ummayad beirut bey 045

8/13/2019 Ummayad Beirut BEY 045

1/11

POTTERY AND THE ECONOMY IN 8th CENTURY BEIRUT:AN UMAYYAD ASSEMBLAGE FROM THE ROMAN IMPERIAL BATHS (BEY 045)PaUIREYNOLDS

ASUU: t'objet de ce poster est un dpt de cramique qui date de la priode Omeyyade ( 700-750). Mis au iour dans lesniveaux de construction des Bains Impriaw de Beyrouth, il revle, entre autres, la fonction continue de ces bains aprs laconqute arabe. Le dpt en question tmoigne de la fin de la production des amphores de Beyrouth et des amphores byzan-tines 'classiques' (LM 1, LM 4), mais il indique, surtout, la prsence forte des produits gtptiens, soit des cramiques fines(EGRSA) et amphores (d'Abu Mena ; des LM 5 et LM 7 de pdte alluviale du Nil). La amphores LM lj sont prsentesavec trois types de ptes : exemples micacs et peigns gens similaires d celles de l'pave de Yassi Ada ; un uemple chypri-ote ou du nord-ouest syrien ; et plus couramment, une variante de LRA 1j dont I'origine gptienne est rnqintenant confirmepar les travaux de Pascale Ballet : formelvaiante 'Egloff 167'. Quant aw importatons levantines, eller sont rduites dquelques amphores de Csare Maritime et de Beth She'an.

The Anglo-Lebanese excavations in BeirutThe post-war excavations in the Beirut Central Districthave been on an unprecedented scale. Various Lebaneseand foreign teams have participated in the excavation ofthe Bronze Age, Iron Ag., Classical and Medieval city.From L994 the Anglo-Lebanese team, under the direc-tion of Helga Seeden (American University of Beirut)and Dominic Perring (University of York), investigated alarge section of the Hellenistic and Roman -Byzantine lay-out, covering an area of over 3 ha. It can be said to be thelargest, single, open-area excavation by modern methods

and the data recovered (together with that of all theteams) should focus attention on Beirut in much the sameway that the similarly international excavations of Punicand Roman-Byzantine Carthage provided a platform forthe study of sites and regional trade in the Western Medi-terranean.During the Anglo-Lebanese excavations some 20,000archaeological structures were recorded, of Late Iron Ageto Ottoman date, comprising a Hellenistic cemeterY, seve-ral insulae of the Classical city (streets and porticoes,houses, shops, bakeries, a full.ry, inns, cisterns), part ofthe Roman Imperial baths, Roman qua|, Medieval de-fences, Fatimid and Crusader occupation, and post-Medi-eval glass and silk workshops (Butcher, Thorpe 1997; Per-ring 1997-1998; Thorpe 1998).The post-excavation analysis of finds

As part of the post-excavation programme, a potterytypology for Beirut and the region is well advanced. Al-ready some 400 new amphora forms have been isolatedand the complex development of the Beirut amphora typethrough the 1st century BC to the 7th century AD is being

documented (Reynolds 1997-1998: Appendix 1). A typol-ogy of the Fatimid to Ottoman fine and coarse wares isalso at an advanced stage (El-Masri 1997 -1998; unpub-lished; El-Masri, Seeden 1999).The publication will include a catalogue of sequencesof fully quantified, kry, stratified pottery assemblages anda full record of all the pottery studied will be available onCD-Rom. Relative quantities of local, regional and im-ported fine wares, amphorae and coarse wares will be as-sessed through time in order to reconstruct economictrends and understand Beirut's relationship to its hinter-land and sites or specific regions of the Levant, the East-ern and Western Mediterranean, and beyond.The overall composition of assemblages (e.9. compar-ative quantities of pottery to glass, to building materialsand bone) will also be analysed in order to assess site-for-mation processes, i,e. the source of the deposits; the pri-mary, secondary or even tertiary re-deposition of materi-al; the systematic collection and recycling of rubbish; there-working of lower levels; the ancient truncation, andhence loss in the archaeological record, of deposits of par-ticular periods; the identification of periods of non-activi-ty on the site; the identification of material derived fromdomestic, building, or commercial activites.The pottery assemblage

