JOURNAL OF

ROMAN
ARCHAEOLOGY
VOLUME 30 2017
**
REVIEW ARTICLES AND LONG REVIEWS,
OBITUARY, AND BOOKS RECEIVED

AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL
EDITORIAL COMMITTEE
Alan K. Bowman, Brasenose College, Oxford
Katherine M. D. Dunbabin, Lynden, Ontario
Pierre Gros, Aix-en-Provence
John W. Hayes, Oxford
Eugenio La Rocca, University of Rome 1
Carlo Pavolini, Università della Tuscia a Viterbo
Jean-Pierre Sodini, Colombes
Eva Margareta Steinby, Helsinki
Andrew Wallace-Hadrill, Cambridge
ADVISORY COMMITTEE
T. V. Buttrey, Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge
Amanda Claridge, London
Moshe Fischer, Department of Classics, Tel-Aviv University
David L. Kennedy, University of Western Australia
Roger Ling, University of Manchester
Michael Mackensen, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universitaet München
John Matthews, Yale University
Richard Neudecker, Deutsches Archäologisches Institut, Rom
Nicholas Purcell, Brasenose College, Oxford
Isabel Rodà, Universitat Autonòma de Barcelona
Russell T. Scott, Department of Latin, Bryn Mawr College
Cinzia Vismara, Roma
Editor: John H. Humphrey, Portsmouth, Rhode Island
InDesign layout: Keith Henry

ISSN 1047-7594 (for the annual journal)

The abbreviation for this journal for purposes of citation is JRA.
This journal is printed on acid-free paper and the signatures are sewn.
Copyright © 2017 Journal of Roman Archaeology L.L.C. unless otherwise indicated
Permission to copy may be obtained only direct from JRA®, by mail, letter, fax or phone.
E-mail address: jra@JournalofRomanArch.com Phone (USA+) 401 683 1955
Mailing address: 95 Peleg Road, Portsmouth, Rhode Island 02871, USA Fax (USA+) 401 683 1975
The Copyright Clearance Center (USA), the Copyright Licensing Agency (UK), and other national
Reproduction Rights Organizations are not permitted to authorize copying or to collect fees for so
doing.

The opinions expressed in the articles and book reviews published in this journal are those of the authors
and not those of the editor or the editorial committee. Reviews are solicited in good faith.

The Journal of Roman Archaeology® has a home page on the World Wide Web, at:
http://www.JournalofRomanArch.com

The home page contains the full table of contents of all published issues of the journal, as well as an
index of all books reviewed arranged alphabetically by author, and indices by topic and by site of all
articles published. The home page also gives details of titles in the supplementary series (with special
offers for individuals).
 Table of contents of fascicule 2
Review articles and long reviews
A. J. Nijboer Indigenous groups of the Early Iron Age in S Italy 536
J. M. Turfa The development of Etruscan studies in Italy 540
J. Armstrong Building up Archaic Rome 543
C. Courrier L’Aventin plébéien: un mythe historiographique? 547
I. van der Graaf Alatri and other polygonal walling, with a Festschrift to L. Gasperini 552
B. Peruzzi An exhibit on the Ceglie Vases from near Bari 557
B. Barr-Sharrar An important exhibit on Hellenistic and early Roman bronzes 559
A. Ziolkowski Filippo Coarelli and the history of religion: how to honour a polymath 568
T. A. J. McGinn Trouble on the Appian Way: a new understanding of the Pro Milone 578
M. L. Popkin The Roman triumph and triumphal monuments during the 1st c. B.C. 584
F. S. Kleiner To be Roman in Rome 592
R. Ling The predominance of Greek myths in Roman domestic and funerary 594
imagery
G. Sears Parallel stories of spatial violence 598
L. L. Brice Régime change with violence and an ‘old-school’ network 602
Y. Perrin Néron encore et toujours ... 605
K. Dicus Bringing to light the chequered story of the House of Sallust in Pompeii 610
J. T. Peña “Expo Milano 2015” on the Tiber? The catalogue from an exhibition 615
on Roman food
C. Russenberger Tombs and sarcophagi: shifting the perspective on Rome’s funerary 620
culture of the 3rd c. A.D.
M. Mayer i Olivé Un paso más en la consolidación de la epigrafía como ciencia 630
fundamental
E. Fentress Causation, correlation, and climate change: Romans and their 640
environment
M. S. Hobson Ancient economics: dialectic of quantity and quality 644
T. A. J. McGinn Judicial spaces in the Roman world 649
R. P. Saller The three social orders in imperial administration (1st-3rd c. A.D.) 654
P. Gros Lieux sacrés et formes théâtrales dans les provinces du nord-ouest 657
de l’empire: la place, le volume et le rôle des édifices de spectacle
dans les rituels religieux
M. M. Lindner & Roman women’s public presence in the towns of Italy and the 663
E. Lamond western provinces
R. Gordon Mithraic ideas and reflections 666
M. Junkelmann Another practical re-creation of gladiatorial combat 670
J.-P. Thuillier Les jeux romains dans l’art 671
J. Liu Roman craftsmen and traders: strategies, networks, and spatial 676
distributions in urban contexts
R. H. Wilkinson The hidden demographics of Roman migration 682
K. V. Huntley Back to questions of identity 688
 Table of contents of fascicule 2 (continued)

