Lusitanian Amphorae in the Strait of Gibraltar: interprovincial food supply

Lusitanian Amphorae: Production and Distribution 6 ‘o a a d Late A ti ue Medite a ea Potte A haeop ess Se ies EDITO‘IAL BOA‘D i alpha eti al o de Se ies Edito s Michel BONIFAY, Centre Camille Jullian, (Aix Marseille Univ, CNRS, MCC, CCJ, F-13000, Aix-en-Provence, France) Miguel Ángel CAU, Institució Catalana de Recerca i Estudis Avançats (ICREA)/Equip de Recerca Arqueològica i Arqueomètrica, Universitat de Barcelona (ERAAUB) Paul REYNOLDS, Institució Catalana de Recerca i Estudis Avançats (ICREA)/Equip de Recerca Arqueològica i Arqueomètrica, Universitat de Barcelona (ERAAUB) Ho o a edito John HAYES, Institute of Archaeology, University of Oxford Asso iate edito s Philip KENRICK, Institute of Archaeology, University of Oxford John LUND, The National Museum of Denmark, Denmark S ie tifi Co ittee fo Potte Xavier AQUILUÉ, Paul ARTHUR, Cécile BATIGNE, Moncef BEN MOUSSA, Darío BERNAL, Raymond BRULET, Claudio CAPELLI, Armand DESBAT, Nalan FIRAT, Michael G. FULFORD, Ioannis ILIOPOULOS, Sabine LADSTÄTTER, Fanette LAUBENHEIMER, Mark LAWALL, Sévérine LEMAÎTRE, Hassan LIMANE, Daniele MALFITANA, Archer MARTIN, Thierry MARTIN, Simonetta MENCHELLI, Henryk MEYZA, Giuseppe MONTANA, Rui MORAIS, Gloria OLCESE, Carlo PAVOLINI, Theodore PEÑA, Verena PERKO, Platon PETRIDIS, Dominique PIERI, Jeroen POBLOME, Natalia POULOU, Albert RIBERA, Lucien RIVET, Lucia SAGUI, Sara SANTORO, Anne SCHMITT, Gerwulf SCHNEIDER, Kathleen SLANE, Roberta TOMBER, Inês VAZ PINTO, Caterina VIEGAS, Yona WAKSMAN Ge e al ad iso s Richard HODGES, Richard REECE, Gisela RIPOLL, Bryan WARD-PERKINS, Chris WICKHAM, Enrico ZANINI   The I te atio al Co g ess i T ia, Po tugal - O to e ,f o hi h this olle ti e olu e esults, had the follo i g o ga izatio a d spo so s:   O ga izatio       Spo so s      Lusitanian Amphorae: Production and Distribution edited I ês Vaz Pi to,* ‘ui ‘o e to de Al eida** a d A he Ma ti *** * CEAACP – Centro de Estudos em Arqueologia, Artes e Ciências do Património / TROIA RESORT ** UNIARQ – Centro de Arqueologia da Universidade de Lisboa. Faculdade de Letras. Universidade de Lisboa. / FCT Doctoral Grant *** American Academy in Rome / Universität zu Köln Pu lished on the o asion of the 30th Congress of the Rei Cretariae Ro anae Fautores (Lis on, 2016) ‘o a a d Late A ue Medite a ea Po e Archaeopress Publishing Ltd Gordon House 276 Ban ur Road O ford OX2 7ED .ar haeopress. o ISBN 978 1 78491 427 1 ISBN 978 1 78491 428 8 (e-Pdf) © Ar haeopress and the authors 2016 All rights reser ed. No part of this ook a e reprodu ed, stored in retrie al s ste , or trans itted, in an for or an eans, ele troni , e hani al, photo op ing or other ise, ithout the prior ritten per ission of the op right o ners. Printed in England This ook is a aila le dire t fro Short Run Press, E eter Ar haeopress or fro our e site .ar haeopress. o Co te ts Fo e o d................................................................................................................................................................... I - The P odu tio of Lusita ia A pho ae P odu tio du i g the P i ipate i Pe i he Po tugal .‘a Mate ials, Kil s a d A pho a T polog ......................... 3 Guilherme Cardoso, Severino Rodrigues, Eurico de Sepúlveda and Inês Ribeiro ‘o a Potte Wo kshop of Qui ta do ‘ou i ol Sei al : Qua tifi atio a d Classifi atio of A pho a P odu tio ........................................................................................................................................... 19 Jorge Raposo, Cézer Santos and Olga Antunes The ‘o a Figli a at Ga o hei a Be a e te, Po tugal i the Ea l E pi e ........................................................... 47 Clementino Amaro and Cristina Gonçalves ‘o a A pho a P odu tio i the Lo e Sado ‘egio ........................................................................................... 59 Françoise Mayet and Carlos Tavares da Silva The ‘o a Kil s at Est ada da Pa oí e, Al á e do Sal Po tugal ........................................................................... 73 João Pimenta, Marisol Ferreira and Ana Catarina Cabrita ‘o a A pho a P odu tio i the Alga e Southe João Pedro Bernardes and Catarina Viegas Po tugal ............................................................................ 81 II – A haeo et , Co te ts a d Qua tifi atio of Lusita ia A pho ae Geo he i al Fi ge p i ts of Lusita ia A pho a P odu tio Ce t es: Tagus, Sado, Alga e a d Pe i he ................ 95 M. Isabel Dias and M. Isabel Prudêncio Lusita ia A pho ae of the Augusta E a a d thei Co te ts: O ga i ‘esidue A al sis ....................................... 105 Rui Morais, César Oliveira and Alfredo Araújo Fish Bo es a d A pho ae: Ne E ide e fo the P odu tio a d T ade of Fish P odu ts i Setú al Po tugal ...... 111 Sónia Gabriel and Carlos Tavares da Silva The M th of Laccatu : a Stud Sta ti g f o David Djaoui a Ne Titulus o a Lusita ia D essel ....................................... 117 Do We Ha e the Capa it to U de sta d the E o o of Lusita ia Co odities? Volu et i Cal ulatio s of Lusita ia A pho a T pes..................................................................................................................................... 129 Victor Martínez III – The Dist i utio of Lusita ia A pho ae – Lusita ia A pho ae i Lusita ia A pho ae at the O igi s of Lusita ia: T a spo t Potte Rui Mataloto, Joey Williams and Conceição Roque fo Weste Hispa ia Ulte io i Alto Ale tejo ............. 139 Julio-Claudia Lusita ia A pho ae: a Pe spe ti e o Sele ted Co te ts f o Rodrigo Banha da Silva, Victor Filipe and Rui Roberto de Almeida i Olisipo Lis o , Po tugal .............. 153 Julio-Claudia Lusita ia A pho ae: a Pe spe ti e o Sele ted Co te ts f o Rodrigo Banha da Silva, Victor Filipe and Rui Roberto de Almeida Lusita ia A pho ae a d T a spo t Coa se Wa e f o Jorge Parreira and Marta Macedo Olisipo Lis o , Po tugal .............. 153 the ‘o a A ho age of P aça D. Luís I Po tugal ........... 167 Lusita ia A pho ae at a Fish-Salti g P odu tio Ce t e: T ia Po tugal ............................................................ 173 Inês Vaz Pinto, Rui Roberto de Almeida, Ana Patrícia Magalhães and Patrícia Brum O the Way to Augusta E erita. Histo iog aphi al O e ie , Old a d Ne Data o Fish-P odu t A pho ae a d Co e e ithi the T ade to the Capital of Lusita ia .......................................................................................... 195 Rui Roberto de Almeida Lusita ia a d I po ted A pho ae f o Caterina P. Venditti the ‘o a To Lusita ia A pho ae i the ‘o a Cit of Co i Ida Buraca of A aia Po tugal . A Sho t O e ie .................... 219 iga ......................................................................................... 231 A Multi-Dis ipli a App oa h to the Ma iti e E o o a d Palaeo-E i o e t of Southe ‘o a Lusita ia.......................................................................................... 241 Felix Teichner The Lusita ia A pho ae f o the ‘o a Villa of Vale da A a ada Po ti ão, Alga e, Po tugal ..................... 257 Carlos Fabião, Catarina Viegas and Vera de Freitas – Lusita ia A pho ae i Gallae ia, Baeti a a d Ta a o e sis Lusita ia A pho ae i the No th est of the I e ia Pe i sula............................................................................ 273 Adolfo Fernández Fernández A pho a Ci ulatio i the Lo e Guadal ui i Valle i the Mid I pe ial Pe iod: the Lusita a T pe ................. 285 Enrique García Vargas Lusita ia A pho ae i the St ait of Gi alta : I te p o i ial Food Suppl .......................................................... 299 Darío Bernal-Casasola Lusita ia A pho ae i Ca thago No a Ca tage a, Spai : Dist i utio a d ‘esea h Questio s ......................... 311 Alejandro Quevedo and Sónia Bombico Es olletes . Lusita ia A pho ae a d Late ‘o a Ma iti e T ade i the I e ia Southeast ................................ 323 Felipe Cerezo Andreo Lusita ia A pho ae i Ta a o Josep-Anton Remolà Vallverdú d-5th Ce tu AD ........................................................................................... 