Working Paper v.5.5.

2013 ©Peter van Alfen

The Restudy of the LR2 Amphoras from the Seventh-Century Yassıada Shipwreck:
Preliminary Evidence for Standardization1

Peter van Alfen

Aware of the significance of a chance discovery of graffiti on some of the globular amphoras

from the wreck, but realizing that they could not delay the publication of Yassi Ada I, George

Bass and Frederick van Doorninck, Jr. pressed ahead with publication anyway knowing that

further work on the amphoras would be required.2 With the volume in press, efforts were already

underway to raise as many of the remaining amphoras as possible in the hopes of finding more

graffiti, which could perhaps offer more insight into the purpose and the endpoints of the ship’s

final voyage. Of the estimated 900 amphoras that were carried aboard the vessel, 822 were

recorded during the excavations in the early 1960s. These were divided into two primary classes:

719 globular and 103 cylindrical jars.3 During the excavation, 110 amphoras of both classes (80

globular and 30 cylindrical)–about 14% of the total recorded–were raised for study. The rest

were moved into storage areas on the seafloor, where they stayed for two more decades.

In the quest for more graffiti, over 560 additional jars were brought to the surface in the

early 1980s and taken to the Bodrum Museum of Underwater Archaeology for conservation and

study, where they remain stored today. Van Doorninck and a host of others subsequently cleaned

the jars and found more graffiti, as had been hoped.4 Parallel to this work, van Doorninck began

his study of the amphoras from the eleventh-century “Glass Wreck” excavated at Serçe Limanı

in 1977-79, which in time took precedence over the work on the Yassıada jars. This, as it

happened, was a fortunate turn of events.

1
Working Paper v.5.5.2013 ©Peter van Alfen

In his study of the 89 piriform amphoras from the Glass Wreck, which are summarized

elsewhere in this volume, van Doorninck observed, through an unprecedented method of highly

controlled linear and volumetric measurement, that the jars were produced in a wide range of

multiples of the “mina,” or 3 Byzantine pounds (“litrae”). Each amphora was carefully

constructed to hold a precise weight of either dry or sweet wine (each has a different specific

gravity) resulting in the just over two dozen sizes observed. This type of standardized packaging

for commodities, with a plethora of sizes, while universal today was not common throughout

most of antiquity. Studies of Greek and Roman amphoras make it clear that the earlier jars, when

there was size differentiation at all, were made in three general sizes only–full, half, and a third–

with no close volumetric consistency within each size.5 Van Doorninck’s observations of the

11th-century Serçe Limanı amphoras therefore are important for understanding the development

of political and economic institutions and social mechanisms related to the production, shipment,

and consumption of the commodities in amphoras and of the jars themselves. These observations

gave the restudy of the Yassıada amphoras renewed impetus and focus. The primary purpose in

reexamining the Yassıada amphoras now is to determine if the same degree of standardization

was already in use four centuries earlier, in the hopes of better defining the conceptual turning

point that gave rise to the type of standardization already fully developed in the eleventh century.

Initial stabs at this problem by van Doorninck in the late 1980s and early 1990s seemed to

indicate that standardization was present in the early seventh-century amphoras, but the great

number of jars needing laborious linear and capacity measurements made the prospect of

confirming these preliminary results daunting.

In the meantime, as a more manageable test case, the cylindrical jars from the wreck were

selected for linear and capacity measurements. Although this study revealed that there was a

2
Working Paper v.5.5.2013 ©Peter van Alfen

reasonable amount of consistency in the linear dimensions of the smaller jars and the possibility

that a system of precisely formed, standardized capacities was in use, both the small sample size

of complete amphoras (19) available for capacity measurement and the generally poor build-

quality of the roughly 70 examples studied left room for doubt.6 With the question of

standardization in the seventh century still not satisfactorily resolved, van Doorninck and I

resumed work on the restudy of the globular amphoras in 2004. Our current work at determining

the capacity system of the globular amphoras, while still far from finished, offers evidence that a

system of standardized capacities was in use. This aspect of the restudy project is discussed by

van Doorninck elsewhere in this volume. Here I focus on the linear measurements of the globular

jars and the meaning of their standardization.

THE CURRENT STATE OF THE PROJECT

Van Doorninck’s (1989) revised typology of the globular jars identified four major working

types, Types I-IV, distinguished primarily by handle shape and body decoration (Figs. X-1-4).7

These four major types collectively represent approximately 89% of the globular amphoras from

the wreck housed in the Bodrum Museum of Underwater Archaeology. In addition to Types I-

IV, there are several dozen other types, each represented at most by only a few amphoras with

widely varying fabrics, sizes, and shapes; for the sake of convenience in this chapter, these

several dozen other types are here discussed as a group, Type S(pecial), which collectively

represents approximately 11% of the globular jars in the Bodrum Museum. Some Type S jars are

unquestionably earlier sixth-century examples of LR2a amphoras (Figs. X-5-6); unfortunately

none of these jars preserve their bases, and thus the basal knob, that could provide a date to either

3
Working Paper v.5.5.2013 ©Peter van Alfen

side of AD 550.8 In either case, the chronological span of the older and newer globular amphoras

appears to be at least several decades. A numerical breakdown of the presently cataloged

globular jars—including ca. 150 complete examples—from the Yassıada wreck in the Bodrum

Museum is as follows: I: 168 examples; II: 65 examples; III: 198 examples; IV: 68 examples;

and S: 46 examples.

