cooking ware imports in Syria: the Workshop X

IntroductionCooking and common wares in Roman and Byzantine Syria were mostly locally produced. The Syrian cooking ware generally called Brittle Ware represents a long, specialised pottery tradition, since it was produced for more than a millennium (from ca. the 1st to the 10th centuries AD, with some late survivors in the form of the Mameluk glazed cooking pots). The name Brittle Ware was first coined by S Dyson (1968) when he published the material from Dura-Europos, and has since been adopted in most publications.1 Brittle Ware is a standardised, widely distributed product, manufactured in several workshops or production areas, which were recognised by combining typological and fabric analyses. Three “workshops” were located in north-western Syria (Workshops 1, 4, and 6) and one, which only

existed during the Roman period, was in the Euphrates region (Workshop 3).2 The Brittle Ware was mainly distributed in the hinterland and the north, since almost no Brittle Ware has been found along the coast or in southern Syria. On the other hand, the typical southern Levantine cooking ware types are rarely found in northern Syria and were seldom imitated in Brittle Ware. The Brittle Ware repertoire essentially includes such cooking forms as casseroles, globular pots, and lids. The main form that was not designed for cooking but commonly found in Brittle Ware is the jug.

From the 3rd century onwards, Brittle Ware workshops seem to have held a quasi-monopoly on cooking ware production and distribution in northern Syria (including modern South Anatolia

* Assistant Professor at the Université libre de Bruxelles, Belgium.1 Although the term is not more suitable for the Syrian cooking ware than for other Levantine cooking wares, which are sometimes even thinner and more brittle than the

Byzantine cooking ware imports in Syria: the “Workshop X”

Agnès Vokaer*

Abstract

Previous studies based on typological and chemical analyses led to the identification of a particular Levantine workshop designated as Workshop X and producing mainly cooking wares. Workshop X products were distributed along the Levantine coast and reached as far as southern Gaul; it represents an important proportion of the Beirut material. This article aims at presenting the forms imported to Syria. It reveals that on most of the Byzantine sites the main typical Workshop X vessel is the jug with a pierced neck. The vessels from Apamea, capital of Syria Secunda, are characterised by a more diverse repertoire comparable to the forms found in Beirut during the 6th and 7th centuries AD.

Keywords cooking ware, Workshop X, Syria, Brittle Ware, imports, Beirut, Apamea

Syrian Brittle Ware. See also the same remark in Reynolds and Waksman 2007: 59.2 For a synthesis on Brittle Ware in Syria (typology and fabric analyses), see Bartl et al 1995; Vokaer 2007, 2010, 2011; and Schneider et al 2007. For Brittle Ware in the Limestone Massif, see Orssaud and Sodini 2003.

Agnès Vokaer214

Berytus 53-54, 2010-2011

and the Euphrates region).3 Nevertheless, on some Byzantine sites in Syria generally dated to the 6th and 7th centuries one occasionally finds a second category of cooking ware, slightly different from the Brittle Ware, which was most likely imported from northern Palestine.4 This ware was first recognised among Levantine imports in southern France and then in Beirut.5 It corresponds to a single chemical group of unknown provenance that was coined “Workshop X.”6 Workshop X products are characterised by their fabric and their shapes, and were also mostly designed for cooking. The shape evolution and chemical analysis of Workshop X fragments found in Beirut and in southern Gaul have been described in detail in several articles (Reynolds 2003a, 2003b, 2005; Waksman et al 2003, 2005; Reynolds and Waksman 2007).As opposed to Beirut, Workshop X imports are not frequent in Syria and are represented by a few types, mainly the jug with a pierced neck (Vokaer 2005, 2009; Reynolds and Waksman 2007: 61). Nevertheless, the material study from the recent excavations at Apamea revealed that the range of forms exported to that site was more diverse than first thought. Therefore, this article will aim at presenting the different types found at Apamea.7 A brief survey of presumably Workshop X imports present on other Syrian sites (accessible from the literature) will also be included in this paper.8

Defining Workshop XThe first typological classification was published in 1991 by CATHMA for the Levantine cooking wares exported to southern Gaul. In this, several types for which the typology and fabrics differed from the local wares were published as eastern

Mediterranean imports or as imports of unknown provenance (CATHMA 1991: 34–38). These imports consisted of a type of casserole with a sliced rim (type CATHMA 4); cooking pots with a cylindrical neck and banded rim (type CATHMA 16 and 29); cooking pots with a concave, angular rim (type CATHMA 11); and a type of jug (or kettle) with a pierced neck (type CATHMA 15) (CATHMA 1991: figures 16, 21, 29, 30, and 20). The typochronology was later revised by Waksman et al in 2005 and by Reynolds and Waksman in 2007. In 2003 and 2005, Waksman et al published a series of chemical analyses based on material found in southern Gaul and in Beirut, including comparative cooking wares from the Dhiorios workshop (Cyprus), cooking wares from Egypt, as well as Brittle Ware from Palmyra and from northern Syria. According to the results of the chemical analyses, it appeared that the imports present in Beirut and in southern Gaul belonged essentially to one dominant group, designated as “Workshop X,” and that this group was different from the Dhiorios cooking ware and from the Syrian Brittle Ware. Based on the typology, a western Galilean origin was suggested, probably at or near Tell Keisan.9 A second group, “CW 34,” likely north Palestinian, was also distinguished. It is found in Beirut as well as at Kamid el-Loz (Lebanon) (Waksman et al 2005: 313; Reynolds and Waksman 2007: 59, 61). Both groups partly shared a common morphological repertoire while, chemically, Workshop X and CW 34 are only partly distinguishable to some extent. The earliest occurrence of Workshop X ware in Beirut dates to the end of the 4th century AD. By the end of the 6th century, Workshop X imports are dominant (Waksman et al 2005: 314; Reynolds and Waksman 2007: 61).

