T HE SUPPLY OF AMPHORA-BORNE

COMMODITIES AND DOMESTIC POTTERY IN

POMPEII 150 BC–AD 79:
PRELIMINARY EVIDENCE FROM THE
HOUSE OF THE VESTALS
Eric C. De Sena
John Cabot University and American Academy in Rome

Janne P. Ikäheimo
University of Oulu, Finland

Abstract: This study discusses the changing trends in the supply of wine, olive oil, fish sauce and
domestic pottery in Pompeii over a period of more than two centuries through the examination of
a pottery assemblage excavated recently in the House of the Vestals. The ceramic evidence is
viewed in the light of broader political and economic trends that affected production and trade
over the course of time. A clear shift from regional self-sufficiency to a heavier reliance upon extra-
regional goods, particularly from the Roman provinces of Africa and Spain, is observed. The
authors point out that while the ceramic record is a useful indicator of general supply trends,
conclusions must be drawn with caution and scholars need to consider what is not apparent in the
archaeological record in order to gain a more complete picture of the past.

Keywords: amphorae; domestic pottery; Pompeii; Roman economy; supply trends

I NTRODUCTION
Despite the vast amount of archaeological research that has been conducted in
Pompeii in the last 250 years, relatively little has been reported on the ceramic
record of this important site. Ceramics found in Pompeii have been published in
several articles and catalogues of varying breadth and depth since the late 1970s
(Carandini, ed. 1977; Bonghi Jovino, ed. 1984; D’Ambrosio and De Caro 1989;
Fulford and Wallace-Hadrill 1999:62–79; Iorio 1999). Few of these articles, however,
transcend descriptive accounts of the material and explore the types of broader
historical issues that have been presented in the light of large groups of Roman

European Journal of Archaeology Vol. 6(3): 301–321

Copyright © 2003 Sage Publications (London, Thousand Oaks, CA and New Delhi) and
the European Association of Archaeologists [1461–9571(200312)6:3;301–321;045064]
302 EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY 6(3)

period pottery recovered in other parts of Italy, Europe and the Mediterranean
basin (e.g. Reynolds 1995; Peña 1999; Carreras Monfort 2000; Panella and Saguì
2001). This report, based upon the pottery assemblage from the House of the
Vestals (Insula VI.1.7), focuses upon the overall supply of amphora-borne
agricultural goods and domestic pottery to the city of Pompeii between c. 150 BC
and AD 79. Following a brief overview of the archaeological site, the main body of
text addresses the supply of amphora-borne commodities and domestic pottery
over time. This includes mention of political and economic events, which had a
capillary effect on the supply of agricultural and craft goods in Pompeii.

A RCHAEOLOGICAL BACKGROUND

The Anglo-American Project in Pompeii (hereafter AAPP), sponsored by the

Department of Archaeological Sciences, University of Bradford, has been
excavating Insula VI.1 since 1995 with the objective of studying the urban
development of an entire city block in Pompeii (Bon et al. 1997). This insula is
located along via Consolare in the north-western part of Pompeii (Figure 1) and is
best known for the textbook example of an atrium-house, the House of the
Surgeon. To date, the excavations of the House of the Vestals have been completed
and the project is now focusing on areas to the north and south of this elite house.
A final report on the work conducted in the House of the Vestals, including a
detailed pottery study, is under way.
In short, several phases have been identified for the plot of land bearing the
House of the Vestals. The earliest phase consists of a series of rammed earth floors
with postholes cut into them and an adjacent earth-built wall dating to the fourth
century BC. Sometime between the late fourth and the early third centuries BC the
first masonry building was constructed. The end of the second century witnessed a
tremendous wave of development with more extensive residential space in the
form of several different houses and the earliest commercial structures. By this
time, nearly the entire city block had been built up. Around the time of the Sullan
attack on Pompeii, in 89 BC, there is evidence of destruction and reconstruction. A
single elite house, composed of both residential and commercial spaces, appears to
have been constructed in distinct phases over the next few decades of the first
century BC. The House of the Vestals essentially merged pre-existing structures
into a single unit. From this time until the eruption of Mt Vesuvius many changes
were made, such as the reorganization of the commercial spaces, the modification
of water features, and the provision of a small bath complex.
Approximately 2000 kg of pottery have been recovered from deposits that date
as early as the late fourth and third centuries BC. The majority of this pottery
derives from deposits dating from the middle of the second century to the final
years in the history of ancient Pompeii (hence, the chronological parameters of this
article), the period in which the city underwent tremendous and continuous urban
development. In fact, many of the deposits on the Vestals site were secondary fills
containing a rich blend of domestic pottery, transport amphorae, lamps, glass,
DE SENA & IKÄHEIMO: THE SUPPLY OF AMPHORA-BORNE COMMODITIES IN POMPEII 303

A.

B. C.

Figure 1. Map of Pompeii with location of Insula VI.1.

304 EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY 6(3)

bone and building debris that were laid in order to raise and/or level surfaces for
the purpose of construction. Because none of the pottery from other excavations in
Pompeii has been quantified in a meaningful way, it is difficult to evaluate the
extent to which the AAPP assemblage is representative of city-wide, rather than
site-specific trends.1 The proportions of pottery from the House of the Vestals are,
however, in general agreement with the percentages of pottery excavated from
contemporary sites in Etruria and Latium (Carandini, ed. 1985; Anselmino et al.
1986; Rizzo 2003). This, together with the fact that the pottery derives from secondary
deposits, suggests to the authors that the AAPP ceramic assemblage can be studied
in order to make general observations of supply trends in the city of Pompeii.
Owing to numerous large and small-scale building interventions on the plot of
land where the House of the Vestals is set, the stratigraphic record is highly
complex and the relationships between layers are still being analyzed. Thus, while
the majority of the individual stratigraphic units have been dated on the basis of
ceramic finds, the date of the contexts does not take the stratigraphic sequence into
account and, hence, the precise date of most contexts has not been firmly
established. Fortunately, a modest number of contexts can be firmly dated based
upon a variety of factors, including very low percentages of residual pottery, having
been sealed immediately below dated floor levels or coin evidence. Thus, the present
study deals exclusively with a sample group consisting of ceramics derived from
securely dated contexts that represents about 15 per cent of the total assemblage.
We followed a standard sorting procedure in the field. The pottery from
individual stratigraphic units was divided into broad functional groups – transport
amphorae, table/storage wares and cookwares. The sherds within these
typological families were then subdivided into distinct geographically-defined
classes (e.g. Black sand amphora, Italian sigillata), which, in turn, were further
divided according to form (e.g. Dressel 2–4, Conspectus 52).2 The pottery within
these unique classes was then quantified according to several methods – count,
weight and estimated vessel count. Chronologies are based upon the latest datable
objects and the date range for each context is generally ±25 years. The study
assemblage consists of 1462 vessels, according to the estimated vessel count (EVC)
approach (Orton et al. 1993:169–171). The pottery has been assigned to one of five
chronological phases in order to compare the proportion of the wares occurring in
Pompeii over time (Table 1). Both amphorae and domestic wares are presented
together in the discussion of the five phases. We will identify the origin of the

Table 1. Overview of study assemblage: number of vessels in each phase (EVC).

