Butrint 6: Excavations on the Vrina Plain: Volume 3 - The Roman and late Antique pottery from the Vrina Plain excavations

1Presentation methodology

1 Presentation methodology

The pottery contexts are presented and catalogued (‘Spot-dated’ lists, ‘Spot cat’ list, or detailed RBH/RBHS catalogue) in the order of their discussion in the Vrina Plain Site Report (see Volume 6.1), in chronological order.

However, in the case of assemblages which are good examples of a ‘ceramic phase’ (e.g. first half of 2nd century; early to mid-5th century) but are nevertheless redeposited, these will be presented and illustrated in their ceramic phase, after the ‘in phase’ Vrina assemblages. This way, the ceramic sequence is presented in chronological order, both in terms of ‘in phase’ and ‘out of phase’ deposits. These contexts may thus provide additional material to illustrate their specific ceramic phases and, in some cases, help to explain or support the dating of the ‘in phase’ deposits.

Note that each broad stratigraphic phase, as presented in Volume 6.1, Chapters 3–9, Phases 1–16, comprises contexts relating to construction, occupation-use and minor construction events, generally covering roughly half a century, but these are not specifically indicated by internal phasing, e.g. Phase 1a, 1b, 1c, etc. Given that such differentiations are clearly of interest when attempting to establish the details of ceramic phasing, an attempt has been made to separate or indicate them where possible.

Where contexts are grouped together by the stratigraphy, e.g. x/x/x/x/x, those in bold had pottery. Pottery weights prior to cataloguing (or when spot-dating in 2009) are given in brackets (these are weights recorded by the author, not those recorded in the bulk finds records). They do not include CBM which unfortunately, for reasons of storage, could not be collected.

With respect to the presentation order of the ceramics, the fine wares (sigillatas, thin-walled wares (TWW), lamps) are usually followed by kitchen (cooking pots and lids) and utilitarian wares (usually buff, sometimes painted, bowls, mortars, jars, chamber pots and lids), some of which could be used at the table (bowls, dishes), ending with closed forms and transport amphorae. Amphorae tend to presented in geographical order according to western, then eastern sources. An ‘AMPH/Flagon’ class (i.e. two as well as one-handled, free-standing forms, usually with a domed base) has been separated from the rest of the closed forms/amphorae, partly for convenience and partly because most, like the Sicilian MRA 1 type, were surely regionally imported for what they contained (some indeed bear traces of pitch) (e.g. examples on Figs A.10–12).¹ What seemed to be a ‘normal’ (3rd century) regional variant of this type found in Butrint turns out (from an example in Nicopolis) to have a much smaller body than anticipated, given the rim size (Fig. A.9b; for thin-section analysis of this piece, see Appendix C, Section 1.2, sample 159). This alerts us to the likelihood that many closed vessels served to transport special goods (e.g. imported jugs such as Fig. A.9c–d; small handled jars, such as Fig. A.9a; Corinthian mould-made cylindrical bowls, as proposed by Hayes 1997, 73–4), a fact that is evident also from the presence of pitch on some, as well as finds in shipwrecks.² The use of some very thin-walled small vessels for boiling or cooking, rather than drinking (heating of wine, or perhaps milk?), and the existence of tiny cooking pot forms is also noted (what could be cooked in such miniature items?) (e.g. Phocean Fig. A.8b–c).

For reasons of clarity and transparency with regard to the dating of forms and the deposits themselves, which is no easy matter, references to, and often illustrations of, key residual (or potential residual) finds in the deposits are included. The author believes this is preferable to the ‘cleaning up’ and elimination of evidence which might explain the presence of doubtful contemporary pieces, as well as illustrating the reality and complexity of the ceramic record and its formation processes.

Quantification

For practical reasons – impossibility of the identification of specific forms from walls; confusion of local buff amphorae with plain forms; identification of some sources but not others, including the wide range of sources for buff fabrics here; the sheer volume of body sherds v hundreds of diagnostics to be catalogued and drawn; the degree of residuality – it was found more meaningful to concentrate on numbers derived from the quantification of rims, bases and handles (RBH), and not include wall sherds (S), when representing deposits in terms of their range of forms and sources. Even so, whereas in the Triconch and some Diaporit deposits there are many large deposits suitable for quantification, this is less true at Vrina and only a few assemblages have been presented as quantified deposits here. (Although many were in fact fully catalogued, RBH or RBHS, as is indicated in the catalogue, they were too small for this purpose.)

General comments on wares – fabrics and forms

Like many Mediterranean sites, especially ports, Butrint was well located to receive a whole range of extensively distributed imports (table wares, cooking pots and amphorae) (see Chapter 12), some of which are now sufficiently well known for references to them to be practically superfluous beyond the list provided below. Specific references to forms and the dating of imports (e.g. for ESB, ARS or LRC forms, certain amphorae) are given where these are especially relevant for the dating of the assemblage.

Some terminology, in a number of cases ‘habits’ developed by the author during many years of classification which may reflect changing perceptions or understanding of the material, needs clarification. It was simply not possible or practical, given the scale of the problem that the ongoing excavations and processing presented, as well as the storage problems, including the inaccessibility of material the author had previously classified in Butrint, to adhere to a ‘classic’ methodology of referral to fabric reference-type pieces, added to throughout the 15 years of short, month-long sessions in Butrint. Nor would there have been space to lay out such a fabric collection (as was possible in Beirut) together with the contexts, which were laid out and tackled as entire phases or sequences, in a relatively small room. As work progressed through the Butrint pottery ‘assemblage’ from 2000 onwards, beginning with Diaporit, and then simultaneously the Triconch, some local and imported wares stood out and were provided with a number or, more often, a descriptive epithet (e.g. ‘Fine Diaporit PL’, ‘Hard, fine Diaporit PL’, ‘Fine local CW’); not good practice, but easy to remember. Many small samples, as well as a fair number of large samples, were kept for reference [now in Barcelona] in order to check the on-the-spot attributions (see Appendix C, Section 1 for thin-section analysis of some of the common local-regional fabrics). In the Catalogue, samples which were also checked and described by the author in Barcelona (macroscopically ×20) are noted as ‘SAMPLE’.

As work has progressed, the definition and classification of certain products, especially regional table wares and buff-coloured amphorae and plain wares, has become a real problem. What seemed to be ‘Apulian’ buff products, based on initial observations of Apulian Medieval amphorae, ³ whether amphorae, plain-utilitarian forms (e.g. chamber pots) or table wares (those almost identical to ESA, with a pale, yellowish-buff fabric and thin matt slip), are perhaps more likely to be very clean fabric, close-regional products, although here the distinction of true south Italian, or Corfiot, versus Epirote (local, Durres, Nicopolis, or Patras), or even Cretan products, all regions with calcareous clays, is a real dilemma (addressed in Appendix C, Section 1 and especially Section 4).