This poster presents preliminary observation and inter-pretation of the ceramic finds from a relatively largeUmayyad deposit of likely early 8th century AD date foundduring the excavations by the Anglo-Irbanese team in theRoman Imperial baths of Beirut, site BEY 045. The depos-it was a make-up layer for a floor, presumably of Umayyaddate, which lay above an earlier hypocaust floor of early5th century date. It seems likely that the baths were still725


2/11

PAUL REYNOLDS

functioning, being remodelled several times, during theUmayyad and Abbasid periods.This pottery assemblage (42 kg, with total diagnosticsnumbering 212 rims, bases and handles) gives us a goodindication of the range and varied sources of fine wares,amphorae, and coarse wares present in Beirut in the laterUmayyad period (Tables L and 2). The exact date is diffi-cult to determine, but the deposit shows strong parallelswith the assemblages found in levels of the late 7th andfirst half of the 8th century at both Pella and Jerash (Jor-dan). The assemblage is also, it would seem, strongly par-alleled by the range of finds in the AD 749 destruction lev-el which marks the end of Umayyad rule at Fustat (Cairo),

AmphoraeCertain regional amphorae typical of Byzantine con-texts are absent or rare by this date. The disappearance ofthe Beirut amphora type is striking and significant if weare to assume that the amphora contained locally pro-duced wine (nine body sherds; the rim in Fig. 2.8 could be

a residual example of a Beirut 8.1 arnphora, rather than aLRA 2 variant: it should not have been placed on Fig. 2.The diameter is too large for the late 6th-7th century Bei-rut 8.2). Wine amphorae imported from Gaza are now al-so absent and LRA 1 - the classic import of the Byzantineperiod - carrying wine and oil from the Antioch region

Table 1. Summary of pottery by class in the BEY 045.503 depositBEY 045.503 Rimcount Basecount Handlecount Wallcount RimGms BaseGms Handlegms WallgmsFine Wares 27 3 6 879 129 68Amphorae 56 7t 18 499 6254 3113 2369 21586Plain wares 4 11 3 21 227 185 r32 392Coarse ware 11 10 5 56 256 283 122 r743CBM 24 37 r002 3238Residual ERoman 1 1Total weight: 4L9749Total diagnostics: = 219 RBH (not counting CBM)

there being a marked difference in the composition of thenext, Abbasid, ceramic phase on the site (see Gayraud,Table Ronde). The Fustat evidence is particularly signifi-cant given the large number of Egyptian finds in the Bei-rut deposit, and a date in the first half of the 8th centuryrather than later is proposed here.The ceramics indicate a substantial shift in the range andsources of fine wares and amphorae in Beirut with respect tothe Late Byzantine period, in the 6th-early 7th centuries.Fine wares

The fine wares present are all Egyptian in origin, themajority being Egyptian Red Slip Ware from Aswan (Fig.1.1-8: all the fine wares are illustrated). The absence offine wares from other sources, which previously regularlysupplied Beirut during the Lat e Byzantine period is verystriking: LRD from Clprus (uery common), PhocaeanLRC (common) and Tunisian ARS (relatively rare in 6thcentury Byzantine contexts).726

and from Cyprus, was very rare and probably residual inthis assemblage (one rim and a few body sherds).In contrast, new types and fabrics appear in theUrnayyad repertoire. The majority falls into two catego-ries: those imitating an Aegean amphora type (LRA 2)and those in the Palestinian bag-shaped amphora class(LRA s-6).a. Dominant are amphorae imitating LRA 2, a form pro-duced in the Aegean and on mainland Greece, exportedto the Western Mediterranean from the 5th century on-wards, but rarely found in Beirut (Fig. 2.5-7). Similar cop-ies of LRA 2 (but usually with combed grooving on theshoulder) formed the principal cargo of the Yassi Adashipwreck found off the southern coast of Turkey, datingto c. 6251626 (Bass, Van Doorninck L982; Van DoorninckJr. 1989). Other amphorae related to this class appear tobe Campanian and are found in 8th century Rome (Cipri-ano et al, I99I: I07 , fig. 4; Sagu, Ricci, Romei 1,997: 42,44, fig. 6,2-3) and Naples (Arthur 1989: 87, fig. 7-8, pro-duced at Miseno; Arthur 1993). The form Riley LRA 13 isalso related (Riley 1983 : 231-232, fig. 93.373-37 5: he illus-


