Thoughts on the archaeological residue of networks.

A view from the East

Jeroen Poblome, Philip Bes & Rinse Willet

INTRODUCTION

ur paper is not focused on ancient Portus, connections between the eastern Mediterranean and the Roman motherland, or even ports in the Roman East for that matter, but its general approach hopefully may contribute to developing rational frameworks for approaching the issue of networks from the perspective of Roman archaeologists. The empirical background to this paper is provided by the ICRATES platform. ICRATES (Inventory of Crafts and Trade in the Roman East) was initiated in 2004 and aims at (1) collecting published evidence for the output of artisans and for exchange in the Roman East in an extensive database; (2) calibrating these data with original eldwork in the ancient regions of Boeotia, Pisidia and Cilicia; and (3) developing innovative syntheses of the socio-cultural impact and socio-economic positioning of craft activities in antiquity (Bes 2007; Bes and Poblome 2006; Bes and Poblome 2008; Bes and Poblome 2009). It is common knowledge that the best inventions are conceived out of mild to extreme frustration with the current state of affairs, and matters were no different with ICRATES. As ceramologists working in an interdisciplinary research project in Turkey, we found it increasingly difcult to answer the new questions posed by colleagues in other disciplines. All we had were the typochronological responses provided by the traditional Roman ceramological toolbox. At the same time, however, we are very much aware that this same tradition has made a major contribution to our current understanding of ceramics and trade in the Roman East. ICRATES therefore consciously links this rich tradition with new avenues of research, mostly in an attempt to introduce concepts of material culture studies into the domain of Roman archaeology. One of the most attractive aspects of the world of material culture studies is that nothing is simple and straightforward any more, and, what is more, that it feels better that way. As a result, when studying networks in the past we should start from questioning the obvious. In the online Oxford English Dictionary (http://www.oed.com/) a network is dened as follows:
A chain or system of interconnected immaterial things, Any netlike or complex system or collection of interrelated things, as topographical features, lines of transportation, or telecommunications routes (esp. telephone lines), An interconnected group or chain of retailers, businesses, or other organizations and An interconnected group of people; an organization; spec. a group of people having certain connections (freq. as a result of attending a particular school or university) which may be exploited to gain preferment, information, etc., esp. for professional advantage.

Clearly, the levels of analysis are dened by the system itself, its component elements (from features to information and real people) and/or its underlying raison(s) de tre and purpose(s). Research into networks can make use of network analysis, which represents a collective set of methodological tools developed with the aim of detecting and interpreting patterns of relationships between the specic features (Brughmans 2010).1 Networks can be studied also without recourse to network analysis, however, and the current paper serves as an example of this more descriptive and qualitative approach. Methodologically, it builds on the historical analytical concept of connectivity as argued by Horden and Purcell (2000: 123): By this term, we understand the various ways in which microregions cohere, both internally and also one with another in aggregates that

394

POBLOME, BES & WILLET

may range in size from small clusters to something approaching the entire Mediterranean. In particular we aim to apply the concept of connectivity in order to provide historical meaning to recently collected sets of archaeological data in much the same way as was done recently in the eld of ancient history (Malkin, Constantakopoulou and Panagopoulou 2009). This might seem to be a very light way of approaching the functions of networks in the ancient world, but the available archaeological data are not of a sufcient quality to allow us to use anything more than the descriptive methodologies of network analysis. Archaeological data are, by denition, mute and in need of well-dened metadata before they can be used in computer-based approaches to network analysis. When such metadata are not available, as is the case with most traditional ceramic data that was not collected with network analysis in mind, there is a risk that the patterns produced will lead to circular reasoning. While one technique might work, it would not add any explanatory meaning to the archaeological data. Consequently our paper is not just what one might term as old wine in new bottles; it is instead an attempt to illustrate how in some specic cases, bridges can be built between data collected in the traditional manner by Roman archaeologists and descriptive analytical frameworks, such as connectivity, and how meaning can be found in their patterning. Apart from dening the analytical platform and method, we also need to consider the broader context of the data, in this case the Roman East. Recently, Reger (2007; Elton and Reger 2007) has warned us against the simplistic, over-geographical usage of the concept of regions, and, considering that this paper is built on the concept of connectivity between (micro) regions, we should heed his words. Even ancient authors agree on the difculty of dening regions in antiquity, and they were in a position to know. Therefore ICRATES considers regions more as radii of action, with a potentially different size depending on the kind of archaeological data under discussion, the factor of agency in the past and/or the thematic approach of the research. The eastern Mediterranean was and still is complex from cultural, political, military, religious, ethnological and linguistic points of view, and its constituent regions therefore cannot be expected to be uniform in denition or function. The participants of the ICRATES project are convinced that a focus on artisanal production is a useful approach in this respect. Previously we have argued that the symbiosis between a prosperous and