A programme of chemical analyses is finally under way for the Typology, but is too late for this publication.⁴ In advance of the fully integrated thin-section and chemical study of the key pottery fabrics of Butrint, Leandro Fantuzzi has been able to provide observations of many of the local and imported (regional, Italian, Aegean) fabrics (Appendix C). His work has established the presence of chert in all of the supposed ‘regional/close regional’ amphora types, especially those of the 1st to 3rd century (ERAM 1–11), as well as Hellenistic Corfiot amphorae, even where this seemed not to be the case (Appendix C, Section 4). Other amphorae and plain wares have a lot of chert and are likely to be more ‘local’ (e.g. some 6th-century amphorae found in Diaporit, and occasionally in Vrina: A.16f–h).

Based on observations of 3rd–4th-century ‘Corinthian bowls’, as well as examination of material in Corinth⁵ and the amphorae in the Athenian Agora, a Corinthian origin is suggested for yellowish-buff fabrics which seem to contain mudstone, often very fine, and sometimes in a slightly ‘soapy’ body in the case of the table wares. It is now known that the main ‘Corinthian’ Imperial Roman lamp series (with a fine yellowish fabric and matt, often ‘ivory-buff’ coloured surfaces – and in fact with no obvious mudstone) was in fact produced in the Roman colony of Patras, founded by Augustus in 14 BC, in the northern Peloponnese at the other end of the Corinthian Gulf.⁶ These are the typical lamps of the 2nd to mid-3rd century found in Butrint (e.g. Fig. 3.10.15; Fig. 8.3.6).

So, were the table wares, which were originally thought to be first ESA, then Apulian, actually also regional, and from Patras?⁷ Or are they from Durres, where good-quality Hellenistic fine wares, including ‘Megarian bowls’ were produced, or from Apollonia, also a production centre, ⁸ or closer to Butrint, at Phoinike, where chemical analysis points to black glaze fine ware production in the late Hellenistic period?⁹ Are the flanged bowls with a brown slip, first encountered in Nicopolis (Nicopolis CC), also products of Patras, where they are common and associated with the many early Roman kilns in the city? Are the 3rd-century slipped dishes which are found in Crete (Knossos, Gortina), Nicopolis, Butrint, Durres and Brindisi, all from a single source?¹⁰ And is this also Patras? Or Crete, or both? (e.g. Fig. A.1v: see Appendix C, Section 7B, nos 250–51 for two thin-section examples which contain micas and rare calcite and microfossils and only rare–very rare chert).¹¹ These important questions remain to be resolved, but in the meantime, and given the very variable nature of these products, possibly due simply to firing, for reference the author’s original, usually hesitant, classification is indicated in quotation marks (e.g. ‘Nicopolis CC/(colour-coat)?’; ‘Apulian?’, ‘as ESA’) until further clarification is possible; this is the safest and most honest approach. Some of these epithets will be explained below. Philip Kenrick has noted that ‘Epirote’ fine ware platters (occasionally stamped), bowls, flanged bowls and large flat-bottomed dishes which are described here as ‘colour-coated’ (because the slip colour is very different from that of the body) should be classed as regional terra sigillata, like ITS (which often bears the same traits).¹²

One major problem, encountered more in material of the 3rd, 5th and 6th century at the Triconch, but also relevant for Vrina, is the perception of ‘Cretan’ fabrics, and the production of the 3rd–4th-century amphora form ‘Zemer 57’ (Fig. A.14c–d), in several calcareous fabrics: pale green, sometimes porous; harder, very pale pink-red with abundant fine lime; and ‘hard Cretan’, a hard, fine, pale red fabric, with less-visible fine lime. The type (rim, handles, body) would seem to be related to the form AC 6, possibly produced at Hagios Nikolaos in eastern Crete in a poorly fired ‘fine, beige-pale brown and reddish-beige fabric’ which corresponds to the local pottery of the site.¹³ It should be noted, however, that whereas the Hagios Nikolaos amphora A 152 has a rounded toe, those of the other examples illustrated have a small Knidian-type toe.

A similar (at least macroscopically) range of fabrics to Zemer 57 reappears in a so far unlocated, later 5th to late 6th-century small version of LRA 2, of a very distinctive type (6th-century examples bearing a rounded base with small central indent) (‘LRA 2.6’ in the Butrint typology: Fig. A.14e).¹⁴ Given that east Cretan fabrics are beige and calcareous, the author suggested that the Butrint examples of Zemer 57 were east Cretan and hence that these LRA 2 late variants could also be east Cretan. One of the classic mid-3rd to 4th-century Cretan types with ‘horned’ handles (Fig. A.14a, AC 4) also has a very calcareous fabric, often fired pale green. Though this argument was tentatively proposed, it is true that the Butrint LRA 2.6 variants have yet to appear in Cretan publications. John Hayes, seeing these LRA 2s in his visit to Butrint doubted their Cretan origin and thought them to be more likely a close-regional (i.e. western Greek or Peloponnesian) product. He may well be correct, particularly given the large numbers found in Butrint, and an Epirote or at least western Greek origin is now preferred (see Chapter 12). Some answers to these questions are tentatively provided by Leandro Fantuzzi in Appendix C, but the chemical analyses should provide the crucial answers.

Another similar problem, due to observations of the fabrics, was the author’s suggestion that the late 4th–5th-century type Remolà Tipo Tardío A, first identified in 5th-century contexts in Tarragona (Vila-roma 8.198; Fig. A.13a and f, left), now correlated with the Athenian Agora form M 235, ¹⁵ is of Cretan origin. The type follows what was seen as a basic Cretan amphora format (cupped rim, oval handles, body shape, small conical toe) and the Cretan association with regard to fabric was thought also to be indicated by Cretan-type handles (raised, plain oval-section) in a very similar (slightly micaceous reddish-maroon) ‘Hard Cretan’ fabric found at Butrint in 3rd/4th-century contexts 1110/1111.¹⁶

Furthermore, the typical flat-cut band grooving and fabric of Agora M 235 can be seen in some examples of late Cretan, 6th-century ‘globular’ type (actually these are more ‘tronco-conical’) amphorae with a small button base (Fig. A.13e: But 5383.2, Appendix C, sample 67).¹⁷ Both the 5th-century M 235 and later evolutions, heading towards the ‘late Cretan globular’ form, are found in the Agora storeroom, in the same fabric as the Butrint examples, arranged as a continuous sequence (Fig. A.13f), and all are clearly common in Athens.¹⁸ A similar evolution in this fabric through the 5th and 6th centuries can be seen in Butrint (Fig. A.13b–e).