As of the 2012 field season, the linear and capacity measurements of Type I have been

virtually completed, most of the linear and many of the capacity measurements of Type II have

been completed, while only the linear measurements on Types III, IV and S are now mostly

completed. Capacity measurements for 52 complete examples of Types I and II, which represent

roughly a third of the c. 150 complete amphoras of all types. Our current thoughts on the

question of standardization and the globular jars are therefore based on the data that we have at

hand.

LINEAR MEASUREMENTS

In the early stages of the restudy project, van Doorninck identified a dozen separate linear

measurements on the body, neck, rim, and handles of the amphoras that seemed critical for

understanding how the jars were conceptualized and constructed.9 While some of these

measurements may not have been important to ancient potters, several exhibit tight clustering

around certain marks indicating that in the construction of the jars these must have been

measurements of concern and thus were carefully controlled by means of guides, rulers or other

devices. Seven such measurements, three on the body and four on the neck, are discussed below

(Figs. X-8, X-15).10

4
Working Paper v.5.5.2013 ©Peter van Alfen

The construction of these large amphoras was a multi-step operation involving three

separate major components: the body, the neck, and the handles. Despite the fact that such multi-

step, multi-part construction offered ample opportunities for quality to suffer, especially when

we consider that amphoras generally might not have warranted special care in their construction

in light of their storage and transport function, the Type I-IV globular jars are exceptionally well-

made, most notably when compared to the often sloppy construction of the cylindrical jars.

Broken Type I and IV jars have revealed a high level of build quality in the area of the neck and

mouth especially. Great care was taken to ensure a tight and secure fit between the neck and

body by beveling the lower portion of the neck so it would seat sealed within the corresponding

hole in the body (Fig. X-7). Prodigious amounts of fine slip were used around the neck-body and

neck-handle attachment points, and indeed around the entire body; fine slip was also used to

form the mouth and rim, possibly using a round plug-like tool to ensure consistency in the size of

the opening. The greatest proof of quality construction, however, is in the linear (and capacity)

measurements, which demonstrate the potters’ meticulousness.

The tabulated results of the overall height, maximum diameter, and height at maximum

diameter data sets are presented in Figs. X-9-14. For each of these measurements, and the neck

measurements that follow, two graphs are provided. The first histogram (the bar chart) represents

all the data for that measurement from all the amphora types inclusive and provides information

on the standard deviation, the mean, and the number of examples providing this measurement.

The second histogram is the cross-tabulation of the same data exclusive by type (e.g., Types I-

IV, and S) and on a slightly finer centimeter scale.

The true significance of these linear body measurements will only be understood once we

correlate them with one another and with the capacity measurements, a task that must await the

5
Working Paper v.5.5.2013 ©Peter van Alfen

completion of our data collection in the Bodrum Museum, but it is possible already to make a

number of observations. In overall height significant clustering occurs between 53 and 56

centimeters, particularly around the 54- and 55-cm marks. Likewise, in maximum diameter

significant clustering occurs between 41 and 45 centimeters, but especially at the 42- and 43-cm

marks. Similar patterns of clustering centered on the 27.5-cm mark can be seen in the height at

maximum diameter histograms. The highest peaks in each of these histograms indicate great

success on the part of the potters in hitting a particular mark consistently. While the slopes away

from these high peaks would normally indicate less successful attempts at hitting that particular

high mark, points along the slopes (e.g., 53 and 56 cm in overall height) might also have been

desired marks themselves, but which are not as statistically well represented in our data set.

Van Doorninck observed with the Serçe Limanı jars that the potters controlled volumetric

size by precise alterations to the body dimensions, no more than one or two centimeters in body

height and/or diameter. If we subtract the standard neck height for Types I and IV (c. 13.5 cm,

see below) from the overall height, a rough 1:1 correlation between the maximum body diameter

and the overall height minus the neck (i.e., the height of the body per se) is evident.11 On the

basis of the data we have to date, 42 lepta, or 41 cm, is the likeliest starting point for both body

height and maximum diameter, the point from which the potters either added or subtracted to

create larger or smaller standard size bodies. The balance of proportion and volume in the

square-ish 42-lepta body could be maintained in other larger or smaller sizes by adjusting the

height at maximum diameter as necessary as height and/or diameter was reduced or enlarged.12

The cross-tabulated results by amphora type show that Types I, II and III are strongly

represented in the highest peaks of all the histograms, Type IV less so but still prominent. The

measurements from the Type S jars are the least concentrated and most widely scattered.