productive countryside and a busy town connected to the wider world is to be regarded as the condicio sine qua non for providing a sustainable basis for the development of craft production and ensuring the presence of its produce on long-distance markets (Poblome 2006). When looking for connectivity, we can also approach matters the other way round: from crafts to regions, whilst making sure to avoid looking at only one product, and concentrating on regional portfolios. Modelling regional artisanal production should help develop our understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of certain kinds of material produced. We should also focus less on lines of production, but much more on how these were integrated into the economy of a region.

CASE-STUDIES BOEOTIA
The region of Boeotia, representing one of the three regions in which ICRATES is involved in eldwork, provides a rst and clear example of the role of networks in the eld of production from the perspective of descriptive analysis. As with Rome and Portus in the early Empire, the establishment of Constantinople started to provide a new and clear focus in the eastern Mediterranean from the fourth century AD onwards. The place in Boeotia where we feel this effect most clearly is the ancient town of Tanagra and its territory. Within most sectors of the ancient town, as well as on several of the rural sites in its territory, a striking proportion of the ceramic assemblage consisted of Late Roman 2 amphora fragments (Poblome, Ceulemans and De Craen 2008: 568) (Table 21.1), for the most part represented by one main fabric range. In our view, the quantities of these oil amphorae, the fact that other products such as jugs, lekanai and beehives were made in the same fabric range, and the general compatibility of the fabric with the regional clay raw materials and geology, are strong indicators that a series of Late Roman 2 amphorae was manufactured in this study area. Partial conrmation of this hypothesis came from recent Greek excavations at ancient Delion, the port of Tanagra, where the remains of at least one Late Roman 2 amphora workshop with a kiln were excavated (as yet unpublished). So far, no archaeometrical analysis has been performed in order to conrm this further or establish possible links with the material found at Tanagra. However, as a preliminary working hypothesis, we expect other production

THOUGHTS ON THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESIDUE OF NETWORKS

395

TABLE 21.1. The absolute and relative quantities of Late Roman 2 amphorae, other late Roman amphorae and late Roman red slip wares for urban Tanagra and four rural sites. URBAN (no. 13,464) % of sherds assigned to the late Roman period % of Late Roman 2 fragments (of the late Roman total) % of all other late Roman amphorae sherds (of the late Roman total) % of late Roman red slip ware sherds (of the late Roman total) 31.21 (no. 4,202) 34.91 (no. 1,467) 39.79 (no. 1,672) TS2 (no. 1,158) 8.89 (no. 103) 29.13 (no. 30) 41.75 (no. 43) TS3 (no. 4,848) 10.46 (no. 507) 16.17 (no. 82) 43.20 (no. 219) TS4 (no. 1,626) 10.09 (no. 164) 26.22 (no. 43) 59.15 (no. 97)

4.66 (no. 196)

7.89 (no. 40)

4.88 (no. 8)

sites to be found within the facies ge ographique of Tanagra, not least because of their similarity to the organization of other more widely distributed amphora types (Bonifay 2004: 944). The ancient authors tell us that the region of Tanagra was involved in the production of wine and probably also olive (oil?).2 As regards networks, it reacted to direct or indirect stimuli provided by the central Roman authorities in the late Imperial period, in order to supply olive oil to newly-established Constantinople and/or Roman troops along the Danube (Karagiorgou 2001). At least some of the landholders in the region of Tanagra were well placed to respond to these needs and convert their agricultural products, or at least to produce them more intensively. The resultant well-being this brought for the community at Tanagra is epitomized by the ranges of imported table- and cooking-wares and amphorae (Table 21.2). In this way, we see the emergence of a uid pattern of exchange in response to the demands of empire at the supra-regional level. It is interesting to note that the results of our preliminary comparisons between Tanagra and two other contemporary Boeotian towns, Thespiae and Koroneia, do not indicate similar types and proportions of imported pottery: furthermore, in the case of Koroneia Late Roman 2 amphorae played a relatively minor role (Table 21.3). We consider this to be an important observation that warns us against making excessively generalized regional conclusions. The presence of amphorae shows that networks can function, as was the case with Boeotian Tanagra. At the same time, however, the fact that they could also be absent at sites c. 30 km distant with different material culture assemblages, hints at limits to supply networks.