E. L. Wheeler Hadrian’s Wall: the ongoing search for certainty 691

M. Ng The story of the urban cohorts based at Lyon 696
M. MacKinnon Synthesizing faunal data in the civitas Batavorum 698
R. Reece The interaction and use of stater and sestertius in NE Gaul 701
(3rd c. B.C.–1st c. A.D.)
R. Reece Coins and coin use in the countryside of NE Gaul 704
St. Martin Publishing and analyzing coin finds: Xanten and beyond 710
P. M. Kenrick A different approach to Gaulish sigillata (red slip ware)? 716
J. Edmondson Reconstructing a small town in the foothills of the Pyrenees: 724
the Flavian municipium of Labitolosa
J. J. Palao Vicente Más allá del objeto. Viejos temas y nuevos enfoques en los estudios 729
del ejército romano
J. Bermejo Tirado The study of domestic architecture in Roman Spain: the next generation 737
M. Vickers Dining fashionably on pottery in Baetica? 742
L. Colominas Economía y sociedad romana en la meseta nordeste de la Península 745
Ibérica a partir del estudio de contextos domésticos
D. Mateo Corredor In search of Lusitanian amphoras 748
E. Fentress The longue durée at Rirha in the plain of the Gharb (Morocco) 752
R. B. Hitchner “Africa, quasi Roma” 757
S. McFadden Drawing attention to wall-paintings in Tunisia 759
D. L. Stone The pottery of Sullecthum (Salakta), a major N African producer and 763
supplier
J. Lund A specialist tool of the late Jean Bussière for classifying motifs on the 767
rims of North African lamps (Hayes Type II)
J. Eingartner Standbild, Raum und Gesellschaft in den Städten des römischen Nord- 770
afrika: neue Forschungen im Dialog zwischen Geschichte und Archäologie
G. Mazzilli Marmi leptitani 778
M. E. Hoskins Walbank Corinth and connectivity 783
E. Gebhard Greek theatres in Achaia under the Empire 790
N. Karydis A major contribution to the study of Roman vaulted architecture 792
H. Williams Lamps from a cemetery at Perissa on the island of Thera 796
M. Rautman Producing surface data at Koutsopetria (SE Cyprus) 798
L. Cavalier La basilique civile d’Aphrodisias 802
S. Mitchell Ruler worship and provincial organisation in the Roman East and the 805
oath of loyalty sworn to Augustus
A. M. Roberts The paths and memories tying Antioch to its hinterland 810
C. S. Lightfoot A colloquium on the regional context of Zeugma 818
N. Andrade Facing Palmyra’s past and its funerary portraits 823
L. Gregoratti A conference on Palmyrene trade and more 828
M. C. A. Macdonald How much can we know about language and literacy in Roman Judaea? 832
C. S. Lightfoot A well-executed and well-preserved mosaic from Lod (Lydda, Diospolis) 843
S. E. Alcock Surveying a holy mountain near Petra 849
J. Patrich A gem of a temple at Khirbet et-Tannur 853
M. Berenfeld Studying a modest house in the Dakhleh Oasis 856
 Table of contents of fascicule 2 (continued)