Phase Date Amphorae Table/storage Cookwares Total

I c. 150–100 BC 30 253 161 446

II c. 100–50 BC 84 188 132 404
III c. 50–1 BC 54 59 51 164
IV c. AD 1–50 49 88 71 208
V c. AD 50–79 38 109 93 240
DE SENA & IKÄHEIMO: THE SUPPLY OF AMPHORA-BORNE COMMODITIES IN POMPEII 305

pottery and indicate supply patterns synchronically and diachronically. A rough

distinction between wine amphorae and oil/fish-sauce amphorae has been made,
but, the figures must be viewed as estimates since between 4 and 9 of the
amphorae are unclassified, the contents of several types of amphora are unknown
and some amphora types were used to transport more than one commodity.

F ROM A SELF - SUFFICIENT TOWN TO A CONSUMER CITY ?

Researchers have demonstrated that by the first century BC Pompeii was a city that
saw both local production of many types of agricultural and craft goods and the
importation of an even wider variety of products from many parts of the
Mediterranean basin (Carandini, ed. 1977; Bonghi Jovino, ed. 1984; Laurence 1994).
The extent of long-distance trade in the Roman world, however, is the subject of
considerable debate (Figure 2). One group of scholars termed ‘primitivists’ has
viewed the ancient Roman economy as rather simple, claiming that cities were
dependent upon their hinterland for agricultural resources and other supplies
(Jones 1964; Finley 1973; Jongman 1991; Parkins, ed. 1997). Proponents of this
theory deny that long-distance supplies played a major role in the ancient
economy. On the other hand, ‘modernist’ scholars adhere to the opposite point of
view, namely, that long-distance supplies were of chief importance in the ancient
Roman economy and that the Mediterranean was ‘an enormous conglomeration of
interdependent markets’ (Rostovtzeff 1957; Carandini 1986; Temin 2001). Regions
such as Tuscany and the Bay of Naples in the Republican period and Gaul, Africa
Proconsularis and Baetica in the Imperial period are viewed as having produced
tremendous quantities of specialized goods for the export market. According to
Carandini and others, because transport by sea was cheap and relatively fast,
inhabitants of the Mediterranean had easy and equal access to all goods. In the last
15 years, a growing number of researchers are assuming a more moderate stance,
suggesting that long-distance trade was significant toward centers possessing great
wealth and/or an unusually large population, but that locally produced goods
stood as the basis of subsistence (Hopkins 1983; Morley 1996; Paterson 1998).
Tied into this debate is the notion of the ‘consumer city’. This implies that pre-
modern cities have been placed into one of two neatly defined categories:
‘consumer cities’, which accumulated wealth through taxes and rents and relied
upon the surrounding territory for supplies, and ‘producer cities’, which existed to
feed the consumer cities. As we shall see, the ceramic evidence from the House of
the Vestals suggests a radical shift in the economic base of Pompeii from a rather
‘primitive’ form in the second and early first centuries BC to a ‘consumer city’ in
the Roman Imperial period. This trend is clearly observed through the amphora
evidence (Table 2) – a shift from predominantly regional supplies, from around the
Bay of Naples, to a strong reliance upon extra-regional and provincial goods is
noted, particularly in the roughly 30-year period prior to the destruction of
Pompeii. This pattern is less evident among domestic pottery that was
predominated by local and regional production – local wares accounted for at least
306 EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY 6(3)

LUGDUNENSIS

Lugdunum

NARBONENSIS

LUSITANIA Tarraco
TARRACO-
NENSIS
Byzantium
BAETICA

ASIA
MINOR
Ephesus

Carthage
NORTH
AFRICA Crete Rhodes

TEANUM

CALES

us
lt urn
Arezzo Vo CAPUA
Et
ru

Spello nius
Um

Cla
ria

br
ia

Roma
Ostia La
tiu
m
Ph

eg
Cam

Pu
gli
rea
n F i e ld s NAPLES Mt. Vesuviu
pan

a
Ba ata

CUMAE
s

PUTEOLI
c
si
ia

li

s
nu

HERCULANEUM r
Ca

Sa
la

POMPEII
br
ia

ISCHIA
STABIAE

Sic
ily

CAPRI

10km

Figure 2. Maps of the western and central Mediterranean, Italy and Campania.

40 per cent of the tableware assemblage, while the percentage of local cookwares
never fell below c. 80 per cent; however, strong production of craft goods for the
local market is fully compatible with a ‘consumer city’ (Finley 1973:125).

Phase I (150–100 BC)

In the second century BC, Pompeii, situated along an important trade route that
bridged Rome, south Italy, Greece and beyond, was a thriving Samnite center of
DE SENA & IKÄHEIMO: THE SUPPLY OF AMPHORA-BORNE COMMODITIES IN POMPEII 307

Table 2. Overall proportions of transport amphorae by provenience (% EVC).

I II III IV V

Bay of Naples 57 62 67 44 16
West-central Italian 21 7 7 10 15
North African 13 25 20 24 29
Tripolitania – – – – 2
Baetican – – – 16 22
Lusitania – – – 1 2
Tarraconensis – – – 1 1
Gaulish – – – – 1
Rhodian – – – – 3
Cretan – – – – 1
Unclassified 9 5 6 4 8

Phase – I: c. 150–100 BC, II: c. 100–50 BC, III: c. 50–1 BC, IV: c. AD 1–50; V: c. AD 50–79

several thousand inhabitants and was blessed with a fertile territory. While the city
witnessed increased wealth at this time, attested to by a sharp increase in building
activity, it was still very much a self-sufficient town that relied upon its own
agricultural production and craft manufacture. Turning to the ceramic evidence,
close to 60 per cent of the transport amphorae were of regional derivation,3 while
21 per cent were from the coastal areas of Etruria. Around 13 per cent derived from
North Africa,4 while close to one-tenth are of unknown provenience (Figure 3).
When we consider this evidence, it appears that all wine consumed in Pompeii was
either of regional or west-central Italian origin (Table 3), as both sources are
represented by the Greco-Roman and Dressel 1 forms (Peacock and Williams
1986:85–92), while all of the olive oil and fish products were from North Africa
(Table 4).
The former observation is probably not far from reality. Italy, particularly along
the Tyrrhenian coast between Etruria and the Bay of Naples, was a very strong
producer of wine both for domestic and foreign markets (Tchernia 1983, 1986) and
there is no evidence that wine was routinely imported to Italy at this time,
although there may have been rare exceptions. The trends for olive oil and fish

Table 3. Proportion of wine amphorae (% EVC).

I II III IV V

Bay of Naples 74 90 91 81 46
West-central Italian 26 10 9 18 40
Gaulish – – – – 3
Tarraconensis – – – 1 1
Rhodian – – – – 7
Cretan – – – – 3
Anatolia – – – – 1

Phase – I: c. 150–100 BC, II: c. 100–50 BC, III: c. 50–1 BC, IV: c. AD 1–50; V: c. AD 50–79
308 EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY 6(3)

Greco-Roman Dressel 1 Dressel 2-4 Gallic

Cretoise 1 Rhodian Neo-Punic Tripolitanian

Anatolian
Anatolian Beltrán IIA
Beltrán IIA Beltrán IV
Beltrán IV Dressel
Dressel 20
20

Figure 3. Amphora types mentioned in the text.