SAGALASSOS
The workings of networks can be more subtle, however. In the case of ancient Sagalassos, the Pisidian town at which members of the ICRATES project also undertake ceramological analysis, no amphorae seem to have been produced at or near the site before the middle of the fourth century AD. At some point in the third quarter of that century, however, one or more landholders in the territory of Sagalassos decided to start packaging part of their agricultural produce in amphorae (Poblome et al. 2008). Amphorae usually were produced in regions that disposed of a marketable agricultural surplus destined for wide distribution. In the case of Sagalassos, they were not widely produced since the town is located within the Taurus mountain range and is relatively distant from the Mediterranean or navigable rivers the ideal environments for the production of amphorae. Thus the fact that amphorae were manufactured in a Pisidian context at all is something that needs to be explained. In our opinion, the landholders who took the initiative to produce local amphorae were faced with a sequence of conscious decisions while possessing sufcient capital to be able to initiate and maintain their production. We have suggested previously that they would have chosen to produce the containers only with specic aims in mind, possibly in response to changing conditions in either the generation of their agricultural produce ( supply) or the level of interest in their produce ( demand), or perhaps both. In this respect, the fact that amphorae were chosen at all as containers for their surplus production is important in that this is a functional category of pottery that traditionally was conceived for distribution, and the

396

POBLOME, BES & WILLET

TABLE 21.2. The range of functionalities for local/regional, imported and uncertain fabrics for Tanagra. (Updated from Poblome, Ceulemans and De Craen 2008: 567, table 4.) Food consumption Local/regional production Tanagra/Boeotian fabric(s): plain-wares Food processing & preparation Local/regional production Buff fabric: plain-wares Casserole fabrics: casseroles Orange micaceous: plain-wares Orange sandy: plain-wares Tanagra/Boeotian fabric(s): plain-wares White-grey clayey fabric: plain-wares Agricultural production Local/regional production Brown sandy: amphorae Buff fabric: amphorae Casserole fabric(s): amphorae and beehives Imported Black Sea fabric: amphorae Late Roman 1: amphorae Late Roman 2: amphorae, (amphorae) stands and beehives Late Roman 3: amphorae Late Roman 4: amphorae Late Roman 5: amphorae Uncertain Red slip: amphorae Imported Aegean: casseroles or amphorae Late Roman 2: plain-wares Uncertain Black Sea fabric?: amphorae and plain-wares Grog fabric, plain-wares Imported African and Phocaean red slip wares Uncertain Red slip, table-wares

Orange micaceous: amphorae Orange sandy: amphorae and beehives Tanagra/Boeotian fabric(s): amphorae and beehives White-grey clayey fabric: amphorae

landholders must have been aware of this. Thus the late Roman amphorae from the region of Sagalassos could represent tentative evidence for the rationalization of parts of the agricultural matrix of the study area, possibly coupled to an intensication of production. Furthermore, the typological resemblance of the early

series of Sagalassos amphorae to the initial phase of Late Roman 1 wine amphorae suggests that they were cultivating vines. We consider it to be more than a coincidence that the same period saw the beginning of the production of typical relief decorated oinophoroi in the potters quarter in the eastern suburb of

TABLE 21.3. The absolute and relative quantities of late Roman pottery and Late Roman 2 amphorae at Koroneia (not yet fully studied) and Thespiae. Koroneia Total % late Roman of total % Late Roman 2 of late Roman total 10,443 3.31% (no. 346) 16.18% (no. 56) Thespiae Total % late Roman of total % Late Roman 2 of late Roman total 8,701 4.90% (no. 408) 39.22% (no. 160)

THOUGHTS ON THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESIDUE OF NETWORKS

