EXCAVATIONS AT SARACHANE IN ISTANBUL VOLUME 2 The Pottery Br J. W. HAYESby ene Copyright © 192 uae neon Usiesiy Mea? Wallan te ca by Daun tae Renn) amd scene N-W, Was se United Kine: rst rae FE 8 A Rights Reser iay of Cons Cation 1 [Revise fe whe sgrapty: v1 p ASAT yp Hake ate centr cnn, er, afte eas cnt ome aed mates hy HNL Haven 6 2 oy FW aes 1, Swaion Site (an ihey) 2 Token Aso Steen nb, Tres) 4 Want orks | el aaa ge 3 anol (Lakes) Assis TH RM Gh Marin), 135. Dato Cabs OFF DRA paws 1 WS SE TSUN nN? (eT ath 2a TRAN Mates 2 UL “This bok as recone Lc I ‘Gotu eins of Pins Une vs ate p88 acid ieppet al Bg mer te ot bo btn hi stam has from the blest ot Prine inthe United States of Aeris By Brame Pane, New feCONTENTS List oF xtusTRaTioNs ii PRerace, ACKNOWLEDGMENTS, ix Conventions Use in THE, ‘Drawinos 1 Late Roman and Byzantine Pottery CChiapten One, INTRODUCTION Chapter Two. "Late Roman” Wans Early “Local” Fabrics 5 Mortaria of Lead-Glazed Type “Late Roman” Fine Wares 5 Colour-Coated White Ware 8 ‘Late Roman Unguensaria" Miscellaneous List of Stamps 9 Chaprer Taree. Giazep Wire Wants Glazed White Ware T 14 Glazed White Ware tV Glazed White Ware 18 Glazed White Ware V Glazed Whice Ware MT 2B Cuarten Four, Potycrnome Wane Charten Five. Unoiazen Wiurre Wares, Cuavren Six, Oren Guazen Wares, INCLUDING [stamic Wanes Coarse Glazed Wares 41 Corinthian) Wa Islamic Wares 43 Late 12th co 13th Century Red Fine Sgrafito Ware 4 Bodied Wares Painted Sgraflito Ware and Vessels in Late Byzantine Wares Similar Fabric 46 (Cuapter Seven. OTHER Late Roman AND BYZANTINE UNGLazED Wares Mica-Dusted Wares 49 Coarse Gritted Ware Red-Burnished and Polished Wares. 49 Other Unglazed Wares, Plain Coarse War 50 Cuapter Bicttr, Lari Roman aNp Byzantine Coorine Wants Cuapten Ning. AMPHORAE Type-Series CL Grafs hora Stamps 77 Dipinet Marks Incised before Firing 78 Cutapren Ten. Lames Type-Series 82 Catalogue CCuapten ELeveN. Catatocus oF Derosins (with Table 1) Cuavten Twenve. Oris fxtusrearen Porrsny 9 2 53 6 wR 8 80 83 onCONTENTS u Turkish Pottery Cuneren Tiareen, IntHODUCTION Tunis Fave Wane (ich Table 2) (Cuuarren Foust -Mazerus Wane” (Izsik Sets) 239 (Cuanren FurvesN logue CCuraprn Snares Catalogue: Bik Ware Catalogue: Iie Monochrome Ware CCuneren SevENTEEN. CHINESE PORCELAIN 61 Masks (with Table 3) ne Fenix Want AND DERIVREIVES yu; Cher QQuarce Tt Tox 256 Catalogue an Wares (Messtty PRE-U7H0 CCerapren FicuTesn. Various [att 265 Catalogue CChiaeten Nivereen Laren OrroMaN Fine W ori CentuR) Katahya Ware Catalogue: Keays Ware Cuawren Two, Turksti Connse Wares (with Tablet} Deasiled Dest ryperSennes ith (with Table) 23 anus (ISTE 108 EY 2h Gamakkate Wane 267 Catalogue: Garabhate War ion of Wares Cuarran Tweery-one. Cavatocu or Derusits: Temi BEG (1-83) (with Tables 7-14) CChuarten Twesty-Tw0, CATALOGUE Or SHEE TATE OHS 1-99) ‘Cuapree Twesty-tenee, Sureueontany Tunkintt MAUUIA CCirapren Twenry-rour. CLay Tonaccs Pures ‘Type Sees 303 elated Matera Stamps BE Swmmary MW Glass Cuapren TweNt-sive. INTRODUCTION Curren Twenty-six, Lave ROMAN AND ByZaS INT G8 "Late Roman,” Chiefly Sth to 7h Ca ‘Cenories 4 IMid-Byzantne, Chilly 11th vo Early 13h a CCuraeren TweNTy-SevEN, Gass or Tite Orvestan Print Local Series, 16:ho 17Rh Centuries HN Eater Venetian and Other Imports Watt Nores s3 Paw Broiocaary 45LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS 1. “Late Rostian” wares, fine and semiefine 247. Glazed White Wares ¥. Polychrome Ware 9, Polyelirome, Islamic, and various sprattito/ painted wares 10, Fine Sgrattito Ware 11. Fine Sgeaftito and other red-bodied glazed 12. Various glazed and coarse wares, amphorae 13-14. Amphorae and amphora stamps 15. Dipinti and yraffit, Late Roman and Byzantine lo-I7, “Late Roman Unguentaria™ 18-25, Lamps 26-29, "Miletus Ware 30-34, Tani Ware 39, Various quartz-feie wares (inclusling, Syrian), and Italia maiolica WaH1. Chinese porcelain 42. Italian Painted Syrattito Ware, and Ortoman ‘bowl with inscription 43, Kiitahya Ware H, Canakkale Ware, and other late fine wares 45-49, Turkish coarse 50. Various Ottornan wares, tobacco pipes, ert bles 51, Various Late Oecoman wares and imports 52, Selected glass finls, clay figurines, tobacco pipes Sic Pn A Lat anand yeni emain(= Val, SH Late Renan and Byzantine Depsis 16 ee ene aal wea peta Chip essen se Pn th Tugs enue Vb tig Lom. 39. gg 2 Sane pe 30 on pm (222) 3. “Late Roman’ 4-12, Glazed White Wares 12, Polychrome Ware 14. Unglazed White Wares 15. Coarse Glazed Wares 16, Islanie Wares 17. Seraftico and red-bodied yhized wares ISI, Various unglazedl wares 2-21 Byzantine [sie cooking wares Amiphorse: type-seties Ampliora seams 28. Graffiti, miscellaneous amphorae Mouldinade lamps. 7. lanik, Ware (includin Monochrome) Other guarczttie wares, Iralian wares 9. Chinese poreelain 100, Kiitalya Ware Wt, Ganakkale Ware, ete 1n2,.Siafito moti on Ware 2 103-38. Turkish Type-S M575 IMU, Turkish pit-groups (Deposits 71-85) TAI-46, Late Oetoman Deposits (91-99) 147-48, Miscellaneous Lare Oteaman pottery 149. Clay tobacew pipes: Type-Series 150-53. Late Rowan and Byzantine glass 154-59. Glass of che Ortoman periodACKNOWLEDGMENTS "Tu parser wonk had its genesis in an invitation to me fiom Professor R. M. Harrison, in 1964, to act as pot- tery specialist to the exeavations, then about to com rence under the cosponsorship of the Dumbarton Oaks Center for Byzantine Studies and the Istanbul Arkeotoji Miizeleri. To Professor Hacrison and his codirector, the late Dr. Nezih Fitat, There wish to record my gratitude for fifteen years of support inthe field, both during and alter the actual excavations, and for repeated assistance uring the writing and editing of this second and final volume of the formal excavation report. It isa matter of personal sorrow that Dr. Firath did not live to see the final results, though partial drafs were presented to him; his friendly encouragement of the work is fondly re. membered. Also of regret is the long, delay in publica~ tion, at a time when destruction has continued apace within the bounds of ancient Constantinoplo—a genes ation of rescue archacologists has not had real access to the information presented here, which might have pro~ vided extra guidance, The eext which follows was writ- ten essentially between 1973 and 1980, but for various reasons has been delayed at the editorial stage. At one time it was hoped to publish Vols. I and Il together, but this solution finally proved impossible to achieve During the period of the excavations (until 1969), fr nancial support for my yearly activities was provided by Dambarton Oaks, who also enabled me to work on the material in Istanbul through the autumn months of 1966, Subsequently the living expenses for annual sum mer study seasons in Istanbul (until 1979) were borne by Dumbarton Oaks, while the Royal Ontario Muscum Inngely bore my travel expenses tothe Mediterranean for this and other work, regularly granting me leave time for the purpose. The various members of the original excavation team have contributed their many skills and receive my warmest thanks. The present textand the final versions of the line-drawings (apart from the site plans, which T owe to Mr, Gordon Lawson), are essentially my own. The bulk of the accompanying photographs were exc~ ‘cuted and processed by Ms, Elizabeth Harrison (oficial photographer); these are supplemented, where lacunae occurred, by some inferior photographs of my own, generally not intended for publication (but used, faute de ‘miews, to provide at least a minimal record of finds not otherwise easily accessible), Some of the pencil originals from which the published drawings were traced out ‘were executed (under supervision) by various Turkish field assistants, others, after the excavations, by Me. BT... .. nthe initial processing of the finds, I was ably helped by various assistants from the Istanbu] Museums, and by Miss Penny Feiffer. Much later, Mrs. Lynn Rob- certs acted in a coordinating role at Newcastle upon ‘Tyne, and helped with the numbering of the drawings, The technical staff of the University of Newcastle upon “Tyne and of the Royal Ontario Muscum have provided various assistance, Expert restoration of selected fine ‘wares was undertaken by the staifof the Istanbul Muse~ tums, Useful discussions took place, during and after the excavations, with the staff of the parallel Dumbarton ‘Oaks project at the Kalendechane Cami, Their work, when it is published in detail, will fill an some of the chronological gaps in the present record, The Istanbul Archaeological Muscums, and its successive directors, provided various working and storage facilities (espe- cially before the on-site depot was constructed). A small selection of the pottery finds is inventoried in the Mu= seum’s collections, while the rest remains on the site. In closing, a double vote of thanks is due, first to the Princeton University Press, for having accepted from Dumbarton Oaks the responsibility of guiding this vol- ‘ume into print—a much longer process than cither party had originally envisaged; secondly, to the faithful band of workmen, companions, and directors who, so many years ago, duig up the raw material ofthe present report. ‘May the next generation build upon the foundations laid here! J. W. Hayes (1980, 1989)PREFACE Iv 1947, R.B.K. Stevenson published the first properly documented stratigeaphical sequence of Byzantt tery {rom Constantinople.' ‘This seminal study opened the way for a proper understanding of the development of pottery in the metropolitan region, and its signifi cance in terms of the Byzantine Empire as a whole. Pre- vious knowledge of the wares in question and theie dates had been imprecise, depencling heavily on finds from the provinces. The present report takes Stevenson's work as a point of departure, and attempts to build on it by broadening, both its scope and its time-span, while re- taining its basic approach, Whereas Stevenson selected the glazed Byzantine pottery from the Great Palace ex- ‘eavations—some 7,000 sherds—as the material for bi study, [here attempt to consider in similar detail all the pottery found at Sarachane (an estimated 350,000 400,000 shieeds andl vessels); hence the greater length of this report. The time-span is here expanded backward to a, A.D. 400 and forward to embrace the whole Ottoman period (to 4.0. 1900-+). A consistent approach to all this ‘materials in fact possible, given the survival of medieval pottery-making practices in and around Istanbul unl ‘quite recent times: modern industrial mass-production techniques scarcely predate the present century. Thus the Sarachane finds are here presented both as archaco= logical tools and as evidence of the changing patterns in the use of pottery in Constantinople/stanbul over some 1,500 years ofits history—with the exception ofthe Late Byzantine period, ea. 1225-1450+, unrepresented here just as it was in the Great Palace. For this period, as for the pre-Coustantinian periods of the city, we must rely on the work of others. To provide “building-block” for other archacologists working in the city and elsewhere, 1, like Stevenson, have chosen to present the finds as far as possible as a sequence of stratified groups (here almost a hundred) cach to be regarded as a microcosm of a particular briet period, These groups provide proof of the date of those wares (chiefly coarse) hat are here defined forthe fist time, and help to isolate the ehance intrusive ot residval piece. While the absolute dates of the various groups ray be subject to some changes, the fact of the contem~ porancity of the differen wares found in them remains. In fact, the subject of Ottoman coarse wares, like that of the Byzantine coarse unglazed wares, has remained to the present day virtually terra incognita owing to the lack of a proper archaeological approach to it. The only ‘well-studied classes of Turkish pottery are the fine dec- crated wares, which constitute a mere faction of the to= tal finds at Saraghane as elsewhere. A one-sided view therefore pervades the published literature, one which this work attempts to redress, at least for Istanbit the on-site method of recording the finds at Sarag- hhane consisted primarily of a card-index by lay each card the potsheeds were listed by ware, with indi cations of the types present and the quantitis of each, Restorable vessels and