Lusitanian Amphorae - ULisboarepositorio.ul.pt/bitstream/10451/26365/1/Silva_&_Filipe_&_Almeida... · Inês Vaz Pinto, Rui Roberto de Almeida, Ana Patrícia Magalhães and Patrícia

2016

Lusitanian Amphorae: Production and

Distribution

Roman and Late Antique Mediterranean PotteryArchaeopress Series

EDITORIAL BOARD(in alphabetical order)

Series Editors

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)

Honorary editor

John HAYES, Institute of Archaeology, University of Oxford

Associate editors

Philip KENRICK, Institute of Archaeology, University of Oxford

John LUND, The National Museum of Denmark, Denmark

Scientific Committee for Pottery

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

General advisors

Richard HODGES, Richard REECE, Gisela RIPOLL, Bryan WARD-PERKINS, Chris WICKHAM, Enrico ZANINI

Lusitanian Amphorae: Production and

Distribution

edited by

Inês Vaz Pinto,* Rui Roberto de Almeida** and Archer Martin***

* 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

Published on the occasion of the30th Congress of the Rei Cretariae Romanae Fautores

(Lisbon, 2016)

Archaeopress Publishing LtdGordon House

276 Banbury RoadOxford OX2 7ED

www.archaeopress.com

ISBN 978 1 78491 427 1ISBN 978 1 78491 428 8 (e-Pdf)

© Archaeopress and the authors 2016

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying or otherwise,

without the prior written permission of the copyright owners.

Printed in England by Short Run Press, ExeterThis book is available direct from Archaeopress or from our website www.archaeopress.com

i

Contents

Foreword ................................................................................................................................................................... v

I - The Production of Lusitanian Amphorae

Production during the Principate in Peniche (Portugal).Raw Materials, Kilns and Amphora Typology......................... 3Guilherme Cardoso, Severino Rodrigues, Eurico de Sepúlveda and Inês Ribeiro

Roman Pottery Workshop of Quinta do Rouxinol (Seixal): Quantification and Classification of Amphora Production ........................................................................................................................................... 19Jorge Raposo, Cézer Santos and Olga Antunes

The Roman Figlina at Garrocheira (Benavente, Portugal) in the Early Empire ........................................................... 47Clementino Amaro and Cristina Gonçalves

Roman Amphora Production in the Lower Sado Region ........................................................................................... 59Françoise Mayet and Carlos Tavares da Silva

The Roman Kilns at Estrada da Parvoíce, Alcácer do Sal (Portugal) ........................................................................... 73João Pimenta, Marisol Ferreira and Ana Catarina Cabrita

Roman Amphora Production in the Algarve (Southern Portugal) ............................................................................ 81João Pedro Bernardes and Catarina Viegas

II – Archaeometry, Contents and Quantification of Lusitanian Amphorae

Geochemical Fingerprints of Lusitanian Amphora Production Centres: Tagus, Sado, Algarve and Peniche ................ 95M. Isabel Dias and M. Isabel Prudêncio

Lusitanian Amphorae of the Augustan Era and their Contents: Organic Residue Analysis ....................................... 105Rui Morais, César Oliveira and Alfredo Araújo

Fish Bones and Amphorae: New Evidence for the Production and Trade of Fish Products in Setúbal (Portugal) ...... 111Sónia Gabriel and Carlos Tavares da Silva

The Myth of ‘Laccatum:’ a Study Starting from a New Titulus ....................................... 117David Djaoui

Do We Have the Capacity to Understand the Economy of Lusitanian Commodities? Volumetric Calculations of Lusitanian Amphora Types ..................................................................................................................................... 129Victor Martínez

III – The Distribution of Lusitanian Amphorae

Amphorae at the Origins of Lusitania: Transport Pottery from Western Hispania Ulterior in Alto Alentejo ............. 139Rui Mataloto, Joey Williams and Conceição Roque

Julio-Claudian Lusitanian Amphorae: a Perspective on Selected Contexts from Olisipo (Lisbon, Portugal) .............. 153Rodrigo Banha da Silva, Victor Filipe and Rui Roberto de Almeida

ii

Julio-Claudian Lusitanian Amphorae: a Perspective on Selected Contexts from Olisipo (Lisbon, Portugal) .............. 153Rodrigo Banha da Silva, Victor Filipe and Rui Roberto de Almeida

Lusitanian Amphorae and Transport Coarse Ware from the Roman Anchorage of Praça D. Luís I (Portugal) ........... 167Jorge Parreira and Marta Macedo

Lusitanian Amphorae at a Fish-Salting Production Centre: Tróia (Portugal) ............................................................ 173Inês Vaz Pinto, Rui Roberto de Almeida, Ana Patrícia Magalhães and Patrícia Brum

On the Way to Augusta Emerita. Historiographical Overview, Old and New Data on Fish-Product Amphorae and Commerce within the Trade to the Capital of Lusitania .......................................................................................... 195Rui Roberto de Almeida

Lusitanian and Imported Amphorae from the Roman Town of Ammaia (Portugal). A Short Overview .................... 219Caterina P. Venditti

Lusitanian Amphorae in the Roman City of Conimbriga ......................................................................................... 231Ida Buraca

A Multi-Disciplinary Approach to the Maritime Economy and Palaeo-Environment of Southern Roman Lusitania.......................................................................................... 241Felix Teichner

The Lusitanian Amphorae from the Roman Villa of Vale da Arrancada (Portimão, Algarve, Portugal) ..................... 257Carlos Fabião, Catarina Viegas and Vera de Freitas

2 – Lusitanian Amphorae in Gallaecia, Baetica and Tarraconensis

Lusitanian Amphorae in the Northwest of the Iberian Peninsula............................................................................ 273Adolfo Fernández Fernández

Amphora Circulation in the Lower Guadalquivir Valley in the Mid Imperial Period: the Lusitana 3 Type ................. 285Enrique García Vargas

Lusitanian Amphorae in the Strait of Gibraltar: Interprovincial Food Supply .......................................................... 299Darío Bernal-Casasola

Lusitanian Amphorae in Carthago Nova (Cartagena, Spain): Distribution and Research Questions ......................... 311Alejandro Quevedo and Sónia Bombico

................................ 323Felipe Cerezo Andreo

Lusitanian Amphorae in Tarraco (3rd-5th Century AD) ........................................................................................... 333Josep-Anton Remolà Vallverdú

Early Imperial Lusitanian Amphorae from the Eastern Iberian Coast ...................................................................... 343Ramón Járrega Domínguez and Horacio González Cesteros

3 – Lusitanian Amphorae Beyond Hispania

Lusitanian Amphorae from the Dump Layer above the Arles-Rhône 3 Shipwreck ................................................... 357David Djaoui and José Carlos Quaresma