6
Working Paper v.5.5.2013 ©Peter van Alfen

It is clear that there was a range of different, yet relatively closely grouped body sizes and

corresponding volumes in the Type I-IV jars.13 Regardless of the size of the body, however,

many of the large jars shared a standard-sized neck of the same volume and dimensions. The

Type I and IV necks have capacities that average 535 cc with a standard deviation of 30 cc (Fig.

X-7). The capacities of the Type II and III necks have not yet been calculated, but the histograms

suggest that their average (linear) size was slightly smaller than the Type I and IV necks. A

standard size neck is further confirmed by the tabulated results for four sets of linear

measurements on the necks: the minimum and maximum diameters, the height, and the internal

mouth diameter (Figs. X-16-23). We note a gradual left-hand slope and sharp right-hand drop-off

in all of the histograms except that for internal mouth diameter, which suggests that the potters

were working towards the measurement represented by the highest peak, but did not wish to

overshoot it: for Types I and IV ca. 13.5-cm neck height, ca. 13.5-cm maximum neck diameter,

and ca. 7.75-cm minimum neck diameter; for Types II and III ca. 12.5-cm neck height, ca. 12.5-

cm maximum neck diameter, and ca. 7.1-cm minimum neck diameter. Of great significance is

the fact that the standard deviation for these three measurements is between 0.49 and 0.99 cm,

again a sure sign that the necks were built to a predetermined size.

The shape of the histogram for the internal mouth diameter (Fig. X-22) is somewhat

different than those for the other three neck dimensions since it has an extended plateau from ca.

6.25 cm to ca. 7 cm. That ca. 7 cm was the desired mark for Types I and IV is confirmed by the

mean (6.94 cm) and the standard deviation (0.47 cm) for these jars, while for Types II and III the

mean is 6.44 cm and the standard deviation 0.43 cm, indicating ca. 6.5 cm was the mark. The

slightly greater degree of consistency in this dimension compared to the others is likely due to

the use of a standard-sized tool to help form the mouth opening, which could then accept a

7
Working Paper v.5.5.2013 ©Peter van Alfen

standard-sized stopper. Our standard stopper, 1 cm thick, 7 cm in diameter tapering to 6 cm and

fashioned from Styroform, is a perfect fit in the mouths of the vast majority of the Type I and IV

jars, but a tighter fit in the Type II and III jars.

The cross-tabulated results for the neck dimensions follow essentially the same pattern as

those for the body dimensions. Again, jars of Types I, II and III are heavily represented in the

peaks and slopes of the histograms, Type IV jars less so but still prominent, while Type S jars are

widely scattered across the entire data set.

The rather compelling picture of linear standardization that is emerging from the data

raises a number of issues about the production of the globular jars. Although we can only

speculate how amphora production was organized within workshops in the sixth and seventh

centuries, it is possible that each of the three major components, body, neck, and handles, was

produced concurrently by several individuals, perhaps of differing skill levels, rather than

consecutively by one individual before final assembly.14 The construction of the body required a

great deal of skill due to the amount of control needed to impart precision in vessels of such great

size and weight, while rolling out handles required the least skill. The necks were also precisely

constructed, but their smaller size and weight made them more manageable than the bodies. How

workshops were organized internally by task or skill, and externally across geographical regions

has bearing on the question of standardization. For several variously skilled individuals within a

single workshop to produce pre-sized components for a single standardized final product implies

the use of predetermined guides or measurements. At the shop level, the use of such tools or

blueprints, as it were, could entail simply the desire either to find a method of production adapted

to the varying skill levels of those working in the shop, or a method that increased efficiency and

rates of production.15 These implications change, however, as the scale of standardized

8
Working Paper v.5.5.2013 ©Peter van Alfen

production expands geographically across many workshops. As we have seen, many of the

Types I, II, III, and IV have virtually identical linear (and capacity) measurements,16 but the

fabric of Type IV is not the same fabric as that of Types I, II and III.17 If, as is likely, these jars

prove to have been constructed at workshops geographically far removed from one another, their

virtually identical measurements mean that all workshops, whether in Samos or Cyprus, for

example, followed the same blueprint. This has significant implications for the meaning of

standardization within Byzantine exchange systems.