DE SENA & IKÄHEIMO: THE SUPPLY OF AMPHORA-BORNE COMMODITIES IN POMPEII 309

Table 4. Proportion of oil–fish product amphorae (% EVC).

I II III IV V

North African 100 100 100 62 56

Tripolitanian – – – – 4
Baetican – – – 37 36
Lusitanian – – – 1 4

Phase – I: c. 150–100 BC, II: c. 100–50 BC, III: c. 50–1 BC, IV: c. AD 1–50; V: c. AD 50–79

sauce are simply misleading. African oil and/or fish sauce began to enter the
Italian market sometime after the sack of Carthage in 146 BC and possibly no
earlier than 111 BC (Rostovtzeff 1957:279), but probably did not represent the
majority of what was consumed in Pompeii at this time. Ancient literary and
archaeological sources demonstrate that olive oil was produced intensively in
many parts of Italy, especially in northern Campania, Latium and Etruria, all of
which communicated with the Bay of Naples by means of the sea and by overland
routes (Potter 1987; Mattingly 1988:49–50). It is likely that olive oil was transported
in oil skins or wooden casks from farms throughout the region. Even if Pompeii
had a population of 10,000 at this time, the annual demand for olive oil would
have been quite modest – about 200,000 l, which could have been produced on
4800 iugera (1200 ha) of land.5 Similarly, scholars are aware that garum was
produced in Italy, including Pompeii itself (Curtis 1991:89–96). At least two shops
in Pompeii (I.12.8 and III.4.1) produced this condiment, which was famous for its
quality (Pliny Historia Naturalis 31.94) and sold in small ceramic bowls (Curtis
1991:91–92). Amphorae were not necessary for local distribution of garum. The
African oil and fish sauce may, therefore, have represented the minority of all such
goods consumed in Pompeii at this time.
During this first phase, the majority of all domestic wares used in Pompeii were
regionally manufactured (Tables 5 and 6). The most evident example is the class of
cookware, where Pompeian cookware accounts for nearly all the cooking vessels.
Internal red-slip cookware (IRSC), another regional ware, accounts for just 1 per
cent.6 More than half the table/storage ware, including what we term Pompeian
Fineware 1 and 2, Pompeian Coarseware and Thin-walled ware, were exclusively
of regional production. These ‘common wares’ have been determined to be local
based upon their physical attributes, limited distribution in the ager Pompeianus
and the presence of pottery workshops in Pompeii.7 Of the other tableware used
during this period, Campana ware – also known as Black gloss ware – has been
classified into three variants: A, B, and C. Although these variants have been
described by Morel (1981) and others as bearing geographical and temporal
significance, this appears to be the case only for Campana A and C, while
Campana B is highly problematic. Campana A was a regional product having been
manufactured in the area of Naples during the period c. 400–50 BC. What is
generally termed ‘Campana B’, on the other hand was manufactured in many parts
of Italy between the late third and mid-first centuries BC (Cibecchini and Principal
310 EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY 6(3)

Table 5. Comparison of table- and storage wares (% EVC).

I II III IV V

Pompeian Fineware
and Coarseware 59 60 71 52 41
Thin-walled ware 4 13 12 16 24
Campana A 24 6 – – –
Campana B 10 18 6 – –
Campana C – 1 1 – –
Megarian cups 1 – – – –
Gray ware 1 2 – – –
Italian Sigillata – – 10 32 25
Gaulish Sigillata – – – – 1
African Red Slip A – – – – 2
African white surfaced – – – – 1
Eastern sigillata A-B – – – – 1
Campanian Sigillata – – – – 5

Phase – I: c. 150–100 BC, II: c. 100–50 BC, III: c. 50–1 BC, IV: c. AD 1–50; V: c. AD 50–79

forthcoming): most varieties of Campana B found in Pompeii, however, appear to

be regional products, or from northern Campania.8 Optical analysis suggests that
very little of this pottery derived from south Etruria.9 Campana C, which does not
occur in this context, was a product of Sicily. The only products that may have
derived from extra-regional or even provincial sources are the so-called Megarian
cups (Puppo 1995) and Gray ware (Bonghi Jovino, ed. 1984:139, pl. 87), both
manufactured in centers located throughout Italy, but also parts of the eastern
Mediterranean.
In all, the ceramic evidence of the late second century BC indicates strong ties
with the northern rim of the Bay of Naples, the Phlegrean Fields and other nearby
regions in Italy (northern Campania, Latium and Etruria). There was some trade
with North Africa and possibly Greece and/or Asia Minor, although these
provinces, together with Iberia, Gaul, Sardinia and Sicily were still fairly recent
Roman acquisitions and had not yet been fully exploited (e.g. Woolf 2001).
Furthermore, while Gaius Gracchus established the first grain dole for the city of
Rome in 123 BC, shipments of provisions from the provinces to Italy were sporadic
at best, and it was not until the 60s BC that a steadier supply line was established
with North Africa (Garnsey 1988:182).

Table 6. Comparison of cookwares (% EVC).

I II III IV V

Pompeian cookware 99 89 82 87 84
Internal Red-slip cookware 1 11 18 13 13
African cookware – – – – 2
Aegean cookware – – – – 1

Phase – I: c. 150–100 BC, II: c. 100–50 BC, III: c. 50–1 BC, IV: c. AD 1–50; V: c. AD 50–79
DE SENA & IKÄHEIMO: THE SUPPLY OF AMPHORA-BORNE COMMODITIES IN POMPEII 311

Phase II (100–50 BC)

As we know, the early first century BC was marked in Italy by a series of critical
events that had strong repercussions on Roman Italy and its economic structure.
On a general note, the first century witnessed the consolidation of the large slave-
run agricultural estate (latifundium). Many small farms, particularly in west-central
Italy, had been absorbed into single units by the senatorial and equestrian classes
of Rome in the third and second centuries. This was partially a result of the fact
that poor farmers were recruited as soldiers in the various wars waged by Rome
against her foreign competitors and, thus, were unable to maintain their farms.
Another strong factor was that greater opportunities to gain wealth through long-
distance trade were to be had and, hence, more extensive and efficient production
meant greater profits. This form of surplus agricultural production, capable of
meeting the pressing needs of Rome and other urban centers (Garnsey 1981;
Carandini 1986), was also adopted in other industries. In fact, we observe the
beginning of ‘mass-produced’ pottery and lamps intended for both local and long-
distance markets in this period.
More specific to Pompeii, the Social War of 91–89 BC ultimately led to the
establishment of a Sullan colony (80 BC), solidifying the city’s position in the
Mediterranean trade network and installing Roman tastes and necessities with
the colony. The ensuing period was a time of increased wealth and displays of
status in Roman fashion through public and private building programs, including
the development of the elite house on Insula VI.1. This work must have required
tremendous resources, as shown by luxury items like precious stones and
pigments used in the construction and embellishment of Pompeian houses at this
time. The increased production of secondary commodities, such as wine or olive
oil, near the sources of building and decorative material, metals, and other luxury
goods may have been prompted by this demand.
At first, these developments did not have a significant effect on the proportion
of regionally produced containers, represented exclusively by Black Sand
amphorae that accounted for about two-thirds of all amphora-borne goods. As
previously mentioned, the Dressel 1 forms, in which they occur, were generally
used to transport wine and they represent 90 per cent of all wine amphorae. On the
contrary, we note a sharp decline in west-central Italian amphorae, for which there
are three possible explanations: (1) a general decline in Italian wine production, (2)
a decline in importation, or (3) a statistical anomaly. The first is ruled out because
there is considerable evidence available that the production of Italian wine thrived
well into the Roman Imperial period (Tchernia 1986). The second possibility cannot
be precluded – this would mean that although wine production was strong in
other parts of Italy, it was imported to Pompeii in reduced quantities at this time.
The third possibility, again, cannot be ruled out – statistical analyses of pottery
must be viewed with some caution, since the formation of the archaeological
record is affected by many natural and cultural factors. As for non-wine-bearing
vessels, the only securely identified amphorae that contained oil and/or fish
products derived from North Africa, although the authors maintain that Italian oil
and fish sauce still played a significant role in the diet of Pompeians.
312 EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY 6(3)