There is evidence now, however, for production of Vilaroma 8.198/M 235 at Messene, on the south-western coast of the Peloponnese (which explains its distribution).¹⁹ The close similarity of the fabric of these (or at least some of the Butrint examples of M 235) and that of the 5th-century one-handled ‘Lakonian’ amphora Agora M 335 (Fig. A.12e), also very common in Athens as well as Sparta, ²⁰ Argos and Butrint, was perplexing but now makes better sense, following thin-section fabric analysis: see Appendix C, Section 4 for details of the analyses of these ‘Lakonian’ amphorae and comparison with LRA 2.6, including ‘Hard Cretan’ LRA 2.6 – not dissimilar it seems– and late globular ‘Cretan’amphorae, as well as possible Corfiote and ‘Epirote’ forms.

So what of those ‘Hard Cretan’ handles in 4th-century Butrint which kicked-off this problem? Perhaps these are Messene products, antecedents of the M 235. Indeed, mid-and late 4th-century versions of M 235 (in various fabrics) have appeared in contexts published from Leptis Magna.²¹ Here we should also remember that some rarer late LRA 2.6 variants were classified by this author as products in ‘Hard Cretan’ fabric. Are these again Peloponnesian? (The comparison of thin-section nos 96 and 124 in Appendix C does indeed support their similarity.) If so, they could underscore the more close-regional (Epirote?) source of the most common calcareous examples of LRA 2.6. LRA 2, it should be remembered, is an Argolid, hence north-east Peloponnesian, type. The linking of M 235 with Cretan forms (see above) could have been an unfortunate error if in fact M 235 originated as a south Peloponnesian oil amphora related to similarly cupped rim LRA 2.²² A final point here on the small ‘LRA 2.6’ type: they do not have a globular body typical of LRA 2 (e.g. Fig. 5.12.2), the body size and shape being perhaps more that of the M 235 type. In Corinth a small 7th-century amphora classified as a variant of LRA 2, with rim, neck and handles close to Butrint LRA 2.6, has a tall, narrow body and small domed base.²³ It is free-standing and, if a regional production based on LRA 2, seems to be a cross between this and amphorae of another tradition (cf. Lakonian M 335, with a similar body: Fig. A.12e).

Some comment should also be given regarding the sources of ‘classic’ examples of LRA 2, which probably primarily carried oil.²⁴ Far more common in the Triconch, a good number occurred in the Vrina Plain (e.g. Fig. 5.12.2; Fig. 6.1.2), both in the domus and VPT excavations. It seems likely that the most common fabric, with lumps of limestone, prominent gold mica flakes and a hackly, somewhat porous break (reddish core and yellow surfaces) is from the Argolid. Such products seem to be the norm in nearby Corinth.²⁵ It is still unclear if a similar fabric, without the mica, is also Argolid, Corinthian (this is the dominant source in the port of Lechaion), or from Chios (as suggested by Paul Arthur).²⁶

The sourcing of the various large, flat-bottomed (domed base) Imperial amphorae in rather clean, pale salmon buff fabrics found together with at least one Forlimpopuli amphora in the Vrina ‘Amphora Store Room’ has also been a constant problem (Figs 2.6–2.9, Plate 2; see Appendix C, Section 4.12, for thin-section analyses). Typological parallels would suggest that although there are variations in sources, they are north Italian, from the region of Emilia, but are not in the well-fired, often micaceous fabric of classic Forlimpopuli amphorae.

The complex typological range and varied possible functions of the aforementioned close-regional/regional amphorae (‘amphora/flagons’), some bearing pitch inside, need clarification. Given the range of bases in similar fabrics to the rims, some must have been free-standing with domed bases, whereas others had a small solid cone base (like Zemer 57 and the complete amphora from Olympia, Fig. A.12c). None has been found complete, so it is still unclear which bases belong to which rim types (see Appendix A, amphorae and Figs A.10–11 and A.12a, for the principal types found in Butrint contexts of the 1st–3rd centuries). It has been assumed that all of these were, like the similar-size free-standing mid Roman Sicilian or Forlimpopuli types, amphorae traded for their contents (wine?). Some bear red painted bands on the rim (e.g. ERAM 10, A.11f). Similar amphorae can be found at Elatea (Phokis), Nicopolis (forms identical to ERAM 10, as well as others, such as Fig. A.12b) and Corinth.²⁷ ERAM 11, with a bell-shaped rim, is so common in early to mid-3rd-century Butrint contexts that its source, surely also that which produced numerous plain ware utilitarian forms in the same fabric, is unlikely to have been too far distant (Corfu?; A.11g–i; see Appendix C, nos 19, 20, 136, 139; Appendix B.3, Context 98). Another related type, with a grooved rim and domed base, a rare find in Butrint, is known to have been produced in Delphi.²⁸ The Athenian Agora is full of other regional, free-standing amphorae.²⁹ These may be contrasted with the more ovoid Dressel 25 early Roman oil amphora of the Corinthia and, as we have seen, likely south Peloponnesian oil amphorae.

A number of cooking vessels and wares are referred to frequently in the Catalogue. For the ‘local’ grooved rim chert fabric series, see Appendix A (Figs A.4–5), with reference also to the ‘Nicopolis-type’ 5th-century cooking pot (e.g. A.5l–o, LRCP 1.9A–C), which the author first encountered in a 2004 visit to Nicopolis. There would appear to be a ‘linear’ evolution of the latter through the 2nd, or perhaps mid-1st century (ERCP 2), to the 5th century.³⁰ For all of this cooking ware series, which occurs from Durres to Corinth, with exports to many sites in southern Italy (e.g. Gravina, Brindisi, Otranto, San Foca, etc.), the term ‘Epirote cooking ware’ seems more appropriate than ‘Illyrian Cooking Ware’.³¹ Corinthian cooking wares also contain chert, but mudstone is the dominant inclusion.³²

Phocean cooking wares, whether coarse fabric frying pans (Riley-Benghazi ERCW 6), or finer, also Phocean-region, cooking pots, trilobate kettle jugs and drinking cups/mugs (‘a collarino’) are typical finds in early to mid-Imperial contexts, with wrecks full of these occurring in the northern Adriatic.³³ A less common, very fine fabric, micaceous version of the ‘a collarino’ vessels also occurs, which John Hayes has classified elsewhere as possibly ‘Thracian’, but they appear to have the same ingredients as Phocean TWW.³⁴ Local chert fabric examples of trilobate kettles, some very fine and difficult to tell apart from finer Phocean products, also occur in Vrina, as well as in the Forum assemblage.