THE MEANING OF YASSIADA AMPHORA STANDARDIZATION

It is our belief, at this stage in the restudy project, that Types I and II are representative of a

system of precisely formed, standardized capacities. If we consider that many of the Type S

jars—some reused and perhaps decades old when the ship sank, as well as the cylindrical jars—

appear to exhibit looser linear and volumetric control, it is possible that a conceptual turning

point for standardization can be found shortly before the ship sank, which could account for both

standardized and non-standardized jars being on the same ship. What remains to be seen is if this

turning point was a system-wide phenomenon, or one more locally isolated but still representing

a step in the direction of the more widespread form of standardization observed with the Serçe

Limanı piriform amphoras. In either case, the implications of a smaller or larger, and presumably

rather dramatic shift to the use of highly standardized containers of multiple sizes are vast and

complex, involving consideration of the modes of production, distribution, and consumption, and

the institutional structures within and around which these modes operated. If, for example, we

are observing a transitional moment towards greater standardization, we should like to know,

9
Working Paper v.5.5.2013 ©Peter van Alfen

among other things, the problems that led to the production of standardized amphoras as a

solution, how the various dimensions and capacities for these jars were determined, and how

widely the “blueprint” was disseminated and enforced. In terms of distribution, if standardized

and non-standardized jars were at this time commonly found side-by-side, as on the Yassıada

ship, does this represent two or more modes of distribution operating in tandem, in parallel, or in

competition?18 Does it imply that amphora standardization served only short-term goals, as, for

example, within the realm of production only, but had little or no significance within the realms

of distribution and consumption? And, as these large jars exited the realm of distribution and

came into the hands of the ultimate consumer(s), would standardization matter to those emptying

the jars, and if so, in what context(s)?

How we approach such questions is determined in part by how we view the purpose of

the ship’s final voyage. Bass’ suggestion in his conclusions to the 1982 final report that the ship

was engaged in a commercial venture has now been superseded by van Doorninck’s

reassessment of that last voyage: the ship, owned and stocked by the church, had set off in

service of the state’s annona militaris, the taxation and redistribution system responsible for

feeding the armies. By eliminating market mechanisms from this voyage, which was meant to

distribute wine and oil to state-employed soldiers (i.e., the final consumers), we foreground the

role of two large, inter-operating institutions, both of which had their own closed systems for

acquiring, distributing, and consuming goods.19 In van Doorninck’s reassessment both

institutions are the primary forces for the distribution and consumption of the amphoras, but can

we extend their role to the production of the jars as well? In other words, is it possible that a

transition to standardization took place within the closed context of the church or state’s

10
Working Paper v.5.5.2013 ©Peter van Alfen

commodity extraction and distribution systems with market activity playing no role in its

development and adoption? The answer, at this point, is equivocal.

Within markets, the persistence of transaction costs encourages the development of

institutions and devices that help to lower the search for information, and increase the reliability

of exchange and the quality of goods.20 Standardized measures, monetary instruments, rules, and

the like, help to lower costs. Thus it makes perfectly good sense that the move toward highly

standardized containers, like amphoras, would take place within a market context in order to ease

the assessment of quantity versus value. Incredibly, however, over the course of nearly a

millennium of intense market activity within the Mediterranean involving highly standardized

measures, monetary instruments, rules, and additional market amenities of all sorts, high levels

of amphora standardization appear only to have developed in the Late Roman period. Was there

a momentous, unprecedented shift in market practices that served as the drive for

standardization?21 That is one possibility, but it is difficult to see how market forces alone could

have encouraged and enforced a rapid, geographically wide-spread diffusion of amphora

standardization when long-standing market practices had, it would seem, studiously avoided

such a thing for centuries, no doubt because it served the interests of wholesalers to obfuscate the

search for value-quantity information. The diffusion and enforcement aspects of the problem

suggest the role of an entity, like the church or state, with the necessary authority to achieve

compliance across geographical regions. An overhaul of the state’s system of taxation on market

activity, one that required greater attention be paid to the value of specific quantities of goods

carried in amphoras, may also have supplied the impetus for standardization. In this solution,

markets are still the locus of change, but the instigation comes down from the top, rather then

11
Working Paper v.5.5.2013 ©Peter van Alfen

bottom up through market processes. But there are, of course, alternatives to market-based

activities that may have encouraged the adoption of standardization as well.

The theory of firms, as initially developed by Ronald Coase (1937), describes them as

agglomerations that get around the costs of using the price mechanism in markets.22 Rather than

going into the market to negotiate prices for the goods and services they need, firms produce the

needed good or service by expanding their own productive organization. Intra-firm transactions

take place, as between a production division and a division that consumes the product, but by

keeping all transactions with the firm, it can set and control the terms of transaction. The choice

of whether to select the market or expand the firm depends on the relative efficiency of

transactions both within and external to the firm. An analogy between the state’s annona

militaris and the church’s production and extraction systems on the one hand, and the firm on the

other, while not exact in every detail, can nevertheless be made. By encapsulating the modes of

production, as well as distribution and consumption within their closed systems, the state or

church could set and enforce the terms of production, distribution, and consumption as it served

them best while avoiding marketplace transaction costs and disruptions. In other words, amphora

standardization may have been developed as a means of monitoring intra-firm transactions and

meeting the needs of internal bureaucratic practices, like record keeping.23 This solution,

however, is complicated by asking why the state or church would need a plethora of amphora

sizes for their own purposes within such a narrow capacity spectrum when fewer sizes across a

broader spectrum might seem more intuitive. In sum, as we begin to observe more evidence for

standardization in the globular jars from the Yassıada shipwreck, we are only beginning to

realize the complexity of what standardization means and how it is situated within institutional

settings.