333 Ea l I pe ial Lusita ia A pho ae f o the Easte I e ia Coast ...................................................................... 343 Ramón Járrega Domínguez and Horacio González Cesteros – Lusita ia A pho ae Be o d Hispa ia Lusita ia A pho ae f o the Du p La e a o e the A les-‘h David Djaoui and José Carlos Quaresma e Ship e k ................................................... 357 Lusita ia A pho ae i Ge a ia Supe io , Ge a ia I fe io a d Gallia Belgi a. S a it , Ide tifi atio P o le s, Co te ts a d I te p etatio s ................................................................................................................................. 369 Patrick Monsieur ii Lusita ia A pho ae fou d o the Pu ta Sa deg a A Ship e k Palau, Sa di ia . A P eli i a ‘epo t o T pologies a d Fa i s ........................................................................................................................................... 381 Alessandro Porqueddu, Claudia Giarrusso and Pier Giorgio Spanu Lusita ia A pho ae at Ostia a d i the Vesu ia ‘egio ..................................................................................... 389 Archer Martin Lusita ia A pho ae i Naples et ee the Luana Toniolo d a d the 5th Ce tu AD ............................................................. 399 Lusita ia A pho ae i ‘o e ............................................................................................................................... 409 Giorgio Rizzo Lusita ia A pho ae i Ad iati Ital : Co e ial ‘outes a d Dist i utio .......................................................... 419 Rita Auriemma and Stefania Pesavento Mattioli (with an Appendix by Manuela Mongardi) Lusita ia A pho ae i the No the Ad iati ‘egio : the Weste Silvia Cipriano and Stefania Mazzocchin Lusita ia A pho ae i No the Ad iati Ital : the Easte Dario Gaddi and Valentina Degrassi Lusita ia A pho ae o Weste Sónia Bombico Medite a ea Ship Pa t of the Deci a Regio............................... 429 Pa t of Deci a Regio ................................................ 437 e ks: F ag e ts of E o o i Histo ............................. 445 iii Lusitanian Amphorae in the Strait of Gibraltar: Interprovincial Food Supply Darío Bernal-Casasola* *Universidad de Cádiz [email protected] This contribution addresses the possibility of bidirectional exchange circuits in amphorae between the provinces of Baetica and Lusitania. Firstly, the presence of Lusitanian amphorae on the coast of Baetica and in the north of Mauretania Tingitana will be analysed on the basis of the few published stratigraphic sequences and using the evidence provided by chance finds and older excavations, for the most part unpublished. The objective will be to draw a picture that reflects the presence of the foodstuffs contained in these amphorae in Andalusia, taking into account both urban and rural contexts. This will demonstrate that Lusitanian amphorae were present in Baetica, not in large numbers (approximately 5% of the overall total) but without interruption, between the Flavian period, at the latest, and sometime around the reign of Justinian. Secondly, I shall address a series of methodological issues concerning the identification of Lusitanian amphorae, especially the notorious difficulty involved in distinguishing between common southern Iberian types (particularly Keay XIX, Almagro 50 and Almagro 51c). Similarly, I shall tackle the issue surrounding the supply of empty amphorae to a number of cetariae in the region, an issue that has challenged the traditional supply model. KEYWORDS: LUSITANIAN AMPHORAE; BAETICA; TINGITANA; INTERPROVINCIAL TRADE; STRAIT OF GIBRALTAR. As a result, Lusitanian amphorae are now known in extraordinary scope and detail and are, in fact, among the better known within the western Mediterranean. This will be made immediately apparent by the proceedings of the meeting A Olaria Romana. Seminário Internacional e Ateliê de Arqueologia Experimental (Seixal, 2010) – which are currently being edited – as well as by those of the Conference in Tróia. Recent finds are particularly important, especially concerning the late republican and early imperial periods (between Haltern 70 and other ovoid types, and the earliest series of the Peniche kiln site, which were at this stage still under study). Introduction: Lusitanian amphorae between problems of identification and recent advances in research1 Recent advances have contributed greatly to our knowledge of Lusitanian amphorae; following the proceedings of the pioneer meeting in Conimbriga (Alarcão and Mayet 1990) and the publication of Dias Diogo’s (1991) classic typology, new theories have been put forth, including those on the Tagus and the Sado published by Mayet and her team (especially Mayet, Schmitt and Silva 1996; Mayet and Silva 1998; Mayet and Silva 2002; Mayet 2001), the syntheses and proposals presented by Professor Fabião (for example Fabião 1996 and Fabião 2004), and many more which I shall not cite in extenso for obvious reasons, but among which we may highlight Pimenta (2005), Almeida (2008), and other works by Almeida, Bernardes, Filipe, Morais, Quaresma, Vaz Pinto, Raposo and Viegas. All this work has recently crystallised in the pages of the Laboratorio Virtual Amphorae ex Hispania, which at the time of writing this paper included 13 entries concerning Portuguese amphorae from southern (Dressel 14 and Almagro 51c), eastern (Haltern 70) and especially western Lusitania (Almagro 50, 51a-b, 51c, Dressel 14, Haltern 70, Keay XVI, Lusitana 3, Lusitana 9, Lusitanian ‘ovoid amphorae’ and Sado 1). More will be published soon, covering all production areas. As is often the case with any issue related to economic history, this increased knowledge has revealed that the classification of the series is more complex than originally thought. Thus, practically every Lusitanian type is inspired by a typological referent in Baetica while, at the same time, influencing later Baetican types. For example, according to Parker’s pioneering work (in the proceedings of the famous meeting held in Rome in 1974 and published in 1977), all late Roman productions from Iberia had a Lusitanian origin (especially types Keay XIX/ Almagro 51a-b and Almagro 51c), but it is no longer easy to draw a line between amphorae produced in the Algarve, the Tagus-Sado region, and the coast of Malaga, as all of them have similar red fabrics with heterometric tempers. This issue has caused some controversy since it was raised fifteen years ago in the conference Ex Baetica amphorae (Bernal 2001a). In addition, in recent years new production areas have been discovered that make the typological and chronological characterisation of amphorae even more complex: for example, the workshops of Dar Aseqfane, in the Strait, which were active in the late imperial period This work was carried out within the framework of HAR2013-43599 P Project ‘Pesquerías y artesanado haliéutico en el Fretum Gaditanum. Caracterización arqueológica, arqueozoológica y experimental de las conservas marinas’, associated with RAMPPA (Red de Excelencia Atlántico-Mediterránea del Patrimonio Pesquero de la Antigüedad – HAR2015-71511-REDT), Programa Estatal de Fomento de la Investigación Científica y Técnica de Excelencia, MINECO, del Gobierno de España/FEDER. I wish to thank Dr. J. J. Díaz Rodríguez for his help in the graphic parts of this work. 1 299 Lusitanian Amphorae: Production and Distribution and which are currently being studied by a Moroccan team from INSAP (Rabat) (El Khayari and Akerraz 2013); we can expect many surprises from that region.2 Also, we must not forget the workshops located in Gallaecia in the late Roman period, which produced amphorae at sites like Bueu (related to the Almagro 50 or Keay XVI type). Heretofore, when these amphorae were found in consumption contexts, they were identified as Lusitanian. We are aware of the recent discovery of examples of this type in Hispalis and Rome, which are still awaiting publication;3 it