3/11


4/11


5/11

Table 2. Summary of pottery in the BEY 045'503 depositCommentsin No.BEY 045.5031. - lower wall wide convex ribbing. Abundant lime eruptions.FAM 98J.2 Fig.2.a.045.503.?2. Rounded base. Ware related to LRAs.11? (i.e. Fig.2.9).uff (FAM 98J.2?)Fig. 1.9-10. Coarse sandy, lime rich pale orange. Caesarea?LRA s/FAM 110

LRA s/FAM 110 Coarse sand (but not FAM 110). 503.193; 503.205' Cf' PieriLarge LRA 5503. t77:LRA 5 or LRA 2v;503,187;503.119 (bag-shaped).Uncl imports

Uncl local/regionalCoarse waresPlain and closed Not necessarily Tyre product. Fig. 3.12, right and bottom'Tyre? water flask 1 Fig. 3.12,1eft. Larger version. Norrnal Tyre fabric.Tyre water flask 2 Well made rim.Tyre? water flask Fig. 3.1"0. 503.103. Lighnveight porous with mod organics'CWF 28 jug ?Abu MenaPlain importPalestinian?

Fig. 3.11. 503. 92. Patina, reduced surface. Cf. "Bekaa" ware'Jug, ring base. CWF 25Cooking vesselsCook pot 2A. Local Fig. 3.1. 503.84. Rim bent in. Misfired. Large quartz, roundedoxide lumps. ProbablY not local.ook potZBlCWF 25

Fig. 3,2.503.86. Quartz and oxide. Probably not local'Cook potZClCWF 25 Fig. 3.4. 503 .l29.Probably not local.Casserole/CWF 25 likelY503. 82. Not local. Bekaar?Cook potZlCWF 25?

Beth She'an ware

Fig. 3.5. 503 .l07.Imported brittle ware?Thin sliced rim lid503.109. Gold mica Present.Lid (imported CWF 29)Fig. 3.6. Thick, sliced rirn.Casserole503. tt}.Thick walled. Mica and organics. Related to LRA 2v'CW import503.1 14-1 16.Closed importedFig. 3.9. 503.111. Gold mica and organics'Basin (imported) Large storage jar. Volcanics and mudstone. Ras al Basit?Storage jar (imPorted)

Storage jar or oven

Fig. 3.3. 503.104. Seems to be local fabric'

729


6/11

PAUL REYNOLDS

E=ffi

0 100mmryFig. 2. Beirut Umayyad deposir. Amphome: 1-2. Abu Mena LM 5? 3. Abu Mena? Or Palestinian (fine geenish bufffabnc, v' fine otganics, fine gold micaand fine oxide). 4. Unclassified. Similarfine buffclay withfine oryanics to Fig. 3. 5. LM 13v. Sandyfabric and common organics. . Rim and shoulder (samevessel).Micaceousfabric.Ilncla.ssified, T.BaseofLRAl3v.Coane,sandy,fossilshellfabic.CypriotorAmitregian S'9.UnclassifudHeavy?localfabric,cf. Tablc Ronde, Lebano4 coane wara, Fig. 5.2-3.730