12
Working Paper v.5.5.2013 ©Peter van Alfen

LIST OF FIGURES
Fig. x-1.: Type I globular amphora
Fig. x-2: Type II globular amphora
Fig. x-3: Type III globular amphora
Fig. x-4: Type IV globular amphora
Fig. x-5: Type S globular amphora
Fig. x-6: Type S globular amphora
Fig. x-7: Inverted, broken neck from Type I amphora undergoing capacity measurement. Note
the beveling around the edge.
Fig. x-8: Type IV amphora illustrating overall height, maximum diameter, and height at
maximum diameter measurements.
Fig. x-9-10: Histogram and cross tabulation for overall height.
Fig. x-11-12: Histogram and cross tabulation for maximum diameter.
Fig. x-13-14: Histogram and cross tabulation for height at maximum diameter.
Fig. x-15: Type IV amphora illustrating the neck measurements for maximum and minimum
diameter, internal mouth diameter, and height.
Fig. x-16-17: Histogram and cross tabulation for minimum neck diameter.
Fig. x-18-19: Histogram and cross tabulation for maximum neck diameter.
Fig. x-20-21: Histogram and cross tabulation for neck height.
Fig. x-22-23: Histogram and cross tabulation for internal mouth diameter.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bass, G. F. "The Pottery." In Yassi Ada I: A Seventh-Century Byzantine Shipwreck, ed. G. F.

Bass and F. H. J. Van Doorninck, pp. 155-188. College Station, TX, 1982.
Bresson, A. L’économie de la Grèce des cités. Vol. I: Les structures et la production. Paris,
2007.
Demesticha, S. "Some Thoughts on the Production and Presence of the Late Roman Amphora 13
on Cyprus." In Trade Relations in the Eastern Mediterranean from Late Hellenistic
Period to Late Antiquity: the Ceramic Evidence, ed. M. Briese Berg and L. E. Vaag, pp.
169-178. Odense, Denmark, 2005.
Frier, B. W., and P. Kehoe. "Law and Economic Institutions." In The Cambridge Economic
History of the Greco-Roman World, ed. W. Scheidel, I. Morris and R. Saller, pp. 113-
142. Cambridge, 2007.

13
Working Paper v.5.5.2013 ©Peter van Alfen

Karagiourgou, O. "LR2: a Container for the Military Annona on the Danubian Border?" In
Economy and Exchange in the East Mediterranean during Late Antiquity, ed. S. Kingsley
and M. Deckner, pp. 129-166. Oxford, 2001.
Kingsley, S., and M. Decker. "New Rome, New Theories on Inter-Regional Exchange. An
Introduction to the East Mediterranean Economy in Late Antiquity." In Economy and
Exchange in the East Mediterranean During Late Antiquity, ed. S. Kingsley and M.
Decker, pp. 1-27. Oxford, 2001.
Laiou, A. E. "Economic and Noneconomic Exchange." In The Economic History of Byzantium
From hte Seventh through the Fifteenth Century, ed. A. E. Laiou. Washington, D.C.,
2002.
Nee, V. "The New Institutionalisms in Economics and Sociology." In The Handbook of
Economic Sociology, ed. N. J. Smelser and R. Swedberg, pp. 49-74. Princeton, 2005.
Nicholson, P., and H. Patterson. "Pottery Making in Upper-Egypt: An Ethnoarchaeological
Study." World Archaeology 17.2 (1985): 222-39.
Oikonomides, N. "The Role of the Byzantine State in the Economy." In The Economic History of
Byzantium: From the Seventh Through the Fifteenth Century, ed. A. E. Laiou, pp. 973-
1058. Washington, D.C., 2002.
Peacock, D. P. S., and D. F. Williams. Amphorae and the Roman Economy: An Introductory
Guide, Longman Archaeology Series. London and New York, 1986.
Riley, J. A. "The Coarse Pottery from Benghazi." In Sidi Khrebish Excavations, Benghazi
(Berenice), ed. J. A. Lloyd, pp. 91-497. Tripoli, 1979.
Roux, V. "Ceramic Standardization and Intensity of Production: Quantifying Degrees of
Specialization." American Antiquity 68.4 (2003): 768-782.
Ruah, N. "Pirated knock-offs: Cilician imitations of internationally traded amphoras." In
Transport amphorae and trade in the eastern Mediterranean. Acts of an international
colloqium of the Danish Institute of Athens, 26-29 September 2002, ed. J. Eiring and J.
Lund, pp. 329-36. Aarhus, 2004.
Sirks, B. Food for Rome: The Legal Structure of the Transportation and Processing of Supplies
for the Imperial Distributions in Rome and Constantinople. Amsterdam, 1991.
Steckner, C. "Les amphores LR 1 and LR 2 en relation avec le pressior du complexe
ecclésiastique des thermes de Samos." In Recherches sur la céramique byzantine. BCH
suppl. 18, ed. V. Déroche and J.-M. Spieser, pp. 57-71, 1989.
Van Alfen, P. G. "New Light on the 7th-C. Yassi Ada Shipwreck: Capacities and Standard Sizes
of LRA1 Amphoras." Journal of Roman Archaeology 9 (1996): 189-213.
van Doorninck, Jr., F. H. "The Cargo Amphoras on the 7th Century Yassi Ada and the 11th
Century Serce Limani Shipwrecks: Two Examples of a Reuse of Byzantine Amphoras as
Transport Jars." In Recherches sur la céramique byzantine BCH suppl. 18, ed. V.
Déroche and J.-M. Spieser, pp. 247-257, 1989.
Wallace, M. "Standardization in Greek Amphora Capacities." In Transport Amphorae and Trade
in the Eastern Mediterranean. Acts of an International Colloqium of the Danish Institute
of Athens, 26-29 September 2002, ed. J. Eiring and J. Lund, pp. 429-432. Athens, 2004.
Williams, D. F. "Late Roman Amphora 1: A Study of Diversification." In Trade Relations in the
Eastern Mediterranean from Late Hellenistic Period to Late Antiquity: The Ceramic
Evidence, ed. M. Briese Berg and L. E. Vaag, pp. 157-168. Odense, Denmark, 2005.