Lusitanian Amphorae in Germania Superior, Germania Inferior and Gallia Belgica. Scarcity, Identification Problems, Contexts and Interpretations ................................................................................................................................. 369Patrick Monsieur

iii

Lusitanian Amphorae found on the Punta Sardegna A Shipwreck (Palau, Sardinia). A Preliminary Report on Typologies and Fabrics ........................................................................................................................................... 381Alessandro Porqueddu, Claudia Giarrusso and Pier Giorgio Spanu

Lusitanian Amphorae at Ostia and in the Vesuvian Region ..................................................................................... 389Archer Martin

Lusitanian Amphorae in Naples between the 3rd and the 5th Century AD ............................................................. 399Luana Toniolo

Lusitanian Amphorae in Rome ............................................................................................................................... 409Giorgio Rizzo

Lusitanian Amphorae in Adriatic Italy: Commercial Routes and Distribution .......................................................... 419Rita Auriemma and Stefania Pesavento Mattioli (with an Appendix by Manuela Mongardi)

Lusitanian Amphorae in the Northern Adriatic Region: the Western Part of the Decima Regio ............................... 429Silvia Cipriano and Stefania Mazzocchin

Lusitanian Amphorae in Northern Adriatic Italy: the Eastern Part of Decima Regio ................................................ 437Dario Gaddi and Valentina Degrassi

Lusitanian Amphorae on Western Mediterranean Shipwrecks: Fragments of Economic History ............................. 445Sónia Bombico

153

Julio-Claudian Lusitanian Amphorae: a Perspective on Selected Contexts from Olisipo (Lisbon, Portugal)

Rodrigo Banha da Silva,* Victor Filipe** and Rui Roberto de Almeida****CAL-CML; FCSH-Universidade Nova de Lisboa; CHAM-FCSH/UAç

[email protected]; [email protected]

**UNIARQ – Universidade de Lisboa. Faculdade de Letras. Universidade de Lisboa / Doctoral [email protected]

***UNIARQ – Universidade de Lisboa. Faculdade de Letras. Universidade de Lisboa / Doctoral [email protected]

The Roman city of Olisipo (Lisbon) was one of the main harbours on the Atlantic façade, with a major role in the circulation of Medi-terranean products to the northern provinces. In the Julio-Claudian period it emerged as a major producer of fish products that were packed in amphorae.

To analyse and discuss Lusitanian amphorae from this specific period, eight well-dated contexts from excavations in Lisbon (some published, others unpublished), dating from Tiberius to Nero, will be presented.

The study of these contexts shows, on the one hand, that amphorae of early Lusitanian type were a major presence, certainly from Claudius or the early days of Nero, and, on the other hand, that the first amphorae presenting the characteristic forms of typical Dressel 14 appear in the stratigraphy only from the AD 60s onward.

As far as their petrography and provenance are concerned, the macroscopic characteristics of the fabrics of these amphorae reveal that the majority of them must be assigned to the Tagus/Sado basins. Nevertheless, amphorae from other areas of the province, namely Peniche (on the western Atlantic coast) are also present, mainly from the principate of Claudius onwards.

KEYWORDS: LISBON; EARLY IMPERIAL CONTEXTS; LUSITANIAN AMPHORAE; EARLY LUSITANIAN TYPES; MORPHOLOGICAL CHARACTERIZATION.

R. Banha da Silva, V. Filipe and R. R. de Almeida

Julio-Claudian Lusitanian Amphorae

Introduction

The former Felicitas Iulia Olisipo (Lisbon) is a nodal point for our understanding of the economy of the Roman province of Lusitania: on the one hand, it is probably the main ocean harbour of the western façade of Hispania, a key point in the maritime circulation of Mediterranean products northwards, from Callaetia to Britannia and Germania Inferior (Fabião 2009a; Morais and Carreras Monfort 2010); on the other hand, the last two decades of intense rescue archaeology in Lisbon have provided new and fresh data related to the Roman period, revealing the large dimension and longevity of fish-product manufactories located on its ancient riverfront. Therefore, the study of Lisbon’s archaeological data is vital for understanding not only local/regional aspects, such as amphorae in a production framework, but also broad ancient economic matters of the Roman Empire.

In spite of its relevance, most of the information is still unpublished and even unstudied. The present paper’s aim is to make available some contexts of Julio-Claudian date where provincial Lusitanian amphorae were identified, selected according to criteria of well-defined chronology and functional pattern, as modern investigation advocates (Peña 2007).

1. Roman Olisipo

Interest in the Roman past of Lisbon goes back to the Renaissance, a moment when the identity of the Portuguese imperial capital as an emporium was emphasised. With few (or almost no) structural remains visible at that time, ancient epigraphy played a key role then. It was mainly in the aftermath of the big earthquake of 1755, from the late 18th century to the early 19th century, that reconstruction works of the town revealed several Roman ruins, a flourishing period of activity in antiquarian excavations, such as in the Roman theatre, in the Thermae Cassiorum (a big public baths complex) or in a cryptoporticus in the ancient riverfront vicinity (interpreted as a corporative forum in modern times – Ribeiro 1994). The main focus of modern antiquarians was, therefore, the monumental dimension of the Roman town, other finds playing a clearly secondary role.

Apart from punctual observations or the results of an important salvage excavation in the northwestern necropolis in 1961-62 (Branco 1961; Ferreira 1962; Moita 1968), it was only in 1981-82 that other aspects of the former Olisipo were approached: the archaeological works carried out in the Renaissance ‘palace’ of Casa dos Bicos revealed the late Roman origin of the Muslim

154

Lusitanian Amphorae: Production and Distribution

medieval city walls and a group of four fish-salting vats and other associated Roman structures (Duarte and Amaro 1986; Amaro and Sepúlveda 2007), calling attention to the productive facet of the Roman town. In fact, this last aspect was already known through finds in the downtown area of Lisbon, first in 1859, and, for sure, in the 1950s (Silva 2002), insufficiently appreciated until now.

More recent finds of cetariae on the left bank of the Tagus in front of Lisbon, namely in Cacilhas and Porto Brandão (Almada), and, most of all, the discovery of several pottery production centres with important amphora production on the lower Tagus, began to paint a broader and more complex picture of the magnitude of the production of fish products in the region (Fabião 2009b).

In the suburban areas of Olisipo and in its agri, the development of a rescue archaeology praxis in the region provided a new and still ongoing dynamic of studies concerning Lusitanian amphora and fish-product manufactories based on contexts of consumption, officinae, and port evidence. In fact, this has become the trendy subject on the agenda for Roman archaeology nowadays in the Lisbon area (Bugalhão 2001; Fabião 2009b), in such

a way that other aspects crucial for our understanding of the town itself have become minor, such as for example domestic architecture or the pattern of uiae and insulae (Silva 2012).

