Poblome Bes WilletArchaeologicalResidueNetworks

5/24/2018 Poblome Bes WilletArchaeologicalResidueNetworks

1/10

Thoughts on the archaeological residue of

networks. A view from the East

Jeroen Poblome, Philip Bes & Rinse Willet

INTRODUCTION

Our paper is not focused on ancient Portus, connections between the eastern Mediterranean andthe Roman motherland, or even ports in the Roman East for that matter, but its general approachhopefully may contribute to developing rational frameworks for approaching the issue of networks

from the perspective of Roman archaeologists. The empirical background to this paper is provided

by the ICRATES platform. ICRATES (Inventory of Crafts and Trade in the Roman East) was initiatedin 2004 and aims at (1) collecting published evidence for the output of artisans and for exchange in the

Roman East in an extensive database; (2) calibrating these data with original fieldwork in the ancient

regions of Boeotia, Pisidia and Cilicia; and (3) developing innovative syntheses of the socio-cultural

impact and socio-economic positioning of craft activities in antiquity (Bes 2007; Bes and Poblome

2006; Bes and Poblome 2008; Bes and Poblome 2009).

It is common knowledge that the best inventions are conceived out of mild to extreme frustration

with the current state of affairs, and matters were no different with ICRATES. As ceramologists

working in an interdisciplinary research project in Turkey, we found it increasingly difficult to

answer the new questions posed by colleagues in other disciplines. All we had were the typo-

chronological responses provided by the traditional Roman ceramological toolbox. At the same

time, however, we are very much aware that this same tradition has made a major contribution to

our current understanding of ceramics and trade in the Roman East. ICRATES therefore consciouslylinks this rich tradition with new avenues of research, mostly in an attempt to introduce concepts of

material culture studies into the domain of Roman archaeology.

One of the most attractive aspects of the world of material culture studies is that nothing is simple

and straightforward any more, and, what is more, that it feels better that way. As a result, when

studying networks in the past we should start from questioning the obvious. In the online Oxford

English Dictionary (http://www.oed.com/) a network is defined as follows:

A chain or system of interconnected immaterial things, Any netlike or complex system or collection of

interrelated things, as topographical features, lines of transportation, or telecommunications routes (esp.

telephone lines), An interconnected group or chain of retailers, businesses, or other organizations and

An interconnected group of people; an organization; spec. a group of people having certain connections(freq. as a result of attending a particular school or university) which may be exploited to gain preferment,

information, etc., esp. for professional advantage.

Clearly, the levels of analysis are defined by the system itself, its component elements (from

features to information and real people) and/or its underlying raison(s) detre and purpose(s).

Research into networks can make use of network analysis, which represents a collective set of

methodological tools developed with the aim of detecting and interpreting patterns of relationships

between the specific features (Brughmans 2010).1 Networks can be studied also without recourse

to network analysis, however, and the current paper serves as an example of this more descriptive

and qualitative approach. Methodologically, it builds on the historical analytical concept of

connectivity as argued by Horden and Purcell (2000: 123): By this term, we understand the various

ways in which microregions cohere, both internally and also one with another in aggregates that


2/10

may range in size from small clusters to something

approaching the entire Mediterranean. In particular

we aim to apply the concept of connectivity in order

to provide historical meaning to recently collected

sets of archaeological data in much the same way aswas done recently in the field of ancient history

(Malkin, Constantakopoulou and Panagopoulou

2009). This might seem to be a very light way of

approaching the functions of networks in the ancient

world, but the available archaeological data are not of

a sufficient quality to allow us to use anything more

than the descriptive methodologies of network analysis.

Archaeological data are, by definition, mute and in

need of well-defined metadata before they can be

used in computer-based approaches to network analy-

sis. When such metadata are not available, as is thecase with most traditional ceramic data that was not

collected with network analysis in mind, there is a

risk that the patterns produced will lead to circular

reasoning. While one technique might work, it would

not add any explanatory meaning to the archaeological

data. Consequently our paper is not just what one might

term as old wine in new bottles; it is instead an

attempt to illustrate how in some specific cases,

bridges can be built between data collected in the

traditional manner by Roman archaeologists and

descriptive analytical frameworks, such as connectivity,

and how meaning can be found in their patterning.Apart from defining the analytical platform and

method, we also need to consider the broader context

of the data, in this case the Roman East. Recently,

Reger (2007; Elton and Reger 2007) has warned us

against the simplistic, over-geographical usage of the

concept of regions, and, considering that this paper is

built on the concept of connectivity between (micro)

regions, we should heed his words. Even ancient

authors agree on the difficulty of defining regions in

antiquity, and they were in a position to know. There-

fore ICRATES considers regions more as radii ofaction, with a potentially different size depending on

the kind of archaeological data under discussion, the

factor of agency in the past and/or the thematic

approach of the research. The eastern Mediterranean

was and still is complex from cultural, political, mili-

tary, religious, ethnological and linguistic points of

view, and its constituent regions therefore cannot be

expected to be uniform in definition or function.