14
Working Paper v.5.5.2013 ©Peter van Alfen

1
The on-going restudy project would not be possible without the assistance of the Bodrum Museum of Underwater
Archaeology staff, particularly its director, Yasar Yildiz, and the assistance of the Institute of Nautical
Archaeology’s (INA) Bodrum staff, particularly Tuba Ekmekci, Esra Altınanıt, and former chief conservator, Asaf
Oron. Funding for the project has come from INA and a National Endowment of the Humanities summer stipend
(2007). I thank Frederick van Doorninck, Jr., Sebastian Heath, Mark Lawall, and Müserref Yetim for their
comments on earlier drafts; I also thank Stephanie Koenig and Müserref Yetim for preparing the figures.
2
G. F. Bass, "The Pottery," in Yassi Ada I: A Seventh-Century Byzantine Shipwreck, ed. G. F. Bass and F. H. J. Van
Doorninck, pp. 161.
3
In the 1982 report, the cylindrical jars received the designation “Type 1,” while the globular jars were called “Type
2.” These types have no relationship to the typology developed by J. A. Riley, "The Coarse Pottery from Benghazi,"
in Sidi Khrebish Excavations, Benghazi (Berenice), ed. J. A. Lloyd, pp. 91-467 for Late Roman Amphoras, or to the
project typology used below. For the sake of convenience the class designations initially used by Bass and van
Doorninck, “cylindrical” and “globular,” are maintained here when speaking of the Yassıada amphoras generally.
The cylindrical jars correspond to the type-designation “Late Roman Amphora 1” (LRA 1; D. P. S. Peacock and D.
F. Williams, Amphorae and the Roman Economy: An Introductory Guide, pp. 185; D. F. Williams, "Late Roman
Amphora 1: A Study of Diversification," in Trade Relations in the Eastern Mediterranean from Late Hellenistic
Period to Late Antiquity: The Ceramic Evidence, ed. M. Briese Berg and L. E. Vaag, pp. 157-68). The globular jars
of Types I-IV and S correspond to “Late Roman Amphora 2” (LR 2; Peacock and Williams, Amphorae and the
Roman Economy: An Introductory Guide, pp. 182; O. Karagiourgou, "LR2: a Container for the Military Annona on
the Danubian Border?," in Economy and Exchange in the East Mediterranean during Late Antiquity, ed. S. Kingsley
and M. Deckner, pp. 129-66).
4
F. H. van Doorninck, Jr., "The Cargo Amphoras on the 7th Century Yassi Ada and the 11th Century Serce Limani
Shipwrecks: Two Examples of a Reuse of Byzantine Amphoras as Transport Jars," in Recherches sur la céramique
byzantine BCH suppl. 18, ed. V. Déroche and J.-M. Spieser, pp. 247-57.
5
M. Wallace, "Standardization in Greek Amphora Capacities," in Transport Amphorae and Trade in the Eastern
Mediterranean. Acts of an International Colloqium of the Danish Institute of Athens, 26-29 September 2002, ed. J.
Eiring and J. Lund, pp. 429-32.
6
P. G. van Alfen, "New Light on the 7th-C. Yassi Ada Shipwreck: Capacities and Standard Sizes of LRA1
Amphoras," Journal of Roman Archaeology 9 (1996): 189-213.
7
Van Doorninck, in fact, referred to these as “subtypes,” not “types.” The possibility that there may be subtypes of
these subtypes renders this designation hierarchy awkward. For the sake of simplicity, the earlier subtypes are here
merely “types.” As our study progresses further redesignation of the amphoras will likely prove necessary in which
case we shall provide, in our final publication, a concordance of all our previously published working terms.
Nevertheless, our aim is not to promulgate further confusion in amphora designations, but to stay within the current
system of Late Roman Amphora typologies and terminology by creating subsets of recognized classes, e.g., LR2,
Yassiada subtype I, vel sim.
8
Karagiourgou, "LR2: a Container for the Military Annona on the Danubian Border?," pp. 141.
9
These include overall height, maximum diameter, height at maximum diameter, neck height, rim height, external
mouth diameter, internal mouth diameter, minimum neck diameter, maximum neck diameter, handle width, handle
thickness, and body wall thickness. Van Doorninck’s developed methodology for taking each of these measurements
includes safeguards to ensure accuracy and consistency. Also, it should again be emphasized that only c. 150, or
about 25%, of the globular jars stored in the Bodrum Museum are entirely complete. The rest exist in states of
preservation ranging from a neck and handle stubs only to jars otherwise complete but missing portions of the body
sidewall such that it makes capacity measurement impossible. The total number of linear measurements taken on an
example is thus a function of its state of preservation.
10
These are for the body (Fig. 8): overall height, maximum diameter, height at maximum diameter; and for the neck
(Fig. 15): height, internal mouth diameter, minimum diameter, maximum diameter.
11
The Byzantine lepton is a linear measurement equal to 0.975 cm.
12
Van Doorninck discusses these issues of size gradation in greater detail and at greater length in Chapter X.
13
The capacities of the Type I and II globular jars range between 32 and 40 liters; for the linear dimensions see Figs.
9-14. While capacity measurements have yet to be completed on Type III and IV amphoras, their linear dimensions
are virtually identical to those of Types I and II, suggesting that their capacities will also line up with Types I and II,
for which see van Doorninck in Chapter X.
14
Ethnographic studies of modern Mediterranean-region workshops engaged in producing large amphora-like
containers, like the one studied by P. Nicholson and H. Patterson, "Pottery Making in Upper-Egypt: An

