explained below. I have based the study on the stratigraphic analysis and interpretation of Area 2.1 made by Paola Davoli, which will be published in Amheida VI. Furthermore, a detailed description of some selected contexts and the quantification of the vessel types illustrating the ceramic assemblages for the most reliable stratigraphic units is also provided (Chapters 4 and 5). The number assigned to each type in the catalogue is also used as a reference number for similar shapes whenever they appear in the analyzed contexts.
The Catalogue for Area 2.1 is arranged according to functional categories, such as table and service wares used for serving and consumption; utility wares used to prepare food; cooking wares; and storage and transport vessels. Two additional categories include (a) imports from the Nile Valley and the Mediterranean48 and (b) miscellanea. The vessels within each functional category (bowls, dishes, basins, kraters, pots, casseroles, etc.) are classified by type-groups (Group 1, Group 2, etc.) according to the morphological characteristics, and further divided into sub-groups (Group 1a, Group 1b, etc.) according to the variants within each group. In Chapter 2, an analysis of the major categories comprising the corpus is provided by types and is chronologically arranged. The emphasis is on shapes that are encountered frequently within the contexts; rare forms are also included if they were found in well-dated contexts or if they have parallels from other sites. Observations about the possible function or use of particular shapes are indicated when possible. The Catalogue illustrates the most complete or well-preserved examples for each shape found in the whole sequence of stratigraphic units in Area 2.1. Fragmentary vessels are included if they are particularly common or unique.
Each record in the Catalogue (Chapter 3) consists of the following fields:
No.: Progressive Catalogue Number.
Inv.: Inventory Number assigned during the recording phase.
SSC: Site Shape Catalogue number.
Context: Type (Room, Street, etc.) and stratigraphic unit (DSU, FSU, etc.).
Fabric/Ware: Reference code number of the ceramic material, based on the table included in this chapter.
Dimensions: Main measurements of the fragment expressed in centimeters (cm).
Description: Morphological characteristics of the vessel, surface treatments, decoration, evidence of use.
Parallels: Bibliographic references and range of dates for similar types attested in comparative sites.
Phase-date: The date range of the type, based on the context(s) in which it was found at Amheida (Area 2.1).49
Phase I: Imperial thermae (B3, including B6).
Phase II: Destruction and levelling with waste and debris of part of the thermae (B3).
Phase III: Private houses on the levelled yard.
III.1 – Construction of B1, B8, B5, S2, S3 (around 340 CE).
III.2 – Restoration and restyling.
III.3 – Restoration.
III.4 – Abandonment (around 370 CE).
Phase IV: Post-abandonment (after 370 CE onward).
1. Eugene Ball employed the Locus Lot Method in 2004. In 2005, the stratigraphic method was introduced by the new archaeological director, P. Davoli. See Davoli (forthcoming), Amheida VI: The House of Serenos. Part II: Archaeological Report. See also Harris 1989; Roskam 2001.
2. A general plan is drawn up for each stratigraphic unit, usually in 1:50 scale, showing the unit’s outline, position, and elevations. Sections and any other relevant details of the unit are instead drawn in 1:10 or 1:20 scale, when necessary. A high quality digital photograph is included in the graphic documentation. Area/sub-area and stratigraphic unit numbers are always noted on all records, object drawings, and labels.
3. The Deposition Stratigraphic Unit (DSU) is reliable or secure only when it is sealed and has not been disturbed in recent times. Surface DSUs are not reliable, nor are DSUs close to the surface unless they were sealed by a collapse of some extension. In our specific case, we can consider as secure contexts only those units directly above floors that were covered by the collapse of the ceiling or by windblown sand, which preserved the last occupation and the post-abandonment deposits. The reliability of a DSU can be discerned in the field during its excavation and during the study of the materials present in the DSU.
4. On the subject of archaeological drawings, see Leonardi and Penello 1991: 18–41, 41–72. See also Manzelli 1997: 181–9; Mascione and Luna 2007: 87–99.
5. Available at www.amheida.net. The database has been created and implemented by the Mission’s official IT Engineer, Bruno Bazzani.
6. The term “fabric” refers to the type of clay used for manufacturing the vessels. The term “ware” refers to an identified tradition of how a fabric is used to produce vessels with consistent characteristics. These characteristics can include how the fabric is processed before it is used to form vessels; the addition of tempers; surface treatments, such as careful finishing or the application of slips; and the control of the kiln conditions to create a consistency throughout the production tradition.
7. The principle of Minimum Number of Individuals consists of estimating the number of individual vessels present in each stratigraphic unit. If a shape is represented by n rims and n + 1 bases, the number of rims is the one indicating the value of MNI. For the methods of ceramic quantification see: Arthur and Ricci 1981: 125–8; Arcelin and Tuffreau-Libre 1998; Raux 1998: 11–16; Hesnard 1998: 17–22; Anastasio 2007: 36–8.
8. For the fabric classification system used at Amheida, see the paragraphs “Fabrics” and “Wares” in this chapter.
9. The ceramic drawings in this volume have been made and digitized (Adobe Illustrator) during the several excavation seasons by the author, Julie Marchand, Paola Vertuani, and Stefania Alfarano.
10. On the ceramic typological classification methods, see: Gardin 1985; Anastasio 2007: 33–6.
11. Rigoir and Rigor 1968: 327–34; Parise Badoni and Ruggeri Giove 1984; Ruggeri 1993; Mancinelli 2016.
12. Lens with resolving power 20x and field of view of 21 mm.
13. About the hardness, see Cuomo di Caprio 2007: 73–4 and 642–3.
14. Hope divided the Oasis fabrics into two broad groups: iron-rich or ferruginous fabrics (A-group), and calcium-rich or marl-like fabrics (B-group), each with further sub-divisions. For the fabric descriptions see also: Hope 1979: 188; Hope et al. 2000: 194–5; Hope 2004b: 7–9. For the characteristics of the clay and ceramic materials of the Oases, see: Soukiassian, Wuttmann, Pantalacci 2002; Ballet, and Picon 1990: 75–85; Marchand and Tallet 1999: 307–52; Hope 1999: 215–43; Patten 2000: 87–104. See also: Nordström and Bourriau 1993: 168–82.
15. Gill 2016: 47–51.