The participants of the ICRATES project are

convinced that a focus on artisanal production is a

useful approach in this respect. Previously we have

argued that the symbiosis between a prosperous and

productive countryside and a busy town connected to

the wider world is to be regarded as the condicio sine

qua nonfor providing a sustainable basis for the devel-

opment of craft production and ensuring the presence of

its produce on long-distance markets (Poblome 2006).When looking for connectivity, we can also approach

matters the other way round: from crafts to regions,

whilst making sure to avoid looking at only one

product, and concentrating on regional portfolios.

Modelling regional artisanal production should help

develop our understanding of the strengths and weak-

nesses of certain kinds of material produced. We

should also focus less on lines of production, but

much more on how these were integrated into the

economy of a region.

CASE-STUDIES

BOEOTIA

The region of Boeotia, representing one of the three

regions in which ICRATES is involved in fieldwork,

provides a first and clear example of the role of

networks in the field of production from the perspective

of descriptive analysis. As with Rome and Portus in the

early Empire, the establishment of Constantinople

started to provide a new and clear focus in the eastern

Mediterranean from the fourth century AD onwards.The place in Boeotia where we feel this effect most

clearly is the ancient town of Tanagra and its territory.

Within most sectors of the ancient town, as well as on

several of the rural sites in its territory, a striking pro-

portion of the ceramic assemblage consisted of Late

Roman 2 amphora fragments (Poblome, Ceulemans

and De Craen 2008: 568) (Table 21.1), for the most

part represented by one main fabric range. In our

view, the quantities of these oil amphorae, the fact

that other products such as jugs, lekanai and beehives

were made in the same fabric range, and the generalcompatibility of the fabric with the regional clay raw

materials and geology, are strong indicators that a

series of Late Roman 2 amphorae was manufactured

in this study area. Partial confirmation of this hypoth-

esis came from recent Greek excavations at ancient

Delion, the port of Tanagra, where the remains of at

least one Late Roman 2 amphora workshop with a

kiln were excavated (as yet unpublished). So far, no

archaeometrical analysis has been performed in order

to confirm this further or establish possible links with

the material found at Tanagra. However, as a prelimi-

nary working hypothesis, we expect other production

394 POBLOME, BES & WILLET


3/10

sites to be found within the facies geographique of

Tanagra, not least because of their similarity to the

organization of other more widely distributed amphora

types (Bonifay 2004: 944).

The ancient authors tell us that the region of Tanagra

was involved in the production of wine and probably

also olive (oil?).2 As regards networks, it reacted to

direct or indirect stimuli provided by the central

Roman authorities in the late Imperial period, in order

to supply olive oil to newly-established Constantinople

and/or Roman troops along the Danube (Karagiorgou

2001). At least some of the landholders in the regionof Tanagra were well placed to respond to these

needs and convert their agricultural products, or at

least to produce them more intensively. The resultant

well-being this brought for the community at Tanagra

is epitomized by the ranges of imported table- and

cooking-wares and amphorae (Table 21.2). In this

way, we see the emergence of a fluid pattern of

exchange in response to the demands of empire at the

supra-regional level.

It is interesting to note that the results of our pre-

liminary comparisons between Tanagra and two othercontemporary Boeotian towns, Thespiae and Koroneia,

do not indicate similar types and proportions of

imported pottery: furthermore, in the case of Koroneia

Late Roman 2 amphorae played a relatively minor role

(Table 21.3). We consider this to be an important

observation that warns us against making excessively

generalized regional conclusions. The presence of

amphorae shows that networks can function, as was

the case with Boeotian Tanagra. At the same time,

however, the fact that they could also be absent at

sites c. 30 km distant with different material culture

assemblages, hints at limits to supply networks.

SAGALASSOS

The workings of networks can be more subtle, how-

ever. In the case of ancient Sagalassos, the Pisidian

town at which members of the ICRATES project also

undertake ceramological analysis, no amphorae seem

to have been produced at or near the site before the

middle of the fourth century AD. At some point in the

third quarter of that century, however, one or more

landholders in the territory of Sagalassos decided to

start packaging part of their agricultural produce in

amphorae (Poblomeet al. 2008).Amphorae usually were produced in regions that

disposed of a marketable agricultural surplus destined

for wide distribution. In the case of Sagalassos, they

were not widely produced since the town is located

within the Taurus mountain range and is relatively

distant from the Mediterranean or navigable rivers

the ideal environments for the production of amphorae.