is also important to mention the late Roman examples from the region of Carthago Spartaria in southern Tarraconensis, which also produced Almagro 51c, Dressel 30 and other types (Berrocal 2012: figs. 7-9). related recently to Dressel 30, manufactured in different centres in Baetica, such as Puente Melchor, on the Bay of Cádiz, and Los Matagallares, on the coast of Granada (Bernal 2012). In contrast, other finds suggest a certain ‘deflation’ of Lusitanian containers in foreign markets: for example, a group of Haltern 70 were recently identified as produced in Emerita Augusta, but the area of manufacture cannot be determined with certainty because their fabrics differ totally from those typically found in Lusitania and their distribution is, moreover, imperfectly understood (Bustamante and Heras 2013). The oldest evidence comes from the Flavian site of Los Cargaderos, near Caño de Sancti Petri, in the Bay of Cádiz, where nearly a hundred amphorae, reused in the construction of a quay, have been found (Bernal et al. 2006). This group indicates the sort of product that was being traded on the Bay of Cádiz during the Flavian period – late 1st century AD. Thirty-four specimens were recovered. They belong to diverse types, and as such they do not seem to have been picked on the basis of shape; there is even a globular amphora (Dressel 20), which would seem poorly suited for the construction of an isolation chamber such as the one in which they were found, since generally these structures are built with fusiform containers. The corpus includes two complete Dressel 14 (Figure 1 A-B), which have been related on the basis of shape to the so-called ‘Variant C’ from the Abul workshop, dated to the 2nd century AD (Mayet and Silva 2002: 105-108, fig. 65-68) and to ‘Variant B’ with triangular rim from the workshop of Pinheiro, dated to the second half of the 1st century AD (Mayet and Silva 1998: 63, figs. 20 and 21). The macroscopic comparison of the clays, which are rich in mica and include large numbers of metamorphic, heterometric temper particles, with those in the reference collection in the University of Cádiz suggested a connection with the products of the workshop of Porto dos Cacos and the region of the mouth of the Tagus River, although this is not a secure attribution (Bernal et al. 2006: 209). In terms of percentage, it is unsurprising that most (85%) of the amphorae recovered during excavation were of Baetican origin; most of these (73.5% of the total) were used to store fish products and were, according to the clays, produced in the region of Cádiz. Concerning shapes, Beltrán IIA (17 specimens) is the most common, followed by Dressel 7/11 (five) and Beltrán IIB (three). Olive-oil amphorae from the Guadalquivir Valley amounted to 11.5% of the total (four specimens of Dressel 20). The remaining 15% includes containers from three different regions: Lusitania and Italy, with 6% each (two specimens of Dressel 14 and two of Dressel 2/4, respectively), and Tarraconensis (3% of the total, one Dressel 2/4). The conclusions that can be drawn from this deposit is that, in the 1st century AD, Lusitanian salted products, mainly from the Tagus-Sado Valleys, arrived at Gades in limited amounts (6% in Los Cargaderos) but were much more common compared to imports from other regions. We must At present, it is difficult to undertake a precise quantitative estimation of the presence of Lusitanian amphorae in the area of the Strait of Gibraltar, as we do not have enough stratigraphic contexts for the elaboration of a continuous timeline that covers the imperial period. Therefore, I shall simply present a preliminary study based on some ceramic corpora, chance finds, material from old excavations and underwater finds. At the end, I shall put forward a proposal that will have to be tested against future finds. These new finds are indicative of a very complex panorama that demands the detailed revision of published material from the Atlantic and the Mediterranean coasts and the incorporation of petrographic analysis as a routine tool (as a second best to mineralogical and chemical characterisation, the cost of which is, unfortunately, too high for generalised use, despite the potential of excellent reference collections, for example the one created by the OREST Project in the Tagus-Sado area). The impact of Lusitanian amphorae on the coasts of Baetica and Tingitana: a brief diachronic review The difficulty in identifying Lusitanian amphorae in consumption contexts, which becomes more acute the farther away they are from Lusitania, remains a major obstacle for their characterisation. This is the impression, at least, gained from an examination of diverse Mediterranean amphora corpora, as the only exceptions are whole or nearly complete specimens. Fabrics require more attention. Typological features are no longer considered sufficient for the purposes of identification, except with regard to those types that were manufactured only in Lusitania – Lusitana 8 (Keay LXXVIII or Sado 1) and Lusitana 9, because in my opinion the Lusitana 3 type is a polyvalent container that was manufactured not only in Lusitania; it has been 2 I wish to thank Abdelaziz El Khayari for sharing their finds with us. These finds include different types, including Keay XIX – Almagro 51a-b. 3 The discovery of the Hispalis examples was confirmed by Enrique García Vargas, who has recently examined the materials recovered in the excavation of the Reales Alcázares, Seville; the second group of finds I was able to examine personally during the workshop on Lusitanian Amphorae, organised by Archer Martin at the American Academy of Rome in conjunction with the Howard Comfort FAAR’29 Summer School in Roman Pottery, when, along with Theodore Peña and Víctor Martínez, I was able to examine the amphorae found in the context of the Palatine East Pottery Project, which is currently at the publication stage. 300 D. Bernal-Casasola: Lusitanian Amphorae in the Strait of Gibraltar Figure 1. Lusitanian Dressel 14 from a Flavian context in Los Cargaderos (A-B), in the Bay of Cádiz (Bernal et al. 2006: 211, fig. 11, nos. 30 and 31), and example found underwater (C), currently in the Archaeological Museum of Cádiz – unknown provenance. keep in mind that, according to this corpus, Lusitanian amphorae were on-a-par with those from Italy. To date, this is the earliest evidence for the arrival of Lusitanian amphorae in the area of the Strait.4 Another site where a significant quantity of Lusitanian material has been found is the Hispano-Roman city of Colonia Latina Libertinorum Carteia, in the Bay of Algeciras. Especially significant is the handle of an amphora analysed in my doctoral thesis (Bernal 1997a: 362, fig. 129; more recently Bernal 2011) (Figure 2A). Both the shape of the stamp, in a rectangular space located on the outside of the handle, and the double entry of the inscription – GERMAN(I)/GERMAN(I) – point to the workshop in Porto dos Cacos, Alcochete, where similar signacula have been found (Guerra 1996: fig. 5). The typological characteristics of the handle, which is small and oval in section with a thin but marked longitudinal groove, leave few doubts about the attribution of the specimen to the Lusitana 3 type. Traditionally, this type has been related to the storage and transport of wine, albeit only on the basis of indirect evidence (chiefly the flat base). It was found in the mid 1980s, during the excavation of the baths of Carteia, and is unfortunately devoid of archaeological Figure 2. Handle from Carteia with the stamp GERMAN/GERMAN (A), attributed to a Lusitana 3 (Bernal 1997a: 362, fig. 129; Bernal 2011), and rims of types akin to Dressel 30/Lusitana 3/Carteia I, from Carteia (B-C), from the Roman Theatre in Cádiz (D, Gallery. Sector VIII. Level 3.4-3.1 m) (after Bernal 1997a: nos. 490 and 493, no. 55, and no. 585, respectively) and Parque Natural, San Fernando, Cádiz (after Bernal et al. 2003: 150, fig. 31, 3). context. According to its typological characteristics, it should be dated to the 2nd or 3rd century AD (Quaresma and Raposo 2014). This is a relevant discovery, for it bears witness to the importation of Lusitanian wine in the region of the Strait in the mid imperial period. This is also the In addition, a whole Dressel 14 amphora was found underwater, suggesting that the arrival of this Lusitanian type was not an isolated occurrence. It is currently in the exhibition hall on Roman trade in the Museum of Cádiz (Figure 1C). 