius Paullus over Perseus, the last king of Macedonia, the Romans succeeded in abolishing the Macedonian Kingdom and in establishing their authority in this area as well.

century. During the years between the two World Wars, systematic archaeological research took place in Macedonia, directed by the French School at Athens (Papazoglou 1988, 8-9). The sites of Philippi, Stobi, and Thessaloniki were some of the places that attracted the French interest. The results of the excavations were published in the annual series of the Bulletin de Correspondance Héllenique. At the same time, the Greek Archaeological Ephorates of Thessaloniki and Kavala started their own systematic research. After quite a long interval due to the unstable political circumstances, the systematic archaeological research restarted and continues until the present. Foreign Archaeological Schools, such as the French School and the British School at Athens, the Greek Archaeological Ephorates of Thessaloniki, Kavala, and Komotini, the Archaeological Society of Athens, as well as the Aristoteleian University of Thessaloniki, today play a leading part in research in the vast areas of Macedonia and Thrace. The annual publications of the aforementioned institutions, as well as publications of conferences, such as Το Αρχαιολογικό Έργο στη Μακεδονία και Θράκη, Θρακικά, and Αρχαία Μακεδονία, are systematic and rich, and offer important and informative accounts on new discoveries from the area.

For 53 years, from the beginning of the Second Punic War (220 B.C.) to the defeat of Perseus at the battle of Pydna (168 B.C.), within the whole Mediterranean area there was no force able to sustain political opposition to the Roman aims (Cameron 1985, 203). Thus, after 168 B.C., the Romans had to use nothing more than their diplomacy to maintain their dominance.

3.2 History of Macedonia and Thrace Although sources of information about Macedonia and Thrace during the Roman occupation are scarce, it does not mean that the inhabitants of these regions disappeared when the Romans conquered them. Within the bounds of the Roman Empire they kept their identity, their dialect, their way of thinking, their manners and costumes. An important part of the new Empire, Macedonia and Thrace contributed greatly to Greco-Roman culture and to Greco-Roman history. The remains of this culture, revealed during the archaeological excavations, are the witnesses of the great past.

3.2.1.2 168-31 B.C. As a result of the Roman expansionist policy, Macedonia lost its independence after the battle of Pydna in 168 B.C. (Diodorus Siculus XXXI, 8; Strabo 7, frag. 48; Adams 1983 (1986), 21; Papazoglou 1988, 67-71 and 78-79). It was then incorporated into the Roman Empire and divided into four separate provinces or merides (regiones, μέρη, μερίδες) (Livy 45, 29, 4-5 ) (Figures 3a):

Geographically, Macedonia and Thrace were always very important areas to whoever had political and economic aspirations, whether these lay to the East or to the West. Their geographical location offered the advantage of being a kind of crossroads for trade and culture. The occupants of these regions could both control effectively the East and the West and influence the transport of both products, and ideas for the benefit of their states. 3.2.1

“…Omnium primum liberos esse iubere Macedonas, habentis urbes easdem agrosque, utentes legibus suis, annuos creantis magistratus; tributum diminium eius quod pependissent regibus, pendere populo Romano.” Thus, the Roman Senate could supervise the mechanics of administration of the merides. Each meris elected once a year its senators (synedroi) and council, by which it was represented to the Roman Senate. Merides had to pay taxes to Romans and to organise their own armed forces, so that they could ensure peace in their territories. As for the rest, they kept their autonomy and political independence.

History of Macedonia

3.2.1.1 3rd century B.C.-168 B.C. The Roman influence on Greece had become noticeable many years before the Roman conquest through the intervention of Rome in Greek affairs. The flourishing economics of Greek cities attracted large numbers of Roman merchants and businessmen (Loukopoulou-Polychronidou 1985, p. 181). At the end of the First Punic War (274-271 B.C.), when Ptolemy II Philadelphus, foreseeing their future power, contracted an alliance with Romans, he gave Romans the opportunity to achieve their desire to become effectively

The first meris included the entire region between the rivers Strymon and Hebrus (Strabo 7, frag. 48) (apart from the cities of Abdera, Maronea and Aenus, which kept their autonomy) and also the area of Bisaltia and Herakleia Sintica to the west of the Strymon, with Amphipolis as its capital

7

had his base. The disturbed years of the Mithridatic Wars did not change Macedonia’s administrative establishment but resulted in general decline, with regard to its production, trade, and culture. This decline became even more marked during the years of the Civil Wars (49-30 B.C.). With the battle of Philippi in 42 B.C., where the eastern met the western section of the Empire, the Roman Republic ended, the monarchical rule was established in Rome, and a new era began for Macedonia and Thrace.

city (Figure 3b). The second meris included the area between the rivers Strymon and Axios with Thessaloniki as capital. The third meris included the area of the old 'Lower Macedonia", which meant the area of Votiaia, Pieria, Amphaxitis, and Almopia, with Pella as capital and finally the forth meris covered the entire area of the "Upper Macedonia", the area between the mountains Vora and Vermion, with Pelagonia as capital. The councils of the several districts were assembled in these “capital” cities, where the magistrates elected, and the public money was deposited too (Livy 45, 29, 6-7):

In the historical works about the Roman Empire, Macedonia figures, together with Greece, as part of the Roman Empire, situated somewhere between the occidental provinces of the Balkan peninsula, and the oriental provinces, where Thrace was sometimes included. Roman Macedonia was presented as an area consisting of numerous cantons of rural population, which had no urban centres, and its organisation was mainly municipal. When the Romans occupied Macedonia, the hinterland was mainly a country of peasants and shepherds, and the Roman efforts to consolidate and develop a new system of municipal administration, based on the newly established colonies-urban centres, did not succeed in eliminating the old organisation of Macedonia, where the tribal organisation, here as well as in the regions of Illyria, Paionia, and Thrace, predominated (Jones 1966).

“…deinde in quattuor regiones dividi Macedoniam…capita regionum, ubi concilia fierent, primae regionis Amphipolim, secundae Thessalonicean, tertiae Pellam, quartae Pelagoniam fecit. eo concilia suae cuisque regionis indici, pecuniam conferri, ibi magistratus creari iussit.” This administrative system only lasted a few years until 148 B.C. when, after the revolt of Andriscus (Pseudophilip), Rome realised that the institution of indirect rule did not offer the security needed, as far as concerned the defence of the frontiers of the Empire against the barbarians. The most serious of all was the realisation that Rome could not afford to lose Macedonia: “the province of Macedonia had from the Roman standpoint a double task: to prevent the creation of a power which should be dangerous to the southern part of the Balkan peninsula and to provide a secure line of communication by land from the coast of the Adriatic to the northern Aegean” (Keil 1936, 566). It was then that Rome decided to transform the administrative system into a more centralised one by the incorporation of the four merides into a single Roman province, so that the Roman Senate could regulate effectively both the domestic and foreign affairs of that massive area through a governor. Thus, Macedonia became a unified Roman province (Provincia Macedonia) ruled by Roman proconsul, who was called pro consule or pro praetore within his province. A Quaestor Macedoniae, a Quaestor provinciae Macedoniae or a Quaestor pro praetore provinciae Macedoniae conducted the finances of the province. The Roman proconsul, responsible for the finances and their revenue, were based in the capital of the province. At the same time, the old institutions of local government continued to operate in the majority of the Macedonian cities and above all in the free cities, such as Amphipolis, Abdera, Aenus, and in the whole of the Upper Macedonia. The Via Egnatia was built almost immediately to serve direct transport to the area in case of any emergency (Strabo 7, 322); it followed a Macedonian highway for much of its route.

3.2.1.3 31 B.C.-A.D. 284 The victory of Octavian at the battle of Actium (31 B.C.) meant the end of the Roman Republic and the beginning of a new era, that of absolute monarchy. Octavian reorganised the Empire, established new colonies or renewed those already existing. In 4 A.D., he succeeded in adding new areas into the Roman Empire. Thus, three new provinces were created in the Balkans: Dalmatia, Moesia, and Thrace. At the same period, Macedonia became an inner province of the Roman Empire. The effects of this change were very positive for the life of Macedonia, especially in matters of its defensive policy, as the responsibility for its protection against enemy attacks remained with Rome. During the long period that followed, cities and villages were rebuilt, its population increased, and trade flourished. Merchants crowded in from all over the empire and especially from its eastern parts. The right time for the Roman Empire arrived to experience its greatest moments, the feeling of world domination, and the satisfaction of having the right to decide the destiny of the enslaved nations. In 27 B.C., under the Augustan reformation, the river Nestos became the eastern frontier of the Macedonian province (Figure 4a). The area between the rivers Nestos and Hebrus formed the Roman province of Thrace under the direction of a Roman procurator (Papazoglou 1988, 84). The province of Macedonia itself could be handed over to the Senate (Keil 1936, 567). With the creation of the province of Moesia in 15 A.D., the northern frontier of the Empire was pushed forward as far as the Danube. Rome desired then the unification of the whole the southern and eastern sections of the Balkan Peninsula under the control of one military command. Thus,

The new Roman province included, as well as Macedonia, Epirus and the coastline of Illyria, so that the Romans could secure their access to and from Italy and Rome. Two years later, a large part of mainland Greece was added to the Macedonian province, when the Achaean League lost its independence. Thessaloniki became the capital of this province, where the proconsul of the Macedonian province

8

the Aegean and the islands of Thasos, Samothace and Imbros, and to the west by the river Nestos. Within this extensive geographic region, the Romans founded the provinces of Upper and Lower Moesia, north of the Haemus and along the Danube from Belgrade to the mouth of the river, and Thracia, south of the Haemus and down to the Aegean (Avramea 1994, 135).

in 44 A.D., Thrace was included as a separate province into the Roman Empire. Macedonia stretched from Nestos to the Adriatic and Thessaly was separated from Achaea and added to Macedonia. The head of the Roman administration after 44 A.D. was a proconsul of praetorian rank, supported by a legate and a quaestor. The seat of the Roman government was Thessaloniki. The city of Beroea was the centre for the regular meetings of the representatives from the cities of the four merides (Keil 1936, 567).

The Romans retained the political organisation of the Greeks and their system of administration. Until the reign of Diocletian, the Greeks of Thrace retained their political institutions, and there was no direct administrative contact with the Romans, only indirect-links through the Roman governor of Moesia. The Thracian peninsula became the property of the emperor and was administered by the “Curator of Augustus”. In the early 2nd century A.D., after Trajan’s victories over the Dacians in the north, the entire territory of the Thracian tribes in Southeastern Europe was made an administrative unit and incorporated into the Empire, while the territory north of the Danube, where the Thracian tribes had just become subject to Rome, was made the province of Moesia. The administrative system of Thace did not change after the conquest. It remained centralised until the reign of Trajan. An imperial curator was appointed head of the province of Thrace, while a provincial curator was responsible for the economic affairs of the province. Both curatores were based in the city of Perinthos. The country was divided into strategiae, which were administered by a strategos, who was responsible to the Roman governor for his large district and took over the Thracian administrative system. Roman aristocrats could be appointed as strategoi, having at the same time some military duties. Each strategia consisted of the phyle, which, in turn, subsumed a number of vici. In addition to the cities and villages, there were some market towns, known with the name Emporia. “The population here comprised some two hundred prosperous landowners from the surrounding villages. At the head of the Emporium stands, not one of its inhabitants, but a councillor of the controlling city, with the title Toparch, who, on the nomination of the city council, is appointed by the governor, and its full powers extending also to the judicial functions which he has to discharge” (Keil 1936, 571).

3.2.1.4 A.D. 284A new division began in the reign of Diocletian (284-304 A.D.), and was completed by Constantine the Great (306-336 A.D.). According to the new division, the entire Roman Empire was separated into four Exarchates. The second of them was the Exarchate of Illyria, which was divided into two parts: Macedonia and Greece. Macedonia was further divided into two parts (Figure 4b). The first part included the coastal area between the rivers Peneios and Nestos and the whole area of Illyria, named "Macedonia Prima", and Thessaloniki was its capital. The second part included Paionia, Pelagonia, and the area as far as Dardania, named "Macedonia Secunda" or "Salutaris", and had the city of Stobi for capital. This division was preserved until the reign of Justinian. Later, when the Byzantine Empire was divided anew into 65 different provinces or Themes, Macedonia kept its old division with Thessaloniki as the capital, and continued being governed by a consul. 3.2.2

History of Thrace

3.2.2.1 168 B.C.-A.D. 46 After the battle of Pydna, Thrace, with the river Hebrus its eastern frontier became part of the newly expanded Roman Empire and belonged to First Meris of Macedonia. In 148 B.C., Thrace was incorporated into the Macedonian Province, under the indirect control of Rome. Things did not change with the creation of the Province of Asia in 129 B.C., and Thrace remained part of the Province of Macedonia. Between the years 42 and 27 B.C. Rome entrusted the governing of the Aegean coast of Thrace to the Thracian kings, who would be, also, responsible for the contacts between Rome and Asia (Polychronidou-Loukopoulou 1983, 494). This set-up lasted, even through the unstable years of the Mithridatic wars, at least until the reorganisation of the Eastern Provinces by Augustus in 27 B.C. Augustus restricted the territory belonging to the Province of Macedonia and brought its eastern frontier to the line between Aenus and Kypsela. However, no part of the remaining territory of Thrace beyond these frontiers was incorporated into the Province of Asia.

3.2.2.3 A.D. 98-Early Byzantine years Significant changes took place in the administrative organisation when Trajan (A.D. 98-117) ascended the imperial throne. After his great achievements in the lower Danubian region, his attempt to urbanise Thrace was quickened. They were completed in the reign of Hadrian (A.D. 117-138). During this period, a legate propraetor resumed the province’s administration, the old centralised system of government was abandoned and the local administration of the province passed to the city authorities. The strategiae were replaces by the cities and their territories. Thus, the final disappearance of the strategiae was commenced and completed by the radical reconstruction of the province by Hadrian.

3.2.2.2 A.D. 46-98 Thrace did not become a separate province of the Roman Empire until A.D. 46, with its transformation by Claudius, Emperor at that time. Its frontiers were defined to the north by the Danube, to the east by the Black Sea, the Thracian Bosporos, the Propontis and the Hellespont, to the south by

9

Πρώτης" ("First Meris of the Macedonian Koinon") (Lazaridis 1997).

Almost two centuries later, in A.D. 284, Diocletian changed the administrative system of the province again. Then, the province of Dioecesis Thracia was formed, including the whole area of the ancient Thrace that lay between the shores of the Aegean, the Propontis and the river Danube. The new province was divided further into six districts: Moesia Inferior, which extended between the river Istros and Mount Hamus, with its capital at Marcianoepolis, Scythia, on the northeast shore of Euxinus Pontus, with its capital at Philippopolis, Haemimontus, which streched from the east sector of Thrace to the Black Sea, with its capital at Adrianopolis, Rhodope, in the southern section, with its capital at Ainos, and Europa, with its capital at Heracleia. A civilian administrator in each province, the vicarius, and a military in some provinces, the dux, were the twelve άρχοντες who governed the provinces under the orders of the consulares in the provinces of Europa and Thracia, and the praesides in the remaining provinces (Avramea 1994, 136137). 3.3

According to Hatzfeld (1919), a populous community of Roman citizens had already appeared in Amphipolis during the period of the Roman Republic. The presence of a large number of Roman or Italian settlers in the city would be the prerequisite for the formation of such a community, whose joint economic interests and preferential position enabled their establishment as an autonomous union. The members of this community (consistentes) were either permanent inhabitants of the city or merchants occasionally living in the city (negotiatores), because their activities demanded it. In 148 B.C., after the revolt of Andriskos, Amphipolis continued to developed into a powerful city. According to Pliny (Pliny IV, 38), the city was announced free (Amphipolis liberum), and kept its autonomy. The routing of the Via Egnatia through the city and its suburbs promoted its trade and prosperity, and helped it to flourish as a commercial centre. Both the ancient sources and the archaeological evidence show that Amphipolis flourished until the final years of the Roman Empire.

History of the sites selected for study

3.3.1 Amphipolis (Figure 7) Human activity from the prehistoric period is located at Hill 133, near the classical Amphipolis. Sometime in the 6th century B.C., Ionians founded a colony in the area which was named "Εννέα Οδοί" (meaning Nine Roads). This colony was located either on Hill 133 or in the exact area where the city of Amphipolis later was built. This colony seemed to have been in close relation with Thracian tribes that lived nearby. In 437/6 B.C., the Athenians, with General Hagnon, son of Nicias, founded a new colony in this area (Thucydides, History, 4, 102). Its population was mixed, including Athenians and Ionian settlers from neighbouring cities. The Spartan General Brasidas occupied the city in 424 B.C. in order to distract the attention and limit the power of Athens. In the first decade of the Peloponnesian War, the Athenians lost any chance to regain the city from the Spartans in the well-known battle of Amphipolis, in 422 B.C. After the peace of Nikias in 421 B.C. the city could return to Athens, but despite all the Athenian attempts to recapture Amphipolis, it seemed to have been free until the years of the Macedonian domination. In 357 B.C. it became part of the Macedonian kingdom, developing into a major Macedonian city. For the Macedonians, Amphipolis was the base from which they launched their expeditions into Thrace. The city became a strong military, economic and cosmopolitan centre. During Hellenistic times, it became the centre for Macedonian exploitation of the mines of mountain Pangaion, and centre for commerce with the Aegean and Thracian regions (Papazoglou 1988, 392).

In the mid-1st century B.C. a great devastation overtook the city in the form of incursions of Thracian tribes, who destroyed its buildings. Lazaridis (1997, 20) and Bakalakis (1940, 5-32) both believed that such an incident was a certainty, due to the large numbers of Thracian names and graffiti incised on the architectural remains, which were later reused to construct a ford across the Strymon river, in the area where the Lion of Amphipolis stands. Geographically, Amphipolis was always the place where the Roman forces met the barbarians, and it must have experienced frequent attacks and suffered from numerous destructive attempts. Although it was one of the most important cities of the Macedonian Province, the literary sources found, referring to the history of the city during the Roman period, are rare, contradictory and rather obscure. Some of them give the impression that during the Roman period, Amphipolis was city in decline, which had nothing to offer to the Roman Empire. Antipatros from Thessaloniki was one of those who wrote about such misfortunes of the city (Antipatros, Anth. Pal. VII, 705). Yet, in passages by other authors, Amphipolis was presented as a flourishing city of great strategic importance for the Roman Empire. Such mention was given in a passage written by Memnon (Memnon, F GrH 434, frag. 22 (32,12)), which referred to the conquest of the city, by the general of Mithridates, Taxilles, in 87/86 B.C., in his effort to weaken the Roman forces. Caesar, also, noted that Pompey stopped in Amphipolis in order to find some financial assistance before he continued to Pharsala: “ipse ad ancoram unam noctem constitit et vocatis ad se Amphipoli hospidipus et pecunia ad necessarios sumptus corrogata, cognito Ceasaris adventu, ex eo loco discessit…” (Caesar, b. civ. III, 102, 4). Appian mentioned that Marcus Antonius was planning to make

After 168 B.C. and with the division of Macedonia into four districts, Amphipolis became the capital of the First Meris. Therefore, it held an important position as a trade centre and was the only city that kept the right of minting its own coins. Some of these coins bore the inscription "Μακεδόνων

10

Amphipolis his military and expeditionary base, when he was ordered to lead his troops from the West to the Macedonian Province to prepare for the imminent battle. The fact that the city kept its right of minting coins throughout the Republican times, and that it figured as a station along the Via Egnatia in every one of its milestones found so far, backs up the belief that Amphipolis was a powerful city in Roman times (Papazoglou 1988, 394). The inscribed stelae of a negotiator ad Roma ex horreis Cornific(ianis) and of a σωματέμπορος lead towards the same conclusion, which are evidence of Amphipolis as a centre for the trade in the region (Papazoglou 1988, 395).

3.3.2 Philippi (Figure 13) The history of the settlement of Philippi began in 360/359 B.C., when colonists from Thasos, led by the exiled Athenian politician Kallistratos, founded the first small city. It was called Krenides, a name given, according to Appian, because of the plentiful springs around the hill. Nothing is known of the first settlement except that there may have been a sanctuary of Apollo Komaios and Artemis at that time. The Thasian colony enjoyed its independence for only four years. In 356 B.C. King Philip II of Macedon helped the Krenidaians against the neighbouring Thracians, brought Macedonian settlers into the city and gave it his name: “και πόλις Φίλιπποι τό παλαιόν Κρηνίδες. τοις δε Κρηνίταις πολεμουμένοις υπό Θρακών βοηθήσας ο Φίλιππος Φιλίππους ονόμασεν” (Papazoglou 1988, 406, see note 153). Throughout the period of the Macedonian domination, Philippi was one of the principal cities of the Macedonian kingdom.

Other inscriptions indicate a short period of decline for the city during the last years of the Republic times; after that, the city was restored by Augustus (Papazoglou 1988, 393). The Hellenistic Gymnasium was one of the most important recent discoveries. It was burnt down during the early Imperial period, but rebuilt and reused in later times (Papazoglou 1988, 393). This Gymnasium, and the later Roman necropolis, which was vastly expanded compared to that one of the Classical period, are evidence of the size and glory of the city during this period.

We have only a little information about the life of the colony during the Hellenistic and Republican periods. We learn from Strabo that the city was very small: “κατοικίαν μικρά” (Strabo, Geogr., VII, 331, frag. 41). This was the usual case in this period in rural Macedonia (Rostovtzeff 1926, 234 and 561, note 92). Still Appian (Appian, b. civ. IV, 106) described the city of Philippi as the most advantageous place in the area, which could connect Europe and Asia: “δίοδος ήν ες τή Ασίαν τε καί Ευρώπην καθάπερ πύλαι”. The literary sources became rich and informative only after the famous battle of Philippi.

Information from literary sources, concerning Amphipolis’ administrative organisation during the Imperial times, is again scarce. We can say hypothetically that it should have been similar to the rest of the Macedonians’ cities. An inscription gives us a little information about some of the politarches that were in charge during the Republican period (Papazoglou 1988, 395, see note 75).

“In 42 B.C., Octavian and Antony, members of the triumvirate that had assumed power in Rome after the assassination of Julius Caesar, confronted the forces of Cassius and Brutus, who had murdered Caesar in March 44 B.C. in defence of the Roman Republic, at Philippi. The final battle was fought in the marshy plain outside the west hill of Philippi. Victory in the second and final battle, fought on 23 October, 42 B.C., went to Antony and Octavian. The battle of Philippi in 42 B.C. marked the end of the Roman Republic. Some ten years later, Octavian defeated Antony at the battle of Actium in 31 B.C. and, having conquered the last of the Hellenistic kingdoms, that of Cleopatra in Egypt, established his monarchical rule in Rome” (Koukouli-Chrysanthaki and Bakirtzis 1995, 62-65).

From the Imperial period on, Amphipolis’ territory expanded and covered a rather large area. The Amphipolitian territory then included the region from River Strymon in the West to the frontiers of the territory of the colony of Philippi in the East, and from the Strymon gulf up to lake Tachinos. In 49/50 A.D., St Paul with his companion passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia on his way from Philippi to Thessaloniki: “Διοδεύσαντες δέ τήν Αμφίπολιν καί Απολλωνίαν ήλθον εις Θεσσαλονίκην” (Acts of the Apostles 17, 1). The only information we have referring to Amphipolis during the last years of the Roman Empire comes from Hierokles (Hierokles 640, 2). With the spread of Christianity, the city became the seat of a bishopric. We do not know with accuracy when this happened, but later sources are very general in information about the Early Christian city. Amphipolis, as the seat of a bishopric, is mentioned in the literature up until 692 A.D. (Zikos 1989, 6); several fine basilicas have been found as proof of the city’s glory during the Early Byzantine years. After that, Serres became the centre for the region. Amphipolis was abandoned in the 9th century, and its inhabitants seemed to have moved closer to the sea, where a new city was founded, known as Chrysoupolis.

After their victory in 42 B.C., Antony and Octavian appreciating the strategic importance of the city and its rich natural resources, decided to found here a colony and to install a part of their army: “οι δέ Φίλιπποι Κρηνίδες εκαλούντο πρότερον, κατοικία μικρά· ηυξήθη δέ μετά τήν περί Βρούτον καί Κάσσιον ήτταν (Strabo, Geogr., VII, 331, frag. 41). The new colony was named Colonia Victrix Philippensium by its founders (Collart 1937, 240). The plain of Philippi was vast and extremely fertile, near roads leading to the sea, with Neapolis serving as its port, and very close to the rich island of Thasos. The city itself, and especially its acropolis, was well protected against barbarian raids thanks

11

character of the city came back to life, and Philippi developed into an important centre of Christianity. The big basilical churches of the 5th century A.D. found in the city are the proof of this glory. It lived almost for three centuries in particular wealth, until the 7th century A.D., when Slav incursions hastened the city’s decline. In Byzantine times the city was nothing more than a fortress. From the 14th until the 15th century A.D. it suffered from Ottoman attacks. By the end, there was nothing else but ruins to remind its visitors from the 15th to the 19th centuries of its bygone glory.

to the geography of the region. Thus, some years after his final victory in the battle of Actium in 31 B.C., Octavian reorganised the colony and renamed it Colonia Iulia Philippensis (Collart 1937, 241). Later, in 27 A.D., Augustus reinforced the Roman colony of Philippi by installing Italian veterans (Dio Cassius, Hist. Rom., LI, 4, 6) not only in the city of Philippi, but in its entire territory (Collart 1937, 275), whom he helped financially or by donating some land of the colony’s territory: “…και αυτών ο Καίσαρ τοις μεν άλλοις χρήματα έδωκε, τοις δέ διά παντός αυτω συστρατεύσασι καί γην προσκατένειμε” (Dio Cassius, Hist. Rom., LI, 4,5). Collart (1937, 235) believes that this was a major operation, that a very large number of Italians was moved to Philippi, and that we must think of it as a re-foundation of the colony more than a simple reinforcement. Greek remained the language in everyday use, but, in these years, the official language of the colony was Latin. This did not last for very long, as Greek replaced gradually Latin and became the only language in use by the years of the military anarchy in the 3rd century A.D., and by the end of Roman rule in the area with the transfer of the Empire’s capital from Rome to Byzantium (Collart 1937, 312-315). After 27 A.D., the colony was officially named Colonia Iulia Augusta Philippensis, a term that lasted until the middle of the 3rd century (Gaebler 1926, 114). The name of the colony was changed, once again, in 260 A.D., by Gallienus into Colonia Philippensium (Collart 1937, 241). The Via Egnatia, the great Roman highway, passed within the city walls, offering great possibilities to its further economic development.

3.3.3 Kepia (Figure 20) Very little is known about the area, where the sanctuary of Hero Avloneites was found, during the Roman period. The area of the modern village of Kepia belonged to the first meris of the Macedonian province after its formation in B.C. 168. After the foundation of the Roman colony of Philippi, Kepia was included in Philippi’s territory. It was known by the name “Aulonitai”, one of the vici belonged to this territory (Papazoglou 1988, 411). Offerings from inhabitants of Philippi to the Hero, found in his sanctuary, are evidence of close links between the two regions. The name, probably, derived from the word “Αυλών”, that means passage. Consequently, the Hero “Αυλωνείτης” was the protector of the people who wanted to enter the plain of Drama coming from the Pieria plain. The area kept its importance as a passage in the Byzantine period. Its sacred character was recognised once again, and a basilica was built very close to the sanctuary of the Hero Avloneites (Bakirtzis 1988).

The territory of the colony of Philippi, the res publica coloniae Philippensium (Papazoglou 1988, 412), was defined by the villages of Prosotsani and Platania to the North, by the river Nestos and the village of Akontisma to the East, the territory of Amphipolis to the West, and Mountain Symbolo to the South (Figure 5). The Roman colony was basically rural and its inhabitants were dispersed in this vast territory, which was constituted of numerous villages and some vici (cities). Inscriptions referring to these vici are numerous and informative. These vici were mainly pre-existent villages and not created by the Romans or occupied by a pure Roman population. According to Collart (1937, 262), who studied numerous inscriptions from Philippi, the colony had the usual municipal organisation as the other Roman colonies elsewhere, and was ruled by the normal types of magistrates: quaestores, aediles, duumvirii, quinquennales. In the 2nd century, the municipal administration was under the control of a curator rei publicae.

3.3.4 Abdera (Figure 22) From the Archaic period down to the Roman era, Abdera was among the most important cities in Thrace, and a powerful trading centre in the north Aegean. The foundation of the city could be dated as early as in B.C. 656. In this year, colonists from Clazomenae with their leader, Timesias, arrived in the area and lived there for at least half a century, until the Thracians destroyed their colony. In B.C. 545, refugees from the city of Teos, fleeing the Persian enslavement, travelled towards the Thracian coast, defeated the natives, and founded a new colony in the area (Jones 1937, 2). The city was mentioned by Strabo as “καλή Τηίων αποικία” (Strabo, XIV, 644), reference that gives us vital information about its founders and the date of its foundation. Diodoros Siculus (Diodorus Siculus, XIII, 27, 2) gives us some additional information about the status of the city at the end of the 5th century B.C., by saying that in these years Abdera was a city among the “δυνατωτάταις …των επί Θράκης”.

In Imperial times, Philippi was one of the most important cities in Macedonia, and belonged to the province of Macedonia Prima (Hier. 640, 1). Yet a third chapter in the history of Philippi was ushered in with the coming of St. Paul in 49 A.D. and the establishment of the first Christian community in Europe. During the 2nd and 3rd century A.D., large and splendid buildings were built, indicating a period of particular glory. With the transfer of the Empire’s capital to Byzantium, a new era began for Philippi. The Hellenic

The city flourished during the Classical Period. According to Jones “these three cities (Abdera, Maronea, and Aenus) all achieved a considerable degree of prosperity by the fifth century, as the scale of their contribution to the Delian confederacy shows” (Jones 1937, 2). In B.C. 350, Abdera

12

the Roman domination in the area. Consequently, the territories of Abdera and Aenus not only did not benefit in the least from this policy, but they went into decline, as new colonies appeared very close to them, those of Topiros and Trajanoupolis, which attracted Rome’s attention, and benefited by being situated near the Via Egnatia (Jones 1971, 18).

became one of the cities of the Macedonian State, and remained such until B.C. 197, when the Roman General, Lucius Sertinius, liberated the Thracian cities after the battle at Kynos Kephalae. After the occupation of Macedonia and Thrace by the Romans and their transformation into Roman provinces, Abdera remained a free city, along with two other cities of the Thracian seaboard, the cities of Maronea and Aenus (Pliny, Natural Histories 4.2.42; Diodorus Siculus, XXXI 8.8). The free status of Abdera was endangered once when, in 166 B.C., Cotys, king of Thrace, occupied the city, but the Roman senate soon managed to emancipate it (Pliny, Natural Histories 4.2.42; Diodorus Siculus, XXXI 8.8). Unfortunately for Abdera, Rome concluded the agreement with Cotys by giving him part of the territory of the city, and specifically the land located by river Nestos. Ambassadors from Teos went to Rome to help the people of Abdera to gain back its “πάτριον χώρα” (the land of their fathers), but without success (Chrysanthaki 1995, 151).

In 123-124 (Weber 1907, 590-594) or in 131-132 (Bakalakis 1937, 30), Hadrian’s visit to the Thracian coast provided the occasion for the population of Abdera to complain to the emperor about the reduction of their territory since 166 B.C. The philhellenism of the emperor had very positive results for the city of Abdera. Hadrian ordered some changes in the area, and the territory of Abdera was again extended as far as the river Nestos. Thus, Hadrian gave back to the Abderitians the land that the Thracian king, Cotys, had designs on in 166 B.C. Abdera dedicated two honorary inscriptions (Bakalakis 1937, 24-30, nos. 7-8) to Hadrian for his help. He became the protector of the frontiers of their territory, obtained the name “Ζεύς Εφόριος”, and was after him that Abdera was called “Αδριανέων Αβδηρειτών πόλις”. Abdera was the only place where Hadrian was called “Ζεύς Εφόριος” (Robert 1938, 192, note 3).

The free cities of the Aegean coast in Thrace remained unaffected by either the direct control of Rome or the province of Macedonia, their territories were not included in any of the strategies into which Thrace was divided, and they did not become part of the province of Thrace in 46 A.D. For all these years, they kept their own administration and they did not pay any taxes to the Romans. The Romans could only control the area through the Thracian kings, information that we gain from two inscriptions, one found near the modern city of Xanthi, the other in Maronea, both in honour of Rhoimetalkes III (Loukopoulou-Polychronidou 1987, 89-91). Abdera, also, continued to mint its own coins, mainly bronze ones. In common with the rest of the Greek cities of the Thracian coastline, Abdera did not belong to any local administrative organisation (Picard 1987, 79). The proconsul of Macedonia did not have any power in the region that extended beyond the line of the river Nestos.

Unfortunately, we lack sufficient epigraphic sources dated after the period of Hadrian, and none of those that were found revealed any information on the history of the city. In like manner, the urban organisation cannot be well defined, and it is obvious that Abdera in this period was an insignificant centre for the Empire, in comparison with Thasos. The only recognisable and informative remains of the city’s activities for this period were its coins. Abdera’s minting had stopped with the appearance of Mithridates in the region, in 80 B.C. (Picard 1987, 87). It resumed with Trajan (A.D. 14-37) and lasted until the years of Antoninus Pius (A.D. 138-161) (Struck 1908, 18-19). Its coin minting was restricted to the production of small bronze coins that circulated only in the city boundaries. They seemed to serve only the daily exchanges between locals. In comparison with the cities of Thasos and Maronea, which were minting Attic style Tetradrachms, Abdera was a small and powerless city in the Thracian province (Picard 1987, 87).

During the 2nd century B.C. things changed with the arrival of numerous groups of Italian negotiatores in the Greek cities in the area, who played an important political role (Rostovtseff 1989, 537-540). Two of those negotiatores were Gaius Apustius, son of Marcus, and his son, Publius Apustius, who were installed in Thessaloniki and involved in the affairs of Abdera (Chrysanthaki 1995, 147). They benefited the city financially, strengthened the peace in the area after the Third Macedonian War and helped it against Cotys’ pretensions. The inscriptions found in the area mentioned other Italian groups and families who helped the city through its financial and political difficulties. Another known Italian family who lived in Abdera was that of the Valii (Avezou and Picard 1913, 124-125, 129-131).

As we said before, Abdera was not mentioned again in any of the epigraphic documents after Hadrian, and despite the advantageous conditions of being a free city, it fell into decline and became a small and rather insignificant city by the end of the Roman period. The construction of the most important arterial road of the Roman Empire, the Via Egnatia, far away from the city, and the formation of numerous marshes by the river Nestos, to the west of the city, both contributed to its decay. For all that, the pottery, found during the excavation researches in the city, proves that it maintained its trading contacts with important centres of the Roman world, especially the coastline of Asia Minor, where its old Metropoleis were situated.

In 114 A.D., Trajan reorganised the Thracian province, and, for strategic reasons, transformed it into a Roman province under the control of a praetor. According to this new line of action, Trajan established new colonies in order to reinforce

13

with Mithridates, paraded his power before Thracians, and decreed the population of the island of Thasos amicus et socius. These two terms, although apparently very significant, at that period did not necessarily suppose either actual alliance or some especially favourable treatment of Thasos by Rome. After the termination of the Mithridatic wars, Thasos found herself into a very privileged situation once again. Its territory expanded and came to include the islands of Skiathos and Peparethos.

In early Byzantine years, the remaining population of Abdera moved to the south of the old city, and created a small settlement, which was known with the name Polystylon. It was used as a seaport by the city and the wider area of Xanthi. The finds from Polystylon’s cemetery attest to the life of the settlement during the 9th and10th centuries A.D. (Triantaphyllos 1988, 31). 3.3.5 Thasos (Figure 28) The earliest reference about the island of Thasos comes from Herodotus in the passage where he wrote about early Phoenician settlements Wynne-Thomas (1978).

After 42 B.C., Thasos risked its privileges, as a result of supporting Cassius and Brutus during the battle of Philippi. Cassius, in addition, was buried honourably in Thasos. Hence, Thasos faced the danger of being punished by the victors, Antony and Octavian, not only by losing its economic advantages and its territories on the mainland, but also by losing its political status (Duvant and Pouilloux 1958, 57). The rapid development of the colony of Philippi, especially after the stabilisation of the Roman power in the area with the final victory of Octavian at Actium in 31 B.C., was a serious threat to the island’s prosperity and future. Fortunately for Thasos, the uncertainty lasted only for a few years. Augustus restored Thasos’ privileges and glory, and placed it again amongst the most favoured cities of the Roman Empire.

The earliest known and archaeologically proved settlement took place in Thasos in the 7th century B.C. Incited by an Oracle from Delphi, a group of people from Paros under the leadership of Telesikles sailed to this island in the north Aegean and founded the colony that was destined to become a strong power for many centuries. Wynne-Thomas (1978, 13) commented that “in a hundred years from this date Thasos became the capital city of the area, with many colonies on the mainland, great wealth from gold-mines and other sources, and a very considerable trade with both the east and the west”. Thasos was situated in a very strategic position in the northern Aegean, and attracted from an early date Rome’s interest. Located near the Thracian coast, near the mouth of both Nestos and Strymon rivers, only three days away by ship from Dardanelles, that led to the Black Sea, and at the head of the Aegean Sea, Thasos could offer great possibilities for development to the Roman Empire, and could serve as a vital base for military and trading needs. Consequently, from the beginning of the 2nd century B.C., the island of Thasos became independent of the Kingdom of Macedonia, under the protection of Rome. It is not very clear if Thasos became civitas libera or civitas foederata. Duvant and Pouilloux, however, believed that the distinction between the two was not significant and the difference was only theoretical (1958, 57, note 3).

Thasos’ political status remained a mystery throughout the Roman period. Pliny did not clarify this aspect in his work, referring to Thasos either as civitas libera or as civitas foedera. One century later, the geographer Ptolemy linked the island with the province of Thrace and called it civitas libera. The Thasian coins that were found in the Balkans, and even as far as central Europe and southern Russia, are evidence of the island’s strong trade and prosperity during the 1st century B.C. and the 1st century A.D. In the second half of the 1st century B.C., Augustus decreed Thasos a civitas libera. Thasians devoted many of their temples to the emperor-benefactor, and, in order to thank him for his help, made him equal to Θεός (Duvant and Pouilloux 1958, 61). Under the protection of Rome once again the island flourished and became one of the leading traders in the Aegean region. This was proved by inscriptions found in the city (Duvant and Pouilloux 1958).

The creation of the province of Macedonia and especially the closing down of its mines in 148 B.C. affected very positively the island. It was an ideal opportunity for Thasos to develop its trade and economy even further, now that its “centuries old” competitor was experiencing limitations in its economic activities, imposed by Rome.

Under the rule of Hadrian, Thasos was neither dependent on Thrace any more nor administrated by Thrace’s governor. In fact, an inscription, dated in the years of Trajan, was dedicated by the Thasians to a legatus Augusti pro praetore, who replaced the representative of the Thracian governor in the island. More inscriptions, especially on tombstones, witnessed the flourishing economy of the island until the end of the 2nd century A.D.; the continuation of the same situation in the 3rd and 4th centuries is reflected by sculptures and buildings of considerable size in the city of Thasos. The triumphal arch dedicated to Caracalla, dated between 213-217 A.D., is one of the best known examples of these monumental structures.

The literary sources concerning the history of the island are rather scarce for the period from the creation of the province of Macedonia until the battle of Philippi. During this period, Rome had protected the island on numerous occasions against attacks from its permanent enemies, the Thracians. Rome, with Athens’ assistance, helped Thasos against Mithridates in 88 B.C. and Ariarath in 87 B.C. The result of this expedition was that Thasos’ territory on the mainland suffered great devastation, and gave the opportunity to Thracians to profit from it. In 86-85 B.C., Sulla made peace

14

It is not very clear when Christianity spread and became established in the island. The building of basilicas in the city of Thasos was reported with certainty for the first time in literary documents dated to the 4th century A.D. (Delvoye 1951, 164). Being close to the centre of Christianity at Philippi, was definitely a determining factor for Thasos’ religious development. St Paul appears to have visited the island on his return from Alexandria Troas to Neapolis (Acts of the Apostles, 16, 11; Lemerle 1945, 1-68). During the Byzantine period, Thasos was no longer the power it used to be but it continued to play the role of a refuge for those unsettled and dangerous periods of time for the mainland.

15

4

4.2 Background, Purpose and Methods used in this study It is the first time that this pottery, or any other ceramic assemblage from the area, has been analysed and presented in detail. Until now, the only information came through the preliminary reports from the excavators in publications such as the “Αρχαιολογικό Δελτίο”, “Bulletin de Correspondance Française”, or in publications of conferences such as “Το Αρχαιολογικό Έργο στη Μακεδονία και Θράκη”. These studies are general and not detailed, as they give summary information about the excavation as a whole and the totality of the finds, including the ceramic assemblages. The lack of any previous publications of the Roman pottery of the area that could serve as the basis for further studies has become especially obvious in recent years and caused serious difficulties during the course of the present research.

METHODOLOGY OF THE PRESENT STUDY

4.1 Field methods and Excavation data The present study deals with ceramic assemblages found during excavations that took place in the years 1975-1997. I did not have the chance to participate in any of them. Consequently, at the beginning of my research, I had to learn to understand several recording techniques and ways of representing archaeological data and produce the most appropriate system for working with disparate information. This was the only way of summarising information and producing a homogeneous database, and the only practice that could lead to the accurate understanding of the data and the efficient presentation of the research’s results. In other words, I had to read the preliminary excavation records that were given to me very kindly by the excavators, and to recreate the whole process of excavating the particular buildings at the five archaeological sites, trying to identify and clearly separate the archaeological contexts, including the finds in them. This was the first step I had to follow in order to create an essential guide for further study and pottery recording.

However, the selection of these five sites for study turned out to be fortunate, since the Sanctuary of the Hero Avloneites at Kepia is mainly a centre of local products, while at the other sites the local products coexist with the imports. This is particularly helpful as it gives us a very first impression of the nature of the pottery local to this area.

Fortunately, similar excavating methods have been followed in all sites. During excavation, the unit of collection was the bag, labelled and defined by the excavator according to its field context. Bags were numbered consecutively in each site, beginning with the number 1. Notes about the contents of each bag were kept in the excavation’s notes, written during excavation. The unit of context was the deposit. This was again distinguished by the excavator according to the differences in the nature of the soil, or by obvious changes in the buildings and spaces. Usually every deposit produced more than one bag of finds, which could include pottery, bones, and other material. Special artefacts worthy of individual study, such as whole vessels, lamps, coins, were kept aside to be given individual numbers and to be studied separately. The bags were collected at the end of the excavation day and taken to the storeroom where it would be kept until the appropriate time for washing, recording, categorising and final storage.

So far, there are no excavated Roman stratified deposits, such as kilns, filled wells or cisterns either in the five sites or elsewhere in north-eastern Greece. The majority of the excavated Roman sites in this area were dated by dated coins and datable lamps, which could give some help in establishing a pottery sequence. Only a few vessels were found intact, the majority of the pottery found was fragmentary, and only a few pots were found complete or could be restored. Therefore, referring potsherds to whole and known shapes could not always be achieved and the results are sometimes open to question. There were, though, numerous cases of fragments that could give complete profiles, be related to complete vessel shapes and identified successfully. In this study, I decided to include the total amount of pottery sherds from the excavated areas in order to reduce the risk of mistaken results as much as possible and obtain some quantitative information for comparative purposes. All kept ceramic material is included in this study: complete vessels, both fine and coarse, complete profiles, distinctive sherds like rims and bases, and fragments of imported and local wares.

During cleaning and processing, each bag was kept separate. The excavator then roughly classified the different kinds of pottery, such as cooking ware, amphorae, fine ware, putting the different groups into different bags, but keeping always the initial unit of collection. Thus, the initial bag could contain different smaller bags with the divided kinds of pottery. Some brief description of the pottery contained in each bag could, then, be added in the field record book. When the excavation session was completed, the excavator recorded impressions about architectural finds and artefacts in the field book, and a general preliminary account would be published.

There are only a few publications dealing with pottery from dated deposits at other sites in the wider area of the Balkans that could help in providing a chronology for the local pottery from the five sites. I decided to compare the fine pottery found in the five sites with pottery from Stobi because this was the only complete published study on Roman pottery from the wider area of the Balkans so far; in addition, it was unique, for it presented quantitative data that would permit valuable comparisons. In order to complete the research, I felt that I needed a second site for comparisons. I chose Berenice as it was a well-structured publication that offered me the information I needed for this purpose (see

16

stands for “Museum of Abdera”, followed by the Museum catalogue’s number.

Figure 6, where these sites are illustrated). Comparisons with Corinth and the Athenian Agora, which appear to be the most appropriate for this study, were not carried out, either because the publications were old or because they did not give any quantitative information. The publication from Nicopolis ad Istrum was another source I could refer to. Yet, only a small amount of the pottery found at Nicopolis ad Istrum seemed to be of the same kind or have similar attributes to those from Eastern Macedonia and Thrace. The most important site for comparisons should be Thessaloniki, as research in the Roman part of the city is making great progress in recent years and many dated deposits have been found, such as in the city’s agora (Adam-Veleni 1996), but the ceramic material has not yet been published in detail. As a result of the above, and in order to establish a chronology for the coarse pottery from the five sites, I had to rely on those deposits which contained coins, lamps and imported pottery with well-established chronologies, and on analogies with pottery published from other neighbouring parts of the Roman world.

The studied pottery sherds have, also, been illustrated by me for the purposes of this presentation. From each group of pottery characteristic examples have been given, which can be found at the end of the study. The numbers that appear next to the drawings correspond to the numbers in the catalogues that can be found in chapters 6 and 7. Thus, the drawing with number “43.” is the sherd 43. in the catalogue. Tables 1, 2 and 3 give examples of the pottery recording sheets I created and used for the purposes of this study. Tables 1 and 2 illustrate the sheets used for the recording of the fine and coarse pottery from the sites of Amphipolis, Abdera, Philippi and Thasos, and Table 3 is an example of the sheets used for the recording of the pottery from the sanctuary of Hero Avloneites at Kepia. I used different sheets for the Sanctuary because this was the material that was firstly studied for the purposes of this study. In the later stages of the research, the nature of the pottery found in the other sites imposed changes to the recording sheets. The added fields were not relevant to the pottery already recorded from the Sanctuary as this was of coarse nature. The improved recording sheets were designed in accordance with the database layout that was created for the detailed recording and filing of the pottery sherds. In a second stage and when the research has advanced, this database was used for quantitative and comparative purposes and for the creation of the charts in Chapter 8.

The methodology of the present study was based on the following stages: a. b. c. d. e. f. g.

detailed study of the excavation records, kept by the excavators during the excavation, recreation of the stratigraphy, in which the finds were included, recording of the entirety of the ceramic finds from the excavations, classification of the pottery based on fabric, shape, and decoration, selection of the pottery from the most important stratigraphical layers, such as the destruction levels, for further research, drawing, and photography, identification of these finds and creation of a typology for the vessels without parallels elsewhere, incorporation of the new information into that already known from other Roman sites in the Mediterranean area.

The descriptive terms in this study are based on those used in several publication of Roman pottery, including the publication of the pottery from the Athenian Agora, and the book of J.W. Hayes Late Roman Pottery.

The format of the identification numbers that were given to each sherd is composed of: the name of the site where it was found, the number of the bag, in which the excavators placed the sherd during excavations (reflecting the location of each group), and a consecutive identification number, given to the sherds during the pottery recording. Thus, the sherd with identification number “Amphipolis 04/15” is a sherd found in Amphipolis, in bag No. 4, and the fifteenth sherd I recorded from that bag. The majority of the coarse pottery sherds are prefixed with the abbreviation “co” at the end of the identification number (e.g. “Amphipolis 04/15/co”). Finally, some of the sherds of fine pottery presented here have been selected for display in the newly established Museum at Abdera. I kept the identification numbers that other archaeologists gave earlier to these sherds. The format of the identification numbers of these sherds is “MA”, which

17

5

tomb, "Macedonian" tomb 2, was discovered in 1961, further to the south. After excavating the cemetery, D. Lazaridis turned to the investigation of the city (Lazaridis 1972).

THE EXCAVATIONS AND THE DEPOSITS

The information presented in this chapter derives from the excavators’ field notebooks and their published articles in the main Greek archaeological journals, such as Τα Πρακτικά της Αρχαιολογικής Εταιρείας, Το Αρχαιολογικό Δελτίο, and Το Αρχαιολογικό Έργο στη Μακεδονία και Θράκη, as well as the Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique for the excavation of the French School in Thasos.

At the same time with and after Lazaridis, archaeological research, mainly conducted by the archaeologists of the Ephorate of Kavala, discovered the city walls, estimating the size of the walled city, as well as many of the buildings of the city. The map in Figure 7 shows the principal buildings discovered, which are: the building complex of the Classical period (No. 2), the long wall (No. 3), the Thesmophorion (No. 4), the Byzantine tower (No. 5), the ancient bridge, one of the very rare examples of surviving bridge-works in Northern Greece (No. 6), the Sanctuary of Clio (No. 7), the Sanctuary of Attis (No. 8), the inner fortification wall (No. 9), the Classical house (No. 10), the Early Christian monuments (No. 13), the Hellenistic house, with its very famous mural paintings (No. 14), and the Hellenistic Gymnasium (No. 15) (map taken from Lazaridis 1990).

The excavators’ plans have been used with some additions and modifications that I considered necessary for the accurate description of the data. These additions and modifications can be found at the end of this study in Appendix C. Also, based on the excavators’ information, I created the Harris Matrix diagrams used in this chapter. Following the principles of archaeological stratigraphy, as described by Harris (1979), I was able to transform the lengthy excavators’ reports into very helpful and meaningful diagrams that guided my study and helped me to organise, record, and analyse the ceramic finds. The stratigraphic units of all of the five sites have been numbered individually and sequentially by me for the purposes of this study. I preferred to keep the same number format, and, where possible, the same number for these units, as the number format of the bags into which the finds were placed by the excavators during the excavation. These numbers became, also, the prefixes for the pottery sherds during the pottery recording as I was trying to find a way for their easy identification and their correlation with the deposits.

Remains from the Roman phase of the city have been found, proof of its continuity in the centuries after the glorious Hellenistic period. Alterations to the city walls have been found in several places. A large part of the Roman West Wall was found inside the Classical city (No. 11). This find indicated the reduction of the size of the city during Roman times. It is noticeable that architectural elements have been taken from earlier buildings during its construction. Traces of another large building became noticeable during the excavation of the West Wall. Although it remains unexcavated so far, it is referred to as a public building from the elaborate architectural elements and the nature of its construction.

I made use of the non-ceramic finds, such as coins, lamps, sculptures, and inscriptions, and the excavators’ preliminary assessment to achieve an initial date for the deposits. After the pottery recording was completed, the identifiable imported fine pottery, which often provides us with accurate dates, has also been given equal if not greater importance for dating purposes.

Another very important find was the South Wall with its gate (known as Gate D, Figure 7). Gate D belonged originally to the Classical wall, but, after a large number of modifications that raised the level of the ground by almost three metres, became a vital part of the city’s fortification during the Roman times. Gate D was of great significance for the city. The Via Egnatia led straight to this gate; in these years, this must have become the city’s main entrance. Two marble statue-bases, bearing honorary inscriptions, were found outside the South Wall, to the right and left of the Gate D. One of them was dedicated to the deified Augustus, who is called saviour and founder of the city, and the other one to Lucius Calpurnius Piso who is called patron and benefactor (Lazaridis 1997, 38, and endnote 43).

5.1 Amphipolis; the Roman Building The first researcher who acted in the broad area of Amphipolis was archaeologist P. Perdrizet. In 1894, he investigated a "Macedonian" tomb near the village of Paleokomi. After the end of the First World War, in 1918-19, Professor St. Pelekidis conducted an excavation in the village of Amphipolis, during which he uncovered a large part of Basilica A', a small section of the city wall, and some houses. In 1956, excavations sponsored by the Greek Archaeological Society began under the direction of D. Lazaridis. With short interruptions, he continued these excavations until 1985. He discovered the Basilicas B, C, and D, and also the Hellenistic cemetery An important early Christian hexagonal building was discovered by the architect E. Stikas (1975) who also continued the excavation of the four early Christian basilicas. About 400 graves were discovered during the excavation seasons 1956-1961 and 1964. In 1960, the most important tomb, known as "Macedonian" tomb 1, was on a hill opposite the east side of the city. Another "Macedonian"

Some other important Roman constructions were found near the wall of the Classical Acropolis to the South. One of them was a substantial building, excavated by E. Stikas (1975, 7479) (No. 12a on the map). The building was described as a Roman villa. Remarkable mosaics were found in it, which could date the villa to the 2nd or 3rd century A.D. The other Roman building was located within the inner city walls (see No. 12b on the map). It lies on top of the hill and offers an impressive panoramic view of the Strymon Valley to its

18

well as three of its rooms, each with a separate entrance. The middle entrance seemed to have been the main one, as it was flanked on the outside by two statues: the statue of the young man, excavated by Grammenos in 1975, was located on its north side and a veiled female statue on its south side (Figure 9b and Figures 10a and b).

visitors. This is the building whose deposits have been examined in this study and its description follows. The area, where the building was located, was excavated for the first time in 1975. This year the archaeologist of the museum of Kavala, D. Grammenos, made a limited exploration in part of a private plot (no. 404, Αγρός Παύλου Θεοδωρίδη), after a villager’s report of the existence of a statue at this location, which lies near the south internal wall of the city, on the slope of the hill, to the south of the Palaeochristian Basilica C (Koukouli-Chrysanthaki 1975, p. 287). This excavation extended in a square area 1,5m to 1,5m around the statue and reached 1,40m in depth, where the statue’s base was (Figure 8). This first excavation aimed to uncover the statue and gain some initial information about the area. The statue, found in situ according to the excavator, represented a young man, who was dressed in his himation, wore sandals, and rested on a tree to his right. An inscription on the base of the statue mentioned:

The three rooms of the building were partially excavated and only their eastern sections were discovered; they surely continue to the west beyond the present limits of excavation (Figure 9a). Only the central room (Room A) has been excavated down to the natural bedrock. The excavation stopped before it reached this depth at Rooms B and C. The building was founded directly on the natural bedrock and its first floor was constructed 0,30m above it from compacted soil, 0,15m thick. The debris layer, 0,30m deep, below the Floor B and directly above the natural bedrock, did not give any evidence of earlier structures at all. It contained only a very large number of roof tiles (Figure 11a) and some sherds of Hellenistic pottery (black-coated pottery). So, it seems very likely that the building had been built in an area free of prior architectural occupation.

Οι από του Γυμνασίου νέοι Μένανδρον Νεικολάου φύσει δε Μενάνδρου ετ. ΔΚΣ προστατούντος Τι. Κλαυδίου Κλήμεντος

The building itself was found in a very good condition, with its stone and brick walls rising high above their foundation levels (Figure 11b). It seems to have two phases, but no difference in its architectural form occurred between the two. We can only presume the two phases by the existence of two floors.

The young men from the Gymnasium Menandron, son of Neikolaos who was the son of Menandros in the year DKS in the presidency of T. Claudius Klimentos

The earlier one (Floor B) was found at 2,65m below the surface. It was made from compacted soil and covered the whole surface of Room A. The later floor (Floor A) was found at 2,36m, was of a better quality than the earlier one, made from limeplaster, and it also covered the whole surface of Room A and part of Room B. In Room A and between the two floors there was a layer, 30cm deep, of soil mixed with roof tiles, sherds of Roman pottery, both plain and fine, 4 Roman coins and the head of a half-finished female statue. A burnt layer was found at 1,80m depth and seems to have been the last evidence of use of the building. Above this layer, a rather deep debris layer, which accumulated at different times, covered all three of the rooms inside the building. This fill is a mixture of brown soil, architectural elements, roof tiles, pottery, coins and other finds, without any clear or significant stratigraphical order.

The building was identified by the excavator as the Roman Gymnasium of the city of Amphipolis. The statue discovered was offered as an expression of honour to ‘Μένανδρος Νεικολάου’ by the ‘young men from Gymnasium’. Belonging to A.D. 183, it dates the use phase of the building safely in the end of the 2nd century A.D. The ceramic finds (as we will see later in Chapters 6 and 7) corroborated this impression. The pottery found around the statue was dated from the mid-1st century A.D. onwards. The excavator identified some of the types of the lamps discovered with known Roman lamps from the Athenian Agora (Athenian Agora VII, plate 6, no. 158, 282, 276, 447, and Athenian Agora V, plate 45, L62 and K128; dated between the 3rd and 5th century A.D.).

It seems very likely that the building was destroyed by an extensive fire in its second phase, as we can deduce from the existence of the burnt layer that covered the whole area of the building, a layer that was found in each of the three rooms at a depth of between 1,26 and 1,85m. So, it is likely that we have to deal with an undisturbed closed context, well dated thanks to the presence of coins, lamps, and pottery that was found in it. The architectural elements found, mostly marble parts of the roof, which were well made and delicate (Figure 12a), together with the statues and its position next

The great significance of this public building in the main part of the city led the Ephorate of Kavala to organise more systematic research in the area. Thus, new excavations carried out in the summer of 1985 and included part of the private plots no. 404 (Αγρός Παύλου Θεοδωρίδη) and no. 405 (Αγρός Γ. Κυπριανίδη). It revealed the eastern part of a large Roman building, preserved in very good condition. During this excavation period part of the front of the building, with a total length of about 15m, was discovered as

19

a tradition, it was believed to be the “Prison of Saint Paul” (Pelekanidou, 1980, 427-435; Bruce 1981).

to other important buildings, all suggest its public character. Unfortunately, as the excavations have not been completed, we are not able to identify it with certainty. According to both excavators, Grammenos in 1975 and Samartzidou in 1985, the building should have been built to accommodate either the Roman Gymnasium or the worship of some god, possibly that of Serapis, suggested by the statue found in Room A (Figure 12b).

Another very important monument in Philippi is the Theatre (Figure 14a). It is one of the main venues in the area for several cultural events from the 4th century B.C. and has been reinstated for use at present. It is located next to the walls of the eastern part of the ancient city (no. 2 on the map).

5.2 Philippi; the Roman Theatre Koukouli-Chrysanthaki and Bakirtzis (1995, pp. 14-15) mentioned:

Koukouli-Chrysanthaki and Bakirtzis (1995, pp.23-24) described the history of the Theatre as follows: “It was built by Philip II, King of Macedonia, in around the middle of the 4th century B.C. It is one of the oldest edifices in Philippi and remained in use until the end of the Antiquity. The orchestra and retaining walls of the parodoi (entrance passages), of pseudo-isodomic construction, belong to the theatre’s earliest phase. In the 2nd and 3rd centuries A.D. extensive changes and additions were made to the theatre to meet the needs of the increasing number of spectacles put on in the Roman period and of the expanding population of the Roman colony of Philippi and its hinterland. During its conversion into an arena, the three of four first rows of seats were removed and a barricade was erected around the perimeter of the orchestra to protect the spectators from the wild beasts. The parodoi were given vaulted roofs, a new two-storey skene was built with five entrances and six recesses, and in the upper part of the auditorium new rows of seats were built, supported by a vaulted gangway. In the middle of the 3rd century A.D., the proskenion was eliminated and an underground passage was built through which the animals were driven from their cases beneath the skene to the centre of the orchestra.”

“In 1914 systematic excavations began at Philippi by the French Archaeological School of Athens and continued until 1937. After the Second World War the Greek Archaeological Service and the Archaeological Society carried out regular excavations and restored the buildings of the old city, which is now the most important archaeological site of the Roman and Early Christian periods in Northern Greece. Today excavations at Philippi are being carried out by the Greek Archaeological Service and the University of Thessaloniki, and Greek and foreign scholars are working on historical and archaeological aspects of the site”. Philippi is a rich site in history and archaeological finds. On the map in Figure 13, we can see what has been excavated so far at the site (map taken from Lazaridis 1956). The city wall has been discovered almost in its entirety, apart from a small part to the South, where the modern road has destroyed it. The Acropolis lies on the top of the hill with remains dated from the Early Iron Age down to Byzantine times (No. 1β on the map). The Funerary Heroon, which is particularly important for the site for being probably the grave of a local Hero (according to the Hellenic tradition only Heroes were buried within ancient cities ), (No. 15), belonged to the Hellenistic period. Later it was incorporated into the city, survived throughout the Roman period, and finally was transformed into a Christian cult building in the 4th-5th century A.D. Basilica A (No. 6), Basilica B (No. 11), The Octagon (No. 14), Bishop’s residence (No. 16), Balneum (No. 17), and Basilica outside the walls (No. 19) are the Early Byzantine monuments excavated in the city so far.

The earliest information about the theatre of Philippi derived from Pierre Belon’s memoirs from his voyage in the Orient in the years 1546-1549 (Belon 1588, pp. 128-129). According to his observations, in 1546-1549 the theatre was still well defined and preserved. In 1820, Cousinéry visited the theatre, and some years later wrote about the serious destruction that was happening to this magnificent but neglected monument. In 1914, the French Archaeological School began systematic excavations in the wider area of Philippi and in the theatre itself, with Picard and Avezou (Collart, 1928, p. 75). In the years 1921 and 1922, with Daux, 1923 and 1924, with Charbonneaux and Chapouthier, the excavations were continued, and, before the end of the research in 1927-1928, the theatre was discovered and defined almost entirely. The Greek Archaeological Service began some new excavations and restoration works on the site in 1957, which are continuing until today.

During Roman times, the city was enriched by substantial buildings. Some of them have been discovered so far and we can see them on the map. The Sanctuary of Artemis (No. 3), the Sanctuary of Silvanus (No. 4), the “Three niches” sanctuary (No. 4α.), the Sanctuary of Cybele (No. 4β), the Sanctuary of Egyptian Gods (No. 5), the Forum (No. 9), the Macellum (No. 10), the Palestra (No. 12), and the Thermae (No. 13). A very important find was a large and very well preserved part of the Via Egnatia that passed through the Roman city (No. 18). Also, a water cistern (No. 8) was found and became very popular with visitors, because, according to

The pottery we examine in this study was found during the excavation of the upper part of the theatre (Figure 14b)

20

staircases that led up to the second floor of the second diazoma. Rooms G and H had a stone-paved floor. Room H was adjacent to the city wall and it was the last room of the arcade.

which started in 1975 (Koukouli-Chrysanthaki 1975, p. 284). The research continued in 1976 (Koukouli-Chrysanthaki 1976, pp. 299-301), and was completed in 1984 (Poulios 1984, p. 270.). It revealed a vaulted arcade, which was built during the expansion and conversion of the theatre into an arena in the 2nd century A.D. Its purpose was to support the new rows that were built in the upper part of the auditorium. This arcade was a distinctive feature of the theatres of Italy and the Roman Provinces around the Mediterranean. Similar buildings were found in Pompeii, Aspendos (Ferrero 1966, 162), Ephesos (Alzinger 1972, 102), Pergamon (Ussing 1897, 78-80), Dougga (Carton 1902, 22-23), and Timgad (Boeswillwald 1905, 93-120; Gsell 1901, 189). The external wall of this arcade became the new external wall of the theatre. It consisted of a series of fifteen ‘rooms’, of which only the eastern eight have been excavated so far. The arcade was joined to the rest of the theatre by three doors that led to the main body of the theatre. Three doors in the external wall led out of the theatre. Research proved that there was no earlier occupation underneath. The numismatic and ceramic finds confirmed that this arch-covered corridor must have been in constant use from the time it was built during the second half of the 2nd century A.D. until the beginning of the 5th century A.D., when the theatre went out of use.