7/11

pOTTERy AND Tt{E ECONOMY IN 8rh CENT. BEIRUT: AN UMAYf,ADIpMBLIGE FROM THE ROMAN IMI'ERIAL BATHS

trates three quite different amphorae, no. 373 being closeto Sagu, Ricci, Romei 1997: tig.6.2). Closer to home, LRA13 variants are now known to have been produced insouth-western Clprus in the Paphos region on the samekiln sites as those (formerly) producing LRA 1 (see De-mesticha, in this volume).The Beirut LRA 2ll3 variants occur in several fabrics,all characterised by the presence of organic inclusions.One example, with a grooved shoulder, is close to the Yas-si Ada examples in fabric (finely sandy and micaceous)and may be Aegean in origin (Fig. 2.6; the distinctive rimabove is probably the same vessel). Another two baseshave fossil shell fabrics paralleled by that of Roman am-phorae probably produced in the region of Amrit, on thenorth-western coast of Syria, though a Clpriot origin is al-so possible (if evidence emerges for fossil shell in some re-gionally specific Clpriot clays) (Fig. 2,7),The most common variant, however, is not combed orgrooved as the typical Aegean copies of LRA 2. It has anon-micaceous, compact, sandy fabric with medium-sizedorganics (Fig. 2.5). The marked ribbing on the interior ofthe vessels is distinctive. Surfaces can be pale orange orred brown to yellow ochre, sometimes on the same vessel,with a "sandwich" core. The example shown bears post-cocturam graffiti on the shoulder (not illustrated here),recalling the examples on the Yassi Ada wreck. The originof these products is still problematic. Some Beirut ampho-rae, particularly the Beirut 8.Ls I have illustrated (TableRonde, lebanon, Fig. L.3-4), do have a very similar fabric,but this may be coincidental. A good parallel for this vari-ant is an example found at Salamis, Cyprus (Diederichs1980: 57, fig. 261). The fabric of Beirut example, however,does not recall that of numerous examples of LRA 1 thatI have seen in Beirut, so a Clpriot-Tarsus-Antioch sourceis unlikely. A connection with a non-Aegean source pro-ducing Levantine-style cooking wares and amphorae isclear: cf. the sliced rim casserole (Fig. 3.6), which is in thesame ware; cf. post-Umayyad LRA 5 variants, narrowbodied with ring handles pulled upwards into an oval pro-file, that occur also in a later phase of the Imperial baths(Abbasid?) with very similar fabric.This could indicate a Levantine or Egyptian origin(rather than Cypriot). The absence of the form in the pub-lications of the Abu Mena and Kellia repertoires suggeststhat though these sites produced sliced-rim casserolesand, of course, amphorae in the Palestinian tradition, theform did not derive from that region of Egypt. Gempeler(Gempeler L992) has published an example of LRA 2v113with combed bands from Elephantine, but this appears tobe imported (Gempeler 1.992: I99, pl, I29.2,K765: this isclose to the Yassi Ada examples; Riley 1983: fig. 93.373).Bonnet, on the other hand, working on the survey materi-al from Kellia, has published a LRA 2113 variant whichhas a brown, "Nile silt-type" fabric and is dated to the late