3 It is only in the Early Islamic period that other types of cooking wares are found together with Brittle Ware: e.g., dark coloured, burnished cooking pots, often imitating softstone vessels (Vokaer 2009).4 In my previous studies on Brittle Ware, I classified this imported ware as “Fabric 5” (Vokaer 2005, 2007, 2009, 2011).5 CATHMA 1991; Waksman et al 2003, 2005; Reynolds 2003a, 2003b, 2005; Reynolds and Waksman 2007.6 Waksman et al 2005: 311.7 Mention will also be made of Workshop X exemplars from

Andarin and Dibsi Faraj, which I also had the opportunity to examine under binocular microscope. 8 For comparison of Workshop X shapes with other Levantine or Mediterranean sites, see Waksman et al 2005; Reynolds and Waksman 2007.9 Based on close typological parallels found in Florimont’s unpublished report (1984), “matériel d’une fosse byzantine à Tell Keisan, ” (Reynolds 2003a: 542; Reynolds 2005: 573; Reynolds 2010: 125–26; Waksman et al 2003: 320, Waksman et al 2005: 311, 313, 316–17 and Reynolds and Waksman 2007: 61).

215Byzantine cooking ware imports in Syria: the “Workshop X”

Berytus 53-54, 2010-2011

Workshop X Imports in Syria1. The fabricThe imports in Syria that can be attributed to Workshop X clearly differ from the local Brittle Ware. As most of the Levantine cooking wares (Brittle Ware included), Workshop X fabric is characterised by a noncalcareous clay with small sand inclusions (mainly quartz). In comparison with Brittle Ware, which is dark red in colour, Workshop X imports bear a more pinkish colour and have thinner walls.10 The firing appears to have been rather unevenly controlled, since the fragments often display grey reduced zones.11

Workshop X clay fabric is rather homogeneous. The main nonplastic inclusions consist of red or brown iron-rich particles, probably iron oxides; well-sorted quartz, both mono and polycrystalline; and calcium carbonates present in varying amounts (Vokaer 2007: 703 and 2011: 48) (Figure 2). Some of the quartz grains are iron coated, which gives them a red colour under the binocular microscope. Secondary inclusions are subangular chert fragments and rare altered plagioclases, clinopyroxenes, and basaltic fragments. Sometimes, one finds one or two inclusions consisting of agglomerated quartz and plagioclases in an iron-rich groundmass (Figure 3). Brittle Ware fabrics, on the contrary, have only monocrystalline quartz (Fabric 1, 4, and 6), chert (in the case of Fabric 4), and a few calcium carbonates. Iron oxides are present in the Brittle Ware fabrics but not as main inclusions. Basaltic fragments or pyroxenes are absent (except for the Roman Fabric 3, originating from the Euphrates region). Workshop X finds from Syria also stand as a chemically distinct group. The WD-XRF analyses carried out by G Schneider indicated characteristic low nickel content and confirmed that it belonged to the same group as the one previously determined by Y Waksman (Schneider et al 2007: 716; Waksman et al 2003 and 2005). Furthermore, it differs from the other Brittle Ware groups originating from Syria.

2. The shapesThe most diverse repertoire is found at Apamea. For the present article, 35 archaeological units were studied, coming mainly from the excavations of the north-eastern quarter of Apamea and from two rubbish dumps (one near the North Gate and a second in the area of the temple of Zeus Belos). Most of the finds come from deposits that are dated between the 6th and mid-7th centuries AD. In total, 116 diagnostic fragments of Workshop X were recognised in these contexts, while the Brittle Ware was represented by 877 diagnostic fragments. At Apamea, Workshop X imports consist of jugs, cooking pots, casseroles, and their lids.12

Categories n %Jugs 80 69Jug lids 2 1.7Sliced-rim casseroles 4 3.4Casserole lids 4 3.4Pans with handle 9 7.8Dishes 2 1.7Cooking pots 14 12.1Lamps 1 0.9Total 116 100

Table 1: Frequencies of Workshop X shapes at Apamea.

10 Munsell 2.5 YR 6/6 to 6/8.11 Grey: Munsell 2.5 YR N5/ N4 to grey-brown: Munsell 10 YR 5/2.12 We will here refer to the typology published by Reynolds

and Waksman in 2007. But the same types were also published for Beirut in Waksman et al 2005 and in Reynolds 2003a and 2003b and for southern Gaul in CATHMA 1991; Waksman et al 2003 and 2005.

2.1. JugsPierced-neck jugsFour different types of pierced-neck jug have been found at Apamea. The dominant type is the jug with a strainer and elongated rim (Reynolds pierced-neck jug 1.2/ CATHMA 15).

Three exemplars of the Reynolds 1.1 pierced-neck jug (Reynolds and Waksman 2007: 64–65 and figure 75) have been found so far in Apamea (Figures 4–5). Reynolds and Waksman (2007: 64) date this early variant in Beirut to the late

Agnès Vokaer216

Berytus 53-54, 2010-2011

4th/early 5th century (Figure 6). In Apamea, all three fragments come from fills containing mixed material from the 4th to the 7th centuries.The main type distributed in Syria and in Apamea is the Reynolds 1.2 pierced-neck jug (Reynolds and Waksman 2007: figures 77–79) (Figure 12). It is characterised by a thin and elongated rim with an angular shape and a large cylindrical neck with a three-hole strainer at its end. At Apamea, the diameter varies between 5 and 8 cm (Figures 7–10). A spout is present on the shoulder of the vessel. The fragments are rarely preserved below the neck, but complete examples have been found in Tell Arqa (Lebanon) (Thalmann 1978: figure 30, 8) (Figure 16) and at Mansur al-‘Aqab/Horvat ‘Aqav in northern Palestine (Calderon 2000: figure 41 and pl. 24, 63). At Apamea, occasional lime/scale covering the inner part of the spout points towards the use of the jug as a kettle.13 This type represents the most common type of the Workshop X corpus in Apamea (with 11 rimsherds). Seventeen fragments of strainer neck and 37 spouts were also retrieved and presumably belong to this type. It is also worth noting that in Apamea strainer fragments are occasionally found in Brittle Ware (Workshop 4/Apamea).