5.3 Kepia; the Hero Avloneites Sanctuary The site was discovered in 1968, when a survey of the surface of the hill took place (Koukouli-Chrysanthaki 1969). Two walls were discovered at right angles, probably part of an atrium. Many pieces of relief sculpture, inscriptions, fragments of statues and architectural elements were collected from this area (Figure 17a). In 1983 archaeological research continued in this area and the size of the temenos of this sanctuary was determined (Koukouli-Chrysanthaki, 1983). Four accumulations of stones (Λιθοσωροί) were also located at different places on the hill, probably remains of buildings. The research at Λιθοσωρός V brought to light a building of the late Roman period, but nothing specific about the sanctuary. An Early Christian basilica was also discovered near the sanctuary (Bakirtzis, 1988). This proves the sanctity of the wider area even during the Byzantine period. Systematic excavation started in 1985, and it included the whole area of the Sanctuary (Koukouli-Chrysanthaki, 1985c). At Λιθοσωρός IV there was no trace of building, but there were rock-cuttings. Pieces of architectural sculptures and inscriptions were collected. A marble head of a bearded man was also found among the stones. At Λιθοσωρός II a building composed of two rooms was found. Its walls are very fragmentary, so we cannot understand much about the architectural form of this building. At Λιθοσωρός III a wall of the late Roman period appeared. Some pieces of reliefs and statues were collected as well. At Λιθοσωρός IV a building of the late Roman period was found. In this year only a small part of this building was brought to light (Figure 17b). Its exploration continued the following year.

The main aim of the excavations in 1975 was to search the area of the northern part of the theatre, where the second diazoma was built in the Roman period, and to reveal some more information about its architectural shape (KoukouliChrysanthaki 1975, p. 284). Only the rooms A and B were excavated during this period. The superficial debris layer, which was a homogeneous thick layer containing numerous sherds of Byzantine and modern pottery was firstly removed. The ruins of a building, obviously much later and irrelevant to the theatre were also removed. This building divided the rooms A and B into unequal parts. Underneath, a layer of roof tiles and mud-brick was discovered that were part of the arcade’s roof, before it’s collapse. After the removal of the destruction level, traces of a floor were found in parts of the room A. It was constructed with red soil and mortar, and it meant the end of this excavation period, after a deep trial trench in depth at the centre of the room A showed that no earlier occupation was to be found in this part of the theatre.

The excavation of 1989 defined the north-western part of the building (Koukouli-Chrysanthaki, and Malamidou, 1989) (Figures 18a and b). The external wall is drystone. In the interior there are some stone structures, probably couches or benches. To the South of these structures a rectangular, paved area was found. It was obviously an open-air area and included a sort of altar (Figure 19a). The finds in this area great quantity of bones of cattle, sheep, and goats with pronounced traces of burning, many sherds of pottery, weapons as well as iron knives, perhaps sacred ones related to the sacrifices, and tools, - justify this supposition (cf. Launey 1944).

Excavations were continued in the following year, in 1976. The excavators focused their interest to the detection of the situation to the East of the rooms A and B. Three new rooms, the rooms C, D, and E, were unearthed (Figure 15a and b). The stratigraphy and finds in these rooms were similar to those in the rooms A and B, excavated in the previous year. Also, many marble fragments of the benches of the theatre as well as reliefs were found during this excavation period (Koukouli-Chrysanthaki 1976, p. 301).

Late Roman pottery and bronze coins of the dynasty of Constantine the Great found in the destruction level dated the continuous use of the building from the 1st century A.D. to the third quarter of the 4th century A.D. An earlier use of the area is certain, since part of a wall was found below the

The research in the eastern part of the arcade of the theatre was completed in 1984. Three more rooms were discovered, rooms F, G, and H. (Figure 16a and b). In room E, ruins of a staircase were found, which must have been one of the

21

Figure 22) and defined the size of the city. Thus, according to the excavator, the walled city of Abdera was approximately 10.000 m2 in area, and seemed to contain some uninhabited as well as inhabited zones (Lazaridis 1971a and b). The majority of the buildings were domestic, as the only public building that has been discovered so far is the theatre (Lazaridis 1966, pp. 359-360). The archaeological research concentrated on the part of the city that lies next to the western and south-western city walls. The earliest architectural finds from this area date back to the middle of the 4th century B.C. with the exception of the west gate, where a phase of the 5th century B.C. has been traced. A few infrequent potsherds of the Archaic and early Classical period have also been found in the ground under the Hellenistic buildings (Koukouli-Chrysanthaki 1985b). The majority of the earlier finds came from the area outside and to the north of the north wall. This fact appeared to be rather strange to the excavator who decided to transfer his research to this large area outside the city walls. Then, he located the very important suburb of the 6th century B.C. in the area north of the city walls (Lazaridis 1971b, p. 36). At the same time, small-scale excavations have also been attempted in the vast burial ground that spread to the north and north-west of the city. In 1971 Lazaridis (1971b, pp. 63-71) carried out a short excavation in the west wall; Pantos and Skarlatidou of the Ephorate of Komotini continued his research.

Roman building, situated in a layer of black earth. This layer is dated - from the pottery and the coins that were found within it - to the 2nd century B.C. Existence of a Hellenistic relief of the Hero-rider bearing the inscription “ΗΡΩΣ ΕΠΗΚΟΟΣ” (Figure 19b) as well as a few sherds of redfigure vases indicate human activity on the hill from the 3rd century B.C. In 1990, the southern part of the building was discovered (Koukouli-Chrysanthaki and Malamidou 1990). Thus, the form of the building was determined. It is a Π-shaped building with an opening in its eastern side (Figure 20). Along its northern and southern walls there are six rooms (three at each side), which could each accommodate three couches. These rooms face the central courtyard, which may have been an open-air area. An altar is located in the West of this area. The new finds confirmed the date suggested the previous year and the name of the Hero to whom the sanctuary was dedicated (Figure 21a and b). The stratigraphy of this building of the Sanctuary is clear and well defined. During the excavation, two layers were observed. The first was the upper wash level that contained Late Roman pottery and bronze coins of the dynasty of Constantine the Great (4th and 5th centuries A.D.). It represented not a phase of human activity in this building, but probably its filling following its destruction. The second was the destruction level, which extended through the whole building; it included fragments of tiles, bones, coins and sherds of both large and small examples of Late Roman pottery (from the 1st to the 4th century A.D.).

In 1981, new systematic excavations began in the ancient city of Abdera. The Ephorates of Kavala and Komotini, financed by the government, and the Archaeological Society worked together on a common project of revealing and conserving the antiquities of the site. The excavators’ interest had changed from the walled city to the area that spread to the north and north-west, where, in additional to Lazaridis’ finds, the director of the museum of Komotini, Triantaphyllos, had discovered some burial mounds (Koukouli-Chrysanthaki, 1985b, p. 46, f. 47). The main aim was now to detect the continuity in use of the space in the vast area that surrounded the walled city. The excavations, together with geomorphological research carried out by the Department of Physical Geography of the University of Thessaloniki, revealed a second fortification wall (North Fortification, marked with green on the map, Figure 22) to the north of the already discovered city that might surround an earlier settlement. It seems very likely that the first colonists from Clazomene were installed here in B.C. 656-2 and lived for at least half a century, before the Thracians destroyed their settlement.

Finally, some sherds of red-figure vases were found. Thus, the occupation of the site may have started from the third century B.C. Thus, a long continuous use of the Sanctuary from the Hellenistic to the Late Roman period is implied. 5.4 Abdera; A Roman House In 1881, Reinach published for the first time information about the antiquities of the city of Abdera, together with these from the neighbouring Maroneia. In 1887, directed by the ancient literary sources, Regel (1897) identified this site with the well-known city of Abdera. Feyel (1942, p. 172, f. 2) has assembled a very informative selection of archaeological and historical works regarding finds, such as statues and coins, from the vast area of the town before any systematic research took place in it. Bakalakis (1959), during the years that intervened between the First and the Second World Wars, started the preexcavation exploration of the area, but the systematic research did not start until after the end of the Second World War with Lazaridis (1950). This initial period of systematic excavations lasted until 1966, when Lazaridis was transferred to the Central Service of the Ministry of Culture in Athens.

Since 1982, traces of this northern wall (Fortification II) have been uncovered during excavations in the area to the north of the known city. This newly unveiled wall is impressive as it reaches 4.5 metres of thickness in several areas. It was erected on the natural bedrock and possibly dates to the 7th century B.C., according to the pottery and figurines found in its foundation. In the early 5th century B.C. fortification II was destroyed and a new, narrower wall was built on top of the old one, blocking some of its gates. It is very likely that

During those years, Lazaridis traced a large part of the city walls (South Fortification, marked with blue on the map,

22

The house, where the pottery of this study was found, is located within the south fortification, and in the region next to the western gate of the city walls (the area in the red square on the map, Figure 22, and the building in the red square on the map, Figure 23), which was evidently the most important part of the city. Triantaphyllos (1988, p. 31) would locate the Agora of the city here. It remained the most populous part of the city during the Roman period, according to the archaeological finds, which brought to light architectural indications of an extended occupation.

this wall served the city until the end of the 4th century B.C., when the city seems to have moved towards the south, into the area surrounded by the fortification I (KoukouliChrysanthaki, 1983) As mentioned above, long and extensive excavation periods took place in several areas of the city, directed by the Museums of Kavala and Komotini, beginning in 1950 until the present day with some long intervals. During this period, a large number of houses were revealed. Amongst these there were some grand houses with mosaics, such as the “House of the Dolphins” (Lazaridis, 1955, 1966, 1971a and b, and 1979). The architectural form of the houses that were built in the 4th century B.C. followed the well-known type of the houses of Priene (Lazaridis, 1971, p. 36; Graham, 1972). The preferred type was a square house with rooms built around a courtyard, built in blocks that created crossing roads in an grid pattern. Alterations took place during the early Roman period, but without major modifications to the form of the houses. Until the late years of the Roman period the city of Abdera was organised in this way according to the Hippodamian system. From this period onwards, the extensive flooding destroyed the larger part of the city and forced the inhabitants to move towards the south, to the new settlement, on higher ground known as Polystylon (marked with yellow on the map, Figure 22), and the economic decline of the inhabitants compelled construction of inferior quality.

The house was founded on a mixed landfill, which covered the slate bedrock. Various Classical and Hellenistic fragmentary objects were found in the earliest layers, but buildings have not been traced. The earliest evidence of architectural activity appeared in layer 10, where the construction trenches for the walls 2, 4, 5, 7 and 8 of the building were based (Figure 24). According to the architectural finds and the excavators’ observation, the main body of the house was altered and possibly expanded some time later. We can assume with confidence that Rooms 3, 4 and 5 belonged to the initial form of the building, as their walls were founded in the same depth and were built on top of some large blocks of limestone (Figures 25a, b, and c). They were built in the same way, using different sizes of stones with some tiles included, and their corners were bonded (Figure 26a). Rooms 1 and 2 were added later to the main body of the house. The area to the south of Rooms 3, 4 and 5 seemed to have changed dramatically in later years, as a paved courtyard has been added and new walls erected (Figures 27a and b). The excavation in this southern part of the house was not completed and only the late levels have been investigated.

Sections in the western area of the city had been excavated for the first time in the mid 1960’s, in order to investigate and reveal the city walls and open the region to the public. Also, some cement supporting constructions were built on the inner face of the wall to make it safely approachable. Although the action taken in the area helped to realise this main aim, it caused at the same time some unwanted results: the loss of archaeological evidence and the destruction of the western sides of the houses that were built close to the wall, and especially of those that had used the wall as their external western walls. Their architectural forms became unclear and the upper stratigraphical levels were disturbed.

After about two centuries of habitation, flooding caused the house to be abandoned (Koukouli-Chrysanthaki, 1985, p. 58). A new building complex appeared after this, using the best-preserved walls of the house, with some additional rooms. The new complex was destroyed in the early 4th century A.D. It was no longer in use possibly after A.D. 337361, after a violent destruction, perhaps an earthquake or another flood (Kallintzi, 1991, p. 460). A total of 11 coins found in the destruction level were a useful terminus post quem for the house’s desertion. The inhabitants did not seem to have returned to this area, as a large marsh was formed nearby (Kallintzi, 1991, p. 460). In the upper layers only a few Christian graves were found. During the first years of the Byzantine period, the considerable damage continued, when material was taken away from its walls in order to build tombs in the unused rooms of the house. Thus, not only have the walls been destroyed, but, also, the stratified levels of the house have been disturbed by the placing of the Christian tombs into the house’s rooms, that reached 1.50m of depth in some occasions.

Excavations along the western section of the city walls continued in 1985 and revealed several walls and rooms (Figure 23) that belonged to private houses, dating between the 2nd century B.C. and the 4th century A.D. (KoukouliChrysanthaki, 1985b). In 1991 the archaeologist of the Museum of Komotini, Kallintzi, decided to investigate the area located next to the western wall-gate and unite the excavated sectors unfinished in previous years. This would be the only way to obtain an overall impression of the situation in the area and create a pleasant entrance for the site’s visitors, as they would enter to city of Abdera from its western gate (Kallintzi, 1991, pp. 455-461). During this research, a Roman house was excavated, with a more or less clear architectural form and stratigraphy.

We should place the abandonment of the city of Abdera in the first years of the Byzantine period, when the foundation of the settlement of Polystylon took place on the acropolis

23

5.5 Thasos; a building in Limenas The first archaeological excavation on the island took place in 1863. We have no evidence from this first attempt to discover the antiquities of the island; it was obviously the action of some amateurs rather than a systematic archaeological research. At the beginning of our century, J. ff. Baker-Penoyre made some further steps in the discovery of the history of Thasos (Wynne-Thomas, 1978, p. 12).

The research was completed twenty-five years later, when in 1989 Poulios and Papanikolaou (Papanikolaou and Poulios, 1989, pp. 369-372) undertook the investigation of the land next to the old Museum before the construction of the new wing of the Museum could begin. During this excavation period a part of the settlement of the ancient city of Thasos and a total of three houses were investigated. The three houses, “Οικία Α”, “Οικία Β” and “Οικία Γ”, were built on each side of a main road with direction from the south-east to the north-west; a drainage system was, also, discovered in the middle of the road. This was constructed with stones and covered with big slabs.

Systematic excavation did not start until 1911 by the French School in Athens with Charles Picard, Adolphe J. Reinach, and Charles Avezou. Unfortunately, the First World War interrupted their research. During the 1930’s Marcel Launey continued their work with his team. Interrupted again this time by the Second World War, the archaeological research restarted on the island in 1954 by a team under M. Jean Pouilloux, also from the French School. Until the present days, archaeological research has been carried out by the French School at Athens and the Greek Archaeological Service, based in Kavala (Figure 28).

The excavation led to the better understanding of the complicated character of the settlement, especially regarding its dating. The earliest settlement could be dated back to the 5th century B.C. In Figure 29, the walls drawn to detail were built in the 5th century B.C. and destroyed in the Hellenistic period, when other walls were built (same fig., walls drawn in outline) and formed different rooms in the houses. The majority of the walls, which were built in Hellenistic times, were maintained throughout Roman times and the form of these three houses was more or less the same for a total duration of some six centuries.

The richness of the island in archaeological finds and, consequently, the need for storing and displaying them made the Archaeological Service realise the necessity of an extension to the old Museum in Limenas. Consequently, in 1965 the Archaeological Service bought the land of Tsifti, which was located next to the old Archaeological Museum to the East, in order to build the extension (Figure 29). In 1971 the French Archaeological School, with M. Fourmont, Y. Grandjean, J.J. Maffre, and B. Hotzman, carried out some preliminary research in the land by digging test sections (BCH 1972, p. 950). After the removal of the upper surface, they discovered very few fragmentary ruins of buildings dated to the Byzantine times. Under these traces of buildings of the Roman period were revealed. They were parts of several walls belonging to houses. Some of these walls had white plaster preserved on their surfaces but unfortunately for the most part they were extremely destroyed and in places they were not preserved any higher than the level of their foundations. The excavation had to stop at a depth of 1.50m, because the water level was very high in this area. The excavated area was recovered with soil, after the approval of the Central Archaeological Council, and prepared to accommodate the building of the new Museum.

In June 1997, further excavations took place in the area to the north of the Archaeological Museum, directed by Dr M. Sgourou (1997). This excavation became necessary since the city’s sewage system was to be constructed and the main road that passes at the front the Museum was to be covered with tarmac. So, the main aim of the excavators was to investigate the area and salvage as much information and evidence from it as possible in a very limited time. The excavation covered an area of 57m in length and from 2m to 3m in width (Figure 29, area filled with blue). It ended at a depth of 2.82m from the road’s surface before it reached the natural bedrock, when the trenches flooded and the excavation had to finish.

hill. The area of the western walls of the ancient city continued to accommodate the cemetery of the Christian years.

The north-western part of the ancient wall of the city was expected to be found in this area, as a long part of it had been revealed nearby during previous research in the area. The excavation revealed that the architectural ruins found at a great depth immediately under the road’s surface were not part of the city-walls but walls of a house. This seemed to belong to the group of houses that had been discovered in 1989 during the excavations for the foundations of the new Museum. There is, also, no doubt that this wall must have been the external wall of a house that was located in the last block of houses before the city-walls. A space of 3.5m to 5.5m of width, some sort of a wide passage, separated the houses from the city-walls.

In 1976, the Archaeological Service returned to the area with the intention of carry out some further research before the erection of the Museum (Koukouli-Chrysanthaki, 1976, pp. 290-291). They uncovered the trenches that had been excavated in 1971 by the French School and systematically extended the research by opening more trenches in order to cover a larger area. The results repeated the same stratigraphic sequence and more rooms of the Roman houses were brought to light.

The earliest layer revealed lies at a depth of 2.82m. It did not give any architectural evidence but a large number of fragmentary black-glazed pottery and amphorae sherds along with some coins which were crucial finds to the dating of this

24

layer from the end of the 4th century B.C. to the beginning of the Roman period. A wall 0.60m to 0.80m thick was found above the level that gave Hellenistic finds. This wall has been traced for a total length of 36m. Its foundations were made of large, rectangular blocks of limestone; above this, the wall was constructed with small stones (Figure 30a and b). A drainage system, built with slate, ran for 13m along the eastern side of the wall (Figure 31a and b). This wall and the drainage system must have been the first phase of the building. During the later phase, which follows, the drainage system was blocked and used as the foundation of a new wall. The pottery of this study was found during the last excavation in the area during June 1997. The material contains sherds of pottery dated from the 4th century B.C. to the end of the 5th century A.D., but its largest part falls in the 2nd and 4th centuries A.D.

25

famous category of black-glazed wares of the Hellenistic period, such as the Megarian bowls, inspired by the same desire to imitate the shapes and decoration of metalware. They became the new fashion in the markets of pottery at the end of the 2nd century B.C., when the Hellenistic ceramic tradition gave way to a new era of mass-production. The place where the first changes occurred has been located in the East and specifically at Pergamon in Asia Minor, where late versions of West Slope wares displayed for the first time the distinctive sigillata-red coloured gloss. The new fashion of firing clay vessels to produce a red coating instead of black, by using an extensively oxidising atmosphere, became more and more common until it prevailed and replaced the old style. Some of these fine red-gloss wares have been found in large quantities at Pergamon, in well-stratified layers of the mid 2nd B.C. century. Smooth clay and a waxy appearance were their principal characteristics. According to Hayes, these were the ancestors of the Çandarli ware while “some imitations of their shapes and applied ornaments are seen at Knidos, perhaps Ephesos, and in Southern Italy/Sicily”, and according to Peacock (1982) “the earliest antecedents of the Roman fine-pottery tradition”.

6 ROMAN POTTERY FROM NORTH-EASTERN GREECE; THE FINE WARES 6.1

Fine pottery

6.1.1 Terra Sigillata During the Roman period the main and the most sought after category of fine wares in the Mediterranean world consisted of tableware covered, on both their internal and external surfaces, with a slip which could be fired to a more or less lustrous black or red finish. This was the commonest type of table-ware, made with fine or very fine clay, that was in use in Roman households; it included a large variety in both size and type of pots, but the main shapes were plates, dishes, bowls and small cups, typical shapes for the use on the table. This class of tableware used to be widely known by archaeologists as Terra Sigillata or Samian ware. Both terms are too general and outdated, as they do not describe the nature of the pottery with accuracy. Contemporary specialists prefer to make their descriptions more specific using terms that refer to the exact type of pottery, giving vastly more information about its origin at the same time. The term Terra Sigillata came from the Latin word terra that means ‘clay’ and sigillata meaning ‘decorated with minute embossed figures’. It is obvious that the term sigillata could not apply to the entirety of the Roman fine pottery, as the majority of vessels of the middle and later Roman periods lack any relief decoration. The second term, Samian ware, widely used in W. Europe, was adopted to refer to the type of red-gloss coated fine pottery. It occurred in Plautus (Bacchides, 201, 202; Captivi, 290-292; Menaechmi, 179; Stichus, 693-695), who gave us some information about a fine pottery that was made at some time on the island of Samos. It was mentioned, also, in Pliny the Elder’s Historia Naturalis (XXXV 12 (46), 160):

A great number of red-gloss ceramic groups started to be produced at this period. Although similar techniques were used for their manufacture, each introduced their own distinctive characteristics that have enabled the researchers’ classification by different independent workshops. Such a group of red-gloss vessels was the light-colour bodied Eastern Sigillata A ware that appeared in the markets at this period, produced on a large scale and seemed to have dominated the area of the eastern Mediterranean throughout the pre-Augustan period. 6.1.1.1 Eastern Sigillata A ware or Pergamene In the early 20th century, R. Zahn (1904, 437, 447-8) used the term “Pergamene” to describe pottery found in Priene, inspired by Pliny, who mentioned this area as the place of the production of a certain ware. In the catalogue of the Priene pottery the ware was the “Pergamene Class B”. Other scholars referred to this ceramic category by using the same term, such as Waagé (1948), Jones (1950), and Robinson (1959). The term “Eastern Sigillata A” was proposed and first used as the scientific name of the ware by Kathleen Kenyon; she suggested in the publication of the pottery from Samaria that this would be the best term to describe the earlier of the eastern sigillatas or red gloss wares (Kenyon 1957). Following this, Hellström used it for the pottery from Labraunda (1965). The complete type series for the ware has been created by J.W. Hayes in EAA.

“…among the table services Samian pottery is still spoken highly of…” This term cannot be accurate as there has not so far been any archaeological evidence of centres of production in the island of Samos in the Aegean Sea that could had given the name to the new product. For all these reasons the term “red-gloss ware” had to be invented, which was introduced in combination with that of Terra Sigillata by contemporary scholars. Peacock (1982) had commented that “however, they (all these different names) comprise a single tradition of fine-ware manufacture which takes slightly different expression in the multifarious workshops spread throughout the Roman world”.

Eastern Sigillata A ware has been found in large quantities at Tarsus, Antioch, Samaria and Tel Anafa and it has been considered to be of Syrian, Israeli, or south-eastern Asia Minor manufacture (for extensive bibliography see Anderson-Stojanović 1992, 44, footnote 65). The clay of the ware is without any visible inclusions, and of a very bright colour so that it makes a striking contrast with the dark red-

The tradition of red-slipped pottery can be dated as far back to the Neolithic in Greece and other areas of the ancient world. Some examples of vessels fired red, mostly as the product of misfiring, appeared during the Classical and Hellenistic periods in the Aegean and Mediterranean areas. These wares seemed to have come to the fore to replace the

26

gloss of the surface. Its colour has been characterised as buff with variations to cream, yellow, or pink, and usually within the range of 10YR 7/3, 7/4, 8/4 and 7.5YR, 5YR. The slip ranges from orange-red to red, or to dark red, as 2.5YR 3/6, 4/6, and 4/8, and sometimes maroon, quite thick and smooth but not exceptionally glossy. Very rarely the slip resembles the brilliance of the finest Italian Sigillata. “Double-dipping streaks”, formed where the application of slip to either side of the vessel overlap, producing a thicker coating in a stripe across the diameter, is a very characteristic feature of the ware. The combination of this light clay, with the red to dark red, makes the ware very distinctive and easily recognisable.

3. 4.

6.1.1.1.2

5.

6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13.

Table 8 illustrates the main examples of the ware found in north-eastern Greece.

14.

Hellenistic Series (Kenrick 1985, 225-231) 15.

Antioch Shape 151; Samaria Form 2a; Hayes (EAA) Form 5; Kenrick (1985) B315. Bowl with heavy ring-foot with a broad resting-surface, upcurving wall and plain rim. Sometimes narrow bands of rouletting decorate the floor and a stamped motif may complete the decoration. Hayes (EAA) gives a date range of late 2nd century B.C. to A.D. 10/20.

2.

Abdera 29c/01a,b. (Figure 32) Two joining fragments of base and body. D. 0,12m, H. 0,02m, Th. 0,006m. Clay (5YR 7/8) reddish yellow. Slip (5YR 6/8) reddish yellow.

Hayes (EAA) Form 37; Kenrick (1985) B332 Large dish with high ring-foot, gently sloping floor, vertical wall with a flange at the bottom, and thickened or plain rim. Hayes (EAA) A.D. 60-100.

The ware started to be produced in the early years of the 2nd century B.C. It thrived during the mid-2nd century B.C. and was widely exported throughout the Eastern Mediterranean. It stayed among the most favourite wares until Arretine appeared in the markets at the end of the 1st century B.C. It continued to be produced locally until the end of the 2nd century A.D. and it was not exported in any quantity after the 1st century A.D.

1.

Early Roman Series (Kenrick 1985, 231-239)

Hayes (EAA) Form 36; Kenrick (1985) B331 Small dish with low ring-foot, gently sloping floor, plain vertical wall and rim with a flange at the bottom. Hayes (EAA) A.D. 60-100.

The main shapes of the class are plates, bowls, cups, and pouring vessels, all for the use on the table. During the first years of the production, the Hellenistic forms gave the leading guidelines but, by the end of the 2nd and the beginning of the 1st century B.C., the wares obtained sharper shapes and profiles, obviously inspired by the popular Arretine wares of that period. The only decoration for the open forms was primarily a combination of stamped palmette and Isis-Crown motifs, with concentric circles of rouletting on the floor of the vessel. The Arretine decoration inspired the producers of the Eastern Sigillata A wares. Hence, the products of the 1st century B.C. were further decorated by extended use of rouletting on the exterior of the rim. Also, potter’s stamps appeared in this period. Geometric shapes and planta pedis with salutatory greetings or potter’s names were the main repertoire used on Eastern Sigillata A wares.

6.1.1.1.1

Fragment of heavy ring-foot. D. 0,05m, H. 0,02m. Clay (7,5YR 7/4) fine pinkish-buff. Slip (2,5YR 4/6) red, semi-lustrous, showing brushmarks. Amphipolis 34/07. Six joining fragments of base, body, and rim. D. of base 0,06m, D. of rim 0,18m, H. 0,06m. Clay (2,6YR 6/6), light red. Slip (10R 4/6). Thasos 22/01. Fragment of heavy ring-foot. D. 0,045m, H. 0,03m. Fine cream clay. Lustrous dark red-brown slip showing double-dipping streaks.

16.

Abdera 11/27. Fragment of body. H. 0,065m, W. 0,08m, Th. 0,007m. Abdera 20/17a and b. Fragment of rim. D. uncertain, H. 0,055m, W. 0,05m, Th. 0,004m. Abdera 20/18. Fragment of rim. D. 0,12m, H. 0,02m, W. 0,06m, Th. 0,003m. Abdera 20/19. Fragment of body. H. 0,04m, W. 0,07m, Th. 0,002m. Abdera 29a/09. (Figure 32) Fragment of body. H. 0,06m, Th. 0,005m. Clay (5YR 7/8) reddish yellow. Slip (5YR 6/8) reddish yellow. Abdera 29b/01a,b,c. (Figure 32) Three joining fragments of body and base. D. 0,08m, H. 0,015. Clay (5YR 7/8) reddish yellow. Slip (5YR 6/8) reddish yellow. Abdera 29b/22. (Figure 32 and 33) Fragment of body. H. 0,07m, Th. 0,007m. Clay (5YR 6/8) reddish yellow. Slip (5YR 6/8) reddish yellow. Abdera 29b/23. (Figure 33) Fragment of body. H. 0,025m, Th. 0,006m. Clay (5YR 6/8) reddish yellow. Slip (5YR 5/8) yellowish red. Abdera 46b/03. (Figure 33) Fragment of body. H. 0,015m, W. 0,05m, Th. 0,006m. Clay (2,5YR 6/6) light red. Slip (2,5YR 4/8) red. Amphipolis 23/04. Fragment of body. H. 0,09m, H. 0,025m, Th. 0,006m. Clay (7,5YR 8/4) buff cream. Slip (10R 4/8-5/8) red. Amphipolis 25/02. Fragment of base. D. uncertain, H. 0,02m, Th. 0,006m. Clay (5YR 7/8) reddish yellow. Slip (2,5YR 6/8-7/8) red.

Antioch Shapes 453, 455; Hayes (EAA) Form 45; Kenrick (1985) B334. Conical cup with ring-foot, sloping wall, and concave vertical rim. Hayes (EAA) A.D. 1/10-50/60.

Abdera 11/10a,b. Fragment of body. H. 0,06m, W. 0,05m, Th. 0,007m. Fine cream clay. Lustrous dark red-brown slip showing double-dipping streaks. Amphipolis 25/01. (Figure 32)

17. Abdera 148/18. (Figure 33) Fragment of rim. D. 0,16m, H. 0,015m, W. 0,035m, Th. 0,004m. Clay (2,5YR 6/8, 2,5YR 5/8). Slip (2,5YR 5/8). Quite glossy on both sides.

27

6.1.1.2 Italian Sigillata ware The best examples of red-gloss wares came not from the place of their initial appearance but from Italian workshops. Commencing in the early years of the reign of Augustus (ca. 30 B.C.) and lasting until the third quarter of the 1st century A.D., a ceramic industry in Arezzo (the ancient Arretium) in North Central Italy produced the definite Terra Sigillata. Using very fine red clay, the workshop of Arezzo created a very delicate type of pottery, both relief-decorated and plain, covered with a distinctive lustrous red-gloss that achieves an effective imitation of metalware (Hayes 1997). Also, the fine clay allowed the accomplishment of very clear and sharp angles, another characteristic of silverware. It reached markets throughout Mediterranean and became the archetype for the production of fine pottery almost everywhere and especially in the new provinces, like Gaul, in the northwestern Roman Empire. Some other Italian workshops, as at Pozzuoli, Pisa, Modena, Luna, or the Po Valley, produced almost identical wares and only the potter’s stamps can give some evidence of their precise origin. The shapes, also, inspired the eastern workshops, which, as well as the shapes, even adopted and reproduced exact copies of the stamps of the Italian potters.

Antioch Shape 460; Samaria Form 23; Hayes (EAA) Form 47; Kenrick B335. Conical cup with flaring wall, vertical moulded rim, with tripartite division on its outside, sometimes with rouletting on the upper and lower convex mouldings, flat floor. Hayes (EAA) A.D. 10-60/70. 18. Abdera 46a/33. (Figure 33) Fragment of base. D. 0,04m, H. 0,015m, W. 0,06m, Th. 0,005m. 19. Abdera 19/45. Fragment of rim. 20. Amphipolis 05/01. Fragment of base. D. 0,05m, H. 0,015m. Clay (10R 6/6) light red. Slip (2,5YR 4/6-5/6) red.

Antioch Shape 670; Hayes (EAA) Form 51; Kenrick B337. Hemispherical cup with high-ring foot, curving body, and plain incurving rim. Hayes (EAA) A.D. 60/70-120. 21. Abdera 19/23. Fragment of concave vertical rim. Fine orange-buff clay. Lustrous red-brown slip. 22. Abdera 19/24. Fragment of base. 23. Abdera 20/06. (Figure 33) Fragment of rim. D. 0,11m, H. 0,02m, W. 0,05m, Th. 0,003m. Clay (7,5Y 7/6, 2,5YR 4/8). Slip (2,5YR 4/8). 24. Abdera 20/09. (Figure 33) Fragment of rim. D. 0,11m, H. 0,015m, W. 0,025m, Th. 0,005m. Clay (7,5Y 7/6, 2,5YR 4/8). Slip (2,5YR 4/8). 25. Abdera 21/01. Fragment of body. 26. Abdera 34/10. Fragment of rim. 27. Abdera 34/11. Fragment of rim. 28. Abdera 82/09. (Figure 33) Fragment of base. D. 0,05m, H. 0,02m, W. 0,06m, Th. 0,004m. Clay (2,5YR 6/6). Slip (2,5YR 4/8). 29. Abdera 93/02. (Figure 33) Fragment of base. D. 0,04m, H. 0,015m, W. 0,05, Th. 0,004m. Clay (5YR 6/6, 10R 3/6). Slip (10R 3/6). 30. Amphipolis 03/01. Base fragment. D. 0,05m, H. 0,015m. Fragment of the foot and the base of a small cup. Clay fine, light red (10R 6/8), with fine limestone inclusions and golden mica. Slip red (10R 4/6-5/6), rather dull on both surfaces. 31. Amphipolis 34/05. Fragment of high ring-foot. D. 0,05m, H. 0,25m. Clay (5YR 7/6) reddish yellow. Slip (2,5YR 6/6) light red. 32. Amphipolis 34/02. (Figure 33) Fragment of base. D. 0,075, H. 0,05m. 33. Amphipolis 36/05. (Figure 33) Fragment of base. D. 0,03m, H. 0,015m.Clay (2,5YR 7/6). Slip (2,5YR 4/8). 34. Thasos 04/17. (Figure 33) Fragment of base. D. 0,05m, H. 0,015m.

The class of Italian Sigillata wares have a fine, light red clay, such as 2.5YR 6/6-6/8 that, also, varies towards red or reddish-yellow, such as 5YR 6/6-7/6, or pink, such as 7.5YR 7/4. The slip is of the finest quality, very glossy, red or reddish-brown, such as 2.5YR 4/8-5/8. The relief decoration betrays production in moulds or by a combination of mould and wheel techniques. The repertoire, including mythological figures surrounded by decorative floral motives models, is itself based on Hellenistic examples. Italian Sigillata ware did not seem to be very popular, even at the height of their production, in Eastern Macedonia and Thrace. I identified only seven sherds in the material I studied and all of them came from Amphipolis. Haltern type 2; Goudineau (1968) Type 26; Hayes (1973) Form 4; Kenrick (1985) B205 Plate with ring-foot of medium high, flat floor, and vertical rim, which is divided externally into upper and lower convex mouldings, sometimes rouletted. C. 10 B.C.-A.D. 25/35 36. Amphipolis 30/08. (Figure 34) Fragment of vertical rim, divided externally into upper and lower convex mouldings, without rouletting. D. 0,28m, H. 0,03m. Clay pale red (10R 6/4). Slip red (10R 5/8). 37. Amphipolis 30/09. Two fragments of rim, similar to Amphipolis 30/08. D. 0,28m, H. 0,03m. Clay (10R 6/4) pale pink. Slip (10R 5/8) red. 38. Amphipolis 77/32. Fragment of rim, similar to Amphipolis 30/08. Clay very fine, pale brown (10YR 8/4), without any invisible inclusions. Slip red (2,5YR 4/6), very glossy on the inside, less on the outside. 39. Amphipolis 15/17. Fragment of rim, similar to Amphipolis 30/08. Fine, pinkish clay (2,5YR 8/4), without invisible inclusions. Red slip (2,5YR 4/8), shinier inside than outside, where traces of the wheel are noticeable.

Unknown form 35. Amphipolis 10/01. (Figure 33) Base fragment. D. 0,18m, H. 0,015m. Fragment of a flat base on a high, quite thick foot. Clay very fine, pale brown (10YR 8/4), without any invisible inclusions. Slip red (2,5YR 4/6), very glossy on the inside, less on the outside. A hardly visible stamped palmette on the centre of the base.

28

40. Amphipolis 15/18. Fragment of rim, similar to Amphipolis 30/08. Fine, light red clay (2,5YR 7/6). Red slip on both sides (2,5YR 5/8). Particularly glossy on the internal.

The fabric of the ware varies in colour from reddish-brown or cinnamon, to orange-red (10YR 4/2-3/2), considerably clean and fine. The gloss covers the whole of the vessel, has a soapy or waxy texture, quite lustrous at the best examples, less lustrous in the late products, red to orange-red. Recent studies of the ware indicate a definite distinction between an early and a late group, with differences in their fabric, firing and finishing. The earliest is named Eastern Sigillata B1 ware (or Samian B), and dated within the first quarter of the 1st century A.D. It has a darker fabric (2.5YR 6/8-10R 6/6) than the later group, is harder-fired, and has a thicker, more enduring red gloss (2.5YR 5/8) that is very well applied on both the external and internal surfaces of the vessel. The production of the later group, that of Eastern Sigillata B2 (or Samian A) seemed to have begun in the Flavian period, or by the third quarter of the 1st century A.D., and lasted until the mid-2nd century A.D. Its fabric is much lighter in colour (2.5YR 6/6-6/8), rather soft and tends to flake off in layers, probably due to poor firing. The slip is brighter (10R 5/8), almost orange, and is not well bonded with the fabric, and thus tends to flake off very easily, leaving lots of small uncovered spots on the vessel.

Unknown forms 41. Abdera 29b/07. (Figure 34) Fragment of base. D. 0,20m, H. 0,03m. Clay (5YR 6/4). Slip (2,5YR 4/6-5/6). 42. Amphipolis 04/02 and 03/07. (Figure 34) Two joining fragments of base. D. 0,13m, H. 0,015m. Clay light red (2,5YR 6/6), slip red (2,5YR 5/8), very lustrous inside, rather dull outside. Resting surface and interior of foot not glazed. Two grooves encircle a fine rouletting band on floor. This plate is similar to Kenrick (1985) Groups A-H, pp. 173-176. As Kenrick mentions: “Goudineau (1968, 242) discusses the evolution of these foot-profiles, which are difficult to classify”. 43. Amphipolis 17/01. (Figure 34) Rim fragment. D. 0,09m, H. 0,025m. Clay very fine, light red (2,5YR 7/8), without any inclusions. Slip red (2,5YR 4/8-5/8), very lustrous on both sides. Rouletted decoration round the lower surface of the flange.

Following the same principles, several workshops started to produce recognisable groups of fine pottery, which became widespread. Chronologically, the next production was that of Eastern Sigillata B ware, a major component of the sigillata tradition in the East.

The two groups differ, also, in forms and potter’s stamps. The Eastern Sigillata B1 wares are mostly thin-walled, with sharp profiles and complex mouldings. Potter’s stamps, mottoes or convivial greetings occur in this early group. Conversely, Eastern Sigillata B2 wares tend to be thickerwalled, with a limited range of forms that look simpler and less elegant. The stamps’ theme, also, was cut down to simple floral impressions, such as rosettes. Both groups were decorated by rouletting on the exterior, mostly on the rim’s moulding with the addition of some appliqué ornaments, also on the rim’s band.

6.1.1.3 Eastern Sigillata B or Samian ware The term “Samian ware” occurred in Plautus (Bacchides, 201, 202; Captivi, 290-292; Menaechmi, 179; Stichus, 693695), who gave us some information about a fine pottery that was made at some time on the island of Samos. Therefore, it has been used a number of times in literature to refer to any kind of ceramic tableware. A large number of Eastern Sigillata B ware was found in Samos, but there is no archaeological evidence to prove the existence of a manufacture centre on the island. Also, the same term was used for the provincial pottery produced in Gaul. Therefore, Kenyon (1957), considering the term improper and out of date, invented the term Eastern Sigillata B, which replaced the term Samian ware in recent publications, such as Hellström (1965) and Hayes. The term is well-established and continues to be in use by the modern archaeologists.

Table 9 illustrates similar examples of the ware to those found in north-eastern Greece. 6.1.1.3.1

Eastern Sigilllata B1

Hayes (EAA) Form 8; Kenrick (1985) B345 Small dish with low ring-foot, gently sloping floor and vertical rim with simple mouldings at top and bottom. Hayes (EAA): mid 1st century A.D.

This kind of red-gloss ware started to be produced from the beginning of the 1st century A.D. until the end of the 2nd century A.D. It was the most frequently found in the Aegean and Black Sea areas during this period. Its place of manufacture has been located somewhere in Asia Minor and possibly in the area of Tralles. Pliny (Hist. Nat. XXV, 12, 160) mentioned Tralles as one important place of manufacture of fine pottery. Several fragments of that ware were found near Ephesus, the stamp indicating a connection with Caesaria, which was the official name of Tralles in early Imperial times. The forms of the ware indicate a connection or tendency to imitate those of the Arretine wares. It is very likely that the early Eastern Sigillata B1 derived from the Arretine.

44. Abdera 46a/32. (Figure 35) Fragment of base. D. 0,055m, H. 0,015m, W. 0,05m, Th. 0,005m. 45. Abdera 148/24. (Figure 35) Fragment of base. D. 0,07m, H. 0,015m, W. 0,09m, Th. 0,004m. Clay (5YR 7/6, 2,5YR 6/8). Slip (2,5YR 6/8). 46. Abdera 148/38. (Figure 35) Fragment of base. D. 0,07m, H. 0,015m, W. 0,095m, Th. 0,003m. Clay (5YR 7/6, 5YR 6/8). Slip (5YR 6/8).

Hayes (EAA) Form 15; Kenrick (1985) B346 Small bowl with flat floor, low curving wall and flat rim, rouletting on top and hooked upwards at the outer edge; low oblique ring-foot; single and double concentric grooves on floor. 1st century A.D.

29

47. Abdera 20/18. (Figure 35) Fragment of rim. D. 0,12m, H. 0,02m, W. 0,06m, Th. 0,003m.

Fragment of rim. 68. Abdera 20/26. Fragment of rim. D. uncertain, H. 0,04m, W. 0,045m, Th. 0,004m. 69. Abdera 20/27. Fragment of rim. D. 0,20m, H. 0,015m, W. 0,035m, Th. 0,003m. 70. Abdera 20/28. Fragment of rim. D. uncertain, H. 0,02m, W. 0,03m, Th. 0,003m. 71. Abdera 20/29. Fragment of rim. D. 0,18m, H. 0,01m, W. 0,025m, Th. 0,003m. 72. Abdera 22/17. Fragment of rim. D. 0,25m, H. 0,02m, W. 0,055m, Th. 0,005m. Clay (5YR 7/6, 2,5YR 6/8). Slip (2,5YR 6/8). 73. Abdera 22/21. Fragment of body. H. 0,03m, W. 0,03m, Th. 0,004m. Clay (5YR 7/6, 2,5YR 6/8). Slip (2,5YR 6/8). 74. Abdera 22/23. Fragment of body. H. 0,04m, W. 0,04m, Th. 0,004m. Clay (5YR 7/6, 5YR 6/8). Slip (5YR 6/8). 75. Abdera 46a/15. (Figure 36) Fragment of rim. D. 0,11m, H. 0,015, W. 0,06m, Th. 0,005m. Clay (5YR 7/4, 2,5YR 4/8). Slip (2,5YR 4/8). 76. Abdera 46a/39a,b,c,d. Fragments of base. D. 0,065m, H. 0,015m, W. 0,065m, Th. 0,004m. 77. Abdera 148/20. Fragment of rim. D. 0,24m, H. 0,02m, W. 0,05m, Th. 0,004m. Clay (5YR 7/6, 2,5YR 6/8). Slip (2,5YR 6/8). 78. Abdera 148/23. Fragment of rim. D. uncertain, H. 0,02m, W. 0,04m, Th. 0,004m. Clay (5YR 7/6, 2,5YR 6/8). Slip (2,5YR 6/8). Quite glossy on both sides. 79. Abdera 148/25. Fragment of rim. D. 0,15m, H. 0,02m, W. 0,085, Th. 0,004m. Clay (5YR 7/6, 2,5YR 6/8). Slip (2,5YR 6/8). 80. Abdera 148/26. Fragment of rim. D. 0,26m, H. 0,02m, W. 0,06m, Th. 0,005m. Clay (5YR 7/6, 2,5YR 6/8). Slip (2,5YR 6/8). 81. Abdera 148/27. Fragment of body. H. 0,025m, W. 0,045m, Th. 0,005m. Clay (5YR 7/6, 2,5YR 6/8). Slip (2,5YR 6/8). 82. Abdera 148/28. Fragment of base, body, and rim. D. of rim 0,24m, H. 0,035m, W. 0,06m, Th. 0,004m. Clay (5YR 7/6, 2,5YR 6/8). Slip (2,5YR 6/8). 83. Abdera 148/30. Fragment of rim. D. uncertain, H. 0,055m, W. 0,045m, Th. 0,005m. Clay (5YR 7/6, 2,5YR 5/8). Slip (2,5YR 5/8). 84. Amphipolis 03/18. Fragment of rim. D. 0,12m, H. 0,025m. 85. Amphipolis 03/19. Fragment of rim. D. uncertain, H. 0,025m, W. 0,025m, Th. 0,005m. 86. Amphipolis 03/20. Fragment of rim. D. uncertain, H. 0,035m, W. 0,045m, Th. 0,005m. 87. Amphipolis 03/21. Fragment of body. H. 0,04m, W. 0,04m, Th. 0,006m. 88. Amphipolis 03/22. Fragment of body. H. 0,02m, W. 0,04m, Th. 0,003m. 89. Amphipolis 03/23. Fragment of body. H. 0,035m, W. 0,045m, Th. 0,004m. 90. Amphipolis 03/24. Fragment of body. H. 0,055m, W. 0,03m, Th. 0,004m. 91. Amphipolis 03/28. Fragment of rim. D. uncertain, H. 0,015m, W. 0,025m, Th. 0,004m. 92. Amphipolis 03/31. Fragment of body. H. 0,03m, W. 0,035m, Th. 0,006m. 93. Amphipolis 04/14. Fragment of body. H. 0,04m, W. 0,07m, Th. 0,007m. Clay (2,5YR 6/8) light red, very fine with inclusions. Slip (10R 5/6) red, glossy inside, dull outside. 94. Amphipolis 05/06. Fragment of rim. D. uncertain, H. 0,015m. Clay (10R 6/6) light red. Slip (10R 5/6) red. 95. Amphipolis 05/07, 08, and 09 Fragments of body, close to the base. Clay (10R 4/6) pale red. Slip (10R 4/6) pale red. 96. Amphipolis 77/15. (Figure 36)

Kenrick (1985) B348 Small hemispherical cup with moulded pedestal-foot. Third quarter of 1st century A.D. 48. Abdera 29b/08. (Figure 35) Fragment of base. D. 0,08m, H. 0,015m. Clay (5YR 6/8-7/8). Slip (2,5YR 5/8). 49. Abdera 29b/09. (Figure 35) Fragment of base. D. 0,07m, H. 0,015m. Clay (5YR 6/6). Slip (2,5YR 4/8). 50. Abdera 29c/05. (Figure 35) Fragment of base.

Unknown form 51. Amphipolis 05/05. (Figure 35) Fragment of rim. D. 0,08m, H. 0,015m. Clay (2,5YR 6/6) light red. Slip (10R 4/8) red.

6.1.1.3.2

Eastern Sigillata B2

Hayes (EAA) Form 60, Kenrick (1985) B352 Flat-based dishes with sloping wall and incurved rim. Mainly c. A.D. 100-150, small examples from c. A.D. 50/60. 52. Abdera 19/40. Fragment of flat base and body. 53. Abdera 20/21. (Figure 36) Fragment of rim. D. uncertain, H. 0,03m, W. 0,04m, Th. 0,004m. 54. Abdera 148/35. (Figure 36) Fragment of rim. D. 0,25m, H. 0,035m, W. 0,07m, Th. 0,004m. Clay (5YR 7/8, 2,5YR 5/8). Slip (2,5YR 5/8). Large quantity of silver mica is visible in the body-clay and in the coat.

Hayes (EAA) Form 63, Kenrick (1985) B356 Flat-based dishes with ledge-foot at the edge of floor, sloping wall and everted (downturned) rim. Hayes (EAA): A.D. 80-120. 55. Abdera 02/19. Fragment of rim. D. 0,22m, H. 0,045m, W. 0,105m, Th. 0,006m. Clay (2,5YR 5/8, 2,5YR 5/8). Slip (2,5YR 5/8). 56. Abdera 16/06. Fragment of base. D. uncertain, H. 0,02m, W. 0,07m, Th. 0,005m. Clay (7,5YR 7/6, 2,5YR 5/6). Slip (2,5YR 5/6). 57. Abdera 19/25. Fragment of rim. 58. Abdera 19/26. Fragment of rim. 59. Abdera 19/27. Fragment of rim. 60. Abdera 19/28. Fragment of rim. 61. Abdera 19/29. Fragment of rim. 62. Abdera 19/30. Fragment of rim. 63. Abdera 19/37. Fragment of body. 64. Abdera 19/41. Fragment of rim. 65. Abdera 19/42. Fragment of rim. 66. Abdera 19/43. Fragment of rim. 67. Abdera 19/44.

30

Fragment of rim. 97. Thasos 16/13. (Figure 36) Fragment of rim. D. 0,11m, H. 0,015m.

Fragment of base. D. 0,045m, H. 0,02m. 122. Thasos 09/17. Fragment of rim. D. 0,18m, H. 0,02m. 123. Thasos 11/19. Fragment of rim. D. 0,26m, H. 0,03m. 124. Thasos 11/20. Fragment of base. D. 0,09m, H. 0,01m. 125. Thasos 12/02. Fragment of base. D. 0,045m, H. 0,01m. 126. Thasos 15/06. Fragment of base. D. 0,06m, H. 0,02m. 127. Thasos 21/13. Fragment of base. D. 0,045m, H. 0,03m.

Hayes (EAA) Form 70; Kenrick (1985) B359 Conical cups with flat floor, steep flaring wall, vertical moulded rim and low ring-foot. Kenrick (1985): mainly A.D. 75-125. 98. Abdera 02/13. Fragment of rim. D. uncertain, H. 0,025m, W. 0,045m, Th. 0,003m. 99. Abdera 02/14. Fragment of rim. D. 0,12m, H. 0,025m, W. 0,045m, Th. 0,004m. 100. Abdera 20/31. Fragment of base. D. 0,13m, H. 0,01m, W. 0,03m, Th. 0,004m. 101. Abdera 20/32. Fragment of base. D. uncertain, H. 0,03m, W. 0,015m, Th. 0,004m. 102. Abdera 29b/03. (Figure 37) Fragment of base and body. D. 0,08m, H. 0,02m. Clay (5YR 7/8). Slip (5YR 6/8). 103. Abdera 29b/04. Fragment of base. D. 0,07m, H. 0,015m. Clay (7,5YR 7/8). Slip (2,5YR 4/8). 104. Abdera 29b/10a and b. (Figure 37) Two joining fragments of base. D. 0,06m, H. 0,035m. Clay (5YR 7/4). Slip (5YR 5/6-5/3). 105. Abdera 29b/24. (Figure 37) Fragment of body. H. 0,025m, Th. 0,003m. Clay (5YR 7/6). Slip (2,5YR 5/8). 106. Abdera 29b/25. (Figure 37) Fragment of body. H. 0,025m, Th. 0,004m. Clay (5YR 6/6). Slip (2,5YR 5/8). 107. Abdera 29b/26. Fragment of body. H. 0,025m, Th. 0,002m. Clay (7,5YR 6/6). Slip (2,5YR 5/8). 108. Abdera 29b/28. Fragment of body. H. 0,03m, Th. 0,004m. Clay (5YR 6/8). Slip (5YR 6/8). 109. Abdera 29b/29. Fragment of rim. D. 0,17m, H. 0,035m. Clay (5YR 6/8). Slip (5YR 6/8). 110. Abdera 29b/39. (Figure 37) Fragment of a stamped base. H. 0,03m, Th. 0,002m. Clay (5YR 6/6). Slip (5YR 6/8). 111. Abdera 82/05. Fragment of base. D. 0,04m, H. 0,03m. 112. Abdera 82/10. Fragment of body. H. 0,03m, W. 0,04m, Th. 0,005m. Clay (5YR 6/6). Slip (2,5YR 5/8). 113. Abdera 82/12. Fragment of body. H. 0,05m, W. 0,05m, Th. 0,004m. Clay (5YR 6/6). Slip (2,5YR 5/8). 114. Abdera 82/14. Fragment of body. H. 0,11m, W. 0,07m, Th. 0,004m. Clay (2,5YR 6/6). Slip (10R 4/8). 115. Abdera 82/18. Fragment of rim. D. uncertain, H. 0,015m, W. 0,025m, Th. 0,003m. Clay (2,5YR 6/8). Slip (2,5YR 5/8). 116. Abdera 82/18a. Fragment of body. Clay (2,5YR 6/8). Slip (2,5YR 5/8). 117. Amphipolis 13/09. Fragment of rim. D. 0,14m, H. 0,04m. Clay (2,5YR 6/8) light red. Slip (10R 5/8) red. 118. Amphipolis 68/03. (Figure 38) Fragment of body. H. 0,14 m, W. 0,035m, Th. 0,004m. Clay (2,5YR 7/6). Slip (10R 5/6). Rouletted decoration on the flange. 119. Thasos 05/21. Fragment of body. H. 0,045m. 120. Thasos 05/22. Fragment of base. D. 0,035m, H. 0,02m. 121. Thasos 05/23.

Hayes (EAA) Form 71, Kenrick (1985) B360 Flat-based cups with steep, slightly convex wall and plain rim, one or two grooves on floor, usually enclosing a stamped motif. Hayes (EAA): A.D. 80-120. 128. Abdera 11/33. Fragment of rim. D. 0,07m, H. 0,02m, W. 0,02m, Th. 0,004m. 129. Abdera 19/32. Fragment of base. 130. Abdera 19/33. Fragment of base. 131. Abdera 19/34. Fragment of base. 132. Abdera 19/35. Fragment of base. 133. Abdera 19/38. Fragment of base. 134. Abdera 19/39. Fragment of body. 135. Abdera 19/46. Fragment of base. 136. Abdera 19/47. Fragment of base. 137. Abdera 19/50. Fragment of base. 138. Abdera 20/30. (Figure 38) Fragment of base. D. 0,13m, H. 0,01m, W. 0,05m, Th. 0,005m. 139. Abdera 21/15. Fragment of base. 140. Abdera 21/16. Fragment of base. 141. Abdera 21/17. Fragment of base. 142. Abdera 21/18. Fragment of base. 143. Abdera 21/19. Fragment of base. 144. Abdera 21/20. Fragment of base. 145. Abdera 21/21. Fragment of base. 146. Abdera 21/22. Fragment of base. 147. Abdera 21/23. Fragment of base. 148. Abdera 21/24. Fragment of base. 149. Abdera 21/25. Fragment of base. 150. Abdera 46a/38. (Figure 38) Fragment of base. D. 0,14 m, H. 0,005m, W. 0,04m, Th. 0,004m. 151. Abdera 82/13. (Figure 38) Fragment of base. D. 0,13m, H. 0,010m, W. 0,09m, Th. 0,004m. Clay (5YR 6/6). Slip (2,5YR 5/8). 152. Abdera 82/15. (Figure 38)

31

Fragment of base. D. 0,08m, H. 0,01m, W. 0,045m, Th. 0,006m. Clay (5YR 7/8). Slip (2,5YR 5/8). 153. Abdera 82/16. Fragment of body. H. 0,05m, W. 0,055m, Th. 0,005m. Clay (2,5YR 6/6). Slip (10R 4/8). 154. Abdera 82/16a. Fragment of body. H. 0,04m, W. 0,045m, Th. 0,005m. Clay (2,5YR 6/6). Slip (10R 4/8). 155. Abdera 148/19. (Figure 38) Fragment of rim. D. 0,16m, H. 0,015m, W. 0,035m, Th. 0,004m. Clay (2,5YR 6/8, 2,5YR 5/8). Slip (2,5YR 5/8). Quite glossy on both sides.

under the lip. (see S.Zabehlicky-Scheffenegger, “Ephesos: Metropolis of Asia”, p.223). 170. Amphipolis 17/07. (Figure 39) Fragment of rim. D. 0,20m, H. 0,03m.

6.1.1.4 Çandarli ware The Çandarli ware belongs to the same group of Terra Sigillata wares with a similar origin to the Eastern Sigillata wares. The ware was named “Çandarli” by S. Loeschcke (1912, 350), who published the first typology. He discovered in 1911, during his trial excavation at Çandarli (ancient Pitane), evidence of its place of manufacture near Pergamon. K.M. Kenyon (1957, 282-283) classified and named the same kind of ware found in Samaria-Sebaste “Eastern Sigillata C”. According to Hayes (1972, 316), this ware is the descendant of the Hellenistic black- and red-gloss, and relief wares found in Pergamon. Its production and circulation covered the whole area of the Aegean and Mediterranean Seas throughout the first three centuries of our era.

Hayes (EAA) Form 76, Kenrick (1985) B361 Flat-based bowls with steep convex wall and flat, tapering rim, recessed underside, groove on floor. Second half of 1st century A.D. 156. Abdera 02/16. Fragment of base. D. 0,10m, H. 0,015m, W. 0,05m, Th. 0,005m. Clay (5YR 7/6, 2,5YR 5/8). Slip (2,5YR 5/8). 157. Abdera 02/18. (Figure 39) Fragment of base. D. 0,11m, H. 0,02m, W. 0,085m, Th. 0,006m. Clay (5YR 7/6, 2,5YR 5/8). Slip (2,5YR 5/8). 158. Abdera 11/30a,b. Two fragments of rim, and body. D. 0,22m, H. 0,025m, W. 0,08m, Th. 0,004m. 159. Abdera 19/48. Fragment of base. 160. Abdera 19/49. Fragment of base. 161. Abdera 148/21. Fragment of rim. D. 0,24m, H. 0,01m, W. 0,045m, Th. 0,005m. Clay (5YR 7/6, 2,5YR 6/8). Slip (2,5YR 6/8). Quite glossy on both sides.

Further studies and a closer look at the ware suggested its division into two groups, based on their fabric and shape. Hayes (1972) gives us a detailed description of the ware, which I have repeated here in full: Fabric and slip: “The distinguishing mark of the Çandarli fabric is the occasional appearance in the clay of large flakes of golden mica. The ware is otherwise often virtually identical in appearance to late pieces of Italian sigillata, though the Çandarli products are rather thicker-walled and can be distinguished by their low heavy feet and lack of decoration. As noted by Loeschcke, two fabrics may be distinguished. The products of the first century are characterised by a finegrained orange body with a lustrous orange or orange-red gloss, generally thicker on the inside than on the outside, and often omitted under the base. In the second century and later the ware approximates more closely to that of Italian and Gaulish sigillata: it is almost always hard-fired, generally red-brown, maroon or even purplish in colour, with (on the inside, at any rate) a good gloss of a similar shade. The interior of these late products is normally finely smoothed and given a thick gloss surface, highly resistant to wear; the exterior, on the other hand, tends to be poorly finished, with numerous scratches from the final tooling, and its gloss coating is thin and lacking in lustre. On occasions the gloss contains quantities of fine silvery mica. Not infrequently the marks of three small pad-like kiln-supports are visible on the floor or the resting-surface of the foot. Decoration is kept to a minimum.” Date: “Since from about the middle of the second century onwards the Çandarli factories concentrated on the production of a few simple shapes only, which were manufactured in very large quantities and with no more than minor changes for the next century and a half, if not longer. During this period only one new shape was introduced; the rest are merely developments of forms already in existence by the end of the first century. The date of the end of production is none too

Hayes (EAA) Form 80; Kenrick (1985) B362 Bowl with low ring-foot, curving wall and thickened, flat rim; two grooves on outside of rim. Hayes (EAA): A.D. 80-150. 162. Amphipolis 94/07. (Figure 39) Fragment of rim. D. 0,26m, H. 0,055m. Clay (2,5YR 6/8). Slip (2,5YR 6/8).

Unknown forms 163. Plate (Figure 39) Abdera 11/26. Mended. Fragment of base, body, rim. D. of base 0,07m, D. of rim 0,10m, H. 0,019m, Th. 0,003m. 164. Closed shape Abdera 11/28. Fragment of body. H. 0,05m, W. 0,06m, Th. 0,003m. 165. Abdera 19/52. Fragment of rim. 166. Mug Abdera 22/22. Fragment of handle. 167. Bowl Abdera 24b/49. Fragment of base. D. 0,04m. 168. Bowl (Figure 39) Abdera 46a/20. Fragment of rim. D. 0,12m, H. 0,045m, W. 0,045m, Th. 0,002m. An embossed anthemion decorates the upper part of the rim. 169. Amphipolis 15/16. (Figure 39) Rim fragment. D. 0,16 m. H. 0,022m. Splintery cinnamon-coloured clay, with fine mica visible, but no other major impurities. The slip is almost black (5YR 3/1very dark grey) on outside and brownish inside (5YR 4/4 reddish-brown), especially

32

clear. In general, Çandarli ware seems to disappear from the scene around the middle of the third century, its place being taken by African Red Slip Ware: in the Athenian Agora, for instance, it is only poorly represented in the destruction material of A.D. 267. However, it seems to have continued in use until considerably later in the Pergamon region itself. In a deposit at Mytilene, dated on coin-evidence to c. 320-340, fragments of all the standard forms are present in considerable numbers, together with a few pieces of African ware of early fourth-century types. Though many of the former are probably survival-pieces, the relative paucity of African Red Slip ware suggests that Çandarli ware was still the predominant fine ware in this region in the early fourth century. To this may be added the probability of a direct connection with the later Late Roman C ware. Çandarli ware would seem, then, to have continued to be made until some time in the fourth century, though in its later phases it was probably supplying a local market only.”

Hayes (1972) Form 2, Knipovich (1968) type 17(M)=18(T) Dish, medium sized or small, with shallow flaring wall and plain or thickened rim, and a low heavy foot. 186. Abdera 02/07. Fragment of rim. D. 0,03m, H. 0,025m, W. 0,06m, Th. 0,005m. 187. Abdera 02/08. Fragment of rim. D. uncertain, H. 0,025m, W. 0,025m, Th. 0,005m. 188. Abdera 02/09. Fragment of rim. D. uncertain, H. 0,025m, W. 0,03m, Th. 0,004m. 189. Abdera 02/10. Fragment of rim. D. uncertain, H. 0,02m, W. 0,04m, Th. 0,004m. 190. Abdera 02/11. Fragment of rim. D. uncertain, H. 0,02m, W. 0,03m, Th. 0,003m. 191. Abdera 02/12. Fragment of rim. D. 0,17m, H. 0,035m, W. 0,05m, Th. 0,005m. 192. Abdera 11/11a,b. Fragment of rim. D. 0,16m, H. 0,025m, W. 0,11m, Th. 0,005m. 193. Abdera 11/12. Fragment of rim. D. uncertain, H. 0,02m, W. 0,035m, Th. 0,005m. 194. Abdera 11/13. Fragment of body. H. 0,02m, W. 0,035m, Th. 0,005m. 195. Abdera 11/19. Fragment of base. D. 0,07m, H. 0,015m, W. 0,06m, Th. 0,004m. 196. Abdera 11/20. (Figure 43) Fragment of rim. D. 0,22m, H. 0,035m, W. 0,06m, Th. 0,006m. 197. Abdera 11/21. (Figure 43) Fragment of rim. D. 0,22m, H. 0,06m, W. 0,04m, Th. 0,005m. 198. Abdera 11/23a,b. Fragment of rim. D. uncertain, H. 0,015m, W. 0,03m, Th. 0,003m. 199. Abdera 11/22. (Figure 43) Fragment of rim. D. uncertain, H. 0,025m, W. 0,03m, Th. 0,004m. 200. Abdera 11/24. Fragment of body. H. 0,03m, W. 0,02m, Th. 0,002m. 201. Abdera 15/04a,b. Fragment of rim. D. 0,27m, H. 0,025m, W. 0,10m, Th. 0,005m. Clay (5YR 7/7, 2,5YR 5/8). Slip (2,5YR 5/8). 202. Abdera 19/01. Fragment of rim. 203. Abdera 19/11. Fragment of rim. 204. Abdera 19/16. Fragment of rim. 205. Abdera 19/17. Fragment of rim. 206. Abdera 19/18. Fragment of rim. 207. Abdera 19/19. Fragment of rim. 208. Abdera 19/20. Fragment of rim. 209. Abdera 19/21. Fragment of rim. 210. Abdera 19/22. Fragment of rim. 211. Abdera 19/36. Fragment of rim. 212. Abdera 20/07. Fragment of rim. D. 0,16m, H. 0,025m, W. 0,035m, Th. 0,003m. Clay (7,5Y 7/6, 2,5YR 4/8). Slip (2,5YR 4/8). 213. Abdera 22/07a,b. Two joined fragments of rim. D. 0,23m, H. 0,02m, W. 0,06m, Th. 0,003m. Clay (2,5YR 6/6, 10R 4/6). Slip (2,5YR 4/8). 214. Abdera 22/10. Fragment of rim. D. 0,24m, H. 0,025m, W. 0,04m, Th. 0,005m. Clay (2,5YR 6/6, 10R 4/6). Slip (2,5YR 4/8). 215. Abdera 22/11. Fragment of rim. D. 0,25m, H. 0,02m, W. 0,055m, Th. 0,005m. Clay (2,5YR 6/6, 10R 4/6). Slip (2,5YR 4/8). 216. Abdera 22/25. Fragment of rim. D. 0,18m, H. 0,02m, W. 0,05m, Th. 0,005m. Clay (5YR 6/6, 2,5YR 4/8). Slip (2,5YR 4/8).