397

Sagalassos (Talloen and Poblome 2005; Murphy and Poblome 2011). Once again, the emergence of Constantinople as the major pole of attraction or node in network terms within the context of broader regional connections in the Roman East, and the contingent civil and military opportunities that it offered, may have tempted some landholders in the area of Sagalassos to specialize and intensify part of their agricultural production. The not so straightforward results of the residue analysis performed on the Sagalassos amphorae, albeit based on an early Byzantine sample series (Romanus et al. 2009), as well as the fact that so far we have not been able to characterize the distribution pattern of these amphorae, suggest that we shall probably never understand the economic calculations made by the ancient landowners. Nevertheless, we should like to suggest that they took networking into account in order to ensure that their produce circulated. A major challenge that hinders our understanding of how connectivity worked in the Roman East is the fact that our picture is still very incomplete. There are still, for example, many hidden landscapes of production. Thus, when working at Tanagra, Thespiae and Koroneia, not only do we come across the usual variety of sigillata and red slip wares, but the survey pottery assemblages also include different and presumably town-specic lines of table-ware production, together with a range of fabrics that we consider to be Greek in character and that do not seem to correspond to the production centres of table-wares attested at Athens (Rotroff 1997a; 1997b), Corinth (Wright 1980; Slane 2003) or Patras (Hu bner 1996; 2003). Furthermore, new discoveries are bound to make our picture more complex. Before 1987 nobody had ever heard of Sagalassos red slip ware (Poblome 1999), yet this class of pottery clearly represents a high-quality type of table-ware that is comparable to any of the main types circulating in the Roman East, and in its late Roman phase of production formed part of the wider Late Roman D tradition (Poblome and Frat 2011).

NETWORKS AND DISTRIBUTIONS

So far we have attempted to use the concept of connectivity to explain phenomena from an artisanal production point of view. In the second part of this paper, we should like to present some considerations as to how successful networking could provide also for knock-on effects in distribution patterns. As in the previous part, we propose an obvious example, a

more subtle one, and discuss some problems that arise from all of them. Plate 21.1 shows the distribution patterns of the major types of table-ware in circulation in the late Roman East, and is based on the published evidence archived in the ICRATES database. African and Phocaean red slip wares can be considered to be in a league of their own, with other wares such as Cypriot and Egyptian red slip wares representing more regionally focused patterns of distribution. From a network point of view it is important to consider that Roman pottery specialists agree that table-wares were not traded for their own sake, but were assimilated into existing ows of exchange. In this way, table-wares become a strategic part of the exchange package, although their patterns of distribution will never have come about because of them. Ceramics of this kind are, in other words, integral to the exchange patterns of which they form a part, combining parasitic and at the same time supportive roles within these patterns. Often, this type of pottery represents the only archaeological trace of such networked exchanges. In the next step pulling forces that is to say economic, social, political, religious and cultural forms of demand need to be taken into account in order to explain the attested ows of exchange. These forces are abstract notions that represent explicit or implicit policies of different manifestations of authority. In the case of our example, Constantinople was an obvious pulling force, which helps to explain the higher presence of African red slip ware along the route connecting it to the producing region. Obviously many more factors including variable transport infrastructure, levels of information and patterns of demand need to be taken into account when explaining specic ceramic assemblages in each of these communities. In terms of networks, however, Constantinople at least represented the potential of association with this ow of exchange, which, to be sure, did not come about simply as a result of tablewares. It would be beyond the scope of this paper to try and explain why a number of ows of exchange were concentrated in Constantinople (Rickman 1980: 1989; Bonifay 2003: 11516, 11921, 1278; Bonifay 2004: 479; Bonifay 2005: 5767; Pieri 2005: 148), and so we therefore propose to dene this role in abstract terms by coining the eastern capital as a framework of exchange. Such frameworks are network nodes emitting sustainable pulling forces with demonstrable archaeological effects. Other (and mostly smaller) urban centres can be considered to

