1
The Classical and early Arab pottery
Introduction
This report is the result of two short seasons of work based in Homs with the British team during
September 2004 and September 2005.1 The cultural time frame that is covered spans the Hellenistic to early
Arab periods.
Though the early Arab pottery (Umayyad and possible Abbassid) should perhaps have been included in the
Medieval pottery chapter (by Derek Kennet), the likely continuity of the amphorae and cooking pots from
the later Byzantine to early Arab periods prompted me to take on the recording of the early Arab material
also. In so doing I made notes of the nature and location of Medieval glazed wares and other possible
associated ‘Medieval’ (i.e. late 10th/11th century and later) pottery (including sketches: see Catalogue
Introduction for the method of study followed), as back up information for Derek Kennet, who catalogued
only some of the Medieval survey material in 2002-2003(?*). Furthermore, as Derek Kennet made no
special mention of ‘Umayyad or ‘Abbassid’ pottery, I thought it wise make sure likely early Arab, preglazed period finds, were recorded, given the imminent publication deadline. Unlike Baalbek or Damascus,
and somewhat parallel with Beirut, Homs does not appear to have been supplied with early Arab glazed
wares (e.g. splashed green glaze): or if it was it was rare and/or I did not recognise it (perhaps one piece on
SHR 658). All the glazed material seemed truly ‘Medieval’ in style (much in the CW 1 dense red brown
fabric of local Classical cooking wares: for some true Medieval cooking pots that I did classify, see MED
CP 1 and 2).
Some possible Iron Age vessels are included in the Catalogue in case they are in fact early Hellenistic and
some ‘classical’ pieces may in fact be pre-Classical (particularly in the case of the pale plain wares, a ware
clearly in vogue during the Iron Age). The dating of the transitional late Persian (late Iron Age) to early
Hellenistic phase of occupation is difficult and has been guided, as much of this work, by my years of
ongoing work in Beirut classifying the 5th century BC to early Arab material, as well as through
consultation with Matt Whincop, responsible for the publication of the Iron Age ceramics (Chapter* ).
Most of the fine wares encountered in Homs were familiar to me from Beirut and their dating, particularly
the Hellenistic fine wares, derives from my observation of Beirut stratified sequences of contexts. A
summary typology of these fine wares is offered in the Typology.
The report comprises, apart from the following discussion, a Catalogue (Plates 1- ) and Typology
(Typology Plates 1-14), together with a summary of the principal Pottery Fabrics. A list of Abbreviations
used is included in the introduction to the Typology. The relative quantities of sherds (diagnostic, as well as
body sherds) according to date is indicated, as best as is possible with survey material, in the Site Index.
The latter data should be taken as a rough guide to the date of the ceramics found on these sites.
In the following discussion the principal patterns of supply of local, regional and imported ceramics will be
outlined, though the reader should also turn to the Typology for more detailed discussion of the ceramic
classes presented and, of course, to the Catalogue for the full data on which these are based. For an
assessment of regional trade patterns, the comparison between the ceramic supply of Homs and other
1
I would like here first to thank Richard Reece, aware of my ongoing work in Lebanon, for suggesting to
both parties that I should become involved in the project. I am most grateful to Graham Philip and Paul
Newson for inviting me to join them on what has been for me most rewarding and fruitful, particularly with
regard to placing my Beirut assemblage in its wider regional context. I would also like to thank Graham
Philip, Matt Whincop and Andrew* for their very helpful comments and knowledge of the pre-classical
pottery. Graham Philip and Paul Newson have been invaluable for their insight into the distribution of the
finds with respect to the location and nature of settlement through all periods. Finally I would like to
express my sincere admiration of the team of people who actually collected the pottery, some of it of
miniscule size, in the baking heat, a task not to be envied: those smallest of fragments could indeed be
useful, some even ending up as type pieces: e.g. CAT 1602).
2
regional centres, notably Zeugma and Apamea, for the Syrian interior, and Beirut for the north Levantine
coast, has been most fruitful in placing the supply of table wares, cooking wares and amphorae of the Homs
region into their proper regional and economic contexts.
a) The Hellenistic period
One of the most striking features of the ceramic assemblage is the concentration on a few specific sites of
early Hellenistic amphorae from a particular region of Asia Minor (Hell AMPH 1 and 2) (SHR 97, 363,
668, 1036, 1063). The fabric (FAM 2A-B) – hard, fine and micaceous – as well as the forms, variants of a
Hellenistic triangular/’mushroom’-rimmed form with long, wide oval handles, link them to the similar
series of amphorae imported to Beirut in the mid and late 3rd century BC. In the western Mediterranean the
form was produced by the Greek colonies of southern Italy and Sicily, and is called ‘Greco-Italic’ for that
reason (Will 1982; Cook and Dupont 1998). In fact it was the first true-pan provincial Classical amphora
type, being found all over the Hellenistic world. A version of the form was made in northern Lebanon, on
the basis of the fabrics encountered in Beirut.
In the case of Homs the source of these amphorae differs from that of examples imported from overseas to
Beirut. The latter, given their even more micaceous and notably ‘soapy’ texture derive from a source or
sources close to Ephesus and Samos. 2 The Homs imports derive from another regional source, though not
too distant, perhaps (Clazomenian amphorae have a similar fabric?).
Here one needs to bear in mind what these amphorae represent. These transport amphorae, and this applied
equally to those of the Roman period, were the products of specific cities and their territories, and should
provide evidence for links between specific cities, or at least regional ports used by them, and points of
contact abroad. In the Hellenistic period forms such as Hell AMPH 1 provided the model for the transport
amphora of more than one city, in this case entire regions of cities both within the Greek East and Aegean
as well as for the Greek colonies in the West. In this sense Hell AMPH 1 was a pan-Hellenistic type, as
were the fish plates and echinos bowls of Hellenistic fine ware. The Dressel 1 Republican Roman amphora
and its early Imperial successor, the Dressel 2-4 (with its characteristic double rod handles) were similarly
produced throughout the Roman world.
Transport amphorae of all periods, as well as fine wares, should be interpreted within the context in which
they were produced, as city-based products that follow the economic trajectories of specific cities and their
territories. In the case of table wares the production of local fine wares within Phoenicia, notably by Tyre
and Sidon should relate directly to the exploitation of their hinterlands. The rarity of local amphorae in the
Homs region during the Hellenistic period should be contrasted with the major role of local transport
amphorae in Hellenistic Phoenicia (notably the distinctive amphora types of Tyre and Sidon, and the
presumably major north Lebanese city that produced its version of Hellenistic AMPH 1). Beirut did not
produce its own distinctive amphora type until c. 100 BC or a little later, precisely when Sidon ceased to
produce its local type. The role of politics, here Beirut´s eventual supremacy over Sidon, may well be an
important factor in the mapping out of city territories and corresponding amphorae. 3
The two distributions of Beirut and Homs, the latter supplied through Antioch, surely, underline the
existence of diverse regional contacts operating in each case: Beirut connected with Ephesus and possibly
Samos, Homs with one or two, a close cluster, of other Asia Minor cities (in the orbit of Clazomenae?). In
the same way it is significant that whereas Beirut was well supplied with Hellenistic Pergamene black
slipped table wares over the later 3rd to early 2nd centuries BC, there are no such fine wares in Homs,
2
Observations of the 5th to 6th century AD Samos amphorae found in Butrint (Albania) have been most
useful in this respect (Reynolds 2005b).
3
Beirut´s earliest amphora type, c. 100 BC, may well derive from the Sidonian amphora as Homs Hell
AMPH 4, illustrated here as Typology Plate 2a, a form produced in Sidonian fabric throughout the Seleucid
period (3rd to 2nd centuries BC). Sidon´s other principal amphora was a ´torpedo jar’ form with ring handles
on a carinated (Persian-early Hellenistic) (Typology Plate 2b) or curved shoulder (2 nd century BC)
(Typology Plate 2c), it´s base being conical. Tyre also produced its version of the form.
3
despite the Asia Minor amphora imports. Perhaps the reason for the two supply networks is that the traders
or actual Greek colonists of Antioch or perhaps Homs/Emesa itself at its inception as a Hellenistic city had
special links with the cities supplying Hell AMPH 1. The rural economy of Hellenistic Homs/Emesa and its
territory did not develop in such a way as to require the manufacture of transport amphorae in any quantity.
Those that it did produce (Hell AMPH 4) seem to be based on a Sidonian amphora current during the later
3rd to mid 2nd century BC (Typology Plate 2a: AUB Museum, unprovenanced).