7th-early 8th centuries, so production of this class of am-phora in Egypt is possible (Bonnet 1983: 446,no. 98). Per-haps we should look a little further south, as quite differ-ent "marl" clays rich in quartz andlirne are typical of Mern-phis, Saqqara and Amarna (Bourriau, Nicholson 1992).Clarification is clearly needed and would be most wel-come.One rim (Fi g,2.9) may be another imitation of LRA 2.Its fabric is particularly close to the "heavy" variety of fab-ric noted in Beirut amphorae (see Table Ronde, Leba-non, note 2). Again this may be coincidental.b. Amphorae following the formal lines of the bag-shapedPalestinian LRA 5 type with small ring handles comprisethe other major class of amphorae in the deposit, againfrom several regional sources.Caesarea may be the origin of one type of LRA 5 (Fig.1.9-10). The fabric is very sandy, pale orange, and lime-rich. It is the direct descendant of a product occasionallyr#' ::ffilil H r [:' ;l; ?#,r; ff#'.: t]i'i: ;nolds: Table Ronde, Lebanon, in this volume). These ex-amples do not bear white-painted decoration as the ear-lier, Byzantine versions in the same fabric.There are fragments of several vessels of the distinctivedark gret, hard-fired Beth She'an version of the Palestin-ian shape (Fig. I.ll-12. Apparently the wide base of no. 12is typical of Umayyad levels in Fustat: Roland Gayraud,pers. comm.).Egypt is the source of trvo small versions of LRA 5 inthis deposit. One, present in two variant rim types, has afine dark brown fabric with fine gold mica and organics(Nile silt fabric) (Fig. 1.15-16). The type is close to exam-ples produced at the kiln site of Km Abou Billou on theleft branch of the Nile Delta (e.g. Ballet 1994: fig. 13, in thecase of my no. 16. My thanks to Dominique Pieri for thisreference; see also Engemann 1992: 155, fig. 5 = EgloffKellia 1,87, apparently also in the Nile silt clay).Abu Mena, west of the Nile Delta, is possibly thesource of another small version (Fig. 2.1,'2; cf. Engemann7992: e.g. figs , ll-12). It has pale salmon to buff clay withsomewhat soapy surfaces and comrnon fine lime. Anothervessel may be classed under Egloff Kellia 186 (Fig . 2.3).ltis in a different ware, hard-fired, thin-walled, with a palered core and buff surfaces, lime, some erupting on the sur-face, with fine organics and occasional very fine gold mica.It has a distinctive rim with a sharply concave inner collarand concave step on the outer face. The body is fairlyglobular, with sharp, fine combing and is paralleled byrims found at Abu Mena and Kellia (Engemann 1992:154ff., fig. 4: Kellia examples, especially nos. 80 and 84(from Bonnet 1983: pl. 152); Abu Mena examples: fig. 8,especially 90.56, 4 and 77,tar right column). There is con-siderable debate as to the origin of these Egloff 186 vari-ants - Abu Mena or Lake Mareotis to the north (Enge-mann 1992:154ff.; see also Ballet L994:355, 357),

731


8/11

PAUL REYNOLDS

Egyptian LRA 7, in a (Middle Egyptian?) dark brownNile silt fabric with coarse organics, present in Byzantinecontexts, continues to be imported in this period (Fig'L.L3-14). The variants here are identical to those in thelate Umayyad levels of Fustat (see R. Gayraud, in this vol-ume).Plain and coarse ware (Fig. 3)

These are relatively rare in this deposit. The most com-mon plain form is a large, circular flask, similar to a mod-ern day water flask (Fig. 3.L2). It is probably a product ofTyre. Other, thinner versions are in a different buff fabric.The form is well paralleled (perhaps also in fabric) withexamples found in deposits of the first half of the 8th cen-tury at Pella (Fig. 3, 3; Watson 1,992: 243, Ware N). Itcould be said that these flasks are a special feature ofArab assemblages/culture. Are these hip flasks for use onhorseback or camels, and a reflection of the frequency oflong distance travel by individuals? One buff jug form,lightrveight with organics, is imported and may also be anAbu Mena product, on the basis of its fabric (Fig. 3.10).Local and imported cooking pots are of a similar tYPe,strap handles springing from a short vertical, but concavecollar rim (Fig. 3.1-3). The form is paralleled by late 6th-7th century Byzantine cooking pots from Clprus and theBeirut region (see Table Ronde, Lebanon, Coarse waresand Fig. 5.11; Catling 1972). These variants are in whatappears to be a non-Beirut city, well-fired fabric identicalto some examples of the same form and Some Beirut am-phorae found in post-551 Byzantine contexts in Beirut.The bowV?casserole (Fig. 3.4) (unparalleled in Byzantinelevels?) and jug base Fig. 3.11 are in the same ware.There is one large, rather thick-walled, deep casserolewith a sliced rim - a shape well paralleled in Umayyadcontexts in Jordan and at Abu Mena (Fig. 3.6; cf. Fig. 3.7:from Abu Mena; cf. Fig. 3.8: from Pella). The fabric herewould appear to be the same as that of the LRA 2 ampho-ra variant I have mentioned (i.e. Fig. 7.5).There is justone thin-walled, sliced-rim lid, in a fine, probably Pales-tinian "brittle ware" fabric (Fig. 3.5). The shape is typicalin 6th and 7th century Byzantine levels in Beirut.Finally there is an imported large bowllbasin form in aslightly micaceous organic-rich fabric which may be Egyp-tian (it may well be related to the post-Umayyad LRA 5and LRA zll3variants found in Beirut, noted above. Herethe fabric seems to be more clearly Egyptian) (Fig. 3.9).CONCLUSTONS