398

POBLOME, BES & WILLET

have emulated this role, creating other frameworks of exchange. These frameworks are all but static and perform in both the geographical and chronological sense. In the case of our example, we do not consider the fairly high presence of African red slip ware in the second half of the fourth century AD as well as the contemporary arrival of Phocaean and Cypriot red slip wares as coincidental, but that they resulted instead from the initial brokering force of the Constantinopolitan node, in the wake of its foundation as a new imperial capital. The fairly high presence of Phocaean red slip ware in the northern Levant, on the other hand, can be considered to have resulted from an interplay between different frameworks of exchange. Constantinople was tapping into the agricultural potential of this region, possibly for its own supplies but also for ensuring that the Danubian limes was supplied. This region was functioning in what one might term as a stable way, a situation attested by the levels of production and distribution of the Late Roman 1 amphorae. Thus the high presence of Phocaean red slip ware, followed by African red slip ware, in the northern Levant did not originate from direct connections between the regions of production and consumption, but was brokered through the integrated functioning of different frameworks of exchange, with Constantinople as the main pulling and pushing force. In this sense the presence of Phocaean and African red slip wares in the northern Levant can be considered as a knock-on effect of networking. Considering the scope of this paper, other aspects represented in Plate 21.1 are left undiscussed. Other examples may not be as clear-cut as this, but actually represent the majority of cases. When considering the situation of early Imperial table-wares in Greece, for instance, the role played by Italian sigillata at the colonia of Corinth nds no parallel (Slane 2004) in the Roman East. This port, with its two harbours, acted as an emporium where transshipment took place, and thus, in terms of the regional distribution of goods, it unsurprisingly nds itself at the apex of the pyramid. When comparing the potters stamps on Italian sigillata in Corinth, Argos, Athens, Kenchreai and Olympia (Bes and Poblome 2006: 1567, table 4, nos. 356), ICRATES looked for such patterns of dependency. Clearly, Corinth stands out in having most Italian sigillata and receiving it earlier than anywhere else in Greece. For the other Greek sites, an important proportion of the stamped pieces also occurred at Corinth, which, together with similarities in types and provenances of their table-ware, could

hint at some pattern of dependency on Corinth or some distributive function for the latter. However this is only part of the story and at each of the sites studied Italian sigillata arrived by means of other routes; this is especially true of Olympia, which, together with Corinth (Slane 2004: n. 26), stands out with a particularly large amount of late Italian sigillata (Martin 2006: 175, g. 1). In more general terms, we need to be aware of the fact that in many cases we sense or suspect that networking could be at play, but it is still difcult to prove with good archaeological evidence. In this sense, the principles of material culture studies should protect us from providing excessively positivistic answers when it comes to reconstructing past networks. Some time ago, it was proposed that a multi-layered exchange pattern existed between Sagalassos and Egypt, involving goods, people and ideas (Poblome and Waelkens 2003). Phrased in network-terms, Sagalassos can be considered as a satellite of the Alexandrian network, and it is very clear which party beneted most from this relationship. Recently, when looking at the inner Anatolian distribution pattern of Sagalassos red slip ware and how this correlated in general terms to the provenance of some of the coins, sh and marble found in the town, we started to think in terms of characterizing another pattern of exchange. We started to have doubts, however. Indeed, the detail of the evidence calls for caution. When looking at the numismatic evidence, for example, most of the small change at Sagalassos came from the local mint, demonstrating the existence of a healthy economy or one in which economic activity was maintained with a period of coin issue (Poblome 2008). Coins from neighbouring Selge, and from the second century AD onwards Pamphylian Perge, added to the balance. Most other imported coins are single issues from Pisidia and Pamphylia, and a range of Phrygian sites. The latter do not necessarily form a cluster, nor do they form part of an intelligible exchange pattern, but they do indicate that Sagalassos was not only oriented southwards but that it was connected into the inner Anatolian road network as well. While a detailed consideration of the marble, pottery and sh (Van Neer et al. 2004) lies beyond the scope of this paper, close inspection of the evidence suggests that, like the coins, it has the potential to make an important contribution to reconstructing operational networks. This kind of evidence is important, and raises the question as to whether the seemingly lucky coincidence of more than one category of material evidence is

THOUGHTS ON THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESIDUE OF NETWORKS

399

sufcient for us to start thinking in terms of connectivity. Clearly there will have been much exchange in antiquity for non-systematic and sometimes even coincidental reasons. Although we are convinced that such relationships need to be studied and that in aggregate they will mean something on the balance sheet of the ancient economy, meaningful patterns of sustainable economic growth can come about only when haphazard relationships are transformed into systematic and interdependent networks. At the same time, material culture specialists should be aware of the inherent danger that the signicance of their simple artisanal evidence can be exaggerated by third parties. In this respect, there is also an urgent need to start documenting the ipside of the coin, namely things that did not function by network. It is thus important to consider cases of deciency as well as success, because this makes the ancient socio-economic balance sheet more real. ICRATES is involved also in processing ceramics from the Hellenistic layers of Kinet Ho yu k or ancient Issos. This town was booming in the late Hellenistic period, amongst others, on account of Delos, and can be considered to have been located in the core of the Eastern sigillata A production region (Lund, Maltana and Poblome 2006). Clearly, any port in this part of Cilicia was potentially in a position to prot from this increased level of activity, and Issos actually had two ports (Gates 1998: 260). Our preliminary evidence indicates, however, that Issos was ourishing in the early days of Eastern sigillata A production but that, for reasons as yet unknown, the site entered into a period of decline in the rst quarter of the rst century BC, resulting in its abandonment. This little story indicates that although there can be a lot of obvious archaeological criteria to indicate why and where things went well, our limited capacity to understand agency in antiquity should make us very careful in interpreting such patterns. Nor should we forget that things may not have gone well for the community for much of the time, but that this is not readily gleaned from archaeological literature or by archaeological reasoning.