E. Marlowe Renovations and the use of spolia in Rome of the late 3rd and 4th c. A.D. 859
C. C. Mattusch Crunching numbers: counting statues and inscriptions 864
C. H. Hallett The Greek and Roman “statue habit”: the last hurrah 875
S. J. Barker New perspectives on the afterlife of ancient sculpture 891
R. Van Dam Philosophy and theology in the age of Constantine 894
Chr. Eger Piecing together the story of Bonifatius 898
R. Reece The production and recycling of coins in the Late Empire 901
K. M. D. Dunbabin The games in late antiquity 904
K. Harper Cities of God, cities of the dead, in the collected works of Éric Rebillard 913
J. Conant Changing views of the soul’s fate in the afterlife 916
S. T. Stevens A new inventory of Christian basilicas in Tunisia: marking the end of 918
an era?
S. T. Parker Late Roman military architecture, with some questions about the 923
eastern frontier
M. Whiting The kastron and fortifications of Androna northeast of Hama 930
T. Erickson-Gini Completing the series on Jabal Harun near Petra 933
R. Ousterhout The basilica at Herakleia Perinthos and connections with the 937
Byzantine capital
C. C. Mattusch Rome under the influence: Canova’s view of antiquity 939
D. M. Totten Placemaking in the Mediterranean: the case of Butrint 948
S. L. Tuck On collecting the collection at the AAR, and how to use it 956

Obituary
Silvio Panciera by John Bodel 960

Books received; books reviewed in this issue

Books received 963
Books reviewed in this issue 974
 In search of Lusitanian amphoras
Daniel Mateo Corredor
INÊS VAZ PINTO, RUI ROBERTO DE ALMEIDA and ARCHER MARTIN (edd.), LUSITANIAN
AMPHORAE: PRODUCTION AND DISTRIBUTION (Roman and Late Antique Mediterra-
nean Pottery 10; Archaeopress, Oxford, 2016). Pp. viii + 464, many figs., 7 colour plates. ISBN
9781784914271.
Attending the congress on ‘Lusitanian amphorae, production and diffusion’ held at Tróia
(Portugal) in October 20131 were not only many Portuguese researchers but also a range of
international scholars. The resulting proceedings contain 38 contributions. The main goal was
to present new results on amphora production in Lusitania and, especially, to update the evi-
dence for and reconsider the circulation of Lusitanian amphoras by way of their distribution.
This is a legitimate goal: as the editors correctly note in their Foreword, Lusitanian amphoras
have been less studied at their point or places of consumption, much more being known about
the places where they were produced,2 for which the first reports began to appear in the second
half of the 19th c.3 Over the last three decades a huge number of Lusitanian kilns have been
studied and published. The turning point for the study of Lusitanian amphoras came in 1987
with the classic typology proposed by A. D. Diogo,4 followed in the next year by the congress
held at Conimbriga.5
The contributions are arranged in three sections: I. The production of Lusitanian amphorae;
II. Archaeometry, contents and quantification of Lusitanian amphorae; III. The distribution of
Lusitanian amphorae. In this review, I will be able to highlight only those aspects that might
be considered the most interesting.
The 6 contributions in Part 1 focus on the four principal production areas: Peniche, Tajo,
Sado and Algarve. This section includes contributions dedicated to a particular kiln and oth-
ers providing the current state of knowledge of a larger area. Characterisation of the different
amphora types from the perspective of the centres of production greatly aids their recognition
on sites where they ended up being consumed. Especially important is the new information
regarding the early Lusitanian types, not very well known until now. Valuable too is the occa-
sional use of colour macrophotographs of the fabrics. The particular character of the amphora
products of Peniche, for which the authors (G. Cardoso, S. Rodrigues, E. Sepulveda and
I. Ribeiro) distinguish 12 types manufactured from the last quarter of the 1st c. B.C. until the
end of the 2nd or early 3rd c. A.D., should be highlighted, even if this reviewer might consider
several to be varieties of the same type. Reflections by J. P. Bernardes and V. Viegas on amphora
production in the Algarve are also particularly interesting. The lack of evidence of production
prior to the 3rd c. A.D. is related to the low numbers of fish-salting facilities in this area during
this period, in contrast to the high supply of Baetican amphoras for salted fish that is reflected
in the archaeological record. The authors dismiss the idea that empty amphoras from the Bae-
tican coast were used for Lusitanian products,6 but the debate is not concluded.