The absence of. Gazan amphorae in Umayyad groupspublished in Jordan suggests that Gaza rnay also haveceased production of its celebrated wine, but not beforethe early 7th century as the product is fairly common inMarseille at that date. The form was still present, but wasnotably rare in contexts of the late 6th-early 7th centuriesin Beirut, indicating, it would seem, an interesting differ-ence in the supply of Gaza wine to sites in the Eastern andWestern Mediterranean in this period. By the 8th centuryit is likely that LRA 2/LRA 13 variants had replaced LRA1 as the "Byzantine" container par excellence (for wine oroil), so its rarity in this assemblage is expected.Instead the emphasis was clearly on several other ma-jor sources. Egypt supplied three regional amphora pes,perhaps four, if the LRA 2/LRA 13 variant (Fig. 2.5) isEgyptian, and fine wares - EGRS replacing LRC and es-pecially LRD. Northern Palestine was another majorsource of amphorae. There was notably no break in conti-nuity with two Palestinian sources that had supplied Bei-rut in the Byzantine period (Caesarea and Beth She'an).Given the proposed contrast in the fortunes of Gazan andBeirut production, some regions in the Levant appear tohave been affected, more than others, following the Arabconquest.The relative importance in the assemblage of imita-tions of what was an Aegean form rarely imported in theByzantine period - LRA 2 - is striking. The widespreadimitation of LRA 2 is a phenomenon of regions within orin close contact with the Byzantine world - CYprus, Samos(Steckner 1989), Rome, NaPles.In the case of the Beirut examples, though some aremicaceous Aegean or Turkish products, others appear tobe products of the north Syrian coast or Clprus. The iden-tification of the source of the most comrnon import in thisassemblage (Fig. 2.5), is crucial as this amphora repre-sents a major contact between Umayyad Beirut and asource followin g a Byzantine mode of production (as atPaphos or Samos). The links between this product and"Levantine" shapes should rule out its production in theAegean. Furthermore, there is clear continuity in the sup-ply of amphorae of this class in Beirut where similar am-phorae in the same fabric, again with large organics, aretypical finds in 12th-13th century levels (drains also arefound in the same ware). One is reminded here that theuse of organics, once a characteristic feature of Egyptianproducts, is now more widespread: cf. the organics in thebuff, Medieval amphorae of Otrantoi?uglia (ArthurL992: 2A6-207, particularly his Typ e 2) and the Propontis(Gnsenin 1989: Type 3; Arthur 1989: 90). All will be-come clear once the source of Fig. 2.5 and its successors isidentified.

By the 8th century significant ruptures and shifts in the Umayyad Beirut was in this way both unusual in thesourcesofbothfoodstuffsandfinewaeswithrespecttothe Levant and distinct toJordan (and Jerusalem also) inhav-Late Byzantine period can be gauged by this assemblage. ing a more Aegean and Byzantine connection in the case732


9/11

POTTERY AND THE ECONOMY IN Stl, CEN"[' BEIRUT' AN UI AYYAD ASS

6r 34

L

--

5 w1 100mm

Fig. j. Beirut ttmayyad deposit. Coane wares. 1-3. "Cypriot" style cookjng pots, Probably not local. 1. Bowl. llare as cooking pots above' 5' Binb ware lid'. Sliced rim casserole. Fabric related to LM ljv (Fig. 2.5). 7. Abu Mena. Sliced rim cooking pot. Engemann 1992:fig lj, 8' Pella' Sliced m cookW pot'Watson 1gZ ftg. 1.4. 9. Basin. Common organics. Egtptian? 10.Jug. Tye? OrAbu Mena? 11. Base of iug Not a Beirut proiluct (as 1'4)' 12 Waterflaslcs'Bufffabric.Tyreproduc*? 13.llaterflastqc.ADT20.Pella'McNicolletal'1982:pl'141'1'