4 301 Lusitanian Amphorae: Production and Distribution Figure 3. Amphorae from the Cabo de Gata shipwreck, off Almería; Keay XVI C (Blánquez et al. 1998: 135, fig. 55). case with other regions in Baetica, where the presence of Lusitana 3 amphorae is also significant, for example in Munigua – currently being studied by Carlos Fabião – and Hispalis – under study by Enrique García Vargas, including an interesting deposit that is published in full in this volume. It is pertinent at this point to highlight the difficulties involved in attributing many of these flat-based series to a specific production area in southern Iberia. Let us examine, for example, a series of amphorae characterised by a triangular rim framed by two grooves that run along the top and the bottom of the rim. These features make for 302 D. Bernal-Casasola: Lusitanian Amphorae in the Strait of Gibraltar Iberian in origin. Their date was deemed to be different from the well-known cargo of Dressel 20 from Almería, of unknown origin (Blánquez et al. 1998: 269 and 135, fig. 55). The revision of the typology of these amphorae, especially the thinness of the walls and other similarities with the productions of the figlinae of Quinta do Rouxinol and Porto dos Cacos (especially variant C) (Almeida and Raposo 2014), strongly suggest that the shipwreck is associated with a Lusitanian cargo dating to the Severan period or, more likely, the early 4th century (as I have proposed elsewhere; Bernal 2004: 54-55). an easily recognisable type, as is perfectly illustrated by two specimens found in Carteia (Figure 2, B-C). The clays are homogeneous and reddish in colour (Cailleux N39 and M69) and sometimes incorporate white (quartzitic) heterometric temper particles (which are not visible in other examples) (Bernal 1997a: III, nos. 490 and 493). These features have no obvious match among the clays typically used for the production of Lusitana 3 amphorae. The large number of examples found in Carteia led me to define a new type, which I tentatively labelled Carteia I and which has not been taken up (Bernal 1997a: 313-315, fig. 118; Bernal 2001a: 364, fig. 40) because no whole specimens have been recovered and, therefore, its chrono-typological definition has not been possible. I believe that the type is related morphologically to the Dressel 30 type. Examples have been found in Carteia – two specimens –, the Roman Theatre of Cádiz and Paseo de las Palmeras in Ceuta. They were all found out of context, except the examples from Ceuta, which were discovered in association with African and Puerto Real I amphorae dated between the late 2nd and the early 3rd century AD (Bernal 1997a: 313, nos. 490 and 493, no. 55, and no. 585 respectively). We can note the same problem with other common types along the southern and Atlantic coasts of Iberia, especially the Almagro 51c and, to a lesser extent, the Keay XIX/ Almagro 51a-b types. A number of Lusitanian examples of the former have been found in the area of the Strait: for example, one specimen from the old excavations in the Roman camp of Tamuda, currently in the Museum of Tétouan, which is also one of the most complete examples from Tingitana (Figure 4). There are also other specimens: for instance, one Almagro 50 currently in the Museum of Ceuta (Bernal 1997b: 122, MMC/314). All these pieces, shown in Figure 2 B-E, could be of Lusitanian origin and are similar to the containers manufactured in the workshops of Muge – Porto Sabugueiro, Enchurrasqueira (Bernal 1997a: 313, with full references) and Quinta do Rouxinol (Raposo 1990: no. 78). At a later date, another typologically identical rim was found on the site of Parque Natural (Cádiz) (Figure 2 E), in a context securely dated between 250 and 320 AD. In this case, the rim was associated with Keay XVI, Dressel 23, African cooking wares, African Red Slip Ware and mining lamps (Bernal et al. 2003: 149, fig. 31, 3), which proves that these materials continued arriving until a very late date in the 3rd and even during the 4th century. This sort of find is quite common on Roman sites in the Fretum Gaditanum. This point can be illustrated with two sites, one on each shore of the Strait. The archaeological excavation carried out in the Plaza de África, in the city of Ceuta in 2006, attested to the presence of Almagro 51c amphorae throughout the whole sequence between Vandal levels – AD 425/450 – and those from pre-Byzantine times – AD 490/500-525 – (Bernal, Bustamante and Sáez 2014: SU 4020, fig. 4, 7 and 5, 2 and 3; SU 4018, fig. 7, 4 and 5 respectively). It is not always easy to distinguish between Lusitanian and Baetican (and Tingitanian) amphorae, and the publication of this excavation adopts a compromise and labels all of them ‘south Spanish’. It is now clear that some were of Lusitanian manufacture: for example, the Almagro 51c that is illustrated in Figure 5A, made with a Again, judging by their discovery in different contexts on the coast of Cádiz, they do not seem to be particularly abundant, but their arrival appears to suffer no obvious hiatus either. It is also possible that some of the amphorae found in a late 2nd-century context in the so called ‘Edificio Meridional II’ of the industrial quarters of Baelo Claudia, the provenance of which is unknown (Bernal et al. 2007: 401 and 403, fig. 22, nos. 4 and 5, and 29, no. 2), are of Lusitanian origin, as they are morphologically similar to the Lusitana 3 type. The types that were being manufactured simultaneously in the Tagus/Sado area and Baetica, for example the Keay XVI type, present similar attribution problems. In some variants (for example A and B) the stamps are very eloquent, but for others identification is not quite so straightforward (the well-known Cabrera III shipwreck has been published as Lusitanian although the fish-product amphorae that it contained were clearly Baetican in origin). This is, for instance, the case with the famous Roman shipwreck of Cabo de Gata, off the coast of Almeria. The study of the shipwreck yielded a group of 13 amphorae (Figure 3), which were originally interpreted as southern Figure 4. Lusitanian Almagro 51c amphora from the Roman camp of Tamuda, in the north of Tingitana. 303 Lusitanian Amphorae: Production and Distribution Figure 5. Lusitanian Almagro 51c (A) from an early 6th-century context (U.E. 4018), Plaza de África nº 6, Septem Fratres – modern Ceuta-; Keay LXXVIII (B, C and D) and Keay XIXC/Majuelo II (E) from c/ San Nicolás 3-5, Algeciras (UU.EE. 2007 of P-12; 2003 (two) and 2005 of H-100, respectively). reddish clay and characterised by a grooved handle. It was found in a context dated to the 6th century AD (SU 4018), in which these amphorae amount to 12% of the total, some of which are clearly Lusitanian (Bernal, Bustamante and Sáez 2014: 832, fig. 8). Figure 6. Almagro 51a-b amphorae, with zig-zag profile/Majuelo II (A and B), and Keay LXXVIII/Lusitana 9 (C-F) from the fish-salting factory of El Majuelo, Sexi (Bernal 1997a: no. 1420, 1421, 1224, 1221, 1231 and 1232 respectively). Regarding Iulia Traducta (current Algeciras), the ceramic contexts associated with the cetariae found in c/ San Nicolás 3-5 have been remarkably rich, especially concerning levels dating to the second half of the 5th century AD. Apart from the presence of the Almagro 51c type, it is especially interesting to find a large number of Keay LXXVIII at such a late date (Figure 5 B-D). Along with these, a bell-mouthed, curvy container (Figure 5 E) was found, which has been considered a variant of the Almagro 51a-b type (Mayet, Schmitt and Silva 1996: 75), the production of which has been