CLASSIFICATION PROBLEMS OF EASTERN MEDITERRANEAN AMPHORAE: REVISIONS ON AMPHORA TYPOLOGIES
Associated Prof. Dr. Ahmet Kaan Senol

Typological studies of amphorae and their contents came into prominence after they have been accepted as the indicators of ancient economy. Although many scholars tried to construct new typologies after the publishing of  E. Dressel’s long lived table, many of these affords resulted with divergent typologies, incomplete tables and  inflation of terminologies. As these studies have been prepared due to the accessibility of the contexts, museum collections, regional or chronological limits caused plenty of problems on recent recording methods, we have to interrogate the utility of the habitual classifications.

Actual Position:
Today, most of the identified classes have more than 10 different names generally attributed to the publications, authors or excavation sites. On the other hand, unidentified forms are still considered as absent in the dispersion diagrams because of not being compiled in catalogues until now. Therefore, while we have lots of names of well known types, many of the amphora forms are nameless as we don’t know their production centers. As this artificial absence of unidentified classes causes lots of troubles on data logging, researchers utilize the catalogue numbers of published similar forms with the names of the excavation sites or the authors in order to distinguish the new forms. In some cases, this application system is very beneficial for the statistical methods even if accepted international publications used such as Athenian Agora or Pompei finds. But how should the researchers integrate the new groups to the data banks ? Will they continue to put new numbers by using their names ? We will discuss these problems later on.

Among the documentation problems, standardization has a vital importance. Classification problems have been solved partially on Roman Imperial amphorae and some African groups but the classification tables of the amphorae produced during the Archaic, Classical and the Hellenistic Period are still deficient. On the other hand, the classification of Byzantine amphorae is still draft. Therefore, we are still far a way to present complete amphora dispersion tables. Now we have to ask if the recent statistical methods reflect the distribution patterns ? Undoubtedly, different separation methods of amphora sherds affect the statistics, due to their error rates. I will not discuss the results of diverse statistical methods but I will focus on the labeling problems of amphora groups in this paper.  

Amphorologists accepted the legitimacy of different classifications and used their labeling systems in their data banks and amphora dispersion tables. Major disadvantage of this attitude is causing the misinterpretation of economic movements in case of same amphora types produced in different centers. Eventually, the dispersion tables only reflect the contents of the assemblages without determining the production centers which is essential for the construction of ancient economic patterns. Although wrongly identified and unidentified  sherds affect the validity of statistics, we should examine the rate of amphora imitation on dispersion tables.

Most reliable data of amphora classifications are obtained from production centers especially from the deposits or kiln sites. The main problem of labeling the archaic and classical Greek amphorae is the scarcity of the discovered production centers. That’s why the scholars are obliged to use the amphorae found in the assemblages of the consumption centres, necropoleis or shipwrecks which are far a way to present the whole series or their origins in order to construct the classification tables. Therefore, publishing many different classifications prepared due to different contexts causes an inflation of labeling which makes the data unserviceable. Moreover, we should not forget the existence of considerable amount of imitations in these tables. Besides, many evidence of small-scaled amphora production has not been included in data systems as they have not been denominated yet. The results of this deficiency of data can be seen especially in the diagrams of the Hellenistic contexts. Although the scholars are able to separate the amphorae of less known groups, they have not been integrated into dispersion diagrams as their denominations have not been updated since now. Therefore, the effects of small scaled production on Mediterranean commerce can not be confirmed sufficiently. Eventually, wrongly classified or non classified amphorae and imitations constitute remarkable error rates in dispersion diagrams as we observe similar misinterpretations on the stamped amphora tables because of the uncertainty of the percentages between stamped and unstamped amphorae.

Although the typological studies of Occidental amphorae make progress after the publication of Dressel tables, identified sub-groups or the production of new centers have scarcely been integrated to the dispersion tables. On the other hand, as many contexts and assemblages of Oriental amphorae from the excavations have been published, the presentation of the Oriental amphorae in the dispersion tables still causes misinterpretations of the Eastern Mediterranean commercial relations. The main problem of the classification of Oriental amphorae in data bases is the adequacy of the conventional typologies. Even the most utilized classifications do not answer the scholars’ need. Although the scientists are adding new sub-groups into the main classification tables, these new groups are not presented in the dispersion tables or data banks as their denominations are not uniformed. Today, we should convert the LR typology to a new classification system covering the new discovered workshops and regions. If we continue to denominate similar types without concerning their production centers, we will continue providing erroneous data to ancient commercial relations studies. For example, it is hard to distinguish the role of Cyprus, Syria and Cilicia in Mediterranean commerce, due to the dispersion diagrams prepared by the amphora assemblages as only one name is covering these production sites. To avoid these confusions, scholars should prefer to use regional names of the production centers in addition to their catalogue numbers, first classified person’s surname or at least add their regions such as Cilician LR 1a, b, c, Syrian LR 1a, b, Cypriot LR 1a, b,c, Rhodian LR 1a,b, etc.. On the other hand, we should also re-interpret the presence of LR 5-6 sherds in the dispersion diagrams either they indicate Palestine or Egyptian wine.  