1 Supported by the Centro de Estudos em Arqueologia, Artes e Ciências do Património, Tróia Resort,
Tróia Ruinas y Fundaçâo para a Ciência e a Tecnologia.
2 E.g., F. Mayet, A. Schmitt and C. T. Silva, Les amphores du Sado (Portugal). Prospection des fours et
analyse du matériel (Paris 1996); F. Mayet and C. T. Silva, L’atelier d’amphores de Pinheiro (Portugal)
(Paris 1998); iid., L’atelier d’amphores de Abul (Portugal) (Paris 2002).
3 Cf. C. Fabião, “Centros oleiros da Lusitania: balanço dos conhecimentos e perspectivas de
investigação,” in D. Bernal and L. Lagóstena (edd.), Figlinae baeticae. Talleres alfareros y producciones
cerámicas en la Bética romana (ss. II a.C.–VII d.C.) (BAR S1266; Oxford 2004) vol. 1, 379-410.
4 A. D. Diogo, “Quadro tipológico das ânforas de fabrico lusitano,” ArqPort ser. 4, vol. 5 (1987) 179-91.
5 A. Alarcão and F. Mayet (edd.), As ânforas lusitanas. Tipologia, produção, comercio. Actas da mesa
redonda de Conímbriga, 1988 (Coimbra–Paris 1990).
6 C. Fabião, “O sul da Lusitânia (Algarve português) e a Baetica: concorrência ou complementari-
dade?,” in Ex Baetica amphorae. Conservas y vino de la Bética en el Imperio Romano (Écija 2001) vol. 2,
 In search of Lusitanian amphoras 749

Part 2 contains 5 contributions on different issues. An exhaustive study of the geochemi-

cal characteristics of the main production areas is followed by three articles which deal with
the contents of Lusitanian amphoras. Residue analysis is becoming a fruitful line of research.
Here the studies determined that sweetened fish-based products were the contents of a group
of Augustan amphoras made in the Tajo and Sado valleys, whereas sardine and salted sardine
remains were found inside two Dressel 14 at Setúbal. The titulus pictus LAC[…], found in a
Dressel 14 parva, is analysed, with D. Djaoui proposing a re-reading of the 28 tituli picti with
references traditionally attributed to laccatum, which he now identifies as lacertus catulus, a type
of mackerel. Finally, V. Martínez studies the capacity of Lusitanian amphoras with the aid of
CAD programs, which allow one reliably to quantify the contents rather than the containers.7
Part 3 deals with the distribution of Lusitanian amphoras. It in turn is divided three sub-
sections. The first contains 10 contributions focusing on the circulation of Lusitanian amphoras
within this province, an important step because too often (as in the case of Baetica) distribution
analyses focus on the distribution outside the province of origin. Several contributions offer
well-dated contexts or present a significant quantity of material which enhances the reliability
of the analysis. This is seen in the studies of Augusta Emerita and especially Tróia. Because
most phases are well represented, chronological distinctions can be made, such as the steady
arrival of Lusitanian amphoras on consumer sites during the first part of the 1st c. A.D., not-
withstanding the absence of the Lusitanian Dressel 14 from Julio-Claudian contexts at Olisipo.
Most of the contributions offer quantitative analyses of the amphora assemblages, detecting the
high proportions achieved by Lusitanian amphoras from an early stage. The main exception
is the Algarve region, where the predominance of Baetican imports is noted during the Early
Empire, a situation that has been noted before.8
Lusitanian amphoras at Tróia must be highlighted. A total of 3673 sherds spanning the occu-
pation of this large fish-salting centre were analysed, including through quantification and the
study of amphora capacity. One of the chief findings is that the type Sado 1 appeared at Tróia
in high numbers; this type has a large size with a capacity of more than 50 liters. The authors
rightly question the reasons for the co-existence of this type with local amphoras of a smaller
size, such as Almagro 51a-b and Almagro 51c. On the basis of the significant quantities of
Lusitanian amphoras at Augusta Emerita, R. R. Almeida notes the importance of consumption
within the province of Lusitania. This can be argued to be one of the keys for understanding
the apparent imbalance between the data on where they are produced and where they are con-
sumed and found. The full geo-archaeological study of the S coast of Portugal carried out by
F. Teichner is also presented in this section, even if it may be less related thematically.
The second sub-section turns to the distribution of Lusitanian amphoras in the other His-
panic provinces, beginning with study of the north-west. For the Early Empire, A. Fernández
observes a different pattern, one less abundant in the north of Rias Baixas than in the south,
where significant representation is observed at sites such as Bracara Augusta. In the first of two
contributions on Baetica, E. García focuses on the lower Guadalquivir valley, where the type
Lusitana 3 achieves an exceptional volume, the Severan context at Patio de Banderas (Sevilla)
being the best example. The high proportions are interpreted as the consequence of the major