confirmed in the workshop of Pinheiro as late as the mid 5th century AD (Mayet, Schmitt and Silva 1996: fig. 51, nos. 173-174). In San Nicolás, the number of southern Iberian amphorae amounts to 21% of the total of 154 (MNI), including 5% of Lusitanian examples (the number could be higher but for a number of examples of uncertain provenance). we have found these rims in the fish-salting factory of El Majuelo, Almuñécar (Figure 6 A and B). The chronology of these finds is not easy to determine, but must be between the 3rd and the mid 5th century, on the basis of the presence of Almagro 51c and Keay XXXVI-type amphorae in the so-called ‘Building C’, which was excavated in 1984/5. To date, we have not yet found a whole example, which would allow us to confirm whether the type is a variant – or evolution – of the Keay XIX amphorae in their final stage, as suggested by Mayet, or whether it is an autonomous series. In any case, its presence in 5th-century contexts on the coast of Baetica is of enormous interest. The singularity of the shape led me to distinguish a new type, Majuelo II, with some possible parallels in Málaga (Bernal 1997a: 311-312, fig. 117; Bernal 2001a). This last typological group of containers highlights a crucial element for the future progress of the discipline. More effort should be invested in determining amphora types that were manufactured exclusively in Lusitania, in order to begin disentangling the Lusitania-Baetica duality. This same context also yielded a significant number of small Lusitana 9 amphorae from the fish-salting factory of El Majuelo, Almuñécar. These amphorae are characterised by a barrel-shaped body, a grooved profile, parallel walls, everted rims and a rounded lip; the handles are short and sub-circular or oval in section (Figure 6 C-F). Some specimens present pre-firing graffiti on the neck. ‘Zig-zag rim’ amphorae are another illustrative case in point. To date, their manufacture has been attested only in Lusitania (Pinheiro in the Sado area), and they were relatively common in Baetica. In addition to the already noted example from Traducta, dated to the late 5th century, Finally, we must mention the discovery of a number of Lusitanian amphorae found underwater in the area of the Strait, which are illustrative of interprovincial trade in southern Hispania: for instance, the well-known shipwreck 304 D. Bernal-Casasola: Lusitanian Amphorae in the Strait of Gibraltar Figure 7. Amphorae found underwater, corresponding to the Sado 3 Type (A), from the shipwreck of Sancti Petri (A.- SP94-F, NW 1) – courtesy of the research team of the Research Project and Carlos Alonso Villalobos – and Keay XXIII bis (B) from Baelo Claudia (Bernal 1997a: no. 284). are short, semi-circular in profile and oval in section. On the basis of its shape and size, it should be dated to the 5th century AD, although the type is still poorly known in comparison with other Lusitanian containers. These isolated specimens attest to the continued arrival of different types of Lusitanian amphorae, generally containing salted fish products, to the coasts of Baetica in the 4th and 5th centuries AD. of Sancti Petri, in the Bay of Cádiz, which is currently under study. To date, the only published material is a group of 50 coins, dated between AD 337 and 395 (López, Gallardo and Blanco 2001), recovered from the vicinity of the shipwreck, and some items that presumably belonged to the crew, including an African Red Slip Ware dish (Hayes 67) dated between AD 360 and 470 (Gallardo et al. 1995); the shipwreck must therefore be dated to sometime in the first half of the 5th century AD. Along with some African types, the amphorae from the shipwreck include Keay XIX, Almagro 51c and Dressel 23 shapes, as well as several examples that are clearly Lusitanian in origin (Bernal 2004: 41-47). There is an incomplete specimen of the Sado 3 type (Figure 7 A), probably dating to the 5th century AD, when the workshops of Pinheiro are known to have been active (Mayet and Silva 1998: 287, fig. 131). The characteristics of the clay and the shape very similar to those found in the amphorae from the Sardinian shipwreck of Cala Reale, off the island of Asinara, clearly indicate a Lusitanian provenance. Discussion and perspectives As already noted, this is but a first examination of the issue of trade in Lusitanian products in the area of the Strait. It is, in consequence, tentative, unsystematic and random, as it is based on those finds known to the author; in summary, it is intended merely as the basis for future work. The presence of Lusitanian containers on the main sites of the Fretum Gaditanum suggests that Atlantic goods were a common sight in the markets of the region. From west to east, they have been documented in Gades (Museo de Cádiz, Teatro Romano and San Fernando), Baelo Claudia (underwater finds and perhaps in the southern quarters), Iulia Traducta, Carteia and Sexi; on African shores, they have been found in the military camp of Tamuda and in Figure 7 B also illustrates a Keay XXIII-type amphora found underwater, in this case near Baelo Claudia; its size (80.4cm) suggests a late date: it has a fusiform body, a hyperbola-shaped neck and everted rim; the handles 305 Lusitanian Amphorae: Production and Distribution Septem Fratres. It is worth noting that I have been personally involved with the study of all these sites, which probably means that there are many, as-yet unrecognised examples, and that a systematic survey would increase the corpus considerably.From a quantitative point of view, despite the partial nature of our evidence, it appears that Lusitanian amphorae were not uncommon in Baetica, and a first hypothesis concerning Lusitanian trade in the Baetican and Tingitanian coastal markets may be put forward. It seems clear that Lusitanian products became familiar in the region of the Strait from the late 1st century AD onwards, and maybe even earlier, but this is still to be supported by hard evidence. Around this date, Lusitanian amphorae amount to approximately 5% of total imports. Although the evidence relative to the 2nd and 3rd centuries AD does not allow reliable quantitative estimations, the general impression is that the frequency of Lusitanian amphorae increased slightly over time. This trend seems to continue into the late imperial period; in 5th century contexts in Traducta, Lusitanian amphorae amount to approximately 5% of the total imports; a similar case is presented by Septem Fratres, where 12% of the total amphorae were southern Iberian, many of them clearly Lusitanian in provenance. (5% of the total of containers), but in most places the identification of Lusitanian amphorae faces considerable methodological problems, unless exceptionally wellpreserved specimens are involved. A good example may be found in Ostia, where Lusitanian imports have been detected from as early as AD 80-90, and were particularly abundant in 2nd-century contexts: in the Flavian period they amount to 2.37%, in Hadrian’s reign to 3.21%, during the Hadrianic-Antonine period to 2.25% and, finally, in the late Antonine period to 3.47% (Rizzo 2014: 240-242, tav. 35-38 and 408-410). Also, some containers from Palestine, which have been traditionally considered Baetican may, in fact, be Lusitanian: for example, a Dressel 14 found in Haifa (Bernal 2001b: 985, fig. 18). We can expect exciting new finds in the near future. Another interesting question is whether continuing to use the term ‘south Spanish’, coined by Simon Keay (1984) in his well-known work on the coast of the Tarraconensis, can be justified. At the time, the discovery of Baetican productions (based on the similarity of clays with those found in Dressel 20 and 23) parallel to the Lusitanian ones made the use of the term a matter of convenience; amphorae could thus be classified to a general geographical area without becoming enmeshed in complicated discussions of provenance. These data seem to indicate that Lusitanian amphorae were imported throughout the imperial period; Lusitanian containers amounted