Tables 10 and 11 illustrate the most typical shapes of the ware, similar to those found in north-eastern Greece. Hayes (1972) Form 1 Bowl or basin with straight wall, heavy angular rim and low heavy foot. 171. Abdera 15/05. (Figure 40) Fragment of rim. D. uncertain, H. 0,025m, W. 0,03m, Th. 0,004m. Clay (5YR 6/6, 2,5YR 5/8). Slip (2,5YR 5/8). 172. Abdera 46a/41. (Figure 40) Fragment of rim. D. 0,24m, H. 0,02m, W. 0,045m, Th. 0,004m. Clay (5YR 6/6-7/4). 173. Abdera 23/01 a, b, c, d, e, f. (Figure 40) Fragments of rim, and body. D. 0,26m, H. 0,095m, W. 0,24, Th. 0,006m. 174. Amphipolis 34/12. Fragment of rim. D. 0,32m, H. 0,075m. Clay (2,5YR 6/6) light red. Slip (2,5YR 6/6) light red. 175. Amphipolis 80/12. Fragment of rim. 176. Thasos 16/15. (Figure 40) Fragment of rim. D. 0,28m, H. 0,075m. 177. Abdera 29c/02. (Figure 41) Fragment of base. D. 0,11m, H. 0,03m. 178. Amphipolis 04/01 (Figure 41) Fragment of base. D. 0,05m, H. 0,01m. Clay (5YR 6/6) reddish yellow, with golden mica. Slip (2,5YR 4/6) red, with silver mica. 179. Amphipolis 30/01. (Figure 41) Fragment of base. D. 0,10m, H. 0,035m. Clay (10R 6/6) light red. Slip (10R 4/8-5/8) red. 180. Amphipolis 31a/01 (Figure 41) Whole base. D. 0,09m, H. 0,035m. Clay red (10R 6/8). Slip light red (2,5YR 6/8). 181. Thasos 05/19. (Figure 41) Fragment of base. D. 0,09m, H. 0,05m. 182. Thasos 16/21. (Figure 42) Fragment of base. D. 0,08m, H. 0,04m. 183. Thasos 20/04. (Figure 42) Fragment of base. D. 0,10, H. 0,04m. 184. Amphipolis 04/12. Fragment of body. H. 0,05m, W. 0,065m, Th. 0,005m. Clay (2,5YR 6/6) light red, very fine, with silver mica. Slip (2,5YR 4/4) reddish brown. 185. Amphipolis 04/13. Fragment of body. H. 0,02m, W. 0,045m, Th. 0,005m. Clay and slip similar to 04/12. Possibly from the same vessel.

33

217. Abdera 23/03. Fragment of rim. D. 0,16m, H. 0,01m, W. 0,045m, Th. 0,006m. 218. Abdera 34/05. (Figure 44) Fragment of rim. D. 0,26m, H. 0,04m. 219. Abdera 34/07. (Figure 44) Fragment of rim. D. 0,22m, H. 0,025m. 220. Abdera 46a/11. (Figure 44) Fragment of rim. D. 0,20m, H. 0,03, W. 0,07m, Th. 0,006m. Clay (5YR 7/4, 2,5YR 4/8). Slip (2,5YR 4/8). 221. Abdera 46a/12. (Figure 44) Fragment of rim. D. 0,22m, H. 0,075, W. 0,07m, Th. 0,005m. Clay (5YR 7/4, 2,5YR 4/8). Slip (2,5YR 4/8). 222. Abdera 46a/13. Fragment of rim. D. 0,20m, H. 0,035, W. 0,08m, Th. 0,005m. Clay (5YR 7/4, 2,5YR 4/8). Slip (2,5YR 4/8). 223. Abdera 46a/14. (Figure 44) Fragment of rim. D. 0,23m, H. 0,035, W. 0,055m, Th. 0,005m. Clay (5YR 7/4, 2,5YR 4/8). Slip (2,5YR 4/8). 224. Abdera 46a/16. Fragment of rim. D. 0,25m, H. 0,045, W. 0,045m, Th. 0,004m. Clay (5YR 7/4, 2,5YR 4/8). Slip (2,5YR 4/8). 225. Abdera 46a/18. (Figure 44) Fragment of base, body, and rim. D. of rim 0,19m, H. 0,035, W. 0,07m, Th. 0,005m. Clay (5YR 7/4, 2,5YR 4/8). Slip (2,5YR 4/8). 226. Abdera 46a/19. Fragment of rim. D. 0,20m, H. 0,03, W. 0,04m, Th. 0,004m. Clay (5YR 7/4, 2,5YR 4/8). Slip (2,5YR 4/8). 227. Abdera 46a/21. Fragment of rim. D. 0,20m, H. 0,035, W. 0,06m, Th. 0,004m. Clay (5YR 7/4, 2,5YR 4/8). Slip (2,5YR 4/8). 228. Abdera 46a/22. Fragment of rim. D. 0,19m, H. 0,02, W. 0,05m, Th. 0,004m. Clay (5YR 7/4, 2,5YR 4/8). Slip (2,5YR 4/8). 229. Abdera 46a/23. Fragment of rim. D. 0,22m, H. 0,02, W. 0,085m, Th. 0,005m. Clay (5YR 7/4, 2,5YR 4/8). Slip (2,5YR 4/8). 230. Abdera 46b/07. (Figure 45) Fragment of rim. D. 0,22m, H. 0,045m, W. 0,07m, Th. 0,005m. Clay (2,5YR 6/6). Slip (2,5YR 4/8). 231. Abdera 46b/08. Fragment of rim. D. uncertain, H. 0,02m, W. 0,02m, Th. 0,004m. Clay (5YR 6/6). Slip (10R 5/8). 232. Abdera 46b/09. (Figure 45) Fragment of rim. D. 0,24m, H. 0,035m, W. 0,045m, Th. 0,005m. Clay (5YR 6/6). Slip (10R 5/8). 233. Abdera 46b/10. (Figure 45) Fragment of rim. D. 0,24m, H. 0,02m, W. 0,04m, Th. 0,004m. Clay (2,5YR 6/6). Slip (2,5YR 4/8). 234. Abdera 46b/14. Fragment of rim. D. 0,17m, H. 0,015m, W. 0,045m, Th. 0,004m. Clay (5YR 6/6). Slip (10R 5/8). 235. Abdera 46b/15. Fragment of rim. D. 0,25m, H. 0,03m, W. 0,035m, Th. 0,005m. Clay (5YR 6/6). Slip (10R 5/8). 236. Abdera 82/06. Fragment of rim. D. 0,22m, H. 0,035m, W. 0,07m, Th. 0,005m. Clay (2,5YR 6/6). Slip (2,5YR 4/8). 237. Abdera 82/07. (Figure 45) Fragment of rim. D. 0,26m, H. 0,02m, W. 0,04m, Th. 0,004m. Clay (2,5YR 6/6). Slip (2,5YR 4/8). 238. Abdera 93/03a,b,c. Fragments of rim. D. 0,07m, H. 0,015m, W. 0,065m, Th. 0,005m. Clay (5YR 7/6, 2,5YR 6/8). Slip (2,5YR 6/8). 239. Abdera 148/02. (Figure 45) Fragment of rim. D. 0,26m, H. 0,055, W. 0,04m, Th. 0,004m. Clay (5YR 7/4, 2,5YR 4/6). Slip (2,5YR 4/6). 240. Abdera 148/03. Fragment of rim. D. 0,26m, H. 0,035m, W. 0,04m, Th. 0,003m. Clay (5YR 7/4, 2,5YR 4/6). Slip (2,5YR 4/6). 241. Abdera 148/04. Fragment of rim. D. 0,23m, H. 0,06m, W. 0,04m, Th. 0,005m. Clay (5YR 7/4, 2,5YR 4/6). Slip (2,5YR 4/6).

242. Abdera 148/17. Fragment of rim. D. 0,22m, H. 0,03m, W. 0,045m, Th. 0,005m. Clay (5YR 7/6, 2,5YR 4/8). Slip (2,5YR 4/8). 243. Abdera 148/31. Fragment of body. H. 0,05m, W. 0,045m, Th. 0,004m. Clay (7,5YR 7/6 ,5YR 6/8). Slip (5YR 6/8). 244. Abdera 148/33. Fragment of rim. D. 0,13m, H. 0,03m, W. 0,05m, Th. 0,004m. Clay (7,5YR 7/6, 5YR 6/8). Slip (5YR 6/8). 245. Amphipolis 34/01. (Figure 46) Fragment of base, body, and rim. D. of rim 0,23m, D. of base 0,09m, H. 0,045m. Clay (10R 6/6) light red. Slip (2,5YR 4/6) reddish brown. 246. Amphipolis 55a/01a,b. (Figure 46) Two fragments of base. D. 0,07m, H. 0,025m. Clay (10R 6/6). Slip (10R 4/6). One groove on the floor. 247. Amphipolis 61/01. (Figure 46) Mended. Fragments of base, body, and rim. D. of base 0,10m, D. of rim 0,24m, total H. 0,05m. Clay (10R 7/6). Slip (10R 4/8). 248. Amphipolis 03/10. Fragment of rim. D. 0,10m, H. 0,02m. 249. Amphipolis 03/11. (Figure 47) Fragment of rim. D. 0,135m, H. 0,045m. 250. Amphipolis 03/12. (Figure 47) Fragment of rim. D. 0,15m, H. 0,05m. 251. Amphipolis 06/09 and06/10. Fragments of rim. D. 0,28m, H. 0,015m. Clay (10R 7/4) pale red, with silver mica. Slip (10R 4/6-5/6), with silver mica. 252. Amphipolis 13/12. (Figure 47) Fragment of rim. D. 0,22m, H. 0,025m. Clay (2,5YR 7/8) light red. Slip (2,5YR 4/8) red. 253. Amphipolis 13/13. Fragment of rim. D. uncertain, H. 0,04m. Clay (2,5YR 7/8) light red. Slip (2,5YR 4/8) red. 254. Amphipolis 13/14. (Figure 47) Fragment of rim. D. 0,28m, H. 0,025m. Clay (2,5YR 7/8) light red. Slip (2,5YR 4/8-6/8) light red. 255. Amphipolis 23/03. Fragment of rim. D. uncertain, H. 0,025, W. 0,02m, Th. 0,006m. Clay (2,5YR 6/8) light red. Slip (10R 4/8-5/8) red. 256. Amphipolis 30/05. Fragment of rim. D. uncertain, H. 0,04m, W. 0,04m, Th. 0,004m. Clay (10R 6/6) light red. Slip (10R 4/8-5/8) red. 257. Amphipolis 31b/06 and 31a/08. (Figure 47) Two joined fragments of rim. D. 0,28m, H. 0,10m. Clay fine (10R 6/6) light red. Slip (2,5YR 6/8) light red. 258. Amphipolis 36/11a and b. Two fragments of rim. D. uncertain, H. 0,025m, W. 0,035m, Th. 0,004m. Clay (10R 6/8). Slip (10R 5/8). 259. Amphipolis 39/04. (Figure 48) Fragment of rim. D. 0,24m, H. 0,045m. Clay (10R 7/6). Slip (10R 5/8). 260. Amphipolis 39/05 and 39/06. Two joining fragments of rim. D. 0,20m, H. 0,03m. Clay (10R 7/6). Slip (10R 5/8). 261. Amphipolis 39/07. (Figure 48) Fragment of rim. D. 0,26m, H. 0,045m. Clay (10R 7/6). Slip (10R 5/8). 262. Amphipolis 41/03. (Figure 48) Fragment of rim. D. 0,26m, H. 0,015m. Clay (10R 7/6). Slip (10R 5/8). 263. Amphipolis 41/04. (Figure 48) Fragment of rim. D. 0,24m, H. 0,025m. Clay (10R 7/6). Slip (10R 5/8). 264. Amphipolis 50/03. Fragment of base, body, and rim. D. of base 0,16m, D. of rim. 0,26m, H. 0,04m. Clay (10R 7/6). Slip (10R 4/8). 265. Amphipolis 50/09. (Figure 48) Fragment of rim. D. 0,19m, H. 0,02m. Clay (10R 6/8). Slip (10R 5/8). 266. Amphipolis 55a/12. Fragment of rim. Clay (10R 6/6). Slip (10R 4/8-5/8). 267. Amphipolis 55a/13. Fragment of rim. Clay (10R 6/6). Slip (10R 4/8-5/8).

34

268. Amphipolis 55a/14. Fragment of rim. Clay (10R 6/6). Slip (10R 4/8-5/8). 269. Amphipolis 55a/15. Fragment of rim. Clay (10R 6/6). Slip (10R 4/8-5/8). 270. Amphipolis 55a/16. Fragment of rim. Clay (10R 6/6). Slip (10R 4/8-5/8). 271. Amphipolis 55a/17. Two fragments of rim. D. 0,26m, H. 0,05m. Clay (10R 6/6). Slip (10R 4/8). 272. Amphipolis 55a/18. Fragment of rim. D. 0,24m, H. 0,065m. Clay (10R 6/6). Slip (10R 4/85/8). 273. Amphipolis 56/21. Fragment of rim. 274. Amphipolis 56/22. Fragment of rim. 275. Amphipolis 56/23. Fragment of rim. 276. Amphipolis 59/08 and 59/09. Two fragments of rim and body. D. 0,24m, H. 0,045m. Clay (10R 6/8). Slip (10R 5/8). 277. Amphipolis 59b/19. Fragment of rim. 278. Amphipolis 77/20. Fragment of rim. 279. Amphipolis 77/21. Fragment of rim. 280. Amphipolis 80/10. Fragment of rim. 281. Amphipolis 80/11. Fragment of rim. 282. Amphipolis 83/24. Fragment of rim. 283. Amphipolis 83/25. Fragment of rim. 284. Amphipolis 83/26. Fragment of rim. 285. Amphipolis 83/27. Fragment of rim. 286. Amphipolis 83/28. Fragment of rim. 287. Amphipolis 83/29. Fragment of rim. 288. Amphipolis 95/08. Fragment of rim. D. 0,26m, H. 0,065m. Clay (10R 6/6). Slip (10R 5/8). 289. Amphipolis 98/08. Fragment of rim. 290. Thasos 05/15. (Figure 49) Fragment of rim. D. 0,28m, H. 0,045m. 291. Thasos 06/18. Fragment of rim. D. 0,20m, H. 0,025m. 292. Thasos 11/11. Fragment of rim. D. 0,24m, H. 0,025m. 293. Thasos 11/12. Fragment of rim. D. 0,12m, H. 0,02m. 294. Thasos 13/09. (Figure 49) Fragment of rim. D. 0,22m, H. 0,03m. 295. Thasos 15/05. (Figure 49) Fragment of rim. D. 0,26m, H. 0,04m. 296. Thasos 16/14. Fragment of rim. D. uncertain, H. 0,07m. 297. Thasos 16/16. Fragment of rim. D. 0,24m, H. 0,025m. 298. Thasos 16/17. (Figure 49) Fragment of rim. D. 0,30m, H. 0,04m. 299. Thasos 16/18. Fragment of rim. D. 0,22m, H. 0,045m. 300. Thasos 17/02. Fragment of rim. D. uncertain, H. 0,03m. 301. Thasos 21/05. Fragment of rim. D. 0,28m, H. 0,042m. 302. Thasos 21/06.

Fragment of rim. D. 0,30m, H. 0,04m. 303. Thasos 21/07. Fragment of rim. D. 0,28m, H. 0,07m. 304. Abdera 02/01a,b. Fragment of base. D. 0,08m, H. 0,04m, W. 0,10m, Th. 0,009m. 305. Abdera 02/02. Fragment of base. D. 0,10m, H. 0,015m, W. 0,055m, Th. 0,006m. 306. Abdera 02/03. Fragment of base. D. 0,045m, H. 0,02m, W. 0,05m, Th. 0,006m. 307. Abdera 20/12. Fragment of base. D. 0,11m, H. 0,01m, W. 0,07m, Th. 0,005m. Clay (7,5Y 7/6, 2,5YR 4/8). Slip (2,5YR 4/8). 308. Abdera 20/13. (Figure 50) Fragment of base. D. 0,11m, H. 0,015m, W. 0,10m, Th. 0,004m. Clay (7,5Y 7/6, 2,5YR 4/8). Slip (2,5YR 4/8). 309. Abdera 20/33. (Figure 50) Fragment of base. D. 0,09m, H. 0,01m, W. 0,075m, Th. 0,003m. 310. Abdera 20/34. (Figure 50) Fragment of base. D. 0,10m, H. 0,015m, W. 0,04m, Th. 0,007m. 311. Abdera 34/08a,b,c. (Figure 50) Three fragments of base. 312. Abdera 34/09. Fragment of base. D. 0,095m, H. 0,025m. 313. Abdera 46a/37. Fragment of base. D. 0,06m, H. 0,025m, W. 0,09m, Th. 0,005m. 314. Abdera 148/01. Fragment of base. D. 0,10m, H. 0,025m, W. 0,095m, Th. 0,005m. Clay (5YR 7/4, 2,5YR 4/6). Slip (2,5YR 4/6). Two grooves and kiln support traces on the floor. 315. Amphipolis 03/04. (Figure 51) Fragment of the base of a large dish. D. 0,09m, H. 0,02m. Clay fine, light red (10R 6/6), with particles of lime and mica. Slip red (10R 5/8), dull on the internal surface, extremely poor on the outside, it does not cover the whole surface of the base. + kiln support-thing traces 316. Amphipolis 06/01. Fragment of base. D. 0,08m, H. 0,02m. Clay (10R 7/6) light red. Slip (10R 4/8-5/8) red, with both golden and silver mica. 317. Amphipolis 06/02. Fragment of base. D. uncertain, H. 0,02m. Clay and slip similar to 06/01. 318. Amphipolis 07/01. (Figure 51) Fragment of base. D. 0,11m, H. 0,005m. Clay (10R 7/4) pale red. Slip (10R 4/6-4/8) red. 319. Amphipolis 08/02. (Figure 51) Base fragment. D. uncertain, H. 0,015m. Clay fine, light red (10R 7/6), without any visible particles of mica, very hard fired and heavy. Slip red (2,5YR 5/8), better applied and glossier on the inside. Two fine grooves on the floor. 320. Amphipolis 10/13. Base fragment of a low heavy foot. D. 0,07m, H. 0,015m. Clay fine, light red (2,5YR 7/6-7/8), with particles of gold mica. Slip reddishbrown (10R 4/6). 321. Amphipolis 30/02. (Figure 51) Fragment of base. D. 0,10m, H. 0,025m. Clay (10R 6/6) light red. Slip (10R 4/8-5/8) red. 322. Amphipolis 30/03. (Figure 51) Fragment of base. D. 0,10m, H. 0,015m. Clay (7,5YR 8/6) reddish yellow. Slip (10R 4/6-5/6) red. 323. Amphipolis 30/04. Fragment of base. D. 0,18m, H. 0,015m. Clay (10R 6/6) light red. Slip (10R 4/8-5/8) red. 324. Amphipolis 31a/02. (Figure 51) Fragment of base. D. 0,19m, H. 0,035m. Clay (10R 7/6) light red. Slip (10R 5/8) red. 325. Amphipolis 31b/01. Fragment of base. D. 0,06m, H. 0,015m. Clay (2,5YR 7/6) light red. Slip (10R 4/4) weak red. 326. Amphipolis 31b/03. (Figure 51) Fragment of base. D. 0,09m, H. 0,025m. Clay (10R 6/6-6/8). Slip (10R 6/8). 327. Amphipolis 34/03. (Figure 51)

35

328. 329. 330. 331. 332. 333. 334. 335.

336. 337. 338. 339. 340. 341. 342. 343. 344. 345. 346. 347. 348. 349. 350.

Fragment of base. D. 0,08m, H. 0,015m. Clay (2,5YR 6/6) light red. Slip (2,5YR 6/6) light red. Amphipolis 34/06. Fragment of base. D. 0,05m, H. 0,02m. Clay (10R 5/6) red. Slip (10R 4/6). Amphipolis 36/01a and b. (Figure 51) Two joined fragments of base. D. 0,10m, H. 0,02m. Clay (2,5YR 6/6). Slip (10R 5/8). Amphipolis 36/02. (Figure 51) Fragment of base. D. uncertain, H. 0,01m, W. 0,05m. Clay (2,5YR 6/6). Slip (10R 5/8). Amphipolis 39/01. Fragment of base. D. 0,10m, H. 0,03m. Clay (10R 7/6). Slip (10R 5/8). Amphipolis 39/02. Fragment of base. D. uncertain, H. 0,06m, W. 0,13m, Th. 0,006m. Clay (10R 7/6). Slip (10R 6/8). Amphipolis 41/01. (Figure 51) Fragment of base. D. uncertain, H. 0,05m, W. 0,06m. Clay (10R 7/8). Slip (10R 6/8). Amphipolis 43/01. Fragment of base. D. 0,05m, H. 0,015m. Clay (10R 6/6). Slip (10R 4/8). Amphipolis 45/02. (Figure 51) Fragment of a flat base with a low heavy foot. D. 0,06m, H. 0,02m. Clay fine, pinkish-red (2,5YR 8/4), with no mica or other visible inclusions. Slip dark red (10R 4/6), better applied on the inner surface than the outer. A mark of a small pad-like kiln-support is visible on the floor. Amphipolis 50/01a and b. Two joined fragments of base. D. 0,08m, H. 0,025m. Clay (10R 7/6). Slip (10R 4/8). Amphipolis 50/04. Fragment of base. D. 0,09m, H. 0,02m. Clay (10R 6/8). Slip (10R 5/8). Amphipolis 55/01. Fragment of base. D. 0,225m, H. 0,035m. Clay (2,5YR 7/6). Slip (10R 4/6). Amphipolis 55/02. (Figure 52) Fragment of base. D. 0,10m, H. 0,015m. Clay (2,5YR 7/6). Slip (10R 5/8). Amphipolis 55/04. (Figure 52) Fragment of base. D. 0,11m, H. 0,01m. Clay (10R 6/6). Slip (10R 5/8). Amphipolis 55/05. Fragment of base. D. uncertain, H. 0,03m, W 0,03m, Th 0,004m. Clay (2,5YR 6/6). Slip (2,5YR 4/6-4/8). Amphipolis 55/06. (Figure 52) Fragment of base. D. 0,08m, H. 0,015m. Clay (10R 6/6-7/6). Slip (10R 5/8). Amphipolis 55/07. Fragment of base. D. 0,11m, H. 0,015m. Clay (2,5YR 5/8). Slip (2,5YR 4/8). Amphipolis 55/08. Fragment of base. D. 0,13m, H. 0,025m. Clay (2,5YR 6/8). Slip (10R 5/8). Amphipolis 55/09. Fragment of base. D. 0,16m, H. 0,05m. Clay (10R 6/8). Slip (10R 5/8). Amphipolis 55a/02. (Figure 52) Fragment of base. D. 0,08m, H. 0,03m. Clay (10R 5/8). Slip (10R 5/8). One groove on the floor. Amphipolis 56/01. Fragment of base. Amphipolis 59/01. Fragment of base. D. 0,12m, H. 0,015m. Clay (10R 7/6). Slip (10R 6/8). Amphipolis 59/02. Fragment of base. D. 0,10m, H. 0,015m. Clay (10R 8/4) pink. Slip (10R 4/6-3/6) dark red. Amphipolis 59/03. Fragment of base. D. 0,05m, H. 0,015m. Clay (10R 8/4) pink. Slip (10R 4/6-3/6) dark red.

351. Amphipolis 59b/01. Fragment of base. 352. Amphipolis 59b/02. Fragment of base. 353. Amphipolis 59b/03. Fragment of base. 354. Amphipolis 59b/04. Fragment of base. 355. Amphipolis 59b/05. Fragment of base. 356. Amphipolis 61/02. (Figure 52) Fragment of base. D. 0,13m, H. 0,045m. Clay (10R 6/8). Slip (10R 4/8). 357. Amphipolis 69/01. Fragment of base. 358. Amphipolis 77/01. Fragment of base. 359. Amphipolis 77/02. Fragment of base. 360. Amphipolis 77/03. Fragment of base. 361. Amphipolis 81/01. Fragment of base. D. 0,15m, H. 0,015m. Clay (10R 7/6). Slip (10R 5/8). 362. Amphipolis 83/01. Fragment of base. 363. Amphipolis 83/02. Fragment of base. 364. Amphipolis 83/03. Fragment of base. 365. Amphipolis 83/04. Fragment of base. 366. Amphipolis 92a/01. Fragment of base and body. 367. Amphipolis 92a/02. Fragment of base. 368. Amphipolis 94/01. Fragment of base. D. uncertain, H. 0,025m. Clay (10R 6/6). Slip (10R 4/6-4/8). 369. Amphipolis 94/02. Fragment of base. D. 0,10m, H. 0,015m. Clay (10R 6/6). Slip (10R 4/6-4/8). 370. Amphipolis 94/05. Fragment of base. D. 0,04m, H. 0,015m. Clay (10R 6/6-6/8). Slip (10R 4/8-5/8). 371. Amphipolis 95/01 and 95/09. Two joined fragments of base. D. 0,08m, H. 0,04m. Clay (2,5YR 8/4). Slip (10R 4/6). 372. Amphipolis 95/02. Fragment of base. D. 0,09m, H. 0,025m. Clay (2,5YR 6/8). Slip (2,5YR 5/8). 373. Amphipolis 95/03 and 95/05. Two joined fragments of base. D. 0,08m, H. 0,015m. Clay (10R 6/6). Slip (10R 4/8). 374. Amphipolis 98/01. Fragment of base. 375. Amphipolis 98/02. Fragment of base. 376. Amphipolis 100/01. Fragment of base. 377. Amphipolis 100/02. Fragment of base. 378. Amphipolis 100/03. Fragment of base. 379. Thasos 01/04. (Figure 53) Fragment of base. D. 0,10m,H. 0,05m. 380. Thasos 02/01. Fragment of base. D. 0,10m, H. 0,035m. 381. Thasos 02/02. Fragment of base. D. 0,07m, H. 0,025m. 382. Thasos 02/03. Fragment of base. D. 0,06m, H. 0,035m. 383. Thasos 02/05. (Figure 53)

36

Fragment of base. D. 0,10m,H. 0,025. 384. Thasos 05/16. (Figure 53) Fragment of base. D. 0,08m, H. 0,015m. 385. Thasos 05/20. (Figure 53) Fragment of base. D. 0,10m, H. 0,02m. 386. Thasos 06/13. Fragment of base. D. 0,065m, H. 0,035m. 387. Thasos 06/14. Fragment of base. D. 0,055m, H. 0,015m. 388. Thasos 06/15. Fragment of base. D. 0,045, H. 0,015m. 389. Thasos 06/16. Fragment of base. D. 0,08m, H. 0,015m. 390. Thasos 08/01. Fragment of base. D. 0,045m, H. 0,07m. 391. Thasos 08/02. Fragment of base. D. 0,19m, H. 0,03m. 392. Thasos 10/01. Fragment of base. 393. Thasos 10/02. Fragment of base. 394. Thasos 16/22. Fragment of base. D. 0,09m, H. 0,02m. 395. Thasos 17/01. Fragment of base. D. 0,10m, H. 0,02m. 396. Thasos 19/01. Fragment of base. D. 0,08, H. 0,03m. 397. Thasos 19/02. Fragment of base. D. 0,035m, H. 0,015m. 398. Thasos 20/02. (Figure 53) Fragment of base. D. 0,095m, H.0,02m. 399. Thasos 20/03. (Figure 53) Fragment of base. D. 0,08m, H. 0,02m. 400. Thasos 21/08. Fragment of base. D. 0,09m, H. 0,02m. 401. Thasos 21/09. Fragment of base. D. 0,095m, H. 0,04m. 402. Abdera 20/35. Fragment of body. H. 0,04m, W. 0,04m, Th. 0,004m. 403. Abdera 20/36. Fragment of body. H. 0,035m, W. 0,065m, Th. 0,007m. 404. Abdera 20/37. Fragment of body. H. 0,04m, W. 0,045m, Th. 0,004m. 405. Abdera 20/38. Fragment of body. H. 0,04m, W. 0,04m, Th. 0,005m. 406. Abdera 22/05. Fragment of body. H. 0,055m, W. 0,05m, Th. 0,005m. Clay (2,5YR 6/6, 10R 4/6). Slip (2,5YR 4/8). 407. Abdera 22/08. Fragment of body. H. 0,035m, W. 0,03m, Th. 0,007m. Clay (2,5YR 6/6, 10R 4/6). Slip (2,5YR 4/8). 408. Abdera 46a/24. Fragment of body. H. 0,04m, W. 0,08m, Th. 0,004m. Clay (5YR 7/4, 2,5YR 4/8). Slip (2,5YR 4/8). 409. Abdera 46a/25. Fragment of body. H. 0,05m, W. 0,07m, Th. 0,005m. Clay (5YR 7/4, 2,5YR 4/8). Slip (2,5YR 4/8). 410. Abdera 46a/26. Fragment of body. H. 0,045m, W. 0,055m, Th. 0,008m. Clay (5YR 7/4, 2,5YR 4/8). Slip (2,5YR 4/8). 411. Abdera 46b/12. Fragment of body. H. 0,04m, W. 0,045m, Th. 0,005m. Clay (5YR 6/6). Slip (10R 5/8). 412. Abdera 46b/13. Fragment of body. H. 0,04m, W. 0,03m, Th. 0,005m. Clay (5YR 6/6). Slip (10R 5/8). 413. Abdera 46b/05. Fragment of body. H. 0,015m, W. 0,05m, Th. 0,006m. Clay (2,5YR 6/6). Slip (2,5YR 4/8). 414. Abdera 82/08. Fragment of body. H. 0,03m, W. 0,04m, Th. 0,004m. Clay (2,5YR 6/6). Slip (2,5YR 4/8). 415. Abdera 148/05.

416. 417. 418. 419. 420. 421. 422. 423. 424. 425. 426. 427. 428. 429. 430. 431. 432. 433. 434. 435. 436. 437. 438. 439. 440.

Fragment of body. H. 0,04m, W. 0,055m, Th. 0,004m. Clay (5YR 7/4, 2,5YR 6/6). Slip (2,5YR 4/6). Abdera 148/07. Fragment of body. H. 0,03m, W. 0,035m, Th. 0,007m. Clay (5YR 7/4, 2,5YR 4/6). Slip (2,5YR 4/6). Abdera 148/14. Fragment of body. H. 0,045m, W. 0,045m, Th. 0,005m. Clay (5YR 7/6, 2,5YR 4/8). Slip (2,5YR 4/8). Abdera 148/16. Fragment of body. H. 0,04m, W. 0,045m, Th. 0,004m. Clay (5YR 7/6, 2,5YR 4/8). Slip (2,5YR 4/8). Amphipolis 03/25. Fragment of body. H. 0,035m, W. 0,035m, Th. 0,003m. Amphipolis 03/26. Fragment of body. H. 0,025m, W. 0,045m, Th. 0,003m. Amphipolis 10/11. Body fragment of an open ware, slip on both sides. L. 0,05m, W. 0,03m, Th. 0,004m. Clay and slip similar to 15/05. Amphipolis 10/12. Body fragment of an open ware, slip on both sides. L. 0,04m, W. 0,04m, Th. 0,004m. Clay and slip similar to 15/05. Amphipolis 30/10. Fragment of body. H. 0,05m, W. 0,045m, Th. 0,006m. Clay (10R 6/6) light red. Slip (10R 4/8-5/8) red. Amphipolis 30/11. Fragment of body. H. 0,045m, W. 0,065m, Th. 0,006m. Clay (10R 6/6) light red. Slip (10R 4/8-5/8) red. Amphipolis 36/13. Fragment of body. H. 0,045m, W. 0,075m, Th. 0,005m. Clay (10R 7/6). Slip (10R 4/6). Amphipolis 55/16. Fragment of body. H. 0,045m, W. 0,11m, Th 0,005m. Clay (10R 6/8). Slip (10R 5/8). Amphipolis 55/17. Fragment of body. H. 0,03m, W. 0,045m, Th 0,005m. Clay (10R 6/6). Slip (2,5YR 4/8). Amphipolis 55a/19. Fragment of body. H. 0,055m, W. 0,11m, Th. 0,004m. Clay (10R 6/6). Slip (10R 4/8-5/8). Amphipolis 61/09. Fragment of body. H. 0,17m, W. 0,10m, Th. 0,006m. Clay (10R 7/6). Slip (10R 5/6-4/8). Amphipolis 68/ 01a, b, c, and d. Fragments of body. H. 0,09m, W. 0,14m, Th. 0,005m. Clay (2,5YR 7/6). Slip (10R 4/6-4/8). Amphipolis 68/ 02. Fragment of body. H. 0,025m, W. 0,04m, Th. 0,004m. Clay (2,5YR 7/8). Slip (2,5YR 5/8). Amphipolis 77/22. Fragment of body. Amphipolis 77/23. Fragment of body. Amphipolis 77/24. Fragment of body. Amphipolis 77/25. Fragment of body. Amphipolis 81/07. Fragment of body. Clay (10R 6/6). Slip (10R 5/8). Amphipolis 92a/15. Fragment of body. Amphipolis 92a/16. Fragment of body. Amphipolis 92a/17. Fragment of body. Amphipolis 92a/18. Fragment of body.

Hayes (1972) Form 3, Knipovich type 13(M)=14(T) Hemispherical flanged bowl with low heavy foot. 441. Abdera 02/04. Fragment of rim. D. 0,14m, H. 0,03m, W. 0,04m, Th. 0,004m.

37

442. Abdera 02/05. Fragment of rim. D. 0,14m, H. 0,025m, W. 0,025m, Th. 0,004m. 443. Abdera 02/06. Fragment of rim. D. 0,14m, H. 0,03m, W. 0,04m, Th. 0,002m. 444. Abdera 11/14. (Figure 54) Fragment of rim. D. 0,16m, H. 0,035m, W. 0,115m, Th. 0,003m. 445. Abdera 11/15. (Figure 54) Fragment of rim. D. 0,15m, H. 0,035m, W. 0,08m, Th. 0,005m. 446. Abdera 11/16. (Figure 54) Fragment of rim. D. uncertain, H. 0,035m, W. 0,06m, Th. 0,003m. 447. Abdera 11/17. (Figure 54) Fragment of rim. D. 0,07m, H. 0,03m, W. 0,04m, Th. 0,003m. 448. Abdera 11/18. (Figure 54) Fragment of rim. D. uncertain, H. 0,025m, W. 0,045m, Th. 0,004m. 449. Abdera 15/01. Fragment of rim. D. 0,07m, H. 0,05m, W. 0,045m, Th. 0,003m. Clay (5YR 6/6, 2,5YR 4/8). Slip (2,5YR 4/8). 450. Abdera 15/02. Fragment of rim. D. uncertain, H. 0,05m, W. 0,055m, Th. 0,004m. Clay (5YR 6/6, 2,5YR 4/8). Slip (2,5YR 4/8). 451. Abdera 16/01. Fragment of rim. D. uncertain, H. 0,03m, W. 0,035m, Th. 0,004m. Clay (5YR 7/4, 2,5YR 4/8). Slip (2,5YR 4/8). 452. Abdera 16/02. Fragment of rim. H. 0,04m, W. 0,045m, Th. 0,005m. Clay (5YR 7/4, 2,5YR 4/8). Slip (2,5YR 4/8). 453. Abdera 19/02. Fragment of rim. 454. Abdera 19/03. Fragment of rim. 455. Abdera 19/04. Fragment of rim. 456. Abdera 19/05. Fragment of rim. 457. Abdera 19/06. Fragment of rim. 458. Abdera 19/07. Fragment of rim. 459. Abdera 19/08. Fragment of rim. 460. Abdera 19/12. Fragment of rim. 461. Abdera 19/13. Fragment of rim. 462. Abdera 19/14. Fragment of rim. 463. Abdera 19/15. Fragment of rim. 464. Abdera 20/01. Fragment of rim. D. 0,12m, H. 0,035m, W. 0,04m, Th. 0,004m. Clay (5YR 7/6, 2,5YR 4/8). Slip (2,5YR 4/8). 465. Abdera 20/02. Fragment of rim D. uncertain, H. 0,03m, W. 0,04m, Th. 0,004m. Clay (7,5YR 7/6, 2,5YR 4/8). Slip (2,5YR 4/8). 466. Abdera 20/03. Fragment of rim. D. uncertain, H. 0,03m, W. 0,04m, Th. 0,003m. Clay (5YR 7/4, 2,5YR 4/8). Slip (2,5YR 4/8). 467. Abdera 20/04. Fragment of rim. D. uncertain, H. 0,025m, W. 0,025m, Th. 0,003m. Clay (7,5Y 7/6, 2,5YR 4/8). Slip (2,5YR 4/8). 468. Abdera 20/05. Fragment of rim. D. 0,12m, H. 0,025m, W. 0,04m, Th. 0,003m. Clay (7,5Y 7/6, 2,5YR 4/8). Slip (2,5YR 4/8). 469. Abdera 22/02. Fragment of rim. D. uncertain, H. 0,04m, W. 0,065m, Th. 0,004m. Clay (2,5YR 6/6, 10R 4/6). Slip (2,5YR 4/8). 470. Abdera 22/03. Fragment of rim. D. uncertain, H. 0,015m, W. 0,045m, Th. 0,004m. Clay (7,5YR 7/6, 10R 4/6). Slip (2,5YR 4/8). 471. Abdera 22/09. Fragment of rim. D. uncertain, H. 0,03m, W. 0,055m, Th. 0,004m. Clay (2,5YR 6/6, 10R 4/6). Slip (2,5YR 4/8). 472. Abdera 22/18.

473. 474. 475. 476. 477. 478. 479. 480. 481. 482. 483. 484. 485. 486. 487. 488. 489. 490.

491. 492. 493. 494. 495. 496.

38

Fragment of rim. D. uncertain, H. 0,03m, W. 0,04m, Th. 0,005m. Clay (5YR 6/6, 2,5YR 4/8). Slip (2,5YR 4/8). Abdera 23/02. (Figure 54) Fragment of rim.D. 0,12m, H. 0,04m, W. 0,06m, Th. 0,003m. Abdera 29a/05 and 29b/30. Fragment of rim. D. uncertain, H. 0,02m. Clay (7,5YR 8/4). Slip (2,5YR 4/6). Abdera 29a/06. Fragment of rim. D. uncertain, H. 0,02m. Clay (7,5YR 8/4). Slip (2,5YR 4/6). Abdera 29b/13. Fragment of rim. D. uncertain, H. 0,02m Clay (5YR 6/6). Slip (2,5YR 5/8). Abdera 29b/16. Fragment of rim. D. uncertain, H. 0,02m. Clay (5YR 6/6). Slip (2,5YR 5/8). Abdera 29b/17. Fragment of rim. D. 0,12m, H. 0,02m. Clay (5YR 6/6). Slip (2,5YR 5/8). Abdera 29b/31. Fragment of rim. D. uncertain, H. 0,025m. Clay (5YR 6/6). Slip (2,5YR 5/8). Abdera 46a/01. (Figure 55) Fragment of rim. D. 0,08m, H. 0,03m, W. 0,05m, Th. 0,003m. Clay (5YR 6/6-7/4, 2,5YR 4/8). Slip (2,5YR 4/8). Abdera 46a/02. (Figure 55) Fragment of rim. D. 0,11m, H. 0,035m, W. 0,04m, Th. 0,003m. Clay (5YR 7/4, 2,5YR 4/8). Slip (2,5YR 4/8). Abdera 46a/04. Fragment of rim. D. 0,11m, H. 0,03m, W. 0,055m, Th. 0,005m. Clay (5YR 7/4, 2,5YR 4/8). Slip (2,5YR 4/8). Abdera 46a/05. Fragment of rim. D. 0,11m, H. 0,035m, W. 0,085m, Th. 0,004m. Clay (5YR 7/4, 2,5YR 4/8). Slip (2,5YR 4/8). Abdera 46a/06. Fragment of rim. D. 0,15m, H. 0,025m, W. 0,03m, Th. 0,005m. Clay (5YR 7/4, 2,5YR 4/8). Slip (2,5YR 4/8). Abdera 46a/07. Fragment of rim. D. 0,12m, H. 0,03m, W. 0,05m, Th. 0,003m. Clay (5YR 7/4, 2,5YR 4/8). Slip (2,5YR 4/8). Abdera 46a/09. (Figure 55) Fragment of rim. D. 0,12m, H. 0,045m, W. 0,08m, Th. 0,005m. Clay (5YR 7/4, 2,5YR 4/8). Slip (2,5YR 4/8). Abdera 46a/10. Fragment of rim. D. 0,11m, H. 0,04m, W. 0,06m, Th. 0,004m. Clay (5YR 7/4, 2,5YR 4/8). Slip (2,5YR 4/8). Abdera 46b/01. Fragment of rim. D. 0,014m, H. 0,025m, W. 0,035m, Th. 0,003m. Clay (10R 4/6). Slip (10R 4/6). Abdera 46b/02. Fragment of rim. D. 0,012m, H. 0,025m, W. 0,055m, Th. 0,004m. Clay (2,5YR 6/6). Slip (2,5YR 4/8). Abdera 82/01. Fragment of rim. D. 0,08m, H. 0,03m, W. 0,045m, Th. 0,004m. Clay (5YR 7/6). Slip (2,5YR 4/6). Abdera 82/03. Fragment of rim. D. 0,17m, H. 0,04m, W. 0,06m, Th. 0,004m. Clay (2,5YR 6/6). Slip (2,5YR 4/8). Abdera 82/04. Fragment of rim. D. uncertain, H. 0,025m, W. 0,035m, Th. 0,004m. Clay (2,5YR 6/6). Slip (2,5YR 4/8). Abdera 93/01. Fragment of rim. D. uncertain, H. 0,015m, W. 0,03m, Th. 0,004m. Clay (2,5YR 6/6 ,2,5YR 4/6). Slip (2,5YR 4/6). Abdera 148/06. Fragment of rim. D. uncertain, H. 0,025m, W. 0,03m, Th. 0,004m. Clay (5YR 7/4, 2,5YR 4/6). Slip (2,5YR 4/6). Abdera 148/08. Fragment of rim. D. 0,07m, H. 0,025m, W. 0,055m, Th. 0,004m. Clay (5YR 7/6, 2,5YR 4/8). Slip (2,5YR 4/8). Amphipolis 02/01.

497.

498.

499. 500. 501. 502. 503. 504. 505. 506. 507. 508. 509. 510. 511. 512. 513.

514. 515. 516.

517. 518. 519. 520. 521.

Fragment of rim. D. 0,12m, H. 0,02m, W. 0,045m, Th. 0,002m. Clay (5YR 7/6, 2,5YR 4/8). Slip (2,5YR 4/8). Amphipolis 02/02. Fragment of rim. D. uncertain, H. 0,025m, W. 0,045m. Clay very fine, red, with gold mica. Slip red, only a shade darker than the body clay, quite lustrous on the inner surface. On the outer surface fine marks of the wheel are visible. Amphipolis 02/03. Fragment of rim. D. uncertain, H. 0,02m, W. 0,04. Clay very fine, light red (10R 7/8), with very fine particles of golden mica. Slip red (10R 5/8), rather lustrous on both surfaces. Fine silver mica is visible. Amphipolis 03/13. Fragment of rim. D. uncertain, H. 0,04m, W. 0,02m, Th. 0,01m. Amphipolis 03/14. Fragment of rim. D. 0,10m, H. 0,03m. Amphipolis 04/05, joined with 05/07. (Figure 56) Fragment of rim. D. 0,09m, H. 0,045m. Clay (10R 7/6) light red. Slip (10R 4/6) red. for Amphipolis 04/11 see Amphipolis 05/03 and Amphipolis 05/04. Amphipolis 05/03 and 05/04. Fragments of rim. D. 0,14m, H. 0,02m. Clay (10R 6/4) pale red. Slip (2,5YR 4/4) reddish brown. Amphipolis 06/05. Fragment of rim. D. 0,10m, H. 0,02m. Clay (10R 7/4-7/6) pale red, with golden mica. Slip (10R 5/8) red, with silver mica. Amphipolis 06/06a and b. Joining fragments of rim. D. 0,14m, H. 0,02m. Clay and slip similar to 06/05. Amphipolis 06/07 and 07/04. Fragments of rim. D. 0,10m, H. 0,015m. Clay and slip similar to 06/05. Amphipolis 06/08. Fragment of rim. D. uncertain, H. 0,02m. Clay and slip similar to 06/05. for Amphipolis 07/04 see Amphipolis 06/07. Amphipolis 07/05. Fragment of rim. D. 0,14m, H. 0,05m. Clay (10R 6/8-5/8) red. Slip (10R 5/8) red. Amphipolis 10/05. (Figure 56) Fragment of rim. D. 0,06m, H. 0,045m. Clay and slip similar to 15/02. Amphipolis 10/14. Fragment of rim. D. unknown. W. 0,055m, H. 0,035m. Clay and slip similar to 15/13. Amphipolis 13/04. (Figure 56) Fragment of rim. D. 0,11m, H. 0,02m. Clay (2,5YR 7/8) light red. Slip (10YR 4/6) red. Amphipolis 13/05(Figure 56) Fragment of rim. D. 0,11m, H. 0,030m Clay light red (2,5YR 7/7) with large number of limestone particles and silver mica flakes. Slip red (10R 5/6) that includes flakes of golden mica. Traces of the potter’s wheel visible on the outer surface, especially under the flange. Amphipolis 13/06. Fragment of rim. D. 0,12m, H. 0,025m. Clay (2,5YR 7/6) light red. Slip (10R 5/6) red. Amphipolis 13/07. Fragment of rim. D. 0,12m, H. 0,20m. Clay (5YR 8/4) pink. Slip (10R 4/6) red. Amphipolis 17/11. Rim fragment. D. uncertain, H. 0,03m. Clay fine, red, with some fine particles of gold mica. Slip red, well applied on both sides, a little duller under the carination on the outer surface. Traces of the wheel are, also, visible. Amphipolis 17/12. Rim fragment. D. 0,06m, H. 0,03m. Clay and slip similar to 17/11. Amphipolis 17/13. Rim fragment. D. 0,09m, H. 0,03m. Clay and slip similar to 17/11. Amphipolis 17/14. Rim fragment. D. 0,07m, H. 0,045m. Clay and slip similar to 17/11. Amphipolis 17/15. Rim fragment. D. 0,09m, H. 0,03m. Clay and slip similar to 17/11. Amphipolis 23/01. Fragment of rim. D. uncertain, H. 0,035m, W. 0,03m, Th. 0,004m. Clay (2,5YR 6/8) light red. Slip (10R 4/8-5/8) red.

522. Amphipolis 26/03. Fragment of rim. D. uncertain, H. 0,045m, W. 0,055m, Th. 0,005m. Clay (5YR 8/4) pink. Slip (2,5YR 4/4) reddish brown. 523. Amphipolis 31a/06. (Figure 56) Fragment of rim. D. 0,16m, H. 0,035m. Clay (10R 7/6) light red. Slip (10R 5/8) red. 524. Amphipolis 31a/07. Fragment of rim. D. uncertain, H. 0,02m, W. 0,03m. Clay (10R 7/6) light red. Slip (10R 5/8) red. 525. Amphipolis 31b/04. (Figure 56) Fragment of base, body, and rim. D. of rim 0,11m, D. of base 0,05m, H. 0,055m. Clay (2,5YR 7/4) light reddish brown. Slip (2,5YR 5/8) red. 526. Amphipolis 34/08. Two joined fragments of rim. D. 0,10m, H. 0,03m. Clay (10R 6/6) light red. Slip (10R 4/6-5/8). 527. Amphipolis 34/09. Fragment of rim. D. 0,09m, H. 0,02m. Clay (10R 6/6) light red. Slip (10R 4/6-5/8). 528. Amphipolis 34/10. Fragment of rim. D. 0,24m, H. 0,025m. Clay (2,6YR 6/6) light red. Slip (10R 4/6). 529. Amphipolis 36/06a and b. (Figure 56) Two fragments of base, body, and rim. D. of base 0,05m, D. of rim 0,05. Clay (2,5YR 5/6). Slip (10R 4/8). 530. Amphipolis 36/07a and b. Two fragments of rim. D. uncertain, H 0,045m, W 0,09m, Th 0,005m.. Clay (2,5YR 5/6). Slip (10R 4/8). 531. Amphipolis 36/08. Fragment of rim. D. 0,18m, H 0,04m. Clay (2,5YR 5/6). Slip (10R 4/8). 532. Amphipolis 36/09. Fragment of rim. D. 0,12m, H 0,05m. Clay (2,5YR 5/6). Slip (10R 4/8). 533. Amphipolis 39/03. Fragment of rim. D. 0,15m, H. 0,045m. Clay (10R 7/6). Slip (10R 5/8). 534. Amphipolis 41/02. (Figure 56) Fragment of rim. D. 0,12m, H. 0,04m. Clay (10R 7/8). Slip (10R 6/8). 535. Amphipolis 43/03. Fragment of rim and body. D. 0,13m, H. 0,04m. Clay (10R 6/6). Slip (10R 5/8). 536. Amphipolis 43/05. Fragment of rim. D. 0,15m, H. 0,035m, Th. 0,004m. Clay (10R 6/6). Slip (10R 4/6). 537. Amphipolis 45/01. (Figure 56) Base, 4 body fragments and 2 rim fragments. D. of the base 0,025m, H. 0,07m. D. of the rim 0,065m, H. 0,035m. Clay fine, pale red (10R 7/4), with a few flakes of gold mica and some limestone inclusions. Slip dark red (2,5YR 4/6-4/8), very well applied and glossy on the inner surface, quite dull on the outer, especially under the carination. Very poor on the underside of the base. 538. Amphipolis 50/05. Fragment of rim. D. uncertain, H. 0,05m, Th. 0,003m. Clay (10R 7/6). Slip (10R 4/8). 539. Amphipolis 50/06. Fragment of rim. D. 0,28m, H. 0,03m. Clay (10R 7/6). Slip (10R 4/8). 540. Amphipolis 50/07. Fragment of rim. D. 0,2m, H. 0,025m. Clay (10R 7/6). Slip (10R 4/8). 541. Amphipolis 50/08. Fragment of rim. D. 0,10m, H. 0,03m. Clay (10R 7/6). Slip (10R 4/8). 542. Amphipolis 55/10. (Figure 56) Fragment of base, body, and rim. D. of base 0,05m, D. of rim 0,09m, H. 0,035m. Clay (2,5YR 6/8). Slip (2,5YR 4/6). 543. Amphipolis 55a/06. Fragment of rim. D. 0,20m, H. 0,04m. Clay (10R 6/6). Slip (10R 4/4). 544. Amphipolis 56/11. Fragment of rim. 545. Amphipolis 56/12. Fragment of rim. 546. Amphipolis 56/13.

39

Fragment of rim. 547. Amphipolis 56/14. Fragment of rim. 548. Amphipolis 56/15. Fragment of rim. 549. Amphipolis 56/16. Fragment of rim. 550. Amphipolis 59/06. Fragment of rim. D. of rim 0,08m, H. 0,045m. Clay (10R 8/4) pink. Slip (10R 4/6-3/6) dark red. 551. Amphipolis 59/07. Fragment of rim. D. of rim 0,08m, H. 0,03m. Clay (10R 8/4) pink. Slip (10R 4/6-3/6) dark red. 552. Amphipolis 59b/11. Fragment of rim. 553. Amphipolis 59b/12. Fragment of rim. 554. Amphipolis 59b/13. Fragment of rim. 555. Amphipolis 59b/14. Fragment of rim. 556. Amphipolis 59b/15. Fragment of rim. 557. Amphipolis 61/06. Fragment of rim. D. 0,13m, H. 0,025m. Clay (10R 6/6). Slip (10R 4/6). 558. Amphipolis 69/04. Fragment of rim. 559. Amphipolis 81/02. Fragment of rim. D. 0,12m, H. 0,045m. Clay (10R 6/8). Slip (10R 4/65/6). 560. Amphipolis 81/03. Fragment of rim. D. uncertain, H. 0,03m, Th. 0,004m. Clay (10R 5/6). Slip (10R 4/6). 561. Amphipolis 83/10. Fragment of rim. 562. Amphipolis 83/11. Fragment of rim. 563. Amphipolis 83/12. Fragment of rim. 564. Amphipolis 83/13. Fragment of rim. 565. Amphipolis 83/14. Fragment of rim. 566. Amphipolis 83/15. Fragment of rim. 567. Amphipolis 83/16. Fragment of rim. 568. Amphipolis 83/17. Fragment of rim. 569. Amphipolis 83/18. Fragment of rim. 570. Amphipolis 83/19. Fragment of rim. 571. Amphipolis 92a/06. Fragment of rim. 572. Amphipolis 92a/07. Fragment of rim. 573. Amphipolis 92a/08. Fragment of rim. 574. Amphipolis 92a/09. Fragment of rim. 575. Amphipolis 92a/10. Fragment of rim. 576. Amphipolis 92a/11. Fragment of rim. 577. Amphipolis 92a/12. Fragment of rim. 578. Amphipolis 98/06. Fragment of rim. 579. Amphipolis 100/08 Fragment of rim. 580. Amphipolis 100/09

Fragment of rim. 581. Avloneites 123/01 and 124/01. (Figure 57) Two joining fragments of rim and base. Clay fine, pinkish-red, with a little mica. Light red slip on both surfaces. 582. Avloneites 168/01 and 169/32. (Figure 57) Three joined fragments of rim, body and base. Soft, buff-yellow clay. Red slip on both surfaces. 583. Thasos Z/1. Whole. D. base 0,04m, H. 0,045m. 584. Thasos 01/01. Fragment of rim. D.0,20m, H. 0,055m. 585. Thasos 02/04. Fragment of rim. D. 0,20m, H. 0,045m. 586. Thasos 03/01. Fragment of rim. D. 0,18m, H. 0,065m. 587. Thasos 05/13. Fragment of rim. D. 0,11m, H. 0,03m. 588. Thasos 05/14. Fragment of rim. D. 0,11m, H. 0,035m. 589. Thasos 06/17. Fragment of rim. D. 0,10m, H. 0,025m. 590. Thasos 09/12. Fragment of rim. D. 0,18m, H. 0,05m. 591. Thasos 09/13. Fragment of rim. D. 0,19m, H. 0,065m. 592. Thasos 09/14. Fragment of rim. D. 0,19m, H. 0,065m. 593. Thasos 11/05. Fragment of rim. D. 0,09m, H. 0,045m. 594. Thasos 11/06. Fragment of rim. D. 0,15m, H. 0,035m. 595. Thasos 11/07. Fragment of rim. D. uncertain, H. 0,03m. 596. Thasos 12/01. Fragment of rim. D. 0,055m, H. 0,025m. 597. Thasos 13/08. Fragment of rim. D. 0,19m, H. 0,045m. 598. Thasos 16/06. Fragment of rim. D. 0,13m, H.0,035m. 599. Thasos 16/07. Fragment of rim. D. 0,15m, H.0,045m. 600. Thasos 16/08. Fragment of rim. D. 0,11m, H. 0,025m. 601. Thasos 16/09. Fragment of rim. D. 0,18m, H. 0,045m. 602. Thasos 16/10. Fragment of rim. D. 0,11m, H. 0,035m. 603. Thasos 16/11. Fragment of rim. D. 0,07m, H. 0,025m. 604. Thasos 16/12. (Figure 57) Fragment of rim. D. 0,18m, H. 0,025m. 605. Thasos 16/20. Fragment of body. H. 0,03m, Th. 0,005m. 606. Thasos 18/01. Fragment of rim. D. 0,08m, H. 0,03m. 607. Thasos 18/02. Fragment of rim. D. 0,09m, H. 0,04m. 608. Thasos 20/01. Fragment of rim. D. 0,08m, H. 0,03m. 609. Thasos 21/01. Fragment of rim. D. 0,20m, H. 0,025m. 610. Thasos 21/02. Fragment of rim. D. 0,18m, H. 0,03m. 611. Thasos 21/03. Fragment of rim. D. 0,20m, H. 0,04m. 612. Thasos 21/04. Fragment of rim. D. uncertain, H. 0,035m. 613. Abdera 15/03. (Figure 58) Fragment of base. D. 0,09m, H. 0,04m, W. 0,06m, Th. 0,015m. Clay (5YR 6/6, 2,5YR 4/8). Slip (2,5YR 4/8). 614. Abdera 20/10. Fragment of base. D. 0,05m, H. 0,025m, Th. 0,005m. Clay (7,5Y 7/6, 2,5YR 4/8). Slip (2,5YR 4/8).

40

615. Abdera 20/11. Fragment of base. D. 0,05m, H. 0,015m, W. 0,055m, Th. 0,004m. Clay (7,5Y 7/6, 2,5YR 4/8). Slip (2,5YR 4/8). 616. Abdera 20/39. Fragment of body. H. 0,04m, W. 0,055m, Th. 0,003m. 617. Abdera 22/06. Fragment of body. H. 0,02m, W. 0,035m, Th. 0,004m. Clay (2,5YR 6/6, 10R 4/6). Slip (2,5YR 4/8). 618. Abdera 22/19. Fragment of body. H. 0,02m, W. 0,035m, Th. 0,004m. Clay (5YR 6/6, 2,5YR 4/8). Slip (2,5YR 4/8). 619. Abdera 22/20. Fragment of body. H. 0,025m, W. 0,04m, Th. 0,003m. Clay (5YR 6/6, 2,5YR 4/8). Slip (2,5YR 4/8). 620. Abdera 29c/04. (Figure 58) Fragment of base. D. 0,08m, H. 0,025m. 621. Abdera 29b/05. Fragment of base. 622. Abdera 29c/06. Fragment of base. 623. Abdera 46a/27. Fragment of body. H. 0,03m, W. 0,025m, Th. 0,003m. Clay (5YR 7/4, 2,5YR 4/8.) Slip (2,5YR 4/8). 624. Abdera 46a/28. Fragment of body. H. 0,03m, W. 0,05m, Th. 0,004m. Clay (5YR 7/4, 2,5YR 4/8). Slip (2,5YR 4/8). 625. Abdera 46a/29. Fragment of body. H. 0,04m, W. 0,03m, Th. 0,005m. Clay (5YR 7/4, 2,5YR 4/8). Slip (2,5YR 4/8). 626. Abdera 46a/30. Fragment of body. H. 0,035m, W. 0,035m, Th. 0,005m. Clay (5YR 7/4, 2,5YR 4/8). Slip (2,5YR 4/8). 627. Abdera 46a/34. (Figure 58) Fragment of base. D. 0,045m, H. 0,02m, W. 0,06m, Th. 0,004m. 628. Abdera 46a/35. Fragment of base. D. 0,05m, H. 0,015m, W. 0,065m, Th. 0,005m. 629. Abdera 46a/36. (Figure 58) Fragment of base. D. 0,045m, H. 0,02m, W. 0,04m, Th. 0,005m. 630. Abdera 46b/04. Fragment of body. H. 0,015m, W. 0,05m, Th. 0,006m. Clay (2,5YR 6/6). Slip (2,5YR 4/8). 631. Abdera 46b/06. Fragment of base. D. 0,06m, H. 0,025m, W. 0,04m, Th. 0,004m. Clay (2,5YR 6/6). Slip (2,5YR 4/8). 632. Abdera 82/02. Fragment of base. D. 0,07m, H. 0,015m, W. 0,04m, Th. 0,004m. Clay (7,5YR 8/3). Slip (2,5YR 4/8). 633. Abdera 82/11. Fragment of base. D. 0,035m, H. 0,025m, W. 0,035m, Th. 0,004m. Clay (5YR 6/6). Slip (2,5YR 5/8). 634. Abdera 99/01. Fragment of base. D. 0,05m, H. 0,015m, W. 0,05m, Th. 0,004m. Clay (7,5YR 6/4, 2,5YR 3/4). Slip (2,5YR 3/4). It does not cover the interface of the base. Little rouletting of poor quality on the base. 635. Abdera 148/10. Fragment of body. H. 0,03m, W. 0,04m, Th. 0,003m. Clay (5YR 7/6, 2,5YR 4/8). Slip (2,5YR 4/8). 636. Abdera 148/11. Fragment of body. H. 0,025m, W. 0,03m, Th. 0,004m. Clay (5YR 7/6, 2,5YR 4/8). Slip (2,5YR 4/8). 637. Abdera 148/12. Fragment of body. H. 0,025m, W. 0,045m, Th. 0,004m. Clay (5YR 7/6, 2,5YR 4/8). Slip (2,5YR 4/8). 638. Abdera 148/13. Fragment of body. H. 0,04m, W. 0,02m, Th. 0,005m. Clay (5YR 7/6, 2,5YR 4/8). Slip (2,5YR 4/8). 639. Abdera 148/15. Fragment of body. H. 0,025m, W. 0,04m, Th. 0,005m. Clay (5YR 7/6, 2,5YR 4/8). 640. Amphipolis 03/30. Fragment of body. H. 0,035m, W. 0,05m, Th. 0,004m. 641. Amphipolis 04/03. (Figure 58)

642. 643. 644.

645. 646. 647. 648. 649. 650. 651.

652. 653. 654.

655.

656. 657.

658.

659.

660.

41

Fragment of base. D. 0,025m, H. 0,01m. Clay (10R 5/6) red, with golden mica. Slip (10R 4/8) red, glossy inside, dull outside, especially under the flange. Amphipolis 04/04. (Figure 58) Fragment of base. D. 0,03m, H. 0,015m. Clay (10R 6/6) light red, very fine. Slip (10R 4/8) red, very smooth and well applied. Amphipolis 06/03. Fragment of base. D. 0,07m, H. 0,05m. Clay (10R 7/6) light red. Slip (10R 5/8) red. Amphipolis 06/04 and 04/08. Fragments of base, body, and rim. D. of base 0,05m, D. of rim uncertain, H. of base 0,05m, H. of rim 0,02m. Clay (5YR 7/4) pink, with silver mica. Slip (2,5YR 4/8) red, very glossy inside. An ‘N’ incised visible on the external surface of the base. Amphipolis 06/11. Fragment of body. H. 0,035m, W. 0,035m, Th. 0,004m. Amphipolis 07/03a and b. (Figure 58) Fragments of base. D. 0,05m, H. 0,025m. Clay (10R 7/4) pale red. Slip (10R 4/6-4/8) red. Amphipolis 07/07. Fragment of body. H. 0,01m, W. 0,02m, Th. 0,004m. Clay (10R 7/4) pale red. Slip (10R 4/6-4/8) red. Amphipolis 07/08. Fragment of body. H. 0,05m, W. 0,05m, Th. 0,004m. Clay (10R 7/4) pale red. Slip (10R 4/6-4/8) red. Amphipolis 07/09. Fragment of body. H. 0,05m, W. 0,04m, Th. 0,003m. Clay (10R 7/4) pale red. Slip (10R 4/6-4/8) red. Amphipolis 10/01. (Figure 58) Fragment of base. D. 0,05m. Amphipolis 10/02. Fragment of curving base on a low, thick foot of a cup. D. 0,05m, H. 0,085m. Clay light red (10R 7/6), fine, with limestone inclusions and golden mica. Slip red (2,5YR 4/6), well applied on both surfaces, some fine grooves of the wheel are visible on the outer surface. Also, visible particles of silver mica. Amphipolis 10/03. (Figure 58) Base fragment. D. 0,05m, H. 0,02m. Shape, clay and slip similar to 15/02. Amphipolis 10/04. (Figure 58) Base fragment. D. 0,06m, H. 0,015m. Shape, clay and slip similar to 15/02. Amphipolis 10/15. (Figure 58) Fragment of a curving base on quite a high ring foot of a small cup. D. 0,045m, H. 0,02m. Clay very fine, light red (2,5YR 7/8-6/6), with silver mica. Slip red (10R 5/8), applied on a very thin coat on both sides. Silver mica visible. Amphipolis 13/01. (Figure 58) Fragment of base. D. 0,03m, H. 0,015m. Clay light red (2.5YR 6/87/8), very fine and clean of impurities. Slip red (2.5YR 5/8). Particles of silver mica, better applied and more lustrous on the inside than outside, where it is more porous and duller. It is cover the whole outer surface, even the underside of the base. Amphipolis 13/02. (Figure 58) Fragment of base. D. 0,06m, H. 0,01m. Clay (2,5YR 7/6) light red. Slip (2,5YR 4/8) red. Amphipolis 17/02. Base, body, and rim fragments. D. of the base 0,06m, H. 0,015m. D. of the rim unknown. Clay fine, pinkish-red (7,5YR 8/4), without visible inclusions. Slip dark red (10R 3/6), quite thickly applied on both sides. Double-dipping process streaks are visible on the outer surface of the base, and, also, a mark of the potter’s finger. Amphipolis 17/04. (Figure 59) Base fragment. D. 0,03m, H. 0,03m. Clay fine, reddish-yellow (5YR 7/6), with some fine flakes of mica. Slip red (10R 5/8), well applied on the inside but not on the outside, where marks of the wheel are visible. Amphipolis 21/01. (Figure 59) Base fragment. D. 0,02m. H. 0,01m. Fine, red clay (2,5YR 6/6), with golden mica. Red slip (2,5YR 4/8-4/6), glossy inside, dull outside, with silver mica. Amphipolis 31a/03. (Figure 59)

661. 662. 663.