Some differences are apparent among the corpus of domestic pottery, the most
significant of which was the increased popularity of Internal red-slip cookware and
Thin-walled ware. The former was manufactured in many localities throughout the
Roman world (Peacock 1977; Peña 1990), but the major production center in the
south of Italy was Cumae in the Phlegrean Fields (Chiosi 1996). The repertoire of
IRSC was almost exclusively limited to a series of shallow pans and lids that began
to infringe upon the production of similar forms in the repertoire of Pompeian
cookware by the first century BC. Thin-walled ware (Marabini Moevs 1973; Ricci
1985), accounting for about one-eighth of the table/storage wares, derived largely
from the Vesuvian region, while some may have been manufactured in Etruria or
Latium. The only type of domestic pottery transported from a greater distance
during this phase was Campana C (1%), manufactured in Sicily during the later
second and first centuries. The locally manufactured wares were the most
abundant classes of domestic pottery at this time with Pompeian Fineware and
Coarseware accounting for 60 per cent of the table/storage wares and Pompeian
cookware representing nearly 90 per cent of the cooking wares.

Phase III (50–1 BC)

An even greater number of imports, qualitatively and quantitatively, came into
Pompeii with the rise of Augustus. As is well known, during his reign of more than
40 years, the first Princeps established greater political, social and economic
stability in Italy and the Mediterranean than the area had known in late
Republican times, although serious changes in nutritional and craft supplies were
not immediate. Augustus did much to improve systems of administration,
transportation and communication within Italy and in the provinces (Southern
1997:102). The implementation of Roman systems clearly must have had an effect
upon the production of goods throughout the Empire. While many of the
provinces had been in the hands of Rome prior to the time of Augustus and
Romans had conducted business ventures abroad, the Republican-period provinces
were exploited for high revenue resources and goods, such as minerals and slaves.
Commercial ventures were generally small-scale and of limited duration and less
expensive commodities like olive oil or wine were not regularly shipped (Woolf
2001).
Among the amphora-borne goods, wine still appears to have been exclusively
Italian – approximately 90 per cent from the Vesuvian region and 10 per cent from
west-central Italy. Olive oil and fish sauce are only represented by North African
amphorae. Iberian amphorae have been noted in late first-century BC contexts in
Pompeii (Bonghi Jovino, ed. 1984:292; Iorio 1999:40), although none were noted
among the House of the Vestals assemblage.
The last half of the first century BC witnessed considerable shifts in the supply
of domestic wares, which is marked by the transition in tastes from black slipped
to red slipped pottery. The most important and earliest of the latter group was
Italian sigillata (Pucci 1985; Ettlinger et al. 1990), which already represented about
a tenth of the domestic wares at this time. A small portion of the Italian sigillata in
DE SENA & IKÄHEIMO: THE SUPPLY OF AMPHORA-BORNE COMMODITIES IN POMPEII 313

the AAPP assemblage was from the mother-city, Arezzo, in central Italy, while
microscopic analysis suggests that the majority of this class derived from the
principal production center in the south of Italy, Pozzuoli.10 Examples of late black-
slipped varieties (Campana B and C) were either used at the very beginning of this
phase or occur residually in later decades. The percentage of Thin-walled ware,
produced at this time in regional and extra-regional centers, remained steady.
Finally, in terms of the cookware, the percentage of IRSC rose somewhat compared
to Pompeian cookware.

Phase IV (AD 1–50)

Although the economic structure of the Empire was not significantly modified
between the end of Augustus’ reign and that of Claudius, this phase saw fairly
dramatic change in the supply of amphora-borne commodities. This corresponded
to the continuation of strong North African production, now just over three-fifths
of imported oil and fish sauce amphorae, and a significant increase in goods from
Iberia (Baetica, Tarraconensis and Lusitania), represented by the forms Dressel 20,
Dressel 2–4, Beltrán IIA and Beltrán IVA/B. The contents of Spanish amphorae
consisted primarily of olive oil and fish sauce, but also consisted of wine from
Tarraconensis. Nevertheless, most wine was still Italian and transported both in
Black Sand containers and west-central Italian amphorae. Black sand amphorae
were far more common than their west-central Italian counterparts, yet the
quantities of the latter increased after what may have been a disruption in
importation.
There was little change in the provenience of domestic wares in the first half of
the first century AD, although both Italian sigillata and Thin-walled ware were
more common, compared to the previous phase.

Phase V (AD 50–79)

While the beginning parameter of phase V is based upon the date of ceramic finds,
the early reign of Vespasian would probably serve as a better benchmark for
economic change. For it was under this emperor that many political and
administrative changes occurred that acted in a capillary manner to affect
production and trade. Vespasian immediately set out to raise something on the
order of 10 billion denarii (= 40 billion sesterces) in order to re-establish the Roman
State (Levick 1999:95). As part of his political agenda to stabilize the Empire,
Vespasian reclaimed public property that had previously been released from
Imperial control, shifted the borders of provinces to favor the Empire, minted gold
and silver coins (naturally investing more resources in mining) and promoted
provincial politicians to more illustrious roles. Portions of Gaul and Hispania
(Narbonensis, Lugdunensis, Tarraconensis, Baetica, Lusitania) were affected
tremendously by the transferal of mines to state control and the establishment of
mints at Tarraco and Lugdunum (Levick 1999:99–104).
A trickle-down reaction to this appears to have been the increased development
of production and distribution networks in the Roman provinces that assisted in
314 EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY 6(3)