A few examples belonging to Workshop X were also identified at Andarin (Figure 11), at Dibsi Faraj (Vokaer 2011: 83), and at al-Bara in the Limestone Massif.14 In the literature, one can recognise the same type of jug at Ras Ibn Hani in 6th century contexts; there M Touma counted 30 fragments of the type (Bounni et al 1981: 225–26; Touma 1984: figure 47), in Halabiyya in a context dated from the late 6th to the first half of the 7th century (Orssaud 1991: 263, figure 122, 26–27) (Figure 14), and in Resafa, in the Basilica B, 6th century (Konrad 1992: figure 9, 9) (Figure 15). Although there is no description of the clay fabric, the similarity with the exemplars produced by Workshop X may indicate that it originates from the same workshop. According to

P Reynolds (forthcoming a and b), Workshop X jugs were also found among the material from the Homs survey. Finally, at Hama, a jug fragment was wrongly attributed to the Hellenistic period (Christensen and Johansen 1971: figure 19, 187) (Figure 13). I had the opportunity to examine the latter under the binocular microscope and to confirm that it belongs to Workshop X. This pierced-neck jug 1.2 thus appears to have been fairly standard. The Syrian examples are identical to those exported to Lebanon and to the types found in northern Palestine. Beirut’s examples are dated to the late 6th–7th centuries (Reynolds and Waksman 2007: 64). At Mansur al-‘Aqab, seven examples come from a Byzantine pit containing material dated to the 6th–7th centuries.

Two other types of pierced-neck jug, both represented by one example were found at Apamea and do not resemble any found in the Beirut published material. The first type has a flaring neck with a strainer and a triangular, moulded rim (Figure 17). No parallels are known for this type. The second one has a cylindrical neck and a thick, pinched, concave rim (Figure 18). The handle is partially preserved. It is not a plain loop handle, as a break can be seen on the top of the handle. There was probably a ring on the upper part of the handle, meant to hold a small lid. This feature is known from jugs found at Elaiussa Sebaste (Cilicia) (Ferrazzoli and Ricci 2007: figure 8, 24). There, the vessel is similar to our type, with a concave elongated rim, a strainer, and a spout on the shoulder (Figure 22). It is dated to the 6th–7th centuries. The authors mention a possible Cypriot origin. A second similar jug is considered as local ware (Ferrazzoli and Ricci 2007: figure 12, 42). One fragmentary example from Salamis (Cyprus) illustrates the same system with a small lid with a cup-shape (Diederichs 1980: pl. 24 and 25, nr. 309) (Figure 21).15 In comparison with the Salamis example, one may think that two very small forms from Workshop

13 The use as a kettle was also suggested for the same type found in southern Gaul (Waksman et al 2005: 313).14 I am thankful to Nairusz Haidar Vela, in charge of the

pottery study from al-Bara, for permitting me to mention this information.15 The form is compared to a jug with lid from Saraçhane dated to the 7th century (Harrison et al 1968: figure D, 30).


Berytus 53-54, 2010-2011

X found at Apamea could have served the same purpose (Figures 19–20). Both are small, with straight walls and an angular junction at the base. The first one is ca. 2.5 cm high with a 6/6.5 cm diameter. A single horizontal handle is attached below the rim. It comes from a context in Apamea with latest material dating to the first half of the 7th century.16 The second is more shallow, with more everted walls (height 1.5 cm, diameter 6.3 cm) and comes from a mixed context (rubbish dump in the temple of Zeus Belos). It is also worth noting that jugs with a lid attached to the handle, imitating metal wares, are occasionally found in Brittle Ware at Apamea and at Dehes (Orssaud and Sodini 2003: figure 9, type 1).

Trilobate jugsAt least two different types of trilobate jug belonging to the Workshop X fabric were also encountered at Apamea (four rimsherds in total). The fragments at Apamea are usually preserved where the rim is folded and are therefore difficult to classify typologically. One fragment has a long neck and a triangular rim (Figure 23). It is in some ways comparable to Beirut trilobate jug 1.1, dated around AD 500–550 (Reynolds and Waksman 2007: 64, figure 71), although the Apamean example has a corrugated neck (Figure 24). Another type has a small triangular rim and flaring neck marked by a ridge at its lower part (Figure 25). No comparisons were found for this type.

2.2. Sliced-rim casserolesAt Apamea, four rimsherds and four lid fragments were counted (6.8% of the total corpus, Figures 26–30). Two fragments belong to a hemispherical casserole and a third to a carinated one. The sliced-rim casserole is known in Beirut, produced in CW 34, in local Beirut fabric as well as in Workshop X fabric (Reynolds and Waksman 2007: 64, figures 52–61) (Figure 31). It corresponds to CATHMA type 4 found in Marseille and Saint-Blaise (CATHMA 1991: figure 16). At Apamea, both lids and casseroles

show thin, sliced rims with some irregularities and small fractures resulting from the separation of both parts after firing. The lid and the casserole were pinched together along some length while leather dry and then fired attached. This manufacturing process is explained in more detail in Lloyd’s unpublished master’s thesis on the Iskandil Burnu shipwreck (Lloyd 1984: 49–52), and was also identified on some Brittle Ware lids from Dehes (Orssaud and Sodini 2003: 500). The discovery of an uncut casserole and lid in this shipwreck is worth noting since it proves that the shapes, or at least some of them, were travelling still closed (see also Waksman et al 2005: 317). The same form, very likely to be also a Workshop X product, is known from Ras Ibn Hani, where it is quite common (27 fragments, according to M. Touma 1984; see also Bounni et al 1976: figure 28, 20; Bounni et al 1979: figure 49 and 1981: 225–26;) and from Tell Arqa (Thalmann 1978: figure 39, 9).