Relatively few cooking wares of the Hellenistic period were found on the survey, in comparison to the fine
wares and amphorae (e.g. SHR 83 and 97, where amphorae are unusually common) (CP 1-3). The earliest
Hellenistic form with a tall everted collar neck is close to Beirut cooking pots of the late Persian period,
and should be seen as its successor (CP 1A and perhaps the later variant CP 1B are both Hellenistic rather
than earlier in date). It should be noted that this collared type of cooking pot is found from northern
Palestine to Lebanon and northern Syria, i.e. Homs, and is not specifically a Hellenistic shape. It is, rather,
a Phoenician-Levantine type. Other forms with shorter collar rims may have appeared in the Hellenistic
period and are equally a feature of the same wide geographical region (CP 2-3). In the case of Beirut,
examples are well-dated to the 3rd century BC. A characteristic feature of cooking pots of the Hellenistic
period, a feature that does not continue into the Roman period, is that the strap handles narrow down
towards the base. Casseroles (CA 1-5) share formal traits with those of Beirut, the Hellenistic Levant in
general and are in turn derived from Greek models. Homs and Beirut thus shared in a new Hellenistic
method of food preparation or cuisine to some extent.
However imported Phocean cooking ware dishes/frying pans that are a regular feature of the Beirut kitchen
repertoire from c. 200 BC till the first half of the 2nd century AD are absent in the Homs region. This
recalls the contrasting supply of nearby Pergamene Hellenistic black glaze wares. It may equally be due to
the lack of penetration of imported cooking wares beyond the coastal cities of Syria and Lebanon. The
presence or absence of Pergamene and Phocean cooking wares in Antioch would be illuminating in this
respect.4
Hellenistic fine ware imports suggest that there were two or possibly three phases of Hellenistic occupation
in the Homs region. One, Ptolemaic, datable to the 3rd century BC, associated with Hell AMPH 1-2, is
characterised by large number of imports of Cypriot fine wares, identical to those encountered in Beirut.5
Cypriot forms comprise small echinos bowls, fish plates, the occasional krater (FW Crater 1-2) and a
painted flagon, perhaps imported for its contents (FW Jug 1) (see Plate 1 and Typology, fine Wares, for
more details). Very few 4th to 3rd BC Attic pre-Hellenistic fine wares have been found (for the late Persian
period, see Matt Whincop in this volume). With the exception of SHR 178, with no later Hellenistic finds
4
We may note that whereas these Phocean pans continued to be traded in large numbers during the 1st to
3rd centuries to Knossos (Hayes 1983; Sackett et al. 1992), Butrint and Durres/Dyrrachium (Reynolds
2003d; 2005b), as well as Benghazi (Riley 1979), the contacts between Phocea and Beirut ended by the mid
2nd century AD (Reynolds 1999). That such long-term supply could end abruptly should be borne in mind
when considering and interpreting the mechanisms behind such traded items and shipping routes in general.
5
Sites with early Hellenistic AMPH 1-2 and 3rd BC cooking pots. Distribution of 3rd-2nd BC, pre-ESA fine
wares (Cypriot BG 43, RG 28) and pre-ESA (RG 26) noted, as well as other Hellenistic amphorae and
kitchen wares.
Sites SHR 5 (Hell AMPH 1; BG 43?), 49 (CP 2), 83 (CP 1A: 3; Hell AMPH 4), 88 (Hell Attic: late 3 rdearly 2nd BC; BG 43: 2?), 97 (Hell AMPH 1: Hell AMPH 2B; 11; CP 1A), 173 (Hell Attic: late 3 rd-early 2nd
BC), 178 (pre-Hell Attic), 187 (BG 43?), 207 (RG 26: 8-9; CP 3; CP 2 or 3), 210 (RG 28; RG 26), 218 (CP
1A), 249 (CP 2), 251 (Pre-Hell Attic: 3; Hell Attic; CP 2; CP 3), 255 (Hell Attic; Hell AMPH 1), 256 (preHell Attic; Hell Attic?; BG 43?; RG 28 unguentarium; Hell AMPH 1, CP 1B; CP 3; Hell Mortar 1), 268
(RG 28?; RG 26?; Hell AMPH 1: 2), 270 (Pre-Hell Attic; BG 43: 3; RG 28: 5; RG 26?; Hell AMPH 1: 2;
Hell AMPH 2B: 3), 286 (BG 43; RG 26: 4; Hell AMPH 1; Hell Mortar 2), 312 (RG 28?; RG 26?; Hell
AMPH 1: 3; Hell AMPH 2B), 315 (Hell Attic; BG 43: 4; RG 28: 10, including 2 x WSW craters; RG 26: 6;
Hell AMPH 3; CP 2), 363 (Hell AMPH 1; Hell AMPH 2B), 668 (Hell AMPH 1), 723 (Hell Attic: late 3 rdearly 2nd BC), 724 (Hell Attic), 811 (Hell AMPH 1), 866 (Hell AMPH 4?), 912 (Hell AMPH 1), 930 (Hell
AMPH 1), 948 (Hell AMPH 1), 1031 (Hell AMPH 1), 1036 (Hell AMPH 1; note STJ 3), 1038 (BG 43?
unguentarium; note STJ 5), 1063 (Hell AMPH 2: 3; CP 2).
4
and a period of reoccupation in the late Byzantine period, Attic occurs on sites that had important 3rd
century BC phases (SHR 251, 256 and 270).
SHR 270 stands out as a site with major 3rd century BC material but perhaps little later material. SHR 315
has a high concentration of fine wares that continued right through the 2nd century BC (see below, Black
ESA, early ESA forms). The absence of Hell AMPH and find of only one CP 2 could indicate that the
occupation begins in the Seleucid period, from c. 200 BC. (GRAHAM: would this make sense?). Third to
mid 2nd century BC red-slipped fish plates and echinos bowls from the same source as the later Eastern
Sigillata A (RG 26) are rare finds, except on SHR 207, 286 and 315 where Seleucid occupation seems
dominant (SHR 49, 207, 210, 268?, 270?, 286: common, 312?, 315: common, 498, 859, 1063?). SHR 207
has, notably, the only find of a large fish plate-deep bowl with a dark slip that precedes true Black Eastern
Sigillata A, datable to the first quarter of the 2nd century BC (CAT 189).
The looped handle carinated bowls from the same source as ESA, as well as Rhodian examples, are absent,
whereas they are omnipresent in Beirut and Cypriot Hellenistic levels of the late 3 rd and 2nd centuries BC.6
A general lack of Rhodian amphorae in the Homs region may well be relevant in the case of the Rhodian
products. These amphorae are scarcely attested in Zeugma either, but were massively imported to Beirut.
Some sites in the survey stand out with their finds of black-slipped Eastern Sigillata A (c. 160-140 BC:
hence ESA), notably the bead-decorated conical cup form ESA 17, and early forms of red slipped ESA
(late 2nd to early 1st century BC: ESA 1-3, 4A, 17).7 There was notably only a single vessel, a fish plate, of
Campanian A (SHR 315). Italian Campana wares appear in Beirut 2 nd and 1st century BC contexts in small
quantities.
One fine ware of local or close regional origin has been isolated (FW 1).8 The ware is the most common on
SHR 480, a site with dominant late Hellenistic material, and more than one example occurs on SHR 251
and 315. A general 2nd century BC date for the ware is likely. It is not encountered in Beirut. The fabric
does bear some resemblance to that of Hellenistic fine wares that are characteristic of Kamed al Loz,
located in the southern Beqaa Valley (coarse, very pale yellow to cream with fine mudstone, slip fired to a
patina similar to African Red Slip Ware), and so a local/Homs origin needs to be confirmed. The most
common form is a thin walled echinos bowl, recalling variants that were produced by Beirut, Tyre and
Sidon throughout the 2nd century BC. A fish plate, lamp and possibly a jug form were also in the FW 1
repertoire.
Finally, some storage jars may date to the Hellenistic period. SHR 480, with a major phase of Hellenistic
occupation, stands out with its supply of STJ 1-2 in a fabric with large lime lumps (CW 6A). The fabric
could be that of Byblos. These storage jars, with a grooved handle, occur almost entirely on this site (4
examples; SHR 207 also x 1). Another type, STJ 3, with a wide bell-shaped rim and similar grooved
handles could also be Hellenistic (similar, but larger rims may be Iron Age) (SHR 1036 only: 3). The fabric
suggests a source in the Beqaa Valley (cf. the Early Roman grooved rim mortars: CW 7).