15
Working Paper v.5.5.2013 ©Peter van Alfen

Ethnoarchaeological Study," World Archaeology 17.2 (1985): 222-39, illustrate how such a division of labor
between the more- and less-skilled in the construction of the jars might have been arranged. For a recent experiment
in reproducing LR1 amphoras see S. Demesticha, “Experimenting on Amphora Manufacture,” in: E. Karpodini-
Dimitriadi, ed. Ethnography of European Traditional Cultures: Arts, Crafts, Techniques of Heritage. European
Seminar III-Proceedings. Athens (1998), pp. 139-148.
15
The implications of intra-shop standardization for both production specialization and intensity have been widely
explored in anthropological literature; see, for example, V. Roux, "Ceramic Standardization and Intensity of
Production: Quantifying Degrees of Specialization," American Antiquity 68.4 (2003): 768-82. While internal
mechanisms for standardization may have developed within workshops, it is our contention that the standardization
we observe was externally directly, although the mechanism remains to be identified (see below). Van Dooninck
(1989) noted, as a rough blueprint, that the potters of the globular jars followed a standard set of amphora
dimensions in which the overall amphora height is 48 lepta (c. 53 cm), the height and interior maximum diameter of
the body three-quarters of the overall height, and the height and maximum diameter of the neck one-quarter of the
overall height. Our recent work suggests that this outline might have been refined still more, perhaps with lists of
specific measurements for each component.
16
Among the Type III, IV, and S jars there are a few examples of smaller globular jars that are roughly half the size
in capacity and body dimensions of the more common larger (32-40 liter) jars. The focus in this report is exclusively
on the larger jars, although the linear dimensions for the smaller jars are included in Figs. 9-14 and 16-23.
17
Justin Leidwanger is currently analyzing fabric samples taken from the Yassiada cylindrical and globular
amphoras. The preliminary results of his study will be published in the near future.
18
We might, for example, imagine kommerkiarioi, Byzantine agents trading overseas on behalf of the state,
simultaneously engaged in private transactions for their own benefit; see N. Oikonomides, "The Role of the
Byzantine State in the Economy," in The Economic History of Byzantium: From the Seventh Through the Fifteenth
Century, ed. A. E. Laiou, pp. 984-85. Such activity on board a ship could be manifested by state-owned amphoras
being distributed within the annona system side-by-side with amphoras intended for the market. Also see B. Sirks,
Food for Rome: The Legal Structure of the Transportation and Processing of Supplies for the Imperial Distributions
in Rome and Constantinople, passim, for overlapping between the annona system and the market.
19
There is, unfortunately, comparatively little textual evidence for the later-sixth and early-seventh century systems
of commodity extraction and distribution by the church and state; see A. E. Laiou, "Economic and Noneconomic
Exchange," in The Economic History of Byzantium From the Seventh through the Fifteenth Century, ed. A. E. Laiou,
passim,. and Oikonomides, "The Role of the Byzantine State in the Economy," pp 973-1058. Indeed, the (inter-
)relationship between state, church, and commercial mechanisms for long distance exchange in this period, and
those bracketing it, especially as evidenced by LR 1 and 2 amphoras, is an issue that is far from settled; see S.
Kingsley and M. Decker, "New Rome, New Theories on Inter-Regional Exchange. An Introduction to the East