sherds with unusual decoration, stamps, of the like (i.e., traditional “museum pieces” were listed in detail in separate inventories (scties “RP” for Roman-style pots, “BP” for Byzantine glized wares and thei contemporaries, “TP” for Turkish, including nports). These inventory numbers, which serve to identify the actual vessels, are cited in the catalogues be- ow. Uncatalogued pieces are marked with the two- oF three-letter layer codes cited in the Levels Lise (see Vol. 1, pp. 37-102). Although the finds from most layers were filly tabulated, the exigencies of the intensified 1967 and 1968 seasons precluded the complete recording of many of the larger assemblages, and some material was discarded at that time with only a cursory record being made. This situation could nor be fully remedied in the subsequent study seasons; hence the record is rather less complete than planned (I estimace 80-90 per= cent coverage). In addition, given the problems of access to raw material several thousand miles away, some pho~ tographs were not taken, and some details not checked at the proper time; storage conditions have also been cramped. In these ciecumstances—farly normal on any najor excavation—i¢ scemed advisable to place a time= limit on the period of study and accept some imperte tions, rather than risk no publication atall, Laccepe crite icism on this score; however, relatively little significant information has been lost. “The Late Byzantine “lacuna” permits the division of this volume into two major parts, dealing with the Late Roman/Byzantine and Ortoman Turkish finds respec tively. The nature of che finds has suggested somewhat different lines of approach in each part; it has beenPREFACE to present the Ottoman finds in some~ form. Other classes of clay ob: th the pottery of each period: ded to Pare I, Turkish deemed necessary what more compressed jets appeat together wit Tmould-made clay lamps are appen obacco-pipes to Part I. The glass finds ofall periods are resented separately, forming Pat IL, A separate bibli- Seraphy is provided for each part. For other eategories of finds, see Volume |CONVENTIONS USED IN THE DRAWINGS ‘The state of preservation of a vessel may be roughly judged by the form of the drawing: full ewo-sided profile, half-profile, rim/base only. A few complete vessels are drawn as half-profiles only for reasons of page arrangement. When only a detailis drawn, this is indicated. ‘The estimated rim/base diameter (in cm) is indicated ‘on incomplete profiles, as a figure against the rim/ base line. Handle sections are drawn with the outer face atthe top. Square brackets indicate restoration of that part of the profile within the brackets (one side of vessel only). ‘A white line across the black profile (with short “pointers” at sides) indicates that the profile is re= constructed from two or more nonjoining pieces. (On oceasion, an irregular broken line is used to in~ dicate the line of break. On half-profiles, external features (angles, decora~ tion, etc,) may be indicated summarily to the left of the drawn profile, On closed vessels, the inner line ofthe profile is gen~ erally omitted where it cannot be accurately mea~ sured; however, the thickness at the centre of the bottom is indicated by a short line. 9, 10, tt 12, 13, 14, 16, ‘Where grooves ate too close-set to be individually reproducible (e.g., fine combing), they are rendered by massed broken lines. A broken line indicates restoration or, where hoti~ zontal, a weak change of angle on profile A row of dots indicates edge of glaze or (on Late Roman wares) slip/gloss, A line of alternating dashes and dots indicates edge of underglaze slip Gouged lines are indicated in solid black. Shading in the form of short irregular close-set lines ‘or hatching indicates discoloration (blackening, etc.—mainly on Late Roman fine wares, from un- even firing), or added paine or staining. Where ewo paint colours appear, the darker tint (black, sepia, dark green, etc.) is distinguished from the lighter by more close-set hatching; for colours, see text. White slip decoration is left unshaded. Decorative features (as in 11-14) are generally not indicated across the whole width of the half-profile in order to distinguish them from the articulations of the profile, Some decorative features on the floors of open shapes are shown by lines drawn upwards from the profile. The edge of the glaze may be indicated in a similar manner (both internally and externally)apne ave amon spina) wopeatona 2830 UN FHHHED “VUE HS 69- p961 ANVHOVUVSChapter One INTRODUCTION ‘Wunte tie rinps illustrate a steady progression of pot tery fashions from the 4th to the early 13th century (see below, Deposits 1-62), the Sarachane site is unfortu- nately not rich in closed one-period deposits of near complete or restorable vessels—though such assem blages abound in the Ottoman period. Only two assem- blages (here Deposits 38, 51) fall into this class. The cother groups, mostly from redumped fills, consist es~ sentially of a few part-mendable objects and a mass of sherds, an indeterminable proportion of which may be residual, Some of these groups are chronologically bracketed: e.g., the church construction fills (pre-A.D. 526 or so), and ehe debris from the final demolition of the building (shortly post-1204). Relatively few of them hhave meaningful coin associations; indeed, most of the coins from the Middle Byzantine layers seem markedly residual (even when found several together). The statis~ tical evidence afforded by the masses of pottery from these levels, fragmentary though they be, seems thus a surer guide to date, Well over half of the total pottery finds at Sarachane belong to the Late Roman and Byz~ antinc periods; however, the fragmentary condition of mos is reflected in the site inventory (RP and BP series), in which only half as many entries occur as for the Ot oman period, In general, the finds here serve to confirm the validity of Stevenson's Great Palace sequence,’ though the greater number of closed deposits permits the recogni- tion of more phases and sub-phases, in most cases strati= graphically verifiable. Rather than inventa new compli- ‘cated overall