Thus the fact that amphorae were manufactured in a

Pisidian context at all is something that needs to be

explained. In our opinion, the landholders who took

the initiative to produce local amphorae were facedwith a sequence of conscious decisions while posses-

sing sufficient capital to be able to initiate and maintain

their production. We have suggested previously that

they would have chosen to produce the containers

only with specific aims in mind, possibly in response

to changing conditions in either the generation of

their agricultural produce ( supply) or the level of

interest in their produce (demand), or perhaps both.

In this respect, the fact that amphorae were chosen at

all as containers for their surplus production is impor-

tant in that this is a functional category of pottery that

traditionally was conceived for distribution, and the

TABLE 21.1. The absolute and relative quantities of Late Roman 2 amphorae, other late Roman amphorae and late Roman red

slip wares for urban Tanagra and four rural sites.

URBAN

(no.13,464)

TS2

(no.1,158)

TS3

(no.4,848)

TS4

(no.1,626)

% of sherds assigned to the late

Roman period

31.21 (no. 4,202) 8.89 (no. 103) 10.46 (no.507) 10.09 (no. 164)

% of Late Roman 2 fragments (of

the late Roman total)

34.91 (no. 1,467) 29.13 (no.30) 16.17 (no.82) 26.22 (no. 43)

% of all other late Roman

amphorae sherds (of the late

Roman total)

39.79 (no. 1,672) 41.75 (no.43) 43.20 (no. 219) 59.15 (no. 97)

% of late Roman red slip ware

sherds (of the late Roman total)

4.66 (no. 196) 7.89 (no.40) 4.88 (no. 8)

THOUGHTS ON THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESIDUE OF NETWORKS 395


4/10

landholders must have been aware of this. Thus the late

Roman amphorae from the region of Sagalassos could

represent tentative evidence for the rationalization of

parts of the agricultural matrix of the study area,

possibly coupled to an intensification of production.

Furthermore, the typological resemblance of the early

series of Sagalassos amphorae to the initial phase of

Late Roman 1 wine amphorae suggests that they were

cultivating vines. We consider it to be more than a

coincidence that the same period saw the beginning

of the production of typical relief decoratedoinophoroi

in the potters quarter in the eastern suburb of

TABLE 21.2. The range of functionalities for local/regional, imported and uncertain fabrics for Tanagra. (Updated from Poblome,

Ceulemans and De Craen 2008: 567, table 4.)

Food consumption

Local/regional production Imported Uncertain

Tanagra/Boeotian fabric(s): plain-wares African and Phocaean red

slip wares

Red slip, table-wares

Food processing & preparation


Buff fabric: plain-wares Aegean: casseroles or

amphorae

Black Sea fabric?: amphorae

and plain-wares

Casserole fabrics: casseroles Late Roman 2: plain-wares Grog fabric, plain-wares

Orange micaceous: plain-wares

Orange sandy: plain-wares

Tanagra/Boeotian fabric(s): plain-wares

White-grey clayey fabric: plain-wares

Agricultural production


Brown sandy: amphorae Black Sea fabric: amphorae Red slip: amphorae

Buff fabric: amphorae Late Roman 1: amphorae

Casserole fabric(s): amphorae and beehives Late Roman 2: amphorae,

(amphorae) stands andbeehives

Orange micaceous: amphorae Late Roman 3: amphorae

Orange sandy: amphorae and beehives Late Roman 4: amphorae

Tanagra/Boeotian fabric(s): amphorae and beehives Late Roman 5: amphorae

White-grey clayey fabric: amphorae

TABLE 21.3. The absolute and relative quantities of late Roman pottery and Late Roman 2 amphorae at Koroneia (not yet fully

studied) and Thespiae.

Koroneia Thespiae

Total 10,443 Total 8,701

% late Roman of total 3.31% (no. 346) % late Roman of total 4.90% (no. 408)

% Late Roman 2 of late Roman total 16.18% (no. 56) % Late Roman 2 of late Roman total 39.22% (no. 160)



5/10

Sagalassos (Talloen and Poblome 2005; Murphy and

Poblome 2011).

Once again, the emergence of Constantinople as the

major pole of attraction or node in network terms

within the context of broader regional connections inthe Roman East, and the contingent civil and military

opportunities that it offered, may have tempted some

landholders in the area of Sagalassos to specialize

and intensify part of their agricultural production. The

not so straightforward results of the residue analysis

performed on the Sagalassos amphorae, albeit based

on an early Byzantine sample series (Romanus et al.