664. 665. 666. 667. 668. 669. 670. 671. 672. 673. 674. 675. 676. 677. 678. 679. 680. 681. 682. 683. 684. 685. 686. 687. 688. 689. 690. 691. 692.

Fragment of base. D. 0,05m, H. 0,015m. Clay (10R 7/6) light red. Slip (10R 5/8) red. Amphipolis 31a/04. (Figure 59) Fragment of base. D. 0,08m, H. 0,03m. Clay (10R 7/6) light red. Slip (10R 5/8) red. Amphipolis 31a/05. Fragment of base. D. 0,05m, H. 0,015m. Clay (10R 7/6) light red. Slip (10R 5/8) red. Amphipolis 43/02 and 43/04. Two fragments of base and rim. D. of base 0,05m, H. of base 0,035m, D. of rim 0,15m, H. of rim 0,025m, Th. 0,005m. Clay (10R 6/6). Slip (10R 5/8). Amphipolis 55/11. (Figure 59) Fragment of base. D. 0,05m, H. 0,015m. Clay (10R 7/6). Slip (10R 5/8). Amphipolis 55/13. Fragment of base. D. 0,11m, H. 0,03m. Clay (10R 6/6). Slip (10R 4/64/8). Amphipolis 55a/04. (Figure 59) Fragment of base. D. 0,05m, H. 0,015m. Clay (10R 6/6-6/8). Slip (10R 5/8). Amphipolis 56/05. Fragment of base. Amphipolis 56/06. Fragment of base. Amphipolis 56/07. Fragment of base. Amphipolis 56/08. Fragment of base. Amphipolis 56/09. Fragment of base. Amphipolis 56/10. Fragment of base, body, and rim. Amphipolis 59/04. Fragment of base, body, and rim. D. of base 0,04m, D. of rim 0,10m, H. 0,045m. Clay (10R 8/4) pink. Slip (10R 4/6-3/6) dark red. Amphipolis 59b/10. Fragment of base. Amphipolis 77/07. Fragment of base. Amphipolis 77/08. Fragment of base. Amphipolis 77/09. Fragment of base. Amphipolis 77/10. Fragment of base. Amphipolis 77/11. Fragment of base. Amphipolis 77/12. Fragment of base. Amphipolis 77/13. Fragment of base. Amphipolis 77/28. Fragment of body. Amphipolis 77/29. Fragment of body. Amphipolis 80/03. Fragment of base. Amphipolis 80/04. Fragment of base. Amphipolis 80/05. Fragment of base. Amphipolis 83/07. Fragment of base. Amphipolis 83/08. Fragment of base. Amphipolis 83/09. Fragment of base. Amphipolis 92a/04. Fragment of base. Amphipolis 98/07. Fragment of base, body, and rim. Amphipolis 100/06

Fragment of base. 693. Amphipolis 100/07 Fragment of base. 694. Thasos 03/03. Fragment of base. D. 0,045m, H. 0,015m. 695. Thasos 09/15. Fragment of base. D. 0,045m, H. 0,02m. 696. Thasos 09/16. Fragment of base. D. 0,045m, H. 0,02m. 697. Thasos 11/15. Fragment of body. H. 0,035m. 698. Thasos 14/01. Fragment of base. D. 0,14m, H. 0,02m. 699. Thasos 16/02. (Figure 59) Fragment of base. D. 0,045m, H. 0,015m. 700. Thasos 16/03. (Figure 59) Fragment of base. D. 0,045m, H. 0,015m. 701. Thasos 16/04. (Figure 59) Fragment of base. D. 0,05m, H. 0,065m. 702. Thasos 21/12. Fragment of base. D. 0,045m, H. 0,04m. 703. Thasos 22/02. Fragment of base. D. 0,045m, H. 0,025m. 704. Thasos 16/02. Fragment of base. D. 0,06m, H. 0,025m. 705. Thasos 16/03. Fragment of base. D. 0,07m, H.0,02m. 706. Thasos 16/05. Fragment of base. D. 0,035m, H. 0,015m.

Hayes (1972) Form 4 Dish, medium sized or large, with shallow curving floor, incurved wall and triangular tapering foot. 707. Abdera 15/06. Fragment of rim. D. uncertain, H. 0,03m, W. 0,045m, Th. 0,005m. Clay (5YR 7/6, 2,5YR 5/8). Slip (2,5YR 5/8). 708. Abdera 19/09. Fragment of rim. 709. Abdera 19/10. Fragment of rim. 710. Abdera 20/15. (Figure 60) Fragment of base. D. 0,06m, H. 0,01m, W. 0,04m, Th. 0,004m. Clay (7,5Y 7/6, 2,5YR 4/8). Slip (2,5YR 4/8). 711. Abdera 22/12. Fragment of rim. D. 0,11m, H. 0,025m, W. 0,045m, Th. 0,004m. Clay (2,5YR 6/6, 10R 4/6). Slip (2,5YR 4/8). 712. Abdera 29b/21. Fragment of rim. D. uncertain, H. 0,025m. Clay (7,5YR 7/4). Slip (5YR 5/6). 713. Abdera 148/29. Fragment of rim. D. 0,22m, H. 0,03m, W. 0,07m, Th. 0,007m. Clay (5YR 7/6, 2,5YR 4/8). Slip (2,5YR 4/8). 714. Abdera 148/32. Fragment of rim. D. 0,14m, H. 0,025m, W. 0,035m, Th. 0,004m. Clay (7,5YR 7/6 ,5YR 6/8). Slip (5YR 6/8). 715. Amphipolis 03/15. Fragment of rim. D. uncertain, H. 0,035m, W. 0,03m, Th. 0,004m. 716. Amphipolis 03/16. Fragment of rim. D. uncertain, H. 0,025m, W. 0,03m, Th. 0,005m. 717. Amphipolis 03/17. (Figure 60) Fragment of rim. D. 0,12m, H. 0,035m. 718. Amphipolis 04/06. (Figure 60) Fragment of rim. D. 0,26m, H. 0,035m. Clay light red (2,5YR 6/6). Slip red (10R 5/8). 719. Amphipolis 04/07. (Figure 60) Fragment of rim. D. 0,09m, H. 0,02m. Clay (2,5YR 7/8) light red, very fine, without visible inclusions, with golden mica. Slip (2,5YR 6/8) light red. 720. Amphipolis 07/06. Fragment of rim. D. 0,10m, H. 0,015m. Clay (10R 7/4) pale red. Slip (10R 4/6-4/8) red.

42

721. Amphipolis 13/08. Fragment of rim. D. 0,14m, H. 0,02m. Clay (2,5YR 7/6-7/8) light red. Slip (2,5YR 5/8) red. 722. Amphipolis 17/16. (Figure 60) Fragment of rim. D. 0,22m, H. 0,03m. Clay light red (2,5YR 7//6-7/8). Slip red (10R 4/6-4/8). 723. Amphipolis 23/02. Fragment of rim. D. 0,16m, H. 0,04m, Th. 0,005m. Clay (2,5YR 6/8) light red. Slip (10R 4/8-5/8) red. 724. Amphipolis 30/06 and 30/07. Two joining fragments of rim. D. 0,18m, H. 0,03m. Clay (10R 6/6) light red. Slip (10R 4/8-5/8) red. 725. Amphipolis 31b/05. Fragment of rim. D. 0,13. H 0,02. Clay fine, light red (10R 6/6), with particles of lime and mica. Slip red (10R 5/8), very glossy on the internal surface, dull on the outside, where marks of the potter’s fingers are visible. 726. Amphipolis 36/10. Fragment of rim. D. uncertain, H. 0,03m, W. 0,03m, Th. 0,004m. Clay (2,5YR 5/6). Slip (10R 4/8). 727. Amphipolis 43/06. Fragment of rim. D. 0,23m, H. 0,03m, Th. 0,004m. Clay (10R 6/6). Slip (10R 5/8). 728. Amphipolis 50/02. (Figure 60) Mended. Fragments of base, body, and rim. D. of base 0,09m, D. of rim 0,19m, total H. 0,015m. Clay (10R 7/6). Slip (10R 4/6), a little glossy inside, dull outside. 729. Amphipolis 55a/05. (Figure 60) Fragments of base, body, and rim. D. of base 0,11m, D. of rim 0,21m, total H. 0,04m. Clay (2,5YR 6/6). Slip (10R 5/6). 730. Amphipolis 55a/07, 55a/08, 55a/09, and 55a/10. Four fragments of rim. D. 0,20m, H. 0,035m. Clay (10R 6/6-6/8). Slip (10R 5/8). 731. Amphipolis 56/17. Fragment of rim. 732. Amphipolis 56/18. Fragment of rim. 733. Amphipolis 56/19. Fragment of rim. 734. Amphipolis 56/20. Fragment of rim. 735. Amphipolis 59b/09. Fragment of base, body, and rim. 736. Amphipolis 59b/16. Fragment of rim. 737. Amphipolis 59b/17. Fragment of rim. 738. Amphipolis 59b/18. Fragment of rim. 739. Amphipolis 61/07. Fragment of rim. D. 0,18m, H. 0,025m. Clay (10R 6/8). Slip (2,5YR 4/8). 740. Amphipolis 61/08. Fragment of rim. D. uncertain, H. 0,04m, W 0,55m, Th 0,007m. Clay (10R 7/6). Slip (10R 4/8). 741. Amphipolis 69/03. Fragment of base, body, and rim. 742. Amphipolis 69/05. Fragment of rim. 743. Amphipolis 77/14. Fragment of base, body, and rim. 744. Amphipolis 77/16. Fragment of rim. 745. Amphipolis 77/17. Fragment of rim. 746. Amphipolis 77/18. Fragment of rim. 747. Amphipolis 77/19. Fragment of rim. 748. Amphipolis 80/06. Fragment of rim. 749. Amphipolis 80/07. Fragment of rim.

750. Amphipolis 80/08. Fragment of rim. 751. Amphipolis 80/09. Fragment of rim. 752. Amphipolis 81/04. Fragment of rim. D. 0,22m, H. 0,035m. Clay (10R 5/6). Slip (10R 4/6). 753. Amphipolis 81/05. Fragment of rim. D. 0,18m, H. 0,03m. Clay (10R 6/8). Slip (10R 4/6). 754. Amphipolis 83/20. Fragment of rim. 755. Amphipolis 83/21. Fragment of rim. 756. Amphipolis 83/22. Fragment of rim. 757. Amphipolis 83/23. Fragment of rim. 758. Amphipolis 92a/13. Fragment of rim. 759. Amphipolis 92a/14. Fragment of rim. 760. Amphipolis 95/07. Fragment of rim. D. 0,26m, H. 0,025m. Clay (5YR 8/4). Slip (10R 4/6). 761. Amphipolis 98/04. Fragment of base, body, and rim. 762. Amphipolis 98/09. Fragment of rim. 763. Thasos 03/04. Fragment of rim. D. 0,12m, H. 0,03m. 764. Thasos 04/16. Fragment of rim. D. uncertain, H. 0,04m. 765. Thasos 11/13. Fragment of rim. D. uncertain, H. 0,03m. 766. Thasos 11/16. Fragment of rim. D. 0,14m, H. 0,03m. 767. Abdera 29b/02. (Figure 61) Fragment of base. 768. Abdera 29c/08. Fragment of base. 769. Abdera 99/03. Fragment of body. H. 0,025m, W. 0,04m, Th. 0,004m. Clay (5YR 6/6, 2,5YR 5/8). Slip (2,5YR 5/8), dull on both sides . 770. Amphipolis 03/02. (Figure 61) Fragment of the base of a large plate. D. 0,15m, H. 0,02m. Clay very fine, pale red (10R 7/4), with fine flakes of mica. Slip red (10R 5/8), lustrous on the internal surface, quite dull on the external, where traces of the wheel are visible. 771. Amphipolis 03/03. (Figure 61) Fragment of base. D. 0,24m, H. 0,03m. Clay fine, light red (10R 6/8), with fine limestone inclusions and golden mica. Slip red (10R 4/65/6), rather dull on both surfaces. 772. Amphipolis 05/02. (Figure 61) Fragment of base. D. 0,14m, H. 0,015m. Clay (2,5YR 6/6) light red. Slip (10R 4/8) red. 773. Amphipolis 10/16. (Figure 61) Fragment of a low, ring foot. D. 0,13m, H. 0,025m. Clay and slip similar to 15/15, but the slip was applied more thickly on inner surface. Mica visible on both sides. Many fine grooves of the wheel visible on the outer surface. 774. Amphipolis 17/03. (Figure 61) Two fragments of a low, heavy footed base of a big plate. D. 0,14m, H. 0,02m. Clay fine, light red (2,5YR 7/6-7/8), without any inclusions but some fine flakes of gold mica. Slip dark red (10R 4/6-4/8), very well applied on the inside, quite dull on the outside where fine marks of the wheel are visible. 775. Amphipolis 26/01. (Figure 61) Fragment of base. D. uncertain, H. 0,025m. Clay (10R 6/6) light red. Slip (10R 4/6-5/6) red. 776. Amphipolis 26/02 and 31b/02. (Figure 61) Two joining fragments of base. D. uncertain, H. 0,02m. Clay (2,5YR 6/8) red. Slip (2,5YR 5/8) red. 777. Amphipolis 34/04. (Figure 62)

43

778. 779. 780. 781. 782. 783. 784. 785. 786. 787. 788. 789. 790. 791. 792. 793. 794. 795. 796. 797. 798. 799. 800. 801. 802. 803. 804. 805. 806. 807. 808.

Fragment of base. D. 0,14m, H. 0,025m. Clay (2,5YR 6/6). Slip (10R 4/6-5/6). Amphipolis 36/03. (Figure 62) Fragment of base. D. uncertain, H. 0,17m, W. 0,025m. Clay (2,5YR 6/6). Slip (10R 5/8). Amphipolis 55/03. (Figure 62) Fragment of base. D. 0,12m, H. 0,015m. Clay (2,5YR 6/8). Slip (10R 5/8). Amphipolis 55/12. Fragment of base. D. 0,05m, H. 0,025m. Clay (10R 5/6-5/8). Slip (10R 5/8). Amphipolis 55/14. Fragment of base. D. uncertain, H. 0,03m, W 0,06m, Th 0,006m. Clay (10R 6/8). Slip (10R 5/8). Amphipolis 55/15. Fragment of base. D. 0,25m, H. 0,025m, W 0,06m. Clay (10R 6/8). Slip (10R 5/8-6/8). Amphipolis 55a/03. (Figure 62) Fragment of the base. D. 0,14m, H. 0,015m. Clay (10R 6/6). Slip (10R 5/8). Amphipolis 56/02. Fragment of base. Amphipolis 56/03. Fragment of base. Amphipolis 56/04. Fragment of base. Amphipolis 59b/06. Fragment of base. Amphipolis 59b/07. Fragment of base. Amphipolis 59b/08. Fragment of base. Amphipolis 61/03. Fragment of base. D. 0,05m, H. 0,025m. Clay (2,5YR 6/6). Slip (10R 5/8). Amphipolis 61/04. Fragment of base. D. 0,05m, H. 0,015m. Clay (10R 6/6). Slip (2,5YR 4/8-10R 4/6). Amphipolis 69/02. Fragment of base. Amphipolis 77/04. Fragment of base. Amphipolis 77/05. Fragment of base. Amphipolis 77/06. Fragment of base. Amphipolis 77/26. Fragment of body. Amphipolis 77/27. Fragment of body. Amphipolis 80/01. Fragment of base. Amphipolis 80/02. Fragment of base. Amphipolis 80/13. Fragment of body. Amphipolis 83/05. Fragment of base. Amphipolis 83/06. Fragment of base. Amphipolis 83/30. Fragment of body. Amphipolis 83/31. Fragment of body. Amphipolis 92a/03. Fragment of base. Amphipolis 94/03 and 94/04. (Figure 62) Two joining fragments of base. D. 0,25m, H. 0,025m. Clay (10R 6/66/8). Slip (10R 4/8-5/8). Amphipolis 95/04. Fragment of base. D. 0,19m, H. 0,015m. Clay (5YR 8/4). Slip (10R 4/6). Amphipolis 95/06.

809. 810. 811. 812. 813. 814. 815. 816. 817. 818. 819.

Fragment of base. D. 0,10m, H. 0,015m. Clay (10R 6/6). Slip (10R 5/8). Amphipolis 98/03. Fragment of base. Amphipolis 98/05. Fragment of base. Amphipolis 100/04. Fragment of base. Amphipolis 100/05. Fragment of base Thasos 04/15. (Figure 63) Fragment of base. D. 0,17m, H. 0,025m. Thasos 11/17. Fragment of base. D. 0,10m, H.0,01m. Thasos 13/05. (Figure 63) Fragment of base. D. 0,14m, H. 0,02m. Thasos 13/07. (Figure 63) Fragment of base. D. 0,24m, H. 0,02m. Thasos 15/03. Fragment of base. D. 0,15m, H. 0,035m. Thasos 16/01. Fragment of base. D. 0,09m, H. 0,025m. Thasos 16/04. Fragment of base. D. 0,035m, H. 0,02m.

Hayes (1972) Form 5 Small bowl with upright wall. 820. Abdera 20/22. Fragment of rim. D. 0,07m, H. 0,02m, W. 0,05m, Th. 0,002m. 821. Abdera 20/23. Fragment of rim. D. uncertain, H. 0,02m, W. 0,035m, Th. 0,005m. 822. Abdera 20/24. Fragment of rim. D. uncertain, H. 0,015m, W. 0,045m, Th. 0,004m. 823. Abdera 20/25. Fragment of rim. D. 0,09m, H. 0,02m, W. 0,035m, Th. 0,003m. 824. Abdera 148/34. (Figure 64) Fragment of rim. D. 0,10m, H. 0,035m, W. 0,085m, Th. 0,005m. Clay (7,5YR 7/6, 5YR 6/8). Slip (5YR 6/8). It does not cover the entire external surface. 825. Amphipolis 04/08. (Figure 64) Fragment of rim. D. 0,075m, H. 0,03m. Clay (2,5R 6/6) light red. Slip (10R 5/6) red, with silver mica. 826. Amphipolis 10/06. Rim fragment. D. 0,15m H. 0,025m. Shape, clay and slip similar to 15/05. 827. Amphipolis 10/07. Rim fragment. D. 0,16m, H. 0,03m. Shape, clay and slip similar to 15/05 828. Amphipolis 10/08. Rim fragment. D. unknown. H. 0,045m. Shape, clay and slip similar to 15/05. 829. Amphipolis 10/09. Rim fragment. D. unknown. H. 0,03m. Shape, clay and slip similar to 15/05. 830. Amphipolis 10/10. Rim fragment. D. 0,16m, H. 0,025m. Shape, clay and slip similar to 15/05. 831. Amphipolis 13/10. (Figure 64) Fragment of rim. D. 0,12m, H. 0,025m. Clay 2,5YR 7/6, light red. Slip 2,5YR 5/8, red. 832. Amphipolis 17/18 a and b. (Figure 64) Rim fragments. D. 0,075m, H. 0,045m. Clay and slip similar to 17/11. 833. Amphipolis 34/11. (Figure 64) Two fragments of rim. D. 0,09m, H. 0,03m. Clay (2,5YR 6/6). Slip (10R 4/6-5/6). Loeschcke (1912) Type 1; Kenrick (1985) B364 834. Abdera 29b/08. Fragment of base. D. 0,20m, H. 0,03m. Clay (5YR 6/4). Slip (2,5YR 4/6-5/6). Loeschcke (1912) Type 9; Kenrick (1985) B365 Small flat-based dish with slopping wall and flat rim.

44

1st and 2nd centuries A.D. 835. Abdera 46a/17. Fragment of rim. D. 0,11m, H. 0,01, W. 0,03m, Th. 0,004m. Clay (5YR 7/4, 2,5YR 4/8). Slip (2,5YR 4/8). 836. Abdera 46b/16. Fragments of base, body, and rim. D. of rim 0,11m, H. 0,02m, W. 0,04m, Th. 0,004m. Clay (5YR 6/6). Slip (10R 5/8). 837. Amphipolis 03/08. Fragment of rim. D. 0,13m, H 0,02m. Clay fine, light red (10R 6/6), with particles of lime and mica. Slip red (10R 5/8), very glossy on the internal surface, dull on the outside, where marks of the potter’s fingers are visible. 838. Amphipolis 03/09. Fragment of rim. D. uncertain, H. 0,04m, W. 0,06m, Th. 0,005m. 839. Amphipolis 04/10. Fragment of rim. D. 0,06m, H. 0,02m. Clay (2,5YR 6/8) light red. Slip (10R 5/8) red. 840. Amphipolis 61/05. Fragment of base. D. 0,08m, H. 0,01m. Clay (10R 6/8). Slip (10R 5/8). 841. Amphipolis 81/06. Fragment of base, body, and rim. D. of rim 0,20m, H. 0,03m. Clay (10R 6/6). Slip (10R 5/8). 842. Thasos 05/11. Mended. D. of base 0,07m, H. 0,015m.

856. Abdera 21/06. Fragment of body. 857. Abdera 21/07. Fragment of body. 858. Abdera 21/08. Fragment of body. 859. Abdera 21/09. Fragment of body. 860. Abdera 21/10. Fragment of body. 861. Abdera 21/11. Fragment of body. 862. Abdera 21/12. Fragment of body. 863. Abdera 21/13. Fragment of body. 864. Abdera 21/14. Fragment of body. 865. Abdera 66/04. Fragment of base. 866. Abdera 29b/02a,b. Two fragments of body and base. D. 0,08m, H. 0,04m. Clay (5YR 7/8). Slip (5YR 6/8). 867. Abdera 29b/04. Fragment of base. 868. Abdera 29b/06. Fragment of base. 869. Abdera 29c/03. Fragment of base. 870. Abdera 29c/07. Fragment of base. 871. Abdera 34/01. 872. Abdera 34/02. 873. Abdera 34/03. 874. Abdera 34/12. 875. Abdera 34/13. 876. Abdera 34/14. 877. Abdera 34/15. 878. Abdera 34/16. 879. Abdera 34/17. 880. Abdera 34/18. 881. Abdera 46b/11. Fragments of base, body, and rim. D. of rim 0,11m, H. 0,02m, W. 0,04m, Th. 0,004m. Clay (5YR 6/6). Slip (10R 5/8). 882. Amphipolis 07/02. Fragment of base. D. 0,03m, H. 0,01m. Clay and slip similar to 07/02.

Loeschcke (1912) Type 28; Kenrick (1985) B369 Large bowl with curving body, thickened or slightly hooked rim and usually low, broad, square-cut ring-foot. 843. Abdera 20/16. (Figure 64) Fragment of base. D. 0,06m, H. 0,025m, W. 0,035m, Th. 0,005m. Clay (7,5Y 7/6, 2,5YR 4/8). Slip (2,5YR 4/8). 844. Thasos 05/17. Fragment of base. D. 0,10m, H. 0,025m.

Unknown shapes Identification of the following potsherds was impossible due to their small size. They are included in this catalogue for quantitative purposes. 845. Abdera 11/25. Fragment of rim. D. 0,24m, H. 0,055m, W. 0,08m, Th. 0,005m. 846. Amphipolis 34/13 Fragment of rim. D. 0,28m, H. 0,02m. Clay (2,5YR 6/6). Slip (2,5YR 4/6) red. 847. Amphipolis 34/14 Fragment of rim. D. 0,26m, H. 0,02m. Clay (2,6YR 6/6) light red. Slip (10R 4/6). 848. Abdera 16/04. Fragment of body. H. 0,03m, W. 0,025m, Th. 0,004m. Clay (5YR 7/4, 2,5YR 4/8). Slip (2,5YR 4/8). 849. Abdera 16/05. Fragment of body. H. 0,03m, W. 0,04m, Th. 0,005m. Clay (5YR 7/4, 2,5YR 4/8). Slip (2,5YR 4/8). 850. Amphipolis 17/08. Rim fragment. D. 0,14m, H. 0,025m. Clay and slip similar to 17/01. 851. Abdera 17/01. Fragment of body. H. 0,035m, W. 0,045m, Th. 0,004m. Clay (7,5YR 7/6, 2,5YR 4/8). Slip (2,5YR 4/8). 852. Abdera 21/02. Fragment of body. 853. Abdera 21/03. Fragment of body. 854. Abdera 21/04. Fragment of body. 855. Abdera 21/05. Fragment of body.

6.1.1.5 Cypriot Sigillata Another group of fine pottery contemporary to and with the same distribution as Eastern Sigillata A Ware, but of lesser importance, was Cypriot Sigillata (J.W. Hayes 1967, 65-77). The name and typology was defined by Hayes and refined by the same author in a later work (1977, 96-101). The name derives from the fact that this was the main ware found in early Roman contexts throughout the island of Cyprus. A. Negev (1974, 422) suggested the area in south Israel for its place of manufacture, on the basis of finds in that area, particularly in association with a kiln at Oboda, and the appellation ‘Nabatean Sigillata’ as the most appropriate for this ware. The technical characteristics of the ware have been described by Hayes (1967) as follows: Fabric and coating: “The body-clay is extremely fine-grained, of a muddy consistency; the only visible impurities are occasional

45

887. Abdera 22/27. Fragment of rim, similar to Abdera 20/20. D. 0,25m, H. 0,025m, W. 0,055m, Th. 0,005m. Clay (5YR 6/8, 5YR 6/8). Slip (5YR 6/8).

lumps of hard lime, which in the poorer pieces can be of considerable size. Vessels are given a complete coating of a thin wash of the same clay, which generally appears a shade darker than the body in colour; this, depending on the firing-temperature, has a more or less pronounced metallic lustre, a feature peculiar to this ware, distinguish it from the other Eastern fabrics. Double-dipping streaks are generally visible on dishes, though not on other forms; fingermarks can frequently be observed around the bases of the vessels. The firing of the pots is generally good and uniform for any given pieces, but shows considerable variations from vessel to vessel. Wellfired examples are mostly brick-red, maroon, purplish-red or dark brown in colour, while the poorer-fired ones tend to the orange-red. Some early pieces were fired in a reducing kiln and have a metallic black or purplish-black-gloss. The potting, particularly in the later phases, is rather heavy, with prominent tool-marks on the undersides of the vessels. In general, one may say that the earlier products are better finished, thinner-walled and better fired than the later ones; a general decline in standards sets in during the second half of the 1st century A.D.” Shapes: “The shapes of ‘Cypriot Sigillata’ are mostly rather simple and have none of the fine mouldings characteristics of Arretine and some of the other sigillata wares. Low feet are normal; these were produced by a rough hollowing out of the base of the pot. A double ring-base is peculiar to this ware; some closed vessels have flat bases with a small ledge-foot at the edge.” Decoration: “Decoration is rather sparsely applied, and generally amounts to no more than a few lines of neat rouletting or a groove or two. The closest links in vessel-forms and decorative schemes are with Eastern Sigillata A ware, which may be assumed to have provided the models for several of the Cypriot types. The similarities are closest in the early phases; later types seem to indicate an independent development. The greatest variety of shapes occurs in the JulioClaudian age; by the 2nd century only a few types were being produced.”

6.1.1.6 Pontic Sigillata wares P.M. Kenrick in his publication of the Roman pottery from Benghazi (1985, 271-275) gives us a complete description of the ware: Fabric: “The body-clay of Pontic Sigillata is fine and hard, generally of a pale orange or pinkish-brown colour, and contains occasional lumps of lime which may erupt through the surface: it is very similar in appearance to that of Cypriot Sigillata, from which it may usually be distinguished by its small but regular content of fine silvery mica. It mostly breaks cleanly but is occasionally flaky, when it may be distinguished from Eastern Sigillata B by its greater hardness. The internal surfaces of open vessels are always finely smoothed, but exteriors and undersides are often finished with a knife, which gives a slightly facetted appearance and leaves many fine scratches.” Slip: The slip varies in colour from orange-red to dark brown; it is usually slightly lustrous, and sometimes has a metallic sheen. It is unevenly applied (often showing finger-marks) and tends to collect in crevices where it becomes darker in colour and often crazed; it rarely covers the whole vessel, and often extends to more than half way down the outside. (This is a characteristic shared with early Çandarli ware, which may also cause difficulty in identification.)” Shapes and decoration: “A wide range of shapes occurs in this ware, many of them related to contemporary forms in other classes of terra sigillata. Most of the production is undecorated, but dishes and open bowls sometimes have one or more circular grooves or bands of coarse rouletting on the floor, together with a central impressed stamp. Name-stamps do not occur in this series; the most common device is a single or paired sandalled foot, a variety of abstract or stylised designs also occur. Applied S-spirals are used on the rims of bowls in imitation of the double or ‘spectacle’-spirals found on Italian Sigillata. (Sspirals are also characteristic of Eastern Sigillata B.) The occasional use of applied rosettes is also attested; this form of decoration is not otherwise found in the Eastern Sigillata wares. But the most characteristic form of decoration on the shoulders of jugs or on the walls of cups and bowls consists of horizontal sprays or garlands of leaves executed in the barbotine technique.” Date: “Pontic Sigillata is common on the Russian sites from the time of Augustus until the end of the second century A.D., and some dishes of Olbia Type 21A may continue into the third and fourth centuries.”

Kenrick (1985) B377 Dish with curved wall and thickened inturned rim. Second half of 1st and first half of 2nd centuries A.D. 883. Abdera 16/03. Fragment of body, similar to Abdera 20/20. H. 0,02m, W. 0,03m, Th. 0,005m. Clay (5YR 7/6, 2,5YR 5/6). Slip (2,5YR 5/6). 884. Abdera 20/20. (Figure 65) Fragment of rim. D. 0,17m, H. 0,035m, W. 0,07m, Th. 0,004m. 885. Abdera 21/28. Fragment of rim, similar to Abdera 20/20. 886. Abdera 22/26. Fragment of rim, similar to Abdera 20/20. D. 0,26m, H. 0,007m, W. 0,05m, Th. 0,004m. Clay (10R 5/8, 10R 5/8). Slip (10R 5/8).

46

Table 12 illustrates examples of the most typical shapes found in eastern Mediterranean; similar shapes were found in north-eastern Greece.

Olbia Type 32; Kenrick (1985) B394 Bowl with curving body and incurved rim. C. Late 1st to the 3rd centuries A.D.

Olbia Type 21 and 21A; Hayes (EAA) category I; Kenrick (1985) B386. Dish with shallow, curving floor, vertical, slightly concave wall above a projecting moulding, plain or bead-rim and rounded ring-foot; sometimes a groove or band of rouletting on floor together with an impressed stamp of single or paired sandalled foot. From Tiberian times (A.D. 14-37) until the 3rd century A.D.

900. Abdera 02/15. Fragment of rim. D. 0,13m, H. 0,035m, W. 0,05m, Th. 0,004m. Clay (5YR 7/6, 2,5YR 5/8). Slip (2,5YR 5/8). 901. Abdera 20b/44 (plate no Fragment of rim. 902. Abdera 19/31. Fragment of rim. 903. Abdera 22/15. Fragment of inverted rim. D. 0,10m, H. 0,02m, W. 0,035m, Th. 0,004m. Clay (5YR 7/6, 2,5YR 6/8). Slip (2,5YR 6/8). 904. Abdera 22/16. Fragment of inverted rim. D. 0,20m, H. 0,02m, W. 0,045m, Th. 0,004m. Clay (5YR 7/6, 2,5YR 6/8). Slip (2,5YR 6/8). 905. Abdera 29b/11. Fragment of rim. D. 0,16m, H. 0,025m. Clay (5YR 6/8). Slip (2,5YR 4/6). 906. Abdera 29b/44. (Figure 68) Fragment of rim. D. 0,16m, H. 0,03m. 907. Abdera 148/22. (Figure 68)) Fragment of rim. D. 0,09m, H. 0,02m, W. 0,045m, Th. 0,005m. Clay (5YR 7/6, 2,5YR 6/8). Slip (2,5YR 6/8). Quite glossy on both sides. 908. Abdera 02/17. Fragment of flat base, decorated with a band of rouletting (see Kenrick p.279, B395). D. 0,035m, H. 0,015m, W. 0,08m, Th. 0,002m. Clay (5YR 7/6, 2,5YR 5/8). Slip (2,5YR 5/8). 909. Abdera 11/31. Fragment of base similar to 02/17. D. uncertain, H. 0,007m, W. 0,045m, Th. 0,004m. 910. Abdera 11/32. Fragment of base similar to 02/17. H. 0,03m, W. 0,045m, Th. 0,004m.

888. Abdera 99/02. (Figure 65) Fragment of base. D. 0,11m, H. 0,015m, W. 0,06m, Th. 0,004m. Clay (5YR 6/6, 2,5YR 5/8). Slip (2,5YR 5/8), very glossy on both external and internal surfaces, covers the whole of the vessel. 889. Abdera MA 5116. (Figure 66) Whole. Applied S-spiral on rim. A band of coarse rouletting on the floor together with an impressed stamp of a single sandalled foot. 890. Thasos 22/04. (Figure 65) Fragment of base. D. 0,13m, H. 0,035m.

Hayes (EAA) category V; Kenrick (1985) B388 Conical cup with steep, flaring wall and vertical rim with grooves at top and bottom on outside; flat base or low ringfoot. A form very common to many classes of terra sigillata. From Tiberian times until the 3rd century A.D. 891. Abdera 34/04. (Figure 67) Fragment of rim. 892. Abdera 22/01a,b. Fragment of base. D. 0,05m, H. 0,02m, Th. 0,003m. Clay (10YR 8/4, 2,5YR 4/8). Slip (2,5YR 4/8). 893. Abdera 22/04. Fragment of base. D. 0,05m, H. 0,015m, W. 0,04m, Th. 0,004m. Clay (7,5YR 7/6, 10R 4/6). Slip (2,5YR 4/8). 894. Abdera 22/13-14. Two joining fragments of base. D. 0,05m, H. 0,02m, Th. 0,007m. Clay (5YR 7/6, 2,5YR 6/8). Slip (2,5YR 6/8).

Unknown form 911. Abdera 29b/27. (Figure 68) Fragment of rim. D. 0,17m, H. 0,025m. Clay (5YR 6/8). Slip (5YR 6/8).

6.1.1.7 Tripolitanian Sigillata This ware was mentioned for the first time by Hayes as "imitation sigillata", found at Carthage during the American excavations. Kenrick noticed large numbers of this ware in the early Roman contexts at Sidi Khrebish and therefore named them Tripolitanian Sigillata. These are its characteristics (Kenrick 1985):

Kenrick (1985) B389 Hemispherical bowl with grooved rim and rising flange at mid-height on the outside. 895. Abdera MA 5112. (Figure 67) Three joining pieces. Reconstructed. D. 0,05m, H. 0,06m. Clay (7,5YR 7/6, 10R 4/6). Slip quite shiny (2,5YR 4/8). The base on the inside bares a stamp that reads: “ΚΥΡΙΛΟΥ”.

Fabric: “The body clay is finely granular, of an orange or pale orange-buff colour; it contains a small quantity of fine mica, and sometimes a few dark particles. The slip is evenly applied but varies between orange and red on different vessels, between the colour of Eastern Sigillata B and that of Italian Sigillata (but a deep red-brown is not common). It regularly covers the whole vessel, but may be patchy inside the foot; surfaces are well smoothed and the slip, though porous, usually has the high gloss of western terra sigillata. It is characteristically dull on the inside of the foot. Brush-marks are never visible, in contrast to Eastern Sigillata B with which its appearance may most readily be confused.”

Related to Olbia Type 30; Kenrick (1985) B390. Globular cup with short, sloping rim, hooked upwards at the outer edge, and thin, flaring ring-foot; sometimes applied Sspirals on rim. C. Second half 1st and 2nd century A.D. 896. Abdera 11/29. (Figure 68) Fragment of rim. D. 0,15m, H. 0,01m, W. 0,08m, Th. 0,002m. 897. Abdera 17/02. (Figure 68) Fragment of rim. D. 0,06m, H. 0,035m, W. 0,045m, Th. 0,003m. Clay (5YR 7/8, 2,5YR 5/8). Slip (2,5YR 5/8). 898. Abdera 29c/09. (Figure 68) Fragment of rim. D. 0,12m, H. 0,03m. 899. Abdera 20/18. (Figure 68) Fragment of rim. Rouletting on top of the rim.

47

All these terms were created in order to describe similar kinds of vessels that were produced by various North African workshops, and were found throughout the Mediterranean region over a period of six centuries, from the end of the 1st century A.D. until the 7th century. Hayes (1972, 13) noted that African Red Slip ware was the leading fine ware in most parts of the Mediterranean world (including Rome itself) over a period of several centuries, the counterpart of the Gaulish wares in the northern Roman provinces, and seemed to have dictated pottery fashions throughout the area for much of this time”.

Forms and decoration: “The forms found in Tripolitanian Sigillata include a range of plates, cups and bowls, allied in style more closely to Italian Sigillata than to any of the Eastern Sigillata wares. Decoration is confined to the use of grooves and rouletting. Central stamps have been found on several forms, and they are sometimes in the form of names, in which case they are rectangular, set in one or two lines, or they may consist of decorative devices.” Chronology: “The forms found in Tripolitanian Sigillata at Benghazi are mostly related to those of Groups A and B in Italian Sigillata, suggesting a predominantly Augustan-Tiberian range of date (B.C. 27 to A.D. 37). Preliminary observations do not suggest that it outlived the first century A.D.”

The description of the technical characteristics comes from Hayes (1972, 13-14), who studied in full the numerous variations of this ware: Fabric and coating: “The standard body-clay of the series is fairly coarse, with a rather granular appearance. The normal colour-range is orange-red to brick-red; many of the finer pieces have a pronounced pinkish tinge. The commonest impurity is lime, frequently present in small particles, with occasional larger lumps where these have not been eliminated by the initial washing of the clay; these sometimes erupt as a result of firing, to leave small pock-marks on the surface. In addition, fine quartz particles, white or brownish, are frequently visible, together with occasional black particles; these appear to account for much of the granular texture of the ware. Specks of silvery mica can be observed on most vessels, though these are never present in any great quantity. The slip used, which is merely a refined version of the body-clay, is of good quality but lacks the reflective powers and glossiness of that on terra sigillata, except in rare instances. It is generally a shade or two deeper in tone than the body-clay. When thickly applied it has a smooth, faintly lustrous appearance; thinner coatings tend to be matt and to merge with the body-clay. In the latter case, it is not always possible to distinguish a thin coat of slip from mere wet-smoothing of the surface. Being of the same basic consistency as the body, it normally fuses well and is not prone to flaking; the eruption of lime particles below the surface is the most frequent cause of damage. Light polishing seems to be responsible for its generally smooth appearance.” Shapes: “The great majority of vessels, as in the case of terra sigillata, belong to a comparatively small number of highly standardised types. Individual vessel-forms show relatively little development, being in most cases superseded by completely new shapes. The various factories making the ware seem to have specialised in three or four ‘lines’ only at any given time, which they and they alone produced. The vessel-forms change fairly frequently; few survive more than a century

Kenrick (1985) B427 Conical cup with ring-foot, curving floor and moulded rim. One or more grooves and sometimes a central stamp may decorate the floor. Kenrick (1985): A.D. 27-37. 912. Abdera 29b/13. (Figure 69) Fragment of rim. D. 0,12m, H. 0,035m. Clay (5YR 6/6). Slip (2,5YR 5/8). 913. Abdera 34/01. (Figure 69) Whole. D. 0,10m, H. 0,025m. Clay similar to Abdera 29b/13. 914. Abdera 34/02. Fragment of rim. D. 0,13m ,H. 0,02m. Clay similar to Abdera 29b/13. 915. Abdera 34/03. Fragment of rim. D. 0,14m, H. 0,04m. Clay similar to Abdera 29b/13. 916. Abdera 34/12. Fragment of base. D. 0,045m, H. 0,03m. Clay similar to Abdera 29b/13. 917. Abdera 34/13. Fragment of body. Clay similar to Abdera 29b/13. 918. Abdera 34/14. Fragment of body. Clay similar to Abdera 29b/13. 919. Abdera 34/15. Fragment of body. Clay similar to Abdera 29b/13. 920. Abdera 34/16. Fragment of body. Clay similar to Abdera 29b/13. 921. Abdera 34/17. Fragment of body. Clay similar to Abdera 29b/13. 922. Abdera 34/18. Fragment of body. Clay similar to Abdera 29b/13.

6.1.2 Red Slip Wares During the later Roman period, wares made with fine, red clay and covered with a very thin coating of the same shade, very different to those discussed so far on the Terra Sigillata ware, became extremely popular and monopolised the markets in the Mediterranean area. The most common found ware of this category was the African Red Slip ware. 6.1.2.1 African Red Slip The ware is also known as “Terra Sigillata Chiara A, C, and D”, a term proposed by N. Lamboglia (1952, 7-22), as “Late Roman A and B”, a term proposed by Waagé (1948, 43-47), and as ”Late Roman Red ware”. The most commonly used term in our days is Hayes’ (1972) term: African Red Slip.

48

Fragment of base. D. 0,08m, H. 0,007m. Clay (5YR 7/6). Slip (5YR 6/8). 925. Thasos 04/18. (Figure 70) Fragment of base. D. 0,24m, H. 0,013m.

without drastic modification- a factor which greatly assists the task of classification.” Decoration: “Decoration is in most cases restrained; it is either stamped, incised or modelled in relief (as in terra sigillata), never painted. Many of the later examples of the ware bear stamped decoration on the floor within a surround of grooves, in the manner of a large medallion; as in the case of the stamped decoration in Classical and Hellenistic black-glaze wares, one may here point to the influence of contemporary metalware. The same is true of the rare examples with moulded relief, a technique less common here than in the terra sigillata wares. Appliqué decoration, common in Arretine and the later Italian wares, is fairly widely employed, though in a rather different manner. This technique is occasionally used for large figured compositions; here one may possibly detect the influence of Gaulish wares. Most of the African products, however, are undecorated, like their counterparts in terra sigillata, with grooves and rouletting constituting the only form of ornamentation. A development of the latter technique characteristic of the African wares is the covering of broad surfaces with row upon row of overlapping rouletting, in such a manner that the individual strokes appear to the eye to be arranged in vertical or radiating chains, an effect aptly described by various writers as ‘feather-rouletting’. This effect seems to have been deliberately exploited. Such developments aside, there remain many vessels-notably the popular Form 50-which are entirely undecorated, and rely on the thinness or high quality of the fabric for their appeal.”

Hayes (1972) Form 50; Lamboglia 40; Antioch 836 p-x Large dish, with broad flat floor and high straight wall rising at an angle to a plain rim, tiny bevelled foot under edge of floor. Undecorated. Thin-walled; fine fabric with thin smooth slip. Hayes (1972): A.D. 234/240-400+. 926. Thasos 14/02. (Figure 70) Fragment of base. D. 0,23m, H. 0,005m. 927. Thasos 14/04. Fragment of base. D. uncertain, H. 0,035m. 928. Thasos 14/03. Fragment of body. H. 0,025m, Th. 0,003m. 929. Thasos 14/05. Fragment of body. H. 0,05m, Th. 0,003m. 930. Thasos 21/14. Fragment of body. H. 0,065m, Th. 0,005m.

Hayes (1972) Form 67; Lamboglia 42; Antioch 869-873 Large bowl with curved, slightly sagging body, flat base and two-part flaring rim. The rim consists of a flat member, rising gently, surmounted by a curved, everted member, hooked or rolled at the lip; the articulation is usually blurred on the underside. The upper part of the rim is generally somewhat flattened on top, bearing a groove at or near the lip; the rim-roll may be heavy. The flat base has a low moulding combined with a groove at the edge to produce a small false foot. The floor usually bears stamped decoration and grooves. Hayes (1972): A.D. 360-470. 931. Abdera 16/07. Fragment of rim. D. uncertain, H. 0,035m, W. 0,045m, Th. 0,003m. Clay (2,5YR 5/8, 2,5YR 6/8). Slip (2,5YR 6/8). 932. Thasos 14/06. (Figure 70) Fragment of rim. D. 0,28m, H. 0,03m. 933. Thasos 17/05. (Figure 70) Fragment of rim. D. 0,28m, H. 0,055m. 934. Abdera 20/14. (Figure 70) Fragment of base. D. uncertain, H. 0,01m, W. 0,035m, Th. 0,004m. Clay (7,5Y 7/6, 2,5YR 4/8). Slip (2,5YR 4/8). 935. Thasos 17/03. (Figure 70) Fragment of base. D. 0,10m, H. 0,01m. Stamp style Aii. (A.D. 350420) 936. Thasos 17/04. (Figure 70) Fragment of base. D. 0, 07m, H. 0,015m. 937. Thasos 13/10. Fragment of body. H. 0,025m.

Examples of the shapes found in north-eastern Greece are illustrated in Tables 13 and 14. Hayes (1972) Form 8; Lamboglia 1; Antioch 843. Carinated bowl. Straight flaring wall, sloping floor and small foot. Large convex moulding below rim, with a small ridge below, matched by two corresponding grooves on the inside. With rouletted decoration on the rim or plain. Hayes (1972): A.D. 80/90-second half of 2nd century. 923. Thasos 22/03. (Figure 70) Fragment of rim. D. 0,17m, H. 0,025m.

6.1.2.2 Phocaean Red Slip ware First mention of the ware can be found in the reports of the American excavation in the Athenian Agora by Waagé in 1933, who identified the ware and classified it as Late Roman C. Robinson (1959) proposed an alternative classification for the ware, which was rejected by Hayes (1973) as "too vague to be really practicable". The ware is very distinctive, made somewhere in the north-eastern Aegean. Finds proved that the production centre of the ware was in Phocaea, where wasters have been found (Hayes 1972, 316). Therefore, Hayes proposed the name Phocaean

Hayes (1972) Form 27; Lamboglia 9a; Antioch 835. Dish with broad flat floor and flaring wall, curving upwards to a more or less vertical rim; low foot close to edge of floor. Smooth transition from floor to wall inside, slight angle on outside. Groove on inside below rim; two sets of two grooves on floor. Slip normally thin and dull, surfaces slightly pimply. The grooves are narrow, often with a “scratched” appearance. Hayes (1972): A.D. 120-220. 924. Abdera 29a/08. (Figure 70)

49

point at the outer edge. It is, also, decorated with two or three bands of rouletting. Hayes (1972): A.D. 460-475.

Red Slip ware, under which I preferred to present the one example found in Thasos. Although the ware has been identified and assigned to a particular workshop, the term Late Roman C ware continues to be used by some archaeologists. One example is the compilation of Kenrick about the Roman pottery found in Benghazi.

938. Thasos 13/11. (Figure 71) Fragment of rim. D. 0,25m, H. 0,04m.

6.1.2.3 Cypriot Red Slip The ware became known for the first time as ‘Late Roman D ware’, when Waagé published a group from Antioch in 1948 (Waagé 1948):

The characteristics of the ware are as follow, described by Hayes (1972): Fabric: “The clay is a fine-grained red, not unlike that of the finer African products, but having different range of impurities. A large number of small lime particles are frequently (but not always) present in it, producing in the case of the darker, hard-fired examples a distinctive fine-speckled appearance; mica, on the other hand, is rare- hardly ever more than a few specks- and other impurities are absent. The ware is generally hard-fired, with a brownish-red, purplish red or maroon tint, and breaks cleanly without splintering. The red slip, which covers the whole surface, is generally no more than a fine film, which fuses with the body-clay; sometimes, however, it is more thickly applied on interiors. It is merely a refined version of the body-clay, dull or occasionally slightly metallic in appearance, with none of the gloss of the terra sigillata wares. The interior surface appear to have been carefully smoothed with some kind of spatula, the traces of which may often be seen in the form of a series of broad faintly concave bands around the floor. On late pieces the smoothing was, however, done mostly with a brush, producing a series of minute corrugations which give the surface the feel of fine sandpaper. The exteriors, below the rim, bear smoothing-marks similar to those on the insides, but in addition display numerous small scratches, apparently caused by lime particles being dragged round the surface during manufacture. The ware is generally hard-fired.” Decoration: “The rouletted decoration common on this ware during the fifth and early sixth centuries is almost applied with a multiple implement with two, three or four sets of teeth capable of producing a whole band of decoration at once. Stamped decoration, where combined with these, can be seen to have been added at a later stage during manufacture."

Fabric and coating: “In fabric it closely resembles the Early Roman ware which I have termed ‘Cypriot Sigillata’, and though a direct link between the two wares is not established, it seems very likely that both were made in the same region. This is consistently very fine and smooth, with no grains visible, and breaks cleanly, even when illfired. The clay obvious impurities are occasional lumps of lime, often quite large, which tend to rupture the surface. The presence of these proves that the clay does not owe its fine texture to careful levigation; it presumably comes from alluvial deposits. The degree of firing and colour of the fabric vary enormously, the latter ranging from near-yellow through various shades of orange, brown and red to a deep maroon, purple or sepia; a pinkish or maroon tint is commonest. The vessels appear to have normally been fired in stacks, one resting directly on top of another, since the rims are frequently discoloured (appearing blackened or creamy white). A thin slip coating is applied to the whole of the surface, as in the case of Late Roman C ware; exceptions are the large basins of Form 11 and the few closed shapes. This slip, which is of similar nature to the body-clay, and tends to merge with it, has a matt appearance on the more poorly fired pieces, but acquires a metallic lustre when hard-fired; it is generally a shade darker than the clay beneath. Some early pieces have a rather thicker slip with a fine lustrous appearance identical with that of the earlier ‘Cypriot Sigillata’ ware; these constitute Waagé’s Late E ware. Otherwise the fabric remains remarkably consistent throughout its history, with the exception of a bad phase around the middle of the sixth century. Vessels are mostly rather thickwalled, and tend to have a poor finish. The insides are generally smoothed with some care, and often display fine parallel brush-lines; the outsides and feet, on the other hand, are roughly smoothed off with a finishingtool, leaving slight irregular ridges or wheel-marks. Feet, normally low, are produced by hollowing out the underside. On the flat-based forms wire- or stringmarks are sometimes visible on the undersides. It may be taken for granted that the vessels of this ware are all simple wheel-made products.” Shapes: “The basic vessel-forms are few, and are rather less standardised than those of the African wares, with

The ware was very common in Asia Minor and the surrounding regions during the 4th century A.D., and from the 5th until the end of the 7th century became the main competitor of the African Red Slip ware in East. Hayes Form 3; Kenrick (1985) B688 (Type C) Dish with low-ring foot, curving body. The rim is vertical and tall, with flange beneath. Its outer face is flat or slightly concave, with either convex or flattened top, with highest

50

Empire. The ware was very common in the eastern Mediterranean as well. Examples were found in the Athenian Agora, South Stoa at Corinth (Hayes 1973, 458-459, Pl. 88, nos. 171-174), the Villa Dionysus at Knossos (Hayes 1971, 253, Fig. 5, no. 20; Hayes 1983, 108, Fig. 9, nos. 115-116), the House of Dionysos at Paphos, Cyprus (Hayes 1977, 9697, Fig. 1, nos. 1-3), Benghazi (Kenrick 1985, Fig. 60), Stobi (Anderson-Stojanović 1992, 97-99, Pl. 84).

one form shading off into another. Medium-sized dishes, in the earlier versions with low feet, in the later ones flat-based are most popular; a parallel series of small bowls appears in smaller numbers. A third shape, produced in some quantity in the later stages, is a large basin, with or without handles, presumably intended for domestic use. Other shapes are rare. Within the main series some consistent development of form may be observed.” Decoration: “The standard decoration on this ware is coarse rouletting, in the form of either large strokes covering the whole of the wall or one or more narrow bands, often applied in an erratic fashion and interrupted by the ridges and hollows resulting from the careless turning. This appears first on Form 2, where it is clearly an attempt to copy the fine ‘feather-rouletting’ of African Red Slip ware. Forms 82-84, and persists with various modifications until the end of the series. In addition, rims are often grooved, and stamped decoration, with or without a grooved border, is employed on the floors of a number of dishes. A feature peculiar to this ware is the presence on the rims of many of the dishes (mostly late) of a single short incised wavy line-which could be termed the ‘trade-mark’ of the Cypriot workshops. Date: “Its date-range is from about the end of the fourth century (possibly earlier) to around A.D. 700.”

The clay of the ware is coarse and full of impurities. Peacock (1977) has distinguished seven different fabrics. He believes that Fabric 1 is that of the “parent” ware and the commonest fabric throughout the Mediterranean. Fabric 2 have been identified in Athens, where its origin could be placed. The other five fabrics are probably originated in Britain, France or Belgium, and they distributed locally. The most common fabric (Fabric 1) was described by Peacock as follows: “Fabric 1 is hard, warm reddish-brown in colour (Munsell 2.5YR 4/6) and contains medium-grained black sand with occasional white particles and rare flecks of biotite mica. The outside of the base and walls of bowls and platters is rough and often sooted, while the rim and interior have a thick red slip of typical Pompeian-Red colour (10R 4/6-4/8). Under the microscope the field of view is dominated by abundant subrounded grains of green augite, with lesser quantities of colourless clinopyroxene, black iron ore, sanidite felspar, quartz and sometimes lava fragments which often display a trachytic texture. Rather rare are grains of plagioclase felspar, brown hornblende, biotite, volcanic glass and brown garnet. All are set in a brown optically anisotropic matrix of fired clay.”

Kenrick (1985) B 712 Dish with straight sloping wall of even thickness and plain rounded rim; a broad band of rouletting on the wall on the outside. 939. Thasos 17/06 (Figure 71) Fragment of rim. D. 26m.

6.1.3

Based on the ware’s petrology, Peacock placed its product centre somewhere in the Campanian region, probably in the neighbourhood of Pompeii and Herculaneum. The ware consist of a range of flat-based dishes or platters. Usually the bottom and the external walls of these shapes are burnt black. Anderson-Stojanović (1992, 97-98) presumed that the ware was used obviously for cooking, maybe for “baking dough of some sort of making the equivalent of pancakes and that the smooth, glossy surface would prevent sticking-the ancient Teflon, as it were”.

Unidentified Terra Sigillata and Red Slip wares

940. Abdera 29b/18. (Figure 72) Fragment of rim with rouletted decoration. D. 0,08m, H. 0,01m. Clay (7,5YR 7/6). Slip (2,5YR 4/8). 941. Abdera 20/08. (Figure 72) Fragment of rim. D. 0,21m, H. 0,01m, W. 0,06m, Th. 0,005m. Clay (7,5Y 7/6, 2,5YR 4/8). Slip (2,5YR 4/8).

6.1.4 Pompeian Red Ware This is one of the coarse Roman wares that can be included both into the categories of coarse and fine wares. Its body clay is rather coarse with a great number of impurities. Its inner surface, though, is covered with a thick red slip and this makes the Pompeian-Red ware to be consider as fine ware at the same time. It is one of the most studied coarse wares.

The ware has been found in contexts ranging from the early 1st century B.C. into the 2nd century A.D. Its characteristics influenced African workshops. Hayes Form 181 (dated in the second half of the 2nd to the first half of the 3rd century A.D.) was assumed to be a copy of the ware. Two examples of the ware were found in Amphipolis:

The name was first used by E. Krüger in 1905 (Krüger 1905, p. 102). It derived from the similarity of the colour of the red slip that covers the inner surface of the ware with the red used in Pompeian wall-paintings. Since then, a great number of examples of the ware were found throughout the Roman

Kenrick (1985) B479.1 Flat-based dish with curving wall and plain rim. Hayes (1977): first half 2nd century A.D.

51

942. Amphipolis 06/12/co. (Figure 72) Fragment of base, body, rim. D. of rim 0,24m, H.0,06m. Clay (10R 6/8, 10R 6/8, 10R 6/8). 943. Amphipolis 55a/11. Mended. Fragments of rim, body, and rim. D. 0,20m, H. 0,035m. Clay (10R 6/6). Slip (10R 5/8).

Anderson-Stojanović (1992) Form 1, Variant C Flat-based deep dish with wide, horizontal rim that slops to the interior. Incised zigzag decorates the upper surface of the rim. Anderson-Stojanović (1992): third quarter of 4th century A.D.

6.1.5 Macedonian Grey Ware The ware was first identified by Hayes (1972, 405-407). It was then called Macedonian “Terre Sigillée Grise”. It was one of the main finds of Late Roman pottery in Thessaloniki. Few examples were found elsewhere, such as in the Athenian Agora (P687, P 11987, P 12047 and P2982), in Corinth (C33-1415 and C-65-185) and Stobi (418-484). It is a very distinctive ware with the following characteristics:

944. Thasos 07/17. (Figure 72) Fragment of rim. D. 0,32m, H. 0,025m.

6.1.6 Lead-Glazed Wares Hayes (1997, 64) believes that this pottery can be seen as an alternative to luxurious silver and gold vessels. Together with glassware, they could offer a new range of colours in the pottery used on the table.

Hayes (1972, 405-407): Fabric: “The ware, a fine-grained grey clay loaded with fine silvery mica particles, has a thin grey or grey-black surface coating with a satiny or rather metallic texture; it bears a marked resemblance to the socalled Aeolic Bucchero of the Archaic Greek period.” Shapes and decoration: “Typical forms are flat-rimmed dishes and bowls with stamped decoration on the floor and the rim, which is often also finely scalloped or notched around the edge; both forms recall Gaulish t.s. grise pieces. Also common, as in the Gaulish series, are deep bowls with stamped decoration or wavy incised lines on the outside; some of these have handles. Skillets and closed forms, including screw-necked jugs, and lids with high screw-decorated knobs are also represented. Some of these shapes seem to have northern connections, in particular the handled bowls, which may be versions of a three-handled series common on Danubian and Dacian sites. The stamped decoration seems vaguely related to that on the African series, which may have inspired the decorative schemes on the dishes.”

This kind of pottery was in circulation throughout the Roman Empire from the later 1st century B.C. The earliest examples of lead-glazed pottery were found in Asia Minor at Tarsus, dated to the 1st century B.C. The most popular shape in this early period was the small cup, often decorated with mouldmade relief decoration. These were not common, however, and they tend to be considered as local items. Later, they appear in Italy in contexts of the 1st century A.D. The production of lead-glazed wares continued during the 2nd and 3rd centuries in central and eastern Europe-that is, in Germany, Pannonia, Moesia, and Dacia-gradually being used for a wider range of forms and without relief decoration. However, they never became very popular during the Roman period in the Mediterranean world; only later, in the 7th and 8th centuries, numerous examples were found in Constantinople (Hayes 1997, 64). The most likely centres of production of the ware were located in three places in West Asia Minor, at the area of Pergamon, at Perge in Pamphylia, and at Mytilene. One group of pottery that has a very thick glaze has been associated with the possible workshop at Perge, and another one which has a thinner glaze with workshops at Mytilene and Pergamon (Hayes 1997, 64-66).

The tradition of Grey wares derived from the Hellenistic times. During this period the group of pottery fired in such way to obtain a grey body clay and quite a shiny grey slip was very popular. I personally had the opportunity to see a great number of this pottery in Vergina during the excavations of Dr S. Drougou at the sanctuary of Cybele in the summer of 1992. Thus, their production continued through the early Roman times. They became less popular during the 2nd and 3rd centuries A.D. and then returned in the market from the 4th century onwards. Examples of the ware have been found in contexts dated as late as the 5th century A.D. (ΑΔ 21 (1966) Χρονικά, 338).

945. Amphipolis 01/03 and 01/04. (Figure 73) Fragments of rim. D. 0,09m,W. 0,07m, Th. 0,005m. Clay fine, very pale brown (10YR 8/2). Glaze on both surfaces olive yellow (5Y 6/6). 946. Amphipolis 56/25. Fragment of body. 947. Amphipolis 10/14. Fragment of handle. H. 0,065m, W. 0,04m, Th. 0,003m. Clay (2,5YR 4/3, 2,5YR 3/1). 948. Thasos 07/16. Fragment of rim. D. 0,12m, H. 0,035m. 949. Thasos 13/15. Fragment of handle. H. 0,065m, W. 0,03m, Th. 0,001m.

6.1.7 Colour-slipped and plain pottery This group is an account of the remaining of the pot-sherds that are covered either completely or partially with a red slip or generally with a slip of a different colour than the body, or they are plain. The clay body of these sherds is generally uniform in colour and texture and falls within the range of

As mentioned above, the ware was not popular during the 2nd and 3rd centuries A.D. Thus, only one example was found in the studied area, where the deposits are dated mainly in the 1st to 3rd centuries, and that from a late deposit (probably dated in the 4th century) in Thasos.

52

light red to dark brown. The majority of these pots are probably local products. Although this is very possible, we cannot identify their origin with absolute certainty, mainly because we do not yet have any information about other wares and clays local to the vast area of Eastern Macedonia and Thrace. In addition to that, no firing tests or geochemical analyses have been carried out on the present material.

clear that there were many regional production-centres, and the study of forms must be subordinated to the clear definition of fabrics and of their sources before a sound chronology can be built up within the framework of each production” (Kenrick 1985, 307, note 46).

There is, however, important evidence of pottery production in this area. Ceramic kilns have been found in Amphipolis, in the Hellenistic Gymnasium, which has not been excavated so far. In Abdera, a workshop of clay-figurines has also been found in the city, and many ceramic stands that would be in use during the firing process of the wares were found in Abdera and Thasos (I have seen these during the recording of the pottery; they are kept in the Museum together with the pottery). The presence of important pieces along with what appears to be local copies of these pieces suggest that the imitations must have been made in this area. Also, the pottery from the sanctuary of Hero Avloneites, so unique compered to the rest, with its stamps, contributes to the assumption of the existence of local ceramic workshops that were producing pottery during the Roman period.

“The surface of the earliest vessels is usually unslipped, but by the Augustan period the use of thin orange, pink, or purple slips, often with a metallic lustre, becomes common. Unslipped vessels were often polished before firing in such a manner that a variegated striped surface was produced during firing. Shapes are limited to cups, bowls, jars, and some pitchers, although there is á great variety of forms within these broad categories. It has been suggested that the attribute shared by all members of this group is, in fact, their function primarily as drinking vessels rather than the thinness of the walls. The older forms are narrow, tall, and closed in shape. During the Augustan period, lower, shorter vessels and some large shapes became popular and frequently have handles. During the Tiberian period, small bowls and cups with round or carinated bodies are seen, while the number of other forms diminish. The decoration is also a distinctive feature of this class of pottery, although it is not present on all vessels. Techniques used are several different types of barbotine, incision, thumb impression, and moulding. The various decorative techniques created a surface with a varied texture. As a result, the surface of these vessels is very different from the uniformly smooth and lustrous red gloss of the sigillata ware.”