period-scheme, [ have preferred to retain Stevenson's designations and to tie individual deposits into his framework. The St. Irene finds of 1973,? which, ‘might have been expected to provide another fixed point in the sequence, complementing the Great Palace © dence, prove deceptive. Viewed from a Sarachane per- spective, these no longer appear as typical of a single brief period; rather, they seem to span a century oF more (ate Itch to early 12ch coneury?), with a few items of yet earlier date mixed in. This contradicts the apparent ho- mogeneity of the St. [rene deposit and the relatively good state of preservation of many of the picees from ic ‘A reason for the apparent discrepancy in the evidence is at present lacking, In such circumstances, I have not made major adjustments in the already established Saraghane sequence. ‘Throughout the period under consideration transport amphorae make up the bulk of fins from all Saraghane contexts, continuing the tradition of earlier Greek and Roman times, Until at least the 8ch century, on the evi dence here, they account for some 85 percent of total sherd finds, a figure unchanged from much catlice times? Only in Middle Byzantine times does the pro- portion drop, declining to some 50 percent (on the basis ‘of sherd-count) in the latest Byzantine deposits here (sce especially Deposit $1), Exactly when in the Late Byz- antine period the age-old Mediterranean tradition of bulk shipmene in amphorae died out in this region is not clear; however, the earliest Turkish deposits on the site no longer contain them (except as Byzantine survival ‘material). Fine tablewares and cooking-pots are a more or less constant clement in all the Late Roman and Byz- antine assemblages, tending to rise asa proportion of to- tal finds as che amphorae become less common—though the actual quantities produced, consumed, and broken may have remained fairly stable, These wares maintain an “urban” character throughout, contrasting with the crude handmade products of the Early Middle Ages in the Balkans; the main change a this time i the appear ance of lead-glazed wares in plac of the “Late Roman” tred-slipped tablewares. From the 7th to the Lith century the Constantinople tableware and kitchen-ware series hhave litele in common with the products of peripheral Byzantine and non-Byzantine areas (c.g... Bulgar mainland Grevce, and South Russa) though the met= ropolitan wares were exported. Only in the L1th and 12th centuries, with the appearance of the red-bodied glazed wares with painted or sgraffito decoration, is a {greater uniformity of taste to be found. The latter period is marked at Sarachane by a rise in the quantity of ported fine wares. In che post-Constantinian period, when the Saraghane sequence begins, we appear to be observing the demise of a local pottery tradition, at least in the fine wares (though these are at present scarcely studied), in the face fof massive importation of the standard MediterraneanLATE ROMAN AND BYZANTINE POTTERY fine wares of the period. This may in patt be due to of: ficial policy: chat i, che adequate supplying ofa rapidly expanding metropolis with its daily needs, The wares in question have been studied by me elsewhere.’ The kitchen wares, though presumably made more locally (we lack information), also scem “Mediterranean,” in this instance Aegean, in their gencral character. From about 4.0. 400 onwards, che new types of amphora cur rent on sites in the eastern Meditersanean and beyond also find favour hete—Constantinople must rapidly have become one of the main consumers of whatever they contained. From about a,b. 400 to the early 7th century Constantinople, on the Saraghane evidence, is firmly a tached to that eastern Mediterranean koine of pottery us. age, sketched by me in a recent article.* Ic is only in the 7h century, presumably as a result of disruption of sup- plies, that Constantinople resumes a role asa major prow ducer—and oven, on a sinall scale, exporter—of pottery, with the introduction of lead-glazed wares. Concur rently, one sees a contraction in the average distance from which amphora-borne commodities were brought: the amphorae henceforth seem to be mainly Asia Minor products, even perhaps fiom the metropol. itan region in some cases. The expansion of horizons, When it comes again, secms to be generated by these “core regions” of the Byzantine Empire: i is the capital and western Asia Minor that set the current fashions in pottery, until such time as Seljuk and other external in fluences make themselves felt in the 12th and 13th cen, The study of Byzantine pottery of these later centuries has until very recently been concentrated almost entirely on the glazed wares, and particularly the later, more o ‘amental ones (sgraffito wares and the like), except Russia and neighbouring lands, where the archacologi cal poremtal of amphorae and other coarse wares was recognized carlie.” Byzantine glazed pottery has tradi. tionally been divided for convenience into white-bodied and red-bodied wares: thus Talbot Rice (1930, ete), Morgan (Corinth X1:1942), Yakobson (1950), Makarov’ (1967), Cimbuleva (1980), and others. The white-bod ied wares, since Stevenson's study (GP 11947), have been recognized as particularly characteristic ofthe Con stantinople region (and in face have unglazed counter, parts eee: see below), while ehe others come from a variety of sources. The latter mostly date from the 11th er 12th century onwards, and genceally lack unglazed counterparts (as distinct from coarse-bodied red fabrics). A considerable amount of literature has appeared on tl subject since Great Palace Land the Corinth report, bi ‘much of this merely repeats the datcs proposed by carl authors, since new archaeological context evidence lacking (sce for instance Cimbuleva's 1980 presentatio of the Nessebir material). However, some reassessmer of dates, based on firmer grounds, has been made b Russian and other authors: the tendency has been move Middle Byzantine dates somewhat liter. Th Serachane finds tend to confirm this move: here | pro Pose generally late 12th century dates for wares ane types listed by Morgan (Corinth XI) as mid 12¢h, anc Place