Sliced-rim casseroles were also produced in Brittle Ware by several workshops, but in small quantities. A few examples are known at Apamea (Workshop 4/Apamea) (Figure 32) and one example from Hadir produced by Workshop 1 (Vokaer 2012: figure 3, 1–2). They nevertheless do not represent the most frequent type of the Brittle Ware cooking repertoire. They should rather be considered as an imitation of a shape that was most popular in the southern Levant (Hauran, Palestine) as well as in Cyprus and in Cilicia. In Beirut, the sliced-rim casserole already occurs from early 3rd century contexts onwards in local ware and in CW 34 (Reynolds and Waksman 2007: 64). At Apamea, both Workshop X and Brittle Ware Workshop 4/Apamea types are not found before the 6th century.

2.3. Pans with a triangular rimAt Apamea, nine examples of a pan with a triangular rim were found (Figures 33–35; 7.8% of the corpus). Some examples bear a long, horizontal handle. The form can have plain

16 North-eastern quarter, sector G. With ARS 104 B or C and 105, and also earlier 6th century fine wares: PRS 3 F and LRD 2.

Agnès Vokaer218

Berytus 53-54, 2010-2011

or corrugated walls and a small spout which is pinched on the rim. Reynolds and Waksman (2007: 64) classify similar shapes as mortars/spouted bowls or possibly funnels, as both are difficult to differentiate without the base preserved (Figure 36). The presence of soot on two Apamean fragments and of a long handle on six others seems to indicate that the forms imported to Apamea were probably used as cooking pans. Similar examples with handles, most likely from Workshop X, are found at Ras Ibn Hani, where they seem frequent (41 fragments according to Touma 1984; see also Bounni et al 1976: figure 28, 19 and 1981: 225–26). Finally, this type of pan is also known at Mansur al-‘Aqab in the “Byzantine pit” (Calderon 2000: 143, pl. 23, 59 and figure 39). There the type is said to be rare on the site (3 examples in total) and throughout the country. Petrographic analysis undertaken on this vessel type at Mansur al-‘Aqab points towards a production in the vicinity of Caesarea (Calderon 2000: 143 and note 3).

This shape finds parallels within the Brittle Ware repertoire. The most common cooking pan or casserole produced from the 6th to the 8th centuries is a hemispherical type with a triangular, thickened rim (Figure 37). Usually the walls are plain with two ribbings below the rim. The form can have two loop handles or a long, straight, horizontal one. On some fragments, a spout on the rim is preserved. This type in Brittle Ware was produced by Workshops 1 and 4.

2.4. DishesTwo exemplars of dishes made in Workshop X fabric were found at Apamea. Published typological parallels are so far unknown for these two forms. The first one is a large and shallow dish of 30 cm in diameter (Figure 38). Walls are slightly everted and thick. The rim is plain and pinched in order to form a small spout. No soot is visible on the fragment. The second type is a small dish or bowl, 13 cm large (Figure 39). The wall is curved and thick, and the rim is folded and elongated, slightly bevelled at the top. It is worth noting that the rim of the second type brings to mind that of the pierced-neck jug, as if the two vessels could form a set. Both types of

dishes were found in rubbish dumps with mixed material (5th to 7th centuries) and cannot therefore be precisely dated (rubbish dumps of the North Gate and of the temple of Zeus Belos).

2.5. Cooking potsFourteen cooking pot rimsherds (12.1 % of the corpus) were counted among the different deposits examined in Apamea. Several variants previously distinguished by Reynolds and Waksman (2007) among the Workshop X imports to Beirut are recognisable. These consist of two main types: the cooking pot with an angular rim band (Reynolds cooking pot 3) and the one with a concave rim (Reynolds cooking pot 4).

Cooking pots with a rim bandThe first type, represented by one exemplar at Apamea, is a cooking pot with a tall neck and a short, small square rim (Figure 40). It is comparable to Reynolds cooking pot 2B, apart from the diameter size and the fact that the rim is slightly more angular (Reynolds and Waksman 2007: 62, figure 20 or figure 18 in CW 34) (Figure 41). Reynolds cooking pots 2B are the earliest Workshop X imports in Beirut, dating to the late 4th century. The Apamean fragment comes from a context with dominant 6th and 7th centuries material (PRS 3F, LRD 2, ARS 99B and PRS 10C). But residual Brittle Ware from the 4th and 5th centuries, as well as ARS 61A, were also present and may be contemporaneous with the cooking pot type 2. From the same context, let us mention a second fragment with a thick rim and a concave neck (Figure 42) which may be compared to Reynolds cooking pot 3.1, which dates to the 5th century (Reynolds and Waksman 2007: 62–63, figure 23–24) (Figure 43).

The following most common type is the cooking pot with an angular band rim, corresponding to Reynolds cooking pot 3.2 or CATHMA 29 (Reynolds and Waksman 2007: 62, figure 26–28; CATHMA 1991: figure 30, type 29) (Figures 44–48). Eight rimsherds and one complete vase belonging to this type were found in various contexts in Apamea, and one rim fragment in Aleppo. The rim is short and folded into a band. The neck, either plain or corrugated, is generally


Berytus 53-54, 2010-2011

ca. 1.5 cm high. The complete example is of rather small size in comparison with the complete vases known from the literature (height 11 cm; diameter 6 cm) (Figure 46). The diameter of the other fragments is larger, between 13 and 9 cm. The last variant of the cooking pot with rim band found at Apamea (with two exemplars) seems to correspond to Reynolds cooking pot 3.3/CATHMA 16 (Reynolds and Waksman 2007: 63, figure 29–31; CATHMA 1991: figure 21, type 16) (Figures 49–50). P Reynolds dates the cooking pot 3.2 to around AD 500–550 and the cooking pot 3.3 to AD 550–575/600. In Apamea, most of the fragments come from contexts with fine ware dating from the 6th to the mid-7th centuries.