2009), as well as the fact that so far we have not been

able to characterize the distribution pattern of these

amphorae, suggest that we shall probably never under-

stand the economic calculations made by the ancientlandowners. Nevertheless, we should like to suggest

that they took networking into account in order to

ensure that their produce circulated.

A major challenge that hinders our understanding of

how connectivity worked in the Roman East is the fact

that our picture is still very incomplete. There are still,

for example, many hidden landscapes of production.

Thus, when working at Tanagra, Thespiae and Koro-

neia, not only do we come across the usual variety of

sigillata and red slip wares, but the survey pottery

assemblages also include different and presumably

town-specific lines of table-ware production, togetherwith a range of fabrics that we consider to be Greek

in character and that do not seem to correspond to the

production centres of table-wares attested at Athens

(Rotroff 1997a; 1997b), Corinth (Wright 1980; Slane

2003) or Patras (Hubner 1996; 2003). Furthermore,

new discoveries are bound to make our picture more

complex. Before 1987 nobody had ever heard of

Sagalassos red slip ware (Poblome 1999), yet this

class of pottery clearly represents a high-quality type

of table-ware that is comparable to any of the main

types circulating in the Roman East, and in its lateRoman phase of production formed part of the wider

Late Roman D tradition (Poblome and Frat 2011).

NE T WORKS AND DIST RIB UTIONS

So far we have attempted to use the concept of con-

nectivity to explain phenomena from an artisanal pro-

duction point of view. In the second part of this

paper, we should like to present some considerations

as to how successful networking could provide also

for knock-on effects in distribution patterns. As in

the previous part, we propose an obvious example, a

more subtle one, and discuss some problems that

arise from all of them.

Plate 21.1 shows the distribution patterns of the

major types of table-ware in circulation in the late

Roman East, and is based on the published evidencearchived in the ICRATES database. African and

Phocaean red slip wares can be considered to be in a

league of their own, with other wares such as Cypriot

and Egyptian red slip wares representing more region-

ally focused patterns of distribution. From a network

point of view it is important to consider that Roman

pottery specialists agree that table-wares were not

traded for their own sake, but were assimilated into

existing flows of exchange. In this way, table-wares

become a strategic part of the exchange package,

although their patterns of distribution will never havecome about because of them. Ceramics of this kind

are, in other words, integral to the exchange patterns

of which they form a part, combining parasitic and at

the same time supportive roles within these patterns.

Often, this type of pottery represents the only archaeo-

logical trace of such networked exchanges.

In the next step pulling forces that is to say

economic, social, political, religious and cultural

forms of demand need to be taken into account in

order to explain the attested flows of exchange. These

forces are abstract notions that represent explicit or

implicit policies of different manifestations of auth-ority. In the case of our example, Constantinople was

an obvious pulling force, which helps to explain the

higher presence of African red slip ware along the

route connecting it to the producing region. Obviously

many more factors including variable transport

infrastructure, levels of information and patterns of

demand need to be taken into account when

explaining specific ceramic assemblages in each of

these communities. In terms of networks, however,

Constantinople at least represented the potential of

association with this flow of exchange, which, to besure, did not come about simply as a result of table-

wares. It would be beyond the scope of this paper to

try and explain why a number of flows of exchange

were concentrated in Constantinople (Rickman 1980:

1989; Bonifay 2003: 11516, 11921, 1278;

Bonifay 2004: 479; Bonifay 2005: 5767; Pieri 2005:

148), and so we therefore propose to define this role

in abstract terms by coining the eastern capital as a

framework of exchange. Such frameworks are

network nodes emitting sustainable pulling forces

with demonstrable archaeological effects. Other (and

mostly smaller) urban centres can be considered to



6/10

have emulated this role, creating other frameworks of

exchange. These frameworks are all but static and

perform in both the geographical and chronological

sense. In the case of our example, we do not consider

the fairly high presence of African red slip ware inthe second half of the fourth century AD as well as

the contemporary arrival of Phocaean and Cypriot red

slip wares as coincidental, but that they resulted instead

from the initial brokering force of the Constantino-

politan node, in the wake of its foundation as a new

imperial capital. The fairly high presence of Phocaean

red slip ware in the northern Levant, on the other

hand, can be considered to have resulted from an

interplay between different frameworks of exchange.