Another imported cooking ware, comprising dishes with tab handles and lids, is an occasional find in Vrina and appears more frequently in Forum contexts of the 1st and 2nd centuries. This seems to be slow-wheelmade, with burnished surfaces and a quartz-mica fabric. The lids recall those of Pompeian Red Ware but the fabric is clearly not Campanian.³⁵ There may be a connection with rather micaceous versions of the classic flat-rimmed deep cooking pots/caccabi of Rome and Campania which occur both in Benghazi and in Butrint-Forum I (with the micaceous handmade casseroles). The Briga Marina shipwreck (Straits of Messina, Sicily) carried very similar examples.³⁶ Thin-sections of these imports lean towards an origin in eastern Sicily (Appendix C, sections 3.2B-C, 3.3B and 3.4C).

Flat-based, sometimes painted, plain ware/buff vessels with oval bodies (so clearly not wheelmade) in various fabrics (‘Apulian’, regional chert, Argolid?) were originally classified as jars but some at least might be more likely chamber pots. At least six of these, some painted, were recently studied from 4th- and early 5th-century contexts in Nicopolis.³⁷

Finally, the author has never used the Munsell Colour Chart, preferring to describe colours and their tints as they appear to him. Vessels with ‘messy’ fabrics (his term) are those which leave colour on one’s fingers and hands when handling. These, when fractured with pliers, are often actually very hard-fired and this ‘messy’ condition is due not to poor firing but to their redeposition (usually several times) through the centuries. Other products, however, such as Corinthian bowls, are ‘messy’ because they are quite soft and low-fired (which explains why the moulded decoration is often very poorly defined) (e.g. Fig. 8.3.11).

Abbreviations

Site Codes

But (Triconch Palace); Dia (villa of Diaporit); For (Forum I); VP (Vrina Plain); VPT (Vrina Plain Training Excavations).

Key pottery references

African Red Slip Ware/ARS: Bonifay 2004; Hayes 1972/LRP, 13–299; Hayes 1980a; Hayes 2008, 67–82, 218–37; Atlante I.

Amphorae: Bezeczky 2013; Bonifay 2004; Bonifay and Capelli 2013; Keay 1984; Opaiţ 2004; Pieri 2005; Reynolds 2004a–c; Reynolds 2005a; Reynolds 2010b; Riley 1979; Robinson 1959; Slane and Sanders 2005

Apulian Grey Ware: Yntema 1998.

ERC/Çandarli ware: Hayes 1972, 316–22; Hayes 2008, 49–52; Kenrick 1985, 257–65; Bounegru 1996.

Corinthian Bowls: Malfitana 2000; 2007.

ESA: Bes 2015 (Distribution); Hayes 1985a; Hayes 1991; Hayes 2008, 13–30, 124–40; Kenrick 1985, 223–44.

ESB: Bes 2015 (Distribution); Hayes 1985b; Hayes 1991; Hayes 2008, 31–40, 140–61; Kenrick 1985, 245–56; Takaoğlu 2006; Civelek 2010 – production at Tralles.

ITS: Bes 2015 (Distribution); Conspectus – Ettlinger et al. 1990/2002; Hayes 1973a; Hayes 2008, 41–7, 161–93; Kenrick 1985, 125–218; Oxé, Comfort and Kenrick 2000.

LRC/Phocean Red Slip Ware: Bes 2015 (Distribution); Hayes 1972, 323–70; Hayes 2008, 83–8, 237–49.

LRP: = Hayes 1972.

Pontic sigillata: Hayes 1985c; Kenrick 1985, 271–82.

Photographic credits

All photographs author’s own, except where otherwise indicated:

Drawings and measurements

With the exception of lamps, presented at half-scale (usually with photographs also produced at 1:2), drawings are usually presented at a third, including the amphorae, even when complete (where these would fit on the page). The aim was to be able to compare and recognise the sizes of all the pottery classes, as it is often confusing when working in the field and comparing published drawings, especially of amphorae, with the material one is working on when these are presented at different scales.

Measurements are given in centimetres. Rim or base diameter measurements are given according to where the measurement was taken, e.g. ‘in’ = inner face of rim/base; ‘top’ of rim/base; ‘out’ = outer face (or maximum width) according to whatever point was more practical for reading the diameter on the rim chart concentric circles. As is common practice, where measurements are approximate these are preceded by ‘c.’. More unconventionally, when it was very difficult to measure the diameter due to the small size of the fragment, the term ‘c.c.’ has been used to indicate when the measurement was ‘very approximate’. Dates are AD unless otherwise indicated. Where a vessel or context is dated, e.g., ‘1st/3rd century’, this means that the pottery could date anywhere between the 1st and 3rd century. In contrast, ‘1st–3rd century’ describes a context that comprises pottery of the 1st to 3rd centuries. Whereas it is possible that in the first case, a 2nd- or 3rd-century date is not necessarily the case, and the context would fit a 1st-century phase, in the second case, 2nd and 3rd-century pottery is present.

Notes

1Note that some ‘AMPH/Flagons’ will be not be free-standing forms, as common regional bases with a short cone foot must correspond to some of them (see comments in Appendix A, Amphorae, and, e.g ., the complete amphora from Olympia, Fig. A.12 c ).

2See, for example, the recent paper on small Spanish vessels in the Arles-Rhône 3 wreck (Djaoui 2016); or in the wrecks at Pisa (Camilli, De Laurenzi and Setari 2006); or the small pots for transporting the Pompeian garum of A. Umbricius Scaurus (Étienne and Mayet 1991, with references to the work of R. I. Curtis).

3See Reynolds 2004c, Fabrics.

4Work is currently in progress on the petrological (thin-section) and chemical analyses of samples of these problematic plain wares and amphorae, as well as local-regional and imported cooking wares and the main classes of amphora imports. This is funded by a Butrint Foundation grant and is being carried out by Leandro Fantuzzi and Evanthia Tsantini, members of the Equip de Recerca Arqueològica i Arqueomètrica de la Universitat de Barcelona (ERAAUB).

5Many years ago, thanks to Kathleen Slane.

6Alcock 1993, chapter 4, with a map of the colonies, foundations ( Nikopolis ) and provinces of Roman Greece (fig. 46). Patras was Colonia Augusta Achaica Patrensis (Agallopoulou 1989).