So far, the only typological parallels in Syria were published at Ras Ibn Hani. There, the cooking pot with a band rim, Reynolds type 3.2, is said to be the most common cooking pot type (Touma 1984: 17 fragments; see also Bounni et al 1979: figure 50 and 1981: 225–26). Among the unpublished material, P Reynolds mentions similar shapes from the Homs survey (Reynolds forthcoming a and b), and I had the opportunity to recognise a few Workshop X fragments of Reynolds cooking pot 3.2 at al-Bara. A complete form resembling the cooking pots found at Ras Ibn Hani was published from the pottery pit at Mansur al-‘Aqab. According to R Calderon, this type is uncommon in Palestine (Calderon 2000: 138, figure 33 and pl. 22, 40). A possible variant of Reynolds cooking pot 3.3 is also known at Tell Arqa (Thalmann 1978: figure 38, 3; Reynolds and Waksman 2007: 63).

Regarding the similarities with the Brittle Ware cooking pots, I would follow Reynolds and Waksman (2007: 62) in comparing the Workshop X cooking pot 3 and the Brittle Ware cooking pot with a carinated neck (Figure 51). Most specifically since this type, dating to the 5th century (with maybe some predecessor in the 4th century, see Vokaer forthcoming a), is the first Brittle Ware cooking pot with handles placed

17 For a discussion on the origin of the cooking pot with a concave rim, see Reynolds and Waksman 2007: 63;

on the shoulders. This is a feature that will characterise the Brittle Ware cooking pots until the Abbasid period; from the Umayyad period onwards the neck of the cooking pot becomes taller and the handles more pointed.

Cooking pots with a concave rimThe last type of cooking pot is the one with a concave rim, corresponding to Reynolds type 4/CATHMA 11 (Reynolds and Waksman 2007: 63) (Figure 54). It is represented by only two fragments at Apamea and one in Dibsi Faraj (Figures 52–53). On the Syrian examples, the handles are also attached to the rim, which follows the typological change of the Workshop X cooking pots noted by Reynolds and Waksman (2007: 63). The type does not seem to be present at Ras Ibn Hani (Touma 1984), but one example has been published in a late context from the citadel of Damascus (Tréglia and Berthier 2010: 868 and figure 7, 45).

The Reynolds 4 cooking pot, with several variations in the rim types, is known in Beirut and Khan Khalde, produced by Workshop X, in CW 34, and in the local ware from Beirut (Reynolds 2003a: figure 5, 11; Reynolds and Waksman 2007: figures 40–47). P Reynolds also notes the presence of this shape in Umayyad contexts in Beirut in a fabric that is not from Workshop X or Beirut (Reynolds 2003b: 732, fig. 3, 1–3; Reynolds and Waksman 2007: 63). The same form was thus produced in several centres in northern Palestine, in Beirut, and possibly in Cyprus, where it was found, for instance, at Paphos (Hayes 2003: fig. 23, 256) and Dhiorios (Catling 1972: fig. 7, P. 96), although the shape is rare on the kiln site and may not have been produced there.17 Similar examples were also recognised in Cilicia, for instance in Anemurium (Williams 1989: figure 37, 406–408) and Elauissa Sebaste, where it is still considered to come possibly from Cyprus (Ferrazzoli and Ricci 2007: 673, fig. 8, 22).

Waksman et al 2003: 319–20; Waksman et al 2005: 314–15. See also Armstrong 2009: 166–167.

Agnès Vokaer220

Berytus 53-54, 2010-2011

2.6. LampsFinally, a complete lamp and a possible foot were found at Apamea (Figure 55). The lamp is wheel-thrown with a circular body. The handle is missing. Close parallels were found at Tell Arqa, originating from the same context as the cooking pots and the jugs (Thalmann 1978: figure 40). At Antioch, wheel-made lamps relatively similar to our type were found in a 7th century context in a villa at Daphne (Stillwell 1941: 68, type 188).Lamps made in cooking ware fabric also occur within the Syrian Brittle Ware repertoire from the 6th–7th centuries (Figure 56). These are however moulded; the wheel-thrown Brittle Ware types do not seem to appear before the Abbasid period.

SynthesisIn Apamea, as in the rest of northern Syria, the pierced-neck jug (Reynolds 1.2) constitutes the dominant Workshop X import. This form is also known at al-Bara, Hama, Homs, Aleppo, and Dibsi Faraj, and as far eastwards as Resafa and Halabiyya (Figure 1 map). The lack of detailed ceramic publication prevents the establishment of a more coherent map of the Workshop X distribution and forms. The relative success of the pierced-neck jug/kettle in Syria remains puzzling as similar globular spouted jugs (but without strainer) were also produced in Brittle Ware and were well distributed during the 6th to 8th centuries. On the other hand, the other Workshop X imports, such as the sliced-rim casserole or the concave rim cooking pot, are not part of the usual Brittle Ware repertoire and were only rarely imitated in Brittle Ware.

Although the Workshop X imports at Apamea are not very important in terms of quantity, they nevertheless comprise quite a variety of forms, including a lamp and a relatively rare type of jug with a lid, copying metal/ware. This diversity may perhaps be explained by the importance of

the site as the capital of Syria Secunda in the Byzantine period and by its strategic position on the route leading to Antioch. As for Beirut (Reynolds and Waksman 2007: 65 and Waksman et al 2005: 314; 317), one can associate the presence of Workshop X products at Apamea with other Palestinian imports such as the carrot-shaped amphora Robinson M 334/LRA 9 and the bag-shaped amphorae (Pieri 1–3) that also reached the city in the Byzantine period,

together with the Beirut amphora (Type Pieri 2C or Reynolds 8.2).18 Finally, the PhD thesis from M Touma provides us with valuable data for Ras Ibn Hani. Although, no fabric descriptions were made, the resemblance to the Workshop X repertoire seems to indicate the same origin. It is worth noting that no cooking vessels similar to Brittle Ware are illustrated in M Touma’s thesis. This confirms, together with the few types published from Tell Arqa in Lebanon, the pattern of a coastal distribution for Workshop X (Reynolds and Waksman 2007: 65; Waksman et al 2005: 314–317) and an inland distribution for the Brittle Ware.