Anderson-Stojanović (1992, 36) gives us the technical characteristics of the ware:

Examples of suitable and easily accessible sources of clay exist in the area. These are situated in the area of Kavala (and more precisely in Chrysoupolis) and they are in use in our days. They provide clay to several companies (such as Kothalis) that produce roof tiles and bricks. The group of colour-slipped and plain pottery includes a big variety of shapes and vessels. It includes tableware shapes presumed to be associated with eating, drinking, and meal preparation and serving, and other shapes associated with storage of food and liquids, such as wine, oil, and water. The total of the pot-sherds or whole pots has been included in the catalogue but, normally, only one example of each vessel group has been illustrated. The general arrangement of the catalogue is from the identified forms to the unidentified and from open to closed shapes. Dates will be indicated at the end of each description when there is adequate evidence to do so.

Moevs (Cosa) Form XLII, Group A One or two handled, round-carinated cups with inward curving wall, flat or ring-foot base and plain rim, decorated on their external face with thin slip and fine sand. C. A.D. 14-37 (Tiberian). 950. Abdera 19/51. Fragment of body. 951. Abdera 29b/54. (Figure 73) Fragment of rim. D. 0,06m, H. 0,04m. 952. Abdera 29b/57. (Figure 73) Fragment of rim and handle. D. 0,08m, H. 0,05m. 953. Abdera 29c/10. (Figure 73) Fragment of rim. D. 0,11m, H. 0,03m. 954. Abdera 29c/12a,b,c,d,e. (Figure 73) Mended. D. of rim 0,12m, D. base 0,065m, H. 0,08m. 955. Abdera 29c/13. (Figure 73) Fragment of base. D. 0,035m, H. 0,04m. 956. Abdera 29c/14. Fragment of body. 957. Abdera 29c/15a. (Figure 74) Fragment of rim. 958. Abdera 29c/15b. (Figure 74) Fragment of base. 959. Abdera 29c/16a. (Figure 74)) Fragment of rim.

6.1.7.1 Thin-Walled Ware Along with the red-gloss Arretine and other sigillata ware, thin-walled wares served the Roman household as a tableware. The ware has been studied in details by Moevs (1973), Vegas (1973), Mayet (1975), Kenrick (1985), and Ricci (1985, 231-356). It is a very common ware in Western Europe but it occurs in quite large quantities in every Mediterranean site. Its distinguishing characteristic is the thinness of its wall, as well as the common attributes concerning forms, decoration, and function. The first examples were noted in Cosa in the second quarter of the 2nd century B.C., and they continued to be made throughout the 3rd century A.D. in some areas. Kenrick mentions that “the systematic study of this class of pottery is still young: it is

53

960. Abdera 29c/16b. (Figure 74) Fragment of base. 961. Abdera 29b/40. (Figure 74) Fragment of rim. 962. Abdera 29b/41. Fragment of rim. 963. Abdera 82/26. Fragments of rim and handle. D. 0,08m, H. 0,025m, W. 0,04m, Th. 0,002m.

These are imitations of Çandarli ware, Hayes type 3 (mid 2nd to late 3rd centuries A.D). Hemispherical cups with incurved rim These bowls are most often slipped completely on the interior and partially on the exterior. Very often they have a metallic appearance. The body-clay is not very fine, and large particles of chalk disturb the surface.

Moevs (Cosa) Form XXXVI, Group B Hemispherical bowls with floral decoration in barbotine. C. 27 B.C.-A.D. 14 (Augustan)

978. Abdera 20/41. Fragment of rim. H. 0,03m, W. 0,05m, Th. 0,004m. 979. Abdera 21/26. Fragment of rim. 980. Abdera 21/27. Fragment of rim. 981. Abdera 29a/01 and 29b/44. (Figure 75) Fragment of rim. D. 0,16m, H. 0,02m, W. 0,14, Th. 0,004m. 982. Abdera 29a/02. Fragment of rim. D. 0,18m, H. 0,02m. Clay fine, (7,5YR 7/6). Slip (5YR 6/8). This shape is a derivative of the very popular bowls with incurved rim of the Hellenistic period and, according to similar pottery found in Stobi (Anderson-Stojanović 1992, Form 40), it is dated in the 1st century A.D.

964. Abdera 29c/11. (Figure 74)) Fragment of rim. 965. Abdera 99/28a,b. Fragments of rim. D. 0,10m, H. 0,02m, W. 0,06m, Th. 0,001m. Clay dark brown. 966. Thasos 16/23. (Figure 74) Fragment of rim. D. 0,08m, H. 0,035m.

Unidentified shapes 967. Jug, similar to Amphipolis 17/22. Amphipolis 15/17. Body fragment. Fine, pinkish clay (2,5YR 8/4), without invisible inclusions. Red slip (2,5YR 4/8), shinier inside than outside, where traces of the wheel are noticeable. 968. Jug, similar to Amphipolis 17/22. Amphipolis 15/18. Body fragment. Fine, light red clay (2,5YR 7/6). Red slip on both sides (2,5YR 5/8). Particularly glossy on the internal. 969. Jug (Figure 75) Amphipolis 17/22. Fragments of the rim and the body of a thin-walled ware. Clay fine, red, with some particles of limestone inclusions, silvery and gold mica. Slip very thin, red. The outer surface of the body is decorated with a stamped, repetitive pattern.

6.1.7.2

Hemispherical cups with everted rim Clay and slip similar to the ones with incurved rim. 983. Abdera 22/24. Fragment of rim. D. 0,24m, H. 0,02m, W. 0,055m, Th. 0,005m. Clay (5YR 7/6, 2,5YR 5/8). Slip (2,5YR 5/8). 984. Abdera 29a/03 and 29b/20. Fragment of rim. D. 0,18m, H. 0,015m. Clay fine (5YR 6/6). Slip (2,5YR 5/8). 985. Abdera 29a/10 and 29b/46. Fragment of rim. D. 0,25m, H. 0,02m, W. 0,075m, Th. 0,003m. 986. Abdera 29b/19. Fragment of rim. D. 0,18m, H. 0,02m. Clay fine (7,5YR 7/6). Slip (5YR 6/8). 987. Abdera 46a/40. Fragment of body. H. 0,045m, W. 0,08m, Th. 0,005m. 988. Amphipolis 17/09. Rim fragment. D. 0,15m, H. 0,025m. Clay and slip similar to 17/01. 989. Amphipolis 17/10. Rim fragment. D. uncertain, H. 0,02m. Clay and slip similar to 17/01. 990. Amphipolis 17/17. Rim fragment. D. 0,06m, H. 0,017m. Clay and slip similar to 17/11.

Open vessels

Flanged bowls The slip on these bowls is very thin and not very well applied, better on the inside than the outside, where usually covers only the upper part of the vessel and leaves uncovered the rest, under the carination. Drops of the slip are usually visible on the outside as well as finger-marks of the potter.

Plate with deep groove at upper rim surface

970. Abdera 20/40. Fragment of rim. D. 0,15m, H. 0,035m, W. 0,08m, Th. 0,005m. 971. Abdera 20/42. Fragment of body. H. 0,035m, W. 0,07m, Th. 0,004m. 972. Amphipolis 08/01 a and b. (Figure 75) Fragment of rim. D. 0,065m. H. 0,020m. Clay particularly fine, light red (2,5YR 7/6), with some particles of lime and plenty of mica. Slip red (10YR 4/6), quite glossy on both sides. 973. Thasos 01/05. (Figure 75) Fragment of rim. D. 0,22m, H. 0,04m. 974. Thasos 06/19. Fragment of rim. D. 0,10m, H. 0,08m. 975. Thasos 07/15. Fragment of rim. D. 0,14m, H. 0,035m. 976. Thasos 12/03. Fragment of rim. D. 0,16m, H. 0,025m. 977. Thasos 13/06. (Figure 75) Fragment of base. D. 0,10m, H. 0,025m.

991. Abdera 29a/07. Fragment of rim. D. 0,24, H. 0,02m. Clay (7,5YR 8/4). Slip (2,5YR 5/6). 992. Thasos 03/02. (Figure 76) Fragment of rim. D. 0,26m, H. 0,015m.

Plate with double convex wall 993. Amphipolis 59b/20. Fragment of rim with rouletting. Terra sigillata imitation, similar to Hayes (Corinth) Form 11, dated 40 A.D. and after. 994. Thasos 11/08. Fragment of rim. D. 0,18m, H. 0,03m. 995. Thasos 11/09. Fragment of rim. D. 0,20m, H. 0,025m. 996. Thasos 11/10. Fragment of rim. D. 0,22m, H. 0,015m. 997. Thasos 11/14.

54

Fragment of rim. D. 0,18m, H. 0,03m. 998. Thasos 11/21. Fragment of rim. D. 0,18m, H. 0,03m. 999. Thasos 16/24. Fragment of rim. D. 0,19m, H. 0,035m.

Jar with everted rim, and grooves at the upper part of the body 1010.Abdera 46a/31. (Figure 77) Fragment of rim. D. 0,24m, H. 0,03m, W. 0,065m, Th. 0,004m.

Small bowl with flaring wall, rolled-rim and groove on the inside of rim

6.1.7.3 Closed shapes This category consists of fragments of several body sherds. It was not possible to refer these potsherds to any specific shapes due to their small size. I enlisted them as body sherds of closed shapes because only their external surface was slipped. Also, this group includes some handles of similarly unknown wares.

1000.Abdera 82/17. (Figure 76) Fragment of rim. D. 0,15m, H. 0,015m, W. 0,04m, Th. 0,002m. Clay (5YR 7/6). Slip (10R 4/8).

Jug with everted rim and fine ring around lower part of the lip The clay of this shape is particularly fine.

1011.Abdera 34/19a. Fragment of body. H. 0,08m, W. 0,09m, Th. 0,006m. 1012.Abdera 34/19b. Fragment of body. H. 0,065m, W. 0,06m, Th. 0,005m. 1013.Amphipolis 01/01. Body fragment. L. 0,07m, W. 0,05m, Th. 0,004m. The clay is fine, light red (10R 7/6), without any visible inclusions but some particles of golden mica. Slip red (2,5YR 4/8), lustrous on the inner, matt on the outer surface. 1014.Amphipolis 01/02. Body fragment. L. 0,06. W. 0,04. Th. 0,004. Clay fine, light red (2,5YR 7/6), with gold mica. Slip red (2,5YR 5/8), lustrous on both sides. 1015.Amphipolis 02/05. Fragment of a small, horizontal, cylindrical handle that forms a Π. L. 0,035. Th. 0,007. Clay fine, red, without inclusions, with a little mica. Slip red (10R 4/8), quite glossy. 1016.Amphipolis 02/06. Body fragment. L. 0,045. W. 0,03. Th. 0,006. Clay fine, red. Slip reddish-brown applied only on the outer surface, rather glossy. 1017.Amphipolis 03/05. Fragment of body 1018.Amphipolis 03/27. Fragment of body. H. 0,025m, W. 0,04m, Th. 0,001m. 1019.Amphipolis 03/29. Fragment of body. H. 0,03m, W. 0,05m, Th. 0,005m. 1020.Amphipolis 04/09. Fragment of body. H. 0,04m, W. 0,05m, Th., 0,007m. 1021.Amphipolis 10/17. Body fragment. Clay fine, red, with many particles of silver mica. Slip particularly light red. Its texture do not seem similar to any other sherd. Traces of the wheel on the outer surface. 1022.Amphipolis 17/19 a and b. Two fragments of the grooved body of a closed shape. Clay very fine, light red (2,5YR 7/8-6/6), with silver mica. Slip red (10R 5/8), applied on a very thin coat on the outer surface only. Silver mica visible. 1023.Amphipolis 25/03. Fragment of body. H. 0,07m, W. 0,05m, Th. 0,005m. 1024.Amphipolis 36/12. Fragment of body. H. 0,05m, W. 0,075m, Th. 0,007m. Clay (2,5YR 7/8). Slip (10R 5/8). 1025.Amphipolis 55/18. Fragment of body. H. 0,06m, W. 0,10m, Th. 0,003m. Clay 2,5YR 7/6. Slip weak red (10R 5/4). 1026.Amphipolis 56/24. Fragment of body. 1027.Amphipolis 69/06. Fragment of body. 1028.Amphipolis 69/07. Fragment of body. 1029.Amphipolis 69/08. Fragment of body. 1030.Amphipolis 69/09. Fragment of body. 1031.Amphipolis 77/33. Fragment of body.

1001.Abdera 29a/04. Fragment of rim. D. uncertain, H. 0,02m. Clay (5YR 6/8). Slip (5YR 6/6). 1002.Abdera 148/36. (Figure 76) Fragment of rim. 0,13m, H. 0,015m, W. 0,055m, Th. 0,006m. Clay (5YR 6/6, 2,5YR 5/8). Slip (2,5YR 5/8).

Jug with plain out-turned rim 1003.Amphipolis 17/20. Fragment of the rim. D. uncertain, H. 0,0,45m. The body is decorated with parallel wide and shallow grooves. Clay red, fine, with some silvery mica. A thin slip is applied only on the outer surface. 1004.Amphipolis 92a/05. Fragment of base, body, and rim

Pitcher with coloured decoration This vessel is unique find. Its clay is very fine. The white colour of the external surface is not very stable and tends to detach with touching. 1005.Pitcher (Figure 76) Abdera 29c/17. Three fragments of neck. D. 0,007m. White coat on both internal and external surfaces.

Jar with rounded base, flaring wall 1006.Amphipolis 17/21. Base and body fragment. D. uncertain, H. 0,035m. Fragments of a small jar with rounded base, vertical wall decorated with wide, parallel grooves. Clay very fine, light red (2,5YR 7/8-6/6), with silver mica. Slip red (10R 5/8), applied on a very thin coat on both sides. Silver mica visible. 1007.Amphipolis 34/20. (Figure 77) Fragment of flat base. D. 0,035m, H. 0,045m. Grooved wall.

Jar with incurved, flat rim, and grooved wall 1008.Amphipolis 45/04. (Figure 77) Fragment of the rim. D. 0,06m, H. 0,15m. The body is decorated with parallel wide and shallow grooves. Clay hard fired, quite fine, red, with silvery mica. Traces of the wheel on the inner surface, traces of fire on the outer. 1009.Amphipolis 45/04. Fragment of the rim. D. 0,06m, H. 0,15m. The body is decorated with parallel wide and shallow grooves. Clay hard fired, quite fine, red, with silvery mica. Traces of the wheel on the inner surface, traces of fire on the outer.

55

6.1.7.4 Bases Several bases of colour-slipped and plain vessels were found and recorded during the present study. These bases belonged mainly to open shapes, as traces of slip was found on the upper surfaces which would have been the inside part of the vessel. Two categories of bases, ring and flat, were distinguished and they are presented below. Ring bases 1032.Abdera 26/04. (Figure 78) Fragment of base. D. 0,11m, H. 0,025m 1033.Abdera 29b/06. (Figure 78) Fragment of base. D. 0,07m, H. 0,02m. Clay (5YR 6/6). Slip (2,5YR 4/6). 1034.Abdera 29b/49. (Figure 78) Fragment of base. D. 0,06m, H. 0,03m. 1035.Amphipolis 03/06. Base fragment. D. 0,05m, H. 0,015m. Clay fine, light red (10R 6/8), with fine limestone inclusions and golden mica. Slip red (10R 4/65/6), lustrous on the inside, rather dull on the outside, where traces of the wheel are visible. 1036.Amphipolis 13/03. D. 0,06m, H. 0,025m. 1037.Amphipolis 17/05. Base fragment. D. 0,03m, H. 0,02m. Clay fine, light red (2.5YR 7/6), with many silver and gold mica and some limestone inclusions. Slip red (10R 5/8). 1038.Amphipolis 17/06. Base fragment. D. 0,03m, H. 0,015m. Clay and slip similar to Amphipolis 17/05. 1039.Amphipolis 34/05. Fragment of base. 1040.Amphipolis 36/04. Fragment of base. D. 0,05m, H. 0,015m. Clay (2,5YR 7/8). Slip (10R 5/8). 1041.Amphipolis 59/05. Fragment of base. D. 0,04m, H. 0,02m. 1042.Thasos 12/04. Fragment of base. D. 0,07m, H. 0,04m. 1043.Thasos 13/12. Fragment of base. D. 0,055m, H. 0,015m. 1044.Thasos 13/13. Fragment of base. D. 0,08m, H. 0,025m. 1045.Thasos 15/04. Fragment of base. D. 0,10m, H. 0,02m.

Flat bases 1046.Amphipolis 77/30. Fragment of base. 1047.Amphipolis 77/31. Fragment of base. 1048.Amphipolis 100/10. Fragment of flat base. 1049.Thasos 08/03. Fragment of base. D. 0,05m, H. 0,02m. 1050.Thasos 08/04. Fragment of base. D. 0,035m, H. 0,01m. 1051.Thasos 08/05. Fragment of base. D. 0,11m, H. 0,015m. 1052.Thasos 16/25. Fragment of base. D. 0,09m, H. 0,03m. 1053.Thasos 02/06. Fragment of base. D. 0,045m, H. 0,02m.

56

1060.Avloneites 129/35. Fragment of neck. Clay and shape similar to 119/06. 1061.Avloneites 129/37. Fragment of neck. Clay and shape similar to 119/06. 1062.Avloneites 129/38. (Figure 79) Fragments of rim, neck, and body. D. 0,07m. Rough, buff-red clay with mica. Plump, wheel-ridged body; flaring rim, set off from the body by a groove, plain, everted lip. 1063.Avloneites 169/19. (Figure 79) Fragments of rim, neck, and body. D. 0,06m. Gray-buff clay with mica. Globular, wheel-ridged body; high rim set off from body by ridges, plain lip. 1064.Avloneites 169/20. Fragments of neck. Clay and shape similar to 169/19. 1065.Avloneites 169/21. Fragment of neck. Clay and shape similar to 169/19. 1066.Avloneites 176/20. (Figure 79) Fragments of rim and neck. D. 0,10m. Brownish buff clay with mica. Everted lip set off from the body by a groove. 1067.Avloneites 176/23. (Figure 79) Fragments of rim, neck, and body. D. 0,07m. Rather soft, red clay with mica. Shape similar to 176/20, but the lip set off from the body by double groove. 1068.Thasos 06/10. (Figure 79) Fragments of rim. D. 0,07m, H. 0,02m. 1069.Amphipolis 06/30a,b,c. Fragment of base and body. D. 0,035m, H. 0,03m, W. 0,045m, Th. 0,002m. Clay (2,5YR 5/4, 2,5YR 5/4, 2,5YR 5/4). 1070.Amphipolis 06/31. Fragment of body. H. 0,03m, W. 0,04m, Th. 0,002m. Clay (10R 5/6, 10R 5/6, 2,5YR 4/1). 1071.Amphipolis 07/13. Fragment of body. H. 0,06m, W. 0,065m, Th. 0,002m. Clay (10Y 5/1). 1072.Amphipolis 07/15. Fragment of body. H. 0,045m, W. 0,01m, Th. 0,005m. Clay (2,5YR 5/8, 2,5YR 5/8, 2,5YR 5/8). 1073.Amphipolis 07/16. Fragment of handle. H. 0,045m, W. 0,05m, Th. 0,003m. Clay (10Y 5/1). 1074.Amphipolis 08/13. (Figure 80) Fragment of base. D. 0,035m, H. 0,015m, W. 0,035m, Th. 0,003m. Clay (2,5YR 6/6, 2,5YR 5/3). 1075.Amphipolis 10/15/co. Fragment of handle. H. 0,07m, W. 0,05m, Th. 0,003m. Clay (2,5YR 7/6, 2,5YR 7/6). 1076.Amphipolis 10/16/co. Fragment of handle. H. 0,05m, W. 0,045m, Th. 0,002m. Clay (10R 6/8, 10R 5/4M). 1077.Amphipolis 10/17. Fragment of handle. H. 0,05m, W. 0,045m, Th. 0,005m. Clay (10R 6/4, 10R 6/4). 1078.Amphipolis 10/21. (Figure 80) Fragment of base. D. 0,035m, H. 0,04m. 1079.Amphipolis 10/22. Fragment of body. H. 0,03m, W. 0,035m, Th. 0,003m. Clay (10R 6/6, 10R 3/1). 1080.Amphipolis 10/23. Fragment of body. H. 0,03m, W. 0,03m, Th. 0,002m. Clay (10R 6/6, 10R 3/1). 1081.Amphipolis 10/24. Fragment of body. H. 0,05m, W. 0,02m, Th. 0,002m. 1082.Amphipolis 13/04/co. (Figure 80) Fragment of base. D. 0,035m, H. 0,04m. Clay (5YR 6/4, 5YR 6/4). 1083.Amphipolis 13/05/co. Fragment of base. D. 0,035m, H. 0,02m, Th. 0,004m. Clay (2,5YR 6/6, 2,5YR 6/6). 1084.Amphipolis 13/06. Fragment of base. D. 0,035m, H. 0,04m, Th. 0,003m. Clay (2,5YR 6/6, 2,5YR 6/6). 1085.Amphipolis 13/07. Fragment of base. D. 0,035m, H. 0,03m, Th. 0,003m. Clay (2,5YR 6/6, 2,5YR 6/6). 1086.Amphipolis 17/14.

7

ROMAN POTTERY FROM NORTH-EASTERN GREECE; THE COARSE WARES 7.1 Coarse wares Fourteen thousand two hundred and sixty eight sherds of coarse pottery, including amphorae sherds, were recorded during the course of this study. This number will be used for quantitative comparisons in Chapter 8. In the present chapter only the rim, handle and base sherds will be mentioned in detail, including some easily identifiable body sherds that I could classify with certainty into form groups. We also need to bear in mind that the classification of coarse pottery is more complicated than that of the fine ware with factors such as locality and tradition of particular importance. Thus, generalisations about common characteristics are less feasible and its classification is of local validity. 7.1.1 Tableware Several types of tableware were found. Among the local types, unpublished so far, there were some already known groups of tableware, found in other sites in the Mediterranean region, such as Benghazi, Athenian Agora, Corinth and Stobi. These finds are very important for the area as they reveal new information about the trade patterns and influences that occurred in north-eastern Greece during the Roman times. Italian Mugs One of the already known groups of coarse pottery found in the area was that of the Italian mugs. This ware used to be known as “urnette a collarino” (Hayes 1977, 109). It believed to have an Italian origin. Nowadays, an Aegean origin seems likely too, as a large number of these vessels were found throughout the Aegean region. The characteristics of the ware are a rather thin wall and red body-clay that has very often a reddish-brown or grey core. The surface is mostly grey or purplish-brown, often very shiny, sometimes vitreous glaze. Very often, also, the vessels are decorated with the addition of a dark band covering the lower part of the body and the base, sometimes with sand or with painted white dots. They are dated mostly in the 2nd and 3rd centuries A.D. and the main shape is that of onehandled mug. 1054.Amphipolis 07/14. Fragment of rim. D. uncertain, H. 0,005m, W. 0,045m, Th. 0,005m. Clay (10Y 5/1). 1055.Abdera 11/09. (Figure 79) Fragment of rim. D. 0,06m, H. 0,04m. 1056.Amphipolis 17/13. Fragment of rim. D. 0,10m, H. 0,01m, W. 0,05m, Th. 0,003m. Clay (2,5YR 6/6, 2,5YR 5/6). 1057.Amphipolis 100/07/co. (Figure 79) Fragment of rim and handle. D. 0,07m, H. 0,045m, W. 0,045m, Th. 0,002m. Clay (2,5YR 5/8, 10R 5/6, 10R 5/2). 1058.Avloneites 118/06. Small fragment of rim. D. 0,09m. Brownish buff clay with mica. Everted rim set off from the body by a groove. 1059.Avloneites 119/06. (Figure 79) Fragment of neck. Soft, red clay with mica. Globular body, slight inturned rim with grooves on the external surface.

57

Fragment of handle. H. 0,045m, W. 0,05m, Th. 0,003m. Clay (2,5YR 5/6, 10R 4/8). 1087.Amphipolis 17/22/co. Fragment of base. D. 0,045m, H. 0,03m, W. 0,04m, Th. 0,004m. Clay (2,5YR 6/6, 2,5YR 6/6). 1088.Amphipolis 31/08. Fragment of base. D. 0,025m, H. 0,015m, W. 0,045m, Th. 0,003m. Clay (2,5YR 6/6, 2,5YR 6/6, 2,5YR 6/6). 1089.Amphipolis 34/15. (Figure 80) Fragment of base. D. 0,03m, H. 0,04m. Clay (2,5YR 6/6, 2,5YR 6/6, 10R 4/6). 1090.Amphipolis 34/16. Fragment of base. D. 0,030m, H. 0,025m, W. 0,07m, Th. 0,003m. Clay (10R 5/6, 10R 5/6, 10R 5/1). 1091.Amphipolis 34/17. Fragment of base. D. 0,035m, H. 0,02m, W. 0,07m, Th. 0,002m. Clay (10R 5/1, 10R 5/1, 2,5YR 4/2). 1092.Amphipolis 34/18. Fragment of base. D. 0,030m, H. 0,025m, W. 0,08m, Th. 0,003m. Clay (2,5YR 6/6, 2,5YR 6/6, 2,5YR 4/2). 1093.Amphipolis 34/19. Fragment of base. D. 0,02m, H. 0,025m, W. 0,045m, Th. 0,003m. Clay (2,5YR 6/6, 2,5YR 6/6, 10R 4/6). 1094.Amphipolis 38/05. Fragment of body. H. 0,04m, W. 0,045m, Th. 0,003m. Clay (5YR 5/2, 5YR 5/2, 5YR 4/1). 1095.Amphipolis 38/06. Fragment of body. H. 0,045m, W. 0,02m, Th. 0,002m. Clay (2,5YR 5/6, 2,5YR 5/6, 2,5YR 4/2). 1096.Amphipolis 39/18. Fragment of base. D. 0,015m, H. 0,035m, W. 0,075m, Th. 0,0045m. Clay (7,5YR 7/4, 7,5YR 7/4, 7,5YR 7/4). 1097.Amphipolis 100/10. Fragment of body. H. 0,03m, W. 0,075m, Th. 0,003m. Clay (10R 6/8, 10R 5/6, 10R 6/6). 1098.Amphipolis 100/11. Fragment of body. H. 0,025m, W. 0,09m, Th. 0,002m. Clay (10R 6/6, 2,5YR 6/6, 10R 6/6). 1099.Avloneites118/16. (Figure 80) Fragment of base. D. 0,04m, H. 0,035m. 1100.Avloneites120/03. (Figure 80) Fragment of base. D. 0,04m, H. 0,07m. 1101.Avloneites144/08. (Figure 80) Fragment of base. D. 0,04m, H. 0,04m. 1102.Avloneites169/01. Fragment of base. D. 0,05m, H. 0,035m. 1103.Avloneites169/02. Fragment of base. D. 0,03m, H. 0,02m 1104.Avloneites169/11. Fragment of base. D. 0,04m, H. 0,02m. 1105.Avloneites169/12. Fragment of base. D. 0,03m, H. 0,015m. 1106.Avloneites171/10. Fragment of base. D. 0,04, H. 0,035m. 1107.Thasos 05/12. Fragment of base. D. 0,03m, H. 0,025m. 1108.Thasos 06/09. Fragment of base. D. 0,035m, H. 0,025m. 1109.Thasos 07/11. Fragment of base. D. 0,035m, H. 0,03m. 1110.Thasos 10/54. Fragment of base. 1111.Thasos 10/55. Fragment of base. 1112.Thasos 14/07. Fragment of body. H. 0,03m, Th. 0,002m. 1113.Thasos 15/07. Fragment of base. D. 0,03m, H. 0,03m. 1114.Thasos 16/27. Fragment of base. 1115.Thasos 20/05. (Figure 80) Fragment of base. D. 0,035m, H. 0,03m.

Mugs 1116.Abdera 29c/09/co. Fragment of rim. D. 0,10m, H. 0,025m, W. 0,03m, Th. 0,002m. Clay (5YR 6/8). 1117.Abdera 29c/10a,b/co. Fragment of rim. D. 0,08m, H. 0,015m, W. 0,06m, Th. 0,0015m. Clay (5YR 6/6, and 5YR 4/2). 1118.Abdera 29c/15a,b. Fragment of base. D. 0,04m, H. 0,015m, Th. 0,003m. Clay (7,5YR 7/4). 1119.Abdera 29c/16. Fragment of base. D. 0,035m, H. 0,015m, W. 0,04m, Th. 0,002m. Clay (5YR 6/8). 1120.Abdera 29c/37. Fragment of handle. 1121.Abdera 29b/27/co. Fragment of rim. D. 0,07m, H. 0,01m, W. 0,06m, Th. 0,002m. Clay (5YR 5/6). 1122.Abdera 29b/28. Fragment of rim. D. 0,09m, H. 0,01m, W. 0,035m, Th. 0,001m. Clay (5YR 6/3). 1123.Abdera 29b/29. Fragment of rim. D. 0,06m, H. 0,01m, W. 0,03m, Th. 0,003m. Clay (5YR 6/3). 1124.Abdera 29b/30a. Fragment of rim. D. 0,07m, H. 0,02m, W. 0,03m, Th. 0,001m. Clay (5YR 5/6). 1125.Abdera 29b/30b. Fragment of rim. D. 0,07m, H. 0,02m, W. 0,03m, Th. 0,001m. Clay (5YR 5/6). 1126.Abdera 29b/34. Fragment of rim. D. 0,06m, H. 0,01m, W. 0,04m, Th. 0,003m. Clay (5YR 6/6). 1127.Abdera 29a/13. Fragment of rim. D. 0,14m, H. 0,01m, W. 0,04m, Th. 0,002m. Clay (5YR 6/6). 1128.Abdera 29a/14. Fragment of rim. D. 0,10m, H. 0,02m, W. 0,03m, Th. 0,001m. Clay (5YR 6/6). 1129.Abdera 29a/15. Fragment of rim. D. 0,12m, H. 0,02m, W. 0,05m, Th. 0,004m. Clay (5YR 5/3). 1130.Abdera 29a/21. Fragment of base. D. 0,035m, H. 0,02m, W. 0,04m, Th. 0,002m. Clay (5YR 6/6). 1131.Abdera 29a/22. Fragment of base. D. 0,035m, H. 0,015m, W. 0,045m, Th. 0,003m. Clay (5YR 4/1). 1132.Abdera 29a/23. Fragment of base. D. 0,035m, H. 0,025m, W. 0,025m, Th. 0,002m. Clay (5YR 6/6). 1133.Thasos 05/11. Fragment of base. D. 0,08m, H. 0,02m. 1134.Thasos 06/11. Fragment of rim. D. 0,07m, H. 0,04m. 1135.Thasos 06/12. Fragment of rim. D. 0,07m, H. 0,045m. 1136.Thasos 11/29. Fragment of handle. 1137.Thasos 11/30. Fragment of handle. 1138.Thasos 11/31. Fragment of handle. 1139.Philippi 04/23. Fragment of handle. D. 0,015m, H. 0,07m, Th. 0,015. Clay brown. 1140.Philippi 05/06a,b. Fragment of base. D. 0,10m , H. 0,025m, W. 0,07m, Th. 0,004m. 1141.Philippi 05/06c. Fragment of base. D. 0,10m, H. 0,025m, W. 0,035m, Th. 0,004m. 1142.Philippi 06/13. Fragment of handle. H. 0,06m, W. 0,03m, Th. 0,008m.

58

1143.Philippi 08/07. Fragment of base. D. 0,045m, H. 0,035m, W. 0,06m, Th. 0,003m. 1144.Thasos 11/04. (Figure 81) Fragment of base. D. 0,035m, H.0,02m. 1145.Thasos 13/04. (Figure 81) Fragment of base. D. 0,03m, H. 0,04m.

Fragment of rim. D. 0,18m, H. 0,02m, W. 0,05m, Th. 0,004m. Clay (5YR 6/6). 1173.Abdera 26/02. Fragment of rim. D. 0,16m, H. 0,015m, W. 0,03m, Th. 0,004m. Clay (10YR 6/3). 1174.Abdera 26/05. Fragment of rim. D. 0,08m, H. 0,015m, W. 0,03m, Th. 0,003m. Clay (10YR 6/3). 1175.Abdera 26/06. Fragment of base. D. 0,06m, H. 0,02m, W. 0,06m, Th. 0,004m. Clay (5YR 6/6). 1176.Abdera 26/14. Fragment of handle. 1177.Abdera 26/15. Fragment of handle. 1178.Abdera 99/15. Fragment of rim. D. 0,26m, H. 0,005m, W. 0,06m, Th. 0,005m. Clay reddish-brown. 1179.Abdera 99/16. Fragment of rim. D. 0,14m, H. 0,035m, W. 0,035m, Th. 0,003m. Clay purplish-brown. 1180.Abdera 99/17. Fragment of rim. D. 0,14m, H. 0,03m, W. 0,035m, Th. 0,003m. Clay purplish-brown. 1181.Abdera 99/18. Fragment of rim. D. 0,26m, H. 0,035m, W. 0,045m, Th. 0,005m. Clay buff red. 1182.Abdera 99/19. Fragment of rim. D. uncertain, H. 0,03m, W. 0,04m, Th. 0,005m. Clay buff red. 1183.Abdera 99/20. Fragment of rim. D. uncertain, H. 0,035m, W. 0,05m, Th. 0,005m. Clay buff red. 1184.Abdera 99/22. Fragment of base. D. 0,05m, H. 0,02m, W. 0,06m, Th. 0,004m. Clay brown. 1185.Abdera 99/23. Fragment of base. D. 0,05m, H. 0,0145m, W. 0,04m, Th. 0,005m. Clay red. 1186.Abdera 99/24. Fragment of base. D. 0,05m, H. 0,02m, W. 0,05m, Th. 0,004m. Clay red. 1187.Abdera 99/25. Fragment of base. D. 0,05m, H. 0,015m, W. 0,04m, Th. 0,003m. Clay buff red. 1188.Abdera 82/24. Fragment of rim. D. 0,06m, H. 0,025m, W. 0,065m, Th. 0,003m. 1189.Abdera 82/25. Fragment of rim. D. 0,0225m, H. 0,015m, W. 0,03m, Th. 0,0015m. 1190.Amphipolis 06/33. Fragment of rim and handle. D. uncertain, H. 0,06m, W. 0,05m, Th. 0,001m. Clay (5YR 7/6, 5YR 7/6, 5YR 7/6). 1191.Amphipolis 06/34. Fragment of handle. H. 0,06m, W. 0,15m, Th. 0,01m. Clay (5YR 6/8, 2,5YR 3/1). 1192.Amphipolis 06/35. Fragment of handle. H. 0,06m, W. 0,025m, Th. 0,005m. Clay (5YR 5/3, 5YR 5/3, 5YR 5/3). 1193.Amphipolis 07/17a/co. Fragment of base. D. 0,07m, H. 0,015m, W. 0,045m, Th. 0,004m. Clay (10YR 6/1, 10YR 6/1, 5YR 7/8). 1194.Amphipolis 07/17b/co. Fragment of body. H. 0,05m, W. 0,045m, Th. 0,005m. Clay (10YR 6/1, 10YR 6/1, 5YR 7/8). 1195.Amphipolis 07/17c/co. Fragment of body. H. 0,055m, W. 0,06m, Th. 0,005m. Clay (10YR 6/1, 10YR 6/1, 5YR 7/8). 1196.Amphipolis 07/17d/co. Fragment of body. H. 0,03m, W. 0,04m, Th. 0,003m. Clay (10YR 6/1, 10YR 6/1, 5YR 7/8). 1197.Amphipolis 07/17e/co. Fragment of body. H. 0,08m, W. 0,07m, Th. 0,003m. Clay (10YR 6/1, 10YR 6/1, 5YR 7/8).

Mica-Dusted ware This group consists of “an unusual red coarse ware covered with a thick, light tan/cream micaceous and metallic slip. Hayes has identified a similar ware at Saraçhane in Istanbul” (Anderson-Stojanović 1992, 88). 1146.Abdera 29c/07/co. Fragment of rim. D. 0,17m, H. 0,045m, W. 0,06m, Th. 0,003m. Clay (10YR 4/2). 1147.Abdera 29c/08/co. Fragment of rim. D. uncertain, H. 0,025m, W. 0,035m, Th. 0,002m. Clay (5YR 6/6). 1148.Abdera 29c/12/co. Fragment of base. D. uncertain, H. 0,04m, W. 0,025m, Th. 0,005m. Clay (10YR 6/2). 1149.Abdera 29c/14. Fragment of base. D. 0,07m, H. 0,025m, W. 0,07m, Th. 0,005m. Clay (10YR 7/6, and 10YR 6/2). 1150.Abdera 29c/30. Fragment of handle. 1151.Abdera 29c/31. Fragment of handle. 1152.Abdera 29c/32. Fragment of handle. 1153.Abdera 29c/33. Fragment of handle. 1154.Abdera 29c/34. Fragment of handle. 1155.Abdera 29c/35. Fragment of handle. 1156.Abdera 29c/36. Fragment of handle. 1157.Abdera 29b/44/co. Fragment of base. 1158.Abdera 29b/45. Fragment of base. 1159.Abdera 29b/46. Fragment of base. 1160.Abdera 29b/47. Fragment of base. 1161.Abdera 29b/48. Fragment of base. 1162.Abdera 29b/49/co. Fragment of base. 1163.Abdera 29b/50. Fragment of base. 1164.Abdera 29b/51. Fragment of base. 1165.Abdera 29b/52. Fragment of base. 1166.Abdera 29b/53. Fragment of base. 1167.Abdera 29b/98. Fragment of handle. (Clay 10YR 8/3). 1168.Abdera 29b/99. Fragment of handle. (Clay 10YR 8/3). 1169.Abdera 29b/100. Fragment of handle. (Clay 10YR 8/3). 1170.Abdera 29b/101. Fragment of handle. (Clay 10YR 8/3). 1171.Abdera 29b/102. Fragment of handle. (Clay 10YR 8/3). 1172.Abdera 26/01.

59

1198.Amphipolis 08/14. (Figure 81) Fragment of base. D. 0,12m, H. 0,02m, W. 0,085m, Th. 0,004m. Clay (2,5YR 6/6, 2,5YR 7/6, 5YR 7/6). 1199.Amphipolis 08/15. Fragment of base. D. 0,08m, H. 0,015m, W. 0,08m, Th. 0,004m. Clay (10R 7/8, 5YR 7/4). 1200.Amphipolis 10/18. (Figure 81) Base fragment. D. unknown, H. 0,15m. Clay and slip similar to Amphipolis 15/15. Mica visible on both sides. Many fine grooves of the wheel visible on the outer surface. 1201.Amphipolis 10/19. (Figure 81) Fragment of base. D. 0,11m, H. 0,025m, W. 0,04m, Th. 0,005m. Clay (2,5YR 7/4, 10R 6/6). 1202.Amphipolis 10/20. (Figure 82) Fragment of base. D. 0,07m, H. 0,025m, W. 0,06m, Th. 0,004m. Clay (10R 5/6, 10R 5/6). 1203.Amphipolis 10/26/co. (Figure 82) Fragment of handle. H. 0,04m, Th. 0,004m. Clay (10YR 8/2), 1,3. 1204.Amphipolis 10/27. Fragment of handle. H. 0,105m, W. 0,025m, Th. 0,008m. Clay (2,5YR 6/8, 2,5YR 5/6). 1205.Amphipolis 13/08. Fragment of base. D. 0,055m, H. 0,015m, Th. 0,004m. Clay (2,5YR 6/6, 2,5YR 6/6). 1206.Amphipolis 13/09. Fragment of base. D. 0,055m, H. 0,015m, Th. 0,004m. Clay (5YR 7/4, 5YR 7/4). 1207.Amphipolis 13/11. Fragment of rim. D. 0,15m, H. 0,025m, W. 0,05m, Th. 0,004m. Clay (10YR 7/1, 10YR 7/1). 1208.Amphipolis 17/17. Fragment of base. D. uncertain, H. 0,02m, W. 0,045m, Th. 0,002m. Clay (2,5YR 6/6, 2,5YR 6/6). 1209.Amphipolis 17/18/co. Fragment of base. D. 0,05m, H. 0,035m, W. 0,06m, Th. 0,005m. Clay (2,5YR 6/6, 2,5YR 6/6). 1210.Amphipolis 17/19. Fragment of base. D. 0,05m, H. 0,015m, Th. 0,004m. Clay (5YR 7/6, 7,5YR 7/4). 1211.Amphipolis 17/20. Fragment of base. D. 0,03m, H. 0,015m, W. 0,05m, Th. 0,002m. Clay (7,5YR 7/1, 7,5YR 7/4). 1212.Amphipolis 17/21. Fragment of base. D. 0,08m, H. 0,035m, W. 0,08m, Th. 0,004m. Clay (2,5YR 7/8, 2,5YR 6/4). 1213.Amphipolis 17/23. Fragment of base. D. uncertain, H. 0,015m, W. 0,035m, Th. 0,003m. Clay (2,5YR 6/6, 2,5YR 6/6). 1214.Amphipolis 17/25. Fragment of handle. D. 0,15m, H. 0,04m, W. 0,085m, Th. 0,005m. Clay (10R 7/3, 10R 7/3). 1215.Amphipolis 17/27. Fragment of handle. H. 0,09m, W. 0,035m, Th. 0,004m. Clay (10R 6/4, 10R 6/4). 1216.Amphipolis 17/28. Fragment of handle. H. 0,07m, W. 0,03m, Th. 0,01m. Clay (10R 6/6, 10R 6/6). 1217.Amphipolis 34/21. (Figure 82) Fragment of flat base. D. 0,11m, H. 0,03m 1218.Amphipolis 39/17. Fragment of handle. H. 0,035m, W. 0,015m, Th. 0,008m. Clay (2,5YR 6/6, 2,5YR 6/3, 2,5YR 6/3). 1219.Amphipolis 39/19. Fragment of base. D. 0,05m, H. 0,04m, W. 0,06m, Th. 0,005m. Clay (7,5YR 7/4, 7,5YR 7/4, 7,5YR 7/4). 1220.Amphipolis 39/20. Fragment of base. D. 0,04m, H. 0,03m, W. 0,05m, Th. 0,008m. Clay (7,5YR 7/4, 7,5YR 7/4, 7,5YR 7/4). 1221.Thasos 01/13. Fragment of base. 1222.Thasos 02/26. Fragment of ring base, traces of fire. 1223.Thasos 02/27.

Fragment of base. 1224.Thasos 03/15. Fragment of flatted, vertical handle. 1225.Thasos 03/16. Fragment of flatted, vertical handle. 1226.Thasos 04/12. Fragment of rim. D. 0,10m, H. 0,055m. 1227.Thasos 11/39 Fragment of handle. 1228.Thasos 08/09. Fragment of handle. 1229.Thasos 08/10. Fragment of handle. 1230.Thasos 08/11. Fragment of handle. 1231.Thasos 11/40. Fragment of handle. 1232.Thasos 09/11. Fragment of base. D. 0,075m, H. 0,02m. 1233.Thasos 09/29. Fragment of handle. 1234.Thasos 09/30. Fragment of handle. 1235.Thasos 09/31. Fragment of handle. 1236.Thasos 10/42. Fragment of handle. 1237.Thasos 10/43. Fragment of handle. 1238.Thasos 10/44. Fragment of handle. 1239.Thasos 10/45. Fragment of handle. 1240.Thasos 10/46. Fragment of handle. 1241.Thasos 10/52. Fragment of base. 1242.Thasos 10/57. Fragment of base. 1243.Thasos 10/58. Fragment of base. 1244.Thasos 11/27. Fragment of handle. 1245.Thasos 11/28. Fragment of handle. 1246.Thasos 12/15. Fragment of handle. 1247.Thasos 12/16. Fragment of handle. 1248.Thasos 13/27. Fragment of handle. 1249.Thasos 13/28. Fragment of handle. 1250.Thasos 13/29. Fragment of handle. 1251.Thasos 13/30. Fragment of handle. 1252.Thasos 13/31. Fragment of handle. 1253.Thasos 15/08. Fragment of base. D. 0,07m, H. 0,01m. 1254.Philippi 02/04. Fragment of handle. H. 0,04m, W. 0,05m, Th. 0,005m. Clay black on the surface, brown in the core. 1255.Philippi 02/09. Fragment of body. H. 0,04m, W. 0,035m, Th. 0,004m. Clay black on the surface, brown in the core. 1256.Philippi 02/10. Fragment of body. H. 0,03m, W. 0,05m, Th. 0,002m. Clay pink. 1257.Philippi 02/11. H. 0,035m, Th. 0,005m. Clay buff yellow. 1258.Philippi 03/10. Fragment of handle. H. 0,05m, W. 0,025m, Th. 0,01m. Clay red.

60

1259.Philippi 04/20. Fragment of body. H. 0,02m, W. 0,035m, Th. 0,003m Clay brown. 1260.Philippi 04/21. Fragment of handle. H. 0,08m, W. 0,05m, Th. 0,005m. Clay red. 1261.Philippi 05/07. Fragment of handle. H. 0,09m, W. 0,035m, Th. 0,018m. 1262.Philippi 07/02. Fragment of rim. D. unknown, H. 0,03m, W. 0,03m, Th. 0,01m. 1263.Philippi 07/05. Fragment of rim. D. unknown, H. 0,015m, W. 0,07m, Th. 0,004m. 1264.Philippi 07/06. Fragment of base. D. 0,04m, H. 0,02m, W. 0,05m, Th. 0,004m. 1265.Philippi 07 /07a,b,c,d. Fragment of rim. D. 0,11m, H. 0,055m, W. 0,14m, Th. 0,004m. 1266.Philippi 07/07e. Fragment of handle, and body. H. 0,05m, W. 0,06m, Th. 0,005m. 1267.Philippi 07/07f. Fragment of body. H. 0,09m, W. 0,06m, Th. 0,005m. 1268.Philippi 07/07g,h. Fragment of body. H. 0,05m, W. 0,06m, Th. 0,005m. 1269.Philippi 07/07j. Fragment of handle. H. 0,04m, W. 0,025m, Th. 0,004m. 1270.Philippi 07/07i. Fragment of body. H. 0,04m, W. 0,05m, Th. 0,04m. 1271.Philippi 08/05. Fragment of neck. H. 0,065m, W. 0,035m, Th. 0,015m. 1272.Philippi 08/06. Fragment of neck. H. 0,06m, W. 0,025m, Th. 0,01m.

thickness. Probably the stamped sherds come from this kind of shape. 1284.Avloneites 118/10. (Figure 84) Fragments of rim and neck. D. 0,09m. Hard, pinkish buff clay with mica. Everted rolled rim; two grooves on outside; narrow neck with vertical walls. 1285.Avloneites 118/11. (Figure 84) Fragment of rim. D. 0,11m. Hard, red clay with mica. Everted, rolled rim; slight inturned ledge; two grooves on inside. 1286.Avloneites 118/12. (Figure 84) Fragment of rim. D. 0,11m. Coarse, buff clay with mica. Everted, thickened rim; two grooves on outside. 1287.Avloneites 118/13(Figure 84) Fragment of rim. D. 0,09m. Coarse, buff-red clay with mica. Everted, rolled rim. 1288.Avloneites 144/11. Fragment of rim. D. 0,09m. Soft, red clay with mica. Out-turned lip with a wide, horizontal upper surface. 1289.Avloneites 180/19. (Figure 84) Fragments of rim, body and base. D. 0,12m. Reconstruction of the vessel, based on H 17 of the Athenian Agora.

Bowls with in-turned rim These bowls have both a ring foot and a flat base. The walls rises from it in varying degree of convexity and steepness to a rim which is toned by a more or less strong inward curve of the wall. Their clay is hard, gritty, with mica. Some of these bowls have traces of fire on their external surface. Some important examples in good condition are the following:

Jug with grooved mouth Both the shape and the manufacture is similar to previous jug with round mouth but its rim is slightly inturned. 1273.Avloneites 118/06. Small fragment of rim. D. 0,09m. Brownish buff clay with mica. Everted rim set off from the body by a groove. 1274.Avloneites 129/38. Fragments of rim, neck, and body. D. 0,07m. Rough, buff-red clay with mica. Plump, wheel-ridged body; flaring rim, set off from the body by a groove; plain, everted lip. 1275.Avloneites 169/19. Fragments of rim, neck, and body. D. 0,06m. Grey-buff clay with mica. Globular, wheel-ridged body; high rim set off from body by ridges, plain lip. 1276.Avloneites 176/20. Fragments of rim and neck. D. 0,10m. Brownish buff clay with mica. Everted lip set off from the body by a groove. 1277.Avloneites 176/23. Fragments of rim, neck, and body. D. 0,07m. Rather soft, red clay with mica. Shape similar to 176/20, but the lip set off from the body by double groove. 1278.Avloneites 119/06. (Figure 83) Fragment of neck. Soft, red clay with mica. Globular body, slight inturned rim with grooves on the external surface. 1279.Avloneites 129/35. (Figure 83) Fragment of neck. Clay and shape similar to 119/06. 1280.Avloneites 129/37. (Figure 83) Fragment of neck. Clay and shape similar to 119/06. 1281.Avloneites 171/50. (Figure 83) Fragments of neck. Clay and shape similar to 119/06. 1282.Avloneites 171/51. (Figure 83) Fragment of neck. Clay and shape similar to 119/06. 1283.Avloneites 123/03. (Figure 83) Fragments of rim, handle, body and base.. Soft, red clay with lot of mica.

1290.Avloneites 118/04 and 118/05. (Figure 85) Two fragments of rim, body and base. Clay buff-red with mica. A small size bowl with false ring foot, quite thick wall and slight inturned rim. 1291.Avloneites 169/13. (Figure 85) Fragments of rim, body and base. Clay hard, gritty with mica, fired grey. A small size bowl with flat base and low body. 1292.Avloneites 171/48 a and b. (Figure 85) Fragments of rim, body and base. Clay rather soft, buff-red, with mica. Flat base, hemispherical body.

Pitchers The shape has a ring foot (preserved in one example), a narrow neck, globular body and a strap handle. The quality of the manufacture is satisfactory. The walls are of moderate

Stamped sherds This group of finds was an important discovery during the excavation of the sanctuary. These stamped sherds belonged to some pouring vessels, such as pitchers or jugs. The stamps

Bowl with out-turned rim These bowls are rarer than the bowls with inturned rim, have a ring foot, slight curved walls and an out-turned rim. They are made of clay of normal thickness, strong and quite heavy. The quality of manufacture varies from good to quite poor. 1293.Avloneites 171/53. (Figure 85) Fragments of rim, body and base. Clay soft, red, with mica. Hemispherical body based on a heavy, ring foot.

Phyale This is a unique shape found in the Sanctuary of Hero Avloneites. Its rather coarse fabric indicates local origin. 1294.Avloneites 107/08. (Figure 86) A small fragment of the rim missed. Clay hard, fired grey, with mica. Very globular body, based on a flat base. The Hero Avloneites holds a similar phyale in some of the reliefs. Probably is a typical shape for offers to the Hero.

61

vessels of the group are not decorated. Very few examples of cooking wares with decoration were found and their decoration was limited to concentric or wavy grooves.

were applied in the handles or the part of the body of the vessel close to the neck. Words such as “ΗΡΩΟΣ” and “YIE”, and the letters “ΗΡ”appeared on these stamps. Only one is the possible explanation for the presence of these stamped sherds in this space: these vessels must have been offerings to the worshiped hero from the visitors of the sanctuary. In addition, it is very likely that they were made in the immediate surroundings of the sanctuary. Enforcing of this theory could be the fact that all pottery found here had individual characteristics that made it very different in comparison with coarse pottery found in the other sites. Although a local origin for this pottery is very likely, we lack the proving elements: excavations did not locate any ceramic workshops so far but the archaeological research in the area has not been completed yet.

Large basin, similar to Anderson-Stojanović (1992), no. 1004, and Hayes (1983), Type 1, no. 183. Large basins or casseroles with broad flat horizontal rim, sometimes grooved, and flat or concave base (AndersonStojanović, p. 123). 1306.Abdera 11/06. (Figure 89) Fragment of rim. 1307.Abdera 82/13/co. Fragment of rim. D. uncertain, H. 0,03m, W. 0,04m ,Th. 0,004m. 1308.Abdera 82/14/co. Fragment of rim. D. 0,30m, H. 0,03m, W. 0,10m, Th. 0,005m. 1309.Abdera 82/15. Fragment of rim. D. 0,25m, H. 0,025m, W. 0,045m, Th. 0,004m. 1310.Abdera 82/16. Fragment of rim. D. 0,23m, H. 0,085m, W. 0,14m, Th. 0,008m. 1311.Abdera 82/17a,b/co. Fragments of rim. D. 0,30m, H. 0,015m, W. 0,065m, Th. 0,007m. 1312.Abdera 82/19. Fragment of rim. D. 0,20m, H. 0,015m, W. 0,04m, Th. 0,004m. 1313.Abdera 99/12. Fragment of rim. D. 0,20m, H. 0,025m, W. 0,07m, Th. 0,007m. Clay buff yellow. 1314.Amphipolis 07/07/co. (Figure 89) Fragment of rim. D. 0,46m, H. 0,075m. Clay (10R 6/6, 10R 6/6, 10R 6/6). Grooved external surface and upper part of the horizontal flat rim. 1315.Amphipolis 39/09a. (Figure 89) Fragment of body and a handle. Th. 0,02m. Clay (10R 5/6, 2,5YR 6/6, 2,5YR 6/6). 1316.Amphipolis 39/09b. Fragment of body. H. 0,07m, W. 0,09m, Th. 0,005m. Clay (10R 5/6, 2,5YR 6/6, 2,5YR 6/6). 1317.Amphipolis 39/09c. Fragment of body. H. 0,03m, W. 0,05m, Th. 0,005m. Clay (10R 5/6, 2,5YR 6/6, 2,5YR 6/6). 1318.Amphipolis 39/09d. Fragment of body. H. 0,05m, W. 0,085m, Th. 0,005m. Clay (10R 5/6, 2,5YR 6/6, 2,5YR 6/6). 1319.Amphipolis 39/09e. Fragment of body. H. 0,055m, W. 0,09m, Th. 0,005m. Clay (10R 5/6, 2,5YR 6/6, 2,5YR 6/6). 1320.Amphipolis 39/09f. Fragment of body. H. 0,075m, W. 0,06m, Th. 0,005m. Clay (10R 5/6, 2,5YR 6/6, 2,5YR 6/6). 1321.Amphipolis 39/09g. Fragment of rim. D. 0,24m, H. 0,02m, W. 0,115m, Th. 0,005m. Clay (10R 5/6, 2,5YR 6/6, 2,5YR 6/6). 1322.Amphipolis 39/10. Fragment of rim. D. 0,24m, H. 0,07m, W. 0,16m, Th. 0,005m. Clay (2,5YR 6/6, 10R 5/6, 2,5YR 6/6). 1323.Amphipolis 100/04/co. (Figure 90) Fragment of rim. D. 0,28m, H. 0,16m. Clay (2,5YR 6/6). 1324.Thasos 04/04. (Figure 90) Fragment of rim. D. 0,26m, H. 0,025m. 1325.Thasos 05/07. Fragment of rim and wall, broken just above the base. D. 0,18m, H. 0,045m. 1326.Thasos 06/03. Fragment of rim. D. 0,24m, H. 0,045m. 1327.Thasos 07/07. (Figure 90) Fragment of rim. D. 0,16m, H. 0,03m. 1328.Thasos 07/08. Fragment of rim. D. 0,28m, H. 0,045m. 1329.Philippi 04/02.

The body clay of these vessels was red or brown, rather fine, with a small number of inclusions and silver mica. Both the inner and outer surfaces were smoothed; the vessels were made carefully but without any coating or any other decoration apart from the stamps. 1295.Avloneites 126/11. (Figure 87) Small fragment of the body of a big, closed vase. Clay buff-red, with moderate inclusions and mica. We can read the inscription “ΗΡΩΟ[Σ]”stamped on this sherd. This is a typical example of a quite big number of similar sherds found in this building. Probably they come from jugs similar to 180/19, where they kept liquids, such as wine. 1296.Avloneites 144/13. Fragment of handle. Clay similar to 125/11. Handle of a jug, with an illegible inscription. 1297.Avloneites 144/14. A handle similar to 144/13. 1298.Avloneites 169/35. (Figure 87) Fragment of body. Clay and shape similar to 125/11. 1299.Avloneites 175/16. (Figure 87) Fragment of handle. Clay similar to 125/11. In the inscription we can read the word "YIE", which means son. 1300.Avloneites 176/36. (Figure 87) Fragment of body. Clay and shape similar to 125/11. 1301.Avloneites 176/37. (Figure 87) Fragment of handle. The letters “HC” appear on the stamp. 1302.Avloneites 176/38. (Figure 87) Fragment of handle. The letter ω appears on the stamp. 1303.Avloneites 176/39. (Figure 87) Fragment of handle. Unknown letter on the stamp. 1304.Avloneites 176/40. (Figure 87) Fragment of handle. The letter “N” and a dot appear on the stamp. 1305.Avloneites 176/41. (Figure 87) Fragment of body.

7.1.2 Cooking ware A big part of the coarse pottery found in the area belonged to the category of cooking ware. The vessels of this group have hard, quite coarse body clay. Large number of little stones and multicoloured grains of sand are visible. The internal surface is usually smoothened and sometimes covered with a very thin coat of the same colour as the body clay. In the contrary, the external surfaces are mainly left rough. The under surface of the vessels is usually blackened by their use on open fire during cooking. The colour of the body clay and the surfaces varies among the brown, reddish-brown, greyish-brown and blackish-greys shades. Usually the

62

Fragment of rim. D. unknown, H. 0,04m, W. 0,03m, Th. 0,005m. Clay reddish grey.

1352.Amphipolis 07/09. Fragment of body and handle. D. of handle 0,02m, H. 0,09m, W. 0,125m, Th. 0,007m. Clay (10R 6/6). 1353.Amphipolis 07/10/co. Fragment of rim. D. 0,12m, H. 0,02m, W. 0,07m, Th. 0,004m. Clay (5YR 6/4, 10R 5/6, 10R 5/6). 1354.Amphipolis 10/06 a,b. Fragment of handle. D. 0,05m, H. 0,12m, W. 0,02m. Clay (10R 5/8, 10R 4/2). 1355.Amphipolis 10/07. Fragment of handle. D. 0,05m, H. 0,12m, W. 0,02m. Clay (2,5YR 7/8). 1356.Amphipolis 31/04. Fragment of body. H. 0,13m, W. 0,14m, Th. 0,005m. Clay (10R 5/6, 10R 5/6, 2,5YR 6/4). 1357.Amphipolis 39/07/co. Fragment of handle. W. 0,115m, Th. 0,007m. Clay (2,5YR 6/6, 2,5YR 6/6, 2,5YR 6/6). 1358.Amphipolis 39/08. Fragment of body and a handle. H. 0,10m, W. 0,15m, Th. 0,006m. Clay (2,5YR 5/6, 10R 6/6, 2,5YR 5/6). 1359.Amphipolis 39/11. Fragment of handle. H. 0,05m, W. 0,05m, Th. 0,005m. Clay (2,5YR 6/6, 2,5YR 6/6, 10R 4/4). 1360.Amphipolis 45/06. Fragment of body and a handle. D. 0,02m, H. 0,04m, W. 0,037m, Th. 0,004m. Clay (10YR 4/1, 5YR 4/3, 5YR 4/3). 1361.Amphipolis 100/03. Fragment of handle. H. 0,065m, W. 0,14m, Th. 0,005m. Clay (2,5YR 6/8, 10R 6/6, 2,5YR 6/4). 1362.Avloneites 126/08. (Figure 91) Fragment of rim. D. 0,16m. Coarse, gritty, reddish clay, fired grey on exterior. Everted rim. One groove on inside. 1363.Avloneites 169/22. (Figure 91) Fragment of rim. D. 0,18m. Clay similar to 126/08. Everted rim with a decorative ring just below its ledge. 1364.Avloneites 171/35. (Figure 92) Fragment of rim. D. 0,18m. Clay similar to 126/08. Everted, cornice rim. 1365.Avloneites 171/37. (Figure 92) Fragment of rim. D. 0,18m. Clay similar to 126/08. Everted, slightly carinated rim with three grooves on outside. 1366.Avloneites 171/39. (Figure 92) Fragment of rim. D. 0,18m. Clay similar to 126/08. Everted, cornice rim with a ring on the upper ledge. 1367.Avloneites 171/43. (Figure 92) Fragment of rim. D. 0,18m. Everted, cornice rim. 1368.Avloneites 172/09. (Figure 92) Fragment of rim. D. 0,18m. Clay similar to 126/08. Everted, cornice rim. 1369.Thasos 02/25. Fragment of round, horizontal handle. 1370.Thasos 03/17. Fragment of two round, horizontal handles and out-turned rim. 1371.Thasos 03/18. Fragment of out-turned rim. 1372.Thasos 04/06. Fragment of rim and handle. D. 0,18m, H. 0,085m. 1373.Thasos 04/08. Fragment of body and handle. H. 0,095m, Th. 0,008m. 1374.Thasos 05/04. Fragment of rim and handle. D. 0,21m, H. 0,025m. 1375.Thasos 05/05. Fragment of rim. D. 0,17m, H. 0,04m. 1376.Thasos 06/04. Fragment of rim and handle. D. 0,16m, H. 0,085m. 1377.Thasos 06/05. Fragment of rim. D. 0,20m, H. 0,04m. 1378.Thasos 06/06-06/07. Two fragments of rim and handle. D. 0,23m, H. 0,045m. 1379.Thasos 06/08. Fragment of rim and handle. D. 0,14m, H. 0,045m. 1380.Thasos 09/05.

Basin with waved, out-turned rim 1330.Thasos 04/05. (Figure 90) Fragment of rim. D. 0,12m, H. 0,095m. 1331.Thasos 06/02. (Figure 90) Fragment of rim. D. 0,32m, H. 0,035m.

Large cooking-pots with two horizontal, round handles and rounded bottomed. 1332.Abdera 29b/14/co. Fragment of rim. D. 0,24m, H. 0,045m, W. 0,04m, Th. 0,005m. Clay black. 1333.Abdera 29b/15a. Fragment of rim. D. 0,18m, H. 0,02m, W. 0,045m, Th. 0,005m. Clay black. 1334.Abdera 29b/15b. Fragment of rim. D. 0,18m, H. 0,02m, W. 0,045m, Th. 0,005m. Clay black. 1335.Abdera 29b/17. Fragment of rim. D. 0,24m, H. 0,025m, W. 0,08m, Th. 0,008m. Clay 5YR 5/6. 1336.Abdera 29b/18a,b/co. Fragment of rim and handle. D. 0,18m, H. 0,04m, W. 0,12m, Th. 0,005m. Clay (7.5YR 7/6). 1337.Abdera 29b/18c/co. Fragment of rim, and handle. D. 0,18m, H. 0,04m, W. 0,06m, Th. 0,005m. Clay (7.5YR 7/6). 1338.Abdera 29b/19. Fragment of rim. D. 0,22m, H. 0,02m, W. 0,05m, Th. 0,005m. Clay (7.5YR 7/4). 1339.Abdera 29b/20. Fragment of rim, and handle. D. 0,28m, H. 0,015m, W. 0,07m, Th. 0,005m. Clay (5Y 5/1). 1340.Abdera 29b/21. Fragment of rim, and handle. D. 0,26m, H. 0,025m, W. 0,05m, Th. 0,004m. Clay (2.5YR 5/6). 1341.Abdera 29b/22. Fragment of rim, and handle. D. 0,28m, H. 0,03m, W. 0,06m, Th. 0,007m. Clay (7.5YR 4/4). 1342.Abdera 29a/12a. Fragment of rim. D. 0,22m, H. 0,02m, W. 0,08m. Clay (7.5YR 4/4). 1343.Abdera 29a/12b. Fragment of rim. D. 0,22m, H. 0,05m, W. 0,02. Clay (7.5YR 4/4). 1344.Abdera 29a/24. Fragments of rim, and base. D. of base 0,19m, H. 0,025m, W. 0,06m, Th. 0,002m. Clay (5YR 6/6). 1345.Abdera 26/03. Fragment of rim. D. 0,13m, H. 0,02m, W. 0,04m, Th. 0,004m. Clay (10YR 6/3). 1346.Amphipolis 06/06. Fragment of body and handle. H. 0,115m, W. 0,08m, Th. 0,004m. Clay (5YR 6/6). 1347.Amphipolis 06/07. Fragment of body and handle. H. 0,045m, W. 0,06m, Th. 0,005m. Clay (2,5YR 6/8, 2,5YR 6/8, 2,5YR 4/1). 1348.Amphipolis 06/08. Fragment of body. H. 0,115m, W. 0,14m, Th. 0,007m. Clay (2,5YR 7/6, 2,5YR 7/6, 10R 5/8). 1349.Amphipolis 06/09. Fragment of rim, body, and handle. D. of the rim 0,11m, H. 0,08m, W. 0,105m, Th. 0,004m. Clay (10R 7/8). 1350.Amphipolis 06/36. Fragment of handle. H. 0,07m, W. 0,03m, Th. 0,015m. Clay (5YR 5/3). 1351.Amphipolis 07/08. Fragment of body and handle. H. 0,17m, W. 0,125m, Th. 0,009m. Clay (10R 6/6).