Constantinople was tapping into the agricultural

potential of this region, possibly for its own suppliesbut also for ensuring that the Danubian limes was

supplied. This region was functioning in what one

might term as a stable way, a situation attested by the

levels of production and distribution of the Late Roman

1 amphorae. Thus the high presence of Phocaean red

slip ware, followed by African red slip ware, in the

northern Levant did not originate from direct connections

between the regions of production and consumption, but

was brokered through the integrated functioning of

different frameworks of exchange, with Constantinople

as the main pulling and pushing force. In this sense the

presence of Phocaean and African red slip wares in thenorthern Levant can be considered as a knock-on

effect of networking. Considering the scope of this

paper, other aspects represented in Plate 21.1 are left

undiscussed.

Other examples may not be as clear-cut as this, but

actually represent the majority of cases. When consid-

ering the situation of early Imperial table-wares in

Greece, for instance, the role played by Italian sigillata

at thecoloniaof Corinth finds no parallel (Slane 2004)

in the Roman East. This port, with its two harbours,

acted as an emporium where transshipment tookplace, and thus, in terms of the regional distribution

of goods, it unsurprisingly finds itself at the apex of

the pyramid. When comparing the potters stamps on

Italian sigillata in Corinth, Argos, Athens, Kenchreai

and Olympia (Bes and Poblome 2006: 1567, table 4,

nos. 356), ICRATES looked for such patterns of

dependency. Clearly, Corinth stands out in having

most Italian sigillata and receiving it earlier than

anywhere else in Greece. For the other Greek sites,

an important proportion of the stamped pieces also

occurred at Corinth, which, together with similarities

in types and provenances of their table-ware, could

hint at some pattern of dependency on Corinth or

some distributive function for the latter. However this

is only part of the story and at each of the sites studied

Italiansigillataarrived by means of other routes; this is

especially true of Olympia, which, together withCorinth (Slane 2004: n. 26), stands out with a particu-

larly large amount of late Italiansigillata(Martin 2006:

175, fig. 1). In more general terms, we need to be aware

of the fact that in many cases we sense or suspect that

networking could be at play, but it is still difficult to

prove with good archaeological evidence.

In this sense, the principles of material culture

studies should protect us from providing excessively

positivistic answers when it comes to reconstructing

past networks. Some time ago, it was proposed that

a multi-layered exchange pattern existed betweenSagalassos and Egypt, involving goods, people and

ideas (Poblome and Waelkens 2003). Phrased in

network-terms, Sagalassos can be considered as a satel-

lite of the Alexandrian network, and it is very clear

which party benefited most from this relationship.

Recently, when looking at the inner Anatolian distri-

bution pattern of Sagalassos red slip ware and how

this correlated in general terms to the provenance of

some of the coins, fish and marble found in the town,

we started to think in terms of characterizing another

pattern of exchange. We started to have doubts, how-

ever. Indeed, the detail of the evidence calls for caution.When looking at the numismatic evidence, for

example, most of the small change at Sagalassos

came from the local mint,demonstrating the existence

of a healthy economy or one in which economic

activity was maintained with a period of coin issue

(Poblome 2008). Coins from neighbouring Selge, and

from the second century AD onwards Pamphylian

Perge, added to the balance. Most other imported

coins are single issues from Pisidia and Pamphylia,

and a range of Phrygian sites. The latter do not

necessarily form a cluster, nor do they form part of anintelligible exchange pattern, but they do indicate that

Sagalassos was not only oriented southwards but that

it was connected into the inner Anatolian road network

as well. While a detailed consideration of the marble,

pottery and fish (Van Neer et al. 2004) lies beyond

the scope of this paper, close inspection of the evidence

suggests that, like the coins, it has the potential to make

an important contribution to reconstructing operational

networks.

This kind of evidence is important, and raises the

question as to whether the seemingly lucky coincidence

of more than one category of material evidence is



7/10

sufficient for us to start thinking in terms of connec-

tivity. Clearly there will have been much exchange in

antiquity for non-systematic and sometimes even

coincidental reasons. Although we are convinced that

such relationships need to be studied and that in aggre-gate they will mean something on the balance sheet of

the ancient economy, meaningful patterns of sustain-

able economic growth can come about only when

haphazard relationships are transformed into systematic

and interdependent networks. At the same time,

material culture specialists should be aware of the

inherent danger that the significance of their simple

artisanal evidence can be exaggerated by third parties.

In this respect, there is also an urgent need to start docu-

menting the flipside of the coin, namely things that did

not function by network. It is thus important to considercases of deficiency as well as success, because this

makes the ancient socio-economic balance sheet more

real.