AcknowledgmentsI would like to express my warm thanks to Paul Reynolds for his advice, to John Lund at the National Museum of Copenhagen for allowing me to examine the material from the Danish excavations at Hama, as well as to the directors of excavations for providing me access to their material: M Mundell Mango at Andarin, R Harper at Dibsi Faraj, K Kohlmeyer at Aleppo, and J C Balty and D Viviers at Apamea. I am also grateful to G Charpentier and N Haidar Vela for allowing me to mention some of the observations I had the opportunity to make when visiting at al-Bara. Finally I would like to thank the Direction générale des Antiquités et des Musées de Syrie for authorising me to take ceramic samples.

18 Viviers and Vokaer 2009: LRA 9: pl. 7. 4, bag-shaped: pl. 8, 6 and pl. 10, 3 and Beirut amphora: pl. 8, 8.


Berytus 53-54, 2010-2011

BibliographyArmstrong P 2009 Trade in the East Mediterranean in the 8th century. In M Mundell Mango (ed), 157–178.

Bakirtzis C (ed) 2003 VIIe Congrès International sur la Céramique Médiévale en Méditerranée, Thessaloniki, 11–16 Octobre 1999. Athens: Ministry of Culture, Archaeological Receipt Funds.

Bartl K, Schneider G and Böhme S 1995 Notes on “Brittle Wares” in North-Eastern Syria. Levant 25: 165–177.

Bonifay M and Tréglia J-C (eds) 2007 LRCW 2. Late Roman Coarse Wares, Cooking Wares and Amphorae in the Mediterranean. Archaeology and Archaeometry BAR International Series 1662, 2. Oxford: Archaeopress.

Bounni A, Lagarce E and J and Saliby N 1976 Rapport préliminaire sur la première campagne de fouilles (1975) à Ibn Hani (Syrie). Syria 53: 233–279.

Bounni A, Lagarce E and J, Saliby N and Badre L 1979 Rapport préliminaire sur la troisième campagne de fouilles (1977) à Ibn Hani (Syrie). Syria 56: 217–291.

Bounni A, Lagarce E and J, Saliby N, Badre L, Leriche P and Touma M 1981 Rapport préliminaire sur la quatrième campagne de fouilles (1978) à Ibn Hani (Syrie). Syria 58: 215–299.

Calderon R 2000 Roman and Byzantine Pottery. In Hirschfeld Y (ed) Ramat Hanadiv Excavations. Final Report of the 1984–1998 Seasons. Jerusalem: 91–165.

C.A.T.H.M.A. 1991 Importations de céramiques communes méditerranéennes dans le midi de la Gaule (Ve–VIIe s.). In A cerâmica medieval no mediterrâneo occidental. Lisbon: Campo arqueológico de Mértola, 27–47.

Catling H 1972 An Early Byzantine Factory at Dhiorios in Cyprus. Levant 4: 1–81.

Christensen A and Johansen C 1971 Hama. Fouilles et recherches de la Fondation Carlsberg. 1931–1938. III, 2. Les poteries hellénistiques et les terres sigillées orientales, Copenhagen.

Diederichs C 1980 Salamine de Chypre IX. Céramiques hellénistiques, romaines et byzantines. Paris: De Boccard.

Ferrazzoli A and Ricci M 2007 Elaiussa Sebaste: produzioni e consumi di una città della Cilicia tra V e VII secolo. In M Bonifay and J-C Tréglia (eds), 671–688.

Florimont C 1984 Matériel céramique d’une fosse byzantine à Tell Keisan. Académie des Inscriptions et Belles Lettres, Ecole Biblique et Archéologique Française de Jérusalem. Unpublished report.

Gurt i Esparraguera J M, Buxeda i Garrigós M and Cau Ontiveros M A (eds) 2005 LRCW 1. Late Roman Coarse Wares, Cooking Wares and Amphorae in the Mediterranean: Archaeology and Archaeometry. BAR International Series 1340. Oxford: Archaeopress.

Hayes J W 2003 Hellenistic and Roman Pottery Deposits from the ‘Saranda Kolones’ Castle Site at Paphos. ABSA 98: 447–516.

Harrison R M, Firatli N and Hayes J W 1968 Excavations at Saraçhane, Istanbul: Fifth Preliminary Report, with a Contribution on a Seventh-Century Pottery Group. Dumbarton Oaks Paper 22: 195–216.

Konrad M 1992 Flavische und spätantike Bebauung unter der Basilika B von Resafa-Sergiupolis. DaM 6: 313–402.

Lloyd M 1984 A Byzantine Shipwreck at Iskandil Burnu, Turkey: Preliminary Report. (master’s thesis, Texas A&M University) (pdf version: http://nautarch.tamu.edu/academic/alum.htm).

Agnès Vokaer222

Berytus 53-54, 2010-2011

Mango M Mundell (ed) 2009 Byzantine Trade, 4th–12th centuries. The Archaeology of Local, Regional and International Exchange. Papers of the Thirty-eighth Spring Symposium of Byzantine Studies, St John’s College, University of Oxford, March 2004. Society for the Promotion of Byzantine Studies Publication 14. Farnham: Ashgate.

Menchelli S, Santoro S, Pasquinucci M and Guiducci G (eds) 2010 LRCW3. Late Roman Coarse Wares, Cooking Wares and Amphorae in the Mediterranean. Archaeology and Archaeometry. Comparison between western and eastern Mediterranean. BAR International Series 2185, 1. Oxford: Archaeopress.

Orssaud D 1991 La céramique. In J Lauffray Halabiyya-Zenobia place forte du Limes oriental et la Haute Mésopotamie au VIe siècle, II. Paris: P Geuthner, 260–275.