Overall, even though modern perspectives on Roman Olisipo are built upon a patchwork of information of very different relevance or reliability, some core aspects deserve to be emphasised: first, that the pomerium and suburbia existed in Olisipo from at least late Tiberian times (or perhaps slightly later), and were urbanistically and symbolically separated by a city wall, a section of which was identified in Casa Sommer (Gomes and Gaspar 2007); second, that the current estimates of around 10ha for the strictly urban area correspond to a ‘medium-range town’ at the Hispanic scale (Carreras Monfort 1995-1996), but one must say that this size is almost doubled if suburban areas are considered (Silva 2012); lastly, in spite of historical data that one might expect, implying a profound urban renovation under Octavian around the time of its promotion in status to municipium ciuium Romanorum (Alarcão 1994; Faria 2001), and also in spite of artefact studies, in which the imports of fine wares demonstrate an economic vigour since the early years of the Principate (Silva 2012), no relevant

Figure 1. a) Lisbon´s location on the Iberian Peninsula; b) Approximate location of the sites studied in the old town.

155

R. Banha da Silva, V. Filipe and R. R. de Almeida: Julio-Claudian Lusitanian Amphorae

stratigraphy of that date is known so far, implying that all archaeological inferences referring to that period have to take this contextual emptiness into account.

2� Selected contexts of Lisbon

2�1� Praça da Figueira

In the area of Praça da Figueira, a part of a Roman necropolis was found during subway construction works in 1961 (Moita 1968) (Figure 1). In 1962, a rescue archaeological excavation of the remaining area was carried out under the direction of Fernando Bandeira Ferreira (1962; Branco 1961), during which a part of the Roman road connecting Olisipo to the conventual capital Praesidium Iulium Scallabis (Santarém) and, from there, to Braccara Augusta (Braga) or the Lusitanian capital, Emerita Augusta (Mérida, Spain) was uncovered. On both sides of the road, funerary spaces were recognized, and the revision of the dating material associated to the earlier graves allowed the proposal of funerary use from the late Claudian-early Neronian period (Silva 2012).

In 1999-2001, more rescue archaeological work was carried out by one of the authors (R. B. S.), due to the

construction of an underground parking facility. In this excavation, other sections of the road were found, along with an intense funerary occupation of both sides of the road structure, including basements of buildings, monuments, enclosures and several isolated graves dating from late 1st to the mid 4th century. Another road starting from the Olisipo-Scallabis road leading west was recognized for almost 30m and was narrower and therefore secondary, leading to agri and, later on, to the nearby circus.

Several earthworks were also recognised, the earliest ones dating from the Julio-Claudian period, as well as some urban discard pits, probably of domestic origin, some of them being selected for presentation in this paper (Figure 2).

2.1.1. Pit [8933] Context

This context was found under the stratigraphic unit of preparation for/and the earliest pavement of the Olisipo-Scallabis road.

Pit [8933] was oval, and its fill consisted of four stratigraphic units: the upper two had almost no materials, but the two deeper ones, especially S.U. (stratigraphic unit) [8936], the lower one, allowed a vast assemblage

Figure 2. Lisbon, Praça da Figueira 1999-2001. Approximate location of the selected contexts studied.

156


of pottery and other finds to be identified. Among these, faunal remains were scarce and represented mainly by small fragments of long bones of mammals (Casimiro, Monteiro and Silva forthcoming). A copper-alloy Aucissa-type fibula and a fishing-net nail, along with ten iron nails, completed the non-ceramic sample.

Among the ceramics, construction materials were scarce (three fragments of tegulae and c. ten fragments of imbrices, bricks being absent). Fine wares were represented by 38.36% of the minimum number of individuals (MNI) (sigillata, lamps and Italian and Baetican thin-walled ware), coarse wares by 48.93% of the MNI and amphorae by 12.21% of the MNI (Silva forthcoming). The overall composition of the pottery assemblage is consistent with an urban discard origin, probably mainly domestic, which is the interpretation for the formation of the context.

The sigillata is only of Italian origin, with Consp.12 (12.1), 18 (18.2.1., 18.2.2 and 18.2.4), 19 (19.2.1), 22 (22.1.2 and 22.1.4), 32 (32.2.1), 25 or 31 (Ettlinger et al. 1990- hereafter cited as Consp.) being present and two small sherds of decorated calyces. Only two fragments bore potters’ stamps: an unreadable, broken bilinear example and another signed by Phart(enius), slave of Publius Cornelius, a potter active in Augustan times at Cincelli-Arezzo (Silva 2012).

In the composition of the amphora group, Baetican types were prevalent over regional or other Lusitanian origins: the Guadalquivir Valley is attested through two Haltern 70 individuals, three individuals with ovoid bodies and an Oberaden 83 rim, one flat-based container (Dressel 28 or similar); coastal Baetica by unidentifiable sherds. Several rims, handles and three bases are certainly Lusitanian, regional and representing an early provincial production, and they may belong to what is usually called the ‘ovoid Lusitanian’ type (Morais and Fabião 2007; Morais and Filipe 2014) or to other non-ovoid and not well characterized ‘early Lusitanian’ types (Figure 3).

As far as chronology is concerned, it is significant that only Italian fabrics of sigillata are present and that Italian lamps and thin-walled ware are clearly prevalent in this context. More thoroughly in this respect, if a few forms of Italian Sigillata indicate already a Tiberian date of formation , the remaining group of this fine ware is much more consistent with dates of production during the mid to late Augustan period. This accords well with the rest of the pottery assemblage, namely the amphora and lamp types documented, as well as the group of Italian thin-walled vessels. Therefore, an early Tiberian date of formation becomes quite plausible, although a significant portion of the assemblage is earlier, Augustan, which implies that a significant amount of vessels was still in use at that time.

Figure 3. Lisbon, Praça da Figueira 1999-2001, contexts of Pit 8933 (S.U. [8933/8936]) and Pit 8060 (S.U. [8037/8058-59/8060]). Regional Lusitanian amphorae (Tagus/Sado workshops) and lid.

157


The Lusitanian amphorae display fabrics compatible with an origin in the lower Tagus Valley. The two rims represented are very different, in spite of having a similar diameter: one has a collar rim and very thick walls; the other has a triangular rim, with a slightly everted lip, and thin walls.

The four handle sherds are very similar, displaying a characteristic vertical groove. One of them is associated with a portion of the neck, cylindrical but slightly restricted in the middle. Two of the spikes are identical, with a conical section, reinforced on the inside with clay; in both, the remaining parts of the body are thin. In contrast, the remaining one is taller and solid, almost cylindrical.