his late 12th century types in the early 13eh, in in with the evidence provided by Megaw from Satands Kolones (Paphos), where a fixed date is available." Other fixed dates have been provided in recent years by the study of the bacin (to use their Italian tag) used to oma. ‘cnt church bell rowers and the like in bach Greece and Italy, especially in the 12th and 13th centuries.” These can ‘on occasion provide cross-dating becween one slazed ware and another, since several wares and styles 'may be present on a single campanile. Shipwrecks of the ‘Middle Byzantine period are also beginning to produce Imaterial, both fine and coarse wares, though too many have been plundered for their decorated itemis (just like their Roman and Greek forerunners) Parallels for the unglazed and undecorated Byzantine finds from Saraghane are scarce; however, find-associa tions with the better-known glazed wares allow a picture of these to be built up—for the first time in Comstantis nople. The overall picture presented by these is one of a consistent standard of craftsmanship and a strong em. phasis on the functional aspeets (which may be ssid to continue the Roman tradition). Until the arrival of the decorated red wares in the 12th century, the pottery of Constantinople is almost uniformily drab, often monot- onous. Decoration is generally eschewed, and the shapes tend to lack elegance, But, as containers, the pots full their function well, and certain new and convenient de= vices are introduced: e.g., the attached jug-lid, swivel. ling on the handle, Glazing provided an impermeable surface where it was needed (but was not applied indis- criminately), In short, this pottery had a purpose, and was made accordingly. Artsticexpression was generally confined to other products. This rationale may have brow en down in later Byzantine times, but the Saraghane finds are silent on that period,has appeared on the Conntl report, but » prapased by contest evi 1's 1SH prese “has been male by iene? hus been te owl Later The S mmove: hee fpr te tn yes Da il 1a a scl in vei. thr _ in both Creve a tcc Tht Msc ant es Stages hs ot the shh ts muy csiseans i lke corated Hyzang evens ti res allow a picture nen Canstanti= these ts one ofa Wemay be sand the arrival af the Fy. the pottery at al, often monte sal andl the shapes ns, the pots tlt Uiuuechd, swivel. ait umpermeable wot apphied indise ba purpose, anal bn was generally jhe ntay have bro it the Saraghane Chapter Two “LATE ROMAN” WARES Early “Local” Fabrics ‘Tue suichr evioence provide by the earliest deposits on the site may indicate the survival of a local tradito somewhat diverse from that of the Aegean region, and perhaps owing more €© northern influences (whether from the eastern Balkans of Bithynia-Pontus) down to at least the early years of the Sth century.' Deposits 1-6 give a glimpse into these early wares. A series of thin walled bowls, thin-walled coloue-coated closed vessels, some rouletted, in the traditions of the Esely/Middle Roman Empire, dishes with “marbled” treatonent, anda cream-bodied mics-dusted ware may be distinguished, among others? none ofthese wares continues inthe ce turies which follow. Whether they are the products of small-scale local industries that were incapable of met- ing the demands of the growing city, ot whether they sitccuumbed to various barbarian incursions oF to official interference in favour of other sources of supply, one jot at present judge, since the manufacturing centres remain unlocated, Nor do we know how old these traditions were “Late Roman” Rep-suir wauts of the common Mediter catego es are the chief tablewares present here in all groups earlier than the latter part of the 7th century. For detailed descriptions and typologies of chese wares—principally African Red Slip and Phocean Red Slip (formerly known as Late Roman C)—the reader is referred to my volume Late Roman Pottery (henceforth cited as LRP), with cor rections and updating in Supplement, 1980); che form numbers listed there are retained here. The largest Sarac- assemblage of these wares and of theit “local” insi- ns (Deposit 30) was presented in DOP 22 (1968) 16 passin; the illustrations from chat article are re~ produced as figs. 38-43 below. Some realignment of che dates proposed for specific types in that article is pro= posed i LRP Supplement (che terminal date remains un= altered); the identification of Late Roman C ware as Phocean also apy cars there." Recognizable amphora fragments from these ¢ levels are few, and almost all of Type 3 (A or B?) defined below (p. 63); the necks Types 1 and 2, an carly version of Type 4, may be assigned to this pl (down to 40+), The early cooking-pots are note¢ pp. 53-54. ‘A few seraps of earlicr Roman ancl Greek pottery found on the site: sce fig. 1.25-30. While a few of ¢ inay relate to the cemetery found in the road work c, most probably found their here from the older part of the city, in loads of dum carth. The two earliest recognizable items are ilstr ct bon fig. 30 {also pil. 1a): half of the base 0 ) fish-plate of the laze 4th century w.c., and nozzle of a black-ploss lamp of similar date. A comp Jug, Deposit 1.1, was found in a low-level drain at cast end of the site, rial period; this is apparently ehe present, signalling the frst building activity. ‘The jug mains as yet unparalleled. Fine Wares (Pl. 1) ‘The arrival of African and Phovean Red Slip ware Constantinople in bulk may noe have occurred ni generation or two after the time of Constantine, ow to the presence of the early wares noted above. The a ity of the largest manufacturers of such wares in Mediterranean to guarantee regular supplies eo the L gconing city may then have won bureaucratic fv (though the actual shipping and reeail marketing sumably red in private hands). Henceforth, N Rome, like Old Rome, relied heavily on overs sources for its supplies of tablewares,* suffering cor spondingly when major disruptions occurred. The rise of Phocean Red Slip Ware a8 a major exp ware in the late 4th century seems directly linked to growing needs of Constantinople. ‘The rather slen evidence of the earliese Saraghane deposits (presented low) suggests that this