Orssaud D and Sodini J-P 2003 Le “Brittle Ware” dans le massif calcaire (Syrie du Nord). In C Bakirtzis (ed), 491–504.

Reynolds P 2003a Lebanon. In Table ronde de Rome à Byzance; de Fostat à Cordoue: évolution des faciès céramiques en Méditerranée (Ve–IXe siècles). In C Bakirtzis (ed), 536–546.

Reynolds P 2003b Pottery and the economy in 8th century Beirut: an Umayyad assemblage from the Roman Imperial Baths (BEY 045). In C Bakirtzis (ed), 725–734.

Reynolds P 2005 Levantine amphorae from Cilicia to Gaza: A typology and analysis of regional productions trends from the 1st to the 7th centuries. In J M Gurt i Esparraguera et al (eds), 563–611.

Reynolds P 2010 Hispania and the Roman Mediterranean, AD 100–700: Ceramics and Trade. London.

Reynolds P forthcoming a The Classical and early Islamic pottery. In G Philip et al (eds)

Settlement and Landscape in the Homs region, Syria. University of Durham.

Reynolds P forthcoming b The Homs survey: Contrasting Levantine trends in the regional supply of fine wares, amphorae and kitchen wares (Hellenistic to early Arab periods). In B Genz et al (eds) Roman pottery in the Levant: local production and regional trade, Deutsches Archäologisches Institut, Berlin (19–20th February 2010). Oxford: Archaeopress Series/Roman and Late Antique Mediterranean Pottery.

Reynolds P and Waksman Y 2007 Beirut cooking wares, 2nd to 7th centuries: Local forms and North Palestinian imports. Berytus 50: 59–81.

Schneider G, Vokaer A, Bartl K and Daszkiewicz M 2007 Some new results of archaeometric analysis of Brittle Wares. In M Bonifay and J-C Tréglia (eds), 715–730.

Stillwell R (ed) 1941 Antioch on-the-Orontes III. The Excavations 1937–1939. Princeton.

Thalmann J-P 1978 Tell ‘Arqa (Liban Nord). Campagnes I–III (1972–1974). Chantier I. Rapport préliminaire. Syria 55: 1–145.

Tréglia J-C and Berthier S 2010 Amphores, céramiques communes et céramiques culinaires byzantines de la citadelle de Damas (Syrie). In S Menchelli et al, 867–876.

Touma M 1984 La céramique byzantine de la Syrie du Nord du IV au VI siècle. Thèse pour le doctorat de troisième cycle sous la direction de M. le Prof. J.-P. Sodini, Université de Paris I. Panthéon-Sorbonne. Unpublished PhD diss, Université de Paris I. Panthéon-Sorbonne.

Viviers D and Vokaer A 2009 Travaux de la mission archéologique belge à Apamée de Syrie, XLIIe campagne (2008). Revue belge de philologie et d’histoire 87: 105–144.

Vokaer A 2005 Typological and technological study of Brittle Ware in Syria. In J M Gurt i Esparraguera et al (eds), 697–709.


Berytus 53-54, 2010-2011

Vokaer A 2007 La Brittle Ware byzantine et omeyyade en Syrie du nord. In M Bonifay and J-C Tréglia (eds), 701–714.

Vokaer A 2009 Brittle Ware trade in Syria between the 5th and the 8th centuries. In M Mundell Mango (ed), 121–136.

Vokaer A 2010 Cooking in a perfect pot. Shapes, fabric and function of cooking ware in Late antique Syria. In S Menchelli et al (eds), 115–129.

Vokaer A 2011 La Brittle Ware en Syrie. Production et diffusion d’une céramique culinaire de l’époque hellénistique à l’époque omeyyade. Fouilles d’Apamée de Syrie, 2, Mémoires de la Classe des Lettres in 4°, tome III. Brussels: Académie royale de Belgique.

Vokaer A 2012 La Brittle Ware d’al-Hadir. Analyse de pâte. In M-O Rousset (ed) Al-Hadir. Etude archéologique d’un hameau de Qinnasrin (Syrie du Nord, VIIe-XIIe siècles). Travaux de la Maison de l’Orient, 59. Qinnasrin I. Lyon: 119–128.

Vokaer A forthcoming Roman Pottery from Apamea in Syria. A preliminary study of common wares and cooking wares from the 3rd and 4th c. A.D. In B Genz et al (eds) Roman pottery in the Levant: local production and regional trade. Oxford: Archaeopress Series/ Roman and Late Antique Mediterranean Pottery.

Waksman Y, Bien S, Bonifay M, Roumié M, Tréglia J-C, Vallauri L 2003 Some indications regarding eastern Mediterranean late Roman common wares found in southern France. In S Di Pierro, V Serneels and M Maggetti (eds) Ceramics in the Society. Proceedings of the 6th European Meeting on Ancient Ceramics, Fribourg, Switzerland, 3–6 October 2001. Fribourg: Université de Fribourg, 311–322.

Waksman Y, Reynolds P, Bien S and Tréglia J-C 2005 A major production of Late Roman ‘Levantine’ and Cypriot common wares. In J M Gurt i Esparraguera et al (eds), 311–325.

Williams C 1989 Anemurium. The Roman and Early Byzantine Pottery. Subsidia Mediaevalia 16. Wetteren: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies.