the decline of regional amphora-borne products, which represented less than a

fifth of all goods at this time. Importation increased both from other Italian centers
– mainly due to the development of an important center of viticulture in the region
of Umbria (Tchernia 1986:253–59) – and from the provinces. Provincial importation
included olive oil and fish sauce from Iberia and North Africa, which represented
respectively 40 per cent and 60 per cent of these products. These proportions are
notably different from contemporary contexts at Rome and Ostia, where the
percentages of these amphorae are essentially inverted to 70 per cent Iberia and 30
per cent North African (Rizzo 2003:150–54; De Sena 2003:30, fig. 2). These goods
were complemented by modest flows of wine from Gaul (3%) and Tarraconensis
(1%). As the East was also affected by Vespasianic reforms, including the
establishment of mints in Byzantium, Ephesus and Antioch (Levick 1999:99–104), it
is not difficult to appreciate that Rhodian, Cretan (8% and 3%, respectively) and
even Anatolian wine (1%) amphorae made their first appearance in Pompeii at this
time.11 Despite a significant drop in proportion, close to half the amphora-borne
wine consumed in Pompeii was regional.
There were also clear transitions in the supply of domestic pottery in the last
three decades of Pompeii’s history, some of which are directly related to the supply
of amphora-borne commodities. Italian sigillata accounted for a quarter of all
domestic wares and Thin-walled ware rose to nearly 25 per cent, while the
percentage of locally manufactured table/storage ware fell off substantially.
However, considerably more interesting during the final phase of ancient Pompeii
was the introduction of provincially manufactured domestic wares. We note for the
first time the presence of sigillata variants from Syria (Eastern sigillata A), Anatolia
(Eastern sigillata B), Gaul, and North Africa (African red slip A).12 Campanian
sigillata, a product of northern Campania (Hedinger et al. 1995), originally
associated with Tripolitania, appears as well. The assemblage also includes
examples of imported utilitarian and cooking vessels, such as African white-
surfaced ware (Fulford and Peacock, eds 1984:167–231; Peña 1999:120–122), African
cookware (Ikäheimo 2003) and Aegean cookware (Martin 1997). Despite the
modest presence of these two cooking wares, the proportion between Pompeian
cookware and IRSC remained largely unchanged.
While the population of Pompeii could have easily maintained itself through
subsistence, which would have made sound ‘economic sense’, there was a
tremendous amount of wealth in circulation that beckoned for novelty, high
quality and, above all, choice. Furthermore, until the time of Claudius, Puteoli
(modern Pozzuoli), and not Ostia, served as the principal port of Rome. It was at
Puteoli (about 30 km up the coastline from Pompeii) that large merchant ships
arrived from the provinces of the Empire and docked, with their cargoes of grain,
wine, cloth, building materials, slaves and so on. A large portion of the
merchandise was transferred onto smaller ships that sailed up the coast to the
mouth of the Tiber River and could be tugged upstream to Rome. Some fraction of
the foodstuffs, luxury goods and other materials were distributed within the
region of Campania, where Pompeii was happily located. Therefore, it should not
be surprising that even when particular agricultural or craft goods were produced
DE SENA & IKÄHEIMO: THE SUPPLY OF AMPHORA-BORNE COMMODITIES IN POMPEII 315

in the ager Pompeianus, similar, possibly higher quality commodities were often
obtained from elsewhere. This heavier reliance upon long-distance goods
corresponded to a net decrease in the exportation of supplies, such as wine, to
distant markets. The decline of Vesuvian products in other areas of Italy and the
western Mediterranean has been noted through pottery studies (Anselmino et al.
1986; Tchernia 1986; Carreras Monfort 2000; Rizzo 2003) and indicates that by the
first century AD Pompeii was well on its way toward becoming a classic
‘consumer city’.

C ONCLUSIONS
This study, based upon the ceramic assemblage from the Anglo-American Project
in Pompeii excavations at the House of the Vestals, reveals a number of important
trends in reference to the supply of amphora-borne agricultural commodities and
domestic pottery to the city of Pompeii between c. 150 BC and AD 79. According to
the statistical evidence, most wine consumed in Pompeii during the later
Republican and much of the Julio-Claudian period was produced in the region,
while the remainder was imported from other areas of Italy. Around AD 50, the
percentage of regional amphorae in the black sand fabric dropped off sharply. This
corresponded to an increase in central Italian amphorae, as well as the modest
introduction of Gaulish, Aegean, Anatolian and Hispanic wine. While a fair
amount of central Italian olive oil and fish products consumed in Pompeii were
produced in Italy, there is no trace of such commodities in the ceramic record of the
city. Of the provincial producers of oil and fish products, North Africa appears to
have been the sole source between the mid-second century and the end of the first
century BC, when Iberian products were introduced to Italy. From the later first
century BC to AD 79, Iberian olive oil and/or fish sauce represented about 40 per
cent of all foreign imports.
A similar trend occurred in the supply of domestic pottery. We note that in the
first two phases, c. 150–50 BC, such products were almost exclusively local or
regional, while in the second half of the first century, pottery was also obtained
from farther abroad. This trend, especially among the table and storage wares,
continued through to the end of ancient Pompeii’s history. At this later time, more
than one-third of the pottery was imported from regional, extra-regional Italian
and provincial sources including North Africa, Gaul and the Aegean. It is essential
to realize that shifts in the supply of local, regional, Italian and provincial
agricultural and craft goods did not occur in a vacuum. These phenomena were
greatly affected, if not determined, by higher level political and economic events
and the production and exchange of raw materials and finished products that
generated higher revenue (metals, building materials and so on).
The authors do not suggest that the percentages illustrated in this article are
concrete – we will never know the exact proportion of supplies in Pompeii or any
other site at a given moment of time. Because these observations are based
exclusively upon a sample of the ceramic record from a single location in
Pompeii,13 the statistical information should not be viewed as solid fact, but as a
316 EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY 6(3)

good reflection of the past. As for amphora-borne commodities, we lack a reliable

method by which to estimate the quantities of wine, olive oil and fish sauce
consumed in the city that were transported in vessels not apparent in the
archaeological record (wooden barrels and animal skins) or in reused amphorae.14
Both of these practices would lead us to underestimate the true level of regionally
produced wine, olive oil and fish sauce (Morley 1996:136). Finally, it would be
useful in the future to discuss domestic pottery alongside similar implements
composed of other materials, such as glass, wood and metal in order to gain a more
refined appreciation of household assemblages during the Roman period.

A CKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Portions of this article were presented by E.C. De Sena at the 100th Annual Meeting
of the Archaeological Institute of America (December 1998, Washington DC) and
E.C. De Sena and J.P. Ikäheimo at the 65th Annual meeting of the Society for
American Archaeology (April 2000, Philadelphia). The authors are indebted to
Professor Pier-Giovanni Guzzo, Dott. Antonio D’Ambrosio and Dott.ssa Anna
Maria Ciarallo of the Soprintendenza Archeologica di Pompei, Ercolano e Stabia;
the directors of the Anglo-American Project in Pompeii, Rick Jones and Damian
Robinson, former field school director Jarrett Lobell, and assistant ceramic
specialists Michael Burns, Louise Ann Ford, Julie Hales, Jaye Pont and Søren
Skriver Tillisch. We owe much to Professor J. Theodore Peña, who read an earlier
draft of this article and offered many helpful suggestions.