was already the preferred |“La ‘ware here ca. 400, ata time when the exportation of AF rican Red Slip Ware was at a peak in the Mediterranean in general, and before the general disruption of trade concurrent with the Vandal takeover in North Africa. A few sherds of African Red Slip are, however, present in almost every deposit of this period, attesting to its uni= versal popularity. This pattern persises throughout the 5¢h and early 6th centuries, mirroring fairly closely that outlined for sites around the Aegean ia this period in LRP, 417-18, African Red Slip is markedly more com- mon in levels of the mid-6th century and later, account ing then for at least 25 percent of total fine wares; this again matches the Aegean evidence. A point of reference for the final phase of importation of these fine wares is provided by the already published material from Deposit 38, which spans the mid-6th to mid-7th centuries, This documents a drastic decline in the use of Phocean Red Slip; its 7h century types (chiefly dishes of form 10) are hete relatively rare.* Their place is taken by Affican Red Slip Ware and a revived “local” tableware, in roughly equal quantities. The con- clusions I reached in DOP 22 (1968) 215-16 need some ‘modification: African Red Slip assumes a particular im= portance at the end of the period covered by the deposit (mid to third quarter 7th century), with the appearance of abnormally large quantities of dishes of form 109,¢ not normally so abundant on Eastern sites, Recent finds from Carthage now support a view of substantial direct trading contacts with the capital until the final years of the 7th century, at a time when Mediterranean trade in general was declining rapidly. The continued use of Af- rican and “local” red-slip dishes until alate date may e plain the relative lack of open forms among the earliest local glazed wares (sve Glazed White Ware I below), Other imported “Late Roman” fine wares are rather rare, as is generally the case on Aegean sites. These in~ clude the enigmatic “Late Roman Light-Coloured Ware,” here found in about the same proportions as in other Aegean centres (e.g-, ‘Thessalonica, Athens); clearly this was not produced in the immediate Propon- tis region. Cypriot Red Slip Ware occurs sporadically af= ter about 4.b. 550 (along with a few Cypriot-seyle cook ing-pots: see p. 57), but at no time in the massive quantities recotded in the Levant. The basins of form 11 (2 shape not readily matched in other fine wares) are in fact the commonest finds here. The upswing in the pres- cence of this ware and of the Egyptian Red Slip wares in (Cyprus and the Levantin the Teh century? is not matched here; Constantinople was clearly beyond their normal ‘marketing area. A few scraps of painted ware from Cen= tral Greece,* a handful of Egyptian products (some Painted), and of micaccous grey wares from unidentified E ROMAN" WARES Acgean sources complete the picture of “Mediterra- ean” imports; Deposit 30 provides most of the exam= ples found, The shapes and decoration of the Affican RS Ware and Phocean RS Ware found at Saraghane call for little com= iment, for almost all are noted in LRP. Very few good examples of stamped decoration were found. A single floor fragment of Affiean RS (Deposit 30.109; pl. 1d) shows spiral line-burnishing with a burnished cross monogram motif atthe cenere, Some early riin-variants of Phoceant RS form 3 and late versions of form | occur together in Deposits 713, here assigned to the early/ mid-Sth century (on no secure coin-evidence).” The hi torical date of the building of the church provides a valu- able terminus ante quem for the fine-ware sherds (admi tedly mostly very scrappy, hence perhaps in part residual) found beneath its floor and mixed into the mortar of its walls (Deposits 14-18), confirming eh: idence for the period provided by other closely contem= porary assemblages.” A sizeable fragment of Africwn RS Form 104A from a disturbed area (Deposit 15.1) perhaps points co an earlier start for this shape than was proposed in LRP—tecent finds from other sites tend to point in this direction. More problematic is the "mortaciun” rim 15.3, possibly from a part-glazedl vessel. Otherwise the fine-ware shapes from church construction levels (chiefly Afficar RS 87, 9119, 99, and Phocean RS 3, end- ing with 3F) ace what might be expected at the time (ea A.D. 526). Deposit 30.122 may be a rare exported ex- ample of the class of African flanged bowls in plain fab= rics, paralleling African RS, seen at Carthage and else— where"! The type-series of my Late Roman Light-Coloured Ware is considerably expanded by the finds here, though these are mostly fragmentary (for examples see fig. 1.110): crucial dating-evidence is also provided. Here the ware first appears around A.p. 420-50 (sce Deposits 10, 11, 12). The shapes present in these carly contexts are largely modelled on Phocean RS, while the later ones, best seen in Deposit 30, seem co derive rather from the commion Affican RS dishes of forms 104-5, and their counterparts in silverware. A few scraps of sinall bowls, and closed forms in this fabric may be noted (e,g., 11.11, and fig. 1.1); fig. 1.2 could be a ribbed chalice stem, OF particular interest are several pieees of the class with, “champlevé” decoration, created by scraping off the stip, con the background areas and incising details with a point, somewhat after the manner of Greek black-figure ware of millennium carlicr."