717-30; C. Viegas, A ocupação romana do Algarve — estudo do povoamento e economia do Algarve central
e oriental no período romano (Lisbon 2011) 567-75.
7 J. P. Ikäheimo and J. T. Peña, “The Palatine East Pottery Project: a holistic approach to the study
and publication of an excavated pottery assemblage from Rome,” in K. T. Biro (ed.), Proceedings of
the European Meeting on Ancient Ceramics (Budapest 2007) vol. 7, 37-42; J. McCaw, “The VESCAP
routine for calculating vessel capacity from a profile drawing,” in E. Papi (ed.), Supplying Rome and
the Empire (JRA Suppl. 69, 2007) 170-72; D. Mateo and J. Molina, “Archaeological quantification of
pottery. Rims count adjusted with Modulus of Rupture (MR),” Archaeometry 58 (2016) 333-46.
8 E. Sousa and A. M. Arruda, “A gaditanização do Algarve,” Mainake 32 (2010) 951-74; Viegas (supra
n.5); A. M. Arruda, “O Algarve na rota Atlântica do comércio romano,” in B. Mora and G. Cruz
(edd.), La etapa neopúnica en Hispania y el Mediterráneo centro occidental: identidades compartidas
(Sevilla 2012) 413-24; D. Mateo, Comercio anfórico y relaciones mercantiles en Hispania Ulterior (ss. II
a.C.–II d.C.) (Coll. Instrumenta 52, Barcelona 2016) 261-62.
750 D. Mateo Corredor

Fig. 1. Sites in the Iberian peninsula that

are mentioned: 1. Bracara Augusta; 2.
Peniche; 3. Olisipo; 4. Setúbal; 5. Tróia; 6.
Augusta Emerita; 7. Hispalis; 8. Carthago
Nova; 9. Escolletes 1; 10. Tarraco.
changes in oil distribution that followed the accession of Septimius Severus. Within the con-
text of increased state control, intensification in the Atlantic route is seen, the numbers of the
Baetican Dressel 20 being significantly augmented during this period. In this scenario, the
abundance of Lusitana 3 could be interpreted as the result of transporting a particular product
to the lower Guadalquivir valley on return journeys. Its high presence in this area supports the
notion of Lusitana 3 as a wine-carrying amphora. Separately, D. Bernal analyses the presence
of Lusitanian amphoras on the coasts of both Baetica and Tingitana, confirming that they were
imported throughout the Imperial era. He also brings into question the end of production of
Lusitanian amphoras; he criticizes those who overlook their presence in late contexts, viewing
them as residual, and he proposes to see them continuing to be produced until the middle of
the 6th c. This interesting proposal seems to be reinforced by other evidence collected in this
volume, with Lusitanian amphoras being recorded in the second half of the 5th c. and even in
the early 6th c. at sites such as Tarraco and Rome. Lusitanian imports are often documented
on the E coast of the peninsula but in small quantities, as seen in the studies of R. Járrega and
H. González, focused on the Early Empire, and in the work of A. Quevedo and S. Bombico
dealing with Carthago Nova and the surrounding area. In both contributions the difficulties in
recognising and distinguishing solely on the basis of macroscopic analyses Lusitanian ampho-
ras from similar Baetican types are clear. Based on material recovered from the site of Escolletes,
F. Cerezo identifies a wreck with a homogeneous cargo made up of different amphora types
from Lusitania. The wreck Escolletes 1, dated to the 4th c.,9 could be related to the redistribu-
tive rôle played by Carthago Nova in that period.
The last sub-section contains 10 contributions relating to the circulation of Lusitanian
amphoras in the Roman West beyond the Iberian peninsula. One case-study deals with the
assemblage found in the dump layer on top of the shipwreck Arles-Rhône 3. This layer, which
is dated between A.D. 60 and 140, contained 2798 individual amphoras, of which a mere 1.1%

