A 7th century pottery deposit from Byzantine Carthago Spartaria (Cartagena, Spain)

99

A 7th century pottery deposit from Byzantine Carthago Spartaria (south-eastern Spain)

Paul Reynolds*

* Institució Catalana de Recerca i Estudis Avançats (ICREA)/University of Barcelona, Equip de Recerca Arqueològica i Arqueomètrica, Universitat de Barcelona (ERAAUB)

Montalegre 6-8, 08001 Barcelona, Spain<[email protected]>

This paper presents in full a 7th century pottery deposit from a shaft dug into one of the corners of a building on Calle Soledad (Cartagena), formerly thought to be part of the Byzantine walls erected under the Byzantine reconquest of Spain, now interpreted as being part of the portico associated with the Roman Theatre. The assemblage and other Byzantine period pottery finds from C. Soledad and nearby sites, including the excavations of the ‘Byzantine’ quarter installed in the Roman theatre, are here discussed with particular attention to the date of the African Red Slip Ware forms and the prevailing view that such deposits, including those found as in situ material in the Roman Theatre can be dated to the historically attested AD 625 destruction of the city by the Visigoths.

KEYWORDS: CARTAGENA, CALLE SOLEDAD, ROMAN THEATRE, BYZANTINE QUARTER, BYZANTINE SPAIN, VISIGOTHS, CARTHAGE, AMPHORAE, AFRICAN RED SLIP WARE, SPATHEIA

Country Region City/civitas Site Locus UTMSpain Murcia Cartagena/

Carthago Spartaria

Calle Soledad Shaft 30 S677955 E4163332 N

Description: ‘well’ or ‘shaft’ fill.

1. Introduction

Excavations since the 1980s in Cartagena have provided ample evidence for the nature of the Byzantine occupation of this major port, Carthago Spartaria (Carthago Nova in the Republic and early Empire), following the Byzantine reconquest of southern Spain in the 550s under Justinian (e.g. Ramallo, Ruiz and Berrocal 1996, with bibliography; Ramallo and Ruiz 2000; Murcia and Guillermo 2003; Murcia Muñoz et al. 2005; Vizcaíno Sánchez 2007).

Many questions remain, notably the nature of Cartagena’s defences, particularly with regard to the well-known inscription set up by Comenciolus, the commander and governor of Byzantine Spain (CIL II 3420). The shoddy character of the Byzantine quarter discovered within the Roman theatre is far from the splendour of Ravenna but it is an invaluable reference point for the range of goods including table wares, amphorae and cooking wares that demonstrate the city’s very special links with Byzantine Carthage (for a discussion of the Byzantine occupation of south-eastern Spain, both ceramic and non-ceramic evidence, see Reynolds 1993: 19-25, 37, 41; 1995: 31-34, 57, 58, 105, 121-122, 137-139; for more recent comment on Byzantine Spain and 6th to 7th century exchange, see Reynolds 2010: Chapter 4).

This paper was originally written and prepared for publication as long ago as 1997, based on my work in 1989 on the classification of the pottery from the Calle Soledad excavations of 1983 (Martínez Andreu 1985). The aim was

to examine the associated pottery and the archaeological evidence for the Byzantine dating of what were thought to have been a tower and part of the town wall circuit constructed during the Byzantine reconquest, theoretically of the same date as the wall and gate celebrated in the inscription set up by Comenciolus.

Subsequent excavations in Cartagena in the 1990s close to Calle Soledad discovered not only the Augustan theatre, but also uncovered evidence that it was remodelled to house within it a street, portico and market-warehouse complex in the 5th century. This building phase was associated with a yellow construction level that was attested also in both Calle Orcel and Calle Soledad (Martínez Andreu 1985: 6-9, fig. 2, Nivel 5). The cavea and stage of the theatre was in turn, in the Byzantine period, transformed into a cluster of simple rectangular rooms and narrow alleys (Ramallo Asensio 2000; Ramallo and Ruiz 2000). The possible Byzantine occupation of the Roman theatre at Lepcis Magna is remarkably similar in character (Ramallo Asensio 2000: 379, fig. 3, who notes that the structures were considered to be Vandal). The ‘triple-arcaded Byzantine defences’ excavated at Calle Soledad have now been reinterpreted as being part of an outer portico associated with the Roman theatre that would have run perpendicular to the back of the stage (porticus post scaenam) (see Fig. 1, for the location with respect to the Roman Theatre; Ruiz Valderas et al. 1994: 59-60; the sections of ‘portico’ excavated in Calle Soledad and Calle Orcel are just about discernable on the plan provided by Ramallo, Ruiz and Berrocal 1996: fig. 1). It has also been

100

LRFW I. Late Roman Fine Wares: Solving Problems of Typology and Chronology

Fig. 2. Cartagena/Carthago Spartaria. Calle Soledad.Plan of excavations (Martínez Andreu 1985: figs 3 and 5).

Fig. 3. Cartagena/Carthago Spartaria. Calle Soledad.Sector B, East section (Martínez Andreu 1985: fig. 2).

1

2

N

N

Fig. 1. Cartagena/Carthago Spartaria. Calle Soledad (no. 1). Roman theatre (no. 2)(location map after Ramallo, Ruiz and Berrocal 1996: fig. 1).


Fig. 2. Cartagena/Carthago Spartaria. Calle Soledad.Plan of excavations (Martínez Andreu 1985: figs 3 and 5).

Fig. 3. Cartagena/Carthago Spartaria. Calle Soledad.Sector B, East section (Martínez Andreu 1985: fig. 2).

1

2

N

N


Fig. 2. Cartagena/ Carthago Spartaria. Calle Soledad.Plan of excavations

(Martínez Andreu 1985: figs 3 and 5).Fig. 3. Cartagena/ Carthago Spartaria. Calle Soledad.Sector B, East section (Martínez Andreu 1985: fig. 2).

101

P. Reynolds: A 7th century pottery deposit from Byzantine Carthago Spartaria

suggested that the theatre served as a defensive nucleus or fort during the Byzantine period (Ramallo, Ruiz and Berrocal 1996: 60).

The Calle Soledad shaft/well deposit presented here can now be seen to be similar to that of several deep pits or shafts that were dug within the theatre and filled with domestic refuse associated with the Byzantine occupation, a time when refuse was no longer disposed of extra-muros (Ruiz Valderas et al. 1994: 60). Similar shafts, whether for food storage, rubbish disposal, latrines, or drainage (given the lack of drainage infrastructure) are a major feature of the Byzantine quarter excavated in the Roman theatre (Vizcaíno Sánchez 2007: 359-366, 399-401, especially fig. 48). Urban rubbish pits are equally a phenomenon of the 5th century and later occupation of Tarragona (Macias i Solé 1999: 435-6).

2. The Calle Soledad excavations and ceramic sequence

As a complement to this new interpretation, I think it is still important ‘for the record’ to present a summary of the pottery associated with the stratigraphic sequence of Calle Soledad published by Martínez Andreu (1985). A summary of the excavations at Calle Soledad has appeared, but no detailed report or analysis of the finds has so far been published (see Fig. 1, for the location; Martínez Andreu 1985). Here figs 2-3 reproduce the plan and section drawings. The excavations have shown that here an Augustan period house and earlier, Republican, levels were sealed in order to construct what was interpreted as a semi-circular ‘tower’ and ‘defensive wall’, both faced with large, well-cut, stone blocks. A wide ‘rampart’ was also provided, supported on three rows of columns resting on square pillars. This interpretation, as I have said, has since been refuted.

2.1. The dating of the excavated sequence

The sequence excavated in Calle Soledad described by Martínez Andreu (1985: 134-137) can be summarised thus:

Nivel 1: Modern buildingNivel 2: Sector B, Burials; Sectors B and D, a well filled with 18th century pottery.Nivel 3: Hispano-moresque burials with sgraffiato ware.

Nivel 4: A layer, c. 50 cm thick in Sector B, of fine bands of ash and burnt earth alternating with clay layers. Sector D was more disturbed (‘confuso’), with the remains of a building comprising two almost parallel walls running E-W, towards Calle Nueva. The walls were roughly built of spolia (column drums, fragments of column shaft, fragments of base [taken from the portico below?] and stones all bonded with earth. At this level the shaft was found (in Sector B) containing the pottery which is presented in this paper. A similar phase at Calle Honda is mentioned. As Martínez Andreu associates the tower and walls with Comenciolus and the Byzantine phase in the city, he dates these poorly constructed buildings to the post-Byzantine, i.e. Visigothic phase, whereas these buildings were presumably

contemporary with the Byzantine houses in the Roman theatre.

Nivel 5: Inside the wall (Sector D), there was a 15-30 cm thick yellow layer composed of small fragments (‘pebbles’) of sandstone (‘cantos de arenisca de pequeño tamaño’), the colour being due to the sandstone (‘se debe a la arenisca fragmentada en pequeños trozos que contiene’). This was thought to be the result of the cutting and preparation of the sandstone blocks that were re-used to face the outer ‘defensive wall’. Though said to have been sterile, there was a little pottery, and none of late Roman date, in this yellow layer (SOL NU B 1515-1519). This layer was later to be equated with the similar deposit associated with the construction of the 5th century tabernae in the theatre (Ruiz Valderas et al. 1994: 59-60).

Above the yellow layer, in Sector A (the lowest part of Nivel 4), the material does not contain anything strictly Byzantine (or Medieval).1 Pottery in Sectors B and D described on the crates as found lying above the yellow layer (SOLNU-B 807-827, 854-867, 893-915 and 971-982; SOLNU-D 372-375), was not catalogued, and this again suggests that it contained nothing late Roman or Byzantine (and certainly not Medieval either).

Nivel 6: This layer is thicker inside the wall (‘recinto’) (i.e. Sector D). ‘Of similar soil colour and texture as that found in Nivel 1-2 (18th-19th century), this layer comprises material from the two main phases of occupation on the site, that of the Augustan town house and that of the late Roman and Byzantine periods’. This level, described as having 1st to 6th century pottery, was interpreted as the make up/levelling up layer over the early Imperial town house, necessary for the construction of the ‘tower’ and ‘walls’ (i.e. the portico of the Theatre).

Indeed, during my work on this material I discovered that the latest fine wares comprise African Red Slip Ware (hence, ARS: Hayes 1972) of early 5th century and early-mid 6th century date, with a few later pieces.2 Of these,

1 Layers SOLNU-B 209-228 (Box 9), 526-551 (‘nothing much’, according to my notes), 552-555Bis (latest = ARS 23), 698-729 (Box 2), 1189-1202 (‘nothing late’), 1520-1529 (Tower/Under Yellow: early); SOLNU-C 1-61: latest is ARS 61; SOLNU-A 37-128/Estrato III, between yellow and Republican floor = Box 77: Reynolds cooking Ware 2 and unclassified/early?; Box 78/SOLNU-A/Estrato III, between yellow and Republican floor: spatheion Keay 26G, LRA 4, Reynolds 1993 Ware 2, Tunisian amphora bases; SOLNU-A/Estrato IVa/Box 85: classified by the excavators as ‘Republican’, this nevertheless includes a late unguentarium, ARS 99B/C, ARS ?94B, and Reynolds 1993, Ware 2; Box 86, also ‘Estrato IVA’ = Republican, includes two rims of LRCW II; Box 95/Est IV, between yellow and Republican/SOLNU-A: ARS 101; SOLNU-D 120-147 (ARS 103 base), 225-245 (ARS 94 and three examples of 103). The latest finds comprise: ARS 61B (2 examples: 5th century), 91C, 91D, 94B, 99A (appears from c. AD 450/475), 99B, 80B/80/99?, 101 (2 examples), 104A and 104C; Fulford Mortar 2.1 (c.500, with floruit from c. 525-c. 550 (?), the rim becoming smaller by c. 575, when Fulford Mortar Form 3 emerges) (Fulford and Peacock 1984: 199-200) and the sole example of a tiny variant which would appear to be Fulford Mortar 32 ‘Inside the tower’ (SOLNU-B 273-341: cleaning; 410-477 (boxes 10, 12); 730-762: cleaning/Box 3); ‘Tower’ (SOLNU-B 1234-1244: 104A, ARS 94/101 base); SOLNU-B 1510-1514: not catalogued, so probably not late Roman-Byzantine.

102


Fig. 4. Cartagena/Carthago Spartaria. Calle Soledad. African Red Slip ware.Construction levels (nos. 1-4). Tower fill (nos. 5-10). Shaft deposit (nos. 20-55).

Fig. 4. Cartagena/Carthago Spartaria. Calle Soledad. African Red Slip ware.Construction levels (nos. 1-4). Tower fill (nos. 5-10). Shaft deposit (nos. 20-55).

103


the latest datable forms are ARS 91D (Fig. 4, no. 1), ARS 99B (no. 2), ARS 104C (no. 3) and Fulford Mortar Form 3 (no. 4) (dated by Fulford to c. 575-625/650+: Fulford and Peacock 1984: 200).