This context was found under [8013], a stratigraphic unit corresponding to local earthworks of preparation for the installation of a new urbanistic plan, which affected the upper part of Pit [8060] as displayed by a vertical interface (see Figure 2).

Pit [8060] was vaguely oval, larger than the previous one, and the remaining fill consisted of three stratigraphic units, [8037], [8058] and [8059], which revealed rare pieces of mainly long bones of mammals (Casimiro, Monteiro and Silva forthcoming) and rare unidentifiable copper-alloy fragments. Bricks and tiles were absent.

The pottery finds included a high representation of fine wares (Italian and South Gaulish Sigillata, Peñaflor-type ware, lamps, Italian, Baetican and one piece of Emeritan thin-walled ware) with 46.67% of the MNI, coarse wares at 50.78% of the MNI of and a poor representation of amphorae, only 2.55% of the MNI (Silva forthcoming).

Once again, the profile of the assemblage is compatible with urban discard, the absence of building materials being noteworthy in support the hypothesis of a domestic origin.

As in [8936], the Italian Sigillata displays a diversity of forms, covering the principates of Augustus and Tiberius (Consp. 4, 7.1, 11, 12, 17, 18.1, 18.2, 20.3, 22.1, 23?, 24, 26, 27.1.2, 33, 38, 50.3.1 and R.4.4.1). The same indicators are provided by the potters’ stamps, signed arretinum, Atticus (3), Publius Cornelius, alone and by his slaves Speratus, Ennius, Hilarus (3), SPE and Vrbanus (1). Stamps in planta pedis signed by Cneus Ateius, Philargurus (1) and another illegible example become decisive in terms of date (Silva 2012: fig. 90).

In spite of their representation in terms of MNI, fragments of body sherds of amphorae are common in S.U. [8037/8058-59]. They belong mostly to ovoid types from the Guadalquivir Valley, three of them clearly distinguishable, at least one Haltern 70 with the same origin and three Lusitanian ones, regional, from the Tagus/Sado workshops.

In terms of chronology, sigillata stamps in planta pedis, in spite of some of the vessel types attested, date the fill of

Pit [8060] without a doubt to the Tiberian period or later. One has to emphasize the small group of South Gaulish Sigillata at 2.55% of the MNI, especially compared with S.U. [8936], where it was absent. This apparently implies a slightly later date for the filling of Pit [8060] in relation to Pit [8933], possibly mid to late Tiberian.

In the same way, that is perhaps the explanation for the equilibrium between Italian and Baetican lamps, as well for the very poor representations of Emeritan fine wares (one lamp and a thin-walled ware individual) and of Peñaflor-type ware in Baetican fabric (also two individuals).

The Lusitanian amphorae present in S.U. [8037/8058-59] (Figure 3) attest to at least two shapes, as in [8936]: both with a cylindrical neck and a slightly everted collar rim, but one more robust and the other closer to late republican prototypes (Morais and Filipe 2014), with thinner walls. A small lid compatible with the interior diameter of the necks was also found.


Pit [8300] was found under the earlier pavement of the south section of the Olisipo-Scallabis road excavated in Praça da Figueira (see Figure 2).

The context of its formation is probably related to the construction of the road and was interpreted as a drainage ditch cut into earlier deposits of sand, because the area was then humid. Its fill consisted of four thin, clayish stratigraphic units and S.U. [8299], thicker and with a mud-like appearance, lying at the bottom.

Although the overall study of the assemblage is still incomplete, one has to underline that the analysis of the sigillata group provided very important chronological indicators: although Italian Sigillata still prevails, Tiberian-Claudian shapes are more numerous, and South Gaulish Sigillata reaches almost the same number (Silva 2005; Silva 2012), which implies a later date than the previous two contexts presented. The find of a Tiberian dupondius minted in Emerita assures a late Tiberian to early Claudian date.

Amphorae are very poorly represented in S.U. [8299], mostly consisting of body sherds, but they include a Lusitanian individual preserving the profile from the mouth to the beginning of the body, with a complete handle (Figure 4). Its form is again late republican/early provincial, with a collar rim and thinner walls, and can be ascribed to ‘early Lusitanian’ types, probably with an ovoid shape.

2.1.4. S.U. [9907-08] Context

In the northern sectors of the Praça da Figueira excavation in 1999-2001, a c.17m-long section of the Olisipo-Emerita road was revealed (see Figure 2).

The orientation of this part of the road diverged from the earlier one, recognized only in the southern sector of the

158


excavation area. As the dates of the earlier pavements of both sections are different, and, as vast deposits originating from earthworks were documented in the northern part, the interpretation was that there was a profound urban renewal of this northern part, necessarily after late Tiberian-early Claudian dates. Therefore, the earlier pavement [9907] and the preparation unit [9908] were considered together.

As in the case of the previous context, only the sigillata has been studied so far. Although Italian products were found, South Gaulish examples are more frequent, and it is noteworthy that Flavian types are absent here. The potters’ stamps found are an ‘illiterate’ example and a signature of Gallicanus of La Graufesenque, surely later than AD 45, a stamp current on externally dated Claudian-Neronian sites (Silva 2012). A date range within the AD 50s is, for both reasons, most likely.

The Lusitanian amphorae attest to at least two origins: a small body sherd and another of a handle with an oval section and a deep vertical groove are characteristic of the Morraçal da Ajuda workshop, located in Peniche, an island

in Roman times and now a peninsula, on the western Atlantic coast c.100km north of Lisbon. The remaining sherds include two collar rims with thin walls, seven handles and two hollow, conical spikes of regional origin from the Tagus/Sado workshops (Figures 4 and 5).


Pit [9033] was recognised beside the secondary Roman road leading west mentioned in the introduction to this site (see Figure 2). At an undefined moment during the Flavian-Antonine period, the northern mortar wall that delimited the public area was replaced by a new one, essentially made in stone, located c. 1m north of the previous one. Earthworks connected with this renovation, S.U. [9005], cut the upper part of the previous pit [9033]. On the other hand, the concrete wall of the underground parking facility destroyed almost half of the context.

Pit [9033] was 0.70m deep and was filled with three deposits: [9014], thin and clayish, with almost no material associated; [9015], deeper, organically rich and

Figure 4. Lisbon, Praça da Figueira 1999-2001, contexts of Pit 8300 (S.U. [8299/8300]) and Road [9907-08]. Regional Lusitanian amphorae (Tagus/Sado workshops).

159


with a profuse set of materials; and [9038], thin and also organically rich. The finds were mostly ceramics and a few fragments of mammal fauna (Casimiro, Monteiro and Silva forthcoming), as well as rare, unidentifiable metal artefacts.