63

Fragment of rim. D. 0,21m, H. 0,045m. 1381.Thasos 09/06. Fragment of rim. D. 0,21m, H. 0,03m. 1382.Thasos 09/08. Fragment of rim. D. 0,24m, H. 0,065m. 1383.Thasos 10/07. Fragment of rim. 1384.Thasos 10/08. Fragment of rim. 1385.Thasos 10/09. Fragment of rim. 1386.Thasos 10/10. Fragment of rim. 1387.Thasos 10/11. Fragment of rim. 1388.Thasos 10/12. Fragment of rim. 1389.Thasos 10/13. Fragment of rim. 1390.Thasos 10/14. Fragment of rim. 1391.Thasos 10/15. Fragment of rim. 1392.Thasos 10/47. Fragment of handle. 1393.Thasos 11/19. Fragment of rim. 1394..Thasos 11/20. Fragment of rim. 1395.Thasos 11/32. Fragment of handle. 1396.Thasos 11/36. Fragment of rim. 1397.Thasos 11/37. Fragment of rim. 1398.Thasos 11/38. Fragment of rim. 1399.Thasos 16/29. Fragment of rim. 1400.Thasos 16/30. Fragment of rim. 1401.Thasos 16/31. Fragment of rim. 1402.Thasos 16/32. Fragment of rim. 1403.Thasos 16/33. Fragment of rim.

Fragments of rim and body. D. 0,20m. Rough, reddish-brown clay with mica. Everted, wide rim with horizontal surface. Two grooves on outside just below the rim. Slight sloping walls. 1411.Avloneites 127/08. Fragments of rim, body, and small handle. D. 0,18m. Fine red clay with mica. Everted flat rim. Two grooves on outside just below the rim. Vertical walls. 1412.Avloneites 169/20. Fragment of rim. D. 0,22m. Clay similar to 129/06. Everted, flat rim. 1413.Thasos 16/26. (Figure 93) Fragment of base, body, rim , and handle. D. of rim 0,24m, H. 0,045m. 1414.Thasos 05/02. Fragment of rim. D. 0,25m, H. 0,035m. 1415.Thasos 06/01. Fragment of base, body, rim. D. of base 0,22, H. 0,065m. 1416.Thasos 07/01. Fragment of rim. D. 0,25m, H. 0,045m.

‘Frying pans’, Type 2 Slopping wall, flat rim; no handle. 1417.Abdera 11/02. (Figure 94) Mended. D. of rim 0,24m, H. 0,055m. 1418.Abdera 11/03. Fragment of rim. D. uncertain, H. 0,03m. 1419.Abdera 29c/02/co. Fragment of rim. D. 0,28m, H. 0,04m, W. 0,05m, Th. 0,007m. Clay (5YR 6/8). 1420.Abdera 29b/12c. Fragment of rim. D. 0,30, H. 004m, W. 0,06m, Th. 0,009m. Clay black. 1421.Abdera 29b/13a. Fragment of rim. D. 0,17m, H. 0,075m, W. 0,07m, Th. 0,008m. Clay black. 1422.Abdera 29b/13b. Fragment of rim. D. 0,17m, H. 0,035m, W. 0,03m, Th. 0,008m. Clay black. 1423.Abdera 29b/95. Fragment of handle. Clay black. 1424.Abdera 29b/96. Fragment of handle. Clay black. 1425.Abdera 99/08. 11 fragments of rim. D. 0,32m, H. 0,04m, Th. 0,005m. Clay buff yellow. 1426.Abdera 82/11/co. Fragment of rim. D. uncertain, H. 0,015m, W. 0,03m, Th. 0,006m. 1427.Amphipolis 06/10/co. (Figure 94) Fragment of base, body, rim. D. of rim 0,28m, H. 0,045m, W. 0,10m, Th. 0,01m. Clay (10R 5/3, 2,5YR 4/1, 2,5YR 4/1). 1428.Amphipolis 06/11/co. (Figure 94) Fragment of rim and body. D. 0,26m, H. 0,045m, W. 0,08m, Th. 0,007m. Clay (10R 5/3, 2,5YR 4/1, 2,5YR 4/1). 1429.Amphipolis 15/13. (Figure 94) Fragment of base, body, rim. D. of rim 0,11m, D. of base 0,075m, H. 0,045m, Th. 0,008m. 1430.Amphipolis 17/04/co. Fragment of base and body. D. 0,26m, H. 0,035m, W. 0,07m, Th. 0,006m. Clay (2,5YR 5/4). 1431.Amphipolis 17/24. Fragment of rim. D. 0,27m, H. 0,03m, W. 0,08m, Th. 0,007m. Clay (10R 5/8). 1432.Amphipolis 31/03. (Figure 94) Fragment of rim and body. D. 0,28m, H. 0,04m, W. 0,12m, Th. 0,009m. Clay (2,5YR 6/6, 10R 5/8, 10R 5/8). 1433.Amphipolis 38/01. (Figure 95) Mended. D. of rim 0,028m,H. 0,06m. 1434.Amphipolis 39/04/co. (Figure 95) Mended. Fragments of base, body, and rim. D. of rim 0,28m, H. 0,05m, W. 0,12m, Th. 0,008m. Clay (5YR 5/4, 5YR 5/4, 5YR 5/1). 1435.Amphipolis 39/05/co. (Figure 95) Fragment of rim. D. 0,28m, H. 0,045m.

‘Frying pans’, Type 1 Low slopping wall, ending in a thickened rounded rim, from which protrudes a short tubular handle, set obliquely. 1404.Abdera 11/01. (Figure 93) Mended. D. of rim 0,24m, H. 0,055m. 1405.Abdera 29b/12a,b/co. (Figure 93) Fragments of rim, body, and base. d. of rim 0,30m, H. 0,04m, W. 0,13m, Th. 0,009. Clay black. 1406.Abdera 99/06a,b. (Figure 93) Fragments of rim. D. 0,28m, H. 0,035m, Th. 0,01m. Clay red. 1407.Abdera 82/04. (Figure 93) Fragment of rim, body, and base. D. of base 0,22m, H. 0,035m, W. 0,115m, Th. 0,006m. 1408.Abdera 99/07. (Figure 93) Fragments of rim, body, and base. D. 0,26m, H. 0,035m, W. 0,095m, Th. 0,01m. Clay red. 1409.Amphipolis 10/25. Fragment of handle. D. 0,025m, H. 0,05m, W. 0,02m, Th. 0,02m. Clay (10R 6/4). 1410.Avloneites 113/07.

64

1436.Amphipolis 39/06. Fragment of base, body, and rim D. of rim 0,28m, H. 0,045m, W. 0,10m, Th. 0,008m. Clay (5YR 5/4, 5YR 5/4, 5YR 2,5/1). 1437.Amphipolis 100/02/co. (Figure 95) Fragment of base, body, and rim. D. 0,30m, H. 0,05m, W. 0,13m, Th. 0,007m. Clay (10R 5/8, 10R 5/8, 10R 5/3). 1438.Avloneites 171/52. (Figure 96) Fragments of rim and base. D. 0,20m. Fine red clay with mica. Everted rolled rim. Three grooves on external surface and one groove on internal ledge of the rim. 1439.Avloneites 129/06 and 129/07. (Figure 96) Two fragments of rim, base, and small handle. D. 0,21m. Rough, red clay, fired black with mica. Everted rolled rim. Slight sloping walls. Flat base. 1440.Avloneites 129/23. (Figure 96) Fragments of rim and base. D. 0,22m. Clay similar to 129/06. Everted rolled rim with a groove on outside. Slight sloping walls. Flat base. 1441.Thasos 07/03. Fragment of rim. D. 0,18m, H. 0,035m. 1442.Thasos 07/04. Fragment of rim. D. 0,18m, H. 0,045m. 1443.Thasos 07/05. Fragment of rim. D. uncertain, H. 0,07m. 1444.Thasos 07/06. Fragment of rim. D. 0,24m, H. 0,025m. 1445.Thasos 07/09. Fragment of rim. D. 0,19m, H. 0,03m. 1446.Thasos 08/17. Fragment of rim. 1447.Thasos 08/18. Fragment of rim. 1448.Thasos 09/07. Fragment of rim. D. uncertain, H. 0,03m. 1449.Thasos 10/03. Fragment of rim. 1450.Thasos 10/04. Fragment of rim. 1451.Thasos 10/05. Fragment of rim. 1452.Thasos 10/06. Fragment of rim. 1453.Thasos 10/53. Fragment of base. 1454.Thasos 11/35. Fragment of rim. 1455.Thasos 11/21. Fragment of handle. 1456.Thasos 16/28. Fragment of rim, handle. 1457.Thasos 05/03. (Figure 97) Fragment of rim and handle. D. 0,20m, H. 0,055m. 1458.Thasos 07/02. (Figure 97) Fragment of base, body, rim. D. of rim 0,19m, H. 0,045m. 1459.Thasos 09/01. (Figure 97) Fragment of base, body , rim. D. of rim 0,18m, H. 0,04m.

Dish with flanged rim (similar to Anderson-Stojanović, 1992, no. 1243) 1463.Thasos 04/01. (Figure 98) Fragment of rim. D. 0,22m, H. 0,055m. 1464.Thasos 04/03. (Figure 98) Fragment of rim. D. 0,22m, H. 0,03m. 1465.Thasos 05/01. (Figure 98) Fragment of rim. D. 0,21m, H. 0,035m.

Strainer 1466.Thasos 11/01. (Figure 98) Fragment of base, body, rim. D. 0,26m, H. 0,04m.

7.1.3

Aegean Cooking ware

Cooking-pots, Hayes (1983) Type 1, (triangular rimprofile) 1467.Abdera 11/07. (Figure 99) Fragment of rim. D. 0,14m, H. 0,04m. 1468.Amphipolis 10/08/co. (Figure 99) Fragment of rim. D.0,18m, H. 0,04m. Clay (2,5YR 5/8, 2,5YR 3/1). 1469.Amphipolis 39/12a. (Figure 99) Fragment of rim. D. 0,18m, H. 0,04m. Clay (10R 5/6, 7,5YR 4/1, 7,5YR 4/1). 1470.Amphipolis 39/12b. Fragment of body. H. 0,05m, W. 0,06m, Th. 0,003m. Clay (10R 5/6, 7,5YR 4/1, 7,5YR 4/1). 1471.Amphipolis 39/12c. Fragment of body. H. 0,02m, W. 0,055m, Th. 0,003m. Clay (2,5YR 5/6). 1472.Thasos 04/02. (Figure 99) Fragment of rim and handle. D. 0,10m, H. 0,04m.

Cooking-pots, Hayes (1983) Type 2 (wide slopping rim) 1473.Amphipolis 08/03. (Figure 99) Fragment of rim and handle. D. 0,20m, H. 0,065m. Clay (10R 7/8, 5YR 7/4, 5YR 4/1). 1474.Amphipolis 08/03 b,c. Fragment of body. D.0,10m, H. 0,10m, Th.0,003m. Clay (10R 7/8, 5YR 7/4, 5YR 4/1). 1475.Amphipolis 10/11/co. (Figure 100) Fragment of rim. D. 0,18m, H. 0,06m, W. 0,075m, Th. 0,002m. Clay (10R 5/8, 10R 5/3). 1476.Amphipolis 34/09a,b,c/co. (Figure 100) Fragments of rim, handle, and body. D. 0,19m, H. 0,115m, W. 0,12m, Th. 0,003m. Clay (2,5YR 5/6, 2,5YR 5/3, 7,5YR 3/1). 1477.Amphipolis 34/11a/co. (Figure 101) Fragment of rim and body. D. 0,24m, H. 0,05m, W. 0,10m, Th. 0,003m. Clay (10R 6/6, 10R 6/8, 10R 3/1). 1478.Amphipolis 34/11b/co. Fragment of body. H. 0,035m, W. 0,045m, Th. 0,003m. Clay (10R 6/6, 10R 6/8, 10R 3/1). 1479.Amphipolis 34/11c/co. Fragment of body. H. 0,065m, W. 0,065m, Th. 0,003m. Clay (10R 6/6, 10R 6/8, 10R 3/1). 1480.Amphipolis 39/13a. (Figure 101) Fragment of rim. D. 0,22m, H. 0,015m, W. 0,065m, Th. 0,003m. Clay (2,5YR 6/6, 2,5YR 5/6, 2,5YR 5/1). 1481.Amphipolis 39/13b. Fragment of body. H. 0,045m, W. 0,045m, Th. 0,003m. Clay (7,5YR 5/3, 7,5YR 4/1, 7,5YR 4/1). 1482.Amphipolis 39/13c. Fragment of body. H. 0,045m, W. 0,03m, Th. 0,003m. Clay (7,5YR 5/3, 7,5YR 4/1, 7,5YR 4/1). 1483.Amphipolis 39/13d.

Stewpots or large jars (similar to Anderson-Stojanović, 1992, no. 1189) 1460.Amphipolis 08/02 a,b/co. (Figure 97) Fragment of rim. D.0,14m, H. 0,03m, W.0,12m, Th.0,003m. Clay (10R 7/8, 5YR 7/4, 5YR 4/1). 1461.Amphipolis 08/02 c/co. Fragment of body. D.0,055m, H. 0,035m, Th.0,003m. Clay (10R 7/8, 5YR 7/4, 5YR 4/1).

Stewpot (similar to Anderson-Stojanović, 1992, no. 1196) 1462.Amphipolis 31/05. (Figure 98) Fragment of rim and handle. D. 0,16m, H. 0,07m.

65

Fragment of body. H. 0,05m, W. 0,055m, Th. 0,003m. Clay (7,5YR 5/3, 7,5YR 4/1, 7,5YR 4/1). 1484.Amphipolis 39/13e. Fragment of handle. H. 0,075m, W. 0,02m, Th. 0,01m. Clay (2,5YR 6/6, 2,5YR 5/1, 2,5YR 5/1). 1485.Amphipolis 39/16a. Fragment of rim and body. D. of rim uncertain, H. 0,065m, W. 0,05m, Th. 0,003m. Clay (5YR 7/6, 2,5YR 6/4, 2,5YR 5/4). 1486.Amphipolis 39/16b. Fragment of body. H. 0,035m, W. 0,03m, Th. 0,004m. Clay (5YR 7/6, 2,5YR 6/4, 2,5YR 5/4). 1487.Amphipolis 43/09/co. (Figure 101) Fragment of rim. 1488.Amphipolis 45/01/co. (Figure 101) Fragments of rim, body, and handle. D. 0,23m, H. 0,055m, W. 0,11m, Th. 0,004m. Clay (2,5YR 5/8, 2,5YR 5/8, 10YR 3/1). 1489.Amphipolis 45/03/co. (Figure 102) Fragment of rim. D. 0,28m, H. 0,008m, W. 0,03m, Th. 0,004m. Clay (7,5YR 6/4, 7,5YR 6/4, 10YR 4/1). 1490.Thasos 09/04. (Figure 102) Fragment of rim, body, handle. D. 0,21m, 0,075m. 1491.Thasos 13/03. (Figure 102) Fragment of rim. D. 0,17m, H. 0,03m.

1509.Abdera 99/11. Fragment of rim. D. 0,21m, H. 0,03m, W. 0,08m, Th. 0,004m. Clay reddish-brown. 1510.Abdera 99/13. Fragment of rim. D. 0,24m, H. 0,02m, W. 0,045m, Th. 0,004. Clay brown. 1511.Abdera 99/14. Fragment of rim. D. 0,24m, H. 0,025m, W. 0,03m, Th. 0,004m. Clay black. 1512.Abdera 99/21. Fragment of base. D. 0,18m, H. 0,02m, W. 0,06m, Th. 0,005m. Clay brown. 1513.Abdera 82/06. Fragment of rim. D. 0,24m, H. 0,035m, W. 0,10m, Th. 0,003m. 1514.Abdera 82/05/co. Fragment of rim. D. 0,24m, H. 0,02m, W. 0,08m, Th. 0,003m. 1515.Abdera 82/07/co. Fragments of rim and handle. D. uncertain, H. 0,04m, W. 0,045m, Th. 0,004m. 1516.Abdera 82/08. Fragment of rim. D. 0,21m, H. 0,02m, W. 0,03m, Th. 0,003m. 1517.Abdera 82/09/co. Fragment of rim. D. 0,26m, H. 0,015m, W. 0,04m, Th. 0,005m. 1518.Abdera 82/10. Fragment of rim. D. uncertain, H. 0,025m, W. 0,02m, Th. 0,003m. 1519.Abdera 82/12. Fragments of rim and handle. D. 0,18m, H. 0,025m, W. 0,03m, Th. 0,003m. 1520.Amphipolis 06/14a. Fragment of rim, body, and handle. D. 0,14, H. 0,125, W. 0,15, Th. 0,004. Clay (10R 7/6, 5YR 6/4, 5YR 3/1). 1521.Amphipolis 06/14b. Fragment of body. H. 0,07m, W. 0,06m, Th. 0,003m. Clay (10R 7/6, 5YR 6/4, 5YR 3/1). 1522.Amphipolis 06/14c. Fragment of body. H. 0,04m, W. 0,05m, Th. 0,004m. Clay (10R 7/6, 5YR 6/4, 5YR 3/1). 1523.Amphipolis 06/14d. Fragment of body. H. 0,07m, W. 0,08m, Th. 0,004m. Clay (10R 7/6, 5YR 6/4, 5YR 3/1). 1524.Amphipolis 06/14e. Fragment of body. H. 0,09m, W. 0,05m, Th. 0,004m. Clay (10R 7/6, 5YR 6/4, 5YR 3/1). 1525.Amphipolis 06/14f. Fragment of body. H. 0,10m, W. 0,11m, Th. 0,004m. Clay (10R 7/6, 5YR 6/4, 5YR 3/1). 1526.Amphipolis 06/15a. Fragment of body. H. 0,04m, W. 0,04m, Th. 0,003m. Clay (10R 6/8, 10R 6/8, 5YR 3/1). 1527.Amphipolis 06/15b. Fragment of body. H. 0,07m, W. 0,07m, Th. 0,003m. Clay (10R 6/8, 10R 6/8, 5YR 3/1). 1528.Amphipolis 06/15c. Fragment of rim. D. 0,20m, H. 0,105m, W. 0,13m, Th. 0,003m. Clay (10R 6/8, 10R 6/8, 5YR 3/1). 1529.Amphipolis 06/16a,b. Fragment of rim. D. 0,20m, H. 0,055m, W. 0,14m, Th. 0,002m. Clay (10R 6/8, 10R 6/8, 5YR 3/1). 1530.Amphipolis 06/17a. Fragment of rim. D. 0,18m, H. 0,03m, W. 0,13m, Th. 0,004m. Clay (10R 7/8, 5YR 5/1, 5YR 5/1). 1531.Amphipolis 06/17b. Fragment of body. H. 0,07m, W. 0,095m, Th. 0,003m. Clay (10R 7/8, 5YR 5/1, 5YR 5/1). 1532.Amphipolis 06/18a. Fragment of rim. D. 0,23m, H. 0,05m, W. 0,095m, Th. 0,003m. Clay (2,5YR 5/4). 1533.Amphipolis 06/18b. Fragment of rim. D. 0,23m, H. 0,05m, W. 0,05m, Th. 0,003m. Clay (2,5YR 5/4). 1534.Amphipolis 06/19. Fragment of rim. D. 0,23m, H. 0,055m, W. 0,075m, Th. 0,003m. Clay (2,5YR 5/6, 2,5YR 5/6, 2,5YR 5/3).

Small Cooking-pots, Hayes (1983) Type 4 1492.Abdera 11/29/co. (Figure 102) Fragment of rim. D. 0,12m, H. 0,015m. 1493.Abdera 23/04. Fragment of rim. D. 0,09m, H. 0,055m. 1494.Amphipolis 08/04. (Figure 102) Fragment of rim. D. 0,13m, H. 0,08m. Clay (10R 7/8, 2,5YR 6/6). 1495.Amphipolis 10/10/co. (Figure 103) Fragment of rim. D. 0,14m, H. 0,045m, W. 0,07m, Th. 0,003m. Clay (2,5YR 4/3, 2,5YR 3/1). 1496.Amphipolis 13/02/co. (Figure 103) Fragment of rim. D. 0,12m, H. 0,09m, W. 0,09m, Th. 0,003m. Clay (2,5YR 5/4, 5YR 3/1). 1497.Amphipolis 13/03/co. (Figure 103) Fragment of rim. D. 0,12m, H. 0,06m, W. 0,09m, Th. 0,003m. Clay (2,5YR 5/4, 5YR 3/1). 1498.Amphipolis 31/07. (Figure 103) Fragment of rim. D. 0,135m, H. 0,025m. Clay (2,5YR 6/6). 1499.Amphipolis 100/09/co. (Figure 104) Fragment of body. Maximum preserved D. 0,12m, H. 0,085m. Clay (10R 5/8, 10R 5/4, 2,5YR 3/1).

Casserole, Hayes Type 2 1500.Abdera 29c/03/co. Fragment of rim. D. uncertain, H. 0,02m, W. 0,02m, Th. 0,004m. Clay (7,5YR 6/4). 1501.Abdera 29c/04/co. Fragment of rim. D. 0,14m, H. 0,025m, W. 0,05m, Th. 0,003m. Clay (5YR 6/6). 1502.Abdera 29c/13/co. Fragment of base. D. uncertain, H. 0,02m, W. 0,035m, Th. 0,005m. Clay (10YR 6/6). 1503.Abdera 29b/91. Fragment of handle. Clay black. 1504.Abdera 29b/92. Fragment of handle. Clay black. 1505.Abdera 29b/93. Fragment of handle. Clay black. 1506.Abdera 29b/94. Fragment of handle. Clay black. 1507.Casserole Abdera 29b/97. Fragment of handle. Clay (10YR 8/3). 1508.Abdera 99/10. Fragment of rim. D. 0,21m, H. 0,025m, W. 0,08m, Th. 0,006m. Clay brown.

66

1535.Amphipolis 06/20. Fragment of rim and handle. D. 0,23m, H. 0,055m, W. 0,05m, Th. 0,002m. Clay (2,5YR 5/6, 2,5YR 5/6, 2,5YR 5/3). 1536.Amphipolis 06/21. Fragment of rim. D. 0,19m, H. 0,03m, W. 0,065m, Th. 0,003m. Clay (10R 7/6, 10R 7/6, 5YR 3/1). 1537.Amphipolis 06/22. Fragment of handle. H. 0,045m, W. 0,02m, Th. 0,006m. Clay (10R 7/6, 10R 7/6, 5YR 3/1). 1538.Amphipolis 06/23a. Fragment of body. H. 0,06m, W. 0,075m, Th. 0,003m. Clay (2,5YR 7/6, 2,5YR 4/1, 2,5YR 4/1). 1539.Amphipolis 06/23b. Fragment of body. H. 0,06m, W. 0,075m, Th. 0,003m. Clay (2,5YR 7/6, 2,5YR 4/1, 2,5YR 4/1). 1540.Amphipolis 06/24. Fragment of body. H. 0,055m, W. 0,05m, Th. 0,004m. Clay (2,5YR 6/8, 2,5YR 6/8, 5YR 3/1). 1541.Amphipolis 06/25. Fragment of body. H. 0,05m, W. 0,045m, Th. 0,004m. Clay (2,5YR 6/8, 2,5YR 6/8, 5YR 3/1). 1542.Amphipolis 06/26. Fragment of body. H. 0,03m, W. 0,035m, Th. 0,003m. Clay (2,5YR 6/8, 2,5YR 6/8, 5YR 3/1). 1543.Amphipolis 06/27. Fragment of body. H. 0,05m, W. 0,045m, Th. 0,003m. Clay (2,5YR 6/8, 2,5YR 6/8, 5YR 3/1). 1544.Amphipolis 07/11. Fragment of rim, body, and handle. D. 0,15m, H. 0,07m, W. 0,13m, Th. 0,004m. Clay (10R 5/1, 10R 4/4). 1545.Amphipolis 07/12/co. Fragment of rim. D. 0,17m, H. 0,045m, W. 0,07m, Th. 0,005m. Clay (10R 4/3, 5YR 5/4, 5YR 4/3). 1546.Amphipolis 07/19a. Fragment of body. H. 0,06m, W. 0,09m, Th. 0,004m. Clay (10R 7/6, 5YR 6/4, 5YR 3/1). 1547.Amphipolis 07/19b. Fragment of rim. D. 0,14m, H. 0,02m, W. 0,09m, Th. 0,004m. Clay (10R 7/6, 5YR 6/4, 5YR 3/1). 1548.Amphipolis 08/05 a. Fragment of handle. H. 0,105m, W. 0,11m, Th. 0,004m. Clay (2,5YR 6/8). 1549.Amphipolis 08/05 b,c. Fragment of body. H. 0,105m,Th. 0,004m. Clay (2,5YR 6/8). 1550.Amphipolis 08/05 d. Fragment of rim. D. 0,11m, H. 0,105m, 0,004m. Clay (2,5YR 6/8). 1551.Amphipolis 08/05 e,f. Fragment of body. H. 0,06m, W. 0,035m, Th. 0,004m. Clay (2,5YR 6/8). 1552.Amphipolis 08/07. Fragment of body. H. 0,07m, W. 0,05m, Th. 0,007m. Clay (2,5YR 6/6, 2,5YR 6/6, 5YR 5/4). 1553.Amphipolis 08/10. Fragment of body. H. 0,09m, W. 0,065m, Th. 0,005m. Clay (5YR 4/2, 5YR 4/2) black. 1554.Amphipolis 10/12. Fragment of rim. D. 0,16m, H. 0,025m, W. 0,04m, Th. 0,002m. Clay (10R 6/6, 2,5YR 5/4). 1555.Amphipolis 10/13. Fragment of rim. D. uncertain, H. 0,045m, W. 0,02m, Th. 0,004m. Clay (10R 6/6, 2,5YR 5/4). 1556.Amphipolis 17/06. Fragment of rim. D. 0,08m, H. 0,065m, W. 0,06m, Th. 0,002m. Clay (2,5YR 6/8, 2,5YR 4/1). 1557.Amphipolis 17/07/co. Fragment of rim, body, and a handle. D. 0,08m, H. 0,045m, W. 0,085m, Th. 0,002m. Clay (2,5YR 6/8, 2,5YR 6/4). 1558.Amphipolis 17/08. Fragment of handle. H. 0,06m, W. 0,05m, Th. 0,004m. Clay (2,5YR 5/4, 5YR 5/1). 1559.Amphipolis 17/09. Fragment of base. D. 0,10m, H. 0,035m, W. 0,055m, Th. 0,003m. Clay (2,5YR 4/8, 2,5YR 6/4).

1560.Amphipolis 17/10. Fragment of body. H. 0,045m, W. 0,035m, Th. 0,003m. Clay (2,5YR 4/8, 2,5YR 6/4). 1561.Amphipolis 17/11. Fragment of body. H. 0,04m, W. 0,02m, Th. 0,003m. Clay (2,5YR 4/8, 2,5YR 4/2). 1562.Amphipolis 31/06. Fragment of body. H. 0,105m, W. 0,075m, Th. 0,004m. Clay (2,5YR 4/1, 2,5YR 5/3, 2,5YR 5/3). 1563.Amphipolis 34/10a,b,c,d,e. Fragment of rim, handle, and body. D. 0,21m, H. 0,10m, W. 0,07m, Th. 0,003m. Clay (2,5YR 5/3, 2,5YR 4/2, 2,5YR 4/1). 1564.Amphipolis 34/12. Fragment of rim. D. 0,17m, H. 0,025m, W. 0,065m, Th. 0,002m. C1ay (10R 5/1). 1565.Amphipolis 34/13. Fragment of rim. D. 0,17m, H. 0,02m, W. 0,055m, Th. 0,002m. Clay (10R 5/1). 1566.Amphipolis 34/14. Fragment of body. H. 0,04m, W. 0,08m, Th. 0,003m. Clay (2,5YR 6/7, 2,5YR 6/8, 2,5YR 3/1). 1567.Amphipolis 38/02a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h.,i, (Figure 104) Mended from nine fragments. D. 0,23m, H. 0,13m. Fine fabric. Clay (2,5YR 6/8, 2,5YR 6/8, 2,5YR 3/1). 1568.Amphipolis 38/04. Fragment of body. H. 0,085m, W. 0,075m, Th. 0,003m. Clay (5YR 7/8, 5YR 7/4, 5YR 3/1). 1569.Amphipolis 39/12b. Fragment of body. H. 0,05m, W. 0,06m, Th. 0,003m. Clay (10R 5/6, 7,5YR 4/1, 7,5YR 4/1). 1570.Amphipolis 39/12c. Fragment of body. H. 0,02m, W. 0,055m, Th. 0,003m. Clay (2,5YR 5/6). 1571.Amphipolis 39/21. Fragment of body. H. 0,05m, W. 0,07m, Th. 0,004m. 1572.Amphipolis 39/22. Fragment of body. H. 0,035m, W. 0,05m, Th. 0,003m. 1573.Amphipolis 39/24. Fragment of body. H. 0,025m, W. 0,065m, Th. 0,002m. Clay (2,5YR 6/6). 1574.Amphipolis 45/04. Fragment of rim. D. 0,10m, H. 0,025m, W. 0,04m, Th. 0,002m. Clay (2,5YR 6/8, 2,5YR 6/8, 2,5YR 5/4). 1575.Amphipolis 45/05. Fragment of body. H. 0,045m, W. 0,03m, Th. 0,003m. Clay (2,5YR 5/4, 2,5YR 5/4, 5YR 3/1). 1576.Amphipolis 45/07a,b,c. Fragment of body. H. 0,095m, W. 0,065m, Th. 0,004m. Clay (2,5YR 5/8, 2,5YR 5/8, 10YR 3/1). 1577.Amphipolis 100/06. Fragment of rim and handle. D. uncertain, H. 0,085m, W. 0,06m, Th. 0,002m. Clay (2,5YR 4/3, 2,5YR 3/1, 2,5YR 3/1). 1578.Philippi 03/03. Fragment of body. H. 0,03m, W. 0,02m, Th. 0,003m. Clay reddish brown. 1579.Philippi 03/05. Fragment of body. H. 0,035m, W. 0,05m, Th. 0,004m. Clay reddish brown. 1580.Philippi 03/06. Fragment of body. H. 0,025m, W. 0,03m, Th. 0,005m. Clay blackish yellow. 1581.Philippi 04/03. Fragment of rim. D. unknown, H. 0,008m, W. 0,05m, Th. 0,008m. Clay black. 1582.Philippi 04/04. Fragment of rim. D. 0,20m, H. 0,025m, W. 0,065m, Th. 0,003m. Clay black. 1583.Philippi 04/05. Fragment of rim. D. 0,15m, H. 0,035m, W. 0,07m, Th. 0,004m. Clay buff yellow and brown. 1584.Philippi 04/06. Fragment of body. H. 0,04m, W. 0,04m, Th. 0,005m. Clay buff yellow and brown.

67

1585.Philippi 04/07a. Fragment of handle. H. 0,06m, W. 0,08m, Th. 0,004m. Clay grey, buff yellow, beige. 1586.Philippi 04/07b,c. Two joining fragments of body. H. 0,075m, W. 0,065m, Th. 0,004m. Clay grey, buff yellow, beige. 1587.Philippi 04/07/d,e. Two joining fragments of body. H. 0,07m, W. 0,03m, Th. 0,004m. Clay grey, buff yellow, beige. 1588.Philippi 04/07f. Fragment of body. H. 0,06m, W. 0,06m, Th. 0,004m. Clay grey, buff yellow, beige. 1589.Philippi 04/07g. Fragment of body. H. 0,07m, W. 0,035m, Th. 0,004m. Clay grey, buff yellow, beige. 1590.Philippi 04/07h. Fragment of body. H. 0,025m, W. 0,03m, Th. 0,004m. Clay grey, buff yellow, beige. 1591.Philippi 04/07i. Fragment of body. H. 0,03m, W. 0,04m, Th. 0,004m. Clay grey, buff yellow, beige. 1592.Philippi 04/07j. Fragment of body. H. 0,045m, W. 0,03m, Th. 0,004m. Clay grey, buff yellow, beige. 1593.Philippi 04/07k. Fragment of body. H. 0,04m, W. 0,05m, Th. 0,004m. Clay grey, buff yellow, beige. 1594.Philippi 04/10. Fragment of body. H. 0,05m, W. 0,045m, Th. 0,006m. Clay grey, brown. 1595.Philippi 04/11. Fragment of body. H. 0,045m, W. 0,035m, Th. 0,006m. Clay grey, brown. 1596.Philippi 04/12. Fragment of body. H. 0,065m, W. 0,065m, Th. 0,007m. Clay reddish brown. 1597.Philippi 04/15. Fragment of body. H. 0,055m, W. 0,045m, Th. 0,004m. Clay ,grey, red. 1598.Philippi 04/22. Fragment of handle. D. 0,03m , H. 0,05m, W. 0,12m, Th. 0,005m. Clay red. 1599.Philippi 05/01a,b Fragment of rim. D. 0,20m, H. 0,045m, W. 0,12m, Th. 0,004m. 1600.Philippi 05/01c,d. Fragment of handle and body. D. 0,20m, H. 0,075m, W. 0,085m, Th. 0,005m. 1601.Philippi 05/01e. Fragment of body. H. 0,045m, W. 0,045m, Th. 0,004. 1602.Philippi 05/01f. Fragment of body. H. 0,05m, W. 0,06m, Th. 0,004m. 1603.Philippi 05/01g,h. Fragment of body. H. 0,075m, W. 0,07m, Th. 0,004m. 1604.Philippi 05/01i. Fragment of body. H. 0,025m, W. 0,04m, Th. 0,004m. 1605.Philippi 06/05. Fragment of rim. D. unknown, H. 0,03m, W. 0,04m, Th. 0,004m. 1606.Philippi 06/06. Fragment of body. H. 0,03m, W. 0,025m, Th. 0,005m. 1607.Philippi 06/09. Fragment of body. H. 0,04m, W. 0,07m, Th. 0,004m. 1608.Philippi 06/10. Fragment of body. H. 0,02m, W. 0,035m, Th. 0,004m. 1609.Philippi 06/11. Fragment of rim. D. 0,14m, H. 0,02m, W. 0,035m, Th. 0,004m. 1610.Philippi 06/14. Fragment of handle. D. 0,02m, H. 0,08m, Th. 0,02m. 1611.Philippi 07/03. Fragment of handle. H. 0,035m, W. 0,065m, Th. 0,008m. 1612.Philippi 07/04. Fragment of rim, and handle. D. unknown, H. 0,025m, W. 0,02m, Th. 0,008m. 1613.Philippi 10/01.

Fragment of handle. H. 0,08m, W. 0,13m, Th. 0,005m. 1614.Thasos 09/02. (Figure 104) Fragment of rim, body, handle. D. 0,20m, H. 0,075m. 1615.Thasos 09/03. (Figure 104)) Fragment of rim, body, handle. D. 0,20m, H. 0,06m.

Trefoil-mouthed jugs This is a type of a jug that was very common throughout the Aegean region in the 2nd and 3rd centuries A.D. Hayes (1983, 105) believes that this kind of jug, together with other types of pottery who share the same characteristics with ware belonging to the category of “Aegean cooking ware”, must have been produced in one centre, which is unidentified so far. Trefoil-mouthed jugs have a round-bellied body, ribbing and sliced handles, and a hollowed base with small ‘button’ at centre (Robinson 1959, vessels G 194-195, J 57, K 93). The vessel is coated with a thin slip. Its colour varies between brown and maroon shades, and a vitreous finishing in some areas of the body is quite often, due to high temperatures. Trefoil-mouthed jugs were found in four of the studied sites. These jugs had identical characteristics, such as clay, slip, and shape, thus reinforcing Hayes decision to ascribe them to a specific workshop. 1616.Abdera 29c/38. Fragment of handle. 1617.Abdera 29b/23. (Figure 105) Fragment of rim. D. 0,06m, H. 0,065m, W. 0,055m, Th. 0,004m. Clay (2.5YR 5/8). 1618.Abdera 29b/24/co. Fragment of rim, and handle. D. uncertain, H. 0,03m, W. 0,03m, Th. 0,003m. Clay (2.5YR 5/8). 1619.Abdera 29b/25. Fragment of rim. D. uncertain, H. 0,035m, W. 0,045m, Th. 0,003m. Clay (2.5YR 5/8). 1620.Abdera 29b/26. Fragment of rim. D. uncertain, H. 0,025m, W. 0,025m, Th. 0,002m. Clay (2.5YR 5/8). 1621.Abdera 29b/103. Fragment of handle. 1622.Amphipolis 06/32. Fragment of rim and handle. D. uncertain. H. 0,02m, W. 0,05m, Th. 0,003m. Clay (10R 5/6, 2,5YR 4/1, 2,5YR 4/1). 1623.Thasos 08/16. Fragment of rim. 1624.Thasos 09/10. Fragment of base. D. 0,035m, H. 0,015m. 1625.Thasos 09/32. Fragment of rim and handle. 1626.Thasos 10/16. Fragment of rim. 1627.Thasos 10/17. Fragment of rim. 1628.Thasos 10/18. Fragment of rim. 1629.Thasos 11/33. Fragment of rim. 1630.Thasos 11/18. Fragment of rim. 1631.Thasos 01/15. Fragment of rim. Red clay with many lime inclusions, silvery mica. Brown coating that in some places had become vitreous glaze. 1632.Amphipolis 07/05a/co.

68

Fragment of rim. D. 0,30m, H. 0,015m, W. 0,07m, Th. 0,012m. Red, very coarse clay. 1659.Amphipolis 07/06. Fragment of rim. D. uncertain, H. 0,03m, W. 0,12m, Th. 0,006m. Clay (5YR 7/6, 10R 5/4, 10R 5/4). 1660.Amphipolis 17/05. Fragment of rim. D. 0,26m, H. 0,035m, W. 0,13m, Th. 0,005m. Clay (5YR 7/4, 2,5YR 6/6). 1661.Amphipolis 39/03a. Fragment of rim. D. 0,28m, H. 0,045m, W. 0,09m, Th. 0,004m. Clay (2,5YR 5/6, 2,5YR 5/4, 2,5YR 5/4). 1662.Amphipolis 39/03b. Fragment of body. H. 0,045m, W. 0,04m, Th. 0,004m. Clay (2,5YR 5/6, 2,5YR 5/4, 2,5YR 5/4).

Fragment of base. D. 0,07m, H. 0,01m, W. 0,055m, Th. 0,005m. Clay (2,5YR 6/6). 1633.Amphipolis 07/05b/co. Fragment of body. H. 0,035m, W. 0,065m, Th. 0,005m. Clay (2,5YR 6/6). 1634.Amphipolis 07/05c/co.) Fragment of base. D. 0,07m, W. 0,04m, Th. 0,005m. Clay (2,5YR 6/6). 1635.Amphipolis 07/05d/co. Fragment of body. H. 0,06m, W. 0,035m, Th. 0,005m. Clay (2,5YR 6/6). 1636.Amphipolis 07/05e/co. Fragment of body. H. 0,03m, W. 0,015m, Th. 0,005m. Clay (2,5YR 6/6). 1637.Avloneites 118/16. (Figure 106) Fragment of base. D. 0,105m, H. 0,02m. 1638.Avloneites 120/01. (Figure 106) Fragment of base. D. 0,12m, H. 0,025m. 1639.Avloneites 129/01. (Figure 106) Fragment of base. D. 0,10m, H. 0,02m.

7.1.4

1663.Avloneites 113/05. Fragment of neck and rim. D. 0,28m. Coarse, gritty, red clay with mica. Thickened rim with a wide, horizontal upper surface. Two grooves on the exterior surface. 1664.Thasos 08/15. Fragment of rim and handle. 1665.Thasos 09/33. Fragment of rim. 1666.Thasos 09/34. Fragment of rim. 1667.Thasos 09/35. Fragment of rim. 1668.Thasos 09/36. Fragment of rim. 1669.Thasos 09/37. Fragment of rim. 1670.Thasos 09/38. Fragment of rim. 1671.Thasos 09/39. Fragment of rim. 1672.Philippi 01/01a-e Fragment of rim. D. 0,22m, H. 0,06m, W. 0,22m, Th. 0,01m.

Lids

1640.Abdera 29b/104. Fragment of handle. Clay (7.5YR 8/3). 1641.Abdera 29a/16. D. 0,17m, H. 0,015m, W. 0,04m, Th. 0,003m. Clay (7.5YR 6/6). 1642.Abdera 82/27. D. 0,22m, H. 0,02m, W. 0,05m, Th. 0,005m. 1643.Abdera 2/28. D. 0,17m, H. 0,01m, W. 0,05m, Th. 0,004m. 1644.Amphipolis 06/28. Fragment of body. H. 0,045m, W. 0,04m, Th. 0,004m. Clay (2,5YR 5/4). 1645.Amphipolis 06/29a,b. Fragment of body. D. 0,16m, H. 0,095m, W. 0,04m, Th. 0,006m. Clay (2,5YR 5/4). 1646.Amphipolis 08/11. Fragment of body. H. 0,06m, W. 0,04m, Th. 0,004m. Clay (5YR 5/4, 2,5YR 5/6). 1647.Amphipolis 08/12. (Figure 106) Fragmentary. Maximum preserved D. 0,11m, maximum preserved H. 0,03m. Clay (10R 4/2). 1648.Thasos 01/14. Fragmentary. 1649.Thasos 02/28. Fragmentary. 1650.Thasos 07/10. Fragmentary. D. 0,16m, H. 0,01m. 1651.Thasos 09/40. Fragmentary. 1652.Thasos 10/51. Fragmentary. 1653.Thasos 11/34. Fragmentary. 1654.Thasos 11/17. Fragmentary. 1655.Thasos 14/08. Fragmentary. 1656.Philippi 04/01. Fragment of the edge. D. 0,20m, H. 0,055m, W. 0,03m, Th. 0,004m. Clay reddish brown. 1657.Philippi 08/10. Fragment of the edge. D. 0,26m, H. 0,015m, W. 0,055m, Th. 0,004m.

7.1.5

Jars 1673.Abdera 11/04. (Figure 107) Fragment of rim. 1674.Abdera 11/05. (Figure 107) Fragment of rim. 1675.Amphipolis 08/06. Fragment of body. H. 0,125m, W. 0,08m, Th. 0,004m. Clay (2,5YR 6/6). 1676.Amphipolis 08/08. Fragment of body. H. 0,08m, W. 0,055m, Th. 0,006m. Clay (2,5YR 6/6). 1677.Amphipolis 08/09 a,b. Fragment of body. H. 0,085m, W. 0,08m, Th. 0,003m. Clay (5YR 6/6, 5YR 6/6, 5YR 4/1). 1678.Amphipolis 17/15. Fragment of base. D. 0,20m, H. 0,03m, W. 0,125m, Th. 0,007m. Clay (2,5YR 6/8). 1679.Amphipolis 17/16/co. Fragment of base. D. 0,10m, H. 0,025m, W. 0,06m, Th. 0,004m. Clay (2,5YR 6/6). 1680.Amphipolis 17/26. Fragment of rim. D. 0,09m, H. 0,03m, W. 0,08m, Th. 0,004m. Clay (10R 5/8, 10R 5/4). 1681.Amphipolis 39/15/co. Fragment of rim. D. 0,065m, H. 0,03m, W. 0,08m, Th. 0,002m. Clay (2,5YR 7/6, 2,5YR 6/6, 2,5YR 6/6). 1682.Thasos 05/09. Fragment of rim. D. 0,16m, H. 0,045m.

Storage ware

Jar with stamped decoration

Pithoi

1683.Thasos 04/07. (Figure 107) Fragment of rim. D. 0,17m, H. 0,03m.Exterior is decorated with dots impressed upon the wall while the clay was still damp.

1658.Abdera 99/09.

69

1706.Abdera 29c/19. Fragment of handle. H. 0,055m, Th. 0,03m. 1707.Abdera 29c/20. Fragment of handle. H. 0,06m, Th. 0,04m. 1708.Abdera 29c/21. Fragment of handle. H. 0,06m, Th. 0,04m. 1709.Abdera 29c/22. Fragment of handle. H. 0,07m, Th. 0,05m. 1710.Abdera 29c/23. Fragment of handle. H. 0,07m, Th. 0,035m. 1711.Abdera 29c/24. Fragment of handle. 1712.Abdera 29c/25. Fragment of handle. 1713.Abdera 29c/26. Fragment of handle. 1714.Abdera 29c/27. Fragment of handle. 1715.Abdera 29c/28. Fragment of handle. 1716.Abdera 29c/29/co. Fragment of handle. 1717.Abdera 29b/35. Fragment of foot. H. 0,09m, W. 0,085m, Th. 0,008m. Clay (7.5YR 7/4). 1718.Abdera 29b/36. Fragment of foot. H. 0,055m, W. 0,07m, Th. 0,01m. Clay (5YR 7/6). 1719.Abdera 29b/37a,b,c,d. Fragment of base. D. 0,10m, H. 0,04m, W. 0,13m, Th 0,004m. Clay (5YR 7/4). 1720.Abdera 29b/38. Fragment of base. D. 0,10m, H. 0,0m5 W. 0,11m, Th. 0,005m. Clay (5YR 6/8). 1721.Abdera 29b/39/co. Fragment of base. D. 0,10m, H. 0,025m, W. 0,07m, Th. 0,004m. Clay (5YR 7/6). 1722.Abdera 29b/40. Fragment of base. D. 0,10m, H. 0,02m, W. 0,05m, Th. 0,005m. Clay (5YR 6/6). 1723.Abdera 29b/41. Fragment of base. D. 0,10m, H. 0,025m, W. 0,04m. Clay (5YR 6/6). 1724.Abdera 29b/42. Fragment of base. D. 0,10m, H. 0,03m, W. 0,07m, Th. 0,005m. Clay (7.5YR 8/4). 1725.Abdera 29b/43. Fragment of base. D. 0,10m, H. 0,03m, W. 0,045m, Th. 0,004m. Clay (7.5YR 5/3). 1726.Abdera 29b/54/co. Fragment of handle. Clay (5YR 7/8). 1727.Abdera 9b/55. Fragment of handle. Clay (7.5YR 7/4). 1728.Abdera 9b/56. Fragment of handle. Clay (7.5YR 7/4). 1729.Abdera 9b/57. Fragment of handle. Clay (7.5YR 7/4). 1730.Abdera 29b/58. Fragment of handle. Clay (7.5YR 7/4). 1731.Abdera 29b/59. Fragment of handle. Clay (7.5YR 7/4). 1732.Abdera 29b/60. Fragment of handle. Clay (7.5YR 7/4). 1733.Abdera 29b/61. Fragment of handle. Clay (7.5YR 7/4). 1734.Abdera 29b/62. Fragment of handle. Clay (7.5YR 7/4). 1735.Abdera 29b/63. Fragment of handle. Clay (7.5YR 7/6). 1736.Abdera 29b/64. Fragment of handle. Clay (7.5YR 7/6). 1737.Abdera 29b/65. Fragment of handle. Clay (7.5YR 7/6). 1738.Abdera 29b/66. Fragment of handle. Clay (7.5YR 7/6).

Amphorae These sherds have been included in the catalogue for quantitative purposes only. The illustrations give a general idea about the kinds of amphorae found in the area. Their identification (fabric and production centres) is beyond the aim of this study and it could be the subject of further research. 1684.Abdera 29b/07/co. (Figure 108) Fragment of rim. D. 0,12m, H. 0,05m, W. 0,10m, Th. 0,005m. Clay (7.5YR 8/4). 1685.Abdera 29b/10/co. (Figure 108) Fragment of rim. D. 0,12m, H. 0,04m, W. 0,05m, Th. 0, 006m. Clay (7.5YR 7/6). 1686.Abdera 29b/03 co. (Figure 108) Fragment of rim. D. 0,15m, H. 0,035m, W. 0,06m, Th. 0,005m. Clay (5YR 6/6). 1687.Abdera 29b/01. (Figure 108) Fragment of rim. D. 0,14m, H. 0,04m, W. 0,09m, Th. 0,009m. Clay (5YR 6/6). 1688.Abdera 29b/02. (Figure 108) Fragment of rim. D. 0,14m, H. 0,08m, W. 0,055m, Th. 0,008m. Clay (5YR 6/8). 1689.Abdera 29b/04 co. (Figure 108) Fragment of rim. D. 0,14m, H. 0,075m, W. 0,10m, Th. 0,008m. Clay (5YR 7/4). 1690.Abdera 29b/05/co. (Figure 109) Fragment of rim. D. 0,07m, H. 0,105m, W. 0,06m, Th. 0,005m. Clay (5YR 6/6). 1691.Abdera 29b/06. (Figure 109) Fragment of rim. D. 0,07m, H. 0,055m, W. 0,05m, Th. 0,005m. Clay (7.5YR 5/4). 1692.Abdera 29b/08 co. Fragment of rim. D. uncertain, H. 0,03m, W. 0,025m, Th. 0,004m. Clay (7.5YR 8/4). 1693.Abdera 29b/08a co. Fragment of rim. D. uncertain, H. 0,03m, W. 0,025m, Th. 0,004m. Clay (7.5YR 8/4). 1694.Abdera 29b/08b co. Fragment of rim. D. uncertain, H. 0,03m, W. 0,025m, Th. 0,004m. Clay (7.5YR 8/4). 1695.Abdera 29a/08 co. (Figure 109) Fragment of rim. D. 0,07m, H. 0,05m, W. 0,05m, Th. 0,004m. Clay (5YR 6/6). 1696.Abdera 29a/09. Fragment of rim. D. 0,20m, H. 0,025m, W. 0,04m, Th. 0,004m. Clay (7.5YR 6/6). 1697.Abdera 29a/10. Fragment of body. H. 0,06m, W. 0,055m, Th. 0,01m. Clay (5YR 6/8). 1698.Abdera 29a/17. Fragment of base. D. 0,11m, H. 0,065m, W. 0,08m, Th. 0,004m. Clay (5YR 6/8). 1699.Abdera 29a/18. Fragment of base. D. 0,11m, H. 0,025m, W. 0,07m, Th. 0,004m. Clay (5YR 6/8). 1700.Abdera 29a/19. Fragment of base. D. 0,12m, H. 0,035m, W. 0,06m, Th. 0,11m. Clay (5YR 6/8). 1701.Abdera 29a/20a. Fragment of base. D. 0,11m, H. 0,025m, W. 0,05m, Th. 0,005m. Clay (7.5YR 6/6). 1702.Abdera 29a/20b. Fragment of base. D. 0,11m, H. 0,025m, W. 0,05m, Th. 0,005m. Clay (7.5YR 6/6). 1703.Abdera 29c/11/co. Fragment of base. D. uncertain, H. 0,02m, W. 0,045m, Th. 0,008m. Clay (10YR 7/6). 1704.Abdera 29c/17. Fragment of handle. H. 0,13m, Th. 0,03m. 1705.Abdera 29c/18. Fragment of handle. H. 0,05m, Th. 0,02m.

70

1739.Abdera 29b/67. Fragment of handle. Clay (7.5YR 7/6). 1740.Abdera 29b/68. Fragment of handle. Clay (7.5YR 7/6). 1741.Abdera 29b/69. Fragment of handle. Clay (7.5YR 7/6). 1742.Abdera 29b/70. Fragment of handle. Clay (7.5YR 7/6). 1743.Abdera 29b/71. Fragment of handle. Clay (7.5YR 7/6). 1744.Abdera 29b/72. Fragment of handle. Clay (7.5YR 7/6). 1745.Abdera 29b/73. Fragment of handle. Clay (7.5YR 7/6). 1746.Abdera 29b/74. Fragment of handle. Clay (7.5YR 7/6). 1747.Abdera 29b/75. Fragment of handle. Clay (7.5YR 7/6). 1748.Abdera 29b/76. Fragment of handle. Clay (7.5YR 7/6). 1749.Abdera 29b/77. Fragment of handle. Clay (7.5YR 7/6). 1750.Abdera 29b/78. Fragment of handle. Clay (7.5YR 7/6). 1751.Abdera 29b/79. Fragment of handle. Clay (10YR 8/3). 1752.Abdera 29b/80. Fragment of handle. Clay (10YR 8/3). 1753.Abdera 29b/81. Fragment of handle. Clay (10YR 8/3). 1754.Abdera 29b/82. Fragment of handle. Clay (10YR 8/3). 1755.Abdera 29b/83. Fragment of handle. Clay (10YR 8/3). 1756.Abdera 29b/84. Fragment of handle. Clay (10YR 8/3). 1757.Abdera 29b/85. Fragment of handle. Clay (10YR 8/3). 1758.Abdera 29b/86. Fragment of handle. Clay (10YR 8/3). 1759.Abdera 29b/87. Fragment of handle. Clay (10YR 8/3). 1760.Abdera 29b/88. Fragment of handle. Clay (10YR 8/3). 1761.Abdera 29b/89. Fragment of handle. Clay (10YR 8/3). 1762.Abdera 29b/90. Fragment of handle. Clay (5YR 6/6). 1763.Abdera 29a/01. Fragment of rim. D. uncertain, H. 0,025m, W. 0,04m. 1764.Abdera 29a/02a. Fragment of rim. D. 0,12m, H. 0,025m, W. 0,05m, Th. 0,008m. (7.5YR 7/4). 1765.Abdera 29a/02b. Fragment of rim. D. 0,12m, H. 0,025m, W. 0,05m, Th. 0,008m. (7.5YR 7/4). 1766.Abdera 29a/03b. Fragment of rim. D. 0,12m, H. 0,03m, W. 0,04m, Th. 0,004m. (7.5YR 7/4). 1767.Abdera 99/01a,b,c. (Figure 109) Fragments of rim, and handle. D. 0,10m, H. 0,11m, Th. 0,003m. reddish-brown. 1768.Abdera 29c/01/co. (Figure 109) Fragment of rim. D. 0,10m, H. 0,065m, W. 0,07m, Th. 0,006m. (5YR 6/6). 1769.Abdera 29a/05. Fragment of rim. D. 0,12m, H. 0,04m, W. 0,07m, Th. 0,004m. (2.5YR 5/8). 1770.Abdera 29a/06a. Fragment of rim. D. 0,12m, H. 0,06m, W. 0,095m, Th. 0,006m. (5YR 6/6). 1771.Abdera 29b/09/co. (Figure 110)

Fragment of rim. D. 0,08m, H. 0,03m, W. 0,06m, Th. 0,006m. Clay (5YR 5/6). 1772.Abdera 29a/04. (Figure 110) Fragment of rim. D. 0,12m, H. 0,03m, W. 0,05m, Th. 0,005m. Clay (2.5YR 5/8). 1773.Abdera 29a/07a co. (Figure 110) Fragment of rim, and handle. D. 0,12m, H. 0,06m, W. 0,075m, Th. 0,006m. Clay (2.5YR 5/8). 1774.Abdera 29a/07b co. Fragment of rim. D. 0,12m, H. 0,06m, W. 0,05m, Th. 0,006m. Clay (2.5YR 5/8). 1775.Abdera 82/03. (Figure 110) Fragment of rim. D. 0,10m, H. 0,04m, W. 0,055m, Th. 0,005m. 1776.Abdera 29a/03a. (Figure 110) Fragment of rim. D. 0,12m, H. 0,03m, W. 0,04m, Th. 0,004m. Clay (7.5YR 7/4). 1777.Abdera 29a/06b. Fragment of rim. D. 0,12m, H. 0,06m, W. 0,095m, Th. 0,006m. Clay (5YR 6/6). 1778.Abdera 29a/06c. Fragment of rim. D. 0,12m, H. 0,06m, W. 0,095m, Th. 0,006m. Clay (5YR 6/6). 1779.Abdera 29b/16. (Figure 110) Fragment of rim. D. uncertain, H. 0,035m, W. 0,025m, Th. 0,004m. Clay black. 1780.Abdera 29b/11/co. (Figure 110) Fragment of rim. D. 0,14m, H. 0,03m, W. 0,07m, Th. 0,004m. Clay (5YR 6/8). 1781.Abdera 29b/31. (Figure 110) Fragment of rim. D. 0,09m, H. 0,02m, W. 0,035m, Th. 0,004m. Clay (5YR 5/6). 1782.Abdera 26/07. Fragment of handle. 1783.Abdera 26/08. Fragment of handle. 1784.Abdera 26/09. Fragment of handle. 1785.Abdera 26/10. Fragment of handle. 1786.Abdera 26/11. Fragment of handle. 1787.Abdera 26/12. Fragment of handle. 1788.Abdera 26/13. Fragment of handle. 1789.Abdera 99/02a/co. Fragment of handle. H. 0,05m, W. 0,04m, Th. 0,005m. Clay pink. 1790.Abdera 99/02b/co. Fragment of base. D. 0,14m, H. 0,06m, W. 0,08m, Th. 0,005m. Clay pink. 1791.Abdera 99/03. Fragment of base. D. 0,14m, H. 0,045m, W. 0,08m, Th. 0,014m. Clay buff brown. 1792.Abdera 99/04. Fragment of base. D. 0,10m, H. 0,035m, W. 0,08m, Th. 0,006m. Clay red. 1793.Abdera 99/05a,b. Fragments of base. D. 0,09m, H. 0,035m, W. 0,10m, Th. 0,005m. Clay buff yellow. 1794.Abdera 93/01a and Abdera 82/01. Joining fragments of handle. D. 0,02m, H. 0,05m. Clay (10YR 7/3). 1795.Abdera 93/01b. Fragment of handle. D. 0,02m, H. 0,06m. Clay (10YR 7/3). 1796.Abdera 93/01c. Fragment of foot. D. 0,015m, H. 0,06m, Th. 0,01m. Clay (10YR 7/3). 1797.Abdera 93/02/co. Fragment of foot. D. 0,06m, H. 0,045m, W. 0,06m, Th. 0,006m. Clay (10YR 7/3). 1798.Abdera 93/03/co. Fragment of foot. D. 0,06m, H. 0,045m. Clay (10YR 7/3). 1799.For Abdera 82/01 see Abdera 93/01. 1800.Abdera 82/02a,b. Fragments of rim. D. 0,07m, H. 0,03m, Th. 0,006m.

Clay Clay Clay Clay Clay Clay Clay

71

1801.Abdera 82/20. Fragment of base. D. 0,07m, H. 0,035m, W. 0,05m, Th. 0,008m. 1802.Abdera 82/21. Fragment of base. D. 0,07m, H. 0,015m, W. 0,045m, Th. 0,006m. 1803.Abdera 82/22. Fragment of base. D. 0,07m, H. 0,03m, W. 0,55m, Th. 0,004m. 1804.Abdera 82/23. Fragment of base. D. 0,02m, H. 0,04m, Th. 0,004m. 1805.Amphipolis 06/01/co. Fragment of rim. D. 0,15m, H. 0,10m, W. 0,12m, Th. 0,015m. Clay (5Y 8/2). 1806.Amphipolis 06/02. Fragment of body. H. 0,10m, W. 0,05m, Th. 0,015m. Clay (7,5YR 8/4, 7,5YR 8/4, 5Y 8/2). 1807.Amphipolis 06/03/co. Fragment of foot. D. 0,04m, H. 0,08m, W. 0,04m, Th. 0,04m. Clay (2,5Y 3/1, 2,5Y 3/1, 5YR 7/6). 1808.Amphipolis 06/04. Fragment of handle. H. 0,10m, W. 0,035m, Th. 0,015m. Clay (2,5YR 4/1, 2,5YR 4/1, 2,5YR 7/4). 1809.Amphipolis 06/05/co. Fragment of rim and handle. H. 0,06m, W. 0,07m, Th. 0,009m. Clay (5YR 7/8, 5YR 7/8, 10R 8/4). 1810.Amphipolis 07/01/co. Fragment of rim. D. 0,10m, H. 0,35m, W. 0,12m, Th. 0,006m. Clay (10R 7/8, 10R 7/8, 10R 5/8). 1811.Amphipolis 07/02a/co. Fragment of rim and handle. D. uncertain, H. 0,07m, W. 0,035m, Th. 0,01m. Clay (5PB 6/1, 5YR 7/6, 5YR 7/6). 1812.Amphipolis 07/02b/co. Fragment of body and handle. H. 0,06m, W. 0,045m, Th. 0,004m. Clay (5PB 6/1, 5YR 7/6, 5YR 7/6). 1813.Amphipolis 07/03a/co. Fragment of neck. H. 0,035m, W. 0,06m, Th. 0,01m. Clay (2,5YR 4/3, 2,5YR 4/3, 5YR 7/6). 1814.Amphipolis 07/03b/co. Fragment of body and handle. H. 0,125m, W. 0,08m, Th. 0,006m. Clay (2,5YR 4/3). 1815.Amphipolis 07/04a. Fragment of body. H. 0,05m, W. 0,075m, Th. 0,008m. Clay (2,5YR 7/6, 2,5YR 7/6, 7,5YR 8/4). 1816.Amphipolis 07/04b. Fragment of body. H. 0,045m, W. 0,06m, Th. 0,007m. Clay (2,5YR 7/6, 2,5YR 7/6, 7,5YR 8/4). 1817.Amphipolis 07/18. Fragment of body. H. 0,07m, W. 0,075m, Th. 0,005m. Clay (5YR 7/4, 5YR 7/4, 10R 8/3). 1818.Amphipolis 10/01a/co. Fragment of neck. D. uncertain, H. 0,09m, Th. 0,015m. Clay (5YR 8/3, 2,5YR 8/2). 1819.Amphipolis 10/01b/co. Fragment of neck. H. 0,115m, Th. 0,01m. Clay (5YR 8/3, 2,5YR 8/2). 1820.Amphipolis 10/01c,d,e,f/co. Fragment of body. Th. 0,01m. Clay (5YR 8/3, 2,5YR 8/2). 1821.Amphipolis 10/02. Fragment of base. D. uncertain, H. 0,55m. Clay (2,5YR 6/6). 1822.Amphipolis 10/03/co. Fragment of base. D. 0,035m, H. 0,05m, Th. 0,005m. Clay (10R 6/6). 1823.Amphipolis 10/04 a,c,d,e/co. Fragment of body. D. 0,15m, H. 0,12m, Th. 0,001m. Clay (10R 5/6). 1824.Amphipolis 10/04b/co. Fragment of handle. D. 0,15m, H. 0,12m, Th. 0,001m. Clay (10R 5/6). 1825.Amphipolis 13/01/co. Fragment of handle. D. 0,05m, H. 0,115m, W. 0,12m, Th. 0,008m. Clay (5YR 7/6, 5YR 6/3). 1826.Amphipolis 13/12/co. Fragment of body. 1827.Amphipolis 13/13. Fragment of body. 1828.Amphipolis 13/14/co. Fragment of body. 1829.Amphipolis 13/15. Fragment of body.