CONCLUSION
We should like to suggest that relating the study of artefact distributions much more closely to evidence for production is a very important clue to unravelling networks in the Mediterranean. As things normally go in classical archaeology, the most representative

ranges of artefacts with extensive distribution patterns (for example the set of Late Roman amphorae, African red slip ware, Italian sigillata and also Eastern sigillata A) have received most academic attention. Without wishing to play down the importance of these classes of pottery, it seems worth considering the ways that such wares have acted as an index against which to judge the success of other artisanal products and whether this comparative exercise does justice to typical ancient modes of production. Although ancient pottery production centres in the Roman East are known very poorly, the available evidence does support the notion that sizeable manufacturing output was achieved by multiplying small-scale production units rather than enlarging existing facilities (McCormick 2001: 58). Such processes of horizontal multiplication took place within attested production centres, and we would like to suggest that the widely distributed wares mentioned above were the result of such processes of horizontal multiplication involving many small-scale production units within one or other region. They would have resulted in so-called production conglomerates that are typically associated with one or other framework of exchange. In other words, the archaeology of production units indicates that small-scale production units geared towards their own regional markets are to be regarded as the norm in antiquity. Obviously this conclusion should cause us to change our focus on distribution patterns, shifting it away from putting more dots on the map, which seems to be the predominant interest of modern scholars, and concentrating more upon understanding which markets artisanal entrepreneurs had in mind, and what risks they were prepared to take. Considering the fact that even the highly successful types of table-ware in the Roman East tended to be dominant in their own regions of production indicates that entrepreneurs were reluctant to take risks and that they mainly preferred the markets they knew within their own regional radius or network. It is only when conglomerates of production are present that further markets are reached through the functioning of frameworks of exchange. However, these conditions are perhaps more exceptional than their representation in the archaeological literature would seem to suggest. The wide distribution patterns of these cases should actually be considered as an aggregate of a patchwork of outputs comprising many regional production centres, with pulling forces that were not necessarily purely commercial in nature, but possibly tied to larger mechanisms instigated, implicitly or explicitly, by

400

POBLOME, BES & WILLET

central authorities, such as the annona. In sum, a production-linked focus on distribution patterns holds great potential for approaching the contribution that the artisanal sector made to ancient society, and particularly to understanding past networks. Clearly, each generation gets the classical archaeology it deserves, and ours seems to be increasingly intricate. Acknowledgements The ICRATES Project is supported by the Fund for Scientic Research, Flanders-Belgium (G.0.788.09). Research at Sagalassos is funded by the Belgian Programme on Interuniversity Poles of Attraction (IAP 7/09), the Research Fund of the University of Leuven (GOA 13/04), Project G.0562.11 of the Fund for Scientic Research, Flanders-Belgium (FWO), the Hercules Foundation (AKUL/09/16) and a Methusalem Grant from the Flemish Ministry for Science Policy.

NOTES
1. 2. Networks are also discussed by Earl and his colleagues in Chapter 23. See Snodgrass (1987: 8990) for the third-century BC author and traveller Herakleides.