Some features of the pottery assemblage from S.U. [9014-15/9038] are different from those of the contexts mentioned before, as many sherds are identifiable as belonging to the same vessels. Its composition is made up of fine wares (Italian, South Gaulish and Late Italian Sigillata, Peñaflor-type ware, Baetican lamps, thin-walled ware and an Italian unguentarium) at 28.56% of the MNI, of coarse wares

(Italian, Baetican, regional Lusitanian from the Tagus/Sado workshops and other Lusitanian sources) at 63.28% of the MNI, and of amphorae at 8.16% of the MNI (Silva forthcoming).

The characteristics of the assemblage do not totally clarify the processes of formation: if the explanation as urban domestic discard is plausible, one must take into account the intense funerary activity in the surrounding areas, and other hypotheses become possible.

The sigillata group is very homogeneous, with an Italian skyphos of Augustan date still in use, a Late Italian

Figure 5. Lisbon, Praça da Figueira 1999-2001,

contexts of Pit 9033 (S.U. [9014-15/9038/9033])

and Road [9907]/[9908]. Regional Lusitanian amphorae (Tagus/

Sado workshops) and Lusitanian amphorae from

the Morraçal da Ajuda (Peniche) workshop.

160


calyx, a set of standard vessels from La Graufesenque and a Drag. 30 bowl of the same origin displaying a Neronian decoration. The potters’ stamps include the Pisan Sextus Murrius Festus, with a product probably of an earlier stage, alongside Ruthenian signatures of Billicatus (AD 30-50), Licinus (AD 55-65), Maccarus i (AD 30-65) and Passenus (AD 50-70) (Silva 2012). The overall group of vessels, especially the major prevalence of La Graufesenque fabrics and the fact that the thin-walled ware and lamps are only of Baetican origin, as well as the sigillata signatures, point to a pre-Flavian date posterior to AD 60, consequently within the AD 60s, for the formation of the context.

The amphora assemblage from S.U. [9014-15/9038] is very well defined, as all the sherds clearly belong to two Dressel 20 from the Guadalquivir Valley, one Dressel 7/11 from coastal Baetica, three Lusitanian individuals from the Morraçal da Ajuda (Peniche) workshop and two other regional ones, from the Tagus/Sado workshops (Figure 5). The fragments from Morraçal da Ajuda can be assigned to the local types that the researchers there consider related to Dressel 7/11 (Cardoso, Rodrigues and Sepúlveda 2006; see Cardoso et al., in this volume)

The regional amphora type presents a collar rim with a cylindrical neck and once again can be ascribed to an ‘early Lusitanian’ type, probably ovoid.

2�2� Roman Theatre

The Roman theatre is one of the sites in Lisbon with the most archaeological tradition: discovered in 1798 during the reconstruction works after the earthquake of 1755, it was the object of antiquarian attention before buildings were built on top of it in the early 19th century; rediscovered through digs in 1964 by D. Fernando de Almeida (1966), a vast part of its ruins was unearthed by Irisalva Moita in 1966-67 (Moita 1970); modern excavations were made by António Dias Diogo in 1989-1993 in the cavea zone until Lídia Fernandes, the person presently responsible for the Museu do Teatro Romano, took charge, conducting archaeological works from 2001 onward, especially in the neighbouring area south of the ancient Roman building (Fernandes 2007).

The date of the construction of the Roman public building located on the hillside of the ancient town facing the Tagus River was the object of discussion: Neronian (Alarcão 1982), Augustan or a little latter (Hauschild 1990; Silva 2002), Augustan (Diogo 1993). The most recent works have defined a late Augustan-Tiberian date (Fernandes 2007; Filipe 2008b). The sigillata potters’ stamps and published vessels (Sepúlveda and Fernandes 2009) were revised by one of the authors (R. B. S.), who indicates a date in the middle of Tiberius’ principate (Silva 2012).

Two main groups of contexts were found in the back part of the Roman theatre, both resulting from impressive fills: one is related to the creation of the edifice, the

other with a renovation in the mid 1st century AD (Filipe 2008b; Fernandes and Filipe 2007; Sepúlveda and Fernandes 2009), most probably connected with the campaign of embellishment promoted by Caius Heius Primus, a Perpetuus Augustalis, documented through a long inscription carved on the proscaenium of the theatre, dating to AD 57 (Fernandes and Caessa 2006-2007).

The importance of both contexts is to be emphasised, because they provide two well defined termini ante quem for the pottery assemblages.

2.2.1. Contexts of Phase I

These contexts were identified in the back part of the postscaenium wall, an earthwork intended to form a platform between this structure and another parallel wall, located south of it. This architectural solution was due to the great difference in height between the Roman platform and the zone to the south (Fernandes 2007: 35)

The earlier layers connected with the construction of the Roman theatre (Layers 24/V.11, 16/V.9, 11/V.10) displayed a variety of amphora types: Greco-Italic, Dressel 1 and Lamboglia 2 from the Italian Peninsula, Maña C2b (T-7.4.3.3.), T-9.1.1.1., Oberaden 83, Haltern 70 from Ulterior/Baetica and ovoid Lusitanian (Filipe 2008b). A sherd of Pompeian Red Ware in a Campanian fabric and Form 6 of Aguarod Otal (1991), produced from Augustan times onward, was present in those levels (Filipe 2008b).

In the overall group of amphorae of ‘Phase I’, Lusitanian fabrics make up 27% of the MNI. The rims collected always have a collar shape, associated with cylindrical necks, but showing different variants of rim shape: some are more everted and short, others closer to Haltern 70 (Figure 6) (Filipe 2014).

2.2.2. Contexts of Phase II

The formation process of this phase is attributed to renovation works carried out in the theatre, as mentioned before, probably during the campaign of AD 57. A group of layers was deposited (4/V.9, 9/V.9, 9a)/V.9), giving a new configuration to the existing platform in the back part of the building.

In these, the pottery is mainly late republican, Augustan, along with Iron Age, and the latest is dated to the third quarter of the 1st century AD (Fernandes 2007: 35). The thin-walled ware and lamps are Augustan and Tiberian to Neronian. Various vessel forms in Italian Sigillata show the same dates. Most of all, the presence of South Gaulish Sigillata is coherent with a formation during Nero’s principate (Sepúlveda and Fernandes 2009).

As far as the amphorae are concerned, one has to emphasise the presence of Dressel 20, Verulamium 1908 and slightly later variants of Haltern 70 from Baetica, overall consonant with a date in AD 57 or slightly later.

161


In Phase II, Lusitanian amphorae numbers decline to 15% of the MNI. Once again different rim variants of early provincial types were identified, and the shapes of the spikes are also diverse, conical hollow, conical filled with clay and one hollow with a small outer rib (Figure 6).