The ‘tower’ fill (i.e. the apsidal portico room fill)3 comprised forms of likely mid to late 5th century date (cf. the aforementioned 5th century market building), one or two 6th century pieces and one 7th century piece: ARS 64, 79, 90 (Fig. 4, no. 5: a more complete example, no. 165, shows this to be form 90), 89/90, 90 (foot), 91A, Fulford 52/Hayes 93-94v, 91B-C (2 examples: Nos. 6-7), 94A variant (no. 8), an unclassified piece (no. 9: within the 94 series? Or 87C?) and an early to mid 7th century variant of ARS 105 (no. 10). The latter is the same variant as several vessels also found within the Calle Soledad material ‘inside the tower’ (nos. 168-171, especially no. 169: see below, end of Section 3.1, present at Marseille-L’Alcazar Phases 2 and 3 (Bien 2005: 149 and fig. 4.16; 2007: fig. 3.41; fig. 7.92).

The only other material of unequivocal late 6th to 7th century Byzantine date is described on the pottery crates as ‘cleaning upper level inside tower’.4 I made no special reference to another group labelled in the same fashion (SOLNU-B 308-341) and this implies that there was nothing distinctive about it (i.e. it was not late Roman or Byzantine).

According to Martinez Andreu (1985: 131, 142) a base classified as ARS 99C was found in the construction trench for the ‘defences’ (‘en la zanja de cimentación de la muralla’). I was unable to locate (and draw) this important piece. This identification thus remains uncorroborated, particularly as I would hesitate to identify 99C or distinguish it from 99B from simply a base fragment. If ARS 99, the fragment would have to date to no earlier than the late 5th century.

2.2. Chronological conclusions

Most of the pottery found as fill in the ‘tower’/portico apsidal wall (as one would expect, the yellow layer, Nivel 5, is not noted as being present here) dates from the mid to late 5th century, but there are some 6th century pieces and one early-mid 7th century vessel (no. 10).

The pottery of Nivel 6 immediately below the yellow layer (Nivel 5) ranges from early-mid 5th century (ARS 61B) to generally no later than c. AD 550, but there is nevertheless a small number of exclusively Byzantine forms of post-c. 550/575 date (ARS 91D and 104C, and the small Fulford Mortar 3) (nos. 1-4), examples of 91D and Mortar 3 being of likely post-AD 575 date. The fact that material of the first half of the 6th century, as well as Byzantine period forms of the late 6th century (+), were found under the yellow construction layer suggests a

3 Box 17 (SOLNU-B 273-307): 91D, 99A/B, 99B/C: 2, 99C, 101, 105, 106, 109 (3 examples)), uncl. SOLNU- B 302.235 and LRC 10A (no. 186).4 SOLNU-A 1-17, Estrato I/Brown over yellow = Box 80: LRA 5, Tunisian jug, W2.

different interpretation from the straightforward one of the sequence presented in later publications, where the yellow layer (‘arenistica’) associated with the construction of the 5th century ‘tabernae’, has been equated with that found in Calle Soledad. One would of course expect finds no later than the 5th century. The construction of the theatre portico should also date to the Augustan period. In Calle Soledad the plan of the column bases for this portico, as well as their position in the section are illustrated, and they rest on top of the yellow layer of nivel 5 (here, figs 2-3). One can either assume that the column bases were removed during a 5th century remodelling of the Augustan building, or that the opus quadratum blocks and columns are not Augustan. There is clearly a problem here that one hopes can be resolved by careful excavation of the plots adjacent to Calle Soledad, if only to document and date the theatre’s ‘portico’ with more certainty. One would certainly appreciate a better plan of the theatre complex and related structures than has been offered so far.

3. The shaft deposit (Sector B)

The ‘well’ or ‘shaft’, as I prefer to call it, that contained the ceramic deposit presented here was built against one of the corners of the semi-circular structure previously identified as one of the towers of the Byzantine circuit, now reinterpreted by some as part of a portico that ran roughly perpendicular to the Roman theatre. The inner face was thus already provided and only the outer section had to be constructed, here of stone without mortar. The lowest part of the shaft cut through the floor of the Augustan town house at the base of the sequence (figs 2-3; Martínez Andreu 1985: fig. 3, Sector B, indicated as a void on his fig. 5 and in the photograph Lamina II).

The maximum date brackets for the ceramic assemblage should theoretically lie within the period AD 589/590-621/625, the date of the sack of Cartagena by Suinthila. It would not be unreasonable, however, to argue that the group dates to within the first two decades of the 7th century. The ceramic range in the deposit is well paralleled by the latest Byzantine phase distinguished in the theatre, where much of the pottery was found in situ in the rooms at the time of their destruction (Ramallo, Ruiz and Berrocal 1996: 148-150, fig. 21 and Table 1, Phase 10.2, dated by the authors to AD 590-c. 625: the pottery is illustrated on their figs 12-19 and 20A). Other early 7th century material from destruction levels inside several other rooms in the Byzantine quarter of the Roman theatre was subsequently published (Ramallo, Ruiz and Berrocal 1997) (see Section 4, Conclusions, for comment on these). A more recent publication offers kitchen wares and some Keay 79 Balearic amphorae from the Byzantine phase of the theatre, as well as Arab pottery of c. AD 850 onwards from the next phase documented in the theatre and in Cartagena as a whole (Murcia and Guillermo 2003).

Material of the later 6th century in the Roman theatre is somewhat different to that of the early 7th century (Ramallo, Ruiz and Berrocal 1996: figs 10.11, Phase 10.3,

104


Cartagena. Calle Soledad a) Fine Wares (Minimum number of vessels) 1. Residual: 6 ARS rims 2. Byzantine (44 ARS rims): ARS Rim Base 90? 1 91D 6 94/Fulford 50 1 99B 4 99B/C 2 99Bv? 2 1 99C 4 101 10 104C 4 105A 1 105.9 1 105 1 Fulford 68 1 107 1 108 1 2? 109A 2 109A/B 3 Unclass. 4 (Lid? 1) Total 44 8 b) Amphorae Residual: Republican‐early Imperial: 4 rims, 1 handle and 1 base Form R B H S Form R B H S Spatheion Keay 26F 1 Egyptian 1 Spatheion Keay 26G 3 1 Lycian unguentarium 1 Spatheion Keay 26G likely 1 2 Spatheion Keay 26 3 Keay 79 1 Buff spatheion/Uncl 4 3 3 8 Keay 50 1 Uncl 1 1 Keay 61B.6/C.8 1 Uncl 2 1 1 Keay 61(D) 1 2 Uncl 3 1 1 Keay 61D 1 Uncl 2/3 2 1 Keay 61D.6/G/H 1 Keay 62A 1 Local buff? 8 Keay 62D 2 2 Unclassified 14 Keay 61/62 2 Local spatheion 4 Keay 62? 1 Tunisian 4 Murcian 2 LRA 1 8 14 Residual LR: LRA 2 1 Keay 19C 1 LRA 5 1 3 Table 1. Cartagena/Cartago Spartaria. Calle Soledad. Summary of Fine wares and Amphorae in the shaft deposit.

Table 1. Cartagena/Cartago Spartaria. Calle Soledad. Summary of Fine wares and Amphorae in the shaft deposit.

105


Fig. 5. Cartagena/Carthago Spartaria. Calle Soledad. Shaft deposit.African Red Slip ware (nos. 56-75). Amphorae (nos. 78-92).

Fig. 5. Cartagena/Carthago Spartaria. Calle Soledad. Shaft deposit.African Red Slip ware (nos. 56-75).

Amphorae (nos. 78-92).

106


dated AD 570-590). Here an initial Byzantine phase was also distinguished (Ramallo, Ruiz and Berrocal 1996: fig. 7 lower and figs 8-9: Phase 10.5 and 10.4, both dated AD 550-570) as well as two ‘pre-Byzantine’ 6th century phases that correspond nevertheless to the preparatory levelling up of the site immediately prior to the construction of the Byzantine houses (Ramallo, Ruiz and Berrocal 1996: 140, figs 5-6, Phase 9.2, dated AD 525-535; fig. 7 top, Phase 9.1, dated AD 535-550). In the Barcelona ICREA/ESF meeting the dating of Phase 9.2 was contested, as there was general agreement that the dating of the pottery in this phase was far too early, given the presence of ARS 104C, ARS 101, 99C and Fulford Mortar 3: see in this volume, Bonifay, Reynolds and Cau, ‘Rethinking some Late Roman deposits and their chronologies’). The actual date of deposition of these ‘make-up’ levels is clearly Byzantine, as is also the material found within them.

A full catalogue of the pottery from the shaft is presented in the Appendix, together with other comparative late Roman-Byzantine material of interest from Cartagena. Table 1 offers a summary of the fine wares and amphorae from the deposit. There was only one imported cooking ware vessel (no. 164). Local or regional coarse wares were observed but not studied.

3.1. Fine wares (figs. 4-5, 8)

ARS was the only fine ware represented (i.e. no Phocean Ware/Late Roman C or Cypriot Late Roman D which did occur in other contexts in these excavations and elsewhere in Cartagena).5 Of a total of 54 ARS rims (the possible lid no. 64 is not included), 16.6% (total 9) are residual 2nd to 4th century forms. Of the remaining rims (total 45), 31.4% (total 15 maximum) can be dated to between AD 575-c. 600: ARS 91D, 6; some examples of 99C with larger rims?: 4; some examples of ARS 101 perhaps; ARS 104C: 4, though this form could date from c. 550, see below; ARS 107: 1, but could date later (see below). A total of 10 minimum (14.8%) can be dated to between c. 590 and the early 7th century (here presumed to be no later than AD 621/625): some examples of ARS 99C with small rims?: 2, including the large fragment, no. 39; ARS 105 (no. 55): 1; ARS 105 variant: 1 (no. 56); ARS 109: 5 (nos. 62 and 63 could be earlier).

The most common forms in the deposit, in order of importance, are ARS 101 (10 examples), ARS 91D (6 examples), ARS 109 (5 examples), ARS 99C (4 examples: less if split into early (2) and late (2) versions), ARS 99B (4 examples) and ARS 104C (4 examples). Several fine ware vessels and amphorae were found complete or near complete in the Calle Soledad deposit: ARS 99 ‘D’ (1 example, 99C with a small rim: no. 39), ARS 101 (nos. 44-

5 For the typology and dating of these wares see Hayes 1972. Both these wares were rare at Calle Soledad and at Cartagena generally. LRC recovered in the excavations: LRC 10A, with a heavy rim, like Hayes (1972, fig. 71.1-3) (no. 186: see note 3, above); and SOLNU-B 1496. LRD 9.1, not rouletted, was present (SOLNU-11.418).

45, two examples) and ARS 109 ‘A/B’ (nos. 59-60, one well preserved); spatheion type 3A or Keay 26G (no. 82, one example) and buff spatheia Bonifay Type 3B (nos. 128-129 (complete), nos. 131, 132, four examples). The possibility that these represent some of the latest vessels in the deposit (i.e. early 7th century) should be borne in mind.

Though Fulford gave an end date for ARS 99C in c. AD 575 (Fulford and Peacock 1984: 71), its late 6th to late 7th century date has been clearly established (Reynolds 1995: Appendix A.1; Bonifay 2004: 181, fig. 96). A high percentage of 99C formed part of the c. AD 655-670 Deposit 30 studied by Hayes at Istanbul (1968: 203, 208; 220 rims = 28.9%, as high as the numbers of ARS 109 and more common than ARS 105; Hayes 1992). It should nevertheless be noted (see Section 4, Conclusions, below), that this deposit contains a very large percentage of residual material of 550-600/620 date (Table 3; see Section 4, Conclusions, below, regarding the 80B/99 and LRC). ARS 99C is also very common in the assemblage dated to the 690s in the Crypta Balbi (Rome) (Saguì, Ricci and Romei 1997; Saguì 1998). In the late 7th century Carthage Michigan Deposit XXI, of a total of 88 vessels, ARS 99C (rare, at 2.3%) and 107 (residual, at 1.1%) were the only forms accompanying what were more common forms (ARS 101: 19.3%, 105: 11.4%, and 109: 23.9%) (Riley 1981, 102; see here Table 2, for a summary of the fine wares from Carthage deposits VII, XXIX and XXI; Riley 1981: 123, fig. 16).

Examples of ARS 99C with small rims found in the shaft deposit (nos. 39-40) and elsewhere at Calle Soledad (no. 180) can be paralleled with examples of 99C illustrated by Hayes from Istanbul (1968: 208, fig. E.44-45), where they were typical versions of the form in Deposit 30: compare with the larger-rimmed versions illustrated in Hayes (1972: fig. 28). Bonifay stated that this variant should be paralleled with the variant 80B/99, also very abundant in the Crypta

ARSVII

Early 6th C

XXIXLate6th C

XXILate7th C

91 13.0 3.2 -93 2.2 4.3 -94 10.9 3.2 -99A-B 13.8 7.4 -99C - 2.1 2.3100 - 3.2 -101 - 31.9 19.3102 2.9 - -103 5.1 2.1 -104 7.2 3.2 -104C - 2.1 -105 - - 11.4107 - 6.4 1.4109 - - 23.9

Table 2. Carthage. University of Michigan. Relative percentage of ARS forms in selected deposits (from

Riley 1981: 123, fig. 16).