1830.Amphipolis 13/16. Fragment of body. 1831.Amphipolis 13/17. Fragment of body. 1832.Amphipolis 13/18. Fragment of body. 1833.Amphipolis 13/19. Fragment of body. plus 7 body sherds. 1834.Amphipolis 17/01/co. Fragment of handle. D. 0,06m, H. 0,08m, W. 0,06m, Th. 0,04m. Clay (2,5YR 6/6). 1835.Amphipolis 17/02. Fragment of neck. D. 0,06m, H. 0,07m, Th. 0,007m. Clay (2,5YR 5/6). 1836.Amphipolis 17/03/co. Fragment of rim. D. 0,06m, H. 0,025m, W. 0,045m, Th. 0,004m. Clay (2,5YR 5/8). 1837.Amphipolis 31/01. (Figure 111) Fragment of rim. D. 0,09m, H. 0,08m, W. 0,095m, Th. 0,005m. Clay (10R 4/6, 2,5YR 5/6, 2,5YR 5/6). 1838.Amphipolis 31/02. Fragment of body. H. 0,17m, W. 0,25m, Th. 0,007m. Clay (10R 6/6, 10R 6/6, 2,5YR 6/4). 1839.Amphipolis 34//01a,b,c,d,e,f. Fragments of base. D. 0,074m, H. 0,10m, W. 0,12m, Th. 0,006m. Clay (2,5YR 6/8). 1840.Amphipolis 34/02/co. Fragment of base. D. 0,06m, H. 0,08m, W. 0,08m, Th. 0,01m. Clay (2,5YR 6/8). 1841.Amphipolis 34/03/co. Fragment of base. D. 0,06m, H. 0,06m, W. 0,06m, Th. 0,009m. Clay (2,5YR 6/8). 1842.Amphipolis 34/04/co. Fragment of base. D. 0,10m, H. 0,03m, W. 0,08m, Th. 0,003m. Clay (2,5YR 6/6, 10R 8/3, 10R 8/3). 1843.Amphipolis 34/05/co. Fragment of body. D. uncertain, H. 0,065m, W. 0,06m, Th. 0,005m. Clay (5YR 6/6, 5YR 6/6, 5Y 8/20. 1844.Amphipolis 39/01/co. (Figure 111) Fragment of rim. D. 0,08m, H. 0,035m, W. 0,075m, Th. 0,005m. Clay (2,5YR 7/6, 10R 4/3, 2,5YR 7/4). 1845.Amphipolis 39/02/co. Fragment of base. D. 0,12m, H. 0,035m, W. 0,06m, Th. 0,005m. Clay (2,5YR 6/8). 1846.Amphipolis 100/01. Fragment of neck. D. 0,09m, H. 0,08m, Th. 0,006m. Clay (2,5YR 6/8, 2,5YR 6/8, 2,5YR 6/6). 1847.Amphipolis 100/05. Fragment of base. D. 0,10m, H. 0,05m, W. 0,09m, Th. 0,005m. Clay (2,5YR 6/6). 1848.Avloneites 118/08. Fragment of rim. D. 0,17m. Coarse, buff-red clay with mica. Everted, cornice rim with a wide, horizontal upper surface. 1849.Avloneites 118/14. (Figure 112) Fragment of rim. D. 0,14m. Hard, buff-red clay with mica. Everted, rolled rim with two grooves on outside and slight internal ledge. 1850.Avloneites 118/15. (Figure 112) Fragment of rim. D. 0,13m. Clay similar to 118/14. Everted, rolled rim. 1851.Avloneites 118/20. (Figure 112) Fragment of rim. D. 0.15m. Clay similar to 118/14. Everted, rolled rim with three grooves on outside. 1852.Avloneites 118/22. (Figure 112) Fragment of rim. D. 0,14m. Clay similar to 118/14. Everted, rolled rim with three grooves on outside. 1853.Avloneites 118/23. (Figure 112) Fragment of rim. D. 0,145m. Clay similar to 118/14. Everted, rolled rim with two grooves outside. 1854.Avloneites 118/24. (Figure 112)

72

Fragment of rim. D. 0,145m. Clay similar to 118/14. Everted, slight flanged rim with a groove on outside just below the rim. 1855.Avloneites 118/25. (Figure 112) Fragment of rim. D. 0,16m. Clay similar to 118/14. Everted, rolled rim with three grooves on outside. 1856.Avloneites 118/26. (Figure 112) Fragment of neck. D. 0,135m. Clay similar to 118/14. Everted, carinated rim with a ring on outside just below the rim. 1857.Avloneites 126/09. (Figure 112) Fragment of rim. D. 0,165m. Clay and shape as 118/08. 1858.Avloneites 128/04. (Figure 113) Fragment of rim. D. 0,04m. Coarse, gritty, orange-buff to brick-red clay with mica. Thickened, carinated rim, sharp, horizontal flange just below lip. Similar to K 113 of the Athenian Agora catalogue. 1859.Avloneites 129/60. (Figure 113) Fragment of rim. D. 0,04m. Clay and shape similar to 128/04. 1860.Avloneites 132/09. (Figure 113) Fragment of neck and handle. D. 0,16m. Clay similar to 118/14. Everted, rolled rim. Throwing marks inside. 1861.Avloneites 169/21. (Figure 113) Fragment of rim. D. 0,12m. Smooth, buff-red clay with mica. Everted rim. A groove on the exterior surface, just below the rim. 1862.Avloneites 169/27. (Figure 113) Fragment of rim with fragment of handle. D.0,12m. Rather smooth, reddish-yellow clay with mica. Everted rim. 1863.Thasos 01/06. Fragment of handle. 1864.Thasos 01/07. Fragment of handle. 1865.Thasos 01/08. Fragment of handle. 1866.Thasos 01/09. Fragment of handle. 1867.Thasos 01/10. Fragment of handle. 1868.Thasos 01/11. Fragment of handle. 1869.Thasos 01/12. Fragment of base. 1870.Thasos 02/07. Fragment of handle. 1871.Thasos 02/08. Fragment of handle. 1872.Thasos 02/09. Fragment of handle. 1873.Thasos 02/10. Fragment of handle. 1874.Thasos 02/11. Fragment of handle. 1875.Thasos 02/12. Fragment of handle. 1876.Thasos 02/13. Fragment of handle. 1877.Thasos 02/14. Fragment of handle. 1878.Thasos 02/15. Fragment of handle. 1879.Thasos 02/16. Fragment of handle. 1880.Thasos 02/17. Fragment of handle. 1881.Thasos 02/18. Fragment of handle. 1882.Thasos 02/19. Fragment of handle. 1883.Thasos 02/20. Fragment of handle. 1884.Thasos 02/21. Fragment of handle. 1885.Thasos 02/22. Fragment of foot. 1886.Thasos 02/23. Fragment of foot.

1887.Thasos 02/24. Fragment of base. 1888.Thasos 03/05. Fragment of handle. 1889.Thasos 03/06. Fragment of handle. 1890.Thasos 03/07. Fragment of handle. 1891.Thasos 03/08. Fragment of handle. 1892.Thasos 03/09. Fragment of handle. 1893.Thasos 03/10. Fragment of handle. 1894.Thasos 03/11. Fragment of handle. 1895.Thasos 03/12. Fragment of handle. 1896.Thasos 03/13. Fragment of handle. 1897.Thasos 03/14. Fragment of handle. 1898.Thasos 04/06. (Figure 114) Fragment of rim. D. 0,17m, H. 0,03m. 1899.Thasos 04/09. Fragment of handle. H. 0,12m, Th. 0,016m. 1900.Thasos 04/10. (Figure 114) Fragment of rim. D. 0,06m, H. 0,065m. 1901.Thasos 04/13. (Figure 114) Fragment of rim. D. 0,15m, H. 0,04m. 1902.Thasos 04/14. (Figure 114) Fragment of rim and handle. D. 0,09m, H. 0,07m. 1903.Thasos 05/08. (Figure 114) Fragment of rim. D. 0,15m, H. 0,055m. 1904.Thasos 05/10. (Figure 114) Fragment of rim. D. 0,12m, H. 0,055m. 1905.Thasos 09/09. (Figure 114) Fragment of rim. D. 0,11m, H. 0,05m. 1906.Thasos 08/07. Fragment of foot. 1907.Thasos 08/08. Fragment of handle. 1908.Thasos 08/12. Fragment of handle. 1909.Thasos 08/13. Fragment of handle. 1910.Thasos 08/14. Fragment of rim. 1911.Thasos 09/18. Fragment of handle. 1912.Thasos 09/19. Fragment of handle. 1913.Thasos 09/20. Fragment of handle. 1914.Thasos 09/21. Fragment of handle. 1915.Thasos 09/22. Fragment of handle. 1916.Thasos 09/23. Fragment of handle. 1917.Thasos 09/24. Fragment of handle. 1918.Thasos 09/25. Fragment of handle. 1919.Thasos 09/26. Fragment of foot. 1920.Thasos 09/27. Fragment of foot. 1921.Thasos 09/28. Fragment of foot. 1922.Thasos 10/19. Fragment of rim. 1923.Thasos 10/20.

73

Fragment of rim. 1924.Thasos 10/21. Fragment of handle. 1925.Thasos 10/22. Fragment of handle. 1926.Thasos 10/23. Fragment of handle. 1927.Thasos 10/24. Fragment of handle. 1928.Thasos 10/25. Fragment of handle. 1929.Thasos 10/26. Fragment of handle. 1930.Thasos 10/27. Fragment of handle. 1931.Thasos 10/28. Fragment of handle. 1932.Thasos 10/29. Fragment of handle. 1933.Thasos 10/30. Fragment of handle. 1934.Thasos 10/31. Fragment of handle. 1935.Thasos 10/32. Fragment of handle. 1936.Thasos 10/33. Fragment of handle. 1937.Thasos 10/34. Fragment of handle. 1938.Thasos 10/35. Fragment of handle. 1939.Thasos 10/36. Fragment of handle. 1940.Thasos 10/37. Fragment of handle. 1941.Thasos 10/38. Fragment of handle. 1942.Thasos 10/39. Fragment of handle. 1943.Thasos 10/40. Fragment of foot. 1944.Thasos 10/41. Fragment of foot. 1945.Thasos 11/22. Fragment of handle. 1946.Thasos 11/23. Fragment of handle. 1947.Thasos 11/24. Fragment of rim. 1948.Thasos 11/25. Fragment of rim. 1949.Thasos 11/26. Fragment of base. 1950.Thasos 12/05. Fragment of foot. 1951.Thasos 12/06. Fragment of foot. 1952.Thasos 12/07. Fragment of handle. 1953.Thasos 12/08. Fragment of handle. 1954.Thasos 12/09. Fragment of handle. 1955.Thasos 12/10. Fragment of handle. 1956.Thasos 12/11. Fragment of handle. 1957.Thasos 12/12. Fragment of handle. 1958.Thasos 12/13. Fragment of handle. 1959.Thasos 12/14. Fragment of handle.

1960.Thasos 13/16. Fragment of rim. 1961.Thasos 13/17. Fragment of rim. 1962.Thasos 13/18. Fragment of foot. 1963.Thasos 13/19. Fragment of handle. 1964.Thasos 13/20. Fragment of handle. 1965.Thasos 13/21. Fragment of handle. 1966.Thasos 13/22. Fragment of handle. 1967.Thasos 13/23. Fragment of handle. 1968.Thasos 13/24. Fragment of handle. 1969.Thasos 13/25 Fragment of handle. 1970.Thasos 13/26. Fragment of handle. 1971.Philippi 02/01 Fragment of base. D. 0,055m, H. 0,05m, W. 0,055m, Th. 0,015m. Clay reddish brown. 1972.Philippi 02/02. Fragment of rim. D. unknown, H. 0,08m, W. 0,09m, Th. 0,006m. Clay pinkish red. 1973.Philippi 02/03. Fragment of handle. H. 0,11m, W. 0,07m, Th. 0,007m. Clay reddish brown on the surface, greenish grey in the core. 1974.Philippi 02/05. Fragment of body. H. 0,075m, W. 0,11m, Th. 0,006m. Clay buffyellow. 1975.Philippi 02/06a, b. Two joining fragments of body. H. 0,05m, W. 0,075m, Th. 0,005m. Clay red on the surface, buff-yellow in the core. 1976.Philippi 02/06c. Fragment of body. H. 0,07m, W. 0,06m, Th. 0,007m. Clay red. 1977.Philippi 02/07. Fragment of body. H. 0,05m, W. 0,06m, Th. 0,006m. Clay red. 1978.Philippi 02/08. Fragment of body. H. 0,09m, W. 0,06m, Th. 0,005m. Clay reddish brown. 1979.Philippi 03/01. Fragment of body. H. 0,065m, W. 0,07m, Th. 0,008m. Clay grey. 1980.Philippi 03/02. Fragment of body. H. 0,045m, W. 0,05m, Th. 0,006m. Clay grey. 1981.Philippi 03/04. Fragment of body. H. 0,04m, W. 0,055m , Th. 0,007m. Clay greenish grey. 1982.Philippi 04/08. Fragment of body. H. 0,04m, W. 0,03m, Th. 0,004m. Clay reddish brown, beige. 1983.Philippi 04/09. Fragment of body. H. 0,035m, W. 0,04m, Th. 0,005m. Clay grey, buff red. 1984.Philippi 04/16. Fragment of body. H. 0,08m, W. 0,07m, Th. 0,008m. Clay reddish brown. 1985.Philippi 05/02. Fragment of body. H. 0,05m, W. 0,12m, Th. 0,01m. 1986.Philippi 05/05. Fragment of body. H. 0,05m, W. 0,045m, Th. 0,005m. 1987.Philippi 06/01. Fragment of body. H. 0,04m, W. 0,06m, Th. 0,007. 1988.Philippi 06/02. Fragment of body. H. 0,035m, W. 0,02m, Th. 0,005m. 1989.Philippi 06/03. Fragment of body. H. 0,065m, W. 0,07m, Th. 0,01m. 1990.Philippi 06/04. Fragment of body. H. 0,05m, W. 0,06m, Th. 0,005m. 1991.Philippi 07/01.

74

Fragment of rim, and handle. D. 0,06m, H. 0,045m, W. 0,06m, 0,006m. 1992.Philippi 07/08. Fragment of body. H. 0,05m, W. 0,05m, Th. 0,01m. 1993.Philippi 08/01a. Fragment of rim, and handle. D. 0,06m, H. 0,075m, W. 0,04m, 0,014m. 1994.Philippi 08/01b. Fragment of rim. D. 0,06m, H. 0,03m, W. 0,035m, Th. 0,05m. 1995.Philippi 08/01c. Fragment of rim, and handle. D. 0,06m, H. 0,045m, W. 0,05m, 0,05m. 1996.Philippi 08/01d. Fragment of rim. D. 0,06m, H. 0,02m, W. 0,04m, Th. 0,05m. 1997.Philippi 08/02. Fragment of rim, and handle. D. 0,06m, H. 0,075m, W. 0,06m, 0,008m. 1998.Philippi 08/03. Fragment of rim, and handle. D. 0,06m, H. 0,06m, W. 0,06m, 0,006m. 1999.Philippi 08/04. Fragment of rim. D. unknown, H. 0,03m, W. 0,025m, Th. 0,004m. 2000.Philippi 10/02. Fragment of handle. H. 0,075m, W. 0,04m, Th. 0,02m. 2001.Philippi 10/03. Fragment of body. H. 0,05m, W. 0,055m, Th. 0,006m. 2002.Philippi 10/04. Fragment of body. H. 0,045m, W. 0,04m, Th. 0,005m.

Th.

Th.

Th.

Th. Th.

75

8

(Thucydides I, 98, 1), and as Amphipolis’ port in B.C. 355 by an inscription (Frag. Graec. Hist. 115, F. 51). In addition to these, Arrian (Arrian Aνάβασις I, II, 3) and Livy (Livy, Hist., XLIV, 45, 12-14) referred to Eion being Amphipolis’ port. Philippi could use the harbour of Neapolis to exchange goods, including pottery. Abdera was a port itself and had been very important for the area for many centuries. This was also the case for the city of Thasos, which was the main city and harbour at the island.

DISCUSSION

The main aim of this chapter is to present some further comments on the ceramic assemblages mentioned earlier in the study. These remarks will be laid out in such way that a relevant equivalence will be possible between this and the previous chapters (Pottery Chapters 6 and 7). Thus, the group of fine pottery will be presented first and the coarse wares will follow. The quantitative comparisons presented in this chapter were based on the total number of sherds found and kept during the excavations, which are now stored at the Museums of Amphipolis, Philippi, Kavala, Abdera and Thasos.

In addition, these sites were situated along, or very close, to the major land route from Dyrachium to Byzantium: the Via Egnatia. Therefore, they were open to several cultural influences and trading patterns and easily approachable by the known workshops via established routes; these workshops could easily sell fine pottery to all four sites. Of the five sites, only that of the sanctuary of Hero Avloneites at Kepia was away from the sea, located in an isolated region in the Pierria Plain. The dramatic effects of this isolation on the kind of pottery found here will be discussed later in the chapter.

The total number of sherds recorded during the preliminary stages of the study was 15,121. 10,867 of these sherds were unidentifiable body fragments of coarse wares; 626 were identifiable rims, handles, bases and body fragments of coarse wares; 2,568 belonged to amphorae of which 310 were rims, handles and bases; and, finally, 1,060 sherds belonged to fine pottery.

8.1 Fine ware found in the area The fine pottery found in the area consisted of different types of tableware. The inhabitants of eastern Macedonia and Thrace showed a particular preference for Terra Sigillata wares. Terra Sigillata wares constituted the largest part of the fine pottery found in the area and surpassed by far the Red Slip wares, and all other categories of fine pottery (see Table 16). Of these, there was a very small amount of Terra Sigillata wares, parallels for which could not be found in any of the ceramic assemblages published so far from the Mediterranean region. These vessels have each been grouped at the end of their categories under the term “unknown forms”. Their classification as a specific kind of Terra Sigillata ware was based on their characteristics of clay body and slip.

As was expected, the group of coarse pottery, which was mainly made locally, along with the group of amphorae, outnumbered that of imported fine wares found in the area (see Table 15). Coarse pottery was much cheaper to make and served different and much wider range of needs in everyday life, such as storing, cooking and transporting goods. Fine wares were mainly used as tableware; the various forms of this pottery were associated with drinking and eating: cups, mugs, bowls, dishes, and large or small plates were the main shapes in use. A considerable number of fine ware sherds were found in the area. As mentioned before, 1,060 sherds were recorded during the present study. The existence of this large number of fine wares can be explored in two ways: by looking at the nature of the buildings, and at the position of the sites at which they were found. Both public and private buildings must have had similar needs for tableware. Several ceremonies, such as symposiums and festivities, organised in the public buildings, imposed the need for tableware of high quality. Similarly, everyday life and a variety of special occasions imposed the same need in private houses of wealthy inhabitants. In both cases, these similar needs could be fulfilled by the possession of vessels of high quality bought from famous workshops.

A small number of vessels with a red slip of good quality were also found. These vessels were very similar to those of Terra Sigillata but made with different clay and with clear differences in shape. It is likely that these wares were of local origin, with a clear intention to imitate known types of imported Terra Sigillata. This was the case in several other sites, like Stobi, Berenice, and Nicopolis ad Istrum, where the imported fine wares had influenced local workshops to imitate the shape and fabric of the most fashionable vessels. From the start of my pottery recording these unknown wares have been separated from the identifiable ones and have been grouped together under the term “local colour-slipped, partially slipped and unslipped fabrics”. Their relatively small number, in combination with the lack of any clay studies or any excavated kilns in the area, do not permit any connections with known production centres located elsewhere in north-eastern Greece. However, it is very likely that some local workshops specialising in fine ware survived the Roman conquest and the competition

It must have been quite easy for the inhabitants of the five sites to find the products they needed. Four of the five sites had easy access to the North Aegean. Amphipolis was situated directly beside the Strymon river and only 5 kilometres from its εμπόριο, Eion, lying on the Strymon Gulf. It is very likely that the city’s inhabitants used the river for transportation of goods from the sea to their houses for many hundreds of years. In the 5th century B.C., Eion was mentioned by Thucydides as the most important trading and naval station in the area between Chalkidiki and Thasos

76

from the major centres and later provided the locals with pottery, influenced by the new fashion for “mass produced” Terra Sigillata wares.

The existence of only very few examples of fine pottery at the Sanctuary of Hero Avloneites at Kepia came as a surprise. It might be expected that the character of the building would impose the need for large numbers of fine pottery vessels in order to cover the drinking and eating demands of the participants of the symposia organised on site. In opposition to this theory, the only examples of fine wares were two flanged bowls of Çandarli ware (Hayes 1972, Form 3. See present thesis, Fig. 57, 581, 582). The only explanation for this could be the provincial character of the sanctuary. Away from large urban centres, the sanctuary must have been a remote place of worship frequented only by the inhabitants of the immediate vicinity. The ceramic finds from this site so far revealed its local character. Vessels with stamps, as well as several types of locally made pottery suggest that a workshop, situated very close to or in the sanctuary’s territory itself, produced all the pottery that was in demand for use in the building. A great variety of drinking, eating, and serving vessels have been found during the excavations. They were all made with more or less coarse clay; usually, they were left plain, without any decoration or slip. The two examples of Çandarli ware might have come as offerings from some visitors, possibly from the neighbouring Philippi, to whose territory the sanctuary belonged during the Roman period.

Finally, some other groups of fine and painted pottery completed the picture, but in much smaller amounts; Pompeian Red wares, Macedonian Grey wares, and glazed wares were the main recognisable groups that were recorded among the pottery sherds from the area. 8.1.1 The presence of Terra Sigillata in the area Most of the main groups of Terra Sigillata wares that were in circulation during the early and middle Roman periods (1st century B.C.-4th century A.D.) were discovered in northeastern Macedonia and western Thrace. During this period, the pottery appeared to be almost exclusively of eastern origin. The products of workshops situated around the eastern Mediterranean were much more favoured than those of the western workshops. No examples of Gaulish or Campanian products were found in any of the five sites. Italian Sigillata ware was the exception, but still not present in large numbers. On the contrary, Eastern Sigillata A and B, Çandarli, Pontic Sigillata, Cypriot Sigillata, and Tripolitanian Sigillata seemed to be in great demand in this area. The majority of Terra Sigillata found in the five sites belonged to categories already known and defined by the work of several scholars. Table 17 presents percentages of the total number of sherds of fine pottery found in the area. As we can see, Çandarli ware is by far the most numerous category, reaching 78% of the total amount of fine pottery. In Table 18, we can see a distribution of wares across three of the five sites. Only Abdera, Amphipolis, and Thasos are included in this chart because of the other two sites, Philippi did not give any examples of fine pottery and Kepia gave only four sherds of Çandarli ware. The exact situation in each site is explained in the following paragraphs.

On the contrary, at the sites of Abdera, Amphipolis and Thasos, Terra Sigillata wares constituted the main category of fine pottery found. The varieties of the Terra Sigillata wares give an indication of the financial status of these cities during the Roman period. Situated at strategic locations, they benefited from being focal points of trading routes in the Balkans. Thirty-one sherds of Eastern Sigillata A wares were found in the ceramic assemblages. Four pieces belong to Kenrick’s Hellenistic Series (Kenrick 1985, 225-231), and in particular to Hayes (EAA) Form 5, which is dated between the late 2nd century BC and AD 10/20 (Table 19). Twenty-six pieces belong to several categories of the early Roman series, dated between A.D. 10 and A.D. 120. Abdera was the main source for this ware, as twenty of the twenty-six sherds were found here. Amphipolis gave five and Thasos one sherds. Finally, in Amphipolis there was one sherd of unknown form. No examples were found in Philippi or Kepia. The most likely explanation for the presence of very few, or the complete lack of Eastern Sigillata A wares, should be the later date of the deposits associated with those buildings at Philippi and Kepia. It is obvious that the examples of the ware found in Philippi and Kepia must have been residual and they did not belong to the phases of use of those buildings.

The ceramic assemblage from the Theatre of Philippi did not contain any fine wares at all. This does not mean, of course, that fine wares were not in use in this building. The Theatre was one of the main buildings of the Roman colony and one would expect to find all major groups of imported pottery that has been found elsewhere in the area. Examples of fine pottery have been discovered in other parts of the Theatre, like the area close to the stage and along the two parodoi1. Thus, the explanation of the non-existence of any fine wares in this particular part of the Theatre must lie on the kind of its purpose and use. The majority of the pottery found consisted of big storage vessels (pithoi and amphorae) as well as cooking ware.

Italian Sigillata ware did not seem to be very popular, even at the height of its production, in Eastern Macedonia and Thrace. There were no examples of the finest, early Italian Sigillata. Only eight sherds were found in the ceramic assemblages of the study and all of them dated between 10 B.C. and A.D. 35. Five of them are of the group of Hayes

1

I had the opportunity to examine this pottery, but I could not include it in this study. This pottery is stored at the Museum of Philippi and it has not been published so far.

77

with curving body and incurved rim. They may be dated between the second half of the 1st and the end of the 3rd century A.D. (Table 22).

(Hayes 1973) Form 4, which consists of plates decorated with rouletted bands on their rim. Another three pieces of possibly Italian origin were found in the area but they were so small that it would be too risky to classify them into any known groups. The majority of the Italian Sigillata was found at Amphipolis, with 7 sherds, while at Abdera only 1 sherd was found. The rest of the sites gave no examples of the ware.

Eleven examples of Tripolitanian Sigillata completed the picture of Terra Sigillata wares from the area. All eleven sherds of the ware came from Abdera. They belonged to Kenrick’s (1985) B 427, which is a conical cup with ringfoot, curving floor and moulded rim. This group was dated at Berenice by Kenrick in A.D. 27-37. It is probable that the ware appeared a little later in Abdera as it was found together with pottery sherds of a late date (beginning of the 2nd A.D. century).

A much larger amount of Eastern Sigillata B wares were found in north-eastern Greece. The majority of these examples belong primarily to the late group, that of Eastern Sigillata B2. During my pottery recording process, I sometimes encountered great difficulties in distinguishing between the B1 ware and the B2 ware. Sometimes the two groups seem to have shared the same fabric, or it is very common to have forms of B1 ware with fabric of the B2 ware, or vice versa. The same problem has been encountered by other ceramists in previous studies, such as AndersonStojanović in the publication of Roman pottery from Stobi (Anderson-Stojanović, 1992). This phenomenon could be explained as a result of either the existence of several workshops producing the same kind of pottery over a specific period of time or the production of ceramics by the same workshop but over a much bigger period of time in which fundamental changes in the clay or the production techniques in use took place. 106 sherds of Eastern Sigillata B1 and B2 found in the area came from Abdera, 21 from Amphipolis, and 8 from Thasos (Table 20).

8.1.2 Red Slip ware found in north-eastern Greece Red Slip wares were not in great demand in the area compared to the Terra Sigillata wares, but their distribution covered the area for a long period of time (Table 23). As we can see on the same table, examples as early as A.D. 80 had found their way to the coast of the Northern Aegean. They continued to be purchased by the inhabitants of the studied area until at least the end of the 5th century A.D. African Red Slip, Phocaean-Red Slip and Cypriot Red Slip were the categories of Red Slip wares found in the area. The African Red Slip was the most numerous of all, as we can see in Table 24. The other two groups were represented by very few examples. Hayes has distinguished 198 different forms of African Red Slip ware. Only four of them were identified at Abdera and Thasos. In Table 25, we can see the four different groups of wares, their percentages of the total number of sherds found, and their chronological distribution. The earliest example of the ware found was Hayes Form 8. This is a carinated bowl dated from A.D. 80/90 to the second half of 2nd century A.D. Although this was the 2nd century form par excellence, common from Spain to Greece (Hayes 1972, 34), only one sherd was found in the area (in Thasos, Fig. 70. 923). Two examples of dish Hayes Form 27, dated A.D. 120-220, came from Abdera and Thasos (Fig. 70. 924-5). The ware was also traced in Corfu and Knossos, where it co-existed with early 3rd century Çandarli ware. Five fragments of large dishes Hayes Form 50, dated A.D. 234/240-400, were found uniquely in Thasos. The ware was also found in Thessaloniki, during the excavations under the Theologiki Scholi (AΔ 21, (1966), pl. 350b), at the Athenian Agora, Corinth, Olympia, and Rhodes. Eight sherds of large bowls with curved, slightly sagging body, flat base and two-part flaring rim, Hayes Form 67, dated A.D 360-470, were the latest specimens of African Red Slip found in the area. Three of them came from Abdera and the remaining five from Thasos. Similar shapes were found at the Athenian Agora and Corinth.

Çandarli ware constituted the main group of fine ware found in Eastern Macedonia and Thrace and covered the period from the 2nd to the second quarter of the 4th century A.D. All five forms occurred in large numbers; however, forms 2 and 3, were the most popular (Table 21). The flanged bowls of Hayes Form 3 were also the most influential on the local workshops. A substantial number of local imitations were found especially at Abdera and Amphipolis: Abdera gave 231 sherds, Amphipolis 392, Avloneites 4, and Thasos 101. No examples of the ware were found at Philippi. Five examples of Cypriot Sigillata were also found. All five of them were discovered at Abdera. They were similar to Kenrick’s B 377 dishes with curved wall and thickened inturned rim, dated between the second half of the 1st and the first half of the 2nd century A.D. Twenty-two examples of Pontic Sigillata were found. Twenty-one of these sherds came from Abdera and only one from Thasos. The groups found in the area were dishes of Hayes (EAA) category I, with shallow, curving floor, vertical, slightly concave wall above a projecting moulding, plain or bead-rim and rounded ring-foot; conical cups of Hayes (EAA) category V, with steep, flaring wall and vertical rim with grooves at top and bottom on outside, and flat base or low ring-foot; globular cups related to Olbia Type 30, with short, sloping rim, hooked upwards at the outer edge, and thin, flaring ring-foot; and, finally, bowls of Olbia Type 32,

It is quite peculiar that the most popular shapes for the course of the 3rd century A.D. (Hayes 1972, Forms 45, 48, and 49) were not traced in any of the five sites. During the 2nd to the

78

non-appearance of the wares in the five sites could be explained by their (assumed) disappearance during the 2nd and 3rd centuries A.D. The sherd found belonged to Anderson-Stojanović (1992) Form 1, Variant C, which is a flat-based deep dish with wide, horizontal rim, dated to the third quarter of the 4th century A.D. The other sites did not give any examples of the ware.

4th century A.D., it is obvious that African Red Slip wares could not match their strong competitor in the area: the Çandarli wares. These were much more common in use and in great demand here. Such a situation was possible due to the proximity of the workshop of the Çandarli ware. This was apparently the most significant factor, which could make the products from the coast of Asia Minor much cheaper in the markets of Northern Aegean compared to products originating from faraway Northern Africa.

Another not very common ware in the area was that of the Lead-Glazed ware. Only five specimens were found three at Amphipolis and two at Thasos. All five of them had a thin brown or green glaze, and according to Hayes’ comments about the ware (1997, 65) must have been produced in workshops in the Asia Minor region, in places such as Mytilene or Pergamon.

Other groups of Red Slip wares found were the PhocaeanRed Slip and the Cypriot Red Slip (Table 26). During the 4th century A.D. the Phocaean-Red Slip ware was very popular in Asia Minor and from the 5th until the end of the 7th century A.D. became the main competitor of the African Red Slip ware in the East. Despite its popularity, only one specimen of that ware was found, in Thasos (Fig. 71. 938). It was a sherd of a dish of Hayes Form 3, dated in A.D. 460475.

The fact that the last three groups of fine pottery mentioned above were not very popular in north-eastern Greece is of great importance. These groups of pottery were not very popular in any other site in the wider area of eastern Mediterranean. This signifies the almost absolute homogeneity that the strong pottery workshops have imposed during the middle and late Roman periods in the area. Products from smaller workshops could not compete with the well-established workshops of Asia Minor and later those in northern Africa.

Finally, the picture of the category of Red Slip ware was completed by the discovery of two sherds of Cypriot Red Slip ware. These sherds were found in Abdera. They belonged to Hayes (1972) Form 1, a dish with flat floor, sloping wall and plain thickened rim. Hayes (1972) gives a suggested date for the form from the middle 4th to about third quarter of 5th century A.D.

Colour-slipped, partially slipped and unslipped fabrics constituted a large group of pottery in the region. This group of pottery is of unknown origin. A small number of sherds has parallels with pottery found and published from elsewhere. One hundred and seven sherds of pottery covered totally or partially with a thin slip, or made with fine clay and having a fine finish were found; among them, some examples of Thin-walled ware. Twenty examples of this category were found: sixteen at Abdera, three at Amphipolis and one at Thasos. Of these, sixteen belonged to Moevs (Cosa) Form XLII, Group A. These are one or two handled, round-carinated cups, dated to A.D. 14-37. Three sherds belonged to Moevs (Cosa) Form XXXVI, Group B, which are hemispherical bowls with floral decoration in barbotine, dated between 27 B.C. and A.D. 14. Eighty-seven sherds of several shapes were found, including flanged bowls, hemispherical cups with incurved or out-turned rim, plates, jugs, pitchers and jars. Also, twenty sherds that belonged to closed-vessel shapes, such as jugs or pitchers, and fourteen sherds of ring bases and eight of flat bases were found as well.

8.1.3 Miscellaneous fine ware; their contribution to the completion of the account of fine pottery found in the area Some other groups of fine pottery also have been found in the five sites in eastern Macedonia and Thrace. This pottery belongs neither to the Terra Sigillata nor the Red Slip ware tradition. Pompeian-Red is a group of ceramic vessels that has a clay body coarser than any other fine pottery. However, the characteristic red slip that covers the inner surface of the vessels of this group classes it better with the fine than the coarse pottery but its form has nothing in common with any group of fine pottery. As said before in Chapter 4, this is the only group of “coarse” pottery, apart perhaps from the amphorae, that had been studied in so much detail before my study. It was very popular in the eastern Mediterranean and some examples of the ware were found in eastern Macedonia. Those came from Amphipolis and belonged to Peacock’s (1977) Fabric 1, whose origin was placed somewhere in the Campanian region.

8.2 Coarse wares 11,493 sherds of coarse wares were found and kept during excavations in the area and recorded for this study; they belonged to several kinds of pottery: pottery for use on the table, for cooking, storage, and transportation purposes. It is generally accepted that coarse wares were made locally and only few categories were imported from big workshops.

One would think that Macedonian Grey ware must have been one of the most common finds in the area. As the supposed product of a centre located somewhere in Macedonia (Hayes 1972, 405-407), the ware should be found in great quantities in the five sites situated in eastern Macedonia and Thrace. However, only one sherd of the ware was found in a context of the 4th century at Thasos. This

79

Along with these coarse wares of unknown origin, some already known and published groups of coarse pottery from other sites, and thus very likely imported, were found in the area. The fact that these wares were found in eastern Macedonia and Thrace is very important and offers us outstanding information about the trading patterns in the Aegean region. One of these wares was the category of Italian mugs2. Produced somewhere in the Aegean region, the ware was very common in the area studied, especially in the cities of Amphipolis, Abdera and Thasos.

Serving vessels were made with much finer clay; as were the small size storage jars. The clay body of all vessels had large amount of gold or silver mica.

As we can see in Table 27, tableware constituted over 26% of the total coarse pottery found in the area. A large number of sherds belonged to shapes such as jugs and pitchers. These wares in combination with large or small mugs, cups, bowls, and plates were the main vessels used on the table. Table 28 gives us the analysis of the total number of rhb found in north-eastern Greece.

Many of the coarse sherds found belonged to cooking vessels. Most of them had some parallels to shapes published from other sites, such as the Athenian Agora, Corinth, Knossos. However, this fact cannot be explained with absolute certainty; coarse pottery was either much more tradeable than we thought or the needs that coarse vessels served necessitated inherent similarities. Also, there is the general belief that in Roman times, a wide standardisation in pottery shapes took place and this could explain the observation made on the present ceramic assemblages. Much research needs to be carried out on the subject of coarse wares before we can answer these questions with accuracy.

The individual character in clay body of the coarse wares found in the five different sites suggests that all of them must have been obtained pottery from different sources. Homogeneity in shapes could be observed but this cannot be an indication of common resources as the shapes were imposed mainly by the needs that these vessels had to serve.

Except for the excavation of pottery workshops, the other main factor to identify production centres is the clay used to make the vessels. As said before elsewhere in this study, neither any geomorphologic studies nor technical studies on any ceramic assemblages from the area have yet been carried out. In the same way, although ceramic kilns have been located, such as at Amphipolis, they have not been excavated so far. Thus, we do not know much about clay sources and therefore we cannot identify any production centres and match pottery with workshops. The only site where the production of local pottery is more than assumed is that of the sanctuary of Hero Avloneites at Kepia. Here, many sherds with stamped decoration where the name of the Hero appears were found. These finds are a clear proof of the presence of a workshop that was making special pottery for ritual use in the sanctuary.

Table 29 shows the different kinds of cooking wares that were in use in the area. Cooking wares were the second most numerous group of pottery, as it would expected due to the nature of the buildings. Their main production centres must have been local but, as we have seen in Chapter 7, some already known forms have been identified. This may suggest that coarse wares were imported together with fine wares. The majority of coarse sherds belonged to the category of storage and transportation wares. The groups of pottery that fitted into this category were these of amphorae, large jars, and pithoi. The amphorae outnumbered by far the other two groups. Over 92% of the storage and transportation vessels belonged to amphorae (Table 30). The sherds of amphorae far outnumbered the boxes containing the pottery that was recorded for the purpose of this study. Amphorae together with large jars and pithoi could cover the storage needs in all five buildings, both public and private. The classification and identification of these amphorae has still to be carried out and a considerable amount of future work is required, especially considering the vast quantity and nature of the material. In addition, amphorae have been more often studied in combination with the products that were transported in them than as separate ceramic vessels. Thus, a detailed study of the amphorae sherds found in the area could not be conducted in the present study; therefore, a quantitative comparison has been given in order to contribute to the research on the pottery found.

The lack of any relevant technical studies, such as petrologic or chemical clay analysis, limited the potential of the present study, which had to concentrate on a visual description of the pottery and its comparison to other already published ceramic assemblages. This could be considered as a static way of presenting pottery. However, it offers important information about the pottery production and distribution in the area where it was found. In addition to that, this study is the very important first step toward the detailed study of the pottery found in an area that has never been studied in this way before. The majority of coarse pottery found in the area was made with a rather fine clay, with large numbers of inclusions, varying according to the shape and size of the vessels; the bigger the vessel the coarser the clay body. The colour of the clay body varied from red to brown and grey shades. Very coarse clay with a great number of limestone inclusions was used to make cooking wares and large storage vessels.

A large number of pithoi, mainly hand-made, and large jars were also found. These shapes must have served storage needs in the buildings where they were found. The clay body of the big pithoi was particularly coarse, with large numbers of impurities. The surface of the ware was mainly

2

Details on this group of pottery can be found in Chapter 6, paragraph 6.2.1.

80

ware, can be dated between early 3rd to the end of the 4th century A.D.

undecorated but some examples with finger impressions and wavy grooves were also found. The large jars were made with less coarse clay and with fewer impurities. These vessels had one or two handles for their transportation. Their decoration was limited, as with the big pithoi, in some finger impressions, grooves. Very few examples with faint pained bands were found.

Pottery found at the northern part of the Theatre of Philippi was very difficult to date. The entirety of the recorded sherds belonged to the category of coarse ware. The parallels, which could be drawn between this pottery and pottery from other sites, were so limited as to be valueless for chronological purposes. This kind of pottery can only be dated by its cofound dateable objects, such as coins and lamps, due to the lack of published materials of the same nature, which was mentioned many times so far in this study. Thus, the pottery from this site had very little to offer to the dating of this part and this phase of the monument. Based on the co-found finds, the pottery was dated from the second half of the 2nd century A.D. to the end of the 4th century A.D. Hopefully from now on, coarse pottery of the same types from contexts at Philippi and elsewhere will be better identified and dated based on similarities with the coarse pottery from the Theatre.

8.3 The pottery as the main chronological evidence for the sites The Roman pottery found in deposits from the five buildings studied here gave us important information about the dating of these buildings. This pottery can serve as a dating tool to examine the chronological range from the establishment of these spaces until the ending of the activity in them. During the initial phase of the pottery recording, I observed a dating characteristic common for all five buildings. These buildings had been built in areas with earlier occupations and after their destruction, other buildings replaced them, directly above them or in the near neighbourhood. This was demonstrated by the existence of several fragmentary examples of Classical and Hellenistic pottery sherds in layers where the foundations of the buildings laid and Byzantine pottery sherds in layers above the destruction levels that signified the final phases of the Roman buildings.

The Sanctuary of Hero Avloneites at Kepia was founded in a hill where traces of previous occupation were found. Many examples of Hellenistic pottery were revealed in its foundations. The existence of an early phase, dated to the 2nd century B.C., is almost certain from the coins and pottery found in the area, although architectural traces have not survived from this phase. The main phase of the Sanctuary is dated from between the 1st century A.D. and the 4th century A.D. The task of dating the Sanctuary was just as difficult as that of dating the northern part of the Theatre of Philippi. I had to rely mainly on the excavators’ observations and the coins or (not yet studied in detail) inscriptions found here. The majority of the pottery was locally made and no previous studies were present to help its dating. During the pottery recording from Amphipolis, Abdera and Thasos, similar forms of 1st to 4th century A.D. to those found at Kepia came to light that helped the identification of shapes and their dating. The risk of inaccuracies was always high but the first and very essential steps of dating previously unknown pottery took place. Hopefully, in a similar way with the pottery from the northern part of the Theatre of Philippi, this study will serve as a powerful dating tool to future researchers of local pottery.

The second and very important observation for the understanding of the dating of the phases of the five buildings was the difficulty of distinguishing between the residual and intrusive material from the products of pure deposits, such as pottery from in situ destruction deposits. The difficulties could not be resolved due to the lack of historical references for the area. Without any major historical events to provide landmarks for the history of the buildings, the task of dating these buildings and understanding the changes that took place throughout the centuries became a very difficult and complicated one. The periods were established according to what had been observed during the excavation of the buildings. Then, during the pottery recording, the distinguishing of these periods were at first largely based upon such datable finds, as coins and imported pottery and in most cases agreed with the dating, which was initially given by the excavators. As study and analysis progressed, I was able to refine the dating in some cases such as Abdera.

The private house found at Abdera and studied here gave us some very interesting assemblages, although the stratigraphic divisions were a very difficult task. The house was founded on a thick debris layer containing pottery dated not later than to the 1st century B.C. Coarse pottery was found next to identifiable and dateable imported fine pottery. Consequently, not only the dating of the phases of the house was possible but the accurate dating of the coarse wares too. The fine pottery found in this house could quite safely be divided into two chronological groups: an early group dated between the beginning of the 1st century B.C. and the end of the 1st A.D., and a later group dated between the 2nd A.D. and the beginning of 4th century A.D. The finds from this

The building at the site of Amphipolis was constructed on the natural bedrock where no other buildings existed before; only a small number of Hellenistic pottery sherds were found in its foundations. According to the pottery found in the building, its first phase of use can be dated with certainty from the early 1st century to the end of the 2nd century A.D. In the layers of this phase the majority of Italian Sigillata, Eastern Sigillata A, and the early types of Çandarli ware were found. The second phase of the building, which gave Eastern Sigillata B wares and the later types of Çandarli

81

second phase of the building were far more numerous and very good examples were present. This is an indication of a flourishing stage of Abdera’s history. This observation contradicts the initial presumption of the excavators who so far believed that Abdera declined during the Roman occupation of the area. The large quantity and the great variety of imported fine wares from the Black Sea, Asia Minor, Cyprus, and from as far as northern Africa that were found in this building in the city of Abdera is an undeniable indication of the city’s prosperity for the period between the 1st and the 4th century A.D. The capital of the island of Thasos continued its leading role in the Aegean throughout the Roman period. The pottery found in the house excavated in 1997 dated the main phase of it between the 2nd and the end of the 5th centuries A.D. Fine pottery imported from well-known workshops was found here. The architectural remains indicated that the house must have had two phases. The finds suggest that the second phase must have followed the first immediately due to the fact that there was no chronological gap between the finds of the first and the finds of the second phase. In the next chapter, comparisons of pottery found in the area with pottery published from other sites will be presented. Thus, suggestions that will be more accurate on the situation of the pottery production and distribution in the area will be offered as contribution to the general pottery studies of the Mediterranean region.

82

9

Macedonia and Thrace around 40 B.C., a little later than at Stobi. They continued to be present until around A.D.125, which is close to the date when the ware began declining in the rest of Mediterranean world. Italian Sigillata wares did not seem to be very popular in any of the five sites, even when they were in other areas. This tends to suggest limited trading relations between north-eastern Greece and Italy. Comparisons with fine pottery found and published from Stobi and Berenice revealed some very interesting facts. Italian Sigillata wares of similar date were found in large, almost equal quantities, at Stobi and Berenice. The ware was poorly represented in north-eastern Greece and seemed to have disappeared very early since no examples were found after A.D. 25 in any of the five sites. Unfortunately, quantitative research for pottery found in the capital of the province of Macedonia, Thessaloniki, where Italian Sigillata wares seemed to be present (Adam-Veleni 1996), has not been done so far. Thus, there is no comparable material available to investigate the surprising lack of Italian wares in eastern Macedonia and Thrace.

CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE

RESEARCH

9.1 Achievements of the present study The present study dealt with four main tasks: ƒ the stratigraphic analysis of five excavated sites, ƒ the assemblage, recording, and presentation, in as much detail as possible, of ceramic material dated in the middle and late Roman period from five sites in north-eastern Greece, ƒ the provision of a chronological reference for the dating of the five excavated sites for their Roman phases, and, ƒ the creation of a very much needed typological and chronological guide for other ceramic assemblages and material of various kinds from Roman sites in northern Greece. Along with these aims, this study examined the significance of these ceramic assemblages from a point of view of their capacity to contribute to our comprehension of the social and economic conditions of the societies that lived in this area during the Roman period.

During the same period, products from Asia Minor continued their dominating presence in eastern Macedonia and Thrace. During this period, large quantities of Eastern Sigillata B1 and B2 wares arrived here. With the beginning of the 2nd century A.D., a different Asia Minor workshop came to replace Eastern Sigillata B ware: Çandarli ware appeared in the market and its source became the main provider of fine pottery for Amphipolis, Abdera and Thasos. Considerable amounts of the ware were discovered in the area. Most types of Çandarli ware were available for purchase by the inhabitants of these sites, and the ware was present here from its very early stages throughout the whole period of its production. Table 31 shows percentages of Terra Sigillata wares found at the five sites of the present study, and at Stobi and at Berenice4. We can notice the higher quantity of Çandarli wares found in eastern Macedonia and Thrace compared to the other two sites. This indicates very close contact between Asia Minor and Northern Greece.

It is the first time that Roman pottery from this area has been studied as a whole, placed in its geographical and chronological context. Therefore, our knowledge of the kind of pottery expected to be found in a site dating between the 1st and the 4th centuries A.D. and situated in northern Greece has been considerably increased. During the research that led to the compilation of this study, imported fine wares, local fine wares and a large number of coarse wares were recorded. The Roman pottery produced in, exported from and imported to north-eastern Greece can now be studied in more detail as the present study introduces the identifying criteria that were missing so far for the archaeological research in the area. Roman fine wares found in the area used to be misrepresented and their identification with specific workshops false. Previously, there was no distinction between Terra Sigillata and Red Slip potsherd. The most usual classification of Roman fine pottery found in excavations was under the name “ψευδαρρητινά”, which means “Arretine-like pottery”. The present study elucidates this situation: previously unrecorded fine wares are now recorded and identified. Also, this study forms a detailed catalogue that will serve as a database for future research into Roman fine wares from the area.

Pontic Sigillata found their way to the area of eastern Macedonia and Thrace quite early. The first examples appeared here around A.D. 50, much earlier than in Berenice. It is rather bizarre, though, that more examples have been found in Berenice than in north-eastern Greece. The proximity of the workshops to the latter would be expected to impose the opposite results, but for some reason Pontic Sigillata were concentrated in larger numbers in Berenice during a shorter period of time. As for Stobi, they did not manage to reach the site; here, Italian products seemed to have monopolised the market leaving no room for their eastern equivalent. Another surprise was the presence of

During the middle and late Roman periods, the situation in the pottery markets and the pottery in use in the region were as follows. The most important source for fine pottery for the area was Asia Minor. Eastern Sigillata A wares were represented in the area in similar quantities as at Stobi and Berenice3. The first examples of the ware appeared in eastern

pottery found in the five sites with pottery from Stobi and Berenice. 4 I created these charts based on material I recorded from the five sites and on material published from the other two sites by Anderson-Stojanović (1992) and Kenrick (1995).

3

As mentioned in Chapter 5, where the methodology of the present study was explained, I decided to compare the fine

83

needed reference guide for the coarse pottery produced and distributed in north-eastern Greece in Roman times.

Tripolitanian Sigillata ware in Abdera. The ware was distributed mainly within the boundaries of modern Libya, and some examples were found in Tunisia, Algeria and fewer in Sicily (Kenrick 1985, 284). As far as we know from the literature relating to ceramic material, this ware was not found in any other sites in the northern Aegean region.

The classification of the Roman coarse wares found in the eastern Macedonia and Thrace was based on the shape of the recognisable pottery sherds such as rims, bases and handles. A detailed description of the fabric was included in every separate group in order to distinguish differences in production centres. Thus, the coarse wares have been divided into four main groups: tableware, cooking ware, storage ware, and amphorae. All five sites provided examples of these four groups of pottery. The majority of the finds belonged to wheel-thrown pottery with the exception of the big pithoi, which were handmade. Most of the table, cooking and storage wares seemed to have been made locally. Amphorae from several sources found their way to the area, indicating the important trading contacts that the area had with the rest of the Mediterranean world.

Red Slip wares were found in Eastern Macedonia and Thrace in moderate quantities (see Table 32. where their comparison to the Terra Sigillata wares can be found). The most popular wares were the African Red Slip, which predominated over both Cypriot and Phocaean Red Slip wares. These wares were in circulation in the area for the period A.D. 80 to A.D. 475. The African Red Slip wares found were not only larger in quantity but covered a much longer period of time than the other two. Some of the very early African products, such as carinated bowls of Hayes (1972) Form 8 (dated in the 2nd century A.D.), were found in Thasos. Compared to the sites of Berenice and Stobi, the sites of Eastern Macedonia and Thrace were not as rich in African Red Slip wares. Cypriot Red Slip wares were more numerous in Macedonia and Thrace than in Stobi but much less numerous than in Berenice.

By compiling a first “handbook” of Roman pottery from north-eastern Greece, this study should provide a guide for this area and contribute considerably to the comprehension and interpretation of excavated sites in the wider context of the Roman Mediterranean world. In the present case, Amphipolis, Philippi, Thasos and Abdera’s locations at the south of the Balkans, at the north of the Aegean Sea and along some of the major land routes ensured that they were exposed to a variety of cultures and influences. This became clear from the range of pottery found in these sites, pottery that was imported from a variety of sources. The contexts of all five sites were dated by the excavators, based on the associated small finds such as coins and lamps, and the possible existence of inscriptions. The dating of archaeological contexts based mainly on finds like these can be inadequate and sometimes misleading. In addition, the absence of such finds from some layers prevents the excavator to date these levels and sometimes to observe them.

The proportions of pottery found in the three areas of the Mediterranean world show the complexity of the trade patterns in Roman times. That is, the most obvious and expected trading relationships were not necessarily those that existed. Generally, the present study strengthens Dr J.W. Hayes’ comments about the distribution of Roman pottery in north-eastern Greece. Italian wares were very early replaced by the Asia Minor fine products in this area. From the early 1st century to the end of the 4th century A.D., Asia Minor workshops dominated the markets and were the main providers of fine pottery. From the end of the 4th century, the power of the African workshops started to expand and eventually their products superseded those of Asia Minor. As mentioned in the previous chapter, the study of Roman coarse wares remains embryonic. More needs to be done in order to explore this very neglected class of archaeological finds. The lack of detailed studies may be due to their nature, which is not very attractive to the ceramists, and their local character, which does not allow broader comparisons and generalisation. Details of Roman coarse wares from the wider area of the Balkans were not well known until recently. The existence of publications of ceramic material from other contemporary sites in the Mediterranean world is of great importance but the local character of the coarse wares reduces their dating potential. This is especially true in north-eastern Greece, where the Roman fine wares, let alone coarse wares, were rarely taken into account for the understanding of the archaeological contexts, and only when by luck they were kept and not disposed off straight after they were found. Their dating depended on their associated, dateable finds, such as lamps, coins, and inscriptions. The present study has initiated the identification, classification and dating of this kind of pottery, and has provided a much

Pottery has three very important characteristics: it is the most common find in excavations, it has great durability and its variations allow to distinguish different periods. The present study, recognising these characteristics and by compiling a “handbook”, has achieved a first contribution to solving the dating difficulties experienced by the excavators in the area of eastern Macedonia and Thrace for the Roman periods. An important dating reference has been created for the pottery of the middle and late Roman periods with the detailed recording of important assemblages from well-stratified sites. From now on, the excavators of Roman sites will begin to be able to use the most important find for dating purposes: the pottery and to enlarge on it themselves. As for the buildings found in the five sites and studied here, the pottery dated them to the first four centuries of our era. With some small variations, all five of the sites gave indications for continuity from Hellenistic to Byzantine times, flourishing especially during the Roman period. The

84

reports from the excavators. Consequently, the results of this study should be reliable and useful for future research.

pottery found indicates that the area was a crossroads at this time. Merchants with fine pottery from famous workshops of the time approached the sites and met with great interest in their fashionable products. Some coarse wares and numerous amphorae were sent to the area along the trade routes of the eastern Mediterranean and northern Aegean. Fine and coarse wares were produced locally and distributed for the everyday needs of the population. To conclude, the archaeological finds, such as the architectural remains, and particularly the pottery, indicate that eastern Macedonia and Thrace had a vigorous thriving economy during the Roman period.

Apart from the need of further research on a wider area than that of north-eastern Greece, the combination and comparison of the facts that resulted from the study of the present five sites with that from similar sites in western and central Macedonia and, in a second stage, from the rest of the Greece, would be of great significance. Research of this kind, based in a wider region, could answer questions about the existence of pottery workshops and the patterns of contact between the production and purchase centres. Gaps and misunderstandings in our knowledge, like the surprising lack of Italian Sigillata in all of the five sites studied during the present research, will almost certainly be solved.

9.2 Future research As mentioned before, the present study has built an accurate basis for future pottery studies in the area. A clear classification of the pottery has been made, based in their particular characteristics of fabric and shape. A detailed description of each group was achieved with reference to the authors that first identified and outlined them. In this way, possession of this study will cover the needs of the future researchers without the necessity to locate and read a large number of fundamental books.

In Greece, so far, pottery of every period of antiquity has been studied in a certain degree of detail. There are many publications about prehistoric, Geometric, and Classical pottery. Very recently, pottery of the Hellenistic period has gained great importance and interested a large number of researchers. This is not yet the case for Roman pottery. Roman pottery from north-eastern Greece needs further research to become better known. In addition to that, the refining of the evolution of the pottery and the changes that took place during the transition from the Hellenistic to the Roman and from the Roman to the Early Christian traditions is an enormous task that needs to be approached in stages.

The present study being the first of its nature for ceramic material from the area cannot be without errors. Inaccuracies will appear as more material comes to light. The recognition of the possible weaknesses of this study could work positively as motivation for future studies on similar material.

Systematic surveys in order to locate production centres, combined with the scientific work of clay analysis is of prime interest. The combination of the results gained by the above along with the results of detailed research into the small finds mentioned earlier, could answer a series of queries about social and economic issues affecting this area during the Roman period, including spatial analysis and the investigation of social ranking. The results of such an analysis would be of extraordinary importance. Furthermore, the mechanisms of social division in the Roman societies living at the five sites in north-eastern Macedonia and Thrace and their commercial activity could be explained in detail.

In the future, similar studies could give necessary information to archaeologists in order to advance their work in terms of discovering and understanding the Roman phases in the wider area of northern Greece. It is generally admitted that there is great necessity to go back to the ceramic material that has been excavated. The lack of specialised scholars meant that ceramic finds of the Roman period were neglected and stored away without receiving the appropriate attention and study. Similarly detailed studies are essential for the rest of the material found during excavations and especially for the small finds, such as metallic objects, coins, and lamps. Storage rooms in the museums of Amphipolis, Philippi, Kavala, Thasos, and Abdera, along with other museums in northern Greece, accommodate very important but yet unstudied assemblages for advancing our understanding of the Roman world. The next step towards the completion of our knowledge of northern Greece during the Roman period could lie on wellplanned and specifically orientated surveys and excavations, with the participation of specialists. These excavations should focus on understanding the issues that have been raised by previous projects and have been insufficiently addressed. Thus, the problematic stratigraphy of the Roman phases may become clearer with the use of the pottery as a dating tool. The present study dealt with well-stratified material and I was fortunate to receive very well written

85

86

TABLES

87

88

Table 1. Example of the sheets used for the recording of fine and coarse pottery.

89

Table 2. Example of the sheets used for the recording of fine and coarse pottery.

90

Table 3. Example of the sheets used for the recording of the pottery at the site of Kepia.

91

FOOT TYPES

1.

Ring foot

2.

a foot which is clearly set off on the exterior and from the base on the interior

3.

False ring foot

a foot which is set off from the base on the interior but which on the exterior forms the termination of the wall

Pedestal foot

4.

Tubular foot

2.

Conical base

BASE TYPES

1.

Offset base

the base has the shape of an interved cone the base is separated by one or more ridges from the inside surface of the foot 3.

Moulded base

4.

Grooved base

the base is marked by a groove just inside the foot the base is marked by alternating broad, concentric ridges and grooves

Table 4. Illustrated examples of some of the terms used in the study.

92

LIP TYPES

1.

Rolled lip

2.

Thickened lip

the fabric of the neck is thicker at the top and often flares outwards

the lip is thickened into a roll or collar

RIM TYPES

1.

Carinated rim

the rim is undercut and sharply set off from the wall

2.

Flanged rim

the vertical rim is set off from the wall by a horizontal projection or flange

Table 5. Illustrated examples of some the terms used in the study.

93

Table 6. Harris Matrix for the excavated building at Amphipolis.

94

Table 7. Harris Matrix for the excavated building at Abdera.

95

Table 8. Examples of Eastern Sigillata A ware similar to those found in north-eastern Greece (after Kenrick 1985, 223-243)

96

Table 9. Examples of Eastern Sigillata B ware similar to those found in north-eastern Greece (after Anderson-Stojanović 1992, 50-53, and Kenrick 1985, 245-256)

97

Table 10. Examples of the typical forms of Çandarli ware and their characteristics throughout the ware’s production period. Similar shapes were found in north-eastern Greece (after J.W. Hayes, LRP, pp. 316-322)

98

Table 11. Examples of the typical forms of Çandarli ware and their characteristics throughout the ware’s production period. Similar shapes were found in north-eastern Greece (after J.W. Hayes, LRP, pp. 316-322)

99

Table 12. Examples of the typical forms of Pontic Sigillata ware and their characteristics throughout the ware’s production period. Similar shapes were found in north-eastern Greece.

100

Table 13. Examples of the shapes of African Red Slip wares found in north-eastern Greece.

101

Table 14. Examples of the shapes of African Red Slip wares found in north-eastern Greece.

102

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

Coarse pottery

Fine pottery

Amphorae

Table 15. Comparison of the total amount of coarse, fine pottery and amphorae found in north-eastern Greece. (no. of sherds: 11,493 coarse, 1060 fine, 2568 amphorae)

100

90

80

Terra Sigillata w ares (Eastern Sigillata A, Italian Sigillata, Eastern Sigillata B, Candarli, Cypriot Sigillata, Pontic Sigillata, and Tripolitanian Sigillata w ares)

70

60

50

Red Slip w ares (African Red Slip, Phocaean Red Slip, and Cypriot Red Slip w ares)

40

30

Pompeian-Red, Macedonian Grey, Glazed, and Thin-w alled w ares

20

10

0 50 B.C.

0

50 A.D.

100 A.D.

150 A.D.

200 A.D.

250 A.D.

300 A.D.

350 A.D.

400 A.D.

450 A.D.

500 A.D.

Table 16. This chart shows the relation between three groups of pottery found in north-eastern Greece: the group of Terra Sigillata compared to the group of Red Slip and the Pompeian-Red, Macedonian Grey, Glazed and Thin-walled wares.

103

100

90

80

70

60

50

Tripolitanian Sigillata w are

40

30

Candarli w are Eastern Sigillata B Cypriot Sigillata w are w are

Italian Sigillata w are

20

Pontic Sigillata w are

Eastern Sigillata A w are

10

0 150

125

100

75

50

25

B.C.

B.C.

B.C.

B.C.

B.C.

B.C.

0

25

50

75

100

125

150

175

200

225

250

275

300

A.D.

A.D.

A.D.

A.D.

A.D.

A.D.

A.D.

A.D.

A.D.

A.D.

A.D.

A.D.

Table 17. Percentages of the total amount of the different groups of Terra Sigillata wares found in the area.

100%

80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

Eastern Sigillata A

Italian Sigillata

Eastern Sigillata B Abdera

Candarli

Cypriot Sigillata

Amphipolis

Thasos

Pontic Sigillata

Tripolitanian Sigillata

Table 18. Groups of Terra Sigillata wares found in the sites of Abdera, Amphipolis and Thasos.

104

100

90

80

70

60

Hayes Form 37

50

40

Hayes Forms 45 and 47

30

Hayes Form 51

20

Hayes Form 5

10

0 150 B.C.

125 B.C.

100 B.C.

75 B.C.

50 B.C.

25 B.C.

0

25 A.D.

50 A.D.

75 A.D.

100 A.D.

125 A.D.

150 A.D.

175 A.D.

200 A.D.

225 A.D.

250 A.D.

275 A.D.

300 A.D.

Table 19. This histogram shows the numbers of the different groups of Eastern Sigillata A wares found in the area in relation with the time of their production and distribution. (no. of sherds: Form 5: 4, Forms 45 and 47: 4, Form 37: 11, Form 51: 14)

100

90

80

70

Eastern Sigillata B2

60

50

40

30

20

Eastern Sigillata B1

10

0 150 B.C.

125 B.C.

100 B.C.

75 B.C.

50 B.C.

25 B.C.

0

25 A.D.

50 A.D.

75 A.D.

100 A.D.

125 A.D.

150 A.D.

175 A.D.

200 A.D.

225 A.D.

250 A.D.

275 A.D.

300 A.D.

Table 20. This histogram shows the numbers of the different groups of Eastern Sigillata B wares found in the area in relation with the time of their production and distribution. (no. of sherds: Eastern Sigillata B1: 8, Eastern Sigillata B2: 128)

105

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

Hayes Form 3

Hayes Form 2

30

20

Hayes Form 1

Hayes Form 4

Kenrick B 369

10

Hayes Form 5

0 150 B.C.

125 B.C.

100 B.C.

75 B.C.

50 B.C.

25 B.C.

0

25 A.D.

50 A.D.

75 A.D.

100 A.D.

125 A.D.

150 A.D.

175 A.D.

200 A.D.

225 A.D.

250 A.D.

275 A.D.

300 A.D.

250 A.D.

275 A.D.

300 A.D.

Table 21. Çandarli ware (no. of sherds: Form 1: 14, Form 2: 254, Form 3: 265, Form 4: 112, Form 5: 22, Kenrick 369: 2) 100

90

80

70

60

50

40

Kenrick (1985) B394

30

Hayes (EAA) category V

20

Kenrick (1985) B390

10

Hayes (EAA) category I

0 150 B.C.

125 B.C.

100 B.C.

75 B.C.

50 B.C.

25 B.C.

0

25 A.D.

50 A.D.

75 A.D.

100 A.D.

125 A.D.

150 A.D.

175 A.D.

Table 22. Pontic Sigillata ware. (no. of sherds: B390: 4, V: 4, B394: 11, I: 3)

106

200 A.D.

225 A.D.

100

90

80

70

60

50

Terra Sigillata wares

40

30

20

Red Slip wares 10

0 50 B.C.

0

50 A.D.

100 A.D.

150 A.D.

200 A.D.

250 A.D.

300 A.D.

350 A.D.

400 A.D.

450 A.D.

500 A.D.

Table 23. Comparison between the total numbers found of Terra Sigillata and Red Slip ware.