9 J. Mas, “El polígono submarino de Caba de Palos. Sus aportaciones al estudio del tráfico marítimo
antiguo,” in VI Congreso Int. de Arqueología Submarína, Cartagena 1982 (Madrid 1985) 153-71.
 In search of Lusitanian amphoras 751

are from Lusitania, most of them probably spanning the 1st c. A.D. At this site there are high
numbers of tituli picti referring to the contents of Lusitanian amphoras (6 examples). Within the
Lusitanian amphora types, it is surprising that 25% belong to Dressel 14 parvae, a little-known
type. The authors consider whether this evidence could relate to the initial phase of commer-
cialisation of Lusitanian goods in this part of Gaul and that these amphoras might be samples
for promoting those products — a stimulating hypothesis, although one difficult to prove.
Nonetheless, Lusitanian imports are very rare in both Germanies and in Gallia Belgica, even on
the best-known sites that have been studied by P. Monsieur.
Amongst regions beyond the Iberian peninsula, Italy is the best represented, with 6 arti-
cles. Analyses of Lusitanian amphoras at Ostia and Rome are carried out by A. Martin and
G. Rizzo, respectively. Rome and its hinterland seems to have been one of the main export
destinations for Lusitanian products from at least the Neronian-Flavian period, despite the
fact that Lusitanian amphoras never made up a substantial proportion of the vast quantity of
imported amphoras sent to the capital. The distribution of Lusitanian amphoras in Italy’s Adri-
atic sector is much lower, since that area was more open to other markets; in general, amphoras
from the Iberian peninsula as a whole are rare, even if R. Auriemma and S. Mattioli point out
the problems when trying to distinguish between Lusitanian and Baetican types, Almagro 50,
and the Greek amphora San Lorenzo 7 which is abundant in this area. Similarly, D. Gaddi and
V. Degrassi note the similarities between Lusitana 3 and Dressel 30 types.10
The volume ends with a full analysis of the main navigation routes and circulation of Lusita-
nian amphoras using a selection of shipwrecks from the W Mediterranean. Shipwrecks with a
homogeneous cargo from Lusitania are very rare. Between the Julio-Claudian and Antonine
period Lusitanian amphoras share cargo space with other Spanish amphoras, but from the mid-
dle of the 3rd c. they begin to be recorded alongside N African amphoras. Here a summary table
containing the essential information about each shipwreck analysed would have been valuable.
Overall, the reader has been given updated information on the circulation of Lusitanian
amphoras, considerably extending our knowledge of their presence at consumption centres.
Nonetheless, the earlier assessment has not changed substantially: there is a recurring presence
of Lusitanian products on markets in the West, but they do not achieve the kind of percent-
age amongst imports overall that one might expect to result from the enormous productive
capacity of fish-salting centres at places such as Tróia.11 The main exceptions are the important
percentages achieved by the Lusitanian 3 type in the lower Guadalquivir Valley during the
Severan period (although this type would have contained wine) and, especially, the dominance
of Lusitanian amphoras in their home region, which shows that we should not underestimate
the fact that a significant part of the production would have been addressed to regional centres
of consumption. The level of consumption, in absolute terms, of Lusitanian products at Rome
should also not be underestimated.
The reader will appreciate the clear tables and graphs, especially important where quan-
tification is a chief tool of analysis. On the other hand, one misses a subject and author index,
which would have facilitated a quick search of particular topics. The volume will certainly
aid the identification of Lusitanian amphoras on consumption sites, thereby increasing the
numbers and leading to a more precise understanding of the actual distribution of Lusitanian
products. The book represents a major advance in our knowledge of the Lusitanian produc-
tions12 and will become the main reference work for their study.
daniel.mateo@ua.es University of Alicante

10 It seems to be an error that on fig. 4 (p. 439) some Lusitana 3 are mentioned with Baetican fabrics,
but some similar types (Dr. 30) produced in regions like Malaga are very similar typologically and
could easily be confused with Lusitana 3, being instead Baetican productions.
11 R. Étienne, Y. Makaroun and F. Mayet, Un grand complexe industriel à Tróia (Portugal) (Paris 1994);
R. Étienne and F. Mayet, Trois clés pour l’économie de l’Hispanie romaine II. Salaisons et sauces hispaniques
(Paris 2002).
12 Also now the proceedings of the Seixal international workshop “A Olaria Romana” (Roman pottery
works, with experimental workshop), freely available at http://repositorio.ul.pt/handle/10451/27927.