7For the Roman sigillatas of Patras, see Hübner 2003. For the production of lamps at Patras, see Petropoulos 1999. The study of over 50 Roman kilns excavated in Patras, as well the archaeometry of the pottery associated with them, is currently the PhD objective of Nikoula Kougia (University of Patras).

8Shehi 2008; 2014, 112–26.

9Gamberini 2008; Gamberini and Vecchietti 2008; Minguzzi, Nannetti and Zantedeschi 2008.

10 Gortina: Bonetto et al . 2017; De Mitri 2013; Sackett 1992, e.g. pl.192, 36–7.

11 The archaeometry of these table wares is also included in the aforementioned programmes of archaeometric research in Barcelona and Patras.

12 Kenrick 2014.

13 Marangou-Lerat 1995, 89–91, pl. XXI, especially A 152.

14 For a discussion of this problem, see Reynolds 2010b.

15 Remolà i Vallverdú and Abelló i Riley 1989, 304–5, fig. 165, Vila-roma 8.198; Remolà i Vallverdú 1993; Robinson 1959, Agora M 235: this type piece is missing its rim and handles but see the complete example on pl. 40, P16074. See also Pieri 2005, 139, pl. 60, LRA 12. The development of the form is also discussed by Opaiţ (2014, 43–8).

16 Reynolds 2004c, 330, 341, fig. 13.43–44, ‘FAB 4A’.

17 There has for some years now been a new typology for mid-Roman (MRC, 3rd–4th centuries) and late Roman (TRC, 5th–8th centuries) Cretan amphorae based on finds at Gortina: see Portale and Romeo 2000, with Hellenistic (EC) and early Roman (EC) forms also. TRC 2, with precursors identified as TRC 1, are equivalent to the Butrint ‘Late Cretan’ amphorae. Zemer 57 seems to be notably absent in Gortina. For the late ‘globular’ type, see also Yangaki 2007.

18 These are, from left to right, P 12713, 13510, 25076, 13468 and 13433. The latter two pieces bore dipintos published by Lang (1976, 85, I 20 and I 21). Like all the Agora finds, it is now possible to see records and photographs for the original (and in some cases on-going) catalogued pieces on the Athenian Agora website. A suggested development of Agora M 235 from the early 1st century to 6th century is presented by Opaiţ (2014, 43–48, especially fig. 1). The two drawn (late) ‘5th–6th’-century versions published by Opaiţ (ibid., fig. 1, P 12707; fig. 9, P 13468) do have the short tronco-conical neck and handles of But 5383.2 (A.13e) but are clearly not the same product (P 13468 has a ribbed neck and the remnants of a toe, more like a thin circular seal or knob than the toe of the first half of the 5th century). However, the general characteristics are in the direction of 6th-century Cretan ‘globular’ amphorae found in Butrint. The Butrint piece may represent the next evolutionary stage of the vessels found in the Agora.

19 Yangaki 2014, especially fig. 5. Note that this piece has an unusually narrow neck. The cut grooving on the body and base are similar to that of Agora M 235.

20 Pickersgill and Roberts 2003, Group 6, fig. 17.128a–d and similar forms on fig. 17, together with their likely small lids. These appear in the late 4th century (Group 5: fig. 10.61, base? fig. 10.65) but are especially common in the early 5th century (Group 6), where painted sherds are a dominant feature (recalling finds in Butrint). Note that the dating of Group 7 is too early (AD 425–50) as this includes LRC 3E (or F) and should date to the late/end of the 5th century. Two other interesting, well-preserved ‘Lakonian’ amphorae are similar to Agora M 235 or LRA 2, with distinctive well-bowed handles: ibid ., fig. 22.171–2. Fig. 10.59 may be an early example of Agora M 235 (late 4th century). Note the large amphora with a Zemer 57- or Agora M 235-type toe and spaced grooving on the body, in 3rd-century Group 4 (fig. 7.39). For pottery in Roman Sparta, see also Bailey 1993.

21 Bonifay and Capelli 2013.

22 See Reynolds forthcoming b, for comment on Opaiţ 2007a (LRA 2) and 2014 (M 235).

23 See Slane and Sanders 2005, 276, fig. 11.4–14, probably also 4–13.

24 For a review of the evidence for oil production in the East and the Peloponnesian (versus Chian) production and origins of LRA 2, and possible links with the amphorae of Messene/‘Remolà Tipo Tardío A’, see Reynolds forthcoming b and Opaiţ 2014.

25 Slane and Sanders 2005; comment in Reynolds 2010a and b; see Reynolds 1999 for the range of LRA 2 fabrics in the Triconch. See also interesting comment on two sizes of LRA 2 from Kenchriae, possibly being filled inside one of the port’s warehouses (Heath et al . 2015).

26 Arthur 1998, 168–9; see also comment in Reynolds forthcoming b.

27 For Elatea, see Kouzeli and Zachos 2000, fig. 2.9: variant with flat top and stepped rim which is an occasional find in mid-3rd century Forum I Context 98 and in Corinth (Slane 1990, fig. 28.248); see also ibid ., fig. 28.249; the type piece in Slane 1990, fig. 28.243, (‘Corinth 243’) is very common in Butrint: A.10 p-r /ERAM 6. One common 2nd-century Roman amphora type in Corinth with one handle, some finds occuring also in Nicopolis and Butrint, has a domed base with band foot similar to that of Butrint examples (Williams and Zervos 1985, fig. 1.3 and Plate 8; Ibid. 1986, Plate 27.2, complete example). Whereas another with a band rim, flat on top (like ERAM 8), and two strap handles has a cone foot similar to those found in Butrint (Williams and Zervos, 1985, Plate 9.8) (with thanks to Kathleen Slane for clarification of the rim type of this vessel).

28 Pétridis 2010, pl 10, figs. 25–6; see comment on VP 3945.13, Fig. 3.7.10.

29 Robinson 1959, passim ; Reynolds in preparation f.

30 For other observations of typological evolution of Levantine amphorae and Beirut cooking pots over centuries, and historical periods, see Reynolds 2008.

31 De Mitri (2010, with references), studying imports found in southern Italy, chose to name these products ‘Illyrian cooking ware’. For examples in Apollonia, see Lahi et al . 2011, 141–2, fig. 100.68–71, with reference also to finds in Skodra, to the north.

32 Sanders 1999; Slane and Sanders 2005.

33 Riley 1979, 253–6, though referring only to the frying pans; see Özyiğit 1992 and Firat 2011, for the workshops and wide range of forms produced there; Jurišić 2000, for shipwrecks; Mandruzzato et al . 2000, for imports in Aquileia. See Hayes 2000, 291–2, for comment.