REFERENCES
Bes, P.M. (2007) A Geographical and Chronological Study of the Distribution and Consumption of Tablewares in the Roman East. Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Ph.D. thesis,. Bes, P.M. and Poblome, J. (2006) A new look at old data: the ICRATES platform. In D. Maltana, J. Poblome and J. Lund (eds), Old Pottery in a New Century. Innovating Perspectives on Roman Pottery Studies. Atti del convegno internazionale di studi. Catania, 2224 aprile 2004 (Monograe dellIstituto per i Beni Archeologici e Monumentali (IBAM) 1): 14165. Rome, LErma di Bretschneider. Bes, P.M. and Poblome, J. (2008) (Not) see the wood for the trees? 19,700 sherds of sigillata and what we can do with them. Rei Cretariae Romanae Fautores Acta 40: 50514. Bes, P.M. and Poblome, J. (2009) African red slip ware on the tudes for the Roman East. In move: the effect of Bonifays E J.H. Humphrey (ed.), Studies on Roman Pottery of the Provinces of Africa Proconsularis and Byzacena (Tunisia) (Journal of Roman Archaeology Supplementary Series 76): 7391. Portsmouth (RI), Journal of Roman Archaeology. ramique africaine, un indice du de veloppeBonifay, M. (2003) La ce conomique? Antiquite Tardive 11: 11328. ment e tudes sur la ce ramique romaine tardive Bonifay, M. (2004) E dAfrique (British Archaeological Reports, International Series 1,301). Oxford, Archaeopress. ramiques Bonifay, M. (2005) Observations sur la diffusion des ce diterrane e orientale durant lantiquite tardive. africaines en Me roche, C. Jolivet-Le vy and B. Pitarakis In F. Baratte, V. De langes Jean-Pierre Sodini (Travaux et me moires (eds), Me ` ge de France. 15): 56881. Paris, Colle Brughmans, T. (2010) Connecting the dots: towards archaeological network analysis. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 29: 277 303. Elton, H. and Reger, G. (2007) (eds) Regionalism in Hellenistic tudes 20). Paris, De and Roman Asia Minor (Ausonius e Boccard. Gates, M.H. (1998) 1997 Archaeological Excavations at Kinet Ho il-Do lar Toplants, I. yu k (Yes rtyol, Hatay): XX. Kaz Sonuc Cilt. 2428 mays 1998: 25981. Ankara, Ku ltu r Bakanlg Milli Ku tu phane Basmevi. Horden, P. and Purcell, N. (2000) The Corrupting Sea. A Study of Mediterranean History. Oxford, Blackwell. Hu mische Keramik von Patras: Vorausset bner, G. (1996) Die Ro zungen und Mo glichkeiten der Anna herung im Rahmen der Stadtgeschichte. In M. Herford-Koch, U. Mandel and U. Scha dler (eds), Hellenistische und Kaiserzeitliche Keramik stlichen Mittelmeergebietes. Kolloquium Frankfurt des O

THOUGHTS ON THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESIDUE OF NETWORKS

401

2425 April 1995: 15. Frankfurt, Archa ologisches Institut der Johann Wolfgang Goethe-Universita t. Hu bner, G. (2003) Patras: Kreuzweg zwischen Ost und West. Die Sigillatawaren aus dem Fundgut w 14, Korinthou 288/ Kanari. Rei Cretariae Romanae Fautores Acta 38: 25764. Karagiorgou, O. (2001) LR2: a container for the military annona on the Danubian border? In S. Kingsley and M. Decker (eds), Economy and Exchange in the East Mediterranean during Late Antiquity: 12966. Oxford, Oxbow Books. Lund, J., Maltana, D. and Poblome, J. (2006) Rhosica vasa mandavi (Cic., Att. 6.1.13). Towards the identication of a major tableware industry of the eastern Mediterranean: eastern Sigillata A. Archeologia Classica 57: 491507. Malkin, I., Constantakopoulou, C. and Panagopoulou, K. (2009) Greek and Roman Networks in the Mediterranean. London, Routledge. Martin, A. (2006) Italian sigillata in the east: two different models of supply (Ephesos and Olympia). In D. Maltana, J. Poblome and J. Lund (eds), Old Pottery in a New Century. Innovating Perspectives on Roman Pottery Studies. Atti del convegno internazionale di studi. Catania, 2224 aprile 2004 (Monograe dellIstituto per i Beni Archeologici e Monumentali (IBAM) 1): 17587. Rome LErma di Bretschneider. McCormick, M. (2001) Origins of the European Economy. Communications and Commerce AD 300900. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Murphy, E. and Poblome, J. (2011) Producing pottery vs. producing models: interpreting workshop organization at the potters quarter of Sagalassos. In M.L. Lawall and J. Lund (eds), Pottery in the Archaeological Record: Greece and Beyond (Go sta Enbom Monograph 1): 306. Aarhus, Aarhus University Press. ` le poque byzantine Pieri, D. (2005) Le commerce du vin oriental a ` cle). Le te moignage des amphores en Gaule (V eVII e sie ` que arche ologique et dhistorique 174). Paris, (Bibliothe Institut Franc ais du Proche-Orient. Poblome, J. (1999) Sagalassos Red Slip Ware. Typology and Chronology (Studies in Eastern Mediterranean Archaeology 2). Turnhout, Brepols Publishers. Poblome, J. (2006) Made in Sagalassos. Modelling regional potential and constraints. In S. Menchelli and M. Paquinucci (eds), Territorio e produzioni ceramiche: paesaggi, economia ` in eta ` romana (Instrumenta 2): 35563, 4201. Pisa, e societa Edizione Plus/Pisa University Press. Poblome, J. (2008) Sherds and coins from a place under the sun. Further thoughts from Sagalassos. Facta. A Journal of Roman Material Culture Studies 2: 191213. Poblome, J. and Frat, N. (2011) Late Roman D. A matter of open(ing) or closed horizons? In M.A. Cau, P. Reynolds and M. Bonifay (eds), LRFW 1. Late Roman Fine Wares: Solving the Problems of Typology and Chronology (Roman and Late Antique Mediterranean Pottery 1): 4955. Oxford, Archaeopress. Poblome, J. and Waelkens, M. (2003) Sagalassos and Alexandria. Exchange in the eastern Mediterranean. In C. Abadie-Reynal