Roman and Byzantine
Few sites were identified with material dating to the Augustan period or early 1 st century AD.9 Not a single
scrap of Italian sigillata was found, whereas Italian fine wares are common in Beirut from the late
Augustan to mid 1st century AD, Flavian and later forms being absent (Reynolds 2004). The mid 1st
century, or perhaps the Flavian period, marks the first major Roman presence in the region identifiable
6
E.g. Paphos: Hayes (1991); Kition: Salles (ed.) (1993). For the Rhodian origin of some of these (in a hard
fabric with very fine dots of lime, similar to ‘classic’ Rhodian amphorae, see Sandrine Élaigne 2002.
7
Sites with late Hellenistic material (mid 2nd to 1st centuries BC: Black ESA and early ESA forms), those
marked with asterisk with high concentration: SHR 5, 8, 49?, 83*, 207*, 212, 216, 251, 315*, 328*, 480*,
668, 677?, 1031, 1036, 1038, 1050?, 1053.
8
FW 1 occurs on sites SHR 207, 210, 212?, 249, 251: 2, 268, 270??, 315: 1-3; 480: 4, 1038.
9
Sites SHR 5?, 49?, 315, 358?, 643, 1036*, 1038. It is generally very difficult to distinguish between late
Hellenistic and early Roman rims and bases of ESA 4, present for example on SHR 49.
5
primarily through imports of ESA (forms 34-37, 49), the presence of ESA 37 being often a unifying
factor.10 Mid/late 1st century to AD 150 regionally imported grooved rim mortars, a type well attested in
Beirut and in the lower Beqaa Valley at Kamed al Loz, as well as in the Baalbek region, are found on the
same early Imperial sites (Mortar 1) (Typology Plate 9).11 There is a particular concentration of the full
typological range of these on SHR 737 (Mortars 1-2, 4-5), where only one Roman fine ware was recovered
(probably ESA 37).
A single cooking pot rim can be dated to the Flavian period or early 2 nd century (CP 6). It is a local Syrian
type, paralleled at Apamea, Zeugma and in Cyprus. Other cooking pots, again not that common, appear to
follow the same development as the Beirut cooking pot series, an interesting phenomenon in itself
(Typology Plate 7 top, figs a-n; see Reynolds and Waksman 2007; Reynolds in press). As such they can
be dated to the early and mid 2nd century AD (CP 7A-C). Two other rim types, again scarce, may be local
versions of the Beirut cooking pot of the first half of the 2 nd century (CP 11A-B), though similar variants
have been dated to the 3rd or 4th centuries at Apamea.12
Baalbek products, in a well-fired grey fabric (CW 4) should also date to the 1 st and 2nd centuries. A cooking
pot, mortaria and amphorae, with their distinctive handles scored down the centre, have been noted. These
were small amphorae with ring foot bases (for a similar type of vessel in a similar fabric, but not with
scored handles, see Typology Plate 2b: Beirut, BEY 006.10128.22).13 Large storage jars in the same ware
are attested, though some may equally date to the Medieval period. Other storage jars from the lower Beqaa
or possibly the Hula Valley further to the south, made their way to Baalbek (quite common on sites in the
region) and occasionally to Homs. 14
Another reduced ware of with a more granular fabric (CW 3) of early Roman date could be from the Beqaa,
but not Baalbek, given that a version of the Baalbek amphora occurs in this ware: i.e. the Baalbek form and
grooved handles was adopted by others sites in the Beqaa Valley. 15 Some examples of this amphora occur
in a fabric closer to that of the early Roman grooved rim mortars, and would support this hypothesis.
The mass of imported products from overseas attested in Beirut during the 1 st and 2nd centuries did not
reach Homs (Campanian and Phocean cooking wares; Spanish and Portuguese fish sauce amphorae;
amphorae from Cilicia, the Syrian coast (Ras al Basit, Amrit), the Aegean and Asia Minor) (Reynolds
1999, 2000, 2003c and 2005a).
10
Sites SHR 4 (ESA 37), 49?, 81, 207*, 254*, 268, 458, 507, 643??, 673, 677, 737, 885, 888, 912, 1000,
315?: was this abandoned by the mid 1st century AD?, 358*, 1032?, 1036*, 1052.
11
Mortar 1 (late 1st to 2nd century) (mortar bases also indicated here): Sites SHR 182, 332, 334, 416 (base),
477, 507: 1 and base, 510, 615: 1 and 2 bases, 635, 643, 644 (base), 677:2, 737:3, 912, 934: base, 979:
base, 1036: 1 and base; Mortar 2 (1st century AD or late 1st BC?): SHR 635, 737: 1 and base, 1038; Mortar
3 (1st century AD?): SHR 639; Mortar 4 (2nd century AD?): SHR 737; Mortar 5 (Early Roman-2nd century):
SHR 737.
SHR 315 yielded no grooved rim mortars, and given the date of the latest ESA, it is possible that a break in
the occupation occurred by the mid 1st century.
12
We may note here that the local cooking wares of Homs (and Apamea), though classified as ‘brittle
wares’, as are Syrian Roman-Byzantine cooking wares generally in the literature, though well-fired, are not
particularly thin-walled. The wares of north Palestinian Workshop X (see below) are truly thin-walled and
merit such an epithet, though this term has led to more confusion than was first intended. Indeed, Beirut
cooking pots from the Hellenistic period onwards can be extremely thin-walled (2mm), but it have never
been described as ‘brittle wares’. The Homs products are considerably thicker-walled. There is simply a
Levantine tradition for well-made, thin-walled cooking wares, as well as amphorae (the Beirut amphora, for
example, with walls of sometimes only 3-4mm in thickness).
13
Personal observation of Baalbek finds, thanks to Margarete Van Ess and Betina Fischer-Genz.
14
Pale yellow to pale red fabric with surfaces fired to a patina, similar to ARS, with mudstone inclusions,
related to cooking ware CW 34*.
15
CW 3: CP 7C-D?, CP 10?, CP 11A-B?, CW Bowl 12?, Mortar 4, CW Base 2, CW Base 3?, CW Jug 4;
AMPH 1.
6
Significant equally is the similar absence of products from the interior of north Lebanon (large and small
module amphorae in lime rich clays: Reynolds 1999, FAM 43 group; Reynolds 2003c; 2005a). Elsewhere I
have argued that the latter amphorae mark the Roman expansion during the Flavian period into lands in
northern Lebanon formerly held by the local Ituraean Arab princes and the Herodian dynasty (Reynolds
2003c). Indeed, it was not until the Flavian period that the Anti-Lebanon was incorporated into the Roman
Empire, a period that also marked the creation of the province of Judaea*(correct name? Palestina?)
through a similar process following the end of the Herodian line (CHECK: Butcher 2005). The expansion
of Roman settlement within the Homs region should be seen within this change in political dynamics.
(CREATION OF ROMAN SYRIA = when?)*
The central Tunisian form ARS 50 is the only possible fine ware of mid 3 rd century date, though the
majority of the few examples found are more likely to be 4 th century examples.16 No early 3rd century ESA
tarda or early to mid 3rd century ARS A forms have so far been found (e.g. ARS 14-16), both wares
attested in Beirut assemblages, but the single find of the baking dish ARS 26/181 may well date to this
period, or to the mid or late 2nd century (SHR 841, CAT 1230). Overall, the fine wares, amphorae and
cooking wares do seem to indicate a possible early-mid 3rd century phase of occupation on a restricted
number of sites.17 A few local cooking pots may date to the early 3 rd centuries, in so far as the rim types
follow the same development as the local Beirut series (7D; CP 13: this, relatively common, could equally
date to the 4th century, as the form continued to be produced into the mid 4 th century in Beirut).
Amphorae of likely early or mid 3rd century date are scarce. There are three examples of Kapitän 2/Peacock
and Williams Class* amphorae and a single unclassified type fig. (Beirut form ‘AM 81’). Both are major
finds in 3rd century levels in Beirut but can also date to the 4 th century. These types have almost identical
fabrics and the fact they, and very few other imported amphorae, have been found on the same sites in
Homs strengthens the likely-hood that they derive from the same or two close regional sources (in the
[north-western?] Black Sea, rather than the Aegean?). Large Sinope (fish sauce) amphorae, from the southwestern Black Sea coast, again a major component of Beirut assemblages of the early to mid 3 rd century
(Hayes Knossos Types 25-26), are also present on two sites. Sinope amphorae continue as sporadic imports
through to the 6th century (see below). There was one late 2nd to mid 3rd century AD example of the onehandled micaceous (Ephesian-Meander Valley) predecessor of Late Roman Amphora 3 (SHR 912, CAT
1391; see Robinson [1959] and Lemaître [1997] for these). Only one Tunisian amphora sherd was
recovered, in a lime-rich central Tunisian (Salakta) fabric. As such, it is likely to be as early-mid 3rd century
examples from this source found in Beirut, rather than a late Roman example.