to approximately 5% of the total number of amphorae found in consumption contexts dated to the early stages of this interval of time, and maybe their presence increased slightly toward the middle and the end. Also of note is that the presence of Lusitanian amphorae on the Andalusian coasts can be attested until the early 6th century AD. While I was doing my PhD in the 1990s, the importance of late Roman Baetican amphorae became increasingly apparent, while the problems of distinguishing Baetican from Lusitanian containers became ever more acute. For this reason, I also used ‘south Spanish’ profusely, which gave me a ready-made provenance tag, to the detriment of geographical precision. The current state of our knowledge, however, seems to call for a different approach; we have a much more detailed understanding of production centres and fabrics, and I think that it is time to put the term to rest. It was useful at the time, but it is not any more. This will involve the revision of many attributions, and I am convinced that many surprises are in store, especially when it comes to common types (Almagro 50 – Keay XVI, Keay XIX and especially Almagro 51c). The following issue that we must tackle concerns the contents of these amphorae, which, in most cases (the exception is the Lusitana 9 type, the contents of which are still uncertain) were salted-fish products, both in the early (Dressel 14) and late imperial periods (the remaining types). Why was a quintessentially garum- and salsamentaproducing region importing Lusitanian fish products? I think that these finds mostly reflect the redistribution of these containers to the rest of the Mediterranean via the southern Spanish ports. Also, it is possible that Lusitanian products were consumed as exotic prestige goods in the Baetican harbours, which would explain their presence in cetariae, for example in Traducta. A paradigmatic example of this sort of process is presented by the Atlantic-Mediterranean shipwreck map first published by Étienne and Mayet in the 1990s, and currently under revision by Sonia Bombico: many of those should be excluded (as the aforementioned Cabrera III), while others that were excluded from the published corpora (for example, the two shipwrecks mentioned previously) should now be included. Concerning wine, clearly identified in Carteia through the presence of the stamp ‘GERMAN/GERMAN’, it also seems plausible that it was consumed in small quantities, as a luxury item, alongside other types imported from different Mediterranean regions (Italy, Gaul, the East, etc.). Importantly, the presence of these products is small, but some evidence, for example from Los Cargaderos, suggests that they were on a level with those coming from Italy and other Mediterranean regions. We have, therefore, a long way to go before we have a reliable and complete map of Lusitanian amphorae in the Atlantic and the Mediterranean. This must come as no surprise. Research results often lead to structural changes: see, for example, the case of the amphorae from Huelva, which were totally unknown a decade ago and which have now been fully systematised (O’Kelly 2012), having been found in faraway locations such as Vigo and Baelo Claudia. It seems likely that Lusitanian amphorae were present in other Mediterranean regions in similar proportions 306 D. Bernal-Casasola: Lusitanian Amphorae in the Strait of Gibraltar It is also a good idea to review current ideas with regard to the cessation of Lusitanian production. A few years ago, I challenged the traditional thesis and proposed that Baetican amphorae ceased to be produced with the Byzantine conquest of Hispania (Bernal 2001a: 240). No new evidence has come to the fore to challenge this idea; no archaeological contexts containing Baetican or Lusitanian amphorae have been found that post-date the mid-6th century AD, which is the accepted date for the arrival of Byzantine troops to the Iberian Peninsula (Bernal 2007). that the empty amphorae were indeed being transported, but that, in order for the operation to be profitable, they must have been full of salt or brine (Villaverde 2001: 541542). Other scholars have rejected the idea out of hand – without having really understood it or the fact that it is complementary to other models – with poorly constructed arguments that oversimplify what must have been an extraordinarily complex economic reality (Teichner and Pons Pujol 2008; Pons Pujol 2015). Over time, evidence in support of the proposal has emerged in other regions, for example in Africa Proconsularis, where amphorae from Neapolis seem to be used in fish-salting plants of other cities on the eastern façade of Cap Bon (Michel Bonifay, personal communication, currently under study; preliminary data in Ben Moussa et al. forthcoming). In Lusitania we can cite three examples. In the Algarve, an area that was peppered with cetariae but poorly equipped with pottery workshops, the very frequent discovery of Baetican amphorae led Mayet to propose that the region was dependent on Baetica for its supply of containers, an idea that has been recently revitalised (Viegas 2011: 567-575, fig. 78). The well-known fish-salting factory in Ilha do Pessegueiro, in Alentejo, is another key site in this regard; it was located on an island, which made it dependent on the continent for its containers, and maybe even Baetica, given the abundance of Baetican amphorae found in the region. Finally, Tróia itself, which had more than 25 fish-salting-related establishments but no pottery workshop (Pinto, Magalhães and Brum 2011), depended on the mainland, where at least nine pottery workshops were identified with certainty (Almeida et al. 2014: 412): it is evident that empty amphorae were being shipped across the few miles that separate the fish-salting factories from the pottery workshops. Concerning, more specifically, the production of Lusitanian amphorae, there is still a ‘psychological barrier’ in the second half of the 5th century: of the seven entries for Lusitanian late Roman amphorae currently in the virtual laboratory Amphorae ex Hispania, only two are dated to as late as the year 500 (Almagro 51a-b Western and Almagro 51c from the Algarve). The final date for the other entries is AD 450. This mental obstacle or historiographical burden is reflected in the day-to-day practice of archaeology, and amphorae found in contexts that post-date the mid 5th century are routinely disregarded as ‘residual’, for example in the Avenue Habib Bourguiba, in Carthage, where, for instance, Lusitanian Sado 3 amphorae and similar types have been found in contexts dated to AD 450-475 and even later (Peacock 1984: 133, fig. 38, no. 52). It is believed that it is ‘impossible’ for amphora types to be so resilient. In my opinion, contexts such as the fish-salting vats in Lagos, dated to the first half/mid 6th century (Ramos, Almeida and Laço 2006; Ramos et al. 2007) or early 6th century according to Reynolds, Bonifay and Cau (2011: 30, context no. 59), along with the presence of Lusitanian amphorae in multiple consumption contexts dated to the early 6th century, are sufficiently suggestive of the continued production of Lusitanian amphorae until approximately AD 550. Future work will have to verify which shapes this involves and how common they were in quantitative terms. A careful examination of papyrus documents has recently demonstrated that empty containers were transported in Antiquity, something that we already proposed to have been the case, as proven by commercial contracts, in the Middle Ages (Bernal 2006: 1381). The transport of ‘empty’ containers to the delivery point was one of the last duties of pottery workshops, as specified in more than ten Egyptian papyri dating mostly to the 3rd century AD (Gallimore 2010: 182-184). The overland transport of empty amphorae, mostly on camels, and also by river, is explicitly mentioned, especially in relation to wine-producing regions (Gallimore 2010: 182-183). Unfortunately, such detailed evidence of the everyday is lacking in the western