ICRATES is involved also in processing ceramics

from the Hellenistic layers of Kinet Hoyuk or ancient

Issos. This town was booming in the late Hellenistic

period, amongst others, on account of Delos, and can

be considered to have been located in the core of the

EasternsigillataA production region (Lund, Malfitana

and Poblome 2006). Clearly, any port in this part of

Cilicia was potentially in a position to profit from this

increased level of activity, and Issos actually had twoports (Gates 1998: 260). Our preliminary evidence

indicates, however, that Issos was flourishing in the

early days of Eastern sigillata A production but that,

for reasons as yet unknown, the site entered into a

period of decline in the first quarter of the first

century BC, resulting in its abandonment. This little

story indicates that although there can be a lot of

obvious archaeological criteria to indicate why and

where things went well, our limited capacity to under-

stand agency in antiquity should make us very careful

in interpreting such patterns. Nor should we forgetthat things may not have gone well for the community

for much of the time, but that this is not readily gleaned

from archaeological literature or by archaeological

reasoning.

CONCLUSION

We should like to suggest that relating the study of

artefact distributions much more closely to evidence

for production is a very important clue to unravelling

networks in the Mediterranean. As things normally go

in classical archaeology, the most representative

ranges of artefacts with extensive distribution patterns

(for example the set of Late Roman amphorae, African

red slip ware, Italiansigillataand also Eastern sigillata

A) have received most academic attention. Without

wishing to play down the importance of these classesof pottery, it seems worth considering the ways that

such wares have acted as an index against which to

judge the success of other artisanal products and

whether this comparative exercise does justice to

typical ancient modes of production.

Although ancient pottery production centres in the

Roman East are known very poorly, the available

evidence does support the notion that sizeable

manufacturing output was achieved by multiplying

small-scale production units rather than enlarging

existing facilities (McCormick 2001: 58). Suchprocesses of horizontal multiplication took place

within attested production centres, and we would like

to suggest that the widely distributed wares mentioned

above were the result of such processes of horizontal

multiplication involving many small-scale production

units within one or other region. They would have

resulted in so-called production conglomerates that

are typically associated with one or other framework

of exchange. In other words, the archaeology of

production units indicates that small-scale production

units geared towards their own regional markets are

to be regarded as the norm in antiquity. Obviouslythis conclusion should cause us to change our focus

on distribution patterns, shifting it away from putting

more dots on the map, which seems to be the predomi-

nant interest of modern scholars, and concentrating

more upon understanding which markets artisanal

entrepreneurs had in mind, and what risks they were

prepared to take. Considering the fact that even the

highly successful types of table-ware in the Roman

East tended to be dominant in their own regions of

production indicates that entrepreneurs were reluctant

to take risks and that they mainly preferred the marketsthey knew within their own regional radius or network.

It is only when conglomerates of production are present

that further markets are reached through the functioning

of frameworks of exchange. However, these conditions

are perhaps more exceptional than their representation

in the archaeological literature would seem to suggest.

The wide distribution patterns of these cases should

actually be considered as an aggregate of a patchwork

of outputs comprising many regional production centres,

with pulling forces that were not necessarily purely

commercial in nature, but possibly tied to larger

mechanisms instigated, implicitly or explicitly, by



8/10

central authorities, such as the annona. In sum, a

production-linked focus on distribution patterns holds

great potential for approaching the contribution that

the artisanal sector made to ancient society, and part-

icularly to understanding past networks. Clearly, eachgeneration gets the classical archaeology it deserves,

and ours seems to be increasingly intricate.

Acknowledgements

The ICRATES Project is supported by the Fund for

Scientific Research, Flanders-Belgium (G.0.788.09).

Research at Sagalassos is funded by the Belgian

Programme on Interuniversity Poles of Attraction

(IAP 7/09), the Research Fund of the University of

Leuven (GOA 13/04), Project G.0562.11 of the Fund

for Scientific Research, Flanders-Belgium (FWO), theHercules Foundation (AKUL/09/16) and a Methusalem

Grant from the Flemish Ministry for Science Policy.

NOT E S

1. Networks are also discussed by Earl and his colleagues in

Chapter 23.

2. See Snodgrass (1987: 8990) for the third-century BC authorand traveller Herakleides.

R E F E R EN C E S

Bes, P.M. (2007) A Geographical and Chronological Study of the

Distribution and Consumption of Tablewares in the Roman

East. Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Ph.D. thesis,.

Bes, P.M. and Poblome, J. (2006) A new look at old data: the

ICRATES platform. In D. Malfitana, J. Poblome and J. Lund

(eds),Old Pottery in a New Century. Innovating Perspectives

on Roman Pottery Studies. Atti del convegno internazionale di

studi. Catania, 2224 aprile 2004 (Monografie dellIstituto

per i Beni Archeologici e Monumentali (IBAM) 1): 14165.

Rome, LErma di Bretschneider.

Bes, P.M. and Poblome, J. (2008) (Not) see the wood for the trees?