N OTES
1. This situation contrasts with that in the House of Amarantus (Fulford and Wallace-
Hadrill 1999), where many primary garbage deposits were revealed. The University of
Reading/The British School in Rome team discovered a series of pits in the open areas of the
house that contained household debris, including domestic pottery (discussed by M. Fulford
in ‘Theoretical aspects of ceramic assemblage formation: examples from assemblages from
Carthage, Pompeii and Sabratha’, at the First International Conference on Late Roman
Coarse Wares, Cooking Wares and Amphorae in the Mediterranean: Archaeology and
Archaeometry. Barcelona, 14–16 March 2002).
2. References to the latest works regarding pottery typologies are generally listed after
the first mention of each ware throughout this article. For amphorae, Peacock and Williams
1986 is the standard guide; for common wares in the Bay of Naples, see Annechino 1977,
Cerulli Irelli 1977 and Bats, ed. 1996.
3. Regionally produced amphorae form a homogeneous group and include both ‘Black
sand’ amphorae and a rare fine-bodied amphora whose fabric is akin to one of the common
ware fabrics. The class of ‘Black sand’ amphorae refers to a fairly broad range of containers
manufactured near the coastal regions of Campania, particularly the Bay of Naples area, and
southern Latium, where black volcanic sand is one of the major geological constituents of the
terrain. The finer bodied amphora is quite rare and, in fact only occurs once in the
archaeological record of the House of the Vestals in the form of a Dressel 1A; the fabric is
macro- and microscopically similar to one of the locally manufactured domestic wares.
4. The only form that has been securely identified is the Neo-Punic amphora (Peacock
and Williams 1986:151–152), the contents of which are unknown, but we assume oil/fish
sauce based upon the fact that later amphorae from this region carried these commodities.
DE SENA & IKÄHEIMO: THE SUPPLY OF AMPHORA-BORNE COMMODITIES IN POMPEII 317

5. Scholars (Amouretti 1986:181–183; Mattingly 1988:34) adhere to a per capita

consumption rate of 20 l of olive oil. A passage in Cato (de Agri Cultura 10) has been cited
(Brun 1986:280) to indicate that an olive grove of 240 iugera would yield about 10,000 l of oil.
6. IRSC is perhaps better known as Pompeian red-slipped cookware, because of the
similarity of the color of the slip and the pigment used in wall paintings known as Pompeian
red. It should not be confused, however, with ‘Pompeian cookware’, which was clearly a
local product, but whose forms included pots, casseroles, pans and lids, none of which bore a
slip. There is no concrete evidence for the manufacture of IRSC in Pompeii.
7. Three principal fabrics have been identified by E.C.D.: a fine-bodied fabric with rare
inclusions (tableware and storage); a generally fine-bodied ware with frequent inclusions
(storage and utility); a coarse ware with abundant black volcanic sand (tableware, storage
and cookware). For production sites in Pompeii, see Annecchino 1977; Cerulli Irelli 1977.
8. Black gloss pottery is known to have been manufactured in Capua, Cales and Teano,
all located along or in close proximity to the Via Appia. For evidence of the production of
this pottery in Pompeii, see Arthur (1986:32).
9. Recent work on Campana B pottery indicates that the variety from Etruria is readily
identified by a bluish slip (Cibecchini and Principal forthcoming).
10. A program of thin-section analysis has been recently conducted by Jaye Pont on red-
slipped tablewares from the House of the Vestals. The results – also to be included in the
final report of the House of the Vestals excavations – suggest that the Italian sigillata
manufactured in Pozzuoli can be distinguished from Etruscan varieties based upon the
presence of augite.
11. Rhodian amphorae are represented by the Camulodunum 184 type (Peacock and
Williams 1986:102–104); Cretan amphorae are represented by Cretoise 1 type (Peacock and
Williams 1986:177–179); a predecessor of the Late Roman 3 amphora, termed generically
Anatolian micaceous amphora (Peacock and Williams 1986:188–189), appears in a limited
number of contexts in the House of the Vestals.
12. For Eastern sigillata A and B, see Hayes 1985; for Gaulish sigillata, see Desbat 2001;
for African red slip ware, see Hayes 1972 and Carandini et al. 1981.
13. The authors, for example, did not note early Rhodian amphorae in third–second-
century BC contexts as other scholars in Pompeii have (Bonghi Jovino, ed. 1984:280), or
Cretan amphorae in first-century BC contexts (Fulford and Wallace-Hadrill 1999:75).
14. This issue has been raised recently in archaeological literature (e.g. Peña 1999:11; De
Sena 2003). For evidence of the use of wooden barrels (cupae) and animal skins (cullei), see
White 1975:139–143 and Tchernia 1986:285–292.

R EFERENCES
AMOURETTI, MARIE-CLAIRE, 1986. Le pain et l’huile dans la Grèce antique: de l’araire au
moulin. Paris: Les Belles Lettres (Annales littéraires de l’Université de
Besançon 328: Centre de recherche d’histoire ancienne 67).
ANNECCHINO, LUCILLA, 1977. Suppellettile fittile da cucina di Pompei. In Andrea
Carandini (ed.), L’instrumentum domesticum di Ercolano e Pompei nella prima età
imperiale. Quaderni di cultura materiale 1: 105–114. Rome: ‘L’Erma’ di
Bretschneider.
ANSELMINO, LUCILLA, CATERINA M. COLETTI, MARIA LUISA FERRANTINI and CLEMENTINA
PANELLA 1986, Ostia. Terme del Nuotatore. In Andrea Giardina (ed.), Societa
romana e impero tardoantico III: Le merci, gli insediamenti: 45–82. Rome: Laterza.
ARTHUR, PAUL, 1986. Problems of the Urbanization of Pompeii: excavations
1980–1981. Antiquaries Journal 66:29–44.
BATS, MICHEL, ed., 1996. Les céramiques communes de Campanie et de Narbonnaise (Ier
s. av. J.-C. – IIe s. ap. J.-C.): La vaisselle de cuisine et de table. Naples: Collection
du Centre Jean Bérard 14.
318 EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY 6(3)