Mediterranean; however, if these practices took place in Roman Egypt, it is safe to assume that they were also followed elsewhere. In the 1980s, Cockle made similar extrapolations based on potterysupply contracts recorded on papyrus. Another matter that I would like to raise here is the geographical distribution of pottery workshops and fishsalting factories, which, as is also the case in Baetica, shows some discrepancies; not all the fish-salting factories have pottery workshops nearby, nor are all figlinae associated with cetariae, wine or olive presses (for the Algarve and Baetica, see Bernal 2006). As I have already suggested several times, this suggests that sometimes empty containers must have been transported at local and intraregional levels. Some very clear examples seem to support this idea, on both the Baetican coast and in the north of Tingitana, where sometimes a figlina and a cetaria are found to be separated geographically but working in clear partnership. At least three examples can be mentioned here: Algeciras-Baelo Claudia, Bay of Cádiz-Septem Fratres and Mouth of the Guadalfeo RiverSexi (analysed in Bernal 1999 and Bernal and Pérez 2001). This issue and the radical morphological changes undergone by Lusitanian and Baetican amphorae in the 3rd and the 5th centuries AD, with the emergence of totally new shapes that had no relation to previous traditions, in what has been called the ‘typological revolution’ (for In the past, this idea has faced the opposition of traditional historiography. Sometimes, the hypothesis has been accepted but with qualifications: some have suggested 307 Lusitanian Amphorae: Production and Distribution y medieval, Actas IV: 359-363. [S. l.], Fundación Rei Afonso Henriques. Bernal Casasola, D. 2001a. La producción de ánforas en la Bética en el s. III y durante el Bajo Imperio romano. In Congreso Internacional Ex Baetica Amphorae. Conservas, aceite y vino de la Bética en el Imperio Romano (Sevilla-Écija, 1998) I: 239-372. Écija, Editorial Gráficas Sol. Bernal Casasola, D. 2001b. Las ánforas béticas en los confines del Imperio. Primera aproximación a las exportaciones a la Pars Orientalis. In Congreso Internacional Ex Baetica Amphorae. Conservas, aceite y vino de la Bética en el Imperio Romano (SevillaÉcija, 1998) III: 935-989. Écija, Editorial Gráficas Sol. Bernal Casasola, D. 2004. Comercio, rutas y navegación en la Hispania meridional tardorromana (ss. III – VII d.C.). In Una perspectiva desde la arqueología litoral. Rotte e porti del Mediterráneo dopo la caduta dell’impero romano d’Occidente. Continuità e innovazioni tecnologiche e funzionali: IV Seminario (Genova, 2004). ANSER (Anciennes Routes Maritimes Méditerranéennes): 33-64. Soveria Mannelli (Catanzaro), Rubbetino. Bernal Casasola, D. 2006. La industria conservera romana en el “Círculo del Estrecho”. Consideraciones sobre la geografía de la producción. In A. Akerraz, P. Ruggeri, A Siraj and C. Vismara (eds), L’Africa romana XVI (Atti del XVI convegno di studio, Rabat, 15-19 diciembre 2004): 1351-1394. Roma, Carocci. Bernal Casasola, D. 2007. El final de la industria de salazones en el Círculo del Estrecho (ss. V – VI d.C.). Entre obispos, Bizancio y la evidencia arqueológica. In J. Napoli (ed.), Ressources et activités maritimes des peuples de l’Antiquité (Actes du Colloque Internationale de Boulogne-sur-Mer, 2005). Les Cahiers du Littoral 2, 6: 31-57. Dunkerque: Université du littoral Côte d’Opale. Bernal Casasola, D. 2011. Vinos lusitanos del Porto dos Cacos en Carteia. Boletín de la Sociedad de Estudios de la Cerámica Antigua en Hispania 3: 11-12. Bernal Casasola, D. 2012. Dressel 30 (Costa de Baetica). In Amphorae ex Hispania. Paisajes de producción y de consumo. Institut Català d’Arqueologia Clàssica (http://amphorae.icac.cat/tipol/view/39). Bernal, D., Arévalo, A., Lorenzo, L. and Cánovas, A. 2007. Abandonos en algunas insulae del barrio industrial a finales del siglo II d.C. In A. Arévalo and D. Bernal (eds), Las cetariae de Baelo Claudia. Avance de las investigaciones arqueológicas en el barrio meridional (2000-2004): 383-453. Sevilla, Universidad de Cádiz. Bernal, D., Bustamante, M. and Sáez, A. M. 2014. Contextos cerámicos tardorromanos de un ambiente haliéutico de la ciudad de Septem (Mauretania Tingitana). In N. Poulou-Papadimitriou, E. Nodarou and V. Kilikoglou (eds), LRCW 4 Late Roman Coarse Wares, Cooking Wares and Amphorae in the Mediterranean Archaeology and Archaeometry. The Mediterranean: a market without frontiers. British Archaeological Reports International Series 2616 (I): 819- 832. Oxford, Archaeopress. this issue see Bernal 2001a: 268-269 and Fabião 2004), illustrate once more the complexity of economic relations in classical antiquity and the difficulties attached to archaeological approach. Lusitanian amphorae are a first-rate topic for the analysis of the ancient economy, and the efforts made over the last 25 years, between the meetings in Conímbriga and Tróia, both of which started on 13 October, are palpable proof of the progress made and of how much further we still need to go. Bibliographical references Alarcão, A. and Mayet, F. (eds) 1990. Ânforas lusitanas. Tipologia, produção, comércio / Les amphores lusitaniennes. Typologie, production, commerce (actas da mesa-redonda de Conímbriga, 1988). Conimbriga and Paris, Museu Monográfico de Conimbriga and E. de Boccard. Almeida, R. R. 2008. Las ánforas del Guadalquivir en Scallabis (Santarém, Portugal). Una aportación al conocimiento de los tipos minoritarios. Col.lecció Instrumenta 28. Barcelona, Universitat de Barcelona. Almeida, R. R., Pinto, I. V., Magalhães, A. P. and Brum, P. 2014. Ânforas piscícolas de Tróia: contextos de consumo versus contextos de produção. In Morais, R., Fernández, A. and Sousa, M. J. (eds), As produções cerâmicas de imitação na Hispania. Monografias Ex Officina Hispana II (Actas do II Congresso da Sociedade de Estudos da Cerâmica Antiga da Hispânia (SECAH) (Braga, 4-6 April 2013)) I: 405-423. Porto, Faculdade de Letras da Universidade do Porto (FLUP) and Sociedad de Estudios de Cerámica Antigua en Hispania (SECAH). Almeida, R. R. and Raposo, J. M. C. 2014. Keay XVI (Lusitania occidental). In Amphorae ex Hispania. Paisajes de producción y de consumo. Institut Català d’Arqueologia Clàssica (http://amphorae.icac.cat/ tipol/view/81). Ben Moussa, M., Bonifay, M., Nacef, J. and Capelli, C. forthcoming. Sullecthum et Neapolis: comparaisons entre deux villes portuaires de l’Afrique romaine. In M. Pasquinucci (ed.), Porti antichi e retroterra produttivi. Actes du colloque international (Livourne, 26-28 mars 2009). Bernal Casasola, D. 1997a. Economía y comercio de la Bética mediterránea y del Círculo del Estrecho en la Antig̈edad Tardía (ss. III – VII d.C.) a través del registro anfórico. Unpublished PhD Thesis, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid. Bernal Casasola, D. 1997b. Las ánforas romanas bajoimperiales y tardoantiguas del Museo Municipal de Ceuta. In Ánforas del Museo de Ceuta. Serie Maior. Informes y Catálogos 1: 61-129. Ceuta, Museo. Bernal Casasola, D. 1999. Transporte local/regional de envases vacíos en época romana. A propósito de dos talleres anfóricos de época altoimperial (El Rinconcillo, Algeciras, Cádiz) y del Bajo Imperio (Los Matagallares, Salobreña, Granada). In II Congreso de Arqueología Peninsular (Zamora 1996) IV. Arqueología romana 308 D. Bernal-Casasola: Lusitanian Amphorae in the Strait of Gibraltar Bernal, D., Díaz, J. J., Expósito, J. A., Sáez, A. M., Lorenzo, L. and Sáez, A. 2003. Arqueología y urbanismo. Avance de los hallazgos de época púnica y romana en las obras de la carretera de Camposoto (San Fernando, Cádiz). Colección Patrimonio Histórico de San Fernando 2. San Fernando, Ayuntamiento de San Fernando. Bernal, D. and Pérez, J. M. 2001. Las ánforas de Septem Fratres en los ss. II y III d. C. Un modelo de suministro de envases gaditanos a las factorías de salazones de la costa tingitana. In Congreso Internacional Ex Baetica Amphorae. Conservas, aceite y vino de la Bética en el Imperio Romano (Sevilla-Écija, 1998): 861-885. Écija, Editorial Gráficas Sol. Bernal, D., Sáez, A., Montero, R., Díaz, J. J., Sáez, A. M., Moreno, D. and Toboso, E. 2006. Instalaciones fluviomarítimas de drenaje con ánforas romanas. A propósito del embarcadero flavio del Caño de Sancti Petri (San Fernando, Cádiz). Spal 14 (2005): 179-230. Berrocal, M. C. 2012. Producciones anfóricas en la costa meridional de Carthago-Spartaria. In D. Bernal and A. Ribera I Lacomba (eds), Cerámicas hispanorromanas II. Producciones regionales: 255-277. Cádiz, Universidad de Cádiz. Blánquez, J., Roldán, L., Martínez-Lillo, S., MartínezMaganto, J., Sáez, F. and Bernal, D. 1998. La carta arqueológica-subacuática de la costa de Almería (1983-1992). Collección Arqueología. Madrid, Junta de Andalucía. Bustamante Álvarez, M. and Heras Mora, F. J. 2013. Producción anfórica en Augusta Emerita (Mérida, Badajoz) y los nuevos hallazgos del solar de la Escuela de Hostelería. In D. Bernal, L. C. Juan, M. Bustamante, J. J. Díaz and A. M. Sáez (eds), Hornos, talleres y focos de producción alfarera en Hispania (I Congreso Internacional de la SECAH (Cádiz, 3-4 March 2011)) I: 331-346. Cádiz, Universidad de Cádiz and Ex Officina Hispana, Sociedad de Estudios de la Cerámica Antigua en Hispania (SECAH). Diogo, A. M. D. 1991. Quadro tipológico das ânforas de fabrico lusitano. O Arqueólogo Português, Série IV, 5: 179-191. El Khayari, A. and Akerraz, A. 2013. Al-qsar Al-Awwal. Nouvelles données archéologiques sur l’occupation de la base vallée de Ksar de la péridode tardo-antique au haut Moyen-âge. In A. El Boudjay (ed.), Ksar Seghir. 2500 ans d’échanges intercivilisationnels en Méditerranée, Actes du Colloque: 9-35. Tánger. Fabião, C. 1996. Sobre a tipologia das ânforas da Lusitânia. In G. Filipe and J. Raposo (eds), Ocupação romana dos estuários do Tejo e do Sado: actas das primeiras jornadas sobre romanização dos estuários do Tejo e do Sado: 371-390. Lisboa, Câmara Municipal do Seixal and Publicações D. Quixote. Fabião, C. 2004. Centros oleiros da Lusitânia: balanço dos conhecimentos e perspectivas de investigação. In D. Bernal Casasola and L. Lagóstena Barrios (eds), Figlinae Baeticae: Talleres alfareros y producciones cerámicas en la Bética romana (ss. II a.C.-VII d.C.). Actas del Congreso Internacional (Cádiz, 12-14 de noviembre de 2003), British Archaeological Reports International Series 1266: 379-410. Oxford, J. and E. Hedges Ldt and Universidad de Cádiz. Gallardo, M., García, C., Alonso, C. and Martí, J. 1995. Carta Arqueológica Subacuática de la bahía de Cádiz. Cuadernos de Arqueología Marítima 3: 105-122. Gallimore, S. 2010. Amphora Production in the Roman World: A View from the Papyri. Bulletin of the American Society of Papyrologists 47: 155-184. Guerra, A. R. 1996. Marcas de ánfora provenientes do Porto dos Cacos (Alcochete). In G. Filipe and J. Raposo (eds), Ocupação romana dos estuários do Tejo e do Sado: actas das primeiras jornadas sobre romanização dos estuários do Tejo e do Sado: 267-282. Lisboa, Câmara Municipal do Seixal and Publicações D. Quixote. Keay, S. J. 1984. Late Roman Amphorae in the Western Mediterranean. A typology and economic study: the Catalan evidence. British Archaeological Reports International Series 196. Oxford, Hands and Walker. López, D., Gallardo, M. and Blanco, F. 2001. Estudio numismático de monedas bajoimperiales procedentes del yacimiento subacuático de Lavaculos (Sancti Petri, Cádiz). Boletín del Instituto Andaluz del Patrimonio Histórico 37: 127-135. Mayet, F. 2001. Les amphores lusitaniennes. In P. Levêque, J.-P. Morel and E. Geny (eds), Céramiques Hellénistiques et Romaines III : 277-293. Besançon, Presses universitaires franc-comtoises. Mayet, F., Schmitt, A. and Silva, C. T. 1996. Les amphores du Sado (Portugal). Prospection des fours et analyse du matériel. Paris, E. de Boccard. Mayet, F. and Silva, C. T. 1998. L’atelier d’amphores de Pinheiro (Portugal). Paris, E. de Boccard. Mayet, F. and Silva, C. T. 2002. L’atelier d’amphores d’Abul (Portugal). Paris, E. de Boccard. O’Kelly, J. 2012. Las ánforas onubenses en época tardorromana. In D. Bernal and A. Ribera I Lacomba (eds), Cerámicas hispanorromanas II. Producciones regionales: 279-295. Cádiz, Universidad de Cádiz. Parker, A. J. 1977. Lusitanian Amphoras. In Méthodes classiques et méthodes formelles dans l’étude des amphores (Actes du colloque de Rome, 27-29 mai 1974). Collection de l’École Française de Rome 32: 35-46. Rome, École Française de Rome. Peacock, D. P. S. 1984. The amphorae: typology and chronology. In Fulford, M. G. and Peacock, D. P. S. (eds), Excavations at Carthage: the British mission. Vol. I. 2. The avenue du President Habib Bourguiba, Salammbo. The pottery and other ceramic objects from the site: 116-140. Sheffield, University of Sheffield. Pimenta, J. 2005. As ânforas romanas do Castelo de São Jorge (Lisboa), Trabalhos de Arqueologia 26. Lisboa, Instituto Português de Arqueologia. Pinto, I. V., Magalhães, A.P. and Brum, P. 2011. O complexo industrial de Tróia desde os tempos dos Cornelii Bocchi. In J. L. Cardoso and M. Almagro Gorbea (eds), Lucius Cornelius Bocchus. Escritor lusitano da Idade de Prata da literatura latina (Colóquio Internacional de Tróia, 2010): 133-167. Lisboa, Academia Portuguesa da História; Madrid, Real Academia de la Historia. 309 Lusitanian Amphorae: Production and Distribution Pons Pujol, L. 2015. La invención de un concepto geopolítico: el Estrecho de Gibraltar en la Antigüedad (s. I-III d.C.). Scripta Nova XIX, 513: 1-36. Quaresma, J. C. and Raposo, J. M. 2014. Lusitana 3 (Lusitania occidental) In Amphorae ex Hispania. Paisajes de producción y de consumo. Institut Català d’Arqueologia Clàssica (http://amphorae.icac.cat/ tipol/view/22). Ramos, A. C., Almeida, R. and Laço, T. 2006. O Complexo Industrial da Rua Silva Lopes (Lagos). Uma primeira leitura do sítio e análise das suas problemáticas no quadro da indústria conserveira da Lusitânia meridional. In Simpósio Internacional Produção e comércio de preparados piscícolas durante a protohistória e a época romana no Ocidente da Península Ibérica. Homenagem a Françoise Mayet (Setúbal, 7-9 Maio 2004). Setúbal Arqueológica 13: 83-100. Setúbal, Museu de Etnografia e Arqueologia do Distrito de Setúbal/Assembleia Distrital de Setúbal. Ramos, A. C., Laço, T., Almeida, R. and Viegas, C. 2007. Les céramiques communes du VI s. du complexe industriel de salaisons de poisson de Lagos (Portugal). In M. Bonifay and J.-C. Tréglia (eds.), LRCW2. Late Roman Coarse Wares, Cooking Wares and Amphorae in the Mediterranean: Archaeology and archaeometry, British Archaeological Reports International Series.1662 (I): 85-97. Oxford, Archaeopress. Raposo, J. M. C. 1990. Porto dos Cacos: uma oficina de produção de ânforas romanas no Vale do Tejo. In A. Alarcão and F. Mayet (eds), Ânforas lusitanas. Tipologia, produção, comércio / Les amphores lusitaniennes. Typologie, production, commerce (actas da mesa-redonda de Conímbriga, 1988): 117151. Conimbriga and Paris, Museu Monográfico de Conimbriga and E. de Boccard. Reynolds, P., Bonifay, M. and Cau, M. A. 2011. Key contexts for the dating of late Roman Mediterranean fine wares: a preliminary review and ‘seriation’. In M. A. Cau, P. Reynolds and M. Bonifay (eds), LRFW 1. Late Roman Fine Wares. Solving Problems of Typology and Chronology. Roman and Late Antique Mediterranean Pottery 1: 15-32. Oxford, Archaeopress. Rizzo, G. 2014. Le anfore, Ostia e i commerci mediterranei. In C. Panella and G. Rizzo (eds), Ostia VI. Le Terme del Nuotatore: 65-481. Roma, L’Erma di Bretschneider. Teichner, F. and Pons Pujol, L. 2008. Roman amphora trade across the Straits of Gibraltar: An ancient ‘antieconomic practice’? Oxford Journal of Archaeology 27, 3: 303-314. Viegas, C. 2011. A ocupação romana do Algarve. Estudo do povoamento e economia do Algarve central e oriental no período romano. Estudos e Memórias 3. Lisboa, UNIARQ - Centro de Arqueologia da Universidade de Lisboa. Villaverde Vega, N. 2001. Tingitana en la Antig̈edad Tardía (siglos III – VII d.C.). Madrid, Real Academia de la Historia. 310