2�3� Rua dos Bacalhoeiros

The Rua dos Bacalhoeiros site is located in the Baixa Pombalina, the central zone of the old town rebuilt in the late 18th century after the earthquake of 1755 according to a new, orthogonal urban plan. The renovation of a building was the reason for the archaeological rescue conducted by António Marques and Lídia Fernandes in 2005-6, with the participation of one of the authors (V. F.).

Lying under the modern and medieval occupation, not far from the ancient riverfront, a fish-product workshop was identified, some parts being poorly preserved. Nevertheless, the yard of the artisan unit was excavated, and several deposits were found underneath it (Fernandes et al. 2006).

These contained a vast collection of ceramics, from which amphorae (Filipe 2008a) and potters’ stamps on sigillata (Silva 2012) have already been studied. A date in the first half or around middle of the 1st century AD was advanced first (Fernandes et al. 2006), but a revision of the sigillata stamps situates the actions necessarily after AD 60, because a product signed by Rufinus ii from La Graufesenque was found in one of the deeper layers of the stratigraphic sequence (Silva 2012).

Although a circa or post AD 60 date was defined, the vast majority of the pottery finds are earlier, ranging between the Iron Age and the early Roman Empire, including a significant amount of late republican amphorae (Filipe 2008a). The available data seem to suggest that the deposits found under the yard of the officina were the result of the preparation of the ground for building, including material gathered from the neighbouring areas, although the ancient riverfront is attested by water-eroded pottery sherds.

In the amphora assemblage of Rua dos Bacalhoeiros, Lusitanian provincial types correspond to 30% of the MNI,

Figure 6. Lisbon, Roman Theatre. Regional Lusitanian amphorae (Tagus/Sado workshops) from contexts of Phases I and II.

162


but one has to point out that a vast amount of earlier, late republican and Iron Age types was found in the context.

The Lusitanian amphora rims display a variety of shapes, but always with a collar on a short cylindrical neck (Figure 7). Some of the rims are everted, closer to Dressel 7-11, others only slightly everted.

One individual particularly interesting is a ring-footed, flat base, morphologically classifiable as Dressel 28 or some other flat-bottomed type, that presents a regional Tagus/Sado fabric. This kind of amphora, but with a latter chronology, has already been identified in production contexts at the pottery workshop of Porto dos Cacos, on the left bank of the Tagus River (Raposo 1990).

2�4� Rua dos Remédios

The eastern part of the old town of Lisbon has had continuous archaeological work only since 2002, little being known until then. The ancient urban pattern of the area outside the late Roman city wall (Pimenta, Calado and Leitão 2005) is orthogonal, and recent interpretation argues that it is evidently of Roman origin as confirmed through several archaeological excavations (Silva 2012).

A section of a main road leading to Scallabis, an itinerary alternative to the one stated when referring to Praça da Figueira (see 2.1), passed through the central zone of the Alfama quarter, and the presence of this road structure

Figure 7. Lisbon, Rua dos Bacalhoeiros. Regional Lusitanian amphorae (Tagus/Sado workshops) from earthworks for the installation of a fish-product workshop.

163


seems to have polarized a denser occupation in Roman times.

Constant renewal of the ancient buildings and urban infrastructures was the reason for the archaeological activity in the area, as in the case of Rua dos Remédios.

An early imperial Roman context was found on the site in 2005-2006: lying beneath modern buildings and other contexts such as occupations of the Muslim period, the fill of a gap in the bedrock of that date was made with transported debris, including a significant amount of ceramics, very few faunal remains (Casimiro, Monteiro and Silva forthcoming) and only six iron nails representing metal artefacts.

The pottery assemblage is rich and diversified: with fine wares at 28.78% of the MNI (Italian and South Gaulish Sigillata, Peñaflor-type ware, Italian, Baetican and Emeritan lamps, Baetican and Italian thin-walled ware, Italian unguentaria and an Italian lead-glazed ware individual), coarse wares at 63.26% of the MNI (Italian, Baetican, Lusitanian from the Morraçal da Ajuda workshop (Peniche) and regional from Tagus/Sado workshops) and amphorae at 7.96% of the MNI (Baetican and regional Tagus/Sado products) (Silva forthcoming).

The context, formed by several stratigraphic units very similar in their sedimentary composition, with a high percentage of clay and fine sand, including almost exclusively very fragmentary individuals, seems to result from the filling of a hole using nearby accumulations of urban domestic discard, over a short time. The very low quantity of construction materials (c. 8 individuals; no bricks), as well as the predominance of table (c. 32% of the MNI), cooking and food-conservation vessels (c. 60%) and the quantity of lamps (5.12% of the MNI), apparently support this interpretation of an origin as domestic discard.

The sigillata group is mainly Italian, with the presence of mid/late Augustan to Tiberian-Claudian forms (Consp. 6.4, 7.1.2, 12.4?, 18.2, 17.3 var.?, 20.1.1, 20.3, 23.1, 23.2, 28.3, 27.2, 31.1, 32.1, 35.1, R.7? and 14-15 or 17). South Gaulish fabrics represent less than 1/3 of this class, Flavian forms being absent. The potters’ stamps belong to Ateius (3), from Pisa, and to three potters from La Graufesenque, Cinamus, Lucceius i and Rufinus ii. In spite of the composition of the sigillata group, the South Gaulish stamps, with parallels in externally dated sites indicating gaps between AD 50-75, AD 45-65, and AD 20-55 become decisive in fixing a terminus post quem of AD 50 for the formation of the context. The possible explanation for the important presence of late Augustan and early Tiberian vessels is that they remained in

Figure 8. Lisbon, Rua dos Remédios. Regional Lusitanian amphorae (Tagus/Sado workshops) from earthworks/urban domestic discard contexts.

164


use and/or are the result of the gathering of earlier, original deposits (Silva 2012: 321).

The group of amphorae is diversified (Silva forthcoming), including seven Dressel 20 and two Urceus-type containers (Morais 2008) from the Guadalquivir Valley, another of the same type and one Dressel 7/11 from coastal Baetica, and seven ‘ovoid Lusitanian’ amphorae (Morais and Filipe 2014) from regional workshops.

In spite of the presence of a small amount of coarse wares from the Morraçal da Ajuda workshop (Peniche), the Lusitanian amphorae of Rua dos Remédios are only of regional origin and very homogeneous in their attributes, displaying a collar rim, a cylindrical neck with a tendency toward restriction in the middle, oval handles with a vertical groove, thin walls and conical spikes filled with clay (Figure 8).

Final remarks on Lusitanian amphorae in the selected contexts from Olisipo�

In this paper, c. 60 Lusitanian amphorae were brought together from selected contexts from Lisbon dating from Tiberius to Nero.