19,700 sherds ofsigillataand what we can do with them.Rei

Cretariae Romanae Fautores Acta 40: 50514.

Bes, P.M. and Poblome, J. (2009) African red slip ware on the

move: the effect of Bonifays Etudes for the Roman East. In

J.H. Humphrey (ed.), Studies on Roman Pottery of the

Provinces of Africa Proconsularis and Byzacena (Tunisia)

(Journal of Roman Archaeology Supplementary Series 76):

7391. Portsmouth (RI), Journal of Roman Archaeology.

Bonifay, M. (2003) La ceramique africaine, un indice du developpe-

ment economique? Antiquite Tardive 11: 11328.Bonifay, M. (2004) Etudes sur la ceramique romaine tardive

dAfrique (British Archaeological Reports, International

Series 1,301). Oxford, Archaeopress.

Bonifay, M. (2005) Observations sur la diffusion des ceramiques

africaines en Mediterranee orientale durant lantiquitetardive.

In F. Baratte, V. Deroche, C. Jolivet-Levy and B. Pitarakis

(eds), Melanges Jean-Pierre Sodini (Travaux et memoires

15): 56881. Paris, College de France.

Brughmans, T. (2010) Connecting the dots: towards archaeological

network analysis. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 29: 277

303.

Elton, H. and Reger, G. (2007) (eds) Regionalism in Hellenisticand Roman Asia Minor (Ausonius etudes 20). Paris, De

Boccard.

Gates, M.H. (1998) 1997 Archaeological Excavations at Kinet

Hoyuk (Yesil-Dortyol, Hatay): XX. Kaz Sonuclar Toplants, I.

Cilt. 2428 mays 1998: 25981. Ankara, Kultur Bakanlg

Milli Kutuphane Basmevi.

Horden, P. and Purcell, N. (2000) The Corrupting Sea. A Study of

Mediterranean History.Oxford, Blackwell.

Hubner, G. (1996) Die Romische Keramik von Patras: Vorausset-

zungen und Moglichkeiten der Annaherung im Rahmen der

Stadtgeschichte. In M. Herford-Koch, U. Mandel and U.

Schadler (eds), Hellenistische und Kaiserzeitliche Keramik

des Ostlichen Mittelmeergebietes. Kolloquium Frankfurt



9/10

2425 April 1995: 15. Frankfurt, Archaologisches Institut der

Johann Wolfgang Goethe-Universitat.

Hubner, G. (2003) Patras: Kreuzweg zwischen Ost und West. Die

Sigillatawaren aus dem Fundgut w 14, Korinthou 288/

Kanari.Rei Cretariae Romanae Fautores Acta 38: 25764.Karagiorgou, O. (2001) LR2: a container for the military annonaon

the Danubian border? In S. Kingsley and M. Decker (eds),

Economy and Exchange in the East Mediterranean during

Late Antiquity: 12966. Oxford, Oxbow Books.

Lund, J., Malfitana, D. and Poblome, J. (2006) Rhosica vasa

mandavi (Cic., Att. 6.1.13). Towards the identification of a

major tableware industry of the eastern Mediterranean: eastern

Sigillata A. Archeologia Classica 57: 491507.

Malkin, I., Constantakopoulou, C. and Panagopoulou, K. (2009)

Greek and Roman Networks in the Mediterranean. London,

Routledge.

Martin, A. (2006) Italian sigillata in the east: two different models

of supply (Ephesos and Olympia). In D. Malfitana, J. Poblome

and J. Lund (eds), Old Pottery in a New Century. Innovating

Perspectives on Roman Pottery Studies. Atti del convegno

internazionale di studi. Catania, 2224 aprile 2004 (Mono-

grafie dellIstituto per i Beni Archeologici e Monumentali

(IBAM)1): 17587. Rome LErma di Bretschneider.

McCormick, M. (2001) Origins of the European Economy. Com-

munications and Commerce AD 300900. Cambridge,

Cambridge University Press.

Murphy, E. and Poblome, J. (2011) Producing pottery vs. producing

models: interpreting workshop organization at the potters

quarter of Sagalassos. In M.L. Lawall and J. Lund (eds),

Pottery in the Archaeological Record: Greece and Beyond(Gosta Enbom Monograph1): 306. Aarhus, Aarhus Univer-

sity Press.

Pieri, D. (2005) Le commerce du vin oriental a lepoque byzantine

(VeVIIe siecle). Le temoignage des amphores en Gaule

(Bibliotheque archeologique et dhistorique 174). Paris,

Institut Francais du Proche-Orient.