Late Roman fine wares comprise primarily African Red Slip Ware (ARS) and Phocean Red Slip Ware
(Late Roman C), the latter only appearing and being dominant in the first half of the 6 th century.18 There
16
Six examples: SHR 315 (CAT 549, ARS 50A), SHR 358 (ARS C dish floor, CAT 750), SHR 673 (ARS
50A, CAT 1025), SHR 679 (ARS 50A, CAT 1153), SHR 931 (ARS 50A, CAT 1548), SHR 1050 (ARS 50
wall, CAT 1907).
17
Cooking pots 7C, 7D, 13: Site SHR 358, 673, 677, 885, 888, 926, 961, 1036* and 1039. More reliable
are the finds of amphorae: Kapitän 2 (SHR 885, CAT 1289; SHR 929, CAT 1522; SHR 1036 (where CP 13
is common), CAT 1845), Beirut AM 81 (SHR 268, CAT 384) and Sinope Knossos Types 25-26 (SHR 604,
CAT 925 and SHR 957, CAT 1680). A Tunisian amphora wall may date to this period (SHR 212, CAT
231).
18
Late ARS forms, 8 examples: SHR 308 (ARS 93?, CAT 465: late 5 th-6th century), SHR 315 (ARS 99
base likely: late 5th-6th century; cf. ARS 104/105 floor: late 5th to 6th /7th centuries); SHR 358 (ARS 105,
CAT 571: early 7th century?), SHR 668 (ARS 104/105 wall, CAT 1008: 6th or 7th centuries), SHR 734
(ARS 104/105 wall, CAT 1167: 6th or 7th centuries), SHR 926 (ARS 104/105 wall, CAT 1478: 6 th or 7th
centuries), SHR 1049 (ARS 104A, CAT 1902: late 5 th to first half 6th centuries).
LRC/PRSW, 10 examples: SHR 268 (LRC 3F, CAT 383: first half 6th century), SHR 315 (LRC 3F, CAT
561), SHR 885 (LRC 3 bases, CAT 1287 and 1288: late 5 th century and 6th century respectively), SHR 926
(LRC 3F, CAT 1479: first half of 6th century; LRC 3G, CAT 1480: mid 6th century), SHR 930 (LRC 3
foot?, CAT 1549: 5th/6th century), SHR 931 (LRC 3E, CAT 1550: late 5 th or early 6th century), SHR 938
(LRC 3F, CAT 1621: first half 6th century), SHR 1006 (LRC 10B/C variant, CAT 1761: early or mid 7 th
century).
7
were only two definite fine wares of 7th century date, in both ARS and LRC. Cypriot Red Slip Ware/Late
Roman D is very rare (two examples of mid 5 th to early 6th century Form 2: SHR 315 and 917), whereas all
three wares dominate Beirut and coastal Levantine assemblages in general. The supply of late Roman fine
wares to sites to the east of Aleppo and in Zeugma is similar to that encountered at Homs, with a
prevalence towards LRC.19
As noted, the majority of examples of ARS 50 are likely to be 4 th century, rather than 3rd century examples
(note 12). More clear later 4th or early 5th century occupation is indicated by finds of ARS 67, and some
possible rim fragments of ARS 59.20 To these we may add a scatter of 4th to 5th century dish floor
fragments. As we have seen, Phocean Red Slip Ware forms and late ARS imports are of late 5 th to mid 6th
century date. The overall quantities of 4th to 6th century fine wares recovered is not particularly great. The
general impression is of scarce early 3rd century finds, followed by a major phase of Byzantine occupation
from the mid 4th to mid 6th centuries.
The assessment of the strength of Byzantine period settlement is hampered by the dating of local cooking
pots. A few rims can be paralleled with 4th and 5th century variants produced in Beirut (Typology Plate 7
top, for the parallel development of Beirut and Homs cooking pots CP 8-10). As we have seen, the 3rd or 4th
rather than 2nd century dating of CP 11A-B needs to be clarified. The most common local cooking pots
rims, classified as CP 11C-F, are probably Byzantine, rather than early Imperial. Parallels with finds in
Apamea and Zeugma, as well as likely parallels in the repertoire of the north Palestinian ‘brittle ware’ of
Workshop X (located at Tell Keisan?), suggest a date for them in the late 5 th and early 6th centuries (see
Typology;Vokaer 2005, Type 4; Typology Plate 7o-r). They thus could be contemporary with the imports
of 6th century ARS and Phocean Red Slip Ware. That the Homs cooking pots (with fine basalt inclusions)
are in fact Apamean products still needs to be investigated.
The Apamean and Homs cooking pots demonstrate that from the (late?) 5 th century local production may
now have followed the model of north Palestinian Workshop X products (from Tell Keisan?), local cooking
pots now being provided with handles attached to the shoulder and not from the rim. In Beirut cooking
wares are from c. 500 dominated by imports of Workshop X, this being even more marked following the
earthquake of AD 551 (Waksman et al. 2005; Reynolds and Waksman 2007).
The model for the cooking pots of Déhès, Apamea, Androna, and Homs from the mid 6 th century
continued to be that of cooking pots of Workshop X (Typology Plate 7, figs s-t; Vokaer 2005, Type 1 and
Homs CP 14: with a tall collar rim and handles placed on the shoulder). The rim types of CP 14 are not
those encountered in Apamea-Androna or Déhès and should be considered a separate series.
Whereas Beirut from the late 6th to mid 8th century imitated and imported the latest cooking pot type of
Workshop X (Typology Plate 7, fig u; Waksman et al. 2005, Marmite 4/Cathma 11: a form with a concave
rim and handles now attached from the rim and not placed on the shoulder), Homs, Apamea, Androna and
Déhès, to the north, never produced that form. The production centre(s) supplying these cities preferred to
19
For Zeugma, see Kenrick (forthcoming). For comments on the overall supply of fine wares to Lebanon
and northern Syria, including Antioch, see Reynolds (2003a). See also Hayes (1972 and 1980) for the range
of finds at Antioch and elsewhere in the region.
LRC was clearly the dominant ware in Beirut, with respect to ARS. Cypriot LRD imports began in the late
4th century, when ARS was the dominant fine ware, the latter arriving in quantity in the mid 4 th century.
The early forms of LRC (forms 1 and 2) are absent in Beirut, the ware not gaining hold until the mid or
later 5th century. Early and mid Vandal ARS forms were not generally exported to Beirut (ARS 63 is an
occasional exception), ARS exports not starting again until c. 500, when they were imported on a moderate
scale. Cypriot fine wares similar scale to those LRC from the mid 5 th century onwards, both being very
common in assemblages. Cypriot slipped basins (Form 11) were a common ‘special category’ imported
product from the early 5th to 6th centuries.
20
Sixteen examples: SHR 315 (ARS 59, ARS 67x5, 59/67 fragment; 4 th-5th century dish), SHR 332 (ARS
D base, CAT 632: 5th century?), SHR 664 (ARS 67, CAT 1000), SHR 674 (ARS 67 rim?, CAT 1086), SHR
913 (ARS 67 rim??, CAT 1419), SHR 931 (ARS 59?, CAT 1549), SHR 941 (ARS 67 likely, CAT 1638),
SHR 961 (ARS D dish stamp, CAT 1687), SHR 1053 (ARS D dish floor, CAT 1935).
8
continue to produce the 6th century shape from the early to mid 7th century (late Byzantine period: see
Typology for the dating evidence from Apamea) and well into the Umayyad period (Reynolds and
Waksman 2007; Sodini and Villneauve 1992, fig. 7, for the Umayyad version).
Apamea certainly, as well as Homs (PL Jug 2), also produced the Workshop X/Keisan jug with spout in the
late Byzantine period. Sliced rim casseroles, a Palestinian shape, were also made in local cooking ware (CA
6A-D). The handles, where they are preserved, are solid, and not folded or grooved on top. This is an
indication of a relatively late date (folded handles disappear from the local Beirut versions by the mid 5 th
century), and/or an earlier date but if so, based on Palestinian and not Beirut models.21
A fair number of true north Palestinian Workshop X products have been found on survey sites, primarily
cooking pots and jugs (some with spout), and the occasional casserole, lid and funnel (or bowl with spout)
form. The number could well be greater, as it is sometimes difficult to differentiate between local and
Workshop X products (at a macroscopic level).22
We should note that though there are some similarities in the typological range of Homs, Apamea and
Déhès, a typical casserole form (inturned rim and carinated upper wall and vertical ring handles from the
rim to shoulder), quite well dated to the early-mid 7th century at Déhès, may be paralleled at Apamea
(Vokaer 2005, fig. 3e, Bowl 2), but is absent in Homs. As noted, contemporary cooking pots with collar
rims (i.e. related to CP 14) from the same phases at Déhès (Phases 4 and 5) are close to those of Apamea
and Androna (Vokaer 2005, Type 1 and particularly Type 2: both dated to the 6 th century by Vokaer) but
were not found in the Homs Survey. Homs, thus, stands apart from Apamea, Androna and sites to the North
with respect to its 6th century (and possible 7th century) cooking pots and casseroles. Though some local
calcareous amphorae are well paralleled at Apamea in the late Byzantine period (early-mid 7th century) and
must be the same product (AMPH 7), the principal shape at Apamea seems to be absent (Pieri 2005b, Type
2).