34 Hayes 1997, 68, 70, fig. 25, right, plate 25, from an unknown coastal site ‘in Thrace or around the Dardenelles’; Hayes 2000, fig. 20. He identified such pieces when looking at Diaporit contexts with the author in 2003.

35 For Campanian lids in Herculaneum, see Scatozza Höricht 1996, 145, fig. 8. Similar, also micaceous, handmade casseroles-dishes were made in the Var region of southern Gaul: Rivet 2009, 486–9, figs 66–69. There were no lids for comparison (or perhaps they did not have them). In his description of clibani found in Pompeii, Di Giovanni (1996) comments that the large (wheelmade) piece 2431a (in Argilla 5), with common biotite and quartz of various colours and no volcanic material, suggests either a south Italian or ‘near-eastern’ (i.e. Aegean) source. The point here is that the micaceous fabric suggested a possible south (presumably not SE) Italian source. However, see Note 36.

36 For Roman caccabi , see Olcese 2003, 39–40, ‘Pentole a tesa’, her types 2–5 ranging from the 1st century BC to the examples of AD 90–140 in Ostia; Hayes 2000, fig. 14, from Castelporziano, south of Ostia. For Sicilian caccabi , see Hayes 2004. The mica and quartz flat top caccabi in Butrint must be related to the example published from a mid-1st century deposit from Leptis Magna (Reynolds 1997, 57, 61, fig. 6.74). Both the fabric and typological details of the Butrint (1st century AD) caccabi are closer to the examples published from Benghazi by Riley, under ERCW 4 (1979, 250–2, fig. 100.452–453 and 458). Note the finds of this type on the 1st century BC Briga Marina (Straits of Messina) shipwreck (Olcese 2011–12, 571, 572, Tav. 5.1.9). Olcese’s description of the fabric of Rome/Tiber Valley cooking ware is suggestive, with sanidine, clinopyroxene, plagioclase, polycrystalline quartz and occasional volcanic rock (Olcese 2003, 155). However, the shape of Butrint examples is closer to Sicilian examples.

37 Reynolds and Pavlidis 2017 and 2018; see Fig. A.9 e for a possible local 6th-century version.

38 Kenrick 2014.

39 Ettlinger et al . 2002.

40 See Riley 1979.

2Late Republic to Early Imperial period

Early occupation

A late Republican phase?

A slot dug through Room 1 of the Phase 1 Building 4 provided tantalising evidence for a possible deposition of material in an earlier, late Republican phase, material well paralleled in the Forum I excavations (in the late 2nd/early 1st century BC phase).¹

7336. Spot-dated (799 g) (Fig. 2.1):

1. 7336.1. FW wall. Red slip t.s.

2. 7336.2. FW floor fr. BG. Thick-walled dish with non-micaceous grey fabric and micaceous BG flaking off the surface. ‘APGW’, or Sicilian Campana C , rather than Asia Minor.

3. 7336.3. FW Bfr. A small BG echinos bowl or cup. Hellenistic.

4. 7336.4 (SK, Fig. 2.1.1 ). PL R/W. Large triangular rim mortar in Hellenistic PL. Pale pinkish orangey buff. Parallels in Forum I.

5. 7336.5 (SK, Fig. 2.1.2 ). CW R/W. Large bevelled lid in brown, fine regional CW, Hellenistic or ER.

7337 (below 7336). Spot cat (602 g). Late 2nd/early 1st century BC (Fig. 2.1):

1. 7337.1 ( Fig. 2.1.3 : 5 g). FW rim. Regional BG. Curved rim bowl. Fine pale yellow ochre fabric. Matt dark grey-BG slip inside and rim edge. Light indent on rim top or is a moulding.

2. 7337.3 ( Fig. 2.1.4 : 2 g). FW moulded Wfr. ‘APGW’ mould-made mask, a fragment of an eye. Pale grey fabric and black slip outside.

3. 7337.2 (2 = 1, 24 g). FW floor fragments. ‘APGW’. Thick dish floor.

4. 7337.4 (5 g). FW wall. Grey fabric, rusty orange to BG outside.

5. 7337.7 ( Fig. 2.1.5 : 75%, 137 g). Complete PL AMPH lid for Lamboglia 2 (or later form, Dressel 6A): moulded 3 dots and trident. Lamboglia 2 fabric with 1–2 mm soft red brown iron oxide inclusions. Softer than usual. Pale maroon to chalky buff fabric.

6. 7337.5 ( Fig. 2.1.6 : 5 g). PL rim. Grooved jug or krater, cf. examples with twisted handles. Hell PL, salmon orange. Battered.

7. 7337.8 ( Fig. 2.1.7 : not weighed). PL B/Wfr. Basin-bowl or jar/krater. Underside outer edge bevelled. Typical Hellenistic PL.

8. 7337.6 ( Fig. 2.1.8 , SK: 10 g). CW Bfr/Wfr. A fine fabric, regional casserole base.

Late Republican material was also found mixed within the levelling layer 7807 of the southern courtyard of the Phase 3a Domus.

7807. RBH? (213 g). Hellenistic, but with Roman (Fig. 2.1):

1. 7807.1 ( Fig. 2.1.9 : 33 g). FW Base. Fish plate. Pronounced central ‘bowl’. Traces of BG CC on underside and outer wall. Lightweight finely granular buff fabric.

2. 7807.2 ( Fig. 2.1.10 : 62 g). AMPH base. Hollow cone. Fabric could be Koan (lime and black specks of iron oxide). SAMPLE. Fired maroon. Fine and hard. Abundant lime dust and black material.

3. 7807.3 (2 = 1). AMPH wall. Campanian. This should be Imperial Roman, as there were no Campanian amphorae in Republican 1st century BC levels in the Forum.

Early Roman

A levelling layer in Room 5 of the east wing associated with the changes brought about by the construction of the basilica in Phase 7 produced some early Roman evidence.

3458. Spot-dated. Late 4th/5th century present. Lamp, late Augustan to mid-1st century (Fig. 2.1):

1. 3458.1 ( Fig. 2.1.11 ). LAMP Nozzle/Wfr/Bfr. Large wheel-made lamp, with straight projecting flat-ended nozzle. Unfortunately not described, but the photograph shows that there were traces of a slip across the spout near the wall. Though this could be Hellenistic, is more likely related to (Hellenistic-style) Broneer XVI (Broneer 1930, pl. V; 1977, 26–34, pls 19–21), typical of the late Augustan period to mid-1st century at Corinth. Their nozzles typically have concave or flat ends which are flared, the nozzle being tronco-conical, not the case here. There are, however, two early Roman published examples from Corinth which have nozzles with more parallel sides, not unlike this example. ²

Figure 2.1. Roman material from contexts 7336, 7337, 7807, 3458, 7333, 7334 and 7179

Phase 1: Mid-1st century AD

The phase of occupation in the Vrina Plain associated with the earliest Roman buildings and roads rendered very little pottery, partly due to the difficulty in the excavation of levels located below the water table.