BON, SARA E., RICK JONES, BERNICE KURCHIN and DAMIAN ROBINSON, 1997. The
context of the House of the Surgeon: investigations in Insula VI,1 at Pompeii.
In Sara Bon and Rick Jones (eds), Sequence and Space in Pompeii: 32–49.
Oxford: Oxbow (Oxbow Monograph 77).
BONGHI JOVINO, MARIA, ed., 1984. Ricerche in Pompei. L’insula 5 della Regio VI dalle
origini al 79 d.C. Rome: ‘L’Erma’ di Bretschneider (Biblioteca Archeologica 5).
BRUN, JEAN-PIERRE, 1986. L’oléiculture antique en Provence: les huileries du
département du Var. Revue archeologique de Narbonnaise (suppl.) 15. Paris:
Éditions du Centre national de la Recherche scientifique.
CARANDINI, ANDREA, ed., 1977. L’instrumentum domesticum di Ercolano e Pompei
nella prima età imperiale. Rome: ‘L’Erma’ di Bretschneider (Quaderni di
cultura materiale 1).
CARANDINI, ANDREA, ed., 1985. Settefinestre. Una villa schiavistica nell’Etruria
Romana: i reperti. Modena: Edizioni Panini.
CARANDINI, ANDREA, 1986. Il mondo della tarda antichità visto attraverso le merci.
In Andrea Giardina (ed.), Societa romana e impero tardoantico III: Le merci, gli
insediamenti: 3–19. Rome: Laterza.
CARANDINI, ANDREA, LUCIA SAGUÌ, STEFANO TORTORELLA and ENRICO TORTORICI,
1981. Ceramica africana. In Atlante delle forme ceramiche I: ceramica fine romana
nel bacino Mediterraneo (medio e tardo impero): 9–183. Rome: Istituto della
enciclopedia italiana (Enciclopedia dell’arte antica classica e orientale).
CARRERAS MONFORT, CÈSAR, 2000. Economía de la Britannia Romana: la Importación de
Alimentos. Universitat de Barcelona: Proyecto Amphorae (Collectió
Instrumenta 8).
CERULLI IRELLI, GIUSEPPINA, 1977. Una officina di lucerne fittili a Pompei. In
Andrea Carandini (ed.), L’instrumentum domesticum di Ercolano e Pompei nella
prima età imperiale: 53–67. Rome: ‘L’Erma’ di Bretschneider (Quaderni di
cultura materiale 1).
CHIOSI, EMILIA, 1996. Cuma: una produzione di ceramica a vernice rossa interna.
In Michel Bats (ed.), Les céramiques communes de Campanie et de Narbonnaise
(Ier s. av. J.-C. – IIe s. ap. J.-C.): La vaisselle de cuisine et de table: 225–233. Naples:
Collection du Centre Jean Bérard 14.
CIBECCHINI FRANCA and JORDI PRINCIPAL, forthcoming. Tra innovazione e
tradizione negli studi ceramologici: il caso della campana B. In Eric C. De
Sena and Hélène Dessales (eds), Archaeological Methods and Approaches:
Ancient Industry and Commerce in Italy. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports
(International series).
CURTIS, ROBERT I., 1991. Garum and Salsamenta: Production and Commerce in Materia
Medica. Leiden: Brill Academic (Studies in Ancient Medicine 3).
D’AMBROSIO, ANTONIO and STEFANO DE CARO, 1989. Un contributo all’architettura
e all’urbanistica di Pompei in età ellenistica. I saggi nella casa VII, 4, 62.
AION 11:173–215.
DESBAT, ARMOND, 2001. L’artisanat a Lyon durant l’epoque romaine. Rei Cretariae
Romanae Fautores Acta 37: 17–36.
DE SENA, ERIC C., 2003. Seeing the trees and the forest. Toward a more refined
understanding of socio-cultural systems in classical antiquity: the case of
olive oil in ancient Latium. Archaeologiae 1:11–32.
ETTLINGER, ELISABETH, BETTINA HEDINGER, BETTINA HOFFMANN, PHILIP KENRICK,
GIUSEPPE PUCCI, KATRIN ROTH-RUBI, GERWULF SCHNEIDER, SIEGMAR VON
SCHNURBEIN, COLIN M. WELLS and SUSANNE ZABEHLICKY-SCHEFFENEGGER, 1990.
Conspectus Formarum Terrae Sigillatae Italico Modo Confectae. Bonn: Habelt
(Materialien zur römisch-germanischen Keramik 10).
FINLEY, MOSES I., 1973. The Ancient Economy. London: Chatto & Windus.
FULFORD, MICHAEL and DAVID P.S. PEACOCK, eds, 1984. Excavations at Carthage: The
DE SENA & IKÄHEIMO: THE SUPPLY OF AMPHORA-BORNE COMMODITIES IN POMPEII 319

British Mission Volume I.2. The Avenue du President Habib Bourguiba, Salammbo:
The Pottery and other Ceramic Objects from the Site. Sheffield: University of
Sheffield.
FULFORD, MICHAEL and ANDREW WALLACE-HADRILL, 1999. Towards a history of
pre-Roman Pompeii: excavations beneath the House of Amarantus
(I.9.11–12), 1995–1998. Papers of the British School in Rome 67:37–144.
GARNSEY, PETER, 1981. Independent freedmen and the economy of Roman Italy
under the Principate. Klio 63:359–371.
GARNSEY, PETER, 1988. Famine and Food Supply in the Graeco-Roman World: Responses
to Risk and Crisis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
HAYES, JOHN W., 1972. Late Roman Pottery. London: British School at Rome.
HAYES, JOHN W., 1985. Sigillate orientali. In Atlante delle forme ceramiche II: ceramica
fine romana nel bacino Mediterraneo (medio e tardo impero): 3–78. Rome: Istituto
della enciclopedia italiana (Enciclopedia dell’arte antica classica e orientale).
HEDINGER, BETTINA, GERWULF SCHNEIDER and GIANLUCA SORICELLI, 1995. L’origine
della ‘Tripolitania sigillata’/’Produzione A della Baia di Napoli’. In Gloria
Olcese (ed.), Ceramica Romana e Archeometria: lo stato degli studi. Atti delle
Giornate Internazionale di Studio, Castello di Montegufoni (Firenze), 26–27 aprile
1993: 67–88. Florence: Insegna del Giglio.
HOPKINS, KEITH 1983. Introduction. In Peter Garnsey, Keith Hopkins and
Christopher R. Whittaker (eds), Trade in the Ancient Economy: ix-xxv. London:
Chatto & Windus.
IKÄHEIMO, JANNE P., 2003. Late Roman African Cookware of the Palatine East
Excavations, Rome. A Holistic Approach. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports
(International series 1143).
IORIO, VINCENZA, 1999. I reperti del saggio 4 U.S. 4: le anfore. Opuscula Pompeiana
9:35–118.
JONES, ARNOLD H.M. 1964. The Later Roman Empire (284–602): a Social, Economic and
Administrative Survey. Oxford: Blackwell.
JONGMAN, WILLEM, 1991. The Economy and Society of Pompeii. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.
LAURENCE, RAY, 1994. Roman Pompeii: Space and Society. London/New York:
Routledge.
LEVICK, BARBARA, 1999. Vespasian. London/New York: Routledge.
MARABINI MOEVS, MARIA TERESA, 1973. The Roman Thin Walled Pottery from Cosa.
Rome: American Academy in Rome (Memoirs of the American Academy in
Rome 32).
MARTIN, ARCHER, 1997. Ceramica commune: vasi da fuoco. In Antonio Di Vita and
Archer Martin (eds), Gortina II Pretorio: il materiale degli scavi Colini 1970–1977:
346–365. Padova: Monografie della Scuola archeologica di Atene e delle
Missioni italiane in Oriente 7.
MATTINGLY, DAVID J., 1988. Oil for export? A comparison of Libyan, Spanish and
Tunisian olive oil production in the Roman Empire. Journal of Roman
Archaeology 1:33–56.
MOREL, JEAN-PAUL, 1981. Céramique campanienne: les formes. Rome: École francaise
de Rome (Bibliothèque des Écoles françaises d’Athènes et de Rome 244).
MORLEY, NEVILLE, 1996. Metropolis and Hinterland: The City of Rome and the Italian
Economy 200 BC–AD 200. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
ORTON, CLIVE R., PAUL A. TYERS and ALAN VINCE 1993. Pottery in Archaeology.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (Cambridge Manuals in
Archaeology).
PANELLA, CLEMENTINA and LUCIA SAGUÌ, 2001. Consumo e produzione a Roma tra
tardoantico e altomedievo: le merci, i contesti. In Roma nell’Alto Medievo:
757–818. Spoleto: Centro Italiano di Studi sull’Alto Medievo.
320 EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY 6(3)