Almost all the selected items are somehow the result of urban consumption and further discard, where local factors certainly had an influence. Nevertheless, some patterns are evident and deserve to be discussed: in contexts where domestic activity played an important role in the formation process, such as those from Praça da Figueira, the Roman theatre and Rua dos Remédios, imported amphorae (in these cases exclusively from Baetica) always display higher quantities than regional Lusitanian examples; in contrast, in the riverfront context of Rua dos Bacalhoeiros, where contributions of discards of port and manufactory activities may have played a major role, regional amphora products are more numerous. These indicators show the importance of the comprehension of local topography and its implications in ancient residue management, both starting points for broader archaeological and economic inferences (Peña 2007 for example).

In spite of the last statement, some broader economical views become possible, and in fact in Olisipo of the Julio-Claudian period, especially in its first half, the importance of Baetican products is evident, here illustrated through a variety of types and respective contents such as Oberaden 83/Dressel 20, Haltern 70, Dressel 7/11, Dressel 28 and/or the ‘Urceus Type’. It is noteworthy that southern Hispanic fish products show a lower frequency in the Tagus market, where that kind of commodity was widely available.

Other external commodities were also detected in the study, and in three of the contexts studied, pottery from the Morraçal da Ajuda workshop (Peniche) was identified. Always in scarce quantities, it was found in the timespan from Claudius to Nero. The Praça da Figueira Road [9907]/[9908] context was the result of earthworks and Rua dos

Remédios of discard accumulations, with a more or less important percentage of earlier ceramics in the assemblage, but it is suggestive that in contexts dated to the Tiberian period this production is so far not attested in Lisbon, which appears to have been a port of redistribution for the products of Peniche, as they were recognized upriver, for instance in Santarém (Arruda, Viegas and Bargão 2006).

The find of one regional Dressel 28 or related flat-bottomed type fills a gap in the understanding of the regional economy, as a wine content can be expected, thus attesting wine production along the Tagus at least in the period of Nero. More data are necessary to understand the phenomenon, although available amphora figures suggest limited commercialization.

Dominant ‘early Lusitanian’ types of amphorae, ovoid and/or non-ovoid, with a most probable origin in the workshops of the lower Tagus Valley, are apparently very heterogeneous as far as their rim shapes are concerned. Most of the individuals studied present morphological details that are typically or usually present in ovoid forms, an aspect that frequently reveals a certain antiquity. The data studied are suggestive - but insufficient- to affirm tendencies over time, and other explanations are also plausible, such as mannerisms of regional pottery workshops associated with specific origins of amphorae present in each of the contexts.

Although the individuals studied are too fragmentary for the overall forms of the vessels to be appreciated, it is relevant that the necks are morphologically homogeneous, cylindrical with a tendency toward restriction in the middle, and that the handles are oval with a central groove, although some variability is observed in the spike shapes, especially in terms of being hollow or filled with clay.

In a chronological framework, as far as the regional Lusitanian amphorae destined to pack fish products are concerned, it is noteworthy that only ‘early Lusitanian’ types, most of them probably ‘ovoid’, are present in the contexts of the Julio-Claudian period studied, and it is remarkable that the very well-known Dressel 14 form had not yet made its appearance.

Bibliographical references

Aguarod Otal, C. 1991. Cerámica romana importada de cocina en la Tarraconense. Zaragoza, Institución Fernando El Católico.

Alarcão, J. 1982. O Teatro Romano de Lisboa. In Actas del Simposio El Teatro en la Hispania Romana: 287-302. Badajoz, Institución Cultural Pedro de Valencia.

Alarcão, J. 1994. Lisboa romana e visigótica. In Lisboa Subterrânea 94. Catálogo: 58-63. Lisboa and Milano, Museu Nacional de Arqueologia and Electa.

Almeida, D. F. 1966. Notícias sobre o teatro de Nero, em Lisboa. In Actas do IV Colóquio Portuense de Arqueologia (Porto, 4 a 6 de Junho de 1965). Lucerna 5: 561-571.

165


Amaro, C. and Sepúlveda, E. 2007. Casa dos Bicos 25 anos depois: as marcas de oleiro em terra sigillata. Al-madan IIª série, 15, Adenda Electrónica VIII: 1-9.

Arruda, A., Viegas, C. and Bargão, P. 2006. Ânforas lusitanas da Alcáçova de Santarém. In Simpósio Internacional Produção e comércio de preparados piscícolas durante a proto-história e a época romana no Ocidente da Península Ibérica. Homenagem a Françoise Mayet (Setúbal, 7-9 Maio 2004). Setúbal Arqueológica 13: 233-252. Setúbal, Museu de Etnografia e Arqueologia do Distrito de Setúbal/Assembleia Distrital de Setúbal.

Branco, F. C. 1961. Problemas da Lisboa Romana. Vestígios de um cais ou de uma necrópole? Revista Municipal 91: 61-75.

Bugalhão, J. 2001. A indústria romana de transformação e conserva de peixe em Olisipo. Núcleo Arqueológico da Rua dos Correeiros. Trabalhos de Arqueologia 15. Lisboa, Instituto Português de Arqueologia.

Cardoso, G., Rodrigues, S. and Sepúlveda, E. 2006. A olaria romana de Peniche. In Simpósio Internacional Produção e comércio de preparados piscícolas durante a proto-história e a época romana no Ocidente da Península Ibérica. Homenagem a Françoise Mayet (Setúbal, 7-9 Maio 2004). Setúbal Arqueológica 13: 253-278. Setúbal, Museu de Etnografia e Arqueologia do Distrito de Setúbal/Assembleia Distrital de Setúbal.

Carreras Monfort, C. 1995-1996. A new perspective for the demography study of Roman Spain. Revista de Historia da Arte e Arqueología 2: 59-82.

Casimiro, S., Monteiro, M. and Silva, R. B. forthcoming. Faunal samples from closed contexts of the Roman Olisipo - In between the Principalities of Tiberius and Nero. In Actas de la Reunión Científica: La Romanización en la Península Ibérica. Una Visión desde la Arqueozoologia (León, Septiembre 2013). León, Universidad de León.

Diogo, A. M. D. 1993. O teatro romano de Lisboa. Notícia sobre as actuais escavações. In Teatros Romanos de Hispania. Cuadernos de Arquitectura Romana 2: 217-224.

Duarte, A. L. and Amaro, C. 1986. A Casa dos Bicos - A Cidade e a Arqueologia. In I Encontro Nacional de Arqueologia Urbana (Setúbal 1985). Trabalhos de Arqueologia 3: 143-154. Lisboa, Instituto Português do Património Cultural.

Ettlinger, E., Hedinger, B., Hoffmann, B., Kenrick, P., Pucci, G., Roth-Rubi, K., Schneider, G., Shnurbein, S. V., Wells, C. M. and Zabehlicky, S. 1990. Conspectus formarum terrae sigillatae Italico modo confectae, Materialien zur römisch-germanischen Keramik 10. Bonn, R. Habelt.