107


Balbi 690s context, and proposed to rename it variant 99 ‘D’ (Bonifay 2004: 181 and fig. 96.10). The fact that one small-rimmed example survived almost complete in the Calle Soledad deposit (as did some examples of ARS 100, 101 and 109: see below; no. 39), suggests, in my opinion, that these finer examples of 99C at Cartagena date to the 7th century, but in this case no later than 621/625. Indeed, ARS 99C and ARS 105 comprise the most common fine wares in the latest Byzantine phase of the Cartagena Theatre excavations (Phase 10.2: dated c. AD 590-625).

Finally there was one rim fragment of ARS 108 (no. 31).

The remaining rims (total 19) mostly comprise forms of c. AD 525-550/575 date (total 10 = 18.5%: ARS 94/Fulford 50: 1 (no. 30), ARS 99B: 4, ARS 99Bv: 2, ARS 99B/C: 2, Fulford Form 68 (no. 57),6 and, perhaps, a good number of ARS 101 (10 examples: 16.6%).

The dating of these ten examples of ARS 101 presents a problem (see Fulford and Peacock 1984: 71; Hayes 1972: 156; Reynolds 1995: Appendix A.1). It is likely that form 101 was not exported until after c. 550. Though still clearly produced for the Carthage market throughout the early-late 7th century (cf. Michigan Deposit XXIX and XXI: Riley 1981: 123, fig. 16) (Table 2), the form is generally not exported, even to Constantinople, beyond c. 600 (only two examples in the large group, of c. AD 650-670 date, studied by Hayes 1968). Riley (1981: 123-124) notes that ARS 101 was rare in contemporary (early-mid) 7th century deposits at Tocra. At the Crypta Balbi, the form was fairly scarce c. 698, even though it was clearly contemporary (Saguì 2001: 274 and fig. II.3.51a-b). Though Beirut was supplied with ARS 99C, 104C, 105 and 109 in the late 6th century (+), ARS 101 is not present (BEY 006 5503: see Reynolds Beirut contexts, in this volume). There are nevertheless some exceptions to this rule, notably S. Antonino (Murialdo 2001: 328 and Pl. 329.51-58). The date bracket for the examples of ARS 101 in the shaft deposit could range from between c. 550-c. 600, and into the early 7th century, in the case of the complete examples, nos. 44-45 (i.e. contemporary with the small-rimmed examples of 99C).

A variant example of ARS 105 (no. 56) should be a contemporary late 6th-early 7th century piece, rather than earlier (i.e. the inner rim moulding is related to that of form 105: ARS 106 is always plain on the inside).

The 7th century stages in the evolution of ARS 109 were kindly explained by John Hayes to Michel Bonifay, Miguel Angel Cau Ontiveros and me on the day prior to the Barcelona ESF/ICREA Workshop meeting. The examples of ARS 109, of which one offers a complete profile (no. 59),

6 If paralleled by a complete example from Calle Orcel, no. 182. A good parallel, though with a steeped wall, is from the ‘AD 650-700’ Deposit XXIV at the Michigan-Carthage excavations (Hayes 1978: 50, fig. 12.8, that Hayes thought to be related to ARS 106). Other parallels from British-Carthage excavations, though with more hooked rims were classified as Fulford 68 (Fulford and Peacock 1984: 74, fig. 21). The only certain examples of Form 68 were from 7th century levels.

are medium-thin-walled with a small flat base, more like a bowl than a dish. In contrast, examples from Carthage (Fig. 10c; Hayes 1978: 23, for the c. 650-700 dating of Deposits XXIV and XXV, and more secure late 7th century dating of Deposit XXI), Saraçhane (Hayes 1968; 1992: 100-105, c. AD 655-670; Fig. 10e) and the later examples from the Crypta Balbi, deposited by AD 698 on the evidence of the coins (Saguì 1998: fig. 3.7-8), as well as examples from Sidi Jdidi and Nabeul (Fig. 10b, top right; Bonifay 2004: fig. 99.14 and 16, Hayes 109 Type B), which all represent the final version of the shape, are thinner-walled and have a progressively flatter and wider floor. Note that the Sidi Jdidi piece was associated with a coin of Constantine IV (AD 652-685) (Fig. 10b; Bonifay 2004: no. 14). The rim and separate base from Carthage Deposit XXIV are nevertheless fairly close in shape to the Cartagena pieces. There is clearly a difference between the latter base and that of the more securely dated late 7th century piece of Deposit XXI. Nevertheless, both these last pieces from Carthage are much more thin-walled than the Cartagena examples.

As already stated by Stephane Bien (2005b: 149 and fig. 4.12-13, Hayes 109 ‘A/B’), one may need therefore to add another variant to Michel Bonifay’s Type series, to be located in between his types A and B. Bonifay’s variant Hayes 109C (Fig. 10b, bottom right), an example also from the Crypta Balbi, a type which he dates to the second half of the 7th century, is thin-walled and has a bowl-like body, like the Cartagena pieces, but has a ring foot. For the thick-walled, early version of ARS 109, Type A (Fig. 10b, bottom left), Bonifay suggests a date range of the late 6th to mid 7th centuries, the end date perhaps to be lowered if the Cartagena evidence is accepted. Bonifay’s dating of the Benalúa vessels, the earliest, transitional version, between ARS 87 and 109, to the ‘last third’ of the 6th century (Fig. 10b, top left; Bonifay 2004: 189), may not have taken into consideration the fact that the fine ware assemblage of Benalúa did not contain ARS 91D or 105. It was for this reason, primarily, that I dated the assemblage, and in fact only the latest pieces, to no later than c. 575/580, the majority of this dumped material dating to the mid 6th century (Reynolds 1987; 1995: Appendix C.1). See also the example from a mid-6th century (+) context of Mátaro/Iluro (Revilla in this volume, fig. 7.4).

Finally, given their importance for a review of the full range and date of Byzantine imports found in Calle Soledad, and Cartagena in general, I have taken the opportunity here to illustrate all examples of ARS 105 from Calle Soledad, as well as complete examples of rare Byzantine ARS forms from other levels in the excavations at Calle Soledad, Calle Palas and Calle Orcel (ARS 99B or C, 99 C or ‘D’?), 100, Fulford 68 and ARS 108) (nos. 178-182, 184,185).

ARS 105 variant ‘A’ (Bonifay 2004: 183-185 and fig. 98) from Calle Soledad comprise nos. 55, 172-177. Of these, figs 55 and 177 are unusual, thin-walled versions. The presence of a distinctive ARS 105 variant, included within Bonifay’s 105B (Bonifay 2004: 183-185, fig. 98.9), thin-walled with a small rim, has already been noted, though no examples

108


Fig. 6. Cartagena/Carthago Spartaria. Calle Soledad. Shaft deposit. Amphorae.

Fig. 6. Cartagena/ Carthago Spartaria. Calle Soledad. Shaft deposit. Amphorae.

109


occurred in the Shaft Deposit (nos. 166-167). An example of this variant from Marseille-L’Alcazar (Phase 3) is dated to the third quarter of the 7th century (Bien 2007: fig. 3.42). A similar variant is more common at Calle Soledad. This differs in that the inner rim moulding is markedly broader than that of the outer moulding, and is well-defined (nos. 168-170). A very similar piece was found as part of the ‘tower’ fill, beneath the yellow layer (no. 10: see above, Section 2.1). Vessel no. 171 is similar to the latter variant, but is distinguished further by having the inner moulding bevelled flat and a pronounced rim undercut. This type, not included in Bonifay’s typology (2004), appears in Marseille-L’Alcazar Phase 2, dated to the second quarter of the 7th century (Bien, 2005: 149 and fig. 4.16) and Phase 3 (dated to the third quarter of the 7th century) (Bien 2007: fig. 3.41; fig. 7.92, from the final phase on the site, is similar in shape, but not in this ware?). For further comment on the Marseille dating of these variants, see below, Section 4, Conclusions.

3.2. Amphorae (figs. 6-9)

Possible examples of local or regional products were rare (or residual?). No rims were present (e.g. amphora/flagons in Reynolds 1993, local Murcian Ware 2: nos. 162-163; buff amphora no. 154; spatheia nos. 157-160; handles nos. 133-139; cf. 14 unclassified handles, i.e. non-Tunisian/Eastern: nos. 140-153).

Tunisian and eastern Mediterranean forms are both found in relatively large numbers. The dominance of LRA 1 within the Eastern Mediterranean range is clear (8 examples: nos. 105-107, 115). The presence of an unusually large Lycian unguentarium should be noted (no. 123) (Hayes 1971; see Reynolds 2010, note 427, for the attribution of hard-fired examples to Lycia, and Japp 2005, for a kiln site producing them, including stamped examples, inland, at Kibyra; Berrocal Caparrós 1996, for other examples in Cartagena). Imports of LRA 5 (1 rim, 3 handles), LRA 2 (1 example), and an Egyptian amphora (1 shoulder fragment) were also present (nos. 116, 117 and 121).

The absence of LRA 4, from Gaza seems significant (there were 9 rims from other levels at Calle Soledad and the form was relatively common in the mid 6th century Benalúa/Alicante deposit: Reynolds 1995: 196-197, 5 rims; 2010, Table 22, = 4.6% of the total amphorae). Indeed, in the Cartagena Roman theatre excavations only one example of LRA 4 was found, in a context of the first half of the 5th century (Ramallo, Ruiz and Berrocal 1996: Phase 8.2, fig. 3.13). A detailed discussion of the complex distribution and possible re-distribution (e.g. from Carthage) of Palestinian amphorae in the late 6th and 7th centuries in the western Mediterranean, including Cartagena, and in the Atlantic (the route to Britain) is offered in Reynolds (2010: Chapter 4).

The range of Tunisian forms is restricted to spatheia Keay 26G/Bonifay type 3A (minimum 5 vessels), buff spatheia Bonifay Type 3B (5 examples), Keay 61 (4 examples), Keay 50 (1 example), and Keay 62 (Type A: 1 example, Type D: 2

examples) (respectively, nos. 82, 86-89, nos. 128-132, nos. 90-93, no. 94, and nos. 95-97).

The Byzantine, rather than Vandal, introduction of particular variants found in this deposit was argued by the author elsewhere and also by Bonifay, who has revised Keay´s typology (Bonifay 2004; Reynolds 1995: 57-60: Keay 26G, 61B.6/61C, 61D and 62D; also Reynolds 2004, with respect to Keay’s redating of his Vandal forms to the Byzantine period: Keay 1998).

Strong parallels were cited in Reynolds (1993) between the range of Tunisian amphorae at Byzantine Cartagena and those of several western Mediterranean sites: at Marseille-La Bourse in levels of the late 6th-early 7th centuries (Period 2B) and mid? 7th century (Period 3) (Bonifay 1986); those found as survey material on the strategically placed Byzantine hilltop site on the Cerro de San Miguel (Orihuela) (c. 55km to the north of Cartagena) (Reynolds 1993: 58, Site 63), and Tunisian amphorae at the Byzantine (and post-byzantine?) hilltop fort of S. Antonino di Perti (Murialdo 2001). We may now add to these the port of Koper (Capodistria, just south of Trieste), where late 6th to 7th century Tunisian imports of amphorae and fine wares are abundant (Cunja 1996), and the key 7th century assemblages published from Marseille-L’Alcazar (Bien 2005a, 2007) (see Reynolds 2010: Chapter 4, for a review of the late 6th to 7th century distribution of pottery in the Mediterranean and Atlantic).

In the Cartagena Roman theatre excavations, Keay 26G/Bonifay spatheion 3A appears solely in Phases 10.5-4, dated to AD 550-570 (Ramallo, Ruiz and Berrocal 1996: fig. 8.152, fig. 9.173). Keay 61 and 62 variants are the only types of Tunisian amphorae present in Byzantine levels in the theatre. In fact, Keay 61, including Type D, is present solely in the latest Byzantine phase (Ramallo, Ruiz and Berrocal 1996: fig. 16; fig. 18.240; fig. 18.238; 61D: fig. 13; fig. 19.253; Keay 50: fig. 18.239).