of its amphora types. Perhaps we should see this againstthe historical background of treaties and reciprocal ex-changes of goods and cash established between Byzan-tium and the Arab caliphate. Clprus was "shared" betweenthese two powers for several centuries and Beirut lay onthe fringe of this activity (Treadgold 1997).

The relatively large quantities of EGRS also under-lines Beirut's equally strong, probably sea-borne, linkssouthwards, with Egypt. Beirut's links with Egyptian sour-ces were also Stronger than those encountered in Jordan,where Egyptian amphorae were imported but EGRS wasfar rarer.

733


10/11

PAUL REYNOLDS

BTBLIOGRAPHYArthur 1989 : ARTHUR (P.). - Aspects of Byzantine Economy:An Evaluation of Amphora Evidence from Italy, in: Recherchessur la cramique byzantine (d. V. Droche, J.-M. Spieser) , BCHSuppl. XVIII, 1989, 79-93.Arthur L992: ARTHUR (P.). - Amphoras for Bulk Transport,in: Excavations at Otranto, II: The Finds (eds. F. D'Andria, D.B.Whitehouse), Galatina 1992, 197 -217 .Arthur 1993 : ARTHUR (P.). - Early Medieval Amphorae, theDuchy of Naples and the Food Supply of Rome, BSR 61 (1993),231,-244.Arthur, Oren 1998 : ARTHUR (P.), OREN (E.R.). - The NorthSinai Survey and the Evidence of Transport Amphorae for Ro-man and Byzantine Trading Patterns , RA 11 (1998), 193-212.Ballet L994: BALLET (P.). - Un atelier d'amphores Late Ro-man Amphora 516 K6m Abou Billou (Egypte), ChronEg 69,Fasc. 138 (1994), 353-365.Bass, van Doorninck 1982: BASS (G.F.), VAN DOORNINCK(F.H.). - Yassi Ada 1. A Seventh-Century Byzantine Shipwreck,Texas 1982,Bonnet 1983 : BONNET (F.). - In: SurvE archologique des Kel'lia (Basse-Egpte) (d. R. Kasser), Mission suisse d'archologiecopte de l'Universit de Genve, Rapport de la campagne 1981,Leuven 1983, 423-480.Bourriau, Nicholson 1992 : BOURRIAU (J.D.), NICHOL-SON (P.T.). - Marl Clay Pottery Fabrics of the New Kingdomfrom Memphis, Saqqara and Amarna, JEA 78 (1992),29-91, pl.IV-IX, col. pl. 1-4.Butcher, Thorpe 1997 : BUTCHER (K.), THORPE (R.). - ANote on Excavations in Central Beirut, t994-96, M 10 (1997),291-3A6.Catling 1972: CATLING (H.W.). - An Early Byzantine PotteryFactory at Dhiorios in Cyprus, Levant 4 (1972),1,-82.Cipriano et al. 1991 : CIPRIANO (M.T.), PAROLI (L.), PAT-TERSON (H.), SAGU (L.),WHITEHOUSE (D.). -La docu-mentazione ceramica dell'Italia centro-meridionale nell'alto me-dioevo: quadri regionali e contesti campione, in: AIECM2 lY,99-r22,Diederichs 1980 : DIEDERICHS (C.). - Cramiques hellnis-tiques, romaines et byzantines, Salamine de Chypre IX, De Boc-card, Paris 1980.Egtoff 1977 : EGLOFF (M.). - Kellia. La poterie copte. Quatresicles d'artisanat et d'changes en Basse Egpte, Recherches suis-ses d'archologie copte, III, Geneva L977 .El-Masri 1997-1998 : ELMASRI (S.).- Medieval Pottery fromBeirut's Downtown Excavations. The First Results, ARAM Pei-odical 9-10 (1997 -1998), 1- 17.El-Masri, unpublished : EL-MASRI (S.). - Medieval Pottery