Two large, imported forms, a basin and dolium, almost certainly from the south Syrian coast in the region
of Amrit-Tartus, deserve special mention (CW BA 2; Dolium 1). Both are handmade. They are abundant in
Beirut from the early 5th century onwards (e.g. Typology Plate 13, Fig a). Many dolia were left in situ
following the AD 551 earthquake. Imports of these vessels on Homs survey sites represent the only
contacts with the south Syrian coast. Amrit amphorae were not imported. It is notable that whereas Ras al
Basit mortars are common in Beirut from the mid 3 rd century onwards, Ras al Basit basins and mortars
being particularly common in the 5th century (e.g. Typology Plate 9, Fig a), Homs did not import these
north Syrian coastal products. In Beirut the trade in Amrit-Tartus region products seems to diminish with
the Arab conquest. It remains to be seen whether the same is true in Homs, as they are often found on sites
that continue into the Arab period. Other dolia and a basin, in basalt and lime fabric CW 12, are surely
local (Dolium 2 and CW BA 3: SHR 178, 318, 319, 481, 498, 602, 651, 661, 658) and could be Abbassid
(or Medieval) products. Another group of dolia with elongated rims could also be Abbassid or Medieval
(Dolia 3).
The most common imported amphorae in the Byzantine period were, not surprisingly, Late Roman
Amphora 1, from Cilician and, to a lesser extent, Cypriot sources (18 definite sherds and three uncertain;
21
Caesarean sliced rim casseroles of the 2nd century, as well as contemporary 2nd century examples found
as imports in Beirut, but in another ware, CW 34, form the Beqaa Valley or Hula Valley, have solid
handles. In Beirut local sliced rim casseroles were produced from the early 3 rd century onwards and, up to
the mid 5th century, have folded handles with a corresponding gap at the top of the handle. The local
versions then have solid handles. They were still produced in the 6 th century, but after 551 almost all sliced
rim cassseroles were north Palestinian imports from Workshop X/Tell Keisan.
22
At least 15 vessels are true Workshop X products (sites SHR 178, 238, 254, 259, 308: 2, 315: 2, 336,
639: 2, 663, 664, 839, 1053). 10 other fragments may be Workshop X or local cooking ware (sites SHR
218, 266, 315: 4, 358, 734, 912, 975). A further 4 vessels are north Palestinian, either CW 34 or Workshop
X (315: 2, 888, 912). There was one definite CW 34 vessel (SHR 315, CAT 584, a jug). There is a notable
concentration of finds on SHR 315.
9
for an almost complete AD 551 example, from the Beirut Souks excavations, see Typology Plate 14, fig
c).23 The number of finds is nevertheless dwarfed by the local amphora series (see below). There may be
one early to mid 5th century example, but most date to the late 5 th and 6th (/7th) centuries. Homs received the
first imports of LRA 1 later than did Beirut.24 It is possible that some of these products arrived with the
Phocean Red Slip Ware (LRC), possibly being distributed through Seleucia the port of Antioch. A similar
relationship can be suggested for the distribution of LRA 1 and LRC to Zeugma (Reynolds forthcoming a).
Homs shares with Beirut the continued, but far rarer import of Sinope amphorae in the late Roman period.25
There is at least one 4th century rim in the typical red fabric of the period (larger than the 5 th century
examples: for latter, Typology Plate 14, fig a) (SHR 358, CAT 752) and one example of the late 5 th to 7th
century pale green ‘argile claire’ series (SHR 358, CAT 717) (as Typology Plate 14, fig b). Other sherds
are less dateable.26 Seleucia may well have acted as entrepôt for the distribution of ‘argile claire’ Sinope
amphorae in the late 6th and 7th centuries (cf. a possible warehouse located at the port: Reynolds 2005, 566;
they are abundant at Zeugma: Reynolds forthcoming a).
There are a number of sherds of Aegean-?Chian LRA 2, a form notably only rarely encountered in Beirut
(sites SHR 866, 885: 2, 912, 934 and 1052). All are likely to be 5th or 6th century finds. Micaceous fabric
LRA 3, from the Meander Valley/Ephesus was, on the other hand, very scarce (one example: SHR 841),
whereas it is a major imported class in Beirut, as well as Athens (Robinson 1959), and was well distributed
in the western Mediterranean (Reynolds 1995; Pieri 2005a).
It would seem that Tunisian amphorae were not imported alongside the ARS table wares of the 4 th to early
5th centuries, whereas they both comprised a significant part of contemporary assemblages in Beirut. Other
well distributed late Roman Palestinian amphora forms are scarce finds in Homs: LRA 5 (SHR 1052, CAT
1921: a 6th century example) and Gazan LRA 4 (SHR 268, CAT 388; SHR 885, CAT 1290). The rarity of
Gazan amphorae is particularly significant given their abundance in Beirut (from the 3 rd to mid 6th
centuries) and throughout the Mediterranean from the 5 th to late 6th and early 7th centuries (Reynolds 1995;
Reynolds 2005; Pieri 2005a). We may note in this respect that LRA 4 and LRA 5 are relatively scarce also
at Zeugma, examples being 6th to 7th century in date. There seems to have been no attempt to market
Palestinian wine in inland Syria.
This point in turn leads us to another perhaps related phenomenon: the production and distribution of local
amphorae in the Syrian interior. From the eastern Euphrates (Tetrapyrgium /Qusair as-Saila and
Resafa/Sergiopolis, to Zeugma the crossing point for the northern Euphrates, to Aleppo, Qalat Siman and
the villages of the Limestone Massif, Apamea and Homs, the most common and almost exclusive
23
Sites SHR 178 (late 5th or 6th century handle), 212 (early 5th century rim?), 213 (late 5th or 6th century
handle), 268: 2, 308, 312?, 320 (late 5th century handle), 328, 358: 1-2, 602? (Kalavassos/SE Cypriot
fabric), 639, 673, 859, 866 (6th century rim), 895? (or Sinope), 912, 926 (late 5 th century handle), 938: rim
and handle, late 5th century?).
24
The earliest true ‘LRA 1’ amphorae found in Beirut are scarce and date to the mid 4th century (e.g.
examples in BEY 006.2349). Beirut, however, was well supplied with the Imperial and mid Roman Cilician
amphorae that were the predecessors of LRA 1: Reynolds 2005a; Reynolds in press). For one possible
Homs example of the early series, see SHR 1043, CAT 1900.
25
Beirut received an almost continuous supply of Sinope amphorae from the 3 rd to mid 6th centuries
(Reynolds 2003a). The form and fabric change quite markedly during the mid 5 th century. The 4th to early
5th century ‘carrot’ shaped amphora with a reddish fabric was replaced by a smaller amphora with a
rounded base, in a pale greenish-white ware (very close to some LRA 1 products). The latter type is
abundant in AD 551 levels in Beirut, but is far rarer in post earthquake deposits. At Zeugma, in contrast,
the pale amphorae are abundant in late 6th to early 7th century deposits.
26
SHR 602, CAT 918: Could be a LRA 1 handle, cf. Cypriot Kalavassos fabric, rather than a variant
Sinope amphora fabric; SHR 615: 4th or 5th century; SHR 895: Sinope argile claire or LRA 1; SHR 926,
wall, orange fabric; SHR 934: 2 walls, orange fabric; SHR 936, late 4 th or 5th century handle; SHR 971?,
handle fragment in yellow fabric, mid 6th to 7th century Sinope, or is LRA 1).
10
amphorae are local pale fabric, calcareous amphorae. 27 For some, origins close to the Euphrates are likely
on the basis of fabric and distribution: the painted amphorae that are typical at Zeugma, Qusr as-Saila,
Resafa and the fortresses of the Khabour Valley (Lyonnet 2001). Others, also common at Zeugma and
Aleppo (Hans Curvers survey material), probably derive from sources in north-western Syria. Indeed it is
these, not usually painted, amphorae with a more granular fabric that are found in the Syrian Limestone
Massif (Reynolds 2005a). The examples found at Zeugma be seen to have been produced in several sizemodules (large,medium, small). The amphorae found at Qalat Siman and Apamea also appear to subdivide
into several size modules (Pieri 2005b).