We may note here that the variant Henchir Chekaf type III, a late variant of Keay 62, was found in the latest Byzantine phase in the Roman theatre (Ramallo, Ruiz and Berrocal 1996: fig. 241). Though absent in the shaft deposit, two examples were found in the Calle Soledad excavations (nos. 187-188). The variant should also be considered a Byzantine, rather than Vandal, introduction as it was found in late 6th century levels in Marseille (Bonifay 1986: fig. 12.55) and S. Antonino di Perti (Murialdo 2001: Pl. 9.42). This is equivalent to Bonifay Type 47, probably produced at the east-central Tunisian site of Henchir ech-Chekhaf (Ksouf Essaf). Bonifay suggests a date in the late 6th and first half of the 7th century for this type (Bonifay 2004: 139-40; see also Nacef 2007: fig. 3.17-18).

The supply of some imported amphorae, illustrated by finds in the shaft deposit, indicates a significant degree of ‘special’ contacts between so far unidentified, specific sources and the Byzantine city:

110


Fig. 7. Cartagena/Carthago Spartaria. Calle Soledad. Shaft deposit.Amphorae (nos. 128-163). Aegean frying pan (no. 164).

Fig. 7. Cartagena/Carthago Spartaria. Calle Soledad. Shaft deposit.Amphorae (nos. 128-163).

Aegean frying pan (no. 164).

111


a) One rim would seem to be Keay 50 (no. 94). An-other similar piece from elsewhere in Calle Soledad (no. 190) has, in contrast to the narrow-bodied type piece presented by Bonifay (2004: 142, fig. 76, Type 51.1), a wide body and tronco-conical neck, so it is perhaps closer to type “con orlo a fascia” (Bonifay 2004: amphora Type 52) (both forms are actually grouped under the same heading). As already noted, another example of this variant was found in the Cartagena Roman theatre excavations in the latest Byzantine phase, dated AD 590-625 (Ramallo, Ruiz and Berrocal 1996: fig. 18.239). Apart from the Car-thage pieces, a tentative parallel can be made with certain ‘Tunisian’ amphorae found at the Byzan-tine fort of S. Antonino di Perti (Murialdo 2001: Pl. 11.73). Bonifay assigns a date for these two forms in the second half of the 7th century. This dating may have to be lowered if the dating of the Cartagena contexts is accepted.

b) Keay 61C/Henchir Chekaf type II (no. 90). The same variant and fabric is present at Cerro de San Miguel (Orihuela), to the north of Cartagena, with surface finds of ARS 99C, 101 and 105A, and ampho-rae Keay 61D and Keay 62 (Reynolds 1993: Plate 106.980). Other examples are known at Marseille (Bonifay 1986: fig. 11.47; Bien 2007: fig. 1.19, in Phase 1, dated to the early 7th century), S. Antonino di Perti (Murialdo 2001: Pl. 8.18), Tarragona and Barcelona (i.e. Keay 1984, already cited). The vari-ant is particularly common, in fact the most common Tunisian variant, at the port of Koper (Capodistria) (Cunja 1996: fig. 21.245-251; fig. 22.253-256). It occurs on kiln sites on the central Tunisian coast (Peacock, Bejaoui and Ben Lazreg 1989: 187-188, 194, fig. 10.6, fig. 18.6?). This is Bonifay’s Type 48 (2004, fig. 75A) and, like the Keay 62 variant figs 187-188 noted above, is also probably a product of Henchir ech-Chekhaf (Ksouf Essaf) (Nacef 2007).

c) A vessel similar to Keay 61D.6 is a distinctive Tu-nisian variant in the Calle Soledad deposit (no. 93). Indeed, two almost identical examples were found at Marseille-La Bourse in the late 6th-early 7th century Period 2B (Bonifay 1986: fig. 11.49 and especially no. 48; see now Bonifay 2004: fig. 75.1). An exam-ple from Marseille-L’Alcazar is dated to the early 7th century (Bien 2007: fig. 1.20, Phase 1). A similar vessel was also found in the latest Byzantine level in the Cartagena Roman theatre excavations, though the rim is not so squat (Ramallo, Ruiz and Berrocal 1996: fig. 14.225).

d) Alongside the more typical small Tunisian spatheia Keay 26G/Bonifay spatheion type 3A (in several fabrics: red, buff-cored, and greenish/Bizerte?), with typical ‘a steccature’ smoothing of the body, is a similar number of thinner-walled buff spatheia in the deposit (nos. 128-132). The double faceted rim face, the lower section being concave, is a dis-tinctive feature. Three were found almost complete

in the shaft and this is taken as evidence for their early 7th century date. Another occurred in the de-struction levels of Room 17 in the Byzantine quarter (Ramallo, Ruiz and Berrocal 1997: fig. 11.4). Buff spatheia are typical finds on late 6th to 7th century sites (see Bonifay 2004 for refs). They were notably absent in the Benalúa assemblage, thus supporting its proposed end date of c. 575/580.

A type of spatheion recently identified as a product of Nabeul, in a phase dominated by a shift to the production of buff-coloured wares (Bonifay 2004: 127-9, Type 33C) and dated to the second half of the 7th century (+), is absent from the shaft deposit. Typologically closer are the two examples from the Yassi Ada wreck, dated to after 625 (reproduced as Bonifay 2004: fig. 69, Type 33B; Bass and van Dorninck 1982: fig. 8.18). The vessel already not-ed, published from the Roman theatre excavations at Málaga, is identical (Acién Almansa et al. 2003: 412, fig. 2.18). The fact that Bonifay (2004: 127, 129) notes that an atelier at Moknine produced the spatheion variant Type D is particularly interesting, given that Moknine was thought by Peacock to have been the source of his buff fabric 2.4 (a fine-grained, buff-tan ware), one of the most important sources of plain forms as well as mortars at Carthage (Fulford and Peacock 1984). Another major source of (green-ish) buff plain wares and mortars for Carthage (Pea-cock fabric 2.5) was probably located in the region of Bizerte (this is indeed the prevalent ware at Raf Raf: pers. obs.). Given the location there of major fish sauce installations, it is not surprising to find that spatheia, in this case Keay 26G, are also found in ‘Raf Raf’ fabric (e.g. no. 86).

e) Unclassified Amphora 1A, with its pinched rim and arched handles, in a buff fabric, was a distinctive import in the shaft deposit (no. 126). For a pos-sible parallel (cf. characteristic handles and rim) at Ravenna-Classe see Maioli and Stoppioni Piccoli (1989: 572, no. 6). Another shoulder/handle of Un-classified Form 1A or B, found elsewhere at Calle Soledad, bore a red dipinto ‘MEN’, in large letters.

f) Unclassified Amphora 1B has the same fabric and handles as Unclassified Form 1A and is likely to be a variant of the same form, with a band rim (no. 127). Two near complete examples were found in the Cartagena Roman theatre excavations in the latest Byzantine Phase, dated to c. AD 590-625 (Ramallo, Ruiz and Berrocal 1996: fig. 12.221 and fig. 15.222; a photograph of, presumably, another complete ex-ample from Cartagena is reproduced by Vizcaíno Sánchez (2009: 613, fig. 76). Two ‘mushroom’ toes found in the shaft deposit can now be safely attribut-ed to this form (nos. 155-156). Four rims of this type or a variant of it (the inner rim face being indented a little) were also found in the Cartagena Plaza de los Tres Reyes excavations (e.g. no. 189). A similar vessel occurred in the Roman theatre excavations in Málaga (Acién Almansa et al. 2003: fig. 2.17).

112


Fig. 8. Cartagena/Carthago Spartaria. Pottery of interest from other contexts, mostly from Calle Soledad.African Red Slip ware (nos. 166-185). Late Roman C ware (no. 186). Amphorae (nos. 187-189).

Fig. 8. Cartagena/Carthago Spartaria. Pottery of interest from other contexts, mostly from Calle Soledad.

African Red Slip ware (nos. 166-185). Late Roman C ware (no. 186). Amphorae (nos. 187-189).

113


Fig. 9. Cartagena/Carthago Spartaria. Calle Soledad. African amphora.

190

Fig. 9. Cartagena/Carthago Spartaria. Calle Soledad. African amphora.

Several complete examples of this form have recently been published from Ibiza (Fig. 11; Ramón Torres 2008: 574, fig. 7.1-3, RE-103a-b). These vessels, with their cylindrical bodies, demonstrate that the form is indeed based on north African amphorae, perhaps Keay 31 or 32. They were classified as Ibizan products. Indeed, the Unclassified Amphora 1A-B clearly does not have a typical Tunisian fabric, though it is classified as such in the Cartagena Roman theatre excavations (see above). This may be so, but one should also bear in mind the possibility that these amphorae could be Sicilian or possibly related to the production of the north Tunisian buff spatheia.

Finally, the distinct sources of spatheion Keay 26G imports at Benalúa/Alicante (Peacock Carthage fabric 2.5 = Reynolds 1993: Ware 11fC) and Cartagena (predominantly

the so-called ‘Carthage-Nabeul?’ Peacock Carthage fabric 2.1) should be noted.7

3.3. Coarse wares (Fig. 7)

Though Aegean cooking pots (Fulford Casserole 35) and Tunisian imported cooking wares and mortars were present in other levels excavated at the site — a relatively small

7 Calle Soledad: Shaft deposit (Keay 26G: 4 in Carthage 2.1 fabric; Keay 26F: 1 in unclassified fabric); Other levels, Calle Soledad: Keay 26D and ‘Keay 26’ in Peacock 2.1 fabric, ‘Keay 26’ not Peacock fabrics 2.1 or 2.5; Plaza de los Tres Reyes: Keay 26G, 3 in Peacock fabric 2.1, Keay 26 in unclassified fabric, 26 handle in quartz dominant fabric (not Peacock Fabric 2.5), 3 examples in Peacock Fabric 2.5 (Keay 26G, Keay 26i, Keay 26). i.e. of a total of 16, three were in Fabric 2.5, with no examples appearing in the shaft deposit.

114


a) Calle Soledad:

e) Saraçhane,Deposit 30:

d) Tocra:

c) Carthage:

b) From Bonifay 2004, fig. 99:

Hayes 87/109

Deposit XXVDeposit XXIV

Hayes 109 ‘Hayes 109 ‘A’

Deposit XXI

Hayes 109 ‘B’

Fig. 10. 7th century stages in the evolution of ARS 109.

AD 640s

c. 655-670

c. 625 (+?)

end 7thC

Fig. 10. 7th century stages in the evolution of ARS 109.

115


percentage in comparison to local/Murcian cooking wares (Reynolds 1993: Ware 2) — there was only one example of imported coarse ware in the shaft deposit. This was the Aegean frying pan Fulford Dish 5, in a ware that, in my view, seems to be related to that of the early to mid Roman Phocean cooking pots and kettles (no. 164; Fulford and Peacock 1984: 26, 191, in Ware 3.12: Reynolds 1993: 135, Ware 9.1; Waksman and Tréglia 2007: in their chemical analyses of Aegean cooking wares unfortunately did not consider this possibility and include the earlier ware in their analyses). The form was a common (mid 6th century) import at Benalúa (Reynolds 1993: Plate 57.662-663; 1995: 233-234: 13 examples). The form occurs in Marseille-Bourse in contexts of the second half of the 5th to early 6th centuries (Waksman and Tréglia 2007: 645, fig. 1) and there is an example of theoretically mid or late 7th century date found at Marseille-L’Alcazar (Bien 2005a: 288, fig. 9.7). Though a large number of examples of the shape found in a deposit in Beirut (site BEY 002) have been dated to the mid or second half of the 7th century (Waksman and Tréglia 2007: 646), the cautionary note that the deposit contained much 5th and 6th century material is helpful. Indeed, such a late date for the supply in quantity of this ware to Beirut seems unlikely. In the early 7th century c. 350kg deposit BEY 006 5503 there were only 4 examples, completely outnumbered by imports of north Palestinian brittle wares.

4. Conclusions

The presence of the Byzantine army and civil service in Carthago Spartaria (and absence in the modern province of Alicante, technically under Byzantine control) must surely account for the major contrast in the distribution, range and quantity of fine ware and amphora imports from Byzantine Africa supplied to Cartagena and late Roman sites in Alicante.

The closest parallel for the supply of fine wares and amphorae at Cartagena comes from another Byzantine military site, S. Antonino di Perti, in north-western Italy. The exceptional quantities of Tunisian imports at Koper in the northern Adriatic also offer a strong parallel for the range encountered at Cartagena. In Koper, however, the range is limited to Tunisian amphorae and fine wares, principally Central Tunisian in origin, Tunisian coarse wares being absent. At Koper eastern Mediterranean imports are also absent (fine wares) or rare (amphorae: with the notable exception of Gazan LRA 4).

At Cartagena, imported amphorae are an indication of strong links with northern (Carthage region?) and central Tunisian ports. The presence of amphorae from the Balearics, also under Byzantine control, is also significant and it is possible that the islands may have played a role in the redistribution of goods from Roman Africa (Reynolds 2010, for further discussion). Eastern Mediterranean products may have reached Cartagena indirectly, being offloaded and redistributed from Carthage, rather than via the Balearics, as eastern amphorae of this date are not very common on the island.