fro* Beirut's Downtown Excavations. The First Results (Ph.D.Thesis, Berlin 1999) (unpublished).El-Masri, Seeden 1999 : EL-MASRI (S.), SEEDEN (H.).- Mi-chael Meinecke, Islamic Archaeolory and Beirlut, in: MichaelMeinecke Memorial Volume (ed. M. Barrucand), DAM 11 (1999),39r-402.Engemann 1992 : ENGEMANN (J.).- A propos des amphoresd'Abou Mina, CahCerE,3 (1992), 153-159.Gempel er 1992: GEMPELER (R.D.). - Die Keramik rmischerbis frharabischer Zeit, Mainz L992 (my thanks to D. Pieri for thisreference).Gnsenin 1989 : GNSENIN (N.). - Recherches sur les am-phores byzantines dans les muses Turcs , in: Recherches sur lacramique byzantine (d. V. Droche, J.-M. Spieser) , BCH Suppl"xvIII, 1999, 267-276.Perring 1997 -L998 : PERRING (D.). - Excavations in the Souksof Beirut: An Introduction to the Work of the Anglo-LebaneseTeam and Summary Report, Berytus 43 (1997-1998), 9-34.Reynolds 1997-1998 : REYNOLDS (P.). - Pottery Productionand Economic Exchange in Second Century Berytus, Berytus 43(1997-1998),35-110.Riley 1979 : RILEY. - The Coarse Pottery from Berenic e, in:Lloyd (ed.), Excavations at Sidi l{hrebish, Benghazi (Berenice),Libya Antiqua V, Suppl t979, vol. II, 9l-467 .Sagu Ricci, Romei lgg7: SAGU (1.), RICCI (R.), ROMEI(D.).- Nuovi dati ceramologici per la storia economica di Romatra VII e VIII secolo, in: AIECM2 VI, 35-48.Steckner 1989 : STECKNER (C.). - Les amphores LR 1 et LR 2en relation avec le pressoir du complexe ecclsiastique des ther-mes de Samos, in: Recherches sur la cramique byzantine (d. Y ,Droche, J.-M. Spieser) , BCH Suppl. XV[I, 1989, 57-71.Thorpe 1998 : THORPE (R.). - Which Way is Up? Context For-mation and Transformation: The Life and Deaths of a Hot Bathin Beirut,As s embla ge 4 (http ://www.shef. ac. uU-assem/4/4nrt. html).Treadgoldlgg7: TREADGOLD (W.). -A History of the Byzan-tine State and Sociery, Stanford University Press , 1997.van Doorninck, Jr. 1989 : VAN DOORNINCK (F.H.). - TheCargo Amphoras on the 7th Century Yassi Ada and 1lth Centu-ry Serqe Limani Shipwrecks: Two Examples of a Reuse of Byzan-tine Amphoras as Transport Jars, in: Recherches sur la cramiquebyzantine (d, V. Droche, J.-M. Spieser), BCH Suppl. XVIII,1989, 247 -257Watson 1992: WATSON (P.). - Change in Foreign and Region-al Economic Links with Pella in the Seventh Century AD: theCeramic Evidence, in: La Syrie de Byzance d I'Islam, WI-WII si-cles, Actes du Colloque International, LyonlParis 1Lth-15th Sep-tember 1990. Institut Frangais de Damas (d. P. Canivet, J.P. Rey-coquais), Damascus 1992, 233-248.

734


11/11

'ffSffi,ffiffiffi'ffifif*i#iffiVIIg Congrs Internationalsur la C ramique tvldivaleen IvIditeranie

Thessaloniki, L1-16 Octobre 1999

ACTES

Edits ParCtt. Bakirtzis

lrH,NEs 2oo3NTTTON DE LA CAISSE DBS RECETTES ARCHOT'OGIQUBS

ummayad beirut bey 045

Documents