® The Saraghane fragments, (fig. 1.3-4; pl 1 g-l) appear to bear animal-chase motifs; their contexts, where at all relevant, are post-a.b. 550. The decoration on finds from earlier contexts consistsLATE ROMAN AND BYZANTINE POTTERY exclusively of multiple rouletting and stamps (after the manner of Phocean RS Ware). Of larger size, but appar ently o€ the same ware, is the unique lid (2) 30.110. A significant new discovery is a clas of “local” red~ slip wares of later 6th- and 7th-century date (see DOP [1968] 212 and fig, G fora preliminary presentation), ac- counting for about 25 percent of the fine-ware finds of this period. These wares, whic like some ather regional ‘wares of the period" show slight links in form with AE rican types, may be seen to fill the gap left by the cone traction of Phocean RS production. One may postulate a rote fragmented pattern of importation and marketing. here as elsewhere in the period after a. a.p. 570. More than one source may be represented within the “local” class as defined here, but pending the publication of sim- ilar finds from other sites no elear subdivision can be at- tempted. Characteristic features of these wares are a smooth-textured reddish body and a somewhat metalic slip, rather similar to those of “Pontic” sigillats and other wares of the carlier Roman period from the geri- eral region, Some late lamps (see pp. 80, 82-83) have a quite similar fabric. Whether the Sarachane series was made in the general Bosporos/Sea of Marmara atea, or at more distant points on the Black Ses littoral, is uncer~ tain-—northern Turkey remains a ncae-blank in terms of Roman and Early Byzantine pottery two probable finds of the wares in noted from farther north." ‘The commoner shapes ofthe “local” rather simple. A footed dish with a f or plain rim (see 24.4, 25.2, 30.87, 50, other distincsive shape isa Small simp (fig. 114-15; 30.96-97, 31.22). Neith: orated; individual stamped morifs are ‘ware, though faint relief patterns appe hited series (sce 31.26). The dish t combed decoration between roulestec represents another variant ware; it rem sim-form of 31.23 may match this typ: ries with semimetallc lip the dish 30.' receptacle on the floor, is unique; its f tain, but a recent interpretation of it very plausible, As in the other fine red shapes are rare, the best-preserved 30.111; the demand for such shapes was by the local white-ware series. Depos ‘example of a closed form in yet anothe There is no evidence from Sarachan series or any of the minor unglazed fine in se here significantly after ap, 700. “Late Roman Unguentaria” (Fig. 1.21-24, Fig. 2) Fox nus c1ass of slender fusiform vessels, sometimes bearing stamps, see Hayes, "A New Type of Early Christian Ampulla," BSA 66 (1971) 243-48, pls. 36-37, where some of the Sarachane finds are noted and illus- trated. Distinctive features ate a very smooth body- clay, reddish, brownish, or greyish, with relatively thick walls and prominent wheel-marks on the interior, visi- ble only on broken specimens. ‘The base is roughly cut off the thinnsh rim, usually found broken off, marked off by a slight ridge. Several hundred fragments, includ ing over fifty stamps, are recorded from the site."” Only seven near-complete examples occur (fig. 1.21, pl. 16) RP 34, 36, 84 = Deposit 90.103-105 (Fifth Report, 214, fig. 19). HL. extant 17.5, 19.0, (2). Two stamped (see 11, 12 below), one unstamped. Pl. 16a-c RP 44, H. extant 16.0, Deposie 30, unlisted, No stamp. Pl. 164. RP 95. H. extant 18.2. Flat-based; no stamp. Layer 1182 (context 8th~8th century). Pl. 16e, RP 18, H. extant 17.0, No stamp, Deposit 50.16, from ‘701 (mid-Byzantine context) RP 80. H. extant 18.5, No stamp. 1219 tine). PL 16F, Fragments first appear (in small quantiti construction levels, and are particularly large 7th century deposit here listed as DOP 22 [1968] 212, 214, fg. 19). The r from various levels is as follows: ‘Church building levels: 9 (7 in pure con turbed levels; no stamps preserved) Late 6th cent. levels (atrium): 29 (includ Various 6th cent. levels: 4 Various 7th cent. levels: 14 fincluding 1 Deposic 30 (see Fifth Report); 380+ {incl stamps) 8th cent. levels (residual): 38 Mixed Late Roman/mid-Byzantine cont Deposits 49, 50 (count not available for ” 6+ + (including 3 stamps) ‘Total from significane contexts: 504+“LATE ROMAN” WARES Further sherds occur as suevivals in laer levels (stamped 68 probably the same; res all different. De- cones are listed below). posit 30 24-26, RP 12, 26, 111, Residual, (148, 900, 126) IV. Other monogram forms: ; 27 RD TTA Context material mainly 6th en WR @ set = 2 ? ) Van Wil 28-30. RP-49, 50, 66. Three examples, same stamp. Deposit30 8 34 2 . a 31-32. RPS4, 55. Two examples, same stamp. De- 7 Fi 4 i posit 30, EB BRR nn Be ot, 20,0, vars sa een Ress wy Deposit 3 (RP 56,67 shown Hayes = 1971, fig, 2.) 45 48 50 42 5S 3940, RP 15, TOL, Residual. (782 1261) V. Cross-shaped monogeams: 41-43. RP 60, 72, 73. Various stamps. (RPG = Hayes 1971, tig. 2.) Deposit 30 44, RP-32. Context: 8th cent. (probably resid List oF Stames (FIG. 2, Pus. 16-17) ual. (547 = 33) 45-46, RP 19, 105, Two examples, same stamp. (RP 19 = Hayes 1971, fig. 2.) Residual. (201 = 50; 1362), 1. Individual letters in eircular frame 1. RP 92, A above line, 4 below. Context: early 6th cent., with a few late 6th cent, pieces. (Deposit 22.12: from Layer 689) VI. Various forms: 2. RPTL. Reversed sho (illustrated: Hayes 1971, fig, 47, RP 108, Cross with dots beeween arms, in 2). Deposit 30, Game, Similar: examples in Carthage, Toera (Hayes, 1971, 247) ikems) 48. RP 22. Cross with lereers between arms (Hayes 1971, fig. 2). Survivalepiece. (702 = 50) 49, RP 113, Animal (bear? humped bull?) to lett with & tree behind. Context material mainly late 6th cent. (1461 = 21) 50. RP 48. Lion to L., with head ewisted around; beaded border (Hayes 1971, fig. 2). Deposit 30, 51) = 332, with 7eh cent, IL. Mf Monograms (this type is common in a mid-6th century deposit in the Athenian Agora: Agora De- posit O 13:4) 3-6, RP 39, 41, 64, 65. Deposit 30, (One example in Hayes 1971, fig. 2.) 