The date of the ‘destruction’ levels of the Byzantine quarter (they are always described as such in the excavation reports) and their equation with the historically recorded destruction of Cartagena by the Visigoths and subsequent abandonment (the city was ‘in desolationem’ ‘in desolation’ or ‘deserted’, Isidore of Seville wrote somewhat figuratively: Reynolds 1993, 34, note 27) is not without contention. Indeed, Michel Bonifay, in part considering the 7th century sequence published from Marseille-L’Alcazar, has suggested (pers. comm.) that this phase represents not the Visigothic destruction of late Byzantine occupation c. 621-625, but Visigothic-period phase of occupation preceding the Arab conquest in 713 (for the treaty made with the Visigothic commander Theudimer, and the seven towns in south-eastern Spain he agreed to hand over to the Arabs, which, notably, does not include Cartagena, the Visigothic capital at that time being located at Orihuela, see Reynolds 1993, 27-29). The presence of glazed wares in the latest phase of the Roman theatre excavations could also be taken as supporting evidence for a later date: these occur at Tarragona, Valencia, Barcelona and other Spanish sites (Reynolds 2010, 131 and note 488).

These not unreasonable, cautious points are recognised by Ramallo Asensio, who, nevertheless, holds firm to the 620s Visigothic destruction date (2000: 595-596, note 45). Indeed, surely one would have expected Visigothic coinage in the in situ deposits, if they date to the second half of the 7th century, and that such finds would have already been noted by Ramallo Asensio? Though Visigothic mints were established in a considerable number of former Byzantine-held centres, including Málaga (coins of Sisenand, AD 631-636), Cartagena was not one of these, and Visigothic coinage appears not to have been found in the Roman theatre or in Cartagena in general: there are references solely to finds of Byzantine coins (Vizcaíno Sánchez 2007: 687-725). In fact small bronze coins found in the Calle Soledad and Calle Orcel excavations were identified as products of the Byzantine mint of Carthago Spartaria and have been found so far solely in Cartagena, Tolmo de Minateda and in Menorca, the island being a somewhat exceptional findspot for Byzantine coinage in general (Vizcaíno Sánchez 2007; reproduced in Reynolds 1993: figs 21-22, from Lechuga Galindo and Méndez Ortiz 1988).

A comment here should be made about the Byzantine occupation of Málaga. In Reynolds (2010: notes 442 and 454), in linking the in situ deposits of the Roman theatres of both Málaga and Cartagena, I failed to recognize the fact that Málaga fell to the Visigoths a little earlier, during campaigns of Sisebut (613-615/616), its bishop Teodolfus signing at the 619 council held at Sevilla (Vizcaíno Sánchez 2007: 159-168). That a Visigothic mint was established at Málaga under Sisenand does allow for continuity of occupation in the city under Visigothic rule, but this phase has so far not been traced archaeologically. In contrast to Cartagena, most of the fine wares from ‘Byzantine’ levels excavated in the theatre of Málaga, however, need not date later than the mid 6th century (Acién Almansa

116


1

2

3

Fig. 11. Ibiza. Ibizan imitations of African amphorae (Ramón Torres 2008: 574, fig. 7.1-3).

Fig. 11. Ibiza. Ibizan imitations of African amphorae (Ramón Torres 2008: 574, fig. 7.1-3).

et al. 2003; Serrano Ramos 1997-1998, for the LRC, that includes single examples of LRC 10A and B as the latest finds). It is unclear if one vessel is ARS 109 or the mid 6th century version found at Benalúa (Acién Almansa et al. 2003: fig 1.11). Quite a range of ARS 99 are illustrated (Acién Almansa et al. 2003: fig.1.6-9). Whereas one Gazan amphora (Acién Almansa et al. 2003: fig. 2.22) is relatively late, another (Acién Almansa et al. 2003: fig. 2.23) must be a 5th century piece. In this respect, the clear presence of buff spatheia type Bonifay 3B (like those of the Calle Soledad shaft deposit, Acién Almansa et al. 2003: 412, fig. 2.18), should be noted as possible evidence for their pre-7th century date (as no 7th century ARS was found associated with them) (contra: Bonifay 2004: 127-129). However, the full sequence of deposits from the site, including an indication of what comprised the material of the final phase, needs to be presented in order to offer a more qualitative interpretation.

Given the 7th century development of ARS 109 outlined above and the strong parallels with Marseille-L’Alcazar Phase 2 (c. 625-650) in the case of the Shaft Deposit, the argument against a Byzantine date for the Calle Soledad Shaft Deposit and the final, in situ deposits of the Roman theatre would seem to require more firm evidence in contra (see also the early 7th century assemblages from the ‘destruction levels’ of rooms 17, 21, 27 of the Byzantine

quarter: Ramallo, Ruiz and Berrocal 1997, where the sole example of ARS 109 appears to be of medium thickness and the range of other finds, including ARS 99B, ARS 99B/C, a complete ARS 105A, Keay 26G and a buff spatheion like our figs 128-130, seems appropriate for the early 7th century, rather than later).

One could argue that the examples of two ARS 105 variants (nos. 168-171) present in Calle Soledad and attested in Marseille-L’Alcazar Phase 3 (dated by Stephane Bien to the third quarter of the 7th century), but not present in the Shaft Deposit or the Roman theatre Excavations, provide evidence for continuity of imports into the second half of the 7th century. But, to play the Devil’s Advocate, one should also bear in mind that the sequence in Marseille, like most archaeological sequences, is a sequence without absolute dates. The coin of 668-685 in Phase 4, one could also argue, gives a post-quem date for the deposition of the material, not necessarily the date of the material itself. Does the start of the Marseille-L’Alcazar sequence, Phase 1, date to the late 6th century or c. 600 rather than later?: all the Palestinian brittle wares in that phase are in circulation before the 7th century in Beirut; there is a Fulford Mortar form 2/Hayes Class 1 (duly noted by Bien), where one would have expected a Fulford Form 3 (Bien 2007: 274 and fig. 1.24); the ARS 109A is quite thick-walled (Bien 2007: fig. 1.5). As already noted, Bonifay’s start date for

117


the intermediate ARS 87B/109 surely needs to be lowered to the mid 6th century, which would also, in theory, lower the date of the introduction of his 109A; and Keay 61C (Bien 2007: fig. 1.19) is not exclusively a 7th century form.

However, as we have seen, taking a closer look at the various publications of Marseille-L’Alcazar, it emerges

that the Period 3 variant of Bonifay 105B.9 was indeed present earlier, in Phase 2 (Bien 2005: 149 and fig. 4.16) , but was omitted from Bien’s later summary of the phased sequence (2007). This variant thus does not necessarily date to the ‘third quarter’ of the 7th century. Bien (2007: 264), furthermore, classified his fig. 2.28 as ARS 80B/99, with reference (2005: 150) to the date of these in Hayes

Table 3. Istanbul. Saraçhane Deposit 30. Summary of fine wares (from Hayes 1968).

Istanbul. Saraçhane. Deposit 30

Latest coins suggest a deposition date of c. 650‐670. ARS: c. 760 fragments (i.e. rims and bases) 91 10 Nos. 51‐52 and 8 other fragments of various versions of the form. Did not illustrate

91D, so perhaps absent? 93A 1 No. 57. Residual 12/110 1 No. 58. Residual 99 (C) c. 220 Most with small rims and low feet, undecorated; a few are stamped; ‘Mostly ca.

550‐600+’ 100 7 No. 53. Rounded band rim. A few high feet may go with these (or no. 54). 100/101 2 No. 54. Like 101, with double groove‐moulding on outside 104 B and C c. 25‐30 No. 47: 104B with E(ii) stamped decoration. No. 46: 104C, well preserved, with

stamp, rather worn. Others, mostly of ARS 104C. 105 c. 150 Only one sherd illustrated: no. 40 (variant A?). Fulford 67 = Antioch 801?

8 No. 48. Burnish slip inside

Fulford 67 = Antioch 801?

A few fragments No. 49. High ring foot base. Burnished. Base of this form?

107 1 large fragment, rather worn; 10 small fragments

No. 50.

108 A few fragments No. 55. Base no. 56, classified as 108 (a few similar fragments). So very rare. 109 c. 210 Large size and near continuous burnishing of no. 41 are unusual; nos. 42‐43, with

spiral line‐burnishing on the interior, are more normal. Illustrated examples have a small band foot: c. 210 frs, mostly as 42, 43. ‘Ca. 580/600‐650’

Phocean Late Roman C: 1300+ fragments (rims and bases) LRC 10A‐B c. 620‐630 rims; bases

ca. 300 max. Nos. 59‐61. LRC 10 is the standard shape in the deposit. NB. ‘Almost all of the frs. have heavy rims as 59‐61’, i.e. LRC 10A‐B.

LRC 10C c. 30‐40 Nos 62‐64. The 7th century variant LRC 10C is ‘relatively uncommon’. LRC 9 Several No. 65. Note that Hayes either redrew LRC 9.l or it is a different vessel to the one

he says in LRP it represents (1968, no. 65; 1972, 342). LRC 3 c. 50 Not illustrated. LRC 3 (Antioch 940‐946). So all no later than the mid or 6th

century. Residual. Cypriot Late Roman D: c. 160‐180 fragments (rims and bases) LRD 11 basins c. 150 Nos. 67‐70. LRD 9C/10 2 No. 71 LRD 7 var. 1 No. 72. Other Fine Wares a) Light‐coloured Late Roman Ware: c. 70 fragments (rims and bases) b) Egyptian: 2 c) Central Greek Painted Ware: 2 d) Athenian: 1 e) Macedonian?: 1‐2 f) Local Red Slip Ware: c. 400 fragments (rims and bases) g) Mica‐dusted Ware: c. 90 fragments

Table 3. Istanbul. Saraçhane Deposit 30. Summary of fine wares (from Hayes 1968).

118


Saraçhane (1992). However, Hayes, in his original article (1968) classified these two type pieces as ARS 99(C) and in LRP states that the variant 80B/99 differs from 99C, not because of its rim, but because the ‘wall is steeper’ (1972: 155). If this is indeed the distinction to be made, then the L’Alcazar ‘80B/99’s and the Calle Soledad examples are to be classified as ARS 99C, not ARS 80B/99. It should also be noted that though the deposition of Saraçhane Deposit 30 dates to 650-670, Hayes makes it very clear that the vast majority of the fine wares are of much earlier date, namely 550-600/620 (see here Table 3 for a breakdown of the relative quantities of fine ware forms). This is particularly clear in the case of LRC 10A-B (c. 620-630 rims, 300 max. bases, some of which would be 10C) versus LRC 10C (only 20-30 rims). Surely this ration of 6th to 7th century LRC should apply equally to that of the ARS (and other finds)? ARS 91 is also rare, with no ARS 91D being illustrated. There are few examples of ARS 100 (rare, 7 examples), ARS 101 is absent, ARS 107 is clearly residual (1 large, worn fragment, and 10 small fragments) and 108 is rare (‘a few fragments’).

In my opinion, none of the material in the Shaft Deposit or those excavated in the Roman theatre need necessarily date later than 625. Even if the parallels from L’Alcazar Phase 2 are roughly correctly dated, we are not far from the theoretical destruction date of 625: we are not here, in Cartagena, in the second half of the 7th century. I would therefore still maintain that the theatre and the Calle Soledad Shaft deposit should be recognised as valuable, in the case of the in situ ceramics, in my opinion historically well-dated, key assemblages for the early 7th century, and c. 621/625 in particular.

Acknowledgments

I would like here to thank Pedro San Martín Moro and Dr Miguel Martínez Andreu for allowing me access to unpublished material from excavations in Cartagena (in 1989). My warmest regards are also given to Maria Dolores Laiz Reverte, Elena Ruiz Valderas and Mari-Carmen Berrocal and all others at the Museo Arqueológico Municipal de Cartagena for their help and kindness during my stay at Cartagena in 1989. The work was funded by a Senior Fellowship from the Vicente Cañada Blanch Foundation, to which body I am indebted. Finally, I am most grateful to Michel Bonifay for his guidance in the classification of the ARS and amphorae of this Cartagena assemblage, even though we are not in total agreement as to their interpretation.

Bibliography

Acién Almansa, M., Castaño Aguilar, J.M., Navarro Luengo, I., Salado Escaño, J.B., and Vera Reina, M. (2003), Cerámicas tardorromanas y altomedievales en Málaga, Ronda y Morón, in L. Caballero, P. Mateos

and M. Retuerce (eds.), Cerámicas tardorromanas y altomedievales en la Península Ibérica. Ruptura y continuidad. (II Simposio de Arqueología. Mérida 2001), Anejos de Archivo Español de Arqueología XXVIII, Instituto de Arqueología de Mérida, Madrid: 411-454.

Bass, G.F. and Van Doorninck, F.H. (1982), Yassi Ada, I: a seventh century Byzantine shipwreck, Texas.