In order to avoid this misuse, we should construct a complete database accepting a new terminology using the manufacture sites and the sub-groups covering all known types and unidentified forms with their temporal denominations. If we take into consideration the artificial complexity of the classification of oriental amphorae depending on the usage of different typologies, this project should start with Eastern Mediterranean amphorae. As hundreds of different groups should need re-arrangements, teams of amphorologists should study under chronological divisions in order to re-issue the permanent catalogues without neglecting any period. Thus, this new typology should start from the earliest amphorae to the contemporary vessels.

Although, Levantine and Egyptian amphorae are the earliest evidence of big scaled maritime commerce, neither the production centers have been discovered, nor their different classifications have been unified in publications. Thus, the denominations of Levantine and Cannanite amphorae and the confusions of the typologies of their sub-groups cause troubles in data processing.  Unfortunately, we can not obtain the type, period or production region of even well distributed forms from the dispersion diagrams, as they only indicate the names of general groups like Cannanite amphorae, Levantine amphorae, torpedo or Syrian/Palestinian group. Scholars meet the similar problematic while using the data of Mycenaean amphorae as the denominations of their subgroups have not been used in dispersion diagrams yet.

After the early years of the first millennium, distinctive influence of Aegean goods started to feel in the Eastern Mediterranean commerce. Archaic amphorae of pioneer Aegean centers found in the excavations of emporions or consumption centers are the major evidence of this commerce. We have two main problems to draw a conclusion from the data provided from diagnostic Archaic amphora sherds;  first is the classification problems of the amphorae, caused by the production of trial versions abundantly during the 7th c. BC before the city-states were decided their special forms. Today, we have hundreds of different variations of Archaic amphorae from the excavations mostly from Black Sea coasts that we are still far a way to categorize their production centers as many of them still consider as unidentified forms.  Second problem is the different denominations of well known Archaic amphorae and the adequate forms in the published catalogues.

Similar problems occur in the data processing of the amphorae produced from the fifth to the late fourth c. BC. After the establishment of new Hellenistic consumption centers, South Aegean city-states converted their production and exportation systems to answer the great demand, due to the extension of the mode of the Mediterranean commerce. During the boom of wine production, they all produced similar amphorae without hesitating to use the form characteristics of their neighbours. Thus, similar amphora forms produced in different production centers started to be used in commerce extensively. Among the amphora forms which cause confusions in classifications, different typologies of the amphorae with mushroom rims and hollow feet need unification. We propose to classify these amphorae according to their production sites instead of denominating them as amphorae with mushroom rims. We may call them Knidian, Rhodian, Coan, Type 1.a,b,c etc. As we did not determine all of the production sites yet, we should label the sub-groups of mushroom rims temporally in order to supply valid data for statistical diagrams.  

Another reason of adding production center to typological classification is the affect of the imitation trends increased in the Hellenistic Period. Today, we should consider the shards of imitated amphorae causing to mislead data in dispersion diagrams. Specialists should integrate the imitated forms into general classification tables with diagnostic denominations to avoid the confusions and wrong interpretations. A general conformity about the classification of imitated amphorae should be obtained urgently.   

Standardization process of amphora forms in Mediterranean Basin during Pax Romana causes identification problems of similar amphorae produced in different centers. Although the problems of the production centers of DR 2-4 amphorae have been solved partially by using the name of the production centers before their labels, many amphora forms as Zemer 41, Late Rhodian amphorae etc. need re-denomination. If we insist to use their habitual denominations in dispersion diagrams and data banks, we will continue to repeat the problematic as I mentioned above.  

Today, amphorologists need to integrate the new classifications and typologies of the Late Roman and Proto Byzantine amphorae to general catalogues due to the new discoveries of amphora workshops and deposits which have been found numerously in the Eastern Mediterranean zone. As we are able to distinguish the production centers of the sherds of LR 1 to 3 amphorae more precisely than 20 years ago, why don’t we use these important data in dispersion diagrams ?   

In addition to that, Proto-Byzantine and Medieval amphorae are used scarcely in statistical analysis in detail because of their denomination problems. Catalogued items in publications need confirmative classifications or at least unifications of different typologies as other unidentified Medieval/Byzantine amphorae. If we consider the agelong usage of ceramic vessels in commercial life of Eastern Mediterranean centers, a project of labeling the identified forms and to construct a basic classification with denominations of unidentified Oriental amphorae should be installed urgently.

In order to access to valid interpretations about commercial patterns of Mediterranean Basin, scholars should convert and integrate their data to optimize Geographic Information Systems.  Besides, the typological classifications of commercial amphorae should be updated and published periodically so as to provide accurate data for statistical analysis.