Agnès Vokaer224

Berytus 53-54, 2010-2011

Figure 1: Map of the sites mentioned in the text

Euphrates

Jordan

Orontes

Bali kh

Khab

ur

Hama

Antioch

Caesarea

Jerusalem

Beirut

Tell Keisan

Tell Arqa

Ba'albek

DibsiFaraj

Apamea

Dehes Aleppo

Homs

Elaiussa Sebaste

Ibn Hani

DamasKefar Hananya

AndarinHalabiyya

Resafa

Hadir

Dhiorios

0 500 km

N


Berytus 53-54, 2010-2011

Figure 2: Thin section of a Workshop X cooking pot Reynolds Type 3.2 from Aleppo(AL. 6242-1). Magnification x 25, plane polarised light

Figure 3: Thin section of a Workshop X pierced-neck jug Reynolds Type 1.2 from Aleppo(AL. 6242-1). Magnification x 25, crossed polars

Agnès Vokaer226

Berytus 53-54, 2010-2011

0 5 cm

5

1110

7

8

9

4

6

1312

Figure 4: Apamea, Workshop X (AP. 04. IV. 49. 4); Figure 5: Apamea, Workshop X (AP. 06. I. 29.18); Figure 6: Beirut, Workshop X (Reynolds and Waksman 2007: fig. 75 pierced-neck jug 1.1); Figure 7: Apamea, Workshop X (AP. 05. I. 28. 67); Figure 8: Apamea, Workshop X (AP. 81. II. 1271); Figure 9: Apamea, Workshop X (AP. 79. I. 5. 970); Figure 10: Apamea, Workshop X (AP. 05. I. 128. 66); Figure 11: Andarin, Workshop X (AND. 99 B 350 E 663); Figure 12: Beirut, Workshop X (Reynolds and Waksman 2007: fig. 77 pierced-neck jug 1.2); Figure 13: Hama, Workshop X (Christensen and Johansen 1971: fig. 19, 187)


Berytus 53-54, 2010-2011

Figure 14: Halabiyya (Workshop X?) (Orssaud 1991: fig. 122, 26–27); Figure 15: Resafa (Workshop X?) (Konrad 1992: fig. 9, 9); Figure 16: Tell Arqa (Workshop X?) (Thalmann 1980: fig. 30, 8); Figure 17: Apamea, Workshop X (AP. 08. II. 27. 62); Figure 18: Apamea, Workshop X (AP. 05. I. 140. 13); Figure 19: Apamea, Workshop X (AP. 05. I. 139. 64); Figure 20: Apamea, Workshop X (AP. 81. II. 1. 1578)

0 5 cm

14

15

16

17

18

19 20

Agnès Vokaer228

Berytus 53-54, 2010-2011

0 5 cm

23

24

21

25

22

Figure 21: Salamis, unknown workshop (Diederichs 1980: pl. 24, 309); Figure 22: Elauissa Sebaste, unknown workshop (Ferrazzoli and Ricci 2007: fig. 8, 24); Figure 23: Apamea, Workshop X (AP. 86. I. 3. 1203); Figure 24: Beirut, Workshop X (Reynolds and Waksman 2007: fig. 71 trilobate jug 1.1); Figure 25: Apamea, Workshop X (AP. 81. II. 1. 1183)


Berytus 53-54, 2010-2011

0 5 cm

30

28

29

2726

31

Figure 26: Apamea, Workshop X (AP. 05. I. 128. 99); Figure 27: Apamea, Workshop X (AP. 04. IV 28. 3); Figure 28: Apamea, Workshop X (AP. 81. II. 1. 1057); Figure 29: Apamea, Workshop X (AP. 07. V. 22. 5); Figure 30: Apamea, Workshop X (AP. 81. II. 1. 1201); Figure 31: Khalde, Workshop X (Reynolds and Waksman 2007: fig. 60)

Agnès Vokaer230

Berytus 53-54, 2010-2011

36

3534

33

37

32

?

0 5 cm

Figure 32: Apamea, Brittle Ware Workshop 4 (AP. 05. I. 109. 40); Figure 33: Apamea, Workshop X (AP. 84. I. 4. 265); Figure 34: Apamea, Workshop X (AP. 07. V. 24. 233); Figure 35: Apamea, Workshop X (AP. 05. I. 128. 99/69); Figure 36: Beirut, Workshop X (Reynolds and Waksman 2007: fig. 62); Figure 37: Apamea, Brittle Ware Workshop 4 (AP. 79. I. 5. 899)


Berytus 53-54, 2010-2011

0 5 cm

39

38

40

41

42

43

4445

46

Figure 38: Apamea, Workshop X (AP. 91. I. 21. 373); Figure 39: Apamea, Workshop X (AP. 81. II. 1. 1274); Figure 40: Apamea, Workshop X (AP. 05. I. 22. 68); Figure 41: Beirut, Workshop X (Reynolds and Waksman 2007: fig. 20 cooking pot 2B); Figure 42: Apamea, Workshop X (AP. 05. I. 22. 63); Figure 43: Beirut, Workshop X (Reynolds and Waksman 2007: fig. 24 cooking pot 3.1); Figure 44: Apamea, Workshop X (AP. 07. V. 24. 116); Figure 45: Apamea, Workshop X (AP. 81. II. 1053); Figure 46: Apamea, Workshop X (AP. 03. I. 142/144. 1)

Agnès Vokaer232

Berytus 53-54, 2010-2011

Figure 47: Apamea, Workshop X (AP. 81. II. 1. 1051); Figure 48: Beirut, Workshop X (Reynolds and Waksman 2007: fig. 27 cooking pot 3.2); Figure 49: Apamea, Workshop X (AP. 06. IV. 5. 129); Figure 50: Beirut, Workshop X (Reynolds and Waksman 2007: fig. 29 cooking pot 3.3); Figure 51: Brittle Ware cooking pot from Apamea, ca. 5th ca. AD, Workshop 4 (AP. 04. I. 1. 2); Figure 52: Apamea, Workshop X (AP. 86. I. 3. 163/ 1201); Figure 53: Dibsi Faraj, Workshop X (D.F. 1112. 1 185); Figure 54: Khan Khalde, Workshop X (Reynolds and Waksman 2007: fig. 42 cooking pot 4.1); Figure 55: Apamea, Workshop X (AP. 05. I . 128. 42)Figure 56: Apamea, Brittle Ware Workshop 4 (AP. 86. I . 3. 96)

49

50

53

52

54

51

55

56

47

0 5 cm

48

Documents

cooking ware imports in Syria: the Workshop X