Berrocal Caparrós, M.C. (1996), Late Roman unguentarium en Carthago-Nova, in Actas del XXIII. Congreso Arqueológico Nacional (Elche, 1995), Ayuntamiento de Elche, Elche: 119-128.

Bien, S. (2005a), Des niveaux du VIIe siècle sous le Music-hall de l’Alcazar à Marseille, in J.M. Gurt i Esparraguera, J. Buxeda i Garrigós and M.A. Cau Ontiveros (eds.), LRCW I, Late Roman Coarse Wares, Cooking Wares and Amphorae in the Mediterranean, Archaeology and Archaeometry, BAR Int. Ser. 1340, Archaeopress, Oxford: 285-298.

Bien S. (2005b), La vaisselle sigillée mise au jour dans les contextes du VIIe s. apr. J.-C. à Marseille : état de la question, in RCRF Acta 39, Rei Cretariae Romanae Fautores, Abingdon: 147-154.

Bien, S. (2007), La vaisselle et les amphores en usage à Marseille au VIIe siècle et au début du VIIIe siècle : première ébauche de typologie évolutive, in M. Bonifay and J.-C. Tréglia (eds.), LRCW 2. Late Roman coarse wares, cooking wares and amphorae in the Mediterranean. Archaeology and Archaeometry, BAR, Int. Ser. 1662, Archaeopress, Oxford: 263-274.

Bonifay, M. (1986), Observations sur les amphores tardives à Marseille d’après les fouilles de la Bourse (1980-1984), Revue Archéologique de Narbonnaise 19: 269-306.

Bonifay, M. (2004), Etudes sur la céramique romaine tardive d’Afrique, BAR Int. Ser. 1301, Archaeopress, Oxford.

Cunja, R. (1996), Capodistria Tardoromana e Altomedievali. Lo scavo archeologico nell’Ex orto dei Cappuccini negli anni 1986-1987 all luce dei reperti dal V al IX secolo D.C., Science and Research Centre of the Republic of Slovenia, Koper/Capodistria.

Fulford, M.G. and Peacock, D.P.S. (1984), Excavations at Carthage, The British Mission, I, 2, The avenue du Président Bourguiba, Salammbo, The Pottery and other ceramic objects from the Site, University of Sheffield, Sheffield.

Hayes, J.W. (1968), A Seventh Century pottery group, in R.M. Harrison and N. Fıratli, Excavations at Saraçhane in Istanbul: Fifth Preliminary Report, Dumbarton Oaks Papers 22: 203-216.

Hayes, J.W. (1971), A new type of early Christian ampulla, Annual of the British School at Athens, 66: 243-248.

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

Hayes, J.W. (1973), The Roman deposits, in J. Boardman and J.W. Hayes, Excavations at Tocra, 1963-1965, The Archaic Deposits II and Later Deposits, British School at Athens Suppl. 10, Thames and Hudson, London: 107-119.

119


Hayes, J.W. (1978), Pottery Report, 1976, in J.H. Humphrey (ed.), Excavations at Carthage, 1976, conducted by the University of Michigan, IV, Kelsey Museum, Ann Arbor: 23-98.

Hayes, J.W. (1992), Excavations at Saraçhane in Istanbul, Vol. 2, The Pottery, Princeton University Press, Princeton.

Japp, S. (2005), Die locale Keramikproduktion von Kibyra, in RCRF Acta 39, Rei Cretariae Romanae Fautores, Abingdon: 237-241.

Keay, S. J. (1984), Late Roman amphorae in the Western Mediterranean. A typology and economic study: the Catalan evidence, BAR Int. Ser. 196, Oxford.

Keay, S.J. (1998), African amphorae, in L. Saguì (ed.), Ceramica in Italia: VI-VII secolo. Atti del Convegno in onore de John W. Hayes (Roma, 11-13 maggio 1995), All Insegnia dell’Giglio, Florence: 141-155.

Lechuga Galindo, M. and Méndez Ortiz, R. (1988), Numismática bizantina de Cartagena, in Historia de Cartagena V, Mediterráneo, Murcia: 71-78.

Macias Solé, J.M. (1999), La ceràmica comuna tardoantiga a Tarraco. Anàlisi tipològica i històrica (segles V-VII), TULCIS Monografies Tarraconenses 1, Museu Arqueologic de Tarragona, Tarragona.

Maioli, M.G. and Stoppioni Piccoli, M.L. (1989), Ravenna, loc. Classe. La fornace per cerámica nel podiere Chiavichetta, in Amphores romaines et histoire économique: dix ans de recherches. Actes du colloque de Sienne (22-24 mai 1986), Collection de l’École Française de Rome 114, Ecole Française de Rome, Rome: 568-569.

Martínez Andreu, M. (1985), La muralla bizantina de Carthago Spartaria, in Del Conventus Carthagineiensis a la Chora de Tudmir. Perspectivas de la Historia de Murcia entre los siglos III - VIII, Antigüedad y Cristianismo: Monografías sobre la Antigüedad Tardía 2: 129-151.

Murcia Muñoz, A. y Guillermo Martínez, M. (2003), Cerámicas tardorromanas y altomedievales procedentes del teatro romano de Cartagena, en L. Caballero, P. Mateos and M. Retuerce (eds.), Cerámicas tardorromanas y altomedievales en la Península Ibérica. Ruptura y continuidad, Anejos de Archivo Español de Arqueología XXVIII, Instituto de Arqueología de Mérida, Madrid: 169-223.

Murcia Muñoz, A.J., Vizcaíno Sánchez, J., García Lorca, S. and Ramallo Asensio, S. (2005), Conjuntos cerámicos tardios de las excavaciones en el Teatro romano de Cartagena, in J.M. Gurt i Esparraguerra, J. Buxeda i Garrigós, and M.A. Cau Ontiveros (eds.), LRCWI. Late Roman Coarse Wares, Cooking Wares and Amphorae in the Mediterranean: Archaeology and Archaeometry, BAR Int. Ser. 1340, Archaeopress, Oxford: 1-36.

Murialdo, G. (2001), Le anfore da trasporto, in T. Mannoni and G. Murialdo (eds.), S. Antonino: un insediamento fortificato nella Liguria bizantina, Coll. di Monografie Préistoriche ed archeologiche XII, Istituto Internazionale di Studi Liguri, Bordighera: 255-296.

Murialdo, G. (2007), Alto-Adriatico e Alto-Tirreno nel mondo Mediterraneo: due mari a confronto tra VI e X secolo, in S. Gelichi and C. Negrelli (eds.), La circulazione delle ceramiche nell’Adriatico tra tarda antichità e altomedioevo, Documenti di Archeologia 43, SAP, Mantua: 9-30.

Nacef, J. (2007), Nouvelles données sur l’atelier de potiers de Henchir ech Chekaf (Ksour Essef, Tunisie), in M. Bonifay and J.-C. Tréglia (eds.), LRCW 2, Late Roman coarse wares, cooking wares and amphorae in the Mediterranean. Archaeology and Archaeometry, BAR Int.Ser. 1662, Archaeopress, Oxford: 581-591.

Peacock, D.P.S., Bejaoui, F. and Ben Lazreg, N. (1989), Roman amphora production in the Sahel region of Tunisia, in Amphores romaines et histoire économique: dix ans de recherches. Actes du colloque de Sienne (22-24 mai 1986), Collection de l’École Française de Rome 114, Ecole Française de Rome, Rome: 179-222.

Ramallo Asensio, S. (2000), Arquitectura doméstica en ámbitos urbanos entre los siglos V y VIII, in L. Caballero Zoreda and P. Mateos (eds.), Visigodos y Omeyas, Un debate entre la antigüedad tarda y la alta edad media, Anejos del Archivo Español de Arqueología 23, CSIC, Madrid: 367-384.

Ramallo Asensio, S.F., Ruiz Valderas, E., and Berrocal Caparrós, M.C. (1996), Contextos cerámicos de los siglos V-VII en Cartagena’, Archivo Español de Arqueología 69: 135-190.

Ramallo Asensio, S. and Ruiz Valderas, E. (2000), Cartagena en la arqueología bizantina en Hispania: estado de la cuestión, in V Reunió d’Arqueologia Cristiana Hispànica (Cartagena, 16-19 abril 1998), Monografies de la secció històrico-arqueològica VII, Institut d’Estudis Catalans, Barcelona: 305-322.

Ramallo, S.F., Ruiz, E. and Berrocal, M. del C. (1997), Un contexto cerámico del primer cuarto del siglo VII en Cartagena’, in M. Comas i Solà, J.M. Gurt i Esparraguera, A. López Mullor, P. Padrós i Martí and M. Roca i Roumens (eds.), Contextos ceràmics d’època romana tardana i de l’alta edat mtijana (segles IV-X). Actes Taula Rodona, Badalona 6- 8 de novembre de 1996, Arqueo Mediterrània 2, Universitat de Barcelona, Barcelona: 203-228.

Ramón Torres, J. (2008), La cerámica ebusitana en la Antigüedad Tardía, in D. Bernal Casasola and A. Ribera i Lacomba (eds.), Cerámicas hispanorromanas. Un estado de la cuestión, Universidad de Cádiz, Cadiz: 563-583.

Reynolds, P. (1987), El yacimiento tardorromano de Lucentum (Benalúa-Alicante): las cerámicas finas, Catálogo de fondos del Museo Arqueológico II, Diputación Provincial de Alicante, Alicante.

Reynolds, P. (1993), Settlement and pottery in the Vinalopó Valley (Alicante, Spain): AD 400-700, BAR Int. Ser. 588, Tempvs Reparatvm, Oxford.

Reynolds, P. (1995), Trade in the Western Mediterranean, A.D. 400-700: the ceramic evidence, BAR Int. Ser. 604, Tempvs Reparatvm, Oxford.

120


Reynolds, P. (2004), The Roman pottery from the Triconch Palace; The Medieval amphorae; Appendix 1, Catalogue of Roman ceramics and selected medieval pottery from Butrint 1994-99, in R. Hodges, W. Bowden and K. Lako (eds.), Byzantine Butrint, Excavations and Surveys 1994-99, Oxbow, Oxford: 224-269, 270-277 and 327-395.

Reynolds, P. (2010), Hispania and the Roman Mediterranean, AD 100-700: Ceramics and Trade. Duckworth, London.

Riley, J.A. (1981), The pottery from the cistern 1977.1, 1977.2 and 1977.3, in J.H. Humphrey (ed.), Excavations at Carthage conducted by the University of Michigan, VI, Kelsey Museum, Ann Arbor: 86-124.

Ruiz Valderas, E., Ramallo Asensio, R., Laiz Reverte, M.D. and Berrocal Caporrós, M. del C. (1994), Transformaciones urbanísticas de Carthago Nova (siglos III-XIII), in R. Azuar and J.M. Oltra (eds.), IV Congreso de Arqueología Medieval Española (Alicante, 4-9 octubre 1993). Sociedades en transición, Associacion Española de Arqueología Medieval, Alicante: 59-65.

Saguì, L. (1998), Il deposito della Crypta Balbi: una testimonianza imprevidibile sulla Roma del VII secolo ? in L. Saguì (dir.), Ceramica in Italia : VI-VII secolo, Atti del Convegno in onore di John W. Hayes (Roma, 11-13 maggio 1995), All’Insegna del Giglio, Florence: 305-330.

Saguì, L., Ricci, R. and Romei, D. (1997), Nuovi dati ceramologici per la storia economica di Roma tra VII e VIII secolo, in G. Démians d’Archimbaud (ed.), La céramique médiévale en Méditerranée. Actes du VIe congrès de l’AIECM2 (Aix-en-Provence, 13-18 November 1995), Narration, Aix-en-Provence: 35-48.

Serrano Ramos, E. (1997-1998), Hallazgos de terra sigillata focense tardía en territorio malacitano, Mainake 19-20: 171-183.

Soricelli, G.L. (1994), Terra sigillata della prima, media e tarda età imperiale, in P. Arthur (ed.), Il complesso archeologico di Carminiello ai Mannesi, Napoli (Scavi 1983-1984), Collana del Dipartimento di beni culturali - Università di Lecce 7, Congedo, Galatina: 110-168.

Vizcaíno Sánchez, J. (2007), La presencia bizantina en Hispania (siglos VL-VII). La documentación arqueológica, Antigüedad y Cristianismo: Monografías sobre la Antigüedad Tardía 24.

Waksman, S.Y. and Tréglia, J.-C. (2007), Caractérisation géochimique et diffusion méditerranéene des céramiques culinaires ‘égénnes’. Études comparées des mobiliers de Marseille, de Beyrouth et d’Alexandrie (Ve S.-VIIe S.)’, in M. Bonifay and J.-C. Tréglia (eds.), LRCW 2, Late Roman coarse wares, cooking wares and amphorae in the Mediterranean. Archaeology and Archaeometry, BAR Int. Ser. 1662, Archaeopress, Oxford: 645-657.