The pale calcareous amphorae that are typical finds on Roman-Byzantine and Arab period sites in the
Homs region have notable parallels in terms of rim types with some of the late 6 th to early 7th century
amphorae found at Zeugma (Homs forms 3A-C and 4A-B, all with Zeugma equivalents). The Zeugma
examples all have rather globular bodies with rounded bases, whether the painted series or the theoretically
western Syrian examples (that occasionally bore rather simpler painted decoration). There is so far no
evidence for the appearance of these amphorae prior to the 6 th century, but it has to be said that this could
be due to the absence of excavated earlier contexts (in Zeugma and Qalat Siman, for example). Possible
very large, surely early Imperial amphorae in the same calcareous fabric occur at Apamea (personal
observation). There is still much to learn, as deposits of 3 rd to 5th century date from western and central
Syria have so far not been published (as far as I know). The villages of the Syrian Massif are not late 5 th
century foundations, though this and later material is better known – they also have 3rd and 4th century, and
earlier, phases that have not been explored.
Pieri (2005b) has recently argued that the form is a Syrian version of the globular LRA 2 that became the
standard model for amphorae around the Mediterranean from the 7 th century onwards, but one could
equally hypothesize a parallel with LRA 1. Or they are perhaps not directly imitating any particular
amphora. Pieri has also presented another series of apparently early Byzantine small module (table)
amphorae with ring foot bases that could be local products of Apamea, again vessels that may have been
produced to standard capacities (Pieri, ibid).
That central Syrian amphorae, often found on military sites, were used for the transportation of locally
produced annona goods for the local army and frontier troops is very likely (Pieri 2005b; Reynolds
forthcoming a). The Roman-Byzantine road network can be directly correlated with the distribution of local
Syrian amphorae, with two main axes running East from Antioch to sites on the Euphrates and South, from
the Limestone Massif to Homs/Emesa (Pieri 2005b, fig. 1; MAP needed). Both LRA 1 and LRA 2 served
the same function in the supply of annona goods (wine and oil, presumably) to the armies of the Danube
(see Karagiorgou 2000; Reynolds 2005a, conclusions). The state or city control of the capacities of
amphorae, well documented in the case of Hellenistic Rhodian amphorae, for example, however, does not
necessarily imply that the standardisation of Syrian amphorae, or equally that of LRA 1, was due primarily
to their role as containers for state commandeered goods (as argued by Pieri 2005b). Clearly, as the
distribution of LRA 1 indicates, such standardisation was normal and valid for the control of amphoraborne commodities destined for private and not military market. The military market for LRA 1 was a
small percentage of LRA 1s overall market, that of ports and urban centres throughout the Roman
Mediterranean. The destination of calcareous Syrian amphorae in the Homs region, or on sites around
Aleppo was not military: these local amphorae carried local oil and wine to the local civilian population.
The typology of calcareous amphorae presented here for Homs has been divided into two groups. Forms 24, without (or with very little) organic temper have been dated to the late Byzantine period. Some of these
share strong typological traits with Syrian amphorae found at Zeugma (Homs Forms 3A-C and 4A-B) and
have been dated here to the 6th to early 7th centuries.28 Other forms, some tempered with organics, are quite
27
For Tetrapyrgium /Qusair as-Saila and Resafa/Sergiopolis: Konrad 2001a-b. For Zeugma: Reynolds
fortchoming and Abadie Reynale 2005. For Aleppo: Reynolds 2005a. For Qalat Siman, Déhès and the
Limestone Massif: Sodini and Villeneuve 1992, Pieri 2005b and Reynolds 2005a. For Apamea: Pieri
2005b.
28
The Zeugma parallels occur on SHR 238: 2, 267, 308, 358 (5: 358/602-604, 607-608), 454, 477, 487,
673, 885: 2, and 1036. Others variants in the ‘Byzantine’ series occur on SHR 308/105, 639, 866, 885
11
different typologically (Homs AMPH 5-10) (SHR 178, 184, 268, 280, 358/601, 507, 610, 652, 658, 673,
674, 824, 839, 861, 866, 885, 1036). Some of these have clear early to mid 7 th century late Byzantine
parallels at Apamea (AMPH 7-8; neck-wall fragments with markedly cut ribbing: most occur without
organics), but may well continue into the Umayyad period. Continuity of ceramic and associated
agricultural production was probably the norm in Syria, as it was in Jordan and Egypt. The Arabs
newcomers here, as equally in southern Spain, preferred to leave settlements, monasteries and agricultural
production as they found them (for the details of the early 8 th century treaty with Tudmir, the Visigoth dux
of south-eastern Spain, see Reynolds 1993, *). The large rim diameters of Form 10 could indicate that they
are storage jars, rather than transport amphorae, though this does not preclude that they were traded items,
whether empty or full (of oil for example). We should note that three sites with presses produced early
Arab pottery, but no definite Byzantine material (SHR 178, 271 and 427).
A good number of the FAM 1 amphorae (as well as plain wares) bear organics and it is suggested here that
this may be an indication of their Umayyad date (see Typology and Catalogue). Some amphorae fired to a
pale pink colour, usually bearing organics, may represent a final phase of production, in the later Umayyad
or Abbassid period. The introduction of organics in the manufacture of amphorae and plain forms, as
occurs in the Homs region, was alien to Roman and Byzantine ceramic production in the Levant (clear in
the case of Lebanon). The importation of Egyptian amphorae (globular amphorae of Byzantine type) and
occasionally other products (cooking pots, jars, basins, fine ware), all tempered with organics, as was the
norm in Egypt, is a feature of Umayyad, Abbassid, Fatimid and Crusader Beirut (Reynolds 2003b, for an
Umayyad deposit). It is argued here that this practice was introduced into Syria by Egyptian potters that
moved to Syria following the Arab conquest. If the excavation of ceramics sequences on sites with
Byzantine to Arab occupation demonstrates that the use of organic temper is an Arab phenomenon, the
distribution of such ceramics can be used, as has been done here, to identify Arab period occupation.
Furthermore, as transport amphorae, they should equally document the continuity of trade and
redistribution of locally produced commodities (oil and wine, perhaps) in the Syrian interior in the early
Arab period.
There are very few fine wares of definite early to mid 7 th century date (single rims on SHR 358 and 1006;
wall fragments of dishes ARS 104/105 could date to the 6 th or 7th century: SHR 315, 668, 734, 926). The
likely continuity of some late Byzantine sites into the early Arab period is suggested primarily by the local
amphorae, cooking pots and plain wares, as has also been argued for the settlement excavated at Déhès
(Sodini and Villeneuve 1992) (SHR 358?, 673, 885*, 866). The quantity of late Byzantine-Arab material
recovered on some sites is in some cases quite substantial (notably on SHR 885 and 1006) (see Site Index:
Site class and date).
As we have seen, Abbassid sites have also been tentatively identified on the basis of Dolium 2 and CW BA
3 (both in CW 12: basalt and lime), though a Medieval date is also possible (SHR 178, 318, 319, 481,498,
602, 651, 658, 661). Large dolia with elongated rims, a a basin also with an elongated rim, may be
Abbassid or Medieval (Dolium 3: SHR 217?, 320, 332, 454, 505 and 611; CW BA 1 elongated rim: SHR
659). Large STJ 7 in FAM 1 should be early Arab (SHR 271, 525 and 1006). Plain ware forms in the same
fabric as FAM 1 and STJ 7, bearing organics, may be early Arab (PL Bowls 1 and 4, PL Bowls 2-3?, PL
Base 4-5; some of the PL Jugs should be Arab). They are typical finds on SHR 885.
That the Byzantine and early Arab dating of the ceramics is sound, need to be proven through the
excavation of sequences. It is possible that I have been too ‘liberal’ in the Umayyad, and especially
Abbassid dating (i.e. the 7th century Byzantine occupation did not continue into the Umayyad period;
Abbassid = Umayyad or = later, Medieval). If so the early Arab presence is actually less marked than I
have suggested. This work has at least helped to identify potential targets for investigating the nature of the
transition from Byzantine to early Arab in the Homs region.
(AMPH 3D: 1 and 1 pink) and 1006: 2. Amphora handles are the most common diagnostics collected:
AMPH H 1: 14 examples; AMPH H 2: 74 examples (see Catalogue and Typology for variants and fabrics).