Poblome, J. (1999) Sagalassos Red Slip Ware. Typology and

Chronology (Studies in Eastern Mediterranean Archaeology

2). Turnhout, Brepols Publishers.

Poblome, J. (2006) Made in Sagalassos. Modelling regional

potential and constraints. In S. Menchelli and M. Paquinucci

(eds),Territorio e produzioni ceramiche: paesaggi, economiae societain eta romana(Instrumenta2): 35563, 4201. Pisa,

Edizione Plus/Pisa University Press.

Poblome, J. (2008) Sherds and coins from a place under the sun.

Further thoughts from Sagalassos. Facta. A Journal of

Roman Material Culture Studies 2: 191213.

Poblome, J. and Frat, N. (2011) Late Roman D. A matter of

open(ing) or closed horizons? In M.A. Cau, P. Reynolds and

M. Bonifay (eds),LRFW1. Late Roman Fine Wares: Solving

the Problems of Typology and Chronology (Roman and

Late Antique Mediterranean Pottery 1): 4955. Oxford,

Archaeopress.

Poblome, J. and Waelkens, M. (2003) Sagalassos and Alexandria.

Exchange in the eastern Mediterranean. In C. Abadie-Reynal

(ed.), Les ceramiques en Anatolie aux epoques hellenistique

et romaine(Varia Anatolica 15): 17991. Paris, De Boccard.

Poblome, J., Ceulemans, A. and De Craen, K. (2008) The late

Hellenistic to late Roman ceramic spectrum of Tanagra.

Bulletin de Correspondance Hellenique (20042005): 1289, 56177.

Poblome, J., Corremans, M., Bes, P.M., Romanus, K. and Degryse,

P. (2008) It is never too late . . . the late Roman initiation of

amphora production in the territory of Sagalassos. In I.

Delemen, S. Cokay-Kepce, A. Ozdibay and O. Turak (eds),

Euergetes. Festschrift fur Prof. Dr. Haluk Abbasoglu zum

65. Geburtstag: 1,0012. Antalya, Suna_IInan Krac Research

Institute on Mediterranean Civilizations.

Reger, G. (2007) Regions revisited. Identifying regions in a Greco-

Roman Mediterranean context. Facta. A Journal of Roman

Material Culture Studies 1: 6574.

Rickman, G.E. (1980)The Corn Supply of Ancient Rome. Oxford,

Clarendon Press.

Romanus, K., Baeten, J., Poblome, J., Accardo, S., Degryse, P.,

Jacobs, P., Waelkens, M. and DeVos, D. (2009) Wine and

olive oil permeation in pitched and non-pitched ceramics:

relation with results from archaeological amphorae from Saga-

lassos, Turkey.Journal of Archaeological Science 39: 9009.

Rotroff, S.I. (1997a) Hellenistic Pottery. Athenian and Imported

Wheelmade Table Ware and Related Material. Part 1: Text

(The Athenian Agora XXIX). Princeton, Princeton University

Press.

Rotroff, S.I. (1997b) From Greek to Roman in Athenian ceramics.

In M.C. Hoff and S.I. Rotroff (eds), The Romanization of

Athens. Proceedings of an International Conference Held atLincoln, Nebraska (April 1996) (Oxbow Monographs 94):

97116. Oxford, Oxbow Books.

Slane, K.W. (2003) Corinths Roman pottery. Quantification and

meaning. In C.K. Williams II and N. Bookidis (eds), Corinth.

The Centenary 18961996(Corinth XX): 32135. Princeton,

Princeton University Press.

Slane, K.W. (2004) Corinth: Italian sigillata and other Italian

imports to the early colony. In J. Poblome, P. Talloen, R.

Brulet and M. Waelkens (eds), Early Italian Sigillata. The

Chronological Framework and Trade Patterns (BABesch

Supplement10): 3142. Leuven, Peeters.

Snodgrass, A. (1987)An Archaeology of Greece. The Present Stateand Future Scope of a Discipline. Berkeley/Los Angeles,

University of California Press.

Talloen, P. and Poblome, J. (2005) What were they thinking of?

Relief decorated pottery of Sagalassos. A cognitive approach.

Melanges de lEcole Francaise de Rome. Antiquite117: 5581.

Van Neer, W., Lernau, O., Friedman, R., Mumford, G., Poblome, J.

and Waelkens, M. (2004) Fish remains from archaeological

sites as indicators of former trade connections in the eastern

Mediterranean.Paleorient30: 10148.

Wright, K.S. (1980) A Tiberian pottery deposit from Corinth.

Hesperia 49: 13577.



10/10

Poblome Bes WilletArchaeologicalResidueNetworks

Documents

Transcript of Poblome Bes WilletArchaeologicalResidueNetworks