![Sample our Humanities journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5939/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Humanities.jpg"})
Abstract
In this article we explore interregional trade at the polis of Antiochia Hippos during the Roman period. The discovery of chronologically well-defined Roman-period ceramic assemblages at the site provides an opportunity for a diachronic study of Roman period commerce between Hippos, the only polis in the southern Golan, and the neighbouring Galilee. Results of micromorphological analysis of common Roman period kitchenware indicate that while in the Early Roman period most of the Kefar Hananya types found at Hippos were imported from the Galilee, by the Late Roman period, most of the Kefar Hananya types found there were produced locally in the Golan.
Notes
1 This study was made possible by a post-doctoral fellowship granted to M. Osband in 2015 at the Zinman Institute of Archaeology, the University of Haifa.
2 In this paper the Roman period is divided into three sub-phases: Early Roman (mid-1st century BCE–beginning of the 2nd century CE), Middle Roman (beginning of the 2nd–mid-3rd century) and Late Roman (mid-3rd–mid-4th century). For similar divisions, see Adan-Bayewitz Citation2003; Leibner Citation2009: 331–376; Balouka Citation2013: 8–10, 18.
3 Similarity in the common cooking ware between the Galilee and the Golan has been noted by Adan-Bayewitz (Citation1993: 165 n. 1; Citation2003: 6–7).
4 It should be noted that in the Early Roman period at Hippos and at other sites in the central and southern Golan there are also local typological forms, which differ from the Kefar Hananya types, that are common in Early Roman contexts (e.g., Osband Citation2017: 97, Plate 1: 3,4; Berlin Citation2006: 32–47).
5 Numerous methods were sought in order to define the major groups and their sub-groups. Golan manufactured pottery, it was realized, could usually be distinguished by macroscopic investigation based on form and colour. Both microscopic and macroscopic investigation were found to be useful, especially in distinguishing the key provenience groups. Thin-section analysis was found to be an effective petrographic tool for classifying collections according to major categories (Adan-Bayewitz Citation1993: 193‒200). Even so, the Sussita Group could not easily be distinguished from the pottery of Kefar Hananya (Adan-Bayewitz Citation1993: 193).
6 Nine kitchenware sherds from Hippos were sampled in this study (Adan-Bayewitz Citation1993: 182, Table 8; the sampled forms are discussed below, see Table 3). Three belonged to the Kefar Hananya Group and six were assigned to the Sussita Sub-Group—a Golan composition group found only at Hippos and not at the other four sampled Golan sites (ibid.: 170‒171).
7 The samples came from contexts that were relatively well-defined chronologically. Fifteen samples of Kefar Hananya types were analysed from Hippos. Nine out of ten samples dating to the Early Roman period had been produced at Kefar Hananya. The chemical composition of a group of five samples that post-dated the Early Roman period from Hippos were found to be of local production and belonged to the Southern Golan Cooking Ware Group 1 (SG-CW 1). This was in agreement with Adan-Bayewitz’s Sussita Group (Osband Citation2014: 88, 90, Table 8). The same chemical composition was found at sites in close geographical proximity to Hippos (ibid.: 207‒208, Maps 9‒10).
8 Some of these contexts had been previously studied using similar sampling criteria (Osband Citation2014: 41–44).
9 The term ‘micromorphological analysis’ used in this paper refers to the study of soils and related materials in thin section. Different soil types have distinct and identifiable micromorphological characteristics (that resulted from soil-forming processes). In many cases, main soil features can still be seen in ceramic thin section and related to those original soil types (e.g., Courty, Goldberg and Macphail Citation1989; Adan-Bayewitz et al. Citation2008: 52). By comparing ceramic and soil thin-sections, possible procurement areas for the clays used in the ceramic production can be identified as well as different aspects of the potter’s behaviour such as the addition of temper and firing temperature. In pottery analysis thin section ‘micromorphology’ is similar to the term ‘ceramic petrography’ but emphasizes the importance of studying features that resulted from soil-forming processes (e.g., clay illuviation).
10 Our dating of the pottery from the probe outside the circular wall of the odeion differs from that of Kapitaikin (Citation2010: 99). In a careful examination of the assemblage by the authors Early and Middle Roman pottery forms were identified. Body sherds thought to have been Byzantine were in fact consistent with Roman period storage jars. Therefore, the probe contained undisturbed Roman contexts.
11 Three datable coins were found: B7087—194 CE; B7098—268–299 CE; B7259—221/2 CE (Berman CitationForthcoming).
12 The samples whose provenience was determined in this study were examined macroscopically and the colours determined using the Munsell soil chart. The goal was to check if the provenience groups determined by microscopic analysis could also be distinguished by visual examination. The results show that while in general there is a difference in colour, this cannot be used systematically as a sole identification parameter, as many of the Hippos samples are similar in colour to the Kefar Hananya Ware. This is consistent with the results of previous studies (Adan-Bayewitz Citation1993; Osband Citation2014).
13 Form 1A presented a problem since it overlaps the end of the Early Roman period and continues into the beginning of the Late Roman period. This form was sampled in this study and in Osband Citation2014 from a context under the basilica dating to the Early Roman period and one sample was taken from the southern bathhouse (Locus1973) dating to the end of the Middle Roman period/beginning of the Late Roman period (the mid-3rd century CE). The six samples from under the basilica were all of Kefar Hananya composition. The one sample from L.1973 was of Golan composition. The sample from Adan-Bayewitz which did not come from a chronologically well-defined context was placed with the Early Roman period since most examples of this form in this study belong to this period. However, note that it is more common in the Middle Roman period (Adan-Bayewitz Citation2003: 12, 16‒17).
14 The provenience of one 4A sample could not be determined and is not included here. The 1A samples are considered here as Early Roman. See previous note. See also the provenience of the Kefar Hananya types from the site of Maabara (Osband Citation2014: 148–152, Table 17). At this site, which borders the Hippos and Gaulantis districts and dates mainly to the Early Roman period, 12 sampled forms of Kefar Hananya kitchenware were produced at Kefar Hananya and 11 were of local Golan provenience.
15 Based on an analysis of 26 samples of kitchenware from Gadara (Daszkiewicz, Liesen and Schneider Citation2014) nine of which were of Kefar Hananya types, it has been suggested that there were significant imports from the Galilee to Gadara from the 1st century BCE until the 5th century CE.
16 Berlin used the criteria as defined by Adan-Bayewitz (Berlin Citation2006: 17–18) for defining provenience groups by visual examination. According to Berlin 33% of the kitchenware from Area R at Gamla (ibid.: 18), dated to the 1st century CE, was of Kefar Hananya production.
17 The provenience of one 4A sample from Gamla could not be determined and it is not included here.