PARKINS, HELEN, ed., 1997. Roman Urbanism beyond the Consumer City.
London/New York: Routledge.
PATERSON, JEREMY J. 1998. Trade and traders in the Roman world. In Helen Parkins
and Christopher Smith (eds), Trade, Traders and the Ancient City: 149–167.
London: Routledge.
PEACOCK, DAVID P.S., 1977. Pompeian Red Ware. In David P.S. Peacock (ed.),
Pottery and Early Trade: Characterization and Trade in Roman and Late Ceramics:
147–162. London: Academic Press.
PEACOCK, DAVID P.S. and DAVID WILLIAMS, 1986. Amphorae and the Roman Economy:
An Introductory Guide. London: Academic Press.
PEÑA, J. THEODORE, 1990. Internal Red-slip cookware (Pompeian red ware) from
Cetamura del Chianti, Italy: Mineralogical composition and provenience.
American Journal of Archaeology 94:647–661.
PEÑA, J. THEODORE, 1999. The Urban Economy during the Early Dominate: Pottery
Evidence from the Palatine Hill. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports
(International series 784).
POTTER, TIMOTHY W., 1987. Roman Italy. London: British Museum Publications.
PUCCI, GIUSEPPE, 1985. Terra sigillata italica. In Atlante delle forme ceramiche II:
ceramica fine romana nel bacino Mediterraneo (tardo ellenismo e primo impero):
359–406. Rome: Istituto della enciclopedia italiana (Enciclopedia dell’arte
antica classica e orientale).
PUPPO, PAOLA 1995. Le Coppe Megaresi in Italia. Rome: ‘L’Erma’ di Bretschneider
(Studia Archaeologica 78).
REYNOLDS, PAUL, 1995. Trade in the Western Mediterranean, AD 400–700: The Ceramic
Evidence. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports (International series 604).
RICCI, ANDREINA, 1985. Ceramica a pareti sottili. In Atlante delle forme ceramiche II:
ceramica fine romana nel bacino Mediterraneo (tardo ellenismo e primo impero):
231–357. Rome: Istituto della enciclopedia italiana (Enciclopedia dell’arte
antica classica e orientale).
RIZZO, GIORGIO, 2003. Instrumenta Urbis. I, Ceramiche fini da mensa, lucerne ed anfore
a Roma nei primi due secoli dell’impero. Rome: Collection de l’École française de
Rome 307.
ROSTOVTZEFF, MICHAIL I., 1957. The Social and Economic History of the Roman Empire.
Oxford: Clarendon.
SOUTHERN, PAT, 1997. Augustus. London and New York: Routledge.
TCHERNIA, ANDRÉ, 1983. Italian wine in Gaul at the end of the Republic. In Peter
Garnsey, Keith Hopkins and Christopher R. Whittaker (eds), Trade in the
Ancient Economy: 87–104. London: Chatto & Windus.
TCHERNIA, ANDRÉ, 1986. Le vin de l’Italie romaine. Rome: École francaise de Rome
(Bibliothèque des Écoles françaises d’Athènes et de Rome 261).
TEMIN, PETER, 2001. A market economy in the early Roman Empire. Journal of
Roman Studies 91: 169–181.
WHITE, KENNETH D., 1975. Farm Equipment of the Roman World. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
WOOLF, GREGORY, 2001. The Roman cultural revolution in Gaul. In Simon Keay
and Nicola Terrenato (eds), Italy and the West. Comparative issues in
Romanization: 173–186. Oxford: Oxbow.

B IOGRAPHICAL NOTES

Eric C. De Sena teaches Roman archaeology at John Cabot University in Rome and
conducts research at the American Academy in Rome. In addition to pottery studies in
DE SENA & IKÄHEIMO: THE SUPPLY OF AMPHORA-BORNE COMMODITIES IN POMPEII 321

Italy, De Sena is co-director of the Porolissum Forum Project in Romania

(www.porolissum.org).

Address: John Cabot University; via della Lungara, 233; 00165 Rome, Italy.
[e-mail: edesena@johncabot.it]

Janne P. Ikäheimo teaches Roman archaeology at the University of Oulu and works as a
curator in the University’s Laboratory of Archaeology. His current research projects
include the study of Roman cookware from the Palatine East excavations (Rome) and
early modern pottery imports in northern Finland.

Address: Laboratory of Archaeology, Department of Art Studies and Anthropology; P.O.

Box 1000; University of Oulu; FIN-90014 Finland.
[e-mail: janne.ikaheimo@oulu.fi]

A BSTRACTS
L’approvisionnement en produits de base transportés par amphores et en poterie domestique à
Pompéi de 150 av. JC jusqu’en 79 ap. JC: premières évidences de la Maison des Vestales
Eric C.De Sena et Janne P.Ikäheimo

Résumé: Cet article analyse les tendances changeantes dans l’approvisionnement en vin, huile
d’olive, sauce de poisson et poterie domestique pendant une période de plus de deux siècles, en
étudiant un ensemble de poteries déterrées récemment dans la Maison des Vestales. L’évidence
céramique est examinée dans le contexte des tendances politiques et économiques plus générales
qui influençaient la production et le commerce au fil du temps. Un clair changement de l’autarcie
régionale vers une dépendance plus importante de produits non régionaux, provenant surtout des
provinces romaines de l’Espagne et de l’Afrique, a été observé. Les auteurs font remarquer que,
bien que la céramique est un indicateur important des tendances générales de
l’approvisionnement, il faut être prudent au moment de tirer des conclusions; les scientifiques
doivent réfléchir à tout ce qui n’est pas apparent dans les données archéologiques afin d’aboutir à
une représentation plus complète du passé.

Mots clés: Pompéi, amphores, poterie domestique, économie romaine, tendances dans
l’approvisionnement

Die Lagerung von Waren in Amphoren und von Haushaltskeramik in Pompeji 150 v. Chr. bis 79
n. Chr.: Erste Ergebnisse vom Haus der Vestalinnen.
Eric C. De Sena und Janne P. Ikäheimo

Diese Studie diskutiert die sich verändernden Trends in der Lagerung von Wein, Olivenöl,
Fischsauce und Haushaltskeramik in Pompeji über einen Zeitraum von mehr als zwei
Jahrhunderten anhand der Untersuchung eines Keramikkomplexes, der kürzlich im Haus der
Vestalinnen ausgegraben wurde. Das keramische Material wird im Licht der weiteren politischen
und ökonomischen Trends betrachtet, die die Produktion und den Handel im Laufe der Zeit
beeinflusst haben. Es kann eine deutliche Veränderung von regionaler Selbstversorgung zu einem
größeren Vertrauen in auswärtige Güter, besonders aus den römischen Provinzen in Afrika und
Spanien, beobachtet werden. Die Autoren führen aus, dass zwar das Keramikmaterial ein
hilfreicher Indikator genereller Lagerungstrends ist, jedoch Schlüsse daraus mit Vorsicht gezogen
werden müssen und die Wissenschaft die Fakten, die nicht auf archäologischem Wege ermittelt
werden können, einzubeziehen hat, um ein vollständigeres Bild der Vergangenheit zu erzielen.

Schlüsselbegriffe: Pompeji, Amphoren, Haushaltkeramik, römische Wirtschaft, Lagerungstrends