100

90

80

70

African Red Slip ware

60

50

40

30

Cypriot Red Slip ware

20

Phocaean-Red Slip ware

10

0 0

25 A.D.

50 A.D.

75 A.D.

100 A.D.

125 150 A.D. A.D.

175 A.D.

200 A.D.

225 A.D.

250 A.D.

275 A.D.

300 A.D.

325 A.D.

350 A.D.

375 A.D.

400 A.D.

Table 24. Groups of Red Slip wares found in the area.

107

425 A.D.

450 A.D.

475 A.D.

500 A.D.

100

90

80

70

60

50

Hayes Form 67

40

30

Hayes Form 27

20

Hayes Form 50

Hayes Form 8

10

0 0

25 A.D.

50 A.D.

75 A.D.

100 A.D.

125 150 A.D. A.D.

175 A.D.

200 A.D.

225 A.D.

250 A.D.

275 A.D.

300 A.D.

325 A.D.

350 A.D.

375 A.D.

400 A.D.

425 A.D.

450 A.D.

475 A.D.

500 A.D.

Table 25. This chart shows the forms of African Red Slip ware found in the area and their chronological distribution. (no. of sherds: Form 8: 1, Form 27: 2, Form 50: 5, Form 67: 7)

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

African Red Slip ware

Phocaean-Red Slip ware Abdera

Cypriot Red Slip ware

Thasos

Table 26. Kinds and percentages of Red Slip wares found at the two sites of Abdera and Thasos.

108

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

Tableware

5

Cooking ware

Storage ware

Lids

0

Table 27. Percentages of the total RHB found in the five sites of Amphipolis, Philippi, Kepia, Abdera and Thasos.

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

Italian mugs

Mugs

Table 28.

Jugs

Stamped sherds

Pitchers

Bowls

Phyale

Tableware percentages from all five sites.

109

Trefoilmouth jugs

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

Casseroles

Basins

Cooking pots

Dishes

Frying pans

Lids

Stewpots

Table 29. Cooking ware percentages from all five sites.

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

Amphorae

Jars

Table 30. Storage ware percentages from all five sites.

110

Pithoi

Strainers

100

90

80

70

60

50

Tripolitanian Sigillata ware

40

Candarli ware Eastern Sigillata B Cypriot Sigillata ware ware

Italian Sigillata ware

30

20

Pontic Sigillata ware

Eastern Sigillata A ware

10

0 150 B.C.

125 B.C.

100 B.C.

75 B.C.

50 B.C.

25 B.C.

0

25 A.D.

50 A.D.

75 A.D.

100 A.D.

125 A.D.

150 A.D.

175 A.D.

200 A.D.

225 A.D.

250 A.D.

275 A.D.

300 A.D.

(no. of sherds: Eastern Sigillata A: 35, Italian Sigillata: 8, Tripolitanian Sigillata: 11, Eastern Sigillata B: 147, Çandarli: 712, Cypriot Sigillata: 5, Pontic Sigillata: 24) 100

90

80

70

60

50

Italian Sigillata ware

40

30

Eastern Sigillata B ware

20

Cypriot Sigillata ware

Candarli ware

10

Eastern Sigillata A ware 0 150 B.C.

125 B.C.

100 B.C.

75 B.C.

50 B.C.

25 B.C.

0

25 A.D.

50 A.D.

75 A.D.

100 A.D.

125 A.D.

150 A.D.

175 A.D.

200 A.D.

225 A.D.

250 A.D.

275 A.D.

300 A.D.

(no. of sherds: Eastern Sigillata A: 14, Italian Sigillata: 70, Eastern Sigillata B: 37, Çandarli: 25, Cypriot Sigillata: 1)

100

90

80

70

60

Italian Sigillata ware

50

40

Eastern Sigillata A ware

30

Pontic Sigillata ware

Eastern Sigillata B ware

20

Candarli ware

Cypriot Sigillata ware

10

0 150 B.C.

125 B.C.

100 B.C.

75 B.C. 50 B.C.

25 B.C.

0

25 A.D. 50 A.D. 75 A.D.

100 A.D.

125 A.D.

150 A.D.

175 A.D.

200 A.D.

225 A.D.

250 A.D.

275 A.D.

300 A.D.

(no. of sherds: Eastern Sigillata A: 1490, Italian Sigillata: 1930, Eastern Sigillata B: 354, Çandarli: 257, Cypriot Sigillata: 44, Pontic Sigillata: 133) Table 31. Percentages and chronological distribution of Terra Sigillata in North-eastern Greece, Stobi and Berenice.

111

100

90

80

70

African Red Slip ware

60

50

40

30

Phocaean-Red Slip ware

Cypriot Red Slip ware

20

10

0 0

25 A.D.

50 A.D.

75 A.D.

100 A.D.

125 150 A.D. A.D.

175 A.D.

200 A.D.

225 A.D.

250 A.D.

275 A.D.

300 A.D.

325 A.D.

350 A.D.

375 A.D.

400 A.D.

425 A.D.

450 A.D.

475 A.D.

500 A.D.

(no. of sherds: African: 15, Cypriot: 3, Phocaean: 1)

1.2

1

0.8

African Red Slip ware 0.6

0.4

Cypriot Red Slip ware

Phocaean Red Slip ware

0.2

0 0

25 A.D.

50 A.D.

75 A.D.

100 A.D.

125 150 A.D. A.D.

175 A.D.

200 A.D.

225 A.D.

250 A.D.

275 A.D.

300 A.D.

325 A.D.

350 A.D.

375 A.D.

400 A.D.

425 A.D.

450 A.D.

475 A.D.

500 A.D.

(no. of sherds: African: 66, Cypriot: 1, Phocaean: 31) 100

90

80

70

60

African Red Slip ware

50

40

30

Phocaean Red Slip ware

20

Cypriot Red Slip ware

10

0 25 B.C.

0

25 A.D.

50 A.D.

75 A.D.

100 A.D.

125 150 A.D. A.D.

175 A.D.

200 A.D.

225 A.D.

250 A.D.

275 A.D.

300 A.D.

325 A.D.

350 A.D.

375 A.D.

400 A.D.

425 A.D.

450 A.D.

475 A.D.

500 A.D.

(no. of sherds: African: 6186, Cypriot: 17, Phocaean: 557)

Table 32. Percentages and chronological distribution of the Red Slip wares found in North-eastern Greece, Stobi and Berenice.

112

FIGURES

113

114

Figure 1. The Roman Empire in the 2nd century A.D. (after Burn 1991, p. 217). In the box the area studied in this dissertation.

115

b.

Figure 2. Map of Macedonia: a. division of modern Macedonia, and the five sites studied (excluding Thessaloniki).

116

a.

Figure 3. Macedonia B.C. 168-148: Macedonia divided into four merides (districts). b. Detailed map of the four merides.

117

a.

Figure 4. Macedonia 27 A.D.: the new division of Macedonia and Thrace under August, and b. 284 A.D.: the changes made by Diocletian in Macedonia. 118

Figure 5. The territory of Philippi. (after Papazoglou 1982, p. 90)

119

Figure 6. Pottery, upon whom the dating of the pottery from north-eastern Greece was based, was found in the sites illustrated here; the main ones were Stobi and Berenice.

120

Figure 7. Amphipolis; the ancient city The Roman building is no. 12b in square.

121

Figure 8. Amphipolis; the Roman building. Finds during the first excavation period in 1975.

122

Figure 9. Amphipolis; the Roman building: a. Plan of the excavated part of the building, b. Statue of Μένανδρος Νεικολάου

123

a.

Figure 10. Amphipolis; the Roman building: View of the front of the building from South; the two statues, and b. Female statue in situ

124

Figure 11. Amphipolis; the Roman building: a. Layer of roof-tiles. b. Walls of the building; Room B, view from West. 125

a.

Figure 12. Amphipolis; the Roman building: Architectural elements found at the front of the main entrance of the building. b. Statue of Serapis, found in Room A.

126

Figure 13. Philippi: plan of the ancient city

127

b.

Figure 14. Philippi; the Theatre: a. Photograph of the Theatre taken from North, Plan of the Theatre; in box the area studied in the present volume.

128

Figure 15. Philippi; the Theatre: a. Photograph of the door in Rooms C and D. b. Photograph of the staircase found in Room E.

129

b.

Figure 16. Philippi; the Theatre: a. Photograph of the Rooms E and F. Photograph of the drainage channel found in Room G and H.

130

a.

Figure 17. Kepia; Sanctuary of Hero Avloneites Finds from the area in 1985; in the middle we can see the bearded marble head. b. Architectural finds during the first systematic excavation at the site in 1985.

131

b.

Figure 18. Kepia; Sanctuary of Hero Avloneites: a. View of the Sanctuary from South. The western part of the Sanctuary; the three rooms and their couches are visible.

132

b.

Figure 19. Kepia; the Sanctuary of Hero Avloneites: a. The “altar”. Hellenistic relief of the Hero-rider bearing the inscription “ΗΡΩΣ ΕΠΗΚΟΟΣ”.

133

Figure 20. Kepia; the Sanctuary of Hero Avloneites. Plan of the Sanctuary with its final form after the excavation of 1990.

134

Figure 21. Kepia; the Sanctuary of Hero Avloneites: a. and b.: more inscriptions bearing the name of Hero Avloneites. 135

Figure 22. Abdera; the ancient city (plan given to me by the archaeologist of the Museum of Abdera, Ms K. Kallintzi). 136

Figure 23. Abdera: the area of the western city walls; the western gate; in square the Roman house (the plan was made by using plan of the city walls, drawn by H. Kirimlidou and A. Koundouras, and plan of the Roman house given to me by K. Kallintzi). 137

Figure 24. Abdera: the Roman house

138

Figure 25. Abdera: Room 3; 7th layer; photograph taken from South, b. Room 3; 10th layer; photograph taken from South, and c. Room 3; 10th layer; we can see the sand layer. a.

139

Figure 26. Abdera: a. Photograph taken from Southeast; we can see Rooms 3 and 4 and the layer of roof-tiles found at the area outside the house to the East, and b. The rooms next to the paved courtyard; we can see the destruction layer with roof tiles. 140

a.

Figure 27. Abdera: The same rooms after the removal of the destruction layer; we can see the floor. b. Floor made from plaster.

141

Figure 28. Thasos; the Ancient city (in square the Roman house, studied in the present volume).

142

Figure 29. Thasos. The old Museum and the new Museum; the excavation that gave the pottery studied in the present volume. 143

Figure 30. Thasos; the Roman House: a. Photograph showing the excavation trench, and b. Photograph showing the nature of the discovered wall

144

Figure 31. Thasos; the Roman House: a. Detail of the discovered walls, and b. Detail of the drainage channel.

145

Figure 32. Eastern Sigillata A ware.

146

Figure 33. Eastern Sigillata A ware.

147

Figure 34. Italian Sigillata ware.

148

Figure 35. Eastern Sigillata B1 and B2 ware.

149

Figure 36. Eastern Sigillata B1 and B2 ware.

150

Figure 37. Eastern Sigillata B1 and B2 ware.

151

Figure 38. Eastern Sigillata B1 and B2 ware.

152

Figure 39. Eastern Sigillata B1 and B2 ware. 153

Figure 40. Çandarli ware.

154

Figure 41. Çandarli ware.

155

Figure 42. Çandarli ware.

156

Figure 43. Çandarli ware. 157

Figure 44. Çandarli ware.

158

Figure 45. Çandarli ware.

159

Figure 46. Çandarli ware.

160

Figure 47. Çandarli ware.

161

Figure 48. Çandarli ware.

162

Figure 49. Çandarli ware. 163

Figure 50. Çandarli ware.

164

Figure 51. Çandarli ware.

165

Figure 52. Çandarli ware.

166

Figure 53. Çandarli ware.

167

Figure 54. Çandarli ware.

168

Figure 55. Çandarli ware.

169

Figure 56. Çandarli ware.

170

Figure 57. Çandarli ware.

171

Figure 58. Çandarli ware.

172

Figure 59. Çandarli ware.

173

Figure 60. Çandarli ware.

174

Figure 61. Çandarli ware.

175

Figure 62. Çandarli ware.

176

Figure 63. Çandarli ware. 177

Figure 64. Çandarli ware.

178

Figure 65. Cypriot and Pontic Sigillata ware.

179

Figure 66. Pontic Sigillata ware.

180

Figure 67. Pontic Sigillata ware.

181

Figure 68. Pontic Sigillata ware. 182

Figure 69. Tripolitanian Sigillata ware. 183

Figure 70. African Red Slip ware.

184

Figure 71. Phocaean and Cypriot Red Slip ware.

185

Figure 72. Unidentified Terra Sigillata and Red Slip wares, Pompeian Red ware and Macedonian Grey ware.

186

Figure 73. Lead-Glazed and Thin-Walled ware.

187

Figure 74. Thin-Walled ware.

188

Figure 75. Miscellaneous fine ware.

189

Figure 76. Miscellaneous fine ware.

190

Figure 77. Miscellaneous fine ware.

191

Figure 78. Miscellaneous fine ware.

192

Figure 79. Italian mugs.

193

Figure 80. Italian mugs.

194

Figure 81. Mugs and Mica-Dusted ware.

195

Figure 82. Mica-Dusted ware.

196

Figure 83. Jugs with grooved mouth.

197

Figure 84. Pitchers.

198

Figure 85. Bowls with out-turned and in-turned rim.

199

Figure 86. Phyale.

200

Figure 87. Stamped sherds from Kepia.

201

Figure 88. Stamped sherds from Kepia.

202

Figure 89. Cooking ware.

203

Figure 90. Cooking ware.

204

Figure 91. Cooking ware. 205

Figure 92. Cooking ware.

206

Figure 93. Cooking ware. 207

Figure 94. Cooking ware.

208

Figure 96. Cooking ware.

210

Figure 97. Cooking ware.

211

Figure 98. Cooking ware. 212

Figure 99. Aegean Cooking ware.

213

Figure 100. Aegean Cooking ware.

214

Figure 101. Aegean Cooking ware.

215

Figure 102. Aegean Cooking ware.

216

Figure 103. Aegean Cooking ware.

217

Figure 104. Aegean Cooking ware.

218

Figure 105. Trefoil-mouthed jug (drawn by V. Savatianou).

219

Figure 106. Trefoil-mouthed jug and lid.

220

Figure 107. Large jars.

221

Figure 108. Amphorae.

222

Figure 109. Amphorae.

223

Figure 110. Amphorae.

224

Figure 111. Amphorae.

225

Figure 112. Amphorae.

226

Figure 113. Amphorae.

227

Figure 114. Amphorae.

228

APPENDIX A Glossary of descriptive terms Barbotine

decoration in wet clay applied to the vessel before it becomes leather hard. Hayes believes that the “decorative patterns created by squeezing liquid clay through a nozzle, in the manner of icing a cake”1.

Carinated rim

the rim is undercut and sharply set off from the wall.

Cornice rim

the rim seems to have been produced with the help of a mould.

Double-dipping streak

the streak of darker colour visible primarily on examples of Eastern Sigillata A ware. It results from dipping the vessel into the surface coating twice, each time coating approximately half of the vessel. A streak appears across the middle where the coating has overlapped.

Engraving Gloss

the carving or scratching of decoration on the surface of a vessel after it has been fired. a surface coating, usually a dilution of the same clay as the vessel itself is made of, that bonds well with the surface of the vessel. Under proper firing conditions it fires to a hard, lustrous finish. This term replaces the word glaze used in many published studies. Glaze more accurately described a vitrified finish.

Flanged rim

the vertical rim is set off from the wall by a horizontal projection or flange.

Incising

the carving of decoration on the surface of a vessel before it has been fired.

Grooved base

the base is marked by a groove just inside the foot.

Lip

the upper edge of the vessel profile.

Moulded base

during turning the base is marked by alternating broad, concentric ridges and grooves.

Plain surface

a surface that is self-slipped, i.e. covered with a slip of the same clay as the vessel, which when fired is indistinguishable from the fabric of the vessel itself, or a surface that has not been slipped.

Planta pedis

a potter’s stamp in the form of a foot-sole.

Rim

that part of a vessel near the lip, which sometimes is set off by a change in profile.

Ring foot

a foot that is clearly set off from the wall on the exterior and from the base on the interior.

Rolled lip

the lip is thickened into a roll or collar.

Rouletting

decoration impressed on the surface of the clay by means of a small wheel with projecting teeth.

1

Hayes 1997, 95, endnote no. 5.

229

Slip

a thin surface coating made from a dilute clay solution of the same or a different colour as the vessel surface. A slip has usually a matt surface.

Strap handle

a broad, flat handle.

Thickened lip

the fabric of the neck is thicker at the top and often flares outward.

Wheel-marks

in the throwing process the potter's finger tip or knuckle, or a blade with rounded end, held against the exterior of the body and moved up or down as the vessel revolves on the wheel, creates a spiral groove and spiral ridges about the body.

230

FOOT TYPES

1.

Ring foot

2.

a foot which is clearly set off on the exterior and from the base on the interior

3.

False ring foot

a foot which is set off from the base on the interior but which on the exterior forms the termination of the wall

Pedestal foot

4.

Tubular foot

2.

Conical base

BASE TYPES

1.

Offset base

the base has the shape of an interved cone the base is separated by one or more ridges from the inside surface of the foot 3.

Moulded base

4.

Grooved base

the base is marked by a groove just inside the foot the base is marked by alternating broad, concentric ridges and grooves

231

LIP TYPES

1.

Rolled lip

2.

Thickened lip

the fabric of the neck is thicker at the top and often flares outwards

the lip is thickened into a roll or collar

RIM TYPES 1.

2.

Carinated rim

the rim is undercut and sharply set off from the wall

Flanged rim

the vertical rim is set off from the wall by a horizontal projection or flange

232

APPENDIX B Roman Emperors 27 BC-14AD 14-37 37-41 41-54 54-68 68-69 69 69 69-79 79-81 81-96 96-98 98-117 117-138 138-161 161-180 161-169 180-192 193 193 193-211 193-197 193-194 198-217 211-212 217-218 218-222 222-235 235-238 238 238 238 238 238-244 244-249 249-251 251-253 253 253-260 260-268 268-270 270 270-275 275-276 275-277 276-282 282-283 283-285 283-284

AUGUSTUS TIBERIUS GAIUS CALIGULA CLAUDIUS NERO GALBA OTHO VITELLIUS VESPASIAN TITUS DOMITIAN NERVA TRAJAN HADRIAN ANTONINUS PIUS MARCUS AURELIUS LUCIUS VERUS COMMODUS PERTINAX DIDIUS JULIANUS SEPTIMIUS SEVIRUS

CARACALLA GETA MACRINUS ELAGABALUS SEVERUS ALEXANDER MAXIMINUS THRAX GORDIAN I GORDIAN II BALBINUS PUPIENUS GORDIAN ΙΙΙ PHILIPPUS ARABS DECIUS TREBONIANUS GALLUS AEMILIANUS VALERIANUS GALLIENUS

Γάιος Ιούλιος Καίσαρας Οκταβιανός Αύγουστος Τιβέριος Κλαύδιος Νέρων Γάιος Ιούλιος Καίσαρ Γερμανικός ο Καλιγούλας Τιβέριος Κλαύδιος Νέρων Γερμανικός Λεύκιος Δομίτιος Αηνόβαρβος Νέρων Σέρβιος Σουλπίκιος Γάλβας Μάρκος Σαλούιος Όθων Λεύκιος Ουιτέλλιος Τίτος Φλάβιος Ουέσπασιανός Τίτος Φλάβιος Ουεσπασιανός Τίτος Φλάβιος Δομιτιανός Μάρκος Κοκκήιος Νέρβας Μάρκος Ούλπιος Τραϊανός Πόπλιος Αίλιος Αδριανός Τίτος Αυρήλιος Αντωνίνος Ο Ευσεβής Μάρκος Αίλιος Αυρήλιος Ουήρος Λεύκιος Αυρήλιος Ουήρος Λεύκιος Αίλιος Αυρήλιος Κόμμοδος Αντωνίνος Πόπλιος Ελούιος Περτίναξ Μάρκος Δίδιος Ιουλιανός Λεύκιος Σεπτίμιος Σεβήρος Δέκιμος Κλώδιος Αλβίνος Γάιος Πεσκέννιος Νίγρος Μάρκος Αυρήλιος Αντωνίνος ο Καρακάλας Πόπλιος Σεπτίμιος Γέτας Μάρκος Οπίλιος Μακρίνος Ουήριος Αουίτος Βασσιανός ο Ελαγάβαλος Μάρκος Αυρήλιος Σεβήρος Αλέξανδρος Γάιος Ιούλιος Ουήρος Μαξιμίνος ο Θράξ Μάρκος Αντώνιος Γορδιανός Α’ Μάρκος Αντώνιος Γορδιανός Β’ Δέκιος Καίλιος Βαλβίνος Μάρκος Κλώδιος Πουπιηνός Μάρκος Αντώνιος Γορδιανός Γ’ Μάρκος Ιούλιος Φίλιππος ο Άραψ Γάιος Μέσιος Κόιντος Τραϊανός Δέκιος Γάιος Ουίβιος Τρεβωνιανός Γάλλος Μάρκος Αιμίλιος Αιμιλιανός Πόπλιος Λικίνιος Ουαλεριανός Πόπλιος Λικίνιος Εγνάτιος Γαλλιηνός Μάρκος Αυρήλιος Ουαλέριος Κλαύδιος ο Γοτθικός Μάρκος Αυρήλιος Κοϊντίλος Λεύκιος Δομίτιος Αυρηλιανός Μάρκος Κλαύδιος Τάκιτος Μάρκος Άννιος Φλωριανός Μάρκος Αυρήλιος Πρόβος Μάρκος Αυρήλιος Κάρος Μάρκος Αυρήλιος Καρίνος Μάρκος Αυρήλιος Νουμεριανός

233

284-305

DIOCLETIAN

Γάιος Αυρήλιος Ουαλέριος Διοκλητιανός

234

APPENDIX C

LAYER surface

DEPTH -0,40

SOIL brown

first

0,40-0,46

second

0,46-1,00

third

1,00-1,30

brown little stones roof tiles brown with fragments of marble architectural pieces soft brown

forth

1,30-1,70

fifth sixth Seventh

1,70-1,80 1,80-1,85 1,85-2,28

many fragments of roof tiles brown burning layer layer of roof tiles

eighth

2,28

FLOOR A

BAG No. 20, 69 23 26, 73 77, 94 31, 99 34, 100 see 39 see 39 38, 39 45, 46

AMPHIPOLIS 1985: ROMAN BUILDING, INSIDE ROOM B

LAYER surface first second third forth

DEPTH

SOIL

0,80-1,30 1,60-1,85

fifth

1,85-2,10

sixth

2,10-2,58

soft brown with many architectural pieces

BAG No.

80 48, 83 53, 55α 55β, 56, 59

AMPHIPOLIS 1985: ROMAN BUILDING, OUTSIDE ROOM B

235

LAYER surface first

DEPTH -0,90 0,90-1,15

second

1,15-1,22

SOIL brown brown with traces of plaster brown with many small stones

BAG No. 68 74 79

AMPHIPOLIS 1985: ROMAN BUILDING, INSIDE ROOM C

LAYER surface first second third forth fifth sixth seventh

DEPTH

SOIL

BAG No.

1,45-1,75 1,75-2,21 2,21-2,57 2,57-2,79

soft brown

81 89 95 98

soft brown soft brown many roof tiles small stones

AMPHIPOLIS 1985: ROMAN BUILDING, OUTSIDE ROOM C

LAYER

DEPTH 0,43-1,85 0,43-1,85 0,43-1,85

SOIL layer of plasters burning layer roof tiles layer

BAG No. 50 50 50

AMPHIPOLIS 1985: ROMAN BUILDING, ΜΑΡΤΥΡΑΣ ΣΤΟ ΧΩΡΟ Α’

LAYER plasters layer

DEPTH -1,20 1,20-1,50 1,50-2,20

SOIL

brown

2,20-2,58 2,58-2,65

soft brown with roof tiles

BAG No. 25 30 36, 41, 59α 92 61, 65

AMPHIPOLIS 1985: ROMAN BUILDING, OUTSIDE ROOM A

236

LAYER surface first second

DEPTH -0,42 0,42-0,60 0,60-0,89

third forth fifth

0,89-1,02 1,02-1,26 1,26-1,47

SOIL mixed soft brown whitish hard stones roof tiles similar soft brown Very soft brown

sixth

1,47-1,70

soft brown

seventh

1,70-2,36

soft brown layer of roof tiles

2,36 2,36-2,65

limewash roof tiles

2,65 2,65-2,93

Compressed soil brown with roof tiles

FLOOR A eighth

BAG No. 01 02 03 04 05 06, 07 08, 09 10, 13, 17

15, 21, 43, 43β

FLOOR B ninth

22

AMPHIPOLIS 1985: ROMAN BUILDING, INSIDE ROOM A

237

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Adam-Veleni 1996

Adam-Veleni, P., et al, “Αρχαία Αγορά Θεσσαλονίκης: η στρωματογραφία και τα κινητά ευρήματα”, ΑΕΜΘ 10B (1996) 501-531.

Adams 1986

Adams, J.P., “Topeiros Thraciae, the Via Egnatia and the Boundaries of Macedonia”, Ancient Macedonia 4 (1986) 2-42.

Abbott and Johnson 1968

Abbott, F.F., and Johnson, A.C., “Municipal Administration in the Roman Empire” (Russell and Russell, New York 1968).

Alcock 1994

Alcock, S.E. “Graecia Capta: The Landscapes of Roman Greece” (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 1993).

Alzinger 1972

Alzinger, W., “Die Ruinen von Ephesos” (Koska, Berlin 1972).

Anderson-Stojanovič 1992

Anderson-Stojanovič, V.R., “Stobi: The Hellenistic and Roman pottery” (Princeton University Press: Princeton 1992).

Arvanitidou 1994

Arvanitidou, S., “Greek Cities of Thrace during the Roman period”, Thrace (1994) 147-150.

Avezou and Picard 1913

Avezou, Ch., and Picard, Ch., “Inscriptions de Macédoine et de Thrace”, BCH 37 (1913) 117-141.

Avramea 1993

Avramea, A., “Tabula Imperii Romani”, K 35, I: Philippi (1993).

Avramea 1994

Avramea, A., “Thrace in the Roman period”, Thrace (1994) 135-146.

Bakalakis 1937

Bakalakis, G., “ Παρανέστιοι Αρχαιότητες”, Θρακικά 8 (1937) 15-31.

Bakalakis 1940

Bakalakis, G., Θρακικά 13 (1940) 5-32.

Bakalakis 1959

Bakalakis, G., “Προανασκαφικές Έρευνες στη Θράκη” (1959).

Bakirtzis 1988

Bakirtzis, Ch., “Παλαιοχριστιανική Βασιλική στα Κηπιά”, AΕΜΘ 1988.

Belon 1588

Belon, P., “Les observations de plusieurs singularites et choses mémorables, trouvées en Grece, Asie, Judée, Egypte, Arabie, et autres pays étranges” (Paris 1588).

Bengtson 1977

Bengtson, H., “Griechische Geschichte von der Anfangen bis in die romische Kaiserzeit” (Beck, Berlin 1977).

Boeswillwald 1905

Boeswillwald, E. “Timgad: Une cité Africaine sous l’Empire romaine” (1905).

Bruce 1981

Bruce, F.F., “St Paul in Macedonia” (John Rylands, University of Manchester 1981).

Burn 1991

Burn, L., “The British Museum book of Greek and Roman Art” (British Museum Press, London 1991).

Callender 1965

Callender, M.H., “Roman Amphorae” (London 1965).

Cameron 1985

Cameron, A., “Rome and the Greek East. Imperial Rule and Transformation” The Greek

238

World edited by R. Browning (Thames and Hundson Ltd, London 1985) 201-214. Carton 1902

Carton, L.B.C., “Le theatre romain de Dougga”, Extrait des mémoires présentés par divers a l’Académie des inscriptions et Belles Lettres”, Iere serie, tome XI, 11e partie (Imprimerie National, Paris 1902).

Charleston 1955

Charleston, R.J., “Roman Pottery” (Faber and Faber, London 1955).

Chrysanthaki 1995

Chrysanthaki, K., “Recherche sur l’histoire d’Abdére sur la côte de Thrace: les textes litteraires et les documents épigraphiques” (DEA in the University of Paris IV-Sorbonne, Paris 1995).

Collart 1928

Collart, P., “Le Théatre de Philippes”, BCH 52 (1928) 74-124.

Collart 1937

Collart, P., “Philippes, ville de Macédoine, dépuis ses origines jusqu’á la fin de l’ époque romaine” (E. de Boccard, Paris 1937).

Comfort 1973

Comfort, H., “Terra Sigillata”, Enciclopedia dell'arte antica, classica e orientale. Supplemento (G. Treccani, Rome 1973) 803-835.

Cousinéry 1831

Cousinéry, E.M., “Voyage dans le Macédoine” (Paris 1831)

De la Bedoyere

De la Bedoyere, G., “Samian ware” (Princes Risborough: Shire, 1988)

Delacoulonche 1858

Delacoulonche, M., “Le berceau de la puissance macédonienne des bords de l’Haliacmon a ceux de l’Axios”, Revue des Sociétés savantes, Missions scientifiques et littéraires (Paris 1858).

Delvoye 1951

Delvoye, C., BCH 75 (1951) 164.

Demitsas 1870

Demitsas, M., “Αρχαία Γεωγραφία της Μακεδονίας” I-II (Athens 1870).

Demitsas 1896

Demitsas, M., “Ή Μακεδονία εν λίθοις φθεγγομένοις και μνημείοις σωζομένοις”, Μακεδονικόν, μέρος 3 (Αδελφοί Περρή, Αθήνεσι 1896).

Desdevises-du-Dézert 1862

Desdevises-du-Dézert, T., “Géographie ancienne de la Macédoine” (Paris 1862).

Duvant and Pouilloux 1958

Duvant, C., and Pouilloux, J., “Recherches sur l’histoire et les cultes de Thasos. II. De 196 avant J.-C. jusqu’a la fin de l’Antiquité ”, Etudes Thasiennes V (Ecole Francaise D.’Athenes, Paris 1958).

Edson 1972

Edson, C., “Inscriptiones Thessalonicae et viciniae” Inscriptiones Graecae, X, II, I (Berlin 1972).

Feissel 1983

Feissel, D., “Recueil des inscriptions chrétiennes de Macédoine du IIIe au Vie siecle” (Athens-Paris 1983).

Ferrero 1966 and 1974

Ferrero, Daria de Bernardi, “Teatri classici in Asia Minore”, Studi di architettura antica, 12 (L’Erma di Bretschneider, Roma 1966), and 4-5 (L’Erma di Bretschneider, Roma 1974.

Feyel 1942

Feyel, M., “Contribution a l'epigraphie beotienne” (Le Puy: Imprimerie de "La HauteLoire", 1942)

Finlay 1844

Finlay, G., “Greece under the Romans: a historical view of the condition of the Greek nation” (W. Blackwood and Sons, London 1844).

Gaebler 1897

Gaebler, H., “Beiträge zur Münzkunde Makedoniens” Zeitschrift für Numismatik I (1897).

239

Gaebler 1906a

Gaebler, H., “Die antiken Münzen Nordgriechenlands, III” (G. Reimer, Berlin 1906).

Gaebler 1906b

Gaebler, H., “Die antiken Munzen von Makedonia und Paeonia” I (Druck und Verlag von Reimer, Berlin 1906).

Gaebler 1926

Gaebler, H., ZfNum 36 (1926), 114, no. 1.]

Gaebler 1936

Gaebler, H., “Die antiken Munzen von Makedonia und Paeonia” II (Druck und Verlag von Reimer, Berlin 1936).

Geyer 1928

Geyer, F., RE XIV (1928) 638-711.

Goudineau 1968

Goudineau, C., “La çéramique arétine lisse”, Mélanges d.’archéologie et d’histoire, Supplement 6 (Ecole française de Rome, Paris 1968).

Gsell 1901

Gsell, S. “Les monuments antiques de l’Algérie” (A. Fontemoing, Paris 1901).

Graham 1972

Graham, J.W., “Notes of Houses and Housing Districts at Abdera and Himera”, in: AJA 76 (1972), 245-301.

Greene 1992

Greene, K., “Roman Pottery” (British Museum Press, London 1992).

Hammond and Griffith 1972

Hammond, N.G.L., Griffith, G.T., “A History of Macedonia”, Vol. 1, Historical Geography and Prehistory, (N.G.L. Hammond, Oxford 1972).

Harris 1979

Harris, E.C., “Principles of Archaeological Stratigraphy”, (Academic Press, London 1979).

Hatzfeld 1919

Hatzfeld, J., “Les trafiquants Italiens dans l’Orient grec” (1919).

Hayes 1963/64

Hayes, J.W., “Notes on Roman Pottery in Greece and the Aegean”, RCRF Acta 5/6 (1963/64) 31-35.

Hayes 1967

Hayes, J.W., “Cypriot Sigillata”, RDAC (1967).

Hayes 1971

Hayes, J.W., “Four Early Roman Groups from Knossos”, BSA (1971). 249-276.

Hayes 1972

Hayes, J.W., “Late Roman Pottery” (British School at Rome, London 1972).

Hayes 1973

Hayes, J.W., “Roman Pottery from the South Stoa at Corinth”, Hesperia 42 (1973) 416-470.

Hayes 1976

Hayes, J.W., “Roman Pottery in the Royal Ontario Museum” (Royal Ontario Museum, Toronto 1976).

Hayes 1977

Hayes, J.W., “Early Roman Wares from the House of Dionysos, Paphos”, RCRF Acta 17-18 (1977) 96-101.

Hayes 1980

Hayes, J.W., “A supplement to the Late Roman Pottery” (British School at Rome, London 1980).

Hayes 1981

Hayes, J.W., “Sigillata Orientali”, Enciclopedia dell'arte antica, classica e orientale (Rome 1981).

Hayes 1983

Hayes, J.W., “The Villa Dionysos Excavations, Knossos: The Pottery”, BSA 78 (1983) 97169.

Hayes 1991

Hayes, J.W., “Paphos; The Hellenistic and Roman Pottery”, Paphos III (1991).

240

Hayes 1995

Hayes, J.W., “An Early Roman Well Group from the Troia Excavations, 1992 (Quadrat D8)”, Studia Troica 5 (1995) 201-213.

Hayes 1997

Hayes, J.W., “Handbook of Mediterranean Roman Pottery” (British Museum Press, London 1997).

Hellström 1965

Hellström, P., “Labraunda: Swedish excavations and researches: Pottery of Classical and later date”, (Lund: CWK Gleerup, 1965).

Hertzberg 1866

Hertzberg, G., “Die Geschichte Griechenlands unter der Herrschaft der Römer I” (Verlag der Buchhandlung des Waisenhauses, Halle 1866).

Hertzberg 1868

Hertzberg, G., “Die Geschichte Griechenlands unter der Herrschaft der Römer II” (Verlag der Buchhandlung des Waisenhauses, Halle 1868).

Heuzey and Daumet 1876

Heuzey, L., and Daumet, H., “Mission archéologique de Macédoine” (Paris 1876).

Jones 1937

Jones, A.H.M., “The Cities of the Eastern Roman Empire” (Oxford University Press, Oxford 1937).

Jones 1950

Jones, F.F., “The Pottery”, in: H. Goldman, ed., Excavations at Gözlu Kule, Tarsus I. The Hellenistic and Roman Periods, Section. VI (Princeton University Press, Princeton 1950) 149-296.

Jones 1966

Jones, A.H.M., “The Greek City: from Alexander to Justinian” (second edition, Clarendon Press, Oxford 1966).

Jones 1971

Jones, A.H.M., “The Cities of the Eastern Roman Empire” (second edition, Oxford 1971).

Kallintzi 1991

Kallintzi, K., “Αρχαιολογικές εργασίες της ΙΘ’ Εφορείας στα Άβδηρα κατά το 1991”, in: ΑΕΜΘ (1991).

Kanatsoulis 1955

Kanatsoulis, D., “Μακεδονική Προσωπογραφία. Από το 148 π.Χ. μέχρι των χρόνων του Μ. Κωνσταντίνου” (Thessaloniki 1955).

Kanatsoulis 1964

Kanatsoulis, D., “Ιστορία της Μακεδονίας μέχρι του Μεγάλου Κωνσταντίνου” (Thessaloniki 1964).

Kanatsoulis 1967

Kanatsoulis, D., “Μακεδονική Προσωπογραφία. Από το 148 π.Χ. μέχρι των χρόνων του Μ. Κωνσταντίνου” Supplement (Thessaloniki 1967).

Keil 1936

Keil, J., “The Greek Provinces”, The Cambridge Ancient History, Vol. 11, Chapter 14 (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 1936).

Kenrick 1985

Kenrick, P.M., “The fine pottery”, Excavations at Sidi Khrebish Benghazi (Berenice) 3, Supplement to Libya Antiqua 5 (Tripoli 1985).

Kenyon 1957

Kenyon, K., “The Objects from Samaria”, Samaria-Sebaste 3 (Palestine Exploration Fund, London 1957).

Knipowitsch 1968

Knipowitsch, T.N., “Untersuchungen zur Keramik römischer Zeit aus den Griechenstädten an der Nordkuste des Schwarzen Meeres i, die Keramik römischer Zeit aus Olbia in der Sammlung der Eremitage” (Bonn 1968).

Koukouli- Chrysanthaki 1969

Koukouli- Chrysanthaki, Ch, “Ανασκαφικές έρευνες στα Κηπιά”, ΑΔ 23 (1969).

Koukouli-Chrysanthaki 1975

Koukouli-Chrysanthaki, Ch., “Φίλιπποι-Θέατρο”, ΑΔ 30 (1975) 284.

241

Koukouli-Chrysanthaki 1976

Koukouli-Chrysanthaki, Ch., “Φίλιπποι-Θέατρο”, ΑΔ 31 (1976) 299-301.

Koukouli-Chrysanthaki 1983

Koukouli-Chrysanthaki, Ch. “Το Ιερό του Ήρωα Αυλωνείτη στα Κηπιά”, ΑΔ 38 (1983).

Koukouli-Chrysanthaki 1985a

Koukouli-Chrysanthaki, Ch., “Abdera and the Thracians”, in: Thracia Pontica 3 (1985) (Troisième Symposium International “Les Thraces et les colonies greques VII-V s. av. N. è.”, Sozopol, 6-12 October 1985, Sofia 1986) 82-98.

Koukouli-Chrysanthaki 1985b

Koukouli-Chrysanthaki, Ch., “Οι ανασκαφικές έρευνες στα Αρχαία Άβδηρα, Institute for Balkan Studies” (1985) (Symposium of 1985) 39-59.

Koukouli-Chrysanthaki 1985c

Koukouli-Chrysanthaki, Ch., “Οι ανασκαφικές έρευνες στο Το Ιερό του Ήρωα Αυλωνείτη”, ΑΔ 40 (1985).

Koukouli-Chrysanthaki Bakirtzis 1995 Koukouli-Chrysanthaki Malamidou 1989

and

Koukouli-Chrysanthaki, Ch., and Bakirtzis, Ch., “Philippi” (Athens 1995).

and

Koukouli-Chrysanthaki, Ch., and Malamidou, D., “Το Ιερό του Ήρωα Αυλωνείτη στα Κηπιά”, ΑΕΜΘ (1989)

and

Koukouli-Chrysanthaki, Ch., and Malamidou, D., “Το Ιερό του Ήρωα Αυλωνείτη στα Κηπιά”, ΑΕΜΘ (1990).

Koukouli-Chrysanthaki Malamidou 1990 Krüger 1905

Krüger, E., MittWestfalen 4 (1905) 102.

Kubitschek 1890

Kubitschek, W., “Jahrzählung und Jahranfang im römischen Makedonien” AEM XIII (1890), 120-124.

Kuhn 1864

Kuhn, E., “Die städtische und bürgerliche Verfassung des römischen Reiches bis auf die Zeiten Justinians” (Leipzig 1864).

Larsen 1938

Larsen, J.A.O., “Roman Greece”, An Economic Survey of Ancient Rome, Vol. 4 (1938) 259498.

Launey (1944)

Launey, M., “Le Sanctuaire et le culte d’Hèracles à Thasos”, Etudes Thasiènnes (1944).

Lazaridis 1950

Lazaridis, D., “Ανασκαφή εν Αβδήροις”, ΠΑΕ (1950) 293-302.

Lazaridis 1955

Lazaridis, D., “Ανασκαφή εν Αβδήροις”, ΠΑΕ (1955) 161.

Lazaridis 1956

Lazaridis, D., “Οι Φίλιπποι, Οδηγός”, (1956).

Lazaridis 1966

Lazaridis, D., “Ανασκαφή εν Αβδήροις”, ΠΑΕ (1966) 63.

Lazaridis 1971α

Lazaridis, D., “Άβδηρα και Δίκαια” (Athens 1971).

Lazaridis 1971b

Lazaridis, D., “Ανασκαφές στα Άβδηρα”, ΠΑΕ (1971) 65-67.

Lazaridis 1972

Lazaridis, D., “Αμφίπολη και Άργιλος” (Athens 1972).

Lazaridis 1979

Lazaridis, D., “Ανασκαφές στα Άβδηρα”, ΠΑΕ (1979) 105-6.

Lazaridis 1990

Lazaridis, K., “Το Γυμνάσιο της Αμφίπολης” (1990).

Lazaridis 1997

Lazaridis, D., “Amphipolis” (Athens 1997).

Leake 1841

Leake, W. M., “Travels in Northern Greece” I-IV (London 1841).

242

Lemerle 1945

Lemerle, P., “Philippes et la Macédoine Orientale à l’époque chretiènne et byzantine” (E. de Boccard, Paris 1945).

Liebenam 1900

Liebenam, W., “Die Städteverwaltung im römischen Kaiserreiche” (Leipzig 1900).

Loeschcke 1912

Loeschcke, S., “Sigillata-Töpfereien in Tschandarli”, Athenische Mitteilungen 37 (1912) 344-407.

Loukopoulou-Polychronidou 1983

Loukopoulou-Polychronidou, L.D., “Το Ανατολικό Σύνορο της επαρχίας Μακεδονίας πριν από την ίδρυση της επαρχίας Θράκης”, Αρχαία Μακεδονία (1983), 4ο Διεθνές Συμπόσιο, 485-496.

Loukopoulou-Polychronidou 1985

Loukopoulou-Polychronidou, L.D. “Η Ρωμαϊκή παρουσία στη Νοτιοανατολική Θράκη” (1985).

Loukopoulou-Polychronidou 1987

Loukopoulou-Polychronidou, L.D., “Provinciae Macedoniae Finis Orientalis: The Establishment of the Eastern Frontier”. M.B. Hatzopoulos-L.D. Loukopoulou, Two Studies in Ancient Macedonian Topography, in: Μελετήματα 3 (1987) 63-110.

Marquardt 1881

Marquardt, J., “Römische Staatsverwaltung,” Vol. I (Hirzel, Leipzig 1881).

Mayet 1975

Mayet, F., “Les céramiques à parois fin dans la péniscule ibérique” (Paris 1975).

Mihailov 1966

Mihailov, G., Inscriptiones Graecae in Bulgarian repertae, IV (1966) 231-282, nos. 22402334.

Moevs 1973

Moevs, Maria Teresa, “Cosa: The Thin-Walled Pottery (1948-1954)”, Memoirs of the American Academy in Rome 32 (1973).

Mommsen 1894

Mommsen, Th., “Römische Geschichte: mit einer Milirkarte von Italien”, Vol. 4” (Berlin 1894).

Munsell 1973

Munsell Soil Colour Charts (Baltimore 1973 ed.).

Negev 1974

Negev, A., “The Nabatean potter's workshop at Oboda” (Bonn: Habelt, 1974).

Oikonomos 1915

Oikonomos, G., “Επιγραφαί της Μακεδονίας”, Βιβλιοθήκη της εν Αθήναις Αρχαιολογικής Εταιρείας 17 (Π.Α. Σακελλάριος, Athens 1915).

Orlandos 1933

Orlandos, A., “Ευρετήριο των μνημείων της Ελλάδος” (Athens 1933).

Oswald and Pryce 1920

Oswald, F., and Pryce, T.D., “An Introduction to the Study of Terra Sigillata” (London 1920).

Pandermalis 1982

Pandermalis, D., “Μακεδονία. 4000 χρόνια Ελληνικής Ιστορίας και Πολιτισμού”, editors G. Christopoulos and G.K. Bastias (Ekdotiki Athenon, Athens 1982) 208-221, 541-542.

Papageorgiou 1913

Papageorgiou, P., “Θεσσαλονίκης ΑΚΠΛ”, Μακεδονικόν Ημερολόγιον (Αυγή Αθηνών, Athens 1913).

Papazoglou 1979

Papazoglou, F., “Quelques aspects de l’histoire de la province de Macédoine”, Aufstieg und Niedergang der Romischen Welt, Vol. 2, Principat 7.1 (1979) 302-369.

Papazoglou 1982

Papazoglou, F., “Μακεδονία. 4000 χρόνια Ελληνικής Ιστορίας και Πολιτισμού”, editors G. Christopoulos and G.K. Bastias (Ekdotiki Athenon Athens 1982) 192-207, 537-541.

Papazoglou 1988

Papazoglou, F., “Les villes de Macédoine à l'époque romaine”, BCH (1988), Supplément

243

16. Peacock 1977

Peacock, D.P.S., “Pottery and Early Commerce: characterization and trade in Roman and later ceramics” (Academic Press, New York 1977).

Peacock 1982

Peacock, D.P.S., “Pottery in the Roman World: an Ethnoarchaeological Approach” (Longman Group, New York 1982).

Peacock and Williams 1986

Peacock, D.P.S., Williams, D.F., “Amphorae and the Roman Economy. An Introductory Guide” (Longman Group, New York 1986).

Pelekanidou 1980

Pelekanidou, E. S., “Η κατά την παράδοση φυλακή του Αποστόλου Παύλου στους Φιλίππους”, in Η Καβάλα και η περιοχή της, First Local Symposium (Kavala 18-20 April 1977), Thessaloniki 1980, p. 427-435.

Perdrizet 1894

Perdrizet, P., “Voyage dans la Macédoine Premiere” BCH 18 (1894) 416-445.

Perdrizet 1895

Perdrizet, P., “Voyage dans la Macédoine Premiere” BCH 19 (1895) 109-112, 532.

Perdrizet 1897

Perdrizet, P., “Voyage dans la Macédoine Premiere” BCH 21 (1897) 514-543.

Perdrizet 1898

Perdrizet, P., “Voyage dans la Macédoine Premiere” BCH 22 (1898) 335-353.

Perdrizet 1899

Perdrizet, P., “Inscriptions de Thessalonique” Mélanges d’ archéoloqie et d’ histoire 19 (1899).

Perdrizet 1900

Perdrizet, P., “Voyage dans la Macédoine Premiere” BCH 24 (1900) 304-323, 542-552.

Perdrizet 1905

Perdrizet, P., “Inscriptions de Thessalonique” Mélanges d’ archéoloqie et d’ histoire 25 (1905).

Perdrizet 1910

Perdrizet, P., “ Cultes et mythes du Pangée” Annales de l’Est 24 (1910) 1-103.

Perlzweig 1961

Perlzweig, J., “Lamps of the Roman Period”, The Athenian Agora Vol. 7 (American School of Classical Studies at Athens, Princeton 1961).

Picard 1987

Picard, O., “Thasos, The Coinage of the Roman World in the Late Republic”, BAR Int. Series 326 (1987) 79-95, pl. 11.

Poulios 1984

Poulios, Vassilios, “Φίλιπποι-Αρχαίο Θέατρο”, ΑΔ 40 (1984) 270.

Poulios 1985

Poulios, Vassilios, “Φίλιπποι-Αρχαίο Θέατρο”, ΑΔ 41 (1985) 262-263.

Poulios 1986

Poulios, Vassilios, “Φίλιπποι-Αρχαίο Θέατρο”, ΑΔ 42 (1986) 176-177.

Papanikolaou and Poulios 1989

Papanikolaou and Poulios, “Ανασκαφικές έρευνες στη Θάσο” ΑΔ 44 (1989).

Poulter 1999

Poulter, A., et al. “Nicopolis ad Istrum: The finds”, Volume I (1999)

Regel 1887

Regel,W., “Abdera”, AM 12 (1887) 161 onwards.

Robert 1938

Robert, L., “Noms grecs et anatoliens”, Etudes épigraphiques et philologiques (Champion, Paris 1938).

Robinson 1959

Robinson, H.S., “Pottery of the Roman Period, Chronology”, The Athenian Agora, V (American School of Classical Studies at Athens, Princeton 1959).

244

Rostovtzeff 1926

Rostovtzeff, M., “The Social and Economic History of the Roman Empire” (Oxford 1926).

Rostovtzeff 1989

Rostovtseff, M., I., “Histoire économique et sociale du monde hellénistique” (Paris 1989).

Sakellariou 1982

Sakellariou, G. “Μακεδονία: 4000 Χρόνια Ελληνικής Ιστορίας και Πολιτισμού” (Ekdotike Athenon A.E., 1982).

Samiou and Antoniades 1988

Samiou, Chr., Antoniades, G., “Αρχαιολογικές και αναστηλωτικές εργασίες στο Θέατρo Φιλίππων”, ΑΕΜΘ (1988) 354-358.

Sarikakis 1971

Sarikakis, T., “Ρωμαίοι Άρχοντες της επαρχίας Μακεδονίας”, Part 1, 148-27 BC (Thessaloniki 1971).

Sarikakis 1977

Sarikakis, T., “Ρωμαίοι Άρχοντες της επαρχίας Μακεδονίας”, Part 2, AD 27-284 (Thessaloniki 1977).

Stikas 1975

Stikas, E., Πρακτικά της εν Αθήναις Αρχαιολογικής Εταιρείας (1975) 74-79.

Slane 1986

Slane, K.W., “Two deposits from the Early Roman Cellar Building, Corinth”, Hesperia 55 (1986) 271-318.

Sgourou 1997

Sgourou, M., “Νέα στοιχεία για τη Ρωμαϊκή πόλη της Θάσου” (ΑΕΜΘ 1997).

Struck 1907

Struck, A., “Makedonische Fahrten I. Chalkidik” (Wien 1907).

Struck 1908

Struck, A., “Makedonische Fahrten II. Die Makedonische Niederlande” (Wien 1908).

Tafel 1841-42

Tafel, T., L., F., “De via militari Romanorum Egnatia, qua Illyricum Macedonia et Thracia iungebantur, dissertario geographica” (I-Pars Orientalis, II-Pars Occidentalis) (Tübingen 1841, 1842).

Tod 1918-1919

Tod, M., N., “The Macedonian Era” ABSA 23 (1918-1919) 206-217.

Tod 1919-1920

Tod, M., N., “The Macedonian Era” ABSA 24 (1919-1920) 54-67.

Tod 1953

Tod, M., N., “The Macedonian Era Reconsidered” Studies presented to D. M. Robinson II (1953) 382-397.

Touratsoglou and Rizakis 1985

Touratsoglou, G., and Rizakis, A., “Επιγραφές Άνω Μακεδονίας (Ελιμεία, Εορδαία, Νότια Λυγκηστίς, Ορεστίς)” Κέντρο Ερευνών Ελληνικών και Ρωμαϊκών Αρχαιοτήτων (Athens 1985).

Triantaphyllos 1988

Triantaphyllos, D., “Άβδηρα. Ιστορικά στοιχεία”.

Tsitouridou 1982

Tsitouridou, A., “Η Μακεδονία. 4000 χρόνια Ελληνικής Ιστορίας και Πολιτισμού” (Athens 1982) 224-249, 542-545.

Ussing 1897

Ussing, J.L., “Pergamos, dens histirie og monumenter” (Forlagt af Universitetsboghandler G.E.C. Gad, Kjobenhavn 1897).

Vegas 1973

Vegas, M., “Cerámica común romana del Mediterráneo occidental”. Universidad de Barcelona. Instituto de Arqueologia y Prehistoria. Publucaciones eventuales No. 22 (Madrid 1973).

Waagé 1933

Waagé, F.O., “The American Excavations in the Athenian Agora, First Report: The Roman and Byzantine pottery”, Hesperia II (1933), 279-328.

245

Waagé 1948

Waagé, F.O., “Hellenistic and Roman tableware of North Syria”, Antioch-on-the-Torontes 4, Part 1. Ceramics and Islamic Coins (Princeton 1948) 1-60.

Walters1908

Walters, H.B., “Catalogue of the Roman Pottery in the Department of Antiquities, British Museum” (London 1908).

Weber 1907

Weber, W., “Untersuchungen zur Geschichte des Kaisers Hadrianus” (edited by B.G. Tenbner, Leipzig 1907).

Wright 1980

Wright, K.S., “A Tiberian Pottery Deposit from Corinth”, Hesperia 49 (1980) 135-177.

Wynne-Thomas 1978

Wynne-Thomas, R. J. L., Legacy of Thasos (Springwood Books, London 1978)

Zahn 1904

Zahn, R., “Thongschirr”, in T. Wiegand and H. Schrader, Priene (Berlin 1904) 394-468.)

The following books are relevant both to Roman pottery in general and the history and archaeological research undertaken in the area of north-eastern Greece. They have been used for the compilation of this thesis but direct reference to them has not been made in the text. Thus, I listed them below for future reference purposes for people studying the same subject. Adam-Veleni 1983

Adam-Veleni, P., “Ιππείς σε ανάγλυφους βωμούς από τη Βέροια”, Mακεδονικά 13 (1983).

Akamatis et al 1994

Akamatis, I., et al, “Macedonia: from Philip II to the Roman conquest”, general editor R. Ginouves (Chichester Princeton University Press, Princeton 1994).

Alcock 1994

Alcock, S.E. “Graecia Capta: The Landscapes of Roman Greece” (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 1993).

Anderson-Stojanovič 1982

Anderson-Stojanovič, V.R., “Computer-Assisted Analysis of Pottery at Stobi”, JFA 9 (1982) 335-348.

Anderson-Stojanovič 1984

Anderson-Stojanovič, V.R., “Macedonian Terra Sigillata Grise from Stobi: a New Typology for the Ware”, RCRF Acta 23/24 (1984) 99-109.

Anderson-Stojanovič 1987

Anderson-Stojanovič, V.R., “Italy and Macedonia in the 2nd and 1st Centuries BC: The Ceramic Evidence”, RCRF Acta 25/26 (1987) 383-401.

Anderson-Stojanovič 1987

Anderson-Stojanovič, V.R., “The Chronology and Function of Ceramic Unguentaria”, AJA 91 (1987) 105-122.

Arvanitidou 1994

Arvanitidou, S., “Greek Cities of Thrace during the Roman period”, Thrace (1994) 147-150.

Barrow 1949

Barrow, R.H., “The Romans” (Penguin Books, Harmondsworth 1949).

Borza 1982

Borza, E.N., “Macedonia and Greece in the Late Classical and Early Hellenistic Times”, Studies in the History of Art, Vol. 10, Symposium Series I, edited by E.N. Borza and B. Barr-Sharrar (National Gallery of Art, Washington 1982).

Brown 1968

Brown, A.C., “Catalogue of Italian Terra Sigillata in the Ashmolean Museum” (Oxford 1968).

Bury 1923

Bury, J.B., “History of the Later Roman Empire: from the death of Theodosius I to the death of Justian”, Vol. 2 (Macmillan and co., London 1923)

Cameron 1993a

Cameron, A., “The Mediterranean World in late Antiquity: AD 395- AD 600” (Routledge, London 1993).

246

Cameron 1993b

Cameron, A., “The Later Roman Empire: AD 284- AD 430” (Fontana Press, London 1993).

Casson 1926

Casson, S., “Macedonia, Thrace and Illyria: their relations to Greece from the earliest time down to the time of Philip son of Amyntas” (Oxford University Press, London 1926).

Charlesworth 1926

Charlesworth, M.P., “Trade Routes and Commerce of the Roman Empire” (The University Press: Cambridge 1926).

Charlesworth 1951

Charlesworth, M.P., “The Roman Empire” (Oxford University Press, London 1951).

Collart 1935

Collart, P., “Une reflection de la Via Egnatia sous Trajan”, BCH 59 (1935).

Crowfoot and Kenyon 1957

Crowfoot, J.W., and Kenyon, K., “The Objects from Samaria”, Samaria-Sebaste 3 (Palestine Exploration Fund, London 1957).

Demitsas 1988

Demitsas, M., “Αρχαία Γεωγραφία της Μακεδονίας” (second edition, Athens 1988).

Dragendorff 1895

Dragendorff, H. “Terra Sigillata”, Bonner Jahrbucher 96-97 (1895) 18-155.

Dunn 1998

Dunn, A., “Loci of maritime traffic in the Strymon Delta (IV-XVIIIcc.): Comercial, Fiscal, and manorial”, Διεθνές Συνέδριο: Οι Σέρρες και η περιοχή τους από την Αρχαία στη Μεταβυζαντινή κοινωνία, Σεπτέμβριος-Οκτώβριος 1993, Πρακτικά, Τόμος Α’ (Θεσσαλονίκη 1998) 339-360.

Errington 1990

Errington, R.M., “A History of Macedonia”, translated by Catherine Erri (University of California Press, Oxford 1990).

Fol and Marazov 1977

Fol, A., and Marazov, I., “Thrace and the Thracians” (Cassell, London 1977).

Fulford and Peacock 1984

Fulford, M.G., Peacock, D.P.S., “The Avenue of the President Habib Bourguiba, Salammbo: The pottery and other ceramic objects from the site”, Excavations at Carthage: The British Mission, Vol. I, 2 (Published for the British Academy from the University of Sheffield, Department of Prehistory and Archaeology: Sheffield 1984).

Grant 1995

Grant, M., “Greek and Roman Historians; Information and Missinformation” (Routledge, London 1995).

Graham 1992

Graham, A.J., “Abdera and Teos”, in: JHS CXII (1992), 44-73.

Herrmann 1981

Herrmann, P., “Teos und Abdera im 5 Jahrhundert v. Chr.”, Chiron 11 (1981) 1-30.

Jones 1940

Jones, A.H.M., “The Greek City: from Alexander to Justinian” (Clarendon Press, Oxford 1940).

Jones 1963

Jones, A.H.M., “The Greeks under the Roman Empire”, Dumbarton Oaks Papers 17(1963) 3-19.

Karagiannopoulos 1993

Karagiannopoulos, I., “Το Βυζαντινό Κράτος” (Thessaloniki 1993).

Konstantakopoulou 1981

Konstantakopoulou, A., “Η Επαρχία Μακεδονία Salutaris. Συμβολή στη Μελέτη της Διοικητικής Οργάνωσης του Ιλλυρικού”, Δωδώνη 1 (1981) 85-100.

Koukouli-Chrysanthaki 1996

Koukouli-Chrysanthaki, Ch., Samartzidou, S., Dunn, A., Catling, R., Tziavos, Ch., Anagnostou, Ch., “Αρχαιολογικές και Γεωμορφολογικές έρευνες στο Δέλτα του Στρυμόνα”, ΑΕΜΘ 10Β (1996), 639-656.

Kraus and Woodman 1997

Kraus, C. S., and Woodman, A. J., “Latin Historians”, Greece and Rome, New Surveys in

247

the Classics, No. 27 (Oxford University Press, Oxford 1997). Kunow 1986

Kunow, J., Giesler, J., Gechter, M., Gaitzsch, W., Follmann-Schulz, A.B., Brandt, D.v., “Suggestions for the systematic recording of pottery”, translated in English by Bridger, C.J. (Rheinland-Verlag GmbH, Köln 1986).

Lamboglia 1952

Lamboglia, N., “Per una classificazione preliminare della ceramica campana”, Atti della Congressa Internazionale di Studi Liguri 1 1950 (Bordighera 1952).

Loeschcke 1909

Loeschcke, S., “Mitteilungender Altertumskommission fur Westfalen”, V (1909) 101-322.

Lorber 1990

Lorber, C.C., “Amphipolis, The Civic Coinage in Silver and Gold” (Numismatic Fine Arts International, Los Angeles 1990).

Lubke 1958

Lubke, W., “Die Kunst der Römer”, von Lubke-Pernice (P. Neff, Wien 1958).

Meyer-Schlictmann 1988

Meyer-Schlictmann, C., “Die Pergamenische Sigillata aus der Stadgrabung von Pargamon mitte 2” (Berlin and New York 1988).

Otatzis 1998

Otatzis, M., “ Ένα μιλιάριο από το Μικρό Σούλι Σερρών: συμβολή στη μελέτη της πορείας της Εγνατίας Οδού”, Διεθνές Συνέδριο: Οι Σέρρες και η περιοχή τους από την Αρχαία στη Μεταβυζαντινή κοινωνία, Σεπτέμβριος-Οκτώβριος 1993, Πρακτικά, Τόμος Α’ (Θεσσαλονίκη 1998) 113-123.

Papazoglou 1979

Papazoglou, F., “Quelques aspects de l’histoire de la province de Macédoine”, Aufstieg und Niedergang der Romischen Welt, Vol. 2, Principat 7.1 (1979) 302-369.

Parker 1935

Parker, H.M.D., “A History of the Roman World from AD 138 to AD 337” (Methuen, London 1935).

Parker 1992

Parker, A.J., “Ancient Shipwrecks of the Mediterranean and the Roman Provinces”, BAR S580 (1992).

Poulios 1985

Poulios, Vassilios, “Φίλιπποι-Αρχαίο Θέατρο”, ΑΔ 41 (1985) 262-263.

Poulios 1986

Poulios, Vassilios, “Φίλιπποι-Αρχαίο Θέατρο”, ΑΔ 42 (1986) 176-177.

Riley 1983

Riley, J.A., “Coarse Pottery”, Excavations at Sidi Khrebish, Benghazi (Berenice) 2 (Supplement to Libya Antiqua 5) (Tripoli 1983) 91-466.

Rizakis 1983

Rizakis, “Η κοινότητα των ‘συμπραγματευομένων Ρωμαίων’ της Θεσσαλονίκης και η Ρωμαϊκή οικονομική διείσδυση στη Μακεδονία”, Αρχαία Μακεδονία (1983), 4ο Διεθνές Συμπόσιο, 513-

Samartzidou 1990

Samartzidou, S., “Αρχαία Μακεδονία” (1990).

Samiou and Antoniades 1988

Samiou, Chr., Antoniades, G., “Αρχαιολογικές και αναστηλωτικές εργασίες στο Θέατρo Φιλίππων”, ΑΕΜΘ (1988) 354-358.

Samsaris 1976

Samsaris, D.K., “Ιστορική Γεωγραφία της Ανατολικής Μακεδονίας κατά την αρχαιότητα” (Εταιρία Μακεδονικών Σπουδών, Thessaloniki 1976).

Samsaris 1984

Samsaris, D.K., “Έρευνες στην ιστορία, την τοπογραφία και τις λατρείες των ρωμαϊκών επαρχιών Μακεδονίας και Θράκης” (Thessaloniki 1984).

Schäfer 1962

Schäfer, J., “Terra Sigillata Keramik aus Pergamon”, Archäologische Anzeiger (1962) 777802.

248

Sullivan 1979

Sullivan, R., “ Thrace in the Eastern Dynastic Network”, Aufsteig und Niedergang der römischen Welt II 7.1 (1979) 186-211.

Touratsoglou 1988

Touratsoglou, G., “Die Münzstätte von Thessaloniki in der romischen Kaiserzeit (32/31 v. Chr. bis.-268 n. Chr)”, Series Antike Munzen und geschnittene Steine, Bd12 (W. de Gruyter, Berlin 1988).

Usher 1985

Usher, S., “The Historians of Greece and Rome” (Bristol Classical Press, London 1985).

Weber 1973

Weber, W., “Untersuchungen zur Geschichte des Kaisers Hadrianus” (second ed. by G. Olms, Hildesheim, New York 1973)

Webster 1995

Webster, P., “Roman Samian Pottery in Britain”, Practical Handbook in Archaeology”, No 13 (York 1995).

Wilkes 1996

Wilkes, J.J., “The Danubian and Balkan Provinces”, The Cambridge Ancient History, Vol. 10, Chapter 13H (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 1996).

Zikos 1989

Zikos, N., “Amphipolis: Early Christian and Byzantine Amphipolis” (Athens 1989).

249