12
Conclusions
Homs in the Hellenistic period was relatively rich in its supply of imported table wares, though the sources
tapped were clearly fewer than those of Beirut or, even more so, Paphos, that was truly served by a
multitude of products (Hayes 1991). The imported Phocean cooking wares found in Beirut and Paphos
from the 2nd century BC were not imported. The range of imported Aegean-Asia Minor amphorae was even
more reduced and derived from different sources to those that supplied Beirut. From the Hellenistic period,
through to the Roman, Byzantine and Arab periods the lack of contact of Homs with coastal Phoenicia and
coastal Syria is clear, with the sole exception of the importation of Amrit-Tartus basins and dolia in the 5th
and 6th centuries (cf. the absence of Early Imperial to Byzantine Ras al Basit amphorae, mortars, basins and
dolia). None of the amphorae or Hellenistic table wares produced in Lebanon, whether those of the coastal
cities (Tyre, Sidon, Beirut, Byblos, or inland) are found on sites in the Homs region. Nor were the central
Syrian calcareous amphorae exported to Beirut: not a single fragment occurred in the Beirut Souks
excavations.
Ceramics that were traded, perhaps only from the mid or late 1 st to 2nd centuries AD, associated with the
first decades of the Roman settlement in the region, were those travelling along the inner land route of the
Hula and Beqaa Valleys, products of the southern Beqaa or Hula Valleys, as well as those of the important
Roman cult centre located at Baalbek (primarily mortars, storage jars, Baalbek style amphorae). Baalbek,
as well as Homs and the interior uplands of Lebanon, all received a boost in settlement and productivity
(wine and oil) in the years that followed the region´s incorporation within Roman Syria under the
Flavians.29
During the Late Empire Homs, as the Syrian interior as a whole, was self contained and self-served, with
respect to its cooking wares, perhaps a few large production centres being responsible for the supply of the
region, as well as its amphorae. A few imported table wares (LRC, with lesser ARS) and amphorae (almost
exclusively LRA 1) penetrated beyond the Syrian coast. Local cooking wares, called ‘brittle wares’ though those of Homs and Apamea are no way as deserving of the name as the north Palestinian products
of Workshop X - share the development evident in Beirut cooking wares, from the late Persian period to the
5th century. It is then possible that potters switched to north Palestinian models and continued to do so into
the Umayyad period. Though parallels with Apamea, some direct in the case of local FAM 1 amphorae and
CP 11, are evident for the Roman to late Byzantine period, there are nevertheless important differences in
the kitchen-cooking ware repertoires of Homs, on the one hand, and Apamea-Androna-Déhès on the other,
with regard to the rim types adopted for the local cooking pots with a collar rim (cf. Homs CP 14), as well
as the much larger repertoire of forms that served the sites to the North.
Bibliography
See Androna: Mundell Mango DOP 56, 2002, fig. 19.7 for FAM 1 amphorae*
29
Wine production during the (early?) Roman period is now attested at Kamed al Loz, close to the source
of one of two principal current Lebanese vintages, Château Kefraya.
Some 175 wine presses, with concentrations in Mtein, Michikha and Baskinta, have been located in North
Mtein (Mount Lebanon), in the highlands to the north-east of Beirut (many thanks to Zeina Gabriel her for
sharing this information on her current survey work). My impression of the pottery from these sites is that
they are predominantly early Roman (1st to 2nd centuries AD) and Medieval.
The amphorae of north Lebanon first appear in Beirut contexts in the late 1 st century AD and are typical in
2nd to mid 3rd century contexts. Production of amphorae (in their distinctive lime rich fabrics) then may
have ended, whereas those of Beirut continued right up to the Arab conquest.
13
Bavant, B. and D. Orssaud 2001: ‘Stratigraphie et typologie. Problèmes posés par l’utilisation de la céramique comme
critère de datation: l’example de la fouille de Déhès’, in E. Villeneuve and P.M. Watson (eds.), La céramique Byzantine et
proto-islamique en Syrie-Jordanie (IVe-VIIIe siècles apr. H.-C.). Actes du colloque tenu à Amman les 3, 4 et 5
décembre 1994. (Institut Français d’Archéologie du Proche-Orient, Bibliothèque Archéologique et Historique, 159):
33-48. Beirut.
Berlin. A. 1997: ‘The Plain wares’, in S.C. Herbert (ed.), Tel Anafa II, i. The Hellenistic and Roman pottery. (Journal
of Roman Archaeology Supplement 10): ix-iv, 1-244, Plates 1-94. Ann Arbor, Missouri.
Bonifay, M. 1996: ‘Les fouilles du Centre Ville de Beyrouth, Bey 027’. Bulletin d'Archéologie et d'Architecture du
Liban (BAAL) 1: 98-134.
Butcher, K.E.T. 2005: Roman Syria. (British Museum Press). London.
Cook, R.M. and P. Dupont 1998: East Greek pottery. London.
Curvers et al. Jabbul Plain**
Diederichs, C. 1980: Salamine de Chypre, IX. Céramiques Hellenistiques, Romaines et Byzantines. Paris.
Élaigne S. 2002: ‘L’introduction des céramiques fines du bassin oriental de la Méditerranée à Alexandrie:
importations et imitations locales’. In: Céramiques hellénistiques et romaines : productions et diffusions en
Méditerranée orientale (Chypre, Égypte et côte syro-palestinienne), Actes du colloqueà Lyon, 2-4 mars
2000. (Travaux de la Maison de l’Orient 35): 159-173.
El-Masri 1997-1998: ‘Medieval pottery from Beirut´s downtown excavations: the first results’, ARAM 9-10
(published 2000): 1-17.
Hayes, J.W. 1972: Late Roman pottery. London.
Hayes, J.W. 1980: Supplement to Late Roman pottery. London.
Hayes, J.W. 1983: ‘The Villa Dionysos excavations, Knossos: The Pottery’, Annual of the British School at Athens
78, 97-169.
Hayes, J.W. 1985: In A. Carandini (ed.), Enciclopedia dell'arte antica classica e orientale, I. Atlante delle forme
ceramiche, II. Cerámica fine romana nel bacino mediterraneo (Tardo Ellenismo e Primo Impero). Rome, 1-96.
Hayes, J.W. 1991: Paphos III, The Hellenistic and Roman pottery. Dept. of Antiquities of Cyprus, Nicosia.
Hayes, J.W. 2003: ‘Hellenistic and Roman pottery deposits from the ‘Saranda Kolones’ castle site at Paphos’, Annual
of the British School at Athens 98: 447-516.
Harper, R.P. 1980: ‘Athis-Neocaesareia-Qasrin-Dibsi Faraj’ in Le Moyen Euphrate. Zone de contacts et d’échanges,
Actes du Colloque de Strasbourg, 1977). Strasbourg: 327-348.
Heinz, M. (ed.) German conference on Arab pottery in Syria*
Karagiorgou, O. 2000: ‘LRA2: a container form the military annona on the Danubian border?’, in S. Kingsley, and M.
Decker (eds.), Economy and exchange in the East Mediterranean during Late Antiquity. Proceedings of a conference at
Somerville College, Oxford, 29th May, 1999: 129-166.
Johnson, B.L. 1988: ‘The pottery.’ In G.D. Weinburg (ed.), Excavations at Jalame. Site of a glass factory in late Roman
Palestine. University of Missouri Press. Columbia: 137-226.
Kenrick, P. forthcoming: Pottery other than transport amphorae. in Aylward, W. (ed.), Zeugma 2000: Rescue
Excavations. Packard Humanities Institute, Los Altos, California.
Kenyon, K. M. 1957: Samaria-Sebaste, III: The Objects. London.
Konrad, M. 2001a: Resafa. Vol. 5, Der spätrömische Limes in Syrien: Archäologische Untersuchungen an den
Grenzkastellen von Sura, Tetrapyrgium, Cholle und in Resafa. Mainz: von Zabern.
14
Konrad, 2001b: ‘Ummayad pottery from Tetrapyrgium (Qseir as-Seileh), North Syria. Traditions and innovations’, in
E. Villeneuve and P.M. Watson (eds.), La céramique Byzantine et proto-islamique en Syrie-Jordanie (IVe-VIIIe siècles
apr. H.-C.). Actes du colloque tenu à Amman les 3, 4 et 5 décembre 1994. Institut Français d’Archéologie du ProcheOrient (Bibliothèque Archéologique et Historique, 159), Beirut: 163-191.
Lemaître S. 1997: ‘L’amphore de type Agora F65/66, dite “monoansée”. Essai de synthèse à partir d’exemplaires
lyonnais’, Société Française d’Étude de la Céramique Antique en Gaule, Actes du Congrès du Mans, 1997: 311-320.