Mediterranean Economy in Late Antiquity," in Economy and Exchange in the East Mediterranean During Late
Antiquity, ed. S. Kingsley and M. Decker, pp.1-27; Karagiourgou, "LR2: a Container for the Military Annona on the
Danubian Border?," pp. 129-66; Demesticha, "Some Thoughts on the Production and Presence of the Late Roman
Amphora 13 on Cyprus," pp. 169-78; Williams, "Late Roman Amphora 1: A Study of Diversification," pp. 157-68
20
For an overview of the concept of transaction costs, its formative role within neo-institutional economics, and its
applicability to ancient economic history, see A. Bresson, L’économie de la Grèce des cités. Vol. I: Les structures et
la production, pp. 23-35 and B. W. Frier and P. Kehoe, "Law and Economic Institutions," in The Cambridge
Economic History of the Greco-Roman World, ed. W. Scheidel, et al., pp. 113-142.
21
One market-based mechanism that might have encouraged wide-spread production of LR 1 and 2 amphoras,
standardized or not, is the phenomenon of imitation. Amphora producers may have copied a prototype design
because it signaled an elevated degree of desirability and thus greater marketability, see N. Ruah, "Pirated knock-
offs: Cilician imitations of internationally traded amphoras," in Transport amphorae and trade in the eastern
Mediterranean. Acts of an international colloqium of the Danish Institute of Athens, 26-29 September 2002, ed. J.
Eiring and J. Lund, pp. 329-36. A collection of essays edited by Mark Lawall and myself, which are based on a
workshop held at the University of Manitoba in November 2007, deal with the theoretical problems of imitation in
ancient amphoras, coinage, and perfume. See Marburger Beiträge zur antiken Handels-, Sozial-
und Wirtschaftsgeschichte, Caveat Emptor: a Collection of Papers on Imitations in Greco-
Roman Commerce, vol. 28 (2011).

16
Working Paper v.5.5.2013 ©Peter van Alfen

22
For an overview of current approaches to the theory of the firm and neo-institutionalism see V. Nee, "The New
Institutionalisms in Economics and Sociology," in The Handbook of Economic Sociology, ed. N. J. Smelser and R.
Swedberg, pp. 49-74.
23
The presence of c. 120 LR 1 and c. 30 LR 2 (or LR 13, see Demesticha, "Some Thoughts on the Production and
Presence of the Late Roman Amphora 13 on Cyprus," pp. 174) amphoras in an ecclesiastical complex on Samos,
which appears to have been producing oil and wine, nicely illustrates aspects of commodity production within the
church system (C. Steckner, "Les amphores LR 1 and LR 2 en relation avec le pressior du complexe ecclésiastique
des thermes de Samos," in Recherches sur la céramique byzantine. BCH suppl. 18, ed. V. Déroche and J.-M.
Spieser, pp. 57-71; Karagiourgou, "LR2: a Container for the Military Annona on the Danubian Border?," pp. 141-
42). What is less clear is whether the amphoras used in this facility were commissioned by the facility and delivered
new, or if the amphoras were older jars that were being reused, or if there was a combined use of new and old jars.
On the question of LR 2 reuse at this time see van Doorninck, "The Cargo Amphoras on the 7th Century Yassi Ada
and the 11th Century Serce Limani Shipwrecks: Two Examples of a Reuse of Byzantine Amphoras as Transport
Jars," pp. 247-57 and Karagiourgou, "LR2: a Container for the Military Annona on the Danubian Border?," pp. 138-
39. For evidence that LR 1 and 13 (or LR 2?) amphoras were being produced simultaneously in a Paphos, Cyprus
workshop, see Demesticha, "Some Thoughts on the Production and Presence of the Late Roman Amphora 13 on
Cyprus," pp. 169-78.

17