7-8. RP 100, 103, Survivals in law levels, (Deposit 44 = 1327; (290) 9. RP 58. Variant. Deposit 30. HL Monograms on N or }-| base 51. RP 21, Gnostic seal-impression: scorpion, pel- 10.” RP 99. Close to Series u. Context; late 6th ican, fox and crocodile, surrounded by a magi- century. (1463 = 21) cal formula, See Hayes 1971, 243-44, widh a, 1-12, RP 34, 36. Near complete. DOP 22 (1968) 4 (cat. 0, misquoted). Similar: Coldstream 214, nos. 103-4, fig. 19 left and centre, De= 1972/73, 174-75, x 12, pl. 49 (with Saraghane posie 30, find cited p. 175) = Hayes 1971, ph. 37a: Ri 13-23. RP 35, 37, 38, 51, 53, 57, 59, 63, 68, 70, 109, 1979, 364, no. (D) 1031, pl. XXXII, Survivale RP 37 and 38.are the same stamp, RP 63 and piece in 1113 = Deposie 60, Mortaria of Lead-Glazed Type A SMALL caTEGoRY of vessels (Fig. 3.1-2), already noted More than one fabric occurs, They are probally not lo- in Fil Report, 206, revives the Roman “mortarium” cally made, They occur in 6eh and 7th century contexts, shape. Some have a lead glaze preserved on the Hoor. ane no later, A connection with the earlier lead-glazedLATE ROMAN AND tIYZANTINE POTTERY Y | | I | | y = ii 5 rena 8 Seale 13 versions of the shape founel in the Alpine regions {chiclly Ractia} seems walikely, rates the two series. The basic shape is a thickewalled basin, fairly deep, with fae base, sloping sides, atul a heavy overhanging rim which on some of the preserved ples has a small turnedsown lip for poucing or desining the contents. Mose examples are in a stuaoth Pinkisheced fabri, bearing a darker maroon-ted slip on the interior; the normal rim-form is showa on fig, 3.1 A variant rim-form, higher and more veetical (ct. the hammerhead" form of late Romano-British mortaria) 's present on che only well-preserved! specimen, 30.23 (Pl tp); this may be alate type, As on the earlier Ractian series, the thick lead glize on che loor {not extending to the rim, leaving, che underlying slip exposed) replaces the stone grits normal on earlier mortaria, presumably ssanaid to grinding food. Whether the carlier examples since a century oF more sepa 10 oo | | | | | ? @ ‘ ° yw 7 of the shape wercall lazed is lear. Ts is present in the late 6eh-century Deposit visible); 21.19 and 24.5 may be contemp: fragment is noted in Deposit 22, also « More enigitiatic is 45.3, ofa different war long co the Church building. period (che le was disturbed in later medieval times, but tury material is not noted in ie). Depos slaze, exhibits yer another fabric. A few pieces of similar mortaria in fabs that commonest here ate noted in a mi context at Corinth. The centres af pre hese diverse wares remain to be determin nothing in common with the Constanti Whice Ware series discussed below. excep: technique, and may perhaps be regarded phenomenon,1 ATE RONAN” WARES, Colour-Coated White Ware Tan anise APREMANCT of the white-hvalted tubes aioe laced wares ay the Constaninneple rey no abot 4.44, 508) onssands sels, mostly tues, foun ty As was niited i DOP 22 (1068 2008 jays wl, bghtly bod buds, Cather wade parched mouths and heey Thanalkes jsev tag. 3.31 ate the stonan! procter ya this, reare, hundreds oh Haeticats of there are present abe Sarauhane eroups of the dane bth ond 2th cemmanes, AB tearhcr type, hete scantily aepresented, fas an mtunied hunked tin sce D8 One oe two habs wt de attaches type see HL22. al oF che “Hsenture cons ave tp soith coutal Lush sscen an Custaeest White Ware False pp AKL appear to Velen uo elas taben, thoagh the cu responding ang-ts pes have net beets aber ved Another ranean torn, ot win a venptphete xpecinnen fas vet ter be foatad, 16 a that ashore woth a store heavy-riismed our the convey top tee 209). Th spout a Dhomdle bene standans sear, hone tally setses te taps dae vessel, utteayntre, prntoetsy lions oynmuctricaletteet, Samples nf diese and one 0 1 The ware of all diese, generally smunoth-textuned an ‘oye okities are dnen om fly 3, soit in coenparison with Inter avhite wares, oral fines cites white or pinkish; there are occasional rede or baskish inclusions (peobably haematite). ‘The mat eolomcoating 3s generally real suggesting dehiberan tapying of the vurtnus Lace Roman tablewares whic these jus may be supposed te have complemented i tert of function), bit its firing is not coyely eon ‘rolled. anntaticn is orange-browsat or black, On the js overs the esterior dawn t0 an ainevent fine above the hase, svhu hs generally left rough, with wire-nark viable Alter tigunmys promincarly among: the tablewares o tie éah century, tis line uF Focal products seers ta have zone vail uf your an ae earher past oF the Tes eentiry asa resnt ofthe introduction of dhe spouted juys of Up- gerd White Ware # (see below, p. J8). The exact cate lofts demise ronntns rather uncertain Miscellaneous. Tia atsy be noted a te eynaples ot a sevend aspe at rie, potliys feats the easton Aewean bitoral see 25.6 The epe be hnosens foam cantons Avgest sites, aa at sther esannple hus boon pubshed trou: Constantine ple" Another oddity 3s part oF an iascribed hal (34.70 Pp). Ino, from un Beh conmory contest hut perhaps earher dulnch muy relate 64 Larger 6th cennnry series with i scrupoons (eon Riynuaniaat and Balpacian sitesLATE ROMAN AND BYZANTINE POTTERY. 7 . Prove 3. Seale 1:3 (Detail: p 213) Racy actte shape found in the Alpin regions (chiefly ofthe shape were all glazed is unclear. ‘The standard type acti) seems unlikely, since century oF more sepa prearaha we late 6th-century Deposit 26 (8: no glaze fangs Ins two series. The basic shape is 4 thick-walled” \visbles 21.10 ani dae may be contemporary; a glazed fusin, fairly deep, with flat base, sloping sides. anda Tewmreeke noted in Deposit 22, also of this period, heavy overhanging rim which on some of the preserved Aine enigmatic is 15.3, of a different ware; this may be Gramps has a small tumned-down lip for pouring ot ° long wth Chan building period (the level in question draining the contents. Most examples are in 4 smooth ‘was disturbed in later medieval times, but other th cone Roldsh-red fabric, bearing a darker maroon-réd slip on taey ae not noted in it). Deposit 30.25, with ie interior: the normal rim-form is shown on fig. 31, glagesahia another fabrie A variant rim-form, higher and more vertical (ef. the A few picces of similar mortaria in fabrics other than i ammethead” form of lite Romano-British mortatia) thar canreeee here are noted in a mid-6th century §5 present on the only wellepreserved specimen, 30. context at Corinth." The centres of production of all {Pt UPhithis may be alacetype, Asin the eater Iactian these dive Femain to be determined, They have the ron erat ad Blaze on the floor (not extending to. nothing in commen aint the Constantinople Glized the rim, leaving the underlying slip exposed) reple White Ware series discussed below, except for the glare the stone grits normal on eater mortaria, prest technique, and may perhaps be regarded as an isolited #8 an aid to grinding food. Whether the earlier c phenomenon 10