The central east–west road

7333 (Road surface of the central east–west road.) RBH (12 g = one small bag of FW). Mid-1st century/Tiberian-Claudian (Fig. 2.1):

1. 7333.1 ( Fig. 2.1.12 : 3%, 3 g). FW rim. ITS platter (CON 20.4/Kenrick B214.1–2) with appliqué of a mask. Small flange, fine groove top inner rim. AD 30–80/90 (Kenrick 1985, 153)?

2. 7333.2 ( Fig. 2.1.13 : 2 = 1, c . 13 cm, 8%, 2 g). FW rim. ITS cup (CON 23/Kenrick B216), with handmade ‘double spirals’ appliqué. AD 25–75. Given the handmade appliqué, Tiberian rather than Claudian?

3. 7333.3 (1 g). FW Wfr. ITS.

4. 7333.4 ( Fig. 2.1.14 : 2 g). FW Rfr. Flanged rim cup. Pontic Ware A (rather than ITS)? Seems not to be the typical flanged rim plate Hayes Form I, as the start of the section below the flange bends downwards. Cup Hayes Form V/Kenrick B388? (Hayes 1985c, 94; Kenrick 1985, 276–7). Mid- to late 1st century.

7334 (Make-up layer below 7333.) RBH (501 g). Early 1st century? (No later than Claudian.) (Fig. 2.1):

1. 7334.1 ( Fig. 2.1.15 : 11 cm out, 6%, 3 g). FW rim. A finely rouletted and grooved ITS cup, with a short triangular rim, fairly flush with the upper wall, marked off from this by a fine double groove. Plain concave inner face, marked off from the upper wall by a groove. No exact parallel in the Conspectus . Probably a variant of CON 15 (or 24). Early 1st century AD? ³

2. 7334.2 ( Fig. 2.1.16 : 1 g). FW Rfr. ITS flanged rim cup. Marked step on the inner face at join with wall, cf. cup CON 22.5 or 23.1. Early or mid-1st century.

3. 7334.3 ( Fig. 2.1.17 : 17 cm out, 8%, 18 g). PL/CW rim. CP (or jar) with wide, vertical convex band rim. A pale orange, hard, compact fabric, with abundant fine–0.5 mm black volcanics, mod./common 0.5 mm lime and occ. 1 mm lime. Probably Campanian. No other parallels in Butrint. The form and date, but not fabric, could be related to the ‘olle con orlo a mandorla’ (almond-shape rim cooking pots) produced in the region of Rome (Olcese 2003, 37–9, Tav. VIII, Olle Tipo 3; cf. that produced in Tivoli in the late 2nd century BC–early 1st century AD, with a more concave inner rim face: Olcese 2011–12, 210, Tav. 2.XLIII.30). Another production site is attested in Bolsena (Olcese 2011–12, 222–5, Tav. 2.XLVII.39–40). See also Vegas ‘Olla Tipo 2’ (1973, 16–17, fig. 3 ). The form certainly travelled, as indicated by the wrecks noted by Olcese. Though the ‘almond rim’ form is a ‘classic’ late Republican form, percentages from Claudian contexts in Ostia-Piazzale delle Corporazioni were as high as 22%, of 224 cooking ware rims (Olcese 2003, 30, table 1), dropping to 2.6%, though of 1223 rims, in AD 80–90 contexts elsewhere in Ostia.

Building 1

Due to the low water table at the time of digging, a number of features and deposits were found pre-dating the construction of Building 1.

7179 (Foundation beam slot 7180: fill.) RBH (68 g). Mid-1st century/AD 40–60? (Fig. 2.1):

1. 7179.1 ( Fig. 2.1.18a–b [Photo, not to scale: 14 g). FW Floor/Wfr. Tall, triangular, plain rim, with lightly stepped moulding at the outer join with (broken-off) floor. CON 20.4.1 (though it is unclear if there was a groove on the top inner rim, as this has broken off). This variant, like our piece, has a plain face and was often decorated with appliqués. It is common in the mid-1st century and, though still found in Pompeii and Domitianic levels in Ostia, was ‘on the way out’, being replaced by carinated CON 3. Similarly large, CON 20.3 is earlier (Late Augustan-Tiberian), is often rouletted, and usually bears double spirals or occasionally other appliqués (Ettlinger et al . 2002, 86–7).

This Vrina rim bears an appliqué of a ‘bearded mask’, like an example on a relief ware chalice published from Benghazi (Kenrick 1985, 191, 197–8, 206, fig. 33, pl. XIII, B280, motif M45). Details are close enough to suggest that it is from the same mould. The Benghazi piece (unstratified), and other similar chalices, were classified as being contemporary with large plate B213 appearing after c. AD 30. The same mask appliqué was found on a well-preserved vessel of Hayes-Corinth Form 12/CON 20.4 from groups associated with the Roman remodelling of the South Stoa of Corinth (Hayes 1973a, 429, pl. 77c, no. 37). The Corinth vessel belongs to groups generally datable to c. AD 55–70, with ‘survivals’ from the Augustan period onwards. Form 12/CON 20.4 was one of the most popular at the time of the deposition of these groups which Hayes placed a little earlier (on the basis of vessels from Area B), to AD 50–60 (Hayes 1973a, 442–3, 447; 449 for table 1, with range of dates proposed for the forms of ITS). According to this table, Form 12/CON 20.4 dates from c. AD 35 but primarily c. AD 45–65. Following Kenrick-Benghazi (Kenrick 1985, 149–54), CON 20.4 has a rather wider date bracket of AD 30–80/90 (like Corinth, the Benghazi pieces have a plain outer face and are not CON 20.3). In conclusion, and following Corinth, the Vrina fragment should date from at least AD 30 but probably to the middle years of the century, AD 40–60?

2. 7179.2 ( Fig. 2.1.19a–b [Photo, not to scale]: 16 g). FW wall. ITS moulded chalice. Good-quality glaze and mouldings. Rather large, wide, ‘waterleaves’, cf. Kenrick (1985, 184, pl. XI, B247, with ‘excellent lustrous slip’). The Benghazi piece is classified as the work of Arezzo potter P. Cornelius (active 5 BC–AD 40) (Oxé et al. 2000, 20, 190–2 and distribution map, fig. 9). Note the only other find of an ITS crater, in another domus context (Fig. 3.2.1, 130.2, in this case residual in a 2nd-century context). For the work of Cornelius see Truso 1999.