Lyonnet, B. 2001: ‘Prospection archéologique du Haut-Khabour (Syrie du Nord-East). Problématique, méthodologie et
application à la période byzantino-sassinade’, in E. Villeneuve and P.M. Watson (eds.), La céramique Byzantine et
proto-islamique en Syrie-Jordanie (IVe-VIIIe siècles apr. H.-C.). Actes du colloque tenu à Amman les 3, 4 et 5
décembre 1994. (Institut Français d’Archéologie du Proche-Orient, Bibliothèque Archéologique et Historique, 159):
23-32.
Napoleone-Lemaire, S. and J.C. Balty 1969: Fouilles d’ Apamée de Syrie, I.1. L’ Église à Atrium de la Grande
Colonnade. Brussels.
Oates, D. and J. 1959: ‘Ain Sinu: a Roman frontier post in northern Iraq.’ Iraq 21, 207-242.
Orssaud, D. 1992: ‘Le passage de la céramique byzantine à la céramique islamique. Quelques hypothèses à partir du
mobilier trouvé à Déhès’, in P. Canivet and J.P. Rey-Coquais (eds.), La Syrie de Byzance à l’Islam, VII-VIII siècles.
Actes du Colloque International, Lyon/Paris 11-15th September 1990. Institut Français de Damas. Damascus: 195-218.
Peacock, D.P.S. and D.F. Williams, D.F. 1986: Amphorae and the Roman economy. An introductory guide. Avon.
Pieri, D. 2005a: Le commerce du vin oriental à l’époque byzantine (Ve –VIIe siècles). Le témoinage des amphores en
Gaule, (Institut Français du Proche-Orient, Bibliothèque d’Archéologie et d’Histoire 174), Beirut.
Pieri, D. 2005b: ‘Nouvelles productions d’amphores de Syrie du nord aux époques protobyzantine et omeyyade’, in
Mélanges Jean-Pierre Sodini, Travaux et Mémoires 15: 583-596.
Pieri, D. and A. Vokaer unpublished 2006: ‘Production et circulation des céramiques communes et culinaires en Syrie
du Nord à la fin de l’époque byzantine’, in Les céramiques communes et culinaires en Méditerranée durant l’Antiquitée
Tardive. Contextes de production et circuits de distribution (Workshop held at the Université Libre de Bruxelles, 15th
December 2006). Unpublished.
Reynolds, P. 1993: Settlement and pottery in the Vinalopó Valley (Alicante, Spain): AD 400-700. (British Archaeological
Reports, International Series, 588). Oxford.
Reynolds, P. 1999: ‘Pottery production and economic exchange in 2 nd century Berytus: some preliminary
observations of ceramic trends from quantified ceramic deposits from the Anglo-Lebanese excavations in Beirut’,
Berytus 43 (1997-1998) (published 1999): 35-110.
Reynolds, P. 2000: ‘Baetican, Lusitanian and Tarraconensian amphorae in classical Beirut: some preliminary
observations of trends in amphora imports from the western Mediterranean in the Anglo-Lebanese excavations in
Beirut (BEY 006, 007 and 045)’, in Congreso Internacional ‘Ex Baetica Amphorae’ (Sevilla-Écija, December 1998).
Écija: 1035-1065.
Reynolds, P. 2003a: ‘Lebanon’ in the Table-Ronde section, ‘De Rome à Byzance; de Fostat à Cordoue. Evolution des
faciès céramiques en Mediterranée, Ve-IXe siècles’, in VIIeme Congrès International sur la Céramique Médiévale en
Méditerrané. Thessaloniki (11-16th October 1999). Athens: 536-546.
Reynolds, P. 2003b: ‘Pottery and the economy in 8th century Beirut: An Umayyad pottery assemblage from the Roman
Imperial baths (BEY 045)’. VIIeme Congrès International sur la Céramique Médiévale en Méditerranée. Thessaloniki
(11-16th October 1999). Athens: 725-734.
Reynolds, P. 2003c: ‘Amphorae in Roman Lebanon: 50 BC to AD 250’, Archaeology and History in Lebanon
(formerly National Museum News), Issue 17 (Spring 2003): 120-130.
2003d: ‘The pottery’ in A. Gutteridge and A. Hoti, ‘The walled town of Dyrrachium (Durres): New light on the early
defences,’ Journal of Roman Archaeology 16, 367-379.
15
Reynolds, P. 2004: ‘Italian fine wares in 1st century AD Beirut: the assemblage from the cistern deposit BEY 006
12300/12237’. In J. Poblome, P. Talloen, R. Brulet and M. Waelkens (eds.), Early Italian Sigillata. The chronological
framework and trade patterns. International ROCT Conference (Catholic University of Leuven, May 7th-8th 1999)
(Babesch Supplement 10): 117-131.
Reynolds, P. 2005a: ‘Levantine amphorae from Cilicia to Gaza: a typology and analysis of regional production trends
from the 1st to 7th centuries’, 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 (Conference papers, held at Barcelona, 14-16th March 2002), (British Archaeological Reports,
International Series, 1340). Oxford: 563-611.
Reynolds, P. 2005b: ‘The Roman pottery and Medieval amphorae (1999)’, in R. Hodges, O. Gilkes, W. Bowden, et
al., Excavations at the ‘Triconch Palace’ Butrint, Albania, 1994-98. (Oxbow, Oxford).
Reynolds, P. in press: ‘Linear typologies and ceramic evolution’, FACTA 1.
Reynolds P. forthcoming a: ‘Transport amphorae of the 1st to 7th centuries: early Roman to Byzantine periods’, in W.
Aylward, (ed.), Zeugma 2000: Rescue Excavations. Packard Humanities Institute, Los Altos, California.
Reynolds, P. forthcoming b: ‘A late Fatimid, early Zirid pottery assemblage’, in J. Rossiter, et al., ‘Excavations at
Bir Ftouha, Carthage’, Karthago.
Reynolds, P. and S.Y. Waksman (in press). ‘Beirut cooking wares, 2nd to 7th centuries: local forms and north
Palestinian imports’, Berytus 50 (2006: in press 2007).
Robinson, H.S. 1959: Pottery of the Roman period. The Athenian Agora, 5. Princeton.
Rotroff, S. 1997: Hellenistic pottery. Athenian and imported wheelmade table ware and related material. The Athenian
Agora, 29, Part 2. American School of Classical Studies at Athens. Princeton.
Sackett, L.H. (1992). “Roman pottery”, in Sackett, L.H. et al., Knossos, from Greek city to Roman colony: Excavations at
the Unexplored Mansion II (British School at Athens Supplement 21: 147-256. Oxford.
Salles, J.F. (ed.) 1993: Kition-Bamboula IV. Les niveaux héllénistiques. (Recherches sur les civilisations
[ERC]series). (CANNOT FIND WHERE PRINTED).
Slane, K.W. 1997: The fine wares’, in S.C. Herbert (ed.), Tel Anafa II, i. The Hellenistic and Roman pottery. (Journal
of Roman Archaeology, Supplement 10): 247-406 (including appendices), PL 1-57. Ann Arbor, Missouri.
Sodini, J.P. and E. Villeneuve 1992: ‘Le passage de la céramique byzantine à la céramique omeyyade en Syrie du
nord, en Palestine et en Transjordanie’, in P. Canivet and J.P. Rey-Coquais (eds.), La Syrie de Byzance à l’Islam, VIIVIII siècles. Actes du Colloque International, Lyon/Paris 11-15th September 1990. Institut Français de Damas.
Damascus: 195-228.
Thalmann, J.P. 1980: ‘Tell ‘Arqa’, Syria, 55 (1978): 1-145.
Uscatescu, A. 2003: ‘Report on the Levant pottery (5th-9th century AD)’. In: De Rome à Byzance; de Fostat à Cordoue.
Evolution des faciès céramiques en Mediterranée, Ve-IXe siècles, VIIeme Congrès International sur la céramique
Médiévale en Méditerranée, Thessaloniki, 11-16th October 1999: 546-558.
Waksman et al. 2005: S.Y. Waksman, P. Reynolds, S. Bien and J.C. Tréglia. ‘A major production of Late Roman
‘Levantine’ and ‘Cypriot’ common wares’, 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 (Conference papers, held at Barcelona, 14-16th March 2002), (British Archaeological Reports,
International Series 1340), Oxford: 311-325.
Walmsely…etc Jordanian Umm-abbasid
Will, E.L. 1982: ‘Greco-Italic amphoras’, Hesperia, 52: 338-356.