ramiques en Anatolie aux e poques helle nistique (ed.), Les ce et romaine (Varia Anatolica 15): 17991. Paris, De Boccard. Poblome, J., Ceulemans, A. and De Craen, K. (2008) The late Hellenistic to late Roman ceramic spectrum of Tanagra. nique (20042005): 128 Bulletin de Correspondance Helle 9, 56177. Poblome, J., Corremans, M., Bes, P.M., Romanus, K. and Degryse, P. (2008) It is never too late . . . the late Roman initiation of amphora production in the territory of Sagalassos. In I. zdibay and O . Turak (eds), Delemen, S. Cokay-Kepc e, A. O Euergetes. Festschrift fu r Prof. Dr. Haluk Abbasog lu zum _nan Krac 65. Geburtstag: 1,0012. Antalya, SunaI Research Institute on Mediterranean Civilizations. Reger, G. (2007) Regions revisited. Identifying regions in a GrecoRoman Mediterranean context. Facta. A Journal of Roman Material Culture Studies 1: 6574. Rickman, G.E. (1980) The Corn Supply of Ancient Rome. Oxford, Clarendon Press. Romanus, K., Baeten, J., Poblome, J., Accardo, S., Degryse, P., Jacobs, P., Waelkens, M. and DeVos, D. (2009) Wine and olive oil permeation in pitched and non-pitched ceramics: relation with results from archaeological amphorae from Sagalassos, Turkey. Journal of Archaeological Science 39: 9009. Rotroff, S.I. (1997a) Hellenistic Pottery. Athenian and Imported Wheelmade Table Ware and Related Material. Part 1: Text (The Athenian Agora XXIX). Princeton, Princeton University Press. Rotroff, S.I. (1997b) From Greek to Roman in Athenian ceramics. In M.C. Hoff and S.I. Rotroff (eds), The Romanization of Athens. Proceedings of an International Conference Held at Lincoln, Nebraska (April 1996) (Oxbow Monographs 94): 97116. Oxford, Oxbow Books. Slane, K.W. (2003) Corinths Roman pottery. Quantication and meaning. In C.K. Williams II and N. Bookidis (eds), Corinth. The Centenary 18961996 (Corinth XX): 32135. Princeton, Princeton University Press. Slane, K.W. (2004) Corinth: Italian sigillata and other Italian imports to the early colony. In J. Poblome, P. Talloen, R. Brulet and M. Waelkens (eds), Early Italian Sigillata. The Chronological Framework and Trade Patterns (BABesch Supplement 10): 3142. Leuven, Peeters. Snodgrass, A. (1987) An Archaeology of Greece. The Present State and Future Scope of a Discipline. Berkeley/Los Angeles, University of California Press. Talloen, P. and Poblome, J. (2005) What were they thinking of? Relief decorated pottery of Sagalassos. A cognitive approach. cole Franc langes de lE 117: 5581. Me aise de Rome. Antiquite Van Neer, W., Lernau, O., Friedman, R., Mumford, G., Poblome, J. and Waelkens, M. (2004) Fish remains from archaeological sites as indicators of former trade connections in the eastern orient 30: 10148. Mediterranean. Pale Wright, K.S. (1980) A Tiberian pottery deposit from Corinth. Hesperia 49: 13577.