Appendix: Pottery Catalogue

Cat no.Ill. = Bold

My Dbase inventorynumber

Frag.type

Diam. Form Comments

1. Calle Soledad. Pottery below the yellow layer

1 SOLNU-A 53 R/W 91D2 SOLNU-B

703.109R/W 99B

3 SOLNU-A 56 R/W ? 104C4 SOLNU-B

212.182R/W ? Fulford Mortar

3Tiny, unslipped mortar. Pale fired outer flange.

2. Calle Soledad. Pottery from the ‘tower’ fill

5 SOLNU-B 443.198

R/W ? 90 Identical to the more complete example, no. 165. Thin, matt slip inside and over rim.

6 SOLNU-B 444.197

R/W 15 91Cv

7 SOLNU-B 445.196

R/W ? 91Cv

8 SOLNU-B 443.200

R/Wfr ? 94A? Thin, pale orange-red slip, to under rim.

9 SOLNU-B 448.201

R/Wfr c.22 87C variant? orwithin 94 series

Finely granular/granular fabric with fairly matt, darkish red-orange slip. Difficult to see how much has been slipped.

10 SOLNU-B 442.199

R/W ? 105 var/Bien 2005, fig. 4.16

See text, Section 2.1. Thin-walled with small rim. Pimply orange slip inside and over rim. Outer wall may be slipped, but is matt. See text, Section 2.1, and no. 166-170. A cross between these two variants.

121


3. Calle Soledad. The shaft deposit (nos. 20-164)

a) Fine Wares

African Red Slip Ware (ARS)

Residual

11 SOLNU-B 59.1 R/W 8A

12 SOLNU-B 64.2 R/W 9A

13 SOLNU-B 84.5 R 10

14 SOLNU-B 65.4 R/W 14A

15 SOLNU-B 60.6 R/W 14B

16 SOLNU-B 57.3 R/W 15

17 SOLNU-B 61.7 B 23

18 SOLNU-B 65.8 R 67

19 SOLNU-B 81.9 W Dish. ARS 50 or 58-61, in C fabric.

Contemporary

20SOLNU-B 73.47

R/W90?

Rather than 105v? Cf. nos. 5 and 165. Rim rolled underneath. However, see also Hayes 1978 (55, fig. 14.4: classified as 89; 70, fig. 21.56: classified as 105 variant).

21SOLNU-B 79.10

R/Bfr 14 91D Rouletting present.

22SOLNU-B 79.15

R/W 14 91D Two fragments.

23SOLNU-B 79.11

R/W15

91D

24 SOLNU-B 79.14

R/W13/14

91D

25SOLNU-B 79.13

R/W14

91D

26SOLNU-B 79.12

R/W91D

27SOLNU-B 77.16

B/W 4.6 91(D)

28SOLNU-B 77.17

B/W c.3.2 91(D) Base undercut at the centre.

29SOLNU-B 77.18

Bfr/W 91

30SOLNU-B 168.265

R/Wc.18

Cf. Fulford 50/Hayes 94B

If not, within the Fulford 35 series. Deep orange, polished slip on inside and top of rim. Granular fabric.

31SOLNU-B 75.20

R/W 16 108No record of a glossy or polished slip, so unlikely to be ARS 98?

32SOLNU-B 69.17

R/W20 99B

33SOLNU-B 69.19

R/W 99B

34SOLNU-B 69.18

R/W 99B

35SOLNU-B 69.20

R/W99B

36SOLNU-B 69.26

R/W 20 99B/C

37SOLNU-B 69.22

R/W 99B/C

38SOLNU-B 69.25

R/W 17/18 99C Small rim version.

39 SOLNU-B 2941 R/Bfr 18 99CSmall rim version. Yellow-orange, fairly smooth and shiny, but worn, slip inside and to outer face of rim.

122


40SOLNU-B 69.31-33

R/W17

99C Small rim version.

41SOLNU-B 69.24

R/W 99CSmall rim, but cf. Hayes 80/99. For this variant, see Bonifay 2004, 181, which he has called ‘99D’ and dates to the second half of the 7th century.

42SOLNU-B 69.27

R/W c. 20 99B? Rim bevelled underneath.

43SOLNU-B 79.23

R/W99B?

44 2943R/B 15.6-15.8

101Complete, except for a small section of the rim. Mottled, pimply, pale pinkish orange/red, poor quality, slip all over, down to foot/lower wall.

45 2943Bis R/B

15.4 101

Complete, except for small section of rim. Good quality orange to dark orange-red, pimply slip inside and to outer carination, then running down to foot. Under base is a graffito: Cross and ‘XHS’.

46SOLNU-B 70.35

R/W c. 17/18 101

47SOLNU-B 70.34

R/W 17101

48SOLNU-B 70.37

R/W 101 Slip all over.

49SOLNU-B 70.36

R/Wfr101

50SOLNU-B 38-41

R 101 4 rim fragments.

51SOLNU-B 72.43

R/W 104C

52SOLNU-B 72.44

R/W 104C

53SOLNU-B 72.45

R/W 104C

54SOLNU-B 72.42

R/W 104C

55SOLNU-B 73.46

R/W 105A Thin-walled.

56SOLNU-B 73.48

R/W 106v or 105.9Bevelled outer face and slight moulding (like 105) inside, top. Rim size as 106. There was only one other similar piece (see below, no. 183).

57SOLNU-B 1.29; 71.28 and 30

R/W c. 21 Fulford 68Probably as a complete example found at Calle Orcel (here = no. 182). Well-hooked rim.

58SOLNU-B 69.49

R 107

59 2942 R/B 23 109A/BAlmost complete. Red-orange slip on inside, bearing spiral burnishing (not drawn). Holes bored through vessel near rim.

60SOLNU-B 76.50

R/W c. 25109A/B Five rims and 3 body sherds, probably from the same vessel.

Burnished inside (not drawn).

61SOLNU-B 76.51

R/Wc. 25

109A/BBurnished slip inside (not drawn). Thin slip covering c.1.5cm of outer wall.

62SOLNU-B 72.53

R/W109A

Burnished (not drawn). Form (but not fabric) closer to 87B variants found at Benalúa/Alicante (Reynolds 1987; 1995: 11, 30-31: ‘87/109’, mid 6th century precursors to ARS 109).

63SOLNU-B 72.52

R/W 109A Thick-walled. Slip inside and to outer rim. Some polishing scratches, but no burnishing. Granular fabric.

64SOLNU-B 83.54 (and SOLNU-659)

R/W20 Lid?

Rolled rim and hemispherical body. The piece illustrated (SOLNU-659) was not found in the Shaft Deposit, but is clearly the same vessel as SOLNU-B 83.54. Good, polished, pimply, orange slip inside and to outer rim. Rest slipped, but not shiny.

65SOLNU-B 69.57

B/W ARS 99 B or C Hard, fine fabric. Good slip inside only, like the best 99’s.

123


66SOLNU-B 69.58

B/W c.7 Hard, fine fabric.

67 SOLNU-B B/W Similar base to above.68-70 SOLNU-B B/W 101? Three bases with thin walls and tall feet, like ARS 101.

71SOLNU-B 69.59

B/W Uncl. Dish.

72 SOLNU-B B/W Uncl. Similar to above.

73SOLNU-B 71.55

B/W 17 105 Deep groove on foot.

74 SOLNU-B B/W 105 As above.

75SOLNU-B 68.56

B/W c.6 108? Compare with no. 184.

b) Amphorae

Residual

76 SOLNU-B 141.61

R/W Greco-Italic

77 SOLNU-B R/W Dr 1A Campanian fabric.78 SOLNU-B

142.60R/W/H 15 Lamboglia 2? Buff fabric.

79 SOLNU-B 1182.270

R 12.4 Dr 6

80 SOLNU-B 162 H Dr 2/4 Campanian fabric.81 SOLNU-B

163.103B/Ft Baetican Thick-walled, with fairly long spike. Imperial? Common red,

iron oxide.

Contemporary

82 SOLNU-B 152.82

N/Ft/2Hfr

Keay26G = spatheion Bonifay type 3A

Probably Type 26G, like the majority of spatheion rims in this fabric below. North Tunisian red-orange fabric: fine, with a few air holes with fine, rounded amber quartz common, blending into matrix. Occ. white lime fragment. Pale buff surfaces. The foot, body and base of handle stump are smoothed in long, vertical strokes (a steccature).

83 SOLNU-B Bfr/W Keay 26 Same fabric, colour and smoothing.84 SOLNU-B Bfr/W Keay 26 Another vessel. Same characteristics.85 SOLNU-B 142 B/Ft Keay 26 Another vessel. Same characteristics.86 SOLNU-B

149.87R/N 5 Keay 26G?

spatheion Bonifay type 3A?

Buff fabric with pale greenish yellow/white surfaces. Fabric distinct to above examples of Keay 26G, but quite similar to that of the buff spatheia (see below). Abundant fine, occasional .5mm rounded semi-clear, amber, clear and occ. red quartz, in a fairly even matrix with common voids and air holes. Cf. Peacock Carthage fabric 2.5 (Fulford and Peacock 1984: 17; from Raf-Raf/Bizerte region?).

87 SOLNU-B 149.88

R/N ? Keay 26Gspatheion ‘type 3A’

Pale red-orange surface, salmon-buff, finely granular fabric. Common fine, rounded amber quartz, occ. clear and red quartz. Occ. lime fragment. North Tunisian fabric.

88 SOLNU-B 149.89

R/N/Hfr c. 4? Keay 26G spatheion ‘type 3A’

Pale red-buff fabric as above. One fragment of shell. North Tunisian fabric.

89 SOLNU-B 149.90

R/Nfr Keay 26G spatheion Bonifay type 3A

Worn. Pale orange-pink, granular fabric. Fine-very fine rounded amber quartz abundant. Pale yellow/green surface. North Tunisian fabric.

90 SOLNU-B 142.69

R/N 13.6 Keay 61C/Henchir Chekaf II

A Byzantine (late 6th century) date and Central Tunisian/Sahel region origin are argued in the text. Fabric recorded as: ‘Typical rounded amber quartz: up to fine (common), .5mm (moderate). Hard dark red-orange fabric, with air holes, voids and a hackly break. Pale orange-buff outer surface. Abundant fine dots of quartz on the surface.

124


91 SOLNU-B 147.70

R/W/2H fr

12 Keay 61 (cf. Type B)

Tall, slightly conical neck. Note that the top of the rim does not roll to a point, like Keay 61A. It would be best not to assign it to one of Keay’s variants (but cf. Type B).North Tunisian (?). Pale orange-red/buff, finely granular fabric. Quartz: up to fine (moderate), .5mm (occasional). Pale white buff to pale brown buff surfaces.

92 SOLNU-B 142.65

R 14 Keay 61 D North Tunisian (?). Pale green surfaces.

93 SOLNU-B 142.66

R/Nfr 14.5 Cf. Keay 61D.6 Also similar to Keay 62G and H. However not exactly equivalent to either of these. To be classified as a (Byzantine) variant in its own right. North Tunisian (?). Pale yellow outer surface. Mod+ lime, up to 1/3mm. Finely granular/hackly break.

94 SOLNU-B 142.64

R Keay 50 See Text. Another, more complete example was also found in Byzantine levels at Calle Soledad: but in this case rather type ‘con orlo a fascia’ (see below, no. 190). Outer surface fired pale cream/buff. Pale red, finely granular fabric. Common/abundant fine, rounded amber quartz, though break remains even. ‘Different fabric from the rest (i.e. from Keay 26G and Keay 61). Unfortunately no sample was kept, but fabric should be like that of example below (no. 190).

95 SOLNU-B 144.73

R/Nfr c.13 Keay 62A Pale green surfaces. Granular fabric with common fine quartz, occasional .5-1mm quartz. Occ./mod. lime up to 1.5mm. North Tunisian (?).

96 SOLNU-B 148.74

R/SH/1.5H

13 Keay 62D Large fragment. Graffito to the left of handle: ‘A I’. North Tunisian (?).

97 SOLNU-B 141.67

R/N Keay 62D Pale green/yellow outer surface. Fairly granular. North Tunisian (?)

98 SOLNU-B W/Ft Keay 61? Large fragment.99 SOLNU-B

163.95Ft Keay 62 North Tunisian fabric.

100 SOLNU-B 163.94

Ft Keay 62? cf. Keay 1984: fig. 158.11, or 162.9. Hollow foot. Tunisian fabric.

101-104 SOLNU-B 157 H Tunisian Four handles.

105 SOLNU-B 1182.267

R/Shfr/2Hfr

9 LRA 1 Pale red brown.

106 SOLNU-B 147.77

R/N/2Hfr

9 LRA 1 Hard, pale buff. Black volcanic sand inclusions occ+. Clear, whitish and fewer deep red stone. Lime very common. Air holes and voids common. Neck is joined to shoulder separately. East Cilician, rather than Cypriot?