Fabião, C. 2009a. A dimensão atlântica da Lusitânia: periferia ou charneira no Império Romano. In J.-G. Gorges, J. D’Encarnação, T. Nogales Basarrate and A. Carvalho (eds), Lusitânia Romana - entre o mito e realidade. Actas da VI mesa-redonda internacional sobre a Lusitânia Romana (Cascais, 2004): 53–74. Cascais, Câmara Municipal de Cascais.

Fabião, C. 2009b. Cetárias, ânforas e sal: A exploração de recursos marinhos na Lusitania. Estudos Arqueológicos de Oeiras 17: 555-594.

Faria, A. M. 2001. Pax Iulia, Felicitas Iulia, Liberalitas Iulia. Revista Portuguesa de Arqueologia 4, 2: 351-362.

Fernandes, L. 2007. Teatro Romano de Lisboa: os caminhos da descoberta e os percursos de investigação arqueológica. Al-madan, IIª série, 15: 28-39.

Fernandes, L. and Caessa, A. 2006-2007. O proscaenium do Teatro romano de Lisboa: aspectos arquitectónicos, escultóricos e epigráficos de renovação decorativa do espaço cénico. Arqueologia e História 58-59: 83-102.

Fernandes, L. and Filipe, V. 2007. Cerâmicas de engobe vermelho pompeiano do teatro romano de Lisboa. Revista Portuguesa de Arqueologia 10, 2: 229-253.

Fernandes, L., Marques, A., Filipe, V. and Calado, M. 2006. Intervenção Arqueológica na Rua dos Bacalhoeiros (2005-2006). Al-madan IIª série 14: 60-65.

Ferreira, F. A. R. B. 1962. Diário das Escavações Sistemáticas na Praça da Figueira em Lisboa. Unpublished report. Lisboa, Junta Nacional da Educação.

Filipe, V. 2008a. Importação e exportação de produtos alimentares em Olisipo: as ânforas romanas da Rua dos Bacalhoeiros. Revista Portuguesa de Arqueologia 1, 2: 301-324.

Filipe, V. 2008b. As ânforas do Teatro Romano de Lisboa. Unpublished MA Thesis, Universidade de Lisboa.

Filipe, V. 2014. Haltern 70 (Lusitania Occidental). In Amphorae ex Hispania. Paisajes de producción y consumo. Institut Català d’Arqueologia Clàssica (http://amphorae.icac.cat/tipol/view/91).

Gomes, A. and Gaspar, A. 2007. As muralhas de Olisipo – O troço junto ao Tejo. In Muralhas de ciudades romanas en el Occidente del Imperio, Lucus Augusti como paradigma. Actas del Congreso Internacional celebrado en Lugo (26-29.XI.2005), en el aniversario de la Declaración por la UNESCO, de la muralla de Lugo como Patrimonio de la Humanidad: 687-697. Lugo, Universidad de Lugo.

Hauschild, T. 1990. Das römische Theater von Lissabon. Planaufnhame 1985/88. Madrider Mitteilungen 31: 348-392

Moita, I. 1968. Achados de época romana no sub-solo de Lisboa. Revista Municipal 116-117: 33-71.

Moita, I. 1970. O Teatro Romano de Lisboa. Revista Municipal 124-125: 7-37.

Morais, R. 2008. Novos dados sobre as ânforas vinárias béticas de tipo urceus. SPAL 17: 267-280.

Morais, R. and Carreras Monfort, C. (eds) 2010. The Western Roman Atlantic Façade: A study of the economy and trade in the Mar Exterior from the Republic to the Principate. British Archaeological Reports International Series 2162. Oxford, Archaeopress.

Morais, R. and Fabião, C. 2007. Novas produções de fabrico lusitano: problemáticas e importância económica. In L. Lagóstena, D. Bernal and A. Arévalo, Cetariae 2005: salsas y salazones de pescado en Occidente durante la

166


Antiguedad (Actas del congreso internacional (Cádiz, 7-9 noviembre de 2005)), British Archaeological Reports International Series 1686: 127-133. Oxford, J. and E. Hedges Ltd. and Universidad de Cádiz.

Morais, R. and Filipe, V. 2014. Ovoides Lusitanas. In Amphorae ex Hispania. Paisajes de producción y de consumo. Institut Català d’Arqueologia Clàssica (http://amphorae.icac.cat/tipol/view/73).

Peña, J. T. 2007. Roman Pottery in the Archaeological Record. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

Pimenta, J., Calado, M. and Leitão, M. 2005. Novos dados sobre a ocupação pré-romana da cidade de Lisboa: as ânforas da sondagem n.º 2 da Rua de São João da Praça. Revista Portuguesa de Arqueologia 8, 2: 313-334.

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): 117-151. Conimbriga and Paris, Museu Monográfico de Conimbriga and E. de Boccard.

Ribeiro, J. C. 1994. Felicitas Iulia Olisipo - Algumas considerações em torno do catálogo Lisboa Subterrânea. Al-madan IIª série, 3: 75-95.

Sepúlveda, E. and Fernandes, L. 2009. As marcas em terra sigillata de tipo itálico do teatro romano de Lisboa (campanhas 2005/2006). Revista Portuguesa de Arqueologia 12, 1: 139-168.

Silva, R. B. 2002. As sepulturas da Calçada do Garcia e o urbanismo de Olisipo. In Actas do 3º Encontro Nacional de Arqueologia Urbana (Almada, 20 a 23 de Fevereiro de 1997): 193-205. Almada, Câmara Municipal de Almada.

Silva, R. B. 2005. As “marcas de oleiro” em terra sigillata da Praça da Figueira (Lisboa): uma contribuição para o conhecimento da economia de Olisipo (séc. I a.C.- séc. II d.C.). Unpublished MSc Thesis, Universidade do Minho.

Silva, R. B. 2012. As ‘marcas de oleiro’ na terra sigillata e a circulação dos vasos na Península de Lisboa. Unpublished PhD Thesis, Universidade Nova de Lisboa.

Silva, R. B. forthcoming. O facies cerâmico de Olisipo (Lisboa) no período Julio-Cláudio: uma primeira aproximação a partir de contextos suburbanos selecionados. In E. S. Ramos and R. Montez (eds), Los facies cerámicos altoimperiales en el sul de la Península Ibérica. Granada, Universidad de Granada.

Documents

Lusitanian Amphorae - ULisboarepositorio.ul.pt/bitstream/10451/26365/1/Silva_&_Filipe_&_Almeida... · Inês Vaz Pinto, Rui Roberto de Almeida, Ana Patrícia Magalhães and Patrícia