3. 7179.3 (1 g). FW wall. ITS (cup?).

4. 7179.5 (1 g). FW Rfr. Plain, thin hemispherical cup, pointed rim. Rusty-orange brown CC. Probably rusticated outside.

5. 7179.4 ( Fig. 2.1.20 : c . 14 cm in, 7%, 8 g). CW R/N. Thin-walled 1st century AD collar CP rim (identical to 7282.7 ). Quite coarse, with 0.5–2 mm chert. Includes pale grey chert.

Comment

The presence of two quality pieces of ITS in this tiny deposit is notable. Similar products, furthermore, perhaps from the same workshops, were found in Benghazi and the mask appliqué is paralleled also in Corinth (on a rim of CON 20.4.1). It is unfortunate that the latter Benghazi vessels were from unstratified contexts but the Corinth evidence suggests a date for the appliqué in the middle years of the 1st century.

7282, 7281. Deposits related to the construction of Building 1.

7282 (Coarse sand deposit: disturbed in the mid-3rd century, as pot may join with 7221, Phase 3a.) Joins 7269 (FW dish) and 7275 (regional, Cretan-style base). Interpreted as being material dug out from the construction cut for the building and then levelled to form a construction surface. RBH (1304 g). Claudian? Flavian? (Fig. 2.2):

1. 7282.1 ( Fig. 2.3.1 : c . 26 cm, 5%, 10 g). FW R/W. A red gloss regional t.s . dish. Joins/same vessel as 7269.1, so probably intrusive from 7269, above.

2. 7282.3 (2 g). FW wall. ITS flanged rim cup (e.g. CON 22 or 23).

3. 7282.4 (2 = 1, 2 g). FW wall. ITS.

4. 7282.2 ( Fig. 2.2.1 : c . 8 cm, 12%, 2 g). TWW R/W. Cup. Seems to be ‘Pontic Ware A’. Pale pinkish orange fabric with deep rusty orange slip brushed across the top inside and all outside. Earliest presence of Pontic ware in Forum I is Flavian–early 2nd century (Forum Context 49) but see above, flanged cup VP 7333.4 ( Fig. 2.1.14 ). Note the find of Pontic Ware also in 7275 (see below).

5. 7282.8 (2 g). FW wall. Cup or bowl. Regional t.s. . Pinkish fabric and dark brown to sepia, double-coated slip.

6. 7282.7 (SK, Fig. 2.2.2 : 22 g). CW R/N/Hfr. 1st century AD local collar rim cooking pot. Medium coarse local oxidised ware. Cf. rim 7179.4 ( Fig. 2.1.20 ). Early to mid-1st century.

7. 7282.9 (3 g). Neck fr. Phocean trilobate kettle jug.

8. 7282.10 ( Fig. 2.2.3 : cc . 54 cm, 7%, 924 g). Rim. Dolium in local chert rich fabric. Pale orange. Quite fine fabric/matrix with abundant 1–3 mm and some 4–5 mm chert (white and grey).

9. 7282.5 ( Fig. 2.2.4 : 173 g). AMPH Bfr, toe missing. Pale salmon orange. Mod. 1–2 mm iron oxide patches. Mica dust. Some lime but no chert. Regional or north Italian, cf. fine Lamboglia 2 fabric (with iron oxide).

10. 7282.6 ( Fig. 2.2.5 : 70 g). AMPH Hfr/N. Flagon/AMPH handle with flat band moulding. Well-fired chalky white ware. A little chert. Regional.

7281 (Levelling layer deposited over 7282 in order to level up the room.) RBH (531 g). Late 1st or early 2nd century (Fig. 2.2):

1. 7281.1 ( Fig. 2.2.6 : 3 = 1, 10 cm in, 20% rim, 100% base, 68 g). FW R/W/B. Well-preserved t.s . flanged bowl. Regional t.s ., with soapy, pale salmon orange fabric, messy dark buff surfaces and rusty orange slip. Tall flanged rim, inner face with a curved, plain transition to the upper wall, and deep hemispherical body, cf. ITS CON 34 (Late Tiberian-Flavian), especially CON 34.1.1–2 ( c . AD 20–50+, following Hayes 2008, 181, no. 612 = his Corinth Form 21). But if copying these, it should bear grooves on the rim. A better parallel is late 1st–early 2nd century Çandarli/‘Eastern Sigillata C’ Loeschke 19: see e.g. Hayes 2008, fig. 24.788, for a large example of c . AD 80–100 and ibid ., fig. 24.789, for a small example he dates to c . AD 100; see Hayes 1972, 316 and fig. 63b/Hayes 2008, fig. 24.791 for a small, early 2nd-century version, both from the Athenian Agora; and Hayes 1998, 443, 453, fig. 16.38–39 for two similar, but shallower, regional flanged bowls from a pit group of the ‘mid-2nd century or later’ in the Sanctuary of Poseidon, Isthmia (ten other examples noted). More problematical as to its source (Çandarli? ITS?), see also the flanged bowl found in (early) 2nd-century Butrint Forum I context 530 ( Fig. B.1.1 ).

Hayes dated the ITS CON 34 examples in Corinth (his Form 24) to c. AD 45/50–65/70 (Hayes 1973a, 432, 445, 447, 449, table 1; Kenrick 1985, 158, note 75). However, in the case of the Vrina piece, the base is markedly thickened to a point on the underside, not thin-walled like the various Athenian examples of Çandarli ware illustrated by Hayes (nos 788–93) (or the original ITS versions, although CON 34.2.2, from Corinth, does have a thickened floor). While in this respect it is on the same lines as the small, late 2nd–3rd-century version of Çandarli ware (LRP, Çandarli Hayes 3, fig. 64; Hayes 2008, fig. 25.795–6), the rims of the latter are short and triangular. More problematic is the continued production of this type in local regional t.s., as late as the early 3rd century (see Fig. A.14b, from Forum context 98). Given the body shape and high rim, perhaps late 1st century? Alternatively, to be classed as the Forum 530 piece, which appears with primarily early 2nd-century material (see Appendix B.2, for a discussion and illustration of this rich deposit).

2. 7281.2 ( Fig. 2.2.7 : 301 g). AMPH N/Sh fr. Large fragment of a Dressel 2-4/Koan-type amphora. Not Campanian (abundant iron oxide).

3. 7281.3 (74 g).