107 SOLNU-B 147.76

R/N/2Hfr

9.5-11.6

LRA 1 Irregular rim and oval diameter. Neck probably joined separately to shoulder. Buff surfaces, brown-dark buff fabric. Perhaps a higher proportion of white and clear quartz. Moderate rounded grey inclusions. Cypriot?

108 SOLNU-B 147.78

R/N/2Hfr

8.6-9.1 LRA 1 Pale red brown fabric. Mixture of dark red, black, clear and white inclusions and lime. Cilician (cf. red stone)?

109 SOLNU-B 149.79

R/Nfr LRA 1

110 SOLNU-B 149.80

R LRA 1

111 SOLNU-B 186 R/Hfr LRA 1112-114 SOLNU-B 157 H LRA 1 3 handles.

115 SOLNU-B 147. 75

R/N/2Hfr

9.8 LRA 1 Unlike examples above, this is sharply made, with a regular rim. Neck not added separately? Hard, finely granular/granular, pale pink/red brown fabric. Abundant rounded black inclusions, moderate pale purple and occasional amber quartz. East Cilician. This is the fabric of LRA 1 most common in Alicante.

125


116 SOLNU-B 179.269

R 10 LRA 2 Dark buff core, pale pinkish-red edges, with pale grey-white surfaces. Hard, fine fabric, with occasional air holes. Only moderate very fine-fine quartz and occasional .5mm rounded iron oxide. Occasional very fine lime. Abundant extremely fine quartz.

117 SOLNU-B 187.92

R 4.5 LRA 5

118-120 SOLNU-B162

H/W LRA 5 Three examples. Ring handle and grooved wall.

121 SOLNU-B 1176.268

Nfr/Sh Egyptian(LRA 7)

122 SOLNU-B 163.102

Ft Late Roman Unguentarium

Large version of a Lycian unguentarium (Hayes 1971; Reynolds 1993: 144, Misc 7). The piece shares the partial decoration with red slip of Lycian unguentaria.

123 SOLNU-B 1174.272

N Keay 79/Reynolds 1993: Ware 4.3

Balearic table amphora. Grooves and wavy lines. Pale red brown.

124 SOLNU-B 159 H/N Cf. Keay 19C Fabric like examples at El Monastil (Alicante): Reynolds 1993: Plates 139-140, 1769-1776. Malagueñan likely. Residual (probably 5th-early 6th century).

125 SOLNU-B 143.72

R/N 12 Uncl. Form 1 Bell-shaped rim. Buff fabric, hard, finely hackly with occasional/moderate air holes. Fine clear quartz predominant. One fragment of shell (?). Micaceous grey inclusion present. Pale buff surfaces, outer surface fired yellow/cream white buff. The fabric shares characteristics of the spatheion Keay 26F (see above, no. 86) and the buff spatheia (see below).

126 SOLNU-B 147.71

R/Sh/H 10 Uncl. Form 2 Distinctive form. Rim slightly pinched, with a roll. Handle is bent upwards before joining neck. Pale red-brown/buff fabric, hard and finely granular. Abundant lime dust. Mid/common lime up to .5mm. Common very fine quartz. Mod+ irregular, fine-1mm micaceous (?) grey/brown inclusions (feldspar?: not quartz) (cf. inclusion in above, no. 125).There is a dark brown stain running down the neck. Another fragment (handle/shoulder) from elsewhere on the site (SOLNU-B 610), of this form or Unclassified Amph 3, bore a dipinto in red ‘MEN’.

127 SOLNU-B 142.93

R/N/Hfr

12 Uncl. Form 3 Fabric as Unclassified Form 2. This form is more common in the Plaza de los Tres Reyes site (Cartagena): see no. 189 for a more complete example. The basic shape is similar to Uncl. Form 2 (handles and neck), but rim is a thickened band..

128 SOLNU-B 150.86

R/2H/Ft

6 Buff spatheion (Bonifay type 3B)

Distinctive rim with concave moulding. Evenly and thinly potted. Almost complete, a small fraction of rim missing. Pale yellow/green surface, dark buff fabric. Hackly break with common round voids. Abundant fine clear quartz, shear with break. Occasional semi-rounded volcanic black sand (?). Red oxide dust present.

129 SOLNU-B 151.85

R/2H/Ft

5.6 Buff spatheion (Bonifay type 3B)

Same fabric. Smaller size. Thin-walled, with pale green/buff surface and buff/pale cream fabric.

130 SOLNU-B 149.91

R/N 6 Buff spatheion (Bonifay type 3B)

Same fabric, but harder, with finer inclusions.

131 SOLNU-B152.83

N/Ft/2Hfr Buff spatheion (Bonifay type 3B)

Typical fabric. Buff fabric, common round voids (not lime scars) and an uneven, hackly break. Abundant very fine-fine, occasional .5mm, irregular semi-clear and predominantly clear quartz. Quartz ‘melts’ into the matrix, which ‘glistens’. Some amber quartz. White stone with grey core (like a sandwich) (visible x25 and x40). Occasional/moderate irregular, black vitreous inclusions. No lime.

126


132 SOLNU-B 153.84

N/2Hfr/W

Buff spatheion(Bonifay type 3B)

Dark buff fabric with pale green/white/buff surface. Thin-walled. Fabric as above, with voids, but less hackly. Quartz is fairly packed and generally clear. Occasional+ amber quartz. Red oxide present. A fragment of black glass/sand is clearly visible. A brown-orange, micaceous rounded-rectangular inclusion is present.

133-139 SOLNU-B 157 H Local? Seven buff fabric handles.

140-153 SOLNU-B H Unclass.Amphora

Fourteen handles in non-distinctive fabrics.

154 SOLNU-B 156 H/Sh Unclass.Amphora

Local? Buff surface. Pale red brown fabric. Clean fabric with lime common (up to .5mm). Even, finely granular, like Reynolds (1993) Ware 1.

155 SOLNU-B 163.96

B/Ft Uncl. Form 3 Buff fabric. Probably base of Unclassified Form 3 (no. 126) (cf. other published complete examples noted in Text). Unfortunately no sample kept for detailed comparison. If not, this type of base may belong to late Roman amphorae local to the Vinalopó Valley (e.g. Reynolds 1993: Plate 28.221).

156 SOLNU-B 163.97

B/Ft Uncl. Form 3 Buff fabric. As above.

157 SOLNU-B 163.98

B/Ftfr Spatheion Buff. Local?

158 SOLNU-B 163.99

B/Ftfr Spatheion Buff. Hard fabric. Local?

159 SOLNU-B 163.100

B/Ftfr Spatheion Spanish or local? Lower wall is flared.

160 SOLNU-B 163.101

B/Ft Spatheion No details of fabric.

161 SOLNU-B 156 H/Nfr/Sh Uncl. Form 2 or 3

No fabric sample kept for comparison. May be the same form, given the handle shape. Note the band of wide grooves/ribbing on the upper shoulder.

162 SOLNU-B 128 H/W Local Murcian Reynolds (1993) Ware 2, red-brown with muscovite. Flagon/amphora.

163 SOLNU-B 127 H/W Local Murcian Fabric as above. Flagon/jug.164 SOLNU-B

181.275Hfr/Wfr

Frying pan Fulford Dish 5/Reynolds Ware 6.3

See Reynolds (1993: 132-133). Grey surfaces. Dark brown, vitreous fabric. Finely granular-granular, with a sharp break. Moderate very fine rounded quartz. For full description of ware see Fulford and Peacock (1984, 24-25, fabric 3.7).

4. Pottery of interest from other contexts, mostly from Calle Soledad (nos. 165-190)

a) Fine wares

African Red Slip

165 SOLNU-D 7 R/Wfr ? 90166 SOLNU-B

589.148R/W 35/39 Cf. 105B.9 Good quality, pimply slip (not glossy D2), to over rim. Similar to

Bonifay (2004) ARS 105B.9, but the Cartagena rim is actually smaller and the wall is thinner.

167 SOLNU-116.397 R/W 39/40 Cf. 105B.9 See comment on no. 166. Here the wall is particularly thin and the diameter is larger than Bonifay’s type piece. Shiny, pimply orange slip to over rim. Only the rim seems to be polished. Finely granular+ fabric.

168 SOLNU-B 291.229; 293.229

R/W c. 37 105B var./Bien 2007, fig. 3.41

A distinctive variant with a hooked/rolled rim and raised, slightly rounded, offset on upper face. See Text, Section 2.1.Granular fabric, but slip differs from norm as is deep orange, thin, with fine polishing scratches inside and over rim. Rim is particularly shiny.

169 SOLNU-D 5 R/W ? As above Orange slip, polished only on upper rim. No. 10 is similar but smaller.

170 SOLNU-536.304 R/W As above Thicker-walled than the other examples. Thin, polished slip inside and over rim only.

127


171 SOLNU-67.401 R/W ? As above Like above, but top face of rim is bevelled flat.172 SOLNU-B

740.123R/W c. 32 105A Polished (?) slip inside and to outer rim. Found inside the tower,

above the yellow layer, during cleaning.173 SOLNU-662 R/Bfr 32/33 105A Identical to a vessel found nearby on the highland site of Cerro de

San Miguel (Orihuela) (Reynolds 1993: Plate 106.965). An early version of ARS 105 (Bonifay 2004: 183-185, Type A: ‘late 6th to first half of 7th century).

174 SOLNU-115.398 R/W ? 105A

175 SOLNU-B 1034.276

R/W 105A

176 SOLNU-495.319 R/W ? 105A Thin, matt, dull slip inside and, possibly applied with brush, down to 2cm of outer wall.

177 SOLNU-B 480.172

R/W c. 35 105A Thin-walled variant. Dark red-orange slip, thin coat, flaking off in places. Many polishing scratches.

178 SOLNU-436.350 R/B 15 99B or C Two grooves on floor. Smooth slip inside and over rim only.179 SOLNU-B

297.226R/B c. 19 99 ‘D’ or

80B/99Over-fired pale red brown. Slipped all over (?), but polished inside and on outer rim only.

180 SOLNU-B 1416.244

R/B 18 99 ‘D’ or 80B/99

Small rim. Thin, pimply pale orange red slip, almost matt, inside and on outer rim. Rest is unslipped. Fine-finely granular fabric with very fine-fine lime common/abundant. Occasional .5mm lime.

181 SOLNU-327.367 R/W c. 19 100 Pimply, deep orange slip down to c.2cm below moulding on the outside, without a line or runs. Polishing marks visible only on outer rim/wall. Fairly fine fabric with air holes.

182 Calle Orcel R/B 20 Fulford 68 One possible example occurred in the Vinalopó Valley (Reynolds 1993: Plate 121.1359). Granular fabric with pimply orange slip inside and over rim.

183 SOLNU-B 488.173

R/W ? 105B or 106v? For a similar piece, see above, no. 56. Granular fabric. Thin, pimply, pale orange slip inside and over rim.

184 Calle Palas 1364/1403

R/B 13.7 108 Poor, pimply, pale pinkish red, mottled slip all over? Fine polishing marks on inside only.

185 SOLNU-496.340 R/W 14 108 Granular fabric. Thin, fairly dull, but shiny red (orange) slip inside and over rim, matt slip running down most of outer wall.

Late Roman C

186 SOLNU-B 290.238

R/W ? LRC 10A Reduction-fired grey-brown band on inner and outer rim. Lower outer rim face is atypically bevelled.

b) Amphorae

187 SOLNU-B 753.127

R - Henchir Chekaf III

For form, see Text. Henchir es-Chekaf product. Not like any examples published by Keay (1984). Cf. Marseille (Bonifay 1986: fig. 12.55); S. Antonino di Perti (Murialdo 2001: Pl. 9.42) (Reynolds 1995: 58). This variant was also found in the Cartagena Roman theatre excavations in Phase 10.2, dated to AD 590-625 (Ramallo, Ruiz and Berrocal 1996: fig. 18.241). Pinkish orange, granular fabric, with a fairly even break. Common/abundant rounded amber and clearer quartz (very fine to fine). Occasional+ air holes. Pale green surfaces.

188 SOLNU-B 13.341

R/N fr - Henchir Chekaf III

See Text. Outer face fired pale green. Pale buff fabric and inner face. Granular fabric with voids and abundant fine quartz.

189 Plaza de los Tres Reyes/PLR no. 39

R/2H/Sh 10 Uncl.Form 3

Buff, finely granular fabric with an even break. Occasional irregular quartz. Moderate/common fine-.5/1mm lime.

190 SOLNU-B 782 R/2H/W 12 Keay 50 or type “con orlo a fascia” (Bonifay Type 52)

See Text. Rim type like that of no. 94 (found in the Shaft Deposit). This piece was found during section cleaning. Red-orange fabric, even break, with even scatter of very fine rounded amber quartz and moderate .5-1mm lime. Quartz blends into matrix. Finer than examples of Keay 26G (above).

Documents

A 7th century pottery deposit from Byzantine Carthago Spartaria (Cartagena, Spain)